IIMMlllSiiMffi; ^^^^ '° 1900. of all 
 
 3 1924 017 989 207 
 
 PRESENTED 
 
 BY 
 
 ^i liwflrpram tondl oi fafe l^prttug for feglatib anJ> ffiales 
 
 TO 
 
 ALL SUBSCRIBERS TO THE ENTIRE SERIES OF 
 THE LAW REPORTS FOR 1901 
 
 PAYING THEIR SUBSCRIPTIONS WITHIN THAT YEAR. 
 
 LONDON : 
 WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Limited, 
 
 PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS TO THE COUNCIL, 
 
 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 
 
 1901. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017989207 
 
THE LAW REPOETS. 
 
 DIG-EST OF CASES, 1891-1900. 
 
THE 
 
 INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING 
 
 ENGLAND AND WALES. 
 
 IMnnbfrs of tijc (ffnuiiciT. 
 
 Chairman — C. M. Warmington, Esq., K.O. 
 Vice-Chairman — F. A. Bosanquet, Esq., K.O. 
 
 EX-OFFICIO MEMBEBS. 
 
 Sir Eobeet B. Finlay, Knt., M.P. . . Attobney-Genehal. 
 The Eight Hon. Sir Edward H. Carson, 
 
 Knt., M.P. 
 Egbert Ellbtt, Esq., President of the Incorporated Law Society. 
 
 Solicitor-General. 
 
 ELECTED MEMBEBS. 
 W. C. Ebnshaw, Esq., K.C. 
 T. EoLLS Warrington, Esq., K.C. 
 F. A. Bosanquet, Esq., K.C. 
 M. C. BuszARD, Esq., K.C. 
 C. M. Warmington, Esq., K.O. 
 A. T. Lawrence, Esq., K.C. 
 James Mulligan, Esq., K.C. 
 J. C. Lewis Coward, Esq., K.C. 
 
 W. English Harrison, Esq., K.C, of the 
 
 Middle Temple. 
 Egbert F. Norton, Esq., K.C, of Lincoln's 
 
 Inn. 
 
 Lincoln's Inn. 
 Inner Temple. 
 Middle Temple. 
 
 Gray's Inn. 
 
 ' Appointed by the 
 Council of Law 
 Eeporting on the 
 nomination of the 
 General Council 
 
 , of the Bar. 
 
 John Hollams, Esq. (Firm — Messrs. Hollams, Sons, A 
 
 Coward & Hawkslej'), 30, Mincing Lane, E.G. [ Incoi-porated 
 
 E. J. Bristow, Esq. (Finn— Messrs. Wilson, Law Society. 
 Bristows & Carpmael), 1, Copthall Buildings, E.C , 
 
 Secretary— TATmcK F. Evans, Esq., 10 Old Square, 
 Lincoln's Inn, London, W.C 
 
iOfxxXc. -UJui^^-^ri /ye/~^>^ 
 
 THE 
 
 LAW EEPOETS. 
 
 Under the Superintendence and Contiiol of the 
 Ittroi'iTflratiii Cffunnl ai ^atu ^eportiitg for dnglani anb WaIzs- 
 
 TEN YBAES' DIGEST^ 
 
 1891 TO 1900, 
 
 OP ALL THE CASES BBPORTED IN THE 
 
 LAW EEPOETS 'and in the WEEKLY NOTES 
 
 FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OP 1891 
 
 (when the twenty -five yeabs' digest ends) 
 
 TO THE END OF 1900. 
 
 TOGETHER WITH BEEEBBNCES TO THE MOEE IMPOETANT 
 
 STATUTES, EULES, AND OEDERS, 
 
 AND 
 
 PARLIAMENTAEY PAPEES 
 
 AFFECTING THE PBOPESSION PASSED OB ISSUED DUBING THE SAME PERIOD. 
 
 COMPILED BY 
 
 MEEYON WHITE, M.A., 
 
 OF CHBIST OHUBCH, OXFOBD, AND OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 33rintii anb ^ubliahf^ far the Counril ai gatu Reporting, 
 BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND. SONS, Limited, 
 
 DUKE STKEET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E. 
 
 PXJBLISHING OFFICE: 7, FLEET STEEET, E,C, 
 
 1901, 
 
LONDON; 
 -Pi-ISTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Limited, 
 
 STAMFORD STREET AND CHASING CROSS. 
 
( V ) 
 
 THE LAW EEPOETS. 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 LIST OP ABBEEVIATIONS vii 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST ix 
 
 TABLE OF OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, FOLLOWED, 
 OVERRULED, OR JUDICIALLY COMMENTED ON OR V cclxxxi 
 
 SUPERSEDED BT STATUTE OR ORDER, 1891—1900 . 
 
 TABLE OP STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED, 1891 
 
 CCCCl 
 
 —1900 
 
 TABLE OF RULES AND ORDERS OP COURT JUDI- . 
 
 ccccl\'ii 
 CIALLY CONSIDERED, 1891—1900 ' 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES REPORTED IN THE LAW REPORTS 
 
 ■ Columns 1—2394 
 OR WEEKLY NOTES, 1891-1900 
 
( Tii ) 
 
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 IN THIS DIGEST THE FOLLOWING ABBREVIATIONS ARE USED. 
 
 A, 0. . . . 
 
 House of Lords and Privy 
 
 
 Council Appeal Cases. 
 
 Appx. . 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Art. . 
 
 
 
 Article (or Articles). 
 
 Att.-Geii. 
 
 
 
 Attorney-General. 
 
 Aug. . 
 
 
 
 August. 
 
 Bd. . 
 
 
 
 Board . 
 
 c. . 
 
 
 
 chapter. 
 
 C.A. . 
 
 
 
 Court of Appeal. 
 
 C. G. R. 
 
 
 
 Crown Case Reserved. 
 
 Co. . 
 
 
 
 Company. 
 
 col. 
 
 
 
 column. 
 
 Commrs. 
 
 
 
 Commissioners. 
 
 Ct. of Sess 
 
 
 
 Court of Sessions. 
 
 Dec. . 
 
 
 
 December. 
 
 Deft. . 
 
 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 Dept. . 
 
 
 
 Department. 
 
 Div. Ct. 
 
 
 
 Divisional Court. 
 
 B. . . 
 
 
 
 England. 
 
 Eocles. 
 
 
 
 Ecclesiastical. 
 
 edit. . 
 
 
 
 edition. 
 
 Educ. . 
 
 
 
 Education. 
 
 F. . . 
 
 
 
 Form (or Forms). 
 
 Feb. . 
 
 
 
 February. 
 
 H. L. . 
 
 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 B..M. . 
 
 
 
 Her Majesty the Queen. 
 
 Ir. . . 
 
 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 — J. . 
 
 
 
 Mr. Justice — . 
 
 Jan. 
 
 
 
 January. 
 
 Ld. . 
 
 
 
 Limited. 
 
 Loo. Govt. 
 
 
 
 Local Government. 
 
 Lond. Gaz 
 
 
 
 The London Gazette. 
 
 Mar. . 
 
 
 
 March. 
 
 Blercli. Shipp 
 
 
 Merchant Shipping. 
 
 Metrop. 
 
 Metropolis (or Metropolitan). 
 
 Nov. 
 O. . 
 0. in C. 
 Oct. 
 p. . 
 P.O. 
 
 Pit. 
 pp. 
 pt. . 
 Pari. 
 Pres. 
 Publ. 
 R. . 
 R.S.I 
 
 ry. . 
 So., 
 
 SB. . 
 
 Sehed. 
 Secy. 
 Sept. 
 St. O. P. 
 St. R. & 0. 
 
 Treas. 
 U.K. 
 
 Vol. 
 W.N. 
 
 November. 
 
 Older. 
 
 Order in Council, 
 
 October. 
 
 page. 
 
 The Judicial Committee of the 
 
 Privy Council. 
 Plaintiff, 
 pages, 
 part. 
 
 Parliament (or Parliamentary). 
 President. 
 Publication. 
 Rule (or Rules). 
 Rules of the Supreme Court. 
 The Queen. 
 Regulations, 
 railway. 
 Scotland, 
 section, 
 sections. 
 Schedule. 
 Secretary. 
 September. 
 
 Stationery OfSce Publication. 
 The annual volumes entitled 
 
 "The Statutory Rules and 
 
 Order?, 189-," published by 
 
 authority. 
 Treasury. 
 United Kingdom of Great 
 
 Britain and Ireland. 
 Volume. 
 Weekly Notes. 
 
( ix ) 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case, 
 
 A. 
 
 A. and B. (Infants), In re 
 
 A. & Co. :— D. V 
 
 A. B., In re 
 
 A. B. & Co., In re 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 A. B.r. C. D 
 
 A. Co., In re 
 
 Aaron's Eeefs, Ld. v. Twiss 
 
 Aas V. Benliam 
 
 Abercarn Colliery Co. : — Brace v. 
 
 Abbott, In re 
 
 Abbott, In re. Peacock v. Frigout 
 
 Abbott: — Baker u. 
 
 Abbott i;. Minister for Lands 
 
 Abbott & Co. w. Wolsey 
 
 Abbott Fund (The Trasts of the), In re. Smiths 
 V. Abbott .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Abdy, In re. Eabbeth v. Donaldson (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Aberdare (Lord) : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Aberdeen District Tramways Co. : — Ogston v. 
 
 Aberdein, In re. Hagon v. Aberdein . . 
 
 Abingdon : — Baring v. .. 
 
 Abingdon (Earl of) : — Cannan v. 
 
 Abrahams iJ. Deakin 
 
 Abstainers and General Insvirance Co., In re 
 
 "Accomac," The .. 
 
 Ackerman v. Lockhart. In re Hawkes 
 
 Ackland: — Chastey v. 
 
 Acomb : — Brown v. In re Brown 
 
 Acton Urban Council : — Holford v. 
 
 Adam v. British and Foreign Steamship Co. 
 
 Adam: — Savage ■«. 
 
 Adams, In re. Adams u. Adams 
 
 Adams V. Adams .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Oh. 786 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 30; [1900] 1 Ch.^ 
 
 484 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 233 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 50 ; [1900]1 
 
 1Q.B. 541 J 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 112 ; [1900]! 
 
 2Q. B. 429 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. 0. 616 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1896] A. C. 273 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 244 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 496 ; 0. A. [1891]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 699 / 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 442 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 54 .. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 38 (4) ., 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 425 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 97 
 
 [1900] W. N. 121; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 326 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 12 .. 
 C. A. [1895]lCh. 455 .. 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 684 
 H.L.(Sc.)[1896]W.N.175(14);\ 
 
 [1897] A. C. Ill .. ../ 
 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (5) .. 
 0. A. [1892]2Ch. 374 .. 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 06 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 516 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 124 
 C. A. [1891] P. 349 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 389; H. L.\ 
 
 (E.) [1897] A. C. 155 ../ 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1896" 
 [1898' 
 [1898 
 C. A. 
 
 C. A. 
 
 W. N. 164 (7) 
 
 2 Ch. 240 
 
 2Q. B. 430 
 
 1895] W. N. 109 (11) 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 329 
 
 1892] ICh. 369 .. 
 
 Column 
 of 
 
 Digest. 
 
 948 
 1561 
 1198 
 
 158 
 
 135 
 
 1836 
 
 961 
 
 374 
 1421 
 
 1258 
 
 143 
 1483, 
 2348 
 
 123 
 1324, 
 2071 
 1815 
 
 2161 
 
 40, 923 
 
 33, 643 
 
 1750 
 
 1351 
 
 859 
 
 297 
 
 190 
 1242 
 
 384 
 2004 
 2049 
 
 1116 
 
 2315 
 224 
 
 1315 
 46 
 952 
 
 2331 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Adams «. Adams .. 
 
 Adams: — Cooper ?;. In re Budgett 
 
 Adams v. Great Kortli of Scotland Ey. Co. 
 
 Adams: — Lawrence i). 
 
 Adams: — Young i;. 
 
 Adams & Pen-y's Contract, In re 
 
 Adams' Trade-mark, Iq re 
 Adcook t>. Evans. In re Allen .. 
 Addison: — Kemble v. 
 
 Admans: — Kimber w. 
 
 Adlington i;. Conyugham 
 
 Ador, Bx parte. In re Browne & Wlngrove 
 
 Aerated Bread Co. v. Shepherd . . 
 
 African CoDsolidated Land and Trading Co. : 
 
 Boord V. 
 African Consolidated Land and Trading Co. : — ) 
 
 Dawson v. .. .. . . . . . . ( 
 
 African Gold Concessions and Development Co.,j 
 
 In re. Markham and Darter's Case .. ../ 
 
 " Africano," The 
 
 Agar-EUis :— Annaly v. In re Clifden 
 
 A 1 Biscuit Co., In re 
 
 Agius V. Great Western Colliery Co. 
 
 Agnese, In the Goods of .. 
 Agricultural Hotel Co., In re 
 
 Aiken : — Burnley Steamship Co. v. 
 Aiken v. Macdonald „ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 (Lord)../ 
 
 ■ ■•{ 
 •I 
 
 Ailesbury (Marquis of), aud Iveagh (Lord), In re] 
 
 Ailesbury'.'i (Mai-quis of) Settled Estates, In re) 
 (No.1) f 
 
 ■ ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Ailesbury (Marquis of) : — ^Bruce v. (No. 1) . . | 
 
 ■ (No. 2) . . 
 
 Ainley, Sons, & Co. v. Kirkheaton Local Board 
 
 Ainley, Sons, & Co. : — Kirkheaton Local Board v. 
 
 Ainswort'i, In re. Cockoroft i). Sanderson 
 Ainsworth w. Wilding 
 
 Ains worth v. Wilding 
 
 Airey, In re. Airey u. Stapleton 
 
 Aitchison v. Lothian. 
 
 Aitken ?;. McMeokan 
 
 Aitken, Lilbura & Co. v. Ernsthausen & Co. 
 
 ••{ 
 ■•{ 
 
 1900] W. N. 32 
 
 1894] 2 Ch. 557 
 
 1891] A. C. 31 .. 
 
 1896] W. N. 158 (2) .. 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 469 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 24 (12); 
 1 Ch. 554 
 
 [1899]1 
 
 [1892' 
 [1896' 
 [1900' 
 [1900' 
 
 [1898] 
 
 :='! 
 
 W. N. 40 
 2 Oh. 345 
 1 Q. B. 430 
 _ W. N. 23 ; C. A. 
 W.'N. 43 ; [1900] 1 Ch, 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 492 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 574 
 [1897] W. N. 33 (9) ., 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (3); 
 1 Ch. 596 
 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 6 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 119 ; [1899] 2 Ch.) 
 
 480 j 
 
 [1894] P. 141 
 
 [1900] W. N. 93 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 774 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 115 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 11 (8) 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 413 
 
 [1900] P. 60 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 Ct. ot Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 115 J 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 120 / 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 345 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 506; 
 
 :) 
 
 H. L. (E.) 
 
 ( 
 
 •■( 
 
 (B.)j 
 
 [1892] A. C. 356 
 
 [1893] W. N. 140 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 506; H. L. 
 [1892] A. C. 356 
 
 [1892] W. N. 149 
 
 [1891] W. N. 50 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 274 
 
 [1895] W. N. 158 (9) .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 673 
 
 [1901)] W. N. 132 ; [1900] 2 Ch.i 
 
 315 i 
 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (5); [1897]) 
 
 ICh. 164 ./ 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]> 
 
 W.N. 98 .. .. ..; 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0. 310 .. ..) 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 773 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 707 
 
 139, 153 
 
 55,65 
 
 760 
 
 1321- 
 
 2311 
 
 2124 
 804 
 199 
 
 599 
 
 557 
 151 
 1154 
 
 389 
 337 
 
 308 
 1988 
 1134 
 
 473 
 
 634 
 
 1600 
 385 
 
 1776 
 
 1771 
 
 1889, 
 2235 
 
 43, 1885 
 
 1531, 
 
 1886 
 
 43, 1885 
 
 1533, 
 1886 
 2271 
 585, 
 2271 
 790 
 1550 
 
 670 
 1471 
 
 1402 
 
 1499, 
 1626, 
 1627, 
 2261 
 1977 
 
TABLE OB' CASES IN TSE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Gen. V. 
 Mines, Ld. : — Trans- 
 
 Henley 
 and Harbour 
 
 Co. 
 
 Ajello V. Worsley . . 
 
 Akerman, In re. Akerman v. Akerman 
 Akeroyd's Settlement, In re. Roberts v. Akeroyd 
 Akers v. Sears. In re Gray's Settlement 
 Akkersdyk, Ex parte. Ex parte Permena. Reg. 
 
 w. London County Council 
 Aktieselkab Helios v. Ekman & Co. 
 Alabama, New Orleans, Texas and Pacific Junc- 
 tion Ey. Co., In re 
 
 Alabaster v. Harness 
 
 " Albano," The .. 
 Albany Hotel Co. :— Att, 
 Alberti : — Caprioni v. 
 Albion (Transvaal) Gold 
 
 vaal Exploring Co. v. 
 Albiston : — Timmis v. 
 Aloock V. Henley. In re 
 Aloock V. Smith . . 
 Alcoy and Gandia Ey. 
 
 Greenhill 
 Alder : — Parker v. 
 Alderson, In re. Ex parte Jackson 
 
 Aldin V. Latimer Clarke, Muirhead & Co, 
 
 Aldis I'. London Corporation 
 
 Aldridge, In re. Aldridge v. Aldridge .. 
 
 Aldridge : — Caffin v. 
 
 Alexander, In re. Ex parte Alexander 
 
 Alexander v. Automatic Telephone Co. . . 
 
 Alexander v. Burke (Mount Argus Case) 
 Alexander v. Burke (The French College Case) 
 Alexander v. Burke (The St. Joseph's CoUegel 
 
 Case) I 
 
 Alexander v. Jenkins 
 Alexander : — Penn v. 
 Alexandre v. Brassard 
 
 "Algoa,"The 
 
 Algesiras (Gibraltar) Ey. Co. : — Greenwood o. 
 A)hambra Palace Co. : — Phillips v. 
 Alison, In re. Ex parte Jnynes 
 Alkaline Seduction Syndicate, In re. Ames'sl 
 Case .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Allan: — Manitoba and North-West Land Cor-1 
 poration i;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 All having Interest:— Great Bardfield (Vicar\ 
 oi)v I 
 
 All Persons having Interest, &c. : — ^Richmond | 
 (Vicar of) and Chapelwardens of St. Matthias, J 
 Richmond V. 
 
 All Persons having Interest, &c. :— St. Andrew's,! 
 
 
 Eomford (Rector of) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 274 
 
 3 Ch. 212 
 1893] 3 Ch. 
 
 [1891 
 C. A. 
 
 363 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 802 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 190 
 C. A. [1897] 2Q. B 83.. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 213 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 897 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 339 .. 
 C. A. [1892] P. 419 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 696 
 [1891] W. N. 200 
 [1899] W. N. 122 ; [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 370 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 58 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (6) .. 
 0. A. [1892]lCh. 238 .. 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 150 (3) 
 
 [1896]lCh. 19 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 20 
 [1895J 1 Q. B. 183 
 
 437 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch, 
 
 [1899] W. N. 76 
 
 169 .. 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 97 . 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 366 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q.B. 648 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 216 
 [1899] W. N. 79 ; [1899] 2 Ch, 
 
 302; C. A. [1900] W.N. 93 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 56 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 178 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 92 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 92 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 797 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 522 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0. 301 .. 
 [1899] P. 230 ; H. L. (E.) [1900]\ 
 W. N. 86 ; [1900] A. C. 234 / 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 205 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 253 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 587 
 
 [1896] W. N. 79 (1) .. 
 [1893] 3 Ch. D. 432 
 [1897] P. 185 .. 
 [1897] P. 70 
 [1894] P. 220 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1250, 
 2117 
 
 788 
 1905 
 
 685 
 
 1307 
 1940 
 477 
 
 2023 
 
 1985 
 961 
 539 
 
 381 
 
 546 
 792 
 196 
 
 1527 
 
 21 
 
 109 
 1075, 
 1116 
 
 1181 
 
 1416 
 
 1967 
 
 103 
 
 2305 
 
 1378 
 1401 
 
 1401 
 
 652 
 1108 
 257 
 
 1945 
 
 318 
 1415 
 122 
 
 421 
 
 966, 
 1537, 
 1540 
 
 740 
 
 741 
 741 
 
xil 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 AUcard r. Walker 
 
 AUchuroh v. Hendon Union Assessment Com-i 
 
 mittee .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Alloock w. Hall 
 
 AUoroft V. Bishop of London 
 
 AUda}', In re Birmingham and District Land'^ 
 
 Co. and .. 
 Alklredv. West Metropolitan Tram. Co. 
 Allen, In re 
 
 Allen, In re. Adcock v. Evans . . 
 Allen, In re. Bassett w. Allen .. 
 
 Allen, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Allen V. AUen (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Allen: — Chetwynd -w. 
 
 Allen V. Cort. In re Harrison . . 
 
 AUen V. Flood 
 
 Allen V. Fulham Vestry . . 
 
 Allen V. Gold Eeefs of West Africa, Ld. 
 
 Allen : — Hewlett v. 
 
 Allen V. London County Coimcil 
 AUen V. Morrison . . 
 
 AUen V. Sinclair. Hodgkins u. Sinclair. In re] 
 Sinclair . . . . . . . . . . . . J 
 
 AUen: — Smith ■!;. In re Harrison. (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 AUiance Marine Insurance Co., In re 
 
 AUinson v. General Medical Council 
 
 AUiott i;. Smith .. 
 
 AUsup & Sons (WiUiaiii) :— Preston Banking 
 Co. u 
 
 "Alne Holme," The 
 
 "Alps," The 
 
 " Alsace Lorraine," The . . 
 Alston, In the Goods of .. 
 Alt V. Strath eden and CampbeU (Lord). In re| 
 
 Lord Stratheden and Cam pheU 
 "Altair,"The 
 
 Alton: — Wilmot u. 
 
 Altree v. Altree. Staffordshire Financial Co., 
 Claimants .. .. .. ' .. 
 
 Alty I). FarreU .. .. 
 
 Aluminium Co., In re 
 
 Alvarez : — Scott v. In re Scott and Alvarez's 
 Contract 
 
 rez's'l 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 369 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 436 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 444 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 666 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 342 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 3.98 
 [1894] 2 Q. a 924 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 345 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 499 
 
 [1893] P. 184 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 248 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 134 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 353 
 
 [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 21 ; H. L 
 
 (B.) [1897] W. N. 177 (1) 
 
 [1898] A.C.I 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 681 
 [1899] W. N. 75 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 40 ; [1900] W. N. 43 ; 0. A" 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 656 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 662 ; H. L 
 
 (E.) [1894] A. C. 383 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 587 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 604 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 921 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 [1892] W. N. 148 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 300 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 750 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. HI 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 141 .. 
 
 [1893] P. 173 .. 
 
 [1893] P. 109 .. 
 [1893] P. 209 .. 
 [1892] P. 142 .. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 265 
 
 [1897] P. 105 .. 
 
 [1896]2Q. B. 254; C. A. [1896] 
 
 W. N. 160 (3) ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 
 17 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 267 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 636 
 [1894] W. N. 6 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 596 ; C. A. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 720 
 1682 
 
 1500 
 
 757 
 2224, 
 2335 
 2150 
 1689 
 
 804 
 1225 
 1594, 
 1609 
 
 706 
 
 702 
 1286 
 2191 
 
 15 
 
 1176 
 
 304 
 
 1249 
 
 1149 
 2342 
 
 31 
 
 791, 
 1507, 
 1555 
 2191 
 367 
 1026, 
 1042, 
 1252 
 674, 798 
 
 1532 
 
 1929, 
 1965 
 
 985 
 
 997 
 1624 
 69, 281, 
 2347 
 2010 
 
 116 
 
 197 
 
 22,94 
 386 
 1306, 
 1532, 
 2221 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants: — ^ 
 Taflf Vale By. Co. v / 
 
 Amalgamated Syndicate, In re. .. 
 
 Ambard : — Trinidad Asphalt Co. v. .. . . / 
 
 Ambition Investment Building Society, In re .. | 
 Ambrose: — Baker d. 
 
 American Concentrated Meat Co. v. Hendry 
 
 American Tobacco Co., The v. Guest .. 
 
 American Tobacco Co. : — Hanfstaengl v. 
 
 American Trading Co.: — Bank of China, Japan,) 
 
 and the Straits v. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Ames, In re. Ames v. Ames 
 
 Ames's Case. In re Alkaline Beduction Syndicate 
 
 Amos, In re. Carrier v. Price .. 
 
 Ancell V. Eolfe 
 
 Anctil V. Life Insurance Co (Manufacturer's) .. 
 
 Anderson v. Anderson 
 
 Anderson: — Att.-Gren. w. In re Wood.. 
 
 Anderson: — Bowen v. 
 
 Anderson : — Criglington v. 
 
 Anderson v. Dean .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 :) 
 
 Anderson u. Gorrie 
 
 Anderson v. London City Mission. In re Wood 
 Anderson : — Manchester, ShefBeld and Lincoln- 
 shire By. Co. V. .. 
 
 Anderson v. Vicary 
 
 Anderson & Co. v. Beard . . 
 
 Anderson & Co. : — Grants. 
 
 Anderton : — Blaoklidge v. 
 
 Andrew: — Barclays. In re Ba,rclay ,. 
 
 Andrew v. Crossley 
 
 Andrew: — Crossley v. 
 
 Andrew v. St. Olave's Board of Works . . 
 
 Andrew : — Tomlinson v. In re Tomlinson 
 
 Andrew: — Witham «. In re Stead 
 
 Andrew Knowles & Son?, Ld. : — Lysons v. 
 
 Andrews, In the Goods of 
 
 Andrews v. Armstrong .. 
 
 Andrews: — Cook v. 
 Andrews u. Denton 
 
 Andrews v. Gas Meter Co. 
 
 Andrews : — Hands v. In re Smith 
 
 C. A. [1900] 256 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 600 
 
 P. C. [1899] 2 Ch. 260, n. ; [1899]) 
 
 A. C.594 I 
 
 [1895] W. N. 141 (1); [1896]\ 
 
 ICh. 89 / 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 372 
 
 [1893] W. N. 67 ; 0. A. [1893]( 
 W.N. 82 I 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 630 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 347 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 266 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 479 
 [1896] W. N. 79 (1) .. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 159 
 
 [1896] W. N. 9 (8) 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 P. C. 
 C. A. 
 
 1899] A. C. 604 .. 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 749 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 596 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 164 
 
 0. A. (Jr.) [1898] W. N. 94 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 222 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 668 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 577 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 394 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 122 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 486 ; 0. A. [1900] W. N. 128 ; 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 287 .. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1900 
 C. A. 
 [1893' 
 [1899^ 
 G. A." 
 C. A. 
 [1898" 
 [1897' 
 ICh 
 
 2 Q. B. 260 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 108 
 
 W.N. 112 
 
 1 Ch. 674 
 1892] 1 Ch. 492 .. 
 '1892] ICh. 492 .. 
 
 1 Q. B. 775 
 
 W. N. 178 (4); 
 232 
 
 [1898]) 
 
 [1899] W. N. 235 ; [1900] 1 Ch, 
 
 237 i 
 
 C. A. [1900] W."n. 55;' [19o6il 
 
 IQ. B. 7eO / 
 
 [1893] P. 14 
 
 C. A. (So.) [1899] W. N. 170 ../ 
 
 [1897" 
 [1897"^ 
 [189tf 
 
 1 Ch. 266 
 
 2 Q. B. 37 
 
 W. N. 87 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 861 
 
 (8); 0. A.l 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digeiit, 
 
 2145 
 462 
 2096 
 
 232 
 
 199 
 682, 
 1250, 
 1923 
 2119 
 534, 535 
 509, 
 1591 
 1888. 
 421 
 2143, 
 2367 
 1406 
 242 
 642 
 765 
 1066 
 1393 
 1140, 
 1500 
 1023, 
 2156 
 2303 
 
 1644 
 
 861 
 
 2077 
 1542 
 679 
 2171 
 1436 
 1435 
 1344 
 
 2237 
 2162 
 
 1222 
 
 1626 
 1372, 
 1381 
 2242 
 1119 
 
 868 
 
 118, 171, 
 933, 
 2171, 
 2193 
 
TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 'rl 
 
 Andrews u. Mockford 
 
 Andrews u. Nott Bower .. 
 
 Andrews: — Smith?;. 
 
 Angerstein, In re. Angerstein v. Angerstein 
 
 Angier Line : — Steinman & Co. v. 
 
 Anglesea (Justices) : — Reg. v. (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corpora-\ 
 
 tion i;. King, Brown & Co. .. .. ..) 
 
 Anglo- American Exploration and Developmenfl 
 
 Co., In re .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Anglo-American Land Mortgage and Agency) 
 
 Go. : — Nelson v. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Anglo- Argentine Live Stock and Produce Agency j 
 
 V. Temperley Shipping Co. . . . . . . / 
 
 Anglo-Australian Investment Co. (Debenture-1 
 
 holders, &o. of) : — Newton v. . . . . j 
 
 Anglo-Austrian Printing and Publishing Union, i 
 
 In re . . . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Analo-Austrian Printing and Publishing Union 
 
 In re. Brabourne v. Anglo- Austrian Printing 
 
 and Publishing Union . . 
 Anglo-Austrian Printing and Publishing Unionjl 
 
 In re. Isaac's Case . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Anglo-Bavarian Steel Ball Co., In re 
 Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, Ld. : — 
 
 Saccharin Corporation, Ld. «... 
 Anglo-Continental Corporation of "Western Aus- 
 tralia, In re 
 
 Anglo-Italian Hemp Spinning Co. : — Lj-nde v. I 
 
 Anglo-Sardinian Antimony Co., In re .. 
 Angus i;. Clifford .. 
 
 Ann, In re. Wilson v. Ann 
 
 Annaly v. Agar-EUis. In re Clifdon (Lord) .. ] 
 
 Annan: — Cruise i;. 
 
 Annan: — Hutton «. 
 
 Annan: — Walsh e i). 
 
 Ansah : — Ilockley v. 
 Anstee, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Answorth : — Palmer v. In re Palmer . . 
 
 Anthony, In re. Anthony v. Anthony (No. 1) 
 
 — (No. 2) 
 
 Anthony Birrell Pearce & Co., In re. Doig v. 
 
 Anthony Birrell Pearce & Co. In re Same. 
 
 Groos V. Same .. 
 Antwerp, London and Brazil Line : — Bell & Co. v. 
 Aplin i;. Porritt .. 
 ApoUinaris Co. : — Saxlehner v. .. 
 Apollinaris Co.'s Trade-marks, In re (No. 1) .. 
 
 _ (No. 2) .. 
 
 "Apollo," The. Owners of "Apollo" v. Port\ 
 Talbot Co / 
 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 0. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 372 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 888 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 678 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 883 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 619 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 850 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 29 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 367 . 
 
 [1897] W. N. 152 (.3) ; [1898]\ 
 ICh. 100 / 
 
 [1896] W. N. 166 (4); [1897]) 
 ICh. 130 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 110 ; [1899] 2 Q. B.\ 
 403 / 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 244 .. ..| 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 622 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 891 
 
 C. A. [1892]2Ch. 158 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 80 
 [1900] W. N. 95 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 327 
 
 [1895] W. N. 149 (1); [1896]\ 
 
 ICh. 178 / 
 
 [1894] W. N. 156 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 449 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 549 .. ..| 
 
 [1900] W. N. 93; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 774 \ 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [18971) 
 W.N. 94 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 289 .. 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [18971) 
 W.N. 97 .. .. J 
 
 [1896] W. N. 70 
 
 [1893] P. 283 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 369 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 450 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 498 
 
 [1899] W. N. 76 ; [1899] 2 Ch.' 
 50. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 103 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 57 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 893 
 
 C. A. [1891] ICh. 1 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891]2Ch. 186 .. 
 
 H. L. (E,) [1891] A. C. 499 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 375, 572 
 
 648 
 
 825 
 2299 
 1972 
 1103 
 1041 
 
 1439 
 456 
 388 
 
 1931 
 
 315, 319, 
 1323 
 
 436 
 
 470 
 
 346 
 459 
 1430 
 
 411 
 
 376 
 
 454 
 370 
 903, 
 1476 
 
 1134 
 
 1398 
 2187 
 1400 
 
 38 
 1597 
 2319, 
 2354 
 2328 
 
 790 
 
 775 
 
 1541 
 608- 
 2141 
 568 
 2135, 
 2136 
 
 1979 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST, 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Apothecaries Co. ■». Jones 
 Applebee, In re. Leveson «. Beales 
 
 Appleby v. Horseley Co. .. 
 
 Appleton: — Diinnu. 
 
 Apted, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Apthorpe : — London Bank of Mexico and South) 
 
 America v. . . . . . . . . . . ) 
 
 Arauco Co., In re . . 
 
 Arbib and Class' Contract, In re 
 
 Arbuokle v. Buchanan 
 
 Archer's Case. In re North Australian Territoryl 
 Co 
 
 Arden D. Boyce 
 
 Ardern, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Argentine Gold Fields, Ld., Ex parte. In re 
 Low 
 
 "Argo,"The 
 
 Argus Printing Co. : — Hathaway u. 
 
 " Ariel " (Leetham, Owner of the SS.) :— " Lan- 
 cashire" (Bibby Bros. Co., Owners of the SS.) 
 i;. The " Lancashire " .. 
 
 Arizona Copper Co. i;. Inland Eevenue .. ..| 
 
 Armitage v. Garnett 
 
 A 
 
 ■■} 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Arnutage «. Moor .. 
 
 Armour v. Bate 
 
 Armson : — Pharmaceutical Society v. . . 
 
 Avmstrong, In re. Ex parte Lindsay ., 
 
 Annstrong : — Andrews v. 
 
 Armstrong v. Armstrong . . 
 Armstrong v. London County Council ., 
 Armstrong v. Wilkin. In re Weeding . . 
 Armstrong (George) & Sons, In re 
 
 Armstrong, Mitchell & Co. : — O'Neill v. 
 
 Army and Navy Auxiliary Co-operative Supply :\ 
 — Drury v. .. .. .. .. .. I 
 
 Armytage v. Armytage . . 
 
 Arnold : — Booth v. 
 
 Arnold v. Burt. In re Jeffery (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2).. 
 
 Arnold v. Smith. In re Smith . . . . ..{ 
 
 Arrow : — Murphy v. 
 
 Arrow Shipping Co. v. Tyne ImproFemenfl 
 
 Oommrs. The "Crystal" J 
 
 " Arroyo," The :. 
 
 Art Union of London : — Savoy Overseers v. .A 
 
 Arter r. Hammersmith Vestry .. 
 
 Arthur :— Broomer v. 
 
 Artistic Photographic Co. : — Lazarus v... 
 
 Arton,-In re (No. 1) 
 
 : ,(No. 2) .. 
 
 ?l 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 89 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 422 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 90; [1899] \ 
 
 2Q. B. 521 / 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 564 
 [1899] W. N. 128 ; [1899] P. 272 
 [1891J 1 Q. B. 383; C. A. [1891]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 378 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 134 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 601 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 180 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 322 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 796 
 [1898] P. 147 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 147 
 
 [1895] P. 33 
 
 U. A. [1900] W. N. 247 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 47 ; H. L. (E.) 
 [1894] A. C.l 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 93 / 
 
 0. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 337 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 123 ; [1900] 2 Q. B.I 
 363 1 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 233 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 720 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 327 .. .1 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W.N. 170 .A 
 
 1892] P. 98 
 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 416 
 1896] 2 Ch. 364 
 1896] ICh. 536 
 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 70 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 2Q. B. 418 / 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 271 
 
 [1898] P. 178 .. 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 571 
 [1891]' 1 Ch. 671 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 577 
 [1895] W. N. 154 (16) ; [1896]1 
 ICh. 171 .. .. ^ 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 527 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 508 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 60 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 60£ 
 (B.) [1896] A. C. 296 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 646 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 777 . 
 
 H. L. 
 
 •::] 
 
 1897 
 1896 
 1896' 
 
 2 Ch. 214 
 1 Q. B. 108 
 1 Q. B. 509 
 
 1252 
 2338 
 1220, 
 1245 
 587 
 1623 
 
 1764 
 
 2243, 
 2319 
 1377 
 
 349 
 
 1567 
 1601 
 
 105 
 
 2010 
 1220 
 
 1950 
 
 1766 
 
 1852 
 
 1759 
 
 1558 
 1451 
 503, 
 1403 
 1378, 
 1381 
 709 
 1173 
 2328 
 2055 
 
 2014 
 
 1157 
 
 708 
 
 543, 652 
 
 951 
 
 952 
 
 2170 
 
 863 
 
 2012 
 
 1937 
 
 1677 ; 
 
 1178 
 1020 - 
 1121 
 
 810 
 
 810 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case, 
 
 Asfar & Co. v. Blundell .. 
 
 Asli V. Ask 
 
 Aslibunier v. Sewell 
 
 Ashbury v. Ellis .. 
 
 Ashby, In re. Ex parte Wreford 
 
 Ashby: — Hindson j;. 
 
 A.sliby V. Wilson .. 
 
 A-she : — Kitsonv. .. 
 
 Ashford w. Brooks. In re Hooper 
 
 Ashley & Smith, Ld. : — Burge v. 
 
 Ashling V. Boon . . 
 
 Ashmead, Ex parte. In re Nance 
 Ashmore & Son t). Cox (0. S.) & Co. .. 
 
 Ashton, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Ashton, In re 
 
 Ashton, In re. Ingram v. Papillon 
 
 Ashton V. Ross. In re Ross 
 
 Ashton, Bdridge & Co. : — Nickoll & Knight v. 
 
 Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation v. Pugh 
 
 Ash well : — Soar v. 
 "Asia," The 
 Askew V. Askew .. 
 Aspinall v. Sutton 
 Assets Co. : — Blair v. 
 
 Assets Co. V. Inland Revenue Commrs. .. .A 
 
 Assets Development Co. v. Close Brothers & Co.< 
 
 Assicurazioni General! v. SS. Bessie Morris Co. 
 
 Astbury v. Astbury 
 Asten I). Asten 
 
 Astley. V. New Tivoli, Ld. 
 
 A»twood u. Cobbiild 
 A^tlvood : — Cobb Id V. .. 
 Astwooil : — Henderson i;. 
 Atherden : — Morris v. In re Morris 
 Atherton, in re 
 Atherton, In tiie Goods of 
 Atberton: — Cowap «. 
 
 Atherton: — Mostyn r. .. 
 
 Athole (Dlokfi of) : — M'lnrby v 
 
 { 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. 
 
 } 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 ] 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 196 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 123 
 [1893] P. 222 .. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 405 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 339 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 872 
 
 [1895] W. N. 147 (9) ; [1896] 
 1 Ch. 78 ; C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 [1899] W. N. 222 ; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 fifi i 
 
 [1899] W'.' N. 16 (10)';' [1899] \ 
 IQ. B. 425 / 
 
 [1892] W. N. 151 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 63 ; [1900]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 744 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 568 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 590 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 436 
 
 [1892] P. 83 1 
 
 [1900] W. N. 109 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 178 (2) ; [1897] \ 
 2 Ch. 574 ; [1898] 1 Ch. 142 f 
 [1899] W. N. 234 ; [1900] 1 Ch 
 
 162 
 
 [1900] W. N. 116 ; [1900] 2 Q. B.\ 
 
 298 J 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 156 (5) ; 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 45 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 390 
 
 " ^P. 121 
 
 P. 174 
 
 2Q. B. 349 
 "(So.) [1896] A. C. 409 ., 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1897] W. N.l 
 
 144 ; 
 
 [1900] W. N. 176 
 
 717 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 571 
 
 2 Q. B. 652 .. 
 "181)8] 2 Cb. Ill 
 1894] 3 Ch. 260 
 1898] W. N. 172 (3); 
 
 1 Ch. 151 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 150 . 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 1.^0 . 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 150 . 
 [1894] W. N. 85 
 [1891] W. N. 85.. 
 [1892] P. 104 .. 
 [1893] 1 Q, B. 49 
 [1899] W. N. 103; [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 360 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 629 
 
 
 1891 
 
 1891 
 1894 
 H. L 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. I 
 C. A. [1892] j 
 
 [1899] 
 
 "}] 
 
 ':) 
 
 1976 
 
 701 
 2242, 
 2292 
 1336 
 1905, 
 2183 
 
 825, 
 2284 
 
 1063 
 
 541 
 791 
 
 870 
 
 774. 781, 
 
 1804 
 142, 550 
 
 1816 
 
 789, 
 
 1610, 
 
 2326, 
 
 2332 
 
 2320 
 
 1469 
 32 
 515 
 
 2087 
 
 2193 
 1958 
 1593 
 1039 
 1831 
 
 1767 
 
 563 
 
 988, 
 1970 
 1125 
 2364 
 
 340 
 
 1301 
 1301 
 1301 
 2339 
 1874 
 1608 
 1108 
 
 2284 
 
 1840 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 
 Digest. 
 
 1} 
 
 ■{ 
 
 AthoU (Duke of) :— Wedderbum v. Duke 
 
 AthoU V, Glover Incorporation of Perth. 
 Athlumney, In re. Ex parte Wilson .. 
 
 Atkinson, In re. Waller v. Atkinson . . 
 
 Atkinson, In re. Wilson v. Atkinson . . 
 Atkinson v. Atkinson 
 Atkinson «.■ Carlisle (Mayor of) .. 
 Atkinson :^^Moore v. 
 
 Atkinson V. Morris 
 
 Atlantic and- North- West By. Co. :— Casgrain 
 Atlantic and North- West By. Co. v. Wood 
 
 Atlantic Transport Co. : — ^Woodham v. 
 
 Atlas Metal Co. v. MiUer .. 
 Attenborough, Ex parte. In re Cole .. 
 
 Attenborough & Son : — Clutton ». 
 
 Attenborough w. Henschel 
 
 Attenborough : — ^Eirkham v. Kirkham v. Gill 
 
 Att.-Gen., Ex parte. In re Bigginson & Dean 
 
 Att.-Gten. v. AberdarefLord) 
 
 Att.-Gen. V. Albany Hx)tel Co. .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Anderson. In re Wood .. 
 
 Att.-Gen.: — ^Baiav. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Beech 
 
 Att.-Gen. :— Betty v. In re Betty 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Brighton and Hove Co-operativei 
 Supply Association .. .. „ ,./ 
 Att.-Gen. v. Camberwell (Vestry) ., .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. «. Cardiff (Corporation of) 
 Att.-Gen. «. Carlton Bank 
 Att.-Gen. v. Chapman 
 Att.-Gen. v. Christ Church, Oxford 
 Att.-Gen. «. Christ's Hospital 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Clarkson .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. i>. Clerkenwell (Vestry) 
 Att.-Gten. V. Cole .. .. .. .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. ?y. Conduit Colliery Co. 
 Att.-Geiu V. Coulson. Att.-Gen. u. Owen 
 
 Att.-Gen. «. Day .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Deeping St. Nicholas {Overseers) .. 
 
 Att.-G«n. V. De Pr^ville .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] A. C. 403 . 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 547 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 637 ; C. A. [1899] \ 
 W. N. 51 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 1 . 
 
 1892 
 
 3 Ch. 52 
 
 !;) 
 
 (9);l 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Dobree 
 Att.-Gen. v. Dodd 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Dodington 
 
 •■{ 
 
 1895] W. N. 114 (3) 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 393 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 269 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 167 (7); 
 
 [1897] P. 40 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 282 .. 
 P. C. [1895] A. C, 257 .. 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 159 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 15 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 500 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 290 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 306 ; C. A. [1895] 
 
 2 Q. B. 707 ; H. L. (B.) [1896] 
 
 W. N. 174 (2) ; [1897] A. C: 
 
 90 
 
 1 Q. B. 833 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 201 
 IQ. B. 325 
 
 2 Q. B. 684 
 1896] 2 Ch. 696 ., 
 2 Ch. 596 
 
 _ P. 217; C. A. 
 261 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 535 ; C.A. 
 2Q. B.147; H. L. (E.) 
 W. N. 166 (13) ; [1899' 
 53 ■ 
 
 [1899] W.N. 57; [1899] 1 
 821 
 
 0. A. [1900] W.'n. 12; [1900]\ 
 1 Ch. 276 * 
 
 [1895' 
 C.A.' 
 [1899' 
 [1892' 
 C. A." 
 [1896' 
 [1892] 
 P, " 
 
 [1892]^ 
 
 1898]' 
 l898]i 
 A. 0. 
 
 Ch.\ 
 
 "1894' 
 1894' 
 1899' 
 1891" 
 '1894' 
 |L896' 
 
 C.A; 
 
 W. N. 163 
 2 Ch. 337 
 2 Q. B. 158 
 
 2 Q. B. 526 
 
 3 Oh. 524 
 1 Ch. 879 
 1899] W. N. 
 
 232 ; 1900]| 
 
 1 Q. B. 156 
 1891] 3 Ch. 527 
 1900] W. N. 272 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 301 
 1899] 2 Q. B. 253 
 -1899] W. N. 207 ; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 
 31 / 
 
 [1892] W. N. 183 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 288 ; C. A. [1899] 
 W. N. 255; [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 
 223 
 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 442 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 150 
 '1897] 1 Q. B. 722 ; C. A. [1897]\ 
 2Q. B. 373 ; 
 
 824 
 
 165 
 
 915 
 
 2336 
 
 858, 979 
 
 587 
 
 1390 
 
 2357 
 
 245, 256 
 245 
 
 1229 
 
 573 
 107 
 
 94 
 
 501 
 1816 
 148 
 1750 
 961 
 765 
 
 1095 
 
 1748 
 
 1884 
 
 890 
 
 1181 
 548 
 1805 
 1729 
 275 
 275 
 
 1738 
 
 1348 
 1349 
 1266 
 1734 
 
 278 
 
 1675 
 
 1748 
 
 1744 
 1729 
 
 1738 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Att.-Gen. V. Earl Grey .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Edwards 
 
 Att.-Gen. «. Ellis 
 
 Att.-Gen. w. Emerson 
 Att.-Gen. v, Eairley 
 Att.-Gen. v. Fumess Ey. Go. 
 Att.-Gen. i;. Gosling 
 
 Att.-Gen. V. Hanwell Urban CoTincil 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Hatch. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Hay . . 
 Att.-Gen. v. Hooper 
 
 Att.-Gen. : — Hunter v. 
 
 Att.-Gen. j;. Jacobs-Smith 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Jewish Colonization Association .. 
 Att.-Gen. ■;;. Logan 
 
 Att.-Gen. V. London and North Western Ry. Co. 
 
 Att.-Gen. : — London County Council v. . 
 
 ••] 
 
 Att.-Gen. : — London County Council v. 
 Att.-Gen. v. London Parochial Charities (Tmsteesl 
 
 oO / 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Loyd . , . , 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Manchester (Corporation of) 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Margate Pier and Harbour (Com- 
 pany of Proprietors of) 
 
 Att.-G«n. v. Merthyr Tydfil Union 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Metropolitan'Ey. Co. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Meyrick. In re Ohristchurch In- 
 
 closure Act 
 Att.-Gen. : — Meyrick v. In re Ohristchurch In- 
 
 closure Act 
 
 Att.-Gen. u. Midland Eail way .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. w. Moore 
 Att.-Gen. v. Morgan 
 
 Att.-Gen. : — New York Breweries Co. v. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Newcastle-on-Tyne Corporation .. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation 
 Att.-Gen. V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. • 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Owen. Att.-Gen. v. Coulson 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 318 ; C. A. [1898] 
 2 Q. B. 534 ; H. L.(E.)[1900] 
 W. N. 40 ; [1900] A. 0. 124 
 [18'Sl] 1 Ch. 194 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 466 
 H. L. (B.)[1891] A. 0. 649 .. 
 " 1 Q. B. 698 
 2Q.B. 267 
 IQ. B. 545 
 
 W.'N. 214; [1900]lCh.V 
 C. A. [1900]W. N. 138;} 
 
 Colnmn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1900] 2 Oh. 377 
 
 
 •■{ 
 
 0. A. [1893] 3 Oh. 36 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 245 
 
 [1893] 3 Oh. 483 
 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 518j C. A. [1897] 
 
 2Ch. 105; H. L. (E.) [1899] 
 
 W. N. 71 ; [1899] A. C. 309 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 472; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q.B. 341 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 556; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W.N. 269 / 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 100 .. .. j 
 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (12) ; [1899]! 
 
 1Q.B.72; O.A.[1899] VV.N. 
 
 221; [1900] 1Q.B. 78 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 226; 0. A. [1900] 
 
 W.N. 3; [1900] 1 Q. B. 192; 
 
 H. L. (E-.) [190&] W. N. 268 
 [1900] W. N. 100 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 541 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 496 
 
 [1893] 2 Oh. 87 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 65; [1900] 1 Oh.l 
 749 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 38 (3) ; C. A. [190011 
 W.N. 5(5; [1900] 1 Oh. 516 ; 
 
 0. 4.. [1894] 1 Q. B. 384 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. 0. ] 
 
 [1894] 3 Oh. 209 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 353 
 W.N. 271 ^ 
 
 [1893] 1 Oh. 676 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Oh. 432 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 738 ; 0. A. [18971^ 
 W; N. 175 (10) i tl898]l Q. B.f 
 205; H.L.(E.) [1898] W.N.I 
 170(12); [1899] A. 0.62 j 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. 0. 568 „ 
 
 0. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 384 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 478 " 
 
 [1892] 3 Oh; 70 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 253 
 
 0. A. [1900]1 
 
 1741 
 
 2080 
 1730 
 823 
 1737 
 1651 
 1730 
 
 1144 
 
 2080 
 1749 
 2091 
 
 276 
 
 1731 
 
 1740 
 1347 
 
 1647 
 
 1769 
 
 1161 
 
 235 
 
 1785 
 966, 
 1346 
 
 1633 
 
 1459 
 
 1667 
 
 297 
 
 297, 
 2088 
 
 1804 
 
 540, 627,- 
 2153 
 1260 
 
 1785 
 
 542 
 
 665 
 
 668 
 
 672, 676, 
 
 2148 
 
 1734 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 vx 
 
 Name ef Case. 
 
 
 Att.-Gen. : — Panes v. In re Bond 
 Att.-Gren. v. Kobertson .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Eufford & Co. 
 
 Att.-Gren. v. St. John's Hospital, Bath . 
 
 Att.-GeD.'v. Smith 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Smith-Marriott 
 Att.-Gen. «. Strange 
 
 Att.-Gen : — Sudeley (Lord) v. .. 
 
 Att,-Gen. «. Swansea Corporation 
 Att.-Gen. v. Teddington Urban Council 
 Att,-Gen. v. Tod Heatley 
 
 Att,-Gen. : — Tynemouth Corporation v. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Wilson 
 
 Att.-Gen. : — ^Wolverton (Baron) v. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Wood 
 
 Att.-Gen. t>. Worrall 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Wright 
 
 Att.-Gen. for Canada : — Att.-Gen. of Ontario v. 
 
 Att.-Gen. for the Dominion of Canada v. Att.- 
 Gen. for Ontaria. Att.-Gen. for Quebec v, 
 Att.-Gen. for Ontario .. 
 
 Att.-G6n. for Dominion of Canada v. Att.-Gen.) 
 for Provii)ge of Ontaria . . .. .. .. / 
 
 Att.-Gen. for.Dominion of Canada v. Att.-Gen. fori 
 Provinces, pf Ontario, Quebec, and NovaScotia,/ 
 
 Att.-Gen. of Duchy of Lancaster u. Liverpool^ 
 New Cattle Market Co. .. .. ../ 
 
 Att.-Gen. of the Duchy of Lancaster v. London) 
 and North- Western By. Co / 
 
 Att.-GeD. for Ireland v. jiathdonnell (Baron) 
 
 I 
 
 Att.-Gen. of Jamaica: — Jamaica Ey. Co. v, 
 
 Att.-rGen. of Jamaica : — ^West India Improve- 
 ment Co. V. 
 
 Att.-Gen. and Eeceiver-General fpr Jersey 
 Le Moignan 
 
 Att.-Gen. and Beceiver-General for Jersey 
 Turner .. .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. of •Manitoba :-^Brophy v. ;, ■ 
 
 Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. Love . 
 
 Atti-Gen. for New South Wales : — Macleod v. .; 
 
 Att.-Gen. for New South Wales: — Makm v. ., 
 
 Att.^Gen, for New South Wales v. Eennie 
 Att,-6en. for New South Wales :r— Sydney) 
 (Municipal Couneil) 1;..^ .. .-. • ../ 
 
 Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. Walters 
 Att<-Gen. for S^ew Zealand : — ^Brown i;. 
 Att.-G'en. fpr Nova Scotia : — Eeynolds v. 
 
 Tolume and Page. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 122 
 
 [189.2] 2 Q. B. 694; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 1Q.B. 293 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 8 (3); [1899] 1\ 
 
 Ch. 537 / 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 151 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 289 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 239 / 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 595 
 
 C. A. [1898]2Q. B. 39.. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 526 ; C. A. [1896]) 
 
 IQ. B. 354; H. L.(E.)[1896]I 
 
 W.N. 162(14); [1897] A. C.f 
 
 11 
 
 [1898 
 
 [189.8 
 
 H. L 
 
 1 Ch. 602 
 1 Ch. 66 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 560 
 
 N. 71 
 B. 604 
 
 (E.) [1899] W 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. 
 
 [1899] A. C. 293 
 [1900] W. N. 26S 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 604 ; C. A. [1897]) 
 
 I.Q. B. 231; H.L.(E.)[1898] 
 
 A. C. 535 
 
 [1897 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 2Q. B. 102 
 1895] 1 Q..B. 99 .. 
 "1897] 2 Q. B. 318 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C, 189 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 199 .. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. 0. 247 .. 
 
 P. C: [1898] A. C. 700 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 30 (2) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 274 .. 
 
 Ex. biv., ir. [1896] W. N. 141 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 127 .. 
 
 P. C: [1894] A. 0. 243 .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 402 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 326 ., 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 202 .. 
 P. C. [1898] A. 0. 679 .. 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 455 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 57 .. 
 
 P. C, [1896] A. C. 376 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 444 .. 
 
 P. C. 
 P.O. 
 P.O. 
 
 1898' 
 1898' 
 '1896' 
 
 A. C. 460 
 A. 0. 234 
 A. C. 240 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 624 
 1806 
 
 2084 
 
 1091 
 1785, 
 1787 
 1733 
 1741 
 
 1785 
 
 545 
 1114 
 1353 
 
 544 
 
 627 
 
 1807 
 
 1749 
 
 1729 
 
 2107 
 
 240,292 
 
 242 
 
 252 
 246 
 1140 
 
 1530 
 
 1809 
 1019, 
 2068 
 1017, 
 1668 
 1020, 
 1591 
 
 1020 
 
 249, 292 
 1330 
 1324 
 610,.' 
 1324 
 1330 
 297, 
 1330 
 1327 
 1335 
 252 ' 
 b 2 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Att.-Gen. for Ontario v. Att.-Gen. for tlie 
 
 Dominion 
 Att.-Gren. for Ontario : — Att.-Gen. for the 
 
 Dominion of Canada v. Att.-Gen. for Quebec 
 
 «. Att.-Gen. for Ontario 
 Att.-Gen. for Ontario : — Brewers and Maltsters'^ 
 
 Association of Ontario ti. .. .. ../ 
 
 Att.-Gen. of Ontario v. Att.-Gen. for Canada .. 
 Att.-Gen. for Province of Ontario : — Att.-Gen.l 
 
 for Dominion of Canada ■!). .. .. ../ 
 
 Att.-Gen. for Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and 
 
 Nova Scotia: — ^Att.-Gen. for Dominion of 
 
 Canada v. 
 Att.-Gen. for Quebec v. Att.-Gen. for Ontario. 
 
 Att.-Gen. for the Dominion of Canada v. Att.- 
 Gen. for Ontario 
 
 Att.-Gen. for Trinidad and Tobago v. Bourne .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. for Trinidad and Tobago v. Eriche .. 
 
 Att.-Gen. on the relation of the Warwickshire] 
 Countv Council v. London and North Western [ 
 By. Co J 
 
 Attrill : — Huntington v. ,. 
 
 Auckland (District Highway Board) : — Etherley\ 
 Grange Coal Co. V. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Audenshaw Paint and Colour Co. : — McNair & 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■.n 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 "August," The 
 
 Auriferous Properties, Ld., In re.. 
 
 -■ (No. 2). 
 
 Austin u. Beddoe .. 
 
 Austin : — Bowker v. In re Lawrance . 
 
 Austin V. St. Mary's, Newington 
 
 Australasia (Bank of) v. Palmer.. 
 
 Australasian Alkaline Reduction and Smelting! 
 
 Syndicate, In re .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Australasian Automatic Weighing Machine Oo.\ 
 
 V. Walter 
 Australasian Investment Co., Ex parte. In re 
 
 Queensland Mercantile and Agency Co. Ex 
 
 parte Union Bank of Australia 
 Australasian Mining Co., In re . . 
 Australasian Territories : — Macmillan v. 
 '• Australia," The. The " BngUshman," and 
 
 " Australia," The. The " Englishman " and 
 
 Australia (Perpetual Executors and Trustees^ 
 Association of) «. Swan .. .. ../ 
 
 Australia (Union Bank) v. Murray- Aynsley .. 
 
 Australian Cities Investment Corporation, Ld. -A 
 — Eandwick (Council of the Borough of) v. .. j 
 
 Australian Joint Stock Bank, In re 
 
 Australian Joint Stock Bank v. Bailey .. 
 
 Australian Newspaper Co. v. Bennett .. 
 Automatic Telephone Co., Ld. : — Alexander v. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 348 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 199 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 231 .. 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 189 .. 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 247 .. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 700 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 199 .. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 83 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 518 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (12) ; [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 72; C. A. [1899] 
 W. N. 221 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 78 1 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 150 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894]1Q. B. 37.. 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 502 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1891] 
 1898' 
 189ff 
 1893" 
 1894' 
 C. A.' 
 
 P. 328 .. 
 
 1 Ch. 691 
 
 2 Ch. 428 
 W. N. 78 
 1 Ch. 556 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 524 
 
 P. 0. [1897] A. C. 540 
 [1891] W. N. 209 
 
 [1891] W. N. 170 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 536 ; C. A 
 1 Ch. 219 
 
 ■1893]W. N. 74.. 
 1897] W. N. 30 (14) . 
 1894] P. 239 .. 
 
 [1895] P. 212 .. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 763 . 
 
 P. 0. [1898] A. C. 693 . 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 322 . 
 
 [1897] W. N. 48 (3) . 
 P. 0. [1899] A. C. 396 . 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 284 . 
 
 [1899] W. N. 79 ; [1899] 
 302; C. A. [1900] W 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 57 
 
 [1892] 
 
 ?) 
 
 2 Ch.) 
 N. 93; I 
 
 242,243 
 244 
 
 253 
 
 240, 292 
 252 
 
 246 
 
 242 
 
 624, 
 
 2156 
 
 599, 769, 
 
 2156 
 
 1647 ■ 
 
 1008 
 893 
 
 45 
 
 1936 
 
 479 
 
 480 
 
 799 
 2051 
 1178 
 1326 
 
 463 
 1489 
 
 491 
 
 391 
 
 1546 
 
 1956 
 
 1495, 
 
 1950 
 
 2259 
 
 1334 
 1329, 
 1592 
 461 
 1327 
 644, 
 1500 
 
 305 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Automatic Weighing Machine Co. : — Everitt v. 
 
 Averill, In re. Salsbury v. Buckle 
 
 Avery «;. Wood .. 
 
 Avill & Smart, Ld. : — Milward «. 
 
 " Avon," The, and The " Thomas Joliffe " 
 
 Axminster Union : — Plymouth Union v. 
 
 Aylesbury Dairy Co. : — London County Council) 
 
 V. \ 
 
 Aylesford (Countess of) v. Great Western By.\ 
 
 Co / 
 
 Aylesford (Earl of) v. Poulett (Earl) (No. 1) . 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Aylward v. Lewis ., 
 
 -, In re (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 (No. 3) 
 
 B. 
 
 B. V. B. 
 
 Lloyd's Bank v. 
 
 . Basle'l 
 Henry] 
 
 B. A. S., In re .. 
 
 B. : — L. (otherwise B.) v. 
 
 Bach, In re. Walker v. Bach, 
 
 Bach 
 
 Bache V. BiUingham 
 
 Bacon v. Bacon. In re Waddington 
 
 Badcock v. Cumberland Gap Park Co. 
 
 Baddeley v. Bailey 
 
 Baddeley :— Willis & Co. v. 
 
 Baden-Powell «. Wilson ., 
 
 Badische Anilin und Soda Eabiik 
 
 Chemical Works, Bindschedler 
 Badische Anilin und Soda Pabrik ^ 
 
 Johnson & Co. and Basle Chemical Works, [ 
 
 Bindschedler .. .. .. .. ..j 
 
 Badische Anilin und Soda Pabrik v. Johnson] 
 
 & Co. and Basle Chemical Works, Bind-> 
 
 schedler .. .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Badische Anilin und Soda Pabrik v. Schott,^ 
 
 Segner & Co. .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Baerlein v. Chartered Mercantile Bank 
 
 Baerselman v. Bailey 
 
 Bagge f. Whitehead 
 
 Baggs, In re 
 
 Baghino : — Figgins v. 
 
 Bagley V. Butcher 
 
 Bagley: — Compton «. 
 
 Bagnall (J.) & Sons, Ld. :— Wright v. 
 
 Bagot, In re. Baton v. Ormerod 
 
 Bagot : — Periins v. In re Perkins 
 
 Bagot Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Clipper Pneumatic! 
 
 Tyre Co. / 
 
 Bitot's Settlement, In re. Bagot v. Kittoe 
 
 In re Eussell Institution 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ri892' 
 [1898' 
 C. A. 
 [1897" 
 [1891"" 
 H. L, 
 
 3Ch. 506 
 1 Oh. 523 
 "1891] 3 Ch. 115 .. 
 "W.N. 162(1) .. 
 
 P. 7 
 
 "(E.) [1898] A. 0. 586 . 
 [1897] W. N. 153 (10) ; [1898]\ 
 1 Q. B. 106 
 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 626 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 248 .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 60 .. 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 81 .. 
 
 C.A. 
 0. A. 
 0. A. 
 [1900 
 C.A.' 
 [1895" 
 
 3 Ch. 274 
 1 Oh. 459 
 3 Oh. 194 
 
 W. N. 130 
 
 1898] 2 Oh. 392 
 
 P. 274 .. 
 
 •1891' 
 1892^ 
 1892^ 
 
 [1892] W. N. 108 
 C.A, 
 
 [1897" 
 [189a 
 [1893" 
 C.A." 
 [1894" 
 H. L." 
 
 "1894] 1 Q. B. 107 
 W.N. 6(8) 
 1 Ch. 362 
 W.N. 56 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 324 
 W.N. 146 
 (E.) [1897] W.N. 167 (8) 
 
 !:•} 
 
 [1898] A. 0. 200 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 25 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Oh. 322; H. L, 
 (E.) [1897] W. N. 167 (8) 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 447 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 488 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 301 
 
 C.A. 
 
 1894" 
 1898' 
 '1898' 
 1892' 
 0. A.' 
 
 ') 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 355 
 
 2 Oh. 416, n. ., 
 
 2 Ch. 72 .. 
 
 IQ. B. 67 
 
 1 Oh. 313 
 
 1900] W. N. 92; 
 2 Q."B. 240 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 348 . 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 283 
 
 [1900] W. N. 272 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 177 
 
 [1900]j 
 
 Column 
 of 
 
 Digest. 
 
 398 
 2322 
 
 530 
 
 332 
 1950 
 1461 
 
 1155 
 
 595 
 
 1276, 
 2036 
 502, 503, 
 933, 
 1403, 
 2171 
 1279 
 
 1193 
 1193 
 1196 
 
 711 
 1197 
 
 710 
 
 789 
 
 56,855 
 1478 
 1535 
 -780 
 675 
 1532 
 
 1428 
 
 1542 
 
 1428 
 
 1721 
 
 294 
 1972 
 1924 
 1199 
 1826 
 1376 
 2241 
 
 1247 
 
 2346 
 
 1474 
 
 310 
 
 1880 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Bagshaw v. Pimm 
 
 Bagshawes, Ld. v. Deacon 
 Bahama Islands, In re Special Keference from 
 the 
 
 Bahr: — Isis Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Bailey : — Australian Joint Stock Bank v. 
 
 Bailey: — Baildeley «;. 
 
 Bailey: — Baerselman «. .. 
 
 Bailey v. Barnes . . 
 
 Bailey v. Isle of Thanet Light Rys. 
 
 Bailey «. Plant 
 
 Bailey: — Smith i). 
 
 Bailey «. Watson & Co. .. 
 
 Bailey: — Westerns. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Bailey: — Wiakle v. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Baillie's Case. In re International Society of\ 
 Auctioneers and Valuers .. .. ..) 
 
 Bain w. Att.-Gen. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Bain V. Bain. In re Smith 
 
 Bain :— General Trustees of the Free Church of^ 
 Scotland d, . . . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Bainbridge: — Bsquimalt and Nanaimo Ry. Co.\ 
 
 ^ ; 
 
 Baine :— M'Cowan t;. The"Niobe" .. 
 Baines, Ex parte. In re National WholemeaU 
 Bread and Biscuit Co. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Baines & Co. : — Hanfstaengl v. .. 
 
 Baird U.Bell 
 
 Baird v. Bast Riding Club and Race Course Co. 
 
 Baird: — Paxton v. 
 
 Baird v. Tunbridge Wells Corporation .. 
 Baird: — Walker t;. 
 
 Baird's Case. In re Bangor and North Wales! 
 Mutual Marine Protection Association ...j 
 
 Baker, In re. Purssey v. Holloway 
 Baker t;. Abbott .. .. .. .. " 
 
 Baker v. Ambrose . . 
 
 Baker v. Baruett. In re Barnett 
 
 Baker «. Carrick .. 
 
 Baker: — National Telephone Co. u. 
 
 Baker: — Reg. v. .. 
 
 Baker: — Searle t». In re Searle .. ../ 
 
 Baker ■!;. Stone. In re Stone 
 Baker u. Williams ., 
 
 Baker u. Williams .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Baker v. Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 64; [igOO]\ 
 
 P, 148 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 173 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 138 .. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 364 ; H. L 
 
 (B.) [1900] W.N. 112; [1900] 
 
 A. C. 340 
 P. 0. [1899] A. C. 396 .. 
 [1893] W. J!T. 56 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 301 
 C. A. 1894] 1 Ch. 25 .. 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 722 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 248 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 403 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 270 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 234 ; 0.. A. [1897]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 86 
 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (11); [1897] 1 
 
 Ch. 123 
 
 [1897] W. N. 171 (4) 
 
 ICh. 110 
 [1892] P. 217 ; C. A. [1892] P, 
 
 261 .. 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 88 (16) 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 
 
 138 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 561 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891]. A. C. 401 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 457 
 
 0. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 109 ; H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1895]A. C. 20 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 420 
 [1891] W. N. 144 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 139 
 
 [1898] i 
 
 ":) 
 
 !•.') 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2Q. B. 867; H. L. 
 
 (B.) [1896] A. C. 434 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 491 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 93 ; [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 593 .. ., 
 
 1898 
 1897^ 
 1896' 
 1900' 
 C. A.' 
 
 W. N. 156 (12) .. 
 W. N. 38 (4) . 
 2Q. B. 372 
 W. N. 81 . 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 838" 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 186 
 
 C. C. R. [1895] 1 Q. B. 797 
 
 [1900]W. N. 186; [1900] 2 Ch 
 829 .. ' L J vu. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 196 " 
 [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 23 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 144 
 
 '.} 
 
 1614 
 
 1923 
 
 292, 503, 
 
 626 
 
 1935 
 
 1327 
 
 780 
 1972 
 2234 
 1089 
 1244 
 1146 
 
 588 
 
 525 
 
 1198 
 
 425_ 
 
 10951 
 
 568 
 
 1751 
 
 249 
 988 
 451 
 
 539 
 
 1845 
 1558 
 1487, 
 1563 
 2079, 
 2202 
 628 
 
 425 
 
 2335 
 
 123 
 
 199 
 
 949 
 
 649 
 1345, 
 1352, 
 2101 
 
 612 
 
 1874, 
 
 1885 
 
 2314 
 
 2241 
 
 633, 
 
 2072 
 
 66 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Baker & Suns : — Smitli v. 
 
 Baker, Tuckers & Co., In re 
 
 Bakewell ?;. Davis 
 
 Balcarres Brook Steamship Co. : —Wilson, Sous'! 
 
 &Co. w. .. .. / 
 
 Baldwin v. Dover Justices 
 
 Baldwin v. Smith 
 
 Bale, Ex parte. In re O'Gorman 
 
 Balfour: — Munro zi. 
 
 Balfour, Williamson. & Co. : — Dunlop & Sons w, 
 
 Balkis Consolidated .Co. : — Tomkiuson v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 •{ 
 
 Ball, Ex paiie. In re Simonson 
 
 Ballantyne v. Maoktnnon 
 
 Ballard v. Milner .. 
 
 Ballard : — St. ' George's Local Board v. . . 
 
 Ballingal u. Menzies 
 
 Balls:— Belli; 
 
 Balme, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Balmoral (Steamship) Co. v. Marten 
 
 Balzo (Due del) : — Cartwright t;. In re Countess I 
 
 ofOrford J 
 
 Bamber: — D.QnaldsQO w. In re Stephenson 
 
 Bamfleld w. Rogers. InreGlubb 
 Bancherean :rT-i'eter.5 u. In. re Deneker 
 Bangor (Bishop of), II. Pairy .. .. .. 
 
 Bangor and .North Wales Mutual Marine Pio-f 
 tection Association, In re. Baird's Case .. \ 
 
 Bantam: — Reddaway v. .. 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1891] A. C. 325 .. | 
 
 [18941W. N. 33 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 296 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 422 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 421 
 
 [1900J W. N. 58 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 588 J 
 
 [1899] W. N. 68 ; [1899] 2 Q.B.\ 
 
 62 / 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 113. 
 [1892] 1 Q. H. 507 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 614 ; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 396 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. C. 433 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 455 
 [1895]W. N. 14 
 C. A. [1885] IQ. B. 702 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc. [1887]\ 
 W.N. 95 / 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Bauk of Africa v. Salisbury Gold Mining Co. .. 
 
 Bank of Australasia.:. — Rosea. .. 
 
 Bank of Brazil, Ex parte. . In re English Bank 
 
 of the River Plate 
 Bank of China, Japan and the Straits v. American^ 
 
 Trading Co. .... /. 
 
 Bank of England, Ex parte. In re South'! 
 
 American and Mexican Co. ;. .. ../ 
 
 Bank of England: — Prescott, Dimsdale, Cavu,Y 
 
 Tugwell&Co. V.'" ..], 
 
 Bank of England :— Beg. i;. 
 
 Bank of England v. Vagliauo Brothers . . 
 
 Bank of Ireland v. McCarthy .. .. .. | 
 
 Bank of New Zealand : — ^Fleming v. .. ... 
 
 Bank of New. Zealand D. Simpson 
 Bank of Scotland v. Dominion Bank, Toronto .. 
 Bank of South Australia, In re (No. 1) .. 
 ^— (No. 2) . . 
 
 1897] 
 1897' 
 1900' 
 1895" 
 1 Ch. 257 
 
 ICh. 663 . .. 
 
 P. 261 
 
 2 Q. B. 748 
 
 W. N. 155 (1) ; [1896]| 
 
 C. Ar'iisgS] 1 q'.'b. 286; C. A. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 168 (12) ; C. A 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 75 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 354 .. 
 [1895]W. N. 28 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 277 
 
 [1899] W. N. 93 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 593 
 
 C. A..[1895] 1 Q. B. 286 ; H. L.\ 
 
 E0[1896] A. C>199 .. ../ 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 281 .. ..•[ 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. 0. 687 .. 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 438 .. ..{ 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 266 . 
 
 C. A,. [1895] 1 Oh. 37 . 
 
 v{ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 351 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 785 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 107 ..( 
 
 H. L."(Ir.) [i897] W. N. 164 (12) ;\ 
 [1898] A. C. 181 .. ../ 
 P. C. [19001 A. C. 577 •• 
 P. d. [1900] A. C. 182 .. 
 H. L. (So.) [1891] A. 0. 592 . 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 722 
 0. A.'[1895ilCh.'578 .. 
 
 584, 
 
 1244 
 
 463 
 
 18 
 
 1505 
 
 1101 
 
 1187 
 
 148 
 
 1365 
 1936 
 393, 402, 
 403 
 109, 
 2029 
 768 
 1533 
 2084 
 
 1374 
 
 1571 
 1616 
 
 983 
 
 1735 
 
 2364 
 
 2264 
 2339 
 273 
 
 42 5 
 
 2141 
 
 398, 
 1312 
 1932 
 
 2066 
 
 509, 
 1591 
 
 768 
 
 90 
 
 95, 192, 
 
 2066 
 
 2310 
 
 1572 
 510 
 194 
 484 
 420 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 I'sj 
 
 Ex parte OfiBcial\ 
 
 Bank of Syria, In re. Owen and Ashworth's 
 
 Claim. Whitworth'a Claim 
 Bankes v. Bankes 
 
 Bankier Distillery Co. : — Young (John) & Co. v. 
 
 Bankruptcy Notice, In re a. 
 
 Beceiver., 
 Bankruptcy Notice, In re a 
 Bankruptcy Petition, In re a 
 Banks : — Oatton v. 
 
 Banks v. Heaven. In re Burton's Will 
 Banks «. Hollingsworth .. 
 Banks and James' Trade-mark, In re 
 
 Bannerman: — Hamelia t;. 
 
 Bannister & Co. : — Carrington v. 
 
 Bannon v. Hanrahan 
 
 Banque d'Hochelaga r. Jodoin .. 
 
 Banque du Peuple : — Bryant, Powis, & Bryant,\ 
 
 Ld. V. .. 
 Banque Eusse et Franpaise v. Clark 
 
 [1900] W. N. 66; [1900] 2 Cli.\ 
 
 272 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 256/ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 246 . 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 691 .. { 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 609 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 383 
 C. A [1900] W. N. 12 .. 
 
 [1893 
 [1892; 
 
 2 Ch. 221 
 
 2 Ch. 38 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 442 
 
 "I 
 
 Bantoft: — Spurling ?;. 
 
 Barhados Water Supply Co. : — Trent-Stoughton 
 
 „^ 
 
 Barbeau: — Beaudry v. 
 Barher u. Barber .. 
 Barber «. Burt 
 Barber ?;. JSokells.. 
 
 Barber i>. Mackrell .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Barber v, Penley .. 
 
 Barberton Development Syndicate : — Bowler v 
 
 Barbour: — Eioketson «. .. 
 
 Barclay, In re. Barclay ti. Andrew 
 
 Barclay ■;;. Pearson 
 
 Barclay : — Portsea Island Building Society v. .. | 
 
 " Barcore," The 
 
 Bardfield (Great), Vicar of v. All having Interest 
 
 Barfleld: — Ellis ». In re Northage 
 
 Bargen, In re. Ex parte Hasluok 
 
 Baring, In re. Jeune «. Baring .. 
 
 Baring v. Abingdon 
 
 Baring: — Republic of Chili «;. .. 
 
 Baring Brothers & Co. v. Marine Insurance Co 
 
 Baring Brothers & Co. v. North Western 
 
 Uruguay By. Co. 
 
 Baring Brothers & Co. : — Venables v 
 
 Baring Gould v. Sharpington Combined Pick\ 
 
 and Shovel Syndicate / 
 
 Barker, In re. Barker v. Barker .. ., 
 
 Barker, In re. Buxton v. Campbell 
 
 Barker, In the Goods of 
 
 Barker: — Collins v. 
 
 ■?} 
 
 [1895] W. N. 116 (14) . 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 237 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 247 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1900] W. N. 226 .. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0. 612 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. 0. 170 .. ..} 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 203 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 384 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 502 .. 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 569 .. 
 P. 73 
 
 2 Q. B. 437 
 
 W. N. 91 
 
 W. N. 87 ; C. A. 
 
 [1896 
 [1894 
 [1893 
 [1892' 
 
 W. N. 133 
 
 [1893 
 C. A. 
 P.O. 
 
 ■1899' 
 1893' 
 1894' 
 
 2 Ch. 447 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 164 
 1893] A. C. 194 .. 
 
 1 Ch. 674 
 
 2 Ch. 154 
 
 3 Ch. 86 : 0. A. 
 
 2 Ch. 298 
 [1896] P. 294 .. 
 [1897] P. 185 .. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 84 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 444 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 61 
 
 [1892]| 
 
 [1895] 
 
 "■■{ 
 
 0. A. 
 
 [1891 
 [1893' 
 
 1892] 2 Ch. 374 .. 
 W. N. 138 
 W. N. 164 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 406 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 527 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 633; C. A. [1899]! 
 W.N. 73; [1899] 2 Ch. 80 .. 
 [1897] W. N. 154 (14) .. 
 ^■1892] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 1891] P. 251 .. 
 
 1893] 1 Ch. 578 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 350 
 
 1838 
 1256, 
 2271 
 
 103 
 
 106 
 134 
 1406 
 952 
 1164 
 2129 
 258, 
 2285 
 1231 
 1401 
 259 
 194, 
 1571 
 1546 
 1038, 
 1059, 
 1210 
 
 186 
 
 10 
 712 
 582 
 1280 
 
 192 
 
 1352 
 1163 
 1328 
 2171 
 1183 
 
 230 
 
 1939 
 
 740 
 
 353, 
 1852 
 206, 212 
 1870, 
 2197 
 
 297 
 
 776 
 
 997 
 
 1557 
 
 1319 
 
 410 
 
 1855 
 1131 
 1619 
 138 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Kame of Case- 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Barker r. Edger .. 
 Barker «. Faulkner 
 
 Barker i). Furlong .. 
 
 Barker: — Hutchinson w. .. 
 Barker v. Ivimey. In re Turner 
 
 Barker : — Underwood (E.) & Son, Ld. v. 
 
 Barker's Claim. In re McHenry. MoDermottV 
 V. Boyd .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Barlow : — Newbold Friendly Society v. .. 
 
 Barlow «. Terrett .. 
 
 , Barnacle v. Clark .. 
 
 Barnard, Ex parte. In re Great Kniger Gold'* 
 Mining Co .. ../ 
 
 Barnard V. Faber .. 
 
 Barnard •!;. Tomson 
 
 Barnard: — Watkins w. .. 
 
 Bamardo v. McHugh 
 
 Bamardo v. Ford. Gossage's Case 
 
 Bamardo: — Eeg. w. Jones's Case 
 
 Bamby's, Ld., In re. Fallows v. Barnby's, Ld, 
 
 Bamed ?;. Sax. In re Sax 
 
 Barnes, Ex parte .. 
 
 Barnes, Ex parte. In re Leach .. 
 
 Barnes: — Bailey ■!;. 
 
 Barnes w. Glenton . . 
 
 Barnes : — Gluckstein v. 
 
 Barnes v. London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Lifej 
 Insurance Co. .. 
 
 Barnes : — ^Newen v. 
 
 In re Newen 
 
 Barnes: — ^Pemberton v. .. 
 
 Barnes (or Ross) v. Boss .. 
 
 Barnes v. Youngs .. 
 
 Barnes District Council : — Lancaster v. . 
 
 Bamett, In re. Baker v. Bamett 
 
 Barnett, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Barnett v. Eccles Corporation ., 
 
 Bamett v. Hickmott 
 Barnett v. Howard. 
 Garnishees 
 
 Union Bank of London 
 
 Bamett : — Jones v. 
 
 Bamett «. King .. 
 Bamett: — Penton r. 
 Bamett & Co. : — Hurlbatt v. 
 Barney, In re. Barney v. Barney 
 Barney, In re. Harrison v. Barney 
 
 ;) 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 748 
 [1898] W. N. 69 (8) 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 172 
 
 [1894] W. N. 198 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 536 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 11 (7); 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 300 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 290 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 128 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 107 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 279 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 307 
 
 C. A. 
 [1894" 
 [189f 
 [1891^ 
 
 .1 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 340 
 "iCh. 374 
 2 Q. B. 521 
 
 1 Q. B. 194; H. L. (E.)\ 
 
 [1891] A. C. 388 .. ..; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. 0. 326 . 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 194 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 388. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 103 
 
 [1893] W. N. 104 .. ..| 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1896] A. C. 146 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 184; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 649 :] 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 25 .. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 223; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 885 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 92 ;1 
 
 [1900] A. 0. 240 .. .. j 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 864 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 297 .. .A 
 
 [1899] W. N. 8 (6); [1899]\ 
 
 1 Ch. 543 ^ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 625 .. 
 
 1898] 1 Ch. 414 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 855 
 1900] W. N. 81 
 
 1898] P. 145 
 
 1900] W. N. 96 ; [1900] 2 Q, B, 
 104; C. A. [1900] "W.N. 145; 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 423 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 691 
 C. A. [1900] "W. N. 179; [1900]\ 
 
 2 Q. B. 784 ^ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 26 (4); [1899] 
 
 ICh. 611;C. A.[1900]"W.N. 
 29; [1900] 1 Ch. 370 
 
 C. A. 
 C.A. 
 C. A. 
 [1892" 
 [1894' 
 
 1891] 1 Ch. 4 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 276 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 77 
 
 2 Ch. 265 
 
 3 Ch. 562 
 
 1336 
 826 
 83, 782, 
 2157 
 1520 
 2176 
 
 1725 
 
 1132 
 
 857 
 831 
 1823 
 
 440, 441 
 
 977 
 227 
 130 
 
 931, 948 
 
 38, 883 
 
 948 
 
 468 
 356» 
 2353 
 
 441 
 
 175 
 2234 
 1134 
 
 373 
 
 979 
 
 1880, 
 2166 
 
 2355 
 
 949 
 1413 
 1921 
 949 
 1607 
 
 574 
 
 1399 
 918 
 
 2253 
 
 149 
 1062 
 51,64 
 2180 
 1859 
 
XXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Barney v. Joshua Stubbs, Ld. In re JoshuaV 
 Stubbs, Ld; .. / 
 
 Bavon v. Portslade Urban Council 
 
 Baron Cigarette Macbine Co.: — Ludington) 
 Cigarette Machine Co. v. In re Pitt's Patent J 
 
 Barr, In re. Ex parte Wolfe 
 
 Barr «. Chambers .. 
 
 Barr: — Hewettv. .. 
 
 Barraclough v. Brown 
 
 Barras : — John Morley Building Co. v. .. .. 
 
 Barrett: — Winnipeg (City) v. .. 
 
 Barretto u. Young .. .. .. ..\ 
 
 Barron v. Willis ., 
 
 Barrow v. Isaacs & Son .. 
 
 Barrow: — Summers v. In re Walker .. 
 
 Barrow Hjematite Steel Co., In re .. .A 
 
 Barrow-in-Purness (Overseers of) : — Lancaster\ 
 (Commissioners of Port of) «. .. .. ../ 
 
 Barry v. Peruvian Corporation .. 
 
 Barry and Cadoxton Local Board v. Parry 
 
 BarryEy. Co. : — Jackson w. 
 
 Barry Ey. Oo^ v. Tatf Vale Ey. Co. 
 
 Barsham, Suffolk (Sector, &c., of) v. Parishioners) 
 of Sams .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Barshtv. Tagg .. ., .. .. ..< 
 
 Barstaple Division of Essex (Commissioners of) 
 Taxes): — Reg. i). .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Barstow: — Bird -v. 
 
 Bartholomay Brewing Co. of Eochester v. Wyatt 
 Bartholomew: — Ehrman ■«. 
 Bartholomew : — Gray v. ,. 
 
 Bartholomew: — Eadcliffe t). 
 
 Bartlett :— Ford's Hotel Co. v. 
 
 In re Mayfair." 
 
 ■:) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Bartlett v. Mayfair Property Co, 
 Property Co. 
 
 Bartlett : — Stamford Union 'i;. In re Watson .. | 
 
 Bartlett v. West Metropolitan Tramways Co. 
 
 (No. 1) 
 
 -■ (No. 2) 
 
 Barton, Ex parte. In re Phillips 
 
 Barton, In the Goods of .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Barton: — Dagllshw. 
 
 Barton i;. Irwin. In re Irwin .. 
 
 Bartram: — Monk u. 
 
 Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard Co, .. / 
 
 Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler : — Badische) 
 Anilin und Soda fabrik D. .. .. .,j 
 
 [1891] ICh: 187 ;C. A. [1891]) 
 
 IGh. 475 .. .. ••/ 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 588 
 [1899] W. N. 243; 0. A. [1900]) 
 
 W. N. 50; [1900] ICh. 508 f 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 616 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 101 .. 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 98 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 615 .. 
 [1891] 2 Ch; 386 • 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 445 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 153; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 
 339 .. .. / 
 
 [1899] W."n. 109 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 578 ; 0. A. [1900] W. N. 113 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 121 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 417 
 [1900] W. N. 273 
 [1900] W. N. 235 ; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 
 846 / 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 166 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 208 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 110 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 238 .. 
 0. A.[189d] ICh. 128 .. 
 
 [1896] P. 256 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 260 ; 
 231 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 123 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 0. A. [1892]1Q. B. 94., 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 499 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 671 . 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 209 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 161 
 
 0. A. [1895] r-Q. B. 850; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] W. N. 153 
 
 (10); [1896] A..C. 1.. 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (4); C. A.' 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 28 .. ../ 
 
 [1898] W. N. 154 (5) ; [1899]) 
 
 ICh. 72 j 
 
 [1893] W. N. 139 ; [1893] 3 Ch. 
 
 437 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 286 . . 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 329 
 [1897] W. N. 158 (1);..[1898]) 
 
 P. 11 I 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 284 
 [1895] W. N. 23 
 0. A. [1891]1Q. B. 346.. 
 [1899] W. 2T. 215 ; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 
 73 } 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] W. N. 167 (8) :) 
 
 [1898] A. 0.200 .. ; 
 
 '.) 
 
 329, 449 
 1917 
 1435 
 
 161 
 1391 
 1568 
 1038 
 
 336 
 249, 292 
 
 1474 
 
 2046, 
 2207 
 
 1073 
 2166 
 
 382 
 
 1680 
 
 294 
 2086 
 
 56 
 1660 
 
 740 
 2223 
 
 2112 
 
 922, 
 1522 
 1767 
 
 516 
 1524 
 1036, 
 2069 
 
 53 
 
 328 
 
 1192 
 
 1498, 
 2149 
 2150 
 101 
 
 1597 
 
 42 
 2173 
 1501 
 
 531 
 
 1428 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 £XTU 
 
 Name of Caue. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •{ 
 
 Bassano v. Bradley 
 
 Basset «. St. Levan 
 
 Bassett, In re. Ex parte Lewis .. 
 
 Bassett, In re. Bassett v. Bassett 
 
 Bassett u. Allen. In re Allen ., 
 
 Bassett: — North u. 
 
 Bassett «. Tong 
 
 Bassett's Plaster Co., In re 
 
 Baster v. London and County Printing Works .. | 
 Bate: — Armour v. 
 
 Bateman (Lady) v. Faber 
 
 Bateman (Baroness) and Parker's Contract, In rej 
 
 Bater and Birkenhead Corporation, In re ..< 
 
 Bates w. Donaldson 
 
 Bates V. Kesterton 
 
 Bath, St. John's Hospital : — ^Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Bath and Wells (Bishop of)i In re 
 
 Bath and Wells (Bishop of) : — ^Marriner v. 
 Bath Gras Light and Coke Co. : — Carr & Co. v. 
 Bath Union (Guardians of) v. Berwick-upon-'l 
 Tweed Union (Gruardians of) .. .. .. / 
 
 Batho w. Tunks 
 
 Batt (John) & Co. v. Dunnett .. 
 
 Batt & Co.'s Trade-mark, In re .. 
 
 Batt's Settled Estates, In re 
 
 Battams, Ex parte. In re Wenham 
 
 Battams and Hutchinson, In re .. 
 Battersea (Lord) v. Commissioners of Sewers for) 
 the City of London .. .. ,.. ..) 
 
 Battison «. Hobson . 
 
 Baumvoll Manufactur von Scheibler v. Eumess 
 
 Baimivoll Manufactur von Scheibler v. Gilchrestl 
 &Co. .. j- 
 
 Bavins, Junr. & Sims v. London and South"| 
 Western Bank .... .. ... ., ../ 
 
 Bawden, In re. National Provincial Bank oH 
 England v. Cress well. Bawden v. Cresswell J. 
 
 1896" 
 189.4' 
 1896' 
 1894' 
 189.8' 
 
 1 Q. B. 645 
 W. N. 204 . 
 
 1 Q. B. 219 
 3 Oh. 179 •• 
 
 2 Oh. 499 
 
 ■{ 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 833 
 [1894]2Q. B. 332. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 96 ■ .. ..| 
 
 [1899] W. N. 53 ;■ [1899] 1 Q. B.| 
 
 901 .. .. .. ..f 
 
 C. A- [1891] 2 Q. B. 233 
 [1897] 2Ch. 223; C. A. [1897] 
 
 W. N. 16.7 (5) ; [1898] 1 Ch. 
 
 144 ; [1899] W. N. 241 ; .[1900] 
 
 W.N. 157 .. .. . .. 
 
 [189.9] W. N. 30 (L>; [189J9] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 599 .. .. .. .. J 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 679 ; 0. A. [1893i\ 
 
 2Q. B. 77 / 
 
 C. A; [1896] 2 Q. B. 241 
 
 [1895] W. N. 153 (13) ; [1896]\ 
 
 ICh. 159 / 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 151 
 
 [1899] W. N. 91 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 138 ../ 
 
 [1893] P. 145, n. 
 [1900] W. N. 265, n 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 731 
 
 [1892] W. N. 101 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 90 n 
 [1899] A. C. 428 .. ../ 
 
 [1898] W. .N. 44(15); affirmed' 
 by C. A. sub nom. Batt (John) 
 & Co. (In re Registered Trade- 
 Marks of) and In re .Carter's 
 Application for a Trade-Mark, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 432. See also 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 701 .. ' .. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 65 
 
 [1900] W. N. 117; C. A. [1900] 
 W. N. 156; C. A. [1900] 2 
 Q.B. 698 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 699 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 708 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 403 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 310 ; C. A. [1892] 
 IQ. B. 253; H.L.(E.) [1893] 
 A..C. 8 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 310; 0. A. [1892]) 
 1 Q. B. 253; H.,L.(E.).[1893][ 
 A. C. 8 J 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 248; C. A.\ 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 270 .. ../ 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 693 .. ..( 
 
 592 
 2366 
 
 121 
 
 80 
 1125 
 
 222, 
 2098 
 
 594 
 
 444, 595, 
 
 1926 
 
 1234 
 
 1558 
 
 915, 
 1899 
 
 742 
 
 831, 
 1037 
 1056 
 
 1887 
 
 1091 
 
 1890 
 
 753 
 1345 
 
 1461 
 
 1724 
 
 2133 
 
 41 
 
 920 
 
 140 
 
 2030 
 1118 
 1290 
 
 1942 
 
 1942 
 
 2158 
 
 2302, 
 2338 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Bawden v. London, Bdinburgli and Grlasgow Life' 
 Insurance Oo. .. 
 
 Baxendale v. Lucas 
 
 Baxendale : — PhytHan v. 
 
 Baxter, Ex parte. In re Vince .. 
 
 Baxter: — Forget v. 
 Baxter v. France (No. 1) .. 
 (No. 2).. 
 
 Baxter ?;. Holdsworth 
 
 Baxter v. Middleton 
 
 Baxter : — Smith v. 
 
 Baxters, Ld., In re 
 
 Bayard: — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 Baylis, Ex parte. In re Thompson 
 
 Bay lis. In re 
 
 Baylis v. Jiggens .. 
 
 Baynes & Co. v. Lloyd & Sons .. 
 
 Beales : — Leveson v. In re Applebee 
 Beall, Inre. Ex parte Beall 
 
 BeaU, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 
 Beall : — Joyce v. ,, 
 Bean v. Flower 
 Bean: — Wildings. 
 Beard : — Anderson & Oo. u. 
 
 Beard: — Hart u. .. 
 
 Beard v. London General Omnibus Oo. . 
 
 Beardmore, Ex parte. In re Clark 
 
 Beardsley v. Beardsley 
 
 Beardsley v. Walton & Co. 
 
 Beasley v. Eoney . . 
 
 Beaton v. Boulton.. 
 
 Beattie : — Pletts v. 
 
 Beauchamp, Ex parte. In re Beauchamp Brothers/ 
 
 Beauchamp: — ^Lovell & Christmas v. 
 Beauchamp Brothers : — Harris v. (No. 1) 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Beauchemin: — Lorocque «. 
 Beauclerk v. Beauclerk (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. ;; 
 
 Beaudry v. Barbeau 
 
 Beaufort's Will, In re .. '.'. " 
 
 Beaumont, In re .. .. .. ", 
 
 Beaumont w. Bowers 
 
 Beaumont: — Norman t». .. 
 Beaver v. Victoria Supreme Court of (Master 
 Equity of) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 !?} 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 534 .. | 
 
 [1895]W. N. 30 .. ..| 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 768 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 587; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 478 .. .. ../ 
 
 P. 0. [1900] A. 0. 467 .. 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 455 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 591 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 169 (10) ;\ 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 266 
 1898" 
 1900 
 1898" 
 1892° 
 1894' 
 C. A.' 
 [1898' 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1 Oh. 313 
 
 W.N. 87; [1900] 2 Oh. 138 
 
 W. N. 60 (3) .. 
 
 2Q. B. 181 
 
 IQ. B. 462 
 
 1896] 2 Oh. 107 .. 
 
 ■ W. N. 64 (3) ; [1898]) 
 
 2Q. B. 315 f 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 820; 0. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 610 / 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 422 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 135 
 
 [1899] W. N. 10 (3); [1899]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 688 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 459 
 
 0. A. 
 0. A 
 [190O 
 
 1895] W. N. 120 (12) 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 100 
 2Q. B. 260 
 
 156 (4) 
 
 [1895] W. N, 
 
 1 Q. B. 54 
 0. A 
 
 C. A. 
 1899' 
 1900 
 1891' 
 1891' 
 1896' 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 
 1 Q. B. 746 
 2Q. B. 1.. 
 1 Q. B. 509 
 W. N. 30 
 1 Q. B. 519 
 
 530 
 393 
 
 [1896]| 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 1 ; H. L. (E.) I 
 [1894] A. C. 607 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. 0. 607 ../ 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 534 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 801 ../ 
 
 P. 0. [1897] A. C. 358 .. 
 0. A. [1891] P. 189 
 
 [1895] P. 220 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 569 ., 
 [1898] W. N. 148 (5) .. 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 490 
 [1900] W. N. 117 ; [1900] 2 Q. B.I 
 
 204 1 
 
 [1893] W. N. 45 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0. 251 .. ../ 
 
 979, 
 1576 
 1496, 
 2063 
 890 
 
 140 
 
 247 
 
 35, 1555. 
 
 1555 
 
 1558 
 
 1139 
 1120 
 
 481 
 
 607 
 2029 
 2042 
 
 1060 
 
 1083 
 
 2338 
 
 127 
 
 180 
 
 661 
 1549' 
 1547 
 
 2077 
 
 1391 
 
 1242 
 
 115 
 
 769 
 
 16 
 
 903 
 
 1284 
 
 1108 
 
 106, 139, 
 
 161, 
 1025, 
 1496 
 1420, 
 1698 
 1420 
 1025, 
 1697 
 
 255 
 
 702 
 
 704 
 
 10 
 2199 
 
 724 
 
 1775 
 
 1300 
 1787, 
 2261 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Caee. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 "Walters v. 
 
 Bebb: — Eowlls v. In re Eowlls. 
 Solicitor of the Treasury 
 
 Bebro, In re 
 
 Bechuanaland Exploration Co. v. London Tradingl 
 Bank / 
 
 !■} 
 
 •{ 
 
 Beckett v. Tower Assets Co. 
 
 Beckhnson & Gibbs v. Hamblet .. 
 
 Beokwitb, Ex parte. In re New British Iron Co. 
 
 Beddington, In re. Micholls v. Samuel .. | 
 
 Beddington «. Beddington. In re Moses 
 Beddoe, In re. Downes v. Cottam 
 Beddoe: — ^Austins;. 
 
 Beddow : — Grillingham v, .. .. 
 
 Bedford (Duke of) v. Ellis 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Bedford: — Schlesinger v. 
 
 Bedfordshire County Council and Bedford Urban'! 
 
 Sanitary Authority, In re .. .. ../ 
 
 Bedingfield and Herrings Contract, In re 
 
 "Bedouin," The 
 
 Bedouin Steam Navigation Co : — Smith & Co. v. 
 
 Beech: — ^Att.-Gen. «. .. ., ., ..< 
 
 Beedom : — Hadley & Son v. 
 
 Beeman, In re. Fowler «. James .. ..| 
 
 Beeney, In re. Ffrench v. Sproston 
 Beesley and King, In re. Ex parte King and"* 
 Beesley .. .. .. .. .• .. / 
 
 Beeston, In re ., .. .. .. 
 
 Beeston Pneumatic Tyre Co., In re 
 
 Beighton «. Beighton 
 
 Belfield «. Bourne .. 
 
 Belgian Mills Co. : — ^Pearson «... 
 
 Belgravian Estate, Ld. : — -Prinsep v. 
 
 Belize Estate and Produce Co. v. Quilter 
 
 Bell, In re. Bell v. Bell 
 
 Bell, In re. Jeffery «. Sayles .. 
 
 Bell V.Balis 
 
 Bell :— Baird K. 
 
 Bell V. Danson. In re Danson .. 
 
 Bell v. Dudley (Earl of) 
 
 Bell V. Gait 
 
 Bell: — ^Perkins ■»... 
 
 Bell:— Beg. v 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 108 ; [1900]! 
 
 2Ch. 107 f 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 128 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 316 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 658 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 1 ; 
 
 1 Q. B. 638 .. 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 18 
 1898] 1 Ch. 324 
 1900] W.N. 76; 
 
 771 .. 
 
 [1900; 
 
 W. N. 182 
 
 C. A. [1891]1 
 [1900] 1 Ch.| 
 
 0. A. [1893] 1 Gh. 547 
 
 [1893] W. N. 78 
 
 [1900] W. N. 115; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 242 ^ 
 
 [1898] W. N. 169 (11); C. A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 19 (10) ; [1899] 
 
 ICh. 494; H. L. (E.) [1900] 
 
 W.N. 268 .. 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 57 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 786 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 332 
 C. A. [1894] P. 1 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 70 
 
 [1897]2Q. B. 535;C. A. 
 
 1898]' 
 
 2Q. B. 147; H.L.(B.) [1898] 
 
 W. N. 166 (13) ; [1899] A. C. 
 
 53 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 646 
 
 [1895] W. N. 151 (1); [1896]\ 
 
 ICh. 48 ./ 
 
 [1894] 1 Oh. 499 
 
 [1894] W. N. 182 
 
 [1898] W. N. 171 (1) ; C. A.1 
 [1899] W. N. 18(4); [1899] 
 IQ. B. 626 j 
 
 1898] W. N. 34 (4) .. 
 
 1895] W. N. 119 (7) .. 
 
 1894] 1 Ch. 521 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 244 
 
 0. A. [1896] W. N. 39 (1) 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 367 .. 
 
 [1894] W.N. 9 1 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 139 (8);\ 
 [1896]lCh. 1 .. ../ 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 663 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. 0. 420 .. 
 [1895] W. N. 102 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 182 .. .. I 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [189811 
 W.N. Ill \. .. ..I 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 193 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 391 
 
 1854 
 143 
 1319 
 
 205 
 
 2076 
 350 
 
 2305 
 
 1468 
 558 
 799 
 
 1418 
 
 1515 
 
 528, 970 
 
 578, 896 
 
 2234 
 986 
 1978 
 
 1748 
 
 199 
 802 
 1520 
 142 
 
 130 
 
 414 
 
 525 
 1414 
 1235 
 1117 
 
 219 
 792, 
 1525 
 
 1299 
 
 1571 
 
 1845 
 
 10 
 
 1268, 
 2068 
 
 1373 
 
 1818 
 1195 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ifame of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Bell :— Stuart v 
 
 Bell & Co. V. Antwerp, London and Brazil Line 
 
 Bellamy «. Davey.. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Bellamy i;. Debenham 
 
 Bellamy: — Perrins «. 
 
 Bellencontre, In re 
 
 Bellinger, In re. Durell -m. Bellinger .. 
 
 Bellyse i;. M'Ginn 
 
 Belsey : — Cooper v. 
 Belson : — Eosenbaura v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Belton tJ. Busby & Wood^ 
 
 Bence, In re. Smith v. Bence .. 
 
 Ben ce u. Shearman .. .. .. , 
 
 Bendy, In re. Wallis i;. Bendy .. 
 
 Beneficed Clerk v. Lee 
 
 Benford v. Sims .. 
 
 Benham : — Ajasv..'.' 
 
 Benjamin Brooke & Co. v. Inland Revenue\ 
 
 Commrs. .. .. ., .. .../ 
 
 Bennett, In re. In re Sharpe. Masonic andj 
 
 General Life Assurance Co. v. Sharpe ., / 
 
 Bennett, In re. Clarke v. White .. .. | 
 
 Bennett, In re. Jones v. Bennett 
 Bennett : — Australian Newspaper Co. v. 
 
 Bennett V. Bennett. In re Fish.. 
 
 Bennett : — Cox v..'.' 
 
 Bennett v. Harding 
 Bennett : — Keeble ■;;. 
 Bennett : — ^Machin v. 
 Bennett : — Norie v. 
 Bennett v. E^bbeck. 
 
 Bennett v. Slater .. 
 
 In re Medows 
 In re Eebbeok 
 
 Bennett: — Spiers & Pond i;. .. 
 Bennetts &' Co. v. Mcll wraith & Co. 
 Bennicourt ?). Le Gendre .. 
 Bensaude v. Hastings. In re Tatham .. 
 Bensaude & Co. u. Thames and Mersey Marine f 
 Insurance Co. .. ' .. .. .. ..\ 
 
 Benson, In re. EUetson v. Pillars 
 
 Benson v. Grant. In re Brown .. 
 
 Bentham Hemp Spinning Co. : — Eeddaway v. 
 
 Bentinok, Ip re. Bentinck v. Bentinok 
 
 Bentinok: — Davey v. 
 
 •{ 
 
 [1891]| 
 
 . [1899]| 
 
 •{ 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 341 
 C. A. [I89lj 1 Q. B. 103 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 540; C. A. 
 
 W. N. 102 .. .; 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 412 .. 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 521 ; C. A. 
 
 W.N. 50; [1899] 1 Oh."797 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 122 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 534 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 227 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 20 (12); 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 639 .. ' ,. 
 [190.0] W. N. 123 ; [1900] 2 Ch.l 
 
 267 ( 
 
 [1899] W. N. 115 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 380 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 242 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 582 .. 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 109 
 P. C. [1897] A. 0. 226 .. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 641 . .. 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 244 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q; B. 356 
 
 C. A. [1892]lCh;154 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 173 (8); 
 
 1 Oh. 316 
 C. A;[1896]lCh:778 ., 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 284 ., 
 
 [1899]1 
 
 C. A. [1893J 2 Ch. 413 .. 
 
 C. A; [1891] 1 Ch. 617 .. 
 
 "1900] 2 Q, B. 397 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 329 
 
 1900] W. N. 146 
 
 1898] 1 Ch. 300 
 
 1894] W. N. 68 
 
 1898] 1 Q, B. 469; reversed by 
 
 ■ 0. A. [1898] W. N. 150 (5); 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 45 .. .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 65 
 C. A: [1896] 2 Q. B. 464 
 P. 0. [1900] A. C. 173 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 150 
 C. A, [1897] 1 Q. E. 29 ; affirmed! 
 
 byH. L. (B.) [1897] A. .C. 609/ 
 [1898] W. U. 155 (9); [1899] 1 
 
 Ch. 39 
 
 [1895 
 0. A. 
 [1897 
 0. A. 
 1 Q."B. 185 
 
 '.'} 
 
 W. N. 115 (-9) .. 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 639 
 ■lCh.'673 •■ 
 1892]. W.N- 186;, [1893iv 
 
 649, 652 
 1541 
 517, 
 2092 
 
 2228 
 
 2179 
 
 617, 810 
 1469 
 142, 
 1926 
 
 1888 
 2241 
 
 2349 
 
 73 
 1901 
 
 761 
 1029 
 1421 
 
 1797 
 
 342, 
 1127 
 
 1299 
 
 1411 
 644, 
 1500 
 575, 
 1501, 
 2059, 
 2166 
 916, 
 1501 
 1165 
 589 
 1414 
 1866 
 801 
 
 858 
 
 21 
 1506 
 
 5 
 691 
 
 991 
 
 1518 
 
 7 
 2138 
 797 
 679, 
 1530 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Bentinck u. London Joint Stock Bank .. 
 
 Bentley v. Manchester, ShefBeld and Lincolnshire^ 
 Ry.Co. ;. ,/ 
 
 Bentley (H.) & Co. and Yorkshire Breweries, Ld. :\ 
 — ^Shaw u. .. .. .. ., .;•/ 
 
 Bentsen v. Taylor, Sons & Co. (No. 1) .. 
 
 — — (No. 2) .. .;■ 
 
 Berens: — ^Hickman v. 
 
 Beresford :■ — ^^Furness v. (The York Election Peti- 
 tion) 
 
 Berger: — "Reg. v. .. 
 
 Berger: — Shepherds. 
 
 Bergtheil .-T-^Crowly w. 
 
 Berlin: — Courts... 
 
 Bemers, In re. Berners w. Calvert 
 
 " Bemicia " Steamship, In re 
 
 Bernstein «. Bernstein (No. 1) .. 
 
 ^(No. 2) 
 
 Berry: — Burnett f. .. ;. 
 
 Berry, In re. Duffield v. Williams 
 
 Berry, Ex parte. In re Flack .. 
 
 Berry v. Halifax Commercial Banking Co. 
 
 Berry; — "Wyatt v. .. .. 
 
 Bertram Luipaard's Vlei Gold Mining Co., In re, 
 
 In re Trust and Investment Corporation of| 
 
 South Africa 
 Berwick-upon-Tweed Union (Guardians of) : — ' 
 
 Bath Union (Guardians of) r. .. 
 
 Bessie Morris SS. Co. : — Assicurazioni Generali v.i 
 
 Bethell (William), In re 
 
 Bethell v. Trench Tubeless Tyre Co. In re\ 
 Trench Tubeless Tyre Co. „ .. .,/ 
 
 Bethnal Green, St. Matthew (Vestry) : — Fortes- 
 cue u. 
 
 Bethnal Green, St. Matthew (Churchwardens 
 &c. of) : — West Ham (Guardians of) v. No. 1\ 
 
 _ (No. 2) 
 
 Bethnal Green Vestry v. Londem School Board _. 
 
 Bethnal Green, In re Poor Iiands Charity 
 Bethunfi «>. jBethune ' ,. 
 Betjemannv. Betjemann.. 
 
 Betteridge: — Lolew» 
 
 Betterton : — Wilmot v. In re Wihnot 
 Betts, In re. Ex parte Betts ., 
 Betts ;^Comfort t>. 
 
 Betty, Inre. . Betty.i;. Att.-Gen. 
 
 Bevaji V. London Portland Cement Co. 
 
 Bevani — Westacott.v. 
 
 Beverldge :-^-Hanbidge v. (Conlan's Case) 
 
 Volume aad Page. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 120 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 222 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1893] W. N. 83 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1895 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 193 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 274 
 2 Ch. 638 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 495 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 823 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 697 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 374 
 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 396- 
 AV. N. 171 
 W. N. 24 
 P. 375 .. 
 1893] P. 292 
 IQ. B. 641 
 ICK. 939"' 
 W. N. 83 ; [1900] 2 
 
 Q.B. 
 
 0. A. 
 1892' 
 1900° 
 1892° 
 C. A.' 
 1896" 
 1896° 
 1900' 
 ■ 32 " 
 
 [1900] W.N. 262 
 [1893] P. 5 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 332 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 731 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 571 ; C. A. [1892]! 
 
 2Q. B. 652 .'.■ .. ..( 
 [1899]W.N. 47 ' 
 [1899] W. N. 258"; C. AV[1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 42 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 408 / 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 170 
 
 [1892]2QiB. 65- 0. A. [1892] 
 
 2Q. B.676; H, L. (E.) [1894] 
 
 A. C. 230 .. . 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 662 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 319 ; H. L. 
 
 (E,) [1897] W. N. 167 (7) 
 
 [1§98]A,.C. 190 
 
 [1891 
 [1891 
 C.A. 
 C. A, 
 
 3 Ch. 400 
 
 P. 205 
 
 1895] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 " [1897] W. N. 178 (3) ; 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 256 
 
 [1897 
 C. A; 
 C.A. 
 [1899' 
 821' 
 
 W. N. 44 (15) 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 50 .. 
 "1891]. 1 Q. B. 737 
 
 W. N. 57; [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 151 
 
 [1891] 1 Q.-B. 774- 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 132 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2076 
 633, 
 1498 
 
 405 
 
 569 
 1936 
 
 488 
 
 1366 
 
 612^ 
 623 
 1081 
 1312 
 2048- 
 1897 
 364 
 695 
 695 
 541 
 1508- 
 
 2279 
 
 91 
 159T 
 
 440, 
 441 
 
 1461 
 
 1970 
 103a 
 
 448 
 1152 
 
 1462- 
 
 1457' 
 
 1169- 
 
 272 
 703 
 1129- 
 
 130 
 
 2334 
 157 
 
 74 
 
 1884 
 
 731, 
 
 2203 
 
 1527,. 
 
 2027 
 
 1382 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Kame of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •{ 
 
 Beveridge: — Jones v. (Kavanagh's Case) 
 Beveridge : — Jones v. (Keam's Case) ., 
 Beves: — Morris «. 
 
 Bew V. Bew 
 
 Bewes: — Badoliffe «. In re Radcliffe .. 
 
 Bexley Heath By. Co. : — Dartford Rural Councill 
 
 Bexley Heath Ey. Co. v. North .. 
 Bexton : — United Forty Pound Club v... 
 Beyer, Peacock & Co., Ex parte. In re Clark ., 
 
 Beyfus: — Poyser «>. In re Perkins 
 
 Beyts & Craig, In re. Ex parte Cooper 
 
 Bihby Brothers & Co., Owners of SS. " Lanca- 
 shire" V. Leetham, Owners of SS. "Ariel." 
 The " Lancashire " 
 
 Biddulph V. BilUter Street Offices Co 
 
 Bideford (Rector, etc.), Ex parte. In re Bide- 
 ford Parish 
 
 Bid well Brothers, In re .. 
 
 Bielby: — Hardcastle i». .. 
 
 Biernstein: — Jones «. 
 
 Big Blow Gold Mines : — Etherington v. 
 Biggerstaff v. Eowatt's Wharf, Ld. Howard v.\ 
 
 Bo watt's Wharf, Ld J 
 
 Biggs «. DagnaU .. 
 Biggs V. Evans 
 
 Biggs V. Hoddinott. Hoddinott v. Biggs 
 
 Bignell, In re. Bignell v. Chapman 
 
 Billings V. Holloway 
 
 Billingham : — Bache w. .. 
 
 Billington (J. H.), Ld. : — London and North) 
 Western and Great Western Joint By. Co. 
 
 
 Billiter Street Offices Co. : — Biddulph v. 
 
 Bills V. Tatham. In re Patrick.. 
 
 Bilston (Commrs.) : — Wolverhampton (Oorpora-'l 
 
 tion) V. .. .. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 Bing, Ex parte. In re Mason .. 
 
 Binnie: — Strachan «. .. .. .. ..I 
 
 Binning v. Binning 
 
 Biunington & Co. : — Budgett & Co. «. .. 
 
 Binns, In re. Lee v. Binns 
 
 Binstead, In re. Ex parte Dale .. 
 
 Biornstad: — Preston Corporation ri. The "Batata" 
 
 Birch: — Norrisu. .. 
 
 Birchall v. Bullough 
 
 Bircham, In re 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 130 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 131 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 449 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 132 ; [1899]\ 
 
 2 Oh. 467 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 662 ; 0. A. [1892] 
 
 ICh. 227 
 
 0. A. 11896] 2 Q. B. 74; H. L, 
 
 (E.) [1897] W. N. 171 (6) ; 
 
 [1898] A. C. 210 
 
 C. A.| 
 
 0. A. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 579 
 
 11891 
 
 1 Q. B. 28, n. . 
 
 C.A. 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 476 
 
 [1898] 
 
 W. N. 18 (4); 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 182 
 [1894] W. N. 56 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 47 ; H. L. 
 [1894] A. 0. 1 
 
 [1895] W. N. 98 
 
 [1900] W.N. 184; 
 
 (E.) 
 
 •>) 
 
 [1900] P. 314 
 
 3! 
 
 1893] 1 Ch. 603 
 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 709 
 
 1899] W. N. 12 (10) ; [1899] 
 
 1 Q. B. 470; C.A. [1900] 1. 
 Q. B. 100 ) 
 
 [1897] W. N. 21 (9) .. 
 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 93 ,. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 207 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 88 
 
 [1898] W. N. 58 (7) ; affirmed\ 
 
 by 0. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 307 ../ 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 59 .. 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 159 (8);\ 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 70 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 107 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 748 ; C. A. [1898] 
 
 2 Q. B. 7 ; H. L. (E.) [1899] 
 A. C. 79 
 
 1895]W. N. 98 
 
 1891] 1 Oh. 82 
 
 1891] 1 Ch. 315 ; C. A. [1891]) 
 
 W.N. 56 J 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 810 
 Registration App. Ct, (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 W.N. 99 / 
 
 [1895] W. N. 116 (16) .. .. I 
 
 C. A. [1891]1Q. B. 35.. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 584 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 199 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1898] A. C. 513 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 639 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 325 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 786 .. .J 
 
 1383 
 1382 
 1824 
 
 558 
 1482 
 
 1663 
 
 1086 
 205 
 104 
 
 1055 
 
 117, 
 2030 
 
 1950 
 
 1284 
 
 747 
 
 360 
 890 
 
 683 
 
 1848 
 
 334 
 
 1493 
 816 
 
 1295 
 
 1705 
 
 1216 
 
 56,855 
 
 1665 
 
 1284 
 1908 
 
 2278 
 
 152 
 
 1399 
 
 1023, 
 2359 
 1965 
 
 802 
 
 103, 700 
 
 1979 
 
 884 
 
 782 
 1276, 
 2034 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Bird, Id re. Pitman u Pitman .. 
 Bird f . Barstow .. 
 
 Bird V. Davey 
 
 Bird u. Philpott 
 
 Bird:— Beg. i;. Ex parte Needes 
 
 Bird : — St. Martin-in-the-Fields (Vestry) v. 
 
 Bird ■M.St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington (Vestry) 
 
 Bird : — Wandsworth. District Board v. .. 
 
 Bird : — ^Wieland v. 
 
 Birkdale Steam Laundry and Carpet Beating Co., 
 
 In re 
 Birkeniiead Assessment Committee : — Mersey) 
 
 Docks and Harbour Board j;. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Birkett (or Kelsall or Eliott) v. Purdom 
 
 Birks, In re. Kenyon v. Birks .. 
 
 Birmingham and District Land Co. and Alld»y,"l 
 In re .. ,. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Birmingham Battery and Metal Co. : — Williams) 
 v. / 
 
 Birmingham Breweries, Ld., In re. Ward 
 Birmingham Breweries, Ld. 
 
 Birmingham Breweries, Ld. v. Jameson .. < 
 
 Birmingham Corporation «;. Poster 
 
 Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co. v. Powell . . | 
 
 Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co. : — Powell v.\ 
 
 (1^0.1) -. I 
 
 ■— (No. 2) 
 
 Birrell v. Greenhough. In re Crossley 
 
 Birtwdstle: — Hindle v. 
 
 Bischoffsheim : — ^Boyd v... 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 'of 
 Digest, 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 279 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 
 9i, 
 
 :■} 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 ■( 
 
 Judkins v. Judkins.. 
 
 Bishop V. Bishop. 
 Bishop V. Duffy 
 
 Bishop: — Equitable Life Assurance Society o: 
 United States v. 
 
 Bishop V. Holt. In re Cheadle .. 
 
 Bishop V. Smyrna and Cassaba Ey. Co. (No. 1) 
 — (No. 2) 
 
 Bishop (B.) & Sons, Ld., In re 
 
 Bishopsgate Foundation, In re 
 
 Bissill V. Bradford and District Tramways Co'.l 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 { 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B 29.. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 822 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 340 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 428 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 912 
 
 18921 1 Q- B. 481 
 
 1894] P. 262 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 386 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 143 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 3T1 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 24 (13) ; [1899] 1 
 
 Ch. 703 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 249; [1900] 1 Ch. 417 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 342 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 106 
 2 Q. B. 338 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 92 
 
 [1898] W. N. 15 (8) 
 
 [1898].W. N. 145 . 
 [1894] W. N. 43 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 54 ; 
 
 (E.) [1897] A. C. 710 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 8 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 449 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 928 
 
 [1896] W. N. 178 (3) ; [1897] 1 
 
 Q. B. 192 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 1 
 C. A. [1897] P. 138 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1898]\ 
 
 W.N. 88 / 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 439; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 177 / 
 
 [1899]| 
 
 C. A, 
 
 :\ 
 
 H. L 
 
 .'] 
 
 [1900] W. N. 174 ; [1900]) 
 
 620 / 
 
 2 Ch. 265 
 2 Ch. 596 
 W. N. 110 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 <No. 1) 
 
 •/ 
 
 Blaby : — Reg. i>. .. 
 
 Black V. Christchurch Finance Co. 
 
 Black V. Clay 
 
 Black ». Dawson .. 
 
 Black : — Twigg v. In re Twigg's Estate 
 
 Bkck and White Publishing Co. :— Fisher v. 
 
 (No. 2)' 
 
 C. A, 
 
 2Ch, 
 
 1895" 
 
 1895° 
 
 1900' 
 
 254" 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 185 
 
 [1891] W. N. 51 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 44 .. 
 C. C. E. [1894] 2 Q. B. 170 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 48 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 368 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 848 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 579 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 271 
 
 ■;} 
 
 519 
 922, 
 1522 
 
 197, 
 1530 
 
 181 
 1098 
 1169 
 1349 
 1174 
 1606 
 
 441, 442 
 
 1680 
 1834 
 
 2313 
 
 2224, 
 2235 
 1226, 
 1251 
 
 467 
 
 1058 
 1210 
 2140 
 
 2135 
 
 2142 
 285 
 
 1236 
 
 44 
 692 
 
 1396 
 1772 
 
 2326 
 
 411 
 411 
 
 483 
 
 1091 
 
 330 
 
 2051 
 621 
 1243 
 1054, 
 1835 
 1540 
 1013 
 355 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Black u. Williams 
 
 Blackburn (W.) & Co., In re. Buckley's Case 
 
 Blackburne t>. Ilope Edwardes .. 
 
 " Blackcock," The, and The " Morgengry " 
 
 Blaeklidge v. Anderton .. 
 
 Blackman v. Fysh 
 
 Blackmore : — Morton v. In re Brewer's Settle 
 ment 
 
 Blackmore v. White 
 
 Blackpool Motor Car Co., In re. Hamilton v, 
 
 Blackpool Motor Car Co. 
 Blackpool Winter Grardens and Pavilion Co. :- 
 
 Fuller V... 
 
 B'ackwood: — Muddock i). 
 
 Blades: — Wilkinsons. Iq re Lait 
 
 Blaiberg and Abrahams, In re .. 
 
 Blair V. Assets Co. 
 
 " Biairmore " Sailing Ship Co. v. Macredie 
 
 Blake, In re 
 
 Blake : — Fenner v. 
 
 Blake v. Halse 
 
 Blake v.Woolf 
 
 Blaker v. Tillstone 
 
 Blakeway v. Patteshall .. 
 Bland, la re. Miller v. Bland .. 
 
 Bland: — Darlow v. 
 
 Bland 1). Low. In re Low 
 
 Bland's Case. In re Westmoreland Green and) 
 Blue Slate Co. .. .. .. .. .. ( 
 
 Blandford V. Blandford 
 
 Blandy : — Simmons i;. 
 
 Blandy- Jenkins v. Dunraven (Earl of) 
 
 Blane, Ex parte. In re Hallett & Co. 
 
 Blantern, In re. Lowe v. Cooke 
 
 Blantyre (l.ord) : — Clyde Navigation (Trustees\ 
 oi)v. 
 
 Blazer Fire Lighter, Ld., In re 
 
 Blenkiiisop v. Ogdea 
 Blenkinsop: — Beg. i;. 
 Blewitt V. Tritton . . 
 Blogg: — Chandlers. 
 
 Blogg : — Sea Insurance Co. v. 
 Bloomenthal v. Ford 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1895] 1 Oh. 408 
 
 [1899] W. N. 126; [1899] 2 Cb.-) 
 
 725 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 175 
 
 [1899] W. N. 211 ; C. A. [1900]! 
 
 [1893] W.'n. 112' 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 209 
 
 [189C] 2 Ch. 503 .. - 
 
 [1898] W. N. 172 (6) ; [1899] 
 Q. B. 293 
 
 [1900] W. N. 252 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 429 
 
 [1897] W. N. 158 (4) ; [1898] 
 Ch. 58 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 788 
 
 [1899] W. N. 98 ; [1899] 2 Ch 
 340 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 409 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. 0. 593 
 
 C. A. [1895] W.N. 51 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 17 ; [1900] 1 Q. B, 
 426 
 
 [1892] W. N. 143 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 426 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 345 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 247 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 336 
 0. A. [1896] W. N. 174 (1) 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 125 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 147 .. 
 
 '] 
 
 '} 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 612 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 148 .. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (7) ; [1897] 
 
 Ch. 19 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 88 : [1899]) 
 
 2Ch. 121 / 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 237 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 54 .. 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 703 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 402 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 783 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 43 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 327 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 32 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 27 ; affirmed by 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 398 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 525 ; H, 
 
 (E.) [1897] A. C. 156 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1986 
 
 468 
 
 1716 
 
 1955 
 
 679 
 1696, 
 2322 
 
 1905 
 524 
 132 
 536 
 
 529 
 
 768 
 
 2252 
 
 1831 
 1002 
 1498 
 
 1065 
 
 31 
 
 1075 
 830, 
 
 1037 
 583 
 
 2301 
 
 202 
 
 788, 
 1560 
 
 345 
 
 693 
 
 1281 
 
 772 
 
 116 
 2311, 
 2319 
 
 1449 
 
 469, 
 1674 
 1237 
 1689 
 45, 1803 
 
 998 
 
 983 
 246 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Blount 1). Layard .. 
 
 B!oxwich Iron and- Steel Co., In re 
 
 " Blue Bell," The 
 
 Bluman: — Marshall v. .. 
 
 Blumberg v. Li''e Interests and Rtversionary 
 .focurities Corporation .. 
 
 Blumberg v. Life Interests and Eeversionary) 
 Securities Corporation .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Blundell:— Asfar&Co. v | 
 
 Bh th, Ex pArte. Hood Barrs y. Heriot 
 
 BIyth V. Fladgate ., 
 
 Blyth: — Morgan t;. 
 
 Blyth:— Smith «; 
 
 Blyth Harbour Commrs. v. Newsham and South 
 Blyth Churchwardens and Tyncmouth Union 
 Assessment Committee 
 
 Bly the :— Tilling, Ld. i; 
 
 B Jake V. Stevenson 
 
 Boaler, Ex part?. Eeg. v. London (Lord Mayor of) 
 
 Boaler w. Brodhurst (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 B-iard of Trade, Ex parte. In re Burr . . 
 
 Board of Trade, Ex parte. In re Cornish 
 
 Board of Trade, Ex parte. 
 Board of Trade, Ex parte. 
 
 In re Hedley 
 In re Hunt . . 
 
 Board of Trade, Ex parte. In re Lamb 
 
 Board of Trade, Ex parte. In re Norman 
 
 Board of Trade, Ex parte. In re Stevens 
 Board of Trade, Ex parte. In re Wallis 
 Boards, In re. Knight t). Knight 
 Bode : — Lanchbury v, 
 Boden: — Dando i;. 
 Boden j;. Hensby .. 
 Boden V. Roscoe .. 
 
 Bodman, In re. Bodman v. Bodman 
 
 Bodmin Justices : — Eeg. ■!;. 
 
 Body V. Halse 
 
 Boehm, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Bogie: — Lord Advocate p. 
 
 Bogie (Methven's Executors) :— Lord Advocate \ 
 
 V. .. ■ / 
 
 Boil(-au V Heath .. 
 
 Boiler Explosions Act, 1882, Commrs. under :— \ 
 
 Eeg. f. .. .. .. .. .. __J 
 
 Boiler, ex Elephant 
 
 Bolam: — Douglas i;. .. .. .. .. | 
 
 Bolingbroke: — 'Reg. v. .. 
 
 
 
 
 Column 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 681, n 
 
 
 825 
 
 [189i] W. N. Ill 
 
 
 450 
 
 U896] P. 242 .. 
 
 
 1949 
 
 °1893] W. N. 184 
 
 
 1161 
 
 1897] 1 Ch. 171 ; C. A. 
 
 [189711 
 
 
 W.N. 172(10); [1898] IChT} 
 27 -. 1 
 
 2103 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 27 .. 
 
 
 2103 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 196 ; C. A. 
 IQ. B. 123 .. 
 
 [1890]' 
 
 1976 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 338 
 
 
 917 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 337 
 
 ::{ 
 
 1420, 
 2056 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 337 
 
 ••'. 
 
 1420, 
 2056 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 337 
 
 / 
 
 ■■1 
 
 1420, 
 2056 
 
 [1894]2Q. B. 293; C. A 
 2 Q. B. 675 .. 
 
 [1894]| 
 
 1683 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 
 1699 
 
 [1895' 
 
 1 Ch. 358 
 
 , , 
 
 35 
 
 1893^ 
 
 2 Q. B. 146 
 
 
 1028 
 
 [1892" 
 
 W.N. 49 
 
 ., 
 
 369 
 
 [1892] 
 
 W.N. 121 
 
 
 1197 
 
 C.A.' 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 467 
 
 
 164 
 
 [1895' 
 
 2 Q. B. 634; C.A 
 
 [189511 
 
 
 W. 
 
 N.152(3); [1896] 1Q.B.} 
 
 172 
 
 99 
 
 ..) 
 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 923 
 
 
 124, 135 
 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 287 
 
 
 122 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 805 
 
 
 113, 145, 
 172 
 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 369 
 
 ■■\ 
 
 123, 
 2071 
 
 [1898' 
 
 2Q. B. 495 
 
 
 124 
 
 C.A.' 
 
 1891] W. N. 68 .. 
 
 
 125 
 
 [1895- 
 
 "iCh. 499 
 
 
 2338 
 
 1898^ 
 
 2 Ch. 120 
 
 
 630 
 
 1893' 
 
 1 Q. B. 318 
 
 
 1565 
 
 1892' 
 
 1 Ch. lOi 
 
 
 2050 
 
 1894; 
 
 1 Q. B. 608 
 
 
 29, 682 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 135 
 
 A 
 
 312, 
 2^169 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 21 
 
 ■■ , 
 
 628, 
 1208 
 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 203 
 
 
 1388 
 
 1891] P. 247 .. 
 
 
 1618 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. 0. 83 .. 
 
 1784 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] 
 100 
 
 W. N.-) 
 
 1784 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 301 
 
 
 1256 
 
 C.A. [1891] 1Q.B. 703 
 
 .. 
 
 214 
 
 [1891]W. N. 52 
 
 
 2005 
 
 C.A. [1900] W.N. 234; 
 2Ch. 749 
 
 [1900]! 
 
 2190 
 
 [1893] 
 
 2 Q. B. 347 
 
 
 1042 
 
 c 2 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Bolton, In the Goods of 
 Bolton V. Bolton .. 
 Bolton V. Buckenham 
 
 Bolton V. Curre (No. 1) 
 
 - (No. 2) 
 
 Bolton V. Natal Land and Colonization Co. 
 Bolton V. Salmon . . 
 
 Bolton Corporation : — Knowles & Sons, Ld. v.. A 
 
 Bolton's Estate, In re. Morant v. Bolton . . j 
 Bolton (R.) & Co., la re. Salisbury-Jones andl 
 
 T\„i„j„ ri /xT_-.\ > 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1899 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 P. 186 .. 
 1891] 3 Oh. 270 .. 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 278 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Dale's Case (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 •{ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Bolton (R.) & Co. :— Davies v. .. 
 
 Bombay Tea Co. : — Langley v. . . 
 
 "Bona," The 
 
 Bonaparte v. Bonaparte . . 
 Bond, In re. Panes v. Att.-Gen. 
 Bond V. Plumb 
 
 Bonhote v. Henderson 
 
 Bonnard v. Perryman 
 
 Bonner v. Tottenham and Edmonton Permanentl 
 
 Investment Building Society .. .. ../ 
 
 Bonsor v, Bonsor . , 
 Booker : — Westwood v. In re Toleman 
 Booker & Co. v. Pooklington Steamship Co. .. 
 Boon: — Ashling u. 
 
 B .ord V. Afiioan Consolidated Land and Tradin<y1 
 Co °| 
 
 -Boosey u. "Whight .. .. ., _ J 
 
 Booth, In re. Booth v. Booth .. 
 
 Booth, In re. Pickard v . Booth .. ../ 
 
 Booth w. Arnold .. 
 Booth: — Cleary v. 
 
 Booth: — Logsdon w. .. .. ., / 
 
 Booth: — Eoberts «. 
 
 .Booth & Kettle well, In re .. " " 
 
 Bootham Ward Strays, York, In re. " Inland 1 
 Revenue Commrs. v. Scott . . . . . . | 
 
 Boots' Cash Chemists, Lancashire, Ld. f.'Grundy 
 Booty V. Groom. In re Groom .. .. __ 
 
 Borax Co., In re. Poster v. Borax Co. . . ../ 
 
 Borland's Trustee v. Steel Bros. & Co 
 
 Born, In re. Curnook v. Bom .. 
 
 [189i] W. N. 122 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 544 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 124 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 48 .. 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 73; [1900]\ 
 2Q. B. 253 / 
 
 [1892] W. N. 114 ; 0. A. [1892] 
 W.N. 163 
 
 C. A. [1894]3Ch. 356 .. 
 
 C. A. [189.5]lCh. 333 .. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 678 
 
 [1900] W. N. 141; [1900] 2j 
 
 Q. B. 460 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 125 
 
 1892] P. 402 
 
 1900] W. N. 122 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 169 
 
 1895] 1 Ch. 742; C. A. [1895] 
 " 2Ch.202 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 269 .. 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 165 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 161 .. 
 
 :") 
 
 (10) 
 
 [1897; 
 
 [1899; 
 
 p. 77 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 866 
 
 2 Q. B. 690 
 
 Born V. Turner 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 568 .. .. I 
 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (3) ; [1898] 1\ 
 
 Ch.596 .... } 
 
 [1899] W. N. 45 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 836 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 249 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 122 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 282 
 [1900] W. N. 76; [1900] 1 Ch 
 
 768 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 57l" 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 465 
 [1900] W.N. 5; [1900] IQ. 
 
 401 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 52 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 156 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 152 
 
 [1900] W. N. 142 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 407 
 [1899] W. N. 34 (4) 
 
 2 Ch. 130 
 [1900] W. N. 251 
 [1900] W.N. 148; [1900] 2 Cin 
 
 [1900] W. N. 122 ; [1900] 2 cI,". 
 
 
 [1899]! 
 
 2U 
 
 1603 
 958 
 1586 
 1698, 
 1701, 
 2177 
 2177 
 355 
 1296, 
 1586 
 
 61 
 
 845 
 
 347 
 
 435, 437 
 314 
 
 2121 
 
 1932 
 711 
 624 
 864 
 
 1907 
 
 646, 963 
 
 1082 
 
 691 
 1606 
 2006 
 774, 781, 
 1804 
 
 389 
 
 536 
 
 2134 
 
 2311 
 
 543, 652 
 1825 
 
 1147 
 
 1528 
 1282 
 
 1758 
 
 500 
 2316 
 
 320 
 
 404 
 
 2025 
 
 1119 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Borner&Co. : — ^Miller w... 
 
 Borough Commercial and Building Society, In re 
 
 (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Borrie: — Wallaces. 
 
 Berwick: — ^Eeisoher ?;. .. 
 
 Borwick : — Union Marine Insurance Co. v. 
 
 BoBson: — Horton w. 
 
 Bostock V. D'Eyncourt. In re Yates . . 
 
 Bostock u. Eamsey Urban Council 
 
 Botliam & Sons : — Laver v. Chesterfield Union \ 
 (Guardians), Claimants .. .. ../ 
 
 BotteQ V. City and Suburban Permansot Build- j 
 ing Society 
 
 Boudard Peveril Gear Co. : — M'Keown v. 
 
 Boughey f. Minor 
 
 Bould: — Scott v. .. 
 
 Boulter: — Beaton v. 
 
 Boulter V. Kent Justices . . 
 
 Boulter: — Tibbatts r. 
 Bound j;. Lawrence 
 Bound & Co., In re 
 Bourke v. Nutt. In re Pulborough (School Board! 
 Election fur the Parish of) .. .. ../ 
 
 Bourke : — Sydney (Municipal Council of) v. 
 
 Bourne, In re. Martin i». Martin 
 Bourne: — Belfield u. 
 
 Bourne : — Plant v. 
 
 Bourne : — Trinidad and Tobago (Att.-Gen. for) 
 
 V. 
 
 Bou stead: — Kochefoucald j;. 
 Boustead:^ — Eochefoucald u. 
 
 Bouverie: — Low ti. 
 
 Bovill I). Endle 
 
 " Bovril" Trade-mark, In re 
 Bowden : — Pain v. 
 Bowden V. Yoxall ., 
 
 Bowen, In re. James v. James . . 
 
 Bowen, In re. Lloyd Phillips v. Davis .. 
 
 Bowen «. Anderson 
 
 Bowen v. Churchill. In re Daveron 
 
 Bowen V. Phillips . . 
 
 Bower 4). Hett 
 
 Bower-Barff Patent, In re 
 
 Bower & Co. : — Felton «. 
 
 Bjwerman: — Eeg. v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 691 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 242 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 289 .. 
 Registration App. Ct. (So.) [1898]) 
 
 W.N. 113 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 548 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 279 
 [1899] W. N. 23 (8); C. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 38 (4) .. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 53 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 261 ; [1900] 1 Q. B 
 
 357 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 169 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 616 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 59 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 441 
 
 1896] W. N. 36 (3) .. 
 "1893] P. 181 
 
 1895]1Q. B. 9 
 
 1891] W. N. 30 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 3 "6 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 556 . 
 [1895] W. N. 152 (4) .. 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 226 
 [1893] W. N. 21 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 725 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 433 .. 
 
 [1893 
 [1894 
 [1897] 
 
 1 Ch. 188- 
 1 Ch. 521 
 W. N. 40 (14) ; 
 
 C. A, 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 281 
 
 C. [1895] A. C. 83 
 
 A. [1896] W. N. 74 (2), 178 (5) 
 Ch. 196; [1898]\ 
 
 A. [1897] 1 
 1 Ch. 550 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 82 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 684 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 600 ., 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 301 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 242 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 291 
 
 [1893] 2 Oh. 491 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 164 
 
 1893] 3 Ch. 421 
 
 1897] ICh. 174 
 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 51 ; C. A. [1895] 
 
 2Q. B. 337 .. 
 P. 0. [1895] A. C. 675 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 25 ; [1900] 1 Q. 
 
 598 
 
 C. C. E. [1891] 1 Q. B. 112 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1935 
 
 433 
 
 2027 
 
 1400 
 
 988 
 987 
 
 1284 
 
 2335 
 
 566 
 
 805, 
 1458 
 
 226 
 
 376 
 1611 
 1257 
 1284 
 
 1111 
 
 517 
 
 1233 
 
 447, 451 
 
 126, 
 2071 
 
 895, 
 1329 
 1743 
 1414 
 
 2229 
 
 624, 
 2156 
 781 
 850, 
 2178 
 771, 
 2184 
 1298 
 2130 
 586 
 40 
 908, 
 2345 
 279, 
 2347 
 1066 
 2349 
 786 
 115, 
 1925 
 1440 
 
 1160 
 
 194, 617 
 
TABLE OF CASP]S IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Bowers : —Beaumont V. ".. 
 
 Bowers v. Harding 
 
 Bowes, In re. Earl of Strathmore v. Vane 
 
 Bowes, In re. Earl of Strathmore v. Vane 
 
 Bowes and Partners, Ld. v. Press 
 
 Bowker v. Austin. In re Lawrance 
 
 Bowler v. Barberton Development Syndicate 
 
 Bowles : — Morgan v. 
 
 Bowling & Welby's Contract, In re 
 
 Bowman, In re. Bowman v. Bowman . . 
 
 Bowman v. Bowman 
 
 Bowman : — Keg. v. 
 
 Bowser : — Prodingham Iron and Steel Co. v. 
 
 Bowyer v. Percy Supper Club 
 
 Bowyer's Settled Estates, In re .. 
 
 Boxsius V. Goblet Fr^res .. 
 
 Boyoe : — Arden v. 
 
 Boyce v. Gill 
 
 Boycott : — Snow >. 
 
 Boyd, In re. Ex parte McDermott 
 
 Boyd, In re. Kelly v. Boyd 
 
 Boyd V. Bischoffsheim 
 
 Boyd : — MoDeimott v. In re McHenry. Barker's' 
 
 Claim 
 Boyd : — McDermott v. In re McHenry. Levita's 
 
 Claim 
 Boyd : — Saunders v. In re Fitzgerald's Settledi 
 
 Estates .. .. _ .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Boyer v. Norwich (Bis op of) 
 
 r'sl 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Boyes : — Johnston v 
 Boyes: — Naismith v. 
 
 Boy ton : — Elvet;. .. 
 
 Brabant & Co. V. King 
 
 Brabourne v. Anglo-Austrian Printing and Pub- 
 lishing Union .. 
 Brace, In re. Welch ■«. Colt .. " " 
 
 Brace v. Abercam Colliery Co. . . 
 Brace v. Calder 
 
 Bracken : — Learoyd v. 
 
 Bradbury v. Sharp 
 
 Bradbury v. Wild 
 
 Bradford v. Dawson , . ,, \, 
 
 Bradford v. Eastbourne Corporation 
 
 Bradford Banking Co. : — Rouse v. 
 
 -I 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 117 ; [1900] 2 Q. B.l 
 
 201 J 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 560 
 
 [1896] 1 Cb. 507 
 
 [1900] W. N. 123 ; [1900] 2 Ch."! 
 
 251 
 C. A. 
 
 :i894] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 ./ 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 556 
 
 C. A. 
 
 C. A. 
 [189i; 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 164 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 236 
 
 1895] 1 Ch. 663 .. 
 W. N. 192 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1899] A. C. 518 .. 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 663 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 791 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 154 
 
 [1892]W. N. 48 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 842 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 796 
 
 [1891] W. N. 108 
 
 [1892] 3 Cli. 110 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 611 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 232 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 290 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 428 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 3Ch. 365 / 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 394 
 
 [1892] P. 41 ; P. C. [1892] A. C. 
 
 417 
 
 ^1 
 
 [1899] W. N. 59 ; [1899] 2 Ch.] 
 73 / 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1899] W. N. 124 ;1 
 [1899] A. A. 495 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 501 .. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A.C. 632 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 891 
 
 [1891] 2 Cb. 671 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 496 ; C. A. 
 2Q. B. 699 .. 
 
 [1891]| 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 253 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 114 
 
 [1891] W. N. 143 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 377 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 307 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 205 
 C. A. L1894]-2 Ch. 32 ; H. L. (E y 
 [1894] A. C. 586 .. ^ 
 
 :.'} 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1300, 
 1775 
 1771 
 2342 
 
 2035 
 
 1233 
 2051 
 1163 
 1163 
 
 482 
 
 2339 
 
 1843 
 
 1114 
 
 898 
 
 1106 
 
 1852, 
 
 1857 
 
 649 
 1567 
 962 
 1254 
 103 
 1482 
 
 44 
 
 1132 
 112 
 1899 
 
 734 
 2236 
 
 1843 
 
 286, 486, 
 625, 
 2185 
 1251, 
 1634, 
 1639, 
 2066 
 
 470 
 
 1479 
 
 1258 
 
 1234, 
 1415 
 1793, 
 2074 
 536 
 228 
 866 
 1914 
 
 97, 1585 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 } 
 
 Bradford Corporation v. Pickles . . 
 
 Bradford and District Tramways Co., Ex parte 
 
 Bradford and District Tramways Co. : — Bissill v. 
 (No. 1) 
 
 : ; (No. 2) 
 
 Bradford-on-Avon Assessment Committee 
 
 White 
 
 Briidford Scliool of Industry, In re 
 Bradley : — Bassano v. 
 Bradley u. Ohamberlyn .. 
 
 Bradley : — Chandler v. .. 
 
 Bradley v. Colquhoun 
 Bradley: — Middleton t). .. 
 Bradley: — Seed «. 
 Bradshaw i;. Bradshaw .. 
 Bragge; — Johnston u. 
 
 Brain.|— Dobbs v. .. 
 
 Brail, In re. Ex parte Norton . . 
 
 Bramble w. Lowe .. 
 
 Bramley : — Palmer v. 
 
 Branckelow Steamship Co. v. Lamport & Holt 
 
 Brandon v. Hughes. In re Hughes 
 
 Brandon v. McHenry 
 
 Brandreth, In re . . 
 
 Brandreth «. Colvin. In re Pitoairn .. ..■! 
 
 Brankelow Steamship Co. v. Canton Insurance\ 
 Office, Ld / 
 
 Branksome Urban District Council :^Durrant v. | 
 
 Branniganj;. Eobinson 
 Branson : — ^Brutton v. 
 Brasier, In the Goods, of 
 Brassard : — Alexandre v. 
 Brash : — Hope v. . . 
 Bray v. Eord 
 
 Bray : — London and County Banking Co. v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Bray i;. Milner. In re Milner .. 
 
 Brazilian Submarine Telegraph Co. : — Chatenayj 
 ■V. .. .. . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Bread Supply Association, In re .. 
 
 Biearley u. Morley .. .. .. ..{ 
 
 Breay v. Eoyal British Nurses' Association 
 Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Ry. Co. : — ^ 
 Bhj'mney By. Co. t(. ., .. .. ../ 
 
 Brenchley v. Higgins 
 
 Brenda Steamship Co. v. Green .. .. ..X 
 
 Brentford Justices : — Mackrell i>. 
 
 Brentford Local Board : — Grand Junction Water 
 works Co. D. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 53 ; C. A. [1895] 
 ICb. 145; H. L. (B.),[1895] 
 A. C. 587 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 463 ~ .. .A 
 
 [1891]W. N. 51 
 
 C. A.[1893]"W. N. 44 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 630 
 
 1893]W. N. 60 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 645 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 439 
 
 1896] W. N. 176 (18); [1897]\ 
 
 ICh. 315 / 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 130 
 
 [1895] 
 C. A ' 
 [1897" 
 [1900" 
 
 2 Ch. 716 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 319 
 
 P. 24 
 
 W. N. 250 
 
 [1896]! 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 207 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 381 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 283 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 405 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 570 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Oh. 529 .. 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 538 
 [1891]W. N. 86 
 [1895] W. N. 139 (1); 
 2 Oh. 199 
 
 C- A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 178 ... 
 
 [189,7] W. N. 43 (12),; 0. A.' 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 291 
 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 344 
 
 1898] 2 Q. B. 219 
 
 1899] P. 36 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 301 .. 
 0. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 188 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 44 
 
 [1893] W. N. 130 
 
 [1899] W. N. 27 (7) ; [1899]\ 
 1 Ch. 563 
 
 C. A. [1891]1Q. B. 79.. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 14 
 [1899] W. N. 84 ; [1899] 2 Q. B, 
 121 
 
 0. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 272 .. 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 169 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 242 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 49 ; [1900]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 518 .. .. * 
 
 [1900] W. N. 141; [1900] 
 
 Q. B. 387 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 735 
 
 •{ 
 
 '] 
 
 13, 1204, 
 1632, 
 2283 
 1363, 
 1364 
 
 330 
 
 2051 
 
 1679 
 
 277 
 592 
 1564 
 
 1871 
 
 1383 
 1437 
 204 
 927 
 1907 
 1594 
 184 
 2215 
 196, 681 
 1960 
 906 
 112 
 2055 
 
 1856 
 
 993, 
 1936 
 
 1922 
 
 1240 
 
 596 
 1618 
 
 257 
 
 667 
 
 646, 649 
 
 1488, 
 
 1501 
 
 1479 
 
 492 
 
 346 
 
 972 
 
 549 
 
 509 
 1810 
 1936 
 
 1100 
 
 2275 
 
xl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name' of Case. 
 
 Brett V. Monarcli InvestmeDt Building Society.. 
 
 Brett t). liogers 
 
 Brewer u. Square .. 
 
 Brewer's Settlement, In le. Morton v. Black-'l 
 
 more . . . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Brewers and Malsters' Association of Ontario v.\ 
 
 Att.-Gen. for Ontario .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Brewery Assets Corporation, In re. Iruman'sl 
 
 Case .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Brewis V. Brewis .. 
 
 Brewster: — Eochdale Canal Co. w. 
 
 Briant v. Eosher. In re Kosher.. 
 
 Brick wood & Co. «. Reynolds 
 
 Bridewell Hospital Governors v. Ward, Lock,) 
 
 Bowden & Co. .. .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Bridge v. Howard . . . . . . . . . . | 
 
 Bridger, In re. Brompt'in Hospital for Cod 
 sumption i;. Lewis 
 
 BriJger : — Grose-Smith v. In re Smith 
 
 Bridges v. Shaw. In re Shaw .. 
 
 Bridgman : — Hanks f. 
 Bridgwater Justices : — Hawkins i>. 
 
 Biidgewater Navigation Co., In re 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 OD-, 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Briercliffe - -with - Extwistle Churchwardens :— 
 Tliursby v. 
 
 Briesemann, In the Goods of (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Briesmann : — Yungmann v. 
 
 "^rigella," The '.. "' 
 
 Briggs, In re. Earp v. Briggs .. 
 
 Briggs i;. Ryan. In re Wheeler's Settlement ..| 
 
 Briggs and Spicer, In re 
 
 Brighouse Corporation : — Wakhaw v. .. " 
 
 Bright: — Pole j). .. .. .. ]. " 
 
 Bright, Claimant. Golden Sovereigns, Ld. J 
 Kotchie .. 
 
 Bright V. River Plate Oonstruclion Co 
 
 Brighton Corporation : — Thompsons. 
 
 Brighton and Hove Co-operative Supply Assu-i 
 
 elation: — Att.-Gen. v. .. ,, } 
 
 Brighton (Guardians of the Parish of) v. Strandl 
 
 Union (Guardians of the) J 
 
 Brighton Alhambra, Ld. :— Securities Properties) 
 
 Investment Corporation v. .. . . ( 
 
 Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Co., In're 
 Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Co. :— Stathaml 
 
 ■" / 
 
 Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Co. v. Wood--) 
 
 house .. ., .. .. _ I 
 
 Brims, Ex parte, in re Palmer.. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 367 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 525 
 [1892] 2 Ch. Ill 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 503 
 
 P. 0. [1897] A. C. 231 .. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 272 
 
 [1893] W. N. 6 .. 
 
 U. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 852 
 
 [1899] W. N. 134 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 95 
 
 [1892] W. N. 194 
 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (1) ; 
 
 C. A 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest, 
 
 44; 
 
 [1897]| 
 [1894]) 
 [1899i| 
 
 1 Q. B. 80 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 
 
 ICh. 297 
 [1899] W. N. 12 (13) ; 
 
 1 Ch. 331 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 615 .. .. | 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 253 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 382 
 1891] ICh. 155; C. A. [1891]) 
 2Ch. 317 ( 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 567 ; C. A. [1894] ( 
 
 2 Q. B. 11 ; H. L. (E.) [1895] 
 A. C. 32 .. .. .. 
 
 [1894] P. 260 
 
 [1895] W. N. 32 
 
 :'■) 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 162 
 
 [1893] P. 189 .. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 162 
 
 [1899] W. N. 141 ; [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 717 .. .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 127 
 U. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 286 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 603 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 164 
 
 [1900] W. N. 153 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 835 .... J 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 332 
 
 C.A. [1900] W. N. 12; [190011 
 1 Oh. 276 .. .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 156 
 
 [1893] W. N. 15 
 [1897] W. N. 12 (3) .. 
 [1898] AV. N. 168 (4); [1899]) 
 1 Ch. 199 .. .. .. [ 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 486 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 419 
 
 232 
 116& 
 1300- 
 
 1905. 
 253 
 
 372, 39$ 
 
 700 
 1676. 
 1865- 
 1761( 
 
 1119 
 IT 
 285 
 
 1886. 
 
 552, 
 1613. 
 2151. 
 1103 
 
 416- 
 
 1048, 
 
 1257. 
 
 1680, 
 
 2082. 
 
 160L 
 
 1601, 
 
 1615 
 
 1451 
 
 994 
 
 796- 
 
 909- 
 
 2252 
 550 
 583 
 
 100» 
 
 54 
 
 549, 89S 
 
 890 
 
 1462- 
 
 333: 
 434 
 395. 
 
 52 
 104^ 
 
TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. 
 
 xli 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ':•) 
 
 Bringeman : — Swain v. In re Swain . . 
 
 Brinsden «. Williams 
 
 Brin's Oxygen Co., In re . . 
 Brinsley v. Lynton and Lynmouth Hotel and^ 
 Property Co. .. .. .. .. .. I 
 
 Brinsmead (T. E.) & Sons, In re .. ..I 
 
 Brinsmead (T. B.) & Sons, In re. (Tomlin's 
 Case) 
 
 Brisbane Municipal Council v. Martin . . 
 
 Briscoe w. Briscoe .. 
 
 Briscoe : — Nicljalls v. 
 
 J-irisley : — Walker v. Grinter v. l-Mcming 
 
 Bristol's (Marquis of) Settled Estates, In re 
 
 Bristol Corporation : — Robertson v. .. .. | 
 
 Bristol (Marquis of). In re. Grey (Earl) vA 
 
 Grey / 
 
 Bristol (Marquis of) : — Rutland (Duke of) v. Ii 
 
 re Rutland's (Duke of) Settled Estates 
 Bristol Tramways and Carriage Co. v. NationaH 
 
 Telephone Co. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Bristol and West of England Bank v. Midland^ 
 
 Railway Co. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Britaiu Steamship Co. : — Sloane v. .. ..| 
 
 Britannia Fire Association, In re. Coventry\\ 
 Case .. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Britannia Permanent Benefit Building Society .. 
 
 British and American Trustee and Finance Cor-\ 
 poration «. Couper .. .. .. .,/ 
 
 British and Foreign Steamship Co. : — Adam v. 
 
 British Bank of South America : — Lubbock v. 
 
 British Columbia Electric Ry., Ld., In re 
 British Columbian Exploitation and Gold Estates, 
 Ld., In re 
 
 British Gold Fields of West Africa, In re . . | 
 
 British India Steam Navigation Co. : — "Mary"\ 
 Tug. Co. V. The " Meanatchy " . . . . / 
 
 British Insulated Wire Co. ■;;. Prescot Urbani 
 District Council .. .. .. .. / 
 
 British Investors (Corporation of), In re 
 
 British Linen Co. Bank : — Mansell v. ,. 
 
 British Linen Co. o. South American and Mexioani 
 Co. I 
 
 British Marine Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jenkins | 
 
 British Motor Syndicate, Ld. v. Taylor & Son .. | 
 
 British Natural Premium Provident Association^ 
 V. Bywater .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 British Ry. Carriage Metal Fittings, &e., Co.,] 
 In re Mason v. British Ry. Carriage Metal} 
 Fittings, &c., Co j 
 
 British South Africa Co. :— Chaddock v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 H 
 
 [1891] 3 Cb. 233 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 185 
 
 [1899] W. N. 44 
 
 [1895]W. N. 53 .. ..{ 
 
 [1896] W. N. 170 (4) ; [1897] 1\ 
 Ch. 45 ; C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 406 / 
 [1897] W. N. 162 (3); [1898] | 
 
 Column) 
 
 ot 
 Dio-est. 
 
 1 Ch. 104 
 P. C. [1894] A. C, 
 
 249 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 1892' 
 1892' 
 1900' 
 1893' 
 C. A.' 
 
 3Ch. 543 
 
 P. 269 
 
 2 Q. B. 735 
 
 3 Ch. 161 
 1900] W. N. 102; [1900]) 
 
 2 Q. B. 198 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 946 
 
 [1900] W. N. 122 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 206 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 91; [1899] 2 Ch.) 
 282 ( 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 653 
 
 0. A. [1896] W. N. 174 (4); 
 
 :) 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 185 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 202 .. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 123 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1894] A. C. 399 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 430 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 198 .. .,/ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 [1899] W. N. 32 (1) 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 73 ; [1899]) 
 2Ch. 7 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 351 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 463; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 528 / 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 36 (3) . . 568 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 159 .. .. 637 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Cb. 108 . . . . /! ^^4^9^ ^'• 
 
 [1899] W. N. 262; [1S00]\ 
 IQ. B. 299 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 43; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 577 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 239 ] 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 531 
 
 2192 
 2049, 
 2180 
 369 
 317, 
 170O 
 
 462 
 
 422. 
 
 1499, 
 1639 
 2024 
 
 747, 751 
 1752 
 1859 
 
 2085 
 1906 
 1872 
 
 2101 
 
 1450, 
 1942: 
 
 665 
 
 [1898] W. N. 173 (9) .. 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 153 
 
 420 
 
 230 
 
 387 
 
 1315 
 
 6, 854, 
 
 1852 
 
 30» 
 
 389 
 
 473 
 
 1945 
 
 686 
 
 996 
 
 1429 
 
 564 
 
 318 
 674 
 
xUi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case, 
 
 British South Africa Co. v. : — CompanMa de 
 
 Mopambique 
 British. Wagon Co. v. Gray 
 Briiten v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 
 
 Britten : — Sen Sen Co. v. 
 
 Brittin o. Partridge. In re Wasdale 
 
 Broad: — Driver i). 
 
 B oad : — Woolley v. (No. 1) 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 •■{ 
 •■{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 Bniad's Patent Night Light Co. : — Fowler v. 
 Broad's Patent Night Light Co., In re .. 
 Broadbent : — Leeds and Hanley Theatre 
 
 Varieties v. 
 Broadbent & Co. : — Smiths. 
 Broadsmith: — Tomlinson ■y. 
 Broad wood : — thipway f. 
 
 Broclv V. Harrison . . 
 
 Brooklehiirst : — Reg. w. .. 
 
 Brocklesby v. Temperance Permanent Buildi 
 
 Society ., 
 Brodliurst: — Boaler i;. (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Brodie, In re. Hood v. Hall 
 
 Brogden : — Crozat v. 
 
 Brogden : — Hamilton v. (No. 1).. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 "g\ 
 
 (No. 2).. 
 
 Bromby, In re. Wilson v. Bromby 
 Bromilow i;. Pliillips 
 
 Bromley Eural District Council : — Hayes Commonl 
 (Conservators of) . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Brompton County Court Judge : — Reg. v. 
 
 Brompton Hospital for Consumption v. Lewis."! 
 
 In re Bridger .. 
 Brook V. Kelly 
 Brook : — Learoyd v. 
 Brook V. Manchester, 
 
 Hy. Co ■ 
 
 Brook : — Maude v. 
 
 Brook: — Scholes v. 
 
 Brooke, In re. Brooke v. Brooke (No. 1) 
 
 ShefSeld and Manchester"! 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Brooke and Fremlin's Contract, In re 
 
 Brook & Sons : — Dibb v. ... 
 
 Brooks : — Ashford v. In re Hooper 
 Brooks : — Folkestone (Corporation) v. 
 Brooks: — Peace v. 
 Brooks V. Religious Tract Society 
 
 Brooman v. Withall. In re Kidd 
 
 Broomer v. Arthur 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 
 
 358 n 
 
 602 
 
 [1899] I 
 [1899]| 
 [1893i| 
 
 c. a:, 
 
 1 Q. B.j 
 L.(K) 
 
 C. A. [1896]1Q. B. 35.. 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 243 
 [1899] W. N. 27 (9); 
 
 ICh. 692 
 [1898] W. N. 164 (2) ; 
 
 1 Ch. 163 
 1893] IQ. B. 539; C. A. 
 
 IQ. B. 744 .. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 806 
 C. A. [1892] 2Q. B. 817 
 '1893] 1 Ch. 724 
 1892] W. N. 5 .. 
 1897] W. N. 175 (9); 
 ■ [1898] 1 Ch. 344 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 551 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 386 
 C. A. 1899] 1 Q. B. 369 
 [1899] W. N. 67 ; [1899] 
 
 958 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 566 
 O.A.[1893]^3Ch.l30; H. 
 
 [1895] A. C. 173 
 1892]W. N. 49 
 1892]W. N. 121 
 1893]W. N. 161 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 30 
 [1891] W. N. 14 
 
 [1891] W. N. 36 
 
 [1900] W. N. 187 
 [1891] W. N. 209 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 21 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 195 .. ../ 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 44; C. A. [1894]) 
 
 ICh. 297 / 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 721 .. 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 431 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 571 
 
 0. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 575 
 [1891] W.N. 16; C. A. [1891]) 
 W. N. 101 ^ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1894 
 
 ICh. 43 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 600 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 647 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 338 
 
 [1892] W. N. 151 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 22 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 451 
 [1897] W. N. 25 (5) 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 558 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 777 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 1498, 
 1560 
 1545 
 1652 
 
 2138 
 75 
 
 335, 844 
 
 656 
 655 
 304 
 456 
 
 1285 
 
 1926 
 
 81 
 
 1573 
 
 2278 
 
 2215 
 
 1571 
 
 369 
 1497 
 
 795 
 
 569 
 1697 
 
 352, 
 1695, 
 1698 
 2369 
 504, 932 
 
 296 
 
 593, 
 2061 
 
 285 
 
 1830 
 49 
 
 1087 
 
 1229 
 1581, 
 2216 
 2321 
 208, 800 
 
 912 
 
 115, 
 1422 
 
 791 
 
 2C86 
 
 199, 203 
 
 538 
 
 790, 
 2827 
 1020 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 xliii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Broomfield v. Williams .. .. 
 
 Brophy v. Att.-Gen. of Manitoba 
 Broster, In re. Ex parte Pruddali 
 Brotherton v. Metropolitan District Ey. 
 
 Committee 
 Brothwood ». Keeling. In re Salt 
 Brougham ti. Brougham .. 
 Brougham v. Brougham .. 
 Broughton v. Broughton. In re Ooghlan 
 B.oughton V. Commrs. of Stamp Duties 
 
 Broughton: — Donnelly u. 
 
 Broughton: — ^Mohan u. .. 
 
 Broughton: — Soiling «. .. 
 
 Brown, Ex parte. ]n re Stephenson 
 
 Brown, Ex parte. ■ In re Vansittart (No. 1) 
 
 • (No. 2) 
 
 Bruwn, In re 
 
 Biown, In re. Benson v. Grant .. 
 
 Brown, In re. Brown v. Acomb . . • 
 
 Brown, In re. Llewellin u. Brown 
 
 Brown v. Att.-Gen. for New Zealand 
 
 Brown : — Barraclough v... 
 
 Brown iJ. Buchanan 
 
 Brown : — Burns-Burns (Trustee of) v. . . 
 
 Brown v. Dunstable Corporation . . 
 
 Brown : — Edwards v. In re Cliff 
 Brown v. Hawkes . . 
 
 Brown: — Hill ti. .. 
 
 Brown : — Hubbuck & Son, Ld. v. 
 
 Brown ?;. Jackson .. 
 
 Brown: — Lofthouse «. 
 
 Brown v. Martin . . 
 
 Brown: — Nicholson «. 
 
 Brown «. Patch 
 
 Brown v. Peto 
 
 Brown: — Powell w. 
 
 Brown: — Eeg. i;. .. 
 
 Brown : — Sheward v. In re Sheward . . 
 
 Brown : — Smith v. 
 
 Brown: — Stanton «. 
 
 Brown t;. Tombs .. 
 
 Brown: — Warren «. 
 
 Brown; — Wheat f. 
 
 Brown v. Wren Brothers . . 
 
 Brown's Estate, In re. Brown v. Brown 
 
 Joint) 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 602 .. 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 202 .. 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 429 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 666 
 
 [1895] 
 [1895' 
 [1900' 
 [1894' 
 
 2 Ch. 203 
 P. 288 .. 
 W. N. 130 
 
 3 Ch. 76 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 251 .. 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. 0. 435 .. 
 
 [1899] P. 211; 0. A. [1900]i 
 
 W. N. 20; [1900] P. 56 .. ( 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 556 .. 
 
 '1897] 1 Q. B. 638 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 181 , .. 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 377 
 1895] 2 Ch. 666 
 "1895] W. N. 115 (9) .. 
 
 1896] W. N. 164 (7) .. 
 [1900] W. N. 37 ; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 
 489 ( 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 234 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 615 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 160 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 324 
 
 [1899] W. N. 83; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 378 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 21 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 718 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 125 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 250 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 446 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 52 (2) .. 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 
 W.N. 121 / 
 
 [1897] W. N. 52 (13) .. 
 [1899] W. N. 46 ; [1899] 1 Q. B.) 
 
 892 ) 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 346 ; C. A. [1900] \ 
 
 W. N. 185 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 653 / 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 165 (8); 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 157 .. 
 
 0. C. R. [1895] 1 Q. B. 119 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 502 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 614 .. 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 671 
 '1891] 1 Q. B. 253 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 722 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 418 
 '1895] 1 Q. B. 390 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 360 
 
 •{ 
 
 2232 
 
 249, 292 
 
 591 
 
 561 
 
 788 
 
 715 
 
 716 
 
 1903 
 
 1330 
 
 1337, 
 
 1596, 
 
 1619 
 
 1626 
 
 1331 
 181 
 183 
 184 
 1202 
 
 7 
 2315 
 
 1186 
 
 1335 
 1038 
 1378 
 110 
 
 1919 
 
 1538 
 1204 
 1334, 
 2300, 
 2361 
 2120 
 267, 
 1428 
 954 
 
 1386 
 
 1487 
 
 865 
 
 1286 
 
 1223 
 
 623, 864, 
 1030 
 2331 
 1322 
 862 
 1387 
 1122 
 19 
 774 
 1138, 
 1583 
 
sliv 
 
 TABLE OF GASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Brown, Doering, MoNab & Co. : — Scott v. 
 Brown, Doering, McNab & Co. : — Slaughter &\ 
 
 May V. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Brown, Janson & Co. v. Hutchinson & Co.i 
 
 (No.1) / 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Brown, Shipley & Co. v. Inland Bevcnue'l 
 
 Commrs. . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Brown, 'J'oogood & Co. : — Finska Angfartygsi 
 
 Aktieholaget i;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Browne, In re 
 Browne : — Malcolm v. 
 
 Browne : — Mara v. 
 
 Browne and Wingrove, In re. Ex parte Ador . . 
 Brownfields Guild Pottery Society, In re 
 Browning: — Spooiier v. .. 
 
 Bruce v. Ailesbury (Marquis) (No. 1) .. .. | 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ':} 
 
 Bruce: — Miller v. 
 Bruce: — Eeg. v. .. 
 Brune ■;;. James .. 
 
 "Brunei," The 
 
 Bruno v. Eyston. In re Huddleston 
 
 Brunton i;. Dixon.. 
 
 Brunton v. Electrical Engineering Corporation 
 
 Brunton :— English and Scottish Mercantile In- 
 vestment Trust i;. 
 Brutton y. Branson 
 Bruty V. Mackey. In re Buck .. 
 
 Bruyfere: — Pepin v. .. .. .. .J 
 
 Bryant, In the Goods of 
 
 Bryant, In re. Ex parte Bryant 
 
 Bryant, In re. Bryant u. Hickley 
 
 Bryant i;. Hancock & Co. 
 
 Bryant, Powis & Bryant, Ld. v. Banque du-i 
 Peuple .. .. .. .. .. __ I 
 
 Bryant, Powis & Bryant, Ld. v. Quebec Bank .. 
 
 Bryden :— Union Coliiely Co. of British Colum-i 
 bia V. .. .. .. .. __ __ > 
 
 Bucoleuch (Duke of) :— Johnstone v. '.'. .'. 
 
 Buchanan: — Arbuokle ti. .. ., \\ 
 
 Buchanan: — Brown f. 
 
 Buchanan: — Clarke i». (Carliii's Case) .. 
 
 Buchanan :— Clarke v. (Dogherty's Case) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 724 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 724 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 737 ..| 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 126 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 240; C. A. [1895] \ 
 
 2Q. B. 598 / 
 
 [1891] W. N. 87 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 
 W.N. 116 / 
 
 C. A. [1894]3Ch. 412 .. ..| 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]' 
 W.N. 124 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 69; reversed by' 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 199 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 574 
 
 [1898] W. N. 80 (4) .. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 528 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 506 ; H. L.' 
 (E.) [1892] A. C. 356 
 
 [1892] W. N. 149 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1900] W. N. 230 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 136 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 417 
 
 [1898] W. N. 164 (1) ; [1899] P. 
 
 45 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 227 ; 
 
 [1900] P. 24 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 595 
 [1892] W. N. 105 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 434 
 
 [1892] 2 Q.B.I; C. A. 1892] 2 
 
 Q. B. 700.. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 219 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 727 
 [1900] W. N. 164 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 504 
 
 [1896] P. 159 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 420 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 716 ; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1899] W.N. 118; [1899] 
 A. C. 442 .. .. .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 170 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 170 .. 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 580 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 625 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899" 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899" 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 109 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897 
 
 W. N. 180 
 W. N. 160 
 
 W. N. 113 
 
 513 
 
 513 
 
 1423, 
 
 1705 
 
 1422 
 
 1803 
 
 558 
 
 1197, 
 1698 
 
 1385 
 
 205S 
 
 151 
 362 
 1572 
 
 43, 1885 
 
 1531, 
 
 1886 
 
 1385 
 
 1192, 
 
 1461 
 
 583 
 
 1982 
 
 774, 
 1476 
 922 
 322, 829 
 2053 
 
 326 
 
 596 
 
 857 
 
 49T 
 
 1603 
 
 125 
 
 953, 
 2183 
 
 1058 
 
 194, 
 1571 
 
 194, 
 1571 
 
 249 
 
 1844 
 1377 
 1378. 
 1393 
 1392 
 
TA.BLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 xlv 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Buchanan: — Gormley i;. .. 
 
 Buchanan: — Lynch v. (_Re Eichey.) Hasson\ 
 
 V. Chambers'. Crossan v. Chambers . . . . / 
 
 Buchanan: — M'Crea r. .. 
 Buchanan: — M'Grath u. .. 
 Buchanan : — M'Keever v. 
 Buchanan : — ^M'Kendrick v. 
 Buchanan: — Wilson v. .. 
 Buck, In re. Bruty v. Mackey . . 
 Buckenham: — Boltoa -y. .. 
 Buckinghamshire (Earl of): — Hampden v. 
 Buckinghamshire County Council and Hertford-"! 
 
 shire County Council, In re . . . . . . / 
 
 Buckland V. Buckland 
 
 Buckle, In re. Williams v. Marson 
 B'ickle: — Salsbury w. In re Averill 
 
 Buckler i>. Wilson 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Buckley (E. H.) & Sons, Ld. v. N. Buckley &1 
 Sons .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Buckley v. Crawford. Townend, Claimant 
 
 Buckley v. Edwards 
 
 Buckley v. HuU Docks Co. 
 
 Buckley: — Wigram v. 
 
 Buckley's Case. In re Blackburn (W.) & Co. .. | 
 
 Buckley's Trusts, In re .. 
 
 Bucks and Oxon Union Bank : — Coleman v. 
 
 Buokwell i;. Norman 
 
 Budd: — Jay V. 
 
 Budd V. Lucas 
 
 Budden i;. Wilkinson 
 
 Budge: — Eassam w. 
 
 Budgett, In re. Cooper v. Adams 
 
 Budgett ?). Budgett (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Budgett & Co. V. Binnington & Co. 
 
 Buena Ventura Nitrate Grounds Syndicate: — ) 
 
 James v. .. .. .. .. . . ( 
 
 Building Estates Brickfields Co., In re. Parbury'sj 
 
 Case .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Bulkeley v. Stephens 
 
 Bull : — ^Burt, BouUon & Hayward v. 
 
 Bull: — Moore (falsely called Bull) v. . 
 
 Bull :— Wright & Son « 
 
 Bull, Bevan & Co., In re.. 
 Bull, Sons & Co. : — Strapp i/. 
 JBulli Coal Mining Co. v. Osborne 
 BuUis t). J ones. In re Jones 
 BuUivant: — Eeg. w. 
 
 Bullcck, In re Ex parte Ward . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Column 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 of 
 
 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 156 .. 
 
 1375 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 85 .. 
 
 1398 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 [1898" 
 
 W.N. 112 .. 
 
 1383 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1898 
 
 W. N. 109 .. 
 
 1393 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1899 
 
 W.N. 159 .. 
 
 1377 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1899 
 
 W. N. 172 .. 
 
 1368 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1898 
 
 W. N. 124 .. 
 
 1372 
 
 [1896' 
 
 2Ch. 727 
 
 857 
 
 C.A. 
 
 ■189r 1 Q. B. 278 
 
 1586 
 
 C.A. 
 
 "1893] 2 Ch. 531 .. 
 
 1877 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 515 
 
 1U5 
 
 [1900] W. N. 159 ; [1900] 2 Ch 
 584 
 
 C. A.] 1894] 1 Ch. 286 .. 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 523 
 [1895] W. N. 156 (6) ; [1896] 
 Q. B. 83 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 608 
 
 [1893] IQ.B. 105 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 387 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 93 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 483 .. 
 
 [1899] W.N. 126; [1899] 
 725 
 
 }} 
 
 2Ch.- 
 
 [1893; 
 
 W. N. 95 
 
 (3); 
 
 !■) 
 
 •■{ 
 
 •■( 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 243 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 622 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 150 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 12 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 408 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 432 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 571 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 557 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 555 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 202 
 
 C.A. [1891] IQ.B. 35.. 
 
 0. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 456 .. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 142 (2); [1896] 1) 
 Ch. 100 f 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 241 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 276 
 
 [1891] P. 279 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 [1891] W. N. 170 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1899] A. C. 351 .. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 114 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 163 
 
 [1899] W. N. 114; [1899] 2\ 
 Q. B. 517 / 
 
 956 
 
 2308 
 2322 
 
 20 
 
 2282 
 
 932 
 292, 
 1024, 
 1335 
 1560 
 1139, 
 1281, 
 1287 
 
 1475 
 97 
 149 
 
 1548 
 
 2122 
 661, 669 
 
 1529 
 139, 153 
 
 46 
 573, 575, 
 
 2182 
 
 1965 
 
 394 
 
 423 
 
 1853 
 1701 
 
 718 
 
 588 
 
 457 
 
 332 
 1326 
 1495 
 
 670 ^,,, 
 
 203 
 
xlvi 
 
 TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Bullock, In re. Goode v. Liokorish 
 
 Bullock :— Hill (Viscount) v. .. 
 
 Bullock : — Lloyds Bank, Ld. v. .. 
 Ballough : — Birchall «. .. 
 Bulman & Dickson v. Penwick & Co. 
 Bulmer : — Child v. In re Wilks 
 Bullfontein Mining Co. : — Prames v. 
 Bunting: — Peavce v. 
 
 Burbridgc : — St. Saviour's Union v. 
 
 Burchard v. Macfarlane. Ex parte Tindall 
 Burchell : — Ijintern v. Killick v. Graham 
 
 Burchell v. Wilde.. 
 
 Burohnall, In re. Walker v. Buichnall 
 
 Burdekin, In ro .. 
 
 Burdett-Coutts v. True Blue (Hannan's) Gold\ 
 
 Mining Co. .. j 
 
 Burford-Hancock : — Malcolm v. In re Hancock 
 
 Burge V. Ashley & Smith, Ld. .. .. .. | 
 
 Burger v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance\ 
 Co / 
 
 Burgtss V. Morton 
 
 Biirham Brick, Lime, and Cement Co.'s Trade-\ 
 marks. In re .. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 Burke : — Alexander v. (Mount Argus Case) 
 
 Burke :^Alexander v. (The French College Case) 
 
 Burke: — Alexander v. (The St. Josepli's Collegei 
 Case) ] 
 
 Burke: — Holly t;... 
 
 Burke's Trade-marks, In re 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Burkill V. Thomas 
 
 Burley : — Seaman u. 
 
 "Burma," The 
 
 Burman, Ex parte. In re Jubh . 
 
 Burnand : — Seaton v. 
 
 Burnett V. Berry .. 
 
 Burnett: — Lumsden i;. .. 
 
 Burnley t). Harland. In re Jennings 
 
 Burnley Equitable Co-operative and IndustriaH 
 
 Society v. Casson 
 
 Burnley Steamship Co. v. Aiken 
 
 Burns (G. and J.) : — Maclver v. 
 Burns: — New u. .. 
 Burns-Burns (Trustee of) v. Brown 
 Burr, In re. Ex parte Board of Trade 
 
 Burr, In re. Ex parte Clarke 
 
 Burr : — Field Steamship Co. v. .. 
 
 Burr: — Tatham, Bromage & Co. 
 "Engineer" 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Thel 
 
 [1891] W. N. 62 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 55; 
 
 2 Ch. 482 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 192 , 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1897] 1 
 
 IQ. B. 325 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 179 
 3 Ch. 59 .. 
 1 Ch. 140 
 2Q. B. 360 
 W.N. 184; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 [1896' 
 C. A.' 
 
 1891' 
 
 189r 
 
 1896' 
 
 1900° 
 695 
 C. A. [1891]2'Q. B. 241 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 196 
 [1900] W. N. 29 ; C. A. [1900] \ 
 W. N. 63 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 551 / 
 [1893] W. N. 171 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 136 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 97; C. A. [1899]) 
 W. N. 113 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 616 j 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 173 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 63 ; [1900] 
 
 1 Q. B. 744 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 145 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2 Q. P. 348 .. 
 H. L. (K.) [1896] A. C. 136 
 
 [1892] W. N. 134 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1899] W N. 178 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 92 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1867] W. N. 92 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 91 
 [1891] W. N. 2 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 99 ; C. A. [lS92]f 
 1 Q. B. 312 ' 
 
 C. A. 
 [1899; 
 
 '1896] 2 y. B. 344 
 W. JS'. 54 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 641 
 
 C. A. [1899]- 1 Q. B. 782 H. L. 
 (E.; [1900] W. N. 48 ; [1900] 
 A. 0. 135 .. .. 
 
 [1896' 
 0. A.' 
 
 1 Q. B. 641 
 1898] 2 Q. B. 177 
 
 [1892] W. N. 156 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 75 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N 
 115 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 630 ., 
 
 0. A. [1894] W. N. 196 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 324 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 467 
 
 [1892]W. N. 122; C. A. [1892] 
 W. N. 1.38 .. -' 
 
 [1898]1Q. B. 821; C. A. [1899] 
 IQ. B. 579 .. .. -' 
 
 H. L. (?..) [1898] A. C. 382 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2329 
 826 
 
 1278 
 782 
 
 1965 
 
 1022 
 351 
 
 2106 
 
 2216 
 
 663 
 1783 
 
 1417 
 
 1702 
 20i7 
 
 380 
 
 1480 
 
 870 
 
 986 
 
 1552 
 
 2124 
 
 1378 
 1401 
 
 1401 
 
 1398 
 2124 
 
 597, 
 1489, 
 2069 
 
 37 
 1959 
 
 161 
 
 977, 
 1251 
 
 541 
 684 
 2330 
 
 49 
 
 1776 
 
 1537 
 778 
 110 
 165 
 154, 
 168 
 
 989 
 987 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 xlvii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Barrel! & Sons :— Potter (J.) & Co. v ■ 
 
 Burrowes v. Lock .. 
 
 Burrows :--01eghom i). In re Burrows 
 
 Burrows: — 'Reg. v. 
 
 Burrows : — Reid v. 
 Burrows w. Rhodes 
 
 Burslem (Mayor, &c., of) and County Council ofl 
 Staffordshire, In re .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Burt : — Arnold v. In. re Jeffcry (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Burt: — Barber i;. .. 
 Burt V. Gray 
 
 Burt: — Piddocke «. 
 
 Bui t, Boulton & Hay ward V. Bull 
 
 Burton : — Crompton & Evans' Union Bank v. . 
 
 B-.irton: — ^HoUis v. 
 
 Burton : — Beg. i;. Ex parte Young 
 
 iSurton v. St. Giles' and St. George's Assessment) 
 
 Committee .. .. .. ., ..J 
 
 Burton's Will, In re. Banks v. Heaven 
 
 B'jvy St. Edmunds Corporation v. West Suffolk\ 
 
 County Oolincil , , . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Bury D. Thompson .. .. .. ..■! 
 
 ■Belton V. 
 
 In re L'Herminier 
 
 Busby & Woods 
 
 Bush & Co. : — Orchard v, 
 Bushby : — Jenkins v. 
 Business (Course of) 
 Buston : — Mounsey v. 
 Butcher: — Bagley i;. 
 Butcher : — Reeves v. 
 Butcher: — Richards «. 
 Bute's (Marquis of) Case.. 
 Butler, In re. Le Bas v. Herbert 
 
 Butler, In the Goods of .. 
 Butler V. Butler (No. 1) .. 
 
 Butler: — Cass w. .. 
 
 Butler : — ^Lee v. .. 
 Butler: — Linforth v. 
 Butler: — Smith r. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •1 
 
 Butler: — Vipont v. 
 
 Butt V. Wright. In re Maddock 
 
 • Buttenshaw:^— Pearl Life Assurance Co. v. 
 Butterworth : — Knight-Bruce v. In re Tyssen 
 
 ■■( 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 162 (15);- 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 97 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 94, n ' 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 399 .. ..■ 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 413 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 816 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 146^ (4); 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 24 .. 
 
 1891] ICh. 671 
 
 1895] 2 Ch. 577 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 437 
 
 1891]2Q. B. 98 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 276 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 711 .. 
 
 ';} 
 
 !1 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 226 .. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 468 
 [1900] W. N. 9 ; [1900] 1 
 
 389 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 38 .. 
 
 [1898]2Q. B. 246 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 231; C. a![1895]- 
 W.N. 44; [1895] 1 Q. B. 696 
 
 [1899] W. N. 115; [1899] 2' 
 Q. B. 380 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1898 
 C. A. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 262 
 
 2 Q. B. 284 
 1891] 1 Ch. 484 
 
 1 Ch. 675 
 IQ. B. 67 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 509 
 1891] 2 Ch. 522 .. 
 ■2Ch. 100 
 3Ch. 250 
 W. N. 153 (12); [1898] 
 
 [1894^ 
 
 [1898" 
 
 0. A. 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1892 
 
 1894 
 
 1897^ 
 
 P. 9 
 
 [1893] P. 185 ; C. A. [1894] P. 
 
 25 
 C. A. [1900] W."n. 49";' [1900] 
 
 IQ. B. 777 .. .. .. 
 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 318 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 116 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 694 
 
 [1893]W. N. 64 
 
 [1899] W. N. 122 ; [1899] 2 Ch, 
 588 
 
 [1893] W. N. 123 . 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 50 
 
 1964 
 
 2184 
 2313 
 1640, 
 2257 
 2022 
 833 
 
 578 
 
 951 
 952 
 582 
 1073 
 933, 
 1410 
 1701 
 1518, 
 1519, 
 1520 
 1486, 
 1518, 
 1519, 
 1522 
 1043 
 
 1673 
 
 952 
 
 1143 
 
 1064 
 
 868 
 
 972 
 1557 
 
 1469. 
 1376 
 1137 
 2133 
 1819 
 2310 
 
 1604 
 694 
 
 1231 
 
 815 
 1389 
 2225 
 2049, 
 2196. 
 
 2181 
 
 2064, 
 2252 
 1476 
 
xlviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Butterworth : — ^Mansfield Corporation v. 
 Button: — Beg. t". .. 
 Buxton i;. Campbell. In re Barker 
 Buxton Lime Firms Co. v. Howe 
 Byas : — Eraser v. .. 
 
 Byng's-SettledEstates, In re .. .. ■' 
 
 Byron's Settlement, In re. Williams v. Mitchell 
 By water :— British Natural Premium Providenf 
 Association v. .. 
 
 c. 
 
 ■ V. In re S 's Settlement 
 
 r. M. G., In re 
 
 C! :— G V. 
 
 C. D.:— A. B. v 
 
 €adell V. Wiloocks 
 
 Cadieux : — Montreal Gas Co. v... 
 
 Cadozan :— Coote v. In re Eyre Coote . 
 Oadogan v. Fitzroy. In re Hamilton . 
 
 ■Cadogan v. Lvric Theatre 
 
 ••{ 
 
 ■Caffin V. Aldridge . . 
 
 Cahn and Mayer v. Pockett's Bristol Channel 
 Steam Packet Co. .. •• •• •■ | 
 
 Cain V. Moon 
 
 Caland," The " P. Owner of the " P. Caland " v.\ 
 Glamorgan Steamsbip Co. 
 
 Calcott and Elvin's Contract, In re 
 
 Calcraft : — Dixon v. 
 Oalcraft v. Guest .. 
 
 Calder: — Brace v... 
 
 -1 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 !;} 
 
 Calder: — Teacher v. 
 
 €alder&Co. : — Macalpine & Co. 
 €aldwell. In re. Hamilton v. Hamilton 
 Oaldwell : — Bobinson -u. .. 
 Cale V. James 
 
 Caledonian Insurance Co. v. Gilmour 
 Caledonian By. Co. : — Lowther v. 
 Ca'edonian By. Co. v. MulhoUand 
 
 Caledonian By. Co. : — Palmer v. 
 
 Caledonian By. Co. : — Port Glasgow and Newarkl 
 
 Sdilcloth Co. -w J 
 
 Caledonian By. Co. i;. Turoan 
 
 Calham v. Smith. In re Horlork 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 274 
 
 0. C. B. [1900] W. N. 176; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 597 .. 
 [1892] 2 Oh. 491 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 232 
 f 1895] W. N. 112 (5) .. 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 219 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 474 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 531 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 324 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 127 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 616 .. 
 
 [1898] P. 21 • 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 718 ; [1899]1 
 
 A. C. 589 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 222 
 
 C. A. [1896]2Ch. 617 .. 
 
 C.A. [1894]3Ch. 338 .. ..{ 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 366 ; 0. A. [1895]i 
 2Q. B. 648 ' 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 61 ; C. A. [1899] 
 W. N. 32 (6) ; [1899] 1 Q. B 
 643 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 283 
 
 [1891] P. 313 ; C. A. [1892] 
 191; H. L. (E.) [1893] A. 
 207 
 
 [1898] W. N. 33 (1); C 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 460 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 458 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 759 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 253 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 118 ; 
 
 [1899] A. C. 451 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 545 
 "1894]W. N. 13 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 519 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 418 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. G. 85 ..| 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 443 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 ICh. 73 ' 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 159 (7) 
 [1898] A. C. 216 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 607 ; C. A. [1892]f 
 1 Q. B. 823 .. ^ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 P. 
 
 C. 
 
 A.i 
 
 '■} 
 
 t 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 29 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 256 .. 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 516 .. ..| 
 
 2090 
 
 613 
 
 1131 
 1244 
 1451 
 1865 
 1467 
 
 564 
 
 1200 
 917 
 1836 
 2358 
 
 241 
 
 1860 
 282 
 1696, 
 1698 
 
 1967 
 
 1817 
 
 725 
 
 38, 1954 
 
 157 
 
 1928 
 669 
 1234, 
 1415 
 
 63 
 952 
 1558 
 926 
 57, 64, 
 976 
 
 1086 
 
 1650 
 
 1547, 
 1637, 
 1839 
 
 1650 
 
 1088 
 641, 
 2353 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 xlix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Callander and Oban Ey. Co. : — Macfie v. 
 Callander and Trossachs Hydropathic Co. and^ 
 the Eagle Property Co. w. Marshall .. ../ 
 
 Callender, Sykes & Co. v. Colonial Secretary ofi 
 
 Lagos. Williams v. Davies 
 
 r:} 
 
 Callicott, In the Groods of 
 
 " Calliope," The. Tredegar Iron and Coal Co. v.\ 
 
 Owners of SS. " Calliope " / 
 
 Calvert, In re 
 
 Calvert, In re 
 
 Calvert, In re. Ex parte Calvert 
 
 Calvert : — Berners v. In re Berners 
 
 Camberwell (Vestry) : — ^Att.-Gren. v. 
 
 Camberwell Assessment Committee v. Ellis 
 
 Cambridge Union v. Edmonton Union .. 
 Cameron v. Nystrom 
 
 Cameron i;. Tyler . . 
 
 Cameron v. Wiggins 
 
 Cammell, Ex parte. In re Printing Telegraph) 
 and Construction Co. of the Agence Has as . . / 
 Cammell & Co. : — McCord u. 
 Campbell, In re. Campbell v. Campbell (No. 1) 
 
 (N"o. 2) 
 
 In re Barker 
 In re Powell 
 
 Campbell : — Buxton v. 
 
 Campbell v. Campbell. In re Powell .. .. j 
 
 Campbell V. Chambers. Gallagher's Case 
 Campbell v. Chambers (William Campbell's'i 
 Case) .. .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Campbell v. Chambers (Harris' Case) 
 Campbell v. Chambers (Simpson's Case) 
 
 ' Campbell w. Gillespie .. .. .. .. | 
 
 Campbell : — Hope v. 
 
 Campbell v. Lloyd's, Bamett's & Bosanquet's"! 
 
 Bank / 
 
 Campbell :—M'Daid i; 
 
 Campbell: — M'Dougall i;. .. .. .. | 
 
 Campbell v. MacLachlan . . 
 
 Campbell *. Morris .. .. .. ..■! 
 
 Campbell: — Nagle v. 
 Campbell: — VlnXXiv. 
 Campbell: — Serraino & Sons v. .. 
 Campbell & Co. : — Stumore i;. 
 Campion, In the Goods of 
 Campion : — Parker v. 
 
 Canada (Att.-Gen. for Dominion of) : — Att.-) 
 Gen. for Ontario v. .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Canada (Att.-Gen. for Dominion of) v. Att.-Gen.) 
 for Province of Ontario .. .. .. ( 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 270 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 223 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 460 .. 
 
 [1899] P. 189 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 11 
 
 1899' 
 1899' 
 1899' 
 1892' 
 1894' 
 0. A.' 
 
 IQ 
 
 W. 
 
 :■} 
 
 W. N. 34 (3) ., 
 W.N. 53 
 2Q. B. 145 
 W.N. 171 
 W. N. 163 
 
 1899] W. N. 22; [1900]) 
 . B. 68; H. L. (E.) [1900] 
 N. 156 ; [1900] A. C. 510 J 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. Ill 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 308 .. 
 [1890] W. N. 80 ; [1899] 2 Q. B, 
 
 94 
 
 [1900] W. N. 253 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 528 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Ch. 392 / 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1896] A. C. 57 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 206 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 468 .. ..| 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 [1900] W. N. 165 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 525 / 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 147 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W.N. 86 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 133 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 121 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 252 ; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 
 225 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 78 (9) -a 
 
 [1899] A.C.I .. ..] 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 136, li I 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 104 .. 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N.\ 
 
 217 / 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 176 .. 
 Registration App. Ct. (So.) [1897]\ 
 
 W.N. 101 / 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 185 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 229 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 283 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 314 
 
 [1899] W. N. 218 ; [1900] P. 13 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 178 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 189 .. 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 247 .. 
 
 1093 
 
 1844 
 
 119, 
 292, 
 877, 
 1045 
 1598 
 
 2017 
 
 150 
 152 
 154 
 1897 
 1181 
 
 1683 
 
 1461 
 1243 
 
 2295 
 
 2133 
 
 348 
 
 1241 
 2327 
 2327, 
 2341 
 1131 
 
 2337 
 
 1393 
 
 1375 
 
 1384 
 1385 
 
 2353 
 
 170^, 
 1706 
 1390 
 
 1756 
 
 1374 
 
 1398 
 
 1375 
 1108 
 1971 
 78 
 1598 
 
 240, 292 
 252 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ':} 
 
 Canada (Att.-Gen. for Domimon ol) v. Att.-Gren.^ 
 for the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Nova> 
 Scotia .. .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Canada (Manitoba and North "Western By. Co.") 
 of): — Grey i;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Canada Sugar Refining Co. ■!;. Reg. 
 
 Canadian Direct Meat Co., In re. Champion's 
 Case 
 
 Canadian Direct Meat Co., In re. Tamplin's" 
 Case 
 
 Canadian Pacific Colonization Co., In re 
 
 Canadian Pacific Ry. v. Notre Dame de Bonse-) 
 cours (Corporation of the Parish of) ., .. j 
 
 Canadian Pacific Ry. v. Parke 
 
 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. : — Robinson v. 
 
 Catn : — Thorne v. 
 
 Cannan v. Abingdon (Earl oO •• 
 
 Canning Jarrah Timber Co. (Western Australia), ■^ 
 
 In re 
 Cannon, Sun and Morten (Solicitors), In re. 
 
 In re Coolgardie Goldfields, Ld. 
 
 Canterbury Cor[oration V. "VVyburn 
 
 Canterbury Union (Guardians of) : — St. Olavu's) 
 Union (Guardians of) v. .. .. . . ( 
 
 Canton Insurance Office, Ld. : — Brankelow 
 Steamship Co. u. 
 
 " Capella," The 
 
 Capital and Industrial Corporation : — De Pass v.i 
 
 Capper : — Coulson v. In re Porter 
 Caprioni : — Albei ti v. 
 
 Capsey: — Lanew. .. 
 
 Carbery: — Ross v. 
 
 Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. :—CarlilU' / 
 
 Garden : — Johns v. In re Copland's Settlement | 
 
 Cardiff Corporation : — Att.-Gen. f. 
 Cardiff Corporation : — Lyle Shipping Co. v. 
 Cardiff ("V^icar of St. John the Baptist) v.) 
 Parishioners of Same . . . . . . . . ) 
 
 Cardiff Union : — "West Ham Uuion v. .. 
 Carew, Ex parte .. 
 Carew, In re. Carew v. Carew .. 
 Carew u. Carew (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Carew: — Cave ti. .. 
 
 Carey, In re. Ex parte Jeffreys .. 
 
 Carfin Coal Co. : — Clarke v. 
 
 " Carinthia," The. The"Seivia" 
 
 " Carl XV.," The | 
 
 Carl Hirth, In re. Ex parte The Trustee . . < 
 
 Volume anil Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 700 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 254 .. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. 0. 735 .. 
 [1892] W.N. 94; 0. A. [1892]) 
 W.N. 146 /: 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 146 
 
 [1891] W. N. 122 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 367 .. 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. 0. 535 .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 481 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 11 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 66 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 75 ; [1900]1 
 
 1 Oh. 708 J 
 
 [1900] W. N. 23; [1900] 1 Ch.\' 
 
 475 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 89 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 682 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 178 
 
 [1892] P. 70 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 216; H. L. (E, 
 
 [1892]A. C. 90 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 481 
 [1891] W. N. 200 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 411 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 171 . 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 484 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 256 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 14; [1900] 1 Ch."» 
 
 326 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 337 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 638 .. 
 
 [1898] P. 155 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 766 
 
 P. (J. [1897] A. C. 719 .. 
 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 311 .. 
 
 [1891] P. 360 .. 
 
 [1894] P. 31 
 
 [1893]W. N. 42 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 624 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 412 
 
 [1898] P. 36 
 
 [1892] P. 132; C. A. [1892] 
 
 324 .. 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 10 ('■ 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 612 .. 
 
 !"l 
 
 240 
 
 250 
 241 
 370 
 
 370 
 453, 475 
 
 258 
 
 246 
 257, 
 2066 
 1297 
 190 
 
 381 
 
 I 1803 
 
 283, 293, 
 496, 
 2260 
 
 1460 
 
 ■ 993, 
 
 1936 
 
 i 2009 
 
 78 
 
 2330 
 539 
 1343, 
 1704, 
 2291 
 1380 
 
 511, 873- 
 
 1870 
 
 548 
 1962 
 
 744 
 
 1460 
 1020 
 2367 
 
 691 
 
 714 
 1562 
 117, 410 
 1837 
 1993 
 
 1991 
 102 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 
 
 Carliae's Case. Clarke i;. Buchanan 
 Carlisle (Mayor of): — Atkinson u. 
 
 " Carlotta," The 
 
 CarltoQ Bank, Ld. : — Comford v. 
 
 Carlton Bank : — Att.-Gren. v. 
 Carltwi Bank :^Davidson u. 
 
 Carlton Steamship Co. v. Castle Mail Packets Co. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ''! 
 
 Carlyle Press :- 
 
 -Strong V. (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 -Carmiohael's Case. In re Hannan's Empressl 
 Gold Mining and Development Co. .. ../ 
 
 Carne's Settled Estates, In re 
 
 Cami-y V. Plimmer 
 Carpenter : — George v. 
 
 Carr v. Fowle 
 
 [1899] P. 
 "[1899]' 
 
 Carr w. Lynch 
 
 Carr: — Mallinson v. 
 
 Carr: — Minter i). .. 
 
 Carr: — Sea Insurance Co. v. 
 
 Carr & Co. v. Bath Gas Light and Coke Co. 
 
 Carrara Marble Co., In re 
 
 Carrick : — Baker v. 
 
 Carrick v. Wigan Tramways Co. 
 
 Carrjerw. Price. In re Amos 
 
 Cafrington u. Bannister & Co. 
 Oarritt v. Godson & Son .. 
 Carruthers i;. Carruthers .. 
 
 Carswell v. CoUard. The " Victoria '' . . 
 
 Carter, In re. Dodds v. Pearson 
 
 Carter w. Carter (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 484 ; 0. A. [1893] 
 IQ. B. 256 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 109 
 
 [1896] 1Q.B. 393 
 
 [1899] W. N. 80 
 223 
 
 [1899] W. N. 8 (4);" 
 
 1 Q. B. 392; C. A. [1899], 
 W. N. 211; [1900] 1 Q. B.( 
 22 J 
 
 [1899] 2 q! B. 158 .".' '.' 
 
 C. A. [1893] IQ. B.82.. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 485 
 H. L. (B.) [1898] A. C. 486 . 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 268 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 51 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 643 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 3 (7); [1899]\ 
 
 1 Ch. 324 * 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 634 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 505 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 251 
 
 [1900] W. N. 69 ; [1900] 1 Ch 
 613 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 48 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1894 
 
 3 Ch. 498 
 
 2 Ch. 321 ; C. A. 
 
 1900] W. N. 238 
 W. N. 265, n. .. 
 W. N. 87 (9) .. 
 1894] 1 Q. B.'838 
 W. N. 98 
 
 { 
 
 } 
 
 ■•{ 
 [1894]| 
 
 Carter : — Edwards v. 
 
 Carter v. Fey 
 
 Carter and Kenderdine's Contract, In re 
 
 Carter v. Hasluck . . 
 
 Carter : — Lawson v. 
 Carter: — Milson v. 
 
 Carter: — Morley u. 
 Carter v. Bigby & Co. 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1900' 
 [1896' 
 C. A.' 
 [1893; 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 159 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 247 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 193 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. 0. 659 . 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] W. N. 106 ;1 
 
 [1893] A. C. 635 .. ../ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 90; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 
 801 .. I 
 
 [1895] W. N. 138 (5); [1896]l 
 
 ICh. 62 / 
 
 [1896] P. 35 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 360 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 541 .. 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 776 .. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 553; 0. A. [1892] l 
 
 2Ch. 278; H. L. (E.) [1893] 
 
 A. C. 360 
 
 [1894] W.N. 6 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 638 .. ../ 
 
 [1897] W. N. 153 (8) ; 
 
 IQ. B. 8 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 113 
 
 [1898]| 
 
 d 2 
 
 511, 873 
 
 1393 
 587 
 
 1955 
 
 1204 
 
 1805 
 211 
 
 1942 
 
 35, 1705 
 317 
 
 406 
 
 1895 
 
 873 
 
 824 
 
 1780, 
 
 2112 
 
 845 
 
 830, 
 1037 
 
 1276 
 
 35 
 1345 
 
 458 
 
 649 
 
 316 
 2143, 
 2367 
 1231 
 1157 
 2173 
 
 1943 
 2360 
 
 525 
 
 689 
 956 
 965 
 185 
 
 956 
 
 1011 
 
 1487, 
 1592 
 
 1054 
 
 1511 
 
lii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Carter : — San Paulo (Brazilian) By. Co. v. .. | 
 
 Carter •!;. Silber 
 
 Carter u. Thomas .. 
 Carter Medicine Co.'s Trade-mark, In re 
 Cartman : — Police (Commissioners of) v. 
 Oartwright v. Balzo (Due del). In re Countess\ 
 
 ofOrford / 
 
 Cartwright i;. Regan 
 
 .1 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 580 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 31 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 553 ; C. A. [1892] 
 2 Ch. 278; H. L. (B.) [1893] 
 A. C. 360 
 
 ■1893' 
 
 1892' 
 
 1896' 
 
 1895" 
 
 1 Q. B. 673 
 
 3 Ch. 472 
 1 Q. B. 655 
 
 W. N. 155 (1) ; 
 
 1 Ch. 257 
 
 [1896]|: 
 
 Cartwright v. Sculcoates Union .. 
 
 Cartwright : — Williams v. 
 
 Casey's Patents, In re. Stewart v. Casey 
 
 Casgrain v. Atlantic and North- West Ky. Co. 
 
 Cass V. Butler 
 
 Casson :— Burnley Equitable Co-operative andl 
 
 Industrial Society i;. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Castell & Brown, Ld., In re. Roger v. Castelll 
 
 & Brown, Ld. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Castioni, In re 
 
 Castle: — Tycdall «;. 
 
 Ca-itle Bytham (Vioar of). Ex parte. Ex parte\ 
 
 Midland Ry. Co / 
 
 Castle Mail Packets Co.: — Carlton Steamship! 
 
 Co. •« .(j 
 
 " Castlegate," The. Morgan v. The Castlegate) 
 
 SS. Co ..f 
 
 Castlegate SS. Co. v. Dempsey . . . . . . / 
 
 Castlegate SS. Co. : — Morgan v. The " Caslle-1 
 gate" I 
 
 Castner Kellner Alkali Co. v. Commercial De- 
 velopment Corporation . 
 
 Caswells i;. Sheen .. 
 
 Cathcart, Ex parte. In re Deakin 
 
 Cathcart, Ex parte. In re Lumley 
 
 Cathcart, Ex parte. In re Stuart 
 
 Cathcart, In re (No. 1) .. 
 (No. 2) 
 
 *•} 
 
 ":l 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 C.ithcart :- 
 
 -Hood Barrs v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 (No. 3) 
 
 (No. 4) 
 
 ■ (No. 5) 
 
 Cathcart : — Hulbert v. 
 
 Cathcart : — Hulbert & Crowe v. ., 
 
 Cattle V. Thorpe .. 
 
 Catton v. Banks .. 
 
 Caucasian Trading Corporation, Ld., Ex parte 
 
 Cave, In re. Mainland t). Cave ., 
 
 Cave V. Carew 
 
 Cave: — Pike t;. 
 
 Cave:— Tebbu. .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 900 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1900] W. N. 54; 
 
 [1900] A. 0. 150 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 142 
 C. A. [1892]1 Ch. 104 .. 
 B.C. [1895] A. C. 282 .. 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 49; [1900]) 
 
 IQ. B. 777 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 75 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 315 
 
 [1891] IQ.B. 149 .. ..I 
 
 [1893]W. N. 40 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 348 .. .. ! 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 485;)! 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 486..f 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1893] A. C. 38 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 54; C. A. [1892]> 
 IQ. B. 854 / 
 
 n. L. (I.) [1893] A. C. 38 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 50 ; 
 1 Ch. 803 
 
 [1899]) 
 
 [1893" 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 W. N. 187 
 
 1900 
 1894' 
 
 2 Q. B. 478 
 
 2 Ch. 271 .. 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 201 
 
 " 1 Ch. 549; 
 
 C. A. [1892] 
 1 Ch. 466 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 107 
 
 [1893] 1 
 
 C. A. 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1895 
 [1895' 
 
 "1894] 2 Q. B. 559 
 
 "1894] 3 Ch. 376 .. 
 
 1895] W.N. 34 .. 
 
 1 Q. B. 873 
 
 2 Ch. 411 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 470 
 
 •■( 
 
 [1894 
 [190O 
 [1893° 
 C. A. 
 [1892" 
 [1893' 
 [1893' 
 [1900' 
 642 
 
 1 Q. B. 244 
 W.N. 83 
 
 2 Oh. 221 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 368 
 W. N. 142 
 
 W. N. 42 
 W.N. 91 
 
 W. N. 45 ; [1900] 1 Ch.1 
 i 
 
 1765- 
 
 956- 
 
 820' 
 2130 
 1106. 
 
 1735. 
 
 204 
 
 1678: 
 
 1544 
 
 1441 
 
 245, 25S 
 
 1231 
 
 4& 
 
 320 
 
 810 
 2225 
 
 752- 
 1942- 
 1980 
 1964 
 1980 
 
 1436 
 
 1408 
 
 1849 
 
 1849 
 
 2028 
 42, 269, 
 
 1188 
 560, 572, 
 
 1183 
 
 917 
 
 565, 919 
 
 1488 
 565, 920 
 
 1024 
 
 1849 
 
 1850 
 
 1722 
 
 1406 
 
 102 
 
 1693 
 
 1562 
 904, 970 
 
 1058 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 liii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 " Cawdor," The 
 
 Cawae v. Nottingliam Lunatic Hospital 
 
 Oefu Cribbwr Brick Co. : — Great Western Ey.\ 
 
 Co. j; / 
 
 Cellular Clothing Co. v. Maxton & Murray .. i 
 
 ■" Celtic King," The 
 
 Central Bank of London, Ex parte. In re Fraser 
 
 ■Central De Kaap Gold Mines, In re 
 
 Central Elondyke Gold Mining Co., In re.) 
 
 Savigny's Case .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Central News, Ld. : — Exchange Telegraph Co. v. 
 Central Sugar Factories of Brazil, In re. Flack's^ 
 
 Case .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Chadburn V. Moore 
 
 Chaddock «. British South Africa C'l. .. 
 
 Chadwick :— Coats (J. & P.) V 
 
 Chadwick i». Manning 
 
 Chaffers v. Goldsmid 
 
 Challis: — Whitley » 
 
 Chalmei-s i;. Scopenich 
 
 'Chalmers, Guthrie & Co. : — Thiery v. .. 
 
 Chamber Colliery Co. v. Eochdale Canal Co. .. 
 
 Chamber Colliery Co. : — Twyerould v. .. 
 Chamberlain v. Drake. In re Palk. In re Drake 
 Chamberlain : — Hyslop v. In re Hyslop 
 Chamberlain V. Young 
 Chamberlin v. Springfield. In re Springfield . . 
 
 Chamberlain's Wharf, Ld. i;. Smith 
 
 Chamberlyn: — Bradley u. 
 Chambers, Ex parte 
 Chambers : — Barr v. 
 Chambers ; — Campbell 
 
 Case) 
 Chambers : — Campbell v. (Harris' Case) 
 Chambers : — Campbell v. (Gallagher's Case) 
 Chambers : — Campbell v. (Simpson's Case) 
 
 Chambers : — Chillingworth v. (No. 1) . . 
 
 -(No. 2) .. 
 
 V. (William Campbell's 1 
 
 Chambers : — Doherty v. 
 Chambers : — Dunn v. 
 
 Chambers : — Flowers v. 
 
 Crossan v. Chambers.^! 
 (ReEichey) .. ../ 
 
 Chambers: — Hasson v. 
 Lynch v. Buchanan. 
 Chambers : — Hinds v. 
 Chambers : — Holland v. (Devine's Case) 
 Chambers :— Holland v. (Doherty's Case) 
 Chambers : — Hollands v. (O'Doherty's Case) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 8 ; [1900] P, 
 
 4T 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 585 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 157 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 56 
 [1899] A. C. 326 
 
 [1894] P. 175 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 633 
 [1899] W. N. 216, 235 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 1 (2) 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 48 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 369 
 
 [1892] W. N. 126 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 153 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 347 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 231 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 186 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 64 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 735 
 
 [1899] W. N. 235 ; [1900] 1 Ch, 
 
 80 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 632 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 564 . 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 27 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 112 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 522 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 206 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 603 
 C. A. [1900] \V. N. 163 ; [1900] 
 
 2Ch. 605 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 439 
 [1893]lCh. 47 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 101 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 86 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 133 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 147 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 121 
 [1895] W. N. 132 (17); C. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 685 
 [1895] W. N. 136 (6) .. 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 100 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N, 
 
 139 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 65; [18991\ 
 
 2Q. B. 142 / 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 85 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 95 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 115 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 117 
 C. A. (fr.) [1899] W. N. 153 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2000 
 1754 
 1649 
 
 2139 
 
 1986, 
 1995 
 
 159 
 
 351 
 
 423 
 
 536 
 
 444, 961 
 
 765, 
 2224 
 
 674 
 502, 645, 
 
 963 
 
 1323 
 
 1203, 
 
 1366 
 
 1703 
 
 1989 
 
 1197 
 
 1266 
 
 1267 
 2186 
 1610 
 192 
 2354 
 
 2146 
 
 1564 
 1363 
 1391 
 
 1375 
 
 1384 
 1393 
 1385 
 
 2172 
 
 38 
 1392 
 
 1772 
 1230 
 
 1398 
 
 1394 
 1403 
 1374 
 1395 
 
liv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page, 
 
 Chambers :— Kelly v. (M'Connell's Case) 
 
 Chambers: — Ken v. 
 
 Chambers: — M'Carronv. .. 
 
 Chambers: — M'Cready v. 
 
 Chambers : — M'Dermott v. (M'Laughlin's Case) 
 
 Chambers: — M'Laughliu v. 
 
 Chambers: — Melaugh i;. .. 
 
 Chambers: — Mooney r. ,. 
 
 Chambers v. Whitehaven Harbour Commrs. 
 
 Champagne, In re. Ex parte Kemp 
 
 Champion, In re. Dudley ti. Champion 
 
 Champion : — Parker v. .. 
 
 Champion's Case. In re Canadian (Direct) I 
 
 Meat Co ■ ../ 
 
 Chandler i;. Blogg.. 
 
 Chandler r. Bradley 
 
 Chandler v. Smith 
 
 -I 
 -1 
 -1 
 
 Chant, In re. Chant v. Lemon .. 
 
 ChapliQ V. Puttiok. Laiug, Claimant . . 
 
 Chapman, In re. Cocks u. Chapman .. 
 
 Chapman: — Alt.-Gen. v. .. 
 
 Chapman: — Bigiiell w. In re Bignell .. 
 
 Chapman i;. Fylde Waterworks Co 
 
 Chapman's Case. In re Theatrical Trust 
 
 ■ Chappell, In the Goods of 
 
 Chappell V. North 
 
 Chappell v. St. Botolph Overseers .. .. 
 
 Chard Union : — Hole i). .. .. .. " 
 
 Charity Commrs. : — Peg. v. 
 
 Charity Commrs. v. Green. In re Herbage 
 
 Rents, Greenwich .. .. ., ° 
 
 Charity Commrs. v. London Coiporation. In re' 
 
 While's Charities 
 Charlebois :— Great North-Wett CentralRy. vl' ' 
 Charles : —Bast London Waterworks Co. v. 
 
 Charles i;. Shepherd 
 
 Charlesworth v. Mills .. .. " _" 
 
 Charlton i;. Morris .. .. |. 
 
 Charlwood, In re. Ex parte Masters .. 
 
 Charlwood v. Leasehold Investment Co. 
 
 Charnock v. Court . . . . . _ i 
 
 Charriere, In re. Duret v. Charriere 
 
 Charnock i;. Merchant .. .. „ I 
 
 Charter V. Watson .... 
 
 Chartered Mercantile Bank :— Baerlein v 
 Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, Loudon andl 
 Chma :— Minna Craig Steamship Co. v. } 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 [1897] 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1898 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1897 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1898 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1898 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 "1898" 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1898 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 '1899] 
 
 W. N. 125 
 W. N. 122 
 W. N. 107 
 W. N. 95 
 W. N. 100 
 W. N. 90 
 W. N. 119 
 W. N. 183 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 132 
 [1893] W. N. 153 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 101 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 178 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 94; C. A. [1892]! 
 
 W.N. 146 I 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 32 
 
 [1896] W. N. 176 (18) ; [1897]) 
 
 ICh. 315 f 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 112 ; [1899]) 
 
 2Q. B. 506 ) 
 
 [1900] W. N. 133; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 345 / 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 160 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 763 .. ../ 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 526 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Cb. 59 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 599 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 771 
 
 [1894] P. 98 / 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 252 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 561 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 293 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 407 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 811 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 659 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 114 .. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 730 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 622 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 231 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 107 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 643 .. ../ 
 
 [1895] W. N. 47 . 
 
 [1899] W. N. 44; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 35 
 [1896] 1 Cb. 912 
 
 [1900] W.N. 10; [1900] 1Q.B. 
 
 474 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 175 
 0. A. [1895]2Ch. 488 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 55 ; affii-med by 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 460 
 
 "'.} 
 
 1380 
 
 1392 
 
 1367 
 
 1394 
 
 1392 
 
 1379 
 
 1371 
 
 1394 
 
 1223 
 
 1559 
 
 2247, 
 
 2360, 
 
 2367 
 
 1383 
 
 370 
 
 998 
 
 187J 
 
 1227 
 
 2365 
 
 777 
 
 2072, 
 
 2188 
 
 1729 
 
 1705, 
 
 2197 
 
 2276 
 
 428 
 
 789, 
 
 1610 
 
 52 
 
 25,1673 
 
 635, 962 
 
 1206 
 
 1716 
 
 2234 
 
 244 
 1036, 
 2281 
 1528 
 
 200 
 1368 
 
 117, 
 2030 
 
 317 
 
 214T 
 
 726 
 
 611 
 
 1297 
 294 
 
 46T 
 
TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Iv 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Charterhouse School v. Gayler .. 
 Charterland Stores and Trading Co., 
 
 Chastey V. Aokland 
 
 In re 
 
 Chatard's Settlemeait, In re 
 
 Chafenay v. Brazilian Suhmarine Telegraph Co 
 Ld 
 
 Chatterton v. Secretary of State for India i 
 Council .. 
 
 Chawner's Settled Estates, In re.. 
 
 Chaytor, In re 
 
 Cheadle, In re. Bishop «. Holt 
 
 Cheesewright : — Groom v. 
 
 Cheeseman, In re .. 
 
 Chelmsford Union Astessment Committee :- 
 Showers V. 
 
 Chemicals and Drugs Co. : — Saccharin Corpora- 
 tion w. .. 
 
 Cheney, Eggar & Co. : — Gillespie Brothers & Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Cberlsey Union : — West Surrey Water Co. v. 
 
 Cheshire County Council: — Procter v. .. 
 
 Chester-le-Street Assessment Committee : — Dur- 
 ham County Council v. 
 
 Chei-ter, St. John's Street Wesleyan Chapel 
 In re 
 
 Chi ster Master : — Lawson v. 
 
 ChesterBeld Brewery Co. v. Inland Eevenue\ 
 Commrs. 
 
 Cheston v. Wells . . 
 
 Chetwynd v. Allen 
 
 Cheyne: — King v. 
 
 Chicago and North West Granaries Co., In re, 
 Morj ison I). Same Co. .. 
 
 Chichester u. Quatrefages.. 
 
 Chidley : — Mayu. .. 
 
 Chifferiel, In re. Chifferiel ?;. Watson .. 
 
 Chilcott, In the Goods of 
 
 Child, In re. Ex parte Child .. 
 
 Child I?. Bulmer. In re Wilks .. 
 
 Child : — Quinlan v. Quinlan v. Quiolan. Ex 
 
 parte Quinlan ., 
 Chili Eepuhlio v. Baring .. 
 Chili Eepuhlic v. Rothschild 
 
 Chillingworth v. Chambers (No. 1) 
 
 — ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Chilton V. Progress Printing and Puhlifhing Co, 
 
 China Traders Insurance Co. : — Iredale v. 
 
 China Traders Insurance Co. v. Royal Exchanged 
 Assurance Corporation 
 
 " Chioggia," The 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 437 
 
 [1900] W. N. 235 ; [1900] 2 Cb.\ 
 
 870 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 389 ; H. L. (E.)\ 
 
 [1897] A. 0. 155 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 35 (11); [1899]\ 
 
 1 CD. 712 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Q, B. 79 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 189 
 
 [1892] 2 Cli. 192 
 
 [1900] W. N. 181 ; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 
 80i ) 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 174; [1900] i 
 
 2Ch. 620 .. .. '../ 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 730 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 289.. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 339 ..| 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 185; [1900] 1 
 2Ch. 5'56 / 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 59 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 513 
 [1891]W. N. 24 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 330 .. ..| 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 618 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 245 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 7 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 151 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 353 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 622 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (2) 
 
 1 01). 263 
 [1895] P. 186 .. 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 451 
 
 [1895] W. N. 106 .. ..| 
 
 [1897] P. 223 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 77 
 
 [1891] 3 Oh. 59 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 496 .. 
 
 [1898]| 
 
 [1891 
 [1891 
 [1895 
 
 W.N. 138 
 W. N. 138 
 W. N. 132 (17); 0. A. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 685 
 
 [1895 
 0. A. 
 [1899 
 
 ] W. N. 136 (6) 
 ■;i895] 2 Ob. 29 
 
 ^} 
 
 _.., 2Q.B. 356;0. A. [1900]\ 
 W. N. 157 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 515/ 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 187 
 [1897] W. N. 156 (2); [1898]\ 
 JM / 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1756 
 457 
 
 1116 
 
 1524 
 
 492 
 
 647 
 1872 
 1875 
 
 2326 
 
 2051 
 2041 
 1675, 
 1682 
 
 1426 
 
 1817 
 
 2278 
 1507 
 580, 
 1678 
 
 272 
 
 1365 
 
 1795 
 
 1280 
 1286 
 2262 
 
 333 
 
 2357 
 93, 1503 
 2299, 
 23.59 
 2356 
 105 
 1022 
 
 1493 
 
 776 
 776 
 
 2172 
 
 38 
 537 
 
 1932 
 998 
 1987 
 
Ivi 
 
 TABLE OF CA^^ES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Chisliolm : — Paine v. 
 
 Chisholm's Settlement, In re. Hemphill «. Hemp-I 
 
 Cliooqueel : — Osborne v 
 
 Cholditch V. Jones 
 
 Cholmeley School, Highgate v. Sewell (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Chorley Rural Council :— Smith i; 
 
 Chorlion & Sons :— Shackell & Co. « 
 
 Chouler : — Gayford v. 
 
 Christchurch Finance Co. : — Blacks. .. 
 
 Christ Church, East Greenwich, Ex parte Vicarl 
 
 of. Ex parte London County Council . . j 
 
 Christchurch Inclosure Act, In re. Att.-Gen.i 
 
 V. Meyrick (No. 1) | 
 
 Christchurch Inclosure Act, In re. Meyrick v \ 
 
 Att.-Gen. (No. 2) ../ 
 
 Christ Church Oxford :—Att.-Gen. V. .. 
 Christie, In re. Ex parte Christie 
 
 Cbristie i;. Davey . . 
 
 Christie : — De Penny v. In re De Penny 
 Christie: — Taunton, Delmard, Lane & Co. 
 
 In re I'aunton, Delmard, Lane& Co. 
 Christie, Manson & Woods : — Cooper v. 
 Christ's Hospital :— Att.-Gen. v. 
 Christmas v. Jones. In re Jones 
 Chun Teeong Toy : — Musgrove v. 
 Clmrchill: — Bowen v. In re Daveron 
 Churchill : — Hearson v. .. 
 Churchill ■;;. St. George's Hospital 
 
 Shepherd 
 Churchward v. Churchward 
 Churton : — Dodd v. 
 " City of Agra," The '.'. \. 
 
 City of Chicago Grain Elevators, Ld.':'— Eich 
 
 baum V. .. 
 City of London Brewery Co. : — Pannell v. 
 City of London Court (Judge of the") • — Eeo- 'v \ 
 
 (No. 1) .. .. .. .. ^ ... I 
 
 "'(No. 2) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ."} 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 531 
 
 [1900] W. N. 128 .. .. j 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 109 .. .. ( 
 
 [1895] W. N. 147 (5); [1896]\ 
 
 ICh. 42 /: 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 254 .. .. ! 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 906 .. .. i 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 678 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 378 .. ..| 
 
 [1898] IQ. B. 316 
 
 [1894] A. C. 48 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 520 
 
 657, 563 
 
 1481 
 
 686 
 
 2032 
 
 1073 
 106S 
 2081 
 475, 
 1081 
 619 
 1243 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 1 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 209 .. ..| 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 524 
 
 [1899] W. N. 217; [1900] 1\ 
 Q-B. 5 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 316 
 
 [1891] 2Ch. 63 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 175 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 In re Howell 
 
 
 •■{ 
 
 City of London Electric Lighting Co. v. London l 
 Corporation 
 
 City of London Brewery Co. v. Inland Revenue f 
 Commrs. .. .. ._ { 
 
 City of London Electric Lighting Co. :— Meux'sl 
 Brewery Co. f. (No. 1) .. .. | 
 r^Q 2) 
 
 City of London Electric Lighting Co. :— She'lferl 
 V. (No. 1) .. > 
 
 City of London Eeal Property Co. :— St. Gabriell 
 Fenohurch Street (Rector, &c., oQ v. .. j 
 
 City and South London Railway Co. t^.'Londonl 
 (Coun'y Council) " .. .. | 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 522 
 
 [1896] 1 Cli. 879 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 272 . 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 421 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 144 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 649 
 
 [1895] P. 7 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 562 
 
 [1898] P. 198 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 459 
 
 [1900] W. N.16; [1900] 1 Ch.496 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 71 .. ..i 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 273 . 
 
 [1900] W. N. 116 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 408 ; C. A. [1898] 
 W. N. 162(4);[1899]1Q. B 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287 . 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 388 . 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287 . , 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 388 ., 
 [1896] P. 95 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 513 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 735 
 
 297 
 
 297, 
 2088 
 275 
 
 175 
 
 966, 
 1318 
 1544 
 
 305 
 
 2122 
 
 275 
 
 794 
 
 27, 2258 
 
 2349 
 
 68 
 1314, 
 2356 
 
 694 
 
 222 
 1996 
 
 401 
 
 1069 
 594, 
 1527 
 1953 
 
 543 
 
 1802 
 
 45, 968, 
 1346 
 968 
 
 45, 96? 
 
 968 
 
 749 
 
 1152, 
 1669 
 
TABLE or CASES IX THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ivii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Ciiy and Suburban Permanent Building Society :) 
 — Pepe V. .. .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 City and Suburban Permanent Building Society :) 
 — ^Botten V. .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 City Lands Investment Corporation, Ld., In re 
 
 Civil, Naval, and Militnry Outfitters, Ld., In re | 
 
 Civil Service Brewery Co., In re.. 
 
 Clacton Local Board v. Young & Sons . . 
 Clacton Urban District Council : — Toms v. 
 Clancarty (Earl of): — London and UniversaH 
 Bank v. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Clanmorris (Lord) : — Thomson v. 
 
 Clapp: — ^Mogridge V. 
 
 Clare: — Hunter v. 
 
 Clare & Co. : — Fenna i;. .. 
 
 Claridge v. South Staffordshire Tramway Co. . . 
 
 Claridge : — Union Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Clark, In re. Ex parte Beardmore 
 
 Clark, In re. Ex parte Clark .. .. .A 
 
 Clark, In re. Ex parte Beaver, Peacock & Co. 
 Clark, In re. Ex parte Schulze . . 
 Clark: — Banque Eusse et Prancaise v. .. 
 Clark: — ^Barnacle j;. 
 
 Clark: — Hasluck tj. 
 
 Clark : — 'I'orish v. (Monaghan's Case) . . 
 Clark : — Torish v. (Starrs' Case) .. 
 Clark & Co. : — Lysaght v. 
 
 Clarke, Ex parte. ~ In re Burr .. 
 
 Clarke, In re 
 
 Clarke, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Clarke v. Buchanan (Doherty's Case), .. 
 
 Clarke v. Buchanan (Carlin's Case) 
 
 Clarke v. Oarfin Coal Co. . . 
 
 Clarke i;. Clarke .. 
 
 Clarke v. Clarke . . 
 
 Clarke v. Coleman 
 
 Clarke: — Duke v. 
 
 Clarke v. Dunraven (Earl of). The " Satanita "| 
 
 Clarke v. London and County Banking Co. 
 
 Clarke : — Long v. 
 
 Clarke : — Mackinnon v. .. 
 
 Clarke v. Meaby & Co. In re Meaby & Co. 
 
 Clarke v. Eamuz .. 
 
 Clarke v. Torish (Case of Aiken and Others) 
 
 Clarke w. White. In re Bennett .. 
 
 Clarke & Co. : — Devereux v. 
 Clarke's Pesign, In re 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 -1 
 
 ■} 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 311 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 441 
 
 [1897] W. N. 162 (2) .. 
 C.-A. [1898] W. N. 168 (6);1 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 215 .. .. ! 
 
 [1893]W. N. 5.. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 395 
 [1898] W. N. 61 (10) .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 689 
 
 [1899] W. N. 125; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 523; C. A. [1900] W. N. i:0; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 718 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 3S2 .. 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 635 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 199 
 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 422 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 185 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 393 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 152 (1); 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 20 ., 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 476 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 330 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 203 
 [1900] I Q. B. 279 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 28 ; C. A 
 
 IQ. B. 699 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 102 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 112 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 552 
 [1892] W. N. 122 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 W.N. 138 .. .. * 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 336 .. 
 [1896] P. 287 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 113 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 109 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 412 
 [1891] P. 278 .. 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 130 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 114 (2) 
 
 [1894] W. N. 100 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 164 (5) ; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 59 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 552 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 119 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 251 
 [1899] W. N. 58 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 456 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 127 .. 
 [1898] W. N. 173 (8); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 316 / 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 582 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Oh. 38 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1899]! 
 
 ,1 
 
 232 
 
 226 
 
 390 
 
 455 
 
 437,457, 
 464 
 2090 
 567 
 
 1566 
 
 1127 
 
 1873, 
 2103 
 1252 
 1351 
 
 89 
 1243 
 
 115 
 
 158 
 
 104 
 
 151 
 1546 
 1823 
 
 128 
 
 1402 
 1378 
 1536 
 
 154, 168 
 
 1190 
 
 781 
 1392 
 1393 
 1837 
 
 701 _ 
 
 673 
 
 773 
 1048, 
 1560 
 
 1981 
 
 92 
 
 682 
 1365 
 
 467 
 2231 
 1383 
 
 1299 
 
 646,677 
 657 
 
Iviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Clarkson : — Att.-Gren. v. 
 Olaikson v. Robinson 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Clay: — Black v. .. 
 
 Clayton : — Sheffield Banking Co. v. In ve Walker 
 CLiyton and Barclay's Contract, In re .. 
 deary v. Booth 
 
 Cleavcr v. Mutual Eeserve Fund Life Association 
 Clegg, Parkinson & Co. v. Earby G-as Co. 
 Clegg D. Ellison. In re Jones .. 
 Cleghorn i;. Burrows. In re Bui rows .. 
 C^mcns: — B.eg. v. 
 
 Clement & Cie.'s Trade Mark, In re 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Clements, In re. Clements v. Pearsall .. 
 Clemeuti!, In the Goods of 
 
 Clements v. London and North Western Ry. Co. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Ilay v.\ 
 Wolmer"! 
 
 .1 
 
 Clemow, In re. Teo v. Clemow 
 
 Clergy Orphan Corporation, In re 
 Clerk V. Stevens. In re Stevens 
 Clerkenwell (Vestry) : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 Cleveland's (Duke of) Estate, In re 
 
 Wolmer .. 
 Cleveland's (Duke of) Estate, In re. 
 
 (Viscount) v. Forester .. 
 Cleveland's (Duke of) Settled Estates, In re 
 Cleveland Water Co. v. Eedoar Local Board 
 Clews V. Grindey. In re Grindey 
 " Clievedcn," The. SS. " Diana " v. SS. " Clieve 
 
 den" 
 
 Clifden (Lord), In re. Annaly v. Agar-Ellis 
 
 Clifilen (Viscount) : — Jenks ^;. .. 
 Cliff, In re. Edwards v. Brown 
 
 ClifFs Trusts, In re 
 
 Clifford : — Angus v. 
 
 Clifford V. Gurney. In re Gurney 
 
 CI fford i;. Holt 
 
 Clifford V. Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 
 Clifford V. Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding 
 
 Co r 
 
 Clif LOU College r. Tompson 
 
 Clifton: — Hanmer t;. 
 
 Clink u. Eadford & Co 
 
 Clipper Pneumatic Tyre Co. : — Bagot Pneuniatio\ 
 
 Tyre Co. <; / 
 
 Clippingdale : — Eocket v. 
 
 Close Brothers & Co. : — ^Assets Devtlopment\ 
 
 Co. f / 
 
 Clough, Ex parte. In re West, King & Adams 
 Clowes, In re 
 Clowes: — Genard v. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 '':] 
 
 0. A. [1899] W.N. 234; [1900]V 
 IQ. B. 156 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 188; [1900] 2 Ch.'l 
 722 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 368 .. { 
 
 1892] 1 Ch. 621 
 
 1895] 2 Ch. 212 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 465 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 147 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 592 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 83 
 
 [1895] 2 Cb. 497 
 
 C. 0. E. [1898] 1 Q. B. 556 .. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 220; [1900]l 
 
 ICh. 114 ) 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 665 
 
 [1892] P. 254 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 482 ..{ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 105 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 182 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 145 '. 
 [1896] W. N. 24 (12) .. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 527 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 542 
 
 C. A. [1894]1 Ch. 164 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 244 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 168 
 
 C. A. 1898] 2 Ch. 593 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 625 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 93 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 774 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 694 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 21 .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 229 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 449 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Cb. 863 
 
 [1898] W. N. 168 
 
 1 Cb. 698 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 187 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 814 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 432 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 238 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 625 
 
 [1900] W. N. 272 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 293 
 [1900] W. N. 176 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 717 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 102 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 214 .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 11 
 
 ColumQ 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 (2)';' [1899]| 
 
 1738 
 
 2197 
 
 1034, 
 1835 
 1587 
 114, 125 
 1825 
 
 980 
 
 874 
 1826 
 2;13 
 
 618 
 
 2125 
 
 953 
 1622 
 
 946, 
 1493 
 
 2363 
 
 276 
 2317 
 1348 
 
 1852 
 
 2368 
 
 2360 
 2276 
 2174 
 
 1947 
 
 1134 
 
 1120 
 1538 
 2329 
 370 
 1497 
 
 1118 
 
 1791 
 
 584 
 
 1757 
 1486, 
 1563 
 1936 
 
 310 
 
 1957 
 
 563 
 
 2042 
 2303 
 1566 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 lix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 :\ 
 
 Clowser : — Porster v. 
 Clutterbuck : — Goooh v. .. 
 Clutterbuok i;. Taylor 
 
 Glutton V. Attenborough & Sons 
 
 Clyde Navigation (Trustees of) v. Blantyre 
 (Lord) , 
 
 Clydesdale Bank v. Paton 
 
 Clydesdale Bank : — Thomson v. .. 
 
 " Ciymene," The 
 
 Co.xl Co-operative Society: — Great Northei 
 El wy. Co. V. 
 
 Coalport China Co., In re 
 
 Goatee v. Eeg. 
 
 Coats (J. & P.) V. Ghadwick 
 
 Goats (J. & P.) V. Inland Eevenue Gommrs. 
 Cobb «. Cobb 
 
 Cobb V. Great Western Elwy. Go. . . . . | 
 
 Gobbett : — St. Mary, Islington (Vestry) v. 
 Cobbold ■«. Astwood 
 Cobbold : — Astwood v. .. 
 Cobden : — De Souza v. .. 
 
 Cobley : — Meux v. 
 
 Coburn V. Golledge 
 Cochrane v. Macnish & Son 
 Cookburn v. Eaphael 
 
 Cockcroft V. Sanderson. In re Ainsworth 
 Cock : — Prout v. .. 
 
 Cockerton v. London School Board. Phillips v.\ 
 The Same / 
 
 Cocks «. Chapman. In re Chapman .. ..| 
 
 Cocks, Biddulph & Co., Ex parte. In re Hallettl 
 &Go \ 
 
 Gocksedge v. Metropolitan Coal Gonsumers'l 
 Association .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Cockshott: — Eeg. v. 
 Coffey V. Coffey . . 
 
 ,Goghlan, In re. Broughton v. Broughton 
 Coghlan v. Cumberland . . 
 
 Cohen v. Tannar .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Cohen : — White v 
 
 Colao (President, &c.) v. Summerfield .. 
 
 Colchester (In re A Scheme Eelating to Grammar] 
 School in), In re Endowed Schools Act, 1869, > 
 1873 and 1874 J 
 
 Colchester Tramways Co., In re . . 
 
 Cole: — Att.-Gten. V. 
 
 G. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 362 
 
 G. A. [1899] W. N. 96 ; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 148 / 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 395 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 306 ; C. A. [1895]) 
 2Q. B. 707;H. L. (B.)[1896]'■ 
 W.N.174(2);[1897] A.C. 90 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. G. 703 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. 0. 381 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 282 
 [1897] P. 295 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Gh. 187 
 
 G. A. [1895] 2 Gh. 404 .. 
 P. 0. [1900] A. C. 217 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Gh. 347 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 778 ; G. A. [1897] 
 
 2Q. B. 423 
 [1900] P. 145 .. 
 [1900] P. 294 .. 
 G. A. [1893] IQ. B. 459; H. L, 
 
 (E.) [1894] A. G. 419 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 369 
 P. C. [1894] A. G. 150 .. 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 150 .. 
 G. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 687 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 253 
 
 G. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 702 
 P. C. [1896] A. G. 225 .. 
 1891] W.N. 14.. 
 1895] W. N. 153 (9) .. 
 1898] 2 Ch. 808 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 4; G. A. [1898] \ 
 
 2Q. B. 447 / 
 
 [1895] W. N. 162 (4); G. A.\ 
 
 [1896] 2 Cb. 763 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 256 
 
 [1891] W. N. 132 ; G. A. [1891]\ 
 W.N. 148 .. 
 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 582 
 
 1898] P. 169 .. 
 
 1894] 3 Gh. 76 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Gh. 704 .. 
 G. A. [1900] W. N. 162 ; [1900]) 
 
 2Q. B. 609 .. .. 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 580 
 P. 0. [1893] A. C. 187 .. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. G. 477 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Gb. 309 
 [1900] W. N. 272 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1010 
 1062 
 1399 
 
 94 
 
 1449 
 
 1838 
 
 99, 2077 
 
 1992 
 
 204, 940 
 
 403 
 
 1337 
 
 502, 645, 
 
 963 
 
 1795 
 
 42 
 924 
 
 1653 
 
 1172 
 
 1301 
 
 1301 
 546,577 
 817, 877, 
 
 1054, 
 
 1078, 
 
 2268 
 
 2038- 
 
 1019 
 
 283 
 
 790 
 
 1298 
 
 1825 
 2072, 
 2188 
 
 '151 
 
 466 
 
 1033 
 
 716 
 1903 
 
 40 
 
 1059 
 
 589 
 2259 
 
 274 
 
 1364, 
 2151 
 1349 
 
Ix 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 dole, In re. Ex parte Attenborougli 
 
 €ole i;. Eley 
 
 'Cole V. Langford . . 
 
 <jole : — Lovejoy v. 
 
 •Coleman v. Bucks and Oxon Union Bank 
 
 Coleman : — Clarke v. 
 
 Coleman : — Lysaght (J.), Ltd. v. 
 
 Coleridge's Settlement, In re Lord 
 
 Coles : — Grey v. In re Grey 
 
 •Coles V. Peyton. In re Sir J. J. Ennis 
 
 Coley, lii re. Gibson v. Gibson 
 
 Coling V. Haden. In re Haden . . 
 
 Collard :— Carswell v. The " Victoria " 
 
 Collard v. Marshall 
 
 CoUedge: — Coburn ■;;. 
 
 Colless V. Lands (Minister for) . . 
 
 CoUingham v. Sloper. Foreign, American and\ 
 
 General Investments Trusts Co. v. Sloper .. J 
 CulliDs, Ex parte. In re Rogers.. 
 •Collins, Ex parte. In re Wells .. 
 Collins V. Barker . . 
 ■Collins i;. Elstone .. 
 •CoUins: — Miller?;. 
 Collins V. North British and Mercantile Insurance\ 
 
 Co. Pratt V. Same . . . . . . . . J 
 
 •Collins : — Scobie v. 
 Oolliiison v. Jeffery 
 CoUis V. Laugher . . 
 
 Collman v. Mills . . 
 
 'CoUman v. Roberts 
 
 •Colman's Trade-marks, In re (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Colmer (James), Ld., In re 
 
 Colmer : — Vowles r. 
 
 Colnett : — Shackell v. In re Pride 
 
 Colonial Secretary of Lagos :— Callender, Sykes 
 & Co. V. Williams v. Davies . . 
 
 Colonial Securities Trust Co. v 
 Colquhoun: — Bradley v. .. 
 Oolquhouu : — Doogan v. .. 
 
 Colquhoun v. Young 
 
 Colt : — Welch v. In re Brace 
 Columbian Gold Mines, In re 
 "Columbus," The.. 
 
 •Colville :— Tullett w. In re Wood 
 
 Colvin :— Brandreth V. In re Pitoairn .. 
 
 •Combe :—Ffinch u. 
 
 Comber 11. Ley land .. ., " [ 
 
 " Comet" (Owners &c.of Lightship):— "JVl"ediana 
 (Owners of Steamship) v. The " Mediana " . 
 Comfort V. Betts .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 290 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 180 ; C. A. [1894]) 
 2 Q. B. 350 
 
 1898 
 
 1894' 
 
 1897 
 
 C. A.' 
 
 [1895 
 [1891 
 C. A.' 
 
 2 Q. B. 36 
 2 Q. B. 861 
 2 Ch. 243.. 
 1895] W. N. 
 
 114 (2) 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 49 , 
 
 2 Ch. 704 
 W. N. 201 
 1893] 3 Ch. 238 
 
 [1900] W; N. 272 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 220 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 106 
 [1893] A. C. 635 
 
 [L892] 1 Ch. 571 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 702 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 90 .. 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 96 ; C. A. [1894] 3 
 Ch. 716 
 
 [1894 
 [1892; 
 
 [1893 
 U. A, ' 
 
 1 Q. B. 425 
 
 W. N. 96 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 578 
 
 P. 1 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 228 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 375 
 
 573 
 
 [1896 
 
 1 Ch. 644 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 659 
 [1896 "" 
 
 IQ. 
 
 1896' 
 1891' 
 1894' 
 1897' 
 1895' 
 1891' 
 
 W. N. 175 
 B. 396 
 
 1 Q. B. 457 
 
 2 Ch. 402 
 2 Ch. 115 
 
 1 Ch. 524 
 W. N. 42 
 
 2 Ch. 135 
 
 (10); [1897 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 460 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896]1 Q. B. 38.. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 130 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 148 .. 
 Registration App. Ct. (So.) [1898]\ 
 W.N. 114 .. .. / 
 
 1891 
 
 1894 
 
 1899 
 
 1894 
 
 2 Cli. 671 
 W. N. 92 
 W. N. 22 (I) .. 
 2 Ch. 310 ; C. A. [1894] 
 3Ch. 381 
 [1895] W. N. 139 (11); [1896] 
 
 2Ch. 199 
 [1894] P. 191 .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 524 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 34 
 
 [1900] A. 0. 113 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q B. 737 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 107 
 2024 
 
 1551 
 
 591 
 
 97 
 
 773 
 
 989 
 1869 
 2057 
 1582 
 1896 
 
 901 
 
 1943 
 
 645, 650, 
 963 
 2038 
 1325 
 
 326, 487 
 
 114 
 143, 776 
 138 
 2357 
 913 
 1540, 
 1544 
 1274 
 1297 
 1122 
 
 1171 
 
 2018 
 2125 
 2128 
 383 
 1913 
 1298 
 119, 292, 
 877, 
 1045 
 46 
 1383 
 1390 
 
 1396 
 
 1479 
 455 
 1992 
 520, 
 2349 
 
 1856 
 
 1611 
 1539 
 
 1951 
 
 74 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 1x5 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Commercial Bank of Australia v. John Wilson\ 
 & Co. (Official Assignee) . . . . . . / 
 
 Commercial Bank of Tasmania v. Jones 
 
 Commercial Development Corporation :- 
 Kellner Alkali Co. «. .. 
 
 :} 
 
 -Castnerl 
 
 Liverpool General Brokers' Association, Ld. v.) 
 Comrar. for Bys. D. O'Rourke 
 Commr. for Eys. : — Penny w. 
 Commrs. imder the Boiler Explosions Act, 1882 :) 
 
 — Eeg. 1). .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Commrs. (Drainage) Selby Dam : — Grallsworthyj 
 
 V-' ) 
 
 Commrs. (Harbour) Blyth v. Newsham and) 
 
 South Blyth (Churchwardens of) .. .. ( 
 
 Commrs. (Improvement) Eathminesand Eathgar:\ 
 
 — Herron v. .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Commrs. (Improvement) Tyne Improvement : — ' 
 
 Arrow Shipping Co. v. The " Crystal " 
 Commrs. of Inland Eevenue. See also under Inland 
 
 Eevenue Commrs., post pp. oxxviii.-cixx. 
 Commrs. of Land Tax : — Harding i;. 
 Commrs. (Sewers) for City of London : — Batter-\ 
 
 sea (Lord) t;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Commrs. of Sewers for City of London, Ex parte.O 
 
 St. Botolph, Aldgate (Vicar of), Ex parte .. / 
 Commrs. (Sewers) for City of London v. St.\ 
 
 Botolph Without, Aldgate (Parishioners of) .. / 
 Commrs. of Sewers of New Eomney : — New\ 
 
 Eomney (Corporation of) u. .. .. ../ 
 
 Commrs. for Special Purposes of Income Tax v.\ 
 
 Pemsel .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Commrs. of Stamp Duties : — Broughton v. 
 Commrs. of Stamps : — Dilworth v. 
 
 Commrs. of Stamps v. Hope 
 
 Commrs. of Taxation w. Teece .. 
 
 Commrs. of Taxes for the Barstaple Division of| 
 
 Essex: — Reg. v. 
 Commrs. of Works : — Gedye v. 
 Common Petroleum Engine Co., In re. Blsner\ 
 
 and McArthur's Case .. .. ... ../ 
 
 Oompanhia de Mo9ambique: — British South"! 
 
 Africa Co. v. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 ' Companies Guardian Society, In re. Lord Walls-) 
 
 court's Case .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Company, In re A 
 
 Comptoir National d'Bscompte de Paris : — Klein-'l 
 
 wort, Sons, & Co. v. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Compton V. Bagley 
 
 Comptroller-General of Patents : — Eeg. v. 
 Comptroller-General of Patents, &c. : — Eastman'! 
 .PhotographicMaterialsCo.il. .. .. / 
 
 Comyns u. Hyde .. 
 
 Concessions Acquisition Syndicate, In re 
 
 Concessions Trust, In re. McKay's Case 
 
 Concha v. Concha.. 
 
 Conduit Colliery Co. :— Att.-Gcn. v. 
 
 1 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 181 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 313 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 50; [1899]) 
 1 Ch. 803 .. .. ..\ 
 
 [1897] 2 Q.B.I 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 594 .. 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 628 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 703 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 348 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 293 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 2Q. B. 675 .. .. ../ 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1892] A. C. 498 . 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 508 . 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 446 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 708 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 544 
 
 [1892] P. 161 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 840 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 531 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. 0. 251 .. 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 99 .. 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 476 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1899] A. C. 254 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 123 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 630 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 759 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 358 ; H. 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 602 
 
 [1899] W. N. 258 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 157 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 313 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 909 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1898] A. C. 571 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 ':) 
 
 1895] W. N. 9 .. 
 1898] W. N. 162 (1) .. 
 1896] 2 Ch. 757 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 670 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 301 
 
 150 
 
 1587,. 
 2100 
 
 143S 
 
 529 
 
 132a 
 2364 
 
 214 
 
 549, 
 168S 
 
 1683 
 
 2069, 
 2274 
 
 2012 
 
 2259 
 1118 
 
 754 
 
 74S 
 
 168S 
 
 1762 
 
 1330 
 1335 
 640,. 
 1332 
 132T 
 
 2112 
 
 2254 
 
 431 ■ 
 
 1498, 
 1560 
 
 430 
 
 455 
 
 92, 2157 
 
 2241 
 1437 
 
 2132 
 
 537 
 311 
 423 
 39 
 1266 
 
Ixii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Kavanagh 
 
 Connemara v. CoDnemara . , 
 Connolly v. Biddall. Grahnm v. Donnelly ; 
 Martin v. Hanrahan (No. 2) . . 
 
 Connor v. Kent 
 
 :} 
 
 Conquest v. Ebhetts 
 
 Conrad : — Guild & Co. v. .. 
 Conroy v. Peacock 
 CoDsett Iron Co., [n re 
 Consolidated Bank : — Scott v. 
 
 Consolidated Co. u. Curtis & Son 
 
 Consolidattd Exploration and Finance Co., In re-j 
 
 Consolidated Exploration and Finance Co. v.\ 
 
 Mu.ograve .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Consort Deep Level Gold Mines, Ld., In re. Ex) 
 
 parte " Stark " .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Constables of St. Peter Port :— National Tele- j 
 
 phone Co. t;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Cunstantine & Co. v. Warden & Sons .. 
 Continental Oxygen Co., In re. Ellias v. Con-\ 
 
 tinental Oxygen C 1. ,. .. .. ../ 
 
 Conway Justices : — Evans i;. 
 
 C I] way and CoUvyn Bay Joint Water Supply 
 
 Board: — Jones w. 
 Coijybeaie ti. Lnndon School Board 
 Conynp,ham: — Adlingtnn v. 
 Cook, In re. Ex [ arte Ciipps .. 
 Cook V. Andrews . . 
 
 Cook V. Culverhouse. In re Culverhouse 
 Cook V. Hainsworth 
 
 Cook V. Mitcham Common Cocservators 
 Cook V. Sprigg 
 Cook V. White 
 Cook's Mortgage, In re 
 
 Cook's Mortgage, In re. Law' edge v. Tycdall. 
 Cooke, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Cooke : — Jones v. 
 
 ■} 
 
 Cooke V. Gilbert 
 
 Cooke : — Lowe v, 
 
 Cooke : — Smith v. . . 
 Cooke : — Smith v. .. 
 
 In re Blantern 
 
 Cooke V. Stevens. In re Stevens 
 
 Cooke : — Storey v. 
 Coole V. Lovegrove 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 473 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 102 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 103 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 545 .. ..| 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 377; F. L. 
 
 (E.) [1896] W. N. 87 (10); 
 
 [1896] A. C. 490 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 885 
 
 [1897]2Q. B. 6 
 
 [1900] W. N. 274 
 [1893]W. N. 56 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 495 
 
 [1899] W. N. 127; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 599 
 
 '.J 
 
 [1899] W. N. 212; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 37 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 575 .. 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 317 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] W.N. 143(11) .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 511 
 
 [19C0] 2Q. B. 5; C. A. [1900] 
 W. N. 132; [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 224 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 603 .. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1899" 
 [1897° 
 
 1 Q. B. 118 
 "1898] 2 Q. B. 492 
 1 Q. B. 863 
 1 Ch. 266 
 
 1896" 
 
 2 Cb. 251 
 
 [1896" 
 1900" 
 
 2 Q. B. 85 
 W. N. 252 
 
 P.C. 
 
 [1896] 
 
 "1895° 
 
 1896° 
 
 1895° 
 
 1899] A. C. 572 . 
 1 Q. B. 284 
 1 Ch. 700 
 1 Ch. 923 
 P. 68 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 213 ..] 
 
 [1892] W. N. Ill 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 54 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 509 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 297 .' 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 422; C. A. [189711 
 
 W.N. 175 (7); [1898] 1 Ch. 
 
 162 .. "' J 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 509; U. L.) 
 
 (E.) [1891] A. C. 297 ../ 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 14 
 
 841, 
 1592 
 70J 
 
 1367 
 
 607, 
 '2143 
 
 1061 
 
 843 
 597 
 364 
 665 
 83, 2157, 
 2158 
 
 434 
 
 87 
 
 390 
 
 2101 
 1998 
 315 
 
 1114 
 
 2277, 
 2278 
 1823 
 
 557 
 2027 
 2242 
 1745 
 2681 
 298 
 260 
 
 22 
 2199 
 934 
 1607 
 1688, 
 2068, 
 2071, 
 2113 
 1197 
 2311, 
 2319 
 661 
 643 
 
 798 
 
 643 
 1158 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixiii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Coolgardie Goldfields, Lrl., In re .. 
 
 Coolgaidie Goldfields, Ld., In re. In re Cannon, 
 
 Son & Morten (Solicitors) 
 Coomber : — Jenkins & Sons -y. .. 
 Coombs v. Wilkes.. 
 
 Cooper, Ex parte. In re Bey ts and Craig 
 
 Cooper, In the Goods of .. 
 Cjoper V. Adams. In re Bii'igett 
 
 Cooper V. Belsey . . 
 
 C loper u. Crane .. 
 
 Cooper : — Christie, Manson & Woods v. 
 
 Cjoper:^ — D'Auvergae v. . . 
 
 Cooper: — EUesmere Brewery Cj. t'. 
 
 Coopar V. Gjers. In re Gjers 
 Cooper u. GrifSn .. 
 Cooper :— Hill v. .. 
 
 Cooper V. Pearse . . 
 
 Cooper: — Roberts 17. 
 
 Cooper V. Stephens 
 
 Co"per: — Wood u. 
 
 Cooper-King i;. Cooper-King 
 
 Coote V. Cadogan. In re Byre Coote . . 
 
 C o'.e V. Ford 
 
 Co; eland v. Simister 
 
 " Corernicus," The 
 
 Copiapo Mining Co., In re 
 Copland, In re 
 
 Copland's Settlement, In re. Johns v. Garden 
 
 Coppard : — Wauton v. .. 
 
 Co| pen V. Dingle. Dingle v. Coppen . 
 Coppen V. Moore (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Copper Mines Tinplafe Co., In re 
 Corbett V. Jonas .. 
 
 Corcoran, In re. Corcoran v. Eiddell . 
 Cordova Union Gold Co., In re . . 
 
 Cord well v. Lever. In re Lever . . 
 
 Cork Co., Ld.: — Payne w. 
 
 Corke v. Fry 
 
 Cornlack, In the Goods of 
 Corn i;. Matthews., 
 
 Cornford v. Carlton Bank, Ld. .. 
 
 Cornish, In re. Ex parte|Board of Trade 
 
 -I 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 
 (12) ;J 
 
 [1899] W. N. 128 
 
 [1900] W. N. 23 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 475 / 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 108 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 77 
 
 [1894]W. N. 56 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] P. 193 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 557 
 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 20 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 639 
 [1891] P. 369 .. 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 522 
 1899]W. N. 256 
 1895] W. N. 157 (8) ; [1890] 1\ 
 
 Q. B. 75 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 77 ; [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 54 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 740 
 
 C. A. [1893]2Q. B. 85.. ..| 
 
 [1896] W. N. 40 (3) ; [1896] 1\ 
 Q. B. 562 .. .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 335 .. 
 
 1895] 1 Ch. 567 
 
 1894] 3 Ch. 671 
 
 1900] W. N. 32 ; [1900] P. 65 
 
 1899]W. N. 222 
 
 1899] W. N. 57 ; C. A. [1899] 2 
 Ch. 93 .... 
 
 [1893] P. 16 I 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 237 
 [1899] W. N. 25 (1) .. 
 [1895] W. N. 137 (1) .. 
 [1900] W.N. 14; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 
 326 / 
 
 [1898] W. N. 152 (16) ; [1899]) 
 
 ICh. 92 .. .. / 
 
 1 Ch. 726 
 
 2 Q. B. 300 
 2Q. B. 306 
 W.N. 20(4) .. 
 3Ch. 137 
 W. N. 182 
 2Ch. 580 
 W.N. 167(9); [1897] 1 
 
 '.^} 
 
 1899 
 1898' 
 1898' 
 1897' 
 '1892' 
 '1892 
 '1891' 
 1896' 
 Ch 
 
 32 
 
 .'1 
 
 N.I 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 308 
 
 Ct of Ses". (So.) [1896] W. N.i 
 
 128 .. .. .. ..) 
 
 [1891] P. 151 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 310 
 
 [1899] W. N. 8 (4); [1899] 1^ 
 
 Q. B. 392; C. A. [1899] W.N. 
 
 211; [1900] 1 Q. B. 22 ..I 
 
 [1895]2Q.B.634; C. A. [1895] 
 
 W.N. 152(3); [1896] IQ.B 
 
 99 
 
 Columa 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 372 
 
 1803 
 
 193 
 848 
 117, 
 2030 
 1622 
 139, 153 
 
 18?8 
 
 709 
 2122 
 
 268 
 
 1584, 
 
 1586 
 
 1883 
 
 269, 349 
 906, 
 1699 
 
 1051 
 
 1903 
 
 528 
 1056 
 707 
 1860 
 
 1519 
 
 584, 
 1625 
 90 
 366 
 794 
 
 1870 
 
 2244 
 
 1878 
 2122 
 1239 
 363 
 1121 
 283 
 448 
 
 1871 
 
 378 
 
 1763 
 
 1593 
 49, 944 
 
 1204 
 
 172 
 
Ixiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Cornwall v. Henson 
 
 Cornwall: — MoArthur & Co. v. .. 
 
 Cornwall Brick, Tile, and Terra-Cotta Co., In re 
 
 Cornwall Minerals Ey. Co., In re 
 
 Corregan v. Farrelly 
 
 CoiTy: — Fielding & Co. u. 
 
 Cort: — ^Allen w. In re Harrison 
 
 Cory : — General Insurance Co. of Trieste (Assi-\ 
 
 curazioni Generali) i;. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Cory & Son : — Kennaird v. 
 
 Cory Bros. & Co. v. Oy^Tiersof Turkish Steamsliip\ 
 
 '■Mecca" / 
 
 Coryat : — Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. 
 
 Cosh's Contract, In re 
 
 Cosier, In re. Hill Brothers v. Humphreys 
 
 Costa Eica Ey. Co. v. Porwood . . 
 
 Coste : — Wohlgemuthe u. 
 
 Coster : — HoUoway v. 
 
 Co I ham : — Eeg. v. 
 
 Cottam : — Downes v. In re Beddoe 
 
 Cotton V. Imperial and Foreign Agency and In-\ 
 
 vestment Corporation .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Cotton V. Vogan & Co. 
 
 Coughlin V. Gillison 
 
 Couldridge : — Gower v. .. 
 
 Coulson : — Att.-Gen. v. Att.-Gen. v. Owen . . 
 
 Coulson V. Capper. In re Porter 
 
 Coulson: — Cunard Steamship Co. u. 
 
 Coulson v. Disborough 
 
 Coulthard : — Ecroyd v. .. 
 
 Coulthwaite : — Thwaites «. 
 
 Counties Conservative Permanent Benefit Build- 
 ing Society : — Norton V. 
 
 Counties Conservative Permanent Benefit Build- "1 
 ing Society, In re. Davis v. Norton .. ../ 
 
 Country Estates Co. v. Graves .. 
 
 " County of Durham," The 
 
 County of Gloucester Bank v. Eudry Mertbyi\ 
 Steam and House Coal CoUiery Co. . . . . j 
 
 County of London and Brush Provincial Electric ) 
 Lighting Co. : — St. Mary, Battersea (Vtstry | 
 
 of) j 
 
 Coup^ Co. V. Maddiok 
 
 Couper : — British and American Trustee and\ 
 Fmance Corporation «;. .. .. ..] 
 
 Courage v. O'Shea. In re O'Shea's Settlement 
 
 " Courier," The 
 
 Court V. Berlin 
 
 Court: — Charnock t>. 
 
 Court Bureau, Ld. In re (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 4 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 710; C. A. [1900]| 
 
 1 
 
 W. N. 128; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 2231 
 
 298 
 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 75 .. 
 
 637, 837 
 
 1893" 
 
 "W.N. 9 
 
 428,484 
 
 1897° 
 
 2 Oh. 74 
 
 325 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 563 .. 
 
 1618 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 268 
 
 192 
 
 [1892] "W. N. 148 
 
 2191 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 335 
 
 1001 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 578 
 
 2108 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 286 .. 
 
 50 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 587 .. 
 
 1706 
 
 C.A. 
 
 "1897] ICh. 9 .. 
 
 599 
 
 [1898" 
 
 W.N. 8(12) .. 
 
 575 
 
 1900" 
 
 1 Oh. 756 
 
 338 
 
 1899' 
 
 1 Q. B. 501 
 
 584 
 
 1897' 
 
 1 Q. B. 346 
 
 2214 
 
 1898' 
 
 IQ. B. 802 
 
 1207 
 
 C.A." 
 
 1893] ICh. 547 .. 
 
 558 
 
 [1892; 
 
 3 Oh. 454 
 
 379, 399 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 652 ; H. L. 
 (E.) [1896] A. C. 457 
 
 C.A. 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 145 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 348 
 "1899] 2 Q. B. 253 
 1892] 3 Ch. 481 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 865 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 316 
 [1897] "\V. N. 25 (7); [1897] 2 
 Ch. 554 ; 0. A. [1898] 2 Oh. 
 
 358 .. ' 
 
 [1896] 1 Oh. 496 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 246 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 819 
 
 P. 0. [1895] A. C. 113 .. 
 [1891] P. 1 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 629 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1899] "W. N. 12 (11) ;1 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 474 .. ..\ 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 413 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 399 .. 
 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Oh. 325 .. 
 
 [1891] P. 355 I 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 396 
 [1899]"W. N. 44; [1899] 2 Oh.> 
 
 [1891] W."n. 9 '.'. '.'. 
 
 [1891]W. N. 15 .. ../ 
 
 1162 
 
 88 
 
 1512 
 1734 
 2330 
 1768 
 782 
 773, 825, 
 1495, 
 2286 
 1411 
 
 225 
 
 233 
 
 2259 
 199» 
 350, 
 1702 
 
 1180 
 
 89, 1240- 
 
 387 
 
 117, 141 
 560, 
 1959' 
 2048 
 
 2147 
 
 457 
 445-, 
 1161 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 IXT 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Cousins: — Goodloek u. .. 
 
 Coutts & Co. V. Irish Exhibition in London 
 Coventry's Case. In re Britannia Fire Associa-"! 
 
 tion .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Coventry Machinists Co. : — Morris Wikon & Co. I 
 
 v. / 
 
 Cowan: — MOigan «;. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Cowap V. Atherton 
 
 Cowdary: — ^Mason «. 
 
 Cowen V. Town Clerk of Kingston-upon-HuU 
 
 Cowen v. Truefitt, Ld. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Cowie : — Kennedy v. 
 
 Cowie V. Muirden . . 
 Cowley, In re 
 
 Cowley w. Cowley 
 
 Cowley (Earl) v. Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 
 Cowley V. Newmarket Local Board 
 
 Cowper V. Stratheden and Campbell (Lord). In^ 
 re Stratheden and Campbell (Lord) .. .. / 
 
 Cox, In re. Cox t). Edwards 
 
 Cox V. Bennett 
 
 Cox V. Davies 
 Cox: — Hakes r. .. 
 Cox : — Hall v. 
 
 Cox : — Lambton v. Lambton v. Mellish 
 
 Cox : — Lane v. 
 
 Cox : — London Printing and Publishing Alliance,^ 
 
 Ld. V. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Cox: — ^McGregor V. 
 
 Cox : — Metcalfe v. 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Cox: — Eeg. «, 
 
 Cox V. Watson. In re Watson . . 
 
 Cox and Neve's Contract, In re .. 
 
 Cox, Sons, Buckley & Co : — Wigram v. . . 
 
 Cox (C. S.) & Co. :— Ashmore & Son v. 
 
 Coxen i;. Bowland 
 
 Coxon V. Gorst 
 
 Cradock v. Scottish Provident Institution 
 
 Cradock V. Witham 
 Craig V. Craig and Hamp 
 
 Craig: — Gray «. .. 
 
 Craig «. Nicholas 
 
 Craig's Claim. In re Midland Coal, Coke, and\ 
 Iron Co. .. .. .. .. .. ,,) 
 
 Craignish, In re. Craignish v. Hewitt . . 
 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (3); [1897] 1 
 Q. B. 348; affirmed by C. A, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 558 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 41 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 202 .. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 418 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 
 
 137 
 1893" 
 1900' 
 1897 
 1898 
 
 ";} 
 
 1 Q. B. 49 
 
 2 Q. B. 419 
 IQ. B. 2^3 
 
 _,2 Ch. 551; C. A. [1899]\ 
 W. N. 102 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 309 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 771 .. ../ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 674 
 
 [1900] W. N. 264 
 
 [1900] P. 118; C. A. [1900]\ 
 W.N. 180; [1900] P. 305 .. / 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 47; C. A. [1897] \ 
 W.N. 171(7); [1898] IQ. B.I 
 355; H. L.(E.) [1898] W.N. f 
 32(5); [1899] A. 0. 198 ..} 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 345 ..•[ 
 
 [1893] W. N. 90 
 
 [1900] W. N. 89 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 617 .. ..| 
 
 1898] 2 Q. B. 202 
 
 1892] P. 110 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 198 
 
 1894] 3 Ch. 163 
 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 415 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 291 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 247 .. 
 H. L. (So.) [1895] A. C. 328;) 
 [1896] A. C. 647 .. .. 1 
 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 179 
 
 1892]W. N. 192 
 
 1891] 2 Ch. 109 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 792 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 4a6 
 
 1894] 1 Oh. 406 
 
 1891] 2 Ch. 73 
 
 189;i] W. N. 146 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 W.N. 88 ./ 
 
 [1895] W. N. 75 
 
 [1896] P. 171 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.l [189711 
 
 w. N. 134 .. .. ..; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 444 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 267 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 180 .. 
 
 590 
 
 97 
 420 
 
 655 
 
 1731 
 
 1108 
 
 18 
 
 1369 
 
 1077 
 
 2012, 
 2067 
 1845 
 943 
 
 930 
 
 1746 
 
 549, 895 
 2066 
 
 32, 2309 
 
 8 
 916, 
 1501 
 686 
 757 
 1183 
 966 
 1074 
 
 529 
 
 2209 
 2068, 
 2209 
 
 609 
 2350 
 2252 
 1546 
 1816 
 1476 
 
 341 
 
 1290 
 
 2167 
 717 
 
 1385 
 
 479 
 
 724, 905 
 e 
 
Ixvi 
 
 TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Townsend (Claimant) 
 
 Crane : — Cooper v. 
 " CratMe," The .. 
 Crawford : — ^Buckley -i;, 
 Crawford v. Forshaw 
 Crawshaw v. Harrison 
 CrawBliay,.Inre. Walkeri). Crawsllay 
 Crawshay, In the Goods of 
 Crawshay : — Parkinson v. 
 Crayford Overseers v. Butter (D. & C.) . . 
 Creasey :— London and Eastern Counties Loanj 
 
 and Discount Co. v. . . • • • • • • •' 
 
 Credit Lyonnais : — Lacave & Co. ■(/ 
 
 Cree v. St. Panoras Vestry 
 
 Oremer v. Lowles. Haggerston Election Petition 
 
 " Cressington," The •• 
 
 Cresswell :— National Provincial Bank of Eng-| 
 
 land V. In re Bnwden. Bawden v. Cresswell/ 
 Criccieth Pier and Harbour Co., In re .. 
 
 Crichton v. Crichton .. .. •• ••\ 
 
 Criglington v. Anderson . . 
 Criglington v. Gallagher .. 
 
 " Crimdon," The .. 
 
 Cripps, Ex parte. In re Cook .. 
 
 Cripps : — Hudson v. 
 
 Cripps: — Hudson «. 
 
 Crisp V. London County Council . . 
 
 Crocker r. Knight 
 
 Crocker v. Sturge .. 
 
 Croft, In re. Deane v. Croft 
 
 -I 
 
 •i 
 
 Croft :—Fraser u. . . 
 
 Croft U.King 
 
 Crofton, Craven & Worthington, Ex parte. In 
 
 re Nash & Son . . 
 Crompton & Co. : — Johnstone v. 
 
 Crompton & Evans' Union Bank i;. Burton .. 
 
 Cronhach v. Isaac. In re Isaac .. 
 
 Cronk; — Owen&Co. «. .. 
 
 Cronmire, In re. Ex parte Cronmire .. 
 
 Cronmire, In re. Ex parte Waud .. ..| 
 
 Crook V. Morley 
 
 Croom, In re. England v. Provincial Assets^ 
 Co / 
 
 Oroshaw v. Lyndhurst Ship Co... 
 
 Crosland u. HoUiday. In re Powell .. ..< 
 
 Crosley: — Hecksher u. .. 
 
 Cross r. Fisher 
 
 Cross V. London Anti- Vivisection Society. 
 
 Foveaux.. .. •• _ •• 
 
 Cross :— London County Council v. 
 
 Inre'l 
 
 1891 
 1897 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 105 
 
 P. 369 
 P. 178 
 
 1891] 2 Ch. 261 .. 
 1 Q. B. 79 
 3Ch. 176 
 P. 108 .. 
 W.N. 85 
 LQ.B. 650 .. 
 
 1 Q. B. 442; affirmed by 
 . [1897] 1Q.,B. 768 
 1 Q. B. 148 
 1 Q. B. 693 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 504 
 P. 152 .. 
 
 '} 
 
 C. A, 
 
 1894' 
 
 1891° 
 
 1893' 
 
 1894: 
 
 1897° 
 
 1897" 
 
 ■ 0..A 
 
 [1897 
 
 [J 899 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1891 
 
 [1894] ICh.. 693 
 
 [1891] W. N. 15 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 853 ; reversed byj 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 870 ../ 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 94 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 106 
 [1900] W. N. 130; [1900] P 
 
 171 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 8fi3 
 1895] W. N. 161 (5) .. 
 1896] 1 Ch. 265 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 720 
 
 C. A.[1892]1Q B. 702 ..{ 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 330 
 
 [1892] 1 Oh. 652 .. ..{ 
 
 Ot. of Sess. (So.) [1898] W. N.-> 
 1.34 / 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 419 
 
 [1895] W. N. 135 (1) ; [1896]\ 
 IQ. B. 13 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 93 ; [1899] 2 Ch."! 
 190 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 711 .. ..{ 
 
 !■} 
 
 C. A. [1897 
 0. A. [1895 
 C. A. [1894 
 
 [1898] W. --. - ,^,, -- . 
 
 by C. A. [1898]2Q. B. 383../ 
 
 1 Ch. 251 . 
 
 1 Q. B. 265 
 
 2 Q. B. 246 
 N. 19 (2); reversed) 
 
 H. L. (E ) [1891] A. C. 316 
 [1891] 1 Oh. 695 
 
 [1897] 2 Oh. 154 
 [1897] W. N. 176 (12) ; 
 1 Oh. 227 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 224 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 467 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 501 
 
 0. A. [1892] W. N. 80 .. 
 
 [1898]) 
 
 ••{ 
 
 709 
 1983 
 
 932 
 
 801 
 1923 
 1902 
 1608 
 
 776 
 2083 
 
 212 
 
 96 
 1633 
 1365 
 1971 
 2803, 
 233& 
 
 36& 
 
 2175. 
 
 1393 
 136S 
 
 2010 
 
 202T 
 829 
 968 
 1153 
 2070, 
 2144 
 1001 
 1469, 
 1728 
 1836, 
 1842 
 1544 
 
 122 
 
 1265 
 
 1518, 
 1519 
 
 571 
 1577 
 
 127 
 
 ' 871 
 
 108 
 
 164 
 
 444 
 
 2317 
 
 570, 
 1500 
 228 
 
 277 
 
 1150 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixvii^ 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Crossan v. Chambers. Hasson v. Chambers i\ 
 Lynch v. Buchanan. (Re Eichey) . . . . / 
 
 Crossfield & Sons, Ld. v. Tanian „ 
 
 Crossl|ey, In re. Birrell v. Greenhough 
 
 Crossley i;. Andrew 
 
 Crossley: — ^Andrew u. 
 
 Crossley i;. Magniac 
 
 CroBsley Brothers : — McEntire v. 
 
 Crossley (John) & Sons, In re .. 
 
 Crossman: — Mervin i;. In re Mervin .. 
 
 Crossman and Prichard : — Hood Barrs v. 
 
 Croston Urban District Cormcil : — River Kibble) 
 (Joint Committee of the) V. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Oroudace i;. Zobel . . 
 
 Crow : — Oxford Corporation v. ,. 
 
 Crpwborough District Water Co. : — Uckfield'l 
 Eural Council ?;. ., .. .. ../ 
 
 Crowly V. Bergtheil 
 
 Crown Accidental Insurance Co. : — Hamlyn v... 
 
 Crown; — Timothys. 
 
 Crojvther, In re. Midgley v. Crowther . . 
 
 Croydon Tramways Co. : — ^Kaye v. 
 
 Croydon Union (Rural Sanitary Authority of 
 
 the): — Penwick i>. 
 Croysdale v. Sunbury-on-Thames Urban Council 
 Crozat ^;. Brogden.. 
 
 Ciiiddas, In re. Cruddas t;. Smith .. ..^ 
 
 Cruddas: — Ramsey t;. 
 
 Cruise «/. Annan .. 
 
 Crumbie v. Wallsend Local Board 
 
 Crumpe w. Crumpe .. .. .. .A 
 
 Crusha: — Jacobs w. .. .. .... 
 
 "Ciystal," The. Arrow Shipping Co. v. Tynel 
 
 Improvement Commrs. 
 Crystal Palace Co. : — St. Giles, Camberwell v. . 
 Crystal Palace District Gas Co. : — Walker v. . 
 Crystal Reef Gold Mining Co., In re 
 Cubison v. Mayo .. 
 
 Cuckfield Rural District Council v. Goring 
 Cullen, Ex parte. In re Parrott.. 
 CuUen : — Flatau i». 
 Cullen v. Knowles 
 Cullen «;. Patterson 
 Cfllling V. Culling 
 Culver : — Dowsett v. In re Lepine 
 Culverhouse,.In re. Cook i;. Culverhouse 
 Cumberland : — Coghlan v. .. .. 
 
 Cumberland Gap Park Co. : — ^Badcock v. 
 Cumberland Union Banking Co. v. Maryport\ 
 
 Hematite Iron and Steel Co. (No. 1) .. .. / 
 
 Cumberland Union Banking Co. i). Maryport] 
 
 Hfematite Iron and Steel Co. In re Maryport) 
 
 Hematite Iron and Steel Co. (No. 2) .. ..J 
 
 Cummins «. Perkins ,, .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 85 .. 
 
 0. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 629 
 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 928 
 
 C. A. [1892]lCh. 492 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892]lCh. 492 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 594 
 
 U. L. (I.) [1895] A. C. 4S7 .. 
 
 [1892]W. N. 55 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 197 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 172 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 251 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 258 .. 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 535 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 664 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 374 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 750 
 [1900]W. N. 51 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 56 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 358 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 216 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 515 
 
 0. A. [1894]2Q. B. 30.. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 126 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 81 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 790 / 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 228 
 Registration App. Ct. (So.) [1897]\ 
 
 W. N. 94 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 503 
 
 H. L. (Ir.) [1900] W. N. 40 
 
 [1900] A. C. 127 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 37 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. £08 .. 
 
 C. A. 
 [1891 
 [1892 
 C. A.' 
 
 1898' 
 
 1891' 
 
 1899' 
 
 1898' 
 0. A. 
 
 ■} 
 
 1882] 2 Q. B. 33 . 
 
 2 Q. B. 300 
 
 1 Ch. 408 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 246 
 
 IQ. B. 865 
 
 2Q. B. 151 
 
 W. N. 206 
 
 2Q. B. 380 
 (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 
 " P. 116 .. 
 
 1892] ICh. 210 ., 
 
 2Ch. 251 
 
 1898] ICh. 704 ., 
 
 ICh. 362 
 
 126 
 
 [1896 
 0. A.' 
 [1896' 
 C. A.' 
 [1893; 
 
 [1892] ICh. 92 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 415 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 166 (12) ;\ 
 [1899]lCb. 16 .. ../ 
 
 1398 
 
 1219 
 285 
 
 1435 
 
 1435 
 
 2076 ■ 
 206,813 
 , 386. 
 
 2348 
 
 2042 
 
 771 
 
 1330 
 542 
 
 222 
 
 1312 
 
 974 
 
 1524 
 
 1856, 
 
 2195 
 
 312 
 
 2086 
 
 1916 
 569 
 
 1472 
 
 526 
 
 1398 
 
 1137 
 
 2323 
 
 1494 
 
 2012 
 
 1178 
 560 
 463 
 589 
 897 
 156 
 
 575 ■ 
 1506 
 1386 
 1212 
 801 
 1745 
 40 
 1535 
 
 1301 
 
 827 
 1698 
 
 e 2 
 
Ixviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Canard SteamsHp Co. u. Coulson 
 
 Cunlifie Smith v. Hankey. In re Hankey 
 
 Cunningham, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 Cuningham: — Grimston w. 
 
 Cunnack u. Edwards 
 
 Cunningham and Prayling, In re 
 
 « Curfew," The 
 
 Curlier :— De Nicols v. In re De Nicols 
 
 Curlier; — De Nicols ^;. .. 
 
 Cumock V. Born. In re Bom ., 
 Curran V. Treleaven 
 
 Carre: — Bolton v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Ourrie v. M'Knight 
 
 Ourrie (Owners of the " Thorsa ") :— Wilson 
 & Co. (Owners of the " Otto ") v. 
 
 Curtice: — Grey «. 
 
 Curtis u. Mundy .. 
 
 Curtis: — Mardell i;. .. .. \ 
 
 Curtis & Son :— Consolidated Co. v. 
 
 Currie and Timmis Patent, In re 
 
 Cusack V. London and North "Western Ey 
 
 Cutbill i). Shropshire Eys. Co. 
 
 Cutlan :— Shoe Machinery Co. v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 (No. 3) 
 
 D. 
 
 D. j;. A. &Co 
 
 B'Auvergne v. Cooper 
 
 Dadson and P. A. Ellis & Co. : -Ellis v" 
 
 Daglish V. Barton .. 
 
 Dagnall, In re. Ex parte'Soan & Morle'v 
 
 Dagnall : — Biggs v. . . . _ 
 
 Daines: — Eaton u. 
 
 { 
 
 •■{ 
 •■{ 
 
 ?} 
 
 , Sons) 
 
 Co... 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 865 
 
 [1899] W. N. 10 (l; ; [1899] 
 
 Ch. 541 
 
 [1899] W. N. 68 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 125 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 489; reversed by: 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 679 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 567 
 
 [1891] P. 131 
 
 [1900] W. N. 146; [1900] 2' 
 
 Ch. 410 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 403 ; reversed by 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 60; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 255 ;i 
 
 [1900]A. C. 21 .. ..j 
 
 [1900] W. N. 148; [1900] 21 
 
 Ch.433 1 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 545 .. ..| 
 
 [1894] W. N. 122 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 544 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] W. N. 164 (6) ;\ 
 [1897] A. C. 97 .. ..] 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 116 .. 
 
 N. 162 (5); 
 
 Daines v. Eaton. 
 
 Daintrey, In re. 
 Daintrey, In re. 
 
 Daldn v. Parker 
 
 Dale, Ex parte. 
 
 In re Eaton .. 
 
 Ex parte Holt 
 Ex parte Mant 
 
 In re Binstead . . 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 121 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 178 
 [1899] W. N. 93 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 495 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 347 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 347 
 
 [1891] W. N. 65 
 
 [1895] W. N. 102 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 143 (10) 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 108 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 667 
 
 ■■} 
 
 ••{ 
 
 :) 
 
 [1900] W.N. 30; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 [1899' 
 [1891' 
 C. A." 
 [1896" 
 [1895' 
 [1894° 
 
 W.N. 256 
 W. N. 43 
 "1900] 1 Q. B. 284 
 2 Q. B. 407 
 1 Q. B. 207 
 W. N. 32 
 
 •( 
 
 [1894]W. N. 95 .. ../ 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 116 .. 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 546 
 
 [1894]2Q. B. 273;C. A. [1894]1 
 2Q. B. 556 .. . f 
 
 C. A. [1893J1Q. B. 199 
 
 1768 
 
 792 
 
 126 
 960 
 
 857 
 
 2168 
 1933 
 
 495 
 
 495 
 
 2025 
 
 607, 
 2143 
 1698, 
 1701, 
 2177 
 2177 
 
 1981 
 1935 
 
 2039 
 
 665 
 1082 
 83, 2157, 
 ,2158 
 1440 
 583 
 1655 
 1427 
 
 1428 
 
 1430 
 
 1561 
 
 268 
 
 484, 960 
 
 42 
 
 160 
 1493 
 2167 
 1857, 
 2302 
 
 109 
 
 170 
 
 1103 
 103, 700 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Colnmn 
 of 
 
 Digest. 
 
 Dale and Blsden, In re .. 
 
 Dale: — ^Palliser i;. . . 
 
 Dalgety & Co. :— HiU, Clark & Co. 1) 
 
 Dalgliesh «. Dodds 
 
 Dalgliesh v. Lowther 
 
 Dalison's Settled Estates, In re . . 
 Dallmeyer, In re. Dallmeyer v. Dallmeyer 
 
 Dalton v. Fitzgerald 
 
 Dalton Overseers v. North Eastern Ey. Co. 
 
 Dance, In re 
 
 Dando 1). Boden ., 
 
 Dane v. Mortgage Insurance Corporation 
 
 Dangar, G-rant & Co. : — Lee v. .. .. ..J 
 
 Daniel Flynn's Case 
 Daniel v. Ferguson 
 
 Daniel: — Jones v. 
 
 Daniel & Arter u. Whiteliouse .. 
 
 Daniel V. Ocean Coal Co. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Daniel], Ex parte. In re Deakin 
 Daniell's Settled Estates, In re .. 
 Daniells & Sons' Breweries : — Paine & Co. v.} 
 
 In re Paine & Co.'s Trade-marks .. ..J 
 
 Danson, In re. Bell v. Danson .. 
 Darby : — Lewis v. In re Nash. In re Spence 
 Darby: — Pack f. .. 
 Darbyshire w. Leigh 
 Darlaston Local Board v. London and North 1 
 
 Western By. Co. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Darley t>. Hodgson. In re Hodgson .. ..J 
 
 Darling, In re. Farquhar v. Darling .. .A 
 
 Darling: — ^Pinlay v. 
 
 Darlington Wagon Co. v. Harding and Trouvillei 
 Pier and Steamboat Co. .. .. ..j 
 
 DmIow v. Bland .. .. .. .. ..< 
 
 "Dart," The 
 
 Dartford Rural District Council v. Bexley Heath 
 By. Co. .. 
 
 Daitnall, In re. Sawyer w. Goddard 
 
 Dash, In re. Solicitor to the Treasury v. Lewis < 
 
 Dashwood v. Magniac (No, 1) .. 
 
 [1892]W. N. 56 
 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 257 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 343 .. 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 165 . 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 133 ; [1899]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 590 / 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 522 
 
 0. A. [1896]lCb. 372 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 440; affirmed by 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 0^86 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 66 ; 0. A. [1899] 
 
 W.N. 64; [1899] 1 Q. 1026; 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1900] W. N. 126 ; 
 
 [1900] A. 0. 345 
 [1895] W. N. 127 (10) .. 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 318 
 0. A. [1894]1Q. B. 54.. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 231 ; G. A. [1892]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 337 / 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 230 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 27 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 332 .. ..| 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 685 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 109; [1900]^ 
 
 2 Q. B. 250 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 489 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 503 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 567 .. 
 
 1895]W. N. 102 
 1893] W.N. 99 
 1895] W. N. 1-23 (6) .. 
 '1896] 1 Q. B. 554 
 2 Q. B. 45 ; C. A. 
 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1894]| 
 30(3); [1899] 'i| 
 
 0. A, 
 [1894 
 
 2 Q: B. 694 
 [1899] W. N, 
 
 Ch. 666 
 [1895] W. N. 140 (12) ; [1896]\ 
 
 1 Oh. 50 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 719 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 245 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 174 (1) ;\ 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 125 ,. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 33 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 74; H. L. (B.) 
 [1897] W. N. 171 (6); [1898] 
 A.C. 210 
 
 C. A. [18?5]lCh. 474 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 186; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 812 
 
 C. A. [1891]3Ch. 306 .. 
 
 185,. 
 2253' 
 858 
 1326 
 1381 
 
 676 
 
 1882 
 2308 
 
 770 
 
 897 
 
 80 
 1565 
 978 
 
 1924 
 
 1380 
 1120 
 843, 
 2226 
 2139 
 
 1224 
 
 119 
 1872' 
 2126, 
 2129' 
 10 ■ 
 1515' 
 31, 1314 
 1529 
 
 1666, 
 
 1478 ; 
 
 279! 
 
 1901 
 
 59 
 
 202 
 
 1929, 
 2070 
 
 1663 
 
 2035, 
 2184 
 
 736 
 
 1045, 
 1879, 
 2109, 
 2269 
 
kx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Dashwooc V. Magniac (No. 2) .. 
 Da;sliwooc . :-^NortOli t>. .. 
 Dassenaile: — Gauder ■!;. .. 
 Davenpor ;, In re. Turner v. King 
 
 Daven try Eural, Council v. Parker 
 
 Daveron, In re. Bowen v. Churchill 
 
 Davey :— tBellamy «. 
 
 Davey ■!;. iBentinck 
 
 Davey :— jBird j; 
 
 Davey :— IClirlstie t). 
 Davey :— lEeg. v 
 
 David V. Babin 
 
 Davey &;Co. v. Williamson & Sons 
 David an& Matthews, In re 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Ex parte Davidson 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Davidson! In re. 
 
 Davidson; In re. Ex parte Davidson - .. 
 
 Davidsonj V. Carlton Bank 
 
 Davidsonji;. Myrtle. In re Smith .. 
 
 Davies, lii re. Davies v. Davies 
 
 Davies, In re. Ellis v. Roberts .. 
 
 Davies, In re. Harrison v. Davis '.'. 
 
 Davies, In re. Jenkins v. Davies 
 
 Davies f. Bolton (R.) & Co. 
 
 Davies :^Cox u. .. 
 
 Davies .--^E vans i;. .. ', \\ 
 
 Davies :^-Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. 
 
 Davies :-^Hemn)ing ?;. 
 
 Davies :-j-Hennell j;. 
 
 Davies v. Jenkins . . 
 
 Davies :-^Jones v. 
 
 Davies v; Jones 
 
 Davies i;.' Lowen .. 
 
 Davies :-l-Main Colliery Co. «. .. ,', 
 
 Davies ik National Eire and Marine Insurance) 
 
 Co. of SS[ew Zealand / 
 
 Davies v't Parry ., 
 Davies: — Eeg. i;. .. 
 Davies v. Tagart. In re Weston 
 
 A 
 
 [1892] W. N. 54: 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 547 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 361' 
 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 210; [1900] \ 
 
 1Q.B. 1 / 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 421 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 540 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 
 W.N. 192 / 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 186 ; [1893]/ 
 
 IQ. B. 185 I 
 
 C. A. [1891]1Q. B. 29.. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 316 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 301 
 
 [1892] W. N. 115; C. A. [1893] f 
 ICh. 523 I 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 194, 201 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 378 
 
 [1899] W. N. 68 ; [1899] 2 Q. B.\ 
 
 103 ^ 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 210 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 82 . 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 590 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 63 .. 
 
 •{ 
 
 
 Davies v^ Thomas,. 
 
 Davies ?;. Thomas.. .. ... 
 
 Davies w Treharris Brewery Co. 
 
 Davies v Vale of Evesham Preserves, Ld. 
 
 Davies :t- Williams v. Callender, Sykes & Co.) 
 V. Colonial Secretary of Lagos ., ..-' 
 Davies' Policy Trusts, In re 
 
 "1898' 
 1897' 
 1891' 
 1894' 
 1898' 
 1893' 
 1897' 
 '1898° 
 1893° 
 1899° 
 133" 
 [1898' 
 [1899' 
 [1891° 
 H. L. 
 
 2 Ch. 142 
 
 2 Ch. 204 
 
 W. N. 104: 
 
 3 Ch. 678 
 
 2 Q. B. 202 
 2 Ch. 216 
 2 Q. B. 209 
 1 Q. B. 660 
 1 Q. B. 367 
 W. N. 252 ; 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1900]1Q.B.| 
 
 1q!b. 405 
 
 P. 161 .. 
 
 W. N. 86 
 
 (E.) [1900] A. C. 358 '. 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. 0. 485 .. ..| 
 
 [1898] W. N. 168 (1) ; [1899]} 
 ICh. 602 .. } 
 
 C. C. E. [1897] 2 Q. B. i99 
 
 [1900] W. JM. 104; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 164 .. .. -^ } 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 151 ;■ [1900] { 
 2Ch. 462 .. ^ ^\ 
 
 1899]W. N. 244 ' 
 
 1894] W. N. 198 ;■ 
 
 1895] W. N. 105 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 460 .. 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 90 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 560, 575 
 827 . I 
 267 .. 
 901 
 
 897, 898 
 
 2349 
 
 517, 
 
 2092 
 
 679, 
 
 1530 
 
 197, 
 
 1530 
 
 966, 
 
 1348 
 
 1031 
 
 1083, 
 
 2232, 
 
 2250 
 
 321 
 
 1419 
 
 2035 
 
 162 
 211 
 2185 
 981, 
 1478 
 2165 
 921 
 574 
 314 
 686 
 399 
 2279 
 590 
 596 
 
 201 
 
 824 
 1612 
 1722 
 1218 
 996, 
 1329 
 
 801 
 
 863 
 
 2198; 
 
 2239 
 
 731 
 564, 916 
 
 1700 ' 
 119, 292, 
 
 877, 
 
 1045! 
 905, 980 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixxi 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Davis, In the Goodsof .. 
 Davis, In re. Evans v. Moore .. 
 Davis: — Bakewell v. 
 Davis V. Davis 
 
 Davis: — ^Duke «... 
 
 Davis u. Foreman .. .. ... 
 
 Davis : — Harrison v. In re Da vies 
 Davis V. Greenwich Board of Works 
 
 Davis v. Harris 
 
 Davis : — Homsey Local Board . . 
 
 Davis V. Ingram . . 
 
 Davis V. Leicester Corporation . . 
 
 Davis: — Jjevy v. ,. ,, ,, .. ,. 
 
 Davis : — Lloyd Phillips v. In re Bo wen 
 
 Davis V. Martin. In re Queensland" Land and) 
 Coal Co { 
 
 Davis V. Norton. In re Counties Conservative"! 
 Permanent Benefit Building Society ../ 
 
 Davis i;. Eeilly .. .. ../ 
 
 Davis V. Whitehead. In re Marlborough (Duke{ 
 
 oO .. ../ 
 
 Davis & Sons, Ld. v. Taff Vale Eyi Co. ., 
 
 Volume and Paare. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Davis (Thii'd Party), Gooch v. Clutterbuck . . | 
 
 Davis & Timmins, Ld. : — Irons v. 
 
 Davison: — Norton u. 
 
 Davy, In re. 
 Daw V. Herring 
 
 Dfiwes V. Thomas.. .. .. 
 
 Dawnay (Archibald D.), Ld., In re 
 
 Dawson, In re. Ex parte Dawson 
 
 Dawson v. . African Consolidated 
 Trading Co. .. .. .. ' 
 
 Dawson: — ^Black «. .. 
 
 Dawson: — ^Bradford v. . .. 
 
 Dawson :— (Jold Beefs of Western Australia v. .A 
 
 Dawson v. Higgins. In re Grainger .. .. / 
 
 Dawson & Son; — MoNicholas ,f . , 
 
 Dawson: — Eooke u. ., 
 
 Dawson's Trusts, In re .. 
 
 Day, In re. ■ Sprake w. Day ., .. 
 
 Day :^Att.-Gen. u., , ., .. „ ,.i 
 
 Land' 
 
 and) 
 
 Day V. Kelland .'.' 
 
 Day V. Longhurst .. 
 Day: — McKenzie v. 
 Day & Sons : — Palmer v. 
 Day V'. Singleton .. 
 
 "{ 
 
 [1899] W..N. 61 . . . 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 119 . 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 296 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 393 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 107 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 2Q. B. 260 / 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 654 
 2Ch. 204 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 219 
 W.N. 17; [1900] IQ.B. 
 
 [1897 
 C. A.' 
 [1900" 
 729 
 C. A. 
 [1897" 
 C. A.' 
 [1900; 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 756 
 ICh. 477 ;. 
 1894] 2 Ch. 
 W. N. 174 
 
 208 
 
 !■} 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 181 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 819 
 
 [1897] W. N. 152 (2) ; [1898]\ 
 
 iQ. B. 1 ; 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 133 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 43; H. L. (E.)\ 
 [1895] A. C. 542 .. .. / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 96 ; [1899]! 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ?•) 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 C. A 
 
 2 Q."B. 148 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 330 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 12 (12) 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 401 . 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 38 . 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 284 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 414 
 
 [1900] W. N. 152 
 
 [1899] W. N. 53 ; [1899] 2 Q. B.) 
 
 54 f 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 6 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 848 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 307 
 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (8) ; [1897]\ 
 
 l.Ch. 115 .. .. ../ 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 158; [1900]\ 
 
 2Ch. 756 .. .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 773 
 1895] 1 Ch. 480 
 1899] W. N. 134 
 1898] 2 Ch. 510.. .: .. 
 1899] W. N. 207 ; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 
 31 .. \ 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 234; [1900]! 
 
 2Ch. 745 ,. . .. .. ( 
 
 1893] W.'N. 3 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 289 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 618 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch.. 320 .. 
 
 1604 
 1131 
 
 18 
 1415 
 
 598 
 
 959 
 921 
 1175 
 
 684 
 
 1912 
 1408 
 224, 543 
 1700 
 279, 
 2347 
 
 335 
 233 
 191 
 851 
 1661 
 
 1226 
 
 1815 
 
 1189 
 1415 
 1082, , 
 2111 
 395 
 
 128 
 
 337 
 
 1540 
 866 
 
 1491 
 
 2326, 
 2342 
 1225 
 
 273 
 2167 
 
 223 
 
 278 
 
 1377 
 
 193 
 1109 
 169 
 2227 
 
Ixxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 -Kimberley\ 
 
 Deacon: — ^Bagshawes, Ld. ■;;. 
 DeakiD, In re. Ex parte Cathcart 
 Deakin, In re. Ex parte Daniell 
 Deakin, In re. Starkey v. Eyres 
 Deakin : — Abrahams •;;... 
 
 Dean : — ^Anderson v. 
 
 Dean u. Dean 
 
 Dean, A. E., Ld. : — Mason v. 
 
 Deane v. Croft. In re Croft 
 
 Dear : — Hollington v. 
 
 De Beaufort, In the Goods of 
 
 De Beers Consolidated Mines :- 
 
 Waterworks Co. ■!;. .. .. .. .., 
 
 De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ld. : — London andl 
 
 South African Exploration Co. v. .. ..) 
 
 Debenham: — Bellamys... 
 Debenham & Walker, In re 
 Debenture-holders' Actions, In re 
 DeBernardy: — Eees w. .. 
 De Bernales v. New York Herald 
 
 De Braam v. Ford . . . . . . . . | 
 
 DeBraam: — Woolfe f . .. 
 
 Debtor (A), In re. Ex parte The Debtor 
 
 De Bulmes : — Montgomery & Co. v. 
 
 De Cetto v. Hope. In re Hope . . . . . . i 
 
 De Cetto t>. Hope. In re Hope .. 
 
 D&hene v. Montreal (City) 
 
 De Clifford's Estate (Lord), In re. Lord De] 
 Clifford V. Quilter. The Same v. Lansdowne 1 
 (Marquis of) .. .. .. „ .1 
 
 Decroix, Verley & Cie. : — Meyer & Co. v. 
 
 Deeley v. Perkes . . 
 
 Deeming, Ex parte 
 
 Deeping, St. Nicholas (Overseers) :— Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Deerhurst (Lord) : — Seaton j;. .. 
 
 D'Errico u. Samuel 
 
 D'Esterre ■;;. Waverley Type Writer. 
 Waverley Type Writer 
 
 D'Eyncourt :— Bostock v. In re Yates ., 
 
 DePreville; — Nash v. .. 
 
 DeGrey: — Eeg. tf. 
 
 De Hayn v. Garland. In re De Linden. 
 
 Spurrier's Settlement .. 
 D'H^douville : — Hope ij. .. 
 
 De Hoghton, In re. De Hoghton v. De Hoghtonj 
 De Hoghton, In re. De Hoghton v. De Hoghton 
 Deigh ton and Harris's Contract, In re .. 
 Delaforce V. Delaforce 
 
 "Delano," The. Neptune Steam Navigation^ 
 Co.v. Sclater _J 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •I 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 173 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 478 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 489 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 565 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 516 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 222 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 150 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 48: [1900] j 
 IQ. B. 770 j 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 652 .. ../ 
 
 [1895] W. N. 35 
 
 [1893] P. 231 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 515 .. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 451 .. 
 
 C. A. 
 1895" 
 1900' 
 1896° 
 1893° 
 1899 
 
 1891] 1 Ch. 412 
 2 Ch. 430 
 W. N. 58 
 2 Ch. 437 
 2 Q. B. 97, n. 
 W.N. 228; C. A. 
 
 In 
 
 In 
 
 re\ 
 
 -, [1899]! 
 
 W. N. 239; [1900] 1 Ch. 142 f 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 239 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 576 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 420 
 [1899] W.N. 78; C. A. [1899] ^ 
 W. N. 113; [1899] 2 Ch. 679 / 
 [1900] W.N. 76.. 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 640 .. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 707 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 520 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 496 .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 422 .. 
 
 [1892] W. jsr. 183 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 853 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 163 '.'. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 699 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 53 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 72 
 
 [1900] W. N. 38 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.j 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 453 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 361 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 517; C. A. [1896]) 
 1 Oh. 855 .. ■'^ 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 385 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 458 
 [1892] W. N. 68 .. ; 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 40 
 
 Colnmn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1923 
 1849 
 119 
 2333 
 1242 
 1140, 
 150O 
 951, 
 2321 
 
 1230 
 
 1469, 
 1728 
 565, 920 
 1594, 
 1601 
 
 260 
 
 261 
 
 2228 
 2035 
 468 
 2024 
 1535 
 
 208 
 
 1557 
 159 
 590 
 
 47, 886 
 
 887 
 256 
 
 2173 
 
 190 
 1435 
 1591 
 1675 
 165 
 595 
 
 319 
 
 2335 
 195 
 
 1673 
 
 1196 
 
 1854 
 
 1780 
 
 1468 
 2219. 
 701 
 
 2070 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixxiii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 De Las Eivas — Firth & Sons v... 
 
 De Laubenque f. De Laubenque 
 
 Delhi Steamship Co., In re 
 
 De Linden, In re. In re Spurrier's Settlement.\ 
 
 De Hayn u. Garland .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Dell: — Miller V. 
 
 Dellwick's Patent, In re .. 
 Delmar Charitable Trust, In re .. 
 Delmege : — Jenoure v. .. 
 Delobbel-FUpo : — ^Morris v. 
 
 Delobbel-Flipo v. Varty 
 
 Delve : — Pharmaceutical Society v. 
 Demers: — ^Eeg. v. ., 
 
 De Mestre V. West 
 
 Dempsey: — Castlegate Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Dempsey v. Keegan 
 
 Deneker, In re. Peters v. Bancherean .. 
 
 De Nicols, In re. De Nicols v. Curlier 
 
 De Nicols «. Curlier 
 
 Dennis, In re. Ex parte Dennis 
 Dennis, In the Goods of . . 
 Dennis, In the Goods of .. 
 Dennis: — Keg. v. .. 
 Dennison i;. Jeffs .. 
 Denny: — Keeni;. .. 
 Denshams Trade-mark, In re 
 Dent: — Eastern Telegraph Co. ii. 
 
 Dent V. De Pothonier. In re De Pothonier 
 
 Denton: — ^Andrews v. 
 
 Denton, Ex parte. Beg. v. Sharman 
 
 Denton v. Legge .. 
 
 Denver Hotel Co., In re .. 
 
 De Pass v. Capital and Industries Corporation .. / 
 
 De Pass : — Vinall w. 
 
 De Penny, In re. De Penny i;. Christie 
 
 De Pothonier, In re. Dent v. De Pothonier .. j 
 
 De Pr^viUe :— Att.-Gen. v. | 
 
 De Quetteville v. Hamon (Perree) 
 
 Derbishire v. Montagu. In re Montagu . . ) 
 
 Derby Corporation v. Derbyshire County Coimcil/ 
 
 Derby Corporation «. Grudgings.. 
 Derby Corporation: — Stretton's Derby Breweryl 
 Co.v. / 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 768 
 
 [1898] W. S. 154 (4); [1899] P, 
 
 42 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 3 ., 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 453 
 
 •■{ 
 
 •I 
 
 [1892]j 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 468 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 705 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 163 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 73 . 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 663 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 71 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. 0. 103 ., 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 264 ., 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 54; C. A 
 
 IQ. B. 854 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 117 
 
 [1895]W. N. 28 
 
 [1900] "W. N. 146; [1900] 2^ 
 
 Ch. 410 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 403; reversed hy^ 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 60 ; H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1899] W. N. 255; [1900] f 
 
 A. C. 21 .. .. .J 
 
 ■1895] 2 Q. B. 630 
 
 1891] P. 326 
 
 1899] P. 191 
 
 C. C. E. [1894] 2 Q. B. 458 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 611 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 176 .. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 835 
 
 [1900] W. N. 165 ; [1900] 2 Ch.l 
 
 529 ^ 
 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 37 
 IQ. B. 578 
 W.N. 46 
 1893] 1 Ch. 495 .. 
 1 Q. B. 216; H. L 
 
 [1892]A. C. 90 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 90 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 63 
 
 [1900] W. N. 165; [1900] 2^ 
 
 Ch. 529 / 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 238 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 W. N. 255 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 223/ 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 532 .. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 685; C. A. [1897] 2 
 
 Ch. 8 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2Q. B. 297; H. L 
 
 (E.) [1897] A. C. 550. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 496 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 431 
 
 1898 
 1895' 
 C. A. 
 [1891 
 
 • (E.)- 
 
 ') 
 
 1488, 
 1540 
 
 703 
 
 442 
 
 1196 
 
 658, 
 1130 
 1434 
 2361 
 649 
 209 
 597, 
 1527 
 1452 
 241 
 1329, 
 1910 
 
 1964 
 
 1370 
 2339 
 
 495 
 
 495 
 
 15T 
 1620 
 1606 
 830 
 226 
 734 
 2129 
 1071 
 
 2186 
 
 1110 
 
 1115 
 
 66 
 
 387 
 
 78 
 
 78 
 1544 
 
 2186 
 
 1748 
 1021 
 1863 
 
 671 
 2087 
 1912; 
 
Ixsiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Derby (County Council of) v. Urban Distriotl 
 of Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick . . . . / 
 
 Derbyshire i;. Houliston .. .. .. 
 
 Derbyshire . County Council: — Derby Corpora-) 
 tion V, ,. .,. .. .. ,. . .. j 
 
 Derbyshire Silkstone Coal. Co. v. Midland Elwy.) 
 Co \ 
 
 Do Eicci t). De Eicci 
 
 Do Eougemont: — West Eand Central Gold] 
 Mines Co. v. Driefontein Consolidated Gold \ 
 Mines 1). Janson .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Derrington : — Handsworth District Council v. .. 
 
 DeEutzen: — Sherras «. .. .. 
 
 De Souza r. Cobdeu 
 
 DeSoysa: — Murugaser Marimuttu i;. .. 
 
 De Tabley (Lord), In re. Leighton v. Leighton 
 
 ■■{ 
 ■•{ 
 
 De Teissier's Settled Estates, In re 
 
 De Trafford : — Kennedy w. 
 
 Deuchar : — Gray v. 
 
 Deutsche National Bank v. Paul 
 Devenish : — Neal v. 
 
 Devenish «. Pester. In re Lowman 
 
 De Vere Beauclerk v. Do Vere Beauclerk 
 Devereux V. Clarke & Co. 
 De-Verges v. Sandermon, Clark & Co. .. 
 Devon and Exeter Constitutional Newspaper! 
 Co. : — Dunn v. .. .. .... ..) 
 
 Devon's (Earl of) Settled Estates._ White v.\ 
 Earl of Devon. In re Steer. Steer v. Dobell/ 
 Devonport Corporation : — Thomas «. 
 Devonshire (Duke of) : — Mackenzie v. .. 
 Dew V. Kennedy. In re Smith .. 
 
 Dewhirst: — Kay w. In re Wilcox .. ..| 
 
 De Wilton, In re. De Wilton v. Montefiore .. | 
 
 JDexter's Application, la re. In re Wills's Trade- 1 
 marks .. .. .. .. ., i 
 
 " Diana," (SS.) v. SS. « CUeveden." The Clieve- 
 den" 
 
 Dibb J). Brook & Sons 
 
 r) 
 
 Dibb u. Walker .. 
 
 Dilibins v. Dibbins 
 
 Dicido Pier Co., In re 
 
 Dick, In re. Lopes v. Hume- Dick (Hume v. 
 
 Lopes) .. 
 Dick V. Eraser. In re Macdonald 
 Dickins v. Gill .. .. " ..' - 
 
 ::\ 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 315 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 772 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 297 ; H. L.l 
 
 (E.) [1897] A. C. 550 ..J 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 260 
 
 [1891] P. 378 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 339 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 438 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 918 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 687 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 69 .. 
 [1896] W. N. 162 (16) .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 762 ; H. 
 
 (E.) [1897] A. C. 180 
 Eeaistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 
 W.N. 123 / 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 283 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 544 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 348 .. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 12; [1891] P. 189 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 582 
 [1900J W. N. 252 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 211, n. ., 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 562 
 
 C. A. [1900]1Q. B. 16.. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 400 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 106 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 95; [1897] W. N.) 
 
 172(12) f 
 
 [1900] W. N. 163; [1900] 2 
 
 Ch.481 .. .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 262 
 
 f} 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 625 ., 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 338 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 429 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 348 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 354 
 H. L. (B.) [1892] A. C. 112; 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Gh. 423, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 181 
 [1896] 2 Q, B. 310 '.'. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 :\ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 895 
 22 
 671 
 
 1659 
 924 
 
 985 
 
 1913 
 1111 
 546, 577 
 266 
 1884 
 941, 
 1857,. 
 1858, 
 1862,, 
 1865, 
 1867 
 
 1302' 
 
 1387 
 
 1540- 
 17 
 504, 
 2302, 
 2347 
 702 
 646, 677 
 1302. 
 1521, 
 1524 
 
 1136 
 
 1141 
 1842 
 2315 
 
 2299 
 1212 
 2137 
 
 1947 
 
 115, 
 1422 
 1126, 
 2071 
 
 518 ' 
 
 386,; 
 
 2189, , 
 
 1125 
 1464 
 
TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixxy 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Dickinson, In the Goods of 
 Dickinson : — James v. In re Matson 
 Dicks V. Dicks 
 Dickson v. Law .. 
 
 Dickson ; — Macdonald «... 
 « Dictator," The (No. 1) .. 
 
 • (No. 2) 
 
 Didcot, Newbury and SoutliainJ)ton Elwy. Co. v. 
 Great Western Elwy. Co. and London and 
 South Western Blwy. Co. 
 
 Didislieim v. London and Westminster Bank . . < 
 
 Die Badische Anilin und Soda Pabrik v. Scbott,'! 
 Segner&Co / 
 
 Diederichsen v. Farquharson Brothers . . 
 
 Dillon V. Harverfordwest (Corporation) . . 
 
 Dilworth V. Stamps (Commissioners of). Dil- 
 worth V. Land and Income Tax (Commis- 
 sioner for) 
 
 Dimond «. Newbum. In re Freman .. ..| 
 
 Dingle v. Coppen. . Coppen v. Dingle 
 Diprose: — rJohnson ■!;. 
 
 Diprose: — ^West v. ..| 
 
 Disborough: — Coulsonw. .. 
 
 Discount Banking. Co. of England and WalesJ 
 
 Ex parte. In re Fox & Jacobs .. ..J 
 
 Discount Banking Co. of England and Wales v.\ 
 
 Lambarde .. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 Ditton : — Jenks v. 
 Dix :— Nash v. 
 Dixon, In re 
 
 Dixon, In re. Heynes v. Dixon 
 
 Dixon, In re. Tousey v. Sheffield 
 
 Dixon : — ^Brunton v. 
 Dixon j;. Catcraft .. 
 
 Dixon V. Great Western Elwy. Co 
 
 Dixon v. Kenuaway & Co. 
 
 Dixon : — London County Council v. 
 
 Dixon «. Winch .. 
 
 Dobbs V. Brain ... 
 
 Dobell & Co. V. Steamship Rossmore Co. 
 
 Dobell : — Steer v. In re Steer. In re Earl 
 
 Devon's Settled Estates. White v. Earl 
 
 Devon .. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Dobell & Co. V. Green & Co. 
 
 Dobell & Co. V. Watts, Ward & Co. 
 ' Dobree :-)-Att.-GeD. ■». ■.. 
 Dobson V. Festi, Easini & Co, .. 
 
 of 
 of 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 1891] P. 292 
 
 1897] 2 Ch. 509 
 
 1899] P. 275 
 
 "1895] 2 Ch. 62 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 W.N. 123 / 
 
 [1892] P. 64 .{ 
 
 [1892] P. 304 .. 
 
 0. A. [1897]1Q. B. 33., 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 107; C. A. [1900]1 
 W. N. 87; [1900] 2 Ch. 15 ..J 
 
 [1892] 3 Cb. 447 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 150 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 575 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 99 .. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 159 (9); [1898] \ 
 ICh. 28 .. '.. *■ 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 726 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 512 
 
 [1900] W. N. 16; [1900] 1 Gh.\ 
 337 / 
 
 [C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 316 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 438 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 329 
 
 1897] W. N. 56 (4) .. 
 1898] W. N. 32 (7) .. 
 1892] P. 386 .. 
 1899] W. N. 134; [1899] 2 Ch, 
 ■ 561 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 144 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 561 
 [1898] W. N. 65 (2) ; affirmed by\ 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 443 . . / 
 
 [1892] W. N. 105 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 458 
 [1896] 2 Q; B. 333; 0. A. [1897]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 300 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 94; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 833 I 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 496 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 736 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 207 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 408 : 
 
 [1896] 2 Cb. 562 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 41; [190'0]\ 
 IQ. B.526 .. .. ..J 
 
 C. A. [1891] W.N. 131.. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 442 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 92 ., 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1603 
 1012 
 718 
 1542 
 
 1387 
 
 1994, 
 2002 
 1994, 
 2002 
 
 1661 
 
 494 
 
 1721 
 
 1941 
 1773 
 
 1335 
 
 1883 
 
 1878 
 212 
 
 207 
 
 782 
 
 167 
 
 1011 
 
 883 
 
 2063 
 
 604, 739 
 
 910 
 
 553 
 
 922 
 1928 
 
 1645 
 
 393 
 
 1173 
 1306 
 1594 
 1970 
 
 1136 
 
 1935^ 
 
 1966 
 1744 
 1536 
 
Ixxvi 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Docksey r. Else .. 
 
 Dodd :— Att.-Gen. v 
 
 Dodd w. Churton .. 
 
 Dodd : — Sovereiga Life Assurance Co. . . . . | 
 
 Dodds: — Dalgliesh-?;. 
 
 Dodds u. Pearson. In re Carter .. ..< 
 
 Dodds V. South Shields Union (Assessment Com-\ 
 mittee) .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Dodington : — ^Att.-Gen. v. .. . . . . -j 
 
 Dodson: — Kennedy u. 
 
 Doig V. Anthony Birrell Pearoe & Co. In re] 
 Anthony Birrell Pearoe & Co. In re Same. > 
 G-roos V. Same .. .. .. .. ..j 
 
 Dodsworth, In re. Spence i;. Dodsworth 
 
 Doetscb, In re. Matheson u. Ludwig .. 
 
 Doherty v. Chambers 
 
 Dolby:— Eeg..;. (No. 1) 
 
 - (No. 2) 
 
 Dolcini v. Dolcini , 
 
 Doman : — Haynes v. 
 
 Dombey & Sons, In re 
 
 Dombey & Son v. Play fair Bros. 
 
 Dominion Bank, Toronto : — Bank of Scotland v. 
 
 Donaldson v. Bamber. In re Stephenson 
 
 Donaldson : — Rabbeth v. 
 
 In re Abdy (No. 1) . . 
 (No. 2).. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Donaldson v. South Shields Corporation 
 
 Doncasler Union o. Manchester, ShefBeld and'^^ 
 Lincolnshire Elwy. Co. 
 
 Doncaster Union (Guardians of the Poor of) : 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Elwy. [ 
 Co. i; 
 
 Donisthorpe and Manchester, Sheffield and Lin- 
 colnshire Elwy. Co., In re 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Donellan :-^London and North Western Elwy. v. 
 
 Donnelly f. Broughton .. 
 
 Donnelly v. Graham. Connolly v. Eiddall,'! 
 
 Martin v. Hanrahan (No. 2) . . . . . . / 
 
 Donovan v. Laing, Wharton and Down Con-l 
 
 struction Syndicate . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Doody, In re. Fisher v. Doody. Hibbert v.\ 
 
 Lloyd / 
 
 Doogan v. Colquhoun 
 
 "Dora Porster," The 
 
 Dore Gallery, Ld., In re . . 
 
 Dorking Union v.- St. Saviour's Union .. 
 
 [1891]W. N. 65 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 150 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 562 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 405 ; C. A. [1892]! 
 
 2Q. B. 573 J 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 165 
 [1900] W. N. 90 ; [1900] 1 Ch.-l 
 
 801 / 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 133 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 722 ; C. A. [1897]1 
 
 2Q. B. 373 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 334 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 76; [1899] 2 Ch.l 
 50 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 657 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 836 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 100 
 
 •{ 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 301 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 736 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 898 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 65; [1899]\ 
 
 2Ch. 13 
 [1895] W. N. 146 (2) .. 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 368 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 592 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 168 (12) 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 75 
 
 C. A. 
 
 C. A. 
 [1898; 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 241 
 
 '1 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 12 
 
 1895] 1 Ch. 455 
 W. N. 170 (13) ; 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 6 (2) 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 133,n. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 117 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 748: C. A. [1898] 
 2 Q. B. 7; H. L. E. [1899] 
 A. C. 79 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 671 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 435 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 103 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 629 
 
 C. A. [1893]lCh. 129-.. 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 148 
 [1900] P. 241 .. 
 
 [1891] W.N. 98.. 
 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 594 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 1281 
 172» 
 222 
 
 170 
 
 1382 
 
 2360 
 
 1678 
 
 1738 
 676 
 
 775 
 
 774 
 496 
 1392 
 1189, 
 1192 
 578, 896 
 198 
 1234, 
 1721 
 457 
 1497 
 194 
 
 2364 
 
 1056 
 40, 923 
 33, 643 
 
 2083 
 
 1684, 
 1687 
 
 1457 
 
 1664 
 
 1660 
 
 1387, 
 1596, 
 1619 
 
 1367 
 
 1238 
 
 1303, 
 2058 
 1390 
 1001 
 419,458, 
 484 
 1460 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixxvii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Columa 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Dormer v. "Ward .. 
 
 Dorrell «. Dortell. In re Eussell 
 
 Douglas i;. Bolam . . .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Douglas: — 'Reg. v. 
 Dougal V. McCarthy 
 
 Douglas Norman & Co., In re .. .. ..< 
 
 Douglass V. Pintsch's Patent Lighting Co. . . | 
 
 Dover (Corporation) and Kent (County Council),'! 
 Ex parte .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Dover (Justices of) : — Baldwin v. 
 
 Dowling u. Dowling 
 
 Dowduig : — Duncan v. .. :. 
 
 Dowling : — Himter v. (No. 1) . , 
 
 - (No. 2) .. 
 
 In re Beddoe 
 
 Down: — Jacob v. .. 
 Downes V. Cottam. 
 Downes v. Johnson 
 Downes v. Wolverhampton District Brewery^ 
 
 In re Wolverhampton District Brewery 
 Downie ii. Summerson. In re Summerson 
 Downing, In re. Ex parte Mardon 
 Downton : — ^Wilkinson i;. 
 Dowse t». Grorton .. 
 Dowsett i;. Culver. In re Lepine 
 
 Dowsing Eadiant Heat Co. : — Tallerman v. 
 Dowton : — Tendring Union (Guardians of) 
 Dracup, In re. Field v. Dracup (No. 1) 
 
 Drake, In re. 
 Drake 
 
 Drax V. Efooks 
 
 In re Palk. 
 
 (No. 2) 
 Chamberlain 
 
 Drew, In re. Drew v. Drew . . . . . . j 
 
 Drew «. Guy 
 
 Drew: — Moubray Eowan and Hicks v. 
 
 Drew I). Willis. Ex parte Martin 
 
 Drewitt: — Gwynne «. 
 
 Dreyfus Brothers & Co.: — Peruvian Guanol 
 Co.i; J 
 
 Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines v. Janson. 
 West Band Central Gold Mines Co. v. De 
 Eougemont 
 
 Drielsma w. Manifold 
 
 DrifBeld Gas Light Co., In re 
 
 Drincqbier v. Wood 
 
 DriscoU: — Watts V. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 [1900] P. 130 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Cb. 698 
 
 0. A. ri900] W. N. 234; 
 
 2 Ch. 749 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 560 
 0. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 736 
 [1697] W. N. 171 (8); 
 
 1 Ch. 199 
 [1896] W. N. 155 (9); 
 
 ICh. 176 
 [1891]1Q. B. 389; 0. A. 
 
 1 Q. B. 725 .. 
 
 [1900] 
 
 [1898]' 
 [1897J 
 [189 ij 
 
 [1893] 
 Oh. 156 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 421 
 
 1898] P. 228 .. 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 575 
 
 1893] 1 Ch. 391 ; C. A. 
 
 3Ch. 212 
 [1895] 2 Oh. 223 
 [1900]W.N.99; [1900]2 
 0. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 547 .. 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 203 
 
 [1899] W. N. 229 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 112, n. 
 0. A. [1891] W. N. 180 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 57 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 190 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Oh. 210 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 125 ; 0. A. [1899]\ 
 W.N. 234; [1900] 1 Oh. 1 ../ 
 
 0. A. [1891] 3 Oh. 265 
 
 [1892] W. N. 43 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 59 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 112 
 
 [1895] W. N. 147 (5); [1896] 
 IQ.B. 1;C.A. [1896]1Q. B. 
 238 
 
 [1898] W".' N. 175 (17 ; [1899]\ 
 1 Oil. 336 .. .. ^ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 25 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. 0. 295 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 450 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 616 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1892] A. C. 166 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 339 
 
 C. A. 
 [1898 
 [1898' 
 
 [1900;] 
 
 1894] 3 Oh. 100 .. 
 
 ICh. 451 
 
 W._^N. 151 (13) ; [1899]| 
 
 [1900] j 
 
 1 Ch. 393 
 
 W. N. 77 ; C. A. 
 
 W. N. 261 
 
 711 
 2348 
 
 2190 
 
 1044 
 1065 
 2051, 
 2052 
 
 1443 
 
 42, 578, 
 
 579 
 1101 
 
 923 
 1111 
 
 1412 
 
 1412 
 1068 
 
 558 
 
 863 
 
 324 
 
 2244 
 112 
 13 
 800 
 801 
 
 817 
 
 2086, 
 2089 
 791, 
 1505 
 1409 
 
 2186 
 
 1391 
 
 2343 
 
 1723 
 2260 
 269 
 2071, 
 2289 
 
 635 
 
 985 
 
 2033 
 419 
 
 1513 
 1413 
 
IxxTiii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Columa 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Driver v. Broad .. 
 
 Druce V. Young .. 
 
 Drucker :— Printing Telegraph and Construction "I 
 
 Co. of the Agence Havas v. . . . . . . / 
 
 Drmnmond: — Graham v. 
 
 Drummond and Davie's Contract, In re 
 
 Drury v. Army and Navy Auxiliary Co-operative"! 
 Supply / 
 
 Duhowski & Sons v. Goldstein . . 
 
 Dii Cane and Nettlefold's Contract, In re 
 
 Duck ■!;. May eu .. 
 
 Duokham v. Gihhs . 
 
 Duckworth: — Beg. v. 
 
 Dudley (Earl) :— Bell v 
 
 Dudley v. Champion. In re Champion 
 
 Dudley and Kingswinford Tramways, In re 
 
 Duffield V. Williams. In re Berry 
 
 Duffy: — Bishop D. .. .. .. ..i 
 
 Dufrgau: — London and Canadian Loan and\ 
 Agency Co. •y. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Dugmore i;. Suffield 
 
 Duke V. Clarke 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 539 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 744 / 
 
 [1899] P. 84 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 801 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 968 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch; 524 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 271 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 478 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 96 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 511 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 394 . 
 
 C. 0. E. [1892] 2 Q. B. 83 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 182 
 
 :■{ 
 
 Duke «. Davis .. .. .. „ _ / 
 
 "Duke of Buccleuoh," The (No. 1). The) 
 Eastern Steamship Co. i;. Smith .. .. f 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 "Dunbeth,"The 
 
 Duncan, In re 
 
 Duncan, In re. Ex parte Duncan 
 
 Duncan, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 
 Duncan, In re. Terry v. Sweeting 
 
 Duncan ?;. Dowding 
 
 Duncan: — Lawson r. In re Hewit 
 
 Duncan: — Morris v.. . 
 
 Duncan & Co. : — Vanderspar & Co. t;. .. 
 
 Duncombe: — Ward i;. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 101 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 162 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 939 
 
 Kegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) ri898i) 
 
 ./ 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Dundee Magistrates : — Inland Eevenue v. .. / 
 Dundee Eoyal Lunatic Asylum : — Musgrave v. i 
 Dunham: — Mills «. 
 
 Dunhill, In re. Ex parte Dunhill 
 
 Duhhill, In re, Ex parte Wilson ., ', 
 
 W. N. 88 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 506 
 
 [1896] W. N. 50 (13) 
 
 [1894] W. N. 100 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 107 ; C. A. [1893]) 
 2Q. B. 260 .. .. ../ 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 310 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] P. 201 .. ../ 
 
 [1897] P. 133 .. 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 387 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 331 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 879 
 [1899] W. N. 14 (1); [1899]\ 
 ICh. 387 . ^ 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 575 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 568 
 [1898] W. N. 148 (4)';' [1899]| 
 
 [1891] W. N. 178 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 369 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N.\ 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 576 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 234 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 554 
 
 335, 844 
 746 
 
 773 
 
 793 
 
 902, 
 
 2254, 
 
 2323 
 
 115T 
 
 1725 
 1892 
 1710 
 722 
 619 
 1268, 
 2068 
 2247, 
 2360, 
 2367 
 1364, 
 2150 
 1508 
 
 1396 
 
 91, 1205 
 
 2198 
 1048, 
 1560 
 
 598 
 
 1953 
 
 1514, 
 1997 
 1967 
 1250 
 136 
 136 
 
 787 
 
 nil 
 
 793 
 
 825 
 
 1941 
 1290, 
 2194 
 
 1774 
 
 1754 
 
 1720, 
 1724 
 
 141 
 
 112 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixxix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 DuriMU v. North Eastern Ry. Co. 
 
 Durileavy u. M'Daid' 
 
 Dunlop: — Falconers;. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Dtmlop & Sons v. Balfour, Williamson & Co. 
 
 Dunlop Pneuiiiatic Tyre Co. v. Neal ., .. | 
 
 Dunlop's Trustees. Lord Advocate v. Macfar- 
 lane .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 Dunmore V. Wharam 
 Dunn ?;. Appleton 
 
 Dunn v. Chambers .. ,. .. .. | 
 
 Dunn V. Devon and Exeter Constitutional News-V 
 paper Co. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Dunn: — Hawke v. 
 Dunn : — HUdesheimer v. 
 
 Dunn V. Macdonald 
 Dunn V. Eeg. .. ' 
 
 Dunnett : — Batt (Jolin) & Co. v. 
 
 Dunning, In re. Sturgeon v. Lawrence 
 Dunning v. Gxosvenor Dairies .. 
 
 Dunraven (Earl of) :^—Blandy- Jenkins v. . . | 
 Dunraven (Earl of) :— Clarke v. The " Satanita "| 
 
 Dunstable Corporation : —Brown v. .. ..[. 
 
 " Dnnstanborough," The 
 
 Dunster's Case. In re Grlory Paper Mills Co. . . 
 
 Duplany V. Duplany .. .. .. .. . 
 
 Durant: — Haas w. Jn re Overweg .. .. | 
 
 Durant & Co. v. Koberts and Keighley, Maxsted 
 &Co. ., , .. 
 
 Dur^lt i;. Bellioger. In re Bellinger 
 
 Duret t;. Charriere. In re Oharriere 
 
 Durham «. Northen 
 
 Durham (Lord Bishop) : — Eeg. i;. 
 
 Durham Brothers t?. Eobertson .. 
 
 Durham County Council v. Chester-le-Streef; 
 Afeessment Committee .. ,. ../ 
 
 Durham Justices : — 'Reg. v. 
 
 Durnford: — Eiddell «. 
 
 Durrant v. Branksome Urban District Council .. | 
 
 Duthy and Jesson's Contract, In re 
 
 Duttpn, In re 
 
 DuttOD, In re. Plunkett j;. Simeon 
 
 Duttpn:— r-Prance'!;. 
 
 Duvemay: — Whiter. .. 
 
 "Dwina,"The 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 116 (13); C. A. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 156 (3) ; C. A. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 121 
 C. A.(I.)[1S98]W. N. 104 .. 
 Registration App. Ct. (So.) [a897]\ 
 
 W.N. 124 / 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 507 
 
 [1899] W. N. 39; [1899] ,1 Ch.\ 
 
 807 / 
 
 Ct. of Session (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 96 / 
 
 [1898] W. N. 15 (7) .. 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 564 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N.) 
 
 139 S 
 
 [1895]1Q. B. 211,n I 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 579 
 
 [1891]W. N. 66 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 401 ; C. A. [1897]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 555 / 
 
 C. A.. [1895] W. ,N. 160 (4); 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 116 .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 90; 
 
 [1899] A. 0. 428 
 [1894] W. N. 140 
 [1900] W. N. 265 
 C. A.. [1899] W. N. 88; [1899]\ 
 
 2 Ch. 121 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] W.N. 164 (5) ;\ 
 
 [1897]A. C. 59 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 83; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 378 .. .. .. ../ 
 
 »;| 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1892 
 C.A.' 
 [1892' 
 [1899' 
 209 
 C.A. 
 IQ 
 1898 
 1896' 
 1895' 
 C.A. 
 C.A. 
 
 'P. 363,D. 
 1894]3Ch. 473 .. 
 P. 53 
 
 W. N. 245 ; [1900] 1 ChV 
 
 [1900] W. N. 54 ; [1900]\ 
 ^B. 629 / 
 
 2 Ch. 534 
 
 1 Ch. 912 
 
 P. 66 
 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 414 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 765 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 330 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 801 
 
 1893] W. N. 30 ... .. 
 
 1897] W. N. 43 (12); C. A. 
 
 ■ [1897] 2 Ch. 291 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 419 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 486 
 
 [1893] W. N. 65 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 208 
 
 [1891] P. 290 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 58 
 
 1092 
 
 139() 
 1386 
 1935 
 1429 
 
 1782 
 
 104T 
 587 
 
 1772 
 
 1521, 
 1524 
 868 
 526 
 
 1575 
 625 
 
 2133 
 
 77 
 1344 
 
 772 
 1981 
 
 1919 
 
 2107 
 427 
 927 
 
 2073 
 
 1578 
 
 1469 
 
 726 
 1616 
 
 753 
 
 75 
 
 580, 
 1678 
 1041 
 1080 
 
 1922 
 
 2255 
 540, 
 1027 
 2316 
 590, 
 2034 
 1615 
 2009 
 
Ixxz 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Dyer v. Munday . . 
 Dyer :— Stafford v. 
 
 Dyer v. Tulley 
 
 Dyer : — Wride v. .. 
 Dyke v. Gower 
 Dyson: — Reg. «. .. 
 Dyson and Powke, Id re . . 
 Dyson's Trade-mark, lu re 
 
 B. 
 
 Eagers : — Gosling v. 
 Barnes : — Mercers' Co. v. .. 
 
 Eames : — Peny v. 
 
 Eames : — Salaman v. 
 
 Earby Gas Co. : — Clegg, Parkinson & Co. v. 
 
 Earle v. Kingscote 
 
 Barnshaw t>. Eamshaw .. 
 
 Eamshaw-Wall, In re 
 
 Earp u. Briggs. In re Briggs .. 
 
 East Ham Churcliwardens : — Fourth City Mutual) 
 Building Society r. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 East London Waterworks Co. v. Charles 
 
 East London Waterworks Co. v. Poulkes 
 East London Waterworks Co. v. Keller man 
 East London Waterworks Co. v. Kyffin 
 East London Waterworks Co : — Kyffin v. 
 East London Waterworks Co. : — Londonl 
 
 County Council «. .. ., .. ../ 
 
 East London Waterworks Co. : — ^West Ham\ 
 
 Central Charity Board t». .. .. ../ 
 
 Bast Molesey Local Board v. Lambeth Water-"! 
 
 works Co. .. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 East Elding Club and Race Course Co. : — \ 
 
 Baird v. .. ,. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 East Stonehouse Local Board v. Victoria Brewervl 
 
 Co .1 
 
 Eastbourne Corporation : — ^Bradford «. .. 
 Eastern and Australian Steamship Co., In re . . 
 Eastei'n and Midland Ry. Co., In re 
 Eastern Steamship Co. v. Smith. The " Dukel 
 
 ofBucoleuch" .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Eastern Telegraph Co. ■!;. Dent .. 
 
 Eastman Photographic Materials Co. v. Comp-l 
 
 troller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade-} 
 
 marks .. .. .. .. .. .1 
 
 Eastman Photographic Materials Co. .-—Staples v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 742 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 566 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 794 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 23 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 220 
 0. C. E. [1894] 2 Q. B. 176 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 720 
 [1891] W. N. 176 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 793 
 [1891] 1 Oh. 658 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 658 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 658 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 592 
 
 [1899] W. N. 244 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 203;0. A. [1900] W. N. 162; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 585 
 
 [1896] P. 160 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 156 
 [1894] W. N. 162 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 730 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 819 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 72 
 
 189511Q. B. 55 
 
 IQ. B. 446 
 
 W.N. 17; [1900] 1 
 
 1896] 
 1900' 
 330 
 [1900] W. N. 37 ; [1900] 1 
 
 624 : 
 
 0. A. [1892] 3 Oh. 289 .. 
 [1891] W. N. 144 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 514 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 205 
 [1893] W. N. 31 
 [1892] W. N. 173 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. 0. 310 
 
 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 835 
 [1896] W. N. 158 (8); 0. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 48 (6); H. 
 
 (E.)[1898]A. 0.571 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 303 .. 
 
 
 S.B, 
 Ch. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1239 
 1993 
 1030, 
 2070 
 1065 
 21 
 135, 621 
 1464 
 1491 
 
 2105 
 135, 627, 
 
 1117, 
 
 1162 
 135, 627, 
 
 1117, 
 
 1162 
 135, 627, 
 
 1117, 
 
 1162 
 
 874 
 
 911 
 
 929 
 2043 
 
 796 
 1034, 
 1038, 
 1689 
 1036, 
 2281 
 2280 
 2280 
 2281 
 2277 
 
 2275 
 2268 
 2277 
 1558 
 
 575 
 
 1914 
 388 
 1663 
 
 1953 
 
 1071 
 
 2132 
 
 356 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Uui 
 
 Kame of Case. 
 
 Eastman's Settled Estates, In re 
 Eastonv. Laudor .. 
 
 Easton : — Nutt v. 
 
 Eastwood Brothers, Ld. v. Henley Urban Council | 
 
 Eaton, In re. Daines v. Eaton .. 
 
 Eaton V. Daines ., 
 
 Eaton «. Tapley .. 
 
 Eaton & Co., In re. Ex parte Viney .. 
 
 Ebbetts: — Conquests. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Ebbsmith: — South Stafifordshire Tramway Co.1 
 V / 
 
 Eccles: — Pudney v. 
 Eccles V. Mills 
 
 Eccles Corporation : — ^Bamett v... 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commrs. «. Parr .. 
 Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Pinney 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Pinney .. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commrs.: — ^Plumstead Board ofi 
 Works i>. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Treemer 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Wodehouse .. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commrs. and New City of London) 
 
 Brewery Co.'s Contract, In re. .. ..J 
 
 Eckersley v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board 
 
 Bckersley: — Newby w. .. 
 
 :'( 
 
 Ecroyd V. Coulthard .. .. .. .A 
 
 Eddlestone: — Earrarv. In re Holmes.. 
 
 Eddy ». Eddy 
 
 Eddystone Qranite Quarries : — PoUit v. 
 Eddystone Marine Insurance Co., In re (No. l).) 
 Ex parte Western Insurance Co. .. .. / 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 (No, 3) 
 
 "Eden," The 
 
 "Edenbridge" (Owners of Steamship) v. Greenl 
 and Owners of Steamship "Eutland." The! 
 "Rutland" ..I 
 
 "Edenmore,"The 
 
 Edey : — Silkstone and Haigh Moor Coal Co. v. .A 
 Edgar V. Plondey .. ■ 
 
 [1898] W.N. 170(15) . 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 176 
 [1899] 1 Oh. 873; C. A. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 239; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 29 
 [1900] W."n. 94; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 781 ] 
 
 [1894]W. N. 95 .. ,.{ 
 
 [1894] W.N. 32 
 
 [1899] W. N. 60 ; [1899] 1 Q. B.\ 
 953 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 16 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 377 ; H. L. (E.) 
 [1896] W. N. 87 (10) ; [1896] 
 A. C. 490 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 669 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 62 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 360 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 96 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 
 104;0. A. [1900] W. N. 145; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 423 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 420 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 150 (6); 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 99 
 [1899] W. N. 140 ; [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 720 ; [1900] W. N. 179 ; [1900] 
 
 2Ch. 736 .. .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 361 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 166 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 552 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 702 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 667 
 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 465 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 .0 
 
 
 [1897] W. N. 25 (7) ; [1897] 2 Ch. 
 554; C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 358 
 
 [1892] W. N. 177 .. ..| 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 299 .. 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 75 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 423 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 9 .. 
 [1894] W. N. 30 
 
 [1892] P. 67 1 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1897] A. C. 333 .. 
 
 [1893] P. 79 
 
 [1899] W. N. 213; [1900] 1 Ch,\ 
 
 167 / 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 431 .. 
 
 1881 
 2181 
 
 1301 
 
 1920 
 
 1857, 
 2302 
 2167 
 
 1137 
 
 131 
 
 1061 
 
 663 
 
 861 
 1336 
 
 574 
 
 524 
 2240 
 
 2240 
 
 735, 
 
 1175 
 
 1076, 
 
 1136 
 
 751, 
 
 2269 
 
 236 
 
 55 
 1052 
 773, 825, 
 1495, 
 2286 
 1509, 
 1533 
 255 
 326 
 
 999 
 
 427 
 
 215,421 
 
 1929, 
 
 2069 
 
 1993 
 
 2002 
 
 2238 
 
 6 
 
 / 
 
Ixxxii 
 
 TABLE OF. CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name ;0f Case, 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Edge :^-Jplinson i). .. , 
 
 Edge |& Sons v. Gailon (W.) & Son 
 
 Edgell i;. Wilson . , 
 
 Edgerl — ^Barker iJ. .. .. 
 
 Bdinburgli' (Corporation): — Edinburgli Streefl 
 
 Tranaw^ys Co. f . .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co. : — Mann v. 
 Kdlnburuh, Northern Tramways Co. : — Kixon v. 
 Edinbnrghi Street Tramways Co. v. Edinburgh) 
 
 Gonporaiion .. .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Edinbnrghi United Breweries, Ld; v. MoUeson .. 
 Edison G^eral Electric Co. v. Westminster andl 
 
 Vancouver Tramways Co. .. .. ../ 
 
 Edmiston'fe Case (Gallagher v. Edmiston) 
 Bdttiontori IJnion : — Cambridge Pnion v. 
 
 Edmonton; Union :— Midland Ey. Co. v. 
 
 Ednjunds i — Goodier v. .. 
 
 Edmunds; — Heyl-Dia u. .. 
 Edmunds i). James 
 
 Kdvfardes :-^Hiighes (or Edwardes) v. . . 
 
 Ed\»ards, In re. Edwards v. Edwards . . 
 
 Edwards : — Att.-Gen. v. .. 
 Edwards 1^., Brown. In re Cliff .. 
 
 Edwards: — Buckley v. .. 
 
 Edwards D., Carter 
 
 Edyyards :-rCox v. In re Cox . . 
 
 Edwai:ds :— Cunnaok i;. .. 
 
 Edwards v.! Edwards 
 
 Edwards Vi Godfrey 
 
 Edwards j;. Jenkins 
 
 Edwards ;— rLawrence v. (No. 1) , 
 
 —■ — -^ (No. 2) . . 
 
 Edwards .--^London County Council v. 
 
 Edwards i;., Marcus 
 
 Edwards i). jMarston ■ .. ■ .. 
 
 Edwards :-^Pillers v, 
 
 Edwards v. Purnell 
 
 Edwards 11. Koberts .. .. '_' 
 
 Edwards: — Eobson ii. 
 
 Edwards v. Standard Boiling Stock Syndicate 
 
 Edwards v.- Steel, Young & Co. .. 
 
 Edwards v. Siimmerton . . 
 
 Edwards ^;.j "Walters .. .. \_ 
 
 Edwards :^Whiteley w. .. 
 
 Edwards' Settlement, In re .." 
 
 Edye (a Solicitor), In re .. 
 Egan, In re. Mills v. Penton .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■■( 
 ■■{ 
 
 A 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch.. 1, .. 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 137 
 [1893] W. N. 145 ■ 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 748 .. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. 456 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] A; C. 69 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 636 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 456 .A 
 
 H. L. (Sc.)[1894]A. 96 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 193 .. 
 
 C. A. (Er.) [1897] W. N. 134 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. Ill 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 357 ; H. L. 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 485 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 455 
 
 [1899] W. N. 222 
 [1892] 1 Q; B. 18 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C.-583 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 644 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 194 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 21 .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 387 .. 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 360 
 
 [1900] W.N. 89 ■ 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 489 ; reversed C. A.\ 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 679 .. ../ 
 
 [1894] P. 33; [1897] P. 316 .. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 72 ; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 333 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1895] W. N. 142 (4); [1896]» 
 ICh. 308 .. .. ../ 
 
 1891] 1 Ch. 144 
 1891] 2 Ch. 72 
 
 ■1898] 2 Q. B. 75 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 587 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 225 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 212 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 449 
 
 1891 
 
 1893' 
 
 1893' 
 
 1897' 
 
 ■2Q. 
 [1899 
 [1896' 
 C. A,' 
 [1897" 
 
 1 Q. B. 302 
 
 2 Ch. 146 
 J.Ch,-574 
 
 ,1Q.B. 712;C. A.{1897]) 
 B. 327 .. f 
 
 W.N. 120 
 
 2 Ch. 157 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 48 .. 
 
 2Ch. 412" 
 
 [1891] W. N. 1 .. . I 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1442 i 
 564 
 1702 
 1336 
 
 2149 
 
 372 
 337 
 
 2149 
 
 1831 
 
 -r 
 
 248 
 
 1384 
 1461 ; 
 1040, 
 1457 
 520, 
 2350 
 i847 
 1106 
 1251 
 1834 
 2320, ■ 
 2321 
 2080 
 1538 
 292, : 
 1024, 
 1335 T 
 956 
 8 
 
 857 
 
 698,702' 
 
 1247' ■' 
 
 630 
 
 754, 758 
 754 ;; 
 1348 
 200 
 206 
 917 
 2295 
 1038 . 
 1119 
 331 
 
 204 
 
 878 
 
 196 ■ 
 
 919 
 1879 
 118, 933, 
 2054 ., 
 
 2299 , 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 bcxziii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Egerton u. All of Odd Bode .. 
 
 Ehrman v. Bartholomew .'. 
 Ehrmann v. Ehrmann 
 Ehrmann V. Ehrmann ... 
 Ehrmann's Applications, In re .. ' .. .i 
 
 Eiehbaum i^i-Citiy of ^ Chicago' -Grain Blevators,\ 
 Ld. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 ■"Eider," The .. .. 
 
 Bkman & Co. : — Aktieselkab Helios v.-.. 
 Elcom, In re. Layborn v. Grroveir-Wright 
 
 Electrical Engineering Corporation :— Brijnton v. 
 
 Elen, Inre. Thomas v. McKeckine 
 
 " ElephanV' The (BoUer ex) 
 
 Elej:—Cdev. .;■ ,. ,. * .. 
 
 Eley: — Read ». .. ' .. 
 Elgood V. Harris .. . „ 
 Elias V. Continental OxygenTCo. . In re Conti- 
 nental Oxygen Co. 
 Eliott (or Birkett or Kelsail) v. Purdom 
 ■" Elise," The. ... .. ... .. 
 
 Elkimgton & .Co. w. Hiirter . 
 EUenor i;. Ugle 
 Ellesmere (Earl of), In re 
 
 Ellesmere Brewery Co. v. Cooper 
 
 Elletson v. Fillers. ' In re Benson .> 
 
 Elliot, In re. . Kelly v. Elliot .. 
 
 Elliott, In re. Elliott v. Elliott 
 
 Elliott u. London County Council '■ ,. 
 Elliott u. Yates .. • .. 
 Elliott & Co.:— CHarfti Matthews & Co. v. 
 Ellis, Ex parte, ;...'., 
 Ellis:'^Ash'bnry V... .. .; .... 
 
 Ellis:— Att.rGen.i;., 
 
 Ellis V. Barfield. In re Northage ... 
 
 iti-^ 
 
 Ellis V. Bedford (Duke oQ 
 
 Ellis ^-^CamberweU Assessment Committee 
 
 Ellis V. Dadson andE. A. Effis & Co.' . , 
 Ellis r.ElUs 
 
 Ellis «. G-oiilton 
 
 .) •• •■ 
 
 Ellis u. Pond 
 
 Ellis:-J-Priestley V.- 
 Ellis:— Reg. v. .... 
 
 Ellis r. Roberts. In re Davies .. ... 
 EUis «. Bowbotham ■ • ., .. k. 
 
 Ellia «. Wadeson .. .. .. 
 
 ....{ 
 
 [18a4] p. 15 
 [1898] ICh. 671.. 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 611 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 826 
 [1897] 2 Ch: 495 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 459 
 
 A. [1893] P. 119 
 
 A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 83 . 
 A. [1894] 1 Ch, 303 , 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 434 
 
 1893] W. N. 90 
 1891] W. N. 52 
 
 1894] 2 Q..B. 180; C. A, [1894]l 
 2Q. B. 350 .. ..J 
 [1900] W. N. 57 . . 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 491. / .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 511 
 
 H. L.(Sc.){1896] AtO. 371 .. 
 
 '1899] W. N.-54 .. - .. 
 
 1892] 2 Ch. 452 ■ ■ .. .. 
 1895] W.N. 161. C8) .. 
 1898] W.N. 18(6) ., 
 1895] W. . N. 157 (8) ; 
 
 IQ. B.75 
 [1898] W. N. 155 (9); 
 
 ICh. 39 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 353 .. 
 
 [1891] W: N. 9 
 
 [1896]| 
 [1899]1 
 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 370 
 1 Q.-B. 362 
 
 ■1898]2Q..B. 79 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 339 
 [1895] 2 Q. B, 466 
 
 [1891] W. N. 84 
 
 [li898] W. N. 169 (11); C. A.l 
 [1899] W, N. 19(10); {1899]| 
 
 . ICh. 494; H. L. (E.) [1900] J 
 W.N. 268 ,J 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 227; [1900]) 
 IQ. B. 68; H.L. (E.)[1900] 
 W. N. 166; [1900] A. C. 610 J 
 
 £1891] W.N. 43 •• ..• ' ./ 
 
 [18J96]P. 251 ,. 
 
 C. A. [1893J 1 Q. B. 350 ..| 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 426 
 [189.7] 1 Ch, 489 ■• 
 C. C. R. [1898] W. N. 162 (2);i 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 230 
 
 [1898' 
 
 L2Ch. 142 
 
 C.A. 
 
 1900" 1 Q. B. 740 
 
 C.A. 
 
 [1899J 1 Q. B. 714 
 
 747 
 516 
 778 
 669 
 2135 
 
 401 
 
 1541,- 
 2004 
 1940 
 912 
 322, 829 
 2052 
 1476 
 2005 
 
 2024 
 
 1792 
 171 
 
 321 
 
 1834 
 
 2008- 
 
 341 
 
 1702 
 
 1858 
 
 1584, 
 
 1586 
 
 1518 
 
 2318 
 496, 
 2361 
 1159 
 1731 
 
 560 
 
 207 
 1336 
 1730 
 
 353, 
 1852 
 
 1515 
 
 1683 
 
 484, 960 
 929 
 1578, 
 225,6 
 1579 
 1898 
 
 615 
 
 2168 
 
 48 
 
 1528 
 
 /2 
 
Ixxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Ellison : — Clegg v. In re Jones . 
 EUison : — Singleton v. .. 
 Ebns: — ^Hare v. .. 
 
 Elmsley v. Mitchell. In re Pickard 
 
 •■( 
 
 Elmsley v. North Eastern Ky. Co. 
 
 Else: — Docksey V. 
 
 Eisner and McArthur's Case. In re Common) 
 
 Petroleum Engine Co. .. .. .. ..( 
 
 Elstone: — Collins i;. 
 
 "Elton," The 
 
 Elve V. Boyton 
 
 Emerson: — Att.-Gen. u. ., 
 
 Emmerson, Tarn -v. In re Leng 
 
 Emmott & Co. V. Walters 
 
 Empire Palace v. Hanfstaengl v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 (No. 3) 
 
 Empire Palace Co : — ^Michiels v. 
 
 Endle: — Bovill j; 
 
 Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and Swansea Grram-\ 
 mar School, In re .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Endowed Schools Act, 1869, 1873, and 1874, 
 In re, and In re A Scheme Relating to Gram- 
 mar School in Colchester 
 
 Enfield (Local Board) : — Savery v. 
 
 Engel V. South Metropolitan Brewing and\ 
 Bottling Co. (No. 1) / 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Bngelhart r. Farrant & Co. 
 
 " Engineer," The. Tatham, Bromage & Co. v. Burr 
 
 England, In re. Steward v. England . . . . | 
 
 England : — Kerry v. 
 
 England v. Provincial Assets Co. In re Croom 
 England i;. Wehb 
 
 England and Wales (Charity Commissioners") 
 for): — Eeg. V. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 English and Colonial Syndicate : — Pritchett v...i 
 
 English and Scottish Mercantile Investment\ 
 
 Trust V. Brunton . . . . . . . . / 
 
 English and Scottish Mercantile Investment\ 
 
 Tnist :— Smith i; / 
 
 English Bank of the River Plate, In re (No. 1) 
 English Bank of the River Plate, In re (No. 2).'i 
 
 Ex parte Bank of Brazil . . . . . . / 
 
 English, Scottish, and Australian Chartered\ 
 
 Bank, In re .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 "Englishman," The, and The "Australia") 
 
 (No.l) / 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Ennis (Sir J. J.), In re. Coles v. Peyton 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 1898] 2 Ch. 83 .. 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 607 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 604 
 1894] 2 Ch. 88; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 " 3Ch. 704 > 
 
 [1895] W. N. 161 (9); C. A.l 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 418 
 [1891] W. N. 65 
 
 1895] 2 Ch. 759 .. 
 
 [1893] P. 1 
 
 [1891] P. 265 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Oh. 501 .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 649 
 
 C. A. 
 [1891" 
 C. A. 
 
 1895] 1 Ch. 652 
 "W.N. 79.. 
 1894] 2 Ch. 1 
 1894] 3 Ch. 109 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1895; 
 [1896; 
 
 "W.N. 76 
 1892] W. N. 38 
 ICh. 648 
 
 P. C. [ 
 
 1894] A. C. 252 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 477 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. 0. 218 
 
 [1891] W. N. 31 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 442 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 240 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 382 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 100; 0. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Ch. 820 / 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 742 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 695 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 758 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 407 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 91 ; [1899] 
 
 2Q. B. 428 .. 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 1 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 700 / 
 
 [1896] W. N. 86 (6) .. 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 391 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 438 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 385 .. 
 
 [1894] P. 239 .. 
 
 [1895] P. 212 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 238 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1826 
 619 
 1071 
 
 283 
 
 1655 
 1281 
 431 
 
 2357" 
 
 1543, 
 
 2003, 
 
 2010 
 286, 486, 
 
 625, 
 
 2185 
 
 823 
 133, 795 
 
 675 
 
 538 
 
 539 
 
 539 
 
 569 
 
 129ft 
 
 275 
 
 274 
 
 203& 
 
 684 
 
 315 
 1241 
 987 
 
 1126 
 
 243 
 164 
 2259 
 
 1205 
 79 
 328 
 
 328 
 
 430 
 
 192,472, 
 
 2066 
 
 477, 478 
 
 1956 
 
 1495, 
 1950 
 1582 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 IZXXT 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Enright: — Smith if. 
 
 Entwistle : — Eeg. v. Ex parte Jones . 
 
 Epping Urban Council : — NichoUs v. . 
 
 Epsom District Council v. London 
 Council .. 
 
 Epsom Local Board : — Murray v. 
 
 Equitable Life Assurance Society of 
 
 Society 
 
 CountyV 
 • • J 
 
 States V. Bishop 
 Equitable Life Assurance 
 
 United States : — Honour v. 
 Equitable Reversionary Interest Society : 
 
 V. In re Hill's Estate 
 
 United |f 
 
 of thej 
 
 ■Hiill 
 
 -HillJ 
 
 Equitable Reversionary Interest Society 
 
 V. In re Hill's Settlement Trusts 
 Erdheim :-^Reg. v. 
 Erich^:— Trinidad and Tobago (Att.-Gen. for)1 
 
 V. / 
 
 Erith Churchwardens, &c. : — Loudon County 1 
 
 CotmcU V. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Ernest v. Loma Gold Mines, Ld. 
 Emsthausen & Co. : — ^Aitken, Lilbum & Co. v. 
 ErringtOD, In re. Ex parte Mason 
 Errington v.- Sempell. In re Forbes 
 Erskine : — Wingfield v. In re Pludyer 
 Esoritt V. Todmorden Co-operative Society 
 Esdaile: — ^Lane v. .. .... 
 
 Espuela Land and Cattle Co., In re 
 Esquimalt and Nanaimo Ey. 'Co. v. Bainbridge 
 Esquimau and Nanaimo Ry. Co. :-^Hoggan v. 
 
 Essex (Sheriff of). Ex parte. In re Harrison . 
 
 Essex (Commrs. of Taxes of Barstaple Division) : 
 
 — Beg. V. 
 Essex (Justices of) : — ^Eeg. v. (No. 1) 
 Essex (Justices of) and London County Council :' 
 
 — West Ham Union (Assessment Committee 
 
 of) w. 
 Etherington v. Big Blow Gold Mines 
 Etherley Grange Coal Co. v. Auckland District "I 
 
 Highway Board .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Etoile, Society Anonyme des Verreries de 1', In Te\ 
 
 '?.1 
 
 the Trade-mark of (No. 1) 
 
 Evans, Ex parte .. 
 
 Evans, In re. Ex parte Evans .. 
 
 Evans, In re. Evans «. Noton (No. 1).. 
 
 (No. 2).. 
 
 (No.2){ 
 
 [1893] W. N. 173 
 
 [1899] W. N. 47; [1899] 1 Q. B.) 
 
 846 1 
 
 [1899] W. N. 58 ; [1899] 1 Ch.V 
 
 844 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 751 
 
 [1896] W, N. 175 (9); [1897] 1\ 
 Ch. 35 / 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 439; C. A. [1900]\ 
 IQ. B. 177 / 
 
 [1900] "W. N. 67; [1900] 1 Ch, 
 852 
 
 [1896] W. N. 177 (2) .. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 177 (1) .. 
 C. C. E. [1896] 2 Q. B. 260 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 518 .. 
 
 '.1 
 
 H. L. 
 
 C.A. 
 
 C. A. 
 1894' 
 1899' 
 189& 
 1896' 
 
 H.L.' 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 562 
 
 1897] 1 Ch. 1 .. 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 773 
 
 1 Q. B. 11 
 
 W. N. 6 (4) 
 
 2Ch.562 
 
 IQ. B. 461 
 (E.) [1891] A. C. 210 
 
 Evans : — ^Adcock v. 
 JBvans: — Biggs v. .. 
 
 In re Allen 
 
 Evans V. Conway Justices 
 
 - Evans v. Davies .. 
 Evans v. Evans (No. 1) 
 
 [1900] W. N. 139 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 561 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. 0. 429 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. Ill 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 123 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 490 
 
 H. L. [1896] A. C. 443 .. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 21 (9) .. 
 C. A. [1894]1Q. B. 37.. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 119 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 61 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Ch. 26 J 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 16 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 143 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 252 .. .., 
 
 1893]W. N. 32 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 345 
 
 1894llQ.B. 88 
 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 5; C. A. [1900] 
 
 W. N. 132; [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 
 224 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 216 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 173 .. 
 
 1717 
 2215 
 
 2288 
 
 894 
 
 2291 
 
 1772 
 
 981 
 
 557 
 
 556 
 
 610 
 
 599, 769, 
 
 2156 
 
 1686 
 
 360 
 1977 
 
 152 
 1900 
 
 805 
 
 940 
 
 39 
 
 359 
 
 248 
 
 247 
 
 163, 
 1925 
 
 2112 
 
 1041 
 
 1671 
 
 1848 
 893 
 
 569 
 
 2136 
 
 1113 
 
 133 
 36. 81, 
 1488 
 
 77 
 
 804 
 
 816 
 
 1114 
 
 399 
 643 
 
Ixzxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN.. THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Evans v. Evans (No. 2) .. 
 Evans v. Evans .. .. 
 
 Evans : — Grordon v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 "■■{ 
 
 Evans «. Grriffiths. Jn re Thomas 
 
 Evans «. Hoare 
 Evans: — Isaacs v. 
 
 Evans J — ^Lamb v. (No. 1) 
 
 -= r— --(No. 2) 
 
 Evans : — tendon and Noitli Western "Ry. Co. v: / 
 
 Evans : — Mercantile Bank of London v. . 
 Evans v. Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council 
 Evails V. Moore. In re Davis 
 Evanav. Owens .. .._ .. .. .. j 
 
 Evans: — ^Phillips «>. 
 Evans: — Ratcliffev. 
 Evans: — ^Beg. v. .. 
 
 Evans v. Ware 
 
 i 
 
 Evans: — Wegg-Prosser u. .. .. ../ 
 
 Evans & Co. (J. H.), In re 
 
 Evans & Co. : — James v. .. 
 Evans (In re) v. Woods. ( Ex parte Woods 
 Evelyn, In re. Ex parte General Public Works\ 
 and Assets Co. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Everard : — Walters. 
 Everett 1). Bemington 
 
 Everett: — Butter v. .. ... 
 
 Everitt v. Automatic Weighing Machine Co. .. / 
 Everley, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Eversfield: — King i;. .. .. „ _/ 
 
 Evershed: — ^Wallace r. .. 
 
 Eversley, In re. Mildmay v. Mildmay .. .. ( 
 
 Evington : — Pilshie r. 
 
 Exchange Telegraph Co. v. Central News, Ld 
 
 Exchange Telegraph Co, v. Gregory & Co. 
 
 Eynon, Ex parte. In re Wiltshire ,. 
 Ewart V. Fryer .. ■ .. 
 Extract of Meat (Baron Liebig) Photographic 
 Brand, Ld., Ex parte .. 
 
 Eyre w. Wynn-Mackenzie (No. 1) 
 
 Volupae and Page/ 
 
 1 Ch. 
 
 [1893] 
 [1893]! 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Eyre and Leicester Corporation, In re 
 Eyre Coote, In re. Coote v. Cadogan 
 Eyres : — Starkey v. In re Deakin 
 
 Eyston :— Bruno v. In re Huddleston 
 
 Eyton : — Vincent v. 
 
 ■{ 
 ■{ 
 
 del 
 
 ■I 
 
 [1832] W. N. 174. 
 [1899] P. 195 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 248 
 [1900] W. N.36; [1900] 
 454 .. 
 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 593 
 
 1899] W.N. 261 
 
 1892] 3 Ch. 462 ; C. A. 
 
 ICh. 218 
 [1895] W. N. 156 (2) .. 
 [1892] 2Ch. 432; C. -A. 
 
 1 Ch. 16 
 C. A. [1899] 2.Q. B. 613 
 0. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 241 .. 
 
 1891] 3 Ch. 119. 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 23T 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 305 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 524 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 228 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 502 ■ ;. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 101 ; C. A. 
 
 1 Q. B. 108 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 126 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 180 
 P.O. [1900] A. C. 338.'. , 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 302 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 369 
 
 1892] 3 Ch. 148 
 
 1895] 2 Ch. 872 
 
 1892] 3 Ch. 506 
 
 1892] P. 50 
 0. A. [1897] W. N. 38 (1) ; [1897]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 475 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 58 ; [1899] i Ch.\ 
 
 891 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 208 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 [1895J| 
 
 138 (6)'; 
 [1900] "i| 
 
 • • »m ) 
 
 96 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 200 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 48 .. 
 U. A. [1895] W. N. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 147 
 .[1899] W. N. 236; 
 
 Q. B. 96 
 [1900] W. N. 82 
 
 [1900] W. N. 30 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 218 
 
 [1895] W. N. 161 (7); C. 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 135 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 136 
 [1899] W. N. 222 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 565 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 595 
 [1897] P. 1 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 A. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 80 
 712 
 
 ■' 597 
 
 ; 2039 
 
 848 
 : 847 
 527, 969, 
 
 1248- 
 
 531 
 
 1267 
 
 ■ 74 
 296, 
 1131 
 ,824 
 1731 
 651, 
 
 . . 187. 
 
 945' 
 
 ■,1723 
 
 1584 
 
 459, 
 1246 
 756 
 
 ■174,965 
 
 .49,954 
 2253 
 
 137!. 
 
 398 
 1605 
 
 ■ 1053,, 
 1282 
 
 ' 2346 - 
 
 22 
 536 
 
 530 
 
 202- 
 1073 
 2123 
 
 1304, 
 , 2059 
 45, 1277, 
 . 2058,.- 
 - 2072; 
 . 54 
 
 1860 
 , 2333 
 
 774, 
 . 1 1476, 
 
 ■ 748 
 
TABLE iOE" CASES IN The DIGEST. 
 
 Ixxxvii 
 
 Name' of Gate. 
 
 F. 
 
 Faber : — ^Barnard v. 
 
 Faber : — Bafeman (Lady) v.] 
 
 In re Moutagu 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Faber v. Montagu. 
 
 Fapey: — Harvey v. 
 
 "FaiBdrelandet,"The 
 
 Fair :^Hickliiig V. 
 
 Fairbaim Engineering Co., In re, Ladd'& Case 
 FairGlongb v. Manchester Ship Canal Co. 
 Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. vA 
 .'London and East Coast Express Steamship > 
 
 Co. / ., .>.] 
 
 Fairley: — Att.-Gen. «. .. 
 Fairthome :^-Kibb]e w. .. 
 Fairtbugh v. Whitmore .. ... 
 Falck V. Williams' .. .. 
 Fald^e: — ^Mander ». (,No. 1) ^ 
 r-. .(No. 2) .. 
 
 Falconer i;. Dunlop .. 
 
 Falconer «. M'GuflSe 
 
 Falconer: — Eintoul «. .. ., ' .'. ' 
 
 Falkingham. v. Victorian .Railways Cominis. 
 Fallows V. Bamby's, Ld. In ire Bamby's,.-Ld. ..■ 
 Fancy Dress BaUs Co., In re .. 
 
 Fanshawe, Ex parte. In re Wood : », • 
 Fanshawe: — Howards. .. .. .. ^ 
 
 Fanshawe: — ^Nappefr. In re Greer .. 
 
 Farbenfabriken Application, In re ■ • :. 
 Fareham Local Board and . Farehaja^ Electric" 
 
 Light Co. i;. Smith .. 
 Faridkote (Eajah) : — Sirdar Giirdyal Singh v. . . 
 
 Farina V. Fickus. In re FickuS' .. -^ .,• 
 
 ■ I 
 Farlow «. Stevenson 
 
 Fanner v. Goy & Co. In re Goy & Co, 
 
 Fanner: — Bardyu. In re Hardy .... 
 
 Farmer: — ^Eeg. v. ., 
 
 Farmer, v. Waterloo and City Ey. Co. ;. 
 Fasrmer & Co. v. Inland Bevejijie_ Commrs; 
 :^armers United. In^e StepheMon'aC^q 
 Famborough: — 'Reg.v::. - ., ' .. ' 
 Famdale :— Ridgeway v. „ ., .. , 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 340 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 223; C. A. [18971 
 W. N; 167 (5); [18981 1 Oh; 
 144; [1899] W. Ni 241 ;( 
 [1900] W. N. 157 .. ..) 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 549 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 552 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 205 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 77 (7) ;\ 
 [1899]A. C. 15 .. ../ 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 450 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 7 (13) 
 
 [1895] W. N. 64 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 698 
 
 1895JlCh.219 
 
 1895] W. N. 52 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 176 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 554 .. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 488 
 
 Eegistration App.Ct.(Sc.) [1897]V 
 
 W.N. 124 .. .. '../: 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] » 
 
 W.N. 96 .. .. ..J 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 174 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 452 .. 
 
 '1889] W. N. 103 
 
 1899] W, N. 109 
 
 1896] W.' N. 163 (1); [1897]1 
 
 'IQ. B. 314 „ .. ../ 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 581 . 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 645 .. 
 [1891] W. N. 76 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 670 ., 
 
 [1900J W. N. 4; [1900] W. N. 
 331 .. .. ••' •• 
 
 [1899] w! N. 30 (2)V e. ,i."l 
 [1900] W. N. 233; [1900]} 
 iCh. 128 .. .. ..J 
 
 [1900] W. N. 88; [1900] 2 Ch.|; 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 904'" " 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 637 ,.| 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 527 .. ..' ■ 
 
 [1898J 2 Q. B. 141 .. '.'^ 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 442 
 C. C. E. [1895] 2 Q. B. 484 ., 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 309 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 977. 
 915,'"' 
 
 1899 : 
 
 2200 ; 
 512, 
 2100 
 .1,951'; 
 
 2313 ; 
 
 485- 
 504 
 
 ' 318; - 
 1704^- 
 19'8B ' 
 1737 
 1133 
 &72, J 
 
 ■ 512 
 602 
 
 81, 1547 
 
 ,1386 
 
 1397 ; 
 
 1392 . 
 
 <> 68 
 468 
 464 . 
 
 119 
 
 lie, 
 
 1076 
 78, 123, 
 1521,, 
 1923 
 2131 
 
 2082 . 
 
 1008 ' 
 
 :913 
 
 ' 1066,' 
 1167 
 
 336 : 
 
 166 ; 
 
 187, 
 
 1# 
 
 1092 
 
 1801 
 
 . 434 
 
 616 
 
 872 
 
IxzxTiii 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Parnham, In re (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Farnham t). Milward & Co. 
 
 Farquhar v. Darling. In re Darling 
 
 Farquhar, Ex parte. In re Land Securities Co, 
 
 Farquhar: — Forster j;. 
 
 Farquharson Brothers : — ^Diederichsen v. 
 
 Farquharson r. Morgan .. 
 
 Farrant&Co. : — Engelliart v. .. 
 
 Farrar V. Eddlestone. In re Holmes 
 
 Farrell :— Alty w. 
 
 Farrelly w. CoiTigan 
 
 Farringtoln v. Forrester. In re Jones .. 
 
 Faulkner: — Barkers. 
 Faulkner: — Q-entle w. 
 Faulkners, Ld. : — HUdesheimer v. 
 
 Fautks :^Sclimitten «. .. 
 
 Fearon, In re. Hotchkin v. Mayor 
 
 Feast V. Roljinson & Fisher 
 
 Fecitt u. Walsh 
 
 Federal Bank of Australia, la re 
 
 Feilden: — Westmoreland Green and Blue Slate\ 
 
 Co.t;. .. .. / 
 
 Fell V. Official Trustee of Charity Lands 
 Fellows ■». " Lord Stanley " (Owners of the) 
 
 Felton v. Bower & Co. 
 
 Fenn v. Miller 
 
 Fenna r/. Clare & Co. 
 Fanner and Lord, In re . . 
 
 Fenner V. Blake .. 
 
 Fenner ii. Wilson .. 
 Penning V. Halse .. 
 
 Fenton, In re 
 
 Pen wick v. Croydon Union (Rural Sanitary) 
 Authority of the) .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Fenwick: — Watteau u. .. 
 
 Fenwtck & Co. : — Bubnan & Dickson v. 
 
 Pereday, In re 
 
 Ferguson : — Daniel v. . .. 
 
 Fcrguf on v. Green 
 
 Ferguson: — Hamilton v. .. 
 
 Ferguson v. North British By. Co. 
 
 Fermenia, Ex parte. Ex parte Ak-kersdyk.) 
 Reg. V. London (County Council) .. .. j 
 
 Ferndale Industrial Co-operative Society, In re 
 
 Ferrand v. Hallas Land and Building Co 
 Ferrers: — Petie w. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [189& 
 [18951 
 ICh 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 "1895] 2 Ch. 799 .. 
 1896] ICh. 836 .. 
 
 2 Ch. 730 
 
 W. N. 140 (12); 
 
 . 50 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 320 .. 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 564 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 150 
 
 [1896] 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 552 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 240 
 
 [1892] W. N. 177 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 636 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 563 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 461 
 
 [1898' 
 C. A.' 
 
 [i9oo; 
 
 W. N. 69 (8) .. 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 267 
 W. N. 170. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 64 
 
 [1896; 
 
 [1891 
 [1893 
 
 W. N. 175 (12) 
 
 [1894] W. N. 14 
 
 2Q. B. 304 
 
 W. N. 46; C. A. 
 
 [1893] 
 
 :} 
 
 W. N. 77 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 15 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 44 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 98 
 
 [1900] W. N. 25 ; [1900] 1 Q. B, 
 
 598 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 64 : [1900]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 788 .. . ^ 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 199 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 667 
 [1900] W. N. 17 ; [1900] 1 Q. B, 
 
 426 .. 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 656 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 203 
 
 [1894] W. N. 128 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 216 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 346 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 179 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 437 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 27 .. 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 247 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 169 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 166 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 190 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 828 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 135 
 
 [1891] W. N. 171 . .. 
 
 Colamn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1186 
 1186 
 1186 
 
 279 
 
 477 
 561 
 1941 
 591, 
 1629 
 1241 
 1509, 
 1533 
 2294 
 1618 
 956, 
 1274, 
 1407 
 826 
 1067 
 531 
 962,970, 
 2048 
 915 
 198 
 22 
 
 459 
 
 89, 420 
 
 271 
 1140 
 
 1160 
 
 1224 
 
 1351 
 666 
 
 1065 
 
 1442 
 1388 
 573, 
 2031 
 
 2086 
 
 1580 
 1965 
 82, 2046 
 1120 
 1229 
 1379 
 1839 
 
 1307 
 
 941 
 1350, 
 1916 
 680 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Ixxxix 
 
 Kame of Case, 
 
 "Ferro,''The 
 
 Festi, Easini & Co. : — Dobson «. 
 
 Fey: — Carter t; 
 
 FfijQcli V. Combe .. 
 
 Ffooke: — Dtslxv... 
 
 Ffrench v. Sproston. In re Beeny 
 Fickus, In re. Farina v. Fickus 
 
 Field V. Draoup. 
 
 In re Dracup (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Field «. Field 
 Field: — Nicholson v. 
 
 Field Steamship Co. v. Burr 
 
 Field (J. C. & J.), Ld. :— Schauer v. 
 Field & Co. (J. C. & J.) v. Wagel Syndicate, 
 In re Trade Mark 96,997 
 
 Fielden v. Morley Corporation 
 
 Fielding & Co. V. Corry .. 
 
 Fielding v. Thomas 
 
 Fields : — Fletcher v. 
 
 Fife (Duke oQ:— Great North of Scotland By, 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Figg V. Moore Brothers .. 
 
 Figgins V. Baghino. In re Eussell Institution 
 
 Filby «. Hounsell .. 
 
 Fillingham i;. Wood ., 
 
 Filshie v. Evington 
 
 Finch V. Cake 
 
 Fine Art and General Insurance Co. : — Nevill v. 
 
 Finlay «. Darling .. 
 
 Finlay v. Mexican Investment Corporation 
 
 Finnigan or (M'Court) : — Lord Advocate v. 
 
 Finsbury Permanent Building Society : — Stroh- 
 
 menger ^'. 
 Finska Angfartygs Aktiebolaget v. Brown, Too-\ 
 
 good & Co. 
 Firbank: — Fitzgerald v. .. 
 Firbank, Pauling & Co. : — Worcester City and 
 
 County Banking- Co. t>. 
 Firth : — Liverpool and Manchester Aerated 
 
 Bread and Cafe Co. V. .. 
 Firth V. Staines .. 
 
 Firth & Sons v. De Las Bivas .. 
 
 Fish, In re. Bennett v. Bennett 
 
 Fish, In re. InghSim v. Baynor 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1893' 
 C. A.' 
 C.A. 
 [1894" 
 [1895' 
 1 Q, 
 
 P. 38 
 
 1891] 2 Q.* 6.92!! !! 
 
 1894] 2 Ch. 541 .. 
 
 P. 191 
 
 W. N. 147 (5) ; [1896] 
 . B. 1; C.-A. [1896]; 1 
 
 Q. B. 238 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 499 
 [1900] W. N. 4 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 331 
 
 [1892] W.N. 43 I 
 
 1894] 1 Oh. 59 
 
 1894] 1 Ch. 425 
 1893] 2 Ch. 511 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 821 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 579 / 
 
 [1893] 1 Oh. 35 
 
 [1900] W. N.67; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 651 J 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 1 ; H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1900] W. N. 40 ; [1900] A. 0. 
 
 133 
 0. A. [1898]1Q."b. 268** .. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 600 .. 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 790 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 62 .. 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 690 
 
 1898] 2 Oh. 72 
 
 1896] 2 Oh. 737 
 
 1891] 1 Oh. 51 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 200 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 409 .. 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 156; 
 H. L. . (E.) [1896] W. N. 
 171 (5); [1897] A. C. 68 .. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 719 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 517 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W 
 
 101 
 
 [1897] W. N. 65 (1); C. 
 
 [1897] 2 Oh. 469 
 [1891] W. N. 87 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 
 W.N. 116 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Oh. 96 . 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 784 ..| 
 
 [1891] 1 Oh. 367 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 70 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 768 
 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 413 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 83 
 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1971 
 1536 
 965 
 1611 
 
 1391 
 
 1520 
 913 
 791, 
 1505 
 1409 
 2182 
 2168 
 
 989 
 
 535 
 
 2137 
 
 567, 
 2069 
 
 192 
 
 252 
 1178 
 1833, 
 1839 
 
 167 
 1826 
 
 849 
 1156 
 
 22 
 2263 
 
 648 
 
 1901 
 978 
 
 1778 
 228 
 
 558 
 
 825 
 
 1536, 
 
 1567 
 
 661 
 
 1354 
 1488, 
 1540 
 575, 
 1501, 
 2059, 
 2166 
 2326, 
 2332 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Fishbum «. HoUingshead .. .. ( 
 
 Fisher and Grazebrook's Contract, In re ^ 
 
 Fisher, In rei 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Volume and Page_ 
 
 Fisher : — Cross v. . 
 
 Fisher V. Black and White .Publishing Coi 
 
 Fisher v. Doody. lii re Doody. Hibtert v.) 
 
 Lloyd .. .. .. .. ..J ../ 
 
 Fisher u. Jackson .. .. .. ' 
 
 Fisher's Case. In re Tom Tit Cycle Co. | 
 Fitton, In re. Hardy v. Fiiiton-.. • .. > 
 Fitzi). lies- .. .. ■.. .,] 
 
 Fitzgerald's Trustee ViMellersh (No. 1)' ' 
 
 . .(No. 2) 1 
 
 FitzGerald's Settled Estates, lii re. Samiders vA 
 
 Boyd .j ..) 
 
 Fitzgerald: — ^Dalton v. .. .. .. i ..X 
 
 Fitzgerald i;. Firhank . .. 
 
 Fitzhardii^e (Lord) : — Gifford (Lord) v. 
 
 Fitzherbert!s Settlement Tiiusts, In re . 
 Fitzroy : — Cadoganu. In re Hamilton 
 Fitzroy u. Harris. In re jHarris ... i. . 
 
 Flack, In re. Ex parte Berry .. .. -. .. | 
 
 Flack ; — Lee v. . 
 
 Flack's Case. In re Central Sugar Factdries of^ 
 
 Brazil .. .. .. ., ..' ..1 .. / 
 
 Fladgate:^Blythi>. ,'..'■ .. ...| 
 
 Flatau, In re. Ex parte Official Eeceiverj 
 
 Flatau w. Cullen " ..' 
 
 Fleetwood Estate Co., In re 
 
 Flegg «. Prentis , 
 
 Fleming's Divorce Bill, In re .. .. i 
 
 Fleming v. Bank of New Zealand .. , 
 
 Fielding : — Grinter v. Walker v. Brisley- 
 Fleming :^-London and Lancashire Life jAssur-: 
 
 ance Co. v. .... 
 Fleming : — ^Lord Advocate v. 
 Fletcher «. Fields i 
 
 Fleticher v. London' and North' Western Ry. Co.' 
 
 Fletcher: — Molyneux f . .. 
 
 Fletcher V. Nokes.. .. .. ; .. ; 
 
 Fletcher: — Stirling «. .. .. .. : 
 
 Fletcher: — Yallancey «. ..,.,., : .. | 
 
 Flimby and Broughton Moor Coal andj Fire- 
 
 BrickCo.: — Marrow?;. .. .. ' 
 
 Flinn & Sons, Ex parte .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Flinn & Sons, Ex parte 
 
 :} 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 371 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 660 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 53 ; . C. A. [1894] 1 
 Ch. 450 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 467 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 271 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 129 .. 
 
 [1891" 
 [1899' 
 [1893' 
 C. A.' 
 [1892' 
 [1892' 
 
 2 Ch. 84 .. 
 W. N. 35 (6) 
 W. N. 201 
 1893] 1 Ch. 77 
 W.N. 4 .. 
 1 Ch. 385 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 394 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 440; C. A. [1897]\ 
 2Ch. 86 I 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 96 .. 
 
 [1899] W.N. 75; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 32 
 
 [1898 
 C. A.' 
 [1891 
 [190tf 
 32' 
 
 W.N. 58(8) .. 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 617 .. 
 
 W. N. 76 
 
 W.N. 83; [1900]2Q.B.) 
 
 ■(No. 2).. 
 
 Flint V. Howard 
 
 Floating Dock Co. of St. Thomas, Ld., In ie 
 
 [1896] P. 138 .. 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 369 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 337 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 219 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 206 
 [1897] W. N. 20 (3) .. 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 428 
 H. L. (Ir.) [1893] W. K 93 
 P. C. [1900J A. 0. 577 .. 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 735 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 499 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1897] A. C. 145 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 790 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 122 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 648 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 271 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 166 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 265 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 588 
 
 [1899] W. N. 94 ; [1899] 2 Q. B, 
 
 154 
 
 [1899] W. N. 135 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 607 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 54 .. 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 691 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 !•} 
 
 534: 
 
 1887i : 
 
 561, 
 
 1091, 
 
 1180, 
 
 1523 
 
 228 
 
 355 
 1303, 
 2058 
 
 274 
 -424— 
 63,781 
 1722 
 1802 
 1285 
 
 1899 
 
 770 
 
 825 
 1866 
 
 2201 
 
 282 
 1467 
 
 2279 
 
 700 
 
 444,961 
 
 1420, 
 2056 
 
 162 
 
 575 
 
 365 
 1025 
 
 39 
 1572 
 1752 
 
 254 
 
 1808 
 1178 
 1491, 
 1500 
 2308 
 1089 
 1382 
 752 
 
 1233 
 
 1110 
 
 1101 
 
 1109 
 
 1296 
 
 338, 382 
 
TABLBlQFliaASlS- IN THE E>I(JBST. 
 
 Xpl 
 
 Ifam« of Cas«i 
 
 Flood :LAllen wi 
 
 Flood': — Garnseyy: 
 
 Flood, y. Jacksou .. ... 
 
 FJpreijbe V. Paddingtpn, Vestry ., , 
 Ftoridi, Infe Land Mortgage Bank of '. . 
 FlSwer: — Beanv. .. "''.... ' .. i .. 
 
 .Flowei; I'. Flower .. .. .. .. 
 
 Flower v. London and North Western B.y.. Co. 
 
 Flowers v. Chambers .. ., .. 
 
 Flowers & Co., In re ., .. , .. - ,. , 
 Floyd, In rtf. Fldyd il. LyoHs (-J.) &^ Co. 
 Fludyer, In re. Wingfield v. Erskine . . 
 
 Fluister «, Fluister and Hutton .. 
 
 i, .. " .• 
 
 Foftdj — LiUey v. . In re Haile' .. . .. , 
 
 Foakes v. Jackson 
 
 Fodenv. Foden .. .. ,. .. _ 
 
 Foley':^ — Jones v.,, .. ... 
 
 Folkestone Corporation y. Bropk^ . ... 
 Folkestone Corporation V. Ladd.. , .. 
 Follit V. EddystonB Granite Quarries - .. 
 Follows, In re. Expai^te Follows 
 Fontes': — ^Maohado w. .. ., 
 
 Fooks y. Horner. In re Hornet,. 
 Foot : — Greater London Property Co. v. 
 Forbes, In rg. Eriington v. Sempell .. 
 Forbes V. Hardcastle. In re HpHon , ' .. 
 Forbes «. Hjiine. In re Hume .. ; . ;, 
 Forbps : — Eeligioug Tract and Book Society 
 ;S(»)tiand V. .. .. .. ., : 
 
 Forbes v. Srottish Provident Institution' '- 
 Forbes v. Standard Life Assura,nce Society 
 Fprdi^Inre. Bx parte Trustee .. 
 
 Ford, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 
 Ford :— Barnardo V. Gossage^s Case .. ' 
 Ford :^r-Bray w. .. ., , ., 
 
 Pordr.-^-Bloomenthal-v. .. 
 Ford :-M3oote r. .. 
 
 Ford :'-rDe Braam V. .. .. 
 
 Ford r. Nuthall. In re Nuthall 
 
 Fordr. Stier .. .. ,, .. , .. , 
 
 Ford's Hotel Co. v. Bartlett 
 
 Fordqm; V. Parsons . 
 
 ■( 
 
 ofl 
 
 ■{ 
 
 \ 
 
 Volame ^d Page. 
 
 C. A.; [1895] .2' Q. B. 21; 
 H. L. (E.) £1897] W. N 
 177 (1); [1898] A. 0. 1 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 687 .. 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 21 ,. .' . 
 
 18951 iW. N. 143 (9> .. 
 
 1898] ICh. 444 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 120 (12) .. 
 
 [1893] P. 290 „ .; 
 
 C. A. [1894]2Q. B. 65.. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 65; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 142 / 
 
 C. A./[1«97]1Q.B. 14.. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 633 .. , .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Cb. 562 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 176 (15)^;Y 
 
 [1897] P. 22 / 
 
 •[1898] W. N. 154 (6); C. lA 
 [1899] W. N. 83 ; [1899] 2 Ch 
 107 
 
 [1900] W. N. 68; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 807 j 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 307 .. 
 
 [1891]! Q. B, 730 ' .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 22 .. 
 
 1893] 3 Ch. 22 .. 
 
 l892]3Ch. 75„ 
 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 521 
 
 0. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 231 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 188 
 
 '1899] 1 Q, B. 972 
 
 "1899] W. N. 6 (4) 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N.rlll 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 422 .. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.V 
 
 126 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 
 
 122 ' 
 
 Ct. of SesV. (Sc.) .'[1896]' W. n'.\ 
 
 117 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 124; [1900] 2\ 
 
 Q.B. 211 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 245 ; [1900] 
 
 Q. B. 264 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 326 
 H. L. (E.) [1896]. A. C. 44 
 C. A.. [1896] 2 Ch. 525; H. L 
 
 (E.) [1897] A. C. 156 
 [1899] W. Is. 57; C. A 
 
 2 Ch 93 
 [1899] 'W. N. 228; . C, A. , _, ^ 
 
 W. N: 239 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 142 / 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 55 
 [1896] P. 1 : J. ' 
 C...A. [1895] -1 Q. B. 850; 
 
 H. L. [E.) [1895]. W.: N 
 
 153(10); [1896] A. C.l: .. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 780 
 
 [1899]| 
 ..[1898']V 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 13 
 
 .1325 
 50'8 
 
 1168 
 476 
 
 1549 
 713 
 945 
 
 1230 
 
 156 
 2280 
 805 
 
 716 
 
 1293 
 
 1481 
 
 600 
 
 1666, 
 
 2155 
 
 2086 
 
 2085 
 
 326 
 
 103 
 
 650 
 1004 
 1167 
 1900 
 
 286 
 
 284 
 
 1775 
 1764 
 1752 
 144 
 
 127 
 
 38, 883 
 646 
 
 4'26 
 1519 
 
 '208 
 
 160 
 .710 
 
 53 
 
 1911 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Foreign, American and General Investments'! 
 
 Trusts Co. f. Sloper .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Foreign and Colonial Government Trust Co., 
 
 In re 
 Foreman: — Davis w. 
 Forester : — Wolmer (Viscount) v. In re Cleve-\ 
 
 land's (Duke of) Estate / 
 
 Forget V. Baxter „ 
 
 Forget V. Ostigny , 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 96; C. A. 
 3 Ch. 716 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 395 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 654 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 164 .. 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 467 .. 
 
 [1894]| 
 
 Forrest, Commr. of Crown Lands :- 
 tralian Land Co. v. 
 
 -West Aus-i 
 
 .} 
 
 Forrester : — Farrington v. In re Jones . . 
 
 Forrester u. Jones.. 
 
 Forshaw : — Crawford v. .. 
 
 Forster v. Clowser.. 
 
 Forster u. Farquhar 
 
 Forsyth v. Forsyth 
 
 Fort, In re. Ex parte Scholfield 
 
 Fortescue v. Lostwithiel and Fowey Ey. 
 
 Fortescue v. Mercantile Bank of London 
 Fortescue v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green (Vestry\ 
 
 „oO / 
 
 Forth and North Sea Steamboat Mutual Insur-> 
 
 ance Association : — Muirhead v. .. ..{ 
 
 Forman & Co. Proprietary, Ld. v. " Liddesdale 
 
 (The Ship) 
 
 Fortune v. Hanson 
 
 Forwood: — Costa Rica Ey. Co. ■«. 
 
 Forwood: — Montagu v. .. 
 
 Foster, In re. Thomas v. Foster 
 
 Foster : — Birmingham Corporation v. .. 
 
 Foster v. Borax Co. In re Borax Co. 
 
 Poster i). Eraser .. 
 Foster V. Eyfe 
 
 Foster v. Globe Venture Syndicate, Ld. 
 
 Foster v. London, Chatham and Dover Ey. Co. 
 Foster v. New Trinidad Lake Asphalte Co. 
 Foster v. North Hendre Mining Co. 
 Foster v. Beeves .. 
 
 Foster (John) & Sons, Ld. v. Inland Eevenuel 
 Commrs. . . . , . . . . _ _ j 
 
 Foulis: — Leeson r. In re Uttermare .. 
 Foulkes : — East London Waterworks Co. v. 
 
 Fourth City Mutual Building Society v. East\ 
 Ham (Churchwardens, &c.) .. .. ../ 
 
 Fourth City Mutual BuUding Society: — West! 
 
 Ham (Churchwardens), &c. «... .. .. f 
 
 Foveaux, In re. Cross v. London Anti-Vivi-\ 
 
 section Society .. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Fowke and Dyson, In re .. 
 
 •( 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 318 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 176 .. 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 461 
 
 [1899 
 C.A. 
 C. A. 
 C.A. 
 [1891 
 
 W. N. 78 
 
 1891 
 
 2 Ch. 261 
 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 362 
 ■"1893] 1 Q. B. 564 
 P. 363 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 495 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 621 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 286 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 170 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. 0. 72 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 190 .. 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 [1900 
 C. A.' 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 484 
 
 ri894' 
 [1899 
 
 1893 
 
 1 Ch. 756 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 350 
 
 W. N. 43 
 W. N. 34 (4) 
 
 2 Ch. 130 
 
 3 Ch. 158 
 
 [1899]1 
 W.N. 69; [1900] 1 Ch.| 
 
 1895] iq."b. 711* ;; 
 
 W.N. 257 
 1 Q. B. 71 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 104 
 1900' — " — • 
 
 ^ 811 
 
 C.A. 
 
 [1900 
 
 [1891" 
 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 255 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 516 
 
 [1893] W. N. 158 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 819 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 654 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 501 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 720 
 
 Colnmn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 326,487 
 
 365 
 959 
 
 1852 
 
 247 
 256, 868, 
 869, 
 1591, 
 2078 
 
 85 
 
 956, 
 1274, 
 1407 
 1559 
 801 
 1010 
 561 
 720, 721 
 1415 
 1669, 
 2064 
 2039 
 
 1152 
 982 
 
 509 
 
 18 
 
 338 
 1580 
 1728 
 1210 
 
 320 
 
 899 
 1263 
 
 780 
 
 1643 
 353 
 1263 
 593 
 
 1796 
 
 2368 
 2280 
 1034, 
 1038, 
 1689 
 1687, 
 2070 
 
 277 
 
 1465 
 
TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Powle: — Cam;. 
 
 Fowler v. Broad's Night Light Co, 
 
 Fowler v. James. In re Beeman 
 
 Fowler : — Ehynmey Iron Co. ». .. 
 
 Fowler: — Metropolitan By. Co. v, .. ,,/ 
 
 Fox: — Lord w. 
 
 Pox V. Government of Newfoundland 
 Fox (Lane) v. Kensington and Knightsbridge\ 
 Electric Lighting Co. .. .. „ ../ 
 
 Fox V. Martin 
 
 Fox w. Star Newspaper Co. 
 
 Fox: — Teague «. In re Giodden 
 Fox & Jacobs, In re. Ex parte Discount Bank-'t 
 ing Co. of England and Wales . . . . / 
 
 Foxwell V. Van G-rutten .. 
 
 Poxwell «. Yan Grutten .. 
 
 Foxwell: — ^Van Grutten v. Foxwell v. 
 
 Grutten .. 
 Foy, Morgan & Co. :— Montgomery v. .. 
 Frames v. BuUfontein Mining Co, 
 France: — ^Baxter u. (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 France v. Dutton .. 
 
 France: — Thornton v. 
 Frances Handford & Co., In re. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Van\ 
 
 Handford 
 Francis : — Greenwood v. 
 Francis v. Turner Bros. 
 Frank, In re 
 
 Ex parte Frances 
 
 •} 
 
 
 Frankenburg v. Great Horseless Carriage Co. ., / 
 
 Frankenstein v. Gavin's House-to-House Cyclel 
 Cleaning and Insurance Co. .. .. ' 
 
 Franklin: — Pennell f. In re White .. 
 
 IVanks, In re. Ex parte Gittins 
 Frape, In re. Ex parte Perrett (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Fraser, In re. Ex parte Central Bank 
 
 London 
 Fraser, In the Gtoods of .. 
 Fraser v.Byas ., 
 
 Fraser v. Croft .. ,. 
 
 Fraser :^-Dick v. In re Macdonald 
 Fraser: — ^Foster r. 
 Fraser: — Henthom v. 
 Freckleton's Judicial Factor (Murray) : — Lordl 
 Advocate », .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Preebody & Co. : — ^Peterson v. .. 
 Freeman i;. General Publishing Co. 
 Freeman: — ^Hargreave r. ;. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1893] 1 Q,B. 251 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 724 
 
 [1895] W. N. 151 (1); [1896]\ 
 
 lCh.48 .. . ^ 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 79 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 165 ; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 416 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 199 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 667 .. 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 66 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 3Ch. 424 / 
 
 [1893]W. N. 36 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 636 ; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1899] W. N. 255 ; [1900] 
 
 A. C. 19 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 292 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 438 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 158 (6), 161 
 (11); [1897]lCb. 64., 
 C. A. [1900] W, N. 97 .. 
 
 ^.■) 
 
 m 
 
 "} 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 658 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 321 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 140 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 455 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 591 
 
 [1891] 2 Q.. B. 208 
 
 C. A..[1897].2Q. B. 143 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 18 (2) ; [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 566 .. .. * 
 C. A. [1899J 1 Q. B. 312 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 478 
 
 •{ 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 9 . 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 2; [1900]\ 
 
 IQ. B.504 .. .. .,/ 
 
 C. A. [1897]2Q. B, 62,. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch.297; C. A. {1898]\ 
 2Cb. 217 / 
 
 [1892 
 C. A. 
 [1894 
 
 1Q.B. 646 
 1893] 2 Cb. 284 
 2 Ch. 290 
 
 C. A,[1892]2Q.B, 633 
 
 [1891] P. 285 
 
 [1895] W. N. 112 (5) .. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1898] W. N.\ 
 
 134 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 181 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 158 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 27 ., 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W, 
 
 110 
 
 C.A. 
 [1894' 
 [1891' 
 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 294 
 
 2Q, B. 380 
 
 3 Oh. 39 .. . .. 
 
 ^■} 
 
 1780, 
 2112 
 304 
 
 802 
 
 176S 
 
 1779 
 
 1369 
 1337 
 1426, 
 1445 
 401, 771 
 
 1491 
 
 1876. 
 167 
 
 169T 
 
 1471 
 
 2325 
 
 1505 
 351 
 35, 1555 
 1555 
 590, 
 2034 
 113a 
 
 160 
 
 1585 
 1224 
 
 171 
 
 374i 
 1250 
 
 666 
 
 2060 
 
 126 
 2028 
 2042 
 
 15» 
 
 1621 
 
 1451 
 
 1836, 
 
 1842 
 
 1125 
 
 899 
 
 511 
 
 1781 
 
 1961 
 562 
 212& 
 
TABLE OF CASES tN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name «f Case. 
 
 Volunj.e apd Page,; 
 
 CoInniD 
 
 of 
 Digest, 
 
 Freeman v. Laing . . 
 Freeman : — Leppingtop; m 
 
 -{ 
 
 r 
 
 Freer v. Murray 
 
 Freman, In re. 
 Freme, In re. 
 
 Dimond>. Newbwn ., 
 
 Freme v. Logan (No. 1) . 
 -: ■ -•- . (No. 2) 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Freme's Contract, In re .. 
 
 French: — Robarts ij. ,.. , .. , i ,. 
 French- College Case/ Alexanders. Burke 
 Frere : — Williams v. In re Smith 
 Freund-u. Steward... In re Geek. 
 Frewen v. Law Life Assurance Society .. 
 
 Friary Holroyd and Healey's Breweries,. Ld. 
 Singleton .. ... 
 
 Fricker.u. Van Grutten ... 
 
 Priedheim, Ex parte. Mitchell v. Weise 
 
 Friend, In re. Friend t".. Young.. 
 Friend v. Young .. 
 
 Frigout : — Peacock u, In re Abbott .. 
 
 Fripp: — Hunt u. ... 
 
 Frith u. Frith and Paioe .. . 
 
 Frodingham Iron and StefL Go. u. Bowser 
 
 Frogley. : — Marks u. .. .. ... 
 
 Frost, In re. Ex parte Official Beceiver 
 Frost (S.) & Co., In re .. 
 
 Frost V. Greatorex. . In re .Travis . . 
 
 Frowde v. Hengler. , In re Hengler (No. 1) ; 
 ^(No.2) 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 99 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 355 .. .; .. ../ 
 
 [1891] W. N. 159; e. A. [1891] 
 
 W. N. 198 .. 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 281 ; C. A. [1893] 
 
 1 .Q. B. 635 ; H. L. (E.) ^189^] 
 
 A. C. 576 : 
 
 [1897] W. N. 159 (9); [1898]\ 
 
 1 Ch. 28. ., .. ../ 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 167 
 e. A; [1894] 1 Ch. 1 .. - .'.. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 256 ;. C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Ch. 778 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 22 .. 
 
 C. A, (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 92 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 323 
 
 0. A, [1893] W. N. 161 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 511 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 150 (7) ; [1899] 
 
 1 Ch. 86 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 96'; [1899] 2 CH. 261 
 C. A. [1896]2Ch.€49 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 139 
 
 [1898] W. N. 26 (6) .. 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 [1893]lCh.54 .. ..__.., 
 
 [1897] W. N. 158 (3) : 
 
 1 Ch. 675 
 18961 P. 74 
 
 1305 
 2230' 
 
 1105 
 
 [1898]^ 
 
 C.A,[1898]V 
 [1899i2Q. B.Y 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Fry: — Corke.v. 
 
 Fryer: — Ewart «. 
 
 Fuente's Trade-marks, In re .. .. 
 
 "Fulham,"The .. .,,;a,i 
 
 Fulham, Vestry : — AJlenu. .. ^. . .; 
 Fulham Vestry v. London "County Council 
 Fulham Vestry. : — MetrDpolitan . District 
 
 Co. V .. ■ .. 
 
 Fulhami Vestry : — M,()Ot&v. \ i.. : 
 Fulham Vestry : — Simmonds Bros., Ld. v. 
 Fulham (Vestry of) v. Solomon;.... , ,..' ■ .. . 
 Fuller, lure .. ' .. ,. ., ./ 
 
 Fuller, lu the Goods' of : 
 
 Puller V. Blackpool Winter Gardens and PavilionV 
 Co. .. .. ] 
 
 Ey.) 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 791 
 '1898] 1Q..B. 396; 
 
 IQ. B. 888 ... 
 [1899] W. N. 48 
 
 50. 
 [1898] 2 Ch.. 556; C. A. [1899]y 
 
 W.N. 83; [1899] 2 Ch. 207 
 g. A. [1900] W. N. 159; [1900]i 
 
 2 Oh. 541. .. .:'-. J} 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 586 
 [1893] W. ]Sr. 37 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 128 
 ■■1900]"" " "~ 
 189r 
 1898: 
 
 W. N; 82 
 2 Oh. 166 
 _ P. 206; 0. A. [189931 
 W.JT.85,;[1899]P. 251 } 
 0. A.[1899]1Q. B.681 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 76 . 
 
 0. A..[1895]2Q. B.443 
 
 . C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 399 
 [1900]2Q.B. 188. 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 198 . 
 C: A. [1900] W. N. 170; [19001 
 2 Ch. 551. „ .. -' 
 
 [1892] P. 377 .. 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 429 
 
 DO]! 
 
 1883 
 
 2321 
 
 1885 
 
 522,- 
 
 2355 
 
 1500 
 
 1401 
 
 667, 669 
 
 278, 279 
 
 1877 
 
 1079 
 
 1509 
 139, 
 1417 
 1004 
 1421 
 1483, 
 2348 
 
 178 
 
 706 
 898 
 
 71 
 
 126 , 
 598 
 
 9 , 
 
 1851 
 1502 
 1763 
 1073 
 2130 
 
 2007 I 
 
 1176 
 1170 
 
 1175 
 
 1270 
 1177 
 2286 
 
 1200 
 
 1597 
 
 536 , 
 
TABLE OB" OASES IN THE DIGfEST: 
 
 Name of Ca3e. 
 
 Volufne and Page, 
 
 Colamn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 FuJIer and Leathley's jObntrict, In ie 
 Fuller V. McMahon. In re McMahon 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 .; 
 
 Furber, Inre .. '.. .... 
 
 Furber, Ex parte. In re Pardons , . » 
 Furber «. Tayler .. ., 
 
 Fxirlong : — ^Barker v. . J.' .. ... 
 
 Fumess :-TTBauinwoll ManufactUrer.von Scheib-\ 
 
 leiv. .. ■•'..■ ^ ;. .. 
 Furlijess Ey. Co. :— rAtt.-Gten. i>.i .. ' 
 FuMiefss u< Beresfor(i.(The York Election Petition) 
 
 Furne^, Wiiliy^& Co. : — ^Manchester Trust i». .. 
 
 Furh?ss, Withy & Co. White &'C!lo'. uJ .. ■[ 
 
 Fumfiss Finance Co., Ex parte.. -In re Seaman 
 
 FvimiVaU u. Hudson ,.' .. ., ', 
 
 Fyf ^ :-^Fqster u. ... .. .. _ ...,' ; 
 
 Fylde Waterworks Co. : — Chapman j;. .. 
 
 Fysh;-T-Blackman'i7. ., .. 
 
 Fysonr. Johnson. ..In re Eplfe ,.. .. . 
 
 Gr, 
 
 G. (Infants), In re 
 
 G ^'(an Infant), 'In re.. ' 
 
 G- 
 
 C- 
 
 In re Sr — r—'», Settjemgnt 
 
 Gadban: — Musurus Bey v. 
 
 Gaden p. Newfoundland Sayipgsj Bank..' 
 Gage, In re. Hill w. Gage ... ; .. 
 GagewM'Daid .. ; .. ,.:... 
 
 Gaisford :— Beg. w. .. .^ 
 
 Gallagher: — ^Criglington i7. 
 Gallagher i^. Bdmistpn (Edmiston's Case) 
 Gallagher w. Hay (Hay's Case) .. 
 Gallagher w.-Maxwell (Maxwell's Case) ,i 
 
 Gallagher » -Eud'd ' .-, .,_ .. 
 
 •I 
 
 [1897] W. N. 54,-(6) ... .. 
 [1899] W. N. 250 ; [1900]' 1 Ch.V 
 
 173 .. .>. .i'y ../ 
 
 [1898]. 2 Ch. 538; C. A. [1&98]\ 
 
 W. N. 1.60 (13) . ... „/ 
 C. A. [1893]2Q. B. 122. 
 0. A. [i966]W?N.'l80; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q.B. 719 / 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 172 .. '..| 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 253; H.L.V 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 8 ... ..,/ 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 267 
 
 C. A. [1898!] 1 Q. B. 4S5 ' ; .: 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 282; C. A.[1895]\ 
 2Q. B. 539 .: .-.• ../ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B..483; H. L.\ 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 40 ... ../ 
 
 [1896] 1 Q..B. 412 
 
 [1893] ICk 335 .. ..•[ 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 104 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 599 
 
 C. A..[1892]3ph. 209. .. ..| 
 
 [1894]W. N. 77 ,.; 
 
 [1899] W.N. 38 (2); [1899] 1\ 
 
 • Ch.7l9 .; ■ .. ../ 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 292 
 
 [1893] W. N. 127 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 126 .. .. -[ 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 533 ; C. A. [1894]( 
 2Q. B. 352 .. .. , ..] 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. 0.281' .. : : 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 498 • ' .. 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 104 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 381 
 
 L (Ir.) [1897 
 ^. (Ir.) [1897; 
 
 C. A 
 
 C. A- (Ir.) [1897' 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897^ 
 
 W. N. 106 
 W. N. 134 
 .W. N. 134 
 W. N. 134 
 
 Ga^shiels (Corporation) : — Sohulze i;. .. 
 
 Galashiels Pr.ovident Building iSqciety v- New-'l 
 
 lands .. ' . .. ■ ) ■« :... ' ,.. •■ / 
 
 Galbraith:— Wittedr. .. .:} :..' .. [ 
 
 Gale V. Overend ....'• .. , . 
 
 Gallaicli In re. Ex parte Harris . 
 
 [189.7]' W.TN. 153 (9); [1898]\ 
 IQ. B. 114 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) .[1895J -.A. C. 666 . . | 
 
 Ct. of Sess.. (Sc.) [1896] , W. N.V 
 107 ../ 
 
 [1893] 1 Q.B. 431; C. A. [1893]\ 
 IQ.B. 577 .. ., ../ 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 269 ; , . 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 532 
 
 ',148 
 
 ; 2039 
 
 209 
 
 '"586 
 
 83,782,' 
 2157 , 
 
 .1942'; 
 
 1651 
 ; 1366 . 
 
 ,1973 ;, 
 
 '1937 . 
 
 . 156 
 :199, 
 1464 
 1263, 
 2276 
 1696, 
 2322 
 
 ,1494 
 
 953 
 
 946 
 ; 917 ' 
 957, 
 1850 , 
 1007, 
 1124, 
 , 154ft' 
 1338 
 1483 
 1390 
 1042 
 1366 
 1384 
 1384 
 1384 
 
 il07 ' 
 
 220, 
 2081 
 
 1772 
 
 1543 
 
 1390 
 175 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Gallard, In re. Ex parte Gallard 
 
 Gallard, In re. Ex parte Gallard 
 Gallon (W.) & Son:— Edge & Sons v. . . 
 Galloway: — Smith i?. 
 
 Gallsworthy v. Selby Dam Drainage Commrs. 
 Gait:— BeUi) 
 
 Gait: — Sim «. 
 
 Galvin, In re 
 Galwey, Inre 
 Gamage: — ^Whiteley Exerciser, Ld. v. .. 
 
 Gamble, In re 
 
 Game, In re. Game v. Young .. 
 
 Gamgee, In re 
 
 Gamgee : — Ward v. 
 
 Gandy :— Southport Tramways Co. 
 
 •■I 
 
 •{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ?} 
 
 'Gannet,"Tlie 
 
 Gardiner : — Wolwich (Local Board) v. 
 Gardner, In re. Long v. Gardner (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Gardner v. Hodgson's Kingston Breweries Co. 
 
 Gardner : — Knight v. In re Knight .. 
 Gardner: — Pearce v. 
 
 Gardner: — Eeg. v. 
 
 Garland : — De Hayn v. In re De Linden, 
 
 re Spurrier's Settlement 
 Garland's Case. Eeg. v. Commrs. of Inlandi 
 Eevenue 
 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 146 (1); 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 68 
 [1897]2Q. B. 8.. 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 137 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 71 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 348 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (So.) [1898]\ 
 
 W.N. Ill / 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 
 W.N. Ill / 
 
 Ch. Div. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 140 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 230 
 
 1898] 2 Ch. 405 
 
 1898] W. N. 173 (7); [1899]\ 
 
 1Q.B. 305 / 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 881 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 106 
 [1891] W. N. 165 
 0. A. [1897]2Q. B.ee .. 
 [1899] W. N. 53 ; C. A. [1899] 
 W. N. 72; [1899] P. 230; 
 H. L. (E.)[1900] W. N. 86; 
 [1900] A. 0. 234 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 497 
 ]W. N. 164 
 1894] W. N. 159 
 W. N. 67; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 In 
 
 Grarle : — Pollock r. .. ., ,, ..( 
 
 Garner: — Percival v. .. .. .. .. 
 
 Garnett, In the Goods of . . 
 
 Gamett : — ^Armitage v. In re Armitage 
 
 Gamett: — Stephenson t>. 
 
 Gamsey V. Flood .. 
 
 Gascoigne: — Sherrard v. .. .. .. ,./ 
 
 Gas Float Whitton No. 2 (Owners of) :— Wellsj 
 
 " / 
 
 Gaskell: — Gosling v. 
 
 Gask ell's Settled Estates, In re .. 
 
 Gas Light and Coal Co. : — Paterson v. .. 
 
 Gas Meter Co. ; — Andrews v. 
 
 Gasquoine, In re. Gasquoine v. Gasquoine 
 
 Gaston: — Stockton Football Co. v. 
 
 Gates and Jones' Case, otherwise Jones' Case . . 
 
 [1892 
 C. A.' 
 [1900' 
 
 592"^ 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 368 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 68 
 C. C. E. [1898] W. N. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 150 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 453 
 
 150(4);-. gi^ 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 485 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 1 
 C.A. - - 
 
 N. 152 (7); 
 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 406 
 
 ■) 
 
 [1894] P. 90 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 337 .. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 677 
 
 P. 0. [1898] A. C. 687 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 129 ; [1900] 2 Q. B.I 
 
 279 .. ..' .. ..I 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 42-; H. L. (E.)\ 
 
 [1897] A. C. 387 .. . / 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 669; re-) 
 
 versed by H. L. (E.) [18971 J 
 
 A. C. 575 .. .. ..J 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 485 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 476 . 
 [1896] W.N. 87 (8); 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 361 ., 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Cb. 470 ., 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 453 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 49, n. 
 
 ■I 
 
 C. A. 
 
 120 
 
 120 
 564 
 855 
 549, 
 1686 
 
 1373 
 
 1395 
 
 1781 
 812 
 438 
 
 1458 
 
 521 
 161 
 
 774 
 1567 
 
 1945 
 
 1445 
 790 
 46 
 
 2289 
 
 2052 
 511 
 
 1196 
 1445 
 
 662 
 
 1230 
 1616 
 1852 
 1530 
 1325 
 
 862 
 200T 
 
 331 
 
 1857, 
 
 1859 
 
 874 
 
 368 
 
 798 
 76 
 277 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 xcvu 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 G-atbiercole w. Norfolk. In re Jolly 
 
 Gauder w. Dassenaike 
 Oavin's House-to-House Cycle Cleaning and\ 
 Insurance Co.: — Frankenstein f. .: ../ 
 
 Oayler: — Charterhouse School w. 
 
 Oayw. McGill / 
 
 Oayford V. Chouler 
 
 Geake: — ^PoUard ■;;. In re Hunt 
 
 Gebhardt I?. Saunders 
 
 Geek, In re. Freund v. Steward 
 
 Gedge v. Eoyal Exchange Assurance Corporation 
 
 Gedye i". Commrs. of Works 
 
 Gedye u. Felling .. 
 
 Gee, In re. Pearson-Gee i'. Pearson 
 
 Geen r. Newington Vestry 
 Geilinger i». Gibbs 
 Geisel: — ^Eohinson v. 
 
 Geldert: — Pictou (Municipality) w. 
 
 " Gemma," The | 
 
 Gems: — Wyatt w. 
 
 General Auction, Estate, and Monetary Co. v.\ 
 Smith f 
 
 General and Commercial Investment Trust: — \ 
 Vemer v. .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 General Credit Co., In re .. 
 
 General Insurance Co. of Trieste (Assicurazionil 
 General!) w. Cory .. .. .. ../ 
 
 General Medical Council: — ^AUinson v. 
 
 General Mineral Patents Syndicate, Ld. : — \ 
 Malleson «. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 General Phosphate Corporation, In re (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 General Public Works and Assets Co., Ex parte."! 
 In re Evelyn .. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 General Publishing Co. : — Freeman v. .. 
 
 General Ey. Syndicate, Jn re. Whiteley's Case 
 
 General Service Co-operative Stores, In re 
 General Trustees of the Free Church of Scot-'l 
 
 land ■w. Bain .. .. ., .. ../ 
 
 General Trustees of the Free Church of Scot-'l 
 
 land: — Inland Revenue t;. .. .. ../ 
 
 General Trustees of the Free Church of Scot-"l 
 
 land: — Maughan v. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Gentle v. Faulkner 
 
 "Georg,"The 
 
 George v. Carpenter 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 249 ; [1900] 1 Ch, 
 292; C. A. [1900] W. N. 170 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 616 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 547 .. 
 
 0. A. [1897)2Q. B. 62.. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 437 
 Begistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] 
 
 W. N. 98 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 316 
 [1900] W. N. 65 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 452 
 
 C.A. 
 [1900; 
 
 1893] W. N. 161 
 2Q. B. 214 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 630 .. 
 [1892]W. N. 44 
 
 [1895]W. N. 90 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 1 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 479 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 685 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 524 .. ..j 
 
 [1899] W. N. 116 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 W.N. 136; [1899] P. 285 ../ 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 225 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 432 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 239 .. 
 [1891] W. N. 153 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 335 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 750 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 538 
 
 [1893] W. N. 142 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 3 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 302 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 380 
 
 [1899] W. N. 34 (5) ; [1899]] 
 
 1 Ch. 770 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. \ 
 
 28; [1900] 1 Ch. 365 ..j 
 
 [1891] ICh. 496 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1897] W. N.\ 
 
 138 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N.\ 
 
 140 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 105 
 
 C.A 
 
 [1894 
 [1803' 
 
 1900]2Q-.B. 267' 
 P. 330 .. 
 1 Q. B. 505 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2306 
 
 267 
 
 666 
 1756 
 1401 
 
 619 
 
 1879 
 
 1166, 
 
 1347 
 278, 279 
 
 1002 
 
 2254 
 
 780 
 
 1878, 
 
 2187 
 
 1167 
 
 572 
 
 1506 
 251, 549, 
 
 895, 
 
 2066 
 
 1947 
 
 1178, 
 2070 
 
 301 
 
 354 
 
 366 
 
 1001 
 
 1026, 
 1042, 
 1252 
 
 356 
 
 460 
 
 442 
 
 174, 965 
 562 
 
 429 
 
 481 
 
 1753 
 
 1762, 
 1776 
 
 1762 
 
 1067 
 2003 
 
 824 
 
XCVlll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Steam I 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 George & Brauday : — Eoyal . Mail 
 
 Packet Co. v. .. 
 George & Co. :— Pitt Pitts v. . . . 
 
 George and Goldsmiths and General Burglary I 
 Insurance Association, In re .. , .. ..) 
 
 George: — Godfrey i;. 
 
 George v. Grose. In re West .. 
 
 George Newnes, Ld. : — Johnson v. 
 
 Gerard (Lord) and Beecham's Contract, In re 
 
 Gerard (Lord) and the London and Northj 
 
 Western By. Co., In re . . . . . . / 
 
 Gerard (Lord) v. Kent County Council 
 
 Gerard's (Lord) Settled Estates, In re 
 
 German: — Jones v. 
 
 " Germanic," The 
 
 Gerrard v. Clowes . . 
 
 Gihbon v. Paddington Vestry 
 
 Gibbs, In re. Thorne v. Gibhs .. 
 Gibbs: — Duckham i». 
 Gibbs V. Messer 
 Gibbs: — Geilinger v. 
 
 Gibbs: — National Society for the Distribution] 
 of Electricity by Secondary Generators v. .. j 
 
 Gibbs (or Stevenson) v. Stevenson 
 Gibson, Ex parte. In re Low 
 Gibson v. Gibson. In re Coley .. 
 
 Gibson ?;. Lawson .. 
 
 Gibson: — Keeve u. 
 
 Gibson ?;. Biddell .. 
 
 Gibson : — Wallace v. 
 
 Gidoey: — Northey Stone Co. i;. . . 
 
 Gieve, In re . . . . . . . . . . | 
 
 Gieve, In re. Ex parte Shaw .. .. ../ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •{ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Gifford (Lord) v. Eitzhardinge (Lord) . . 
 
 Gilbert, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Gilbert, In re. Ex parte Gilbert 
 
 Gilbert: — Cooke f. 
 
 Gilbert & Eivington : — Yorkshire Provident Lifo\ 
 
 Assurance Co. i;. .. .. .. ^./ 
 
 Gilchrest & Co. :— Baumvoll Manufactur t 
 Scheibler u. 
 
 Gilchrist : — Ramsey v. .. 
 Gilchrist Education^il Trust, In re 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 480 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896]2Ch. 866 .. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 136 ; C. A. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 27 (5) ; [1899] 1 Q. R 
 
 595 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 152 (6)'o 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 48 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 241 ; [1900] 1 Ch.'i 
 
 84 / 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 663 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 295 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 915 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 459 / 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 351 ; afBrmed) 
 
 by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C.[ 
 
 633 j 
 
 C. A. [1893]3Cb. 252 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q.B.418; C. A. [1897]\ 
 IQ. B. 374 / 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 84 
 
 [1892]2Q. B. 11 
 
 [1900] W. N. 180; [1900] 2 Ch.\, 
 794 / 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 625 .. .. \ 
 
 [1900 1 1 Q. B. 394 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 248 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 479 
 
 [1899] W. N. 59 ; [1899] 2 Ch.) 
 289 ; 0. A. [1900] VV. N. 102 ;[ 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 280 .. ..J 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1894] W. N. 104 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 734 
 
 [1900] W. N. 272 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 545 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 652 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 173 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 354 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894]1Q. B. 99.. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 32 (4) ;\ 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 794 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 41 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 W.N. 72 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 75 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 32 / 
 
 [1893] P. 183 
 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (1) ; [1898]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 282 / 
 
 [1892] W, N. Ill 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 148 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 319 ; C. A. [1892] 
 IQ. B. 253; H. L. (E.) [1893] 
 A.C.8 .. .. .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 412 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 367 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1018 
 527 
 
 976 
 
 2048 
 
 2162 
 
 537 
 1715 
 1264, 
 1648 
 
 892 
 
 1857, 
 1858, 
 1861 
 
 1032- 
 
 1997 
 1566 
 
 1181 
 
 1742 
 
 722 
 2262 
 
 572 
 
 1432 
 946 
 
 lot 
 
 189S 
 607, 
 2143 
 530 
 1376 
 1833 
 592 
 
 2074 
 
 147 
 
 1866 
 235T 
 
 164 
 1497 
 
 667 
 
 1942 
 
 281, 853 
 276 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Giles, In re. Jones v. Pennefalher 
 
 Giles (Ellen), In re 
 
 GiWs V. Giles 
 
 Giles V. Stephens. In re Stephens 
 
 Gill: — Boyce i;. .. 
 
 Gill: — Dickins I!. .. 
 
 Gill .-^-Kirkbam v. Attenborough v. Kirkbam 
 
 Gill :— Smith « 
 
 G 11 (George) & Sons : — Universities of Oxford"! 
 and Cambridge v. . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Gillanders: — Inglis v. 
 
 Gillespie: — Campbells. .. .. .. ..< 
 
 Gillespie :— r-Parsons v. .. 
 
 Gillespie Bros. & Co. v. Cheney, Eggar & Co. . . 
 
 Gillinghami «. Beddow ,. .. .. ..| 
 
 Gillison : — CougVilin v. .. 
 Gillow: — Harvey v. In re Sir E. Harvey's 
 Estate 
 
 Gilmour : — Caledonian Insurance Co. v. 
 
 Gi'mour «. North British. Ry. Co. 
 Gilroy, Sons, & Co. u. Price & Co. 
 GUson, In re. Gilson v. Gilsoa . . ■.. 
 
 Gimblett, Ex par;e. In re Lane- Fox : .. 
 
 Ginger, In re. Ex parte London and Universal 
 
 Bank 
 
 Giunever: — Eowley v. .. 
 
 " Gipsy Queen," The 
 
 Girvin & Co. : — Weir & Co. v. .. 
 
 Gittins, Ex parte. In re Franks 
 
 Gjers, In re. Cooper i;. Gjers .. _ .^ 
 
 Gladstone, In re. Gladstone v. Gladstone ..I 
 
 Gladstone : — Syer v. .. .. .. . 
 
 Glamorgan County Council v. Great 'Western\ 
 Ky. Co / 
 
 •Glamorgan County Council : — Eeg. v. Ex parte' 
 Miller .. '.. .. .. .. ..1 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Glamoigan Ey. Co. (Vale of): — Llewellyn v. 
 
 Glamorgan Steamship Co. : — Owners of " P, 
 Caland " v. The " P. Caland " 
 
 :■} 
 
 Glamorganshire (Justices oV) : — Eeg. v... 
 
 « Glanystwyth," The i 
 
 Glasgow Corporation :^Scott V. 
 
 Glasgow Corporation v. Glasgow and South\ 
 Western Ey. Co / 
 
 Glasgo .V Corporation v. Glasgow Tramway and\ 
 Omnibus Co. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ''} 
 
 1896] 1 Ch. 956" 
 
 1894]W. N. 73 
 
 1899] W. N. 224 ; [1900] P. 17 
 
 1892]W. N. 140 
 
 1891]W. N. 108 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 310 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 201 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 166 
 [1898] WfN. 155 (8); [1899] 
 
 ICh. 55 
 H. L. (So.) [1895] A. C. 507 
 [1899] W. N. 252 ; [1900] 1 Ch^ 
 
 225 .: / 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. 0. 239 .. 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 59 
 [190y] W. N. 115 ; ri900] 2 Ch.\ 
 242 .. .. " .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 145 
 
 [1893] 1 Cb. 567 .. ..'| 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 85 ..| 
 
 H. L. (So.)- [1893] A. C. 281 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 56 .. 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 92 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 142; [1900] 2\ 
 Q. B. 503 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 461 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 503 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 176 
 
 [1898] W. N. 164 (4); [1899]) 
 1 Q. B. 193 ; C. A. [1900] 1 
 Q. B. 45 j 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 646 
 
 [1899] W.N. 77; [1899] 2 Ch. 54 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 108 ; [1900]) 
 2Ch. 101 ! 
 
 [1892] W.N. 178 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 21 
 
 [1899] W. N. 60 ; .[1P99] 2 Q. B. 
 
 26 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 138 ; 
 
 [1899]2Q. B.-536 .. 
 [1897] 2 Q: B. 239 ; C. A. [1898]\ 
 
 IQ. B.473 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 207 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 621 
 
 [1899] W. N. 22 (2); [1899] P 
 
 118 
 
 !■} 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 119 ;\ 
 [1899] A. C. 470 .. ../ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 376 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 631 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Dijyest. 
 
 804 
 911, 
 709 
 69, 280 
 .962 
 1464 
 1816 
 582 
 
 1517 
 
 1833 
 
 1333 
 
 1817 
 
 1418 
 
 2317, 
 2336 
 57, 64, 
 976 
 1838 
 1974 
 1556 
 
 182 
 
 138 
 
 1864 
 2002 
 
 1975 
 
 126 
 1883 
 
 1873 
 
 787 
 
 1655 
 
 579 
 
 1663 
 
 38, 1953 
 
 1039, 
 1041, 
 1102 
 
 1990 
 
 1209 
 
 2277 
 
 , 1836 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case- 
 
 Glasgow Corporation v. M'Bwan 
 
 Gla<igow Corporation v. M'OmiBh .. .. | 
 
 Glasgow and South Western Ey. Co. : — Glasgow j 
 Corporation i". .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Glass; — Woodin v. In re Woodin 
 
 Glassou, In re. Glasson r. Glasson 
 Glassou : — Langston t;. .. 
 Oledhill : — Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. 
 Gleen v. Gleen 
 
 " Glendarrooh," The 
 
 " Glendevon," The 
 
 Glendower Steamship Co., In re.. 
 
 " Glengyle," The 
 
 " Glenochil," The 
 
 " Gleulivet," The | 
 
 Olenton; — Barnes u. .. .. .. ..■! 
 
 Globe Marine Insurance Co. : — Woodside v. 
 
 Globe Venture Sycdioate, Ld. : — Foster v. ., i 
 
 Glory Paper Mills Co., In re. Dunster's Case 
 
 Gluver Incorporation of Perth : — Duke of AthoIl\ 
 
 V. Wedder burn t;. Duke of Atholl .. ../ 
 
 GLubb, l7i re. Bamfield v. Rogers 
 
 Glucksteiu ■;;. Barnes 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •{ 
 
 Glynn: — Margetson & Co. t;. • .. 
 
 Goblet Fr^res : — Boxsius v. 
 
 Gaddard v. Higg. In re Higg's Mortgage 
 
 Uoddard : — London and County Banking Co. v. 
 
 Goddard: — Sawyer?;. In re Dartnall .. 
 
 Goddaid : — Shears v. 
 
 ■Godden, In re. Teague v. Fox .. .. [ 
 
 ■Godfrey, In re. Thome-George v. Godfrey 
 
 'Godfrey: — Edwards u. 
 
 Godfrey i;. George .. .. .. I 
 
 ■Godfrey & Co. :—SheiU 
 
 ■Godman V. Moses.. 
 
 ■Godmanohester (Mayor, &o., of) :— Simpson v-.A 
 Oodson & Sou : — Carritt d. 
 Godwin i;. Pi iuoe. In re Prince 
 Goetz, Jonas & Co., In re. Ex parte The) 
 Trustee ..... f 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1900] A. C. 91 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 67 (1) ;\ 
 [1898] A. C. 432 .. ../ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 376 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 309 .. 
 
 1893] W. N. 85 
 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 567 
 
 1891]lCh. 31 .. 
 
 1900] W. N. 258 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 226 
 
 1893] P. 269 .. 
 
 1899] W. N. 114 
 
 1897] W. N. 170 (1); C. A.\ 
 [1898] P. 87; affirmed by 
 H. L. (E.) sub nom. "Glen- 
 gyle" (Owners of), her Cargo 
 and Preiglit v. Neptune Salvage 
 Co. The "Glengyle" [1898] 
 A. C. 519 
 
 [1896] P. 10 .. 
 
 [1893] P. 164; C. A. [1894i\ 
 
 P. 48 ../ 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 223 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 IQ. B;885 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 105 
 
 [1900] W. N. 69; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 
 811 .. .. ; 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 473 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] A. C. 403 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 354 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 92 ;V 
 
 [1900] A. 0. 240 .. .. / 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 337; 
 
 H. L. (E.)[1893] A. C. 351.. 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 842 
 [1894] W. N. 73 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 642 .. .', 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 474 ., 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 406 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 292 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 12 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 72; 
 
 2Q. B. 333 .. 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 15 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 48 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 115 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 179 
 0. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 214; 
 
 (B.) [1897] A. C. 696 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 193 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 225 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 787 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1899]|' 
 
 H. L, 
 
 ^■} 
 
 2280 
 39, 1841 
 
 2277 
 
 951, 
 2293, 
 2334 
 1503 
 1763 
 852 
 705 
 1968 
 1940 
 464 
 
 2002 
 
 1938 
 988 
 
 1134 
 990 
 780 
 427 
 824 
 2264 
 373 
 
 1967 
 
 649 
 80, 1279 
 2201 
 2035, 
 2184 
 111 
 1876 
 919 
 
 1247 
 
 2047 
 
 965, 
 1120 
 585 
 
 730 
 
 1157 
 1613 
 
 137 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Gold Exploration and Development Syndi-'l 
 cate: — Grant w. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Gold Ores Reduction Co. V. Parr.. 
 
 Gold Eeefs of West Africa, Ld. : — Allen v. .. | 
 
 Gold Eeefs of Western Australia v. Dawson .. \ 
 
 Goldberg, Ex parte 
 
 Golden Sovereigns, Ld. : — Kotchie v. Bright,"! 
 
 Claimant ., .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Goldberger v. Eoth. In re Both 
 
 Goldbborough, Mort & Co. : — North Aiistralian'l 
 
 Territory Co. i;. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Goldsmid: — Chaffers v. .. 
 
 Goldsmith: — ^Turner «. .. 
 Goldstein: — Dubowski & Sons u'. 
 Goldstein t>. Vaughan 
 
 Goldstone v. Williams, Deacon & Co. .. 
 
 Gonty V. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire 
 Ey. Co 
 
 Gooch V. Clutterbuck 
 
 Gooch V. Gooch . . 
 
 Good & Co. V. Isaacs 
 
 Goodall, In re. Goodall v. Goodall 
 
 Goodall : — ^Alexander Pirie & Sons v. 
 
 Goodden V. Goodden 
 
 Goode V. Lickerish. 
 Goodenough, In re. 
 Goodfellow «. Gray 
 
 Goodier v. Edmunds 
 
 In re BuUook 
 Marland v. Williams 
 
 ■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Goodlock V. Cousins 
 
 Goodwin V. Goodwin and Arnold 
 Goole Local Bd. : — Eeg. v. 
 Goose : — Williams v. 
 Gordon, In the Goods of .. 
 Gordon w. Evans .. 
 
 Gordon : — Lord Advocate v. 
 
 Gordon, In re. Ex parte, Navalchand 
 
 Gordon v. Pyper . . 
 
 Gordon:— St. Martinr's-in-the-Fields (Vestry of)'l 
 
 V. .. .. J 
 
 Gordon v. St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington 
 Gordon V. Street .. 
 
 Gordon v. Williamson 
 
 ••{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Gore : — Saunders v. 
 Gorman, Ex parte 
 
 In re Saunders 
 
 C. A. [1900]1Q,B. 233 
 
 [1892]2Q. B. U 
 
 [1899] W. N. 75.; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 40 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 43 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 656 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (8) ; [1897]\ 
 
 ICh. 115 j 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 417 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 164 
 
 [1896] W. N. 16 (15) .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 381 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 186 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 544 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 478 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 549 
 [1898] W. N. 148 (3); [1899]\ 
 ICh. 47 / 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 439 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 96 ; [1899]) 
 2 Q. B. 148 
 
 [1893' 
 C. A.' 
 [1895' 
 C. A. 
 [1891' 
 P. i 
 [1891' 
 [1895' 
 C. A.' 
 
 P. 99 
 
 1892] 2 q!'b. 555' '. 
 
 W.N. 136(7) ,. 
 1892] ICh. 35 .. 
 P. 395; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 W. N. 62 
 2Ch. 537 
 1899] 2 Q. B. 498 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 455 
 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (3) ; [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 348 ; affirmed by C. A. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 558 .. 
 
 [1897; 
 
 P. 87 
 
 471 
 
 ':] 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 212 
 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B 
 
 [1892] P. 228 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 248 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 
 
 134 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 516 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] W.N. 169 ..| 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 61 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 742 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 641 
 
 [1892] 1 ,Q. B. 616 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 459 / 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 888 ; C. A. [1897] 
 
 W. N. 158 (2) ; [1898] 1 Ch. 
 
 17 
 
 H; L. (B:> [1894] A. 0. 23 
 
 Column 
 
 cf 
 Digest. 
 
 2219 
 1566 
 
 304 
 
 1491 
 
 1493 
 
 1009 
 
 2189 
 
 442 
 
 1203,. 
 1366 
 514 
 1725 
 1235 
 
 668 
 1089 
 
 1062 
 
 696 
 1962- 
 1787 
 2129 
 
 690 
 
 2329 
 1868 
 1549 
 320, 
 2350 
 
 590 
 
 700 
 2084 
 1521 
 1617 
 
 597 
 
 1808 
 
 168 
 
 1240, 
 
 1836 
 
 1165 
 
 1180 
 512 ■ 
 
 1182 
 
 1470 
 1102 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Gorrie: — Anderson v. 
 
 Gorringe : — Hobson v. 
 
 Goring : — Cnckfield Euml District Council v. 
 
 Gormley v. Buchanan 
 
 (iorst : — Coxon u. .. 
 
 Gorton: — Dowse u. 
 
 Gorz & Hogli's Patent, In re 
 
 Goschen : — Raleigh v. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Gosford (Earl of) v. Irish Land Commision 
 Goslin;7, In re. Gosling v. Smith 
 Gosling : — Att.-Gen. v. .. 
 Gosling w. Bagers .. 
 
 Gosling V. Gaskell 
 
 ••( 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Gosling V. Green .. 
 
 Gosling ■!;. Newton 
 
 Gosling V. ^Yoolf . . 
 
 Gossage's Case. Barnardo v. Ford 
 
 Goudie, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 
 Gough, lu re. Llojd v. Gough .. 
 
 Gough D. Gough .. 
 
 Gough: — Grainger & Son v. 
 
 Gough i;. Wood & Co. 
 Gould : — Head v. .. 
 
 Gould: — Le Lievre i". 
 
 Gould v. Stuart 
 Goulder v. Goulder 
 
 Goulton: — Ellis i;. 
 
 Governments Stock Investment Co., Ld., In re\ 
 (No.]) I 
 
 ■ — — (No. 2) 
 
 Governments Stock and Oliver Securities Invest- 
 ment Co. V. Manila Ry. Co. 
 
 Gower v. Couldridge 
 Gower:— Dykei;. .. 
 Gower v. Tobitt . . 
 
 Goy & Co., In re. Farmer v. Goy & Co. 
 
 Gozzett V. Maiden Urban Sanitary Authority .. 
 Giace: — Wilmot ij. 
 
 Graham, In re. Graham' u. Noakes 
 
 Graham : — Donnelly v. Connolly u. Iliddall.'l 
 Martin v. Hanrahan (No. 2) .. .. ..] 
 
 Graham t). Drummond 
 
 Graham v. Corporation of Nev?castle-upon-Tyne 
 , (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Graham: — Killick v. Linttrn v. Burchell 
 
 Graham V. O'Connor .. „ 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 668 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 182 .. 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 865 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 156 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 73 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 190 .. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 105 
 
 [1897] W. N. 160 (10) ; [1898]! 
 
 ICh. 73 / 
 
 H. L. (Ir.) [1899] A. C..435 
 1900] W.N. 15., 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 545 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 793 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 669 ; H. 
 
 (E.) [1897] A. C. 575 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 109 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 793 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 39 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. 0. 326 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 "} 
 
 H. L. 
 
 •{ 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 481 
 [1894] W. N. 76 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 665 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 71 ; 
 
 (E.) [1896] A. C. 325 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 713 
 [1698] 2 Cli. 250 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. 0. 575 .. 
 [1892] P. 240 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 350 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 649 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 597 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 551 ; affirmed^ 
 by H. L. (E.) W. N. 189b 
 p. 174(6); [1897] A. C. 81 ..) 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 348 
 '"'IQ. B. 220 
 
 W. N. 6 
 
 W.N. 88; [1900] 2 Ch.l 
 
 [1892' 
 
 [1891° 
 
 [1900' 
 
 149 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 327 !! 
 [1692] 1 Q. B. 812 
 
 [lS95]lCh. 66 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 103 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 968 
 [1892] W. N. 134 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 643 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 196 
 [1895] W. N. 157 (10) .. 
 
 4 
 
 1023, 
 2156 
 
 828 
 
 897 
 1375 
 
 341 
 
 800 
 1438 
 
 2154 
 
 39 
 
 279 
 1730 
 2105 
 
 331 
 
 2106 
 2105 
 1084 
 38, 883 
 156 
 2051 
 1052 
 
 1770 
 
 826, 827 
 2179 
 1580, 
 2097 
 1321- 
 
 708, 724 
 1578, 
 2236 
 
 365 
 
 366 
 
 322 
 
 1512 
 
 21 
 
 62, 1499 
 
 336 
 
 2084 
 856 
 1583, 
 1701, 
 1706 
 
 1367 
 
 793 
 
 873 
 
 891, 
 1130 
 1783 
 405, 
 1064 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Graham: — Starey v. 
 
 Graham v. Sutton, Garden & Co. (No. !)■ 
 _ . (No. 2) 
 
 Graham: — Warwick i". .. 
 Graham's Trusts, In re. .. 
 Grainger, In re. Dawson v. Higgins ,. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Grainger & Son v. Gough 
 
 Grand Hotel Co. : — ^Medawar v. .. 
 
 Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Brentford^ 
 
 (Local Board) . . 
 Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Davies 
 Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton 
 
 Urban Council .. 
 Grand Trunk Ey. Co. of Canada v. Washington 
 Grange v. Grange .. 
 Grant v. Anderson & Co. . . 
 Grant : — Benson v. In re Brown 
 Grant v. Gold Exploration and Development\ 
 
 Syndicate .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Grant : — Inland Revenue v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Grant v. Langston 
 Grant: — Le Bas v. 
 
 Grant : — Moxham v. 
 
 Grantham (Town Clerk of) : — Treadgold v. 
 
 Grassmcor Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. 
 
 Graves ; — Country Estates Co. v. 
 
 Gray, In re 
 
 Gray, In re. Gray v. Gray 
 
 Gray v. Bartholomew 
 
 Gray : — ^British Wagon Co. v. 
 
 Gray: — Burt v. 
 
 Gray v. Craig 
 
 Gray v. Deuchar ■;. 
 
 Gray: — Goodfellow w. 
 Gray ; — Pilkington v. 
 Gray: — Reg. w. 
 
 Gray: — Robins & Co. «.. . .. .. ../ 
 
 Gray w. Stone 
 
 Gray's Settlement, In re. Akers u. Sears 
 
 Gray V. Willis 
 
 Gray & Sons : — Wood v.., 
 
 Graydon, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 Great Bardfield (Vicar of) v. All having Interest 
 Great Britain Steamship Premium Association v.\ 
 
 Whyte / 
 
 Great Eastern Ry. Co. : — Mallet i;. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 407 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1899' 
 191 
 
 1897] ICh. 761 .. 
 1897] 2 Ch. 367 .. 
 W, N. 88;[1899]2Q. B, 
 
 [1900]) 
 
 H. L 
 
 N, 
 
 ,1 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 151 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 158.; 
 
 2Ch. 756 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 71 ; 
 
 (B.) [1896] A. C. 325 
 C. A. [1891]2Q. B. 11.. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 735 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 209 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 331 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 275 ,. 
 [1892] P. 245 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q.- B. 108 
 [1895] W. N. 115 (9) ., 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 233 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W, 
 
 195 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 126 
 
 [1900] A. C. 383 
 [1895]W. N. 28 
 [1899] W. N. 14 (4); [1899]) 
 
 1 Q. B. 480; C. A. [1899]} 
 
 W. N. 232 ; [1900] IQ. B. 8«J 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 163 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 260 
 P. C. 1895] A. C. 113 . 
 [1900 W. N. 274 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 620 
 G. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 209 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 35 . 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 98 
 Registration App.Ct. (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 
 •W.N. 134 J 
 
 Registration App. Ot. (Sc.) [1897] \ 
 
 W.N. 123 .. 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 498 
 P. C. [l!^99] A. 0. 401... 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 36 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 78; 0. A. [1895]! 
 
 2Q.B. 501 / 
 
 [1893] W. N. 133 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 802 
 [1895] W. N. 9 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 576 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 417 
 [1897] P. 185 .. 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 
 
 91 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 309 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1434, 
 2072 
 671 
 1553 
 
 1031 
 
 1522, 
 2194 
 2326, 
 2342 
 
 1770 
 
 972 
 
 2275 
 
 2279 
 
 964 
 
 244 
 
 700 
 
 1542 
 
 7 
 
 2219 
 
 1755 
 
 1755 
 1282 
 
 340 
 
 1391 
 1659 
 2259 
 2037 
 1734 
 1524 
 1545 
 1073 
 
 1385 
 
 1387 
 
 1549 
 189 
 503 
 
 972 
 
 402 
 685 
 780 
 1250, 
 1837 
 179 
 740 
 
 1798 
 
 1644 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Great Eastern Ey. Co. : — Meux v. 
 
 Great Horseless Cariiage Co. : — Prankenburg v. .A 
 
 Great Kruger Gold Mining Co., In re. Ex parteV 
 
 Barnard .. .. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 Great Nortix of Scotland Ey. Co. : — Adams v. .. 
 Great North of Scotland By. Co. v. Fife (Duke\ 
 
 of) / 
 
 Great North of Scotland Ey. Co. :— Highland 1 
 
 Ey. Co. i; f 
 
 Great North West Central Ey. v. Charlebois 
 
 Great Northern Ey. Co. : — Britten v. .. 
 
 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Coal Co-operative\ 
 
 Society .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Great Northern Ey. : — Holmes v. 
 
 Great Noithern Ey. Co. : — Hunt v. (No. I) 
 
 — — (No. 2) .. 
 
 Great Northern Ey. Co. v. Inland Eevenuel 
 
 •I 
 
 Oommrs. 
 Great Northern Ey. Co. : — Lamb v. 
 
 Great Northern Ey. Co. :— Milner v. 
 
 Great Northern Ey. Co. v. Palmer 
 Great Northern Ey. Co. : — Willey v. 
 Great Northern Ey. Co. v. Winder 
 
 Great Western Colliery Co. : — Agius i'. . 
 
 Great Western Ey. (Masters and), In re 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. :— Aylesford (Countess\ 
 
 oi) V. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. v. Cefn Cribbwr Biick 
 
 Co 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. : — Cobb v 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 '■■{ 
 
 '] 
 '] 
 ■■{ 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. : — Dixon v. .. . . / 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. : — Glamorgan County\ 
 
 Council V. .. . . . . . . _ _ I 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. v. Inland Eevenuel 
 
 Commrs. v. .. ., . . . . , _ | 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. ; — Jersey (Earl of) v. 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. v. London and County ( 
 Banking Co. .. .. .. ., , i 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. : — Luscombe v... 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. :— Mansion House Asso-\ 
 ciation on Ey. TrafiEc u. .. .. __f 
 
 Great Western Ry. Co. : — ^Miles v. 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. :— New Union Mills Co.\ 
 
 V / 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co.:— Euabon Brick and 
 
 Terra-cotta Co. v. .. ,, 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. :— Sadler v. 
 Great Western Ry. Co. :— Shaw v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 387 ..| 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 2; [1900]\ 
 1Q.B. 504 , 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 307 .. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1891] A. C. 31 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 62 .. • 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] W. . 77 (1) 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 114 .. 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 243 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 187 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 65; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B.409 ; 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. P. 601 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 189 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 652 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 281 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 55 ; [1900]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 795 / 
 
 1 Q. B. 862 
 2Q. B. 194 
 _2Q. B. 595 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. il (8) ; [1899]) 
 
 IQ. B. 413 ^ 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 677 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 626 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 157 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 459 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 419 .., 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 333 ; C. A. [1897li 
 IQ. B. 300 .. .. ^ 
 
 1895' 
 1891 
 1892' 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 21 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 507 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 625, n. ... 
 
 [1899] W. N. 100 ; [1899] 2 Q. B 
 172 ; C. A. [1900J W. N. 144 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 464 .. 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 313 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 141 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 432 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 290 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 427 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 68 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 450 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 373 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 505, 586, 
 1653 
 374, 
 1250 
 
 440, 441 
 
 55,65 
 1883, 
 1839 
 
 57,58 
 
 244 
 1652 
 
 204, 940 
 
 1227 
 
 1250 
 648 
 
 1805 
 
 124& 
 
 1228 
 
 1652 
 
 559, 562 
 
 1652 
 
 634 
 
 108T 
 
 595 
 
 1649 
 
 165S 
 
 1645 
 
 1655 
 
 1794 
 
 1669, 
 2064 
 
 93 
 
 1645 
 1655, 
 1657, 
 1658 
 109O 
 
 165a 
 
 1648; 
 
 1517 
 1649 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Great Western and London and North Westem\ 
 By. Cos., In re Haigli and .. .. ../ 
 
 Great Western Ey. Co. and London and Soutli') 
 Western Ry. Co.: — ^Didcot, Newbury and> 
 Southampton Ey. Co. v. .. .. . . J 
 
 Greater London Property Co. v. Foot . . 
 
 Greatorex : — Frost v. In re Travis 
 
 Greatorex u. Shackle 
 
 Greaves' Settled Estates, In re. Jones v. Greaves] 
 
 Green, In re. Green v. Knight . . 
 
 Green : — Brenda Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Green: — Charity Conmirs. v. In re Herbage'l 
 Rents, Greenwich .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Green: — "Edenbridge" (Owners of Steamship) 
 V. The "Rutland" 
 
 Green: — Ferguson u. 
 
 Green r. Green 
 
 Green : — Gosling v. 
 
 Green v. Knight . . 
 
 Green: — Leigh ■!;.,. 
 
 Green «. Marsh 
 
 Green, McAUan & Peilden, In re 
 
 Green u. Moore 
 
 Green: — Robb «. .. 
 
 Green : — Stephens v. 
 Green v. Thompson 
 Green: — Turner i;. 
 
 Green : — ^Walters v. 
 
 Green & Co. :— Dobell & Co. « 
 
 Greene «. St. John's Mansions, Ld. 
 
 GreenhUl : — Alcoy and Gandia Ey. and Harbour\ 
 Co. V. 
 
 Greenhill v. North British and Mercantile Insur- 
 ance Co. .. 
 
 Greenhough : — ^Birrell v. In re Crossley 
 
 Greenock (Provost, &c., of) t;. Peters 
 
 Greenway: — Heathfield «. 
 
 Greenwell v. Low Beechbum Coal Co. . . 
 
 Greenwell v. Howell 
 
 ■i 
 
 Greenwich Board of Works ; — Davis v. ., 
 
 Greenwich Ferry Co : — Lathom v. 
 
 Greenwich Union, Ex parte. Reg. v. Londoni 
 
 Justices .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Greenwood, In re. Greenwood v. Greenwood 
 Greenwood, In re. Priestley v. Griffiths 
 Greenwood, In the Goods of 
 Greenwood v. Algesiras (Gibraltar) Ry. Co. 
 Greenwood v. Humber & Co. (Portugal), Ld. 
 Greenwood «. Francis 
 
 Greenwood v. Leather Shod Wheel Co. .. 
 
 ■I 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 649 
 
 0. A. [1897]1Q.B. 33.. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 972 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 159 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2Ch. 541 / 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 249 
 
 [1900] W. N. 148 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 683 / 
 
 [1895]W. N. 69 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 49; [1900]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 518 / 
 
 [1896] 2 Cb. 811 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1897] A. 0. 333 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 247 
 [1893] P. 89 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 109 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 148 .. 
 [1892] P. 17 
 C. A- [1892] 2 Q. B. 330 
 1891]W. N. 127 
 1891] W. N. (18 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 1; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 315 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Oh. 148 .. 
 
 [1899]2Q. B. 1 
 
 1895] 2 Ch. 205 
 
 '1899] W. N. 138 ; [1899] 2 Oh.) 
 
 696 ) 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 41 ; [1900]i 
 
 IQ. B. 526 ) 
 
 [1900] W.N. 9 
 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 150 (3);\ 
 
 [1896]lCh. 19 .. ../ 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 474 
 
 [1897] 1 Cb. 928 
 
 H.L. (So.) [1893] A. 0.258 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 170 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 165 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 49; [1900]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 535 ; 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 219 
 
 [1895]W. N. 77 
 
 [1900] W. N. 26 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.l 
 
 438 / 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 295 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 20 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 7 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Oh. 205 
 
 [1898] W. N. 162 (3) 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1899 
 
 W.' 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 312 
 ■W.N.26(2);C.A.[1900]\ 
 N. 1; [1900] 1 Ch. 421 ../ 
 
 55 
 
 1661 
 
 1167 
 9 
 
 593 
 
 953 
 17001 
 1936 
 
 1716 
 
 1993 
 
 1229 
 
 709, 724 
 
 2106 
 
 1554 
 
 lei* 
 
 200 
 
 459 
 1552 
 
 969, 
 1248 
 1554= 
 
 944 
 2062 
 
 214T 
 
 1935 
 1531 
 1527 
 
 912 
 
 285 
 1830 
 1438 
 1261 
 
 566 
 
 1175 
 317 
 
 1458 
 
 726 
 2318 
 161i> 
 
 318 
 1508 
 1585 
 
 376 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Crreenwood u. Sutcliffe 
 
 ■Greenwood v. Turner 
 •Greenwood & Co., In re .. 
 
 Greer, In re. Napper v. Fanshawe 
 
 Gregory & Co. : — Exchange Telegraph Co. v. ..I 
 
 Gregory: — Halestrap r;. .. 
 Gregory v. Serle. In re Serle 
 
 Gregson, In re 
 
 Gregson (Claimant). Westbury r. Twigg & Co. 
 
 Grehan, In re 
 
 Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Styles 
 
 ■" Greta Holme," The. Owners of No. 7 Steam-j 
 Sand Pump Dredger v. Owners of SS. " Greta i 
 Holme" J 
 
 Greville-Nugent t). Mackenzie .. .. ../ 
 
 Grey v. Curtice . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Grey, In re. Grey v. Coles 
 
 Grey (Earl) :—Att.-Gen. -v 
 
 Grey (Earl) v. Grey. In re Bristol (Marquis of) 
 Grey v. Manitoba and Noith Western Ey. Co."! 
 of Canada . . . . . . . , . . J 
 
 Grey: — Sutton & Co. j;. .. 
 
 Grey's Trusts, In re. Grey v. Stamford 
 
 Grey (H. A.) In re 
 
 Gribble :— Midland Ey. Co. u 
 
 Gribble v. Webber. In re Webber 
 Gridley: — Laybourn t;. .. 
 Grieve v. Grieve .. 
 
 GiifSn, In re. GrifBn d. GriflSn . . 
 
 Griffin: — Cooler -v. 
 
 Griffin: — Langhton v. 
 
 Griffin :— Stevens D. 
 
 Griffin's Divorce Bill .. .. ." '* 
 
 Grilfith V. Hughes 
 
 Gjiflith V. Tower Publishing Co. and Moncrieff" 
 
 Griffiths: — Evansu. In re Thomas 
 
 Griffiths (John) Cycle Corporation v. Humber &■ 
 
 Co. 
 Griffiths :— Priestley v. In re Greenwood .. 
 Griffiths:— Reg. w. 
 Griffiths and Morris, In re 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■;} 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 144 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 306 
 
 [1895J2 Ch. 217 
 
 C. A. [1895] AV. N. 138 (6); 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 147 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 561 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 233 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 77 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 12 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. 0. 309 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1897] A. C. 596 
 
 ■} 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1899] W. N. 226 ;\ 
 [1900]A. C. 83 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 162 (5) 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 121 
 
 [1891] W. N. 201 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 318 ; 0. A. [1898] 
 2 Q. B. 534 ; H. L. (E.) [1900] 
 W.N. 40; [1900] A. C. 124.. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 946 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 254 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 285 ../ 
 
 [1895] 
 
 '] 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 88 .. 
 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 440 
 [1895] 2 Oh. 129 ; C. A, 
 
 2 Ch. 827 
 "1896] 1 Ch. 914 
 1892] 2 Ch. 53 .. 
 1893] P. 288 ,. 
 1898] W. N. 174 (15); [1899]^ 
 
 1 Ch. 408 .. .. .. / 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 740 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0.104 
 
 0. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 368 
 H. L. [1896] A. C. 133 .. 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 105 
 [1897]lCh. 21 .. 
 [1900] W.N. 36; [1900] 
 454 
 
 1 Ch 
 
 0. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 414 
 0. A. [1892] W. N. 20 .. 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 145 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 866 
 
 ':} 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1295, 
 2103 
 2229 
 433 
 78, 123, 
 1521, 
 1923 
 
 530 
 
 26 
 1069 
 
 404, 
 2202 
 
 485 
 1192 
 1758 
 
 1948 
 
 1262 
 
 2039 
 2057 
 
 1741 
 
 1906 
 
 250 
 
 1583, 
 2073 
 1095, 
 2312 
 2054 
 
 1647 
 
 1735 
 2229 
 714 
 
 2263 
 
 269, 349 
 869, 
 1312 
 2078 
 1492 
 706 
 2176 
 511 
 
 2039 
 
 848 
 
 2318 
 135, 
 2071 
 591 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Xame .of Case. 
 
 Grigg V. National Guardian Assurance Co. 
 
 Grim,ston v. Cuningham . . 
 Grindey, In re. Clews v. Grindey 
 Griiiter v. Fleming. Walker v. Biisli y 
 Groenings :^Moul v. 
 Gronow : — Smith v. 
 Groom, In i e. Booty v. Groom 
 Groom v. Cheesewriglit .. 
 Groos V. Anthony Birrell Pearce & Co. Doig v. 
 Same. In re Anthony Birrell Pearce & Co. . 
 
 Grose : — George v. In re' West . . 
 
 Grose-Smith v. Bridger. In re Smith .. 
 
 Grosvenor Dairies : — Dunning «. 
 Groivenor Hotel Co. v. Hamilton 
 Grosvenor and West End By. Termiijus HotePi 
 
 Co.: — Spokes V. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Grosvenor Mansions Co. and G. D'Allessandri : — ' 
 
 Sanders-Clark v. 
 Grout :—Heston and Isleworth Urban Distriofl 
 
 Councils. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Grover : — Hobbs, Hart & Co. r. .. 
 
 Grover Wright : — Laybom v. In re Elcom 
 Groves v. Wimborne (Lord) 
 Grudgings : — Derby Corporation v. 
 Grundy: — Boots' Cash Chemists, Lancashire. 
 
 Ld. V. 
 Grundy: — Eendell v. 
 
 Gue, In re. Siuith v. Gue 
 
 Guest : — American Tobacco Co. The v. . . 
 Guest : — Calcraft v. 
 Guild & Co. V. Conrad 
 
 Guilford v. Lambeth 
 
 Gu'lick: — Wolmcrshauscn u. 
 
 Gundry, In re. Mills v. Mills .. 
 Gurney, In re. Mason v. Mercer 
 Guriiey: — Cliffords. In re Guiney 
 Gurney v. Small .. 
 Gutta Percha Corporation, Ld.,.In re. Thorntonl 
 V. Gutta Percha Corporation, Ld. .. .. / 
 
 Gutta Percha Corporation, In re 
 
 Guy : — Drew v. .. 
 Guyot i;. Thomson 
 
 GwiUiam v. Twist 
 Gwynne w. Drewitt 
 
 Gwj rfai District Council : — Roberts v. . . 
 Gyngall: — Reg. v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 206 
 
 1 Q. B. 125 
 
 1898] 2 Ch. 
 
 [1894] 
 C. A. ' 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 735 
 
 C. A. 
 1891' 
 1897' 
 1895' 
 1899' 
 50' 
 
 593 .. 
 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 443 
 
 2Q. B. 394 
 
 2 Ch. 407 
 
 1 Cli. 730 
 
 W. N. 76 ; [1899] 2 Oh." 
 
 [1899] W. N. 241 ; [1900] 1 Cb.\ 
 84 , ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 12 (13); [1899]\ 
 ICh. 331 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 265 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 836 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 [1900] W. N. 136; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 373 .. .. .. J 
 
 [1897] WV N. 59 (10);' C 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 306 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 154 (2); 
 [1899] 1 Cb. 11 
 
 t-} 
 
 O.A, 
 C. A. 
 [1894 
 
 1894] I Cb. 303 .. 
 1898] 2 Q. B. 402 
 2Q. B. 496 
 
 [1892]^ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 142 
 
 0. A. [1895]1Q. B. 16.. 
 [1892] W. N. 88 ; C. A. 
 
 W.N. 132 .. 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 630 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 759 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 885 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 832 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 92 / 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 514 
 
 1898' 
 1893' 
 1896' 
 1891' 
 
 2 Ch. 504 
 
 1 Ch. 590 
 
 2 Ch. 863 
 
 2 Q. B. 584 
 
 [1899] W. N. 251 
 
 [1900] W. N. 164 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 665 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 25 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 388 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 557 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q.B. 84 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 616 
 
 [1899] W. N. 16 (11) ; [1899] 1 
 Ch. 583 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 203; [1900] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 232 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 205, 653, 
 860 
 960 
 2174 
 1752 
 533 
 1067 
 2316 
 2051 
 
 775 
 2162 
 
 1886 
 
 1344 
 1074 
 
 664 
 1344 
 2089 
 
 1156 
 
 912 
 1237 
 2087 
 
 500 
 
 77, 779 
 
 903, 
 2316 
 2119 
 
 669 
 
 843 
 
 594 
 
 154, 
 1582, 
 1583 
 1903 
 2192 
 1497 
 1564 
 
 1554 
 
 483 
 
 1723 
 1433 
 
 1242 
 
 2071, 
 2289 
 
 2285 
 
 948 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 "I 
 
 H. 
 
 H. (otherwise G.) v. H. .. 
 "Haabet,"The 
 
 Haas V. Durant. In re Overweg 
 
 Haddelsey v. Hannam. In re Hannam . 
 Haddock v. Humphrey .. 
 
 Haddow v. Morton 
 
 Haden, In re. Coling v. Haden . . 
 
 Hadleigh Castle Gold Mines, Ld., In re. 
 
 Hadley (Felix) & Co. v. Hadley .. 
 Hadley & Son v. Beedom.. 
 Hagan: — Holland ■«. 
 
 Haggard v. Pelicier Pr^res 
 
 Haggenmaoher's Patents, In re 
 
 Haggerston Election Petition, In re. Cremer v.\ 
 Lowles . . . . . . . . _ _ _ } 
 
 Hagon V. Aberdein. In re Aberdein . . 
 Haig: — Morley u. In re Morley 
 
 Haigh u. West 
 
 Haigh and London and North Western and) 
 Great Western Ey. Cos., In re .. .. f 
 
 Hainsworth : — Cook v. .. 
 
 Hair i;. Hill " " 
 
 Hake, In re. Pownall i;. Pryor 
 Hakes v. Cox 
 
 Hale, In re. Lilley t;. Foad 
 
 Hale : — Jarman v. 
 
 Hale & Co. : — Heinemann & Co. u. .. ., 
 
 Halestrap v. Gregory ... 
 
 Halford v. Halford. (Bryce, Intervener) .. 
 
 Halford v. Hardy .. .. .. .. _j 
 
 Halifax and Huddersfield Union Bankincr Co v ) 
 
 Eadcliffe, Ld ° ..j 
 
 Halifax Commercial Bank, Ld., and Wood, In re] 
 
 Halifax Commercial Banking Co. : — Berry v. 
 
 Halifax County Court (Judge of) : — Peg. v. ..[ 
 
 Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. Gledhill 
 Halifax Jomt Stock Banking Co. : — Learoyd v. 
 
 Halifax Sugar Refining Co., In re .. ../ 
 
 Halkyn District Mines Drainage Co. :— Holywell I 
 Union and Halkyn Parish u. .. ( 
 
 Hall, In re. Hall ti. Hall 
 Hall : — AUcock v. 
 Hall u. Cox 
 Hall v. Hall (No. 1) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1900] W. N. 130 
 
 1899] P. 295 
 
 1899] W. N. 245 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 209 / 
 
 "1897] 2 Ch. 39 
 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 609 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 95 ; C. A. [1894]\' 
 
 IQ. B. 565 /, 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 220 
 
 [1900] W. N. 148; [l&OO] 2\: 
 
 Ch. 419 / 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 680 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 646 .. .. ' 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 108 .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 61 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Oh. 280 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 8 (6) 
 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (5) .. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 738 
 
 C. A. [1893]2Q. B. 19.. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 649 
 
 1896]2Q. B. 85 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 906 
 
 1895] W. N. 116 (11) .. 
 
 1892] P. 110 .. 
 
 1898] W. N. 154 (6); 0. A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 83 ; [1899] 2 
 
 Ch. 107 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 994 
 G. A. [1891]2Q. B. 83.. 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 561 
 1897] P. 36 
 18991 W. K. 243 
 
 :} 
 
 [1895] W. N. 63 
 
 [1898] W. N. 62 (14): C. A. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 174 (16) 
 [1900] W. N. 262 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 793 ; C. A.[1891]\ 
 2Q.B. 263 .. .. / 
 
 1891]lCh. 31 .. 
 1893] 1 Ch. 686 
 
 [1891] W. N. 2 ; C. A. [18911) 
 W.N. 29 .. .. ,,\ 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 117 ../ 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 [1893] W.N. 24 .. 
 '1891] 1 Q. B. 444 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 198 
 
 1891] P. 302 
 
 710 
 1933 
 
 2073 
 
 2317 
 1232 
 
 1010 
 
 ! 901 
 
 361 
 
 , 2118 
 ' 199 
 1368 
 837, 
 1023, 
 1530 
 1441 
 
 1365 
 
 859 
 1855 
 891, 
 1131 
 
 56 
 
 2081 
 1915 
 1516 
 757 
 
 1293 
 
 1188 
 1536 
 26 
 1612 
 1548 
 
 315, 317 
 
 2256 
 
 91 
 593, 
 1444 
 
 852 
 
 670 
 
 431 
 
 731, 
 1688 
 2300 
 1500 
 1183 
 702 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Hall f. Hall (No. 2) \ 
 
 Hall: — Hood «. In re Brodie .. 
 
 Hall V. LauDspach 
 
 Hall: — Lucas V. .. 
 
 Hall (or Scott) : — Maodonald v. .. 
 
 Hall u. Metcalfe .. 
 
 Hall V. Norfolk (Duke of) \ 
 
 Hall:— Eeg. V 
 
 Hallt— EUeyi; 
 
 Hall V. Snowden, Hubbard & Co. 
 Hall ■«. Snowden, Hubbard & Co. 
 Hall & Co. v. Trigg 
 
 Hallas Land and Building Co. : — Perrand v. 
 
 Hallen: — Tassell w. 
 
 Hallett, In re. Ex parte National Insurance Co. 
 
 Hallett, In re. Hallett u. Hallett 
 
 Hallett: — Hewett u. In re Hewett 
 
 Hallett & Co., In re. 
 
 Hallett & Co., In re. 
 
 & Co 
 
 Ek parte Blane .. 
 
 Ex parte Cocks, Biddulph\ 
 
 HaUiday: — ^Moult «. 
 
 Halliday u. PWllipps 
 
 Halliwell: — Kiver Kibble Joint Committee 
 Same ■!;. Shorrock 
 
 Halse: — Blake w. .. 
 Halse : — Body v. .. 
 Halse: — Penning w. 
 Halse: — Hunt u. .. 
 Hamblet: — ^Beckhuson & Gibbs u. 
 
 Hamblin: — Ind, Coope & Co. ■;;. .. 
 
 Hambro V. Hambro 
 
 Hambrougb v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New\ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 York 
 
 Hamelin v. Bannerman . . 
 
 Hamilton, In re. Cadogan «. Fitzroy .. 
 
 Hamilton, In re. Trencb v. Hamilton . . 
 
 Hamilton, In re. Woodward v. Simpson 
 Hamilton v. Blackpool Motor Car Co. 
 
 Blackpool Motor Car Co. 
 Hamilton v. Brogden (No. 1) 
 
 ../ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 In Te\ 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Hamilton (Duke of) v. Lord Advocate 
 Hamilton v. Perguson 
 Hamilton : — Grosreuor Hotel Co. v. 
 Hamilton v. Hamilton 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 389; C. 
 ICh. 361 
 
 [1893' 
 C. A.' 
 [1899 
 
 [1892]| 
 
 W. N. 161 
 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 513 
 
 W.N. 92 
 H. L.'(Sc.) [1893] A. C. 642 .. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 208 
 [1900] W. N. 138; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 493 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 747 
 
 [1898' 
 C. A.' 
 0. A. 
 
 [1897' 
 
 W.N. 81(9) .. 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 593 
 1899] 2 Q. B. 136 
 2 Ch. 219 
 
 :;. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 135 
 
 1892" 
 1894' 
 1892' 
 
 1 Q. B. 321 
 
 W. N. 156 
 W. N. 148 
 
 ••{ 
 
 ') 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 362 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 237 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 256 
 
 [1897] W. N. 171 (5) ; [1898] 
 
 Q. B. 125 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 228 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 27 ; C. A. [1899] 
 W. N. 103; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 385 
 
 [1892" 
 [1892' 
 "1892' 
 1892' 
 1900' 
 1900' 
 
 W. N. 143 
 IQ. B. 203 
 
 1 Q. B. 203 
 IQ. B. 203 
 
 2 Q. B. 18 
 W. N. 24; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W.N. 270 / 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 564 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 18 .. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 237 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 617 .. 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 373; C. A. [1895]) 
 2Ch. 370 .. .. *■ 
 
 [1892]W. N. 74 
 
 [1900] W. N. 253 
 
 [1891]W. N. 14 
 
 [1891]W. N. 36 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] W. N. 160 
 0. A. (So.) [1899] W. N. 169 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 836 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 2366 
 
 795 
 1163 
 2247 
 1833 
 1402 
 
 1265 
 
 621, 
 1403, 
 2066 
 1294 
 569 
 1231 
 79 
 1350, 
 1916 
 1541 
 150, 422 
 2316 
 904, 
 1022, 
 1902 
 116 
 
 115 
 
 1238 
 755 
 
 2272 
 
 31 
 
 1388 
 1388 
 1388 
 2076 
 
 1116 
 
 1714 
 
 977, 982, 
 1002 
 258, 
 2285 
 282 
 
 2352 
 
 2342 
 
 132 
 
 1697 
 352, 
 1695 
 1698 
 1782 
 1379 
 1074 
 955, 957 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Hamilton v. Hamilton. 
 Hamilton v. Paton 
 
 Hamilton v. Ritcliie 
 
 In re Caldwell 
 
 ":) 
 
 ••( 
 
 Hamilton : — Eobson v. In re Eobson . 
 
 Hamilton v. Vaughan-Sherrin Electrical Engin^ 
 
 eering Co. 
 Hamilton v. Walker 
 Hamilton: — Woolfr. 
 Haraini (Dona Maria Abeyesekera) v. Tillekeratne 
 
 (Daniel) 
 
 Hamlyn v. Crown Accidental Insurance Co, 
 
 Ilamlyn : — Pike v. In re Eowe . . 
 
 Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery 
 
 Hamlyn & Co. v. Wood & Co. . . 
 Hammersmith Vestry: — Arter w. 
 Hammersmith Vestry v. Lowenfeld 
 Hammond v. Puis ford 
 Hammond i;. Schofield 
 Hammond : — Smith v. .. 
 Hammond: — Zalinoff iJ. .. 
 Hamon (Perree) : — De Quetteville v. 
 
 Hampshire Land Co., In re 
 
 Hampden v. Buckinghamshire (Earl of) 
 Hampton v. Lubbock 
 
 Hampton v. Nourse. In re Nourse 
 
 Hampt'in Urban District Council : — Grand Junc- 
 tion Waterworks Co. v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •I 
 
 r) 
 
 Hampton Urban District Council v. Southwark 
 and Vauxhall Water Co. .. .. ..' 
 
 Hanbidge v. Beveridge (Conlan's Case) .. 
 Hanbury «. Hanbury (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Hanbury : — Scott v. In re Scott 
 Hanbury, Whitting & Nicholson, la re 
 Hancock, In re. Malcolm v. Burford-Hancock 
 
 Hancock, In re. Watson v. Watson 
 
 Hancock v. Mellor. In re Hodgkinson .. 
 Hancock: — Miller u. 
 Hancock: — Moss r. 
 
 Hancock: — Smiths. 
 
 Hancock & Co. : — Bryants. 
 
 Hand-in-Hand Fire and Life Insurance Society : 
 — Life Interest and Reversionary Securities 
 Corporations. .. 
 
 Handley v. Handley 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 13 .. .. 952 
 
 C. A. (Sc.)[1899] W. N. 175 .. 1.386 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 310 ..|i 2^*^' 
 
 72^ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 :} 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 559- ; 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 589 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 25 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 337 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 277 .-. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 750 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 172 (13) 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 202 ., 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 488 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 646 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 278 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 223 
 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 453 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 571 
 
 1898] 2 Ch. 92 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 532 ., 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 632 ; [1896] 2 Ch. 
 
 743 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 531 ., 
 
 [1900]W. N. 18 
 
 [L898] W. N. 150 (3); [1899]1 
 
 ICh. 63 / 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 331 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 168 (.3);^ 
 [1899]1Q. B. 273; H. L. (E.) 
 [1899] W. N. 238; [1900] 
 A. C. 3 .. .. ..j 
 
 C. A. (fr.) [1897] W. N. 132 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 222 .. 
 
 [1894] P. 102; C. A. [1894] P. 
 315; H. L. (B.)[1895] A. C. 
 417 
 
 "], 
 
 [1891 
 
 1 Ch. 298 
 
 2365 
 
 925 
 
 1036 
 864. 
 
 266 
 
 974 
 
 2328 
 
 56j^5, 
 '490 
 
 510 
 1178 
 1347 
 2018 
 1551 
 1.562 
 
 66 
 1021 
 
 301, 452 
 
 1877 
 179 
 
 2344 
 
 964 
 
 2281 
 
 1382 
 709 
 
 691 
 
 955 
 2051 
 1480 
 
 2350 
 
 2337 
 1074 
 618 
 
 [1896] W. N. 172 (10) .. 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 173 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 58 : C. A. [1900]\: 
 
 W. N.270 /, 
 
 [1893] W.N. 9 ! 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 177 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. Ill 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 209; C. A. [1894] I ,„, 
 
 2Ch. 377 .. .. ..f I'^l 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 716; H. L.]! 
 
 (E.) [1899] W. N. 118 ; [1899] 1 1058 
 
 A. C. 442 .. .. ..j; 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 2.30 .. .. 2250 
 [1891] P. 124 693 
 
TABLE OP GASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Handelaar: — Nyberg «. .. 
 Handfoid (Prances) & Co., In re. Ex pa 
 Handfovd (Frances) 
 
 Hands v. Andrews. In re Smith 
 
 rtej 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Handi: — ^Wallis u. 
 
 Handsworth District Council v. Derrin^ton 
 
 H ands worth Local Board ?;. Taylor .. „ 
 
 Hanfstaengl t). American Tobacco Co. .. 
 
 Hanfstaengl V. Baines & Co. 
 
 Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 (No. 3).. 
 
 Hanfstaengl «. Newnes .. 
 
 Hanfstaengl Art Publishing Co. v. Holloway .. 
 
 Hankey, In re. Cunliffe Smith v. Hankey 
 
 Hanks t). Bridgman .. .. .. , 
 
 Hanley and Bucknall Coal Co. v. North Staflford- 
 shire Ey. Co. .. .. .. .. , 
 
 Hanmer ?;. Clifton 
 
 Hannam, In re. Haddelsey v. Hannam 
 Hannin's Empress Gold-Mining and Develop- 
 ment Co., In re. Carmicha^l's Case .. 
 Hannay : — Keg. v. 
 
 Hannay&Co. : — Smurthwaite v. 
 
 Hanover Square, St. Greorge (Vestry of) : — Eeg. v. 
 
 Hanrahan: — Bannon i;. .. 
 
 Hanrahan: — Martin v. (No. 2). Donnelly v.' 
 
 Graham. Connolly v. Eiddall 
 Hansen w. Harrold Brothers 
 Hanson: — Portune v. 
 Hanson: — Unwin i». 
 
 Hanwell Urban Council : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Happaz: — ^Parapauo «. 
 
 Harbin r. Masterman (No. 1) .. 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Hardaker v. Idle District Council 
 
 Hardcastle v. Bielby . . . . 
 
 Haidcastle :— -Forbes v. In re HoUon 
 
 Harding, In re. Eogers v. Harding 
 
 Harding: — Bennett v. 
 
 Harding: — Bowers «. 
 
 Harding v. Commrs. of Land Tax 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 202 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 18 (2) ; [1899]\ 
 1 Q. B. 566 .. .. .. / 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 75 .. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 438 
 [1897]2Ch. 442,n. •.-. 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 347 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 109; 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 20 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 1 ... 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 109; 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 20 .. 
 [1895] W. N. 76 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 109; 
 
 (E.) A. C. 20 .. 
 [1893]2Q. B. 1 
 [1899] W. N. 10 (1); 
 
 1 Ch. 541 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 [1891] W. N. 93. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 238 
 
 [1897] 2 Oh. 39 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 643 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 709 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 412 ; H. L 
 
 (E.) [1894] A. C. 494 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 275 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1900] W. N. 226 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 103 
 
 H. L.- 
 H. LA 
 H. L.| 
 
 [1899i| 
 
 :■} 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 612 
 
 IQ. B. 202 
 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 115 
 
 W. N. 214 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 51;'"C. A. [1900] W. N. 138; 
 [1900] 2 Oh. 377 
 
 C. [1894] A, 0. 165 .. ..| 
 
 A. [1894] 2 Ch. 184; H. L.\ 
 (E.) [1895] A. 0. 186 ../ 
 
 A. [1895] W. N. 160 (1);\ 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 351 
 
 C. A. 
 [1896 
 0. A. 
 [1899' 
 
 0. A. 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 335 
 
 [1892]1Q. B. 709 
 
 U. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1900 
 [1891' 
 
 [1893] W. N. Ill 
 '1894] 3 Oh. 315 ., 
 
 2 Q. B. 397 
 
 IQ.B. 560 
 
 P. 0. [1891] A. C. 446 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2159 
 160 
 
 118, 171, 
 
 933, 
 
 2171, 
 
 2193 
 
 843, 
 
 1076, 
 
 1083 
 
 1913 
 . 1913 
 534, 535 
 
 539 
 ■ 538 
 
 589 
 
 539 
 
 539 
 
 53* 
 
 792 
 
 2151 
 
 1264 
 
 1486, 
 1563 
 2317 
 
 406 
 
 1307 
 
 1511 
 
 1171 
 1401 
 
 1367 
 
 1936 
 18 
 891 
 
 1144 
 
 632, 
 1095 
 
 33 
 
 1574 
 
 890 
 
 286 
 
 1477 
 
 1165 
 
 1771 
 
 2259 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Harding: — Kingston-upon-Hull (Corporation of)l 
 v. J 
 
 Harding v. Queensland (Commissioners of Stamps'! 
 for) / 
 
 Harding and Trouville Pier and Steamboat Co, 
 
 :} 
 
 Darlington Wagon Co. v. 
 Harding's Estate, In re .. 
 
 Hardnaan : — Whit wood Chemical Co. v. 
 
 Hardstaff, in Ee .. 
 
 Hardy, In re. Hardy v. Farmer 
 
 Hardy v. Fitton. In re Fitton . . 
 
 Hardy: — Halford i). 
 
 Hare v. Elms 
 
 Hare and O'JMEore's Contract, In re 
 
 Harford v. Linskey 
 
 Hargreave v. Freeman 
 
 Hargreave v. Spink 
 
 Hargreaves (Joseph), Ld., In re .. .. 
 
 Hargreaves : — Meyrick. In re Meyriok 
 
 Hargreaves: — Nuttallu. .. 
 
 Harkin: — Robinson «. 
 
 Harkness and Allsopp's Contract, In re . . 
 
 Harland : — Burnley v. In re Jennings . . 
 
 Harland : — Swyny v. 
 
 Harle v. Jarman . . 
 
 Harling, In the Goods of . . 
 
 Harling v. Harling 
 
 Harman, In re. Lloyd i;. Tardy 
 
 Harman : — Nalder and CoUyer's Brewery Co. v. \ 
 
 Harness : — Alabaster v. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 .{ 
 
 Harper, In the Goods of .. 
 Harper v. Marcks . . 
 Harper: — Nicholson u. .. 
 Harper :— Stead v. 
 
 Harper (John) & Co. v. Wright & Butler Lamp] 
 Manufacturing Co. 
 
 Harpur's Cycle Fittings Co., In re 
 
 Harragin : — Pollard v. 
 Harrington (Earl of) : — Howitt v. 
 Harrington: — Lands (Minister for) v. .. 
 Harris, Ex parte. In re Gallard 
 Harris, In re 
 
 Harris, In re. Ex parte Hasluck 
 
 Harris, In re. Pitzroy v. Harris 
 Harris v. Beauchamp Brothers (No. 1) . '. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 494 
 
 P. c. 
 
 :i898] A. C. 769 . 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 245 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 60 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 416 . 
 
 [18991 
 
 W. N. 256 
 
 1896" 
 
 1 Ch. 904 
 
 1893" 
 
 W. N. 201 
 
 1899" 
 
 W. N. 243 
 
 1893 
 
 1 Q. B. 604 
 
 "1900" 
 
 W. N. 253 
 
 "1899" 
 
 1 Q. B. 852 
 
 [1891] 
 
 3 Ch. 39 .. 
 
 [1892] 
 
 1 Q. B. 25 
 
 [1899] W. N. 259; C. A. [1900]\ 
 W. N. 13 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 347 .. / 
 [1897]lCh. 99 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 23 .. 
 "1896] 2 Ch. 415 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 358.. 
 
 1892]W. N. 156 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 707 
 ■"1895] 2 Ch. 419 
 
 1900] P. 59 
 
 1896] W. N. 28 (12) .. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 607 
 
 [1900] W. N. 22 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W.N. 180 / 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 897 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 IQ.B. 339 ^ 
 
 ^1899" 
 1894° 
 1895° 
 1896° 
 1895° 
 W." 
 142 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 P. 59 
 
 2 Q. B. 319 
 2Ch. 415 
 W.N. 46(12) .. 
 2 Ch. 593 ; 0. A. [1895]! 
 N. 146 (3); [1896] 1 Ch. 
 
 [1900] W."n. 187'; [1900] 2 cir 
 
 731 .. .. 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 450 . 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 497 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 409 . 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 532 
 [1896] W. N. 33 (1) . 
 [1899] W. N. 61 ; [1899] 2 Q. B, 
 
 97 
 [1891] W.N. 76.. ; 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 534 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 801 ../ 
 
 ■;} 
 
 °") 
 
 1586 
 1639 
 
 59 
 
 1888 
 508, 515, 
 
 960, 
 
 2062 
 
 2195 
 
 166 
 63, 781 
 
 1548 
 
 1071 
 
 2222 
 
 546 
 
 2125 
 
 1162, 
 
 1211, 
 
 1818 
 
 664 
 
 1736 
 1444 
 2172 
 
 911 
 2330 
 2049 
 
 9101 
 1603 
 
 930 
 1475, 
 1503 
 
 600 
 
 2023 
 
 1599 
 608 
 878 
 1525 
 
 656 
 
 682 
 
 2156 
 525 
 
 1325 
 175 
 120 
 
 174 
 
 1467 
 1420 
 1025, 
 1697 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Harris: — Davis w. 
 
 Harris: — Elgood u. 
 
 Harris: — Hatton v. 
 
 Harris v. Kinlooh & Co. . . 
 
 Harris V. London County Council 
 
 Harris: — " Morocco Bound " Syndicate, L(1. v... 
 
 Harris v. Phillips . . 
 
 Harris: — Robertson «. 
 
 Harris: — Eochester (Bishop) t;. .. 
 
 Harris :-^Koyle v. 
 
 Harris u. Sleep 
 
 Harris and Rawlings' Contract, In re 
 
 Harris & Sons ■«. Judge .. 
 
 Harrison, In re. Smith v. Allen (No. 1) 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 • (No. 2) 
 
 Harrison, In re. Harrison v. Higson 
 
 Harrison, In re. Ex parte The Sheriff of Essex 
 
 Harrison v. Barney. In re Barney 
 
 Harrison :— Brock w. 
 
 Harrison : — Crawshaw v... 
 Harrison v. Davis. In re Davies 
 Harrison : — Pelton Bros. v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Harrison: — Eodger u. 
 
 Harrison u. Rutland (Duke of) .. 
 
 Harrison v. St. Etienne Brewery Co. 
 
 Harrison v. Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co. 
 
 Harrison and Bottomley, In re 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Harrison & Ingram, In re. Ex parte Whiimey 
 
 Hai risen, Ainslie & Co. v. Muncaster (Lord) .. 
 
 Harrogate School Board : — Kirby v. 
 
 Harrold «. Watney 
 
 Harrold Brothers : — Hansen v. .. 
 
 Harrop v. Harrop .. 
 
 Harrop u. Ossett Corporation 
 
 Harrowing Steamship Co. v. Toohey 
 
 Harrys, In re. Harrys v. Howells 
 
 Hart 57. Beard 
 
 Hart V. Hart 
 
 Hart : — ^Harvey v. 
 
 Hart ». Stone. In re Hubbuck .. 
 
 Hart's Divorce Bill 
 
 Hartley, In re. Nuttall v. Whittaker (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Hartley, In re. Williams v. Williams. Williams'l 
 ■K.Jones .. .. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 Hartley, In the Goods of .. .. .. ..< 
 
 •■{ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Column 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1900] W.N. 17; [1900] 1 Q 
 729 
 
 B.-> 
 
 684 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 491 
 
 
 171 
 
 H. L. (L) [1892] A. C. 547 
 
 
 1487 
 
 [1895" 
 
 W.N. 60.. 
 
 
 1121 
 
 1895° 
 
 IQ. B. 240 
 
 
 2293 
 
 1895' 
 
 ICh. 534 
 
 
 533, 961 
 
 1891° 
 
 IQ. B. 267 
 
 
 1373 
 
 1900° 
 
 2 Q. B. 117 
 
 
 23 
 
 1893° 
 
 P. 137 .. 
 
 
 754 
 
 °1895° 
 
 P. 163 .. 
 
 
 1596 
 
 C.A." 
 
 1897] 2 Ch. 80 .. 
 
 
 1424 
 
 [1894" 
 
 W.N. 19.. 
 
 
 2224 
 
 C.A.' 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 565 
 
 
 598 
 
 
 "( 
 
 791, 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 ;;l 
 
 1507, 
 1555 
 
 [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 
 2191 
 
 1894] ICh. 561 
 
 
 2312 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. Ill 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 163, 
 1925 
 
 1894] 3 Ch. 562 
 
 
 1859 
 
 1899] W.N. 67; [1899] 1 Q. 
 958 
 
 B.\ 
 
 2278 
 
 [1894" 
 
 IQ. B. 79 
 
 . • / 
 
 1923 
 
 1897° 
 
 2 Ch. 204 
 
 
 921 
 
 C.A." 
 
 "1891" 
 
 2 Q. B. 422 
 
 
 907, 922 
 
 C.A. 
 
 1892= 
 
 1 Q. B. 118 
 
 
 916 
 
 C.A. 
 
 '1893' 
 
 1 Q. B. 161 
 
 
 2394 
 
 C.A. 
 
 1893° 
 
 1 Q. B. 142 
 
 
 2292 
 
 [1893: 
 
 'W. N. 108 
 
 
 304 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 409 
 
 •• 1 
 
 1352,. 
 1354 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 15 (7);i 
 
 1024: 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 465 
 
 ../ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 118; C. A. [1900] 1 
 
 
 W. N. 174 ; [1900] 2 Q. 
 
 B. 
 
 184 
 
 710 
 
 
 
 C.A. 
 
 [1891" 
 
 2 Q. B. 680 
 
 
 1059 
 
 C.A, 
 
 1896] 
 
 ICh. 437 .. 
 
 
 1834 
 
 C.A. 
 
 "1898' 
 
 2 Q. B. 320 
 
 
 1346 
 
 C.A. 
 
 °1894' 
 
 1 Q. B. 612 
 
 
 1936 
 
 [1899" 
 
 ■p. 61 
 
 
 698 
 
 1898" 
 
 1 Ch. 525 
 
 
 567 
 
 1900° 
 
 2 Q. B. 28 
 
 
 199a- 
 
 1900] 
 
 W. N. 147 
 
 
 795 
 
 1895' 
 IQ 
 
 W. N. 156 (4); [1896]\ 
 B. 54 / 
 
 1391-. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 162 
 
 
 699 
 
 [1894] W.N. 72.. 
 
 
 863, 
 1412 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 754 
 
 
 1856 
 
 H. L. (D.) [1898] A. C.-305 
 
 , , 
 
 693 
 
 [1891] 
 
 2 Ch. 121 
 
 ,, 
 
 1547 
 
 '1892° 
 
 W.N. 49 
 
 ,, 
 
 1699- 
 
 [1899° 
 152 
 
 W.N. 234; [1900] 1 Ch.^ 
 
 1132- 
 
 [1898] 
 P. 4 
 
 w'.'] 
 
 .. 
 
 N. 155 (10); [1899]| 
 
 159T 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 -{ 
 ■I 
 
 Hartley v. Madilock 
 Hartopp V. Harfc pj: 
 Harvey, In re. Harvey v. Hobday 
 
 Harvey v. Facey . . 
 
 Harvey v. Gillow. In re Sir E. Harvey's Estate 
 
 Harvey i;. Hart 
 
 Harvey's (Sir E.)' Estate, In re. Harvey v.\ 
 Gillow .. / 
 
 Harvey's Oyster Co., In re. Ormerod's Case 
 
 Harwood: — MilliDgton v. 
 
 Harwood : — Over v. 
 
 Haslam: — McGlatcbie v. .. ... 
 
 Haalingden Corporation : — Eishton v. .. 
 Hasluck, Ex parte. In re Barren 
 
 Hasluck, Ex parte. In re Harris 
 
 Hasluck, Ex parte. In re North 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Hasluck : — Carter v. 
 
 Hasluck V. Clark . . 
 
 Hassan v. Chambers, 
 Lynch v. Buchanan 
 Hassell V. Stanley . . 
 Hastings : — Beusaude v. In re Tatham 
 Hastings v. Pearson 
 
 Crossan v. Chambers, 
 (ReEichey) . 
 
 rs.\ 
 
 Hai^tings (Lord) ; — North Eastern By. Co. v. 
 
 Hastings Corporation : — Eeg. v. 
 
 " Haswell," The Owners of, and Lamb : — Owners 
 
 of " Vindumora " ?;. 
 Haswell, Shotton, ai:d Easington Coal and Coke\ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 irs) 
 
 Co. : — South Hetton Coal Co. v. 
 
 Hatch :—Att.-Gen. v 
 
 Hathaway v. Argus Printing Co. 
 
 Hathorn: — Salisbury Gold Mining Co. v. 
 
 Hatton V. Harris . . 
 
 Hatton u. Treeby .. 
 
 Haverfordwest Corporation : — Dillon v. . . 
 
 Haviland: — Johnstone v. 
 
 Hawke u. Dunn .. 
 
 Hawker v. Stourfield Park Hotel Co. .. 
 
 Hawkte, In re. Ackerman v. Lockhart 
 
 Hawkes : — Brown v. 
 
 Hawkins, Ex parte. In re Hawkins 
 
 Hawkins, In re. Bs parte Ofhcial Eectiver 
 
 Hawkins, In re. Ex parte Troup 
 
 Hawkins v. Bridgwater Justices.. 
 
 Hawkins v. Eutter 
 
 ./ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 63 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 199 
 
 [1899] P. 65 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 161 (12) ; 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 137 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 552 .. 
 
 i 
 
 [1893J 1 Ch. 567 
 [1894]W. N. 72 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 567 
 
 [189i] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 166 
 
 [19001 1 Q. B. 803 
 
 0. A. '[1891] W. N. 191 
 
 ■1898] 1 Q. B. 294 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 444 
 
 1899] W. N. 61 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 97 h 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 264 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 553; C. A. [1892]] i 
 
 2Ch. 278; H. L. (E.) [1893] [ 
 
 A. C. 360 j 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 28 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 699 / 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 85 .. 
 
 [1896 
 
 1 Ch. 607 
 
 [1892] W. N. 150 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 62 
 [lb98] 2 Ch. 674; C. A. [1899] i 
 
 W. N. 30 (4) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 656 ; H. L. (E.) [1900] ^Y. N. 
 
 92; [1900] A. C. 260 ..J 
 
 [1896] W. N. 160 (7) ; [1897]1 
 
 IQ. B. 46 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 1 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 465 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 36 .. 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 247 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 268 .. 
 H. L. (I.) [1892] A. C. 547 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 452 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 575 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 95 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 579 
 
 C. A. j 1900 
 C. A. [189ff 
 C. A. [1891 
 [1894] 1 Q.' 
 
 W. N. 51 .. 
 
 2Ch. 1 .. 
 
 2 Q. B. 718 
 
 B. 25 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 890 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 404 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 382 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 668 
 
 1714 
 720 
 1878 
 
 512, 
 2100 
 2317, 
 2336 
 
 863, 
 1412 
 2317, 
 2336 
 
 432 
 
 586 
 2214 
 
 513 
 
 20^1 
 
 206, 212 
 
 174 
 
 111 
 
 956 
 
 128 
 
 1398 
 
 571 
 691 
 813 
 
 2293 
 
 1922 
 1949 
 
 2103 
 
 2080 
 1220 
 1313 
 1487' 
 180 
 1773 
 1250, 
 1840 
 868 
 1311 
 2049 
 1204 
 146, 689 
 113, 123 
 159 
 1103 
 593, 729 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Hawksley ^;. Outram 
 
 Hawtrey : — Ijee v. 
 Hay: — Att.-Gen. i;. 
 Hay: — Mess w. 
 
 Hay «. Northoote .. 
 
 Hay V. Wolmer. In re Cleveland's (Duke of)i 
 
 Estate 
 
 Hay's Case (Gallagher «. Hay) .. 
 
 Haycraft Gold Eeduction and Mining Co., In re| 
 Haydon, Claimant. Stokes v. Spencer .. i 
 
 Hayes, In re. TumbuU v. Hayes .. ../ 
 
 Hayes: — Strickland?;. 
 
 Hayes Common Conservators v. Bromley Eural\ 
 District Council . 
 
 Hayles v. Pease and' Partners, Ld. 
 
 ■•{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 Haynes u. Doman .. 
 
 Haynes V. King .. 
 
 Hay ward, In re. Hay ward v. Hay ward 
 
 Hay ward v. Mutual. Reserve Association 
 
 Head, In re. Ex parte Head 
 
 Head, In re. Head v. Head (No. 1) 
 
 '■ (No. 2) ., 
 
 Head u. Gould 
 
 Headihgley-cum-Burley Burial Board : — Wood v. 
 
 Headland's Patent Electric Storage Battery i 
 
 Co.:— White u .. ..] 
 
 Heap V. Peart 
 
 Heard: — Thome v. 
 
 Heard v. Heard . . 
 Hearle: — Bundle v. 
 
 Hearson i>. Churchill .. 
 
 Heath, In the Goods of .. 
 Heath: — ^Boileau «. 
 Heath: — Simmonds «. .. 
 Heath v. Weaverham Overseers .. 
 Heath & Sons, Ld. v. RoUason .. 
 Heathcote, In re. Trench v. Heathcote 
 
 Heathcote : — Duke of Sutherland v. 
 
 Heathfield I?. Greenway .. 
 
 Heatley (Tod) :— Att.-Gen. v 
 
 Heaven : — Banks v. In re Burton's Will 
 
 Hebblethwaite V. Peever .. 
 
 Eebditch f . Macllwaine .. 
 
 Heckles w. Heckles .. .. .; 
 
 Heokscher «. Crosley 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 359 .. 
 
 [1898] P. 63 
 
 [1899] 2 Q.. B. 245 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] A. C. 233 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 13i; [1900] 2 Oh.i 
 262 ... I 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 542 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 134 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 106; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 230 .. .. ,. ../ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 141; [1900] 2) 
 
 Q.B. 483 j 
 
 [1900] W. N. 139 ; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 
 332 .,( 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 321 
 
 [1899] W. N. 15 (9) ; [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 567 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 65 ; [1899]\ 
 2Ch. 13 .. .. ../ 
 
 1893] 3 Ch. 439 
 1897] 1 Ch. 905 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 236 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 638 
 1893] 3 Ch. 426 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 236 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 250 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 713 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 15 (6) 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 507 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 110 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 530 ; C. A. [1894] 
 1 Ch. 599 ; H. L. (E.) [1895] 
 A. 0.495 
 
 [1896] P. 188 .. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 83 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 144 
 
 [1892] P. 253 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 301 
 
 0. A. [1894]1Q. B. 29.. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B.' 108 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 499 .. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 10 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 504 ; 0. A. 1892]\ 
 
 ICh. 475 J 
 
 [1893] W. N. 170 • 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 17 (10) .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Oh. 38 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 124 .. ..| 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q.B. 54.. 
 [1892] W. N. 188 
 
 0. A. [1891].! Q. B. 224 .A 
 
 1425, 
 1723, 
 2064 
 737 
 1749. 
 146 
 
 495 
 
 1852 
 1384 
 460 
 
 198 
 
 1477 
 2091 
 296' 
 
 936 
 
 1234, 
 1721 
 1121 
 2331 
 
 62 
 139, 153 
 
 95 
 
 91, 95, 
 
 1422 
 
 2179 
 
 234 
 
 587 
 
 1128, 
 2192 
 
 927 
 894 
 68 
 1616 
 1256 
 2112 
 769, 892 
 657 
 
 ■1906 
 642, 
 1264 
 1438 
 1353 
 952 
 1138, 
 1533 
 649 
 1408 
 570, 
 1500 
 
 2 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Colamn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 
 Hedges: — Sumpter v. 
 
 Hedley, In re. Bk parte Board of Trade 
 
 Hedley v. Pinkney & Sons' Steamship Co 
 
 Heinemann & Co. v. Hale & Co. . . 
 
 Helby «;. Matthews 
 
 Hellard & Bewes, In re .. 
 
 Helshy, In re. Ex parte Helsby 
 
 Helsby, In re. Ex parte Trustee in Bankmptcy 
 
 Hemans u. Hotchbiss Ordnance Co | 
 
 Hemery : — Lindon v. In re Hicks 
 
 Hemming ^;. Davies 
 
 Hemp, Yarn and Cordage Co., In re. Hindley'sl 
 
 Case .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Hemphill v. Hemphill. In re Chisholm's Settle-1 
 
 ment .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Hemsworth : — Hopkins v. 
 Henderson v. Astwood 
 
 Henderson : — ^Bonhote v. .. 
 
 Henderson : — King v. 
 Henderson v. Merthyr Tydfil Urban Distriot-i 
 Council .. .. .. .. .. f 
 
 Henderson v. Thorn 
 
 Henderson : — Tiessen v. .. 
 
 Henderson : — Tori?h «... 
 Henderson v. Underwriting and Agency Asso 
 ciation .. 
 
 Henderson & Co. o. Williams 
 
 Henderson Brothers v. Shankland & Co. 
 Hendon Union Assessment Committee : All- 
 church V. 
 
 -l 
 
 ■{ 
 
 iSO-'l 
 
 ] 
 
 Hendry : — American Concentrated Meat Co. v. ..I 
 
 Hengler, In re. Prowde v. Hengler (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) .'. 
 
 Henley, In re. Alcock v. Heriley 
 
 Henley : — Reg. v. .. 
 
 Henman : — Tadman v. 
 
 Hennell v. Davies . . 
 
 Heonessey v. McCabe 
 
 Henry : — Keen v. .. 
 
 Henry Clay and Bock and Co., In re 
 
 Hensby : — Boden v. 
 
 Henschel : — Attenhorough v. 
 
 Hensey v. White .. 
 
 Henson : — Cornwall v. 
 
 Henthorn v. Eraser 
 
 Henty w. Reg. .. .. .. .. ] 
 
 Henwood :— Walthamstow Urban District Coun 
 cil V. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 H. L. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 673 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 923 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 58 ; H. L. 
 
 (B.) [1894] A. C. 222 
 0. A. [1891]2Q. B. 83.. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 262 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 471 
 [1896] 2 Oh. 229 
 [1893] W. N. 189 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 742 
 0. A. [1898] W. N. 169 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 115 
 
 [1893] W. N. 138 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 660 
 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 121 .. 
 
 (8);| 
 
 [1900] W. N. 128 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 347 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 150 .. 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 742; C. A. [1895]\ 
 2 Ch. 202 1 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 720 .. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 434 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 164 
 
 [1899] W. N. 45 ; [1899] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 861 ; 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 112 . 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 521 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 525 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 436 
 
 [1893] W. N. 67 ; C. A, 
 W. N. 82 
 
 1893] 1 Ch. 586 
 1893] W. N. 37 
 1896] W. N. 154 (6) . 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 504 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 168 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 367 
 U. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 491 
 C. A. 
 
 1892 
 
 1892 
 
 1895' 
 0. A. 
 [1899" 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 292 
 3 Ch. 549 
 1 Ch. 101 
 
 1 Q. B. 833 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 481 
 
 2 Ch. 710 ; C. A, 
 W.'N. 128; [1900] 2 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 27 ., 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 567 
 
 [1897] 1 Civ 41 .. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1893]| 
 
 ■■( 
 
 [1900]\ 
 Oh. 298/ 
 
 505 
 124, 135 
 
 2013 
 
 1536 
 
 815 
 
 2038 
 105 
 113 
 
 361 
 
 575-, 
 1501 
 590 
 
 432 
 
 1481 
 
 1291 
 1301 
 
 1907 
 
 1320 
 
 20i3 
 
 1061 
 
 358 
 136S 
 
 667 
 
 767, 
 2159 
 1930 
 
 1682 
 
 682, 
 1250, 
 1923 
 1851 
 1502 
 792 
 82.% 
 1044 
 685 
 596 
 1218 
 884 
 2124 
 2050 
 591 
 1214 
 
 2231 
 
 512 
 2260 
 
 1546 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume aud Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Hepburn : — Slevin v. 
 Hepworth v. Pickles 
 
 In re Slevin 
 
 In 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Charity ■> 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Herbage Eents Greenwich, 
 Commrs. v. Grreen 
 
 Herbert: — Le Bas i;. In re Butler 
 
 Hercynia Copper Co., In re 
 
 Herefordshire County Council and Leominsterl 
 Town Council, In re, and In re Local Govern- 1 
 ment Act, 1888 J 
 
 '"Hereward,"The 
 
 Heriot: — Hood Barrs f. .. 
 
 Heriot: — Hood Barrs v. .. 
 
 Heriot: — Hood Barrs r. .. 
 
 Heriot : — Hood Barrs v. Ex parte Blyth 
 Heritable Reversionary Co. v. Millar 
 
 "Hero," The 
 
 Herries (Lord) : — ^Norfolk (Duke of) v. In 
 
 Norfolk's (Duke of) Parliamentary Estates 
 Herring:- — Daw u. 
 
 Herring: — London County Council iJ. .. 
 , Herron v. Eathmines and Eathgar Improvement^ 
 
 Commrs. 
 Herschler v. Hertz 
 Hersey v. Young . . 
 Hertfordshire (Sheriff of). Ex parte. 
 
 Mackenzie 
 
 Hertfordshire County Council : — Shaw v. 
 
 Hertz : — ^Herschler v. 
 
 Heseltine, In re... Woodward v. Heseltine 
 
 H. L. (B.) Simmons u. Woodward) .. 
 He-seltine «. Simmons 
 Heseltine (W.) & Sod, Ld., In re 
 " Hesketh," SS. :— Hunter v 
 
 3. In re\ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 (inj 
 
 ' Hestia," The (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Hestou and Isleworth Urban District Council vA 
 
 Grout / 
 
 Hetling and Merton's Contract, In re . . 
 
 Hett: — Bower 1). .. 
 
 Heuer: — ^Robinson & Co. v. 
 
 Heuland :^Hodson V. 
 
 Hewett, In re. Ex parte Levene 
 
 Hewett, Inre. Hewett v. HaUett 
 
 Hewett 1;. Barr 
 
 Hewit, In re. Lawson v. Duncan 
 Hewitt : — Craignish v. In re Craignish 
 Hewitt 1;. Taylor .. 
 
 Hewlett V. AUen . . 
 
 Hexter V. Pearce . . 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 373 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 2Ch. 236 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 216 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 108 / 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 811 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 250 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 403 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 43 
 
 [1895] P. 284 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 177 .. 
 H. L. (B.) [1896] A. 0. 174 .. 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 610; [1896]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 375 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 338 
 
 H. L. (Sc.)[1892] A. C.'598 .. 
 
 [1891] P. 294" 
 
 [1900] W.N. 15; [1900] 1 Ch 
 
 461 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 284 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 522 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1892] A. C. 498 .. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 108 (3) .. 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 18 .. 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 132 ; [1899]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 566 .. ... ../ 
 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 103 ; [1899]1 
 
 2Q. B. 282 .. 
 [1895] W. N. 108 (3) ., 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 464; H. L. (B.) 
 
 [1892] A. C. 100 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 547 
 [1891]W. N. 25 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 628 ., 
 
 [1895] P. 193 .. 
 
 B.)V 
 
 •{ 
 
 [1895] W. N. 100 ;. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 59 (10); C. A. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 306 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Oh. 269 .. 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 51; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 337 / 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 451 .. 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 428 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 328 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 362 
 
 C. A. [1891]1Q.B. 98.. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 568 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 180 .. 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 287 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 662 ;\ 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. 0. 383 .. / 
 [1900] ICh. 341 
 
 2335 
 2245 
 
 1716 
 
 2310 
 
 347 
 
 547, 578 
 
 2000 
 916 
 919 
 
 565 
 
 917 
 1829 
 1999 
 
 1860 
 
 1415 
 1153 
 2069, 
 2274 
 1578 
 1538 
 
 121, 129 
 
 566 
 
 1578 
 
 . 197 
 
 202 
 443 
 1592 
 2002, 
 2004 
 560, 
 2005 
 
 2089 
 
 2225 
 
 115, 
 
 1925 
 
 1726 
 
 '847 
 
 105 
 
 904, 
 
 1022, 
 
 1902 
 
 1568 
 
 793 
 
 724, 905 
 
 18 
 
 1249 
 
 1260 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Heyhoe : — Scales v. In re Rioherson (No. 1) 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Heyl-Dia ti. Edmunds 
 
 Heynes v. Dixon. In re Dixon .. 
 
 Heywood, In re. Paikington v. Heywood 
 
 Heywood: — Stokell ■« ..< 
 
 Hibbert v. Lloyd. In re Doody. Fisher v.\ 
 Doody .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Hick u. Raymond and Eeid .. .. ..< 
 
 ) 
 
 
 Hick V. Rodooanaohi 
 
 Hickin :— Hill V 
 
 Hickley : — Bryant v. In re Bryant 
 
 Hickling V. Fair .. 
 
 Hickman V. Berens 
 
 Hickman v. Maisey 
 
 Hickmott : — Barnett v. .. 
 Hicks, In re 
 
 Hicks, In re. Lindon v. Hemery 
 
 Hicks V. Ross 
 
 Hicks V. Stokes .. 
 
 Hiddle v. National Fire and Marine Insurance\ 
 
 Co. of New Zealand .. .. .. .. J 
 
 Higg :— Goddard v. In re Higg's Mortgage 
 Higg's Mortgage, In re. Goddard v. Higg 
 Higginbottom, In re 
 Higgins : — Brenchley v. .. 
 
 Higgins: — Dawson u. In re Grainger .. 
 
 Higgins : — North Sydney Investment and Tram^ 
 
 way Co. V. 
 Higgins: — Yates u. 
 
 Higginshaw Mills and Spinning Co., In re 
 Higginson & Dean, In re. Ex parte Att.-Gen." 
 Highgate, Sir Roger Cholmeley's School at\ 
 ("Wardens and Governors of) v. Sewell (No. 1)/ 
 
 — (No. 2) 
 
 " Highland Chief," The 
 
 Highland Ry. Co. v. Great North of Scotland 
 Ry.Co ] 
 
 Higson : — Harrison v. In re Harrison . . 
 
 Hildesheim, In re. Ex parte The Trustee 
 Bankruptcy 
 
 Hildesheimer v. Dimn 
 
 Hildesheimer i;. Faulbners, Ld. .. 
 
 Hildreth : — Molnaney v. .. 
 
 Hill Brothers v. Humphreys. In re Cosier 
 
 Hill (Viscount) v. Bullock 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •{ 
 
 •■( 
 
 H. L.j 
 
 1 H. L.j 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 -(7);j 
 
 [1900]) 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 379 .. ..I 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 146 (l 
 
 [1899] W.N. 222 
 
 [1899] W. N. 134; [1899] 2 Ch.] 
 561 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 144 ; j 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 561 ,. ..ji 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 593 .. .. i 
 
 [1896] W. N. 65 (1) ; [1897] 1\1 
 Ch. 459 /' 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 129 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 626 ; 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 22 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 626 ; 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 22 .. 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 579 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 H. L. [So.) [1898] W. N. ■ 
 
 [1899]A. C. lo 
 [1895] 2 Cli. 638 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 72 ; 
 
 1Q.B.752 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 691 
 [1894] W. N. 55.. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 138 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 499 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 124 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 372 .. 
 
 "1894]W. N. 73 
 
 1894]W. N. 73 
 
 1892] 3 Ch. 132 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 244 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 158 ; 
 2 Ch. 756 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 263 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 166 
 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 544 .. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 325 
 
 [1893] 2 Q B. 254 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 906 
 
 [1892] P. 76 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 561 
 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 357 
 
 -I 
 
 [1900]1 
 
 •{ 
 
 (1) 
 
 "1891 
 1900^ 
 "1897' 
 1898^ 
 1897 
 
 W. N. 66 
 W. N. 170 
 
 1 Q. B. 600 
 W.N. 8(12) .. 
 
 2 Ch. 55 ; affirm, by C. A. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 482 
 
 ^■) 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 520 
 1503, 
 1509 
 lb4T 
 
 910 
 
 796 
 
 975 
 
 1303, 
 2058 
 
 1965 
 
 1965 
 
 1410 
 953, 
 218S 
 
 2313 
 
 488 
 
 699 
 
 1399 
 1504 
 
 575, 
 1501 
 
 32 
 1391 
 
 1328 
 
 80, 1279 
 80. 1279 
 2168 
 1810 
 2326, 
 2342 
 
 1322 
 
 608 
 454 
 148 
 
 1073 
 
 1068 
 2012, 
 2014 
 
 57,58 
 
 2312 
 
 152 
 
 526 
 531 
 866 
 575 
 
 826 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 of 
 
 Diijest. 
 
 -1 
 
 Hill, In re. Hill v. Pilcher 
 Hill V. Brown 
 
 Hill V. Cooper 
 
 Hill u. Gage. In re Gage 
 
 Hill:— Hair J) 
 
 Hill U.Hill 
 
 Hill V. Hickin 
 
 Hill : — Hooper V. .. 
 
 Hill : — Morgan v. In re Parker 
 ,HiU^ — Phelps, James & Co. v. .. 
 
 Hill V. Rowlands .. 
 
 Hill V. Schwarz. In re Parkin .. 
 
 Hill V. Scott 
 
 Hill V. Thomas 
 
 Hill : — Thorneloe v. 
 
 Hill (Trustees of Lord) v. Rowlands 
 
 Hill (Viscount) :— Poulett (Earl) v. 
 
 Hill V. Wallasey Local Board 
 
 Hill & Co. :— Pullman i;. 
 
 Hill, Clark & Co. t;. Dalgety & Co. 
 
 Hill's Dry Docks and Engineering Co. :— 
 
 Rendall v. ., .. ., .^ 
 
 Hill's Estate, In re. Hill v. Equitable Eever-I 
 
 siouary Interest Society .. ,. ..J 
 
 Hill's Settlement Trust, In re. Hill v. Equit-j 
 
 able Reversionary Interest Society .. ../ 
 
 Hill's Waterfall Estate and Gold Mining Co.,^ 
 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Hille India Rubber Co., In re (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Hilleary: — Huroum v. 
 
 Hills:— Sixth West Kent Mutual Buildingl 
 
 Society i;. .. ., ,. .. ../ 
 
 Hilton: — Shenstone & Co. i". .. ,. 
 Hinchliffe, In re (No. 1) .. ., ,. 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 " Hinde ( J. E.)," The 
 
 Hindle u. Birtwistle ., .. .. ..< 
 
 Eindley's Case. In re Hemp, Yarn and Cordage\ 
 
 Co / 
 
 Hindmarsh:^Hotchin«. .. ., ,, 
 
 Hinds V. Chambers ., .. .. 
 
 Hin^lson v. Ashby .. .. ,, 
 
 Hine, In the Goods of 
 Hine: — Williamsons. .. 
 
 Hinton : — Olivers. 
 
 Hipwell V. Hipwell 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 962 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 125 
 
 -I 
 
 [1895]^ 
 
 C. A. [1893]2Q. B. 85.. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 498 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 906 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 483 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 579 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 659 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 400 .. 
 [C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 605 
 [1897] W. N. 68 (3); C. A. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 361 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 510 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 371 ; C. A, 
 2Q. B. 713 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 333 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 569 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 277 .. ../ 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 117 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 ICh. 133 / 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 524 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 343 .. 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 113 ; [1900]\ 
 2Q. B. 215 / 
 
 [1896] W. N. 177 (2) .. 
 [1896] W. N. 177 (1) .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 947 
 
 [1897] W. N. 6 (4) 
 [1897] W. M. 20 (5) .. 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 579 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 60 
 
 2Q. B. 452 
 
 1895] ICh. 117 .. 
 [1895] W. N. 147 (6) 
 P. 231 .. 
 W. N. 178 (3); [1897] 
 
 3 
 
 [1894 
 C. A.' 
 C. A. 
 [1892' 
 [1896^ 
 1 Q: B. 192 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 121 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 181 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 95 .. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 147 (9); [1896]\ 
 
 ICh. 78;C.A.[1896]2Ch. 1/ 
 
 1893] P. 282 
 
 1891] ICh. 390 
 
 1898] W. N. 172 (4) ; 0. A. 
 
 ■ [1899] W. N. 102 ; [1899] 2 
 
 Ch. 264 
 
 [1892] P. 147 .. 
 
 1869 
 1334,, 
 2300 
 90C, 
 1699 
 1483 
 1915 
 2352 
 1410 
 .'96, 
 1629 
 1582 
 1968 
 
 1280 
 
 1471 
 
 263 
 
 893 
 2139 
 
 107 
 1280, 
 1565 
 1589, 
 2277 
 
 650 
 1326 
 
 1247 
 557 
 556 
 
 485 
 
 456 
 444 
 1371 
 
 229 
 
 814 
 775 
 1185 
 2107 
 
 1236 
 
 432 
 
 17,24 
 1394 
 825, 
 2284 
 1620 
 1985 
 
 1288 
 
 721 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Hirsche v. Sims .. 
 
 Hirst, In re 
 
 Hirth (Carl), In re. Ex parte The Truftce 
 
 Hiscook (P. J.), In the Goods of 
 
 Hitchcock V. Stretton 
 
 Hitchens : — Malam v. In re Malam .. 
 
 Hoare, In re. Hoare ti. Owen .. 
 
 Hoare: — EvansiJ. .. 
 Hoare V. Niblett .. 
 Hobbs : — Beg. u. .. 
 
 Hobbs, Hart & Co. v. Grover 
 
 Hobday : — Harvey v. In re Harvey 
 
 Hobson : — Battison v. 
 
 Hobsou V. Gorringe 
 
 Hobson V. TuUoch 
 
 Hookey v. Western 
 
 Hocking, In re. Mitchell v. Loe 
 
 Hockley v. Ansah . . 
 
 Hodder v. Williams 
 
 Hoddinot v. Home and Colonial Stores . . 
 
 Hoddinott : — Biggs v. Hoddinott v. Biggs 
 
 Hoddinott v. Newton, Chambers & Co. .. 
 Hoddinott v. Newton, Chambers & Co. . . 
 Hodge's Settled Estates, In re 
 Hodgkins v. Sinclair. Allen u. Sinclair. In 
 
 Sinclair .. 
 Hodgkinson, In re. Hancock v. Mellor 
 
 Hodgkinson, In re. Hodgkinson v. Hodgkinson 
 
 Hodgkinson, In the Goods of 
 
 Hodgson, In re. Darley u. Hodgson .. ..J 
 
 Hodgson, In re. Taylor v. Hodgson 
 
 Hodgson: — Kenlis (Lord) v. 
 
 Hodgson V. Sinclair. In re Hodgson & Simpson's') 
 
 Trade-mark .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Hodgson & Simpson's Trade- mark. In re. Hodg-^ 
 
 son V. Sinclair .. 
 
 Hodgson's Kingston Brewerie.s Co. : — Gardner 
 
 Hodson, In re. AVilliams v'. Knight 
 
 Hodson V. Heuland 
 
 Hodson V. Pare 
 
 Hodson : — Weardale Coal and Iron Co. v. 
 
 Hoffe's Estate Act, 1855, In re . . 
 
 Hogan V. Sterrett . . 
 
 Hogarth v. Jennings 
 
 Hogarth v. Miller, Brother & Co. 
 
 Hogarth t;. Walker 
 
 Hogj: — Payne V... 
 
 Hoggan V. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Ry. Co. 
 
 ;•{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Volume and Page, 
 
 Column 
 of 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 654 . 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 177 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 10 (2) ; [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 612 / 
 
 1900 
 1892' 
 1894' 
 
 W. N. 266 
 
 2 Ch. 343 
 
 3 Ch. 578 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 94 
 
 1892 
 1891 
 1898' 
 
 c. a; 
 
 1 Q. B. 593 
 
 1 Q. B. 781 
 
 2 Q. B. 647 
 [1898] W. 
 
 N. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 11 
 
 154 (2) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 137 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 403 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 182 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 424 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 350 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 567 
 
 [1896] W. N. 70 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 663 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 169 
 
 [1898] W. N. 58 (7); C. A, 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 307 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 1018 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 2C1I 
 [1895] W. N. 69 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 921 
 
 [1893]W. N. 9 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 C. a; [1893] P. 339 
 
 [1899] W. N. 30 (3); [1899] 
 
 ICh. 666 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 545 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 458 
 
 [1891] W. i. 176 ' 
 
 [1891] W. N. 176 
 
 [1900] W.N. 67; [1900] 1 Ch 
 592 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 428 
 
 C. a: [1899] 1 Q. B. 455 
 
 C. a: [1894] 1 Q. B. 598 
 
 [1900] W.N. 114 
 
 C. A. (Ir.)[1898]-W. N. S3 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 907 
 
 H. L: (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 48 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 401 • C. A. [1900] 
 
 W. N.127;[1900]2Q. B. 283 
 C. a; [1900] W.N. 86; [1900] 
 
 2 Q. B. 43 .. 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 4211 
 
 260, 341, 
 396 
 1193 
 
 102 
 
 1627 
 2041 
 1853 
 1303, 
 1703 
 848 
 514, 910 
 876 
 
 1156 
 
 1878 
 1290 
 
 828 
 
 601 
 1300 
 2305 
 
 38 
 1923 
 1753 
 
 1295 
 
 1215 
 1215 
 1881 
 
 31 
 
 2337 
 562, 
 2181 
 2358 
 
 1478 
 
 734 
 1780 
 
 2129 
 
 2129 
 
 2289 
 
 955, 957 
 
 847 
 
 647 
 
 203 
 1525 
 1387 
 
 681 
 1941 
 
 993 
 
 1630 
 
 247 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 "Holar,"The 
 
 Holborn District Board of Works : — Saunders v. 
 
 Holbom Board of Works : — Summers v. 
 
 Holborn Union (Assessment Committee of) 
 
 Ptarson v. 
 Holborrow : — ^Pitman v. In re Mabbett 
 Holdroyd : — Howell v. .. 
 Holdroyd : — Woodcock v. In re Peel . . 
 
 Holds worth: — Baxters. .. 
 
 Hole V. Chard Union 
 
 Holford, In re. Holford v. Holford 
 Holford V. Acton Urban Council.. 
 Holland v. Chambers (Devine's Case) . . 
 Holland v. Chambers (Doherty's Case) . . 
 Holland v. Hagan . . 
 
 Holland t». Leslie .. 
 
 HoUand : — ^Nutter v. 
 
 Holland :—0'Connell w 
 
 Holland : — Eoberts v. 
 
 Holland : — Shaw v. 
 
 Holland : — Sidebottom v... 
 
 Hollands v. Chambers (O'Doherty's Cuse) 
 
 Holliday : — Crosland v. In re Powell . . 
 
 Holliday v. National Telephone Co. 
 
 Holliday v. Wakefield Corporation 
 
 HoUingshead: — Fishbum ■!;. 
 Hollingsworth : — ^Banks v. 
 Hollington v. Dear 
 
 Hollinrake w. Truswell .. 
 
 "Hullinside,"The 
 
 Hollis V. Burton 
 
 Hollis' Hospital (Trustees of) and Hague's Con 
 
 tract, In re 
 Hollon, In re. Forbes v. Hardcastle 
 
 HoUotpay, In re. Ex parte Pallister 
 
 HoUoway: — Billings v. .. 
 
 Holloway t». Coster 
 
 HoUoway : — Hanfstaengl Art Publishing Co. v. 
 
 Holloway: — Purssey «;. In re Baker .. 
 
 
 ••( 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 :\ 
 
 [1900]W. N. 40 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 64 .. ../ 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 612 .. ../ 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 389 
 
 1891] 1 Ch. 707 
 
 1897] P. 198 
 
 1899]W. N. 208 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 169 (10) ;\ 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 266 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 293 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 30 .. 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 240 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 [1894] 2 Q.~B. 34'6 
 2 Q. B. 450 
 
 1897]W. N. 115 .. 
 1897] W. N. 117 .. 
 1897]W. N. 108 .. 
 C. A. [1894]| 
 
 224 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 408 . 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1900] W. N, 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 665 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 305 . 
 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 3; [1895]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 378 .. .. ^ 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 153 
 [1897] W. N. 176 (12) ; [1898]\ 
 
 ICh. 227 
 
 [1898] W. N. 165 (9); [1899] 
 
 1 Q. B. 221; C. A. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 119; [1899] 2 Q. B. 392 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1891] A. C. 81 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 371 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 442 
 
 [1895] W. N. 35 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 377 ; 0. A. [1894]^ 
 
 3 Cii. 420 .. 
 [1898] P. 131 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 226 
 
 [1899] W. N. 109 ; [1899] 2 Ch.l 
 
 540 / 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. Ill 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 163 
 
 C. A. [1898] W." N. 159 (8) ;1 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 70 .. ..J 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 346 
 
 1893]2Q. B. 1 
 
 1898] W.N. 156 (12) .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1991 
 1164, 
 2066 
 1178, 
 2070 
 
 70, 1676 
 
 33 
 
 736 
 555 
 
 1558 
 
 635, 
 
 962 
 
 952 
 
 224 
 1403 
 1374 
 1368 
 
 1563 
 
 1522 
 1368 
 1515, 
 2102 
 45, 342 
 846, 
 1064 
 1395 
 
 2317 
 
 1217 
 
 1263, 
 2276 
 534 
 1164 
 565, 920 
 527, 
 1426 
 1976 
 1486, 
 1518, 
 1519, 
 1520, 
 1522 
 1721, 
 2248 
 286 
 1502, 
 1503, 
 1504 
 
 1216 
 
 2214 
 534 
 2335 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 HoUoway : — Wilson v. In re Wilson 
 
 Holloway : — Young u. 
 " Holhvay, (John) " The 
 Holly V. Burke 
 
 Holmes, In re. Parrar v. Eddlestone 
 
 Holmes v. Great Northern Ry. . . 
 
 Holmes : — John Brothers Abergarw 
 Co. V 
 
 Holmes v. Millage 
 
 Holmes t;. Williams 
 Holmes and Formby, In re 
 Holmes Oil Co. v. Pumphcrston Oil Co. 
 Holmfirth Urban Sanitary Authority 
 shire West Riding Council v. . . 
 
 Holness v. Mackay & Davies 
 
 Holt, Ex parte. In re Daintrey 
 
 Holt :— Clifford V 
 
 Holt, In re. Rollason, In re. Holt v. 
 
 Holt : — Bishop v. In re Cheadle 
 
 Holt & Co.'s Trade-mark, In re .. 
 Holywell Union and Halkyn Parish v, 
 
 District Mines Drainage Co. .. 
 Home and Colonial Stores :— Hoddinot 
 
 Home Marine Insurance Co. v. Smith 
 
 Holt 
 
 Halkyn 
 
 Homfray : — Phillips i». .. 
 
 Hong Kong and China Gas Co., In re 
 
 Honley Urban Council: — Eastwood Brothers 
 
 Ld. f 
 
 Honour v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of 
 
 the United States 
 Honywood, In the Goods of 
 Hood V. Hall. In re Brodie 
 
 Hood Barrs, Ex parte. In re Lumley 
 
 Hood Barrs, Ex parte. In re Lumley 
 Hood Barrs v. Crossman & Prichard 
 Hood Barrs v. Heriot 
 
 Hood Barrs v. Heriot 
 
 Hood Barrs v. Heriot 
 Hood Barrs v. Heriot. 
 Hood's Trusts, In re 
 
 Hood & Sons V. Yates 
 
 Ex parte 
 
 Blyth 
 
 Hood ]?arrs. Ex pai'te. In re Lumley 
 
 Hood Barrs v. Catlicart (No. 1).. 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 •{ 
 
 Brewery) 
 
 —York- 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 340 [ 
 
 [1895] P. 87 
 
 [1899] W. N. 246 ; [1900] P. 37 
 U. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 91 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 177 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 65 ; [1900] 2) 
 Q. B. 409 I 
 
 [1899] W. N. 257 ; [1900] 1 Ch.i 
 188 / 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 551 
 
 [1895] W. N. 116 (15) .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 174 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 142 .. | 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 842 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 65; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 319 j\ 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 116 
 
 [1898] W. N. 168 (2) ; [1899]\ 
 ICh. 698 J 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 525 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 174 ; [1900]\i 
 2Ch. 620 /] 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 711 .. 
 
 ■( 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 117 ..> 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 169 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 829 ; affirmed by\l 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 351 ..ji 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 465 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 158 (3) .. 
 
 [1900J W. N. 94; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 781 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 67; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 852 / 
 
 [1895] P. 341 
 
 [1893] W. N. 161 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Cb. 135 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 690 .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 172 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 174 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 610; [1896]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 375 .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 17 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 338 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 270 
 
 [1894] 1 Q, B. 240 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 135 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 559 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Cb. 376 .. 
 
 i 
 
 520, 
 
 1410 
 
 1626 
 
 1957 
 
 1398 
 
 1509, 
 
 1533 
 
 1227 
 
 603 
 
 1025, 
 1695, 
 1698 
 2160 
 1052 
 55,64 
 
 2272 
 
 1228 
 
 109 
 
 1118 
 
 2175 
 
 2326 
 
 2133 
 731, 
 168^ 
 1753 
 
 999 
 
 1006, 
 1257 
 367 
 
 1920 
 
 981 
 
 1610 
 
 795 
 907, 916, 
 
 919 
 
 921 
 2042 
 
 919 
 
 565 
 
 91S 
 917 
 2194 
 1011, 
 1492 
 907, 916, 
 919 
 917 
 565, 919 
 
TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Hood Barrs D. Catb cart (No. 3) .. 
 
 (No. 4) .. 
 
 (No. 5) .. 
 
 Hook: — Huoklesby u. .. .. 
 
 Hooley, In re . . . . .... 
 
 Hooley, In re. Ex parte United Ordnance and 
 
 Engineering Co. 
 Hooper, In re. AsLford v. Brooks 
 Hooper : — Att.-Gen. v. .. 
 
 Hooper n. Hill 
 
 Hooper v. Western Counties and Soutli Wales\ 
 Telephone Co. .. 
 
 Hope, .In re. De Cetto v. Hope . . 
 
 Hope, In re. De Cetto v. Hope .. 
 Hope V. Brash. 
 
 Hope V. CainpbeU.. 
 
 indl 
 
 .71 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Hope : — Commrs. of Stamps v. 
 Hope V. D'Hedouville 
 Hope V. Hope 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Hope : — Jenkins v. 
 Hope V. Walters .. 
 
 Hope V. Warburton 
 
 Hope Edwardes : — Blackburne v. 
 
 Hopkins v. Hems worth .. 
 
 Hopkins : — Reg. v. 
 
 Hopkins: — Reg. «. 
 
 Hopkinson v. Newspaper Proprietary Syndi-j 
 cate, Ld. In re Newspaper Proprietary > 
 Syndicate, Ld. .. ., ., .. ..J 
 
 Hopkinson v. St. James' and Pall MaU Electric^ 
 .Lighting Co. .. .. ., ... ., / 
 
 Hopkinson's Trade-marks, In re . . 
 
 Hopkinson's Patent, In re 
 
 Hordern: — Pouey «. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Horlock, In re. Calham v. Smith 
 
 Horn & Francis, In re . . 
 Horn i;. Sleaford Rural Council .. 
 Horner & Co., In re 
 Homer, In re. Pooks v. Horner 
 
 Homer: — Eobson i;. 
 
 "Homet,"The 
 
 Hornibrook: — Pattle i>. .. 
 Hornsby «. Raggett 
 
 Homsey :— ^Von Joel v. ., 
 
 Hornsey District' Council v. Smith .. ..I 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •( 
 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 34 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 873 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 411 
 [1900JW. N. 45 
 [1899] W.N. 47 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 579 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 151 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 483 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 659 
 
 [1892] W.N. 148 
 
 [1899] W. N. 78; C. A. [1899]> 
 W.N. 113; [1899] 2 Ch. 679 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 76. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 188 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 78 (9) ;\ 
 [1899] A. C.l .. ../ 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 476 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 361 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 336 
 
 0. A. [1893] W. N. 20 ., 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 278 
 
 [1899] W. N. 36 (12); [1899]] 
 
 ICh. 879;C. A.[1900]W. N. 
 
 20; [1900] 1 Ch. 257 ..J 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 1892 
 1900' 
 1898' 
 1893' 
 
 2 Q. B. 134 
 W. N. 175 
 2 Ch. 347 
 1 Q. B. 621 
 
 C. C. K. [1896]1.Q. B. 652 
 
 [1900]W. N. 140; 
 349 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 5 .. 
 
 [1892]. 2 Ch. 116 
 
 [1900] 2 Cb. 
 
 ■■{ 
 •■{ 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 249 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 37 ; [1900] 1 Ch.j 
 
 492 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 516 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 797 
 1898] 2 Q. B. 358 
 1898] W. N. 159 (7) 
 1896] 2 Ch. 188 
 
 [1893] W. N. 100 
 
 [1892] P. 361 .. 
 [1897]lCh. 25 .. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 20 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 774 .. ..| 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 254; C. A. [1897]\ 
 1 Ch. 843 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1488 
 565, 920 
 1024 
 845 
 124 
 
 149 
 
 791 
 2091 
 596, 
 1629 
 
 332 
 
 47,88S 
 
 887 
 667 
 
 2353 
 
 640, 
 1332 
 1854 
 
 907, 
 2102 
 
 773 
 
 967 
 
 224S 
 
 HOG 
 1716 
 1291 
 1369 
 621 
 
 341 
 
 563, 
 1436 
 2133, 
 2141 
 1440 
 
 1472 
 
 641, 
 2358 
 2038 
 2281 
 452 
 1004 
 1702, 
 1704 
 1948 
 511 
 869 
 966, 
 1121 
 2087, 
 2088 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Hornsey Local Board r. Davis .. 
 
 Homsey Urban Council : — ^Islington Vestry v. 
 
 Horsey Estate, Ld. v. Steiger 
 
 Horsham Local Board : — Oliver v. 
 
 EorseleyCo. : — Appleby «. 
 
 Horton u. Bosson .. 
 
 Horton & Son v. Walsall Assessment Committee 
 
 Hosegood: — Rogers w. .. .. .. ..-j 
 
 In re Anl 
 
 Hosken & Co. and Palmer & Co. 
 
 Arbitration Between .. 
 Hoskins : — Zelma Gold Mining Co. d. . . 
 Huskins: — Westminster Vestry v. 
 Hotobin u. Hindmarsb .. 
 Hotchkin v. Mayor. In re Fearon 
 
 Hotobkiss Ordnance Co. : — Hemans v. .. 
 
 Hougb : — King v. .. 
 
 Hougbton V. Sutton Heatb and Lea Green Col- 
 lieries Co. 
 
 Hougbton V. Tottenbam and Forest Gate Ky. Co 
 
 Houghton's Estates, In re 
 
 Houliston: — Derbyshire u. 
 
 Hounsell: — Filby w. 
 
 Hounslow Brewery Co., In re 
 
 Houseman Intervening. Vicar of St. Saviour,\ 
 Westgate-on-Sea v. Parishioners of Same 
 
 Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, In re, 
 Ex parte Stevenson 
 
 Houston & Co. : — United Kingdom Mutual) 
 Steamship Assurance Association i;. .. ../ 
 
 HoveCommrs. : — Selfi;. .. 
 
 Hove, St. Andrew's (Vicar, &c.) v. Mawn 
 
 How V. Earl Winterton . . 
 
 :■} 
 
 •{ 
 
 How V. London and North Western Ey. Co. 
 
 Howard, In re. Howard v. Howard 
 
 Union Bank of London"! 
 
 Howard : — Bamett 
 Garnisbees 
 
 Howard: — ^Bridge i;. 
 
 Howard v. Fanshawe . . , . . 
 
 Howard : — Flint v. 
 
 Howard v. JaUand 
 
 Howard v. Eowatt's Wharf, Ld. . . 
 
 Howard v. Sadler 
 
 Howard: — Shields v. 
 
 Howard Football Syndicate v. Sykes 
 Howard Smith & Sons v. Wilson 
 Howard's Settled Estates, In re . . 
 Howden : — Morris v. 
 Howden v. Eobson. In re Robson 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 756 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 74; [1900]1 
 
 ICh. 695 / 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 259; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 W.N. 82; [1899] 2 Q. B. 79 / 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 332 ..{ 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 90; [1899]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 521 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 23 (8); C. A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 38 (4) .. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 237 
 [1899] W. N. 223.; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 157; [1900] 2 Ch. 388 / 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 156 (3); 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 131 .. 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 100 .. 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 474 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 181 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (12) ., 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 169 (8); 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 115 
 [1895]W. N. 60 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 256 
 
 
 ?} 
 
 [1892 
 [1894 
 [1897' 
 
 [1896; 
 
 W. N. 88 
 W. N. 20 
 1 Q. B. 77.2 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 737 
 
 W. N. 45 (6) 
 
 [1898] P. 217 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 394; C. A. [1892]\ 
 IQ. B. 609 / 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 567 
 
 [1895; 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1 Q. B. 685 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1895] P. 228, n. 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 626 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 496 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 1 Q, - "- ^ 
 
 B. 391 
 [1895] W. N. 4 ., 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 179; 
 
 2 Q. B. 784 .. 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (1); 
 
 IQ. B. 80 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 581 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 54 .. 
 
 1891]W. N. 210 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 93 .. 
 
 1893]1Q. B. 1 
 
 1896] W. N. 155 (7); 
 
 IQ. B. 84 
 [1897] W.N. 81 (10) .. 
 P. 0. [1896] A. C. 579 .. 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 233 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 378 
 [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 [1900i| 
 [1897]| 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1897]| 
 
 1912 
 1170 
 
 1070 
 
 549, 895, 
 2066 
 1220, 
 1245 
 
 1284 
 
 1671 
 
 602 
 
 60 
 
 1321 
 
 70 
 1724 
 
 915 
 
 361 
 1283 
 
 1221 
 
 1528 
 1872 
 22 
 849 
 435 
 
 755 
 41,58 
 
 59 
 
 1921 
 742 
 2162 
 
 583 
 
 1904 
 
 918 
 
 17 
 
 116, 
 1070 
 1296 
 1408 
 334 
 269, 349 
 
 1310 
 
 1443 
 2261 
 1882 
 1989 
 2362 
 
TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Coluraa 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 -{ 
 
 Howe : — Buxton Lime~S'irms Co. v. 
 Howe, Earl: — Willis ■». .. 
 
 Howell: — Greenwell u. .. 
 
 Howell v. Holdroyd 
 
 Howell u. Lewis .. 
 
 Howells : — Harrys v. In re Harrys 
 
 Ho well-Shepherd, . In re. Churchill v. St.\ 
 George's Hospital 
 
 HoweUs, In re. Ex parte Mandleherg & Co, 
 
 Howes, In re. Ex parte Hughes 
 
 Howitt w. Harrington (Earl of) .. 
 
 Hewlett V. Maidstone (Corporation of) . . 
 
 Howorth ■». Sutcliffe 
 
 Hoyermann's Agency : — St. Gobain, Chauny andl 
 Cirey Co. v. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Hoy le, In re. Hoyle i7. Hoyle .. 
 
 Hoyle: — Malcolm Elinn & Co. .. 
 
 Hoyle and Jackson v. Oldham Assessment Com- 
 mittee .. 
 
 Hubbard & Co., In re 
 
 Hubbuck, In re. Hart «. Stone 
 
 Hubbuck & Sons, Ld. v. Wilkinson, Heywood &\ 
 Clark, Ld / 
 
 Hubbuck (Thomas) & Son, Ld. v. Brown 
 
 Huber, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Hucklesby v. Hook 
 
 Huddersfield Banking Co., Ex parte. In re 
 Henry Lister & Co. 
 
 Huddersfield Banking Co., Ld. v. Lister (H.) & 
 Son, Ld. 
 
 Huddersfield Corporation : — ^Lodge i;. .. 
 
 -: V. 
 
 Huddersfield Corporation v. Eavensthorpe Urbanl 
 District Council • .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Huddersfield Industrial Society : — Warburton vA 
 
 Huddleston, In re. Bruno v. Eyston .. 
 
 Hudson V. Cripps .. 
 Hudson V. Cripps .. 
 
 Hudson: — EumivaU u. .. 
 
 Hudson u. Walker 
 
 Huffam V. North Staffordshire By. Co. .. 
 
 Huggins V. London and South Wales Colliery Co. I 
 
 Huggins : — Eeg. u. (No. 1) 
 
 -(No. 2) 
 In re Howes 
 
 Hughes, Ex parte. 
 
 Hughes, In re 
 
 Hughes, In re. Ex parte Hughes 
 
 Hughes, In re. Brandon v. Hughes 
 
 Hughes V. Edwardes 
 
 Hughes: — Griffith /u. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q, B. 232 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 545 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 49 
 1 Q. B. 535 
 
 [1900] 
 
 [18.97] P. 198 .. 
 [1891] W. N. 181 
 [1900] W. N. 147 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 649 
 
 [1885] 1 Q. B. 844 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 628 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 110 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 358 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 96 . 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 84 ., 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 167 . 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 372 
 
 [1898] W. N. 158 (4) . 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 754 ., 
 
 C. A. [1899]1Q. B. 86. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 250 
 [1896] P. 209 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 45 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 417 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 273 . 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 847 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 859 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 652 ; C. A. [1897]\ 
 
 2Ch. 121 / 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 213 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 817 .. ^ 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 595 
 
 [1895] W. N. 161 (5) 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 265 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 335 
 
 [1894] W. N. 180 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 821 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 496 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 2Q. B. 699 .. .. ^ 
 
 [1891] W.' N. 88 
 
 [1895] 1 Q; B. 563 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 628 
 
 [1899] W. N. 125 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 595 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch; 529 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 583 
 
 [1892] 3 Oh. 105 
 
 1244 
 11291 
 
 566 
 
 736 
 1514 
 
 795 
 
 1314, 
 
 2356 
 
 164, 681 
 
 104 
 
 525 
 
 577 
 
 586, 594 
 
 1535, 
 
 1562. 
 
 843 
 1580' 
 
 1675 
 
 320 
 
 ■ 1856 
 
 51 
 
 2120 
 1600 
 845 
 
 472 
 
 1550 
 
 2082 
 43 
 
 227* 
 
 940 
 
 774, 
 147l> 
 829 
 96a 
 199, 
 1464 
 80 
 1651, 
 2071 
 
 125& 
 
 929, 
 
 104O 
 
 1044 
 
 104 
 2044- 
 
 101 
 
 906 
 1251, 
 1834 
 2176 
 
CXXVl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Hughes y. Jastin .. 
 
 Hughes : — Llandudno XJrhan Council v. . . < 
 
 Hughes : — " Maori King " (Owners of the Cargo'l 
 o()v / 
 
 Hughes: — Moretoni;. In re Pinhome .. 
 
 Hughes: — Pemberton v. .. .. .. ..< 
 
 In re Tithe Act, 1891 '.'. 
 Hughes : — Simpson v. . . . . . . . . ] 
 
 Hughes : — Peg. v. 
 Hughes V. Rimmer. 
 
 ■■{; 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 •( 
 
 Hughes and Ashley's Contract, In re 
 
 Hulbert v. Cathcart 
 Hulbert and Crowe •!;. Cathcart .. 
 Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Ry 
 Cu., In re 
 
 Hull Dock Co. V. Sculcoates Union 
 
 Hull Docks Co. : — :Buckley f . 
 
 Hull Land and Property Investment Co., In re 
 
 Hull Underwriters' Association : — TurnbuU,'! 
 
 Martin & Co. v. ./ 
 
 Hulm and Lewis, In re .. 
 
 Hulton : — MacFarlane v. . . .. .. ../ 
 
 Eumber & Co. :— Griffiths (John) Cycle Cor 
 
 poration v. 
 Humber & Co. (Portugal) : — Greenwood v. 
 Hume, In re. Forbes v, Hume .. 
 Hume i;. Lopes 
 
 Hume-Dick ; — Lopes v. In re Dick 
 
 Hummel t;. Hummel 
 Humphrey: — Kent County Council v. .. 
 Humphreys, In re. Humphreys v. Levett 
 Humphrey: — Haddock u. 
 Humphreys : — Hill Brothers v. In re Cosier 
 Humphrey: — Reg. v. 
 Humphreys: — Wheeler v. 
 
 Humphreys, In re. Ex parte Lloyd-George &\ 
 George . . . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Humphreys, Ld. : — London County Council v. 
 
 Hunslet Union Guardians v. Ingram 
 
 Hunt, In re 
 
 Hunt, In re. Ex parte Board of Trade .. 
 
 Hunt, In re. Pollard v. Geake ., 
 
 Hunt, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Hunt V. Fripp 
 
 Hunt V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (No. 1; 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Hunt V. HiUse 
 Hunt V. Hunt 
 
 Hunt v. Hunt 
 
 Hunt : — Lancashire v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Col umn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 667 
 [1900] W. N. 26 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.I 
 472 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 550 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 276 
 C. A. [1899] W. 
 / [1899] 1 Ch. 781 
 
 •■{ 
 
 N. 23 (6); 
 
 [1893; 
 
 [3896 
 
 2 Q. B. 530 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 314 
 
 W. N. 179 (5); C. A.' 
 
 '■.■} 
 
 H 
 
 [1897] W. N. 26 (11) ../ 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 168 ; [1900]1 
 
 2Ch. 595 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 470 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 244 
 
 [1893] W. N. 83 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 69 ; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 136 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 93 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 736 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 402 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 261 
 [1899] W. N. 46 ; [1899] 1 Ch.i 
 884 1 
 
 '■} C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 414 
 
 [1898] W. N. 162 (3) .. 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 422 .. 
 H. L. (B.) [1892] A. C. 112 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 423 ; H. L.l 
 (E.) [1892] A. C. 112 ..J 
 
 [1898; 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 903 
 
 C. A. 
 [1900' 
 [1898' 
 [1898' 
 
 1 Ch. 642 
 
 1893] 3 Ch. 1 
 1 Q. B. 609 
 W. N. 8 (12) 
 1 Q. B. 875 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 506 
 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 520 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 755 
 [1893]W. N. 61 
 0. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 54, n. 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 287 
 [1900JW. N. 65 
 [1896] P. 288 .. 
 [1897] W. N. 158 (3) ; 
 
 ICh. 675 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 601 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 189 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 203 
 [1894] P. 247 .. 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 304 ; reversed by 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 54 
 
 [1898] 
 
 «} 
 
 [1895] W. N. 52 
 
 '] 
 
 1563 
 
 1210 
 
 1559, 
 1973 
 2336 
 
 491 
 
 1100 
 2112 
 
 2223 
 
 2233 
 
 1849 
 1850 
 1363, 
 1364 
 1676, 
 1677 
 1560 
 418, 482 
 
 992 
 
 2061 
 
 1338 
 
 848 
 
 1508 
 284 
 2189 
 
 2189 
 
 1475 
 2294 
 8,950 
 1232 
 575 
 866 
 2306 
 
 2026 
 
 1159 
 
 510 
 1186 
 
 122 
 
 1879 
 1594 
 
 178 
 
 1250 
 
 648 
 1388 
 
 178 
 
 922 
 41 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Hunt V. Luck 
 Hunt: — Trego v. .. 
 
 Hunt V. Wenham. In re Wenhani 
 
 Hunt V. Worsfold .. 
 
 Hunter i;. Att.-Gen.. 
 
 Hunter v. Clare 
 
 Hunter v. Dowling"(No. 1) 
 
 •I 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 ::i 
 
 Newcastle Wallseiid^ 
 
 Hunter v. Jacobson 
 Hunter ■u.SS."Hesketli" 
 Hunter District Board v. 
 
 Coal Co : . ".. ; .. 
 
 Huntington v. Attrill 
 
 Huntington v. Inland Revenue (Commrs. of) 
 
 "Huntsman," The 
 
 Hurcum ■!;. Hilleary. 
 Hurlbatt V. Bamett&Co. 
 Hurley j;. Hurley .. 
 Hurlston, In the Gopds of ■ 
 Hiirter : — Elkingtoh & Co. v. 
 
 Hutcheson: — Lord .Advocate u. .. 
 
 Hutchins : — Trevor w. 
 Hutchinson v. Barker 
 Hutchinson's Case. In re Issue Co. 
 Hutchinson & Co.: — Brown, Janson & Co, 
 (No. 1) .. 
 
 •I 
 
 Hutley V. Simmons 
 Hutton V. Annan .. 
 
 Huttori : — King v. 
 
 .:■■) 
 
 (No. 2)- 
 
 Hutton : 
 
 -St. John's, Hackney (Vestry of) v. . .'| 
 
 Hydarnes Steamship Co. v. Indemnity Mutuah 
 Marine Assurance. Co. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Hyde :^Comyns V. .. 
 
 Hyderabad (Deccan')Co. v. WiUoughby 
 Hyslopi In re. Hyslop v. Chamberlain 
 Hyslop.w. Morel Brothers, Corbett & Son, Ld. .. 
 
 I. 
 
 Ibbotson: — Lowth v. .. .• 
 
 Ibotson (Percy) & Sons : — Makins v. 
 
 Idle District CoUiioii : — Hardaker v. 
 lies: — Fitz «; 
 
 Volume and' Page. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 250 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 462 ; H .• L. (B.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 7 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 59 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 224 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 518 ; C. A. 
 2Ch. 105; H. L. (B.) 
 W. N. 71 ; [1899] A. C, 
 
 [1899] 1 0.. B. 636 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 3-91 ■ C. A. 
 3Ch. 212 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 223 
 
 C. A. [1899] W.N. 82 .. 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C.-628 .. 
 
 P. C!. [1896] A. C.' 82 .. 
 
 [1897]- 
 [1899] 
 .309 
 
 [1893]! 
 
 P. C. 
 [1896 
 [1894' 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 1891' 
 1898' 
 1892' 
 
 1893] A. C. 150 .. 
 
 1 Q. B. 422 
 
 P. 21t .-. 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 579 
 "1893] IQ.B. 77.. 
 
 P. 367 
 
 P. 27 
 
 2Ch. 452 
 
 (Sc.) [1897] W. 
 
 N, 
 
 737 
 
 Ct. of Sess, 
 141 .; 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 844 
 [1894] W. -N. 198 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 226 
 
 C. a; [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q; B. 126 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 181 
 
 H. L. (6c.) [1898} A. C. 289 
 
 [1899] W. N. 135; [1899] 2 
 
 Q. B.555; C. A. [1900] W.N 
 
 157 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 504 
 [1896] W. N. 158 (5) ; [1897] 
 
 Q. B. 210 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 590 ; C. A.f 1895]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 500 ^ 
 
 1895 
 1899^ 
 1894' 
 1891' 
 
 W. N. 9 .. 
 
 2 Q. B. 530 
 
 3 Ch. 522 
 W. N. 19 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 1003 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 183 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q, B. 335 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 77 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2248 
 
 1419 
 
 799, 
 1137, 
 1502, 
 1504 
 1512 
 
 276 
 
 1252 
 
 1412 
 
 1412 
 1140 
 1592 
 
 1333 
 
 1008 
 1796 
 1985 
 1371 
 61,64 
 
 701 
 1624 
 
 341 
 
 1803 
 
 804 
 1520 
 347 
 1423, 
 1705 
 1422 
 500 
 2187 
 
 177 
 
 2287 
 
 997 
 
 537 
 
 •990 
 
 1610 
 
 370, 403 
 
 1224 
 330, 
 1704, 
 1706 
 1574 
 1722 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 iing) 
 
 Ilfracombe Permanent Mutual Benefit Buildin, 
 
 Society, In re .. 
 Ilkley Hotel Co., In re .. 
 lEingworth v. Walmsley 
 Imperial and Foreign Agency and Investments 
 
 Corporation : — Cotton v. .. .. .. S 
 
 Imperial Japanese Grovemment v. Peninsular and\ 
 
 Oriental Steam Navigation Co. .. .. / 
 
 Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone 
 Imperial Ottoman Bank v. Trustees, Executors, 
 
 and Securities Investment Corporation 
 Imray u. Oakshette 
 Inchiquin (Lord), Ex parte. In re Portuguese! 
 
 Consolidated Copper Mines, Ld. .. ../ 
 
 " Inckmaree," The 
 
 Income Tax (Commrs. for Special Purposes) v. 
 
 Pemsel .. 
 Incorporated Law Society, Ex parte. In : 
 
 Louis 
 Incorporated Law Society, Ex parte. In re 
 
 Solicitor (No. 4) 
 Incorporated Law Society, Ex parte. In re 
 
 Solicitor 
 
 Incorporated Law Society : — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 Ind, Coope & Co. i;. Hamblin 
 
 Ind, Coope & Co. n. Mee 
 
 Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. 
 
 Burger i;. 
 Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. 
 
 Hydames Steamship Co. u. 
 Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Co. 
 
 Eoddick v. 
 India in Council (Secretary of State for) 
 
 Chatterton v. .. 
 Indian Mechanical Grold Extracting Co., In re . 
 Indigo Co. ?;. Ogilvy 
 
 " Industrie," The 
 
 Ingham, In re. Jones v. Ingham 
 
 iDgham, In re. Lawe's Chemical Manure Co. v. 
 
 Ingham .. 
 
 Ingham v. Eaynor. In re Pish . . 
 
 Ingham: — Wilson v. 
 
 Ingle V. Jenkins (Vaughan) 
 
 loglis J). Gillanders 
 Inglis V. Robertson 
 Ingram : — Davis v. 
 Ingram : — Hunslet Union (Guardians) v. 
 
 Ingram v. Papillon. In re Ash ton 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Arizona Copper Co, 
 V. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Assets Co. v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 249 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 248 
 
 0. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 142 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 454 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 644 „ 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 599 
 
 [1895] W. N. 23 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 218 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 28 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 22 (3); [1899] P 
 111 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 531 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 649 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 254 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 331 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 456 ; C. A. [1896]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 327 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 24; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W.N. 270 .. .. ^ 
 
 [1895] W. N. 8 .. 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 145 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 348 / 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 590 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 500 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 836 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 380 J 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 189 
 
 3 Cb. 538 
 1891] 2 Ch. 31 .. 
 1894] P. 58 
 1 Ch. 352 
 
 [1891' 
 C. A.' 
 C. A. 
 [1893; 
 
 [1896] W. N. 12 (5) 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 83 .. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 99 
 
 [1900] W. N. 140 ; [1900] 2 Ch, 
 
 368 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 507 . 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 616 . 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 477 
 
 [1893]W. N. 61 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 178 (2) 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 574; [1898] : 
 
 Ch. 142 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N, 
 
 93 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.)'[1897] W. N, 
 
 144 
 
 ColnmD 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 232 
 
 445 
 1219 
 
 379, 399 
 
 837 
 1187 
 516 
 1072 
 346 
 
 2006 
 
 1762 
 
 2061 
 
 2053 
 
 2053 
 
 2054. 
 2056 
 
 1116 
 
 1704 
 
 986 
 
 997 
 
 995 
 
 647 
 
 367 
 1506 
 1977 
 1287 
 
 82 
 
 2326, 
 2332 
 686 
 
 1253 
 
 1833 
 
 814 
 1408 
 
 510 
 
 1469 
 
 1766 
 176T 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Kame of Case, 
 
 Inland Bevenue Commrs. : — Benjamin Brooke &) 
 Co., Ld.v f 
 
 Inland . Eevenue Commrs. : — Brown, Shipley & 
 Co. «. 
 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. : — Chesterfield Brewery \ 
 Co. « / 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — City of London 
 Brewery Co. v. .. 
 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. : — Clifford v. ,. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Coats (J. & P.) v. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Cowley (Earl) 
 
 Inland Eevenue v, Dundee Magistrates .. , .. • 
 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. : — Parmer & Co. v. .. 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. : — J. Foster & Sons,] 
 
 lii.v. 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. v. General Trustees of 
 
 the Free Church of Scotland . . 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Grant v. ., 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Great Northern Ry.\ 
 Co. v / 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Great Western Ry.) 
 Co. j; J 
 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. : — Huntington v. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Jones v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 io'fl 
 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Knight's Deep, Ld 
 
 J 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Lancaster Insurance) 
 Co. V. Vulcan Boiler and General Insurance [ 
 Co. r. The Same J 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Lawson v. .. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs.: — Leith, Hull and\ 
 Hamhurg Steam Packet Co. t;. . . . . / 
 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. : — ^Lewis v. .. 
 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. : —London Clearing) 
 
 Bankers (Committee of) v. 
 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — London and West-\ 
 minster Bank v. .. .. ., .. ) 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Mersey Docks and! 
 Harbour Board t>. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — MuUer & Co.'s Mar-') 
 garine, Ld. V. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — ^Munro v. .. ..•! 
 
 -National Telephone 
 Battersea and) 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs.: — Old 
 District Building Society v. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Onslow v. .. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Paisley Cemetery vA 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 356 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 240 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 2Q. B. 598 / 
 
 [1899]2Q. B. 7.. 
 
 [1898] 1 Q.B. 408; 0. A. [1898]) 
 W. N. 162 (4) ; [1899] 1 Q. B, 
 121 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 187 
 
 [1897] 1 Q.B. 778 ; C. A. [1897]\ 
 2Q. B. 423 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 47 ; C. A. [1897] ^ 
 W.N. 171(7); [1898] 1Q.B. 
 355; H. L.(B.) [1899] W.N. ( 
 32(5); [1899] A. C. 198 ..) 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 
 127 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 141 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 516 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1897] W, 
 
 140 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1899] W, 
 
 159 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 652 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 507 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 422 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 484 
 [1898] W. N. 174 (12) ; [1899] 1 
 
 Q. B. 345 ; 0. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 239 ; C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 217 
 
 [1898] W. N. 174 (13); [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 353 ./ 
 
 Ex. Div., Ir. [1896] W. N. 145 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1900] W, " 
 
 210 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 290 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 542 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 166 
 
 [1897] 1Q.B. 786; C. A, 
 
 2Q.B. 316 / 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 310 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 
 
 149 .. 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 250; H. L. (B.) 
 
 [1899] W. N. 252; [1900] 
 
 A. C. 1.. 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 294 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 239 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1899] W. N.l 
 196 •. ..I 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 "} 
 
 . [1897]1 
 
 1797 
 1803 
 1795 
 
 1802 
 
 1791 
 1795 
 
 1746 
 
 1774 
 
 1801 
 
 1796 
 
 1762, 
 1776 
 
 1755 
 1805 
 
 1794 
 
 1796 
 1788 
 
 1792 
 
 1799 
 
 1740 
 1778 
 1791 
 1790 
 
 1805 
 
 1789 
 
 1796 
 
 1800 
 
 1791 
 
 1800 
 
 1806 
 1761, 
 1774 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case, 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Reg. v. Ohlson's\ 
 Case. Garland's Case .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — -Eevelstoke (Lord)"! 
 •^ / 
 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. : — Eothscliild & Sons'! 
 
 ■" / 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — RoweU v. .. 
 Inland Revenue Commrs. v. Scott. In re 
 
 Bootham Ward Strays, York . . . . .. , 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Scottish Investmenfl 
 
 Trust i; / 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Smelting Co. of 
 Australia v. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. v. Stewart's Trustees \ 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Stocks v. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Swayne i;. .. 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Sweetmeat Auto- 
 matic Delivery Co. v. .. 
 
 Inland Eivenue Commrs. v. Tod 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — United Eealization\ 
 Co. i; / 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — West London Syn-\ 
 dicate, Ld. v. .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. : — Wingate & Co. v. < 
 
 Inman, In re. Inman «. Eolls .. 
 
 Inman & Co., In re 
 
 Innes v. Newman . . 
 
 Instan : — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 International Agency and Industrial Trust : — \ 
 
 Page «. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 International Cable Co., In re .. 
 
 International Co. of Mexico : — Mercantile Invest- "l 
 
 ment and General Trust Co. r. .. ../ 
 
 International Conversion Trust, In re . . 
 International Society of Auctioneers and Valuers,\ 
 
 In re. BaiUie's Case .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Invicta Works, Ld., In re 
 
 Iredale v. China Traders' Insurance Co. 
 
 Ireland (Bank of) v. M'Carthy .. 
 
 Irish Exhibition in London : — Coutts & Co. 
 
 Irish Land Commission : — Gosford (Earl of) 
 
 Irons V. Davis & Timmins, Ld. . . 
 
 Irving V. TurnbuU 
 
 Irwin, In re. Barton «. Irwin .. 
 
 Isaac, In re. Cronbach v. Isaac . . 
 
 Isaacs, In re. Isaacs v. Eeginall 
 
 Isaacs V. Evans 
 
 Isaacs : — Good & Co. v. .. 
 
 Isaacs : — PuUen v. 
 
 Isaacs V. Towell 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 V. .. 
 
 V. .. 
 
 ":} 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 485 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 565 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 142 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 194 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 152 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. 
 
 108 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 179 ; C. A. [1896] 
 
 W.N. 167(8); [1897] IQ.B, 
 
 175 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1899] W. N.\ 
 
 198 .. ' / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N.\ 
 
 207 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 3 (6); [1899] 
 
 1 Q. B. 335; C. A. [1899] 
 W. N. 240 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 172 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 484 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 399 .. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 361 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 226 ; C. A. [1898]\ 
 
 2Q. B.507 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N.\ 
 
 129 / 
 
 1893] 3 Ch. 518 
 1891]W. N. 202 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 292 
 0. C. E. [1893] 1 Q. B. 450 .. 
 
 [1893]W. N. 32 
 
 [1892] W. N. 34 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 484, n. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 100 
 
 [1897] W. N. 171 (4) ; [1898]! 
 
 ich. 110 .; 
 
 [1894] W. N. 39 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 157; [1900] 
 
 2 Q. B. 515; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 356 
 
 H. L. (L) [1897] W. N. 164 (12) ;\ 
 [1898] A. 0. 181 .. ../ 
 C. A. [1891] W.N. 41 .. 
 H. L. (I.) [1899] A. C. 435 .. 
 
 0. A 
 [1900; 
 
 [1895] W. N. 23 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1894; 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1895' 
 
 [1898] 
 
 1899] 2 Q. B. 330 
 2Q. B. 129 
 
 1897] 1 Ch. 251 
 3 Ch. 506 
 
 [1899] W. N. 261 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 555 
 W.N. 90 
 2 Oh. 285 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1445 
 
 1798 
 
 1789 
 1792 
 1758 
 
 1765 
 
 1794 
 
 1750 
 1776 
 
 1797 
 
 1788 
 1793 
 1800 
 
 1794 
 
 1768 
 
 2340 
 465 
 
 1348 
 620 
 
 335 
 
 346 
 
 326 
 
 384 
 
 425 
 
 466 
 
 1932 
 
 2310 
 
 97 
 39 
 1226 
 221 
 2173 
 571 
 520 
 847 
 1962 
 1525 
 2243 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Isaacs : — West of England Fire Insurance Co. v. i 
 
 Isaacs' Case. In re Anglo-Austrian Printing\ 
 and Publishing Co. . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Isaacs & Son : — Barrow v. 
 Isaacson, In re. Ex parte Mason 
 Isaacson : — Ruslimere v. .. 
 
 Isis Steamship Co. v. Bahr 
 
 Isle of Thanet Light Elwys. : — Bailey v. 
 Islington, St. Mary (Vestry) v. Cobbett 
 
 Islington Vestry v. Homsey Urban Council 
 
 Islington and General Electric Supply, In re 
 
 Issue Co., In re. Hutchinson's Case 
 
 Ives & Barker ■;;. Willans . . . . . . ] 
 
 Ivimey : — Barker v. In re Turner 
 Izod, in re. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 
 ■v.S- 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Jablocbkoffs Patent, In re 
 
 " Jacderen," The 
 
 Jack, In re. Jack v. Jack 
 
 Jackson, Ex parte. In re Alderson 
 Jackson, In re 
 Jackson, In the Goods of .. 
 Jackson v. Barry Ey. Co. , 
 
 Jackson: — ^Brown i;. 
 
 Jackson : — Fisher v. 
 Jackson : — ^Plood v. 
 
 Jackson: — ^Poakes «. 
 
 Jackson : — Jenkins v. 
 Jackson v. Kilham 
 Jackson : — Morgan v. 
 
 Jackson v. Normandy Brick Co. 
 
 Jackson v. Parrott. In re Wise .. 
 Jackson v. Plympton St. Mary Rural 
 
 Council .. 
 Jackson v. Eainford Coal Co. . . 
 Jackson: — Reg. v. 
 
 Jackson : — Sharp (Ofi5cial Receiver) v. . 
 
 Jackson : — Towerson v. .. 
 Jackson & Co., In re 
 Jacobs. Down 
 Jacob r. Eevell 
 
 ••{ 
 
 District"! 
 
 :•{ 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 377 ; C. A. [1897]\ 
 IQ. B. 226 ^ 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 158 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 417 
 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 333 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 118 
 
 C, A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 364 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 112; 
 
 [1900] A. C. 340 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 722 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 369 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 74 ; [1900]\ 
 
 ICh. 695 / 
 
 [1892] W. N. 81 
 
 [1895] 1 Oh. 226 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 68 ; C. A, 
 
 2 Oh. 478 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 536 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 241 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1894]| 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 72 
 
 P. 0. [1891] A. C. 293 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 351 
 
 [1899] W. N. 6 (5) ; [1899] 1 Ch.\ 
 374 / 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 183 
 
 1894]W. N. 50 
 
 1892] P. 257 •. 
 
 C. A. [1893]lCh. 238 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1895] A. C. 446 .. .. | 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 84 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 21 
 
 [1900] W. N. 68 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 807 / 
 
 "1891]lCh. 89 ■ 
 
 1891] W. N. 171 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 885 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 51 ; [1899]) 
 
 1 Ch. 438 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 281 
 
 [1900] W. N. 15 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 340 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 671 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 
 [1899] A. C. 419 
 
 0. A;[1891]2Q.B. 484 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 348 
 [1900] W. N. 99 ; [1900] 2 
 156 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 858 
 
 
 90; 
 
 "•} 
 
 Ch."! 
 
 977 
 
 346 
 
 1073 
 211 
 1366 
 
 1935 
 
 1089 
 1172 
 
 1170 
 
 366, 383, 
 
 476 
 
 347 
 
 52, 54, 
 
 65 
 2176 
 162 
 
 967 
 1440 
 1960 
 
 1480 
 
 109 
 1091 
 1609 
 
 56 
 
 207, 
 1428 
 :274 
 
 508 
 
 1481 
 
 559 
 1279 
 861 
 
 2080 
 
 950 
 
 544 
 
 302 
 922 
 
 131 
 
 1079, 
 1275 
 399 
 
 1068 
 
 2220 
 
 i 2 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ::| 
 
 "Jacob Christensen," The 
 Jacobs V. Orusha . . 
 
 Jacobs-Smith: — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Jacobson : — Huater v. 
 
 Jacomb v. Turner . . 
 
 Jacson : — Tullis ti. 
 
 Jagger «. Jagger .. 
 
 Jalland: — Howards. 
 
 Jamaica (Administratnr-G-cneral) v. Lascelles,! 
 
 De Mercado &. Co. In re Bees' Bankruptcy / 
 Jamaica Att.-Gen. : — West India Improvement\ 
 
 Co. D / 
 
 Jamaica Pruit Importing and Trading Co. ofl 
 
 London: — Milburn & Co. w. .. .. ../ 
 
 Jama'ca By. Co. v. Att.-Gen. of Jamaica .. 
 
 James : — Brune v. 
 
 James v. Buena Ventura Nitrate Grounds) 
 Syndicate .. .. .. .. .. f 
 
 James: — Cale «. .. 
 
 James w. Dickenson. In re Matson 
 
 James : — Edmunds v. 
 
 .James v. Evans & Co. 
 
 James : — Fowler v. In re Beeman 
 
 James «. James. In re Bowen .. 
 James u. Jones (No. 1) .. 
 (No. 2) 
 
 James v. London and County Banking Co. 
 Morris .. 
 
 James v. Masters . . 
 James: — Price ii. .. 
 James : — Eudd v. .. 
 James : — Sinclair v. 
 
 James v. Smith 
 
 James u. Stevenson 
 
 Jameson : — Birmingham Breweries, Ld. v. 
 
 Jameson : — Reg. v. 
 
 Jamie.-on and Newcastle Steamship Freightl 
 
 Insurance Association, In re .. .. ../ 
 
 " Jane," Owners of S.S., Page and : — Owners ofi 
 
 S.S." Pleiades "i; / 
 
 Janes: — Wilcox & Gibbs i;. 
 
 " Janet Court," The 
 
 Janson: — Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines 
 
 V. West Band Central Gold Mines Co. v. De 
 
 Eougemont 
 Japanese Government v. Peninsular and Orientali 
 
 Steam Navigation Co. .. .. ,. ../ 
 
 Jaquess v. Thomas. In re Thomas 
 Jarman v. Hale 
 Jarman : — Harle v. 
 
 In re 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1895] P. 281 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 37 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 472 ; [1895]\ 
 2Q. B. 311 J 
 
 "1899] W. N. 82 
 1 Q. B. 47 
 3 Ch. 441 
 W. N. 63 (2> 
 W. N. 210 
 
 •■{ 
 
 C. A, 
 
 [1892' 
 
 [1892 
 
 [189& 
 
 [189i; 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 135 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 243 .. 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 169 ; [1900] 
 2Q. B. 540 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 127 . 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 417 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 456 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 418 
 [1827] 2 Ch. 539 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 18 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 180 
 [1895] W. N. 151 (1); [1896]) 
 ICh. 48 S 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 291 .. .. j 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 104 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 304 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 413 ; C. A. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 W. N. 
 485 
 
 [1899] 
 18 (3); [1899] 1 Ch.y 
 
 [1893; 
 
 C. A 
 [1894; 
 
 1 Q. B. 355 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 428 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 554 
 3 Ch. 554 
 
 ';) 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 384 ; C. A. [1891]( 
 W.N. 175 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 162 .. 
 [1898] W. N. 15 (8); C. A 
 
 [1898] W. N. 145 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 425 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 510; C. A. [1895] \ 
 
 2Q. B. 90 / 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 259 .. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 71 
 
 [1897] P. 59 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 339 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 644 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 747 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 994 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 419 
 
 1998 
 1494 
 
 1731 
 
 1140 
 
 935 
 55,59 
 
 930 
 1408 
 
 101, 
 1017 
 1017, 
 1668 
 
 1930 
 
 1019, 
 2068 
 583 
 
 394 
 
 926 
 1012 
 1106 
 1245 
 
 802 
 
 908, 
 
 2345 
 
 44, 1497 
 
 16, 72, 
 
 89 
 
 147 
 
 2081 
 
 1103 
 
 856 
 
 1409 
 
 849, 
 
 1486, 
 
 1575 
 
 2262 
 
 1058 
 
 833 
 
 985 
 
 1953 
 
 1438 
 2005 
 
 985 
 
 837 
 
 2023 
 1138 
 910 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 ■{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Jarman: — jTownsend v. .. 
 
 Jarvis v. Jarvis 
 
 Jarvi j (P. W.) & Co., In re 
 
 Jay V. Budd 
 
 Jay «. Johnstone .. 
 
 Jaynes, Ex parte. In re Alison 
 
 Jeans, In re. Upton «. Jeans .. 
 
 Jeckells : — Barber «. 
 
 Jeffery, In re. Burt v. Arnold . . 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Jeffery: — CoUinson w. 
 
 Jeffery v. Sayles. In re Bell 
 
 Jeffery v. Weaver 
 
 Jefftay v. Tredwell. In re Tredwell (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Jeffreys, Ex. parte. In re Carey 
 
 Jeffs : — Dennison v. 
 
 Jenkins, In the Groods of 
 
 Jenkins: — ^Alexander?;. .. 
 
 Jenkins : — British Marine Mutual Insurance) 
 
 Co. •!; • .. ../ 
 
 Jenkins i;. Bushby 
 
 Jenkins: — Davies v. .. .. .. .A 
 
 Jenkins v. Davies. In re Davies 
 Jenkins v. Jackson 
 Jenkins : — Sanders v. 
 
 Jenkins (Vaughan) : — Ingle v. .. .. ../ 
 
 Jenkins : — Williams v. (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Jenkins & Co. : — Nobel's Explosives Co. v. 
 Jenkins & Sons i;. Coomber 
 
 Jenkins: — Edwards v. .. .. .. .A 
 
 Jenkins i;. Hope .. 
 Jenks w. Clifden (Viscount) 
 Jenks V. Ditton . . 
 • Jennings, In re. Burnley v. Harland . . 
 Jennings: — Hogarth u. .. 
 Jennings v. Jennings 
 Jennings : — Eeg. v. 
 Jennings: — Re?, v. 
 Jenoure v. Delmege 
 
 Jersey (Att.-Gen. and Eeceiver- General for) vA 
 Le Moignan .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Jersey (Att.-Gen. and Eeceiver-General for) v.\ 
 Turner .. .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Jersey (Earl of) v. Great Western By. Co. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ^?:} 
 
 ■I 
 
 [1900] W. N. 172 ; [1900] 2 Cb.\ 
 
 698 / 
 
 [1893] W. N. 138 
 
 [1898] W. N. 164 (5) ; [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 193 / 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 153 (3) 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 12 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 25 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 189 / 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 587 
 
 [1895] W. N. 98 
 
 1893] W. N. 91 
 
 1891] 1 Ch. 671 
 
 1895] 2 Ch. 577 
 
 1896] 1 Ch. 644 
 C. A. [1895] W. 
 
 [1896]lCh. 1 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 449 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 640 .. 
 
 1891] W. N. 201 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 624 
 1896] ICh. 611 
 1894]W. N. 16 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 797 
 [1899] VV. N. 262 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.' 
 
 299 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 484 
 [1899] W.N. 252; [1900] IQ.B. 
 133 
 
 W. N. 104 
 1 Ch. 89 .. 
 1 Q. B. 93 
 W.N. 140; 
 
 N. 139 (8); I 
 
 [1891] 
 [1891° 
 [1897° 
 [1900" 
 368 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 700 
 
 [1894] W. N. 176 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 326 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 168 
 [1895] W. N. 142 (4); 
 1 Ch. 308 
 
 1896 
 
 1897 
 
 1897 
 
 1892' 
 0. A.' 
 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch.j 
 
 : :.■{ 
 
 [1895; 
 
 B.C. 
 
 1 Ch. 278 
 1 Ch. 694 
 W.N. 56(4) .. 
 W. N. 156 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 907 
 1 Ch. 378 
 W.N. 142(7) .. 
 
 [1896]| 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 64 
 
 1891] A. C. 73 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 402 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 326 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 625, n. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1420 
 207 
 400 
 
 1548 
 
 1533 
 
 122 
 2314, 
 2325 
 1280 
 
 951 
 
 952 
 1297 
 
 1299 
 
 1107 
 2319, 
 2329 
 786 
 117, 410 
 226 
 1621 
 652 
 
 996 
 
 1557 
 
 201 
 
 574 
 559 
 1964 
 
 1253 
 
 11 
 1890, 
 2169 
 1972 
 193 
 
 630 
 
 967 
 1120 
 
 883 
 2330 
 
 681 
 1418 
 1031 
 1822 
 
 649 
 
 1020, 
 
 1591 
 
 1020 
 
 1669, 
 2064 
 
TABLS OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Jersey (Earl) v. Uxbridge Union Rural Sanitaryl 
 
 Authority (No. 1) / 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Jeune v. Baring. In re Bai ing . . 
 
 Jewish Colonization Association : — Att.-Gen. v. I 
 
 Jiggens: — Baylis u. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Jobson V. Palmer . . 
 
 Jodoin V. La Banque d'Hochelaga 
 
 Jodrell: — Seale-Hayne t). 
 
 Joel (Van) v. Hornsey 
 
 Johannesburg Hotel Co., In re. Ex parte Zout-\ 
 pansberg Prospecting Co. . . . . . . / 
 
 Johannisberg Land and Gold Trust Co., In re .. 
 
 John Brothers Abergarw Brewery Co. v. Holtaes | 
 
 John Dewhurst & Sons, In re Trade-mark of .. 
 
 John Harper & Co. v. Wright and Butler Lamp] 
 Manufacturing Co. .. .. .. ..j 
 
 " John Hollway," The .. 
 
 John V. John 
 
 John Morley Building Co. v. Barras 
 
 " John O'Scott," The 
 
 John Eeid & Sons, Ld., In re 
 
 Johns V. Carden, 
 
 In re Copland's Settlement .. / 
 
 { 
 
 Johns V. Pink 
 
 Johns V. Ware 
 
 Johnson, In re. Moore u. Johnson 
 
 Johnson i;. Bragge 
 
 Johnson v. Diprose 
 
 Johnson: — Downes i». 
 
 Johnson v. Edge . . 
 
 Johnson: — Pyson v. In re Rolfe 
 
 Johnson v. George Newnes, Ld. . . 
 
 Johnson: — Kitchen ti. 
 
 Johnson: — Kruse n. 
 
 Johnson v. Johnson 
 
 Johnson u. Langley. In re Langley 
 
 Johnson v. Lindsay & Co. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Johnson; — Mann v. 
 
 Johnson: — Robertson v. .. 
 
 Johnson & Co. and Basle Chemical Works,) 
 
 Bindschedler : — Badische Anilin und Soda I 
 
 Fabrikv. j^ 
 
 Johnson v. Russian Spratts Patent, Ld. In re\ 
 
 Russian Spratts Patent, Ld. .. .. ../ 
 
 Johnson (Henry) & Co. : — Badische Anilin und\ 
 
 Soda Pabrik v / 
 
 [1891] W. N. 31 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 183 
 [1893] 1 Oh. 61 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 566 ; C. A. [1900] 
 W.N. 269 
 
 [1898] W. N. 64 (3); [1898] \ 
 2Q. B. 315 / 
 
 [1893]lCb. 71 I 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 612 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. 0. 304 ..( 
 
 0. A [1895] W. N. 122 (5) ../ 
 
 C. A. [1891]lCh. 119 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 583 
 
 [1899] W. N. 257 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 188 / 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 137 .. 
 [189."^] 2 Ch. 593 ; 0. A. [1895]] 
 
 W. N. 146 (3); [1896] 1 Oh. 
 
 142 J 
 
 P. 37 
 1898]2Ch. 573 .. 
 2Ch. 386 
 1897] P. 64 
 2Q. B. 634 
 W. N. 14; [1900] ICh. 
 
 [1900 
 0. A.' 
 [1891 
 0. A. 
 [1900 
 [1900' 
 
 326" 
 [1899] W. N. 249; [1900] 1 Oh. 
 
 296 
 
 [1898] W. N. 172 (2) ; [1899] 
 
 Ch. 359 
 [1891] 3 Oh. 48 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 250 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 512 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 203 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 [1894]W. N. 77 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 663 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 95 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 91 
 [1899] W. N. 223 ; [1900] P. 19 
 [1899] W. N. 23 (5) .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. 0. 371 .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. 0. no .. 
 [1893] W. N. 196 
 [1893J 1 Q. B. 129 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Oh. 322 ; H. L.l 
 (E.) [1897] W. N. 167 (8) ..J 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 149 .. 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Oh. 25 .. 
 
 1918 
 
 1918 
 1870, 
 2197 
 
 1740 
 
 1060 
 
 2182, 
 2196 
 257 
 2319, 
 2333 
 966, 
 1121 
 
 311 
 
 447 
 
 603 
 
 2135 
 
 656 
 
 1957 
 1695 
 336 
 1957 
 
 1870 
 
 683, 
 1926 
 
 209 
 
 955 
 1907 
 
 212 
 
 863 
 1442 
 1494 
 
 537 
 1369 
 1308 
 
 928 
 1521 
 1238 
 38, 1493 
 1371 
 
 822 
 
 1428 
 
 329 
 1542 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Johngton, Ex parte. Beg. v. Eegistiar of JointV 
 Stock . Companies .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Johnston, Ex parte. 
 V. Watson 
 
 In re Watson. 
 
 Jolinston\ 
 
 Jolmston, In re. Mills v. Johnston 
 
 Johnston v. Boyes 
 
 Johnston v. Mayfair Property Co. 
 
 Johnston : — Mayfair Property Co. v. 
 
 Johnston v. Watson. In re Watson. Ex parte) 
 Johnston . . . , . . . . . . / 
 
 Johnston and Toronto Type Foundry Co. v. Con- 
 sumers' Gras Co. of Toronto 
 
 Johnstone v. Bucoleuch (Duke) .. 
 
 Johnstone v. Cjompton & Co. 
 
 Johnstone v. Haviland 
 
 Johnstone: — Jay u. 
 
 Johore (Sultan of) :— Mighell v. . . 
 
 Joint Stock Institute, Ld. : — MoKeown v. 
 
 Joliffe's Trusts, In re 
 
 Jolly, In re. Gathercole v. Norfolk 
 
 Jonas : — Corbett v. 
 
 Jones, Ex parte. In re London and 
 
 In re Young ,. 
 Beg. V. Entwistle 
 
 Bank 
 Jones, Ex parte. 
 
 Jones, Ex parte. 
 
 Jones, In re 
 
 Jones, In re. BuUis v. Jones 
 
 Jones, In re. Ex parte Lloyd . . 
 
 Jones, In re. Christmas v. Jones 
 
 Jones, In re. Clegg v. Ellison . . 
 
 Jones, In re. Parrington v. Forrester 
 
 Jones, In re. Eichards v. Jones 
 Jones and Judgment Act, 1864, In re 
 Jones; — Apothecaries Co. v. 
 
 Jones V. Bamett .. 
 
 Jones V. Bennett. In re Bennett 
 Jones V. Beveridge (Kavanagh's Case) 
 Jones V. Beveridge (Keams' Case) 
 
 Jones v. Bierastein 
 
 Jones : — Choldjtch v. 
 
 Northern ■> 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 598 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 21 .. 
 
 
 ■■( 
 •■{ 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 204 
 
 [1899] W. N. 59 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 73 
 [1893]W. N. 73 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 508 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 21 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 447 .. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1892] A. C. 625 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 93 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 190 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 95 ../ 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 25 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 IQ. B. 189 / 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 149 
 
 [1899] W. N. 35 (10); [1899]\ 
 ICh. 671 / 
 
 [1893]W. N. 84 .. ..| 
 
 [1899] W. N. 249; [1900] 1 Ch- 
 
 292; C. A. [1900] W.N. 170- 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 616 
 [1892] 3 Oh. 137 
 [1899] W. N. 230; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 220 / 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 484 
 
 [1899] W. N. 47 ; [1899] 1 Q. B.) 
 
 846 ( 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 719 ; 0. A. [1896]1 
 
 ICh. 222 / 
 
 1891 
 1891 
 1897^ 
 1898' 
 
 W. N. 114 
 2 Q. B. 231 
 2Ch. 190 
 2 Oh. 83 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 461 
 
 [1898] 1 Oh. 438 
 
 [1893] W. N. 123 (10) .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 89 
 
 [1899] W. N. 26 (4) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 611; C. A. [1900] W. N. 29; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 370 
 0. A. [1896] 1 Oh. 778 .. 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 130 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 131 .. 
 [1899] W.'N. 12 (10); [1899]) 
 
 1 Q. B. 470; 0. A. [1900] 1 
 
 Q. B. 100 j 
 
 [1895] W. N. 147 (5); [1896] 
 
 lOh. 42 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 391 
 
 933, 
 
 1025 
 
 2182, 
 
 2339 
 
 2336 
 
 1157 
 
 965, 
 
 1409 
 
 933, 
 
 1025 
 
 253 
 
 1844 
 
 1265 
 
 1250, 
 1840 
 
 1533 
 
 1008 
 
 79 
 
 404, 
 2202 
 
 2306 
 
 1121 
 392 
 153 
 
 2215 
 
 2028 
 
 1495 
 114 
 794 
 1826 
 956, 
 1274, 
 1407 
 2302 
 1697 
 1252 
 
 2253 
 
 1411 
 1383 
 1382 
 
 683 
 2032 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Jonos : — Commercial Bank of Tasmania v. 
 
 Jones V. Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Waters 
 Supply Board .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Jones V. Cooke 
 
 Jones V. Daniel 
 
 Jones: — Davies u. 
 Jones V. Davies .. 
 
 Jones V. Foley 
 
 Jones: — Forresters. 
 
 Jones I). Grevman .. .. .. .. ..< 
 
 Jones V. Q-reaves. In re Greaves' Settled Estates] 
 
 Jones V. Ingham. In re Ingham 
 Jones V. Inland Revenue Commrs. 
 Jones : — James v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Jones V. Jones 
 
 Jones V. Macaulay 
 
 Jones V. Merionethshire Permanent 
 Building Society 
 
 Jones V. Morgan. In re Page .. 
 
 Jones V. Ocean Coal Co. . . 
 
 Jones V. Palmer. In re Nottage (No. 1) 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Benefit! 
 
 •■( 
 
 Jones V. Pennefather. In re Giles 
 Jones : — Beg. •;;... 
 Jones : — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 Jones: — Reg. u. .. 
 
 Jones : — Roberts v. 
 Jones V. Scullard . . 
 Jones u. Stone 
 Jones : — Traynor v, 
 
 Jones: — Walton-on-the-Hill Overseers v. 
 Jones : — Williams v. In re Hartley. Williamsl 
 v. Williams .. .. .. .. .,j 
 
 Jones' Case, otherwise Gates and Jones' Case .. 
 
 Jones's Case. Eeg. v. Barnardo . 
 
 Jones' Divorce Bill 
 
 Jordan :^Man tie u. 
 
 Jordan : — Unsworth v. .. 
 
 Jordeson v. Sutton, Southcoates and Drypooll 
 
 Gas Co / 
 
 Joseph : — Marsh v. 
 
 Joshua Stubbs, Ld., In re. Barney v. Joshua\ 
 
 Stubbs, Ld / 
 
 ■I 
 
 C. A. [1897] 
 
 !^l 
 
 
 [1892]1 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 313 .. ..{ 
 
 C. A. [1893]2Ch. 603 .. ..| 
 
 C. A, [1894] 1 Q. B. 213 ..I 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 332 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] P. 161 .. 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 405 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 730 
 
 [1899] W. N. 78 
 [1896]2Q. B. 418; 
 
 IQ. B. 374 , 
 
 [1900] W. N. 148 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 683 / 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 352 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 484 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 104 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 304 
 
 [1895] P. 201 ; [1896] P. 16i 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 221 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 587 ; C. A 
 1 Ch. 173 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 304 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 649 . 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 657 . 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 956 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 382 
 
 C. C. E. [1896] 1 Q. B. 4 
 
 C. G. E. [1897] W. N. 167(4): 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 119 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 194 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 565 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 122 .. 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 83 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 175 
 1899] W. N. 234; [1900] 1 Ch.^ 
 
 152 ..) 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 49, n 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 194; H. L. (B.)l 
 
 [1891] A. C. 388 .. ../ 
 H. L. (D.) [1899] A. C. 348 .. 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 248 
 1896] W. N. 2 (5) 
 1898] 2 Ch. 614; C. A. [1899] 21 
 
 Ch. 217 .. . \ 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 213 . 
 [1891] ICh. 187; C. A. [1891]) 
 
 1 Ch. 475 . . . . . . J 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 
 1587, 
 
 2100 
 
 2277. 
 
 2278 
 
 1688, 
 
 2068, 
 
 2071, 
 
 2113 
 
 843, 
 
 2226 
 
 1612 
 
 824 
 
 1066, 
 
 2155 
 
 1559 
 
 1032 
 
 953 
 
 1287 
 
 1788 
 44, 1497 
 
 16,72, 
 
 89 
 
 699, 928, 
 
 1035 
 
 1528 
 
 512, 
 
 1559 
 
 2166, 
 
 2191 
 
 1220 
 
 281. 
 
 2347 
 
 2340 
 
 804 
 
 561 
 
 620 
 
 615 
 
 559, 562 
 
 1242 
 85, 1564 
 
 1100 
 
 1690 
 
 1132 
 
 277 
 
 948 
 
 706 
 548 
 1416 
 
 2095 
 
 1576 
 
 329, 449 
 
TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Joule's Trade-mark, In re. Thompson v. Mont- 
 gomery 
 
 Joyce «. Beall 
 
 Joyner V. Weeks .. 
 
 Jubb, In re. Ex parte Burman.. 
 
 Jubilee Sites Syndicate, 1897, In re 
 
 Judge: — Harris & Sons u. 
 
 Judkins V. Judkins. Bishop v. Bishop.. 
 
 Jupp, In the Goods of 
 
 Justin: — Hughes v. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kalle: — ^Leonhardt i;. 
 
 Karherg's Case. In re Metropolitan Coal Con-\ 
 sumers' Association .. .. .. ../ 
 
 " Kate B. Jones," The 
 
 "Kate," The 
 
 "Katy,"The 
 
 Kaufman : — London and Globe Finance Corpora-"! 
 tion, Ld. V. .. .. ,. .. .. j 
 
 Kavanagh : — Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. 
 
 Kay, In re. Mosley v. Kay 
 
 Kay V. Dewhirst. In re Wilcock . . . . | 
 
 Kaye v. Croydon Tramways Co. .. 
 
 Kay's Patent, In re 
 
 Kearney v. Whitehaven Colliery Co. 
 
 Keck and Hart's Contract, In re 
 
 Keeble v. Bennett 
 
 Keeling: — Broth wood «. In re Salt 
 
 Keegan : — ^Dempsey v. .. 
 
 Keen v. Denny 
 
 Keen v. Henry 
 
 Keene : — Sandgate Local Board v. 
 
 Keep t>. St. Mary's, Newington .. 
 
 Kehoe v. Lansdowne (Marquis of) 
 Keighley, Maxsted & Co. and Bryan Durant &\ 
 Co., In re . . . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Keith, Browse & Co. v. National Telephone Co. 
 
 Kelcey, In re. Tyson t). Kelcey .. ..< 
 
 Kelland : — Day v. . . . . . . . . | 
 
 Kellerman : — East London Waterworks Co. v. .. 
 
 KeUie u. Little | 
 
 Kelly, In re 
 
 Kelly f. Boyd. In re Boyd 
 
 Kelly: — ^Brookv. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 217 . 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 459 
 
 C. A. [1891J2Q.B.31 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 641 
 
 [1899] W. N. 86 ; [1899] 2 Ch.( 
 
 204 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 565 
 0. A. [1897] P. 138 
 
 [1891] P. 300 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 667 
 
 [1895]W. N. 97 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 366 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 42 ; [1899] P. 165 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 56 
 
 ■{ 
 ■•I 
 
 [1899] W. N. 240 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 473 ., 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 518 
 
 [1897] W. N. 172 (12) ; [1898]\ 
 
 ICh. 95 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 358 .. 
 
 [1894]W. N. 68 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 700 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 617 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 329 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 203 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 117 
 
 C. A. 
 
 3 Ch. 169 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 292 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 831 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 524 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1893] A. C. 451 
 
 C.A. [ 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 405 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 147 
 
 [1899] W. N. 133 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 ';) 
 
 530 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 239 ; [1900]) 
 
 2Ch. 745 ) 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 72 
 KegistrationApp.Ct.(Sc.) [1898]! 
 
 W.N. 112 / 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 180 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 232 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 721 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2127 
 
 661 
 
 1061 
 161 
 
 454 
 
 598 
 692 
 1607 
 1563 
 
 575, 
 1436 
 
 370 
 
 2002 
 1947 
 1962, 
 1964 
 
 783 
 
 841, 
 1592 
 2174 
 
 2299 
 
 312 
 1438, 
 1539 
 1258 
 1894 
 589 
 788 
 1370 
 734 
 884 
 2085 
 1178, 
 2070 
 1014 
 
 59 
 
 1065, 
 2101 
 
 1298 
 
 1277 
 
 2280 
 
 1384 
 
 2055 
 1482- 
 1830 
 
cxlii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 a"! I 
 
 Knowles : — Taws d. 
 Knowles & Sons v. Sinclair 
 
 Knowles & Sons, Ld. v. Bolton Corporation 
 
 Knowles (Andrew) & Sons, Ld. : — Lysons v. 
 
 Knox's Trusts, In re 
 
 " Knutsford," The 
 
 Koch. V. Koch 
 
 Konig and Ebhardt's Application, In re 
 
 " Kong Magnus," The 
 
 Koosen v. Rose 
 
 Kops, Bx parte. Kops v. Eeg. . . 
 
 Kotohie v. Golden Sovereigns, Ld. Bright,) 
 Claimant .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Krasnapolsky Eestaurant and Winter Garden Co.,\ 
 In re . . . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Kronand Metal Co., In re 
 
 Kruse v. Johnson . . 
 
 " Kwang Tung" SS. (Owners of) v. " Ngapoota 
 SS. (Owners oO- The "Ngapoota" ., 
 
 Kutner r. Phillips.. .. .. .. .. 
 
 Kuypers' Policy Trusts, In re . . . . . . | 
 
 Kydd : — ^Eoyal General Theatrical Fund Associa-'l ! 
 tionv. In re Lacy .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Kyffin : — East London Waterworks Co. v. . . j 
 Kyffin V. East London Waterwoiks Co. .. \ 
 
 Kyffin-Taylor and Wark : — -Yates v. .. .. , 
 
 L :— G V ,. 
 
 L. otherwise B. ?;. B. 
 
 La Banque d'Hoohelaga i;. Jodoui 
 
 La Banque Hochelaga v. Stevenson 
 
 La "Bourgogne." La Compagnie G&6ralel 
 Transatlantique v. Law (Thomas) & Co. . . j 
 
 La Compagnie Franco-Beige du Chemin de Fer\ 
 du Nord : — South African Bepubhc v. ..) 
 
 La Compagnie Franco-Beige du Chemin de Fer\ 
 du Nord : — South African Eepublic v. ..) 
 
 La Compagnie de Mayville v. Whitley .. 
 
 La Compagnie G4nerale d'Baux Min^rales et de\ 
 Bains de Mer, In re .. .. .. .. J 
 
 La Compagnie Gen^rale Transatlantique v. Law) 
 (Thomas) & Co. La "Bourgogne" .. ..j 
 
 La Corporation de Limoilow : — Le Seminaire del 
 Quebec j; .. .. ../ 
 
 [1898]) 
 
 [1895]) 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 564 
 [1897] W. N. 176 (11) ; 
 
 IQ. B. 170 .. 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 73 ; [1900] ^ 
 
 2 Q. B. 253 .. 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 780 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 538 ; C. A. 
 
 2 Ch. 483 
 1891] P. 219 .. 
 1899] P. 221 .. 
 1896] 2 Cb. 236 
 "1891] P. 223 .. 
 6. A. [1897] W. N. 25 (9) 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 650 .. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 264 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 174 
 
 [1899] W. N. 14 (5) .. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 91 
 
 P. 0. [1897] A. C. 391 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 267 
 [1898] W. N. 151 (9); [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 38 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 55 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 446 
 1899] W. N. 141 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 126 
 
 [1895] P. 274 .. 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 612 .. 
 P. C. [19O0] A. 0. 600 .. 
 [1898] W. N. 80 (1); 
 
 [1898] W. N. 150 (1) ; 
 
 P. 1 ; H. L. (E.) [1899] 
 
 90 ; [1899] A. 0. 431 
 0. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 487 ; 
 
 W.N. 162(4) 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 190 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 788 .. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 451 
 [1898] W^ N. 80 (1); 
 
 Column 
 of 
 
 C. A.- 
 [1899] 
 W.N. 
 
 [1897]! 
 
 C. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 150 (1); [1899] ( 
 
 P. r '"" 
 
 90: 
 
 1;H. L.(B.) [1899] W.N. ( 
 ; [1899] A. C. 431.. ..J 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. 0. 288 .. 
 
 2290 
 2295 
 
 61 
 
 1222 
 
 2201 
 
 1968 
 703 
 2137 
 1980 
 562 
 612, 
 1324, 
 1591 
 
 1009 
 
 463 
 
 461 
 1308 
 
 1948 
 
 1161 
 
 914 
 
 285 
 
 2281 
 2277 
 1047 
 
 957, 
 
 1850' 
 
 710 
 
 257 
 
 240 
 
 1535 
 
 1526 
 
 1008 
 359 
 1538 
 
 1535 
 
 256 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cxliii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Ea Socidte Anonyme des Yerreries de l'Btoile,\ 
 In re the Trade-mark of (No. 1) . . . . / 
 
 — (No. 2){ 
 
 Labouchere : — ^Zierenberg v. 
 
 Labrador Oo. v. Reg. 
 
 Lacave & Co. v. Credit Lyonnais 
 Laceby: — ^Lacon f. 
 
 Laoeby v. Lacon & Oo. 
 
 Lacon v. Laceby . . 
 
 Lacon, In re. Lacon v. Lacon . 
 
 Lacon & Co. : — La 
 
 :: ::{ 
 
 Lacy, In re. Eoyal General Theatrical Fundi 
 Association i;. Kydd .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Ladies' Dress Association, Ld. v. Pulbrook 
 
 Ladd : — Folkestone Corporation v. 
 
 Ladd's Case. In re Pairbairn Engineering Oo. .. 
 
 Lagos, Colonial Secretary of : — Callender, Sykes 
 & Co. v. Will'ams «. Davies.. 
 
 Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate 
 
 Lapiunas Syndicate : — Lagunas Nitrate Oo. v. .. 
 
 Laidlaw iJ. Wilson 
 
 Laing : — Freeman v. 
 
 Laing, Claimant. Chaplin v. Pattick .. 
 Laing, Wharton, and Down Construction Syndi- 
 cate : — ^Donovan f. .. .. .T 
 
 Laing's Settlement, In re. Laing v. Radcliflfe .. | 
 
 Laird, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Lake View Extended Gold Mine (Westerns 
 
 Australia), Ld., In re .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lake's Patent, In re .. ., 
 
 Lamb, In re Ex parte Board of Trade .. 
 
 Lamb «. Evans (No. 1) .. .. ., ../ 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Lamb v. Great Northern Ey. Co. 
 
 Lamb and Owners of SS. " Haswell " : — Owners'! 
 
 of '^ Vindomora " ti. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lambarde :— Discount Banking Co. of England) 
 
 and Wales ». .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lambert, In re. Middleton v. Moore .. 
 -Lambert, Ex parte. Reg. v. London (Justices) 
 Lambert V. Still. In re Webb .. 
 Lambert & Oo. : — Rogers, Sons & Co. v. 
 
 Lambeth : — Guilford v. „ 
 
 Lam^jeth Overseers v. London County Council .. 
 
 Lambeth Waterworks Co. : — Bast Molesey LooalV 
 Board v, .. .. .- .. .. .• / 
 
 Lambton v. Cox .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1893] W.N. 119 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 61 ; C. A. 
 
 2 Oh. 26 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 183 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. 0. 104 .. 
 
 [1804]| 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 148 
 
 0. A. [1897] W. N. 46 (3) .. 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1899] W. N. 35 (9) 
 
 [1899] A. 0. 222 
 0. A. [1897] W. N. 46 (3) 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 482 .. 
 H. L. (B.) [1899] W. N. 35 (9) 
 
 [1899] A. 0. 222 
 
 [1899] 2 Oh. 149 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 376 
 0. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 22 .. 
 [1893] 3 Oh. 450 
 
 [1891] A. 0. 460 
 
 0. A. [1899] 2 Oh. 392 .. 
 
 0. A. [1899] 2 Oh. 392 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 74 
 
 [1899] W. N. 99 ; [1899] 2 Oh, 
 
 355 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q."b. 160" 
 
 B. 629 
 
 0. A. [1893] 1 Q. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 23 (10); 
 
 ICh. 593 
 [1892] P. 380 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 44 , 
 
 P. 0. [1891] A. 0. 240 .. 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 805 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 462 ; 0. A. 
 
 1 Ch. 218 
 [1895] W. N. 156 (2) .. 
 [1891]2Q. B. 281 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1891] A. C. 1 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Q; B. 329 
 
 [1899]| 
 
 [1893]j 
 
 [18971 
 
 2 0h. 169- 
 
 1892 
 
 1 Q. B. 664 
 
 O.A. 
 
 ■1894' 1 Ch. 73 .. 
 
 0. A. 
 
 1891" 1 Q. B. 318 
 
 [1894 
 
 2Q. B. 832:0. A. 
 
 IQ. B. 92 
 
 [1895]2Q. B. 5I1;0. A. 
 
 2 Q. B. 25 ; H. L. (B.) 
 
 A. 0. 625 
 
 0. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 289 .. 
 
 [1894] 
 
 8Ch,163 
 
 [1895] 
 
 [1896] 
 [1897] 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 569 
 
 2128, 
 2136 
 646, 678 
 257, 
 1569, 
 2068 
 
 96 
 1083 
 
 1099 
 
 1083 
 2358 
 
 1099 
 
 285 
 
 303 
 2086 
 485 
 
 119,292 
 
 339 
 339 
 
 24 
 
 1305 
 777 
 1238 
 
 2187 
 1614 
 378 
 
 1439 
 113, 145, 
 
 172 
 527, 969, 
 
 1248 
 
 531 
 
 1249 
 
 1949 
 
 1011 
 
 2307 
 1042 
 2059 
 767 
 
 594 
 
 1681 
 
 2277 
 966 
 
cxliy 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Lambton v. Kerr .. 
 
 Lambton f . Mellish 
 
 Lamond v. Eichard 
 
 Lampet v. Kennedy. In re Tilt 
 
 Lamport & Holt : — Newman & Dale v. .. 
 
 Lamport & Holt : — Branckelow Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Lamson Store Service Co., In re. In re National"! 
 
 Reversionary Investment Co. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lamson Store Service Co., In re .. 
 
 Lancashire u. Hunt 
 
 "Lancashire" (Bibby Brothers & Co., Owners of 
 
 the SS.) V. " Ariel " (Seethan, Owners of the 
 
 SS.). The "Lancashire" 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co., In re. Slaterl 
 
 V. Slater.. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co. : — Smith v. | 
 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry . Co. : — Spencer v. 
 Lancashire Asylums Board v. Manchester Corpo-'l 
 
 ration .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lancaster Banking Co., In re 
 
 Lancaster u. Barnes District Council 
 
 Lancaster (Commrs. of Port of) v. Barrow-iu-'l 
 
 Furness Overseers .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lancaster u. Lancaster 
 
 Lancaster (Att.-Gen. of the Duchy) v. London"! 
 
 and North "Western Ry. Co. . . . . . . / 
 
 Lancaster : — Smith v. 
 
 Lancaster Insurance Co. v. Inland Revenue 
 Commrs. Vulcan Boiler and General Insitr- 
 ance Co. V. The Same . . 
 
 Lance, /?i re. Sharp v. Rebbeck 
 
 Lanchbury v. Bode 
 
 Land and Income Tax (Commr. for) : — Dil worth v. 
 
 Land Development Association, In re . . 
 
 Land Mortgage Bank of Florida, In re .. 
 
 Land Mortgage Bank of Florida, In re . . 
 
 Land Securities Co., In re 
 
 Land Securities Co., In re. Ex parte Farquhar 
 
 Land Securities Co : — Lever v. .. 
 
 Land Securities Co. : — Somerset «. 
 
 Land Securities Co :— Somerset D. 
 Land Tax Commrs. : — Harding v. 
 Lander v. Lander . . 
 Lander and Bagley's Contract, In re 
 
 Landor (a Solicitor), In re 
 
 Landor: — Easton w. 
 
 Landray : — Sims «. 
 
 Lands Allotment Co., In re 
 Lands (Minister for) :— Abbott «. 
 Lands (Minister for) : — CoUess v. 
 Lands (Minister for) v. Harrington 
 
 Lane v. Capsey 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1895' 
 [1894' 
 C.A.' 
 1896" 
 1896° 
 1897° 
 
 2 Q. B. 233 
 
 3 Ch. 163 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 541 
 W. N. 9 (10) .. 
 1 Q. B. 20 
 
 2Q. B. 570 
 
 L. (E.) 
 
 ■:>) 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 726 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 875, n. 
 [1895]W. N. 52 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 47 ; H. 
 [1894] A. C. 1 
 
 [1895] "W. N. 85 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 165 (7);\ 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 141 .. ../ 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 643 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 759 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 IQ. B. 458 / 
 
 [1897] W. N. 3 (1) 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 855 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 166 
 C. A. [1896] P. 118 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 274 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 439 , 
 
 [1898] W. N. 174 (13) ; [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 353 / 
 
 [1900] "W. N. 29 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 120 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 99 
 
 [1892; 
 
 [1896] "W". N. 48 (5) 
 
 [1898" 
 [1894' 
 U. A." 
 [1894 
 
 W. N. 23 
 
 1 Ch. 444 
 W. N. 91 
 1896] 2 Ch. 320 . 
 W. N. 21 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 464 ., 
 
 [1897] "W. N. 29 (6) .. 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 446 .. 
 [1891] P. 161 .. 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 41 .. 
 [1899] "W". N. 52 ; [1899] 
 
 818 
 [1892] w!*N. 176 '.'. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 318 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 616 .. 
 
 1 Ch. 
 
 P.O. 
 
 [18951 
 
 A. C. 425 
 
 P.O. 
 
 "1899" 
 
 A. C. 90 
 
 p. c. 
 
 '1899' 
 
 A. C. 409 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 411 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1757 
 
 966 
 
 973 
 2161 
 1943 
 1960 
 
 383 
 
 382 
 41 
 
 1950 
 
 1525 
 
 1230 
 
 1652 
 
 1675 
 
 363 
 1921 
 
 1680 
 
 925 
 
 1530 
 
 571, 
 1867 
 
 1799 
 
 805 
 630 
 
 1335 
 447 
 476 
 453 
 443 
 477 
 353 
 371, 
 
 1048 
 389 
 
 2259 
 689 
 
 1064 
 
 2032 
 
 2181 
 845, 
 2227 
 343, 345 
 1324 
 1325 
 1325 
 1343, 
 1704, 
 2291 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cxlv 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Lane v. Cox 
 Lane i;. Esdaile 
 
 Lane-Fox, In re. Ex parte Gimblett .. .. | 
 
 Lane Pox v. Kensington and Knightsbridge'l 
 Electric Lighting Co. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lane Fox Electrical Co. : — Kensington and\ 
 Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Co. v. ..) 
 
 Lane v. Lane 
 
 Lane : — Lister v. .. 
 Lane u. Norman .. 
 
 Lane v. Eendall .. 
 
 Lane: — Walters. 
 
 Lang: — Victoria Corporation v. The Same v. 
 
 Patterson 
 Langdale, In re 
 Langford : — Cole v. 
 Langley, In re. Johnson v. Langley .. 
 
 Langley v. Bombay Tea Co. 
 
 Langlois & Biden (Solicitors), In re 
 Langport District Drainage Board : — Knight v. 
 Langston i;. Glasson 
 
 Langston: — Grant v. 
 
 Langton : — St. Nicholas, Leicester (Vicar of) v. 
 
 Lansdowne (Marquis of) : — De Clifford (Lord) v. 
 De Clifford (Lord) v. Quilter. In re Lord De 
 Clifford's Estate 
 
 Lansdowne (Marquis of) : — Kehoe v. 
 
 Larkin V. Lloyd ., 
 
 Larocque i;. Beauchemin .. 
 
 Larsen: — Ritchie v. 
 
 Lart, In re. Wilkinson v. Blades 
 Lascelles : — McSwaine v. 
 
 Lascelles: — Kudd v. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Lascelles, De Mercado & Co. : — Jamaica, Admin- 1 
 istrator-General of, v. In re Eees' Bank- 
 ruptcy J 
 
 Lashmar, In re. Moody v. Penfold 
 
 Latham & Son: — Tate v. 
 Lathom v. Greenwich Ferry Co. 
 
 Latimer Clarke, Muirhead & Co. : — Aldin v. .. 
 
 Latter : — Tomlin v. 
 Laugher : — CoUis v. 
 
 Laughton v. Griffin 
 
 Laimspach : — Hall v. 
 
 In re Price 
 
 ■•( 
 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 415 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 210 
 [1900] W. N. 142; [1900] 
 
 Q. B. 508 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 66 ; C. A. [1892] 
 
 3Ch. 424 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 573 
 
 [1896] P. 133 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 212 
 
 [1891] W. N. 202 
 
 [1899] W. N. 208; [1899] 
 
 Q. B. 673 
 [1899] W. N. 138 ; C. A. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 212 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 749 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 178 
 
 [1900] A. C. 539 
 
 [1899] A. C. 615 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 248 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 36 
 [1899] W. N. 23 (5) .. 
 [1900] W. N. 141; [1900] : 
 
 Q. B. 460 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 349 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 588 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 567 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 126 
 
 [1900] A. C. 383 
 [1899] P. 19 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 707 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1893] A. C. 451 
 
 [1891] W. N. 71 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 358 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 12 (14); [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 727 .. 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 788 
 P. 0. [1895] A. C. 618 
 [1900] W. N. 78; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 815 J 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 135 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 258 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 502 
 [1895]W. N. 77 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 437 
 
 [1900] W. N. 36 
 
 442 .. 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 659 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch, 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 104 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 513 
 
 1074 
 39 
 
 182 
 
 1426, 
 1445 
 
 1442 
 
 927, 
 2072 
 1061 
 282 
 
 229* 
 
 537 
 
 248 
 
 120O 
 1551 
 1521 
 
 212L 
 
 587 
 168& 
 1763 
 
 1755 
 
 750 
 
 2173 
 
 1014r 
 
 63 
 255 
 
 2012 
 
 76& 
 163» 
 
 2245- 
 
 101, 
 lOlT 
 
 1692,, 
 2191 
 1239^ 
 317 
 1075, 
 1116 
 
 1473 
 
 1122- 
 
 869, 
 
 1312, 
 
 2078, 
 
 1163 
 
xlvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •{ 
 
 on,j 
 
 I' 
 
 :} 
 
 Lauri u. Eenad 
 
 Laurie (J. C.) 
 
 Lavell : — London General Omnibus Co. v. 
 Laver v. Botham & Sons. Chesterfield Union, 
 
 Claimants 
 Lavery v. Kingsberry and Black 
 
 Lavy V. London County Council 
 
 Law V. Redditcb. (Local Board of) 
 
 law: — Reg. V. 
 
 Liw (Thomas) & Co. : — La Compagnie Generale'i 
 
 Transatlantique v. La " Bourgogne " . . J 
 
 Law : — Dickson v. 
 Law Investment and Insurance Corporation : 
 
 Shelbourne & Co. v. .. 
 Law Life Assurance Society : — Frewen v. 
 Law Life Assurance Society : — Provident Clerks'"! 
 
 Mutual Life Association «. .. .. ../ 
 
 Law Reversionary Interest Society : — Nobbs v.' 
 
 In re Nobbs 
 Lawe's Chemical Manure Co. v. Ingham. In re\ 
 
 Ingham .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lawledge v. Tyndall. In re Cook's Mortgage.. 
 Lawranoe, In re. Bowker v. Austin .. 
 Lawrance & Sons : — London (County Council) v. 
 Lawrence, In re .. 
 Lawrence u. Adams 
 Lawrence : — Bound v. 
 Lawrence v. Edwards (No. 1) .. 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Lawrence: — Mather u. .. .. .. ..^j 
 
 Lawrence : — Sturgeon v. In re Dunning 
 
 Lawrence & Sons «. Willcooks .. 
 
 Lawrenson, In re. Payne-Collier v. Vyse 
 Lawson v. Carter . . 
 Lawson v. Chester Master 
 Lawson v. Duncan. In re He wit 
 
 Lawson: — Gibson v. 
 
 Lawson v. Inland Revenue (Commrs. of) 
 Lawson : — Stroud v. 
 Lawson's Trusts, In re .. 
 Laxon & Co., In re (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 (No. 3) .. .. ;; 
 
 Layard : — Blount v. 
 
 Layborn f. Grover Wright. In re Elcom 
 
 Laybourn v. Gridley 
 
 Layton : — Weatherky v... 
 
 Lazarus V. Artistic Photographic Co. 
 
 Leacroft : — Morley v. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 402 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N.'l 
 
 136 J 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 249 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 59 .. ..{ 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 118 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 915 ; C. A. [1895]^ 
 
 2Q. B. 577 , 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 127 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 605 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 90 ;\ 
 
 [1899] A. C. 431 .. ..Jj 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 62 j 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 626 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 511 
 
 .[1897] "W. N. 73 (6) 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 830 
 
 [1896] W. N. 12 (5) 
 
 [1896" 
 ri894^ 
 [1893' 
 [1896° 
 [1896' 
 C. A.' 
 
 IQ. B. 923 
 
 1 Ch. 556 
 2Q. B. 228 
 P. 244 .. 
 W.N. 158(2) .. 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 226 
 
 1891] 1 Ch. 144 
 1891] 2 Ch. 72 .. 
 1899] W. N. 67 ; 
 
 1001 .. 
 [1894] W. N. 140 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 696 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B.l 
 
 C. A. 
 [1894' 
 [1893' 
 [1891; 
 
 [1891] 2 Q 
 
 1891] W. N. 28 
 W. N. 6 .. 
 1 Q. B. 245 
 3 Ch. 568 
 
 B. 545 
 
 Ex. Div., Ir. [1896] W. N. 
 C.A. [1898]2Q. B. 44.. 
 
 •I 
 
 145 
 
 Leach, In re. Ex parte Barnes 
 Leach v. Leach. In re Smyth , 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1896' 
 
 C.A.' 
 
 [1892' 
 
 [1893' 
 
 C.A.' 
 
 C.A. 
 
 [1892 
 
 [1892' 
 
 [1897' 
 
 [1896 
 
 [1900' 
 
 649" 
 [1897] W. N 
 
 1 Cli. 89 
 
 1 Ch. 175 
 "1892] 3 Ch. 31 .. 
 
 3 Ch. 555 
 ICh. 210 
 
 1891] 2 Ch. 681, n. 
 1894]lCh. 303 .. 
 
 2 Ch. 53 
 
 W.N. 165 
 2 Ch. 214 
 
 P. 92 
 
 W.N. 184; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 532, 534, 
 535 
 
 1739 
 
 641 
 
 805, 
 
 1458 
 
 1370 
 
 1149, 
 
 1151 
 
 636 
 
 607 
 
 1535 
 
 1542 
 
 986 
 
 1877 
 
 1291 
 
 1287, 
 1502 
 
 82 , 
 
 934 
 2051 
 1154 
 759 
 760 
 1233 
 754, 758 
 754 
 
 1821 
 
 77 
 
 1565, 
 
 1566 
 
 2353 
 
 1011 
 
 1365 
 
 793 
 
 607, 
 
 2143 
 
 1740 
 
 1513 
 
 1520 
 
 445, 464 
 
 369, 391 
 
 441, 442 
 
 825 
 
 912 
 
 2229 
 
 298 
 
 1121 
 
 756 
 
 168 (10) ; [1898]| 
 
 175 
 
 1786 
 
TABLE OF CASES IIST THE DIGEST. 
 
 exlvi 
 
 Ifaine of Case. 
 
 Leader v. Tod-Heatley . . 
 
 Learoyd v. Bracken 
 
 Learoyd v. Brook . . 
 
 Learoyd v. Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co 
 Leasehold Investment Co. : — Charlwood v. 
 Leask, In re. Eiohardson v. Leask 
 Leather: — William Badam's Microbe Killerl 
 Co. v / 
 
 Leather Shod Wheel Co. : — Greenwood v. 
 
 T.eavesley (A person of unsound mind), In re . 
 
 Le Bas «. Grant .. 
 
 Le Bas r. Herbert. In re Butler 
 
 Le Brasseur and Oakley, In re .. 
 
 Lee: — Beneficed Clerk ■«. 
 
 Lee V. Binns. In re Binns 
 
 Lee V. Butler 
 
 Lee V. Dangar, Grant & Co. 
 
 Lee 1). Flack 
 
 Lee V. Hawtrey .. 
 
 Lee: — Knight i;. .. 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Lee : — Prescott v... 
 
 Lee V. Eoundwood Colliery Co. 
 wood Colliery Co. 
 
 Lee: — Stogdoni;. .. 
 
 In re Round- 
 
 he\ 
 
 Lee V. Wilson. In re Tillott 
 
 Lee's Settlement Trusts, In re 
 
 Leech, Harrison & Forwood :— Tyne and Blythe 
 Shipping Co. v. .. 
 
 Leeds Benefit Building Society v. Mallandaine . 
 
 Leeds Grammar School, In re .. 
 
 Leeds and Hanley Theatre of Varieties v. Broad-'l 
 bent „ .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 lieese. In the Goods of .. 
 
 Leeson v. Foulis. In re Uttermare 
 
 Leethan, Owner of SS. "Ariel " :— Bibby Brothers 
 & Co., Owners of SS. "Lancashire" v. "Lan- 
 cashire".. 
 
 Le Gendre : — Bennicourt v. 
 
 Jjegg: — Smiths;... 
 
 Leggatt : — ^Wassell v. 
 
 Legge: — Denton v. 
 
 Leicester Corporation : — ^Davis v. 
 
 Leicester Mortgage Co., In re . 
 
 Leicester Union : — ^Eeg. v. 
 
 Leicestershire 'County Council 
 Joint Committee, Ex parte 
 
 Leigh, Ex parte. In re Stogdon 
 
 Leigh, In the Goods of ., 
 Leigh : — ^Darbyshire i>.. ... 
 
 and Standing! 
 
 •{ 
 
 Volume and Page, 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. ^ 
 
 [1891] W. N. 38 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 114 
 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 431 
 1893] 1 Ch. 686 
 [1895] W. N. 47 
 1891] W. N. 159 
 
 C. A. [1892]1Q. B.85.. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 26 (2); C. A, 
 
 [1900] W.N. 1; [1900] 1 Oh 
 
 421 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 [1895]W. N. 28 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 250 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 487 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 226 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Oh. 584 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 318 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 231 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 2Q. B. 337 / 
 
 [1896] P. 138 
 
 [1898] P. 63 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 41 ., ..| 
 
 [1898] W. N. 155 (7); [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 102 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 107; [1899] 2 Q. B. 273 
 
 [1896] W. N. 166 (3); C. A.' 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 373 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 86 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 508 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 12 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 402 
 [1900] W. N. 250 
 [1897] W. N. 175 (9); 0. A. 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 [1894] P. 160 
 
 [1893] W. N. 158 
 
 0. A. [1893] P. 47; H. L. (E.)\ 
 [1894] A. C.l .. ../ 
 
 P. 0. [1900] A. 0. 173 .. 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 398 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 554 
 [1895] W. N. 46 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 208 .. 
 [1894] W. N. 108, 116 .. 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 632 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 53 
 
 [1895] W. N. 133 (1); [1895]) 
 2 0. B. 534 J 
 
 [1892] P. 82 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 554 
 
 1565 
 1793, 
 2074 
 49 
 670, 
 317 
 1502 
 635, 
 1499 
 
 376 
 
 1187 
 1282 
 2310 
 2031 
 761 
 802 
 815 
 
 1924 
 
 760 
 737 
 
 869, 
 2071 
 
 1388 
 
 1259 
 
 30, 908, 
 
 921, 923, 
 
 2344 
 
 2184 
 
 2201 
 
 1961 
 
 1760 
 1085 
 
 1285 
 
 1605 
 
 2368 
 
 1950 
 
 5 
 
 1152 
 
 921 
 
 66 
 
 224, 543 
 
 385, 778 
 
 2213 
 
 580 
 
 103 
 
 1620 
 1529 
 
 k 2 
 
cxlviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Ciise. 
 
 Leigh V. Grreen 
 
 Leigh (Lord) : — Eeg. v. In re Kincliant 
 
 -Keg. V. .. 
 In re De Tabley (Lord) 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Leigh Rural Council :- 
 Leighton v. Leighton. 
 Leith Council v. Leith Harbonr and Docks'! 
 
 (Commrs. of) . . . . . . . . ..] 
 
 Leith, Hull and Hamburg Steam Packet Co. v. 
 
 Inland Revenue 
 Le Lievre v. Gould 
 Leman, In the G-oods of . . 
 Lemme, In the Goods of . . 
 
 Lemmon v. Webb 
 
 ■:;) 
 
 Lemon : — Chant v. In re Chant 
 Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier (No. 1) 
 
 •I 
 
 Le Meunier v. Le Meunier 
 
 - (No. 2) 
 
 Le Moignan : — Jersey (Att.-Gen. and Reoeiver-\ 
 General for) ■!;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Leiig, In re. Tarn v. Emmerson 
 
 Leominster Town Council and Herefordshire 
 County Council, In re, and In re Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888 
 
 Leon, In re 
 
 Leonard, In re. Ex parte Leonard 
 
 Leonhardt v. Kalle 
 
 " Lepanto," The 
 
 Lepine, In re. Dowsett v. Culver 
 Lepla u. Rogers .. 
 
 Leppington v. Freeman . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Leresche : — Reg. r. 
 
 Le Seminaire de Quebec v. La Corporation de^ 
 Limoilow .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Leslie: — Hollands. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Leslie w. Rothes (Earl of) 
 
 Leslie v. Young & Sons . . 
 
 Lester: — Kemp «. 
 
 Lester & Co., Ex parte. In re Hannah Lynes 
 
 Levasseur v. Mason & Barry, Ld. 
 
 Levene, Ex parte. In re Hewett 
 Lever, In re. Cord well v. Lever 
 Lever: — Cord well w. In re Lever 
 Lever v. Land Securities Co. 
 
 Lever: — Salford Corporation v. .. 
 
 Leveson v. Beales. In re Applebee 
 Levett : — Humphreys v. In re Humphreys 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 3);\ 
 
 [1892] P. 17 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 161 (9) 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 132 ., 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 836 
 [1896] W. N. 162 (16) .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 118 ;| 
 
 [1899] A. C. 508 .. ../ 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1900] W. N. 210 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 [1898] P. 215 
 
 [1892] P. 89 
 
 C. A. [1894]3Ch. 1;H. L. (E.)j 
 
 [1895] A.C.I .. ••/ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 133 ; [1900] 2 Ch.") 
 345 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 283 . 
 
 ../ 
 
 C. [1895] A. C. 517 .. .-1 
 
 C. [1894] A. C. 283, read Les 
 Mesurier v. Le Mesurier P. C. I 
 [1894] A. C. 283. See Errata f 
 to [1894] A. C. volume . . j 
 
 0. [1892] A. C. 402 .. ../ 
 
 A. [1895] 1 Ch. 652 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 43 
 
 •{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 348 . 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 473 
 
 [1895] W. N. 97 
 
 [1892] P. 122 
 
 C. A. [1892]lCh. 210 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 31 
 
 [1891] W. N. 159; C. A.'[1891]\ 
 
 W.N. 198 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 418 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 288 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 346 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 450 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 499 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 335 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 162 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 113 
 
 0. A. [1891]2Q. B. 73.. 
 
 1895] 
 
 1897 
 1897' 
 1894 
 
 1 Q. B. 328 
 
 ICh. 32 .. 
 ICh. 32 .. 
 W. N. 21 
 
 •{ 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 422 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 168 
 
 •■{ 
 
 1619. 
 
 1454. 
 
 1690 
 1884 
 
 1829- 
 
 1778; 
 
 1580'> 
 
 1604 
 
 1622 
 
 1344,. 
 
 1353 
 
 2365. 
 
 1591,. 
 
 2097 
 
 266, 707„ 
 
 1007 
 
 724! 
 
 1020^ 
 
 1591 
 
 133, 795> 
 
 547, 578- 
 
 1201, 
 2201 
 157 
 575, 
 1436- 
 2003 
 801 
 1063.- 
 
 2230- 
 
 705; 
 
 256- 
 
 1563- 
 
 235» 
 
 528 
 1275 
 105, 908: 
 1011,. 
 1696. 
 
 105 
 1871. 
 
 i87r 
 
 354 
 
 1573,, 
 
 1710 
 
 2338 
 
 8,950 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cxlix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 fLevison & Steiner : — ^Wissner v. 
 
 ILevita's Claim. McDermott v. Boyd. In re' 
 
 McHenry 
 •Levy i;. Davis 
 
 Xevy i;. Stogdon .. 
 
 ILevy : — Woolford's Estate (Trustee of) v. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 iLewiii V. Lewin . . 
 
 -Lewis, Ex parte. In re Bassett . . 
 
 Lewis, in re. Lewis «. Smith .. 
 
 'Lewis: — Aylward u. 
 
 Lewis : — Brompton Hospital for Consumption v.\ 
 In re Bridger .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lewis t>. Darby. In re Nash. In re Spence .. 
 
 Lewis: — Howell j;. 
 
 Lewis V. Inland Revenue Oommrs. 
 
 Lewis V. Lewis 
 
 iLewis u. Londeshorough (Earl of) 
 
 ■Lewis V. Owen 
 
 iewis ti. Poole 
 
 Lewis V. Powell . . 
 
 Lewis :— Provident Clerks Mutual Life Assur- 
 ance v. .. 
 
 ILewis : — Keg. u. .. 
 
 Lewis : — Solicitor to the Treasury v. In re Dash j 
 
 Lewis : — Underwood, Son, & Piper v. .. 
 
 tewisham Union : — Reg. v. 
 
 Ley (Mary), In the Goods of 
 
 SLeyland: — Comber ?;. 
 
 Ley land and Taylor's Contract, In re .. 
 
 Xi'Herminier, In re. Mounsey v. Buston 
 
 lickerish: — Groode ■». In re Bullock .. 
 
 lickerish: — Stone u. 
 
 Liddard: — Thellusson v. .. .. ..| 
 
 liddell u. Lofthouse 
 
 "Liddesdale" (The Ship) :— i'orman & Co.'i 
 Proprietaiy f . .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 liebenthnl & Co. : — Montgomery, Jones & Co. v. 
 life Insurance Co. (Manufactures) :^Anctil v. . . 
 
 life Interests and Reversionary Securities Cor- 
 poration: — Blumherg v. 
 
 life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corpo- 
 ration V, Hand in Hand Fire and Life Insur- 
 ance Society 
 
 lighten v. The Bishop of London . . . . | 
 
 Liles V. Terry 
 
 Lilleshall Coal Co. :— Walker v 
 
 Lilley, In re 
 
 Lilley v. Foad. In re Hale 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 152 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 428 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 3Ch. 365 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 174 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch.478; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 5 / 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 772 
 
 [1891] 
 
 [1896] 
 
 [1900] 
 
 176 
 
 [1891] 
 
 [1893] 
 
 ICh 
 
 1893' 
 
 1891' 
 
 1898' 
 
 1892' 
 
 1893' 
 
 1894' 
 
 1898' 
 
 1897' 
 
 P. 254 
 
 IQ. B. 219 
 
 W.N. 82; [1900] 2 Ch.| 
 
 2 Ch. 81 '.'. '.'. 
 
 1 Ch. 44; C. A. [1894]'! 
 
 297 
 W. N. 99 
 W. N. 181 
 2 Q. B. 290 
 P. 212 .. 
 2 Q. B. 191 
 1 Q. B. 102 
 1 Q. B. 164 
 1 Ch. 678 
 
 
 [1892] W. N. 164 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 665 
 [1900J W. N. 186; [1900] 2 
 812 
 
 Ch 
 
 ■;} 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 306 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 498 
 
 [1892] P. 6 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1898] A. 0. 524 
 
 ■1900' 
 '1894 
 1891 
 
 2 Ch. 625 
 1 Ch. 675 
 W. N. 62 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Ch.j 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 363 
 
 [1900] W.N. 146; [1900] 2 
 
 635 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 295 
 
 P. 0. [1900] A. C. 190 .. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 487 
 
 [1899] A. C. 604 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 171 ; 0. A. [1897]) 
 W. N. 172 (10) ; [1898] 1 Ch 
 27 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 230 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 48; 
 [1891] A. 0. """ 
 
 H. L. (E.)l 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 679 • 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 481 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 759 
 [1898] W. N. 154 (6); C. A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 83 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 107 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 324 
 
 112 
 
 1700 
 
 2063 
 
 129, 
 1924, 
 1925 
 925 
 121 
 
 1742 
 
 1279 
 
 285 
 
 1515 
 1514 
 1791 
 712 
 667 
 583 
 1361 
 671 
 
 1300 
 
 69 
 
 726 
 
 2057 
 1207 
 1606 
 1539 
 2244 
 1469 
 2329 
 1304, 
 2059 
 
 1254 
 
 509 
 
 1534 
 242 
 
 2103 
 
 2250 
 
 757 
 
 2207 
 1214 
 
 2054 
 
 1293 
 
ol 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST, 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Lilly, Wilson & Co. v. Smales, Eeles & Co. 
 Lillyman: — 'Beg. v. 
 
 Lincoln (Bishop of) : — Read v. .. 
 
 Lindon v. Hemery. In re Hicks 
 
 Lindsay, Ex jjarte. In re Armstrong . . 
 
 Lindsay & Co. : — Johnson v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Lindsay & Co. : — Watkins t;. 
 Linfoot V. Pockett 
 Linforth v. Butler 
 Link: — Kissanav. 
 
 Linotype Co.'s Trade-mark, In re 
 
 Lintern v. Burchell. Killick v. Graham 
 Linskey: — Harford u. 
 Lion: — Selig v. 
 
 Liquidation Estates Purchase Co. v. Willoughby | 
 
 List ti. Tharp .. 
 
 Lister ■«. Lane 
 
 Lister ■!). Henry Lister & Son 
 
 Lisle V. Reeve 
 
 Lister (Henry) & Co., Ld., In re. Ex parte 
 
 Huddersfield lianking Co. 
 Lister (Henry) & Sons, Ld. : — Huddersfield"! 
 
 Banking Co., Ld. ?;. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lister : — Wallen v. 
 
 Little: — Kellie -y. .. 
 
 Little V. StevenFon & Co. 
 Littlehoy : — Ogilvie v. 
 
 Littledale v. Liverpool College „ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 456 
 
 C. C. B. [1896] 2 Q. B. 167 
 
 [1891] P. 9 ; P. C. [1892] A. C. 
 644 
 
 [1893] W. N. 138 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 327 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 371 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 } 
 } 
 
 ••{ 
 ■■( 
 
 [1892 
 [1898° 
 C.A.' 
 [1899" 
 C. A.' 
 [1900" 
 238" 
 [1896] 
 [1899' 
 [189r 
 
 a: C. 110 
 
 W. N. 22 (4) .. 
 1895] 2 Ch. 835 .. 
 
 1 Q. B. 116 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 574 
 'W. N. 106; [1900] 2 
 
 Ch.l 
 
 (b')-i 
 
 Littledale v. Lonsdale (Earl of) .. 
 
 Liverpool (Bank of) v. London and Biver Plated 
 Bank / 
 
 Liverpool (School for the Indigent Blind at). In re 
 
 "Liverpool," The 
 
 Liverpool and Manchester Aerated Bread and\ 
 Caf6 Co. w. Firth / 
 
 Liverpool College : — Littledale v. .. ..i 
 
 Liverpool Corn Trade Association v. London and\ 
 North Western Ey. Co / 
 
 Liverpool Corporation v. Llanfyllin Assessment"! 
 Committee . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Liverpool General Brokers' Association, Ld. v.\ 
 Commercial Press Telegram Bureaux, Ld. .. J 
 
 Liverpool Malt Co. : — Parry r. .. .. ..| 
 
 Liverpool Now Cattle Market Co. : — Att.-Gen.'> 
 of Duchy of Lancaster v. .. .. ../ 
 
 2 Q. B. 196 
 IQ. B. 852 
 
 ^ _, 1 Q. B. 513 
 
 C.A. [1896] ICh. 726; H.L, 
 
 [1898] A. C. 321 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 260 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 212 
 [1893]W. N. 33 
 [1900] W. N. 264 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 417 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 273 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 312 
 
 Registration App.Ct. (Sc.) [1898]\ 
 
 W.N. 112 .. .. * 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 108 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 53 (1) 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 228 ; [1900]\ 
 
 ICh. 19 / 
 
 Reported (1793-4) 2 H. Bl. 267, 
 
 299 ; 2 Anstr. 356 ; 5 Bro. P. C. 
 
 519; [1899] 2 Ch. 233, n. .. 
 
 [1896]1Q. B. 7.. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 669 
 [1893] P. 154 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 367 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 228 ; [1900]\ 
 ICh. 19 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 120 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 71 ; [1899]) 
 2Q. B. 14 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 2; [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 339 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 30 (2) 
 
 ?) 
 
 1944, 
 
 2100 
 
 612 
 756, 757, 
 758, 773, 
 
 1591 
 
 575, 
 
 1501 
 
 503, 
 
 1403 
 
 1238 
 38, 1493 
 
 170 
 201, 20(5 
 
 1389 
 662 
 
 2132 
 
 1783 
 546 
 1549 
 
 1297 
 
 1156 
 1061 
 328 
 1293 
 
 472 
 
 1550 
 
 1155 
 
 1384 
 
 196S 
 281 
 
 1135. 
 
 1265 
 
 194 
 
 1761 
 2011 
 
 661 
 1135 
 1661 
 2280 
 529 
 1246 
 1140 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cli 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Liverpool (Revising Barrister) : — Eeg. v. 
 Liverpool Sailing Shipowners' Mutual Protection\ 
 and Indemnity Association : — Nourse v. ..) 
 
 Livett, Frank & Son : — Spencer v. .. ..< 
 
 Llandudno Improvement Commissioners : — Lon- 
 don and North Western Ry. Co. v. ., 
 
 Llandudno Urban Council v. Hughes . , 
 
 Llandudno Urban Council v. Woods 
 
 on-\ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Llanelly Union v. Neath Union . 
 
 Llanfyllin Assessment Committee : — Liverpool 
 
 Corporation f. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Llanrbaiadr-yn-Moclinant Overseers : — St. Asaph ■> 
 
 (Dean and Chapter) v... . . . . . . / 
 
 Llewellin, a Solicitor, In re 
 
 Llewellyn «. Brown. In re Brown .. ..| 
 
 Llewellyn v. Glamorgan Ey. Co. (Vale of) . . | 
 
 Lloyd, Ex parte. In re Jones .. 
 Lloyd V. Gough. In re Gough . . 
 Lloyd and North London Ey. Co., In re 
 Lloyd and Tooth, In re .. 
 Lloyd: — Hibbert v. In re Doody. Fisher vA 
 Doody ,. .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Lloyd Jones v. Munro 
 Lloyd: — Larkin r. 
 
 Lloyd r. Nowell .. 
 
 Lloyd V. Sugg & Co 
 
 Lloyd V. Tardy. In re Harman 
 
 Lloyd's Bank v. Bach. Walker v. Bach. In re) 
 Bach J 
 
 Lloyd's Bank, Ld. i;. BuUock 
 
 Lloyd's Bank, Ld. v. Princess Eoyal Colliery Co. 
 
 Lloyd's, Barnett's and Bosanquet's Bank : — ] 
 
 Campbell V. .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Lloyd Phillips f. Davis. InreBowen.. 
 
 Lloyd & Sons :— Baynes & Co. v. .. .. ] 
 
 Lloyd & Sons : — ^Eedgrave v. 
 
 Lloyd-George & George, Ex parte. In re 
 
 Humphreys .... 
 Local Government Act, 1888, In re. Ex parte^ 
 
 Kent Coimty Council and Dover (Council of) / 
 Local Government Act, 1888, In re. Ex parte ^ 
 
 London County Council 
 Local Government Act, 1888, In re, and In re^ 
 
 Herefordshire County Council and Leominster J 
 
 Town Council J 
 
 Lock: — ^Burrowes u. 
 
 Lock V. Pearce . . • • • ■ ■ . ■■{ 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 155 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 16 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 34; [1900]\ 
 IQ. B. 498 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 287 
 
 [1900] W. N. 26 ; [1900] 1 Q.B, 
 
 472 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 135 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 705 .. 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 38 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 71; [1899]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 14 / 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 511 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 145 
 
 •) 
 
 ■.1 
 
 [1900j W. N. 37 ; [1900] 
 489 
 
 [1897]2Q.B.239; C. A. 
 
 1 Q. B. 473 .. 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 231 
 [1894]W. N. 76 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 397 
 U. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 559 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 129 .. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 109 
 [1891]W. N. 71 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 744 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 481 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 607 
 
 [1892] W.N. 108 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 192 
 [1900]W. N. 99 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 136, n. 
 
 1 Ch.| 
 
 [1898]) 
 
 ••( 
 
 •■{ 
 
 .. ..{ 
 .. ..{ 
 
 , A. [1895]! 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 [1895] IQ.B. 820; 
 
 2Q. B. 610 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 876 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 520 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 389 ; 0. A. [1891]\ 
 IQ.B. 725 / 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 33 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 43 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 94, n, 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 328; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 2 Ch. 271 I 
 
 1372 
 1000 
 
 1219 
 
 1684 
 
 1210 
 
 1846 
 1461 
 
 2280 
 
 1687 
 2052 
 1186 
 
 1663 
 
 114 
 2051 
 1090 
 1053 
 1303, 
 2058 
 1396 
 63 
 2064, 
 2220, 
 2249 
 1214 
 1475, 
 1503 
 
 789 
 
 1278 
 1191 
 1704, 
 1706 
 279, 
 2347 
 
 1083 
 
 1286 
 
 2026 
 
 42, 577, 
 579 
 
 540, 580 
 
 547, 578 
 
 2184 
 1069, 
 1503 
 
clii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest, 
 
 Lock V. Queensland Investment and Land Mort-I 
 
 gage Co J 
 
 Locker : — Salt v. ' In re Parker- Jervis . . 
 Lockhart : — Akerman v. In re Hawkes 
 Lockhart, In the Goods of 
 
 °.'l 
 
 Lockwood : — Patent Agents (Institute of) v. 
 
 Loder v. Duke of St. Albans. In re Duke ofi 
 
 St. Albans 
 Lodge V. Huddersfield Corporation 
 Lodge V. Huddersfield Corporation 
 Loe V. Miohell. In re Hocking . . 
 Loftkouse V. Brown 
 Lofthouse: — Liddell i;. .. 
 Loftus' Trade-mark, In re 
 
 Loftus-Otway, In re. Otway v. Otway 
 
 Logan: — Att.-Gen. ?;. 
 
 Logan : — B'reme v. In re Freme (No. 1) 
 
 — (No. 2) 
 
 Logan : — Winnipeg (City oVjv... 
 
 Logsdon j;. Booth .. 
 
 Logsdon V. Trotter 
 
 Lole I). Betteridge 
 
 Loma Gold Mines, Ld. : — Ernest v. 
 Lomer ti. Waters .. 
 Londesborough (Earl of) : — Lewis v. 
 
 -1 
 
 Londesborough (Earl of) : — Schofield v. 
 
 London and Canadian Loan and Agency Co. v.\ 
 Duggan j 
 
 London and County Banking Co. v. Bray 
 
 London and County Banking Co. : — Clarke v. .. 
 London and County Banking Co. v. Goddard .. 
 
 London and County Banking Co. : — Great) 
 Western Ry. Co. v. ,. .. .. .. j 
 
 London and County Banking Co. : — James v. 
 In re Morris .. 
 
 London and County Printing Works : — Basfer v\ 
 
 London and East Coast Express Steamship Co. :— •> 
 Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. v.] 
 
 London and Eastern Counties Loan and Discount) 
 Co. V. Creasey . . . . . . . . . . j 
 
 London and General Bank, In re (No. 1) .. 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 ■ (No. 3) 
 
 ^■} 
 
 :| 
 
 ■} 
 
 London and Globe Finance Corporation, Ld. v. 
 Kaufman 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 397; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1896] A. 0. 461 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 643 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 [1893]W. N. 80 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. 347 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 873 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 847 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 859 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 567 .. 
 [1898] W. N. 52 (2) .. 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 295 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 193 
 
 [1895] 2 Cb. 235 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 100 
 
 [1891] 3 Cb. 167 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 445 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 5 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.\ 
 
 401 / 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 617 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 178 (3); 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 250 .. 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 1 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 326 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 191 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 660 ; C. A. [1895] 
 
 1 Q. B. 536 ; H. L. (E.) [1896] 
 
 A. C. 514 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 506 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 130 .. ..| 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 552 
 1897] ICh. 642 
 
 1899] W. N. 100 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 172 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 144 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 464 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 413; C. A. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 18 (3) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 485 
 
 [1899] W. N. 53 ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 901 
 
 [1895] W. N. 64 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 442 ; C. A. [1897] i 
 IQ. B. 768 ; 
 
 [1894] W. N. 155 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 166 .. 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 673 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 240 
 
 399 
 
 1745 
 2049 
 1621 
 1434, 
 2069, 
 2072 
 
 1737 
 
 2082 
 
 43 
 2305 
 
 954 
 
 868 
 2127 
 
 159, 
 2331 
 1347 
 2321 
 1885 
 
 250 
 
 1147 
 
 1148 
 
 130 
 
 360 
 554 
 667 
 
 191 
 
 91, 1205 
 
 1488, 
 
 1501 
 
 92 
 
 2201 
 
 93 
 
 147 
 
 1234 
 
 318, 
 1704, 
 1986 
 
 212 
 
 439, 772, 
 2072 
 
 469 
 783 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cliii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Liondon and India Docks Joint Committee :■ 
 
 London Association of Shipowners and 
 
 Brokers v. 
 3Jondon and Lancashire Life Assurance Co. v.\ 
 
 Fleming .. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 London and Mashonaland Exploration Co. v.\ 
 
 New Mashonaland Exploration Co. .. ../ 
 
 Xiondon and Midland Bank v. Mitchell .. .. | 
 
 London and New York Investment Corporation, j 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co.: — Att.- 
 Gen. ti. .. 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Att.-Gen.V 
 of the Duchy of Lancaster V. .. .. .. / 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Clementsi 
 
 " / 
 
 fljondon and North Western Ey. Co. : — Cusack v, 
 London and North Western Ey. Co.: — Darlaston"! 
 (Local Board) i;. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. v. Donellanj 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. v. Evans .. | 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Pletcheri 
 
 "• J 
 
 London and North Western Ey, Co. : — Flower v. 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — How v. ■ 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Liverpool^ 
 
 Com Trade Association u. .. ,. ../ 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. v. Llan-l 
 
 dudno Improvement Commrs. .. ../ 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — London) 
 
 and Westminster Loan and Discount Co. v. ..) 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Mansion) 
 
 House Association on Ey. Traffic «. .. .. ) 
 
 London and North Western Uy. Co. and Mason's) 
 
 Orphanage, In re .. .. .. ..J 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Morgan \ 
 
 V. 
 
 London and North Western and Great Westernl 
 
 Ey. Companies, In re Haigh and 
 Xiondon and North Western Ey. Co. : — Phipps v. 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Eeg. v. 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. and Great] 
 Western Ey. Co. v. Euncorn Eural Districts 
 Council .. .. .. .. .. ..; 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. v. Walker i 
 
 London and North Western Ey. Co. : — Williams'! 
 V. / 
 
 London and North Western and Great Western 
 Joint Ey. Co. v. Billington (J. H.), Ld. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Oh. 242 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 499 .. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 165 
 
 [1899] W. N. 92 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 161 / 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 860 
 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (12) ; [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 72; C. A. [1899] 
 W. N. 221 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 78 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 274 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 482 ../ 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 347 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 45 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 694 / 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 748; C. A, 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 7; H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1899] A. 0. 79 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 432 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 ICh. 16 / 
 
 •■{ 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 122 
 
 0. A. [1894]2Q. B. 65.. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 496 ; C. A. [1892]) 
 
 1Q.B. 391 ) 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 120 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 287 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 49 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 273 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 596 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 469 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 649 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 229 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 512 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 34; 0. A. [1898]\ 
 LCh. 561 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 34 ;\ 
 [1900] A. C. 109 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 147 ; 0. A. [1900] \ 
 W. N. 75 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 760/, 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 748 ; C. A. [1898] 
 2 Q. B. 7; H. L. (B.) [1899] 
 A. 0. 79 
 
 236, 723, 
 2148 
 
 254 
 
 337, 
 1414 
 
 1133 
 384 
 
 1647 
 
 1530 
 
 946, 
 1493 
 583 
 
 1666 
 1664 
 
 1267 
 
 1491, 
 1500 
 945 
 
 583 
 1661 
 1684 
 1081 
 1658 
 
 273 
 1089 
 
 56 
 
 1662 
 628, 
 1206, 
 1649 
 
 1914 
 
 1648 
 1684 
 
 1665 
 
cliv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 London and 'Nortliem Assets Corporation : — ' 
 
 Wallv 
 
 London and Northern Assets Corporation: — 
 
 Wallv 
 
 London and Nortliem Bank, In re. Ex parte 
 
 Jones 
 London and Northern Bank, In re. Mack's 
 
 Claim .. ., ., 
 
 London and Provincial Bank : — Powell v. 
 
 London and Provincial Laundry Co. u. AVillesden 
 (Local Board) .. 
 
 London and Eiver Plate Bank v. Bank of Liver- 
 pool 
 
 London and South African Exploration Co. v. 
 De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ld. 
 
 London and South Wales Colliery Co.: — Hug- 
 gins V. .. 
 
 London and South Western Bank : — Bavins, 
 Junr. and Sims v. 
 
 London and South Western Ry. Co. : — Mansion 
 House Association on Ey. Traffic v. .. 
 
 London and South Western Ry. Co. : — Pearce v. 
 
 London and South Western Ry. Co. : — Putney' 
 
 (Overseers)?). .. 
 London and South Western Ey. Co. : — Roche v. 
 London and South Western Ry. Co.: — Singer' 
 
 Manufacturing Co. 1). .. 
 London and South Western Ry. Co. : — Wakelin' 
 
 V. 
 
 London and Suburhan Bank, In re 
 
 London and TJniversal Bank, Ex parte. In re 
 
 Ginger . . 
 London and Universal Bank v. Clancarty (Earl of) 
 
 London and Westminster Bank : — Didisheim v. 
 
 London and Westminster Bank v. Inland' 
 
 Revenue Commrs. 
 London and Westminster Loan and Discount Co. 
 
 V. London and North Western Ry. Co. 
 London and Yorkshire Mutual Money Club Co., 
 
 In re 
 London Auti- Vivisection Society : — Cross v. 
 
 In re Foveaux .. 
 London Association of Shipowners and Brokers 
 
 V. London and India Docks Joint Committee 
 
 London Assurance : — ^Ruabon Steamship Co. v. 
 
 London Bank of Mexico and South America v. 
 
 Apthorpe 
 London (Bishop of) : — AUoroft v. 
 
 London (Bishop of) : — Reg. v. .. 
 
 London, The (Bishop of) : — Lighten v. .. 
 
 London, Brighton and South Coast Ey. Co. : — 
 I'ugh V. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 469 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 10 (4); [1899]\ 
 ICh. 550 
 
 [1899] W. N. 230; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 220 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 114 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 610; C. A. [1893]\ 
 2Ch. 555 / 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 271 
 
 [1896]1Q. B. 7 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 451 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 496 ; C. A. [1891]) 
 2Q. B. 699 ( 
 
 [1899] W. N. 248; C. A. [1900]i 
 IQ. B. 270 / 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 927 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 93 ; [1900]\ 
 2Q. B. 100 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 182 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 IQ. B. 440 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 502 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 833 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. & H. L. (E.) [1896] 1 Q. B.\ 
 189, n / 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 604 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 461 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 689 
 [1899] W. N. 107 ; C. A. [190C 
 W.N. 87; [1900] 2 Ch. 15 . 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 166 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 49 
 [1891] W.N. 2 .. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 501 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 242 .. ..I 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 456 ; C. A. [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 722 ; H. L. (E.) [1899] 
 W.N. 254; [1900] A. 0. 6 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q: B. 383 ; U. A. [1891]\ 
 2Q. B. 378 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 666 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 48 ; H. L. (E.)\ 
 [1891] A. C. 666 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 48; H. L. (B.) 
 [1891] A. C. 666 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 248 
 
 :?) 
 
 358 
 
 362 
 
 392 
 
 352 
 
 401 
 
 1164 
 
 194 
 
 261 
 1258 
 
 2158 
 
 1662 
 
 1228 
 
 1682 
 
 1559 
 
 88, 
 
 1666 
 
 1646 
 
 446, 941 
 
 138 
 1566 
 
 494 
 
 1805 
 1081 
 445 
 
 277 
 
 236, 728, 
 2148 
 
 990 
 
 1764 
 757 
 757 
 
 757 
 
 975 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clr 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 London Building Trades Federation:— Trollope v.i 
 London Cemetery Co. :— St. Giles, Camberwelh 
 
 '" / 
 
 London Chartered Bank of Australia, In re 
 London Chartered Bank of Australia v. Mac-I 
 
 MiUan / 
 
 London, Chatham and Dover Ey. Co. : — Foster) 
 
 •»• \ 
 
 London, Chatham and Dover Ey, Co. : — Nichol-i 
 son v. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London, Chatham and Dover Ey. Co. v. South'! 
 Eastern Ey. Co. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London City (Commissioners of Sewers) 1;.^ 
 Battersea (Lord) .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London City (Commissioners of Sewers), Ex 
 parte. Ex parte Vicar of St. Botolph, Aid- 
 gate 
 
 London City (Commissioners of Sewers) v. Parish-S 
 ioners of St. Botolph Without, Aldgate .. / 
 
 London City (Corporation) : — ^Eeg. v. Ex partel 
 Boaler .. .. .. .. .. ..j 
 
 London City Court (Judge): — Eeg. v.Q^o. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 London City Mission : — Anderson v. In re Wood 
 
 London Clearing Bankers (Committee of) v.l 
 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. .. .. ..J 
 
 London Corporation : — ^Aldis v. .. .. ,.i 
 
 London Corporation: — Charity Commrs. v. Inl 
 re White's Charities .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London Corporation : — City of London Electric) 
 Lighting Co. v. J 
 
 London Corporation : — Sion College i?. .. 
 
 London Corporation and Tubb's Contract, In re 
 
 London County Council, Ex parte. Ex partel 
 Christ Church, East Greenwich (Vicar of) . . / 
 
 London County Council : — Allen v. 
 
 London Coimty Council : — ^Armstrong v. 
 
 London County Council v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 London County Council v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 London County Council v. Aylesbury Dairy Co./ 
 
 London County Council: — City and SouthV 
 London Ey. Co. 11. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London County Council : — Crisp j;. 
 
 London County Council v. Cross 
 
 London County Council i;. Dixon 
 
 London County Council v. East London Water-) 
 works Co. .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 London County Council v. Edwards 
 
 London County Council : — Elliott ?;. 
 
 London County Council : — Epsom District) 
 Council «. .. •■ .. .. •■) 
 
 London County Council v. Eritli Churchwardens] 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 29; C. A. [1895]' 
 W. N. 45 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 699 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 540 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 292 . 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 711 
 
 [1895] W. N. 91 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 120; H. L, 
 
 ;) 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 429 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 708 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 544 
 
 [1892] P. 161 .. 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 146 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 71 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 273 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 577 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 542 
 
 [1899] W. N. 76 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 169 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 659 
 
 [1900] W. N. 116 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 581 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 524 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 520 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 587 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 416 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 226; C. A. [1900] 
 
 W. JSr. 3; [1900] IQ.B. 192; 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1900] W. N. 268 
 [190Q] W. N. 100 
 [1897] W. N. 153 (10); [1898] \ 
 
 IQ. B. 106 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 513 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 720 
 
 G. A. [1892] W. N. 80 . 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 496 
 
 [1900] W. N. 17; [1900] 1 Q. B, 
 
 330 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 75 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 277 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 751 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 210; H. L, 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 562 
 
 :•)■ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 650, 969, 
 2143 
 
 1175 
 
 478 
 
 97 
 
 1643 
 
 1661 
 
 1005, 
 1006 
 
 1118 
 
 754. 
 
 743; 
 
 1028; 
 
 594,. 
 1527 
 1953 
 2303 
 
 1790 
 1181 
 2234: 
 
 543 
 
 2068 
 2238 
 
 735 
 
 1149 
 1173 
 
 1769 
 
 1161 
 
 1155 
 
 1152, 
 
 1669 
 
 1153 
 
 1150' 
 
 1173. 
 
 2275. 
 
 1348. 
 1159. 
 
 894 
 168& 
 
vlvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■I 
 
 London County Council : — Fulham Vestry v. 
 London County Council, Ex pavte. In re Local) 
 Government Act, 1888 . . . . . . ) 
 
 liondon County Council : — Harris v. 
 London County Council v. Herring 
 London County Council v. Humphreys, Ld. 
 
 ^London County Council v. Lambeth Overseers 
 
 Loudon County Council :— 
 
 London County Council v. 
 London County Council v. 
 London County Council :— 
 
 ways Co. v. 
 London County Council : 
 
 Co. ■;; 
 
 London County Council :- 
 
 Tramways Co. v. 
 London County Council :— 
 London County Council v. 
 London County Council v. 
 London County Council v. 
 
 Lavy i;. 
 
 Lawrance & Sons 
 London School Board 
 -London Street Tram-) 
 
 — Loudon Tramways! 
 
 — ITorth Metropolitan) 
 
 -Oxford (The), Ld. v. 
 
 Pearce 
 
 Pryor 
 
 Bead .. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ?} 
 
 London County Council: — -Beg. v. 
 
 London County Council : — Eeg. v. Ex parte 
 
 Akkersdyk. Ex parte Fermenia 
 London County Council v. St. George's Union\ 
 
 Assessment Committee (No. 1) .. ../ 
 
 • (No. 2){ 
 
 London County Council: — St. Leonard, Shore-l 
 ditch. Vestry ?;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London County Council : — Savoy Hotel Co. v...- 
 
 London County Council: — Thompson v. 
 
 London County Coimcil : — Wendon v. .. 
 
 London County Council v. West Ham (Church- •! 
 
 wardens, &c., of) (No. 1) . . . . ..] 
 
 ■ — (No. 2) 
 
 London County Council i;. Wood 
 London County Council : — Woodham v. 
 London County Council o. Woolwich Union'i 
 
 (Assessment Committee of) .. .. ..J 
 
 London County Council v. Worley 
 
 London County Council and City of London'i 
 
 Brewery Co., In re .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London County Council and Essex Justices : — ) 
 
 West Ham Union V. .. .. .. ..j 
 
 London Drapery Stores, In re .. 
 
 London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow Life Insurance'i 
 
 Co. : — Barnes v. .. .. .. ..] 
 
 London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow Life Insurance! 
 
 Co. : — Bawden v. . . . . . . . . / 
 
 London Financial Association v. Whadcoat 
 London Freehold and Leasehold Property Co. vA 
 
 Baron Suffield .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 [1896] 
 [1897] 
 
 [1895il 
 H. L. 
 
 r) 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 76 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 33 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 240 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 522 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 755 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 511 ; C. A. 
 2Q. B. 25; H. L. (E.) 
 A. C. 625 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 915 ; C. A. 
 
 2Q. B. 577 .. 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 228 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 606 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 189 ; 
 (B.) [1894] A. C. 489 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 375 .. I 
 
 [1895] W. N. 91; [1898] 2 Ch.\: 
 145 J 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 109 .. .. j 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 465 .. ' 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 288 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 454 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 190 
 
 C. A. [1893] IQ. B. 210; H. L.) 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 562 ..\ 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 476 ; H. L. 
 (E.) [1894] A. C. 600 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 104 
 
 [1900] W. N. 25 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.\ 
 665 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 840 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 227; C. A. [1894]! I 
 
 ^•} 
 
 ^■)! 
 
 IQ. B. 812 J 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 44; H.L.I 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 562 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 173 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 482 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 863 
 C. A. [1893]1 Q. B. 210; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. 0. 562 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 826 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 387 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 443 .. 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 684 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 864 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 534 
 C. A. [1893]3Cli. 307 .. 
 C. A. [1897]2Ch. 608 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1170 
 
 540, 580 
 
 2293 
 1153 
 1159 
 
 1681 
 
 1149, 
 1151 
 1154 
 1158 
 
 2149 
 900 
 
 568 
 
 1172 
 1160 
 1151 
 218 
 1359, 
 1629, 
 2067 
 
 1307 
 
 1685 
 
 1672 
 
 1682 
 
 2018 
 1517 
 1150 
 
 1686 
 
 628 
 1146 
 1174 
 
 1685 
 
 1154 
 
 1679 
 
 1671 
 
 436 
 
 979 
 
 979, 
 1576 
 1654 
 
 1278 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 oUif. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 London General Omnibus Co. : — Beard v, 
 London General Omnibus Co. v. Lavell 
 London Healtb Electrical Institute, In re 
 
 London Illustrated Standard Co. : — ^Baschet v...\ 
 
 London Joint Stock Bank : — Bentinck v. 
 
 London Joint Stock Bank : — Simmons v. 
 
 London Justices :- 
 
 -Eeg. V. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 (No. 3) 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 London Justices : — Eeg. v. 
 
 Union .. 
 London Justices : — Eeg. v. 
 London Justices : — Eeg. v. 
 London Justices : — Eeg. v. 
 
 London Justices : — Eeg. v. 
 
 (No. 4) 
 
 (No. 5) 
 
 Ex parte Greenwich) 
 
 .. .. ) 
 
 Ex parte Lambert 
 
 -Eeg. V. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Ex partel 
 
 London (Lord Mayor of):- 
 
 Boaler .. 
 London Metallurgical Co., In re . . 
 London Metallurgical Co., In re . . 
 London : — Mostyn (Lord) v. 
 London Parochial Charities (Trustees of): — 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 London Portland Cement Co. : — Bevan v. 
 
 :} 
 
 ?;! 
 
 London Port Sanitary Authority : — Thames Con- 
 servancy V. 
 
 London Printing and Publishing Alliance v. 
 Cox 
 
 London Provident Building Society v. Morgan . . 
 
 London School Board : — Bethnal Green Vestry v. 
 
 London School Board : — Conybeare v. .. 
 London School Board : — London County Council') 
 
 V. J 
 
 London School Board: — Phillips v. Cockerton'l 
 
 ■w. The Same .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London School Board : — Shaw v. 
 
 London School Board v. Smith . . 
 
 London (Sheriff of) : — Marylebone Vestry v. ..I 
 
 London Street Tramways Co. and London | 
 County Council, In re .. .. .. ../ 
 
 London Trading Bank : — ^Bechuanaland Explora-j 
 tion Co. V. .. .. .. .. .. I 
 
 London Tramways Co. v. London County Council 
 
 London Tramways Co. : — Eapier v. 
 
 London Trust Co. v. Mackenzie 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 530 
 C. A. [1900] W.N. 249 
 [1896] W. N. 170 (3) . 
 [1899] W. N. 215 ; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 
 73 j 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 120 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 270; H. L.\ 
 
 (E.) [1892] A. C. 201 ../ 
 
 [1893] W. N. 86 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 476 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 453 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 214; 0. A. [1895] [ 
 IQ. B. 616 f 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 881 
 
 [1900] W. N. 26 ; [1900] 1 Q. B, 
 438 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 664 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 433 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 659 
 
 [1899] W. N. 20 (11); [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 532 / 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 146 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 758 
 [1897[ 2 Ch. 262 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 170 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 541 
 [1892] W. N. 151 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 647 
 
 0. A. [1891]3Ch. 291 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 266 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2Q. B. 219; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1897] W. N. 167 (7); 
 
 [1898] A. C. 190 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 118 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 606 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 4; 0. 
 
 2 Q. B. 447 .. 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 [1895] W. N. 37 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. Ill ; C. A. [1900] ( 
 2Q. B. 591 ^ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 189 ; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1894] A. C. 489 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 658 .. ' .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 375 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 588 .. 
 [1893] W. N. 9 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1898]| 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1242 
 
 641 
 
 410- 
 
 531 
 
 2076 
 
 1318,., 
 
 2075 
 
 1034,, 
 
 1690 
 
 1672- 
 
 562; 
 
 1630- 
 
 1040,, 
 
 1112 
 
 1180- 
 
 1458-; 
 
 1042 
 1691 
 1670 
 
 1G7L 
 
 1028- 
 
 437 
 450 
 1770- 
 
 235 
 
 731, 
 
 2203- 
 
 1350, 
 
 2106,. 
 
 2272 
 
 529" 
 
 230- 
 
 1169- 
 
 182a 
 1158 
 
 1825 
 
 332 
 
 729, 964,, 
 
 1086 
 
 1925 
 2149' 
 
 1319- 
 
 900 
 1352, 
 2152 
 34L 
 
•olviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ELondon, Windsor and Greenwich Hotels Co., In\ 
 re. Quartermaine's Claim . . . . . . J 
 
 liOng V. Clarke 
 
 Loiig V. Gardner. In re Gardner (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 ■Longbottom : — Nell v. .. 
 ■Longhurst: — T)a,y v. 
 
 (Lonsdale (Barl of) : — Littledale v. 
 
 Lonsdale (Earl of) «. Lowther .. 
 
 Lopes : — Hume v. .. 
 
 Xopes V. Hume-Dick. In re Dick. (Hume v. 
 
 Lopes) .. 
 iLord V. Pox 
 Lord V. Lord 
 Lord Advocate I). Bogie .. 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Bogie (Methven's Executors) | 
 
 Xord Advocate v. Finnigan (or M'Court) . . < 
 
 iLord Advocate v. Fleming 
 
 Lord Advocate ?;. Gordon .. .. ..| 
 
 Lord Advocate : — Hamilton (Duke) v. .. 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Hutclieson . . . . .A 
 
 Lord Advocate : — Macfarlane v. . . .. ,. 
 
 Lord Advocate i;. Maofarlane (Dunlop's Trustees)/ 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Maclaohlan . . . . ..[ 
 
 ") 
 
 Lord Advocate v. McCulloch 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Murray (Preckleton's Judicial 
 Factor) 
 
 Lord Advocate : — Phillips i;. 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Eohertson 
 Lord Advocate f. Sawers .. 
 Lord Advocate v. Thompson 
 Lord Advocate v. Wemyss 
 Lord Advocate tJ. Wilson 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Young . . 
 
 ■" Lord of the Isles," The :— WiUiams, Torrey &) 
 Co. V. Knight .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Lord and FuUerton's Contract, In re 
 
 " Lord Bangor," The 
 
 " Lord Stanley " (O^vners of The) :— Fellows v. 
 
 Loseby & Carnley : — Midland Ry. Co. v. 
 
 ] 
 
 -1 
 ■■{ 
 ■•{ 
 •I 
 ••( 
 ■■{ 
 
 •{ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 639 .. .. 475 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 119 .. 682 
 
 [1892] W. N. 164 .. .. 790 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 159 .. 46 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 767 .. .. 546,548 
 
 [1893] W.N. 3 193 
 
 (Reported) (1793-4) 2 H. Bl.] 
 
 267, 299 ; 2 Anstr. 356 ; 5 Bro. 1265 
 
 P. 0.519; [1899]2Ch.233,n.J 
 [1900] W. N. 165 ; [1900] 2 Ch.l 
 
 687 J 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 112 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 423 ; H 
 
 (B.) [1892] A. C. 112 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 199 
 
 [1900] P. 297 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. 0. 83 .. 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N 
 
 100 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N 
 
 101 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1897] A. C. 145 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W, 
 
 134 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] W. N. 160 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N.\ 
 
 141 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 291 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W, 
 
 96 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1900] W 
 
 104 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 
 
 124 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W 
 
 110 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N 
 
 204 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 132 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N.\! 
 
 131 /' 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N.\ 
 
 141 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 124 ;\ 
 
 [1900]A. C. 48 .. ../ 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 118 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1899] W. N.\ 
 
 190 / 
 
 [1894] P. 342 
 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 157 (11) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 228 
 [1896] P. 28 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 98 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 23 (9) 
 
 [1899] A. C. 133 
 
 !■} 
 
 } 
 
 1876 
 
 2189 
 
 2189 
 
 1369 
 696 
 
 1784 
 
 1784 
 
 1778 
 1808 
 1808 
 1786 
 1803 
 1782 
 1782 
 
 1747 
 
 1809 
 
 1781 
 
 1783 
 
 1806 
 
 1769, 
 1770 
 
 1803 
 
 900, 944, 
 1261 
 
 1779 
 1751 
 995 
 
 2182 
 
 1956 
 1140 
 
 1665 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Lostwithiel and Fowey Ry. Co. : — Fortesoue v. 
 
 iLotkian: — AitoMson t;. .. 
 
 Loughnan: — Morley «. .. 
 
 Louis, In re. Ex parte Incorporated Law Society 
 
 Louis V. Smellie .. 
 Loustalan v. Loustalan. 
 
 In re Martin ... 
 In re Whiston's Settle- 
 
 Lovatt V. Williamson. 
 
 ment 
 Love : — ^Att.-Gren. for New South Wales v. 
 Love: — Torish v. .. 
 
 Love : — ^Wavertree Sailing Ship Co. v. „ 
 Love: — Willson v. 
 Loveday, In the Groods of 
 Lovegrove : — Ooole v. 
 Lovejoy V. Cole .. 
 
 Lovell and Christmas v. Beauchamp 
 
 Lovett I?. Lovett .. 
 
 Low, In re. Ex parte Argentine Gold Fields- 
 
 Ld 
 
 Low, In re. Ex parte Gihson . . 
 
 Low, In re. Bland v. Low 
 
 Low Beechhum Coal Co. : — Greenwell v. 
 
 Low v. Bouverie .. 
 
 Low : — ^Phillips v... 
 
 Lowden : — Pease v. 
 Lowe: — ^Bramble u. 
 Lowe V. Cooke. In re Blantern . . 
 
 Lowe V. Lowe 
 
 Lowe «. Pearson .. 
 
 Lowe ». Volp 
 
 Lowen: — ^Davies r. 
 
 Lowenfeld : — Hammersmith (Vestry of) 
 
 Lowles : — Cremer v. la re Haggerston Election) 
 
 Petition.. .. .. .. J 
 
 Lower Rhine and Wurtemburg Insurance Asso-\ 
 
 ciation V. Sedgwick 
 
 Lowman, In re. Devenish v. Pester 
 
 Lowndes: — Reg. 17. 
 Lowth V. Ibbotson 
 Lowther v. Caledonian Ey. Co. .. 
 
 Lowther: — ^Dalgliesh « 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ••( 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 621 
 
 Registration App. Ot. (Sc.)[1897]\ 
 
 W.N. 98 / 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 736 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 649 
 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 115 (7) ..•[ 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 103; [1900]\ 
 P. 211 / 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 661 
 
 P. C. [1§98] A. C. 679 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 93 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 373 .. 
 0. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 626 
 [1900] P. 154 .. 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 44 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 861 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 607 ..| 
 
 [1897] W. N. 163 (11); [1898]\ 
 ICh. 82 .. .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 147 
 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 734 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Oh. 147 .. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 165 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 82 .. 
 
 -I 
 
 / 
 [1899]j 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 47 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 8 (5); 
 
 IQ. B. 386 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 283 
 
 C. A. [1891] W.N. 54 .. .A 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 71 ; [1899]1 
 
 P. 204 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 2 (3) ; [1899]\ 
 
 1Q.B. 261 / 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 256 
 [1891]W. N. 86 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 278 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 504 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 739 ; 0. A. [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 179 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 348 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 20 (13) ; [1899]V 
 IQ. B. 577 / 
 
 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 1003 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 443; C. A. [1892]! 
 ICh. 73 f 
 
 C. A. -[1899] W. N. 133 ; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 590 / 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1669, 
 2064 
 
 1402 
 
 2207 
 2061 
 969, 
 1248 
 
 497 
 
 1899 
 
 1330 
 1378 
 1332 
 1057 
 1625 
 1158 
 591 
 1420, 
 1698 
 
 1909 
 
 105 
 
 104 
 787, 
 1560 
 1261 
 771, 
 2184 
 1118, 
 2360 
 
 543 
 
 2215 
 2311, 
 2319 
 
 698 
 
 1225 
 
 2151 
 
 1722 
 1347 
 
 1365 
 
 1000 
 
 504, 
 2302, 
 2347 
 
 2213 
 
 1224 
 
 1086 
 
 676 
 
clx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Lowther: — Lonsdale (Earl of) j;. 
 
 Loyd: — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Lubbock V. Britisb Bank of South America 
 
 Lubbock: — Hamptons. .. 
 
 Lucas: — Baxendale r. 
 
 Lucas: — ^Buddv. .. 
 
 Lucas V. Hall 
 
 Lucas : — Peacock v. In re Whitehead . . 
 
 Lucas w. Williams & Sons 
 
 Luck : — Hunt v. .. .. . . ' . . 
 
 Ludington Cigarette Machine Co. v. Baron\ 
 
 Cigarette Machine Co. In re Pitt's Patent .. 
 Ludwig: — ^Matheson r. In re Doetsch 
 Lulham: — Thomas v. 
 Lumley, In re 
 Lumley, In re. Ex parte Cathcart 
 
 Lumley, In re. Ex parte Hood Barrs . . 
 
 Lumley, In re. Ex parte Hood Barrs .. 
 
 Lumley V. Eavenscro ft .. 
 
 Lumsden u. Burnett 
 Lunacy Commrs. : — Reg. v. 
 Luscombe v. Great Western Ey. Co. 
 Lushington : — Eeg. v. Ex parte Otto .. 
 Lusk V. Sebright .. 
 Luttrell : — Minehead Local Board v. 
 Lutvens: — Walker v. In re Walker .. 
 Lyle Shipping Co. v. CardiB' Corporation 
 Lynch-Blosse, In re. Eichards v. Lynch-Blosse 
 
 Lynch: — Carr i;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Lynch v. Buchanan. (Ee Eichey.) Hasson v. 
 
 Chambers. Crossan v. Chambers 
 Lynch : — Beg. v. .. 
 
 Lynde v. Anglo-Italian Hemp Spinning Co. . . | 
 
 Lynde f . Waithman 
 
 Lyndhurst Ship Co. : — Croshaw .. 
 
 Lynes (Hannah) In re. Ex parte Lester & 
 
 Co 
 
 Lynes : — Eobinson, King & Co. v. 
 
 Lynes v. Snaith .. 
 
 Lynton and Lynemouth Hotel Property Co. : — 
 
 Brinsey v. 
 Lyon f. Mitchell .. 
 
 Lyon & Co. : — Wenman v. 
 
 Lyons : — Sydney and Suburban Mutual Building 
 
 and Land Investment Association v. . . 
 Lyons (J.) & Co. :— Eloyd v. In re Floyd 
 
 Lyons (J.) & Sons v. Wilkins .. 
 
 •;} 
 
 '■-} 
 { 
 
 [1900] W. N. 165 ; [1900] 
 
 687 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 496 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 198 
 
 [1900] W. N. 18 
 
 [1895] W. N. 30 
 
 2 Ch. 
 
 [1891" 
 [1899" 
 [1894' 
 C. A ■ 
 [1900 
 [1899 
 W. 
 
 1 Q. B. 408 
 W. N. 92 
 1 Ch. 678 
 "'1892]2Q. B. 113 
 ""W.N. 250 
 W. N. 243 ; C. A 
 N. 50; [1900] ICh 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 836 
 U. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 400 
 [1893] W. N. 13 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Cb. 271 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 135 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 690 .. 
 
 .'•} 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1900]1 
 508 J 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 683 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 177 
 
 1897 
 
 IQ. B. 630 
 
 1899" 
 
 2Q. B. 313 
 
 1894- 
 
 IQ. B. 420 
 
 1894" 
 
 W. N. 134 
 
 [18941 
 
 2Ch. 178 
 
 [1897' 
 
 2 Ch. 238 
 
 C. A. 
 
 ri90D] 2 Ch. 638 .. 
 
 "1899" 
 
 W. N. 27 (8) .. 
 
 1900 
 
 W. N. 69 ; [1900] 
 
 613 
 
 .• •> 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 1 Ch, 
 
 !■;} 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 85 .. 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 61 
 [1895] W. N. 149 (1); [18961 
 ICh. 178 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 180 ../ 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 154 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 113 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 577 
 [1899] W. N.16 (13); [1899]) 
 IQ. B.486 .. .. ..| 
 
 [1895] W.N. 53 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 27 (6) .. 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 634 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 2Q. B. 192 .. .. ../ 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 260 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] ICh. 633 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 811 ; [1899]! 
 
 W. N. 3 (9); [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 255 I 
 
 1876 
 
 1785 
 6, 35#j. 
 1852 
 
 179 
 1496,, 
 2063- 
 2122 
 2247 
 2334. 
 
 530 
 224S 
 
 1435. 
 
 496. 
 
 685 
 
 1495 
 
 1849 
 
 907, 916"^ 
 
 919 
 
 921 
 
 959, 
 2062. 
 
 684 
 118S 
 1645 
 623, 809' 
 1281 
 1916 
 2312- 
 1962 
 1868- 
 
 84S 
 
 1398- 
 
 606- 
 
 376- 
 
 1280, 
 1565 
 444 
 
 105, 90S- 
 
 902 
 
 1138- 
 
 317, 
 1700 
 1274 
 
 207 
 
 133L 
 
 2280- 
 
 2145, 
 2146. 
 
TABLE OF^OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxi 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Lyric Theatre : — C^dogan u. 
 
 Lysaght, In re. Lysaght v. Lysaght .. 
 Lysaght, Ld. V. Clark & Co. 
 Lysaght (J.) Ld. w. Coleman 
 
 Lysons v. Andrew Knowles & Sons, Ld. .. ■! 
 
 M. 
 
 M., Inre | 
 
 Mabbett, In re. Pitman v. Hoi borrow .. 
 
 McAdam : — Manchester Corporation v. .. . . | 
 
 M'Aleer :— Riddall ?; 
 
 Macalpine & Co. v. Calder & Co. 
 
 MoArthur & Co. v. Cornwall 
 
 Macaulay: — Jones u. 
 
 Macaulay v. Pollev 
 
 M-'Auliffe, In the Goods of 
 
 MoCabe: — Hennessey f. .. 
 
 McCallum, In re. McCallum v, MoCallum 
 
 M'Carron I). Chambers 
 McCarthy : — Dougal v. .. 
 
 McCarthy : — Ireland (Bank oi)v. 
 
 McCarthy: — Mahoneyv. .. 
 
 McCarthy : — Wood v. 
 McCIatchie u. Haslam 
 MoCord V. Cammell & Co. 
 
 M'Court or Finnigan : — Lord Advocate v. 
 
 McCowan v. Baine. " The Niobe " 
 M'Crea t». Buchanan 
 M'Cready v. Chambers . . 
 
 M'Culloch : — ^Lord Advocate v. .. 
 
 M'Daid v. Campbell 
 M'Daid : — Dunleavy v. .. 
 
 M'Daid: — Gage «. 
 
 M'Daid: — Milligan v 
 
 M'Dermott v. Chambers (M'Laughlin's Case) . . 
 TtfcDermott, Ex parte. In re Boyd 
 JVEcDermott v. Boyd. In re McHenry. Barker's 
 
 Claim 
 McDermott v. Boyd. In re McHenry. Levita's 
 
 Claim 
 Macdonald, In re. Dick v. Praser 
 
 Macdonald: — Aiken u. .. 
 HVTacdonald v. Dickson 
 Hacdonald :— Dunn v. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 338 . 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 115 . 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 552 
 C. A. [1885] 1 Q. B 49 ., 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 55 ; 
 IQ. B. 780 ,. 
 
 ■•( 
 
 [1900]| 
 
 [1899] I 
 
 [1900] 
 
 °^) 
 
 [1900]1 
 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (11) 
 
 ICh. 79 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 707 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 673 ; H. L, 
 
 (B.) [1896] A. 0. 500 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 95 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 545 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 75 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 221 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 122 
 [1895] P. 290 .. 
 0. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 W. N. 261 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 36 ; 0. A, 
 
 W. N. 261 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N 107 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 736 
 H. L. (I.) [1897] W. N. 164\ 
 
 (12); [1898] A. C. 181 ../ 
 
 [1892] P. 21 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 775 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 191 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 57 
 
 Ct. of,Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 
 
 191 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 401 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 112 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 95 .. 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N, 
 
 124 .. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ';} 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 104 
 C. A. (Ir.).[1898]'W. N. 104 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 104 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 104 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 100 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 611 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 290 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 428 ; C 
 
 3 Ch. 365 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 181 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. 
 
 120 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [18971 
 
 W. N. 120 . -^ 
 [1897] 1 Q.B. 401 ; C. A. [1897]i 
 
 IQ. B. 555 .. .. ../ 
 
 A. [1894]j 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1696, 
 1698 
 2323 
 1530 
 989 
 
 1222 
 
 1200 
 
 33 
 
 1774 
 
 1394 
 63 
 637, 837 
 1528 
 2022 
 1599 
 
 1218 
 
 1129 
 
 1367 
 1065 
 
 2310 
 
 703, 
 1617 
 1516 
 513 
 1241 
 
 1778 
 
 988 
 1383 
 1394 
 
 1809 
 
 1390 
 1390 
 1390 
 1390 
 1392 
 103 
 
 1132 
 
 112 
 1125 
 1771 
 
 1387 
 
 1575 
 I 
 
clxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Macdonald v. Scott (or Hall) 
 Macdonald, Sons & Co., lu re .. 
 Macdonald: — Williams w. 
 M'Donell: — Venner u. 
 
 M'Dougal i;. Sutherland .. 
 
 M'Dougall v. Campbell 
 
 Macduff, In re. Macduff u. Macduff 
 McEntire u. Crossley Brotliers .. 
 M'Ewan: — Glasgow Corporation w. 
 
 McFadzean : — Stewart i?. 
 
 Macfarlane : — Burchard v. Ex parte Tindall 
 
 McParlane u. Hutton 
 
 Macfarlane v. Lord Advocate 
 
 Macfarlane: — Lord Advocate v. .. 
 
 Macfarlane & Co. : — ^Monsen r. .. 
 Maofie V. Callander and Oban Ry. Co. . . 
 
 M'GafBgan u. Riddall 
 
 McGarel, In re (a Lunatic) 
 MoGavin : — Mclntyre Brothers v. 
 
 McGill: — Gayi) 
 
 McGinn: — Belly se v. 
 
 Maogowan, In re. Macgowan v. Murray 
 
 McGrath (Infants), In re 
 
 M'Grath v. Buchanan 
 
 McGregor w. Cox .. 
 
 McGregor, Gow & Co. : — Mogul Steamship Co, 
 
 McGuffie : — Falconer v. .. 
 McGuire : — Mackay v. 
 McGuire: — Watt i;. 
 
 Machado u. Fontes 
 
 McHarg V. Universal Stock Exchange .. 
 
 MoHenry, In re, MoBermott v. Boyd. Barker'si 
 
 Claim .. .. .. 
 
 McHenry, In re. McDermott v. Boyd. Levita's 
 
 Claim 
 McHenry: — Brandons. .. 
 Machin «. Bennett 
 
 McHugh: — Barnardo v. .. 
 
 Mcllquham V. Taylor .. .. .. „ 
 
 Mcllroy : — Rymer v. 
 Macllwaine : — Hebditoh u. 
 Mcllwraith & Co. : — Bennetts & Co. i". .. 
 Mclnaney v. Hildreth 
 
 M'Inroy V. Athole (Duke of) 
 
 Macintosh: — Wilson v. .. 
 Mclntyre Brothers v. McGavin . . 
 Maclver u. Burns (G. & J.) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 642 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 89 .. 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 308 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 421 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 113 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N.l 
 
 217 / 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 451 .. 
 H. L. (L) [1895] A. C. 457 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] A. C. 91 .. 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1879]! 
 
 W.N. 110 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 241 
 
 [1899] W. N. 46 ; [1899] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C."291 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 
 [1893]^ 
 
 3 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 562 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 270 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 95 .. 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 400 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 268 .. 
 Registration App. Ct. (So.) [1897]\ 
 W.N. 98 / 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 227 .. ..{ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 105 . 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 496; C. A 
 
 1 Ch. 143 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 109 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 247 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. 0. 25 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]) 
 
 W.N. 96 J 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 250 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] 
 
 W. N. 109 .. 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 231 
 C. A, [1895] 2 Q. B. 81 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 290 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 428 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 3Ch. 365 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 538 
 
 [1900] W. N. 146 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 194; H. L. (E).\ 
 [1891] A. C. 388 .. ' 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 53 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 528 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. D. 54 
 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 464 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 600 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 629 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 129 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 268 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 630 .. 
 
 1833 
 426 
 1109 
 1159 
 
 1763 
 
 1756 
 
 277 
 
 206, 813 
 
 2280 
 
 1395 
 
 663 
 
 1338 
 
 1782 
 
 1782 
 
 1960 
 1093 
 1394 
 2037 
 2273 
 
 1401 
 
 142, 
 1926 
 2040 
 
 946 
 
 1393 
 
 2209 
 499 
 
 1397 
 
 125, 
 1373 
 
 1369 
 
 650 
 
 40 
 
 1132 
 
 112 
 
 112 
 1414 
 
 931, 94S 
 
 514 
 2290 
 
 649 
 1506 
 
 866 
 1840 
 1331 
 2273 
 1537 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxiK 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Columa 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Hertfordshire ■> 
 
 Mack v. Postle 
 Mackay v. McGuire 
 
 Mackay & Davies : — Holness v. .. 
 
 McKay's Case. In re ConcessionB Trust 
 McKeckine : — Thomas v. In re Elen .. 
 M'Keever v. Buchanan 
 McKellar: — Eeg. v. 
 M'Kendrick v. Buchanan 
 Mackenzie, In re. Ex parte 
 
 (Sheriff of) 
 
 McKenzie v. Day . . ... 
 
 Mackenzie v. Devonshire (Duke ol) 
 
 Mackenzie : — Greville-Nugent v. 
 
 Mackenzie : — London Trust Co. v. 
 Mackenzie v. Mackenzie . . 
 
 McKenzie: — Reg. v. 
 
 McKeown v. Budard Peveril Gear Co. 
 
 McKeown v. Joint Stock Institute, Ld, 
 
 Mack's Claim. In re London and Northern! 
 
 Bank 
 Mackey : — Bruty v. In re Buck 
 Mackinnon : — Ballantyne v. 
 Mackinnon v. Clark 
 
 Mackintosh v. Pogose 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 M'Knight : — Currie v. 
 Mackrell :— Barber v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Mackrell ■!;. Brentford Justices .. 
 
 MacLachlan : — Campbell v. 
 
 Maclachlan : — Lord Advocate v. ., 
 
 M'Laughlin's Case. M'Dermott v. Chambers 
 M'Laughlin D. Chambers .. 
 Macleod, In re. Mills v, Macleod 
 Macleod v. Att.-Gen. for New South Wales 
 McLeod ti. McNab 
 MoLeod v. Power .. 
 McLeod r. St. Aubyn 
 
 McMahon, la re. Puller v. McMahon .. .. | 
 
 MoMahon v. North Kent Ironworks Co. 
 
 McMeckan: — Aitken v. .. 
 
 Macmillan v. Australasian Territories 
 MacMillan : — London Chartered Bank 
 
 Australian. 
 McMillan : — Palgrave Gold Mining Co. v. 
 McMuUen: — Unwin v. .. 
 McMurray : — Shanghai Municipal Council v. 
 
 1} 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 449 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 250 .. ..{ 
 
 C.A. [1899] "W. N. 65; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 319 / 
 
 [18P6] 2 Ch. 757 
 
 [1893]W. N. 90 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 159 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 121 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 172 .. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 132; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 566 / 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 289 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 400 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 226 ; 
 [1900] A. C. 83 
 
 [1893]W. N. 9 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 384 .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 519 
 
 [1896] W. N. 36 (3) .. 
 [1899] W. N. 35 (10); [1899]) 
 ICh. 671 f 
 
 [1900] W. N. 114 ' 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 727 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q.B. 455 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 251, 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 505 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 164 (6) -A 
 
 [1897].A. C. 97 .. .. / 
 
 [1892] W.N. 87; C. A. [1892]) 
 
 W. N. 133 „ .. I 
 
 [1900] W. N. 141 ; [1900] 2 Q. B.) 
 
 387 / 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 176 .. 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N.l 
 
 104 .. .. .. / 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 100 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 90 .. 
 
 [1895]W. N. 97 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 455 .. 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 471 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 295 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 549 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 250; [1900] 1 Ch.1 
 
 173 .. .. „ / 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 148 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 310 .. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 30 (14) .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 292 ., 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 460 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 694 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 206 „ 
 
 1553 
 125, 
 1373 
 
 1228 
 
 423 
 1476 
 1377 
 1372 
 1368 
 
 121,129 
 
 1109 
 
 1842 
 
 1262 
 
 341 
 1832 
 606, 
 1032 
 376 
 
 79 
 
 352 
 
 857 
 768 
 1365 
 185, 
 1904 
 
 1981 
 
 192 
 
 1100 
 
 1374 
 
 1747 
 
 1392 
 1379 
 1900 
 1324 
 2356 
 1496 
 502 
 
 148 
 
 340 
 1499, 
 1626, 
 1627, 
 2261, 
 1546 
 
 97 
 
 251 
 37, 547 
 287 
 I 2 
 
TABLE or CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 McNab : — McLeod v. 
 
 M'Nab v. Robertson 
 
 McNair & Co. v. Audenshaw Paint and Colour"! 
 Co 1 
 
 McNamara & Co. : — Wilraer u. .. ' 
 McNicholas v. Dawson & Son 
 
 M'Omish: — Glasgow Corporation w. 
 
 MoMurdo, In re. Penfield v. McMurdo 
 
 Macraurdo, In re. Penfield v. Maomurdo 
 
 Macnisb & Son : — Coobrane «. .. 
 
 MoPhail : — ^Westport Coal Co. v. 
 
 Macrae, Ex parte . . 
 
 Macredie : — Sailing Ship " Blairmore " Co, 
 
 McSwaine v. Lascelles 
 
 Madden v. Kensington Vestry . . 
 
 Madden v. Nelson and Fort Sheppard Ey, 
 
 Maddick: — Coupe Co. w. .. 
 
 Maddook, In re. Batt v. Wrigbt 
 
 Maddock : — ^Hartley v. 
 
 Maddooks : — -Kogers v. 
 Madeley v. Ross, Sleeman & Co. 
 Madell v. Thomas & Co. .. 
 "Madras," The .. 
 Magee v. Mortimer 
 Magniao : — Crossley v. 
 
 Magniac : — Dashwood v. (No. 1) 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Magnolia Metal Co.'s Trade-marks, In re 
 Mahon, In re 
 
 Mahoney v. M'Carthy 
 
 Maidstone (Corporation of) : — Howlett v. 
 
 ■"Main," The 
 
 Main Colliery Co. v. Davies 
 
 Main Colliery Co. : — Powell v. .. 
 
 Mainland v. Cave. In re Cave .. 
 Maisey: — Hickman u. 
 
 Maison Louis Pinet, Ld. : — Pinet & Cie. (P.) 5 
 
 Makin v. Att.-Gen. for New South Wales 
 
 Makins v. Ibotson (Percy) & Sons 
 
 Malam, In re. Malam v. Kitchens 
 
 Malcolm u. Browne 
 
 Malcolm v. Bui ford-Hancock. In re Hancock 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 471 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 179 (7) 
 [1897] A. C. 129 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 502 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 245 
 
 C, A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 773 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 67 (1) 
 
 [18'98] A. C. 432 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (9); [1897]\ 
 
 1 Ch. 119 
 [1892]W. N. 73 
 P. 0. [1896] A, C. 225 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 130 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 346 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 593 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 618 .. 
 [1892] IQ. B. 614 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 626 .. 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 413 
 [1899] W. N. 122 ; [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 588 
 
 [1899] W. N. 83 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 199 / 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3Ch. 346 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Cli. 505 
 
 U. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 230 
 
 [1898] P. 90 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 102 
 
 [1893] 1 Oh. 594 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 306 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 54 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 371 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 507 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 21 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 110 
 
 [1894] P. 320 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 358 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 73 ; [1900] 
 2Q. B. 145; H. L. (E.) [1900] 
 W.N. 144; [1900] A. C. 366 
 
 [1892] W. N. 142 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 72 ; [1900]| 
 
 1 Q. B. 752 
 
 [1897] W. N. 
 1 Ch. 179 
 
 172 (11) ; [1898]1 
 P. 0. [1894] A. C. 57 
 
 ■I 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 133 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 578 
 Registration App.Ct. (Sc.) [189711 
 W.N. 124 .. ^ 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 173 .. 
 
 2356 
 
 2282 
 
 45 
 
 354 
 
 1225 
 
 39, 1841 
 
 2036 
 
 402, 798 
 1019 
 1971 
 1591 
 1002 
 1638 
 1181 
 248 
 
 89, 1240 
 
 2181 
 
 1714 
 
 1723 
 
 318 
 
 205 
 2011 
 1389 
 2075 
 1045, 
 1879, 
 2109, 
 2269 
 560, 576 
 2131 
 2029 
 
 703, 
 1617, 
 
 577 
 
 993 
 1218 
 
 1246 
 
 1694 
 899 
 
 2140 
 
 610, 
 1324 
 
 330, 
 1704, 
 1706 
 1853 
 
 1385 
 
 1480 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 i-lxv 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume aud Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 -1 
 
 Malcolm Flinn & Co. «. Hoyle 
 
 Malcolm Khan, Prince : — Persian Investmenfl 
 
 Corporations. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Maldon Urban Sanitary Authority : — Grozzett v. 
 Male: — Reid's Brewery Co. ?j. 
 Malkndaine :— Leeds Benefit Building Society v. 
 Mailing Eural Council : — Simmons v. .. 
 Malleson v. General Mineral Patents Syndicate^ 
 
 Ld / 
 
 Malleson v. National Insurance and Guarantee) 
 
 Corporation .. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 Mallet V. Great Eastern Ey. Co. . . 
 Mailing Justices : — Whiff en i;. .. 
 Mallinson i;. Carr .. 
 
 Manchester Brewery Co. : — North Cheshire and 
 Manchester Brewery Co. i;. 
 
 Manchester Corporation: — Att.-Gen. v. .. 
 
 Manchester Corporation: — Lancashire Asylums\ 
 Boards... 
 
 Manchester Corporation v. MoAdam 
 
 Manchester and Milford Ey. Co., In re . 
 
 Manchester Justices : — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 Manchester Corporation v. Williams 
 Manchester Corporation : — Withington Lccah 
 
 Board of Health «. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Manchester, Mlddleton and District Tramways') 
 
 Co., In re .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Manchester Packing Co. : — Eogers v. 
 Manchester Eacecourse Co. : — ^Manchester Ship'! 
 
 Canal Co. s. .. ., .. .. ../ 
 
 Manchester Eeal Ice Skating and Supply Co.,! 
 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co. -A 
 
 — ^Bentley s. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co. :( 
 
 — ^Brook V. .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co.j 
 
 W.Anderson .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co. : ) 
 
 — Doncaster Union s. .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire By. Co. 
 
 V. Doncaster Union (Guardians of the Poor 
 
 of) 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co. :1 
 — Gonty r. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co.l 
 s. Kingston-upon-Hull Guardians .. ../ 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire By. Co. : 1 
 — New Moss Colliery Co. s. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co. :'! 
 — Taylors. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Manchester Ship Canal Co. : — Fairclough v. 
 Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Eochdale Canal\ 
 Pronrietors .. .. .. .. ../. 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 167 
 
 [1893] W. N. 49 
 
 1 Q. B. 327 
 2Q. B. 1.. 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 402 
 [1897]2Q. B. 433 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 538 
 
 [1894' 
 [1891 
 C. A.' 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 200 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 309 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 362 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 48 
 C.A.[1898]lCh.539; H.L.(E.) 
 
 [1898] W. N. 168 (5); H. L. 
 
 (B.) [1899] A. C. 83 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch: 87 .. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 759; C. A. [1900]) 
 IQ. B. 458 f 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 673 ;i 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 500 .. j 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 [1899] W. N. 18 (6) ; [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 571 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 94 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 19 . 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 344 
 
 [1900J W. N. 134 ; [1900] 2 Ch.-, 
 
 352 [ 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 63 ; [1900] 
 
 ICh. 573 1 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 222 .. ..< 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 571 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 394 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 133, n. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 117 
 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 439 
 [1896] W. N. 71 (9) .. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 725 
 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 134 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 7 (13) 
 [1899] W. N. 24 (11) .. 
 
 1580 
 
 310 
 
 2084 
 1760 
 1760 
 1917 
 
 356 
 
 368 
 
 1644 
 1102 
 830 
 
 2139 
 
 966, 
 1346 
 
 1675 
 
 1774 
 
 1657 
 
 1114 
 
 545, 644 
 
 1346 
 
 1363, 
 1364 
 1236 
 
 514 
 
 1047 
 
 633, 
 1498 
 
 1087 
 
 1644 
 
 1684, 
 1687 
 
 145T 
 
 1089 
 1685 
 
 259 
 
 505, 586, 
 1653, 
 2115 
 504 
 
 2116 
 
clxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Baoe- 
 
 ■{ 
 
 course Co. '' ., .. ., .. ,.| 
 
 Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. 'iPearsoii (S.) &) 
 Sons, Ld ..] 
 
 Manchester Trust v. Furness, Withy & Co. 
 
 Mander u. Paloke (No. 1) 
 
 (No.2) 
 
 Mander r. Eidgway 
 Manders t». Manders 
 Mandleherg-v. Morley (No. 1) .. .'.' " 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Mandleherg & Co., Ex parte. In re Howells .. 
 Mangan v. Metropolitan Electric Supply Co. . . 
 Manifold: — Drielsma i;. .. 
 
 Manila Ry. Co.:— Governments Stock Investment] 
 and other Securities Co. t). .. .. ..) 
 
 Manitoba and North West Land Corporation vA 
 —Allan ,. ../ 
 
 Manitoba and North Western Ry. Co. of Canada :\ 
 — Grey v. .. .. .. .. .. | 
 
 Mann (Mary), In the Goods of .. .. 
 
 Mann v. Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co. .. 
 Mann v. Johnson . . 
 Manners v. Pearson & Son 
 
 " Mannheim," The 
 
 Manning: — Chad wick v. . . 
 
 Manning :— Sheppard v. In re Sheppard 
 
 Mansel, In re. Ex parte Norton 
 
 Mansell v. British Linen Co. Bank 
 Mansfield Corporation v. Buttesworth . . 
 
 Mansion House Association on Ey. Traffic 
 Great Western Ey. Co. 
 
 Mansion House Association on Ry. Traffic v. 
 
 London and North Western Ry. Co. .. 
 Mansion House Association on Ry. Traffic v.\ 
 
 London and South Western Ey. Co. .. .. J 
 
 Mant, Ex parte. In re Daintrey 
 Mantle j;. Jordan .. 
 
 " Maori King " (Owners of Cargo of) v. Hughes 
 Maple & Co. : — Wheaton v 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 :■) 
 
 Maplin Sands, In re 
 
 Mara v. Browne . . 
 
 Marchant, In the Goods of 
 Marcks : — Harper v. 
 Marcus : — Edwards v. 
 Mardell v. Curtis . . 
 
 Mardon, In re 
 
 Mardon, Ex parte. 
 
 In re Downing 
 
 [1900] W. N. 134; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 352 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 178 ; [1900]\ 
 2Q. B. 606 / 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 282 ; 0. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 539 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 554 .. 
 
 1891] 3 Oh. 488 
 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 501 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 474 
 
 1893] W. N. 157 
 
 1895] W.N. 9 .. 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 844 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 551 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 100 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Oh. 551 ; H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1896] W.N. 174(6); [1897] 
 
 A. C. 81 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 432 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 254 .. 
 
 [1891] P. 293 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. 0. 692 .. 
 [1893] W. N. 196 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 581 .. 
 [1896] W. N. 159 (1) ; [1897]\ 
 
 P. 13 ^ 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 231 .. 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 67 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 32 .. 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 159 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 274 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 141 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 273 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 927 
 
 0. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 546 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 248 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 550 
 
 0. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 48 .. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 141 ; C. A. 
 
 W. N. 184 .. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 69 ; C. A. 
 
 1 Ch. 199 
 [1893] P. 254 .. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 319 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 587 
 [1899] W. N. 93 
 [1895] W. N. 152 (2); 
 
 1 Q. B. 140 .. 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 180 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1894]V 
 [1896]! 
 
 [1896] 
 
 I6]| 
 
 514 
 66 
 
 1973 
 
 602 
 81, 1547 
 585 
 925 
 1437 
 1437 
 164, 681 
 1557 
 2033 
 
 322 
 
 966, 
 1537, 
 1540 
 
 250 
 
 1601 
 
 372 
 
 1371 
 
 4 
 
 1995 
 
 1323 
 765 
 176, 
 1127 
 637 
 2090 
 1655, 
 1657, 
 1658 
 
 1658 
 
 1662 
 
 170 
 
 548 
 
 1559, 
 
 1973 
 
 627, 
 1118 
 
 64, 779 
 
 2056 
 
 1620 
 607 
 200 
 1082 
 
 173 
 
 112 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxvii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 " Marechal Suchet," The 
 
 Margate Pier and Harbour (Company of Pro-j 
 prietorsof): — Att.-Gen. d. .. .. ../ 
 
 Margetson & Co. v. Glynn 
 
 Margetson and Jones, In re 
 Margetts, In re 
 
 Margrett, Ex parte. In re Soltykoff . . 
 Margrett: — Eamsay «... 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 " Marianne," The 
 
 Marine Insurance Co. : — Baring Brothers & Go.\ 
 
 V. / 
 
 " Mariposa," The 
 
 Maritime Bank of Canada (Liquidators) v. New\ 
 Brunswick (Eeceiver-General) . . . . / 
 
 Markey v. Tolworth Joint Isolation Hospital) 
 District Board .. .; .. .. ../ 
 
 Markham and Darter's Case. In re African Gold 
 Concessions and Development Co. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Marks v. Frogley . . 
 
 Marland v. Williams. In re Goodenough 
 Marlborough (Dowager Duchess of) v. Marl-' 
 
 borough (Duke of) 
 Marlborough (Duke of), In re. Contract between,! 
 
 and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty .. / 
 Marlborough (Duke of). In re. Davis v. White-) 
 
 head .. .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Mamey V. Scott .. 
 
 "Marpessa,"The 
 
 Marriage, Neave & Co., In re. North of Bng-j 
 
 land Trustee, Debenture and Assets Corpora- [ 
 
 tionw. Marriage, Neave & Co. .. ..J 
 
 Marriner v. Bishop of Baths and Wells .. 
 Marrow v. Flimby and BrougWon Moor Coal\ 
 
 and Fire Brick Co. .. .. .. ..j 
 
 Marsden : — ^Montforts v. .. 
 
 Marsden: — ^Moser v. 
 
 Marsden: — Eeg. v. 
 
 Marsden (J.) & Sons : — Price r... 
 
 Marsh: — Green u. 
 
 Marsh «. Joseph .. 
 
 Marshall V. Blumau .. 
 
 Marshall: — Callander and Trossachs Hydro-) 
 patMc Co. and the Eagle Property Co. v. .. ) 
 
 Marshall: — CoUard f . 
 
 Marshall: — Knotty. 
 
 Marshall v. National Provincial Bank of England 
 
 Marshall r. Orpen 
 
 Marshall: — Sharp ». In re Pope 
 
 1 Oh.| 
 H. L.| 
 
 [1896] P. 233 .. 
 [1900] W.N. 65; [1900] 
 
 749 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 337 ; 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 351 .. 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 314 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 263 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 413 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 18 
 
 [1891] P. 180 
 
 [1893] W. N. 164 
 
 [1896] P. 273 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 437 .. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 454 
 
 [1899] W. N. 7 (1); [1899] 1 
 
 Ch. 414; C. A. [1899] W.N. 
 
 119; [1899] 2 Ch. 480 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 396 ; 0. A. [1898]^ 
 
 1 Q. B. 888 . 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 537 
 [1900] W. N. 88 
 
 W. N. 270 . 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 712 
 
 Columa 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1900]) 
 
 1997 
 1633 
 
 1967 
 
 2050 
 
 2032 
 
 104, 193, 
 
 954 
 40, 210, 
 905, 
 1693 
 1986 
 
 997 
 
 2008 
 239, 241 
 251, 292, 
 
 293 
 
 1634 
 
 308 
 
 71 
 1868 
 1907 
 
 [1894; 
 
 2Ch.l33 
 
 851 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 986 
 
 [1891] P. 403 
 
 1316 
 1931 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 663 .. 
 
 358 
 
 [1893] P. 145, n 
 
 753 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 588 
 
 1233 
 
 C.A. 
 C.A.. 
 
 C.A. 
 C.A. 
 [1893; 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 11 ,. 
 
 ;i892] 1 Ch. 487 .. 
 
 2Q. B. 149 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 493 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 330 
 1897] 1 Ch. 213 .. 
 'W. N. 184 
 
 2057 
 1438, 
 1507, 
 1514 
 
 620 
 1219 
 
 200 
 1576 
 1161 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 223 .. 
 
 1844 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 571 ,. ..| 
 
 645, 650, 
 963 
 
 [1894] W. N. 214 
 
 2120 
 
 [1892; 
 
 P. C. 
 
 [1900" 
 
 W.N. 34 .. ../ 
 
 1895]A. C. 606 .. 
 
 1 W.N. 244 
 
 775, 
 
 1287 
 
 262, 376 
 
 11 
 
clxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 •{ 
 
 Marshall v. South Staffordshire Tramways Co. . 
 
 Marshall u. Taylor 
 
 Marshall and Salt's Contract, In re 
 
 Marshall, Parkes & Co. :— Powell v. 
 Marshall's Patent . . 
 
 Marsham : — Reg. v. 
 
 Marsom : — Wright v. 
 
 Marson :— Williams V. In re Buckle .. 
 
 Marston : — Edwards v. .. 
 
 Marten : — Steamship Balmoral Co. v. .. 
 
 Martin, Ex parte. Drew v. Willis 
 
 Martin, In re 
 
 Martin, In re. Loustalan v. Loustalao 
 
 Martin, In re. Martin v. Martin 
 
 Martin : — Brisbane (Municipal Council) v. 
 Martin : — Brown v. 
 
 Martin : — Davis v. In re Queensland Land and-i 
 Coal Co ^ 
 
 Martin 11. Martin. In re Bourne 
 
 Martin : — Fox v. .. 
 
 Martin v. Hanrahan (No. 2). Donnelly v. Gra--> 
 ham. Connolly V. Eiddall .. .. ../ 
 
 Martin v. Martin & Co. . . 
 
 Martin V. Price 
 
 Martin v. Tomkinson 
 
 Martin: — Sutton?;. In re Poinons 
 
 Martin & Co. :— Midland Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Martin & Varlow, In re . . 
 
 Martindale, In re .. 
 
 Marwick v. Lord Thurlow 
 
 Marx (Jacob) & Co. : — ^Pittsburgh Ciush^d Steell 
 
 Co. u / 
 
 " Mary Thomas," The " 
 
 " Mary " Tug Co. v. British India Steam Naviga-) 
 
 tion Co. 'I'he " Meanatohy " .. °.. J 
 
 Marylebone Vestry : — Reg. v. 
 
 Marylebone Vestry v. London (Sheriff of) .. | 
 
 Maryon-Wilson, In re. Wilson v. Maryon- 
 Wilson .. 
 
 Maryport Hematite Iron and Steel Co., In re.1 
 Cumberland Union Banking Co. v. Maryport 
 Hematite Iron and Steel Co. (No. 2) 
 
 Maryport Hematite Iron and Steel Co. : — Cum- 
 berland Union Banking Co. v. (No. 1) 
 
 Maskell and Goldflnche's Contract, In re 
 
 Maskelyne British Typewriter, Ld., In re. Stuarti 
 V. Maskelyne British Typewriter, Ld. .. / 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 3 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 36 ., 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 641 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 105; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 
 202 ) 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 710 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 430 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 371 
 
 [1895] W. N. 148 (11) .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 286 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 225 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 748 j.. 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 450 
 
 [1900] W. N. 129 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 103; [1900]\ 
 
 P. 211 / 
 
 [1892] W. N. 120 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 249 .. 
 
 Eesistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] 
 W.N. 121 .. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 181 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 188 
 [1895] W. N. 36 
 
 G. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 103 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 429 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 276 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 121 
 [1891] W. N. 139 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 172 
 
 [1894] W. N. 223 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 193 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 [1897] W. N. 36 (5) .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 108 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 351 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 771 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. Ill ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 591 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 97 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 489 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 57 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 565 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 415 
 
 [1892]lCh. 92 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 525 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 170 (2); 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 133 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 :} 
 
 1562,, 
 
 2149 
 
 217 
 
 2254. 
 
 155 
 144L 
 1174, 
 1207 
 2301 
 2308. 
 206 
 98a 
 269 
 219L 
 
 497 
 
 236(V 
 1499, 
 163» 
 
 138S 
 
 335 
 
 1743 
 401, 771 
 
 1367 
 
 1510 
 
 967, 
 
 1119. 
 
 1403 
 
 1503 
 658, 769^ 
 
 1035, 
 
 1453 
 
 1504 
 77, 50L 
 
 317 
 
 570 
 
 994 
 194& 
 
 235 
 1925- 
 
 1742, 
 1743 
 
 82Z 
 
 1301 
 
 875, 
 2251 
 
 331 
 
TABLE or CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 olxisi 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Mason, Ex parte. In re Errington 
 Mason, Ex parte. In re Isaacson 
 Mason, Ex parte. In re Smith . . 
 Mason, In re. Ex parte Bing .. 
 Mason, In re. Mason v. Mason . . 
 
 Mason, In re. Ogden v. Mason . . 
 
 Mason v. British Ey. Carriage Metal Fittings,] 
 &o., Co. In re British Ey. Carriage Metal \ 
 Fittings, &c., Co 
 
 Mason i>. Cowdary 
 
 Mason v. Dean, A. E., Ld. 
 Mason v. Mercer. In re Gurney 
 Mason: — Sharman v. 
 
 Mason & Barry, Ld. : — ^Levasseur v. 
 
 Mason & Co. : — Smith v... 
 
 Mason's Orphanage and London and North] 
 Western Ey. Co., In re . . . . . . j 
 
 Masonic and General Life Assurance Co. v.\ 
 Shai-pe. In re Sharps. In re Bennett ..J 
 Massam : — Thorley v. In re Thorley .. 
 Massey, In the Goods of . . 
 Massey : — Colonial Securities Trust Go. v. 
 Massey v. Morriss .. 
 
 Masterman : 
 
 ■■( 
 
 •■{ 
 ■•{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 -Harbin v. (No. 1) . . 
 
 •(No. 2).. 
 
 Masterman : — Wharton v. 
 
 Masters, Ex parte. In re CHarlwood 
 
 Masters: — James v. 
 Masters : — Byley v. 
 
 Mather i;. Lawrence 
 
 ••{ 
 •■{ 
 
 :■! 
 
 Matheson v. Lndwig. In re Doetsch 
 Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick (Urban District) 
 of) : — Derby (County Council of) v. . . . . / 
 
 Matson, In re. James v. Dickinson 
 Mathieu : — ^Wentworth v. 
 
 Matthewman : — Neville v. 
 
 Matthews, In the Goods of . . . . . . -I 
 
 Matthews v. Usher 
 Matthews : — Corn v. 
 
 Matthews : — Helby v. 
 
 Maude v. Brook .. 
 
 Maudslay, Sons <fc Field, In re, 
 
 Maudslay, Sons & Field 
 Maughan v. General Trustees of the Free Churchi 
 
 ofScotland .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Maund, In re. Ex parte Maund 
 
 .. ..{ 
 
 Maudslay vA 
 
 [1894" 
 0. A.' 
 1893' 
 1899' 
 1891° 
 1900' 
 196" 
 
 1 Q. B. 11 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 333 
 1 Q. B. 323 
 1 Q. B. 810 
 
 3 Ch. 467 
 W. N. 105 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch.-l 
 
 [1898] W. N. 173 (9) 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 419 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 48 ; [1900]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 770 / 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 590 
 
 [1899] W. N. 217 ; [1899] 2 Q. B 
 
 679 
 
 C. A. [1891]2Q. B. 73.. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 363 
 [1895] W. N. 138 (3) ; [1896] 
 1 Ch. 54 ; C. A. [1896] 1 Ch, 
 596 
 
 C. A. [1892] ICh. 154 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Oh. 613 .. 
 
 [1899] P. 270 
 
 C. A. [1896]1Q. B. 38.. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 412 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Oh. 184; H 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. 0. 186 
 [1895] W. N. 160 (1); 0. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 351 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. 0. 186 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 643 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 355 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 674 
 [1899] W. N. 67; [1899] 1 Q.B.' 
 
 1001 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 836 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. 0. 315 .. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 509 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. 0. 212 .. 
 
 0. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 345 .. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 
 P. 17 .. 
 
 ../ 
 A.) 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 163 (8); [1898]\ 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 1900 
 1893 
 1894 
 
 2Q. 
 IQ. 
 2Q. 
 
 B. 535 
 B. 310 
 B. 262 : 
 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 471 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 575 
 [1900] W. N. 51 ; [1900] 
 
 602 
 
 H. L.' 
 
 Ct. of Sess. 
 
 105 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. 
 
 (So.) [1896] W. 
 B. 194 
 
 Ch.-l 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 152 
 
 211 
 145, 874 
 
 152 
 10, 2160^ 
 
 2353 
 
 3ia 
 
 18' 
 
 i23(y 
 
 2192" 
 
 137 
 
 1011,,. 
 
 1696 
 
 179a 
 
 273. 
 
 342; 
 1127 
 2195- 
 1599-. 
 
 46 
 1989L 
 
 33- 
 
 7 
 117,, 
 2030 
 208L 
 1566 
 
 1821; 
 
 496 
 
 895- 
 
 loia 
 
 242 
 1518,, 
 1519 
 
 1624 
 
 1079 
 49, 94*- 
 
 815 
 
 1229' 
 
 323 
 
 1762^ 
 141. 
 
clxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. . 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Mawn : — Hove, St. Andrew's (Vicar, &c.) v. .. 
 Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co.,1 
 
 Ex parte. In re Nordenfelt / 
 
 Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. : — ) 
 
 Nordenfelt t;. (No. 1) ) 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Maxton and Murray : — Cellular Clothing Co. v. | 
 
 Maxwell's Case (Gallagher v. Maxwell) . . 
 May ?;. OWdley 
 
 May i;. Piatt 
 
 ••( 
 
 May: — Smith t;. In re Morgan 
 
 Mayer: — Saflfery «. 
 Mayeu: — Duck v.. , 
 
 Mayfair Property Co., In re. Bartlett v. May- 
 fair Property Co. 
 
 Mayfair Property Co. v. Johnston 
 
 Mayfair Property Co. : — Johnston v. 
 Mayflower (The Log of the), In re 
 
 Maynard's Settled Estate, In re .. 
 
 Maynards, Ld., In re 
 
 Mayo: — Oubison v. 
 
 Mayor v. Hotckin. In re Fearon 
 
 May's Metal Separating Syndicate, In re 
 
 Meaby & Co., In re. Clarke v. Meaby & Co. . . 
 
 Mead:— Reg. u 
 
 Mead: — Beg. u. .. 
 
 Meader u. West Cowes Local BoarJ 
 Meadows: — Pulman v. .. 
 
 Meakin: — Stock v. 
 
 " Meauatohy," The. " Mary " Tug Co. v. British^ 
 India Steam Navigation Co. . . . . . . / 
 
 Meara: — O'Shea f . 
 
 "Mecca," The 
 
 " Mecca " Owners of Turkish Steamship : — Cory'l 
 Brothers & Co. v. .. . . . . . . / 
 
 Medawar v. Grand Hotel Co. 
 
 Medoalfe V. Cox .. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 "Mediana'' (Owners of the Steamship) v. 
 "Comet" (Owners, Master & Crew of Light- 
 ship). The "Mediana" 
 
 Medical Battery Co., In re 
 
 Medical Council : — Reg. v. 
 
 Medows, In re. Norie v. Bennett 
 Medway u. Medway 
 Mee : — Ind, Coope & Co. v. 
 Meeus' Application, In re 
 Mein : — Thompson v. 
 
 [1895] P. 228, n 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 151 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 630 ; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1894] A. C. 535 
 C. A. [1893]3Ch. 122 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 56; 
 
 [1899] A. C. 326 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 134 .. 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 451 
 [1900] W. N. 69 ; [1900] 1 Ch.' 
 
 616 , 
 
 [1900] W. N. 151 ; [1900] 2 Ch.i 
 
 474 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 242 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 511 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (4); C. A. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 28 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 508 
 
 [1893] W. N. 73 
 
 [1897] P. 208 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 108 ; [1899] 2 Ch.i 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 347 
 [1898' 
 C. A.' 
 
 1 Ch. 515 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 246 
 
 ../ 
 
 1896] W. N. 175 (12) 
 
 1898] W. N. 159 (5) 
 
 1899] W. N. 58 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 1897] W. N. 153 (11) ; [1898]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 110 / 
 
 0. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 18 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 273 
 [1899] W. N. 108; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 496; C. A. [1900] W.N. 73; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 683 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 351 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 177 .. 
 C. A. [1895] P. 95 ... 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 286 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891]2Q. B. 11.. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 328 ;\ 
 [1896] A. C. 647 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 14 (2); C. A.^ 
 [1899] W. N. 17 (1); [1899] 
 P. 127; H. L. (E.) [1900] 1 
 W.N. 34; [1900] A. C. 113 J 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 444 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 764; C. A. [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 203 
 
 [1898] 
 [1900" 
 [1895' 
 [1891' 
 [1893° 
 
 1 Ch. 300 
 P. 141 .. 
 
 W.N. 8 .. 
 1 Ch. 41 .. 
 W. N. 202 
 
 3 
 
 742 
 
 141 
 
 1721, 
 1723 
 677 
 
 2139 
 
 1384 
 93, 1563 
 
 2228 
 
 1408 
 
 865 
 1710 
 
 328 
 
 965, 
 1409 
 1157 
 738 
 
 1262 
 
 397 
 
 589 
 
 915 
 
 307 j 
 
 467 
 
 1350 
 
 1155 
 
 1911 
 
 802 
 
 2090 
 
 1945 
 
 1376 
 1988 
 
 50 
 
 972 
 2209 
 
 1951 
 
 439, 460 
 
 1251 
 
 1866 
 925 
 1704 
 2125 
 1267 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxxi 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 -Melaugh. v. Chambers 
 
 Mellen : — Swan v. 
 
 Mellersh : — ^Fitzgerald's Trustee v. (No. 1) 
 '- (No. 2) 
 
 Mellin I?. White .. 
 
 . Mellish : — ^Lambton v. .. 
 Mellor, In re. In re Paget. Mellor v. Mellor 
 Mellor : — Hancock v. In re Hodgkinson 
 
 Mellor u. Tomkinson & Co. 
 
 Mellor : — ^Viokers v. In re Vickers 
 ! Melville v. Mirror of Life Co. 
 Melville: — Osborne v. 
 Memorandum 
 
 "Menzies: — Ballingal «;. .. 
 
 Menzies f . Menzies 
 Mercantile Bank of Australia, In re 
 Mercantile Bank of London v. Evans .. 
 Mercantile Bank of London : — Portescue v. 
 Mercantile Bank of Sydney v. Taylor . . 
 Mercantile Investment and General Trust Co. 
 
 International Co. of Mexico . . 
 Mercantile Investnoent and General Trust Co. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 .'■} 
 
 Biver Plate 
 (No.!) .. 
 
 T'rust, Loan and Agency Co. 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Mercer: — Mason «. In re Gurney 
 Mercer v. Vans Colina 
 
 ; Mercers' Co. 11. Eames 
 
 Merchant : — Chamock v. .. 
 
 " Merchant Prince," The . . 
 
 Merchants' Fire Office, In re 
 
 Merchant's Marine Insurance 
 Insurance Co. of Milan v. 
 
 Meredith, In re. Stone v. Meredith 
 Meredyth ?;. Meredyth 
 Merionethshire Permanent Benefit 
 
 Society : — Jones v. 
 Merlin, In re. Thurburn v. Merlin 
 Merrill v. Wilson, Sons & Co. 
 Merrj- v. Pownall . . 
 Merry weather f. Moore .. 
 
 - Merry weather : — ^Mowbray v. . . 
 
 -Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, Ex parte .. / 
 
 -Mersey Docks and Harbour Boaird v. Birkenhead) j 
 Assessment Committee .. .. ../| 
 
 { 
 
 { 
 
 { 
 
 Co. : — Universe 
 
 Building 
 
 S 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 119 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 106 ; 0. A. [1892]\ 
 
 W.N. 128 / 
 
 [1892]W. N. 4 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 385 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 276; H. L. 
 
 (B.) [1895] A. 0. 154 
 [1894] 3 Oh. 163 
 [1898] 1 Oh. 290 
 [1893] W.N. 9 .. 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 8 (2) 
 
 IQ. B. 374 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 242 
 [1895] 2 Oh. 531 
 0. A. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 
 [1899] W. N. 121 
 Registration App.Ot. (So.) [1897]"! 
 
 W.N. 95 .. .. ^ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 48 
 
 :} 
 
 [1899]^ 
 
 231 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1892' 
 0. A.' 
 0. A. 
 
 2 Ch. 204 
 1899] 2 Q. B. 613 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 236 
 
 P. 0. [1893] A. 0. 317 
 0. A. [1883] 1 Ch. 484, n. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 303 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 578 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 590 
 [1900]1Q. B. 130,n. .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 658 
 
 •■{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 10; [1900] 1 Q. B.\ 
 474 .f 
 
 [1892] ~ " " 
 
 9; 0. A. 
 
 [1892] P.j 
 N. 10 '(5); [1899] 'ij 
 
 P. 
 
 179 
 [1899] W. 
 
 Ch. 432 
 [1896] W. N. 160 (6) ; [1897] 1 
 
 Q. S. 205 ; afarmed by C. A. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 93 .. 
 1898] W. N. 48 (1) .. 
 1895] P. 92 
 1891] 2 Oh. 587; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 1 Oh. 173 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1898] W. N. 56 (3) .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 248 
 
 1898] 1 Ch. 306 
 
 1892] 2 Ch. 518 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 857 ; 0. A. [189511 
 
 ■ 2 Q. B. 640 .. .. .. / 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 19 (9); 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 546 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 143 
 
 9);| 
 
 1371 
 
 14 
 
 1802 
 1285 
 
 650, 970 
 
 966 
 1479 
 2337 
 
 1216 
 
 2304 
 
 538 
 1370 
 
 143 
 
 1374 
 
 1831 
 
 451, 475 
 
 74 
 
 2039 
 
 1586 
 
 326 
 
 319 
 
 325,323, 
 766 
 178, 
 2192 
 178 
 135, 627, 
 1117, 
 1162 
 
 611 
 1946 
 
 441 
 
 998 
 
 49 
 
 721 
 
 512, 
 1559 
 1484 
 1231 
 1901 
 1248 
 
 2267 
 1009 
 1680 
 
clxxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IX THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board : — Eckersley"! 
 " / 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Inlands 
 Eevenue Commra. . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board : — Turner v. 
 The"Zeta" 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board : — Union ] 
 Credit Bank v. Same v. Same and North andl 
 Soutb Wales Bank J 
 
 Mersey Ey. Co., In re 
 
 Merthyr Tydfil Local Board v. Merthyr Tydfill 
 Union Assessment Committee . . . . . . / 
 
 Merthyr Tydfil Union :— Att.-Gen. v. .. 
 
 Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council : — Evanaf 
 "■ / 
 
 Merthyr Tydfil UrbanDistrict Council:— Hender- 
 son V. .. 
 Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council :— Seal v. 
 Mervin, In re. Mervin i;. Crossman 
 Mess v. Hay 
 Messer : — Gibbs v. 
 
 Metcalfe v. Cox .. 
 
 Metcalfe :— Hall V. 
 Metcalfe v. Metcalfe 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column ' 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 -{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Methley School Board : — Eichardson v... 
 
 Methven's Executors : — Lord Advocate v. 
 
 " Metropolis," The 
 
 Metropolitan, &c., Bank v. H. H. Vivian & Co. 
 
 In re H. H. Vivian & Co 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works : — Nathan v. 
 Metropolitan Coal Consumers' Association, In re.'l 
 
 Karberg's Case .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Metropolitan Coal Consumers' Association : — "l 
 
 Cooksedge v. .. .. . . . . . . / 
 
 Metropolitan Coal Consumers' Association v.\ 
 
 Scrimgeour . . . . . . . . . , j 
 
 Metropolitan District Ey. Co. : — Fulham Vestry^ 
 
 V .. ../ 
 
 Metropolitan District Ey. Joint Committee : — ■ 
 
 Brolherton t;. 
 Metropolitan Electric Supply Co. : — Mangan v. 
 Metropolitan Eire Insurance Co., In re. Wal- 
 lace's Case 
 
 Metropolitan Life Assurance Society : — West! 
 Derby Union v. The Sauie v. Priestman 
 
 Metropolitan Ey. Co. : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Metropolitan Ey. Co. v. Fowler . . 
 
 Metropolitan Ey. Co. : — Kelly v. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 667 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 786 ; C. A. [1897]1 
 2 Q. B. 316 
 
 [1891] P. 216; C. A. [1892] P. 
 285 ; H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 
 468 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 205 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 287 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 186 
 
 [1899] W. N. 38 (3); C. A. 
 [1900] W. N. 56; [1900] 1 
 Oh. 516 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 241 .. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 434 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 543 
 [1891] 3Ch. 197 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] A. C. 
 P. 0. [1891] A. 0. 248 , 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. 
 
 [1896] A. G. 647 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 208 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 1 . 
 
 233 .. 
 C. 328';' 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 510 
 
 "{ 
 
 *!■} 
 
 Ct. of Ses3. (Sc.) [1896] W, 
 
 100 
 
 [1899] W. N. 100 
 
 [1900] W. N. 133 ; [1900] 2 Ch.-> 
 
 654 ; 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 230, n 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 132 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 W.N. 148 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 604 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 443 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 666 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 551 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 171 ; [1900] 2 Ch.'k 
 
 671 ; 
 
 [1896] W. N. 156 (12) ; C. A. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 335 ; H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1S97] A. C. 647 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 384 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 165 ; 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 416 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 944 
 
 H.L. 
 
 ^.■} 
 
 55 
 1789 
 
 1959 
 
 2153 
 
 328 
 2279 
 
 1459 
 
 296 
 
 2045 
 
 192L 
 234a 
 146 
 2262 
 
 2068 
 
 1402 
 2330 
 964, 
 1640, 
 1823 
 
 1784 
 
 2005 
 
 320 
 1150 
 
 370 
 
 466 
 
 394, 40O 
 
 1175 
 
 561 
 1557 
 37T 
 
 145T 
 
 166T 
 
 1779 
 
 505, 586: 
 1653, 
 2115 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxxiii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Mevmier, In re 
 
 Meux V. Cobley 
 
 Meux V. Great Bastern Ey. Co. . . 
 
 Meux's Brewery Co. v. City of London Electric 
 
 Lighting Co. (No. 1) . . 
 
 ■ • (No. 2) 
 
 Mexborough (Earl of) v. Whitwood Urban DiB-\ 
 
 triot Council .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Mexican Investment Corporation : — Finlay v. . 
 Meyer & Co. v. Deoroix, Verley & Cie. . . 
 Meyrick, In re. Meyrick v. Hargreaves 
 Meyriok v. Att.-Gen. In re Cliristchurch In- 
 ■ closure Act (No. 1) 
 
 •■{ 
 
 r) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Michell, In re. Moore v. Moore 
 
 Michell V. Loe. In re llocking . . 
 
 Michell V. Michell (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Michiels v. Empire Palace Co. 
 
 Micbolls V. Samuel. In re Beddington .. 
 
 Mickleth waits v. Vavasour 
 
 Middle Temple (Society of the) : — Styles v. 
 
 Middlesborough (Town Clerk of) : — Pease v. .. 
 
 Middlesex County Council v. St. George's Union 
 Assessment Committee 
 
 Middlesex (Sheriff of), Ex parte. In re Thomas 
 
 Middleton : — Baxter v. .. 
 Middleton u. Bradley 
 
 Middleton: — Wood u. 
 
 Middleton v. Moore. In re Lambert 
 
 Midgley r. Crowther. In re Crowther .. 
 
 -{ 
 
 Midgley v. Midgley 
 Midgley V. Smith . . 
 Mid-Kent Fruit Factory, In re . . . . . . | 
 
 Midland Coal, Coke, and Iron Co., In le. Craig's"! 
 
 Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Midland By. Co., Ex parte 
 
 31idland Hy. Co., Ex parte. Ex jarte Castlel 
 
 By tham (Vicar of) . . . . . . .. j 
 
 Midland By. :—Att.-Gen. V | 
 
 . JMidland By. Co. :— Bristol and West of England^ 
 Bank v. .. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 41.5 .. 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 263 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 387 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 355 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. Ill 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 517 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 520 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 99 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 1. 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 209 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 87 .. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 567 .. 
 [1891] P. 166; C. A. [1891] P 
 
 208 
 
 [1891] P. 305 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 38 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 76 ; [1900] 1 Ch 
 
 771 
 
 [1893] W. N. 61 
 
 1898] W. N. 172 (5) .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 127 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 143 ; C. A. [1896]! 
 
 W. N. 164 (4) ; [1897] 1 Q. B 
 
 64 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 66; C. A. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 5 (1); [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 
 460 
 
 1898] 1 Ch. 313 
 1895] 2 Ch. 716 
 1896] W. N. 176 (16); [1897]! 
 
 ICh. 151 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 169 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 56 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 282 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 120 
 [1892] W. N. 65 ; [1896] 1 Ch 
 567 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 267 ., 
 
 [1894]W. N. 38 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 348 
 
 [1900] 2Q. B. 353; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 271 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 653 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 610, 779, 
 809, 810 
 817, 877, 
 
 1054, 
 
 1078, 
 
 2268 
 505, 586, 
 
 1653 
 45, 968 
 
 1346 
 
 968 
 
 666 
 
 978 
 190 
 1736 
 
 297 
 
 297, 
 2088 
 726, 
 2346 
 2305 
 
 721 
 
 721 
 569 
 
 2305 
 
 1533 
 1754 
 1389 
 
 167G 
 
 163 
 
 1139 
 1437 
 
 1545 
 
 2307 
 1856, 
 2195 
 799, 
 2048 
 2226 
 
 458, 480 
 
 479 
 1092 
 
 752 
 
 1804 
 
 1450, 
 1942 
 
clxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 "1 
 
 Midland Ky. Co. :— Derbyshire Silkstone Coal^ 
 Co. ■y. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. Edmonton Union . . . . | 
 
 Midland Ey. Co. :— Grasemoor Co. v 
 
 Midland Ey. Co. v. Gribble | 
 
 Midland Ey. Co. v. Loseby & Carnley . . 
 
 Midland Ey. Co. u. Martin & Co. 
 
 Midland Ey. Co. : — Page v. 
 Midland Ey. Co. :— Eickett, Smith & Co. v. 
 Midland Ry. Co. v. Silvester. In re Silvester 
 Midwinter v. Midwinter (No. 1) . . 
 
 ~ (No. 2) . . 
 
 Mighell u. Sultan of Johore 
 
 Milbank ?>. Milbank 
 
 Milbank V. Vane .. 
 
 Milbum & Co. v. Jamaica Fruit importing and\ 
 
 Trading Co. of London.. .. .. ../ 
 
 Mildmay V. Mildmay. In re Eversley .. ..| 
 
 Miles V. Great Western Ey. Co 
 
 Milford Haven Shipping Co., In re 
 
 Millage : — Holmes v. 
 
 Millar : — Heritable Eeversionary Co. v. . . 
 
 Millard V. Wastall 
 
 Millard's Settled Estates, In re .. 
 
 Miller, In re 
 
 Miller, In re. Ex parte Official Eeceiver 
 
 Miller, Ex parte. Eeg. v. Glamorgan County! 
 Council . . . . . . . . . . . . I 
 
 ;\Iiller :— Atlas Metal Co. u. 
 
 Miller V. Bland. In re Bland 
 
 Miller v. Bomer & Co. 
 
 Miller v. Bruce 
 
 Miller v. Collins 
 
 Miller u. Dell , 
 
 Miller: — Fenu u. .. 
 
 Miller v. Hancock 
 IMiller: — Eowlands v. 
 Miller: — Wainwright v. .. 
 
 Jliller & Aldworth, Ld. v. Sharp 
 
 Miller Brother & Co. :— Hogarth v. 
 
 Miller's Patent, In re 
 
 " Millicent," The 
 
 Milligan u. Cowan 
 
 Milligan V. M'Daid 
 Millington i;. Harwood 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 
 :] 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 260 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 357 ; H. L.' 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 485 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 260 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 129 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2 Ch 827 J 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] 'W. N.'23 (9)'; 
 
 [1899] A. C. 133 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 172 
 
 C. A. [189i] 1 Ch. 11 .. 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 260 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 573 
 C. A. [1892] P. 28 
 
 [1893] P. 93 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 149 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 35; [1900] I 
 
 1 Ch. 376 ( 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 79 .. 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 169; [1900]\ 
 
 2 Q. B. 540 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 208 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 96; [1900]lCh. 96 .. 
 C. A. [1896) 2 Q. B. 432 
 [1895] W.N. 16.. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ':^]i 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 551 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 598 .. 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 342 
 
 0. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 116 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 238 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 327 
 
 [1899] W. N. 60 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 26 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 138 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 536 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 500 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 336 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 691 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 230 .. 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 573 ., 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 468 
 
 G. A. [1900] W. N. 64 
 
 1 Q. B. 788 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 177 
 '1899] 1 Q. B. 735 
 1897] 2 Ch. 255 
 1899] W. N. 16 (12) ; 
 
 1 Ch. 622 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 48 .. 
 
 [1894] W.N. 4 
 
 [1891] W. N. 162 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 
 
 137 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 104 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 166 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1900J 
 
 [1899]! 
 
 1659 
 
 1040, 
 1457 
 1659 
 
 1647 
 
 1665 
 
 658, 769, 
 
 1035, 
 
 1453 
 
 2250 
 
 1659 
 
 1584 
 
 719 
 693, 722 
 
 1008 
 
 678 
 2324 
 1930 
 
 234G 
 
 1090 
 
 446 
 
 1025, 
 
 1695, 
 
 1698 
 
 1829 
 
 1351 
 
 1862 
 
 108 
 145, 855 
 
 57& 
 
 573 
 
 2301 
 1935 
 1385 
 913 
 658, 
 1130 
 
 1224 
 
 1074 
 2015 
 
 1474 
 
 84G 
 
 1941 
 
 570 
 
 27, 20O1 
 
 1731 
 
 1390 
 586 
 
TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxXT 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Mills' Trusts, In ve 
 Mills : — Charlesworth v. 
 
 Mills : — CoUman v. 
 
 Mills V. Dunham 
 Mills:— Socles w. 
 Mills V. Johnston. 
 Mills V. Macleod. 
 
 '■■\ 
 
 In re Johnston 
 In re Macleod 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■•{ 
 •■} 
 
 Mills u. Mills. In re Gundry .. 
 Mills i;. Penton. In re Egan 
 
 Milner, In re. Bray v. Milner . . 
 Milner: — Ballard r. 
 Milner v. Great Northern By. Co. 
 Milner's Settlement, In re 
 Milward & Co., In re 
 
 Milson -v. Carter .. 
 
 Milward v. Avill & Smart, Ld. . . 
 Milward & Co. : — Parnham v. .. 
 Milward & Co., Solicitors, In re .. 
 Minehead Local Board v. Luttrell 
 Mining Shares Investment Co., In re 
 
 Minister for Lands : — Ahbott v. .. 
 
 Minister for Lands : — Colless v. . . 
 Minister for Lands v. Harrington 
 
 "Minnie," The 
 
 Minna Craig Steamship Co. v. Chartered Mer- 
 cantile Bank of India, London and China 
 
 Minor, Ex parte. In re Pollitt . . 
 
 Minor: — ^Boughey v. 
 
 Minter v. Carr 
 
 Mirams, In re 
 
 Mirror of Life Co. : — Melville v. .. 
 
 Miskin Higher, Justices : — 'Reg. v. 
 
 Mitcham Common (Conservators of) : — Cook v. 
 
 Mitchell, In re. Wavell v. Mitchell .. 
 
 Mitchell :— Elmsley v. In re Picbard .. 
 
 Mitchell :— London and Midland Bank v. 
 
 Mitchell : — Lyon v. 
 
 Mitchell :—Orr r 
 
 Mitchell V. Eeg 
 
 Mitchell : — Eowland v. 
 
 mark 
 Mitchell : — Wavell v. 
 
 Mitchell V. Weise. Ex parte Friedheim 
 
 Mitchell : — Williams v. In re Byron's Settle-\ 
 
 •{ 
 •{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 •■{ 
 
 In re Eovvland's Trade- 
 
 .-} 
 
 ment 
 
 ../ 
 
 C. A. [1895]2Ch. 564 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 231 .. 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (10); [1897]) 
 
 IQ. B. 396 .. .. ..! 
 
 0. A. [1891]lCh. 576 .. ..{ 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 360 .. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 204 .. ..| 
 
 [1895' 
 [1898^ 
 [1899' 
 
 (10); 
 
 N. 27 (7);' 
 
 W.N. 97.. 
 2 Ch. 504 
 W. N. 27 
 IQ". B. 688 .. 
 [1899] W, 
 1 Ch. 563 
 [1895] W. N. 14 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 55 ; [1900]\ 
 IQ. B. 795 .. .. * 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 547 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 42 ; 
 lCh.405 
 
 [1899]| 
 [1899]] 
 
 [1900]| 
 
 P. 0. [1893] A. C. 638 
 
 ■1897' 
 1895' 
 1899' 
 1894 
 1893' 
 
 W. N. 162 (1) 
 2 Ch. 730 
 W. N. 251 
 2 Ch. 178 
 2 Ch. 660 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 425 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1899] A. C. 90 .. 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. 0. 409 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 336 
 
 [1897] 1Q.B. 55;.C. A. [1897] 
 
 1 Q. B. 460 .. .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 175 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 455 .. ^ 
 
 [1893] P. 181 .. 
 [1894] 2Ch. 321; C. A. [189411 
 
 3Ch.498 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 594 
 1895] 2 Ch. 531 .. 
 "1893] 1 Q. B. 275 
 1900] W. N. 252 
 1892] W. N. 11 
 1894] 2 Ch. 88; 
 ■3 Ch. 704 
 [1899] W. N. 92; 
 
 161 
 [1899] W. N. 37 (6) .. 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 238 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 121, n. 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 167 (10); 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 71 
 [1891] W. N. 86 
 
 [1892] W. N. 139 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 474 
 
 D. A. [1894]1 
 [1899] 2 Ch.1 
 
 y 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 138 
 200 
 
 1171 
 
 1720, 
 
 1724 
 
 1366 
 
 2182, 
 
 2339 
 
 1900' 
 
 1903 
 
 229£> 
 
 1479' 
 
 1533 
 
 1228 
 
 920 
 
 569 
 
 1487, 
 1592 
 
 332 
 118(> 
 2034 
 1916 
 
 366 
 1324, 
 2071 
 2038 
 1325. 
 1952- 
 
 467 
 
 118, 
 
 2030. 
 
 1611 
 
 1276- 
 
 1306. 
 538 
 1104- 
 298 
 128L 
 
 283, 
 
 1133. 
 
 1274 
 1832- 
 625 
 
 2126. 
 
 1282' 
 
 139, 
 
 1417 
 
 1467- 
 
«lx: 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Mopambique, Companhia de v. British South'! 
 African Co. . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 TVTookford : — Andrews v. .. 
 Moffat, In the Goods of . . 
 
 Moffat:— Wylie. In re Wylie 
 
 Mogridge V. Clapp 
 
 Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. 
 Mohamidu Mohideen Hadjiar v. Pitchey 
 
 Mohan t;. Broue;hton 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■rleV, 
 
 Mohideen Hadjiar v. Pitchey 
 
 Moir u. Williams .. 
 
 " Moliere," The 
 
 Molleson : — Edinburgh United Breweries, Co.,' 
 
 Ld. r 
 
 Molsons' Bank : — Simpson v. 
 Molyneux ■!;. Fletcher 
 
 ■"Mona,"The 
 
 Monaghan : — Ward v. 
 
 Monarch Investment Building Society :^Brett v. 
 
 Monckton u. Payne 
 
 Money Kyrle's Settlement, In re. Money Kyrle 
 
 V. Money Kyrle 
 Monk V. Bartrnm . . . . . . . . . . 
 
 Monkswell (Lord) ti. Thompson .. 
 
 Monkswell (Lord) ■!;. Thompson .. 
 
 Monro : — Pendarves «... 
 
 Monsen v. Macfarlane & Co. 
 
 Monson v. Tussaud (Louis) 
 
 Monson v. Tussauds, Ld. . . 
 
 Monson's (Lord) Settled Estates, In re .. ., 
 
 Montagu, In re. Derbishire v. Montagu ..i 
 
 Montagu, In re. Faber «. Montagu 
 
 Montagu u. Porwood 
 
 Mont de Piete of England, In re . . 
 
 "Monte Bosa," The 
 
 Montefiore : — De Wilton v. In re De Wilton .. | 
 
 Montforts v. Marsden 
 
 Montgomerifi v. United Kingdom Mutual Steam-'» 
 ship Association, Ld. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Montgomery v. Poy, Morgan & Co. 
 
 Montgomery, Jones & Co. v. Liebenthal 
 
 Montgomery : — Thompson v. In re Joule' 
 Trade-mavk 
 
 Montgomery & Co. V. De Bulmes 
 
 Montgomeryshire Brewery Co. : — Eobinson v. 
 
 Montreal (City) : — Dechene v. .. 
 
 Montreal (City of) v. Standard Light and Power\ 
 Co / 
 
 Montreal Gas Co. v. Cadieux. Ex parte Mont- 
 real Gas Co. .. .. .. .. .i 
 
 Montreal Gas Co. u. 'Vasey 
 
 Montreal Lithographing Co. ■;;. Sabiston 
 
 le's) 
 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 358 ; H. L. 
 
 (B.) [1893] A. C. G02 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 372 
 [1900] P. 152 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 116 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 382 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 25 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 437 .. 
 [1899] P. 211; 0. A. [1900]! 
 W. N. 20; [1900] P. 56 ../ 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 193 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 264 
 [1893] P. 217 .. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. 96 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 270 .. 
 
 [1898^ 
 [1894; 
 
 C. A 
 [1899" 
 [1900] W. 
 
 839 
 C. A. 
 
 1 Q. B. 648 
 P. 265 
 
 U. A. [1895] W. N. 123 (8) 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 367 
 2 Q. B. 603 
 
 N. 171 ; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 346 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 353 
 
 [1898; 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 611 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 [1898' 
 [1897' 
 
 2Ch 
 [1896' 
 C. A. 
 [1892 
 [1893 
 
 1 Q. B. 479 
 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 562 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 671 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 671 
 1 Ch. 427 
 1 Ch. 685 ; C. A. [189' 
 
 1 Ch. 549 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 350 
 
 W. N. 166 
 
 P. 23 
 [1900] 'W. N. 163 ; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 481 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 11 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 370 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 321 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 487 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1891] A. C. 217 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 420 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 841 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 640 . 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 527 . 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 718 ; [1899] 
 
 A.C. 589 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 595 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 610 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1498, 
 1560 
 374, 572 
 1600 
 908, 
 1596, 
 2344 
 1873, 
 2103 
 499 
 266 
 
 1626 
 
 797, 
 1591 
 1158 
 1953 
 
 1831 
 
 255 
 2208 
 2016 
 1056 
 
 232 
 
 524 
 
 1880 
 
 1501 
 44 
 
 1824 
 I 1118 
 j 1960 
 ! 645, 963 
 I 645, 963 
 ! 1877 
 
 1863 
 
 2200 
 1580 
 456 
 2105 
 
 1212 
 
 2057 
 
 996 
 
 1505 
 1534 
 
 2127 
 
 590 
 312 
 256 
 
 258 
 
 241 
 
 509 
 
 247 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxxvii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Monyhan's Case .. 
 
 Moody, In re. "Woodroffe v. Moody 
 
 Moody V. Penfold. In re Lashmar 
 
 Moon: — Cain w. .. 
 Mooney v. Chambers 
 
 Moore, In the Goods of (No. 1) . . 
 
 . '- (No. 2) .. 
 
 Moore (Sarah), In the Goods of . . 
 
 Moor: — Armitage w. 
 
 Moore v. Atkinson 
 
 Moore: — Att.-Gen. ■«. 
 
 Moore (falsely called Bull) v. Bull 
 
 Moore: — Chadburn u. 
 
 Moore : — Coppen v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Moore : — Green v... 
 Moore : — Evans v. In re Davis . . 
 Moore v. Fulham Vestry .. 
 Moore v. Johnson. In re Johnson 
 
 Moore : — Kitts v. .. 
 
 Moore v. Knight . . 
 
 Moore: — Merryweather v, ' 
 
 Moore: — Middleton t;. In re Lambert .. 
 
 Moore i;. Moore 
 
 Moore V. Moore. In re Mich ell .. 
 
 Moore v. North Western Bank . . 
 Moore :^Palmer «. 
 Moore v. Peachey . . 
 
 Moore v. Pearce's Dining and Eefreshmeut Roomsj 
 
 Moore Brothers : — Figg v. 
 
 Moore Brothers & Co., In re . . . . . . | 
 
 Moorehead v. Torish 
 
 Moorgate Street and Broad Street Building,) 
 
 Ld. : — Vale & Sons v. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Moran v. Place 
 
 Morant u. Bolton. In re Bolton's Estate ..1 
 
 More-Smyth : — Mountcashell (Earl of) . . 
 
 Morel Brothers & Co. :— Tharsis Sulphur and\ 
 
 Copper Co. V. .. .. .. .. . . / 
 
 Morel Brother?, Cobbett & Son, Ld.:— Hyslopl 
 
 V. .. .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Moreton «. Hughes. In re Pinhorne 
 Morgan, In re. Morgan v. Morgan 
 
 Morgan, In re. Smith v. May .. .. ..| 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1892] 
 [1891' 
 [1900" 
 Q. B 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (So.) [1897]\ 
 
 W.N. 100 / 
 
 [1895] 1 Cli. 101 
 
 C. A. [1891]10h. 258 .. ..| 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 283 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 183 
 
 [1892] P. 145 .. 
 
 P. 378 .. 
 P. 299 
 W. N, 
 363 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 269 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 676 
 
 [1891] P. 279 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 126 
 
 1898' 
 
 1898' 
 
 1891 
 
 C. A.' 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 123; [1900] 21 
 
 2Q. B. 300 
 2Q. B. 306 
 W.N. 68 
 1891] 3 011.119 .. 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 399 
 
 
 [i89i; 
 
 3 Ch. 48 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 547 
 
 •■{ 
 
 1892' 
 1897' 
 1892' 
 
 2 Ch. 518 
 2 Ch. 169 
 P. 382 ., 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1895]| 
 
 18 (5); 
 
 95 
 
 •} 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 87 .. 
 
 [1891[ 2 Ch. 599 
 P. C. [1900] A. 0. 293 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 707 
 [1895] W. N. 136 (4 1 
 
 2 Q. B. 657 .. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 690 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 627 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 
 
 [1899]W. N. 52 
 
 'C. A. [1896] P. 214 
 [1892] W. N. 114 ; C. A. [18921| 
 W.N. 163 .. .. f 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1896] A. C. 158 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 647 
 
 [1891]W. N. 19 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 276 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 222 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 151 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 474 .. .... / 
 
 1400 
 
 2340 
 1692, 
 ■ 2191 
 725 
 1394 
 1594, 
 1608 
 1618 
 1608 
 
 1759 
 
 1390 
 540, 627, 
 2153 
 718 
 765, 
 2224 
 2122 
 1239 
 1552 
 1131 
 1270 
 955 
 65, 959, 
 964 
 1229, 
 1130, 
 1422, 
 2192 
 1248 
 2307 
 696 
 726, 
 2346 
 402 
 1259 
 660 
 
 19 
 
 167 
 
 374 
 1394 
 1063 
 1613 
 
 845 
 
 766 
 1966 
 
 370, 403 
 
 2386 
 32, 2309 
 
 1406 
 
dxxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case, 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Morgan, and London and North Western By. Co., I 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Morgan: — Att.-Gen. u. .. 
 
 Morgan i;. Blyth .. 
 
 Morgan v. Bowles . . 
 
 Morgan v. " Castlegate " Steamship Co. Thel 
 "Castlegate" / 
 
 Morgan : — Farquharson v. 
 
 Morgan f. Hill. In re Parker .. 
 Morgan u. Jackson 
 
 Morgan : — Jones v. In re Page . . 
 
 Morgan : — London Provident Building Society v. 
 Morgan v. Eichardson. In re Eichardson 
 Morgan v. Williams. In re WiUiams .. 
 
 "Morgengry," The, and The "Blackcock' 
 
 Moritz V. Knowles 
 
 Morley, In re. Morley r. Haig . . 
 
 Morley: — Brearley u. 
 
 Morley v. Carter .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •■ 
 
 
 ■■{; 
 ■I 
 
 ■■I 
 ■■{ 
 
 Morley Corporation: — Fielden v. 
 
 Morley: — Crook u. 
 
 Morley V. Leacroft 
 
 Morley ?;. Loughnan 
 
 Morley : — Mandleberg v. (N^o. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Morley i). Eennoldson 
 
 Morley & Soan, Ex parte. In re Dagnall 
 
 Morley: — White v. .. .. .. ..< 
 
 " Morocco Bound " Syndicate, Ld. v. Harris 
 
 Morns, In re. James v. London and County) 
 Banking Co. .. .. .. .. ..i 
 
 Morris, In re. Morris v. Atherden 
 
 Morris: — Atkinsons. 
 
 Morris v. Beves 
 
 Morris: — Campbell ». 
 
 Morris: — Charlton v. 
 Morris V. Delobbel-Flipo 
 
 Morris u. Duncan . . 
 
 Morris K. Howden 
 
 Morris u. Morris .. 
 
 llorris : — National Bank of Australasia v. 
 
 Morris v. Tottenham and Forest Gate Ey. Co. 
 
 Morris, Wilson & Co. v. Coventry Machinists Co. 
 
 Morriss: — Massey u. 
 
 Momss : — Southport Corporation v. 
 
 ■I 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 469 
 
 C. A. [1891] I Ch. 432 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 337 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 236 
 
 H. L. (r.) [1893] A. C. 38 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 552 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 400 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. 13. 885 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 304 
 
 [1893] 2 q. B. 266 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 512 .. .. { 
 
 [1892]W. N. 81 .. .. i 
 
 [1899] W. N. 211 ; C. A. [1900]y 
 
 [1899] W".*N. 40; C. A. [1899111 
 
 W.N. 83 I 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 738 
 
 [1899] W. N. 84 ; [1899] 2 Q. B.\: 
 
 121 / 
 
 [1897] W. N. 153 r(8); [1898]\' 
 
 IQ. B. 8 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 1 ; H. L. (E.) 
 [1900] W. N. 40 ; [1900] A. C. 
 133 
 
 (E.)"[1891]"a. C. 316 .'.' 
 P. 92 
 1 Ch. 736 
 W. N. 157 
 
 W. N. 9 
 
 1895]lCh. 449 .. 
 
 2Q. B. 407 
 
 W. N. 67 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 1089 
 
 1260 
 1420, 
 2056 
 1163 
 
 1980 
 
 591, 
 
 1629 
 
 1582 
 
 -861 
 
 2166, 
 
 2191 
 
 230 
 
 799 
 
 799 
 
 1955 
 
 C. A. [1899]] 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 147 
 
 H.L. 
 
 1896' 
 
 1893^ 
 
 1893° 
 
 1895" 
 
 C. A." 
 
 [1896" 
 
 [1899° 
 
 34" 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 534 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 413; 
 
 W. N. 18 (3) 
 
 485 .. 
 [1894] W. N. 85 
 C. A. [1896] W. 
 
 [1897] P. 40 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 449 
 Kegistration App. Ct.(Sc.) [1897] 
 
 W.N. 101 .. .. .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 107 .. 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 352 
 [1898] W. N. 148 (4) 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 4 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 378 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 625 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 287 
 '1892] 2 Ch. 47 .. 
 "1891) 3 Ch. 418 
 '1894] 2 Q. B. 412 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 359 
 
 1855 
 972 
 
 1034 
 
 567, 
 2069 
 
 108 
 
 756 
 2207 
 1427 
 1437 
 2343 
 
 160 
 
 871 
 538, 961 
 
 
 N. 167 (7) 
 
 Div. Ct. 
 
 :!■} 
 
 2339 
 
 2357 
 
 1824 
 
 1398 
 
 1368 
 209 
 
 825 
 
 1989 
 1320 
 1327 
 1655 
 655 
 1989 
 1928 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxxix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Morrison: — Aliens. 
 
 Morrison v. Chicago ard North West Granaries) 
 
 Co. In re Same Co. .. .. .. .. f 
 
 Morrison: — New Zealand Loan and Mercantile\ 
 
 Agency Co. i;. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Morrison v. Trustees, Executors, and Securities) 
 
 Insurance Corporation .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Morshead's Settled Estate, In re 
 
 Mortgage Insurance Corporation, In re .. 
 
 Mortgage Insurance Corporation : — ^Dane v. 
 
 Mortimer: — Ma gee i;. 
 
 Morton v. Blackmore. In re Brewer's Settle-\ 
 
 ment .. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Miorton : — Burgess v. 
 
 Morton : — Haddow v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Morton: — Beg. v. 
 
 Moser ti. Marsden 
 
 Moses, In re. Beddington v. Beddington 
 Moses: — Godman v. 
 
 Moses (alias Moss) v. Parker. Ex parte Moses 
 Mosley v. Kay. In re Kay 
 
 Moss, In re. Kingsbury v. Walters 
 
 Moss V. Hancock . . 
 
 Moss i». Moss (otherwise Archer) 
 
 Mostyn v. Atherton 
 
 Mostyn (Lord) «. London 
 
 Mostyn j;. Mostyn 
 
 Mouat, In re. Kingston Cotton Mills Co. v. 
 
 Mouat .. 
 Moubray Eowan and Hicks v. Drew 
 Moul V. Groenings 
 
 Monies: — Ehodes v. 
 
 :■} 
 
 In re L'Hermiuier 
 Alexander v. Burke 
 
 Moult V. Halliday . . 
 
 Moimsey v. Buston. 
 Mount Argus Case. 
 
 Mountain v. Parr .. 
 
 Mountcashell (Earl of) v. More-Smyth . . 
 Mountifield ?;. Ward 
 
 Mowbray V. Merry weather 
 
 Moxham v. Grant 
 
 Moxon: — Scott «. 
 
 Muddock w. Blackwood .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Mudie's Select Library, Ld. : — Yizetelly v. 
 Muirden: — Cowie r. 
 
 Muirhead v. Forth and North Sea Steamboatl 
 Mutual Insurance Association .. ../ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 601 ., 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (2); 
 ICh. 263 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 349 .. 
 
 [1898]| 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 154 (3) 
 
 [1893' 
 [1896' 
 C. A.' 
 
 W. N. 180 
 W. N. 4 (3) 
 1894]1Q. B. 54.. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 102 
 
 [1896] 2 Oh. 503 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 136 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 95 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 565 .. .. ../. 
 
 [1892]1Q.B. 39 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Oh. 487 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 182 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 179 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 245 .. 
 
 [1897; 
 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 2 Ch. 518 
 
 111 
 
 112; [1899]| 
 
 314 
 2Q.B 
 P. 263 
 W.N. 103; [1899] 2 Ch 
 
 "} 
 
 [1899]\ 
 
 2Ch 
 1899 
 1897' 
 1899' 
 360" 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 170 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 376 . 
 [1899] W. N. 37 (1); 
 
 ICh. 831 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 295 . 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 443 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 236 . 
 
 [1897] W. N. 171 (5); [1898]) 
 
 IQ. B. 125 .. 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 675 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 178 
 C. A. [1899] . W. N. 35 (7) 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 805 .. 
 H. L. (I.) [1896] A. C. 158 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 326 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 857 ; C. A. [1895]> 
 
 ,2Q. B. 640 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 14 (4) ; [1899] 1 
 
 Q.B.480; C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 232; [1900] 1 Q. B. 88 
 [1900]W. N. 14 
 [1897] W. N. 158 (4) ; [1898]! 
 
 ICh. 58 ./ 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 170 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 674 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. 72 
 
 ?} 
 
 Column 
 of 
 
 Digest. 
 
 2342 
 333 
 
 2258 
 
 395 
 
 1857 
 476 
 978 
 
 1389 
 
 1905 
 1552 
 1010 
 
 546, 
 1640 
 1438, 
 1507, 
 1514 
 1468 
 
 585 
 209& 
 2174 
 
 2315- 
 
 618 
 
 711 
 
 2284- 
 
 1770- 
 2233- 
 
 853 
 
 2260 
 533 
 1423, 
 2159 
 
 1238 
 
 1469 
 1378. 
 
 1245. 
 
 766 
 1108 
 
 226r 
 
 340' 
 
 15291 
 
 529 
 
 64 & 
 1845 
 
 m 2 
 
clxxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Miiller :— Smith t;. 
 
 MulMland : — Caledonian Ey. Co. 
 
 Muller ?;. Trafford 
 
 Muller & Co.'s Margarine, Ld. v. Inland Kevenue"; 
 
 Commrs. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 MuUiner and Motor Carriage Supply Co.: — \ 
 
 Soloman z;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Muncaster (Lord) : — Harrison, Ainslie & Co. v. 
 Munday :^Dyer t). 
 Munday u. Norton 
 Mundy : — Curtis v. 
 
 Mundy & Eoper's Contrart, In re 
 
 31undy's Settled Estates, In re .. 
 
 llunn's Patent Maizena and Starch Co. : — 
 
 National Starch Manufacturing Co. v. 
 ilunro V. Balfour . . 
 Munro V. Inland Revenue Commrs. 
 TMunio : — Lloyd Jones v. .. 
 
 "Munroe,"The 
 
 3Iunslow : — Eeg. v. 
 
 ■7} 
 
 :{ 
 
 3Iunton : — Twickenham Urban Council v. 
 
 Murphy v. Arrow . . 
 
 Murray v. Epsom Local Board . . 
 
 Murray (Frockleton's Judicial Factor) : — Lord| 
 Advocate v. 
 
 Murray: — Freer u. 
 
 Murray : — Maogowan v. In re Macgowan .. , 
 
 Murray: — Shuttleworth i». .. .. ..\ 
 
 Murray : — Warren v. 
 Murray, Iq the Goods of .. 
 Murray- Ay nsley : — Union Bank of Australia v. 
 Murugaser Marimutta v. De Soysa 
 .Musgrave: — Consolidated Exploration ,and| 
 Finance Co. u. .. .. .. .. ..' 
 
 Musgrave v. Dundee Eoyal Lunatic Asylum ..{ 
 
 Musgrove v. Chung Teeong Toy 
 Mustapha v. Wedlake 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Musurus Bey v. Gadban . . 
 
 Mutoscope and Biograph Syndicate, In re 
 
 Mutual Cycle and Manufacturing Supply Co.: — 
 Osmond v. 
 
 Mutton V. Peat 
 
 r) 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 192 
 H. L. (So.) [1897] W. N. 159 (7) ;1 
 [1898] A. 0.216 .. ..J 
 
 [1900] W. N. 251 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 310 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 260 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 680 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 742 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 403 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 178 
 [1898] W. N. 49 (12); 
 
 [1899] W. N. 3 (8) ; 
 
 1 Ch. 275 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 399 .. 
 
 C. A.] 
 [1899] [ 
 
 -{ 
 
 Coluraa 
 
 of 
 Diafest, 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. 0. 275 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 113 
 
 Ct. of Sess.(Sc.) [1896] W. N. 149 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 109 
 
 [1893] P. 248 
 
 C. C. E. [1895] 1 Q. B. 758 .. 
 [1898] W. N. 170 (14) ; [1899]] 
 
 1 Ch. 168 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 103; [1900] 2 Ch. 603 ..j 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 527 
 [1896] W. N. 1759; [1897]) 
 
 ICh. 35 f 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 110 / 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 281 ; C. A. [1893] 
 
 IQ. B. 635; H.L.(E.) [1894] 
 
 A. C. 576 
 
 C. A.' [1891] 1 Ch. 105 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 89; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 795 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 648 
 
 [1896] P. 65 1 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 693 .. .. 1 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 69 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 212 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 37 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 
 
 138 
 
 P. 0. [1891] A. C. 272 .. 
 [1891] W. N. 201 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 533 ; C. A. [1894] j 
 2Q. B. 352 
 
 [1899] W. N. 77; [1899] 1 Ch.l 
 896 ■ 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 488 
 
 [1899] W. N. 127 ; [1899] 2 Oh. 
 556; C. A. [1900]W. N. 98; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 79 
 
 ':] 
 
 214 
 1650 
 1084 
 1796 
 
 590 
 
 1059 
 
 1239 
 
 62, 1499 
 
 665 
 
 1893 
 
 1860, 
 1865, 
 1876 
 1332, 
 2133 
 1365 
 1800 
 1396 
 
 988 
 
 622 
 
 2085 
 
 863 
 
 2291 
 
 1781 
 
 1105 
 
 2040 
 
 2323 
 
 1135 
 1621 
 1334 
 260 
 
 87 
 
 1754 
 
 27, 2258 
 725 
 1007, 
 1124, 
 1540 
 
 414 
 1436 
 
 98 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DiaEST. 
 
 olxxxi 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 -■T] 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York: — 
 
 Hambrough v. .. 
 
 Mutual Eeserve Association : — Hayward v. 
 
 Mutual Eeserve Fund Li''e Association : — \ 
 
 . Cleaver v. .. .. . . . . . . J 
 
 Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Associa-"! 
 
 tion : — Ryan v. .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Myrtle: — ^Davidson -v. In re Smith 
 
 N. 
 
 N :— P V 
 
 " N. Strong," The 
 
 Nagle «. Campbell 
 
 Naismith v. Boyes 
 
 Nalder & CoUyer's Brewery Co. v. Harman 
 Nance, In re. Ex parte Ashmead 
 
 Napper ?;. Fanshawe. lu re Greer 
 
 Nash, In re. In re Spence. Lewis v. Darby 
 Nash V. Di.x 
 Nash i;. De Freville 
 Nash: — Reg. u. 
 Nash & Sons, In re. Ex parte Crofton, Craven"! 
 & Worthington.. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Natal Land and Colonization Co. :— Bolton v. 
 Natal (Surveyor-General of) : — Remfry v. 
 Nathan v. Metropolitan Board of Works 
 Nathan & Co. : — Shoppee v. 
 
 National Bank u. Silke .. 
 
 National Bank of Australasia v. Morris . . 
 
 National Bank of Wales, Ld., In re .. . . | 
 
 National Bank of Wales, In re. Taylor, Phillips,) 
 
 and Rickards' Oases .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 National Boiler Insurance Co., In re 
 
 National Debenture and Assets Corporation,! 
 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 National Dwelling Society v. Sykes 
 
 National Fire and Marine Insurance Co. of New) 
 
 Zealand: — Davies j). .. .. .. .. ( 
 
 National Kre and Marine Insurance Co. of Newj 
 
 Zealand: — Hiddle w. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 National Guardian Assurance Co. : — Grigg v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 18 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 236 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 147 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 427 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 ICh. 116 I 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 590 
 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (13) .. 
 
 [1892] P. 105 
 
 0. A. (ir.) [1899] W. N. 185 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 124 ;\ 
 
 [1899] A. C. 495 .. ../ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 22 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 180 I 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 590 
 
 [1896]| 
 
 Columa 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 [1893]W. N. 99 
 [1898] W. N. 32 (7) .. 
 0. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 72 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 103 
 [1895] W. N. 135 (1); 
 
 IQ. B. 13 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 124 
 P. 0. [1896] A. C. 558 .. 
 [1894-]1Q. B. 230,n. .. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 245 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 435 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 287 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 26; 0. A. [1899] \ 
 
 W. N. 131 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 629/ 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 851; C. A. [1897]! 
 
 1 Oh. 298 j 
 
 [1892] 1 Oh. 306 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Oh. 505 .. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 159 
 
 P. 0. [1894] A. 0. 485 .. .. { 
 
 "i 
 
 :} 
 
 National Insurance Co., Ex parte. In re Hallett 
 National Insurance and Guarantee Corporation: 
 
 — ^Malleson V. .. 
 National Permanent Mutual Benefit Buildingl 
 
 Society «. Raper .. .. .. ../ 
 
 National Provincial Bank of England, Ex parte."! 
 
 In re Newton .. 
 National Provincial Bank of England, Ex parte. 
 
 In re Sass 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 372 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 206 
 [1894] W. N. 156 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 200 
 
 [1892] 1 Oh. 54 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 403 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 12 
 
 ■■( 
 
 977, 982, 
 
 1002 
 
 62 
 
 980 
 
 1066, 
 2063 
 2185 
 
 773 
 1949 
 1375 
 
 1843 
 
 600 
 
 142, 550 
 78, 123, 
 
 1521, 
 
 1923 
 
 1515 
 
 2063 
 
 195 
 
 1405 
 
 122 
 
 355 
 1313 
 1150 
 1924 
 94, 19G, 
 1319 
 3 327 
 
 344 
 
 431 
 
 363 
 
 390 
 
 357 
 996 
 1329 
 
 1328 
 
 205, 653, 
 
 860 
 150, 422 
 
 368 
 
 1284 
 147 
 154 
 
clxxxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 National Provincial Bank of England v. Cress- 
 well. In re Bawden. Bawden «. Cresswell . . 
 
 National Provincial Bank of England :— MarshalU 
 " / 
 
 National Provincial Bank of England:— Small \ 
 "•. / 
 
 National Provincial Bank of England and Marsh,'! 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. ..] 
 
 National Reversionary Investment Co., In re. 
 In re Lamson Store Sei-vice Co 
 
 National Society for the Distribution of Elec- 
 tricity by Secondary Generators v. Gibbs 
 
 National 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 H 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 693 
 [1892] W. N. 34 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 686 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 190 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 726 
 
 [1899] W. N. 59; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 289 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 102 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 280 
 
 itional Starch Manufacturing Co., Ex parte.\i noooiw vr 07 ^nx 
 ^ In re Kingsford's Trade-mark . . . . . . / ' L^^^^J W . N. 37 (2) 
 
 National Starch Manufacturinc; Co. v. Munn's 
 
 i's| 
 
 Patent Maizena and Starch Co. 
 INational Stores, Ld., In re 
 
 National Telephone Co. v. Baker 
 
 National Telephone Co. :— Bristol Tramways andl 
 Carriage Co. v. .. .. .. . . . . / 
 
 National Telephone Co. v. Constables 
 St. Peter's Port 
 
 .1 
 
 National Telephone Co. : — Holliday !•. .. 
 
 Prowse & Co.,|l j-jgg^-, g ch. 147 
 
 National Telephone Co. ; — Keith 
 
 f. 
 National Telephone Co. v. Inland Hevenuel 
 Commrs. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Rational Wholemeal Bread and Biscuit Co., In re 
 National Wholemeal Bread and Biscuit Co., In re.l 
 Ex parte Baines .. .. .. ../ 
 
 ■" Nautik," The 
 
 Navalchand, Ex parte. In re Gordon .. 
 :Neal V. Dtvenish .. 
 
 Neal : — Duulop Pneumatic Tyre Co. s;. . . . . | 
 
 Neale : — New London Credit Syndicate, Ld. v. 
 Neath and Brecon Ey. Co., In re 
 
 Neath and District Tramways Co. :— Pegge v. 
 
 Neath Union: — Llanelly Union v. 
 
 Neaverson v. Peterborough Eural Council 
 
 Neck V. Taylor 
 
 Needes, Ex parte. Peg. v. Bird 
 
 Negus, In re 
 
 Nell u. Longbottom 
 
 Nelson v. Anglo-American Land Mortgage) 
 
 Agency Co. .. .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Nelson Brothers, Ld. : — Soutliland Frozen Meati 
 
 and Produce Export Co. V. .. .. ../ 
 
 Nelson and Fort Sheppard Ey.:— Madden v. .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 275 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 215 ; [1899] 2 Ch* 
 773;C. A. [1899]W. N. 233; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 27 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 186 
 
 [1899] W. N. 91 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 292 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. 0. 317 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 165 (9); [1899]- 
 1 Q. B. 221,- 0. A. [189911 
 W. N. 119; [1899] 2 Q. B.| 
 392 I 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] A 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 151 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 457 
 
 1895' 
 1897' 
 1894 
 1899' 
 807 
 
 C. 1 
 
 P. 121 
 2Q. B. 
 IQ. B. 
 
 W. N. 
 
 516 
 544 
 39; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch.-! 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 487 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 349 .. 
 [1895] 2 Oh. 508; C. A. [1896] 
 
 1 Ch. 684; [1897] W. JJ. 
 
 165(1); [1898] ICh. 183 ..J 
 
 [1893' 
 [1900^ 
 0. A.' 
 ■1898' 
 1895' 
 1894' 
 1896" 
 ICh 
 
 2 Q. B. 38 
 
 W. N. 244 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 560 
 
 2 Q. B. 340 
 
 1 Ch. 73 .. 
 
 1 Q. B. 767 
 
 W. N. 166 (4) : [18971\ 
 130 .. .. .. I 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 442 .. 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 626 .. 
 
 2303, 
 2338 
 775, 
 1287 
 
 208 
 2249 
 383 
 
 1432 
 
 2136 
 
 1332, 
 2133 
 
 443 
 
 1345, 
 1352, 
 2101 
 
 2101 
 2101 
 
 1217 
 
 1065, 
 2101 
 
 1791 
 
 457 
 
 451, 475 
 
 1994 
 168 
 17 
 
 1429 
 
 194 
 1664 
 
 2152 
 
 1461 
 
 936 
 
 569 
 
 1098 
 
 2038 
 
 546, 548 
 
 388 
 
 1335 
 248 
 
 i i 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxxxiii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Columa 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Neptune Salvage Co.: — 0\yners of " Glengyle," 
 her Cargo and Freight v. The " Glengyle " .. 
 
 Neptune Steam Navigation Co. v. Sclater. The\ 
 "Delano" / 
 
 Nevill (Lord William) v. Fine Art and General] 
 Insurance Co. .. 
 
 Neville V. Kirby .. 
 
 Neville w. Ma tthewman .. 
 
 Neville & Co. :— Eenton Gibbs & Co. v. 
 Nevin (Violet), In re (an Infant) 
 
 New Beeston Cycle Co. : — Salton i;. 
 
 ■ A 
 
 New Beeston Cycle Co. : — ^Salton v. 
 
 New British Iron Co., In re. Ex parte Beckwith 
 
 New Brunswick (Eeceiver-General of): — \ 
 Maritime Bank of Canada (Liquidators of) v. j 
 New V. Bums 
 
 New Chile Gold Mining Co., In re 
 
 New Incandescent (Sunlight Patent) Gas Light- 
 ing Co. : — Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light 
 Co. t) 
 
 New Ixion Tyre and Cycle Co. v. Spilsbuvy 
 
 New Land Development Association and Gray, 
 
 In re 
 New London Credit Syndicate, Ld. v. Neale 
 New Mashonaland Exploration Co., In re 
 New Mashonaland Exploration Co. : — Londoni 
 
 and Mashonaland Exploration Co. v. .. 
 New Morgan Gold Mining Co., In re 
 New Moss Colliery Co. v. Manchester, Sheffieldl 
 
 and Lincolnshire Ry. Co. . . . . ..j 
 
 New Oriental Bank Corporation, In re (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 New Ormonde Cycle Co., Ex parte 
 New Par Consols, Ld., In re (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) •• 
 
 "New Pelton,"The 
 
 New Eomney (Coi-poration of) v. New Romneyj 
 
 Sewer Commrs. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 New Sharlston Collieries, Co. :— Westmorland) 
 
 (Earl of) w j 
 
 New South Wales (Att.-Gen. for) v. Love 
 New South Wales (Att.-Gen. for) : — Macleod v. 
 
 New South Wales (Att.-Gen. for) v. Makin 
 
 New South Wales (Att.-Gen. for) v. Rennie 
 New South Wales (Att.-Gen. for):— Sydney) 
 
 Municipal Council i). .. .. .. ..J 
 
 New South Wales (Att.-Gen. for) v. Walters 
 
 New South Wales (Bank of) v. Piper . . 
 
 New Sunlight Incandescent Co. : — Welsbach\ 
 
 Incandescent Gas Lighting Co. u. .. .. J 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 519 . 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 40 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 156 ; H. L 
 (E.) [1896] W. N. 171 (5) 
 [1897]A. C. 68 
 
 [1898] P. 160 
 
 C. A. [1894]3Ch. 345 .. 
 
 0. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 181 
 C. A. [1891]2Ch. 299 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 40; [1899] 1 Cli 
 
 775 
 
 [1899] W. N. 213 ; [1900] 1 Ch 
 
 43 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 437 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 196 
 [1892] W. N. 193 
 
 [1900] W. N. 51; [1900] 1 Ch 
 843 i 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 137 ; 0. A. [1898]\ 
 2Ch. 484 .. .;■ ../ 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 138 .. 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 487 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 577 
 
 [1891] W. N. 165 
 
 [1893]W. N. 79 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 725 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 563 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 753 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 520 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 573 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 669 
 [1891] P. 258 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 840 
 
 [1899] W. N. 2 (4) ; 0. A. [1899] 
 
 W.N. 88 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 679 .. 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 455 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1894] A. 0. 57 .. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 376 .. 
 
 [1894] A. C. 444 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 460 .. 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 383 .. 
 C. A. [19Q0] W. N. 120; [1900] 
 2Ch. 1 
 
 °^} 
 
 2002 
 2070 
 
 648 
 
 756 
 1518, 
 1519 
 1527 
 ■ 947 
 
 349 
 
 1581, 
 
 2047 
 
 350 
 239, 241, 
 251, 292, 
 
 293 
 
 778 
 
 396 
 
 1444 
 
 1432 
 
 114 
 
 194 
 342 
 337, 
 1414 
 467 
 
 259 
 
 456, 457 
 474, 
 1080 
 2125 
 481 
 1629 
 2108 
 
 1686 
 
 1266 
 
 1330 
 1324 
 610, 
 1324 
 1330 
 297, 
 1330 
 1327 
 1328 
 
 674 
 
clxxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 New Terras Tin Mining Co., In re 
 
 New Tivoli, Ld. : — Astley i; 
 
 New Transvaal Co., In re 
 New Travellers' Chambers, Ld., In re .. 
 New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co :— Foster v. . 
 New Union Mills Co. ■;;. Great Western Ry. Co. 
 New Weighing Machine Co., In re 
 
 New Windsor Corporation v. Taylor 
 
 New York Breweries Co. ■y. Att.-Gen. .. ..) 
 
 New York Exchange Co., In re .. 
 
 New York Herald : — De Bemales v. 
 
 New Zealand (Att.-Gen. for) : —Brown v. 
 
 New Zealand Gold Extraction Co. (Newbery-"! 
 
 Vautin Process) u. Peacock .. .. ,./ 
 
 New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co.,) 
 
 In re . . . . . . . . . . . . j 
 
 New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co.i 
 
 V. Morrison . . ^ . . . . . . . . / 
 
 New Zealand (National Fire and Marine Insur-1 
 
 ance Co. of) : — Hiddle v. . . . . . . / 
 
 New Zealand Shipping Co. : — Parsons v. 
 
 New Zealand Shipping Co.:— Waikato (SS.) 
 Owners of Cargo on Board v. .. 
 
 New Zealand Trust and Loan Co., In re 
 
 Newbery- Vautin (Patents) Gold Extraction Co.,\ 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Newbold Friendly Society v. Barlow 
 Newby v. Eckersley 
 Newby v. Sims 
 
 Newburn : — Dimond v. In re Preman . . 
 
 Newcastle (Duke of) : — Pelham Clinton v. 
 Newcastle (Mayor and Councillors of) : — Vaudal 
 
 .^ ■« / 
 
 Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation : — Graham v. 
 
 ' (N"o. 2) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Newcastle Wallsend Coal Co :- 
 Boards... 
 
 -Hunter Districl\ 
 
 Newell & Nevill's Contract, In re 
 
 Newell : — Wirral Highway Board v. 
 Newell V. Newell .. 
 
 Newen, In re. Newen v. Barnes 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 344 .. ..| 
 
 [1898] W. N. 172 (3); [1899]) 
 ICh. 151 ( 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 750 
 
 1895] ICh. 395 
 
 1900] W. N. 257 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 290 
 
 1896] W. N. 48 (4) .. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 186 n 
 H. L. (B.) [1898] W. N. i 
 162 (6); H. L. (E.) [1899] [' 
 
 A. c. 41 ; 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 738 ; C. A. [1897]- 
 W. N. 175 (10); [1898] 1 Q.B.I 
 205 : H. L. (E.) [1898] W. N. | 
 170(12); [1899] A. 0.62 ..J 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 371 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 97, n 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. 0. 234 .. 
 
 0. A. [1894]1Q. B. 622' 
 
 [1894] W. N. 200 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 349 .. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. 0. 372 .. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 714 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 645 ; 0. A. [1898]l 
 W. N. 152 (15); [1899] 1 
 Q. B. 56 j 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 403 .. ..| 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 127, n 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 128 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 465 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 478 
 
 [1897] W. N. 159 (9) ; [1898]) 
 
 ICh. 28 , f 
 
 [1900] W. N. 183 
 
 P. 0. [1899] A. 0. 246 .. 
 
 0. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 478 
 
 0. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 384 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. 0. 568 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 134 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 643 ../ 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 82 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 242 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 90 / 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B..827 
 [1896] W. N. 160 (2) .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 297 .. ../ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 446, 465, 
 598 
 
 340 
 
 413 
 440 
 353 
 1658 
 458 
 
 2114 
 
 1785 
 
 438, 486 
 1535 
 1335. 
 
 304 
 
 455 
 
 225S 
 
 1328 
 1940 
 
 1969 
 
 404, 
 2202 
 
 385 
 
 857 
 
 1052 
 
 17 
 
 1883 
 
 2325. 
 
 1313 
 
 66S 
 665 
 542 
 873 
 891, 
 1130 
 
 1333 
 
 1873 
 
 89a 
 
 501 
 1880, 
 2166 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 CISXXT 
 
 Niime of Case. 
 
 n 
 
 Newfoundland Government : — Fox v. ., 
 Newfoundland Savings Bank : — Gaden v. 
 Newington, St. Mary Vestry : — Austin v. 
 Newington Vestry : — Geen v. 
 
 Newington, St. Mary Vestry : — Keep v. 
 
 Newlands : — Galashiels Provident Building So-j 
 ciety ■!;. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Newman, In re. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 Newman: — Innes u. 
 Newman & Dale i;. Lamport & Holt 
 Newman (George) & Co., In re .. 
 
 Newmarket Local Board :— Cowley u. .. 
 
 Newnes : — Hanfataengl v. 
 
 Newnes (George), Ld. : — Johnson v. 
 
 Newport Assessment Committee : — Ystradyfodwg 
 
 and Pontypridd Main Sewerage Board v. 
 Newsham and South Blyth Clmrchwardens and 
 
 Tynemouth Union Assessment Committee : — 
 
 Blyth Harbour Commrs. w. 
 Newspaper Proprietary Syndicate, Ld., In re. 
 
 Hopkinson v. Newspaper Proprietary Syndi- 
 cate, Ld. 
 Newton, In re. Ex parte National Provincial 
 
 Bank of England 
 Newton (Infants), In re .. 
 Newton v. Anglo- Australian Investment Co. De-'l 
 
 benture-holders.. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Newton: — Goslings.' 
 
 Newton y. Newton .. .. .. ..■! 
 
 Newton : — Peg. v. 
 
 Newton, Chambers & Co. : — Hoddinott v. 
 Newton, Chambers & Co. : — Hoddinott v. 
 " Ngapoota " SS. (Owjiers oO :— "Kwang Tung"\ 
 SS. (Owners of) V. The " Ngapoota " ../ 
 
 Niblett : — Hoars v. 
 Nicholas: — Craig «;. 
 
 Nicholas and Settled Land Act, 1882, In re 
 
 Volume aud Page. 
 
 Nicholas : — Tumbull v. In re Turnbull 
 
 Nicholl & Knight v. Ashton, Edridge & Co. 
 
 Nicholl V. Epping Urban Council 
 
 Nicholls w. Nicholls 
 
 Nichols: — Eudall V. 
 
 Nicholson I). Brown 
 
 Nicholson «. Field 
 
 Nicholson v. Harper 
 
 Nicholsons. London, Chatham and Dover Ey. Co 
 
 Nicholson r. Nicholson .. 
 
 Nicholson: — Beg. v. 
 
 Nicholson- v. Ehodesia Trading Co. 
 
 ■■{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 667 .. 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 281 .. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 524 
 [1898]2Q. B. 1 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 524 ..| 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 107 / 
 
 1899] 2 Q. B. 587 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 292 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 20 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 674 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 345 ..| 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 109 .. 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 663 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 365 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 293 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 2Q. B. 675 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 140 ; [1900] 2 Ch, 
 349 .. 
 
 :';} 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 403 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 740 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 244 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 793 
 
 [1895] W. N. 152 (5); [1896]\ 
 
 P. 36 / 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 648 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 1018 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1900] W. N. 269 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 391 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 781 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 444 
 
 [1894] W. N. 165 .. ..| 
 
 [1899] W. N. 229 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 180 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 116 
 
 298 
 [1899] W. N. 58 
 
 844 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 4 . 
 
 [1900] W. N. 133 
 
 1897] W. N. 52 (13) 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B.| 
 [1899] 1 Ch.j 
 
 1893 
 1895' 
 1895' 
 
 2 Ch. 511 
 2 Ch. 415 
 W. N. 91 
 
 [1895] W. N. 106 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 455 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 434 [ .. 
 
 -{ 
 
 1337 
 1338 
 1178 
 1167 
 1178, 
 2070 
 
 1772 
 
 163 
 1348 
 1943 
 
 471 
 
 549, 895, 
 
 2066 
 
 e-39 
 
 537 
 
 1686 
 
 1683 
 
 341 
 
 147 
 
 947 
 
 315, 319, 
 
 1323 
 
 2105 
 
 689 
 
 1028 
 1215 
 1215 
 
 1948 
 
 514, 910 
 898 
 1895, 
 2169 
 
 914 
 515 
 
 2288 
 
 2289 
 2301, 
 2344 
 1487 
 2168 
 
 878 
 
 1661 
 
 1857, 
 
 2302 
 
 1099 
 
 353 
 
clxxxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ••! 
 
 Nickalla w. Briscoe 
 
 Kick els, In re. Nickels v. Nickels 
 
 Niools : — Ultzen v. 
 
 "Nifa,"The 
 
 Nind V. Nineteenth Century Building Society .. | 
 
 Nineteenth Century Building Society : — Nind v.i 
 
 " Niohe," The. M'Cowan v. Bains 
 Nitrophosphate and Odams Cliemical Manure\ 
 Co., In re .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Nix V. Nottingham Justices 
 
 Nix: — Roe «. 
 
 Nixon: — Tabuleau i;. 
 
 Nixon's Navigation Co., In re .. 
 
 Nixon & Bruce : — Stuart v. 
 
 No. 7 Steam Sand Pump Dredger (Owners of) v. 
 Owners of "Greta Holme." The "Greta 
 Holme" 
 
 Ncakes : — Graham v. In re Graham ., 
 Noakes : — Ponting u. 
 
 Noakes&Co. : — Bice w. .. 
 
 Nohbs, In re. Nobbs v. Law Reversionary! 
 Interest Society .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Nobel Dynamite Trust Co. v. Wyatt .. 
 Nobel's Explosives Co. v. Jenkins & Co. 
 Nokes: — Fletcher f. 
 Noel V. Redruth Foundry Co. 
 
 Norburn v. Norburn 
 
 Nordenfelt, In re. Ex parte Maxim-Nordenfelt) 
 Guns and Ammunition Co. .. .. ..) 
 
 Nordenfelt v. Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns and'l 
 Ammunition Co. (No. 1) .. .. ..J 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 "Nord Kap" (SS.) v. SS. "Sandhill." Tlie\ 
 "Sandhill" / 
 
 Nordmann, In re . . 
 
 Norfolk (Duke of) :— Hall u | 
 
 Norfolk: — Gathercole u. In re Jolly .. .. | 
 
 Norfolk County Council : — Thetford Corporation! 
 
 ' I 
 
 Norfolk's (Duke of) Parliamentary Estates, In re.) 
 Norfolk (Duke of) v. Herries (Lord) .. .. / 
 
 1892] P. 269 
 
 1898] ICh. 630 
 "1894] 1 Q. B. 92 
 
 1892] P. 411 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 472 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 226 / 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 472 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 226 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 401 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 141 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 106 ; [1899] \ 
 2Q. B. 294 / 
 
 { 
 
 [1893] P. 55 
 
 [1899] W. N. 115 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 872 
 
 U. A. [1900] W. N. 92 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 95 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 596 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 281 
 
 [1899] W. N. 229 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 213; C. A. [1900] W. N.'150; 
 [1900] 2 Cb. 445 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 830 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 499 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 326 
 1897] 1 Ch. 271 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 453 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 448 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 151 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 630; H. L, 
 
 ■I 
 
 '::) 
 
 (E.) [1894] A. C. 535 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 122 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 646 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 150 (2) .. 
 [1900] W. N. 138;' [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 493 : ..; 
 
 [1899] W. N. 249 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 292 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 170 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 616 
 
 B. 141; appeal 
 and cross-appeal 
 A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. 
 
 dismis.sed 
 
 allowed, C. 
 
 468 .. 
 [1900] W. N, 
 
 461 .. 
 
 15 ; [1900] I Ch.l 
 
 747, 751 
 2170 
 89 
 1934 
 1062, 
 1072 
 1062, 
 1072 
 988 
 
 366 
 
 1104 
 
 1195, 
 1627 
 2314 
 382 
 
 1223 
 
 1948 
 
 1583, 
 1701, 
 1706 
 1352, 
 1353 
 
 1294 
 
 1287, 
 
 1502 
 
 1767 
 
 1792 
 
 1069 
 
 1222 
 
 962, 
 
 1533, 
 
 l'J99 
 
 141 
 
 1721, 
 1723 
 677 
 
 1946 
 
 122 
 
 1265 
 
 2306 
 
 577 
 1860 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxxxvii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Sh,j 
 
 Norie i). Bennett. In re Medows 
 
 Norman, In re. Ex parte Board of Tiade 
 
 Norman, In re. Norman v. Norman .. 
 Norman v. Beaumont 
 Norman: — Buckwell i). .. 
 Norman: — Lane v. 
 
 Normanby Brick Co. : — Jackson v. .. .. | 
 
 "Normandie" (Owners of Norwegian SS.) v. 
 "Pekin" (Owners of British SS.) The " Pe 
 kin" 
 
 Norris r. Birch 
 
 Norris: — ^Williamsons;. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 North, In re. Ex parte Hasluck 
 
 North v. Bassett .. 
 
 North: — Chappell ?;. 
 
 North: — Kirke v. In re Wright 
 
 North t;. Percival . . 
 
 North Australian Territory Co., In re. Aroher's\ 
 
 Case .. ., .. .. .. ..| 
 
 North Australian Territory Co. v. Goldsboroufh, 
 
 Mort&Co 
 
 North :— Bexley Heath Ey. Co. v. 
 
 "North Britain," The 
 
 North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. : 
 
 Collins V. 
 North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. : 
 
 Grreenhill v. 
 North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. : 
 
 Kirby v. 
 North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. : — 
 
 Pratt V. .. 
 North British Ey. Co. : — Ferguson v. .. 
 North British Ey. Co. :^Gilmour v. 
 North British Ey. Co. v. Park Yard Co. 
 North British Ey. Co. v. Wood 
 
 North Cheshire and Manchester Brewery Co. v. 
 Manchester Brewery Co. 
 
 North Eastern News Association :— South Het- 
 ton Coal Co. v. .. 
 
 North Eastern Ey. Co. :— Dalton Overseers v. .. 
 
 North Eastern Ey. Co. :— Dunhill v 
 
 North Eastern Ey. Co. : — Emsley v 
 
 North Eastern Ey. Co. v. Lord Hastings 
 
 North Eastern Ey. Co. : — Pounder ■«. 
 
 North Eastern Ey. Co. v. York Union . . " 
 
 Volume and Page, 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 300 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 369 
 
 [1900] W. N. 159 
 [1893]W. N. 45 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 622 
 [1891] W. N. 202 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 51 ; [1899]\ 
 lCh.438 / 
 
 [1899]! 
 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 532 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 639 
 [1898] W. N. 151 (8) 
 
 1 Q. B. 7 
 [C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 264 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 333 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 252 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 747 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 128 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 322 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 381 .. 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 579 
 0. A. [1894] P. 77 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 228 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 474 
 [0. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 99 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 228 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 166 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 281 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 643 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 130 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 539; H. L. (E.)1 
 [1898] W. N. 168 (5) ; [1899] 
 
 A. C. 83 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 133 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 66; C. A. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 64,- [1899] 1 Q. B. 102 
 
 (6); H. L. (B.) [1900] W.N. 
 
 126; [1900] A. C. 345 
 [1895] W. N. 116; C. A. [1895] 
 
 W. N. 156 (3); C. A, 
 
 ICh. 121 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 418 .. 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 674; C. A, 
 
 W. N. 30 (4); [1899]! Qh. 
 
 656 ; H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 
 
 92; [1900] A. 0. 60 .. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 385 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 733 
 
 
 [1896] 
 [1899]' 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1866 
 
 123, 
 
 2071. 
 
 1528 
 
 1300 
 
 149 
 
 282 
 
 2030 
 
 288 
 
 884 
 1110 
 
 111 
 
 222, 
 2098 
 
 52 
 1514, 
 1520 
 2246 
 
 349 
 
 442 
 
 1086 
 987 
 1540, 
 1544 
 
 912 
 
 1163 
 
 1540, 
 1544 
 1839 
 1838 
 730 
 1643 
 
 2139 
 
 545, 644 
 897 
 
 1092 
 1655 
 
 2293 
 
 1651 
 1685 
 
clxxsviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 '): 
 
 North. Hendre Miniog Co. : — Foster i;. .. 
 
 North Kent Ironwoiks Co. : — McMalioii v. 
 
 North Metropolitan Ey. and Canal Co. : — PaJ-'l 
 dington (Vestry) v. .. . . . . . . / 
 
 North Metropolitan Tramways Co. : — Att.-Gen.'i 
 V. J 
 
 North Metropolitan Tramways Co. v. London 
 County Council . . 
 
 North Queensland Insurance Co. : — Trinder, An- 
 derson & Co. V. Triader, Anderson & Co. v. I 
 Thames and Mersey Murine Insurance Co. j 
 The Same v. Weston, Crocker & Co. . . . . j 
 
 North Riding of Yorkshire County Council : — ) 
 Keg. V, .. .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 North Staffordshire I'y. Co. : — Hanley and Buck- 
 nail Coal Co. 
 
 North of England Trustee, Debenture and aVssets) 
 Corporation v. Marriage, Neave & Co. .. j 
 
 North Staffordshire Ey. Co. : — Hiiffam v. 
 
 North Staffordshire Ey. Co. : — Salt Union Ld. v. 
 North Sydney Investment and Tramway Co v. 
 
 Higgins 
 
 North Wales Gunpowder Co., In re .. .. 
 
 North-West Argentine Ey. Co., In re . . ..< 
 
 North Western Bank : — Moore v. .. . . I 
 
 North Western Bank v. Poynter, Son (John),\ 
 and Macdonalds .. .. .. ../ 
 
 North Western of Uruguay Ey. Co. : — Baring"! 
 
 Bros. & Co. u .. ../ 
 
 North of England Iron Steamship Insurancel 
 
 Association, In re .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Ch.-I 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2Ch. 
 
 :1 
 
 Northage, In re. Ellis v. Barfield 
 
 Northallerton County Court Judge : — Skinner 
 
 Northampton (Marquess of) : — Salt v. .. 
 Northampton (Marquess of) v. Pollock . . 
 
 Northcote :- 
 
 In re 
 
 Northen: — Durham v. 
 Northern Creosoting and Sleeper Co., In re 
 Northern Heritable Securities Investment Co. : — ) 
 Whyte V. .. .. .. _.. .. J 
 
 Northern Transvaal Gold Mining Co., 
 Northey Stone Co. v. Gidney 
 Northumberland (Duke of) v. Percy 
 Norton, Ex parte. In re Brail .. 
 
 Norton, Ex parte. In re Mansel 
 Norton, In re. Norton v. Norton 
 
 Norton v. Counties Conservative PermanentV 
 Benefit Building Society .. .. ..) 
 
 Norton 1). Dash wood 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 71 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 148 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 633 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 70 .. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 91 ; [1898] : 
 145 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 114 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 201 
 
 [1891]W. N. 93 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 663 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 821 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 435 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 263 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 220 
 [1900] W. N. 243 ; [1900] 
 
 882 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 599" 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1895] A. C. 56 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 406 
 
 [1900] W. N. 30; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 481 / 
 
 [1891] W. N. 84 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 680, 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 96 ; 
 [1869] A. 0.439 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 1 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 1 
 
 [1900] W. N. 134; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 262 J 
 
 [1895] P. 66 
 
 [1898] W. N. 159 (5) .. 
 
 H. L. (S.) [1891] A. C. 608 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 3 .. 
 0. A. [1894]1Q. B. 99.. 
 
 [1893] 1 Cb. 298 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 381 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 32 .. ..| 
 
 [1899] W. N. 216 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 101 ; 
 
 C. A. [1895]1Q.B. 246 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 1263 
 330 
 
 1172 
 
 672, 676, 
 2148 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 568 
 
 99T 
 
 822 
 1264 
 
 353. 
 
 1651, 
 
 2071 
 1659 
 
 1322 
 
 451 
 
 415 
 
 402 
 
 496, 
 
 1450, 
 
 1837, 
 
 1942 
 
 1557 
 
 367 
 
 353, 
 1853 
 
 592 
 
 1296 
 1296 
 
 495 
 
 1616 
 307 
 
 1829 
 
 442 
 592 
 
 1314 
 184 
 176, 
 
 1127 
 
 1406 
 
 225 
 827 
 
TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 clxxxix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Korton : — Davis v. In re Counties Conservative 
 Permanent Building Society .. 
 
 Norton •». Davison 
 
 Norton : — Munday v. 
 
 Norwich. (Bishop of) ; — Boyer v. 
 
 Norwich (Bishop of) : — O'Malley v. 
 
 Norwood (Overseers) V. Salter .. 
 
 Noton: — ^E vans v. In re Evans (No. 1) 
 
 ^ (No. 2) 
 
 Notre Dame de Bonsecours (Corporation of the\ 
 Parish of) : — Canadian Pacific Eys v. . . / 
 
 Nottage, In re. Jones v. Palmer (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Nott Bower : — Andrews v. 
 Nottingham Corporation, In re . . 
 
 Nottingham Justices : — Nix v. .. 
 
 Nottingham Lunatic Hospital : — Cawse v. 
 Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building So' 
 ciety: — ThurstaiTD. 
 
 Nourse, In re. Hampton v. Nouise 
 
 Nourse v. Liverpool Sailing Shipowners' MutuaU 
 
 Protection and Indemnity Association .. / 
 
 Nova Scotia (Att.-Gen. for) : — Reynolds v, 
 
 Nowell : — Lloyd ii. 
 
 Noyce, Id re 
 
 Noyes v. Paferson 
 Nuthall, In r.'. Ford v. Nuthall 
 Nutley and Finn, In re .. 
 Nutt: — Bourke v. Jn re Pulborough (School\ 
 Board Election for the Parish of) . . . . / 
 
 Nutt V. Easton 
 
 NuttaU V. Hargreaves 
 Nuttall V. Whiltaker. 
 
 Nutter V. Holland 
 Nyberg v. Handelaar 
 Nystrom : — Cameron v, 
 
 In re Hartley (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 0. 
 
 Oake : — Finch v. ,. 
 Oakey, In the Goods of . . 
 Oaksliette : — luiray v. 
 O'Brien, In the Goods of .. 
 
 <)cean Coal Co. : — Daniel v. 
 
 Ocean Coal Co. : — Jones v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 12 (12) ;j 
 
 ■} 
 
 \ 
 { 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 819 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 401 ., 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 403 
 [1892] P. 41 ; P. C. [1892] A. C 
 
 417 
 
 [1892] P. 175 .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 118 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 252 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 32 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 367 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 649 .. 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 657 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 888 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 502 
 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 106 ; [1899]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 294 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 585 
 
 [1900] W. N. 239 
 
 [1898] W. N. 150 (3); [189'9]\ 
 ICh. 63 .. .. ^ 
 
 C. A. [1896]2Q. B. 16.. 
 
 P. C' [1896] A. C. 240 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch.. 744 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 97 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 IQ. B. 642 / 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 267 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 55 .. 
 
 [1894]W. N. 64 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 725 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 873 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 W. N. 239 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 29 / 
 
 C. A. 
 [1891 
 [1892' 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 [1892] 1 Gh. 23 
 ■2Ch. 121 
 W.N. 49 
 1894] 3 Ch. 408 .. 
 '1892] 2 Q. B. 202 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 308 
 
 C. A. 
 [1896' 
 C. A.' 
 [1900' 
 C. A,' 
 
 1896] ICh. 409 .. 
 
 P. 7 
 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 218 
 
 "P. 208 
 
 1900] W.N. 109; [1900]) 
 2 Q.'B. 250 .. .. .. / 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 233 
 
 1815 
 
 62, 1499 
 
 734 
 
 752 
 1687, 
 1691 
 36, 81, 
 1488 
 77 
 
 258 
 
 281, 
 2347 
 2340 
 
 848 
 1751 
 
 1104 
 
 1754 • 
 
 227 
 
 2344 
 
 1000 
 
 252 
 2064, 
 2220, 
 2249 
 
 594 
 
 2236 
 
 160 
 2224 
 
 126, 
 2071 
 
 1301 
 
 1444 
 1547 
 1699 
 1522 
 2159 
 1243 
 
 2263 
 1594 
 1072 
 1603 
 
 1224 
 
 1220 
 
TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Ocean Queen SteamsMp Co., In re 
 O'Connell V. Holland 
 
 O'Connor: — Graham u. .. 
 
 O'Connor : — " Star " Newspaper Co. v. .. 
 
 Odd Eode (All of) :— Bgerton v 
 
 Oddy, In re 
 
 Odessa Waterworks Co., In re 
 O'Doherty's Case. Hollands v. Chambers 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. In re A Bankruptcy^ 
 Notice .. 
 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. In re Beall 
 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 In re Cunningham 
 In re Duncan 
 In re Platau 
 
 In re Ford 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 666 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1900] W. N. 244 
 
 [1895] "W. N. 157 (10) .. ..{ 
 
 [1893] W. N. 114 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 W.N. 122 / 
 
 [1894] P. 15 .. .. ! .. 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 392 .. , 
 [1897] W. N. 166 (3) .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 163 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 609 ; , 
 
 [1899] W. N. 10 (3); [1899] 
 Q. B. 688 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 In re Frost 
 
 In re Goudie 
 
 In re Graydon 
 
 In re Hawkins 
 
 In re Izod 
 
 In re Lord Thurlow 
 
 In re Miller 
 
 In re Newman 
 
 In re Raynes Park) 
 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 
 Officia Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. 
 Golf Club, Ld '.. ../ 
 
 Official Receiver, Ex parte. In re Tankard 
 
 Official Trustee of Charity Lands : — Fell v. 
 Ogden: — Blenkinsop v. .. 
 
 Ogden V. Mason. In re Mason .. .. .A 
 
 Ogilvie i>. Littleboy 
 
 Ogilvie V. West Australian Mortgage and Agency'i 
 Corporation .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Ogilvy: — Indigo Co. u. .. 
 
 Ogilvy : — West Lancaster Rural Council v. 
 
 [1899" 
 
 W.N. 68 . .. 
 
 C.A. 
 
 ri892 1 Q. B. 879 
 
 C.A. 
 
 "1893' 2 Q. B. 219 
 
 [1899 
 
 W. N. 245; [1900] 
 
 y.B. 
 
 264 
 
 ?) 
 
 383 
 1368 
 405, 
 2064 
 
 515 
 
 747 
 
 44, 2043 
 
 417 
 
 1395 
 
 .'( 
 
 [1899] W. N. 48 ; [18991 2 Q. B.' 
 50 
 
 2Q. B. 481 
 
 IQ. B. 417 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 890 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 241 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 724 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 327 
 - " Q. B. 587 
 
 O'Gorman, In re. Ex parte Bale 
 
 Ogston V. Aberdeen District Tramways Co. 
 
 Ogston V. Stewart.. 
 
 O'Hara, Matthews & Co. v. Elliott & Co. 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 "} 
 
 O'Hagan : — Viditz v. 
 
 Ohlson's Case. Reg. 
 
 Revenue 
 Oldham Assessment Committee : — Hoyle &\ 
 
 Jackson v. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Old Battersea and District Building Society v. 
 
 Inland Revenue Commrs 
 
 Oldman : — Tanner v. 
 
 V. Commrs. of Inland) 
 Committee : — Hoyle 
 
 :■} 
 ■•( 
 
 [1896 
 
 [1896' 
 
 C.A.' 
 
 C.A. 
 
 C.A. 
 
 C.A 
 
 [1899; 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 961 
 
 [1899] W. N. 60 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 57 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 44 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 783 
 [1900J W. N. 115; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 196 .. .... 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 53 (1) 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 257 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 31 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 6 (3) ; [1899] 1\ 
 
 Q.B. 377 .... } 
 
 [1899] W. N. 68 ; [1899] 2 Q. m 
 
 62 .. .. J 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] W.N. 175 (14)' 
 
 [1897] A. C. HI .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 120 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 362 
 [1899] W. N. 99; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 569; C. A. [1900] W. N. 103 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 87 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 485 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 372 
 
 [1898] 2 Q> B. 294 
 
 ^') 
 
 [1895] W. N. 139 (7) ; 
 1 Q. B. 60 .. 
 
 [1896] 
 
 »?)i 
 
 103 
 
 180 
 
 126 
 136 
 162 
 
 127 
 
 126 
 
 156 
 
 179 
 113, 123 
 
 162 
 
 111 
 145, 855 
 
 163 
 
 435 
 
 184 
 
 271 
 
 1237 
 
 2353 
 
 281 
 
 85 
 
 1506 
 
 2275 
 
 148 
 
 1351 
 
 823 
 560 
 
 493 
 
 1445 
 1675 
 1800 
 1153 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Oldrey v. Union Works, Ld. 
 Oldroyd v. Oldroyd 
 
 Oliver u. Hinton .. 
 
 OKver v. Horsham Local Board .. 
 
 Oliver V. Oliver 
 Oliver: — Pittard'i;. 
 Oliver V. Bobbins .. 
 
 OUis:— Beg. «. | 
 
 O'Malley v. Bishop of Norwich .. 
 Omnium Investment Co., In re . . 
 
 O'Neil V. Armstrong, Mitchell & Co. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 -I 
 
 Ongley (Lord), In re. Ottley v. Turner 
 
 Onslow V. Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 
 Ontario (Att.-Gen. for) v. Att.-Gen. for the\ 
 
 Dominion .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Onward Building Society, In re (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Onward Building Society v. Smithson . 
 Ooregum Gold Mining Co. of India v. Eoper.'l 
 
 Wallroth u. Boper .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Opera, Ld., In re .. 
 
 Oporto, The 
 
 Oppenheim v. Schweder. 
 Estate (No. 1) .. 
 
 In re 
 
 .. ..{ 
 .. ..{ 
 
 Sohweder's 
 
 ':} 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Oppenheim & Co. u. Sheffield 
 Orchard u. Bush & Co. 
 
 Orford (Countess of) In re. Cartwright v. Balzol 
 (Due del) / 
 
 " Orienta," The 
 
 Oiiental Steamship Co. v. Tylor . . 
 
 Oriental Telephone Co., In re 
 
 "Orion," The .. 
 
 Ormerod : — Baton «. 
 
 Ormerod: — Baton w. In re Bagot 
 Ormerod's Cape. In re Harvey's Oyster Co. 
 Oiinrod v. Wilkinson. In re Scowcroft 
 
 Ormrod's Settled Estate, In re .. 
 
 Ormskirk Union Assessment Committee : — 
 
 Southport Corporation I/. 
 O'Eourke : — Commr. for Eys. v... 
 Orpen: — Marshall i;. 
 Orrv. Mitchell 
 Orwell Bark Estate, In re 
 Osborn «. Yickers, Sons and Maxim 
 
 Osborn V. Wood Brothers 
 
 Osborne : — Bulli Coal Mining Co. v. 
 
 :} 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 '^ 
 
 [1895] W.N. 77 .. .. 
 
 [1896] B. 175 .. .. ' ;. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 172 (4); 0. A. 
 [1899] W. N. 102 ; [1899] 2 
 Ch. 264 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 332 
 
 [I892]W. N. 84 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 474 i .. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 199 
 
 C. C. E. [1900] W. N. 154 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 758 / 
 
 [1892] P. 175 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 127 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 70 ; C. A. [1895] 
 
 2Q. B. 418 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 54 (16) 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 239 , .. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 348 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 463 .; 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 16 .. ■ .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 125 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 154 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 3Ch. 260 / 
 
 [1896] W. N. 170 (1); C. A 
 [1897] P. 249 .. .. ; 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 44 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 12 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 5 . 
 
 [1898T2Q. B. 284 
 
 [1895] W. N. 155 (1) ; [1896]\ 
 
 ICh. 257 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1894] P. 271; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 P. 49 ../ 
 
 tj 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 315, 322, 
 1503 
 717 
 
 C. A. 
 [1891" 
 [1891; 
 
 [1892] P. 247 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 518 
 W. N. 153 
 P. 307 .. 
 
 C. A, 
 [1894; 
 
 1893] 3 Ch. 348 .. 
 2Ch. 474 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 318 .. ..| 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 468 ; C. A. [1894]{ 
 1 Q. B. 196 .. .. / 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 594 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1895] A. 0. 606 .. 
 
 H. L. (S.) [1893] A. C. 238 .. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 135 
 
 0. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 91 
 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (8); [1897]! 
 IQ. B. 197 .. .. ..( 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 351 .. 
 
 1288 
 
 549, 895, 
 2066 
 693 
 652 
 573 
 
 614 
 
 752 
 365, 778 
 
 2014 
 
 2360 
 1806 
 
 242, 243 
 
 405 
 2033 
 769 
 
 396 
 
 320, 449 
 
 1952 
 
 2341 
 
 2304 
 676 
 972 
 
 1735 
 
 1980 
 
 1974 
 
 364 
 
 1951 
 
 1610, 
 
 1616 
 
 2346 
 
 432 
 
 279 
 1859, 
 1866 
 
 1677 
 
 1323 
 262, 376 
 1832 
 1858 
 1226 
 
 1031 
 
 1326 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Osborne v. Chocqueel 
 
 Osborne v. Melville 
 
 Osborne : — Parker v. In re Parker 
 
 O'Shea v. Meara . . 
 
 O'Sbea u. Wood 
 
 O'Shea's Settlement, In re. 
 Osmond v. Mutual Cycle 
 
 Supply Co. 
 Ossett Corporation : — Harrop v 
 
 Ostigny : — Forget v. 
 
 Courage v. O'Shea 
 and Manufacturing 
 
 n 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 109 
 
 0. A. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 231 .. 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 208 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 177 .. 
 [1891] P. 237; 0. A. [1891] \ 
 
 P. 286 / 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 325 .. 
 
 0. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 488 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 525 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 OsTvaldtwistle Urban District Council : — Peebles'! 
 
 ^■" / 
 
 Oswaldtwisfle Urban District Council: — Pas-I 
 more v. .. .. . . . . . . / 
 
 O'Sullivan V. Thomas 
 Ottley u. Turner. In re Lord Ongley .. 
 Otto, Ex parte. Eeg. w. Lushington 
 "Otto," The (Owners of) v. The "Thorsa" 
 (Owners of). The "Otto" 
 
 Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines, Ld., In re 
 
 Otway, In re. Ex parte Otway .. 
 
 Otway V. Otway. In re Loftus-Otway .. 
 
 Outram : — Hawksley v. ,. 
 
 Over V. Harwood .. 
 
 Overell:— Tidd V. In re Tidd .. 
 
 Overend : — Gale v. 
 
 Overweg, In re. Haas v. Durant 
 
 Ovey V. Ovey 
 
 Owen, In re 
 
 Owen: — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Coulson 
 In re Hoare .. 
 
 Whitworth's Claim.] 
 
 Owen : — Hoare v. 
 
 Owen: — Lewis u... 
 
 Owen V. Eichmond 
 
 Owen and Ashworth's Claim 
 
 In re Bank of Syria 
 Owen & Co. v. Cronk 
 Owens: — Evans v. 
 
 Owen's Patent, In ro 
 
 Owthwaite, In re. Owthwaite u. Taylor 
 Oxford, Ld. (The) v. London County Council .. 
 Oxford Circuit (Clerk of Assize of) : — Peg. v. .. 
 Oxford and Cambridge (Universities of) v. George 
 
 Gill & Sons °, 
 
 Oxford Corporation v. Crow 
 Oxfordshire (Justices of) : — Peg. ■;;. 
 Oxfordshire County Court (Judge of) : — Reg. v. 
 Oxley V. Wilkes .. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 ■■( 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0. 318 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 159 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 387 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 698 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 54 (16) 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 420 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 116 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Oh. 618 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 812 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 235 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 359 .. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 803 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 154 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 269 
 
 [1899] W. N. 245 ; [1900] 1 Ob.-l 
 
 209 / 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 524 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 220 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 253 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 94 I 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 102 
 
 [1895]W. N. 29 .. ../ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 66; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 272 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 256 / 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 265 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 237 
 [1898] W. N. 151 (11); [1899]\ 
 1 Ch. 157 .. .. / 
 
 1891] 3 Ch. 494 
 
 1898] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 370 
 
 1898] W. N. 155 (8); [1899]! 
 1 Ch. 55 ... ( 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 535 " 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 149 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 440 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 56 
 
 638 
 1370 
 2333 
 1376 
 
 1614 
 
 117, 141 
 
 1436 
 
 567 
 256, 868, 
 
 869, 
 1591, 
 2078 
 
 1509 
 
 1912 
 
 870 
 
 2360 
 
 623, 809 
 
 1953 
 
 402, 403, 
 
 637 
 
 162 
 
 759, 
 2331 
 1425, 
 1723, 
 2064 
 2214 
 88, 1126 
 1390 
 
 2073 
 
 797 
 1131 
 1734 
 1303, 
 1703 
 
 583 
 1093, 
 2184 
 
 350 
 
 1577 
 
 824 
 
 1436 
 
 2185 
 1172 
 622 
 
 1517 
 
 542 
 1042 
 596 
 647 
 
TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 P V. N 
 
 " P. Caland, 
 
 :■} 
 
 The. Owners of the " P. Caland '"l 
 «. Glamorgan Steamship Co. .. .. ../ 
 
 "Pacific," The 
 
 Pack V. Darby 
 
 Paddington Vestry : — Plorence v. 
 
 Paddington Vestry : — Gibbon w. .. .A 
 
 Paddington Vestry v. North Metropolitan Ey, 
 
 and Canal Co. .. 
 Pagani, In re. In re Pagani's Trust 
 
 Page, In re. Jones t). Morgan .. 
 
 Pagd V. International Agency and Industrial \ 
 Tnisfc .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Page V. Midland Ry. Co, 
 
 Page and Owners of SS. " Jane " : — ^Owners ofl 
 SS. " Pleiades " i; / 
 
 Paget, Ex parte. In re Semenza 
 
 Paget, In re. In re Mellor. Mellor v. Mellor 
 
 Paget t;. Paget " 
 
 Pain V. Bowden 
 
 Paine, In re. Ex parte Paine 
 
 Paine, In re. Ex parte Eead 
 
 Paine v. Chisholm 
 Paine: — Westmore ■;;. 
 
 Paine & Co.'s Trade-marks, In re. Paine & Co.1 
 V. Daniells & Sons' Breweries .. .. .. / 
 
 Painter, Ex parte. In re Painter 
 Painton':— Tyrrell v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) . 
 
 Paisley Cemetery v. Inland Eevenue Commrs, 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (13) .. 
 C. A. [1892] P. 191 ; H. L. 
 [1893] A. C. 207 
 
 (E.)l 
 
 1898' 
 
 P. 170 
 
 ••{ 
 
 rs.\ 
 
 Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) 
 
 Palace Theatre Ld. :— Simpson v. 
 
 Palgrave Gold Mining Co. v. McMillan .. 
 
 Palk, In re. Drake, In re. Chambeilain v. 
 
 Drake 
 Palliser v. Dale 
 
 Pallister, Ex parte. In re HoUoway 
 
 Palmer, In re. Ex parte Brims . . 
 
 Palmer, In re. Palmer v. Ainsworth . . 
 
 Palmer, In re. Palmer v. Rose-Innes .. 
 
 Palmer & Co. and Hosken & Co., In re . . 
 
 Palmer: — Australasia (Bank of) v. 
 Palmer f. Bramley 
 
 1895] W. N. 123 (6) .. 
 1895] W. N. 143 (9) .. 
 "1900] W. N. 180 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 794 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 633 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 236 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 304 
 
 [1893]W. N. 32 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 11 .. 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 259 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 15 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1898 
 [1897^ 
 1 Ch. 
 
 1 Ch. 290 
 
 W. N. 159 (6); 
 
 Palmer v. Caledonian Ey. Co. 
 Palmer v. Day & Sons 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1898] 
 47; affirmed by C. A. 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 470 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 301 
 0. A. [1891] W. N. 208 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (2); [1897]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 122 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 531 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 482 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 567 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 85 
 
 0. A. [1894] P. 151 
 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 [1899] W. N. 196 
 
 [1893]W. N. 91 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. 0. 460 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 112 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 257 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 163 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 419 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 369 .. ../ 
 
 [1900]'W. N. 9 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 156 (3) ;\ 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 131 .. .. f 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 540 .. 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 405 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 607 ; C. A. [1892]| 
 IQ. B. 823 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 618 
 
 773 
 
 38, 1953 
 
 2008 
 
 51, 1314 
 
 1168 
 
 1181 
 
 1172 
 
 1187 
 2166, 
 2191 
 
 335 
 
 2250 
 
 1953 
 
 144 
 1479. 
 
 9ia 
 
 58G-. 
 164 
 
 132 
 
 557, 563-. 
 1038 
 2126, 
 2129 
 
 112, 142. 
 1619 
 1697 
 1761,. 
 
 1774: 
 
 878. 
 25i 
 
 2186 
 
 858 
 1502, 
 1503, 
 1504 
 
 104 
 2319, 
 2354 
 1736 
 
 60 
 
 1326, 
 196, 681 
 1547, 
 1657, 
 1839 
 169 
 
cxciv 
 
 TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Palmer : — Great Northern By. Co. v. 
 Palmer : — Jobson v. 
 
 Palmer : — Jones v. 
 
 In re Nottage (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Palmer v. Moore .. 
 Palmer v. Palmer .. 
 
 Palmer v. Eicli 
 
 Palmer v. Rose Innes. In re Palmer 
 Palmer: — St. Mary, Battersea v. 
 
 Palmer v. Snow .. .. .. .. .A 
 
 Palmer: — Thompson u. .. 
 Palmer v. Wade . . 
 Palmer: — Wade u. 
 
 Palmer : — Whitaker v. In re Whitaker . . \ 
 
 Palmer v. Wick and Pulteneytown Steam) 
 Shipping Co. 
 
 Palmer: — Wyatt v. 
 
 Panes v. Att.-Gen. In re Bond . . 
 
 ■Pannell v. City of London Brewery Co. .. 
 
 Panther Lead Co., In re . . 
 
 Pap(5 ?;. Westacott.. 
 
 -.1 
 ■■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Papillon : — Ingram v. In re Ash ton 
 
 'Papworth: — Williams v. .. 
 
 ;Parapano u. Hiippaz 
 
 Parbury's Case. In le Building Estates Brick- 
 fields Co. 
 ^are : — Hodsouti. .. 
 
 "'Paris," The 
 
 Parishioners of Same : — Baisham, Suffolk (Rectorl 
 
 of)« ..) 
 
 Parishioners of Same : — St. Botolph without) 
 
 Aldgate(Vicar of) I). (No 1) .. .. f 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Parishioners of Same : — St. Botolpb, AIdersgate\ 
 
 Without (Vicar of) II. .. .. .. ° ..] 
 
 Parishioners of Same : — St. Helens, Bishopsgate, 
 
 with St. Mary Outwich (Rector of) v. 
 Parishioners of Same : — St. James, NorIand\ 
 
 (Vicar of) v. . . . . . . . . . . | 
 
 Parishioners of Same:— St. James the Less,\ 
 
 Bethnal Green (Vicar of) u. .. .. ../ 
 
 Parishioners of Same : — St. John the Baptist.1 
 
 Cardiff (Vicar of) i; .J 
 
 Parishioners of Same: — St. Mary-at-Hill \\ith\ 
 
 St. Andrew Hubbard (Rector of) v. . . . . j 
 
 Parishioners of Same: — St. Michael Bassishaw\ 
 
 (Rector of) w. . . . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Parishioners of Same: — St. Pendleburv ("Vicarl 
 
 of)" . ..} 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 862 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 71 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 649 .. ..■( 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 657 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1900] A. C. 293 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 319 
 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (7); [1897]l 
 
 ICh. 134 / 
 
 [1900] W.N. 9 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 220 
 
 [1900] W. N. 25 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.| 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 725 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1894' 
 
 1893]2Q. B. 80.. 
 IQ. B. 268 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 [1896]! 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 268 
 
 1900] W. N. 175 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 677; C. A. [1900] W. N. 239 , 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 318 .. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 74 ; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 106 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 122 
 
 [1900] W. N. 16 ; [1900] 1 Ch, 
 496 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 978 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 272 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 574; C. A. [1898] 
 
 1 Ch. 142 
 P. C. [1000] A. C. 563 . 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 165 . 
 
 [1895] W. N. 142 (2) 
 
 1 Ch. 100 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 455 
 [1896] P. 77 
 
 [1896] P. 256 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 161 .. 
 [1892] P. 173 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 69 
 
 [1892] P. 259 .. 
 
 [1894] P. 256 .. 
 
 [1899] P. 55 
 
 [1898] P. 155 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 394 .. 
 
 [1893] P. 233 .. 
 
 [1895] P. 178 .. 
 
 1652 
 2182, 
 2196 
 
 281, 
 2347 
 2340 
 1259 
 
 678 
 
 1022 
 
 1736 
 1177 
 
 2093 
 
 1541 
 1395 
 1395 
 
 796 
 
 1835 
 
 1551 
 
 624 
 
 1069 
 
 474 
 
 92,264, 
 
 1573 
 
 1469 
 
 1328 
 632, 
 1095 
 
 423; 
 
 647 
 2025 
 
 740 
 
 743 
 
 743, 873 
 
 743 
 
 750 
 
 741 
 
 746 
 
 744 
 
 739 
 
 738 
 
 750 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Parishioners of Same : — St. Peter's, Eaton Square 
 
 (Vicar of) w. 
 
 Parkdale," The 
 
 Park Yard Co. :— North British Ey. Co. v. 
 Park : — ^Wignall v. In re Parker 
 Parke : — Canadian Pacific By. v. 
 Parker, In re. Morgan v. Hill . . 
 Parker, In re. Parker v. Osborne 
 Parker, In re. Wignall v. Park . . 
 Parker, v. Alder 
 Parker v. Campion 
 
 Parker : — ^Daventry Bural Council v. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Parker: — ^Dakiu u. 
 
 Parker : — Moses (alias Moss) v. Ex parte Moses 
 Parker-Jervis, In re. Salt u. Locker .. 
 
 Parker's Trusts, In re 
 
 Parkin, In re. Hill u. Schwarz .. 
 Parkington v. Heywood. In re Heywood 
 Parkinson u. Crawshay 
 
 Parkinson : — Royal Aquarium and Summer and\ 
 Winter Garden Society u. .. .. .. / 
 
 Parkinson v. Snaith. In re Pickworth .. 
 
 Parkinson v. Wainwright & Co. .. 
 
 Parks: — Seagroveii. 
 
 Parnell (fonnerly O'Shea) v. Wood. In re Wood 
 
 Parr : — ^Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. 
 
 Parr: — Gold Ores Reduction Co. •;;. 
 
 Parr: — Mountains. .. .. .. .A 
 
 Tan (J.) & Co. : — Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. 
 
 Parr's Banking Co. v. Yates 
 
 Parrott, In re. Ex parte CuUen .. 
 
 Parrott : — Jackson «. In re Wise 
 
 Parry & Hopkins, In re .. 
 
 Parry: — Bangor (Bishop of) u. .. 
 
 Parry ; — ^Barry and Cadoxton Local Board v. 
 
 Parry: — ^Daviesv. 
 
 Parry v. Liverpool Malt Co. 
 
 Parry u. Parry 
 
 Parsons, In re. Ex parte Furber 
 
 Parsons: — Fordom v. 
 
 Parsons w. Gillespie 
 
 Parsons v. New Zealand Shipping Co, . . 
 
 Parson's Patent, In re 
 
 Partridge :— Brittin v. In re Wasdale .. 
 
 Partridge v. Partridge 
 
 Pasmore v. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council 
 Patch: — Brown v. 
 
 Volume and Pa?e. 
 
 •I 
 
 •■( 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Patent Agents (Institute of) v. Lockwood 
 
 [1894] P. 350 
 
 [1897] P. 53 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 643 . 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 682 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 535 .. 
 C. A. [1894]3Ch. 400 .. 
 
 1897] 2 Ch. 208 
 
 1891] ICh. 682 
 
 1899]1Q. B. 20 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 178 . 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 210; [1900]\ 
 
 1Q.B. 1 / 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 273 ; C. A. [1894]1 
 
 2 Q. B. 556 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 643 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 707 
 
 245 
 
 1892' 
 1897' 
 1894 
 
 3 Ch. 510 
 2 Ch. 593 
 
 W. N. 85 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ,420 
 
 N. 
 
 35 (7) 
 
 C. A, 
 1891 
 1896' 
 
 [1900] 
 
 '1891" 
 1895' 
 1898' 
 
 ' lO'h 
 
 C 
 
 (1) 
 
 !;! 
 
 )] 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 431 ..I 
 
 C.'a. [1899] W. N. 28 (11) 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 642 
 [1895] W. N. 63 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 551 
 C. A. [1892] P. 137 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B, 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 14 
 C. A. [1899] W. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 805 
 [1896] W. N. 88 (13) 
 " ■ '1898] 2 Q. B. 460 
 2 Q. B. 151 
 1 Ch. 281 
 
 1 Ch. 160 
 
 2 Q. B. 277 
 2 Q. B. 110 
 W. N. 168 
 
 602 
 A. [1900] W. N. 2 
 
 1 Q. B. 339 .. 
 [1896] P. 37 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 122 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 780 
 "P. 0. [1898] A. 0. 239 . 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 714 
 P. 0. [1898] A. C. 673 . 
 [1898] W. N. 164 (2) 
 
 ICh. 163 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 351 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 387 .. 
 [1899] W.N. 46; [1899] 1 Q. B.I 
 
 89ii / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 347 
 
 [1899] j 
 [1900]! 
 
 [1899] 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 741, 751 
 
 2015 
 
 730 
 
 286 
 
 246 
 1582 
 2333 
 
 286 
 
 21 
 1383 
 
 897, 898 
 
 1103 
 
 2099 
 1745 
 789, 
 2168 
 1471 
 79G 
 776 
 648, 
 1308 
 
 2362 
 
 317 
 1543 
 
 662 
 
 524 
 1566 
 
 1245 
 
 1437 
 1005 
 
 156 
 
 950 
 2269 
 
 273 
 2086 
 
 801 
 
 1246 
 
 697 
 209 
 1911 
 1333 
 1940 
 1439 
 
 75 
 
 2319 
 1912 
 
 865 
 
 1434, 
 2069, 
 2072 
 
 n 2 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Kame of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Paterson I). Gas Light and Coke Co. 
 Paterson :^Noyes v. 
 
 Paterson :^-Reg. i;. 
 
 Paterson :^Seaward v. .. 
 
 Paterson :^Wynian v. .. 
 
 Paton: — Clydesdale Bank v. 
 Paton: — Hamilton u. 
 
 Paton V. Ormerod . . 
 
 Paton V. Ormerod. In re Bagot . . 
 Patrick, In re. Bills i;. Tatham.. 
 Patten v. "West of England Iron, Timber, and) 
 
 Charcoal Co. .. .. .. .. .. f 
 
 Patterson: — Call en v. 
 
 Patterson : — Victorian Corporation v. The Samev 
 
 V. Lang . . . . . . . . . , . . I 
 
 Patteshall : — Blakeway v. 
 
 Pattle ?;. Ilomibrook 
 
 Panl : ---Deutsche National Bank i). 
 
 Pawley and London & Provincial Bank, In re , 
 
 Paxton I!. Baird 
 
 Payne v. Cork Co., Ld. 
 
 Payne v. Hogg 
 
 Payne : — Monckton v. .. 
 
 Payne ■;;. Stamford. In ro Earl of Stamford 
 
 Payne f. Wilson .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Payne -v. Wright .. 
 
 Payne & Cooper : — Eeg. v. 
 
 Payne-Collier v. Vyse. In re Lawrence 
 
 Paynter v. Watson 
 
 Peabody Gold Mining Corporation, In re 
 
 Peace v. Brookes .. 
 
 Peachey : — Moore v. 
 
 Peacock, In re. Ex parte Beyer, Clark & Co. .. 
 
 Peacock: — Conroy v. .. .. „ ., 
 
 Peacock t'. Prigout. In re Abbot .. .. 
 
 Peacock v. Lucas. In re Whitehead 
 
 Peacock : — New Zealand Gold Extraction Co, 
 
 (Newberry- Van tin Process), Ld. v. 
 Peake's Settled Estates, In re (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) . . 
 
 Pearce, In re 
 Pearoe v. Bunting .. 
 Pearce v. Gardner . . 
 Pewce: — Hexter v. ^ 
 
 Pearce : — Lock v. .. 
 
 Pearce v. London and South Western Ey. Co. 
 Pearce :— London (County Council) v. .. 
 
 ■:] 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 476 .. 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 267 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 31 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 545 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 
 
 [1900] A. C. 271 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 381 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 175 
 
 [1892] P. 247 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 348 .. 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 82 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 159 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 126 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 615 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 247 
 
 ••{ 
 
 63; 
 
 ?} 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Colurrm 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1897] 
 [1898~ 
 [1900' 
 
 1 Ch. 25 . 
 1 Ch. 283 
 1 Ch. 58 ., 
 
 ■ (2); 
 C. A. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 139 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 308 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 86 ; 
 
 2Q. B.43 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 603 
 [1895] W. N. 15; 
 
 ICh. 288 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 653 
 2Q. B. 537 .. 
 [1892] IQ.B. 104 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 577 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 28 .. 
 
 1898]2Q. B. 31 
 
 1897] W. N. 170 (3) .. 
 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 451 
 
 1891] 2 Q.B. 707 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 476 
 [1897]2Q. B. 6.. 
 
 [1893]lCh.54 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 678 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 622 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 430 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 520 
 
 C. a; [1899] W. N. 114 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 360 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 688 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 341 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 328 ; C. A. 
 
 2 Oh 271 
 C. A. [1900] W.'n. 93;' 
 
 2Q. B. 100 .. 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 109 
 
 874r 
 
 2236 
 595, 
 2113 
 501 
 
 2175 
 
 1838 
 
 1386 
 
 1610, 
 
 1616 
 
 2346 
 
 190& 
 
 559 
 
 1386. 
 
 248 
 
 583, 
 1510- 
 
 511 
 154a 
 224& 
 1487, 
 1563 
 
 378 
 
 1630 
 524 
 2169 
 
 815 
 
 1158 
 503 
 2353 
 1157 
 412 
 199, 203 
 660 
 104 
 597 
 1483, 
 2348 
 .. ! 2334 
 
 304 
 
 1886 
 
 1894 
 
 .. , 34 
 
 2106 
 
 .. I 511 
 
 1260 
 
 [1893]\! 1069, 
 
 ../i 1503 
 
 [1900]|l ^228 
 
 '.'. ' 1160 
 
 [1900] I 
 
 [1896]^ 
 [1895]! 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Pearce's Dining and Kefreslmient Kooms :■ 
 Moore v. .. .w 
 
 Pearl Life Assurance Co. v. Buttensliaw 
 
 Pearsall : — Clements v. In re Clements 
 
 Pearse : — Cooper v. 
 
 Pearse v. Schwder & Co. . . 
 Pearson, In re. Ex parte Pearson 
 Pearson & I'AnBon, In re .. 
 
 Peaison, In the Goods of .. 
 Pearson : — Barclay v. 
 Pearson v. Belgian Mills Co. 
 
 Pearson : — Dodds v. In re Carter 
 
 
 -Hastings t). 
 
 . Holborn Union Assessment Com- 
 
 urfi 
 
 Pearson :- 
 Pearson < 
 mittee . . 
 
 Pearson : — Lowe v. 
 
 Pearson : — Master in Equity of Supreme Court 
 
 of Victoria v. .. 
 Pearson : — Peaison-G ee. In re Gee 
 Pearson (S.) & Sons, Ld. : — Manchester Ship\ 
 
 Canal Co. v. .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Pearson-Gee v. Pearson. In re Gee 
 Pearson & Son : — Manners u. 
 Peart: — Heap i;. ., 
 
 Pease v. Lowden ' . . 
 
 Pease v. Town Clerk of Middlesbrough 
 
 Pease and Partners; Ld. : — Hayles v. 
 
 Peat : — Mutton v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Peck and London School Board, In re .. 
 Peck : — Scholey v. 
 
 Peck V. Snyder Dynamite Projectile Co. In re i 
 Snyder Dynamite Projectile Co. .. ../ 
 
 Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council 
 Peek V. Bay 
 
 Peel, In re. Woodcock u. Holroyd 
 Peel: — Wilkinson iJ. 
 
 Peever : — Hebblethwaite v. 
 
 Pegge V. Neath and District Tramways Co. 
 
 ■"Pekin," Owners of British SS. :—" Norman- 
 die," Owners of Noiwegian SS. v. The 
 "Pekin" 
 
 Pelham Clinton v, Newcastle (Duke of) 
 
 P^licier Freres : — Haggard v. 
 
 Pelling : — Gedye v. 
 Pelly : — Reg. v. .. 
 Pelly : — United States of America v. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 657 
 
 { 
 
 [1893] W. N. 723 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 665 
 
 [1896] W. N. 40 (3); [1896]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 562 J 
 
 P. 0. [1897] A. C. 520 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 263 ■ 
 
 1899]2Q.B. 618 
 
 1896] P. 289 : 
 
 1893] 2 Ch. 154 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 244 
 
 1900] W. N. 90 ; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 
 ■ 801 / 
 
 [I893]1Q. B. 62 
 
 [1693] 1 Q. B. 389 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 2 (3) ; [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 261 / 
 
 P. 0. [1897] A. C. 214 .. 
 
 [1895]W. N. 90 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 178 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B. C08 ..■ .. .. / 
 
 [1895]W. N. 90 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 581 .. 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 110 
 [1699] W. N. 8 (5); [1899] 1 
 
 Q. B. 386 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 127 
 
 [1899] W. N. 15 (9); [1899] ll 
 
 Ch. 567 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 127;' [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 556; C. A. [1900] W. N. 98; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 79 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 315 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 709 
 
 [1893]W. N. 37 
 
 C. A. 
 0. A. 
 [1899 
 [1895 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 159 
 1894] 3 Ch. 282 .. 
 W.N. 208 
 IQ. B. 516 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 124 .. ..| 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 508 ; C. A. [1896] i 
 1 Ch. 684; [1897] W. N. 
 165(1); [1898] 1 Gil. 183 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 532 .. 
 
 [1900] W.N. 183 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 61 .. 
 
 [1892]W. N. 44 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 33 
 [1895] W. N. 12 (9) .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 19 
 
 2064, 
 2252 
 953 
 
 1051 
 
 1313 
 106 
 1052 
 1623 
 1183 
 1235 
 
 2360 
 
 813 
 
 70, 1675 
 
 1225 
 
 2261 
 
 1878 
 
 66 
 
 2187 
 
 4 
 
 587 
 
 543 
 
 1389 
 
 336 
 
 98 
 
 2232 
 202G 
 
 433 
 
 1509 
 
 674 
 
 555 
 
 683 
 
 1138, 
 
 1533 
 
 2152 
 
 288 
 
 2325 
 837 
 
 1023, 
 
 1530 
 780 
 
 1106 
 834 
 
cxcvm 
 
 TABLE OF CASES m THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ;'} 
 
 PeltOD Brothers v. Harrison (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) . 
 
 Pemberton v. Barnes 
 
 Pemberton u. Hughes 
 
 Pemsel : — Commrs. for Special Purposes o: 
 
 Income Tax 
 Pendarves v. Monro 
 Pendlebmy, St. John (Vicar, &c., of) v. St. John, 
 
 Pendlebury (Parishioners) 
 Pender i;. Tad dei .. 
 
 Peniield : — McMurdo v. In re McMurdo 
 
 Penfield v. Macmiirdo. In re Macmurdo 
 
 Penfold : — Moody v. In re Lashmar . . 
 
 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. : — ' 
 
 Imperial Japanese Government ■;;. 
 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co : — \ 
 
 Queensland National Bank V. .. .. ../ 
 
 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. 
 
 Tsune Kijima .. 
 Penley : — Barber v. 
 Perm v. Alexander 
 Pennefather: — Jones. In re Giles 
 
 Pennell v. Franklin. In re White 
 
 Penny ti. Commr. for Rys. 
 
 Penny v. "Wimbledon Urban Council . , 
 
 Pentalta Exploration Co., In re . . 
 Penton i;. Barnett . . 
 
 Penton : — Mills v. In re Egan . . 
 
 Pepe V. City and Suburban Permanent Building 
 Society .. 
 
 Pepin V, Bruyere . . 
 
 Percival «. Gamer 
 Percival : — Norths. 
 
 Percy : — Northumberland (Duke of) v. .. 
 Percy Supper Club : — Bowyer v. 
 Perez, Triana & Co.: — Western National Bank) 
 of City of New York v. .. ,. .. f 
 
 Perkes : — Deeley v. 
 Perkins, In re. Perkins i;. Bagot 
 
 Perkins, In re. Poyser u. Beyfus 
 
 Perkins v. Bell 
 
 Perkins:' — Cummins v. .. 
 
 Perls V. Saalfeld 
 
 Perpetual Trustee Co. : — Tiew v. 
 
 Perrett, Ex parte. In re Frape (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Perrins t). Bellamy 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 422 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 118 . 
 [1899] W. N. 8 (6); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 544 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 23 (6) ;\ 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 781 .. ../ 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 531 .. j 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 611 .. .. i 
 
 [1895] P. 178 j 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 798 .. ' 
 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (9); [1897] 
 
 ICh. 119 
 
 [1892]W. N. 73 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 258 .. 
 
 907, 922 
 916 
 
 2355 
 
 i 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 644 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 507 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 661 .. 
 
 1893] 2 Ch. 447 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 522 
 1896] ICh. 956 
 
 1898] 1 Ch. 297 ; C. A. [18981 
 2 Qi", 217 
 
 P. c. [i9oo] A. c! 628 !! '; 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 212 ; C. A. [1899] 
 W. N. 65 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 72 
 
 [1898] W. N. 55 (2) .. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 276 
 
 [1899] W. N. 27 (10); [1890]! 
 IQ. B. 633 .. .. ..j 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 311 
 
 [1900] W. N. 164 
 
 504 .. 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 404 
 "■ 2 Ch. 128 
 ICh. 298.. 
 2Q. B. 154 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch.' 
 
 [1898' 
 [1898^ 
 [1893; 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 304 ..||' 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 496 | 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 283 " I 
 
 [1898] W. N. 18 (4); C. A.V 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 182 .. / 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 193 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 16C (12) ;) 
 
 [1899] ICh. 16 .. I 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 149 .. ''. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 264 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 284 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 290 
 
 [1898] 2Ch. 521: C. A. [1899]) 
 W.N. .50; [1899] 1 Ch. 797 / 
 
 491 
 
 j 1762 
 
 i 1118 
 
 j 750 
 
 ■ 1526 
 
 2036 
 
 : 402, 798 
 1692, 
 2191 
 
 837 
 
 1944 
 
 837, 
 1511 
 1352 
 1108 
 
 804 
 
 2060 
 
 2364 
 
 1317 
 
 459 
 1062 
 
 2299 
 232 
 
 497 
 
 1230 
 2246 
 1314 
 1106 
 1536, 
 1537 
 1435 
 1474 
 
 1055 
 
 1818 
 
 1698 
 
 1721 
 1334, 
 2354 
 2028 
 2042 
 
 2179 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Perry Almshouses, In re. In re Ross' Charity 
 Perry Almhouses, In re .. 
 
 Perry v. Barnes .. 
 
 Ferryman : — Bonnard v. .. 
 Perryman : — Plumbly v. .. 
 Persian Investment Corporation v. Prince") 
 
 Malcolm Khan J 
 
 Perth General Station Committee v. Eoss 
 
 Pertwee i;. Townsend 
 
 Peruvian Corporation : — Barry v. 
 
 Peruvian Guano Co., In re. Ex parte Kemp . 
 
 Peruvian Guano Co. v. Dreyfus Brothers & Co. 
 
 Pester: — Devenish i). In re Lowman .. 
 
 Peterborough Rural Council : — Ncaverson v. 
 Peters u. Bancherean. In re Deneker .. 
 Peters : — Greenock Provost, &c., v. 
 Peters: — Potters. 
 Petersen v. Freebody & Co. 
 Pethick: — Simcoe i;. 
 
 Peto: — Brown V. .. 
 
 Petre v. Ferrers 
 Petre :^Pryor r. .. 
 
 "Petrel," The 
 
 Petrie: — Smith f... 
 
 Pettifer, In re. Pettifer v. Pettifer 
 Potts: — Watson V. 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Petty «. Taylor .. 
 
 Peveiil Gold Mines, Ld., In re .. 
 
 Peyton : — Coles v. In re Sir J. J. Ennis 
 Pharmaceutical Society 17. Armson 
 Pharmaceutical Society v. Delve . . 
 Pharmaceutical Society v. Piper & Co. . . 
 
 Pharmaceutical Society v. White 
 
 Phelan : — St. Leonard, Shoreditch (Vestry of) 
 
 V. 
 
 Phelps, James & Co. v. Hill 
 ''Philadelphian,"The „ 
 
 Philip V. Roxburgh 
 Philipps i;. Halliday 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 397 ; C. A. [1898]] 
 W. N. 158(1); [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 21 j 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 391 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 lCh.21 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 658 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 269 .. 
 [1891]W. N. 64 
 
 [1893]W. N. 49 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1897] A. C. 479 
 
 1896' 
 1896' 
 1894' 
 
 2 Q. B. 129 
 1 Q. B. 208 
 
 3 Ch. 690 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 166 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 348 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 244 
 [1895]W. N. 28 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 258 .. 
 [1895]W. N. 37 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 294 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 555 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 347 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 W. N. 185; [1900] 2 Ch. 653 / 
 [1891] W. N. 171 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 11 .. 
 
 [1893] P. 320 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. ]Sr.\ 
 
 95 .. ../ 
 
 [1900] w'.'k 18'2 '.'. .. 
 
 C. A.[1899]1Q. B. 54 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 10 (6); [1899] 1\ 
 
 Q. B. 430 / 
 
 [1896] W. N. 167 (6); [1897] 1\ 
 
 Ch.465 / 
 
 [1897] W. N. 159 (5) ; affirmed) 
 
 by C. A. [1897] W. N. 166 (2) ; 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 122 .. ..] 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 238 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 720 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 71 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 686 
 [1900] W. N. 10; [1900] 1 Q. B.\ 
 
 454 .. .. .. ../ 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 533 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 605 
 
 [1900] W. N. 5 ; [1900] P. 43; 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 120 ; [1900] 
 P. 262 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) ri897]\ 
 W.N. 96 .. .. ^ 
 
 H. L. [1891] A. C. 228 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 272 
 
 272 
 
 135, 627, 
 
 1117, 
 
 1162 
 
 646, 963 
 
 645, 963 
 
 310 
 
 1666 
 1714 
 
 294 
 352, 355. 
 
 635 
 
 504,. 
 2302,, 
 2347 
 
 936 
 2339 
 1830 
 773,848. 
 1961 
 
 936 
 
 1286. 
 
 680 
 891> 
 1244,. 
 1982,. 
 £013 
 
 1758 
 
 2343.. 
 35 
 
 586. 
 532: 
 
 426 
 
 1582 
 1451 
 1452 
 1451 
 
 1452 
 
 1163 
 1968 
 
 1945 
 
 1402 
 755 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Phillips, In re. Ex parte Barton 
 
 Phillips, In re. Ex parte Treboetli Brick Co. . 
 
 Phillips V. Alhambra Palace Co. .. 
 
 Phillips: — Bowen I/. 
 
 Phillips: — Bromilow i;. .. 
 
 Phillips f. Evans .. 
 
 Phillips: — Harris n. 
 
 Phillips V. Homfray 
 
 Phillips : — Kutner v. 
 
 Phillips V. London School Board. Cockerton • 
 The Same 
 
 PhiUips -w. Lord Advocate 
 
 Phillips I?. Low 
 Phillips : — Price v. 
 Phillips I'. Probj'n 
 
 Phillips: — Pyne V. 
 
 Phillips: — Saleti. .. 
 Phillips' Trade-marks, In re 
 
 Phil pott :— Bird u. 
 
 Pliipps V. London and Noith Western Ry. Co. 
 Phosbe Gold Mining Co., In re .. 
 Phythian v. Baxendale .. 
 
 Piazzi-Smyth, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Pickard & Curroy v. Prescott 
 
 Pickard, la re. Elmsley v. Mitcliell 
 
 Pickard v. Booth. In re Booth 
 
 Pickles: — Bradford Corporation i;. 
 
 Pickles: — Hep worth u. .. 
 Pickworth, In re. Snaith v. Parkinson 
 
 Pictou (Municipality) v. Gtldeit 
 
 Piddocke i;. Burt .. 
 
 Piercy, In re. Whitwham v. Piercy 
 
 Piercy, In re. Whitwham v. Piercy 
 
 Pierfl, In re. Ex parte Piers 
 
 Pigott u. Pigott .. .. .. " ' 
 
 Pike V. Cave 
 
 Pike ■«. Hamlyn. In re Howe 
 
 Pilbrow V. St. Leonard, Shoreditch (Vestry oQ 
 
 Pilch er :— Hill v. In re Hill 
 
 " Pilgrim," The .. .. '.; 
 
 [1896' 
 [1900 
 [1897' 
 [1891 
 [1896 
 
 ■{ 
 
 [1900] W.N. 117; [1900]2Q.B.y 
 329 -• 
 
 2 Q. B. 122 
 
 W. N. 253 .. .. I 
 ICh. 174 
 W.N. 209 
 1 Q. B. 305 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 267 .. .. j 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 465 .. ..•[] 
 
 [1891] 2 Q.B. 267 .. .. ' 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 4 ; C. A. [1898]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 447 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N.i 
 
 201 / 
 
 [1892]lCh. 47 [ 
 
 [1894] W. N. 213 
 [1899] W. N. 51; 
 811 
 
 [1895]AV. N. 8 .. 
 
 [1894 
 [1891° 
 [1900° 
 C. A. 
 1900 
 
 ColumQ 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 101 
 
 121 
 1415 
 786 
 504, 932 
 1731 
 1373 
 1006, 
 1257 
 1161 
 
 1825 
 
 1783 
 
 1118, 
 2360 
 2193 
 
 [1899]lCh.|! ^9Q3 
 
 IQ. B. 349 
 3Ch. 139 
 ICh. 822 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 229 
 W. N. 182 
 
 ■{ 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 768 
 
 1897] W. N. 150 (2); [1898]\ 
 
 P. 7 /I 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 263 .. l 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 88 ; C. A. [1894] SV 
 
 Ch. 704 .. .. ../: 
 
 [1900] W.N. 76; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 768 .. .. j 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 53; C. A. [1895]'i]i 
 
 Ch. 145; H. L. (E.) [1895] ' 
 
 A. C. 587 .. ! 
 
 [1899] W.N. 216; [1900] 1 Ch. I 
 
 108 .. J 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 28 (11)" 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 642 
 
 '?■}, 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 524 
 
 -{ 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 83 .. 
 
 11896] W. N.I (4) ;C. A. [1898] 
 1 Ch. 565 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q.B. 627" 
 [1893] W. N. 115 
 [1893]W. N. 91 
 
 ^1^98^}f a.T53^- "^ <^^'-'} 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 962 '■ "^ 
 [1895] P. 117 .. 
 
 1409, 
 1895 
 
 821 
 2124 
 
 181 
 1662 
 
 385 
 
 890 
 
 1617 
 1438 
 283 
 
 2311 
 
 13, 1204, 
 1632, 
 
 2283 
 
 2245 
 
 2362 
 
 251, 549, 
 
 895, 
 2066 
 933, 
 1410 
 
 789, 8o8 
 
 284 
 
 168 
 
 2333 
 
 904, 970 
 
 2328 
 
 1169 
 
 1869 
 1984 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. > 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volame and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Pilkington v. Gray 
 Fillers I;. Edwards 
 
 Fillers : — EUetson v. In re Benson 
 Pimm: — Bagshaw u. 
 
 Pinet & Cie. (F.) v. Maison Louis Pinet, Ld. . . ■! 
 
 Pinfold, In re. Bx parte Pinfold 
 Pinhorne, In re. Moreton v. Huglies . . 
 Pini V. Eoncoroni . . . . ■ 
 
 Pink: — Johns v. .. 
 
 Pinkney & Sons Steamship Co., In re .. 
 
 Pinkney & Sons Steamship Co. : — Hedley v. 
 
 Pinney : — Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. 
 Finney : — Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. 
 
 Pintsch's Patent Lighting Co. : — Douglass v. .A 
 
 Pioneers of Mashonaland Syndicate, In re 
 Piper :; — New South Wales (Bank of) v. 
 Piper & Co. : — Pharmaotutical Society v. 
 Pirbright f . Salwey 
 Pirie (Alexander) & Sons i;. Goodall 
 
 Fitcaim, In re. Brandreth u. Colvin . . . . | 
 
 Pitchey : — Mohamidu Mohideen Hadjiar v. 
 
 Pitchey : — Mohideen Hadjiar v. .. 
 
 Pitman v. Holborrow. In re Mahbett . . 
 Pitman V. Pitman. In re Bird . . 
 Pittard V. Oliver .. 
 
 Pitt Pitts «. George & Co 
 
 Pitt's Patent, In re. Ludington Cigarette] 
 
 fiachine Co. v. Baron Cigarette Machine) 
 
 Co j 
 
 Pitts, Son, & King : — Thames and Mersey Marine I 
 
 Insurance Co. v. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Pittsburgh Crushed Steel Co. v. Jacob Marx &\ 
 
 Co / 
 
 Pixton & Tong's Contract, In re . . 
 Place : — Moran v. .. 
 Plant : — Bailey v... 
 
 Plan^ V. Bourne . . . . . . . . . . | 
 
 Plants. Potts 
 
 Plant : — Roberts v. 
 
 Piatt:— May r | 
 
 Player's Trade-mark, In re 
 
 Playfair Bros. : — Dombey & Son v. 
 
 Pledge V. White . . 
 
 "Pleiades," SS. (Owners of) v. Page and Owners) 
 
 of SS. "Jane" } 
 
 Plendei-leitb, In re 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 401 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 212 
 
 [1898] W. N. 155 (9) ; [1899] 1\ 
 
 Ch. 39 / 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 64; [1900] \ 
 
 P. 148 / 
 
 [1897] W. N. 172 (11) ; [1898] 1\ 
 
 Ch. 179 / 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 73 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 276 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 633 
 [1899] W. N. 249 ; 
 
 296 .. 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 125 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 58 
 
 [1894] A. 0. 222 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 150 (6) ; C. A.\ 
 
 [1899]lCh. 99 .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 140; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 729; 0. A. [1900] W.N. 179; 
 
 [1900] 2 Cb. 736 
 [1896] W. N. 155 (9) ; [1897] II 
 
 Ch. 176 J 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 731 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. A. 383 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch.-l 
 ; h'-'l. (eV) 
 
 :?} 
 
 1 Q. B. 686 
 
 W. N. 86 (4) 
 
 1892] 1 Ch. 35 
 
 W. N. 139 (11) ; [1896]| 
 
 [1900]1 
 
 [1893' 
 [1896' 
 C. A. 
 [18951 
 
 2Ch. 199 
 P. 0. [1894] A. C. 437 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 193 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 707 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 279 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B.474 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 866 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 50 ; 
 1 Ch. 508 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 476 
 
 [1897] W. N. 36 (5) .. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 178 (5) .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 214 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 248 
 
 [1897] W. N. 40 (14); C. A. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 281 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 256 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 597 
 [1900] W. N. 69 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 616 
 
 [1900] W. N. 273 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 368 
 
 [1896] A. 0. 187 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 259 .. 
 
 0. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 332 .. 
 
 ';} 
 
 189 
 917 
 
 1518 
 1614 
 
 2140 
 
 111 
 2336 
 
 52, 1414 
 683, 
 1926 
 
 385, 388 
 
 2013 
 2240 
 
 2240 
 
 1443 
 
 396, 462 
 1328 
 1451 
 280 
 2129 
 
 1856 
 
 266 
 797, 
 1591 
 33 
 519 
 652 
 527 
 
 1435 
 
 995 
 
 570 
 
 2195 
 1613 
 1244 
 
 2229 
 
 1371 
 1564 
 
 2228 
 
 2128 
 1497 
 1275 
 
 1953 
 
 1189 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Pletts V. Beattie . . 
 
 Pletts w. Campbell 
 
 Piimmer : — Carney v. 
 
 Plomley: — Edgar -y. 
 
 Plomley v. Richardson and Wrench, Ld. 
 
 Plomley «. Shepherd 
 
 Plumb : — Bond v... 
 
 Plumbly V. Perryman 
 
 Plummer, In re .. 
 
 Plumstead Board of Works v. 
 
 Commrs. 
 Plumstead Burial Ground, In re .. 
 Plunkett u. Simeon. la re Button 
 Plymouth (Mayor of) : — ^Reg. v. 
 Plymouth Union v. Axminster Union . . 
 Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council:- 
 
 Jackson u. 
 Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Parr (J.) & Co. . . 
 Pockett : — Linfoot i'. 
 
 Ecclesiastioall 
 
 Pookett's Bristol Channel Steam Packet Co. :- 
 Cahn & Mayer v. 
 
 Pocklington Steamship Co. : — Booker & Co. v. 
 
 Pocock & Prankerd's Contract, In re 
 
 Pogose: — ^Mackintosh v. .. 
 
 Poinons, In re. Sutton v. Martin 
 
 Pole V. Bright 
 
 Police (Conimissiooers of) ■!;. Cartman .. 
 
 Pollard u. Geake. In re Hunt .. 
 
 Pollard J). Harragin 
 
 Pollard V. Pollard 
 
 Pollard's Settlement, In re 
 PoUey : — Macaulay v. 
 
 Pollitt, In re. Ex parte Minor . . . . . . | 
 
 Pollock u. Gaile .. .. .. .. ..-I 
 
 Pollock : — ^Marquess of Northampton v. 
 " Pomeranian," The 
 Pomeroy & Tanner, In re 
 Pomphrey v. South wark Press . . 
 
 Pond:— ElHsu 
 
 Ponsford and Newport District School Board,'! 
 In re . . . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Ponsonby, In the Goods of 
 
 Pouting u. Noakes 
 
 PontypoolJuslices : — Reg. v. 
 
 Poole : — Lewis v. ., 
 
 Poole Coi-poration : — Kinson Pottery Co. v. 
 Poor Lands Charity, Bethnal Green, In re 
 Pope, In re. Sharp v. Marshall 
 
 Porrett, In re 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Porritt : — Aplin v. 
 
 Port Glasgow and Newark Sailcloth Co. v. Cale-I 
 donian Ry. Co. ., .. .. .. ../| 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 519 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 229 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 634 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 431 .. 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 632 .. 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 244 .. 
 
 [1894; 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1 Q. B. 169 
 
 [1891] W. N. 64 
 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 790 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 361 
 
 [1895] P. 225 .. 
 [1893]W. N. 65 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 158 
 H. L. B. [1898] A. C. 586- 
 
 [1900] W. N. 15 
 
 [1896] W. N. 88 (13) .. 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 835 .. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 61 ; C. A. [1899]) 
 
 W. N. 32 (6) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 
 643 J 
 
 ^1899] 2 Q. B. 690 
 1896] ICh. 302 
 1895] 1 Ch. 505 
 1891]W. N. 139 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 603 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 655 
 1900] W. N. 65 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 450 .. 
 [1894] P. 172 .. 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 552 .. 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 122 
 [1893] 1 Q: B. 175 ; C. A. [1893]) 
 
 IQ. B. 455 \ 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 152 (7); 
 
 [1898]lCh. 1 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 1 
 
 [1895] P. 349 
 
 [1897] 1 Cli. 284 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 256 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 426 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 454 .. 
 
 [1895] P. 287 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 281 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 621 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 164 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 41 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 400 
 [1900] W. N. 244 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 433 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 57 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 29 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1108 
 1108 
 
 873 
 
 6 
 1333 
 1331 
 
 864 
 645, 963 
 
 183 
 
 735, 
 1175 
 
 741 
 2316 
 
 822 
 1461 
 
 544 
 
 1437 
 201, 206 
 
 1817 
 
 2006 
 1890 
 
 185 
 1503 
 
 583 
 1106 
 1879 
 2156 
 
 719 
 
 920 
 2022 
 
 118, 
 2030 
 
 662 
 
 1296 
 995 
 2034 
 1221 
 1579 
 
 234 
 
 1598 
 1352, 
 1353 
 1039, 
 1041, 
 1102 
 1361 
 1920 
 
 272 
 
 11 
 1492, 
 2035 
 
 608 
 
 1650 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case, 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Port Talbot Co. :— Owners of " Apollo " v. " The\ 
 Apollo" / 
 
 Porter, In re. Coulson u. Capper 
 
 Porter, Robert & Co., Ld., In re . . 
 
 Portingell, Ex parte 
 
 Portland Urban District Council and Tilloy & Co.,) 
 In re Arbitration between .. .. ..) 
 
 Portsea Island Building Society, In re . . 
 
 Portsea Island Building Society v. Barclay . . | 
 Portslade Urban Council : — Baron v. 
 Portsmouth Corporation : — Ward v. ., .. | 
 
 Portsmouth (Justices of) : — Reg. w. 
 
 Portsmouth, Borough of (Kingston, Fratton,"! 
 
 and Southsea) Tramways Co., in re .. .. / 
 
 Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines, In re.^l 
 
 Ex parte Lord Inchiquin .. .. ../ 
 
 Postage Stamp Automatic Delivery Co., In re . . 
 
 Postle: — Mack i;. .. 
 
 Potter, In the Goods of. Potter v. Potter 
 
 Potter u. Peters .. 
 
 Potter (Charles), In the Goods of. Potter v.\ 
 
 Potter J 
 
 Potter (J.) & Co. V. Burrell & Son .. .. | 
 
 Potts, In re. Ex parte Taylor . . 
 
 Potts :— Plant « 
 
 Potts :— Roberts v. In re Tithe Act, 1891 ., | 
 
 Pouey V. Ilordem .. .. .. .. < 
 
 Poulett (Earl) :— Earl of Aylesford v. (No. 1) .. 
 
 • (No. 2) .. 
 
 Poulett (Earl) : — Somerset v. In re Somerset . 
 
 Poulett (Earl) t). Hill (Viscount) ' .. 
 
 Pounder v. North Eastern Ry. Co. 
 Powell, In re. Ex parte Powell .. 
 
 Powell, In re. Campbell v. Campbell .. 
 
 •■{ 
 ■•{ 
 
 Powell, In re. Crossland v. Holliday . . 
 
 Powell V. Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co.\ 
 (No.l) / 
 
 . (No. 2) 
 
 Powell : — Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co. v. •! 
 Powell V. Brown .. .. .. .. .A 
 
 H 
 
 ri892' 
 [1895' 
 C. A. 
 
 [1895]1 
 C. A.' 
 
 L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 499 
 
 3Ch. 481 
 W.N. 102 
 1892]1Q. B. 15.. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 98 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 205 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 86; C. A. 
 
 2Cb. 298 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 588 
 [1898] W. N. 34 (3); 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 191 .. ..J 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 491 .. ..\ 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 362 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 28 .. 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 566 
 1894] 2 Ch. 449 
 '19C0] W. N. 31 
 ;i895]W. N. 37 
 
 [1899] P. 265 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 162 (15);' 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 97 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 648 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 256 
 
 [1893] 2 Q, B. 33 ; C. A. [1894] 
 IQ. B. 213 
 
 [1900] W. N. 37; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 492 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 248 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 60 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 231 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 277 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 385 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 324 
 [1900] W. N. 165; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 525 1 
 
 [1897] W. N. 176 (12) ; [1898]\ 
 
 ICh. 227 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 8 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 449 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 54 ; H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. 710 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 165 (8) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 157 .. 
 
 1979 
 
 2330 
 2136 
 1103 
 
 231, 596 
 
 230 
 
 1917 
 
 235 
 
 1037, 
 2213 
 
 463 
 
 346 
 
 345 
 
 1553 
 
 1609 
 
 773, 848 
 
 1609 
 
 1964 
 
 168, 
 1696, 
 1704 
 1371 
 1688, 
 2068, 
 2071, 
 2113 
 
 1472 
 
 1276, 
 
 2036 
 
 502, 503, 
 
 933, 
 1403, 
 2171 
 2180 
 1280, 
 1565 
 1651 
 
 106 
 
 2337 
 
 2317 
 
 2135 
 2142 
 2140 
 
 1223 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Powell V. Kempton Park Racecourse Co. 
 
 Powell : — Lewis v. 
 
 Powell V. London and Provincial Bank . . 
 
 Powell V. Main Colliery Co 
 
 Powell V. Marshall, Parkes & Co. 
 Powell -w. PoweU .. 
 
 Powell : — Reg. v. .. 
 
 Powell : — Reg. v. Ex parte Williams . . 
 Powell : — Stanley v. 
 Powell V. Thomas . . 
 Powell : — Williams v. 
 
 Powell's Trade-mark, In re 
 
 PoweU (W.) & Sons, In re 
 
 Power : — McLeod v. 
 
 Power: — Tooths... 
 
 Pownall : — Merry v. 
 
 Pownall V. Pryor. In re Hake . . 
 
 Pownal] : — Beg. v. .. 
 
 Poynter (John), Son & Macdonalds: — North ■! 
 Western Bank v. .. .. . . . . J 
 
 Poyser v. Beyfus. In re Perkins 
 
 Practice Direction . . 
 
 Practice Note 
 Practice Note 
 
 Practice Note 
 
 Prance : — Stokes v. 
 
 Pratt, In re. Pratt v. Pratt 
 
 Pratt V. North British and Mercantile Insurancel 
 Co / 
 
 Pratt -y. Soulh Eastern By. Co. .. 
 
 Pratt i;. Willis 
 
 Prebhle and Robinson, In re 
 
 Prentis : — Flegg v. 
 
 Prescott Urban District Council : — British Insu- 
 lated Wire Co. v. 
 
 Prescott V. Lee 
 
 Prescott : — Pickard and Currey v. 
 
 Prescott, Dimsdale, Cave, Tugwell & Co. v. 
 
 Bank of England 
 Preservation Syndicate, In re 
 Press Association :-^Kimber f. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Coiamn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 242 ; H. L 
 (E.) [1899] W. N. 32 (3) 
 [1899] A. C. 143 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 678 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 610; 0. A. 1893]\ 
 2Ch. 555 J 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 73 ; [1900] 
 2 Q. B. 145 ; H. L. (E.) [1900] 
 W. N. 144; [1900] A. C. 3G6 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 B. B. 710 
 
 [1900] 1 Cb. 243 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 718 : C. A. [1891]\ 
 2Q. B. 693 / 
 
 [1899' 
 [1891' 
 [1891 
 [1894 
 
 1 Q. B. 396 
 
 1 Q. B. 86 
 
 1 Q. B. 97 
 
 W. N. 141 
 C. A." [1893] 2 Ch. 388 
 (E.) [1894] A. C. 8 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 94 ; [1896] 1 
 
 681 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 295 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 284 .. 
 
 H. L. 
 
 Cli 
 
 :■} 
 
 [1898 
 [1895° 
 [1893" 
 
 1 Ch. 306 
 W. N. 116 (11) 
 
 2 Q. B. 158 
 
 A. 
 
 ';} 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1395] A. C. 56 
 
 [1898] W. N. 18 (4); C 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 182 
 [1896] W. N. 56 (2); [1898]\ 
 
 W.N. 7(10) / 
 
 [1894]W. N. 44 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 8 (15) 
 
 [1899] W. N. 262 ; [1900] W. N. 
 265 
 
 [1897] W. N. 163 (10) ; [1898]\ 
 ICh. 212 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 491 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 228 .. ../' 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 718 
 
 1895] W.N. 9 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 602 
 
 1892] 2 Ch. 428 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 463 ; C. A.) 
 
 [1895] 2 Q.B 538 .. ../ 
 
 [1898] W. N. 155 (7); [1899]^ 
 
 1 Q. B. 102; 0. A. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 107; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 237 I 
 
 H. L. (So.)* [1892] A. C." 263 '.'. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 351 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 768 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q.B. 65.. 
 
 867 
 
 671 
 401 
 
 1246 
 
 155 
 1909 
 
 1105 
 
 1361 
 2154 
 585 
 779 
 
 2134 
 
 437 
 
 1496 
 1324 
 1991 
 1516 
 1098 
 496, 
 1450, 
 1837, 
 1942 
 
 1055 
 
 458, 478 
 
 4C9 
 
 573 
 1490, 
 1594, 
 1623 
 
 2180 
 
 2339 
 1540, 
 1544 
 1652 
 
 780 
 
 62 
 1025 
 
 686 
 
 1388 
 
 1438 
 
 96 
 
 429 
 647 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Press Association, Ld. : — Stone v. 
 Press : — Bowes & Partners, Ld. v. 
 Presteign (Urtan. District Council of):- 
 
 nolds V. .. 
 Preston Banking Co. v. AUsup & Sons . . 
 Preston Corporation v. Biomstad. 
 
 "Batata" 
 
 Pretty : — Wandsworth Board of Works v. 
 Price, In re 
 
 Price, In re. Tomlin i;. Latter .. 
 
 Price : — Carrier v. In re Amos . . 
 
 Price u. James 
 
 Price V. Marsden (J.) & Sons 
 
 Price : — ^Martin v... 
 
 Price 1). Phillips .. 
 
 Price : — Stoke Parish Council v... 
 
 Price & Co.^: — GUroy, Sons & Co. v. 
 Pride, In re. Shackell v. Colnett 
 Priestley u. Ellis .. 
 Priestley v. Griffiths. In re Greenwood 
 
 Priestman : — West Derby Union v. 
 
 -Rey-| 
 The' 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Priestnall : — Thorpe v. .. 
 
 "Primula," The 
 
 " Primula " (Owners, &c.) :— " Utopia " (Owners 
 
 of the SS.) V. " The Utopia " 
 Prince, In re. Godwin v. Prince 
 Prince & Co. : — Seligman v. 
 Princess Eoyal Colliery Co. : — Lloyd's Bank, 
 
 Ld. V. 
 " Princesse Clementine," The 
 Prinsep v. Belgravian Estate, Ld. 
 
 " Prins Hendrik," The 
 
 Printers and Transferrers Amalgamated Trades'! 
 
 Protection Society, In re .. ... ../ 
 
 Printing Telegraph and Construction Co. of the\ 
 
 Agence Havas, In re. Ex parte Cammell . . J 
 Printing Telegraph and Construction Co. of thel 
 
 Agence Havas v. Drucker . . . . ... J 
 
 Prior V. Skithwaite Spinning Co. 
 Pritchard: — Eowland ■y. .. 
 PritcLard & Eenwick : — Eixsom v. 
 Pritchard, Offor & Co., In re 
 
 Pritchett V. English and Colonial Syndicate . . < 
 
 Prohyn : — Phillips v. . . . . . . . . | 
 
 Procter, In re 
 
 Procter v. Cheshire County Council 
 
 Progress Printing and Publishing Co. : — Chilton v, 
 
 Protheroe v. Tottenham and Forest Gate Ey, 
 
 Co 
 
 Prout V. Cock 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ';} 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 159 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 604 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 141 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. 0. 513 .. 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 1894] W. N. 169 
 
 1900] W. N. 36 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 ■ 442 / 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 159 ■[ 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 428 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 493 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 276 ., 
 
 [1894] W. N. 213 
 
 [1899] W. N. 74 ; [1899] 2 Ch\ 
 
 277 ../ 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 56 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 135 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 489 
 
 U. A [1892] W.N. 20 .. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 156 (12) ; C. A. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. ; H. L. (B.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. 647 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (6) ; [1897]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 159 / 
 
 [1894] P. 128 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 492 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 225 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 617 
 
 [1900] W. N. 99 
 
 [1897] P. 18 
 
 0. A. [1896] W. N. 39 (1) 
 [1899] W. N. 54 ; [1899] P. 177 
 [1899] W. N. 86 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 184 / 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch..528; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Ch. 392 / 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 801 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 881 
 
 [1893]W. N. 34 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q; B. 800 
 
 [1893] W. N. 153 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 91 ; [1899]) 
 
 2Q. B. 428 j 
 
 [1899] W. N. 51 ; [1899] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 811 / 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 433 
 [1891] W.N. 24.. 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 29 . 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 278 . 
 [1^6] 2 Ch. 808 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 644 
 1233 
 
 809 
 
 1532 
 
 1979 
 
 1179 
 2199 
 
 1473 
 
 2143, 
 2367 
 1103 
 1219 
 967, 
 1119 
 2193 
 
 1362 
 
 1974 
 1298 
 1893 
 2318 
 
 1457 
 
 2094 
 
 1975 
 
 1954 
 
 1613 
 325 
 
 1491, 
 
 1535 
 1117 
 1991 
 
 2143 
 348 
 
 773 
 
 1235 
 1373 
 1215 
 
 482 
 
 79 
 
 1908 
 
 125 
 1507 
 537 
 
 1654 
 
 1298 
 
TABLE OV CASES, m THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Columu 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Provident Clerks' Mutual Life Assurance Assocla-'l 
 tion D. Law Life Assurance Society .. ../ 
 
 Provident Clerks' Mutual Life Assurance v. Lewis 
 
 Provincial Assets Co. : — England v. In re 
 Croom . . 
 
 Pruddah, Ex parte. In re Broster 
 
 Pryor : — London County Council v. 
 
 Pryor ■!;. Petre 
 
 Pryor w. Pryor 
 
 Pryor: — Pownall i;. In re Hake 
 
 Pudney u. Ecoles .. 
 
 Pugh: — Asliton-under-Lyne Corporation v. .. | 
 
 Pugh V. London, Brighton and South Coast Ey.l 
 Co / 
 
 Pngsley & Co. v. Hopkins & Co. .. 
 
 Pulborough (School Board Election for the Parish) 
 of), In re. Bonrke v. Nutt .. .. ../ 
 
 Pulbrook, Ex parte 
 
 Pulbrook : — Ladies' Dress Association v. 
 
 PuUen i;. Isaacs .. 
 
 Pullen V. St. Saviour's Union 
 
 PuUin u. Reffell 
 
 Pullman I). Hill & Co 
 
 Pulman v. Meadows 
 
 Pulsford : — Hammond v. .. 
 
 Pumpherston Oil Co. : — Holmes Oil Co. v. 
 
 Purdom : — Birkett (or Kelsall or Eliott) v. 
 
 Purnell : — Edwards v. 
 
 Pursell and Deakin's Contract, In re 
 
 Purssey v. Holloway. In re Baker 
 
 Purves V. Straits of Dover Steamship Co. 
 
 Putney Overseers v. London and South Western i 
 Ey. Co / 
 
 Puttick : — Chaplin v. Laing, Claimant 
 
 Pyke & Gibson's Case. In re Kharaskhomal 
 Exploring and Prospecting Syndicate ... j 
 
 Pyle, In re. Pyle v. Fyle 
 
 Pyle Works, in re (No. 2) 
 
 Pyman, Bell & Co. :— Smith, Hill & Co. v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Pyne v. Phillips .. 
 Pyper : — Gordon v. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quarm ■!;. Quarm .. 
 
 Quartermaine's Case. In re London, Windsor\ 
 and Greenwich Hotels Co. .. „ .. f 
 
 [1897] W. N. 73 (6) .. 
 
 [1892 W.N. 164 
 
 [1891 ICh. 695 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 429 
 C. A. 1896] 1 Q. B. 465 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 11 .. 
 [1900] P. 157 .. 
 [1895] W. N. 116 (11) .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 52 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 156 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 45 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 248 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 184 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 725 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 86 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 376 
 [1895] W. N. 90 
 
 [1899] W. N. 246; [1900] IQ. B.) 
 138 f 
 
 [1891]W. N. 39 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 524 
 
 [1900] W. N. 273 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 223 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 142 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1895] A. C. 371 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 1 Q. B. 449 
 
 W. N. 152 
 
 W. N. 156 (12) .. 
 
 1 Q. B. 38; C. A. [1899] 
 
 N. 102 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 [1899 
 [1893' 
 [1898' 
 [1899' 
 
 W." 
 
 217 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 182; C.A.[1891]| 
 
 IQ. B. 440 .. .. f 
 
 C..A. [1898] 2Q. B. 160 
 [1897] W. N. 58 (1) ; C. A. [189 11) 
 
 2Ch. 451 .. .. I 
 
 ^1895] 1 Ch. 724 
 1891] 1 Ch. 173 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 42 ; C. A. [1891]l 
 
 1 Q. B. 742 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1895]W. N. 8 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] W. N. 169 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 184 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 639 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 1291 
 1300 
 164 
 
 591 
 1151 
 
 891 
 
 713 
 . 1516 
 
 861, 
 1751 
 
 2087 
 
 975^ 
 
 1964, 
 1999 
 
 126, 
 
 2071 
 
 36, 644 
 
 303 
 1525 
 
 1674 
 
 935, _ 
 2291 
 
 650 
 
 802 
 2018 
 55,64 
 1834 
 2295 
 2255 
 2336 
 
 2014 
 
 1682 
 
 777 
 
 424 
 
 521 
 301 
 
 1975 
 
 1409 
 1895 
 1240, 
 1836 
 
 2321, 
 2322 
 
 475 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Nfime of Case. 
 
 Quatrefages : — Chichester u. 
 
 Quebec Bank : — Bryant, Powis & Bryant, Ld. v. 
 
 Quebrada Ky., Land and Copper Co. : — Williams"! 
 
 V. .. .. .. .. .. •• / 
 
 Queen Anne Eesidential Mansions and Hotelj 
 
 Co.: — ^Renshaw f. .. i ../ 
 
 Queen's Club; — Wilson w. 
 
 Queen's Hotel Co., Cardiff, In re. In re Vernon) 
 Tin Plate Co., Ld. .. ; , j 
 
 Queensland (Commissioners of Stamps for) : — \ 
 Harding V. .. .. ..' .. ../ 
 
 Queensland Investment aud Ladd Mortgage Co.:) 
 — Lock V. .. ...!.. .. .. ) 
 
 Queensland Land and Coal Co., In re. Davis vA 
 Martiu .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Queensland Mercantile and Agency Co., In re. 
 Ex parte Australasian Investment Co. Ex 
 parte Union Bank of Australia (No. 1) 
 
 ^. — '■ . (No. 2) 
 
 Queensland National Bank, In re 
 
 Queensland National Bank v: Peninsular and) 
 Oriental Steam Navigation Co. .. ..j 
 
 Quick, In the Goods of. Quick v. Quick 
 
 Quilter : — Belize Estate and Produce Co. v. 
 
 QuUter:— Lord De Clifford v. Lord de Clifford] 
 V. Marquis of Lansdovvne. In re Lord De> 
 Clifford's Estate J 
 
 Quincey : — Saccharin Corporation, Ld. v. .. | 
 
 Quinlan v. Child. Quinlan v. Quinlan. Exi 
 parte Quinlan .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 E. 
 
 Eaatz, In re. Ex parte Baat^ .... 
 Eabbeth D. Donaldson. In re Abdy (No. 1) .. 
 
 — ^(No.2) .. 
 
 Rackham : — Witherbyv. .. '.. 
 
 Radam's (William) Microbe Killer Co. u. Leather 
 Radcliffe, In re. Eadcliffe «. -Bewes .. ../ 
 
 Kadclifife v. Bartholomew 
 
 Radcliffe: — Halifax and Huddersfield Unions 
 Banking Co. V. . , .. .■. ' .. ../ 
 
 Radcliffe : — Laing v. In re Laing's Settlement | 
 
 Radcliffe: — Vipont v. In re Thorpe .. 
 
 Radford & Blight, Ld., In re i , .. , .. .. | 
 
 Radford & Co. :— Clink V. 
 
 Radford (D.) & Co. :— Waynes Merthyr Co. v...i 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1895] P. 186 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 170 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 751 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 662 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 522 .. ' 
 
 [1900] W. N. 77 ; [1900] 1 Ch 
 792 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 769 .. 
 
 C. A. [1996] 1 Ch. 397 ; H. L 
 (E.) [1896] A. 0. 461 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 181 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 536 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 ICh. 219 / 
 
 [1891] W. N. 132 
 [1893] W. N. 128 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 567 
 
 [1899] P. 187 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1897] A. C. 367 .. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 707 
 
 [1900] W. N. 115 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 246 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 496 ., 
 
 2 Q. B. 80 
 1895] W. N. 12 
 '1895] 1 Ch. 455 
 
 W.N. 57 
 
 [1897] 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1891; 
 
 C. A. [1892]1Q. B. 85.. 
 
 [1891] 2Ch. 662; C. A. 
 ICh. 227 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 161 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1892] |l 
 
 [1895] W. N. 63 , 
 
 23 (10); [1899]\ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 
 1 Ch. 593 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 360 
 
 [1900] W. N. 263 ; [1901] 1 Ch.\ 
 272 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 625 
 
 [1895] W. N. 150 (4); [1896]^ 
 ICh. 29 .. .. ^ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2357 
 194, 
 1571 
 
 669 
 
 53 
 
 223, 
 1079, 
 1275 
 
 316 
 1639 
 399 
 335 
 
 491 
 
 481 
 
 478 
 
 1944 
 
 1598 
 219 
 
 2173 
 
 1427 
 1493 
 
 107 
 40, 923 
 33, 643 
 
 902 
 
 635, 
 
 1499 
 
 1482 
 
 1036, 
 2069 
 
 315, 317 
 
 2187 
 
 795. 
 2060 
 
 419 
 
 1936 
 
 660, 677 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 '.•■} 
 
 
 Radnor's (Earl) Settled Estates, In re . . 
 
 Eaffety t;. Sohofield 
 
 Raggett : — Hornsby v. .. 
 Railway Time Tables Publisbing Co., In 
 Ex parte Welton 
 
 Railway Time Tables Pablisbing Co., In 
 Ex parte Welton 
 
 Rainford Coal Co. : — Jackson v. .. 
 
 Ealeigb 1). Goschen 
 
 Raleigh: — Vine v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Raleigh Corporation v. Williams 
 
 Ramage v. Womack 
 
 Ramsay v. Gilchrist 
 
 Ramsay v. Margrett 
 
 Ramsey v. Cruddas 
 
 Ramsey Urban Council : — Bostock v. .. 
 
 Ramuz : — Clarke v. 
 
 Eandwiok Borough Council v. Australian Cities"! 
 
 Investment Corporation, Ld. . . . . . . j 
 
 Eaper: — National Permanent Mutual Benefit\ 
 
 Building Society v. .. . . . . . . j 
 
 Raphael, In re. Ex parte Salomon 
 
 Raphael : — Cockburn v. .. 
 
 Rapier v. London Tramways Co. 
 
 Eapley v. Smart . . 
 Rassam v. Budge .. 
 
 " Ratata," The. Preston Corporation v. Biornstadj 
 
 Ratcliff, In re 
 Ratcliffe, In the Goods of 
 Ratcliffe v. Evans 
 
 Rathdonnell (Baron) : — Att.-Gen. for Ireland v. 
 Rathmines and Rathgar Improvement Commrs. :\ 
 — Herron v. .. .. . , . . _ _ j 
 
 Ratley : — Kilpin v. 
 
 Eavenscrof t : — Lumley v. 
 
 Ravensthorpe Urban District Council: — Hudders 
 
 field Corporation V. 
 Rawlins: — Scaler. 
 Ray, In re .. 
 Ray : — Peek v. , . 
 Ray V. Walker 
 
 Raybould, In re. Eaybould v. Turner . . 
 
 Raymond & Reid : — Hick v. 
 
 '.-) 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1898] W. N. 174 (14) .. 
 1897] 1 Ch. 937 
 ;i892] 1 Q. B. 20 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 255 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 52 (1); reversed] 
 
 by C. A. [1898] W. N. 159 (6) ; 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 108 ..J 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 340 
 [1897] W. N. 160 (10); [1898] \' 
 
 ICh. 73 /, 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 13 .. 
 [1895] W. N. 150 (7); [1896] 
 
 1 Ch. 37 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 540 .. 
 [].899] W. N. 246 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 
 116 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 412 .. 
 
 1869 
 1080 
 869 
 
 397 
 
 ?) 
 
 C. A. [1894]2Q.B. 18.. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 228 
 [1899] W. N. 261 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 
 357 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 169 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 616 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 456 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 322 
 
 [1892]lCh. 54 
 
 [1899] W. N. 23 (7); [1899]]' 
 
 1 Ch. 853 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. I 1493 
 
 474 
 
 302 
 
 2154 
 
 8, 2160 
 
 1889 
 
 254 
 
 1062 
 
 281, 853 
 40, 210, 
 
 905. 
 
 1693 
 
 526 
 
 566 
 
 2231 
 1329, 
 1592 
 
 1284 
 
 
 212 
 [1891] W. N. 14" ; 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 588 , 
 
 [1894] W. N. 2 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 571 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 118 ; H 
 
 [1898] A. C. 513 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 ri899]P. 110 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 524 
 
 Ex. Div. Jr. [1896] W. N. 141 .. 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1892] A. C. 498 ..] 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 582 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 683 ..| 
 
 [1897] ICh. 652; C. A. [18971) 
 2 Ch. 121 .. 7 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 342 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 468 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 282 .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 88 
 
 [1899] W.N. 244; [1900] 
 199 .. .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 qVb. 626'; H. L 
 (B.) [1893] A. C. 22 
 
 
 ICh 
 
 ':i 
 
 283 
 1352, 
 2152 
 1724 
 1529 
 
 1979 
 
 2190 
 1604 
 651 
 1809 
 2069, 
 2274 
 876 
 959, 
 2062 
 
 2274 
 
 2312 
 1198 
 674 
 1092 
 
 2183 
 1965 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Eayner v. Rederiaktiebolaget Condor 
 Eayner's Settled Estates, In ve . . 
 Eaynes Park Golf Club, Ld., In re. Ex parte'^ 
 Official Receiver 
 
 Eayner : — Ingliam v. In re Fish 
 Eayson v. South London Tramways Co. 
 
 -Cleveland Water Co. 
 
 d. Ex parte. In re Paine 
 
 Eead, In re 
 Eead v. Eley 
 
 Eead v. Lincoln (Bishop of ) - 
 
 Eead : — London County Council v. 
 Eead : — Strangwayes v. .. 
 Eead w. Wotton .. 
 
 Eeal Estates Co., In re .. 
 
 Eebteck, In re. Bennett v. Eebbeck 
 Eebbeck : — Sharp v. In re Lance 
 
 "Eecepta,"The 
 
 Reckitt : — Shaw u. 
 
 "EedSea,"The .. 
 Redcar Local Board :- 
 
 Reddaway ?;. Banham 
 
 Reddaway v. Bentham Hemp-Spinning Co 
 Redding, In re. Thomson v. Redding .. 
 Redditch (Local Board of) : — Law v. 
 Rederiaktiebolaget Condor : — Eayner v. 
 Redfern V. Redfern 
 Redgrave v. Lloyd & Sons 
 Eedruth Foundry Co. : — Noel v. 
 
 "Red Sea," The 
 
 Eeed: — Eice u. 
 
 Eees' Bankruptcy, In re. Administrator-G-enerall 
 
 of Jamaica v. Lascelles, l)e Mercado & Co. .. j 
 Eees, In the Goods of 
 Eees V. De Bernardy 
 Eees V. Thomas . . 
 Reeve w. Gibson .. 
 Eee ve : — Lisle v. .. 
 Eeeve : — Tatam v. 
 Eeeves u. Butclier .. 
 Eeeves : — Poster v. 
 Reeves (Josephine), In the Goods of 
 Eeeves & Son, Ld., In re. In re Whitefriars"! 
 
 Financial Co. .. .. .. .. .,/ 
 
 Eeffell:— PuUini; 
 
 Regan : — Cartwright v. .. 
 
 Reg. V. Anglesey Justices (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Reg. V. Baker 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 289 
 [1891] W. N. 152 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 961 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 83 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 
 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (2); [1897] 
 
 IQ. B. 122 .. 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 238 
 [1900] W. N. 57 
 
 ^1 
 
 [1891] P. 9; P. C. [1892] A. 
 644 
 
 C. 
 
 [1900' 
 [1898' 
 [1893' 
 
 1 Q. B. 288 
 
 2 Ch. 419 
 2 Ch. 171 
 
 •I 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 398 
 
 [1894]W. N. 68 
 [1900] W. N. 29 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 255 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 779; 0. A. [1893]\ 
 2Q. B. 59 / 
 
 [1895] P. 293 ; 0. A. [1896] P. 20 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 168 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 286 ;\ 
 H. L. (B.) [1896] A. C. 199 ../ 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 639 
 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 876 
 
 C. A. [1892] L Q. B. 127 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 289 
 
 C. A. [1891] P. 139 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 876 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 453 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 20 
 
 O.-A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 54 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 135 .. 
 [1896] W. N. 57 (12) .. 
 
 [1896 
 C. A/ 
 C. A, 
 
 2 Ch. 437 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 1015 
 "1891] 1 Q.B. 652 
 
 [1893 
 0. A ■ 
 C. A, 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 264 
 
 1 Q. B. 44 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 509 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 255 
 
 [1891] W. N. 124 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 184 
 
 [1891]W. N. 39 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 900 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 850 
 1892]2Q. B. 29 
 0. 0. R. [1895] 1 Q. B. 797 
 
 Columa 
 of 
 
 Digest. 
 
 1942 
 
 1867 
 
 435 
 
 2326, 
 2332 
 1204, 
 2151 
 
 132 
 
 2041 
 
 1792 
 756, 757, 
 758, 773, 
 
 1591 
 
 218 
 
 1190 
 
 1510 
 231, 445, 
 465, 598, 
 
 1160 
 
 801 - 
 
 805 
 
 1630, 
 
 1996 . 
 37, 
 
 1365 
 
 982 
 
 2276 
 
 2141 
 
 2138 
 1870 
 
 63ff 
 1942 
 
 694 
 1236 
 1222 
 
 982 
 2159 
 
 101, 
 1017 
 1593 
 2024 
 1222 
 
 530 
 1293 
 
 869 
 1137 
 
 593 
 1594 
 
 309 
 
 935, 
 2291 
 204 
 1103 
 1041 
 612 
 
OCX 
 
 TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Reg. V. Bank of England . , 
 
 Reg. V. Barnardo. Jones's Case . . 
 
 Eeg. V. Barttaple Division of Essex Commrs. 
 
 Taxes .. 
 Eeg. V. Bayard 
 
 Eeg. v. Bell 
 
 Eeg. V, Berger 
 
 Eeg. V. Bird. Ex parte Needes . . 
 
 Eeg. «. Blaby 
 
 Reg. V. Blenkinsop 
 
 Reg. V. Bodmin Justices .. 
 
 Reg. V. Bolingbroke . . . . . . 
 
 Eeg. V. Bowerman 
 Eeg. V. Bowman . . 
 Eeg. V, Brocklehurst 
 
 Eeg. V. Brompton County Court (Judge of) 
 Eeg. V. Brown 
 
 Eeg. V. Bruce 
 
 Eeg. V. Bullivant . . 
 
 Eeg. v. Burrows . . 
 
 Eeg. V. Burton. Ex j arte Young 
 
 Eeg. V. Button 
 
 Eeg. : — Canada Sugar Eefining Co. v. 
 Eeg. V. Charity Commrs. .. 
 Eeg. V. City of London Court (Judge 
 (No. 1) 
 
 Eeg. V. Clemens .. 
 Eeg.: — Coates «. .. 
 Eeg. f. Cockshotfc .. 
 Eeg. V. Commrs. under the Boiler E: 
 
 Act, 1882 
 
 Eeg. V. Commrs. of Inland Revenue. 
 
 Case. Garland's Case .. 
 Eeg. V. Comptroller-General of Patents, 
 
 and Trade-marks 
 Eeg. V. Gotham 
 Eeg. V. Cox 
 Eeg. V. Davey 
 Eeg. V. Davies 
 
 Eeg. V. De Grey 
 
 Beg. V. Demers 
 Eeg. V. Dennis 
 Eeg. V. Dr. Tristram 
 
 Eeg. V. Dolby (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Eeg. V. Doug] as 
 Eeg. V. Duckworth 
 
 Eeg. : — Dunn v. . . 
 
 ;'} 
 
 of the) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 plosions'^ 
 Ohlson': 
 
 Designs^ 
 
 .1 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 785 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 
 H. L. (B.) [1891] 388 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 123 
 
 194; 
 
 [1892; 
 
 [1894 
 
 2 Q. B. 181 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 391 
 
 1 Q. B. 823 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 340 
 
 C. C. K. [1894] 2 Q. B. 170 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 43 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 21 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 347 
 G. G. K. [1891] 1 Q. B. 112 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 663 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 566 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 195 
 
 C. G. R. [1895] 1 Q. B. 119 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 136 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 163 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 399 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 468 
 
 [1900] W. N. 176; [1900] 
 
 Q. B. 597 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 735 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 407 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 71 
 
 G. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 273 
 G. C. E. [1898] 1 Q. B. 556 
 P. G. [1900] A. C. 217 .. 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 582 
 
 G. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 703 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 485 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 909 
 
 [1898; 
 
 1 Q. B. 802 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 179 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 301 
 C. C. E. [1897] 2 Q. B. 199 
 [1900]W. N.38; [1900]! 
 
 521 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 103 .. 
 C. C. E. [1894] 2 Q. B. 458 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 371 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 301 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 736 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 560 
 0. C. K. [1892] 2 Q. B. 83 
 G. A. [1895] W. N. 160 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 116 .. 
 
 Q. 
 
 !■} 
 
 Wi 
 
 :) 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 90 
 948 
 
 2112 
 
 607 
 
 1195 
 612, 623 
 
 1098 
 
 621 
 
 1689 
 
 628, 
 
 1208 
 
 1042 
 194, 617 
 
 1114 
 
 2215 
 
 593, 
 
 2061 
 622, 864, 
 
 1030 
 
 1192, 
 
 1461 
 
 670 
 
 1640, 
 
 2257 
 
 1043 
 
 613 
 
 241 
 1205 
 594, 
 1527 
 1953 
 617 
 1337 
 1033 
 
 214 
 1445 
 
 1437 
 
 1207 
 
 609 
 1031 
 
 863 
 
 1673 
 
 241 
 830 
 744 
 1189, 
 1192 
 578, 890 
 1044 
 619 
 
 625 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Peg. V. Durham (Lord Bishop of) 
 Eeg. V. Durham Justices .. 
 Eeg. V. Dyson 
 
 Eeg. w. Ellis 
 
 Eeg. V. Entwistle. Ex parte Jones 
 
 Eeg. V. Erdheim .. 
 
 Eeg. V. Essex Justices (No. 1) . . 
 
 Eeg. V. Evans 
 
 Reg. V. Farmer 
 
 Reg. V. Famborough 
 Eeg. 17. Graisford .. 
 
 Eeg. V. Gtardner . , 
 
 Eeg.: !,_ Glamorgan County Council. 
 Miller 
 
 Eeg. V. Grlamorganshire Justices 
 
 Reg. V. Goole Local Board 
 Eeg. V, Gray ., ,, 
 
 Epg. u. Griffiths 
 
 Eeg. «. Gyngall ., 
 
 Eeg. V. Halifax Cuunty Court Judge 
 
 ■■( 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 .. ..{ 
 
 Ex parte 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Eeg. V. Hall 
 
 Eeg. V. Hannay ., 
 
 Eeg. V. Hastings Coi-poration 
 
 Reg. V. 
 
 Reg.:- 
 Eeg. V. 
 Eeg. V, 
 Eeg. V. 
 
 Eeg. 
 
 Eeg. V. 
 Eeg. V. 
 
 E^g. V. 
 
 Reg V. 
 Reg, V. 
 Reg. V. 
 Reg. V. 
 Reg. V. 
 Reg. V. 
 Reg. V, 
 
 Eeg. V. 
 
 Eeg. V. 
 Eeg. V. 
 
 Henley ., ., 
 
 -Henty v. .. 
 Hobbs 
 
 Hopkins .. 
 
 Hopkins . . 
 
 . Huggins (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 , Hughes 
 Humphrey ., 
 
 , Licorporated Law Society 
 
 Instan 
 Jackson ., 
 Jameson ., 
 Jennings ., 
 Jennings .. 
 Jones 
 Jones 
 
 Jones 
 
 Kennedy 
 Kerswill 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 414 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 801 
 
 0. 0. E. [1894] 2 Q. B. 176 
 
 C. C. E. [1898] W. N. 162(2);- 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 230 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 47 ; [1899] 1 Q, 
 
 846 
 
 C. C. E. [189fi] 2 Q. B. 260 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 490 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 228 
 
 C 
 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 637 
 
 C. C. E. [1895] 2 Q. B. 484 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 381 
 
 C. C. R. [1898] "W. N. 150 (4) ;\ 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 150 .. ../ 
 [1899] W. N. 60 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 26; C. A. [1899] W.N. 138; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 536 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 621 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 212 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 36 
 
 [1891] 2Q. B. 145 .. ..| 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 232 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 793 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 2Q. B. 263 I 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 747 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 709 
 [1896] W. N. 160(7); [1897] 11 
 Q. B. 46 / 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 504 .. ..{ 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 567 .. 
 
 C. 0. E. [1898] 2 Q. B. 647 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 621 
 
 C. C. R. [1896] 1 Q. B. 652 
 
 [1891] W. N. 88 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 563 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 530 
 
 C. 0. E.' [1898] 1 Q. B. 875 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 456 ; 0. A. [1896]J 
 
 IQ. B. 327 J 
 
 C. C. E. [1893] 1 Q. B. 450 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 671 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 425 
 
 [1895] W. N. 142 (7) .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 64 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 382 
 
 C. 0. E. [1896] 1 Q. B. 4 
 
 C.C. E. [1897] W. N. 167 (4);\ 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 119 .. ../ 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 533 
 [1895]1Q. B. 1 
 
 753 
 
 1041 
 
 135, 621 
 
 615 
 
 2215 
 
 610 
 1041 
 
 187 
 187, 
 1039 
 
 616 
 1042 
 
 613 
 
 579 
 
 1039, 
 1041, 
 1102 
 2084 
 503 
 135, 
 2071 
 948 
 593, 
 1444 
 621, 
 1403,, 
 2066 
 1307 
 
 1922 
 
 825,. 
 1044 
 2260' 
 
 872 
 1309 
 
 621 
 
 929, 
 1040' 
 1044 
 1100 
 
 866 
 2054,. 
 2056 
 
 620 
 
 922 
 833 
 1031 
 1822 
 561 
 620 
 
 615 
 
 1086 
 1028 
 
 2 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Reg. V. King 
 
 Reg. : — Kops v. Ex parte Kops 
 
 Reg.: — Labrador Co. V. .. 
 
 Reg. V. Law 
 
 Reg. u. Leicester Union .. 
 
 Reg. V. Leigh (Lord). In re Kinchant 
 
 Reg. V. Leigh Rural Council 
 Reg. u. Lerfsche .. 
 Reg. V. Lewis 
 
 Reg. V. Lewisham Union . . 
 
 Reg. V. Lillyman . . 
 
 Reg. V. Liverpool (Revising Barrister) .. 
 
 Reg. V. London (Bishop). Allcroft's Case 
 
 Reg. V. London (Bishop). Leighton's Case 
 
 Reg. V. London, City Corporation. Ex parte 
 
 Boaler .. 
 Reg. V. London County Council. Ex parte 
 
 Akkersdyk. Ex parte Fermenia 
 
 Reg. V. London County Council . . 
 
 Reg. ?). London Justices (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 ■ (No. 3) 
 
 (No. 4) / 
 
 (No. 5) 
 
 Reg. V. London Justices. Ex parte Greenwich \ 
 Union .. ., .. ._ __ } 
 
 Reg. V. London Justices. Ex parte Lambert '.'. 
 Reg. v. London Justices .. 
 Reg. t;. London Justices .. 
 
 Reg. V. London Justices .. .. .. . / 
 
 Reg. V. London (Lord Mayor of). Ex partel 
 Boaler .. .. .. .. ,^ f 
 
 Reg. V. Lowndes .. 
 
 Volume and Page, 
 
 C. 0. R. [1897] 1 Q. B. 214 
 P. C. [1894J A. C. 650 .. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 104 .. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 605 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 682 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 161 (9) 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 132 . 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 836 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 418 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 665 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 498 .. ..| 
 
 C. 0. R. [1896] 2 Q. B. 167 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 155 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 666 .. 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 48 ; H. L. (E.)\' 
 [1891] A. C. 666 .. ../, 
 
 ':\ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ''V [1893] 2 Q. B. 146 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 190 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 454 
 
 [1893]W. N. 86 .. ..I, 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 476 .. i 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 453- ../' 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 214; C. A. [1895]\ 
 IQ. B. 616 / 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 881 
 
 [1900] W. N. 26 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.) 
 438 / 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 664 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 659 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 433 
 
 [1899] W. N. 20 (11); [1899]) 
 IQ.B. 632 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 146 
 
 20 (13); [1899]! 
 
 [1899] W. N 
 1 Q. B. 57 
 
 ./ 
 
 Reg. V. London and North Western Ry. Co. .. j [1894] 2 Q. B. 512 
 
 Reg. V. Lord Leigh. In re Kinchant 
 
 Reg. t;. Lunacy Commrs. .. 
 
 Reg. V. Lushington. Ex parte Otto 
 
 Reg. V. Lynch 
 
 lieg. u. McKenzie.. 
 
 Reg. V. Manchester Justices 
 Reg. V. Marsden .. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 161 (9); 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 132 .. 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 630 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 420 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 61 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 519 
 
 [1899] W. N. 18(6); [i899] 
 
 Q. B. 571 .... 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 149 
 
 ?} 
 
 
 614 
 
 612, 
 1324, 
 1591 
 
 257, 
 1569 
 
 607 
 2213 
 
 1454 
 
 1690 
 705 
 69 
 
 1207, 
 
 2213 
 612 
 
 1372 
 757 
 
 757, 
 1028 
 
 1307 
 
 1359, 
 1629, 
 2067 
 1034, 
 1690 
 1672 
 562, 
 1630 
 1040, 
 1112 
 1180 
 
 1458 
 
 1042 
 1670 
 1691 
 
 1671 
 1028 
 
 2213 
 
 628, 
 1206, 
 1649 
 
 1454 
 
 1188 
 623, 809 
 606 
 606, 
 1032 
 
 1114 
 
 620 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Keg. V. Marsliam . . 
 
 Eeg. «. Mary lebone Vestry 
 Eeg. i>. McKellar .. 
 Eeg. V. Mead 
 
 Eeg. V. Mead 
 
 Eeg. V. Medical Council . . 
 
 Eeg. V. Miskin Higher Justices . . 
 Eeg.: — Mitchell V. 
 
 Eeg. V. Morton 
 
 Eeg. 11. Munslow .. 
 Eeg. V. Nash 
 Eeg. v. Newton .. 
 Eeg. U.Nicholson.. 
 Eeg. V. North Eiding of Yorkshire Countyj 
 Council . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Eeg. V. OUis 
 
 Reg. V. Oxford Circuit (Clerk of Assize of) 
 
 Reg. V. Oxfordshire Justices 
 
 Eeg. V. Oxfordshire County Court (Judge of) 
 
 Eeg. V. Paterson .. 
 
 Eeg. V. Payne & Cuoper . . 
 Eeg. V. Plymouth (Mayor of) 
 Eeg. V. Pelly 
 
 Eeg. V. Pontypool Justices 
 
 Eeg. V. Portsmouth Justices 
 
 Reg. V. Powell 
 
 Eeg. u. Powell. Ex parte Williams 
 
 Eeg. V. Pownall . . 
 
 Eeg. V. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. Ex 
 
 parte Johnston . . 
 Eeg. V. Eeynolds . . 
 Reg. V. Rhodes 
 Eeg. : — ^Eichards v. 
 Eeg. «. Richardson 
 Reg. V. Eiley 
 Eeg. j;. Robinson .. 
 Eeg. f. Eussett .. 
 Eeg. V. St. George, HanoTer Square (Vestry) 
 
 Eeg. V. St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington (Assess- 
 ment Committee) 
 
 Eeg. V. St. Marylebone Vestry . . 
 
 Eeg. V. Samuel 
 
 Eeg. V. Saunders . . 
 
 Eeg. V. Secretary of State for War 
 
 Eeg. V. Senior 
 
 Eeg. V. Sharman. Ex parte De.iton 
 Beg. V. Silverlock 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 371 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 771 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 121 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 124 
 1897] W. N. 153 (11); [1898]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 110 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 764; C. A. [1897]) 
 2Q. B. 203 .. .. ' 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 275 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 121, n. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 39 
 
 0. C. E. [1895] 1 Q. B. 758 
 
 [1900 
 [1892' 
 C. A.' 
 
 1 Q. B. 103 
 IQ. B. 648 
 
 1899] 2 Q. B. 455 
 
 ,1 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 201 
 
 C. C. E. [1900] W. N. 154 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 758 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 370 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 149 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 440 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 31 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 577 
 
 "1896] 1 Q. B. 158 
 
 1897]2Q. B. 33 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 621 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 718 ; C. A. [189l]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 693 / 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 396 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 158 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 598 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 75 
 
 0. C. E. [1899] 1 Q. B. 77 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 574 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 323 
 
 C. C. E. [1896] 1 Q. B. 309 . 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 734 
 
 0. C. E. [1892] 2 Q. B. 312 . 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 275 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 378 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 771 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 815 
 
 C. C. R. [1899] 1 Q. B. 490 . 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 326 
 
 C. C. K. [1898] W. N. 168 (7) 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 283 .. 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 578 
 C. 0. R. [1894] 2 Q. B. 766 . 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1174, 
 1207 
 235 
 1372 
 1350 
 
 1155 
 
 1251 
 
 1104 
 625 
 546, 
 1640 
 622 
 1405 
 1028 
 1099 
 
 822 
 
 614 
 
 622 
 1042 
 
 596 
 
 595, 
 2113 
 
 503 
 
 822 
 
 1106 
 
 1039, 
 
 1041, 
 
 1102 
 
 1037, ■ 
 
 2213 
 
 1105 
 
 1361 
 1098 
 
 391 
 
 2083- 
 
 614 
 
 623 
 1458- 
 
 616 
 
 188 
 
 617 
 1171 
 1670, 
 1674, 
 1691 
 235, 736 
 2105 
 
 612 
 1208 
 
 609 
 
 1115 
 611, 615 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Column 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 of 
 
 
 
 
 
 Digest. 
 
 Reg. V, Slade. Ex parte Saunders 
 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 247 
 
 1036 
 
 Reg. V. Smallman 
 
 
 :* 
 
 C. C. R. [1896] W. N. 157 (1) ;) 
 [1897]1Q. B. 4 .. ..) 
 
 609 
 
 Reg. V. Smith 
 
 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 596 
 
 16 
 
 Reg. : — Smyth v. . . 
 
 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 782 .. 
 
 2260 
 
 Re^. V. Soden 
 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1896] W. N. 178 (4); C. A.\ 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 634 .. ../ 
 
 1405 
 
 Reg. V. Soden 
 
 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 188 
 
 1404 
 
 Reg. V. Soutter ' . . 
 
 
 
 C. A. [1891]1Q. B.57 .. 
 
 1182, 
 1640 
 
 Reg. V. Sowerby . . 
 
 
 
 C. G. R. [1894] 2 Q. B. 173 .. 
 
 614 
 
 Reg. V. Sowter 
 
 
 
 [1900] W. N. 257 
 
 736 
 
 Reg. :— Spilsbury v. 
 
 
 " ( 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 615; P. C. [1899]\ 
 A. C. 392 1 
 
 87, 876 
 
 Reg. V. Staffordshire Justices 
 
 
 [1898' 
 
 2Q. B. 231 
 
 1112 
 
 Reg.: — Stern r. .. 
 
 
 
 1896' 
 
 IQ. B. 211 
 
 1784 
 
 Reg. V. Stewart . . 
 
 
 
 1896' 
 
 IQ. B. 300 
 
 30 
 
 Reg. V. Stewart . . 
 
 
 
 1898' 
 
 IQ. B. 552 
 
 577 
 
 Reg. V. Stewart . . 
 
 
 
 '1899] 
 
 IQ. B. 965 
 
 2013 
 
 Reg. v. Stoddart .. 
 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1900] W. N. 258 
 
 864 
 
 Reg. V. Streeter .. 
 
 
 " ( 
 
 C. C. R. [1900] W. N. 176 ;\ 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 601 .. ../ 
 
 618 
 
 
 
 
 Reg V. Stuart 
 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1894] 1 Q. B. 310 .. 
 
 340, 609 
 
 Reg. V. Surrey Justices 
 
 (No.l).. 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 633 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 IQ. B. 867 / 
 
 r~"t oj^f^i i^ j'~\ ~w~^ ^ -t i~i 
 
 889 
 
 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 719 
 
 1041 
 
 Beg. V. Tankai d . . 
 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1894] 1 Q. B. 548 ..{ 
 
 391, 406, 
 609 
 
 Reg. : — Taylor v. . . 
 
 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 25 
 
 615 
 
 Reg. V. horn as . . 
 
 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 426 
 
 1100 
 
 Reg. V. Thompson 
 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1893] 2 Q. B. 12 
 
 611 
 
 Reg. r. Tidy 
 
 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 179 
 
 1640 
 
 Reg. V. Titterton . . 
 
 
 
 1895]2Q. B. 61 
 
 20 
 
 Reg. V. Tomlinson 
 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1895] 1 Q. B. 706 .. 
 
 621 
 
 Reg. :— Toronto Ry. Co 
 
 • V. 
 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 551 .. 
 
 245 
 
 Reg. V. Turner (Judge) 
 
 and Hodgson . . 
 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 445 
 
 592 
 
 Reg. V. Tyler and the International Commercial! 
 Co [ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 588 
 
 36 
 
 Reg. V. Tynemouth Rural District Council 
 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 451 
 
 1918 
 
 Reg. r. Tyrrell .. 
 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1894] 
 
 IQ. B. 710 .. 
 
 620i 
 
 Reg. V. Villensky . . 
 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1892' 
 
 2Q. B. 597 .. 
 
 617' 
 
 Reg. V. Vreones . . 
 
 .. 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1891" 
 
 1 Q. B. 360 .. 
 
 611 
 
 Reg. V. Waite 
 
 .. 
 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B."600 .. 
 
 620 
 
 Reg. :— Walsh t;. .. 
 
 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 144 .. 
 
 1638 
 
 Reg. V. Warwickshire 
 
 Justices. Reg. v. 
 
 Wor-I 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 160 (10) ;» 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 59 .. .. 
 
 
 cestershire Justices 
 
 
 1105 
 
 Reg. V. Watermen's Co. 
 
 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 659 
 
 265 
 
 Reg. V. Waudby . . 
 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1895] 2 Q. B. 482 .. 
 
 619 
 
 Reg. V. Webb 
 
 .. 
 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 487 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 360 
 
 188 
 
 Reg. V. Wedd 
 
 .. 
 
 
 2106 
 
 Reg. V. West 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 ecu. [1897] W. N. 175 (6) ;\ 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 174 „ ../ 
 
 623 
 
 Reg. V. West Riding Justices 
 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 291 
 
 1029 
 
 Reg. V. West Riding of Yorkthire (County\ 
 Council) .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Reg. V. West Riding of Yorkshire Jusfces. Ex! 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 805 ..| 
 
 579, 
 1453 
 
 parte Shaw 
 
 
 ../ 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 503 
 
 1105 
 
 Reg. V. Wilkinson . . 
 
 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 722 
 
 1458 
 
 Reg. ■». Williams .. 
 
 
 • • 
 
 0. C. I 
 
 \. [1893] 
 
 IQ. B. 320 .. 
 
 620 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Bes. V. War- 
 
 of 
 
 Wesfi 
 
 -Res. 
 
 •:) 
 
 Reg. V. Winder 
 Beg. u. Wolferstau 
 
 Eeg. V. Woolwich Union 
 
 Eeg. V. Worcestershire Justices . 
 Reg. V. Worcestershire Justices. 
 
 wickshire Justices .. 
 Reg. V. Worton 
 Eeg. V. Yorkshire (County Council 
 
 Hiding of) 
 Regan : — Cartwright v. .. 
 Regiuall : — Isaacs v. In re Isaacs 
 Registrar of Joint Stock Companies: 
 
 Ex parte Juhnston 
 Registrar of Probites : — Siinms v. 
 Reiohardt v. Sapte 
 Eeid, In the Goods of 
 Reid V. Burrows . . 
 Reid V. Rigby & Co. 
 Reid V. Wilson and Kin^ 
 Reid V. Wilson and Ward 
 
 Eeid (J.) & Sons, Ld 
 
 Eeid's Brewery Co. v. Male 
 
 Eeij;ate Union Assessment Committee v. South) 
 
 Eastern By. Co. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Reilly : — Davis v. 
 
 Rein v. Stein 
 Eeischer w. Borwick 
 
 Eeitmeyer & Co. : — Saccharin Corporation v, 
 
 Reliance Permanent Benefit Building Society, i 
 
 In re 
 Religious Tract and Book Society of Scotland v. 
 
 Forbes .. 
 Religiouj Tract Society : — Brooks v. 
 Remfry v. Natal (Surveyor-General of) 
 Remington: — Everett k... 
 Remmington v. Scoles 
 
 Renad: — Lauriu. .. .. .. , 
 
 Rendall v. Hill's Dry Docks and Engneering Co./ 
 
 Eendall: — Lane f . .. ., .. ..| 
 
 Rendell, In re. Wood v. Rendell 
 
 Rendell V. Grundy 
 
 Reney II. Kii'kcudbright Magistrates 
 
 Renner, Ex- parte . . 
 
 Renner «. Tolley .. 
 
 Rennie :^Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. .. 
 
 Rennoldson : — Morley v. .. 
 
 Renshaw v. Queen Anne Residential Mansions'! 
 
 and Hotel Co. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Rent and General Cullecting and Estate Co. v. 
 
 Troughton. In re TrougUton 
 Renton Glbbs & Co. w. Neville & Co. .. 
 Revel 1: — Jacobs v. 
 
 :•) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 666 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 451 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 712 
 
 0. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 576 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 160 (10) 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 59 
 C. C. R. [1895] 1 Q. B. 227 . 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 386 
 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 900 
 1894] 3 Ch. 506 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 598 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 323 .. 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 303 
 
 1896] P. 129 .. 
 
 1892] 2 Ch. 413 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 40 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 315 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 315 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 634 
 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 411 
 
 [1897] W. N. 152 (2); [1898]\ 
 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 C. A, 
 C. A, 
 [1900" 
 659 
 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 753 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 548 
 W.N. 159; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 [1892]W. N. 77 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N, 
 
 126 
 
 [1897] W. N. 25 (5) .. 
 f . C. [1896] A. C. 558 .. 
 [1892] 3 Cb. 148 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 0. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 402 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 113; [1900]\ 
 2 Q. B. 245 
 
 [1899] W. N. 208 ; [1899] 2 Q. B, 
 
 673 
 
 [1900] W. N. 257 
 
 C. A. [1895]1Q. B. 16.. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) h892] A. C. 264 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 218 .. 
 
 [1893]W. N. 90 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 376 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 449 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 662 
 
 [1894] W. N. 154 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 181 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 858 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Disrest. 
 
 1113 
 896 
 1670, 
 1671 
 1112 
 
 1105 
 
 869 
 
 2108 
 
 204 
 520 
 
 391 
 
 84 
 
 528 
 1611 
 2022 
 1574 
 2094 
 2094 
 
 448 
 1760 
 
 1691 
 
 191 
 
 1542 
 988 
 
 1432 
 231 
 
 1775 
 
 538 
 1313 
 2253 
 1531 
 532, 534, 
 535 
 
 1247 
 
 2294 
 
 786 
 77,779 
 1979 
 877 
 1078 
 1330 
 2343 
 
 53 
 
 852 
 
 1527 
 2220 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Eevell V. Scott 
 
 Eevelstoke (Lord) v. Inland Revenue Corarars. 
 Reversionary Interest Society, LH., In re (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Review Publishing Co., In re 
 
 Rew, In re. Eew v. Wippell. In re Sharland | 
 
 Reynolds v. Att.-Gen. for Nova Scotia .. 
 
 Reynolds: — Briokvfood n. 
 
 Reynolds: — Reg. v. 
 
 Reynolds: — Rosenthal?;... 
 
 Reynolds v. Urban District Council of Presteign 
 
 Reynolds (Charles) & Co., In re . . 
 
 Reynolds & Co. v. Tomlinson 
 
 Rhoades, In re. Ex parte Rhoades . . . . ) 
 
 Rhodes : — Burrows v. 
 Rhodes v. Moules . . 
 Rhodes : — Reg. v... 
 
 Rhodes: — Stewarts. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Rhodesia Trading Co : — Nicholson v. 
 Rhondda and Swansea Ry. Co. v. Talbot 
 Rhymncy Iron Co. «. Fowler 
 Ehymney Ry. Co. v. Brecon and Merthyr Tydfill 
 Junction Ry. Co. .. .. .. .. J 
 
 "Rialto,",The 
 
 Rice V. Noakes & Co. 
 
 Rice V. Reed 
 
 Rice : — Rogers v. .. 
 
 Rich, In the Goods of 
 
 Rich : — Palmer v. .. 
 
 Richards I). Butcher 
 
 Richards v. Overseers of Kidderminster, 
 
 ■V. Mayor of Kidderminster 
 Richards v. Jopes. la re Jones .. 
 Richards: — Lamond u. .. 
 Richards v. Rig. .. 
 Richards : — Rodgers v. 
 Richards & Co. : — Thin v. 
 Richards : — Richardson v. In re 
 
 Richardson t). Richardson. In re 
 Richardson, In re. Richardson v. 
 
 In re Richardson. Richardson v. 
 Richardson, In re. Morgan v. Richardson 
 Richardson f. Leosk. In re Leask 
 
 Richardson v. Methley School Board 
 
 Richardson: — Reg. u. 
 
 Richardson D. Richardson 
 
 Richardson v. Stormont, Todd & Co. 
 Richardson, S; ence & Co. v. RoWntice .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Richards'! 
 
 Richardson. 
 Richardson 
 Richardson.) 
 Richardson j 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N.) 
 
 137 ) 
 
 IL L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 565 .. 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 615 
 [1892]W. N. 60 
 
 [1893] W.N. 5 
 
 [1899] W. N. 140 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 536 / 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 240 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 95 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 75 
 
 1892] 2 Ch. 301 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 604 
 
 1895] W. N. 31 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 586 
 
 1899] W. N. 41 ; [1899] IQ. B.\ 
 905 ; C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 347/ 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 816 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 236 .. 
 C. C. R. [1899] 1 Q. B. 77 
 [1900] W. N. 13; C. A. [1900]\ 
 W. N. 41 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 386 / 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 434 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Oil. 131 .. 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 79 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 169 
 
 [1891] P. 175 
 
 [1899] W. N. 229 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 213; C. A. [1900] W.N. 150; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 445 
 C. A. [1900]1Q. B. 54.. 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 170 .. 
 [1892] P. 143 .. 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (7); 
 
 lCh.134 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 522 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 212 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 438 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 541 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 574 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 555 
 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 141 
 
 [1900] W. N. 3 ; " 
 
 778 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 3 ; 
 
 778 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 512 
 [1891] W. N. 159 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1897]) 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 
 [1900] 
 
 ":) 
 
 2 Ch.j 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 510 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 323 
 [1895] P. 276; O 
 
 P. 346 .. 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 701 
 H. L. (B.) [1894] A. C. 217 
 
 A. [1895] 
 
 3 
 
 1771 
 
 1798 
 
 325, 364 
 
 369 
 
 465 
 
 1478 
 
 252 
 1761 
 2083 
 2126 
 
 890 
 
 453 
 1943 
 
 803 
 
 833 
 1423 
 614 
 
 269 
 
 353 
 1669 
 1763 
 
 509 
 
 2006 
 
 1294 
 
 2159 
 1071 
 1604 
 
 1022 
 
 2133 
 
 316 
 
 2302 
 
 973 
 
 623 
 1036 
 1945 
 
 1862 
 
 1862 
 
 779 
 1502 
 
 964, 
 1640, 
 1823 
 145a 
 
 701» 
 1493 
 2074 
 
 263 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Kame of Case. 
 
 Kichardsons and Samuel (M.) & Co., In re 
 Richardson & Wrench, Ld. : — Plomley v. 
 Eicherson, In re. Scales v. Heyhoe (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Richmond: — Owen v. 
 
 Richmond: — Smith u. 
 
 Richmond Gas Co. and Richmond (Suirey) Cor-\ 
 
 poration, In re . . . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Richmond Hill Steamship Co. v. Trinity House\ 
 
 (Corporation of) .. .. .. ..] 
 
 Richmond (Vicar of) and the Chapelwardens of 
 
 St. Matthias, Richmond v. All Persons having 
 
 Interest, &c. 
 Rickards v. Lynoh-Blosse. In re Lynch-Blosse 
 Ricketson ij. Barbour 
 Rickett, Smith & Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. 
 Ricketts V. Eicketts 
 RiddaU: — Connolly v. Donnelly v. Graham. 
 
 Martin «. Hanrahan (No. 2) .. 
 
 Riddall V. M'Aleer 
 
 Riddall :— M'Gaffigan I) 
 
 Riddell: — Corcoran v. In re Corcoran .. 
 
 Eiddell V. Durnford 
 
 Eiddell: — Gibson v. 
 
 Ridgeway v. Farndale 
 
 Ridgway : — Mander v. .. 
 
 Ridley: — Upperton ?;. 
 
 Rigby & Co. : — Carter v. .. 
 
 Rigby&Co. : — Reid u. .. 
 
 " Rijnstroom," The 
 
 Eiley, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Riley W.Hall 
 
 Riley: — Reg. i;. .. 
 
 Rimmer : — Hughes v. In re Tithe Act, 1891 
 
 Rintoul V. Falconer 
 
 " Ripon City," The 
 
 "Ripon City," The 
 
 Rishton v. Haslingden Corporation 
 
 Ritchie: — Hamilton w. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ..{ 
 
 Ritchie v. Larsen .. 
 
 Ritchie (John) & Co. v. Sexton . . 
 
 Ritchie Gallagher's Case. Campbell v. Chambers 
 
 Eitson, In re. Eitson u. Ritson 
 
 River Plate Construction Co. : — ^Bright v. ..{ 
 
 River Plate Trusty Loan and Agency Co.: 
 Mercantile Investment and General 'J'rust Co. 
 (No. Ij 
 
 — — (No. 2) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 146 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 261 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 632 .. 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 379 
 
 [1895] W. N. 29 .. .A 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 683 ; H. L.) 
 (B.) [1899] W. N. 130; [1899] 
 A. C.448 J 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 56 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 134 
 
 [1897] P. 70 
 
 [1899] W. N. 27 (8) .. 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 194 .. 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 260 
 [1891] W. N. 29 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 103 .. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 95 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 95 .. 
 [1892] W. N. 182 
 [1893]W. N. 30 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 173 .. 
 '1892] 2 Q. B. 309 
 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 501 
 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 680 
 
 ). A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 113 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 40 
 
 1899] W. N. 33 (1) .. 
 
 1895] W. N. 150 (5); [1896]\ 
 
 P.9 / 
 
 [1898] W. N. 81 (9) .. 
 
 0. C. R. [1896] 1 Q. B. 309 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 314 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 174 .. 
 
 [1897] P. 226 
 
 [1898] P. 78 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 294 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 310 ..| 
 
 [1899] W. N. 12 (14); [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 727 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 59 .. 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 147 .. 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 667; C. A. [1898] 
 
 W. N. 166(11);C. A. [1899] 
 
 ICh. 128 
 [1900] W. N. 153 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 835 / 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 303 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 578 | 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1970 
 1333 
 520 
 1503, 
 1509 
 1093, 
 2184 
 
 1680 
 
 875 
 2017 
 
 741 
 
 1868 
 1328 
 1659 
 1283 
 
 1367 
 
 1394 
 1394 
 
 283 
 1080 
 1376 
 
 872 
 
 585 
 1454 
 1511 
 1574 
 1959 
 
 1626 
 
 1294 
 616 
 2112 
 1392 
 1987 
 2001 
 2091 
 1843, 
 2320 
 
 2012 
 
 645 
 
 1423 
 54 
 
 319 
 
 325, 326, 
 766 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Eiver Kibble Joint Committee v. Halliwell.'l 
 Same u. Shorrock .. .. ,. ../ 
 
 Eiver Kibble (Ji int Committee of the) v. Crostonj 
 Urban District Council . . . . . . J 
 
 Eixon V. Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co. . . 
 
 Eixsom ti. Pritchard & Eenwick .. 
 
 Eobarts v. French 
 
 Eobb V. Green . . . . . . . . . . | 
 
 Eobbins : — Oliver v, 
 
 Eoberts, In re .. .. .. .. .. | 
 
 Eobert?, In the Goods of 
 
 Eoberts v. Akeroyd. In re Akeroyd's Settle-I 
 ment ., ., .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Eoberts v. Booth . . 
 Eoberts: — Collman f. 
 Eoberts v. Cooper . . 
 Eoberts : — Edwards v. 
 Eoberts: — ^EUis v. In re Dav!es 
 
 Eoberts «. Gwyrgiai District Council 
 
 Eoberts v. Holland 
 
 Eoberts v. Jones . . 
 Eoberts v. Plant .. 
 
 Eoberts v. Potts. In re Tiihe Act, 1891 
 
 Eoberts : — Sarson v. 
 Eoberts u. Security Co. .. 
 
 Eoberts: — Shoolbred v. .. 
 
 Eoberts: — Thomas v. Smith, Claimai'.t 
 
 Eoberts :—Totfield u 
 
 Eoberts & Keighley, Maxstod & Co. :— 
 
 &Co. i;. 
 
 EobertEon, In the Goods of .. • 
 
 Kobertson: — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Kobertson v. Bristol Corporation 
 
 Eobertson : — Durham Brothers v. 
 Eobertson v. Harris 
 Eobertson : — Inglis v. 
 Eobertson u. Johnson 
 
 Eobertson: — Lord Advocate f. .. 
 
 Eobertson: — McNab v. .. 
 
 Eobertson, Sanderson & Co.'s Applicat'op, In re 
 
 "EobJn,"The 
 
 Durante 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 °^} 
 
 Eobins & Co. v. Gray 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 27; 0. A. [1899]l 
 W. N. 103 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 385J 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 251 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 636 .. 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 800 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 22 .. 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 1 ; C. A. [1895]1 
 
 2Q. B. 315 / 
 
 [1894] W. N. 199 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 220; [1900] 
 
 IQ. B. 122 .. 
 [1898] P. 149 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 363 .. 
 
 [1893]lCh. 52 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 457 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 335 .. 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 302 
 1898] 2 Ch. 142 
 
 1899] W.N. 16 (11); [1899] 1 
 Ch. 583; C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 203; [1899] 2 Ch. 608 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 665 .. ..| 
 
 [1891] 2 0. B. 194 
 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 597 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 33 ; C. A. [1694]] 
 IQ. B. 213 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 395 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. Ill 
 [1899] W. N. 136 ; [1889] 2 Q. B. 
 
 560; 0. A. [1900] \V. N. 157 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 497 ., 
 [1898] IQ B. 657 
 
 [1894]W. N. 74 .. ..| 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 54 ; [1900]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 629 / 
 
 [1896] P. 8 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 694 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 293 / 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 102; [1900]\ 
 
 2 Q. B. 198 / 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 765 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 117 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 616 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 129 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.l 
 
 132 J 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 1191 
 
 (7); [1897] A. C. 129 ..J 
 [1892] -A Ch. 245 
 
 [1892] P. 95 \ 
 
 rit 
 
 ;.-] 2 Q. B. 78; 
 Q. B. 501 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895]| 
 
 2272 
 
 771 
 
 337 
 1215 
 1500 
 
 969, 
 1248 
 
 573 
 
 180 
 
 1602 
 
 1905 
 
 1528 
 2018 
 1903 
 1038 
 2165 
 
 2285 
 
 1515, 
 2102 
 559, 562 
 1564 
 1688, 
 2068, 
 2071, 
 2113 
 1074 
 976 
 
 179 
 
 204 
 
 1488, 
 
 1562 
 
 1578 
 
 1623 
 
 1806 
 
 2035 
 
 75 
 
 23 
 814 
 822 
 
 1806 
 
 2282 
 
 2134 
 563, 
 1958 
 
 972 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DlttEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 •I 
 
 Sur-1 
 
 Robinson, In re. Wright v. Tugwell . . 
 
 Robinson : — ^Branlagan v. 
 Robinson : — Caldwell «... 
 
 Robinson v. Canadian Pacific Hy. Co. . . 
 
 Robinson : — Clarkson v. .. 
 
 Robinson v. Geisel 
 
 Robinson v. Harkin 
 
 Robinson v. Montgomeryshire Brewery Co. 
 
 Robinson : — Reg. v. 
 
 Robinson: — Royal College of "N'eteiinary 
 
 geons V. .. 
 Robinson v. Robinson 
 Robinson v. Shaw. In re Shaw . . 
 Robinson: — Smith i). 
 Robinson: — Stewart w. .. 
 
 Robinson : — Sunderland Corporation v. . . 
 
 Robinson : — West Hartlepool (Mayor, &c. 
 
 V. 
 
 Robinson v. Workington Corporation 
 Robinson & Co. i;. Heuer.. 
 
 Robinson's Settlement Trusts, lu re 
 
 Robinson & Fisher : — Feast v. .. 
 Robinson, King & Co. v. Lynes .. 
 
 Robson, In re. Howden v. Robson 
 
 Robson, In re. Robson v. Bam'lton 
 Robson V. Edwards 
 Robson V. Homer . . 
 
 Robson w. Smith .. 
 
 Robson «. Tidy. In re Smith .. 
 
 Rochdale Canal Co. u. Brewster .. 
 
 Rochda'e Canal Co. : — Chamber Colliery Co. v. 
 
 Manchester Ship 
 
 , ol) 
 
 :'?} 
 
 Rochdale Canal Proprietors: 
 Canal Co. v. 
 
 { 
 
 n 
 
 Rochdale Union and HaslingJen Union, In re ..\ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Roche V. London and South Western \\y. Co, 
 Rochefoucauld v. Boustead 
 
 Rochefoucauld v. Boustead 
 
 Rochester (Bishop of) v. Harris 
 Rockelt V. Clippingdalc . . 
 
 Roderick : — Soutier v. 
 
 Roddick v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance) 
 
 Co \ 
 
 Rodger v. Harrison 
 
 Rodgers v. Richards 
 
 "Rodney," The 
 
 Rodocannchi : — Hick i>. .. .. ,. ..| 
 
 ■{ 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 95; C. A, 
 
 W.N.170(2);[1897]lCh 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 344 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 519 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 481 .. 
 
 [1900] W.N. 188; [1900] 2 
 722 
 
 C. A 
 [1896" 
 [1896' 
 [1898 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 685 
 2Ch. 415 
 2Ch. 841 
 IQ. B. 734 
 
 -I 
 
 Ch.j 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 1898] P. 153 
 
 1894] 2 Ch. 573 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 53 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 122 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 19 (7); [1899]! 
 IQ. B. 751 / 
 
 [1897] W. N. 12 (7) .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 619 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 451 .. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 129 
 
 [1894]W. N. 14 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 577 
 
 [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 ■■{ 
 '-[ 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 559 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 146 
 
 [1893] W. N. 100 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 118 
 [1900] W. N. 75 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. P. 852 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 632 ; H. L. 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. [1895] 564 
 
 [1899] W. N. 24 (11) .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 206 ; C. A. [1899] \ 
 
 IQ.B. 540 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 502 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 74 (2), 178 (5) 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 196; C. A 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 550 
 [lb93] P. 137 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. R 
 [1895] W. N. 156 
 
 1Q.B. 91 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 836; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 380 / 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 161 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 555 
 [1900] W. N. 4G; [1900] P. 112 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 626 ; H. L.\ 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. 0. 22 .. ../ 
 
 :) 
 
 .293 
 
 (7); 
 C. A. 
 
 Column 
 
 of ■ 
 Digest. 
 
 [1896] 
 
 «} 
 
 753 
 
 1240 
 1558 
 257, 
 2066 
 
 2197 
 
 1506 
 2172 
 
 312 
 
 188 
 
 2257 
 
 929 
 1899 
 1166 
 1830 
 
 2287 
 
 2088 
 
 1911 
 1726 
 1085, 
 1875 
 198 
 902 
 725, 
 2362 
 725, 
 2365 
 1119 
 1702, 
 1704 
 321 
 1902 
 1676 
 
 1266 
 2116 
 
 1145 
 
 1559 
 781 
 850, 
 
 2178 
 754 
 
 1957 
 
 1372 
 
 2394 
 1036 
 1938 
 
 1965 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Koe V. Nix 
 
 Eoe :— Taylor i;. (No. ] ) . . 
 
 (No. 2) . . 
 
 • (No. 3).. 
 
 Roger's Trade-mark, In re 
 Rogers, In re. Ex parte Collins 
 Rogers : — Bamfield v. In re Glubb 
 Rogers: — Brett v... 
 
 Rogers v. Hospgcod 
 
 Rogers v. Harding. In re Harding 
 
 Rogers: — Kelly v. 
 
 Rogers: — Lepela v. 
 
 Rogers v. Maddocks 
 
 Rogers v. Manchester Packing Co. 
 
 Rogers v. Rice 
 
 Rogers v. Rogers . . 
 
 Rogers: — Steers t;. 
 
 Rogers v. Whiteley 
 
 Rogers, Sons & Co. v. Lacobert & Co. 
 
 fiolfe. In re. Fyson v. Johnson . . 
 
 Rolfe : — Ancell v. .. 
 
 Rolfe u. Thompson 
 
 Rollason, In re. Holt, In re. Holt v. Holt 
 
 EoUason's Registered Design, In re 
 
 Rollit & Sons, In re 
 
 Bolls : — Inman v. In re Inman . . 
 "Romance," The 
 
 Romer & Haslam, In re .. 
 
 Romford, St. Andrew (Rector, &c.) v. All Persons 
 
 having Interest . . 
 Eoncoroni: — Pini u. 
 Roney: — Beasley «;. 
 Hooke i;. Dawson .. 
 Roper V. Castell & Brown, Ld. In re Castell & 
 
 Brown. Ld. 
 Roper V. Knott 
 Roper: — Goregum Gold Mining Co. of India v. 
 
 Wallroth i;. Roper 
 
 Ropkins & Co. : — Pugsley & Co. v. 
 
 Rosario Nitrate Co. : — Smith & Service v. 
 
 Roscoe: — Boden v. 
 
 Rose V. Bank of Australasia 
 
 Rose : — Koosen v. .. 
 
 Rose Marie Gold Mining Co., In re 
 
 Rose V. Watson 
 
 Rose-Innes : — Palmer v. In re Palmer 
 
 Eosenlaum v. Be' son 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1893] P. 55 
 
 1893] W.N. M .. 
 [1893]W. N. 26 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 413 
 [1894] W. N. 173 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 425 
 0. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 354 .. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B, 525 
 [1899] W. N. 223 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 W. N. 157 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 388 / 
 
 C. A. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 910 
 
 [1893' 
 0. A.-' 
 [1898' 
 0. A.' 
 [1894' 
 C. A.' 
 
 1894] 3 Ch. 315 
 
 1 Q. B. 31 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 346 
 1 Q. B. 344 
 1892] 2 Ch. 170 
 P. 161 .. 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 13; 
 
 H. L 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 232 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 118 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 318 
 
 1894] W. N. 77 
 
 1896] W. N. 9 (8) 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 196 
 
 1897] 2 Ch. 525 
 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 237 ; affirmed 
 
 by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Heath 
 
 & Sons, Ld. V. Rollason, [1898] 
 
 A. 0.499 
 
 [1893] W. N. 195 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 518 
 [1900] W. N. 254 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 286 
 
 [1894] P. 220 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 633 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 509 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 315 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 868 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 125 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 184 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 323 ; C. A. [1894]i 
 
 1 Q. B. 174 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 608 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 687 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 25 (9) 
 
 '1896] W. N. 76 (5) .. 
 
 1894]2Q. B. 90 
 
 1900] W. N. 9 .. 
 
 1900] W. N. 123 ; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 267 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1195, 
 1627 
 77,80 
 1849 
 
 564 
 
 777 
 
 114 
 2264 
 1166 
 
 602 
 
 1477 
 1060 
 1063 
 1723 
 1236 
 1071 
 694 
 
 1433 
 
 78, 90, 
 
 93 
 
 767 
 1494 
 1406 
 
 19 
 2175 
 
 657 
 
 1303, 
 2058 
 2340 
 1946 
 62, 2041, 
 2043 
 
 741 
 
 52, 1414 
 903 
 273 
 
 320 
 
 619 
 
 396 
 
 1964, 
 1999 
 
 1973 
 
 29, 682 
 1932 
 
 562 
 2045 
 
 736 
 1736 
 
 2241 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Rosenthal v. Reynolds ' . . 
 Rosher, In re. Briant v. Rosier 
 
 Ross, In re. Ashton v. Ross 
 
 Ross : — ^Barnes (or Ross) v. 
 
 Ross u. Car bery 
 
 Ross: — Hicks V. .. 
 
 Ross : — Perth General Station Committee v. 
 
 Ross V. White 
 
 Ross v. Woodford . . 
 
 Ross: — Woolston «. 
 
 Ross' Charity, In re. In re Perry Almshouses 
 
 Ross, Sleeman & Co. :— Madeley v. 
 
 Roth, la re. Goldberger v. Roth 
 
 Rothes (Earl of) : — Leslie v. 
 
 Rothschild : — ChUi Republic v. .. 
 
 Rothschild & Sons v. Inland Revenue Commrs 
 
 " Rougement," The 
 
 Roundwood Colliery Co., In re. Lee v. Round 
 
 wood Colliery Co. 
 Rourke : — Thompson v. (No. 1) . . 
 (No. 2) . . 
 
 Rouse V. Bradford Banking Co. . . 
 
 Rowatt's Wharf, Ld. : — Biggarstaff u. 
 Rowatt's Wharf, Ld. : — Howard v. 
 Rowbotham: — Ellis «. 
 
 Rowe, In re. Pyke v. Hamlyn . . 
 
 Rowell V. Inland Revenue Commrs. 
 Rowell V. Rowell . . 
 Rowland : — Coxen v. 
 Rowland v. Mitchell. 
 
 mark 
 Rowland v. Pritohard 
 
 Rowlands : — Hill v. 
 
 Rowlands : — Hill (Trustee of Lord) v. .. 
 
 Rowlands v. Miller 
 
 Rowley v. Ginnever 
 
 Rowlls V. Bebb. In re Rowlls. Walters 
 
 Solicitor for the Treasury 
 Rowntree : — Richardson, Spence & Co v. 
 
 Roxburgh: — Philips. 
 
 Roxburghe Press, In re. Spiers & Bevan's Case | 
 
 Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter^ 
 Garden Society ■». Parkinson .. .. ../ 
 
 Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham . . 
 Royal British Nurses' Association : — Breay v. .-. 
 
 Royal College of Music v. Westminster Vestry . . 
 
 Eoyal College of Surgeons of England, In re . . 
 
 In re Rowland's Trade 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 301 
 
 [1899] W. N. 134 
 
 [1899] W. N. 234 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 162 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 625 .. 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 171 .. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 499 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1897] A. C. 479 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894]3Ch. 326 .. ..| 
 
 [1894]lCh. 38 
 
 [1900] W. N. 24; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 788 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 397; C. A. [1898]\ 
 W.N. 158; [1899]lCh. 21 ../ 
 
 [1897' 
 [1890; 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 499 
 
 [1891 
 [1894' 
 [1893" 
 [1896 
 
 1 Ch. 505 
 W. N. 16 (15) 
 
 6 
 
 ■'I 
 
 W. N. 138 
 2 Q. B. 142 
 P. 275 .. 
 
 W. N. 166 (3); C. A. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 373 
 C. A. [1892] P. 244 
 [1893] P. 11 ; 0. A. [1893] P. 70 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 32 ; H. L. (E.) 
 [1894] A. C. 586 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 93 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 93 
 
 0. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 740 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 172 (13) 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 153 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 194 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 9 .. 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 406 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 71 .. 
 
 [1893]W. N. 34 
 
 [1897] W. N. 68 (3) ; afErmed\ 
 
 by C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 361 ../ 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 124 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 735 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 503 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 103 ; [1900] \ 
 
 2 Oh. 107 .. .. ^ 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1894] A. 0. 217 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc) [1897]\ 
 
 W.N. 96 .. ^ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 1 (1) ; [1899] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 210 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 431 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 715 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 272 .. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 175 (8); [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 304; C. A. [1898] 1 
 Q. B. 809 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 873 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2126 
 1865 
 
 32 
 
 949 
 1380 
 
 32 
 1666 
 
 559, 
 1416 
 
 778 
 
 684 
 
 272 
 
 318 
 2189 
 2359 
 776 
 1789 
 1960 
 
 1259 
 
 715 
 
 707 
 
 97, 1585 
 
 334 
 
 334 
 48 
 
 2328 
 
 1792 
 923 
 1476 
 
 2126 
 
 1373 
 
 1280 
 
 107 
 2015 
 1864 
 
 1854 
 
 263 
 
 1402 
 
 425 
 
 1308 
 94 
 549 
 
 1681 
 
 1773 
 
ioexxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 1 
 
 Eoyal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh : — ) 
 Sulley V. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Boyal College of Veterinary Surgeons v. Robin- 
 son 
 
 Eoyal Exchange Assurance Corporation : — China 
 Traders' Insurance Co. V. .. .. ..J 
 
 Eoyal Exchange' Assurance Corporation : — ) 
 Gtdge V. .. .. .. .. .. I 
 
 Eoyal Exchange Assurance Coiporation : — Euysj 
 V. / 
 
 Eoyal General Theatrical Fund Association ji.) 
 Kydd. In re Lacy . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Eoyal Holloway College, Egham v. Southwell .. 
 
 Eoyal Insurance Co. v. Watson . . 
 
 Eoyal Mail Steam Packet Co. v. George and) 
 Branday .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Eoyle T. Harris 
 
 Eoyston Water Co. ; — Titchmarsh v. 
 
 Eozey : — Kemp v. In re Sharland . . . . | 
 
 Euabon Brick and Terra Cotta Co. v. Great! 
 Western By. Co ) 
 
 Euabon Steamship Co. v. London Assurance 
 
 " Ruby," The (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Euck V. Buck 
 
 Budall V. Kichols .. 
 
 Eudd: — Gallagher v. 
 Eudd V. James 
 Eudd V. Lascelles . , 
 
 
 
 Rudry Merthyr Steam and House Coal Colliery! 
 Co. : — County of Gloucester Bank v. . , 
 
 Bufford «fe Co. :— Att.-Gen, tf | 
 
 Bugeley Gas Co., In re .. 
 
 Eumney and Smith, In re 
 
 Euncorn Eural District Council : — London and] 
 North Western By. Co. and Great Western} 
 By. Co 
 
 Bundle v. Hearle . . 
 
 Eushmere ti. Isaacson .. .. 
 
 Eussell, In re. Dorrell v. Dorrell 
 
 Bussell, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Eussell (Earl) v. Bussell (Countess) 
 
 Russell V. Russell (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Eussell u. Russell .. 
 
 EuBsell; — Taylor i». ,. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] 
 98 
 
 W. 
 
 N.-> 
 
 1773 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 
 
 2257 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 187 
 
 
 
 998 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 214 
 
 
 
 1002 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 135 
 
 
 
 984 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 487 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 41 1 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] W. N: 
 161(13); [1897] A.C.I .. 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 480 .. 
 
 1895] P. 163 
 
 1899] W. N. 256 
 1896] 1 Ch. 517; C. A. [1896]\ 
 W.N. 62(19) .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Cb. 427 .. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 456 ; C. A. [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 722 ; H. L. (E.) [1899], 
 W.N. 254; [1900] A. C. 6 ..j 
 
 1898 
 1898 
 1896' 
 
 P. 52 
 P. 59 
 P. 152 
 
 [1900] W. N. 
 
 133 
 
 153 (9) ; [1898]| 
 
 [1897] W. N, 
 
 IQ. B. 114 .. 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 554 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 78; [1900] 1 Ch.i 
 
 815 „ 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 629 
 
 [1899] W. N. 8 (3) ; [1899] 1 Ch.') 
 
 537 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 127 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 351 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 
 1 Ch. 561 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 83 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 118 
 
 G. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 698 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 380 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 315 ; H. L. (App.) 
 Com.) [1896] W. N. 37 (12); I 
 H. L. (D.) [1897] A. C. 395 .. I 
 
 C. A. [1892] P. 152 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 315 
 
 H. L. (D.) [1898] A. C. 307 .. 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 8 ; H. L. (E.)\ 
 [1892] A. 0. 244 .. ../ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 34; C. A. [1898]| 
 
 285 
 1752 
 
 1765 
 
 1018 
 
 1596 
 2291 
 2300, 
 2339 
 
 1648 
 
 990 
 
 1996 
 2015 
 706 
 2301, 
 2344 
 
 1107 
 
 856 
 
 2245 
 
 350, 
 1702 
 
 2084 
 
 465 
 1302 
 
 1914 
 
 894 
 1366 
 2348 
 1614 
 
 936 
 
 700, 702 
 703 
 570 
 
 1288 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 :•) 
 
 Eussell : — Temperton (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Russell, Cordner & Co., In re 
 
 Russell Institution, In re. Figgins v. Baghino 
 
 Russett: — Reg. w. 
 
 Russian Spratts Patent, Ld., In re. Johnson v. 
 
 Russian Spratts Patent, Ld. .. 
 Rutland (Duke of) : — Harrison v. 
 " Rutland," The. Owners of Steamship " Eden-] 
 
 bridge" v. Green and Owners of Steamship) 
 
 "Rutland" 
 
 Rutland's Settled Estates (Duke of), In re 
 
 Rutland (Duke of) v. Bristol (Marquis of) 
 Rutson: — Wixv. .. 
 Rutter «. Everett .. 
 Rutter: — Hawkins i>. 
 Rutter (D. & C): — Cray ford Overseers v. 
 Ruys V. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation 
 
 Ryan : — Briggs v. In re Wheeler's Settlement 
 
 Ryan V. Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers|^ 
 
 Association 
 Ryley v. Master. Sheba Gold Mining Co. v. Trub-' 
 
 shawe .. 
 
 Rymer, In re. Rymer v. Stanfield 
 Rymer V. Mcllroy .. 
 
 -':} 
 
 :) 
 
 s. 
 
 S 's Settlement, In re. 
 
 Saalfeld : — Perls v. 
 
 Sabin : — David v. .. 
 
 v.a. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Sabiston : — Montreal Lithographing Co. v. .. 
 Saccharin Corporation v. Chemicals and Drugs'! 
 
 Co ... ../ 
 
 Saccharin Corporation, Ld. v. Anglo-Continental\ 
 
 Chemical Works, Ld, .. ., .. ../ 
 
 Saccharin Corporation, Ld. v. Quincey .. .. | 
 Saccharin Corporation, Ld. v. Reitmeyer & Co. , . < 
 
 Sadler V. Great Wes! em Ry. Co. ., ..| 
 
 Sadler ; — Howard v. 
 Sadler V. Worley .. 
 Safety Oil Co., In re 
 Saffery, Ex parte. In re Vautin 
 
 Saffery, Ex parte. In re Vautin . . . , | 
 
 ery V. Mayer .. 
 
 eiy : — Welton v. . . . . . . . . < 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest, 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 435 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 715 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 171 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 72 .. 
 
 C. C. R. [1892] 2 Q. B. 312 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 142 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 281 ; H. L. (B.) 
 [1897] A. 0. 333 
 
 [1900] W. N. 122 ; 
 
 206 .. 
 '1899] 1 Q. B. 474 
 
 1895 
 
 1892 
 1897^ 
 1897 
 189ff 
 
 717 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch.| 
 
 2 Ch. 872 
 1 Q. B. 668 
 
 1 Q. B. 650 
 
 2 Q. B. 135 
 W.N. 141; [1899] 2 Ch.'l 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 427 
 ICh. 116 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 674 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 19 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 528 
 
 C. A.; [1893]| 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1894 
 [1893' 
 C. A.' 
 
 3 Oh. 72 .. 
 W. N. 127 
 1892] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 [1892] W. N. 115 ; 0. A. [1893] 
 ICh. 523 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 610 .. 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 185 ; [1900]) 
 2Ch. 556 ., .. ../ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 95 
 
 [1900] W. N. 115 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 246 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 159; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 659 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 688 ;\ 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. 0. 450 ../ 
 
 1893]1Q. B. 1 
 
 1894] 2 Ch. 170 
 1892]W. N. 133 
 1899] 2 Q. B. 549 
 1900] W. N. 136 ; [1900] 2 Q. B.l 
 325 .. .. .. ..} 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 242 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 255 ; affirmed byj 
 
 ';} 
 
 H. L. (E.) [18S7] A. C. 299 
 
 1516, 
 2144 
 500, 508, 
 2142 
 483 
 1826 
 617 
 
 329 
 
 2292 
 
 1993 
 
 1872 
 
 1176 
 137 
 593, 729 
 2083 
 984 
 
 909 
 
 1066, 
 2063 
 
 1566 
 
 277, 
 2336 
 2290 
 
 967 
 
 917 
 1721 
 1083, 
 2232, 
 2250 
 
 247 
 
 1426 
 1430 
 1427 
 1432 
 
 1517 
 
 269, 349, 
 315 
 387 
 167 
 
 131 
 
 865 
 430 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST, 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 iis\ 
 
 :•} 
 
 Sagar v. Stoddart. Stoddart u. Sagar .. 
 
 Sailing Ship " Blairmore " Co. v. Macredie 
 
 Sailing Ship " Kentmere " Co., In re 
 
 St. Albans (Duke of), In re. Loder v. Duke oft 
 
 St. Albans / 
 
 St. Albans, Wood Street (Rector, &o.), In re 
 St. Andrew, Komford (Rector, &c.), v. All Persons 
 
 Having Interest, &o. 
 St. Andrew's, Hove (Vicar, &c.) v. Mawn 
 St. Asaph (Dean and Chapter) v. Llanrhaiadr-I 
 
 yn-Mochnant Overseers .. .. .. j 
 
 St. Aubyn : — McLeod v. .. 
 
 St. Benet Fink, Churchyard, In re 
 
 St. Benet Sberehog, In re 
 
 St. Botolph, Aldgate (Vicar of), Ex parte 
 
 St. Botolph, Aldersgate Without (Vicar of) v. 
 
 Parishioners of Same .. 
 St. Botolph Overseers : — Chappell v. 
 St. Botolph without Aldgate (Parishioners of) : — \ 
 
 City of London Commrs. of Sewers v. ..) 
 
 St. Botolph without Aldgate (Vicar, &c.) v.\ 
 
 Parishioners of Same (No. 1) . , . . . . / 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 St. Ethelburga, Bishopsgate Within (Eectorl 
 
 of) : — Kensit v. . . . . . . . . / 
 
 St. Etienne Brewery Co. : — Harrison v. 
 
 St. Gabriel, Fenchurch Street (Rector andChuvch-1 
 
 wardens of) v. Cily of London Real Property J 
 
 Co 
 
 "St. George, (The) Kniglit of" .. 
 
 St. George's Local Board v. Ballard 
 
 St. George's^, Hanover Square (Vestry) : — Re; 
 
 V. 
 
 St. George's Hospital : — Churchill v. In re 
 Howell-Shepherd 
 
 St. George's Union Assessment Committee : — 
 Middlesex County Council v. .. 
 
 St. George's Union Assessment Committee : — 1 
 London County Council v. (No. 1) . . . / 
 
 (No. 2){ 
 
 St. Giles and St. George'ci Assessment Com^ 
 
 '•\ 
 
 mittee : — Burton v. 
 St. Giles, Camberwell v. Crystal Palace Co. 
 St. Giles, Camberwell v. London Cemetery Co. 
 St. Giles, Camberwell : — Wilson o. 
 St. Gobain, Cbauny, and Cirey Co. v. Hoyer-'i 
 
 mann's Agency .. .. .. ..J 
 
 St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, with St. Mary Outwich 
 
 (Rector, &c.) v. Parishioners of Same 
 St. James' and Pall Mall Electric Lighting Co. : — \ 
 
 Hopkinson v. .. .. .. .. ..] 
 
 St. James-the-Less, Bothnal Green (Vicar of) v. 
 
 Parishioners of Same . . 
 St. James Norland (Churchwardens, &o.) 
 
 Parishioners of Same .. 
 St. John's Mansions, Ld. : — Greene v. .. 
 
 ich| 
 
 :■} 
 
 Volnme and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 474 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. 0. 593 
 [1897] W. N. 53 (2) .. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 873 
 
 [1891] W. N. 201 
 
 [1894] P. 220 .. 
 
 [1895] P. 228, n. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 511 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 549 .. 
 [1893] P. 58 
 
 [1893] P. 66, n 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 544 
 
 [1900] P. 69 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 561 
 
 [1892] P. 161 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 161 .. 
 [1892] P. 173 .. 
 [1900]W. N. 80 
 [1893] W. N. 108 
 
 [1896] P. 95 
 
 [1898] W. N. 22 (3) . . 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 702 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 275 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 649 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 143 ; C. A. [1896] 
 W. N. lti4(4);[1897]lQ. B., 
 64 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 210 ; H. ~ 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 562 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 476 ; H. 
 (E.) [1894] A. C. 600 
 
 [1900] W.N. 9; [1900] 1 Q. 
 389 
 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 83.. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 699 
 
 [1892]1Q. B. 1.. 
 
 C. A. [1893]2Q. B. 96.. 
 
 [1892] P. 259 .. 
 
 [1893]W. N. 5 .. 
 
 [1899] P. 55 
 
 [1894] P. 256 .. 
 [1900] W.N. 9 .. 
 
 865, 
 1183 
 1002 
 
 461 
 
 1737 
 
 565 
 
 741 
 
 742 
 
 1687 
 
 502 
 743 
 743 
 
 754 
 
 743 
 
 25, 1673 
 
 743 
 
 743 
 
 743, 873 
 
 745 
 
 304 
 
 749 
 
 1958 
 2084 
 
 1171 
 
 1314, 
 2356 
 
 1676 
 
 1685 
 1672 
 
 1673 
 
 1178 
 1175 
 1177 
 1535, 
 1562 
 
 750 
 
 563, 
 1436 
 
 746 
 
 741 
 1531 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest, 
 
 St. Jolm's, Pendlebury (Vicar, &c.) v. St. John,'! 
 
 Pendlebury (Parishioners of) .. .. ../ 
 
 St. John the Baptist, Cardiff (Vicar of) vA 
 
 Parishioners ot Same .. .. .. ../ 
 
 St. John the Baptist, Timberhill (Rectors, &c.A 
 
 of) : — ^Vicar, &c., of the Same v. .. ..I 
 
 St. John Street Wesleyan Methodist Chapel,! 
 
 Chester, In re . . . . . . . . . . J 
 
 St. John's, Hackney (Vestry of) v. Hutton .. | 
 
 St. John's Hospital, Bath : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 St. Joseph's College Case. Alexander v. Burke 
 St. Leonard, Shoreditch Vestry v. London') 
 County Council .. .. .. ../ 
 
 St. Leonard, Shoreditch (Vestry of) v. Phelan 
 
 St. Leonard, Shoreditch (Vestry of) : — Pilbrow v.l 
 
 St. Levan : — ^Basset v. 
 
 St. Mak's, Marylebone Road, In re. St. Mark's^ 
 
 (Vicar of) ■;;. St. Mark's (Parishioners of) . . J 
 
 St. Martin's-in-the-Fields (Vestry) v. Bird 
 
 St. Martin's-in-the-Fields Vestry v. Gordon 
 
 St. Martin's-in-the-Pields (Vestry of) v. Ward .. | 
 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington Assessment Com- 
 mittee : — Reg. v. 
 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington (Vestry) : — Bird v. 
 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington: — Gordon v. 
 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington (Vestry) : — Mad- 
 den v. .. 
 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington (Vestry) : — I 
 Worley i;. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 St. Mary, Battersea (Vestry of) v. County of 
 London and Brush Provincial Electric Light- 
 ing Co. .. 
 
 St. Mary-at-Hill with St. Andrew Hubbard^ 
 (Hector), &c.) v. Parishioners of Same . . / 
 
 St. Mary, Islington (Vestry) v. Cobbett 
 
 St. Mary's, Battersea v. Palmer . . 
 
 St. Mary's, Newington : — Austin v. 
 
 St. Mary's, Newington : — Keep v. 
 
 St. Marylebone Vestry : — Reg. v. 
 
 St. Matthew, Bethnal Green (Vestry of) :— I 
 Fortescuev. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 St. Matthew, Bethnal Green (Churchwardens,') 
 &c., of) : — 'West Ham Union (Guardians of) v. \ 
 (No.1) '..] 
 
 ■ (No 2)| 
 
 St. Michael Bassishaw (Rector, &c.) v. Parish- 
 ioners of Same .. 
 " St. Michael, (The) Knight of " 
 St. Nicholas Aeons, In re 
 St. Nicholas Cole Abbey, In re .. 
 St. Nicholas, Leicester (Vicar of) v. Langton . . 
 St. Olave's Board of Works : — Andrew v. 
 - St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Union . . 
 
 [1895] P. 178 
 
 [189S]P. 155 
 
 [1895] P. 71 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 618 
 
 [1896] W. N. 158 (5); [1897]' 
 
 IQ. B. 210 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 151 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1827] W. N. 92 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. lOi 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 533 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 33 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 1Q.B. 433 / 
 
 [1894] W. N. 201 
 
 [1898] P. 114 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 428 
 C. A. [1891]1Q. B. 61.. 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 161 (8) -A 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 40 .. ../ 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 378 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 912 
 [lb94] 2 Q. B. 742 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 614 
 [1.S92] 2 Ch. 404 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 12 (11) ;1 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 474 
 
 [1892] P. 394 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 369 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 220 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 524 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 524 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 771 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 170 
 
 [1892]2Q.*B. 65; C. A. [1892] 
 2 Q. B. 676 ; H. L. (B.) [1894] 
 A.C.230 .. .. .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 662; 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 477 
 
 [1893] P. 233 
 
 1898] P. 30 
 1893] P. 66, a. 
 1893] P. 58 
 1899] P. 19 
 
 1898' 
 C. A.' 
 
 IQ. B. 775 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 682 
 
 750 
 744 
 751 
 272 
 
 2287 
 
 1091 
 1401 
 
 1682 
 
 1168 
 
 1169 
 
 2366 
 
 750 
 
 1169 
 1165 
 
 1170 
 
 1670, 
 1674, 
 1691 
 1349 
 1180 
 
 1181 
 1152 
 
 1180 
 
 739 
 
 1172 
 1177- 
 1178 , 
 1178, 
 2070 
 235, 736 
 
 1152 ' 
 1462 . 
 
 1457 ' 
 
 738' 
 
 992 
 
 743- • 
 
 743 ; 
 
 750 
 1344 
 1400 
 P 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 •■( 
 
 •■{ 
 
 St. Pancras Vestry :—Cree i;. 
 
 St. Peter's, Eaton Square (Vicar, &c.) v. Parish-1 
 
 ioners of Same J 
 
 St. Saviour (Vicar of), Westgate-on-Sea i\] 
 
 Parishioners of Same, Houseman Intervening J 
 
 St. Saviour's Union v. Burbridge .. ..[ 
 
 St. Saviour's Union : — Dorking Union v. 
 
 St. Saviour's Union : — PuUen v. 
 
 St. Thomas (Floating Dock Co. of). In re 
 Salaman, In ru 
 
 Salaman v. Eames 
 
 Salaman v. Warner 
 
 Sale Hotel and Botanical Gardens Co., In ro 
 
 Sale V. Phillips 
 
 Salford Corporation !/. Lever 
 
 Salisbury Gold Mining Co. : — Bank of Africa v. 
 
 Salisbury Gold Mining Co. v. Hathom .. 
 Salisbury-Jones and Dale's Case : — In re Bol- 
 ton (H.) & Co. j;. (No. 1) 
 
 ■ (No. 2) 
 
 Salomon, Ex parte. In re Raphael 
 
 Salmon: — Bolton i;. 
 
 Salmon & Gluckstein : — Kirslieuboim v. 
 
 Salomon;— Broderip v. Salomon v. Salomon 
 & Co. Salomon & Co. v. Salomon . . 
 
 SalomoM V. Knight 
 
 Salsbury v. Buckle. In re Averill 
 
 Salt, In re .. 
 
 Salt, In re. Brothwood «^. Keeling 
 Salt (Sir Titus), Bart., Sons,& Co.'s Application,i 
 In re .. .. ..... ' 
 
 S lit V, Lecker. In re Parker- Jervis 
 
 Salt V. Northampton (Marquess of) 
 
 Salt Union, Ld. v. North Staffordshire Rvl 
 
 „ Co ^ ^ 
 
 Salt Union v. Wood 
 
 " Saltburn," The .. .. ]." \ 
 
 Salter :— Norwood Overseers 
 
 Salter v. Salter 
 
 Salton V. New Beeston Cycle Co. 
 
 Salton V. New Beeston Cycle Co. 
 
 Salwey :— Pirbright «. 
 
 Sampson, In re. Sampson v.. Sampson . . 
 
 Samuel: — D'Errico w. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •{ 
 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 693 
 
 [1894] P. 350 
 
 [1898] P. 217 
 
 [ISOO] W. N. 184; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 695 [ 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 594 
 
 [1899] W. N. 246 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.\ 
 138 / 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 691 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 201 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 6:8 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 734 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (5); C. A. 
 
 [1898] W.N. 40(2) .. 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 349 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 168 ..^ 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 281 .. ..\ 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 268 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 356 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 333 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 23 (7) ; [1899] 1 
 
 Ch. 853; C. A. [1899] W. N 
 
 212 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 48 I 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 19 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 323 ; H. L. (E.)l 
 [1896] W.N. 160(5); [1897] 
 A. 0. 22 .. .. ., J 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 294 .. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 523 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 156 (5):\ 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 117 .. ^ 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 203 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 166 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 643 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 1 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 435 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 370 
 [892] P. 333 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 118 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 291 
 [1899] W. N. 40; [1899] 1 Ch.1 
 775 .. .. .. } 
 
 [1899] W.N. 213; [1900] 1 Ch.J 
 
 [1896] W.'n. 86 "(4) " 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 630 .. 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 163 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1633 
 741, 751 
 
 755 
 
 2216 
 
 1460 
 
 1674 
 
 382 
 2043 
 135, 627, 
 1117, 
 1162 
 45 
 
 372 
 
 821 
 1573, 
 1710 
 
 398, 
 1312 
 1313 
 
 347 
 
 435, 437 
 
 1493 
 
 1296, 
 1586 
 2121 
 
 327 
 
 645 
 2322 
 
 1189 
 
 788 
 
 2132 
 
 1744 
 1296 
 
 1659 
 
 1989 
 1957 
 1687, 
 1691 
 1617 
 
 349 
 
 1581, 
 2047 
 
 280 , 
 2330 , 
 
 595 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Xame of Case. 
 
 Samuel : — MichoUs v. In re Beddington .. | 
 
 Samul: — Eeg. u. .. 
 
 Sandbach and Edmondson's Contract, In re 
 
 Sandeman, Clark & Co. : — De Verges v. 
 
 Sander and Walford's Contract, In re .. 
 
 Sanders, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Sanders v. Jenkins 
 
 Sander's Settlement, In re 
 
 Sanders-Clark v. Grosvenor Mansions Co. and GA 
 
 D'Allessandri .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Sanderson : — Cockcroft v. In re Ainsworth 
 
 Sanderson : — ^Tumell v. .. 
 
 Sanderson : — ^Wilding v. .. 
 
 Sanderson's Settlement. In re Wright's Settle-I 
 
 ment. Wright «. Sanderson .. .. .. / 
 
 Sand.es V. Wildsmith 
 
 Sandgate Local Board v. Keene . . 
 
 Sandgate Local Board and the Kent County'> 
 
 Council, In re .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 "Sandhill," (SS.):— SS. "Nord Kap" v. The\ 
 
 "Sandhill" / 
 
 Sandie & HuU : — Watson v. 
 
 Sandwich Council and Kent County Council, 
 
 Ex parte .. ' .. .. . 
 
 Sanguinetti v. Stucfcey's Banking Co. . , 
 Sanitary JBurial Association, In re 
 San Paulo (Brazilian) Ry. Co. v. Carler., 
 " Sans Pareil," H.M.S 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 cil.j 
 
 Santley v. Wilde 
 
 Sapte: — Eeiehardt «;. 
 Sargeant: — Wheeler?;. .. 
 Sari, In re. Ex parte Williams . . 
 Sari: — ^Thynne v. „ 
 Sarson w. Eoberts .. 
 
 Sartoris's Estate, In re. Sartoris v. Sarloris .. 
 
 Sass, In re. Ex parte National Provincial Bank\ 
 of England / 
 
 " Sktanitai" The. Clarke v. Earl of Dunraven 
 
 Saul, In the Goods of 
 
 Saunders, Ex parte. Eeg. v. Slade 
 
 Saunders, In re. Ex parte Saunders .. 
 Saunders In re. Saunders v. Gore .. 
 
 Saunders v. Boyd. In re PitzGerald's Settled\ 
 Estates / 
 
 Saunders: — Gebhardt v. . . .. ... ■ ... 
 
 [1900] W. N. 76; [1900] 
 771 
 
 1 Ch. 
 
 IQ. B.815 
 ■1891]lCh. 99 .. 
 W. N. 252 
 W. N. 183 
 P. 292 .. 
 IQ. B. 93 
 1896] ICh. 480 .. 
 W.N. 136; [1900] 
 
 [1895] 
 C. A. 
 
 1900" 
 
 1900' 
 
 1900' 
 
 1897' 
 C. A.' 
 [1900] W. N. 136 ; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 373 
 [1895] W. N. 153 (9) .. 
 [1891]W. N. 71 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 534 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 261 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 7U 
 
 C. A. 1892] 1 Q. B. 831 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 43 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 646 .. 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 326 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 389 ; C. A. [1891)1 
 
 IQ. B. 725 ) 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 176; [1896] 1 Ch 
 
 502 
 C. A. [[1900] W. N. 121 ; [1900] I 
 
 2Ch. 289 / 
 
 C. A. [1895]1 Q. B. 580; H. L, 
 
 (E.) [1896] A. C. 31 . 
 
 [1900] W. N. 60; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W.N. 127; [1900] P. 267 ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 19 (8); [1899]1 
 
 1 Ch. 747 ; C. A. [1899] W, N. \ 
 
 132; [1899] 2 Ch. 474 ..] 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 308 
 
 1893] W. N. 128 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 591 
 
 1891] 2 Ch. 79 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 395 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 11 . 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 12 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 248; H. L. (E.)) 
 [1896] W. N. 164 (5) ; [1897]! 
 A. C. 59 .. .. ..J 
 
 1896] P. 151 
 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 247 
 
 1895] 3 Q. B. 117 ; C. A. [189.5]\ 
 2Q. B. 424 / 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 888 ; C. A. [1897] 
 W. N. 158 (2); C. A. 1898] 
 ICh. 17 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 394 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 452 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2305 
 
 2105 
 2219 
 1302 
 2221 
 1607 
 1964 
 2033 
 
 1344 
 
 790 
 
 51, 1413 
 
 1551 
 
 2050 
 
 1513 
 2085 
 
 1144 
 
 1946 
 
 1771 
 42, 577^ 
 579 
 182, 
 1279 
 
 452 
 1765 
 1949 
 
 1293 
 
 528 
 2207 
 
 212 
 1283 
 1074 
 
 158, 
 2332 
 
 154' 
 
 1981 
 
 1624 
 1036 
 
 117 
 1470 
 
 1899 
 
 1166, 
 1347 
 
 pZ 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Saunders v. Holborn District Board of Works . 
 
 Saunders f. Saunders 
 
 Saunders v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada 
 
 Saunders: — Beg. i;. 
 
 Saunders v. Wiel (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Savage v. Adam . . 
 Savery v. Enfield Local Board . . 
 Savigny's Case. In re Central Klondyke Gold'l 
 Mining Co. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Saville : — Stoddart v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 ■ ( 
 ■■( 
 
 ■■{ 
 •■f 
 
 " Savona," The 
 
 Savory : — Steele v. 
 
 Savoy Hotel Co. v. London County Council 
 
 Savoy Overseers v. Art Union of London 
 
 Sawers : — Lord Advocate v. 
 
 Sawyer v. Goddard. In re Dartnnll 
 
 Sax, In re. Darned v. Sax 
 
 Saxby V. Thomas . . 
 
 Saxlehner v. Apollinaris Co. 
 
 Sayles : — Jeffery v. In re Bell . . 
 
 Scaife v. Kemp & Co. 
 
 Scal6 v. Eawlins .. 
 
 Scales u. Hey hoe. In re llichardson (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Scarborough Post Newspaper Co. ; — Whittaker v. 
 
 Scarlett : — Searles v. 
 
 Sceherras Trigona v. Soeberras d'Amico . . 
 
 Scbauer u. Field, J. C. & J., Ld. 
 
 Scheid^es f. Williams 
 
 Schlesinger v. Bedford 
 
 Schmitten v. Faulks 
 
 Schofield, Ex parte 
 Schofield, Ex parte. In re Fort 
 Schofield : — Hammond v. 
 Schofield:— Eaffctyv, 
 
 Scholes V. Biook . . 
 
 Scholey v. Peck . . 
 
 Scholfield v. Londesborough (Earl of) 
 
 St. Matthew, Beth 
 Anilin 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 School Board for London 
 nal Green (Vestry of) v. 
 
 Schott, Segner & Co.: — Badische 
 Soda Fabrik v. .. 
 
 Schulze, Ex parte. In re Clark '.'. 
 
 undi 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 64 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 89 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 537 
 
 C. 0. R. [1899] 1 Q. B. 490 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 18; C. A. [1892]! 
 
 2 Q. B. 321 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 470 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 109 (11) .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 218 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 1 (2) 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 [1900] W. N. 124 ; [1900] P. 
 
 252 
 [1891] W."n. 195' '.'. '.'. 
 
 [19C0] W. N. 25 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 
 665 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 609; H. L.\ 
 
 (E.) [1896] A. C. 296 ../ 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 
 
 131 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 474 .. ..^ 
 
 [1893] W. N. 104 ' .. ..\ 
 
 [1891] W. N. 4; C. A. £1891]! 
 
 W.N. 28 .. .. .J 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 893 .. ..) 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 139 (8V1 
 
 [1896]lCh. 1 '.J 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 319 .. .., 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 342 
 [1892] 1 Ch."^ 
 
 [1898] 3 Ch. l4>, 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 148 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 56 . 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 69 
 [1893]lCh. 35 .. 
 [1893] W. N. 158 ;, 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 57 ., 
 [1893]W. N. 64 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 428 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 495 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 453 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 937 
 [1891] W. N. 16 ; C. A. 
 
 W. N. 101 .. 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 709 
 [1894]2Q. B. 660; C. a!. [18951 
 
 ^Q^B-^536;H.L.(E.)[1896] 
 
 H.L.(E.) [1897] W. N.'i67(7)' 
 
 [1898] A. C. 190 .. 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 447 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 330 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1891]1 
 
 ;•) 
 
 1164, 
 2066 
 
 699 
 2142 
 
 612 
 
 655, 675 
 
 656 
 
 46 
 
 2036 
 
 423 
 1900 
 1939 
 
 671 
 2018 
 
 1677 
 
 1769, 
 1770 
 2035, 
 2184 
 356, 
 2353 
 
 '2222 
 
 2141 
 
 1299 
 
 675 
 2312 
 
 520 
 
 1503, 
 
 1509 
 
 675 
 
 647 
 1205 
 
 535 
 
 63 
 
 528,970 
 
 962, 976, 
 
 2048 
 
 36 
 1415 
 1551 
 1080 
 1581, 
 2216 
 2026 
 
 191 
 
 169 
 
 1721 
 151 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Sohulze V. Galashiels Corporation 
 
 " Schwan," The 
 
 Schwarz : — Hill u. In re Parkin 
 
 Schweder & Co. : — Pearse v. 
 
 Sohweder's Estate, In re. Oppenheim v. Sihweder\ 
 
 (No. 1) / 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Schwerzerhof w. Wilkins .. 
 
 tJolater : — Neptune Steam Navigation Co. v. The" 
 
 "Delano" j 
 
 Scobie'j;. Collins .. 
 Scoles: — Eemmington v. . . 
 Scopenich : — Chalmers v. 
 Scotney: — Sharratt w. 
 
 Scott, In re 
 
 Scott, In re. Ex parte Scott 
 Scott, In re. Scott v. Hanbury . . 
 Scott, Iq the Goods ot 
 
 Scott and Alvarez's Contract, In re. Seott v. 
 Alvarez . . 
 
 Scott V. Bould 
 
 Scott V. Brown, Doering, McNab & Co. . . 
 
 Scott V. Consolidated Bank 
 
 Scott u. Glasgow Corporation 
 
 Scott:— Hill w 
 
 V. In re 
 
 ■•( 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 re\ 
 
 Scott : — 'Inland Revenue Commrs, 
 
 Bootham Wark Strays, York . . 
 Scott: — Knowles u. 
 Scott (or Hall) : — Macdonald v. .. 
 Scott : — Marney v. 
 Scott V. Moxon 
 
 Scott:— Eevell« | 
 
 Scott V. Streatham and General Estates Co 
 Scott: — Williams V. 
 Seott and Jackson, In re.. 
 
 Scottish Investment Trust Co. v. Inland Eevenuel 
 
 Scottish Joint Stock Trust, In re 
 
 Scottish Provident Institution : — Cradock v, 
 
 Scottish Provident Institution : — Forbes v. 
 
 ScoveU's Divorce Bill 
 Scowby, In re. Scowby v. Scowby 
 Scowcroft, In re. Ormrod v. Wilkinson 
 Scrimgeour : — Metropolitan Coal Consumers'\ 
 Association w. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Sculcoates Union : — Cartwright v, 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Sculcoates Union : — Hull Docks Co. v. .. 
 ScuUand: — Jones v. 
 
 Volume and Pacje. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1895] A. C. 60G 
 
 C. A. [1892] P. 419 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 510 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 520 .. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 44 .. 
 
 [1893]W. N. 12.. 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 640 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 40 
 
 A 
 
 [1895' 
 C. A.' 
 [1892' 
 [1892 
 [1900 
 
 1 Q. B. 375 
 1897] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 1 Q. B. 735 
 
 2 Q. B. 479 
 1 Q. B. 372 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 127 ; [1900] W. N. / 
 
 1896' 
 1891^ 
 1895^ 
 
 1 Q. B. 619 
 1 Ch. 298 
 P. 342 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 596 
 2Ch. 603 
 
 [1895]( 
 
 [1895]1Q. B. 9 ..... 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 724 
 [1893]W. N. 56 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 119 
 
 [1899] A. C. 470 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 371 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 713 .. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 152 
 
 [1S91] 1 Ch. 717 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 642 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 986 
 
 [1900] W. N. 14 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N 
 
 137 
 
 [1891] W. N. 153 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 499 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 184 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N 
 
 108 
 
 [1900] W. N. 114 
 
 [1893] W. N. 146 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 W.N. 88 .. .. ../ 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 122 
 H. L. [1896] W. N. 60 (3) 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 741 .. 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 604 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 54 
 [1900] A. C. 150 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 136 . 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 565 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 220, 
 2081 
 1985 
 1471 
 1313 
 
 2341 
 
 2304 
 1237 
 
 2070 
 
 1274 
 1531 
 1989 
 
 1747 
 
 109 
 
 955 
 
 1594 
 
 1306, 
 
 1532, 
 
 2221 
 
 1257 
 
 513 
 
 665 
 
 1209 
 263 
 
 1758 
 
 450 
 1833 
 1316 
 1529 
 
 1771 
 
 1282 
 
 2242 
 
 - 436 
 
 1765 
 
 446 
 
 1290 
 
 1764 
 
 696 
 556 
 279 
 
 394, 400 
 
 1678 
 
 1676, 
 1677 
 1242 
 
ocsxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Sea Insurance Co. w. Blogg 
 
 Sea Insurance Co. w. Carr 
 
 Seagrove ?^. Parks .. 
 
 Seal,-Tn re. Seal v. Taylor 
 
 Seal V. Merthyr Tydfil Urban Council . . 
 
 Seale-Hayne w. Jodrell 
 
 SealeHayne: — Whittington v. .. 
 
 Seaman, In re. Ex parte Furness Finance Co, 
 
 Seaman, In the Goods of . . 
 
 Seaman V. Burley .. 
 
 Searle, In!re. Searle v. Baker .. .. ..< 
 
 Searles V. Scarlett 
 
 Searles : — Thomas v. 
 
 Sears: — Akers v. In re Gray's Settlement 
 
 Seaton v. Burnand 
 
 Seaton -w. Lord Deerhurst 
 
 Seaward v. Paterson 
 
 Sebright: — Lusk r. 
 
 Secretary of State for India in Council :— Chatter- 
 ton V. 
 
 Secretary of Slate for War : — Rrg v. .. 
 
 Securities Insurance Co., In re .. 
 
 Securities Properlies Investment Corpoi ation v. 
 Brighton Alhambra, Ld. 
 
 Security Co. : — Roberts v. 
 
 Sedgwick : — Lower Rhine and Wurtembcrg In- 
 siirance Association V. .. 
 
 Sedwick — Simon, Israel & Co. v. 
 
 Seed u. Bradley 
 
 Sefton (Earl of). In re 
 
 Selborne (Earl of) : — Waldegrave (Earl) v. In le 
 Waldegrave (Countess) 
 
 Selby Dam Drainage Commrs. : — Gallsworthy v. 
 
 Self ?;. Hove Commrs. 
 
 Selig V. Lion 
 
 Seligman v. Prince & Co. 
 
 Semenza, In re. Ex parte Paget 
 
 Semet and Solvay's Patent, In re 
 
 Sempell: — Errington v. In re Forbes .. 
 
 Sen Sen Co. ?J. Britten 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 :■} 
 
 :•) 
 
 ■I 
 
 Senior: — Reg «. .. 
 
 Serle, In re. Gregory v. Serle .. 
 Serle : — Waterland v. 
 Serraino & Sons v. Campbell 
 " Servia," The. The "Carinthia" 
 Sevenoaks Highway Board : — W'hitelread v. .. 
 Severn and Wye and Severn Bridge By. Co., 
 In re 
 
 Sewell: — Ashburner u. .. 
 
 •■( 
 
 [1898] 1Q.B. 27; C. A. [1898]\ 
 
 2Q. B.398 / 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 238 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 551 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 316 .. 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 543 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 304 
 
 1900" 
 1896° 
 1891' 
 0. A." 
 [1900' 
 829 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1896" 
 C. A." 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 W. N. 31 
 IQ. B. 412 
 P. 253 .. 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 344 
 W. N. 186 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 ';) 
 
 [1892]2Q. B. 56.. 
 '1891] 2 Q. B. 408 
 ■2Ch. 802 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 782 ; H. L. 
 (E.)"[1900] W. N. 48 ; [1900] 
 
 A. C. 135 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 853 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 545 .. 
 [1894] W. N. 134 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 189 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 326 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 410 .. 
 
 [1893] W.N. 15 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. Ill 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 739; C. A. [1899]^ 
 IQ. B. 179 / 
 
 C.A. 
 C.A. 
 C.A. 
 
 1893" 
 ri894° 
 [1898; 
 
 1 Q. B. 303 
 
 1 Q. B. 319 
 
 2 Ch. 378 
 
 [1899; 
 
 W. 1 
 
 T. 240 
 
 ■i 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 348 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 685 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 513 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 617 .. 
 
 0. A. [1894]1Q.B. 15 .. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0. 78 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 6 (4) 
 
 [1899] W. N. 27 (9) ; [1899] 1> 
 
 Ch. 692 / 
 
 C. C. R. [1898] W. N. 168 (7);» 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 283 .. .. ( 
 
 [1898] ICh. 652.. 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 163 (9) 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 283 
 [1898] P. .36 
 [1892]1Q. B. 8 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 559 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 405 
 
 983 
 
 35 
 1543 
 2367 
 1921 
 2319, 
 2333. 
 
 517 
 
 156 
 1621 
 
 37 
 1874, 
 1885 
 
 647 
 202, 212 
 
 685 
 
 977, 
 1251 
 
 165 
 501 
 1281- 
 
 647 
 
 120S 
 43 
 
 33a 
 
 976 
 
 lOO 
 
 983 
 204 
 119* 
 
 549, 
 
 1686; 
 
 1921 
 
 1549' 
 
 305 
 
 144 
 
 143& 
 
 1900 
 
 213S 
 609 
 
 loe^ 
 
 2026- 
 1971 
 1993 
 893 
 
 405 
 
 2242, 
 2292 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Sewell : — Cholmeley School, Highgate v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Sewers (Commrs. of) for tlie City of London : — 1 
 
 Bittersea (Lord) u. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Sewers (Coramrs. of) for City of London, Ex 
 
 parte. St. Botoliih, Aldgate (Vicar of) 
 
 Ex parte 
 Sewers ( Commrs. of) for City of London v.) 
 
 St. Botolph Witliout Aldgate (Parisliioners of)/ 
 Sexton: — John Ritchie & Co. f. 
 Seyd & Kelly's Credit Index Co. : — Snuggs v. . . 
 Shacktll V. Colnett. In re Pride 
 
 Shackell & Co. v. Chorlton & Sons 
 
 Shackle : — Gveatorex v. .. 
 Shanghai Municipal Council v. AIcMurray 
 Shankland & Co. : — Henderson Brothers v. 
 Shaun : — Smith v. 
 
 Sharland, In re. In re Rew. Kew v. Wippell| 
 Sharland, In re. Kemp v. Rozey . . . . | 
 
 Sharman v. Mason . . . . . . .A 
 
 Sharman : — Reg. v. Ex parte Denton . . 
 Sharman : — South Staffordshire Water Co. v. 
 Sharp : — Bradbury v. 
 
 Sharp :— Miller & Aldworth, L6. v. .. . . I 
 
 Sharp (Official Receiver) v. Jackson . . . . | 
 
 Sharp t;. Marshall. In re Pope.. 
 
 Sharp V. Rebbeck. In re Lance 
 
 Sbarp V. Wakefield 
 
 Sharpe, In re. In re Bennett. Masonic and) 
 
 General Life Assurance Co. v. Sharpo .. / 
 
 Sharpington Combined Pick and Shovel Syndi 
 
 cate : — Baring Gould v. 
 Shairatt v. Scotney 
 
 Shaw, Ex parte. In Gieve .. .. ..< 
 
 Shaw, Ex parte. Reg. v. West Hiding of York-"! 
 , shire Justices . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Shaw, In re. Bridges v. Shaw . . 
 
 Shaw, In re. Robinson v. Shiw 
 
 Shaw, In re.- Tucket u. Shaw .. 
 
 Shaw V. Great Western Ry. Co. . . 
 Shaw V. Henry Bentley & Co. and Yorlishire\ 
 Breweries, Ld. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Shaw V. Hertfordshire County Council . . ..< 
 
 Shaw t>. Holland .. 
 
 Shaw V. London (School Board of) 
 
 Shaw V. Eeckitt .. .. .. .. ..< 
 
 Shaw and Ronaldson, In re 
 
 '.1 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 254 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 906 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 708 . . 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 544 
 
 [1892] P. 161 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] W. N, 
 [1894] W.N. 95.. 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 135 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 378 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 249 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 206 . 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 525 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 347 
 
 [1899] W.-N. 140; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 536 1 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 517 ; C. A. [1896]\ 
 
 W.N. 62(19) .. ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 217 ; [1899] 2 Q. B.\ 
 
 679 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 578 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 44 
 1891] W. N. 143 
 1899] W. N. 16 (12); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 622 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 90 ;\ 
 
 [1899] A. C. 419 
 [1900] W. N. 244 
 [1900]W. N. 29 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 173 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 154 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 633 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 W.N. 73; [1899] 2 Ch. 80 ../ 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 479 
 
 [1899] W. N. 41; C. A. [1899]\ 
 W.N. 72 / 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 503 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 615 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 573 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 373 
 [1893]W. N. 83 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 103; [1899] 
 
 2Q. B. 282 .. 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 305 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 1 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 779; C. A. [1893] 
 
 2 Q. B. 59 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 91 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1073 
 1068 
 
 1118 
 
 754 
 
 743 
 
 645 
 968 
 1298 
 475, 
 1081 
 593 
 287 
 1930 
 1104 
 
 1478 
 
 2300, 
 2339 
 
 137 
 
 1115 
 658 
 536 
 
 816 
 
 131 
 
 11 
 
 805 
 1101 
 342, 
 1127 
 
 410 
 
 68 
 
 147 
 
 1105 
 
 552, 
 1613 
 1899 
 
 793, 
 1470, 
 1729 
 1649 
 
 405 
 
 566 
 
 45,342 
 332 
 
 37,1365 
 
 54,63 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■I 
 
 Sheard : — Story v. 
 
 Shearman : — Benoe v. 
 
 Shears u. Goddard 
 
 Sheba Gold Mining Co. v. Trubshawt 
 
 Sheen : — Caswells v. 
 
 ShefBeld : — Oppenheim & Co. v. .. 
 
 Sheffield : — Tousey v. In re Dixon 
 
 Sheffield Banking Co. v. Clayton. In re Walker 
 Sheffield Corporation v. ShefBeld Electric Light\ 
 
 Co ; 
 
 Sheffield Electric Light Co. :— Sheffield Oorpora-'l 
 tion V. .. .. .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Shelbourne & Co. v. Law Investment and In-) 
 surance Corporation .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co.\ 
 (No. 1) / 
 
 . (No. 2) 
 
 Shenstone & Co. u. Hilton 
 
 Shenton v. Smith .. 
 
 Shepherd : — Aerated Bread Co. v. 
 
 Shepherd, In the Goods of 
 
 Shepherd v. Berger 
 
 Shepherd: — Charles u. 
 
 Shepherd: — Plomley w. .. 
 
 Sbeppard, In re. Sheppard v. Manning 
 
 Sheppards : — Smallwood v. 
 
 Sheppy Portland Cement Co., In re 
 
 Sheringham Development Co., In re 
 
 Sherrard v. Gascoigne 
 
 Sherras v. De Eutzen 
 
 Shew & Co. :— Skinner & Co. v. (No. 1) 
 
 — (No. 2) 
 
 Sheward, In re. Sheward v. Brown 
 
 ShieU. Godfrey & Co 
 
 Shields V. Howard 
 
 Shine, In re. Ex parte Shine .. 
 
 Shine v. Shine 
 
 Shipowners Syndicate (Re-assured) :- 
 
 V. 
 
 Shoe Machinery Co. v. Cutlan (No. 1) ., 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 (No. 3) .. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 -Tyser 
 
 ■) 
 
 Shoolbred v. Roberts 
 
 Shipway v. Broad wood 
 Shoosmith, In the Goods of 
 Shoppee v. Nathan & Co. .. 
 Shoreditcb, St. Leonard Vestry : — London County ■> 
 Council V. ., .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Shoreditch, St. Leonard Vestry: — Pilbrow v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 515 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 582 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 406 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 674 
 
 [1893] W. N. 187 
 
 C. A. [1893]1Q. B. 5 .. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 65 (2); affirmedl 
 
 by 0. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 443 ../ 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 621 
 [1897] W. N. 771 (9); [1898] 1) 
 
 Ch. 203 ) 
 
 [1897] W. N. 171 (9); [1898]) 
 
 ICh. 203 j 
 
 [1898] 2 Q; B. 626 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 388 .. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 452 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 229 .. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 33 (9) .. 
 [1891] P. 323 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 597 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 622 
 P.O. [1891] A. 0.244 .. 
 
 •{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ?} 
 
 1897] 2 Ch. 67 .. 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 627 
 1892] W. N. 184 
 
 1893]W. N. 5 
 
 1900] W. N. 129; [1900] 21 
 
 Q. B. 279 J 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 918 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 413 .. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 581 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 502 
 
 [1893] W. N. 115 
 
 [1896] W. N. 155 (7); [1897] 
 
 IQ. B. 84 .. .. 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 522 
 [1893] P. 289 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 135 
 
 [1895] W. N. 102 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 143 (10) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 108 
 [1896] I Ch. 667 
 [1899] W. N. 136 ; [1899] 2 Q. B, 
 
 560;C. A. [1900JW. N. 157: 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B 497 .. 
 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 369 
 
 [1894] P. 23 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 245 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 104 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 33 ; C. A. [1895]! 
 1 Q. B. 433 .. .. ..; 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 893 
 
 73 
 
 111 
 1566 
 1408 
 
 676 
 
 553 
 1587 
 2067 
 
 2067 
 
 986 
 
 45, 968, 
 1346 
 
 968 
 
 814 
 86, 293, 
 
 625 
 1154 
 1617 
 1081 
 1528 
 1331 
 
 765 
 
 846 
 
 448 
 
 436 
 
 862 
 
 1111 
 1441, 
 1442 
 1443 
 2331 
 965, 
 1120 
 
 1310 
 
 115 
 
 700 
 
 1427 
 1428 
 1430 
 
 179 
 
 1573 
 1602 
 1924 
 
 1682 
 1169 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 :;) 
 
 Shorrock: — Eiver Eibble Joint Committee 
 The Same v. Halliwell . . 
 
 Shorter i;. Tol-Heatly 
 
 Shortridge, In re . . 
 
 Shove: — Sixth West Kent Mutual Building! 
 Society v. .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Showers v. Chelmsford Union Assessment Com- 
 mittee 
 
 Shrewsbury (Earl of) v. Wirral Bys. Committee 
 
 Shropshire Eys. Co. : — Cutbill v... 
 
 Shropshire Eys. Co. : — Webb v. .. 
 
 Shropshire Rys. Co. : — -Whadcoat v. 
 
 Shuttleworth u. Murray .. 
 
 Sickert «. Sickert .. 
 
 Sickness and Accident Assurance Association :■ 
 South Staffordshire Tramways Co. v. .. 
 
 Sidebotham v. Holland 
 
 Sigcau : — Sprigg v. 
 
 Silber : — Carter v... 
 
 Silke: — National Bank u. 
 
 Silkstone and Haigh Moor Coal Co. v. Edey 
 
 Silverlock : — Eeg. v. 
 
 Silvester, In re. Midland Ry. Co. v. Silvester 
 
 Sim V. Gait 
 
 Simcoe v. Pethick . . 
 
 Simeon: — ^Plunkettv. In re Duiton .. 
 
 Simister : — Copeland v. .. 
 
 Simmonds r. Heath 
 
 Simmonds: — ^Knight «. .. 
 
 Simmonds Brothers, Ld. v. Fulham Vestry 
 
 Simmons V. Blandy 
 
 Simmons: — Heseltine u. .. 
 Simmons: — Huttley i;. .. 
 
 Simmons v. London Joint Stock Bank . . 
 
 Simmons V. Mailing Rural Council 
 
 Simmons v. White Brothers 
 
 Simmons V. Woodward .. 
 
 Simms v. Registrar of Probates ., 
 Simon, Israel & Co. v. Sedgwick . . 
 
 Simonson, In re. Ex parte Ball . . 
 
 Simpson, In re. In re Whitchurch 
 Simpson: — ^Bank of New Zealand v. 
 Simpson v. Godmanchester (Mayor, &c., of) 
 
 Simpson V. Hughes 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 27; 0. A. [1899]) 
 W. N. 163; [1899] 2 Q. B. 385! 
 
 [1894]W. N. 21 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 278 ., 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 64, n. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 ; C. A. [1892]] 
 :.. (E.) [1893] 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 339 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Oh. 812 . 
 
 [1891]W. N. 65 
 
 0. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 307 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893]3Ch. 307 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 89; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 795 J 
 
 [1899] P. 278 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 402 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 3; [1895]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 378 .. 
 P. 0. [1897] A. C. 238 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 553; " 
 
 2Ch. 278; H. L 
 
 A. C. 360 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 435 
 
 [1899] W. N. 213 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 167 / 
 
 C. C. R. [1894] 2 Q. B. 766 , 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 573 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897 
 W.N. Ill 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 555 
 
 [1893]W. N. 65 
 
 [1893] P. 16 
 
 C. A.[1894]1Q. B. 29.. 
 
 C. A. [1896]2Ch. 294 .. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 188 
 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (7) ; [1897] 
 
 1 Ch. 19 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 547 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 181 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 270 ; H. L 
 
 (E.) [1892] A. 0. 201 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 433 
 0. A [1899] W. N. 32 (2) ; [1899] 
 
 IQ. B. 1005 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 464; H. L. (E, 
 
 [1892] A. C. 100 
 P. 0. [1900] A. C. 323 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 303 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 433 
 
 C. A. [1897]lCh. 256 .. 
 P. 0. [1900] A. C. 182 .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 696 . 
 [1896] W. N. 179 (6); C. A, 
 [1897] W. N. 26 (11) 
 
 Columu 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2272 
 
 572, 
 2048 
 1195 
 
 230 
 
 1675, 
 1682 
 1090 
 1655 
 1654 
 1654 
 
 2323 
 
 704 
 
 974 
 
 846, 
 1064 
 262 
 
 956 
 
 94, 196, 
 1319 
 
 2238 
 
 611, 615 
 1584 
 
 1395 
 
 936 
 2316 
 
 584, 
 1625 
 2112 
 
 223 
 1177 
 
 1281 
 
 202 
 
 500 
 1318, 
 2075 
 1917 
 
 1217 
 
 197 
 
 84 
 983 
 109, 
 2029 
 1891 
 510 
 730 
 
 2223 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Simpso:i V. Mayor of Godmanchester 
 Simpson V. MoIsoeb' Bank 
 Simpson v. Palace Theatre, Ld. . . 
 Simpson: — Unittd Alkali Co. v. .. 
 
 Simpson:— Vawdrey i;. .. 
 
 Simpson: — Woodward v. In re Hamilton 
 Sims: — ^Benford f. 
 
 Sims : — Hirsche v. 
 
 Sims V. Landray . . 
 Sims : — Xewliy v. .. 
 Sims V. Trollope & Sons . . 
 Sinclair, In re. Hodgkins 
 
 Sinclair. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 214 .. 
 P. C. [189.5] A. 0. 270 .. 
 "1893] W. N. 91 
 
 1894]2Q. B. 116 
 
 1895] W. N. 152 (7); [1896]! 
 
 ICh. 166 I 
 
 [1892]W. N. 74 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 641 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 654 .. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Allen-I 
 V. Sinclair .. ., .. .. .. / 
 
 Sinclair : — Hodgson v. In re Hodgson & Simp-I 
 son's Trade-mark . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Sinclair t». James ,. 
 
 Sinclair : — Kuowles & Sons i: 
 
 Sinclaii''s Divorce Bill .. 
 
 Singer Manufacturing Co. v. London and South-i 
 Western Ey. Co. . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Singlehurst «. Tapscott Steamship Co. .. 
 Singleton: — Day v. 
 Singleton v. Ellison 
 
 Singleton : — Friary Ho'royd and Healej's 
 Breweries, Ld. v. 
 
 Sion College v. London Corporation 
 
 " Six Sisters," The 
 
 Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. Faridkotc (Eajah) 
 Sixth West Kent Mutual Building Society v.- 
 
 Hills 
 
 Sixth West Kent Mutual Building Society v. 
 
 Shove 
 Skerritt's Estate, In re . . 
 Skinner, In re 
 
 Skinner & Co. v. Shew & Co. (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Skinner v. Northallerton County Court, Judge.. 
 
 Skinners' Co. v. Knight .. 
 
 Slade : — Eeg v. Ex parte Saunders 
 
 Slaithwaite Spinning Co. : — Priori'; 
 
 Slater : — Bennett v. 
 
 Slater v. Slater 
 
 Slater v. Slater. In re Lancashire and Yorkshire' 
 
 Ey. Co 
 
 Slaughter & May v. Brown, Doering, McNah &. 
 
 Co 
 
 Slay tor I). Slay tor.. 
 
 Slcaford liural Council : — Horn v. 
 
 Column 
 of 
 
 Digest. 
 
 iire\ 
 
 ■■{ 
 -I 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 318 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 478 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 160 (4); 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 24 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 921 
 
 [1891] W. N. 176 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 554 
 
 [lb97] W. N. 176 (11); [1898]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 170 / 
 
 H. L. (D.) [1897] A. C. 469 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 833 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 133 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 320 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 607 
 1898] W. N. 150 (7); 
 
 1 Ch. 86 ; C. A. [1899] 
 
 96 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 261 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 581 
 [1900] P. 302 .. 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 670 .. 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 60 .. 
 
 [1899]2Ch. 64,n. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 240 
 [1896] W. N. 68 (7) .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 413 .. 
 
 [1899]] 
 W. N.| 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 581 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 
 (E.) [1899] W. N, 
 A. C. 439 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 247 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 881 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 469 ; 
 0. A. [1898] W. 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 45 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 222, n. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 85 
 
 680; H. L.) 
 96; [1899] 
 
 542" '.' 
 
 reversed by 
 N. loO (5) ; 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 724 
 
 [1897] P. 85 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 358 
 
 730 
 255 
 378 
 1978 
 
 66 
 
 2342 
 1029 
 260, 341, 
 396 
 845, 
 2227 
 17 
 
 197 
 
 31 
 
 2129 
 
 1409 
 
 2295 
 
 714 
 
 88, 1666 
 
 2190 
 2227 
 619 
 
 1079 
 
 2068 
 2105 
 1008 
 
 229 
 
 230 
 
 1895 
 2196 
 1441, 
 1442 
 1443 
 
 592 
 
 1071 
 1036 
 1235 
 
 858 
 
 1576 
 1525 
 
 513 
 
 697 
 
 2281 
 
TABLE OP OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Sleep: — Harris «... 
 
 Sleet, In re. Ex parte Sleet 
 
 Sleigh «. Tyser 
 
 Slevin, In re. Slevin v. Hepburn 
 Sloane v. Britain Steamship Co. .. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 :} 
 
 Sloper: — CoUingham u. .. 
 
 Sloper : — Foreign, American, and General In- 
 vestments Trust Co. u. 
 
 Smales, Eeles & Co. : — Lilly, Wilson <& Co. v. .. 
 
 Small: — Gurney v. 
 
 Small V. National Provinc al Bank of England .. 
 Small V. United Kingdom Marine Mutual In-\ 
 surance Association . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Smallman: — Eeg. v. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Small wood t". Sheppards .. 
 Smart: — Eapley v. 
 
 Smart v. Smart 
 
 Smart & Co. v. Town Board of Suva 
 Smart & Son w. Watts .. 
 Smeed, Dean & Co. : — Thames Conservators'! 
 V. / 
 
 Smellie: — Louis v. 
 
 Smelting Co. of Australia v. In'and Revenue 
 Comuirs. 
 
 Smith, Claimant. Thomas v. Roberts . . 
 
 Smith, In re. Arnold v. Smith . . 
 
 Smith, In re. Bain v. Bain 
 
 Smith, In re. Davidson v. Myrtle 
 
 Smith, In re. Dew v. Kennpdy .. 
 
 Smith, In re. Ex parte Mason . . 
 
 Smith, la re. Grose-Smith v. BrMger .. 
 
 Smith, In re. Hands v. Andrews 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Sinith, In re. 
 Smith, In re, 
 
 Smith, In re, 
 
 Bobson V. Tidy 
 Smith V. Smith 
 
 ■■( 
 
 Smith w. Thompson 
 
 Smith, In re. Williams j;. Frere 
 
 Smith V. Abbott. In re Abbott Fund (the\ 
 
 Trusts of the) / 
 
 Sinith : — Alcock v. 
 
 Smith V. Allen. In re Harrison (No. 1) 
 
 ' (No. 2) 
 
 Smith :—Alliott. V. 
 
 Smith V. Andrews 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 80 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 797 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 333 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 373 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 
 2Ch.236 ' 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 174 (4); 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 185 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 96 ; C, 
 
 3 Ch. 716 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 96 ; 
 
 3Ch.716 
 
 [1894]| 
 C. A.' [1894]| 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 456 
 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 584 
 18941 1 Ch. 686 
 
 2 Q. B. 42 ; affirmed by 
 
 1897 
 
 '::' 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 311 ../ 
 0. C. R. [1896] W. N. 157 (1) ; 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 4 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 627 
 [1894] W.N. 2 .. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 425 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 301 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 219 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 334 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 115 (7) ../ 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 179 ; C. A. [1896]) 
 W. N. 167 (8) ; [1897] 1 Q. 13. 
 
 175 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 657 
 [1895] W. N. 154 (16) 
 1 Ch. 171 
 
 1896] W. N 
 2 Ch. 590 
 W. N. 106 
 1 Q. B. 323 
 W. N. 12 (13) 
 
 C. A. 
 1896' 
 1892 
 1893^ 
 1899' 
 
 [1896]j 
 , 88 (16) '.'. 
 
 1 Ch. 331 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 [1899]^ 
 
 [1896]) 
 
 1900] W. N. 75 
 1899] ICh. 365 
 1895] W. N. 144 (15) ; 
 
 ICh. 71 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 323 
 [1900] W. N. 121 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 326 / 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 238 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 ■1894' 
 1895' 
 1891' 
 
 W. N. 148 
 2 Ch. Ill 
 2 Ch. 678 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1424 
 144 
 1000 
 
 2335 
 
 665 
 
 326, 487 
 
 326, 487 
 
 1944, 
 2100 
 1564 
 208 
 
 984 
 
 609 
 
 846 
 
 1724 
 253, 948, 
 
 2099 
 
 819, 839 
 
 18 
 
 2107 
 
 969, 
 1248 
 
 1794 
 
 204 
 
 2170 
 
 568 
 
 2185 
 
 2315 
 
 145, 874 
 
 1886 
 
 118, 171, 
 
 933, 
 . 2171, 
 
 2193 
 
 1902 
 
 2345 
 
 2188 
 
 667, 669 
 
 2161 
 
 196 
 
 791, 
 1507, 
 1555 
 2191 
 ,674, 798 
 
 825 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Smith : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Smith v. Bailey 
 
 Smith ^. Baker & Sons .. 
 
 Smith: — Baldwins. 
 
 Smith «. Baxter .. 
 
 Smith V. Bence. In re Bence 
 
 Smiths. Blyth 
 
 Smith V. Broadbent & Co. 
 
 Smith i;. Brown ,. 
 
 Smith V. Butler . . 
 
 Smith : — Calham v. In re Horlock 
 
 Smith : — Chamberlain's Wharf, Ld. v. . 
 
 Smith: — Chandlers. 
 
 Smith V. Chorley Eural Council . . 
 Smith i;. Cooke 
 Smith V. Cooke 
 
 Smith : — Cruddas v. In re Cruddas 
 
 Smith : — Eastern Steamship Co. v. The " Dukel 
 
 of Buccleuoh " . . . . . . . . . . J 
 
 Smith V. English and Scottish Mercantile Invest-l 
 
 ment Trust . . . . . . . . . . ) 
 
 Smith V. Enright .. 
 
 Smith : — Fareham Local Board and Fareham"! 
 
 Electric Light Co. u. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Smith V. Galloway 
 
 Smith : — General Auction Estate and Monetary\ 
 
 Co. i; 1 
 
 Smith V.Gill 
 
 Smith : — Gosling v. In re Gosling 
 Smith V. Gronow .. 
 
 Smith V. Gue. In re Gue 
 
 Smith V. Hammond 
 
 Smith V. Hancock 
 
 ••{ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 289 ; C. A. [1893]\ 
 IQ. B. 239 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 403 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 325 ..| 
 
 N. 58; [1900] 
 N. 87*'; '[1900] 
 
 [1900] W. 
 
 588 . 
 [1900] W, 
 
 138 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 242 
 
 [1891] 1 Cb. 337 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 551 
 P. C. [1896] A. 0. 614 
 
 C. A; 
 [1895' 
 C. A.' 
 
 C. A, 
 
 2q: 
 
 1900] 1 Q. B. 694 
 
 iCh. 516 
 
 1900] W. N. 163 ; 
 
 2 Ch. 605 
 
 1899] W. 
 B. 506 
 
 N. 112-; 
 
 1 Ch.l 
 
 2 Ch.j 
 
 [1900]| 
 [I899]1 
 
 Smith : — Home Marine Insurance Co. .. 
 Smith : — Hornsey District Council v. . . 
 
 Smith : — James v. 
 
 Smith i). Kerr 
 
 Smith: — Kerrison w. 
 Smith V. King 
 
 Smith: — King t>. .. 
 
 Smith: — Kirkwood v. 
 
 Smith V. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■I 
 
 :•{ 
 ••{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 678 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 509 .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 297 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 126; C. A. [1900]\ 
 W. N.81; [1900] 1 Ch. 730../ 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 310 . 
 
 [1896] W. N. 86 (6) .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 173 
 
 [1891]W. N. 76 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 71 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 432 
 
 "1896] 2 Q. B. 166 
 
 1900] W. N. 15 
 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 394 
 
 1892] W. N. 88 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 W.N. 132 / 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 571 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 209 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Ch. 377 / 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 829 ; affirmed bv\ 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 351 .'. / 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 254 ; C. A. [1897]\ 
 
 ICh. 843 / 
 
 [1891] 1 Oh. 384 ; 0. A. [1891]( 
 W.N. 175 1 
 
 [1900] W. N. 140 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 511 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 445 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 543 
 
 [1900] W. N. 134; [1900] 2 Ch.1 
 425 J 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 582 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 165 (7);' 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 41 
 
 1785, 
 1787 
 1146 
 584, 
 1244 
 
 1187 
 
 1120 
 
 2349 
 1420, 
 2056 
 1926 
 1322 
 2225 
 2358 
 
 2146 
 
 1227 
 
 2081 
 661 
 643 
 
 1472 
 1953 
 
 328 
 1717 
 2082 
 
 855 
 
 310 
 
 582 
 279 
 1067 
 903. 
 2316 
 1562 
 
 1721 
 
 999 
 
 2087, 
 2088 
 849, 
 1486, 
 1575 
 
 280 
 
 1097 
 945 
 
 1292 
 
 194 
 
 1230 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Kame of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Smith V. Lancaster 
 
 Smith V. Legg 
 
 Smith : — Lewis v. In re Lewis 
 
 Smith : — London School Board v. 
 
 Smith V. Mason & Co. 
 
 Smith V. May. In re Morgan . . 
 
 Smith : — ^Midgley v. 
 Smith V. MuUer . . 
 
 Smith V. Petrie 
 
 Smith : — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 Smith V. Richmond 
 
 Smith V. Eobinson 
 Smith : — Robson v. 
 Smith V. Shann 
 
 Smith : — Shenton v. 
 
 Smiths. Smith 
 
 Smith i;. Smith 
 
 Smith V. Smith 
 
 Smith V. Smith 
 
 Smith V. Smith. In re Smith's Policy Trusts . , 
 
 Smith u. Somes In re Somes 
 
 Smith V. South Eastern Ry. Co. .. 
 
 Smith: — Stamford, Spalding and Boston Bank-'i 
 
 ing Co. V. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Smith «. Stuart. In re Stuart .. 
 
 Smith : — ^Taylor v. 
 
 Smith :— Tennant v. 
 
 Smith: — Turner v. 
 
 Smith ■». Wallace .. 
 
 Smith V. Wilkinson. In re Victoria Steamboats,) 
 
 Ld ] 
 
 Smith-Marriott: — Att.-Gen. v. .. 
 
 Smith's Policy Trusts, In re. Smith v. Smith . . 
 
 Smith's Settled Estates, In re 
 Smith & Co. V. Bedouin Steam Navigation ■> 
 Co / 
 
 Smith, Hill & Co. v. Pyman, Bell & Co. 
 
 Smith & Service v. Eosario Nitrate Co. 
 
 Smithson : — Onward Building Society v. 
 Smokeless Powder Co.'s Trade-mark, In re 
 
 Smurtbwaite V. Hannay & Co. .. 
 
 Smyrna and Cassaba Ry. Co. : — ^Bishop v. (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Smyth, In re. Leach «. Leach .. 
 
 Smyth V. Reg. 
 
 Snaith, In re. Snaith v. Snaith 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 0. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 439 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 398 
 [1900] W. N. 82 ; [1900] 2 Ch 
 176 ., 
 
 [1895] W. N. 37 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 363 
 
 [1900] W. N. 151 ; [1900] 2 Ch, 
 
 474 .. 
 [1893] W. N. 120 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 192 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N 
 
 95 .... 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 596 '.'. 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 683 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1899] W. N. 130 
 
 [1899] A. C. 448 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 53 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 118 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 347 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 229 .. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 550 
 C. A. [1897] P. 293 
 
 1898] P. 29 
 
 1900] P. 66 
 
 1894]W. N. 68 
 
 1896] 1 Ch. 250 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 178 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 765 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 583 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 65 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. 0. 150 
 
 [1900] W. N. 273 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 385 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 158 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 595 
 
 [1894]W. N. 68 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 65 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 70 
 
 [1891] 1 Q.B.42; C. A. [1891] 
 IQ. B. 742 .. .. .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 323 ; C. A. [1894] 
 IQ. B. 174 .. .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 590 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 412 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 494 
 1895 -'" 
 
 1895' 
 1897 
 
 2 Ch. 265 
 
 2 Ch. 596 
 
 W. N. 168 (10) ; [1898]\ 
 ICh. 89 .. ^ 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 782 
 [1894] W. N. 115 
 
 571, 
 1867 
 1152 
 
 1742 
 
 729, 964i 
 1886' 
 1799 
 
 1406 
 
 2226 
 214 
 
 1758 
 
 16 
 
 1680 
 
 1166 
 312 
 1104 
 86, 293, 
 625 
 1285 
 716 
 690 
 712 
 775 
 1481 
 1646 
 
 1126 
 
 2186 
 851 
 1759 
 1291 
 2245 
 
 332 
 
 1733 
 
 . 775, 
 
 2198 
 
 1866 
 
 1978 
 1975 
 
 1973 
 
 769 
 2125 
 
 1511 
 
 411 
 411 
 
 1786 
 
 2260 
 233^ 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Snaith : — hyaes v. „ 
 
 Snaith v. Parkinson. In re Pickworth 
 
 "Snark,"The 
 
 Sneath u. Valley Gold, LH. 
 Snow j;. Boycott .. 
 
 Snow: — Palmer «. 
 
 Snowden, Hubbaril & Co. : — Hall v. 
 Snowden, Hubbard & Co. : — Hall v. 
 Snuggs V. Seyd and Kelly's Credit Index Co. 
 Snyder Dynamite Projectile Co., In re. Peck v.\ 
 
 Snyder Dynamite Projectile Co. .. ../ 
 
 Soan & Morley, Ex parte. In re Dagnall 
 Soar «. Ashwell .. 
 Societe Anonyme des Verreries de I'Etoile, In re'l 
 
 the Trade-mark of (No. 1) ,, .. ../ 
 
 (No. 2){ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 •■{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 Soden: — Beg. w. .. 
 Soden : — Reg v. .. ,. 
 
 Softlaw V. Welch . . 
 
 Solicitor, In re a (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No.2) 
 
 (No. 3) 
 
 (No. 4). Ex parte The In- 
 corporated Law Society 
 
 Solicitor (A), In re. Ex parte Incorporated Lawi 
 Society .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Solicitors Act, 1843, Application under 
 
 Solicitors Act, 1888. In re Weave 
 
 Solicitor for the Treasury: — Walter v. In re 
 Eowells. Powells «. Bebb ., 
 
 Solicitor to the Treasury v. Lewis. In re Dash J 
 
 Soiling w. Broughton 
 
 Solomon :—Fulham (Vestry of) w. 
 
 Solomon V. Mulliaer and Motor Carriage Supplyi 
 
 Co ; 
 
 Soltau's Trusts, In re 
 
 Soltykoff, In re. Ex parte Margrett 
 
 Soltykoff (Princess), In re 
 
 " Soiway Prince," The 
 
 Somers-Cocks, In re. Wegg-Prosser v. Wegg- 
 
 Prosser .. 
 Somerset, In re. Somerset v. Poulett (Earl) . . 
 Somerset v. Land Securities Co. .. 
 
 Somerset V. Land Securities Co. .. 
 
 Somerset v. Wade .. 
 
 Somerton, &c., Tramway Co. : — Turpin v. 
 
 Somes, In re. Smith v. Somes .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 16 (13); [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 486 / 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 28 (11) 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 642 
 [1899] W. N. 14 (3); [1899]) 
 
 P. 74; [1900] W. N. 21;} 
 
 [1900] P. 105 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 477 . 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 110 
 [1900] W. N. 25 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 
 725 
 
 :) 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 [1894" 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 '1H99] 2 Q. B. 
 W. N. 95 
 
 593 
 136 
 
 !■} 
 
 [1893]W. N. 37 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 407 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 390 
 
 [1893] W. N. 119 
 
 61; C. 
 
 A. [1894]1 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch 
 
 2 Ch. 26 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 188 
 [1896] W. N. 178 (4); 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 634 .. 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 113; [1899]\ 
 
 2 Q. B. 419 
 
 C. A.' 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1892' 
 1893' 
 1895 
 
 W. N. 22 
 W. N. 188 
 2Ch. 66 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 254 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 331 
 
 [1899]W. N. 46 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 439, 853 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 108; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 107 
 
 [1900] W. N. 186; [1900] 2 Ch.' 
 
 812 
 P. C. [1893] A. C.' 556 'V. 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 198 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 260 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 629 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 413 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 77 (5) 
 [1896] P. 120 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Cb. 449 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 231 .. 
 [1897] W. N. 29 (6) .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 464 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 574 
 "19001 W. N. 94 
 1896] ICh. 250 
 
 1138 
 2362 
 
 ,1954 
 
 326 
 
 1254 
 
 2093, 
 
 569 
 1231 
 968 
 
 433 
 
 160 
 2193 
 
 569 
 
 2136 
 1404 
 1405 
 
 914 
 
 81, 1547 
 
 77 
 2046 
 
 2053 
 
 2053 
 
 2053 
 2055, 
 2056 
 
 1854 
 
 726 
 
 1331 
 2286 
 
 590 
 
 1861 
 104, 193, 
 954 
 1191 
 2011 
 
 278 
 
 2180 
 389 
 371, 
 1048 
 ll06 
 1863 
 1481 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Sons of the Clergy Corporation (Governors) and| 
 Skinner, In re .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 " Soto," The 
 
 South African and Australian Exploration and\ 
 Development Syndicate : — Young v. .. .. ) 
 
 South African Breweries, Ld. v. King .. 
 
 South African Eepuhlic v. La Cotnpagnio Franco- 
 r Beige du Chemin de Fer du Nord 
 South African Eepuhlic v. LaCompagaie Franco- > 
 Beige du Chemin de Fer du Nord .. . . / 
 
 South African Territories, Ld. v. Wallington .. < 
 
 Ex-l 
 
 : — Pratt u. 
 
 : — Reigate Union Assess- 
 
 South American and Mexican Co., lu re. 
 
 parte Bank of England 
 South American and Mexican Co. : — British ■) 
 
 Linen Co. v. .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 South American and Mexican Co. : — Industrial"! 
 
 and General Trust v. .. .. .. ..] 
 
 South Australian Petroleum Fields, Ld., In re 
 South Eastern Ey. Co. :— London, Chatham andl 
 
 Dover By. Co / 
 
 South Eastern Ey. Co, 
 South Eastern Ey. Co 
 
 ment Committee w. 
 South Eastern Ey. Co. : — Smith v. 
 South Hetton Coal Co. v. Haswell, Shotton and"^ 
 
 Easington Coal and Coke Co, 
 South Hetton Coal Co. v. North Eastern News\ 
 
 Association .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 South London Tramways Co. : — Eayson v. 
 
 South Metropolitan Brewing and Bottling Co.,"! 
 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 South Metropolitan Brewing and Bottling Co. : — 
 
 Engel u. (No. 1) , 
 
 . _ (No. 2) 
 
 South Shields Corporation : — Donaldson v. . . | 
 
 South, Shields Union Assessment Committee 
 
 Doddsu.'... 
 South Staffordshire Tramways Co. ; — Claridge v. 
 South' Staffordshire Tramways Co. u. Ebbsmith 
 
 South Staffordshire Tramways Co. ; — .Marshall v. 
 
 South Staffordshire Tramways Co. v. Sickness'! 
 and Accident Assurance Association . . . . / 
 
 South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman 
 Southby's Patent, In re . . 
 Southcomhe V, Yeovil Union 
 
 Southend Hotel Co. :— White v. ., - .. . . | 
 
 " Southgate," The 
 
 Southland Frozen Meat and, Produce Export Co."! 
 
 V. Nelson Brothers, Ld. . , . . . . / 
 
 Southport Corporation v. Morriss 
 Southport Corporation v, Ormskirk Union Assess-'! 
 
 ment Committee ... .. '., ../ 
 
 'Volume and Page. 
 
 :} 
 
 [1893] 1 Cli. 178 
 
 [1893] P. 73 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 268 
 
 [1899] W. N. 98; [1899] 2 Ch.'l 
 173; C. A. [1900] W.N. 28; 
 .[1900] 1 Ch. 273 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 487; [1897]\ 
 W.N. 162(4) .. ../ 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 190 
 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. C92;\ 
 H. L. (E.)[1898] A. C. 309../ 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 37 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 108 .. ..-[ 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 108 .. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 189 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 120; H. L. (E.)\ 
 [1893] A. C. 429 .. ../ 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 718 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 411 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 178 
 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 465 .. 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 133 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 
 [1891] W. N. 51 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 '.'} 
 
 [1891] W. N. 31 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 442 
 [1898] W. N. 170 (13); C. A. 
 [1899] W. N. 6 (2) .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 153 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 422 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 669 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 36 .. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 402 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 44 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 432 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 343 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 36 (6); 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 767 
 [1893] P. 329 .. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 442 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 359 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 468; C. A. [-1894]\ 
 1Q.B. 196 ./ 
 
 .'} 
 
 Column 
 of 
 
 Digest, 
 
 274 
 1958 
 302 
 
 491 
 
 1526 
 1008 
 334 
 
 768 
 
 316, 329, 
 449 
 
 316 
 
 379 
 1005, 
 1006 
 1652 
 
 1691 
 
 1646 
 
 2103 
 
 545, 644 
 
 1204, 
 2151 
 
 462 
 
 684 
 315 
 2083 
 
 1678 
 
 89 
 663 
 1562, 
 2149 
 
 974 
 
 658 
 1440 
 2214 
 
 1057 
 
 1969 
 
 1335 
 
 1928 
 
 1677 
 
ccxl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Southport Tramways Co. v. Candy 
 
 Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co. 
 Urban District Council v. 
 
 -Hampton] 
 
 Southwark and Vauxhall Wa'er Co. : — Harrison'! 
 V. I 
 
 Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co. v. Wands-\ 
 worth District Board of Works . . . . / 
 
 Southwark Press : — Pomphrey «. 
 Southwell V. Eoyal HoUuway College, Egham .. 
 
 Sjuth wood :— Wild y ( 
 
 Soutter : — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 Soutter V. Roderick 
 Sovereign Life Assurance Co., In re 
 Sovereign Life Assurance Co. v. Dodd . . 
 Sowerby : — Eeg. v. 
 
 Sowerby Urban Council : — Sykcs v. 
 
 Sowter: — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 Soysa, De : — Murugaser Marimuttu v. .. 
 
 Spanish Corporation, Ex parte. In re Vitoria 
 
 Spargo : — Williams v. 
 
 Sparrow's Settled Estate, In re . . 
 
 Spelman, Ex parte 
 
 Spence, In re. In re Nash. Lewis v. Darby 
 
 Spence v. Dodsworth. In re Dodsworth 
 
 Spenceley, In the Goods of 
 
 Spencer v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ey. Co. 
 
 Spencer f. Li vett, Frank & Son .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■( 
 •■( 
 
 Spencer : — Stokes v. Haydon, Claimant 
 Spioer i». Spicer 
 
 Spiers & Sevan's Case. In re Eoiburghe Press i 
 
 Spiers & Pond, Ld., In re 
 
 Spiers & Pond r. Bennett 
 
 Spiller V. Turner . . 
 
 Spillers & Baker and Leetham & Sons, In re 
 
 Spilsbury : — New Ixion Tyre and Cycle Co. v... I 
 Spilsbury v. Eeg. .. 
 
 Spink : — Hargreave v. 
 
 Spiral Wood Cutting Co., In re .. 
 Spokes V. Grosvenor and West End By. Termi-'l 
 nus Hotel Co. . . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Spooner i;. Browning 
 Sprake t>. Day. In re Day 
 Spratt, In the Goods of .. 
 
 [1897]| 
 
 C. A. [1897J 2 Q. B. 66 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 168 (3)n 
 [1899]1Q. B. 273;H. L. (E.) 
 [1899] W. N. 238; [1900] 
 A. C. 3 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 409 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 603 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 256 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 487 
 [1896] W. N. 166 (2); 
 ] Q. B. 317 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891]1Q. B. 57.. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 156 (7); [1896]^ 
 
 1 Q. B. 91 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 279 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 406 ; C. A. [1692]l 
 
 2Q. B. 573 / 
 
 C. C. E. [1894] 2 Q. B. 173 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 979 ; C. A. [1900] 
 
 W. N. 49; [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 
 584 
 
 [1900] W. N. 257 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 69 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 259 
 [1893] W. N. 100 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 412 
 C. A. [1895) 2 Q. B. 174 
 ■1893]W. N. 99 
 1891] ICh. 657 
 
 1892] P. 255 
 
 j898] 1 Q. B. 643 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 34; [1900]) 
 
 IQ.B. 498 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 141; [1900] 2^ 
 
 Q. B. 483 / 
 
 [1898] W. N. 156 (11); [1899]\ 
 
 P. 38 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 1 (1) ; [1899] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 210 / 
 
 [1895] W. N. 135 (2) .. 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 65 
 1897] 1 Ch. 911 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 312 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 137 ; C. A. ri898]\ 
 
 2Ch. 484 / 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 615; P. C. [1899]\ 
 
 A. C. 392 / 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 25 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 736 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 528 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1898' 
 [1897] 
 
 2 Ch. 510 
 P. 28 
 
 1567 
 
 2281 
 
 1352, 
 1354 
 
 889 
 
 1221 
 1752 
 
 155 
 
 1182, 
 1640 
 
 1372 
 
 386 
 
 170 
 
 614 
 
 1915 
 
 736 
 
 266 
 
 113 
 2251 
 1868 
 1141 
 1515 
 
 774 
 1624 
 1652 
 
 1219 
 198 
 1614 
 
 425 
 
 364 
 
 21 
 310 
 
 60 
 
 1432 
 
 87, 876 
 
 1162, 
 
 1211, 
 
 1818 
 
 418, 428 
 
 664 
 
 1572 
 223 
 1612 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 ocxli 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 "Spree,"' The 
 
 Sprigg:— Cook i;. .. 
 
 Sprigg V. Sigoau , 
 
 Springfield, In re. Chamberlin v. Springfield 
 Sproston: — Ffrench. w. In re Beeny 
 
 Spurling v. Bantoft 
 
 In re De Linden.l 
 
 Spurrier's Settlement, In re 
 
 De Hayn v. Garland .. 
 Square: — Brewer i;. 
 Stafford t). Dyer .. 
 Staffordshire County Council and Burslem (Mayor,] 
 
 &c., of), In re .. .. .. .. ..I 
 
 Staffordshire Financial Co., Claimants. Altreei 
 
 V. Altree 
 Staffordshire Gas & Coke Co., In re 
 Staffordshire Justices : — Beg. v. .. 
 Staines: — Firth v. 
 Staines: — Walthamstow Local Board v. 
 
 StaUibrass : — Turner v. . 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 rGrey v. In re 
 
 Grey's'l 
 
 Stamford (Earl of) 
 Trusts .. 
 
 Stamford (Earl of), In re. Payne v. Stamford . . | 
 
 Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Co. v.' 
 
 Smith „ 
 Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Co. and'^ 
 
 Knight's Contract, In re ., 
 
 Stamford Union w. Bartlett. In re Watson 
 
 Stamps (Commr. of) : — Dilworth v 
 
 Stamps (Commrs. of) v. Hope .. 
 
 Stamp Duties (Commrs. of) : — Broughton v. 
 Stanbridge: — Studham v.. 
 Standard Gold Mining Co., In re 
 
 Standard Life Assurance Society : — Forbes v. .. 
 
 Standard Light and Power Co. : — City of Mon- 
 treal i;. .. 
 Standard Manufacturing Co., In re 
 Standard Eolling Stock Syndicate : — Edwards"! 
 
 ■" / 
 
 Standring (Herbert) & Co., In re 
 
 Stanfield: — Rymer v. In re Eymer 
 
 Stanham: — Wild v. In re Treasure .. 
 
 Stanley : — Hassell v. .. 
 Stanley j;. Powell . , ., 
 
 Stanley v. Stanley 
 
 Stanley (Lord) of Alderley v. Wild & Son 
 
 Stanley's Trusts, In re 
 
 Stanton u. Brown . . 
 
 Stanway's Trusts, In re .. 
 
 Staples V. Fastman Photographic Materials Co. 
 
 ••{ 
 
 [1893] P. 147 .. 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 572 .. 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 238 .. 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 603 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 499 
 
 [1891] 2 Q, B. 384 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 453 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. Ill 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 566 
 
 C. A. [1896]1Q. B. 24.. 
 
 3Ch. 523 
 2Q.B. 231 
 2Q. B. 70 
 1891] 2 Ch. 606 .. 
 [1897] W. N. 167 (9);| 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 267 
 
 1893' 
 
 1898' 
 
 1897' 
 C.A." 
 C. A. 
 [1898]1Q:B. 56 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 88 
 
 [1895] W. N. 157 (2); [1896]\ 
 ICh. 288 / 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 765 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 287 
 
 [1898] W. N. 154 (5); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 72 / 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 99 .. 
 
 J. C. [1891] A. C. 476 .. ..| 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 251 .. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 870 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 545 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 117 / 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 527 .. 
 
 C.A. [1891] ICh. 627 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 574 
 
 [1895]W. N. 99 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 19 .. ..| 
 
 [1900] W. N. 181; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 648 / 
 
 1896' 
 
 1891' 
 
 1898 
 C A. 
 
 ICh. 607 
 
 IQ. B. 86 
 
 P. 227 .. 
 
 1899] W. K. 255 ; [1900]\ 
 
 1 Q. B. 256 
 
 ../ 
 
 [1893" 
 
 W. N. 30 
 
 [19001 
 
 1 Q. B. 671 
 
 [1892' 
 
 W. N. 11 
 
 C.A. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 303 . 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2003 
 260 
 262 
 2354 
 1520 
 1038, 
 1059, 
 1210 
 
 1196 
 
 1300 
 1993 
 
 895 
 
 197, 
 
 437 
 1112 
 1354 
 1917 
 
 585 
 
 1095,. 
 2312 
 
 2169' 
 1126^ 
 2218- 
 
 1192 
 
 1335 
 640,. 
 1332 
 1330- 
 1012 
 443 
 
 1752' 
 
 258. 
 
 314. 
 
 331. 
 
 464' 
 277. 
 2336 
 
 2363 
 
 571 
 2154 
 690 
 
 626 
 
 2201 
 
 862 
 1539 
 
 356 
 
ccxlii 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Stapleton : — Airey v. In re Airey 
 " Star" Newspaper Co. v. O'Connor 
 
 " Star " Newspaper, Ld. : — Fox v. 
 
 Starbruck: — Traiiior v. .. 
 
 Starey «;. Graham.. 
 
 Stark, Ex parte. In re Consort Deep Level Goldl 
 Mines, Ld. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Starkey v. Eyies. In re Deakin 
 Statham: — Wilson v. 
 
 Statham v. Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Co 
 SS. Bessie Morris Co. : — Assicurazioni Generali v. 
 
 Stead, In re. Witham v. Andrew 
 
 Stead ?;. Hnrper 
 
 Steamship Eossmore Co. : — Dobell & Co. v. 
 
 Steel Brothers & Co. : — Borland's Trustee v. 
 
 Steel, Young & Co. : — Edwards v. 
 
 Steele v. Savory .. 
 
 ■Steer, In re. Steer v. Dobell. In re Earl of 
 
 Devon's Settled Estates. AVhite v. Earl of 
 
 Devon .. 
 
 .'Steers v. Rogers .. 
 
 Steiger: — Horsey Estate, Ld. v. 
 
 Stein: — Eein u. .. 
 
 • Steinkopff : — ^Walter v. .. 
 
 Steinman & Co. v. Angier Line ., 
 
 « Stella," The 
 
 Stenning, In re. Wood v. Stenning 
 Stephens, In re. Giles v. Stephens 
 Stephens : — Bulkeley v. .. 
 ■Stephens: — Cooper v, 
 ■Stephens v. Green . . 
 
 ■Stephenson, In re. Donaldson v. Bamber 
 
 Stephenson, In re. Ex parte Brown 
 Stephenson v. Garnett 
 
 Stephenson v. Yorke .. ., 
 
 Stephenson's Case. In re Farmer's United 
 Stem V. Reg. 
 
 Stern i!. Tegner .. 
 
 Sterrett: — Hogan ii. 
 
 Stevens, In the Goods of .. .. ,', 
 
 Stevens, In re. Clerk v. Stevens 
 
 Stevens, In re. Cooke v. Stevens 
 
 Stevens, In re. Ex parte Board of Trade 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1897]! 
 [1893i| 
 
 H. L 
 
 [1900] 
 
 ••( 
 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (5); 
 
 ICh. 164: 
 [1893] W. N. 114; C. A. 
 
 W.N. 122 .. 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 636 
 (B.) [1899] AV. N. 255; 
 
 A. C. 19 
 [1893] W. N. 196 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 407 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 575 .. 
 
 1894] 3 Ch. 565 
 
 1891] 2 Q. B. 261 
 
 1898] W. N. 168 (4); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 199 J 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 571 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 652 / 
 
 [1899] AV. N. 235; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 237 / 
 
 [1896] W. N. 46 (12) .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 408 
 
 [1900] W. N. 251 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 712 ; C. A. [1897]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 327 / 
 
 [1891] W. N. 195 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 562 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 13 ; H. L. (B)) 
 [1893] A. C. 232 .. .. f 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 259 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 W. N. 82 ; [1899] 2 Q. ]i. 79 / 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 753 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 489 
 
 C. A 
 1900' 
 1895' 
 1892' 
 1896' 
 1895' 
 0. A.' 
 C. A. 
 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 619 
 
 W.N. 96; [1900] P. 161 
 
 2Ch. 433 
 
 W. N. 140 
 
 2Ch. 241 
 
 1 Ch. 567 
 1895] 2 Ch. 148 .. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 168 (12);] 
 
 [1897] ICh. 75 .. ' :.'[ 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 638 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 677 
 [1900] W. N. 44; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 505 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 442 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 211 
 
 0. A. [1897] W. N. 154 (13); 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 37 .. 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 83 
 
 "Si 
 
 1898' 
 
 P. 126 
 
 1896] W. N. 24 (12) .. 
 1897] ICh. 422; C. A. [1897] 
 
 W. N. 175 (7); C. A. [1898] 
 
 1 Ch. 162 .. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 495 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1471 
 515 
 
 1491 
 
 1388 
 1434, 
 2072 
 
 390 
 
 2333 
 
 589 
 
 395 
 
 988, 
 1970 
 
 2162 
 
 1525 
 1970 
 404 
 
 2014 
 
 671 
 
 1136 
 
 1433 
 
 1070 
 
 1542 
 537" 
 
 1972 
 
 1984 
 
 90 
 
 69, 280 
 
 1853 
 528 
 
 1554 
 
 2364 
 
 181 
 1530 
 
 1255 
 
 434 
 
 1784 
 
 211 
 
 1387 
 1600 
 2317 
 
 798 
 
 124 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 ccxliii 
 
 Kame of Case. 
 
 Stevens r. Griffin .. 
 Stevens v. Trevor-Garrick 
 Stevenson: — Boake v. 
 Stevenson, Ex parte. In re Housing of tin 
 Working Classes Act, 1890 .. 
 
 Stevenson: — Parlovv v. ., 
 
 Stevenson : — Gibbs (or Stevenson) v. . . 
 Stevenson : — James v. 
 Stevenson & Co. : — Little v. 
 Stevenson : — La Banque d'Hochelaga v. 
 
 Steward V. England. In re England .. 
 
 Steward : — Frennd v. In re Geek 
 
 Steward: — Beg. v. 
 
 Steward : — Eeg. v. . , , 
 
 Steward: — Reg. u. 
 
 Stewart v. Casey. In re Casey's Patents 
 
 Stewart u. McPadzean 
 
 Stewart : — Ogston v. ,, . . ' . . 
 
 Stewart V. Rhodes 
 
 Stewart D. Robinson 
 
 Stewart's Trustees : — ^Inland Revenue v. 
 
 Stier: — Foi-A v 
 
 Stileman-Gibbard u. Wilkinson .. 
 
 Stiles, In tbe Goods of .. 
 
 Still: — ^Lambert r. In re Webb 
 
 Stm W.Webb. In re Webb 
 
 Still:— Wellbyj;. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 ■ (No. 3) 
 • (No. 4) 
 
 Stirling v. Fletcher 
 
 Stock V. Meakin 
 
 Stock and Siiare Auction and Banking Co, 
 
 In re 
 Stocken's Settlement Trusts, In re 
 
 Stockport Ragged, Industrial, and Reformatory I 
 Schools, In re '' 
 
 Stocks V. Inland Revenue 
 
 Stocks :^-Willerton u. 
 
 Stockton Football Co. v. Gaston . . 
 
 Stoddart : — Eeg. v. 
 
 Stoddart v. Sagar. Sagar v, Stoddart 
 
 Stoddart w. Saville.. .. 
 
 Stogdon, In re. Ex parte Leigh . . 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 . [1892]! 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1900] 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 368 
 [1893] 2 Cli. 307 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 358 
 [1892]1Q. B. 394;C. A 
 
 1 Q. B. 009 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 30 (2); 
 
 [1900] W. N. 233; 
 
 i Ch. 128 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] W. N. 104 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 182 .. 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 108 .. 
 P. C. [1900J A. 0. 600 .. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 100; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2Ch. 820 / 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 161 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 300 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 552 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 965 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 104 .. 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 
 W.N. 110 .. .. ../ 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 120 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 13; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 41 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 386 / 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 122 .. 
 Ct. of Sess. Sc. [1899] W. N. 198 
 
 "P. 1 
 
 1 Q. B. 749 
 
 W. N. 163 (7) ; [1898] P.\ 
 
 1897' 
 1897° 
 ■ 12' 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 73 .. 
 [1896] W. N. 176 
 
 ICh. 144 
 [1892]W. N. 6 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 91 
 
 (19); [1897]) 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 641 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 524 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 166 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 108; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 496; C. A. [1900] W. N. 73 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 683 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 736 
 
 [1893] W. N. 203 
 
 [1897] W. N. 156 (4); [1898] ^ 
 W. N. 28 (4); [1898] 1 Ch.l 
 610 ; partly affirmed and partly ( 
 reversed C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 687j 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N.\ 
 207 / 
 
 [1892] 
 1895' 
 
 ;i9oo; 
 
 W. N. 29 
 1 Q. B. 453 
 
 W. N. 258 
 
 2348 
 76 
 864 
 
 [1895] 
 
 1894- 
 1895: 
 
 2Q.B. 474 
 
 1 Ch. 480 
 2Q. B. 584 
 
 865, 
 1183 
 1900 
 103 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1492 
 957 
 35 
 
 41,58 
 
 1060, 
 1167 
 
 946 
 2262 
 1963 
 240 
 
 1126 
 
 278, 279 
 
 30 
 
 577 
 
 2013 
 
 1441 
 
 1395 
 
 823 
 
 269 
 
 1830 
 1750 
 
 710 
 
 756 
 
 1624 
 
 2059 
 
 2044 
 
 504, 932 
 1303, 
 2058 
 1276, 
 2034 
 2037 
 1382 
 
 2090 
 
 418,482 
 2202 
 
 274,282 
 
 1776 
 
 22 
 
ccxliv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Stogdon V. Lee 
 
 Stogdon I — Levy v. 
 
 Stokell u. Hey wood 
 
 Stoke Parish Council v. Price 
 Stokes: — Hicks?;. 
 Stokes V. Prance .. 
 
 Stokes V. Spencer. Haydon, Claimant 
 
 Stone, In re. Baker ?;. Stone 
 Stone: — Gray v. .. 
 Stone : — Hart v. In re Hubbuck 
 Stone : — Imperial Loan Co. v. .. 
 Stone: — Jones v. .. 
 
 Stone I). Liokorisli .. 
 
 Stone V. Meredith. In re Meredith 
 Stone V. Press Association, Ld. .. 
 Stone's Will, In re 
 
 Storey v. Cooke .. 
 
 Stormont, Todd & Co. : — Richardson v. . 
 Stourfield Park Hotel Co. : — Hawker v. 
 
 Story V. Sheard .. 
 
 Strachan, In re .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■{ 
 ■■{ 
 -■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 Strachan v. Binnie 
 
 Strachan : — Universal 
 (No.l) .. 
 
 Stock Exchange Ld. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Strafford (Earl of) and Maples, In re 
 Straits of Dover Steamship Co. :-^Purves v. 
 
 Strand Union (Guardians of the) : — Brighton 
 
 (Guardians of the Parish oi) v. 
 Strange: — Att.-Gen. u. .. 
 Strangwayes v. Read 
 Strapp V. Bull, Sons & Co. Shaw v. 
 
 Board of London 
 Stratheden and Campbell (Lord), In re. 
 
 eden and Campbell (Lord) : — Alt v. . 
 Stratheden and Campbell (Lord), In re. 
 
 V. Stratheden and Campbell .. 
 
 " Strathgarry," The 
 
 Strathmore (Earl) v. Vane. In re Bowes 
 
 Strathmore (Earl) v. Vane. In re Bowes 
 
 Sohooll 
 
 Stratli- 
 
 Cowper\ 
 
 Streatham and General Estates Co., In re 
 
 Streatham and General Estates-Co. : — Scott v. 
 Strcatley, In the Goods of 
 Street : — Gordon v. ., 
 
 -t 
 
 [1899]| 
 [1897i| 
 Ch. 
 
 f) 
 
 ■{ 
 
 .L.(E.) 
 
 ■!} 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 478 ; C. A. 
 
 1 Ch. 5 
 [1896] W. N. 65 (1); 
 
 ICh. 459 
 [1899] W.N. 74; [1899] 2 
 
 277 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 124 
 
 [1897] W. N. 163 (10); [1898] 
 
 ICh. 212 
 [1900] W. N. 141; [1900] 2 
 
 Q. B. 483 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 196 .. 
 [1893] W. N. 133 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 754 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 599 
 P. 0. 1894] A. C. 122 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 363 
 
 [1898] W. N. 48 (1) .. 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 159 
 [1893] W. N. 50 
 C. A. [1891] ICh. 509 ;H 
 
 [1891] A. C. 297 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 701 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 51 .. 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 515 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 439 .. ../ 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 W.N. 99 I 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 329 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 166 ., 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 697 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 235 .. 
 
 [1899] I Q. B. 38 ; C. A. [1899]) 
 W. N. 102; [1899] 2 Q. B.i 
 217 j 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q.^B. 156 
 
 C. A. [1898]2Q. B. 39.. 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 419 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 1 .. 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 265 .. ..| 
 
 [1893]W. N. 90 
 
 1895] P. 264 
 
 1896] ICh. 507 
 
 1900J W. N. 123; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 251 / 
 
 [1896] W. N. 164 (2) ; [1897]\ 
 
 ICh. 15 / 
 
 [1891] W. N. 153 
 
 [1891] P. 172 
 
 0. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 641 
 
 Colama 
 of . 
 Digest. 
 
 30, 908, 
 
 921, 923> 
 
 2344 
 
 206» 
 
 975 
 
 1362 
 1391 
 2180 
 
 198 
 
 2314 
 402 
 1856 
 1187 
 85, 1564 
 1304, 
 205» 
 49 
 644 
 178 
 
 643 
 
 2074 
 1311 
 
 893 
 
 669, 
 1196 
 
 1399 
 
 2075- 
 
 870 
 1883 
 
 2014r 
 
 1462 
 
 1741 
 1190 
 
 332 
 
 69, 281, 
 2347 
 
 32, 2309 
 
 2004 
 2342 
 
 2035 
 
 336 
 
 1282 
 1596 
 512 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 ccxlv 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 oi 
 Digest. 
 
 Street v. Street 
 
 ■■{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■■} 
 
 Streeter : — Keg. v. 
 
 Stretton: — ^Hitchcock r-. .. 
 
 Stretton's Derby Vinegar Co. v. Derby Corpora' 
 
 tion 
 Strickland v. Hayes 
 Strickland V. Williams 
 Stringer and Riley, Bro triers, In re 
 Strohmenger v. Finsbury Permanent Building) 
 
 Society .. .. .. .. .. .. f 
 
 Strong V. Carlyle Press (No. 1) . . 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 " Strong (N.)," The 
 
 Stroud V. Lawson 
 
 Stroud ?;. Wandsworth District Board .. 
 
 Strutt: — Tippett w. 
 
 Stuart, In re. Ex parte Cathcait 
 
 Stuart, In re. Smith u. Stuart . . 
 
 Stuart and Olivant and Seadon's Contract, In re 
 
 Stuait r. Bell 
 
 Stuart: — Gould i!. 
 
 Stuart V. Maskelyne British Typewriter, Ld.'l 
 In re Maskelyne British Typewriter, Ld. . . / 
 
 Stuart ». Nixon & Bruce.. .. .. ..| 
 
 Stuart: — Reg. «. .. 
 
 Stubbs (Joshua) Ld., In re. Barney v. Joshual 
 
 Stubbs, Ld / 
 
 Stuckey's Banking Co. : — Sanguinetti v. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Studdert and the Pinance Act, 1894, In re .. •! 
 
 Studham v. Stanbridge .. 
 
 Stumore v. Campbell and Co. 
 
 Sturge: — Crocker u. 
 
 Sturgeon v. Lawrence. In re Dunning . . 
 
 Sturrock (B.) :— Taylor v. Sturrock (W.) v.\ 
 
 Sturrock(B.) / 
 
 Styles : — Gresham Life Assurance Co. v. 
 Styles V. Society of the Middle Temple 
 Suarez, In the Goods of ., 
 Sudbury and Poynton Settled Estates, In re.\ 
 
 Vernon v. Vernon .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Sudeley (Lord) i". Att.-Gen. .. .. ..| 
 
 Sudeley (Lord) and Baines and Co., In re 
 SufBeld (Baron) : — London Freehold and Lease-l 
 
 hold Property Co. r. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Suffield : — Dugmore v. .. 
 
 Sugg & Co.: — Lloyd V 
 
 SuUey V. Eoyal College of Surgeons of Edin-\ 
 
 burgh ., .. .. .. j 
 
 Sumatra Tobacco Plantations Co., In re 
 Summerfield: — Colac (President), &c. v. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. ee ; [1900]) 
 2Q. B. 57 ' 
 
 C. C. R. [1900] W. N. 176; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 601 ., 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 343 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 431 
 
 r6;| 
 
 [1896 
 
 1 Q. B. 290 
 
 C. A 
 
 ^) 
 
 [1894) 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 382 
 [1900] W. N. 240 
 [1897] W. N. 65 (1); 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 469 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 268 .. 
 [1893]W. N. 51 
 [1892] P. 105 .. 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 44 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 64; C. A 
 
 2 Q.B.I 
 
 [1891] W. N. 112 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 201 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 583 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 328 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 341 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. 0. 575 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 170 (2) ;\ 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 133 .. .. J 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 92 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 95 / 
 
 0. C. R. [1894] 1 Q. B. 310 .. 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 187: C. A. [1891]\ 
 
 ICb. 475 / 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 176; [1896] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 502 / 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N.) 
 
 220 ) 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 870 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 314 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 330 
 [1894] W. N. 140 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 225 ,. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 309 
 [1898] W. N. 172 (5) .. 
 [1897] P. 8 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 74 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 526 ; C. A. [1896J1 
 IQ. B. 354; H. L. (E.) [1896] 
 W.N. 162 (14); [1897] A. C.f 
 11 J 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 334 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 608 .. 
 
 [1896] AV. N. 50 (13) .. 
 0. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 481 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.\ 
 
 98 / 
 
 [1898] AV. N. 80 (3) .. 
 P. 0. [1893] A. C. 187 ,. 
 
 62 
 
 618 
 
 2041 
 
 1912 
 
 2091 
 215 
 54 
 
 228 
 
 35, 1705 
 317 
 1949 
 1513 
 
 1179 
 
 981 
 2028 
 2186 
 2256 
 649, 652 
 1321 
 
 331 
 
 1223 
 
 340, 609 
 
 329, 449 
 
 182, 
 1279 
 
 1749 
 
 1012 
 
 78 
 ICOl 
 
 77 
 
 1314 
 
 1758 
 1754 
 1604 
 
 1864 
 
 1786 
 
 2350 
 
 1278 
 
 2198 
 1214 
 
 1773 
 
 383 
 2259 
 
ccxlvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Sunderland Corporation v. Eobinson 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Summers i;. Barron. In re Walker 
 
 Summers v. Holborn Board of "Works .. 
 
 Sumraerson, In re. Downie v. Summerson 
 Summerton: — Edwards?;. 
 Sumpter v. Hedges 
 
 Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada : — Saunders v. 
 Sunbury-on-Thames Urban Council : — Croysdale"! 
 V. .. .. .. ., .. ../ 
 
 ••( 
 
 Sunlight Incandescent Gas Lamp Co., In re 
 Surman ?;. Wharton 
 
 Surrey Justices : — Beg. v. (N'o. 1) .. .. | 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Siitcliffe : — Greenwood i;. 
 
 Sutcliffe : — Howarth v. .. 
 
 Sutherland: — M'Dougal v. 
 
 Sutherland (Dowager Duchess of) v. Sutherland\ 
 (Duke of) / 
 
 Sutherland (Duke of) v. Heathcote .. .. | 
 
 Sutters: — Thomas v. 
 
 Sutton, Carden & Co. : — Graham v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Sutton, Southcoatcs and Drypool Gas Co. :• 
 
 Jordeson v. 
 Sutton: — Aspinall «. 
 Sutton V. Martin. Jn re Poinons 
 Sutton ?;. Wade 
 
 Sutton & Co. V. Grey 
 
 Sutton Heath and Lea Green Collieries Co. 
 
 Houghton V. 
 Suva Town Board : — Smart & Co. v. 
 Swain, In re. Swain v. Bringeman 
 Swan: — Australia (Perpetual Executors and\ 
 
 Trustees Association of) «;. .. .. __J 
 
 Swan t;. Mellen 
 
 Swansea Corporation : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Swansea Free Grammar School and Endowed) 
 
 Schools Act, 1869, In re / 
 
 Swansea Improvements and Tramway Co. v.\ 
 
 Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority .. ..f 
 
 Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority : — Swansea 
 
 Improvements and Tramway Co. i;. .. 
 
 Swayne v. Inland Revenue Commrs. 
 
 Sweet (Stephen), In the Goods of 
 
 Sweet V. Sweet 
 
 Sweetmeat Automatic Delivery Co. v. Inlandl 
 
 Eevenue Commrs. .. .. .. __| 
 
 Sweeting, In re 
 
 r} 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 275 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 612 
 
 [1900] 1 Oh. 112, n. .. 
 [1899] W. N. 120 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 673 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 537 
 
 [1898] ? Ch. 515 
 
 [1899] W. N. 19 (7); [1899]\ 
 
 IQ.B. 751 .. 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 728 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 491 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 633 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 867 .. 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 719 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 1 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 358 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W, 
 113 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 504; C. A. [1892]l 
 ICh. 475 / 
 
 [1891] W. N. 184; C. A. [1899]) 
 W. N. 206 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 10 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 761 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 367 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 614 ; C. A. 
 217 
 
 [1894 
 
 [189r 
 
 [1891; 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B, 
 
 "} 
 
 Ch, 
 
 2 Q. B. 349 
 W. N. 139 
 1 Q. B. 269 
 
 ■ \ 
 
 285 
 
 -I 
 
 [1892]1 
 
 C. A. [1900] 256.. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 301 .. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 233 
 
 P. C. [1898] C. A. 763 .. 
 
 [1892] W.N. 106; C. A. 
 
 W. N. 128 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 252 .. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 357 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 357 
 
 [1899] W. N. 3 (6); [1899] 1 
 Q. B. 335; C.A. [1899] W.N, 
 240; [1900] 1 Q. B. 172 
 
 [1891] P. 400 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 12 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 484 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 268 
 
 2166 
 1178, 
 2070 
 2244 
 878 
 . 605 
 2142 
 
 1916 
 
 2287 
 
 447 
 904 
 
 889 
 
 1041 
 1295, 
 2103 
 
 586, 594 
 
 1763 
 
 1874, 
 2290 
 642, 
 1264 
 871, 872, 
 1594 
 671 
 1553 
 
 2095 
 
 1039 
 1503 
 1390 
 1583, 
 2073 
 
 1221 
 
 819,839 
 2192 
 
 2259 
 
 14 
 545 
 
 275 
 
 1687 
 1687 
 
 1797 
 
 1496 
 923 
 
 1788 
 
 2060 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 coxlvii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Sweeting : — Terry v. In re Duncan . . . . | 
 
 Swift J). Swift 
 
 Swoffer u. Swoffer 
 
 Swyny V. Harknd .. .... 
 
 Sydney Municipal Council v. Att.-Gen. for New) 
 South Wales J 
 
 Sydney Municipal Council j;. Bourke 
 
 Sydney Municipal Council v. Young 
 Sydney and Suburban Mutual Building and"! 
 liaad Investment Association v. Lyons . . / 
 Syer «. Gladstone.. 
 
 Sykes : — Howard Football Syndicate v. . . 
 Sykes : — National Dwellings Society v. . . 
 
 Sykes «. Sowerby Urban Council .. ..| 
 
 Sykes v. Sykes 
 Symes v. Symes . . 
 Symons v. Symons 
 Symons v. Wedmore 
 Syngeu. Synge ., 
 Synge v. Synge 
 Syria (Bank of), In re. Owen and Asbwortb's" 
 Claim. Whitworth's Claim ,. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tabernacle Permanent Building Society 
 Knight (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 
 
 Tabuleau v. Nixon 
 
 Tadcaster Town Brewery Co. v. Wilson 
 
 ' 1 'adman i;. Henman 
 
 Taddei : — Pender t;. 
 
 Taflf Vale By. Co. v. Amalgamated Society 
 Eailway Servants 
 
 Taff Vale Ry. Co. :— Barry Ky. Co. v. . . 
 
 Taff Vale By. Co. :— Davis & Sons, Ld. v. 
 Tagart : — ^Davies v. In re Weston 
 
 "Talbot," The 
 
 Talbot's Trade-mark, In re 
 
 Talbot : — Ehondda and Swansea By. Co. v. 
 
 Talisker Distillery: — Hamlyn & Co. v. .. 
 
 Tallerman v. Dowsing Badiant Heat Co. 
 Tamplin, In the Goods of 
 Tamplin's Case. In re Canadian Meat Co. 
 Tanian : — Crossfield & Sons, Ld. v. 
 Tankard, In re. Ex parte OfiScial Receiver 
 
 2) 
 
 "I 
 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 14 (1); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 387 / 
 
 [1891] P. 129 .. 
 [1896] P. 131 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 707 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 444 .. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 433 .. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 457 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 260 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 178 
 [1897] W. N. 81 (.10) .. 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 159 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 979 ; C. A. [1900] I 
 W. N. 49; [1900] 1 Q. B. 584) 
 C. A. [1897] P. 306 .. 
 
 1896] ICh. 272.. 
 
 1897] P. 167 .. 
 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 401 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 466 
 [1900] P. 180 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 66; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 272; C. A. [1900] W. N. 256 J 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 63 ; H. 
 (E.)[1892]A. C. 298.. 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1899' 
 
 [1897' 
 
 1892] 2 Q. B. 
 W. N. 115 
 1 Oh. 705 
 
 613 
 
 H. L 
 
 ■{ 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 168 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 798 
 
 C. A. [IGOO] W. N. 256 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 128 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 43 ; 
 
 (B.) [1895] A. C. 542 
 [1900] W. N. 104; [1900] 2 Ch, 
 
 164 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 291 ; [1900] 1 Ch 
 
 231 
 [1891] P. 184 !! 
 [1894] W.N. 12.. 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 131 .. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. 202 
 
 [1899] W. N. 125; C. A. [1899]\ 
 W. N. 234 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 [1894] 1'. 39 
 
 [1892] W. N. 94 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 W.N. 146 .. . ^ 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 629 
 
 [1899] W. N. 60; [1899] 2 Q. B, 
 57 
 
 !1 
 
 Colnmn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 787 
 
 721 
 925 
 2049 
 297, 
 1330 
 895, 
 1829' 
 1332: 
 
 133L 
 
 787 
 1443- 
 356 
 
 1915. 
 
 1484 
 714 
 1104 
 1898 
 704 
 
 35a 
 
 60, 225 
 
 57 
 2314 
 2229 
 
 685 
 1526 
 
 2145 
 
 1660 
 
 1661 
 
 2198 
 
 2223 
 
 1951 
 2136 
 1669 
 56, 65, 
 490 
 
 817 
 
 1022 
 
 370 
 
 1219 
 
 184 
 
ccslrlii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 The' 
 
 '} 
 
 Christie) 
 
 Tankard : — Reg. v. 
 
 Tannar : — Cohen v. 
 
 Tanner v. Oldman 
 
 Taplen v. Taplen . . 
 
 Tapley : — Eaton v, 
 
 Tapsoott Steamship Co. : — Singlehuist v. 
 
 Tardy : — Lloyd v. In re Harman 
 
 Tarn, In re 
 
 Tarn v. Emmerson. In re Leng 
 Tasker v. Tasker . . 
 Tassell v. Hallen . . 
 Tatam v. Eeeve .. 
 Tate V. Latham & Son 
 Tatham, In re. Bensaude ^). Hastings .. 
 Tatham : — Bills v. In re Patrick 
 Tatham, Bromage & Co. v. Burr. 
 "Engineer" 
 
 Taunton v. Sheriff of Warwickshire 
 
 Taunton, Delmard, Lane & Co., In re. 
 
 V. Taunton, Delmard, Lane & Co. 
 Taws «. Knowles .. .. .. .. • .. 
 
 Taxation (Commrs. of) v. Kirk .. 
 
 Taylor, Ex parte. In re Potts .. 
 
 Taylor, In re. Taylor v. Wade . . 
 'Taylor, In the Goods of .. 
 Taylor : — Clutterbuck v. .. 
 
 Taylor: — Furber v. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Taylor : — Handsworth Local Board v. .. 
 
 Taylor : — Hewitt v. 
 
 Taylor v. Hodgson. In re Hodgson 
 
 Taylor: — Kershaw u. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Taylor : — Mcllquham v. . . 
 
 Taylor v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire 
 
 Ey Co 
 
 Taylor: — Marshall v. 
 
 Taylor :— Mercantile Bank of Sydney v. 
 
 Taylor: — Neckv. .. 
 
 Taylor : — New Windsor Corporation v. .. . . | 
 
 Taylor : — Owthwaite v. In re Owthwaite 
 
 Taylor:— Petty i;. / 
 
 Taylor, Phillips and Ilickard.s' Cases. In re\ 
 
 National Bank of Wales / 
 
 Taylor v. Reg. 
 Taylor v. Roe (No. 1) 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 :) 
 
 C. C. E. [1894] 1 Q. B. 548 ../ 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 162 ; [1900]) 
 2 Q. B. 609 ( 
 
 [1895] W. N. 139 (7); [1>;96] 
 IQ. B. 60 
 
 [1891] P. 283 
 
 [1899] W. N. 60; [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 953 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 133" '.. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 607 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 280 .. 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 652 .. 
 
 1895] P. 1 
 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 321 
 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 44 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 502 
 [1892] W. N. 150 
 [1891]lCh. 82 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 382 .. 
 
 Coluinn 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 
 2 Ch. 319 
 
 734; C. A. [1895] f 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 175 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 564 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 588 .. 
 
 G. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 648 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 671 
 
 [1892] P. 90 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 395 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 180; [1900]\ 
 2Q. B. 719 / 
 
 1897] 2 Ch. 442, 11 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 287 
 
 1898] 2 Ch. 545 
 
 189.5] 2 Q. B. 208 ; C. A. [1895]) 
 
 2Q. B. 471 f 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 53 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 134 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 641 .. 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 317 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 560 
 C.A.[1898]1Q.B.I186; H.L (E.) 
 
 [1898] W. N. 162 (6) ; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1899] A. C. 41 .. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 494 
 [1896] W. N. 167 (6) ; [1897] n 
 
 Ch. 465 .. .. / 
 
 [1896] 2 Cli. 851 ; C. A. [18971 
 
 ICh. 298 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 25 
 [1893]W. N. 14 
 [1893] W. N. 26 
 
 3 
 
 391, 406, 
 609 
 
 1059 
 
 1153 
 
 701 
 
 1137 
 
 2190 
 1475, 
 1503 
 
 40 
 133, 795 
 
 905 
 1541 
 
 869 
 1239 
 
 691 
 1908 
 
 987 
 
 321, 449, 
 1011 
 
 305 
 
 2290 
 1331 
 
 168. 
 
 1696, 
 
 1704 
 
 791 
 1609 
 1399 
 
 586 
 
 1913 
 18 
 734 
 
 1168 
 
 514 
 
 505, 586, 
 
 1653, 
 
 2115 
 
 217 
 1586 
 
 569 
 
 2114 
 
 2185 
 532 
 
 431 
 
 615 
 77,80 
 1849 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 ccxlix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 •I 
 
 Taylor i;. Eoe (No. 3) 
 
 Taylor V. Eussell .. 
 
 Taylor: — Seal w. la re Seal 
 
 Taylor i». Smith .. 
 
 Taylor V. Sturrock (B.), Sturrock (W.) vA 
 
 Sturrock (B.) .. ,. ,, .. ../ 
 
 Taylor & Son : — ^British Motor Syndicate, Ld. v.i 
 
 Taylor, Sons & Co. : — ^Bentsen v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Taylor, Sons & Tarbuck, In re 
 Taylor, Stileman & UEderwood, In re 
 
 Teacher v. Calder .. 
 
 league v. Fox. In re Godden .. 
 
 Tebbi;. Cave 
 
 "I 
 ■■{ 
 
 Teece, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Teece : — Commrs. of Taxation v. 
 Teddington Urban Council : — Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Tegner: — Stem v. 
 
 Temperance Permanent Building Society: — \ 
 Brocklesby «. .. ., .. .. ../ 
 
 Temperley Shipping Co.: — Anglo- Argentine Livei 
 Stock and Produce Agency 11. .. .. ../ 
 
 Temperton u. Eussell (No. 1) 
 
 - (Xo. 2) 
 
 Tempest: — ^Wynne v. 
 
 Tendring Union 17. Dow ton 
 
 Tennant v. Smith 
 
 Tennant v. Union Bank of Canada 
 
 Tennent : — ^Welch v. 
 Terrett : — Barlow v. 
 Terry : — Liles v. .. 
 
 Terry v. Sweeting. In re Duncan 
 
 ■{ 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Tesseyman's Settled Estates, In re 
 
 Tetbury (Vicar) v. Tetbury Churchwardens,! 
 
 &c J 
 
 Tetley, In re 
 
 Thacker, In the Goods of 
 
 Thames Conservancy v. London Port Sanitary'! 
 Authority .. .. .. ., ../ 
 
 Thames Ccinservators v. Smeed, Dean & Co. 
 Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co. : — \ 
 Clifford w. / 
 
 Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. : — 
 Bensaude & Co. v. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 413 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 8 ; H. L. (E.)\ 
 [1892] A. C. 244 .. ../ 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 316 .. 
 C. A. [1893]2Q. B. 65.. 
 
 P. 0. [1900] A. C. 225 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 43; [190O] 1 Ch.\ 
 577; C. A. [1900] W. N. 239 / 
 
 C.A 
 C. A. 
 [1894 
 C.A.' 
 H. L. 
 
 [1899] A', d. 451" 
 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 193 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 274 
 ICh. 503 
 1891] ICh. 590.. 
 (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 118 ;1 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 292 
 
 [1900] W. N. 45 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 642 / 
 
 [1895] W. N. 143 (12) ; [1896]\ 
 
 P. 6 / 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 254 .. 
 
 [1898] ICh. 66 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 154 (13);) 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 37 .. .. j 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 130 ; H. L.\ 
 
 (B.) [1895] A. C. 173 ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 110 ; [1899] 2 Q. B.\ 
 
 403 / 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 435 ..[ 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 715 ..| 
 
 [1896] W. N. 176 (17) ; [1897] 1\ 
 Ch. 110 ; [1897] W. N. 43 (14)/ 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 265 .. ..| 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 150 .. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 31 .. ..•( 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 639 .. 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 107 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 679 
 [1899] W. N. 14 (1); [1899]\ 
 ICh. 387 / 
 
 [1897] W. N. 167 (6) ; 168 (11) | 
 
 [1592] P. 271, n 
 
 [1896] W. N. 86 (2) .. 
 [1899] W. N. 218 ; [1900] P. 15 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 647 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 334 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 314 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 29: affirmedl 
 by a. L. (E.) [1897] A. C.[ 
 609 J 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 564 
 
 1288 
 
 2367 
 851 
 
 1314 
 
 M29 
 
 569 
 1936 
 2032 
 2051 
 
 4 
 
 1876 
 
 1858 
 
 1598 
 
 1327 
 1144 
 
 211 
 1571 
 
 1931 
 
 1516, 
 
 2144 
 500, 508, 
 
 2142 
 
 1556, 
 
 2178 
 
 2086, 
 
 2089 
 
 1759 
 
 239, 240, 
 
 292 
 
 1834 
 
 831 
 
 2207 
 
 920, 
 1887 
 
 747 
 
 852 
 1625 
 1350, 
 2106, 
 
 2272 
 2107 
 
 584 
 
 991 
 
ccl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. v.) 
 Pitts, Son & King / 
 
 Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Go. : — i 
 Trinder, Anderson & Co. v. Trinder, Ander- 1 
 son & Co. V. North Queensland Insurance Co. j 
 The Same v. "Weston, Crocker & Co. . . . . j 
 
 Tharp : — List v. .. 
 
 Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co. v. Morel I 
 Brothers & Co / 
 
 Theatrical Trust, Ld., In re. Chapman's Case 
 
 " Theodora," The 
 
 "Theta,"The 
 
 ThelluBson V. Liddard .. .. .. ..{ 
 
 Thetford Corporation v. Norfolk County Council 
 
 Thiery v. Chalmers, Guthrie & Co. 
 Thin V. Eichards & Co. . . 
 
 Thomas, In re. 
 
 Thomas, In re. 
 
 Thomas, In re. 
 
 Thomas, In re. 
 Thomas, In re. 
 Thomas (Ho'wcll), In re 
 
 Thomas: — Burkill v. 
 
 Thomas: — Carter v. 
 Thomas : — Davies v. 
 
 Thomas : — Davies v. 
 
 Thomas : — Dawes v. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 Thomas :- 
 Thomas v. 
 Thomas :- 
 Thomas :- 
 Thomas :- 
 Thomas v. 
 Thomas :— 
 Thomas :— 
 Thomas :— 
 Thomas :— 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Thomas :— 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Evans v. GrifiSths 
 
 Jaquess v. Thomas 
 
 Ex parte Middlesex (Sheriff 
 
 Weatherall v. Thomas 
 Wood V. Thomas 
 
 Devonport Corporation 
 
 -Fielding v. 
 
 Foster. In re Foster 
 
 -Hilli;. 
 
 -Kennedy v. .^ 
 
 -Lulham 
 
 McKeokine. In re Elen 
 
 -O'SuUivan v. .. 
 
 -Powell V. 
 
 -Rees V. 
 
 -Reg. V. 
 
 Roberts. Smith v. Clements 
 
 -Saxby v. 
 
 Searles.. 
 
 Thomas u. Sutters 
 
 Thomas v. Van Ob 
 
 Thomas : — Young v. 
 
 Thomas & Co. : — Madell v. 
 
 " Thomas Jolifle," The " Avon" and The 
 
 Thomasset v. Thomasset .. 
 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 476 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 114 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 260 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 647 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 771 
 
 [1897] P. 279 .. 
 
 [1894] P. 280 
 
 [1900] W. N. 146 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 635 / 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 141 ; appeal dis-] 
 
 missed and cross-appeal allowed > 
 
 by C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 468 ..J 
 [1899] W. N. 235; [1900] lCh.80 
 U. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 141 
 [1900J W. N. 36 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 454 .. .. / 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q.'b. 747" 
 [1899]! Q. B. 66; C. A. 1899] 1 
 
 W. N. 5 (1) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 460/ 
 1900] 1 Ch. 319 
 1891] 3 Ch. 482 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 670 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 99 
 IQ. B. 312 ., 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 673 
 [1899] W. N. 244 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 151 ; 
 2 Ch. 463 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 414 
 
 C. A. [1900]1Q. B. 16 
 
 C. A. [1892]| 
 
 [1900]1 
 
 P. C 
 [1897 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 .600 
 
 "189(i] A. C. 
 ICli. 484 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 333 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 759 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 400 
 [1893]' W. N. 90 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 698 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 97 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 1015 
 
 A' 
 
 1892' 
 1898^ 
 1891' 
 W.' 
 
 1 Q. B. 426 
 1 Q. B. 657 
 
 W. N. 4; C. 
 
 N. 28 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 408 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 206 ; 
 1 Ch. 10 
 
 [1891] 
 [1900] 
 
 [1900 
 C. A.' 
 C. A. 
 [1891 
 C. A.' 
 
 2 Q. B. 448 
 
 1892] 2 Ch. 134 .. 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 230 
 
 1894] P. 295 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 995 
 
 997 
 
 1156 
 
 1966 
 
 370 
 1994, 
 2070 
 1995 
 
 1254 
 
 577 
 
 1197 
 1945 
 
 2039 
 
 2023 
 
 163 
 
 1870 
 1855 
 2028 
 597, 
 1489 
 2069 
 
 820 
 
 731 
 
 2239 
 
 1082, 
 2111 
 1143 
 
 252 
 1728 
 
 893 
 
 191 
 
 685 
 1476 
 
 870 
 
 585 
 1222 
 1100 
 
 204 
 
 202, 212 
 
 871, 872 
 
 830 
 561 
 205 
 1950 
 693, 951 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cell 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Thompson, In re. Ex parte Ba\ lis 
 Thompson v. Brighton Corporation 
 
 Thompson :^Bury v. 
 
 Thompson : — Green v. 
 
 Thompson v. London County Council , . 
 
 Thompson v. Mein . . r. 
 
 Thompson : — Monkswell (Lo'd) v. 
 
 Thompson : — Monkswell (Lord) v. 
 
 Thompson v. Montgomery. In re Joule's Trad( 
 
 mark 
 Thompson v. Palmer 
 Thompson v. Kedding. In re Redding . . 
 Thompson: — Eeg. u. 
 Thompson : — Eolfe v. 
 Thompson u. Eourke (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Thompson v. Thompson .. 
 
 Thompson: — Smith i). In re Smith 
 
 Thomson, In re. Thomson v. Thomson 
 
 Thomson v. Clanmorris (Lord) .. 
 
 Thomson v. Clydesdale Bank 
 Thomson : — Guyot -v. 
 
 Thomson : — Lord Advocate v. .. 
 
 Thomson v. Thomson and Eodschinka 
 Thomson v. Trustees, Jixecutors, and Securities 
 
 Insurance Corporation . . 
 Thorley, In re. Thorley v. Massam 
 Thorn: — Henderson?;. 
 Thorne «). Cann 
 Thome v. Gibbs. In re Gibbs . . 
 
 Thorne v. Heard . . 
 
 Thorne V. Tliorne .. 
 
 -Thorne-George v. Gcdfiey. In re Godfrey 
 
 Thorneloe u. Hill .. 
 
 Thornley V. Thornley 
 
 Thornton «;. France 
 
 Thornton v. Gutta Percha Corporation, Ld. In 
 
 re Gutta I'ercha Corporation, Ld. 
 Thornycroft's Patent, In re 
 
 Thoi-pe, In re. Vipont v. Eadcliffe 
 
 Thorpe :— Cattle V 
 
 Thorpe v. Priestnall 
 
 "Thorsa," The (Owners of):— The "Otto 
 
 (Owners oO^. The "Otto".. 
 Thrunscoe, The . . 
 Thurburn v. Merlin. In re Merlin 
 Thurlow (Lord), In re. Ex parte Official Ee^ 
 
 ceiver 
 Thurlow (Lord) : — Marwick v. .. 
 
 :} 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 332 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 231 ; 0. A 
 
 [1895; 
 
 - '^1 
 N. 44 ; [1895] 1 Q. B. 69(5/ 
 
 2Q. B. 1.. 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 840 
 
 W.N. 202 
 1898] 1 Q. B. 353 
 
 IQ. B. 479 
 
 W, 
 [1899' 
 C. A.' 
 [1893" 
 C. A. 
 [1898; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 217 
 
 C. A. [I893]2Q. B. 80.. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 876 
 0. C. E. [1893] 2 Q. B. 12 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 196 
 0. A. [1892] P. 244 
 1893] P. 11 ; 0. A. [1893] P. 70 
 1900] W. N. 254 
 1895] W. N. 144 (15); [1896]^ 
 
 ICh. 71 / 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 29 (4) 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 80; [1900]\ 
 
 ICh. 718 J 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 282 
 
 0. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 388 .. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N, 
 
 141 
 C. A. [1896] P. 263 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 454 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 613 .. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 164 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 11 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 625 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 530 ; C. A. [1894] 
 
 1 Ch. 599 ; H. L. (E.) [1895] 
 
 A. C. 495 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 196.. 
 
 1895] W. N, 
 ICh. 569.. 
 2Ch. 229.. 
 1897] 2 Q. B, 
 
 [1899] W. N. 251 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 415 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 360 
 
 [1900] W. N. 83 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (6) 
 IQ. B. 159 .. 
 
 C. A. 
 [1894" 
 [1893' 
 C. A.' 
 
 12 
 
 143 
 
 [1897]| 
 
 11. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 116 
 
 [1897] P. 30 
 
 [1898] W. N. 56 (3) ;. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 724 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2029 
 549, 895 
 
 1064 
 
 944 
 1517 
 1267 
 
 44 
 1824 
 
 2127 
 
 1541 
 1890 
 
 611 
 
 19 
 
 715 
 
 707 
 
 697 
 
 2188 
 
 123 
 
 1127 
 
 99, 2077 
 1433 
 
 1803 
 
 718 
 
 381 
 
 2196 
 1061 
 1297 
 1742 
 
 1128, 
 2192 
 
 786, 
 
 800 
 
 919 
 2139 
 
 904 
 1133 
 
 1554 
 
 1440 
 795, 
 2060 
 1722 
 
 2094 
 
 1954 
 
 1969 
 1484 
 
 111 
 
 317 
 
cclii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Thursby v. Briercliffe-with-Extwistle (Church-I 
 wardens, &c.) .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Benefifl 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Thurston v. Nottingham Permanent 
 
 Building Society 
 Thwaites v. Coulthwaite .. 
 Thynne v. Sari 
 Tibbatts v. Boulter 
 Tibbits' Settled Estates, In re .. 
 Tidd.Inre. Tldd v. Overell .. 
 Tidy : — Eeg. v. ., 
 
 Tidy: — Eobson «. In re Smith .. 
 
 Tiedemann and Ledermann Freres, In re 
 
 Tiessen v. Henderson 
 
 Tilbury Portland Cement Co., In re 
 
 Tillekeratne (Daniel): — Hamini (Dona Monaj 
 
 Abeyesekera) ■!>. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Tilley & Co., In re an Arbitration between the'l 
 
 Portland Urban District Council and .. .. / 
 
 TilliDg,Ld. t). Blylhe ;. 
 
 Tillott, In re. Lee v. Wilson 
 
 Tillstone: — Blaker w. 
 
 Tilt, In re. Lampet v. Kennedy 
 Timberhill, St. John the Baptist (Rector, &c.)l 
 The Same (Vicar, &g.)v. .. .. .. I 
 
 Timmis ■«. Albiston 
 
 Timothy v. Crown 
 
 Tindall, Ex parte. Burchard ?;. Macfarlane 
 
 Tippett u. Strutt .. 
 
 Titchmarsh u. Eoyston Water Co. 
 
 Tithe Act, 1891, In re The. Hughes v. Eimmer 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Tithe Act, 1891, In re. Roberts v. Potts 
 
 Titterton: — Eeg. v. 
 
 Tobias & Co., In re. Ex parte H. A. Tobias 
 
 Tobitt: — Gower v. 
 
 Tod: — Inland Revenue Commrs. v. 
 
 Tod-Heatley :— Att.-Gen. v 
 
 Tod-Heatley : — Leader v. 
 
 Tod-Heatly : — Shorter v. .. 
 
 Todd's Divorce Bill 
 
 Todmorden Co-operative Society : — Escritt v. 
 
 Tofield t;. Roberts .. 
 
 Toleman, In re. Westwood v. Booker .. 
 ToUey: — Renner t». 
 Tolworth Joint Isolation Hospital District! 
 Board: — Markey t). .. ., .. ,./ 
 
 Tom Tit Cycle Co., In re. Eisher's Case 
 Tombs: — Brown v. 
 
 Tomkinson v. Balkis Consolidated Co. '.. 
 
 Tomkinson : — Martin v. .. 
 
 
 Column 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 of 
 
 
 Digest. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 567 ; C. A. [1894][ 
 
 1018, 
 1257, 
 
 2 Q.B. 11; H. L. (E.)[1895] 
 
 1680, 
 
 A. C. 32 [ 
 
 2082 
 
 [1900] W. N. 239 
 
 227 
 
 1896] 
 
 ICh. 496 
 
 1411 
 
 1891' 
 
 2Ch. 79 
 
 1283 
 
 1895' 
 
 W.N. 152(4) .. 
 
 517 
 
 1897^ 
 
 2Ch. 149 
 
 1892 
 
 1893' 
 
 3 Ch. 154 
 
 88, 1126 
 
 1892' 
 
 2Q. B. 179 
 
 1640 
 
 190a 
 
 W. N. 75 
 
 1902 
 
 1899' 
 
 2Q. B. 66 
 
 1578 
 
 1899' 
 861 
 
 W. N. 45; [1899] 1 Ch.-I 
 / 
 
 358 
 
 [1893]W. N. 141 
 
 302 
 
 [1897] A. C. 277 
 
 266 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 98 
 
 66 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 1699 
 
 [1892]lCh. 86 
 
 2184 . 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 345 .. ..| 
 
 830, 
 1037 
 
 [1896] W. N. 9 (10) .. 
 
 2161 
 
 [1895] P. 71 
 
 751 
 
 1895] 
 
 2Q. B. 58 
 
 546 
 
 1900' 
 
 W. N. 51 
 
 1524 
 
 C. A.' 
 
 '1891] 2 Q. P. 241 
 
 663 
 
 [1891" 
 
 "W. N. 112 
 
 981 
 
 '1899' 
 
 W.N. 256 
 
 2290 
 
 [1893; 
 
 2 Q. B. 314 
 
 2112 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 33; C. A. [1894]) 
 
 1688, 
 
 IQ. B. 213 1 
 
 2071 
 
 1895] 2 Q. B. 61 
 
 20 
 
 '1891] 1 Q. B. 463 
 
 124 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 6 .. 
 
 62, 1499 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 399 .. 
 
 1793 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 560 .. 
 
 1353 
 
 [1891]W. N. 38 
 
 1565 
 
 [1894] W.N. 21 
 
 572, 
 2048 
 
 H. L. [1896] W. N. 60 (3) 
 
 696 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 461 
 
 940 
 
 [1894] W.N. 74 
 
 1488, 
 1562 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 866 
 
 1606 
 
 ;i893]W. N. 90 
 
 1078 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 454 
 
 1634 
 
 1899' 
 
 W.N. 35(6) .. 
 
 424 
 
 1891' 
 b.A." 
 
 IQ. B. 253 
 
 1387 
 
 1891] 2 Q.B.614; H.L.I 
 
 393, 402, 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 396 ../ 
 
 403 
 
 [1893 
 
 2Q. B. 121 
 
 1403 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 coliit 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Tomkinson & Co. : — Mellor u. .. 
 
 Tomlin o. Latter. In re Price .. 
 
 Tomlin's Case. In re Brinsmead (T. E.) & Sons| 
 
 Tomlinson In re. Tomlinson v. Andrew 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 :;) 
 
 Tomlinson v. Broadsmith 
 
 Tomlinson: — 'Reg. v. 
 
 Tomlinson : — ^Reynolds & Co. v... 
 
 Tompson : — Clifton College v. .. 
 
 Tomson: — Barnard w. 
 
 Toms V. Claoton Urban District Council 
 
 Tong: — Bassett «. 
 
 Tonge V. Tonge. Anderson v. Eykyn . , 
 
 Toohey : — Harrowing Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Tooth «. Power 
 
 Torish : — Clarke v. (Aiken's Case) 
 
 Torish V. Clark (Monaghan's Case) 
 
 Torish v. Clark (Starrs' Case) 
 
 Torish v. Henderson 
 
 Torish: — ^Moorehead w. .. 
 
 Torish V. Love 
 
 Toronto (Consumers' Gas Co. of) : — Johnson and> 
 
 Toronto Type Foundry Co. v... .. ..) 
 
 Toronto Corporation: — Toronto Street Ey. Co.'l 
 
 V. J 
 
 Toronto (Municipal Corporation of City of) v. 
 
 Virgo 
 Toronto By. Co. v. Beg. .. 
 Toronto Street Ky. v. Toronto Corporation 
 Torva Exploring Syndicate w. Kelly 
 Tottenham, In re. Tottenham v. Tottenham . . 
 Tottenham : — Eoyal Bank of Scotland v. 
 Tottenham and Edmonton Permanent Invest-\ 
 
 ment Building Society : — ^Bonner v. .. ..) 
 
 Tottenham and Forest Gate Ey. Co. : — Houghton 
 
 V. 
 
 Tottenham and Forest Gate Ey. Co. : — Morris v. 
 Tottenham and Forest Gate Ey. Co. : — Protheroe'l 
 
 V. / 
 
 Tottenham Urban District Council v. William-"! 
 
 son & Sons, Ld. .. ., .. ../ 
 
 Tousey v. Sheffield. In re Dixon 
 
 Towell : — Isaacs v. 
 
 Tower Assets Co. : — ^Beckett v. .. .. . . | 
 
 Tower Publishing Co. and Moncrieff : — Griffith v. 
 To werson u. Jackson 
 
 Townend, Claimant. Buckley v. Crawford 
 Townend v. Kirkham ., ,. ,, .. | 
 
 Townsend «. Jarman .. .. .. ..< 
 
 Townsend: — Pertwee v. ., 
 Townsend's Contract, In re 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 8 (2) ; [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 374 
 
 [1900] W. N. 36 ; [1900] 1 Ch 
 442 
 
 [1897] wV N. 162 (3)" C. A 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 104 
 
 [1897; 
 
 W. N. 178 (4); [1898]\ 
 
 1 Ch. 232 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 386 
 C. C. E. [1895] 1 Q. B. 706 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 586 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 432 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 374 
 [1898] W. N. 61 (10) 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 332 
 [1892] P. 51 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 28 
 P. C. 1891] A. 0.284 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [189T 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897' 
 
 C.A. (Ir.) 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 1897' 
 1898 
 1898' 
 
 W. N. 127 
 W. N. 102 
 W. N. 112 
 W. N. 112 
 W. N. 95 
 W. N. 93 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 447 .. 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 511 .. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 88 .. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 551 .. 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 511 .. 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 612 .. 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 628 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 715 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 165 (10) 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 161 
 
 [1892] W. N. 88 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 47 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 278 
 
 C. A 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 353 
 
 [1898] W. N. 65 (2) 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 443 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 285 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 1; C. A. [1891]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 638 .. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 21 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 484 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 105 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 163 (6): 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 51 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 172; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 698 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 129 
 [1895] ICh. 716.. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1216 
 1473 
 
 422 
 
 2337 
 
 81 
 621 
 1943 
 1757 
 227 
 567 
 594 
 692 
 1998 
 1324 
 1383 
 1402 
 1378 
 1368 
 1394 
 1378 
 
 253 
 254 
 
 254 
 
 245 
 254 
 261 
 791 
 94 
 
 1082 
 
 1528 
 1655 
 1654 
 
 1347 
 
 553 
 
 2243 
 
 205 
 
 511 
 1079, 
 1275 
 932 
 
 1492 
 
 1420 
 
 1714 
 2249 
 
ccliv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Trade-Mark 96,997. In re Field & Co.j 
 4 (J. 0. & J.) V. Wagel Syndicate .. .. / 
 Traflford: — Muller v. 
 Trainor u. Starbmck 
 Transvaal Exploring Co. v. Albion (Transvaal)'! 
 Gold Mines, Ld. / 
 
 Travis, In re. Frost y. Greatorex .. ..| 
 
 Travis v. Uttley .. 
 
 Traynor V. Jones .. 
 
 Treadgokl v. Grantham (Town Clerk of) 
 
 Treboeth Brick Co., Ex parte. In re Phillips . 
 
 Treasure, In re. Wild v. Stanham ., .. | 
 
 Tredegar Iron and Coal Co. v. Owners of SS.'i 
 "Calliope" / 
 
 Tredwell, In re. Jeffray i;. Tredwell (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Treeby: — Hatton v. 
 
 Treemer: — Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. .. 
 
 Tr^fond, In the Goods of 
 
 Trego i;. Hunt .. .. .. .. ..] 
 
 Treharris Brewery Co. : — Davies v. 
 
 Treleaven: — Curran v. .. 
 
 Volume and Pasre. 
 
 Ch.| 
 
 [1900] W. N. 67 ; [1900] 1 
 
 651 
 
 [1900] W. N. 251 
 1893] W. N. 196 
 1899] W. N. 122; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 370 / 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 159 ; [1900]\ 
 2Ch. 451 ., . ' 
 1 Q. B. 233 
 1 Q. B. 83 
 
 1 Q. B. 163 
 
 2 Q. B. 122 
 W. N. 181 ; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2137 
 
 1084 
 1388- 
 
 381 
 
 :■} 
 
 "{ 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Trench v. Hamilton. In re Hamilton .. 
 
 Trench v. Heathcote. In re Heathcote .. 
 Trench Tiibeless Tyre Co., In re. Bethell v.\ 
 
 Trench Tubeless Tyre Co / 
 
 Trent-Stoughton v. Barbados Water Supply Co. 
 Trevor v. Hutchins 
 Trevor-Garrick : — Stevens u. 
 
 Trew V. Perpetual Trustee Co 
 
 Trieste (General Insurance Co. of) (Assicurazioni\ 
 Generali) v. Cory .... i 
 
 Trigg:— Hall & Co. V ,', 
 
 Trinder, Anderson & Co. v. Thames and Mirsey 
 Marine Insurance Co. The Same v. North 
 Queensland Insurance Co. The Same v. 
 Weston, Crocker & Co. 
 
 Trinidad Asphalt Co. v. Ambard .. .. / 
 
 Trinidad Asphalt Co. i;. Coryat 
 
 Trinidad and Tobago (Att.-Gen. for) v. Bourne 
 
 Trinidad and Tobago (Att.-Gen. for) v. Eriche 
 
 Trinity House (Corporation of):— Richmond \ 
 
 Hill Steamship Co. D. .. „ ,, __/ 
 
 Tristram (Dr.) : — ^Eeg. u. .. " " 
 
 Tritton, In re .. .. ., [\ 
 
 Tritton: — Blewitt v. .. .'.' '' " 
 
 Trollope v. London Building Trades Federation | 
 
 1894 
 1894° 
 1895' 
 1896° 
 1900° 
 ■ 648 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 11 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 640 .. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 201 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 452 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 166 
 
 [1899] P. 247 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 462; H. L.l 
 
 (E.) [1896] A. C. 7 .. ..( 
 
 [1894] W. N. 198 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 545 
 
 [1895] ICh. 373; C. A. [1895])' 
 2 Ch. 370 .. .. *• 
 
 [1891]W. N. 10.. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 258; C. A. [1900] 
 W. N. 42 ; [1900] 1 Oh. 408 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. 0. 502 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 844 ,. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 307 
 
 P. 0. [1895] A. 0. 264 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 335 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 219 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 114 
 
 P. C.[1899]2Ch.260,n.; 
 
 A. 0.594 
 P. 0. [1896] A. 0. 587 .. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0. 83 ., 
 P. C. [1893] A. 0. 518 .. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 134 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 371 
 [1891] W. N. 194 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 327 
 [1895] W. N. 29 ; 0. A. 
 W. N. 45 
 
 [1899]1 
 
 [1895]\ 
 
 J 
 
 1914 
 1100 
 1391 
 121 
 
 2363 
 
 2017 
 
 2319, 
 2329 
 
 786 
 
 190 
 1076, 
 1136 
 1605 
 
 1419 
 
 564, 916 
 607, 
 2143 
 
 2352 
 
 1906 
 
 448 
 
 186 
 
 804 
 
 957 
 
 1334, 
 
 2354 
 
 1001 
 
 79 
 
 997 
 
 2096 
 
 1706 
 624, 
 2156 
 599, 769, 
 2156 
 
 2017 
 
 744 
 
 1049 
 45, 1803 
 650, 969, 
 
 2143 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 CCl7 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 TroUope & Sons : — Sims v. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Trotter, In re. Trotter u. Trotter 
 
 Trotter :—Log3don V. 
 
 Troughton, In re. Kent and General Colleoting 
 
 and Estate Co. i). Troughton .. 
 Troup, Ex parte. In re Hawkins 
 Trouville Pier and Steamboat Co. and Harding : 
 
 — Darlington Wagon Co. v. 
 Trubeu's Trusts, In re 
 Trubshawe : — Sheba Gold Mining Co. v. 
 True Blue (Hannan's) Gold Mining Co. : — 
 
 Burdett-Coutts v. 
 
 Truefitt, Ld. : — Co wen v. .. 
 
 ;} 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Truman's Case. In ro Brewery Assets Corpora- 
 
 tion 
 
 r) 
 
 Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & Co. v. Kerslake 
 
 Trust and Investment ' Corporation of South'! 
 
 Africa, In re. In re Bertram Luipaard's Vlei > 
 
 Gold Mining Co. .. J 
 
 Trustee, Ex parte. In re Ford .. .. ..| 
 
 Trustee, Ex parte. In re Warren 
 
 Trastee, The, Ex parte. In re Goetz, Jonas & 
 
 Co 
 
 Trustee in Bankruptcy, Ex parte. In re Helsby 
 Trustee in Bankruptcy, Ex parte. In re 
 
 Hildesbeim 
 
 Trustee (Tiie), Ex parte. In re Carl Hirth 
 
 Trustees, Executors, and Securities Insurance'! 
 
 Corporation: — Morrison v. .. .. ../ 
 
 Trustees, Executors, and Securities Insurance'! 
 
 Corporation: — Thomsons. .. .. ../ 
 
 Trustees, Executors, and Securities Investmenfl 
 
 Corporation : — Imperial Ottoman Bank v. . . / 
 
 TrusweU: — HoUinrake v. . . 
 
 Tsune Kijima : — Peninsular and Oriental Steam\ 
 Navigation Co. v. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Tubbs ■!;. Wynne .. 
 
 Tucker, In re 
 
 Tucker, In re. Tucker v. Tucker (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 " Tucker V. Vowles 
 Tucker v. Wintle. In re Wintle 
 Tucker's Settled Estates, In re .. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Tucket v. Sbaw. In re Shaw .. 
 
 TugweE :— Wright v. In re Eobinson 
 Tullett V. ColviUe. In re Wood 
 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 160 (4); 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 24 
 [1899] W. N. 36 (13); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 764 / 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 617 
 
 [1894] W. N. 154 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 404 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 245 
 
 1892] 3 Ch. 55 
 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 674 
 
 1899] W. N. 97 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 W. N. 113 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 616 / 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 551 ; 0. A. [1899]) 
 
 W. N. 102 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 309 ) 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 272 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 774 
 
 !} 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 332 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 124; [1900] 
 
 Q. B. 211 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 138 
 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 787 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 742 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 357 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 10 (2) ; [1899]\ 
 IQ. B. 612 / 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 154 (3) .. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 454 
 
 [1895] W. N. 23 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 377; C. A. [1894]\ 
 3Ch. 420 / 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 661 .. ..( 
 
 [1896] W. N. 167 (11); 
 1 Q. B. 74 ., 
 
 [1897] 
 
 1897' 
 1893' 
 1894 
 
 [1893' 
 [1896' 
 C. A. 
 
 P. 83 
 
 2Ch. 323 
 
 1 Ch. 724; C. A. 
 
 !?) 
 
 3 Ch. 429 
 
 1 Ch. 195 
 
 2 Ch. 711 
 1895] 2 Ch. 468 
 
 [1894]| 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 95; 0. A. [1896]1 
 W. N. 170(2); [1897] 1 Ch.l 
 85 I 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 310; 0. A. [1894]) 
 3Ch. 381 ./ 
 
 197 
 
 2309 
 
 1148 
 
 852 
 
 159 
 
 59 
 
 2199 
 1566 
 
 380 
 
 1077 
 
 372, 393 
 1349 
 
 440, 441 
 
 144 
 133 
 137 
 113 
 152 
 
 102 
 
 395 
 
 381 
 
 516 
 
 527, 
 1426 
 
 837, 
 1511 
 
 2222 
 
 717 
 
 30 
 1423, 
 2185 
 2225 
 2317 
 1864 
 
 793, 
 1470, 
 1729 
 
 753 
 
 520, 
 2349 
 
cclvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Tulley: — Dyer v. .. 
 
 TuUis u. Jacson .. 
 Tulloch: — Hobson V. 
 
 Tunbridge Wells Corporation ; — Baird v. ..< 
 
 Tunks: — Batho w. 
 
 Turcan : — Caledonian Ry. Co. v... 
 
 TurnbuU, In re. Tnmbull v. Nicholas .. .. / 
 
 Turnbull, In re. Tumbull r. Turnbull 
 
 TambuU v. Hayes. In re Hayes .. .. | 
 
 Turnbull : — Irving v. 
 
 Turnbull, Martin & Co. v. Hull Underwriters! 
 Association .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Turnbull v. West Eiding Athletic Club (Leeds) 
 
 Tumell j;. Sanderson 
 
 Turner, In re. Barker v. Ivimey 
 
 Turner: — Born v. .. ., ., .. ..i 
 
 Turner V. Goldsmith 
 Turner w. Green .. 
 Turner: — Greenwood?;. .. 
 Turner: — Jacomb r. 
 
 T'urner : — Jersey (Attorney-General and Recei ver-\ 
 General) u. .. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Turner (Judge) and Hodgson: — Eeg. v. 
 Turner v. King. In re Davenport 
 
 Turner v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. ( 
 The"Zeta" 
 
 Turner : — Ottley v. In re Lord Ongley 
 
 Turner : — ^Raybould v. In re Kaybould 
 
 Turner v. Smith .. 
 Turner : — Spiller v. 
 
 Turner i;. Stallibrass 
 
 Turner v. Watson. In re Watson 
 Turner Brothers : — Francis w. .. 
 
 Turney, In re. Tumey v. Tumey 
 
 Turpin v. Somerton, &c.. Tramway Co. 
 Tussaud (Louis) : — Monson v. ., 
 Tussauds, Ld. : — Monson v. 
 
 Tuticorin Cotton Press Co., In re 
 
 Tweed, Ex parte .. 
 
 Tweedale, In re. Ex parte Tweedale 
 
 Twickenham Urban Council v. Munton 
 
 Twigg's Estate, In re. Twigg v. Black .. 
 Twigg & Co. : 
 Twiss : 
 
 Volame and Page. 
 
 •{ 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 794 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 441 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 424 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 867 ;\ 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 434 .. / 
 [1892] W. N. 101 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 256 
 [1899] W. N. 229 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 180 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 415 
 
 [1900] W. N. 139 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 332 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 129 !! 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 402 
 
 ColniM 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 544 
 2Ch. 205 
 2 Ch. 144 
 1 Q. B. 47 
 
 Westbury 
 Aaron's Eeefs, Ld 
 
 Twist : — Gwilliam v. 
 
 Twyerould v. Chamber Colliery Co. 
 
 Gregson (Claimant) 
 
 ••{, 
 
 1894] W.N. 4 
 
 1891]W. N. 71 
 
 1897] 1 Ch. 536 
 
 1900] W. N. 122 ; [1900] 2 Ch.) 
 
 ^ 211 ( 
 
 C. A. 
 [1895" 
 [1891 
 [1892 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 326 
 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 445 
 1895] 1 Ch. 361 
 
 [1891] P. 216; C. A. [1892]] 
 
 P. 285; H. L. (E.) [1893] 
 
 ( A. C.468 .. .. .. 
 
 I C. A. [1896] W. N. 54 (16) .. 
 /, [1899] W. N. 244 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 \\ 199 .. .. ., .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 273 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 911 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 167 (9) ;] 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 56 .. .. ( 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 925 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 478 
 
 [1899] W.N. 211; C.A 
 
 2 Ch. 739 
 [1900] W. N. 94 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 671 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 671 
 
 [1894] W. N. 181 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 167 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 216 
 [1898] W. N. 170 (14); [18991) 
 lCb.168; C.A. [1899] W.N 
 103; [1899] 2 Ch. 603 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 579 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 77 
 H. L. (I.) [1896] A. C. 273 " 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 2 Q. B. 84 
 C. A. [18^2] W. N. 27 
 
 [1899]| 
 
 ••( 
 
 ?■; C.A. [1895JV 
 
 1030, 
 2070 
 55,59 
 601 
 2079, 
 2202 
 1724 
 1088 
 
 914 
 
 980 
 
 1477 
 
 221 
 
 992 
 
 340,960 
 
 51,1413 
 
 2176 
 
 1119 
 
 514 
 2062 
 2229 
 
 935 
 
 1020 
 
 592 
 901 
 
 1959 
 
 2360 
 
 2183 
 
 1291 
 310 
 
 585 
 
 803 
 1224 
 
 2351 
 
 1363 
 
 645, 963 
 
 645, 96a 
 
 401, 
 
 1830 
 
 2026. 
 
 131 
 
 2085" 
 
 1013 
 
 485 
 
 374 
 
 1242 
 
 1267- 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 colvii 
 
 N^ame of Case. 
 
 Tye, In re .. | 
 
 Tyler, In re. Tyler v. Tyler 
 
 Tyler: — Cameron «;. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Tyler u. Kingtam & Son, Ld. .. 
 
 Tyler and the International Commercial Co: — ■! 
 
 Beg. w. .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Tylor: — Oriental Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Tyndall u. Castle 
 
 Tyndall : — ^Lawledge v. In re Cook's Mortgage 
 Tyne Improvement Commrs. : — Arrow SMpping-i 
 
 Co. u. The "Crystal" / 
 
 Tyne and Blyth Shipping Co. v. Leech, Harri--i 
 
 son and Forwood .. ,. .. ..| 
 
 Tynemouth Corporation v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 Tynemouth Eural District Council : — Reg. v. 
 
 " Tynwald," The 
 
 Tyrrell v. Painton (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Tyrrell: — Pteg. w. .. 
 
 Tyser v. Shipowners' Syndicate (Ee-assured) 
 
 Tyser: — Sleigh v.., 
 
 Tyson v. Kelcey. In re Kelcey .. ,. .. •< 
 
 Tyssen, In re. Knight-Bruce v. Butterworth 
 
 u. 
 
 Uckfleld Eural Council v. Crowborough District\ 
 
 Water Co / 
 
 Ugle :^Ellenor v, , . 
 Ultzen V. Nicols . . 
 "Umbilo,"The .. 
 Underwood v. Underwood 
 
 Underwood : — ^Wimbledon Local Board v. 
 
 Underwood (E.) & Son, Ld. v. Barker . . 
 
 Underwood, Son & Piper ■!;. Lewis 
 
 Underwriting and Agency Association: — Hen-'l 
 derson u. .. ., .. .. ../ 
 
 Union Bank of Australia, Ex parte. In re 
 Queensland Mercantile and Agency Co. Ex 
 parte Australasian Investment Co. (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Union Bank of Canada : — Tennant v. .. 
 
 Union Bank of London, Garnishees. Barnett vA 
 Howard .. .. .. .. ., .. / 
 
 Union Colliery Co. of British Columbian. Bryden 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 8 ; [1900]\ 
 ICh. 249 / 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 [1899] W. N. 80 ; [1899] 2 Q. B.\ 
 
 94 ../ 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 413 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 588 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 518 
 [1893]W. N. 40 
 [1890] 1 Ch. 923 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1894] A. 0. 508 .. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 12 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 604; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1899] W. N. 71 ; [1899] 
 
 A. C.293 : 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 451 
 
 [1895] P. 142 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 151 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 C. C. E. [1894] 1 Q. B. 710 
 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 135 
 
 1900] 2 Q. B. 333 
 
 1899] W. N. 133; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 530 / 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 56 .. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 664 
 
 [1895] 
 1894 
 1891" 
 O.A.' 
 
 W. N. 161 (8) 
 1 Q. B. 92 
 P. 118 .. 
 1894] P. 201 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 836 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 11 (7); 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 300 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 306 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 536 ; 
 1 Ch. 219 
 
 C. A. [1892]! 
 
 [1891] W. N. 132 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 31 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 179; [1900]\ 
 
 2Q. B.784 ^ 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 580 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 1191 
 
 279, 280, 
 2318, 
 2347 
 
 2295 
 
 23 
 
 36 
 
 •1974 
 2225 
 934 
 
 2012 
 1961 
 
 544 
 
 1918 
 1999, 
 2070 
 1619 
 1697 
 
 620 
 
 998 
 1000 
 
 1298 
 
 1476 
 
 222 
 
 1702 
 
 89 
 1984 
 
 688 
 
 209, 
 1688 
 
 1725 
 
 2057 
 
 667 
 
 491 
 
 481 
 
 239, 240, 
 
 292 
 
 918 
 
 249 
 
oclviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case, 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Union Credit Bank v. Mersey Docks and Harbour] 
 Board. Same v. Same and North and Soutli > 
 Wales Bank .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Union Marine Insurance Co. v. Berwick 
 
 Union Steamship Co. v. Claridge 
 
 Union Steamship Co. : — Weir v. 
 
 Union Works, Ld. : — Oldrey v. .. 
 
 Unionist Club, Ld., In re . . 
 
 United Alkali Co. v. Simpson 
 
 United Forty Pound Loan Club v. Bexton 
 
 United Kingdom Marine Matual Insurances 
 
 Association: — Small v. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assuiunce\ 
 
 Association i;. Houston & Co. .. .. ../ 
 
 United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurancee'l 
 
 Association : — Montgomerie v. . . . . J 
 
 United Ordnance and Engineering Co., Ex parte.'l 
 
 In re Hooley .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 United Service Association, In re 
 
 United Eealization Co. v. Inland Eevenuel 
 Oommrs. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 United States of America V. Pelly 
 
 Universal Automatic Machines Co. : — Wallace v. 
 
 Universal Stock Exchange, Ld. : — McHarg v. . . 
 
 Universal Stock Exchange, Ld. v. Straolian/ 
 (No. 1) 1 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Universe Insurance Co. of Milan v. Merchants] 
 Marine Insurance Co. ., .. .. ..] 
 
 Unsworth V. Jordan .. 
 
 Unwin V. Hanson ., 
 Unwin v. McMullen 
 Upperton t). Ridley 
 
 Upton r. Jeans. In re Jeans 
 
 Usher: — ^Matthews «. 
 
 " Utopia," The. The "Utopia" (Owners of) v. 
 
 " Simula " (Owners, &c., of) 
 
 Uttermare, In re. Leeson v. Foulis 
 
 Uttley: — Travis v. 
 
 Uxbridge Union Eural Sanitary Authority : — 1 
 
 Jersey, Earl r. (No. 1)., .. .. ../ 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 V. 
 
 Vagliano Brothers : — Bank of England v. 
 
 Vale & Sons v. Moorgate Street and Broad Street\ 
 
 Buildings, Ld. .. 
 Vale of Evesham Preserves Co. : — Davies v. . 
 Vallancey i). Fletcher .. .. .. 
 
 _^Volume and Page. 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B.^05 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 279 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 185 .. 
 0. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 28 ; H. L. (E.) 
 [1900] W. N. 168; [1900] 
 A. C. 525 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1895] W.N. 77.. 
 
 [1891]W. N. 64 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 116 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 28, n 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 42 ; affirmed by\ 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 311 ../ 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 567 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 370 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 579 
 
 [1900] W. N. 243; [1901] 1 Ch.\ 
 97 / 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 361 
 
 [1899] W. N. 12 (9) .. 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 547 .. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 81 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 329 ;\ 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 166 ../ 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 697 
 
 [1896] W. N. 169 (6); [1897]] 
 1 Q. B. 205 ; afBrmed by C. A. \ 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 93 .. ..J 
 
 [1896] W. N. 2 (5) 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 115 
 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 694 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 680 
 
 [1895] W. N. 98 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 535 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 492 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 158 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 233 
 
 [1891]W. N. 31 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 183 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 107 
 
 [1899] W. N. 52 
 
 [1895] W. N. 105 
 [1897] IQ. B. 265 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■•{! 
 
 2158 
 
 987 
 1243 
 
 1934 
 
 315, 322, 
 
 1503 
 447, 451 
 
 1987 
 
 205 
 
 984 
 59 
 
 149 
 
 422 
 
 1800 
 
 834 . 
 
 315 
 
 40 
 
 2075 
 
 870 
 
 998 
 
 1416 
 891 
 37, 547 
 1454 
 2314, 
 2325 
 1079 
 
 1954 
 
 2368 
 1914 
 
 1918 
 
 1918 
 
 95, 192, 
 2066 
 
 1063 
 
 1700 
 752 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cclix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Valley Gold, Ld. :— Soeatli v. . . 
 Vanderspar & Co. v. DuncaB & Co. 
 Vane: — Millbank i;. 
 
 — Foxwell V. 
 
 — Poxwell V. 
 V. Foxwel!. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Foxwell 
 
 Van| 
 
 In re Bowes.. 
 In re Bowes . . | 
 
 Van Grutten : 
 
 Van Grutten : 
 Van Grutten 
 Grutten .. 
 Van Grutten : — Fricker v. 
 Van Os : — Thomas v. 
 Vane : — Strathmore (Earl of) v. 
 
 Vane : — Strathmore (Earl of) v. 
 
 VansColina: — Mercer «. 
 
 Vansittart, In re. Bx parte Brown (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) . . 
 
 Varieties, Ld. (The), In re 
 
 Varley v. Whipp .. 
 
 Varty : — Delobhel-Flipo v. 
 
 Vasey : — ^Montreal Gas Co. ■!!. 
 
 Vassall : — Knapp v. In re Knapp's Settlement 
 
 Varlow, Martin and. In re 
 
 Vauda v. Newcastle (Mayor and Uounoillors of) 
 
 Vaughan : — Goldstein v. 
 
 Vaughan-Sherrin Electrical Engineering Co. : — 
 
 Hamilton v. 
 Vautin, In re. Bx parte Saifery 
 
 Vautin, In re. Ex parte Saffery 
 
 :} 
 
 0. A. 
 [1891 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 (11) 
 
 1893] 1 Oh. 477 .. 
 W. N. 178 
 1893] 3 Oh. 79 .. 
 1896] W. N. 158 (6), 
 [1897]lCh. 64 
 
 161| 
 
 658 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 97 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Oh. 649 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 448 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 507 
 
 [1900] W. N. 123; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 251 
 
 ./ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Vavasour, In re .. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Vavasour: — Mioklethwaite v. .. ,, 
 
 Vawdrey u. Simpson .. .. ,. ..|, 
 
 Venner v. M'Donell 
 
 Venables D. Baring Brothers & Co. 
 
 Venn and Furzes Contract, In re 
 
 Vemer v. General and Commercial Investmentl 
 
 Trust / 
 
 Verney's Settled Estates, In re . . 
 
 Vernon Tinplate Co., Ld., In re. In re Queen's\ 
 
 Hotel (Cardiff), Ld / 
 
 Vernon v. Vernon. In re Sudbury and Poynton'l 
 
 Settled Estates / 
 
 Vernon «. Watson .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Verreries de I'Etoile, La Society Anonyme des,"! 
 In re. Trade-mark of (No. 1) . . . . . . J 
 
 (No. 2){ 
 
 -Eobin-'l 
 
 Veterinary Surgeons (Eoyal College of) 
 , son V. 
 
 Vicary : — Anderson v. .. ., 
 
 Vickers, In re. Vickers v. Mellor 
 Vickers, Sons & Maxim : — Osborn v. 
 
 1900' 
 1893" 
 
 K 
 IQ. 
 
 1893] 2 Q. 
 1893] " "■ 
 1900' 
 
 B. 130, n 
 
 B. 181 
 B. 377 
 2 Ch 235 
 
 W. N. 38 ; [1900] 1 Q. B.\ 
 513" / 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 663 .. ..| 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 595 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 91 
 
 [1894] W. N. 223 
 
 P. 0. [1899] A. C. 246 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 549 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 589 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 549 
 
 [1900] W. N. 136 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 
 325 
 [1900] W.N. 118 ;' [1900] 2 Q. B.\ 
 
 309 / 
 
 H 
 
 [1893' 
 [1895' 
 
 ICh 
 [1897' 
 [1892' 
 [1894 
 
 0. A. 
 
 W. N. 61 
 W. N. 152 
 166 
 
 1 Q. B. 421 
 3 Ch. 527 
 
 2 Ch. 101 
 
 (7); [1896]\ 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 239 .. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 508 
 [1900] W. N. 77 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 792 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 74 
 
 [1891] 
 2Q. 
 
 !. B. 400 : 
 
 288 .. ■ 
 
 C. A. [1891]j 
 
 [1893] W. N. 119 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 61; C. A. [1894]1 
 2Ch. 26 \ 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 [1899] W. N. 122 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 
 436;0. A. [1900] W. N. 128; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 287 .. 
 [1900] W. N. 242 
 C. A. [1900]2Q. B. 91.. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 326 
 1941 
 2324 
 
 1697 
 
 1471 
 
 2325 
 
 1509 
 830 
 2342 
 
 2035 
 
 178 
 183 
 184 
 483 
 
 1816 
 
 597, 
 1527 
 
 509 
 1910 
 1504 
 1313 
 1235 
 
 945 
 
 167 
 
 131 
 
 173 
 
 1533 
 
 66 
 
 1159 
 1319' 
 2251 
 
 354 
 
 1882 
 
 316 
 
 1864 
 
 858 
 
 569 
 
 2136 
 
 2257 
 
 861 
 
 2304 
 1225 
 
 r 2 
 
cell 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 " Victoria," The. Carswell i;. Collard .. ..[ 
 
 Victoria Brewery Co.: — East Stoaehouse Looah 
 
 Board v. .. .. .. ., .. .. / 
 
 Tictoria Brick Works, In re 
 
 Victoria Corporation v. Patterson. The Same v.\ 
 
 Lang / 
 
 Victoria Insurance Co. : — King t;. 
 
 Victoria (Master in Equity of Supreme Court of)"i 
 
 V. Pearson .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Victoria Steamboats, Ld., In re. Smith v.v 
 
 Wilkinson .. .. .. .. ..] 
 
 Victoria, Supreme Court (Master in Equity) : — \ 
 
 Beaver v. .. .. .. . . . . / 
 
 Victorian Kail ways Commr. :— Falkingham v. .. 
 
 Viditz j;. O'Hagan .. .. .. ..] 
 
 Vidler : — Kent County Council v. .. . . 
 
 Villensky : — Beg. «/. 
 
 Vimbos, Ld., In re 
 
 Vinall V. De Pass . . 
 Vincent v. Eyton . . 
 
 Tinoe, In re. Ex parte Baxter 
 
 -" Vindomora," The. Owners of the SS. " Vin-] 
 domora" v. Lamb and Owners of SS.} 
 "Haswell" J 
 
 Vine u. Ealeigh (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Viney, Ex parte. In re Eaton & Co. 
 
 Violet Consolidated Gold Mining Co. 
 
 Vipont V. Butler . . 
 
 Vipont V. Radcliffe. In re Thor^^e 
 
 "Virgo : — Toronto (Municipal Corporation of City\ 
 of)v / 
 
 Vitoria, In re. Ex parte Spanish Corporation, 
 Ld. 
 
 Vitoria, In re. Ex paite Vitoria 
 
 Vivian & Co., In re. Metropolitan Bank of Eug-' 
 land and Wales v. Vivian & Co. 
 
 Vizetelly v. Mudie's Select Library, Ld. 
 
 Vogan & Co. : — Cotton v. 
 
 Volp : — Lowe v. .. 
 
 Von Joel V. Horiisey 
 
 Von Linden, In the Goods (-f 
 
 " Vortigei-n," The 
 
 Vowles V. Colmer . . 
 Vowles : — Tucker v. 
 
 :) 
 
 "::} 
 
 " Vortigern," The . 
 
 Vreones : — Reg. v. 
 " Vulcan," The . 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] W. N. 106; 
 [1893] A. C. 635 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 514 
 
 [1898] W. N. 162 (1) .. 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 615 .. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 250 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 214 .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 158 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 251 ., 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 452 .. 
 [1889] W. N. 99 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 569 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 103 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 87 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 448 
 0. C. 1(. [1892] 2 Q. B. 507 .. i 
 [1900] W. N. 23; [1900] 1 Ch.\' 
 
 470 1 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 90 
 
 [1897] P. 1 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 587 ; C. A. [1892] 
 
 2Q. B. 478 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 1 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 13 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 37 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 16 
 [1899] W. N. 66 
 
 [1893] W.N. 64 .. ..i 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 360 .. ..\ 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 88 .. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 259 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 387 
 
 5 
 
 [1900] W. N. 133 ; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 654 .. ... 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 170 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 652 ; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1896] A. C. 457 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 256 
 
 C. A. [1895]2Ch. 774 .. 
 
 [1896] P. 148 .. 
 
 U. A. [1899] W. N. 34 (2); 
 
 [1899] P. 140.. 
 [1895]W. N. 42 .. ;■ 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 195 
 0. A. [1899] W.N. 34 (2); [1899]! 
 
 P-140 .. .. -'j 
 
 C. C. E. [1891] 1 Q. B. 360 
 [1898] P. 222 .. 
 
 1943 
 
 575 
 311 
 248 
 1638 
 2261 
 
 332 
 
 1787, 
 
 2261 
 
 58 
 
 493 
 
 894 
 617 
 
 418 
 
 78 
 748 
 
 140 
 
 1949 
 
 8, 2160 
 1889 
 
 131 
 
 403 
 
 2049, 
 
 2196 
 
 795, 
 2060 
 
 254 
 
 113 
 
 142, 159 
 
 320 
 
 649 
 
 1162 
 
 2151 
 966, 
 1121 
 1615 
 
 1944 
 
 1913 
 2225 
 
 1944 
 
 611 
 2016 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cclxi 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Vulcan Boiler and General Insurance Co. v. 
 
 Inland Revenue. Lancaster Insurance Co. v. 
 
 The Same 
 Vyse: — Payne-Collier u. In re Lawrenson 
 
 w. 
 
 Waddell w. Waddell 
 
 Waddington, In re. Bacon v. Bacou 
 Wade V. Palmer . . 
 Wade : — Palmer v. 
 Wade: — Somersets. 
 Wade : — Sutton v. 
 Wade: — Taylor u. In re Taylor 
 Wade V. Wade 
 Wadeson : — ^Ellis v. 
 
 Wagel Syndicate :— Field & Co. (J. C. & J.) «.' 
 In re Trade-mark 96,997 , 
 
 Waikato (SS.) Owners of Cargo on Board v. ^ew 
 Zealand Shipping Co. .. 
 
 Wainwright D. Miller 
 Wainwright & Co. : — Parkinson u. 
 Waite : — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 Waithman : — Lynde v. .. 
 
 Wakefield Corporation : — HoUiday v. 
 Wakefield Rolling Stock Co., In re 
 Wakefield: — Sharp?;. 
 
 Wakelin v. London and South Western Ry. Co. I 
 
 Waldegrave (Countess), In re. Earl Waldegrave") 
 f . Earl of Selborne . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Wales v. Wales 
 
 Walker, In re. Sheffield Banking Co. v. Clayton 
 
 Walker, In re. Summers v. Barrow 
 
 Walker, In re. Walker v. Lutycns 
 
 Walker: — ^Allcard r. 
 
 Walker v. Bach. Lloyd's Bank v. Bach. In re\ 
 Bach J 
 
 Walker v. Baird . . 
 
 Walker v. Brisley. Grinter v. Fleming 
 
 Walker v. Burchnall. In re Burchnall.. 
 
 Walker v. Crawshay. In re Crawshay .. 
 
 Walker v. Crystal Palace District Gas Co. 
 
 Walker:— Dibbv. 
 
 Walker: — Hamiltoni;. .. 
 
 Walker: — ^Hogarth f. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Walker: — Hudson v. 
 
 Walker V. Lilleshall Coal Co 
 
 Walker: — London & North Western Ry. Co. 
 
 Walker; — Eayw. .. 
 
 Walker's Settled Estate, In re .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ..( 
 
 [1898] W. N. 174 (13); [1899]\ 
 1 Q. B. 353 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 28 .. 
 
 [1892] P. 226 
 
 [1897" 
 [1894" 
 [1894' 
 [1894' 
 [1891' 
 [1894' 
 [1898' 
 0. A." 
 [1900" 
 651 
 
 W. N. 6 (8) 
 1 Q. B. 268 
 1 Q. B. 268 
 1 Q. B. 574 
 1 Q. B. 269 
 
 1 Ch. 671 
 
 2 Ch. 276 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 714 
 W. N. 67; [1900] 1 Ch.) 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 645 ; C. A. [1898] 
 W. N. 152 (15); [1899] 1 
 Q. B. 56 
 
 1897] 2 Ch. 255 
 
 1895]W. N. 63 
 
 189:^] 2 Q. B. 600 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 180 
 
 H. L. (E.) 1891] A. C. 81 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 165 
 " L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 173 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 H 
 
 C. A. & H, 
 189, n, 
 
 L. (B.) [1896] 1 Q. B.- 
 
 [1899] W. N. 240 
 
 1900" 
 1892' 
 1900" 
 1897' 
 1896' 
 
 P. 63 
 
 1 Ch. 621 
 W. N. 275 
 
 2 Ch. 238 
 2 Ch. 369 
 
 [1892] W. N. 108 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 491 
 
 1900 
 1893' 
 1891 
 1891 
 
 2 Q. B. 735 
 W. N. 171 
 
 3 Ch. 176 
 
 2 Q. B. 300 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 429 .. .A 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 25 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 401 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 127 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 283/ 
 [1894] W. N. 180 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 481 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 34 
 
 [1900] A. C. 109 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 88 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 189 .. ..| 
 
 :} 
 
 Columa 
 
 of 
 Digest, 
 
 1799 
 2353 
 
 700, 
 1533 
 1478 
 1395 
 1395 
 1106 
 1390 
 
 791 
 1743 
 1528 
 
 213T 
 
 1969' 
 
 1474 
 
 317 
 
 620 
 1280, 
 1565 
 1263 
 
 416 
 1101 
 
 1646 
 
 885 
 705 
 
 i58r 
 
 2160 
 2312. 
 720 
 
 78& 
 
 628- 
 1752' 
 1702 
 1902 
 560 
 1126, 
 2071 
 1036 
 
 993 
 
 80 
 1214 
 
 1648 
 
 1092 
 1858, 
 1862 
 
cclxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Walkley, In the Goods of 
 
 Wall V. London and Northern Assets Corporation 
 
 Wall V. London and Northern Assets Corporationj 
 
 Wallace i». Borrie . . .. .. .. ■■{ 
 
 Wallace v. Gibson 
 
 Wallace, V. Bvershed 
 
 Wallace: — Smith w. 
 
 Wallace v. Universal Automatic Machines Co. 
 AVallace's Case. In re Metropolitan Fire Insur 
 ance Co. .. 
 
 Wallasey Local Board : — Hill v... 
 
 Wallasey Brick and Lnnd Co., In re 
 Wallen V. Lister .. 
 Waller: — Young i). 
 
 Waller i;. Atkinson. In re Atkinson .. 
 
 Wallington : — South African Territories v. 
 Wallis, In le. Ex parte Board of Trade 
 Wallis and Barnard's Contract, In re 
 Wallis i;. Bendy. In re Bendy .. 
 
 Wallis i;. Hands .. 
 
 Wallis :— Ward & Co. v 
 
 Wallscourt (Lord) Case. In re Companies'! 
 
 Guardians Society .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Wallroth 11. Eoper 
 
 Wallsend Local Board : — Crumble v. 
 
 Walmsley : — lUingworth i;. 
 
 Walpole: — Wiedemann u. 
 
 Walsall Assessment Committee: — Horton 
 
 Son V. .. 
 
 Walsh & Sons: — Wood v. 
 
 Walsh, In the Goods of .. 
 
 Walsh :—Fecitt V. 
 
 Walsh V. Re?. 
 
 Walshaw v. Brighouse Corporation 
 
 WaUhe i;. Annan . . 
 
 Walter : — Australasian Automatic Weighin; 
 
 Machine Co. v. .. 
 Walter f. Bverard 
 
 AValter: — Hope y. 
 
 i 
 
 Walti-r V. Lane 
 
 Walter v. Steinkopff 
 
 " Walter D. Wallet," Tl.e 
 
 Walters : — Att.-Gen. for New South Wales v. 
 
 Ooluma 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 62 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Oh. 469 .. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 10 (4); [1899] 11 
 
 Cli. 550 / 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1898]! 
 
 W.N. 113 / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 354 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 58; [1899] 1 Ch.]l 
 
 891 Jl 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 385 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 547 .. .. j 
 
 [1900] W. N. 171; [1900] 2 Ch.\! 
 
 671 /| 
 
 [1892] 3 Cb. 117 ; C. A. [1894]1 1 
 
 ICh. 133 Ji 
 
 [1894] AV. N. 20 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 312 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. 0. G6I .. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 637 ; C. A. [1899]\ 
 
 W.N. 51; [1899]2Ch. 1 ../ 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 692 ; H. L.\ 
 
 (E.) [1898] A. C. 309 ../ 
 
 C. A. [1891] AV. N. 68 .. 
 [1899] AV. N. 139 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 515 / 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 109 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 75 .. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 675 
 
 [1899] W. N. 258 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 125 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 503 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 142 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 534 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 237 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 35 (8) ; [1889]\ 
 IQ. B. 1009 J 
 
 [1892] P. 230 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 304 
 
 P. C.[1894] A. C. 144 .. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 286 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897]\ 
 AV.N. 97 / 
 
 [1891] AV. N. 170 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. 15. 369 
 
 [1899] AV. N. 36 (12); [1899]) 
 
 1 Ch. 879; C. A. [1900] W.N. 
 
 20: [1900] ICh. 257 
 [1899] W. N. 138 ; C. A. [1899]' 
 
 W.N. 212; [1899] 2 Ch. 749; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] AV. N. 178 ; 
 
 [1900] A. C. 539 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 489 
 
 [1893] P. 202 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 400 .. 
 
 1618 
 358 
 
 362 
 
 1400 
 
 1833 
 
 1282 
 
 2245 
 315 
 
 1589 
 
 .382 
 1155 
 1321 
 
 915 
 
 333 
 
 125 
 
 2235 
 
 1901 
 843, 
 1076, 
 1083 
 1270 
 
 430 
 
 396 
 1137 
 1219 
 
 217, 779 
 
 1671 
 
 1216 
 
 1603 
 
 22 
 1638 
 
 550 
 
 1400 
 
 1489 
 49, 954 
 
 2246 
 
 537 
 
 537 
 
 13,1930 
 
 1327 
 
TABLE 01< .CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cdxiii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Walters : — ^Edwards v. .. 
 Walters : — Emmott & Co. v. 
 
 Walters v. Green .. ., .. .. ..| 
 
 Walters : — Kingsbury v. In re Moss . . . . | 
 
 Walters v. Solicitor for the Treasury. In re\ 
 EowUs. EowUa «. Bebb ., .. ., / 
 
 Waltbamstow Local Board V. Staines .. 
 
 Walthamstow Urban District Council v. Hen-\ 
 wood .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Walton & Co. : — Beardsley u. 
 
 Walton «. Walton 
 
 Walton-on-the-Hill Overseers u. Jones .. 
 
 Wandsworth Board of Works v. Pretty . . 
 
 Wandsworth Board of Works : — Southwark and\ 
 Yauxhall Water Co. i;... .. .. ..' 
 
 Wandsworth District Board v. Bird 
 
 Wandsworth District Board : — Stroud v. .. | 
 
 Wanklyn: — Kemp v. .. .. .. ..X 
 
 Wanzer, Ld., In re 
 
 War (Secretary of State for) : — Eeg. o. .. 
 Warburton: — Hope u. 
 
 Warburton v. Huddersfield Industrial Soc'ety ..| 
 
 Ward, In re 
 
 Ward, In re. Ex parte Ward .. 
 
 Ward, Ex parte. In re Bullock 
 
 Ward V. Birmingham Brewericf, Ld. In re 
 
 Birmingham Breweries, Ld. 
 Ward: — Dormers. 
 
 Ward V. Duncombe 
 
 Ward i;. Gamgee .. 
 Ward w. Monaghan 
 Ward: — Mountifield i;. .. 
 
 Ward w. Portsmouth Corporation 
 
 Ward :— St. Martin-in-the-PielJs (Vestry of) v. | 
 
 Ward & Co. v. Wallis 
 
 Ward's Settled Estates, In re 
 
 Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co. : — Bridewell Hos- 
 
 vital Governors v. 
 Warden & Sons : — Consiantiue & Co. v. 
 Ware, In re 
 
 Ware : — Evans v... 
 
 !•} 
 
 Ware : — Johns v. .. 
 
 Warner : — Salaman v. 
 
 Warren, In re. Ex parte Trustee 
 
 Warren tJ. Brown .. 
 
 Warren v. Murray 
 
 Warren v. Warren 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 2 Ch. 157 
 W. N. 79 
 W. N. 138 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 ■;} 
 
 1896" 
 
 1891" 
 
 1899° 
 
 696 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 112 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2 Oh. 314 .. .. ../ 
 
 0. A. [1900] W. N. 108; [1900]» 
 
 2Ch. 107 ) 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Oh. 606 .. 
 [1896] W. N. 161 (12) ; [1897]\ 
 ICh. 41 / 
 
 [1900" 
 [1900" 
 [1893" 
 [1891" 
 
 2Q. B. 1.. 
 
 P. 147 „ 
 2 Q. B. 175 
 IQ. B. 1.. 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 481 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 64 ; 0. A. [1894]\ 
 
 2Q. B. 1 / 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 265; 0. A. [1894]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 583 J 
 
 [1891] 1 Oh. 305 
 
 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 326 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 134 
 
 [1892; 
 
 1 Q. B. 213 ; 0. A, 
 
 1 Q. B. 817 
 
 0. A 
 C. A. 
 [1899" 
 517 
 
 [1892]| 
 
 1896] 2 Ch. 31 .. 
 1897] 1 Q. B. 266 
 W.N.114;[1899]2Q.B.' 
 
 3);| 
 
 [1899] W. N. 92 
 
 [1900] P. 130 .. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 369 .A 
 
 [1891] W. N. 165 
 
 0. A. [1894] W. N. 123 (8) 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 326 
 
 [1898] W. N. 34 (3) ; 0. A. [1898]\ 
 
 2 Oh. 191 J 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 161 (8); 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 40 
 [19001 1 Q- B. 675 
 [1895] W. N. 41 
 
 [1892] W. N. 194 
 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 143 (11) 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Oh. 344 .. 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 502 
 
 [1898] W. N. 172 (2)-; 
 
 ICh. 359 
 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 734 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 138 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 722 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 648 
 [1895]W. N. 72 
 
 [1899]| 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 196 
 675 
 
 2147 
 
 2315 
 
 1854 
 1917 
 1546 
 
 16 
 
 42 
 1690 
 1179 
 
 889 
 
 1174 
 
 1179 
 
 1390 
 
 485, 
 1835 
 1208 
 1106 
 
 940 
 
 2041 
 113 
 
 203 
 
 467 
 
 711 
 
 1290, 
 2194 
 774 
 1056 
 1108 
 
 236 
 
 1170 
 
 1270 
 1881 
 
 1119 
 
 1998 
 1198 
 945, 
 1723 
 
 209 
 
 45 
 133 
 1122 
 1135 
 1759 
 
celxiv 
 
 TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 { 
 
 " Warsaw," The 
 
 Warwick V. Graham 
 
 Warwickshire Justices : — Keg. v. Eeg. v. Wor 
 cestershire Justices 
 
 Warwickshire (Sheriff of) : — Taunton v. 
 
 Wasdale, In re. Brittin v. Partridge . . . . | 
 
 Washington : — Grand Trunk Ey. Co. of Canada v. 
 
 Washington Diamond Mining Co., In re 
 
 Wassell V. Leggatt 
 WastaU : — Millard v. 
 Wasteneys 1). Wasteneys.. 
 Waterhouse v. Waterhouse 
 Waterland v. Seile 
 
 Waterloo and City Ey. Co. : — Farmer v. 
 Watermen's Co. : — Eeg. v. 
 Waterproof Materials Co., In re .. 
 Waters : — Lomer v. 
 Watkins, In re 
 Watkins v. Barnard 
 Watkins t). Lindsay & Co. 
 Watkins v. Watkins 
 Watney: — Harrold i;. 
 Watson, In re. Cox v. Watson .. 
 Watson, In re. Ex parte Johnston. Johnstonl 
 V. Watson .. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Watson, In re. Stamford Union v. Bartlttt .. | 
 
 Watson, In re. Turner u. Watson 
 
 Watson : — Charter v. 
 
 Watson : — Chifferiel v. In re Chiflferiel 
 
 Watson: — Paynter v. 
 
 Watson V. Petts (No. 1) 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Watson (Eobert) & Co., In re 
 
 Watson : — Eose v. 
 Watson «. Saundie & Hull 
 
 Watson (Surveyor of Taxes) : — Eoyal Insurance 
 Co. V. 
 
 Watson: — Vernon?;. 
 
 Watson V. Watson. In re Hancock 
 
 Watson V. White .. 
 
 Watson (W.) & Sons, Ld., In re 
 
 Watson & Co. : — Bailey v. 
 
 Watson, Walker & Quickfall, Ld., In re 
 
 Watt V. McGuire .. 
 
 Watt & Co. :— Willetts v 
 
 Watteau V. Fenwick 
 
 Watts f. Driscoll .. 
 
 ■■{ 
 ■•{ 
 
 [1898] P. 127 
 
 [1899] W. N. 88; [1899] 2 Q.B.\ 
 
 181 / 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 160 (10) ;\ 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 59 .. ../ 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 734 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 
 2 Ch. 319 
 [1898] W. N. 164 (2) 
 
 1 Ch. 163 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 275 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 95 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 554 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 342 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 446 
 
 [1899]| 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 
 1895 
 
 '1897 
 
 189.3' 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1897 
 [1898' 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1892 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 21 . 
 
 [1898] W. N. 154 (5) ; [1899])' 
 ICh. 72 ^ 
 
 "1893] P. 284 
 1897] W. N. 163 (9) 
 - 1 Ch. 527 
 
 1 Q. B. 659 
 
 W. N. 18 
 1898] 2 Q. B. 326 
 "1896] 2 Ch. 336 .. 
 
 2Q. B. 521 
 
 W. N. 22 (4) .. 
 1896] P. 222 
 '1898] 2 Q. B. 320 
 
 W. N. 192 
 
 1896 
 1899' 
 1895' 
 1898' 
 C. A.' 
 [1899' 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 1 Ch. 925 
 
 1 Ch. 175 
 
 W. N. 1C6 
 
 2Q.B. 31 
 
 1899]1Q. B. 54.. 
 
 . W. N. 10 (6); [1899]\ 
 
 IQ B. 430 .. .. ..) 
 
 [1899] W. N. 120 ; [1899] 2 Ch.t 
 509 .. .. .. ^ 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 90 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 326 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 41 ; H. L. (E.) 
 [1896] W.N. 161 (13); [1897] 
 A.C.I .. .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 400 ; C. A. [1891]\ 
 2Q. B. 288 .. .. ../ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 58; C. A. [1900] I 
 W. N. 270 .. .. / 
 
 1896] 2Q. B. 9.. 
 
 1891] 2 Ch. 55 
 
 "1898] 2 Q. B. 270 
 1898] W. N. 69 (7) .. 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [189711 
 W.N. 109 .. .. 7 
 
 C. A. [1892]2Q. B. 92.. 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 346 
 [1900] W. N. 77; 0. A. [IGOO]) 
 W. N. 261 .. ,. ,. / 
 
 1956. 
 1031 
 
 1105 
 
 321, U9 
 1011 
 
 75 
 
 244 
 132, 169, 
 
 468 
 
 921 
 1351 
 
 924 
 
 713 
 2026 
 1092 
 
 265 
 
 437 
 
 554 
 1188 
 
 130 
 
 170 
 
 688 
 1346 
 2350 
 
 933, 
 1025 
 
 1192 
 
 803 
 129T 
 2299 
 1157 
 
 35 
 
 586 
 
 307 
 
 73& 
 1771 
 
 1765 
 
 85a 
 
 2350 
 
 594 
 452 
 588 
 38S 
 
 ISeO' 
 
 1239 
 1580 
 
 14ia 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cclxr 
 
 
 
 
 
 Column 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Watts :— Smart & Son v. 
 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 219 
 
 
 18 
 
 Watts, Ward & Co. :— Dobell & Co. v. . . 
 
 .. 
 
 0. A. [1891] W. N. 131 
 
 . , 
 
 1966 
 
 Waud, Ex parte. In re Cronmive 
 
 " \ 
 
 [1898] W. N. 19 (2); 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 383 .. 
 
 C. AA 
 
 871 
 
 Waudby: — Eeg. v. 
 
 
 C. C. R. [1895] 2 Q. B. 482 .. | 
 
 619 
 
 Wauton i;. Coppard 
 
 " 1 
 
 [1898] W. N. 152 (16) ; 
 ICh. 92 
 
 [1899]| 
 
 2244 
 
 Wavell i;. MitcheU 
 
 
 [1891] W.N. 86 
 
 
 1282, 
 1514 
 
 Wavell V. Mitchell. In re Wavell 
 
 .. 
 
 [1892] W.N. 11 
 
 
 1281 
 
 Wavertree Sailing Ship Co. ■;;. Love 
 
 _ , 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 373 .. 
 
 
 1332 
 
 Waverley Type Writer, In re. D'Esterre 
 Waverley Type Writer 
 
 v.\ 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 699 
 
 
 319 
 
 Waygood: — Wild v 
 
 ,, 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 783 
 
 
 1243 
 
 Waynes Merthyr Co. v. Kadford (D.) & Co. 
 
 f 
 
 [1895] W. N. 100 (4); 
 lOh. 29 
 
 [1896]| 
 
 660, 677 
 
 Weardale Coal and Iron Co. v. Hodson . . 
 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 598 
 
 . , 
 
 203 
 
 Weare, In re. In re the Solicitors Act, 1888 
 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 439 
 
 / 
 
 2055, 
 2056 
 
 WeatheraU v. Thomas. In re Thomas . . 
 
 .. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 319 
 
 
 1870 
 
 Weatherley v. Layton 
 
 
 1892] W. N. 165 
 
 ,, 
 
 298 
 
 Weaver : — Jeffrey v. 
 
 
 ■ 1899] 2 Q. B. 449 
 
 
 1107 
 
 Weaverham (Overseers of) : — Heath v. . . 
 
 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 108 
 
 
 769, 892 
 
 Webb, In re. Lambert v. Still . . 
 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 73 .. 
 
 
 2059 
 
 Webb, In re. Still i;. Webb .. 
 
 { 
 
 [1896] W. N. 176 (19) ; 
 ICh. 144 
 
 [1897] I 
 
 2044 
 
 Webb : — England v. 
 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 758 . 
 
 .. 
 
 2259 
 
 Webb : — Lemmon v. 
 
 ■■'. 
 
 0. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 1 ; H. 
 [1895] A. C. 1 
 
 L.(E.)| 
 "I 
 
 1344, 
 1353 
 
 Webb : — Eeg. v. .. 
 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 487 
 
 
 188 
 
 Webb V. Shropshire Eys. Co. 
 
 . , 
 
 0. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 307 . 
 
 .. 
 
 1654 
 
 Webber, In re. Grribble v. Webber 
 
 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 914 
 
 
 1735 
 
 Webster, In re 
 
 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 102 
 
 ,, 
 
 2031 
 
 Wedd:— Reg. u 
 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 360 
 
 
 2106 
 
 Wedderbum v. Duke of AthoU. Duke of Atholll 
 V. Glover Incorporation of Perth .. .. / 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] A.O. 
 
 403 .. 
 
 824 
 
 Wedlake: — Mustapha ■». .. 
 
 
 [1891] 
 
 W. N. 201 
 
 ,. 
 
 725 
 
 Wedmore: — Symons u. .. 
 
 
 [1894 
 
 1 Q. B. 401 
 
 ,, 
 
 1104 
 
 Weeding, In re. Armstrong v. Wilkin 
 
 
 [1896' 
 
 2 Ch. 364 
 
 
 2328 
 
 Weeks : — Joyner v. 
 
 
 C.A.' 
 
 "1891] 2 Q. B. 31 
 
 
 1061 
 
 "Wega,"The 
 
 
 [1895' 
 
 ■p. 156 .. 
 
 ., 
 
 2107 
 
 Wegg-Prosser v, Evans . . 
 
 ::| 
 
 1894^ 
 IQ 
 
 2Q.B. 101; C.A 
 B. 108 .. 
 
 . [1895]\ 
 
 1584 
 
 Wegg-Prosser v. Wegg-Prosser. In re Somers-j_ 
 Cocks ,. ., ., .. .. -- » 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 449 
 
 .. 
 
 278 
 
 Weekes' Settlement, In re 
 
 "( 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 289 
 [1898] W. N. 164 (4) ; 
 
 [1899]) 
 
 1468 
 
 Weir & Co. v. Girviu & Co, 
 
 i 
 
 1 Q. B. 193; C. A. 
 1 Q. B. 45 
 
 1900] 
 
 1975 
 
 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 28; H.L. (B.)| 
 
 
 Weir V. Union Steamship Co. 
 
 •• 
 
 [1900] W. N. 168; 
 A. C. 525 
 
 [1900] 
 
 1934 
 
 Weise :— Mitchell v. Ex parte Friedheim 
 
 ,, 
 
 [1892] W. N. 139 
 
 : :.{ 
 
 139, 
 1417 
 
 Welch t). Colt. In re Brace 
 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 671 
 
 
 1479 
 
 Welch :—Softlaw i; 
 
 
 C.A. [1899] W.N. 113 
 2 Q. B. 419 .. 
 
 ■ [1899] 
 
 914 
 
 Welch V. Tennent 
 
 .. 
 
 H.L. 
 
 (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 
 
 639 '.'. 
 
 1834 
 
celxvi 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Wellbome, In re .. 
 
 Welby u. Still (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 (No. 3) 
 
 (No. 4) 
 
 Wells, In re. Ex parte Collins . . 
 Wells: — Cheston ti. 
 
 Wells V. Gas Float Whitton (No. 2) (Owners oo| 
 
 Wells :— Willis u 
 
 Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Co. v. New 
 
 Incandescent (Sunlight Patent) Gas Lighting 
 
 Co. 
 Welsbach Incandescent Gas Lighting Co. v. 
 
 New Sunlight Incandescent Co. 
 Welsh & Son v. West Ham Corporation 
 Welsh Whisky Distillery Co., In re 
 Welton, Ex parte. In re Eailway Time-Tablesi 
 
 Publishing Co. , . . . . . . . . . / 
 
 Welton, Ex parte. In re Eailway Time-Tablesl 
 
 Publishing Co. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Welton V. Saffrey .. .. .. .. ..| 
 
 Wemyss: — Lord Advocate j;. .. .. ,A 
 
 Wendon V. London County Council .. ..| 
 
 Wenham, In re. Ex parte Battams 
 
 Wenham, In re. Hunt v. Wenham 
 
 Wenman v. Lyon & Co. .. 
 
 Wentworth jj. Mathieu .. 
 Went worth i;. Went worth 
 
 West, In re. George v. Grose .. 
 
 West: — De Mestre v. 
 
 West V. Diprose ., 
 
 West : — Haigh v. .. 
 
 West: — Eeg. V. .. 
 
 West: — Western Wagon and Property Co. v. .. 
 
 West i;. Williams.. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 West v. Wythes. In re Wythes 
 
 West Australian Land Co. v. Forrest, Coinmis-\ 
 
 sioner of Crown Lands.. .. ., .,/ 
 
 ••{ 
 
 y 
 
 [1900] W. N. 82 ; [1900] 1 Ch.\ 
 
 857 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 261 / 
 
 [1892] W.N. 6 
 
 [1893] W. N. 91 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 641 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 524 
 [1892]W. N. 96 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 151 
 C. A. [1896] P. 42 ; H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. 337 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 225 
 
 [1900] W. N. 51 ; [1900] 1 Ch 
 843 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 120; [1900]1 
 
 2Ch. 1 J 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 325 
 [1900] W. N. 59 
 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 255 .. 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 159 (6);1 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 108 ..J 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 255 ; affirmed by1 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1897] A. C. 299 ..J 
 H. L. (So.) [1899] W. N. 124 ;1 
 
 [1900]A. C. 48 .. „J 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 227 ; C. A. [1894]\ 
 
 IQ. B.812 / 
 
 [1900] W. N. 117 ; C. A. [1900] 
 
 W. N. 156; [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 
 698 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 59 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 634; C. A. [1891]j 
 
 2 Q. B. 192 
 P. 0. [1900] A. C. 
 P. C. [1900] A. C, 
 [1899] W. N. 241 
 
 84 
 
 212 .. 
 163 .. 
 ; [1900] 1 Ch.j 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 264 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 !•) 
 
 [1900] W. N. 16 ; 
 337 
 
 C. A. [1893]2Q. B. 19.. ../ 
 
 C. C. E. [1897] W. N. 175 (6) -A 
 [1898] Q. B. 174 .. .. / 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 271 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 488 ; C. A. [1898]! 
 
 W. N. 169 (9); [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 132 I 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 369 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 176 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2044 
 
 504, 932 
 1303, 
 2058 
 1276, 
 2034 
 2037 
 
 143, 776 
 1280 
 
 2007 
 
 858 
 
 1444 
 
 674 
 
 220 
 415 
 
 397 
 474 
 
 430 
 
 900, 944, 
 1261 
 
 1150 
 
 140 
 
 799, 
 1137, 
 1502, 
 1504 
 
 207 
 
 242 
 9" 
 
 2162 
 
 1329, 
 1910 
 
 207 
 
 891, 
 1131 
 
 623 
 
 507 
 
 1289 
 
 1880 
 85 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cclivii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 West Australian Mortgage and Agency C6rpora-1 
 tion : — Ugilvie V. .. .. ., ..J 
 
 West Cowes Local Board : — Meader v. .. 
 West Cumberland Iron and Steel Co., In re 
 
 West Derby Union v. Metropolitan Life Assur- 
 ance Society. Ike Same v. Priestman 
 
 West of England Fire Insurance Co. v. Isaics . . I 
 
 West of England Iron, Timber and Charcoah 
 
 Co. :— I'atten i;. \ 
 
 West Ham Central Charity Board v. East London-i 
 
 Waterworks Co. .. .. .. ..f 
 
 West Ham (Churchwardens, &c., of) v. Pourth'i 
 
 City Mutual Building Society . . . . . . j 
 
 West Ham (Churchwarden.'!, &c., ot) : — London^ 
 
 County Coimcil w. (No. 1) .. .. ../ 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 West Ham Corporation : — Welsh & Son v. 
 
 West Ham Union (Guardians of) v. St. Matthew, 
 Bethnal Green (Churchwardens, &c. of) (No. 1)' 
 
 (No. 2)| 
 
 ■{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 West Ham Union v. Cardiff Union 
 
 West Ham Union ■;;. Essex Justices and London) 
 
 County Council .. .. .. .. .. ) 
 
 West Hartlepool (Mayor, &c., of) v. Eobinson 
 West India Improvement Co. v. Att.-Gen. ofl 
 
 Jamaica.. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 West, King and Adams, In re. Ex parte Cloiigh 
 
 West Lancashire Rm'al Council : — Ogilv^' v. 
 
 West London and General Permanent Benefit 
 
 Building Society, In re 
 West London Syndicate, Ld., v. Inland Revenue'^ 
 
 Commrs. 
 West Metropolitan Trams. Co. : — Alldred v. 
 West Metropolitan Tramways Co. : — ^Bartlett v. 
 
 (No. ]) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 West Hand Central Gold Mines Co. v. De Eoiige-I 
 
 mont. Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines) 
 
 V. Jansou .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 West Riding Athletic Club (Leeds) : — TurnbuU v. 
 
 West Riding Justices : — Reg. v. .. 
 
 West Riding of Yorkshire (County Council) : — ) 
 
 Reg. V. .. .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 West Riding of Yorkshire Justices : — Reg. 
 
 Ex parte Shaw .. 
 West Riding of Yorkshire (Coimty Council) v.\ 
 
 Holmforth Urban Sanitary Authority . . / 
 
 West Suffolk County Council :— Bury St. Ed 
 
 munds Corpoiation v. .. 
 
 West Surrey Water Co. v. Chertsey Union 
 
 Westacott v. Bevan 
 
 Westacott: — Pape f 
 
 :} 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 25 
 
 C. A. 
 [1893' 
 [1896' 
 
 18 
 
 1892] 3 Ch 
 ICh. 713 
 
 W. N. 156 (12) ; C. A. 
 [1897] ICh. 335; H. L. (E.) 
 [1897] A. C. 647 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 377 ; C. A. [1897]\ 
 IQ. B. 226 / 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 159 
 
 N. 37 
 
 [1900] W. 
 624 ., 
 
 [1900] 1 
 
 Ch.j 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 654 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 44 ; H. 
 
 (E.) [1893] A. C. 562 
 0. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 173 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 253 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 65 ; C. A. [1892] 
 
 2 Q. B. 676 ; H. L. (E.) [1894] 
 
 A. C. 230 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 662 ; revers.\ 
 
 by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 477/ 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 766 
 
 H. L. (B.) [1896] A. C. 443 
 
 [1897] W. N. 12 (7) ., 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. 0. 243 .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 102 
 [1899] W. N. 6 (3); [1899] 
 Q. B. 377 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 226 ; C. i 
 
 2Q. B. 507 .. 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 398 
 [1893] W. N. 139 ; [1893] 3 Ch. 
 
 437 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 286 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 339 
 
 .') 
 
 [1898]| 
 
 :•} 
 
 [1894]W. N. 4 .. 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 291 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 805 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 503 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 842 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 246 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 513 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 774 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 272 
 
 -I 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 85 
 
 1911 ' 
 482, 496 
 
 1457 
 
 977 
 559 
 
 2268 
 
 1687, 
 2070 
 
 1686 
 
 628 
 220 
 
 1462 
 
 1457 
 
 1460 
 
 1671 
 
 2088 
 1017, 
 1668 
 2042 
 
 2275 
 229, 231 
 
 1794 
 
 2150 
 1498, 
 2149 
 2150 
 
 985 
 
 340, 960 
 1029 
 579, 
 1453 
 
 1105 
 
 2272 
 
 1143 
 
 2278 
 1527, 
 2027 
 92, 264, 
 1573 
 
colxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Westbury v. Twigg & Co. Gregson (Claimant) 
 
 Western 1). Bailey .. 
 
 Western: — Hockey u. 
 
 Western Counties and Soutli Wales Telephone 
 
 Co. : — Hooper v. 
 Western Counties Steam Bakeries and Milling 
 
 Co., In re 
 Western Insurance Co., Ex parte. In re Eddy-' 
 
 stone Marine Insurance Co. 
 Western National Bank of City of New York v. 
 
 Perez, Triana & Co. 
 Western Wagon and Property Co. v. West 
 Westmacott u. Westmacott 
 Westminster Brymto Coal and Coke Co. 
 
 Whitwham i;. .. 
 Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Co. 
 
 Edison General Electric Co. v. . . 
 
 Westminster Vestry v. Hoskins .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 .1 
 
 :} 
 
 Westminster Vestry : — Eoyal College of Music v. 
 
 ^:'}| 
 
 ^•|! 
 
 Westmore -v. Paine 
 
 Westmoreland Green and Blue Slate Co., In re 
 
 Westmoreland Green and Blue Slate Co, 
 
 In re . . 
 Westmoreland Green and Blue Slate Co. 
 
 Peilden 
 
 Westmorland (Earl of) v. New Sharlstony 
 
 Collieries Co. . . . . . . . . . . ) i 
 
 Weston, In re. Davies «. Tagart .. ..|i 
 
 Weston, Crocker & Co.: — Trinder, Anderson &y 
 Co. V. Trinder, Anderson & Co. v. Thames I 
 and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. The Same j 
 V. North Queensland Insurance Co. , . ..] 
 
 Weston's Trusts, In re 
 
 Westport Coal Co. i;. McPhail .. 
 
 Westwood V. Booker. In re Toleman .. 
 
 Weymouth and Channel Islands Steam Packet\ 
 Co., In re . . . . . . . . .,] 
 
 Whadcoat : — London Financial Association v. . . 
 
 Whadcoat v. Shropshire Eys. Co. 
 
 Wharam: — Dunmore i). .. 
 
 Wharton v. Masterman . . 
 
 Wharton : — Surman v. .. 
 
 Wheat V. Brown . . 
 
 Wheaton v. Maple & Co. . . 
 
 Wheeler & De Kochow, In re .. .. .A 
 
 Wheeler I). Humphreys ,. 
 
 Wheeler v. Sargeant 
 
 Wheeler's Settlement Trusts, In re. 1 
 
 Ryan 
 Whiffen i;. Mailing Justices 
 
 Whight: — Boosey V 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 77 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 234; C. A. [1897]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 86 / 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. .350 .. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 [1897] AV. N. 6 (5) ; reversed \>y\ 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 617 ../ 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 423 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 304 ..| 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 271 
 
 [1899] P. 183 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 538 .. 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 193 .. 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 474 
 
 [1897] W. N. 175 (8); [1898] 1 
 
 Q. B. 304 ; C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 
 
 809 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 482 
 
 [1892]W. N. 2 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 612 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 485 
 525 
 1300 
 332 
 
 470 
 
 999 
 
 1536, 
 1537 
 507 
 
 707 
 
 2155 
 
 248 
 70 
 
 1681 
 
 1038 
 443 
 
 345 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 15 .. .. ; 89,420 
 
 [1899] W.N. 2 (4); 0. A. [Ibgg]-;! 
 
 AV. N. 88 /, ^^•^'^ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 104; [1900] 2 Ch.V 
 
 164 
 
 ./ 
 
 -{ 
 
 I v.) 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 114 
 
 [1898] W. N. 151 (10) .. 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 130 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 866 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 66 .. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 307 .. 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 307 .. 
 [1898] W. N. 15 (7) .. 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 186 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 491 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 418 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 48 .. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 154 (15) ; [1896]\ 
 
 ICh. 315 / 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 506 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 128 
 
 [1899] W. N. 141 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 717 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 362 
 [1899] W. N. 45 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 836; C. A. [1899] W.N. 249; 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 122 
 
 2198 
 
 997 
 
 2200 
 
 1971 
 
 1606 
 
 395, 397, 
 
 415 
 1654 
 1654 
 1047 
 7 
 
 904 
 
 19 
 
 627, 
 1118 
 
 2168 
 
 2S06 
 
 2207 
 
 909 
 1102 
 
 536 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cclxis 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 WMnney, Ex parte. In re Harrison and Ingram 
 
 Whipp: — Varley V. 
 
 Whistou's Settlement, In re, Lovatt v. William- 
 son 
 
 Whitaber, In re. Whitaker v. Palmer . . | 
 
 Whitaker : — Nuttall v. In re Hartley (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 WHtcliurcli, In re. In re Simpson 
 
 White, In re. PenneU v. Franklin ,. 
 White, In re. White r. White .. 
 
 ':} 
 
 •I 
 
 White : — ^Blackmore v. .. .. .. ..i 
 
 White :— Bradford-on-Avon Assessment Com-i 
 mittee r. .. .. .. .. .. • 
 
 White: — Clarke v. In re Bennett .. .., 
 
 White V. Cohen 
 
 White:— Cook u 
 
 White V, Devon (Earl of). In re Earl of) 
 Devon's Settled Estates. In re Steer. Steer I 
 w. Dobell j 
 
 White V. Duvemay 
 
 White V. Headland's Patent Electric Storage 
 Battery Co. 
 
 White: — Hensey ?;. 
 
 White: — ^Mellin i". 
 
 White V. Mori ey .. 
 
 White : — Pharmaceutical Society v. 
 White: — Pledgee. 
 White: — ^Ross u. .. 
 
 White V. Southend Hotel Co. 
 
 White : — ^Watson v. 
 
 Whiter. White 
 
 White Brothers : — Simmons v. . . 
 
 •■{ 
 
 ;;{ 
 
 ;;{ 
 
 ■■{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 White & Co. V. Piirness, Withy & Co. . . 
 
 White & Eubery, In re .. 
 White and Smith's Contract, In re 
 Whitebread v. Sevenoaks Highway Board 
 Whitefriars Financial Co., In re. In re Eeeves"! 
 
 & Sod, Ld / 
 
 Whitehaven Colliery Co. : — Kearney v. 
 Whitehaven Harbour Commrs. : — Chambers v. 
 Whitehead, In re. Peacock ■v. Lucas .. 
 Whitehead: — Bagge u. .. 
 Whitehead: — Davis v. In re Marlborough 1 
 
 (Duke of) ../ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 118; C. A. [1900]) 
 W. N. 174; [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 710 I 
 
 [1900] W. N. 38 ; [1900] IQ. B.\ 
 513 / 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 661 
 
 [1900] W. E. 175; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 677; C. A. [1900] W. N. 239 / 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 [1892] W. N. 49 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 256 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 297; C. A. [1898]) 
 2Ch. 217 / 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 41 
 
 [1898] W. N. 172 (6) ; 
 Q. B. 293 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 630 
 
 173(8); 
 
 [1899] 
 
 [1899] 
 
 [1898] W. N, 
 
 Ch. 316 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 580 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 284 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 562 
 
 [1891] P. 290 .. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 15 (6) ; [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 507 .. .. ' 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 48L 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 276; H. L, 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 154 
 [1899] W. N. 67 ; [1899] 2 Q. B, 
 
 34 
 
 [1900] W. N. 10; [1900] 1 Q. B, 
 
 454 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 187 . 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 326 .. 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 36 (6) 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 767 
 [1896]2Q. B. 9 
 
 [1898] P. 124 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 32 (2) 
 
 [1899] IQ.B.- 1005 .. 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 483; H. L 
 
 (E.) [1895] A. C. 40 .. 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 923 
 1896] 1 Ch. 637 
 1892] IQ. B. 8.. 
 1898] W. N. 165 (6); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 184 .. .. ^ 
 
 C. A. 1893] 1 Q. B. 700 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 132 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 678 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 355 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 133 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 184 
 
 1816 
 1899 
 
 796 
 
 1547 
 1699 
 1891 
 
 2060 
 
 277, 
 2363 
 
 524 
 1679 
 
 1299 
 
 589 
 22 
 
 1136 
 
 1615 
 
 588 
 
 1214 
 
 650, 970 
 
 871 
 
 1452 
 
 1275 
 559, 
 1416 
 
 1057 
 
 594 
 701 
 
 1217 
 
 1937 
 
 211 
 2226 
 893 
 
 309 
 
 1258 
 1223 
 233 
 1924 
 
 851 
 
cclxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 :■) 
 
 Whitehead & Brothers, Ld., In re 
 Whitehouse : — Daniel & Arter v. 
 Whitelegg, In the Groods of 
 
 Whiteley : — ^Rogers v. .. 
 
 Whiteley's Case. In re General Ry. Syndicate 
 
 Wliiteley and Eoherts, Arbitration, In re 
 
 Whiteley «. Edwards 
 Whiteley Exerciser, Ld. v. G-amage 
 White's Charities, In re. Charity Commrs. v. 
 London Corporation 
 
 Whitley V. Challis 
 
 Whitley :■ — La Compagnie de Mayville v. 
 
 Whitmore : — Pairtlough v. 
 
 Whittalier :— Nuttall v. In re Hartley (No. 1) 
 
 ; (No. 2) 
 
 Whittaker v. Scarborough Post Newspaper Co. 
 Whitting & Nicholson. In re Hanbury 
 Whittington v. Seale-Hayne 
 Whitton ^;. Whitton 
 
 Whitton (The), Gas Float, No. 2 
 
 Whitwham v. Pieroy. In re Piercy 
 
 Whitwham «. Piercy. In re Piercy .. ., | 
 
 Whitwham v. Westminster Brymbo Coal and\ 
 Coke Co. .. .. .. .. ..) 
 
 Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardnian . , 
 
 Whitworth D. Whitworth 
 
 ' Whitwood Urban District Council : — Mex-'> 
 
 borough (Earl of) v. .. .. ., ../ 
 
 Whitworth's Claim. Owen and Ashworth's Claim.) 
 In re Bank of Syria .. .. .. .. ( 
 
 Whyte V. Northern Heritable Securities Invest-'i 
 
 ment Co. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Whyte : — Great Britain Steamship Premium\ 
 
 Associations. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Wick and Pulteneytown Steam Shipping Co. : — \ 
 
 Palmer u. ., .. .. .. ..j 
 
 Wickens, Ex parte 
 
 Widnes Corporation : — Wood v. ,. 
 Wiedemann ■«. Walpole .. 
 Wiel : — Saunders v. (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Wieland v. Bird . . 
 Wigan Tramways Co. : — Carrick v. 
 Wiggins: — Cameron v. .. 
 Wignall D. Park. In re Parker., 
 
 Wigram i;. Buckley 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 [1900] W. N. 90 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 804 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 685 
 
 [1899] P. 267 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 118 ../ 
 
 [1899] W. N. 34 (5) ; [1899] 1 
 Ch. 770; C. A. [1900] W. N. 
 28; [1900] ICh. 365 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 558 
 
 C. A. [1896]2Q. B. 48.. 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 405 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 659 
 
 •{ 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1892] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 78 
 '1895] W. N. 52 
 1891] 2 Ch. 121 
 1892]W. N. 49 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 148 
 [1896] W. N. 172(10) .. 
 [1900J W. N. 31 
 
 [1900] 1M78 
 
 [1895] P. 301; C. A. [1895]! 
 
 W. N. 160 (2) ; [1896] P. 42 ; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 237 ..J 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 83 
 
 [1896] W. N. 1 (4) ; C. A. [1898]\ 
 
 ICh. 565 / 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 538 .. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 416 .. ..{ 
 
 [1893] P. 85 
 
 C. A. [1897]2Q. B. Ill 
 
 [1900] W. N. 66; [1900] 2 Ch.\! 
 272 ; 0. A. [1900] W. N. 256/ j 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1891] A. C. 608 .. { 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N.) ■ 
 91 
 
 H. L. [1894] A. C. 318 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 543 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 357; C. A. [1898]\ 
 
 IQ.B. 463 / 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 534 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 18 ; C. A. [1892]\ 
 
 2Q.B. 321 .. .. ../ 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1894" 
 
 [1893' 
 
 [1900' 
 
 [1891' 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 470 
 P. 262 .. 
 W.N. 98.. 
 W. N. 253 
 1 Ch. 682 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 483 
 
 392 
 
 2139 
 
 1599 
 
 78, 90, 
 
 93 
 
 429 
 
 55, 59, 
 772 
 919 
 438 
 
 2234 
 
 1703 
 
 359 
 
 872 
 1547 
 1699 
 
 675 
 2051 
 
 517 
 1014 
 
 2007 
 
 789, 838 
 284 
 
 2155 
 
 508, 515, 
 960,2062 
 
 693, 
 
 1250 
 
 666 
 350 
 1829 
 1798 
 
 1835 
 
 210 
 
 2287 
 217, 779 
 655, 675 
 
 656 
 1606 
 
 316 
 2123 
 
 286 
 1139, 
 1281, 
 1287 
 
TABLE OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 cclxxi 
 
 Name of Case. | 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Wigram v. Cox, Sons, Buckley & Co. 
 
 WilcQok, In re. Kay v. Dewhirst 
 
 Wilcooks: — Cadell «. 
 Wilcox & Gibbs v. Janes 
 Wild: — Bradbury V. 
 
 Wild V. Soutliwood 
 
 Wild u. Stanham. In re Treasure 
 
 Wild u. Waygood.. .. 
 
 Wild & Son : — Stanley (Lord) of Alderley ■ 
 
 Wilde: — Burchell «. 
 
 Wilde : — Santley v. 
 
 Wilding : — Ainswortb v... 
 
 Wilding: — Ainswortli v. .. 
 
 Wilding V. Bean .. 
 
 Wilding ■«. Sanderson 
 
 Wildsmitb. : — Sandes v. ., 
 
 " Wilhelm Tell," The 
 
 Wilkes: — Coombs i;. 
 Wilkes : — Oxley v. 
 Wilkin : — Armstrong v. 
 
 Wilkin s : 
 
 In re Weeding 
 J. Lyons & Sons v. .. 
 
 Wilkins: — Scbwerzerbof v. 
 
 Wilkins v. Wilkins 
 
 Wilkinson, In the Goods of 
 
 Wilkinson v. Blades. In re Lart .. 
 
 Wilkinson: — Budden u. .. ,. 
 
 Wilkinson v. Downton ,. 
 
 Wilkinson : — Ormond v. In re Soowcroft 
 
 Wilkinson «. Peel.. .. .. .. 
 
 Wilkinson: — Eeg. w. 
 
 Wilkinson: — Smith v. In re Victoria Steam- 
 boats, Ld. .. .. .. .. 
 
 Wilkinson : — Stileman-Gibbard v. 
 
 Wilkinson, Haywood & Clark, Ld. : — Hubbuckl 
 &Sons, Ld / 
 
 Wilks, In re. Child v. Bulmer .. ., 
 
 Wilks V. Wood .. 
 
 Willans : — Ives & Barker v 
 
 Willcocks : — Lawrence & Sons v. 
 
 Willerton v. Stocks 
 Willesden Local Board : — London and Provinciall 
 Laundry Co. v. ., .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Willesden Local Board and Wright, In re 
 
 Willetts V. Watts & Co 
 
 Willey V. Great Northern Ey. Co. . , 
 
 Williams, Ex parte. In re Sari .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 792 
 
 [1897] W. N. 172 (12); [1898]\ 
 
 ICh. 95 / 
 
 1898 
 1897 
 1893' 
 1896' 
 
 Q.B 
 
 ''] 
 
 P. 21 
 
 2 Ch. 71 .. 
 
 1 Ch. 377 
 
 W. N. 166 (2); 1897] 
 
 317 
 
 [1900] W. N. 181 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 
 649 .. .. ' .. ..) 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 783 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 255; [1900]) 
 
 IQ. B. 256 ) 
 
 [1900] W. N. 29 ; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 63 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 551 / 
 [1899] W. N. 19 (8) ; [1899] 1 
 
 Ch. 747 ; C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 
 132 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 474 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 673 
 [1900] W. N. 132 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 315 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 100 
 [1897] W. N. 39 (11) 
 
 [1897] 2 Oh. 534 
 
 C. A 
 
 1 Q. B. 771 
 P. 337 .. 
 3Ch. 77 .. 
 1898] 2 Q. B. 56 . 
 "2 Ch. 364 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 811 ; [1899]1 
 N. 3 (9); [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 [1893' 
 [1892' 
 [1891' 
 C. A.' 
 [1896" 
 C. A." 
 
 W. 
 
 255 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 640 
 C. A. [1896] P. 108 
 [1892] P. 227 .. 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 788 
 U. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 432 
 1897] 2 Q. B. 57 
 1898] 2 Ch. 638 
 1895] 1 Q. B. 516 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 722 
 
 [1897] ICh. 158.. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 749 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 86 .. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 59 .. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 684 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1894]" 1 Ch. 68 ; 
 Ch. 478 
 
 C. A. 1894] 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 696 
 [1892] W. N. 29 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 271 
 C.A. 
 
 C.A. 
 
 [1892; 
 
 1896] 2 Q. B. 412. 
 l892]2Q. B.92 .. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B, W4 
 
 2 Q. B. 591 
 
 1546 
 
 2299 
 
 2358 
 1438 
 
 228 
 
 155 
 
 2363 
 1243 
 626 
 1417 
 
 1293 
 
 1550 
 
 670 
 
 1547 
 
 1551 
 
 1513 
 2003 
 848 
 647 
 2328 
 
 2145, 
 2146 
 
 1237 
 
 715 
 1615 
 
 768 
 661, 669 
 
 13 
 
 279 
 
 683 
 1458 
 
 332 
 
 756 
 
 651 
 
 1022 
 1566 
 52, 54, 
 65 
 1565, 
 1566 
 2348 
 
 1164 
 
 1917 
 
 1239 
 
 559, 562 
 
 212 
 
cclxxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IK THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 :■) 
 
 Williams and Duchess of Newcastle's Contract, \ 
 In re .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 "Williams, Bz parte. Eeg. v. Powell 
 Williams, In re. Morgan v. Williams . . 
 Williams, In re. Williams v. Williams 
 Williams, In re. Williams v. Williams 
 Williams : — Baker v. 
 
 Williams: — Baker v. 
 
 WOliams v. Birmingham Battery and Metal Co.< 
 
 Williams: — Black?;. 
 
 Williams : — Brinsden v. .. 
 
 Williams : — Broomfield u. 
 Williams v. Cartwright . . 
 
 Williams v. Davies. Callender, Sykes & Co. 
 Colonial Secretary of Lagos 
 
 Williams: — DufSeld i>. In re Berry 
 Williams : — Palck v. 
 Williams v. Frere. In re Smith 
 Williams v. Groose 
 
 Williams : — Henderson & Co. v. .. 
 
 Williams : — Hodder v. .. 
 Williams: — Holmes i'. 
 Williams v. Jenkins (No. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 Williams v. Jones. In re Hartley. Williams v, 
 
 Williams 
 Williams v. Knight. In re Hodson 
 
 Williams v. London and North Western Ey. Co.l 
 
 Williams ■!;. Macdona Id .. 
 
 Williams : — Manchester Corporation v. .. 
 
 Williams : — Marland v. In re Goodenough 
 
 Williams v. Marson. In re Buckle 
 
 Williams v. Mitchell. In re Byron's Settlement 
 
 Williams: — Moir ?;. 
 
 Williams v. Papworth 
 
 Williams v. Powell 
 
 Williams v. Quebrada Ey., Land and Copper\ 
 
 Co. .. .. .. .. „ ../ 
 
 Williarhs: — Ealeigh Corporation i;. 
 
 Williams : — Eeg. v. 
 
 Williams: — Schiedges f . .. 
 
 Williams v. Scott 
 
 Williams V. Spargo 
 
 Williams: — Strickland?;. 
 
 Williams v. Williams. In re Hartley. Williams\ 
 
 f. Jones .. .. .. .. ,,| 
 
 Williams: — West?;. 
 
 Williams v. Williams & Pocock 
 Williams V. Williams 
 Williams & Sons : — Lucas ?>. 
 
 Volume aad Page. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 144 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 396 
 
 1892] W. N. 81 
 1895] W.N. 36.. 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 12 .. 
 [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 23 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. lOG; 
 
 2Q. B. 338 .. 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 408 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 185.. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 602 .. 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 142 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 460 .. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 939 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 176 .. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 323 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 471 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 521 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 663 
 [1895] W. N. 116 (15) .. 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 700 
 
 [1894] AV. N. 176 
 
 [1899] W. N. 234 ; 
 
 152 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 421 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 19 
 
 •■{ 
 
 [1899]| 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 .. ..| 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 ]■ 
 
 _ . , C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 75 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 760/ 
 
 [1899 
 [1891' 
 [1895' 
 C. A.' 
 [189] ■ 
 C.A.' 
 P. C 
 [1894 
 
 2 Q. B. 308 
 IQ. B. 94 
 
 2 Ch. 537 
 
 1894] 1 Ch. 286 .. 
 
 3 Ch. 474 
 1892] 1 Q. B. 264 
 
 [1900] A. C. 563 .. 
 W. N. 141 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 751 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 540 .. 
 
 C. C. E. [1893] 1 Q. B. 320 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 158 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 499 .. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 100 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 382 
 
 [1899] W. N. 234; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 
 152 .. .. / 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 488; C. A. [1898]) 
 
 W. N. 169(9); [1899] 1 Ch. 
 
 132 .... I 
 
 [1896] P. 153 .. " ■ 
 
 [1899]W. N. 66 
 C. A. [1892] Q. B. 113 .. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 2255 
 
 1361 
 799 
 
 31, 2309 
 2352 
 2241 
 633, 
 2072 
 1226, 
 1251 
 1986 
 2049, 
 2180 
 2232 
 1544 
 
 119, 292, 
 877, 
 1045 
 1508 
 512 
 
 667, 669 
 1521 
 767, 
 2159 
 1923 
 2160 
 11 
 1890, 
 2169 
 
 1132 
 
 955, 957 
 
 1684 
 
 1109 
 545, 644 
 1868 
 2308 
 1467 
 1158 
 1328 
 779 
 
 669 
 
 254 
 
 620 
 
 63 
 2242 
 2251 
 
 215 
 
 1132 
 
 1289 
 
 699 
 1407 
 530 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 oolxxiii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Williams and Stepney, In re .. .. ..| 
 
 Williams, Deacon & Co. : — Goldstone v. .. | 
 
 Williams, Tovrey & Co. v. Knight. The " Lord\ 
 of the Isles" 
 
 WiDiamson : — Gordon v... 
 
 Williamson v. Hine 
 
 Williamson : — Lovatt v. In re Whiston's Settle- 
 ment! .. 
 
 Williamson v. Norris 
 
 ■{ 
 
 r) 
 
 Williamson & Sons : — Davey & Co. v. . 
 
 Williamson & Sons, Ld. : — Tottenham Urban"! 
 
 District Council ?^. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Willis : — Barron v. 
 
 Willis : — Drew v. Ex parte Martin 
 
 Willis u. Howe (Earl) 
 
 Willis: — Gray V. .. 
 
 Willis :— Pratt i;. 
 
 Willis i;. Wtlls 
 
 Willis & Co. I;. Baddeley 
 
 WiUoughby : — Hyderalsad (Deccan) Co. v. 
 Willoughby : — Liquidation Estates Purchase 
 
 Co. V. 
 WiUson f. Love 
 Wills' Trade-marks, In re 
 WiUs's T/ade-marks, In re. In re Dextersl 
 
 Applicalion .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Wilmer ti. McNamara & Co. 
 Wilmot, In re. Wilmot v. Betterton 
 
 Wilmot i;. Alton .. 
 
 Wilmot i;. Grace .. 
 
 Wilson, Ex parte. In re Athlumney 
 
 Wilson, Ex parte. In re Dunhill 
 
 Wilson, In re. Wilson v. HoUoway 
 Wilson V. Ann. In re Ann 
 
 Wilson :—Ashby ?). 
 
 Wilson V. Atkiuson. In re Atkinson 
 Wilson: — Att.-Gen. «. 
 Wilson : — Baden-Powell v. 
 Wilson V. Bromby. In re Bromby 
 Wilson i). Buchanan 
 
 Wilson: — Bucklers. • .. 
 
 Wilson :—BdgeIl f. 
 
 Wilson: — ^Kenner v. 
 
 Wilson : — Howard Smith & Sons v. 
 
 Wilson V. Injiham 
 
 Wilson: — Laidlaw f . 
 
 Wilson : — Lee v. In re Tillott . . 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 700; C. A. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 257 .. 
 [1898] W. N. 148 (3); [1899]\ 
 
 ICh. 47 / 
 
 ';} 
 
 C. A. 
 
 [1892| 
 
 [1894] P. 342 .. 
 
 [1892] IQ. B. 616; 
 
 2Q. B. B. 459.. 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 390 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 661 
 
 [1898] W. N. 151 (8); [1899]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 7 / 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 194 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 353 
 
 [1899] W. N. 109 ; [1899] 2 Ch.] 
 578; C. A. [1900] W. N. 113 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 0. A. 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1895' 
 
 1895" 
 
 1892" 
 C. A." 
 [1899" 
 0. A.' 
 
 324 
 
 1891] 1 Q. B. 450 
 1893] 2 Ch. 545 . 
 W.N. 9 .. 
 W.N. 9 .. 
 2 Q. B. 225 
 '1892] 2 Q. B, 
 2 Q. B. 530 
 
 "189H] 1 Ch. 726; [1898] 
 A. C. 321 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 626 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 201 . 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 262 
 
 ''] 
 
 1895" 
 
 1896 
 W. 
 17 
 
 2 Ch. 245 
 
 1897] W. N. 44 (15) 
 
 2Q. B. 254; C. A. [1896]! 
 N. 160(3); [1897] IQ.B. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 812 
 1898] 2 Q. B. 547 
 1894] 2 Q. B. 554 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 340 
 
 "■■{ 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 549 .. ..| 
 
 [1890] W. N. 222 ; [1900] 1 Ch.l 
 66 ) 
 
 3Ch. 52 
 
 W. N. 263 
 
 W.N. 146 
 
 W.N. 187 
 C. A. '(Ir.) [1898] W. N. 124 . . 
 [1895] W. N. 156 (6); [1896]\ 
 
 IQ.B. 83 / 
 
 [1893] W. N. 145 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 656 
 P. C. [1896] A.C. 57 
 [1895] W. N. "99 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 74 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 86 
 
 [1892" 
 [1900 
 [1894 
 [1900' 
 
 79 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 61 
 
 688 
 
 995 
 
 1182 
 1985 
 1899 
 
 1110 
 321 
 1347 
 
 2046, 
 2207 
 
 269 
 1129 
 780 
 780 
 858 
 675 
 990 
 
 1297 
 
 1057 
 672 
 
 2137 
 
 354 
 2334 
 
 116 
 
 856 
 165 
 112 
 520, 
 
 1410 
 903, 
 
 1476 
 
 1063 
 
 2336 
 627 
 1532 
 2369 
 1372 
 
 20 
 
 1702 
 1442 
 2261 
 
 686 
 
 24 
 2184 
 
colxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Wilson: — Lord Advocate ?). 
 
 Wilson V. Maolntosli 
 
 Wilson V. Maryon-Wilson. In re Maryon- 
 Wilson .. 
 
 Wilson (John) & Co.'s Estate, Official Assignee^ 
 of: — Commercial Bank of Australia v. ..) 
 
 Wilson and King : — Ueii v. 
 
 Wilson & Son and Eastern Counties Navigation'! 
 and Transport Co., In rs .. .. ../ 
 
 Wilson and Ward : — Reid v. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Wilson : — Payne v. 
 Wilson V. Queen's Club 
 
 ••( 
 
 •■{ 
 ■■{ 
 
 Wilson V. St. Giles, Camberwell .. 
 
 Wilson, Sons & Co. v. Balcarres Brook Stcam-\ 
 
 ship Co. .. .. .. .. __| 
 
 Wilson, Sons & Co. (Owners of the " o'tto ") 'J.\ 
 
 Currie (Owners of the " Thorsa ") . . . , / 
 
 Wilson, Sons & Co. : — Merrill v. 
 Wilson i;. Statham .. .. .. \\ 
 
 Wilson : — Tadcaster Tower Brewery Co. v. .. 
 Wilson's and Steven's Contract, In re .. 
 Wiltshire, In re. Ex parte Eynon 
 
 Wimbledon Local Board o. Underwood . 
 
 Wimbledon Urban Council :— Penny v. 
 
 VVimborne (Lord) : — Groves v. .. 
 Winch: — Li.xon i;. .. .. ' 
 
 Winder :— Great Northern PlJ. Co. v. '. 
 Winder : — Reg. v. 
 "Winestead," The .. .. 
 
 Wingate & Co. v. Inland Revenue 
 
 Wingfield i;. Brskine. In re Pludyer .. 
 Winkle, In re 
 
 Winkle v. Bailey .. 
 
 Winnipeg (City of) i;. Barrett .. 
 Winnipeg (City of) D. Logan .. .. 
 
 Winnipeg Electric Street Ry. Co. and'city ofi 
 
 Winnipeg :— Winnipeg Street Ry. Co. v. j 
 
 Wmnipeg Street Ry. Co. v. Winnipe'' Electriol 
 
 Street Ry. Co. and City of Winnipeg f 
 
 "Winstanley,"The .. .... ' 
 
 Winstone, In the Goods of .. " 
 
 Winter i;. Winter.. 
 
 Winterton (Earl) : — How?;. 
 
 Wintle, In re. Tuciicr i;. Winlle .'.' ]', 
 
 Wippell :— Rew v. In re Rew. In re Sharland 
 
 Wirral Highway Board v. Newell 
 
 Wirrall Rys. Committee :— Shrewsbury (Earl of) 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1892] W. N.\ 
 118 J 
 
 P. 0. [1894] A. 0. 129 .. 
 [1899] W. N. 97 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 480 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 57 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 565 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 181 .. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 315 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 81 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 315 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 653 ; C. A. [1895]\ 
 2Q. B. 537 f 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 522 
 
 [1892]1Q. B. 1 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 422 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. IIG .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 248 
 ^1891] 2 Q. B. 261 
 1897] 1 Oh. 705 
 1894] 3 Oil. 546 
 1899] W. N. 236 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 96 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 836 .. ..|i 
 
 [1898]2Q. B. 212; C. A. [1899]) 
 W.N. 65; [1899] 2 Q. B. 72 / 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 402 
 
 0. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 736 .. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 595 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 666 .. 1 
 
 [1895] P. 170 
 
 Ot. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 
 129 .. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 562 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Oh. 519 .. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (11); [1897] 
 1011.123 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1892] A. C. 445 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1892] A. 0. 445 .. '.'. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. 0. 615 .. 
 
 P. 0. [1894] A. C. 615 .. 
 
 0. A. [1896] P. 297 
 
 [1898] P. 113 .. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 421 
 
 0. A. [1896] 2 Ch. (J26 .. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 [1899] W. N. 40; [1899] 2 oii. 
 
 536 .. .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 827 .. ',[ 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 812 .. 
 
 1779 
 
 1331 
 
 1742, 
 1743 
 
 150 
 
 2094 
 
 53 
 
 2094 
 
 815 
 
 223, 
 1079, 
 1275 
 1177 
 
 1505 
 
 1953 
 
 1231 
 589 
 2229 
 2231 
 
 202 
 
 209, 
 1688 
 
 1317 
 
 1237 
 1300 
 1652 
 1113 
 1990 
 
 1768 
 
 805 
 1191 
 
 1198 
 
 .MO, 292 
 250 
 
 250 
 
 250 
 
 1952 
 1624 
 1545 
 2165 
 2317 
 
 1478 
 
 893 
 
 1090 
 
TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 colxxv 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Wise, In re. Jackson v. Parrott 
 Wissner v. Levison and Steiner .. 
 Withall, Inre 
 
 "Withall : — Broonian v. Id re Kidd 
 
 Witham v. Andrews. In re Stead 
 
 Witham: — CvaAook v. 
 Witheiby u. Kackham 
 Withington Local Board of Health v. Mancliesterl 
 Corporation .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Witt i;. Witt 
 
 Witted J). Galbraith 
 
 Wix V. Eu'son 
 
 Wodehouse : — Ecclesiastical Oommrs. v. 
 
 Wohlgemutlie v. Coste 
 Wolfe, Ex parte. In re Barr 
 Woiferstan : — Keg. v. 
 Wolmer (Viscount) v. Forester. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 In re Cleve-' 
 
 land's (Duke of) Settled Estate . . . . J 
 
 Wolmer: — Hay v. In re Cleveland's (Duke of)| 
 Estate .. .. .. .. .. ..J 
 
 Wolmershausen v. GuUick 
 
 Wolmershausen v. Wolmersliausen & Co. 
 
 Wolsey :— Abbott & Co. i; 
 
 Wolverhampton Corporation v. Bilston Commrs.< 
 
 Wolverhampton District Brewery, Ld., In re." 
 Downes v. Wolverhampton District Brewery,- 
 Ld 
 
 Wolverton (Baron):— Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Womack : — Eamage v. 
 
 Wood, In re 
 
 Wood, In re. 
 
 Wood, In re. 
 Wood, In re. 
 Wood, In re. 
 Wood, In re. 
 Wood .. 
 
 Wood, In re. 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 Ex parte Panshawe .. ..| 
 
 Ex parte Woolfe . . 
 
 Anderson v. London City Mission 
 
 Att.-Gen. V. Anderoon .. 
 
 Parnell (formerly 0"Shea) v.\ 
 
 TuUett «. Colville .. ..| 
 
 Wood : — Atlantic and North Western By. Co. 
 
 Wood :— Att.-Gfn. i; 
 
 Wood : — Avery v. 
 
 Wood Brothers : — Osborn «. .. .. ..] 
 
 Wood u. Cooper .. 
 
 Wood : — Driucqbier v. .. .. .. ..< 
 
 Wood : — Fillingham v. .. 
 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 281 
 
 [1900J W. N. 152 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 8 ., 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 558 
 
 [1899] W. N. 235 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 
 237 
 [1895] W." N. 75" '.'. 
 
 [1891]W. N. 57 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 19 .. 
 
 [1891] P. 163 .. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 431; C. A. [I893]\ 
 
 IQ. B. 577 / 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 474 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 552 
 
 1899] 1 Q. B. 501 
 1896] 1 Q. B. 616 
 1893] 2 Q. B. 451 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 164 .. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 542 
 
 -I 
 
 [1891]| 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 514 
 
 [1892] W. N. 87 
 
 C. A. [189.5] 2 Q. B. 97.. 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 315; C. A. 
 W. N. 56 
 
 [1899] W. N. 229 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 389 ; C. A. [1897] 
 IQ. B. 231; H. L.(E.)[1898] 
 A. C. 535 ^ ^ I- J 
 
 [1899] W. N. 246; [1900] " 
 
 Q. 15. 116 
 [1891] W. N. 203 
 [1896] W. N. 263 (1); [1897] 
 
 1 Q. B. 314 .. 
 1894] 1 Q. B. 605 
 1894] 2 Ch. 577 
 1896] 2 Ch. 596 
 
 C. A. [1892] P. 137 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 310; C. A. [1894]\ 
 3 Ch. 381 .. .. . / 
 
 P. C. [189.5] A. C. 257 .. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 102 
 
 0. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 115 
 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (8) ; [1897] 1 
 Q. B. 197 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 671 
 
 [1898] W. N. 151 (13); [1899]1 
 1 Ch. 393 .. .. .. / 
 
 [1891]lCh. 51 .. 
 
 
 .'} 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 950 
 324 
 
 2040 
 790, 
 
 2327 
 
 2164 
 
 2167 
 902 
 
 1346 
 
 693 
 
 1543 
 
 1170 
 
 752, 
 2269 
 
 584 
 
 161 
 
 896 
 
 2368 
 
 1852 
 
 154, 
 1582, 
 1583 
 
 969, 
 2141 
 1815 
 
 2278 
 
 324 
 
 1807 
 
 1062 
 
 2045 
 
 119 
 
 206 
 2303 
 765 
 
 662 
 
 520, 
 2349 
 245 
 1749 
 530 
 
 1031 
 
 1056 
 
 1513 
 
 1156 
 
 s 2 
 
colxxvi 
 
 TABLE OF OASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Wood V. Gray & Sons 
 
 Wood V. Headingley-cum-Burley Burial Board 
 •\Y"ood : — London County Council v. 
 Wood 1). McCarthy 
 
 Wood V. Middleton 
 
 Wood :— North Britisli Ey. Co. 
 
 Wood :— O'Siiea v. 
 
 Wood V. Rendell. In re Bendell 
 Wood : — Salt Union v. . . 
 Wood V. Stenning. In re Stenning 
 Wood V. Thomas. In re Thomas 
 
 Wood V. Walsh & Sons .. 
 
 ■{ 
 
 -I 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 Wood w. Widnes Corporation .. 
 
 Wood V. Wilts V. 
 Wood v. Wood 
 
 Wood&Co. :— Goughi;. 
 
 Wood & Co. :— H analy n & Co. ■;;. . . 
 
 Wood V. Woodhouse & Bawson, Ld 
 
 Woodcock V. Holdroyd. In re Peel 
 
 Woodd, Jn re. Ex parte King 
 
 Woodford: — Boss jj ■• 
 
 Woodham v. London County Council .. 
 
 Woodham u. Atlantic Transport Co | 
 
 Woodhead V. Woodhead .. .. .... 
 
 Woodhouse :— Brighton Marine Palace and Pier) 
 
 Co., Ld., i; •• •• •■! 
 
 Woodhouse & Bawson, Ld. :— Wood v. .. 
 
 Woodin, In re. Woodin v. Glass 
 
 Woodroffe V. Moody. In re Moody 
 Woodrow, Hooper & Co., In re .. 
 Woods, Ex parte. In re Evans v. Woods 
 
 Woods V. Harrison 
 
 •■{ 
 •■{ 
 -{ 
 
 Woods :— Llandudno Urban Council v. .. 
 Woods and Lewis' Contract, In re 
 
 Woodside v. Globe Marine Insurance Co. 
 
 Woodward v. Heseltine. In re Heseltine. 
 moil s V. Woodward 
 
 Woodward v. Simpson. In re Hamilton 
 
 Wool Industries Employers' Insurance Associa- 
 tion, Ld., In re 
 
 Woolf:— Blake 1) 
 
 Woolf :— Gosling v. .. 
 
 Woolf V. Hamilton 
 
 Woolf «. Woolf 
 
 Woolfe. Ex parte. In re Wood . 
 Woolfe V. De Braam 
 
 ;ia-l 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 576 
 
 [1892] 1Q.B. 713 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 482 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 775 
 [1896] W. N. 176 (16) ; [1897] j 
 
 ICh. 151 J 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1891] W. N.-l 
 
 130 / 
 
 [1891] P. 237; C. A. [1891] P.I 
 
 286 ) 
 
 1900] W. N. 257 
 1893] 1 Q. B. 370 
 1895] 2 Ch. 433 
 1891] 3 Ch. 482 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 35 (8);'l 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 1009 .. ../ 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 357 ; C. A. [1898]^ 
 
 IQ. B. 463 / 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 [1896' 
 [1899^ 
 [1900 
 [1894' 
 [1898' 
 
 c. a: 
 
 1892" 
 1891' 
 1894' 
 1891 
 
 1 Q. B. 684 
 P. 272 
 
 1 Q. B. 713 
 
 2 Q. B. 488 
 W. 5.4(4) 
 W.N. 208 
 W. N. 84 
 
 1 Ch. 38 
 
 1 Q. B. 863 
 
 [1898] W. N. 139 (9);1 
 
 [1899] IQ. B. 15 .. ..J 
 [1895] P. 343 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 486 
 
 [1896] W. N. 4 (4) 
 
 C. A. [1895]2Ch. 309 .. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 101 
 [1893] W.N. 38.. 
 F. C. [1900] A. C. 338 .. 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 15 
 
 [1899] 1 Cb. 465 
 [1899] W. N. 135 ; [1899] 2 Ch.-i 
 
 705 / 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 433; 0. A. [1898]\ 
 
 2Ch. 211 
 [189H] IQ. B. 105 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 464; H. L. 
 
 (E.) [1892] A. C. 100 
 [1892] W. N. 74 
 
 [1899] W. N. 259 
 
 (7);' 
 
 ';} 
 
 [1898; 
 
 2 Q. B. 426 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 39 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 337 
 
 [1898] W. N. 173 (10); [1899]! 
 
 iCh. 343 ) 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 605 
 
 C. A. [1899] W.N. 239.. 
 
 1250, 
 
 1837 
 
 234 
 
 1146 
 
 1516 
 
 1545 
 1643 
 
 1614 
 
 786 
 1989 
 
 90 
 1855 
 
 1216 
 
 2287 
 
 1566 
 689 
 826, 827 
 510 
 472 
 555 
 176 
 778 
 1174 
 
 1229 
 
 924 
 
 52 
 
 472 
 
 951, 
 2292, 
 2334 
 2340 
 
 438 
 
 756 
 
 1024 
 
 1845 
 
 2237 
 
 990 
 
 197 
 
 2342 
 
 1523 
 
 1075 
 1084 
 864 
 
 954 
 
 206 
 1557 
 
TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 colxxvii 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 "Woulford's Estate (Trustee of) v. Levy 
 
 Woolley u. Broad (Ko. 1) 
 
 (No. 2) 
 
 WooUey Coal Co., In re .. 
 
 Woolston V. Ross .. 
 
 Woolwich Local Board v. Gardiner 
 Woolwich Union (Assessmeut Committee of) : — \ 
 London County Council v. .. .. ../ 
 
 Woolwich Union : — Reg. v. 
 
 Worcester City and County Banking Co. ■;;. Fir-\ 
 bank, Pauling & Co. .. .. .. .. / 
 
 Worcestershire County Council v. Worcesterl 
 Union .. .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Worcestershire Justices : — Reg. v. Reg. v. War- 
 wickshire Justices 
 
 Worcestershire Justices : — Re?:, i;. 
 
 Workin2:ton Corporation : — Robinson v. 
 
 Workington (Overseers of). Ex parte 
 
 Works (Commissioners of) : — Gedye v. .. 
 
 Worley v. Keut^ington, St. Mary Abbotts Vestry 
 
 Worley:— Loudon County Council I/. .. 
 
 Woiley : — Sadler v. 
 
 Worra'll :— Att.-Gen. v. .. 
 
 W,,rsf(Jd:— Hunt w. 
 
 AVorsley, In re 
 
 Worsley: — Ajello v. 
 
 Worton: — Reg. i;. 
 Wot ton : — Read v. 
 
 Wragg (B. J.), Ld., In re 
 
 Wreford, Ex parte. In re Ashby 
 Wren Bros. : — Brown v. .. 
 
 •■{ 
 
 Wrexham, Mold and Connah's Quay Ry. Co., 
 In re 
 
 Wrexham, Mold and Connah's Quay Ry. Co.- 
 
 In re 
 Wrexham, Mold and Connah's Quay Ry. Co. 
 
 In re 
 Wride u. Dyer 
 
 Wright, In re. Kirk v. North ., 
 
 Wright, In tbe Goods of 
 
 Wright :—Att.-Gen. ?; 
 
 Wright V. Bagnall (J.) & Sons, Ld. 
 Wright : — Butt v. In re Maddook 
 
 Wright: — Kemp i). 
 
 Wright v. Marsom 
 Wright: — Payne v. 
 
 !:■} 
 
 ■•{ 
 ■•{ 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 772 
 
 IQ. B. 806 
 "1892] 2 Q. B. 317 
 W. N. 19 
 W. N. 24 ; [1900] 
 
 [1892] 
 C. A. ■ 
 [1891 
 [1900' 
 
 788 
 [1895] 2 Q.' B. 497 '.'. 
 
 C. A.[1893]1Q. B. 210 
 
 (B.) [1898] A. C. 562 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 712 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 784 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 C. B. 480 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 160 (10); 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 59 
 
 1 Ch.| 
 H. ii'.l 
 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 C. A. 
 "1892' 
 1894 
 '1894^ 
 C. A.' 
 [1898 
 C. A. 
 
 1900 
 1897 
 1894 
 1891' 
 '2Cli 
 
 2Q 
 
 2 Q. B. 576 
 1 Q.B. 619 
 
 1 Q. B. 416 
 
 2 Ch. 630 .. 
 404 
 
 B. 826 
 
 ?•! 
 
 ■■{ 
 
 ■•{ 
 
 2 Oh. 170 
 1895]1Q. B. 99.. 
 2Ch. 224 
 1900] W. N. 269 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 274 
 
 C. C. R. [1895] 1 Q. B. 22 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 171 
 [1896] W. N. 166 (5); C. A. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 796 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 872 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 390 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 663 ; [1899] W. N.I 
 
 2(5); [1899] ICh. 205; C.A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 22 (4); [1899] 
 
 lCh.440 
 [1899] W. N. 66; C. A. [1900]\ 
 
 W. N. 21; [1900] 1 Ch. 261 / 
 [1900] W. N. 147 : [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 436 .. ..■ .. ../ 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 23 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 747 | 
 
 [1893] P. 21 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 318 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 92; [1900] \ 
 
 2Q. B. 240 / 
 
 [1899] W. N. 122 ; [1899] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 588 .. .. •■ ../ 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 462; C. A. [1895]1 
 
 1 Oh. 121 / 
 
 [1895] W. N. 148 (11) .. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 104 
 
 129, 
 1924, 
 1925 
 656 
 655 
 386 
 
 684 
 
 1446 
 
 1685 
 
 1670, 
 1671 
 1536, 
 1567 
 
 1676 
 
 1105 
 
 1112 
 1911 
 1042 
 2254 
 1152 
 1154 
 
 315 
 1729 
 1512 
 
 110 
 1250, 
 2117 
 
 869 
 1510 
 
 428 
 
 1905, 
 2183 
 774 
 
 1654 
 
 1656 
 
 1662 
 
 1065 
 1514, 
 1520 
 1622 
 2107 
 
 1247 
 2181 
 
 226 
 
 2301 
 1158 
 
oclxxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Wriglit V. Tugwell. In re Eobinson 
 
 ••{ 
 
 Wright and Butler Lamp Manufacturing Co. :■ 
 John Harper & Co. v. .. 
 
 Wright & Sons u. Bull 
 
 Wriglit and Willesden Local Board, In re 
 
 Wright, Crossley & Co. and Eoyal Baking"! 
 Powder Co. of New York, In re .. ../ 
 
 Wright's Settlement, In re. Wright v. Sander- 
 son. Sanderson's Settlement. Wright v. 
 Sanderson 
 
 Wroe, In re 
 
 Wyatt, In the Goods of . . . . . . . . | 
 
 Wyatt : — Bartholomay Brewing Co. (of Rochester)! 
 
 ■« / 
 
 Wyatt «;. Berry 
 
 Wyatt i;. Gems 
 
 Wyatt :— Nobel Dynamite Trust Co. v. 
 
 Wyatt i;. Palmer .. 
 
 Wyburn : — Canterbury Corporation v. .. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 [1892] 1 Cb. 95; C. A. [1896]\ 
 
 W. N. 170 (2) ; [1897] 1 Ch. 85/ 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 593; 0. A. [1895]' 
 
 W. N. 146 (3); [1896] 1 Ch. 
 
 142 J 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 412 
 
 [1900] W. N. 129 ; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 218 / 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 261 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 38 (19) . 
 
 [1897] W. N. 156 (6); 
 
 P. 15 
 
 [1898]) 
 
 Wylie, Inre. Wy lie i;. Moffat .. 
 
 Wyman v. Paterson 
 
 Wynn-Mackenzie : — Byre v. (No. 1) .. 
 
 (No. 2) .. 
 
 Wynne ti. Tempest 
 
 Wynne v. Tubbs . . 
 
 Wynne u. Wynne 
 
 Wythes, In re. West v. Wythes 
 
 X. 
 
 X., In re .. 
 
 X., In re. X. v. Y. 
 
 Y.:—X.v. InreX. 
 
 Yabbicom v. King . . 
 Yarrow v. Yarrow 
 
 ••I 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 499 
 
 [1893] P. 5 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 225 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 499 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 74 ; [1899]\ 
 2Q. B. 106 .. .. ^ 
 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 89 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 116 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 63 ;\ 
 [1900] A. C. 271 .. ../ 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 218 .. ..| 
 
 [1895] W. N. 161 (7); C. A. 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 135 
 
 [1896] W. N. 176 (17) ; [1897] 
 1 Ch. 110; [1897] W. N, 
 43(14) 
 
 [1896] W. N. 167 (11) ; [1897]\ 
 IQ.B. 74 / 
 
 [1897] W. N. 152 (5); [1898]\ 
 P. 18 / 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 369 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 415 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 526 
 
 15 (8) 
 
 '•] 
 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 15 (8);' 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 526 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 444 
 [1892] P. 92 
 
 :) 
 
 753 
 
 656 
 
 588 
 1917 
 
 2126 
 
 2050 
 
 2320 
 1612 
 
 1767 
 
 1597 
 1178, 
 2070 
 1767 
 
 1551 
 
 283, 293, 
 
 496, 
 2260 
 
 908, 
 1596, 
 2344 
 
 2175 
 
 1304, 
 2059 
 45, 1277, 
 2058, 
 2072 
 
 1556, 
 
 2178 
 
 703 
 1880 
 
 1199 
 947 
 
 947 
 
 2081 
 709 
 
TABLE OF CASES 11^ THE DIGEST. 
 
 cclxxix 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Yates, In re. Bostook v. D'Eyncourt 
 
 Yates :— Elliott V 
 
 Yates ■«. Higgins .. 
 
 Yates : — Hood & Sons v. .. 
 
 Yates V. KyfSn-Taylor & Wark . . 
 Yates : — Parr's Banking Co. v. . . 
 
 Yeo V. Clemow. In re Clemow .. 
 
 ■••{ 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 :} 
 
 Ydun, The 
 
 Yeovil Union : — Southcombe ■«. .. 
 
 York Eleotiou Petition. Purness v. Beresford . . 
 
 York Union :— Nortli Eastern By. Co. v. 
 
 Yorke: — Stephensonri;. .. 
 
 Yorkshire (County Council of West Riding of) : — ' 
 
 Eeg. V. .. 
 Yorkshire Eire and Life Insurance Co. : — Baker v. 
 Yorkshire (North Riding of) County Council : — 'i 
 
 Reg. V. .. .. .. .. .. .. j 
 
 Yorkshire Provident Life Assurance Co. v. Gilberti 
 
 & Rivington .. .. .. .. ../ 
 
 Yorkshire West Riding Council v. Holmfirth^ 
 
 Urban Sanitary Authority .. .. ../ 
 
 Yorkshire (West Riding of) Justices : — Reg. v.]^ 
 
 Ex parte Shaw .. .... 
 
 Yorkshire West Riding (County Council) : — ' 
 
 Reg. V 
 
 Young, Ex parte. Reg. v. Burton 
 Young, In re. Ex parte Jones .. 
 Young u. Adams .. 
 
 Young: — Barretto ti. 
 
 Young: — Chamberlain i;. 
 
 Young: — Oolquhoun i;. .. 
 
 Young: — Druce ■!;. 
 
 Young : — Friend v. 
 
 Young: — Friend v. In re Friend 
 
 Young: — Game u. In re Game.. 
 
 Young: — Hersey ■!). 
 
 Young ti. Holloway 
 
 Young: — Lord Advocate i). 
 
 Young V. South African and Australian Explora- 
 tion and Development Syndicate 
 Young : — Sydney Municipal Council v... 
 Young V. Thomas 
 Young V. Waller .. 
 
 Young (John) & Co. v. Bankier Distillery Co. .. 
 
 Young & Sons : — Clacton Local Board v. 
 Young & Sons: — Leslies. 
 
 Young (J. L.) Manufacturing Co., In re. Young] 
 
 V. Young (J. L.) Manufacturing Co. .. ..J 
 
 Youngs: — Barnes r. 
 
 Yoxall : — ^Bowdenv. 
 
 :1 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 53 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 370 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 166 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 240 
 
 [1899] W. N. 141 
 
 0. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 460 
 
 [1900] W. N. 105; [1900] 2 Ch 
 
 . 182 
 
 [1899] W. N. 41; C. A. [1899] I 
 
 W. N. 72 ; [1899] P. 236 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 843 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 495 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 733 
 [1900] W. N. 44; [1900] 1 Ch 
 
 505 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 386 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 144 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 201 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 148 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 842 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 503 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 805 ..| 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 468 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 484 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 469 .. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 153; [1900] 2 Ch.\ 
 
 339 / 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 206 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1898]\ 
 
 W.N. 114 / 
 
 [1899] P. 84 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 [1898] W. N. 26 (6) .. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 881 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 18 .. 
 
 [1895] P. 87 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1899] W. N.\ 
 
 190 / 
 
 [1896] 2 Oh. 268 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 457 .. 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 134 .. 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 661 .. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 691 ..■[ 
 
 [1895]1Q. B. 395 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 335 .. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 234 ; [1900]\ 
 
 2Ch. 753 / 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 414 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 242 
 
 2335 
 1731 
 608 
 1011, 
 1492 
 1047 
 1005 
 
 2363 
 
 1978 
 
 2214 
 1366 
 1685 
 
 1255 
 
 2108 
 66 
 822 
 
 667 
 
 2272 
 
 1105 
 
 579, 
 1453 
 1043 
 
 153 
 1321 
 
 1474 
 
 192 
 
 1396 
 
 746 
 1421 
 1004 
 
 521 
 1538 
 1626 
 
 1751 
 
 362 
 
 1332 
 561 
 1321 
 1256, 
 2271 
 2090 
 528 
 
 775 
 
 1413 
 40 
 
culxxX 
 
 TABLE 0¥ CASES IN THE DIGEST, 
 
 Name of Case. 
 
 Volume and Page. 
 
 Column 
 
 of 
 Digest. 
 
 Ystradyfodwg and Pontypridd Main Sewerage\ 
 Board v. Newport Assessment Committee .. / 
 Tungmann u. Briesmann .. 
 
 z. 
 
 Zalinoff' iJ. Hammond 
 
 "Zanzibar," Tlie 
 
 Zelma Gold Mining Go. v. Hosl^ins 
 
 "Zeta," Tlie. Turner 
 Harbonr Board .. 
 
 Zierenberg v. Laboucbere 
 Zobel : — Croudaoe v. 
 i^outpatisberg Prospecting Co., Ex parte. 
 Johannesburg Hotel Co. 
 
 Mersey Doclss and 
 
 In re 
 
 :) 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 365 .. .. 1686 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 162 .. 1451 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 92 66 
 
 [1892] P. 233 1984 
 
 P. C. [18H5] A. C. 100 .. .. 1321 
 [1891] P. 216; G. A. [1892]] 
 
 P. 285; H. L. (E.) [1893] 1959 
 
 A. G. 468 J 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 183 .. 646, 67f 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. G. 258 .. .. 1330 
 
 G. A. [1891] 1 Gh. 119 .. .. 311 
 
( eolxxsi ) 
 
 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 APFIEMED, EBVBESED, FOLLOWED, OVEEEULBD, 
 
 OE JUDICIALLY COMMENTED ON OE SUPEESEDED BY 
 
 STATUTE OE OEDEE, 1891—1900. 
 
 Note. — Additional references to Gases that have incidentally been referred to, hut 
 are not included in the ahove category, are placed after the Oases in the body of the 
 Digest. 
 
 A. B. y.G.B.- - (1890) 18 K. 90 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. A. B. c. 
 0. D. - [1891] A. C. 616 
 
 A. B. V. CD. - - (1889) 16 Dunlop, 111 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (So.) Macken- 
 zie V. Mackenzie [1895] A. C. 384, 401 
 
 A. B. & Co., In re, [1900] 1 Q. B. 541 ; [1901] 
 A. C. 102. 
 See also In re A. B. & Co. (No. 2) 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 429 
 
 Aaron's Beefs, Ld. v. Twiss [1895] 2 I. E. 207 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) [1896] A. C, 273 
 
 Aberdeen Station Committee v. North British By. 
 Co., (1891) 18 E. 855. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. Fee- 
 GtrsoN V. North Beitish Et. Co. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 166 
 
 Acey V. Fernie - - (1840) 7 M. & W. 151 
 
 Approved. London and Lancashire 
 Life Assubance Co. v. Fleming 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 499 
 
 Acton Local Board v. Batten, (1885) 28 Ch. D. 283. 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Minehead 
 Local Board v. Lutteell 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 178 
 
 Adams, In re - [1893] 1 Ch. 329 
 
 Referred to by Kekewioh J. In re Cald- 
 well. Hamilton v. Hamilton 
 
 [1894] W. N. 13 
 
 Commented on by C. A. In re Holfoed 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 30 
 
 Adams v. Adams - - (1842) 1 Hare, 537 
 
 Disousaed by 0. A. In re EowE. Pike 
 
 ■0. Hamlin - - [1898] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 Adams v. Adams - - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 426 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1892] 1 Ch. 369 
 Adarm v. Angell - - (1877) 5 Ch. D. 634 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Pride. 
 
 Shackell v. Colnett [1891] 2 Ch. 135 
 
 Approved by H. L. (B.) Thorkb v. 
 
 cInn - [1895]A. C. 11 
 
 Adams V. Batley - (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 625 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Saunders v. 
 
 Wiel (No. 1) - [1892] 2 Q. B. 321 
 
 Adams v. Clementson - (1879) 12 Ch. D. 714 
 Doubted by C. A. Sadnders v. Wiel 
 (No. 2) - [1893] 1 Q. B. 470 
 
 Adams v. Great North of Scotland By. Co., (1889) 
 16 R. 843. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1891] A. 0. 31 
 
 Adams and Kensington Vestry, In re, (1884) 
 27 Ch. D. 394. 
 Followed by C. A. In re Hamilton 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 370 
 
 Adam's Policy Trusts, In re, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 
 525 ; 48 L. T. 727. 
 
 Dictum not followed by Chitty J. In 
 re Davies' Poijot Trusts 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 90 
 Followed by North J. In re Kutper's 
 Policy Trusts - [1899] 1 Ch. 38 
 
 Adamson v. Jarvis, (1827) 4 Bing. 66 ; 29 E. E. 
 503. 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (Sc.) Palmer v. 
 Wick, &o., Cq-, - [1894] A, C. 318, 324 
 Discussed by Bruce J. The " English- 
 man " AND THE " Australia " (No. 2) 
 [1895] P. 212, 218 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Burrows v. 
 Rhodes [1899] 1 Q. B, 816, 825 
 
 Addison's Case (1801) Macq. Prao. H. L. p. 598 
 Followed. Hart's Divorce Bill 
 
 H. 1. (D.) [1898] A. C. 305 
 Ador, Ex parte - - [1891] 2 Q. B. 574 
 See Wallace v. Universal Automatic 
 Machines Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 647, 553 
 
 African Gold Concessions and Development Co., 
 In re, [1899] W. N. 7 (1) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 
 414. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch, 480 
 
 Agnew v. Usher ■ - (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 78 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Tassell v. 
 Hallen - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 321 
 
 " Agricola," Tlie - (1843) 2 Wm. Eob. iO 
 
 Followed by Bruce J. The "Wine- 
 stead " -• [1895] P. 170 
 
oolxxsii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULED, &c., 
 
 Ahearn v. Bellman (1879) 4 Ex. D. 201 
 
 Applied. BnBY v. Thompson 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 696 
 Ailesbury (Marquis of) and Lord Iveagh, In re, 
 [1893] 2 Oh. 345. 
 
 Obeerved upon by Stirling J. In re 
 Eael of Stamford [1896] 1 Ch. 388 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re T)v 
 Cane and Nettlefold's Conteact 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 96 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Mundy 
 AND Eopek's Contract 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 275 
 
 Aileshury's (Marquis of) Settled Estates, In re 
 '(No. 1), [1892] 1 Ch. 506. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) suib nom. Beuoe 
 ■0. Marquis of Ailesbury 
 
 [1892] A. C. 366 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re Hope 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 679, 689 
 
 Ainley v. KirlsTieaton Local Board, (1891) 60 L. J. 
 Ch. 734. 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Brown 
 V. Dunstable Corporation 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 378 
 
 AWcen, Lilburn & Co. y. Emathausen & Co., [1894] 
 
 1 Q. B. 773. 
 
 Applied by C. A. Weir & Co. v. Girvin 
 
 6 Co. - [1900] 1 Q. B. 45, 49 
 
 AherUom v. Frice - (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 129 
 
 Applied by Bruce J. The " Strath- 
 garby" - - - [1895] P. 264 
 
 Alabama, New Orleans, Texas and Pacific Junc- 
 tion By. Co., [1891] 1 Ch. 213. 
 Followed. In re English, Scottish 
 AND Australian Chartered Bank 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 385 
 
 Alabaster v. Harness [1894] 2 Q. B. 897 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 339 
 
 Albo-Carhon Liglit Co. v. Kidd,{1837) 4 Eep. Pat. 
 Cas. 535. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Mandlbberg 
 ■u. MOBLEY - [1895] W. N. 9 
 
 Aldin T. Latimer Clarlc, Muirliead & Co.,'[1894] 
 
 2 Oh. 437. 
 
 Considered by Buckley J. Tebb v. Cave 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 643, 649 
 
 Alexander, In the Goods of, (1860) 29 L. J. 
 (P. & M.) 93. 
 
 Disapproved of but followed. In the 
 Goods of Huber [1896] P. 209 
 
 Alexander v. 4-'>^lomatic Telephone Co., [1899] 
 2 Ch. 802. 
 Reversed by C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 56 
 
 Alexander v. Bridge of Allan Water Co., (1869) 
 
 7 Macph. 492, opinion expressed at p. 
 498. 
 
 Disapproved by H. L. (So.) Adams v. 
 Great North of Scotland Ry. Co. 
 
 [1891] A. C, 31 
 
 Alexander v. Simpson - (1889) 43 Ch. D. 139 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Tiessen 
 V. Hendebson - [1899] 1 Ch, 861 
 
 AUxandria Water Co. v. Musgrave, (1883) 11 
 Q, B. D. 174. . ^ 
 
 Distinguished byH.L. (B.) m Gbesham 
 Life Assueanob Society v. Stvles 
 
 [1892] A. C. 309 
 
 "AUna,"The - - (1880) 5 Ex. D. 227 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Allen v. 
 Garbutt. (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 165. 
 Referred to. Reg. v. Judge of City of 
 London Coubt (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 273 
 
 See also PuGSLEY & Co. v. Kopkins & Co. 
 C. A. [1892] 2 a. B. 184 
 
 Allan V. Overseers of Liverpool, (1874) L. E. 9 
 Q. B. 180. 
 
 Followed. Rochdale Canal Co. v. 
 Brewster - C. A. [1894] 2 Q, B. 852 
 
 Allcroft V. London (Bishop of), (1889) 24 Q.B.D. 
 213 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1891] A. C. 666 
 
 Aliens. Flood - [1898] A.C.I 
 
 Referred to. J. Lyons & Sons v. 
 W^iLKiNS - C, A. [1899] 1 Ch, 255 
 
 Allen V. Garbutt - (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 165 
 
 Approved. Reg. v. Judge of the City 
 OF London Court (No. 2) 
 
 C, A. [1892] 1 Q, B. 273 
 
 Allen v. Gold Reefs of West Africa, Ld., [1899] 
 W. N. 75 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 40. 
 Varied by C. A. [1900] 1 Ch, 656 
 
 Allen v. Greensill - (1847) 4 C. B. 100 
 
 Considered. Magbe v. Moktimer, (1890) 
 28 L. E. Ir. 251 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 102 
 
 Allen V. Taylor - (1880) 16 Ch. D. 355 
 
 Eule applied to devises: Chitty J. 
 Phillips v. Low [1892] 1 Ch. 47 
 
 Allen V. Worthy - (1870) L. E. 5 Q. B. 163 
 See now 61 & 62 Vict, i-, 49, s. 3. 
 
 Allnutt,Inre - - (1882) 22 Ch. D. 275 
 
 Approved by North J. in re Craw- 
 SHAY - - [1891] 3 Ch. 176, 181 
 
 Allsop V. Allsop - - (1860) 5 H. & N. 534 
 
 Considered by Wright J. Wilkinson v. 
 DowNTON - - [1897] 2 Q. B, 57 
 
 Almada and Tirito Co., In re, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 
 415. 
 
 Followed. OoREGUM Gold Mining Co. 
 OF India v. Eopee 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 125 
 
 Applied and followed by C. A. In re 
 
 Eailway Time Tables Publishing Co. 
 
 Ex parte Welton [1895] 1 Ch. 255 ; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 299 
 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. In re 
 Theatrical Tbust, Ld. Chapman's 
 Case - [1895] 1 Ch. 771 
 
 " Alps," The - - [1893] P. 109 
 
 Followed and approved. The "Be- 
 douin " - - C. A. [1894] P. 1 
 
DUEING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Oolxxxiii 
 
 Alton V. Midland By. Co., (1865) 19 C. B. (N.S.) 
 213 ; 34 h. J. (C.P.) 292. 
 DisouBsed. Taylor v. Manchestek, 
 Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co. 
 C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 134 
 
 DlBtinguished. Meux v. Great Eastern 
 Et. Co. - C. A. [1896] 2 ft, B, 387 
 
 Ally V. Farrell - - [1896] 1 Q. B. 636 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Krose v. John- 
 son - [1898] 2 ft. B. 91, 106, 113 
 
 American Concentrated Meat Co. v. Hendry 
 [1893] W. N. 67. 
 
 Affirmed by G. A. - [1893] W. N. 82 
 But see Hodder v. Williams 
 
 [1895] 2 ft. B. 663 
 
 American Pastoral Co., In re, [1890] W. N. 62 ; 
 62 L. T. (N.S ) 625. 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Agei- 
 cuLTUEAL Hotel Co. [1891] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 •s,Inre - . - [1893] 2 Oh. 479 
 
 Discussed. In re Eastman's Settled 
 Estates 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] W. N. 170 (15) 
 
 Ames V. Birlienhead Bocks Trustees, (1855) 20 
 Beav. 332. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Daties v. 
 Thomas - [1900] 2 Ch. 462, 4^0 
 
 Ames V. Parldnson 
 
 Distinguished. 
 V. Chapman 
 
 (1844) 7 Beav. 379 
 
 In re Chapman. Cocks 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 763 
 
 Am^n v. Bdblett (1 889) 22 Q. B. D. 543 
 
 Observed upon. Finska Angparttgs 
 
 Aktiebolaget v. Brown, Toogood & Co. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 116 
 
 Amos V. Smith - (1862) 1 H. & C. 238 
 
 Discussed. In re Dixon. Heynes v. 
 Dixon C. A. [1899] 2 Ch, 581 
 
 " Andalmian," The - (1878) 3 P. D. 182 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 14, s. 1. 
 
 Anderson, In the Goods of, (1864) 3 Sw. & Tr. 489. 
 Followed by Jeune P. In the Goods 
 OP Stevens - - [1898] P. 126 
 
 Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, (1876) 
 2 Ch. D. 644. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Leaeoyd v. 
 Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 686 
 
 Anderson v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincoln- 
 shire By. Co. Manchester, Sheffield and 
 Lincolnshire By. Co. v. Anderson, [1898] 
 W. N. 35 (10). 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. sm6 rwm. Manchester, 
 Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. 
 Co. V. Anderson - [1898] 2 Oh. 394 
 
 Anderson v. Vicary - - [1899] 2 Q. B. 436 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 887 
 
 Anderson's Trade-mark, In re, (1884) 26 Oh. D. 
 409. 
 Explained. Eowland v. Mitchell 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 71 
 
 Andrews v. Gas Meter Co. [1896] W. N. 87 (8) 
 Eeversed by 0. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 361 
 
 Eeferred to by Eomer J. In re James 
 Colmeb, Ld. - [1897] 1 Ch. 524, 527 
 Considered by 0. A. Allen v. Gold 
 Eeefs of West Africa, Ld. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 656 
 
 Andrews v. Partington, (1790) 3 Bro. 0. C. 401 ; 
 2 Cox, 223. 
 
 Extended by North J. In re Knapp's 
 Settlement - [1895] 1 Ch, 91 
 
 Andrews v. Salt (1873) L. E. 8 Oh. 622 
 
 Observed upon. In re Violet Nevin 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 299 
 
 Andros, In re - - (1883) 24 Ch. D. 637 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Grey's 
 Trusts. Grey v. Earl of Stamford 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 88 
 
 Anglo-Austrian Printing and Publishing Union, 
 In re. Isaac's Case, [1892] 2 Ch. 158 
 Distinguished. In re Printing, Tele- 
 graph AND Construction Co. of the 
 Agence Havas. Ux parte Cammell 
 
 C. A, [1894] 2 Ch. 392, 399 
 
 Anglo-Continental Corporation of Western Aus- 
 tralia, In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 327, 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re 
 
 BlUTOSOOPE AND BlOGRAPH SYNDICATE 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 896 
 
 Anglo-Sardinian Antimony Co., In re, [1894] 
 W. N. 156. 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J. Practice 
 Note - [1894] W. N. 166 
 
 Ann, In re ■ - [1891] 1 Ch. 549 
 
 Discussed by Kekewioh J. In re Hughes 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 529, 535 
 
 Annan v. Annan's Curator Bonis, (1897) 24 E. 851 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Be.) sub nom. 
 Hutton v. Annan [1898] A. C. 289 
 
 Anstee v. Nelms - (1856) 1 H. & N. 225 
 
 Approved and adopted. Dalton v. 
 Fitzgerald C. A, [1897] 2 Ch. 86 
 
 Anthony, In re. Anthony v. Anthony (No. 1), 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 450. 
 
 See In re Anthony. Anthony «. 
 Anthony (No. 2) - [1893] 3 Ch. 498 
 
 Aplin v. Porritt - [1893] 2 Q. B. 57 
 
 See now Wild Animals in Captivity Pro- 
 tection Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 33), 
 s. 1. 
 
 Apollinaris Co. v. Wilson - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 632 
 Distinguished by Kekewioh J. In re 
 Miller's Patent - [1894] W. N. 4 
 Cited. In re La Sooiete Anonyme de3 
 Veereries de l'Etoile 
 
 [1893] W, N. 119 
 
 Apollinaris Company's Trade-marks, In re (No. 2) 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 186. 
 
 Distinguished by Cliitty J. In re 
 Phillip's Teade-maeks 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch, 139 
 Considered by Chitty J. In re Smoke- 
 less PowDEE Co.'s Trade-mark 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 590 
 
oclxxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES S'OLLOWED, OVEERULED, &o., 
 
 Applebee, In re. Leveson v. Beales, [1891] 3 Cli. 
 422. 
 
 Eeferied to by Byrne J. In re Gkiffin 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 408, 412 
 
 Appl^y V. Myers (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 651 
 
 Distinguished. O'Neil v. Armstbokg, 
 Mitchell & Co. C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 418 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. The " Madras " 
 [1898] P. 90 
 Followed by P. C. Fokman & Co. 
 Peoprietaet, Ld. v. The Ship " Liddes- 
 DALE " - [1900] A. C. 190 
 
 AraUn's Trusts, In re - [1885] W. N. 90 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 Ward's Settled Estates 
 
 [1895] W. K. 41 
 
 Arlib and Class's Contract, In re, [1890] W. N. 
 186. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 601 
 
 Arden v. Boyce - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 796 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Kemp v. Lester 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 162, 164 
 
 Arden's Settlement, In re - [1890] W. N. 204 
 Followed by Chitty J. Stoddaet i'. 
 Savilb [1894] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 Followed. In re Forbes. Errington 
 V. Sempell [1899] W. N. 6 (4) 
 
 Arnold v. Garner - (1847) 2 Ph. 231 
 
 See now 59 & 60 "Vict. o. 35, s. 1 (5). 
 
 Art Union of London v. Savoy Overseers, [1894] 
 2 Q. B. 609. 
 Reversed by H. L. (E) [1896] A. C. 296 
 
 Arthur v. MacMnnon - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 385 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Shablakd. 
 
 Kemp v. Eozet - [189S] 1 Ch. 517; 
 
 [1896] W. N. 62 (19) 
 
 Artistic Colour Printing Co., In re, (1880) 14 Ch. 
 D. 502. 
 
 Followed. In re General Service 
 Co-operative Stores 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 496 
 
 Asfar & Co. v. Bhmdell [1S95] 2 Q. B. 196 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 123 
 
 Asliford V. Tuile - (1857) 7 Ir. C. L. R. 91 
 Approved and adopted by Div. Ct. 
 Hadley & Son v. Beedom 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 646 
 
 Ashling v. Boon - [1891] 1 Cli. 568 
 
 See Birchall v. Bullough 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 325, 326 
 
 Ashmore & Son v. Cox (0. S.) & Co., [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 436. 
 
 Referred to by Malhew J. Niokoll and 
 Knight v. Ashton, Eldkidge & Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 298, 303 
 
 Ashton, In re. Ingram v. Papillon, [1897] 2 Ch. 
 574. 
 Reversed by C. A. [1898] 1 Ch, 142 
 
 Ashton, In the Goods of - - [1892] P. 83 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Parker " [1897] 2 Ch, 208, 213 
 
 Ashton Charity, In re - (1856) 22 Beav. 288 
 Referred to. In re Bradford School 
 op Industry Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 60 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Stock- 
 port Ragged, Industrial and Repoh- 
 MATOBY Schools [1897] W. N. 156 (4) ; 
 see also C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 687 
 
 "Asia," The - [1891] P. 121 
 
 Considered. Eookett v. Clippingdale 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 293, 300 
 
 Aslatt V. Southampton Corporation, (1880) 16 
 
 Ch. D. 143. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Richard- 
 son V. Methley School Board 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 510 
 
 Assicurazioni Generali v. SS. Bessie Morris Co., 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 57L. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 6E2 
 
 Asten V. Asten - - - [1894] 3 Ch. 260 
 
 Considered by C. A. In re Cheadlb 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 6:0 
 
 Astor, In the Goods of (1876) 1 P. D. 150 
 
 Followed by Jeune J. In the Goods 
 OF Feaser [1891] 1 P. 286 
 
 Cited. In the Goods op Lockhart 
 
 [1893] W. N. 80 
 
 Athole (Duke of) v. Mclnroy's Trustees, (1890) 
 17 R. 456. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nam. 
 McInroy v. Ddke op Athole 
 
 [1891] A. C. 629 
 
 Athole {Dulce of) v. Stewart - (1890) 17 E. 724 
 Distinguished by H. L. (Sc). John- 
 stone V. Ddkb op Buccledoh 
 
 [1892] A, C. 625 
 
 Atlwll (TDuke of) v. Wedderburn, (1899) 1 F. 651, 
 658. 
 On appeal. H. L, (So.) [1900] A. C. 403 
 
 Atkinson, In re - - (1892) 9 Morr. 193 
 
 Followed. In re Otway 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 812 
 
 Atkinson, In re. Waller v. Atkinson, [1898] 1 Ch. 
 637. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Atkinson v. Collard - (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 254 
 
 Followed. Gay v. McGill, (1887) 15 
 
 E. 90 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc) 
 
 [1897] W. N. 98 
 
 Attenborough v. London and St. Katharine Dock 
 Co., (1878) 3 0. P. D. 450. 
 Discussed. Henderson & Co. v. Wil- 
 liams C. A. [1895] 1 ft, B, 521 
 Dicta in, followed. Ex parte Mersey 
 Docks and Harbodb Board 
 
 C. A, [1899] 1 ft, B. 546 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Acton Local Board, (1882) 22 Ch. D. 
 221. 
 
 Opinion expressed at p. 232, followed 
 by Eomer J. Att.-Gen. v. Oleeken- 
 WELL Vestry - [1891] 3 Ch. 827 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. BbOWN 
 V. DONSTABLE CORPORATION 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 378 
 
DURING THE YEA.ES 1891—1900. 
 
 cclxxxv 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Albany Hotel Co., [1896J W. N. 88 
 ri4). 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1896] 2 Ch. 696 
 
 Alt-Gen. v. Beech - [1897] 2 Q. B. 535 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 147 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1899] A. C. 53 
 Eeferred to by H. L (E.) Eakl Cow- 
 ley V. Inland Ebvende Gommks. 
 
 [1899] A. C. 198. 206 
 
 Applicable. Att.-Gen v. De Pbeville 
 
 C, A. [1900] 1 a. B. 223, 229 
 
 Alt.-Gen. v. Birmingham Drainage Board, (1881) 
 17 Cb. D. 685. 
 &e56&57 Vict. o.'31. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Bouwene - (1838) 4 M. & W. 171 
 Followed by Diy. Ct. Stern v. Reg. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 211 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Brecon (Mayor of), (1878) 10 Cb. D. 
 201. 
 
 Eeferred to by Nortb J. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Swansea Cobporation 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 602 
 Distinguisbed by H. L. (Sc.) Leith 
 Cobpoeation v. Leith Haeboub and 
 Docks Commbs. [1899] A. C. 508 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Caloert - (1857) 23 Bear. 248 
 
 Disouosed. In re Eoso's Chabity 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 21 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Camherwell Vestry, [1894] W. N. 163 ; 
 10 T. L. R. 653. 
 No lunger law. 
 See 60 & 61 Vict. o. 56, s. 2. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Chambers, (1854) 4 De G. M. & G. 
 206; (1859) 4 De G. & J. 55. 
 . Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Peaecb ■». 
 BmiTiNG - [1896] 2 Q. B. 360, 370 
 
 Ait.- Gen. v. Chapman - [1891] 2 Q. B. 526 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. v. 
 DoDiNGTON • [1897] 1 Q. B. 722, 732 
 This case was affirmed bv C. A. 
 
 [1897] 2 a. B. 373 
 
 AU.-Gen. v. Clerkenwell Vestry [1891] 3 Ch. 527 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Bbown 
 V. Dunstable Coepokation 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 378 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Coelcermouth Loeal Board, (1874) 
 L. E. 18 Eq. 172. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Att.-Gen. ii. Lon- 
 don AND Noeth Westeen Ey. Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 «. B. 78 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Croydon Corporation, (1889) 42 Ch. D. 
 178. 
 Superseded by 55 & 56 Vict. c. 53, s. 3 (c). 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. De Prattle - [1899] 2 Q. B. 238 
 Eeversed by 0. A. [1900] 1 a. B. 223 
 But see Finance Act, 1900 (63 & 64 
 Vict. 0. 7), rf. 11. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Dodington - [1897] 1 Q. B. 722 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 2 «. B. 373 
 Followed by (Ir.) 0. A. In re Stdddebt, 
 [1900] 2 Ir. E. 400 
 
 See [1900] W. N, 220 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Dorking Union, (1882) 20 Ob. D. 595, 
 609. 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Clbbkenwell Vestey [1891] 3 Ch. 527 
 But see now 56 & 57 Vict. u. 31, a. 1. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Emsrson - (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 191 
 
 Principle of, applied by C. A. Att.-Gen. 
 
 ■u. Newoastle-upos-Ttne CoBI'OEATION 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 384 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Fairley -' - [1897] 1 Q. B. 698 
 Followed by C. A. Att.-Gbn. v. Clark- 
 son - - [1900] 1 ft. B. 158 
 
 See now Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. 0. 10), s. 14. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Gosling - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 545 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Ellis - - [1895] 2 ft. B. 466, 470 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Great Western By. Co., (1872) L. R. 
 7 Ch. 767. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Att.-Gen. v. London 
 AND NosTH Westeen Ey. Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 78 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Grey {Earl) - [1898] 2 Q. B. 534 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) ; sub nom. Eabl 
 Gbey v. Att.-Gen. - [1900] A. C. 124 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Att.-Gbn. v. De 
 Pbeville - [1900] 1 ft. B. 223, 228 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Sanwell Urban Council, [1900] 
 1 Ch. 51. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1900] 2 Ch. 377 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Hotham {Lord), (1823) 1 Turn. & E. 
 209; 24 E. R. 21. 
 Followed. Haigh v. West 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 19 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Jaelcson - (1831) 2 Cr. & J. 101 ; 
 37 E. E. 641. 
 
 Considered by Stirling |J. In re De 
 Hoghton. De Hoghton v. De Hoghton 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 517 ; C, A. [1896] 1 Ch. 855 
 
 Alt.-Gen. v. Jacobs-Smith - [1895] 1 Q. B. 472 
 Reversed by C. A. [1895] 2. ft. B. 341 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Jewish Colonization Association, 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 556. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1900] W. N. 269 ; 
 
 [1901] 1 ft. B. 123 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. London and North Western By. Co., 
 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (12) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 72. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 ft, B. 78 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. London Corporation, (1850) 2 M, & 
 G. 247. 
 
 Principle of, applied by C. A. Att.- 
 Gen. V. Nbwoastle-upon-Tyne Cobpo- 
 eation [1897] 2 ft. B. 384 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. London County Council, [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 226. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 192 
 Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Lon- 
 don CotiNTY Council v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 268 ; [1901] A. C. 1 
 
 Att-Gen.y.Loyd - [1895] 1 Q. B. 496 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. In re Scott 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 372, 387 ; C. A. [1900] 
 W. N. 371 ; [1901] 1 ft. B. 228 
 
cclxxxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEBULED, &o., 
 
 Att.-6en. v. Merthyr Tydfil Union, [1899] W. N. 
 38 (3). 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 616 
 
 Alt.-Gen. v. Meyrick - (1750) 2 Ves. Sen. 44 
 Overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. o. 73, s. 3. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Meyriclc - [1893] A. 0. 1 
 
 Distinguished. Simoob v. Pethick 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 555 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Midland By. Co. [1900] 2 Q. B. 353 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] W. N. 271 
 
 Ait-Gen. v. Mill (1831) 2 Dow. & Gl. 393 ; 
 
 35 E. E. 80. 
 Distinguished by P. C. Canterbury 
 
 CORPOKATION V. WtBURN 
 
 [1895] A. C. 89 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers 
 Association, Ld., (1876) 1 Ex. D. 469. 
 Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Kimber 
 V. Admans C. a. [1900] 1 Ch. 412, 413 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. New York Breweries Co., [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 205. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. New 
 York Breweries Co. v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 [1899] A. C. 62 
 
 Alt.-Gen. v. NeweasOe-on-Tyne Corporation, (1889) 
 23 Q. B. D. 492. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 568 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. NewcasUe-upon-Tyne Corporation, 
 C. A. [1K97] 2 Q. B. 384. 
 See also C. A, [1899] 2 a. B. 479. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Owen - [1899] 2 Q. B. 253 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re Dcke of 
 St. Albans [ISOO] 2 Ch. 873 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. liohertson [1892] 2 Q. B. 691 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 293 
 Distinguisheil by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. 
 ■u. Wood [1897] 2 Q. B. 102, 110 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Shrewshury {Kingsland) Bridge Co., 
 (1882) 21 Ch. D. 752. 
 Followed by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. London 
 AND North Western Ey. Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 78 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Smilli [1892] 2 Q. B. 289 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 239 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Southampton Corporation, (1858) 1 
 Giff. 363. 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Att.-Gen. 
 V. Teddington Urban Council 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Sudeley (Lord) [1896] 1 Q. B. 354 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 SiDEi.EY (Lord) v. Att.-Ges. 
 
 [1897] A. C. 11 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Teddington Urhan Council, [1898] 
 1 Ch. 66. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. Han- 
 well Urban Council [1900] 2 Ch. 377 
 
 Alt.-Gen. v. Tynemouth Corporation, [1898] 1 
 Q B. 604. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1899] A. C. 293 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Vyner (1890) 38 W. R. 194 
 
 Dislinguished. Jenkins v. Bushby 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 484, 495 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Warren (1818) 2 Swans. 291, 302 ; 
 19 E. E. 74. 
 
 Discussed. In re Clergy Orphan 
 Corporation 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 145, at p. 154 
 
 AtL-Gen. v. Wilkinson, (1859) 28 L. J. (Ch.) 392 ; 
 29 L. J. (Ch.) 41. 
 
 Observed upon. Earl Jersey v. Ux- 
 bridge Union Rural Sanitary Autho- 
 rity - - [1891] W. S. 31, 113 
 Sut see [1891] 3 Ch. 183. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Wolverton (Baron),i'DW. Ct. [1896] 
 2 Q. B. 389, and C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 231. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 Wolverton (Baron) v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 [1898] A. C. 535 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Wood [1897] 2 Q. B. 102 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 10), B. 14. 
 
 Attree v. Bawe (1878) 9 Cli. D. 337, 349 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Parker, 
 Wignall u. Parker [1891] 1 Ch. 682 
 
 Dictum of James L.J. as to the nature 
 of debenture stock discussed and ex- 
 plained by Chitty J. In re Bodman, 
 BoDMAN V. Bodman [1891] 3 Ch. 135 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Pickard, 
 Elmsley v. Mitchell [1894] 3 Ch. 704 
 
 Attrill V. Huntingdon - 70 Maryland, 191 
 
 Disapproved by P. C. sub nom. Hun- 
 tington V. Attbill 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 150 
 
 Auckland (Lord) v. Westminster Local Board of 
 Works, (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 597. 
 Distinguished by Nortli J. Worley 
 V. Vestry of St. Mary Abbotts, 
 Kensington - [1892] 2 Ch. 404 
 
 Affected by 57 cS: 58 Vict. c. ccxiii., 
 B. 22 (2). 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. London 
 County Council v. Peyor 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 465 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. Grand 
 Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton 
 UnBAN Council [1898] 2 Ch. 331 
 
 Audain, Ex parte - - (18S9) 42 Ch. D. 1 
 
 Di-tinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 
 Harvey's Oyster Co. Ormerod's Case 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 Auriferous Properties, Ld., In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 
 691. 
 See also [1898] 2 Ch. 428. 
 
 Auriferous Fropprties, Ld. (No. 2), In re, [1898] 
 2 Ch. 428. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re GoY 
 & Co. - - [1900] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 Australian Auxiliary Steam Clipper Co. v. 
 Mounsey, (1858) 4 K. & J. 733. 
 See General Auction EjTATe and 
 Monetary Co. u. Smith 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 432 
 
DURING THE YEAHS 1891—1900. 
 
 colxxxvii 
 
 Automatic Weighing Machine Co. v. International 
 Hygienic Society, (1889) 6 Eep. Pat. Cas. 
 475. 
 
 Eeferred to by Buckley J. Sacchaein 
 Cokpoeation.Ld. ■W.Anglo-Continental 
 Chemical Works, Ld. [1900] W. N. 95 
 
 Avery v. Andrews - (1882) 51 L. J. (Oh.) 414 
 Followed. Seawakd r. Pateeson 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 545, 556 
 
 Avery v. Wood - - [1891] 3 Oh. 115 
 
 Kendered obsolete by 56 &57 Vict. c. 61, 
 B. 1 (6). 
 
 Ayerd v. JenUm - (187,S) L. R. 16 Eq. 275 
 Distinguished by Nortli .T. Phillips 
 ■0. Probyn [1899] 1 Ch. 811 
 
 Aylesford (Earl of) v. Morris, (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. 
 484. 
 
 Applied by C. A. Bkenohley«. Higsins 
 [1900] W. N. 212 
 
 Aylward v. Lewis - - [1891] 2 Ch. 81 
 
 Observed upon. Soott v. Stkbatham 
 AND General Estates Co. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 153 
 Observed upon. In re Mitchell 
 Wavell v. Mitchell [1892] W. N. 11 
 
 Aynsley v. Glover 
 
 Considered. 
 
 (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 544 
 Martin v. Price 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 B. {No. 1), In re - - [1891] 3 Oh. 274 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re B. (No. 2) 
 [1892] 1 Ch, 459, 461 
 
 Bache v. Billingliam [1894] 1 Q. B. 107 
 
 See 59 & 60 Viet. u. 25, ». 6S (6). 
 
 Bacon v. Bacon (1800) 5 Vos. 331 ; 5 R. R. 52 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re Lord De 
 Clifford's Estate [1900] 2 Ch. 707 
 
 Badham v. Badham - (1890) 62 L^ T. 663 
 
 Followed by G. Barnes J. Edwabds v. 
 Edwards - [1894] P. 33 
 
 Badische Anilin nnd Soda Fabrilt v. Johnson 
 (if.) & Co. and Basle Chemical Works, 
 Bindschedler, 0. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 322. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Ba- 
 dische Anilin vnd Soda Fabkik v 
 Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler 
 [1898] A. C. 200 
 Referred to by Stirling J. British 
 Motor Syndicate v. Taylor & Son 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 877, 581 ; C. A. [1900] W. N, 239 ; 
 [1901] 1 Ch. 122 
 BaggettM.Meux - (1844) 1 Coll. 138 
 
 Approved. Stogdon v. Lee 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 661 
 Baggs, In re - [1 894] 2 Oh. 416, u. 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. In re X. 
 
 [1891]2Ch. 415, 419; 
 In re Salt [1896] 1 Ch. 117 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Shortridgb 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 278, 284 
 Bagot, Inre - - - [1894] 1 Oh. 177 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Rich- 
 ardson [1900] W. N. 3 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 778 ; In re Hunt. Polland v. Heake 
 [1900] W. N. 65 
 
 Bagshaw v. Pimm - - [1900] W. N. 64 
 
 Reversed by 0. A. - [1900] P. 148 
 
 Bahia and San Frandsao By. Co., In re, (1868) 
 L. E. 3 Q. B. 584. 
 
 Considered by H. L. (E.). Balkis Con- 
 solidated Co. V. TOMKINSON 
 
 [1893] A. C. 396 
 Explained by 0. A. In re Ottos Kopje 
 Diamond Mines - [1893] 1 Ch, 618 
 
 Baile v. Baile - ■ (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 497 
 
 Reluctantly followed by Kekewioh J. 
 Briscoe v. Briscoe [1892] 3 Ch, 543 
 
 Bailey v. Barnes - [1S94] 1 Oil. 25 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re White- 
 head AND Smith's Contract [1896] 
 
 1 Ch, 642 ; Life Interest Corporation 
 V. Hand-in-Hand Insurance Society 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 238 
 Bailey v. Watson & Co. - [1898] 2 Q. B. 270 
 
 Overruled. White v. Headland's 
 
 Patent Electric Storage Battery 
 
 Co. C. a. [1899] 1 Q. B. 607 
 
 Bain -v. Ait.-Gen. - - [1892] P. 217 
 
 AflBrmed by 0. A. [1892] P, 261 
 
 Bain v. Fothergill - (1874) L. R, 7 H. L. 158 
 
 Considered by 0. A. Day v. Singletom 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 329 
 
 Baine & Johnston v. M'Cowan (The "Niobe") 
 
 (1890) 17 R. 1016. ' ^ 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1891] A. C. 401 
 Baiaesy. Baiter - - (1752) 1 Amb. 158 
 
 Considered by Ohitty J. Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Manchester Corporation 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 87 
 Baiv£s V. Geary - - (1887) 35 Oh. D. 154 
 
 Commented on. DaHOwsni & Sons v. 
 
 Goldstein C, A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 486 
 
 Baird v. Tunhridqe Wells (Mayor, &e., of) ri89-n 
 
 2 Q. B. 867. '- -' 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 434 
 
 Baird's Trustees v. Lord Advocate, (1888) 15 E 
 682. 
 
 Disapproved of. Commbs. foe Special 
 Purposes op Income Tax v. Pemsbl 
 
 H. 1. (E.) [1891] A. C. 531 
 
 Baiter v. Sutton - (1836) 1 Keen, 224 
 
 Overruled if and so far as differing frum 
 Lewis V. Allenby. In re Piekcy. M^hit- 
 wham v. Piercy C. a. [1898] 1 Ch. 565 
 
 Balkis Consolidated Co. v. Tomltinson, [189.31 
 A. 0.396. -^ 
 
 Followed and applied by Farwell J. 
 Dixon v. Kunnaway & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 833 
 
 Ball V. Bay - (1873) L. R. 8 Oli. 467, 469 
 
 Followed by Buckley J. Sanders- 
 Clark V. Grosvenob Mansions Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 373 
 Referred to by Kekewioh J. Att.-Gen. 
 v. Cole - [1900] W. W. 272 
 
 Ball's Trusts, In re - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 270 
 
 Followed by Ohitty J. Stoddabt v 
 Savile - [1894] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 Followed by Romer .T. In re Forbes 
 
 [1889] W. N. 6 (4) 
 
oolxxxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., 
 
 Ballwgal v. Menzies - (1886) 14 R. 127 
 
 Followed. Walshe v. Annan, (1892) 
 
 22 R. 83 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) 
 
 [1897] W, N. 97 
 
 Bamford, Ex parte - (1808-9) 15 Ves. 449 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Wobsley 
 [1900] W. N. 269 
 
 Bamford v. Turnley - (1860) 3 B. & S. 62 
 
 Referred to. J. Lyons & Sons v. Wil- 
 KINS C. A, [1899] 1 Ch. 255 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Cole - [1900] W. N. 272 
 
 Bank of Scotland v. Dominion Bank (Toronto), 
 (1889) 16 R. 1081. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1891] A. C. 592 
 
 Bank of South Australia, In re (_No. 1), [1894] 3 
 Ch. 722. 
 
 Doubted. In re Bank of South Aus- 
 TKALiA (No. 2) C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 578 
 
 Bank of Syria, In re. Owen and Afhworth's 
 Claim. Whitworth's Claim, [1900] 2 
 Cli 272 
 
 On appeal - - [1900] "W. N. 256 ; 
 
 See [1901] 1 Ch. 115 
 
 Bank of Toronto v. Lamhe, (1887) 12 App. Cas- 
 575. 
 
 Followed. Breweks and Malsteh's 
 Association op Ontakio v. Att.-Gen. 
 FOR Ontario [1897] A. C. 231 
 
 Bankes V. Bankes - - (1899; 1 F. 1194 
 
 Afarmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1900] W. N. 246 
 
 Bankier Distillery Co. v. Young & Co., (1892) 19 
 R. 1083. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) suh nom. Young 
 & Co. v. Bankier Distillery Co. 
 
 [1893] A. 0. 691 
 
 Banks v. Braithwaite (1862) 32 L. J. (Cb.) 35 
 Queslioned by C. A. In re Saunders 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 17 
 
 Banks v. Gibson - - (1865) 34 Beav. 566 
 
 Explained by C. A. Burohell v. Wilde 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 551 
 
 Bannatyne v. Direct Spanish Telegraph Co., (1887) 
 34 Ch. D. 287. 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re London 
 AND New York Investment Corpora- 
 tion - [1895] 2 Ch. 860 
 
 Bannister v. Breslauer (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 497 
 Disapproved of. Clink v. Radford 
 & Co. C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 625 
 
 Barher, In re - - (1888) 39 Ch. D. 187 
 
 li'ollowed by Stirling J. In re Weston's 
 Trusts [1898] W. N. 151 (10) 
 
 Barher v. Jecltylls - [1893] W. N. 91 
 
 See LusK i). Sebright [1894] W. N. 134 
 Referred to by North J. 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (7) ; [1897] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 Barber v. Maokrell - [1892] W. N". 87 
 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1892] W. N. 133 
 
 Barber v. Mauico - (1893) 10 Rep. Pat. Cas. 93 
 Considered by Stirling J. In re The 
 Trade-mark of La Sooiete Anonyme 
 des Verrebies de l'Etoile (No. 2) 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 61 ; 
 This case .was affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 26 
 
 Barclay, Ex parte - (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 576 
 
 Explained by Romer J. Johns v. Ware 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 359 
 
 Baring, In re, [1893] 1 Ch. 61, view taken in, of 
 decision in In re Courtier, (1886) 34 
 Ch. D. 136, dissented from. In re Eed- 
 DIKG [1897] 1 Ch. 876 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Tom- 
 linson - [1898] 1 Ch. 232 
 
 Not followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 Gjers [1899] 2 Ch. 54, 58 
 
 Baring v. Abingdon - [1892] 2 Ch. 374, 381 
 Dictum, p. 381, of Stirling J. on effect 
 of decision iu Dawson v. Gent, 1 H. & N. 
 744, explained and corrected by Chilty J. 
 in Wallis v. Hands - [1893] S Ch. 75 
 
 Baring v. Inland Revenue Commrs., C. A. [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 78. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Lord 
 
 Eevelstoke J). Inland RlyexueCommbs. 
 
 [1898] A. C. 565 
 
 Baring-Gould v. Sharpington Combined Pick and 
 Shovel Syndicate [1898] 2 Ch. 633 
 
 Affirmed in part and reversed iu part 
 by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 80 
 
 Barker, In re. Buxton v. Campbell, [1892] 2 Ch. 
 
 491. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Lacy 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 149, 157 
 Barkshire v. Grubb - (1881) 18 Ch. D. 616 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. In re Peck 
 
 AND the School Board for London* 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 315 
 Barlow v. Kensington Vestry, (1886) 11 App. Cas. 
 
 257. 
 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. o. ccxiii. s. 49. 
 
 Considered. Allen ». London County 
 
 Council C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 687 
 
 Barlow's Will, In re - (1887) 36 Ch. D. 287 
 Considered. In re Brown 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 666 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 De Linden [1897] 1 Ch. 453 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Thieky 
 V. Chalmers. Guthrie & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 80 
 Discussed by C. A. Didisheih i. 
 London and Westminster Bank 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 15 
 
 Barnard, Ex parte. In re Great Kruger Gold 
 Mining Co. [1892] 3 Ch. 307 
 
 Explained by C. A. In re Trust and 
 Investment Corporation of South 
 Africa [1892] 3 Ch. 332 
 
 Barnard v. Faber - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 340 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Hamerocgh v. 
 Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New 
 York - - [1895] W. N, 18 
 
UUElNG TtiE -^EAES 1891—1900. 
 
 oolxxxi: 
 
 Samardo v. fotd - - [1892] A. 0. 326 
 See Cuatody of Children Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Viot. c. 3), s. 3. 
 
 Barnardo v. McSugh [1891] 1 Q. B. 194 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1891] A. C. 388 
 See now Custody of Children Act, 1891 
 (.54 & 55 Viet. c. 3), s. 3. 
 
 Barnes v. Addy - (1874) L. R. 9 Oh. 244, 251 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Barney - [1892] 2 Ch. S65 
 
 Barnes v. Olenton - [1898] 2 Q. B. 223 
 
 Reversed by 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 885 
 Referred to by Stirling J. London and 
 Midland Bane v. Mitchell 
 
 [1899] 3 Ch. 161, 165 
 
 Barnes v. Racster - (1812) 1 Y. & 0. Ch. 401 
 Followed by C. A. Flint v. Howabd 
 [1893] a Ch. 64 
 
 Barnes v. Rider - (1892) 62 L. J. (M.C.) 25 
 Disapproved by Div. Ot. Neal v. 
 Devenish - [1894] 1 Q. B. 544 
 
 Barnes v. Wood - - (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 424 
 
 Distinguished by Parwell J. Rudd v. 
 Lascelles • [1900] 1 Ch. 815, 821 
 
 Barnett v. Ecdes Corporation, [1900] W. N. 96 ; 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 104. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 423 
 
 Barney, Inre - - - [1894] 3 Ch. 562 
 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re 
 Thomas - [1900] 1 Ch. 319, 334 
 
 BarnhaH v. GremsTiields (1853) 9 Moo. P. C. 18 
 
 Discussed by Earwell J. Hunt v. Luck 
 
 [1900] "W. N. 250 
 
 Barr v. Kingsford - (1887) 56 L, T. (N.S.) 861 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Caktweight 
 V. Regan - [1895] 1 ft. B. 900, 902 
 
 Barradough v. Brown - [1897] A. C. 615, 623 
 Referred to by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Mbbthyb Tvdpil Union 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 516, 550 
 
 ^Barrington, Inre- - (1886) 33 Ch. D. 523 
 
 Distinguished by Ohitty J. In re 
 Robinson's Settlement Tbusts 
 
 [1891] W. N. 118 ; [1891] 3 Ch. 129 
 
 Barron v. Willis - - [1899] 2 Ch. 578 
 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 Barrow v. Barrow - (1858) 4 K. & J. 409 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. Gbbenhill v. 
 North British and Mercantile In- 
 surance Co. - - [1893] 3 Ch, 474 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Hodson. 
 Williams v. Knight [1894] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 Barrow v. Isaacs & Son [1891] 1 Q. B. 417 
 
 Followed. Eastern Telbsbaph Co. v. 
 Dent - C. A, [1899] 1 Q. B. 835 
 
 Barrow y. Smith - [1885] W. N. 136 
 
 Observed upon. Dooksey v. Else 
 
 [1891] W. N. 65 
 
 Barrow Hsematite Steel Go., tn re, (1888) 39 
 
 Ch. D. 582. 
 
 See In re Barbow H.smatite Steel Co. 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 846, 847 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Agri- 
 cultural Hotel Co. [1891] 1 Ch. 396 
 Barry v. Butlin - (1838) 2 Moo. P. C. 480 
 
 Explained. Tyrrell v. Painton (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 161 
 
 Barry v. Ferwiiiam Corporation, [1896] 1 Q. B. 
 
 208. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Sea Insurance Co. 
 
 V. Carb - - [1900] W. N. 238 
 
 Barry By. Co. v. Taf Tale Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 
 
 128. 
 
 See Davis & Sons v. Tafe Vale Ry. Co 
 
 [1895] A. C. 654 
 
 Barthtt v. Ford's Hotel Go. [1895] 1 Q. B. 850 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 1 
 
 Barthtt v. Qihhs (1843) 5 Man. & G. 81 
 
 Followed by C. A. Hurcum v. Hil- 
 LEARY - - [1894] 1 ft. B. 579 
 
 Barllett v. May/air Property Co., [1897] W. N. 
 174 (4). 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. siib nom. In re May- 
 pair Profeety Co. Bartlett v. May- 
 fair Property Co. [1898] 2 Ch. 28 
 
 Bartlett V.Phillips - (1859) 4 De G. & J. 414 
 Followed by Eomer J. Ecclesiastical 
 CoMMRS. V. Wodehouse [1895] 1 Ch. 552 
 Bartlett v. Pialcersgill, (1759) 1 Cox, 15 cit. ; 4 
 East, 577, n. ; 1 Eden, 515 ; Burr. 2255 ; 
 1 R. R. 1. And see 20 R. E. 294, n. 
 la not overruled for all purposes by 
 Heard v. Pilley, (1869) L. R. 4 Oh. 518, 
 per Kekewich J. James v. Smith 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 384 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed by 0. A. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 175 
 
 Overruled. Rouchefoucald v. Boustead 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 196 
 
 Bartlett v. West Metropolitan Tramways Co., 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 437 ; [1894] 2 Oh. 286. 
 
 Disapproved by C. A. Marshall v. 
 
 South Staffordshire Tramways Co. 
 
 [1896J 2 Ch. 36 
 Barton v. London and North Western By. Co. 
 (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 77; 59 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 33; 62L. T. 164; 3S W. R. 197. 
 But see now 54 & 55 Vict. c. 43. 
 Barton v. Muir (1874) L. R. 6 P. 0.^.134 
 
 Distingaished by P. 0. Tooth v. Power 
 [1891] A. C. 284 
 Barton y. Taylor ■ (1886) 11 App. Oas. 197 
 Distinguished. Fielding v. Thomas 
 
 [1896] A. C. 600 
 Baschety. London Illustrated Standard Co., [1900] 
 1 Oh. 73. 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Hildes- 
 
 BEIMER V. FaULKNEES, Ld. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 170 
 
 Bate, Inre- - - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 600 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Butler [1894] 3 Ch. 260 
 
 Not followed by Ohitty J. In re Salt 
 
 [1895] 3 Ch. 203 
 
 t 
 
ccxe 
 
 *ABLE of cases followed, OVEEEiJLEi), &G., 
 
 Batemdn (Lady) r. Faber - [1897] 2 Oh. 223 
 Affirmed by 0. A - [1898] 1 Ch. 144 
 See G. A. [1900] W. N. 157. 
 
 Bateman (Lady) v. Faber [1899] W. N. 241 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] W. N. 157 
 
 Haten's Case - - 9 Kep. 53 b 
 
 Discuased. Lane v. Capset 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 411 
 
 ,Bales V. Bates - - (1888) 14 P. D. 17 
 
 Distinguislied by Jeuue J. Claeke v. 
 Glaeke - [1891] P. 287 
 
 Bathuret (Borough of) T. Macpherson, (1879) 4 App. 
 Gas. 25B. 
 
 Distinguished by P. G. PiCTor (Muni- 
 cipality of) v. Geldeet 
 
 [1893] A. C. 524 
 
 Explained by P. 0. Sydney (Muni- 
 cipal Council) v. Boubke 
 
 [1895] A. C. 433 
 
 Batt & Co.'s Trade-marlc, In re, [1898] W. N. 44 
 (15). 
 
 Affirmed by G. A. sub nom. In re 
 Eegisteeed Teade-maeks of John Batt 
 & Co., and In re Caetek's Application 
 POE A Teade-mark - [1898] 2 Ch. 432 
 See aho [1898] 2 Ch. 701 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) stib nom. 
 Batt & Co. v. Dunnett 
 
 [1899] A. C. 428 
 
 Ballams, Ex parte. In re Wenham, [1900] W. N. 
 117. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Q. B. 698 
 
 Batten v. Dartmouth Harbour Commrs., (1890) 
 45 CU. D. 612. 
 
 Followed. Caeeicki). WiganTeamways 
 Go. [1893] W. N, 98 
 
 Batten v. Wedgwood Coal and Iron Co., (1885) 
 28 Ch. D. 317. 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Lathom 
 V. Geeenwich Feeey Co. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 77 
 
 Batty V. Bill - - (1863) 1 H. & M. 264 
 
 Followed by G. A. Talleeman v. 
 Dowsing Eadiant Heat Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Baumwoll Manufaciur von Carl Scheibler v. 
 Gilchrest [1891] 2 Q. B. 310 
 
 Eeversed by G. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 Decision of G. A. affirm, by H. L. (E.) 
 xub nom. Baumwoll Manufaotoe ton 
 Gael Soheiblee v. Fueness 
 
 [1893] A. C. 8 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Manchestee 
 Teust v. Fubness, Withy and Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 639 
 
 Baxendale v. London, Chatham and Dover By. Co. 
 (1874) L. E. 10 Ex. 35. 
 DisouBsed by C. A. Aoius u. Geeat 
 Westeen Collieey Co. 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 413 
 
 Baxter V. Inglis - - (1897) 24 E. 758 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. Inglis 
 V. EoBEETSON - [1898] A, C. 616 
 
 BayUy v. Great Western By. Co., (1884) 26 Ch. fi. 
 
 434. 
 
 Dictum of Fry J. (p. 457) explained by 
 
 Chitty J. In re Peck and the School 
 
 BOAED foe London [1893] 2 Ch. 316 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Att.-Gen. 
 
 V. Teddington TJeban Council 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 66 
 Baynes & Co. v. Lloyd & Sons, [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 
 820 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 610 
 Beal, Ex parte (1868) L. E. 3 Q. B. 387 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Baschet v. 
 
 Illusteated Standaed Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Hildes- 
 
 heimeb v. Faulknees, Ld. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 170 
 Beale v. Beale, - (1874) L. E. 3 P. & D. 179 
 
 Distinguished ^by Div. Ct. Leigh v. 
 
 Geeen - [1892] P. 17 
 
 Beall V. Smith - - (1873) L. E. 9 Ch. 85 
 
 Explained by Stirling J. In re George 
 
 Akmsteong & Sons [1896] 1 Ch. 536 
 Beardmore, Ex parte [1894] 2 Q. B. 393 
 
 Applicable. Hunt i;. Feipp 
 [1897] W. N. 158 (3); [1888] 1 Ch. 676 
 
 Beardmore v. Mealiin, (1885) L. J. notes of cases, 8 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Stanton v. 
 
 Beown • [1900] 1 ft. B. 671, 674 
 
 Beauchamp Brothers, In re. Ex parte Beauchamp, 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 1. 
 
 Varied by H. L. (E.) sm6 nom. Lotell 
 
 AND CbKISTMAS V. BEAUCHAMP 
 
 [1894] A. C. 607 
 
 Beauclerlc v. Beauelerh (No. 1) - [1891] P. 189 
 Eeferred to by Jeune P. Beaucleek ». 
 Beaucleek (No. 2) [1895] P. 220 
 
 Beavan v. Beavan - (1883) 24 Ch. D. 649, n- 
 See In re Henglee. Feowde v. Hen- 
 glee (No. 1) [1893] 1 Ch. 586 
 
 Beckett v. Taslcer - - (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 7 
 
 See the Married Women's Property Act, 
 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63), s. 1. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Softlaw v. Welch 
 
 [1899] 2 ft. B. 419, 424 
 
 Beckett v. Tower Assets Co. - [1891] 1 Q. B. 1 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 638 
 
 Beckhuson v. Hamhlet [1900] 2 Q. B. 18 
 
 Followed and approved by Mathew J. 
 Andeeson & Co. ■». Beaed 
 
 [1900] 2 ft. B. 260 
 
 Beckwith v. Bechwith (1876) 46 L. J. (Ch.) 97 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 EoESON [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 Becquei v. MacCarthy, (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 951 ; 
 36 E. E. 803. 
 
 Distinguished by P. 0. Siedab Gued- 
 yal Singh v. Eajah op Fakidkote 
 
 [1894] A. C. 670 
 
 Beddington v. Atlee - (1887) 35 Gh. D. 317 
 Applicable. Da vies v. Thomas 
 
 [1899] W. N. 244 
 
 Bedouin Steam Navigation Co. v. Smith & Co., 
 (1895) 22 E. 350. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C, 70 
 
DUKlNG THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 doXci 
 
 leeching v. Phillips, Oct. 27, 1883, E. P. K. 
 folio 13. 
 
 Followed by North J. Ind, Coope & Co. 
 V. Mee - [1895] W. N. 8 
 
 Beeston, In re - [1898] W. N. 171 (1) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 626 
 Beeston Pneumatie Tyre Co., In re, [1898] W. N. 
 
 34 ; 14 T. L. E. 338. 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re 
 
 Noeth-West Aeoentine Et. Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 882 
 Behn v. Burness - (1863) 3 B. & S. 751, 759 
 
 Applied. Bbntsen u. Tatlob, Sons & 
 
 Co. (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 274, at pp. 379, 281 
 
 Belclier \. Williams - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 510 
 Not followed by Kekewioh J. Catton 
 V. Banks [1893] 2 Ch. 221 
 
 BeU, In re [1896] 1 Oh. 1 
 
 Approved of. Hockey v. Western 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch, 350 
 
 Bell V. Aitkin - (1868) L. E. 3 C. P. 320 
 
 Followed by Bucknill J. The " Metro- 
 polis" - [1899] W. N. 100 
 
 Bdl V. Banks - - (1841) 3 Man. & C. 258 
 
 Eeferred to. Cbet-wynd v. Allen 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 353 
 
 Bell V. Syde - (1711) Prec. in Ch. 328 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirlinp; J. In re Turn- 
 bull - - [1900] 1 Ch. 180, 186 
 
 Bell T. Love, (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 547; (1884) 9 
 
 App. Gas. 286. 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. Hatles v. 
 
 Pease & Partners, Lr. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 667 
 Bell & Co. V. Antwerp, London and Brazil Line, 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 103. 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1898] A. C. 524, 633 
 Bellamy v. Bavey, [1891] W. N. 160; [1891] 
 
 3 Ch, 540. 
 
 Appeal dismissed by consent 
 
 [1891] W. N. 192 
 Bellamy v. Debenham - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 481 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1891] 1 Ch, 412 
 
 Bellamy and Metropolitan Board of Works, In re, 
 
 (1883) 24 Ch. D. 387 
 
 Overruled by 56 & 57 Vict. o. 53, 
 
 s. 17 (1). 
 Bence, In re. Smith v. Bence [1891] 3 Ch. 242 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. In re Hancock. 
 
 [1900] W, N. 68; C, A, [1900] W, N. 270 
 
 Bendy, In re - - - [1895] 1 Ch. 109 
 
 Discussed and not followed. Finlat v. 
 
 Darling - [1897] 1 Ch, 719 
 
 Beneficed Clerk v. Lee - [1897] A. 0. 226 
 
 See now 61 & 62 Vict. c. 48, s. 1, sub-s. 5. 
 Benett v. Wyndham - (1862) 4 D. F. & J. 259 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. In re Eatbould 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch, 199 
 
 Benfieldside Local Board v. Conseti Iron Co., 
 
 (1877) 3 Ex. D. 54. 
 
 Considered by C, A. London and 
 
 North Western Ey. Co. v. Evans 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. le 
 
 " Benlarig," The - - (1889) 14 P. D. 3 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. The " Lepanto " 
 
 [1892] P. 122 
 
 Benn v. Benn - - (1885) 29 Oh. D. 839 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. In re Blan- 
 tern. Lo-we v. Cooke [1891] W, N, 64 
 
 Bennett v. Gamgee ■ (1876) 2 Ex. D. 11 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Beam v. Flower 
 
 [1895] W. H. 120 
 
 Bennett v. Slater - - [1898] 1 Q. B. 469 
 
 Eeversed by 0. A. - [1899] 1 ft. B. 45 
 
 Bennett v. Womaek, (1828) 7 B. & C. 627 ; 31 E. E. 
 270. 
 Eeferred to. Mldglby v. Smith 
 
 [1893] W. N, 120 
 
 Bensaude v. Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance 
 Co. - 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 29 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 609 
 Undistinguishable. Turnbull, Martin 
 & Co. V. Hull Underwriters' Associa- 
 tion - [1900] 2 ft. B. 402 
 
 Bent V. Cullen - - (1871) L, E, 6 Ch. 235 
 
 Observed on. In re Morgan 
 
 C, A, [1893] 3 Ch, 222 
 
 Bentinck v. Fenn - (1887) 12 App. Cas. 652 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Archer's Case 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 322 
 
 Bentley v. Vilmont - (1887) 12 App. Cas. 471 
 See Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. o. 71), s. 24 (2). 
 
 Bentley (JT.) & Co., Re. Ex parte Harrison, (1893) 
 69 L. T. (N.S.) 204. 
 
 Distinguished. In re Consort Deep 
 Level Gold Mines, Ld. 
 
 C, A, [1897] 1 Ch. 575 
 Benwell, Ex parte (1885) 14 Q, B. D. 301 
 
 Discussed by V. Williams J. In re 
 EoGERS. Ex parte Collins 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 426 
 Benwell, Ex parte. In re Satton, (1885) 14 
 Q. B. D. 301. 
 Followed by Div. Ct. In re Jones 
 
 [1891] a ft. B. 231 
 
 Bmwell V. Inns, (1857) 24 Beav. 307 ; 26 L. J. 
 (Ch.) 663. 
 
 Followed by North J. Batho v. Tunes 
 [1892] W. N. 101 
 
 Benyon v. Benyon - - (1876) 1 P. D. 447 
 
 Considered. Thomassbt v. Thomasset 
 C, A. [1894] P, 295 
 
 Berdan v. Greenwood - (1878) 3 Ex. D. 251 
 Approved of. Cootb v. Ford 
 
 C. A, [1899] 2 Ch, 93, 105 
 
 Beresford-Hope v. Lady Sandhurst, (1889) 23 
 Q. B. D. 79. 
 
 See London Government Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. 0. 14), s. 2. 
 
 Berkeley v. Baird - - (1895) 22 E. 372 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) siib nom. Baird 
 V. Bell - [1898] A. C. 420 
 
 Berkley v. Thompson - (1885) 10 App. Cas. 45 
 Dictum at p. 49 explained and distin- 
 guished. Eeg. v. Webb 
 
 [1896] 1 ft, B. 487 
 t 2 
 
TABLE OP CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEBULED, &c., 
 
 ge V. Ward - (1861) 10 0. B. (N.S.) 400 
 Referred to. Pbtoh v. Petee 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 11 
 V. Lord AUngdon, (1817) 3 Mer. 560; 
 17 R. R. 125. 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. In re Hoabe 
 [1892] 3 Ch, 94 
 Bertram Luipaard's VUi Oold Mining Co., In re, 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 332. 
 
 Explained by V. Williams J. In re 
 Laxon & Co. (No. 3) [1893] 1 Ch. 210 
 
 "Beryl," The - (188i) 9 P. D. 137 
 
 PoUowed. The " Opokto " 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 249 
 Bessela v. Stern - - (1877) 2 C. P. D. 265 
 
 Referred to by Bowen L.J. Wiede- 
 mann V. Walpole [1891] 2 Q. B. 634 
 Bethlehem and Bridewell Hospitals, In re, (1885) 
 30 Ch. D. 541. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Ex parte 
 Vioab of Castle Bttham 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 348 
 
 And by North J. In re Maktin and 
 
 Vaelow - [1894] W. N. 223 
 
 Bettesworih and Bicker, In re, (1888) 37 Ch. D. 
 
 535. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Stock v. Meakin 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 683, 691 
 
 Beltison, In re (1874) L. E. 4 A. & E. 294 
 
 Referred to. St. Andrew's, Hove 
 
 (ViCAE, &c., ge) v. Mawn 
 
 [1895] P. 228, u. 
 
 Bdts, In re. Ex parte Belts [1897] 1 Q. B. 50 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Jdbb 
 
 [1897] 1 a. B. 641, 644 
 
 Betty, In re - - [1899] 1 Oh. 821 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Gjees 
 
 [1899] 2 Oh, 54 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In 7'ePAKET 
 
 AND HoPKiN - [1900] 1 Ch. 160 
 
 Beioiche v. Graham (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 400 
 
 Approved. Budden v. Wilkinson 
 
 C, A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 432 
 
 Biddle V. Bond - (1865) 6 B. & S. 225 
 
 Approved. Rogers, Sons & Co. ■». 
 Lambeet & Co. C, A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 318 
 Discussed. Hendeeson & Co. v. 
 Williams C. A. [1895] 1 Q, B, 621 
 
 Bidwell Brothers, In re - [1893] 1 Ch. 603 
 
 Overruled. Ernest v. Loma Gold 
 Mines, Ld. C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Biggerstaff v. Bowatt's Wliarf Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 
 93. 
 
 Followed. In re Eoundwood Colliery 
 
 Co. C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 373 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Bank 
 
 OF Steia - [1900] 2 Ch. 272, 278 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 266 ; 
 
 Beported [1901] 1 Ch. 115 
 
 Biggs v. Hoddinott - [189S] W. N. 58 (7) 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1898] 2 Ch. 307 
 
 Followed. Santlet v. Wilde 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch, 474 
 Referred to by C. A. Rice v. Noakes 
 & Co. - [1900] 2 Ch, 446, 463 
 
 Bills V. SmUh - (1865) 34 L. J. (Q. B.) 68 
 
 Applied by Wright J. In re Vautin 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B, 325, 327 
 
 Bingham v. Bingham - (1748) 1 Ves. Sen. 126 
 Approved. Huddebsfibld Bankins Co. 
 V. H. Listee & Son, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch, 273 
 
 Birch V. Cropper - (1889) 14 App. Cas. 525 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Odessa 
 Watekwoeks Co. [1897] W. N. 166 (3) 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re 
 Anglo-Continental Cobpobation of 
 Western Australia [1898] 1 Ch, 327 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Mdto- 
 
 SOOPE AND BlOGBAPH SYNDICATE 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch, 896 
 
 Birch V. Litchfield (Bishop of), (1803) 3 Bos. & P. 
 444 ; see 17 E. R. Preface vii. 
 Applied by Chitty J. Keen v. Denny 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 Bird V. Bird - - (1753) 1 Lee, 209 
 
 Followed. FoDEN v. Foden 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 307 
 
 Bird's Trusts, In re - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 214 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Hoffe's Estate Act, 1855 
 
 [1900] W. N, 114 
 
 Birliddle Steam Laundry and Carpet Beating Co., 
 In re, [1893] 2 Q. B. 386. 
 Discussed. In re Geneeal Phosphate 
 COEPOKATION - C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 3 
 
 Birhs, In re. Kenyan v. Birks, [1899] W. N. 
 24 (18) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 703. 
 Reversed by 0. A. - [1900] 1 Ch, 417 
 
 Birks y. Trippet - 1 Wms. Sauud. 32 
 
 Applied by Chitty J. In re Bkown's 
 Estate - - [1893] 2 Ch. 300 
 
 Birmingham and District Land Co. and Allday, 
 In re, [1893] 1 Ch. 342. 
 Referred to by North J. Davis -o. 
 Leioestee Coepoeation 
 
 C, A, [1894] 2 Ch. 208, 220 
 
 Birmingham Breweries, Ld. v. Jameson, [1898] 
 W. N. 15 (8). 
 Reversed on appeal. 
 See Reooed of Business 
 
 [1898] W. N, 145 
 
 Birmingham, Corporation v. Baker, (1881) 17 
 Ch. D. 782. 
 
 Distinguished. Tendeins Union ». 
 DoWTON C. A, [1891] 3 Ch. 268 
 
 Birmingham, Dudley and District Banking Co. v. 
 Boss, (1888) 38 Ch. D. 295. 
 Explained. Beoomfield v. Williams 
 C, A, [1897] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 Bishop V. Balkis Consolidated Co., (1890) 25 
 Q. B. D. 512. 
 
 Distinguished. Tomkinson v. Balkis 
 Consolidated Co. 
 
 C. A, [1891] 2 Q, B, 614 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1893] A. C, 396 
 Observed upon by V.Williams J. In re 
 CoNOEssioNs Trust [1893] S Ch. 767 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 BisJiop V. Smyrna By. Co. - [1895] 2 Ch. 265 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Odessa 
 "Watbbwobks Co. [1897] W. N. 166 (3) 
 
 Bizz^ V. Flight - - (1876) 24 W. E. 957 
 
 Discussed. In re Patrick 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Ch. 82, 87 
 
 Blach V. Clay - - - (1893) 21 E. 41 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 368 
 Blach & Co.'s Case - (1872) L. R. 8 Ch. 25t 
 Dictum of Selborne L.C. explained by 
 Romer J. Knowles v. Scott 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 717 
 Blaclcburn and District Benefit Building Society 
 V. Cunliffe, Broolcs & Co., (1885) 29 
 Ch. D. 902. 
 
 Distinguished. In re Wrexham, Mold 
 AND Connah's Quay Ey. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 205, 140 
 
 Blackburn Benefit Building Society v. Cunliffe, 
 Brooks & Co., (1882) 22 Ch. D. 61; 
 (1884) 9 App. Cas. 857. 
 See General Auotion Estate and 
 Monetary Co. v. Smith 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 432 
 Blachham v. Pugh - - (1846) 2 C. B. 611 
 
 Approved. Baker v. Cakrick 
 
 C, A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 838 
 
 Blackmore v. London and South Western By. Co., 
 (1870) L. E. 4 H. L. 610. 
 Distinguished. Macfie v. Callander 
 AND Oban Et. Co. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 270 
 Blackmore v. Mills - (1868) 16 W. E. 893 
 
 Explained. Fodbn v. Foden 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 307 
 
 Blackwood t. Beg. - (1882) 8 App. Cas. 82 
 
 Followed. CoMMBs. of Stamps v. Hope 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 476 
 
 Followed. Henty v. Eeg. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 867 
 
 Blaiberg v. Gatti - (1896) 100 L. T. Joni. 441 
 Eeferred to by North J. Simmons v. 
 Blandy - [1897] 1 Ch. 19, 20 
 
 Blain, Ex parte - - (1879) 12 Ch. D. 522 
 
 Followed. In re Pearson 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 263 
 
 Followed by C. A. Jn re A. B. & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 841, 646 ; 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1901] A. C. 102 
 
 Blair v. Bromley, (1847) 2 Phil. 854; 5 Hare, 
 
 542. 
 
 Explained by Stirling J. Moore v. 
 Knisht - [1891] 1 Ch. 647 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Thorne v. 
 Heard - [1894] 1 Ch. 899 
 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 496 
 
 BUke, Ex parte - - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 572 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 
 New Oriental Bank Corporation 
 
 (No. 2) [1895] 1 Ch. 783 
 
 BlalM V. Blake - - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 481 
 
 Considered by Byrne J. In re Moses 
 [1900] W. N. 182 
 
 Blake v. Bunbury (1790) 1 Ves. Jr. 194 ; 1 E. E. 
 Ill ; and see 19 E. E. 46 ; 21 R. E. 
 325, 326. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Eioh- 
 ARDSON - - [1900] 2 Ch. 778 
 
 Blalce V. Gale - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 571, 577 
 
 Distinguished. In re Fludyek 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 562 
 
 BlaJtemoore v. Bristol and Exeter By. Co., (1858) 
 8 E. & B. 1035. 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Coughlin v. 
 Gillison - [1899] 1 Q. B. 145 
 
 Blaker v. Eeris and Essex Waterworks Co., (1889) 
 41 Ch. D. 399. 
 
 Applied to tramways. Marshall v. 
 South Stafpordshibe Tramways Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 36 
 Blandford v. Blandford - [1892] P. 148 
 
 Overruled. Thomasset v. Thomassbt 
 C. A. [1894] P. 295 
 
 Blantyre (Lord) v. Clyde Navigation Trustees, 
 (1891) 18 E. 197. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 703 
 
 Blashill V. Chambers (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 479 
 
 Apparently met by 57 & 58 Viot. c. 
 ccxlii. s. 5 (9). 
 
 Blithman, Inre - - (1866) L. E. 2 Eq. 23 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Hay- 
 ward - - [1897] 1 Ch. 905 
 
 Bloomenthal, Ex parte - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 525 
 Eeversed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. Bloo- 
 menthal V. Ford - [1897] A. C. 156 
 Distinguished. In re African Gold 
 Concessions and Development Co. 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 414 J C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 480 
 
 Blower v. Morret - (1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 419 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Schweder's 
 Estate. Oppenheim v. Schwedeb 
 (No. 1) - [1891] 3 Ch. 44 
 
 Blumberg v. Life Interests, &c.. Corporation, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 171. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1898] 1 Ch. 27 
 
 Blundell v. Catterall, (1821) 5 B. & Aid. 268; 
 24 E. E. 353 ; Preface v. 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Llan- 
 dudno Ubban Council v. Woods 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch, 7C5 
 
 Blyth and Fanshawe, In re, (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 
 207. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Osmond v. 
 Mutual Cycle and Manufacturing 
 Supply Co. [1899] 2 ft. B. 488 
 
 Blyih Harbour Commrs. v. Newsham and South 
 Blyth Churchwardens and Tynemouth 
 Union Assessment Committee, [1894] 2 
 B 293 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 675 
 
 Board V. Board - (1873) L. E. 9 Q. B. 48 
 
 Approved and adopted. Dalton v. 
 Fitzgerald C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 86 
 
 Bodman,Inre- - - [1891] 3 Ch. 135 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Weed- 
 ing - - [1896] 2 Ch. 364, 367 
 
OOXOIV 
 
 TABLE OP CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULBD, &c., 
 
 Boehm, In the Goods of - [1891] P. 274 
 
 Cited. In the Goods op Walklet 
 
 [1893] W. N. 62 
 "Sold Bucdeugh," The (1851) 7 Moo. P. C. 267 
 Approved. Cubbie v. M'Knight 
 
 H. I. eSc.) [1897] A. C. 97 
 
 Solton, In re. [1892] W. N. 163; 8 Times L. B. 
 668. 
 Followed. Guild & Co. v. Conbad 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 a. B. 885 
 
 Bolton V. Buokenham - [1891] 1 Q. B. 278 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Bolton v. 
 Salmon - [1891] 2 Ch. 48 
 
 Bolton (B.) & Co., In re ■ [1894] 3 Cb. 356 
 
 See [1895] 1 Ch. 333 
 
 Boltf>n Partners v. Lambert (1889) 41 Ch. D. 295 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. Dibbins v. 
 
 DiBBiNS - [1896] 2 Ch. 348 
 
 Bolton's Estate, In re. Morard v. Bolton, [1892] 
 W. N. 114. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] W. N. 163 
 
 Bonafous v. Bybot - - (1763) 3 Burr. 1370 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. In re Dixon 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 561 
 Bond V. Evans - - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 249 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. Somerset v. 
 
 Wade [1894] 1 Q. B. 574 
 
 Bonella v. TviicTcenliam Local Board, (1887) 
 
 20 Q. B. D. 63. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Simmonds 
 
 Beothers, Lu. 0. Fulham Vestkt 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 188 
 BonTiote v. Henderson - - [1895] 1 Oh. 742 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1895] 2 Ch. 202 
 
 Bonnard v. Ferryman - [1891] 2 Ch. 269 
 
 Discussed by Chitty J. Collabd v. 
 Makshall - - [1892] 1 Ch. 571 
 
 Followed. MoNSON v. Tussaudb, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 a B. 671 
 
 Boor, In re. Boor v. Eoplcins, (1889) 40 Ch. D. 
 572. 
 
 Distinguished by CoUins J. Ttibbs v. 
 Wynne ' [1897] 1 Q. B. 74 
 
 Boosey v. Wliiglit, [1899] W. N. 45 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 
 836. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 122 
 
 Bootli v. Briscoe - - (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 496 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Sandes v. Wild- 
 smith - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 771 
 Commented on and distinguished by 
 H. L. (E.) Smdbthwaite v. Hannat. 
 
 [1894] A. C. 494 
 Doubted. Cabtbb v. Eigby & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 113 
 
 Booth V. Ferrett - - (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 87 
 
 Overruled by Div. Ct. Logsdon v. 
 Booth - - [1900] 1 Q. B. 401 
 
 Booth's Settlement Trusts, In re, (1853) 1 W. E. 
 444. 
 Overruled. Stephens v. Gbeen 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 148 
 
 Bortoft V. Wadsworth - (1846) 12 W. E. 523 
 
 Followed by Cliitty J. In re Hallett 
 
 [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 Bostoch V. Ramsey Urban Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 357. 
 Affirmed by 0. A, - [1900] 2 Q. B. 616 
 
 Bouch v. Sproule (1887) 12 App. Cas. 385 
 
 Considered and applied by Stirling J. 
 
 In re Malam. Malam v. Hitchens 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 578 
 
 Boughton v. James - (1844) 1 Coll. C. C. 26, 46 
 
 Followed by Byrne J Wainwbight v. 
 
 Millee - [1897] 2 Ch. 255 
 
 Boulter v. Kent Justices - [1897] A. C. 556 
 Eeferred to. Eeg. v. West Eidikg op 
 YoBKSHiBE Justices [1898] 1 Q. B. 603 ; 
 Eeg. v. Stapfoedshibb Justices 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 231, 235 ; 
 Eeg. v. Manchesteb Justices 
 
 [1899] 1 a. B. 571, 575 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Tynemouth 
 Coepoeation v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 [1899] A. C. 293, 301 
 Bourne, In re. Martin v. Martin, [1893] 1 Ch. 
 188. 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re Countess 
 of Obfoed [1896] 1 Ch. 257, 263 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. In re 
 Foster - - [1897] 1 Ch. 484, 487 
 
 Boursot V. Savage (1866) L. E. 2 Eq. 13t, 142 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Hali- 
 fax Sugar Eepining Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 2, 29 
 
 Bowden, In re - (1890) 45 Oh. D. 444 
 
 Observed upon. How v. Eabl Winteb- 
 TON - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 626 
 
 Bowditch V. Walcefield Local Board, (1871) L. E. 
 6 Q. B. 567. 
 
 Followed. Hoknsby Distbict Council 
 V. Smith C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 843 
 
 Boicen v. Hall (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 333 
 
 Commented on. Allen v. Flood 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 1 
 Bower v. Eett - [1895] 2 Q. B. 51 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 387 
 Bowman, In re - (1889) 41 Ch. D. 525, 535 
 
 Commented on by Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 In re Eobson - [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 Bowman v. Bowman's Trustees (1898) 25 E. 811 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1899] A. C. 518 
 
 Boimian v. Hyland - (1878) 8 Ch. D. 588 
 
 Explained by C. A. In re Deighton 
 AND Harris's Conteact 
 
 [1898] ICh. 468 
 
 Bown, In re - - (1884) 27 Oh. D. 411 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Feaeon 
 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (12) 
 
 Boyd V. Phillpotts (1874) L. E. 4 A. & E. 297 
 Considered in Pendlebuet St. John 
 (Vicab) v. Pabishioners op Same 
 
 [1895] P. 178 
 
 Boyer v. Norwich (^Bishop of) [1892] P. 41 
 
 Affirmed by P. C. - [1892] A. C, 417 
 And see 61 & 62 Vict. c. 48, s. 7. 
 
 Boynton v. Boynton - (1879) 4 App. Cas. 733 
 Principle of, applied. In re London 
 Drapery Stores - [1898] 2 Ch. 684 
 
DUEING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Brace v. Abercam GoUiery Co. [1891] 1 Q. B. 496 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 699 
 
 Bmckenbury, In the Goods of (1877) 2 P. D. 272 
 Eeferred to. Davies v. Pakby 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 603, 606 
 
 Brackenlury v. Gibbons - (1876) 2 Ch. D. 417 
 Not followed by Chitty J. Dean v. 
 Dean - - - [1891] 3 Ch. 180 
 
 Bradford v. Belfield, (1828) 2 Sim. 264 ; 29 E. E. 
 
 100. 
 
 Followed and approved. In re Etimney 
 
 AND Smith 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch, 351, 355, 359 
 Bradford v. Eastbourne Corporation, [1896] 2 
 
 Q. B. 205. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Seal «. Mbkthte 
 
 Tydfil Ubban Cotojcil 
 
 [1897] 2 Q,. B. 543 
 Bradford Y. Fry - - (1878) 4 P. D. 93 
 
 Followed by Chancellor of St. Albans. 
 
 St. Andrew, Eomfokd (Eector, &c., of) 
 
 V. All Persons, &a. - [1894] P. 220 
 
 Bradford Banking Co. v. Briggs & Co., (1887) 
 12 App. Cas. 29. 
 
 Approved. Bank of Africa v. Salis- 
 bury GOLD'MlNmG Co. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 281 
 Bradford Corporation v. Picldes [1894] 3 Ch. 53 
 Eeveraed in part by C. A. 
 
 [1895] ICh. 145; 
 
 Decision of C. A. affirmed by 
 
 H. L. (E.) - [1895] A. C. 587 
 
 See dictum of Lord Shand. Allen v. 
 
 Flood - [1898] A. C. 1, 167 
 
 Bradford Tramways Co., Ex parte, [1893] 3 Ch. 
 463. 
 Dissented from by Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 TdBPIN e;. SOMBBTON, &0., TRAMWAY 
 
 Co. - - [1900] W. N. 94 
 
 Bradley v. Baylis, Morfee v. Novis, Kirln/ v. 
 Biffen, (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 195. 
 Followed. Bishop v. Ddffey, (1894) 
 2i E. 192 Eegistraticn App. Ct. (Sc.) 
 [1898] W, K. 88 
 Bradley v. Dunipace - (1862) 1 H. & C. 521 
 Distinguished by Kennedy J. Parsons 
 ■». New Zealand Shipping Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 714 
 
 Brake, In the Goods of - (1881) 6 P. D. 217 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Goods of Chappell 
 
 [1894] W. K. 16 
 
 BraU, Inre - - - [1893] 2 Q. B. 381 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Carter & 
 
 Kendbrdine's Contract 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 776 
 Bramble v. Lowe [1897] 1 Q. B. 283 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 49. 
 And see Vaccination Order, Oct. 18th, 
 1898, art. 28. 
 Brandon's Patent, In re (1884) 9 App. Cas. 589 
 Distinguished. Marshall's Patent 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 430 
 
 Breeks v. Woolfrey - (1838) 1 Curt. 880 
 
 Discussed. Egerton v. All of Odd 
 KopE Consist. Ct. at Chester [1894] P. 18 
 
 Bremer v. Freeman, (1857) 10 Moo. P. C. 306, 
 359. 
 
 Discussed by Ketewich J. Pepin v. 
 BRUYi;RB - [1900] 2 Ch. 504, £07 
 
 Brereton v. Tuohey - (1858) 8 Ir. C. L. E. 190 
 Followed by Parwell J. Mullek v. 
 Tbaffobd - - [1900] W. N. 251 
 
 Brett V. Horton - - (1841) 4 Beav. 239 
 
 Considered. In re Stone 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 196 
 
 Brett V. Rogers - - [1897] 1 Q. B. 525 
 
 Approved by C. A. Parlow v. Steven- 
 son - - - [1900] 1 Ch. 128 
 
 Brewer v. Eaton, (1783) 3 Doug. 230 ; cited 6 T. E. 
 
 220, n.; 3 E. E. 161. 
 
 Held by 0. A. not to be inconsistent 
 
 with Cutesworlh v. Spokes, (1861) 10 C. B. 
 
 (N.S) 103. Thomas v. Lulham 
 
 [1895] Z a. B. 400 
 Briant, Inre - - (1888) 39 Ch. D. 471 
 
 Form of settlement followed by Keke- 
 
 wioh J. In re Howard. Howard v. 
 
 Howard - [1895] W. N. 4 
 
 Brice V. Bannister ■ (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 569 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. Western 
 Wagon and Property Co. v. West 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 271 
 Judgment of Lord Coleridge C.J. in, 
 questioned. Ddrham Brothers v. 
 EOBERTSON C. A, [1898] 1 Q. B. 765 
 
 Bridge v. Beadon ■ (1867) L. E. 3 Bq. 664 
 Dictum of Lord Eomilly disapproved. 
 Stephens v. Green 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 148 
 
 Bridge v. Quicli - (1892) 61 L. J. (Q.B.) 375 
 Extended by 55 & 56 Vict. c. 13, s. 2 (1). 
 
 Bridger, In re. Brompton Hospital for Consump- 
 tion V. Lewis - - [1893] 1 Ch. 44 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 297 
 
 Bridges v. Garrett ■ (1870) L. E. 5 C. P. 451 
 Distinguished. PapS) v. Westacott 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 272 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Crossley 
 V. Magniao [1893] 1 Ch. 594 
 
 Bridges v. Hawkesworth, (1851) 21 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 75. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. South Staf- 
 fordshire Water Co. v. Shaeman 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 44 
 
 Bridgewater Navigation Co., In re, [1891] 1 Ch. 
 155 
 
 Varied by C. A. - [1891] 2 Ch. 317 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Bishop v. 
 Smybna and Cassaba Ey. Co. (No. 2) 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 696 
 
 Briesemann, In the Goods of {No. 1), [1894] P. 
 260. 
 
 See In the Goods of Briesemann 
 (No 2) - - [1896] W. N. 32 
 
 Principle in, applied. In the Goods 
 of Von Linden - - [1896] P. 148 
 
 Briggs, In re - - - [1894] W. N. 162 
 
 Principle of, applied. In re Bentinck 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 673 
 
TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEKULED, &c., 
 
 Briggs and Spicer, In re - [1891] 2 Oh. 127 
 Overraletl by C. A. In re Cabteb & 
 Kesuebdixe's Contbaot 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 Sright T. Walher, (1831) 1 C. M. & E. 211 ; 40 
 K. E. 536. 
 
 ApptoTed by C. A. Wheaton r. 5Iaple ' 
 & Co. [1893] 3 Ch. 48 
 
 Brighton Marine Palace and Fier Co.- v. Wood- 
 lioufe, [1893] 2 Cb. iS6. 
 O'Dsidertd by Kekewich J. Ites a>-d 
 Baekeb v. WiLLAys [1894] 1 Ch. 68 ; 
 This case was affirmed by C. A. 
 
 . [1894] 2 Ch. 478 
 Approved of by C. A. Babtlett i. 
 Foed's Hotel Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 850, 852 
 Eeferreil to by Stirling J. Zalinofp r. 
 HAMMOifD - - [1898] 2 Ch. 92, 95 
 
 Brigstocke, Ex parle (1877) 4 Ch. D. 348 
 
 Distinguished. In re Flatau. £x 
 parle Official Eeceiveb 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 219 
 
 Brinsley v. Lynton and LynmmUh Hotel and Pro- 
 perly Co., [1895] W. X. 53. 
 Considered by V. 'Williains J. JIabwick 
 r. LoBD Thublow [1895] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 Brinsmead (T. E.) & Sms, In re [1897] 1 Ch. 45 \ 
 Affirmed by C A. [1897] 1 Ch. 406 
 
 Bn,td Athenaeum, In re The, (1>89) 48 Ch. D. 
 236. 
 
 Discussed by Xorth J. In re Eussell 
 INSTITUTION [1898] 2 Ch. 72 
 
 Considered br Stirling J. In re JosEs 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 83 
 
 Britain v. BoiHter - (18S3) 11 Q. B. D. 123 
 Referred to by FarweU J. Isaacs r. 
 EvAKS - [1899] W. N. 261 
 
 Britannia, <tc. Building Society, In re, (1891) 65 
 
 L. T. (y.s.) iy6. 
 
 See 57 & 5S Vict. c. 47, s. 10. 
 
 British and American Trustee and Finance Cor- 
 poration V. Couper [1894] A. C. 399 
 Applied. In re LoyDoy and New Yobk 
 
 IXYESTMENT COETOBATIOy 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 860 
 Eeferred to. Andrews r. Gas Meteb 
 Co. [1897] 1 Ch. 361, 370 
 
 British Insulated Wire Co. v. Prescot Urban Dis- 
 trict Council, [1895] 2 Q. B. 463. 
 A ffirmed on terms by G. A. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 538 
 
 British Motor Syndicate, Ld. v. Taylor & Son, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 577. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [19C0] W. N. 229 
 
 British 3Iutual Banking Co. v. Charnwood Forest 
 By. Co., (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 714. 
 Followei Thorne v. Heard 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 599 ; 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1895] A. C. 495 
 
 British Wagon Co. v. Gray - [1896] 1 Q. B. 35 
 Distinguished by C. A. Montgomery 
 r. LiEBEXTHAL [1898] 1 Q. B. 487, 493 
 
 Brocldeityu f. Temperance Permanent Building 
 Society, [1893] 3 Ch. 130. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 173 
 Applicable. Lloyds Bank, Ld. r. 
 Bullock - - [1896] 2 Ch. 192 
 
 Broder v. SaOlard (1876) 2 Ch. D. 692, 701 
 
 Eeftrred to. J. Lyons i Sons t. Wil- 
 KiNS C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 255 
 
 Broderip v. Salomon - - [1895] 2 Ch. 323 
 
 EeTcrsed by H. L. (E.) svb nom. Salo- 
 mon r. Salomon & Co. [1897] A. C. 22 
 
 Brook y. Kelly - - (1893) 20 E. 470 
 
 Affirmed bv H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 721 
 Broughtan v. Broughlon, (185.3 5 De G. M. & G. 
 
 160. 
 
 See now 59 & 60 Vict. c. 35, s. 1 (5). 
 
 Brown, In re - [1S95] 2 Ch. 666 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. In re De 
 Linden - [1897] 1 Ch. 453, 457 
 
 Considered by C. A. In re Knight 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 257 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Chat- 
 ard's Settlement 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 712, 718 ; 
 
 Thiekt v. Chalmebs, Gl'ihbie & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 80 
 
 Brown \. Alabaster - (1SS7) 37 Ch. D. 490 
 
 Doubted by Kekewich J. Titchmabsh 
 
 L\ Eotston Waieb Co. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 256 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Xicholls r. 
 XiCHOLLS ■- - [1900] W. N. 4 
 
 i Brown v. BurdM (1887) 37 Ch. D. 207 
 
 ' Discussed. In re Scowby 
 
 ; C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 741 
 
 1 Brovn t. Cole. (1SJ.5) 14 Sim. 427 ; 14 L. J. (Ch.) 
 
 167. 
 ! Considered. Botill r. Endle 
 
 \ [1896] 1 Ch. 648 
 
 .Broirn t. Fisher - (1S90) 63 L. T. (X.S.) 465 
 Esplained. Tteeell r. Painton (Xo. 1) 
 I C. A [1884] P. 151 
 
 j Brown T. Gdlatly - (1867) L. E. 2 Ch. 751 
 I Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 XicBOLSON [1895] W. N. 106 
 
 Enle in, approved of by P. C. Went- 
 ' |i TVOETH r. Wentwobth [1900] A. C. 163 
 
 I Brown v. Glenn - (1851) 16 Q. B. 254 
 
 Followed by Bowen L.J. American 
 Concentrated Meat Co. r. Hendry 
 
 [1893]W. H. 67; 
 This case was affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 82 
 ' Broirn r. Eiggs, (1799—1803) 4 Yes. 70S ; 5 Yes. 
 495 ; 8 Yes. 561 ; 18 Yes. 192 ; 4 E. K. 
 S23. 
 
 Distingnished hv Eomer J. In re 
 
 Weekes' Settlement [1897] 1 Ch. 289 
 
 Broion v. Peto - [1900] 1 Q. B. 346 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Q. B. 653 
 
 Brown, Bayley Jc Dixon, In re, (1881) 18 Ch. D. 
 649. 
 
 Considered. In re Higoinshaw Mills 
 AND Spinning Co. [1896] 2 Ch. 644 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Brown, Shipley & Co. v. Inland Revenue Commre., 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 240. 
 Reversed by C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 698 
 
 Brown's Case - (1873) L. R. 9 Ch. 102 
 
 See Ex parte Cammell 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 392, 400 
 
 Brown's Estate, In re - [1893] 2 Oh. 300 
 
 Referred to. Edwaeds v. Walters 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 157, 162 
 
 Browne v. Hammond (1858) Joh. 210 
 
 Applied by Ohitty J. Hakvet v. 
 GiLLOw - [1893] 1 Ch. 567 
 
 Brownlie v. Bussell - (1883) 8 App. Gas. 235 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Britannia Permanent Building So- 
 ciety [1891] W. H. 123 
 Considered. Kemp v. "Wright 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 121 
 See Brcob ». Ailesburt, Marquis of 
 (No. 2) [1892] W, N. 149 
 
 See 57 & 58 Vict. c. 47, s. 10. 
 
 Brudenell V. Elwes ■ - (1801) 1 East, 442 
 
 Followed. In re Harding 
 
 C. A. [1S94] 3 Ch. 315 
 
 "Brunei," The, [1898] "W. N. 164 (1) ; [1899] P. 
 45. 
 AfBrmed by C. A. - [1900] P. 24 
 
 Brutton v. St. George's, Hanover Square, Vestry, 
 (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 339. 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. e. ccxiii. s. 152. 
 
 Bryant v. Hancock & Co. - [1898] 1 Q. B. 716 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1899] A, C. 442 
 
 Bryant v. Lefever - (1879) 4 0. P. D. 172 
 
 Applied by 0. A. Chastey v. Aok- 
 
 LAND [1895] 2 Ch. 389 ; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 155 
 
 Bryce y. Graharn, 2 Wil. & Shaw, 481 ; 3 Wil. & 
 Shaw, 323. 
 
 Followed by H. L. (Sc). A. B. v. 0. D. 
 [1891] A. C. 616 
 
 Bryon Y. Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co., (1858) 
 
 3 De G. & J. 123. 
 
 See General Auction Estate and 
 Monetary Co. v. Smith 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 432 
 Buccleuch (Dulie of) v. Johnstone, (1891) 18 E. 
 587., 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. J ohn- 
 stone v. Buccleuch (Duke op) 
 
 [1892] A. C. 625 
 Buedeuch (Dulie of) v. Walcejield, (1869) L. R. 
 
 4 H. L. 377. 
 
 See Thompson v. Mbin 
 
 [1893] W. N. 202 
 
 BuelsU V. Frederick (1890) 44 Ch. D. 244 
 
 Followed. FiTZ v. Ilbs 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 77 
 Buclder v. Wilson - - [1896] 1 Q. B. 83 
 
 Distinguished by Dir. Ct. Tyler v. 
 KiNGHAM & Son, Ld. 
 
 [1900] 2 a. B. 413, 417 
 Buckley v. HmmeU - - (1861) 29 Beav. 546 
 
 DiBOUBsed by 0. A. In re Gladstone 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 101 
 
 Budd V. London and North Western By. Co., 
 (1877) 4 Ry. & Can. Cae. 3;)3 ; 36 L. T. 
 (N.S.) 802 ; 25 W. R. 752. 
 Held by C. A. to be no longer law in 
 Phipps v. London and North Western 
 Ry. Co. - - [1892] 2 Q. B. 229 
 
 Budden v. Wilkinson 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 432 
 Followed by 0. A. Milbank v. Mil- 
 bank [1900] 1 Oh. 376, 384 
 
 Budgett v. Budgett, [1894] W. N. 181 ; [1895] 1 
 Ch. 202. 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Oliver 
 V. Bobbins - [1894] W. N. 199 
 
 Budgett & Co. v. Binnington & Co., (1890) 25 
 Q. B. D. 320. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1891] 1 ft. B. 35 
 
 Buller V. Harrison - (1777) Cowp. 5G5 
 
 Distinguished. Owen & Co. v. Cronk 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 265 
 
 Bullock V. Caird - (1875) L. E. 10 Q. B. 276 
 Followed by Romer J. In re Doetsch 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 836 
 
 Burchell v. Wilde - [1900) W. N. 29 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch, 551 
 Applied by Farwell J. Townsend v. 
 Jaeman - - [1900] 2 Ch. 699 
 
 Burdett, In re - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 310 
 
 Followed. In re Isaacson 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 333, 338 
 
 Burdett-Coutts v. True Blue (Hannan's) Gold 
 Mining Co. - [1899] W. N. 97 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 616 
 
 Burgess v. Burgess (1853) 3 De G. M. & G. 896 
 
 Approved and followed by C. A. Redda- 
 
 WAY ■;;. Banham [1895] 1 Q. B. 286 ; 
 
 But this case was reversed by 
 
 H. L. (E.) - [1896] A. C. 199 
 
 Burkill v. Thomas - [1892] 1 Q. B. 99 
 
 Affirmed by C A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 312 
 
 Burkinshaw v. Nicolh, (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1004, 
 1016. 
 
 Held not to apply by Stirling J. In re 
 Eddystonb Marine Insurance Co. 
 (No. 3) - - [1894] W. N. 30 
 
 Disfinguiehed. In re African Gold 
 Concessions and Development Co. 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 414 ; C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 480 
 Referred (o by Stirling J. In re 
 MoMahon ■ [1900] 1 Ch. 173, 177 
 
 Burn V. Morris, (1834) 4 Tyrw. 485 ; 2 Cr. & M. 579 
 In effect followed by C. A. Rice v. 
 Eeed - [1900] 1 a. B. 64, 64 
 
 Burnard v. Wainwright, (1856) 19 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 423; IL. M. &P. 455. 
 Approved. In re Kbighley, Maxsted 
 & Co. AND Beyan, Dueant & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 405 
 
 Burnett V. Berry - - [1896] 1 Q. B. 641 
 
 Approved by C. A. Thomas v. Suttees 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 10 
 
 Btirney v. Macdonald - - (1845) 15 Sim. 6 
 
 Referred to by Farwell J. In re Stead. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 237 
 
 Burr, In te. Ex parte Clarke [1892] W. N. 122 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1892] W, TX. 138 
 
COXCVIU 
 
 TABLE OF OASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c,, 
 
 Burrard v. Calisher - (1882) 19 Oh. D. 6i4 
 Observed upon. Laekin v. Lloyd 
 
 [1891] W. N. 71 
 
 Burrell v. Earl of Egremont (1844) 7 Beav. 205 
 Followed by North J. Loed Gifford 
 V. LOKD FiTZHAEDINGE [1899] 2 Ch. 33 
 
 Burridge v. Bow, (1842) 1 Y. & C. Ch. 183, 192; 
 
 this case was affirmed on appeal, (1844) 
 
 13 L. J. (Ch.) 173; 8 Jur. (O.S.) 299. 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. Li re Weston 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 164, 170 
 Burrough v. PMlcox (1840) 5 My. & Cr. 73 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re 
 
 Weekes' Settlement [1897] 1 Ch. 289 
 Burrowes v. Loelc, (1805) 10 Ves. Jun. 470 ; [1891] 
 
 3 Ch. 94, n. ; 8 R. E. 33, 856 ; Preface v. 
 
 Considered. Low v. Bouvekie 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 82 
 Bursill V. Turner - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 1 
 
 Discussed. Hood Babes v. Heriot 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 338 
 Burslem, dc, In re - [1896] 1 Q. B. 24 
 
 Approved. Deebt County Council v. 
 
 Ueban District oe Matlock Bath 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1896] A. C. 315 
 Burt V. Graij - - [1891] 2 Q. B. 98 
 
 Approved. Nind v. Nineteenth Cen- 
 
 TUEY Building Society 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q, B. 226 
 
 See now Conveyancing Act, 1892 (65 & 56 
 
 Vict. c. 13), B. 4. 
 
 Burt, Boulton and Sayward v. Bull, [1895] 1 
 Q. B. 276. 
 Referred to. In re Flowees & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 14, 15 
 Burton v. Salford Corporation, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 
 286. 
 
 Approved. Geaham v. Newoastle- 
 uroN-TiNE Corporation 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 643 
 Burton v. Taylor ■ (1886) 11 App. Cas. 197 
 Distingnished. Fielding v. Thomas 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 600 
 Burton's Will, Inre - - [1892] 2 Ch. 38 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Adams 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 329 
 Referred to in In re Caldwell. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 13 
 Burion-on-Trent Corporation v. Burton-on-Trent 
 Union Atsessment Committee ; Burton-on- 
 Trent Corporation v. Egginion (fihurch- 
 wardens, (to.), (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 197. 
 Approved. London County Council v. 
 Beith (Chuechwardens, &o.) 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 862 
 
 Bury V. Thompson - [1895] 1 Q. B. 231 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 696 
 
 Busfield, Inre - - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 123 
 
 Referred to by Noith J. In re Cliff 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 21 
 
 Bushell, In the Goods of (1887) 13 P. D. 7 
 
 Cited. In the Goods of Walkley 
 
 [1893] W. N. 62 
 Bwlc V. Aldam - (1874) L. R. 19 Eq. 16 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Tyesen 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Bustros V. White - (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 423 
 
 Considered by C. A. Hope v. Brash 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 188 
 
 Butler V. Butler - - (1884) 28 Ch. D. 66 
 
 Referred to. In re ■Uttbbmaee 
 
 [1893] W. N. 158 
 
 Butler V. Butler - - - [1893] P. 185 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1894] P. 25 
 
 Butt V. Jones - (1829) 2 Hagg. Ecc. 417, 424 
 Referred to in St. ASdbew's, Hove 
 (Vicar, &c., of) v. Mawn 
 
 [1895] P. 228, n. 
 
 Byng's Settled Estates, In re [1892] 2 Ch. 219 
 Discussed by Romer J. In re Lobd 
 Monson's Settled Estates 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 427 
 
 Byrch, Inre- - - (1844) 8 Beav. 124 
 
 Distinguished. In re Waed 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 31 
 
 Byron's Oiarity, In re - (1883) 23 Ch. D. 171 
 Followed by Stirling J. Ex parte Vicab 
 OP Castle Bytham [1895] 1 Ch. 348 
 
 Bywater, Inre - - (1881) 18 Ch. D. 17 
 
 Distinguished bv Stirling J. In re 
 Williams - " - [1895] W. N. 36 
 
 " Bywell Castle," Tlie (1879) 4 P. D. 219 
 
 Approved. The " Utopia " 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 492 
 
 Caddich v. Slndmore - (1857) 2 De G. & J. 52 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. Isaacs v. Evans 
 
 [1899] W. N. 261 
 
 Caffin V. Aldridge - [1895] 2 Q. B. 366 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 648 
 
 Calm and Mayer v. Poclsett's Bristol Channel Steam 
 Packet Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 61 
 Reversed by C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 643 
 
 Caird v. Moss - - (1886) 33 Ch. D. 22, 36 
 
 Dictum of Lopes L.J. explained. Mooeb 
 V. PuLHAM Vestry 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 399 
 
 Caleoit and Elvin's Contract, In re, [1898] W. N. 
 33 (1). 
 Reversed by C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 460 
 
 Calcraftv. Harhorough (Earl of), (1881) 4 C. &P. 
 499, 501. 
 
 Adopted and followed by G. Barnes J. 
 Lord v. Loed - [1900] P. 297 
 
 Calder and Hehble Navigation Co. v. Pilling, 
 (1845) 14 M. & W. 76. 
 Distinguished by C. A. Thomas v. 
 Suttbrs - - [1900] 1 Ch. 10 
 
 Caledonian Insurance Co. v. Gilmour, (1891) 18 
 E. 1219. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 85 
 See now Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 13). 
 
 Caledonian By. Co. v. Greenock and Wemyss Bay 
 By. Co., (1874) L. R. 2 H. L. (So.) 847. ; 
 Distinguished by Farwell J. Man- 
 chester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester 
 Racecourse Co. - [1900] 2 Ch. 868 
 
DUEING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Caledonian Sy. Co. v. MulhoUand, (1897) 24 E. 
 
 429 ; 34 Soo. L. E. 317. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 216 
 
 DistiDguislied by Bigbam J. Market 
 
 V. Scott - [1899] 1 ft. B. 986, 991 
 Caledonian By. Co. v. Sprot, (1856) 2 Maoq. 449, 
 
 462. 
 
 Lord Cranwortb's view followed by 
 
 Kekewicb J. Great Western Et. v. 
 
 Oefn Obibbwr Brick Co. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 157, 164 
 
 Applied and followed by Stirling J. 
 
 Alddt 17. Latimer Clark, Muirhead 
 
 & Co. [1894] 2 Ch. 437, 442 
 
 Caledonian By. Co. v. Turcan, (1898) 35 S. L. E. 
 
 404. 
 
 AfBrmed by H. L. (So.) [1898] A. C. 256 
 Callaghan v. Dolwin - (1869) L. E. 4 C. P. 288 
 
 See now 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 68. 
 Callander and Trossachs Hydropathic Co. v. 
 
 Marshall, (1895) 22 K. 954. 
 
 Appeal dismissed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 223 
 Callaway, In the Goods of (1890) 15 P. D. 147 
 
 Cited. In the Goods of Lookart 
 
 [1893] W. N. 80 
 " Calliope," The - - (1890) 14 P. D. 138 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 11 
 
 Calorie Engine and Siren Fog Signals Co., In re, 
 (1885) 52 L. T. (N.S.) 846. 
 Not followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 BiDWELt Brothers - [1893] 1 Ch. 603 
 Followed. Ernest v. Loma Gold Mines, 
 Ld. - [1896] 2 Ch. 572 ; 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Calvert, In re - [1899] W. N. 34 (3) 
 
 See also [1899] W. N. S3; [1899] 
 
 2 a. B. 145 
 
 Cambe/ort & Co. v. Chapman, (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 
 229. 
 Overruled. Wegq-Prossee v. Evans 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 108 
 
 Cammell, Ex parte. In re Printing Telegraph 
 and Construction Co. of the Agence 
 Eavas, [1894] 1 Cb. 528. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1894] 2 Ch. 392 
 Judgment of C. A. applied by V. Wil- 
 liams J. In re Issue Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 226, 231 
 
 Campbell v. Aiexander - (1868) 7 Macph. 283 
 Distinguished by C. A. (So.) Eoss v. 
 Carberrt (1897) 25 E. 98. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 171 
 
 Campbell v. Solyland - (1877) 7 Ch. D. 166 
 Followed by Stirling J. Beaton v. 
 Boulton - - [1891] W. N. 30 
 
 Campbell v. Lloyd's, Barnett's and Bosanquet's 
 Bank, [1891] 1 Ch. 136, n. 
 Explained by 0. A. Whitlet v. 
 Challis - - [1892] 1 Ch, 64 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. County of 
 Gloucester Bane v. Eudrt Merthyb 
 Colliery Co. [1895] 1 Ch. 638 
 
 CampbeU's Case - - (1876) 4 Ch. D. 470 
 
 Applied by C. A. Webb v. Shropshiue 
 Eys. Co. - - [1893] 3 Ch, 307 
 
 Canadian Direct Meat Co., In re. Tamplin's 
 
 Case. Champion's Case, [1892] W. N. 
 
 94. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1892] W. N. 146 
 Canadian Pacific By. Co. v. Noire Dame de Bon- 
 
 eecours (Corporation of Parish of), [1899] 
 
 A. C. 367. 
 
 Distinguished. Madden v. Nelson and 
 
 Fort Sheppard Ey. Co. 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C, 626 
 Candler v. Tillett - - (1855) 22 Beav. 257 
 
 Explained by C. A. In re Gasquoine 
 [1894] 1 Ch, 470 
 Cann v. Willson - - (1888) 39 Ch. D. 39 
 
 Overruled by C. A. Le Lievre v. Gould 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 Observed upon by Eomer J. Soholes 
 
 V. Beook - - [1891] W. N. 16 ; 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 101 
 Canning Jarrah Timber Go. (Western Austra- 
 lia), Ld., In re, [1900] W. N. 59. 
 
 On appeal - C. A. [1900] 1 Ch, 708 
 Cannon, Ex parte - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 629 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re New 
 
 British Iron Co. [1898] 1 Ch. 324 ; 
 
 In re Al Biscuit Co. [1899] W. N. 115 
 
 Capital and Counties Bank v. Bank of England, 
 In re, (1889) 61 L. T. (N.S.) 516. 
 Dibtinguished by C. A. Peesoott, 
 DiMSDALE, Cave, Tugwell & Co. v. 
 Bank of England [1894] 1 Q. B. 351 
 
 Caplin's Will, Be - (1865) 2 Dr. & Sm. 527 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re 
 Weeke's Settlement [1897] 1 Ch. 289 
 
 Cardross's Settlement, In re (1878) 7 Ch. D. 728 
 Eeferred to. In re Deneker 
 
 [1895] W. N. 28 
 
 Carew, In re. Carew v. Carew [1896] 1 Ch. 527 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 311 
 
 Carey, In re. Ex parte Jeffreys, [1895] 2 Q. B. 
 624. 
 Questioned. In re Carl Hirth 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 a. B. 612, 616 
 
 Carey v. Carey - (1854) 6 Jr. Ch. Eep. 255 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Del- 
 mar Charitable Trust 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 163 
 
 Cargill V. Cargill - - (1858) 1 S. & T. 235 
 
 Approved by Jeune J. Mahoney v. 
 M'Carthy - [1892] P. 21 
 
 Cargo ex Woosung - (1875) 3 Asp. M. L. C. 50 
 
 Followed by Barnes J. The "Mariposa" 
 
 [1896] P, 273 
 
 Caringlon (Lord) v. Wycombe By. Co., (1868) 
 L. E. 3 Ch. 377. 
 
 Discussed. Dunhill v. North Eastern 
 Ey. Co. C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 121 
 
 " Carisbrook," The - - (1890) 15 P. D. 98 
 
 Overruled by 0. A. Tharsis Sulphur 
 AND CoppEB Co. V. Morel Bbotheks & 
 Co. - [1891] 2 Q. B. 647, 652 
 
 Eeferred to as overruled by Collins J. 
 Sanders v. Jenkins 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 93, 96 
 
 " Carl XV.," Tlie - - - [1892] P. 132 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1892J P. 324 
 
TABLE OP CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &c., 
 
 Carlill T. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., [18921 2 Q. B. 
 484. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1893] 1 Q,. B. 256 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. John- 
 ston V. Botes [1899] 2 Ch. 73 
 
 Carlton Steamship Co. v. Castle Mail Pacliets Co., 
 0. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 485. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 486 
 
 Carmiehael's Case - [1896] 2 Ob. 643 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Consobt Deep 
 Level Gold Mines, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 575, 586 
 Carpenter, In re - - (1890) 7 Morrell, 270 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re BtrDGETT 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 557 
 
 Carpenter v. Deen - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 566 
 Applied by Div. Ct. Davies v. 
 Jenkins - [1900] 1 Q. B. 133, 136 
 
 Carr v. Foster - - (1842) 3 Q. B. 581 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Smith v. 
 Baxter - C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 Carr v. IngUhy ~ (1831) 1 De G. & Sin. 362 
 
 Not followed. In re Sinolaih 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 921 
 Carr v. London and South Western Ey., (1875) 
 
 L. E. 10 C. P. 307 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Dixon v. 
 
 Kennawat & Co. [1900] 1 Ch. 833, 837 
 
 Carr & Co. v. Bath Gas Light and Coke Co. 
 (Unreported). 
 
 Eeferred to by Joyce J. Dunning v. 
 Gkosvenob Dairies, Ld. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 265 
 
 Carrington v. Taylor, (1809) 11 East, 571; 11 
 E. E. 270. 
 Overruled. Allen v. Flood 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 1 
 
 Carrodus v. Sharp - - (1855) 20 Bcav. 56 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Baesbt 
 V. Tags - ' - [1900] 1 Ch. 231, 235 
 
 CarrolVs Folicy, In re - (1892) 29 L. E. Ir. 86 
 See now 59 & 60 Vict. c. 8. 
 
 " Carron Park," The - (1890) 15 P. D. 203 
 Approved of by 0. A. Milburn & Co. 
 V. Jamaica Fruit Importing and Trad- 
 ing Co. OP London [1900] 2 ft. B. 640 
 
 Carruthers v. Carruthers - (1895) 22 E. 775 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1896] A, C. 659 
 
 Carson v. Pickersgill & Sons, (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 
 859. 
 
 Followed. ElCHARDSON V. ErOHARDSON 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 346 
 
 Carswell v. Collard. The " Victoria," (1892) 19 
 
 E. 987. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 636 
 Carter, In re - (1892) 4] W. E. 140 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Searle 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 829, 833 
 
 Carter v. Green - - (1857) 3 K. & J. 591 
 
 Eefi rred to. In re Piekoy 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch, 665 I 
 
 Carter v. Silber. Carter v. Hasluck, [1891] 3 Ch. 
 553. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 278 
 
 C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 Edwards v. Carter [1893] A, C, 360 
 
 Carter and Kenderdine's Contract, In re, [1897] 
 W. N. 12 (8). 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1897] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 Cartwright v. Cartwright, (1853) 3 D. M. & G. 
 982. 
 
 Inapplicable. Marlborough (Dowager 
 
 Duchess op) v. Marlborough (Duke op) 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 270 
 
 Cartwright v. Seuleoatei Union, [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 667. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1900] A, C, 150 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Mbbsbt Docks 
 AND Harbour Board v. Birkenhead 
 Assessment Committee 
 
 [1900] 1 a. B. 143, 150 
 
 Casamajor v. Strode - (1809) 19 Ves. 390, n. 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Seakle 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 829, 833 
 
 Castellain y. Preston - (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 380 
 Discussed by CoUins J. West op Eng- 
 land Fire Insurance Co. r. Isaacs 
 
 [1896] 2 ft. B, 377, 384 
 
 CastU V. CastU - (1857) 1 De G. & J. 352 
 
 Followed. In re G. (Infants) 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 719 
 
 CasOe V. Wilkinson - (1870) L. E. 5 Ch. 534 
 Applied by Farwell J. Eudd v. Las- 
 CELLES - [1900] 1 Ch. 815 
 
 Castle BytUam (_Vicar of), Ex parte, [1895] 1 Ch. 
 348. 
 
 Approved and adopted. In re Bishop 
 op Bath and Wells [1899] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 " Castlegate," The - (1891) 29 L. E. Ir. 55 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) stib nom. Morgan 
 V. Castlegate Steamship Co. The 
 " Castlegate " [1893] A. C. 38 
 
 Castlegate Steamship Co. v. Dempsey, [1892] 1 
 Q. B. 54. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 854 
 
 Cathcart, In re (No. 1) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 549 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 466 
 
 Cato v. Thompson (1882),9 Q. B. D. 616 
 
 Dictum in, approved and followed by 
 Farwell J. Mat p. Platt [1900] 1 Ch. 
 616 j Eudd v. Lascelles [1900] 1 Ch. 
 815. 
 
 Catton V. Banks - - [1893] 2 Ch. 221 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Ancell v. Eolfb 
 
 [1896] W, N, 9 (8) 
 
 Cavendish- Bentinck v. Fenn, (1887) 12 App. Cas. 
 652. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Archer's Case 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 322 
 
 Cawse V. Nottingham Lunatic Hospital, [18911 1 
 Q. B. 585. 
 
 Approved of by Div. Ct. Southwell 
 V. Eoval Hollowat College, Egham 
 [1895] 2 ft. B. 487, 493 
 
DtJEl2^G THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Cayzer, Irvine & Co. v. Carron Co. The " Mar- 
 garet," (1884) 9 App. Oas. 873. 
 Applied by O.A. H.M.S. "SansPabeil" 
 [1900] P. 267 
 
 Ceail V. Langdon - - ■ (1885) 28 Oh. D. 1 
 Eeferred to by North J. Gkadook v. 
 "WiTHAM - - [1895] W. N. 75 
 
 CeUular Clothing Co. v. Maxton and Murray, 
 
 (1898) 25 K. 1098. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Su.) 
 
 [1899] A. C. 326 
 Central De Eaap Gold Mines, In re, [1899] W. N. 
 
 216. 
 
 See also [1899] W. N. 235 
 
 " Ctto," The - ■ (1889) 14 App. Gas. 670 
 
 Followed by H. L. (E.) The "Lanca- 
 shire " - - [1894] A. C. 1 
 
 Chalk, Webb & Co. v. Tennent, (1888) 36 W. E. 
 263; 57 L. T. (N.S.) 598. 
 Followed by Kekewich J. 'Westiioee- 
 
 LAND GbEEN and BlUE SlATE Co. V. 
 
 Feilden - C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 16 
 
 Challender v. Boyle (1887) 36 Ch. D. 425 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Johnson v. Edge 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Cliamber Colliery Co. T. Co. of Proprietors of the 
 Rochdale Canal, [1894] 2 Q. B. 632. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 564 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. New Moss 
 Colliekt Go. v. Manchester, Sheffield 
 
 AND LlNCOLNSHIBE Et. Go. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 725 
 
 Chamberlain, Ex parte (1880) 14 Oh. D. 323 
 
 Doubted by G. A. Gedye v. Commes. 
 OP WoKKS [1891] 2 Ch. 630 
 
 Qiancellor, In re - - (1884) 26 Ch. D. 42 
 
 Eeferred to by Chitty J. In re Ceow- 
 THEB - - - [1895] 2 Ch. 66 
 
 Chandlery. Poaoch, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 491; (1881) 
 16 Ch. D. 648. 
 
 Considered. In re Duke op Cleve- 
 land's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 244 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Har- 
 MAN - - - [1894] 3 Ch. 607 
 
 Qiapel Mouse Colliery Co., In re, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 
 259. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re London Health 
 Electeioal Institute 
 
 [1896] W. N. 170 (3) 
 
 Chapman, Re, (1886) W. N. 17; 54 L. T. (N.S.) 
 13. 
 Disapproved. Ntjttee v. Holland 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 408 
 
 Chapman, In re - - [1896] 1 Ob. 323 
 
 On appeal - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 763 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. i>. 35, s. 3. 
 
 Chapman v. Auckland Union, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 
 294. 
 Supersedtd by 56 & 57 Vict. o. 61, s. 1. 
 
 Chapman T. Speller, (1850) 14 Q. B. 621 ; 19 
 L. J. (QB.) 239. 
 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. c. 71, ss. 11 (1) (c); 
 12 (1) ; 55. 
 
 Chapman v. Turner, (1738) 9 Mod. 268; S. 0. 
 Vin. Abr. Exor. D. 2, p. 72. 
 Discussed by Wright J. Ex parte Gil- 
 bert - - [1898] 1 Q. B. 282 
 
 Cliappdl V. Oriffith (1885) 53 L. T. (N.S.) 459 
 Gommented on by Byrne J. Burohell 
 V. Wilde - C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 661, 669 
 
 Chappell V. North - - [1891] 2 Q. B. 252 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Ives & 
 
 Baekeb v. Willans - [1894] 1 Ch. 68 ; 
 
 affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 478 
 
 Charles v. Burke - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 223, n. 
 Followed by North J. In re Beaoe. 
 Welch v. Colt [1891] 2 Ch. 671 
 
 Charles v. Finchley Local Board, (1883) 23 Gh. D. 
 767. 
 
 Opinion expressed at p. 777 followed by 
 Eomer J. in Att.-Gen. v. Cleekenwell 
 Vestey - - [1891] 3 Ch. 527 
 
 Dissented from on one point by Cozens- 
 Hardy J. BaowN v. Ddnstable Cor- 
 poration - [1899] 2 Ch. 378 
 
 Charles v. Jones - (1886) 33 Ch. D. 80 
 
 Explained by 0. A. In re Beddob 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 547 
 Partly followed and partly not followed 
 Bew v. Bbw C. a. [1899] 2 Ch. 467 
 
 CharleswoHh v. Mills - (1890) 2.5 Q. B. D. 421 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 231 
 H. L. (E.) followed by 0. A. Eamsay 
 V. Maegeett - [1894] 2 Q. B. 18, 23 
 
 CharleswoHh v. Rudgard, (1835) 1 0. M. & E. 
 896. 
 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. o. 61, s. 1. 
 Charlwood v. Leasehold Investment Co., [1895] 
 W. N. 47. 
 
 Considered by V. Williams J. Mae- 
 wick V. LoED Thublow 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 776 
 Charnoch v. CouH - - [1899] 2 Ch. 35 
 
 Followed. Waltees v. Geeen 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 696 
 CliarUrhouse School v. Oayler [1896] 1 Q. E-. 437 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Olipton Col- 
 lege V. Tompson - [1896] 1 Q. B. 436 
 Chasemore v. Richards (1859) 7 H. L. C. 319 
 Gommented on by H. L. (E.). Brad- 
 ford Goepoeation v. Pickles 
 
 [1896] A. C. 587 
 Chastey v. Ackland - - [1895] 2 Ch. 389 
 
 Judgment of C. A. varied by consent 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 155 
 Clmtard's Settlement, In re - [1899] 1 Ch. 712 
 Distinguished by Kekewich .T. Thieey 
 V. Chalmers, Guthbie & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 80 
 ChenneU, In re. lanes v. Chennell, (1878) 8 Gh. D. 
 492. 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. Pain v. Bowden 
 [1896] a Q. B. 301 
 Not followed. Bew v. Bew 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 467 
 
 Cherry V. Boultbee - (1 839) 4 My. & Or. 442 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Akeeman - - [1891] 3 Ch, 212 
 
TABLE OF CASES POLLOWEt), OVEERtfLfiD, &e., 
 
 Clierry v. CAerj-j/ - (1858) 1 Sw. & Tr. 319 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. Smith v. Smith 
 
 [1900] P. 66, 68 
 
 Chesterfield (Earl of) Trusts, In re, (1883) 24 
 
 Ch. D. 643. 
 
 See In re Henglee [1893] 1 Ch. 686 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re 
 GooDENOLGH [1895] 2 Ci. 637 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. JrereMoKLET 
 [1895] a Ch. 738 
 Principle in, applied. Eowlls v. Beeb 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 Chetham y. Williamson - (1804) 4 East, 469 
 Commented on by C. A. Duke of 
 Sutherland v. Heatboote 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 475 
 
 Chielc, Ex parte - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 731 
 
 Followed. Lawbence v. Adams 
 
 [1896] W. N. 158 (2) 
 
 Chad V. Douglas, (1854) Kay, 560; on appeal. 
 See memoranda to Mr. Kay's volume of 
 Eeports and (1854) 5 De G. M. & G. 
 739. 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. Kogehs v. Ho8e- 
 GOOD [1900] 2 Ch. 388, 398, 404 
 
 Cliilds V. Cox - - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 290 
 
 Overruled by 0. A. Kemp v. Wanklyn 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 583 
 
 Chillingwortli v. Chambers [1S95] W. N. 132 (17) 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 685 
 
 Chislehurst Common {Conservators of) v. Newton, 
 (] 887) Unreported. 
 Followed by Farwell J. CoOK v. CoN- 
 
 SEBVATOBS OP MiTCHAM COMMON 
 
 [1900] W. N. 252 
 
 Chorlton v. Biclde - (1S79) 13 Ch. D. 160 
 
 See Baikd v. East Eibtng Club and 
 
 Eaoecoubse Co. - [1891] W. K. 144 
 
 Christ's Hospital, Ex parte Goiernors of, (1864) 
 2 H. & M. 166. 
 
 Considered by Chitty J. In re Bishops- 
 gate Foundation - [1894] 1 Ch, 185 
 
 Christ's Bospital v. Grainger, (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 
 
 460. 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Tylek 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 
 BowEN [1893] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 Christchurch Inelosure Act, In re, (1887) 3.5 Ch. D. 
 
 355 ; (1888) C. A. 38 Ch. D. 520. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Att,- 
 
 Gen. v. Meyeiok - [1893] A. C. 1 
 
 " Christianshorg," The - (1885) 10 P. D. 141 
 Distinguished. The " Mannheim " 
 
 [1897] P. 13 
 Christie v. Northern Counties Building Society, 
 (1890) 43 Ch. D. 62. 
 Not approved by 0. A. Noeton v. 
 Counties Conseevative Pbemanent 
 Benefit Building Society 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 246 
 Christie v. Ovington - (1875) 1 Ch. D. 279 
 
 Approved by Stirling J. In re Cun- 
 ningham and FeayliNG 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 667 
 
 Cliristy v. Godwin - (1893) 38 Sol. Jour. 10 
 Eeferred to. Simmons v. Blandt 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 19, 20 
 
 Chubb V. Griffiths ■ - (1865) 35 Beav. 127 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Woolf v. 
 V. WooLF [1899] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 Circuitt V. Perry - (1856) 23 Beav. 275 
 
 Observed upon by C. A. In re Bagot 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 348 
 Citizens' Banlc of Louisiana v. First National 
 
 Bank nf New Orleans, (1873) L. E. 6 
 
 H. L. 352. 
 
 Discussed by Eomer J. Lovett v. 
 
 LovETT [1898] 1 Ch. 82 
 
 Citizens' Insurance Co. of Canada v. Parsons, 
 
 (1881) 7 App. Cas. 96. 
 
 Distinguished. Att.-Gen. for Ontabio 
 
 V. Att.-Gen. foe the Dominion 
 
 [1896].A. C. 348 
 City and South London By. Co. v. London County 
 
 Comicil, [1891] 2 Q. B. 513. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. London County 
 
 Council v. Lo^'DON School Boaed 
 
 [1892] 2 a B. 611 
 City of London Brewery Co. v. Inland Bevenue 
 
 Commrs.; [1898] 1 Q. B. 408. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 121 
 
 " City of Manchester," The (1880) 5 P. D. 221 
 Followed. Bew v. Bew 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 467 
 
 Claridge v. South Staffordshire Tramway Co., 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 422. 
 
 See Eemarks of A. L. Smith L.J. in 
 Meux v. Gbeat Easteen Et. Co. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 387, 394 
 
 Clark, Ex parte - (18S4) 13 Q. B. D. 426 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Ceoom 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 695 
 
 Clark V. Sooper, (1834) 10 Bing. 4S0 ; 38 E. E. 
 
 508. 
 
 Considered and distinguished by C. A. 
 Stamford, Spalding and Boston 
 Banking Co. u. Smith 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 765 
 Clark V. London School Board, (1874) L. R. 9 Ch 
 120, 126. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. London 
 School Boaed v. Smith 
 
 [1895] "W. N. 37 
 Clark V. Taylor - - (1853) 1 Drew. 642 
 
 Followed. In re Eymeb. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 19 
 Considered. In re Slevin 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 373 ; C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 286 
 
 Clarke, Ex parte. In re Burr [1892] W. N. 122 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1892] "W. N. 138 
 
 Clarke, In re - - - [1898] 1 Ch. 336 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 
 Brown - - [190O] 1 Ch. 489, 491 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Davies v. Thomas 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 462, 469 
 
 Clarke, In re. Coombe v. Carter, (1887) 36 Ch. D. 
 348, 352, 355. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Kelcet - - [1899] 2 Ch, 530 
 
btJEiNG TMB tEAKS 1891— 1900. 
 
 Clariie Y. Slake - (1788) 2 Bro. C. C. 320 
 
 Followed by Chitiy J. In re Hallett. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 Clarke v. Garfin Coal Co. - (1889) 16 E. 614 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1891] A. C. 412 
 Clarke v. Tlwrnton - (1887) 35 Ch. D. 307 
 
 Followed by Ohitty J. Peakson-Gee v. 
 
 Peakbon - [1895] W. N. 90 
 
 Clarke v. Wright - - (1861) 6 H. & N. 849 
 
 Dissented from by P. 0. De Mestee v. 
 
 West - - [1891] A. C. 264 
 
 Clarkson v. Musgrave ■ (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 386 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.) Smith v. 
 
 Bakeb & Sons [1891] A. C. 325 
 
 Clay & Sons, In re - (1895) 3 Manson, 31 
 
 Inapplicable. In re Eaton & Co. Ex 
 
 parte ViHEY - [1897] 2 ft. B. 16 
 
 Clay and Telley, In re - (1880) 16 Ch. D. 3 
 
 Superseded by 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, 
 
 s. 21 (1). 
 Claydon v. Finch - (1873) L. E. 15 Eq. 266 
 
 See PiLLERS V. Edwards 
 [1894] W. N. 212; 71 L. T. (N.S.) 788 
 Claydon v. Green (1868) L. E. 3 C. P. 511 
 
 Observed upon. Tadcasteb Tower 
 
 Brewery Co. v. Wilson 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 705 
 Clayton v. Lord Wilton, (1813) 6 M. & S. 67, n. ; 
 
 18 E. E. 307. 
 
 Explained by P. 0. De Mestre v. 
 
 West - [1891] A. C. 264 
 
 Clayton's Case, (1816) 1 Mer. 572; 5 Eep. 1; 15 
 
 E. E. 161. 
 
 Applied by C. A. Sidebotham v. 
 
 Holland - - [1895] 1 ft. B. 378 
 
 Applied by North J. In re Stennins. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 433 
 
 Eeferred to. Cokt Brothers k Co. ■;;. 
 
 Owners op the Turkish Steamship 
 
 " Mecca " H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 286 
 
 Eule in inapplicable. Mutton v. Peat 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 556, 560 
 
 CleatUr v. Twisden - (1885) 28 Ch. D. 340 
 
 DiatinguLshed by C. A. Ehodes v. 
 
 MouLES - [1895] 1 Ch. 236 
 
 Cleaver v. Bacm - (1887) 4 Times L. E. 27 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Eapley v. 
 
 Smart [1894] W. N. 2 
 
 Clegg v. HaMs - - (1890) 44 Ch. D. 503 
 
 Eeferred to. White v. Southend Hotel 
 
 Co. - C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 767 
 
 CUmenee, Ex parte - (1883) 23 Ch. D. 154 
 
 Not followed by Wright J. In re 
 
 Harpub's Cycle Fittings Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 731 
 
 Clements, In re - - [1894] 1 Ch. 665 
 
 Applied by C. A. Tn re Woodin 
 
 [1895] 3 Ch. 309, 314 
 
 aemow. In re. Teo v. aemmo, [1900] 2 Ch. 182 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 Tbeasueb - [1900] 2 Ch. 648, 653 
 
 Clergy Orphan Corporation, In re, [1894] 3 Ch. 
 
 145. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re GriL- 
 
 cheist Educational Trust 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 367 
 
 Cleveland Iron Co., in fe. Ex parte Stevenson, 
 (1867) 16 W. E. 95. 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. In re General 
 
 Eailwat Syndicate. Whiteley's Case 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 366 
 
 Cleveland Water Co. v. Bedcar Local Board, 
 [1895] 1 Oh. 168. 
 
 Approved and held inapplicable by C. A. 
 Hudeersfield Corporation v. Eavens- 
 thorpb Urban District Council 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 CUhborn v. Clihborn - (1857) 9 Ir. Jur. 381 
 Observed upon by C. A. In re Baqot 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 348 
 
 Clifford V. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1896] 2 
 Q. B. 187. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Lewis v. 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 
 [1898] 2 ft. B. 290 
 
 Clifton v. BidsdaU - (1876) 1 P. D. 316 
 
 Followed by Chancellor of Norwich in 
 St. John the Baptist, Timberhill 
 (Vicar, &o.) v. St. John the Baptist, 
 Timberhill (Rectors, &o.) [1895] P. 71 
 
 Clifton College v. Tompson - [1896] 1 Q. B. 432 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Csiaetekhodse 
 School v. Gayler [1896] 1 ft. B. 437 
 
 aink v. Badford [1891] 1 Q. B. 625 
 
 Followed by C. A. Hansen v. HARBOLn 
 
 Brothers - - [1894] 1 ft. B. 612 
 
 Clithero, In re - - (1885) 28 Ch. D. .378 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Eichaed- 
 
 SON - - [1900] 2 Ch. 778 
 
 Clitheroe, Ex parte - (1885) 15 L. E. Ir. 47 
 
 Not followed by V. Willinms J. In re 
 
 London Metallurgical Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 758 
 Clowes, In re - - [1893] 1 Ch. 214 
 
 Distinguished by Cozens-Hardy J. Tn 
 
 re Carter [1900] 1 Ch. 801, 803 
 
 Cluff V. Cluf (1876) 2 Ch. D. 222 
 
 Followed. In re CROdSLEY. Biebell v. 
 
 Greenhough - [1897] 1 Ch. 928 
 
 autton V. Attenborough & Son, [1895] 2 Q. B. 306, 
 
 707. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E ) [1897] A. C. 90 
 :e," The - - - . (1850) Sw. 23 
 
 Considered. The " Kate " 
 
 [1899] P. 165 
 Clyde Navigation (Trustees of the) v. Lord Blan- 
 
 <l/re, (1891) 18 E. J 97. 
 
 EeversedbyH. L (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 703 
 Clydesdale Bank v. Baton - (1895) 23 E. 38 
 
 Eeversedby H.L.(Sc.) [1898] A. C. 381 
 Coats, Ld. (J. A P.) v. Inland Eevenue Commrs., 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 778. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 423 
 Cobb V. Great Western By. Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 
 
 459 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 419 
 Cobham v. Baltm (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 655, 657 
 
 Dissented from by C. A. In re Smith. 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 1 
 Cochrane v. Entwistle - (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 116 
 
 Followed by 0. A. In re Isaacson 
 
 [1895] 1 ft. B. 333 
 
ccbit 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWBt), OVEEEtJLEt), id., 
 
 Cockerell v. Cholmeley - (1830) 10 B. & C. 564 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Ddke 
 OF Bdtland's Settled Estates 
 
 [1900] 2 eh. 206 
 
 Cochsedge v. Gocksedge - (1844) 14 Sim. 244 
 
 Inapplicable. Maelboeough (Dowager 
 
 Duchess of) v. Duke of Maelbohough 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 270 
 
 Coclisedge v. Metropolitan Coal Consumers' Asso- 
 ciation [1891] W. N. 132 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] W. N. 148 
 
 Codrington v. Lindsay (1873) L. E. 8 Ch. 578 
 Followed by Eomer J. on one point. 
 Caetbb B. SiLBEE. [1891] 3 Ch. 553; 
 This case was reversed by C. A. 
 [1892] 2 Gh. 278, and 0. A. affirmed 
 by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Edwaeds v. 
 Caeter ■ [1893] A. C. 360 
 
 Coey V. Pascoe - - [1899] 1 1. E.. 125 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. Mullbe v. 
 Teaffokd - [1900] W. N. 251 
 
 Cohen v. Mitchell - (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 262 
 
 Explained and distinguislied by C. A. 
 In re Claek [1894] 2 Q. B. 393 
 
 Explained by 0. A. In re New Land 
 Development Association and Gray 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 138 
 Applied to leasebolds by Chitty J. In 
 re Clayton and Baeclay's Conteact 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 212 
 Applied by Byrne J. Hunt v. Fbipp 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 675 
 
 Colchester Tramways Co., In re [1893] 1 Ch. 309 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Tuepin 
 
 ■u. SOMEBTON, &C., TeAMWAY Co. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 94 
 
 Cole Y. Eley - - [1804] 2 Q. B. 180 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 350 
 
 Coleman, In re - (1888) 39 Ch. D. 443 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Bullock - [1891] W. N. 62 
 
 Coleman v. Llewellin - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 143 
 Distinguished by North J. Cheston v. 
 Wells [1893] 2 Ch. 151 
 
 Collen V. Wright - (1857) 8 E. & B. 647 
 
 Distinguished. Dunn v. Maodonald 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 401 
 Followed. Halbot v. Lens 
 
 [1901] 1 Ch. 344 
 
 Colless V. Minister of Lands - [1899] A. C. 90 
 
 Followed. MiNiSTEE foe Lands v. 
 
 Haekington - [1899] A. C. 408 
 
 CoUier, In the Goods of (1862) 2 Sw. & Tr. 444 
 See In the Goods of Campion 
 
 [1900] P. 18, 14 
 
 Collinge's Settled Estates, In re, (1887) 36 Ch. D. 
 516. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Williams 
 V. Jenkins (No. 2) [1894] W. N. 176 
 Overruled. Coopeb v. Belsey 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 639 
 Collingham v. Sloper - [1893] 2 Ch. 96 
 
 A comptomise sanctioned by C. A. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch, 716 
 
 Collins, Ex parte - (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 3(37 
 
 Dictum of James L.J., at p. 372, dis-' 
 
 approved by C. A. Edwaeds v. Marcus 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 587 
 
 Collins V. Collins - (1862) 31 Beav. 346 
 
 Applied by C. A. Davies v. Thomas 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 462, 468 
 
 Collins V. Faddington Vestry, (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 
 368. 
 
 Not followed by C. A. Cusack v. 
 London and Noeth Western Ey. Co. 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 347 
 Collins V. Worley - (1889) 60 L. T. (N.S.) 7J8 
 Followed by Div. Ct. O'Hara, 
 Matthews & Co. v. Elliott & Co. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 362 
 
 CoUinson v. ColUnson - (1857) 24 Beav. 269 
 Considered by Byrne J. In re Moses 
 
 [1900] W. S. 182 
 CoUs V. Jio6i»s, [1886] W. N. Ill ; 55 L. T. (N.S.) 
 479. 
 See In re Stanway's Trusts 
 
 [1892] W. S. 11 
 Caiman's Trade-marks, In re [1891] 2 Ch. 402 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re 
 Phillip's Teade-marks 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 139 
 Colonial Bank v. Cady (1890) 15 App. Cas. 267 
 Eeferred to. Fox v. Martin 
 
 [1895] W. lf..36 
 Colonial Government v. British South Africa Co., 
 9 Juta, 280. 
 
 Approved by P. C. Marshall v. Oepen 
 [1895] A. C. 606 
 Colonial Securities Trust Co. v. Massey, [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 38. 
 
 Applied by C. A. Hinlson v. Ashby 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 1, 18 
 Colpoys V. Colpoys - - (1822) Jac. 451, 465 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Geatngeb 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 756, 764 
 Colquhoun, In re - (1854) 5 De G. M. & G. 35 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Salaman 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 201 
 Colquhoun v. Brooks - (1889) 14 App. Cas. 493 
 Distinguished by C. A. London Bank 
 op Mexico and South Ambeica, Ld. v. 
 Apthoepe - [1891] 2 Q. B. 378 
 
 Applied and followed. Baetholomay 
 Beewing Co. (op Eochestee) v. Wyatt 
 [1893] 2 ft. B. 499 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.) San 
 Paulo (Brazilian) Ey. Co. o. Carter 
 [1896] A. C. 31, 39 
 " Columbus," The - (1849) 3 Wm. Eob. 158 
 Considered. The " Kate " 
 
 [1899] P. 165 
 Combined Weighing and Advertising Machine Co., 
 In re, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 99. 
 Considered by C. A. Pbitchett v. 
 English and Colonial Syndicate 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 428 
 Comfort V. Betts - [1891] 1 Q. B. 737 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Mercantile 
 Bank op London v. Evans 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 613 
 
DUEINa THE YBAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Commim v. Scott - (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 11 
 
 Followed. PiLBY V. HotJNSELL 
 
 [1896] W. N. 90 (3) 
 
 Common Petroleum Engine Co., In re, [1895] 2 
 Ch. 759. 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. Transvaal 
 ExPLOKiNG Co. V. Albion (Tb*nsvaal) 
 Gold Mines, Lr. [1899] 2 Ch. 370 
 
 Compagnie du Senegal v. Woods & Co., (1883) 53 
 L. J. (Ch.) 166. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. PiNi v. Eon- 
 COEONI - [1892] 1 Ch. 633 
 
 Companhia de Mozambique v. British South Africa 
 Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 3.^8. 
 C. A. reversed and Div. Ct. restored by 
 H. L. (E ) - [1893] A. C. 602 
 
 Compton, In re. Norton v. Compton, (1885) 30 
 
 Ch. D. 15. 
 
 Applied by Kekewioh J. In re Lance 
 
 [1900] W. N. 29 
 
 Concha v. Murrietta C. A. (1889) 40 Ch. D. 543 
 
 Varied by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Concha 
 
 V. CoxoHA - [1892] A. C. 670 
 
 Cordan'e Estate, In re - (1892) 29 L. E. Ir. 199 
 Discussed by Byrne J. In re Loed 
 Clifden - [1900] 1 Ch. 774 
 
 Consett WaterworTts Co. v. Mitson, (1889) 22 
 Q. B. D. 702. 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. Thompson v. 
 Mein [1893] W. N. 202 
 
 Consolidated Credit Corporation v. Oosney, (1886) 
 16 Q. B. D. 24. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Seed v. Bradley 
 [1894] 1 a. B. 319 
 
 Consort Beep Level Oold Mines, Ld., In re, [1897] 
 W. N. 1 (1). 
 Eevetsed by C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 675 
 
 Constahle v. Eowick ' (1858) 5 Jm-. (N.S.) 331 
 Followed by Chitty J. National Per- 
 manent MtTUAL Benefit BuiLDiNa 
 Society v. Eapeb - [1892] 1 Ch, 84 
 
 Continental Union Oas Co., In re, (1891) 7 T. L. E. 
 476. 
 
 Observed upon by Eomer J. In re 
 James Colmer, Ld. [1897] 1 Ch. 524 
 
 Conway v. Fenton - (1888) 40 Ch. D. 512 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re De 
 Teissier's Settled Estates 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Lord 
 
 De Tabley [1896] W. N. 162 (16) 
 
 Distinguished. In re Montagu 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 685 ; C. A, [1897] 2 Ch. 8 
 
 Cooh, Ex parte ~ (1728; 2 P. Wms. 499 
 
 See In j-e Budgett [1894] 2 Ch. 557 
 
 Codk V. Fmder (1874) L. E. 7 H. L. 27 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. In re Dixon 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 561 
 
 Cooh Y. Bathway - (1869) L. E. 8 Eq. 612 
 Distinguisljed by Wright J. In re 
 United Service Association 
 
 [1900] W. N. 243 
 
 Cooh V. Ipswich Local Board, (1811)1,. E. 6 Q. B. 
 451. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Derby Cor- 
 poration V. Geudgings 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 496 
 
 Cook's Mortgage, In re. Lawledge v. Tyndall, 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 923. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. Williams 
 V. Williams - - [1899] W. KT. 66 
 
 Coohe V. Gilbert - - [1892] W. N. Ill, 128 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Macmillan v. 
 Australasian Tekritoetes 
 
 [1897] W. N. 30 (14) 
 
 Cooke Y.Smith - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 38 
 
 Decision of C. A. reversed, and that of 
 Kekewioh J. restored by H. L. (E.) 
 sub nom. Smith v. Cooke. Storey v. 
 Cooke - - [1891] A. C. 297 
 
 Applied by 0. A. Cunnaok v. Edwards 
 [1896] 2 Ch, 679, 684 
 
 Coole V. Lovegrove ■ - [1893] 2 Q. B. 44 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Elliott v. 
 London County Council 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 277, 281 
 
 Coolgardie Consolidated Gold Mines, Ld., In re, 
 (1898) 14 Times L. E. 277. 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. Transvaal 
 Exploring Co. v. Albion (Transvaal) 
 Gold Mines, Ld. - [1899] 2 Ch, 370 
 
 Coope V. Cresswell - (1867) L. E. 2 Ch. 112 
 Applied by Kekewioh J. In re England 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 100; 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 820 
 
 Cooper, Ex parte - - (1884) 26 Ch. D. 693 
 
 Explained by H. L. (E.). Hewlett v. 
 
 Allen & Sons - [1894] A, C, 383 
 
 Cooper V. Cooper (1888) 13 App. Cas. 88 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Viditz v. 
 O'Hagan - C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 87, 96 
 
 Cooper V. France - (1850) 19 L. J. (Ch.) 313 
 
 Applicable. In re.MATSON 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 609 
 Cooper Y. Griffin - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 740 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Howard v. 
 
 Sadler - [1893] 1 Q, B, 1 
 
 Cooper V. Jarjiian - (1866) L. E. 3 Eq. 98 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Day. 
 Speake v. Day [1898] 2 Ch. 510 
 
 Cooper V. Straker - - (1888) 40 Ch. D. 21 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Smith v. 
 Baxter - [1900] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 Cooper V. Wandsworth District Board of Works, 
 (1863) 14 C. B. (N.S.) 180. 
 Considered by Stirling J. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Hooper - - [1893] 3 Ch. 483 
 
 Cooper and Allen's Contract, In re, (1876) 4 
 Ch. D. 802. 
 
 Commented on. Baron Wolveeton v. 
 Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 535 
 
 Coote V. Ford - - _ [1899] W. N. 57 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 93 
 
 " Copernicus," The - - [1896] P. 154 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1896] P, 237 
 
TABLE OF OASiiS fotLOWED, OVEEEULEI), &c,, 
 
 Goplestone V. Mclioles, (1863) 33 L. J. (P. & M.) 57 
 Commented on by C. A. Moban v. 
 Place - - [1896] P. 214, 217 
 
 Goppard's Estate, In re - (1887) 85 Ch. D. 350 
 Observed upon by Kekewicb J. Willee- 
 TON V. Stocks [1892] W. N. 29 
 
 Commented on by Stirling J. In re 
 Stevens [1896] W. N. 24 (12) 
 
 Coppoclc V. 5oKier - (1838) 4 M. & W. 361 
 
 See 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, s. 14 (4) 
 
 Corbet Davies, In re, (1866) 15 W. K. 46; 15 
 L. T. (N.S.) 161. 
 
 Not followed by C. A. In re H. A. 
 
 Geet - [1892] 2 a. B. 440 
 
 Corhett's Trusts, He - (1860) Johns. 591 
 
 Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 
 EoBSON [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 Corcoran. In re - (1892) 62 L. J. (Cb.) 267 
 
 Distinguished. In re Hamilton 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 617 
 Coren v. Same - - (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 249 
 
 Approved by C. A. De Pass v. Oapital 
 
 AND Industeies Coepoeation 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 216 ; 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 sub rmm. Vinall v. De Pass 
 
 [1892] A. C. 90 
 " Corennie," The [1894] P. 338, n. 
 
 No longer law. The " Opoeto " 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 249 
 Cork and Youghal By. Co., In re, (1869) L. E. 
 
 4 Ch. 748. 
 
 Explained by C. A. Poetsea Island 
 
 Building Society v. Baeolat 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 298 
 Cormacli v. Beisley ■ (1858) 3 De G. & J. 157 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Knight. Knight v. Gaednek 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 368 
 Corn V. Matthews - ■ [1893] 1 Q. B. 310 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Geeen v. 
 
 Thompson - [1899] 2 Q. B. 1, 5 
 
 Cornford v. Carlton JBanlc, Ld., [1 899] W. N. 8 (4) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 392. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Q. B. 22 
 Cornish, In re. Ex parte Board of Trade, [1895] 
 
 2 Q. B. 634. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 99 
 
 Cornwall v. Benson - [1899] 2 Ch. 710 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Ch. 298 
 Corpe V. Overton - - (1833) 10 Bing. 252 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Hamilton v. 
 
 Vaughan-Sheeein Electeioal Engi- 
 
 neebing Co. - [1894] 3 Ch. 589 
 
 Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy v. Sutton, 
 
 (1859) 27 Beav. 651. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re St. John 
 
 Stkeet Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, 
 
 Che,ter - [1893] 2 Ch. 618 
 
 Corr T. dorr - - (1879) 3 L. E. Ir. 435 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re Weston 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 164, 171 
 Cosirr, In re. Humphreys v. Gadsden, C. A. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 325. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. 
 
 Wheelee r. HuMPHBEYS [1898] A, C. 606 
 
 Cotesworth v. SpoJces (1861) 10 0. B. (N.S.) 103 
 Held by C. A. not to be inconsistent 
 with Brewer v. Eaton, (1783) 3 Doug. 
 230. Thomas v. Lulham 
 
 [1895] 3 Q. B. 400 
 
 Cotton, Ex parte - (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 301 
 
 Approved by C. A. Ex parte Wickens 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 543 
 
 Cotton V. Voqan & Co. - [1895] 2 Q. B. 6.52 
 Aflirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 459 
 
 Couch V. Steel ( 1 854) 3 E. & B. 402 
 
 See CowLET v. Newmaeket Local 
 BoAED H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 345 
 
 Commented on by Charles J. Eeg. v. 
 Hall - - [1891] 1 ft. B. 747, 769 
 
 CouUhart v. Clementson (1879) 5 Q. B. D. 42, 48 
 Eeferred to by Eomer J. In re Silves- 
 TEE. - [1895] 1 Ch. 873 
 
 Counsell V. London and Westminster Loan and 
 Discount Co.,, (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 512. 
 Followed by 0. A. Edwaeds v. Maeccs 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 587 
 
 " County of Durham," The - - [1891] P. 1 
 
 Explained by G. Barnes J. The " City 
 opAgea" [1898] p. 198 
 
 County of Gloucester Bank v. Rudry, &c., Co., 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 629. 
 
 Eeferred to by Wright J. In re Bank 
 
 of Syeia - [1900] 2 Ch. 272, 278 ; 
 
 C. A, [1900] W. N. 256; [1901] 1 Ch. 115 
 
 Coupe V. Collyer - (1890) 62 L. T. (N.S.) 927 
 Distinguished. London Feeehold and 
 Leasehold Peoperty Co. u. Babon 
 SuppiELD ■ C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 608 
 
 " Courier;- Tlie - - [1891] P. 3.-5 
 
 FoUowed by Div. Ct O'Haea, 
 Matthews & Co. v. Elliott & Co. 
 
 [1893] 1 ft. B. 362 
 
 Applied bv Bruce J. The "Hestia" 
 
 (No. 2) ' - - [1895] W. N. 100 
 
 Followed by Bucknill J. The " Bubma" 
 
 [1899] W. N. 54 
 
 CourtauU v. Legh (1869) L. E. 4 Ex. 126 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. Collis v. 
 Laugher - [1894] 3 Ch. 659 
 
 Courtenayy. Williams, (1844) 8 Hare, 539; 15 
 L. J. Ch. 204. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re 
 Akeeman [1891] 3 Ch. 212 
 
 Discussed by Byrne J. Dingle v. 
 Coppen - - [1899] 1 Ch. 726 
 
 Courtier, Inre - - (1886) 34 Ch. D. 136 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Baeing 
 [1893] 1 Ch, 61 
 Discussed by Stirling J. In re Eedding 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 876 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Tom- 
 LiNSON - [1898] 1 Ch. 232 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Betty 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 821 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Inre Gjbes 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 64 
 
DttRiNa THE tEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ecevit 
 
 GouHney v. Cote - (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 417 
 
 Distinguished by Bruce J. The 
 " WlNESTEAD " [1895] P. 170 
 
 Approved and followed by 0. A. The 
 " Rutland " [1896] P. 281 ; 
 
 [1897] A. C. 333 
 
 Coutts & Co. V. Irish Exlabition in London, [1890] 
 W. N. 181. 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1891] W. N. 41 
 
 Couturier v. Sastie (1852) 8 Ex. 40 
 
 Applied. SuTTOx & Co. v. Gket 
 
 C, A. [1891] 1 Q. B, 286 
 
 Coventry"!) Case - - [1891] 1 Oh. 202 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re 
 Central Klondyke Gold Mining Co. 
 Savigny's Case [1899] W. K. 1 (2) 
 
 Coverdale v. Charlton (1878) C. A. 4 Q. B. D. 105 
 See T0NBEIDGE Wells Cokpokation r. 
 Baird - - [1896] A. C. 434, 439 
 
 Cowen T. FMllips - (1863) 33 Beav. 18 
 
 Explained and followed by Chitty J. 
 Fillingham v. Wood [1891] 1 Ch, 51 
 
 Coioen V. Truefitt, Ld., [1898] W. N. 81 (8); 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 551. 
 AflSrmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 309 
 
 Cowies' Trustees v. Cowie - (1891) 18 E. 706 
 Reversed bv H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Cowie 
 V. MuiEDEN - [1893] A. C. 674 
 
 Coioles Y. Gale - - (1871) L. E. 7 Ch. 12 
 
 Observed upon by Eomer J. Tadoastek 
 TowEB Brewery Co. v. Wilson 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 705 
 
 Cowley v. Cowley - - - [1900] P. 118 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1900] P. 305 
 
 Cowley V. Nevomarlcet Local Board, [1892] A. C. 
 345. 
 
 Followed by P. C. Sydney (Municipal 
 Council) v. Bourse [1895] A. C. 433 
 
 Cowley's (Earl) Estate, In re [1897] 2 Q. B. 47 
 Varied by C. A. - [1893] 1 Q. B. 355 
 Judgment of C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 355 
 Reversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Cow- 
 ley (Earl) v. Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 [1899] A. C. 198 
 Appl'cable. Att.-Gen. v. De Pkevtlle 
 0. A, [1900] 1 ft. B. 223, 229 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Dobbee - [1800] 1 ft. B. 442, 450 
 
 Cowx \. Foster - - (I860) IJ. & H. 30 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Paget 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 290 
 
 Cox V. Bennett - - [1891] 1 Ch. 617 
 
 See now a. 2 of the Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63). 
 See also Fillers v. Edwaeds 
 
 [1894] W. N. 212 
 
 Cox V. Willoughby - (1880) 13 Oh. D. 863 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. Daw v. Her- 
 ring - - [1892] 1 Oh. 284 
 
 Cox's Case - (1863) 4 D. J. & S. 53 
 
 Distinguished. In re Britannia Fibe 
 Association. Coventry's Case 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 202 
 
 Coxen V. Rowland - [1894] 1 Ch. 406 
 
 Distinguished bv Eomer E. In re Boyd 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 232 
 
 Coxon V. Oorst - - - [1891] 2 Ch. 73 
 
 Referred to by Korth J. Whiteley 
 
 Exerciser, Ld. v. Gamage 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 405 
 Cradoak v. Fiper - (1850) 1 Mao. & G. 664 
 Followed. Stone v. Liokorish 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 363 
 Considered by C. A. In re Doody 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 129 
 Eeferred to by Chitty J. Vipont v. 
 Butler [1893] W. N. 64 
 
 Cradoclc v. Scottish Provident Institution, [1893] 
 W. N. 146. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] W. N. 88 
 
 Craig v. Wheeler (1860) 29 L. J. (Ch.) 374 
 
 Approved and followed by Stirling J. 
 In re Game [1897] 1 Ch. 881 
 
 Cranley v. Lixon - - (1857) 23 Beav. 512 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Wh[te- 
 BEAD - - [1894] 1 Ch. 678 
 
 Craiien Bank v. Hartley - [1886] W. N. 189 
 Followed. Le Bas v. Grant 
 
 [1895] W. N. 28 
 
 Crawford v. Forshaw - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 643 
 Eeversed by 0. A. - [1891] 2 Ch. 261 
 
 Crawley v. Crawley, (1835) 7 Sim. 427; 40 K. R. 
 170. 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re White- 
 head - - [1894] 1 Ch. 678 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re Pope 
 
 [1900] W. N. 244; [1901] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 Oreaton v. Creaton - (1856) 3 Sm. & Giff. 386 
 Applied by Chitty J. In re Brooke 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 43 
 Oree v. St. Pancras Vestry [1899] 1 Q. B. 693 
 Disapproved of by 0. A. Bostook v. 
 Ramsey Urban Council 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 357, 363 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 616, 623 
 
 Cresswell v. Davidson (1887) 56 L. T (N.S.) 811 
 
 Approved by C. A. Nind v. Nine- 
 
 TEENIH CeNTUEY BuiLDlNG SOCIETY 
 
 [1894] 2 ft. B. 226 
 
 Crew y. Cummings - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 420 
 
 Has overruled In re Dobbin's Settlement, 
 
 (1887) 56 L. J. (Q.B.) 295, per 0. A. in 
 
 In re Parsons - [1893] 2 ft. B. 122 
 
 Criglington v. Anderson (1889) 26 L. E. Ir. 131 
 tJndistinguishable. M'Gapfigan v. 
 ElDDALL, (1890) 28 L. E. Ir. 257 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 95 
 
 Crisp v. Crisp (1872) L, R. 2 P. & M. 426 
 
 Considered. Habtopp v. Hartopp 
 
 [1899] P. 65 
 
 Croft, Inre - - - [1892] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Bourne [1893] 1 Ch. 188 
 
 Croft, In re. Deane v. Croft [1892] 1 Ch. 652 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Beowne - - [1893] 1 Ch. 188 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 FosTEE - - [1897] 1 Ch. 484, 487 
 
 u 2 
 
dccviii 
 
 TABLE OS* UaSJES POLLOW&D, oVBEEttED, &c., 
 
 Croft V. Richmansumrth Highway Board, (1888) 
 39 Ch. D. 272. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Ckot scale v. 
 SunbtJet-on-Thames Urban CotiNcii. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch, 615 
 
 Cromford Canal Co. v. Cults, (1848) 5 Rail. Cas. 
 442. 
 
 Distinguisheil by H. L. (E.) Chambek 
 CoLLiEEY Co. V. Rochdale Canal Co. 
 [1895] A. C. 564 
 
 Cromptmi v. Jarratt - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 298 
 Distinguished. In re Hodgson. Tay- 
 lor V. HOEGSON [1898] 2 Ch. 545 
 
 Cronmire, In re. Ex parte Waud, (1898) W. N. 
 19 (2). 
 Reversed by C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 383 
 
 Crook V. Hill, (1873) L. E. 6 Ch. 311; L. E. 6 
 H. L. 265. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Deakin 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 565 
 
 Crook V. MorUy - (1890) 24 Q, B. D. 320 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 316 
 
 Crookliaven Mining Co., In re, (1866) L. E. 3 Eq. 
 69. 
 
 Followed. Whitelet Exekciseb, Ld. 
 V. Gamage [1898] 2 Ch. 405 
 
 Oroome v. Croome, [1888] W. N. 87, 152; [1889] 
 W. N. 156; 59 L. T. 582; 61 L. T. 814. 
 Principles in, applied by Kekewioh J. 
 In re West [1900] 1 Ch. 84 
 
 Grop'per v. Smith (1885) 10 App. Cas. 2-19 
 
 Observed upon by C. A. Shoe Machi- 
 NEHT Co. V. Cutlan [1896] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 Crosby V. Noton - (1867) 36 L. J. (P. & M.) 55 
 Followed by Jeune P. In the Goods 
 op Dennis [1899] P. 191 
 
 Orostan v. Chambers (1885) 18 L. E. Ir. 68 
 
 Distinguished. Holly v. Bukke (1887) 
 22 L. E. Ir. 463. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 91 
 
 Crossley v. Maycock - (1874) L. E. 18 Eq. 180 
 
 Followed by Romer J. Jones v. Daniel 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 332 
 
 Crossman v. Meg. - (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 256 
 
 Followed. Lord Advocate v. Wilson, 
 (1894) 21 R. 997. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 118 
 
 Crouch V. Credit Foncier of England, {1873} L. R. 
 8 Q. B. 374. 
 
 Has been in effect overruled by Goodwin 
 V. Bobarts, (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 337; 
 (1876) 1 App. Cas. 476. Bechuanaland 
 
 BXPLOEATION Co. V. IjONDON TkadING 
 
 Bank [1898] 2 Q, B. 668 
 
 (1853) 17 Beav. 507 
 In re Game 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 881 
 
 Crowe's Triists, In re (1880) 14 Ch. D. 304, 610 
 
 See In re Stooken's Settlement Trusts 
 
 [1893] W. N. 203 
 
 Crowiher, In re - ■ - [1895] 2 Ch. 56 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Smith 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 171 
 
 Crowe V. Crisford ■ 
 
 Commented on. 
 
 Crump V. Lambert 
 
 Referred to 
 
 KINS 
 
 Croysdale v. Sunburyon-Thames Urban Oouncit, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 515, 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Sykes v. Sowbeby 
 Ueban Council [1900] 1 Q. B. 684 
 
 Cruddas, In re. Oruddas v. Smith, [1899] W. N. 
 126. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 730 
 
 Cruickshank v. Duffin (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 555 
 Followed by Romer J. Thoexb v, 
 Thoene [1893] 3 Ch. 196 
 
 (1867) L. E. 3.Eq. 409 
 
 J. TjYons & Sons v. Wil- 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 255 
 
 Crumpe v. Crumpe - - [1899] 1 I. R. 359 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Ir.) [1900] A. C. 127 
 
 " Crystal," The- - ■ [1894] A. C. 508 
 
 Distinguished by P. C. Howaed Smith 
 
 & Sons v. Wilson - [1896] A. C. 679 
 
 Referred to. Baeeaclough v. Bkown 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 615 
 
 Cuckfield Rural Council v. Goring, [1898] 1 Q. B. 
 865. 
 
 Approved by C. A. Daventey Eural 
 Council v. Paekeb - [1900] 1 ft. B. 1 
 
 Culverhouse, In re. Cook v. Culverhouse, [1896] 
 2 Ch. 251. 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. In re 
 
 Teeascee - [1900] 2 Ch. 648, 652 
 
 Cumberland Union Banking Co. v. Maryport 
 Hgematite Iron and Steel Co., [1892] 
 1 Ch. 415. 
 Followed by C. A. Gough v. Wood 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 713 
 Discussed. Hobson v. Goreinge 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 182 
 
 Cundy v. Lindsay (1878) 3 App. Cas. 459 
 
 Principle in, applied by Wright J. 
 In re Inteenational Society of 
 Auctioneees and Valuees. Baillie's 
 Case - - [1897] W. N. 171 (4); 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 110 
 
 Cunnack v. Edwards - - [1895] 1 Ch. 489 
 
 Eeversed on appeal 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 679 
 Distinguished by Kekewioh J. In re 
 Buck - [1896] 2 Ch. 727 
 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re 
 Printers and Teansfeekers Amalga- 
 mated Trades Peotection Society 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 184 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Lacy 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 Cunynghame v. Thurlow, (1832) 1 Euss. & My. 
 436, n.; 32 E. E. 242. 
 Followed by North J. In re Eadcliffe. 
 Eadcliffe v. Bewes [1891] 2 Ch, 662 
 Not followed by C. A. In re Ead- 
 cliffe. Eadcliffe v. Bewes 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 227 
 
 Cupit v. Jackson, (1824) 13 Price, 721 ; 28 E. E. 
 735. 
 
 Eeferred to by Buckley J. BlackbtjenB 
 
 V. Hope-Edwaedes [1900] W. N. 176; 
 
 [1901] 1 Ch. 418 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Curnielc v. Tucher - (1874) L. R. 17 Eq. 320 
 Referred to. Wiliiams v. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 12 
 
 Currie v. M'Enight - - (1895) 22 E. 607 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1897] A. C. 97 
 
 Currie v. Wilson, Sons & Co. The " Thorsa," 
 (1893) 20 E. 876. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 116 
 
 Oushing v. Dupuy - (1880) 5 App. Cas. 409 
 Followed by P. 0. Tennant v. Union 
 Bank of Canada [1894] A. C. 31 
 
 See New South Wales Aot, 1899, No, 2, 
 Third Sched., Chap. 3. 
 
 Dagnall, In re - - [1896] 2 Q. B. 407 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Woesley 
 
 [1900] W. N. 269 
 Dairy y. Bailey - (1891) 8 Eep. Pat. Cas. 166 
 Cited. Mandlebebg v. Mokley 
 
 [1893] W. N, 157 
 
 Dale Y. Hamilton - - (1846) 5 Hare, 369 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re De 
 
 NiooLS [1900] 2 Ch. 410 
 
 Dale V. Martin, (1884) 9 L. R. Ir. 498 ; 11 L. R. 
 
 Ir. 371. 
 
 Approved. Look v. Qdeensland In- 
 vestment and Land Mortgage Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A, C. 461 
 Dalgleish v. Dodds - (1894) 22 E. 198 
 
 Inapplicable. Stirling v. Fletohee, 
 (1895) 23 E. 120. 
 
 C. A. (So.) [1899] W. N. 166 
 Dalison's Settled Estate, In re [1892] 3 Ch. 522 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Mae- 
 QUis OP Beistol's Settled Estates 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch, 161 
 
 Dallmeyer, In re - ■ [1896] 1 Ch. 372 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re Lambeet 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 169 
 
 Dalton V. Fitzgerald - [1897] 1 Ch. 440 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 86 
 
 D'Amico V. Trigona - (1888) 13 App. Cas. 806 
 Followed by J. C. Soebeeeas Teigona 
 V. Soebeeeas d'Amioo [1892] A. C. 69 
 
 Daniel v. F^guson - - [1891] 2 Ch. 27 
 
 Followed by C. A. VonJoel^. Hoenset 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 774 
 
 Darcy {Lord) v. Aslmith - (1617) Hob. 234 
 Applied by Buckley J. West Ham 
 Central Charity Boaed v. Bast 
 London Wateewoeks Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 624 
 
 Darlasion Local Board v. London and North 
 Western By. Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 45. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 694 
 
 Darley v. Beg. - (1845) 12 CI. & F. 520 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Eeg. v. Bueeows 
 
 [1892] 1 a. B. 399 
 
 Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell, (1886) 11 
 App. Cas. 127. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Ceumbie v. Walls- 
 end Local Boaed [1891] 1 Q, B. 603 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Hall v. 
 Dtoe qv Nobfolb [1900] 2 Ch. 493 
 
 Darling v. Gray & Sons (1891 ) 18 R. 1164 
 
 AflSrmed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. Wood 
 V. Gray & Sons - [1892] A. C. 576 
 
 Darlington v. Hamilton - (1854) Kay, 550 
 
 Commented on and distinguished by 
 North J. In re National Pbovinoial 
 Bank of England and Maesh 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 190 
 
 Darrell v. Tihbitts - (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 560 
 
 Discussed by Collins J. West of Eng- 
 land FiEE Insurance Co. v. Isaacs 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 377 ; C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 226 
 
 Dashwood v. Magniao - [1891] 3 Ch. 306, 360 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re 
 Chaytoe - [1900] 2 Ch, 804, 809 
 
 Daveron, In re- - - [1893] 3 Ch. 421 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Wood 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch, 310 ; affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch, 381 
 
 David, In re. Buckley v. Boyal National Life 
 Boat Institution, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 168; 
 43 Ch. D. 27. 
 Overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 73, s. 3. 
 
 David V. Sahin [1892] W. N. 115 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1893] 1 Ch. 823 
 
 Davidson, Ex parte 0. A. [1894] W. N. 210 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re IzoD 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 241, 249 
 
 Davidson's Settlement Trusts, In re (1873) L. E. 
 15 Eq. 383. 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Lawson's 
 Tedsts [1896] 1 Ch, 175 
 
 Davies v. Davies - (1887) 36 Ch. D. 359 
 
 As to costs on higher scale, see The 
 « EoBiN " [1892] P, 95 
 
 Applicable. Davies v. Lowen - 
 
 [1891] W. IT. 86 
 
 Davies v. Fitton - (1842) 2 D. & War. 225 
 
 Referred to by FarweU J, May v. 
 Platt - [1900] 1 Ch, 616 
 
 Davies v. Gregory - (1873) L. E. 3 P. & D. 28 
 Followed by Barnes J. EoE v. Nix 
 
 [1893] P. 65 
 
 Davies v. MoVeagh - (1879) 4 Ex. D. 265 
 
 Questioned by C. A. Thaesis Sulphdb 
 
 AND COPPEE Co. V. MoeEL BeOTHEES & 
 
 Co. [1891] 2 Q, B. 650 
 
 Davies v. Parry - [1899] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 But see now Peaotiob Note. 
 
 [1899] W. N, 263 
 
 Davies v. Williams - (1857) 16 Q. B. 546 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Lane v. Capsey 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 411 
 
 Davies v. Wright - - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 220 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Beewee 
 V. Squaee - [1892] 2 Ch. Ill 
 
 Davies' Case - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 537 
 
 See Maequis of Bute's Case 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 100 
 
 Davies' Trusts, In re - (1871) L. E. 13 Eq. 163 
 
 Followed by Romer J. In re Boyd ;rr: 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch, 232 
 
TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEIJLED, &c., 
 
 Davis, In re. Evans v. Moore [1891] 3 Ch. 119 
 
 Referred to. In re Owen 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 220, 225 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Laoy 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 149, 159 
 Bavii V. Suhett - (1861) 10 C. B. (N.S.) 752 
 
 Explained by C. A. Smith v. Butlek 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 694, 700 
 Davis V. Starr - - (1889) 41 Ch. D. 242 
 
 Distinguished. Eenshaw v. Queen 
 
 Anne Mansions Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft, B. 662 
 
 Explained by C. A. Paeky v. Liver- 
 pool Malt Co. C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 339 
 Davis V. StriboU - (1890) 6 Hep. Pat. Cas. 207 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. In re 
 
 Densham's Teade-maek 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 176 
 Davis Y. Trelmrne (1S81) 6 App. Cas. 460 
 
 See Twyeeould v. Chambek Colliekt 
 
 Co. C. A, [1892] W. N. 27 
 
 Followed. Geeenwell v. Low Beeoh- 
 
 BOEN Coal Co. [1897] 2 ft. B. 165 
 
 Applicable. Eael oe Westmoelakd v. 
 
 New Shaelston Collieeies Co. 
 
 C, A, [1899] W. N. 88 
 Davis & Sons, Ld. v. Taff Vule By. Co., [1894] 1 
 
 Q. B. 43. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 542 
 Davison v. Gent - ■ (1857) 1 H. & N. 744 
 
 Followed by Cliitty J. Wallis v. 
 
 Hands - - [1893] 2 Ch. 75 
 
 Dawes v. TredweU (1881) 18 Ch. D. 354 
 
 Applied by Byrne J. In re Smith 
 
 [1900] W. N. 75 
 Dawldns v. Prince Eilward of Saxe- Weimar, 
 
 (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 499. 
 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 51. 
 Dawson, In re - (1888) 39 Ch. D. 155 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Hooking 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 667 
 Dawson v. Eayner, (1826) 2 Euse. 466 ; 26 R. E. 
 
 149. 
 
 See In re Geaham Chitty J. [1895] 
 
 1 Ch. 66, 69 
 
 Day V. Eelland - [1900] W. N. 234 
 
 AiBrmed by C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 745 
 
 Day V. Longlmrd - (1893) 41 W. R. 283 
 
 Followed. Seawaed v. Pateeson 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 545 
 Day V. Luhke (1868) L. R. 5 Eq. 336 
 
 Observed upon by Romer J. Tadoastee 
 
 Tower Beewery Co. v. Wilson 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 705 
 Day V. Woolwich Equitable Building Society, 
 
 (1888) 40 Ch. D. 491. 
 
 Dictum in, questioned by Farwell J. 
 
 King v. Smith [1900] 2 Ch. 425 
 
 Daylcin v. Parker [1894] 2 Q. B. 273 
 
 Afarmed by C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 556 
 Dayrell v. Hoare ■ (1810) 12 A. & E. 356, 369 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. In re 
 
 Newell and Nevill's Contract 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 90 
 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Gladstone 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch, 101 
 
 DeaUn,Inre - - - [1894] 3 Ch. 565 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Jeans 
 
 [1895] W. N. 98 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Pabker 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 208, 212 
 
 DealdnY. Loiter ■ ■ (1885) 30 Ch. D. 169 
 
 Overruled by 56 & 57 Vict. c. 63, 
 
 s. 1 (a). 
 
 Dean v. Dean - [1891] 3 Ch. 150 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Symes v. 
 
 Symes - - [1896] 1 Ch, 272. 277 
 
 Dean v, McDowell - - (1878) 8 Ch. D. 345 
 
 Followed by C. A. Aas v. Benham 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 244 
 Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, Ex parte, (1870) 
 18 W. E. 724. 
 
 Cited. In re Jones. Bcllis r. Jones 
 
 [1891] W. N. 114 
 
 Dearie, Ex parte - (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 184 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Gamgee 
 
 [1891] W. N. 106 
 
 De Beaufort, In the Goods of - [1893] P. 231 
 
 See In the Goods of Scott 
 
 [1895] P. 342 
 
 De Braam v. Ford - [1899] W. N. 228 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 142 
 
 Decroix, Verley & Cie. v. Meyer & Co., (1890) 25 
 Q. B. D. 343. 
 Afarmed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 520 
 
 Deeley's Patent, In re- - [1895] 1 Ch. 687 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Deeley 
 V. Peekes - [1896] A. C. 496 
 
 Discussed. In re Dellwick's Patent 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 705 
 Explained by C. A. Ludington Cigae- 
 ETTE Machine Co. v. Baeon Cigaeette 
 Machine Co. - [1900] 1 Ch. 508 
 
 Deeming, Ex parte ■ [1892] A. C. 422 
 
 Followed by P. C. Kops v. Eeg. Ex 
 parte Kops [1894] A. C. 650 
 
 See Commonwealth of Australia Con- 
 stitution Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), 
 s. 9, sub-s. 73. 
 
 De Fogassieras v. Duport, (1881) 11 L. E. Ir. 123 
 Eefeired to by Kekewich J. Pepin v. 
 BRVYhas [1900] 2 Ch. 504, 607 
 
 De Hoghton, In re. De Hoghton v. De Soghton, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 517. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 855 
 
 Delany v. Mansfield - (1825) 1 Hogan, 234 
 
 Not followed by Stirling J. In re 
 HoAEE - [1892] 3 Ch. 94 
 
 De Linden, In re. In re Spurrier's Settltment. 
 De Eayn v. Garland, [1897] 1 Ch. 453. 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re 
 Chataed's Settlement 
 
 [1899] ICh. 712, 718; 
 
 Thieey v. Chalmers, Guthrie & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 80 
 
 Delmer v. M'Cal)e (1863) 14 Ir. C. L. Eep. 377 
 
 Explained by Kekewich J. Thiery v. 
 
 Chalmers, Gutheie & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 80 
 Explained by Farwell J. May v. Platt 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. m 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 De Mattos v. Benjamin, (1894) 63 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 248. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Habvet v. 
 Hast - - - [1894] W. N. 72 
 
 De Mestre v. West - - [1891] A. 0. 264 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Att.-Gen. v. Jacobs- 
 Smith - [1895] 2 a. B. 341 
 
 Senahy Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester, Sheffield, 
 and Lincolnshire By. Co., (1885) 14 
 Q. B. D. 209; (1886) 11 App. Gas. 97. 
 Explained by 0. A. Phipps v. London 
 AND North Western Et. Co. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 229 
 
 De Nicols, In re. De Nicols v. Curlier, C. A. 
 [1898] W. N. 52 (4); [1898] 2 Ch. 60. 
 Reversed, and decision of Kekewicb J., 
 [1898] W. N. 12 (3) ; [1898] 1 Ch. 403, 
 restored - H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 21 
 
 Dennett v. Atherton, (1872) L. E. 7 Q. B. 316, 326. 
 Considered by Buckley J. Tebb v. 
 Cave - [1900] 1 Ch. 642, 647 
 
 Dent V. Dent, (1865) 34 L. J. (P. & M.) 118 ; 4 
 S. & T. 105. 
 
 Followed by Barnes J. Moore v. Moore 
 [1892] P. 382 
 
 Denver Hotel Co., In re - [1893] 1 Ch. 495 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (B.) British 
 AND American Trustee and Finance 
 Corpoeation B. CouPER [1894] A. C. 399 
 
 De Pass v. Capital and Industries Corporation, 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 216. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Vinall 
 V. De Pass - - [1892] A. C. 90 
 
 Derbyshire {In re County Council of) and Mayor, 
 &c., of Derby, [1896] 2 Q. B. 53. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 2 a. B. 297 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Derby 
 Corporation v. Derbyshire Coukty 
 ConNOiL - [1897] A. C. 550 
 
 De Bosaz, In re (1877) 2 P. D. 66 
 
 Referred to. In the Goods op Chappell 
 
 [1894] W. H. 16 
 
 Derry v. Feeh ■ (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337 
 
 See Angus v. Clifeoed [1891] 2 Ch. 449 
 Distinguished by C. A. Low v. Bou- 
 VEBiE - - [1891] 3 Ch. 82 
 
 Explained by C. A. Tomkinson v. 
 Balkis Consolidated Co. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 614 
 Observed on by C. A. Le Libvee v. 
 Gould - [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. Greenwood v. 
 Leather Shod Wheel Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 421, 434 
 
 De Tessier, In re - - [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 Followed. In re Lord De Tablet 
 
 [1896] W. N. 162 (16) 
 Decine's Case, Lawson's Notes of Decisions, 1887, 
 p.l2. 
 
 Distinguished. Ceiglington v. Ander- 
 son, (1889) 26 L. R. Ir. 131 
 
 0. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 94 
 Devonshire (Dulce of) v. O'Connor, (1890) 24 
 Q. B. D. 468. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Eceoyd v. Coult- 
 BAKD- - - [1898] 2 Ch. 368 
 
 Dewhirst's Trusts, In re - (1886) 33 Ch. D. 416 
 Referred to. In re Stocken's Settle- 
 ment Trusts [1893] W. N. 203 
 
 lyEyncourt v. Gregory (1866) L. R. 3 Eq. 382 
 Followed by Chitty J. Norton v. 
 Dashwood - - [1896] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 Discussed. Hill (Viscount) v. Bullock 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 482 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re 
 EvERSLEY - [1900] 1 Ch. 96 
 
 D'Huart v. Harlcnesa - (1865) 34 Beav. 324 
 Followed by Jeune P. In the Goods 
 op Huber [1898] P. 209 
 
 Considered by Kekewicb J. Hummel 
 V. Hummel - [1898] 1 Ch. 642 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Price. 
 ToMLm V. Latter - [1900] 1 Ch. 442 
 
 DiaTnond Fuel Co., In re (1879) 13 Ch. D. 400 
 Explained by North J. In re Crystal 
 Reep Gold Mining Co. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 408 
 
 Dibb V. Walker - - [1893] 2 Ch. 429 
 
 Referred to by Kekewieh J. In re 
 
 England [1895] 2 Ch. 100, 107 ; 
 
 C. A, [1895] 2 Ch. 820 
 
 Dick, In re. Lopes v. Hume-Diole, [1891] 1 Ch. 
 423. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) svh nom. Hume 
 V. Lopes - - [1892] A. C. 112 
 
 See In re Owthwaite. Owthwaite v. 
 Taylor - [1891] 3 Ch. 494 
 
 Dicker v. Angerstein ■ (1876) 3 Ch. D. 600 
 
 Explained and distinguished by Stir- 
 ling J. LiPE Interest and Rever- 
 sionary Securities Corporation v. 
 Hand-in-Hand Fihe and Life Insur- 
 ance Society - [1898] 2 Ch. 230 
 
 Dickins v. Gill - - [1896] 2 Q. B. 311 
 
 Notice given by Postmaster-General to 
 Stamp Dealers and the Public 
 
 Lend. Gaz. June 4, 1897, p. 3131 
 
 Diclcs V. Brooks ■ - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 22 
 
 Followed by C. A. Hanpstaengl v. 
 
 Empire Palace. Hanpstaengl v. 
 
 Newnes - - [1894] 3 Ch. 109 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 sub nom. Hanfstaengl v. H. B. 
 
 Baines & Co., Ld. [1895] A. C. 20 
 
 Dickson, Inre - - (1885) 29 Ch. D. 331 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Clements 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 665 
 
 " Dictator," The - - [1892] P. 304 
 
 Held applicable, approved, and followed. 
 The " Gemma " - C. A. [1899] P. 285 
 
 Didieheim v. London and Westminster Bank, 
 [1899] W. N. 107; 43 Sol. J. 642; 81 
 L. T. 108. 
 
 Reversed by 0. A. - [1900] 2 Ch, 15 
 Distinguished by Kekewieh J. Thieet 
 V. Chalmers, Guthrie & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 80 
 
 Diggle v. Higgs - - (1877) 2 Ex. D. 422 
 
 Followed by Phillimore J. Shoolbeed 
 
 D. Roberts - [1899] 2 Q. B. 660; 
 
 C, A, [1900] 2 Q. B. 497 
 
ccoxil 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., 
 
 Digglee, In re - - (1888) 39 Oh. D. 253 
 
 Followed by 0. A. In re Hamilton 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 370 
 
 Dillel, Inre - - (1887) 12 App. Gas. 459 
 
 Ee-affinned. Ex parte Caeew 
 
 P. C, [1897] A. C. 719 
 
 Dingor v. Matthews - (1889) 88 Law Times 139 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Pole v. Bright 
 [1892] 1 ft. B. 603 
 
 Dinn v. Blake - (1875) L. E. 10 C. P. 388 
 
 Principle in, applied. In re Palmer & 
 
 Co. AND HOSKEN & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 131 
 
 Dixon, In re. Heynes v. Dixon, [1899] W. N. 184 ; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 561 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 561 
 
 Dixon, In re. Tousey v. Sheffield, [1898] W. N. 
 65 (2). 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 443 
 
 Dixon V. Great Western By. Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 
 333. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 300 
 
 Dixon V. Morley - - [1869] W. N. 49 
 
 Followed by North J. Pollen v. Isaacs 
 
 [1895] TV. N. 90 
 
 Dixon V. Pyner - (1886) 55 L. J. (Ch.) 566 
 Followed by C. A. In re Harding 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 315 
 
 Dixon V. White - (1883) 8 App. Cas. 833 
 
 See TwYEKOULD v. Chamber Colliery 
 Co. - - C. A. [1892] W. N. 27 
 
 DohUn's Settlement, In re, (1887) 56 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 295. 
 
 Is overruled by Crew v. Cummings, (1888) 
 21 Q. B. D. 420, per 0. A. In re Par- 
 sons - [1893] 2 ft. B. 122 
 
 Doelcrell v. Dougal ■ (1899) 80 L. T. (N.S.) 556 
 Discussed by Byrne J. Hawker v. 
 Stourfield Park Hotel Co. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 51 
 
 Dodda V. South Sldelds Union, [1895] 2 Q. B. 133. 
 Applicable. In re London County 
 Council and City op London Brewery 
 Co. [1898] 1 ft. B. 387, 394 
 
 Eeferred to. Bradford on Avon As- 
 sessment Committee v. White 
 
 [1898] 2 ft. B, 630, 637 
 Commented on. Cabtwright v. Scul- 
 coates Union H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 150 
 
 Doe V. Biggs (1809) 2 Taunt. 109; 11 E. E. 533 
 
 Criticized and doubted. In re Lashmab 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Ch. 258 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Adams 
 
 AND Perbt's Contract [1899] 1 Ch. 654 
 
 Doe V. Bolton - (1839) 11 Ad. & E. 188 
 
 Followed. In re Adams and Perry's 
 Contract - - [1899] 1 Ch. 554 
 
 Doe V. Clarke (1795) 2 H. Bl. 399 ; 3 E. E. 430 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Hallett 
 [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 Doe V. Culliford - (1824) 4 Dowl. & Ey. 248 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Wride v. Dyer 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 23 
 
 Doe V. Cfrafton - - (1852) 18 Q. B. 496 
 
 Commented on. King v. Everspibld 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 475 
 
 Doe V. Green - - (1838) 4 M. & W. 229 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Atkinson 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 52 
 
 Doe V. Manning (1807) 9 East, 59 ; 9 E. E. 503 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. c. 21, s. 2. 
 
 Doe V. Marxhant - (1843) 6 Man. & G. 813 
 Followed. In re Wilcook 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 95 
 
 Doe V. Martin and Richards, (1833) 1 Nev. & M., 
 512,524; 4 B. & Ad. 777. 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Grainger 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 756, 773 
 
 Doe V. Maiiey - ■ (1851) 17 Q. B. 373 
 
 Distinguished and considered. Thorn- 
 ton V. France C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 143 
 
 Doe V. Morphett - - (1845) 7 Q. B. 577 
 
 Dissented from by Div. Ct. Wride r. 
 Dyeb - - [1900] 1 ft. B. 23 
 
 Doe V. Vardill, (1839) 2 CI. & F. 571 ; 7 Ibid. 
 895. 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Grey - - [1892] 3 Ch. 88 
 
 Doe V. Walker - (1844) 12 M. & W. 591 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Champion- 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 Doidge v. Carpenter, (1817) 6 Maule & S. 47 ; 
 18 E. E. 299. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Baring v. 
 Abingdon [1892] 2 Ch. 374 
 
 Dominion Bank v. Bank of Scotland, (1889) 16 E. 
 1081. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A, C. £92 
 
 Dominion of Canada Freehold Estate and Timber 
 Co., (1886) 55 L. T. (N.S.) 347. 
 Followed by Stirling J. Follit r. 
 Eddystone Granite Qcahries 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 75 
 
 Dominion of Canada Plumbago Co., In re, (1884) 
 27 Ch. D. 33. 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 London Metalluegioal Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 768 
 
 Donaldson, In re - (1884) 27 Ch. D. 544 
 
 Not approved of. In re Doodt 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch, 129 
 
 Donaldson v. South Shields Corporation, [1898] 
 
 W. N. 170 (13). 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] W. N. 6 (2) 
 Donnell v. Bennett - (1883) 22 Ch. D. 835 
 
 Eeferred to by Wright J. Grimston v. 
 
 Cuningham [1894] 1 ft. B. 126, 132 
 
 Donovan, In the Goods of, (1898) 78 L. T. (N.S.) 
 567. 
 
 Eeferred to by Jenne P. In the Goods 
 OF Davis - [1899] W. N. 61 
 
 Doody, In re [1893] 1 Ch. 129 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Wellbt v. 
 Still (No. 2) [1893] W. S. 91 
 
 Eendered obsolete as to costs of solicitor- 
 mortgagee by 58 & 59 Vict. o. 25, s. 2. 
 
DUBING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Dorchester Union v. Weymouth Union, (1885) 16 
 Q. B. D. 31. 
 
 Approved by 0. A. St. Olavb's Union 
 V. Canterbtjkt Union 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 683 
 
 Donn V. Dorin (1875) L. E. 7 H. L. 568 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Har- 
 bison - - [1894] 1 Ch. 561 
 
 Douglas v. Bolam - [1900] W. N. 234 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Ch. 749 
 
 Douglas v. Forrest, (1828) 4 Bing. 686 ; 29 E. E. 
 695. 
 Explained and approved by P. C. 
 
 MOHAMIDU MOHIDEEN HadJIAR V. 
 
 PiTCHET - [1894] A. C. 437 
 
 Douglas v. Young - (1879) 7 Eetlie, 220 
 
 Followed. Smith v. Petrie, (1892) 19 
 Eettie, 405 - See [1896] W. N. 95 
 
 Dowling v. Pontypool, Caerleon, and Newport By. 
 Co., (1874) L. E. 18 Eq. 714. 
 Discussed by 0. A. Protheroe v. 
 Tottenham and Forest Gate Et. Go. 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 278 
 Downes, In re - - (1844) 5 Beav. 425 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. In re Wellborne 
 [1900] W. N. 261 
 Dowse, In re- - (1881) 50 L. J. (Ch.) 285 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Horlook 
 [1895] 1 Ch, 516 
 Dowse V. GoHon - (1889) 40 Ch. D. 536 
 
 Affirmed with variations by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1891] A. C. 190 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Bach - [1892] W. N. 108 
 
 Applied and followed by Kekewich J. 
 
 In re Brooke. Brooke v. Brooke 
 
 (No. 2) [1894] 2 Ch. 600 
 
 See also In re Kidd - [1894] W. N. 73 
 
 Applied by Byrne J. In re Eaybould 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 199, 201 
 
 Dowson, In re - - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 417 
 
 Distinguished by Cave J. In re Procter 
 
 [1891J 3 Q. B. 433 
 
 Doyle V. Kaufmann - (1877) 3 Q. B. D. 7, 340 
 Followed by 0. A. Hewett v. Baer 
 
 [1891] 1 a. B. 98 
 
 Drake v. Mitchell, (1803) 3 East, 251 ; 7 E. E. 
 449. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Wegq-Peossbb v. 
 Evans - - [1895] 1 ft. B. 108 
 
 Drake v. Trefusis (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 364 
 
 Considered. Vine v. Ealeigh 
 
 C, A. [1891] 2 Ch. 13 
 
 Drax V. Ffoolis, [1895] W. N. 147 (5); [1896] 1 
 Q. B. 1. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1896] 1 ft. B. 238 
 
 Dreio V. Drew - - (1888) 13 P. D. 97 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. Wynne v. 
 Wtnwe - _ - [1898] P. 18 
 
 Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co., (1890) 43 Ch. D. 
 316. 
 
 Varied by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 166 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. Martin v. Price 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 Driffield Gas LigJit Co., In re [1898] 1 Oh. 451 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Muto- 
 SOOPE AND BiOSRAPH SYNDICATE, Ld. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 896, 898 
 Driver v. Broad - [1893] 1 Q. B. 539 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B, 744 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Wal- 
 lace V. EvEESHED [1899] 1 Ch. 891, 894 
 
 Dronfield Silkstone Coal Co., In re (No. 2) 
 (1883)23Ch. D. 511. 
 Not followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 London Metallurgical Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 758 
 
 Duffy V. Sanson - - (1867) 16 L. T. 332 
 
 Approved. Macadlay v. Polley 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 132 
 
 Drummond v. Sant - (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 763 
 Approved by 0. A. Warren v. Mur- 
 ray - - - [1894] 2 ft. B. 648 
 
 Drummond's Patent, In re (1890) 43 Ch. D. 80 
 Referred to. In re Miller's Patent 
 
 [1894] W. N. 4 
 Referred to. In re Kay's Patent 
 
 [1894] W. N. 68 
 See In re GoRZ & Hogh's Patent 
 
 [1895] W. N. 105 
 
 DubowsM & Sons v. Goldstein [1896] 1 Q. B. 478 
 Referred to by C. A. • Underwood & 
 Son, Ld. v. Barker 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 300, 305 
 
 Du Cane and Nettlefold's Contract, In re, [1898] 
 2 Ch. 96. 
 
 Approved. In re Mondy and Roper's 
 Contract C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 275 
 
 Duck V. Mayeu - [1892] 2 Q. B. 511 
 
 See Rice v. Reed 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B, 64, 67 
 
 Duclcmanton v. Duckmanton, (1860) 5 H. & N. 
 219. 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. Astbn v. 
 AsTEN - [1894] 3 Ch. 260 
 
 Dudden v. Clutton Union (1857) 1 H. & N. 627 
 Followed by Byrne J. Mostyn v. 
 Athehton - - [1899] 2 Ch. 360 
 
 Duddy V. Gresham - (1878) 2 L. R. Ir. 442 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. In re Pbttifer 
 
 [1900] W. N. 182 
 
 Duke V. Davis - [1893] 2 Q. B. 107 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 260 
 
 " Duke of Buccleuch," The (1890) 15 P. D. 86 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) (the votes for and 
 against being equal) j [1891] A. C, 310 
 
 Duncan v. Hill - (1873) L. R. 8 Ex. 242 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. Ellis v. Pond 
 
 [1898] 1 ft. B, 426 
 
 Dunconibe v. Brighton Club and Norfolk Hotel Co., 
 (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. 371. 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.). London, 
 Chatham and Dover Ey. Co. v. South 
 Eastern Ry. Co. - [1893] A. C, 429 
 
 DunhiU V. North Eastern By. Co., [1895] W. N. 
 116 (13). 
 Reversed by C. A, - [1896] 1 Ch. 121 
 
TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULED, &c., 
 
 Dunn V. Demn and Exeter Constitutional News- 
 paper Co. - [1895] 1 Q. B. 211, n. 
 Distinguished by C. A. Gbat v. Bar- 
 tholomew - - [1895] 1 Q. B. 209 
 
 Dunn V. Flood, (1883) 25 Gh. D. 629 ; affirmed 
 by 0. A. (1885) 28 Ch. D. 586. 
 Dictum in, followed by Byrne J. In re 
 Teustees of Hollis' Hospital and 
 Hagtie's Contkact [1899] 2 Ch. 540 
 
 Dunn V. Macdonald - [1897] 1 Q. B. 401 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 655 
 
 Dunraven (Earl) v. Llewellyn, (1850) 19 L. J. 
 (Q.B.) 388, 392 ; S. C. 15 Q. B. 791. 
 Observed upon. Evans v. Mekthyk 
 Tydfil TJbban Disteict Council 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 241 
 
 Durham (Earl) v. Legard - (1865) 34 Beav. 611 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Ecdd v. 
 Lascelles - [1900] 1 Ch. 815 
 
 Durrani v. Branksome UrJian District Council, 
 [1897] W. N. 43 (12). 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 291 
 
 '• Danstanborough," The - [1892] P. 363, n. 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. The 
 " HoKNET " [1892] P. 361 
 
 Du Vigier v. Lee - - (1843) 2 Hare, 326 
 
 Discussed by Byrne J. Dingle r. 
 COPPEN - - [1899] 1 Ch. 726 
 
 Vuxhury v. Sandiford, (1898) 78 L. T. (N.S.) 230 
 Not followed. [This ease was reversed 
 by C. A., Record of Business, [1898] 
 W. N. 161 ; (1899) 80 L. T. (N.S.) 552.] 
 Mahdell v. Cuetis [1899] W. N. 93 
 
 Dyke v. Gower ■ - [1892] 1 Q. B. 220 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Spiees & Pond 
 V. Bennett [1896 J 2 ft. B. 65, 72 
 
 Dyl-e V. Stephem - - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 189 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Scott v. 
 Consolidated Bank [1893] W. N. 56 
 
 Dymond v. Croft - (1875; 3 Ch. D. 512 
 
 See Jaceson v. Kilham 
 
 [1891] W. N. 171 
 
 Dyott V. Nei-ile - [1SS7] W. N. 35 
 
 Principle in, adopted. Hoeton v. 
 BossoN C. A. [1899] W. N. 38 (4) 
 
 Eager, In re - - (1882) 22 Ch. D. 86 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re Cuff 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 21 
 Earl, In the Goods of (1866) L. R. 1 P. & D. 450 
 See In the Goods of Beieseman 
 
 [1895] W. N. 32 
 
 Earlv.Stocker - - (1691) 2 Vera. 250 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Whitelet and Egberts' Arbitration 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 568 
 
 Earle v. Kingscote - [1900] 1 Ch. 203 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 585 
 
 Earmhaw-Wall, In re - [1894] 3 Ch. 156 
 
 Approved. In re Sander's Settlement 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 Eastern and Midlands Sy. Co., In re, (1890) 45 
 
 Ch. D. 367. 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re Weex- 
 
 HAM, Mold and Connah's Quay Ey. Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 436 
 
 Eastman's Photographic Materials Co.'s Trade- 
 mark, [1896] W. N. 158 (8) 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] W. K. 48 (6) 
 
 Eastman's Settled Estates, In re, [1898] W. N. 
 170 (15). 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Caene's 
 Settled Estates - [1899] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 Ebhetts Y. Conquest - - [1895] 2 Ch. 377 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) suh nom. Con- 
 quest V. Ebbetts - [1896] A. C. 490 
 
 Ebhw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Co, In re, (1877) 
 
 4 Ch. D. 827. 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (E ). British 
 
 AND Amebic AN T'eustee and Finance 
 
 CoBPOEATioN V. Coupe R 
 
 [1894] A. C. 399, 412 
 Ebsworth and Tidy's Contract, In re, (1889) 42 
 
 Ch. D. 23. 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Stam- 
 
 FORD, Spalding and Boston Banking 
 
 Co. AND Knight's Contract 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 287 
 Ecclesiaslical Commissioners v. North Eastern 
 
 Ey. Co., (1877) 4 Ch. D. 845. 
 
 Disapproved. Bulli Coal Mining Co. 
 
 V. Osborne - [1899] A. C. 351 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Finney, [1899] 
 1 Ch. 99; [1899] 2 Ch. 729. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 736 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Howe, (1878) 4 
 Q. B. D. 63 ; (1880) 5 App. Cas. 736. 
 Explained by Chitty J. Ecclesiastical 
 CoMMES. V. Treemek [1893] 1 Ch. 166 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commissioners and New City of 
 London Brewery Co.'s Contract, In re, 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 70:!. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Att.-Gen. v. 
 London Parochial Charities (Trus- 
 tees of) [1896] 1 Ch. 541 
 
 Eckersley v. Dlersey Docks and Harbour Board, 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 667. 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Beight - 
 V. Eiver Plate Construction Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 835, 838 
 
 Ecroyd 7. Coulthard - - [1897] 2 Ch. 554 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1898] 2 Ch. 358 
 
 Eddystone Marine Insurance Co., In re, [1893] 
 3 Ch. 9. 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J. In re 
 Theatrical Trust, Ld. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 771 
 
 "Eden," The - - [1892] P. 67 
 
 Approved by C. A. The " Delano " 
 
 [1895] P. 40 
 
 Edgell Y. Wilson - - [1893] W. N. 145 
 
 Eeferred to. Ind, Coopb & Co. r. Mee 
 [1895] W. N. 8 
 
 " Edith," The - (1883) 11 L. E. Ir. 270 
 
 Disapproved of by H. L. (E.). Arrow 
 Shipping Co. v. Ttne Improvement 
 CoMMRS. [1894] A. C. 508, 517, 521 
 
 Edgware Highway Board v. Colne Valley Wat^r 
 Co., (1877) 46 L. J. (Ch.) 889. 
 Approved by 0. A. East Molesey 
 Local Board v. Lambeth Waterworks 
 Co. - - - [1892] 3 Ch. 289 
 
DUKING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co. v. Mann, 
 
 (1891) 18 R. 1140: 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 69 
 EKnhurgh Street Tramways Co. v. Lord Provost, 
 
 &c., of Edinburgh, (1894) 21 B. 688. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 456 
 
 Edinburgh United Breweries v. Molleson {Niohol- 
 son's Trustee), (1893) 20 E. 581. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A, C. 96 
 
 Edison Telephone Co. v. India Rubber Co., (1881) 
 17 Ch. D. 137. 
 
 See MoRBis, Wilson & Co. v. Coventry 
 Machinist Co. [1891] 3 Ch. 418 
 
 Edmonds, Ex parte - (1882) 30 W. E. 432 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Milleb 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 327 
 Edmonds, Ex parte ■ (1882) 51 L. J. (Ch.) 406 
 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 2.i, s. 35 (6). 
 Edmunds v. Waugh ■ (1866) L. E. 1 Eq. 418 
 
 Followed. Dingle v. Coppen. Coppen 
 
 v. Dingle - [1899] 1 Ch. 736 
 
 "Edward Oliver," TAe, (1867) L. E. 1 A. & E. 
 
 379. 
 
 DiatinguiBbed. The " Chioggia " 
 
 [1898] P. 1 
 Edioardes v. Hughes - - (1890) 18 E. 319 
 
 Eevorsed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1892] A. C. 583 
 Edwards, In re - - (1874) L. E. 9 Ch. 97 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 CoGHLAN - [1894] 3 Ch. 76 
 
 Edwards v. Carter - - [1893] A. C. 360 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. Tiditz v. O'Hagan 
 
 C. A, [1900] 2 Ch. 87, 96 
 
 Edwards v. Dennis - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 454 
 
 Applied by Chitty J. Habgeeave v. 
 
 Fkeeman [1891] 3 Ch. 39 
 
 Edwards v. Suglies - (1890) 18 E. 319 
 
 Ee versed by H. L. (Sc). Hughes v. 
 
 Edwards - [1893] A. C. 583 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (So.). MacDonald 
 
 V. Scott [1893] A. C. 642, 663 
 
 Edwards v. Midland By. Co., (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 
 
 287. 
 
 Followed. CoRNFORD V. Carlton Bank, 
 
 Ld. - - [1899] 1 Q. B. 392 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 22 
 
 Edwards v. Steel, Young & Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 
 712. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 327 
 
 Dicta in, followed. Pueves v. Straits 
 
 OF DovEE Steamship Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q, B. 217 
 Edwards v. Waugh - (1866) L. E. 1 Eq. 418 
 
 Followed. Dingle v. Coppen 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 726 
 Eqlinton, Earl of v. Norman, (1877) 46 L. J. (Ex.) 
 
 557 ; 3 Asp. M. L. C. (N.S.) 471. 
 
 OveiTuled by H. L. (B.). Arrow 
 
 Shipping Co. v, Tvne Improvement 
 
 CoMMRS. The " Cetstal " 
 
 [1894] A. C. 508 
 Ehrman v. Bartholomew - [1898] 1 Ch. 671 
 
 Followed. EoBiNSON & Co., Ld. v. 
 
 HpdEB - - g. A. [1898] 8 CJi, 451 
 
 "Eider," The - - C. A. [1893] P. 119 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.). Comber v. 
 Leyland - [1898] A. C. 524, 533 
 
 Eldridge v. Stacey - (1863) 15 C. B. (N.S.) 458 
 Approved by C. A. Long v. Clarke 
 
 [1894] 1 Q, B, 119 
 
 Elias V. Snowdon Slate Quarries Co., (1879) 4 
 App. Caa. 454, 466. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Maynard's Settled Estate 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 347 
 
 Elicit V. Eliott's Trustees (1894) 21 R. 955 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. Bir- 
 KETT V. PURDOM ■ [1895] A. C. 371 
 
 Elkins V. Onslow - (1869) 19 L. T. (N.S.) 528 
 Distinguished by Div. Cfc. Muneo v. 
 Balfour - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 113 
 
 Ellard v. Lord Llandaff, (1810) 1 Ball & B. 241 ; 
 12 E. E. 22. 
 
 Considered by Chitty J. Turner v. 
 Geeen - - [1895] 2 Ch. 205 
 
 Elliott V. Bearsley - (1880) 16 Cli. D. 322 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Boaeds 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 499 
 
 Elliott V. Elliott - - (1841) 12 Sim. 276 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Willee- 
 
 TON V. Stocks [1892] W. K 29 
 
 Diaoussed by Stirling J. In re Stevens 
 
 [1896] W. N. 24 (12) 
 
 Ellis, Ex parte - (1876) 2 Ch. D. 796 
 
 Approved by P. 0. Administeatoe- 
 Geneeal op Jamaica v. Lasoelles, Db 
 Meecado & Co. ire re Eees' Bank- 
 ruptcy [1894] A. C. 136 
 
 Ellis V. Bedford (Duke of) [1898] W. N. 169 (11) 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1899] 1 Ch, 494 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Bedford 
 
 (Duke of) v. Ellis [1900] W. N. 268 ; 
 
 [1901] A. C. 1 
 
 Ellis V. Camberwell Assessment Committee, [1900] 
 
 I Q. B. 68. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 510 
 
 Ellis V. Ellis - - - [1896] P. 261 
 
 Approved of by Div. Ct. Medway v. 
 Mbdwat - [1900] P. 141, 143 
 
 Ellis V. Marsliall & Son (189?) 64 L. J. (Q.B.) 757 ; 
 
 II Times L.E. 522. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Baschet v. 
 London Illustrated Standard Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 73 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Hilde- 
 
 SHEIMEE V. FAUKNBRS, Ld. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 170 
 
 Elmslie v. Boursier - (1869) L. E. 9 Eq. 217 
 Followed by Buckley J. Sacchabin 
 Corporation, Ld. v. Anglo-Conti- 
 nental Chemical Woeks, Ld. 
 
 [1900] W. H. 95 
 
 Elmslie v. North Eastern By. Co., [1895] W. N. 
 161 (9). 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 418 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Kirby v. Harro- 
 gate School Board 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 437, 45S 
 
TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEBEULED, &c., 
 
 MlpMnstone v. Furclias, dictum in, (1870) L. E. 
 3 A, &E. 9], 
 Disapproved of. In re Eoeinson 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 85 
 
 ElpMnstone (Lord) v. Monlcland Iron and Coal 
 Co., (1886) 11 App. Gas. 332. 
 See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 30), s. 6. 
 
 Elsev.EUe - - (1872) L. E. 33 Bq. 196 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re National 
 Provincial Bank of England and 
 Maesh - - [1895] 6 Ch. 190 
 
 Elsee V. Smith, (1822) 1 Dowl. & By. 97 ; 24 E. E. 
 639. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Jones v. Geeman 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 374, 377 
 Msner and McArtlmr's Case [1895] 2 Ch. 759 
 Followed, Transvaal Exploring Co. 
 r. Albion (Tbansvaal) Gold Mines 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 370 
 Elve V. Boyton - - [1891] 1 Ch. 501 
 
 Distinguished. In re Smith 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 590 
 Emanuel and Simmonds, In re, (1886) 33 Ch. D. 
 40. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. In re Savert and 
 ■Stevens [1892] W. N. 33 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.). Savert r. 
 Enfield Local Boaed [1893] A. C. 218 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Negis 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 73, 77 
 
 EmdenY. Carte - - (1881) 19 Ch. D. 311 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. "Westaoott 
 V. Bevan [1891] 1 Q. B. 774, 777 
 
 " Emerald," The. The " Greta Bolme," C. A. 
 [1896] P. 192. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) auh nom. 
 Owners op No. 7 Steam Sand Pcmi' 
 Dredger v. Owners of SS. " Greta 
 Holme." The " Greta Holme " 
 
 [1897] A. C. 696 
 Applicable. The " Mediana " 
 
 [190O] A. C. 113 
 
 Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant, (1879) 11 
 Ch. D. 918. 
 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Sale 
 Hotel and Botanical Gardens Co. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (5) ; 
 
 But this case was reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 40 (2) 
 
 Emmms v. PottU - (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 354 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Vizetellt v. 
 Mcdib's Select Library, Ld. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 170 
 
 Emmins v. Bradford 
 
 Not followed by 
 Saville 
 
 " Emmy Haase," The 
 
 Approved. The ' 
 
 (1880) 13 Ch. D. 4ii3 
 
 C. A. Stoddabt v. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 - (1884) 9 P. D, 81 
 ' Ngapoota " 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 391 
 
 Enqjire Mining Co., In re (1890) 44 Ch. D. 402 
 Approved by North J. In re Alabama, 
 New Orleans, Texas and Pacific 
 Junction Ry. Co. 
 
 C, A. [1891] 1 Ch, 213 
 
 Emuss v. Smith - (1848) 2 De G. & Sm. 722 
 Explained by Chitty J. In re Isaacs 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. S06 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Pyle 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 724 
 
 England, In re. Steward v. England, [189.5] 2 Ch. 
 100. 
 
 AfHrmed by C. A. - [1898] 2 Ch. 820 
 Applied by North J. In re Allen 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 499 
 
 English Joint Stock Bank, In re, (1867) L. E. 
 3 Eq. 203. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re West- 
 moreland Green and Blue Slate Co. 
 [1892] W. N. 2 
 
 English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Trust 
 V. Brunton, [1892] 2 Q. B. 1. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 2 Q, B. 700 
 
 English, Scottish, and Australian Chartered Bank, 
 7» re, [1893] W. N. 120. 
 Eeferred to. In re Queensland Na- 
 tional Bank [1893] W. N, 128 
 
 "Englishman," The, and The "Australia,'' (No. 1) 
 [1894] P. 239. 
 
 See The " Englishman " and The 
 "Australia" (No. 2) - [1896] P. 212 
 Distinguished by C. A. The " Mor- 
 gengey " and The " Blackcock " 
 
 [1900] P. 1 
 
 Enniskillen Guardians v. Hilliard, (1884) 14 L. E. 
 Ir. 214. 
 
 Approved of by Div. Ct. Buckler v. 
 Wilson - [1896] 1 Q. B. 83 
 
 "Envoy," The - - (1888) Not reported 
 
 Followed by C. A. The " Glengile" 
 C. A. [1898] P. 97 ; [1898] A. C. 519 
 
 Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States 
 V. Bishop - [1899] 2 Q. B. 439 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 177 
 
 Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., (1878) 
 
 3 App. Cas. 1218. 
 
 Discussed. Lagdnas Nitrate Co. c. 
 
 Lagunas Syndicate 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. E92 
 Ernest v. Loma Gold Mines, Ld., [1896] 2 Cli. 
 
 572 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1897] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Esdaile v. Assessment Committee of City of London 
 Union, (1887) 10 Q. B. D. 431. 
 See Tithe Eent-charge (Eates) Act, 1899 
 (G2 & 63 A'ict. c. 17), s. 1. 
 
 Esdaile v. Payne - (18S9) 40 Ch. D. 520 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) stib nom. Lane 
 t. Esdaile - [1891] A. C. 210 
 
 Etherley Grange Coal Co. v. Auckland Distrirt 
 Highway Board, C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 37 
 See Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 29), s. 1 (3). 
 
 Etoile, In re Trade-mark of la SoeiM Anonyme 
 des Verreries de I' (No. 2), [1894] 1 Ch. 
 61. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1894] 2 Ch. 26 
 
 European Bank, In re (1871) 19 W. B. 268 
 
 Not followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 Hampshire JvAnd Co. [1894] 2 Ch. 63? 
 
During the years iS9i— igod. 
 
 iluropean Life Assuranee Co., In re, (1870) L. R. 
 
 10 Eq. 403. 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Ckystai, 
 
 Eeef Gold Mining Co. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 408 
 Evans, In re - (1873) 42 L. J. (Ch.) 357 
 
 Distinguished by North J. Gedye v. 
 
 COMMRS. OP WOEKS 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. eSO 
 Evam, In re. Evans y. Noton, [1893] 1 Ch. 252, 
 
 259. 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. D. v. 
 
 A. & Co. [1900] 1 Ch. 484, 488 
 
 Evans v. Conway Justices - [1900] 2 Q. B. 5 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 224 
 
 Evans v. Evans - (1790)" 1 Hagg. Cons. Rep. 35 
 
 Referred to by C. A. RnssELL v. 
 
 Russell - [1895] P. 315 ; 
 
 [1898] A. C. 307 
 
 Evans v. Earloui - - (1844) 5 Q. B. 624 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.). White v. 
 Mellin - - [1898] A. C. 154 
 
 Evans v. Hoare - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 593 
 
 Distinguished by Buckley J. HucK- 
 LESET V. Hook - [190O] W. N. 45 
 
 Evans v. Prothero - (1852) 1 D. M. & G. 572 
 Distinguished by Kekewioh J. Ash- 
 ling V. Boon [1891] 1 Ch. 568 
 
 Everard y. KendaU - (1870) L. R. 5 C. P. 428 
 Approved by C. A. Reg. v. Jubge of 
 THE City oe London Court (No. 2) 
 
 [1892] 1 a. B. 273 
 
 Evers v. ChalHs - (1859) 7 H. L. C. 531 
 
 Considered by C. A. In re Benob 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 242 
 
 Exmouth Bochs Co., In re, (1873) L. R. 17 Eq. 
 181. 
 
 Not followed by Stirling J. In 're 
 BoKouQu of Portsmouth (Kingston, 
 Fratton, and Southsea) Teaitway 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 362 
 
 Eyre v. Cox - - (1876) 24 W. R. 317 
 
 Explained by North J. In re Totten- 
 ham - - - [1896] 1 Ch. 628 
 
 Eyre v. Saunders - (1858) 4 Jur. (N.S.) 830 
 RefeiTed to. In re Hodge's Settled 
 Estates - [1895] W. H. 69 
 
 Eyre v. Wynn-Mackenzie - [1894] 1 Cli. 218 
 See now Mortgagees Legal Costs Act, 
 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. o. 25), s. 2. 
 
 Eyre v. Wynn-Maelcenzie - [1896] 1 Ch. 135 
 Applied by C. A. Day v. Kelland 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 746, 748 
 
 F.v.P. - - (1896) 75 L. T. (N.S ) 192 
 Followed by G. Barnes J. B. v. B. 
 
 [1900]W. N. 180; [1901] P. 39 
 
 Fairjield v. Morgan (1805) 2 B. & P. (N.R.) 38 
 Rule in, applied by Cbitty J. Wbight 
 V. Mabsom [189S] W. W. 148 (11) 
 
 Fairtitle v. Gilbert, (1787) 2 T. R. 169; 1 E. R. 
 455. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. St. Mary, TsLiifa- 
 ton (Vestry of) v; Hornsey TJeban 
 Council - - [1900] 1 Ch. 695 
 
 FaitkfuU v. Ewen - - (1878) 7 Ch. D. 495 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Cole v. Eley 
 
 [1894] 2 ft. B. 180 ; 
 0. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 350 
 Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Insurance Co., (1887) 
 34 Ch. D. 234. 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. Securities 
 Properties Investment Corporation v. 
 Brighton Alhambra, Ld. 
 
 [1893] W. K. 16 
 
 Fane, Ex parte - (1848) 16 Sim. 400 
 
 Has no longer any operation. In re 
 
 Atkinson - - [1898] 1 Ch. 637; 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 "Fanny M. Carvill," The, (1880) 13 App. Cas. 
 
 455, n. 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.). Eastern 
 Steamship Co. v. Smith. The " Duke 
 op Bucoleuoh" [1891] A. C. 310 
 
 Farhenfahriken Application, In re, [1894] 1 Ch. 
 645. 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. In re Dbn- 
 sham's Trade-mark 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 176 
 Overruled. Eastman Photographic 
 Materials Co. v. Comptroller- 
 General op Patents, Designs, and 
 Trade-marks H. L. (E.) [1898] 
 
 A. C. 671 
 
 Farlow v. Stevenson ■ [1899] W. N. 30 (2) 
 Afarmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 128 
 
 Farnham, In re ■ - [1895] 2 Ch. 799 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Farnham v. 
 MiLWARD - [1895] 2 Ch. 730, 735 
 Explained by C. A. In re Farnham 
 (No. 2) - ■ [1896] ICh. 836; 
 
 In re Clarke [1898] 1 Ch. 336, 340 
 Referred to by "Wright J. 
 
 [1899] 2 ft. B. 57, 60 
 Farquhar v. Morris - (1797) 7 Term Rep. 124 
 Discussed. In re Dixon 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 561 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 561 
 
 Farrar v. Farrar's, Ld. - (1888) 40 Ch. D. 395 
 
 Explained by C. A. Kennedy v. De 
 
 Trafford - - [1896] 1 Ch. 762 ; 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1897] A. C. 180 
 
 Farrer v. Lacy, HarCland & Co., (1885) 31 Ch. D. 
 
 42, 51. 
 
 Followed. Earl Poulett v. Viscount 
 Hill - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 277 
 
 Faure Electric Accumulator Co., In re, (1888) 
 40 Ch. D. 141. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Metropolitan 
 Coal Consumers' Association v. Sorim- 
 GEOUE - - [1895] 2 ft. B. 604 
 
 Faversliam {Mayor of) v. Ilyder, (1854) 5 De G. M. 
 & G. 350. 
 Referred to. In re Piercy 
 
 C, A. [1898] 1 Ch. 565 
 
 Fechttr v. Montgomery (1863) 33 Beav. 22 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Grimston 
 V. Cuninqham - [1894] 1 ft. B. 125 
 
 Federal Bank of Australia, In re, [1893] "W. N. 
 46. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1893] W. ». 77 
 
ccoxviil 
 
 TAbLE of oases EOlLOWEIJ, dVEEBtJLEtJ, ^6., 
 
 Fellows V. Owners of the " Lord Stanley," [18931 
 IQ. B.98. * 
 
 Overruled by 56 & 57 Vict. c. 37, ss. 6, 
 7,8. 
 
 Fendall v. O'Connell - (1885) 29 Ch. D. 899 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. Soott v. 
 Consolidated Bank [1893] W, N. 56 
 
 Fenwich v. East London By. Co., (1875) L. B. 
 20 Eq. 544. 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. Hak- 
 
 EISON V. SOUTHWAKK AND VaUXHALL 
 
 Watek Co. [1891] 2 Ch. 409 
 
 Ferguson v. North British By. Co., (1891) 18 E. 
 855. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1893] W. N. 166 
 
 Ferguson v. Faterson - (1898) 25 E. 697 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. 
 "Wtman OK Febquson (Paupek) v. 
 Pateeson - [1900] A. C. 271 
 
 Ferrand v. Hallas Land and Building Co., [1893] 
 2 Q. B. 135. 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Minehead 
 Local Boaed v. Lctteell 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 178 
 But followed by Eomer J. Vowles v. 
 CoLMER [1895] "W. N. 42 
 
 Followed and applied. Ckoysdale v. 
 Sunbtjky-on-Thames Ueban Council 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 615 
 
 Field, In re - (1885) 29 Ch. D. 608 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Horn & 
 Feanois - - [1896] 2 Ch. 797 
 
 Field Y. Field - - - [1894] 1 Ch. 425 
 
 Distiuguished by Cozena-Hardy J. In 
 re De Pothoniee [1900] 2 Ch. 529 
 
 Field Steamship Co. v. Burr [1898] 1 Q. B. 821 
 Aifirmed by C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 579 
 
 Fielding v. Morley Corporation [1899] 1 Ch. 1 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Fielden 
 V. Moelet Cokpobation 
 
 [1900] A. C. 133 
 
 Fife (Bulce of) v. Great North of Scotland By. Co., 
 (1897) 35 Sco. L. E. 78. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Great 
 North op Scotland Ey. Co. v. Duke 
 op Fipe - - [1900] W. N. 62 
 
 Figg V. iloore - - [1894] 2 Q. B. 690 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Trustee op John 
 
 BUENS-BUKNS V. BeOWN 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 324 
 
 Fillingham v. Wood - - [1891] 1 Oh. 51 
 
 See 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii., s. 5 (32). 
 
 Finch V. Squire (1804) 10 Ves. 41 ; 7 E. E. 337 
 Questioned by C. A. In re Piokard 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 704 
 
 Fiiday v. Seaton - (1808) 1 Taunt. 210 
 
 Discussed by Eomer J. Noeth Metro- 
 politan Tramways Co. v. London 
 County Council [1898] 2 Ch. 145 
 
 Finney v. Hinde - - (1879) 4 Q. B. D. 102 
 
 Commented on by 0. A. Stewart v. 
 Bhodes - - [1900] 1 Ch. 386 
 
 Finslca Angfartygs Aktieholaget v. Brown, Toogood 
 & Co., [1891] W. N. 87. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1891] W. N. 116 
 
 Firbanlc's Executors v. Sumphreys, (1887) 18 
 Q. B. D. 54. 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Elkington 
 & Co. v. Huetek - [1892] 2 Ch. 452 
 
 Fish, In re. Bennett v. Bennett, [1893] 2 Ch. 413 
 Eeferred to. In re HiOKS 
 
 [1893] W. N. 138 
 Distinguished by Buckley J. Claekson 
 ■V. EoBiNSON - [1900] 2 Ch. 722, 725 
 
 Fish V. Kempton - (1849) 7 C. B. 687 
 
 Applied. Montagu v. Forwood 
 
 . C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 350 
 
 Fishhurn v. Sollingshead - [1891] 2 Ch. 371 
 Not followed by Charles J. Hanf- 
 
 STAENGL AET PuBLISarBTG Co. V. HOLLO- 
 
 WAY [1893] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 Disapproved by C. A. Hanpstaengl 
 V. American Tobacco Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 347 
 
 Fisher, In re - - [1894] 1 Ch. 53 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 450 
 
 Fisher, In re - - C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 450 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Wrexham, 
 Mold and Connah's Quay By. Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 261, 269 
 
 Fisher, Ex parte (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 636 
 
 Distinguished by P. C. Mokris v. 
 Morris - [1895] A. C. 625, 630 
 
 Fish V. Att.- Gen. - (1867) L. E. 4 Eq. 521 
 Followed by C. A. In re Bymbr 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 Fiti Y.Iles- - [1893] 1 Ch. 77 
 
 Commented on by Ketewioli J. Ashby 
 V. Wilson - - [1900] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Fitzgerald v. Dressier (1859) 17 C. B. (N.S.) 374 
 Applied by C. A. Sutton v. Grey 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 285 
 
 Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, (1869) L. E. 1 P. & D. 
 694. 
 
 Explained by Jeune J. Mahonet v. 
 M'Caethy - - [1892] P. 21 
 
 Explained and distinguished. Bead- 
 shaw v. Bbadshaw - [1897] P. 24 
 
 Flatau, In re - ■ [1893] 2 Q. B. 219 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Izod 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 241, 248 
 Fleet, Ex parte (1850) 4 De G. & Sm. 52 
 
 Followed. In re Abebdein 
 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (5) 
 Fleet V. Murtm - (1872) L. E. 7 Q. B. 126 
 
 Applied by C. A. Sutton v. Geet 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 285 
 
 Fleetwood v. Hull - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 35 
 
 Eeferred to. White ». Southend Hotel 
 
 Co. - - C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 767 
 
 Fletcher, In re - - (1891) 9 Morroll, 8 
 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Black- 
 burn & Co. - - [1899] 2 Ch. 725 
 
 Fletcher v, Nohes - - [1897] 1 Ch. 271 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Serlk 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 658 
 
UtJEING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Metoher v. Byjands, (1866) L. E. 1 Ex. 265; 
 (1868) 3 H. L. 330. 
 
 Followed and extended by Kekewich J. 
 National Telephone Co. v. Baker 
 
 [1893] 2 eh. 186 
 Distinguislied by Div. Ct. Ponting v. 
 NoAKES [1894] 3 Q. B. 281 
 
 Flitcrofl's Case - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 519 
 
 Distinguished. In re National Bank 
 OF Wales, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 629, 725 
 
 Floating Dock Co. of St. Thomas, Ld., In re, [18951 
 1 Ch. 691. 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In rs London 
 and New York Investment Corpora- 
 tion - [1895] a Ch. 860 
 
 Flood V. Jackson - C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 21 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. Allen 
 V. Flood - [1898] A. C. 1 
 
 Flower v. Low Leyton Local Board, (1877) 5 
 Ch. D. 317. 
 Superseded by 56 & 57 Vict. c. 61, s. 1. 
 
 Flower v. SadUr - (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 572 
 
 Explained and distinguished by V. Wil- 
 liams J. Jones v. Merionethshire 
 Permanent Benefit Building Society 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 587 
 
 Forbes v. Aspinall, (1811) 13 East, 323 ; 12 R. K. 
 352. 
 
 Distinguished by G. Barnes J. The 
 "Main" - [1894] P. 320, 324 
 
 Ford, Ex parte. In re Caughey, (1876) 1 Ch. D. 
 
 521. 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Clark 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 393 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Hunt v. Feipp 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 675, 680 
 
 Ford V. Barnes, (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 254 ; 55 L. J. 
 
 (Q.B.) 15 ; 53 L. T. 670 ; 34 W. E. 75. 
 
 Overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. o. 11, s. 2 
 
 (qua four months' absence only). 
 
 Ford V. Hart - - (1873) L. E. 9 C. P. 273 
 
 Discussed. Donnelly v. Graham 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 103 
 Ford V. Boar - (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 507 
 
 Observed upon. Melaugh v. Chambers, 
 
 (1886) 20 L. E. Ir. 286. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 119 
 Ford's Hotel Co. v. Bartlett [1895] 1 Q. B. 850 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 1 
 Fore Street Warehouse Co., In re, [1888] W. N. 
 
 155. 
 
 Followed. In re Watson, Walker and 
 
 QuioKPALL, Ld. - [1898] W. K. 69 (7) 
 
 Foreign, American and General Investments Trust 
 V. Sloper, [1893] 2 Ch. 96. 
 Eeversed by 0. A. - [1894] 2 Ch. 716 
 
 Foreign and Colonial Government Trust Co., In re, 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 395. 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Al- 
 liance Marine Assurance Co. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 300 
 
 Forman v. Dawes - (1843) 11 M. & W. 730 
 Discussed by Eomer J. North Me- 
 tropolitan Tramways Co. v. London 
 OoDNTY Council - [1898] 2 Ch, 145 
 
 FoTSter v. Clowser - - [1897] 2 Q. B. 362 
 
 Distinguished. Stern v. Tesnbr 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 37, 42 
 Eule in, followed. West v. Dipeose 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 337, 340 
 
 Forster v. Hale (1800) 5 Ves. 308 ; 4 E. E. 128 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re De 
 NicoLS - - [1900] 2 Ch. 410 
 
 Forsyth Y. Bristowe - ■ (1853) 8 Ex. 716 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Dibb v. Walker 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 429 
 
 Forsyth Y. Forsyth - [1891] P. 363 
 
 Considered by G. Barnes J. Haetoi^p 
 V. Haktopp - [1899] P. 65 
 
 Fortescue v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green (^Vestry 
 of), [1891] 2 Q. B. 170. 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Keuse v. John- 
 son - [1898] 2 ft. B. 91, 102 
 
 Fortune v. Hanson - [1896] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. Bridge v. 
 Howard - [1897] 1 Q. B. 80 
 
 Foskett T. Kaufman - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 279 
 See Mann v. Johnson [1893] W. N. 196 
 Followed by C. A. Hurcum v. Hil- 
 leaey ._ [1894] 1 Q. B. 579 
 
 Foster, In re. Lloyd v. Carr, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 
 629. 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Baeker [1897] W. N. 154 (14) 
 
 Not followed by North J. Lyon v. 
 Mitchell - [1899] W. N. 27 (6) 
 
 Foster y. Foster - - (1875) 1 Ch. D. 588 
 
 See Howard v. Jalland 
 
 [1891] W. N. 210 
 
 Approved of by Byrne J. In re Norton 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 Foster v. London, Chatham and Dover By. Co., 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 711. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Gonty and Man- 
 chester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire 
 Ey. Co. C. a. [1896] 2 Q. B. 439, 448 
 
 Foster {John) & Sons, Ld. v. Inland Revenue 
 
 Cmnmrs., [1891] 1 Q. B. 516. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Coats v. Inland 
 
 Eevbnue Commks. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 423, 425 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Geeat Noetheen 
 
 Ey. Co. v. Inland Eevenue Commes. 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 652, 659 
 Fothergill v. Rowland (1873) L. E. 17 Eq. 132 
 
 Discussed by Kekewioh J. Keith, 
 
 Prowse & Co. o. National Telephone 
 
 Co. [1894] 2 Ch. 147 
 
 Foulkes V. Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining 
 
 Co., (1884) Cababe' & Ellis, 156. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re (T. E.) Beinsmead 
 
 & Sons (Tomlin's Case) 
 
 [1897] W. N. 162 (3) 
 Fowler v. Broad's Patent Night Light Co., [1893] 
 
 1 Ch. 724. 
 
 See Harrison v. St. Etiennb Brewery 
 
 Co. - - - [1893] W. N. 108 
 
 Fox, Ex parte - - (1871) L. E. 6 Oh. 170 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 
 Amalgamated Syndicate 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 60O 
 
eccxi 
 
 tAfiLB OF CASES FOLLOWBI), OVEEEULEt), &ci., 
 
 Fox, Inre - 
 
 Explained. 
 
 (1886) 33 Ch. D. 37 
 In re Eay 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 468 
 
 Fox V, Fox - (1875) L. E. 19 Eq. 286 
 
 Dissented from by North J. In re Wintle 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Tokney 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 739 
 Fox V. Star Newspaper Co., [1898] W. N. 26 (4) ; 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 636. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) [1900] A. C. 19 
 
 Foxwell V. Van Grutten - [1896] W. N. 158 (6) 
 Principle affirmed, but order reversed 
 by 0. A. on the facts [1897] 1 Ch. 64 
 Considered by C. A. John v. John 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 573 
 
 Fczard, In the Goods of (1863) 3 Sw. & Tr. 173 
 Followed. In the Goods of Oaket 
 
 [1896] P. 7 
 
 France v. Clarlc, (1883) 22 Ch. D. 830 ; (1884) 
 26 Ch. D. 257. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Fox v. 
 Maktin - - [1895] W. N. 36 
 
 Frances Sandford & Co., Ex parte, [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 566. 
 
 See also In re Wheeler's Settlement 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 717 
 
 FranhT\. Wearer, (1847) 10 Bear. 297 ; 8 L. T. 
 (O.S.) 510. 
 
 Explained and distinguished. Taller- 
 man V. Dowsing Eadiant Heat Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Frape, In re - - - [1893] 2 Ch. 284 
 
 Distinguished. In re Baylis 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 107 
 Freeman v. Cox - - (1878) 8 Ch. D. 148 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. Hollis v. Burton 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 226 
 Followed. In re Beeny [1894] 1 Ch. 499 
 Not extended by C. A. Neville v. 
 Matthewman [1894] 3 Ch. 345 
 
 Freme's Contract, In re [1895] 2 Ch. 256 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1895] 2 Ch. 778 
 
 Frend v. Bucldey (1870) L. E. 5 Q. B. 213 
 
 Followed by Kekewioli J. Williams v. 
 Spargo - [1893] W. N. 100 
 
 Friary, Eolroyd & Healey's Breweries v. Single- 
 ton, [1898] W. N. 150 (7); [1899] 1 Ch. 
 86. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 261 
 
 Friclier v. Van Grutten - [1896] 2 Ch. 649 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Geilinger u. 
 GiBBS - - [1897] 1 Ch. 479 
 
 Frost (S.) * Co., In re - [1898] 2 Ch. 556 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 207 
 Observed upon. In re African Gold 
 Concessions and Development Co. 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 414 ; C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 480 
 Distinguished, In re Watson (Eobert) 
 & Co. - [1899] 2 Ch. 609 
 
 Fry v. laoore - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 395 
 
 Followed by C. A. Wilding v. Bean 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 100 
 Distinguished by C. A. Jay v. Budd 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 12 
 
 FuggU V. Bland - (1883) J 1 Q. B. D. '?11 
 
 Followed by C. A. Tyrrell v. Pain- 
 ton (No. 2) [1895] 1 ft. B. 202 
 
 "Fulham;'The - - - [1898] P. 206 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] P. 251 
 
 Fuller, Inre - - - [1900] 2 Ch. 551 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Inre Langdalb 
 
 [1900] W. S. 248 
 
 Fuller V. Chamier (1866) L. E. 2 Eq. 682 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Evans v. Evans 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 173 
 
 Fulton Y. Andrew - (1875) L. K. 7 H. L. 448 
 
 Explained by C. A. Tyrrell v. Paix- 
 
 ton (No. 1) - [1894] P. 151 
 
 Furber, In re - [1898] 2 Ch. 538 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (13) 
 Furber v. Cobb - - (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 494 
 
 Followed by C. A. Seed v. Bradley 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 319 
 Furneaux v. Eucker - - [1879] W. N. 135 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. In re Burton's 
 Will - - - [1892] 2 Ch. 38 
 
 Disapproved by C. A. In re Woodin 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 309 
 Furness, Withy & Co. v. W. N. White & Co., Id., 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 488. 
 Reversed by H. L. (B.) [1895] A. C. 40 
 
 Furnivall v. ffudson - - [1893] 1 Ch. 335 
 
 Considered by North J. Dennison v. 
 Jefes [1896] 1 Ch. 611, 616 
 
 G. V. 31. - .(1885) 10 App. Cas. 171 
 
 Dictum of Lord Selborne at p. 186 ap- 
 proved by Jeune P. in L. v. B. 
 
 [1895] P. 274 
 
 Gainsford v. Dunn - (1874) L. E. 17 Eq. 405 
 
 Not followed by North J. In re Boards 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 499 
 
 Galashiels Corporation v. Schuhe, (1894) 21 K. 
 
 682. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1895] A. C. 666 
 
 Galatti v. Wakefield - (1878) 4 Ex. D. 249 
 
 Followed by C. A. Street v. Street 
 
 [1900] 2 ft. B. 57, 64 
 
 Gale V. Gale (1852) 2 Eob. Eco. Eep. 421 
 
 Contrary to Bray v. Bray, 1 Hagg. Ecc. 
 
 163. 
 
 EUSSELL V. EUSSELL 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 815, 324; [1897] A. C. 395 
 
 Gale V. Gale - - (1856) 21 Beav. 319 
 
 Considered by Byrne J. In re Moses 
 [1900] W. N. 182 
 Gale V. Gale - - (1877) 6 Ch. D. 144 
 
 Not followed by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Jacobs-Smith [1896] 2 ft. B. 341 
 
 Gale V. Leiois - (1846) 9 Q. B. (N.S.) 730 
 
 Distinguished. In re Hampshire Land 
 
 Co. - [1896] 2 Ch. 743 
 
 Galloway V. Craig - (1861) 4 Maoq. 267 
 
 Precedent in, follovred by H. L. (So.) 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Wemyss 
 
 [1900] A. C. 48, 69 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 GaUoway v. London {Mayor, &a., of), (1866) L. E. 
 1 H. L. 34. 
 
 Distinguished. Donaldson v. South 
 Shields Corpokation 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 6 (2) 
 
 Gaudy Y. Gandy, (1882) 7 P. D. 168; (1885) 30 
 Ch. D. 57. 
 Explained. Bishop v. Bishop 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 138 
 
 " Gannet," The- - - [1899] W. N. 53 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. • [1899] P. 230 
 
 Reversed by H L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 234 
 
 Gardiner's Estate, In re (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 647 
 Not followed by Chitty J. In re 
 Hallett (No. 1) - [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 Gardner v. London, Chatham and Dover By. Co., 
 (1867) L. R. 2 Cb. 201. 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Pakker 
 [1891] 1 Ch, 682 
 Distinguisbed by North J. Baktlbtt 
 V. West Metropolitan Tramways 
 (No. 1) [1893] 3 Ch. 437 
 
 Applied to tramways by 0. A. Mar- 
 shall V. South Staffordshire Tram- 
 ways Co. - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 36 
 Distinguished by North J. Pegge v. 
 Neath and District Tramways Co. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 508 ; C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 684 
 
 Garland's Trustees v. Macaulay's Executors, (1896) 
 23 R. 598. 
 
 Kever=ed by H. L. (Se.) sub rwni. Hick- 
 ling V. Fair [1899] A. C. 15 
 
 Gamett v. Bradley - (1878) 3 App. Cas. 944 
 See observations of C. A. Eookett v. 
 Clippjngdale - [1891] 2 Q. B. 293 
 
 Garrard v. Edge - (1890) 41 Ch. D. 224 
 
 Cited. Mandleberg v. Morley 
 
 [1893] W. N. 157 
 
 Garrard v. Frankel - (1862) 30 Beav. 445 
 
 Commented on by Farwell J. May v. 
 Platt - - [1900] 1 Ch. 616 
 
 Garrard v. Lord Lauderdale, (1831) 2 Russ. & My. 
 451 ; 80 R. R. 105 ; 31 R. E. Preface, vi. 
 Inapplicable. Priestley v. Ellis 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 489 
 
 " Gas Float WMtton No. 2," The [1895] P. 801 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1896] P. 42 
 
 AfBrmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Wells 
 V. Owners of " Gas Float Whitton 
 No. 2 " - [1897] A. C. 337 
 
 Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Vestry of St. Mary 
 Abbotts - - (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 1 
 
 Distinguished. Southwaek and Vaux- 
 HALL Water Co. v. Wandsworth Dis- 
 trict Board of Works 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 GaUing Gun, Ld., In re - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 628 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Agri- 
 cultural Hotel Co. [1891] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 Gatty V. Fry - (1877) 2 Ex. D. 265 
 
 Approved. Royal Bank op Scotland 
 V. Tottenham C. A. [1894] 2 «. B. 718 
 
 Gay v. Cadby - - (1877) 2 C. P. D. 391 
 
 Discussed. Vestry of St. Martins- 
 in-the-Fields 1). Gordon 
 
 C, A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 61 
 
 Geddis 
 
 Gebhardt v. Saunders [1892] 2 Q. B. 452 
 
 Followed. Andrew v. St. Olave's 
 Board of Works - [1898] 1 ft. B. 778 
 Referred to by Bruce J. Cree v St 
 Panoras Vestry 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 693, 695 
 r. Bann Reservoir Proprietors, (1878) 3 
 App. Cas. 430. 
 
 Distinguished and explained. South- 
 WARK and Vauxhall Wateb Co. V 
 Wandsworth District Board of 
 Works - - C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 Geen v. Newington Vestry - [1898] 2 Q. B. 1 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Greatise 
 London Property Co. v. Foot 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 972, 975 
 
 " Gemma,'' The - [1899] W. N. 116 
 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1899] P. 285 
 
 General Credit Co., In re [1891] W. N. 158 
 
 Referred to. In re Hong Kong and 
 China Gas Co. [1898] W. N. 158 (3) 
 Not followed. In re Copiapo Mining 
 Co. - [1899] W. N. 25 (1) 
 
 General Phosphate Corporation, In re, [1894] 
 W. N. 78. Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 173 ; [1898] 1 Ch. 3 
 
 General Railway Syndicate, In re. Whiteley's 
 Case, [1899] W. N. 34 (5); [1899] 1 Ch 
 770. 
 Reversed by 0. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 365 
 
 Genery v. Fitzgerald, (1822) Jac. 468 ; 23 R. R 
 121. 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Burton's 
 Will - - . [1892] 2 Ch. 38 
 
 George and Goldsmiths and General Burglary In- 
 surance Association, In re, [1898] 2 Q. B. 
 136. 
 Reversed by C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 595 
 
 George, In re ■ - (1877) 5 Ch. D. 837 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Moody - - [1895] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 George v. Clageit, (1797) 7 T. E. 859 ; 4 R. R. 
 462. 
 Followed. Montagu v. Foewood 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 350 
 George v. Shivington - (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 1 
 Referred to. Scholes v. Brook 
 
 [1891] W. N. 16, 101 
 
 Gerard (Lord) v. Kent County Council, C. A. [18971 
 
 I Q. B. 351. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Kent 
 County Council v. Lord Gerard 
 
 [1897] A. C. 633 
 
 Gerard (Lord) and the London and North Western 
 By. Co., In re - [1894] 2 Q. B. 915 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1895] 1 ft, B. 459 
 
 Gibhins v. North Eastern Metropolitan Asylum 
 District Board of Management, (1847) 
 
 II Beav. 1. ^ 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Jones v. 
 Daniel - - [1894] 2 Ch. 332 
 
 Gibbs V. Barrow - - (1886) 30 Sol. J. 638 
 
 Followed. O'Haea, Matthews & Co 
 V. Elliott & Co. - [1893] 1 ft. B. 362 
 
 iB 
 
TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &o.. 
 
 Gibhs V. Sidney, [1883] W. N. 148; 49 L. T. 
 
 fN.S.) 132. 
 
 Followed by Buckley J. Stei^henson 
 
 V. YoEKE - [1900] 1 Ch. 505, 607 
 
 Gibbs V. Soci^tgdes MHaux, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 399 
 
 Approved. New Zealand Loan and 
 
 Mekoantile Agency Co. v. Mokeison 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 349 
 Gibraltar (Sanitary Commissioners of) v. Orfila, 
 
 0890)15 App. Cas. 411. 
 
 Followed by P. C. MtraiciPALiTT of 
 
 Pjotou v. Geldekt [1893] A. C. 524 
 Gibson v. Doeg - - (1857) 2 H. & N. 615 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. Hepwoeth v. 
 
 PiOKLES [1900] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 Gibson v. Preston (Mayor of), (1870) L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 
 218. 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.) Cowlet v. 
 
 Newmakket Local Board 
 
 [1892] A. C. 345 
 Gieve, In re. Ex parte Shaw [1899] W. N". 41 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1899] W. N. 72 
 Gilford V. Overseers of St. Luke's (Chelsea), (188d) 
 
 21 Q. B. D. 141. 
 
 Considered. Magke v. Moetimee, (1890) 
 
 28 L. R. Ir. 251. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 102 
 
 Not followed. Gage v. M'Daid, Law- 
 son's Notes of Decisions (1896), p. 137 
 C. A. Ir, [1898] W. N. 104 
 Gilbert V. Endean (1878) 9 Ch. D. 259, 260 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. Halfoedv. 
 
 Haedy - [1899] W. N. 243 
 
 Gilbert v. Wandsworth District Board of TI'oi-7.s, 
 
 (1888) 5 Times L. R 31. 
 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. c. coxiii. s. 29. 
 Gillard v, Cheshire Lines Committee, (1884) 32 
 
 W. R. 943. 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. AVallis v. 
 
 Hands - [1893] 2 Ch. 75 
 
 Gillet V. GWet - (1889) 14 P. D. 158 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. Buewis v. 
 
 Beewis - - [1893] W. N. 6 
 
 GilUt V. Wray (1715) 1 P. Wms. 284 
 
 Principle in, applied. In re Nouese. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 63 
 Gilmour v. Caledonian Insurance Co., (1891) 18 E. 
 
 1219. 
 
 Reversed byH. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 85 
 
 And see noie Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 
 
 1894 (57 & 68 Vict. u. 13). 
 Gilmour v. North British By. Co., (1803) 20 E. 
 
 409. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 281 
 Gilroy, Sons & Co. v. Price & Co., (1891) 18 E. 
 
 .5011. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A, C, 56 
 Gilroy V. Stephens, (18S2) 51 L. J. (Ch.) 834 ; 30 
 
 W. R. 745, 
 
 Not followed by Kekewich J. Owen v. 
 
 Richmond - - [1895] W. N. 29 
 
 Qladslmie, In re - [1900] 2 Ch. 101 
 
 Ktferred to by Byrne J. In re Duke of 
 
 J?vUTtvANp'S SETTLED ESTATES 
 
 (;1909] 8 Ch. 200, 809 
 
 Glanvill, In re - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 532 
 
 Distinguished. Cox v. Bennett 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 617 
 Glasgow and South Western By. Go. v. Banlis, 
 
 (1880) 7 R. 1161. 
 
 Followed. Inland Revenue Commes. v. 
 
 Geant, (1898) 25 R. 1040. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1899] "W. N. 195 
 Glasgow and South Western By. Co. v. Glasgow 
 
 Corporation, (1894) 21 E. 1033. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 376 
 Glasgow Corporation v. Farie, (1888) 13 App. 
 
 Cas. 657. 
 
 Explained. Johnstone v. Ceojipton & 
 
 Co. [1899] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 Glasgow Corporation v. M'Ewan (1899) 1 F. 523 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1900] A. 0. 91 
 
 Glasgow Police Commrs. v. M' Ornish, (1896) 
 23 R. 896. 
 Varied by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Glasgow 
 
 CORPOEATION D. M'OmISH 
 
 [1898] A. C. 432 
 Glasgow Tramway and Omnibus Co. v. Glasgow 
 Corporation, (1897) 24 E. 628. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A, C. 632 
 
 " Glengyle," The C. A. [1898] P. 97 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Owners 
 OF " Glengyle," hee Caego and 
 Feeight v. Neptune Salvage Co. The 
 " Glengyle " [1898] A. C. 519 
 
 " Glenlivet," The - [1893] P. 164 
 
 Varied by C. A. [1894] P. 48 
 
 Glennie v. Glennie (1863) 3 Sw. & Tr. 109 
 
 Doubted by C. A. Allen v. Allen 
 (No. 1) [1894] P. 248 
 
 " Glenochil," The - - [1896]?. 10 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. The '' Eodney " 
 
 [1900] P. 112 
 
 Glossop V. Heston and Isleworth Local Board, 
 (1879) 12 Ch. D. 102. 
 Followed by Romer J. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Cleeeenwell Vestey [1891] 3 Ch. 527 
 
 Glover, In re [1899] 1 Ir. 337 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hanly J. In re 
 Cowley - [1900] W. N, 264 
 
 Godfrey v, George [1896] 1 Q. B. 48 
 
 Followcil. Pkitchett & Young r. 
 English and Colonial Syndicate 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 428 
 
 Gold Co., Inre - - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 701 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re Bishop 
 (E.) & Sons, Ld. [1900] 2 Ch. 264 
 
 Goldhill V Clarice - (1893) 68 L. T. (N.S.) 414 
 Not followed by C. A. Solomon d. 
 
 MULLINEE AND MOTOB CARRIAGE Sl'l'- 
 
 PLY Co. [1900] W. N. 260 ; 
 
 see [1901] 1 ft, B, 76 
 
 Golding, Davis & Co., E.c parte, (1880) 13 Oh. D. 
 02S 
 
 Referred to by Romer J. Bellamy v. 
 Davey [:i891] 3 Ch. 640, at p. 645 
 
 Goldslrom v. Tallerman, (1887) L. R. 1 8 Q. B. D. 1 
 Discussed by C. A, Edwards v. Mae- 
 eton [1891] 1 a. B. 228 
 
 piscueced by \' Williams J. In re 
 J3,/yRGj5>f - |;i894] 1 Q, ?, ip, ftl p. Ul 
 
DUEIiSTG THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Gonty V. Manchester, Sheffield and Lineolnshire 
 Ey., [1896] 2 Q. B. 439. 
 Distinguished. Caledonian Ey. Co. v. 
 ToKCAN - H, L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 256 
 
 Goodden v. Goodden - - [1891] P. 395 
 
 AflSrmed by C. A. - [1892] P. 1 
 
 Goodmough, In re - - [1895] 2 Oli. 537 
 
 Followed. EowLLS v. Bebb 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 Goodier v. Edmunds - [1893] 3 Ch. 455 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. In re 
 
 Wood - - [1894] 2 Ch. 310 ; 
 
 affirm, by C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 381 
 
 Goodier v. Johnson (1881) 18 Ch. D. 441 
 
 Dictum of Jessel M.E., p. 446, followed 
 by Stirling J . Goodiek v. Edmunds 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 455, at p. 459 
 
 Gooding v. Read (1853) 4 D. M. & G. 510 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Watson 
 [1892] W. N. 192 
 
 Goodlock V. Cousins - [1897] 1 Q. B. 348 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 558 
 
 Goodman's Trusts, In re - (1880) 17 Ch. D. 266 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Grey 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 88 
 
 Goodman v. Saltash, Mayor of, (1882) 7 App. 
 Gas. 633. 
 
 Followed by Charles J. and C. A. 
 Haigh v. West [1893] 2 Q. B. 19 
 
 Goodwin v. Moberls, (1875) L. E. 10 Ex. 337 ; 
 (1876) 1 App. Gas. 476. 
 Eeferied to by Kennedy J. Bechuana- 
 
 LAND EXPLOEATION CO. V. TRADING BaNK 
 
 [1898] 2 ft. B. 658 
 
 Gordon's Settlement Trusts, In re, [1887] W. N. 
 192. 
 Doubted by C. A. In re Cliff 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 21 
 
 Gordon v. Atlcinson (1847) 1 De G. & Sm. 478 
 Distinguished by North J. In re 
 Atkinson. Wilson v. Atkinson 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 52 
 
 Gordon v. Fyper (1891) 29 Sco. L. E. 178 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1892] W. N. 169 
 
 Gordon v. St. Mary Ahhotts, Kensington (^Vestry 
 of), [1894] 2 Q. B. 742. 
 Foiluwed by Kekewioh J. Aldis v. 
 London Coepobation 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 169, 171 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Gibbon v. Pad- 
 DLNGTON Vbstey - [1900] 2 Ch. 794 
 
 Gordon v. Williamson - [1892] 1 Q. B. 616 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 459 
 
 Gorham v. Bislmp of Exeter (1849) 13 Jur. 238 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 48, ss. 2 (6), 3 (5). 
 
 Gort V. Emeney - (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 625 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Sandbs v. Wjld- 
 6MITH - [1893] 1 Q. B. 771 
 
 Gosling v. Brown ■ - (1878) 5 ft. 735 
 
 ' Disapproved. LoEP Advocatp ?). Young, 
 
 (1898) 25 E. 778 
 
 Ct. Qf Ses?, (So.) [1899] IW, f. }?0 
 
 Gosling y. Gaslcell - C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 669 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. 675 
 Goiigh V. Wood - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 713 
 
 Explained by C. A. Huddersfield 
 Banking Co. Ld. v. H. Lister & Son, 
 Ld. . - [1895] a Ch. 273 
 
 Discussed. Hobson v. Gorringe 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 182 
 
 Governments Stoch and other Securities Investment 
 Co. V. Manila Ey. Co., [1895] 2 Oh. 551 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 81 
 
 Governments Stock Investment Co., In re, [1891] 
 1 Ch. 649. 
 
 Explained by Stirling J. In re Foreign 
 AND Colonial Government Trust Co. 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 395 
 
 Governors of the Cliarity for the Belief of Poor 
 Widows and Children of Clergymen v. 
 Sutton, (1860) 27 Beav. 651. 
 Considered by C. A. In re Clergy 
 Orphan Corporation [1894] 3 Ch. 145 
 
 Gowan v. Wright - (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 201 
 Eeferred to by P. 0. Taylor v. Stur- 
 EOOK - [1900] A. C. 225, 230 
 
 Gower v. Couldridge [1898] 1 Q. B. 348 
 
 Explained by 0. A. Feankekburg v. 
 Great Horseless Carriage Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 504 
 
 Grace v. Newman ■ (1875) L. E. 19 Eq. 623 
 Distinguished. Petty v. Taylor 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 465 
 
 Grainger & Son v. Gough ■ [1895] 1 Q. B. 71 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 325 
 
 Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton 
 Urban Council, [1898] 2 Oh. 331. 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Meethye Tydfil Union 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 516, 553 
 Grant v. Langston - - (1898) 25 E. 1040 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1900] A. C. 383 
 
 Gratrix v. Chambers - (1860) 2 Giff. 321 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 Sinclair -. [1897] 1 Ch. 921, 926 
 
 Graves v. Eicks - - (1841) 11 Sim. 551 
 
 Explained by North J. In re Tucker 
 (No. 1) - [1893] 2 Ch. 323 
 
 Eeferred to by Buckley J. Black- 
 burne v. Hope-Edwardes 
 
 [1900] W. N. 175; [1901] 1 Ch. 418 
 
 Gray v. Carr - (1871) L. E. 6 Q. B. 522 
 Considered by 0. A. Serraino & Sons 
 i,. Campbell [1891] 1 Q. B. 283 
 
 Gray v, Craig ■ (1892) 20 E. 81 
 
 Followed. Boss v. Carbery, (1897) 25 
 E. 98 - C A. (So.) [1899] W. N. 171 
 
 Gray V.Smith - - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 208 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. Jennings v. 
 Jennings - - [1898] 1 Ch. 37& 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Bubchell v. 
 "^?T,»B ' T [1900] 1 Ch. 95J 
 
 fv. 
 
TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., 
 
 Great Kruger Gold Mining Co., In re. Ex parte 
 Barnard, [1892] 3 Ch. 307. 
 Explained by C. A. Trust and In- 
 vestment COEPOKATIONOF SoUTH APEICA 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 332 
 Impliedly approved and followed as so 
 explained by C. A. In re Geneeal 
 Phosphate Coepoeation (No. 2) 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 3 
 Discussed by H. L. (E.) ISx parte 
 Baenes - [1896] A. C. 146 
 
 Great North of Scotland By. Co. v. Highland By. 
 Co., (189.5) 32 S. L. E. 275. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1896] W. N. 77 (1) 
 
 Great North- West Central By. Co. v. Charlehoii, 
 [1899] A. C. 114. 
 
 Eeferied to by C. A. St. Makt, Isling- 
 ton (Vestet of) v. Hoensey Urban 
 Council - [1900] 1 Ch. 695 
 
 Great Western By. Co. v. Bennett, (1867) L. E. 2 
 H. L. 27. 
 
 See EuABON Bbiok and Teeea Cotta 
 Co. V. Great Westeen Et. Co. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 427 
 
 Great Western By. Co. v. Cefn Gribbwr Brick Co., 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 157. 
 
 Eeferred to. Eeg. o. London & Noeth 
 Westeen Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 914 
 
 Great Western By. Co. v. Inland Bevenwe Commrs., 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 507. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Coats, Ld. v. In- 
 land Ebvenue Commrs. 
 
 [1897] 2 ft. B. 423, 427 
 
 Great Western By. Co. v. London and County 
 Banking Co., [1899] W. N. 106; [18991 
 2 Q. B. 172. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 464 
 
 Green, In re - - (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 272 
 
 Followed. In re Weston's Trusts 
 
 [1898J W. N. 151 (10) 
 
 Green v. Cresswell - (1839) 10 A. & E. 453 
 Not followed by C. A. Guild & Co. ■». 
 CONEAD - [1894] 2 ft. B. 885 
 
 Green v. Davies, (1825) 4 B. & C. 235 ; 28 E. E. 
 
 230. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Ashling v. 
 
 Boon - [1891] 1 Ch. 568 
 
 Green v. Irish Independent Co., [1899] 1 1. E. 386 
 
 Compare. Basohet v. London Illus- 
 trated Standard Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch, 73, 79 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Hilde- 
 
 shkimer v. Faulkners, Ld. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 170 
 
 Green y. Paterson - (1886) 32 Ch. D. 95 
 
 Discussed. Carter v. Carter 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 62 
 
 Greene v. West Cheehire By. Co., (1871) L. E. 13 
 Eq. 44. 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. Foetescue 
 V. Lobtwithiel and Fo'wey Et. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 621 
 
 Greenock {Provost, &c., of) v. Peters, (1892) 19 E. 
 
 613. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 258 
 GreenweU v. Low Beecliburn Coal Co., [1897] 
 
 2Q. B. 165. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Hall v, 
 
 Koreolk (Duke op) [1900] 2 Ch. 493 
 
 Greenwood v. Leather Shod Wheel Co., [1899] 
 
 W. N. 26 (2). 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 421 
 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Viet. 
 
 c. 48), s. 10 (5). 
 Greer v. Toung - (1883) 24 Ch. D. 545 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. Scholet v 
 
 Peck - [1893] 1 Ch. 709 
 
 Gregory v. Fraser - (1813) 3 Camp. 454 
 
 See 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, a. 14 (4). 
 Gregson, In re - (1858) 26 Beav. 87 
 
 Not followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Lawkanoe [1894] 1 Ch. 556 
 
 Gregson, In re - - [1893] 3 Ch. 233 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re C. M. G. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 324 
 Grenfell v. Inland Eevenue Commrs., (1876) 1 Ex. 
 
 D. 242 : 45 L. J. (Ex.) 465. 
 
 Overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, s. 82 
 
 (1), (6) ii. 
 Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Styles, [1S90] 
 
 24 Q. B. D. 360 ; C. A. 25 Q. B. D. 351. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 309 
 
 " Greta Holme," The. ' The " Emerald," 0. A. 
 
 [1896] P. 192. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) mb rum. 
 
 Owners of No. 7 Steam Sand Pump 
 
 Dredger v. SS. " Greta Holme " 
 
 (Owners of) The " Greta Holme " 
 
 [1897] A. C. 596 
 
 Applied by H. L. (E.) The "Me- 
 
 DIANA" [1900] A. C. lis 
 
 Greville v. Browne - (1859) 7 H. L. C. 689 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Bawden 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 693 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Dtson & FowKE - [1896] 2 Ch. 720 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re Adams 
 
 AND Perry's Oontbaot [1899] 1 Ch. 564 
 Greville-Nugent v. Mackenzie (1898) 25 E. 475 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) [1900] A. C. 83 
 Grey v. Jenkins - - (1859) 26 Beav. 351 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Hodge's Settled Estates 
 
 [1895] "W. N, 69 
 Grey {Earl) v. Att.-Gen. - [1900] A. 0. 124 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. De 
 
 Pretille - [1900] 1 ft. B. 223, 228 
 Greys Brewery Co., Tn re (1S83) 25 Ch. D. 400 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Learotd v. 
 
 Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 688 
 Gribble v. Webler - . rigge] l Ch. 914 
 
 Met by 59 & 60 Vict. c. 28, s. 19. 
 Gri^y.Shaw - - (1852) 10 Hare, 76 
 
 Eeferred to by Farxyell J. In-qle ii. 
 
 .T,,xr,.T,.= - [190b] 3 Ch. ^ 37Q 
 
 Jenkins 
 
t)URlNG THE YeASS 1891—1900. 
 
 cooxxv 
 
 Grieve v. Grieve - - - [1893] P. 288 
 
 Followed by G. Barnes J. Caeew v. 
 Caeew (No. 2) [1894] P. 31 
 
 Griffin, Ex parte - (1880) 14 Ch. D. 37 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 Bassett - [1896] 1 Q. B. 219 
 
 Griffith V. Paqet, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 891; (1878) 6 
 Ch. i). 511. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Simpson v. 
 Palace Theatre, Ld. [1893] W. N. 91 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re 
 Beeston Pneumatic Tyke Co. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 34 (4) 
 
 Griffiths V. Dudley {Earl of), (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 
 357. 
 See 60 & 61 Vict. o. 37, s. 3 (1). 
 
 Grissell, Ex parte - - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 411 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Seoukitibs 
 Properties Investment Cokpobation 
 V. Brighton Alhambra, Ld. 
 
 [1893] W, N. 15 
 
 Gue, In re. Smith v. Gue - [1892] W. N. 88 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1892] W. N. 132 
 
 Guilford V. Lambeth - [1894] 2 Q. B. 832 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 92 
 
 Guinness, In re - (1888) 5 Kep. Pat. Cas. 316 
 
 Referred to. In re Burke's Trade-mark 
 
 [1891] W. N. 2 
 
 Gulliver v. Wiclcett - - (1745) 1 Wils. 105 
 
 See In re Burrows [1895] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 Gurney v. Gurney ■ (1855) 3 Drew. 208 
 
 Principles of, applied by Byrne J. In 
 re Tboiter - - [1899] 1 Ch. 765 
 
 Guthrie v. Walrond - (1883) 22 Ch. D. 573 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re 
 Clements - - [1894] 1 Ch. 665 
 
 Gutteridge v. Munyard, (1834) 1 Mood. & Bob. 
 
 334 ; 7 0. & P. 129. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Lister v. Lane 
 
 [1893] 2 a. B. 212 
 Gwilliam v. Twist - [1895] 1 Q. B. 557 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1895] 2 «. B. 84 
 
 JET. V. Tf. - - (1857) 3 K. & J. 382 
 
 Inapplicable. Marlborough (Dowager 
 Duchess oe) v. Duke of Marlborough 
 [1900] W. N. 270 
 
 H.M.8. " Sans Fareil " - - [1900] W. N. 60 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] P. 267 
 
 Eaddow v. Morton ■ - [1894] 1 Q. B. 95 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 565 
 
 Eadley v. Baxendale - (1854) 9 Ex. 341 
 
 Approved and followed by C. A. Ebbetts 
 V. Conquest - [1895] 2 Ch. 377 ; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 490 
 Followed by 0. A- Agius v. Great 
 Western Colliery Co. 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 413 
 
 Eaggin v. Gompioir d'Escompte de Paris, (1889) 
 23 Q. B. D. 519. 
 
 See Badoook v. Cumberland Gap Park 
 Co. [1893] 1 Ch. 362 
 
 Eale, In re. Lilley v. Foad [1898] W. N. 154 (6) 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 Ealford v. Hardy - [1899] W. N. 243 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. D. v. 
 
 A. & Co. - [1900] 1 Ch. 484, 487 
 
 Halifax Commercial Sanlc, Ld., and Wood, In re, 
 
 „ [1898] W. N. 62 (14). 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 174 (16) 
 
 Halifax Sugar Refining Co., In re [1891] W. N. 2 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] W. N. 29 
 
 Hall, In re - - (1880) 7 L. K. Ir. 180 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 
 Wasdale [1899] 1 Ch. 163 
 
 Eall V. Dyson - - (1852) 17 Q. B. 785 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. In re MoHenry 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 365 
 
 Eall V. Evjin ■ - (1887) 37 Ch. D. 74 
 
 Eeferred to. John Brothers Aber- 
 
 garw Brewery Co. v. Holmes 
 
 [1899] W. N. 257 
 
 Eall V. Eall {No. 2) - - [1891] 3 Ch. 389 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 361 
 
 Eall V. Eurt - - (1861) 2 J. & H. 76 
 
 Followed by Buckley J. Blackburne 
 
 V. Hope-Edwardes [1900] W. N. 175 
 
 Eall V. Richardson - - (1889) 54 J. P. 345 
 
 Disapproved by Div. Ct. Eoper v. Kkott 
 
 [1898] 1 ft. B, 868 
 
 Eall Dare's Contract, In re (1882) 21 Ch. D. 41 
 
 Distinguished. Jones v. Baenett 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 611 
 EalVs Trustees v. Macdonald (1892) 19 E. 567 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) suh nom-. Mac- 
 donald V. Scott - [1893] A. C. 642 
 Ealletes Estate, In re - (1880) 13 Ch. D. 696 
 Considered by C. A. In re Halletp 
 
 [1894] 2 ft. B. 237 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Mutton v. 
 Peat - [1899] 2 Ch. 656 ; 
 
 This case was reversed on a con- 
 clusion of fact C. A. [19C0] 2 Ch. 79 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Western - [1900] 2 Ch. 164 
 
 Ealliday v. Eolgate - (1868) L. E. 3 Ex. 299 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Ydngmann v. 
 Beiesmann - [1892] W. N. 162 
 
 Ealliday v. Fhilipps - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 48 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 228 
 
 Ealliwell, In the Goods of (1885) 10 P. D. 198 
 Followed. In the Goods of Oakey 
 
 [1896] P. 7 
 
 Ealliwell v. Tanner, (1830) 1 Euss. & My. 633 ; 
 32 E. E. 306. 
 
 Followed by Keke wich J. In re Butler 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 250 
 
 Hallyhurton, In the Goods of, (1866) L. E. 1 
 P. & D. 90. 
 
 Disapproved of but followed. In the 
 Goods of Hubeb - [1896] P. 209 
 
 Ealy V. Barry (1868) L. E. 3 Ch. 452 
 
 Commented on by C. A. Stewart v. 
 Ehodes - [1900] 1 Ch. 386 
 
 Eambro v. Eambro - - [1894] 2 Ch. 564 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re 
 Herbage Eents, Greenwich 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch, 811, 816 
 
TABLH 01* OASES FOLLOWED, OVEEKULEI), &C., 
 
 Bamilton, tn fe - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 291, 294 
 Eeferred to. In re Jones and Judg- 
 ment Act, 1864 [1895] W. N. 123 (10) 
 
 Hamilton, In re. Trench v. Samilton, [1895] 1 
 Oh. 373. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1895] 2 Ch. 370 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Hill v. Hill 
 
 [1897] IQ. B. 483, 493; 
 In re Williams [1897] 2 Ch. 12, 21 
 Hamilton v. Bitclie - - (1894) 21 E. 451 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 310 
 
 Hamilton's Trustees v. Boyes - (1898) 25 E. 899 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) sub nam. Nai- 
 
 SMiTH V. Botes [1899] A. C. 495 
 
 Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery, [1894] A. 0. 
 
 202. 
 
 Principle in, applied. South African 
 
 Breweries v. King [1899] 2 Ch. 173 ; 
 
 C, A. [1900] 1 Ch. 273 
 
 Hammersmith, &c.. By. Co. v. Brand, (1869) L. E. 
 
 4 H. L. 171. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Att.-Gen. v. Mbteo- 
 
 POLITAN Et. Co. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 384, at p. 392, et seq. 
 Hammond v. Pulsford [1895] 1 Q. B. 223 
 
 Eendered obsolete by Shop Hours Act, 
 
 1892 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 5). 
 
 Hammond & Co. v. Bussey (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 79 
 Followed by C. A. Agius v. Great 
 Western Colliert Oo. 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 413 
 Hampshire v. Wickens - (1878) 7 Ch. D. 555 
 Eeferred to. Midslet v. Smith 
 
 [1893] W. N. 120 
 Hampton Urban Council v. Southwarh and Vaux- 
 hall Water Co., [1899] 1 Q. B. 273. 
 Affirmed on one point by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1900] A. C. 3 
 
 Hanbury v. Hanbury {No. 2) [1894] P. 102 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1896] P. 315 
 
 0. A. reversed and Jeune Pres. restored 
 
 by H. L. (B.) [1895] A. C. 417 
 
 Hance y. Harding (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 732 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Dale and Elsden 
 
 [1892] W. N. 56 
 
 Hancock, In re [] 896] 2 Ch. 173 
 
 Applied by Farwell J. Foakes v. 
 Jackson - - [1900] 1 Ch. 807 
 
 Hancock, In re. Watson v. Watson, [1900] W. N. 
 58. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1900] W. N. 270 
 
 Hancock v. Hancock - (1888) 38 Oh. D. 78 
 
 Extended by Chitty J. Stevens v. 
 Trevor- Gabriok [1893] 2 Ch. 307 
 
 Applied by Buckley J. Buokland v. 
 BuoKLAND - [1900] 2 Ch. 534 
 
 Hancock v. Smith - (1889) 41 Ch. D. 456 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re 
 Stenniho [1896] 2 Ch. 433 
 
 Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace (_No. 1), [1894] 
 3 Ch. 109. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Hanf- 
 staengl V. H. & E. Baines & Co. 
 
 [1895] A. C. 20 
 
 Hanfstaengl v. Newnes - [1894] 3 Ch. 109 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. Hant- 
 
 BTAENGL V. H. & E. BaINES & CO. 
 
 [1895] A. C. 20 
 Hanfstaengl Art Publishing Co. v. Holloway, 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 1. 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Hanfstaengl v. 
 American Tobacco Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 347 
 Hannay v. Smurthwaite - [1893] 2 Q. B. 412 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 494 
 Decision of H. L. followed by P. 0. 
 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navi- 
 gation Oo. V. TsuNE Hijima 
 
 [1895] A. C. 661 
 
 Harbin v. Masterman (1871) L. E. 12 Eq. 559 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 184 
 
 0. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 
 Wharton v. Masterman 
 
 [1896] A. C. 186 
 For second appeal, see Harbin v. 
 Masterman - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 351 
 
 Hardaker v. Idle District Council, [1896] 1 Q. B. 
 335. 
 
 Followed by Bruce J. Penny v. 
 Wimbledon Urban Council 
 
 [1898]2Q. B. 212; 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 72 
 ■Followed by 0. A. The " Snark " 
 
 [1900] P. 105 
 
 Hardy, In re - - (1881) 17 Ch. D. 798 
 
 Dissented from by L'hitty J. In re 
 
 Sohweder's Estate [1891] 3 Ch. 44 
 
 Hardy v. Fothergill - (1888) 13 App. Oas. 351 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. In re Midland 
 Coal, Coke, and Iitoy Co. Craig's 
 CLAI5I [1895] 1 Ch. 267 
 
 Not applied by V. Williams J. In re 
 New Oriental Bank Corporation 
 (No. 2) [1895] 1 Ch. 753 
 
 Eeferred to by Eomer J. In re Panther 
 Lead Co. - [1896] 1 Ch. 978 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re McMahon 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 173, 177 
 
 Hare v. Cartridge - ■ (1842) 13 Sim. 165 
 
 Commented on and distinguished. In re 
 Stephenson - C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 75 
 
 Hare v. Elmes - [1893] 1 Q. B. 604 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Howard v. 
 Fanshawe - [1895] 2 Ch. 681, 889 
 
 Hargreaves v. Parsons, (1844) 13 M. & W. 561, 570 
 Followed by 0. A. Guild & Co. v. 
 Conrad [1894] 2 ft. B. 885 
 
 Hargreaves {Joseph), Ld., In re [1899] W. N. 259 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 347 
 Harkness and Allsopp's Contract, In re, [1896] 
 
 2 Oh. 358. 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewioh J. In re 
 
 Brooke and Fremlin's Contract 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 647 
 Harman and Uxbridge and Bickmansworth By. 
 
 Co., In re, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 720. 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Blaiberg and Abrahams 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 340> 
 
DtJElKG THE Years l89i— 1900. 
 
 ocexxvil 
 
 ffarper v. ffoijifgs - (1859) 5 Jur. (N.S.) 275 
 Ksrerred to. St. Andrew's, Hove 
 (ViOAE, &o., or) V. Mawn 
 
 [1895] P. 228, 11. 
 
 Sarper v. Marcks - [1891] 2 Q. B. 319 
 
 See now "Wild Animals in Captivity 
 Protection Act, 191)0 (63 & 64 Vict. o. 33), 
 s. 1. 
 
 Harper {John) & Co. v, Wright and Bidler Lamp 
 Manufacturing Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 593. 
 ; Reversed by C. A. - [1896] 1 Ch. 142 
 
 Ea^cpham v. Shacklock - (1881) 19 Cli. D. 207 
 
 Explained by 0. A. Taylok v. Edssell 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 8 
 
 FafnV Case - (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 587 
 
 Eefen-ed to. In re London and Nokth- 
 EEN Bank [1900] 1 Ch. 220, 222 
 
 Ea.\ris' Settled Estates, In re, (1884) 28 Ch. D. 
 171. 
 
 Applied and followed. In re Batt's 
 Settled Estates [1897] 2 Ch. 65 
 
 Eavris v. Coclcermouih and Worldngton Sy. Co., 
 
 (1858) 3 C. B. (N.S.) 693. 
 
 Discussed and explained by C. A. 
 
 Phipps v. London and Nokth Westekn 
 
 1 Et. Co. - [1892] 2 Q,. B. 229 
 
 Ear^isy. Davis- - (1844) 1 Coll. 416, 424 
 
 ' Dictum of Knight Bruce V.-C. dissented 
 
 from by C. A. In re Lowman 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 348 
 EarrU v. De Pinna - (1886) 33 Ch. D. 238 
 
 Considered. Cliefokd v. Holt 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 698 
 Earris v. Harris (1869) Ir. E. 3 Eq. 610 
 
 Observed upon by G. A. In re Bagot 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 348 
 Earris Y.May - (1883) 12 Q. B. D. 97 
 
 See Sale of Pood and Drugs Act, 1899 
 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51), s. 20. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Laidlaw v. 
 
 Wilson - [1894] 1 Q. B. 74 
 
 Harris v. Pepperell - (1867) L. E. 5 Eq. 1 
 
 Commented on by Earwell J. May v. 
 
 Platt - [1900] 1 Ch. 616 
 
 Harrison, Ex parte (1893) 69 L. T. (N.S.) 204 
 
 Distinguished. In re CoNsoKT Deep 
 
 Level Gold Mines, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 575 
 Harrison, In re. Ex parte Whinney. [1900] W. N. 
 
 118. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1900] 2 Q,. B. 710 
 Harrison, In re. Latimer v. Harrison, (1886) 
 
 32 Ch. D. 895. 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. In re 
 
 Giles - [1896] 1 Ch. 956 
 
 Harrison v. Harrison - (1888) 13 P. D. 180 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Tatham 
 
 [1892] W. N. 150 
 
 Harrison v. Duke of Eutland [1893] 1 Q. B. 142 
 
 Considered by H. L. (E.). Allen v. 
 
 Flood - [1898] A. C. 1, 20 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Luscombe v. 
 
 Great Western Et. Co. 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 313, 317 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Hickman v. Maiset 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 752 
 
 Harrop v. Harrop [1899] P. 61 
 
 Followed. Lowe v. Lowe 
 
 C. A. [1899] P. 204 
 
 Harrop v. Ossett Corporation [1898] 1 Ch. 525 
 Eeferred to. Toms v. Claoton Urban 
 District Council [1898] W. N, 61 (10) 
 
 Hartcr v. Colman (1882) 19 Ch. D. 630 
 
 Applied by Eomer J. Minter v. Oahe 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 321 ; affirmed by 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch, 49il 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Pledse v. 
 
 Cakb [1894] 2 Ch. 328 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 61 ; 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 187 
 
 Hartley v. Gilbert - - (1843) 13 Sim. 596 
 
 Explained by Stirling J. /» re George 
 Armstrong & Sons [1896] 1 Ch. 636 
 
 Hartley's Case ■ (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 157 
 
 Distinguished. Smith v. Brown 
 
 [1896] A. C. 614 
 
 Hartnall v. Byde Commrs. (1863) 4 B. & S. 361 
 Overrided by P. G. Sydney Municipal 
 Council v. Bourke [1895] A. C. 433 
 
 Harton v. Harton, (1798) 7 T. E. 652 ; 4 E. E. 537 
 Distinguished by Stilling J. In re 
 Adams and Perry's Contract 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 554 
 
 Harty v. Davis - (1850) 13 Ir. L. Eep. 23 
 
 Approved by Byrne J. In re Loud 
 Clifden - [1900] 1 Ch. 774 
 
 "Harvest," The, (1886) 11 P. D. 14, on appeal, 90 
 Eeferred to. The " John O'Scott " 
 
 C. A, [1897] P. 64 
 
 Harvey, In re. Peek v. Savory, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 
 289. 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. In re Hancock. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 58 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 270 
 
 Harvey v. Hall - (1873) L. E. 16 Eq. 324 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re t'ERE- 
 day - - - [1895] 2 Ch. 437 
 
 Haseldine, In re. Orange v. Sturdy, (1886) 31 
 Ch. D. 511. 
 
 Fullowed by Kekewioh J. In re Harri- 
 son - - - [1894] 1 Ch. 561 
 And by North J. In re Jeans 
 
 [1896] W. N. 98 
 
 Ha'sker v. Wood - (1885) 54 L. J, (Q.B.) 419 
 Followed by C. A. Eeeve v. Gibson 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 652 
 
 Easlam Foundry and Engineering Co. v. Good- 
 fellow, (,1887) 37 Gh D. 118, 123. 
 See LuBiNGTON Cigarette Machine Co 
 V. Baron Cigarette Machine Co. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 243 ; 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 608 
 
 Hasluck V. Clark - [1898] 2 Q. B. 28 
 
 Afarmed by G. A. [1899j 1 ft. B. 699 
 
 Hasiel V. Eassel - (1776) 2 Dick. 527 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Baw- 
 DEN - - [1894] 1 Ch, 693 
 
CCCXXVlll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES EOLLOWED, OVEfiRtJLED, &o., 
 
 Hasson v. Chambers - (1885) 18 L. E. Ir. 68 
 Followed. Albxahdbh v. Bubke, (1887) 
 22 L. B. Ir. 443 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. S. 92 
 Overruled (as to four months' absence 
 only) by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 11, s. 2. 
 
 Hastings v. Pearson - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 62 
 
 Distinguished by Bruce J. Shenstone 
 & Co. V. Hilton [1894] 2 ft. B. 452 
 
 Bastings (Lord) v. North Eastern By. Co., [1 898] 
 2 Oh. 674 ; C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 656. 
 AflBrmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Nokth 
 Eastern By. Co. v. Loed Hastings 
 
 [1900] A. C. 260 
 
 Hatton y. Harris - - [1892J A. C. 547 
 
 Followed by P. C. Milson v. Caktbk 
 [1893] A. C. 638 
 
 Haven Gold Mining Co., In re, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 
 151. 
 
 See In re General Phosphate Cokpora- 
 TiON (No. 1) [1893] W. N. 142 
 
 Haviland v. Johnstone - (1895) 22 B. 396 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. John- 
 stone V. Hatiland - [1896] A. C. 95 
 
 Hawes, In re - (1892) 41 W. E. 173 
 
 Discussed by Byrne J. In re DixoN 
 [1899] a Ch. 561 ; [1900] 2 Oh. 561 
 
 Hawlie V. Dunn - [1897] 1 Q. B. 579 
 
 Overruled. PowtLL v. Kempton Park 
 Eacf.codese Co. 
 
 H. 1. (E.) [1899] A. C. 143 
 
 Hawhes v. Holland ■ - (1881) "W. N. 128 
 
 Followed by North J. Edgell v. Wil- 
 son - [1893] W. N. 145 
 
 Hawltins, In re. Ex parte Hawkins, [1894] 1 
 Q. B. 25. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Watkins v. 
 Watkins [1896] P. 222, 226 
 
 Eeferred to. Kerb v. Kerr ^f 
 
 Hayn y. Culli/ord 
 
 Approved by 
 Eastern By. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 439, 3 440 
 
 Hawks V. Longridqe (1873) 29 L. T. (N.S.^; 449 
 
 Observed upon by C. A. In re Ba' got 
 
 [1893] 305" J. 348 
 
 Hawksbee v. Hawksbee (1853) 11 Har^'e, 230 
 
 Approved and adopted. Dalt von r. 
 
 Fitzgerald C. A. [1897] 2,^ Ch. 86 
 
 Hawksley y. Outram - - [1892] 3^;'Ch. 359 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewieh J. Llovd 
 V. NowELL - [1895]j;2 Ch. 744 
 
 Hay y. Swedish and Norwegian Ey.^^°'> (1889) 
 
 5 Times L. E. 460. / 
 
 Distinguished by Stirlin'o J- Follit v. 
 
 Eddtstone Geanite C^daeeies 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 75 
 Hay's Case - (187^ 5) L E 10 Cii. 593 
 
 See Archer's Case \ [1892] 1 Ch. 322 
 
 Opinion of Mellish Sp-^a"' P- 6'''' ^<^^- 
 lowed by C. A. In >" North Austka- 
 
 lian Territory CO.. A™sC--33^ 
 
 Haycock's Policy. In re - |^^'l'^> ^ <^'^- ^- ^^ 1 
 Met by 59 & 60 Vict:^ ' 
 
 Eaygarth's Trusts, In re nW'Jf p^' ^^^^^^ 
 Distinguished by Keke^'g'ig-'Ya Ch^sl 
 (Lord) v. Hodgson - Cj^"^ ^ ^^- *°^ 
 
 - (1879X4 0. P. D. 182 
 
 0. A. MedST^. Great 
 
 - [1895] 2 Ql^ B. 387 
 
 Hayter y. Trego, (1828-30) 5 Buss. 113 ; 2$) E. E. 
 13. \ 
 
 Considered. In re Slevin t 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 373 ; C. A. [1891] 2 C4. 236 
 
 Haytor Granite Co., In re (1865) L. E. 1 C^. 77 
 
 Applied by V. Williams J. In re SNew 
 
 Oriental Bank Corforatios (No. 2) 
 [1895] 1 Ch 753 
 Hazleton v. Bright - - [1873] W. N. 3 
 
 Followed by North J. Newel l r. 
 
 Newell [1896] W. N. 16 a (2) 
 
 Head, Inre-.-. Head v. Head (No. 1), [1893] i 1 Ch. 
 
 426. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re li eap. 
 
 Head v. Head (No. 2) £ia94J 2 Ch , 236 
 
 Healy v. Honnery - (Y^SJZ Ir. C. L. Eep . 213 
 Followed by Bomer J. In re We: jkes' 
 Settlement - [1897] 1 Ch . 289 
 
 Heap V. Hartley (1889) 42 Ch. D 461 
 
 See London Printing and Publi? aiKG 
 Alliance, Ld. v. Cox 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Chi. 291 
 
 Heard y. Pilley - (1869) L. E. 4 Clli. 548 
 
 Observed on by Kekewieh J. Jawies r. 
 
 Smith [18911>«'Ch!]384| 
 
 This case was affirmejJfrDy C. A. 
 
 ^^^^1891] W. N. 175 
 
 Hearn v. Baker - jf<^\8oS) 2 K. & J. 383 
 
 Followed by^^liitty J- Brown v. Acojib 
 
 ^ [1896] W. N. 164 (7) 
 
 Heather, In re A - - (1870) L. E. 5 Ch. 691 
 
 Followed by Kekewieh J. In r«WooD 
 
 [1891] W. If. 203 
 
 istinguished by Chitty J. Jn re Negus 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 Heacen v. Pender 
 
 Distinguished 
 
 (1883)11Q. B. D. 503 
 
 Le Lievee v. Gould 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 a. B. 491 
 
 Distinguished. Caledonian Et. Co. v. 
 
 Mclholland H. I. (Sc.) [1898] 
 
 A C. 216 
 
 Hebbert y. Furchas - (1871) L. E. 3 P. C. 605 
 
 See Bead v. Bishop op Lincoln 
 
 [1892] A. C. 644 
 Hebblethwaite y. Peeier [1892] 1 Q. B. 124 
 
 Followed. Jay v. Johnstone 
 
 [1893]1Q. B. 25; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 189 
 Heckles y. Heckles - ■ [1892] W. N. 188 
 
 Commented on by Stirling J. Hill v. 
 HiCKiN - - [1897] 2 Ch. 679 
 
 Heckschcr v. Grosley - [1891] 1 Q. B. 224 
 Doubted by Kay L.J. Allcock v. Hall 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 444, 448 
 Eecla Foundry Co. y. Walker, Hunter & Co., 
 (1889) 14 App. Cas. 550. 
 Applied by C. A. John Harper & Co. 
 V. Wright and Butler Lamp Manu- 
 facturing Co. [1896] 1 Ch. 142 
 " Hector," The - - (1883) 8 P. D. 218 
 Followed by Bruco J. The "Blub 
 Bell " - [1895] p. 242, 248 
 
t)UElN& THE YeASS 1891—1900. 
 
 Ccoxxix 
 
 Bedley v. Pinkney & Sons Steamship Co., [1892] 
 1 Q. B. 58. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 222 
 
 Helly V. Matthews - [1894] 2 Q. B. 262 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A C. 471 
 Decision of H. L. (E.) followed by C. A. 
 Payne v. Wilson [1895] 2 Q.. B. 637 
 
 Bellard and Beives, In re - [1896j 2 C ""9 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Webb 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 114, 149 
 
 Helmore v. Smith (No. 2) (1887) 35 Ob. D. 449 
 Distinguished by Hawkins J. Kobe v. 
 Gkeen [1835] 2 Q. B. 1 ; 
 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 315 
 
 Semming, Ex parte (1856) 28 L. T. (O.S.) 144 
 Distinguiabed. In re Baylis 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 Hemp Y. Garland - - (1843) 4 Q. B. 5W 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Eeeves v. Butcher 
 
 [1891] 3 Q. B, 809 
 
 Henderson v. Hay - (1792) 3 Bro. C. C. 632 
 Followed by Cbitty J. In re Lander 
 AND Baqley's Con tract 
 
 [1892] 3 Cli. 41 
 
 Henderson v. Underwriting and Agency Associa- 
 tion, [1891] 1 Q. B. 557. 
 Distuiguished by C. A. China Traders' 
 Insurance Co. ■;;. Eoyal Exchange 
 Assurance Corporation 
 
 [1898] 3 Q. B. 187, 191 
 
 Hendrilts v. Montagu - (1881) 17 Ch. D. 638 
 Discussed by Stirling J. Saunders o. 
 Sun Life Assubance Co. op Canada 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 537 
 
 Hennessey v. McCabe - [1900] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 Followed by C. A. Spencer v. Livett, 
 Feank & Son [1900] 1 Q. B. 498, 601 
 
 Hennessy v. Wright (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 509 
 
 Referred to. In re J. Hargreaves, Lp. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 347, 351 
 
 Hennessy v. Wright (No. 2), (1888) 24 Q. B. D. 
 445, n. 
 Followed by C. A. Hope v. Brash 
 
 [1897] 3 a. B. 188 
 
 Henry y. Great Northern By. Co., (1857) 1 De G. 
 & J. 606. 
 
 Distinguished. Staples v. Eastman 
 Photographic Materials Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 303 
 
 Herefordshire County Council, In re, [1895] 1 
 Q. B. 43. 
 
 Overruled. Theteoed Cokpobation ■». 
 Nobeolk County Council 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 a. B. 468 
 
 Heritable Beversionary Co. v. Millar (M'Kay's 
 Trustee), (1891) 18 E. 1166. 
 Reversed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1892] A. C. 598 
 
 Heme Bay Waterworhs Co. (1878) 10 Ch. D. 42 
 
 Not followed by Stilling J. In re 
 
 Boeough of Portsmouth (Kingston, 
 
 Fbatton and Southsea) Tramways Co. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 362 
 
 Merron v. Bathmines & Bdthgar Improvement 
 Commrs., (1890) 27 L. R. Ir. 179. 
 Reversed by H. L. (Ir.) [1892] A. C. 498 
 
 Heseltine, In re. Woodward v. Heseltine, [1891] 
 
 1 Ch. 464. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (B.) sub nam. Simmons 
 
 ■u. WOODWABD - [1892] A. C. 100 
 
 Heslop V. Metcalfe - (1837) 3 M. & C. 183 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Rose 
 
 Maeie Gold Mining Co. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 76 (5) 
 Hesse \. Stevenson, (1803) 3 Bos. & P. 565 ; see 
 
 Nias V. Adamson, (1819) 22 E. R. 360, 
 
 364. 
 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Roberts 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 122, 128 
 Hester, In re - (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 632 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Flatau 
 
 [1893] 2 a. B. 219 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Davidson 
 [1891] W. N. 210 
 Heston and Isleworth Urban District Council v. 
 
 Grout, [1897] W. N. 69 (10). 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 306 
 
 Hetling and Merton's Contract, In re, [1893] 3 Ch. 
 
 269. 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Earl of 
 
 Straffoed and Maples 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 335 
 Hewett V. Foster - (1844) 7 Beav. 384 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Easton v. 
 
 Landob [1892] W. N. 176 
 
 Hewlett V. Allen & Sons - [1892] 2 Q. B. 662 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 383 
 
 Hexi V. Gill - (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 699 
 
 Explained by Byrne J. Johnstone v. 
 Crompton & Co. [1899] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 Heywood v. Bishop of Manchester, (1884) 12 
 Q. B. D. 404. 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 48, s. 2 (6). 
 
 Hibbert v. Cooke, (1824) 1 S. & S. 552 ; 24 R. R. 
 225. 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re De 
 Teissier's Settled Estates 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 Hick V. Bodocanachi - [1891] 2 Q. B. 626 
 Considered by Div. Ct. Castleqate 
 Steamship Co. v. Dempsey 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 64 ; 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 854 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. HlCK v. 
 Raymond & Reid [1893] A. C, 23 
 
 molding v. Fair (1896) 23 E. 598 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1899] A. C. 15 
 
 Hickman v. Berens [1896] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 Explained by C. A. Wildikg v. San- 
 derson - - [1897] 2 Ch. 634 
 Hicks V. Gardner - - (1837) 1 Jur. 541 
 Distinguished by Kekewioh J. Leeds 
 AND Hanley Theatre of Varieties v. 
 Bkoadbent [1897] W. N. 175 (9) ; 
 This case was reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 343 
 
OCOXXX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES EOLLOWEt), OVEREULED, &c!., 
 
 Higgim y. Scott - - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 10 
 
 Approved and followed by C. A. Jones 
 V. Maoaulay - [1891] 1 Q. B. 221 
 
 Sigginson v. Hall - (1878) 10 Ch. D. 235 
 
 Followed. SooTT v. Consolidated Bank 
 
 [1893] W. N. 86 
 
 Higgimm v. Simpson - (1877) 2 C. P. D. 76 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Hakvet 
 V. Habt [1894] W. N. 72 
 
 -ETiWjge v. O'Farrell (1881) 8 L. R. Ir. 158 
 
 Approved by C. A. Kemmington v. 
 ScoLES - - [1897] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Hill (^Viscount) v. Bullock [1897] 2 Ch. 55 
 
 Affirmed by G. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 482 
 
 Hill V. Cooper - [1893] 2 Q. B. 85 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 Hughes C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 529, 835 
 
 mil V. Croolc - (1873) L. E. 6 H. L. 265 
 Followed by North J. In re Jeans. 
 Upton v. Jeans - [1895] W. N. 98 
 
 Hill V. Hair - [1895] 1 Q. B. 906 
 
 Disapproved. Bradfokd v. Matok, &c., 
 OF Eastbourne [1896] 2 ft. B. 205 
 
 Disapproved of by Div. Ct. Seal v. 
 Mekthvb Tydfil Urban Codnoil 
 
 [1897] 2 ft. B. 843 
 
 Hill v. Rowlands - - [1897] W. N. 68 (3) 
 
 Aflirmed by C. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 361 
 
 Hill V. Scott [1895] 2 Q. B. 371 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 713 
 
 Hill v. South Staffordshire By. Co., (1874) L. E. 
 18 Eq. 154. 
 
 See London, Chatham and Dover Ey. 
 Co. V. South Eastern Ey. Co. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch, 120; [1893] A. C. 429 
 
 Hill v. Tliomas C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 333 
 
 See Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. u. 29), o. 1 (3). 
 
 Followed by C. A. Etherley Grange 
 Coal Co. v. Acceiand Distkict High- 
 way Board - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 37 
 
 Hill Y. Wallasey Local Board [1892] 3 Ch. 117 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 133 
 
 Hilton V. Tipper, (1868) 18 L. T. 626 ; 16 W. E. 
 8SS. 
 Overruled by 55 & 56 Vict. c. 13, s. 3. 
 
 Hinchliffe, In re [1895] 1 Ch. 117 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Sloane v. 
 
 Britaln Steamship Co. 
 
 [1897] 1 ft. B. 185 
 "Hinde (/. B.)," The [1892] P. 231 
 
 Applied by G. Barnes J. The Six 
 
 Sisters [1900] P. 302 
 
 Hindle v. Taylor (1855) 5 De G. M. & G. 577 
 
 Approved by P. C. Trew v. Perpetual 
 
 Trustee Co. [1898] A. C. 264 
 
 Hindson v. Ashiy ■ [1896] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Discussed by North J. Eoroyd v. 
 
 Coclthaed [1897] 2 Ch. 884, 869 ; 
 
 ,C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 389 
 
 Hipgrave v. Case ■ - (1885) 28 Ch. D. 356 
 
 Eelied on by Stirling J. Nicholson v. 
 
 Brown [1897] W. N. 82 (13) 
 
 Hipwell V. Hipwell - - [1892] P. 147 
 
 Considered. Haktopp v. Hartopp 
 
 [1899] P. 65 
 
 Hirth.Inre - - [1898] W. N. 164 (3) 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 612 
 
 Hitchcock V. Stretton - [1892] 2 Ch. 343 
 
 Distinguished. In re Baylis 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 Hitchins v. Brown - - (1845) 2 C. B. 25 
 
 See Mann v. Johnson [1893] W. H. 196 
 
 Hobbs V. Midland By. Go. (1882) 20 Ch. D. 418 
 Discussed. Dunbill v. North EAfTEEN 
 Ey. Co. C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 121 
 
 Hohson's Trusts, In re, (1878) 7 Ch. D. 708, not 
 overruled iby In re Smith, (1888) 40 
 Ch. D. 383. Per Stirling J. In re 
 Morgan [1900] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 Hochster v. De la Tour - (1853) 2 E. & B. 678 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Ehymney Ky. Co. 
 V. Brecon and Meethyr Tydfil Junc- 
 tion Ey. Co. - [1900] W. N. 169 
 
 Hoddinott v. Newton, Cliambers & Co., [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 1018. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1900] "W. N. 269 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Maude v. Bbook 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 575, 578, 580 
 
 Hodgson, In re (1885) 31 Ch. D. 177, 188 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. McLeod r. 
 
 Power - [1898] 2 Ch. 295 
 
 Hodgson v. Hal ford - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 959 
 Followed by Byrne J. Wainweight v. 
 Miller - [1897] 2 Ch. 255 
 
 Hodgson v. Hodgson ■ (1837) 2 Keen, 704 
 Discussed by Chitty J. Bolton v. 
 Salmon - [1891] 2 Ch. 48 
 
 Hodson v. Tea Co. (1880) 14 Ch. D. 859 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Wallace v. 
 
 Univeksal Automatic Machines Co. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 847 
 Hogarth v. Miller Brother & Co., (1889) 16 E. 
 
 599 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 48 
 
 Hogarth v. Walker - [1899] 2 Q. B. 401 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 283 
 
 Holhorn Guardians v. Chertsey Guardians, (1885) 
 15 Q. B. D. 76. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Lodge v. Huddees- 
 field Corporation [1898] 1 ft. B, 889 
 
 Holden, In re - (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 43 
 
 Approved by C. A. in re Carter and 
 K-Enderdine's Contract 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 Holden v. Weeltes - (1860) 1 J. & H. 278 
 
 Explained by Eomer J. Ecclesiastical 
 
 COMMES. V. WoDEHOUSE 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 552 
 
 Holdsworth v. Davenport - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 185 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Parkek 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 682 
 
 Hole Y. Bradbury - (1879) 12 Ch. D. 886 
 
 Applicable. Grippiths v. Tower Pub- 
 
 LisHiKG Co. - - [1897] 1 Ch. 21 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Solford, Inre ' - [1894] 3 Ch. 30 
 
 Not applicable. In re Atbrill 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 623 
 
 Holland v. Hodgson - (1872) L. E. 7 C. P. 328 
 Explained. Hobson v. Goreinge 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 182 
 
 Holland v. King - - (1848) 6 0. B. 727 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Dibbins v. 
 DiBBiNS - [1896] 2 Ch. 348 
 
 Holland v. Letlie - (1894) 2 Q. B. 346 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 450 
 
 Holland v. Wallen (1894) 70 L. T. (N.S.) 376 
 See 57 & 58 Yiot. c. coxiii., ss. 5 (20), 
 75. 
 
 Holland v. Worletj (1884) 26 Ch. D. 578 
 
 Considered by 0. A. Martin ■». Price 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 Holies V. Carr - (1676) 3 Sw. 638 
 
 Followed by Buckley J. Buckland v. 
 BucBXAND [1900] 2 Ch. 634, 540 
 
 HoUiday v. National Telephone Co., [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 221. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 392 
 
 HoUiday v. Waliefield Corporation, (1888) 20 
 Q. B. D. 699. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 81 
 Eeferred to. In re Lord Gerard and 
 London and North Western Rt. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 464 
 Inapplicable. Gontt v. Manchester, 
 Sheffield and Lincolnshire Et. Co. 
 C. A. [1896] 2 a. B. 439 
 
 HollinraJce v. Truswell - [1893] 2 Ch. 377 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1894] 3 Ch. 420 
 Followed. BoosET v. Weight 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 122, 128 
 
 Hollins V. Verney - (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 304 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Smith v. 
 Baxter - C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 HoUis V. SuHon - - [1892] 3 Ch. 226 
 
 Explained by North J. In re Beent 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 499, 601 
 
 Holme V. BrunsltUl - (1877) 3 Q. B. D. 495 
 Discussed by Chitty J. Bolton v. 
 Salmon - - [1891] 2 Ch. 48 
 
 Holmes and Formey, In re - [1895] 1 Q. B. 174 
 
 Distinguished. In re Llotd and Tooth 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 569, 863 
 
 Holmes v. Millage - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 551 
 
 Considered by 0. A. Cadogan v. Ltrio 
 Theatre - - [1894] 3 Ch. 338 
 
 Holmes Oil Co. v. Fumpherton Oil Co., (1890) 
 
 17 E. 624. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc). 
 
 [1891] W. N. 142 
 Holt, In re - - (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 29 
 
 Met by 59 & 60 Vict. o. 26. 
 
 HoUY.HeweU - - (1845) 4 Hare, 446 
 
 Followed by C. A. Stephens v. Green. 
 Green v. Knight - [1895] 2 Ch. 148 
 
 Holt V. Jesse - - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 177 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Hickman v. Berens 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 Holt & Co.'s Trade-marh, In re, [1895] "W. N. 
 
 1,54 (14). 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1896] 1 Ch. 711 
 Holtly V. Hodgson (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 103 
 
 See Atlespord (Countess op) v. Great 
 
 Western Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 626 
 
 Dictum of Lindley L.J. at p. 108 
 
 doubted by Div. Ct. In re Hbwett. 
 
 Ex parte Levene 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 328, 332 
 Home Investment Society, In re, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 
 
 167. 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 
 London Metallurgical Co. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 758 
 Home Marine Insurance Co. v. Smith, [1898] 1 
 
 B 829 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 381 
 
 Honduras By. Co. v. Tuclcer (1877) 2 Ex. D. 301 
 Followed by C. A. Bennetts & Co. v. 
 M'Ilwraith & Co. [1896] 2 Q. B. 464 
 
 Hong Kong and China Gas Co., In re, [1898] 
 W. N. 158 (3). 
 
 Followed. In re Copiapo Mining Co. 
 [1899] W. N. 26 (1) 
 
 Honywood T. Honywood, (1874) L. E. 18 Eq. 
 309, 310. 
 
 The exception at p. 310 of this case in 
 favour of owners of timber estates con- 
 sidered by C. A. Dashwood v. Magniao 
 (No. 1) [1891] 3 Ch. 306 
 
 Hood & Sons v. Yates - [1894] 1 Q. B. 240 
 Commented upon by C. A. Townend 
 ■o. Kirkham - - [1898] 1 Q. B. 81 
 
 Hood Barrs v. Cathcart [1894] 2 Q. B. 559, 570 
 Eeasoning on one point overruled. Hood 
 Barrs v. Heriot [1896] A. C. 174 
 
 Hood Barrs v. Cathcart (No. 2) [1894] 3 Ch. 376 
 Approved. Hood Barrs v. Heriot 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 172, 177 
 
 Hood Barrs v. Heriot C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 610 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Hood 
 Barrs v. Grossman and Pritohard 
 
 [1897] A. C, 172 
 
 Hooper v. Smart - - (1875) 1 Ch. D. 90 
 
 Eeferred to by Eomer J. Graham v. 
 Drummond - [1896] 1 Ch. 968 
 
 Hope, Inre - - (1874) L. E. 7 Ch. 523 
 
 Discussed by North J. In re A Solicitor 
 (No. 3) - [1895] 2 Ch. 66 
 
 Hope, In re. Be Cetto v. Hope [1899] W. N. 78 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 679 
 
 Hope V. Campbell - - (1896) 23 R. 513 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) [1899] A. C. 1 
 
 Hope V. WaXter, [1898] W. N. 36 (12) ; [1899] 
 
 1 Oh. 879. 
 
 Affirmed in part and reversed in part 
 by 0. A. - - [1900] 1 Ch. 267 
 
 Hope's Settlement, In re - [1899] 2 Ch. 691, u. 
 Approved of. In re Hope. De Cetto 
 V. Hope - C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 679 
 
 Hopkinson y. Bolt - (1861) 9 H. L. C. 514 
 
 Eeferred to. West v. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 132 
 
CccXSxu 
 
 TABLE OV CASES ]?OLL0WED, OVEKBULBD, &o., 
 
 Eorhury Bridge Coal, Iron and Waggon Go., (1879) 
 llCh. D. 109. 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 BiDWELL Beotheks - [1893] 1 Ch. 603 
 
 Home and Hellard, In re (1885) 29 Oh. D. 736 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Bkunton 
 V. Electrical Engineebing! Cobpoea- 
 TION [1892] 1 Ch. 434 
 
 Horner, In re. Eanleton v. Horner, (1888) 37 
 Ch. D. 695. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Hae- 
 EisOH - - - [1894] 1 Ch. 661 
 
 Hornsey District Council v. Smith, [1897] W. N. 
 i (6). ^ 
 AfBrmed by C. A. - [1897] 1 Ch. 843 
 
 Horsey Estate, Ld. v. Sfeiger [1898] 2 Q. B. 259 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Q, B. 79 
 Distinguished by Buckley J. Paknell 
 V. City of London Beeweet Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 496 
 
 Horsey's Claim - - (1868) L. E. 5 Eq. 561 
 
 Applied by V. Williams J. In re New 
 Oeiental Bank Coeporation (No. 2) 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 753 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Ewaet v. 
 Feyee - [1900] W. N. 82 
 
 Horton v. Bosson - - [1899] W. N. 23 (8) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] W. N. 38 (4) 
 
 HoHon V. Hall - (1874) L. E. 17 Eq. 437 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Tdokee 
 (No. 1) - [1893] 2 Ch. 323 
 
 HosTcin's Trusts, In re (1877) 6 Ch. D. 281 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Teeasuee - [1900] 2 Ch. 648, 661 
 
 Hougli V. Edwards - (1856) 1 H. & N. 171 
 
 Questioned by Div. Ct. Cole v. Eley 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 180 ; 
 afarmed by C. A. [1894] 2 a. B. 350 
 
 Houghton Estate, In re - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 102 
 Considered. In re Lord Geraed's Set- 
 tled Estates - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 Houlston V. Woodward, Annual Practice, 1893, 
 p. 1028. 
 
 Considered and extended by Keke- 
 wich J. Tayloe 1!. EoE (No. 2) 
 
 [1893] W. N. 26 
 
 Household, In re - (1884) 27 Ch. D. 553 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Loed 
 De Tabley [1896] W. N. 162 (16) 
 
 Housing of the Worhing Classes Act, 1890, In re. 
 Ex parte Stevenson [1892] 1 Q. B. 394 
 Affirmed by G. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 609 
 
 How T. London and North Western By. Co., [1891] 
 2 Q. B. 496. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1892] 1 Q. B. 391 
 
 Howard v. Bennett & Sons, (1888) 58 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 129 ; 60 L. T. (N.S.) 152. 
 Considered by G. A. Wild v. Waygood 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 783 
 
 Howard v. Jalland - - [1891] W. N. 210 
 
 Approved of by Byrne J. In re Noeton 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 Howard v. Lupton ■ (1875) L. E. 10 Q. B. 598 
 Not followed by Div. Ct. Woolwich 
 Local Bd. of Health v. Gardiner 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 497 
 
 Howard v. latent Ivory Manufacturing Co., 
 (1888) 33 Oh, D. 156. 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Bagot 
 Pnedmatio Tyke Co. v. Clipper Pneu- 
 matic Tyee Co. [1900] W. H. 272 
 Howard's Settled Estates, In re, [1892] 2 Oh. 233 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re 
 Eael Straffoed and Maples 
 
 [1895] W.N. 147 (10); 
 This case reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 236 
 Howleach Coal Co. v. Teague, (1860) 5 H. & N. 
 151. 
 
 Considered. Dawson v. Apeican Con- 
 solidated Land and Teading Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 6 
 Howden {Lord), In the Goods of, (1874) 43 L. J. 
 (P. & M.) 26. 
 
 Followed by Barnes J. In the Goods 
 OF LOCKHAET [1893] W. K. 80 
 
 Hmoe V. Dartmouth (Earl of), (1802) 7 Yea. Jun. 
 137a ; 6 E. E. 96. 
 Eeferred to. In re Eaton 
 
 [1894] W. N. 95 
 Eeferred to. In re Nicholson 
 
 [1895] W. N. 106 
 Eule in, inapplicable. In re Pitoaiun 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 199 
 Eeferred to. In re Game 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 881 
 Inapplicable. In re Bland 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 336 
 Howitt V. Nottingham Tramways Co., (1883) 12 
 Q. B. D. 16. 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Alldeed v. West 
 Meteopolitan Teams Co. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 398 
 Hewlett V. Maidstone Corporation, C. A. [1891] 
 2 Q. B. 110. 
 
 See Luuacy Act, 1890 (58 Vict. c. 5), 
 s. 342. 
 Hubbard, Ex parte - (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 690 
 Approved by H. L. (E.) Charlbswoeth 
 V. Mills - [1892] A. C. 231 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Morris r. 
 Delobbel-Plipo [1892] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 Huber, In the Goods of - [1896] P. 209 
 
 See Pouey v. Hoedeen [1800] 1 Ch. 492 
 
 Huddersfield Corporation v. Bavensthorpe Urban 
 
 Council, [1897] 1 Oh. 652. 
 
 Eeversed by 0. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 Hudson V. Ede - (1872) L. E. 3 Q. B. 412 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Smith & Sekyice v. 
 
 EosARio Nitrate Co. 
 
 [1894] 1 a. B. 174, 178 
 Hudson's Trade-marlcs, In re, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 
 
 311. 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. In re Smoke- 
 less POWDEE Oo.'S TkADE-MAKK 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 690 
 Huggins v. London and South WaUs Colliery Co., 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 496. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 699 
 Hughes, In re - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 595 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Gentle v. 
 
 Faulkner [1900] 2 Q. B. 267, 274 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Hughes v. Edwardes - (1890) 18 E. 319 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1892] A. C. 583 
 Httghea v. PritaJiard - (1877) 6 Ch. D. 24 
 Eefevied to. In re Morkis 
 
 [1894] W. N. 85 
 Hugill v. Willdmon (1888) 38 Ch. D. 480 
 
 Explained and distinguished by Stir- 
 ling J. In re Owen - [1894] 3 Ch, 320 
 Hugumin v. Bmeley, (1807) 14 Ves. 278 ; 9 E. R. 
 148, 276 ; Preface vi. 
 Referred to by C. A. Baekon v. Willis 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 121, 131 
 Hull, Barndey and West Biding Junction By. Co., 
 In re, [1893] W. K. 83. 
 Followed by Stirling J. Ex parte 
 Bbadfoed and District Tramways Co. 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 463 
 Hull Docks Co. V. Sculcoates Union, [1894] 2 Q. B. 
 69. 
 
 Partly affirmed and partlv reversed by 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 136 
 
 Humble v. Shore ■ (1847) 7 Hare, 247 
 
 Overruled. In re Palmer 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 369 
 
 •Hume V. Bentley - (1852) 5 De G. & Sm. 520 
 
 Followed by North J. In re National 
 
 Provincial Bank of England and 
 
 Marsh [1895] 1 Ch. 190 
 
 Hwmmel v. Hummel - - [1898] 1 Oh. 642 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 
 Price - - [1900] 1 Ch. 442 
 
 Humphreys v. Green (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 148, 156 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. Millee & 
 
 Aldwobth, Ld. v. Sharp 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 622 
 
 Humphreys v. Jones - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 30 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Smith v. 
 
 Lancaster - [1894] 3 Ch. 439 
 
 Hunt V. Harris - (1865) 19 C. B. (N.S.) 13 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. Fillikgham v. 
 
 Wood - - [1891] 1 Ch. 51 
 
 Hunt V. Hunt - - [1897] 2 Q. B. 304 
 
 Reversed by 0. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 647 
 
 Hunt V. White, (1868) 87 L. J. (Ch.) 826; 16 
 W. R. 478. 
 
 Overruled by G. A. Page v. Midland 
 Ey. Co. - - [1894] 1 Ch. 11 
 
 Hunter, In re. Hood v. Attorney-Oeneral, [1897] 
 1 Ch. 518. 
 
 Reversed by 0. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 105 
 C. A., [1897] 2 Ch. 105, reveraerl, except 
 as to costs, by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 Hunter v. Att.-Gen. & Hood 
 
 [1899] A, C. 309 
 
 Hunter v. Dowling (No. 1) [1893] 1 Ch. 391 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 212 
 
 Hunter v. Walters - (1871) L. E. 7 Oh. 75 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. King v. 
 
 Smith [1900] 2 Ch. 425, 429 
 
 Huntingdon v. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1896] 
 
 1 Q. B. 422. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 
 0. 10), s. 6. 
 
 Sei aUo Inland Eevbndb Cojimrs. v. Tod 
 p. L. (Sc.) [189S] A. C. 399 
 
 Huntley v. Russell - (1884) 13 Q. B. 572 
 
 Followed by Romer J. Ecclesiastical 
 OoMMRS. V. WoDEHOirsE [1895] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 Hurley, In re - ~ (1893) 10 Morr. 120 
 
 Approved and followed by 0. A. In re 
 Bbeston [1899] 1 Q. B. 626 
 
 Hurley v. Hurley & Menzies - [1891] P. 367 
 Followed by the President. Dblafoeoe 
 V. Delaeorce - [1892] W. N. 68 
 
 Hutchinson and Tenant, In re, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 
 ■ 540. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Hamil- 
 ton [1895] 1 Ch. 373 ; [1898] 2 Ch, 370 
 
 Hutton V. Annan - [1896] 24 R. 851 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So,) [1898] A, C. 289 
 
 Hutton T. Scarborough Cliff Hotel Co., (1865) 
 2 Drew. & Sm. 621. 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.) British 
 AND American Trustee and Finance 
 Corporation v. Couper 
 
 [1894] A, C. 399 
 
 Overruled. Andrews v. Gas Meter Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 361 
 
 Observed upon by Romer J. In re 
 
 James Colmeh, Ld. - [1897] 1 Ch. 524 
 
 Hutton V. West Cork By. Co., (1883) 23 Ch. D. 
 654. 
 
 Distinguished. Kate v. Croydon Tram- 
 ways Co. C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 358 
 
 Hydarnes Steamship Co. v. Indemnity Mutual 
 Marine Assurance Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 
 590. 
 Eetrersed by C. A. [1895] 1 Q, B. 500 
 
 Hyde v. Hyde 
 
 Followed 
 Carter 
 
 Hyde v. Warden 
 
 Questioned. 
 V. Dent 
 
 - (1865) 4 Sw. & Tr. 80 
 
 by Barnes J. Carter ■». 
 
 [1896] P. 35 
 
 (1877) 3 Ex. D. 72 
 
 Eastern Telegraph Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 835 
 
 leheringill's Estate, In re (1881) 17 Ch. D. 151 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. In re Boyd 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 232 
 
 Imperial Mercantile Credit Association v, Coleman, 
 (1871) L. R. 6 Oh. 558 (which has not 
 been overruled on this point by S. C, 
 (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. 189). 
 Followed by Byrne J. Costa Rica Ry. 
 Co. 1,. FORWOOD - [1900] 1 Ch. 756 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Tuenbull v. 
 West Riding Athletic Club (Leeds) 
 [1894] W. N. 4 
 
 Inchiquin (Lord), Ex parte - [1891] 8 Ch. 2S 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Inter- 
 national Gable Co. [1892] W. N. 34 
 And again in In re The Printing, Tele- 
 graph and Construction Co. oe the 
 Agbnce Havas. Ex parte Cammell 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 628 
 
 This last case was affinned by 0. A. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch, 392 
 
COOXXXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEDLED, &o., 
 
 Income Tax Commrs. v. Femsel, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 
 296. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 631 
 Followed by 0. A. Inland Eevenue 
 CoMMKS. V. Scott [1892] 2 Q. B. 152 
 KefeiTed to by Kekewicli J. In re, 
 NoTTAGE C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 649 
 
 Referred to by G. A. In re Macduff 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 466 
 Distinguished bv C. A. Ctjnnack v. 
 Edwards ■ [1896] 2 Ch. 685 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Buck 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 727 
 
 Ind, Goope & Go. v. Samblin [1900] W. "NT. 24 
 Reversed by 0. A. [1900] W. N . 270 
 
 India in Council (Secretary of State for) v. 
 Kamaohee Boye Saliaba, (1859) 13 Moo. 
 P. C. 22. 
 Followed. Cook v. Spkigo 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 572 
 
 " India," The - (1863) 32 L. J. (Ad.) 185 
 Overruled by C. A. The "Mecca" 
 
 [1895] P. 95 
 
 I-iKilehii and Boalc and Norwich Union Insurance 
 Co., In re, (1883) L. E. (L) 13 Ch. D. 
 326. 
 
 Eeferi-ed to by Byrne J. In re Pixton 
 AND Tong's Contract 
 
 [1897] W. N. 178 (5) 
 
 InnHs V. Gillanders - (1895) 22 E, 266 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 507 
 
 Innes v. Sayer - (1851) 3 Mae. & G. 606 
 
 Followed by Kekewich .T. In re HuD- 
 DLESTON - [1894] 3 Ch. 595 
 
 Institute of Patent Agents v. Lochwood, (1893) 
 20 E. .°>l.'i, reversed in part by H. L. (Sc.), 
 [1894] W. N. 105; [1894] A. C. 347. 
 Discussed by V. Williams J. Iii re 
 London and General Bank ( No. 3) 
 
 [1894] W. N. 155 
 
 lonides v. Pacific Insurance Co., (1871) L. E. 
 6 Q. B. 682: (1872) L. E. 7 Q. B. 517. 
 Dictum in adopted by P. C. Davies v. 
 National Fire, &c., Insurance Co. op 
 New Zealand 
 
 [1891] A. 0. 485, at p. 491 
 
 Iredale v. China Traders Insurance Co., [1899] 2 
 Q. B. 356. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B, 515 
 
 Ireland {Governor and Co. of the Bant! of) v. 
 McCarthy ■ [1897] 1 L R. 86 
 
 Affirmed H. L. (I.) [1898] A. C. 181 
 
 Irons V. Davis and Timmins, Ld., [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 330. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Pomphrev v. South- 
 WABK Press - [1900] W. N. 266 
 
 Irrine v. Sidlivan 
 
 Referred to. 
 
 - (1869) L. E. 8 Eq. 673 
 Williams v. Williams 
 C. A, [1879] 2 Oh, 12 
 
 Jnvine V. Beddish ~ (1822) 5 B. & AM. 796 
 Refej-refl to by Q. A, Avery v. Wood 
 [1891] ? Ob, W 
 
 Isaac's Case - - - [1892] 2 Ch. 15S 
 
 Dictum of Stirling J., at p. 164, followed 
 by Kekewich J. In re Bread Supply 
 Association - [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Ux parte Cam- 
 mell - [1894] 2 Ch. 392 
 
 Isis Steamship Co. v. Bahr & Go. [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 364. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 340 
 
 Islington and General Electric Supply, In re, 
 [1892] W. N. 81. 
 
 Considered by V. Williams J. In re 
 Mining Shares Investment Co. 
 
 [1893J 2 Ch. 660, at p. 664 
 
 Islington Vestry v. Goodman, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 
 154. 
 
 Overruled by Div. Ct. Fortescue v. 
 Vestry of St. Matthew, Bethnal 
 Green [1891] 2 Q. B. 170 
 
 Iocs, In re. Ex parte Addington, (1886) 16 
 Q. B. D. 670, 671. 
 
 Dicta of Cave J. in, dissented from. 
 Montgomery & Co. i. De Bulmes 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 420 
 
 Ices & Burher v. Willans [1894] 1 Ch. 68 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 Ch, 478 
 
 Jahlochlcoff's Patent, In re - [1891] A. C. 293 
 Distinguished by P. C. Marshall's 
 Patent [1891] A, C, 430 
 
 Jachman v. Mitchell, (1807) 13 Ves. 581 ; 9 E. B. 
 229. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re MoHenry 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 365 
 
 Jachson, In re - - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 786 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re De 
 Teissier's Settled Estates 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Lord 
 De Tabley [1896] W. N, 162 (16) 
 
 Jackson v. Barry By. Co. [1893] 1 Ch. 238 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Bright 
 V. EivEB Plate Construction Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 835, 838 
 
 Jachson v. Hamilton - (1846) 3 J. & Lat. 702 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. In re Williams 
 
 [1895] W. N. 36 
 
 Jaclcson Co.'s Trade-marli, In re, (1889) 6 
 Eop. Pat. Cas. 80. 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re 
 Densham's Trade-mark 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 176, 183 
 
 Jacltson cf- Co , In re - [1899] 1 Ch. 348 
 
 Distinguished. Transvaal Exploring 
 Co. 11. Albion (Transvaal) Gold Mixes, 
 Ld. [1899] 2 Ch. 370 
 
 " Jacob Landstrom," The (1878) 4 P. D. 191, 193 
 Dissented from by Bruce J. The 
 " Strathgarey " [1895] P. 264 
 
 Jacobs V. Credit Lyoimaia (1884) J2 Q. B. D. 589 
 Principle in, applied, Sodth African 
 PBIs-'SiaES V. ^im [1889] 3 Ch. IT? 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Jacoly V. Whitmore, (1883) 32 W. R. 18, 19 ; 49 
 L. T. 335. 
 
 Dictum of Cotton L.J. followed by 
 Nortli J. Batho v. Tunes 
 
 [1892] W. N. 101 
 Applied by Farwell J. Townsend v. 
 Jaeman - - [1900] a Ch. 698 
 
 James, Ex parte (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 609 
 
 Referred to by Kekewioh J. In re This 
 Opera, Ld. - - [1891] 2 Ch. 154 
 
 James v. Buena Ventura Nitrate Grounds Syndi- 
 cate, [1896] 1 Oh. 456. 
 Oonsidered by 0. A. Allen v. Gold 
 Reefs of West Afkica, Ld. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 656 
 
 James v. Carr - - (1890) 7 Times L. R. 4 
 
 Considered. Whittaker v. Scar- 
 borough Post Newspaper Co. 
 
 G. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 148 
 
 James v. Jones - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 304 
 
 See now Sale of Food and Drjgs Act, 
 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51), s. 26. 
 
 James v. Smith - [1891] 1 Cli. 384 
 
 Aflftrmed by C. A. [1891J-W. N. 175 
 Note. — The C. A. did not decide whether 
 the Statute of Frauds applied. J^ 
 
 Jamieson v. Trevelyan - (1854) 10 Ex. 269 
 
 Explained by Stilling J. De Hoghton 
 V. Ue Hoghton • [1896]^ Ch. 385 
 
 Jamieson and Newcastle SteamsMp Ft^iglil In- 
 surance Association, In rei [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 510. 
 Reversed by C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 80 
 
 Jardine v. Jardine - (1881) 6 P. D. 213 
 
 Head-note in, corrected. Watkins ii. 
 Watkins - 0. A. [1896] P. 222, 226 
 
 Jarvis & Co., In re - - [1899] 1 Ch. 193 
 
 Distinguished by Cozem-Hardy J. In 
 re Whitehead & Brotbeb.-!, Ld. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 804 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Daw- 
 nay, Ld. - - [1900] W. N. 152 
 
 Jay V. Johnstone ■ [1893] 1 Q. B. 25 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 189 
 
 Jee V. Awiley (IIST) 1 Cox, 324; 1 R. E. 46 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Hooking 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 667 
 Jcfery, In re - [1891] 1 Cli. 671 
 
 Dissented from by Cliittv J. In re 
 Burton's Will [1892] 2 Ch. 38 
 
 But adhered to by North J. In re Adams 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 329 
 Followed with reluctance by Keke- 
 wioh J. In re Caldwell 
 
 [1894] W. N. 13 
 Overraled by C. A. In re Holford 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 30 
 
 Jeffrey v. Paul - - 1 Shaw & McL. 767 
 
 Dibcussed by H. L. (So.) Heritable 
 and Revebsionaey Co. V. Millar ■ 
 
 [1892] A. C. 693, 607, 618 
 
 Jeffryea V. BeynoMs - (1882) 52 L.jJ. (Q.B) 55 
 
 Apprpyed of by 0. A. D;i::w u. Willis 
 
 t^ ■ [1891] -Jl^. B. 459, 153 
 
 Jegon v. Viuian - - (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 742 
 
 Principle applied. Whitwham v. West- 
 minster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 Jellard, In re - - (1888) 39 Ch. D. 424 
 
 Doubted, but followed by Kekowich J. 
 In re Stanway's Trusts 
 
 [1892] "W. N. 11 
 
 Jenldns v. Bushhy - [1891] 1 Ch. 484 
 
 Explained. Mangan v. Metropolitan 
 Electric Supply Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch, 551 
 
 Jenkins v. Bdbertson, (1866) L. R. 1 H. L. (So.) 
 117. 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 South American and Mexican Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 37 
 
 Jenltinson v. Brandley Mining Co., (1887) 19 
 Q. B. D. 568. 
 
 Overruled by C. A. In re Standard 
 Manufacturing Co. [1891] 1 Ch. 627 
 
 Jenltinson v. Sarcourt - — (1 854) Kay, 688 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. In re 
 Anthony (No. 2) [1893] 3 Ch. 498 
 
 Jenlcs V. Turpin - (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 505 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. Fairtlough r. 
 Whitmore - [1895] W. N. 52 
 
 Jenner-Fust v. Needliam, (1880) 32 Ch. D. 582, 
 observed upon. 
 S^e Aylward v. Lewis [1891] 2 Ch. 81 
 
 Jennings v. Jordan - (1881) App. Cas. 698 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Pledge v. 
 Carr [1894] 2 Ch. 238 ; 
 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 [1895] 1 Ch, 51 ; H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 187 
 Form of order followed by North J. 
 Biddulph 17. Billiter Street Offices 
 Co. [1895] W. N. 98 
 
 Referred to by Stirlinj; J. Eiley v. 
 Hall [1898] W. N, 81 (9) 
 
 Jennings v. Ward - (1705) 2 Vern. 520 
 
 Explained and distinguished. Biggs t. 
 Hoddinott C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 307 
 
 Jersey (JEarl of) v. Neatli Union, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 
 555. 
 
 Explained by Byrne J. Johnstone v. 
 Crompton & Co. [1899] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 Jesus College, Cambridge, Ex parte, (1884) VV. N. 
 37. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Ex parte 
 VicAB of Castle Bytham 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 348 
 
 Jodrell, In re. Jodrell v. Scale, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 
 590. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Seale- 
 Haynev. Jodrell [1891] A. C. 304 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re GuE 
 
 [1892] W, N, 132 
 Followed by Jeune J. In the Goods of 
 AsHTON [1892] P, 83, 88 
 
 Eefen-cd to by Stirling J. In re Deajcin 
 [1894] 3 Ch, S65, 669 ' 
 Referred to by Kekowich J. In ro 
 
 fAJi^m r r [1897] a cb, S08, au 
 
CCOXXXVl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., 
 
 " Joliann Sverdrup," The, (1886) 11 P. D. 49 ; 12 
 P. D. 43. 
 
 Eeferred to by G. Barnes J. The 
 
 "Waesa-w" - - [1898] P. 127; 
 
 The " HoLAE " [1900] W. N. 240 
 
 Johannesburg Hotel Co., In re [1891] 1 Ch. 119 
 Approved. North Sydney Investment 
 AND Tramways Co. v. Higgins 
 
 [1899] A. C. 263 
 
 Johnson, Ex parte - (1884) 26 Oh. D. 338 
 
 Approved by P. C. Administeatok- 
 General of Jamaica v. Lascelles, De 
 Meeoado & Co. In re Eees' Bank- 
 ruptcy [1894] A. C. 135 
 
 Johnson v. Lindsay & Co., (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 508 
 Decision of 0. A. and Div. Gt. reversed 
 by H. L. (B.), and that of Grantham J. 
 restored [1891] A. C. 371 
 
 Judgment of H. L. (E.) approved by 
 P. C. Cameron v. Ntstrom 
 
 [1893] A. C. 308 
 See Johnson v. Lindsay & Co. (No. 2) 
 [1892] A. C. 110 
 
 Johnson v. Kaijlton (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 438 
 
 Qussre, superseded by 56 & 57 Vict. 
 0. 71, s. 14 (1). 
 
 Johnson v. Boyal Mail Steam Packet Co., (1867) 
 L. E. 3 C. P. 38. 
 
 Distinguished by Jeune P. The " Eipon 
 City" - [1898] P. 78 
 
 Johnson and Tustin, In re (1885) 30 Ch. D. 42 
 Applied by North J. In re Stamford, 
 &o., Co. AND Knight's Contract 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 287, 291 
 Johnston v. Swann, (1818) 3 Madd. 457 ; 18 E. E. 
 270. 
 
 Overruled if and so far as differing from 
 Lewis v. Allenhy. In re Piercy 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 565 
 Johnstone v. Buccleuch (Bulte of) (1891) E. 587 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1892] A. C. 625 
 
 Johnstone v. Haviland - (1895) 22 E. 396 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 95 
 
 Johnstone v. Milling (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 460, 471 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Ehtmney Ey. Co. 
 V. Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junc- 
 tion Ey. Co. - [1900] W. N. 169 
 
 Johnstone's Settlement, In re, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 162 
 Considered by Byrne J. In re Moses 
 
 [1900] W. N. 182 
 
 Jolly, In re. GathercoU v. Norfolk, [1900] 1 Ch. 
 292 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Ch. 616 
 
 Jones, In re - - (1869) L. E. 9 Eq. 63 
 
 Superseded. In re Sweeting 
 
 North J. [1898] 1 Ch. 268 
 Jones, In re - - (1885) 31 Ch. D. 440 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Briggs 
 
 [1894] W. N. 162 
 
 Principle of, applied. In re Bentinok 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch, 678 
 
 Jones, In re - - [1893] 2 Ch. 461 
 
 Applied by North J. In re Cook's 
 
 Mortgage - [1898] 1 Ch. 923, 925 
 
 Jones, In re - [1895] 2 Ch. 719 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 222 
 
 Jones V. Badley - (1868) L. E. 3 Ch. 362 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. In re Stead 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 237 
 
 Jones M. Barnett - - [1899] 1 Ch. 611 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 370 
 
 Jonea v. BiernsUin, [1899] W. N. 12 (10); [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 470. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 100 
 
 Jones V. Clifford - - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 779 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Jn re Nation.*! 
 PsovmoiAii Bank op England and 
 Marsh [1895] 1 Ch. 190 
 
 Jones V. Oroucher - (1822) 1 Sim. & St. 315 
 &e56&57 Vict. c. 21. 
 
 Jones V. Evans 
 
 Distinguished. 
 
 (1876) 2 Ch. D. 420 
 Davies v. Parry 
 
 , [1899] 1 Ch. 602 
 Jones V. German [1896] 2 Q. B. 418 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 1 ft, B. 374 
 
 Jones V. Hounh ■ - (1879) 5 Ex. D. 115 
 
 Conimented on by Mathew J. Eaynee 
 V. Eedehiaktiebolaget Condor 
 
 [1896] 2 ft. B. 289 
 Jones V nnland^evenue Commrs., [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 - 484. f 
 
 Followed. National Telephone Co. 
 V. Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 250; 
 1^ H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 232 
 Jones V. Jenner " - (1856) 25 L. J. (Ex. 319 
 The principle of, approved. Mont- 
 gomery & Co. v. De Bdlmes 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 ft. B. 420 
 Jones V. Jonea, [1896] P. 165, rule laid down at 
 p. 170. 
 Disapproved. Saunders ;■. Saunders 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 89 
 Explained by Jeune P. Edwards v. 
 Edwards [1897] P. 316 
 
 Jones V. Merionethshire Permanent Benefit Build- 
 ing Society, [1891] 2 Ch. 587. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 173 
 
 Jones V. Mills - (1861) 10 0. B. (N.S.) 788 
 
 Considered by Div. Ct. Bowen r. 
 Anderson [1894] 1 ft. B. 164 
 
 Jones V. St. John's College, (1870) L. E. 6 Q. B. 
 115. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Dodd v. Chur- 
 TON - - [1897] 1 ft. B. 562 
 
 Jones V. Selby - - (1710) Prec. Ch. 330 
 
 Followed by Mathew J. Mustatha r. 
 Wedlake - [1891] W. N. 201 
 
 Jones V. Simes - - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 607 
 
 Distinguished. Peebles v. O.'iWALD- 
 TwisTLE Urban District Council 
 
 0. A. [1896] 2 ft, B. 159 
 
 Jones V. Thome - - (1823) 1 B. & C. 715 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Eaplby v. S.-hakt 
 
 [1894] W. N. 2 
 
 Jones V. WestcomJ) - - 1 Eq. C. Ab. 245 
 
 Held not applicable by 0. A. In re 
 TreCwell (No. 1) [1891] 2 Cb. 640 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 CCOXXXVll 
 
 ■Jones V. Williams - (1843) 11 M. & W. 176 
 Considered by 0. A. Lemmon v, Webb 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 1 ; 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 1 
 
 ■Jones and Judgments Acls, 1864, In re, [1895] 
 W. N. 123 (10). 
 
 Doubted hyG. A. In re Harbison and 
 BoTTOMLEY [1899] 1 Ch. 465, 472 
 
 Joplin V. Postletlmaite, (1889) 61 L. T. (N.S.) 
 629. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Tubnell v. 
 Sandebson - [1891] W. N. 71 
 
 Explained by CLiitty J. Vawbbey v 
 Simpson - - [1896] 1 Ch. 166 
 
 Jordan, Ex parte - - (1892) 31 L. E. Ir. 1 
 
 Referred to. In re Galvin, [1897] 1 
 Ir. E. (Oh.) 520-534 
 
 Ch. Div. Ir. [1898] W. N. 140 
 
 Jorden y. Money - - (1854) 5 H. L. 0. 185 
 
 Approved. Chadwiok «. Manning 
 
 [1896] A. C. 231, 238 
 
 Jordeson v. Sutton, SoutJicoates and Drypool Gas 
 Co.. [1898] 2 Ch. 614. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 Joules' Trade-marks, In re. Tliompsdn v. Mont- 
 gomery, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 35./ 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub ;nom. Mont- 
 GOMEKT V. Thompson [1891] A. C. 217 
 
 Jowett V. Local Board of Idle [18^8] W. N. 87 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Penwiok v. Eueal 
 Sanitaby Authority of the Croydon 
 Union [1891] 2 ft. B. 216 
 
 ■Joys, In the Goods of - (1860) 4 Sw. & Tr. 214 
 Disapproved. Ladell r. Wilcocks 
 
 [1898] P. 21 
 
 ILarherg's Case - - [1892] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 Distinguished. Lynde v. Anglo- 
 Italian Hemp Spinning Co. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 178 
 
 May V. Atherton Local Board, (1878) 42 J. P. 792 
 Overruled by C. A. Gbaham v. Coe- 
 
 POEATION OF NeWCASTLE-IIPON-TyNE 
 
 [1893] 1 ft. B. 643 
 Maye v. Croydon Tramways Co; [1898] 1 Ch. 358 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Tiessen r. 
 
 Hendebson - [1899] 1 Ch. 861 
 
 miaye v. Sutherland (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 147 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Tassell v. 
 
 Hallen - [1892] 1 ft. B. 321 
 
 ■Kearney v. Lloyd - (1890) 26 L R. Ir. 268 
 
 Approved and followed. Hdtley v. 
 
 SniMONS - [1898] 1 ft. B. 181 
 
 %earnsy.Leaf - - (1864) 1 H& M. 681 
 
 Principle applied by C. A. Cummins v. 
 
 Peekins [1899]lCh. 16 
 
 ^eays v. Lane - - (1869) Ir. Eep. 3 Eq. 1 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Laing's-Settlement [1899] 1 Ch. 583 
 Jieehle Y.Bennett - - [1894] 2 Q. B. 329 
 
 ^stinguished. BAiLEy.^WATS^ON^& 
 
 Approved of. White u Headland's 
 Patent ELEOTErc Storage Battebt 
 Co. - - C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 607 
 
 Keehle v. Hiolcerinqill, (1705) 11 East, 574, n 
 
 11 E. E. 273, n. 
 
 Commented on. Allen v. Flood 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1898] A. C. 1 
 Kehoe y. Lansdowne (^Marquis of), (1891) 29 L. E. 
 
 Ir. 230. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) [1893] A. C. 451 
 Keighley, Maxsted & Co. and Durant & Co., In re, 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 405. 
 
 Principle in, applied. In re Palmee & 
 
 Co. AND HOSKEN & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 131, 137 
 
 Kelly, Ex parte - - (1893) 31 L. E. Ir. 137 
 Followed. In re Lloyd and Noeth 
 London Ey. (Citi Beanch) Act, 1861 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 397 
 Kelly, Inre - - [1895] 1 Q. B. 180 
 
 See Solicitors Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Viot. 
 c. 4). 
 Kelly V. Batclielar (1893) 10 Eep. Pat. Cas. 289 
 Distinguished by North J. Ddnlop 
 Pneumatic Tyee Co. i: Neal 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 807 
 Kelly V. Kelly - (1870) L. E. 2 P. & D. 31-59 
 Followed. Bethune v. Bethune 
 
 [1891] P. 205 
 And see Beacoleek v. Beabclebk 
 
 [1891] P. 189, 194 
 
 Kemp y. Bird - (1877) 5 Ch. D. 549, 974. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Ashby v. 
 
 Wilson - - [1900] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Kemp V. WanJdyn - [1894] 1 Q. B. 265 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1834] 1 ft. B. 583 
 
 Kemp V. Wright - - [1894^2 Ch. 462 
 
 Partially reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 121 
 See now Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. 0. 47), s. 10. 
 Decision of C. A. referred to by Stir- 
 ling J. BoTTEN r. City and Subueban 
 Peemanent Building Society 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 441 
 
 Kemp's Settled Estates, In re, (1883) 24 Ch. D. 
 485. 
 
 Observed upon. In re Eael of Stam- 
 ford - - [1896] A. C. 288 
 
 Kendall v. Samilton - (1879) 4 App. Cas. 504 
 Held not to apply. Wegg-Peossee v. 
 Evans - C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 108 
 
 Explained. Wilson, Sons & Co. v. 
 Baloaeres Brook Steamship Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 422 
 
 Kennard v. Simmons - (1884) 50 L. T. Rep. 28 
 See now 61 & 62 Vict. c. 49, s. 5. 
 
 Kennedy v. Be Traffard - [1896] 1 Ch. 762 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 180 
 
 Kennedy v. Kennedy - (1853) 10 Hare, 438 
 Distinguished. In re Sharland 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 617 ; C. A. [1896] W. N. 62 (17) 
 
 Kent V. Freehold Land and Briolcmaliing Co 
 (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. 493. 
 Discussed by Wright J. In^-e General 
 Railway Syndicate. Whitelev's 
 Case - - [1899] 1 Ch, 770 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch, 365 
 
 y 
 
CCOXXXVllI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., 
 
 Kent V. Stoney - (1859) 9 Ir. Ch. E. 249 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. Mulleb v. 
 Tbaitobd - [1900] W. N. 251 
 
 Kent V. Worthing Local Board of Health, (1882) 
 10 Q. B. D. 118. 
 
 Overruled. Thompson v. Bbishton 
 CoBPOKATioN C. A. [1894] 1 a. B. 332 
 
 Kent Coast My. Co. v. Lmidon, Chatham and Dover 
 By. Co., (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. 656. 
 FoUowed by Farwell J. Manchestek 
 Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Racb- 
 COTJBSB Co. - - [1900] 2 Ch. 3S2 
 
 Kent County Council v. Gerard (Lord), [1897] 
 
 A. C. 633. 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. u. 29, s. 12. 
 Kent County Council v. Humphrey, [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 
 903. 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Axtt v. Fakeell 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 636, 640 
 
 Kent County Council and Dover Council, Ex parte, 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 389. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 725 
 
 Kent County Council and Sandwich Council, Ex 
 parte, [1891] 1 Q. B. 389 ; 0. A. [1891] 
 1 Q. B. 725. 
 
 Overruled. Thetfoed Cobpoeation v. 
 Norfolk County Council 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 d. B. 468 
 
 Kenworthy v. Bate, (1802) 6 Ves. 793 ; 6 E. E. 46 
 
 Discussed by Kekewicb J. In re Paget 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 290 
 
 Kery.Ker ■ (1869) 4 Ir. Rep. Eq. 15 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Jones. 
 Faeeingtos c. Foster (No. 2) 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 461, at p. 473 
 
 Kernaghan v. M'Nally (1861) 12 Ir. Ch. Rep. 89 
 
 Commented on. Dalton v. Fitzgerald 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 86 
 
 Kerr v. Preston Corporation (1876) 6 Ch. D. 463 
 Considered by Stirling J. Grand Junc- 
 tion Wateewoeks Co. v. Hampton 
 Ueban Council [1898] 2 Ch. 331 
 
 Kersliato v. Taylor - - [1895] 2 Q. B. 208 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [189S] 2 ft. D. 471 
 Followed by Chitty J. Florence v. 
 Paddington Testey 
 
 [1895] W. N. 143 (9) 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. and C. A. Reg. 
 V. Bethnal Geeen Vestby 
 
 [1896] 2 ft. B. 96, 97, 319, 325 ; 
 H. I. (E.) [1898] A. C. 190 
 
 Kharaslchoma Exploring and Prospecting Syndi- 
 cate, In re. Pylce and Gibson's Case, 
 [1897] TV. N. 58 (1). 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 451 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re May- 
 NAEDS Ld. - [1898] 1 Ch. 515 ; 
 
 But In re Maynards, Ld., was dis- 
 sented from by C. A. In re S. 
 Feost & Co. - [1899] 2 Ch. 207 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re May's 
 Metal Sepaeating Syndicate 
 
 [1898] W. N. 159 (5) 
 See also Comp.'.nics Act, ]SS)S (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 Kibble V. Gough ' - (1878) 38 L. T. (N.S.) 204 
 
 Considered by 0. A. Tayloe v. Smith 
 
 [1893] 2 ft. B. 65 
 
 Kidderminster (Mayor of) v. Hardwiclc, (1873) 
 L. E. 9 Ex. 13. 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. Oxford Cobpo- 
 eation r, Ceow - [1893] 3 Ch. 535 
 
 Kidman v. Kidman - (1871) 40 L. J. (Ch.) 859 
 Followed by C. A. In re Woodin 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 309 
 
 Kimber v. Admans - - [1900] W. N. 23 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 412 
 
 King, Ex parte - - (1876) 2 Ch. D. 256 
 
 Approved by P. C. Administbatoe- 
 General of Jamaica t. Lascelles, De 
 Meboado & Co. In re Eees' Bank- 
 ruptcy - - [1894] A. C. 135 
 
 King v. Denison, (1813) 1 Ves. & B. 260 ; 12 R. R. 
 227. 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re West 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 84, 87 
 
 King v. Hoare - (1844) 13 M. & W. 494 
 
 FolloSved by Byrne J. McLeod v. 
 Power - - [1898] 2 Ch. 295 
 
 King v. ffuHon, [1899] W.N. 135; [1899] 2 Q.B. 
 5.')5. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 504 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Woodd 
 [1900] W. N. 84 
 
 King v. London Improved Cab Co., (1889) 23 
 Q. B. D. 281. 
 
 Followed, applied, and held by C. A. to 
 overrule King v. Spurr, (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 
 104. Keen v. Henry 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 292 
 
 King v. Spurr - - (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 104 
 
 Overruled by King v. London Improved 
 Cab Co., (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 281, per 
 C. A. Keen v. Henry 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 29e 
 
 King & Co., In re - - [1892] 2 Ch. 462 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Kay's 
 
 Patent - - [1894] W. N. 68 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Cliff 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 21, 25 
 
 King, Brown & Co. v. Brush Electric Light 
 'Corporation, Ld., (1890) 17 R. 1266. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) aub nom. Anglo- 
 American Brush Electric Light C!or- 
 pobation r. King, Bbown & Co. 
 
 [1892] A. C. 367 
 
 Kingham v. Kingham - [1897] 1 I. R. 170, 174 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Gjees - - [1899] 2 Ch. 54 
 
 Kingham v. Robins - (1839) 5 M. & W. 94 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Hennell v. 
 Davies - - [1893] 1 ft. B. 367 
 
 Kingsford v. Merry - (1850) 1 H. & N. 503 
 Discussed by C. A. Henderson & Co. 
 V. Williams - [1895] 1 ft. B. 521 
 
 Kingston Cotton Mill Co., In re, [1895] W. N. 
 138 (4). 
 Aflfirmed by C. A. - [1896] 1 Ch. S 
 
DUEING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Kingston Cotton Mill Co. (No. 2), In re, ri8961 1 
 Ch. 331. 
 Eeversed by C. A, - [1896] 2 Ch. 279 
 
 Kippen V. Darley (1858) 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 203 
 Followed. Johnstone v. Haviland 
 
 [1896] A. C. 95 
 
 Kirh V. Bell - - (1851) 16 Q. B. 290 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. Owen 
 
 AND Ashwobth's Claim. Whitwokth's 
 
 Claim - - [1900] 2 Ch. 272 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 256 
 
 KirlcheaUm Local Board v. Ainley & Sons & Co., 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 274. 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. and 0. A. In re 
 County Cotincil of Debbtshire and 
 Mayor, &c., op Derby 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 58, 299 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L, (E.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. 550 
 
 KirMeatham Local Board and StocMon and 
 Middleshorough Water Board, In re, 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 375. 
 
 Affirmed on another point by H. L. (E.) 
 ««6 nom. Stockton and Middles- 
 BOEOUGH Water Board v. Kirkleatham 
 Local Board - [1893] A. C. 444 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (So.). Edinbuegh 
 Street Teamways Co. v. Edineuegh 
 Corporation [1894] A. C. 456, 483 
 
 KirJiwood v. Webster (1878) 9 Ch. D. 239 
 
 Explained by Ry. Commrs. Glamorgan 
 County Council v. Great Western 
 Ry. Co. - [1895] 1 «. B. 21 
 
 Referred to by Chitty J. Dashwood v. 
 Magniac (No. 2) ■ [1892] W. N. 54 
 
 Kirwan's Trusts, In re - (1883) 25 Ch. D. 373 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. Hummel v. 
 Hummel - [1898] 1 Ch. 642 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Price [1900] 1 Ch. 442 
 
 Considered by Byrne J. Babeetto v. 
 Young - - [1900] 2 Ch. 339 
 
 Kleinwort, Sons <fe Co. v. Compioir National 
 d'Escompte de Paris, [1894] 2 Q. B. 157. 
 Followed by Collins J. IjACAVe & Co. 
 V. Ceedit Lyonnats [1897] 1 ft. B. 148 
 
 Knapp V. Burnahy - - (1861) 9 W. R. 765 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Hoenee 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 188 
 
 Knight, In re - - [1898] 1 Ch. 257 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Chatabd's Settlement 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 712, 718 
 
 Knight v. Boieyer, (1857) 23 Beav. 609 ; 2 Do G. 
 & J. 421. 
 
 Discussed by Farwell J. Hunt v. Luck 
 [1900] W. ». 250 
 
 Knight v. Simmonds - - [1896] 1 Ch. 653 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1896] 2 Ch. 294 
 
 Knight v. Whiimore (1885) 53 L. T. (N.S.) 233 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Veenon v. 
 Watson - [1891] 1 ft. B. 400 ; 
 
 This case was aihrmed by C. A. 
 
 [1891] 2 ft. B. 288 
 
 Knight and Tabernacle Permanent Building- 
 Society, In re (No. 1), [1891] 2 Q. B. 
 63: [1892] 2 Q. B. 613; [1892] A. C, 
 298. 
 
 See now Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), s. 20. 
 
 Knight and Tabernacle Permanent Building' 
 Society, In re (No. 2), [1892] 2 Q. B. 
 613. 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. In re Kirk- 
 leatham Local Board and Stockton 
 AND Middlbsborough Water Boaed 
 
 [1893] 1 ft. B. 375 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.)> 
 
 [1893] A. C. 444 
 
 Knight's Deep, Ld. v. Inland Sevenue Commrs., 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 345. 
 Reversed by C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 217 
 
 Knights v. Wiffen (1870) L. E. 5 Q. B. 660, 665 
 Followed by C. A. Hendebson v. 
 Williams - - [1895] 1 ft. B. 521 
 
 Followed and applied by Farwell J. 
 Dixon v. Kennaway & Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 83S 
 
 Knipe's Estate, In re - (1891) 27 L. R. Ir. 512 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) sub nom. Hatton 
 
 V. Habris - - [1892] A, C. 847 
 
 . Followed by P. C. Milson v. Cabtee 
 
 [1893] A. C. 638 
 
 Knott V. Cottee - - (1852) 16 Beav. 77 
 
 Followed by Stirling J., except as to the 
 rate of interest. In re Baeclay 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 674 
 
 Knowles & Sons v. Lancashire and Yorhshire Bi/. 
 Co., (1889) 14 App. Cas. 248. 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.). Chameek 
 CoLLiEBY Co. V. Rochdale Canal Co. 
 
 [1895] A. C. 564 
 Referred to by Byrne J. New Moss 
 Colliery Co. ii.Manohestee, Sheffield 
 
 AND LiNOOLNSHIBE Rt. Co. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 725 
 Knowles & Sons, Ld. v. Sinclair, [1898] 1 Q. B-. 
 170. 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. Edwabds v. 
 PuENELL - [1899] 1 ft. B. 449, 454 
 
 Knox V. Gye - - (1872) L. R. 5 H. L. 65S 
 
 Distinguished by G. A. Betjemann v. 
 Betjemann - [1895] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 Knox's Trusts, In re - [1895] 1 Ch. 538, 542 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1895] 2 Ch. 483 
 
 Kops V. Meg. - - [1894] A. C. 650 
 
 See Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 36), s. 1 (b). 
 
 See Commonwealth of Australia Con- 
 stitution Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), 
 B. 9 (73). 
 
 Ktitner y. PhilUps - - [1891] 2 Q. B. 267 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Felton v. 
 BowEE & Co. [1900] 1 ft. B. 598, 602 
 
 Labonchere v. Dawson (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 322 
 Approved by H. L. (E.) Tbego v. 
 Hunt - - - [1896] A, C, T 
 
 2/2 
 
cccxl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEKRULED, &c., 
 
 '• La Bourgogne" - - [1838] W. N. 80 (1) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1S98] W. S. 150 (1) ; [1899] P. 1 
 
 C. A. [1899] P. 1. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.t sub nom. 
 La Compagnie Geneeale Tkansatlan- 
 TiQDE V. Law & Co. " La Bottkgogne " 
 [1899] A. C. 431 
 
 Lacey, In re 
 
 Distiuguisbed 
 Vautin 
 
 Lacey v. Hill 
 
 Discussed 
 Head- 
 
 by 
 
 (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 128 
 
 by "Wright J. In re 
 
 - [1899] 2 a. B. 849 
 
 (1872') L. E. 8 Cb. 441 
 
 V. Williams J. In re 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 638, 641 
 
 Lacey v. Hill. Scrimgeour's Claim, (1873) L. E. 
 
 8 Ch. 921. 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. Ellis v. Pond 
 
 [1898] 1 ft. B. 426 
 Lacey & Son, In re - (1883) 25 Cb. D. 301 
 
 Distinguisbed by Kekewicb J. In re 
 
 Bead - «- [1894] 3 Ch. 238 
 
 La Compagnie Generale, &c. [1891] 3 Cb. 45] 
 Cited. In re La Sooiete Anonyme des 
 Vebeeries de l'Etoile 
 
 [1893] W. N. 119 
 Referred to. In re Kay's Patent 
 
 [1894] W. N. 68 
 Lacon v. Sooper - - (1794-5) 6 T. B. 224 
 
 Met by Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 71), s. 10 (2). 
 
 Lacon v. Lacehy - - [1897] W. N. 39 (7) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] W. N. 46 (3) 
 
 L'Flt V. L'Balt (1718) 1 P. Wms. 526 
 
 The report corrected by North J. In re 
 Cliff's Trusts - [1892] 2 Ch. 229 
 
 Laidlaw v. WiUon - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 74 
 
 See Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. u. 51), s. 20. 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Rojiebtson v. 
 Habkis - [1900] 2 ft. B. 117, 120 
 
 Laird v. Pirn - - (1841) 7 M. & W. 474 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Leader v. 
 
 Tod-Heatly - - [1891] W. N. 38 
 
 Lamh, Inre - - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 477 
 
 See Solicitors Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. 
 
 c. 4). 
 Lamh, In re. Mx parte Board of Trade, [1894] 
 
 2 Q. B. 805. 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 
 Mardon - [1896] 1 ft. B. 140, 148 
 
 Lamb, In re. Ex parte Board of Trade, 0. A. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 805. 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 Maedon - - [1896] 1 ft. B. 140 
 
 Lamb v. Mra^is (No. 1) - [1892] 3 Ch. 462 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1893] 1 Ch. 218 
 Followed by C. A. Eobb v. Greek 
 
 [1895] 2 ft. B. 315, 317 
 Lamh v. Great Northern By. Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 
 281. 
 
 Distinguisbed by C. A. Hewlett v. 
 
 Allen & Sons - [1892] 2 ft. B. 662 ; 
 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 383, 
 
 Lamhe v. Fames - (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 597 
 
 Followed by Kehewich J. In re Hamil- 
 ton - [1898] 1 Ch. 373 ; 
 This case affirmed by 0. A. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 370 
 
 Eeferred to. Williams r. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 12 
 
 Lambeth Overseers v. London County Council, 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 25 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 625 
 
 Lamhton & Co. v. Parkinson (1887) 35 W. E. 545 
 Inapplicable. Lloyd's Bank, Ld. v. 
 Princess Eoyal ColliErv Co. 
 
 [1900] -W. N. 99 
 
 Lamond V. Eichard - [1897] W. N. 7 (11) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 541 
 
 Lamplugh v. Norton, (1S89) 22 Q. B. D. 452; 37 
 W. R. 422. 
 Overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 8, s. 6 (1). 
 
 " Lancashire," The C. A. [1893] P. 47 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) on the facts and 
 not on law sub nom. Bibby Brothers 
 & Co., Owners of SS. " Lancashire" v. 
 Leetham, Owner of SS. " Ariel." The 
 " Lancashire " [1894] A. C. 1 
 
 Lancashire and YorJcshire By. Co., Ex parte, 
 (1886) 55 L. T. (N.S.) 58. 
 See Ex parte Medland Ry. Co. 
 
 Korth J. [1894] W. N. 38 
 
 Lancashire Asylums Board v. Manchester Cor- 
 poration, [1899] 1 Q. B. 759. 
 Reversed by C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 458 
 
 Lancashire Cotton Spinning Co., In re, (1887) 35 
 Cb. D. 656. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewicb J. Shackell 
 & Co. V. Choblton & Sons 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 378 
 Considered. In re Higginshaw Mills 
 AND Spinning Co. C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 844 
 
 Lancashire Insurance Co. v. Inland Betenue, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 353. 
 
 See In re Wool Industries Employers' 
 Insurance Association, Lb. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 259 
 
 Lancaster v. Ere - (1859) 5 C. B. (N.S.) 717 
 Distinguished. Hobson v. Goreinge 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 182 
 
 Lander v. Lander [1891] P. 161 ; 64 L. T. 120 
 Distinguished by G. Barnes J. Edwards 
 V. Edwards - [1894] P. 33 
 
 Lander and Bagley's Contract, In re, [1892] SCb. 
 41. 
 See MiDGLEY V. Smith 
 
 [1893] W. N. 120 
 
 Lane-Fox v. Kensington and Knightsbridge Elec- 
 tric Lighting Co., [1892] 2 Ch. 66. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 424 
 
 Lanfranchi v. Mackenzie (1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 421 
 Not followed by Kekewicb J. Lazarus 
 V. Artistic Photographic Co. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 214 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1000. 
 
 oocxli 
 
 JLangridge v. Levy, (1837) 2 M. & W. 5J9; 4 
 M. & W. 337. 
 See ScHOLBS r. Bbook 
 
 [1891] W. N. 16, 101 
 DistiDgnislied by Stirling J. Taller- 
 man V. DowsiKG Radiant Heat Co. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 125 ; 
 
 This case was compromised on 
 
 appeal C. A. [1899] W. N. 234 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Langslon v. Grant - - (1898) 25 K. 1040 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Grant 
 
 V. Langston - [1900] A. C. 383 
 
 Lansdowne (Marquis of) v. Kelioe {No. 1), (1891) 
 29 L. R. Ir. 230. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) [1893] A. C. 451 
 
 LaMey v. Hog, (1804) 4 Paten, 581 ; 11 Ves. 602 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.). De Nicolb 
 V. CUELIEB - - [1900] A. C. 21 
 
 LasUer v. Telteian - (1892) 67 L. T. 121 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Baxter v. 
 HoLDSWOBTH - [1899] 1 ft. B. 266 
 
 Last V. London Assurance Corporation, (1885) 10 
 App. Cas. 438. 
 
 Considered by 0. A. Equitable Lite 
 AssuBAKCE Society of the United 
 States v. Bishop [1900] 1 ft. B. 177 
 
 Lavery v. Pursell . ■ (1888) 39 Ch. D. 508 
 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. c. 71, s. 62 (definition 
 of " goods "). 
 
 Zavy V. London County Council, [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 915. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 577 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. London 
 County Council v. Pbyob 
 
 [1896] 1 ft. B. 330, 333 
 
 Law and Gould, In re (1856) 21 Beav. 481 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Ward 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 31 
 
 Law Guarantee and Trust Society v. Bank of 
 England, (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 406. 
 See nmo National Debt (Stockholders) 
 Belief Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 39), 
 B. 6, and Bodies Corporate (Joint Ten- 
 ancy) Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 20). 
 
 Lawes v. Bennett (1785) 1 Cox, 167 ; 1 E. B. 10 
 Applied in the case of an intestacy by 
 Chitty J. In re Isaacs 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 506 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Pyle - - - [1895] 1 Ch. 724 
 
 Lawrance v. Lord Norreys, (1890) 15 App. Cas. 
 210. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Willis v. Babl 
 Howe [1893] 2 Ch. 645 
 
 Approved by P. C. Haggard v. 
 Pelicieb FBi)HES [1892] A. C. 61 
 
 And followed by Stirling J. Bruce v. 
 
 AlLESBUEY (MaKQUIS OF) (No. 2) 
 
 [1892] W. N. 149 
 See Vexatious Actions Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 51). 
 Lawrance v. Bielmumd, (1820) 1 Jac. & Walk. 
 241. 
 See /» re Jones [1891] W. N. 114 
 
 Lawrence v. Horton (ISDO) 38 W. R. 555. 
 
 Referred to. Shiel v. Godfkey & Co. 
 [1893] W. N. 115 
 
 Laxon & Co, In re (No. 3) - [1893] 1 Ch. 210 
 Followed by Div. Ct. In re Bibkdale 
 Steam Laundry and Carpet Beating 
 Co. - .- - [1893] 2 ft. B. 386 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Gbnbeal. 
 Phosphate Co. [1895] 1 Ch. S 
 
 Leadbitter, In re - - (1878) 10 Ch. D. 388 
 
 Explained by Farwell J. Bied v. 
 Philpott - [1900] 1 Ch. 822 
 
 Learoyd v. Bracken 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 114 
 See now Customs and Inland Revenue 
 Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. o. 46), s. 7. 
 
 Leather Cloth Co. v. Birschfeld, (1863) 1 H. & M. 
 
 295. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Sacchabin Coe- 
 
 POBATION V. Chemicals and Dbugs Co. 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 556 
 Lehel v. Tucker - (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 77 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Alcock v. 
 
 Smith [1892] 1 Ch. 238 
 
 Lechmere and Lloyd, In re (1881) 18 Ch. D. 524 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Dean v. Dean 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 150 
 
 Referred to by Kekewioh J. Black- 
 man V. Fysh C. a. [1892] 3 Ch. 209, 220 
 
 Distinguished by North J. Symes v. 
 
 Symes - [1896] 1 Ch. 272 
 
 Leduev.Ward - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 475 
 
 See Mabgetson v. Glynn 
 
 [1892] 1 ft. B. 337; H. L, (E.) A. C. 351 
 Lee V. Alexander - (1883) 8 App. Cas. 853 
 
 Distinguished by H. L. (So.) Obb v. 
 
 Mitchell - [1893] A. C. 238 
 
 iee V. Butler -- - [1893] 2 Q. B. 318 
 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.). Helby v. 
 
 Matthews - - [1895] A. C. 471 
 
 Lee V. Dangar, Grant & Co. [1892] 1 Q. B. 231 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 337 
 Lee V. Gandell (1774) 1 Cowp. 1 
 
 See Ameeioan Concenteated Meat Co. 
 
 V. Hendey - [1893] W. N. 67 
 
 iee V. Gaskell - - (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 700 
 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. c. 71, s. G2 (definition 
 
 of " goods "). 
 Lee V. Neuchatel Asphalte Co. (1889) 41 Ch. D. 1 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Veenee v. 
 
 Geneeal and Commercial Investment 
 
 Trust - [1894] 2 Ch. 239 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. Bolton v. 
 
 Natal Land and Colonization Co. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 124 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Wilmer v. 
 
 McNamaea & Co., Ld. [1895] 2 Ch. 245 
 iee V. Pain - (1844) 4 Hare, 201, 249 
 
 Commented on and distinguished. In 
 
 re Stephenson C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 75 
 iee V. Byder - - (1822) 6 Madd. 294 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Howell 
 
 V. Lewis - [1891] W. N. 181 
 
 iee V. Sanlcey - - (1872) L. R. 15 Eq. 204 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Barney - [1892] 2 Ch. 265 
 
•ccexlii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., 
 
 Leeds and Haiiley Theatre of Varieties v. Broad- 
 lent, [1897] W. N. 175 (9). 
 Eevorsed by C. A. - [1898] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 Leeds (Buhe of) v. Lord Amherst, (1846) 14 Sim. 
 357, 367 ; 2 Ph. 117. 
 Considered by C. A. Phillips v. Hom- 
 FBAT - - - [1892] 1 Cli. 465 
 
 Lees' Settlement Trusts, In re [1896] 2 Ch. 508 
 Followed. In re Fitzheebert's Settle- 
 ment Tktjsts [1898] W. N. 58 (8) 
 
 Leeson v. Medical Council (1890) 43 Ch. D. 366 
 See Eeg. v. Gaisfoed 
 
 [1892] 1 a. B. 381 
 Followed by C. A. Allinson v. General 
 Medical Council - [1894] 1 Q. 750 
 
 Lefttey v. Mills (1791) 4 T. R. 170 ; 2 E. E. 350 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Kennedy v. 
 
 Thomas - - [1894] 2 Q. B. 759 
 
 Leggott v. Great Northern By. Co., (1876) 1 
 
 Q. B. D. 599. 
 
 See 60 & 61 Vict. o. 37, s. 1. 
 Leigh v. Jack - - (1879) 5 Ex. D. 264 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Marshall v. 
 
 Tatlob - - [1895] 1 Ch. 641 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Littledale v. 
 
 LiVEEPOOL College [1900] 1 Ch. 19, 23 
 Leigh v. Leigh - - (1886) 35 W. E. 121 
 
 Met by 51 & 52 Vict. c. 59, ss. 9, 12 ; 
 
 56 & 57 Vict. i;. 53, s. 5, sub-s. 1. 
 Leith Dock Commrs. v. Leith (^Magistrates of), 
 
 (1897) 25 E. 126. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nam. Leith 
 
 CoTJNOiL V. Leith Haebouk axd Dock 
 
 COMMUS. - [1899] A. C. 508 
 
 Leman, In the Goods of - - [1898] P. 215 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. Is the Goods 
 
 OP Davis - [1899] W. N. 61 
 
 Xe Marchant v. Le Marchant, (1874) L. E. IS Eq. 
 
 414. 
 
 Eeferred to. Williams v. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 12 
 Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier - [1895] A. 0. 517 
 
 Eeferred to. Sinclair's Divoeoe Bill 
 
 H. L. (D.) [1897] A. C. 469 
 
 Lemme, In the Goods of - - [1892] P. 89 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. In the Goods 
 
 OF Von Linden - - [1896] P. 148 
 
 Lemmon v. Wehb - - [1894] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 AlErmed by H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 1 
 Lempriere v. Lange - (1879) 12 Ch. D. G75 
 
 Followed. WooLF v. Woolf 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 343 
 Zeng, In re - - [1895] 1 Ch, 652, 656 
 
 Approved and followed by Stirling J. 
 
 In re Heywood [1897] 2 Ch. 593, 598 
 
 Followed by 0. A. In re Whitaker 
 
 [1900] W. N. 239 
 Lenham v. Barber - (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 293 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Ecshmeee 
 
 t: Isaacson [1893] 1 Q. B. 118 
 
 Lennox, Ex parte - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 315 
 
 See In re Fkasek 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 633 
 Leppington v. Freeman - [1891] W. N. 159 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] W. N. 198 
 
 Leslie V. Yomif) & Sons - (1893) 20 E. 1077 
 Eeversed in part by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 335 
 
 Lester v. Garland, (1808) 15 Ves. Jun. 248 ; 10 
 E. E. 68. 
 Approved by C. A. In re Koeth 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 264 
 
 Lester v. Garland, (1832) 5 Sim. 205; 35 E. E. 
 146. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Mackintosh 
 i.PoGOSB - - [1895] 1 Ch. 505 
 
 Lester v. Torrens - (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 403 
 
 Considered by Div. Ct. Eeg. v. Pelby 
 [1897] 2 ft. B. 33 
 
 Letts v. Butchins - (1871) L. E. 13 Eq. 176 
 
 Explained by Eomer J. Smith v. Smith 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 550 
 
 Lever v. Goodwin, (1887) 36 Ch. D. 1 ; 4 Eep. 
 Pat. Cas. 492. 
 
 Form in, followed. Saxlehner v. Apol- 
 linaris Co. - - [1897] 1 Ch. 893 
 
 " Leverington," The - (1886) 11 P. D. 117 
 
 Distinguished. Owners of Norwegian 
 
 SS. " NoKMANDiE " 1-. Owners or 
 
 British SS. " Pekin." The " Pekin " 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 632 
 
 Levy v. Stogdon - - [1898] 1 Ch. 478 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 1 Ch. 5 
 
 Levy V. Walker - - (1879) 10 Ch. D. 436 
 
 Commented on by Byrne J. Burohell 
 V. Wilde C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 551, 5S6 
 
 Lewes v. Morgan, (1818) 5 Price, 518 ; see 19 E. K. 
 566. 
 Followed. Seaward v. Pateeson 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 545, 548, 554, 557 
 
 Lewis, In re. Ez parte Munro, (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 
 724. 
 
 Dictum of Coleridge O.J. at pp. 726, 
 727, disapproved by Div. Ct. In re 
 Thompson - - [1894] 1 ft. B. 462 
 
 Lewis V. Allenby, (1870) L. E. 10 Eq. 668, on 
 petition [1872] W. N. 55. 
 Commented on. In re Piercy 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 665 
 
 Lewis V. Arnold - (1875) L. E. 10 Q. B. 245 
 
 Overruled by Div. Ct. Sale v. Phillips 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 349 
 
 Lewis V. Goodbody (1892) 67 L. T. (N.S.) 194 
 Not followed by Stirling J. Sen Sen 
 Co. V. Britten - [1899] 1 Ch. 692 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. Hcebuok 
 & Son, Ld. v. Beown [1899] W. N. 250 
 
 Lewis V. milman - (1852) 3 H. L. C. 607 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Hopfe's Estate Act, 1855 
 
 [1900] W. N. 114 
 Lewis V. Lewis - (1871) L. E. 13 Eq. 218 
 
 Observed upon by North J. In re 
 
 Bennett - - [1899] 1 Ch. 316 
 
 Lewis V. Mad/)cks, (1803-10) S Ves. 149 ; 17 Ves. 
 
 48; 7 E. E. 10. 
 
 Discussed bj' Kekewioh J. In re Bendy 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 109 
 
 Considered by Romer J. Finlay v. 
 
 Darling - - [1897] 1 Ch. 719 
 
DUEING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 cooxUii 
 
 Liddell v. Liddell, (1883) 31 W. E. 238; 52 L. J. 
 (Ch.) 207. 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Sparrow's 
 Settled Estate [1892] 1 Ch. 412 
 
 Liddiard v. Gcde, (1850)4 Ex. 816; 9 L. J. (Ex.) 
 160. 
 Overruled ty 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, Sch. I. 
 
 Lindo V. Selisario - (1795) 1 Hagg. Cons. 216 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 De Wilton - - [1900] 2 Ch. 481 
 
 Line v. SUphenson (1838) 5 Bing. N. C. 183 
 
 See Baynes v. Lloyd [1895] 2 Q. B. 610 
 
 Zinford v. Fitzroy - (1849) 13 Q. B. 240 
 See 61 & 62 Viot. c. 7. 
 
 Lion Mutual Marine Insurance Aemciation y. 
 Tuclter, (1883) 12 Q. B. D. 176. 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Bangok 
 AND North Wales Mutual Marine 
 Protection Association 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 693, 698 
 
 Liquidation Estates Purchase Co. v. Willou.g]iby, 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 726. 
 Eeversed in part by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1898] A. C. 321 
 
 Lister v. Leather - (1858) 4 K. & J. 425 
 
 Discussed by Eomer J. North Metro- 
 politan Tramways Co. v. London 
 County Council - [1898] 2 Ch. 145 
 
 Little V. Stevenson & Co. - (1895) 22 R. 796 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1896] A. 0. 108 
 
 Litfledale v. Lonsdale (Earl of), (1793) 2 H. Bl. 
 267, 299; 2 Anstr. 356; 5 Bro. P. C. 
 519. 
 
 See JoRDEsoN v. Sutton, Southcoatbs 
 AND Drypool Gas Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 217, 233 
 
 Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson, (1874) L. E. 9 Ex. 
 338. 
 
 Followed by Eussell of Killowen O.J. 
 
 Hill v. Scott - [1895] 2 Q. B. 371 ; 
 
 C. A. [1898] 3 Q. B. 713 
 
 Liverpool Adelphi Loan Association v. Fairhurst, 
 (1854) 9 Ex. 422. 
 
 Approved by C. A. Earle v. Kings- 
 cote - - C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 686 
 
 Liverpool and Manchester Aerated Bread and 
 Cafe Co. V. Firth, [1891] 1 Ch. 367. 
 Commented on by Div. Ct. Joyce v. 
 Beall - [1891] 1 Q. B. 459, 462 
 
 Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner, (1860) 1 J. & 
 H. 159 ; on appeal 2 De G. F. & J. 502. 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. Black 
 v'. Williams - [1895] 1 Ch. 408 
 
 Liverpool Marine Credit Co. v. Hunter, (1867) 
 L. E. 4 E.q. 62; (1868)L. E. 3 Ch. 479. 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Macdslay, Sons & Field 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 Llewellin, Inre - - (1888) 37 Ch. D. 317 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Smith's 
 Settled Estates - [1891] 3 Ch. 65 
 
 Llewellyn v. Vale of Glamorgan By. Co., [1897] 
 2 O B 239 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 473 
 
 Lloijd V. Lloyd - (1866) L. E. 2 Eq. 722 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Metcalfe r. 
 
 Metcalfe - [1891] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 Lloyd V. Mostyn - (1842) 10 M. & W. 478 
 
 Followed by C. A. Caloeaft v. Guest 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 759 
 
 Ll(yyd v. Nowell - - _ [1895] 2 Ch. 744 
 
 Discussed by Kekewioh J. North v. 
 
 Pebcival [1898] 2 Ch, 128, 132 
 
 "Lloyds, or Sea Queen," The, (1863) Br. & L. 
 359. 
 
 Followed by Bruce J. The "Wine- 
 stead" - - [1895] P. 170 
 
 LockY.Fearce - - [1892] 2 Ch. 328 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1893] 2 Ch. 271 
 Referred to by Buckley J. Pannell v. 
 City of London Brewery Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 496, 601 
 
 Lock V. Queensland Investment and Land Mort- 
 gage Co. - - [1896] 1 Oh. 397 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) [1896] A. C. 461 
 
 Lockhart v. Reilly (1856) 25 L. J. (Ch.) 697 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. In re Turner 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 636 
 
 Lodge v. Huddersfield Corporation, [1898] 1 Q. B. 
 847. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 859 
 
 Loftus V. Heriot - [1895] 2 Q. B. 212 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Hood 
 Bares v. Heriot - [1896] A. C. 174 
 
 London ^Bishop of). Ex parte, (1860) 2 De G. 
 F. & J. 14. 
 
 Conflidered by Ohitty J. In re Bishops- 
 gate Foundation (No. 1) 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 186 
 
 London and Caledonian Marine Insurance Co., 
 
 In re, (1879) 11 Ch. D. 140. 
 
 Dictum of James L.J., explained by 
 
 Romer J. Knowles v. Scott 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch, 717 
 
 Referred to by North J. Whiteley 
 
 Exerciser, Ld. «. Gamage 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch, 405 
 London and Eastern Counties Loan and Discount 
 
 Co. V. Creasey, [1897] 1 Q. B. 442. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 768 
 
 London and General Bank, In re, [1895] 2 Ch. 
 166. 
 
 Followed. In re Kingston Cotton 
 Mill Co. - - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 6 
 
 London and North Western By. Co. v. Buclcmaster, 
 (1875) L. E. 10 Q. B. 70, 444. 
 Followed by C. A. Rochdale Canal 
 Co. v. Brewster [1894] 2 Q. B. 862, 857 
 
 London and North Western By. Co. v. Billington, 
 Ld., C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 7. 
 Eeversed' by H. L. (E.) mS nom, London 
 and North Western and Great 
 Western Joint Ey. Cos. v. J. H. 
 Billington, Ld [1899] A. C. 79 
 
 London and North Western By. Co. v. Donellan, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 7. 
 
 Was approved of by H. L. (E.). Mid- 
 land Ey. Co. v. Loseby & Carnley 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] A, C. 133 
 
cccxiiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEREULED, &o., 
 
 London and North Western My. Co. v. Evans, 
 [1892] 2 Oh. 432. 
 Beversed by 0. A. - [1893] 1 Ch. 16 
 
 London and North Western By. Co. v. Everslied, 
 (1878) 3 App. Gas. 1029. 
 Disonssed and explained by C. A. 
 Phipps v. London and Noeth Western 
 Et. Co. [1892] 2 Q. B. 229 
 
 London and North Western Sy. Co. v. Llandudno 
 ImprorcTnents Commrs., [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 287. 
 Referred to. Ssoth v. ErCHMOND 
 
 C. A, [1898] 1 Q. B. 683, 694 ; 
 
 This case was aiBrmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1899J A. C. 448 
 
 London and North Western Uy. Co. v. Suncorn 
 Rural Council, [1898] 1 Ch. 34. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1894] 1 Ch. 561 
 
 London and South Western Sy. Co. v. Blachmore, 
 (1870) L. E. 4 H. L. 610. 
 Distinguished. Maofie v. Callandek 
 AND Oban Et. Co. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 278 
 
 London and South Western Uy. Co. v. Coward, 
 (1848) 5 Rail. Cas. 703. 
 Followed by 0. A. Kitts v. Mooke 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 253, 263 
 
 London and South Western By. Co. v. Gomm, 
 (1882) 20 Ch. D. 562. 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Bay v. 
 Walkeb [1892] 2 Q. B. 88 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Manchester 
 Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Race- 
 COCBSE Co. [1900] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Eogers v. Hosb- 
 GOOD [1900] 2 Ch. 388, 394, 404 
 
 London and Suburban Bank; In re, [1892] 1 Ch. 
 604. 
 
 Approved by V. Williams J. In re Eeal 
 Estates Go. - - [1893] 1 Ch. 398 
 
 See now Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), s. 8 (2). 
 
 London Bank of Mexico and South America v. 
 Apthorpe, [1891] 1 Q. B. 383. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] 2 Q,. B. 378 
 Followed by C. A. San (Patjlo) Bra- 
 zilian Et. Co. V. Carter 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 580 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 •[1896] A. C, 31 
 
 London, Brighton and South Coast By. Co. v. 
 Truman, (1885) 11 App. Cas. 45. 
 Distinguished. Jordeson v. Sutton, 
 Sodthooates and Drtpool Gas Go. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 London, Brighton and South Coast By. Co. v. 
 Watson, (1879) 4 C. P. D. 118. 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Great 
 Northern Et. Co. v. Winder 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 595 
 
 London, Chatham and Lover By. Co. v. South 
 Eastern By. Co., (1880) 40 Oh. D. 100. 
 Distinguished by Farwell J. Man- 
 chester Ship Canal Go. v. Manchester 
 Eaoeooubse Co. - [1900] 2 Ch, 352 
 
 London, Cliatham and Lover By. Co. v. Soutle 
 Eastern By. Co., [1892] 1 Gh. 120. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1893] A, C. 429 
 
 London Clearing Bankers {Committee of) v. Inland 
 Bevenue Commrs., [1896] 1 Q. B. 222. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 542 
 
 London County Council v. Aylesbury Dairy Co..^ 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 106. 
 
 See now London Building Act, 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict. c. oxxxvii.), s. 3. 
 
 London County Council v. Best & Co., (1893) 9 
 Times L. E. 499. 
 ■ Apparently met by 57 & 58 Vict. 
 c. ccxiii. 3. 26 (1). 
 
 London County Council v. Davis, (1898) 77 L. T. 
 Rep. 693. 
 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. cxxxvii.), o. 4. 
 
 London County Council v. Edmondson & Sons, 
 (1892) 66 L. T. (N.S.) 200. 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. o. ccxiii. s. 9 (4). 
 
 London County Council v. Erith (Churchwardens, 
 (t-c, of), [1893] A. G. 562, 592. .- -^ 
 
 Distinguished by H. L. (B.). Kingston- 
 upon-Htjll Dock Go. v. Sculcoates 
 Union (Guardians) [1895] A. C. 136 
 
 London County Council v. Lambeth Overseers^ 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 25. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) tub nom. Lam- 
 beth (Churchwardens of) v. London 
 County Council [1897] A. C. 625 
 
 London County Council v. Laicrance, [1893] 2 
 Q. B. 228. 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii. ». 49. 
 
 London County Council v. London School Board, 
 [1802] 2 Q. B. 606. 
 
 Extended by 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii. 
 8. 21. 
 
 London County Council v. London Street Tram- 
 ways Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 189. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) [1894] A. C. 489 
 Approved of by H. L. (Sc). Edinburgb 
 Street Tramways Co. v. Lord Provost, 
 &c., op Edinburgh 
 
 [1894] A. C. 456, 479 
 
 London County Council v. Pryor, [1896] 1 Q. B. 
 330. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 465 
 
 London County Council v. St. George's Union As- 
 sessment Committee, (No. 1), C. A. 
 reversed Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 210. 
 C. A. reversed and Div. Ct. restored bv 
 H. L. (E.) - - [1893] A. C. 662 
 
 Distinguished. Sculcoates Union v. 
 Kingston-upon-Hull Dock Go. 
 
 [1895] A. C. 136 
 Eeferred to. Port op Lancaster 
 Commrs. v. Baeeow-in-Furness Over- 
 seers - Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 173 
 Distinguished. Lambeth Overseers v. 
 London County Council 
 
 H. L. (E.) A. C. 631 
 
CUBING THE YEAES ISOi— 1900. 
 
 cccxlv 
 
 London County Council v. West Ham {Church- 
 wardens, &C.'), (No. 1), 0. A. reversed 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 44. 
 C. A. reversed and Div. Ct. restored by 
 H. L. (E.). London Cotiktt Council 
 V. Chukchwakdens, &o., of West Ham 
 [1893] A. C. 562 
 Applied by G. A. London County 
 Council v. Assessment Committee of 
 Woolwich Union. London County 
 Council v. Assessment Committee or 
 St. George's Union [1893] 1 Q. B. 210 
 
 London County Council v. Wood, [1897] 2 Q. B. 482. 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 29, s. 9. 
 
 London County Council v. Worley, [1894] 10 
 Times L. K. 652. 
 Met by 57 & 58 "Vict. c. ccxiii. a. 49. 
 
 London Joint Stocle Bank v. Simmons, [1891] 
 
 1 Ch. 270. 
 
 Keversed by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 201 
 
 Followed by North J. Bentinck «. 
 
 London Joint Stock Bank 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 120 
 
 Approved bv C. A. Manchestek 
 
 Teust v. Fuesess [1895] 2 Q. B. 539 
 London Printing and FublisMng Alliance v. Cox, 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 291. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Petty v. 
 
 Taylor [1897] 1 Ch. 465 
 
 London Provident Society v. Morgan, [1893] 2 
 
 Q. B. 266. 
 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. e. 47, s. 10. 
 London Quays and Warehouses Co., Ln re, (1868) 
 
 L. E. 3 Ch. 391. 
 
 Followed by Chltty J. In re Watson 
 
 & Sons, Ld. - [1891] 2 Ch. 55 
 
 London Street Tramways Co. v. London County 
 
 Council, H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 489. 
 
 See H. 1. (E.) [1898] A. C. 375 
 
 London Syndicate v. Lord (1878) 8 Oh. D. 84 
 Followed. In re Beeny. Ffeench v. 
 Sproston - - [1894] 1 Ch. 499 
 
 Long V. Ooenden (1881) 16 Ch. D. 691, at p. 694 
 Dictum of Jessel M.E. corrected and 
 explained by Chitty J. In re Cle- 
 ments. Clements v. Pearsall 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 665 
 
 Long V. Rankin, (Sugden on Powers, App. 895). 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Eael of 
 Lonsdale v. Lowthee [1900] 3 Ch. 687 
 
 Lang v. Short (1717) 1 P. Wms. 402 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Bawden. National Provincial Bank 
 
 V. Ceesswbll. Bawden v. Ceesswell 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 693 
 
 Lonsdale (Earl) v. Nelson, (1823) 2 B. & C. 802 ; 
 26 K. E. 363. 
 
 Considered by H. L. (B.). Lemmon v. 
 Webb - ■ - [1895] A. C. 1 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Sogie (Methven's Executors'), 
 (1893) 20 E. 429. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1894].A. C. 83 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. v. 
 LoYD - - [1895] 1 ft. B. 496 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. In re Soott 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 372, 387 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Fleming - (1895) 22 E. 56& 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. 145 
 Lord Advocate v. Hamilton {Duke of), (1891) 
 29 Sco. Law Eep. 213. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Se.) sub nom. Hamil- 
 ton (Duke of) v. Lobd Advocate 
 
 [1892] W. N. 160 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Macfarlane {Dunlop's Trustees), 
 (1892) 19 E. 461. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 291 
 Part of judgment of Ct. of Sess. not 
 appealed 'from, (1891) 21 Eettie, 348 
 
 See [1896] W. N. 96 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Bolertson - (1894) 22 E. 56S 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Loed . 
 Advocate v. Fleming or Eobeetson 
 
 [1897] A. C. 145 
 
 LordAdvocate v. Saltonn (Lord), (1858) 21 Dnnlop, 
 124 ; 8 Macq. 659. 
 
 Commented on. Loed Advocate v. 
 M'CuLLOCH, (1895) 22 Eettie, 356. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. K. 124 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Wemyss - (1896) 24 E. 216 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1899] W. N. 124; [1900] A. C. 48 
 
 Love V. Bell - (1884) 9 App. Cas. 28G 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Thomp- 
 son V. Mein [1893] W. N. 202 
 
 See Twyehould v. Chamber Colliery 
 Co. C.-A. [1892] W. H. 27 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. Hayles v 
 Pease and Partners, Ld. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 567 
 
 Lovejoy v. Cole - - [1894] 2 Q. B. 861 
 
 Followed by C. A. Solomon v. Mullinee 
 AND Motor Carriage Supply Co. 
 [1900] W. N. 260; see [1901] 1 ft. B. 76 
 
 Low V. Bouveric - _ [1891] 3 Ch. 82 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Wyatt. 
 White v. Ellis 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 188, at p. 199 
 This last case was affirmed by 
 H. L. (E.) sub nom. Ward v. Pem- 
 BERTON - - [1893] A. C. 369 
 
 Lower Rhine and WUrtemberg Insurance Associa- 
 tion V. Sedgwick, [1898] 1 Q. B. 739. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1899] 1 ft, B. 179 
 
 Lowman, In re - - [1895] 2 Ch. 348 
 
 Explained and distinguished by C. A. 
 In re Hocking [1898] 8 Ch. 567 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Oaetee - - [1900] 1 Ch. 801, 802 
 
 Lowther v. Caledonian Ry. Co. [1891] 3 Ch. 443 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1892] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 Lubbock V. British Bank of South America, [1892] 
 2 Ch. 198. 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Verner v. Genebal 
 
 AND COMMEECIAL INVESTMENT TeUST 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 239, 266 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Foster v. 
 New Teinidad Lake Asphalt Co. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 267 
 
'Ccoxlvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., 
 
 lAicas V. Sarris - (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 127 
 
 Considered by C. A. In re Sauudeks. 
 Ex parte Satjndeks [1895] 2 Q. B. 424 
 
 ILucas V. James - - (1849) 7 Hare, 410 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Hope v. 
 Waltbb - - [1900] 1 Ch. 257 
 
 'Ludington Cigarette Machine Co. v. Baron 
 Cigarette Macldne Co. In re Pitt's 
 Patent, [1899] W. N. 243. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 508 
 
 ILumley, In re. Ex parte Catheart, [1894] 2 Ch. 
 271. 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Deakin. Ex 
 parte Cathcaet - [1900] 2 Q. B. 478 
 
 Lumley v. Gije - (1853) 2 E. & B. 216 
 
 Commented on. Alleu v. Flood 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1898] A. C. 1 
 
 Lumley v. Simmons - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 698 
 Explained by V. Williams J. In re 
 Wood - [1894] 1 Q. B. 606 
 
 Lumley v. Wagner (1852) 1 De G. M. & G. 604 
 Discussed. Whitwood Chemical Co. 
 «. Hakdman - C. A. [1891] 2 Cai. 416 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Star News- 
 paper Co. V. O'Connor 
 [1893] W. N. 114 ; C. A. [1893] W. N. 122 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Davis 
 V. Foreman - [1894] 3 Ch. 654 
 
 Lush V. Sebright . - - [1894] W. N. 134 
 
 Referred to by North J. Simmons v. 
 
 Blandy - [1896] W. N. 171 (7) ; 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 Lutkins v. Leigh - - (1734) Cas. t. Tal. 53 
 
 Rule in, applied by Romer J. In re 
 Smith - - [1899] 1 Ch. 365 
 
 ILydney and Wigpool Iron Ore Co. v. Bird, (1883) 
 23 Ch. D. 358. 
 Rule in, applied. In re Smith 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 88 (16) 
 
 Lydney and Wigpool Iron Ore Co. v. Bird, (1886) 
 33 Ch. D. 85. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Metropolitan 
 Coal CoNstrMEBs' Association v. Scrim- 
 6B0DR - [1895] 2 Q. B. 604 
 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Sale 
 Hotel axd Botanical Gardens Co. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (5) ; 
 
 But this case was reversed by C. A. 
 [1898] W. N. 40 (2) 
 
 And see Companies Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 8. 
 
 Lynch v. Wlieatley - (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 504 
 See Mann v. Johnson [1893] W. N. 196 
 
 Lyne's Trust, In re - (1869] L. R. S Eq. 65 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Drew. 
 
 Drew v. Drew [1898] W. N. 175 (17) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 336 
 
 Lyon V. Reed - (1844) 13 M. & W. 285 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. Wallis v. 
 Hands - _ - [1893] 2 Ch. 76 
 
 Lyons (J.) & Sons v. Wilkins, C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 
 811. 
 
 Approved and held not overruled by 
 Allen V. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1. J. Lyons 
 & Sons v. Wilkins 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 255 
 
 Lysaght, In re. Blythe v. Baumgarten, [1887] 
 W. N. 23. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Dun- 
 nino - - [1894] W. S. 140 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re A 
 Solicitor - [1893] W. N. 188 
 
 Lysons v. Andrew Knowles & Sons, Ld., 0. A. 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 780. 
 Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1901] A. C. 79 
 
 "Mac," The - ■ (1881-2) 7 P. D. 126 
 
 Corrected by C. A. " Gas Float Whit- 
 ton " (No. 2) [1896] P. 42, at p. 57 
 Affirmed by H.L.(E.) [1897] A. C. 337 
 
 McAndrew v. Bassett, (1864) 4 De G. J. & S. 380 
 Held to be practically overruled by 
 s. 10 (e) of the Patents, Designs, and 
 Trade Marks Act, 1888. In re Sir Trros 
 Salt, Bart., Sons & Co.'s Application 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 166 
 
 M'Cahe v. Bank of Ireland, (1889) 14 App. Cas. 
 413. 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re 
 United Service Association 
 
 [1900] W. N. 243 
 
 M'Callum, In re. M'Callum v. M'Callam, [1900] 
 W. N. 36. 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1900] W. N. 261 
 
 McCaroglier v. D hieldon (1867) L. E. 3 Eq. 236 
 Followed by Eomer J. Carter v. 
 SiLBER. Carter v. HASLroK 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 553 
 This last case reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 279 
 And C. A. affirmed by H. L. (B.) 
 suh nom. Edwards i\ Carter 
 
 [1893] A. C. 360 
 
 M'CaHhy, In re - (ISSl) 7 L. E. (Ir.) 473 
 
 Approved and followed by C. A. In re 
 
 Mackeszib. Ex parte Hertfordshire 
 
 (Sheriff of) - [1899] 2 Q. B. 566 
 
 M'Carthy v. M'Cartie - - [1897] 1 I. E. 86 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) suh nom. Bank 
 
 OF Ireland v. McCarthy 
 
 [1898] A. C. 181 
 MacCarthy v. Young - (1861) 6 H. & N. 329 
 
 Approved of by C. A. CotrGHLOf r. 
 
 GiLLisoN - C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 145 
 
 M'Cowan v. Baine - - (1890) 17 E. 1016 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1891] A. C. 401 
 MacDonald v. Scott (or EalV) (1892) 19 E. 567 
 Reversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 642 
 M'Dougal v. Sutherland - (1894) 21 Eettie, 753 
 Distinguished by Ct. of Sess. (So.). 
 CoEKE V. Fry, (1895) 22 Rettie, 422. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 128 
 
DURING THE YEAKS 1891— 19UU. 
 
 cccxlvii 
 
 MacBwff, In re - - [1896] 2 Ch. 451 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. In re Htjntek 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 518 ; 
 This case was reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 105 ; 
 But restored by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1899] A. C. 309 
 
 McEntire v. Crossley Brothers [189i] 1 I. E. 235 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) [1895] A. C. 457 
 
 Macfie V. Callander and Oban By., (1897) 24 E. 
 
 1156 ; 34 Soo. L. E. 828. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Se.) 
 
 [1898] A. C. 270 
 JSrGaffigan v. BiddaU - (1890) 28 L. E. Ir. 257 
 
 Followed by Dlv. Ot. Palmek -d. Wade 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 268 
 
 McGavin v. Mclntyre Brothers (1890) 17 E. 818 
 
 Varied by H. L. (Sc.) siib nom. McInttke 
 
 Brothbes v. MoGavin [1893] A. C. 268 
 McGrath, In re - - [1892] 2 Oh. 496 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1893] 1 Ch. 143 
 McGregor \. Cox - (1898) 25 E. 1216 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1900] W. N. 247 
 McHmry, In re- - (1886) 17 Q, B. D. 351 
 
 Bistinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 
 Phillips - - [1896] 2 Q. B. 122 
 McHenry, In re. McDermott v. Boyd. Levita's 
 
 Claim, [1894] 2 Ch. 428. 
 
 Eeveised by 0. A. - [1894] 3 Ch. 365 
 M'Inmy v. AthoU (Duke of) (1890) 17 E. 456 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1891] A. C. 689 
 
 Mcintosh V. Pontypridd Improvements Co., (1891) 
 
 61 L. J. (Q.B.) 164. 
 
 Approved of by Div. Ct. Yaebicom i: 
 
 King - - [1899] 1 Q. B. 444, 448 
 
 Mackay v. Bannister - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 174 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Guilfokd v. 
 
 Lambeth - - [1894] 2 Q. B. 832; 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B, 92 
 
 M'Kenzie v. British Linen Co., (1881) 6 App. Gas. 
 
 82. 
 
 Distinguished by P. C. Ogilvie v. 
 
 West Austbalian Mortgage and 
 
 Ageuoy Cobporation [1896] A, C. 257 
 
 McKewan's Case - - (1877) 6 Ch. D. 447 
 
 Distinguished. In re Bangor and 
 North Wales Mutual Marine Pro- 
 tection Association [1899] 2 Ch. 693 
 
 M'Nah V. Campbell's Trustees, (1896) 33 S. L. E. 
 
 497. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. M'Nab 
 
 r. EOBEETSON - - [1897] A. C. 129 
 
 Mackenzie v. Devonshire (Dulte of), (1895) 22 
 
 Eettie, 839. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 400 
 
 Mackenzie v. Mackenzie - (1893) 20 R. 636 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 384 
 Referred to by C. A. Eussell v. Rus- 
 sell [1895] P. 315, 332 ; 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (D.) 
 [1897] A. C. 395 
 Referred to by G. Barnes J. Oldrovd 
 V. Oldrotd - [1896] P. 176, 179 
 
 Mackenzie and Ascot Gas Co., In re, (1886) 17 
 Q. B. D. 114. 
 
 Overruled by C. A. Knowles & Sons, 
 Ld. v. Bolton Corporation 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 253 
 
 Mackenzie's Trusts - (1883) 23 Ch. D. 750 
 
 Approved by 0. A. In re Mundy's 
 Settled Estates - [1891] 1 Ch, 399 
 
 Maclcie v. Herbertson - (1884) 9 App. Gas. 303 
 
 Approved by P. 0. De Mestre v. West 
 
 [1891] A. C. 264 
 
 Followed by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Jacobs-Smith - [1895] 2 Q. B. 341 
 
 Maclcie v. Mackie - - (1845) 5 Hare, 70 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Eowlls v. Bebb 
 
 C. A, [1900] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 M'Knight v. Currie - - (1895) 22 E. 607 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1897] A. C. 97 
 
 Maclean Brothers & Bigg, Ld. v. Jones & Co., 
 (1892) 66 L. T. (N.S.) 653. 
 Disapproved by 0. A. Budden v. Wil- 
 kinson - - [1893] 2 ft. B. 432 
 
 Madeay, In re - (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 186 
 
 Dictum in, followed by Byrne J. In re 
 Trustees op Hollis' Hospital and 
 Hague's Contract - [1899] 2 Ch. 640 
 
 Maddison v. Alderson - (1883) 8 App. Cas. 467 
 Discussed by Byrne J. Miller & Ald- 
 worth, Ld. v. Sharp [1899] 1 Ch. 622 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Isaacs r. 
 Evans - - [1899] W. N. 261 
 
 Magee v. Mortimer - (1890) 28 L. E. Ir. 251 
 Distinguished. Gage v. M'Daid, Law- 
 son's Notes of Decisions, (1896), p. 137. 
 C, A, (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 104 
 
 Maggi, In re - - (1882) 20 Ch. 545 
 
 Overruled by C, A. In re Whitakee 
 
 [1900] W. N. 239 
 Considered by C. A. In re Lbng. Tarn 
 V. Emmerson [1895] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 Magnolia Metal Go's Trade-marks, In re, [1897] 
 W. N. 21 (11). 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 371 
 
 Maguire v. BusselX - (1885) 12 Eettie, 1071 
 Disapproved by H. L. (E.) Johnson v. 
 Lindsay & Co. (No. 1) [1891] A. C. 371 
 
 Maliony v. East Solyfoi-d Mining Co., (1875) L. E. 
 7 H. L. 869. 
 
 Followed by C. A. County of Glou- 
 cester Bank v. Rudey Merthyr Steam 
 and House Coal Colliery Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 629 
 
 Main v. Stark - (1890) 15 App. Cas. 384 
 
 Referred to. Reynolds v. Att.-Gen. 
 for Nova Scotia P. C. [1896] A. C. 240 
 
 Mainland v. Upjohn • - (1889) 41 Ch. D. 126 
 Discussed and applied. Biggs v. Hod- 
 dinott. Hoddinott v. Biggs 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 307 
 
 Makins v. Percy Ibbotson & Sons, [1891] 1 Ch. 
 133. 
 
 Explained by C. A. Whitley v. 
 Challis - [1892] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 Followed by North J. Edwards r. 
 Standard Eolling Stock Syndicate 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 574 
 
cccxlviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &a.. 
 
 Malcomson v. O'Dea -- (1863) 10 H. L. C. 593 
 Principle in, applied. . Blandy-Jenkins 
 
 V. EakL op i)uiIBAVEN 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 121 
 Malcomson v. Qinne The Times, Feb. 27, 1873 
 
 Considered. Evans c. Evans 
 
 [1899] P. 195 
 MaUm M. Keiglihy, (1794-5) 2 Ves. Jr. 333, 
 
 529 a ; 2 R. R. 229. 
 
 Not followed by C. A. In re Hamilton 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 370 
 
 Mallinsonv. Jlfa??inso?i,(1866)L. E. 1 P. & M. 221 
 
 Considered and disapproved by C. A. 
 
 Thomasset v. Thomasset [1894] P. 295 
 Malony, In re - - (1860) IJ. & H. 249 
 
 Referred to. Pbatt v. Willis. Gkey 
 
 ■0. Willis [1895] W. N. 9 
 
 3Ianchester Brewery Co. v. ISIortli Cheshire and 
 
 Manchester Brewery Co., C A. [1898] 
 
 1 Ch. 539. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suXi nam. Nokth 
 
 Cheshire and Manchester Breweuy 
 
 Co. V. Manchestek Brewery Co. 
 
 [1899] A. C. 83 
 Manchester Corporation V. M' Adam, [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 
 673. 
 
 Eeveried by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 500 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire By. Co. Y. 
 
 Anderson, [1898] W. N. 35 (10). 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 394 
 
 Considered by Buckley J. Tebb v. 
 
 Gave - [1900] 1 Ch. 642, 649 
 
 Manchester Trust v. Furness [1895] 2 Q. B. 282 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 539 
 
 2Iann v. Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co., 
 
 (1891) 18 R. 1140. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 69 
 Manser y. Bach - (1848) 6 Hare, 443 
 
 Followed by Joyce J. In re Hare and 
 
 O'More's Conteact 
 
 [1900] W. N. 253 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 93 
 
 Mansion House Association on Railway Traffic v. 
 
 Great Western By., [1895] 2 Q. B." 141, 
 
 146, 147. 
 
 Referred to by Collins J. Eiokett, 
 
 Smith & Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 260, 264 
 Maple lO Co. v. Junior Army and Nary Stores, 
 
 (1882) 21 Ch. D. 36'J. 
 
 Referred to. Comyns v. Hyde. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 9 
 3IapUn Sands, In re [1894] W. N. 141 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] W. N. 184 
 
 Mara v. Browne - [1895] 2 Ch. 69 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 199 
 
 Marcus, Be - - (1887) 57 L. T. 899 
 
 Principles of, applied by Byrne J. In 
 re Teottek - [1899] 1 Ch. 764 
 
 '• Margaret," The - (1829) 2 Hagg. Adm. 275 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. The " Oawdob " 
 
 [1900] P. 47, 63 
 
 " Margaret," The. Cayzer v. Carron Co., (1884) 
 9 App. Cas. 873. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. H.M.S. "Sans 
 Pareil " - - - [1900] P. 267 
 
 Margetson v. Glynn - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 337 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) [1893] A. C. 351 
 
 Marine Insurance Co. v. China Transpaeifia 
 Steamship Co., (1886) 11 App. Cas. 573. 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.). Euabon 
 Steamship Co. v. London Asbueance 
 
 [1900] A. C. 6 
 
 Marhham and Darter's Case [1899] 1 Ch. 411 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 48a 
 
 Marhs v. Frogley - [1898] 1 Q. B. 39S 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 888" 
 
 Marlborough {Dowager Duchess of)Y. Marlborough 
 (Duke of), [1900] W. N. 88. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1900] W. N. 270- 
 
 Marlborough (Dulce of) Settlement, In re, (1866) 
 32 Ch. D. 1. 
 Observed upon. In re Duke op Mael- 
 
 BOKOCGH AND GOVERNORS OP QDEEN 
 
 Anne's Bounty [1897] 1 Ch. 712 
 
 Marlborough (Duke of) v. St. John (1852) 5 De G. 
 
 6 Sm. 174. 
 
 Head-note corrected by Eomer J. Eoole- 
 siastioal Commbs. v. Wodehouse 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 552 
 
 " Marpesia," The - (1872) L. E. 4 P. C. 212 
 Approved by C. A. The "Merchant 
 Pkince"- [1892] p. 179 
 
 Marseilles Extension By. Co., In re, (1871) L. E> 
 
 7 Ch. 161. 
 
 Followed. In re Hampshiee IjANd Co. 
 [1896] W. N. 78 (2) 
 
 Marsh V. Keating, (1833-4) 1 Bing. N. C. 198; 
 37 R. E. 75. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Eeid v. Eigby & 
 Co. - [1894] 2 ft. B. 40 
 
 Marshall v. Benidge - (1881-2) 19 Ch. D. 233 
 Discussed and applied by Chitty J. in. 
 In re Lander & Bagley's Contract 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 41 
 
 Marshall v. Callander & Trossachs Hydropathic 
 Co., (1895) 22 E. 954. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.). Callander 
 & Teossaohs Hydropathic Co. and The 
 Eagle Peopeety Co. v. Maeshall 
 
 [1896] A. C. 22S 
 
 Marshall v. Gingell - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 790 
 Considered and applied by Chitty J. 
 In re Bbooke. Beooke v. Brooke 
 (No. 1) - - [1894] 1 Ch, 43 
 
 Marshall v. Smith - (1873) L. E. 8 C. P. 416 
 Commented on by Div. Ct. Welsh & 
 Son v. West Ham Coepoeation 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 324, 328 
 
 MarslifieU, In re - - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 721 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. Dingle v. Cop- 
 pen - - [1899] 1 Ch. 726 
 
 Mariano v. Mann - (1880) 14 Ch. D. 419 
 
 Eule in, applied. In re Smith 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 88 (16) 
 
 Martin, In re (1886) 34 Ch. D. 618 
 
 Distinguished. In re Weston's Trusts 
 
 [1898] W. N. 151 (10) 
 
 Martin v. Porter - - (1839) 5 M. & W. 351 
 
 Principle applied. Whitwham v. West- 
 minster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 53a 
 
DtTRING THE YEAES ISKl— 1000. 
 
 cccxlix 
 
 Martin v. Price - - [1894] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 Followed. Shelfek v. City of London 
 Electmo Lighting Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287, 311, 316 
 JoKDESON V. Sutton, Southcoates & 
 Dbypool Gas Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 Martins v. Updlier - - (1842) 3 Q. B. 662 
 
 Considered by Div. Ct. Madden v. 
 
 Kensington Ve'stbt [1892] 1 Q,. B. 614 
 
 Marylebone Vestry v. Sheriff of London, [1900] 1 
 
 Q. B. 111. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 691 
 JUaryon- Wilson, In re. Wilson v. Maryon- Wilson 
 
 [1899] W. N. 97: [1899] 2 Oh. 489. 
 
 Keversed on one point by C. A. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 565 
 
 Applied bv Stirling J. In re Duke or 
 
 St. AiBANB - [1900] 2 Ch. 873 
 
 jrason V. Broadbent - (1863) 33 Beav. 296 
 
 DiscuBsed by Byrne J. Dingle v. 
 COPPBN - - [1899] 1 Ch. 726 
 
 Mason v. Dean - - [1900] 1 Q. B. 770 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Cass v. Butler 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 777, 779 
 
 llason & Taylor, In re - (1878) 10 Ch. D. 729 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Bbun- 
 ton v. Electrical Engineering Cob- 
 POBATION - - [1892] 1 Ch. 434 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Law- 
 eance. [1894] 1 Ch. 556 
 
 Masons Orphanage and London and North West- 
 ern By. Co., In re, (1895) W. N. 138 (3). 
 Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 596; [1896] 1 Ch. 54 
 
 Massey v. Heynes & Co. - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 330 
 Followed by C. A. Bennetts & Co. v. 
 McIlwbaith & Co. - [1896] 2 ft. B. 464 
 
 Mathers v. Green - - (1865) L. E. 1 Ch. 29 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.). Steebs ». 
 Rogers - [1893] A. C. 232 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Heyl 
 Dja v. Edmunds - [1899] W. H. 222 
 
 llatheson v. Hois - - (1849) 2 H. L. C. 286 
 
 See 5t & 55 Viot. o. 39, s. 14 (1). 
 
 Mathews v. Magrath (1868) Ir. R. 3 C. L. 127 
 Observed upon. Laveby v. Kings- 
 
 BEBET AND BlACS 
 
 (1886) 20 I. E. (Ir.) 387 ; 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 118 
 
 Matson, In re - - [1897] 2 Ch. 509 
 
 See Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 Yiot. c. 5), 
 
 8. 342. 
 
 Maude, Ex parte - (1870) L E. 6 Ch. 51 
 
 Followed. In re Weymouth and Chan- 
 nel Steam Packet Co. 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Ch. 66 
 Distinguished. In re Anglo-Continen- 
 tal COEPOEATION OE WeSTBEN AUS- 
 TRALIA - - [189811 Ch. 327 
 
 Maunsell v. Midland Oreat Western (Ireland) By. 
 Co. - - (1803) 1 H. & M. 130 
 
 Followed by C. A. Kitts «. Moore 
 
 [1895] 1 ft. B. 253 
 
 Mawer v. Harrison, Eq^. Ca. Abr. 93, Blioh. 1692 • 
 20 Viner's Abr. p. 102. 
 Considered by Stirling J. In re 
 Walkeb. Sheffield Banking Co. •». 
 Clayton [1892] 1 Ch. 621 
 
 Maxim-Nordenfelt Gun and Ammunition Co. v. 
 Nordenfelt (No. 1), [1893] 1 Ch. 630. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Nokden- 
 pelt v. Maxim-Koedenfelt Gun and 
 Ammunition Go. - [1894] A. C. 535 
 Referred to by C. A. D pbow ski & Sons 
 V. Goldstein [1896] 1 ft. B. 484 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Hollis 
 Hospital and Hague's Contract 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 540, 553 
 
 MaxweU's Case ■ (1874) L. E. 20 Eq. 585 
 
 Distinguished. In re Bangoe and 
 Noeth Wales Mutual Maeine Peo- 
 tection Association [1899] 2 Ch. 593 
 
 Maynard's, Ld., In re - - [1898] 1 Ch. 515 
 
 Referred to. Iji re Northern Ceeo- 
 soTiNG and Sleeper Co. 
 
 [1898] W. TX. 159 (5) 
 Dissented from. In re S. Feost & Co. 
 
 C.,A. [1899] 2 Ch. 207 
 See also Companies Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. u. 26). 
 
 Mayor V. Collins - (1890) 24 Q. B, D. 361 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Eedfeen v. 
 Redpeen - - [1891] P. 139 
 
 May's Metal Separating Syndicate, In re, [1898] 
 W. N. 159 (5). 
 
 Referred to. In re Nobthebn. Creo- 
 soting and Sleeper Co. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 159 (5) 
 
 Meade's Settled Estates, In re [1897] 1 X. E. 121 
 Followed. In re Tidbits' Settled 
 Estates [1897] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 Distinguished. In re Keck and Hart's 
 Contract - [1898] 1 Ch. 617 
 
 Distinguished. In re Du Cane and 
 Nettleford's Conteact 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 96 
 
 Mealcin v. Morris - (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 352 
 
 Approved by C. A. Coen v. Matthews 
 
 [1893] 1 ft. B. 310 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Geeen v- 
 
 Thompson - [1899] 2 ft. B. 1, 5 
 
 " Mediana," The - - [1899] W. N. 14 (2) 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1899] P. 127 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Owners 
 of Steamship " Mediana " u. Owners, 
 &c. of Lightship " Comet." The 
 
 " Mediana " 
 
 [190O] A. C. 113 
 
 Medical Battery Co., In re [1894] I Ch. 444, 448 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re Bishop 
 (E.) & Sons, Ld. - [1900J 2 Ch. 254 
 
 Medland, In re. Eland v. Medland (1889) 41 
 Ch. D. 476. 
 
 See now Trustee Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 10), s. 4. 
 
cccl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &c., 
 
 Medloeh, In re (18SU) 55 L. J. (CIi.) 738 
 
 Followed by Ohitty J. In re Clements 
 [1894] 1 Ch, 665 
 And by North J. In re Snaith 
 
 [1894] W. N. 115 
 Applied by C. A. In re Woodin 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 309 
 
 Mellin v. White - - [1894] 3 Ch, 276 
 
 C. A. reversed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1895] A. C. 154 
 
 Mellm V. Swire - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 239 
 
 Approved of by H. L. (Ir.). Hatton 
 
 V. Haekis - [1892] A. C. 547 at p. 560 
 
 Approved by P. C. Milson v. Cakteb 
 
 [1893] A. C. 638 
 
 "Melpomene," The - (1873) L. E. 4 A. & E. 129 
 Eeferred to by Jeuno P. The " Strath- 
 garky" - - - [1895] P. 264 
 
 Menzies v. Menzies - (1892) 29 So. L. E. 677 
 Eeversedby H. L. (So.) [1893] W. N. 48 
 
 Mercantile Bank of Australia, In re, [1802] 2 Ch. 
 204. 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J. In re 
 Bound & Co. - [1893] W. N. 21 
 
 Mercantile Banh of Sydney v. Taylor, (1891) 12 
 New South Wales L. E. 252. 
 Affirmed by P. C. [1893] A. C. 317 
 
 Mercantile Investment Co. v. International Co. of 
 Mexico - [1893] 1 Ch. 484, n. 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Follit r. 
 Eddystone Gkanite Quakkies 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 75 
 See also Sneath v. Valley Gold, Ld. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 477 
 And Meecantile Investment and 
 General Teust Co. v. Eiveb Plate 
 Tecst, Loan and Agency Co. (No. 2) 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 578 
 Mercer v. Vans Colina, (1897) 67 L. J. (Q. B.) 
 424. 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Beall 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 688 
 Merchant Shipping Co. v. Armitage, (1873) L. E. 
 9 Q. B. 99. 
 
 Followed by C. A. and approved by 
 H. L. (E.). London, Chatham and 
 DovEK Ey. Co. v. South Eastern Ey. 
 Co. [1892] 1 Ch. 120; [1893] A. C. 429 
 Merritt, In the Goods of (1858) 1 Sw. & Tr. 142 
 Disapproved. Oadell v. Wiloooks 
 
 [1898] P. 21 
 Merryweather v. Mxan, (1799) 8 T. E. 186 ; 16 
 E. E. 810. 
 
 Not extended to So. by H. L. (So.). 
 Palmer v. Wick and Pdlteneytown 
 Steam Shipping Co. [1894] A. C. 318 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Moxham v. Grant 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 88, 93, 95 
 Mermj Dochs v. Liverpool, (1872) L. E. 7 Q. B. 
 643. 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.). Hcll Docks 
 Co. V. Soulooates Union (Guardians) 
 [1896] A. C. 136 
 Followed by C. A. Dodds v. Assess- 
 ment Cojimittee of South Shields 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 133 
 
 Docks and Harbour Board v. Inland 
 Revenue Commrs., [1897] 1 Q. B. 786. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 316 
 
 Mersey Docks and Sarhour Board v. Uaneilian 
 Overseers, (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 770. 
 Overruled. See Commes. op Poet of 
 Lancaster?;. Barrow-in-Furness Over- 
 seers Div. Ct, [1897] 1 a. B. 166, 171 
 
 Mersey Docks and Sarhour Board v. Turner. 
 J7ie".Zeto,"[1892]P. 285. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (B.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 468 
 
 Mersey Steel and Iron Co. v. Naylor, Benzon & 
 Co., (1884) 9 App. Cas. 434, 442. 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Ehymkey Ey. 
 Co. v. Brecon and Mekthyr TYorin 
 Junction Ey. Co. - [1900] W. N. 169 
 
 Mervin, In re. Mervin v. Grossman, [1891] 3 Ch. 
 197. 
 
 Observed upon. Willerton v. Stocks 
 [1892] W. N. 29 
 Followed. In re Stevens 
 
 [1896] W. N. 24 (12) 
 
 Mess V. Bay - - - (1898) 25 E. 398 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1899] A. C. 233 
 
 Metcalfe, In re. Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, (1889) 43 
 Ch. D. 633. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1891] 3 Ch. 1 
 Distinguished by C. A. West v. 
 Williams - [1899] 1 Ch. 132, 148 
 
 Metcalfe y. Cox - - (1894) 22 E. 210 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1895] A. e. 328 
 
 Metcalfe r. St. Andrews {University of), (1896) 
 23 Eettie, 559. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) sub nam. Med- 
 CALFE V. Cox - - [1896] A. C. 64T 
 
 Methuem and Blare's Contract, In re, (1881) 16 
 
 Ch. D. 696. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Moeeis 
 
 [1894] W. N. 85 
 Metropolitan Asylum District v. Sill, (1881) G 
 
 App. Cas. 193. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Eapiee v. 
 
 London Tramways Co. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 58S 
 
 Approved. Canadian Pacific Ey. Co. 
 
 V. Paeke p. C. [1899] A. C. 535 
 
 Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley, (1885) 10 App. Cas. 
 
 210. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Bevce v. Mar- 
 quess of Aileseuey (No. 2) 
 
 [1892] W. N. 149 
 
 See 59 & 60 Viot. c. 51. 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works v. London and Xorth 
 Western By. Co., (1880) 14 Ch. D. 521 ; 
 (1881) 17 Ch. D. 246. 
 Approved by C. A. I'slington Vestet 
 V. HoBNSEY Urban Council 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 695 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works v. Overseers of West 
 Sam, (1870) L. E. 6 Q. B. 193. 
 Followed by C. A. London County 
 Council v. Churchwardens, &c., of 
 West Ham - [1892] 2 Q. B. 44. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ccolS 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Worlcs v. Vauxliall Bridge 
 Co., (1857) 7 B. & B. 961. 
 Overruled by Div. Ct. Knight v. 
 Langpokt District Dbainage Boaed 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 588 
 
 Metropolitan Coal Consumers' Association, In re. 
 Karherg's Case, [1892] 3 Ch. 1. 
 Followed by C. A. In re Oanawan 
 DiKECT Meat Co. - [1892] W. N. 146 
 
 Metropolitan Coal Consumers' Association v. 
 Scrimgeour, [1895] 2 Q. B. 604. 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. 
 0. 48), B. 8, sub-s. 3. 
 
 Metropolitan Coal Consumers' Association, In re. 
 Wainwrighfs Case, (1890) 62 L. T. 
 (N.S.) 30; 63 L. T. (N.S.) 429. 
 Considered by C. A. In re Metbo- 
 pojjtan Coal Consumeks' Association. 
 Kakberg's Case - [1892] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 Metropolitan By. Co. v. Fowler, [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 165. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 41S 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Farmer v. 
 "Waterloo and City Rt. Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 527, 532 
 
 Metropolitan By. Co. v. Wright, (1886) 11 App. 
 Caa. 152. 
 
 See How v. London and North West- 
 ern Rt. Co. C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 391 
 
 Meux V. Smith - (1843) 11 Sim. 410 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. Bird v. Phil- 
 pott - - [1900] 1 Cb. 822 
 
 Meyer T. Sirmnsen (1 862) 5 De G. & Sm. 723 
 Applied and followed by Kekewich J. 
 In re Baton. Daines v. Eaton 
 
 [1894] W. N. 95 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Nicholson - [1895] W. K. 106 
 
 Rule in, approved of by P. C. Wbnt- 
 wobth v. Wentworth [1900] A. C. 163 
 
 Meyerstein's Trade-marh, In re, (1890) 43 Ch. D. 
 604. 
 
 Followed. In re Talbot's Trade-mark 
 [1894] W. N. 12 
 Considered by C. A. In re Farben- 
 fabrinken Application 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 645 ; 
 But this case was overruled by 
 H. L. (B.). Eastman Photo- 
 graphic Materials Co. v. Comp- 
 troller-General OF Patents, &c. 
 [1898] A. C. 571 
 
 Meyler v. Mei/Ur - (1883) 11 L. R. Ir. 522 
 
 Approved and adopted by Chitty J. 
 In re Whiston's Settlement. Lovatt 
 ■;;. Williamson [1894] 1 Ch. 661 
 
 MicheU v. Miohell (No. 1) 
 Reversed by C. A. 
 
 - [1891] P. 166 
 
 - [1891] P. 208 
 
 Middlesborotwh, &c., Building Society, In re, 
 (1889) 58 L. J. (Ch.) 771. 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Britannia Permanent Benefit Build- 
 ing Society - [1891] W. K. 123 
 
 Middlesex County Council v. St. George's Union- 
 Assessment Committee, [1896] 2 O. B. 
 143. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 64 
 
 Middleton, In re - - (1882) 19 Ch. D. 552^ 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Copland 
 [1895] W. N. 137 (1> 
 
 Middleton v. Bailey - [1895] 2 Ch. 716: 
 
 Approved of by Romer J. Wilcox anD' 
 GiBBS V. James [1897] 2 Ch. 71, 72 
 
 Middleton v. Lord Advocate (1876) 3 Rettie, 599 
 Followed. Bevell v. Scott, (1895] 22' 
 Rettie, 772 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 137 
 Middleton V. Pollocle - (1876) 2 Ch. D. 104r 
 
 Approved of. New, Prance & Gar- 
 bard's Trustee v. Hunting 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 19 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (B.> 
 
 [1899] A. C. 419 
 
 Midgley v. Coppoclc - (1879) 4 Ex. D. 309' 
 
 Followed by Collins J. Tobbs v. Wynne 
 
 [1897] 1 a. B. 74 
 
 Midland Coal, Colte and Iron Co., In re, [1895]i 
 
 1 Ch. 267. 
 
 See In re New Oriental Bank Corpo- 
 ration (No. 2) - [1895] 1 Ch. 763, 765 
 Midland By. Co. v. Edmonton Union, [1895] 1 
 Q. B. 357. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 485 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. Gribhle - [1895] 2 Ch. 129 
 AJBBrmed with a variation in the order 
 by C. A. - - [1895] 2 Ch. 827 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. Haimchwood Brick and Tile- 
 Co., (1882) 20 Ch. D. 552. 
 See Buabon Brick and Terra CottA' 
 Co. V. Great Western Rt. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 42r 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. MiUs (1886) 33 Ch. D. 632 
 See RuABON Brick and Tetta Cottav 
 Co. V. Great Western Rt. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 427' 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. Pye, (1861) 10 0. B. (N.S.> 
 191. 
 Approved. Young v. Adams 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 469' 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. BoUnson, (1890) 15 App. Cas.. 
 19. 
 
 See BtTabon Brick and Terra Cotta. 
 Co. o. Great Western By. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 427 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. Withington Local Board, 
 (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 788. 
 Followed by Bruce J. Oree v. St. Pan- 
 geas Vestry - [1899] 1 ft. B. 69* 
 
 Miles V. Jarvis - - (1883) 24 Ch. D. 63» 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Blaokman" 
 
 V. Fysh - [1892] 3 Ch. 209, 220' 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Dean v. Dean 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 150 
 
 Millard's Settled Estates, In re [1893] 3 Oh. 11& 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. Duke op 
 Norfolk v. Lord Heeries 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 461 
 
 MUler, In re - 0. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 32T 
 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 35 (!»). 
 
CGolii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEKRULED, &c., 
 
 MilUr V. Callins - [1895] W N. 143 (8) 
 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1896] 1 Ch. 573 
 
 Maier V. Dell - - [1891] 1 Q. B. 468 
 
 ReferieJ to. Lontjon and Midland 
 Bank v. Mitchell 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 161, 166 
 
 MUls, Ex parte - - (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. 569 
 
 Followed liy C. A. In re Hildesheim. 
 Ex parte The Tbustee 
 
 [1893] 2 ft. B. 857 
 
 JUm's Estate, In re - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 24 
 
 Considered by C. A. In re Fisher 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 450 
 
 Mills V. Bowyers Co. - (1856) 3 K. & J. 66 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re White- 
 let and Roberts' Arbitration 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 558 
 
 Mills V. Fowlies - (1839) 5 Bing. N. C. 455 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Friend 
 V. YouNO [1897] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 Mills V. Jennings - - (1880) 13 Ch. D. 639 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Jenn- 
 ings V. Jordan (1881) 6 App. Cas. 698 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Mitchell [1892] W. N. 11 
 
 MiUom V. Awdry, (1800) 5 Ves. 465 ; 5 E. R. 102 
 Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 ROESON [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 Mineliead Local Board v. Luttrell, [1894] 2 Ch. 
 178. 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. Vowles v. 
 CoLMER [1895] W. N. 42 
 
 Followed and applied by Stirling J. 
 Crotsdale v. Sdnbury-on-Thames 
 Urban Council [1898] 2 Ch. 515 
 
 Minet v. Morgan - (1873) L. R, 8 Cb. 361 
 
 Followed by C. A. Calcraft v. Guest 
 
 [1898] 1 0. B. 769 
 
 Mining Shares Investment Co., In re, [1893] 2 Ch. 
 660. 
 Referred to. Aluminium Co., In re 
 
 [1894] W. H. 6 
 
 Minna Craig Steamship Co. v. Cliartered Mercan- 
 tile Banlc of India, London and China, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 55. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 460 
 
 ■" Minnie," The - - [1894] P. 336 
 
 No longer law. The " Oporto " 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 249 
 
 Minter v. Carr - - - [1894] 2 Ch. 321 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 498 
 
 Minter v. WilliaTns, (1835) 4 Ad. & E. 251; 1 
 Web. Pat. Cas. 135. 
 
 Considered by C. A. British Motor 
 Syndicate, Ld. v. Taylor & Son 
 
 [1900] W. N. 239; [1901] 1 Ch. 122 
 
 .Mirams, In re - - [1891] 1 Q. B. 594 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (E). Mogul 
 Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & 
 Co. - - [1892] A. C. 25, 45 
 
 'Missouri Steamship Co., In re, (1889) 42 Ch. D. 
 321. 
 
 Principle in, applied by Kekewich J. 
 South African Bruweries v. King 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 172; C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 273 
 
 Mitchell V. Cantrill (1888) 37 Ch. D. 56 
 
 Distinguished by North J. Haynes v. 
 King [1893] 3 Ch. 439, at p. 445 
 
 Mitchell V. Simpson - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 373 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Edyb (a 
 Solicitor) - - [1891] W. ». 1 
 
 Moase v. White - - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 763 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Uttermare [1893] W. N. 158 
 
 Mozambique, Companhia de y. British South Africa 
 Co. - - [1892] 2 Q. B. 358 
 
 C. A. reversed by H. L. (E ) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 602 
 
 Mogg V. Clark - - (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 82 
 
 Followed by C. A. Eeg. v. Soutter 
 
 [1891] 1 ft. B. 57 
 
 Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Go. 
 (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 598. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) [1892] A. C. 25 
 Applied and followed by Kekewich J. 
 Trollope v. London Building Trades 
 Federation [1895] W. N. 29 ; 
 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 45 
 
 Mohan v. Broughhm - [1899] P. 211 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] P. 56 
 
 Molyneux & White, In re, (1884) 13 L. R. Ir. 382 ; 
 15 L. R. Ir. 383. 
 
 Explained by Stirling J. In re Venn 
 & Furze's Contract [1894] 2 Ch. 101 
 
 Monies V. Jackson - (1876) 1 C. P. D. 688 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Harford v. 
 LiNSKET - - [1899] 1 Q. B. 852 
 
 Monson v. Tusaauds, Ld. - [1894] 1 Q. B. 671 
 Dictum of Lord Hals bury not followed 
 by C. A. KiTTS V. Moore 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 Montagu, In re. Derhishire v. Montagu, [1897] 1 
 Ch. 685. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 8 
 See In re Countess Waldegrave 
 
 [1899] W. N. 240 
 
 Montague v. Floekton (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 189 
 Disapproved. Whitwood Chemical Co. 
 V. Hardman C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 416 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. "Star" 
 Newspaper Co. c. O'Connor 
 
 [1893] W. N. 114 ; 
 C, A. [1893] W. N. 122 
 
 Mont de Piete of England, In re, (1S92) 37 S. J. 
 48. 
 
 Not followed by Byrne J. In re Hille 
 India Rubber Co. [1897] W. N, 6 (4) 
 
 Montgomery v. Thompson - [1891] A. C. 221 
 Observations of Lord Watson followed 
 by Chitty J. Wolmershausen v. Wol- 
 mershausen & Co. [1892] W. N. 87 
 
 Form of injunction followed by Stir- 
 ling J. Powell v. Birmingham Vine- 
 gar Brewery Co. (No. 2) 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 449 
 
 Moore, Ex parte - (1881) 51 L. J. (Oh.) 72 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 Gallard [1897] 2 ft. B, 8 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891— 19D0. 
 
 cccliU 
 
 Moore, Ex parte - (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 627 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Alexandek 
 [1892] 1 a. B. 216 
 Moore, In re - - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 778 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Eaton v. 
 
 Daujbs - - [1894] W. N. 32 
 
 Moore, In re - (1885) 51 L. J. (Oh.) 432 
 
 Followed. In re Babkek. Bakkek v. 
 
 Baekek - [1897] W. N. 154 (14) 
 
 Moore v. Moore - - - [1892] P. 382 
 
 Followed by Jeune Prcs. Rogers v. 
 
 EOGEES - - [1894] P. 161 
 
 Moore v. Watson - (1867) L. K. 2 C. P. 314 
 Disapproved of by C. A. Stkeet v. 
 Stbeet - - [1900] 2 ft. B. 57 
 
 Moore Brothers & Co., In re, [1898] W. N. 71 (1) 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1899] 1 Ch. 627 
 
 Moran v. Jones - ■ (1857) 7 E. & B. 523 
 
 Commented on by G. Barnes J. The 
 " Brigella " - [1893] P. 189, 197 
 
 Morant v. Taylor - - (1876) 1 Ex. D. 188 
 
 See 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii., s. 116 (3). 
 Mordue v. Palmer - (1870) L. R. 6 Ch. 22 
 
 See In re Stringer and Riley Brothers, 
 
 [1900] W. N. 240. 
 More-Smyth, v. Mountcashell {Earl of), [1895] 
 
 1 1. R. 44. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) [1896] A. C. 128 
 
 Morgan v. Bowles - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 236 
 
 Approved by C. A. Kiret v. North 
 
 Beitish and Mercantile Insukance Co. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 99, 101 
 
 Morgan v. Britten (1871) L. R. 13 Bq. 28 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Binning v. 
 
 Binning - [1895] W. N. 116 (16) 
 Morgart v. Castlegate Steamship Co., (1891) 29 
 
 L. E. (Ir.) 55. 
 
 AfBrmed by H. L. (Ir.) [1893] A. C. 38 
 Mm-gan v. Mather, (1792) 2 Ves. Jr. 15 ; 2 R. E. 
 
 163. 
 
 Commented on by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Whiielet and Eobbets' Arbiteation 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 658 
 Morgan v. Ravey - (1861) 6 H. & N. 265, 276 
 
 Applied by Hawkins J. Robb v. Gkeen 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 This case afBrm. by C. A. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 315 
 Morgan v. Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority, 
 
 (1878) 9 Ch. D. 582. 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. In re 
 
 Cunningham and Feayling 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 567 
 "Morgengry," The, and "The Blaolccock," [1899] 
 
 W. N. 211. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - - [1900] P. 1 
 
 Moritz V. Knowles - - [1899] W. N. 40 
 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1899] W. N. 83 
 Morley v. Atteriborough, (1849) 3 Ex. 500; 18 
 
 L. J. (Ex.) 148. 
 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. c. 71, ss. 11 (1) (c) ; 
 
 12 (1), 55. 
 Morley v. Carter - - [1898] 1 Q. B. 8 
 
 See now Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 2, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Morley Y. Rennoldson - (1843) 2 Hare, 570 
 
 Explained and further heard by C. A. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 449 
 
 Morrell v. Morrell - - (1882) 7 P. D. 68 
 
 Followed by Jeune Pres. Collins v. 
 Elstone - - [1893] P. 1 
 
 Morrice v. Aylmer - (1875) L. E. 7 H. L. 717 
 See In re Bodman 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 136, at p. 137 
 
 Morris, In re. James v. London and County 
 Banlting Co. [1898] 2 Ch. 413. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 485 
 
 Morris Y. Edwards - (1890) 15 App. Cas. 1309 
 Followed by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. New- 
 castle-upon-Tyne COEPOEATION 
 
 [1899] 2 a. B. 478 
 
 Morris v. Levisan - (1876) 1 C. P. D. 155 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Millee v. 
 BoENEE & Co. - [1900] 1 ft. B. 691 
 
 Morris v. Morris (1861) 31 L. J. (P. M. & A. 33) 
 
 Followed by G. Barnes J. Stanley v. 
 
 Stanley - - [1898] P. 227 
 
 Morris v. Bohinson, (1824) 3 B. & C. 196; 27 
 
 E. R. 322. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Rice v. Reed 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 54, 63 
 Morris V. WiUon - (1859) 5 Jur. (N.S.) 168 
 
 Followed by Romer J. Filby v. Houn- 
 
 SELL - [1896] 2 Ch. 737 
 
 Morris, Wilson & Co. v. Coventry Machinists Co. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 418. 
 
 Commented on by C. A. Woolley v. 
 
 Beoad (No. 2) - [1892] 2 ft. B. 317 
 Mortloek v. Buller, (1804) 10 Ves. 292, 315; 7 
 
 B. R. 417. 
 
 Applied by Farwell J. Rudd v. Las- 
 
 OELLES - [1900] 1 Ch. 815 
 
 Morton v. Thorpe - (1863) 3 Sw. & Tr. 179 
 
 Followed by G. Barnes J. In the 
 
 Goods oi' Quick - [1899] P. 187 
 
 Morton v. Tf66eH - (1850) 15 Q. B. 428 
 
 Considered. Tayloe v. Smith 
 
 C. A, [1893] 2 Q. B. 65 
 Morton, and SaXlett, In re (1880) 15 Ch. D. 143 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Cun- 
 ningham AND Feayling 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 567 
 Moser v. Marsden - - [1892] 1 Ch. 487 
 
 See Montfoets v. Mabsden 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 11, 13 
 Moser y. Marsden - (1896) 13 Pat. Rep. 24 
 
 Discussed. In re Dellwik's Patent 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 705 
 Moss V. Cooper - - (1861) IJ. & H. 352 
 
 Referred to by Farwell J. In re Stead. 
 
 WiTHAM V. Andeew [1900] 1 Ch. 237 
 Mostyn y. Mostyn - - [1893] 3 Ch. 376 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. Jones v. 
 
 Baenbtt 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 611 ; C. A. [ISOO] 1 Ch. 370 
 Moul V. Groenings ■ - [1891] 2 Q. B. 443 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. Schauee v. 
 
 J. C. & J. Field, Ld. [1893] 1 Ch. 35 
 
 Followed by Charles J. Hanestaengl 
 
 Aet Publishing Co. v. Holloway 
 
 [1893] 2 Q, B. 1 
 
cccliv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c., 
 
 Moale V. Garrett, (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 132; a872') 
 7 Ex. 101. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Bonner v. 
 Tottenham and Edmonton Permanent 
 Investme.vt BnjLDiNO Society 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 161 
 Discussed by Stirling J. Johns v. 
 Pink - - . [1900] 1 Ch. 296 
 
 Jlounlcasliell (Earl of) v. More-Smyth, [1895] 1 
 I. R. 44. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) [1896] A. C. 158 
 
 Mountjoy's {Lord^ and the Earl of Suntington's 
 Case, (1582-3) Godbolt 17; 1 Anderson, 
 307. 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. Duke of Suther- 
 land V. Heathoote [1892] 1 Ch. 475 
 
 Mowhray v. Merryiceather - [1895] 1 Q. B. 857 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 640 
 
 Moxliam v. Grant, [1899] W. N. 14 (4); [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 480. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 88 
 
 Moxham, The M. (1876) 1 P. D. 107 
 
 Rule in, applied. Machado v. Pontes 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 231 
 
 Muirden (Cowie's Trustee) v. Cowie, (1891) 18 R. 
 
 700. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (Sc). Cowie v. 
 
 Muirden [1893] A. C. 674 
 
 Muirhead v. Forth and North Sea Steamboat 
 
 Mutual Insurance Association, (1893) 20 
 
 Rettie 442 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 72 
 
 Mulchern v. Boerhs (1884) 53 L. J. (Q.B.) 526 
 Overruled by \¥ilmott v. Freehold Rouse 
 Property Co., (1884) 51 L. T. (N.S.) 552. 
 See Hunt v. Worseold 
 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 224 
 
 Mulliner v. Midland Sy. Co., (1879) 11 Ch. D. 
 611. 
 
 Commented on. Gonty v. Manchester, 
 Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ry. Co. 
 C. A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 439 
 
 Mumford v. Stohwasser [1875] L. R. 18 Eq. .io6 
 Commented on by Farwell J. Hunt v. 
 Luck [1900] W. N. 250 
 
 Mundy and Roper's Contract, In re, [1898] W. X. 
 49 (12). 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1899] 1 Ch. 275 
 
 Mundy's Settled Estates, In re [1891] 1 Ch. 399 
 Followed by North J. In re Bynq's 
 Settled Estates [1892] 2 Ch. 219 
 
 Discussed by Romer J. In re Lord 
 Monson's Settled Estates 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 427 
 Applicable. In re Eyre Coote 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 222 
 
 Munro v. Balfour - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 113 
 
 Followed by C. A. Fukness v. Beres- 
 EORD - [1898] 1 ft. B. 496 
 
 Munro v. Butt - - (1858) 8 E. & B. 738 
 
 Followed. Sumpter v. Hedges 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B, 673 
 
 " Munster.'' The. (Not rfeported.) Followed. 
 The "Medina" [1899] P. 129, note; 
 but this decision was reversed by 
 
 C. A. [1899] P. 127 ; 
 Decision of C. A. affirmed by H. L. 
 (E.) - - [1900] A. C. 113 
 
 Muriel v. Tracy - (1703-4) 6 Mod. 169 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Walters v. 
 Green - - [1899] 2 Ch. 696, 701 
 
 Murray v. Clayton - (1872) L. E. 15 Eq. 115 
 Referred to by C. A. Saccharin Cor- 
 poration V. Chemicals and Drugs Co. 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 556 
 
 Murray v. Freer - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 281 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 635 
 C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 Freer v. Murray [1894] A. C. 576 
 
 Musgrove v. Oiun Teeong Toy [1891] A. C. 272 
 See Commonwealth of Australia Con- 
 stitution Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. ^. 12). 
 s. 9, 8ub-s. 51 (xxvi.). 
 
 Musurus Bey v. Gadban - [1894] 1 Q. B. 533 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 352 
 
 Mutton V. Peat, [1899] W. N. 127 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 
 556. 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Ch. 79 
 
 Myers v. Catterson - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 470 
 
 Followed by Romer J. Wilson v. 
 Queen's Club - [1891] 3 Ch. 522 
 
 Discussed and exi^lained. Broomfield 
 V. Williams C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 Myers v. ElUutt - - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 52C. 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 Wood. Ex parte Woolfe 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 605 
 
 Mylne v. Dicldnson, (1815) G. Cooper 195; 14 
 R. R. 243. 
 Followed by C. A. Kitts v. Moore 
 
 [1895] 1 ft. B. 253, 260 
 
 Mytton V. Mytton (1874) L. E. 19 Bq. 30 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Pratt 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 491 
 
 Nalder & Collyer's Brewery Co. v. Sarman. 
 [1900] W. N. 22. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] W. N. 180 
 
 Nash V. Hodgson ■ (1855) 6 D. M. & G. 474 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Friend v. 
 Young [1897] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 Nassau Phosphate Co. - (1876) 2 Ch. D. 610 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 Laxon & Co. (No. 2) [1892] 3 Ch. 555 
 Discussed by North J. Dennison v. 
 Jeffs - [1896] 1 Ch. 611, 617 
 
 Nathan, Newman & Co., In re, (1887) 35 Ch. D. 1 
 Followed by C. A. In re Cliff. 
 Edwards v. Brown [1895] 2 Ch. 21 
 
 National Arms and Ammunition Cii., In re, (1885) 
 28 Ch. D. 474, 482. 
 
 Test suggested by Bowen L.J. followed 
 by V. AVilliams J. In re Blazer Fire 
 Lighter, Ld. - [1895] 1 Ch, 402 
 
 National Bank of Wales, In re [1896] 2 Ch. 851 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1897] 1 Ch. 298 
 
DUEING THE YBAES 1891—1900. 
 
 coclv 
 
 National Bank of Wales, la re. Ex parte Cory, 
 [1899] W. N. 26. 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 629 
 
 National Boiler Insurance Co., In re, [1892] 1 Oh. 
 
 306. 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re 
 
 Fleetwood Estate Co. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 20 (3) 
 National Debenture and Assets Corporation, In re. 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 505. 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. In re 
 
 Laxon & Co. (No. 2) [1892] 3 Ch. 588 
 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. 
 
 c. 48), s. 1. 
 National Provincial Bank and Marsh, In re, 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 190. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Scott 
 
 AND Alvarez's Contract 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 596; 
 This case varied by C. A. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 603 
 National Society for the Distribution of Electricity 
 
 by Secondary Generators v. Gibbs, [1899] 
 
 2 Ch. 289. 
 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Ch. 280 
 
 National Stores, Ld., In re, [1899] W. N. 215 ; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 773. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 27 
 
 Navan and Kingseourt By. Co., In re, (1885) 17 
 L. E. Ir. 398. 
 
 Followed by Parwell J. In re Wkex- 
 
 HAM, Mold and Connah's Quay Et. Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 436 
 
 Neal v. Barrett - - - [1887] W. N. 88 
 
 Observed upon by North J. Aylwakd 
 
 1). Lewis - - [1891] W. W. 36 ; 
 
 But see ib. in - [1891] 2 Ch. 81 
 
 Nedby v. Nedby - (1852) 5 De G. & Sm. 377 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Baebon 
 
 D. Willis - - [1899] 2 Ch. 878 ; 
 
 But this case was reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 Needham v. Bowers - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 436 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Cawse v. 
 
 Committee of Nottingham: Lunatic 
 
 Hospital - - [1891] 1 Q, B. 585 
 
 Negus, In re - - [1895] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 Discussed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Gray - - [1900] W. N. 274 
 
 Neill V. Duke of Devonshire, (1882) 8 App. Cas. 
 135. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Blount v. 
 Layaed - - [1891] 2 Ch. 681, n. 
 
 See also Att.-Gen. v. Newoastle-upon 
 Tyne Corporation 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 384, 389 
 
 Neilson v. Mossend Iron Co., (1886) 11 App. Cas. 
 298. 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. Daw v. Her- 
 ring - - _ [1892] 1 Ch. 284 
 
 .Neilson v. Wait - - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 67 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. The "Alme 
 Holme"- - - [1893] P. 173 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Eeynolds 
 & Co. V. Tomlinson [1896] 1 Q. B. 586 
 
 " Nellie," The - - ([1S9G] uot reported) 
 
 Followed. The " Burma " 
 
 [1899] W. N. 54 
 
 " Nelly Schneider," The - (1878) 3 P. D. 152 
 Followed by Bruce J. The "Heee- 
 ward" - - [1898] P. 284 
 
 Nesbitt V. Greenwich Board of Works, (1875) 
 L. B. 10 Q. B. 465. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Davis v. Green- 
 wich Board op Works 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 219 
 
 Nether Stowey Vicarage, In re, (1873) L. E. 17 Eq. 
 156. 
 
 Distinguished by North J. Ex parte 
 Vicar of St. Botolph, Aldsate 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 544 
 
 Netherseal Colliery Co, v. Bourne, (1889) 14 App. 
 Cas. 228. 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Bkaoe v. Abee- 
 
 OARN COLLIEKT Co. [1891] 1 Q. B. 496 
 
 This case was affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 699 
 Nevill V. Fine Arts and General Insurance Co., 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 156. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 68 
 
 Neville v. Matthewman - [1894] 3 Ch. 345 
 
 Considered by North J. Csompton and 
 Evans' Union Bank v. Bueton 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 New City Constitutional Club Co., In re. Ex parte 
 Furssell, (1887) 34 Ch. D. 646. 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Haepue's 
 Cycle Fittings Co. [1900] 2 Ch. 731 
 
 Nevo Eberhardt Co. - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 118 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re 
 Common Petroleum Engine Co. Els- 
 
 NER AND MoArtHUR's CaSE 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 759 
 
 See also Transvaal Exploring Co. i. 
 Albion (Transvaal) Gold Mines, Ld. 
 Byrne J. [1899] 2 Ch. 370 
 Discussed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Metropolitan Fire Insurance Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 671, 676 
 New Ixion Tyre and Cycle Co. v. Spilsbury, [1898] 
 2 Ch. 137. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1898] 2 Ch. 484 
 
 New Land Development Association and Gray, 
 In re, [1892] 2 Ch. 138. 
 Eeferred to by Chitty J. In re Clay- 
 ton and Barclay's Contract 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch, 212 
 Applicable. Hunt v. Fripp 
 
 Byrne J. [1898] 1 Ch. 675, 681 
 See also Bird v. Philpott 
 
 FarweU J. [1900] 1 Ch. 822, 831 
 
 New Oriental Bank Corporation, [1892] 3 Ch. 
 563. 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 Civil Service Brewery Co. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 5 
 
 New Oriental Bank Corporation {No. 2), In re, 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 753. 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re 
 Panther Lead Co. - [1896] 1 Ch. 978 
 z 2 
 
ccclvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEKEULED, &c., 
 
 New Far Consols, Ld., (_No. 3), [1898] 1 Q. B. 
 669. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Skinnek v. County 
 CouET Judge of Northallebton 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 680, 685 ; 
 H, I. (E.) [1899] A. C. 439 
 
 New, Prance & Garrard's Trustee v. Sunling, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 607. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1897] 2 Q. B. 19 
 C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. 
 Sharp (Official Keceiyer) r. Jackson 
 [1899] A. C. 419 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Black- 
 burn & Co. [1899] 2 Ch. 725, 728 
 In re Vautin [1900] 2 ft. B. 325, 328 
 
 New Transvaal Co.. In re - [1896] 2 Cb. 750 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Peabodt 
 Gold Mining Corporation 
 
 [1897] W. N. 170 (3) 
 
 New Weighing Machine Co., In re, [1896] W. N. 
 48 (4). 
 Eeferred to. Practice Direction 
 
 [1898] W. N. 7 (10) 
 
 New York Exchange Co., In re [1893] 1 Ch. 371 
 Considered by C. A. In re Sanitary 
 Burial Association [1900] 2 Ch. 289 
 
 New Torlc Exchange, Ld., In re, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 
 415. 
 
 Distinguished by Farwell J. E. Bishop 
 & Sons, Ld., In re [1900] 2 Ch. 254 
 
 New Yorlc Life Insurance Co. y. Styles, (1889) 14 
 App. Cas. 381. 
 
 Considered by C. A. Equitable Life 
 Assurance Society of United States 
 V. Bishop - [1900] 1 Q. B. 177 
 
 New Zealand Gold Extraction Co. y. Peacock, 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 622. 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Allen i-. 
 Gold Reefs of West Africa, Ld. 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 40; 
 But this case was varied by C. A. 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 656 
 
 New Zealand Trust and Loan Co., In re, [1893] 
 1 Ch. 403. 
 
 Dictum of Lindley L J. as to form of 
 vestingorder disapproved by Kekewich J. 
 In re Joliffe's Trusts [1893] W. N. 84 
 Explained by L.JJ. In re Gregson 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 233 
 
 Newbegin's Estate, In re - (1887) 36 Ch. D. 477 
 Discussed by North J. Winkle v. 
 Bailey - [1897] 1 Ch. 123 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Watson. 
 Guardians of Stamford Union v. 
 Babtlett - - [1899] 1 Ch. 72 
 
 Newhery-Vautin (Patents) Gold Extraction Co. 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 127, u. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Pink- 
 ney & Soss Steamship Co. 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 125 
 
 Newiiggin-hy-the-Sea Gas Co. v. Armstrong, [1879] 
 13 Ch. D. 310. 
 
 Adopted by C. A. Feickeb v. Van 
 Grutten - [1896] 2 Ch. 649 
 
 NewUgging v. Adam, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 582; 
 (1888) 13 App. Cas. 308. 
 Discussed by Farwell J. Whittington 
 V. Seale-Hayne - [1900] W. N. 31 
 
 Newbold Friendly Society Y. Barlow, [1893] 
 2 Q. B. 128. 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 62. 
 
 Newby v. Eckersley - [1899] 1 Q. B. 465 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. In re Pearsov 
 & I' Anson [1899] 2 ft, B. 618, 627, 630 
 See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 1, sub-s. 5. 
 
 Newly v. Sims - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 478 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Fortune v. 
 Hanson [1896] 1 Q. B. 202, 20T 
 
 NeiL-castle Fire Insurance Go. v. Macmorran & Co., 
 (1815) 3 Dow's Reports, 255, 262 ; 15 
 E. R. 67. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Hambkough r. 
 Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New- 
 York - [1895] -W. H. 18 
 
 Newell and Nevill's Contract, In re, [1900] 1 Ch. 
 90. 
 
 Disapproved of by C. A. In re Glad- 
 stone - - - [1900] 2 Ch. 101 
 See also Scott v. Moxon 
 
 [1900] "W. N. 14 
 
 Newen, In re - - [1894] 2 Ch. 297, 309 
 
 Not followed by Stirling J. with regard 
 to question of costs. In re Hunt. 
 Pollard v. Geake - [1900] "W. N. 65 
 
 Newman v. Pinto - (1886) 57 L. T. 31. 
 
 Followed. Baschet v. London Illus- 
 trated Standard Co. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 215 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 Neioson v. Pender - - (1884) 27 Ch. D. 43 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Smith r. 
 Baxter - - [1900] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 Newstead v. Searles - (1737) 1 Atk. 264 
 
 Explained by P. C. De Mestre v. 
 West - - - [1891] A. C. 264 
 
 And by'C. A. Att.-Gen. v. Jacobs- 
 Smith " [1895] 2 a. B. 341 
 
 Neivton v. Anglo-Australian Investment Co., [1895] 
 A. C. 244. 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Jackson v. 
 Eainford Coal Co. [1896] 2 Ch. 340 
 Commented on and explained. In re 
 Mayfair Property Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 28 
 
 Newton's Trusts, In re - (1883) 23 Ch. D. 181 
 
 Overruled by C. A. Miller v. Collins 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 573 
 
 Newton \. Newton - - (1886) 11 P. D. 11 
 
 Cited. Brewis r. Beewis 
 
 [1893] W. N. 6 
 Nicholl v. Eberhardt Co., (1889) 61 L. T. 489; 
 1 Megone, 402. 
 
 Not followed. Buedbtt-Coutts v. True 
 Blue (Hannan's) Gold Mines 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 616 
 Nicholson v. Holhorn Union, (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 
 161. 
 
 Discussed. Worcestershire County 
 Council v. Worcester Union 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 4£0 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 cOi-lvii 
 
 -Nieleon v. Wait - - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 67 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. The "Aline 
 Holme"- - - [1893] P. 173 
 
 Nind V. Nineteenth Century Building Society, 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 472. 
 Reversed by 0. 'A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 226 
 
 Jfitro-Phosphate and Odams Chemical Manure 
 Co., In re, [1893] W. N. 141. 
 Referred to by Kekewicli J. In re 
 Hong Kong and China Gas Co. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 158 (3) 
 Followed by Weight J. In re Copiapo 
 Mining Co. - [1899] W. H. 25 (1) 
 
 NoaUs V. Noalces - - (1877) 4 P. D. 60 
 
 Cited. Bkewis v. Brew is 
 
 [1893] W. N. 6 
 
 myie V. Brett - - (1858) 24 Beav. 499 
 
 Referred to by Roiner J. Gkaham v. 
 
 » Drummond - [1896] 1 Ch. 968 
 
 Noddings, In the Goods of (1860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 15 
 As amended by the corrigenda in that 
 volume. 
 
 Followed by G. Barnes J. In the 
 Goods of Reid - - [1896] P. 129 
 
 ISfoel V. Bewley - - (1829) 3 Sim. 103 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 Hoffe's Estate Act, 1855 
 
 [1900] W. N. 114 
 
 Noel V. Noel - - (1885) 10 P. D. 179 
 
 Considered by Barnes J. Habtopp v. 
 Haetopp - [1899] P. 65 
 
 JSforman v. Binnington - (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 475 
 Considered by G. A. Baekselman v. 
 Bailey - [1895] 2 ft. B. SOI 
 
 Jforth Australian Territory Co. y. Goldshorough, 
 Mort & Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 381. 
 Followed by Stirling J. Goldstone v. 
 "Williams, Deacon & Co. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 47 
 
 Jforth, In re. Ex parte Hasluclc, [1895] W. N. 
 65. 
 Affii-med by C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 264 
 
 ^' North Britain," The - - [1894] P. 77 
 
 Approved by H. L. (B.) Tatham, 
 Bkomage & Co. V. BuBR. The "En- 
 gineer " - [1898] A. C. 382 
 
 mrth V. Stewart - (1890) 15 App. Cas. 452 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 Knight [1892] 2 Ch. 368 
 
 North Cheshire and Manchester Breu'ery Co. v. 
 Manchester Brewery Co., C. A. [1898] 
 
 1 Ch. 539. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1898] W. N, 168 (5) 
 
 North Eastern By. Co. v. Dalton Overseers, [1898] 
 
 2 Q, B. 66. 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 1026 
 
 C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 
 Dalton Overseers i. North Eastern 
 
 : Bt. Co. - [1900] A. C. 345 
 
 North Eastern By. Co. v. Elliot, (1860) 1 J. & H. 
 145. 
 
 Applied and followed by Stirling J. 
 Aldin v. Latimer Clarke, Muikhead 
 & Co. - - - [1894] 2 Ch. 437 
 
 North Kent By. Co. v. Badger, (1858) 27 L. J 
 (M.G.) 106. 
 
 Partially met by 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii., 
 s. 81. 
 
 North London Land Co. v. Jacques, (1884) 32 
 W. R. 283. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Rogers v. Rice 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 170 
 
 Disapproved by Lord Esher M.R. Look 
 V. Pbarce - [1893] 2 Ch. 271, 276 
 
 North Loudon By. Go. v. Great Northern By. Co., 
 (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 30. 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Richard- 
 son V. Methley School Board 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 510 
 Approved and distinguished by C. A. 
 Kitts v. Moore - [1895] 1 ft. B. 263 
 
 North Wales Gunpowder Co., In re, [1892] 2 Q. B. 
 220. 
 
 Cited by V. Williams J. In re Bound 
 & Co. ■ [1893] W. N. 21 
 
 North Western Bank v. Foynter, Son & Macdonalds, 
 (1894) 21 R. 513. 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1895] A. C. 56 
 Discussed by H. L. (So.) Inqlis v. 
 Robertson - [1898] A. C. 616, 626 
 
 Northampton (Marquess of) v. Polloclc, (1890) 
 45 Ch. D. 190. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. Salt v. 
 Marquess uf Northampton 
 
 [1892] A, C. 1 
 Referred to by C. A. Rice v. Noakes 
 & Co. - [1900] 2 Ch. 446, 451 
 
 Northern Seritahle Securities Investments Co. v. 
 Whyte, (1888) 16 R. 100. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.)sw6 nom. Whyte 
 V. Heritable Securities Investment 
 Co. - - [1891] A. C. 608 
 
 Northumberland Avenue Hotel Co., In re, (1886) 
 33 Ch. D. 16. 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Bagot Pneu- 
 matic Tyre Co. v. Clipper Pneumatic 
 Tybe Co. - - [1900] W. N. 272 
 
 Northumberland {Dulte of) v. Percy, [1893] 1 Ch. 
 298, 303. 
 
 Adopted by Kekewich J. irereHoWELL- 
 Shepherd - [1894] 3 Ch. 649 
 
 Norton v. London and North Western My. Co., 
 (1878; 9 Ch. D. 623. 
 Ratio decidendi of Malins V.-C. dis- 
 approved by C. A. Foster v. London, 
 Chatham and Dover Ry. Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 ft. B. 711 
 
 Notara v. Henderson, (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 225, 
 ,237. 
 Applied by G. Barnes J. The 
 " Savona " - [1900] P. 252 
 
ocelviii 
 
 TABLE OF OASES FOLLOWED, OVBEEULED, &c., 
 
 Nottingham Patent Briclc and Tile Co. v. Butler 
 (18S5) 15 Q. B. D. 261; (1886) 16 
 Q. B. D. 778. 
 Explained by Stirling J. In re BiB- 
 
 MINGHAM AND DISTRICT LAND Co. AND 
 
 Allday - - [1893] 1 Ch. 342 
 
 Keferred to by Kekewioh J. Nalder 
 
 AND Collyek's Beewekt Co. v. Habman 
 
 [1900] W, N. 22; C. A. [1900] W. N. 180 
 
 Noyce, In re - - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 97 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. sub nom. In re Noyce. 
 HiLLEART V. Noyce [1892] 1 ft. B. 642 
 
 NugenPi Trustees v. Nugent - (1898) 25 E. 475 
 Eeversod by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Gee- 
 
 YILLE-NUGENT V. MACKENZIE 
 
 [1900] A. C. 83 
 
 Nimn V. Barlow, (1824) 1 S. & S. 588 ; 24 E. E. 242 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. Davies v. Parey 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 Nunn V. FaUan - - (1865) L. E. 1 Cb. 35 
 
 Applicable. Miller & Aldwoeth, Ld. 
 D. Shaep Byrne J. [1899] 1 Ch. 622 
 
 Nunndey v. Nunneley - (1890) 15 P. D. 186 
 Explained and followed. Foesyth v. 
 FoESYTH - - - [1891] P. 363 
 
 Nurse v. Durnford - (1879) 13 Cb. D. 764 
 
 Adopted by C. A. Frickee v. Van 
 Gebtten - - [1896] 2 Ch, 649 
 
 Nuttv.Easton- - - [1899] 1 Cb. 873 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 29 
 
 Nuttall Y. Hargreaves, (1891) 8 Eep. Pat. Cas. 273. 
 
 Eeferred to. Mandlbbeeg v. Moeley 
 [1895] W. If. 9 
 Nuttall V. jilancliester Corporation, (1S^2) 8 Times 
 
 L. E. 513. 
 
 Commented on by C. A. Eckeesley v. 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 667 
 Nuttall V. Staunton, (1825) 4 B. & C. 51 ; 28 E. E. 
 
 207. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Wilkinson 
 
 V. Peel - [1895] 1 Q. B. 516 
 
 Nutter V. Holland - - [1894] 3 Ch. 408 
 
 Considered by North J. Crompton 
 AND Evans' Union Bank r. Burton 
 
 North J. [1895] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 OaMeyY. FasheUer, (1836) 4 CI. & P. 207; 10 
 Bli. (N.S.) 548. 
 
 Explained by H. L. (E.) Eouse v. 
 Bradford Banking Co. 
 
 [1894] A. C. 586 
 Oalies V. Turquand - (1867) L. E. 2 H. L. 325 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re National 
 Debenture and Assets Corporation 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 505 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Trench Tubeless Tyre Co. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 268 ; 
 
 But this case was reversed by C. A. 
 
 [leOO] 1 Ch. 408 
 
 Occleston v. Fullalore - (1874) L. E. 9 Ch. 147 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Shaw 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 573 
 
 Oeean Queen Steamship Co., In re, [1893] 2 Ch. 
 666. 
 Eeferred to. Aluminium Co., In re 
 
 [1894] W. N. 6 
 
 Odoll, Ex parte - ■ (1878) 10 Ch. D. 76 
 
 Eeferred in the United Forty Pound 
 LoAx Club v. Bbxton 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 28, n 
 
 Ogdm T. Turner ■ - - (1703-4) 2 Salk. 696 
 
 Overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 51. s. 1. 
 
 Ogilvie v. Foljanibe, (1817) 3 Mer. 53 ; 17 E. E. 13 
 Principle applied. Plant v. Bourne 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 281 
 
 Ogle V. Story - (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 735 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re 
 Llewellin - [1891] 3 Ch. 145 
 
 Ogston V. Aberdeen District Tramways Co., (1895) 
 23 Eettie, 340. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. Ill 
 
 Ogston V. Stewart's Trustees, (1893) 21 Eettie, 282 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 120 
 
 aSara v. Elliott - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 362 
 
 Applied by Bruce J. The "Hestia" 
 (No. 2) - - [1895] W. ». 100 
 
 Oliver v. Hinton - - [1898] W. N. 172 (4) 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 264 
 
 Oliver v. iou!«/ier,.(1880) 42 L. T. (N.S.) 47; 28 
 W. E. 381. 
 Cited. Brewis v. Brewis 
 
 [1893] W. W. 6 
 
 Olney v. Bates - - (1855) 3 Drew. 319 
 
 Discussed by Chitty J. In re Sir E. 
 Haetey's Estate - [1893] 1 Ch. 667 
 
 Olympia, Ld., Inre - - [1898] 2 Ch. 153 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Gluck- 
 stein v. Baenes - [1900] A. C. 240 
 
 O'Neal v. Mead - - (1720) 1 P. Wms. 693 
 
 Followed by Kekewicli J. In re Butleb 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 260, 258 
 
 O'Neil v. Armstrong, Mitchell & Co. [1895] 2 
 Q. B. 70 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 418 
 
 O'Neil V. Clason - (1876) 46 L. J. (Q.B.) 191 
 Held by C. A. to be overruled by Russell 
 V. CambefoH, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 526. 
 Western National Bank oe New 
 York v. Perez, Teiana & Co. 
 
 [1891] 1 a. B. 304 
 
 O'Niell V. Lucas, In re - (1838) 2 Keen 313 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re Pope 
 [1900] W. N. 244 ; see [1901] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 Onslou- y. Home - - 2 W. Bl. 750 
 
 Followed by C. A. Alexander v. 
 Jenkins - [1892] 1 Q. B. 79T 
 
 Onslow V. Inland Revenue Commrs., (1890) 24 
 Q. B. D. 584. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 239 
 
 Onslow V. Wallis - (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 506 
 Distinguished. In re Lashmar 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 258 
 
DUKING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ccclix 
 
 Ooregum Oold Mining Co. of India v. Eoper, 
 [1892] A. 0. 125, 142, 143. 
 Explained by V. Williams J. In re 
 
 PlONEEKS OF MASHONALAND SYNDICATE 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 731 
 Dicta of Lord Hersoliell commented on 
 by Kekewicb J. and C. A. In re Ey. 
 Time Tables Publishing Co. Ex parte 
 "Welton - [1895] 1 Ch. 265 ; 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 299 
 
 Opera, Ld., In re - - [1891] 2 Ch. 154 
 
 EeTeised by C. A. - [1891] 3 Ch. 260 
 Explained and followed and bead-note 
 corrected by Kekewicb J. and C. A. 
 Taunton v. Wab'WICKShiee(Sheeiff of) 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 734 ; [1895] 2 Ch. 319 
 Distinguiabed by Eomer J. Eobson v. 
 Smith - - [1895] 2 Ch. 118 
 
 Observed upon. In re Eoundwood 
 Colliery Co. - C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 373 
 
 " Orchis," The - - (1889) 15 P. D. 38 
 
 Distinguished by Jeune P. The 
 " EiPON City " - . - [1898] P. 78 
 
 Orde, In re - ■ (1883) 24 Ch. D. 271 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re 
 
 DoDswoKTH [1891] 1 Ch. 667 
 
 Orford, In re. Cartwright v. Due del Baho, 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 257. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Hill's 
 
 Settlement Teusts 
 
 [1896] W. N. 177 (1) 
 Orford v. Cole - - (1818) 2 Stark. 351 
 
 Qusere, overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, 
 
 Sch. I. 
 "Orienta," The - - - [1894] P. 271 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1898] P. 49 
 
 Oriental Inland Steam Co., In re, (1874) L. E. 9 
 
 Ch. 557. 
 
 Dictum of James L.J. explained by 
 
 Komer J. Knowles v. Scott 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 717 
 Oriental Steamship Co. v. Taylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 
 
 518, 527. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Holfoed v. 
 
 Acton Ukban Council [1898] 2 Ch. 240 
 Orr V. Mitchell (Moir's Trustees'), (1892) 19 E. 
 
 700. 
 
 Eeversed. H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 238 
 
 Orr-Ewing v. Begistrar of Trade-marlcs, (1879) 4 
 App. Cas. 479. 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. In re Meeus' 
 Application - - [1891] 1 Ch. 41 
 Eefened to by Byrne J. Weight, 
 Ckossley & Co.'s Application, &c. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 218, 226 
 
 Orton V. Cleveland Fire Brick and Pottery Co., 
 (1865) 3 H. & 0. 868. 
 Not followed by Wright J. In re 
 Peeuvian Guano Co. Ex parte Kemp 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 690 
 
 O'Shanassy v. Joachim - (1876) 1 App. Cas. 82 
 Distinguished by P. C. Tooth t. 
 PowEE - [1891] A. C. 284 
 
 0' Shear, a Shea - - (1890) 15 P. D. 59 
 
 See Evans v. Noton (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 252 
 
 O'SJiea V. Wood - - - [1891] P. 287 
 
 Partly affirmed and jiartly reversed bv 
 C. A." - - - [1891] P. 286 
 
 O'Shea's Settlement, In re - [1895] 1 Ch. 325. 
 Followed by V. Williams J. Wild v. 
 Southwood - [1897] 1 Q. B. 317' 
 
 O'Sullivan v. Tliomas - [189.5] 1 Q. B. 69» 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Bukge v. Ashley 
 & Smith, Ld. - [190O] 1 Q. B. 744 
 
 Ottway y. Wing - - (1841) 12 Sim. 90' 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Turn- 
 bull [1900] 1 Ch. 180, 18© 
 
 Otway, In re. Ex parte Otway, 0. A. [1895] 1 
 Q. B. 812. 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Leonard 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 473, 47* 
 
 Otway V. OtiL-ay - (1888) 13 P. D. 12, 141 
 
 Discussed by Jeune J. .Duplany v.. 
 Duplaky - [1892] P. 53, 55 
 
 Overend, Gurney & Co. v. Oriental Financial Cor- 
 poration, (1874) L. E. 7. II. L. 348. 
 Explained by H. L. (B.) Rouse v. 
 Beadfobd Banking Coepobation 
 
 [1894] A. C. 58© 
 
 Owen V. Be Beauvoir, (1847) 16 M. & W. 547 ; 5 
 Ex. 166. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Howitt v. 
 Eael op Hakeington [1893] 2 Ch. 497' 
 
 Owens College v. Chorlton-upon-Medloclc Overseers^ 
 (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 403. 
 Disapproved by H. L. (E.) London 
 County Council v. Eeith (Chueoh- 
 WAEDENS, &c.) - [1893] A. C. 662. 
 
 "F.Caland," The- - - [1891] P. 313. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] P. 191 
 
 C. A. Affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 20r 
 
 Padstow Total Loss and Collision Assurance Asso- 
 ciation, In re (1882) 20 Ch. D. 137. 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Bowling 
 AND Welby's Conteact [1896] 1 Ch. 663 
 
 Pagani, In re - - - [1892] 1 Ch. 236". 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Beaufobt's Will 
 
 [1898] W. N. 148 (5). 
 Page v. Midland By. Co. - [1894] 1 Ch. 11 
 
 Eeferred to by Parwell J. May v. 
 
 Platt - - - [1900] 1 Ch. 6ie 
 
 Page v. Morgan - (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 22S 
 
 Considered by C. A. Tayloe v. Smith 
 (No. 1) - [1893] 2 Q. B. 65. 
 
 Paget v. Marshall - (1884) 28 Ch. D. 255. 
 
 Commented on by Farwell J. May v. 
 Platt - - [1900] 1 Ch. 616. 
 
 Paget v. Paget - - - [1898] 1 Ch. 47 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1898] 1 Ch. 470' 
 
 Pagets Settled Estates, In re, (1885) 30 Ch. D.. 
 
 161. 
 
 Discussed. In re Eastman's Settled. 
 
 Estates - [1898] W. N, 170 (18> 
 
 Pain V. Boughtwood - (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 353 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Dyke v. Gowee 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 220 
 
ccclx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &c.. 
 
 Paine f.\Jones - (1874) L. E. 18 Eq. 320 
 
 Explained and distinguit-hed. Dalton 
 
 V. FiTZGBKALD - [1897] 1 Ch. 440 ; 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 86 
 
 Falliser v. Gurney - (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 519 
 
 Followed by C. A. Stogdon -n. Lee 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 661 
 See now 56 & 57 Vict. c. 63, o. 1 (a). 
 
 Palmer, In re - - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 291 
 
 Considered by C. A. In re Frape 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 284 
 Palmer, In re. Palmer v. Bose-Innes, [1900] 
 
 W. N. 9. 
 
 See now In re Makyon- Wilson 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 565 
 Palmer v. Caledonian By. Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 
 607. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1892] 1 ft, B. 823 
 Palmer v. Eletcher, (Mich. 15 Car, II.); 1 Lev. 
 
 122. 
 
 Rule applied to devises by Cliitty J. 
 
 Phillips v. Low [1892] 1 Ch. 47 
 
 Palmer v. Lnclte - - (1881) 18 Cli. D. 381 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Stone's 
 
 Will - [1893] W. N. 50 
 
 Palmer v. Temple - (1839) 9 Ad. & E. 508 
 
 Observed upon. Cornwall v. Henson 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 710; 
 C. A, [1900] 2 Ch. 298 
 Palmer v. JViclc & Fulteneytown Steam, Shipping 
 
 Co., [1894] A. C.'318. 
 
 Referred to by Bruce J. The " Eng- 
 lishman " AND The " AnSTKALIA " 
 
 [1896] P. 212, 218 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Bukkows v. 
 
 Ehodes - [1899] 1 ft. B. 816, 825 
 
 Palmer's (X B.) Trade-mark, In re, (1883) 24 
 
 Ch. T>. 504. 
 
 Discussed by Chitty J. In re Meeus' 
 
 Application - [1891] 1 Ch. 41 
 
 Papendiclc v. Bridgwater (1855) 5 E. & B. 166 
 
 Distinguished. Blandt-Jenkins v. 
 
 DCNEAVEN (EaEL OE) 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 121 
 Parlury's Case - [1896] 1 Ch. 100 
 
 Distinguished. In re African Gold 
 
 Concessions and Development Co. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 414 ; C. A, [1899] 2 Ch. 480 
 J'arlc Yard Co. v. North British By. Co., (1897) 
 
 24 E. 1148. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1898] A. C. 843 
 Parlier, In re - (1885) 54 L. J. (Ch.) 694 
 
 Explained by C. A. Salter v. Salter 
 
 [1896] P, 291 
 
 Parker-Jervis, In re - - [1898] 2 Ch. 643 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Duke op 
 
 St. Albans - - [1900] 2 Ch. 873 
 
 Parher v. McKenna , - (1874) L. E. 10 Ch. 96 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Williams v. 
 
 Scott - - [1900] A. C, 499 
 Parlter's Trusts, In re - [1894] 1 Ch. 707, 721 
 
 See 60 & 61 Vict. o. 65, s. 1. 
 
 Pdrlcinson v. Wainwriglit - [1895] W. N. 63 
 Considered by V. Williams J. Marwiok 
 V. Lord Thuhlow - [1895] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 " Parlement Beige," The - (1880) 5 P. D. 197 
 Approved by P. C. Owners of the 
 " Utopia," v. Owners and Master op 
 THE " Primula." The " Utopia " 
 
 [1893] A. C. 492 
 Considered and followed. Mighell v. 
 Sultan of Johore 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 149 
 Parnell v. Walter (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 441 
 
 Overruled on one point. Whittaker v. 
 Scarborough Post Newspaper Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 148 
 Parry v. Great Ship Co. ■ (1863) 4 B. & S. 556 
 Distinguished by Kennedy J. Eoddick 
 V. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insur- 
 ance Co. - • [1895] 1 ft. B. 836 ; 
 This case partly affirmed by C. A. 
 [1895] 2 ft, B. 380 
 Parsons v. Birmingham Dairy Co , (1882) 9 
 Q. B. D. 172. 
 
 Disapproved of by Div. Ct. Buckler v. 
 Wilson - [1896] 1 ft, B. 83 
 
 See also Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 
 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51), s. 2. 
 Parsons v. Brand - (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 110 
 Distinguished by C. A. Bird v. Davey 
 [1891] 1 ft. B. 29 
 Pasley v. Freeman, (1789) 3 T. B. 51 ; 1 E. E. 634 
 Distinguished. Tallerman v. Dowsing 
 Eadiant Heat Co. [1899] W. H. 126 ; 
 This case was compromised on 
 appeal C, A. [1899] W. N. 234 ; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 1 
 Patching v. Barnett - (1881) 51 L. J. (Ch.) 74 
 Followed by North J. In re Copland 
 [1896] W. N. 137 (1) 
 Patent Agents {Institute of) v. LocTiWood, (1893) 
 20 E. 315. 
 Eeversed in part by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 347 
 Paterson v. Paterson, (1850) 3 H. L. C. 308, 319, 
 328. 
 
 Dicta of L. Brougham referred to by 
 Pollock B. Eussell v. Eussell 
 
 [1896] P. 162; 
 This case reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1895] P. 316; 
 C. A. affirmed by H. L. (D.) 
 
 [1897] A, C. 396 
 Paterson v. Russell - (1850) 7 Bell's App. 337 
 Commented on by H. L. (Sc.) Mac- 
 kenzie V. Mackenzie 
 
 [1896] A. C. 384, 416 
 Pa ton V. Clydesdale Bank - (1895) 23 E. 38 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. 
 Clydesdale Bank v. Paton 
 
 [1896] A, C. 381 
 
 Patten v. Bond - - (1889) 60 L. T. 583 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. Chetwtnd v. 
 
 Allen - - [1899] 1 Ch. 383 
 
 Paul, In re. Ex parte Earl of Portarlimiton, 
 
 (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 247. 
 
 See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 
 (63 & 64 Vict, u, 50), s. 2, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Payne, In re - - (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 154 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Thomson - - [1897] W. N. 29 (4) 
 
DUEING THE YEAKS 1891—1900 
 
 coclxi 
 
 ■Tayne, In re. Ex 'parte.Bead, [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 122. 
 
 Follo\red by Bucklev J. In re Black- 
 pool MoTOB Cae Co; [1900] W. N. 252 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 775 
 Payne v. Rogg - - - [1900] W. N. 86 
 
 Keversed by 0. A. - [1900] 2 Q. B. 43 
 Fayne v. Wilson - - [1895] 1 Q. B. 653 
 
 Eeveised by 0. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 637 
 "Feace,"T1ie - - (1856) Swabey, 115 
 
 Followed by Jeuue J. The " Elton " 
 [1891] P. 265 
 Feace & Ellis, In re, (1887) 36 W. K. 61 ; [1887] 
 W. N. 186. 
 
 Approved by C. A. Dkielsma v. Mani- 
 fold - - [1894] 3 Ch. 100 
 Peacock, In re - - (1880) 14 Oh. D. 212 
 Considered by 0. A. In re New Zea- 
 land Tbust and Loan Co. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 403 
 Xeacocli v. Lome (1867) L. E. I. P. & M. 311 
 
 Commented on. Moean v. Place 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 214 
 
 Peacoclc v. Saggers (1862) 4 Be G. F. & J. 406 
 
 Eeferred to. Pkatt v. Willts. Gket 
 
 V. Willis - [1895] W. N. 9 
 
 Fealce's Settled Estates, In re [1893] 3 Ch. 430 
 
 Further heard by North J. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 520 
 Considered by Kekewieh J. In re 
 Nbwen - [1894] 2 Ch. 297 
 
 Fearce v. Bunting - - [1896] 2 Q. B. 360 
 
 Disapproved of. Thames Consebvatobs 
 V. Smebd, Dean & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 334 
 Pearlts v. Moseley - (1880) 5 App. Cas. 714 
 Eule laid down at p. 719 applied by 
 Stirling J. In re Meevin 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 197, 200 
 Applied by Kckewich J. Willebton 
 «. Stocks - [1892] W. N. 29 
 
 _ Pearls x.Saafield ~ - [1892] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 Beferred to by C. A. Havnes v. Do- 
 man - [1899] 2 Ch. 13, 26 
 Pearson, In re - - [1892] 2 Q. B. 263 
 Followed by C. A. In re A. B. & Co. 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 841, 545 ; 
 [1901] A. C. 102 
 Pearson, In the Goods of- - [1896] P. 289 
 Qualified by G. Baines J. In the 
 Goods of Apted - [1899] P. 272 
 Pearson v. Holhorn Union Assessment Committee, 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 389. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Cf. Westminsteb 
 Vestet v. Hoskins [1899] 2 ft. B. 477 
 Pearson v. McGovyran - (1825) 3 B. & C. 700 
 Discussed. Eeg. v. Ellis 
 
 C. C, a. [1899] 1 ft. B. 230 
 Pearson v. Pearson - (1884) 27 Ch. D. 145 
 
 The reasoning in, overruled. Teego v. 
 Hunt - H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 7 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. Jennings v. 
 Jennings - [1898] 1 Ch. 378 
 
 Pearson v. Spencer - (1863) 3 B. & S. 761 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Nicholls v. 
 Nicholls - - [1900]W. N. 4 
 
 Pearson's Case - - (1877) 5 Ch. D. 336 
 
 See Aecueu's Case - [1892] 1 Ch. 322 
 Peat V. FowUr, (1886) 55 L. J. (Q.B.) 271; 33 
 
 W. R. 365. 
 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 8 (5). 
 Peat V. Chit - - - [1885] W. N. 46 
 
 See Aylwabd v. Lewis [1891] 2 Ch. 81 
 Peat V. Jones - - (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 147 
 
 See. FiKSKA Angfabtygs Aktiebolaget 
 
 V. Beown, Toogood & Co. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 116 
 Peck, in the Goods of - (1860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 506 
 
 Followed by Jeuue P. In the Goods 
 
 OF Haeling - - [1900] P. 69, 60 
 Peehles v. Oswaldtwistle District Council, [1897] 
 
 1 Q. B. 381. 
 
 Reversed by C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 625 
 
 0. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 
 Pasmoee v. Oswaldtwistle Ubban 
 
 DiSTBIOT COUKCIL 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 387 
 Followed on one .point by Byrne J. 
 Eastwood Bbothers, Ld. v. Honley 
 Ubban Council - [1900] 1 Ch. 781 
 
 Peek V. Derry - - (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337 
 
 Discussed. Angus v. Cliffobd 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 449 
 
 Peek V. Gurney (1873) L. E. 6 H. L. 377 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Andrews v. 
 Mockford [1896] 1 ft. B. 372 
 
 Peek V. Trinsmaran Iron Co., (1875-6) 2 Ch. D. 
 
 115. 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Campbell v. 
 
 Lloyd's, Babnett's and Bosanquet's 
 
 Bank [1891] 1 Ch. 136, n. 
 
 Doubted: but followed by Kay J. 
 
 Makins r. Pbecy Ibotson & Sons 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 133 
 Peek V. Trower - - (1881) 7 P. D. 21 
 
 Explained by Arches Ct. Nickalls i'. 
 
 Briscoe - - [1892] P. 269 
 
 Feel, In re. Ex parte Crossley Brothers, Ld., 
 
 [1894] I. K. 235. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (I.) suh nom. 
 
 McEntire v. Cbossley Brothers 
 
 [1895] A. C. 467 
 Peel's Case - - (1867) L. E. 2 Ch. 674 
 
 Distinguished. Inre National Deben- 
 ture AND Assets Corporation 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 605 
 
 &-e In re Laxon & Co. (No. 2) 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 555 
 Pegg v. aiamherlain - (1860) 1 Sw. & Tr. 527 
 
 Followed by Barnes J, In the Goods 
 
 OP Eatcliffe - - [1899] P. 110 
 
 Peirce v. Corf - (1874) L. E. 9 Q. B. 210 
 
 Referred to by Kekewioh J. Potter v. 
 
 Peters - [1895] W. N. 37 
 
 Felly v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., (1757) 1 
 
 BuiT. 341. 
 
 See Baring Bbothers & Co. v. Marine 
 
 Insurance Co. - [1893] W. K. 164 
 Pelhj V. Wathen - (1851) 1 De G. M. & G. 16 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. Beunton v. 
 
 Klectrical Engineeeixr Cobpohation 
 [1E92] 1 Ch. 434 
 
ccclxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEERULED, &c., 
 
 Pelton Srotliers v. Harrison [1891] 2 Q. B. 422 
 See Married 'Womeii's Property Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63), a. 1. 
 Discussed by Oozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Wheeler's Settlement Trusts 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 717 
 
 Penfold, Ex parte - (1851) 4 De G. & Sm. 282 
 Followed by Stirling" J. In re London, 
 Windsor and Greenttioh Hotels Co. 
 [1892] 1 Ch, 639 
 
 Fennefather v. Short - [1866] W. N. 102, 126 
 FoUowed. Newell v. Newell 
 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (2) 
 
 Penney, Ex parte - (1S72) L. E. 8 Ch. 446 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Coalpokt 
 China Co. - [1895] 2 Ch. 404 
 
 Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson, 56 American 
 Eepts. 89. 
 
 Disapproved of by H. L. (Sc.) John 
 
 Young & Co. r. Bankier Distillery Co. 
 
 [1893] A. C. 691, 701 
 
 Penny v. Wimbledon Urban District Council, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 212. 
 Affirmed by C, A. - [1899] 2 ft. B. 72 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 72. 
 
 Followed by C. A. The " Snark " 
 
 [1900] P. 105 
 
 Penruddock's Case - - SEep.lOOb. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Lemmon v. 
 Weee - - [1894] 3 Ch. 1, 13 ; 
 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1895] A. C. 1 
 
 Penton v. Barneit - - [1898] 1 Q. B. 276 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Serle - [1898] 1 Ch. 652, 656 
 
 Penton t. Broione - 1 Sid. 186; 1 Keb. 698 
 Not followed by Bowen L.J. American 
 Concentrated Meat Co. t. Hendry 
 [1893] W. N. 67; 62 L. J. (Q.B.) 3881 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 82 
 But see Hoddee v. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 a. B. 663, 668 
 Pen-ij-Van Colliery Co. - (1877) 6 Ch. D. 477 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re Bank 
 OF South Australia (No. 1) 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 722 
 
 Percival, Ex parte - (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 519 
 Not followed by V. Williams J. in In re 
 London Metalluegioal Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 758 
 
 Perliins, In re. Poyser v. Beyfus, [1898] ^\. N. 
 18 (4). 
 Affirmed by G. A. - [1898] 2 Ch. 182 
 
 Perrins v. Bellamy - - [1898] 2 Ch. 521 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 1 Ch. 797 
 
 Perry Almsliouses, In re - [1898] 1 Ch. 391 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] W. N. 158 (1) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 21 
 
 Perry v. Clutton Coal Co., Seton on Decrees, 5th 
 ed. p. 1685. 
 See Parkinson v. Wainwright & Co. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 63 
 
 Perry v. Eames - - [1891] 1 Ch. 658 
 
 Approved by C. A. Wheaton v. Maple 
 & Co. - _ - [1893] 3 Ch. 48 
 
 Perry y. Oriental Hotels Co., (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 
 
 126. 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Lathom 
 
 V. Greenwich Ferry Co. 
 
 [1895] W. TS. 77 
 Perry's Executors v. Beg. (1 868) L. E. 4 Ex. 27 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. 
 
 V. Loyd - [1895] 1 a. B. 496 
 
 Perry-Herrich v. Attwood, (1857) 2 De G. & J. 21 
 Followed by H. L. (E.) Bbocklesbt 
 V. Temperance Permanent Building- 
 Society - - [1895] A, C. 17S 
 
 Applied by Cbitty J. Lloyds Bank, 
 Ld. v. Bullock [1896] 2 Ch. 192 
 
 Perth General Statit)n Committee v. Boss, (1896) 
 
 23 E. 885. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. 479 
 Pertwee v. Townsend - [1896] 2 Q. B. 129 
 
 Approved of. In re Herbage Eents, 
 
 Greenwich. Charity Commrs. v. Geeen 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 811 
 
 Peterborough Corporation v. Wilsthorpe Overseers, 
 
 (1883) 12 Q. B. D. 1. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Lodge v. Huddeks- 
 
 EiELD Corporation [1898] 1 Q. B. 859 
 
 Peters v. Greenoch {Magistrates of), (1892) 19 E. 
 643. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 258 
 
 Peters Y. Lewes and East GrinsteadBy. Co., (1881) 
 18 Ch. D. 429. 
 
 Dictum of Jessel M.E., at p. 433,' ap- 
 proved and followed. In re Lord Sude- 
 LBY AND Baines & Co. [1894] 1 Ch. 334 
 
 Petty V. Daniel - - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 172 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewicli J. Taylor 
 V. EOE (No. 1) - [1893] W. N. 14, 26 
 
 Pettyt V. Janeson, (1819) 6 Madd. 146; 22 R. E. 
 259. 
 
 Applied by G. A. Hunter v. Dowling 
 (No. 1) - [1893] 3 Ch. 212, 216, 221, 
 
 Peveril Gold Mines, Ld., In re, [1897] W. N. 
 159 (5). 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] W. N. 166 (2); 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 122 
 
 Pharmaceutical Society v. Piper & Co. [1893} 
 1 Q. B. 686. 
 
 Approved by C. A. Pharmaceutical. 
 Society v. Aemson [1894] 2 Q. B. 720 
 
 Philadelphian, The - - [1900] P. 43 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] P. 262 
 
 PhilbricVs Settlement, In re, (1865) 34 L. J. (Ch.) 
 368. 
 
 Ecferred to by Kekewich J. In re Trea- 
 sure [1900] 2 Ch. 648, 661 
 
 Phillips, In re. Phillips v. Levy, (1880) 49 L. J. 
 
 (Ch.) 199. 
 
 Not followed by Farwell J. In re Pope 
 
 [1900] W. N. 244; see [1901] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 Phillips V. Cayley - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 222 
 
 See In re Da vies [1892] 2 Ch. 6& 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900 
 
 ccclxiuj 
 
 Phillipi V. :Eyre - (1870) L. B. 6 Q. B. 1 
 
 Eule in, applied. Machado v. Eontes 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 231 
 
 PMllip$ V. Innes - - (1837) 4 01. & F. 234 
 
 Distingmshed by Div. Ot. Palmer v. 
 Snow - - [1900] 1 ft. B. 725, 727 
 
 PMllips V. Homfray - (1871) L. E. 6 Oh. 770 
 Principle applied. Whitwham v. West- 
 minster Bbymbo Coal and Coke Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 538 
 
 Phillips V. Bomfray - (1890) 44 Ch. D. 694 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1892] 1 Ch. 465 
 
 Phillips V. Hudsm - (1867) L. E. 2 Ch. 243 
 Distinguished. Evans v. Merthtb 
 Tydfil Uebak District Codncil 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch, 241 
 
 Phillips V. London School Board. Coelcerton v. 
 Same, [1898] 1 Q. B. 4. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] 2 ft, B. 447 
 
 Phillips V. Martin - 11 N. S. "W. L. E. 153 
 Approved by P. C. "Wilson v. MoIn- 
 TOSB - - - [1894] A. C. 129 
 
 PMllips V. Silvester - (1872) L. E. 8 Ch. 173 
 EoUowed by C. A. Clarke v. Eamuz 
 [1891] 2 ft. B, 456 
 
 Phillips' Trade-marhs, In re [1891] 3 Ch. 139 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Adams' 
 Tkade-maek - - [1892] W. N. 40 
 
 See also In re Henry Clay and Bock & 
 Co. - - [1892] 3 Ch. 549 
 
 Phillipson v. Hale - (1880) 43 L. T. Eep. 508 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. o. 15. 
 
 Phillpoits V. Soyd (1874) L. E. 4 A. & B. 297 ; 
 (1875) L. E. 6 P. C. 435. 
 See Allcroft v. Bishop of London 
 
 [1891] A, C, 666 
 Considered in Pendlebury St. John 
 (Vicar) v. Pahisbioners of the Same 
 [1895] P, 178 
 
 Philpotts V. James - - (1784) 3 Doug. 425 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re Shep- 
 PABD - - [1897] 2 Ch, 67 
 
 Pichard, In re. Mmsley v. Mitchell [1894] 
 2 Oh 88 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1894] 3 Ch, 704 
 Pichard Y. Smith - (1861) 10 C. B. (N.S.) 470 
 Followed by Bruce J. Penny v. 
 Wimbledon Ukban Council 
 
 [1898] 2 ft, B, 212 ; 
 C, A. [1899] 2 ft, B, 72, 76 
 Picltering v. BMd(?,(1815) 4 Camp. 219 ; 16 E, E. 
 777 ; 1 Stark. 56. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Lbmmon v. Webb 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 1 ; affirm, by H, I, (E.) 
 [1894] A. C. 1 
 Picliering LytJie East Highway Board v. Barry 
 (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 59. 
 Overruled by C. A. Hill v. Thomas 
 
 [1893] 2 ft. B, 333 ; 
 
 Etherlet Grange Goal Co, v. 
 
 Auckland District Highway 
 
 Board - C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B, 37 
 
 PicUm Municipality v. GeUert [1893] A. C. 524 
 
 Applied by P. C. Sydney Municipal 
 
 Council v. Bourke [1895] A, C. 433 
 
 PicJcardr. Prescott, (1890) 17 E. 1102; 27 So. 
 L. E. 933. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1892] A. C, 263 ■ 
 
 Piercy, In re. Whitwham v. Piercy, [1896] i 
 W. N. 1 (4). 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1898] 1 Ch. 566 
 
 Pihe V. Fitzgibbon - (1880) 14 Ch. D. 837 
 
 Commented on by C. A. Cox v. Ben- 
 nett - - - [1891] 1 Ch, 617 
 The effect on this Case of the Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882, discussed i 
 by Kay L.J. Pblton Brothers v. 
 Harrison (No. 1) [1891] 2 ft, B, 422 
 
 Pilbrow V. St. Leonard, Shoreditch (Vestry), [1895] , 
 
 I Q. B. 33. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1895] 1 ft. B, 433 
 
 PiUey V, Hdbinson - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 155 
 Distinguished by C. A. Wilson, Sons ■ 
 & Co. V. Balcaeees Brook Steamship 
 Co. - - - [1893] 1 ft, B. 422 
 
 Explained by 0. A. Eobinson v. Geisel . 
 [1894] 2 ft, B, 685- 
 
 Finder v. Barr - - (1854) 4 E. & B. 105 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. Lawrence ; 
 V. Edwards (No. 1) [1891] 1 Ch. 144 
 
 Pinede's Settlement, In re (1879) 12 Ch. D. 667 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re Boyd ■ 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 232 
 
 Pinhorne, In re - - [1894] 2 Ch. 276 
 
 Followed by Oozens-Hardy J. In re- 
 Powell - - [1900] 2 Ch, 525 
 
 Pinhney & Sons Steamship Co., In re, [1892] 3 Ch. 
 125. 
 Eeferred to. In re James Colmee 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 624. 
 
 Pinto V. Badman - (1891) 8 Eep. Pat. Cas. 181 
 Considered by Chitty J. In re Smoke- 
 less Powder Co.'s Trade-mark 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 590- 
 
 Pinto Silver Mining Co., In re, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 
 273. 
 
 Eeferred to. Whiteley Exerciser, 
 Ld. v. Gamage [1898] 2 Ch, 405 ■ 
 
 Pirie (Alexander) & Sons v. Goodall, [1892] 1 Ch. 
 35. 
 
 Explained by Stirling J. In re Col- 
 man's Trade-maek Application (No. 2)- 
 [1894] 3 Ch, 115 
 
 Pirrie v. Yorh Street Flax Spinning Co., (1894)- 
 
 II Eep. Pat. Oas. 429. 
 
 Discussed. Shoe Machinery Co. v. 
 
 CuTLAN - - [1896] 1 Ch, 108. 
 
 Pitman v. Universal Marine Insurance Co., (1882) 
 
 9 Q. B. D. 192. 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (E.). Euabon 
 
 Steamship Co. v. London Assurance 
 
 [1900] A, C. 6, 14 
 Plant V. Bourne - - [1897] W. N. 40 (14). 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 281 
 
 Eeferred to by Wright J. Maekham 
 
 AND Darter's Case 
 
 [1899]lCh. 414, 429;. 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 480- 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Caee v. 
 
 Lynch - - [1900] 1 Ch. 613, 61& 
 
■ccclxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEKULED, &c., 
 
 Flant V. Potts [1891] 1 Q. B. 256 
 
 See Manx v. Johnson [1893] W. N. 196 
 Followed by C. A. HuROUJi v. HiL- 
 LEARY - - [1894] 1 a. B. 579 
 
 Eeferred to by Dlv. Ct. Sutheks v. 
 EoDEEiOK - [1896] 1 ft. B. 91, 96 
 
 Piatt, In re - - (1887) 36 Ch. D. 410 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Blake 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 51 
 
 Player, In re. Ex parte Harvey, (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 
 682. 
 
 Considered by Wright J. In re Takkaed 
 [1899] a ft. B. 67 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Plummer 
 [1900] 2 ft. B. 790 
 
 Pledge y. Carr - - - [1894] 2 Cb. 328 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 51 
 
 C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 Pledge v. White [1896] A. C. 187 
 
 Pledge v. White - . - [1896] A. C. 187 
 
 Eeferred to. Eiley v. Hall 
 
 [1898] W. N. 81 (9) 
 
 Plenderleith, In re - - [1893] 3 Ch. 332 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Clarke 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 336, 340 
 Eeferred to bj' Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Brown [1800] 1 Ch. 489, 490 
 
 Pletts V. Campbell - - [1895] 2 Q. B. 229 
 
 Distinguiehed. Pletts v. Beattie 
 
 [1896] 1 ft. B. 519 
 
 Plomley v. Felton - (1889) 14 App. Cas. 61 
 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Byron's 
 Settlement - - [1891] 3 Ch. 474 
 
 Plumbly, In re - (1880) 13 Ch. D. 667 
 
 Applicable. In re Woodd 
 
 [1900] W. N. 84 
 
 Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Puncture Proof Pneumatic 
 
 Tyre Co., (1899) 16 Eep. Pat. Cas. 209. 
 
 Principles in, applied. British Motor 
 
 Syndicate v. Taylor & Son 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch, 577 ; C. A. [1900] W. N. 239 
 
 Poinons, In re ■ - [1891] W. N. 139 
 
 Eeferred to by Eomer J. Tofield v. 
 EoBERTS [1894] W. N. 74 
 
 PoMen V. Bastard - (1865) L. E. 1 Q. B. 156 
 Principle in, applied by Stirling J. 
 Nioholls v. Nicholls [1900] W. IT. 4 
 
 Pollard V. Pollard - - [1894] P. 172 
 
 Considered. Hartopp v. Hartopp 
 
 [1899] P. 65 
 
 Pollard's Settlement, In re - [1896] 1 Ch. 901 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1896] 2 Ch. 652 
 
 Pollexfen v. Sibson ■ (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 792 
 Is overruled by Mussell v. Cambefort, 
 23 Q. B. D. 526. 
 
 So held by C. A. Western National 
 Bank oe New York k. Perez, Tkiana 
 & Co. [1891] 1 ft. B. 304 
 
 Tolliit, In re. Ex parte Minor [1893] 1 Q. B. 175 
 Afliimod by C. A. - [1893] 1 ft. B. 455 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Charl- 
 WdOi>. Ex parte MASTERS 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 643 
 
 Pomero v. Pomero - (1885) 10 P. D. 174 
 
 Overruled. Bernstein v. Bernstein 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 292 
 
 Pomfret v. Perring (1854) 5 De G. M. & G. 775 
 Considered by North J. In re Brace. 
 Welch v. Colt [1891] 2 Ch. 671 
 
 Pomfret v. Eicroft - (1669) 1 Wms. Saund. 321 
 Discussed. E. H. Buckley & Sons, Ld. 
 V. N. Buckley & Sons 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 ft. B. 608 
 
 Ponsonby, In re - (1842) 3 D. & W. 27 
 
 Explained. Strangwayes v. Eead 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 419 
 Poole v. Longuwik, 2 Wms. Saund. 248, c. note 2, 
 6th ed. 
 
 Cited. American Concentrated Meat 
 Co. v. Hendry - [1893] W. N. 67 ; 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 82 
 Popplewell V. Eodkinson (1869) L. E. 4 Ex. 248 
 Not applicable. Jordeson v. Sutton, 
 Southooates and Drypool Gas Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 217 
 Not applicable. Trinidad A sphalt Co. 
 V. Ambard - P. C. [1899] A. C. 594 
 
 Porcher v. Wilson - (1866) 14 W. E. 1011 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. In re Smith 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 365 
 Port Glasgow and Neioarlc Saildotli Co. v. Cale- 
 donian By. Co., (1892) 19 E. 60S. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1893] W. N. 29 
 
 Porter v. Lopes - (1877) 7 Ch. D. 358 
 
 Distinguiohed by C. A. Carter v. Fex 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 541 
 
 Porter's Trust, In re - (1857) 4 K. & J. 188 
 
 Discuflsed by Farwell J. In re Bkomby 
 
 [1900] W. N. 187 
 
 Portsea Island Building Society v. Barclay, [1894] 
 
 3 Ch. 86. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 298 
 
 Portsmouth (Corporation of) v. Smith, (1884) 13 
 Q. B. D. 184. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Fenwick v. 
 EuRAL Sanitary Authority of Croy- 
 don Umon [1891] 2 ft. B. 216 
 
 Potinger v. Wightman, (1817) 3 Mer. 67; 17E.E. 
 20. 
 
 Discussed and explained by Stirling J. 
 In re Beaumont - [1893] 3 Ch. 490 
 
 Potts, In re. Ex parte Taylor, [1893] 1 Q. B. 
 648. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Croshaw v. 
 Lyndhurst Ship Co. [1897] 2 Ch. 169 
 
 Poulett {Earl) v. Sill {Viscount), [1893] 1 Ch. 277 
 Explained by C. A. Lynde v. Waitb- 
 MAN [1895] 2 ft. B. 180 
 
 Pound V. Plumstead Board of TFo)7fs, (1871) L. E. 
 7 Q. B. 183. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Vestry of St. 
 Giles, Gamberwell c Crystal Palace 
 Co. - - [1892] 2 ft. B. 33 
 
 Pound {Henry) Son & Hutchins, In re, (1889) 42 
 Ch. D. 402. 
 
 Discussed. In re Joshua Stubbs, Ld. 
 C. A, [1891[ 1 Ch. 476 
 
DUKING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ccolxv 
 
 Pounder, la re - (1886) 56 L. J. (Cli.) 113 
 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Jones 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 438 
 
 Founder v. North Eastern By. Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 385. 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.) Cobb v. 
 Geeat Western Kt. Co. 
 
 [1894] A. C. 419 
 
 Powell V. Sirminqlwtm Vinegar Brewery Co., 
 (1896) 14 Rep. Pat. C'as. 1. 
 Followed by C. A. Sacohaein Coe- 
 POEATION V. Chemicals and Detigs Co. 
 [1900] 8 Ch. 856 
 
 Powell V. Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co., C. A. 
 [1896] 2 Ch, 5t. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) svh nom. BiE- 
 iiiNGHAM Vinegar Brewery Co. v. 
 Powell - [1897] A. C. 710 
 
 Powell V. Brown - - [1899] 1 Q. B. 157 
 
 Followed. LowTH v. Ibbotson 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 1003 
 
 Vowell V. Mliot - (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. 424 
 
 Distinguished by Farwell J. Rudd v. 
 Lasoelles - [1900] 1 Cli. 815 
 
 Powell V. Cueet - (1864) 18 C. B. (N.S.) 72 
 Discussed by C. A. (Ir.). Donnelly ■». 
 Graham - - [1897] W. N. 103 
 
 Powell V. Kem'pton Parh Baeecotirse Co., [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 242. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1899] A. C. 143 
 
 Powell V. Kempton Parle Bacecourse Co., [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 242. 
 Considered. Reg. v. Humphrey 
 
 0. C. E. [1898] 1 Q. B. 875 
 
 Powell V. London and Provincial Banlt, [1893] 
 1 Ch. 610. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1893] 2 Ch. 555 
 
 Powell V. Main Colliery Co. [1900] W. N. 73; 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 145 
 Reversed by H. L. (E.). 
 
 [1900] A. C. 366 
 Referred to by C. A. Weight v. John 
 Bagnall & Sons, Ld. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 240, 243 
 
 Powell V. Matthews - (1855) 1 Jur. (N.S.) 973 
 Followed. In re Montagu 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 649 
 Powell V. Powell - - (1889) 14 P. D. 177 
 
 Overruled by Jeune P. Jones v. Jones 
 [1895] P. 201 
 Powell V. Smith - - (1872) L. R. 14 Eq. 85 
 
 Explained by C. A. Wilting v. San- 
 derson - - [1897] a Ch. 534 
 PowdVs Trade-marlc, In re - [1893] 2 Ch. 388 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 8 
 Followed. In re Talbot's Teade-maek 
 [1894] W. N. 12 
 Powerscourt v. Powerscourt' (1824) 1 Molloy, 616 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Darling 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 50 
 Prater, In re - - (1888) 37 Ch. D. 481 
 Effect of this case on the older autho- 
 rities stated by Chitty J. In re Robson 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 559 
 
 Prentice v. London (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 679" 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Willis r. Wells 
 [1892] 2 ft. B. 225 
 See 59 & CO Vict. c. 25, s. 68 (1). 
 Followed. Pallisee v. Dale 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B, 267 
 
 Prescott V. Lee, [1898] W. N. 155 (7); [1899 j 
 1 Q. B. 102. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 273 
 
 Price, In re. Tomlin v. Latter [1900] 1 Ch. 442 
 Referred to by Farwell J. Pouey v. 
 HoEDEEN - [1900] 1 Ch 492, 494= 
 
 Considered by Byrne J. Baeretto v. 
 Young - [1900] 2 Ch. 339 
 
 Price's SeUlement. In re - (1883) W. N. 202; 
 
 Followed by North J. Trubee's Trusts 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch, 55 
 
 Price V. Crouch (1891) 60 L. J. (Q.B.) 767 
 
 Followed. In re Maegetson and 
 Jones - [1897] 2 Ch. 314 
 
 Price V. Griffith - (1851) 1 D. M. & G. 80 
 
 Explained by Farwell J. Hextee ti. 
 Pearce - - [1900] 1 Ch, 341 
 
 Considered by Byrne J. Baeretto v. 
 Young - - [1900] 2 Ch. 339' 
 
 Price V. James - - [1892] 2 Q. B. 428 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Symoxs v. Wed- 
 more - - [1894] 1 ft. B, 401 
 Referred to. Reg. v. London Justices 
 C. A, [1895] 1 ft. B. 616, 635 
 
 Price V. M'Beth ■ (1864) 33 L. J. (Ch.) 460 
 
 Not followed. Stone v. Lickoeish 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch, 363 
 
 Price V. Moulton - - (1851) 10 C. B. 561 
 
 Considered by P. C. Commes. op St.^mps 
 V. Hope - - [1891] A, C. 47ff 
 
 Priddy v. Base (1817) 13 Mer. 86; 17 B. R. 24 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re Weston 
 [1900] 2 Ch, 164 
 
 Printing, Telegraph and Construction Co. of the 
 Agence Havas, In re. Ex parte Cammell, 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 528. 
 Affirmed by C. A. on fresh evidtnoe 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch, 39» 
 
 Pritchard v. Mayor of Bangor, (1888) 13 App. 
 Cas. 241. 
 Referred to. Haeeoed v. Linskey 
 
 [1899] 1 ft, B, 852 
 
 Private Investors' Association, In re, Palmer'a 
 Winding-np Forms, 2nd ed. p. 624. 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 Hampshire Land Co. [1894] 2 Ch, 632 
 
 Provident Clerics' Mutual Life Assurance Associa^ 
 tion V. Lewis, (1892) 67 L. T. (N.S.) 
 644. 
 
 Relied on by Stirling J. Norman v. 
 Beaumont - - [18S3] W, H, 45. 
 
 Pudney v. Eccles, [1893] 1 Q. B. 52 ; 41 W R 
 125, 
 Overruled by 56 & 57 Vict. c. 7, s. 2. 
 
ooclxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &c,, 
 
 Fugh and STiarman's Case, (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 
 
 566. 
 
 Distinguished. In re Britannia Fire 
 
 Association. Coventry's Case 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 202 
 
 Followed by Wi'ight J. In re Central 
 
 Klondyke Gold Mining Co. Savigny's 
 
 Case - - [1899] W. N. 1 (2) 
 
 iPugsley v. Bopldns - - [1892] 2 Q. B. 184: 
 
 Explained. The " City of Agra " 
 
 [1898] P. 198 
 ■Fulhrooh v. Ashhy - (1887) 56 L. J. (Q. B.) 376 
 
 Explained and approved. In re Round- 
 wood Colliery Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 373 
 IFulbrook v. Biclimond Consolidated Mining Co., 
 
 [1876] 9 Ch. D. 610. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Cooper v. Griffin 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 140 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Howard v. 
 
 Sadler [1893] 1 ft. B. 1 
 
 IFullman v. Hill & Co. C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 524 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Boxsius v. 
 
 Goblet FRjiBES - [1894] 1 ft. B. 842 
 .Furssell, Ex parte (1887) 3i Ch. D. 646 
 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Haepdr's 
 
 Cycle Fittings Co. [1900] 2 Ch. 731 
 'Furves v. Straits of Dover Steamship Co., [1899] 
 
 1 Q. B. 38. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 317 
 iFutney Overseers v. London and South Western 
 
 By. Co. [1891] 1 Q. B. 182. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 440 
 IFutney Overseers .v. London and South Western 
 
 My. Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 182; C. A. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 440. 
 
 Applied. Shoreditch St. Leonard 
 
 Vestry v. London County Council 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 104 
 .'Purcell V. Soulier - - (1877) 2 C. P. D. 215 
 
 Explained by C. A. Pittard v. Oliver 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 454, at p. 479 
 
 iPye V. Butterfield (1864) 5 B. & S. 829 
 
 Approved of. by C. A. Eael op Mex- 
 
 BOROUGH V. WhitWOOD UbBAN DISTRICT 
 
 Council - 0. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. Ill 
 .FyU Works, In re - (1890) 44 Ch. D. 534 
 
 Approved by P. C. Newton v. Anglo- 
 Australian Investment Co. (Deben- 
 ture-Holders) - [1895] A, C. 244 
 Commented on and explained. In [re 
 Mayfaie Peoperty Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch, 28 
 
 'Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Alining Co. v. 
 
 Eyre, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 674. 
 
 Discussed. Wyatt v. Palmer 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 106, 110 
 ••Qiieheo Marine Insurance Co. v. Commercial Bank 
 
 of Canada, (1870) L. E. 3 P. C. 234. 
 
 Followed. The " Vortisern " 
 
 C. A. [1899] P. 140 
 Quebrada By. Land and Copper Co., In re, (1889) 
 
 40 Ch. D. 363. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Agki- 
 
 •OULTUBAL Hotel Co. [1891] 1 Ch, 396 
 
 Queen's College, Oxford v. HalUU, (1811) 14 East, 
 489 ; 13 R. E. 293. 
 
 Observed upon by Buckley J. West 
 Ham Central Chaeity Board v. East 
 London Wateewoeks Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 624 
 
 Queensland Land and Coal Co., In re, [1894] 
 3 Ch. 181. 
 
 Followed. Pegge v. Neath and Dis- 
 TEICT Teamways Co. [1898] 1 Ch, 183 
 
 Queensland Mercantile Agency Co., In re. Ex 
 parte Australasian Investment Co. Ex 
 parte Union Bank of Australia, [1891] 
 1 Oh. 536. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1892] 1 Ch. 219 
 
 " B. W. Boyd," The - (1886) A. No. 27, foL 5 
 Followed by Bruce J. The " Mona " 
 [1894] P. 265 
 Badclife, In re. Badcliffe v. Bewes, [1891] 2 
 Ch. 662. 
 
 Varied by C. A. - [1892] 1 Ch. 227 
 Applied by Chitty J. In re Somes 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 250 
 Referred to. In re HntST 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 177 
 
 Badnor's (Earl of) Will Trusts, In re, (1890) 45 
 Ch. D. 402. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. In re Maequis of 
 Ajlesbuey Settled Estates in the 
 Counties op Wilts and Berks 
 
 .[1892] 1 Ch. 506 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh 
 nom. Beuoe v. Maequis of Ailesbuey 
 [1892[ A. C. 356 
 
 Baft of Spars, A - 1 Abbott Adm. 485 
 
 Disapproved of. Gas Float Whitton 
 (No. 2) - - [1896] P. 42 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1897] A. C. 337 
 
 Baikes v. Boulton - (1860) 29 Beav. 41 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Baw- 
 den - - [1894] 1 Ch. 693 
 
 Bailvjay Time Tables Publishing Co., In re. Ex 
 parte Welton, [1895] 1 Ch. 255. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. 
 Welton v. Saffeey [1897] A. C. 299 
 
 Bailway Time Tables Publishing Co., In re, [1898] 
 W. N, 52 (1). 
 Reversed by C. A. 
 [1898] W. N. 159 (6); [1899] 1 Ch, 108 
 
 Balph V. Carrick - - (1879) 11 Ch. D. 873 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Spring- 
 field. Chambeelin v. Springfield 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 603 
 
 Bamsden v. Hirst - (1858) 4 Jur. (N.S.) 200 
 Distinguished by Farwell J. Eudd v. 
 Lasoelles - - [1900] 1 Ch. 815 
 
 Bamsden v. /gmiifc - - (1854) 2 Drew. 298 
 
 Applied by Byrne J. In re Smith 
 
 [1900] W. N, 75 
 
 Baphael, In re. Ex parte Salomon, [1899] 1 Oh. 
 853 
 Reversed by C. A. pssg] W, N. 218 
 
DTJEIXG THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 coclxvii 
 
 Rasbotlmm v. Shropshire Union Rys. and Canal 
 Co., (1883) 24 Ch. D. 110. 
 rollowed by Kekewioh. J. Alliott v. 
 Smith - [1895] 2 Ch. Ill 
 
 -' Batata," The - - C. A. (1897) P. 118 
 
 AfBrmed by H. L. (E.) Stt6 nom. Pres- 
 ton COKPOEATION V. BlOBNSTAD. THE 
 
 '■ Eatata" - [1898] A. C. 513 
 
 BatcUffe v. Barnard (1871) L. E. 6 Cb. 652, 654 
 Observed upon. Oliver v. Hinton 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 264 
 Eavald v. Biissell, (1830) Younge, 9 ; 34 E. E. 257 
 Followed. Pkout v. Cock: 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 808 
 
 Bawlins v. Wickliam (1858) 3 De G. & J. 304 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Betjemann v. 
 
 Betjemann [1895] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 Rawlins' Trusts, In re - (1890) 45 Oh. D. 299 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) svh nom. Scale 
 V. Eawlins - - [1892] A. C. 342 
 
 Bead v. Anderson, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 779; 53 
 L. J. (Q. B.) 532; 51 L. T. 55; 32 W. 
 E. 950. 
 Overruled by 55 & 56 Vict. u. 9, s. 1. 
 
 Bead v. Lincoln (Bishop of) - [1891] P. 9 
 
 Affirmed by P. C. - [1892] A. C. 644 
 
 Beade v. Bentley - - (1857) 3 K. & J. 271 
 
 See London Pbintinq and Publishing 
 Alliance, Ld. v. Cox 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 291 
 Applicable. Gkiffith v. Towee Pub- 
 lishing Co. - [1897] 1 Ch. 21 
 
 Beader v. Eingliam (1862) 13 C. B. (K.S.) 344 
 Followed by 0. A. Guild & Co. v. 
 CoNBAD - [1894] 2 Q. B. 885 
 
 Beading Dispensary, In re (1839) 10 Sim. 118 
 Cited and distinguished. In re Bbad- 
 EOED School of Industet 
 
 [1893] "W. N. 61 
 
 Beal Estate Co., In re ■ [1893] 1 Ch. 398 
 
 See now Building Societies Aqt, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. 0. 47), s. 8 (1). 
 
 Bed Sea, The - - [1895] P. 293 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1896] P. 20 
 
 Beddawaif Y. Banlmm [1895] 1 Q. B. 286 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 199 
 Discussed. Saxlehneb v. Apollinaeis 
 Co. - - - [1897] 1 Ch. 893 
 
 Approved. Paesons v. Gillespie 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 239 
 Distinguished. Cellulab Clothing Co. 
 V. Maxton and Mubbay 
 
 [1899] A. C. 326 
 
 Seddaway v. Bentham Hemp Spinning Co., [1892] 
 2 Q. B. 639. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Eeddaway v. 
 Banham - - [1895] 1 Q. B. 286 ; 
 
 But this case was reversed byH. L. (E.) 
 [1896] A. C. 199 
 g,Inre- - [1897] 1 Ch. 876 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re ToM- 
 linson - - [1898] 1 Ch. 232 
 
 Referred to. In re Gjebs. Coopeb v. 
 Gjees - - - [1899] 2 Ch. 54 
 
 Bedgrave v. Kelly - - (1889) 37 W. E. 543 
 
 See now 59 & 60 Vict. c. 44. 
 
 Seed, In the Goods of (1874) 29 L. T. (N.S.) 932 
 Followed by Jeune P. In re Goods of 
 Callicott - [1899] P. 189 
 
 Bees, In re - - (1881) 17 Ch. D. 701 
 
 (Considered and applied. In re Lambebt 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 169 
 
 Beese Biver Silver Mining Co. v. Smith, (1869) 
 L. E. 4 H. L. 64, 77, 78. 
 Explained. In re Genebal Railway 
 Syndicate - - [1899] 1 Ch, 770 
 
 Beeve v. Berridge - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 523 
 Followed. In re White and Smith's 
 Conteact - [1896] 1 Ch. 637 
 
 Eeferred to. Midglby v. Smith 
 
 [1893] W. N. 120 
 
 Beeves v. Barlow - (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 436 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Mobeis v. 
 Deloebel-Flipo - [1892] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 Beg. V. Bacon - (Law Journal, Notes of Cases, 
 July 13, 1895, p. 438.) 
 County Court Eules, 1896, r. 4, and 
 explanatory Memorandum thereto, see 
 Current Index, 1896, p. Ixv. 
 
 Reg. y. Badger - - (1843) 4 Q. B. 468 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. u. 7. 
 Beg. V. Bimiardo. Gossage's Case, (1890) 24 
 
 Q. B. D. 283. 
 
 Aifirmed by H. L. (E.) siib nom. Bae- 
 
 NABDO v. FoED - [1892] A. C. 326 
 
 Beg. V. Barnardo. Jones' Case [1891] A. C. 388 
 Overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 3, s. 3. 
 
 Beg. V. Barnardo. Tye's Case, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 
 
 305. 
 
 Disapproved by H. L. (E.) Baenaedo 
 
 v. Foed - [1892] A. C. 326 
 
 Beg. y. Beadle - - (1 857) 7 E. & B. 492 
 
 Followed. /ju-eGALViN,(1897), 1 Ir. E. 
 
 (Ch.) 520-534. 
 
 Ch. Div. (Ir.) [1898] W. N, 140 
 Beg. V. BexUy Seath By. Co., C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 
 
 74. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Daet- 
 
 fobd Eueal Council v. Bexley Heath 
 
 Ey. Co. - - [1898] A. C. 210 
 
 Beg. V. Bolingbroke - - [1893] 2 Q. B. 347 
 
 Approved of by 0. A. Ex parte Ovee- 
 
 seees of Woekington 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 416, at pp. 418, 419 
 Beg. V. Bowman - [1898] 1 Q. B. 663 
 
 Eeferred to Beg. v. Gotham 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 802, 806 
 Btg. V. Brown - (1867) L. E. 2 Q. B. 630 
 
 Approved. Ehondda and Swansea 
 
 Ey. Co. v. Talbot 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 131 
 Beg. V. Bunn - (1872) 12 Cox 0. C. 316 
 
 Dissented from Connoe v. Kent 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 545 
 Beg. V. Burnup - (1886) 50 J. P. 598 
 
 Not followed by Cave and Charles JJ. 
 
 Fenwick v. Eubal Sanitaby Autho- 
 
 kity of Ceoydon Union 
 
 [1891] 2 ft. B. 216 
 
coclxviii 
 
 TABLE OF GASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &o.. 
 
 Beg. V. Oapel. (1840) 12 Ad. & E. 412; 9 L, J. 
 (M.C.) 65. 
 
 .yce Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. u. 17), s. 1. 
 
 Eeg. V. Chandler - (1§55) 24 L. J. (M.C.) 109 
 See now Prevention of Cruelty to Chil- 
 dren Act, 1894 (57 & 5S Vict. c. 41), 
 =. 23 (2). 
 
 Beg. V. Christopherson - (1885) 10 Q. B. D. 7 
 See Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 17), b. 1. 
 
 Beg. V. Commrs. of Income Tax, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 
 296. 
 
 Aifirmed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 531 
 Followed by C. A. Inland Revenue 
 CoHMRS. u. Scott [1892] 8 Q. B. 152 
 
 Beg. V. Commrs. of Stamps and Taxes, (1849) 
 
 13 Jur. 624. 
 
 Abrogated by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30, s. 7 
 
 (4)- 
 Beg. V. Cowper - (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 60, 533 
 
 Distinguished, Fkancb v. Dctton 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 208 
 
 Beg. V. Co.t - (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 153 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Williams 
 
 ('. QCEERADA Ey. LaND AND CoPPEK CO. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 751 
 
 Beg. V. Croydon County Court (^Registrar of) 
 (1894) 11 T. L. Rep. 19. 
 Doubted by Div. Ct. Pedton v. Boweb 
 & Co. - [1900] 1 Q. B. 598, 604 
 
 Beg. V. Curzon - (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 400 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.) Freer v. 
 Murray - [1894] A. C. 576 
 
 Beg. V. Dolan ■ (1855) Dears. 436 
 
 Followed by C. C. R. Reg. v. Villen- 
 SKY - - - [1892] 2 Q. B. 697 
 
 Beg. V. D^O^JhJ - (1840) 12 A. & E. 139 
 
 Overruled by 5G & 57 Vict. c. 73, s. 31 
 (!)• 
 
 Beg. v. Druitt - (1867) 10 Cox C. C. 592 
 
 Dissented from Connor v. Kent 
 
 [1891] 2 ft. B. 545 
 
 Beg. V. East London Waierworlts Co., (1852) IS 
 Q. B. 705. 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (E.) Metropolitan 
 Ry. Co. v. Fowler 
 
 [1893] A. C. 416 at pp. 422, 428 
 
 Be^. V. Essex (Justices of) - [1895] 1 Q. B. 38 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. West 
 Ham Union v. Essex (Justices of) and 
 London County Council 
 
 [1896] A. C. 448 
 
 Beg. Y.Evans - (1850) 19 L. J. (M.C.) 351 
 Approved by 0. A. Req. v. Farmer 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 637 
 
 Beg. V. Fennell - - (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 147 
 
 Followed by C. C. R. Beg. v. Thomp- 
 son - [1893] 2 Q. B. 12 
 
 Beg. V. Fisher - (1882) 3 B. & S. 191 
 
 Approved. Ehondda and Swansea 
 Rt. Co. V. Talbot 
 
 C. A. [1867] 2 Ch. 131 
 
 Beg. V. Francis - (1874) L. R. 2 C. C. 12S 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 36, s. 1 (j). 
 
 Beg. V. Garielt - (1847) 1 Den. C. C. 23S 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 36, s. 1 (e.). 
 
 Beg. V. Garner - - (1863) 8 F. & F. 681 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 36, s. 1 (i.). 
 
 Beg. V. Geering - (1849) 18 L. J. M. C. 215 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 36, s. 1 (?.). 
 
 Beg. Y. Glamorgan County Council. Ex parte 
 Miller, [1899] W. IST. 60; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 26. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 53ff 
 
 Beg. V. Glamorganshire Justices, [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 621. 
 
 Overruled. Boulter v. Kest Justices" 
 H. I. (E.) [1897] A. C. 556 
 
 Beg. v. Gloucestershire (Justices of), (1893) 68- 
 
 L. T. (N.S.) 225. 
 
 Approved by C. A. Res. v. Kent 
 
 Justices [1896] 2 ft. B. 306 ; 
 
 But this case was reversed by H. L. (E.)- 
 
 [1897] A. C. 556 
 
 Beg. V. Goodchild - (1857) 27 L. J. (M.C.) 233 
 
 See Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899 
 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 17), s. 1. 
 
 Beg. V. Government Stock Investment Co., (1878) 
 3 Q. B. D. 442. 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 Bid WELL Bros. [1893] 1 Ch. 603 
 
 Beg. V. Grant - - (1849) 14 Q. B. 43 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Bache v. 
 BiLLINGHAM ' - [1894] 1 ft. B. 107 
 
 Beg. V. Halifax County Court (Judge of), [18911' 
 1 Q. B. 793. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 263 
 
 Beg. V. Sarrald - (1872) L. E. 7 Q. B. 361 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. c. 73, s. 43. 
 
 Beg. V. Bines, (1874) SO C. 0. C. Sessions Paper, 
 309. 
 Dissented from. Res. v. Senior 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 283, 292 
 
 Beg. V. Suggins - - [1891] W. N. 8S 
 
 See 58 & 59 Vict. o. 39, s. 12. 
 
 Beg. V. Hall Boch Co. - (1887) 18 Q. B. 325 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.). Hull 
 Dock Co. v. Soulcoates LFnion 
 
 [1896] A. C. 136 
 
 Beg. V. Sunter - - (1867) 10 Cox, 642; 
 
 Form of indictment held bad by C. C. R. 
 Eeg. v. Sowerby [1894] 2 ft. B. 17S 
 
 Beg. V. Inclosure Commrs. (1871) 23 L. T. 778 
 Distinguished. Simcoe v. Pbthick 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 ft. B. 56& 
 
 Beg. V. Irish Land Commission, [1899] 2 I. R. 
 399. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (L) [1899] A. C. 435 
 
 Beg. V. Johnston 2 Meody's Crown Oases, 254 
 See Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1S9EX 
 (62 & 03 Vict. c. 22), s. 3. 
 
 Beg. V. Kennedy - - [1893] 2 Q. B. 53S 
 
 Considered and explained. Bbxley 
 Heath Ey. v. North 
 
 C, A. [1894] 2 ft. B, 67» 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 coolxix 
 
 Beg. V. Kent Justices - ■ [1896] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 AfBrmed by G. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 306 ; 
 
 But reversed by H. L. (E.) svb nom. 
 
 BOULTEB V. BLeNT JUSTICES 
 
 [1897] A. C. 566 
 
 Beg. V. Kent Justices (1899) 80 L. T. (N.S.) 622 
 
 Disapproved and not followed. Res. v. 
 
 De Gbey - [1900] 1 ft. B. 621 
 
 Beg. y. Kettle - - - (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 761 
 Judgment of Willis J. explained by 
 0. A. OcsAOK V. London & N. W. Ry. 
 Co. - - - [1891] 1 ft. B. 347 
 
 Beg. V. Lambarde - (1866) L. R. 1 Q. B. 388 
 See now 59 & 60 "Viot. c. 25, s. 68, 
 sub-a. 7. 
 
 Beg. V. Lamboum Valley By. Co., (1889) 22 
 Q. B. D. 463. 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. Reg. v. London 
 AND North Westebn Rt. Co. 
 
 [1894] 2 ft. B. 512 
 
 Beg. V. Lamer - (1880) 14 Cox C. C. 497 
 
 Disapproved of. Reg. v. Button 
 
 [1900] 2 ft. B. 697 
 
 Beg. V. Lavey - - (1850) 3 C. & K. 26 
 
 Referred to by Diy. Ot. Reg. v. Baker 
 
 [1895] 1 ft. B. 797 
 
 Beg. Y. Leeds Union - (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 323 
 Disapproved by H. L. (E.) West Ham 
 Guardians v. Churchwardens of 
 St. Matthew, Bethnal Green 
 
 [1894] A. C. 230 
 
 Beg. V. Leicester Union - [1899] 2 Q. B. 682 
 See Vaccination Order of Loc. Govt. Bd. 
 dated Oct. IS, 1898. 
 
 Beg. V. LerescJie - [1891] 2 Q. B. 418 
 
 Explained and distinguished. Brad- 
 SHAW 0. Bkadshaw - [1897] P. 84 
 
 Beg. v. Lewis - - [1896] 1 Q. B. 665 
 
 See now 60 & 61 Vict. c. 47, s. 1. 
 
 Beg. V. Liverpool Justices, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 
 638. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Baldwin v. 
 Dover Justices [1892J 2 ft. B, 421 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Stmons v. Wed- 
 MOKE - [1894] 1 ft. B. 401 
 
 Beg. f. Liverpool (Bevising Barrister), [1895] 1 
 Q. B. 155. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Jones v. 
 Monro - [1899] 1 ft. B. 109, 115 
 
 Beg. V. London and North Western By. Co., [1899] 
 
 1 Q. B. 921. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) ««6 nom. London 
 
 AND North Western Et. Co. v. Walker 
 
 [1900] A. C. 109 
 
 Beg. V. London (Bishop of). Allcrnft's Case, 
 
 (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 213; [1891] 2 Q. B. 
 
 48. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) suh nom. All- 
 
 CEOET V. Bishop op London 
 
 [1891] A. C. 666 
 
 Beg. V. London (Bishop of). Lighton's Case, 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 48. 
 
 Decision of Hawkins J. affirmed by C. A. 
 and by H. L, (B.) mb nom., Lighton v- 
 Biskop OF Loneon [1891] A. C. 668 
 
 Beg. v. London County (Justices of) (No 2') 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 476. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.)s«6 mom. London 
 
 County (County Council) v. St. 
 
 George's Union Assessment Committee 
 [1894] A. C. 600 
 
 See also upon another point 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 453 
 Beg. v. London (Justices of) (No. 4), [1895] 1 
 
 Q. B. 214. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 616 
 
 Referred to. Reg. v. Staffordshire 
 
 Justices - [1898] 2 ft. B. 231, 235 
 Beg. V. London Justices - [1895] 1 Q. B. 616 
 
 Not followed by C. A. Reg. v. Wor- 
 
 CESTBBSHIBE JUSTICES 
 
 [1900] 2 ft. B. 576 
 
 Beg. V. London (Mayor of), (1886) 16 Q. B. D 
 772, 775. 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. o. 36, s. 4 (2). 
 
 Beg. V. London (School Board for), (1886) 17 
 Q. B. D. 738. 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.) London 
 County Council v. Ekith (Church- 
 wardens, &c.) [1893] A. C. 562 
 
 Beg. V. Marsham - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 371 
 
 Explained by C. A, Stroud r. Wands- 
 worth Board of Works 
 
 [1894] 2 ft. B. 1 
 Referred to by C. A. Metropolitan 
 District Ry. Co, v. Pulham Vestry 
 
 [1895] 2 ft. B. 443, 448 
 
 Beg. V. Master - (1869) L. R. 4 Q. B. 285 
 
 Doubted. Seaman v. Burlby 
 
 [1896] 2 ft. B. 344 
 
 Beg. V. Mead - - [1898] 1 Q. B. 110 
 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Viot. c. cxxxvii.). 
 
 Beg. V. Medical Council - [1897] 1 Q. B. 764 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 203 
 
 Beg. V. Metropolitan Board of Works, (1869') 
 L. R. 4Q. B. 15. 
 
 Followed by C. A. London County 
 Council v. Churchwardens, &c., op 
 West Ham - [1892] 2 ft. B. 44 
 
 Beg. V. Midland By. Co. (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 540 
 Distinguished by Parwell J. Man- 
 chester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester 
 Raoeooubse Co. - [1900] 2 Oh. 352 
 
 Beg. V. Millis - - (1844) 10 CI. & P. 534 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re De 
 Wilton - [1900] 2 Ch. 481 
 
 Beg. T. Mitchell - - (1809) 10 East, 511 
 
 Superseded by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 11, s. 2. 
 
 Beg. \. Nash - (1882-8.S) 10 Q B. D. 454 
 
 Approved by H. L. (B.) Babnardo 
 V. McHuGH - [1891] A. C. 388 
 
 Beg. V. Parry - - (1887) 3 Times Rep. 649 
 
 Doubted by Div. Ct. Reg. v. Burrows 
 
 [1892] 1 ft. B. 399 
 
 Beg. V. Paul - - (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 202 
 
 See now Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Children Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. o. 41), 
 B. 15. 
 
 Beg. V. Powell - . [1891] 1 Q. B. 718 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B(. 693 
 2 a 
 
ccclxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., 
 
 Beg. V. Plymouth (Mayor, &c., of), [1896] 1 Q. B. 
 158. 
 
 Considered. Eeg. e. North Eideso op 
 YoRKSHiEE County Codnoil 
 
 [1899] 1 a. B. 201 
 
 Beg. V. Fontypool County Court {JucJge of), (1894) 
 63 L. J. (Q.B.) 702. 
 
 See County Court Eules, 1896, r. 2, 
 and explanatory Memorandum thereto. 
 See Current Index, 1893, p. Ixv. 
 
 Beg. ^. Portsmouth Justices [1892] 1 Q. B. 491 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. o. 49, ss. 2-4, and 
 sched. 
 
 Beg. V. 
 Beg. V, 
 
 Beg. V. 
 Beg. V. 
 
 Bpg. V. 
 
 Beg. V. 
 
 Eeg. V. 
 
 Beg. V. 
 Beg. V. 
 
 Beg. V. 
 
 Beg. V, 
 
 Beg. V. 
 
 Beg. V. 
 
 Beg. Y. 
 
 Boaton - (1805) 34 L. J. M. C. 57 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. o. 36, s. 1 (/). 
 
 Bijland (1867) L. E. 1 C. C. E. 199 
 
 See now Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Children Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Viet. c. 41), 
 s. 28 (2). 
 
 St. George ■ (1840) 9 0. & P. 483 
 
 Overruled by C. C. E. .Eeg. v. Duok- 
 WOKTH - [1892] 2 Q, B. 83 
 
 St. Matthew, Bethnal Green Vestry, C. A. 
 [1896] 2Q. B. 319. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. Beth- 
 nal Geee;* Vestry v. London School 
 Board [1898] A. C. 1£0 
 
 Sharman [1898] 1 Q. B. 578 
 
 Followed. Eeg. v. Bowman 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 663 
 Eeferred to. Eeg. «. Cotham 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 802, 806 
 Distinguisbed. Eeg. i>. Manchester 
 JrsTioES - [1899] 1 ft. B. 671 
 
 Smith (1870) L. E. 1 C. C. 266 
 
 Approved and followed by C. C. E. 
 Eeg. v. Steeeter - [1900] 2 Q. B. 601 
 
 Smith - - (1873) L. E. 8 Q. B. 146 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Eeg. 
 
 [1892] 1 a. B. 426 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 499 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 634 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 173 
 
 C. C. E. Eeg. v. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 766 
 
 Thomas 
 
 Soden 
 AfBrmed by C. A. 
 
 Soirerhy 
 Distinguished by 
 
 SiLVEELOOK 
 
 Stainer (1870) 39 L. J. (M.C.) 54 
 
 Considered by Div. Ct. Eeg. v. Tan- 
 kard - [1894] 1 ft. B. 548, 550 
 
 Surrey (Justices of) (No. 1), [1892] 1 
 
 Q. B. 633. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 867 
 
 Sykes - - (1875) 1 Q. B. D. 52 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.) Ex parte 
 Gorman - [1894] A. C. 23 
 
 Thornton. Ex parte Lacoii & Co., [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 308 ; [1898] 1 Q. B. 334. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Laoeey 
 V. Lacon & Co. [1899] A, C. 222 
 
 Tipton (Inhabitants of), (1842) 3 Q. B. 
 215. 
 
 Rule in, applied. Doeking Union !>. 
 St. Saviour's Union 
 
 C, A, [1898] 1 Q, B, 694 
 
 Beg. V. Turner and Hodgson, Law Journal, Notes 
 of Cases, Feb. 6, 1897, p. 76. 
 See Explanatory Memorandum to the 
 County Court Rules (March), 1897 
 
 [1897] W. N. (Mar. 6) p. 75 ; 
 These rules annulled 
 ■W. N. [1897] (May 8) pp. 157, 169 
 Beg. V. Wealand (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 827 
 
 See now Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Children Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 41), 
 s. 15. 
 Beg. V. Winslow - - (1860) 8 Cox, 397 
 
 Discussed by P. C. Mallin v. Att.- 
 Gen. foe New South Wales 
 
 [1894] A. C, 57, 66 
 
 Beid, In the Goods of, (1868) 38 L. J. (P.& M.) 1 
 
 Followed by Jeune Pres. Durham v. 
 
 Noethen - [1895] P. 66 
 
 Beigate Union (Gtiardians) v. Guardiara of 
 Croydon Union,(lSS9) 14 App. Cas.465. 
 Explainedby Div. Ct. Llanelly Union 
 V. Neath Union [1893] 2 ft. B. 38 
 
 Beinhardt v. Mentasti (1889) 42 Ch. D. 685, 690 
 Explained by Kekewich J. Att.-Gen. 
 V. Cole - - [1900] W. S. 272 
 
 Questioned by Buckley J. Sandees- 
 Clakk v. Geosvenor Mansions Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 373 
 
 Bemmington v. Scoles - [U97] W. N. 43 (10) 
 AfBrmed by C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Benals v. Cowlishaw, (1878) 9 Ch. D. 125 ; (1879) 
 11 Ch. D. 866. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Nalder 
 AND Collyer's Brewery Co. v. Haeman 
 [ISOO] W. N. 22; C. A, [1900] W. N. 180 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Rogers v. HrsE- 
 good [1900] 2 Ch. 388, 396, 404 
 
 Bendall v. Blair ■ - (1890) 45 Oh. D. 139 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. Eooke v. Daw- 
 son [1895] 1 Ch. 480 
 Eeferred to by North J. Fisher r. 
 Jackson - [1891] W. N. 49 
 
 Benney v. Kirkcudbright Magistrates, (1890) 18 E. 
 294. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Eeney 
 V. Kirkcudbright Magistrates 
 
 [1992] A. C. 264 
 
 Benshaw v. Queen Anne Mansions Co., [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 662. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Paeey v. Liverpool 
 Malt Co. [1900] 1 ft. B. 339, 343 
 
 Beversionary Interest Society, In re, [1892] W. N. 
 60. 
 Followed. In re Brin's Oxygen Co. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 44 
 
 Bex v. Buttery, Cited iu 4 B. & Aid. p. 179; 22 
 E. R. 590. 
 Discussed. Eeg. v. Ellis 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 230 
 
 Bex V. Hodges - - (1829) Moo. & Mai. 311 
 
 Followed. Vale & Sons v. Moorgate 
 
 SlEEET AND BeOAD StBEET BriLMXGS, 
 
 Ld- [1899] W. N. 62 
 
 Bex V. Mitchell - . (1809) 10 East, 511 
 
 Discussed by C. A. (Ir.) Donnelly v. 
 
 (3EAIIAM - - [1897] W. N. 103 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1000. 
 
 coclxx i 
 
 Rex v. nussell, (1805) 6 East, 427, 430 ; 8 E. E. 
 506. 
 
 Applicable. Att.-Gen. v. Brighton 
 AND Hove Co-operative Supply Asso- 
 ciation - C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 276, 281 
 
 Bex V. St. Pancras, (1834) 1 A. & E. 80 ; 3 N. & M. 
 425. 
 Overruled. See Reg. v. Sodtter 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 67 
 
 Beynish v. Martin - (1746) 8 Atb. 330 
 
 Distinguished. In re Notjrsb. Hamp- 
 ton V. NouRSB - [1899] 1 Ch. 63 
 
 Beynolds (Charles) & Co., In re [1895] W. N. 31 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Eadeord 
 & Bright, Ld. - [1900] W. N. 263 
 
 Beynolds v. Sowell - (1873) L. E. 8 Q. B. 398 
 Approved of by C. A. Fbickbr v. Van 
 Grutten - - [1896] 2 Ch. 649 
 
 Ehoades, In re. Ex parte Bhoades, [1899] W. N. 
 41 ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 905. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] 3 Q. B. 347 
 
 Bhodes v. Forwood - (1875-6) 1 App. Cas. 256 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Turner v. 
 Goldsmith - [1891] 1 Q. B, 844 
 
 Rlwdes V. Bhodes (1859) 27 Beav. 413, 417 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. In re 
 BiRKS - - [1899] 1 Ch. 703 ; 
 
 This case was reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 249; [1900] 1 Ch. 417 
 
 Bice Jones, Ex parte, (1850) 1 L. M. & P. 357 ; 
 
 1 Practice Reports, 357. 
 
 Approved by C. A. Beg. v. Farmer 
 
 [1892] 1 a. B. 637 
 Bice V. Noakes & Co. - - [1900] 1 Ch. 213 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1900] 2 Ch. 445 
 Bichards, Inre - - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 589 
 
 Considered. Hopkins v. Hemsworth 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 347 
 Bichards v. Kidderminster Overseers, [1896] 2 Ch. 
 
 212 
 
 ySee'eO&ei Vict. o. 19. 
 Bichards v. Macclesfield (Earl of), (1835) 7 Sim. 
 
 257; 4 L. J. (N.S.) Ch. 163; 40 E. E. 
 
 181. 
 
 Applied by Chitty J. Keen v. Denny 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 169 
 Bichards v. Morgan (1863) 4 B. & S. 641 
 
 Observed upon. Evans v. Meethyr 
 
 Tydfil Urban District Council 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 241 
 Bichards v. Overseers of Kidderminster, [1896] 
 
 2 Ch. 212. 
 
 Considered. In re Marriage, Neavb 
 
 & Co. - - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 663 
 
 Richardson, In re, [1900] W. N. 3; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 778. 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Money Kyelb - [1900] 2 Ch. 839 
 
 Bichardson v. Hurris - (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 268 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Wilt- 
 shire - - [1900] 1 Q. B. 96, 98 
 
 Bichardson v. Mellish, (1824) 2 Sing. 229, 252 ; 
 27 E. E. 603. 
 
 Referred to by Ketewich J. In re 
 Keloey - - [1899] a Ch. 530, 834 
 
 Bichardson v. Methley School Board, [1893] 3 Ch. 
 510. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Turnbull v. 
 
 West Riding Athletic Club (Leeds) 
 
 [1894] W. N. 4 
 
 Bichardson v, Bichardson, [1895] P. 276 (affirmed 
 
 on Appeal, [1895] P. 346). 
 
 Dicta in, adopted. In re Raphael. 
 
 Ex parte Salomon - [1899] 1 Ch. 863 ; 
 
 But this case on the evidence was 
 
 reversed by C. A. [1899] W. N. 212 
 
 Bichmond v. White - (1879) 12 Ch. D. 361 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Lang- 
 ley - [1899] W. N. 23 (5) 
 Applied by Kekewich J. In re Lanoe 
 [1900] W. N. 29 
 
 Bichmond Hill Steamship Co. v. Corporation of 
 Trinity House, [1896] 1 Q. B. 493. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 134 
 
 Bicketts v. Biclcetls (1891) 64 L. T. (N.S.) 263 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Grif- 
 fith V. Hughes [1892] 3 Ch. 105 
 Explained by Romer J. Bolton v. 
 Cdrrb - [1898] 1 Ch. 544 
 
 Bidge, In re. Hellard v. Moody, (1885) 81 Ch. D. 
 504, 508. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re 
 Chaytor - [1900] 2 Ch. 804, 809 
 
 Bidgeway v. MunUltrick, (1841) 1 D. & War. 84, 
 93. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Birks 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 703 ; 
 This case was reversed by C. A. 
 [1899] W. N. 249; [1900] 1 Ch. 417 
 
 Bidsdale v. Clifton - (1877) 2 P. D. 276 
 
 See Bead v. Bishop op Lincoln 
 
 [1892] A. C. 644 
 Considered. In re Robinson 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 88 
 
 Bighy v. Bennett - - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 559 
 
 Eiile applied to devises iiy Cliitty J. 
 
 Phillips v. Low - [1892] 1 Ch. 47 
 
 Bighy v. Connol - - (1880) 14 Ch. D. 482 
 
 Folldwed by C. A. Chambeklain's 
 Wharf, Ld. v. Smith [1900] 2 Ch. 608 
 
 " Bipon City," The - - [1897] P. 226 
 
 Eeferred to. The " Eipon City " 
 
 [1898] P. 78 
 
 Bishton v. Grissell - (1868) L. E. 5 Eq. 326 
 Followed by Chitty, J. Frames v. 
 Bultfontein Mining Co. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 140 
 
 Ritchie, &o. (Watson's Trustees') v. Hamilton, 
 (1894) 21 R. 451. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) suh nom. Hamil - 
 TON V. Ritchie - [1894] A. C. 310 
 
 Bitson, In re. Bitson v. Ritson, [1898] 1 Ch. 667 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1899] 1 Ch. 128 
 
 River Serwent, Tlie (1891) 7 Asp. M. L. C. 37 
 Distinguished by Bucknill J. The 
 " John Hollway " - [1900] P. 37 
 
 Riier Ribhle Joint Committee v. Halliwell. Same 
 V. ShorrocTt, [1899] 1 Q. B. 27. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 386 
 
ccolxxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEERULED, &c., 
 
 Bixon V. Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co., 
 
 (1891) 18 E, 261 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 636 
 Eoach V. Wadham - - (1805) 6 East, 289 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. John 
 
 Bkothebs Aeebgakw Bkeweey Co. v. 
 
 Holmes - [1900] 1 Ch. 188 
 
 Bobarts\. Jeffery s,(lS30) 8 L.J. (O.S.)(Ch.) 137, 
 
 140. 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Tayloe, 
 
 Stileman and Underwood 
 
 [1891] 1 Ct. 530, 898 
 Robb V. Green - [1895] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 315 
 
 Roberts, In re - - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 234 
 
 Distlnguislied by Chitty J. In re PiN- 
 HOKNE - [1894] 2 Ch. 276 
 
 Roberts, In re - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 234 
 
 DiBtlnguished by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Powell [1900] 2 Ch. 525 
 
 Roberts, In re. Kiff v. Roberts, (1886) 33 Oh. D. 
 
 265. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Ex parte Goldbeeg 
 
 [1893] 1 a. B. 417 
 
 Roberts v. Gwyrfui Rural District Coimeil, [1899] 
 
 W. N. 16 (11) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 583. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch. 608 
 
 Roberts v. Kufm - - (1740) 2 Atk. 112 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re EoB- 
 SON - - [1891] 2 Ch. 559 
 
 Roberts Y. Phillips - (1855) 4 E. & B. 450 
 
 Followed by Butt J. In re Goods 
 OP Steeatlisy [1891] P. 172 
 
 Roberts v. Potts - - [1893] 2 Q. B. 38 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. (Kay L.J. dissenting) 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 213 
 
 " Robert Pow," The,(1863) Browning & Lnahing- 
 ton'd Keports, 99. 
 
 Commented on and doubted by H. L. (E.) 
 Meksey Docks and Haebotjr Board v. 
 Turner [1893] A. C. 468 
 
 Robertson v. Broadbent, (1883) 8 App. Cas. 812, 
 820. 
 
 Eef erred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 Hamilton - [1892] W. N. 74 
 
 Robertson v. Robertson (1881) 6 P. D. 119 
 
 Eef( rred to. Delaforoe v. Delaforob 
 and Ueisooll [1892] W. N. 68 
 
 Robertson & Baxter v. Inglis (1897) 24 E. 758 
 Affiimed by H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A, C, 616 
 
 Robins v. Goldingham, (1872 L. E. 13 Eq. 440. 
 Eeferred to. In re Eose Maeie Gold 
 Mining Co. - [1896] W. N. 76 .6) 
 
 Bdbina y. Gray 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. 
 
 [lJ-95] 2 Q. B. 78 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 501 
 
 Bobinson, In re. Wright v. Tugwell, [1892] 1 Ch. 
 95. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1897] 1 Ch. 85 
 
 Bobinson, hire - (1854) 23 L. J. Q. B, 2^6 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. o. 7. 
 
 Robinson, Ex parte. In re Robinson, (1883) 22 
 
 Ch. D. 816. 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Otway 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 812 
 Bobimon, In the Goods of, (1870) L. E. 2 P. & M. 
 
 Considered by Jeune P. In the Goods 
 oeSpratt - - [1897] P. 28 
 
 Bobinson v. Barton-Eccles Local Board, (1888) 
 8 App. Oaa. 798. 
 
 Applicable. Att.-Gen. v. Eitffoed & 
 Co. [1899] 1 Ch. 537, S39 
 
 Bobinson v. Grave - (1872) 21 W. E. 223 
 
 Considered by Buckley J. Tebb v. 
 Cave [1900] 1 Ch. 642, 647 
 
 Bobinson v. Kilvert - (1889) 41 Ch. D. 88 
 
 Applied and followed by Stirling J. 
 Aldin v. Latimer Claeke, Muiehead 
 & Co. - - [1894] 2 Ch. 437 
 
 Considered by Buckley J. Tebb v. 
 Cave - [1900] 1 Ch. 642, 648 
 
 Robinson (Dalhousie's Tutors) v. Stewart, (1890) 
 27 Sc. L. E. 819. 
 
 Affiimed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. 
 Stewart v. Eobisson 
 
 [1891] W. N. 122 
 
 Robson,Inre - - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 71 
 
 Discussed and followed. In re Horn & 
 Feanois [1896] 2 Ch. 797 
 
 Bochdale Canal Co. v. Brewster, [1894] 2 Q. B. 
 852. 
 
 Eeferred to. Holywell Union and 
 Halkyn Parish v. Halkyn Drainage 
 Co. [1895] A. C. 134 
 
 Bochdale Property and General Finance Co., In 
 re, (1879) 12 Ch. D. 775. 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Watson 
 & Sons, Ld. [1891] 2 Ch. 85 
 
 Bochdale Union and Haslingden Union, In re, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 206. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 540 
 See Londom Government A.ct, 1890 
 (62 & 63 Vict. 0. 14), s. 16. 
 
 Bochefoucauld v. Boustead - [1897] 1 Ch. 196 
 Eeversed (subject to a variation) by 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch, 550 
 
 Boddam v. MorJey - (1857) 1 De G. & J. 1 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Dibb v. Walker 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 429 
 
 Boddicli V. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance 
 
 Co., [189.1] 1 Q. B. 836. 
 
 Partly affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 3E0 
 
 Bodwell V. Phillips - (1842) 9 M. & W. 501 
 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. o. 71, s. 62 (defiuition 
 
 of "g"0d8"). 
 
 Bogers v. Hosegood, [1899] W. N. 223 ; 69 L. J. 
 (Cli.)'59. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 388 
 
 Eeterred toby Cozens-Hardy J. Kimber 
 V. Admans 0. A, [1900] I'Ch. 412, 414 
 
 Sogers v. Maddoclcs - [1892] 3 Oh. 346 
 
 Referred tb by 0. A. UkdekWood & 
 Sons, Ld. i'. Bakkee 
 
 [18^9] 1 oil. SbO, 305 
 
DtJRlNG THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 CoOlxxiii 
 
 Sogen v. Whiteley - (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 236 
 AfBrmed by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 118 
 
 EoUason's Registered Design, In re, C. A. [1898] 
 
 1 Cli. 237. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) svh nom. Heath 
 & Sons, Lr. v. Eollason 
 
 [1898] A. C. 499 
 Rook V. Hopley - (1878) 3 Ex. D. 209 
 
 Ste Wale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 
 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 51), s. 20. 
 
 Roper v. Roper (1876) 3 Ch. D. 714 
 
 Dictum at p. 719, disapproved by 
 Chitty J. In re Greenwood 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 296 
 
 Rorlce, Ex parte - [1894] 1 Ir. E. 146 
 
 Followed. In re Lloyd and North 
 London Et. Co. (City Bkanch) Act, 
 1861 [1896] a Ch. 397 
 
 Rose W.Rose - (1882) 7 P. D. 225 ; (1883) 
 
 8 P. D. 98. 
 
 Distinguished. Dowung v. Dowling 
 [1898] P. 228 
 
 Rosenberg v. Nortliumherland Building Society, 
 (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 373. 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. Bradbdky 
 V. "Wild - - [1893] 1 Ch. 377 
 
 Ross' Charity, In re - - [1897] 2 Ch. 391 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 21 
 
 See London Government Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. u. 14), B. 23 (3). 
 
 Ross Improvement Oommrs. v. Osborne, [1890] 
 W. N. 92. 
 
 Not followed by Chitty J. National 
 Permanent Mutual Benefit Building 
 Society v. Eapek - [1892] 1 Ch. 54 
 
 Ross V. Woodford - - [1894] 1 Ch. 38 
 
 Eeferred to. New v. Burns 
 
 [1894] W. N. 196 
 
 Rossiter v. Mellor - (1878) 3 App. Gas. 1124 
 See Lloyd v. Nowell [1895] 2 Ch, 744 
 
 Rothes (^Countess of) v. Kirlscaldy and Dysart 
 Waterworlcs Oommrs., (1882) 7 App. Cas. 
 694. 
 
 Observations of Lord Watson at p. 707 
 commented on and explained. In re 
 Manchester and Milfobd Et. Co. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 Rothschild v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, [1894] 
 
 2 Q. B. 142. 
 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. o. 30, s. 40. 
 
 Roundwood Colliery Co., In re. Lee v. Roundwood 
 Colliery Co. [1896] W. N. 166 (3) 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1897] 1 Ch. 373 
 
 Bouse V. Bradford Banking Co. [1894] 2 Ch. 32 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 586 
 
 Boweliffe v. Longford Wire Co., (1887) 4 Eep. Pat. 
 Cas. 281. 
 Cited. Mandleberg v. Morley 
 
 [1893] W. N. 167 
 
 Boivell T. Inland Revenue Commrs. [1897] 2 Q. B. 
 194. 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Knight's Deep, 
 Ld. v. Inland Eb venue Commrs. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 217, 221 
 
 Rowland v. Miohell - [1896] W. N. 74 (5) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 167(10); 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 71 
 
 Rowland v. OakUy - (1850) 14 Jur. (N.S.) 845 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Timothy 
 V. Crown - [1900] W. N. 51 
 
 Rowley v. TTnwin ■ - (1855) 2 K. & J. 138 
 
 Considered and applied by Stirling J. 
 In re Malam - [1894] 3 Ch. 678 
 
 Royal British Bank v. Turquand, (1856) 6 E. & B. 
 327. 
 
 Followed by C. A. County op Glou- 
 cester Banki). Eudry Merthyr Steam 
 AND House Coal Colliery Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 629 
 Followed. In re Hampshire Land Co. 
 [1896] W.N. 78(2); 
 [1896] a Ch. 743 
 
 Royal College of Music v. Westminster Vestry, 
 [1897] W. N. 175 (8); [1898] 1 Q. B. 
 304. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 809 
 
 Roval Liver Friendly Society, In re, (1870) L. E. 
 5 Ex. 78. 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 33. 
 
 Royal Liver Friendly Society, In re, (1887) 35 
 Ch. D. 332. 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 68, sub-s. 6. 
 
 Ruabon Bride and Terra Gotta Co. v. Great 
 Western By. Co., [1893] 1 Oh. 42. 
 Eeferred to. In re Lord Gerard and 
 London and North Western By. Co. 
 C. A, [1896] 1 Q. B. 446 
 
 Ruabon Steamship Co. v. London Assurance, [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 456. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] W. N. 35 (6) ; 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 732 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 722. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (B.) 
 
 [1899] W.N. 254; 
 [1900] A, C. 6 
 
 "Ruby;"nie - - [1898] P. 52 
 
 See Explanatory Memorandum to County 
 Court Rules {May), 1899, and rules 46 
 to 57. W. N. 1899 (May 20), at p. 172. 
 See Current Index, 1899, p. oxi. 
 
 Ruffle, Ex parte (1873) L. E. 8 Ch. 997 
 
 Eeferred to by Stii-ling J. In re Cana- 
 dian Pacific Colonization Corpora- 
 tion, Ld. [1891] W, N. 133 
 
 Rumney & Smith's Contract, In re, [1897] W. N. 
 42 (8). 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 351 
 
 Rumney v. Walter (1891) 61 L. J. Q. B. 149 
 
 Considered. Whittaker v. Scar- 
 borough Post Newspaper Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] a Q. B. 148 
 
 Russell, In re. Dorrell v. Dorrell, [1895] 2 Cli. 
 698. 
 
 Eeferred to by Chitty J. Bates v. Kes- 
 terton - - [1896] 1 Ch. 169, 162 
 
coclxxiv 
 
 I'ABLE OP CASES EOLLOWBt), OVBEfiULED, &c. 
 
 Bussell V- Canibefort (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 526 
 
 Explained and followed by C. A. 
 Western National Bank of New Yobk 
 V. Pehez, Teiana & Co. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 304 
 Order xlviii.a, rr. 1, 3, must be read as 
 subject to this decision, and not as 
 intended to overrule it. Per Lord 
 Coleridge G.J. and Wright J. Geant 
 V. Anderson & Co. [1892] 1 Q. B. 108 
 The C. A. expressed no opinion on this 
 point - - [1892] 1 ft. B. 108 
 
 Followed by C. A. St. Gobain, 
 Chaonet and CiEEy Co. v. Hotek- 
 mann's Agency [1893] 2 ft. B. 96 
 
 Russell, Gardner & Co., In re (1891) 3 Ch. 171 
 Distinguished by Farwell J. In re 
 E. Bishop & Sons, Ld. [1900] 2 Ch. 254 
 
 Russell V. Jaclcson - (1852) 10 Hare, 204 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. In re Stead. 
 WiTHAM V. Andrew 
 
 [1899] W. N. 235 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 237 
 
 Russell V. Niemann (1864) 17 C. B. (2SI .S.) 163 
 Considered by 0. A. Seebaino & Sons 
 V. Campbell [1891] 1 Q. B. 283 
 
 Bussell V. Reg. - (1882) 7 App. Cas. 829 
 
 Followed. Att.-Gen. fob Ontario v. 
 Att.-Gen. foe the Dominion 
 
 [1896] A. C, 348 
 
 Bussell V. Bussell - C. A. [1895] P. 315 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (D.) [1897] A. C. 395 
 See also [1898] A. C. 307. 
 Followed. Oldroyd v. Oldrotd 
 
 [1896] P. 175 
 
 Bussell V. Tapping - (1855) 3 W. E. 379 
 
 Cited. In re Jones. Bullis v. Jones 
 [1891] W. N. 114 
 
 Bussell V. Town and County Bank, (1888) 13 App. 
 Cas. 418. 
 
 Considered by H. L. (Sc.) Tennant d. 
 Smith - [1892] A. C. 160 
 
 Piussian Spralts Patent, In re, [1898] 2 Ch. 149, 
 152. 
 
 Eeferred to. Alexander v. Automatic 
 Telephone Co. [1899] 2 Ch. 306 
 
 " Butland," The - - C. A. [1896] P. 281 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Owner 
 OP Steamship '' Edenbeidge " v. Green. 
 The " Eutland " [1897] A. C, 333 
 
 Byan v. Mutual Tontine Westminster Cliamhers 
 Association, [1892] 1 Ch. 427. 
 Keversed by C. A. - [1893] 1 Ch. 116 
 Eeferred to. Davis v. Foreman 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 664, 658 
 
 Rijder V. Byder - - (1861) 2 Sw. & Tr. 225 
 
 Disapproved by C. A. Thomasset v. 
 Thomasset - - [1894] P. 295 
 
 Bymer, In re. Bymer v. Stanfield, [1894] W. N. 
 114. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. In re Macduff 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 461, 476 
 
 Saccharin Corporation Ld. v. Chemicals and 
 Drugs Co., (1899) 17 Eep. Pat. Cas. 28. 
 See also Saccharin Corporation. Ld. v. 
 Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, 
 Ld. - [1900] W, N. 95 
 
 Sadler v. Great Western By. Co., [1895] 2 Q. B 
 688. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 450 
 Distinguished. Walters v. Geeen 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 696 
 
 Sadler v. Worley [1894] 2 Ch. 170 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Oldest v. 
 Union Works, Ld [1896] W. N. 77 
 
 Form of judgment followed by Keke- 
 wich J. Halifax and Huddeesfield 
 Union Banking Co. v. Eadcliffe, Ld. 
 [1895] W. N. 63 
 Considered. Ellas v. Continental 
 Oxygen Co. - - [1897] 1 Ch. 511 
 
 Sailing Ship Blairmore Co. v. Macredie, (1897) 
 24 E. 893. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1898] A. C. 593 
 
 St. Albans, Wood Street (Rector and Church- 
 wardens of), In re, (1891) 66 L. T. 
 (N.S.) 51. 
 
 See Att.-Gen. ■». St. John's Hospital, 
 Bath - - [1893] 3 Ch. 151 
 
 Followed. St. Andrew's, Hove (Vicae, 
 &o., op) v. ILiWN - [1895] P. 228, n. 
 
 St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Ex parte. Governors 
 o/(1875)L. E. 20Eq. 369. 
 Partly followed by Chitty J. In re 
 BiSHOPBGATE FOUNDATION 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch, 185 
 St. Botolph (Vicar, (tc.) v. Parishioners of the 
 
 Same, [1892] P. 161. 
 
 Not followed by Chancellor of Eochester. 
 
 In re Plumstead Bueial Ground 
 
 [1896] P. 225, 240 
 St. Giles, Camberwell v. Crystal Palace Co., [1892] 
 
 2 Q. B. 33. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Davis o. Green- 
 wich Board op Works 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 219, 226 
 St. Giles, Camberwell v. Hunt, (1887) 66 L. J. 
 
 (M.C.) 65. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Wilson v. 
 
 St. Giles, Camberwell 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 1 
 St. James and St. John, ClerhenweU (Vestry of) v. 
 
 Feary, (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 703. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Hooper - - [1893] 3 Ch, 483 
 
 St. John Street Wesleyan Chapel, Cliester, [1893] 
 2 Ch. G18. 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 35, 
 
 St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Parochial Schools, In re, 
 (1885) 10 App. Cas. 304. 
 Followed by P. 0, In re Endowed 
 Schools Act, 1869, and Swansea Gram- 
 mar School - - [1894] A. C. 262 
 
 St. Luke's, Middlesex (Vestry of) v. Lewis, (1862) 
 1 B. & S. 865. 
 
 Discussed. Nicholl v. Eppinq Urban 
 District Council [1899] 1 Ch. 844, 860 
 
DTJElNa THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 ccclxxv 
 
 Si. Margaret's, Leicester, In re the Prebend of, 
 (1864) 10 L. T. (N.S.) 221. 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Eectob 
 
 AND ChUECHWAEDENS OF St. AlBANs', 
 
 "Wood Stkebt - [1891] W. N. 204 
 
 St. Martin' s-in-tlie-Fields Vestry v. Bird, [1895] 
 
 1 Q. B. 428. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Eeg. v. Bethnal 
 
 Geeen Vestet [1896] 2 ft. B. 319, 324 ; 
 
 [1898] A. C. 190 
 
 St. Mary Abbotts (Yicar, &o., of) v. ParisJiioners, 
 
 &c., of the Same, Tristram Eeports, 37. 
 
 Not followed by Consist. Ct. of Eocbester. 
 
 In re Plumstead Bueial Geotind 
 
 [1895] P. 225 
 St. Mary, Batiersea v. Palmer, [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 
 220. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Allen v. Fdlham 
 
 Vestet - [1899] 1 Q, B. 681, 686 
 
 St. Mary, Islington (^Testry of^y. Goodman, (18S9) 
 23 Q. B. D. 154. 
 
 Overruled by Div. Ct. Foetesctje v. 
 "Vestry oe St. Matthew, Betbnal 
 Geeen - [1891] 2 Q. B. 170 
 
 St. Mary-at-Hill {Beetor, &c., of) v. Parishioners 
 of the Same, [1892] P. 394. 
 Followed. Eectoe, &ti., op St. Michael 
 Bassishaw v. Paeishionees oe Same 
 
 [1893] P. 233 
 
 St. Nicolas Cole Abbey, In re - [1893] P. 58 
 Not followed. In re Plumstead Bueial 
 Geound - [1896] P. 236 
 
 St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Union, [1897] 1 
 Q. B. 438. 
 AflSriQed by C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 682 
 
 St. Saviour's Bectory (Trustees of) and Oyler, 
 In re, (1886) 31 Cb. D. 412. 
 Not followed by Stirling J. Att.-Gen. 
 V. Loudon Paeochial Chabities (Teus- 
 TEES OF) [1896] 1 Ch. 541 
 
 St. nomas' Doch Co., In re (1875) 2 Cb. D. 116 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Scott & Jackson, Ld. 
 
 [1893] "W. N. 184 
 
 Sale Botel and Botanical Gardens Co., In re, 
 [1897] W. N. 174 (5). 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1898] W. N. 40 (2) 
 
 Salford Corporation v. Lever, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 
 363. 
 
 AfBrmed by C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 168 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Grant v. Gold 
 
 ExpLOEATioN Development Syndicate 
 
 [1900] 1 Q, B. 233, 244, 246 
 
 SaU V. Lambert - (1874) L. E. 18 Eq. 1 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Caeb v. 
 Lynch - - [1800] 1 Ch. 613, 615 
 
 Salmon, In re - (1889) 42 Cb. D. 351 
 
 Considered. Head v. Gould 
 
 [1898] 2 Cb. 260 
 
 Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [1897] A. C. 22 
 
 Discussed. Lagunas Niteatb Co. ■;;. 
 Lacunas Syndicate 
 
 C. A, [1899] 2 Ch. 392 
 
 Salt y. Northampton (Marquess o/),[1892] A. C. 1. 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Eice v. Noakes 
 & Co. - - [1900] 2 Ch, 446, 461 
 
 Salter v. Edgar 
 
 Followed. 
 
 - (1886) "W. N. 47 
 Le Bas v. Geant 
 
 [1895] "W. N. 28 
 
 Salton V. New Beeston Cycle Co., [1899] "W. N. 40 ; 
 [1899] 1 Cb. 775. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Central De Kaap 
 
 Gold Mines - [1899] "W. N. 216, 235 ; 
 
 see also [1900] 1 Ch. 43 
 
 Salt's Application, In re - [1894] 3 Cb. 1G6 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re Den- 
 sham's Tkade-maek [1895] 2 Ch. 176 
 
 Sammom v. Bailey - (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 727 
 Disapproved by C. A. Oppenheim & Co. 
 V. Sheffield - [1893] 1 Q. B. 6 
 
 Sampson v. Davie - (1887) 14 E. 113 
 
 Dissented from by H. L. (Sc.) Claeeb 
 V. Oabfin Coal Co. - [1891] A. C. 412 
 
 Samuel v. Samuel - (1879) 12 Cb. D. 152 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. In re Loftus- 
 Otway - - [1895] 2 Ch. 235 
 
 San Paulo (Brazilian) By. Co. v. Carter, [1895] 
 
 1 Q. B. 580. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 31 
 
 Sanders v. Davis - (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 218 
 
 Followed by C. A. Gough v. "Wood 
 
 [1894] 1 Q.B. 713 
 
 Sanders- Clark v. Grosvenor Mansions Co., [1900] 
 
 2 Cb. 373. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewicb J. Att.-Gen. 
 V. Cole - [1900] "W. N. 272 
 
 Sanderson v. Bervnch - on - Tweed Corporation, 
 (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 547, 551. 
 Considered by Buckley J. Tebb v. 
 Cave [1900] 1 Ch. 642, 647 
 
 Sandford v. Clarke - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 398 
 Practically overruled by Div. Ct. 
 BowEN V. Anderson [1894] 1 ft. B. 164 
 
 Sandgate Local Board v. Keene, [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 831. 
 
 Distinguished by "Wright J. Corpoea- 
 TioN OP Folkestone v. Brooks 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 22, at p. 28 
 
 Saner v. Bilton - (1879) 11 Cb. D. 416 
 
 Considered. Atlas Metal Co. v. Mil- 
 ler - - [1898] 2 a. B. 600 
 
 Sanguinetti v. Siuckey's Banking Co., [1895] 1 Cb. 
 176. 
 Ajjproved by C. A. In re Faenham 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 799, 808 
 " Sans Pareil " (H.M.S.) - [1900] "W. N. 60 
 Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1900] "W. N. 127; [1900] P. 267 
 
 Santleyv. M7(?e, [1899] "W. N. 19 (8); [1899] 1 
 Cb. 747 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1899] 2 Ch, 474 
 Explained and distinguished by 0. A. 
 EiCB V. Noakes & Co. [1900] 2 Ch. 446 
 
 Sargant v. Bead - ■ (1876) 1 Cb. D. 600 
 
 Distinguished. Oabteb v. Fey 
 
 C, A. [1894] 2 Ch, 641 
 
 " Satanita," The - - - [1895] P. 248 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Claeke 
 V. Eael op Duneaten. The "Sata- 
 nita" - - _ [1897] A, C. 69 
 
coclxxvi 
 
 TABLE 01* CASES FOLLOWED, 0VEEEt7LED, &o., 
 
 Saunders, In re. Ex parte Saunders, [1895] 2 
 Q. B. 117. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 424 
 
 Saunders, In re. Saunders v. Gore, [1897] 1 Ch. 
 
 888 
 
 Reversed by 0. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 17 
 
 Saunders v. Saunders [1897] P. 89 
 
 Explained. Edwards v. Edwards 
 
 [1897] P. 316 
 Saunders v. Vautier, (1841) i Beav. 115; Or. & 
 
 Ph. 240. 
 
 Applied to charities by H. L. (E.). 
 
 Wharton v. Mastbrman 
 
 [1895] A. C. 186 
 Saunders v. Wiel (No. 1) [1892] 2 Q. B. 18 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 321 
 
 Saunders-Davies, In re - (1883) 31 Ch. D. 482 
 Eollowed by Kekewich J. In re Bawdes 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 693 
 Savage Y.Adam - [1895] W. N. 109 (11) 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Colonial Se- 
 curities Trust Co. v. Massey | 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 38 
 
 Applied by C. A. Hlndson v. Ashbt 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch, 1, 18 
 
 Savage v. James - - (1875) I. E. 9 Eq. 357 
 
 Explained by Kekewich J. Briscoe v. 
 
 Briscoe - [1892] 3 Ch. 643 
 
 Savile v. Molerts - 1 Ld. Eaym. 374, 379 
 
 Eeferred to. Walters v. Green 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 696 
 
 Savin, In re - (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 760 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re London, 
 
 Windsor and Greenwich Hotels Co. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 639 
 
 Saxly T. Tlwmas - - [1891] W. N. 4 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1891] W. N. 28 
 
 Scarsdale (Lord) r. Curzon (1859) IJ. & H. 40 
 Considered and applied by Kekewich J. 
 In re Angerstein [1895] 2 Ch. 883 
 
 Scliibsby V. Westenholz, (1870) L. E. 6 Q. B. 155, 
 161. 
 
 Explained by P. C. Sirdar Gurdtal 
 Singh v. Eajah or Faridkote 
 
 [1894] A. C. 670 
 
 Schneider v. Norris, (1814) 2 M. & S. 286; 15 
 E. E. 250. 
 
 Distinguished by Buckley J. Huokleset 
 V. Hook - - [1900] W. N. 45 
 
 Scholes v. Srooh - - [1891] W. N. 16 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1891] W. N. 101 
 
 ScUolfidd V. Londesborougli (Earl of), [1S94] 2 
 Q. B. 660. 
 Affirmed on different grounds by C. A. 
 
 [1896] 1 ft. B, 636 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 614 
 
 Schuhe v. Galaslnels Corporation, (1894) 21 E. 
 682. tB^ t^ 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 666 
 Schuster v. Fletcher - (1878) 8 Q. B. D. 418 
 Disapproved by H. L. (E.). EosE v. 
 Bank of Australasia 
 
 [1894] A. C, 687 
 
 Schwerdtfeger, In the Goods of, (1876) 1 P. D. 
 424. 
 
 Followed by G. Barnes J. In the 
 Goods op Bolton - [1899] P. 186 
 
 " Scotia," The (1890) 6 Asp. M. L. 0. (N.S.) 541 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. The " Hor- 
 net " - [1892] P. 361 
 
 Scotney v. iomer, (1885) 29 Ch. 535; (1886) 31 
 Ch. D. 380. 
 
 See In re Ttssen. Knight-Bruce v. 
 BUTTEKWORTH [1894] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Scott, In re - - [1900] 1 Q. B. 372 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] W. N. 271 
 
 Scott and Alvarez's Contract, In re. Scott v. 
 Alvarez, [1895] 1 Ch. 596. 
 Affirmed iu part and reversed in part 
 by C. A. - [1896] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re 
 Wallis and Baknard's Contbaot 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 516, 620 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Hughes A^'D 
 Ashley's Contract 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 595, 202 
 Scott V. Avery - - (1855) 5 H. L. C. 811 
 
 Followed by H. L. (Sc). Caledonian 
 Insurance Co. v. Gilmour 
 
 [1893] A. C. 85 
 
 Scott T. Bentley - (1855) 1 K. & J. 281 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Didisheim i'. 
 London and Westminster Bank 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 16 
 Scott V. BucMey - (1867) 16 L. T. (N.S.) 573 
 Questioned by C. A. Long v. Clarke 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 119 
 
 Scott V. Glasgow (Magistrates of), (1899)1 F. 665 ; 
 
 36 Sco. L. E. 458. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1899] A. C. 470 
 Scott r.Legg (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 236 
 
 See 57 & 58 Vict. c. ocxiii. s. 75. 
 
 Scott V. Morley - (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 120 
 
 See In re Hannah Ltnes. Ex parte 
 Lister & Co. C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 113 
 Form of judgment in, to be used only in 
 cases to which that form applies. See 
 Explanatory Memorandum to County 
 Court Rules (May), 1899, and rules 26 
 and 27. W. N. 1899 (May 20), at 
 p. 171. See Current Index, 1899, p. cxi. 
 Eeferred to. In re Frances Handford 
 & Co. - C. A, [1899] 1 ft. B. 666, 669 
 Eeferred to. Softlaw v. Welch 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 419 
 Explained and distinguished by Stir- 
 ling J. In re Turnbull 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 180 
 
 Scott V. Nesbitt, (1808) 14 Ves. Jr. 438 ; 9 E. E. 
 318. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Securities 
 Properties Investment Corporation v. 
 Brighton Alhambra, Ld. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 16 
 Scott V. Nixon - - (1843) 3 D. & War. 388 
 
 Discussed. Dalton v. Fitzgerald 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 86 
 
BUMKa THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Ccclxxvii 
 
 Scutt V. Pape - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 554, 467 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Smith v. 
 Baxter - - [1900] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 Scottish PeiroUum Co., In re, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 413 
 Observed upon. In re General Eail- 
 WAT Syndicate - [1899] 1 Ch, 770 
 Applicable. In re Bank oi' Syria 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 272, 278 ; 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 256 
 
 Scottish Widows' Funds Society v. Solicitor of 
 Inland Revenue ■ (1880) 7 R. 491 
 
 Followed. Inland Eevende Commks. 
 V. Grant, (1898) 25 E. 1040 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1899] "W. N. 195 
 
 Scrutton v. Childs, (1877) 8 Asp. Mar. L. C. (N.S.) 
 373. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. The " Nif a " 
 [1892] P. 411 
 
 Sea Insurance Co. v. Bhgg [1898] 1 Q. B. 27 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] 2 ft. B. 398 
 
 SealeSayne v. Jodrell - [1891] A. 0. 304 
 
 Eeferred to by Jeune J. In the Goods 
 OF Ashton - [1892] P. 82, 88 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. In re 
 Parker ■ [1897] 2 Ch. 208 
 
 Seaman v. Burley [1896] 2 Q. B. 344 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Sodthwark and 
 Vauxhall Water Co. v. Hampton 
 Urban District Council 
 
 [1899] 1 a. B. 273, 276 ; 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 3 
 
 Seaton v. Heath. Seaton v. Burnand, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 782. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. Seaton 
 ■u. Burnand. Burnand v. Seaton 
 
 [1900] A. C. 135 
 
 Seatm v. Seaton (1888) 13 App. Gas. 61 
 
 Explained by Stirling J. Greenhill 
 V. North British and Mercantile 
 Insurance Co. [1893] 3 Ch. 474 
 
 Followed by North J. Harle v. Jar- 
 man - - - [1896] 2 Ch. 419 
 
 Seaward v. Bennington (1896) 44 W. E. 696 
 
 Overruled by 0. A. Earl of Mex- 
 
 BOROUGH V. WhITWOOD UrbAN DISTRICT 
 
 Council [1897] 2 Q. B. Ill 
 
 Seaward v. Paterson - [1897] W. N. 12 (5) 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1897] 1 Ch. 645 
 
 Self Y. Sove Commrs. - [1895] 1 Q. B. 685 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Hair v. Hill 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 90S 
 
 Followed. BRADroRD v. Mayor, &c., 
 
 OF Eastbourne - [1896] 2 Q. B. 205 
 
 Selig V. Lion - - [1891] 1 Q. B. 513 
 
 Eeferred to. Bean v. Flower 
 
 [1895] W. N. 120 
 Selous V. Croydon Rural Sanitary Authority, (1885) 
 53 L. T. (N.S.) 209. 
 See Hudson v. Walker 
 
 [1894] W. N. 180 
 
 Selmn v. Brown - (1735) 3 Bro. P. C. 607 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Applebee. LevesoN v. Beales 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 422 
 
 Semayne's Case, 5 Co. 91, and notes thereon; 
 1 Smith's L. C. 7th ed. p. 123. 
 Extended by Bowen L. J. American 
 Concentrated Meat Co. v. Hendry 
 
 [1893] W. N. 67 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 82 
 
 Sen Sen Co. v. Britten, [1899] W. N. 27 (9); 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 692. 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. Hubbuck & 
 Son, Ld. v. Brown [1899] W. N. 250 
 
 SerU, In re - - - [1898] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 Distinguished by Buckley J. Pannell 
 ■V. City op London Brewery Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 496 
 
 Serolca v. Kattenhurg - (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 177 
 Approved of by C. A. Earle v. Kings- 
 cote [1900] 2 Ch. 585 
 
 Serraino & Sons v. Campbell, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 
 501. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 283 
 
 SevenoaJcs, Maidstone and Tunbridge Ry. Co. v. 
 London, Chatham and Dover Ry. Co., 
 (1879) 11 Ch. D. 625. 
 Followed by Farwell J. Manchester 
 Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Eaoe- 
 COURSE Co. [1900] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 Seyton, In re - - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 511 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Davies' 
 Policy Trusts [1892] 1 Ch. SO 
 
 Shardlow v. Cotterell - (1881) 20 Ch. D. 90 
 
 Principle applied. Plant v. Bourne 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 281 
 Sharland, In re. Kemp v. Rozez, [1896] 1 Ch. 
 
 517. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1896] W. N. 62 (19) 
 Sharp (Official Receiver) \. Jachson, [1899] A. C. 
 
 419. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Blackburn & Co. 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 725 
 
 Sharp V. Wakefield - (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 239 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 173 
 Eeferred to. Eeg. v. County Council 
 OF West Eiding of Yorkshire 
 
 [1896] 2 Q.B. 386,388 
 Sharpe, In re. In re Bennett. Masonic and 
 General Life Assurance Co. v. Sharpe. 
 Eeferred to. Lock v. Queensland In- 
 vestment Land Mortgage Co. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 397, 402 ; 
 This case was affirmed 
 
 [1896] A. C. 461 
 Eeferred to. In re National Bank of 
 Wales C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 629, 669 
 
 Sliaw V. Reclcitt - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 779 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 69 
 
 See now Judicature Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 16). 
 
 Shaw V. Shaw - (1861) 2 Sw. & Tr. 517 
 
 Followed by North J. Bromilow v. 
 Phillips -r [1891] W. N. 209 
 
 Sheffield, Ex parte. In re Austin, (1879) 10 
 Ch. D. 434. 
 
 Explained by Farwell J. Bird v. 
 
 Philpott - - [1900] 1 Ch. 822 
 
ccolsxviii 
 
 TABLE Of CASES fOLtOWED, OVBRMLEC, &0., 
 
 Sheffield (Earl of) v. London Joint Stock Bank, 
 
 (1898) 13 App. Caa. 333. 
 
 Distinguislied by H. L. (B.) London 
 
 Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons 
 
 [ [1892] A. C. 201 
 Slielfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co., 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 287. 
 
 Eeferred to. Jokdeson v. Sutton, 
 
 SOUTHOOATES AND DnyPOOL GaS Co. 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 Shelley's Case - (1581) 1 Co. Eep. 93 b, rule in. 
 See Evans v. ^.vans (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 173 
 
 Applicable. Van Grdtten v. Foxwell 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 658 
 
 Eeferred to by Buckley J. Pelham 
 
 Clinton v. Duke of Newcastle 
 
 [1900] -W. N. 183 
 Shenton v. Smith - - [1895] A. C. 229 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Dunn v. Eeg. 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 119 
 
 Shepard y. Jones - - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 469 
 
 Approved by P. C. Hendeeson v. Ast- 
 
 wooD [1894] A. C. 150 
 
 Shephard, In re (1890) 43 Ch. D. 131 
 
 See In re Cave ■ [1892] W. N. 142 
 
 Shepherd v. Allen - - (1864) 33 Beav. 577 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. XJksworth v. 
 Jordan [1896] W. N. 2 (5) 
 
 Shepherd v. Keatley, (1834) 1 C. M. & E. 117 ; 
 40 E. E. 504. 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re National 
 PfiOviNCiAL Bank of England and 
 Marsh [1895] 1 Ch. 190, 194 
 
 Shepherdson v. Dale - (1866) 12 Jur. (N.S.) 156 
 Disapproved by Nortli J. In re Yates 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 63 
 Sheppard v. Scinde, Funjauh, and Delhi My. 
 Co., (1887) 36 W. B. 1. 
 Distinguished and commented on. Inre 
 Driffield Gas Light Co. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 451 
 
 Sherras v. De Eutzen - [1895] 1 Q. B. 918 
 
 Eeferred to. Derbtsbiee v. Houliston 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 772, 777 
 
 Eeferred to P. C. Bank of New South 
 
 Wales v. Piper [1897] A. C. 383, 390 
 
 Shirley, In re - (1888) 58 L. T. (N.S.) 237 
 Dictum of Cave J. disapproved of by 
 C. A. In re Boyd. [1895] 1 Q. B. 611 
 
 Shirley v. Ferrers (Earl) (1842) 1 Phillips, 167 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re De 
 HoGHTON [1896] 1 Ch. 865 
 
 Shoolhred v. MdbeHs, [1899] W. N. 136; [1899] 2 
 Q. B. 560. 
 Varied by C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 497 
 
 Shoosmilh, In the Goods of - [1894] P. 23 
 Distinguished by Jeune P. In the 
 Goods of Callioott - [1899] P. 189 
 
 Shorthridge, In re - - [1895] 1 Cb. 278 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re 0. M. G. 
 (Spinster) [1898] 2 Ch. 324, 828 
 
 Shovelton v. Shovelton - (1863) 32 Beav. 143 
 Eeferred to. Williams v. Williams 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 12 
 
 Slirapnel v. Lainq - (1888) 20 Q. B. D S34 
 Followed by C. A. Finska Ans- 
 
 FAETTGS AkTIEBOLAGBT V. BROWN, TOO- 
 
 GOOD & Co. - - [1891] W. N. 116 
 
 Considered. Atlas Metal Co. v. Mil- 
 ler - - - [1898] 2 Q. B. 600 
 
 Shrewsbury Grammar School, Inre, (1849) 1 Mac. 
 & G. 324. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Bradford School 
 OF Industry - [1893] W. N. 60 
 
 Shropshire Union Bys. and Canal Co. v. Beg., 
 (1875) L. E. 7 H. L. 496. 
 Distinguished. Lloyds Bank, Ld. v. 
 Bollock [1896] 2 Ch. 192 
 
 ShuttUworth, In the Goods of (1838) 1 Curt. 911 
 Eeferred to. In re Goods of John 
 Chappell - [1894] W. N. 16 
 
 Sidney v. Sidney - (1 867) 17 L. T. (N.S.) 9 
 Followed by Barnes J. Ne'W'Ton v. 
 Newton - - [1896] P. 36 
 
 Cited. Brewis v. Brewis 
 
 [1893] W. N. 6 
 
 Sieveking v. Kingsford (1866) 36 L. J. (Ecc.) 1 
 Followed. In re St. Mark's, Maeyle- 
 BONE EoAD - [1898] p. 114 
 
 Silver Valley Mines, In re (1881) 18 Ch. D. 472 
 Semble, overruled by 53 & 54 Vict. c. 63 
 (Companies (Winding-up), s. 1 (4). In re 
 New Terras Tin Mining Co. 
 
 V. WiUiams J, [1894] 2 Ch. 344 
 
 Silver Valley Mines, In re (1882) 21 Ch. D. 381 
 Principle in, extended In re Eatnes 
 Park Golf Club, Ld. Ex parte 
 Offioial Eeceiver [1899] 1 ft. B. 961 
 
 Simes, In re, (1890) 38 W. E. 570 ; 62 L. T. 
 
 (N.S.) 721. 
 
 Not followed by CMtty J. In re Edye 
 
 (A Solicitor) - - [1891] W. N. 1 
 
 Simm V. Anglo-American Telegraph Co., (1879) 
 
 5 Q. B. D. 188. 
 
 Approved of by H. L. (E.) Balkis 
 
 Consolidated Co. v. Tomkinson 
 
 [1893] A. C. 896, 412 
 
 Distinguished by Farwell J. DrxoN v. 
 
 Kennaway & Co. - [1900] 1 Ch. 833 
 
 Simmonds, Ex parte - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 308 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. In re The 
 
 Opera, Ld. - [1891] 2 Ch. 154 ; 
 
 This last case was reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 260 
 
 Simmonds v. Beath - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 29 
 See 60 & 61 Vict. o. 23. 
 
 Simmons v. London Joint Stock Bank, [1891] 
 1 Ch. 270. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 201 
 Judgment of H. L. (E.) followed by 
 North J. Bbntinck v. London Joint 
 Stock Bank [1893] 2 Ch. 120 
 
 Simmons v. White Brothers [1899] 1 Q. B. 1005 
 Discussed by H. L. (E.). Main Collibbt 
 Co. V. Da vies [1900] A. C. 358 
 
 Simonds v. Wliite, (1824) 2 B. & C. 805 : 26 E. E. 
 560. 
 
 Explained. Wavbrtbee Sailing Ship 
 Co. V. Love -PC. [1897] A. C, 373 
 
DUEING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 ccolxxix 
 
 Slmonin v. Mallac - (1860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 67 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. Hat v. Nokth- 
 COTE - - - [1900] a Ch. 262 
 
 Simpson V. Fogo - (1862) 1 Hem. & M. 195 
 Explained by Lindley L.J. In re 
 Queensland Mercantile and Asknct 
 Co. - - [1892] 1 Ch. 219 
 
 Simpson v. Godmanchester Corporation, 0. A. 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 214. 
 AfBrmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 896 
 
 Simpson v. Hughes - [1896] W. N. 179 (6) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] W. N. 26 (11) 
 
 Sinclair, In re. Ex parte Payne, (1885) 15 
 Q. B. D. 616. 
 
 Distioguished by C. A. In re Pollitt 
 [1893] 1 a. B. 455, 458 
 
 Sivger Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson, (1876) 2 
 Ch. D. 434. 
 
 Distinguished. Talleeman v. Dowsing 
 
 Eadiant Heat Co. [1899] W. N. 125 ; 
 
 This case was compromised ou 
 
 appeal - C. A. [1899] W. N. 234; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Singleton v. Tomlinson (1878) 3 App. Cas. 404 
 Eeferred to. Moeeis, In re. Mokbis v. 
 Atheeden - - [1894] W. N. 85 
 
 SkeaW Settlement, In re - (1889) 42 Ch. D. 522 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Newen 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 297 
 And by L.JJ. In re Shoeteidge 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 278 
 
 Skinner v. Gunton - - 1 Wm. Saunds. 228 
 
 Eeferred to. Waltees v. Geeen 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 696 
 
 Skinner y. Northallerton County Court Judge, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 680. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1899] A. C. 439 
 
 Skinner's Trusts, In re - (1860) IJ. & H. 102 
 Applied and followed by Stirling J. 
 In re Johnston - [1894] 3 Ch. 204 
 
 Sldnners' Co. v. Knight, [1891] 2 Q. B. 542; 
 60 L. J. (Q.B.) 629; 65 L. T. 240; 40 
 W. E. 57. 
 Overruled by 55 & 56 Vict. o. 13, =.2(1). 
 
 Slevin, In re. Slevin v. Sepburn, [1891] 1 Ch. 
 373. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1891] 2 Ch. 236 
 Discussed by Chitty J. In re Eynee 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 19, 24 
 
 Slimy. Croucher - (1860) 1 De G. F. & J. 518 
 
 Disapproved by C. A. Low v. Bouteeie 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch, 82 
 
 Small y. National Provincial Bank of England, 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 686. 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 Beooke. Beooke v. Beookb (No. 2) 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 600 
 
 Referred to by Eomer J Johns v. Waee 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 369, 364 
 
 Small y. United Kingdom Mariie Mutual Insur- 
 ance Association, [1897 1 2 Q. B. 42. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1897] 2 Q,. B. 311 
 
 Smelting Company of Australia v. Inland Bevenue 
 Commrs., [1896] 2 Q. B. 179. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 176 
 Discussed and explained by 0. A. 
 MuLLEB & Co.'s Mabgaeine, Ld. v. 
 Inland EEVENnB Commes. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 310, 318, 320, 322 
 
 Smith and Service y. Bosario Nitrate Co., [1893] 
 2 Q. B. 323. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 174 
 
 Smith, Ex parte - ■ (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 374 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (B.). Ex parte 
 
 GoEMAN - - [1894]A. C. 23 
 
 Smith, In re - - (1888) 40 Ch. D. 386 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. In re Morgan 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 Smith, In re. Ex parte Mason, [1893] 1 Q. B. 
 
 323. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Pateeson v. Gas 
 Light and Coke Co. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 476, 483 
 Smith's Estate, In re - (1887) 35 Ch. D. 589 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re 
 Deummond and Davie's Conteact 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 524, at p. 535 
 Smith V. BaJier & Sons - [1891] A. C. 325 
 
 Followed. "Williams v. Birmingham 
 Batteet and Metal Co. 
 
 C. A, [1899] 2 Q. B. 338 
 Smith V. Chambers Trustees' (1878) 5 Eettie, 97 
 Followed. Blaie v. Assets Co. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 409 
 See Chanibers y. Smith, (1878) 3 App. 
 Cas. 795. 
 Smith y. Chorley Bural Council, [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 532 
 
 Affi'rmed by C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 678 
 Smithy. Davies - (1884) 28 Ch. D. 650 
 
 Followed. HoBTON v. Bosson 
 
 [1899] W. N. 23 (8) ; 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. H. 38 (4) 
 
 Smith V. Day - - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 421 
 
 Eeferred to. Schlesingee v. Bedfoed 
 
 [1893] W. N. 57 
 
 Smith y. Doe d. Jersey, (1821) 2 B. & B. 473, 
 
 553 ; 22 E. E. 19. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Gbaingbe 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 756, 773 
 
 Smith y. Gronou - [1891] 2 Q. B. 394 
 
 Eeferred to. Horsey Estate Ld. v. 
 
 Stbigeb - C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 79, 89 
 
 Smith V. Hancock - - [1894] 1 Ch. 209 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1894] 2 Ch. 377 
 Smith V. Houblon - - (1859) 26 Beav. 482 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Eadcliefe 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 227 
 
 Applied by Chitty J. In re Somes 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 250 
 Smith V. Lakeman - (1857) 2 Jur. (N.S.) 1202 
 
 Followed by North J. Beomilow v. 
 
 Phillips - [1891] W. N. 209 
 
 Smith V. Iddiard - - (1857) 3 K. & J. 252 
 
 Whether overruled. In re Godrbll 
 
 [1891] A. C. 304 
 See In re Gub C. A. [1892T W. N. 133 
 
CCOIXKS 
 
 TABLE OV CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEXJLEt), &c., 
 
 Smith V. Legg - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 398 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Wallen v. Listek 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 312, 315 
 And see 57 & 58 "Vict. c. 213, s. 152. 
 
 Smith T. Lucas - (1881) 18 Oh. D. 531 
 
 Not followed. ViDiTZ v. O'Hagan 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 869 
 
 Smith V. Jteei, - - [1883] W. N. 196 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Livekpool and 
 Manchester Aerated Bkead and Caee 
 Co. V. FiBTH - [1891] 1 CU. 367 
 
 Smith V. Bichnwnd [1898] 1 Q. B. 683 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1899] A. C. 448 
 
 Sm.ith V. Robinson - (1879) 13 Cb. D. 148 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re National 
 Peovinoial Bank op England and 
 Marsh [1895] 1 Ch. 190 
 
 Smith V. St. Lawrence Tow Boat Co., (1873) L. E. 
 5 P 308 
 Followed. The"Altair" [1897] P. 105 
 
 Smith V. Salzmann - (1854) 9 Ex. 585 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re McHenky 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 365 
 
 Smith V. Smith, (1838) 2 Or. & M. 281 ; 39 E. E. 
 762. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Wtatt 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 188 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1892] A. C. 389 
 
 Smith V. Smith - (1835) 1 Y. & C. Ex. 338 
 
 Applied by Stuiing J. In re Weston 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 164 
 
 Smith V. Smith, (I860) 10 Ir. Oh. Eep. 89 and 461 
 
 Not followed by Eomer J. In re Smith 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 365 
 
 Smith V. Stohes, (1863) 4 B. & S." 84 ; 32 L. J. 
 (M.C.) 199. 
 
 See now Locomotive Threshing Engines 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, c, 87). 
 
 Smith V. TliacJcerah - (1866) L. E. 1 0. P. 564 
 Considered by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Conduit Collieet Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 301 
 Smith V. Webster - (1876) 3 Ch. D. 49 
 
 Discussed. John Griffiths Ctole 
 Corporation v. Humber & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 414 
 
 Smith & Co. V. Bedouin Steam Navigation Co., 
 (1895) 22 R. 350. 
 Reversed by H. L. (So.) [1896] A, C. 70 
 
 Smith and Service v. Bosario Nitrate Co., [1893] 
 2 B 323 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 174 
 
 Smith, Hill & Co. v. Pyman, Bell & Co., [1S91] 
 
 1 Q. B. 42, 142. 
 
 Distinguished by Kay L.J. Oriental 
 
 Steamship Co. v. Tyl'oe 
 
 C. A, [1893] 2 a, B. 518, at p. 628 
 Smout v. Ilbery - (1842) 10 M. & W. 1 
 
 Applicable. Salton v. New Beeston 
 
 Cycle Co. - - [1900] 1 Ch. 43 
 
 See also Halbot v. Lens 
 
 [1901] 1 Ch. 344 I 
 
 Smurthwaite y. Sannay - .^^^^^}J^\2' t^ 
 Followed by P. C. Peninsular and 
 Oriental Steam Navigation Co.J). 
 TsuNE KiJiMA - [1895] A. C. 661 
 
 Followed by North J. HUNT. Wo^K. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Cakter v. Eigbt 
 & Co. [1896] 2 Q. B. 113 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Bennetts & Co. 
 V. M'Ilweaith & Co. ,,„„.„ „. 
 [1896] 2 ft. B. 464 ; 
 
 Thompson v. London County 
 Council [1899] 1 ft. B. 840, 844 
 Smyth-Pigott v. Smyth-Pigott [1 884] W. N. 149 
 Eeferred to. Im re Beenees 
 
 [1892] W. N. 171 
 
 "^"-'''"^rmedbyCA. Sl'<^t 
 
 Sneath v. Valley Gold, Ld. - [1893] 1 Ch. 477 
 Applied by Eomer J. Mercantile In- 
 vestment ASD General Trust Co. v. 
 River Plate Tecst, Loan, and Agency 
 Co. (No. 2) [1894] 1 Ch. 578, at p. 596 
 
 Snell,Inrc- - - (1877) 6 Ch. D. 105 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Beun- 
 ton V Electrical Engineeeino Cobpo- 
 BATiON [1892] 1 Ch. 434 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In. re Law- 
 KANOE - [1.894] 1 Ch. 556 
 
 Snowy. Hill - - (1885) 14 Q B. D.-588 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct Hoensey v 
 Raggett [1892] 1 ft- B. 20 
 
 Soary.Ashwell - [1893] 2 Q. B. 390 
 
 Applied. Rochefoucald v. Boustead 
 ^^ C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 196 
 
 Soar V. Ashwell - [1893] 2 Q. B. 390, 396 
 Discussed by C. A. In re DixoN 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 561 
 
 SociM Anonyme des Verreries de V Etoile,Inre 
 Trade-marh of (JVo. 2), [1894] 1 Ch 61 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1894] 2 Ch. 26 
 
 Solicitor, In re A- ■ (1S80) 14 Ch. D. 152 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Dance 
 
 [1895] W. N. 127 (10) 
 
 Somerset iVuhe of). In re (1887) 34 Ch. D. 465 
 Referred to. London and County 
 Banking Co. v. Bkay [1893] W. K. 130 
 
 Somerset Y.Hart ■ (1884) 12 Q. BD. 360 
 
 Approved and followed by Div. Ct. 
 Somerset v. Wade [1894] 1 ft. B. 574 
 
 Somerset v. Land Securities Co., [1894] W. N. 
 
 129- 
 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1894] 3 Ch. 464 
 
 Somes V. Currie - - (1855) 1 K. & J. 605 
 
 Distinguished and commented on. In 
 re Dkifeield Gas Light Co. 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 451 
 Followed. In re Beeston Pneumatic 
 Tyre Co. [1898] W. N. 34 (4) 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re 
 North-West Argentine Ey. Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 882 
 
DURING THE YEABS 1891—1900. 
 
 ocelxxxi 
 
 Sons of the Clergy (Corporation of) v. Sutton,, 
 (1860) 27 Beav. 651. 
 
 Followed by North J. Sons of the 
 Clekgt (Cokpobation of) v. Skiniosk 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 178 
 
 » Soto," The - - - [1893] P. 73 
 
 Followed. The " Meteopolis " 
 
 [1899] W. N. 100 
 
 Soutar's Policy Trust, In re, (1884) 26 Oh. D. 236 
 Discussed. In re TuKNBnLL 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 415 
 
 Not followed. In re KnTPEB's Policy 
 Tbusts - [1899] 1 Ch. 38 
 
 South African Breweries, Ld. v. King, [1899] 
 "W. N. 98; [1899] 2 Oh. 173. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 273 
 
 Souih African Territories v. Wallington, 0. A. 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 692. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 309 
 
 South Australia Commercial Bank, In re, (1886) 
 33 Ch. D. 17i. 
 
 Followed. In re Fedebal Bank op 
 AnsTBALiA C. A. [1893] W. N. 77 
 
 South Durham Iron Co., In re. Smith's Case, 
 (1879) 11 Ch. D. 579. 
 Distinguished. Feeeman v. Laing 
 
 [1899] 3 Ch. 365, 359 
 
 South Eastern By. Co. v. Railway Commrs., (1881) 
 6 Q. B. D. 586. 
 
 Applied by 0. A. Mtlneb v. Geeat 
 NoBTHEEN Ey. Co. [1900] 1 Q.B. 795, 798 
 
 South London Fish Marlcet, In re, (1888) 39 Cb. 
 D. 324. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Bow- 
 ling and Weley - [1895] 1 Ch. 663 
 
 South Sea Co. v. Wymondsell, (1732) 3 P. Wms. 
 143. 
 
 Observed upon. In re Mansel. Ex 
 •parte Noeton [1892] W. N. 32 
 
 Southall V. British Mutual Life Assurance Society, 
 (1871) L. K. 6 Ch. 614. 
 Followed. Kaye v. Oeoydon Tkaw- 
 WAYS Co. - C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 358 
 
 Southport Corporation v. Ormslcirh Union Assess- 
 ment Committee, [1893] 2 Q B. 468. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B, 196 
 
 SouthwarTt and Vauxhall Water Co. v. Sampton 
 Urban Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 278. 
 Affirmed on one point by H. L, (E.) 
 
 [1900] A. C. 3 
 
 SouthwarTt and VouxImII Water Co. v. Quick, 
 (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 315. 
 Fol.oweil by Stirling J. Leaeotd v. 
 Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 686 
 
 Sovereign Life Assurance Co. v. Dodd, [1892] 1 
 Q. B. 405. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1893] 2 Q,. B. 573 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. In re Daintkby 
 
 C. A, [1900] 1 a. B. 546, 563, 569 
 
 Spacknian^ In re - (1890) 21 Q. B. D. 728 
 
 Ob's'^rVed on by C. A. In re Hughes , 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 595 
 
 Spargo's Case - - (1873) L. E. 8 Ch. 407 
 
 Doubted by C. A. In re JonANNESBUEO 
 
 Hotel Co. [1891] 1 Ch. 119 
 
 Approved. Laeocqde v. Beauchemin 
 
 [1897] A, C. 358 
 
 Spence v. Spence - (1862) 12 0. B. (N.S.) 199 
 Considered and applied by Chitty J. 
 In re Beooke. Beooke v. Bbooke 
 (No. 1) [1894] 1 Ch. 43 
 
 Spencer's Trade-marks, In re, (1886) 3 Eep. Put. 
 Cas. 73. 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. Eichaeds v. 
 BniCHEB - [1891] 2 Ch. 532 
 
 Spickemell v. Hotham - (1854) Kay, 669 
 Discussed by 0. A. In re Dixon 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 561 
 
 Spiers & Fond, Ld., In re [1895] W. N. 135 (2) 
 Approved. In re Fleetwood Estate 
 Co. [1897] W. N. 20 (3) 
 
 Spiller V. Maude, (1881) 32 Ch. D. 153, n., not 
 overruled by Cunnack v. Edwards, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 679. 
 
 See In re Lacy. Eoyal Genebal Tbea- 
 teioal Fund Society v. Kydd 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 Spooner's Trust, In re (1851) 2 Sim. (N.S.) 129 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Elen 
 
 [1893] W. N. 90 
 Springett v. Jenings - (1871) L. R. 6 Oh. 333 
 
 Followed and applied by Kekewich J. 
 
 In re Mason - [1900] 3 Ch. 196 
 
 Staliles V. Eley - - (1825) 1 C. & P. 614 
 
 As reported, disapproved of by 0. A. 
 
 Smith b. Bailey - [1891] 3 Q. B. 403 
 
 Stafordshire Gas and Coke Co., In re, [1893] 
 3 Ch. 528. 
 
 Overruled by 0. A. In re E. Bolton 
 & Co. Salisbuey-Jones and Dale's 
 Case (No. 2) - [1896] 1 Ch. 333 
 
 Staley v. Overseers of Castleton, (1864) 5 B. & S. 
 505. 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Hoyle & 
 Jackson v. Oldham Assessment Com- 
 mittee, &c. - C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 372 
 
 Standard Manufacturing Co , In re, [1891] 1 Cb. 
 627, at pp. 640-1. 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re Opeba, Ld. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 260 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Taunton 
 V. Waewickshibe (Shebipf) 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch, 734 
 Which case was affirmed bv C. A. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 319 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Eobson v. 
 Smith [1895] 2 Ch. 118 
 
 Distinguished. Great Nobthken Ey. 
 
 Co. V. OOAL Co-OP£BATIVB SOCIETY 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 187 
 Staindley's Estate, In re (1868) L. E. 5 Bq. 303 
 Not followed by Stirling J. In re 
 Deaein - [1894] 3 Ch. 565 
 
 Btandring (Herhert) & Co., In re [1895] W. N. 99 
 E'efeirrtfd to. In re Fan ex Pbess Balls 
 Co. - - - [1899] W, ST. 109 
 
coolxxxii 
 
 TABLE OF OASES FOLLOWED, OVERRULED, &o., 
 
 Btaniar v. Evams - - (1887) 34 Oh. D. 470 
 
 Observed upon by 0. A. Pkeston 
 Bankinq Co. o. Allsup & Sons 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 141 
 
 Stanley, In re (1885) L. R. (Ir.) 17 Ch. D. 487 
 Not followed. In re Gingek 
 
 [1897] 2 a. B. 461 
 
 Stanley's Case - (1864) 4 De J. & S. 407 
 
 Referred to. In re Stee\tham and 
 General Estates Co. [1897] 1 Ch. 15 
 
 Stanley v. Potter (1789) 2 Cox, 180 ; 2 R. R. 26 
 Referred to by Kekewioh J. In re 
 Vickebs [1899] W. N. 242 
 
 Stanley v. Stanley - - (1862) 2 J. & H. 491 
 
 Observed upon by 0. A. In re Seal 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 316 
 
 Stannard v. St. Giles Vestry, Camberwell, (1882) 
 20 Ch. D. 190. 
 
 Considered. Grand Junction ■Water- 
 works Co. V. Hampton Urban District 
 Council - [1898] 2 Ch. 331 
 
 Stapleton. Ex paHe (1879) 10 Ch. D. 586 
 
 Not followed by 0. A. In re Mackenzie 
 
 [1899] 2 a. B. 666 
 
 Star Newspaper Co. v. O'Connor, [1893] W. N. 
 U4. 
 Compromised on appeal to C. A. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 122 
 
 Starlt, In re - (1850) 2 Mae. & G. 174 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Didisheim v. 
 London and Westminster Bank 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. IS, 61 
 
 Steamship Isis Co. v. Bahr & Co., [18E9] 
 2 Q. B. 364. 
 A£armedbyH.L.(E.). [1900] A. C. 340 
 
 Steavenson v. Corporation of BerwicJc, (1841) 1 
 Q. B. 154. 
 
 >ollowed by Div. Ot. Hennell v. 
 Davies - [1893] 1 Q. B. 367 
 
 Stehbing v. Metropolitan Board of Works, (1870) 
 L. R. 6 Q. B. 37. 
 
 Distinguished. In re Morgan and the 
 London and North Western Ry. Co. 
 [1896] 2 a. B. 469 
 
 Stedmanv. Hart - - (1851) Kay, 607 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Jn re 
 Watson [1899] 1 Ch. 72 
 
 Steel V. State line Steamship Co, (1877) 3 
 App. Cas. 72. 
 
 Followed by H. L. (Sc.) Gileot, Sons 
 & Co. v. Price & Co. [1893] A. C. 66 
 
 Steele v. MeEivlny - (1880) 5 App. Cas. 754 
 Principles laid down in, are not afl'ected 
 by provisions of Bills of Exchange Act, 
 1882. Jenkins & Sons v. Coomber 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 168 
 
 Steers Y. Sogers - - [1892] 2 Ch. 13 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 232 
 Referred to. Hetl-Dia v. Edmunds 
 
 [1899] W. N. 222 
 
 Slenrdng, In re - - [1895] 2 Ch. 433 
 
 Referred to by B^rne J. Mutton v. 
 Peat - - [1899] 2 Ch. 866, 660 I 
 
 Stephens, Smith & Co., and Liverpool, London ami 
 Globe Insurance Co., In re, (1892) 36 
 Sol. J. 464. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Peebble 
 AND Robinson, In re [1892] 2 Q. B. 602 
 
 Stephens v. Venalles {No. 1) (1862) 30 Beav. 625 
 Referred to. Bolton v. Currie 
 
 [1894] W. N. 122 
 
 Stevens, In re. Coohe v. Stevens, [1897] 1 Ch. 
 422. 
 Afarmed by C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 162 
 
 Stevens v. Benning - (1854) 1 K. & J. 168 
 Applicable. Griffith v. Towee Pcb- 
 lishinq Co. - [1897] 1 Ch, 21 
 
 Stevens v. Trevor-Garrich - [1893] 2 Ch. 307 
 Followed by Buckley J. Buckland i\ 
 Bcokland - [1900] 2 Ch. 534 
 
 Stevenson, Ex parte - (1867) 16 W. R. 95 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. In re General 
 
 Railway Syndicate. Whiteley's Case 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 365 
 
 Stewart, In re - - [1889] 41 Ch. D. 494 
 
 Discussed and distinguished by Chitty J. 
 
 In re Earnshaw-Wall [1894] 3 Ch. 156 
 
 Approved, In re Sander's Settlement 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 Stewart v. Gladstone - (1879) 10 Ch. D. 626 
 Followed by North J. Hunter v. Dow- 
 ling (No, 2) - [1895] 2 Ch. 223 
 
 Stewart v. Jones ■ (1859) 3 De G. & J. 532 
 
 Distinguished by Chitty J. In re PiN- 
 HORNE [1894] 2 Ch. 276 
 
 Stewart -v. Kennedy - (1890) 15 App. Cas. 108 
 Explained by C. A. Wilding v. San- 
 derson - [1897] 2 Ch. 634 
 
 Stewart v. lihodes - - [1900] W. N. 13 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [190O] 1 Ch. 386 
 
 Stillman v. Weedon - (1848) 16 Sim. 26 
 
 Considered by Byrne J. Iti re Hayes 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 332 
 
 Stirling v. Fletcher - - (1895) 23 R. 120 
 
 Followed. Andrews v. Armstrong, 
 
 (1897) 25 R. 95 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 170 
 
 Stock V. Meakin - ~ - [1899] 2 Ch. 496 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 683 
 
 Stockport Bagged, Industrial, and Eeformatory 
 Schouis, In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 610. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1698] 2 Ch. 687 
 
 Stockton and Middlesbrough TT'ater Board v. 
 Kirkleatham Local Board, [1893] 1 
 Q. B. 375. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 444 
 
 Stoddard v. Sager. Sager v. Stoddard, [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 474. 
 Referred to by C. A. Hall v. Cox 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 198, 200 
 Stoddart v. Saville - - [1894] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 Follcwed. In re Forbes 
 
 [1899] W. N. (6) 4 
 Stogdon, In re - (1887) 56 L. J. (Ch.) 420 
 
 ■ Considered and explained by Stirling J. 
 Hitchcock v. Stbetton 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 343 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ecolxxxiii 
 
 Stogdon v. Lee - - [1891] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 See now Mairied Women's Property Act, 
 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63), B. 1 (a). 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Lumlet 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 694 
 Stokes, Fx parte - - (1848) De G. 618 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Parker. 
 
 Morgan v Hill [1894] 3 Ch. 400 
 
 Stokes, In re - (1892) 67 L. T. (N.S.) 223 
 
 Followed by Cbitty J. In re Salt 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 203 
 Stone V. Stone - - (1869) L. R. 5 Cb. 74 
 
 Discussed by Byrne J. In re Dixon 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 661 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 561 
 
 SUmeley's Will, In re (1883) 27 Sol. J. 551 
 
 See In re Nicholas and Settled Land 
 
 Act, 1882 - - [1894] W. N. 165 
 
 Stonor V. Fowle - (1888) 13 App. Cas. 20 
 
 See In re Watson [1893] 1 ft. B. 21 
 Stmer, In re - (1884) 26 Ch. D. 189 
 
 Followed. The " Metropolis " 
 
 [1899] W. N. 100 
 Story V. Story - (1887) 12 P. D. 196 
 
 Approved. Bernstein v. Bernstein 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 292 
 Strachan, In re - - [1895] 1 Ch. 439 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Goldstone 
 
 V. Williams, Deacon & Co. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 47, 54 
 Strachan v. Universal Stock Exchange, [1895] 2 
 
 Q. B 329. 
 
 Affirmed "by H. L. (E.) [1896] A, C. 166 
 Strafford (Earl of) and Maples, In re, [1895] 
 
 W. N. 147 (10). 
 
 Reversed by C. A. - [1896] 1 Ch. 235 
 Stralhblane (Heritors of) v. Glasgow Corporation, 
 
 (1899) 1 P. 523. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Glas- 
 gow Corporation v. M'Ewan 
 
 [1900] A. C. 91 
 Stratheden and Campbell (Lord), In re, [1894] 3 
 
 Ch. 265. 
 
 Referred (o by Kekewioh J. In re 
 
 NoTTAGE [1895] 2 Ch. 649 
 
 Siratton v. Metropolitan Board of Works, (1874) 
 
 L. R. 10 C. P. 76. 
 
 Commf nted on by C. A. Overseers op 
 
 Pdtney v. London and South Western 
 
 Rt. Co. - [1891] 1 ft. B. 440 
 
 Streatham and General Estates Co., In re, [1897] 
 
 1 Cb. 15. 
 
 Approved. In re Russian Spratts 
 
 Patent, Ld. C. A, [1898] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 Strett V. Gover - - (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 4!i8 
 
 Followed in Alcov, &c,, Co v. Green- 
 hill - - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 StnUing v. Salse (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 246 
 
 Commented on by Div. Ct. Barnett v. 
 Hickmott - [1895] 1 ft. B. 691 
 
 Followed. Hasson v. Chambers. Be 
 RiCHEY (1885) 18 L. R. Ir. 68 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. S. 85 
 Followed. Alexander v. Burke, (1887) 
 22 L. B. It. 443 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 9? 
 
 Strickland v. Hayes [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Thomas v. 
 Sutters - - [1900] 1 Ch. 10 
 
 Stringer's Estate, In re - (1877) 6 Ch. D. 1 
 
 Explained and distinguished. Dalton 
 
 V. Fitzgerald - [1897] 1 Ch. 440 ; 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 86 
 
 Strohmenger v. Finsbury (Borough of) Permanent 
 Building Society, [1897] W. N. 65 (1). 
 Reversed by 0. A. - [1897] 2 Ch. 469 
 
 Strong, In re - - [1886] 31 Ch. D. 273 
 
 Referred to. Hood Baers v. Heriot 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 375 
 
 Strong v. Bird - (1874) L. R. 18 Bq. 315 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Apple- 
 bee - - [1891] 3 Ch. 422 
 Distinguished by North J. In re 
 HrsLOP - [1894] 3 Ch. 522 
 
 Strong v. Carlyle Press (No. 1) [1893] 1 Oh. 268 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. British 
 Linen Co. v. South American and 
 Mexican Co. [1894] 1 Ch. 108, 111 
 
 Strong v. Stringer - (1889) 61 L. T. (N.S.) 470 
 
 See 55 & 56 Vict. c. 13, s. 5. 
 Stroud V. Lawson - - [1898] 2 Q. B. 44 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Universities 
 OP Oxford and Cambridge v. George 
 Gill & Sons - [1899] 1 Ch. 55 ; 
 
 Walters v. Green 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 696, 703 
 Stroud V. Wandsworth Board of Works, [1894] 1 
 Q. B. 64. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 ft B. 1 , 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Metropolitan 
 District Rt. Co. v. Fulham Vestry 
 
 [1895] 2 ft. B. 443, 447 
 Stuart V. Diplook - (1890) 43 Ch. D. 343 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Fitz v. Iles 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 77 
 Stuart V. Jackson - - (189U) 17 R. 8.') 
 
 Distinguished by H. L. (Se.) John- 
 stone V. Duke op Buccleuch 
 
 . [1892] A. C. 625 
 Stubbins, Ex parte - - (1881) 17 Ch. D. 58 
 
 Followed. New, Prance & Garrard's 
 Trustee v. Hunting 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 19 ; 
 This case was affirmed bv H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1899] A. C. 419 
 Stubbs (Joshua), Ld., In re [1891] 1 Ch. 187 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1891] 1 Ch. 475 
 See British Linen Co. v. South Ameri- 
 can AND Mexican Co. [1894] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 Studholme v. Mandell (1697-8) 1 Ld. R.iym. 279 
 Followed by Stirling J. MoIi.quham 
 V. Taylor - - [1895] 1 Ch. 63 
 
 Sturla r. Freccia - (18S0) 5 App. Cas. 623 
 
 Referred to. Evans v. Merthye Tydfil 
 Urban District Council 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 241 
 
 Sudeley (Lord) v. Att.-Gen. [1896] 1 Q. B. 351 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.). [1897] A. C. 11 
 
 (Lord) V. Att-Gen. - [1897] A. 0. 11 
 
 Followed by Romer J. In re Smyth 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 89 
 
coclxxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEBEULED, &c., 
 
 Sudeley (Lord) and Baines & Co., In re, [18941 
 
 1 Oh. 334. 
 
 Discussed by Kebewich J. In re Dyson 
 
 & FowKB - [1896] 2 Ch. 720 
 
 Suffield and Watte, In re. (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 693 
 
 Considered by C. A. In re Deakin 
 
 [1900] 2 a. B. 489 
 Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards (1876) 1 P. D. 154 
 
 Explained by C. A. Atkinson v. 
 
 MoEBis - [1897] P. 40 
 
 Siiggiit's Trusts, In re - (1868) L. E. 3 Ch. 215 
 
 Followed by Kekewicb J. Eobekts v. 
 
 Cooper C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 335 
 
 Summers v. Holborn District Board of Works, 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 612. 
 
 Considered by C. A. Keep v. St. 
 
 Maky's Newington Vestry 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 824 
 Summerson, In re [1900] 1 Ch. 112, n. 
 
 Followed. Hepworth v. Pickles 
 
 [1899] W. N. 216 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 Sunderland 36ft Universal Building Society, In re, 
 (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 394, 
 Followed by Stirling J. Sixth West 
 Kent Mutual Building Society v. 
 Shove - [1899] 2 Ch, 64, n. 
 
 Sutherland (Dowager Duchess of) v. Sutherland 
 
 (Duke of), [1893] 3 Cb. 169. 
 
 Eeferrtd to by Bigham J. Brown v. 
 
 Peto [1900] 1 a. E. 346, 355 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 653 
 
 Sutherland (Dulte of) v. Heathcote, [1891] 3 Ch. 
 
 504. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 476 
 
 Sutherland's (Dulte of) Trustees v. Countess of 
 
 Cromartie, (1895) 22 E. 839. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc). Mackenzie 
 
 V. Duke of Devonshire 
 
 [1896] 4, C. 400 
 Sutton V. Sutton - (1882) 22 Ch. D. 511 
 
 Distinguished. Barnes v. Glenton 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 885 
 Swain v. Aijres - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 289 
 
 Overruled. by 55 & 56 Vict. c. 18, s. 5. 
 Swaiiie v. Wilson (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 252 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Chamberlain's 
 
 Wharf, Ld. v. Smith [1900] 2 Ch. 605 
 
 Swan V. Mellen ■ - [1892] W. N. 106 
 
 Eeversed by 0. A. [1892] W. N. 128 
 
 Swan V. North British Australasian Co , (1863) 2 
 H. & C. 175. 
 
 Headnote to, questioned. Union Credit 
 Bank v. Mersey Docks and Harbour 
 Board [18S9] 2 ft. B. 205, 210 
 
 Swan V. Sanders. (1881) 50 L. J. (M.C.) 67 ; 44 
 L, T. 424. 
 
 See now Wild Animals in Cflptivity Pro- 
 tection Act, 1900 (68 & 64 Vict. c. 33), 
 s. 1. 
 
 Swansborovgh v. Coventry, (1832) 2 Moo. & Sc. 
 362 ; 9 Bing. 305 ; 35 E, E, 6t;0. 
 Approved of. Broompield v. Williams 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 603 
 
 Swayne v. Inland Sevenue Commrs., [1899] W. N. 
 3 (6) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 335^ 
 Affirmed by 0, A. [1900] 1 ft, B. 172 
 
 Swift V. Swift - - ■ [1891] P. 129 
 
 Explained by C. A. Michell v. Mi- 
 ohell (No. 1) [1891] P. 208 
 
 Swindon Waterworks Co. v. Wilts and Berks 
 Canal Co.. (1875) L. E. 7 H. L. 697. 
 Considered. Eobebts v. Gwyrfai Dis- 
 trict Council - [1899] 2 Ch. 608 
 
 Swire v. Bedman - (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 536 
 
 Not followed by C. A. (A. L. Smith L.J. 
 
 dissent.). Bouse v. Bradford Banking 
 
 Co. - - [1894] 2 Ch. 32 
 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 586 
 
 Sword V, Camsron, (1839) 1 Sc. Sess. Cas., 2nd 
 Series, 493. 
 
 Approved by H. L. (E.). Sjiith v. 
 Baker & Sons [1891] A, C. 325 
 
 Syer v. Gladstone - (1885) 80 Ch. D. 614 
 
 Head-note in, commented on. Frewbn 
 V. Law Life Assurance Society 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch, 511 
 
 Sykes v. Soicerby Urban Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 979. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 584 
 
 Sykes v. Sykes - - (1 868) L. B. 3 Ch. 301 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Hodg- 
 KiNSON - [1893] W. N. 9 
 
 Sykes v. Sykes - - [1897] P. 306 
 
 Followed. Kettlewell v. Kettlewell 
 
 [1898] P. 138 
 
 Synnot v. Simpson - (1854) 5 H. L. C. 121 
 
 Applicable. Priestley v. Ellis 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 489 
 
 Tabernacle Permanent Building Society v. Knight, 
 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 63. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 293 
 TaJbott, In re - - (1888) 39 Ch. D. 567 
 
 Not followed by Stirling J, In re 
 
 London, Windsor, and Greenwich 
 
 Hotels Co. - [1892] 1 Ch. 639 
 
 Talisker Distillery v. Hamlyn & Co., (1893) 21 
 
 E. 204. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1894] A. C. 202 
 
 Principle in, applied by Kekewich J. 
 
 South African Breweries, Ld. v. King 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 173 ; C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 273 
 
 See Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 1894 
 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 13). 
 TaUerman v. Dowsing Radiant Seat Co., [1899] 
 
 W. N. 125. 
 
 Compromised on appeal 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 234 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 1 
 Tamplinv. James - (1879) 15 Ch. D. 215 
 
 Eeferrtd to by Joyce J. In re Hake 
 
 AND O'More's Contract 
 
 [ISOD] W. N. 263 
 Tancred v. Delagoa Bay and East Africa By. 
 
 (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 239. 
 
 Approved of by 0. A. Duehaji Dko- 
 
 1HEE8 V. EOBBBTSON 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 765 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Mercantile 
 Bank of London v, Evans 
 
 C. A, [1899] 2 ft. B. 613 
 
DUEING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ooolxxxv 
 
 Tankard, In re - [1899] 2 Q. B. 57, 60, 61 
 Approved of by 0. A. In re Plummeb 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 790 
 
 Tanner, Ex parte - - (1855) 20 Beav. 374 
 
 followed by North J. In re Atkinson. 
 Wilson v. Atkinson [1892] 3 Oh. 62 
 
 Tanqueray-WiUaume and Landau, In re, (1882) 
 20 Ch. D. i65. 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. Jn. re Venn 
 AND PoBZE - - [1894] 2 Ch. 101 
 
 Tapley v. Eagleton - (1879) 12 Oh: D. 683 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Asten v. 
 
 AsTEN - [1894] 3 Ch. 260 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. In re Cheadle 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch, 620 
 
 " Tasmania," The - (1890) 15 App. Gas. 223 
 Followed by P. C. The Owners op 
 SS. "Pleiades" v. Page and Owners 
 OP SS. " Jane " - [1891] A. C. 259 
 
 Tassel v. Hallen - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 321 
 
 Held not to affect Yorkshire Tannery v. 
 EglirOon Chemical Co., (1884) 54 L. J. 
 (Ch.) 81 per Kekewich J. Collins v. 
 North British and Mercantile In- 
 SURANOE Co. - - [1894] 3 Oh. 228 
 
 Tatam v. Eeeve 
 
 Approved 
 Mayer 
 
 of by 
 
 Tate V. 
 
 Hubert 
 175. 
 Relied on. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 44 
 C. A. Sapfert v. 
 - [1900] W. N. 242 
 
 (1793) 2 Yes. Jr. Ill; 2 R. R. 
 
 Mastapha v. Wedlake 
 
 [1891] W, N. 201 
 
 Tate V. Latham & Son - [1897] W. N. 12 (4) 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. S02 
 
 Tatem r. Chaplin, (1793) 2 H. Bl. 133; 3 R. R. 
 860. 
 
 Referred to. White v. Southend Hotel 
 Co. - C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 767, 771, 773 
 
 TattersaU v. Oroote, (1800) 2 Boa. & P. 131, 253 ; 
 see 14 R. R. Preface viii. 
 Explained and distinguished by Stirling 
 J. Belpield v. Bourne 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 521 
 
 Taunton v. Warwickshire (Sheriff of), [1895] 1 
 Ch. 734. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 319 
 
 Taylor, In re. Turpin v. Fain, (1890) 44 Cb. D. 
 128. 
 Referred to. In re Pitton 
 
 [1893] W. N, 201 
 
 Taylor, Ex paHe - (1 886) 18 Q. B. D. 295 
 
 Followed. New, Prance & Garrard's 
 Trustee v. Hunting 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 19; 
 E. L. (£.) [1900] A. C. 419, 422 
 
 Taylor v. Barclay, (1828) 2 Sim. 213 ; 29 R. R. 82 
 Followed by Farwell J. Foster v. 
 Globe Venture Syndicate, Ld. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 811, 814 
 
 Taylor v. Batten - - (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 85 
 Referred to by C. A. Milbank v. Mil- 
 bank - - [1900] 1 Ch, 376, 884 
 
 Taylm' v. Budden - (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 85 
 
 Followed. Budden v. Wilkinson 
 
 C. A, [1893] 2 ft. B. 432 
 
 Taylor v. Saygarth - - (1844) 14 Sim. 8 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 Bond - - [1900] W, N. 122 
 
 Taylor v. Kymer, (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 320 ; 37 R. R. 
 433. 
 
 Distinguished by Bruce J. Shenstone 
 & Co. 1). Htlton [1894] 2 ft. B. 452 
 
 Taylor v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire 
 By. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 134. 
 Referred to. Kelly v. Metropolitan 
 Ry. Co. - C. A, [1895] 1 ft. B. 944 
 
 Taylor v. Meltham Lbcal Board of Health, (1877) 
 47 L. J. (C.P.) 12. 
 
 Overruled by 0. A. Graham v. Cor- 
 poration OP Newoastle-upon-Tynb 
 
 [1893] 1 ft. B. 643 
 
 Taylor v. New Windsor Corporation, 0. A. [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 186. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. New 
 Windsor Corporation v. Taylor 
 
 [1899] A. C. 41 
 
 Taylor v. Eoe - (1893) 68 L. T. (N.S.) 213 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Rbndbll v. Grundy 
 
 [1895] 1 ft. B. 16 
 
 Taylor v. Bundell - - (1843) 1 Ph. 222 
 
 Relied on. Emmott & Co. v. Walters 
 [1891] W. N. 79 
 
 Taylor v. Bussell - ■ - [1891] 1 Ch. 8 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 244 
 
 Taylor v. Soper, [1890] W. N. 121 ; 65 L. T. 
 (N.S.) 828. 
 Cited. Bdqell v. Wilson 
 
 [1893] W. N. 145 
 
 Referred to. Ind, Coope & Co. v. Mee 
 [1895] W. K. 8 
 
 'or V. Taylor ■ (1873) L. R. 17 Eq. 324 
 
 Not followed by North J. In re 
 Tucker (No. 1) - [1893] 2 Ch. 323 
 
 - (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 155 
 In re Jones 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Hunt 
 
 [1900] W. TH. 65 
 
 Taylor v. Taylor - - (1881) 6 P. D. 29 
 
 Distinguished by Jeune Pres. WiE- 
 LAND i;. Bird - - [1894] P. 262 
 
 Taylor, Btileman and Underwood, In re, [1891] 
 1 Ch. 590. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Bissill v. Bradford 
 and District Tramway Co. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 44 
 Followed by North J. In re Douglas 
 Norman & Co. - [1898] 1 Ch. 199 
 
 Teacher v. Colder - - (1898) 25 E. 661 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1899] A, C. 461 
 Teasdale v. Sanderson - (1864) 33 Beav. 534 
 Explained by North J. In re Jones 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 461 
 2 b 
 
 Thylor v. Taylor 
 
 Followed. 
 
ooolxxxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEERtfLEI), &c., 
 
 Teasddle's Case - - (1874) L. E. 9 Ch. 54 
 
 This decision lias uot been overruled by 
 
 Trevor v. Whitworth (12 App. Gas. 409). 
 
 Per Stirling J. Eichbaum v. City of 
 
 Chicago Gbain Elevators, Ld. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 459 
 Tee V. Ferris - - (1856) 2 K. & J. 357 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Stead 
 
 [1899] W. N. 235 
 Teevan v. Smith - - (1882) 20 Ch. D. 724 
 
 Eeferred to. Eioe v. Noakes & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] 3 Ch. 445 
 Temperton v. Bussell - [1893] 1 Q. B. 715 
 
 Commented on. Allen v. Flood 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 1 
 Tempest v. Lord Camoys, (1882) 21 Ch. D. 571, 
 
 576, n. 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. In re Beyant 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 Tenant v. Mlis - - (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 46 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Eockett v. Clip- 
 
 piNfiDALE - [1891] a Q. B. 293 
 
 Tendring Union {Guardians of) v. Dowton, (1890) 
 
 45 Ch. D. 583. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1891] 3 Ch. 265 
 Tennant, Inre - - (1889) 40 Ch. D. 594 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Mundy's 
 
 Settled Estates - [1891] 1 Ch. 399 
 Tennant v. Inland Revenue, (1891) 18 E. 428 ; 
 
 28 So. L. E. 307. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. 
 
 TEinrANT V. Smith - [1892] A. C. 150 
 Tennant v. Smith - - [1892] A. C. 150 
 
 Followed by Ct. of Sess. M'Dougal v. 
 
 Stithbbland, 21 Eettie, 735. 
 
 See [1896] W, N. 113 
 
 Distinguished by Ct. of Sess. Cokke 
 
 V. Fky, 22 Eettie, 422. 
 
 See [1896] W. N. 128 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. 
 
 Beech [1898] 2 Q. B. 147, 150 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1899] A. C. 53 
 
 Tennant v. Welch (Tennant's Executors), (1889) 
 
 16 E. 876. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (Sc.) svh nom. Welch 
 
 V. Teiwant - - [1891] A. C. 639 
 
 Tennent v. Gity of Glasgow BanTt, (1879) 4 App. 
 
 Cas. 615. 
 
 InappUoable. In re Eottudwood Col- 
 
 LiEKY Co. - C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 373 
 
 Tefbury {Vicar of) v. Churchwardens, &o., of 
 Tetbury, [1892] P. 271, n. 
 Eeferred to by Arches Court. Niokalls 
 V. Bbisooe - - [1892] P. 269 
 
 Thackwray and Young's Contract, In re, (1888) 
 40 Ch. D. 34. 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. In re Tkustees 
 OP HoLLis' Hospital and Hague's Con- 
 TEACT - [1899] a Ch. 540 
 
 Thames Conservators v. Inland Revenue Commrs., 
 (1886) 18 Q. B. 279. 
 Commented on. National Telephone 
 Co. V, Inland Eeventie Commrs. 
 
 C. A. [1899] IQ. B, 250; 
 H, L, (E,) [1899] W. N, 232 
 
 Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co. v. Morel Brothers 
 <fc Oo. [1891] 2 Q. B. 647. 
 Followed by 0. A. Good & Co. ®. 
 Isaacs & Sons [1892] 2 0. B. 555 
 
 Eeferred to by Pollock B. BcLMAN and 
 Dickson v. Eenwick & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 183 
 Followed by C. A. Monsen v. Macfar- 
 LANE & Co. [1895] 2 Q. B. 570, 576 
 
 Explained by Collins J. Sanders v. 
 Jenkins - - [1897] 1 ft. B. 96 
 
 Followed by C. A. Carlton Steam- 
 ship Co. V. Castle Mail Packets Co. 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 494 ; 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 [1898] A. C. 486 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Dobell & Co. v. 
 Green & Co. [1900] 1 Q. B, 526, 532 
 
 Tharsis Sulphur Co. v. Sod€te Indvstrielle des 
 Maaux, (1889) 58 L. J. (Q.B.) 435 ; 
 60 L. T. 924. 
 
 Explained. British Wagon Co. v. 
 Gray - [1896] 1 ft. B. 35 
 
 Approved by C. A. Montgomery v. 
 Liebenthal [1898] 1 ft. B. 487 
 
 Thellusson v. Woodford, (1798-1805) 11 Ves. Jun. 
 112; 8E. E. 104. 
 
 Dictum of Lord Eldon at p. 149 followed 
 by 0. A. In re Burrows 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 TMherge v. Laudry - (1876) 2 App. Cas. 102 
 Followed. Moses v. Parker 
 
 [1896] A. C. 245 
 
 Thetford Corporation v. Norfolk County Council, 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 141. 
 
 Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal 
 allowed C. A. [1898] 2 ft. B. 468 
 
 Thin V. Richards & Co. - [1892] 2 Q. B. 141 
 Followed. The " Vobtigern " 
 
 C. A [1899] P. 140 
 
 Thomas, In re. Ex parte Trustee, [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 66. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. smb nom. In re 
 Thomas. Ex parte Sheriff op Middle- 
 sex - [1-899] 1 ft. B. 460 
 
 Thomas v. Cook, (1818) 2 B. & Aid. 119 ; 20 E. E. 
 374. 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. Wallis v. 
 Hands - - - [1893] 2 Ch. 75 
 
 Thmnas v. Cooh, (1828) 8 B. & C. 728; 32 E. E. 
 520. 
 
 Approved and followed by C. A. Guild 
 & Co. V. Conrad - [1894] 2 ft. B. 885 
 Eeferred to. In re Bolton's Estate 
 
 [1892] W. N. 114 
 
 Thomas v. Kelly - (1888) 13 App. Cas. 506 
 Distinguished by C. A. Seed v. Brad- 
 ley - - [1894] 1 ft. B. 319, 
 at pp. 322, 325 
 
 Thomas v. Nokes - (1868) L. E. 6 Eq. 521 
 
 Commented on. Halford v. Hardy 
 
 [1899] W. N. 243 
 
 Tliomas v. Owen - (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 225 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Nicholls v. 
 NicHOLLS - - [1900] W. N, 4 
 
DtJElNG THE IfEAES 1^91—1900. 
 
 (icclx 
 
 fhmnas v. Seek - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 727 
 
 See County Court Eulea, 1896, r. 10, 
 and explanatory Memorandum thereto, 
 Current Index, 1896, p. Ixvi. 
 
 Thomas v. Quartermaine (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 685 
 Commented on by H. L. (B.). Smith v. 
 Bakisk & Sons [1891] A. C. 325 
 
 See 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37, s. 1. 
 
 Thompson, Ex parte - - (1881) 6 Q. B. 721 
 
 Followed by Diy. Ct. Eeo. v. Mayob 
 AND Justices of Bodmin 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 21 
 
 Tlumpson, In re - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Jones 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 719 
 Thompson, In re - - (1885) 30 Ch. D. 441 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Webstee 
 
 [1891] W. N. 50 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Wood 
 
 [1891] W. N. 803 
 
 Thompson, In re. Ex parte Baylis, [1894] 1 Q. B. 
 
 462. 
 
 Eeport of case corrected. In re Baylis 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 Thompson v. Hill - (1870) L. R. 5 C. P. 564 
 Met by 57 & 58 Vict. c. coxiii., s. 90 (2). 
 
 Tlumpson v. Lapworth (1868) L. E. 3 0. P. 149 
 Followed. Wix v. Edtson 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 474 
 Followed. Faklow v. Stevenson 
 
 [1899] W. W. 30 (2) i 
 C. A. [1899] W. N, 233 
 
 Tlwmpson v. London County Council, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 840. 
 
 Explained by C. A. Fkankenbuko v. 
 Gbeat Horseless Cabeiaoe Co. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 604 
 
 Thompson v. Montgomery, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 35; 
 [1891] A. C. 217. 
 
 See In re Paine & Co.'s Tbade-mahks 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 667 
 
 [1893] P. 11 
 [1893] P. 70 
 
 Thomson v. Clanmarrii {Lord) [1899] 2 Ch. 523 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 Ch. 718 
 
 Thomson v. Clydesdale Bank, Ld., (1891) 18 E. 
 751. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1893] A. C. 282 
 Thorley, In re. Thorley v. Massam, [1891] 2 Ch. 
 613. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 White - [1898] 1 Ch. 397, 299 
 
 This case was affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 Tliorne v. Beard, [1893] 3 Ch. 530 ; [1894] 1 Ch. 
 599. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) svh nom. Thoenb 
 V. Hbabd and Maksh 
 
 [1895] A. C. 495 
 Discussed. How ». Eabl Wintebton 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 626, 638 
 
 Thompson v. Bourke {No. 2) 
 Affirmed by C. A. 
 
 Thornhill v. Thornhill, (1819) 4 Madd. 377 ; 20 
 E. E. 315. 
 Approved. In re Hannam 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 39 
 Tliorpe V. Brumfiit (1873) L. E. 8 Oh. 650, 656 
 Dictum of James L.J. approved and 
 followed by C. A. Lambton v. Mel- 
 LISH - - [1894] 3 Ch. 163 
 
 Considered by C. A. Sadleb v. Gbeat 
 Western Ey. Co. - [1895] 2 Q. B. 688 
 Thurshy v. Briercliffe-with-Extwistle Church- 
 wardens, [1894] 1 Q. B. 567. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1894] 2 Q. B. 11 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 32 
 Thurso New Gas Co., In re (1889) 42 Ch. D. 486 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Snyder 
 Dynamite Pbojeotile Co. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 37 
 
 Thynne v. Shove - (1890) 45 Ch. D. 577 
 
 Commented on by Byrne J. Bubchell 
 
 V. Wilde C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 551, 557 
 
 Tibbits' Settled Estates, In re [1897] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 Distinguished. In re Keok and Hart's 
 
 CONTBAOT - [1898] 1 Ch. 617 
 
 Distinguished. In re Du Cane and 
 
 Nettleeold's Contbaot [1898] 2 Ch. 96 
 
 Tichborne v. Tichborne, (1869) L. E. 1 P. cfe D. 
 
 730, 733; (1870) L. R. 2 P. & D. 41. 
 
 Considered. In re Toleman 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 866 
 Tickle V. Brown, (1836) 4 Ad. & E. 369 ; 43 E. E. 
 358. 
 
 Commented on by Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 Gabdnee v. Hodgson's Kingston 
 
 Bbewebies Co. [1900] 1 Ch. 592, 599 
 
 Tidd V. Lister (1820) 5 Mad. 429 ; 21 K. E. 323 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re 
 
 EiOHABDSON - - [1900] 2 Ch. 778 
 
 Tidswell, Ex parte - (1887) 35 W. E. 669 
 
 Followed by StirliDg J. Mackintosh 
 
 V. PoGOSE ■ [1895] 1 Ch. 505 
 
 Tidswell, In re. Ex parte Tidswell, (1887) 56 
 
 L. J. (Q.B.) 548. 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Clark 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 330 
 Tidswell v. Whitworth (1867) L. E. 2 C. P. 236 
 Discussed. Fablow v. Stevenson 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 233 
 Tiessen v. Henderson, [1899] W. N. 45 ; [1899] 
 1 Ch. 861. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Violet Consoli- 
 dated Gold Minins Co. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 66 
 Timson v. Bamsbottom - (1837) 2 Keen, 35 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Wasdalb - - [1899] 1 Ch. 163 
 
 Tindal, In re - (1897) 18 N. S. W. L. E. 378 
 Overruled by P. 0. Commrs. op Taxa- 
 tion V. KiBK - [1900] A. C. 688 
 Tinkler v. Wandsworth District Board of Works 
 (1858)2DeG. & J. 261. 
 Followed. Wood v. Widnes Cokpoba- 
 TION - - [1897] 2 Q. B. 367 
 Discussed. Nicholl v. Urban District 
 Cons oil oe Eppinq 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch, 844, 851 
 8 b Z 
 
oooixxxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWEt), OVBRRUtEl), &o., 
 
 Tithe Act, 1891, In re. Eoberts v. PoJfa, [1893] 
 2 Q. B. 33. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. sub nom. In re Tithe 
 Act, 1891. Eobeets v. Potts. Jones 
 V. Cooke - [1894] 1 ft. B. 213 
 
 Tod V. Inland Revenue Oommrs., (1897) 24 E. 
 934. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) 6«6 nom. Ik- 
 land Eevenue Commrs. v. Tod 
 
 [1898] A, C. 399 
 See also Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. 
 0. 10), a. 6. 
 
 Tod & Son V. Merchant Banking Co., (1883) 10 R. 
 1009. 
 
 Distinguished by H. L. (So.) North 
 ■Western Bank v. John Potntek, Son 
 & Maodonalds [1895] A. C. 56 
 
 Toke V. Andrews - - (1882) 8 Q. B. D. 428 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Aloot, &c., 
 Co. v. Gkeenhill [1896] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Benton Gisbs 
 & Co. 1). Neville & Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 181 
 
 Tomkinson v. Balkia Consolidated Co., [1891] 2 
 Q. B. 614. 
 AflSrmed by H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 396 
 
 Tomlinson, In re - [1898] 1 Ch. 232 
 
 Differed from by North J. In re Betty 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 821 
 
 Not followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Gjees - [1899] 2 Ch. 54 
 
 Tompson v. Dashwood - (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 431 
 Disapproved of by C. A. Hebditoh v. 
 MoIlwaine - [1894] 2 a. B. 64 
 
 Toovey v. Milne - (1819) 2 B. & Aid. 683 
 
 Applied by Wriglit J. In re Vautin 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 325, 327 
 
 Topping, Ex parte (1865) 4 De G. J. & S. 
 
 551. 
 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. In re 
 Head [1894] 1 Q. B. 638 
 
 Torish v. M'Cormack, Lawson's Notes of Deci- 
 sions, 1890, p. 19. 
 
 Distinguish^ d. M'Gaefigan v. Eiddall, 
 (1890) 28 L R II t57. 
 
 C, A Ir.) [1898] W. N. 96 
 
 Toronio {Municipal Coij^tJ&Uon of) v. Virgo, 
 [1896] A. 0. 88 
 
 Followed. All. Qen. eor Ontario v. 
 Att.-Gen. fob ii.E Dominion 
 
 [1896] A. C. 348 
 
 Torret v. Cripps - - (1879) 27 W. E. 706 
 
 Distinguished by Buckley J. Huok- 
 LESBY V. Hook - [1900] W. N. 45 
 
 Tosh V. North British Building Society, (1886) 
 11 App. Cas. 489. 
 See 57 & 58 Vict. o. 47, s. 10. 
 
 Tottenham Local Board v. Eowell, (1876) 1 Ex. D. 
 514. 
 
 XJndistinguishable. Vestey of Ham- 
 mersmith V. LOWENFELD 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 278 
 
 Totttnham Urban District Council v. Williamson 
 & fans, [1896] 2 Q. B. 353. 
 Referred to. Stoke Parish Council v. 
 Pbiob - - [1899] 2 Ch. 277, 281 
 
 Toulmin v. Steere, (1816-7) 3 Mer. 210; 17 R. R. 
 67. 
 
 Distinguished and commented on by 
 H. L. (E.) Thorne v. Cann 
 
 [1895] A. C. 11 
 
 Questioned by C. A. Liquidation 
 
 Estates Pueohasb Co. v. Willoughby 
 
 [1896] 1 Oh. 726; 
 
 But this case was reversed by 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 321 
 
 Travers v. Blundell (1877) 6 Ch. D. 436 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Seal 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 316 
 
 Travis v. UttUy - - [1894] 1 Q. B. 233 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Self v. 
 Hove Commrs. - [1895] 1 Q. B. 685 
 
 Tredwell, In re - - [1891] 2 Ch. 640 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Akerotd's 
 Settlement - •- [1893] 3 Ch. 393 
 
 Trego v. Hunt - - [1895] 1 Ch. 462 
 
 Reversed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 7 
 Followed by Stirling J. Jennings v. 
 Jennings - • [1898] 1 Ch. 378 
 
 Trench Tubeless Tyre Co., Inre. BetheUy. Trench 
 Tubeless tyre Co. [1899] W. N. 258 
 
 Reversed by 0. A. [1900] 1 Ch, 408 
 
 Tress v. Tress - (1887) 12 P. D. 128 
 
 Followed by Jeune Pres. Beauolerk 
 V. Beauolerk (No. 2) - [1895] P. 220 
 
 Trevor v. Whitworth, (1887) 12 App. Cas. 409, 
 436, 438. 
 
 This case does not overrule Teasdale's 
 Case, (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 54 : per Stir- 
 ling J. Eiohbaum v. City of Chicago 
 Grain Elevators, Ld. [1891] 3 Ch. 459 
 Observed on by C. A. In re Denver 
 Hotel Co. - [1893] 1 Ch. 495 
 
 Observation of Lord Herschell explained 
 by V. Williams J. In re Borough 
 Commercial and Building Society 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 242; 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 289 
 
 Trew V. Perpetual Trustee Co. [1895] A. C. 264 
 Referred to by Eomer J. In re Mar- 
 quis OP Bristol [1897] 1 Ch. 949 
 
 Trollope v. London Building Trades Federation, 
 [1895] W. N. 29. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1895] W. N. 45 
 
 Trower v. Butts, (1823) 1 Sim. & S. 181 ; 24 E. R. 
 164. 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Hallett 
 [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 Truman v. London, Brighton and South Coait 
 Ry. Co., (1S86) 11 App. Cas. 45, 51, 53. 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Rapier v. 
 London Tramways Co. [1893] 1 Ch. 588 
 
 Truman & Co. v. Redgrave (1881) 18 Ch. D. 547 
 
 Explained by C. A. Whitley v. Challis 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 Trust and Investment Corporation of South Africa, 
 In re, [1892] 3 Ch. 332. 
 Explained by V. Williams J. In re 
 Laxon & Co. (No. 3) [1893] 1 Ch. 210 
 Discussed by C. A. In re General 
 Phosphate Coepoeation [1896] 1 Ch. 3 
 
DUEING THE YBAES 1891—1900. 
 
 coolxxxix 
 
 Trustees, Executors, and Agency Co. v. ^lort, 
 (1888) 13 App. Oas. 793. 
 Distinguished by C. A. Willis v. Eakl 
 Howe - . - [1893] 2 Ch. 645 
 
 Tuhhs V. Wynne - - [1897] 1 Q. B. 74 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Baesht 
 V. Tagg - - [1900] 1 Ch. 231 
 
 Tuck V. Southern Counties Deposit Bank, (1889) 
 
 42 Oh. D. 471. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Thomas v. 
 
 Sbaeles - - [1891] 2 a. B. 408 
 
 Tucker, In re - [1893] 2 Oh. 323 
 
 Beferred to by Buckley J. Black- 
 
 BUENE V. Hope Bdwaepes 
 
 [1900] W. N. 175 
 
 Tucker, In re. Tucker v. Tucker (No. 2), [1894] 
 
 1 Ch. 724. 
 
 Affirmed in part by 0. A. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 429 
 TuVc y. Moxhay - - (1848) 2 Ph. 774 
 
 Referred to. John Bbothebs Abeegaew 
 
 Beeweet Co. v. Holmes 
 
 [1899] W. N. 257 
 Tunbridge Wells Corporation v. Baird, [1896] 
 
 A. U. 434. 
 
 Applicable. Batteesea Vestet v. 
 
 County op London and Bkush Pbo- 
 
 TINOIAL ElECTEIC LIGHTING Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch, 474, 482 
 
 Turnhull, In re - [1897] 2 Ch. 415 
 
 Followed. In re Kutpbe's Policy 
 Tecsts [1899] 1 Ch. 38 
 
 Turnbull v. Janson ■ (1878) 3 C. P. D. 264 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. East Stone- 
 house LoOAL BoAED v. VlOTOEIA 
 
 Bbeweey Co. [1895] 2 Ch. 514 
 
 Turner v. London and South Western By. Co., 
 
 (1874) L. E. 17 Eq. 561. 
 
 Followed. EoEOYD v. Coulthabd 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 654 
 Turner v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The 
 
 "2eta,"[1891]P. 216. 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1892] P. 286 
 
 C. A. reversed and decision of Butt Pres. 
 
 restored by H. L. (E.) [1893] A, C. 468 
 
 Turner v. Mullineux - (1861) IJ. & H. 334 
 Applied and followed by C. A. In re 
 Buckle [1894] 1 Ch, 286 
 
 Turner v. Newport - - (1846) 2 Ph. 14 
 
 Followed with a variation by Keke- 
 wich J. In re Cleveland's (Duke op) 
 Estate [1895] 2 Ch. 542 
 
 Turquand v. Marshall - (1869) L. E. 4 Ch. 376 
 Distinguished. In re National Bank 
 OF Wales, Ld. C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 629 
 
 TuHon V. Turton - - (1889) 42 Ch. D. 128 
 
 Approved and followed by C. A. Eedd- 
 AWAY V. Banham [1895] 1 Q. B. 286 
 Discussed by Stirling J. Saundees v. 
 Sun Life Assueanoe Co. op Canada 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 637 
 
 TuOier v. Caralampi - (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 414 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Gbekaed v. 
 Clowes - - [1892] 8 Q. B. 11 
 
 Tmeedale v. Tweedale - (1857) 23 Beav. 341 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. and C. A. 
 
 Pledge v. Caee - [1895] 1 Ch. 61 ; 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 187 
 
 Twiokenham Urban Council v. Munton, [1899] 
 1 Ch. 168. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 Tyler, In re - - ■ [1891] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 BoWEN - [1893] 2 Ch. 49 
 
 Tyrrell v. Fainton - - [1895] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 Followed by Chltty J. In re Jones 
 AND Judgments Act, 1864 
 
 [1895] W. N. 123 (10) 
 
 Ulizen V. Nicols ■ - [1894] 1 Q. B. 92 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Oechaed v. 
 Bush & Co. - [1898] 2 ft. B. 284, 289 
 
 " Umhilo," Tlie - - - [1891] P. 118 
 
 Distinguished by Bruce J. The " PiL- 
 GEiM" - - [1895] P. 117 
 
 Underhay v. Bead (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 209 
 
 Observed upon. Engel v. South 
 
 Meteopolitan Beewing and Bottling 
 
 Co. (No. 1) - [1891] W. N. 31 ; 
 
 But see ib. [1892] 1 Ch. 442 
 
 Underwood & Son, Ld. v. Barker, [1899] 1 Oh. 
 300. 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Haynes v. Do- 
 man - [1899] 2 Ch. 13, 24 
 
 Union Plate Glass Co. - (1889) 42 Ch. D. 513 
 Not followed by Kekewieh J. In re 
 Ageicultubal Hotel Co. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 United Kingdom Mutual Assurance Co. v. Nevill, 
 (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 110. 
 Followed by Wright J. Montgomeeie 
 V. United Kingdom Mutual Steamship 
 Association, Ld. - [1891] 1 ft, B, 370 
 Distinguished by Bigham J. British 
 Maeinb Mutual Insubance Co. v. 
 Jenkins - - [1900] 1 ft. B. 299 
 
 Universal Stock Exchange v. Strachan, [1896] 
 A. 0. 166. 
 Considered. In re Gievb 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 794 
 
 University of London v. Yarrow, (1857) 1 De Gr. 
 & J. 72. 
 Eeferred to. In re Piekcy 
 
 C. A, [1898] 1 Ch, 565 
 
 Universo Insurance Co. of Milan v. Merchants 
 Marine Insurance Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 205. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 93 
 
 Upmann v. Forester - (1883) 24 Ch. D. 231 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. The 
 Ameeioan Tobacco Co. v. Cuest 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 630 
 
 Upton y. Brovm - - (1879) 12 Oh. D. 872 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Stoddaet v. 
 
 Savilb - - [1894] 1 Ch, 480 
 
 Followed. In re Foebbs 
 
 [1899] W. N_ 6 (4) 
 
oocxo 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, &o., 
 
 Upton. V. Bardman - (1874) Ir. E. 9 Bq. 157 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 Edwards - [1894] 3 Cli. 644 
 
 « Utopia," The- - - [1893] A. 0. 492 
 
 Followed by 0. A. The "Snake" 
 
 [1900] P. 105 
 
 TacUll V. Bdberts - (1863) 32 Beav. 140 
 
 Commented on. In re Game 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 881 
 
 Vagliano Brothers v. Banlc of England (1882) 
 22 Q. B. D. 103 ; C. A. (1889) 23 Q. B. 
 D. 243. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 107 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Soholfield 
 V. Eakl op Londesboeough 
 
 [1896] A. C. 524 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Clutton v. 
 Atteneokough & Son 
 
 [1897] A. C. 90, 93 
 
 Vale & Sons v. Moorgate Street and Broad Street 
 Mys. Ld. [1899] W. N. 52. 
 Distinguished. Ind Coope & Co. v. 
 Hamblin - - [1900] W, N. 24 
 
 " Vancouver " Case, The {Marine Insurance Co. r. 
 China Transpacific Steamship Co.), (1886) 
 11 App. Cas. 573. 
 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.). EuABON 
 Steamship Co. o. London Assurance 
 
 [1900] A. C. 6 
 
 Vanderliaege, In re. Ex parte Izard (1888) 20 
 Q. B. D. 146. 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Semenza. 
 
 C, A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 15 
 
 Van Duzer's Trade-mark, In re (1887) 84 Cb. D. 
 623. 
 
 Eeferred to by Cbitty J. Hodgson v. 
 Sinclair. In re Hodgson & Simpson's 
 Trade-mark [1891] W. N. 176 
 
 Followed. In re Payne & Co.'s Tkade- 
 MABK - - [1892] W. N. 56 
 
 Followed. In re Talbot's Trade mark 
 [1894] W. N. 12 
 Explained by Eomer J. In re Den- 
 sham's Teade-maek [1895] 2 Ch. 196 
 
 Van Gheluive v. Nerinclcx (1882) 21 Ch. D. 189 
 See In re Cave. Mainland v. Cave 
 
 [1892] W. N. 142 
 
 Van Grutten v. Dighy - (18G2) 31 Beav. 561 
 Followed. ViDiTZ v. O'Hagan 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 669 
 
 Van Grutten v. Foxwell ■ [1897] A. C. 658 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re 
 Adams and Perry's Contract 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 554 
 
 Van Home v. Fonda 5 Johns. Ch. (N.Y.) 388 
 Not followed. Kennedy ■». De Trae- 
 FOED [1896] 1 Ch. 762 
 
 Vansittart, In re - [1893] 2 Q. B. 377 
 
 Discussed. In re Carter and Ken- 
 deedine's Contract 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 VansittaH,Inre - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 181 
 
 Considered by Wright J. -T"" Tank- 
 ard ■ - [1899] 2 Q. B. 57 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Plummeb 
 ^^ [1900] 2 a. B. 790 
 
 Vardon's Trusts, In re - (1886) 31 Ch. D. 275 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Carter 
 V. SiLBER [1891] 3 Ch. 553 
 
 This case reversed by C. A. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 278 
 And C. A. .iffirmed by H. L. (E.) sub 
 rwm. Edwards v. Carter 
 
 [1893] A, C. 360 
 
 Varieties (The), In re - - [1893] 2 Ch. 235 
 
 Eeferred to. Bloxwich Iron and 
 Steel Co., In re. - [1894] W. N. Ill 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re E. Bishop 
 & Sons, Ld. - [1900] 2 Ch. 254 
 
 Vaughan v. Vanderstegen - (1854) 2 Drew. 408 
 Applied and followed by North J. In 
 re GouGH - - [1894 W. If. 76 
 
 Vavasseur v. Krupp - (1878) 9 Ch. D. 351 
 
 Cited. In re La Societe Anonyme Des 
 Verreeies de l'Etoile 
 
 [1893] W. N. 119 
 Eeferred to. Miller's Patent, In re 
 [1894] W. N. 4 
 
 Vawdrey v. Simpson ■ [1896] 1 Ch. 166 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Maohuj v. 
 Bennett - - [1900] W. N. 146 
 
 Verner v. General and Commercial Investment 
 Trust [1894] 2 Ch. D. 289. 
 Followed by Stirling J. Wilmer v. 
 McNamara & Co., Ld. [1895] 2 Ch. 245 
 
 Vernon v. Coohe - (1880) 49 L. J. (C.P.) 767 
 Distinguishable, and semble, no longer 
 the law. Baker v. Ambrose 
 
 [1896] 2 0. B. 372 
 
 Vernon v. Vestry of St. James, Westminster (1880) 
 16 Ch. D. 449. 
 
 See Graham v. Corporation of New- 
 castle on-Tynb 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 643 
 
 Vernon v. Watson - [1891] 1 Q. B. 400 
 
 Afarmed by C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 288 
 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. ... 25, s. 87 (3). 
 
 Veure Monnier et ses Fits, Ld., In re. Ex parte 
 Bloomenthal, [1896] 2 Ch. 525. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 Bloomenthal v. Fokd [1897] A. C. 156 
 
 Viclters v. Siddell - (1890) 15 App. Cas. 496 
 Dictum of Halsbury L.C. followed by 
 C. A. Nuttall v. Haegeeaves 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 23 
 
 Victorian Railways Commrs. v. Coultas, (1888) 
 13 App. Cas. 222. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Pugh v. London, 
 Brighton and South Coast Ey'. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 248 
 Considered by Wright J. Wilkinson 
 V. DowNTON ■ [1897] 2 Q. B, 67 
 
 Viditz V. O'Hagan - - [1899] 2 Oh. 569 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1900] 2 Ch, 87 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900 
 
 Vignier's Trade-marlc, In re, (1889) 6 Rep. Pat. 
 Oas. 490. 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. In re Den- 
 sham's Tbade-mark [1895] 2 Ch. 176 
 
 VUlars, Ex parte - (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 432 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. FiGO 
 V. MooRB Bbotheks [1894] 2 Q. B. 690 
 And by 0. A. Trustee in Bankruptcy 
 V. Brown - - [1895] 1 ft. B. 324 
 
 Vilmont V. Bentley - (1887) 12 App. Cas. 471 
 Superseded, as to goods obtained by 
 false pretences, by Sale of Goods Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), a. 24 (2). 
 
 Vince, In re. Ex parte Trustee in Banlcruptcy, 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 587. 
 
 Reversed by C. A. suh nom. In re Vinoe 
 Ex parte Baxter [1892] 2 ft. B. 478 
 
 « Vindcmuira;' The- - (1889) 14 P. D. 172 
 
 AfBrmed by H. L. (B.) [1891] A. C. 1 
 
 Vine V. Maleigh - - - [1891] 2 Ch. 13 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Mason 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 467 
 Vingoe and Davies, In re - (1894) 1 Mans. 416 
 Followed. In re Blaokbuen & Co. 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 725 
 
 Vint V. Padget, (1858) 1 Giff. 446, on appeal 
 2 De G. & J. 611. 
 
 Followed by Romer J. and C. A. 
 Pledge v. Carr - [1894] 2 Ch. 328 ; 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 51 
 This case was aflBrmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 187 
 Considered by C. A. Minter v. Carr 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 498 
 Followed. Pledge v. White 
 
 [1896] A. C. 187 
 
 Vinter v. Hind - - (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 63 
 
 Overruled by 54 & 55 Vict. c. 76, s. 47 
 (3). 
 
 Vitoria, Ex parte - - [1894] 2 Q. B. 387 
 
 Approved by P. C. King v. Henderson 
 
 [1898] A. C. 720, 730 
 
 Von Heyden v. Neastadt (1880) 14 Oh. D. 230 
 Followed by Buckley J. Saccharin 
 Corporation, Ld. v. Anglo-Conti- 
 nental Chemioal Works, Ld. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 95 
 . Bughes, (1854) 2 Sm. & Giff. 18 ; 23 
 L. J. (Ch.) 288. 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. u. 21. 
 
 « Vulcan," The - - - [1898] P. 222 
 
 See Explanatory Memorandum to County 
 Court Bules (May), 1899, and rules 58 to 
 65. W. K. 1899 (May 20), at p. 173, 
 See Current Index, 1899, p, czi. 
 
 Waddell v. Wolfe - (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 515 
 Referred to by North J. In re Na- 
 tional Provincial Bank oe England 
 AND Marsh - - [1895] 1 Ch. 190 
 
 Waddington v. City of London Union, (1858) 
 E. B. & E. 370. 
 
 Discussed. Reg. v. Leigh Rural Dis- 
 trict Council C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 836 
 
 Voyle 
 
 WadswortJi, Tn re - (1887) 34 Ch. D. 155 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 Knight - [1892] 2 Ch. 368 
 
 " Waikato " (Owners of Cargo on Board S8.) 
 V. New Zealand Shipping Co., [1898] 
 
 1 Q. B. 645. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 162 (15) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Wainwright v. Miller - - [1897] 2 Ch. 255 
 
 Approved by Kekewich J. In re Gage 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 498 
 
 Wainwrighfs Case. In re Metropolitan Coal 
 Consumers' Association, (1890) 63 L. T. 
 (N.S.) 429. 
 
 Considered by C. A. Kabbekg's Case 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 Wake V. Sheffield Corporation, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 
 291 ; 12 Q. B. D. 142. 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Debet Cor- 
 poration V. Grudgings 
 
 [1894] 2 ft. B. 496 
 
 Waltelin v. London & South Western By., (1886) 
 12 App. Cas. 31. 
 
 See also [1896] 1 ft. B. 189, n. 
 
 Walker, In re, (1890) 59 L. J. (Ch.) 386 ; 62 L. T 
 (N.S.) 449. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Somer- 
 set - - - [1894] 2 Ch. 231 
 
 Walker v. Bunkell (1883) 22 Ch. D. 722 
 
 Observed upon. Laekin v. Llotd 
 
 [1891] W. N. 71 
 
 Walker v. Crystal Palace District Oas Co., [1891] 
 
 2 Q. B. 300. 
 
 Dissented from by Butt J. The 
 " CouRiEE " - [1891] P. 356 
 
 And by Div. Ct. O'Hara, Matthews 
 & Co. V. Elliot & Co, 
 
 [1893] 1 ft. B. 362 
 
 WaXlcer v. Milne - - (1849) 11 Beav. 507 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Park 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 682 
 
 Walker v. Nussey - (1847) 16 M. & W. 302 
 
 Followed by C. A. Norton v. Davison 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 401 
 
 Wall -v. Byrne - (1845) 2 J. & Lat. 118 
 
 Distinguished. In re Sheppaed 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 67 
 
 Wall V. Goekerell - (1863) 9 Jur. (N.S.) 447 
 Distinguished. London Freehold and 
 Leasehold Peopeetv Co. v. Baeon 
 SuEPEELD - C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 608 
 
 Wallace v. Greenwood - (1880) 16 Ch. D. 362 
 See Howard v. Jalland 
 
 [1891] W. N. 210 
 Discussed by Byrne J. In re Nobton 
 [1899] W. N. 218; [1900] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 Wallace v. Universal Automatic Machine Co., 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 547, 555. 
 Form of judgment followed by Keke- 
 wich J. Brinslet ti. Ltnton and 
 Ltnmouth Hotel and Peopbrtt Co. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 63 
 
000X011 
 
 TABLE OP CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEETJLED, &c., 
 
 Wallasey local Board Y. Gracey (1887) 36 Ch. D. 
 593. 
 
 Approved. Tottenham Ukban Dis- 
 TEicT Council v. Williamson & Sons 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 a. B. 353 
 Discussed. Stoke Pakish Council v. 
 Peioe - [1899] 2 Ch. 277, 281 
 
 Wallen v. Lister - [1894] 1 Q B. 312 
 
 See 57 & 58 Viot. o. ocxiii., s. 152, 
 Wallis and Barnard's Contract, In re, [1899] 
 
 2 Oh. 515. 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. In re Hughes and 
 
 Ashley's Contbaot 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 893, 600 
 Wallis T. Smith - (1882) 21 Oh. D. 243 
 
 Applied by C. A. Ward v. Monaohan 
 [1896] W. N. 123 (8) 
 
 See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 6. 
 
 White - (1892) 40 W. E. 675 
 
 "Followed by Chitty J. Vawdeet v. 
 Simpson - - [1896] 1 Ch. 166 
 
 Walsh V. Gladstone - (1843) 1 PMllips, 290 
 Followed by Jeune P. In the Goods 
 of M-Auliffe - [1895] P. 290 
 
 Walsh V. Uncoln (Bislwp of), (1875) L. E. 10 C. P. 
 
 518. 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 48, s. 3 (5). 
 Walsh V. Seg. - [1894] A. C. 144 
 
 Eeferred to. Hbntt v. Reg. 
 
 [1896] A. C 567, 674 
 Walter v. Lane [1899] W. N. 138 
 
 Eeversed by 0. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 749 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1900] A. C. 539 
 Walter v. Selfe - (1851) 4 De G. & Sm. 315 
 
 Eeferred to. J. Lyons &| Sons v. 
 
 WiLKiNS C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 255 
 
 Walters v. Morgan (1860) 3 De G. F. & J. 718 
 
 Eeferred to by Chitty J. Turner v. 
 
 Green [1896] 2 Ch. 205 
 
 WandsiDorth Board of WorJcs v. United Telephone 
 
 Co., (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 904. 
 
 Observed upon. Fareham Local 
 
 Board and Fareham Electric Light 
 
 Co. V. Smith - [1891] W. N. 76 
 
 Want V. Campain (1893) 9 Times L. E. 254 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Jm re Somer- 
 set [1894] 2 Ch. 231 
 Want V. Stallihrass - (1873) L. E. 8 Ex. 175 
 
 Distinguished. Saxby v. Thomas 
 
 [1891] W. N. 4 
 Warhurton v. Saslingden Local Board, (1879) 
 
 48 L. J. (Q.B.) 451. 
 
 Approved of by 0. A. Knowles & Sons, 
 
 Ld. v. Bolton Corporation 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 263 
 Warhurton v. Haddersfield Industrial Society, 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 213. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 817 
 
 Overruled by 56 & 57 Viot. o. 39, s. 10 
 
 (6). 
 Ward V. Buncombe - [1893] A. C. 369 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. In re Was- 
 
 DALE - , - [1899] 1 Ch. 163 
 
 Ward v. Gregg - - (1837) 5 Dowl. 729 
 
 Eeferred to. Flatau v. Cullen 
 
 C. A. [1899] "W. N. 206 
 
 Ward V. Lloyd - (1843) 6 Man. & G. 785 
 
 Explained and distinguished by V. Wil- 
 liams J., and referred to by C. A. 
 Jones v. Merionethshire Permanent 
 Benefit Building Society 
 
 [1891] a Ch. 887 ; [1892] 1 Ch. 173 
 
 Ward V. Portsmouth Corporation, [1898] W. N. 
 34 (3). 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1898] 2 Ch. 191 
 
 Ward Y. Turner - (1751) 2 Ves. Sen. 431 
 
 Belied on. Mustapha ■». Wedlake 
 
 [1891] W. N. 201 
 
 Ward's Estates, In re - (1884) 28 Ch. D. 100 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. J» re Morgan 
 [1900] W. N. 161 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 474, 479 
 
 Ware v. Egmont (Lord), (1854) 4 De G. M. & G. 
 460. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re New Chili Gold 
 Mining Co. - - [1892] W. N. 193 
 
 Warlow V. Harrison - (1858) 1 E. & E. 295, 317 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. John- 
 ston V. BoYES - [1899] 2 Ch. 73 
 
 Warminster Local Board and County Council of 
 Wilts, In re, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 450. 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Mayor, &o., 
 OF Bubslbm and County Council op 
 Staffordshire [1896] 1 ft. B. 24 
 
 Approved of. County Council op 
 Derby v. Urban District of Matlock 
 Bath H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 316 
 
 Warren, Ex parte. In re Holland, (1885) 15 
 Q. B. D. 48. 
 
 Opinion of C. A. (at p. 52) as to the 
 meaning of "sheriff" followed by 
 Mathew and V. Williams JJ. in Bellyse 
 V. M'GiNN - [1891] 2 ft. B. 227 
 
 Warren, In re. Ex parte Trustee, [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 138. 
 
 Considered by Buckley J. In re Black- 
 pool Motor Car Co. [1900] W. N. 252 ; 
 See [1901] 1 Ch. 77 
 
 Warren v. Richardson, (1830) Younge, 1 ; 34 E. E. 
 251. 
 
 Eeferred to by Korth J. In re Na- 
 tional Provincial Bank of England 
 and Marsh [1895] 1 Ch. 180 
 
 Warren's Trusts, In re, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 208, 216 
 Followed. In re Birks [1899] 1 Ch. 703 
 This case was revei-sed by C. A. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 417 
 
 Warrich v. Queen's College, Oxford, (1871) L. E. 
 6 Ch. 716. 
 
 Observed upon. Evans v. Mkbthtb 
 Tydfil Urban District Council 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 241 
 
 Warwich v Caledonian By. Co., (1897) 24 E 
 429 ; 34 Soo. L. E. 317. 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. Cale- 
 donian Ey. Co. v. Mulholland 
 
 [1898] A. C, 216 
 
DTJEING THE VEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Waterhouse v. 
 
 E. E. 858 
 
 Followed by Bruce 
 Pangeas Vestry 
 
 Keen, (1825) 4 B. & C. 200 ; 40 
 
 J. Cree v. St. 
 [1899] 1 a. B. 698 
 
 Watney & Co. v. Musgrave (1880) 5 Ex. D. 241 
 Distinguislied. Ebid's Brewery Co., 
 Lr. V. Male [1891] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 WaUon, Inre - - (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 27 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Madell v. Thomas 
 & Co. - - [1891] 1 Q. B. 230 
 
 WaUon, Inre- - - [1893] 1 Q. B. 21 
 
 Followed. In re A Banxruptot Notice 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 383 
 
 Watson, Inre - - - [1896] 1 Ch. 925 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Binns 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 584 
 
 Watson, Inre - - - [1899] 2 Ch. 509 
 
 Followed. In re British Columbia 
 Electric Et., Ld. [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 Watson y. Birch - (1847) 15 Sim. 523 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Jay v. Johnstone 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 25, 189, at p. 190 
 Watson V. Mid Wales My. Co., (1867) L. E. 2 
 C. P. 593. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Taun- 
 ton, Delmard, Lane & Co. 
 
 [1893] 2 Cb. 175 
 Watfon V. Pitt - - (1848) 5 C. B. 77 
 
 Followed. Magee v. Mortimer, (1890) 
 28 L. E. Ir. 251 
 
 C. A, (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 102 
 Watson V. Royal Insurance Co. [1896] 1 Q. B. 41 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nam. Eoyal 
 Insurance Co. v. Watson 
 
 [1897] A. C. 1 
 Watson V. Woodman ■ (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 721 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Ticker 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 429 
 Watson V. Young - - (1885) 28 Ch. D. 436 
 
 Observed upon by C. A. In re Bence 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 242 
 Watsrni, Kipling & Co., In re, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 
 500. 
 
 Not followed by V. Williams J. In re 
 Blazer Fire Lighter, Ld. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 402 
 Watts, Inre - - (1882) 22 Ch. D. 1 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. Lloyd's Bane, 
 Ld. v. Princess Eoyal Colliery Co. 
 
 [1900] W. N, 99 
 Watts, In re. Cornford v. Elliott, (1885) 29 
 Ch. D. 947. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Miller v. 
 
 Collins - - [1895] W. N. 143 (8) 
 
 Watts V. Driscoll - [1900] W. N. 77 
 
 AfBimed by C. A. [1900] W. N. 261 
 
 WaveU, In re - (1856) 22 Beav. 634 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Ward 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 31 
 
 Waverley Typewriter, Ld., In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 699 
 
 Followed. Weeks v. Kent, Sussex and 
 
 General Land Society 
 
 [1898] W. N. 39 (1) 
 Wearing v. Wearing - (1856) 23 Beav. 99 
 
 Comnjente^ on. In re Game 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch, 881 
 
 Weatherall v. Thornhurgh, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 261, 
 269, not overruled by Wharton v. Master- 
 man, [1895] A. C. 186. 
 Per 0. A. In re Travis 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 641 
 
 Weaver, Inre - - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 615 
 
 Met by 56 & 57 Vict. c. 71, o. 2. 
 
 Welh V. Earle - ■ (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 556 
 
 Distinguished. Staples v. Eastman 
 Photographic Materials Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 303 
 
 Webber, In re. Gribble v. Webber, [1896] 1 Oh. 
 
 914. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Gibes 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch, 626 
 
 Followed by Buckley J. In re Palmer. 
 
 Palmer v. Eose-Innes [1900] W. N. 9 
 
 Disapproved of by C. A. In re Maryon- 
 
 WiLSON. - [1900] 1 Ch. 666 
 
 Webster v. Webster (1862) 31 L. J. (P. & M.) 184 
 
 Considered by Jeune J. Oliver v. 
 
 Oliver - - [1892] W, N, 84 
 
 Considered and disapproved by 0. A. 
 
 Thomabset v. Thomasset [1894] P, 298 
 
 Wedderburn's Trusts, In re (1878) 9 Ch. D. 112 
 Not followed by Cuzens-Hardy J. Ovby 
 V. Ovey - - [1900] 2 Ch. 624 
 
 Weeding v. Weeding - (1861) 1 J. & H. 424 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re Pyle 
 ^^ [1895] 1 Ch. 724 
 
 Weedon v. Timbrell, (1793) 5 T. E. 357 ; 1 Esp. 
 16; See Ball v. Eollander, (1825) 28 
 E. E. 437, 439. 
 Considered. Evans v. Evans 
 
 [1899] P. 1S5 
 
 Weqq-Prosser v. Kvans [1894] 2 Q. B, 101 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 108 
 
 Weir V. Coltness Iron Co. - (1889) 16 E. 614 
 Affirmed by H. L. (Sc.) sub nom. Clarke 
 V. Carfin Coal Co. - [1891] A, C, 412 
 
 Weir & Co. v. Girvin & Co., [1898] W. N. 164(4) '• 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 193. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1900] 1 ft, B. 46 
 
 Weir & Co. v. Union Steamship Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 28. 
 Affirmed by H. L, (E.) [1900] A, C, 526 
 
 Welcett V. Raby - - (1724) 2 Bro. P. C. 386 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Inre Applebee 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 422 
 
 Welch V. National Cycle Co., [1886] W. N. 97, 
 Palmer's Company Precedents, 6th ed. 
 Part I., p. 909. 
 
 Considered. Elias o. Continental 
 Oxygen Co. [1897] 1 Ch. 511 
 
 Welch V, Tennent - - (1889) 16 E. 876 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) 
 
 [1891] A. C, 639 
 
 Wellborne, In re, [1900] W. N. 82 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 
 857 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1900] W, N, 261 
 
 Wellesley (Viscount) v. Mornington {Earl of), 
 (1848) 11 Beav. 180, 181. 
 Followed. Seaward v. Paterson 
 
 C. A. [1897] X Ch. 645 
 
CCOXOIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEETJLED, &c., 
 
 Wells, In re. Wells v. Wells, (1890) 43 Oh. D. 
 281. 
 
 Approved by 0. A. In re HmPHRETS 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 Wells V. Giles - - (1836) 2 Gale, 209 
 
 Approved and followed by 0. A. Ken- 
 nedy V. Thomas - [1894] 2 Q. B. 759 
 
 Wells V. Wells - - (1874) L, E. 18 Bq. 504 
 
 Whether overruled. In re Godkell 
 
 [1891] A. C. 304 
 See In re GuE - [1892] W. N. 132 
 
 Weltm, 'Ex -parte - - [1895] 1 Ch. 255 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) sui nom. Welton 
 V. SATrEBT - [1897] A. C. 299 
 
 TFemyss' Trustees v. Imd Advocate, (1896) 24 E. 
 216. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. Lobd 
 Advocate v. Wemtsb [1900] A. C. 48 
 
 Wendon v. London County Council, [1894] 1 Q. B. 
 
 Affirmed on differeDt grounds by C. A. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 812 
 Explained by Div. Ct. Lavy v. London 
 County Council [1895] 1 Q. B. 915 ; 
 C. A. [1896] 2 a. B. 577, 681 
 Wenham, In re. Ex parte Baitams, [1900] W. N. 
 117. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 698 
 
 Wenliam, In re. Hunt v. Wenham, [1892] 8 Ch. 
 
 59. 
 
 Eeferred to. Budgett v. Budgett 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch, 202, 217 
 Wenloclc (Baroness) v. River Dee Co., (1887) 36 
 
 Ch. D. 675, n. 
 
 See General Auction Estate and 
 
 Monetary Co. v. Suith 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 432 
 Wenman v. Lyon d- Co. - [1891] 1 Q. B. 634 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 192 
 Wenmotlis Estate, In re - (1887) 37 Ch. 266 
 
 Observed upon. Willerton v. Stocks 
 [1892] W. N. 29 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 
 Powell [1898] 1 Ch. 227 
 
 Werderman v. Socie'te Generate d' Electricity. (1881) 
 19 Oh. D. 246. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewieh ,T. Bagot 
 Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Clipper Pneu- 
 matic Tyre Co. [1900] W. N. 272 
 
 West V. Berney, (1819) 1 Euss. & My. 431; 32 
 E. E. 237. 
 Eeferred to. In re Hirst 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. H-. 177 
 
 West V. Downman (1880) 14 Oh. D. Ill 
 
 Disapproved by 0. A. Sandgate Dis- 
 trict Local Board v. Keene 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 831 
 Followed. WiLLBSDEN Local Board v. 
 Wright C. A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 412 
 
 West V. Fritclie - - (1848) 3 Ex. 216 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. Soobie 
 V. Collins - - [1895] 1 Q. B. 376 
 
 West V. Williams - - [1898] 1 Ch. 488 
 
 Eeversed by 0. A. i;i8991 1 Ch. 182 
 
 West Derhy Union v. Metropolitan Life Assurance 
 Society. The Sams v. Friestman, C. A. 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 335. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 647 
 
 West Devon Great Consols Mine, In re, (1888) 38 
 
 Oh. D. 51. 
 
 Applied. Morgan v. Bowles 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 236 
 West nam Union v. Essex Justices and London 
 
 County Council, [1895] 1 Q. B. 38. 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 443 
 
 West Ham Union v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green 
 {Churchwardens, &c., of), [1892] 2 Q.B. 
 65. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 676 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 230 
 As to costs (242, n.) see now Supreme 
 Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 5, 16), a. 2 (3). 
 
 West Ham Union v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green 
 {Churchwardens, &c., of), [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 662. 
 Eeversed byH. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 477 
 
 West Hartlepool Iron Co., In re, (1876) 34 L. T. 
 
 (N.S.) 568. 
 
 Not followed by T. Williams J. In re 
 
 Blazer Fihe Lighter, Ld. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 402 
 West Hartlepool Ironworks Co., In re, (1875) L. E. 
 
 10 Ch. 618. 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re E. Bishop 
 
 & Sons, Ld. - - [1900] 2 Ch. 254 
 
 West London Syndicate, Ld. v. Inland Bevenue 
 Commrs., [1898] 1 Q. B. 226. 
 Affirmed in part and reversed in part 
 by 0. A. - [1898] 2 ft. B. 507 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Muliee & Oo.'s 
 Margarine, Ld. v. Inland Eevenue 
 Commrs. [1900] 1 Q. B. 310, 320 
 
 West of England Fire Insurance Co. v. Isaacs, 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 377. 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 226 
 Western v. BaUey - [1896] 2 Q. B. 234 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 86 
 
 Western Counties Manure Co. v. Laices Chemical 
 Manure Co., (1874) L. E. 9 Ex. 21S. 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.) White 
 V. Mellin - [1895] A. C. 154 
 
 Western Counties Steam Bakeries and Milling Co., 
 Ld., In re, [1897] W. N. 6 (5). 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 617 
 
 Western National Bank of New York v. Perez, 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 304. 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Indigo Co. r. 
 Ogilvy [1891] 2 Ch. 31 
 
 Western of Canada Oil Co. (1877) 6 Ch. D. 109 
 Observed upon. In re W. Heseltinb & 
 Son, Ld. - - [1891] W. N. 25 
 
 Westhead v. Biley - (1883) 25 Oh. D. 413 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Tyrrell v. Pain- 
 ton (No. 2) - [1895] 1 ft. B. 202 
 
 Westmorland {Earl of) v. New Sharlston Col- 
 lieries Co., [1899] W. N. 2. 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] W, N. 88 
 
DTJEINO THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 Westwood V. Tndia (Secretary of State for), (1863) 
 11 "W. R. 261 ; 7 L. T. 736. 
 Followed by C. A. Dodd v. Chukton 
 [1897] 1 a. B. 662 
 Weymouth and Channel Islands Steam Faclcet Co., 
 In re, [1891] 1 Ch. G6. 
 Applied and followed by C. A. In re 
 Ry. Time Tables Publishins Co. Ex 
 parte Welton - [1895] 1 Ch. 255 ; 
 This case was afBrmed by H. L. (B.) 
 [1897] A. C. 299 
 
 Wharton v. Masterman - [1895] A. 0. 186 
 Distioguished by C. A. In re Tbayis 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 541 
 
 Whatman, In re. Soar v. Whatman, (1889) 
 W. N. 213. 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. Parnham v. 
 MiLWAED - [1895] 2 Ch. 730 
 
 Wheal Sutler Consols, In re (1888) 88 Ch. D. 42 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re The 
 Printing Telegraph and Construc- 
 tion Co. OF THE Agence Havas. Ex 
 parte Cammell - [1894] 1 Ch. 528 ; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 392 
 Applied by V. Williams J. In re Issue 
 Co. - - [1895] 1 Ch. 226 
 
 Wheat.v. Brown - - [1892] 1 Q. B. 418 
 
 Compare, Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 
 1899 (62 & 63 Yict. o. 51), s. 18. 
 
 Wheatley v. Bastow (1855) 7 De G. M. & G. 261 
 Discussed by Ohitty J. Bolton v. 
 Salmon - [1891] 2 Ch. 48 
 
 Wheeler v. Le Marchant - (1881) 17 Ch. D. 675 
 Considered by Stirling J. Learoyd u. 
 Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 686 
 Not inconsistent with Minet t. Morgan, 
 L. E. 8 Ch. 361. Calcraft v. Guest 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 759 
 
 Wheeler v. Wheeler and Rhodes, (1889) 14 P. D. 
 154. 
 Considered. Habeop v. Harrop 
 
 [1899] P. 61 
 Referred to. Lowe v. Lowe 
 
 C. A. [1899] P. 204 
 
 Whinney, Ex parte. In re Harrison, [1900] W. N. 
 118. 
 Reversed by 0. A. [1900] 2 Q. B, 710 
 
 Whistler, Inre - - (1887) 35 Ch. D. 561 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Venn & 
 Furze's Contract - [1894] 2 Ch. 101 
 
 Whitaher, In re. Whitaker v. Palmer, [1900] 
 W. N. 175 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 676. 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1900] W. IT. 239 
 
 White, Inre - - ■ [1893] 2 Ch. 41 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Macdupp 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 451, 462 
 
 White, In re. Pennell v. FranUin, [1898] 1 Ch. 
 297 
 Affi'rmed by 0. A. - [1898] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 White V. Baker - (1860) 2 De G. P. & J. 55 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Pick- 
 worth - - [1899] 1 Ch. 642 
 
 White T. Chitty - (1866) L. R. 1 Eq. 372 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Metoalfe v. 
 Metcalfe - [1891] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. In re 
 Loftus-Otway - [1895] 2 Ch. 235 
 
 White V. Hillacre - (1839) 3 Y. & C. Ex. 597 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. Pledge v. 
 
 Oaer - - - [1894] 2 Ch. 238 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1895] 1 Ch, 51 ; 
 
 And by H. L. (B.) [1896] A. C. 187 
 
 Wliite Y. Mellin - - [1894] 3 Ch. 276 
 
 Reversed by H.L.(E.) [1895] A. C. 154 
 Discussed by Byrne J. Hawker -v. 
 Stourfibld Park Hotel Co. 
 
 [1900] W. W. 51 
 
 White V. Morley, [1899] W. N. 67 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 34. 
 
 Approved of. Thomas v. Suttehs 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 206 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 10 
 
 Wliite V. MorUy - - [1899] 2 Q. B. 34 
 
 Approved by 0. A. Thomas v. Suttbrs 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 10 
 
 White V. TyndaU - (1888) 13 App. Caa. 263 
 Distinguished by C. A. National 
 Society for the Distribution of 
 Electricity by Secondary Genera- 
 tors V. GiEBS [1900] 2 Ch. 280 
 
 Whites Trusts, Be - (1860) Job. 656 
 
 Distinguished. In re Weekes' Settle- 
 ment [1897] 1 Ch. 289 
 
 Whitehead & Brothers, Ld., In re [1900] 1 Ch. 804 
 Not followed by Kekewich J. In re 
 Dawnat, Ld. [1900] W. N. 152 
 
 Wliitehurst v. Fincher, (1890) 54 J. P. 565 ; 62 
 L. T. (N.S.) 433. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Hoknsby v. 
 Raggett [1892] 1 Q. B. 20 
 
 Wliiteley Exerciser, Ld. v. Gamage, [1898] 2 Ch. 
 405. 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Salton v. 
 New Beeston Cycle Co. [1900] 1 Ch. 43 
 
 Whitfield v. Clemment, (1816) 1 Mer. 402; 15 
 R. R. 143. 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. In re RowB. Pike 
 V. Hamlyn - - [1898] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 Whitley v. Challis - - [1892] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 Distinguished by C. A, County of 
 Gloucester Bank v. Eudry Meethyr 
 Colliery Co. [1895] 1 Ch. 629 
 
 Whitmore v. Mason - (1861) 2 J. & H. 204 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Mackintosh 
 ». POGOSE - - [1895] 1 Ch. 605 
 
 Whittle V. Henning - (1848) 2 Phillips, 731 
 Not applied by Kekewich J. In re 
 Davenport - - [1896] 1 Ch. 361 
 
 Whitwham v. Westminster Brynibo Coal and Cdlce 
 Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 194. 
 AfSrmed by C. A. - [1896] 2 Ch. 538 
 
 Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Bardman [1891] 2 Ch. 
 416. 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Star News- 
 paper Co. V. O'Connor 
 
 [1893] W. N. 114 
 
COOXOTI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OVEEEULED, 
 
 ite V. Northern Heritable Securities Investment 
 Co., (1889) 16 Ct. SesB. Cas. 4tli Series 
 (R.) 100. Affirmed by H. L. (B.) 
 
 [1891] A. C. 608 
 
 Wick and Pulteneytown Steam Shipping Co. v. 
 Palmer, (1893) 20 E. 275. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) sub mm. Palmek 
 V. Wick and Pulteneytown Steam 
 Shippins Oo. - [1894] A. C. 318 
 
 Wieliens, Ex parte - - [1898] 1 Q. B. 543 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Mx parte 
 Ellis - - C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 79 
 
 WiggettY.Fox - - (1856) 11 Ex. 832 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.) Johnson 
 V. Lindsay & Co. - [1891] A. C. 371 
 
 Wight V. Earl of Hopeioun (1864) 4 Macq. 729 
 Distinguished by H. L. (Se.) Black v. 
 Clay - - - [1894] A. C. 368 
 
 Wigram Y. Fryer - (1887) 36 Ch. D. 87, 96 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. School 
 BoAED FOR London v. Smith 
 
 [1895] W. K. 37 
 
 Wilhran, Ex parte, (1820) 5 Madd. 1 ; 38 E. E. 
 856. 
 Approved. King v. Hendeeson 
 
 P, C. [1898] A. C. 720 
 
 Wilder v. Pigott - - (1882) 22 Ch. D. 263 
 
 Applied by Stilling D". Gkeenhill v. 
 NoETH Bbitish Meeoantile Insueanoe 
 Co. [1893] 3 Ch. 474 
 
 Discussed and followed by Chitty J. 
 In re Hodson - [1894] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 Wildes V. Diidlow (1874) L. E. 19 Eq. 198 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. In re Bolton's 
 Estate - - [1892] W. N. 114 ; 
 
 This case affirmed by C. A. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 163 
 Approved and followed by C. A. Guild 
 & Co. v. Conkad [1894] 2 Q. B. 886 
 
 Wilding v. Sean - - [1891] 1 Q. B. 100 
 
 Distinguished. Jay v. Budd 
 
 C. A [1898] 1 Q. B. 12 
 
 Wilding v. Sanderson ■ [1897] W. N. 39 (11) 
 Affirmed by 0. A. - [1897] 2 Ch, 534 
 
 Wild's Case - - 6 Eep. 16 b. 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Wilmot 
 
 [1897] W. N, 44 (15) 
 
 WiUy V. Mid-Sants By. Co., (1868) 16 W. E. 
 409. 
 
 Followed by North J. Edwaeds v. 
 Standakd Eolling Stock Syndicate 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 674 
 
 Willcinson v. Jagger - (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 423 
 See 59 & 60 Yict. c. 25, s. 68 (6). 
 
 Willnnson v. Verity - (1871) L. E. 6 C. P. 206 
 Considered by C. A . Millek v. Dell 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 468 
 
 Willes V. Greenhill (1861) 4 De G. P. & J. 147 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Wyatt 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 188 ; 
 This case affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 ri8931 A. C, 369 
 
 Willett V. Argenti, In re, [1889] W. N. 66; 60 
 L. T. 735. 
 
 Distinguished by Farwell J. In re 
 Sandee and Walfoed's Conteact 
 
 [1900] W. N. 183 
 
 Willetts V. Watt & Co. - [1892] 2 Q. B. 92 
 
 Distinguished. Tate v. Latham & Bon 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 602 
 
 Willey, In re [1890] W. N. 1 ; 34 Sol. J. 180 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioli J. Eaton v. 
 
 Daines - [1894] W. N. 32 
 
 "William BeoTcford," The (1801) 3 C. Eob. 355 
 
 Followed by C. A. The " Glengtle " 
 
 [1898] P. 97 
 
 C. A. affirmed by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1898] A. C. 619 
 
 " William Hutt," The - (1860) Lush. 25 
 
 Eeferred to by Jeune Pres. The 
 
 " Stkathgaeey " - [1896] P. 264 
 
 Williams v. Sayley ■ (1866) L. E. 1 H. L. 200 
 Eeferred to by Lindley L.J. McClat- 
 CHiE V. Haslam [1891] W. N. 191 
 
 Williams v. Colonial Banlc (1888) 38 Ch. D. 388 
 Eeferred to. Fox v. Maetin 
 
 [1895] W. N. 36 
 
 Williams v. Glenton - (1866) L. E. 1 Ch. 200 
 Observed upon by C. A. In re Wooes 
 and Lewis' Contract [1898] 2 Ch. 211 
 
 Williams v. Jenldns (No. 1) [1893] 1 Ch. 700 
 See Williams v. Jenkins (No. 2) 
 
 [1894] W. N. 176 
 
 Williams v. London and North Western By. Co., 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 197. 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 760 
 
 Williams v. Boberts, (1857) 27 L. J. (Ch.) 177 ; 
 4 Jur. (N.S.) 18. 
 Applicable. In re West [1900]lCh.84 
 
 Williams v. Smith (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 134 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. Seaeles v. Scab- 
 Lett - - [1892] 2 ft. B. 66 
 
 Williams and Stepney, In re [1891] 1 Q. B. 700 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 267 
 
 Decision of C. A. distinguished by Div. 
 
 Ct. In re Wilson & Son and Easteen 
 
 Counties Navigation and Teanspobt 
 
 Co. - - [1892] 1 ft. B. 81 
 
 Williams' Estate, In re (1872) L. E. 15 Eq. 270 
 
 Distinguished. In re Bentinck 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 673 
 Williamson v. Begg - (1887) 14 E. 720 
 
 Distinguished. Cowie v. Muikden 
 
 H. I. (So.) [1897] A. C. 674 
 Williamson v. Verity - (1871) 24 L. T. Eep. 32 
 
 See 60 & 61 Vict. c. 30. 
 Willis V. Oxford (^Bishop of) (1877) 2 P. D. 192 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. o. 48, a. 2 (6.). 
 Willis v. Wells [1892] 2 Q. B. 225 
 
 Followed. Pallisee v. Dale 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 267 
 
 See 56 & 57 Vict. o. 39, s. 49 (1) ; 59 & 60 
 
 Vict. 0. 25, a. 68 (1). 
 Willoch V. Noble - (1875) L. E. 7 H. L. 580 
 The law is reversed by s. 3 of the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1893 
 
 56 & 57 Vict. 0. 63). 
 
btEilJG THE YEA.es 1891— 190^. 
 
 fiCOKOVU 
 
 Willway's trusts, Be, Seton on Decrees, 5th ed. 
 
 p. 1470. 
 
 FoUowed. In re Skinner 
 
 [1896] W. N. 68 (7) 
 Wilmot V. Alton [1896] 2 Q. B. 254 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 17 
 
 Wilmot V. Grace ■ - [1892] 1 Q. B. 812 
 
 See now 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 80 (5). 
 
 Willmott V. Barher - (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96 
 Referred to by Farwell J. Manchester 
 Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Kace- 
 COUBSE Co. - - [1900] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 Wilmott V. Freehold House Propertij Co., (1884) 
 51 L. T. (N.S.) 552. 
 
 Followed by North J. Hunt v. Wors- 
 rOLD - - - [1896] 2 Ch. 224 
 
 Wilson's Estate, In re, (1863) 3 De G. J. & S. 410 
 But see 57 & 58 Vict. o. 46, o. 3. 
 
 Wilson V. Atkinson (1864) 4 De G. J. & S. 455 
 Followed by CHtty J. Stoddart v. 
 Sayilb - - [1894] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 Wilson V. Caledonian By. Co. (1850) 5 Ex. 822 
 Dissented from by C. A. Palmer v. 
 Caledonian Bt. Co. [1892] 1 ft. B. 823 
 
 Wilson V. Coxwell - (1883) 23 Ch. D. 764 
 
 Applicable. In re Bentinck 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 673 
 Wilson V. Greenwood, (1818) 1 Sw. 471 ; 18 R. E. 
 
 118. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Colltns v. 
 
 Barker - - [1893] 1 Ch. 878 
 
 Wilson V. Jones - (1867) L. E. 2 Ex. 139 
 
 Eeferred to. Bakino Brothers & Co. 
 
 V. The Marine Insurance Co. 
 
 [1897] W. IT. 164 
 Wilson V. M'Matli, (1819) 3 B. & Aid. 241; 22 
 
 E. E. 371. 
 
 Overruled by 56 & 57 Vict. o. 73, 
 
 B. 31 (1). 
 Wilsmi V. Merry, (1868) L. R. 1 H. L. (Sc.) 326, 
 
 331, 332. 
 
 Observations of Lord Cairns explained 
 
 by H. L. (E.) Johnson ■». Lindsay & 
 
 Co. - - [1891] A. C. 371 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (B.) Hedlet v. 
 
 PiNKNEY & Sons Steamship Co. 
 
 [1894] A. C. 222 
 Wilson V. Miles Flatting Building Society, (1889) 
 
 22 Q. B. D. 381, n. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Bradbdrt 
 
 V. Wild - - [1893] 1 Ch. 377 
 
 Wilson V. Morley - - (1877) 5 Ch. D. 776 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Eowe 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch, 1S3 
 Wilsm V. Foe, (1845) 2 J. & La T. 765 ; 9 Ir. Eq. 
 
 Eep. 114. 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (I.) Hatton v. 
 
 Harris - [1892] A. C. 547, 864 
 
 Wilmn Y. St. Giles, Camberwell [1892] 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 FoUowed by C. A. Davis v. Green- 
 wich Board of Works 
 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 219 
 Wilson V. Tliornhury, (1875) L. E. 10 Ch. 239, 249 
 
 Not followed on one point. In re Glubb 
 *" C. A. [1900] 1 Ch, 364' 
 
 Wilson T. Turner - - [1883] 22 Ch. D. 521 
 
 Discussed and explained by Ohitty J. 
 In re Bryant ~ [1894] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 Wilson T. Wilson (1872) L. R. 2 P. & D. 435, 442 
 Approved by P. C. Le Mesukiek v. 
 Le Mesurier (No. 2) [1898] A. C. 617 
 
 Wilson, Sons & Co. (^Owners of The " Otto ") v. 
 Currie (Owners of The " Thorsa "), (1893) 
 20 E. 876. 
 Affirmed by H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. 116 
 
 Wilton V. Chambers - (1837) 7 Ad. & E. 524 
 Followed by Div. Ct. In re Hulm & 
 Lewis - [1892] 2 Q. B. 261 
 
 Winder, Ex parte - - (1877) 6 Ch. D. 696 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. GedYe v. 
 Commissioners op Works 
 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 630 
 
 Windus V. Windus (1856) 6 De G. M. & G. 549 
 Eeferred to. Morris v. Atheeden 
 
 [1894] W. N. P. 88 
 
 " Wineslead," The - - [1895] P. 170 
 
 Followed. The "Glanybtwyth" 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch, 118 
 
 WinkU, Inre - - - [1894] 2 Ch. 519 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Winkle v. 
 Bailey - - [1897] 1 Ch. 123, 127 
 
 Distinguished. In re Ccaeke 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 336 
 Eeferred to by Oozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Brown - [1900] 1 Ch. 489, 490 
 
 Explained and distinguished by 0. A. 
 Davies v. Thomas [1900] 2 Ch. 462 
 
 Winae,Inre - - - [1896] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 See In re Tdrney 
 
 C. A, [1899] 2 Ch. 739 
 Wirrall Highway Board v. NeweU, [1895] 1 Q. B. 
 
 827 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 29, s. 12. 
 
 Withers y. Beynolds, (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 882; 36 
 R. R. 782 ; Preface v. 
 Referred to by C. A. Rhymney Ry. Co. 
 V. Brecon and Merthyb Tydfil Junc- 
 tion Ey. Co. - [1900] W. N, 169 
 
 Witted V. Galhraith - [1893] 1 Q. B. 431 
 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1893] 1 Q. B. 677 
 Decision of C. A. applied and followed 
 by Kekewich J. Collins v. North 
 British Mercantile Insurance Co. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch, 228, 237 
 
 Wolmershausen v. Gullick - [1893] 2 Ch. 514 
 Followed by Stirling J. Eobinson v. 
 Harkin [1896] 2 Ch. 416, 426 
 
 Explained by 0. A. Ellis ». Pond 
 
 [1897] 1 Q, B, 426, 454 
 
 Wolverhampton (Corporation} v. Bilston Commis- 
 sioners, [1891] 1 Ch. 315. 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1891] W. N. 86 
 
 Wolverhampton District Brewery, Ld., In re, 
 [1899] W. N. 229. 
 
 Form in, followed by Stirling J. 
 WissNER V. Levison [1900] TV, N. 182 
 
 Wolverhampton (Mayor of) v. Salop County 
 Council, (1895) 64 L. J. M. 0. 181. 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 29, s. 12. 
 
OOOXOVLU 
 
 TABLE OF CASES FOLLOWED, OViJEBITLEt), id., 
 
 Wolverhampton and WalsaU By. Co v. London 
 and North-Western By. Co., (.1873) L. E. 
 16 Eq. 433. 
 
 Eeferred to by A. L. Smith J. Etan 
 v. Mutual ToNTiira Westminster 
 Chambers Association [1892] 1 Ch. 427 
 This case reversed by 0. A. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 116 
 
 Wood, In re. Ex parte Fanshawe, [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 314. 
 Considered by 0. A. In re Deakin 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 489 
 
 Wood, In re. Tullett v. Colville [1894] 2 Ch. 310 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1894] 3 Ch. 381 
 
 Wood V. Boosey (1867) L. E. 2 Q. B. 340 
 
 Not followed. LivEEPOOL General 
 Brokers' Association v. Commercial 
 Press Telegram Bureaux 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 Wood Y. Gray & Sons - (1891) 18 E. 1164 
 
 Affirmed by H, L. (So.) [1892] A. C. 676 
 
 Wood V. Eeioett - - (1846) 8 Q. B. 913 
 
 Distinguished. Hobson v. Gorringe 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 182 
 Wood T. LeadUtter - (1845) 13 M. & W. 838 
 Distinguished. Keerison v. Smith 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 445 
 Wood V. London County Council, (1895) 64 L. J. 
 (M.C.) 276. 
 
 Overruled by Div. Ct. Abmstrono v. 
 London County Council 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 416 
 Wood V. North British By. Co., (1890) 28 Sco. 
 L. E. 130. 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (So.) sub nom. 
 North British Et. Co. v. Wood 
 
 [1891] W. N. 130 
 
 Wood V. WaUh & Sons [1899] 1 Q. B. 1009 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Mason v. A. E. 
 
 Dean, Ld. - [1900] 1 ft. B. 770 
 
 Wood V. Widnes Corporation [1897] 2 Q. B. 357 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1898] 1 ft. B. 463 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Nioholl 
 
 V. Epping Urban Council 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 844, 848 
 Wood V. Wood - (1868) L. K. 1 P. & M. 467 
 
 Followed by Wright J. In re O'Goeman 
 
 [1899] 2 ft. B. 62, 64 
 
 Wood V. Wood - [1891] P. 272 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. Kettlewell v. 
 
 Kettlewell [1898] P. 138, 142 
 
 Wood's Trade-marh, In re (1886) 32 Ch. D. 262 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re 
 
 Dextee's Application. In re Wills' 
 
 Trade-marks - [1893] 2 Ch. 262 
 
 Woodford v. Oiarnley - (1860) 28 Beav. 96 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Patrick 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 82, at p, 87 
 Woodhead v. Gartness Mineral Co., (1877) 4 Eettie, 
 
 469. 
 
 Disapproved by H. L. (E.) Johnson v. 
 
 Lindsay & Co. - [1891] A. C. 371 
 Woodhead v. Woodhead - - [1895] P. 343 
 
 Met by the Summary Jurisdiction 
 
 (Married Women) Act, 1895 (57 & 58 
 
 Yiot. c. 39). 
 
 Woodhouse v. Meredith, (,1S1&) 1 Mer. 450; l5 
 E. E. 145. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Clowes 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 214 
 
 Woodhouse v. Walker (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 404 
 
 Followed. Jenks v. Viscount Clifden 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 694 
 
 Woods and Lewis' Contract, In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 
 
 433. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. [1898] 2 Ch, 211 
 
 Woodward v. Varcy - (1557) 1 Plow. 184 
 
 Discussed by Wright J. Ex parte 
 
 Gilbert - [1898] 1 ft. B. 282 
 
 Woodward v. Heseltine ■ [1891] 1 Ch. 464 
 
 Eeversed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 
 Simmons v. Woodward [1892] A. C. 100 
 Woolford's Estate (Trustee of) y. Levy, [1892] 
 
 1 Q. B. 772. 
 
 Opinion of Caye J. at p. 776 dissented 
 from by C. A. Lee v. Dangar, Grant 
 & Co. - [1892] 2 ft. B. 837 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Thomas 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 460, 463 
 
 WoolUy V. Colman - (1882) 21 Ch. D. 169 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Brewer 
 V. Square - [1892] 2 Ch. Ill 
 
 Worley v. Kensington Vestry [1892] 2 Ch. 404 
 Affected by 57 & 58 Vict. c. ocxxiii., 
 s. 22 (2). 
 
 Worral WalerworU Co. y. Lloyd, (1866) L. E. 1 
 C. P. 719. 
 Observed upon. Earl Jersey v. Ux- 
 
 BSIDGE EURAL SanITABY AUTHORITY 
 
 [1891] W.N. 31; 
 
 but see lb. [1891] 3 Ch. 183 
 
 Worthington v. Hulton (1865) L. E. 1 Q. B. 63 
 
 Discussed. Eeg. o. Leigh Eural 
 
 District Council 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 536 
 Wotton, In the Goods of, (1874) L. E. 3 P. & D. 
 
 159. 
 
 Explained and distinguished by Jeune 
 
 Pres. EoYLE v. Harris [1895] P. 163 
 Wragg (-E. .7.), Ld., In re [1896] W. N. 166 (5) 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1897] 1 Ch. 796 
 Wray, In re - - (1S87) 36 Ch. D. 138 
 
 Followed by Chilty J. In re Edye 
 
 (a Solicitor) - [1891] W. N. 1 
 
 Wray y. Ellis - (1858) 1 E. & E. 276 
 
 Distinguished and doubted by Div. Ct. 
 
 Eeg. v. Titterton [1895] 2 ft. B. 61 
 Wrexham, Mold and Connali's Quay By. Co., 
 
 In re, [1898] 2 Ch. 663 ; [1899] W. N. 
 
 2 (5) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 205. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] 1 Ch. 440 
 See also on anotli&r point the next case. 
 
 Wrexham, Mold and Connah's Quay By. Co., In re, 
 [1899] W. N. 66. 
 
 Varied by C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 261 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re Wrex- 
 ham, Mold and Connah's Quay Ey. Co. 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 436 
 
 WHght V. Atkyns, (1823) 1 T. & E. 143, 157; 24 
 E. E. 3. 
 
 Considered and explained. In re Wil- 
 liams - « C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 12 
 
btJElNG a?HB tEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 CCCXOlX 
 
 Wright v. BagnaU - - [1900] 2 Q. B. 240 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Kendall v. 
 
 Hill's Dby Docks and Engineeeins Co. 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 246 
 
 WrigU V. CaitU (1817) 3 Mer. 12 ; 17 E. E. 3 
 Observed upon. In re Gket 
 
 [1891] W. N. 201 
 
 WrigU v. Ingle - (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 379 
 
 Discussed. Hobnset District Council 
 V. Smith - - [1896] 2 Ch. 244 
 
 WrigM v. Leonard (1861) 11 0. B. (N.S.) 258 
 Followed by Byrne J. Eakle v. Kings- 
 cote - - - [1900] 1 Ch. 203 ; 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 585 
 
 WrigJd's Trusts, In re - (1883) 24 Ch. D. 662 
 Followed. In re Simpson. In re Whit- 
 church - C. A, [1897] 1 Ch. 256 
 
 Wrotesley v. Adams - (1558) Plowd. 191 
 
 Applied. CowEN v. Truefitt, Ld. 
 
 ; [1898] 2 Ch. 551 
 
 Wyatt, In re. White v. Ellis [1892] 1 Ch. 188 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.) svb nom. Ward 
 V. DuNCOMBE - - [1893] A. C. 369 
 
 WynstanUy v. Lee - (1818) 2 Swanst. 333 
 
 Eeferred to. Perry v. Eames 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 668 
 
 ' Xantho," The - (1887) 12 App. Gas. 503, 512 
 ObservationsofLordHeischell explained 
 by C. A. The " Glendarroch " 
 
 [1894] P. 226 
 
 Yarmouth v. France - (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 647 
 Distinguished by C. A. London and 
 Eastern Counties Loan and Discount 
 Co. V. Cbeaset [1897] 1 Q. B. 768 
 
 Yarnold v. Wallis - (1840) 4 Y. & C. (Ex.) 160 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Champion 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 Yates, In re - - (1888) 38 Ch. D. 112 
 
 Applied and followed by Kekewioh J. 
 In re Bbooke. Brooke v. Brooke 
 (No. 2) - [1894] 2 Ch. 600 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Small v. 
 National Provincial Bankoe England 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 686 
 
 Yates, In re. BatcheUor v. Yates, (1888) 38 
 Ch. D. 172. 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Born v. 
 Turner - [1900] 2 Ch. 211 
 
 Yates V. Oomptan - (1725) 2 P. Wms. 308 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re 
 Mabbett - - [1891] 1 Ch. 707 
 
 Yates\.Finn - - (1880) 13 Oh. D. 839 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. Daw v. 
 Heeeing - - [1892] 1 Ch. 284 
 
 YaUs V. Biggins - [1896] 1 Q. B. 166 
 
 See now Wild Animals in Captivity 
 Protection Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 83), 
 
 8.1. 
 
 Yates V. Yates - - (1860) 28 Beav. 637 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. In re 
 
 Sbaelb - - [1900] 2 Ch. 829 
 
 " Ydm," The - - - [1899] W. N. 41 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. - [1899] P. 236 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Att.-Gen. 
 
 V. Company of Proprietors of Mar- 
 gate Pier and Harbour 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 749 
 Yerlury's Estate, In re, (1889) 62 L. T. (N.S.) 
 
 55. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Parker 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 682 
 
 Yeits, Re - - - (1864) 33 Beav. 412 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Ward 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 31 
 
 Yorkshire Tannery, &a. v. Eglinton Chemical Co., 
 
 (1884) 54 L. J. (Ch.) 81. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Collins v. 
 
 North British Mercantile Insurance 
 
 Co. - [1894] 3 Ch. 228 
 
 Young v. Adams - [1898] A. 0. 469 
 
 See Young v. Waller [1898] A. C. 661 
 Young v. Austen ■ (1869) L. E. 4 0. P. 553 
 
 Followed by 0. A. New London Credit 
 
 Syndicate, Ld. v. Neale 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 487 
 Young v. Gh-ote, (1827) 4 Bing. 253 ; 29 E. E. 552 
 
 Discussed. Union Credit Bank v. 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 205, 210, 211, 214 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.) Sohol- 
 
 FIELD V. LoNDESBOROUGH (EaeL OF) 
 
 [1896] A. C. 614 
 Young v. Rosenthal & Co., (1884) 7 Eep. Pat. Cas. 
 29, 34. 
 
 Eeferred to by Buckley J. Welsbach 
 Incandescent Gas Light Co. v. New 
 Incandescent (Sunlight Patent) Gas 
 Lighting Co. - [1900] 1 Ch. 843 ; 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Oh. 1 
 Young v. South African and Australian Explora- 
 tion and Development Syndicate, [18961 
 2Ch. 268. 
 
 Not followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Hadlbigh Castle Gold Mines, Ld. 
 
 [1900] a Ch. 419 
 Young and Harston's Contract, In re, (1885) 31 
 Ch. D. 168, 174. 
 
 Observed upon by C. A. In re Woods 
 AND Lewis' Contract [1898] 2 Ch. 211 
 
 " Zeta," The. Turner v. Mersey Dock and Harbour 
 Board, [1891] P. 216. 
 Eeversed by C. A. - [1892] P. 285 
 C. A. reversed and Butt Pres. restored by 
 H. L. (E.) - - [1893] A. C. 468 
 
 Zierenberg v. Ldbouehere - [1893] 2 Q. B. 189 
 Dictum explained. Waynes Mehthyr 
 Co. V. D. Eadfohd & Co. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 29, 34 
 
( ooooi ) 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES 
 
 JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED DUEING THE YBAES 1891—1900. 
 
 I. Imperial Statutes, p. cocci. II. Colonial Statutes, p. coocli. 
 
 III. Foreign Laws, p. cccclv. 
 
 I. -IMPERIAL STATUTES. 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 1324. 
 
 17 Edw. 2, 0. 10 (_De Prerogativa Regis). 
 See Loif ACY. 30. 
 
 1540. 
 
 32 Hen. 8, o. 31 (Covenants), a. 1. 
 
 See Way-leave. 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Landlobd and Tenant. 95. 
 
 1541-2. 
 
 33 Hen. 8, c. 9 (fiaming), s. 9. 
 
 See Gaming. 2. 
 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Gaming. 34. 
 
 1547. 
 
 1 Edw. 6, 0. 14 (College— First Fruits). 
 See Will. 202. 
 
 1550. 
 
 3 & 4 Edw. 6, c. 10 (Ecclesiastical Law). 
 See BcoLESiASTiOAL Law. 28. 
 
 1571. 
 
 13 Eliz. u. 5 (Fraudulent Conveyances). 
 See Bankbuptot. 4, 264. 
 
 Fkaudulent Conveyances. 1, 4. 
 as. 1, 5. 
 
 See FEAtnouLENT Conveyances. 2. 
 
 See Vendoe and Puechasee. 49. 
 13 Eliz. 0. 10 (Eleemosynary Corporations). 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 44. 
 
 13 Eliz. c. 20 (Ecclesiastical Pension). 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 44. 
 
 1572. 
 
 14 Eliz. 0. 11 (Leases). 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 44. 
 14 Eliz. c. 14 (Hospital — Lease (Corporation) 
 —Will). 
 See Egolesiastical Law. 44. 
 
 STATUTES— co»«Jn«ed. 
 
 1573. 
 Scots Act, 1573, 0. 55. 
 See Scottish Law — DivoTce. 12. 
 
 1584^5. 
 
 27 Eliz. 0. 4 {Fraudulent Conveyances). 
 See Chaeity. 34. 
 
 Fbaudulent Conveyance. 5. 
 Vendoe and Puechasee. 90. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Vendoe and Pukchaseb. 49. 
 
 1583-7. 
 
 29 Eliz. c. 4 (Sheriff), a. 29. 
 See Sheeut. 7. 
 
 leoi. 
 
 43 Eliz. 0. 2 (Poor Relief). 
 See PoOB Law. 9. 
 
 See PooE Law. 10. 
 Bates. 35. 
 
 8. 2. 
 
 See Company. 144. 
 
 See PooK Law. 8. 
 43 Eliz. c. 4 (Charitable Uses). 
 See Chaeity. 22, 25. 
 
 See Chaeity. 30. 
 
 1623-4. 
 
 21 Jac. 1, c. 16 (Statute of Limitations). 
 
 [Statutes of Limitations. See Cases 
 
 under Limitation, Statute or.] 
 See Bailment. 3. 
 Bankruptcy. 196. 
 Lunacy. 22. 
 Settled Land. 89. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Company. 120. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. 
 Moetgage. 57. 
 solicitoe. 59. 
 
 25, 30. 
 
 2c 
 
eocou 
 
 TABLE 01* STATUTES JUDICIALLY OONSIDBEBD 
 
 STATTITES — continued. 
 
 21 Jao. 1, 0. 16, s. 7. 
 
 See Waste. 6. 
 
 1662. 
 
 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12 {Foor Belief), o. 21. 
 See PooK Law. 11. 
 
 1663. 
 
 Scottish Act, 1663, c. 21 or o. 31. 
 See Water. 30. 
 
 1670-1. 
 
 22 & 23 Gar. 2, c. 10 {Statute of Distribution). 
 
 See Intestacy. 2. 
 
 1677. 
 
 29 Car. 2, c. 3 {Statute of Frauds). 
 
 See Fkauds, Statcte of, passim. 
 Peinoipal and Agent. 1, 12. 
 Vendok and Purchaser. 71. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 91. 
 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 38. 
 Contract. 17. 
 Fr ADDS, Statute OF. 3 — 8,10 — 12, 
 
 14- 16, 17, 20, 21. 
 Settlement. 30. 
 Stock Exchanre. 1. 
 Vendor and Purchaser. 14, 30, 
 50. 
 
 ss. 4, 7. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 
 
 9. 
 
 Frauds, Statute of. 22. 
 
 ■ s. 7. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 23. 
 
 - — - SB. 7, 8. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 24. 
 Trust. 3. 
 
 B. 17. 
 
 Si-e Sale op Goods. 2. 
 
 29 Car. 2, c. 7 {Sunday Observance). 
 See Gases under Sunday. 
 
 29 Car. 2, c. 8 {Benefice). 
 
 See Eent-charge. 3. 
 
 1688. 
 
 1 Wra. & M. 0. 30 {Gold Mines), ss. 1, 2, 3, 4. 
 See Mines. 10. 
 
 1693. 
 
 5 Wm. & M. c. 6 {Gold Mines) ss. 2, 3. 
 See Mines. 10. 
 
 1696-7. 
 
 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 11 {Bonds), s. 8. 
 See Practice. 292. 
 
 1705. 
 
 4 & 5 Anne, c. 3 {Landlord and Tenant), a. 27. 
 See Husband and Wife. 11. 
 
 STATUTES- 
 4 & 5 Anne, c. 16 {Limitatiom). 
 
 (o. 3 in 1 Eev. Stat. p. 784). 
 See International Law. 2. 
 Practice. 201. 
 
 ss. 12, 13. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. 27. 
 Practice. 292. 
 
 s. 19. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 1. 
 Solicitor. 59. 
 
 1708. 
 
 7 Anne, c. 12 {Diplomatic Privileges), 8. 3. 
 See International Law. 2. 
 
 7 Anne, c. 20 {Middlesex Registry), a. 1. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 193. 
 
 1709. 
 
 8 Anne, c. 14 (c. 18 in Eev. Stat.), {Landlord 
 
 and Tenant), s. 1. 
 See Bankruptcy. 104. 
 Distress. 9. 
 
 1710. 
 
 9 Anne, c. 14 {Private). 
 
 See Gaming. 7. 
 
 9 Anne, c. 22 [London). 
 
 See Parish. 
 
 171L 
 
 10 Anne, c. 11 {London). 
 
 See Parish. 
 
 1713. 
 
 13 Anne, c. 13 {Benefice). 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 2. 
 
 1716-7. 
 
 3 Geo. 1, 0. 15 {Sheriff). 
 
 See Sheriff. 7. 
 
 1721. 
 
 8 Geo. 1, c. 24 {Merchant Shipping), a. 7. 
 
 See Shipping. 266. 
 
 1728. 
 
 2 Geo. 2, u. 28 {Gaming), a. 9. 
 See Gaming. 2. 
 
 1730-1. 
 
 4 Geo. 2, u. 28 {Surrender of Lease), o. 2. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 60. 
 
 See Eent-chaege. 4. 
 
 s. 6. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 74. 
 
 1732-3. 
 
 6 Geo. 2, 0. 28 {National Debt). 
 
 See Limitations, Statute or. 33. 
 
 1735-6. 
 
 9 Geo. 2, 0. 36 {Mortmain). 
 
 See Charity, 5, 42. 
 
DUEING THE YBAES 1891—1900. 
 
 STATUTES— cojrfinwd 
 9 Geo. 2, o. 36, ss. 1, 3, 4. 
 See Chabity. 46. 
 
 8. 3. 
 
 See HiQHWAT. 9. 
 
 HUSBAITD AOT) WlFB. 36. 
 
 1737, 
 
 11 Geo. 2, c. 19 (Distremfor Benf), a. 10. 
 See DisTBESs. 10. 
 
 1742. 
 
 16 Geo. 2, o. 18 (Justice of the Peace'), ss. 1, 3. 
 
 See Justices. 46. 
 
 1743. 
 
 17 Geo. 2, 0. 3 (Poor), s. 1. 
 
 See Highway. 25. 
 
 17 Geo. 2, 0. 38 (Poor Belief), s. 4. 
 See Kates. 9. 
 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Eates. 65. 
 
 1745. 
 
 19 Geo. 2, 0. 37 (Marine Insurance), s. 1. 
 See lusTlBANOE — Marine. 82. 
 
 1751-2. 
 
 25 Geo. 2, o. 86 (Disorderly Houses), ss. 5, 6, 7. 
 See Justices. 1. 
 
 1757-60. 
 
 33 Geo. 2, c. xii. (National Debt). 
 See Mines. 30. 
 
 1766. 
 
 7 Geo. 3, c. 37 (Local), b. 51. 
 
 See Statutes. 7. 
 
 7 Geo. 3, c. Iiui. 
 
 See Bicycle. 2. 
 
 1768. 
 
 9 Geo. 3, u. 16 (Nullum Tempus). 
 See New South Wales. 34. 
 
 1774. 
 
 14 Geo. 3, 0. 48 (Inswaruie, Life), ss. 1, 2. 
 See Insubance. 14, 14a. 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Contract. 14. 
 
 14 Geo. 3, o. Ivi. (Local) (Mull DocTts Act). 
 See Pbactice. 271. 
 
 1780-1. 
 
 21 Geo. 3, c. 49 (Sunday Observanee), as. 1, 2. 
 See Sunday. 3. 
 
 1794. 
 
 35 Geo. 3, o. 73 (Eates). 
 See Shebief. 11. 
 
 35 Geo. 3, c. 101 (Poor Law), a. 2. 
 See PoOE Law. 6. 
 
 STATUTES — emtinued. 
 
 1795-6. 
 
 36 Geo. 3, c. 52 {Death Duties), a. 12. 
 See Kevbnue. 47. 
 
 ss. 12, 19. 
 
 See Eevenue. 
 
 a. 14. 
 
 See Eevenue. 
 
 aa. 23, 37. 
 
 See Eevenue. 
 
 122, 126. 
 
 127. 
 
 123. 
 
 36 Geo. 3, o. xxxix. (Inchsure). 
 See Wateb. 45. 
 
 1797-8. 
 
 38 Geo. 3, c. 5 (Land Tax), a. 4. 
 
 See Eevenue.. 118. 
 
 1799-1800. 
 
 39 & 40 Geo. 3, o. 98 (Thellusson's Act). 
 
 See Accumulations. 1, 2, 5, 7. 
 
 8. 1. 
 
 See Settled Land. 124. 
 
 8.2. 
 
 See Accumulations. 
 1801. 
 
 1,4. 
 
 41 Geo. 3, c. 23 (Poor-rate), a. 1. 
 See Eates. 6. 
 
 41 Geo. 3, 0. 90 (Supreme Court, Ireland), s. 6. 
 See Contempt ov Coubt. 1. 
 
 41 Geo. 3, c. Ixxxvi. (Newcastle Pilotage), a. 6. 
 
 See Shipping — ^Pilotage, 190. 
 
 1801-2. 
 
 42 Geo. 3, c. 119 (Lottery), 1. 
 
 See Lotteby. 1. 
 
 See Lotteby. 2. 
 
 1803. 
 
 43 Geo. 3, o. 151 (Cotton Manufacture, Scot- 
 
 land), a. 15. 
 
 See Company. 202. 
 
 1804. 
 
 44 Geo. 3, o. 12 (Exportation and Importation), 
 
 8. 41. 
 
 See Eevenue. 122. 
 
 44 Geo. 3, 0. 98 (Stamp Act), Sohed. B. 
 See Eevenue. 165. 
 
 1808. 
 48 Geo. 3, c. 55 (Souse Tax), Sohed. B. 
 See Eevenue. 62, 63. 
 
 Sched. B, Case IV. 
 
 See Eevenue. 53, 57, 58. 
 Sohed B, r, 2. 
 
 See Eevenue. 64, 65. 
 48 Geo. 3, o. 55, Sohed. B. 
 
 See Eevenue. 51, 53, 57 58, 62, 63. 
 2 c 2 
 
CCCOIV 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 
 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, Sched. B. r. 2. 
 See Eevenue. 64, 65. 
 
 • Shed. B, t. 3. 
 
 See Eevenue. 59, 60. 
 
 Sched. B, r. v. 
 
 See Revenue. 55, 56. 
 
 Sched. B, r. 6. 
 
 See Revenue. 61. 
 
 48 Geo. 8, c. 149 (^Stamps), s. 38. 
 See Revenue. 131. 
 
 1811-2. 
 
 52 Geo. 3, c. 101 (Charity). 
 
 See Charity. 8, 20, 40. 
 
 52 Geo. 3, c. 150 (Medicine Stamps), ss. 1, 
 Sch. 
 See Revenue. 165. 
 
 1813-4. 
 
 54 Geo. 3, c. 56 (Copyright — Sculpture). 
 See COPTEIGHT. 41. 
 
 54 Geo. 3, o. 159 (Sarhours), a. 11. 
 See Shipping. 154. 
 
 1815. 
 
 55 Geo. 3, c. 184 (Stamps), a. 2. 
 See Revenue. 126. 
 
 8. ,37. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 131, 134. 
 
 55 Geo. 3, c. 194 (Apothecaries), s. 20. 
 
 See Medical Pbaotitioneb. 4. 
 
 1816. 
 
 56 Geo. 3, c. 56 (Death Duties), a. 115. 
 
 See Revenue. 25. 
 
 1817. 
 
 57 Geo. 3, c. 25 (House Tax), a. 1. 
 
 See Revenue. 59, 60. 
 
 57 Geo. 3, c. 93 (Distress— Costs), b. 1. 
 See DisTEEss. 14. 
 
 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix. (Michael Angela Taylor i 
 Act), a. 65. 
 See Burial. 3. 
 London. 87, 88. 
 Peactioe. 140. 
 
 s. 72. 
 
 See London. 
 
 7. 
 
 c. xxix. 
 
 See London. 
 
 93 
 
 s. 80. 
 
 See London. 
 
 95 
 
 S8. 80, 82. 
 
 See London. 
 
 94 
 
 -— s. 82. 
 See London. 
 
 92. 
 
 es. 80— S5 
 
 Sec Burial. 
 
 96 
 3. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 
 1818. 
 56 Geo. 3, c. 45 (Church Building), ss. 75, 77, 
 84, 85. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 54. 
 
 s. 80. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 13. 
 
 58 Geo. 3, c. 70 (Disorderly Houses), a. 7. 
 
 See Justices. 1. 
 
 1810. 
 
 59 Geo. 3, c. 12 (Poor), a. 17. 
 
 See Highway. 9. 
 
 s. 19. 
 
 See Statutes. 24. 
 
 1821. 
 
 1 ife 2 Geo. 4, c. cxiv. (Church Bate, St. Nicholas 
 Harwich), a. 8. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 7. 
 
 1822. 
 
 3 Geo. 4, c. 72 (Church Building), ss. 36, 37. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 54. 
 
 3 Geo. 4, c. cvi. (Sale of Bread), b. 4. 
 
 See Beead. 
 
 1823. 
 
 4 Geo. 4, c. 60 (Lottery), a. 41. 
 
 See LoTT-EEY. 2. 
 
 1824. 
 
 5 Geo. 4, c. 44 (House Tax), s. 4. 
 
 See Revenue. 59, 60. 
 
 5 Geo. 4, e. 83 (Vagrancy), a. 3. 
 
 See Poor Law. 10. 
 
 Vaqeancy. 1, 
 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Vagrancy. 1. 
 
 See Justices. 4. 
 
 1825. 
 
 6 Geo. 4, u. 50 (County Juries), ss. 1, 2, 8, 25, 
 
 52. 
 
 See CoEONER. 3. 
 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 81 (Licensing Act), a. 26. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 28. 
 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 94 (Factors), a. 4. 
 
 See Factor. 8. 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 120 (Judicature, Scotland), a. 40. 
 See Appeal. 21. 
 
 Scottish Law. 39. 
 Shipping. 110, 144. 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125 (Pilotage), a. 59. 
 See Shipping. 191. 
 
 6 Geo. 4, u. 129 (Workmen), s. 3. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 3. 
 
 1827. 
 
 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 17 (Distress— Costs). 
 
 See Distress. 14. 
 7 & 8 Geo. 4, o. 53 (Excise), s. 71. 
 See Justices, 7. 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 SIA.TVT'ES— continued. 
 
 1828. 
 
 9 Geo. 4, 0. 14 (^Contracts — Limitations), s. 1. 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 3. 
 
 9 Geo. 4, c. 61 (Licensing'). 
 See Justices. 34. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 10. 
 
 See Mandamus. 3. 
 S3. 4, 11, 14. 
 
 See Vbndob and Pubchasbb. 32. 
 BS. 4, 14. 
 
 See LiCENSiNS Acts. 5, 26. 
 ■ ss. 9, 27. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 52. 
 8. 14. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 3, 7, 11, 24, 27. 
 BS. 27, 29. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 50. 
 ss. 27, 37. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 12. 
 8. 29. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 48. 
 9 Geo. 4, c. 83 (Australian Courts). 
 
 See New South Wales. 34. 
 
 9 Geo. 4, e. cxiii. (Covent Garden Market). 
 
 See Pbactice. 113. 
 
 1829. 
 
 10 Geo. 4, 0. 56 (Friendly Societies). 
 
 See Fbiendly Society. 7. 
 
 10 Geo. 4, 0. XV. (Special Act), ss. 22, 26. 
 
 See Eevenue. 75. 
 
 1830. 
 
 11 Geo. 4 and 1 Will. 4, c. 40 (Administration 
 
 of Estates). 
 See Chabity. 47. 
 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, o. 68 (Carriers), ss. 1, 6, 8. 
 See Railway. 16. 
 
 1831. 
 
 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 37 (Truck), a. 23. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 105. 
 
 ss. 1—4, 24. 
 
 See Masteb and Sebvant. 
 
 104. 
 
 1 & 2 Will. 4, 0. 43 (Turnpike— Scotland). 
 See Building. 1. 
 
 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. lii. (West India Docks), a. 101. 
 
 See Dock. 1. 
 
 1832. 
 
 2 & 3 Will. 4, 0. 45 (Eeform Act), ss. 20, 27. 
 
 See Paeliament. 50. 
 
 s. 27. 
 
 See Pabltament. 41,138. 
 
 B. 36. 
 
 See Parliament. 26. 
 2 & 3 Will. 4, 0. 65 (Bepresentation of the 
 
 People), B. 11. 
 
 See Pakliambnt. 118, 
 
 STATUTES— confeWed. 
 2 & 3 Will. 4, 0. 71 (Prescription), SB. 1, 2, 3. 
 See Light and Aib. 5. 
 
 See Basement. 4. 
 Way, Eight op. 3. 
 
 SB. 2, 3. 
 
 See Light and Ate. 6. 
 
 See Light and Aib. 9, 10, 13, 20. 
 
 ss. 3, 4. 
 
 See Light and Aib. 10, 25. 
 
 2 Will. 4, 0. viii. (Liverpool New Cattle Market) 
 
 See Liveepool Couets. 3. 
 
 1833. 
 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 15 (Dramatic Copyright). 
 
 See Injunction. 9. 
 BS. 1, 2. 
 
 See CoPTEiGHT. 7, 22, 29. 
 s. 2. 
 
 See CopYEiGHT. 12. 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, 0. 27 (Eeal Property Limitation). 
 
 BB. 1, 2, 3, 20. 
 
 See Copyhold. 1. 
 
 Limitations, Statute or. 34. 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Copyhold. 8. 
 Easement. 7. 
 S3. 2, 42. 
 
 See Settled Land. 89. 
 s3. 
 
 See BouNDABY. 1. 
 ss. 2, 7. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 43. 
 SB. 2, 42. 
 
 See Settled Land. 8, 9. 
 a. 3. 
 
 See Company. 63. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. 32. 
 8. 9. 
 
 See Copyhold. 7. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Tbusteb. 84. 
 B. 26. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 16. 
 3. 29. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 33. 
 8. 34. 
 
 See Estoppel. 10. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. 26. 
 88. 34, 42. 
 
 See Will. 23. 
 s. 40. 
 
 See Limitations, Statuie op. 39. 
 s. 42. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 2. 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42 (Limitations), s. 2. 
 
 See Light and Aie. 15. 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Copyhold. 4. 
 
 Limitations, Statute op. 39 41. 
 s. 5. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. 27. 
 lamiTATiONS, Statute op. 7. 
 
ccoovi 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED 
 
 STAITJTES— continued. 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 8. 
 
 See Pbactiob. 77, 80. 
 B. 28. 
 
 See CoMPAifT, 141, 153. 
 Interest. 1. 
 s. 29. 
 
 iSee Mines. 3. 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, 0. 74 (Finei and Recoveries), 
 
 BS. 1, 77. 
 
 See DivOEOE. 126. 
 
 HtrSBAND AND WlTE. 36. 
 
 BB. 1, 15, 19, 40, 77. 
 
 See HcBBAKD and Wifb. 5. 
 g 25. 
 
 See Will. 80. 
 s. 77. 
 
 See Copyhold. 6. 
 BB. 77, 78, 80, 84. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 20. 
 B. 91. 
 
 See Hdsband and Wife. 31. 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 90 (Liglding and Watching), 
 
 SB. 5 — 15. 
 
 See Stkebtb. 13. 
 b. 33. 
 
 See Land. 1. 
 Mines. 5. 
 Streets. 12, 14. 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, 0. 105 iBwjer), ». 12. 
 
 See Do WEB. 2. 
 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, 0. 106 (Inheritance), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 See Intestacy. 1. 
 
 B. 3. 
 
 See Will. 112. 
 
 1834. 
 
 4 & 5 WiU. 4, c. 76 {Foot Law), „. 4. 
 
 See Poor Law. 6. 
 BB. 15, 52, 54. 
 
 See Poor Law. 10. 
 B. 61. 
 
 See Infant. 18. 
 
 4 & 5 Will. 4, 0. 85 (Intoxicating Liquors), B. 17. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 28. 
 
 1835. 
 
 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41 (Gaming), s. 1. 
 
 See GAMiNa. 7. 
 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50 (Highways). 
 
 See Highway. 30. 
 s. 27. 
 
 See Highway. 25, 26. 
 B. 33. 
 
 See Highway. 11. 
 B. 51. 
 
 See Common. 2. 
 B. 56. 
 
 See Highway. 4. 
 s. 65. 
 
 See Highway. 7. 
 67, 68. 
 
 See Sewers. 15. 
 — B. 78. 
 
 See Highway. 3. 
 
 STATUTES — contimced. 
 5 & 6 Will. 4, o. 50, B. 85. 
 See Highway. 2. 
 
 B. 109. 
 
 See Highway. 10. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. 19. 
 Way, Bight or. 9. 
 
 5 & 6 WlU. 4, c. 54 (Marriage), s. 2. 
 See Marriage. 1. 
 
 5 & 6 Will. 4, 0. 83 (Patents). 
 
 See Patent. 48. 
 
 1836. 
 
 6 & 7 Will. 4, 0. 32 (Building Societies'). 
 
 See BmLDiNG Society. 8, 11, 21. 
 
 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 71 (Tithes), s. 80. 
 See Tithe. 1. 
 
 6 & 7 WiU. 4, o. 85 (Marriage), 8. 2. 
 See Marriage. 1. 
 
 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86 (Births' and Deaths' Regis- 
 tration), s. 38. 
 See Divorce. 81. 
 
 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96 (Parochial AssessmerU). 
 See Bates. 54. 
 
 8.1. 
 
 See Bates. 
 
 6, 24, 28, 29, 30, 49. 
 
 6 & 7 WiU. 4, c. XXV. (Local), n. 82. 
 See Streets. 39. 
 
 6 & 7 Will. 4, u. cxxxvi. (London Cemetery 
 
 Company), s. 4. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Ijaw. 29. 
 
 1837. 
 
 7 WiU. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 26 (WHU), s. 3. 
 
 See Will. 178. 
 B. 6. 
 
 See Estate pue Autre Vie. 1, 2. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 17. 
 Probate. 14, 20. 
 BS. 9, 10, 27. 
 
 See Powers. 17, 23. 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Probate. 150. 
 B. 15. 
 
 See Will. 30. 
 B. 18. 
 
 See Conflict op Laws. 16. 
 ss. 20, 22. 
 
 See Will. 187. 
 B. 21. 
 
 See Probate. 81, 112. 
 8. 22. 
 
 See Will. 181. 
 ss. 23, 24. 
 
 See Will. 16. 
 8. 24. 
 
 See Charity. 48. 
 Probate. 15. 
 Will. 143, 195. 
 S3. 24, 27. 
 
 See Powers. 29. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 STATUTES— contimied. 
 7 Will. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 26. 
 See Will. 220. 
 
 s. 27. 
 
 See Insurance. 19. 
 
 Limitations, Statute op. 24. 
 PowEBS. 2, 22, 25, 35. 
 
 s. 28. 
 
 See Will. 79. 
 
 g^ 29. 
 
 See Will. 70. 
 s. 33. 
 
 iSee Revenue. 40. 
 Will. 56, 114. 
 7 Will. 4 and 1 Viot. o. 28 {Seal Property 
 
 Limitation). 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 28. 
 
 7 Will. 4 and 1 Viot. o. 45 {Parish Notices), 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Highway. 25. 
 7 Will. 4 and 1 Viot. c. 55 {Sheriffs). 
 
 See Shebipp. 7. 
 
 1838. 
 
 1 & 2 Vict. 0. 56 {Poor Belief, Ireland), ss. 54, 
 
 57. 
 
 See Pabliament. 106. 
 1 & 2 Vict. c. 74 {Landlord and Tenant). 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 45. 
 as. 11, 13. 
 
 See Will. 86. 
 B. 13. 
 
 jSee Judgment Debt. 1, 2. 
 Will. 87. 
 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 {Judgments), sa. 11, 13. 
 
 iSee Will. 86, 87. 
 a. 14. 
 
 See Bankbuptct. 62, 141. 
 
 CHABGDfG ObDEB. 1, 3. 
 
 Lunacy. 7. 
 
 as. 14, 15. 
 
 See Chaeging Okdeb. 2, 5. 
 
 BB. 17, 18, 20. 
 
 See Costs. 36. 
 Mines. 3. 
 
 1 & 2 Viot. 0. c. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 24. 
 
 1839. 
 
 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11 {Judgments), B. 7. 
 
 See MoETGAGE. 23. 
 2 & 3 Viot. c. 47 {Metropolitan Police), s. 60. 
 
 See London. 89. 
 s. 77. 
 
 See Music and Dancing. 5. 
 
 2 & 3 Viot. 0. 54 {Infants). 
 See Infant. 17. 
 
 2 & 3 Viot. 0. 67 {Patents). 
 See Patent. 48. 
 
 2 & 3 Viot. 0. 71 {Metropolitan Police Courts), 
 8.40. 
 
 See Detinue. 2. 
 Estoppel. 8. 
 POLIOB. 1. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 2 & 3 Viot. c. 71, a. 47. 
 
 See Adulteration. 
 
 s. 50. 
 
 See PooB Law. 9. 
 
 16. 
 
 1840. 
 3 & 4 Viot. 0. 60 {Ecclesiastical Commission), 
 
 8.19. 
 
 iSee Ecclesiastical Law. 4. 
 ! 4 Vict. 0. 61 {Beerhouses), a. 1. 
 See Licensing Acts. 22. 
 
 3& 
 3& 
 3 
 3& 
 
 3& 
 3& 
 3& 
 
 4 Viot. o. 65 {Admiralty Court), a. 6. 
 See Shipping. 177, 180. 
 
 4 Vict. 0. 72 {Marriage), a. 5. 
 See Maeeiage. 1. 
 
 4 Vict. c. 82 {Judgments), a. 1. 
 See Lunacy. 7. 
 Will. 67. 
 
 4 Vict. c. 86 {Church Discipline). 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 63. 
 a. 15. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 45 
 
 4 Viot. c. 88 {Police), ss. 3, 27, 28. 
 
 See County Councils. 13. 
 a. 2. 
 
 See LiCENSiNQ Acts. 25. 
 4 Vict. 0. oxviii. {Clyde Navigation), a. 11. 
 
 See PiEB. 
 
 1841. 
 
 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38 (School Sites), a. 6, 10, 
 See Steeets. 29, 31. 
 
 4 & 5 Viot. c. 39 {Ecclesiastical 
 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Pabliament. 42. 
 
 1842, 
 
 5 & 6 Viot. 0. 35 {Income Tax). 
 
 See Revenue. 97. 
 s. 6. 
 
 See Revenue. 95. 
 88. 41 — 44. 
 
 See Revenue. 90, 96. 
 8. 45. 
 
 See Revenue. 100. 
 ss. 52, 55. 
 
 See Revenue. 93. 
 BS. 60, 102. 
 
 See Revenue. 92. 
 8. 60, Soiled. A. 
 
 See Revenue. 74, 106, 114. 
 a. 61, Sohed. A. 
 
 See Revenue. 57, 76, 77, 108, 109, 113. 
 a. 63, Sohed. B, r. 7. 
 
 See Revenue. 99. 
 8. 100, Sohed. D. 
 
 See Revenue. 67, 70, 72, 73, 81, 83—85, 
 86, 88, 89, 98, 106, 110. 
 B. 102. 
 
 See Revenue. 75. 
 
 88.111,113,118. 
 
 See Bankktjptoy 185. 
 
coccviii 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, 8. 146. 
 
 See Bevenue. 70, 111. 
 s. 167. 
 
 See Eevenite. 78, 79. 
 Sohed. A, r 6. 
 
 See Revenue. 104. 
 Sched. D. 
 
 See Eevende. 69, 70, 73, 82, 87, 98. 
 Sohed. B. 
 
 See Revenue. 70, 80. 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 44 {Licensing), s. 1. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 15, 44. 
 Vendob and Pubchaseb. 32. 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45 {GopyrigU). 
 
 See CoPTEiGHT. 24, 32. 
 8. 2. 
 
 See CopYEiGHT. 4. 
 83. 2, 3, 18. 
 
 See CoPTBiGHT. 19, 34. 
 S3. 2, 11. 
 
 See COPYHIGHT. 1. 
 3S, 2, 11, 13, 15, 17. 
 
 See Copyright. 2. 
 Es. 2, 15. 
 
 See CopYKiGBT. 28. 
 S3. 2, 20. 
 
 See CoPYBiGHT. 29. 
 S3. 13, 24. 
 
 See CopYBiGHT. 10, 19, 24. 
 8. 15. 
 
 See CoPYBiGHT. 5, 28. 
 83. 15, 23, 26. 
 
 See COPYEIGHT. 11. 
 3. 18. 
 
 See CopYBiGHT. 3. 
 3. 19. 
 
 See CopYEiGHT. 6, 30, 35. 
 s. 26. 
 
 See CoPYEiGHT. 13. 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 54 {Tithe'), s. 16. 
 
 See Settled Land. 105. 
 5 & 6 Vict. 0. 79 {Railway Passenger Vuhj), 
 
 B. 2, Sched. 
 
 See Railway. 21. 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 82 {Stamp Duties), s. 2. 
 
 See Revenue. 25. 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97 {Double Costs), s. 2. 
 
 See Copyright. 12, 13. 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. ci. {Royal Exchange). 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 24. 
 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 108 {Ecclesiastical Leasing Act). 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 35. 
 Vendor and Purchaser. 56 A. 
 Waste. 4. 
 
 ss. 6, 20. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 6 & 7 Vict. 0. 18, fs. 17, 100. 
 
 See Parliament. 95. 
 ■ e. 41. 
 
 See Parliament. 146. 
 — • s. 51. 
 
 See Cbiminal Law. 57. 
 Parliament. 141. 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 36 {Fine Art Societies), s. 1. 
 
 See Rates. 25, 36. 
 6 & 7 Viot. c. 68 {Theatres). 
 
 See Theatre. 1. 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73 {Solicitor), s. 2. 
 
 See Solicitor. 139. 
 ■ ■ 83. 2, 35, 36. 
 
 See County Court. 48. 
 Solicitor. 137. 
 68.21, 23,24. 
 
 See Solicitor. 110. 
 8. 32. 
 
 See Solicitor. 119. 
 8. 37. . 
 
 See Solicitor. 31, 41, 59. 
 S3. 37—41. 
 
 See Solicitor. 73, 81. 
 8. 38. 
 
 See Solicitor. 68. 
 s. 41. 
 
 See Solicitor. 22, 23, 67. 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 82 {Evidence), =. 5. 
 
 See Discovery. 12. 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 86 {London Hackney Carriages). 
 
 See Hackney Carriage. 1. 
 ss. 8, 22. 
 
 See Hackney Carkiage. 3. 
 6 & 7 Vict. 0. 94 {Foreign Jurisdiction). 
 
 See Japan. 1. 
 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96 {Libel). 
 See Practice. 142. 
 
 a 2. 
 
 See Defamation. 14. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 61. 
 
 1844. 
 
 7 & 8 Vict. 0. 12 (International Copyright). 
 See Copyright. 24. 
 
 BS. 2, 3, 10. 
 
 See Copyright. 2. 
 S8. 10, 11, 12, 23, 24, 25, 28. 
 
 See Banker. 20, 
 
 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101 {Poor Law), s. 56. 
 See Lunacy. 31. 
 
 1845. 
 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16 {Companies Clauses). 
 
 44. 
 
 1843. 
 
 6 & 7 Vict. 0. 18 {Registration of Voters), fs. 15, 
 
 o8. 
 
 See Parliament. 28. 
 8. 17. 
 
 See Parliament. 94. 
 
 See Railway. 
 S8. 14, 15. 
 
 See Company. 
 8. 60. 
 
 See Company. 
 8. 65. 
 
 See Railway. 
 
 31. 
 
 292. 
 
 274. 
 
 37. 
 
 S3. 71, 85, 86, 99. 
 
 See Company 24. 
 
DUEING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 13, U. 
 
 4,7. 
 
 43. 
 1. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 8 & 9 Vict. 0. 16, s. 185. 
 
 See Railway. 41. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18 {Lands Clauses). 
 
 See Railway. 15. 
 SB. 3, 18, 68, 84. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 20. 
 ss. 7—69. 
 
 See Charity. 5. 
 
 BS. 10, 11. 
 
 See Eent-chabgb. 4. 
 
 sa. 34, 35. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 s. 35. 
 
 See Railway. 11, 14. 
 
 s. 68. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 
 Schools. 8. 
 
 s. 69. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 Lands Clauses Acts. 
 University. 4. 
 
 ss. 69, 76, 80. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 2. 
 
 s. 79. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 94. 
 
 ss. 80, 82. 
 
 See Charity. 14. 
 
 Lands Clauses Acts. 15, 16, 18, 19. 
 
 S3. 85—87. 
 
 See Lanps Clauses Acts. 21. 
 
 ss. 85, 121. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 5, 6. 
 s. 92. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 8, 10. 
 BS. 95, 96, 97. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 3. 
 
 BS. 99—107. 
 
 See Common. 8. 
 
 BS. 127—129. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 22, 23. 
 s. 133. 
 
 See Rates. 40, 41. 
 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 19 (Lands Clauses — Scotland), 
 
 s. 90. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 9, 24. 
 s. 120. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 24. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20 (Railway Clauses), a. 6. 
 
 See Railway. 3. 
 ss. 6, 78, 81. 
 
 See Railway. 14. 
 B. 16. 
 
 See Railway. 34, 66. 
 s. 21. 
 
 See Railway. 
 s. 32. 
 
 See Railway. 
 8. 35. 
 
 See Railway. 
 
 — BS. 46, 49, 50, 61. 
 
 See Railway. 56. 
 
 68. 
 
 33. 
 
 11. 
 
 STATUTES— cOTiJinued 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, 3. 48. 
 
 See Railway. 10. 
 
 SB. 53, 54. 
 
 See Railway. 57. 
 
 B. 65. 
 
 See Railway. 37. 
 
 s. 68. 
 
 See Railway. 5, 9. 
 Sewers. 11. 
 
 BS. 68, 73. 
 
 See Railway. 6. 
 
 ss. 75--S5. 
 
 See Mines. 19. 
 
 S3. 77, 78, 79. 
 
 See Railway. 12. 
 
 B3. 77—85. 
 
 See Railway. 13. 
 
 B. 78. 
 
 See Revenue. 179. 
 
 BS. 103, 104, 108, 109. 
 
 See Railway. 20. 
 
 3. 140. 
 
 See Water. 33, 34. 
 
 s. 145. 
 
 See Justices. 2. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 33 (Railways Clauses, Scotland), 
 ss. 46, 49, 60. 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 9. 
 
 s. 65. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 13. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70 (Church Building), s. 7. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 5, 17. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 75 (Libel), a. 2. 
 
 See Practice. 142. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 76 (Legacy Duty), a. 4. 
 See Revenue. 120, 121, 131. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109 (Gaming). 
 See Contract. 14. 
 
 Gaming. 17, 22, 25, 26. 
 
 EB. 3, 6, First Sched. 
 
 See Gaming. 2. 
 
 3. 18. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 259. 
 Gaming. 27, 28. 
 Stock Exchange. 3, 6. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118 (Indosure), ss. 34, 73, 76. 
 See Inclosubb. 4. 
 
 s. 105. 
 
 See Inolosure. 1. 
 
 8 & 9 Vict. 0. 127 (Small Debts), a. 8. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 102. 
 
 1846. 
 
 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66 (Poor Law), s. 1. 
 
 See Poor Law. 12, 20. 
 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93 (Death by Accident). 
 See Negligence. 1. 
 Practice. 97, 264. 
 Shipping. 167. 
 
 SB. 1, 3. 
 
 See Public Authorities Protection. 3. 
 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95 {County Courts), s. 113. 
 See County Court. 48. 
 Solicitob. 137. 
 
eoecx 
 
 TABLE OP STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEBD 
 
 STATUTES— coniirmed. 
 
 1847. 
 10 & 11 Vict. c. 14 {Marhete and Fairs Clauses), 
 B. 13. 
 
 See Maekets and Paibs. 2, 3. 
 Pedlae. 
 
 s. 42. 
 
 See Maekets and Faies. 1. 
 
 10 & 11 Vict. c. 15 (^Gasworks Clauses'). 
 
 See Canada. 9. 
 8. 16. 
 
 See Bankeuptct. 157. 
 Gas. 1, 3. 
 s. 29. 
 
 See Support. 1. 
 10 & 11 Vict. c. 17 (Waterworlcs Clauses). 
 
 See Watee, 29. 
 88. 3, 37—43. 
 
 See Watee. 12. 
 SB. 6, 22, 25, 27. 
 
 See Watee. 14. 
 B. 12. 
 
 See Nuisances. 42. 
 SB. 18—27. 
 
 iSee Mines. 18. 
 8S. 28, 29. 
 
 See Watee. 17, 19. 
 ss. 28, 30, 31. 
 
 See Watee. 18. 
 88. 28, 48, 51, 52. 
 
 See Wateh. 16. 
 SS. 38—41. 
 
 See Water. 13. 
 B8. 43, 53, 70—74. 
 
 See Watee. 25. 
 8. 68. 
 
 See Water. 26. 
 BS. 70, 71, 74. 
 
 See Water. 32, 34. 
 8. 72. 
 
 See Watee. 22. 
 88. 74, 85. 
 
 See Watee. 33. 
 . B. 93. 
 
 See Building. 3. 
 
 10 & 11 Vict. 0. 27 (Harbours, Doelcs, and Piers 
 
 Clauses), BS. 23, 33, 83, 84, 85. 
 
 See Teadees. 3. 
 s. 56. 
 
 See Justices. 29. 
 Shipping. 254. 
 8. 85. 
 
 See Dock. 2. 
 
 10 & 11 Vict. c. 34 (Tovms Improvement), s. 61. 
 
 See Highway. 1. 
 8. 63. 
 
 See Streets. 19. 
 
 10 & 11 Vict. 0. 89 (^Town Police Clauses),B. 32. 
 
 See FiEE. 1. 
 8. 33. 
 
 See FiEB. 2. 
 8. 66. 
 
 See Justices. 2. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 
 10 & 11 Viot. c. 96 {Trustee Belief). 
 
 See Peactice. 138. 
 
 1848. 
 
 11 & 12 Viot. c. 42 {Administration of Justice), 
 
 B. 5. 
 
 See CBmrnAi. Law. 59. 
 B. 25. 
 
 See Gaming. 5. 
 Justices. 6. 
 11 & 12 Vict. u. 43 {Summary Jurisdiction). 
 
 See Justices. 6. 
 
 See London. 17. 
 
 ss. 1, 10. 
 
 See Justices. 24. 
 
 See Justices. 5. 
 
 8. 10. 
 
 See Mines. 16. 
 
 8. 11. 
 
 See PiSHEET. 11. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 86, 91. 
 Justices. 21, 22. 
 London. 3. 
 Nuisances. 14. 
 
 s. 22. 
 
 See Justices. 3. 
 
 8. 27. 
 
 See Justices. 37. 
 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44 {Justices' Protection), 8. 5. 
 See Ceiminal Law. 63. 
 Extradition. 1. 
 
 Bs. 8, 9. 
 
 See Defamation. 21. 
 
 Music and Dancing. 3. 
 
 11 & 12 Viot. c. 63 {Public Health). 
 
 See Sewbes. 13. 
 BS. 2, 49, 90. 
 
 See Settled Land. 28. 
 s. 83. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 13. 
 11 & 12 Vict. 0. 78 {Criminal Law), s. 2. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law. 22. 
 11 & 12 Vict. 0. 91 {Poor Law AudU), s. 4. 
 
 See PooE Law. 10. 
 11 & 12 Viot. 0. 99 {Inclosure), ss. 13, 14. 
 
 See Inolosube. 1. 
 11 & 12 Vict. 0. Ill {Poor Law), s. 1. 
 
 See PoOE Law. 20. 
 
 11 & 12 Viot. 0. olxiii. {City of London 
 
 88. 33—42, 116. 
 See Cobpoeation. 5. 
 s. 169. 
 
 See Statutes. 7. 
 
 1849. 
 
 12 & 13 Vict. 0. 14 {Poor Rates), a. 2. 
 
 See Rates. 62. 
 12 & 13 Viot. 0. 18 {Petty Sessions), a. 1. 
 
 See OoEPOBATiON. 20. 
 12 & 13 Viot. c. 26 {Leases). 
 
 See Settled Land. 78. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 STklVSEa— continued. 
 
 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45 (^Quarter Seesions), ss. 5, 6. 
 See JnsTiOES. 37. 
 
 8. 11. 
 
 See Appeal. 41. 
 12 & 13 Vict. e. 51 (Judicial Factors), as. 4, 13. 
 
 See Tbusteb. 65. 
 12 & 13 Vict. 0. 68 iCmiular Marriages'). 
 
 See Conflict op Laws. 10. 
 12 & 13 Viot. 0. 92 {Cruelty to Animals), a. 2. 
 
 See Justices. 5. 
 SB. 2, 29. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law. 6 — 8. 
 s. 14. 
 
 See Justices. 20. 
 12 & 13 Vict. 0. 103 (Foot Law), a. 16. 
 
 See PooB Law. 6, 7. 
 12 & 18 Viot. c. 104 (JPoor Law, Ireland), a. 19. 
 
 See Parliament. 110. 
 
 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106 {Bankruptcy), a. 125, 141. 
 
 See Bankkuptct. 131. 
 
 1850. 
 
 13 & 14 Vict. V. 43 {Court of Chancery of Lan- 
 
 caster), B. 15. 
 
 See Lanoastbe. 3, 4. 
 Pbaotioe. 269. 
 13 & 14 Vict. 0. 57 {Vestries), ss. 6, 7. 
 
 See Quo Waeeanto. 4. 
 13 & 14 Vict. u. 60 {Trustees), a. 2. 
 
 See Teustee. 7. 
 ss. 2, 31, 35. (See now s. 50 of 
 
 Trustee Act, 1893.) 
 
 See Teustee. 114. 
 s. 9. (See now s. 26 of the Trustee 
 
 Act, 1893.) 
 
 See Teustee. 113. 
 88. 9, 20, 30. 
 
 See Paetition. 9. 
 ss. 24, 25. 
 
 See Tbusteb. 103. 
 ss. 25, 35. 
 
 See Teustee. 116. 
 s. 25. (See now s. 35 of the Trustee 
 
 Ad, 1893.) 
 8. 2S. 
 
 See Company. 303. 
 B. 35. 
 
 See Company. 303. 
 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69 {Representation of the People, 
 
 Ireland). 
 
 ~ ~ 100, 
 
 See Pabliament. 
 8. 11. 
 
 See Pabuament. 
 S8. 26, 113. 
 
 See Pabliament. 
 8. 36. 
 
 See Pabliament. 
 s. 110. 
 
 See Pabliament. 
 8. 111. 
 
 See Pabliament. 
 s. 113. 
 
 See Parliament. 
 
 107. 
 
 93. 
 
 96. 
 
 113. 
 
 105, 106. 
 97. 
 
 STATTTTES — continued. 
 
 13 & 14 Viot. c. 115 {Friendly Soeietia), a. 2. 
 
 See FaiENDLT Society. 11. 
 
 1851. 
 
 14 & 15 Viot. c. 28 {Common Lodging-houses). 
 
 See LoDQiNa-HonsB. 1, 2. 
 
 14 & 15 Viot. 0. 36 {Mouse Duty). 
 
 See Revenue. 51, 55, 62—64. 
 
 8. 2. 
 
 See Revenue. 53. 
 
 Sched. 
 
 See Revenue. 61, 65. 
 
 14 & 15 Vict. o. 99 {Evidence), a. 13. ; 
 See Lanoastbe. 2. i 
 
 14 & 15 Viot. c. xoi. (City of London Sewers), 
 s. 35. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 25. 
 
 ss. 53, 57. 
 
 See Corporation. 
 
 5. 
 
 15 & 
 15 & 
 
 15 & 
 15 & 
 
 15 & 
 15 & 
 
 15 & 
 
 15 & 
 15 & 
 
 15 & 
 
 15 & 
 
 1852. 
 
 16 Vict. 0. 12 {Copyright), sb. 3, 4. 
 See Copyright. 20, 23, 27. 
 16 Vict. c. 24 {Lord St. Leonards' Act), 
 a. 1. 
 See Probate. 17, 19. 
 
 16 Vict. c. 51 {Copyhold), a. 45.",! 
 See Copyhold. 10. 
 
 16 Vict. c. 55 {Trustees), a. 2. {But see 
 now s. 50 of the Trustee Act, 1893.) 
 
 s. 6. 
 
 See Teustee. 114. 
 16 Vict. 0. 72 {New Zealand Constitution). 
 
 See New Zealand. 7. 
 
 16 Vict. c. 76 {CommMt Law Procedure), 
 
 8. 210. 
 
 See DiSTBESS. 16. 
 s. 212. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 60. 
 s. 214. 
 
 See Peacticb. 298. 
 
 16 Vict. 0. 81 {County Bates), ss. 21, 26, 
 31, 32, 33, 34. 
 
 See Rates. 17. 
 
 16 Vict. c. 83 {Patents), a. 25. 
 See Patent. 41, 42. 
 
 16 Viot. c. 85 {Burial), 83. 25, 26. 
 
 See BuEiAL. 5. 
 ss. 30, 32. 
 
 See Burial. 1. 
 8. 36. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 6. 
 B. 44. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 19. 
 
 16 Vict. c. Ixxvii. {London (City) Small 
 Debts Extension), a. 39. 
 See London. 35, 36. 
 
 16 Vict. 0. clx. {New Biver Company) 
 88. 36, 38, 40. 
 See Water. 29. 
 
TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED 
 
 STArVTES— continued. 
 
 1853. 
 
 16 & 17 Vict. 0. 30 (Certiorari), s. 5. 
 
 See Cbimnal Law. 5. 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 33 (London Haclmey Carriages), 
 
 s. 17. 
 
 See Hacknet Cabhiage. 2. 
 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34 (Income Tax). 
 
 See Ebvehue. 72, 96, 97. 
 
 S3. 1 and 40. 
 
 Bee Eevbntje. 102. 
 
 s. 2, Sched. D. 
 
 See Eevenue. 70, 71, 73, 83,89, 90, 92, 
 
 96, 101, 110. 
 B. 40. 
 
 See Company. 120. 
 EETENrB. 103. 
 Sched. B. 
 
 See Tithe. 3. 
 16 & 17 Vict. 0. 41 (Common Lodging-liouses). 
 
 See Lodging-house. 1, 2. 
 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51 (Succession Duty), ss. 1, 2, 
 10, 32. 
 See Eevenue. 47. 
 
 BS. 1, 15, 20, 28. 
 
 See Eevenue. 182. 
 
 8. 2. 
 
 See Eevenue. 185. 
 
 S9. 2, 7, 8, 16. 
 
 iSee Eevenue. 26. 
 ss. 2, 15, 17, 18. 
 
 See Eevenue. 183. 
 
 ss. 2, 17. 
 
 See Eevenue. 186. 
 SB. 2, 20. 
 
 See Vendor aud Purchaser. 2. 
 
 ss. 2, 42. 
 
 See Eevenue. 184. 
 
 16 & 17 Vict. 0. 97 (Lunacy), s. 54. 
 
 See County Council. 4. 
 IThis Act was repealed hy Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 Yict. c. 5), «. 342.] 
 
 16 & 17 Vict. u. 70 (Lunacy Regulation), ss. 124, 
 
 /See Intestacy. 1. 
 IThis Act was repealed by Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 Vict. c. 5), s. 342.] 
 
 16 & 17 Vict. 0. 119 (Betting). 
 
 See Criminal Law. 59. 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Gaming. 5, 6, 13, 19. 
 S3. 1,2,3,11. 
 
 jSee Gaming. 2. 
 
 STATXTTES — continued. 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134 (Burials), a. 3. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 13. 
 
 8. 6. 
 
 See Burial. 5. 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137 (Charitable Trusts), s. 17. 
 
 See Charity. 6, 10. 
 
 ss. 24, 26. 
 
 See Charity. 
 
 5,9. 
 
 44. 
 
 16 & 
 
 s. 41. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 s. 62, 66. 
 
 See Charity. 3, 8, 15. 
 17 Vict. c. clxvi. (East London Water- 
 works). 
 See Water. 34. 
 
 1854. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31 (Eailway and Canal Traffic). 
 See Eailway. 65. 
 
 ss. 1, 3. 
 
 See Gaming. 8, 5, 10, 11, 
 Justices. 6. 
 
 S3. 1, 3, 4. 
 
 See Gaming. 8. 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119,3. 3. 
 
 See Gaming. 16, 18. 
 Pabtnersbip. 4. 
 
 12, 14, 15, 33. 
 
 S3. 1, 2. 
 
 See Eailway. 
 
 8.2. 
 
 See Eailway. 
 
 s. 6. 
 
 See Eailway. 
 
 s. 7. 
 
 See Eailway. 
 
 64. 
 
 50, 53, 54. 
 
 49. 
 
 16. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36 (BiHs of Sale). 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 44. 
 Company. 29. 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 38 (Gaming), o. 4. 
 
 See Gaming. 4, 34. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. u. 60 (Cruelty to Animals), s. 3. 
 See Criminal Law. 6 — 8. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 82 (Lancaster Court), B. 7. 
 See Lancaster. 3. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 91 (Valuation of Lands, Scot- 
 land), s. 6. 
 See Scottish Law. 24. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102 (Corrupt Practices Preven- 
 tion), B. 12. 
 See Criminal Law. 4. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 (Merchant Shipping), ss. 2 
 303, 318. 
 See Shipping. 2. 
 
 ss. 2, 358. 
 
 See Shipping. 195. 
 
 S3. 2, 388. 
 
 See Shipping. 188. 
 
 s. 21. 
 
 See Shipping. 168. 
 ss. 43, 69. 
 
 See Shipping. 175. 
 s. 50. 
 
 See Shipping. 174. 
 SB. 62, 63, 64, 103. 
 
 See Alien. 2. 
 Shipping. 216. 
 ss. 109, 243. 
 
 See Shipping. 183, 
 
DUEINa THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 STATTJTES— conKnaed. 
 17 & 18 Yiot. 0. 104, s. 171. 
 
 See SmppiNG. 264. 
 s. 182. 
 
 See Shippinq. 223. 
 s. 361. 
 
 See Justices. 51. 
 sa. 376, 379. 
 
 See SHippnia. 187. 
 S3. 458, 476. 
 
 See Shipping. 239. 
 s. 506. 
 
 See Shipping. 171. 
 
 17 & 18 Yiot. u. 112 (Literary and Scientific 
 Institutions), a. 30. 
 See SoiENTino Sooiett. 1. 
 
 SB. 30, 33. 
 
 See Scientific Society. 2. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 113 (Loclce King's Act). 
 See Executor. 17, 18, 20. 
 moetqage. 75. 
 Partnership. 41. 
 "Will. 85, 86, 87, 147. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. oil. (Llandudno Improvement 
 Act), s. 68. 
 See Rates. 45. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. 0. oxxiv. (Bradford Waterworks), 
 
 s. 44. 
 
 See Water. 39. 
 
 1855. 
 
 18 & 19 Viot. 0. 43 (Infants' Settlements), s. 1. 
 
 See Infant. 38. 
 sa. 1, 2. 
 
 See Infant. 41. 
 18 & 19 Viot. 0. 63 (Friendly Sodeties). 
 
 See Friendly Society. 1. 
 
 83. 9, 13, 15, 25, 27. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 4. 
 18 & 19 Vict. c. 90 (Costs), o. 2. 
 
 See Revenue. 124. 
 18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill (Bill of Lading), s. 1. 
 
 See Shipping. 41. 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Shipping. 32. 
 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120 (Metropolis Management), 
 
 a. 6. 
 
 See London, 99, 100. 
 B. 58. 
 
 See Nuisances. 41. 
 ss. 68, 69, 85, 86, 250. 
 
 See Nuisances. 17, 61, 62. 
 
 S3. 68, 250. 
 
 See London. 57. 
 
 ss. 69, 73. 
 
 See London. 63. 
 69, 135, 188. 
 
 See London. 65. 
 3. 85. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 25. 
 London. 54. 
 
 • s. 96. 
 ! London, 
 
 91. 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 18 & 19 Vict. 0. 120, s. 98. 
 
 See Highway. 1. 
 8. 105. 
 
 See London. 74, 75, 77, 82, 83, 84. 
 as. 105, 250. 
 
 See London. 78, 79, 80, 81, 85. 
 
 B. 119. 
 
 See London. 7, 88. 
 
 3. 128. 
 
 See London. 50. 
 
 S3. 135, 138, 140, 250. 
 
 See London. 62. 
 
 3. 161. 
 
 See Company. 144. 
 Rates. 63. 
 
 38.161,250. 
 
 See Sheriff. 11. 
 
 B. 250. 
 
 See London. 55, 56, 58, 60, 68. 
 
 18 & 19 Vict. 0. 121 (Nuisances Removal), sa. 8, 
 11, 12. 
 
 See Nuisances. 17. 
 
 IThis Act is repealed hy the Puhlio Health 
 (London) Act, 1891.] 
 
 18 & 19 Viot. 0. 122 (Metropolitan Building). 
 IThis Act is repealed by the London Building 
 Act, 1894.] 
 
 SB. 3, 82, 85. 
 
 See London. 20. 
 
 S3. 3, 83. 
 
 See London. 24. 
 
 sa. 6, 38. 
 
 See London. 30. 
 3. 19. 
 
 See London. 27. 
 a. 26. 
 
 See London. 7. ' 
 
 33. 27, 49, 51. 
 
 See London. 29. 
 sa. 45, 46, 105. 
 
 See London. 10, 18. 
 a. 73. 
 
 See London. 12. 
 
 18 & 19 Vict. c. 124 (Charitable Trusts), a. 29. 
 See Charity. 1, 5, 7. 
 
 29, 48. 
 
 See Charity. 9. 
 
 1856. 
 
 19 & 20 Viot. c. 20 (Bank Notes). 
 See Banker. 20. 
 
 19 & 20 Vict. 0. 47 (Joint Slock Companies). 
 See Company. 184. 
 
 19 & 20 Viot. c. 56 (Exchequer Court), d. G. 
 See Revenue. 172. 
 
 19 & 20 Vict. 0. 58 (Registration of Votes 
 (Scotland) ), s. 46. 
 See Parliament. 31, 62, 78. 
 
TABLE Of STAXtJTES JUDICIALLY CONSlDEEBt) 
 
 ST A.TVTES— continued. 
 
 19 & 20 Vict. c. 60 (Mercantile Law — Scotland), 
 
 B. 6. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 16, 32. 
 19 & 20 Vict. 0. 79 {Banliruptcy— Scotland), 
 
 s. 102. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 2. 
 sa. 102, 103, 132, 152, 155. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 1. 
 19 & 20 Vict. 0. 97 (Mercantile Law), s. 5. 
 
 See Pkinoipal and Sueett. 3. 
 Shippinq. 67. 
 8. 14. 
 
 See Tkustee. 59. 
 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112 (Metropolis Management). 
 
 s. 8. 
 
 See London. 99. 
 
 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120 (Settled Estates), s. 23. 
 
 See Partition. 2. 
 
 1857. 
 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43 (Justices), a. 2. 
 
 See Justices. 33, 35. 
 
 20 & 21 Vict. u. 57 (Married Woman — Malim' 
 Act). 
 See Divorce. 126. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 4, 34, 35, 36. 
 Settlement. 20. 
 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 71 {Lunacy — Scotland). 
 See Scottish Law. 26. 
 
 20 & 21 Vict, o. 77 (Prnhate), s. 24. 
 
 See Probate. 13. 
 s. 26. 
 
 See Probate. 86, 103. 
 B. 29. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 29. 
 68. 54—58. 
 
 See County Court. 11. 
 B. 63. 
 
 See Estoppel. 9. 
 s. 70. 
 
 See Pkobate. 60. 
 • s. 73. 
 
 See Probate. 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 39, 41, 
 43, 44, 45, 49, 54, 56, 68, 70, 71, 73. 
 s. 79. 
 
 See Probate. 141. 
 
 8.81. 
 
 See Probate. 4. 
 8. 83. 
 
 See Probate. 3. 
 ss. 105, 113. 
 
 See Annuity. 3. 
 20 & 21 Viet. 0. 79 (Probate— Ireland), S8. 94, 
 
 95. Additional Rules for Eegistrars. 
 
 See W. N. 1897 (Jan. 9), p. 9. 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 81 (Burial), s. 23. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 10, 12. 
 8. 25. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 26, 29. 
 20 & 21 Vict. 0. 85 (Matrimonial Causes). 
 
 See Divorce. 14. 
 ■ 88. 7, 22, 25, 26. 
 
 See Divorce. 85. 
 
 SIATUTES— continued 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, 
 See Divorce. 
 
 8.17. 
 
 9. 
 
 
 8.21. 
 
 See DivoHCB. 
 Probate. 
 
 65. 
 106. 
 
 
 B8. 21, 25, 
 
 See Husband 
 
 26. 
 
 AND Wife. 
 
 11, 18. 
 
 s. 22. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 Husband 
 
 7. 
 AND Wife. 
 
 84. 
 
 8. 27. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 114. 
 
 
 8. 28. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 38—41, 99. 
 
 
 E8. 28, 33. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 42. 
 
 
 8. 30. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 27, 32. 
 
 
 SB. 30. 33, 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 59. 
 30. 
 
 
 8. 31. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 109. 
 
 19, 29, 71, 105, 1 
 
 SB. 31, 32. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 62. 
 
 
 «. 32. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 2, 6, 12, 13, 
 
 103. 
 
 88 32, 35. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 18. 
 
 
 8. 33. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 166, 263. 
 
 8. 35. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 Infant. 
 S3. 35, 45. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 20. 
 26. 
 
 132. 
 
 
 8. 45. 
 
 See DivoKCB. 
 8. 51. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 23, 121, 123 
 50, 52, 58. 
 
 , 124, 126. 
 
 8. 52. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 116. 
 
 
 S3. 54, 58. 
 
 See Probate. 
 
 143. 
 
 
 8. 79. 
 
 See Probate. 
 
 141. 
 
 
 B. 83. 
 
 See Probate. 
 
 
 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. clvii. (Lord Mayor's Court). 
 
 See London. 43, 45. 
 
 8. 11. 
 
 See London. 44. 
 
 1858. 
 
 21 & 22 Vict. c. 27 (Lord Cairns' Act). 
 
 See Injunction. 32. 
 Lancaster. 1. 
 Support. 1. 
 
 See Light and Aib. 12. 
 
DUEiNG THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 
 21 & 22 Vict. 0. 44 {Vniversities Estates'), as. 27, 
 28. 
 See Univebsitt. 4. 
 
 21 & 22 Vict. c. 57 (Ecclesiastical Leasing Act). 
 See EcoLESiASTioAL Law. 35. 
 
 VeNDOB and PtIBCHASEB, 56 A. 
 
 S3. 1, 2, 10. 
 
 See BooLESiASTicAL Law. 44. 
 
 21 & 22 Viet. c. 90 (Medical Practitioners), 
 ss. 28, 29. 
 See JnsTiOES. 47. 
 
 Medical Peactitionbr. 2. 
 
 s. 40. 
 
 See Medical Pkaotitionee. 3. 
 
 21 & 22 Vict. c. 93 {Legitimacy Declaration), 
 68. 4, 5, 7, 8, 11. 
 
 See Legitimacy. 1. 
 
 21 & 22 Viet. o. 95 (Probate Court), s. 11. 
 
 iSee County Coobt. 11. 
 Pkoeatb. 143. 
 B. 23. 
 
 See Pkobate. 103. 
 
 21 & 22 Viet. c. xii. (Merthyr Tydfil Water). 
 See Water. 27. 
 
 21 & 22 Viet. c. xcii. (Mersey Docks), =. 221. 
 See Shipping. 193. 
 
 21 & 22 Vict c. oxlix. (Clyde Navigation), s.76. 
 
 See PiEB. 
 
 1859. 
 
 22 & 23 Vict. 0. 17 (Vexatious Indictments), 
 
 59. 
 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 Gaming. 5. 
 
 22 & 23 Viet. c. 35 (Law of Property), s. 14. 
 See Will. 33. 
 
 22 & 23 Vict. c. 49 (Poor Law— Payment of 
 Debts), 8. 1. 
 See Poor Law. 3. 
 
 • S3. 1, 4. 
 
 See Poor Law. 
 
 1,2. 
 
 22 & 23 Vict. 0. 61 (Matrimonial Causes), a. 4. 
 Bee DivoEOE. 20. 
 Infant. 26. 
 
 as. 4, 5. 
 
 See DivoEOB. 
 
 18. 
 
 22 
 
 g 5 
 
 See bivoECE. 95, 120, 121, 122, 124, 
 126, 128. 
 8.25. 
 
 See DivOBOB. 127. 
 & 23 Vict. c. oxxxiii. (Watermen's and- 
 
 Lightermen's Company). 
 
 See Thames. 4. 
 
 s. 56. 
 
 See Cebtiobaei. 1. 
 
 - . S3. 66, 80. 
 
 See Thames. 12. 
 
 By-law 99. 
 
 See Thames. &. 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 
 1860. 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 15 (Death Duties), a. 4. 
 See Eetende. 131. 
 
 23 & 24 Viet. c. 27 (Licensing), a. 19. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 28. 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. e. 32 (Brawling), a. 2. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 46. 
 
 23 & 24 Viet. e. 38 (Law of Property), a. 1. 
 
 See Will. 87. 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Executor. 6, 39. 
 — 8. 13. 
 
 See Charity. 47. 
 
 23 & 24 Viet. e. 90 (Excise), s. 14. 
 
 See Bevbnub. 49. 
 [B«t see now the Customs and Inland Revenue 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 7), s. 2.] 
 
 23 & 24 Viet. c. 93 (Tithes), s. 28. 
 See Parish Councils. 1. 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 125 (Gas— Metropolis), ss. 4, 
 14—19, 39. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 157. 
 Gas. 3. 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 126 (Common Law Procedure), 
 8. 1. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 60. 
 
 s. 17. 
 
 See Appeal. 29. 
 
 23 & 24 Viet. c. 127 (Solicitors), a. 26. 
 See County Court. 48. 
 Solicitor. 137, 139. 
 
 s. 28. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 67, 68. 
 Practice. 234. 
 Solicitor. 7—14, 105. 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. 0. 136 (C^iaritaMe Trusts), ss. 2, 
 4, 6, 8. 
 See Charity. 4. 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. 0. 142 (TJnion of Benefices). 
 See BuBiAL. 6. 
 
 23_& 24 Vict. c. 144 (Divorce Court), s. 5. 
 See Divorce. 61. 
 
 63. 5, 7. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 27. 
 
 8. 6. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 123. 
 
 S.7. 
 
 See Divorce. 
 
 25, 54. 
 
 1861. 
 
 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10 (Admiralty Court), b. 5. 
 See Shipping. 180. 
 
 8. 7. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 201. 
 
 8. 8. 
 
 See Shippinq. 
 
 214. 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 267. 
 
 s. 15. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 57. 
 
ococxri 
 
 Table of statutes judicialllY considbkbD 
 
 1899 
 
 STATUTES— conWrnwecJ. 
 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, b. 34. 
 See Shipping. 101. 
 
 24 & 25 Vict c. 91 {Stampe), a. 17. 
 See Game. 1. 
 
 24 & 25 Vict. 0. 96 {Lareeny), ss. 3, 100. 
 See Faotok. 7. 
 
 8. 44. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 55. 
 
 s. 68. 
 
 See Company. 106. 
 Criminal Law. 12. 
 
 3. 75. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 13. 
 Criminal Law. 36. 
 
 ss. 75, 76. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 37. 
 Extradition. 7. 
 
 s. 83. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 Extradition. 3. 
 
 s. 88. 
 
 See Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 22), Sched. 
 
 s. 91. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 40. 
 s. 95. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 31. 
 s. 100. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 226. 
 Criminal Law. 41. 
 
 25 Vict. e. 97 {Malicious Damage), s. 16. 
 See Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. 0. 22), Sched. 
 
 s. 51. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 42. 
 s. 52. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 43, 44. 
 25 Vict. c. 98 (Forgery), s. 38. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 34. 
 
 25 Vict. 0. 99 (Coinage Offences), ss. 9, 12, 
 o7. 
 See Criminal Law. 58. 
 
 25 Vict. c. 100 (Offences against the 
 
 Person), s. 18. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 47. 
 s. 43. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 80, 99. 
 Justices. 19. 
 s. 45. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 71. 
 
 24 & 
 
 24 & 
 24 & 
 
 24 & 
 
 24 & 
 24 & 
 
 25 Vict. c. 109 (Salmon Fishery), s. 8 
 See Fishery. 7. 
 
 25 Vict. c. m (Wills), a. 1. 
 See Powers. 17, 23. 
 
 1862. 
 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 42 (Bolt's Act). 
 
 See Lancaster. 1. 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 53, s. 17. 
 
 See Land. 3, 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61 (Sighways), a. 35. 
 
 See Highway. 26. 
 25 & 26 Vict. 0. 63 (Merchant Shipping), a. 3. 
 
 See SaippmG. 175. 
 s. 18. 
 
 See Shipping. 223. 
 
 g 5^_ 
 
 See Shipping. 163, 169, 170, 171. 
 BS. 66, 72 (now s. 496 o) the Act of 
 
 1894). 
 
 See SHrppiNa. 26. 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68 (Fine Arts Copyright). 
 
 See Copyright. 1, 24, 32. 
 
 SB. 1, 2, 4, 6. 
 
 See Copyright. 
 
 ss. 1, 4. 
 
 See Copyright. 
 
 ss. 1, 6. 
 
 See COPYBIGHT. 
 
 39. 
 
 19. 
 
 37. 
 
 ss. 3, 4, 6. 
 
 See Copyright. 9. 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Copyright. 24. 
 S3. 4, 12. 
 
 See Copyright. 25. 
 
 See Copyright. 16, 17, 40. 
 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89 (Companies), a. 4. 
 
 See Company. 259, 309. 
 Criminal Law. 13. 
 ss. 4, 199. 
 
 See Building Society. 21. 
 ss. 6, 8, 30, 43. 
 
 See Company. 69. 
 S3. 6, 18. 
 
 See Company. 192, 258, 260 
 ss. 7, 8, 12, 25, 38. 
 
 See Company. 277. 
 BS. 7, 14. 
 
 See Company. 157. 
 ss. 7, 38, 98, 102. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 112. 
 S3. 8, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, 31, 38. 
 
 See Company. 12. 
 ss. 8, 41. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 57. 
 s. 13. 
 
 See Company. 261. 
 S3. 14, 19, 38 ; Table A, s. 7. 
 
 See CoMPAiTY. 285. 
 ss. 16, 38, 101. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 227, 228. 
 ss. 10, 50. 
 
 See Company. 188. 
 BS. 16, 161, 162. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 1. 
 3. 19. 
 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. 
 0. 48), Sched. 
 s. 23. 
 
 See Company. 13, 129, 265. 
 
 Company— "^inding-up. 23,40,42. 
 
DUEINQ- THE TEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 STATUTES— contoMed. 
 25 & 26 Viot. c. 89, ss. 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 43, 56, 
 
 58, 67, 100, 154—156. 
 
 See GOMPAUT. 30. 
 ss. 23, 39. 
 
 See OOMPANT. 201, 266. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Company. 131. 
 S3. 26, 27. 
 
 See Appeal. 7. 
 83. 30, 77. 
 
 See Company. 291. 
 s. 31. 
 
 See Company. 267, 268, 297. 
 
 s. 32. 
 
 See Company. 252, 253. 
 
 ss. 33, 39, 62. 
 
 See Company. 264. 
 
 23, 255, 298, 299. 
 ■WiNDiNG-irp. 46, 264. 
 8. 
 
 304. 
 
 300. 
 
 s. 35. 
 
 See Company. 
 Company- 
 Damaqes. 
 
 S3. 35, 87, 98, 153. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 63. 35, 131. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 BS. 35, 158. 
 
 See CoMPAUY — ^Wdtdins-tjp. 
 
 3. 38. 
 
 See Bonus. 
 
 Company. 138, 139, 279. 
 Company — ^Windins-tjp. 
 50, 205. 
 
 ss. 38, 51. 
 
 See Company. 6. 
 
 ss. 38, 131, 133, 153. 
 
 See Company — Windotg-up. 
 
 B. 43. 
 
 34, 251. 
 
 204. 
 
 25, 36, 41, 
 
 52. 
 
 See Company. 
 ss. 43, 156. 
 
 See Company. 254. 
 BS. 45, 46. 
 
 See Companies Act. 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. 
 0. 48), Soiled. 
 3. 50. 
 
 See Company. 7. 
 B. 51, Table A. 
 
 See Company. 163, 164, 166. 
 s. 51, Table A, arts. 85, 37, 42. 
 
 See Company. 169. 
 BS. 51, 129. Sched. I., Table A, rr. 42, 
 
 43, 48, 51. 
 
 See COMPAJTY. 163. 
 s. 53. 
 
 See Company. 234. 
 ■ — T- s. 67, Table A, arts. 35, 52, 53, 58, 
 
 62, 71. 
 
 See Company. 99. 
 s. 69. 
 
 See Company. 39. 
 ss. 74, 75. 
 
 See London. 
 
 3. 75. 
 
 See-CoMPANY. 10. 
 
 STATUTlSa— continued. 
 
 25 & 26 Viot. o. 89, ss. 75, 101, 102, 120. 
 See Company — Winding-up. 24. 
 
 s. 79. 
 
 See Company. 276. 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 163,'-164, 
 16.5, 166, 167, 168. 
 
 ss. 79, 80. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 176. 
 
 ■ S3. 79, 91. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 160, 172. 
 
 ss. 79, 91, 129. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 241. 
 
 — • ss. 79, 129, 145. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 162. 
 
 ss. 81, 141. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 103. 
 
 ss. 81, 171, 199. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 102. 
 
 s. 82. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 38. 
 
 s. 85. 
 
 See Company— Winding-up. 107, 137, 
 232, 
 Costs. 28. 
 Injunction. 28. 
 
 ss. 87, 138, 163. 
 
 See Distress. 4. 
 
 • BS. 87, 151. 
 
 See Company — ^WiNDiNG-rp. 209, 235. 
 Conflict op Law. 14. 
 
 ss. 87, 163. 
 
 See Company - Winding-up. 91, 93, 130, 
 251. 
 
 s. 89. 
 
 bee Company — Winding-up. 234. 
 
 s. 91. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 20, 106, 
 219, 222, 224. 
 
 ss. 91, 145. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 78, 161. 
 
 ss. 91, 145, 149. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 240. 
 
 ss. 95, 98, 102. 
 
 See Company. 8. 
 
 ss. 95, 133. 145, 161. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 22. 
 
 BS. 96, 1.^3. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 124. 
 
 BB. 98, 133, 138, 151, 161. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 
 
 BS. 98, 164. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 97. 
 
 s. 101. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 29. 
 
 S3. 109, 133. 
 
 See CoMPANY^-WlNDING-UP. 15, 19. 
 
 83. 110, 144. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 73, 123, 
 252. 
 
 2 d 
 
TABLE OF S'J'ATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED 
 
 STATUTES— coniOTMed. 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89, s. 111. 
 See Company. 110. 
 
 s. 115. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 83, 86, 88 
 89. 
 Discovery. 14. 
 
 as. 115, 147. 
 
 See Company — Winding-cp. !hi. 
 
 s. 122. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. :^33. 
 
 a. 124. 
 
 fiai: Appeal. 39. 
 
 a. 129. 
 
 See Company — A\'inding-t]P. 247. 
 Injunction. 6. 
 
 a. 133. 
 
 Si'p Company — 'Winding-up. 44. 
 
 ss. 133, 138. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 24.3. 
 
 as. 133, 138, 163. 
 
 Si-e Company — Winding-up. 248. 
 
 68. 133, 139. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 24;i. 
 
 ss. 133, 161. 
 
 See Company. 216. 
 
 a. 138. 
 
 See Company. IMli, 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 118. 
 
 ss. 138, 141. 
 
 See Company — Windix(;-up. 104. 
 
 ss. 138, 163. 
 
 See Company — AVinding-up. 193. 
 
 ■ s. 141. 
 
 Si'f Company — Winding-up. 111. 
 
 ^ S3. 142, 143. 
 
 See Company — Winding-dp. 75. 
 
 a. 145. 
 
 See Company— AViNDiNG-up. 242. 
 
 a. 147. 
 
 See Company — Winding-dp. 236, 246. 
 
 s. 150. 
 
 See Company— AViNDiNG-up. 126. 
 
 —a. 151. 
 
 See Company — AVinding-dp. 
 
 s. 156. 
 
 See Discovery. 21. 
 
 3. 158. 
 
 See Company — AVinding-up. 208 
 
 s. 161. 
 
 See Company. S!), 214, :il."i ■>17 2ls 
 219,220,287. ' " ' 
 
 — a. 163. 
 
 See Company— A\'iNDiNQ-up. 92. 
 Injunction. 7. 
 
 a. 164. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 113,114 
 Company— AViND i ng-dp. 
 
 3. 165. 
 
 See Company. 133. 
 twf^f- '""^i"^, i^^PeaUd by the Companies 
 i^T^'/Tf] 'l<}&?0 (53 * 54 Viet c.63), and 
 ■••■ 10 of iliat Act suhstitnlcd.] 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 
 25 & 26 Vict. u. 89, as. 165, 200. 
 
 See Savings Bank. 1. 
 a. 176. 
 
 See Company. 183. 
 ■ B. 180. 
 
 See Company. 262. 
 ss. 183, 191—196, 209. 
 
 See Company. 194. 
 
 s. 192. 
 
 IBepealed by Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 
 Vict. c. 48), Sehed.2 
 3. 199. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 159, 239. 
 s. 200. 
 
 See Building Society. 15. 
 Sched. I, Table A, clause 74. 
 
 See Company. 152. 
 Table A, art. 27. 
 
 See Company. 270. 
 25 & 26 Vict. u. 101 (Police and Improvements 
 
 ■ — Scotland), a. 162. 
 
 See Streets. 5. 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102 (Metropolis Management). 
 
 See Mandamus. 5. 
 ss. 47, 48, 61. 
 
 See London. 61 . 
 8. 61. 
 
 See London. 62. 
 Si. 84, 96. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 25. 
 London. 5t. 
 3. 73. 
 
 See London. 92. 
 S3. 74, 75. 
 
 See London. 6. 
 3. 75. 
 
 See London. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9. 
 
 Sec London. 74, 76, 77. 
 as. 77, 96. 
 
 See London. 79. 
 ss. 77, 112. 
 
 See London. SO, 83, 85. 
 s. 85. 
 
 See London. 16. 
 ss. 85, 107. 
 
 See London. 15. 
 s. 106. 
 
 See London. 98. 
 s. 112. 
 
 See London. 75, 81, St. 
 
 25 & 26 Vict. 0. 103 (Parochial Assesmcnt). 
 
 See Rates. 54. 
 
 33. 18,19. 
 
 See Rates. 70, 71, 72. 
 
 1863. 
 
 26 & 27 Vict. 0. 41 (Tnnlceepers), s. 1. 
 
 See Innkeeper. 2. 
 26 & 27 Vict. c. 05 (Volunteers), a. 21 
 
 See Army and Navy. 8. 
 3. 24. 
 
 See Army and Navy. 5. 
 
DUUIXfi THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 STATUTES— coiifimMtc?. 
 20 & 27 Vicl. c. 65, s. 2G. 
 
 See Akmy and Navy. 6. 
 
 26 & 27 Vict. c. 87 {Savings Banks), sa. 6, 11. 
 See Savings Bank. 1. 
 
 26 & 27 Vict. o. 93 {Waterworlts), as. 17, 19. 
 See Wateb. 16. 
 
 26 & -11 Vict. e. 112 {Telegraph), S3. 10, 12, 13. 
 See Telephone. 4. 
 
 26 & 27 Vict. c. 117 {Nuisances, Removal), a. 2. 
 See Food. 6. 
 
 26 & 27 Vict. c. 118 {Cmnpanies Clauses), ». 21. 
 
 See Company. 274. 
 Railway. 31. 
 
 sa. 22, 24. 
 
 See Company. 71. 
 
 ■ as. 22, 27. 
 
 See Company. 63. 
 
 1864. 
 
 27 & 2S Vict. c. 32 {BanTcs). 
 
 See Banker. 20. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. 39 {Union Assessment Com- 
 mittee), a. 1. 
 See Bates. 70. 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Kates. 4. 
 
 a. 6. 
 
 See Justices. 46. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. 0. 55 (Metropolitan Police), s. 1. 
 See London. 
 
 See Music and Dancing. 5, 6. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. 95 {Fatal Accidents). 
 See Negligence. 1. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112 {Judgments). 
 See Peactiob. 74. 
 
 Judgment Debt. 2. 
 Limitations, Statute of. 39. 
 Will. 87. 
 
 aa. 1, 4. 
 
 See Jcdgihent Debt. 1. 
 Receiver. 12. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. 114 {Improvement of Land), 
 
 as. 15, 63, 68, 69. 
 
 See Settled Land. 105. 
 a. 60. 
 
 See Settled Land. 103. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. 0. cxi. {Private Railway Act). 
 See Scottish Law. 36. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. cclxxv. {Private Railway Act), 
 cl. 17. 
 See Contract. 7. 
 
 1865. 
 
 28 & 2;) Vict. c. 18 {Evidence), s. 8, 
 See Criminal Law. 20. 
 
 .28 & 29 Vict, 
 a. 15. 
 See Parliament. 
 
 36 {Registration of Voters), 
 146. 
 
 72 {Navy and Marines Wills 
 2. 
 
 STATUTES— comtmaed. 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. c. 44 {Tyne Pilotage Order Con- 
 firmation), Sched., as. 16, 22. 
 See Shipping. 88. 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. 
 Act). 
 See Army and Navy. 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. c. 78 {Mortgage Debentures), ss. 10, 
 46. 
 See Company. 199. 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. 0. 83 {Locomotives), ss. 3, 7. 
 See Locomotive. 2. 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. u. 86 {Bovill's Act), sa. 1, 5. 
 See Bankruptcy. 138, 179. 
 
 28 & 29 Viot. c. 90 {Metropolitan Fire Brigade), 
 a. 32. 
 See Water. 12. 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. c. 104 {Crown Suits), aa. 13, 14, 
 15, 16. 
 See Discovery. 15. 
 
 a. 57. 
 
 See Revenue. 134. 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. 0. 121 {Salmon Fisheries). 
 See Fishery. 6. 
 
 Bs. 27, 61. 
 
 See Fishery. 9. 
 Justices. 52. 
 
 28 & 29 Viot. c. 122 {Clergy). 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 74, 75. 
 c. ccl. {Newcaitle-on-Tyne Im- 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. 
 
 provement). 
 
 See Cobpoeation. 3. 
 
 1866. 
 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. 32 {Matrimonial Causes). 
 
 See Divorce. 1. 
 
 See Divorce. 2, 8, 18. 
 
 See Divorce. 38, 39. 
 
 29 & 30 Vict. 0. 38 {Burial). 
 See Parliament. 107. 
 
 29 & 30 Vict. 0. 39 {Revenue), a. 20. 
 
 Rule under Judicial Trustees Act, 1896. 
 W. N. 1899 (March 18), p. 79. See 
 Current Index, 1899, p. cxxiii. 
 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. 10!) {Naval Discipline), aa. 19, 
 
 87. 
 
 See Army and Navy. 2. 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. 118 {Industrial Schools). 
 
 See Justices. 9. 
 Rates. 27. 
 
 s. 14. 
 
 See Schools. 2. 
 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. 122 {Common). 
 See Common. 7. 
 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. oclxxiii. {Glasgow— Police), 
 ss. 332, 335. 
 See Scottish Law. 39. 
 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. cccxi. {Private Railway Act). 
 See Scottish Law. 36. 
 
 2 d 2 
 
TABLK OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY COXSIDKKKU 
 
 STATUTES— eo»iiJn«(!(J. 
 
 1867. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 3 (British North America). 
 
 See Canada — Law of Canada— Do- 
 minion and Constitutional Law. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. u. 23 (Stamps— Duties), s. 1, 
 Sched. B, and s. 4. 
 See Revenue. 163. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35 (Criminal Law), o. 1. 
 
 See Ckiminal Law. 59. 
 Gaming. 5. 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 47 (Lis Pendens), s. 2. 
 
 See Lis Pendens. 2. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 69 (Loolce King's Act). 
 See Will. 86. 
 
 80 & 31 Vict. c. 84 (Vaccination), sa. 29, 31. 
 See Vaccination. 2. 
 
 9. 31. 
 
 &e Vaccination. 4—6,7,8. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. 0. 90 (Excise), ss. 1, 3, 17. 
 See Revenue. 129. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 101 (Public Health^Scotland), 
 s. 95. 
 See Scottish Law. 3. 
 
 30 .V 
 
 31 Vict. c. 102 (Representation of the 
 People), s. 3. 
 ' ~~ 94. 
 
 110, 116. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 Pabliament. 
 sa. 3, 20. 
 
 See Parliament. 
 ■ sa. 3, 27. 
 
 See Parliament. 
 s. 7. 
 
 See Rates. 38. 
 a. 28. 
 
 See Parliament. 
 
 139. 
 
 50. 
 
 109. 
 
 STATUTES — c ontinued . 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. l:il, sa. 9, li'. 
 
 See Company. 228. 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Company. 223, 234, 240. 
 sa. II, IG. 
 
 See Company. 248. 
 a. 13. 
 
 See Company. 229. 
 ss. 13, 14. 
 
 See Company. 225. 
 
 See Company. 265. 
 
 s. 24. 
 
 \ See Company. 13. 
 
 1 s. 25. 
 
 See Bonus. 
 I Company. 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 221, 
 
 I 272, 277, 280, 281, 284, 288. 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 26, 33, 34, 
 
 35, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 61. 
 New South Wai.es. 7, 8. 
 ] IThis section ix repealed hy Companies Act, 
 , 1900 (63 <t- 64 Vict. r. 48), Sched.'] 
 
 \ B. 38. 
 
 See Company. 206, 209, 279. 
 [27ijs section and s. 39 are repealed hi/ Com- 
 panies Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. c. 48), Sched.] 
 
 s. 40. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 137, 177. 
 Injunction. .'<. 
 
 s. 55. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 31. 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 133 (Consecration of Church- 
 yards). 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 20. 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 134 (Metropolitan StreeU), 
 a. 6. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. lOG (Poor Law Amendment 
 Act), a. 27. 
 See Adulteration. 17. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124 (Merchant Shipping), s. 9. 
 
 See Shipping. 164. 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 127 (Bailway Companies), a. 4. 
 
 See Railway. 38, 39, 55. 
 S3. 6, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17. 
 
 See Railway. 59. 
 s. 18. 
 
 See Railway. 58. 
 a. 24. 
 
 See Company. 71. 
 s. 27. 
 
 See Railway. 31. 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 131 (CompanUa). 
 
 See Company. 178, 222, 232, 233, 236, 
 
 237, 241, 250. 
 
 See Company. 101, 226, 245. 
 83. 9—11. 
 
 See Company. 227, 235, 246. 
 ■ fs. 9, 11, 13, 14, 25. 
 
 See Company. 249. 
 as. 9, U, 15, 16. 
 
 See Company. 6. 
 
 See London. 
 
 87. 
 
 — • s. 15. 
 See London. 
 
 80. 
 
 s. 23. 
 
 See Gaming. 
 London. 
 
 29, 30, 31 
 5. 
 
 30 & 31 A"iot. u. L-. (Eiclimomi—Gas). 
 
 See Gas. 4. 
 
 1868. 
 
 31 & 32 A'iet. c. 4 {Rereiaians), a. 1. 
 
 See Reversion. 
 31 & 32 A'iot. 0. 5 (Metropolitan Streets), s. 1. 
 
 St"« London. fi7, 89. 
 31 & 32 \'ict. c. 17 (County Courts Admiralty 
 
 Jurisdiction , a. 26. 
 
 Sec Shipping. 
 31 & 32 Viet. c. 40 (Partition), a. 6. 
 
 Sec Partition, l."). 
 
 See Pautition. 10. 
 
 See Partition. 2. 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 48 (Reprcsfiitatton of tlie 
 People), a. :■!. 
 See Parliament. 25, 40, 44, 117. 
 
DUBTN'G THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 7, 81, 82, 85. 
 
 STATUTES— i^onhmucd. 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 48, s. 4. 
 
 See Paeliament. 6ii, 76, 
 
 ss. 4, 22. 
 
 See Pabliambnt. 59. 
 
 31 & 32 A'ict. 0. 49 {Representation of the 
 People — Ireland'), a. 4. 
 See Paeliament. (;6. (i7, 80. 
 
 31 & 32 Yiot. 0. 54 (Judgments Extension), 
 S3. 1, 4. 
 
 See Imprisonment. 3. 
 Judgment Debt. 4. 
 
 8. 3. 
 
 See ExEOUTOE. 7. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. 0. 121 (Pharmacy) s. 15. 
 See Poison. 4 — 6. 
 
 s. 17. 
 
 See Poison. 3. 
 
 31 & 32 Viot. e. 125 {Parliamentary Elections), 
 s. 11, sub-s. 11. 
 See Parliament. 11. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. 0. cxxx. {Salford Hundred Court 
 of Record), ss. 6, 7. 
 See Prohibition. 6. 
 
 ss. 3, 4. 
 
 See BAKKEnPTOT. 
 
 24. 
 
 31 & 32 Viot. c. 71 {County Court — Admiralty), 
 
 8S. 2, 36. 
 
 See Shipping. 7S. 
 — • 8. 3. 
 
 See Shipping. !i1, 92, 9S, 239, 267. 
 
 ss. 3, 9. 
 
 See Shipping. 91—93. 
 
 ss. 3, 12, 23. 
 
 See Shipping. 202. 
 
 ss. 3, 21. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 ■ ss. 5, 21. 
 
 Si-K Shipping. 
 
 ss. 10, 11. 
 
 ,sV« Shipping. 
 
 113. 
 
 212. 
 
 211. 
 
 • ss. 10, 13, 23, 25. 
 Liverpool Couets. 
 
 s. 21. 
 
 iS'(?« Shipping. 
 
 ■ ss. 26, 31. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 203 
 
 3, 2fa:T. 
 
 31 & 32 Yict. c. 84 {Entail Amendment), a. 11. 
 Si-i'. Keven€B. 24. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 89 {Inclosure, &c.. Expenses). 
 Fees to ie taken in respect of transactions 
 under the Tithe and other Acts. W. N, 
 1900 (May 19), p. 143. See Current 
 Index, 1900, p. xc, 
 
 31 & 32 A'ict. c. 100 {Court of Session— Scot- 
 land), 8. 101. 
 See Scottish Law. 2i;. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 101 {Titles to Land Consolida- 
 tion—Scotland), 8. 19. 
 See Scottish Law. 50. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 109 {Church Rates Abolition), 
 
 8.5. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 6. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116 {Partnership), s. 1. 
 See Company. 259, 309. 
 Criminal Law. 13. 
 
 31 & 32 Viot. c. 119 {Regulation of Railways), 
 
 8.41. 
 
 See Bail WAT. 47. 
 
 s. 15. 
 
 See Poison. 4, 5, G. 
 
 32 & 33 Viot, 
 
 Revenue), a. 19. 
 See Eevenue. 
 
 1869. 
 
 14 {Customs and Inland 
 
 10. 
 
 32 & 33 Viot. c. 19 {Stannaries), ss. 2, 13. 
 See Cost-Book Mine. 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27 {Wine and Beerhouse), u. 7. 
 See Licensing Acts. 2, 3. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 13. 
 
 88. 8, 9. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 8, 41. 
 
 ss. 8, 19. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 7, 14, 21, 27. 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. 0. 41 {Poor Rate Assessment). 
 
 See Rates. 54. 
 — s. 2. 
 
 See Rates. 66. 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Rates. 41. 
 . ss 3 4 
 
 See Rate. 62, 69. 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Rates. 55. 
 • 8. 16. 
 
 See CoMPANT. 34, 144. 
 s. 19. 
 
 See Parliament. 116. 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. 0. 46 {Debts). 
 
 See Executor. 25, 36, 38. 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 48 (Companies Clauses), a. 5. 
 See Company. 274. 
 Railway. 31. 
 
 32 & 33 Viot. 0. 51 {County Courts), ss. 1, 2, 4. 
 See Shipping. 78, 113, 212. 
 
 88. 1, 6. 
 
 See Liverpool Courts. 4. 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Shipping. 196. 
 8. 4. 
 
 See Shipping. 98. 
 
 32 & 33 Viot. o. 56 {Endowed Schools). 
 See Mandamus. 1. 
 
 S3. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 24. 
 
 See Charity. 13. 
 
 s. 14. 
 
 See Charity. 
 
 S3. 19, 39. 
 
 See Charity. 
 
 11. 
 
 10a. 
 
ooccxxii 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY eoNSIDEItED 
 
 STATVT'ES— continued. 
 32 & 33 Vict. 0. 56, s. 39. 
 See Chaeity. 12. 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. 0. 62 {Dehtors), s. 4. 
 See BANKKtiPTCT. 66, 210. 
 Imprisonment. 2. 4, 5, 6. 
 Paktnekship. 1. 
 solioitok. 86, 112. 
 
 — — ■ ss. 4, 5. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. 38. 
 Imprisonment. 3. 
 Judgment Debt. 4. 
 
 See Bankedptoy. 166, 197, 206, 240. 
 County Couet. 37. 
 Master and Sertant. 90. 
 
 ■ s. 11. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 122. 
 S8. 11,13. 
 
 /Sic Criminal Law. 32. 
 s. 13. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 33, 54. 
 s. 18. 
 
 See Baukruptoy. 123. 
 Criminal Law. 56. 
 
 32 &33 Vict. 0. &1 {Valuation— Metropolis). 
 
 See Bates. 7. tfeg,_-s. i y*'. 
 38. 1, 11, 19. 
 
 See Eates. 
 
 72. 
 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Bates. 
 
 12,4 
 
 s. 32. 
 
 See Bates. 
 
 7,8. 
 
 ss. 32,^,34,"41. 
 
 See Bates. 2. 
 
 23. 
 
 1. 
 
 ss. 43, 46, 47. 
 
 See Bates. 43. 
 
 See Bates. 3. 
 32 & 33 Vict. 0. 68 (^Evidence), =. 2. 
 
 See Evidence. 31. 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71 (Banlcruptay'). 
 
 See Bankkuptoy. 154. 
 S8. 4, 17, 22. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 254. 
 s. 49. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute. 
 s. 52. 
 
 See Bank op England. 
 s. 72. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 251. 
 
 S. 74.';J 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 69. 
 
 8. 81. 
 
 See Bankruptcy, 42. 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 102 {Metropolitan Board 
 
 Worlcs Loan). 
 
 See Charity. 119. 
 
 1870. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 20 {Mortgage Debentures), sa. 
 
 See Company. 199. 
 
 of 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 
 33 & 34 Viet. c. 28 (Solicitors), ss. 4, 5, 
 
 See Solicitor. iS, 7S. 
 B8. 4, 8, 10, 15. 
 
 See Solicitor. 19- 
 
 See Solicitor. 21. 
 88. 8, 9. 
 
 See Solicitor. 20. 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 29 (Licensing), s. 7. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 13, 27. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 3.i (Apportionment). 
 
 See Company. 132. 
 Distress. 2. 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Apportionjient. 1. 
 
 ss. 2, 3, 4, 5. 
 
 See Settled Land. .s. 
 ss. 5, 7. 
 
 See Will. 76. 
 
 See Apportionment. 2. 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 48 (Paupers' 
 
 (Expenses) ), Order under. 
 
 See Poor Law. 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 52 (Extradition). 
 
 See Criminal Law. 37. 
 Extradition. 6. 
 ■ ■ s. 3. 
 
 See Ceuiinal Law. 14. 
 Evidence. 32. 
 Extradition. 2, 4, 5. 
 8. 6. 
 
 See Extradition. 7. 
 8. 9. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 63. 
 Extradition. 1. 
 33 & 34 Vict. 0. 56 (Limited Owners' Resi- 
 dences), 8. 9.1 
 
 See Mortgage. 53. 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 57 (Extradition), s. 7. 
 
 See Eevenue. 50. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 61 (LifelAssurance Companies), 
 
 8.2. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 8. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 71 (National Debt), s. 52. ' 
 Sf( Bask op England. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75 (Elementary Education), 
 
 88. 19, 20. 
 
 See London. 28. 
 Schools. S. 
 s. 34. 
 
 See Schools. 5. 
 s. 35. 
 
 See Schools. Id. 
 
 Sohed. II., Part 1, r. 14. 
 
 Sec Schools.^ 3, 4. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. 0. 77 (Juries), ss. 3, 9, Sohed. ] 
 See Coroner. 3. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. 0. 78 (Tramways), 83. 12,'6t. ] 
 See Tramways. 8. 
 
 " s. 18. 
 
 See Tramways.") 7. ; 
 
CUBING THE YBAKS 1891—1900. 
 
 STAXUTES— continued. 
 33 & 34 Vict. 0. 78, bs. 28, 29, 55, 56. 
 See Tramways. 6, 12. 
 
 . SB. 28, 32. 
 
 See Telephone. 4. 
 
 s. 43. 
 
 See House oi' Loeds. 2. 
 Tramways. 1, 2. 
 s. 44. 
 
 See Tkamways. 3, 5. 
 as. 51, 52, 56. 
 
 See Tramways. 9. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. 0. 90 (Foreign Erdistmenf). 
 See Foreign Enlistment Act. 1. 
 
 See Foreign Enlistment Act. 3. 
 
 . s. 11. 
 
 See FoREiSN Enlistment Act. 2. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. u. 93 (Married Women's Property), 
 
 s. 7. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 62 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. 13, 40. 
 Insdranoe, 16, 17. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 97 (Stamps), ss. 2, 105, 107. 
 See Ketenue. 147. 
 
 See Kevenue, 181. 
 
 ss. 15, 107. 
 
 See Kevenoe. 171. 
 
 s. 48, Sohed. 
 
 See Eetenue. 142. 
 s. 54. 
 
 See Eetenue. 176. 
 
 88. 70, 71. 
 
 See Eetenue. 159. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. 0. 104 (Joint Stock Companies 
 Arrangement). 
 See Appeal. 39. 
 Company. 220. 
 Company — Windins-up. 215, 216, 
 
 225. 
 Victoria. 2. 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 235. 
 Company. 167. 
 
 Company — Wmding-up. 219 — 224, 
 226. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. u. clxxi. (London Street Tram- 
 
 ways), a. 44. 
 
 See Tramways. 1. 
 
 1871. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. c. 11 (Poor Chmrdians), s. 2. 
 
 See Poor Law. 4. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. c. 22 (Lunacy), ss. 109, 114. 
 See Lunacy. 25. 
 
 34 & 35 Viot. 0. 31 (Trade Unions). 
 See Trade Union. 9, 11. 
 
 ss. 2, 3. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 3. 
 Trade Union. 10. 
 
 STATUTES— cojiMnued. 
 
 34 & 35 Viot. c. 31, s. 4. 
 
 See Trade Union. 6. 
 
 See Trade Union. 2. 
 
 34 & 35 Viot. 0. 32 (Criminal Law Amendment 
 Act), s. 1. 
 
 ;See Criminal Law. 3. 
 Trade Union. 8. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. 0. 41 (Gasworks Clauses), s. 9. 
 
 ;See Support. 1. 
 S3. 11, 12, 36. 
 
 See Gas. 2. 
 S3. 11, 39. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 157. 
 Gas. 3. 
 ss. 24, 36. 
 
 See Gas. 4. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. 0. 45 (Sequestration), ss. 1 — 4. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 72. 
 ss. 1, 5, 6. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 71. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict, 0. 87 (Sunday Observance), a. 1. 
 See Sunday. 2. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. 0. 90, s. 4. 
 See Burial. 6. 
 
 34 & 35 Viot. 0. 96 (Pedlars), ss. 3, 6. 
 See Pedlak. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. 0. 98 (Vaccination), s. 5. 
 
 See Vaccination. 3. 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Vaccination. 2. 
 
 34 & 35 Viot. 0. 103 (Customs andl Inland 
 Revenue), a. 31. 
 See Eetenue. 61. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. c. 113 (Metropolis— Water), ss. 7, 
 16, 44, 45. 
 " "~ 20. 
 
 See Water. 
 s. 34. 
 
 See Water. 
 s. 48. 
 
 See Water. 
 
 12. 
 
 25. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. c. Ixxxix. (Edinburgh]Tramways). 
 See Tramway Company. 
 
 1872. 
 
 35 & 36 Viot. 0. 21 (Industrial School). 
 
 See Rates. 27. 
 35 & 36 Vict. 0. 33 (Elections— Ballot). 
 
 See County Council. 1. 
 District Councils. 2. 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Schools. 6. 
 
 35 & 36 Viot. 0. 44 (Chancery Funds), s. 5. 
 See Principal and Agent. 13. 
 
 35 & 36 Vict. c. 65 (Bastardy), s. 3. 
 
 See Bastardy. 1, 4. 
 ss. 3, 4. 
 
 See Bastardy. 2. 
 Justices. 36. 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Bastardy. 4. 
 
TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY OONSIDEKED 
 
 STATUTES— coni/jjiied. 
 35 & 36 Viot. u. 76 (Coal Mines Regulation), 
 8. 17. 
 See Mines. 6. 
 
 35 & 36 Viofc. c. 77 (Metalliferom Mines), s. 23. 
 See Mines. 17. 
 
 s. 35. 
 
 See Mines. 
 
 16. 
 
 35 & 36 Vict. V. 89 {Borough and Local Courts 
 of Mecord), Sch. clause 12. 
 See London. 47. 
 
 35 & 36 Viot. c. 91 {Borough Funds), s. 2. 
 See CoBPOEATiON. 10. 
 
 35 & 36 Viot. u. 93 {Pawnhrolcers), s. 39. 
 See Pawnbkokee. 
 
 35 & 36 Viot. c. 94 {Licensing), s. 3. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 28, 34, 35, 41, 42, 
 i?,, 44. 
 
 s. 12. 
 
 See LicENSiNa Acts. 
 
 s. 13. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 s. 16. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 S3. 37, 43. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 e. 40. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 
 40, 43, 50. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 40, 74. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 
 8. 42. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 s. 50. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 
 30. 
 
 2!)— 31. 
 
 146. 
 
 STATUTES— conMnwei. 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, ss. 16, 34. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 31. 
 Prohibition. 5. 
 
 s. 19. 
 
 See Appeal. 
 
 41. 
 
 10, 13—20. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 33. 
 
 35 & 36 Vict. 0. xxiii. (Gas Light and Coke 
 Company's Act), s. IS. 
 See Gas. 1. 
 
 35 & 36 Vict. c. c. {Metage on Grain {Port of 
 London,)), s. 4, 
 See London. 42. 
 
 1873. 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 12 {Custody of Infants). 
 See Infant. 17. 
 
 36 & 37 Viot. 0. 38 {Vagrant), s. 3. 
 See Gaming. 32. 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 48 {Bailways and Canals). 
 See Bail WAT. 05. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 39. 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. 0. 66 (Judicature), s. 16. 
 See Appeal. 16. 
 
 s. 24. 
 
 iSee CoMPAUT — Winbins-up. 232. 
 
 s. 24, sub-s. 3. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 47. 
 
 Practice. 152, 153. 
 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Arbitration. 55. 
 
 Assignment. 2 — 4. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 191. 
 
 Company. 74. 
 
 Contract. 3. 
 
 Injunction. 2, 15, 18, 20, 23. 
 
 Landlord and Tenant. 79. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. 21. 
 
 Merger. 3. 
 
 Receiver. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 18, 24. 
 
 Statutes. 32. 
 
 s. 39 
 
 See Solicitor. 21. 
 
 s. 45. 
 
 See Arbitration. 42. 
 Practice. 54. 
 Shipping. 5. 
 
 8. 47. 
 
 See Appeal. 7, 10, 11. 
 
 s_ 49^ 
 
 See Costs. 8, 10, 11, 66. 
 Divorce. 50, 58, 66. 
 Practice. 
 
 8. 50. 
 
 See Appeal. 1, 4, 9. 
 
 s. 52. 
 
 See Appeal. 44. 
 
 s. 100. 
 
 See Arbitration. 10, 47. 
 Discovery. 18. 
 Probate. 88. 
 36 & 37 Vict. 0. 71 (Salmon Fishery), s. 62. 
 
 See Fishery. 11. 
 36 & 37 Vict. 85 (Merchant Shipping), s. 17. 
 See Shipping. 71, 80. 
 Ship. 71. 
 36 & 37 Vict. e. 86 (Elementary Education), 
 Sched. II. 
 See Schools. 6. 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 87 (Endowed SchooU), a. 9. 
 
 See Charity. 13. 
 
 1874. 
 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 15 (Betting), s. 3. 
 
 See Gaming. 8. 
 37 & 38 Vict. 0. 37 (Powers— Lord Selhorne's 
 Act). 
 See Will. 104. 
 37 & 38 Vict. 0. 42 (Building Society), ss. 4,32. 
 See Building Society. 19, 20. 
 Company — Winding-up. 98. 
 
 S3. 13, 14, 21, 38. 
 
 See Building Society. 7. 
 
DURTNi; THE YEAES 1891- 
 
 STA.TWI'ES—contmitcd. 
 
 37 & 38 Tict. c. 42, as. 16, 18. 
 
 See BttiLDiNG Society. 9. 
 ss. 16, 36. 
 
 See Btiildinq Societt. 1. 
 S9. 18, 32. 
 
 See BuiLBiifG Society. 5. 
 s. 32. 
 
 See BriLDiNG Society. 3, 24. 
 SB. 32, 38, 39. 
 
 See Building Society. 4. 
 s. :-f6. 
 
 See Aebitbation. 35. 
 s. 40. 
 
 See BuiLiiiNG Society. 21. 
 SB. 41, 42. 
 
 See Kevenue. 168. 
 B. 43. 
 
 jSee Building Society. 10. 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 49 (^Licensing}, S3. 3, 9. 
 
 See LicEssmG Acts. 33. 
 ss. 9, 10. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 32, 36, 37. 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 38, 39. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 9, 41, 42. 
 s. 16. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 45. 
 s. 17. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 40. 
 B. 26. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 10, 13, 19, 20. 
 
 37 & 38 Viet. c. 57 (Seal Property Limitation). 
 See Chaeity. 47. 
 Copyhold. 1, 7. 
 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Copyhold. (-. 
 Easement. 7. 
 Will. 2:i. 
 
 SB. 1, 2. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 34. 
 Settled Lakd. 8;i. 
 
 ss. 1, 2, 8. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 23. 
 
 S3. 1, 9. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 31. 
 
 See Mortgage. 67. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 4, 6, 21, 
 22, 26, 29, 30, 39, 40. 
 Trustee. 82. 
 
 ss. 8, 10. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute uf. 24. 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 62 (Infants' Relief), s. 1. 
 See Infant. 33. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 16, 33. 
 
 Bill of Exchange. 12. 
 
 Building Society. 7. 
 
 Justices. 49. 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Infant. 6, 33. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 
 37 & 38 Vict. o. 68 {Attorneys and Solicitors^ 
 
 a. 12. 
 
 See Justices. 49. 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 68 (Solicitors), s. 12, sub-s. 1. 
 
 See Solicitor. 136. 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 78 (Vendor and Purchaser), 
 
 ss. 1, 2. 
 
 See Vendob and Puechaseb. 86. 
 SB. 2, 5. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 97^99. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 37. 
 
 Vendor' A3JD Purchaser. 37, 41 , 48. 
 37 & 38 Viot. c. 85 (Fuhlic Worship Regulation), 
 
 ss. 8, 9. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 62. 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 87 (Endowed Schools), s. 6. 
 
 See Charity. 13. 
 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 94 (Conveyancing — Scotland), 
 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 48. 
 
 1875. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 24 (Falsification of Accounts). 
 
 See Extradition. 3. 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 50 (County Court), s. 10. 
 
 See Shipping. 5. 
 38 & 39 Vict. V. 55 (Public Health). 
 
 See Water. 42. 
 
 See Srwebs. 10. 
 SB. 4, 13. 
 
 See Sewers. 1. 
 ss. 4, 13, 15, 21, 94, 95. 
 
 See Sewers. 26. 
 SB. 4, 13, 15, 41. 
 
 See Sewers. 13. 
 4, 13, 41. 
 
 See Sewers. 12. 
 S3. 4, 13, 327. 
 
 See Sewers. 11. 
 4, 16, 54, 57, 308. 
 
 See Water. 19. 
 ■ ss. 4, 42. 
 
 See London. 48. 
 SB. 4, 51, 52, 55. 
 
 See Water. 15, 23. 
 SB. 4, 150, 257. 
 
 See Streets. 29, 32. 
 S3. 4, 150, 276. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 110. 
 SB. 4, 157. 
 
 See Streets. 18. 
 ss. 4, 257. 
 
 See Streets. 31. 
 s. 13. 
 
 See Nuisances. 26. 
 s. 13. 
 
 See Sewers. 7, 14, 15, 16. 
 ss. 13, 15, 17, 19, 27. 
 
 See Water. 1. 
 
 BS. 13, 15, 18, 150, 180, 257, 268. 
 
 See Sewers. 8. 
 
TABI,K OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEKED 
 
 STATUTES— conWntied. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, ss. 13, 15, 94, 95, 96. 
 
 See Sewees. 3. 
 BS. 13, 15, 150. 
 
 See Seweks. 5. 
 
 ss. 13, 150. 
 
 See Sewees. 9. 
 
 BS. 15, 16, 17. 
 
 See Sewees. 32. 
 
 ss. 15, 17, 21, 257. 
 
 See Watee. 2. 
 
 EB, 15, 19, 21,299. 
 
 See Sewees. 6. 
 ss. 15, 19, 299. 
 
 See Sewees. 2,^19. 
 
 15, 150, 157, 277. 
 
 See Sewees. 24. 
 
 ss. 15, 299. 
 
 See Pkaotioe. 91. 
 Sewees. 4. 
 
 ss. 16, 32, 33, 34, 54, 285. 
 
 See Watee. 21. 
 
 S3. 17, 21. 
 
 See Sewees. 27. 
 ss. 21, 299. 
 
 See Sewees. 25. 
 s. 36. 
 
 See Watekolosets. 4, 5. 
 
 ss. 36, 305. 
 
 See "Wateeolosets. 2. 
 
 ss. 39, 149. 
 
 See Stkeets. 1. 
 
 See Sewees. 28, 29,i,30, 31. 
 
 ss. 51, 229, 230. 
 
 See Watek. 36. 
 
 See Watee. 10. 
 
 ss. 57, 332. 
 
 See Watee. 43. 
 s. 62. 
 
 See Watee. 11. 
 s. 66. 
 
 See Watee. 13. 
 
 ss. 91,96. 
 
 See Appeal. 10. 
 
 See Nuisances. 
 
 s. 107. 
 
 See Nuisances, 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 149. 
 See Highway. 6. 
 
 ss. 149, 161. 
 
 See Steeets. 11. 
 
 ss. 149,340. 
 
 See Steeets. 28. 
 
 B. 150. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 24. 
 Peinoipal and Agent. 10. 
 Steeets. 20 — 24. 
 
 SB. 150, 151, 152. 
 
 See Steeets. 33. 
 
 Bs. 150, 180. 
 
 See Sewees. 21. 
 
 S3. 150, 257. 
 
 See Streets. 25. 
 
 Vendoe and Pubohasbe. 65. 
 
 ss. 150, 257, 268. 
 
 See Sewees. 20. 
 
 s. 155. 
 
 See Steeets. 3. 
 
 s. 156. 
 
 See Steeets. 2. 
 
 s. 157. 
 
 See Building. 3. 
 Sewees. 18. 
 Steeets. 16 — -18. 
 
 s. 158. 
 
 See BuiLDEE. 
 
 s. 166. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 20. 
 Maekets and Paies. 3. 
 
 s. 171. 
 
 See PiEE. 1. 
 
 s. 174. 
 
 See District Councils. 1. 
 
 s. 175. 
 
 See Local Goveknment. 4. 
 
 S3. 175, 176. 
 
 See SoLiciTOE. 
 
 275. 
 
 See Sewees. 
 
 18. 
 175, 176, 229- 
 
 -235, 242, 270- 
 
 23. 
 
 28. 
 
 15. 
 
 285. 
 12. 
 
 6s. 112, 131, 
 
 See Nuisances. 
 
 ss. 116, 117. 
 
 See Justices. 25, 26. 
 ss. 116, 117, 308. 
 
 See CoEPOEATioN. 27. 
 Justices. 27. 
 s. 124. 
 
 See Justices. 10,11. 
 ss. 144, 264. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute or. 
 
 19. 
 
 ss. 175, 295. 
 
 See Local Government. 
 
 s. 180. 
 
 See Abbiteation. 36. 
 
 ss. 210, 229, 230. 
 
 See Bates. 68. 
 
 3.211. 
 
 See Company. 84. 
 Bates. 58. 
 Wateb. 35. 
 
 3. 246. 
 
 See Looal Gotebnment. 
 
 ss. 256, 261. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 43. 
 
 s. 264. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute; op. 36. 
 
DURING THE YBAES 1891—1900. 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 •SS & 39 Vict. 0. 55, s. 267. 
 
 See Pkactice. 225. 
 s. 276. 
 
 See Streets. 26. 
 s. 308. 
 
 See Costs. 76. 
 
 ■ s. 334. 
 
 See Nuisances. 27. 
 
 s. 343, Sehed. V., Part HI. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 13. 
 
 36 & 39 Vict. c. 60 {Friendly Societies), as. 4, 
 
 28. 
 
 See Fkiendly Society. 8. 
 S3. 6, 15, 25. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 4. 
 ■ 3. 15. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 13. 
 
 ss. 15, 17. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 2. 
 s. 16. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 12, 14. 
 s. 22. 
 
 See Arbitration. IS. 
 
 Fkiesdlv Society. 3, 9, 10. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 5. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63 (Sale of Foods and Drugs), 
 a. 3. 
 See Adulteration. 1. 
 
 ss. 6, 7. 
 
 See Adulteration. 2, 20. 
 
 ss. 6, 12, 14, 20, 21, 28. 
 
 See Adulteration. 17. 
 
 ss. 6, 14, 21, 25. 
 
 See Adulteration. 25. 
 ss. 6, 18. 
 
 See Adulteration. S. 
 ss. 6, IS, 21. 
 
 See Adulteration. 10. 
 ss. 6, 20, 27. 
 
 See Adulteration. 3, 27, 28. 
 ss. 6, 21. 
 
 See Adulteration. 6. 
 ss. 6, 25. 
 
 See Adulteration. 5. 
 
 See Adulteration. 18, 19. 
 
 ss. 9, 13. 
 
 See Adulteration. 22. 
 
 ss. 13, 14. 
 
 See Adulteration. 12. 
 s. 14. 
 
 See Adulteration. 11. 
 3. 18. 
 
 See Adulteration. 7. 
 3. 21. 
 
 See Adulteration. 9. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Adulteration. 26. 
 s. 26. 
 
 See Adulteration. 16. 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63, s. 27. 
 
 See Adulteration. 23, 24. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. 0. 77 (Judicature), s. 10. 
 See Bankruptcy. 117, 164. 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 93, 204, 
 
 207, 208, 210, 227, 228, 229. 
 Executor. 24, 34, 35, 37. 
 
 s. 17. 
 
 See Practice. 223. 
 
 s. 18. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 29. 
 
 3.21. 
 
 See Practice. 
 
 15. 
 
 See Practice. 134. 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 84 (Parliamentary Flections — ■ 
 Meturning Officers), ss. 3, 4. 
 See Parliament. 144. 
 
 See Trade Union. 12, 13. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86 (Conspiracy and Protection 
 of Property), ss. 3, 7. 
 See Criminal Law. 3. 
 Trade Union. 8, 11. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 2, 13. 
 Justices. 13. 
 Trade Union. 12, 13. 
 
 ss. 7, 16. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 1. 
 s. 16. 
 
 See Shipping. 256. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict, c, 87 (Land Transfer), o. 48. 
 
 See Trustee. 13. 
 s. 95. 
 
 See Middlesex Kegistet. 1. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. 0. 89 (PuMie Works Loans', 
 Si. 28; 36. 
 See Sewehs. 23. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 90 (JBhnployers and Worhmen), 
 s. 4. 
 See Master and Servant. 91, 94. 
 
 ss. 5, 6. 
 
 See Apprentice. 2. 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Apprentice. 2. 
 Infant. 4. 
 Master and Servant. 53, 55, 106. 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 91 (Trade Maries), ss. 5, 10. 
 
 See Tbade-makk. 54. 
 
 3. 10. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 48, 49. 
 
 1876. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 16 (Oustoms and Inland 
 
 Revenue), s. 8. 
 
 See Kevenue. 70, 78, 79. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 17 (Partition), s. 6. 
 See Partition. 7. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 22 (Trade Unims), sa. 1, 10. 
 See Trade Union. 6. 
 
cccexxviu 
 
 TABU-: OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY C'OXSIDKRKl) 
 
 ST&.TVT'ES—contimied. 
 30 & 40 Vict. c. 22, s. 16. 
 
 See Tkaue Union. 10. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36 {Customs Consolidation), 
 ss. 129, 144, 145. 
 See Shipping. 187. 
 31) & 40 Viet. c. 45 {Industrial and Provident 
 Societies), s. 11. 
 
 See Industrial ani > rRoviDENT Society. 
 3. 
 
 ■ s. 12. 
 
 See Industiiial ani> Protijient Society. 
 1. 
 
 s. 17. 
 
 See Company — Winding-l-p. 100. 
 Inddstrial and Provident Society. 
 5. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 56 {Gommons). ». 20. 
 
 See CoMiiON. i. 
 s. 33. 
 
 See Incloscke. 1. 
 
 a;i & 40 Vict. 0. 59 {Appellate Jurisdiction). 
 See Appeal. 23. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Appeal. 
 
 ss. 3, 12. 
 
 See Appeal. 
 
 a. 20. 
 
 22. 
 19. 
 
 See Divorce. 50, 58. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 61 {Divided Parishes), 
 3,8. 
 See Poor Law. 
 
 9. 1, 
 
 11. 
 
 s. 23. 
 
 See Poor Law. 
 
 9. 34. 
 
 See Poor Law. 1 2, 1 3, 20. 
 s. 35. 
 
 See Poor Law. 14 — 16. 
 s. 36. 
 
 See Poor Law. 19. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 75 {Eivers Pollution Prevention), 
 
 ss. 2, 17, 20. 
 
 See Water. 4. 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Estoppel. 11. 
 ss. 3, 10, 11. 
 
 See Discoveey. 39. 
 Water. 1, (i. 
 ss. 4, 7, 16. 
 
 See Sewer.s. 27. 
 
 See Practice. 111. 
 Sewers. 4. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. 0. 79 {Elementary Education), 
 s. 47. 
 See Schools. 1. 
 
 .•19 & 40 Vict. c. 80 {Mercliant Sliipping), s. 5. 
 
 See Shipping. 260. 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, ss. 6, 10. 
 
 See Shipping. I. 
 
 Bs. 13, 34, 37. 
 
 See Shipping. 184. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, s. 23. 
 
 See Shipping. 27ii. 
 9. 28. 
 
 See Shipping. 185. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict.c. ccxxx. {Slo<:l:ti>n and Middlef- 
 
 brouqli Corporations Wtilr-neorkf). s. i. 
 See Water. 8. 
 
 1877. 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. K,. 16 {Removal cf Wrrcla). ss. 4 
 
 6, 8. 
 
 See Shipping. 254. 
 40 & 41 Vict. c. 18 {Settled Estate.-:). ». 4. 
 See Mines. 15. 
 
 99. 4, 13. 
 
 See Settled Land. 7". 
 
 s. 16. 
 
 See Settled Land. 56. 
 
 s. 24. 
 
 See Settled Lan II. 101. 
 
 BS. 26, 27, 2.S. 
 
 See Settled Land. 54. 
 s. 34. 
 
 See Powers. 22. 
 9. 38. 
 
 See Settled Land. 114. 
 s. 50. 
 
 See Husband and Wifk. .'.>. ,">!i. 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. c. 26 {Cumpanies). 
 
 See Company. 178, 222, 223, 22,'>. 232, 
 233, 236, 237. 241, 25li. 
 
 See Company. 104, 226, 235. 245. 248. 
 ss. 3, 4. 
 
 See Company. 234, 246, 249. 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Company. 231, 242. 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. c. 33 {Contingent Peimiindfrf). 
 See M^iLL. 71. 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. c. 34 {Locl.e Ki„<j\ AefAm.wl- 
 ment Act). 
 
 See Executor, l.s, 20. 
 Will. 5, 84, 87. 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. 0. 42 {Fislierii, Oi/i't, r, Crnh. n/if! 
 Lobster), s. 4. 
 See Fishery. 1. 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. c. 48 {Unim-aitks of Camlridge 
 and Oxford), ss. 28, 45. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 2, 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. c. 55 {Public Secord Oficc), s. 1- 
 Etde dated Dec. 9, 1S9S. W. N. 1893 
 (June 3), p. 183. See Current Index, 
 1899, p. cxxxvii. 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. 0. 57 {Judical in; —Ireland), s. i.i. 
 See Practice. 4. 
 
 s. 86. 
 
 See Appeal. 19. 
 
 40 & 41 Viet. c. xxx. {Middleshrongh Improve- 
 ment), a. 25. 
 See Corporation. 1. 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891— liioi). 
 
 STATVTES—continued. 
 
 1878. 
 ll & 42 Viet. 0. 15 (Oustoms and Inland 
 
 59. 
 
 91, 112, 115. 
 
 52, 54, 55, 60, 64, 65. 
 
 i), s. 3. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 3. 12. 
 
 Sei' REVBNnE. 
 
 3. 13. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 ■ 3. 22. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 12. 
 
 41 A" 42 Vict. c. 16 (Factory and Worhsliop), 
 s. 5. 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 ■ 39. 5, 81, 82, 86, 87. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 3. 9. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 ■ ss. 17, 83, 94. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 3. 51. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 ■ s. 82. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 ■ s. 93, Sched. IV. 
 
 See Master and Seuvant. 12, 62. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 18 (Public Works Loans), a. 4. 
 See Sewers. 23. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 19 (Matrimonial Causes), s. 2. 
 See Divorce. 54. 
 
 See Divorce. 95, 120. 
 
 63, 64. 
 
 66. 
 
 59, 61, 63. 
 
 60. 
 
 61. 
 
 65. 
 
 76, 80, 89, 92. 
 c. 25 (Publie Healths Water), 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 Justices. 19. 
 
 41 i- 42 Vict. 
 
 8.3. 
 
 See Water. 11. 
 
 ■ s. 10. 
 
 See Water. 36. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. o. 26 (Parliamentary and Mrnii- 
 cipal Registration), s. 5. 
 See Parliament. 119, 133. 
 Rates. 38. 
 
 38. 24, 28. 
 
 See Parliament. 28. 
 
 3. 26. 
 
 See Parliament. 89. 
 
 ■ ■ a. 28. 
 
 See Parliament. 27, 32, 34, 37, 90, 119, 
 145. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31 (Bills of Sale). 
 See Bill of Sale. 14, 38. 
 Company. 29. 
 
 33. 3, 4. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 29. 
 Delivery Order. 
 Furniture Waeehousbbs. 
 
 10, 30, 37, 42. 
 
 40. 
 
 STATVTES—continued. 
 41 & 42 Viet. u. 31,3. 4. 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 Mines. 8. 
 
 ss. 4, 5. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 
 
 ss. 4, 6. 
 
 See Mines, .s. 
 
 33. 4, 8. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 47, 51. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 13. 
 Frauds, Statute op, 
 
 ss. 8, 10. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 3. 10. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 
 34, 50. 
 
 9. 14. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 
 
 18. 21, 55. 
 
 5, 7, .8, 15, 16, 27, 
 
 45. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. 
 ss. 4, 6. 
 See LoNDOU. 
 
 32 (Metropolis Management)^ 
 28. 
 
 8. 12. 
 
 See Music and Dancinq. 
 
 1. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 33 (Dentists), 3S. 6, 7, 37. 
 See Medical Practitioner. 1. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 49 (Weights and Measures), 
 3. 25. 
 See Weights and Measures. 1, 2. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict c, 54 (Debtors). 
 See Bankruptcy. 240. 
 
 Contempt op Court. 5. 
 Imprisonment. 7. 
 
 41 & 42 Vicl. c. 74 (Contagious Diseases 
 (Animals) ), o. 34. 
 See Dairy. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 77 (Highways and Locomotives), 
 s. 13. 
 See Highway. 20, 21. 
 
 -3 20. 
 
 See County Council. 
 
 HlOHWAY. 24. 
 
 s. 23. 
 
 See Highways. 
 
 ■ B. 27. 
 
 See Mines. 
 
 6. 
 
 12—17, 18. 
 
 27. 
 
 s. 32. 
 
 See Locomotive. 1. 
 
 1879. 
 
 42 & 43 Vict. c. 11 (Bankers' Boohs Emdenoey 
 See Justices. 15. 
 
 3.7. 
 
 See Discovery. 
 
 38. 7, 10. 
 
 See DisoovEBY. 
 
 8, 10, 11. 
 
TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY C02SrSIDERED 
 
 STATVTES—conlinued. 
 42 & 43 Vict. c. 21 (^Customs and Inland 
 Revenue), a. 9. 
 See Shipping. 187. 
 
 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30 (Sale of Food and Drugs), 
 B. 3. 
 5fee Adulteeation. 13,20,21,22. 
 
 See Adulteration. 6. 
 
 8. 10. 
 
 See Adulteration. 4, 17, 23. 
 
 42 & 43 Vict. 0. 49 (Summary Jurisdiction). 
 See Gaming. 5. 
 
 See Justices. 8. 
 
 as. 6, 35. 
 
 See Justices. 2. 
 Poor Law. s. 
 Kates. 62, 
 
 . ss. 12, 19. 
 
 See Justices. 45. 
 
 . s. 16. 
 
 See Revenue. 12. 
 
 s. 17. 
 
 See Cbimiual Law. 59. 
 Justices. 1 4. 
 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Weights and Measdees. 1. 
 
 s. 31. 
 
 See Justices. 40, 41, 43, 44. 
 Licensing. 47. 
 
 ss. 31, 32, 55. ' 
 
 See Justices. 37. 
 . ss. 31, 33. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 12. 
 . s. 33. 
 
 See Justices. 32. 
 
 Licensing Acts. 15. 
 ss. 35, 47. 
 
 See Justices. 3. 
 
 42 & 43 Vict. c. 58 CPuhlic Offices Fees Act, 
 1879), (Order under). 
 W. N. 1897 (Jan. 2), p. 1. See Current 
 Index, 1897, p. Ixxxv. 
 
 ss. 2, 3. 
 
 Notice under— Fees. W. N. 1898, (Dec. 3), 
 p. 397. See Current Index, 1898, 
 p. xcix. 
 
 42 & 43 Vict. 0. 76 (Companies). 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 194. 
 g 5_ 
 
 See Company. 70, 188. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 195. 
 
 1880. 
 
 48 Vict. c. 19 (Companies), s. 7. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 143. 
 
 43 Sc 44 Vict. c. 19 ( Taxes — Management). 
 See Revenue. 11, 114. 
 
 s. 21. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 94. 
 
 STATITTES — continued. 
 43 & 44 Vict. c. 19, s. 50. 
 See Revenue. 115. 
 
 B, 57. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 185. 
 
 s. 59. 
 
 See Revenue. 107. 
 
 43 & 44 Vict. u. 20 {Inland Secenue). ,. 43. 
 See Revenue. 128. 
 
 43 & 44 Vict. c. 41 (Burials), 63. 1, 5. 
 See Burial. 1. 
 
 43 & 44 Vict. c. 42 (Employers' Liability). 
 See County Court. 10. 
 Scottish Law. 30. 
 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 73. 75, 78. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Master and SERVA^■T. 21. 
 s. 4. 
 
 See County Court. 67. 
 
 See Practice. 98. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 53. 
 
 43 & 44 Vict. c. 46 (Universities Estates), ss. 2, 4 
 See University. 4. 
 
 43 & 44 Vict. c. 47 (Ground Game), ss. 1. 2. 3. 
 See Game. 2, 3. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Game. 4, 5. 
 
 43 & 44 Vict, c, cxliii. (Liverpool Corporation 
 Waterworks). 
 See Fishery. 6. 
 
 1881. 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. c. 12 (Customs and Iidmid 
 Merenue), s. 24. 
 See Revenue. 52. 
 
 s. 27. 
 
 See Revenue. 137. 
 
 ss. 27, 41. 
 
 See Revenue. 33. 
 
 s. 32. 
 
 See Revenue. 131, 133. 
 8. 38. 
 
 See. Revenue. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, "?, 9. ll'l 
 117, 185, 186. 
 
 S3. 38, 39. 
 
 See Revenue. 1^7. 
 
 s. 39. 
 
 See Husband axd Wife. 
 ■ s. 40. 
 
 See Revenue. 134. 
 s. 41. 
 
 See Reveni'E. 
 
 s. 42, sub-3. 1 . 
 
 See Infant. 3. 
 s. 52. 
 
 See Powers. 4ii. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891— liJOO. 
 
 STATVT^S— continued. 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. c. 12, ss. 54, 56. 
 See Mortgage. 4. 
 
 a. 63. 
 
 See Mekgek. 
 
 2. 
 
 s. 70, sub-s. 1. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 
 
 23. 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. c. 34 (^Metropolitan Open Spaces), 
 a. 1. 
 See Burial. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 ■- ss. 3, 5. 
 
 See London. 68. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 23. 
 Garden. 2. 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. 0. 41 (Conveyancing and Law of 
 Property). 
 See Settled Land. 41. 
 
 ss. 2, 15. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 282. 
 
 BS. 2, 54, 55. 
 
 See Mortgage. 14. 
 
 1, 86, 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 
 100, 102. 
 
 ss. 3, 13. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 94. 
 s. 5. 
 
 See Conveyancing and Law of Pro- 
 perty. 1. 
 s. 6. 
 
 iSee Vendor AND Purchaser. 
 
 ss. 6, 19. 
 
 See Light and Air. 14. 
 s. 7. 
 
 See Lunacy. 43. 
 
 Vendor and Purchaser. 
 
 8. 14. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 39,40,41. 
 
 28, 81. 
 32, 49, 50, 
 
 51,52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65. 
 47. 
 
 SB. 14, 67. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 SB. 14, 69. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 64. 
 s. 15. 
 
 See Company. 
 B. 18. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 79 a. 
 Mortgage. 41. 
 
 S3. 18, 55. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 B. 19. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 129. 
 
 ss. 19, 20, 21. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 
 
 ss. 19, 24. 
 
 See Distress. 11. 
 s. 21. 
 
 See Land. 3. 
 
 s. 21, Bub-s. 2. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 
 
 76, 78. 
 
 83. 
 
 44. 
 
 STATUTES— contrnwed. 
 44 & 45 Vict. 0. 41, s. 22. 
 See Mortgage. 77. 
 
 s. 24. 
 
 See Company. 34. 
 Mortgage. 57. 
 
 ■ s. 25. 
 
 See Mortgage. 78, 79, 80. 
 
 8. 30. 
 
 See Trustee. DO. 
 Will. 16, 197. 
 
 s. 31. 
 
 See Executor. 14. 
 
 Trustee. 7, 9, 12, 14. 
 
 s. 32. 
 
 See Trustee. 111. 
 
 s. 39. 
 
 See Divorce. 120. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 51, 56, 57. 
 Settled Land. 117. 
 
 s. 42. 
 
 See Infant. 2. 
 
 s. 43. 
 
 See Infant. 23, 27, -^8, 29. 
 Will. 130. 
 
 s. 52. 
 
 See Powers. 40, 41, 42. 
 
 ss. 54, 56. 
 
 See Mortgage. 56. 
 
 s. .56. 
 
 See Vendor and Pcrchaser. 
 
 8. 70. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 
 
 21. 
 
 92. 
 
 39. 
 ;i0. 
 
 22, 73. 
 
 56, 57, 60—63, 82. 
 21. 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. 0. 44 (Solicitors' liemuneration). 
 
 See Solicitor. o5, 60. 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Solicitor. 
 
 See Solicitor. 
 
 See Solicitor. 
 Sched. I. 
 
 See Solicitor. 
 s. 56. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 
 s. 63. 
 
 See Merger. 2. 
 B. 70. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 42, 92. 
 44 & 45 Vict. i;. 58 (Army), ss. 41, 43, 45, 158, 
 
 176. 
 
 Sfi: Army and Navy. 8. 
 S3. 103—110. 
 
 See Army and Navy. 1. 
 
 s. 136. 
 
 See Mandamus. 6. 
 
 s. 143. 
 
 See Highway. 31. 
 44 & 45 Vict. 0. 61 (Sunday Closing — Wales), 
 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 39. 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. c. 62 (Veterinary Surgeons), a. 17, 
 sub-s. 1. 
 See Veterinary Surgeon. 
 
ccccxxxn 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY GONSIDEEED 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68 (^Judicature), a. 9. 
 
 See DivoKOE. 39. 
 s. 14. 
 
 See Appeal. 13. 
 44 & 45 Viot. c. 69 (Fugitive Offenders). 
 
 See Bail. 1. 
 
 44 & 45 Yict. o. xxxv. (MicTimond Gas). 
 
 See Gas. 4. 
 
 1882. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 14 (Metropolis Management), 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See London. 9. 
 
 s. 13. 
 
 See London. 38. 
 
 45 & 46 Viot. c. 15 (Commonable Sights Com- 
 pensation). 
 See Common. 8. 
 
 45 & 46 Viet. o. 20 (Poor Bates), s. 4. 
 See Highway. 25. 
 
 45 & 46 Yict. c. 22 (Boiler Explosions). 
 
 See Boiler. 1. i 
 
 See BoiLEK. 2. [ 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. 0. 38 (Settled Land). j 
 
 See Crown. 2. i 
 
 See Eevenue. 14, 21, 22. J 
 Settled Land. 27, 85, 126, 137. 
 ss. 2, 3, 20, 21, 22, 31, 44, 
 
 See Settled Land. 125. 
 ss. 2, 3, 20, 22, 38, 45, 50. 
 
 See Settled Land. 131. 
 ss. 2, 9, 11, 56. 
 
 See Settled Land. SI. 
 ss. 2, 19. 
 
 See Settled Land. 123 
 ss. 2, 20. 
 
 See Settled Land. 133. 
 es. 2, 20, 50, 58. 
 
 See Settled Land. 132. 
 ss. 2, 21, 25, sub-B. 33. 
 
 See Settled Land. 32. 
 ss. 2, 21, 25, 26. 
 
 See Settled Land. 47. 
 ^ss. 2, 21, .32. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 43. 
 Bs. 2, 21,53. 
 
 See Costs. 65. 
 ss. 2, 21, 56. 
 
 See Settled Land. 53. 
 ss. 2, 25, 26, 58. 
 
 See AcouMCLATiONS. 2. 
 ■ • ss. 2, 88, 58. 
 
 See Settled Land. 135, 137. 
 ss. 2, 38, 59, 60. 
 
 See Settled Land. 129. 
 ss. 2, 50. 
 
 See Settled Land. 130. 
 ss. 2, 53, 58. 
 
 See AOCUMHL ATIONS, ] 0. 
 
 Settled Land. 98- 
 
 STATTJTSS — continued. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. e. 38, ss. 2, 56, 58. 
 See Settled Land. 76. 
 
 ss. 2, 58. 
 
 See Settled Land. 124, 127. 
 
 . ss. 2, 58, 61. 
 
 See Settled Land. 117. 
 
 ss. 3, 4, 20, 55, 62. 
 
 See Lunacy. 43. 
 
 S3. 3, 15, 50, 51, 53. 
 
 See Settled Land. 112. 
 
 ss. 3, 53, 62. 
 
 See Lunacy. 44. 
 
 • ss. 4, 21, 46, 47, 55. 
 
 See Settled Laud. 51. 
 ss. 5, 30. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 105. 
 
 69. 
 
 73. 
 
 ss. 6, 7, 8, 13, 53. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 ss. 6, 13, 17. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 ■ ss. 6—13, 17, 20. 
 
 See Settled Land. 74. 
 
 ss. 6, 20, 45, 53, 58. 
 
 See Settled Land. 75. 
 
 as. 6, 53, 54. 
 
 See Settled Land. 78. 
 
 ss. 6, 62. 
 
 See Lunacy. 
 
 15. 
 
 ss. 7, 22, 45, 53, 54. 
 
 See Settled Land. 67. 
 
 ss. 8, 63. 
 
 See Settled Land. 68. 
 
 ss. H, 12. 
 
 See Settled Land. 80, 83. 
 
 ss. 15, 53. 
 
 See Settled Land. 116. 
 s. 21. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 21, 34, 61, 102. 
 
 ss. 21, 22, 24, 37. 
 
 See Heirlooms. 5. 
 
 ss. 21, 22, 25, 26, 53. 
 
 See Settled Land. 33. 
 
 ss. 21, 22, 53. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 ■ ss. 21, 25, 26. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 ss. 21, 32. 
 
 See Settled IjAND. 
 
 ss. 21, 34. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 3. 22. 
 
 See Settled Land. 120. 
 
 ss. 22, 25. 
 
 See Settled Land. 40. 
 
 3. 25. 
 
 See Settled Land. 29, 104. 
 
 S3. 25, 27. 
 
 See Settled Land. 26. 
 
 12, 37, 59, 111. 
 30, 43, 103. 
 100. 
 17. 
 
DURING THE YBAES 1891—1000. 
 
 ceccxxxiu 
 
 STATUTES— coreKnusd. 
 
 45 & 46 Viet. 0. 38, ss. 25, 51, 56. 
 8se Settled Land. Gl. 
 
 ss. 26, 36. 
 
 See Settled Lakd. 
 
 s. 31. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 S3. 32, 33. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 s. 37. 
 
 See Heiklooms. 
 
 31, 3S. 
 
 113. 
 
 36, 52, 60, 90, 119. 
 
 1,4. 
 
 ss. 37, 51. 
 
 See Heiklooms. 
 
 3. 
 
 128, 136. 
 
 41, 115. 
 
 03, 09. 
 
 20. 
 
 77, 91, 110. 
 
 SB. 38, 40. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 Tkustee. 16. 
 
 • s. 51. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 • ss. 51, 58. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 s. 53. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 s. 58. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 s. 63. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 Appendix Form, 19. 
 
 See Settled Land. 129. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 39 {Conveyancing), s. 3. 
 
 See Vendoe and Pubchaser. 41. 
 
 • s. 10. 
 
 See Will. 35. 
 
 15 & 46 Vict. 0. 40 [Copyright), s. 2. 
 
 See CoPYEiGHT. 29. 
 S3. 2, 15. 
 
 See CoPYBiSHT. 28. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43 {BiUs of Sale). 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 6, 14, 16, 34, 38, 40. 
 Fkauds, Statute or. 6. 
 
 See Bill op Sale, 
 
 STATUTES— co;ift;med. 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43, ss. 7, 10. 
 See Bill op Sale. 23. 
 
 3. 8. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 29. 
 Deliveby Okdeb. 
 fubnitube wabehouser.j. 
 
 ■ 33. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 11, 24. 
 
 38. 8, 9, 12. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 19, 20. 
 
 1,3,4, 31, 41,51. 
 
 12. 
 
 43. 
 
 — s. 9. 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 3. 10. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 3. 14. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 Company. 34. 
 
 • 3. 17. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 28. 
 Company. ' 29. 
 
 Industbial and Pboviuent Sooie vy. 
 2. 
 
 Schedule. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 Selaed. 7. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Cosporation. 
 
 33, 53. 
 
 51. 
 18. 
 11 13. 
 
 ss. 9, 32. 
 
 S'ee Parliament. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. 0. 50 (Municipal Corporations), 
 
 B. 11. 
 
 See Cohpobation. 
 
 19. 
 4. 
 
 42. 
 
 S3. 3, 8, 9, 15. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 ^— 33. 3, 9. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 3. 4. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 SB. 4, 6, 9. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 88. 4, 8, 9. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 3.5. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 -3. 6. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 8.7. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 Bill of Sale. 
 
 ss. 7, 9. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 
 
 13. 
 
 30. 
 
 50. 
 
 26. 
 
 17. 
 
 21, 55, 56. 
 
 53. 
 
 130. 
 22, 32, 
 
 25. 
 
 35, 46, 54, 
 
 s. 22. 
 
 See Cohpobation 
 
 8. 2.8. 
 
 See COEPOBATION. 2, £3. 
 Gaming. 29, 31. 
 3. 25. 
 
 See LooAL Goveenmext. 
 
 ss. 36, 60. 
 
 See COBPOBATION. 7. 
 
 ss. 41, 73. 
 
 See County Council. 2. 
 8. 42. 
 
 See CoBPOBATiON. 17. 
 s. 58. 
 
 See County Council. 1. 
 
 ss. 60, 87, 225. 
 
 See CoBPOBATioN. 15. 
 3. 73. 
 
 See COKPOBATION. 16. 
 
 S3. 77, 88. 
 
 See COKPOEATION. 1 i. 
 
 S3. 87, 225. 
 
 See Coepoeation. 15. 
 8. 93. 
 
 See Appeal. 43. 
 
 ss. 108, 109. 
 
 See CoEPOEATios. 8. 
 
 2 e 
 
TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY COXSIDEEED 
 
 STATUTES —continued. 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, s. 140. 
 
 See CoKPOEATioN. 11, 20. 
 Local Government. 
 
 ■ BS. 140—143, 190, 191, 5th Sohed., 
 
 Part II., cl. 5 (d), cl. 12. 
 See COKPOBATION. 10. 
 
 s. 154. 
 
 See Adulteration. 17. 
 
 ss. 169, 248. 
 
 See CoTJNTY Council. 5. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. 0. 51 (^Parliamentary Elections'), 
 sa. 40, 56. 
 See Parliament. 10. 
 
 45 & 46 Viet. c. 56 (Electric Lighting), ss. 10, 
 12, 17, 32. 
 See Injunction. 33. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61 (Bills of Exchange), S3. 2, 7, 
 73, 
 See Banker. 12. 
 
 ss. 2, 31. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 10. 
 
 S3. 3, 5, 7, 55. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 8. 
 ■ 3. 7. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 7. 
 
 ss. S, 19, 36. 
 
 See Bill or Exchange. 1. 
 
 ■ SB. S, 73, 76. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 23. 
 
 ■ SS. 13, 73. 
 
 See Banker. 14. 
 
 SB. 14, 47. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 4. 
 ■ s. 21. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 1 1. 
 ■ s. 22. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 16. 
 
 Bill op Exchange. 12. 
 Infant. 33. 
 ss. 24, 60, 79, 80, 82. 
 
 See Banker. 19. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 9. 
 — ss. 29, 36, 72. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 22. 
 s. 49. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 5. 
 ss. 51, 57, 65—68, 97. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 203. 
 
 ss. 51, 65—68, 97. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 6. 
 • ss. 55, 56. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 11. 
 3. 57. 
 
 See Practice. 291, 294, 
 • ■ B. 61. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 19. 
 • ss. 62, 89. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. -0. 
 3. 64. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 2. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61, ss. 73, 76. 
 
 See Negotiable Instevuent. 4. 
 
 Bs. 81, 82. 
 
 See Banker. 9. 
 
 s. 82. 
 
 See Banker. 8. 
 
 . B. 83. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 18. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. u. 75 (Married Women's Pro- 
 perty). 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 63. 
 Probate. 51. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 18, 21, 33, 203, 204. 
 Costs. 41. 
 Husband and Wife. 21, 22, 24, 
 
 25, 29, 47, 55, 64, 69. 
 Kates. 62. 
 
 Be. 1, 2. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 s». 1, 2, 17. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 ss. 1, 4. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 SB. 1, 5. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 58. 
 
 ss. 1, 18, 24. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 1, 5, 20. 
 15. 
 7. 
 6, 11, 21, 33, 
 
 32, 88. 
 
 26,40,53,54. 
 
 12. 
 
 SB. 1, 19. 
 
 See Husband and Wife, 
 
 ■ ss. 1, 23, 
 
 See Husband and Wife, 
 ■ ■ s. 2. 
 
 See Costs. 39. 
 
 ■ ss. 2, 19. 
 
 See Infant. 42, 45. 
 
 3. 3. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 117, 271. 
 Executor. 34. 
 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 17. 
 Powers. 31. 
 
 SB. 11, 12. 
 
 See Insurance. 16, IS. 
 
 3. 12. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 61. 
 
 SB. 12, 16. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 40. 
 s. 19. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 26. 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. 0. olii. (City of Glasgow Ban!: 
 
 Liquidation Act), s. 17, and 1st Soiled. 
 See Ebvenue. 88. 
 
 1883. 
 
 46 & 47 Vict. c. 34 {Cheap Trains), s. 2. 
 
 See Railway. 21. 
 
 ■ 3. 6. 
 
 See Railway. 24. 
 
DUEING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ccooxxxV- 
 
 STATUTES— conh'nueif. 
 46 & 47 Vict. c. 41 iMerchant Ship-ping— Fish- 
 ing Boats), 3. 13 (now ss. 399, 400 of the 
 Merch. Shipp. Act, 1894). 
 See Shipping. 223. 
 
 46 & 47 Viot. 0. 51 (Corrupt and Illegal Prac- 
 tices), BS. 33, 31. 
 See Parliament. 9. 
 
 ss. 40, 56. 
 
 See Appeal, 13. 
 
 s. 53. 
 
 See Cbiminal Law. 4. 
 
 46 & 47 Viot. c. 52 (Bankruptcy). 
 See Bankbuptot. 127, 151. 
 Contempt of Court. 9. 
 Pbaotioe. 89. 
 
 3. 3. 
 
 See Bajikruptct. 174. 
 
 See Bankbuptot. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 
 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 
 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 140. 
 
 DiTOBOE. 46. 
 
 Husband and Wipe. 25. 
 
 STATUTES— CO iiJmued. 
 46 & 47 Viot. c. 52, ss. 9, 45, 46. 
 See Bankruptcy. 105. 
 
 ■ ss. 9, 54, 70. 
 ! Bankruptcy. 
 
 199. 
 
 23. 
 
 12, 25, 29, 19S. 
 
 38. 
 
 J 
 
 S3. 4, 5, 6, 105. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 ea. 4, 6. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 BS. 4, 9. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 33. 4, 49. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy. 
 
 S3. 4, 115, 143. 
 
 See Bamkbuptct. 
 
 — S3. 4, 143. 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 BS. 5, 6. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 s. 6. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 142, 239. 
 
 ■ ss. 6, 103. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 38. 
 
 137. 
 
 14. 
 
 208. 
 
 197. 
 
 II.. 
 
 39. 6, 105. 
 
 See Bankeuptct. 139. 
 s. 6, Sjhed. I., r. 12; Sohed. 
 
 IT. 11—13. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 226. 
 s. 7. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 144, 145, 150, 194, 
 
 201, 202, 210, 211. 
 B. 8. 
 
 See Bankbuptot. 41, 146. 
 s. 9. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 66, 203, 240. 
 BS. 9, 10. 
 
 See Imprisonment. 5. 
 
 Solicitor. 112. 
 S3. 9, 10, 45, 168. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy. 229. 
 ss. 9, 37. 
 
 See Bankbuptot. 168. 
 
 SB. 9,42, Schel. H, r. 9. 
 
 See Distress. 2. 
 
 • S3. 9, 168, Soiled. II , r. 0. 
 
 See Company — Wisdinq-up. 210. 
 
 • 33. 10, 12. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 119, 120. 
 s. 17. 
 
 See Bankbuptot. 100. 
 Criminal Law. 16. 
 ■ 33. 18, 20. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy. 39. 
 33. 18, 30, 37. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 224. 
 33. 18, 44. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 22 t. 
 • ss. 18, 108. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 225. 
 3. 19. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 129. 
 
 s. 20. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy. 94. 
 
 ss. 20, 40, 44, 50, 54, 65, 168. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 262. 
 
 ss. 20, 54, 121. 
 
 Bankkuptcy. 193. 
 
 - 39. 20, 105, 109. 
 ? Bankruptcy. 39. 
 
 See 
 See 
 See 
 See 
 See 
 
 B. 21. 
 
 Bankbuptoy. 
 
 s. 21, 104. 
 Bankbuptoy. 
 
 2U. 
 
 155, 241, 242. 
 
 S3. 22, 54, 57, 73. 
 Bankbuptoy. 77, 12G. 
 
 - S3. 22, 57, 66. 
 
 e Bankruptcy. 125. 
 
 - BS. 24, 163. 
 
 e Bankruptcy. 72. 
 
 - s. 25. 
 
 3 Bankruptcy. 42. 
 
 ■ 8. 27. 
 
 3 Bankruptcy. 98, 90. 
 
 Discovery. 
 
 3. 28. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy. 
 
 — 3. 28, 44, 65. 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 38. 
 
 See 
 
 91. 
 
 49, 84. 
 9. 
 
 — - s. 30. 
 
 See Attachment, 
 
 3. 30, 52. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 B. 31. 
 
 See Bankruptcy 123. 
 Criminal Law. 56. 
 
 s. S2. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 95. 
 
 S3. 35, 36. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 196. 
 
 73. 
 
 2 e 2 
 
oocoxxxvi 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 SIATJIJES— continued. 
 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 37. 
 
 See Bankkuptoy. 160, IGl, 166, 167, 
 18i. 
 Company — Winding up. 204. 
 Pbaotioe. 88. 
 
 S3. 37, 40, Sohed. IL, r. 2. 
 
 See Bankkuptoy. 175. 
 
 as. 37, 48. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. Ill, 115. 
 
 s. 38. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 234, 235, 237. 
 
 Company— WiNDi.NG-up. 227 — 229. 
 
 es. 38, 125. 
 
 See Bankscptoy. 236. 
 
 s. 40. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 135, 156, 181. 
 
 s. 40, sub-3. 4, 
 
 See BxECUTOK. 35. 
 
 S3. 41, 42, 44. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 48. 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 116. 
 
 s. 49. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 ss. 50, 54, 168. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 lOD, 111, 112, 113, 
 
 52, 62, 141, 188. 
 
 254. 
 
 73. 
 
 48, 51, 53, 61. 
 
 54. 
 
 169. 
 
 245. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 3. 42. 
 
 See Distress. 2. 
 B. 44. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 260. 
 
 33. 44, 49. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 ss. 44, 53. 
 
 Sj.e Bankuuptcy. 
 
 ss. 44, 54. 
 
 S'^e Bankruptcy. 
 
 33. 
 
 12-;, 130, 131, 258, 
 
 129, 183. 
 
 259. 
 
 s. 52. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 s. 53. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 S3. 53, 54. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 s. 55. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 s. 57. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 ss. 57, 73. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 16. 
 
 ss. 58, 63, 126. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 96. 
 
 s. 72. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 249, 25 1 
 
 s. 73. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 76. 
 
 s. 82. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 247. 
 
 SS. 82, 121. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 248. 
 
 55, 102, 255. 
 
 S3. 44, 54, 55, 168. 
 
 S:e Bankruptcy. 50, 92. 
 
 — 41, 58, lis. 
 See Bankruptcy^. 52. 
 
 S3. 44, 168. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 6 ). 
 
 s. 45. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 36, 101. 
 
 ss. 45, 46. 
 
 S'.e Bankruptcy. 227. 
 
 ss. 45, 49, 168. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 187. 
 
 S3. 45, 125. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 103, 106. 
 
 ss. 45, 168. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 231. 
 
 s. 47. 
 
 Sie Bankruptcy. 
 269, 271, 272. 
 Fkauddlent Conteyanoins. 1. 
 Lunacy. 2. 
 Vendor and Purchaser. 90. 
 
 S3. 47, 48. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 273. 
 
 ss. 47, 16S. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 26G. 
 
 217. 
 
 ss. 85, 86, 87. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 s. 92. 
 
 Order dated May 28, 1898, as to juris- 
 diction of County Courts in Bankruptcy 
 and Companies Winding-up. W. N. 
 1898 (Jime 25), p. 241. See Current 
 Index, 1898, p. lis. 
 
 s. 93. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 101. 
 
 93,99. 
 
 See BAifKRUPTCT. 
 
 . 95, 125, 127. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 — - s. 102. 
 See Lunacy. 4. 
 Practice. 
 
 68. 
 
 118. 
 
 265. 
 
 263, 265, 267, 268, ' 
 
 s. 104. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 3. 105. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 8. 112. 
 
 See Bankruptcv. 
 
 s. 122. 
 
 See B-ANKEUPTCY. 
 
 s. 125. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 Executor. 58, 
 
 45, 89, 212, 214. 
 
 7J, 207. 
 
 149. 
 
 23'. 
 
 152, 219. 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 cocoxxxvu 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 46 & 47 Vict. 0. 52, s. 132. 
 
 See Ltjnact. 3. 
 s. 145. 
 
 See Sbeeifp. 4. 
 8. 152. 
 
 See BAiiKBTJPTCT. 203. 
 
 HrSBAKD AND WlFB. 26. 
 
 . s. 162. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy. 243. 
 s. 168. 
 
 See Bankruptot. 143, 153, 173. 
 s. 168, Sohed. I., r. 10. 
 
 See Bakkrtjptot. 1 86, 232. 
 
 Sched. I., r. 10 ; Sohed. II., rr. 11, 
 
 12, 13. 
 
 See Banxkuptct. 230. 
 
 Sohed. I., rr. 10, 15. 
 
 See Bakkkcptot. 190. 
 
 Sched. II., rr. 9, 11. 
 
 See Bakkruvtot. 228. 
 
 Sched. II., rr. 12 A, 13. 
 
 See BANKRrPToy. 161. 
 
 Sched. II., rr. 22-27. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 171. 
 46 & 47 Yiot. c. 57 (Patents, Designs, and 
 
 Trade Marks). 
 
 See Patent. 24, 45. 
 
 Trade-mark. 38, 51, 52, 53, 56. 
 
 ss. 5, 26. 
 
 See Patent. 61, 62. 
 
 88. 11, 95. 
 
 See Patent. 29. 
 
 ss. 18, 19, 20. 
 
 See Patent. 22, 24. 
 
 88. 18—21. 
 
 See Patent. 23. 
 
 ss. 19, 26. 
 
 See Patent. 20, 21 
 
 ss. 23, 85, 87, 90. 
 
 See Patent. 49. 
 
 ss. 23, 87. 
 
 See Patent. 15. 
 '— S3. 24. 
 
 Notice under— Fees. Vf. N, 1898 (Deo. 3), 
 
 p, 397. See Carrent Index, 1898, p. zciz. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Patent. 41. 
 8. 26. 
 
 See Patent. 20, 21. 
 s. 29. 
 
 See Patent. 8, 25, 30, 31, 33. 
 8. 31. 
 
 See Patent. 11. 
 g 32, 
 
 See Patent. 51, 53, 56, 57. 
 — ss. 32, 46, 87. 
 
 See Patent. 52. 
 BS. 39, 57. 
 
 International Exhibition at Paris. 0. 
 
 in G. dated Feb. 2, 1899. See lond. 
 
 Oaz. Feb. 3, 1899, p. 682. 
 
 STATUTES— confanuec!. 
 46 & 47 Vict. 0. 57, ss. 47, 51, 60. 
 See Designs. 6. 
 
 ■ 88. 47, 60. 
 
 See Designs. 7. 
 S8. 58, 59. 
 
 See Designs. 2, 3. 
 
 s. 60. 
 
 See Designs. 4. 
 
 62, 64, 73 (1). 
 
 See Trade-mark. 52. 
 
 SB. 62, 64, 74. 
 
 See TSADE-MABK. 22. 
 
 88. 62, sub-B. 6, 90, 107, 111, 117. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 
 
 s. 64. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 
 41—44, 46, 48. 
 
 SB. 64, 65, 70. 
 
 See Trade mark. 
 
 SB. 64, 65, 70. 
 
 See Tbade-mark. 
 
 ss. 64, 73, 74. 
 
 See Trade-mare. 
 
 B8. 64, 74, 77. 
 
 See Tkade-mark. 
 
 ss. 64, 74, 92. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 
 
 ss. 64, 90. 
 
 See Teade-maek. 
 SB. 67, 72, 90. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 
 
 a. 69. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 
 
 ss. 69, 71, 72, 74. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 17. 
 
 ss. 72, 73. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 
 
 8. 74. 
 
 See Tradb-maek. 
 
 88. 76, 77a, 90. 
 
 See Tbadb-maek. 
 
 8. 87. 
 
 See Teade-maek. 
 
 59. 
 
 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 
 
 40. 
 
 40. 
 
 20, 21. 
 
 23. 
 
 16. 
 
 58. 
 
 31. 
 
 56. 
 
 26. 
 
 39. 
 
 60. 
 
 18, 
 
 ■ s. 90. 
 
 ! Peaotioe. 18, 194. 
 Teade-makk. 25, 50, 54, 55, 58. 
 
 8. 92. 
 
 See Tradb-marit. 
 
 SB. 92, 105. 
 
 See Tbade-maek. 
 s. 101. 
 
 See Patent. 
 
 12—15, 57. 
 
 11. 
 
 18, 19. 
 
 8. 105. 
 
 See Teade-maek. 64. 
 
 Sohed. I, Form D. 
 
 See Patent. 9. 
 
 46 & 47 Yiot. c. 61 (Agricultural Holdings). 
 See Codnty Oouet. 43. 
 
COCCXXXVlll 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 STATVT'ES— continued. 
 
 46 & 47 Vict. c. 61, es. 6, 7. 24. 
 
 See liANDLOED AND TENANT. 4. 
 
 83. 6—9, 22. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 7. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 8. 
 
 s. 24. 
 
 See County Coukt. 
 
 41. 
 
 10. 
 
 2. 3. 
 
 4G 
 
 S3. 29, 61. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 ■ S8, 34, 54. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 • s. 57. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 s. 61. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 6. 
 
 47 Vict. c. 62 (^Agricultural Holdings, 
 
 Scotland). 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 9. 
 
 68. 2, 6, 78. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 22. 
 
 . 8. 24. 
 
 See Prohibition. 4. 
 
 46 & 47 Viet. u. Ixx. (Birmingham), a. 90. 
 See Markets and Fairs. 4. 
 
 46 & 47 Vict. c. cxv. (Eihble Navigation). 
 See SHiPPffla. 156. 
 
 1884. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 3 (Municipal Corporations), 
 B. 9, Bub-s. 9. 
 See Parliament. 116. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 9 (Banlcruplcy Appeals — County 
 Court), 8. 2. 
 See Bankruptcy. 44. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 18 (Settled Land), a. i. 
 See Settled Land. 67. 
 
 8.7. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 94. 
 
 See Settled Land. 75, 117. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 43 (Summary Jurisdiction), 
 88. 4, 5. 
 See Justices. 2. 
 
 ■ s. 6. 
 
 See Justices. 37. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 12. 
 
 SB. 7, 10. 
 
 See Justices. 16, 31. 
 Kates. 62. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 54 ( Torhshire Registry), 8S. 3, 
 4, 14. 
 See Yorkshire. 1. 
 
 89. 7, 14. 
 
 See Mortgage. 
 
 52. 
 
 47. 
 
 48 Vict. c. 61 (Judicature), s. 8. 
 See Arbitration. 42. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 61, 8. 14. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 74. 
 Practice. 32. 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 63 (Trustees, Scotland), a. 3. 
 
 See Trustee. 65. 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 68 (Matrimonial Causes). 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 84. 
 s. 5. 
 
 See Divorce. 71, 118. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 70 (Corrupt ai d Illegal Prac- 
 tices), a. SO. 
 See Criminal Law. 4. 
 
 — s. 36. 
 
 See Appeal. 43. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 71 (Intestates' Estates), ss. 4,7. 
 See Escheat. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. 0. 72 (Disused Burial Grounds), 
 
 S3. 2, 3, 5. 
 
 See Burial. 2, 6. 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 21, 30. 
 ■ ss. 3, 5. 
 
 See Burial Ground. 3, 6. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 76 (Bost Office Brotection), a. 7. 
 See Post Office. 1. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 78 (Settled Land), s. 7. 
 See Settled Land. 68. 
 
 47 & 48 Vict. 0. ccxxii. (Cardiff Corporation), 
 
 SB. 23. 
 
 See CORFOBATION. 21. 
 
 1885. 
 
 48 Vict. c. 3 (Representation of (he Beople), 
 
 iS. 2, 5, 7. 
 
 See Parliament. 50. 
 SB. 2, 7. 
 
 See Parliament. 2.i, 44, 76, 117. 
 ■ s. 3. 
 
 See Parliament. 8fi, 119, 123, 125, 
 126, 132, 133, 134, 139. 
 ss. 5, 7. 
 
 See Parliament. 41. 
 s. 7. 
 
 See Parliament. 120. 
 • s. 9. 
 
 See Parliament. 113. 
 
 48 Vict. c. 15 (Registration of Electors), a. 59 
 Sched. 3, Form 58. 
 See Parliament. 37. 
 
 48 Vict. c. 17 (Barliamentary Registration^ 
 Ireland), s. 4. 
 See Parliament. 30, 35. 
 
 • BS. 4, 27. 
 
 See Parliament. 32. 
 ■ ■ 8. 27. 
 
 See Pari iament. 29, 63. 
 
 48 & 49 Vict. c. 16 (Ri-giitration Amendment- 
 Scotland), s. 14. 
 See Parliament. 60, 63, 64, 65. 
 
 8. 22. 
 
 See Pari iamext. 33. 
 
DUKING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 CCCCXXXIX 
 
 STATUTES— ooncinMCcZ. 
 
 48 & 49 Vict. 0. 16, Sohed, I., Part lit., Form 
 31. 
 See Parliament. 66. 
 
 Soiled. I., Part III., Form 34. 
 
 See Paeliament. 86. 
 
 48 & 49 Viot. 0. 23 (^Representation of the 
 People), 8. 14. 
 See Parliament. 35. 
 
 48 & 49 Viet. o. 51 (Customs and Inland 
 Mevenue), s, 11. 
 See Revenue. 63, 105. 
 
 48 & 49 Viot. 0. QQ (Criminal Law Amsiidmenf), 
 a. 4. 
 See Criminal Law. 49, 50. 
 
 ss. 4, 9. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 51. 
 
 s. 5. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 48. 
 
 83. 5, 9. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 64. 
 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Criminal L.\w. 52. 
 
 3. 13. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 45. 
 
 JcSTICEa. 1. 
 
 48 & 49 Vict. c. Ixxxix. (Metropolitan Bailway). 
 See Charity. 50. 
 
 48 & 49 Viot. 0. cxcvi. (Hastings Iinproremeni), 
 s. 148. 
 See Sewers. 31. 
 
 1886. 
 
 49 & 50 Viot. c. 27 (OuardiansJdp of In/ants), 
 8. 2. 
 See Infant. 14. 
 
 33. 3, 13. 
 
 See Infant. 
 
 8.5. 
 
 See Infant. 
 
 12, 13. 
 
 11, 17. 
 
 49 & 50 Vict. 0. 29 Crofters Holdings), ss. 9, 
 34. 
 See Parliament. 44. 
 
 49 & 50 Vict. 0. 33 (International Copyright). 
 
 See CoPTRiGHT. 24. 
 8. 2. 
 
 See Copyright. 
 
 38. 4, 11. 
 
 See COPYBIGHT. 
 
 8. 6. 
 
 See Copyright. 
 
 16, 39. 
 
 25. 
 
 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27. 
 
 49 & 50 Vict. 0. 48 (Medical Practitioners), a. 6. 
 See Medical Practitioner. 3. 
 
 49 & 50 Vict. c. 52 (Married Woman— Main- 
 tenance in Case of Desertion). 
 See Divorce. 72. 
 
 [This Act was repealed and further provision 
 made liy 58 * 59 Viet. e. 39.] 
 
 49 & 50 Viot. 0. 51 (Extraordinary Tithe Be- 
 demption). 
 See Bevenib. 119. 
 
 STATTTTES — cmtinued 
 
 49 & 50 Vict. c. 54, i3. 1—1. 
 
 See Tithe. 2. 
 
 ss. 3, 4. 
 
 See Tithe. 4. 
 
 1887. 
 
 50 & 51 Viot. c. 20 (Criminal Law and Pro- 
 
 cedure — Ireland). 
 See Schools. 4. 
 50 & 51 Viot. 0. 21 (Water Companies), s. 4. 
 See Water. 31. 
 
 50 & 51 Viot. c. 26 (Allotments and Cottage 
 Gardens Compensation for Crops), b. 4. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 1. 
 
 50 & 51 Viot. c. 28 (Merchandise Marks), a. 2. 
 See Master and Seb%'ant. 72. 
 Trade-mark. 5, 6, 8. 
 
 89. 2, 3. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 4, 5. 
 88. 2, 5. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 7. 
 8. 3. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 9. 
 50 & 51 Vict. c. 29 (Margarine), s. 6. 
 
 See Adulteration. It, 15. 
 
 SB. 6, 7, 12. 
 
 See Adulteration. 17, 25. 
 38. 6, 12. 
 
 See Adulteration. 12. 
 
 88. 11, 12. 
 
 See Adulteration. 1 6. 
 
 50 & 51 Vict. 0. 80 (Settled Land), s. 1. 
 See Settled Land. 3'J, 104. 
 
 ss. 1, 2. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 43. 
 
 38. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 See Settled Land. 102, 103. 
 
 50 & 51 Viot. 0. 32 (Open Spaces), ss. 2, 4, and 
 
 Scl.ed. 
 
 See Burial. 2, 6. 
 8. 4. 
 
 See Burial. 3. 
 . 88. 4, 14, 69. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 21. 
 
 50 & 51 Viot. c. 46 (Trucl;). 
 
 Si e Master AND Servant. 106. 
 p. 6. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 105. 
 
 50 & 51 Vict. c. 47 (Trustee Savings Banlcs). 
 See Sa\ings Bank. 1. 
 
 50 & 51 Vict. ^. 55 (Sheriffs). 
 
 Fees.] Lands Clauses Act, 1815 (8 it 9 
 Vict. c. 18). Scale of sheriff's fees for 
 inquiries under. W. N. [1900] (Sept. 8) 
 p. 245, See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. zcviii. 
 See Bankruptcy. 215. 
 
 . 8. 20. 
 
 See Sheriff. 14. 
 
 8. 29. 
 
 See Sheriff. 6, 7, 8, 9. 
 
ccccxl 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 STAIVT'ES— continued. 
 
 50 & 51 Vict. c. 58 (Coal Mines Eegulation). 
 
 See Master and Sebvakt. 53. 
 ■ 9. 12. 
 
 See CoNTEAOT. 207. 
 Mines, 6, 7. 
 s. 40. 
 
 See Mines. 4. 
 50 & 51 Vict. c. 66 (Banliruptcy — Discharge 
 
 and Closure), s, 6. 
 
 See Bankkuptoy. 248. 
 50 & 51 Vict. 0. 71 (Coroners), a. 3. 
 
 See CoRONEK. 3. 
 • s. 36. 
 
 See Coroner. 2. 
 
 51 
 
 1888. 
 
 2 (National DM Conversion), 
 
 3. 
 
 i 52 Vict, 
 s. 20. 
 
 See Annuity. 4. 
 National Debt. 
 
 ■ BS. 21, 25. 
 
 See National Debt. 
 
 s. 25. 
 
 See National Debt. 2. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 8 (Customs and Inland 
 Revenue), s. 14. 
 See Reyence. 147. 
 
 s. 17. 
 
 jSee Revenue. 150. 
 
 ■ s. 24. 
 
 See Revenue. 02. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 12 (Electric Lighting). 
 See Injunction. 33. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. 0. 17 (Copyright). 
 See Copyright. 29. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 20 (Glebe Lands). 
 Glebe Land Rules, dated March 
 See Current Index, 1897, p. Ixviii. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 21 (Distress), s. 4. 
 See Distress. 12. 
 
 See Distress. 1. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. 0. 25 (Sailway and Canal Trafic). 
 See Railtvay. CO. 
 
 ■ ss. 7, 27. 
 
 Sale of 
 15, 1897. 
 
 See Railway. 53. 
 
 ss. 7, 31. 
 
 See Railvs-ay. 40, 43. 
 
 ss. 9, 10. 
 
 See Railway. 49. 
 
 ss. 17, 27, 29—35. 
 
 See Railway. 54. 
 8. 25. 
 
 See Railway. 50. 
 e. 27. 
 
 See Railway. 54 a. 
 9. 29. 
 
 See Railway. .".2. 
 9. 33. 
 
 See Railway. 42. 
 
 STATT7TES — continued. 
 51 & 52 Vict. 0. 41 (Local Government). 
 
 See Rates. 27. 
 ■ 69. 2, 75. 
 
 See County Council. 2. 
 99. 3, 5, 59. 
 
 See Cokoneb. 1. 
 93. 3, 9. 
 
 See County Council. 13. 
 BB. 3, 28, 78. 
 
 See Music and Dancing. 3. 
 ss. 3, 59. 
 
 See County Council. 12. 
 ss. 6, 35. 
 
 See Local Government. 2. 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Highway. 20, 21. 
 Streets. 1 0. 
 99. 11, 23, 68. 
 
 See County Council. 6. 
 ss. 11, 35. 
 
 .See County Council. 8. 
 Highway. 2:-(. 
 
 ss. 11, 63, 87. 
 
 See Local Government. 5. 
 
 ■ s. 16. 
 
 See CoKPOKATiON. 23. 
 Gaming. 29, 31. 
 Streets. 38. 
 
 s. 24 (2) (j.). 
 
 See County Council. £>. 
 
 9. 29. 
 
 See Appeal. 34. 
 
 County Council. 11. 
 
 9. 33. 
 
 See Rates. 16. 
 
 ss. 35, 38, 84. 
 
 See County Council. 3v 
 ss. 35, 38, 100. 
 
 See County Council. ■ 5. 
 ' s. 40. 
 
 See London. 9. 
 99. 54, 59. 
 
 See Corporation. 9. 
 ss. 57, 59. 
 
 .See Prohibition. 2. 
 M'ater. 10. 
 s. 62. 
 
 See Local Goveenjient. 6. 
 
 ■ ss. 62, 86. 
 
 See County Council. 4. 
 
 9, 84. 
 
 See Corporation. 20. 
 
 9. 85. 
 
 See Bicycle. 1. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. 0. 42 (Mortmainy 
 See Charity. 43, 50. 
 
 See Charity. 45. 
 
 ss. 4, 10. 
 
 See Charity. 44. 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Charity. 49. 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891— 19C0. 
 
 ccocxli 
 
 SI &.TVTES— continued. 
 51 & 52 Vict. 0. 43 (^Countij Cour'.s), ss. 35, 43, 
 49. 
 See County Court. 
 
 S3. 48, 120, 186. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 s. 56. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 s, 56, 60. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 ss. 56, 60, 116. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 54. 
 3. 
 51. 
 49. 
 
 ss. 56, 74. 
 
 See Shippino. 
 
 113. 
 
 s. 57. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 s. 60. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 a. 65. 
 
 See County Court. 
 71. 
 
 S3. 65, 74. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 88. 65, 94. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 S3. 65, 113. 
 
 See County Court. 
 ss. 65, 116. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 88. 65, 118. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 s. 66. 
 
 See County Cour.T. 
 
 S3. 67, 68, 164. 
 
 See Practice. 223. 
 8. 72. 
 
 See County Court. 
 s. 74. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 .83. 74, 86. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 42. 
 44. 
 
 27, 29, 30, 56, 57, 
 
 69. 
 
 34. 
 
 28. 
 
 2\ 32, 33, 71. 
 
 31. 
 
 58, 70. 
 
 65. 
 
 45, 46. 
 68. 
 
 STATUTES— cojiimueti 
 51 & 52 Vict. 0. 43, ss. 120—124. 
 
 See County Court. 14a. 
 s. 121. 
 
 See County Court. 1. 
 8. 132. 
 
 See Shipping. 204. 
 
 s. 147. 
 
 See DioTRESs. 12. 
 
 s. 153. 
 
 See Coukty Court. 39. 
 ss. 154, 160. 
 
 See County Court. 40. 
 
 s. 156. 
 
 See County Court. 38. 
 Interpleader. 4. 
 
 8. 162. 
 
 See County Court 48. 
 Solicitor. 137. 
 
 B. 164. 
 
 See County Court. 15, 60. 
 
 88. 74, 185. 
 
 See London. 35, 36. 
 
 88.88, 89, 113, 114. 
 
 See County Court. 21. 
 B. 90. 
 
 See County Court. 62. 
 
 8. 101. 
 
 See Shipping. 196, 211. 
 
 8. 116. 
 
 See Contract. 2. 
 Copyright. 12. 
 County Court. 
 Tort. 1. 
 
 s. 118. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 8. 120. 
 
 See County Court. 
 Probate. 143. 
 Kepletin. 
 Shipping. 3. 
 
 16, 19, 36. 
 
 25. 
 
 2, 6—12, 14a. 
 
 3. 
 
 s. 186. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 s. 188. 
 
 See Shipping. 5. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 50 {Patents, Designs, and Trade 
 Marks'). 
 
 See Design. 7. 
 Trade-mark. 
 
 29. 
 
 8.1. 
 
 See Patent. 
 
 83. 1, 27. 
 
 See Patent. 
 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 
 8.4. 
 
 See Patent. 29. 
 
 s. 5. 
 
 See Patent. 23. 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 
 41-44, 46, 49, 58. 
 
 S3. 10, 14. 
 
 See Trade-mark, 
 
 83. 10-16. 
 
 See Teadb-mahb;. 22, 23. 
 
 sa 14, 15. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 26. 
 
 8. 18. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 60. 
 88. 18—20. 
 
 See Patent. 24. 
 83. 62, 64, 73. 
 
 See Tkade-mark. 52. 
 
 s. 64. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 48. 
 
 S3. 64, 103. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 38. 
 
 s. 69. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 51, 56. 
 
 S8. 70—74, 76, 77, 87, 91. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 53. 
 
 16, 21, 24, 36, 40, 
 
 31. 
 
cccoxlii 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 STATVSES— continued. 
 
 51 & 52 Viut. 0. 52 (PttWtc Sealth— Buildings 
 in Streets'), s. 3. 
 See Injunction. 17. 
 Streets. 2. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 54 (Sea Fisheries), s. 6. 
 See Fishery. 2, 3. 
 
 51 & 52 Viot. c. 59 (Trustee). 
 See Trustee. 80. 
 
 S3. 1, 8. 
 
 See Bankkuptot. 243. 
 Company. 119, 122. 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 &e Vendor AND Purchaser. 21. 
 
 as. 4, 5, 6, 8. 
 
 See Trustee. 40. 
 
 — - s. 6. 
 
 See Trustee. 
 
 31,31. 
 
 See Company. 203. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 61. 
 Limitations, Statute of. 12. 
 Trustee. 1, 2, 4, 21, 59, 78, 81, 82. 
 
 ■ ss. 10, 11. 
 
 See Trustee. 98. 
 51 & 52 Viot. 0. 62 (Preferential Payments 
 in Banliruptcy), s. 1. 
 See Company. 34, 114. 
 
 Company— Winding-up. 189. 
 
 ■ s. 2. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 156. 
 Friendly SooiETr. 2. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Executor. 37. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64 (Libel), s. 5. 
 See Defamation. 1. 
 
 See Defamation. 8. 
 51 & 52 Viot. 0. 65 (Solicitors), a. 13. 
 
 See Solicitor. 49, 115. 
 S3. 13,19. 
 
 See Solicitor. 116, 121. 
 
 1889. 
 
 52 & 53 Viot. c. 7 (Customs and Inland 
 Bevenue), s. 5. 
 See Eevence. 33, 47, 132. 
 
 s. n. 
 
 See Eevenue. 1, 2, 3, 6—9, 116, 117, 
 185, 186. 
 
 52 & 53 Vitt. u. 10 (Commissioners for Oaths), 
 
 a. I. 
 
 See Evidence. 14. 
 52 & 53 Viot. c. 21 (Weights and Measures), 
 
 s. 21. 
 
 See Weights and Measures. 5, 7. 
 s, 22. 
 
 See Weights and Measures. 6. 
 3. 28. 
 
 See Weights and Measures. 3, 4. 
 52 & 53 Vict. 0. 27 (Advertising Stations— 
 
 Hativg), a. 3. 
 
 See Rates. 10, 11. 
 
 STATTTTES — continued. 
 52 & 53 Vict. c. 27, ss, 3, 4. 
 
 See Adtertiblng Stations. 
 
 52 & 53 Viot. c. 32 (Trust Investments), S3. 3, 6. 
 See Trustee. 58, 70. 
 
 52 & 53 Vict. o. 40 ( Welsh Ldermediate Educa- 
 tion), a. 13. 
 See Charity. 12. 
 
 52 & 53 Vict. c. 42 (Revenue), s. 16. 
 See Revenue. 142. 
 
 52 & 53 Vict. 0. 43 (Merchant Shipping- 
 Tonnage), s. 3. 
 See Costs. 20 
 
 Shipping. 169, 170. 
 
 See Shipping. 168. 
 IThis Act was repealed hy 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, 
 s. 745.] 
 
 52 & 53 Vict. c. 45 (Factors), ss. 1, 2. 
 See Factor. 2, 8. 
 
 SB. 2, 9, 10. 
 
 See Sale op Goods. 7. 
 
 . S3. 3, 9. 
 
 See Factor. 3. 
 
 s. 9. 
 
 See Factor. 4, 5, 6, 7. 
 
 52 & 53 Vict. 0. 46 (Merchant Slapping), a. 1. 
 
 See Shippikg. 160, 161. 
 {_This Act was repealed hy 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, 
 s. 745.] 
 
 52 & 53 Vict o. 49 (Arlntratiim\ a. 1. 
 
 See Abbitbatiun. 10, 47. 
 
 • 3. 2. 
 
 See Aebitration. 39. 
 
 ss. 2, 25, 26. 
 
 See Aebiteath'N. 37. 
 
 B. 4. 
 
 See Abbitrat ION. 3,4,5, 
 57, 58, 59, 61. 
 Master and Servant. 
 Partnership. 9. 
 
 B. 5. 
 
 See Arbitration. 7,8. 
 
 ss. 9, 24. 
 
 See Arbiteation. 
 
 6, 12, 21, 50, 
 95. 
 
 36. 
 
 9, £9. 
 
 33. 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Aebiteation. 
 
 88. 10, II, 19. 
 
 See Aebiteation. 
 
 s. 12. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 5. 
 
 Landlord and Tenant. 7 
 
 BS. 12, 24. 
 
 See Sewers. 21. 
 
 ss. 13, 14. 
 
 .See Frauds, Statite of. 23. 
 
 SB. 13, 15. 
 
 See Aebii ration. 41. 
 
 3. 11. 
 
 See Aebiteation. 1, 42, 49. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 cccoxliii 
 
 STATV1E8— continued. 
 
 52 & 53 Vict. c. 49, ss. 14, 15. 
 
 See Aebitbation. 31, 38, 48. 
 s. 15. 
 
 See Ahbiteation. 45. 
 s. 19. 
 
 See Akbitkation. 23, 31. 
 ss. 19, 21. 
 
 See Akbitbatiox. 35. 
 s. 20. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 10. 
 s. 24. 
 
 See Local Gotehnment. 5. 
 s. 27. 
 
 See ABBiTBATioif. 60. 
 Soiled I. (o). 
 
 See CoMPAXT — Windix6-up. 1. 
 52 & 53 Vict. c. 55 (Universities (Scotland) ), 
 
 S3. 15, 16, 19, 20. 
 
 See University. 3. 
 ss. 15, 16, 21. 
 
 See Univeksity. 1. 
 52 & 53 Vict. 0. 57 (Regulation of Railways), 
 
 B. 5. 
 
 See Railway. 20. 
 52 & 53 Vict. o. 62 (Factories (Cotton aoih)), 
 
 B. 13. 
 
 See Justices. 8. 
 52 & 53 Vict. c. 63 (Interpretation), s. 1. 
 
 See Revenue. 163. 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Company. 123. 
 s. 13. 
 
 See Justices. 16, 31, 37. 
 Licensing Acts. 12, 47. 
 Rates. 62. 
 s. 38. 
 
 See Streets. 33. 
 
 52 & 53 Vict. 0. xxxii. 
 
 See Justices. 29. 
 
 1890. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 5 (Lunacy). Rules as to appli- 
 
 cations for Traverse, Supersedeas and 
 
 Vesting Orders. W. N. 1900 (Au^. 11), 
 
 p. 229. See Current Index, 1900, 
 
 p. xciii. 
 
 See Defamation. 17. 
 Justices. 15. 
 SB. 14, 24. 
 
 See Lunacy. 31. 
 a. 49. 
 
 See Lunacy. 12. 
 
 &e Lunacy. 27,31. 
 S3. 108, 116, 146, 333. 
 
 See Lunacy. 38. 
 . 38. 108, 117, 120, 124. 
 
 See Lunacy. 30. 
 s. 109. 
 
 See Lunacy. 11. 
 . s. 116. 
 
 See Lunacy. 13, 39. 
 Probate. 56, 65. 
 Vendou and Pukchasee. 55. 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 5, S3. UC, 117. 
 
 See Lunacy. 20. 
 es. 116, 117, 120. 
 
 See Lunacy. 19. 
 3s. 116, 117, 120, 128. 
 
 See Lunacy. 26, 45. 
 33. 116—119, 133—143, 342. 
 
 See Lunacy. 50. 
 - — ss. 116, 120. 
 
 See Lunacy. 15. 
 B. 116, 128, 129, 135. 
 
 See Lunacy. 47. 
 as. 116, 128, 129, 142. 
 
 See Lunacy. 32. 
 s. 116, 130, 136. 
 
 See Lunacy. 48. 
 . 3. 117. 
 
 See Lunacy. 4?. 
 S3. 117, 120. 
 
 See Lunacy. 2, 3. 
 Probate. 65. 
 38. 117, 134. 
 
 ,See Conflict of Laws. 7. 
 s. 120. 
 
 See Lunacy. 4. 
 ss. 120, 122, 124. 
 
 See Lunacy. 43. 
 ss. 132, 133. 
 
 See County Court 5.1. 
 s. 134. 
 
 See Lunacy. 52. 
 38. 134, 341. 
 
 See Lunacy. 4G. 
 s. 135. 
 
 See Lunacy. 9. 
 SB. 135, 136. 
 
 See Lunacy. 51. 
 s. 136. 
 
 See Company. 303. 
 S3. 136, 137, 142. 
 
 See Lunacy. 49. 
 — 3. 148, 149. 
 
 See Lunacy. 25. 
 33. 184,185. 186. 
 
 See Lunacy. 33. 
 s. 283. 
 
 See Lunacy. 24. 
 SB. 287, 294. 
 
 See Lunacy. 23. 
 B. 299. 
 
 See Lunacy. 21, 40. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 21 (Inland Revenue), 88. 21, 24. 
 
 See Justices. 7. 
 B. 22. 
 
 See Revenue. 94. 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 29 (Intestates' E-tates). 
 
 See Intestacy. 2. 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Probate. 44, 5t. 
 S3. 2, 4. 
 
 See Dower. 1. 
 53 & 54 Vi<'t. u. 35 (Boiler Explosions). 
 
 See Boiler. 1. 
 
ccccxliv 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY COXSIDEEED 
 
 STLIVTES— continued. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. 0. 35 (Boiler Erplosions) s. 2. 
 
 See BoiLBB. 2. 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 39 iParinersliip), ss. 2, 3. 
 
 See Bankktiptcy. ]3S, 178, 179. 
 Paetneeship. 16. 
 • — sa. 2, 3, 10. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. ISO. 
 • s. 3. 
 
 See Banketptoy. 162. 
 
 See Paktneeship. 32. 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Pr.iNapAL and Aglst. 13. 
 
 EB. 11, 12. 
 
 See Paetnekship. 39. 
 93. 17, 36. 
 
 See SoLiciTOE. 90. 
 ■ 8. 20. 
 
 See Paetkecship. IS. 
 ■ s. 23. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy. 1S7. 
 Paetneeship. 40. 
 89. 23, 31. 
 
 See Partnership. 35. 
 8. 31. 
 
 See Partnership. 8. 
 8. 38. 
 
 See Bankevptcy. 137. 
 ■ 8. 40. 
 
 See Aeeiteation. 13. 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 40 (Factors), s. 1. 
 
 See Factor. 3. 
 53 & 54 Vict. 0. 44 (Judicature), ?. 1. 
 
 See Costs. 59. 
 Divorce. 115. 
 Practice. 47, 48, 52,' 54. 
 ss. 4, 5. 
 
 .See Costs. 24. 
 
 Crown Office. 1. 
 Prohibition. 7. 
 8. 5. 
 
 See Costs. 20, 26, 28. 
 Eailway. :!8. 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 45 (Police), ss. 1, ."i, 12. 
 
 See Police. 3. 
 8. 25. 
 
 See CorNTY Council. 9. 
 Sched. I., Eule 1, b. 11. 
 
 See Police. 4. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. 0. 54 (Metropolis — Management), 
 
 8.1. 
 
 See London. 67, 08. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. V. 59 (Public Health), s. 17, 
 
 6ub-s. 1. 
 
 See Sewees. 27. 
 8. 19. 
 
 See Setvees. 12, 1:1, 28—30. 
 8. 23. 
 
 See Sewers. 18. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Waste. 2. 
 8. 51. 
 
 See Innkeeper. 4. 
 
 ST AT'O'i'ES— continued. 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 62 (Companies — Memorandum) 
 See Company. 170, 178, 184, 232. 
 
 See Company. 172—174, 176, 179—182, 
 185, 186, 187. 
 Company — Winding-cp. 182. 
 
 ss. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 See Company. 171, lEO. 
 
 S8. 1, 3. 
 
 See Company. 64, 175, IS.'?. 
 
 88. 2, 3. 
 
 See Company. 191, 193. 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Company. 177. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 63 (Companies — Winding-up). 
 See Company — ■Winding-up. 49, 97, 
 149, 232. 
 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Company. 185, 241. 
 
 Company — Winding up. 94, 95, 98, 
 
 100. 
 County Court. 60. 
 Prohibition. 1 . 
 
 88. 1, 2. 
 
 See Company — Windixg-up. 182. 
 ■ ss. 1, 2, 32. 
 
 See Company. 181,228. 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 103. 
 
 88. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 100. 
 
 88. 1, 3. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 101, 108. 
 London. 34. 
 
 E8. 1,31. 
 
 See Company — Winding up. 96. 
 
 S9. 1, 32, 33. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 102. 
 
 8. 3. 
 
 See Building Society. 20. 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 99, 176. 
 83. 4, 5. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 107, 108. 
 88. 4, 6. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 110, 122. 
 
 88. 4, 27. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 135. 
 
 88. 4, 31, 32. 
 
 See Company— W]Nr ing-up. 120, 121, 
 213. 
 8. 4. S.hpii. L 
 
 See Company. 30. 
 8. 6. 
 
 See Company— WiNDiNO-iP. 105, 117, 
 128. 
 88. 6, 9, 12. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 124. 
 
 ■ 8S. 6, 9, 23, 24, Sched. 1, r. 6. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 20. 
 8. 6, Sched. I., r. 8. 
 
 See Company — W nd'ng-up. 202. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ooooxlv 
 
 STATVTSS— continued. 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 63, s. 7. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 136, 231. 
 
 — B. 8. 
 
 See CoMPAUT — Winding-up. 78, 79, 80, 
 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 131, 151, 160, 161, 
 m, 244. 
 
 ss. 8, 9. 
 
 See CoMPANi — ^WiNMNG-up. 242. 
 
 SB. 8, 14. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up, 131. 
 
 S3. 8, 26. 
 
 See Company — Windinq-up. 76, 77. 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Company. 115, 117, 120, 133, 203. 
 Company — ^Winding-up. 69, 195 — 
 
 201. 
 ■Industbial and Provident Society. 
 5. 
 
 - — ^ Bs. 10, 13. 
 
 See Company — ^Winding-up. 250. 
 
 s. 12. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 116. 
 
 • 68. 12, 13. 
 
 See Company. 8. 
 — s. 15. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 18, 127, 
 237. 
 Sohed. I., cl. 7, 11. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 129, 212. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 64 (^Directors' Liability^. 
 
 See Pbaotioe. 88. 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Company. 207, 209. 
 Pkaotice. 101. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. 0. 66 (Metropolis Management), 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 See London. 90. 
 . s. 6. 
 
 See London. 73. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. 69 (Settled Land), bs. 3, 7. 
 
 See Settled Land. 67. 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Appeal. 40. 
 Settled Land. 
 
 s. 11. . 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 s. 13. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 BS. 13, 15. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 118, 130, 131, 133. 
 81. 
 
 78, 112. 
 85, 87. 
 
 21,29,39,47. 
 40, 43, 64. 
 30, 31, 102. 
 
 s. 15. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 s. 19. 
 
 See Sewers. 19. 
 53 & 5t Vict. c. 70 (Housing of the^ Working 
 
 Classes), Sohed. IL 
 
 See Appeal. 32. 
 
 STATUTES— coiifj'nwed. 
 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. 0. 71 (Bankruptcy). 
 See Pbaotioe. 89. 
 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 
 Lunacy. 2. 
 
 5, 15, 36, 37. 
 
 SB. 1,11. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy. 
 
 107, 227. 
 
 ■ ■ B. 3. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 s. 8. 
 See Bankeuptoy. 
 
 212, 221, 222. 
 
 49, 84, 86, 88, 90, 121 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 
 
 163. 
 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Attachment. 9. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 56, 57, 102, 104, 106 
 
 108, 143, 215, 216. 
 Bill of Sale. 48. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 
 
 245, 250. 
 
 . s. 23. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 
 
 223, 228. 
 
 s. 25. 
 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 83. 
 
 . s. 26. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 
 
 122. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. ccxxi. (Glasgow Police Amend- 
 ment), s. 16. 
 See Scottish Law. 39. 
 
 53 & 54 Viot. c. ccxxxv. (Tunhridge Wells Im- 
 provement), s. 93. 
 See Streets. 1. 
 
 53 & 54 Vict. c. ccxliii. (London Council 
 (General Powers)), ss. 4, 5. 
 See Bates. 37. 
 
 1891. 
 
 54 & 55 Vict. u. 8 (Tithes), B. 2. 
 
 See Tithe. 5. 
 B. 6. 
 
 See Tithe. 6. 
 s. 8. 
 
 See Tithe. 3. 
 ■ 8. 10. 
 
 See Tithe. 7. 
 
 54 & 55 Vict. 0. 11 (Electoral Disabilities 
 Removal Act), s. 2. 
 See Parliament. 20. 
 
 54 & 55 Vict. c. 17 (Charitable Trusts (Re- 
 covery)), B. 3. 
 See Bent-chae8b. 6. 
 
 54 & 55 Viet. c. 39 (Stamps), S3. 1, 53. 
 See Revenue. 172. 
 
 SB. 4, 38. 
 
 See Bankee, 
 
 13. 
 
 8. 12. iQstruotions aB to adjulica- 
 
 tion stamps. 
 
 See Current Index, 1897, p. Ixzxiii. 
 
 s. 14. 
 
 See Evidence. 43. 
 Revenue. 173. 
 
ccccxlvi 
 
 TABLE OP STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 STATUTES— conhnwecZ. 
 
 04 & 55 Vict, c. 39, ss. 15, 80. 
 
 See Company — Wixding-up. 
 224. 
 
 s. 32. 
 
 See Revenue. 143. 
 
 ■ ■ S8. 54, 55, 73. 
 
 See Eevence. 156. 
 
 219, 222, 
 
 ss. 54, 57. 
 
 See EEVENrE. 
 
 151. 
 
 167. 
 
 ss. 54, 57. 
 
 Removal of doubt as to, so far as regards 
 
 foreclosure decrees. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 u. 10), o. 6. 
 . ss. 54, 59. 
 
 See Revenue. 155. 
 
 . S3. 54, 60, 87. 
 
 See Revenue. 141. 
 
 s. 54 and Sched. 
 
 ,?ee Revenue, 153. 
 
 s. 57, Sched. 1. 
 
 See Revenue. 160. 
 
 See Revenue. 152, 154, 157, 161, 169. 
 
 s. 80. 
 
 See Company. 164. 
 
 ss, 82, 122. 
 
 ,S'ee Revenue. 162, 175. 
 
 s. 86, Sched. I. 
 
 See Revenue. 148, 
 
 . es. 86, 87, 88, Sched. I. 
 
 See Revenue. 170. 
 
 ss. 93, 95. 
 
 ;See Insurance. 74. 
 
 s. 98, Sched. I. 
 
 £^ce Revenue. 161. 
 
 s. 101. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 s. 113. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 Sched. 
 
 See Revenue 
 Sched. I. 
 
 See Revenue. 149, 166, 168, 179. 
 
 Sched., Receipt, Exemption 11. 
 
 See Revenue. 108. 
 
 First Sched. tit. " Bill of Exchange," 
 
 Exemption 10. 
 See Revenue. 143. 
 
 First Sched. voce " Mortgage," sub-s. 
 
 5. 
 
 See Revenue. 166. 
 
 54 & 55 Vict. 0. 64 (Land Begistry — Middlesex 
 
 STArVTES— continued. 
 54 & 55 Vict. c. 73 (^Mortmain and Chantdble 
 Uses), ss. 3, 5. 
 See Charity. 45. 
 
 s. 9. 
 
 See Chakiiy. 48. 
 
 54 & 55 Vict. c. 75 (^Factories and Worhshops), 
 
 6.6. 
 
 See Masteb and Servant. 63, 64. 
 
 54 & 55 Vict. 0. 76 (Public Health- 
 See London. 53. 
 Mandamus. 4. 
 Settled Land. 65. 
 Water. 5. 
 
 -London). 
 
 8.2. 
 
 See London. 
 
 64. 
 
 178. 
 
 177. 
 
 140, 144-146. 
 
 Deeds), s. 1. 
 
 See Middlesex Registry. 
 
 1. 
 
 54 & 55 Vict. 0. 65 (^Lunacy), s. 26, Sched. 
 See Lunacy. 27, 34. 
 
 8. 27. 
 
 See Lunacy. 1, 25, 38, 47, 48. 
 
 S3. 2, 4, 21. 
 
 See Nuisances. 22. 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Nuisances. 25. 
 
 Public Authobitie,? Pbotectios. 
 
 83.4, 11. 
 
 See London. 52. 
 Nuisances. 2, 13. 
 
 ss, 4, 121, 141. 
 
 See Settled Land. 66. 
 
 3.5. 
 
 See Justices. 21. 
 ss. 11, 117. 
 
 See Nuisances. 14. 
 3. 29. 
 
 See LoNDOiJ. 49. 
 
 83.30,3.5,138, 141. 
 
 See Nuisances. 40. 
 s. 37. 
 
 See Water-closets. 3. 
 ■ s. 38. 
 
 See London. 51. 
 ss. 39, 41. 
 
 See Water-closets, 1. 
 s. 47. 
 
 See Food. 1, 2. 
 3. 121. 
 
 See Settled Land, 
 3. 128. 
 
 See Nuisance,?. 24. 
 B. 141. 
 
 See Nuisances. 23, 
 8, 142. 
 
 See London. 66, 
 
 1882. 
 
 55 & 56 Viet. c. 9 (Gaming). 
 See Gaming. 21. 
 
 ■ B, 1. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 259. 
 Gaming. 9, 22, 26, 36. 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. c. 13 (Conveyancing and Lave oj 
 
 Property), a. 2. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 56. 
 
 ss. 2, 4. 
 
 See Landlokd and Tenant. 61. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ccocxlvii 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 55 & 56 Vict. 0. 13, s. 3. 
 See Covenant. 1. 
 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 64. 
 
 49, 62, 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. c. 19 (^Statute Law Bevision Aci). 
 See Railway. 20. 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. c. 23 {Foreign Marriages). 
 See Conflict of Laws. 10. 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. c. 27 (^Parliamentary Deposits 
 and Bonds). 
 See Paeliament. 6. 
 Tramway. 7. 
 
 -8. L 
 
 See Pakliament. 
 Tkamway. 8 
 
 1—3. 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. 0. 82 (Clergy Discipline), S3. 2, 
 12. 
 See EccLBSiASTioAL Law. 50, 74, 75. 
 
 ■ ■ s. 4. 
 
 See EoOLBSiASTiOAL Law. 58. 
 
 ■ -s. 8. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 47. 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. 13. 53 (Public Libraries), as. 4, 11, 
 12, 14. 
 See Retenoe. 108. 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. c. 57 (Private Street Works), bs. 1, 
 12, 13. 
 See Streets. 34. 
 
 ■ ss. 5, 6. 
 
 See Streets. 
 
 37. 
 
 ss. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13. 
 
 See Streets. 22. 
 
 S3. 7, 8. 
 
 See Streets. 
 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Streets. 
 
 ss. 24, 25. 
 
 See Streets. 
 
 36. 
 35. 
 33. 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. c. 58 (Accumulations). 
 See Accumulations. 8. 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. c. 62 (Sliop Hours), s. 3. 
 See Shop. 3. 
 
 ES. 4, 5. 
 
 See Shop. 1. 
 
 ss. 9, 10. 
 
 See Shop. 2. 
 [-Biti see now the Sliop Sours Regulation Act, 
 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 5).] 
 
 55 & 56 Vict. 0. ccxxxiii. (Great Western Mail- 
 
 See Revenue, 153. 
 
 1893. 
 
 56 & 57 Vict. c. 7 (Income Tax), a. 3. 
 See Revenue. 172. 
 
 s. 5. 
 
 See E p. VENUE. 82. 
 
 STATUTES— coiih'imed. 
 
 56 & 57 Vict, c 37 (Liverpool Court of Passage), 
 
 ss. 6, 9, 10. 
 
 See Liverpool Courts. 2. 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Liverpool Courts. 1. 
 56 & 57 Vict. c. 39 (Industrial and Provident 
 
 Societies), s. 27. 
 
 See Industrial and Provident Society. 
 3. 
 S3. 58, 59. 
 
 See Industrial and Provident Society. 
 5. 
 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53 (Trustees), s 8. 
 
 See Trustee. 64. 
 s. 10. 
 
 See Trustee. 5, 10, 11. 
 3. 12. 
 
 See Trustee. 108. 
 • s. 17. 
 
 See Trustee. 2?. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Trustee. 8. 
 • ss. 25, 35. 
 
 See Trustee. 107. 
 S3. 25—41. 
 
 See Lunacy. 50. 
 ■ 33. 26, 34. 
 
 See Trustee. 102. 
 ■ ss. 26, 35. 
 
 See Trustee. 
 3. 29. 
 
 See Trustee. 
 ss. 31, 32, 50. 
 
 See Trustee. 106. 
 s. 35. 
 
 See Trustee. 105. 
 ss. 35, 38. 
 
 See Trustee. 112. 
 ■ s. 44. 
 
 See Trustee. 89, 92. 
 s. 45. 
 
 See Trustee. 30, 33, 34. 
 s. 50. 
 
 See Trustee. 7. 
 
 56 & 57 Vict. c. 61 (Public Authorities Protec- 
 tion), a. 1. 
 See Costs. 43—49. 
 
 Public Authorities Protection. 
 
 1,2,3. 
 Bhippins. 155. 
 
 • s. 2. 
 
 See Copyright. 11. 
 56 & 57 Vict. c. 63 (Married Women's Pro- 
 perty). 
 See Will. 143. 
 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Annuity. 2. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 2. 
 
 S3. 1, 2. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 20, 55. 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Costs. 38. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 44. 
 Probate. 88. 
 
 100, 109, 110. 
 104. 
 
ccccxlviii 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED, 
 
 STi-ITITES— continued. 
 56 & 57 Vict. 0. 63, s. 3. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 23. 
 
 s. 21. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 46. 
 
 56 & 57 Viot. c. 71 (Sale of Goods), «. 4. 
 
 See CoNTKACT. 17. ! 
 
 County Ooubt. 63. 
 Sale of Goods. 1, 2. 
 
 SB. 13, 17, 35. 
 
 ;See Sale of Goods. 3. 
 
 s. 14. 
 
 See Sale of Goods. 6. 
 
 . 8. 18, r. 4 (o). 
 
 See Sale OF Goods. 4. 
 
 S3. 21, 24, 25. 
 
 See Eagtob. 7. 
 
 BS. 25, 47. 
 
 See Sale of Goods. 7. 
 
 56 & 57 Vict. c. 73 (Local Gniiernment). 
 See Pakliament. 147. 
 
 ss. 1, 87, 68, 75. 
 
 See PooE Law. 11. 
 
 SB. 2, 43, 44. 
 
 See Paeliament. 103. 
 
 S3. 2, 75. 
 
 See Pakliament. 102. 
 s. 5. 
 
 See Parish Council. 2. 
 B3. 5, 81. 
 
 See Chimin AL Law. 11. 
 BS. 14, 70, 7.".. 
 
 See Charity. 2. 
 . B. 17. 
 
 See Parish Council. 1. 
 s. 25. 
 
 See Highway; 27—29. 
 B. 26. 
 
 See Costs. 42. 
 Highway. C. 
 ss. 26, 46. 
 
 See Way, Eight of. 10. 
 s. 33. 
 
 See Bates. 9. 
 —s. 36. 
 
 See Water. 10. 
 s. 68. 
 
 See Local Government. 7. 
 
 56 & 57 Vict. 0. olxxxi. (Liverpool Corporation), 
 8. 36 (ii.). 
 See Bates. 44. 
 
 1894. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. 10 (Trustees), a. 4. 
 See Trustee. 68. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. 0. 16 (Judicature), s. 1. 
 
 See Appeal. 2, 4, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 27, 
 
 30, 38, 44, 45. 
 
 Arbitration. 5, 62. 
 
 County Court. 13, 
 
 Pkaotice. 11, 201. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 57 & 58 Vict. 0. 30 (Finance Act), ss. 
 See Bevenue. 41. 
 
 1,2 
 
 BS. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 35. 
 
 
 SB. 1, 2 5. 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 43. 
 
 
 ss. 1, 2, 5, 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 B, 8, 9, 14. 
 32. 
 
 
 ss. 1, 2, 7. 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 33, 39. 
 
 
 ss. 1, 2, 21 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 23. 
 
 
 ss. 1, 2, 22 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 40. 
 
 
 S3. 1, 5, 6, 
 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 B, 9, 14, 22. 
 16. 
 
 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 25, 2S, 27. 
 
 
 S3. 2, 3. 
 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 13. 
 
 
 ss. 2, 4, 7, 
 See Revenue. 
 
 8, 9, 14. 
 36. 
 
 
 SB. 2, 5. 
 
 See Bevenue 
 
 44. 
 
 
 SB. 2, 0, 7, 
 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 8, 9, 14. 
 19. 
 
 
 SB. 2, 7. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 42. 
 
 
 SB. 2, 9. 
 
 See Will. 21 
 
 
 
 s. 5. 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 21, 21, 29, 31, 
 
 45. 
 
 ss. 5, 7, 9, 
 
 See Bevenue 
 
 14, 22. 
 20. 
 
 
 BS. 5, 9. 
 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 18. 
 
 
 S3. 5, 22. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 14, 30, 46. 
 
 
 s. 6. 
 
 See Will. 205. 
 
 
 ss. 6—9, 14. 
 
 See Bevenue. 15. 
 
 
 " 9 
 See Bevenue. 24, 37. 
 Will. 206. 
 
 
 s. 14. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 17, 31. 
 
 
 s. 21. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 28. 
 
 
 57 & 58 Viot. c. 41 (Prevention of 
 Children). 
 See Gbiminal Law. 10, 18. 
 
 Criieltij to 
 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Crimisal 
 
 Law. 9. 
 
 
 57 & 58 Viot. 0. 44 ( 
 9. 
 See Bevenue. 
 
 Eeritable Securities), ss. S, 
 
 157. 
 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. 0. 47 
 25. 
 See BuiLDiNS 
 
 (Building Societies), ss. 1, 
 Society. 9. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ooccxlix 
 
 STATUTES— continued. 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. 47, s. 10. 
 
 See Building Society. 3. 
 
 3. 25. 
 
 See Building Society. 21. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. 0. 54 {Railway and Canal Traffic), 
 
 BS. 1, 2. 
 
 See Railway. 35, 43—45. 
 s. 4. 
 
 See Railway. 46. 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. 57 (Diseases of Animals}. 
 
 See Animals. 2. 
 s. 32. 
 
 See Maeket and Faies. 1. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60 {Merchant Shipping), ss. 8, 
 
 503. 
 
 See Shipping. 165. 
 ss. 33, 56, 57. 
 
 See Shipping. 175. 
 ss. 79, 503. 
 
 See Shipping. 169. 
 s. 111. 
 
 See Shipping. 258. 
 
 ss. 124, 140. 
 
 See Shipping. 255. 
 • s. 163. 
 
 See Shipping. 266. 
 B. 167. 
 
 See Shipping. 161, 179. 
 s. 186. 
 
 See Shipping. 261, 262. 
 
 ss. 191, 192, 625. 
 
 See Shipping. 192. 
 s. 232. 
 
 See Shipping. 265. 
 
 ss. 320, 341, 342. 
 
 See Shipping. 182. 
 
 ss. 493—496. 
 
 See Practice. 79. 
 B. 503. 
 
 See Peactice. 
 Smppmo. 
 s. 544. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 ss. 546, 552. 
 
 See Insueanoe, Makise. 
 Shipping. 240. 
 SB. 603, 625. 
 
 See Shipping. 191. 
 s. 604. 
 
 See Shipping. 88. 
 ss. 622, 625. 
 
 See Shipping. 186. 
 s. 625. 
 
 See Shippisg. 187, 194. 
 B. 741. 
 
 See Shipping. 62. 
 57 & 58 Vict. 0. clxvl. ( West Riding of Yorkshire 
 
 Rivers), ss. 9, 10. 
 
 See Sewees. 27. 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. clxxxvii. {Thames Conservancy), 
 
 ss. 3, 87. 
 
 See Thames. 7. 
 
 264. 
 96, 165, 166, 167. 
 
 212. 
 
 76. 
 
 STATUTES— coniiiwea 
 
 ^ 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. 0. clxxxvii., ss. 22, 23, 25. 
 See Thames. 3. 
 
 ss. 87, 23f 
 
 See Thames. 
 
 8. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. 0. coxii. (London County Council 
 — Qeneral Powers), a. 4. 
 See Watee. 12. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. ocxiii. (London — Building). 
 See Settled Land. 65. 
 
 BS. 5, 90. 
 
 See London. 
 s. 7. 
 
 See London. 
 
 B. 8. 
 
 See London. 
 
 21. 
 
 70. 
 
 71. 
 
 s. 9. 
 
 See London. 
 
 72. 
 
 s. 14. 
 
 See London. 
 
 19. 
 
 s. 43. 
 
 See London. 
 
 25. 
 
 ss. 59, 75. 
 
 See London. 
 
 23. 
 
 . g, 64. 
 
 See London. 
 
 14. 
 
 s. 74. 
 
 See London. 
 
 26. 
 
 s. 86. 
 
 See London. 
 
 32. 
 
 ■ B. 90. 
 
 See London. 
 
 22. 
 
 as. 106, 107. 
 
 See London. 11. 
 
 s. 145. 
 
 See London. 
 
 31. 
 
 8. 188. 
 
 See London. 
 
 17. 
 
 8. 212. 
 
 See London. 
 
 13. 
 
 1885. 
 
 58 & 59 Vict. c. 25 (Mortgagees^ Legal Costs}; 
 s. 3. 
 
 See Moetgagb. 12, 13. 
 Solicitor. 127. 
 58 & 59 Vict. c. 26 (Friendly Societies), a. 10, 
 Bub-s. 1. 
 
 See Feiendly Society. 9. 
 58 & 59 Vict. c. 27 (Market Gardeners' Com- 
 pensation), a. 4. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 6. 
 58 & 59 Vict. 0. 37 (Factories and Workshops), 
 ss. 4, 23. 
 See Master and Servant. 32. 
 
 8. 23. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 11, 48, 49, 
 52. 
 
 8. 27. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 67. 
 58 & 59 Vict. c. 39 (Summary Jurisdiction — 
 Married Women). 
 See Appeal. 36, 37. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 76, 77, 82, 95. 
 Statutes. 35. 
 
 2/ 
 
ococl 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED 
 
 SIATVIES— continued. 
 
 58 & 59 Vict. c. 39, a. 4. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 85, 86, 87, 92, 
 91. 
 sa. 4, 5. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 83. 
 S3. 4, 5, 11. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 93. 
 ss. 4, 7. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 90. 
 ss. 4, 8. 
 
 See DivOECE. 91. 
 s. 11. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 78, 79. 
 .'58 & 59 Vict. c. cxxx. {Tower Bridge Southern 
 
 Approacli). 
 
 See Rates. 31. 
 
 1896. 
 
 59 & 60 Vict, 0. 16 {Agricultural Hates), ss. 1, 
 
 2, 3, 9. 
 
 See Bates. 16. 
 
 • S9. 1, 5, 6, 9. 
 
 See Bates. 34. 
 
 59 & 60 Vict. c. 21 (Liverpool Court of Passage). 
 Order as to fees in actions. Lond. Gaz. 
 (Jan. 19), p. 345. 
 
 59 & 60 Vict. c. 28 {Finance Act), s. 19. 
 
 See Eevenue. 18, 29, 31, 32. 
 S3. 19, 24, 39. 
 
 See Kevenue. 20, 30. 
 
 -59 & 60 Viet. c. 35 {Judicial Truntees). 
 
 Eules under this Act dated Aug. 31, 1897. 
 
 See Current Index, 1897, p. Ixxiii. 
 
 JluJe under. W. N. (1899) Mar. 18, p. 79. | 
 
 ■See Current Index, 1899, p. cxxii. 
 
 Rule {April) 1900, as to sole judicial 
 
 trustee. W. N. 1900 (April 21), p. 93. 
 
 See Current Index, 1900, p. xcii. 
 s. 1. 
 
 See Trustee. 72, 73, 75. 
 8. 3. 
 
 See Trustee. 25, 26, 27, 32, 35, 37, 64, 
 74. 
 59 & 60 Vict. c. 44 {Truck Act), a. 1. 
 
 See Mastek and Sektant. 91. 
 
 59 & 60 Vict. c. 45 {Stannaries Court {Aboli- 
 tion)), a. 1. 
 See Pbohibition. I. 
 
 59 & 60 Vict. c. 48 {Light Bailways). 
 
 Eules under. Vf. N. 1898 (Aug. 13), 
 p. 279 ; (Dec. 17), p. 408. See Current 
 Index, 1898, p. xciz. 
 
 59 & 60 Vict. c. 50 (Poor Law Officers' Super- 
 annuation), a. 12. 
 See Revenue. 111. 
 
 59 & 60 Vict. c. li. {London County— Tram- 
 
 ways), a. 2. 
 
 See London. 38. 
 
 1897. 
 
 60 & 61 Vict. c. 15 {Navy and Marines— Wills). 
 
 See Army and Navy. 2. 
 
 STATVT'ES— continued. 
 60 & 61 Vict. 0. 19 {Preferential Payments in 
 
 BanJsruptcy Amendment). 
 
 See Company. 48. 
 s. 2. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 189. 
 ■ s. 3. 
 
 See Company. 114. 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 191. 
 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37 ( Workmen's Compensation). 
 
 Eules dated Sept. 1, 1899. W. N. 1899 
 
 (Sept. 9), p. 271. See Current Index, 
 
 1899, p. cxxviii. 
 
 See Costs. 61. 
 Eevenue. 164. 
 
 See Master and Seevant. I, 22, 31, 
 36-38, 45, 92, 99. 
 1, 7. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 5, 43. 
 - — ■ s. 1, Sched. 1., cl. I (b). 
 
 See Master and Servant. 23. 
 — ■ s. 2. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 96 — 98. 
 ■ s. 2, Sched. I., s. (3). 
 
 See Master and Servant. 33. 
 ■ ■ s. 4. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 93. 
 ss. 4, 7. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 40, 50. 
 B. 7. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 2—4, 6 — 12, 
 25—29, 32, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46—49, 51, 
 52. 
 Sched. L, 1, (a). 
 
 See Master and Servant. 16, 19. 
 • Sched. I., 1, (6). 
 
 See Master and Servant. 15, 17, IS. 
 ■ Sched. I., ol. 2. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 35. 
 Sched. I., (2), a2). 
 
 See Master and Servant. 20. 
 Sched. I., (1), (o), (i). 
 
 See Master and Servant. 24. 
 Sched. I., cl. 1, (b), 2. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 14. 
 Sched. I., cl. 4, 5, 6, 7. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 30. 
 Sched. I., cl. 12. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 13. 
 Sched. II. (8). 
 
 See Master and Servant. 90. 
 60 & 61 Vict. c. 56 {Metropolis— Water). 
 
 Eules as to applications to Eaiboay and 
 
 Canal Commissioners under this Act 
 
 W. N. 1898 (Jan. 22), p. 45. See Current 
 
 Index, 1898, p. xcviii, 
 60 & 61 Viot. 0. 61 {Merchant Slapping— Ex- 
 emption from Pilotage), a. 1. 
 
 See Shipping. 191. 
 60 & 61 Vict. c. 65 (land Transfer). 
 
 For list of Land Transfer Eules and 
 Orders, see under Land Tkansfeb. 
 
 See Costs. 4. 
 Infant. 1. 
 
DUEI>^G THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ccccli 
 
 STATTTTES— couiii? ued. 
 60 & CI Vict. e. 65, s. 1. 
 See PaoBATE. 22. 
 
 BS. 1, 2, 24. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaseb. 79. 
 
 See Middlesex Eegistey. 
 
 • Part I., e. 2. 
 
 See Pkobate. 39, 40, 62. 
 
 €0 & 61 Vii.-t. 0. cxvii. (Orowhorougli District 
 Water). 
 See Buildings. 3. 
 
 <iO & 61 Viot. c. coxlii. (^London Count ij Council 
 — Improvements), s. 42. 
 See London. 69. 
 
 1898. 
 
 «1 & 62 Vict. c. 10 {Finance), s. 14. 
 See Eevence. 20, 22. 
 
 61 & 62 Vict. c. 12 (JPuhlic Becnrd Office), s. 1. 
 Bule dated Dec. 9, 1898. W. K. 1899 
 (June 3), p. 183. See Current Index, 
 1899, p. cxxvii. 
 
 €1 & 62 Vict. c. 26 ^Companies). 
 See Company. 14, 15,. 23. 
 
 Company— ■Winding-up. 34, 35, 61. 
 
 See Company. 18, 265, 272, 284, 288. 
 
 s. 35. 
 
 See Company. 255. 
 
 61 & 62 Vict. c. 29 {Locomotives), s. 12. 
 See Highway. 7. 
 
 61 & 62 Vict. c. 36 (Criminal Evidence), s. 1. 
 See Ceiminal Law. 30. 
 
 sa. 1, 16. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 18. 
 
 as. 2, 3. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 26. 
 
 61 & 62 Vict. c. 41 (Prisons), a. 9. 
 See Prison. 
 
 61 & 62 Vict. c. 44 (Merchant Shipping — 
 Mercantile Marine Fund), a. 3, Sched. I. 
 See Shipping. 210. 
 
 61 & 62 Vict. c. 46 (Bevenue), a. 18, aub-a. 1. 
 See Eetenue — Goyermnent Annuities. 
 
 61 & 62 Viot. i;. 48 (Benefices). 
 
 Rules wider. W. N. 1899 (Jan. 7), p. 1 ; 
 (March 18), p. 79 | (March 26), p. 91 ; 
 (Aug. 19), p. 260. See Current Index, 
 1899, p. Ixix. 
 
 61 & 62 Vict. 0. 49 (Vaccination), a. 2. 
 See Vaccination. 1. 
 
 61 & 62 Vict. u. 58 (Marriages). 
 
 Bules and Begulations under. 
 
 See Marriage. 
 
 1899. 
 
 62 Vict. 0. 6 (Judicature). 
 
 See Appeal. 56. 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 
 1900. 
 
 63 & 64 Viot. e. 26 (Land Oiarges). 
 
 Order (Aug.) 1900 as to transfer to Land 
 Rigistry Office. W, N. 1900 (Aug. 18), 
 p. 234. See Current Index, lEOO, p. xcii. 
 Bule (Aug.) 1900 as to Fees. W. N. 
 1900 (Sept. 8), p. 245. See Current 
 Index, 190O, p. xcii. 
 
 II. COLONIAL STATUTES. 
 
 AUSTRALIA, STATUTES OF. 
 
 Australia (South), Statutes op. 
 
 56 & 57 Vict. No. 567 (Succession Duties), ss. 16, 
 27. 
 See Australia. 1. 
 
 Australia (Western), Statutes op. 
 
 44 Viot. No. 10 — Eules and Orders, Order 
 xxxvi,, No. 10 (Supreme Court Act of the 
 Colony). 
 See Australia. 2. 
 
 BABBADOS. 
 
 49 Viot. 0. 15 (Water Supply), ss. 11, 23. 
 See Barbados. 1. 
 
 BRITISH COLUMBIA, STATUTES OF. 
 Consolidated Statutes, c. 51, a. 1. 
 See Canada. 27, 
 
 BRITISH COLUMBIA LAND ACT, 1875. 
 18 Viot. o. 5. 
 
 See Canaiia. 25. 
 
 47 Vict. 0. 14 (Crown Lands), ». 3. 
 See Canada. 29. 
 
 a. 23. 
 
 See Canada. 
 
 25. 
 
 53 Vict. c. 33 (Coal Mines Begulation). 1 
 
 See Canada. 28. 
 
 See Canada. 30. 
 
 51 Vict. c. 1 (Cattle Protection). 
 See Canada. 26. 
 
 54 Viot. c. 26 (Placer Mining Act). 
 
 See Canada. 29. 
 
 55 Vict. i;. 33 (Municipal Corporations). 
 
 See Canada. 28. 
 
 58 Vict. c. 7 (Cattle Protection). 
 See Canada. 26. 
 
 BRITISH HONDURAS, STATUTES OF. 
 
 Consolidated Laws of 1887, c. 19 (Limitations), 
 s. 5. 
 See British Honduras. 1. 
 
 c. 106 (Iiands Titles Begistry), a. 30. 
 
 See British Honduras. 1. 
 
 BRITISH NORTH AMERICAN 
 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 3). 
 See C^NADA. 7, 3 J. 
 
 A:iT, 1837 
 
 2/2 
 
cccclii 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY COXSIDEKED 
 
 STATUTES — continued. 
 30 & 31 Vict. 0. 3, ss. 58, 92, 109, 126. 
 See Canada. 2. 
 
 . ss. 91, 92. 
 
 SeeCASADA. 1,3,4,13,30,61. 
 
 COLONT. 2. 
 
 sa. 91, 92, lOS. 
 
 See Canada. 21. 
 a. 92. 
 
 See Canada. 41, 42. 
 ss. 109, 111, 112. 
 
 See Canada. 10. . 
 
 BRITISH NORTH AMEEICAN ACTS, 1867 and 
 1871. 
 See Canada. 32, 35. 
 
 CANADA, STATUTES OF. 
 
 British Columbia. 
 
 See Statutes — British Colvmbia, 
 Statutes op. 
 
 Manitoba. 
 
 See Statutes— Masiioba, Statutes of. 
 
 Nova Sootia. 
 
 See SfafMfes— Nova Scotia, Statutes 
 
 OF. 
 
 Ontakio. , 
 
 See Statutes— OsTAUio, Statutes of. 
 
 QUEBBO. 
 
 See Statutes— Qvwuo, Statutes of. 
 
 12 Vict. c. 183 (Gas), s. 20. 
 See Canada. 9. 
 
 18 Vict. c. 3 {Seigneuries). 
 See Canada. 59. 
 
 18 Vict. u. 126 {Custody of Infants). 
 
 See Canada. 44. 
 IS Vict, u. 202 {Banlt Act:). 
 
 See Canada. 51. 
 24 Vict. c. S3 {Toronto Street Eailway). 
 
 See Canada. 47. 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. 13 {Canada Temperance Act), 
 
 a. 17. 
 
 See Canada. 12. 
 
 33 Vict. c. 3 {Dominion Statute). 
 See Canada. 31. 
 
 46 Vict. u. 120 {BanJis). 
 See Colony. 2. 
 
 49 Vict. c. 32 {Customs), s. 150. 
 See Canada. 8. 
 
 49 Vict. c. 106 {Canada Temperance Act). 
 See Canada. 13. 
 
 49 & 50 Vict. 0. 32 {Customs), s. 150. 
 
 See Canada. 8. 
 
 50 & 51 Vict. 0. 39 {Dominion Act), s. 1, item 88 ; 
 
 s. 2, item 173. 
 See Canada. 20. 
 
 51 Vict. c. 29 {Mailwaijs), s. 262. 
 
 See Canada. 16, 18, 19. 
 
 • s. 262. 
 
 See Canada. 16. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. 33 {Customs Tarif), a. 4. 
 See Canada. S. 
 
 STATUTES— oom(iime(Z. 
 
 59 Vict. c. 42 (Act to amend the Cinl Code with 
 respect to the privileges of Builders, &c.). 
 See Canada. 5. 
 
 Civil Procedure Code, s. 6. 
 
 See Canada. .^0. 
 Civil Code of Xower Canada, aits.|2013 G and 
 
 2103. 
 
 See Canada. 5. 
 
 art. 2590. 
 
 See Canada. 11. 
 
 Civil Code of Quebec, art. 1233. 
 
 See Canada. 23. 
 Kevised Statutes of Canada, c. 92 {Worlis in 
 
 Navigable Waters), s. 4. 
 
 See Canada. 21. 
 Eevised Statutes of Canada, c. 95 {Fisheries), 
 
 B. 4. 
 
 See Canada. 21. 
 
 Eevised Statutes of Canada, 1880, o. 109, s. 12. 
 See Canada. 55. 
 
 CAPE OF GOOD HOPE, STATUTES OF. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. No. 3, Sched. XVII., s. 2. 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 7. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 37 {Crown LiaUlities). 
 \ See Cape of Good Hope. 1. 
 
 British South Africa Companies Mining Ordi- 
 nance, 1890, PS. 26-28. 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 4. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. No. 5 {Pondoland Annexation 
 Act, 1894), s. 2. 
 See Cape op Good Hope. 6. 
 
 CEYLON, STATUTES OF. 
 
 Ordinance of 1844, No. 21. 
 See Cetlon. 1. 
 
 Ordinance of 1863, No. 8 {Segislration of Titles 
 to Land), s. 39. 
 See Ceylon. 6. 
 
 Ordinance of 1863, No. 10. 
 See Ceylon. 1. 
 
 Ordinance of 1871, No. 7, s. 3. 
 See Ceylon. 1. 
 
 CHINA. 
 
 Shanghai Land Kegulation, 1869, No. 6. 
 See China. 1. 
 
 INDIA, STATUTES OF." 
 
 Indian Act, XV. of 1872 {Indian Christian 
 Marriages). 
 See DivoBCE. 81. 
 
 JAMAICA, STATUTES OF. 
 
 Code of Civil Procedure, s. 438. 
 See Jamaica. 4. 
 
 40 & 41 Vict. No. 17 {Banhruptcy), s. 10. 
 See Jamaica. 1. 
 
 42 & 43 Vict. No. 33 {BanJcruptcy), =. 151. 
 See Jamaica. 1, 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. No. 17 {Trade-marlts). 
 See Jamaica. 6. 
 
DUFJXG THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ccccliii 
 
 STATTSTES— continued. 
 
 52 & 53 Viot. No. 12 {Bailujay), ss. 20, 29. 
 See Jamaica. 2. 
 
 JERSEY. 
 
 Enactment of Feb. 13, 185] ; Enactment of 
 March 26, 1873. 
 See Jeesby. 4. 
 
 MANITOBA, STATUTES OF. 
 33 Vict. 0. 3 (Dominion Manitola Act, 1870). 
 
 See Canada. 31, 35. 
 s. 22. 
 
 See Canada. 32. 
 
 45 Vict. c. 36 (City of Winnipeg). 
 See Canada. 34. 
 
 45 Vict. C-. 87 (Winnipeg Street Railways). 
 See Canada, 34. 
 
 Manitoba Public Schools Act, 1890. 
 See Canada. 31. 
 
 55 Vict. c. 36 (Street Railways). 
 See Canada. 34. 
 
 HATAL, STATUTES OF. 
 26 & 27 Vict. No. 22 (Natal Laws), s. 7. 
 See Natal. 8. 
 
 CO & 61 Vict. No. 18 (Licenses to Wholesale and 
 lietail Dealers), ss. 5, 6. 
 See Natal. 5. 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES, STATUTES OF. 
 
 See New South Wales — Law of New 
 South Wales, passim. 
 
 7 Vict. No. 16 (Real Property), ss. 11, 12. 
 See New South Wales. 41. 
 
 1 1 Vict. No. 4 (Liens on Wool), s. 7. 
 See New South Wales. 29. 
 
 16 Viot. No. 19 (Trustees), ss. 30, 32. 
 See New South Wales. 49. 
 
 22 Vict. No. 1 (Real Property), s. 18. 
 See New South Wales. 41. 
 
 25 Viot. No. 1 (Crown Lands Alienation). 
 
 See New South Wales. 15. 
 s. 5. 
 
 See New South Wales. 36. 
 
 25 Vict. No. 8 (Bankruptcy). 
 
 See New South Wales. 25. 
 
 26 Vict. No. 9 (Real Property). 
 
 See New South Wales. 39. 
 B. 21. 
 
 See New South Wales. 40. 
 — 83. 117, 122. 
 
 See New South Wales. 27. 
 26 Vict. No. 12 (Trust Property), a. 25. 
 
 See Revenue. 160. 
 26 Vict. No. 17 (Criminal Law Amendment), 
 
 8. 423. 
 
 See New South Wales. 12. 
 26 Viot. No. 20 (Real Property), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 See New South Wales. 42. 
 31 Vict. No. 12 (Municipalities), s. 163. 
 
 See New South Wales. 33. 
 37 Vict. No. 19 (Companies). 
 
 See CoMPANV. 32, 47. 
 New South Wales. 6. 
 
 ST&.TVT'ES— continued. 
 37 Vict. No. 19, s. 57. 
 
 See New South Wales. 7, 8. 
 41 Vict. No. 18 (Real Property). 
 
 See New South Wales. 39. 
 
 43 Vict. No. 3 (Sydney Corporation), s. 67. 
 
 See New South Wales. 32, 411. 
 
 44 Viot. No. 3 (Stamp Duties). 
 
 See New South Wales. 38, 45. 
 46 Vict. No. 17 (Criminal Law Amendment), 
 
 B. 54. 
 
 See New South Wales. 13. 
 8. 423. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 15. 
 48 Viot. No. 18 (Grown Lands), ss. 13, 14, 18, 
 
 19,20,39. 
 
 See New South Wales. 22. 
 s. 42. 
 
 See New South Wales. 15. 
 ■ 3. 102. 
 
 See New South Wales. 16. 
 48 Vict. No. 24 (Civil Service). 
 
 See New South Wales. 5. 
 ss. 10, 46. 
 
 See New South Wales. 3. 
 
 50 Vict. No. 10 (Stamp Duties). 
 
 See New South Wales. 38, 45. 
 
 51 & 52 Vict. No. 37 (Public Works). 
 
 See New South Wales. 46. 
 53 Vict. No. \i (Parliamentary Representatices' 
 Allowances), a. 2. 
 See New South Wales. 35. 
 
 53 Viot. No. 21 (Crown Lands), a. 8. 
 
 See New South Wales. 19. 
 
 54 Vict. No. lOQQ (Administration andProhate). 
 
 See Revenue. 138. 
 
 55 Viot. No. 5 (Criminal Law). 
 
 See New South Wales. 14. 
 
 55 Vict. No. 27 (Hunter District Water Supply 
 
 and Sewerage), a. 85. 
 
 See New South Wales. 50. 
 55 Vict. No. 32 (Arbitration). 
 
 See New South Wales. 6. 
 
 57 Viot. No. 82 (Mining on Private Lands), 
 
 ss. 8, 13. 
 
 See New South Wales. 37. 
 
 58 & 59 Viot. No. IS (Crown Lands), ss. 5, 11. 
 
 See New South Wales. 1 8. 
 
 • -S3. 10, 11, 13. 
 
 See New South Wales. 16. 
 
 59 Vict. No. 15 (Land and Income Tax Assess- 
 
 ment), a. 15. 
 
 See New South Wales. 43. 
 ss. 27, 28. 
 
 See New South Wales. 24. 
 59 Vict. 0. 25 (Ciiiil Servants), s. 58. 
 
 See New South Wales. 4. 
 
 NEW ZEALAND, STATUTES OF. 
 44 & 45 Vict. No. 37 (Railways Construction 
 
 and Land Act), ss. 123, 125, 126. 
 
 See New Zealand. 9. 
 46 & 47 Vict. No. 46 (Charitable Oifls Dutiet 
 
 Exemption), ss. 2, 3. 
 
 See New Zealand. 2. 
 
ccocliv 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES JUDICIALLY COKSIDEEED 
 
 STATUTES— ooniijmeJ. 
 50 Vict. No. 21 (Natice Land Courts), ss. 75, 
 
 78. 
 
 See New Zealand. 8. 
 
 52 Vict. No. 37 (Natioe Land Courts'), s. 24. 
 
 See New Zealand. 8. 
 
 53 Vict. No. 7 {Poututu Jurisdiction). 
 
 See New Zealand. 8. 
 
 54 & 55 Vict. No. IS (_Lan(l and Income Assess- 
 
 ment), a. 16. 
 
 See New Zealand. 2. 
 
 55 & 5'3 Vict. No. 54 {Land and Income Assess- 
 
 ment), 8. 3. 
 
 See New Zealand. 2. 
 
 57 Vict. No. 56 (Criminal Code), ». 24. 
 
 See New Zealand. 4. 
 
 NEWFOUNDLAND, STATUTE? OF, 
 
 58 Vict. c. 3 {Commercial Banh — Liquidation). 
 
 See Newfoundland. 
 
 NOVA SCOTIA, STATUTES OF. 
 
 Revised Statutes, 5tli Series, c. 3. 
 
 See Canada. 39. 
 ■ e. 7, 8. 19. 
 
 See Canada. 38. 
 ■ c. 7. s. 95. 
 
 See Canada. 40. 
 
 25 Vict. c. 25 {Mines and Minerals Consolida- 
 tion Act, Rev. Stat. Nova Scotia, 3rd 
 Series). 
 See Canada. 
 
 42 Vict. c. 1 {County Incorporations Act, 1879). 
 See Canada. 37. 
 
 ONTARIO, STATUTES OF. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Ontario, c. 24 {Public 
 Lands), s. 47. 
 See Canada. 21. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Outaiin, o. 122 {Mercantile 
 Ameridmtnt). 
 See Canada. 3. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1877 (40 & 41 
 Vict. c. 139) {Barristers). 
 See Canada. 41. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Ontario, c. 194 {Liquor 
 Licences), s. 51. 
 See Canada. 42. 
 
 24 Vict. c. 83 {Toronto Street Mailway). 
 See Canada. 47. 
 
 51 Vict. Ontario Municipal Act, 1887 {Eev. Slat. 
 
 Ontario, c. 181), s. 495 (^3). 
 
 See Canada. 48. 
 ss. 583, 586, 591. 
 
 See Canada. 45. 
 
 53 Vict. u. 56 {Licensing), s. 18. 
 See Canada. 13. 
 
 53 Vict. c. 105 {Street Railways). 
 See Canada. 47. 
 
 55 Vict. c. 10 {Provisional Fisheries). 
 
 See Canada. 21. 
 QUEBEC, STATUTES OF. 
 
 Civil Code, arts. 1056, 2262 (2). 
 
 See Canada. 58. 
 
 STATUTES— coiifmited. 
 Civil Codo, art. 1927. 
 
 See CaN.ida. 54. 
 Gamins. 17. 
 Civil Procedure Code, s. 6. 
 See Canada. 50. 
 
 arts. 997, 998. 
 
 See Canada. 55. 
 
 Municipal Code of Quv.b:c. 
 
 See Canada. CI. 
 • art. 712, subs. 3. 
 
 See Canada. 53. 
 
 Revised Stalutes of Quebec, s. 3380. 
 See Canada. 57. 
 
 Revised Statutes {Compinies) art. 4722, (1),. 
 (5). 
 See Canada, f 2. 
 
 42 & 43 Vict. c. 53 {City of Montreal), s. 12. 
 See Canada. 56. 
 
 55 & £6 Vict, c 77 (/Si. Henri Light and Pmi:er 
 
 Co.), s. 5. 
 
 See Canada. 63. 
 
 QUEENSLAND, STATUTES OF. 
 
 2,5 Vict. No. 19 {Religious, Educational, and 
 Charitahle Institutions Act), s. 3. 
 See Queensland. 1. 
 
 37 Vict. No. 1 {Qwendand Cwtoms Act), a. 103, 
 See Queensland. 4. 
 
 40 Vict. No. 84 {Queensland Judicature Act\ 
 
 8. 5. 
 
 See Queensland. 3. 
 
 41 Vict. No. 3 {Queensland Navigation Act). 
 
 See Queensland. 4. 
 
 54 Vict. No. 10 {Dicidend Duty Paying Act), 
 s. 9. 
 See Queensland. 2. 
 
 56 Vict. No. 13 {Succession and Probate Dutii? 
 
 Act), a. 4. 
 
 See Queensland. 6. 
 
 TASMANIA, STATUTES OF. 
 
 22 Vict. c. 10 {Claims to Grants to Land Act), 
 sa. 5, 8. 
 .See Tasmania. 1 . 
 
 TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ORDINANCES. 
 
 Ordinance No. 8 of 1889. 
 See Tkinidad. 1. 
 
 Ordiuance No. 4 of 1889. 
 See Trinidad. 3. 
 
 Ordinance No. 11 of 1891. 
 See Tkinidad. 3. 
 
 VICTORIA, STATUTES OF. 
 
 14 Vicf. No. 20 {Melbourne Corporation). 
 See Victoria. 8. 
 
 29 & 30 Vict. No. 301 {Transfer of Land)., 
 a. 144. 
 SeeViOTOEiA. 17. 
 
 S8 Vict. No. 506 {Local Government), s. 384. 
 See ViOTOKiA. 4. 
 
 41 Vict. No. 575 {Land Tax), =. 4. 
 See Victoria. 6, 7. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 cc^clv 
 
 STATUTES— ro)!(i)i ueJ. 
 45 Vict. Xo. 723 {Victonan Chinese Act}, s. 3. 
 See TiOTOEiA. 1. 
 
 54 Yict. No. 1060 {AdminUtratiun and Prolate'), 
 s. 97. 
 See ViCTOEiA. 11, 13, 14. 
 
 54 Viet. No. 1074 {Ctrnpanief), s. 384, 
 See Victoria. 3. 
 
 54 Viet. No. 1112 (Local Government), s. 428. 
 See Victoria. IS. 
 
 54 Vict. No. 1133 (Public Service), Bs. 3, 107. 
 
 See ViCTOMA. 10. 
 ss. 3, 124, 130, 131, 182, 229. 
 
 See Lunacy. 52. 
 54 Vict. No. 1153 (Vermin Destruction). 
 
 See Victoria. 18. 
 54 Vict. No. 1565 (Marine Act), s. 13. 
 
 See Victoria. 15. 
 
 58 Vict. No. 1374 (Income Tax), ss. 5, 7, 
 subs. 3. 
 /S>e Victoria. 5. 
 
 STATUTES— co)i(in«f(?. 
 WESTERN PACIFIC. 
 
 Pacific Islanders Protection Attp, 1872, 1875. 
 
 Foreign Jurisdiction Actp, 1843-187.1. 
 See FoREiGx Jurisdiction. 4. 
 
 III. FOREIGN LAWS. 
 
 FBANCE. 
 
 Code Penal Act, 147. 
 
 See Extradition. 
 
 3. 
 
 NEW YORK STATE. 
 1875, c. 611, s. 21. 
 
 See International Law. 7. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ACT OF CON- 
 GRESS, Feb. 13, 1893 (lie Barter Act). 
 See Shu PING. 28, 29, 183. 
 
( occclvii ) 
 
 TABLE OF RULES AND ORDERS OF COURT 
 
 JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED DUEING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 Mules of Supreme Court 
 
 Bules of Supreme Court Funds Mules i 
 
 Agricultural Bates Orders 
 
 Bankruptcy Bules 
 
 Board of Trade Bules 
 
 Building Society Begulations 
 
 Central Office Fraotice Bules 
 
 China and Japan Bules 
 
 City of London Court 
 
 Clergy Discipline Act Bules 
 
 Collisions at Sea {Begulations for 
 
 preventing} 
 Companies Winding-up Bules 
 Contenlious Business Bules - 
 County Court Bules 
 Dairies, Cmvslieds and Milkshops 
 
 Order 
 Danube Navigation Begulations 
 Deeds of Arrangement Bules 
 Designs Bules 
 Divorce Court Bules 
 Election Petition Bules 
 House of Lords Standing Orders 
 Ivferior Courts Bules 
 Irish Bules 
 
 Judicial Trustee Bules 
 Lurtacy Bules 
 Mayor's Court of London Bules 
 
 FAGB 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 cooclvii 
 
 Mersey Biver Bules 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccolxiii 
 
 Newport Harhour By-laws 
 
 cccolxvi 
 
 cooclxiii 
 
 New South Wales Bankruptcy Acts 
 
 
 cccclxiii 
 
 Bules 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cooolxiv 
 
 Parliamentary, &c., Begistratior 
 
 
 cocclxiv 
 
 Orders 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cocci XIT 
 
 Patent Bules 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccclxiv 
 
 Police Begulations 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cocclxiy 
 
 Practice Master's Bules 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccclxiv 
 
 Probate Bules 
 
 Bural District Councillors' Election 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccclxiv 
 
 Order 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccclxiv 
 
 SetiUd Land Bules 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccclxy 
 
 Sheriffs' Fees Order - 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccolxv 
 
 Shipping Bules and Orders - 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 
 Solicitors' Bemuneration Order 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccclxv 
 
 Stock Exchange Bules 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 eooclxv 
 
 Summary Jurisdiction Rules 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccolxv 
 
 Thames Conservancy and Naviga 
 
 
 cccclxv 
 
 tion Bules - ' 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccolxv 
 
 Trade Marks Bules 
 
 cccclxvi 
 
 cccclxv 
 
 Tramways Bules 
 
 cccclxvii 
 
 cccclxv 
 
 Treasury Begulations 
 
 cccclxvii 
 
 cccclxv 
 
 Trinidad and Tobago 
 
 cccclxvii 
 
 cccclxv 
 
 Tyne Biver Begulations 
 
 cccclxvii 
 
 ocoolxv 
 
 Vaccination Order - 
 
 cccclxvii 
 
 cccclxv 
 
 Watermen and Lightermen By-laws cocclxvii 
 
 <ccclxvi 
 
 Workmen's Compensation Bules 
 
 cccclxvii 
 
 EUIES OF SUPEEME COURT. 
 
 Order I. {Form and Commencement of Action), 
 
 r. 1. 
 
 See Pbobate. 88. 
 
 Order II. ( Writ of Summons), r. S. 
 
 See Pbactioe. 213. 
 ( Writ of Summons and Procedure, dc), 
 
 r. 1. 
 
 See Probate. 88. 
 
 r. 3. 
 
 See Pbacticb. 274. 
 
 Order III. (Indorsement of Claim), r. 1. 
 
 See Pkactiob. 98. 
 
 r. 4. 
 
 See BxBCUTOB. 22. 
 
 r. 6. 
 
 See Pbaotice. 2, 282, 284, 285, 287— 
 289, 291, 292, 297, 298. 
 
 MOETGAGE. 6. 
 
 r. 7. 
 
 See Costs. 78. 
 
 ETJLES OF SUPREME CQVRT— continued. 
 
 ' Order IV, {Indorsement of Address), r. 1. 
 
 I See Costs. 62. 
 
 ' r. 2. 
 
 1 See Company. 286. 
 
 ] Order V. {Issue of Writs of Summons). 
 
 i See Pbacticb. 138. 
 
 -r. 2. 
 
 70. 
 
 194, 195. 
 
 See Pbacticb, 
 r. 9. 
 
 See Pbactioe. 
 rr. 9 (a), 10. 
 
 See County Ooubt. 68. 
 
 - Order VI. {Concurrent Writs), r. 1. 
 
 See Pbacticb. 217. 
 
 - Order VIII. {Benewal of Writ), r. 1. 
 
 See Pbacticb. 273, 300. 
 
 - Order IX. {Service of Writ of Summons), 
 
 r. 1. 
 
 See Pbacticb. 273. 
 
 rr. 1, 2. 
 
 See PEACTlcfi. 180. 
 
cccolviii TABLE OF RULES AND ORDEES OF COURT JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 BTJIES OF STJPEEME COVB.T—conUnued. 
 Order IX., i, 2. 
 
 See Peactice. ]80, 231, 232. 
 ■ r. 6. 
 
 See Pkaotioe. 187, 188, 189, 190. 
 ■ r. 8. i 
 
 See Phaotioe. 181, 182, 183, 228. ; 
 
 Order X. (Substituted Service'). 
 
 See Practice. 231. 
 
 rr. 14 (a), 18 (a). 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 37 
 
 Order XI. ^Service out of Jurisdiction). 
 
 See International Law. 2. 
 Practice. 201. 
 
 r. 1. 
 
 See Patent. 36. 
 
 Practice. 192, 194, 19(3, 197, 199, 
 200, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 1 
 212,215,216,218,221,^22, 
 Shipping. 249. 
 
 rr. 1, 2. 
 
 See Practice. 219, i:20, 233. 
 
 rr. 1, 4. 
 
 See Practice. 213, 217. 
 
 r. 4. 
 
 See Practice. 214. 
 
 r, 6. 
 
 See Practice. 224. 
 
 r. 7. 
 
 See Practice. 187. 
 
 Order XII. (^Appearance), r. <6. 
 
 See Practice. 7, 58. 
 
 r. 30. 
 
 See Practice. 204. 
 
 Order XIII. (^Default of Appearance), r. 1. 
 
 See Divorce. 90. 
 Probate. 97. 
 
 EITLES OF SUPREME CO'U'RT— continued. 
 
 Order XV. (Applicjtion for an Account). 
 
 See Mortgage. 34. 
 
 Order XVI. (^Parties), r. 1. 
 
 See Practice. 101, 102, 103, 105, 120. 
 Shipping. 207. 
 Trade Union. 13. 
 rr. 2, 11, 12. 
 
 -r. 3. 
 
 See Practice. 
 - r. 12. 
 See Practice. 
 
 279, 299. 
 
 158, 170. 
 
 r. 13. 
 
 See Practice. 292. 
 • Order XIV. (Leave to Sign Judgment and 
 Defend where Writ Sjjtcially indorsed). 
 See Company — WisDiNO-rp. 47. 
 CovNTY Court. 27, 29. 
 Liverpool Courts. 5. 
 Mortgage. 6, 21. 
 Practice. 136, 287, 289, 
 
 r. 1. 
 
 See Bond. 1. 
 Costs. 25. 
 
 Practice. 37, 39, 189, £80, 284, 
 285, 287, 291, 298. 
 
 rr, 1, 4, e. 
 
 See Practice. 292. 
 
 r. 6. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 15S 
 
 rr. 6, 8. 
 
 See Practice. 254. 
 
 r. 9. 
 
 See Costs. 25. 
 
 County Court. 23. 
 
 See Practice. 108. 
 
 
 -r. 4. 
 
 See Practice. 118. 
 
 
 - rr. 4, 5, 7. 
 
 &e Practice. 118,119. 
 
 -r. 5. 
 
 See Practice. 100. 
 
 
 - rr. S, 7, 11. 
 
 See Practice. 83. 
 
 
 - rr. 6, 11, 48. 
 
 See Practice. 86. 
 
 
 -r, 8. 
 
 See Mortgage. 28. 
 
 
 -r. 9. 
 
 See Company. 44, 45. 
 Compromise. 1. 
 Practice. 113,116,117. 
 
 
 - r. 11. 
 
 See Executor. 21. 
 Patent. 35. 
 Practice. 78, 79, 80, 90, 
 149. 
 
 109, III 
 
 - rr. 11, 12. 
 
 See Practice. 87. 
 
 
 - rr. 11, 32. 
 
 See Estoppel. 4. 
 
 
 - rr. 11, 48. 
 
 See Practice. 251. 
 
 
 - r. 16. 
 
 See Company. 291. 
 
 
 - r. 17. 
 
 See Lunacy. 3. 
 
 
 - r. 22. 
 
 See Practice. 23. 
 
 
 - rr. 23, 24. 
 
 See Discovery. 16. 
 
 
 - r. 29. 
 
 
 See Practice. 28. 
 
 
 - r. 32. 
 
 See Costs. 77. 
 
 
 - r. 40. 
 
 See Practice. 196. 
 
 
 - rr. 40, 41, 42. 
 
 See Practice. 29. 
 
 
 - r. 46. 
 
 See Company. 2J]. 
 Mortgage. 17, 29. 
 Practice. 72. 
 
 
 - r. 48. 
 
 See Practice. 252, 253. 
 Shipping. 20d, 209. 
 
 
 - rr. 62, 85. 
 
 See Practice. 249, 250. 
 
 
 - r. 66. 
 
 See Light and Air. 1 1. 
 Trustee. 30. 
 
 
DURING THE YBAES 1891— "1900. 
 
 cccclix 
 
 ETJLES OF SUPREME COVRT— continued. 
 Order XVII. (^Change of Parties by Death. 
 
 (t'c), r. 4. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute or. 39. 
 Pkaotioe. 89, 173, 174, 176. 
 rr. 4, 6. 
 
 See Pkactioe. SS. 
 r. 8. 
 
 See County Court. 71. ; 
 Order XVIII. {Joinder of Causes of Action), 
 
 r. 1. ! 
 
 See Shipping. 207. 
 rr. 1, 8. 
 
 See Practice. 100. ', 
 r. 2. 
 
 See Peaotice. 9.i, [9. I 
 Order XVIIIa {Trial without Pleadings), x. 6. 
 
 See Practice. 170. 
 Order XIX. (Pleadings generally), r. 3. 
 
 See Practice. 15-. 
 r. 6. 
 
 See Discovert. 63. 
 
 rr. 6, 7. 
 
 See Discovery. 62, 63. 
 
 See DisoovEEY. 65. 
 Practice. 167. 
 
 r. 10. 
 
 See Practice. 230. 
 :^ r. 15. 
 
 See Practice. 2. 
 r. 21, 
 
 See Practice. 163. 
 r. 27. 
 
 See Practice. 150. 
 Order XX. {Stdement of Claim), c. 1. 
 
 See Arbitration, i, 12, 56. 
 
 See Practice. 278. 
 Order XXI. {Defence and Counter-claim), 
 
 r. 18 [as amended July, 1 898, see W. N. 
 
 1898, Sept. 10, p. SISJ. 
 
 See Probate. 87, 91. 
 rr. 10—17. 
 
 See Practice. 152. 
 r. 11. 
 
 See Practice. 149. 
 rr. 11, 12, 13, 14. 
 
 See Practice. 153. 
 r. 16. 
 
 See Practice. 15 ). 
 r. 16. 
 
 See Practice. 156. 
 r. 18. 
 
 See Probate. 87, 91. 
 Order XXII. {Payment into and out of Court 
 
 and Tender), r. 1. 
 
 See Defamation. 14. 
 1—6. 
 
 UTILES OF SUPREME COURT— continued. 
 
 Order" XXII., r. 7. 
 
 See Copyright. 12. 
 Costs. 3. 
 
 r. 17. 
 
 See Executor. 33. 
 
 r, 22. 
 
 See Practice. 134. 
 - — - Order XXIII. {Reply and Subsequent Plead- 
 ings), r. 1. 
 See Practice. 262. 
 
 r. 4. 
 
 See Practice. 156. 
 
 Order XXIV. {Pending the Action), r. 3. 
 
 See Practice. 1 60. 
 
 Order XXV. {Proceedings in Veu of Demurrer), 
 
 r. 2. 
 
 See Practice. 263. 
 
 rr. 2, 3. 
 
 See Appeal. 50. 
 
 rr. 2, 4. 
 
 See Defamation. 33. 
 
 j . r. 4. 
 
 See Lunacy. 3. 
 1 Practice. 166, 235, 240. 
 
 ] Tesdes. 3. 
 
 r. 5, 
 
 See Injunction. 17. 
 Poor Ijaw. 10. 
 Practice. 113. 
 Traders. 3. 
 
 Order XXVI. {Discontinuance), i. 1. 
 
 See Practice. 14, 15, IS. 
 
 rr. 1, 4. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 29. 
 Practice. 16. 
 
 26?. 
 
 126. 
 
 — rr. 
 See Shipping. 
 
 — rr. 1, 6. 
 See Practice. 
 
 -r. 8. 
 See Practice. 
 
 — r. 6. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 231. 
 
 130, 135, 142. 
 
 Order XXVII. {Default of Pleading), r. 1 1. 
 
 See Costs. 22. 
 
 Practice. 156, 157. 
 r. 12, 
 
 See Practice. 33, 226. 
 r. 13. 
 
 See Practice. 202. 
 
 T. 15. 
 
 See Practice. 240. 
 Order XXVIII. {Amendment), rr. 1, 6. 
 
 See Practice. 1, 283. 
 
 r. 9. 
 
 See Practice. 281. 
 
 rr. 9, 10. 
 
 See Practice. 3. 
 
 r. 10. 
 
 See Practice. 230. 
 
 r. 11. 
 
 See Charging Ordes. 2. 
 Executor. 21. 
 Practice. 4, 78, 237. 
 
 r. 12. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 51. 
 Order XXIX. {ReleaSiS in Admiralty Actions') 
 
 rr. 12, 18. 
 
 See Shippinq. 247. 
 Order XXX. {Summons for Directions). 
 
 See Mortgage. 31. 
 Practice: 248, 254. 
 
cooclx TABLE OF EULES AND OBDEES OP COUET JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED 
 
 ETTLES OF SUPREME COVRT— continued. 
 Order XXX., r. 1. 
 
 See Pkactioe. 158. 
 rr. 1, 2. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 261. 
 Order XXXI. {Ducovery), r. 1. 
 
 See DisoovEEY. 54, 55, 58. 
 rr. 1, 2, 12. 
 
 See DiscovBEY. 22. 
 rr. 1, S, 24. 
 
 See DiscoTEEY. 40. 
 ■ rr. 1, 6. 
 
 See DisoovEEY. 46. 
 rr. 1, 12. 
 
 See DiscovEEY. 44. 
 . r. 5. 
 
 See Discovery. 48. 
 ■ r. 7. 
 
 See DisoovEEY. 57. 
 r. 8. 
 
 See DisoovEEY. 35, 57. 
 r. 12. 
 
 See Discovery. 13, 18, 41, 43. 
 r. 14. 
 
 See Discovbey. 26. 
 • rr. 15, 17, 18, 26. 
 
 See DisoovEEY. 2. 
 rr. 16-18. 
 
 See DisoovEEY. 20. 
 ■ rr. 15, 19a (,2). 
 
 See DisooVEEY. G3. 
 r.l8. 
 
 See DiscovEEY. 24. 
 r. 19a. 
 
 See DisoovEEY. 36. 
 rr. 19a (2). 
 
 See Discovery. 31, 32. 
 r. 26. 
 
 See Discoveey. 3, 4, 5. 
 . • Order XXXII. {Admusians), r. 6. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 127. 
 ■ Order XXXIII. (Istues, Inquiries, and Ac- 
 counts), rr. 2, 3, 4. 
 
 See Fbadds, Statdte of. 23. 
 rr. 2—8. 
 
 See Account. 
 Order XXXIV. {Special Case), r. 1. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 244. 
 Order XXXV. {District Begistriee), rr. 1—6. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 22. 
 r. 4. 
 
 See Peacticb. 20. 
 r. 6. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 19. 
 Order XXXVI. (Trial). 
 
 See Peaotioe. 44. 
 r. 1. 
 
 See Practice. 270, 271. 
 rr. 1, la, 3. 
 
 See Peactice. 267. 
 rr. 4, 6, 7. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 255. 
 r. 6. 
 
 See Arbiteation. 47. 
 Peobate. 93. 
 
 ETJIES OF SUPEEME COVB,T— continued. 
 Order XXXVI., r. 6. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 254. 
 rr. 6, 7. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 256, 257. 
 r. 11. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 262. 
 rr, 14, 18, 18a. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 261. 
 r. 21. 
 
 See Peactice. 29. 
 r, 31. 
 
 See Peactice. 258. 
 r. 32. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 259. 
 — r. 33. 
 
 See Practice. 259. 
 r. 37. 
 
 See Discovery. 23, 51. 
 r. 60. 
 
 See Arbiteation. 48. 
 r. 64. 
 
 See Aebiteation. 45, 46. 
 Evidence. '69. 
 rr. 64, 55. 
 
 See Aebiteation. 44. 
 r. 56. 
 
 See Common. 8. 
 r. 68. 
 
 See Damages. 3. 
 Injunction. 14. 
 Peactice. 95. 
 r. 69. 
 
 See Costs. 16. 
 Order XXXVII. [Emdence), r. 3. 
 
 .See Evidence. 37. 
 r. 5. 
 
 See Aebiteation. 10. 
 Evidence. 26, 28, 36. 
 r. 7. 
 
 See Discoveey. 2."i. 
 Probate. 93. 
 r. 9. 
 
 See ATTAOHirENT. 2. 
 Evidence. 30. 
 r. 28. 
 
 See Husband AND Wipe. 5ii. 
 r. 30. 
 
 See Discovert. 42. 
 . Order XXXVIII, (Affidavits and Deposi- 
 tions), r. 3. 
 
 See Evidence. 8, 18, 19. 
 r. 16. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 9. 
 Evidence. 22. 
 Order XXXIX. (Motion for New Trial), r. 6. 
 
 See Defamation. 13. 
 
 r. 8. 
 
 See Appeal. 40. 
 
 County Codet. 15. 
 
 rr. 8, 14. 
 
 See BviDENOE. 15. 
 
 Order XL. (Motion for Judgment), r. 7. 
 
 See Arbitration. 44. 
 Practice. 40. 
 
DXJKING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ooooixt 
 
 EITLES OF SUPREME COVRT— continued. 
 Order XLI. (Entry of Judgment'), r, 3. 
 
 See ExBorTOB. 21. 
 Pkaotiob. 78. 
 rr. 3, 4. 
 
 See Pbactice. 37. 
 r. 8. 
 
 See Attachment. 1,15,16,17. 
 Mortgage. 19. 
 Pkactioe. 233. 
 Sequestration. 5, 6. 
 r. 23. 
 
 iSee Practice. 176. 
 Order XLII. (Execution'), rr. 3, 4. 
 
 See Attachment. 10. 
 rr. 3, 6. 
 
 See Sequestration. 6. 
 rr. i, 24. 
 
 iSee Husband and Wife. 38. 
 r, 6. 
 
 See Sequestration. 2, 6. 
 r. 7. 
 
 See Practice. 272. 
 rr. 8, 23. 
 
 See Eeceiver. 21. 
 rr. 14, 16. 
 
 See Costs. 36. 
 rr. 22, 23. 
 
 See Sequestration. 4. 
 r. 23. 
 
 See Charging Ordek. 2 
 Peaotioe. 178. 
 r. 24. 
 
 See Attachment. 12. 
 Solicitor. 88. 
 . r. 28. 
 
 See Practice. 171. 
 Eecbivee. 22. 
 r. 31. 
 
 See Attachment. 13. 
 . r. 32. 
 
 See Attachment. 2. 
 Evidence. 30. 
 Husband and Wife. 50. 
 Eeceiver. 13. 
 rr. 32, 34. 
 
 See Costs. 8. 
 • Order XLHI. CWrits of Fieri Facias, Elegit, 
 
 and Sequestration), rr. 6, 7. 
 
 See Sequestration. 4, 5, 6. 
 • r. 7, 8. 
 
 See Sequestration. 2, 3, 
 Order XLIV. (Attachment), r. 1, 
 
 See Attachment. 6. 
 rr. 1, 2. 
 
 See Practice. 272. 
 ■ r. 2. 
 
 See Attachment. 21, 22, 24. 
 Practice, 229. 
 r. 18, 
 
 See Sequestration. 4. 
 , r. 18, 
 
 See Practice. 98. 
 • Order XLV, (Attachment of Debts), r. 1. 
 
 See Attachment. 7, 10. 
 rr. 1, 2. 
 
 See Banker. 2. 
 r. 3. 
 
 See Attachment. 12. 
 
 RTOES OF SUPKEME COVRX— continued. 
 ■ Order XLV., r. 9. 
 
 See Costs. 8. 
 
 Order XLVI. (Charging Orders, Distringas^ 
 
 and Stop Orders), r. 1. 
 
 See Charging Order. 2, 4. 
 Order XLVII. (TFrit of Possession), rr. 1, 2. 
 
 App. H., Forms 7n, 8. 
 
 See Mortgage. 32. 
 Order XLVIII. A. (Actions iy and against 
 
 Firms), r. 1. 
 
 See Practice. 184, 18C. 
 rr. 1, 3. 
 
 See Practice. 211. 
 rr. 1, 3, 8. 
 
 See Practice. 227, 299. 
 ■ rr. 1—8, 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 137. 
 rr. 3, 11, 
 
 See Practice. 191, 277. 
 r. 5. 
 
 See Attachment. 2.5. 
 rr. S, 8. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 23. 
 rr. 6, 8, 11. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 20o. 
 r, 11. 
 
 See Practice. 191. 
 Order XLIX, (Transfers and Consolidation), 
 
 r. 3, 
 
 See Practice. 264, 267. 
 r. 8. 
 
 See Practice. 96. 
 Order L. (Interlocutory Orders), i. 3. 
 
 See Arbitration. 48. 
 Discovery. 26. 
 Evidence. 26. 
 r. 4. 
 
 See Deceit. 
 r, 6, 
 
 See Injunction. 23. 
 r. 12. 
 
 See Interpleader. 10. 
 r, 15 (a). 
 
 See Eeceiver. 13, 22. 
 Order Iil, (Sales hy Court in Chancery Dioi- 
 
 sion), r. 1 (a). 
 
 See Mortgage. 81. 
 r, 23, 
 
 See Practice. 223. 
 Order III. (Motions), rr. 3, 4. 
 
 See Attachment. 21. 
 r. 4. 
 
 See Arbitration. 45. 
 
 Attachment. 2, 4, 14, 16. 
 Evidence. 30. 
 rr. 5, 9, 
 
 See Eeceiver. 31. 
 r. 9. 
 
 See Practice. 192. 
 Order LIV. (Applications and Proceedings a( 
 
 Chambers), r. 12. 
 
 See Eailway. 47. 
 i r. 23. 
 
 See Appeal. 45. 
 
 Order LIVa. (Declaration on Originating 
 
 ] Summons). 
 
 See Way, Right op. 1. 
 
ccoolxii TABLE OF EULES AND OBDEBS OP COUET JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED 
 
 "RTJIES OF SUPREME COVRI— continued. 
 
 RULES OF SUPREME Ca'VRI— continued. 
 
 Order IlVa., r. 1. 
 
 Order LIX., r. 16. 
 
 See Mortgage. 43. 
 
 See County Court. 15. 
 
 Peaotioe. 65. 
 
 London. 43. 
 
 r. 2. 
 
 r. 26. 
 
 See Lands Clau.ses Acts. 16, 19. 
 
 See Bill ov Sale. 49. 
 
 Pkaotiob. 73, 146. 
 
 Order IXI. {Central Office), r. 26. 
 
 Order IV. (Ohamhers in the Chancery Divi- 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 49. 
 
 sion', r. 2. 
 
 Order LXII. {Chancery Registrars), r. 2. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Act. 16, 19. 
 
 See Attachment. 22'. 
 
 r. 3, 
 
 Practice. 15. 
 
 (See Practice. 137. 
 
 r. 18. 
 
 See Practice. 19. 
 
 Trustee. 24. 
 
 r. 3 (c), 
 
 See Account. 7. 
 
 Order I XIV. {Time), r. 7. 
 
 rr 3 1 
 
 See Divorce. 111. 
 
 See ExECUToa. 4o. 
 
 Practice. 300. 
 
 Practice. 62, 76. 
 
 r. 8. 
 
 r. 6 (a). 
 
 See Arbitration. 4. 
 
 See Mortgage. 31, 43. 
 
 Order IXV. {Costs), r. 1. 
 
 Practice. 65. 
 
 See Copyright. 12. 
 
 Beceiter. 31. 
 
 Costs. 10,11,14,20,22,23,44,66 
 
 r. 9. 
 
 77. 
 
 See Patent. 27. 
 
 Crown Office. 1. 
 
 r. 9 (b). 
 
 Probate. 87, 92. 
 
 Sie Practice. 74. 
 
 Shipping. 92. 
 
 r. 10. 
 
 rr. 1, 20. 
 
 See Aocou-ST. 6. 
 
 See Costs. 25. 
 
 r. 18 (a). 
 
 r. 6. 
 
 See Receiver. 14. 
 
 See Costs. 51, 5.1 
 
 rr. 66 (a), 67, 70, 71. 
 
 Patent. 27. 
 
 See Attachment. 26. 
 
 r. 9. 
 
 Order LVII. {Interpleader), rr. 1, 2. 
 
 See Costs. 9, 30, 33, 34. 
 
 See Interpleader. 1. 
 
 r. 11. 
 
 ■ r. 4. 
 
 See Annuity. 11. 
 
 See Mortgage. 18. 
 
 Costs. 69. 
 
 . rr. 8, 9, 11. 
 
 Solicitor. 48, 91. 
 
 See Appeal. 29. 
 
 r. 12. 
 
 r. 12. 
 
 See Arbitration. 38. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 48. 
 
 County Court. 19, 12. 
 
 Interpleade';. 3. 
 
 r, 14. 
 
 r. 13. 
 
 See Costs. 63. 
 
 See Appeal. 51. 
 
 Practice. 234. 
 
 . r. IS. 
 
 r. 14 (b). 
 
 See Appeal. 49. 
 
 See Will. 50. 
 
 Interpleader. 6. 
 
 rr. 14, 27. 
 
 — — Order LVIII. {Appeals to the Court of 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 75. 
 
 Appeal), r. 3. 
 
 Costs. 64. 
 
 See Appeal. 50. 
 
 r. 26. 
 
 r. 4. 
 
 See Costs. 55. 
 
 See Patent. 8. 
 
 r. 27. 
 
 Practice. 52. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 65. 
 
 . r. 6. 
 
 Costs. 2, 17, 19, 41, 78, 82. 
 
 See Patent. 13. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 47. 
 
 r. 11. 
 
 Practice. 20. 
 
 See Appeal. 31. 
 
 Shipping. 233. 
 
 r. 18. 
 
 App. K., No. 19. 
 
 See Discovery. 27. 
 
 See Appeal. 22, 51, 52, 53. 
 
 Company— Winding-up. 131. 
 
 App. N, 
 
 See Solicitor. 17. 
 
 Order LXVII. {Service of Orders, &c.), r, 4, 
 
 See Appeal. 3. 
 
 Costs. 40,59,61. 
 
 Order LIX. {Divisional Court), r. 4. 
 
 See Shu'Pinq. 5. 
 r 8 
 
 See County Court. 12. 
 
 Attachme.n-t. 21, 22. 
 
 rr. 10 17. 
 
 Mortgage. 18. 
 
 See London. 45. 
 
 Receiver. 20. 
 
 r. 12. 
 
 r, 5. 
 
 See County Court. 14. 
 
 Set- "ractice. 191, 224. 
 
DURING THE YEAES 1891—1900. 
 
 cecolxiii 
 
 ETJLES or STJPKEME COVB.T— continued. 
 Order LXVII., r. 6. 
 
 See Attachment. 21. 
 Pkactice. 229. 
 
 . Order IXVIII. {Application of Eules in 
 
 Crown, Revenue, and Matrimonial Gases'), 
 
 r. 1. 
 
 See Appeal. 9. 
 rr. 1, 2. 
 
 See Practice. 23. 
 
 • Order IiXX. (Effect of non-compliance with 
 
 Rules), r. 1. 
 
 See Attachment. 2, 3, 22. 
 
 DiSCOVEBT. 42. 
 
 Evidence. 30. 
 Pkactice. 74, 213. 
 
 r. 1, App. A., Part I., rorm No. 5. 
 
 See Pbactioe. 213. 
 
 r. 2. 
 
 See Pkactice. 99. ' 
 Order IXXI. (Interpretation), r. 1 (a). 
 
 See Pbactioe. 69. 
 . r. 1 (a) ; App. N, items 61, 82, 82a. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 60. 
 
 Order LXXII. (Oeneral Bules), r. 2. 
 
 See Pbactioe. 
 
 Nov. 28, 1893, r. 7. 
 
 See Pbactioe. 196. 
 
 Jan. 10, 1894. 
 
 See Practice. 196. 
 
 ■ July, 1898. 
 
 See Probate. 
 
 91. 
 
 EULES OF SUPEEME COITET FUNDS EULES. 
 
 Funds Eules, r. 5. 
 
 See Practice. 138. 
 
 Chancery Funds Consolidated Enles, 1874, 
 
 r. 34. 
 
 See Practice. 138. 
 ■ Supreme Court Funds Enles, 1886, rr, 2, 41, 
 
 See Pbactioe. 138. 
 
 ■ r. 21. 
 
 See Partition. 8. 
 r. 30. 
 
 See Pbactioe. 130. 
 r. 101. 
 
 See Evidence. 35. 
 
 AGEICULTUEAL EATES ACT, 1896, OEDEES, 
 
 Art. 17. 
 
 See Rates. 16. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY EULES, 1886 to 1890, rr. 2, 73, 
 
 75. 
 
 See Company— Winding-up. 210. 
 r. 6, 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 68. 
 rr. 6, 338. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 100. 
 r. 8. 
 
 See Bakkbuptcy. 87. 
 
 r. 13. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy. 213. 
 
 r. 15, 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 239. 
 
 BANKEUPTCY EULES— coiii/«wc(Z. 
 
 r, 24. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 
 
 222. 
 
 rr, 27, 29. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 Evidence. 21 
 
 US. 
 
 rr, 70, 88, 
 
 See Contempt or Court. 9. 
 
 r. 90, 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 108. 
 
 rr, 93, 363, 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 191. 
 
 rr. 109, 130. 
 
 See B-inkruptoy. 
 
 46. 
 
 r, 112, 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 93. 
 
 rr. 112, 124. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 79. 
 
 rr. 117, 285. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 245. 
 
 rr. 117, 337. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 77, 125, 126. 
 
 rr. 118. 119, 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 216. 
 
 r, 122. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 80. 
 
 r. 124. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 76. 
 
 r. 125. 
 
 See Solicitor. 11 
 
 
 r. 131. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy. 
 
 74. 
 
 rr. 131, 148. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy. 
 
 154. 
 
 r. 132. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy. 
 
 45. 
 
 r. 134a. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy. 
 
 44. 
 
 r. 136. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 Husband and 
 
 6, 18, 19, 20 
 WiEE. 25. 
 
 rr. 136, 262, 353, and 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 App., Form 6. 
 137. 
 
 rr. 138, 139. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 26. 
 
 rr, 170—175. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 1£0. 
 
 r. 143, App. of Forms 10. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 140. 
 
 rr. 214, 215. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 171. 
 
 r. 260. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 192. 
 
 rr. 260, 268, 264. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 
 
 23. 
 
 r, 274. 
 
 See Bankruptcy 
 
 118. 
 
 r, 316. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy. 
 
 71. 
 
 r. 317, 
 
 See Bankbuptcy 
 
 70. 
 
cecclxiv TABLE OF EULES AND ORDERS OF COURT JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 
 
 BANKRUPTCY -RVfES— continued. 
 
 r. 353. 
 
 See Bankbtiptot. 75, 226. 
 ■ r. 361. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 206. 
 
 BOARD OF TRADE RULES, August, 1886, i. 22. 
 
 See Tkamwats. 8. 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY REGULATIONS, 1884, rr. 
 ■ 13, 14. 
 
 See BuiLDiSG Society. 4. 
 
 CENTRAL OFFICE PRACTICE RULES, i. 15, 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 49. 
 
 CHINA AND JAPAN, SUPREME COURT OF, 
 EULES. 
 
 See FoKEiQN Jueisdiction. 3. 
 
 CITY , OF LONDON COURT. Order of Lord 
 Chancellor of Nov. 29, 1890. 
 
 See London. 84. 
 
 CLERGY DISCIPLINE ACT, 1892, PROCEDURE 
 RULES, r. 34. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 74. 
 
 COLLISIONS AT SEA (REGULATIONS FOR 
 PREVENTING), 1884, art. 5. 
 See Shipping. 76. 
 
 arts. 15, 18, 19, 21. 
 
 See Shipping. 81. 
 art. 18. 
 
 See Shipping. S7. 
 
 arts. 18, 21. 
 
 See Shipping. 74. 
 
 art. 20. 
 
 See Shipping. 77. 
 
 art. 21. 
 
 See Shipping. 73. 
 
 COLLISIONS AT SEA (REGULATIONS FOR i 
 PREVENTING), 1897, arts. 3, 11. 
 
 See Shipping. 53. j 
 
 art. 4. I 
 
 See Shipping. 84. 
 
 art. 10, Sched. Part II. 
 
 See Shipping. 70. 
 
 . art. 11. i 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 51,52. 
 
 6i. 
 
 65. 
 
 . arts. 12, 13. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 art. 13. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 art. 18. 
 
 See Shipping. 59, 66. 
 
 arts. 19, 21, 27. 
 
 See Shipping. C2. 
 
 COMPANIES WINDING-UP ORDER, Nov. 29, 
 1890 {PuUished m W. N., Dec. 20, 
 1890). 
 
 COMPANIES WINDING-UP RULES, 1890 (Pu6- 
 Ushed in W. N., Dec. 20, 1890). 
 
 rr. 3, 73, App. Forms 14, 15, 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 149. 
 
 r. 31. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 70, 123. 
 
 COMPANIES WINDING-UP RULES ^cmiW. 
 rr. 32, 67. 
 
 See Company — WiNDiNG-rp. 120, 121, 
 213. 
 rr. 34, 177. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 144. 
 r. 35. 
 
 See Company — AVinding-up. H3. 
 r. 36. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 184. 
 rr. 36, 177 (1). 
 
 See Co.MPANY — Winding-up. 148. 
 r. 63. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 105, 117 
 r. 67. 
 
 See CoMPAN-Y — Winding-up. 120, 121, 
 213. 
 r. 71. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 79. 
 r. 78. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 65. 
 r. 83. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 49. 
 rr. 89, 90. 
 
 See CcMPANY — WiNWNG-up. 250. 
 r. 92. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 44. 
 rr. 110 & 111. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 129, 212. 
 rr. 110, 111, 112, 178. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 119, 211. 
 r. 127 (d). 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 127. 
 r. 165. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 135. 
 r. 177. 
 
 See Company— Winding-up. 141, 142. 
 
 COMPANIES WINDING-UP RULES, Feb. 1891 
 
 (Published in W. N., Feb. 21, 1891, p. 9). 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 155. 
 rr. 2, 3, Form 2. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 141. 
 r. 3. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 153. 
 rr. 3, 4. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 183. 
 r. 4, Form 3. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 170. 
 
 COMPANIES WINDING-UP RULES, April, 1893 
 
 {Published in W. N., 1892 (Aj>p. of 
 0. & B.), p. 16), r. 3. .■ - i 
 
 See Company — Wikding-up. 119, 211. 
 
 rr. 11, 32. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 86. 
 
 r. 19 ; Jbld. Form 3. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 138, 142, 
 r. 20. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 28, 67, 74 
 ■ rr. 20, 21. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 185. 
 r. 25. 
 
 See Compaxy — AVinding-up. 117. 
 
DURING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 cccclxv 
 
 ■COMPANIES WIHDING-TJP "RVLm— continued. 
 • — - r. 27. 
 
 See Company — Windinq-up. 76. 
 Evidence. 3. 
 
 COMPANIES WINDING-UP RULES, March, 
 1893, r. 2. 
 
 See Company — ^WiNDiNG-np. 185. 
 
 COMPANIES WINDING-UP RULES, Nov. 1895. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 83. 
 
 CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS RULES, 1862, i'. 41. 
 
 See Peobate. 116. 
 
 •COUNTY COURT RULES, 1889. 
 Order III., r. 1. 
 
 See Pbactice. 98. 
 
 ■ Order V., r. 9 (a). 
 
 iSee County Cotiet. 
 
 46. 
 
 COUNTY COURT 
 No. 331. 
 
 See Shippibo. 
 
 (ADMIRALTY) FORMS, 
 
 202. 
 
 DAIRIES, COWSHEDS AND 
 ORDER, 1885, s. 13. 
 See Dairy. 1. 
 
 MILKSHOPS 
 
 - No. 29. 
 
 See NmsANOES. 
 
 18. 
 
 - Order IX., r. 11, Form 104 (a). 
 
 See County Court. 61. 
 
 - Order X., rr. 10, 18. 
 
 See County Court. 67. 
 
 - Order XXII., i. 6. 
 
 See County Court. 62. 
 
 - Order XXV., r. 26. 
 
 ;See County Court. 37. 
 
 - ■ r. 29. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 206. 
 r. 40. 
 
 See Prohibition. 1. 
 r. 47. 
 
 See County Court. 61. 
 
 - Order XXVII., r. 4, Soh. 
 
 See County Court. 35, 42. 
 -Order XL., r. 7. 
 
 See County Court. 43. 
 
 - Order XLIV., r. 18. 
 
 See Pbactioe. 98. 
 
 - Order L. A., r. 12. 
 
 See Interpleader. 
 
 r. 20. 
 
 See County Court. 
 
 - Order LI., r. 23. 
 
 See Practice. 
 
 10. 
 
 22. 
 
 223. 
 
 Form 14 (a), 
 
 See County Court. 68. 
 
 COUNTY COURT RULES, 1889, 1892, 1895, 
 Order X., r. 18 (a). 
 See County Court. 63. 
 
 COUNTY COURT ORDER, Nov. 29, 1890. 
 See London. 30. 
 
 COUNTY COURT RULES, 1892. 
 Order XXV., r. 47. 
 
 See County Court. 61. 
 Order XXXIX. (b), rr. 30—32. 
 
 See Shipping. 248. 
 r. 42. 
 
 See Shipping. 202. 
 rr. 48, 50. 
 
 See Shipping. 269. 
 r. 146. 
 
 See Company— Winding-up. 98. 
 County Coubt. 66, 72. 
 
 DANUBE— REGULATIONS AS TO NAVIGATION 
 OF LOWER DANUBE, art. 32. 
 See Shipping. '58. 
 
 DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT RULES, 1890, 
 rr. 7, 16, App. to Rules 2, 3, 6. 
 See Bankruptcy. 83. 
 
 DESIGNS RULES, 1883, r. 9. 
 
 See Designs. 4, 6. 
 
 i DIVORCE COURT RULES, rr. 4, 6. 
 j See Divorce. 41. 
 I rr. 10—13. 
 
 See Divorce. 43. 
 rr. 44, 47. 
 
 See Divorce. 112. 
 r. 62. 
 
 See Divorce. 115 
 rr. 86, 191. 
 
 See DivoROB. 8. 
 rr. 95—103. 
 
 See DrvOKOE. 2. 
 rr. 158, 159, 199, 201. 
 
 See DivoBOB. 50, 58. 
 r. 175. 
 
 See Divorce. 117. 
 r. 196. 
 
 See Divorce. 90. 
 
 ELECTION PETITION RULES. 
 
 Rules of 1868 {Published in L. B. 4 C. P. 
 
 771—789). 
 r. 6. 
 
 iSee Parliament. 15. 
 rr. 6, 7. 
 
 See Parliament. 13, 14. 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS STANDING ORDERS, No. 1, 
 
 /See Appeal. 23. 
 
 INFERIOR COURTS RULES. 
 
 General Orders of the Liverpool Court of 
 
 Passage, 1882, No. II. 
 
 See Liverpool Courts. 4 
 
 Court, 1891, Order 
 
 IRELAND. 
 
 Rules of Supreme 
 
 XXVIII., r. 11. 
 
 See Practice. 4. 
 
 JUDICIAL TRUSTEE RULES, 1897, r. 23. 
 
 See Trustee. 73. 
 r. 27. 
 
 See Trustee. 75. 
 
 LUNACY RULES. 
 
 Rules of 1892, r. 126. 
 
 See Lunacy. 25. 
 
 Schedule, Form 1 (e). 
 
 See Lunacy. 88. 
 
 23 
 
occolxvi TABLE OP EULE8 AND OEDEES OP COUET JUDICIALLY CONSIDEEED 
 
 MAYOR'S COUET OF LONDON EUIES, 1890 and 
 
 1892. 
 
 See London. 
 
 44. 
 
 MEBSEY RIVER RULES, art. 4. 
 See Shipping. 71. 
 
 NEWPORT HARBOUR BY-LAWS, art. 13. 
 
 See Shipping. 75. 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES BANKRUPTCY ACTS, 
 1887—1888. 
 
 ■ Rule of Procedure, No. 51. 
 
 See Kew South Wales. 
 
 ]. 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY REGISTEATION ORDER, 
 1889, Sched. III., Form (P). 
 See Pakliament. 37. 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY REGISTEATION OEDER, 
 1895. 
 
 See Pakliament. 147. 
 
 Sohed. I., Form 5 (a). 
 
 See Paeliament. 92. 
 
 Sched. II., Part I., s. 19. 
 
 See Paeliament. 34. 
 
 PATENT EULES, 1883, rr. 65, 68, Form 4. 
 
 See Patent. 49. 
 
 PATENT EULES, 18S0. 
 
 See Patent. 19. 
 
 POLICE EEGULATIONS, Dec. 28, 1869. 
 
 See London. 89. 
 
 PEACTICE MASTEE'S EULES (6). 
 See Pkaotioe. 7, 58, 70. 
 
 PROBATE RULES, 1862. 
 
 rr, 4, 7. 
 
 See Peobate. 13. 
 
 r. 41. 
 
 See Peobate. 116. 
 
 r. 74. 
 
 See Peobate. 97. 
 
 PROBATE RULES, April, 1887. 
 See Peobate. 51. 
 
 REGISTER OF PATENT AGENTS EULES, 1889 
 and 1891. 
 
 See Patent. 19. 
 
 RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILLORS' ELECTION 
 ORDER, 1898, r. 7 (2). 
 See DisTEiOT Councils. 8. 
 
 SETTLED LAND ACT, 1882, EULES, App. 
 Form XIX. 
 
 See Settled Land. 129. 
 
 SHEEIFFS ACT, 1887. 
 
 ■ Order as to Fees of Aug. 31, 1888. 
 
 See Sheriff. 14. 
 
 SHIPPING RULES AND ORDERS. 
 
 Order in Council, May 1, 1866, Regulation 4. 
 
 See Shipping. 188. 
 
 Order in Council, Feb. 6, 1873. 
 
 See Shipping. 195. 
 
 SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION ORDER. 
 
 Solicitors' Remuneration Order, 1882 {Pvh- 
 
 lished in W. N., Sept. 2, 1882). 
 
 Sched. I. 
 
 See SOLIOITOE. 62. 
 
 Sched L, Part I., rr. 1, 7, 8. 
 
 See SoLioiTOP.. 60. 
 
 Scliea. I., Part I, rr. 2, 4. 
 
 See Solicitor. 39, 43, 61. 
 
 Sched. I., Part I., rr. 7, 8; Part IL, 
 
 r. 6. 
 
 See SoLiciTOE. 56. 
 
 Sched. 1., Part I., r. 8 ; Part 11., r. 5. 
 
 See SonciTOE. 35, 82. 
 
 Sched. I,, r. 9. 
 
 See Solicitor. 63. 
 
 Sched. I., Part I., i. 10. 
 
 See SoLioiTOE. 51. 
 
 Sched. I., Part I, r. 11. 
 
 See SoLioiTOE. 36, 38, 64, 65. 
 
 Sched. I., Part II. 
 
 See SoLioiTOE. 52, 55. 
 
 Sched. I., Part II., r. 8. 
 
 See SoLiciTOE. 57. 
 
 STOCK EXCHANGE EULES, r, 177. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 10. 
 
 ' SUMMAEY JUEISDICTION EULES, 1886 (Pub- 
 lished in W. N., Oct. 1886), r. 18. 
 See Justices. 32. 
 
 THAMES BY-LAWS, 1898. 
 
 I art, 11. 
 
 I See Thames. 2. 
 
 • art. 40. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 ■ art, 48. 
 
 See Shipping. 
 
 84. 
 90. 
 
 THAMES NAVIGATION BY-LAWS, 1872 
 
 art. 16. 
 
 See Thames. 4. 
 
 ■ art. 20. 
 
 See Thames. 
 
 1, 11. 
 
 THAMES NAVIGATION BY-LAWS, 1887. 
 
 . arts. 17, 18. 
 
 See Thames. 13. 
 
 ■ art, 18. 
 
 See Thames. 
 
 10. 
 
 THAMES NAVIGATION BY-IAWS, 1892, 
 
 art. 7 (0), 
 
 See Thames. 10. 
 
 TEADE 
 
 MAEKS EULES, 1890 
 W. N., Jan. 11, 1890). 
 
 (Published^ in 
 
 r. 
 
 23. 
 
 See Evidence. 25 
 Teade-makk. 
 
 'lO, 30 
 
 
 rr. 
 
 23, 26. 
 
 See Teade-maek. 
 
 5,6. 
 
 
 rr. 
 
 31, 54, 55, 
 
 See Tkade-maek. 
 
 51. 
 
 
DUKING THE YEARS 1891—1900. 
 
 ccoolxvii 
 
 TEAMWAYS RULES, August, 1886. 
 See Parliament. 8. 
 
 ■ r. 22. 
 
 ! Tbamwat. 8. 
 
 TBEASTJBY REGULATIONS, 1884, rr. 13, 14. 
 See Bdilding Society. 4. 
 
 TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO. 
 
 Constitution of Supreme Court. 
 
 Order XXVIII., r. 12. 
 
 See Tbdjidad and Tobago. 4. 
 
 Order XXXVI., r. 18. 
 
 See Teinidah and Tobago. 4 
 
 Order LVII., r. 6. 
 
 See Trinidad and Tobago. 4. 
 
 TYNE RIVER REGULATIONS, 1884. 
 By-law 20. 
 
 See Shipping. 89. 
 
 VACCINATION. 
 
 Local Government Board General Order, 
 
 1874, art. 16. 
 
 See Vaccination. 7, 8. 
 
 WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN BY-LAWS. 
 
 art. 60. 
 
 See Thames. 12. 
 
 art. 99. 
 
 See Thames. 5. 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION RULES,' 1898, 
 rr. 19—23. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 93. 
 
THE LAW REPORTS. 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 
 
 1891-1900. 
 
 V 
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
 ABASDONMEHT— Ancient lights— Evidtnoe of 
 intention to preserve — User — Inter- 
 ruption. 
 
 See Light and Aik. 16. 
 Cash advances for ship's disbursements — 
 Prepaid freight — Kights of underwriter. 
 See Insurance — Marine. 23. 
 
 — Contract — Eight to sue on quantum meruit. 
 
 See Contract. 1. 
 
 — Easement — Evidence to shew ahandonment. 
 
 See Easement. 1. 
 
 — Execution — Seizure of goods — Going out of 
 
 possession. 
 
 ioee Shekiff. 3. 
 
 — Joint gold-mining lease — Notice of abandou- 
 
 ment by a joint lessee — Law of New 
 South Wales. 
 See Mines. 9. 
 
 — Notice of — Kecovery of ship — Total loss. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine, 29. 
 
 — Railway undertaking. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament — Deposits 
 and Bonds. 
 
 — Ship as constiTiotive total loss. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 42, 43. 
 
 — Tramway — Parliamentary deposit — Board of 
 
 Trade notice. 
 See Tramway. 7. 
 
 — Voyage — Shipping. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 30. 
 
 ABATEMENT — Legacies — Advances — Insuffi- 
 cient ebtate. 
 See Will — Advancement. 19. 
 
 — Nuisance — Remedies. 
 
 See Cases under Nuisance. 
 
 — Plea or defence shall be pleaded in abatement. 
 
 See E. S. C, Order xxi., r. 20. 
 
 ABETTOR — Offences against the person. 
 
 See Cases under Criminal Law — Offences 
 against the Person. 
 
 ABLUTION— Communion service— Illegality— 
 Eitual. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Eitual. 60. 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 ABSCONDING DEBTOR- Before presentation of 
 petition — Arrest — Order made in exer- 
 cise of bankruptcy jurisdiction — Certio- 
 rari. 
 See County Court. 47. 
 
 ABSENCE— Beyond seas — Statutes of Limita- 
 tions. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of — Absence. 
 1. 
 
 — Director — Vacating office — Absence through 
 
 illness. 
 
 See Company — Directors. 143. 
 
 — Franchise. 
 
 See Parliament — ^Franchise. 17—25. 
 
 — Trustee — Absence from the jurisdiction. 
 
 See Trustee — Appointment. 5. 
 
 — Workman without leave — Truck Act — Juris- 
 
 diction of justices. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Practice. 91. 
 
 ABSENT PARTIES— Accepting benefit of judg- 
 ment — Practice. 
 See Estoppel. 4. 
 
 "ABSENTING HIMSELF " — Debtor — Act of 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 34. 
 
 ABSOLUTE GIFT— Construction of will. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Absolute Gift. 
 
 ABSTRACT— of title. 
 
 See Cases under Vendor and Purchaser 
 — Abstract. 
 
 ABUSE OF PROCESS- Demurrable petition. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Petition, 
 137. 
 
 ACCELERATION— Will, construction of. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Acceleration. 
 
 ACCEPTANCE— Bill of Exchange- Acceptance 
 whether qualitied. 
 See Bill OF Exchange. 1. 
 
 — Bill of Exchange — Acceptance or indorse- 
 ment "per pro"— Agent's authority. 
 See Bill or Exchange. 17. 
 
 B 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( i ) 
 
 ACCEPTANCE— coniinuecZ. 
 
 — Letters — Time — Withdrawal of offer. 
 
 See CoNTBACT — Formation. 17a. 
 
 — Negotiation by telegram. 
 
 See CoNTBACT — Formation. 18. 
 ■ — Office of executor — Delay in proving will — 
 Loss of interest. 
 See ExEOTjTOK. 41. 
 
 — Sale of goods. 
 
 See Cases under Sale op Goods. 
 
 — Withdrawal of offer before — Acceptance by 
 
 post — Company — Shares. 
 Bee Company — Shares. 264. 
 
 ACCESS — Eight of — Lease — Construction — 
 Parcels — Misdescription — Falsa demon- 
 stratio. 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 75. 
 
 ACCIDENT— Corporation— Liability of— Acci- 
 dent to bridge under corporate control. 
 See Canada. 28. 
 
 — Fatal Accidents Acts — Cause of action outside 
 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 See Negligence. 1. 
 
 — Fatal Accidents Act — Limitation of action — 
 
 Neglect in execution of Act of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 See Public Authokities Peotectiojt. 3. 
 
 — Insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insubance, Accident. 
 
 — Policy — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Eevende — Stamps. 163. 
 
 — Prevention of — Load-line. 
 
 See Shipping — Prevention of Accidents. 
 
 — Kailway. 
 
 See Eailwat — ^Accident. 
 
 — Shooting-party — Liability — Trespass without 
 
 intention or negligence. 
 See Teespass. 1. 
 
 — To railway — Charterparty — Exceptions. 
 
 See Shipping — ^Exceptions. 131. 
 
 — Transfer of action— Fatal accidents — Decree 
 
 for limitation of liability in the Admi- 
 ralty Division. 
 See Peactice— Trial. 264. 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 See Cases under Mastek and Seevant. 
 
 ACCOMMODATION WORKS— Railways. 
 
 See Cuses under Eailway — ^Works. - 
 
 ACCOMPLICE- Evidence of— Corroboration. 
 See Ceiminal Law— Evidence. 14. 
 
 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION- Insurance or 
 
 suretyship — Statutory discharge. 
 See Insubanoe— Guarantee. 13. 
 
 ACCOUNT, 
 
 Order XKXiil.,rr. 2-8, and! Order LV., i. 3 (e), 
 relate to accounts. 
 
 1. — Action for accounts — Contract — Worlts 
 abroad — Periodical payments — Unascertained 
 amounts — Foreign currency — Bate of exchange — 
 Period of conversion into English money. 
 
 The defts. in 1891 entered into a contract 
 with M. to pay him monthly one cent in Mexican 
 currency per cubic metre of certain excavation 
 works being doue in Mexico, as and when pay- 
 
 ACCOUNT — continued. 
 
 ment should be received by defendants from the 
 Mexican authorities ; and during M.'s life they 
 duly paid him. M. died in June, 1894 ; hut he 
 had no legal personal representative till May, 
 1 896, when the pit. became his administrator. 
 
 In an action for account brought by the pit. 
 in June, 1896, the Court, on Nov. 4, 1897, de- 
 clared that he was entitled to an account of what 
 was due under the contract, and on Nov. 13 the 
 deflB. delivered an account Bhe?ring that 19,366 
 Mexican dollars wore due to the pit. on Aug. 31, 
 1896, and offering to pay that amount iu 
 Mexican currency or in English cuiTenoy at the 
 rate of exchange on Nov. 13. On Aug. 31, 1890, 
 the Mexican dollar was worth 2s. 6d., on Nov. 13, 
 1887, it was only worth Is. lOJd. ; and the pit. 
 refused the defts.' offer, and contended that the 
 Viilue of the dollar should be ascertained at the 
 several times the monthly payments became due, 
 or, in the alternative, on Aug. 31, 1896 : — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (V. Williams L.J. dissentiente), 
 dismissing an appeal from Kekewioh J., that the 
 pit. was not entitled to have the dollars turned 
 into English money until the amount due on 
 taking the whole account was ascertained. 
 
 Observations upon the principles applicable 
 where a pit. sues a deft, in England for an 
 account upon a contract to pay in a foreign 
 currency. Manners v. Pearson & Son 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 681 
 
 — Advancement — Gift within twelve months of 
 
 death — Ademption — Estate duty. 
 See Will — Advancement. 21. 
 
 — Advances — Purchases by husband in names 
 
 of wife and daughter — Law of Quebec. 
 See Canada. 50. 
 
 2. — Audit — Finality of — Ccmiract — Agree- 
 ment — Charges of fraud — Costs. 
 
 The appellant advanced 15,O0OZ. to the re- 
 spondent, to be used in the business of the respond- 
 ent for five years. In return for the advance the 
 appellant was to receive interest and 37J per 
 cent, of the profits of the respondent's business. 
 The contract stipulated that there should be an 
 annual audit of the respondent's business by the 
 firm of M. & Co., accountants, and that their cer- 
 tificate as to the profits should be binding on 
 both parties. For four years the respondent's 
 books were audited by G., a member of the firm 
 of M. & Co. Subsequently the appellant raised 
 this action against the respondent for a judicial 
 account on the ground that the audits had not 
 been in terms of the agreement in respect that 
 the auditor did not know that his estimate of the 
 profits was to be binding on the appellant and 
 respondent. G. swore in his evidence that he 
 did not know of this agreement, and that if he 
 had he would have made out tlie account in » 
 somewhat different form : — 
 
 Held, reversing Ct. of Sess., (1898) 25 E. 66), 
 
 that there must be a new account taken, tlie 
 
 auditor being unaware that his audit was to be 
 
 final between the parties. Teacher v. Caldee 
 
 H. I. (So.) [1899] W. N. 118 ; 
 
 [1899] A, C. 461 
 
 — Banking account. 
 
 See Banker — Account. 2. 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 ACCOVST— continued. 
 
 — Carrying back account — Statutes of Limita- 
 
 tion — AdmiDistration action. 
 See Trustee — Account. 2. 
 
 — Closing — Banker and customer — Mortgage to 
 
 secure amount owing on account current 
 — Power of sale. 
 See Bakkeb. 3. 
 
 — Common order for taxation of bill of costs — 
 
 No costs claimed by solicitor — Liability 
 to render cash account. 
 See SoLioiTOB — Costs. 33. 
 
 — Continuation account — Death of principal — 
 
 Contracts for sale and repurchase after 
 
 death — ^Liability. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 2, 
 
 — Culpa lata — Liability of trustees. 
 
 ^^ee Tkustee — Breach of Trust. 23. 
 
 — Date for taking — Mutual debts or dealings — 
 
 Set-off — Receiving order. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy— Set-off. 237. 
 
 — Discovery — ^Production of documents — Privi- 
 
 lege. 
 
 See Evidence. 41. 
 
 3. — ■ Entries disallowed — Discretion of Court 
 — Digging of pitch — Appeal from Trinidad and 
 Tobago. 
 
 Where an account ordered by the Court is 
 limited to pitch dug and won from certain speci- 
 fied lands, entries relating to pitch in other 
 lands must be excluded, and a certificate made 
 in disregard of this rule will be varied by 
 disallowing them. Bennicourt v. Le Gendbe 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 173 
 
 — Foreclosure — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Mobtgage — Fore- 
 closure. 
 
 — Maintenance and establishment of pupil heir. 
 
 See Infant — Maintenance. 22. 
 
 — Partnership. 
 
 jSee Paetnbeship — Accounts. 
 
 — Eeceivers' accounts. 
 
 See Eeceiveb — Accounts, 
 
 4. — Separate account. Fund carried to — 
 Ansignment of separate fund — Notice — Equity 
 against assignee — Administration suit — Laws of 
 New South Wales. 
 
 Where a fund in court in an administration 
 suit is carried to a separate account, the persons 
 specified iji its heading are the owners of the 
 fund so far as is consistent with its retention in 
 court released from tlie general questions in tho 
 cause and free from claims by other sharers in 
 the estate. 
 
 Where a fund standing to a separate account 
 is specifically assigned for value by a person 
 entitled thereto according to the terms of the 
 account : — 
 
 Beld, that the assignor's general liability to 
 other parties to the suit to make good defaults 
 in his character of trustee of the estate cannot 
 be enforced against this fund in the hands of 
 its assignee for value without notice. 
 
 Notice that the assignor was a trustee and 
 deft, to a suit for an account in which his fund 
 might be made answerablp in case of default 
 
 ACCOUNT — continued. 
 
 proved, is insufficient to affect the assignee. 
 
 Edgae v. Plomley p. C. [1900] A. C. 431 
 
 — Solicitors'. 
 
 See SoLiciTOB, passim. 
 
 — Stockbroker — Several accounts — Appropria- 
 
 tion of payments — Banker and cus- 
 tomer. 
 See Banker. 25. 
 
 — Maintenance — Common order — Liability of 
 
 committee of person to account — Form 
 
 of inquiry. 
 
 See Lunacy — Maintenance. 18. 
 
 5. — Trading company. 
 
 Principles on which the accounts of a trading 
 CO. should he kept stated in Lubbock v. British 
 Bank op South America 
 
 CMtty J. [1892] 2 Ch. 198 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Verner v. General and 
 Omnmercial Investment Trust, [1894] 2 Ch. 239, 
 at p. 266. 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. Foster v. New 
 Trinidad Lahe Asphalt Co., [1901] 1 Ch. 208, 
 212. 
 
 6. — Trust deed — Misconduct of trustee — 
 Common accounts refused at the trial — Discretion 
 of Court — Administration action — It, S. C, 1883, 
 Order LV., r, 10. 
 
 In 1887 A. conveyed his business and pro 
 perty to B. upon trusts for the benefit of his 
 creditors with an ultimate trust for himself. 
 Under the powers in the deed, B. carried on the 
 business by means of an overdraft arranged with 
 a bank. In 1893 A. assigned his interest under 
 the deed to his wife, the pit., for her separate 
 use. In 1896 B. reconveyed the trust estate to 
 the pit., the reconveyance containing a recital 
 that all A.'s debts had been paid. On this 
 occasion some investigation of the trust account 
 was made by the plt.,» but a detailed account was 
 not required. In July, 1898, B. destroyed all 
 the books of account in the belief that they were 
 no longer of use. In Oct. 1898, the pit. brought 
 an action against B. charging him with fraud 
 and .misconduct, and claiming an account of all 
 his transactions under the trust deed from 1887 
 to 189'6 on the footing x>f wilful default. B. 
 denied the charges, but admitted (1) that he 
 had improperly allowed the trust estate to be 
 charged for a short period with interest at 5 per 
 cent, on sums amounting to 10,0002. ; (2) that lie 
 had received the usual commissions, amounting 
 to Sll. 108. Sd., on fire insurances of the trust 
 estate ; and (3) that he had retained 52?. 17s. Gd. 
 for debts of A. due in 1887, but never claimed. 
 At the trial the charges of fraud and wilful 
 default were not established, but tlie pit. claimed 
 an order for a common account from 1887 : — 
 
 Seld, that, although B. had been guilty of 
 some misconduct, it was not a case in which the 
 Court, in the exercise of its discretion under 
 Order lt., r. 10, would under the circumstances 
 make an order for a common account ; but there 
 would be judgment for the pit. for the amounts 
 admitted under the three items above mentioned. 
 Campbell v. Gillespie Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 252; [1900] 1 Ch. 226 
 B 2 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 8 ; 
 
 ACCOVTUT— continued. 
 
 — Trustee's duties and liabilities. 
 
 See Teustee. 
 
 7. — Voucldng Accounts — Admietrailon — 
 R.8. C, Order LY.,r. 3(c). 
 
 It la not necessary under an ordinary order 
 for aooonnts in an adminibtration action to voueli 
 every item before the chief clerk, as any items 
 can be waived by the parties taking tlie accounts. 
 In re Beown. Ben.son v. Gkajjt 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N, 115 (9) 
 
 ACCOUNT STAMP BITTY. 
 
 See Bevenue — Account Duty. 
 
 ACCOUNTANT — Charges — Proof for in Company 
 winding-up. 
 See Company— Winding-up — Proof. 212. 
 
 — Charges for Statement of Affairs — Circular to 
 
 creditors. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 33. 
 
 — Partnership. 
 
 See Partneeship — Accountants. 
 
 ACCOUNTS AND INQUIEIES— Official Eoferee's 
 report on — Power of Court to go into 
 evidence used for purposes of. 
 See Aebiteation. 46. 
 
 ACCKUEE OF EIGHT OF ACTION— Dishonour 
 — Days of grace— ^Payment. 
 See Bill op Exchange, i. 
 
 ACCUMULATIONS— J?i/ the Accumulations Act, 
 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 58), accumulations for the 
 purchase of land were restrained. 
 
 1. — Annuities — Charity — Thellusson Act 
 (39 * 40 Geo. 3, c. 98). 
 
 Where there is an absolute vested gift made 
 payable in a future event, with direction to 
 accumulate the income and pay it with Ihe 
 principal, the Court will nut enforce the trust 
 for accumulation, in which no person has any 
 interest but the legatee ; in other words, a legatee 
 may put an end to an accumulation exclusively 
 for his benefit. This principle is applicable 
 whether the legatee is a charity corporate or 
 unincorporate or an individual. 
 
 Where such an accumulation is directed for 
 more than twenty-one yeais from the death of 
 the tester., and for the above reason is not 
 effective, the Thellusson Act does not apply. 
 Hakbin v. Mastbeman (No. 1). 
 
 C. A. affirm. Wickens V.-C. (L. E. 12 Eq. 589) 
 
 and Stirling J. [1894] 2 Ch. 184 ; 
 
 affirm, hy H. L. (E.) sub nom. Whaeton v. 
 
 Mabteeman [1895] A. C. 186 
 
 For second appeal, see Harbin T. Masterman, 
 0. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 351. 
 
 2. — Annuities — Expenditure of surplus in- 
 come on improvements — Repairing houses — Build- 
 ing houses — Thellusson Act (39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 98) 
 —Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 ss. 2 (sub-s. 5, 8), 25, 26, 58 (sti'j-s. 5). 
 
 A direction in a will that, after providing for 
 the annuity, the surplus income should be 
 expended in maintaining and improving the 
 settled property, is held (o be valid as being 
 a discretionary trust for the whole life of the 
 annuitant, and nut an accumulation within the 
 
 ACCUMULATIONS — continued. 
 
 danger of the Thellusson Act, to be restricted to 
 
 twenty-one years. 
 
 Per 0. A., all Improvements in substance 
 which could in any fair sense be regarded as 
 coming under the words maintaining in good 
 habitable repair houses and tenements on the 
 property are wholly outside the Thellusson Act. 
 But money laid out in building new houses 
 would be within the act, and the surplus income 
 cannot be expended on charges properly payable 
 out of capital. Vine v. Raleigh (No. 1) 
 
 Chitty J. affirmed by C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 13 
 
 Note. — This case was followed in Mason v. 
 Mason, Stirling J., [1891] 3 Ch. 467, No. 7, below. 
 
 — Breach of trast — Wilful default — Compound 
 
 interest — Kate of interest. 
 
 See Tecstee — Breacli of Trust. 19. 
 
 — Covenant to settle wife's property. 
 
 See Settlement — CoTonant to Settle. 
 13, 14. 
 
 — Infant — Capital or income. 
 
 See Infant — Maintenance. 23, 24. 
 
 3. — Interim income — Vested life interest — 
 Right to fund accumulated during minority. 
 
 Where a testator gave to an infant an imme- 
 diate vested life interest in his residuary estate : — 
 
 Held, that the income which accumulated, 
 after maintenance, between the testator's death 
 and the infant's marriage, belonged to her 
 absolutely and was not an accretion to capital, 
 the immediate gift shewing an intention (sub-s. 3) 
 to exclude the provisions of sub-s. 2, s. 43, of the 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881. Jjj re Humpheets. 
 Humpbeeys v. Levett C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 4. — " Intermediate income "— " Set apart and 
 retain " — Application of part of income — Will — 
 Trust for conversion — Postponement of conversion 
 at discretion of trustees — Thellusson Act (39 & 40 
 Geo. 3, 0. 98), «. 2. 
 
 The words " retain and set apart" are equiva- 
 lent to a direction to accumulate although there 
 is no express direction to accumulate, and, there 
 being no direction in the will for payment of 
 debts : — 
 
 Eeld, that the trust fell within s. 2 of the 
 Thellusson Act, and was therefore void beyond 
 the statutory period of twenty-one years. In re 
 Cox. Cox V. Edwakds - - Byrne J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 89 
 
 5. — Intestacy — Surplus income — Will — 
 Trust to accumulate income beyond twenty-one 
 years— Thellusson Act (39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 98). 
 
 A testator devised and bequeathed his estate 
 and effects to trustees upon trust to pay out of 
 the income thereof an annuity of 2002. to his 
 niece during her life, and he directed that the 
 surplus income of his trust estate should accu- 
 mulate and be invested until the death of his 
 niece, and, subject and without prejudice to the 
 trusts aforesaid, his trust estate should be held 
 in trust for the children of his niece living at his 
 decease, or born afterwards, who should attain 
 twenty-one, or who dying under that age should 
 leave issue living at his or her decease, if more 
 than one in equal shares; and in case there 
 should be no such issue of the niece then, subject 
 and without prejudice to the trusts aforesaid, 
 
C 9 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 &CCTrmjL&.TIQSS— continued. 
 after her death and the failure of her issue, as to 
 one-third of his trust estate the same should be 
 held iu trust for some cousins named in the -will, 
 and as to the other two-thirds the same should 
 be held In trust for the trustees of a charity : — 
 
 Held, that as to the surplus income from tlie 
 expiration of twenty-one years after the testator's 
 death down to the deatli of the niece there was 
 an intestacy. 
 
 Weatlierall v. Tltornburgh, (1878) 8 Oh. D. 
 261, is not inconsistent with and has not been 
 overruled by Wharton v. Masterman, [1895] A. C. 
 186. 
 
 Held also, on the construction of the will, 
 that the persons who should become on tlie death 
 of the niece entitled to the trust fund would 
 become entitled also to the accumulations of the 
 surplus income during the period of twenty-one 
 years from the death of the testator. In re 
 Teavis. Fkost ». Gkeatorex 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 159; [1900] 3 Ch. 541 
 
 6. — Mining leases. Bents and royalties from 
 — Tenants for life — Eemaindermen — Direction to 
 accumulate — Construction of will. 
 
 A testator devised his residue upon trust to 
 convert with power to postpone conversiou for 
 twenty-one years, and with a direction tliat the 
 surplus income of the unconverted estate during 
 the twenty-one years and all accumulations 
 thereof should go in augmentation of capital. 
 The residue was settled on trusts for tenants for 
 life and remaindermen. The trustees under 
 powers in the will granted a mining lease, and 
 retained the leased property unconverted for more 
 than twenty-one years : — 
 
 Held, that the rents and royalties received 
 under the mining lease during the twenty-one 
 years ought to be invested, and that the income 
 therefrom ought to be invested and accumulated : 
 Held, also, that after the twenty-one years, the 
 tenants for life of settled shares in the residue 
 were entitled to receive out of the rents and 
 royalties such an annual sum as in the opinion of 
 the Court would under all the circumstances of 
 the case be a fair equivalent for the annual 
 income that would have resulted if the estate had 
 been converted. 
 
 The rule laid down in Meyer v. Simonsen, 
 (1852) 5 De G. & Sm. 723, and Brovm v. GeUatly, 
 (1867) L. E. 2 Oh. 751, approved. Wentwoeth 
 V. Wentwobth - - P. C. [1900] A. C. 163 
 
 — Power to resort to past accumulations — 
 Maintenace. 
 See Infast. 24. 
 7. — Bebuilding and repair of huildings — 
 Accumulation of income — Thellusson Act (39 & 40 
 Geo. 8, c. 98). 
 
 A testator directed the net rents and income 
 of his real and leasehold estates to be applied 
 during the lifetime of certain annuitants under 
 his will in paying the ground-rents, the annuities, 
 and the cost of repairs and insurance, and the 
 clear surplus in augmentation of the general 
 trust fund created by his will : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the will amounted to an 
 express direction for the accumulation of income ; 
 and (2) that the trust for accumulatioa was valid, 
 so far as it was » bonS, fide provision for the 
 
 ACCUMULATIONS— cojiiinued. 
 performance of the trusts for rebuilding, repairing, 
 and reinstating the buildings ; but that, subject 
 to the due performance of such trusts, the trust 
 for investment of the surplus income, after 
 answering the purposes specified in the will, was 
 invalid as from the expiration of twenty-one 
 years from the testator's death. In re Mason. 
 Mason v. Mason - Stirling J. [1891] 3 Ch. 467 
 
 8. — Eents of leaseholds — Direction to accu- 
 mulate for 21 years after testator's death — Accu- 
 mulations Act, 1892 (55 * 56 Vict. c. 58). 
 
 D. by his will devised lands on trust in strict 
 settlement, and directed that accumulations 
 made during the minority of any infant taking 
 should be deemed capital money arising under 
 the Settled Land Acts, and should be primarily 
 liable to be laid out in the purchase of land, and 
 bequeathed leaseholds to trustees on trusts corre- 
 sponding to the trusts of the land ; with a proviso 
 that during twenty-one years after his death the 
 net profits should be capitalised and become 
 capital money of the settlement : — 
 
 Held, that the direction to capitalise the rents 
 of the leaseholds did not fall within the Accumu- 
 lation Act, 1892, and was valid. In re Danson. 
 Bell v. Danson Chitty J. [1895] "W. N. 102 
 
 9. — Substitution — Annuity — Construction of 
 will — Appeal from Quebec. 
 
 A testator set apart a fund as a provision for 
 his wife and also for his children until majority 
 or marriage. He gave the residue of his estate to 
 his children living at his death, and directed that 
 it should be divided on the death of all of them. 
 He further directed that from majority or marriage 
 each ohild was to receive the revenue derivable 
 from his share limited to $6000 a year, each child 
 being charged with a substitution in favour of his 
 or her children : — 
 
 Held, in a suit brought by the eldest son to 
 recover arrears of his annuity of $6000 a year, 
 that according to the true intention of the 
 testator as disclosed by the words of the will — 
 
 (1.) tho annuity of each child is a charge on 
 the revenue of his own share and its arrears, not 
 on the total revenue of the estate ; 
 
 (2.) each child was entitled from the testator's 
 death to an equal share of the net revenue 
 current and accumulated : without regard to the 
 benefits which during minority lie receives from 
 the fund set apart or under other clauses of the 
 will; 
 
 (3.) the substitution is confined to the share 
 of each child in the capital of the residue, and 
 does not extend to the accumulation of its 
 revenue. Beacdkt v. Bakbeau 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 869 
 
 10. — Trust for accumulation of income for 
 
 payment of debts — Cesser of life estate — Settled 
 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, sub-ss. 
 
 2, 5, 7 ; s. 58, sub-s. 1, cl. vi. 
 
 A tester, devised land in trust for a daughter 
 for life with a gift over to her children; and 
 proviso that if a sum of money covenanted to be 
 paid by the tester, in the daughter's marriage 
 settlement were enforced against his estate, the 
 daughter's interest in the life estate should cease 
 until all the debts and claims were paid. The 
 covenant was enforced, and the personalty being 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 ACCUMTJLATIONS - continued. 
 insufiacient to pay this and other claims against 
 the estale, the income of the life estate was 
 r.tained : — 
 
 Held, that the daugliter's life estate under 
 the will was only suspended, and that she was 
 entitled to exercise during the continuance of the 
 trust, which was substantially a trust for accu- 
 mulation of income for payment of debts within 
 s. 58, sub-8. 1, cl. vi. of the Act of 1882. Wil- 
 liams V. Jenkins (No. 1) - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 700 
 
 See 'WiLLiAisis v. Jenkins (N"o. 2) 
 
 [1891] W. N. 176 
 
 — TiTist for management and — Right to posses- 
 
 sion. 
 
 See Settled Land — Possession. 98. 
 
 11. — Validity — Direction to accumulate in- 
 come beyond twenty-one years — Residue — Tenant 
 far life — Construction of will. 
 
 The testator, who died in 1865, by his will 
 gave tn-o freehold houses to trustees, and directed 
 them to apply the income arising therefrom at 
 their discretion for the benefit of his daughter F. 
 for life, and after her deatli he gave the premises, 
 together with any surplus accumulation of rents 
 that might not be applied, for the benefit of F. 
 upon trust for her children who should attain 
 twenty-one, and in default of such cliildren then 
 over. He gave his residue upon trust for certnin 
 persons for life with remainders over. F. died in 
 1900, at which time the trustees had in their 
 hands a considerable sum representing the 
 accumulated surplus rents : — 
 
 Held, that the accumulations beyond the 
 period of twenty-one years from the testator's 
 death were bad under the Thellusson Act, and 
 fell into residue ; and that the tenant for life of 
 the re^idue was not entitUd to the surplus rents 
 themselves, but only to the income arising from 
 the investment thereof. 
 
 Crawley v. Crawley, (1835) 7 Sim. 427; 
 40 R. R. 170, and O'Neill v. Lucas, (183S3 
 2 Keen, 313, followed. In re Phillips, Phillips v. 
 Levy, (1880) 49 L. J. (Ch.) 199, disapproved. In 
 re Pope. Sharp v. Makshall 
 Parwell J. [1900] W. N. 244; see [1901] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 — Vested life interest — Riglit to fund accumu- 
 lated during minorily. 
 See No. 3 above. 
 
 ACKNOWIEDGMENT — Base fee — Fee simple 
 absolute — Concurrence. 
 See Husband and Wife. 5. 
 
 ■ — Debt — Part payment by receiver- — Infei-ence 
 of promise to pay — Statute of Limita- 
 tions. 
 See Mortgage. 57. 
 
 — Limitations, statute of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of — Acknow- 
 ledgment. 7. 
 
 — Married woman — Mortgagee — Conveyance to 
 
 purchaser by mortgagor and mortgagee. 
 See Husband and Wife. 33. 
 
 — Receipt by fellow-tervant— Money received by 
 
 servant on account of master and handed 
 
 over to fellow-servant. 
 
 See lii. VENUE— Stamps. 178. 
 
 ACQUIESCENCE— Charge of legacies on real 
 estate, if personal estate insufficient. 
 See Will— Charge of Debts, &c. 31. 
 
 — In Jurisdii tion. 
 
 See Peohibition. 4. 
 
 — .Jactitation of marriage — Acquiescence of 
 
 petitioner. 
 
 See DivoEOE— Jactitation of Marriage. 
 83. 
 
 — Laches — Action for revooalion of letters of 
 
 administration. 
 
 See Pkobate — Revocation. 145. 
 
 — Restricted covenants — Alteration in character 
 
 of estate. 
 
 See Building Estate. 2. 
 
 ACT OF BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy. 
 
 ACT OP STATE — Concessions granted before 
 cession — Eights after annexation — 
 Jurisdiction of municipal courts. 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 1. 
 
 ACTIO PERSONALIS— Ancient lights— Continu- 
 ance of obstruction. 
 See Light and Air. 15. 
 
 ACTION. 
 
 See Cases under Peactioe. 
 
 1. — Caiise of Maliciously inducing employer 
 to discharge servant and not to employ servant — ■ 
 Interference with trade — Trade union — Malice — 
 Intent to injure — Motive. 
 
 An act lawful in itself is not converted by a 
 malicious or bad motive into an unlawful act so 
 as to make the doer of the act liable to a civil 
 action. 
 
 Discussion of the cases in which evil motive 
 is said to be an essential ingredient in a civil 
 cause of aclion, such as malicious prosecution : 
 see per Loid Watson, Lord Herschell, and Lord 
 Davey, [1898] A. C. at pp. 92, 93, 125, 126, 173. 
 
 The respondents were shipwrights employed 
 " for the job" on the repairs to the woodwork of 
 a ship, but were liable to be discharged at any 
 time. Some ironworkers who were employed on 
 the ironwork of the ship objected to the respond- 
 ents being employed, on the ground that the 
 respondents had previously worked at ironwork 
 on a ship for another firm, the practice of ship- 
 wrights working on iron being resisted by the 
 trade union of which the ironworkers were mem. 
 bers. The appellant, who was a delegate of the 
 union, was sent for by the ironworkers and in- 
 formed that they intended to leave off working. 
 The appellantiiiformed the employers that unless 
 the respondents were discliarged all the iron- 
 workers would be called out or knock off work 
 (it was doubtful which expression was used); 
 that the employers had no option ; that the iron- 
 men were doing their best to put an end to the 
 practice of shipwrights doing ironwork, and that 
 wherever the respondents were employed the 
 iron-men would cease work. There was evidence 
 that this was done to punish the respondents for 
 what they had done in the past. The employers, 
 in fear of this threat being carried out which (as 
 they knew) would have stopped their business, 
 discharged (ho respondents and refused to employ 
 them again. In the ordinary course the respond- 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 ACTIOTH— continued. 
 
 ents' employment would have continued. The 
 respondents having brought an action against 
 the appellant, the jury found tliat he had mali- 
 ciously induced the employers to discharge the 
 respondents and not to engage them, and gave 
 the respondents a verdict for damages: — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the C. A., Flood 
 v. Jackson, [1895] 2 Q. B. 21 (Lord Halsbury L.C. 
 and Lords Ashbourne and Morris dissenting), that 
 the appellant liad violated no legal right of the 
 respondents, done no unlawful act, and used no 
 unlawful means, in procuring the respondents' 
 dismissal; that liis conduct was therefore not 
 actionable however malicious or bad his motive 
 might be, and that notwithstanding the verdict 
 the appellant was entitled to judgment. 
 
 Carrington v. Tayhr, (1809) H East, 571, 
 overruled, and Keeble v. Hieleeringill, (1706) 
 11 East, 574, n. ; Lumley v. Gye, (1853) 2 E. & B. 
 216; Bowen v. Hall, (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 333, and 
 Temperton v. Bussell, [1893] 1 Q. B. 715, com- 
 mented on. Allen v. Flood 
 
 H.I. (E.) [1897] W. N. 177 (1); [1898] A. C. 1 
 
 2. — Cause of — Nermus shock — Practical joke 
 causing — Bemoteness of damage. 
 
 The deft., by way of a practical joke, falsely 
 represented to the pit., a married woman, that 
 tei husband had met with a serious accident 
 whereby both his legs were broken. The deft, 
 made the statement with intent that it should be 
 believed to be true. The pit. believed it to be 
 tmie, and in consequence suffered a violent 
 nervous shock which rendered her ill : — 
 
 Seld, that these facts constituted a good 
 cause of action. 
 
 Victorian Bailuoays Commrs. v. Coultas, (1888) 
 13 App. Gas. 222, and Allsop v. Mlsop, (I860) 
 5 H. & N. 534, considered. Wilkinson v. Down- 
 ton Wright J. [1897] 2 Q. B. 57 
 
 3. — Malicious Act. 
 
 (a) a right of action cannot be extended by 
 alleging malice where without malice there 
 would be no cause of action. Chaffeks v. Gold- 
 SMID. Per Wills J. [1894] 1 Q,. B. 186, at p, 191 
 
 (b) No use of property which would be legal 
 if due to a proper motive can become illegal if 
 it is prompted by a motive which is improper or 
 even malicious. Bradfobd Cobpobation v. 
 Pickles - H. L. (E.) [1896] A, C. 587 
 
 ■See dictum of Lord Shand in Allen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. 0. 1, 167. 
 
 4. — Maliciously arresting ship. 
 
 Semlle, an action will lie at common law for^ 
 malicious arrest of a ship by Admiralty process. 
 The " Waltek D. Wallet " 
 
 Jenue P. [1893] P. 202 
 
 — Limitation of— Nuisance order, costs of obtain- 
 
 ing and enforcing. 
 See Nuisance. 14. 
 
 — Limitation of time for bringing. 
 
 See Oases under Limitations, Statute 
 
 OF. 
 
 — Notice of cause of. 
 
 See London. 46. 
 
 — Public Authorities Protection. 
 
 See Cases under Public Authobities 
 Protection. 
 
 ACTION — continued. 
 
 5. — Bepudiatioii — Adoption. 
 
 In this case North J. Jield that after the pit. 
 had repudiated the action to the deft, he could 
 not adopt it. 
 
 On appeal the 0. A. held on the facts tliat 
 authority for the action was given before issue of 
 writ, and that the question whether after re- 
 pudiation there could lie an adoption of the action 
 did not arise. Swan v. Mellen 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 128 
 
 — Right of — ^Person induced by misrepresen- 
 
 tation to commit crime — False repre- 
 sentation. 
 See FoKEiGN Enlistment Act. 2. 
 
 — Scottish law — Competency of second action 
 
 for same injury. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Master and Servant. 
 28. 
 
 ACTION IN KEM— Admiralty practice and 
 jurisdiction. 
 See Cases under Shippino. 
 
 ACTOR — Breach of contract to act with a company 
 for a certain period. 
 See Injunction. 4. 
 
 ACTS OP PAEIIAMENT. 
 
 . See Statutes. 
 
 ADDING PARTIES, 
 
 See Oases under Practice— Parties. 
 
 ADDRESS— Bill of sale— Address of grantor, 
 grantee and witnesses, in. 
 See Bill of Sale. 4. 
 
 — Of creditor issuing bankruptcy notice. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 6 
 
 ADEMPTION — Construction of will. 
 See Will — Ademption. 
 
 " ADJOINING "—Buildings " adjoining " land of 
 vendors — Covenant against overlooking 
 lights. 
 See Light and Air. 1. 
 
 " ADJOINING OWNER "—Buildings. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 20, 21. 
 
 — Eight to soil of Highway— Ad medium filum 
 
 vise. 
 
 See Highway. 8. 
 
 ADJOINING PREMISES- Alterations— Reason- 
 able use of a building — Injunction. 
 See Nuisance. 4. 
 
 ADJOURNMENT- Costs of, into Court— Jurisdic- 
 tion — " Court or a judge." 
 See Practice — Discontinuance. 14. 
 
 — Of hearing — Ground for setting aside bank- 
 
 ruptcy notice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 26. 
 
 — Power of chairman to refuse, of a meeting. 
 
 See Natal. 4. 
 
 ADJUDICATION— Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Adjudication. 
 
 ADJUDICATION STAMP — Instructions from 
 solicitor of Inland Bevenue as to. See Current 
 Index, 1897, p. Ixxziii. 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 16 ) 
 
 A.DJTJSTMENT — General average — Ship in 
 ballast — Chartered homeward freight — 
 " Foreign Statement " Clause. 
 (See Insurakce— Marine. 56. 
 
 ■ — General average payable for foreign state- 
 ment—Dutch Law. 
 See Instjeanoe — Marine. 57. 
 
 — Liabilities — Transfer of part of one county to 
 
 another county. 
 
 See Local Goveunment. 6. 
 
 — Liabilities — Transfer of part of cne union to 
 
 another union. 
 
 See Local Goveknment. 7. 
 
 ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 See Cases under Executor— Adminis- 
 tration. 
 ADMINISTRATION (AND PROBATE). 
 
 See Cases under Probate. 
 
 ADMINISTRATION, LETTERS OF. 
 
 See Cases under Probate. 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR. 
 
 See Oases under Executor. 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR PENDENTE LITE— Duration 
 of grant of administration. 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 
 — Eight of creditor to sue — Practice. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 
 ADMIRALTY. 
 
 See Oases under Shippino. 
 
 — Action against Lords of the Admiralty — 
 
 Prerogative of the Crown. 
 See Trespass. 2. 
 
 — Marine insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insurasoe — Marine. 
 
 ADMISSIBILITY— Evidence. 
 
 See Cases under Evidexoe. 
 
 ADMISSION— By tenant as to title— Declaration 
 by deceased person against interest. 
 See Evidence. 1. 
 
 — Cesser of interest — Married woman — Separate 
 
 estate — Restraint on anticipation. 
 See Husband and Wife. 43. 
 
 — Evidence of — Severability of statement. 
 
 See Evidence. 13. 
 
 — Interrogatories —Particulars. 
 
 See Discovery. 45. 
 
 — Payment into Court on admissions. 
 
 See Practice — Payment into Court. 
 122—129. 
 
 ADMITTANCE— Copyholds. 
 
 See Cases under Copyhold. 
 
 ADOPTION — Contract made before formation of 
 company — Payment of shares in cash — 
 set-off. 
 See New South Wales. 7. 
 
 — Infant — Lease made by trustees — Com- 
 
 promise. 
 
 See Infant. 3. 
 
 — Minor — Lease of coal — Coal below low water- 
 
 mark — Barony title. 
 See Mines. 12. 
 
 — Sale — Mistake. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 74. 
 
 ADOPTION — continued. 
 
 — Unauthorized action- Repudiation. 
 
 See Action. 5. 
 ADULTERATION. 
 
 Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, 1899 (62 & 63 
 Vict. c. 51), amends the law. 
 
 In General, col. 16. 
 
 Analysis, col. 17. 
 
 Fertilizers and Feeding Stujs, col. 19. 
 
 Margarine, col. 19. 
 
 MilJc, col. 20. 
 
 Warranty, col. 22. 
 
 In General. 
 
 1, — Article of food — Baking powder — Sale of 
 Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 * 39 'Vict. a. 63), 
 8. 3. 
 
 A. sold a baking-powder composed of 20 per 
 cent, of bicarbonate of soda, 40 per cent, of ground 
 rice, and 40 per cent, of alum, which is injurious, 
 to health : — 
 
 Held, that such baking-powder was not an 
 article of food, and that the sale of it so com- 
 pounded was not an offence within s. 3. James 
 V. Jones - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B, 304 
 
 See now 62 & 63 Vict. c. 51, s. 26. 
 
 3. — Compounded drug — Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. o. 63), ss. 6, 7. 
 
 A sale to the prejudice of the purchaser of a 
 compounded drug, which is not of the nature, 
 substance, and quality of the article demanded, 
 is an offence under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875, and proceedings for the re- 
 covery of a penalty may be taken under that 
 section. Beardsley v. Walton & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 3. — Magistrate — Jurisdiction — Place where 
 ofence committed — Analysis — Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. e. 63), ss. 6, 20, 27. 
 
 An information was preferred in the Clerken- 
 well Police Court by an inspector of nuisances 
 for the district, charging the deft, with having, 
 contrary to s. 27 of the Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875, given a false warranty in 
 writing n ith respect to milk sold and delivered 
 by him to a dairy co. The sale, delivery, and 
 giving of the warranty had all taken place 
 outside the limits of the jurisdiction of the- 
 Olerkenwell Police Court ; but the inspector had, 
 with a view to a prosecution against the dairy 
 CO. under s. 6, oblaiued -a, sample of the milk in 
 the course of its delivery by them, within the 
 jurisdiction of that Court, to purchasers from 
 them, and had submitted the sample to the public 
 analyst of the district, who certified that it 
 contained a percentage of added water : — 
 
 Held, that a metropolit.m police magistrate 
 sitting at the Olerkenwell Police Court had no 
 jurisdiction under the Sale of Food and Drugs 
 Act, 1875, to hear and determine the information 
 against the defendant. Keg. v. Smith 
 
 Hawkins J. [1896] 1 ft. B. 696 
 
 4. — ■ Partictdars of offences charged — Juris- 
 diction of justices — Sale of Food and Drugs Act,. 
 1879 (42 * 43 Vict. c. 30), s. 10. 
 
 The omission from a summons of the par- 
 ticuLirs required by s. 10 of the Food and 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 ADULTERATION (In Geneml)— continued. 
 Drugs Act, 1879, does not deprive the justices of 
 jurisdiction ; but if tlie justices are satisfied that 
 the deft, is prejudiced thereby, he is entitled to 
 an adjournment of the hearing. Neal v. Dete- 
 NISH - - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 544 
 
 5. — " i^eller " — Sale by servant — Sale of Food 
 and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 63), 
 ss. 6, 25. 
 
 A servant of a co. who acting as such sold 
 adulterated milk, held to be a " seller " within 
 s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. 
 
 HOTCHIN V. HiNDMAESH 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 181 
 
 Analysis. 
 — Public analyst under Sale of Food and Drugs 
 Acts — Practising at the Bar — Etiquette 
 of the Bar. "W. N. 1899 (Jan. 21), p. 45. 
 See Current Index, 1899, p. c. zxii. 
 Analysts''— Order of Loe. Govt. Bd. dated 
 March 7, 1900, malting Begs, as to Competency of 
 Public Analysts appointed under the Sale of Food 
 and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899. St. E. & 0. 1900, 
 Kg. 156, 
 
 6. — Certificate — Spirits — Admixture of 
 Water— Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875, 1879 
 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 21 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 30), 
 8. 6. 
 
 The certificate of an analyst declared the 
 result of his analysis to be as follows : " I find 
 that the sample contained an excess of water 
 over and above what is allowed by Act of Par- 
 liament. I eslimate the excess of water at 13% 
 of the entire sample. I am of opinion that the 
 sample is not a sample of genuine rum " : — 
 
 Seld, that the certificate ought to have stated 
 the proportion of water mixed with the rum, was 
 insufficient, and that a conviction could not be 
 supported. Newby v. Sims 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 478 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Fortune v. Hanson, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 202, 207. See No. 9, below. 
 
 7. — Certificate, sufflcieney of — Sale of Food 
 and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 18. 
 
 In a prosecution under the Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875, for selling adulterated milk, 
 the certificate of the public analyst stated that 
 the sample submitted to him contained 6 per cent, 
 of added water, and went on to say, " This 
 opinion is based on t'.ie fact that the sample con- 
 tained 7 '97 per cent, solids not fat, whereas 
 genuine milk contains not less than 8' 5 per cent, 
 sulids not fat " : — ■ 
 
 Seld, that the certificate was good, although 
 it did not state the constituent parts of the 
 sample analyzed. 
 
 FoHune v. Hanmn, [1896] 1 Q. B. 202, ex- 
 plained. Bridge v. Howard 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1^.^154(1); 
 [1897] 1 ft. B. 80 
 
 8. — Certificate — Unauthm-ized addition — 
 SaU of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. 
 c. 63), ss. 6, 18. 
 
 The certificate of a public analyst of the result 
 of an analysis under the Sale of Food and Drugs 
 Act, 1875, where the case is not one of adul- 
 teration, need not set out the parts contained in 
 
 ADULTEBATION (Analysis) —continued. 
 the sample ; it need only state the " result " ot 
 the analysis. The "observations" which follow 
 the " result " in the form of certificate given in 
 the schedule to the Act are only to be made in 
 case of adulteration. But if in a case not of 
 adulteration such " observations," amounting 
 only to an expression of opinion and not to a 
 statement of fact, are made, this, though im- 
 proper, will not necessarily vitiate a conviction. 
 Bakewbll v. Davis - Div, Cc. [1894] 1 ft. B. 296 
 
 9. — Certificate of analyst — Evidence — Sale of 
 Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 21. 
 
 At the hearing of an information under the 
 Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the produc- 
 tion of the certificate of tlie analyst is not con- 
 clusive evidence if the defendant tenders himself 
 as a witness and gives evidence on his own 
 behalf. Hewitt v. Taylor - [1896] 1 ft, B. 287 
 
 10. — Certificate of analysis. Sufficiency of — 
 Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 18, 21. 
 
 In a prosecution under the Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875, for selling adulterated milk to 
 a purchaser, the only evidence of adulteration 
 was the certificate of the public analyst, which 
 stated that the sample submitted to him "con- 
 tained the percentage of foreign ingredients as 
 under : 5 per cent, of added water " : — 
 
 Held, that the certificate was bad as evidence, 
 under the Act, of adulteration, because it did 
 not state the constituent parts of the sample 
 analyzed. Fortuse v. Hanson 
 
 Div. Ct, [1896] 1 ft, B, 202 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. Bridge v. Howard, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 80. 
 
 11. — Sample — Purchase for analysis — Mode 
 of dividing sample — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 14. 
 
 Where a purchase is made of several articles 
 of food or drugs at the same time for the piu'pose 
 of analysis, each article purchased must be 
 divided into three parts, and otherwise dealt 
 with as required by s. 14 of the Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875. Where a purchase is made ot 
 six bottles of the same article of food or drug, 
 each bottle is for the purposes of the Act a 
 separate article, and it is there foie not a sufBoient 
 compliance with the requirements of s. 14 for the 
 purchaser to divide them into three lots of two 
 bottles each without opening any of the bottles, 
 and to hand one lot to the analyst, one to the 
 seller, and to retain one iiimself. Mason v. 
 Cowdary Div, Ct, [1900] 2 ft. B. 419 
 
 12. — Sample — Purchase for analysis — Noti- 
 fication to seller — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 
 1875 (38 cSc 39 Vict. c. 63), ss 13, \i— Margarine 
 Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 29), ss. 6, 12. 
 
 The requirements of s. 14 of the Food and 
 Diugs Act, 1879, are peremptory and cannot be 
 dispensed with. Therefore, even if the seller 
 admit the ofl'ence at the lime, notice to him that 
 it is intended to have an analysis made and the 
 making of an analysis are conditions precedent 
 to a prosecution. Smart & Son v. Watts 
 
 Div. Ct, [1895] 1 ft, B, 219 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. Smith, [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 596, 601. 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 ADT7LTEEATI0N (knaiyBis)— continued. 
 
 f-lS. — Sample — Purchase for analysis — Quan- 
 tum to be analyzed—Sale of Food and Druqs Act 
 1879 (42 * 43 Vict. c. 30), s. 3. 
 
 An inspector under the Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Acts who takes a sample under s. 3 of the 
 Act of 1875 is not bound to submit for analysis 
 the whole of the sample taken by him. Eolte v. 
 Thompson Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 196 
 
 Pertilizers and Feeding Stuffs. 
 
 By the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 56), provisions were made 
 to prevent adulteration of fertilizers and feeding 
 stuffs. 
 
 Regulations (" The Fertilizers and Feeding 
 Stuffs Eegidations, 1897"), dated June 1, 1897, 
 tvere made binder the Act hy the Bd. of Agriculture. 
 St, R. & 0. 1897, p. 2, No. 419. 
 
 0. of the Bd. of Agriculture, dated Dec. 20, 
 1893, prescribing form of certificate of District 
 Analysts under the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs 
 Act, 1893. St. E. & 0. 1893, p. 299. 
 
 Kargarine. 
 
 Provisions as to, and margarine-cheese — See 
 Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 (62 * 63 Vict, 
 c. 51). 
 
 14. — " Exposed for sale " — Margarine Act, 
 1887(50 & 51 Vict. c. 29), s. 6. 
 
 A pared of margarine, when placed in view 
 of the purchaser but wrapped in paper so that 
 the margarine itself is invisible to the purchaser, 
 may be " exposed for sale " within s. 6 of the Mar- 
 garine Act, 1887, so as to require tlie label pre- 
 scribed by that section. Wheat v. Bkown 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 418 
 
 See 62 & 63 Vict. o. 51, s. 18. 
 
 16. — " Exposed for sale " — Margarine Act, 
 1882 (50 * 51 Vict. c. 29), s. 0. 
 
 The respondents were summoned for exposing 
 margarine for sale by retail, without a label 
 marked "Margarine" attaolied to each parcel, 
 contrary to s. 6. The respondents kept a refresh- 
 ment-room, in which were posted notices that 
 " Nothing but a mixture of the best Danish 
 butter and margarine is sold at tliis establish- 
 ment." Slices of bread, spread with a mixture 
 of Danish butter and margarine, were sold for 
 consumption on the premises, and also haddocks, 
 on which was put margarine cut from a lump 
 kept on a shelf. There were no labels eitlier on 
 the slices or on the lump of margarine :— 
 
 Held, that the margarine bad not been 
 exposed for sale by retail, within the meaning of 
 the Margarine Act, 1887, s. G, and therefore no 
 offence had been committed. Mooeb v. Peakoe's 
 Dining and Kefkeshment Eooms, Ld. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B. 657 
 
 16. — Penalties, Application of — Metropolitan 
 Police Courts Act, 1839 (2 & 3 Vict. c. 71), s. 47— 
 Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 1G— Margarine Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict, 
 c. 29), s*. 11, 12. 
 
 The application of penalties under the Mar- 
 garine Act, 1887, is part of "the proceedings" 
 within B. 1 2 ; and in the case of a prosecution by 
 an inspector appointed by a local authority 
 
 ADULTEEATION (Margarine) — continued. 
 within the Metropolitan Police District the 
 penalties are payable to the inspector, under the 
 incorporated s. 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs 
 Act, 1875, and not to the Eeceiver of the Metro- 
 politan Police under s. 47 of the Metropolitan 
 Police Courts Act, 1839. Eeg. v. Titteeton 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 ft. B. 61 
 
 17. — Sale contrary to Act — Delivery to 
 purchaser in borough — Jurisdiction of county jus- 
 tices — Time for service of summons — Notification 
 to sellei — Condition precedent — Margarine Act, 
 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 29), ss. 6, 7, \i—Sah of 
 Food and Drugs Acts, 1875, 1879 (38 & 39 Viet, 
 c. 63), ss. 6, 12, 14, 20, 21, 28 (42 <fe43 Viet. c. 30), 
 s. 10— Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. c. 106), 8. 27 — Municipal Corporations Ad, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 154. 
 
 The appellant was convicted, on the com- 
 plaint of the guardians of a union, by county 
 justices, under the Margarine Act, 1887, for 
 selling margarine otherwise than in a package 
 marked "Margarine,'' contrary to s. 6. The 
 margarine was delivered to the purchaser in a 
 borough which had not a separate court of 
 quarter sessions: — 
 
 Held, afBrming the conviction— That the 
 county justices had jurisdiction :— That, the 
 justices having found that the article sold was 
 not a perishable article, s. 10 of the Sale of Food 
 and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879, did not 
 apply, and it was not necessary that the summons 
 should be served within twenty-eight days from 
 the time of the purchase : — That, the margarine 
 not having been purchased for test purposes, or 
 with the intention of submitting it to analysis, it 
 was not a condition precedent to the prosecution 
 under the Margarine Act that the notification of 
 intention to have it analyzed, prescribed by s. 14 
 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, should 
 have been given to the appellant. 
 
 Pareons v. Birmingliam Dairy Co., (1882) 9 
 Q. B. D. 172, disapproved. Guardians of Ennit- 
 hillen v. Hilliard, (1884) 14 L. E. Ir. 214, ap- 
 proved. Buoklek v. Wilson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] W. N. 166 (8) ; 
 [1896] 1 a. B. 83 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Tyler v. King- 
 ham & Son, Ld., [1900] 2 Q. B. 413, 417. 
 — Warranty, Written — Subsequent proceedings 
 against wholesale merchant. 
 See Adultekation — Warranty. 25. 
 
 Milk. 
 
 18. — Altered state, sale of article of food in — 
 Disclosure of alteration — il/e»8 rea — Sale of Food 
 and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 63), «. 9. 
 
 By s. 9 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, " No 
 person shall, with the intent that the same may 
 be sold in its altered state without notice, abstract 
 from an article of food any part of it so as to 
 affect injuriously its quality, substance or nature, 
 and no person shall sell any article so altered 
 without making disclosure of the alter.ition, under 
 a penalty in each case not exceeding twenty 
 pounds." 
 
 The appellants, a firm of refreshment con- 
 tractors, entered into a contract with a dairy 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1S91— 1900. 
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 ADULTERATION (Milk)- continued. 
 CO. for the supply to tlieiii of milk ; the contract 
 containing a warranty by the co. as to the purity 
 of the milk to be supplied. Milk was delivered 
 under the contract at a refreshment room of the 
 appellants; it was handed in a can to one of 
 their seiTants, who poured a portion of it into a 
 chum, which was placed on the counter for the 
 purpose of the milk being sold to customers ; it 
 was so poured that a less proportion of cream 
 was in the milk that went into the churn than in 
 the milk which remained in the can. The 
 respondent bouglit a glass of milk at the counter ; 
 the milk was drawn from the , chum, and on 
 analysis sbewed a deficiency of 17 per cent, of 
 cream. Upon the glass in wLich the milk was 
 seryed were engraved the words, " Not guaranteed 
 as new or pure milk or with all its cream, see 
 notices" ; and upon the refreshment counter was 
 a printed notice to the effect that all milk sold 
 by the appellants was purchased by them under 
 a warranty of its purity and genuine quality ; 
 that they took all possible precautions to ensure 
 its supply to their customers in proper con- 
 dition, but were unable to guarantee it as new, 
 pure, or with all its cream, and did not, therefore, 
 sell it as such : — 
 
 Held, that, assuming that the facts showed an 
 abstraction from the milk, there had been a sutH- 
 cient disclosure by the appellants of the alteration 
 to satisfy the requirements of the section.' 
 
 In order to constitute the offence of selling an 
 article in its altered state without disclosure of 
 the alteration, it is unnecessary to sliew a mens 
 rea on the part of the seller. Spiebs & Pokd t-. 
 Bennett - - [1836] 8 Q. B. 65 
 
 19. — Guilty intent — Sa7£ of Food and Ih-ugs 
 Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 9. 
 
 The prohibition in s. 9 of the Sale of Food 
 and Drugs Act, 1875, forbidding the sale of any 
 article so altered as to injuriously affect its 
 quality without disclosing the alteration, applies 
 irrespective of the intent with which the alteration 
 is made : — 
 
 Held, that a person selling milk by retail in 
 such a manner that the later customers got milk 
 very deficient in quality was guilty of an offence 
 under the section. Dyke v. Gower 
 
 Div. Ot. [1892] 1 Q. B. 220 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Spiers & Fond v. 
 Bennett, [1896] 2 Q. B. 65, 72. 
 
 20. — Innocent vendor — Liability of innocent 
 vendor for milk adulterated in transit — Sale of 
 Food and Drugs Act, 1875, 1879 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 
 63, «. 6; 42 * 43 Vict. c. 30, s. 3). 
 
 The respondent, a milk salesman, contracted, 
 to supply pure milk to an association. The 
 milk was to be delivered to the association at a 
 railway terminus in London. The respondent 
 delivered the milk in a pure and unadulterated 
 condition to the servants of the ry. co. at his local 
 station, and the milk was adulterated without 
 his knowledge or consent during the transit from 
 the local station to the terminus : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent was liable to be 
 convicted under s. 6 of the Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875. Pabkeb v. Aldeb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 30 
 
 ADULTERATION (Milk)— con( miteci. 
 
 21. — Millc in course of delivery— "Place of 
 delivery "—Analysis — Sale of Food and Druqs 
 Act, 1879 (42 * 43 Vict. o. 30), ». 3. 
 
 The place of delivery in s. 3 of the Sale of 
 Food and Drugs Act, 1879, means the place 
 where the purchaser takes possession of the milk, 
 and not the place whence the purchaser under the 
 contract of sale pays the carriage. Filshie v. 
 EviNGTON - - Div. ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 200 
 
 22. — Milk in course of delivery under contract 
 — Samples from different vessels — Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 9, 13 ; 
 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. o. 30), s. 3. 
 
 A. contracted to supply a workhouse with 
 milk to contain a certain percentage of cream ; to 
 be tested on delivery and a reduction to be made 
 in the price in respect of any deficiency in cream ; 
 and samples to be taken from each of the cans in 
 which the daily supply was delivered. Samples 
 were taken from five cans under s. 3 of the Sale 
 of Food and Drugs Amendment .Act, 1879, 
 and a large deficiency of cream found in two 
 samples : — • 
 
 Held, that (he procuring of each sample was 
 a separate transaction, and that A. was rightly 
 convicted in a separate penalty in lespect of each 
 sample which was deficient in cream : 
 
 Held, further, that the fact that A.'s contract 
 with the workhouse provided for a reduction in 
 price if the percentage of cream was below a 
 certain amount did not affect the question whether 
 an offence had been committed under the Sale of 
 Food and Drugs Act. Fecitt v. Walsh 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 304 
 
 — " Seller "—Sold by servant. 
 
 See AnnLTEBATioN — In General. 5. 
 
 — Warranty — " Milk to be pure new milk." 
 
 See Adultebation — ^Warranty. 26. 
 
 Warranty. 
 
 23. — False warranty — Time — Limit of time 
 for taking proceedings — Sale of Food and Drugs 
 Act, 1875 (38 <fc 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 91— Sale of 
 Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879 (42 & 43 
 Vict. c. 30), s. 10. 
 
 A summons under s. 27 of the Sale of Food 
 and Drugs Act, 1875, against the original vendor 
 of a pel iahable article of food for giving a false 
 warranty in writing in respect of it to a purchaser 
 need not be served within twenty-eight days from 
 the purchase of the food for test purposes from 
 that purchaser. Cook v. White 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 284 
 
 See Hewitt v. Taylor, Div. Ct., [1896] 1 Q. B. 
 287, 289. 
 
 24. — Scienter — Chiving false warranty io pur- 
 chaser — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 tfc 
 39 Vict. c. 63), 8. 27. 
 
 The appellant was charged, under s. 27 of the 
 Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, with giving 
 a false warranty in writing to a purchaser in 
 respect of an article of food sold by the appellant. 
 When the appellant sold the article he did not 
 know, and had no reason to believe, that the 
 warranty was false : — • 
 
 Held, that he was not liable to to be convicted. 
 Debbyshibe v. Houliston 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 772 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 ADULTEEATION (Warranty)— co)i<4n«ed. 
 
 25. — Sale to prejwlice of purchaser — Defence 
 that article hought with loritten warranty — Suh- 
 sequent proceedings against wholesale merchant 
 — Certificate of analyst— Evidence — Sah of Food 
 and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 14, 
 21, 25— Margarine Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 
 29), ss. 6, 7, 12. 
 
 Where, upon the hen ring of a summons under 
 s. 6 of the Sale of Food and Brugs Act, 1875, the 
 deft, establishes the defence under s. 25 of the 
 Act that he bought the article with a written 
 warranty and sold it in the same state as when 
 he purchased it, the certificate of the public 
 analyst used in those proceedings is not evidence 
 in subsequent proceedings before justices against 
 the person from whom the deft, purchased the 
 article. 
 
 Upon the bearing of a summons under the 
 above section for selling as butter an article 
 which was not of the nature, substance, and 
 quality of the article demanded, the ceitiflcate 
 of the public analyst shewed the article sold to 
 be margnrine ; the summons was, however, dis- 
 missed ou the deft, proving a purchase with a 
 written warranty from the respondents. A 
 summons was then taken out against the re- 
 sponilents under s. 6 of the Margarine Act, 1887, 
 for delivering the margarine in a package not 
 marked as required by the section, and at the 
 hearing before justices the same certificate was 
 tendered as evidence against the respondents, but 
 was rejected : — 
 
 Seld, that the certificate was not evidence 
 against the respondents that the article sold and 
 delivered by them was margarine, and that the 
 evidence was properly rejected. Tylee v. King- 
 ham & Son, Ld. Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 413 
 
 26. — Written warranty — Contract to supply 
 milk in instalments — " Milk to he pure new milk " 
 — Whether u, warranty within the Act — bale of 
 Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 25. 
 
 By s. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 
 1875, "If the deft, in any prostcution under this 
 Act prove to the satisfaction of the justices . 
 that he had purchased the article in question as 
 the same in nature, substance, and quality as 
 that demanded of him by the prosecutor and 
 with a written warranty to that effect," he shall, 
 under certain other specified conditions, be 
 entitled to be discharged from the prosecution. 
 
 Upon the hearing of an information against 
 the respondent for having, contrary to the pro- 
 visions of the Act, sold on Dec. 15, 1899, certain 
 milk to the appellant which was not of the 
 nature, substance, and quality demanded of him 
 by the appellant, the respondent relied on an 
 agreement in writing dated Jan. 20, 1899, by 
 which a farmer agreed to sell to the respondent 
 1000 gallons of milk weekly, " the milk to be 
 pure new milk " : — 
 
 Held, that, even if the agreement amounted 
 to a warranty within the meaning of b. 25, there 
 must be some evidence in writing to shew that 
 the particular milk sold to the appellant was 
 purchased with that warranty, and that in the 
 absence of that evidence the agreement afforded 
 no defence to the respondent. Robertson v. 
 Harris - Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 117 
 
 ADUITERATION (Warranty)— comiinaed. 
 
 27, — Written warranty — Lard — Deliver 
 part of goods — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, ' 
 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 25. 
 
 A manufacturer of lard contracted in wri 
 with W., " We have this day sold to you 3 
 K.'s pure lard for delivery to end of Jan. 18 
 On Dec. 23, 1892, a parcel of lard was consif 
 by K to W. under the contract. Part of the 
 was sold to the appellant, and was on anal 
 found to be adulterated. An information 
 laid against W. under the Sale of Food 
 Drugs Act, 1875 :— 
 
 Beld, that the contract contained a sufBc 
 warranty of the purity of the lard to satisfy £ 
 of the Act of 1875, and that W. vras entitle 
 be discharged &om the prosecution. Laid 
 V. Wilson Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B 
 
 See Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 (£ 
 63 Vict. c. 51), s. 20. 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Robertson v. Ha 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 117, 120. 
 
 28. — Written warranty — Servant, sale I 
 Warranty to master — Sale of Food and D 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), ss. 6, 25. 
 
 Sect. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs . 
 1875, with respect to written warranty does 
 protect a servant of the person to whom 
 warranty is given, as he is not a purchaser wii 
 the meaning of that section. Hotohin v. Hi 
 MARSH - - Div. ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 
 
 ADiriTEKT. 
 
 See Cases under DrvoECE. 
 ADVANCE FEEIGHT— Bill of lading. 
 
 See Shipping — Freight. 145—148. 
 ADVANCE BENT- Distress. 
 
 See Landlord axd Tenant — Eent. 
 
 — Business, Purchase of — Embarking gii 
 
 Alienation of gift— Settlement of ] 
 perty. 
 
 See Bankruptct — Voluntary Set 
 ment. 266. 
 ADVANCEMENT— Construction of will. 
 
 See Cases under Wiu. — ^Advancemen 
 
 ADVANCES — ^Purohases by husband in namei 
 wife and daughter — Account — La\^ 
 Quebec. 
 See Canada. 50. 
 
 — Seamen — Wages. 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 226. 
 
 "ADVERSE CLAIM." 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Contract. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT- Citation by — Disapp 
 ance of executor to whom power to pi 
 resirved, 
 See Probate. 82. 
 
 — Constituting trade libel. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 30. 
 
 — Contract by advertisement. 
 
 See Contract — Formation. 14. 
 
 — Copyright in arrangement of. 
 
 See Coptcigut — Book. 1. 
 
 — Issue advertisement — Right to — Misrepre; 
 
 tation — Damage to manufacturer. 
 See Trade. 1. 
 
(. 25 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 26 ) 
 
 AJiYERTlS^MEST— continued. 
 
 — Notice of meeting of debenture-holders. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 67. 
 
 — Order sanctioning alteration of memorandum 
 
 of association. 
 
 See CoMPAKY — Uemorandnm, &c., of 
 Association. 170, 171. 
 
 — Probate — ^Necessity for advertisement. 
 
 See Peobate — Presumption of Death. 
 134. 
 
 — "Winding-up petition. 
 
 See Company — WiNDiNQ-np — Petition. 
 138—147. 
 
 ADVERTISING STATION- Poor-rate— Advertis- 
 ing Stations (Bating) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict, 
 c. 27), ss. 3, 4. 
 
 A building contractor wlio bad let a hoarding 
 for advertisements held to be in beneficial occu- 
 pation and therefore rateable under s. 3 of the 
 Advertising Stations (Eating) Act, 1889. Chap- 
 pell V. St. Botolph Oveeseees 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 561 
 
 — Kateable occupation — Hoardings — Advertising 
 
 contractor. 
 
 See Kates — Eateability. 10. 
 
 ADVOWSON. 
 
 ! Ecclesiastical Law — Advowscn. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT. 
 
 See Evidence. 14 — 22. 
 
 AFFILIATION — Incorporation of colleges — Con- 
 sent. 
 
 See Ukiveesity— Affiliation of Colleges. 
 1. 
 
 AYJUCA—Eoyal Niger Company Act, 1899 (62 * 
 63 Vict. 0. 43), malces provision for certain pay- 
 ments to he made in connection with the revocation 
 of the Charter of the Royal Niger Co. 
 
 — Consular Courts. 
 
 See Colonial Cotjkt oe Admibalty. 
 
 — Extradition from. 
 
 See EXTEADITION. 
 
 — Foreign jurisdiction. 
 
 See FoEEiQN Jdeisdiction. 
 
 AFTEE-ACaUIEED PEOPEETY— Bankrupt. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Assets. 49 — 55. 
 Bankruptcy — Scheme of Arrange- 
 ment. 220. 
 ~- Covenant by husband alone that after-ac(juired 
 property of wife shall be settled. 
 See Husband and Wife. 2. 
 
 — Covenant to settle. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement — Covenant 
 to Settle. 
 
 — Covenant to settle — Valuable consideration — 
 
 Priority. 
 
 See Peactice — Stop Order. 247. 
 
 — French law — Domicil — Community of goods. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 8, 9. 
 
 — Infant. 
 
 See Infant — Settlement. 
 
 — Undischarged bankrupt. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt, 255—262. 
 
 AGENT. 
 
 See Cases under Peincipal and Agent. 
 
 AGENT (PATENT). 
 
 See Patent- 
 
 -Patent Agent. 
 
 AGISTMENT — Negligence — Intervening act of 
 third person. 
 
 Pit. delivered to deft, a horse to be agisted 
 in a certain field next to a cricket ground inlo 
 which the horse escaped through a gate left open 
 by deft.'s servant. On the cricketers trying to 
 drive it back in a careful manner, the horse 
 injured itself in trying to jump tlie fence : — 
 
 Held, that the damage was the natural conse- 
 quence of the gate having been left open, and 
 that deft, was liable. Halesteap v. Gregory 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 AGNUS DEI — Singing at Communion — Kitual. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 61. 
 
 AGBEEMENT. 
 
 See Cases under Conteact. 
 
 AGEICTJLTUEE- Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1900. 
 
 See Master and Seetant. 
 
 AGEICULTUEAL HOLDIB GS— Compensation. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Agricul- 
 tural Holdings. 
 
 AGEICULTUEAL EATES. 
 
 See Kates. 
 
 AGEICULTUEAL EATES ACT, 1896, Orders, 
 Art. XVII. 
 See Kates — EateabUity. 16. 
 
 AGSICULTUEE, BOAED OF. 
 
 See Boaed of Aguioultuee. 
 
 AIDING AND ABETTING — Carnal knowledge 
 
 of girl between thirteen and bixteen. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law. 48. 
 — Committal — Breach of injunction. 
 
 See Contempt of Court. 2. 
 — - Felonious wounding — tJi.lawful wounding. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 46. 
 AIE, 
 
 See Light and Air. 
 
 AIE-SPACE — Power of local authoiity to regulate 
 — Cowsheds. 
 See Dairy. 
 
 AIEE AND CALDEE NAVIGATION ACT, 1899 
 
 — Wrecks, removal of — Kight to recover 
 
 See Justices. 29. 
 
 ALDEEHAN— Election of. 
 
 See Corporation. 15. 
 
 — Outgoing — Kesignatiou of office — Office wluu 
 
 vacant. 
 
 See Coepoeation. 7. 
 
 — Power of amotion — Corporate office — Chair- 
 
 man of Improvement Committee. 
 See Coepoeation. 6. 
 
 ALEHOUSES. 
 
 See Cases undtr Licensing Acts. 
 
 ALIEN. 
 
 Br/ the Naturalization jlcJ, 1895(58 (t.59 Vict, 
 c, 43), 8. 10 (5) of the Act of 1870 was amended as 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 28 ; 
 
 ALIEN — continued. 
 
 respeets children of naturalized British subjects 
 
 resident abroad. 
 
 Begs., dated Oct. 20, 1897, made for purpose of 
 carrying inio effect the provisions of the Natu- 
 ralization Act, 1870. St. K. & 0. 1898, No. 13. 
 Price id. 
 
 Eetdkn as to Natuealized Aliens.] A list 
 of the persons to whom certificates of naturalization 
 have been granted by the Secy, of State under the 
 Naturalization Act, 1870, is published every month 
 in the Lond. Gaz. An annual return of the certi- 
 ficates granted during the year is aUo published as 
 a Pari. Paper. 
 
 — Chinamen — British Columbia Coal Mines 
 
 Eegulations. 
 See Casada. 30. 
 
 — Fatal Accidents Acts — Cause of action outside 
 
 jurisdiction. 
 See Negligence. 1. 
 1. — Eight to enter British territory — Law of 
 Victoria. 
 
 No alien has a legal right enforceable by 
 
 action to enter British territory. Mdsgkote 
 
 V. Chun Tbeong Toy - P. C. [1891] A. C. 272 
 
 3. — Ship — Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 
 
 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), 88. 62, 63, 64, 103 (3). 
 
 Practice followed as to the sale of a ship 
 which had been transmitted to an alien and so 
 forfeited to the Crown. The " Millioent " 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] W. N. 162 
 ALIENATION — Annuity — Succession duty — 
 Exemption. 
 See Eevenoe — Succession Dnty. 183. 
 
 — Annuity determinable on — Deficiency of assets 
 
 — Payment. 
 
 See Annuity. 6. 
 
 — Corporate lands, alienation of — Corporate 
 
 property. 
 
 See CoBPOBATiON. 8. 
 
 — Forfeiture on. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement — For- 
 feiture. 
 Will — Forfeiture. 
 
 — Life estate — Powers of leasing — Lease of 
 
 minerals — Validity. 
 See Settled Land. 72. 
 
 — Succession duty — New succession. 
 
 See Revenue — Succession Duty. 183. 
 
 — Trust over on alienation — Retrospective ope- 
 
 ration — Past alienation. 
 See Mortgage. 49. 
 
 ALIMONY. 
 
 See DivoBCB — ^Alimony. 
 
 — Income tax on alimony. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 68. 
 
 — Proof — Arrears accrued due before receiving 
 
 order. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Proof. 160. 
 ALLOTMENTS. 
 
 Allotmenti Rating Exemption Act, 1891 (54 
 & 55 Vict. c. 33), amends the laws relating to the 
 rating of allotments for sanitary purposes. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 * 57 Vict, 
 c. 73), makes further provision as to allotments. 
 Power to modify provisions as to allotments 
 
 ALLOTMENTS — continued. 
 
 for recreation grounds, field gardens, &c. 
 
 Commons Act, 1899 (62 * 63 Vict, c 30), ». 18, 
 
 — Agricultural holdings. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Agri( 
 tural Holdings. 1. 
 
 — Common allotment — Corporation duty 
 
 Exemptions. 
 
 See RBVENtTE — Income Tax. 65. 
 
 — Turbary — Legal estate in land — Comp 
 
 sation to lord of the manor. 
 See Inolosuee. 4. 
 
 ALLOTMENT OF SHAKES. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Shares. 
 
 ALLOWANCE — Separation order — Summ 
 Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act 
 Husband's earnings — Allowance 
 ■wife — Mode of assessment. 
 See Husband and Wife. 77. 
 
 ALUS — Receipt of — Franchise — Borough votf 
 See Pabliament — Franchise. 25. 
 
 ALTERATION — Adjoining premises — Eeas 
 able use of a building — Injunction. 
 See Nuisance, 4. 
 
 — Effect of alteration of rules of friendly aocic 
 
 See Feiendly Society. I. '- 
 
 ALTEENATIVE BEQUEST — Condition — 1 
 straint of marriage — ^Marriage with c 
 sent. 
 See Will — ^Marriage. ^ 14-2. 
 
 ALTEENATIVE CONTRACT. 
 
 See Contract — Performance. 26. 
 
 ALTEENATIVE DEVISE — Vested interests 
 Divesting — Construction of will. 
 See Will — ^Vested Interests. 210. 
 
 ALTEENATIVE GIFT— Substitutional— Sohe 
 — Charity. 
 See Will— Substitution. 201. 
 
 ALTEENATIVE BELIEF— Joinder of parties. 
 See Peactice— Parties. 83. 
 
 — Patent action — Infringement. 
 
 See Patent. 5. 
 
 ALUM — Bating powder — ^Article of food. 
 
 See Adulteration — In General. 1. 
 
 AMALGAMATION — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company — ^Beconsti 
 tion. 
 
 AMBASSADOS— Immunities of. 
 
 See International Law. 2. 
 
 AMBIGUITY— Charterparty— Bill of lading. 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 15, 16 
 
 — Will — Evidence, Admissibility of. 
 
 See Will — Evidence. 83. 
 
 — Will— Grant of Probate. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Probate, 77 
 
 " AMELIOKATUTG WASTE." 
 
 Discussed by Kekewioh J. in Meux v. Coe 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 
 AMENDMENT— Action against public oflScei 
 their official capacity. 
 See Trespass. 2. 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 AMENDMENT— cowh'jmed!. 
 
 — Income tax — Process — Stated case — Question 
 
 of law. 
 
 See Revbnde — Income Tax. 115. 
 
 — Practice. 
 
 See Peactioe — Amendment. 
 
 — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Cases under Paeltamekt — Fran- 
 chise, 
 
 — Specification. 
 
 See Patent — Practice. 20 — 24. 
 AMEBCEMENT — Fines and — Construction of 
 
 obaiter to corporation. 
 
 See Eevenue — Forfeited Becognizanoe. 
 48. 
 AMOTION — Power of amotion of member of a 
 
 municipal corporation. 
 
 See CoBPORATiON. 6. 
 ANALYSIS— Food and Drugs Act. 
 
 See Cases under Abultebation. 
 
 ANCHOB AND ANCHOB IIOHT. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Anchor. 
 
 ANCIENT LIGHTS. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Am. 
 
 ANCIENT MONUMENTS — jlnetent Monuments 
 Protection Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 34), amends 
 the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. V. 73). 
 
 ANIMAL— Disease* of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 57), cmisolidates the Contagious Diseases 
 ^Animals) Acts, 1878 to 1898. 
 
 Diseases of animals — Slaughter of foreign 
 animals— Act of 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 15), 
 amending s. 24 and repealing s. 26 of 57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 57. 
 
 Diseases — Amendment as to regulation with 
 respect to infectious — Public Health Act, 1896 
 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 19) — Powers of port sanitary 
 authority. See Public Health {Ports) Act, 1896 
 (59 <t 60 Vict. c. 20). 
 
 Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 and 1896. 0. 
 of Bd. of Trade dated March i'^d, 1897, as to 
 Babies in Dogs. Lond. Gaz. Mar, 23, 1897, p. 1678, 
 1682. 
 
 Importation of Dogs Order of 1897. Lond. 
 Gaz. May 7, 1897, p. 2S40. 
 
 Cruelty to animals — Wild Animals in Captivity 
 Protection Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 33), passed 
 for the prevention of cruelty to wild animals in 
 captivity. 
 
 1. — Distraint on animals — For what damage 
 animals may be distrained. 
 
 Trespassing animals maybe distrained damage 
 feasant for injuries to other animals as well as 
 damage to the freehold. Boden v. Eoscoe 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 608 
 
 — Adulteration of food of. 
 
 See Adulteration — Fertilizers and 
 Feeding StuSs. 
 
 — Caged lions — Domestic animals — Cruelty to. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 6. 
 
 — Cruelty to — "Counselling" commission of 
 
 offence— Information— Summary ; juris- 
 diction. 
 See Justices. 5. 
 
 ANIMAL — continued. 
 
 — " Domestic animal " — Tame seagull — Cruelty 
 
 to. 
 
 See Ckiminal Law. 7. 
 
 — Babbit coursing — " Domestic animals " — 
 
 Cruelty to. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 9. 
 
 3. — Bight of private person to prefer inform- 
 ation — Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 57). 
 
 A private person may prefer information under 
 the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and the Orders 
 made under that Act, for the right to lenforce 
 such Act and Orders is not confined to the local 
 authority. Eeg. v. Stewart pr-^f^T 
 
 Dlv. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B. 300 
 ANIMTJSFTJBANDI— Larceny— Functiouof jury. 
 See Criminal Law. 35. 
 
 ANNEXATION— Eigljts after— Act of State- 
 Concessions granted before cession — 
 Jurisdiction of municipal courts. 
 See Cape oe Good Hope. 1. 
 
 — To freehold — Movable chattels — Stuffed-bird 
 
 collection. 
 
 See Fixtures. 1. 
 
 — Will — Grant of administration. 
 
 See Probate— Grant of Administration. 
 23. 
 
 ANNOYANCE— Covenant against— Trellis. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Lease. 12. 
 
 " ANNUAL BENTAL "—Mode of calculating- 
 Application of capital money. 
 See Settled Land. 23. 
 
 ANNUITY — Government Annuities.] Treas. 
 
 Warrant dated Jan. 5, 1899, under s. 18 (1) of 
 
 Bevenue Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 46). St. 
 
 B. & 0. 1899, p. 743, No. 6. 
 
 — Accumulations — Substitution — Construction 
 
 of will. 
 
 See Accumulations. 9. 
 
 1. — Arrears — Sale or mortgage of charged 
 estate. 
 
 Annuities charged on the corpus of real estate 
 fell into arrear. There was no prospect that the 
 rents of the estate would at an early date become 
 sufficient to satisfy the annuities : — 
 
 Held, that the arrears might be satisfied by 
 sale or mortgiige of part of the real estate, but 
 that the making of such an order is a matter not 
 of course but of discretion. The authorities 
 reviewed. In re Tucker. Tucker v. Tucker 
 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 323 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re Shaw, [1894] 
 2 Oh. 573. 
 
 2. — Arrears^Separate use. 
 
 A separation deed contained a covenant by 
 the husband to pay an annuity for the wife's 
 separate use during their joint lives ; the husband 
 died leaving the annuity in arrear : — 
 
 Held, that as the separate use came to an end 
 on the husband's death, it did not bind the arrears. 
 Stogdon v. Lee - C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 661 
 
 But see now Married Women's Property Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63), s. 1 (a). 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Lumley, [1896] 
 2 Ch. 094. 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 A'S'SVTtY— continued. 
 
 3. — Assignment — Compensation for privileges 
 as proctor—Probate Act, 1857 (20 (621 Vict. c. 77), 
 «s. 105, 113. 
 
 An annuity granted by tlie Treasury nnder 
 s. 105 of the Probate Act, 1857, held to be 
 aBsiguable : notice to the Treasury of assignment 
 held to be nugatory and not to confer pr ority. 
 Blake v. Halsb CMtty J. [1892] W. N. 143 
 
 — Breach of trust — Statutes of Limitations. 
 
 See Trustee. 1. 
 
 4, — Charge on capital — National debt con- 
 version — National Debt Conversion Act, 1888 
 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 2), s. 20, sub-s. 2. 
 
 A ■will provided that trustees should appro- 
 priate and invest in Government stock " such a 
 sum of money as will, when invested, be sufficient 
 with the income thereof io produce two weekly 
 sums of 15s. each, and shall maintain the same 
 as a fund to answer the said two weekly sums," 
 and" provided for the destination of the capital 
 set aside when it should fall in. By reason of 
 the conversion into 2| per cent. Consols, the 
 income became insufficient : — 
 
 Held, that the annuities were charged on the 
 capital of the fund, and the provisions of s. 20 (3) 
 of the National I)ebt Conversion Act did not 
 override the provisions of the will, and that the 
 annuitants were entitled to lie paid in full. Pack 
 V. Daebt North J. [1895] W. N. 123 (6) 
 
 — Conflict of statutes— Construction. 
 
 See Statute. 4. 
 
 — Contingent annuity — Interim income. 
 
 See Will — Income. 108. 
 
 — Contingent — Settlement estate duty — In- 
 
 cidence. 
 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty. 20. 
 
 5, — Date of commencement — Immediate vi- 
 cinity. 
 
 Where A. gave his personalty and a life 
 estate in his realty to B., and charged the 
 reversion of one portion of such realty with an 
 annuity to C, and directed that the fir.st pay- 
 ment of the annuity was to be made half a year 
 after A.'s death : — 
 
 Held, that C. was entitled to an annuity 
 commencing on A.'s death. In re Williams. 
 Williams v. Williams 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] W. N. 86 
 
 6. — Deficiency of assets — Administration — 
 Annuity determinable on alienation — Valuation — 
 Eight of annuitant to payment. 
 
 An annuity payable to one for life or until he 
 should do or suffer some act whereby the annuity 
 or any part thereof, if belonging to him abso- 
 lutely, would become vested in some other person, 
 was secured by deed of covenant. The estate of 
 the covenantor was insufficient for p.iyment of 
 the annuity in full, and, in an administrution 
 action, the annuity was valued, and was repre- 
 sented by a fund in com t : — 
 
 Held, that the whole fund ought to be paid to 
 the annuitant. 
 
 Carr v. Inglehy, (ISSl) 1 De G. & Sm. 362, 
 not followed. Ynre Sinclaiu. Allen u. Sinclair. 
 I-IoDGKiNS V. SiNOLAiB - Kekewlch J. 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 981 
 
 ANNTJITY — continued. 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Revenue— Estate Duty. 13, U. 
 
 — Income Tax— Annuity — " Profits and gains.'' 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 67. 
 
 — Income Tax — Annuity by way of alimony. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax, 68. 
 
 — Income tax — Deduction of income tax from 
 
 interest or annuities. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 103. 
 
 — Indian reserves — Liability to pay annuities in 
 
 respect thereof. 
 See Canada. 10. 
 
 — Interest — Gift of money for purchase of 
 
 annuity. 
 
 See Interest. 2. 
 
 — Legacy duty — Annuity by way of salary. 
 
 See Revenue — Legacy Duty. 120. 
 
 — Legacy duty — Annuity out of rents of realty. 
 
 See Revenue — Legacy Duty. 121. 
 
 7. — Life or Perpetual. 
 
 (a) a gift of " An annuity of 1501. a year to 
 be secured to X." is merely an annuity to X. for 
 life. In re Lord Stbatheden and Campbell. 
 CowPER V. Stratheden and Campbell 
 
 Kekewlch J. [1893] W. N. 90 
 
 (r) a gift of " 2501. per ann. to X. or his de- 
 scendants " is an annuity to X. for life with a 
 substitutionary gift for life to X.'s descendants 
 living at testator's death if X. did not survive the 
 testator. In re Morgan. Morgan v. Morgan 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 222 
 
 8. — Married icoman — Bestraint on anticipa- 
 tion — Administration — Insolvent estate — Appro- 
 priation of capital sum. 
 
 In the final distribution of an insufficient 
 estate the dividend on the capital value of an 
 annuity bequeathed to a married woman, with 
 restraint on anticipation, was ordered to be laid 
 out in the purchase of an annuity for her. 
 Before the annuity was purchased she died : — 
 
 Held, that the capital belonged to her estate. 
 
 In re Ross. Ashton v. Ross North J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 234; [1900] 1 Ch. 162 
 
 9. — Redemption — CasJi value of perpetual 
 annuity. 
 
 The amount to be paid to the owner of a 
 perpetual annuity, adequately secured on the 
 estate, who is willing to redeem, is the sum 
 which at the price of the day will purchase 
 2J per cent. Government stock sufficient to pro- 
 duce the annuity, excluding any charge fur 
 brokerage. HioKS v. Ross 
 
 Kekewlch J, [1891] 3 Ch. 499 
 
 — Retainer by executor. 
 
 See Executor. 36. 
 
 — Retainer of trust property to satisfy annuity — 
 
 Husband and wife — Separation deed. 
 See Trustee. 99. 
 
 10. — Right to receive value of annuity. 
 
 A will contained a direction to trustees to 
 purchase Government annuities out of proceeds 
 of land when sold. One annuitant died before - 
 and another after the completion of the sale : — 
 
 Held, that the estate of the annuitant who 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 A.'S'SVITY— continued. 
 
 died before completion of sale had no claim for 
 the value of the annuity, but that the other 
 estate could so claim. In re Mabbbtt. Pitman 
 V. HOLBOKHOW - Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 707 
 
 H. — Security for — Besidue — Bequest of 
 annuity payable out of — Provision for annuity — 
 Distribution of residue — Will — Administration — 
 Jurisdiction — Appeal — Costs improperly incurred 
 — Payment Tnj solicitor — R. 8. C, 1883, Order 
 LXV., r. 11. 
 
 Where an annuity is payable out of the clear 
 residuary estate of a testator, the Court has 
 juiiodiotiou to set apart a sufficient sum to 
 answer the annuity, and to pay the remainder of 
 the residue to the residuai-y legatees. And this 
 jurisdiction will be exercised in a proper case 
 notwithstanding the opposition of the annui- 
 tant : — 
 
 Per Lindley L.J. : The annuitant has never- 
 theless the right to resort, if it becomes neces- 
 sary, to the corpus of the fund set apart. In an 
 administration action, where several respondents 
 to an unsuccessful appeal were in the same 
 interest, the Court allowed only one set of costs 
 against the appellant, and directed those costs to 
 be paid to the respondents who had the conduct 
 of the proceedings in the cause. 
 
 The solicitor of an appellant will be ordered 
 to indemnify his client against the costs of the 
 appeal, if it was prosecuted, not in the interests 
 of the client, but for the purposes of the solicitor. 
 Harbin v. Mastekman (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 160 (1); [1896] 1 Ch. 351 
 
 For First Appeal, see Wharton v. Masterman, 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. 0. 186. 
 
 12. — Separation deed — Annuity under, between 
 man and woman not married. 
 
 In a separation deed between A. and B., 
 who was living with him as his mistress, A. 
 covenanted to jjay an annuity to B. during her 
 life. They resumed cohabitation, and A. died : — 
 
 Beld, affirming North J., that the resumption 
 of cohabitation did not cause the annuity to 
 cease. 
 
 Secus, in the case of a separation deed between 
 husband and wife. In re Aedt. Kabbeth v. 
 Donaldson (No. 2) C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 456 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Bevenue — Stamps. 141. 
 
 — Succession duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Succession Duty. 183. 
 
 — Will. 
 
 See Oases under Will— Annuity. 
 
 ANNULKENT— Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — Annulment. 
 
 — Conditions of sale — Tendor's power of annull- 
 
 ing sale. 
 
 See Vesdob and PnECHASER — Conditions 
 of Sale. 4. 
 
 — Eeoeiving order — Payment into court — Pay- 
 
 ment out after six years. 
 
 See Bankbtiftot — Eeoeiving Order. 196, 
 
 ANSWEES— Objection to— Allowance by judge. 
 See DiscoTEKT— Interrogatories. 46. 
 
 ANSWEES— continue (i. 
 
 — Sufficiency — Agent — Executor. 
 
 See Discovery — Interrogatories. 47. 
 ANTE-NUPTIAL SETTEEMENT. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement. 
 
 ANTICIPATION — Rents— Churchwardens-In- 
 come of charity estates — Banking 
 account — ■ Charge on charitable pro- 
 perty. 
 See Chaeitt. 1. 
 
 ANTICIPATION (EESIEAINT ON) — Married 
 woman. 
 See Cases under Hhsband and AVife. 
 
 — Costs — Married woman. 
 
 See Probate. 88. 
 
 — Married woman — ^Breach of trust — Indemnity. 
 
 See Trustee. 30. 
 
 — Married woman — Insolvent estate — Annuity — 
 
 Appropriation of capital sum. 
 See Annuity. 8. 
 
 APOTHECARIES ACT— "Acting" without cer- 
 tificate. 
 
 See Medical Peaotitionee. 4. 
 
 APPEAL. 
 
 By the Supreme Court of Judicature (Pro- 
 cedure Act, 1894 (57 * 68 Vict. a. 16), it was 
 prescribed that appeals from, judges in matters of 
 Procedure should lie direct to the Court of Appeal ; 
 the right of appeal was restricted ; and the appeals 
 from County Courts, &c., to Divisional Courts and 
 the Court of Appeal were regulated. 
 
 B. S. C. 1883, Order Lviri., relates to appeals 
 to the Court of Appeal. 
 
 — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Appeal, 
 
 — Arbitration. 
 
 See Aebiteation — Appeals. 5, 23, 24, 
 26, 41, 42. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Cases under Bankeuptcy — Appeal. 
 
 — Board of Trade's right of appeal. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Scheme of Arrange- 
 ment. 222. 
 
 1. — Chambers — Appeal from order made in — 
 Befusal of judge to give certificate — Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 50. 
 
 Originating summons by a client under the 
 Solicitors Act. Kekewich J. in chambers dis- 
 missed the summons and declined to give a 
 certificate that the matter had been sufficiently 
 argued before him, and that he did not desire to 
 hear further argument in court. 
 
 On motion ex parte for leave to come direct 
 to the C. A. without moving before the learned 
 judge in court to discharge Ms order made in 
 chambers ; — 
 
 Held, that the practice is now perfectly well 
 settled that, unless the judge gives a certificate, 
 the person who desires to appeal must first move 
 in court to discharge the order made in chambers. 
 The C. A. had considered this point fully already 
 and would not now allow it to be reargued. 
 Motion refused. In re Peakce 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 114 
 
 3. — Chambers — Appeal from order of judge 
 at — Frohiliticn io judge of county court — "Prac- 
 
 C 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 36 
 
 APPEAL — continued. 
 
 tide and procedure " — Supreme Court of Judicature 
 (Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. v. 16), b. 1, 
 sub.-s. 4, 
 
 An application to a judge at chambers for a 
 prohibition to restrain an inferior Court from 
 exceeding its jurisdiction is not a matter of 
 practice or procedure within the meaning of s. 1, 
 sub-a. 4, of the Supreme Court of Judicature 
 (Procedure) Act, 1894, and an appeal lies to the 
 Divisional Court and not, in the first instance, to 
 the C. A. Watson v. Petts 
 
 C. A, [1899] 1 Q. B. 54 
 
 — Chambers, Application referred from. 
 
 See Pkaotioe — Chamhers. 11. 
 
 3. — Cfiambers, Order in— Chancery Division. 
 "Where a case has been fully argued before a 
 
 judge at chambers in the Ch. Div. an appeal lies, 
 although the judge has not certified that he 
 requires no further argument. Sthong v. Car- 
 LTLB Press (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 268, at p. 272 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. British Linen 
 Co. V. South American and Mexican Co., [1894] 
 1 Ch. 108, 111. 
 
 4. — Chambers, Order in — Motion to discharge 
 — *^AppeaV^ — Chancery Division — Judicature 
 Acts, 1873(36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 50 ; 1894 (57 & 
 58 Vict. e. 10), s. 1. 
 
 A motion to discharge an order made in 
 chambers is not an " appeal," but a rehearing. 
 The right to move to discharge an order made in 
 chambers by a judge of the Ch. Div. -nas 
 expressly reserved by s. 50 of the Judicature 
 Act, 1873, and that right (exercisable witliout 
 leave, if nolice is given within fourteen days) 
 has not been taken away by s. 1 of the Act of 
 1894. 
 
 An unsuccessful litigant in chambers in the 
 Ch. Div. has still three alternatives, (i.), to move 
 in Court to discharge the order ; (ii.) to have (he 
 matter adjourned into Court ; (iii.) to obtain 
 kave from the judge to go straight to C. A. 
 BoAKE V. Stevenson Kekewich J, [1895] 
 
 1 Ch. 358 
 
 — City of London Court. 
 
 See County Court. 1. 
 
 London — City of London Court. 37. 
 
 — Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 — Practice — 
 
 Special leave to appeal — Frivolous 
 
 application. 
 
 See BooLESiASTiCAL Law — Practice. 58. 
 
 5. — - Co-defendant brought in as third party. 
 Where a third party notice claiming contribu- 
 
 lion or indemnity is given to a co-deft., he 
 cannot appeal to the C. A. against the notice 
 and must wait till there has been a summons for 
 directions and an order thereon. Baxter v. 
 France (No. 1) C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 456 
 
 - Colonial — to Governor-General of Canada in 
 Council from Provincial Legislature. 
 See Canada. 32. 
 
 6. — Commercial list — Practice. 
 
 An appeal will lie to the C. A. against an 
 order for entry of a cause in the commercial list 
 if it be not a commercial cause. Sea Insurance 
 Co. V. Oabr C. a. [19C0] W, N. 238 
 
 APPEAL — continued. 
 — Costs — ^Appeals. 
 
 See Cases under Costs. 
 
 ■ County Courts. 
 
 See County Court- 
 
 -Appeal. 
 
 7. — " Criminal cause or matter '' — Company 
 — Default in forwarding list of members to 
 Registrar — Companies Act, 1862 (25 <fc 26 Vict. c. 
 89), ss. 26, 27— Judicature Act, 1873 (;-:6 & 37 
 Vict. c. 66), s. 47. 
 
 An application to a magistrate for a summons 
 against a Co., to recover penalties for default in 
 forwarding a list of its members to the registrar 
 of joint stock companies, as required by s. 26 of 
 the Companies Act, 1862, is a criminal pro- 
 ceeding. Therefore, the judgment of the Q. B. 
 Div. on an application for a mandamus directing 
 the magistrate to hear the summons is a judg- 
 ment in a " criminal cause or matter " within 
 s. 47 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and no appeal 
 lies therefrom to the C. A. Eeg. v. Tyler and 
 THE International Commercial Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 588 
 
 8. — " Criminal cause or matter " — Contempt 
 of Court. 
 
 An order was made for the attachment of a 
 trustee for .contempt in disobeying an order made 
 for his attendance before a special examiner in 
 an administration action under O. Lxvn., r. 4. 
 
 Semble, that the contempt was not so far of a 
 criminal nature as to make the order for attach- 
 ment one made in a criminal cause or matter 
 within s. 47 of the Judicature Act, 1873. In re 
 Evans. Evans v. Noton (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 2S2 
 
 Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. D. v. A. & 
 Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484, 488. 
 
 9. — "Criminal cause or matter'' — Libd — 
 Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. u. 66), e. 50— 
 E. S. C, Order Lxriil., r. 1. 
 
 An order was made by a judge at chambers, 
 under s. 8 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 
 1888, allowing a criminal prosecution to be com- 
 menced against the proprietors of a newspaper 
 for a libel published therein : 
 
 Held, that the order was made in a criminal 
 
 proceeding, and was not subject to the B. S. C. as 
 
 to appeal from chambers, and that no appeal 
 
 therefrom lay to the Div. Ct. Ex parte Polbbook 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 86 
 
 10. — " Criminal cause or matter " — Nuisance 
 —Judicature Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 47 
 —Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 ss. 91, 96. 
 
 The Q. B. Div. refused to grant an order nisi 
 for a mandamus to compel a stipendiary magis- 
 trate who had made an order under s. 96 of the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, for the abatement of a 
 nuisance, to state a ease for the opinion of the 
 Court : — 
 
 Held, that the decision of the Q. B. Div. was 
 given in a "criminal cause or matter" within 
 s. 47 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and therefore 
 that the C. A. had no jurisdiction to entertain 
 the application for a mandamus. jEx parte 
 ScHOFiELD - C. A. [1891] 2 a. B. 428 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. /Seaman v. Burley, 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 344, 347. See next Case. 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 APPEAL— continued. 
 
 II. — " Criminal Cause or matter" — Poor-rate 
 —Application for distress warrant — Case stated hy 
 Justices — Appeal to Court of Appeal — Judicature 
 Act (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 47. 
 
 A judgment upon a special case stated by 
 justices on an application to enforce payment of a 
 poor-rate by warrant of distress is a judgment in 
 a criminal cause or matter -withm s. 47 of the 
 Judicature Act, 1873,inasmuoli as the proceedings 
 before the justices may end in imprisonment of 
 the person in default; and therefore an appeal 
 will not lie to the C. A. from the judgment of 
 the Q. B. Div. on such a case. Seaman v. Bukley 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 344 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Southwarh and Vauxliall 
 Water Co. v. Hampton Urban Council [1899] 
 I Q. B. 273, 276; [1900] A. 0. 8. 
 
 — Criminal suit against rector for non-repair of 
 
 chn noel— Jurisdiction. 
 
 Bee Ecclesiastical Law. 57. 
 
 — Cross-notice — Cross-appeal — Counter-claim — 
 
 Separate causes of action. 
 
 See Patent — Joint Grant. 13. 
 
 — Crown Lands Acts — Reference by Land Ap- 
 
 peal Court to Supreme Court — Eifect of 
 
 decision. 
 
 See New South Wales. 17. 
 
 — Divorce — Irish divorce bill — Substituted 
 
 service. 
 
 See No. 20, helovo. 
 
 — Divorce — Leave to appeal to House of Lords. 
 
 See DivoKOB — Co-respondent. 89. 
 
 — Election law. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 13. — Election, municipal — .Case stated on 
 petition. 
 
 There is no appeal from a decision of the High 
 Court on a case stated under the Municipal 
 Corporations Act, 1882, except by special leave 
 of that Court. Unwin v. MoMullen 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 694 
 
 13. — Election, parliamentary — Petition — 
 Question of law — Judicature Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict c. 68) s. 14. Corrupt and Illegal Practices 
 Prevention Act (46 * 47 Vict. c. 51) ss. 40, 56. 
 
 A Div. Ct. consisting of two election judges 
 rescinded an order made under s. 40 of the 
 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 
 1883, for the amendment of an election petition, 
 on the ground that the judge who made it, not 
 being on the rota of election judges, had no 
 jurisdiction : — 
 
 Held, that the decision was one of law within 
 s. 14 of the Judicature Act, 1881, and therefore 
 no appeal lay except by special leave of the Div. 
 Ct. Shaw v. Eeckitt 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B 779 ; 
 C. A. [1893] 2 a. B. 69 
 
 14, — "Final order" — Summons in adminis- 
 tration action — Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. u. 16), «. 1 (a) (ot.). 
 
 A summons in an administration action to 
 adjust loss from breach of trust is " in the nature 
 of a final appeal " within s. 1 (a) (vi.) of the 
 Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894 : 
 
 Semhh, that pending the making of rules 
 
 A'PV'E&L— continued. 
 
 under that section leave to appeal is not neces- 
 sary. Ohillingwoeth v. Chambers (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 136 (6) 
 
 — Forma Pauperis. 
 
 See Pbaotice— Forma Pauperis. 23—28. 
 
 16. — Garnishee order — " Practice and pro- 
 cedure " — Appeal from judge at chambers — Judi- 
 cature (Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 16), 
 ». 1, sub-s. 4. 
 
 A garnishee order is a "matter of practice 
 and procedure" within s. 1, sub-s. 4, of tlie Judi- 
 cature (Procedure) Act, 1 894, and an appeal from 
 a judge at chambers making a garnishee order 
 absolute must be to the C. A. Hockley v. 
 Ansah - Div. Ct. [1896] W. N. 70 
 
 16. — Habeas corpus — Infant — Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. e. 66), s. 16. 
 
 An appeal lies to the C. A. under s. 16 of the 
 Judicature Act, 1873, from an order absolute of 
 the Q. B. Div. directing the issue of a writ of 
 habeas corpus to bring before the Court an infant 
 who is alleged to be under the custody or control 
 of a person not entitled thereto. 
 
 (a) Baenabdo v. Fokd. Gossage's Case 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 326 
 
 (b) Babnakdo v. MoHugh 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. 0. 388 
 But see the Custody of Children Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. 0. 3), s. 3. 
 
 — House of Lords — Costs. 
 
 See below, Nos. 17-23. 
 
 — House of Lords — Coots — Jurisdiction over 
 
 costs. 
 
 See PooE Law — Guardians. L 
 
 17. — House of Lords — Costs of successful 
 pauper appellant in House of Lords. 
 
 On taxation of a pauper appellant's costs of a 
 successful appeal, the fees of the House and the 
 fees of counsel are to be disallowed, and the 
 solicitor is to have his costs out of pocket with 
 a reasonable allowance to cover ofBc« expenses, 
 including clerks, &c. Johnson v. Lindsay & Co. 
 (No. 2) - - H. 1. (E.) [1892] A. C. 110 
 
 See Johnson v. Lindsay & Co. (No. 1), [1891] 
 A. 0. 371. 
 
 Eeferred to by Jeune, P. Bichardson v. 
 Richardson, [1895] P. 276, 279; C. A. [1895] 
 P. 346. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Mxparte Salomon, 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 858. But this case was reversed by 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 212. 
 
 18. — House of Lords — Finding of fact. 
 
 The House will not disturb a finding of fact 
 in which both the Courts below have concurred, 
 unless it can be clearly shewn that such finding 
 was erroneous. 
 
 (A.) Owners of the "P. Caland" v. Gla- 
 morgan Steamship Co. The " P. Caland." 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 207 
 (b.) MoIntyee Beothebs v. MoGavin 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 268, 272 
 
 19. — House of Lords — Ireland — Appeal to 
 House of Lords from interlocutory order of Court 
 of Appeal in Ireland — Jurisdiction — Appellate 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), 
 
 2 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891— 1900. 
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 APPEAL — continued. 
 
 ss. 3, 12— Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877 (40 <fc 41 
 
 Vict. c. 57), 8. 86. 
 
 No appeal lies to the H. L. from an inter- 
 locutory order of the Q. B. Div. in Ireland, or 
 from an order on appeal therefrom made by the 
 C. A. in Ireland. Judgment of C. A. Eeg. 
 (Earl of G oxford) v. Irish Land Commission, 
 [1899] 2 I. E. 399, affirmed. Eabl of Gosfobd 
 V. Irish Laud Commission 
 
 H. I, (I.) [1899] A, C. 436 
 
 20. — House of Lords — Irish divorce bill — 
 Substituted service. 
 
 Substituted service of copy of bill for divorce 
 with notice of the second reading allowed on 
 wife's parents, tlie whereabouts of the wife being 
 unknown ami the parents refusing all information. 
 Fleming's Divobce Bill 
 
 H. L. (I,) [1893] W. N. 93 
 
 21. — Houseof Lords — Material facts — Appeal 
 to the House of Lords — All material facts to be 
 found by Court of Session — Jurisdiction - Scottish 
 law — Judicature (Scotland) Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 120), 8. 40. 
 
 To give effect to s. 40 of the Scottish Judica- 
 ture Act, 1825, in eases arising in the Sheriff 
 Courts in Scotland, the Inner House of the Ct. of 
 Sess. ought to find in their interlocutor all the 
 material facts; else the parties in the H. L. may 
 be deprived of a hearing, or at least of an 
 arguable point ; for the House cannot in such an 
 appeal hear an argument upon a fact not found 
 in the interlocutor appealed from : and the only 
 remedy is — unless the parties agree as to the 
 facts — for the House to remit the case back to 
 the Ct. of Sess. to pronounce a finding on the 
 fact or facts in question. Glasgow Cobforation 
 V. J. & J. M'Omish, (1896) 23 R. 896 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1897] W. N. 67 (1) 
 
 22. — House of Lords — Time, Extension of — 
 Appellate jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Viet, 
 c. 59), «. 3, i^. 8. C, Order LVIII., r. 15. 
 
 No appeal lies from a refusal of the C. A. to 
 give leave to appeal where the time limited by 
 Order lviii., r. 15, has expired. Such a refusal 
 is not an order or judgment of the C. A. within 
 the meaning of s. 3 of the Appellate Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1876. Decision of C. A., Esdaile v. Payne 
 (1889), 40 Ch. D. 520 affirmed. Sub nom. Lane 
 V. Esdaile - - H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 210 
 
 23. — House of Lords — Time for appealing — 
 Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. 
 c. 59) ; Standing Order I. 
 
 Under Standing Order I., when there is a 
 competent appeal from an order of the C. A. 
 made within the year, the H. L. can in some 
 cases entertain an appeal from a previous order 
 of the 0. A. made more than a year before. No 
 definite rule can be laid down ; each case must 
 be judged by its own circumstances. Conoha v. 
 Co.NOHA - H. 1. (E.) [1893] A. C. 670 
 
 — Interim injunction. Appeal from — Trespass — 
 
 New South Wales Mining on Private 
 
 Lands Act. 
 
 See New South Wales. 87. 
 
 24. — Interim injunction — Chambers — ''Prac- 
 tice and procedure" — Judicature Act, 1894 (57 & 
 58 Vict. c. 16), B. 1, sub-s. 4. 
 
 APPEAL — continued. 
 
 A summons for on interim injunction till 
 trial is a matter of "practice and procedure," 
 within the Judicature Act, 1894, s. 1 (4), and 
 the appeal from the judge in chambers lies to 
 the 0. A. and not to the Div. Ct. McHahg v. 
 tluiVEBSAL Stock Exchange, Ld. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 81 
 
 25. — Interlocutory order — Leave to appeal — 
 Liberty of subject — Hefusal to commit — Practice — 
 Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act 
 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 16), «. 1 (6), (i). 
 
 A judge having refused an application for the 
 committal of the defts. on the ground of a breach 
 by them of an undertaking which they had given 
 to the Court, and having refused to give leave 
 to appeal : — 
 
 Held, that the liberty of the subject was not 
 concerned, and that an appeal could not be 
 brought without leave, which the 0. A. refused to 
 give. BowDEN V. Yoxall 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. K. 242 
 
 26. — Interlocutory orders made in chambers 
 — Leave to appeal — Judicature (Procedure) Act, 
 1894 (57 <fe 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, sub-s. 1 (b). 
 
 Several appeals from interlocutory orders in 
 chambers were dismissed with costs through 
 failure to obtain leave to appeal under s. 1 (1) (b) 
 of the above Act. Practice Note 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. IT. 203 
 
 27. — " Interlocutory order or interlocutory 
 judgment " — Ex parte application — Judicature 
 (Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. u. 16), ». I, 
 sub-s. 1 (b), sub-s. 6. 
 
 The C. A., assuming without deciding the 
 point that an order made by a judge of the 
 Ch. Div. holding the claim of a person claiming 
 to be a creditor of a testator and to administer 
 his estate to be valid was an interlocutory order, 
 gave leave to appeal. In re Abdy. Eabbeth v. 
 Donaldson (No. 1) - C. A. [1895] W. N. 12 
 
 28. — Interpleader — Issue tried by judge alone. 
 An appeal lies from the findings on fact of a 
 
 judge who tries an interpleader issue without a 
 jury. Eamsey v. Margkett 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 18, 22 
 
 29. — Interpleader — Summary decision — 
 Common Law Procedure Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict, 
 c. 126), 8. 17— iJ. S. C, 1883, Order lvil, 
 rr. 8, 9, 11. 
 
 Where a judge in interpleader proceedings 
 has decided the case under Order Lvn., i. 9, 
 without directing an issue or stating a special 
 case, his decision is a summary decision within 
 s. 17 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1860, 
 and is not subject to appeal. In re Tarn 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 280 
 
 30. — Judge without jury. Appeal from — 
 Appeal raising questions of fact — Judicature 
 (Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 16), 
 S.1 (b)(i). 
 
 The rehearing on appeal of a case tried by a 
 judge without a jury is not governed by the 
 rules applicable where there has been a trial and 
 verdict by a jury. The 0. A. must act on its 
 own considered conclusion on questions of fact as 
 well as law. Coghlan v. Cbmbebland 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch, 704 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 42 ) 
 
 APPEAL — continued. 
 
 31. — Judge's notes of oral evidence in Court 
 below. 
 
 The Master of the EoUs at the Bitting of the 
 C A. on Nov. 4, 1898, said that a misappre- 
 hension had arisen with reference to certain 
 remarks made by his Lordship during the hearing 
 of this case, noted [1898] W. N. 77 (8), and 
 reported [1898] 2 Ch. 442. The first paragraph 
 tliere given, namely, "It is desirable tliat solici- 
 tors should know that, on an appeal in cases 
 where evidence has been taken orally in the 
 Court below, it is their duty to apply in good 
 time for the judge's notes of evidence," was 
 correct; but the concluding words should read 
 as follows : " If they do so, this Court will apply 
 to the judge for a copy of his notes ; but if, as fre- 
 quently happens, a copy of the notes is applied 
 for just before the appeal comes on for hearing, 
 there is no time to obtain a copy for the use of 
 the C. A., which leads to gi-eat inconvenience." 
 
 See the Annual Practice for 1898, p. 1045, 
 and the Annual Practice for 1899, p. 847; 
 Order Lviii., r. 11, and the notes thereto. In re 
 Batt & Co.'s Registeked Trade-marks. In re 
 Cabtek's Application - C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 701 
 This case was afBimed by H. L. (B.), [1899] 
 A, C. 428. 
 
 — Judicial Committee — Practice. 
 
 See Privy Codnoil — Judicial Com- 
 mittee. 1. 
 - — from Justices. 
 
 See Cases under Justices. 
 
 32. — Leave to appeal, Refusal of — Party dis- 
 satisfied with, award of Arbitrator — Sousing of 
 the Working Classes Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c.'70% 
 Sched. II., d. 26 (o). 
 
 Under the provisions of Sched. II., cl. 26, 
 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 
 empowering appeal from an arbitrator to a jury 
 on a question of compensation, by leave of the 
 High Court or a judge at chambers, there is no 
 appeal to the Div. Ct. from the refusal of the 
 judge in chambers to give such leave. Decision 
 of Div. Ct., [1892] 1 Q. B. 394, affirmed. In re 
 Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. 
 Ex parte Stevenson - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B, 609 
 
 — Leave to, granted under misapprehension of 
 
 fact — Practice. 
 
 See New Zealand. 4. 
 
 33. — Liberty of the subject — Motion to commit 
 — Leave to appeal. 
 
 An appeal lies without leave to the C. A. 
 from the Oh. Div. from a refusal to commit for 
 alleged breach of an injunction as being within 
 the exception in s. 1 (6) (i.) of the Juilicature 
 (Procedure) Act, 1891. Lancashire v. Hunt 
 
 North J. [1895] W. W. 62 
 
 — Licensing Appeals. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts, 
 
 — Liverpool Court of Passage. 
 
 See Liverpool Courts. 1, 2. 
 
 34. — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. 
 c. 41), s. 29— Question for opinion of High Court 
 — Bight of appeal to the Court of Appeal. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the High Court, upon 
 ' questions submitted to them under s. 29 of 
 
 AFFEAli — continued. 
 
 the Local Government Act, 1888, is consultative 
 only, and is not judicial. Consequently no appeal 
 lies from their decision to the C. A. Ex parte 
 County Council oi? Kent and the Councils oe 
 the Boroughs op Dover and Sandwich (No. 2) 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B, 725 
 
 35. — Lunacy — Costs of inquiry. 
 
 An appeal lies, without leave, to the C. A. 
 from a decision of the Lords Justices sitting in 
 Lunacy, directing that the costs of an inquiry 
 into the mental condition of an alleged lunatic 
 should be paid out of the alleged lunatic's estate. 
 In re Oathcabt (No. 1) C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 466 
 — ■ Mayor's Court. 
 
 See London — Mayor's Court. 
 
 — Municipal Corporation — Against refusal of 
 
 licence — Costs of chief constable — 
 
 Borough fund. 
 
 See Coeporation. 10. 
 
 — New trial. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — New Trial. 
 
 36. — Notes of proceedings in Court below — 
 Copies required for use of Divisional Court — 
 Costs — 2'axation — Summary Jurisdiction {Mar- 
 ried Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39). 
 
 Upon appeals under the Summary Jurisdic- 
 tion (Married Women) Act, 1895, it is the duty 
 of the appellant to furnish, for the use of the 
 judges of the Div. Ct., two copies of the notes 
 taken by the clerk of the Court below, and 
 the costs of these copies will be allowed on taxa- 
 tion. Walton v. Walton Div. Ct. [1900] P. 147 
 
 37. — Notes of proceedings in Court below — 
 Duties of magistrates' and justices' clerks — Bight 
 of either party to a copy of notes — Summary Juris- 
 diction (^Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Viet, 
 c. 39). 
 
 Upon the hearing of every summons under 
 the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 
 1895, it is the duty of the clerk to the magistrate 
 or justices to make a note, not only of the evi- 
 dence and of the decision arrived at, but also of 
 the reasons for arriving at the decision, and to 
 furnish a copy of the note upon the application 
 of either party. Cobb v. Cobb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] P. 146 
 
 — Notice of appeal — Extension of time. 
 
 See London— Mayor's Court. 43. 
 
 — Notice of appeal — Poor-rate — Quarter sessions 
 
 — Jurisdiction. 
 /See Bates. 9. 
 
 38. — Official referee. Trial before — Application 
 to Divisional Court — Appeal from Divisional 
 Cowrt^Leave to appeal — Judicature Act, 1894 
 (57 <fe 58 Vict. 0. 16), «. 1, suh-s. 5. 
 
 Where an action has been referred to an 
 official referee, a motion to a Div. Ct. to review 
 the findings of the official referee and to enter 
 judgment accordingly is " an appeal to the High 
 Court from any Court or person" within the 
 meaning of s. 1, sub-s. 5, of the Judicature Act, 
 1894, and the decision of the Div. Ct. is therefore 
 final, unless leave be given to appeal. Daglish 
 t). Barton - - C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 284 
 
 39. — Parties — Appeal iy persons not parties 
 — Leave to appeal — Company — Scheme of arrange- 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 4i 
 
 AFFEAIi — continued. 
 
 ment— Companies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. e. 89), 
 s. 124 — Joint Stoch Companies Arrangement Act, 
 1870 (33 & 34 Tict. c. 104). 
 
 The right of appeal against the order of a 
 judge sanotioning a scheme of arrangement in 
 the matter of a co. is governed by the same con- 
 ditions as appeals fiom decisions in the ordinary 
 jurisdiction of the Court. 
 
 A judge made an order sanctioning a scheme 
 of arrangement under the Joint Stocli Companies 
 Arrangement Act, 1870. Persons appealed who 
 were Interested as creditors, but who had not 
 opposed the scheme at the meeting of creditors, 
 nor appeared before the judge, nor obtained leave 
 to appeal : — 
 
 Held, that, as the appellants were not parties 
 
 to the proceedings, they could not according to 
 
 the Chancery practice appeal without the leave 
 
 of the Court. In re Securities Insceanoe Co. I 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 410 
 
 40. — Parties to appeal — Bespondent trustee 
 supporting appeal. 
 
 The rule that a respondent to an appeal 
 cannot be heard by counsel in support of the 
 appellant's case may be relaxed in favour of a 
 respondent trustee who supports an appeal by a 
 tenant for life under s. 10 of the Settled Land 
 Act, 1890. Jft re Makquis of Ailesbtjry's 
 Settled Estates (No. 1) C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 606 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) Suh. nam. Bruce v. 
 Marquis of Ailesbury, [1892] A. C. 356. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Hope, [1899] 
 2 Ch. 679, 689. 
 
 — Petition of right — Appeal from judgment on 
 
 Practice. 
 
 See Canada. 6. 
 
 — Poor-rates. 
 
 See Cases under Eates. 
 
 — Privy Council Appeals. 
 
 See Pbivy Codnoil. 
 
 ,41. — Quarter Sessions — Case stated under 
 Quarter Sessions Act, 1849 (12 * 13 Vict. c. 45), 
 s. n— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), 
 s. 19. 
 
 The entry of judgment in an appeal at 
 quarter sessions in accordance with the decision 
 of a Div. Ct. on a case stated under the Quarter 
 Sessions Act, 1849, s. 11, does not prevent an 
 appeal against the decision to the C. A. under 
 the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 19. 
 
 Corporation of Peterhorougli v.. Wihthorpe 
 Overseers, (1883) 12 Q. B. D. 1, and Holborn 
 Guardians v. Chertsey Guardians, (1885) 15 
 Q. B. D. 76, followed. Lodge v. Hcddeesfield 
 Cokpoeation - - C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 859 
 
 — to Quarter sessions — Order for maintenance — 
 
 Practice. 
 
 See PooE Law. 9. 
 
 — Kates. 
 
 See Cases under Eates. 
 
 — Eefusal of Appellate Court to interfere with 
 
 discretion of Ordinary — Faculty. 
 See EocLESiASTiOAL Law. 35. 
 • — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament — Franchise. 
 
 APPEAL — continued. 
 
 — Eehearing in Court of Appeal — Trial without 
 
 See Peactioe — Trial. 
 
 25. 
 
 — Eeview. 
 
 See Peaotioe — Eeview. 
 
 — Eefusal to commit. 
 
 See above. No. 25. 
 
 42. — Eefusal to vary minutes. 
 
 There is no appeal to the C. A. from the 
 refusal of a judge to vary minutes of judgment. 
 James v. Jones - C. A. [1892] W. N. 104 
 
 — Eight of — Laws of Natal — Licensing officer — 
 
 Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. 
 See Natal. 5. 
 
 — Eight of appeal — Jurisdiction to rehear — ^Laws 
 
 of New Zealand. 
 
 See New Zealand. 8. 
 
 43. — School hoard, election — Petition — Inter- 
 locutory order — Appeal to Court of Appeal — Muni- 
 cipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), 
 Part IV., s. 93, sub-s. 7 — Municipal Elections 
 (Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act), ISSi (47(648 
 Vict. c. 70), s. 36— General Rules, 1883, foi- the 
 execution of Part IV. of the Municipal Corpora- 
 tions Act, 1882, rules 48, 57. 
 
 From an order of a judge at chambers in an 
 interlocutory application arising in a school 
 board election petition an appeal lies to the 0. A. 
 
 LOED MONKSWELL V. THOMPSON 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 35S 
 
 — Service — Essential particulars. 
 
 See Teade-mark. 10. 
 
 44. — Single judge, of Court of Appeal, Order 
 of— Judicature Acts, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 60), 
 s. 52 ; 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, sub-s. 1 (/)). 
 
 A motion to discharge or vary an order of a 
 single judge of the C. A. made under s. 52 of 
 Judicature Act, 1873, is not an "appeal" wilbin 
 s. 1 (1) (&) of the Judicature Act, 1894, and does 
 not require the leave of the judge or of the C. A. 
 Boyd v. Bisohoffsheim C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 45. — "Practice and procedure" — Solicitor's 
 bill of costs — Burieio — Taxation — Judicature 
 {Procedure) Act, 1891 (57 A- 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, 
 sub-ss. 1, 4, 5— B. S. a. Order LIW, r. 23. 
 
 A summons to review the taxation of a 
 solicitor's bill of costs is a "matter of practice 
 and procedure " within the Judicature Act, 1894, 
 and an appeal from the judge in chambers lies to 
 C. A. and not to Div. Ct. In re Oddt 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 a. B. 392 
 — • Special case — Proceedings extra cursum curise. 
 See Peactice — Special Case. 244. 
 
 — Special leave given at the hearing — Practice. 
 
 See Natal. 4. 
 
 — Special leave to appeal — Condition as to 
 
 costs. 
 
 See Canada. 15. 
 
 — Special leave to appeal in criminal eases — 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 See Japan. 1. 
 
 46. — Stamp — Objection — Muling of judge at 
 trial — B. S. C, Order xxxix., r. 8. 
 
 Where a judge, trying an action without a 
 jury, rules that the stamp upon any document is 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 46 ) 
 
 APPEAL — continued. 
 
 sufficient, or that the document does not require 
 a stamp, the decision is final, and no appeal lies 
 to the 0. A. by way of application for a nonsuit, 
 or to enter judgment, or for a new trial. Blewitt 
 V. Teitton' - - C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 3Z7 
 
 47. — Stay of inquiries. 
 
 A stay of inquiries directed by a judgment 
 pending an appeal will be granted only under 
 very special circumstances. Shaw v. Holland 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 305 
 — Summary Jurisdiction Acts. 
 
 See Husband ajjd Wife — Summary 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 48. — Time for appealing. Extension of — 
 Alteration of law since judgment — Costs of solici- 
 tor-mortgagee. 
 
 A solicitor-mortgagee who had, by a judgment 
 given before the passing of the Mortgagees Legal 
 Costs Act, 1895, been held not to be entitled to 
 charge profit costs against his mortgagor, applied 
 after the passing of the Act for an extension of 
 the time for appealing against the judgment, on 
 the ground that s. 3 of the Act is retrospective in 
 its operation : — 
 
 Held, that the Act was not intended to affect 
 judgments given before it was passed, and that 
 there was no ground (for extending the time. 
 Eyre v. ■Wtnn-Maokeszie (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 135 
 
 49. — Time for appealing — Befusal of an 
 application — Judgment or order refusing part and 
 granting part of relief sought — B. S. C., 1883, 
 Order L vil., t. 15. 
 
 A judgment or order refusing part and grant- 
 ing part of the relief sought is not the " refusal 
 of an application " within the meaning of Order 
 LviiL, r. 15, so as to cause the time for appealing 
 to run from the date of its making. Shelfeb v. 
 City op London Bleotbio Lightins Co. Meux's 
 Bheweey Co. v. The Same (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287 ; [1895] 2 Ch. 388 
 
 50. — Time for appealing — Final or interlocu- 
 tory order — Dismissal of action as frivolous — 
 B. S. C, Order LViu., r. 3 ; Order zxv., rr. 2, 3. 
 
 On a point of law being raised that the 
 statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, 
 tlie Court dismissed the action with costs : — 
 
 Held, that the order was interlocutory, because 
 the proceeding if given in favour of the pits, 
 would have allowed the action to go on, whereas 
 a final order is one made on such an application 
 or proceeding that for whichever side' the decision 
 is given it will, if it stands, finally determine the 
 matter in litigation. Salaman v. Wabneb 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Q. B. 734 
 
 51. — Time for appealing — Interlocutory order 
 — Interpleader issue, judgment on — B. S. C, Order 
 LVIIL, r. 15; Order LTJi., r. 13 — An appeal from 
 the. 
 
 Decision of a judge on an interpleader issue 
 tried by him without a jury must, under Order 
 Lvm,, r. 15, be brought within twenty-one days. 
 
 McNaIE & Co. I/. AUDBNSHAW PaINT AND COLOUK 
 
 Co. - - - C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 502 
 
 52. — Time for appealing — Interlocutory order 
 — Order or summons in administration action — 
 
 AFFEAl — continued. 
 
 B. S. C, Order LViii., r. 15—Bules of Nov. 
 
 1893. 
 
 In an administration action by the order on 
 further consideration subsequent further con- 
 sideration was adjourned. Four months later, on 
 a summons by the pits., certain annuities were 
 declared to be charged on the residue : — 
 
 Held, that this was an interlocutory order, and 
 must be appealed against within fourteen days 
 of its being passed and entered. In re Gaednek. 
 LoNa V. Gabdnee (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1894] "W. N. 159 
 
 53. — Time for appealing — Judgments per- 
 fected hefore new rule came into operation — 
 B. S. C, 1883, Order LVIII., r. 15— J?. S. C, 1893, 
 r. 27. 
 
 The amended rule of Nov., 1893, which 
 substitutes fourteen days for twenty-one in case 
 of appeal to C. A. from an interlocutory order, 
 and ''three months" for "one year" in other 
 cases, does not apply to judgments perfected before 
 Jan. 1, 1594, the day on which the amended rules 
 came into force. Budgett v. Budgett (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 555 
 — Trade-mark. 
 
 See Cases under Teade-maek. 
 
 54. — Trial without jury — Decision on fads — 
 Beliearing. 
 
 Per Lopes L.J. :— Where a case tried by a 
 judge without a jury comes to the C. A., the pre- 
 sumption is that the decision of the Court below 
 on the facts was right, and that presumplion- 
 must be displaceJ by tlio appellant. If he 
 satisfactorily makes out that the judge below 
 was wrong, then, inasmuch as the appeal is in 
 the nature of a rehearing, the decision should be 
 reversed : if the case is left in doubt, it is clearly 
 the duty of the C. A. not to disturb the decision 
 of the Court below. Savage v. Adam 
 
 C. A. [1895] W, N. 109 (11) 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Colonial Securities 
 Trust Co. V. Massey, [1896] 1 Q. B. 38. 
 
 Applicable. Sindson v. Ashhy, 0. A. [1896] 
 2 Ch. 1, 18. 
 
 55. — Trial without jury — Beliearing in Court 
 of Appeal — Decision of judge on facts — Weight to 
 he given to decision. 
 
 Where a case tried by a judge without a jury 
 comes before the C. A., that Court will presume 
 that the decision of the judge on the facts was 
 right, and will not disturb it unless the appellant 
 satisfactorily makes out that it was wrong (jier 
 Lord Esher M.E. and Lopes L.J.). 
 
 Per Kay L. J.: tinder Order LVin. the 0. A.- 
 is bound to try the case and give the judgment 
 which ought to have been given, though in a 
 doubtful case the judgment of the Court below 
 on the facts is entitled to great weight. Colonial 
 Sbooeities Teust Co. v. Massey 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 a. B. 38 
 
 Applicable. Sindson v. Ashhy, C. A. [1896] 
 2 Ch. 1, 18. 
 
 56. — Two judges — Power for two judges to 
 hear appeals or motions, see Judicature Act, 1899 
 (62 Vict. V. 6). 
 
 This was the first case heard before two 
 judges of the C. A. under this Act. Before the 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 48 ) 
 
 APPEAL— contmitecZ. 
 
 case was entered on the list for hearing before 
 two judges, the necessary consent was filed 
 under s. 1. That section reserves the same right 
 of appeal to the H. L. as if the hearing and 
 determination had been before three judges. 
 In re Hope. De Oetto v. Hope 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 113 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 679 
 
 — Undertaking by solicitor to repay costs in 
 
 event of suecessful appeal. 
 See SoLioiTOB — Liability. 96. 
 
 — Voters, Registration of 
 
 See Pakliament — Franchise. 30, 31. 
 
 APPEASANCE— Practice. 
 
 See Pbaoiioe — Appearance. 
 
 — Solicitors' right of. 
 
 See SoLioiTOES— Appearance. 
 
 — Writ — • Undertaking by solicitor to enter 
 
 appearance — Duration. 
 
 See Peactioe — Undertaking. 273. 
 
 APPOINTMENT— Arbitrator. 
 
 See Akbitration — Arbitrator. 7, 8. 
 
 — Assistant overseer — Eight to rate-books. 
 
 See Pakish Council. 2. 
 
 — Auditor. 
 
 See Company — Audit. 
 
 — Colonial trustee — Form of order. 
 
 See Settled Land — Trustees. 129. 
 
 — Directors. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Directors. 
 
 — Fishery ofBoers — Conditions as to expenditure. 
 
 See FiSHEBT. 3. 
 
 — Jointure on second marriage — Dissolution of 
 
 first marriage. 
 
 See Settlement. 28. 
 
 — Liquidator. 
 
 See Cases under Company— "WiNDiNG-up 
 — Liq^nidator. 
 
 — New trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Teustee. 
 
 — Power of appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Powees. 
 
 — Probate practice. 
 
 See Cases under Peg bate. 
 
 — Receiver. 
 
 See Cases under Eeoeivek. 
 
 — Recital — Estoppel — Construction of settle- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Settlement — ^Validity. 33. 
 
 — Settled land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Subsequent surrender of life interest — Estate 
 
 duty. 
 
 See EBYENnE — Estate Duty. 41, 42. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Tbustee — Appointment. 
 
 — Trustee in bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy — Trustee. 241, 212. 
 
 APPOETIONMENT —Assets —Residue — Se ttled 
 shares. 
 See Teustee. 17. 
 
 — Assets — Specialty and simple contract debts — 
 
 Crown debt. 
 
 See Execution — Insolvent Estate. 38. 
 
 APPOETIONMENT— cojsWnued. 
 
 — Breach of trust — Mortgage of trust estate 
 
 along with trustee's own property. 
 See Trustee— Breach of Trust. 38. 
 
 — Contribution. 
 
 See Insubanoe — Marine. 47. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Costs. 
 
 — Dividends — Public company — Income or 
 
 capital. 
 
 See Will. 76. 
 
 — Dock charges and expenses — Contribution — 
 
 Ship docked for repair of sea damage. 
 See Insurance — Marine. 47. 
 
 — Dock charges and expenses — Ship surveyed 
 
 while in dock for Lloyd's classification. 
 See Insurance — Marine. 47. 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 15 — 18. 
 
 — Mortgage. 
 
 See Mortgage — Apportionment. 
 
 — Partnership action — Costs. 
 
 See Costs — Apportionment. 13. 
 
 — Paving, &c., expenses. 
 
 See Cases under London — Streets. 
 Steeets. 
 
 — Rates — Contribution for special purpose — 
 
 County rate basis. 
 
 See Rates — EateabUity. 16. 
 
 — Remuneration — Director— Qualificationshares. 
 
 See Company — Director. 182. 
 
 — Rent in company winding-up. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Proof. 209. 
 
 1. — Rent, annuities, dividends, and other 
 payments in the nature of income — Landlord and 
 tenant — Bent payable in advance — Apportionment 
 on eviction — Apportionment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Vict. c. 35), s. 2. 
 
 The pit. let a house to the deft, at a yearly 
 rent payable quarterly in advance. By the 
 terms of the agreement, if the rent should be in 
 arrcEir for fourteen days, or on breach by the deft, 
 of any of the clauses of the agreement, the pit. 
 was to be at liberty to re- enter on giving notice. 
 A quarter's rent being in arrear, the pit. gave 
 the required notice, and re-entered. In an action 
 to recover the unpaid rent : — 
 
 Seld, that the Apportionment Act, 1870, does 
 not apply to rent, annuities, dividends, and other 
 payments in the nature of income, which have 
 accrued due before the happening of the event 
 by reason of which it is proposed to apply the 
 Act; that the Act, therefore, does not apply to 
 rent payable in advance; and that the pit. was 
 entitled to recover the whole amount. Ellis v. 
 RowBOTHAM - - C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 740 
 
 — Rent-cliarge — Acreage or value. 
 
 See Kent-chaeqe. 1. 
 
 — Salvage. 
 
 See Shipping— Salvage. 223, 224. 
 
 — Sewering, expenses of — Streets. 
 
 See Sewers — Costs. 20. 
 
 — Statutes of Limitations — Settlement. 
 
 See Limitatioxs, Statute op. 34. 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 50 ) 
 
 APPORTIONMENT— con^inMed. 
 
 — Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 See Settled Land — Apportionment. 9, 
 11-15. 
 
 — Tithe — Order for removal of parish, documents 
 
 — Justices — Jurisdiction. 
 See Pakish Codncil — Custody of Docu- 
 ments. 1. 
 
 3. — Will — Construction — " Whole income " — 
 AppoHionment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. e. 85), 
 ». 7. 
 
 A testator directed the whole of the income 
 of stocks, out of wliioh his wife was entitled to 
 an annuity, should be paid to her during widow- 
 hood : — 
 
 Seld, that he had expressly stipulated, within 
 the meaning of s. 7 of the Apportionment Act, 
 that the Act shouH not apply. In re Mebedith. 
 Stone v. Mebedith North J. [1898] W. N. 48 (1) 
 
 APPBENTICE— Breae/i of covenant hy master. 
 
 To an action for breach of covenant in an 
 apprenticeship deed, to keep, teach and maintain 
 the apprentice, it is a good defence that the 
 apprentice, while in the master's ser?ice, was an 
 habitual thief. Learoyd v. Brook 
 
 A. L. Smith J. [1891] 1 Q. B, 431 
 
 — Earnings of — Measure of compensation. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Compen- 
 sation, 21. 
 
 — Infant's benefit — Contract not for — Employers 
 
 and Workmen Act, 1875. 
 See Infant. 5. 
 
 2. — Infant's ienefit — Employers and Work- 
 men Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. e. 90), ss. 5, 6. 
 
 A clause in an apprenticeship deed provided 
 that the master need not pay wages to the 
 apprentice (an infant) during any lock-out of 
 his workmen, but gave liberty to the apprentice 
 to get work elsewhere : — 
 
 JSdd, that the provision was so mucli to the 
 detriment of the infant that tlie apprenticeship 
 deed was not enforceable. Corn v. Matthews 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B, 310 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Green v. Thompson. 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 1, 5. 
 
 3. — Matter a corporation. 
 
 A contract of apprenticeship is not invalid by 
 reason of the fact that the master to whom the 
 apprentice is bound is a corporation. Bubnlet 
 Equitable Co-operative and Industrial So- 
 ciETT, Ld. v. Casson Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 75 
 
 — Pauper children. 
 
 See Poor Law — Statutes and Orders. 
 
 4. — Payment of premium hy infant appren- 
 tice. 
 
 A covenant under seal was entered into by 
 an infant, with the consent of his guardian, that 
 he would pay what was held to be a reasonable 
 premium, if he were taught the business to which 
 he was apprenticed. The master sued the infant 
 on the covenant : — 
 
 Held, that the infant was liable for necessary 
 instruction duly provided as for ordinary neoes- 
 aaries supplied, and that the covenant did not 
 defeat such liability. Walter v. Everard 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 369 
 
 APPRENTICE— oOTiii'n ued. 
 
 — Qualified lighterman. 
 
 See Thames. 4. 
 
 APPROPRIATION- Annuity— Married women— 
 Bostraint on anticipation. 
 See Annuity. 8. 
 
 — Assets — Eesidue. 
 
 See ExEOUTOB — Powers. 46. 
 
 — Bankrupt's pay or salary — Retired officer — 
 
 Pension. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 48. 
 
 1. — Debtor and creditor — Payments — Right 
 to appropriate — Intention of creditor. 
 
 When a debtor pays money on account to his 
 creditor and makes no appropriation to particular 
 items, the creditor has the right of appropriation 
 and may exercise the right up to the last moment, 
 by action or otherwise; the application of the 
 money is governed, not by any rigid rule of law, 
 but by the intention of the creditor, expressed, 
 implied or presumed. The rule in Clayton's Case, 
 (1816) 1 Mer. 585, does not apply to a case where 
 there is no account current between the parties, 
 nor where from an account rendered or other 
 circumstances it appears that the creditor in- 
 tended, not to make any appropriation, but to 
 reserve the right. 
 
 Decision of C. A. reversed. Cory Brothers 
 AND Co. V. Owners op Turkish Steamship 
 " Mecca " - H. I. (E.) [1897] A. C. 286 
 
 See also Shipping — Necessaries. 180. 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Mutton v. Peat, 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 556, 560. 
 
 — Money as payment — Guarantee — Proof 
 
 See Bankruptcy— Proof. 172. 
 
 — Payments — Account. 
 
 See Banker. 1. 
 
 — Payments— Partial ademption. 
 
 See Will — Ademption. 18. 
 
 — To provide for deferred legacies. 
 
 See Executor. 1. 
 
 — Stockbroker — Clients' securities [deposited to 
 
 secure broker's indebtedness — Several 
 
 accounts — Eights of owner of deposited 
 
 securities. 
 
 See Banker. 25. 
 
 ARBITRATION. 
 
 Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49) 
 amends and consolidates the enactments relating 
 to Arbitration. 
 
 Local Government (determination of Differ- 
 ences) Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. v. 9), amends 
 certain provisions of the Local Government Act, 
 1888, with respect to the determination of differ- 
 ences by the Loc. Gov. Bd. 
 
 Conciliation Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 30) 
 makes better provision for the prevention and 
 settlement of trade disputes. 
 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. c. 37) — Bule as to appointment of new arbitra- 
 tor under the. W. N. 1898 (Sept. 10), p. 315. As 
 to fees. W. N, 1898 (Deo. 17), p, 407. See Current 
 Index, 1898, pp. cvii., cxzziz. 
 Generally, col. 51. 
 Agreement to Refer, col. 53. 
 Arbitrator, col. 53. 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 52 ) 
 
 ARBITRATION— coniOTuer?. 
 Award, col. 57. 
 Costs, col. 61. 
 Official Eeferee, col. 62. 
 Scottish Law. See Cases iiuder AiiBi- 
 
 TKATION. 
 
 Special Eeferee, col. 03. 
 Slaying Proceedings, col. 65. 
 Submission, col. 60. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Agricultural Holdings Acts — Settlement of 
 
 differences by arbitration and rules 
 
 therefor. 
 
 See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), a. 2. 
 
 — Agricultural Holdings England Act, 1883. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and Tenant 
 —Agricultural Holdings. 
 
 — Building Society. 
 
 See BuiLDiNS Society — Arlitration. 
 
 — Charge for use of sidings — Eight of action — 
 
 Eailway and Canal Traffic Act. 
 See Railway — Sidings. 60. 
 
 — Drainage works — Eemedy by arbitration. 
 
 'See Canada. 45. 
 
 — Differences between local authorities. 
 
 See Local Goveknment. 5. 
 
 — Inclosure Act — Presumption that bed of river 
 
 ad medium filum passes. 
 See Watee. 41, 45. 
 
 1. — Matter of account — Jurisdiction — Arid- 
 tration Act, 1889 (52 & 63 Viet. c. 49), s. 14 (c). 
 
 If the Court think that any part of a case 
 does or may involve a matter of account, the 
 ■whole case may be compulsorily referred under 
 the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 14 (c), although ia 
 certain events it may become unnecessary to 
 determine the matter of account. Huklbatt v. 
 Barnett & Co. - ■- C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 77 
 . — Mayor's Court of London. 
 
 See London — Mayor's Court. 43, 4,5. 
 
 — Partners. 
 
 See Partnehship — Arbitration. 
 
 2. — PartnersMp — JDissolution. 
 
 The question whether there ought to be a 
 dissolution of partnership is one which ought not 
 to be referred to arbitration, whether it is or is 
 not strictly within the terms of the arbitration 
 clause of the partnership articles. Ttjrnell v. 
 Sanderson - Kekewich J. [1891] "W. N. 71 
 
 — Paving expenses — As to apportionment of 
 
 paving expenses. 
 
 See Streets — Paving, &c., Expenses. 
 21, 24. 
 
 3. — Receiver — Arhilration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 
 Vict. c. 49), 6. 4. 
 
 A partnership contract contained a clause for 
 submission of disputes to arbitration. An action 
 was brought for dissolution in which cross- 
 motions were made for a receiver, and to stay all 
 proceedings, under s. 4 of the Act of 1889, pend- 
 ing arbitration : — 
 
 Held, that although the application for a 
 receiver could not be granted as of right, the 
 
 ARBITRATION (Generally)— coniinued. 
 Court had a discretion to appoint: one, notwith- 
 standing the arbitration clause. PiNi v. Eon- 
 OORONI - Stirling J. [1892] 1 Ch. 633 
 
 — Salvage — Principles of assessment of award. 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 234. 
 
 4. — "Step in the proceedings" — Ariitralion 
 Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. u. 49), ». i—B. S. C, 
 Order XT,, r. 1 (6). 
 
 A " step in the proceeding," within s. 4 of tlie 
 Arbitration Act, 1889, means some application ti} 
 the Court by summons or motion, and does not 
 include an application from one party to anotlier. 
 Ives & Bahker v. Willans Kekewich J. [1894] 
 1 Ch. 68 ; affirm, by C. A, [1894] 2 Ch. 478 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Bartlett v. Ford's Hotel 
 Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 850, 852. 
 
 Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. v. 49), 
 s. 4 — Order LXIV., r. 8. 
 
 Therefore (a) an application by letter, under 
 Order lxiv., r. 8, for enlargement of time for 
 putting in a defence is not such a "slep." 
 BmsHTOs Marine Palace and Pier Co. v. 
 WOODHOCSE - North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 486 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Ives and Barlcer 
 V, Willans, [1894] 1 Ch, 68, This case wps 
 afBrm. by C. A., [1894] 2 Ch. 478. 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Bartlett v. Ford's Hotel 
 Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 850, 852. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Zalinqff v. Ham- 
 mond, [1898] 2 Ch. 92, 95. 
 
 Nor (b) is the requiring the delivery of a 
 statement of claim. Ives & Barkee v. Willans, 
 supra. 
 
 And (o) so is an application for leave to 
 
 administer interrogatories. Chappell v. Noetu 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q, B. 252 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Ives and Barlur 
 V, Willans, [1894] 1 Ch. 68 ; affirmed by C. A., 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 478. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Bartlett v. Ford's 
 Hotel Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 850, 851. 
 
 6. — " Step in the proceedings " — Application 
 for extension of time — Arbitration Act, 1889 
 (c. 49), s. 4 — Appeal to House of Lords — Leave to 
 appeal — Practice— Procedure— Supreme Court of 
 Judicature {Procedure) Act, 1894 (c. 16), s. 1, 
 suh-s. 1— Arbitration Ad,, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict, 
 c. 49), s. 4 — Supreme Court of Judicature (Pro- 
 cedure) Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, 
 suh-s. 1. 
 
 Where a defendant takes out a summons and 
 obtains an order for further time for delivering 
 his defence, he " takes a step in the proceedings " 
 within the meaning of the Arbitration Act, 1889, 
 s, 4, and is not afterwards entitled to apply under 
 that section for a ttay on the ground that the 
 proceedings were brought in respect of a matter 
 agreed to be referred. 
 
 Decision of tlie C. A. ([1895] 1 Q. B. 850) 
 affirmed. 
 
 The Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) 
 Act, 1894, s. 1, sub-s, 1, which enacts that no 
 appeal shall lie, witliout the leave of the judge 
 or of the C, A,, from certain interlocutory orders 
 or judgments made by a judge, lias no applica- 
 tion to aj'p.als to thc'H, L, from the C. A., and 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 54 ) 
 
 ARBITRATION (Generally)— corafMMiec?. 
 
 does not affect the Appellate Juris'liotion Act, 
 
 1876, s. 3. Foed's Hotel Co. v. Bartlbtt 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 1 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Zalinoff v. Sam- 
 mondi [1898] 2 Ch. 92, 95. 
 
 — "Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 See Cases under Mastee and Seevant. 
 
 Agreement to Refer. 
 
 — Power to expel pjirtner — Validity of notice. 
 
 , See Partnekship — Arbitration. 9. 
 
 6. — Practice — Contract for employment — 
 Wrongful dismissal— Arlitration Act, 1889 (52 & 
 53 Vict. e. 49), s. 4. 
 
 A contract for the eraployment of tlie pit. by 
 the defts. for five years provided, among otlier 
 things, that the defts. might dismiss the pit., if 
 he were guilty of gross misconduct, and that, if 
 any dispute should arise between the defts. and 
 tlie pit. touching their oi his rights or liabilities 
 under the contract, it should be referred to arbi- 
 tration. The defts. dismissed the pit. on the 
 ground of alleged misconduct, and the pit. there- 
 upon brought an action against the defendants 
 claiming damages for wrongful dismissal : — 
 
 Held, that the dispute was withiu the terms 
 of the arbitration clause in the contract, and that 
 reference of the plt.'s claim to arbitration should 
 be enforced under the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 4. 
 
 Davis V. Starr, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 212, distin- 
 guished. Eenshaw VI. Queen Anne Kesidential 
 Mansions and Hotel Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 662 
 
 Followed. Parry v. Liverpool Malt Co., C. A. 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 339, 343. 
 
 Arbitrator. 
 
 — Appointment — Refusal of party to appoint — 
 Jurisdiction of Court to stay action. 
 See AEBiTBATtON — staying Proceedings. 
 59. 
 
 7. — Appointment by Cumt — Fresh arhitrator 
 —ArUtration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), 
 s. 5 (6). 
 
 A contract made before the commencement 
 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, provided for refer- 
 ence of all differences to a stanJing referee, or 
 failing him to a person to be named by a person 
 specified in the contract. It was afterwards 
 agreed that the arbitration should be conducted 
 according to the Act of 1889. The arbitrator 
 made an award and lelt the country. During his 
 absence, further differences having arisen, one of 
 the parties applied to the person specified in the 
 contract to appoint another arbitrator, which was 
 done. The person named objected to act without 
 a judge's order, which was grunted, not to take 
 effect if the original arbitrator should return by 
 a certain day. He did not return till later : — 
 
 Seld, that the case was not one where an 
 appointed arbitrator refused to act or was in- 
 capable of acting within s. 5 (V) of the Arbitra- 
 tion Act, 1889, and therefore that there was no 
 jurisdiction to make an order appointing a fresh 
 arbitrator. In re Wilson & Son and the Eastern 
 Counties Navigation and Transport Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 81 
 
 ARBITRATION (Arbitrator)— codimued. 
 
 8. — Appointment hy Court — Notice to concur 
 —Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 5. 
 
 One of the parties to an agreement to submit 
 differences to a single arbitrator refused to concur 
 in an appointment, after being served with a 
 written notice " to concur in the appointment of 
 a sole arbitrator in the matter " : — 
 
 Held, that the notice being sufficient, the 
 Court was bound on aiDplication to appoint an 
 arbitrator. As a general rule, where the con- 
 ditions exist under which s. 5 of the Arbitration 
 Act, 1889, is applicable, the Court has no discre- 
 tion to refuse to appoint an arbitrator, the word 
 " may " in the section being equivalent to 
 "must" In re Exee and Leicester Corpora- 
 tion 0. A. [1892] 1 a, B, 136 
 
 9. — Arhitrator functus officio — Power to remit 
 matters referred — Practice — Arbitration Act, 1 889, 
 (52 <t- 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 10. 
 
 The Court has power under b. 10 of the 
 Arbitration Act, 1889, to remit the matters 
 referred to the reconsideration of the arbitrator, 
 even altbough the arbitrator be functus officio. 
 In re Steingee and Eiley Beothees 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 240 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Q. B. 105 
 
 10. — Commission to examine witnesses- 
 Judicature Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 100 ; 
 ArUtration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. u. 49), ». 1 ; 
 M. S. C, Order xxxYli., r. 5. 
 
 There is no power under Order xxxvir., r. 5, 
 to direct the issue of a Commission for the ex- 
 amin;ition of witnesses in a matter referred to 
 arbitration under an agreement, unless an action 
 is also pending in reference to the same dispute. 
 In re Shaw & Eonaldson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 91 
 
 11. — Disqualification — Bias. 
 
 An arbitrator named in a reference is not 
 disqualified merely because circumstances may 
 exist or arise such as to cause a suspicion of 
 bias. 
 
 A contract provided that all disputes arising 
 thereout should be decided by a certain baiTister. 
 Disputes arose in which one party alleged mis- 
 conduct, affecting fulfilment of the contract, on 
 the part of the representative of a firm of soli- 
 citors. An action to stay arbitration before the 
 barrister on the ground that he had intimate 
 professional relations with the solicitors, held 
 untenable. Bright v. Eivee Plate Construc- 
 tion Co. Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 153; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 836 
 
 12. — Disqualification on ground of bias — 
 Named arbitrator — Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 
 53 Vict. V. 49), s. i—E. S. C, 1883, Order x.v., r. 
 1(6). 
 
 An arbitration clause referring disputes to 
 the engineer of one party cannot be disregarded 
 on the ground that the engineer is in substance 
 a judge in his own case, unless there is sufficient 
 reason to suspect that he will act unfairly. 
 Judgment of Kekewich J., [1894] 1 Ch. 68, 
 affirmed. Ives & Barker v. Willans 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 478 
 
 Eefen-ed to by C. A. Bartlett v. Fm-d's Hotel 
 Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 850, 852. 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 56 ) 
 
 AEBITKATION (Arbitrator)— co?i<in«e(J. 
 
 13. — Disqualification on ground of lias — 
 Named arbitrator. 
 
 The rule that a judge ought not to hear 
 cases in ^7hioh he might be suspected of bias in 
 favour of one of the parties, does not apply to an 
 arbitrator named by the parties in a contract 
 under which all disputes are to be referred to 
 him. To disqualify such an arbitrator at least a 
 probability of bias must be shewn. "Where such 
 an arbitrator is a servant of one of the parties, he 
 ie not disqualified by the fact that he may have 
 to decide whether he himself acted with due 
 
 skill. BOKEEBLET V. MeKSEY DoOKS AND HaK- 
 
 BOUE BoAED C. A. [1894] 3 Q. B. 667 
 
 Followed. Bright y. Biver Plate Construction 
 Co., [1900] 2 Oh. 835, 838. 
 
 — Jurisdiction — Cbarge for use of railway 
 sidings. 
 See Railway — Sidings. 62. 
 
 14. — Jurisdiction — Construction of contract. 
 Held, that the question raised, being one as 
 
 to the construction of the contract, was within 
 the reference, and that the award could not be 
 recalled. Holmes Oil Co. v. Pumpbbbston Oil 
 Co. - - H. L. (So.) [1891] W. N. 142 
 
 15. — Jurisdiction — Construction of contract. 
 By a contract for building a ry. the contractors 
 
 were to be liable to pay liquidated damages as 
 compensation for loss of profits if the line were 
 not complete by a day named. The contract 
 contained an arbitration clause as to all diffe- 
 rences arising under it. Disputes arose as to 
 delay, and an arbitration was held : — 
 
 Held, that the award was good on the face of 
 it, and that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to 
 construe the building contract. Decision of Ct. 
 of Sees., (1889) 16 K. 843, affirmed. Adams v. 
 Great Noeth of Scotland Ry. Co. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1891] A. C. 31 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (Sc). Caledonian By. 
 Co. v. Turcan, [1898] A. C. 256, 262. 
 
 16. — Misconduct of arhitrator — Evidence. 
 Evidence of an admission out of Court that 
 
 the arbitrator made his award improperly (e.g., 
 by collusion or in consequence of a bribe) is not 
 admissible in support of an application to set 
 aside the award. The evidence of the arbitrator 
 himself on the matter must be before the Court. 
 In re Whitbley and Roberts' Arbitration 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 668 
 
 17. — Misconduct of arhitrator — Fraud. 
 Parties to a contract may lawfully agree that 
 
 the question of fraud on the part of an arbitrator 
 on differences arising under the contract shall 
 not be raised by either of them. Tullis v. 
 Jaobon Chitty J. [1892] 3 Ch. 441 
 
 18. — Mitconduct of arbitrator — Jurisdiction 
 of justices — Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. V. 60), s. 22. 
 
 In an arbitration between a member of a 
 friendly society and the society, the arbitrators 
 excluded the claimant from the room during the 
 examination of two witnesses, and gave him no 
 opportunity of cross-examining them. By one of 
 the rules of the society, " where no decision is 
 made on a dispute within forty days of applica- 
 
 AEBITEATION (Arbitrator) — continued. 
 
 tion for reference to arbitration, the member may 
 
 apply to a Court of summary jurisdiction " : — ■ 
 
 Held, that, as the arbitrators had given a 
 decision which was valid until set aside the 
 jurisdiction of justices to hear the complaint did 
 not arise. Baohe v. Billingham 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 a. B. 107 
 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 68, sub-s. 6. 
 
 19. — Umpire — Misconduct — Bias. 
 
 It is not necessarily an objection on the 
 ground of bias to the award of an umpire in an 
 arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation 
 Acts to determine the value of laud compulsorily 
 taken that, during the pendency of the arbitration 
 and before making his award, he has given 
 evidence on behalf of one of the parties in another 
 inquiry as to the value of other land taken for 
 the same purposes and under the same parlia- 
 mentary powers. In re An Arbitration between 
 Haigh and L. and N. W. and G. W. Ry. Cos. 
 
 [1896] 1 ft. B. 649 
 
 20. — Unfitness of arbitrator — Injunction. 
 The deft., in pursuance of a clause in the 
 
 contract, referred a question between them and 
 tlieir contractor to arbitration, and chose their 
 engineer as arbitrator. The matter in dispute 
 had already come under the notice of the 
 engineer in the course of his duties, and he had 
 expressed an opinion adverse to the contractor. 
 The engineer again wrote to the contractor re- 
 iterating the opinion he had before expressed : — 
 
 Held, that the engineer was not disqualified 
 by what had passed from acting as arbitrator. 
 Whether, in any case there was jurisdiction to 
 grant an injunction to restrain the deft, from 
 proceeding with the arbitration, qumre. Jackson 
 V. Baeey Ry. Co. C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 238 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Ives and Barker v. 
 Willans, [1894], 2 Ch. 478, 490. 
 
 21. — Unnamed arbitrators — Beference to — 
 Scottish law— Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 <£ 58 Vict, 
 c. 49), s. 4. 
 
 Semble, per Lord Watson, that the rule of 
 Scottish law that a reference to arbitrators not 
 named cannot be enforced has been so largely 
 trenched on by recent legislation that the policy 
 upon which it was originally based can hardly 
 be now regarded as of cardinal importance. 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., TaliaJcer Distillery v. 
 Hamlyn & Co, (1893), 21 R. 20 1, reversed. 
 Hamlyn k Co. V. Taliskee Distilleby 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 202, at p. 214 
 
 See South African Breweries, Ld. v. King, 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 173, 177; C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 273. 
 
 22. — • Unnamed arbitrators — Beference — Con- 
 dition 'precedent to cause of action — Scottish 
 law. 
 
 A policy of insurance provided for reference 
 of disputes to arbitrators to be chosen by the 
 parties so that no action should be brought until 
 an award had been obtained : — 
 
 Held, that as no cause of action accrued on 
 the policy till an award was made, the contract 
 was excepted from the rule of Scottish law that 
 a reference to unnamed arbitrators cannot be 
 enforced. Decision of Ct. of Sess., Gilmour v. 
 Caledonian Ineuraiice Co., (1891) 18 R. 1219, 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 5S ) 
 
 ARBITRATION (Arbitrator)— continued, 
 reversed. Caledonian Insdranoe Co. v. Gil- 
 MotiB - H. I. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 85 
 
 A nd see now Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 13). 
 
 Award. 
 
 — Agricultural holdings — Award to landlord of 
 
 amount in excess of tenant's claim — 
 
 Enforcement of award. 
 
 See Lakdlord and Tenant. 7. 
 
 23, — (a.) Appeal— Special case — Arbitration 
 Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 19. 
 
 No appeal lies from the decision of the Div. 
 Ct. on a special case stated by an arbitrator 
 under s. 19 of the Act of 1889 for the purpose of 
 obtaining the opinion of the Court for his 
 guidance ; the jurisdiction of the High Court 
 under that s. being consultative. Except so far 
 as there may be power under s. 20 of the Act to 
 impose terms as to coats on making an order for 
 the statement of a special case, the Court has no 
 power to make an order as to the costs of a 
 special case under s. 19. In re Knight and 
 Tabebnacle Pbkmanent Building Society 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 613 1 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 298 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. See next Case. 
 
 See now Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. o. 16), s. 1. 
 
 (b.) But where an arbitrator has made an 
 award in the form of a, special case for the 
 opinion of the Court, an appeal lies to the C. A. 
 from the judgment of a l)iv. Ct. In re Kiek- 
 leatham Local Board and Stockton and 
 
 MiDDLESBOROUGH WaTEB BoAKD 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 375 
 This case was affirmed by H. L, (E.) sub 
 jwrn. Stockton and Middlesbrough Water Board v. 
 KirJcleatham Local Board, [1893] A. C. 444. 
 
 24, — Appeal — Special case stated during the 
 arbitration. 
 
 Where an arbitrator states a special case on a 
 point of law arising in the course of the reference, 
 no appeal lies to the C. A. from the judgment of 
 a Div. Ct. In re Knight and Tabernacle 
 Permanent Bdilding Society (No. 2) 
 
 C, A. [1891] 2 a. B. 63 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) s«6 nom. 
 Tabernacle Permanent Building Society v. Knight, 
 [1892] A, C. 298. 
 
 See now Building Societies Act, [1894] (57' & 
 58 Vict. c. 47), s, 20. 
 — • Costs. 
 
 See Arbitration— Costs. 
 
 — Enforcement of. 
 
 See Sewubs. 21. 
 
 — Evidence — admissibility of parol evidence. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 23. 
 
 — Evidence — ^Preparing false, for submission to 
 
 ■arbitrators — Fabricating evidence. 
 See Criminal Law. 19. 
 
 25, — Evidence, Admissibility of extrineic. 
 Where the award is in the express and dis- 
 tinct words of the reference, and the words are 
 
 ARBITRATION (Award.)— continued. 
 not ambiguous, it is not competent to enter upon 
 inijuiry whether the arbiter understood the whole 
 scope of hfs award. Appeal dismissed with costs. 
 Great North of Scotland By. Co. v. Highland 
 By. Co., (1895), 32 S. L. K. 275. Highland 
 Ey. Co. V. Great North of Scotland Et. Co. 
 H, L, (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 77 (1) 
 
 — Execution — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankecptot — Act of Bankruptcy. 5. 
 
 — Finality of Scottish award — Eight of one 
 
 tenant in common. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 9. 
 
 — Principles of assessment — Salvage — Salving 
 
 vessels specially equipped. 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 221. 
 
 26. — Award — Housing of the Working 
 Classes Act. 
 
 There is no right of appeal to the C. A. from 
 the refusal by a judge in chambers to give leave 
 to appeal from an arbitrator to a jury under 
 Soh. II., cl. 26, of the Housing of the Working 
 Classes Act, 1890. Decision of Div. Ct., [1892] 
 1 Q. B. 394, affirmed. In re Housing of the 
 Working Classes Act, 1890. Ex parte Steven- 
 son - - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 609 
 
 27. — Lump sum — Evidence talcen on matters 
 not referred — Jurisdiction of arbitrators — Laws 
 of Victoria. 
 
 In an action upon an award the defts. pleaded 
 that the lump sum awarded included matters, 
 claims, and demands in respect of which the 
 arbitrators had no jurisdiction, as not having been 
 referable to them under the terms of the contract 
 between the parties : — ■ 
 
 Held, that, as it appeared that the matters 
 actually referred were those contained in the 
 submission, the award was not bad (1) on the 
 face of it by reason that it did not state that 
 matters not referred had been rejected from con- 
 sideration ; (2) because the arbitrators had taken 
 evidence on matters not referred, but not shewn 
 to have been irrelevant to the inquiry, or to have 
 been included in the award of the lump sum. 
 
 The defts. having counter-claimed in respect 
 of liquidated damages for delays not allowed in 
 writing by their engineer-in-chief : — 
 
 Held, that the counter-claim must be dis- 
 allowed, for the refusal to allow delays was itself 
 by the terms of the contract subject to arbitration, 
 and a final award was by the same terms compe- 
 tent without sending the matter back to the 
 engineer. Falkingham v. Victorian Eailwats 
 Commissioner - P. C. [1900] A, C. 462 
 
 — Minerals — Notice of intention to work — Com- 
 
 pensation — Duty of conrpany to take up 
 
 award. 
 
 See Bail WAY — Minerals. 11. 
 
 28. — Beference to three arbitrators — Award 
 signed hy two only — Validity of award. 
 
 Where a matter in dispute is referred to the 
 decision of three arbitrators, all three must concur 
 in the making of the award; an award made by 
 two of them only is bad. 
 
 An agreement to refer dispates to arbitration 
 provided for a reference to " the decision of one 
 or of three disinterested arbitrators as mutually 
 agreed," and that if three arbitrators were 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 60 ) 
 
 ARBITRATION (Award)— confaHuefJ. 
 appointed one ehould be nominated by each of the 
 parties, and the third by the two so nominateil. 
 Three arbitrators having been duly nominated 
 and having entered upon the reference, two 
 of them made an award from which the third 
 dissented : — 
 
 Held, that the award was invalid. United 
 Kingdom Mutdal Steamship Assubanoe Asso- 
 ciation V. Houston & Co. 
 
 Mathew J. [1896] 1 Q. B. 667 
 
 29. — Remittal to arbitrator — Fresh evidence 
 —Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 49), 
 s. 10. 
 
 Under s. 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, the 
 Court or judge has power to remit an award to 
 the aibitrator for reconsideration, if it appear 
 tiiat fresh and material evidence has been dis- 
 covered since the award which might have affected 
 the aibitrator's decision. In re Keigblet, Max- 
 STED & Co. and Dukant & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 405 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Palmer & Co. v. 
 Eoshen & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 131, 137. 
 
 30. — Setting aside — Fraud of arbitrator. 
 
 It is lawful for the parties to a building 
 contract to agree that the question of fraud on 
 the part of the arbitrator shall not be raised by 
 either of them. Tullis v. Jacson - Chitty J. 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 441 
 
 31. — Setting aside — Jurisdiction — Arbitra- 
 tion Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 14, 15. 
 
 In an action an order by consent was made for 
 the reference of all matters in difference to 
 arbitration and not merely " the whole cause or 
 matter " : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had no jurisdiction to 
 review the findings of the arbitrator. The juris- 
 diction to review given by s. 15 of the Arbitration 
 Act, 1889, refers to references which are or could 
 be made under the statutory power given by s. 14, 
 and not to references which from their extended 
 scope can only be made by consent. Daeltngton 
 Wagon Co. v. Harding and Tbouville Pier 
 AND Steamboat Co. - C. A, [1891] 1 ft. B. 245 
 
 32. — Setting aside — Misconduct of arbitrator 
 — Evidence. 
 
 Claim to have an award set aside on the 
 ground that the arbitrator had admitted before 
 witnesses that he had acted improperly : — 
 
 Held, that the Court could not set aside the 
 award without hearing the evidence of the arbi- 
 trator himself. In re Whiteley and Koeekts's 
 Aebiteation - Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 558 
 
 33. — Setting aside — Statement of special case 
 — Might to apply to Court — Beconsideration of 
 award — Duty of arbitrator — Misconduct — Arbi- 
 tration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. „. 49), ss. 10, 
 11, 19. 
 
 Sect. 1 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1 889, impliedly 
 confers on a party to an arbitration the right, at 
 any stage of the proceedings, to apply to the 
 Court for an order directing the arbitrator to 
 state in the form of a special case for the opinion 
 of the Court any question of law arising in the 
 course of the reference. 
 
 If a party to an arbitration, acting bon8, fide, 
 requests the arbilrator on reasonable grounds 
 
 ARBITRATION (Aw&vi)— continued. 
 either to state a special case for the opinion ot 
 the Court upon some questions so arising and 
 material for consideration, or to delay his award 
 until the party can himself apply to the Court 
 for an order directing a special case, and the 
 arbitrator refuses to comply with the request, or 
 by summarily making his award attempts to 
 preclude the party from applying, the arbitrator 
 is prima facie guilty of a breach of duty towards 
 that party. But if the application is frivolous 
 and made merely for the purpose of delay, the 
 arbitrator will be right in refusing it, and will be 
 upheld by the Court if he does so. 
 
 A breach of duty of this character is prima, 
 facie misconduct on the part of an arbitrator 
 within the meaning of s. 11 of the Act of 1889, 
 and justifies the Court, even after an award lias 
 been completed, in setting it aside under s. 11, 
 sub-3. 2, or in remitting it for reconsideration 
 under s. 10, sub-s. 1. 
 
 This view of the law is consistent with Dinn 
 V. Blake, (1875) L. E. 10 C. P. 388, and In re 
 Keighley, Mazsted & Co. and Durant & Co , 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 405. 
 
 Ill this case, on the ground of misconduct ot 
 that character by the arbitrators, a completed 
 award was remitted to them with a direction that 
 they should reconsider it, and state whether there 
 was a deficiency in the quantity of a cargo of 
 wheat delivered at a port of discharge, and, if 
 there was, then to state a special case. In re 
 Palmbe & Co. and Hosken and Co. 
 
 C. A. [18971 W. W. 156 (3) ; [1898] 1 ft. B. 131 
 
 — Special case — Appeal. 
 
 See preceding Case. 
 
 34. — Special case — Order for statement 
 pending arbitration — Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 (fc 
 53 Vict. c. 49), «. 19. 
 
 It is no bar to the right to apply for a direc- 
 tion to an arbitrator to state, in the form of a 
 special case for the opinion of tlie Court, a 
 question of law arising in the course ot the 
 reference, that the arbitrator has expressed no 
 opinion adverse to the party making the applica- 
 tion. In re Spillebs & Bakee and Leetham & 
 Sons - C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 312 
 
 35. — Stating case — Building society — 
 Building Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Viet. c. 42), 
 s. S6— Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Viet. c. 49), 
 ss. 19, 24. 
 
 The power given to the Court by the Arbitra- 
 tion Act, 1889, s. 19, to order an arbitrator (o 
 state in the form of a special case for the opinion 
 of the Court, any question of law arising in the 
 course of the reference, applies to arbitrations 
 under the Buildings Societies Act, 1874. Knight 
 V. Tabeenacle Permanent Building Society 
 C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 63 ; affirm, by H. I. (E.) 
 [1892] A, C. 298 
 
 But see now Building Societies Act, 1891 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), s. 20. 
 
 — Taking up award — Duty of company to take 
 
 up — Minerals — Notice of intention to 
 work. 
 
 See Eailway — Minerals. 11. 
 86. — Tiine, extension of, for making award — 
 Jurisdiction of Court or judge — Arbitration Act, 
 
( ei ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 62 ) 
 
 ABBITBAIIOIT (^Awa.Ti)— continued. 
 
 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 9, 2,i— Public Health 
 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 180, avb-8. 9. 
 
 Sect. 180, sub-s. 9, of the Public Healtb Aot, 
 1875, which enacts that the time for making an 
 award by arbitrators or an umpire under that Aot 
 shall not in any case be extended beyond the 
 period of two months from the date of the sub- 
 mission to arbitration or the date of the reference 
 of the matters to the umpire respectively, deals 
 only with the power of the arbitrators or umpire 
 to extend the time, and does not affect the 
 jurisdiction of the Court. Under s. 9 of the 
 Arbitration Act, 1889, the Court or a judge baa 
 jurisdiction to extend the time for making an 
 award under the Public Health Act, 1875, although 
 the time for making the award has expired. 
 
 In re Mackenzie and Ascot Gat Co., (1886) 
 17 Q. B. D. 114, overruled. 
 
 Warburton v. Haslingden Local Board, (1879) 
 
 48 L. J. (Q.B.) 451, approved. Knowles & Sons, 
 
 Ld. v. Bolton Corpobation - C. A. [1900] 
 
 W. N. 73 ; [1900] 2 ft. B. 353 
 
 — Time for making award — Ai-bitrators " called 
 
 on to act " — Notice to appoint umpire. 
 See Company — Windikg-tip. 1. 
 
 — Unwholesome meat — Findings of arbitrator — 
 
 Costs of summons. 
 See CoBPOBATiON. 27. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 — "Fall compensation" — Public Health Act. 
 
 See Costs — Taxation. 76. 
 
 37. — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Arbitration 
 Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 2, 25, 26. 
 
 In an arbitration, commenced after the com- 
 mencement of the Arbitration Act, 1889, under a 
 submission entered into before that date, which 
 is silent as to costs, the arbitrators have power 
 to award costs. The whole Aot, including the 
 schedules, applies to arbitrations commenced 
 before the Act came into force in so far as the 
 contract to refer is not inconsistent with such 
 application. In re Williams and Stepney 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 267, revers. 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 700 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Wilson & 
 Son and Eastern Counties Navigation & Transport 
 Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 81. 
 
 — Costs — Offer made by company. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Aots — Costs. 14. 
 
 — Keference — Costs — Limitation of liability. 
 
 See Shipping. 97. 
 
 38. — Beference of action to arbitrator — Costs of 
 reference, whether taxable on High or County Court 
 scale — Reference whether by consent or compulsory 
 — Practice — Order Lxr., r. 12 — Arbitration Act, 
 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 49), «8. 14, 15. 
 
 An action of contract was referred by order of 
 a district registrar, on the ground that it involved 
 matters of account, to an arbitrator agreed on by 
 the parties, and the order of reference provided 
 that the costs of the action should abide the 
 event of the award and the costs of the reference' 
 and award should be in the discretion of the 
 arbitrators The . arbitrator awarded that an 
 amount less than 502. was due from the deft, to 
 
 ABBITBATIOir (Gosis)— continued. 
 
 the pit., and that the deft, should pay to the pit. 
 
 his costs of the reference and award : — 
 
 J3eM, that the pit. was entitled to have the 
 costs of the reference taxed on the High Couit 
 
 Moore v. Watson, (1867) L. E. 2 C. P. 314, 
 disapproved of. Stbebt v. Steeet 
 
 C. A. [1800] W. N. 86 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 67 
 
 — Special case stated by arbitrator. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 10. 
 
 39. — Taxation of costs of award—Arbitration 
 Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Sched. L («.). 
 
 Under s. 2 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, the 
 amount of the costs must be stated in the award, 
 otherwise the costs (including the arbitrator's 
 fees, &c.), are liable to taxation in the ordinary 
 course. In re Peebble and Eobtnson 
 
 Div. Ct, [1892] 2 Q. B. 602 
 
 40. — Taxation of costs of award. 
 
 Semble, that the making of an award and its 
 remission to the arbitrator for reconsideration 
 may be treated as breaks in protracted arbitration 
 proceedings, upon the occurrence of which the 
 solicitor may send in such a bill of costs to his 
 client as to amount to a separate bill. In re 
 EOMEB AND Haslam C. A. [1893] 2 Q, B. 286 
 
 Official Referee, 
 Order xxxvi., rr. 45-55 v., relate to official 
 referees. 
 
 41. — Appeal. 
 
 The Judicature Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 44), 
 3. 1, only applies to motions for new trials in 
 cases tried with a jury. In a case tried before 
 an official referee, the motion must be made to a 
 
 Div. Ct. GOWEE V. TOBITT 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. K. 6 
 
 42. — Appeal from Order of Divisional Court 
 —Judicature Acts, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 45 ; 
 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 61), s. 8— Arbitration Act, 
 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 14. 
 
 Where an Order has been made under a. 14 
 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, that the whola 
 cause or matter, or any question or issue of fact 
 arising therein, shall bo tried before an ofScial 
 referee, no leave to appeal is required from an 
 Order of the Div. Ct. on an application made to 
 the Court to review the decision of the official 
 referee. Munday v. Nobton 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 403 
 
 43. — Commission to examine witnesses abroad. 
 An official referee, to whom an action is 
 
 referred for trial, has jurisdiction to make on 
 order granting a commission to examine witnesses 
 abroad, and a judge at chambers has jurisdiction 
 to review the decision of the official referee 
 granting or refusing such an order. Haywaed 
 v. Mutual Eeserve AssoorATioN 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 238 
 — - Company — Law of New South Wales. 
 See New South Wales. 6. 
 
 — New trial — Appeal. 
 
 See Peaotiob — New Trial. 46, 47. 
 
 44. — Report — Motion for judgment — R. S. G. 
 Order XL., r. 7 ; Order xxxvi., rr. o4, 55 — Arbitra- 
 tion Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 13, 15. 
 
 An action to r.strain a nuisance was referred 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 64 ) 
 
 AEBITEATION (Official Referee)— contirMed. 
 to an official referee for inquiry and report. 
 The ofSoial referee reported that no nuisance 
 existed : — 
 
 Held, that defts, could move, under Order xl., 
 r. 7, for judgment dismissing the action with 
 costs, and that an eight days' notice under 
 Order xxxvi., r. 55, was i:ot necessary. Labkin 
 V. Lloyd - - Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 71 
 
 45. — Report — Notice of motion to vary — Form 
 of notice— ArUtration Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict, 
 c. 49), e. 15— ie. S. C, Order JZXTI., , . 54 ; Order 
 LII., r. 4. 
 
 In an action to restrain threats under the 
 Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, the 
 official referee assessed the damages ; on further 
 consideration deft, moved to vary the report 
 so as to find that pit. was not entitled to 
 damages : — 
 
 Held, that the notice of motion was sufficient 
 under Order xxxvi., r. 54, and that that rule was 
 independent of Order Lii., r. 4, relating to awards. 
 ScHEiDGES V. "Williams 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 158 
 
 46. — Beport — Power of Court to go into 
 evidence used for purposes of — B. S. C, 1883, 
 Order XXXYI., r. 54. 
 
 Where the official receiver has made his 
 report on accounts and inquiries directed by a 
 judgment and no motion has been made to vary 
 his report, the Court cannot go into the evidence 
 which was before him. In re Fitton. Haedy 
 V. Fitton - - Stii-ling J. [1893] W. N. 201 
 
 — Taking accounts before official referee — 
 
 Practice 
 
 See Frauds, Statute oe. 23. 
 
 — Title under Bankruptcy Act, 1 883— " Convey- 
 
 ance " — Registration in Middlesex. 
 See Bakkkuptcy. 193. 
 
 — Trial before official referee— Application to 
 
 Divisional Court — Leave to appeal. 
 See Appeal. 38. 
 
 Special Beferee. 
 Order xxxvi., rr. 18-55c, relaie to proceedings 
 before a special referee. 
 
 47. — Commission to examine witnesses abroad 
 — B. S. C, Order xxxri., r. 5 — Judicature Act, 
 1S73 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66\ s. \00— Arbitration Act, 
 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 1. 
 
 On a reference by consent out of Court the 
 Court has no jurisdiution to issue a commission 
 to examine witnesses abroad. In re Shaw and 
 RoNALDSON - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B, 91 
 
 48. — Inspection of property — Jurisdiction — 
 Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 <t- 63 Vict. c. 49), ss. 14, 
 ].5 — B. S. C, Order xxxvi., r. 50; Order L., r. 3. 
 
 The Court has still jurisdiction to make an 
 order to inspect property, the subject of a refer- 
 ence or arbitration, notwithstanding the reference 
 or arbitration, but the more convenient course is 
 1o apply in the first instance to the referee or- 
 arbitrator, and not to the judge in chambers. 
 Maoalpine & Co V. Caldeb & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 546 
 
 49. — Matter of account— Jurisdiction — Arbi- 
 tration Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 44), s. U (o). 
 
 If the Court tliink that any part of a case 
 
 ABBITBATION (Special Beferee) — continued. 
 does or may involve a matter of account, the 
 whole case may be compulsorily referred under 
 the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 14 (c), although in 
 certain events it may become unnecessary to 
 determine the matter of account. Hdelbatt v. 
 Baknett & Co. - C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 77 
 
 Order LII , r. 2, relates to motionsUo enforce the 
 award of a special referee. 
 
 60. — Beport — Motion to vary — Bejection of 
 evidence. 
 
 A motion to vary the report of a special 
 referee for rejection of evidence can succeed 
 only where substantial wrong has been done by 
 rejecting the evidence. In re Maplin Sands 
 
 Kekewich J, [1894] W. N. 141 ; 
 affirmed by C, A. [1894] W. N. 184 
 
 And see Akbithation, passim. 
 
 51. — Action excluded till arbitration — Befer- 
 ence to arbiters not named. 
 
 By a policy of insurance against fire, differ- 
 ences between the parties were to be referred as 
 they arose to arbitrators th,en to be named, and 
 it was expressly declared such reference, and 
 that obtaining on award, should be a condition 
 precedent to the commencement of any action on 
 the policy : — • 
 
 Held, (1) that the condition to ascertain the 
 damage by arbitration was an integral part of 
 the contract of indemnity under the policy, and 
 was a condition precedent to the bringing of any 
 action on the policy ; (2) that the contract could 
 be enforced, notwithstanding the reference was 
 to unnamed arbitrators, as the cause of action did 
 not arise until after the arbitration. Caledonian 
 Insubanoe Co. v. Gilmoub - H. L. (Sc.) 
 
 [1893] A. 0. 85 
 
 See now Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Viet. u. 13). 
 
 — Finality of Scottish award — Eight of one 
 tenant in common. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts — Compensa- 
 tion. 9. 
 
 52. — Seduction of decree arbitral — Jurisdic- 
 tion of arbitrator — Construction. 
 
 Held, that the question raised, being one as to 
 the construction of the contract, was within the 
 reference, and that the award could not be 
 recalled. Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1890) 17 R. 
 624, affirmed. Holmes Oil Co. v. Pumphebston 
 Oil Co. - • H. I. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 142 
 
 63. — Seduction of decree arbitral — Jurisdic- 
 tion of arbitrator — Constructive corruption of 
 arbitrator — Scots Act of Regulations, 1695, s. 25. 
 
 The word " corruption " in the Scots Act of 
 Regulations, 1695, s. 25, is used in its ordinary 
 sense, and does not include irregular conduct by 
 the arbitrator without any corrupt motive. 
 
 By a contract for building a ry. the contractors 
 were to be liable to pay liquidated damages as 
 compensation for loss of profits if the line were 
 not complete by a day named. The contract 
 contained an arbitration clause as to all differ- 
 ences arising under it. Disputes arose and an 
 arbitration was held : — 
 
 Hdd, that the award was good on the face of 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 66 ) 
 
 ARBITBATION (Special TLefeiee)— continued. 
 it, and that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to 
 construe the building contract. Decision of Ct. 
 of Sess., (1889) 16 E. 843, affirmed. Adams v. 
 Gkeat North op Scotland Ry. Co. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 31 
 
 54. — Unnamed, arJiitrator — Reference to. 
 Semhle, per Lord Watson, that the rule of 
 
 Scottish Jaw that a reference to arbitrators not 
 named cannot be enforced has been so largely 
 trenched on by recent legislation that the policy 
 upon which it was originally based could hardly 
 be now regarded as of carrliual importance. 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., TalisTcer Distillery v. 
 EanMyn & Co., (1893) 21 E. 201, reversed. 
 Hamltn & Co. V. Taliskeh Distillekt 
 
 H. I. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 202, at p. 214 
 
 Principle in, applied by Kekewich J. South 
 African Breweries, Ld. v. King, [1899] 2 Ch. 
 173 ; C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 273. 
 
 See Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 13). 
 
 Staying Proceedings. 
 
 55. — Action impeaching contg-ad — Injunction 
 —Judicature Act, 1873 (36* 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, 
 svh-s. 8. 
 
 The Court has jmisdictlon to interfere by 
 injunction on equitable grounds to restrain the 
 deft, from proceeding to arbitrntion where an 
 action has been brought impeaching the instru- 
 ment containing the agreement for reference. 
 Sect. 25, sub-s. 8, of the Judicature Act, 1873, has 
 not enlarged tlie jurisdiction of the Court so as to 
 enable it to grant an injunction where, before the 
 Act, it could not have done so. Kitts v. Mooee 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 56. — Action relating to matters not covered by 
 arbitration clause — Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 <fc 53 
 Viet. c. 49), s. i—B. S. C, Order xx., r. 1 (6). 
 
 The fact that a small portion of the relief 
 claimed in an action is not covered by the arbi- 
 tration clause is not in itself a sufficient reason 
 for refusing to stay proceedings where the main 
 object of the action is within that clause. Ives & 
 Barker v. Willans - C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 478 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Barllett v. Ford's Hotel 
 Co., [1895] 1 Q. JB. 850, 852. 
 
 — ■ Contract for service — Arbitration clause — 
 Wrongful dismissal — Action for damages. 
 See Master and Servant— Dismissal. 
 58. 
 
 — Partnership — -Action for. dissolution — Motion 
 to stay proceedings — iForm of order. 
 See Partnership — Arbitration. 11. 
 
 57. — Practice — Arbitration clause — Action 
 for dissolution — Motion to stay proceedings — 
 Discretion of the Judge — Arbitration Act, 1889 
 (52 * 53 Vict. o. 49), s. 4. ■ , - 
 
 Where articles of partnership contain a clause 
 referring all matters in diiference between the 
 partneia to arbitration, an arbitrator has power 
 to decide whether or not the partnership shall be 
 dissolved, and to award a dissolution, though the 
 judge has full di-cretion to determine, on a mo- 
 tion to stay proceedings under the Arbitration 
 Act, 1889, s. 4, whether the matters in dispute 
 
 AEBITEATION (Staying Proceedings)- conia. 
 shall be tried out in the action or referred ts 
 arbitration. 
 
 Walmsley v. White, (1892) 40 W. E. 675, 
 followed; Joplin v. Fostlethwaite, (1889) 61 L.T. 
 (N;S.) 629, explained. Vawdrey v. Simpson 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 1 Ch. 166 
 
 58. — Submission — Practice — Action — Appli- 
 cation to stay proceedings — Time — "Step in the 
 proceedings " — Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 6k 53 
 Vict. a. 49), s. 4. 
 
 The mere filing of affidavits in answer to a 
 motion for a receiver in an action for dissolution 
 of partnership is not a " step in the proceedings " 
 within s. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, the 
 taking of which will preclude the defendant from 
 moving to refer the case to arbitration under a 
 clause in the partnership articles. Zalinoff v. 
 Hammond - Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 92 
 
 69. — Submission to three arbitrators — Refusal 
 of party to appoint arbitrators — Jurisdiction of 
 Court to stay action — Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 
 Vict. 0. 49), s. 4. 
 
 Where an agreement to refer disputes to 
 arbitration provides for a reference to three 
 arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the 
 parties, and the third by the two so appointed, 
 and one of the parties refuses to appoint an 
 arbitrator and brings an action against the other 
 party to the submission, the Court has, under s. 4 
 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, power to stay the 
 action. Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. S. 
 Pearson & Son, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. S. 178 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 606 
 
 Submission. 
 
 60. — "Submission" — Arbitration Act, 1889 
 (52 * 53 Via. c. 49), ss. 4, 27. 
 
 " Submission " in s. 27 of the Arbitration Act, 
 1889, means a "written agreement" to submit 
 differences to arbitration, but not necessarily au 
 agreement signed by both parties.' Hence, where 
 a policy of insurance provided for a submission 
 of differences to arbitration as a condition prece- 
 dent to taking legal proceedings, an action on the 
 policy was stayed, although the policy had not 
 been signed by the person insured. Baker v. 
 Yorkshire Fire and Life Assurance CO. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 144 
 
 61. — "In accordance with the submission" — 
 Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 4. 
 
 Quxre, whether the effect of the words " in 
 accordance with the submission" in s. 4 qf the 
 Arbitration Act, 1889, is that in each case the 
 Court' must consider whether the provisions of 
 the submission are applicable to the' particular 
 case — that is, whether the particular matter can 
 conveniently be decided by arbitration. Denton 
 V. Legoe - - Kekewich J. [1893] W, If. 46 
 
 62. — ■ Revoke submission to arbitration. Leave 
 to ^^ Appeal from chambers — Supreme Court of 
 Judicature (JProcedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 16), 8. 1, sub-s. 4. 
 
 An appeal from a judge at chambers granting 
 leave to revoke a submission to arbitration lies 
 to the C. A. and not to a Div. Ct. In re An Ar- 
 bitration BETWEEN Portland Urban District 
 Council and Tillet & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B, 98 
 D 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASE8, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 68 ) 
 
 AEBITRATION (Submission)— coi!fe')jMe(i. 
 — Stayiug proceedings. 
 
 See Aebitkation — Staying Proceedings, 
 AfiBITKATOE. 
 
 See Oases under Aebiteation. 
 AECH (RAILWAY). 
 
 See Eailwat — Arches, 
 
 AECHW AY— "Place" used for betting. 
 See Gaming. 11. 
 
 AECHITECT— London Building line. 
 
 See London — Buildings, 1 — 3. 
 AEGENTINE EEPUBLIC— Extradition from. 
 
 See EXTBADITION. 
 
 AEMOEIAL BEARINGS— Excise. 
 
 See Eevende — Armorial Bearings, 10. 
 AEMY AND NAVY, 
 
 Army, col. G7. 
 Navy, col. 68. 
 Reserve Forces, col. 68, 
 Volunteers, col. 69. 
 
 Army. 
 
 Segimental Debts Act, 1893 (56 Vict. c. 5), 
 consolidates and amends the law relating to the 
 payment of regimental debts, and the collection 
 iind disposal of the effects of officers and soldiers in 
 case of death, desertion, insanity and other cases. 
 
 Mules of Procedure — " The Bules of Procedure, 
 1893," dated 1893, regulating proceedings of 
 Courts MaHial. St, E, & 0, 1893, pp, 707-799, 
 
 Army Order 43 of 1895, dated March, 1895, 
 amending Hides of Procedure under the Army Act. 
 St, E & 0. 1895, No, 214, Price Jd. 
 
 Military Manmuvres Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. 
 K. iZ), facilitates and regulates manoeuvres. 
 
 Rules of Procedure, dated Aug. 1, 1899. St, 
 E, & 0, 1900, No, 31, See St, E, & 0, 1899, 
 p, 1416. 
 
 Electobs.] Electoral Disabilities {Military 
 Service) Removal Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. o. 8), 
 removes electoral disabilities which may arise in 
 the case of members of the Reserve, Militia, and 
 Yeomanry forces, and in the case of Volunteers, 
 by reason of absence on the military service of the 
 Crown. 
 
 MiLiTAET Lands.] Military Lands Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 56), amends the Military Lands 
 Act, 1892 (55 * 56 Vict. v. 43). 
 
 Exportation of Arms Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict, 
 c. 44), amends the law relating to the exportation 
 of arms, ammunition, and military and naval 
 stores. 
 
 ConNTT Councils, &o.] Members of Local 
 Authorities Belief Act, 1900 (63* 64 Vict. v. 46), 
 relieves members of county councils and other local 
 authorities from disqualification by reason of 
 absence in certain cases. 
 
 1. — Billeting— Army ^c<,1881 (44 & 45 Viet, 
 c. 58), ««. 103, 110. 
 
 A victualling-house keeper is bound, under 
 ss. 103-110 of the Army Act, 1881, to provide 
 accommodation for soldiers on the march in excess 
 of the number imposed on him by the billet list, 
 euch list being only conclusive as to the propor- 
 
 AEMY AND NAVY {knay)— continued. 
 
 tion in which billets are to be distributed, and not 
 
 as to their number. Shaeeatt v. Scotney 
 
 Div, Ct, [1892] 2 Q, B, 479 
 ■ — Evidence — Non-commissioned ofBcer — Entry 
 
 in ofHcial document — Admissibility. 
 
 See DivoEOE, 74. 
 
 — Officer — Liability to dismissal — Petition of 
 
 right. 
 
 See Ckown. 6. 
 
 — Pay and retiring allowances — Eoyal Warrant 
 
 — Secretary of State for War, 
 See Mandamus. 6, 
 
 — Soldier's Will— Probatp. 
 
 See Peobate — Soldier's Will, 150. 
 
 — " Subject to military law " — Returning from 
 
 training — Obedience to order of superior 
 
 oificer. 
 
 See No. 8, below. . 
 
 — Troops summoned to preserve the peace — 
 
 Expenses of maintenance — Liability. 
 See County Council. 10. 
 
 — Turnpike Acts — Tolls — ^Exemption — Carnage 
 
 employed in military service of Crown. 
 See Highway. 31. 
 
 — Uniforms — Unauthorized use. 
 
 See Unifoems. 
 
 Navy. 
 
 Naval Worhs Act, 1899 (62 and 63 Vict. c. 42), 
 makes further provision for construction of worlcs, 
 and amends the law with respect to tramways for 
 naval purposes. 
 ■ — Naval reserves. 
 
 See Eeseeve Foeces, infra. 
 
 2. — Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1865 
 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 72), amended by 60 * 61 Vict. c. 
 15 — Right of officer to resign commission — Naval 
 Discipline Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 109), 
 ss. 19, 87. 
 
 An engineer oflBcer in the navy who has 
 accepted a commission, and is borne on the books 
 of a ship in commission, cannot resign without 
 the consent of the Admiralty. 
 
 Semble, under no circumstances is a naval 
 officer entitled to resign without permission of 
 Her Majesty. Heaeson v. Chueohill 
 
 C. A, [1892] 2 Q, B, lii 
 
 — Service of writ on officer at sea. 
 
 See Peactick — Service. 183. 
 
 Reserve Forces. 
 
 Reserve Forces and Militia Act, 1898 (61 * 62 
 Vict. c. 9), amende the law. 
 
 Residence.] Permission to Army reserve men 
 to reside out of United Kingdom. See Reserve 
 Forces Act, 1899 (62 * 63 Vict. c. 40). 
 
 Resekvb Foeoes.] Discipline and regulation 
 —Royal Warrant dated Dec. 28, 1882, as to the 
 trial of an alleged offender under the Reserve 
 Forces Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 48). St, R, & 0. 
 1899, p, 16S8, 
 
 Naval Reserve (Mobilisation) Act, 1900 (63 <£• 
 64 Vict. c. 17) am4nds the Royal Naval Reserve 
 (Volunteer) Act, 1859 (22 * 23 Vict. c. 40), in 
 relation to calling out the Volunteers for actual 
 service. 
 
( 09 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 70 ) 
 
 ARMY AND NAVY (Reserve Torces)— conic?. 
 
 Eeserve Forces Act, 1900 (63 ct 61 Vict. c. 42), 
 amends the Reserve Forces Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. 
 c. 48). 
 
 Naval Eeserve Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. c. 52), 
 makes further provision for a Naval Beserve. 
 
 Volunteers. 
 
 Royal Naval Reserve Volunteers Act, 1896 
 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 33) amends the laws with respect 
 to the Royal Naval Volunteers. 
 
 EiTiciENOY OP VoLUNTEEK.] 0. in C. dated 
 Aug. 14, 1896. Amendment as to efficiency of 
 volunteers. St. R. & 0. 1896, p. 602, No. 707. 
 0. in 0. dated Oct. 20, 1898. St. R. & 0. 1898, 
 p. 1269, No. 763. 
 
 Os. in C. dated July 14, and Oct. 7, 1899, 
 amending previous Os. in G. as to. St. R. & 0. 
 1899, p. 1397, No. 575 ; Lond. Gaz. July 18, and 
 Oct, 17, 1899, pp. 4409, 6245. 
 
 Efficiency of Membebs of Coeps.] Volunteer 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. v. 47), declares the effect 
 of provisions of Volunteer Act, 1863. 
 
 Military Lands Act, 1897 (60 (£61 Vict. c. 6), 
 amends Military Lands Act, 1892. 
 
 Volunteer Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 39), 
 amends the Volunteer Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. 
 c. 65). 
 
 3. — Charitable hequed — Contingent gift to 
 volunteer CQrps — Uncertainty — Perpetuity. 
 
 The bequest of an annuity to a volunteer 
 corps on the appointment of the next Lieut-Col. 
 is void as infringing the rule against perpetuities. 
 In re Lord Stbatheden and Oampbell. Alt v. 
 Lord Stbatheden and Campbell. 
 
 Homer J. [1894] 3 Ch. 265 
 
 Keferred to by Kekewioh J. In re Noltage, 
 [1895'] 2 Ch. 649, 653. 
 
 4. — Cliaritahle hequest — Fuhlic advantage — 
 Teaching shooting. 
 
 A gift to the National Eifle Association for 
 teaching shooting, held to be valid. In re 
 Stephens. Giles v. Stephens 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 140 
 
 5. — Power to malte rules — Failure of volunteer 
 to tecome efficient — ioas of capitation grant — 
 Rule ultra vires— Volunteer Act, 1863 (26 & 27 
 Vict. a. 65), s. 24. 
 
 By 3. 24 of the Volunteer Act, 1863, "The 
 officers and volunteers belonging to a volunteer 
 corps may from time to time make rules for the 
 management of the property, finances, and civil 
 affairs of the corps." 
 
 A volunteer corps made (inter alia) the follow- 
 ing rule : " Any .... member of the corps who 
 shall fail to make himself efficient and to earn 
 the Government capitation grant .... shall 
 pay to the funds of the corps a sum equal to the 
 amount of Government capitation grant which he 
 has in consequence failed to earn : — 
 
 Held, that there was no power under the section 
 to make such a rule, and that it was therefore 
 ultra vires. Keo. v. Lewis 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 666 
 
 6. — Rates — Exemption — Crovm property — 
 Volunteer Act^ 1863 (26 & 27 Viet. c. 65), s. 26. 
 
 Premises used solely for the purposes of a 
 
 ARMY AND NAVY (Volunteers)— conimMed. 
 volunteer corps are exempt from poor-rate, 
 although parts, such as the idess-rooms, canteen, 
 &o., and the quarters of the resident non-com- 
 missioned officers, may not come within the 
 exemption provided by s. 26 of the Volunteer 
 Act, 1863. Pearson v. Holborn Union Assess- 
 ment Committee Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 389 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Westminster Vestry 
 V. Hoskins, [1899] 2 Q. B. 477. 
 
 7. — Sewerage and drainage — Volunteer corp 
 — Storehouse and drill-hall — Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Acts — Exemptions. 
 
 A building consisting of an armoury, store- 
 house, and drill-hall of a volunteer corps, which 
 is vested in the commanding officer of the corps 
 and is intended for the use of the corps only, is 
 not exempt from the operation of the sanitary 
 provisions of the Metropolis Management Act, 
 1855, on the ground that it is occupied and used 
 solely for the purposes of the Crown. West- 
 minster Vestry v. Hoskins 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q,. B. 474 
 8. — " Subject to military laio " — " When 
 being trained or exercised with regular forces " — 
 Returning from training — Assault and false im- 
 prisonment — Obedience to order of superior officer 
 —Army Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 58), ss. 41, 43, 
 45, 158, 176— FoZM7ifeer Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict 
 c. 65), «. 21. 
 
 The pit. was a member of a volunteer corps, 
 which was trained and exercised with a portion 
 of the regular forces at Shorncliffe Camp under 
 an order of the War Office, forming a volunteer 
 brigade for the purpose of such training and 
 exercise during the period Aug. 1 to Aug. 8, 
 1896. Upon the latter day, while preparations 
 were going on for the departure of the volun- 
 teers from the camp, he was charged with 
 larceny from a comrade. The adjutant of the 
 corps gave orders that he should be taken under 
 arrest with the baggage guard to Shorncliffe 
 Station, and thence to Boxmoor Station in the 
 special military train which was on that day 
 to convey the corps home, and that on arrival at. 
 the latter station he should be taken to Hemel 
 Hempstead, where he lived, and handed over 
 to the police authority there. The pit. was. 
 accordingly taken under arrest to Shorncliffe 
 Station, and three of his comrades were there- 
 told off to form his escort in the train and to take 
 him from Boxmoor Station to Hemel Hempstead,, 
 and there hand him over to the police, which 
 they did. 
 
 In an action against them for assault and 
 false imprisonment : — 
 
 Held (reversing the judgment of Kennedy J., 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 396), that, by virtue of s. 176 of 
 the Army Act, 1881, the members of the corpa 
 were subject to military law from the time when 
 they fell in on Aug. 1 for the purpose of pro- 
 ceeding to the camp to be trained and exercised 
 with_ the regulars until on their return home on 
 Aug. 8 they were dismissed; and that tlie pit. 
 and defts. were therefore subject to military law 
 at the time when the defts. did the acts com- 
 plained of, which were consequently justified 
 under ss. 41 and 45 of the Army Act, 1881 : 
 Held, also, that the acts of the defts. were 
 
 D 2 
 
( VI ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, J 891— 1900. 
 
 ( 72 ) 
 
 AEMY AND NAVY (JolnnteeTs)— continued. 
 justified by virtue of the provisions of s. 158 of 
 the Army Act, 1881. 
 
 The words " where an offence under this Act 
 has been committed" in that section mean " where 
 au oifence under this Act is alleged to have been 
 committed." Marks v. Peogley 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 888 
 AKEAHGEMEHT SCHEME— Bankrupt's affairs. 
 See Cases under Bankeuptct — Scheme 
 of Arrangement. 
 
 — Company's affairs. 
 
 See Oases under Company — "WiNDruG-Tjp 
 — Scheme of Arrangement. 
 
 — Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 
 
 1870, inapplicable to the Colonies. 
 See ViOTOKiA. 2. 
 
 — Railway company's affairs. 
 
 See Cases under Eailway — Scheme of 
 Arrangement. 
 AEREAES — Alimony accrued due before re- 
 ceiving order — Proof. 
 See Bankkuptcy — Proof. 160. 
 
 — Annuity. 
 
 See Annuity. 1, 2. 
 
 — Gas rate — Payment of arrears. 
 
 See Gas. 3. 
 
 — Interest — Mortgage — Acknowledgment by 
 
 one of two executors and trustees. 
 See LiiaTATiONS, Stattjte of — Acknow- 
 ledgment. 2. 
 
 — Poor-rate — Mistake — Incorrect demand notes. 
 
 See Eates — Secovery. 65. 
 
 — Water rate — Trustee in bankruptcy — " In- 
 
 coming tenant " — Payment of arrears 
 under protest. 
 
 See Watek — Water Bates. 25. 
 AEEESTMENT— Debentures, Priority of— Scot- 
 tish law. 
 See CoNEUOT of Laws. 3. 
 
 — Pledge — Documents of title — Foreign arrest- 
 
 ment — Conflict of laws — Goods in 
 Scotland. 
 See Factok. 3. 
 AEEESTS — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Shipping — Arrest. 6. 
 
 — Arbitrary arrest, conviction and punishment 
 
 — Illegal proclamation of — Legislative 
 
 power. 
 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 
 
 6. 
 
 — Attachment. 
 
 (See Cases under Attachment. 
 
 — Bankrupt trustee — Discretion of Court. 
 
 See IMPKISONMENT. 6. 
 
 — Betting-house — Person found therein — Power 
 
 to bind over — Evidence. 
 See Gaming. 2. 
 
 — Commitments, and execution of process. 
 
 See Company — WindiNq-up — Enforce- 
 ment of Orders. 
 
 — Debtor — Absconding before presentation of 
 
 petition — Order made in exercise of 
 bankruptcy jurisdiction — Certiorari. 
 See CouNTV Couet. 47. 
 
 — Imprisonment for debt. 
 
 See Cases under Impeisonment. 
 
 A'R'KESIS— continued. 
 
 — Hiding bicycle at night without proper light 
 
 — Justification. 
 See BiOYCLB. 1. 
 
 — Salvage — Practice — Solicitors' undertaking — 
 
 Damages. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 247. 
 
 AET ITNIOH' — Exemption from rating. 
 See Bates — Eateability. 25. 
 
 AETICLE OF rOOD— The question of what is 
 
 an article of food within s. 3 of the Sale of Food 
 
 and Drugs Act, 1875, discussed. James v. Jones 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 304 
 
 S'ee nmv 62 & 63 Vict. o. 51, s. 26. 
 
 And see Cases under Adulteration. 
 
 AETICIEB CIEEK — See Solicitor — Articled 
 Clerks. 
 
 AETICLES OF ASSOCIATION. 
 
 See Company — Memorandum and Arti- 
 cles of Association. 
 
 AETIZANS' DWEILINGS— Valuation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869 — Gross value — Cost of 
 lighting and cleaning common stair. 
 See Rates — EateabUity. 12. 
 
 ASSAULT — Liability of master for assault by 
 servant. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Master's 
 Liability. 72. 
 
 — Liability of railway company for assault on 
 
 passenger by fellow-passengers. 
 See Railway — Passei^ers. 19. 
 
 ASSESSMENT— Award— Sal vingvesselsspeoially 
 equipped. 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 221. 
 
 — Damages — Infringement of patent. 
 
 See Patent. 5. 
 
 — Power of Court to go behind — Proof for 
 
 assessed taxes — Scheme of arrangement 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 171. 
 
 — Rates. 
 
 See Cases under Rates. 
 
 — Revenue. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue. 
 
 — Way-leave — " Heritor " — Church and manse. 
 
 See Water. 30. 
 
 — Waterworks Clauses Act. 
 
 See Water. 26. 
 
 ASSETS — Appropriation of — Residue — Settled 
 
 shares. 
 
 See Trustee. 17. 
 — Assignment of — Defaulter — Rules of Stock 
 
 Exchange — Set-off. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. .5. 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Assets. 
 
 — Company. 
 
 See Company — Debenture. 95. 
 
 — Company Winding-up. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Assets. 
 
 — Deficiency of — Right of annuitant to payment. 
 
 See AnnDity. 6. 
 
 — Distribution of — Dissolution of society. 
 
 See Scientific Society. 2. 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CA&ES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 74 ) 
 
 ASSE'SS— continued. 
 
 — Local situation of — Property in Jamaica. 
 
 See Kevence — Fiofaate Duty. 136. 
 
 — Marshalling — Bottomry — Necessaries. 
 
 See Shipping — Bottomiy. 14. 
 
 — Part payment of judgment debt — Subsequent 
 
 receiving order — Benefit of execution. 
 See Bankruptcy — Execution. 101. 
 
 — Sale of business to one partner — Goodwill — 
 
 Canvassing old eustomera — Injunction. 
 See Paetnebship — Goodwill. 25. 
 
 — Surplus assets — Articles of association. 
 
 See CoMPANT — Winding-up — Assets. G. 
 
 ASSIGNMENT— Abstract— Leaseholds. 
 
 See Vendoe and Puechasee — Abstract. 
 1. 
 
 — Annuity. 
 
 See Annuity. 3. 
 
 — Assets — Defaulter — Bules of Stock Exchange 
 
 —Set-off. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 5. 
 
 — Assignee of equitable life estate — Letting 
 
 into possession. 
 
 See Settled Land — Fossession. 92. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Cases under Bankbuptcy. 
 
 — Bankruptcy of client — Submission to pay — 
 
 Form of order. 
 See SoLioiTOE. 26. 
 
 — Benefit of creditors. 
 
 See Oases under Bill op Sai>e. 
 
 — Company — Cheque — Conditional payment. 
 
 See Teade. 2. 
 
 — Choso in action — Kemedies of insurers. 
 
 See Queensland. 3. 
 
 — Complete or incomplete transfer of settled 
 
 property. 
 
 See Settlement — Voluntary Settlement. 
 32. 
 
 — Covenant against — Forfeiture. 
 
 See Cases under Landloed and 
 Tenant. 
 
 — Covenant against, without licence — Deposit 
 
 by way of security. 
 See Covenant. 1. 
 
 1. — Debt — Debtor and Creditor — Negotiable 
 Instrument — Equitable assignment of debt — 
 Notice. 
 
 Notice to a debtor, who has given a negoti- 
 able instrument for bis debt, tliat the debt has 
 been assigned by the creditor, can be disregarded 
 by the debtor even if the creditor who has 
 assigned the debt is the holder of the negotiable 
 instrument. The decision of Kekewich J. re- 
 versed. Bencb v. Sheaeman 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 582 
 
 2. — Debt — Security — Tower to assignee to 
 sue in name of assignor — Absolute assignment — 
 Judieaiure Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, 
 sub-s. 6. 
 
 The pits, made an advance to a customer 
 who, iu consideration thereof, assigned to them 
 the whole of his rights and interest under an 
 agreement between himself and others, of whom 
 the deft, was one, as. security for the repayment 
 on demand of the advance, and by the assign- 
 
 ASSIGNMENT — continued. 
 ment he appointed the pits, his nominees m 
 pursuance of the provisions of tlie agreement, 
 with power to exercise all his rights thereunder 
 either in his name or in the pits.' own name, and 
 he appointed them his attorneys in that behalf. 
 In an action to recover from the deft, montys 
 alleged to be due under the agreement : — 
 
 Held, that the assignment was not an abso- 
 lute assignment within the meaning of s. 25, 
 sub-s. 6, of the Judicature Act, 1873. 
 
 Tancred v. Delagoa Bay By. Co., (1889) 23 
 Q. B. D. 239, and Comfort v. Belts, [1891] 1 Q. B. 
 737, distinguished. Meeoantile Bank of Lon- 
 don V. Evans C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 613 
 
 3. — of debts — Trust in respect of moneys 
 recovered — Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict, 
 e. 66) s. 25, sub-s. 6. 
 
 An assignment of debts by tradesmen condi- 
 tioned that the assignee should pay over to them 
 all moneys recovered : — 
 
 Held, to be an absolute assignment within the 
 meaning of s. 25, subs. 6, of the Judicature Act, 
 1873. COMTORT V. Betts 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 737 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Mercantile Bank of 
 London v. Evans, [1899] 2 Q. B. 613, 616. See. 
 preceding Case. 
 
 — Equitable — Banker's deposit note — Indorse- 
 
 ment and delivery. 
 
 See VOLUNTABY Gift. 1. 
 
 — Goodwill — Partner's covenant — Restriction 
 
 against tradiiig — Benefit of covenant.^ 
 See Paetneksuip — Goodwill. 29» ^ 
 
 — Goodwill — Validity. 
 
 See Teade-maek — Begistration. 40. 
 
 — Married woman's reversionary life interest. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. ' 36. 
 
 4. — Mortgage — Absolute assignment with 
 proviso for redemption — Implication of power to 
 redeem — Assignm,ent of part of an entire debt — 
 Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, 
 sub-s. 6. 
 
 A mortgage of debts due to the mortgagor, 
 made in the ordinary form with a proviso for 
 redemption and reassignment upon repayment to 
 the mortgagor, is " an absolute assignment (not 
 purporting to be by way of charge only) " within 
 s. 25, sub-s. 6, of the Judicature Act, 1873. 
 
 Tancred v. Delagoa Bay and East Africa Bail- 
 way, (1889) 23 Q. a. D. 239, approved. 
 
 Where there is an absolute assignment of a 
 debt, but by way of security, a right to a reas- 
 signment on redemption wUl be implied, and 
 8. 25, sub-s. 6, of the Judicature Act, 1873, is 
 applicable to such an assignment, 
 
 Quiere, whether an assignment of part of an 
 entire debt is within the enactment. 
 
 Judgment of Lord Coleridge C.J. in Brice v. 
 Bannister, (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 569, questioned. 
 
 A firm of builders delivered to tlie pits, 
 a document in the following terms : " Be Build- 
 ing Contract, South Lambeth Road. — In conside- 
 ration of money advanced from time to time we 
 hereby charge the sum of 1080?., which will 
 become due to us from John Robertson on the 
 completion of the above buildings, as security for 
 the advances, and we hereby aioign our interest 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 76 
 
 ASSIGNMENT— cojitmued. 
 in the above-mentioned sum until the money with 
 added interest be rei^aid to you." The pits, 
 gave notice to the John Kobertson named in the 
 document, and brought this action against him 
 to recover the amount : — 
 
 Seld, that the document was not " an absolute 
 assignment (not purporting to be by way of charge 
 only) " within s. 25, sub-s. 6, of the Judicature 
 Act, 1873, and that the pits, could not recover 
 in the action. Durham Bkotheks v. Eobertsos 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 765 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. In re Griffin, [1899] 
 1 Ch. 408, 412. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Cases under Moktgase — Consoli- 
 dation. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Oases under Patent. 
 
 5. — Priority — Cliose in action — Seversionary 
 trust fund — Notice to existing trustees — Death or 
 retirement of trustees. 
 
 An assignee of a reversionary interest in a 
 trust fund who has given notice to all the trustees 
 in existence at the time of his assignment is 
 under no obligation to give any further notice, 
 and is consequently entitled to priority over a 
 subsequent assignee who lias taken his assign- 
 ment after the death or retirement of all those 
 trustees, and who gives notice of such assignment 
 to the new trustees. 
 
 Timson v. iJamsfeoHom, (1837) 2 Keen, 35, and 
 In re Hall, (1880) 7 L. E. Ir. 180, distinguished. 
 
 Ward V. Duncomhe, [1893] A. 0. 369, dis- 
 cussed. In re Wasdale. Beittin v. Paktetdge 
 Stirling J. [1898] W. N. 164 (2) ; 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 163 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. in Freeman v. 
 Laing, [1899] 2 Oh. 355, 358. 
 
 — Protection of creditors — Creditors' adminis- 
 
 tration action — Following assets. 
 See Feaudtjlent Convey.u^oe. 4. 
 — ■ Publishing agreement — Author's consent. 
 See Conteaot — Formation. 16. 
 
 — Qualified covenant against — Unwilling pur- 
 
 chaser — Lessor's consent — Unreasonable 
 
 refusal. 
 
 See Vendok and Pueohasee. 95. 
 
 — Eeversion of married woman. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 36. 
 
 — Eight of unregistered assignee to sue. 
 
 See CoPTEiGHT — Infringement. 10. 
 
 — Separate account, Fund carried to — Assign- 
 
 ment of separate fund — Notice — Equity 
 asamst assignee. 
 See Account. 4. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Cases under Ebvenue — Stamps. 
 
 — Wages — Advances — Seamen. 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 226. 
 
 ASSIGNMENT IN GROSS. 
 
 See Teade Name. 1. 
 
 ASSIGNS — Breach of covenant — Lease of public- 
 house — Licence. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Covenant. 
 18. 
 
 ASSIGNS — continued. 
 
 — Lease — Option to purchase — Equitable 
 
 assignee — Possess'on. 
 See Landloed and Tenant — Option to 
 Purchase. 80. 
 
 — Purchaser of lot whether an assign — Eestric- 
 
 tive covenant — Enforcement. 
 
 See Vendor and Puechasee — Title. 93. 
 
 — Eestrictive covenant — Tied public-house — 
 
 Mortgagor and mortgagee — Underlessee 
 
 — Notice. 
 
 See Covenant. 7. 
 
 ASSISTANT OTEKSEER— Eight to rate-books— 
 Appointment. 
 See Paeish Council. 2. 
 
 ASSIZES — General Council of the Bar — Criminal 
 business at Assizes — Report. W. N. 1899 (July 1), 
 p. 236. See Current Index, 1899, p. czviil. 
 
 — Notice of trial — Summons for directions^ 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Practice— Trial. 261. 
 
 " ASSITKANCE "-Further, Covenant for- Mort- 
 gage of scheme in moieties. 
 See Mortgage — Apportionment. 1. 
 
 — Eegistry Acts — Meaning of. 
 
 See YoEKSHiRE. 
 
 ASYLUM — Lunatic asylums. 
 
 See Lunacy — Lunatic Asylums. 6. 
 
 ATHLETIC SPORTS — False statements as to 
 name and performances — Attempt t 
 obtain prize. 
 
 See Criminal Law — False Pretences. 
 27. 
 ATTACHMENT. 
 
 (Committal and Attachment.) 
 Order XLI., r. 1 , Order XLIV., and Order Lll,, 
 r. 4, relate to attachment. 
 
 Memorandum as to committal and attachment, 
 hy Mr. Registrar Lavie. — Differences between the 
 two processes explained — Forms and warrants. 
 Practice Note - [1893] 1 Ch. 259, n 
 
 1. — Affidavit — Matters to be stated — R. S. C, 
 1883, Order xi.l., r. 5 ; Order LII., r. 4. 
 
 The copy of the affidavit to be used in support 
 of a motion for attachment, which by Order Ln., 
 r. 4, is required to be served with the notice of 
 motion, must contain a statement that the order 
 alleged to have been disobeyed when served was 
 duly indorsed with the memorandum pointing 
 out the consequence of neglectiug to obey it, as 
 required by Order XLI., r. 5 ; and if such state- 
 ment is omitted the service is insufficient. 
 Stockton Football Co. v. Gaston 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 a. B. 453 
 
 2. — Affidavit — Non-service of copy — Waiver — 
 R. S. 0., Order xui., r. 32 ; Order xxxfh., r. 9 ; 
 Order LII., r. 4 ; Order LXX., r. 1. 
 
 Copies of the affidavits on which an appli- 
 cation for an attachment was made in chambers 
 were not served on the deft. The objection 
 being taken, tlie judge adjourned the case to 
 give deft, an opportunity of answering them. 
 On the further hearing deft.'s solicitor admitted 
 that deft, could not answer them : — 
 
 Held, that, assuming that Order Ln., r. 4, of 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 78 ) 
 
 ATTACHMENT— coiiiratiecZ. 
 tide E. S. C, 1883, applied, and that copies of the 
 affidavits should have been served, yet the deft., 
 having had the equivalent of the advantages 
 intended to be conferred by the r., was not 
 entitled to insist on the irregularity. Eesdell 
 V. Geotdt - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B, 16 
 
 3. — Affidavit — Service of copies — B. S. G., 
 Order Lxx., r. 1. 
 
 On a motion for attachment it is necessary to 
 serve copies of all affidavits intended to be used 
 on the motion with the notice of motion, including 
 a copy of an affidavit verifying the service of the 
 original order. 
 
 (a) Taylor v. Boe (No. 1) - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 " Served with," in Order Ln., r. 4, explained. 
 Tayloe v. Eoe (No. 1) - [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 (b) In re Dunntng. Sturgeon" v. Lawrence 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] "W. N. 140 
 
 (c) The mere failure to serve copies of the 
 affidavits with summonses or notice of motion is 
 not necessarily and in all cases fatal. Eemdell 
 c. Gbundy - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 16, at p. 21 
 
 4. — Affidavit of service of order disobeyed — 
 Non-service of copy — Dispensation, Order LII., r. i. 
 
 An order was made on Aug. 5, 1892, directing 
 a solicitor to pay a sum of money. ' The solicitor 
 did not appear. A motion was made to commit 
 him for disobedience to the order, on which he 
 did not appear. He had been served with the 
 order and notice of motion, but not with a copy 
 of the affidavit of service of the order : — 
 
 Seld, that the service in the present case was 
 sufficient, and dispensed with service of a copy of 
 the affidavit of service of the order of Aug. 5, 
 1892. In re A Solicitor 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] W. N. 188 
 
 — Appeal — Security for costs. 
 
 See Costs. 50. 
 • Appeal. 
 
 See Appeal. 23, 33. 
 
 — Bankrupt solicitor. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Attacluneiit. 66. 
 
 — Committal or attachment— Breach of under- 
 
 taking — Serwce of order containing the 
 
 undertaking — Solicitor. 
 
 See Pbaotioe — Undertaking. 272. 
 
 5. — Costs. 
 
 The Court will dismiss with costs an unne- 
 cessary and vexatious motion to commit. In re 
 Maktindalb - North J. [1894] 3 Ch, 193 
 
 6. — Discharge — Ez parte application, S. S. C, 
 Order XLIV., r.\., • 
 
 A prisoner who has been attached and im- 
 prisoned for contempt in disobeying orders to 
 attend for examination cannot move ex parte for 
 his discharge. In re Evans. Evans v. Noton 
 <No. 2) - Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 32 
 
 — Disobedience of order of Irish Court. 
 
 See Contempt of Court. 1. 
 
 — Disobedience to order to deliver up money and 
 
 documents. 
 
 See SoiiioiTOE. 138. 
 
 ATTACHMENr— coiiimued. 
 
 Order XLV. relates to attaoliment of debts. 
 
 7. — Garnisliee — Affidavit — Sufficiency. 
 
 It is sufficient to sustain a garnishee order 
 under Order xlv., i. 1, if the creditor swear to 
 the best of his knowledge and belief that a debt 
 is owing from the garnishee to his debtor. If the 
 creditor further and unnecessarily specifies a par- 
 ticular form of debt, and the garoishee denies 
 that debt without denying that any debt bo 
 owing, the garnishee order should nevertheless 
 issue. De Pass v. Capital and Industries 
 Corpokation C. A.[1891] 1 ft. B. 216; affirm, by 
 H. L. (E.) sub nom. "Vinall v. De Pass 
 [1892] A. C. 90 
 — Garnishee — Appeal. 
 
 See Appeal. 15. 
 
 8. — Garnishee — Banldng account — Honouring 
 ekegues. 
 
 A banker was served with a garnishee order 
 attaching all moneys in his hands belonging to 
 the pit. : — ■ 
 
 Held, that he was not obliged to honour 
 cheques drawn by the pit. against the balance 
 in his hands over and above the judgment debt, 
 and that his refusal to do so gave the pit. no 
 cause of action. 
 
 Semble, that the operation of a garnishee order 
 
 may be restricted by the Court or judge to an 
 
 amount equal to the judgment debt. Kogers 
 
 V. Whitelby H. E. (E.) [1892] A. C. 118 affirm. 
 
 C. A. and Div, Ct. (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 236 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Tales v. Terry, 
 [1901] 1 Q. B. 102, 104. 
 
 9. — Garnishee — Bankruptcy Act,f 1890 — • 
 Money in the hands of the sheriff — Bankruptcy 
 Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 30, sub-s. 1 ; 
 1890 (63 * 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 11, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Apart from s. 11 (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1890, moneys in the hands of the sheriff can 
 be attached by a garnishee order. The sub-s. 
 merely puts a temporary stop on the money in 
 the hands of the sheriif. In re Gkeer. Nappeb 
 V. Fanshawb - Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch, 217 
 
 10. — Garnishee — Order for payment into 
 courtr—B,. 8. G., 1883, Order xlil, rr. 3, 4 ; Order 
 XLV., r. 1. 
 
 A judgment or order for payment of money 
 into court is not within Order xlt., r. 1 , and a 
 garnishee order cannot be founded thereon. In re 
 Grebe. Nappeb v. Fanshawe 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 11. — Garnishee — Trust fvmd in hands of 
 garnishee. 
 
 Money was deposited by the judgment debtor 
 with the garnishees for a special purpose that 
 had failed : — 
 
 Held, that the execution creditor could attach 
 this money; for, on the failure of the special 
 purpose, the money remained in the garnishees' 
 hands on trust to repay it to the judgment debtor, 
 and they could not, therefore, set up a claim to 
 costs in answer to a demand for the return of the 
 money, Stumore v. Campbell & Co. 
 
 C, A, [1892] 1 Q, B, 314 
 
 12. — Garnishee order. Action upon — Judg- 
 ment — Execution — Company — Debt— Winding- 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 BIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 80 ) 
 
 ATTACHMENT— conimMci. 
 
 up of company— Creditor— Practice— B. S. C, 
 Order XLii., r. 24; Order SLV., r. 3. 
 
 An action for debt will lie on a garnishee 
 order, but should not be resorted to if the amount 
 can be recovered by execution under Order XLV., 
 r. 3. 
 
 A garnishee order absolute had been obtained, 
 under Order xlt., r. 3, against a limited co. having 
 property abroad, but none in this country on 
 ■which execution could be levied : — 
 
 ' Seld, by C. A., that under Order xlti., r. 2+, 
 the garnishor could maintain an action on the 
 garnishee order for the debt thereby ordered to 
 bepaid to him by the co., the garnishees, with a 
 view to hie presenting a petition, as a judgment 
 creditor for winding-up the co. 
 
 Decision of Phillimore J. affirmed. 
 
 In re Combined Weighing and Advertising 
 Machine Co., (1889) 43 Ch. D. 99, considered.' 
 Pritchett v. English and Colonial Syndicate 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 91 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 428 
 
 — Garnishee order — Company — Floatingsecurity. 
 
 See Compant — Debentures. 55. 
 
 13. — Service of order — Corporation — Order 
 on — Disobedience — Enforcement by attachment of 
 director — B. 8. C, Order XMI., r. 31. 
 
 Obedience to an order made against a corpo- 
 ration will not be enforced, under rule 31 of 
 Order XLU., by the attachment of a director of 
 the corporation unless the order has been served 
 personally upon the director. MoKeown v. Joint 
 Stock Inbtitdte, Ld. North J. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 35 (10) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 671 
 
 — Income of tenant for life — Provision against 
 
 alienation. 
 
 Se/e Will— Forfeiture. 93. 
 
 — Married woman administratrix — Payment into 
 
 court — Form of order. 
 
 See Husband and Wife — Practice. 38. 
 
 — Master in Lunacy — Jurisdiction to attach. 
 
 See LuijrACY. 1. 
 
 14. — Notice^Contempl — Consent . order, Bis- 
 opedience to — Service of order — Affidavit — 
 Irregularity — B. S. C, 1883, Order Lii., r. 4. 
 
 6n a motion by a pit. for attachment or 
 committal of the deft, for disobedience to an 
 order, the order must, under Order lil, r. 4, be 
 brought in its exact form to the attention of the 
 deft, contemporaneously with, though it need 
 not necessarily be attached to, the notice of 
 motion, on the usual affidavit of service, unless 
 the Com't is satisfied that the order has been 
 brought to his knowledge in some otlier way, as 
 where the deft, himself appeared in court and 
 personally consented to or opposed the order 
 and the fact is stated on tlie face of tlie order 
 itself : and the rule applies even whore the order 
 has been made by the consent of the deft.'s 
 counsel, there being no difference in this respect 
 between a consent order and an adverse order. 
 Hall & Co. v. Trigq - Eekewich J. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 219 
 
 16. — Notice of motion to attach — Foreclosure 
 action — Order not indorsed pursuant to B. S. C, 
 Order XLi., r. 5. 
 
 In a foreclosure action the order absolute, as 
 
 bTthCEMEST— continued. 
 drawn up by the registrar, did not name any 
 time within which possessiou was to be given, 
 and consequently the memorandum required by 
 Order XLi., r. 5, was not indorsed thereon. After 
 possession had been obtained under a writ of 
 possession, the deft, retook possession : — 
 
 Held, that a writ of attachment was the 
 Ijroper remedy and could issue notwithstanding 
 the absence of an indorsed order. In re Higq's 
 
 MOBTGAGE. GODDAED V. HiGG 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 73 
 
 16. — Notice of motion to attach— Indorsement 
 on citation — B. S. C, Order LII., r. i ; Order XLI., 
 r.5. 
 
 A motion was made for a writ of attachment 
 against an executrix who had not complied with 
 a citation to bring in a probate for revocation, 
 the memorandum required by Order xli., c. 5, 
 had not been indorsed on the back of tLe cita- 
 tion -.-^ 
 
 Meld, that the motion must he dismissed. 
 
 Evans v. Evans (No. 2) - G. Barnes J. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 174 
 
 17. — Notice of motion to attach — Indorsement 
 on copy order served — R. S. C, Order XLI., r. 5. 
 
 The indorsement required by Order xll, r. 5, 
 only applies to judgments or orders which require 
 the deft, to do some act, and not to merely pro- 
 hibitory orders. Hudson v. Walker 
 
 North J. [1894] W. N. 180 
 
 18. — Notice of motion to attach — Irregularity 
 ■ — Name of lorong Judge. 
 
 A notice of motion for attachment was issued 
 marked with the name of the wrong judge: — 
 
 Held, that this was au irregularity which 
 could be amended. Tavlok v. Eoe (No. 1) 
 
 Xekewioh J. [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 19. — Notice of motion to attach — Omission of 
 grounds of motion. 
 
 Where the notice of motion for attachment 
 did not state the grounds on which it was 
 issued : — 
 
 Held, that such irregularity was fatal on an 
 application involving tlie liberty of the subject. 
 'I'AYLOR V. EoB (No. 1) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 20. — Notice of motion to' attach — Service other 
 than personal. 
 
 Where an order to deliver a bill of costs 
 had been served personally on a solicitor, and a 
 notice of motion to attach for non-compliance had 
 been served at his office on his clerk : — 
 
 Held, that the service was insufficient, but 
 leave was given to re-serve the notice of motion 
 by leaving the notice at his office. In re Dance 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 127 (10) 
 
 21. — Notice of motion to attach — Service- 
 Defendant who has not appeared— B. S. C. Order 
 XLir., r. 2 ; Order HI., rr. 3, i ; Order LXTII., 
 r.i. 
 
 Where a deft, has not appeared, but the pit. 
 knows where to find him, the Couit will not 
 issue a writ of attachment on a notice of motion 
 which has not been served, but has merely been 
 filed with the officer of the Court. In re Bassett. 
 Bassett v. Bassett North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 179 
 
( 81 ; 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 82 y 
 
 ATTACHMENT— co»(4nueti. 
 
 22. — Notice of motion to attach — Service — 
 Solicitor trustee — Attachment or committal — 
 -B. ,S. C, Order XLir.,r.2; Ordir LXVii.,r.i; 
 Order LXX., r. 1 ; Order LXli., r. 2. 
 
 A solicitor trustee was made a deft, in an 
 administration action, but did not appear. Orders 
 were made on him to attend for examination, 
 which he disobeyed. The pit. then obtained an 
 order for attachment. The notice of motion for 
 the attachment was not served personally on the 
 deft., but filed under Order lxvh., r. i : — 
 
 Held, (1) that personid service was not essen- 
 tial ; (2) that the filing of the notice was 
 sufficient service ; (3) that attachment and not 
 committal was the proper remedy. In re Evans. 
 Evans v. Noton (No. 1) C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 252 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. D. v. A. & Co., 
 [1900J 1 Ch. 484, 488. 
 
 23. — Notice of motion to commit — Personal 
 service — Substituted service — Waiver. 
 
 Notice of motion to commit a deft, must be 
 served upon him personally if practicable, service 
 upon his solicitor being insufficient; and the 
 Court will not make an order for substituted 
 service until it is satisfied that every endeavour 
 has been made to effect personal service. Mere 
 knowledge on the part of the dtft. of tlie plt.'s 
 intention to move to commit does not dispense 
 with the necessity of endeavouring to effect 
 personal service ; and the appearance of the deft, 
 upon the motion is not a waiver of any objection 
 on his part on the ground either of want of per- 
 sonal service or of any irregularily. Mandbb v. 
 Falcke (No. 2) - - [1891] 3 Ch. 488 
 
 24. — Notice of motion to commit — Substituted 
 service — B. S. C, Order XLir., r. 2; Order Lxvil., 
 r.6. 
 
 If personal service of a notice of motion to 
 commit cannot be effected, application must be 
 made ex parte for leave to effect substituted 
 service. Tn re A Solioitob 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 22 
 
 25. — Partnership — Practice — Authority of 
 acting partner — Defence of action against firm — 
 Employment of solicitor — Entering appearance in 
 names of partners — Communication of progress of 
 action to otlwr partners — Negligence — Order 
 xi.vill.A, r. 5. 
 
 A managing partner of a business firm has 
 an implied authority to employ a solicitor to 
 defend an action brought against the firm for the 
 price of goods supplied to the firm in the ordinary 
 course, of business. 
 
 A solicitor employed by the managing partner 
 of a business firm to defend an action brought 
 against the firm in the firm name has authority 
 to enter an appearance in the names of each of 
 the partners individually, and is not guilty of 
 negligence in not keeping the partners, other 
 than the managing partner by whom he was 
 employed, informed of the progress of the action. 
 ToMLijfSON V. Beoadsmith 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 386 
 
 — Service — Undertaking to do an act. 
 
 See Pkactice— Undertaking. 272. 
 
 ATTACHMENT— coiitwiMed. 
 
 — Solicitor's liability. 
 
 See Bankkuptot — Attachment, 66. 
 
 — Solicitor's misconduct. 
 
 See SoLioiToE — Misconduct. 112. 
 
 26. — Tim^ — Certificate of chief cltrlt — Varia- 
 tion— Time— Extension— R. S. C, 1883, Older r.v., 
 rr. 66a, 67, 70, 71. 
 
 An appointment before a chief clerk to sign 
 the certificate is a purely formal matter, and 
 need not be attended by either party. The pit. 
 alone attended such an appointment. The cer- 
 tificate was not then signed, but was handed to 
 the pit. for some necessary alteration, and by 
 him passed to the defts. who had the carriage of 
 the proceedings. The defts. made the alteration 
 and returned the certificate to the chief clerk's 
 office. It was then signed and filed without any 
 further appointment bejng made. The pit, 
 being unaware that the certificate had been filed, 
 allowed the time for moving to vary it to elapse, 
 and now applied for an extension of time : — 
 
 Held, thSt pit. had no right to rely upon 
 another appointment being made, and that no 
 extension of time could be granted. In re 
 Ingham. Lawe's Chemical Manpke Co. v. Ing- 
 ham Stirling J. [1896] W. N. (12) 5 
 
 27. — Time given — Writ of attachment — Non- 
 payment — Time given — Waiver, 
 
 After a writ of attachment had been issued 
 at the instance of clients against a solicitor for 
 his non-payment of a sum of ^8l. which he had 
 been ordered to pay, the clients, at the request 
 of the solicitor, agreed to suspend proceedings 
 under the writ for fourteen days, upon the 
 solicitor paying 25?. on account. This was done, 
 but the solicitor did not make any further pay- 
 ment within the extended time, and he was 
 arrested. Upon a motion by the solicitor for his 
 discharge from custody : — 
 
 Held, thai, by giving time and accepting part 
 payment, the clients had not waived thoir right to 
 enforce the writ of attachment. Jn re Feeeday 
 North J. [1895] 2 Ch. 437 
 
 ATTESTATION — Description of attesting witness. 
 See Bill op Sale. 1, 3. 
 
 — Notice of claim — Lodger claim — Signature. 
 
 See Paeliambkt — Franchise. 87. 
 
 — Probate practice. 
 
 See Cases under Peobate. 
 
 — Proxy. 
 t 
 
 — Will. 
 
 Bankeuptct. 190. 
 See Will— Attestation. 
 
 ATTOBNEY — Administrator — Distribution of 
 estate. 
 See ExEcnTOB — Administration. 
 
 — Grrant to— Administration de bonis non — 
 
 Necessity for notice. 
 See Peobate — Grant of Administration. 
 70. 
 
 — Power of. 
 
 See PowEE OF Attorney. 
 
 ATTOENEY-GENEEAL— Powers of in Quebec- 
 Information — Code of Civil Procedure. 
 See Canada — Quebec. 5.1. 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 84 ) 
 
 ATTOENMENT— Bailee. 
 
 See Estoppel. 2. 
 
 ATTOBKMENT CLATISE— Mortgages. 
 
 Bee MoKTQAGE — Attornment Clause. 3. 
 
 AUCTION— Auctioneer — Liability — Conversion of 
 chattels. 
 
 Where an auctioneer only settles the price as 
 between vendor and purchaser and takes Lis 
 commission he is not liable for conversion if ihe 
 vendor has no title to sell. But where an auc- 
 tioneer receives goods into his custody, and on 
 selling them hands them over to the purchaser 
 with a view of passing the property in them, he 
 is liable for conversion, and is not in the position 
 of a packing agent or carrier who merely purports 
 to change the position of the goods and not the 
 property therein. Barker v. Eurlong 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] 2 Ch. 172 
 
 2. ■ — • Auctioneer — LioMlity — Conversion of 
 chattels — Sale hy auction on private premises. 
 
 An auctioneer who sells and delivers goods in 
 the ordinary course is not a mere broker or 
 infermediary, and is liable for conversion if the 
 vendor had no title. A. granted a bill of sale of 
 her furniture to B., and subsequently instructed 
 a firm of auctioners to sell the furniture by 
 auction at her house ; they sold it and delivered 
 it to the purchasers. B. brought trover : — 
 
 Held, that the auctioneers wore liable for 
 
 conversion. Consolidated Co. v. Ccrtis & Son 
 
 CoUins J. [1892] 1 Q, B. 495 
 
 — Bill of sale — Written authority to take posses- 
 
 sion of and sell goods. 
 See Bill of Sale. 14. 
 
 — Commission — Conducting sale by auction. 
 
 See Solicitor. 37, 38. 
 
 — Deposit — Cheque for — Custom^Eefusal to 
 
 accept highest bidder. 
 
 See Vendok and Purchaser. 50. 
 
 — Name of purchaser filled in in blanks of memo- 
 
 randum by auctioneer's clerk. 
 /See Vendor and Porchaser— Contract. 
 27. 
 
 — Signature of clerk of, on behalf of purch^er 
 
 — Statute of Frauds. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 
 
 — Solicitor's remuneration for conducting sale. 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 36. 
 
 AUCTIONEER. 
 
 See Auction. 
 
 AUDITOR — Accounts — Finality of audit — Con- 
 tract. 
 See Accounts. 2. 
 
 ■ — Company law. 
 
 See Company — Audit. 
 
 — Extent of duty of — Audit of accounts— Elec- 
 
 tive auditor of corporaiion — Remunera- 
 tion. 
 See Local Government. 1. 
 
 — Liability of. 
 
 iSee Company — WiNDiyG-UP. 194 — 197. 
 
 AUSTRALIA. 
 
 Commonu-ealth of Australia Constitution Act, 
 1900 (63 ct- 64 Vict. c. 12), constitutes the Common- 
 icealth of Australia, 
 
 AUSTRALIA— con tinned. 
 
 New South Wales. See New South 
 
 Wales. 
 New Zealand. See New Zealand, 
 South Australia, col. 84. 
 Victoria. See Victoria. 
 TFesiera Australia, col. 84. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 See Probate— Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 Copyright. 
 See Copyright — International. 
 
 Death Duties. 
 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 Designs. 
 See Design — Colonial, &c. 
 
 South Australia. 
 
 1. — Revenue — Succession duty — Covenant to 
 pay — " With intent to evade payment of duty " — 
 South Australian Succession Duties Act, 1893 (56 & 
 57 Vict. No. 567), ss. 16, 27— Construction. 
 
 The deceased covenanted to pay 200,000^. to 
 his children with interest at IJ per cent, per 
 annum, the debt being payable at call. He 
 regularly paid the interest, but no portion of the 
 principal :— 
 
 Held, that this covenant, in the absence of 
 evidence to the contrary, conferred on the 
 children complete ownership of the debt, and 
 was a non-testamentary disposition of property 
 within the meaning of the South Australian 
 Succession Duties Act, 1893, s. 16, not subject to 
 duty under s. 17, as the testator died more than 
 three mojitbs thereafter : 
 
 Beld, further, that it was not chargeable with 
 double duty under s. 27, as made " with intent to 
 evade the payment of duty hereunder " in the 
 absence of evidence of some device or contrivance 
 for that purpose. Simms v. Registrar op 
 Probates - P. C. [1900] A. C. 323 
 
 Western Australia. 
 Appeals from Western Australia.] 0. in 
 C. dated Oct. 11, 1861, regulating Appeals to Her 
 Majesty in Council from the Supreme Court of 
 Western Australia. St. R. & 0. 1899, p. 1715. 
 
 2. — Banlc — Banker and customer — Forged 
 cheques — Liability of banlc — 44 Vict. No. 10— 
 Sufes and Orders, Order ,t.va-f/.. No. 10. 
 
 Order xxxvl, No. 10, of the rules under 44 
 Vict., No. 10, does not empower the Court to give 
 judgment in disregard cf findings of the jury not 
 objected to, merely because it sets aside one or 
 more findings which have been objected to. 
 
 Where the effect of the former was that 
 certain entries debited by the bank to their 
 customer were in respect of cheques forged by 
 one of its servants, that the customer was first 
 informed thereof by the accredited agent of the 
 bank who requested his silence, and that the 
 customer in complying with that request acted 
 honestly and with a view to what he believed to 
 be the bank's interest: — 
 
 Held, that the silence of the customer was not 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 AtrSTBAXIA (Western Australia) — continued. 
 a legal wiong to the bank, and that he was not 
 estopped from relying on the forgery. 
 
 McKenzie v. British Linen Co., (1881) 6 App. 
 Cas. 82, distinguished. Ogilvie v. "West Ars- 
 
 TBAUAN MOKTGAGE AND AgENCT CoKPOEATION 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C, 257 
 
 3. — Contract — Construction^Selection of waste 
 lands. 
 
 Under contract with the Colonial Government 
 the "W. Co. was entitled to select subsidy and 
 compensation blocks of land within a prescribed 
 area, and the Government was bound to abstain 
 from making any grants or sales of land within 
 such area to third parties while the contract 
 ran : — 
 
 Held, that the co. was entitled to select from 
 all lands within such area which the Government 
 was, at the time of making the contract, able to 
 convey in fee, including lands proclaimed as town 
 sites, but not devoted to public uses or withdrawn 
 from the Government's power of alienation. 
 West Australian Land Co. v. Fokbest, Com- 
 
 MISSIONBK OP CbOWN LaNDS 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 176 
 
 4. — Ejectment — Practice. 
 
 Where the pit. in ejectment claimed that the 
 deft, was estopped by payment of rent from 
 denying his title : — • 
 
 Held, that tlie deft., who alleged receipt of 
 rent by pit. as collector, was entitled to defend 
 on the merits in the ordinary way, and that the 
 pit. was not entitled to judgment under Order 
 3CIV. Jones v. Stone - P. C. [1894] A. C. 122 
 — Patents. 
 
 See Patents — Colonial and international 
 Arrangements. 
 
 5. — Servant of the Croion — Tenure at pleasure 
 — Colonial Office regulations. 
 
 In the absence of special contract a servant of 
 the . Qolonial Government holds ofBoe during 
 pleasure. The Colonial OfBce regulations as to 
 the dismissal of public servants do' not constitute 
 such special contract, but are mere directions 
 for the information and guidance of Colonial 
 Governors and their subordinates. 
 
 ATJSTEALIA (Western Australia) — continued. 
 
 A person gazetted without any special con- 
 tract to act temporarily as medical officer during 
 the absence on leave of the actual holder of the 
 office was dismissed before the expiry of such 
 leave : — 
 
 Held, that he had no cause of action. Shenton 
 V. Smith - - - P. C. [1896] A. C. 229 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. Dunn v. Reg., [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 119. 
 
 AUTHOR — Photograph — Picture — Good and 
 valuable consideration. 
 See CoPYKiBHT — Picture. 37. 
 
 — Publishing agreement — Assignability. 
 
 See CoNTEAOT — Formation. 16. 
 
 "AUTHOR" — Eeports of public speeches- 
 Newspaper. 
 See CopYKiGUT — Periodical. 34. 
 
 AUTHORITY— Agent. 
 
 See Cases under Pkincipal and Agent. 
 
 — Master of salving vessel — Agreement — Tender 
 
 — Discontinuous services. 
 See Shipping. 
 
 — Servant — Liability for acts of servants. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 — Solicitor. 
 
 See Solicitor — Authority. 
 
 — Stookbroking transactions — Authority to stock 
 
 brokers is on Stock Exchange terms — 
 Notice to produce. 
 See Canada. 23. 
 
 AVEEAGK— Shipping. 
 
 See Cases under Insurance — Marine. 
 Shipping — Average. 
 
 AVOIDANCE CONTRACT— Agent— Surreptitious 
 dealing with other principal — Bribe 
 accepted by agent. 
 See Principal and Agent. 6. 
 
 — Voluntary Settlement. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 263. 
 
 AWARD— Arbitration. 
 
 See Arbitration — Award. 
 
( 87 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— ] 900. 
 
 B. 
 
 BACCAEAT^Unlawful game. 
 See Gaming. 34. 
 
 BAHAMAS. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates. Act, 1892, 
 
 See Probate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1893. 
 
 Death Duties. 
 See Ebvenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 Law of Bahamas. 
 
 — Governor's power of pardon — Contempt of 
 
 Court. 
 
 See Colony. 3. 
 BAIL. 
 
 Bail Act, 1898 (61 Tict. c. 7), amends tlie law 
 mth respect to hail. 
 
 — Action in rem — ^Lis alibi pendens — Staying 
 
 proceedings. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. 199. 
 
 — Collision — Action in rem — ^Writ of fieri facias. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 57; 
 
 1. — Fugitive offendei Committal to await 
 
 return — Power to admit to hail — Jurisdiction — 
 Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 69). 
 
 Where a magistrate has made an order, under 
 the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, committing to 
 prison a person accused of having committed an 
 offence, to which Part I. of the Act applies, in 
 some part of Her Majesty's dominionsi or within 
 the jurisdiction of a Consular Court, to await his 
 return to the place where the offence is alleged to 
 have been committed, the Queen's Bench Division 
 of the High Court has jurisdiction to admit the 
 accused to bail until the time for his return. 
 Eeg. v. Spilsbuet Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 618 
 
 See also Spilsbury v. Seg., [1899] A. C. 392. 
 
 2, — Illegal contract — Bail to produce prisoner 
 -^Indemnity. 
 
 An indemnity given to bail, whether by the 
 prisoner bailed or another, is illegal. Consoli- 
 dated Exploration and Finance Co. v. Mus- 
 GRAVE North J. [1899] W. N. 212 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 37 
 
 — Security for costs of appeal — Practice. 
 
 See Privy Council — Judicial Com- 
 mittee. 10. 
 BAILIFF — High Bailiff.] Inquiry and indorse- 
 •ment on summons against registered company — 
 County Court Rules (.May), 1899. W. N. 1899 
 (April 29), p. 147. See Current Index, 1899, 
 p, zcii. 
 
 — Distress by. 
 
 See Cases under Distress. 
 
 — Fees — High bailiff — Practice. 
 
 See County Court. Execution. 40. 
 
 BAILMENT — Assignment — Validity of as 
 against trustee — Chattels for hire. 
 See Bankruptcy. 5'^. 
 
 BAILWSST— continued. 
 
 — Cab— Registered proprietor of — Liability for 
 
 acts. 
 
 See Ma ster and Servant — Master's 
 Liability. 77—82. 
 
 1. — Cloak-room, guods deposited at, hy hailee 
 — lAenfor cliarges. 
 
 When a bailee deposits an article at a ry. 
 station cloak-room, as he was entitled to do by 
 the contract of bailment, and after the deter- 
 mination of the contract the owners seek to 
 recover if : — 
 
 Held, that the ry. co. had a lien on it against 
 the owners for the cloak-room charges. Singer 
 Manufacturing Co. v. London and South 
 Western Kt. Co. - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 833 
 
 — Detinue^Conversion — Demand and refusal — 
 
 Time when beginning to run. 
 See Limitations, Statute of. — Fraud. 
 17. 
 
 — Estoppel — ^Attornment by bailee — Fraud. 
 
 See Estoppel. 2. 
 
 — Estoppel — Jus tertii. 
 
 See Estoppel. 3. 
 
 2. — Gratuitous loan of chattel — Defect in 
 article lent — Knowledge of lender — Injury to 
 horrower resulting from defect — Liability of lender. 
 
 The duty of a gratuitous lentler of a chattel, 
 for use by the borrower, is to communicate defects 
 in the article lent, with reference to the use to 
 which it is to be put, of which he is aware, and 
 if, wilfully or by gioss negligence, he does not 
 discharge this duty, he is liable for injury 
 resulting to the borrower from such defects. 
 
 Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter By. Co. 
 (1858) 8 E. & B. 1035, aud MacCarthy v. Young, 
 (1861) 6 H. & N. 329, approved. Coughldj ». 
 GiLLisoN - C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 145 
 
 — Horse — Contract of agistment — Action 
 
 founded on tort. 
 See Agistment. 
 
 — Interpleader — ^bailte — Estoppel — Eight to set 
 
 up jus tertii. 
 
 See Interpleader. 1 . 
 
 3. — Limitations, Statute of — Money deposited 
 for safe custody. 
 
 Time does not begin to run under the Statute 
 of Limitations (21 Jac. 1, o. 16) against a person 
 who has entrusted money to another person for 
 safe custody until demand, though it was con- 
 templated that the bailee might use the money 
 in business. In re Tidd. Tidd v. Oveeell 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 154 
 
 — Locomotive. 
 
 See Locomotive. 2. 
 
 — Negligence of bailee — Liability of Government 
 
 as compulsory bailees for hire. 
 See Queensland. 4. 
 
 4. — Negligence of stranger — Injury to chattel 
 by. 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 DIOEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 90 ) 
 
 BAILMENT— coniinaeti. 
 
 The pit. received a horse for sale with liberty 
 to _ use it until sold. The horse, -while being 
 driven by the plt.'s servant, was injured by the 
 negligence of the defts. : — 
 
 Seld, that as the x>\t. was under no liability 
 to his bailor, he could not recover any damages 
 for the injury to the horse. Clakidge v. South 
 Stapfokdshikb Tramway Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 422 
 
 See hereon remarks of A. L. Smith L.J. in 
 Meux v. Gbeat Eastern Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 387, 394 
 
 5. — Sestaurant keeper — Coat of customer. 
 Pit. went to deft.'s restaurant to dine. A 
 
 waiter took the plt.'s coat without being re- 
 quested, and hung it up behind pit. While pit. 
 was dining the coat was stolen. Pit. sued deft, 
 for damages for loss of the coat by his servant's 
 negligence : — 
 
 Sdd, that there was evidence to support a 
 verdict in plt.'s favour. 
 
 By Charles J., on the ground there was evi- 
 dence from which a jury miglit find that deft, 
 was bailee of the coat, and that he had been 
 negligent. 
 
 By Wright J., on the ground that bailment 
 must be assumed as the point was not taken at 
 the ti-ial, and there was evidence of negligence. 
 Ultzen v. Nicols Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 98 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Orchard v. Bush 
 & Co., [1898] 2 Q. B., 284r, 289. 
 
 6, — Title paramount — Bailee for hire — 
 Liability of, for negligence of servant. 
 
 The deft, hired a carriage and horse from the 
 pits. His coachman, instead of taking them, as 
 was his duty, to the stable, drove for his own 
 purposes in another direction. While he was 
 thus engaged, the carriage and horse were injured 
 owing to his negligent driving : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, was liable under his 
 contract as bailee in respect of the consequences 
 of his servant's breach of duty to himself. Coupe 
 Co. T,. Maddiok - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 413 
 
 BAEEHOTTSE — Underground — Premises vacant 
 at commencement of Act. 
 See Master and Servant — Factory 
 Acts. 67. 
 
 BAKING POWDER— Baking powder is not " an 
 article of food " within s. 3 of the Sale of Food 
 and Drugs Act, 1875. James v. Jones 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 304 
 
 See now Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. i>. 51), ». 26. 
 
 BALANCE — Banking account. 
 See Banker. 1. 
 
 BALANCE OBJi^'B,— Definition. 
 
 A balance order under the Companies Act, 
 1862, is not a "judgment." 
 
 The. nature of a balance order discussed. 
 Westmoreland Green and Blub Slate Co. 
 V. Feildbn - C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 15 
 
 BALANCE-SHEET — Proceedings against ofBcers. 
 See Company — Winding-up — Proceed- 
 ings against Deliuc[nent Officers. 1^5. | 
 
 BALLAST — Obligation of shipowner to supply 
 ..ballast — Eesponsibjlity for navigation. 
 See SnippiNQ^-Charterparty. 17. 
 
 BALLOT — Crosses, how to be counted. 
 Sei Schools. 6. 
 
 — Election of county council-TrDeath of candi- 
 
 date between nomination and poll. 
 See County Council. 1. 
 BANE. 
 
 See Banker. 
 
 BANK ANNUITIES^Conversion. 
 
 See National Debt. 2^3. 
 
 BANK CHABGES— Expenses of noting bill of 
 exchange — Liquidated demand. 
 See i'EACTicB— Writ. 290. 
 
 BANK OS 'ESBJj&.'S'h— Inspection of Register of 
 Unclaimed Stock — National DM Adt,1870 (33 * 34 
 Vict: c. 71), s. 52. 
 
 The Bank of England is not obliged under 
 8. 52 of the National Debt Act, 1870, to allow a 
 person who cannot shew that he has a bona fide 
 interest in some unclaimed stock to inspect the 
 register. Application by a " next of kin and 
 unclaimed money agent" for a mandamus to 
 compel allowance of inspection refused. Eeo. v. 
 Governor, &c., of Bank of England. Div. Ct. 
 [1891] 1 ft. B. 785 
 
 — Lunatic stockholder. 
 
 See Gases under Lunacy. 
 
 BANK-NOTE^Composition for loss of right to 
 issue notes. 
 See Banker. 20. 
 
 BANKER — Account— Appropriation of payments 
 — Balance. i . i 
 
 A solicitor paid into his own aobdunt money 
 of a client. From then to the solicitor's death 
 the balance of the account always exceeded the 
 sura so paid in. But on many days duriiig that 
 period the credit balance wa^ less than the amount 
 of other clients' moneys which the solicitor had 
 paid in subsequently to his payment of the money 
 oflthe first client and had hot withdrawn: — 
 
 Seld, that .the money Of the first client must 
 be taken to have been drawn out by the solicitor, 
 and that' a claim by that client to' be paid speci- 
 fically out of the balance could not be sustained. 
 In re Stenning. Wood v. Stbnning North J. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 433 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. Mutton v. Peat, 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 556, 560. 
 
 2. T— Account^Banliing ficcount^Garjiisliee 
 order — Honouring cheques— B. S. 0., Order XLV., 
 rr.1,2., 
 
 Where a banker had beeir served with a 
 garnishee order nisi attaching all. moneys in his 
 hands: belonging to the pit. :^- •■ . 
 
 Held, that he was not obliged to honour 
 cbeques drawn by the pit. against the bajance in 
 his hands over and above thejudgment debt, and 
 that his refusal to do so gave the pit. no cause 
 of action. 
 
 Decision of C. A.„ (1889) 23 Q.: B. D. 23§i 
 affirmed. Rogers v. Whitblhy 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 118 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 92 ) 
 
 BANEEE — continued. 
 
 3. — Account—Closing cieaount— Mortgage to 
 secure- amount owing on account current—Vower 
 of gale —BanJcer and customer. 
 
 A customer of a bank assigned to the bant a 
 policy of assurance on his life, and the moneys 
 payable thereunder, by way of mortgage for 
 securing the amount from time to time owing by 
 him to the bank in account current. The mort- 
 gage proYided that the statutory power of sale 
 should be exercisable by the bank if (inter alia) 
 default should be made in payment of the balance 
 owing on the account current for the space of one 
 calendar month after the account current had 
 been closed. 
 
 In 1899 the amount owing by the customer 
 was more than the bank was willing to allow, 
 and he was constantly pressed to reduce the 
 amount. On Nov. 9 he wrote to the bank 
 manager : " There was a, meeting of creditors 
 yesterday. . . . They agreed to accept all the 
 assets I had. I gave them to understand that I 
 was insui'ed .... and that you held the policy 
 .... as security for your account. . . . There 
 was a trustee appointed. . . . Trusting every 
 one will get 20s. in the pound. . . "• — 
 
 Held, that the letter of Nov. 9 amounted to a 
 closing of the account. It recognised that the 
 relation of banker and customer was at an end, 
 and the transactions between the parties must 
 cease. The bank were, therefore, justified in 
 realizing their security, and the pit. had no case 
 against them. Bekrt v. Halifax Commekcial 
 Bankins Co. Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 262 
 
 4. — Account — Current to deposit account, effect 
 of transfer of sum from. 
 
 Shortly after the death of G., a partner in a 
 bank, T. transferred a sum from his cui-rent 
 account to a deposit account. T. subsequently 
 paid into and drew out of his current account 
 sums exceeding that ^transferred. The bank 
 stopped payment : — 
 
 Held, that the transaction was the same as if 
 T. had drawn a cheque for the sum, and paid the 
 proceeds into the deposit account. It was an 
 entirely fresh contract, and G.'s estate was dis- 
 charged. In re Head. Head v. Head (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 236 
 — Account not earmarked as trust account — Set- 
 off. 
 See New Zealand. 1. 
 
 — Bank manager — ^Residence on bank premises — 
 Income tax. 
 See Eevenue— Income Tax. 70. 
 
 5. — Bank manager— " Manager in trust" — 
 Signature — Constrtictive notice. 
 
 The words " manager in trust " appended to 
 the signature of a bank manager to a transfer of 
 shares import that he is a trustee for his em- 
 ployers, and are not calculated to suggest that he 
 stood in a fiduciary relation to any third person 
 so as to affect a transferee of such shares with 
 constructive notice of such fiduciary relationship, 
 London and Canadlan Loan and Agency Co. v. 
 DuGQAN - - P. C. [1893] A. C. 606 
 
 — Bank with several branches — Notice of dis- 
 honour to wrong branch. 
 See Bill op Exchange. 5. 
 
 H'SKE'R— continued. 
 
 — Cheque — Agents. 
 
 See Peinoipal and Agent. 8. 
 
 — Cheque — Bet on horse-race — Illegal considera- 
 tion. 
 See Gaming. 7 
 
 6. — Cheque— Cash, when equivalent to. 
 
 The circumstances in which an agent may 
 receive a cheque in lieu of cash considered. 
 PapJ; v. Westacott C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 272 
 
 — Cheque — Conditional payment — Sale of debts 
 and securities. 
 See Trade. 2. 
 — Cheque — Co-surety — Cheque given by. 
 
 See Peinoipal a2jd Sueett — Discharge. 
 S. 
 
 7. — Cheque~ Crossed cheque — Banker col- 
 lecting and handing over proceeds — Conversion. 
 
 M., the payee of a cheque, specially indorsed 
 it to K. and posted it to K. S., having obtained 
 possession of the cheque in transmission, altered 
 the indorsement, presented it at the C. Bank, 
 and requested them to collect it. They did so, 
 and handed the proceeds to him in France : — 
 
 Held, that the C. Bank were liable to K. for the 
 amount of the cheque. Kleinwoet, Sons & Co. 
 V. CoMPTOiE National d'Esoompte de Paeis 
 
 Cave J. [1894] 2 Q. B. 157 
 
 Followed by Collins J. Lacave & Co. v. 
 Credit Lyonnais, [1897] 1 Q. B. 148. 
 
 8. — Cheque — Crossed cheque — Receipt of patf- 
 ment for customer — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 82. 
 
 Where a crossed cheque is delivered to a 
 banker by a customer for collection, and the 
 banker receives payment of it and places the 
 amount to the customer's account, the fact that 
 the customer's account is overdrawn at the time 
 does not make such receipt of payment by the 
 banker any the less a receipt of payment for the 
 customer within the meaning of s. 82 of the Bills 
 of Exchange Act, 1882, or disentitle the banker 
 to the protection of that section. Claeke v. 
 London and County Banking Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 552 
 
 9. — Cheque — Defective title — ■ Receiving 
 payment for a customer — " Customer " — Lidbility 
 of hanker — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 - 
 Vict. c. 61), ss. 81, 82. 
 
 In order to constitute a person a " customer " 
 of a bank within the meaning ofs. 82 of the Bill* 
 of Exchange Act, 1882, it is not necessary that 
 he should have an account at the bank. 
 
 A rate-collector had been in the habit for 
 several years of receiving cheques for rates and 
 cashing them at a country branch of the defts.' 
 bank, where he was known but had no account. 
 By falsely pretending to the pits., who were rate- 
 payers, that a rate had been made and was due, 
 he obtained from them a cheque, drawn to his 
 order upon a London bank, crossed generally, 
 and marked " not negotiable." He indorsed the 
 cheque and handed it in to the defts.' branch 
 bank, where it was cashed for him, a portion of 
 the proceeds being applied by the banks acording 
 to his request, and the balance being handed to 
 him in cash. This balance he appropriated to- 
 his own use. The defts. received payment of the 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900 
 
 ( Oi ) 
 
 BANKER— co»frm«e<i. 
 
 cheque from the bank on which it was drawn 
 before the collector's fraud waa discovered. In 
 an action to recover the amount so paid, it 
 was found as a fact that the defts. received 
 the payment in good faith and witliout 
 negligence : — 
 
 Held, that in the circumstances the rate- 
 coUector, although he had no account with the 
 defts., was a " customer " of the bank within the 
 meaning of s. 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 
 1882, and (V. Williams L.J. doubting) that the 
 defts. received payment of the cheque for the 
 rate-collector and not for themselves ; and that, 
 therefore, the defts. were protected by s. 82, and 
 were not liable. 
 
 Judgment of Bigham J., [1899] "W. N. 106 ; 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 172, affirmed. Gkeat Westekn 
 K-K. Oo. V. London and County Banking Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 144 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 464 
 
 10. — Cheque — Dishonour, notice of — Affidavit 
 verifying cause of action. 
 
 On an application under Order xiv., r. 1 , to 
 enter final judgment on a writ specially indorsed 
 with a claim for the amount of a dishonoured 
 cheque, the affidavit verifying the cause of action 
 need not contain an allegation that notice of 
 dishonour has been given to the drawer. May 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 451 
 
 of drawee bank certifying 
 Usage — Effect of crediting 
 with amount of cheque de- 
 
 V. Chidley 
 
 -Cheque— Effect 
 cheque — 
 customer 
 posited. 
 See NEWPOirNDLAND. 2. 
 
 11. — Cheque — Bonouring cheques — Garnishee 
 order. 
 
 Where a banker had been served with a gar- 
 nishee order attaching all moneys in his hands 
 belonging to the pit. : — 
 
 Held, that he was not obliged to honour 
 cheques drawn by the pit. against the balance in 
 his hands over and above the judgment debt, and 
 that his refusal to do so gave the pit. no cause of 
 action. 
 
 Decisions of C. A. and Div. Ct., (1889) 23 
 Q. B. D. 236, afSrmed. Kogbes v. Whiteley 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 118 
 
 12. — Cheque — Negotiable instrument — 
 " Isme " — " Fictitious or non-existing -person " — 
 Belief or intention of drawer — Bills of Exchange 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. «. 61), s. 2, s. 7, sub-s. 3, 
 8. 73. 
 
 A cheque drawn to the order of a fictitious or 
 non-existing person may be treated as payable to 
 bearer within the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, 
 s. 7, sub-s. 3, although the drawer believes and 
 intends tlie cheque to be payable to the order of a 
 real person. 
 
 A clerk in the account department of the 
 appellants, by fraudulently representing to them 
 that work had been done on their account by B., 
 induced them to draw cheques payable to the 
 order of B. in payment for the pretended work. 
 There was in fact no such person as B. The 
 cheques when signed by the appellants were sent 
 by them to the account department for postage. 
 The clerk obtained possession of the cheques, 
 indorsed them in B.'b name, aud negotiated them 
 
 BANKER— comt4)mc(Z, 
 
 with the respondents, who gave value for them 
 in good faith. The cheques were paid to the 
 respondents by the appellants' bankers. The 
 appellants having discovered the fraud brought 
 an action against the respondents to recover the 
 amount of the cheques as money paid under a 
 mistake of fact : — 
 
 Held, that the cheques were " issued " within 
 the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, 
 s. 2 ; that B. was a " fictitious or non-existing 
 person " within the meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 3, of 
 the Act, although the appellants believed and 
 intended the cheques to be payable to the order of 
 a real person ; that the cheques might therefore 
 be treated as payable to bearer, and that tho 
 action could not be maintained, the respondents 
 being holders in good faith for value. 
 
 The decisions of Wills J. and C. A. [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 306, 767, affirmed. Glutton v. Atten- 
 BOROuaH & Son H. 1. (E.) [1897] A. C. 90 
 
 13. — Cheque — Post-dated — Evidence of debt — 
 Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), ss. 4, 38. 
 
 A post-dated cheque stamped as a cheque is 
 admissible in evidence in action brought after the 
 date of the cheque, as it appears when tendered 
 to be sufficiently stamped. Royal Bank of 
 Scotland v. Tottenham 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 716 
 
 14. — Cheque — Post-dated — Bills of Exchange 
 Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Yict. c. 61), ss. 13, 73. 
 
 A post-dated cheque stamped as a cheque is 
 admissible in evidence in an action brought after 
 the date of the cheque, since under the Stamp 
 Act, 1891, the test of admissibility is whether an 
 instrument when tendered in evidence appears to 
 be sufficiently stamped. Eoyal Bank of Soot- 
 land V. Tottenham C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 715 
 — Cheque — Signed by procuration — Liability of 
 
 principal. 
 
 See PBisrciPAL and Agent. 9. 
 — Cheque — Tender — Validity — Authority of 
 
 solicitor. 
 
 See Tender. 1. 
 
 15. — Cheque — Words prohibiting transfer — 
 BUls of Exchange. 
 
 In order to prevent a cheque, drawn payable 
 to order, being negotiable, the intention must be 
 clearly expressed. Crossing the cheque to the 
 payee's account at a particular bank is not 
 sufficient. 
 
 Conditions necessary for rendering a cheque 
 not negotiable considered. National Bank v. 
 SiLKB - - C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 435 
 
 — Cheque — Churchwardens — Income of charity 
 estates — Banking account — Anticipation 
 of rents — Charge on charitable property. 
 See Charity. 1. 
 — Cheque — Collecting crossed cheque and hand- 
 ing over proceeds. 
 See Tbovbb. 3. 
 
 16. — Deceased partner — Deposit — Novation. 
 
 The acceptance by a customer from the sur- 
 viving partner of a fresh deposit-Eote for the 
 balance of a debt due from a banking firm, one 
 of whose partners is dead since the deposit was 
 made, is not sufficient evidence of novation to 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 96 ) 
 
 BAJIKER— continued. 
 
 diaoharge the estate of the deceased partner. 
 
 In re G. Head. Head v. Head (No. 1) 
 
 Chitty J, [1893] 3 Ch. 426 
 Distinguished hy C. A. In re Bead, [1894] 
 2 Ch, 236. 
 
 17. — Deceased partner — Transfer fromcurrent 
 to deposit account — Novation. 
 
 T. had a current account in the above bank. 
 Shortly after the death of C, T. transferred a 
 sum from his current account to a deposit account. 
 T. subsequently paid into and drew out of his 
 current account sums exceeding that transferred. 
 The bank stopped payment : — 
 
 Held, that the transaction was tlie same as if 
 T. had drawn a cheque for the sum, and paid the 
 proceeds into the deposit account. It was an 
 entirely fresh contract, and C.'s estate was dis- 
 charged. In re Head. Head v. Head (No. 2) 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 236 
 
 — Deposit, Cheque for — Custom — Refusal to 
 
 accept liighest bidder. 
 See Vendok and Puechasee — Deposit. 
 50. 
 
 — Deposit of securities by broker — Authority- 
 Liability of bank — " Negotiable securi- 
 ties." 
 See Stock Exchange. 8. 
 
 — Deposit of securities by broker — Negotiable 
 securities — Eight of redemption — " Con- 
 tango." 
 See Stock Exchanqe. 9. 
 
 — Deposit receipt, Banker's — Equitable assign- 
 ment — Indorsement and delivery — Donee 
 appointed executor. 
 See VoLTJNTAET Gift. 1. 
 
 18. — Forged documents — Payment of forged 
 documents purporting to he bills. 
 
 A clerk forged the names of two firms with 
 whom his principal had dealings, one as drawer 
 and the other as payee of certain forged bills. 
 He also by fraud obtained the signature of his 
 principal as acceptor, and also to letters advising 
 the bank that the bills were coming in for 
 payment. The bank paid the money to the 
 forger : — ■ 
 
 Meld (Lords Bramwell and Field diss.), that 
 the loss fell on the principal and not on the bank. 
 
 Held, also, that if the Bills of Exchange Act, 
 1 882, applied, the bills were payable to bearer, as 
 the words "fictitious or non-existent person" 
 (s. 7, sub-s. 3) included a real person who never 
 had or was intended to have any right to the 
 bill. 
 
 Decisions of Charles J., (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 
 103 and C. A. (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 243, reversed. 
 Bank or England v. Vagliano Bbothees 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 107 
 
 Referred to. Glutton v. Attenborough & Son, 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 306; H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 93. 
 
 — Forged cheques — Liability of bank. 
 
 See Adsthalia, 2. 
 
 19. — Forged indorsement — Cheque — 
 " Customer " — Action for conversion — Liability of 
 banker— Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 61), as. 24, 60. 79 sub-s. 2, ss. 80, 82. 
 
 The deft, bank carried on business in London 
 
 BANEDB — continued. 
 
 and had a branch in Paris. A cheque was drawn 
 on the deft, bank in London in favour of the 
 pits, specially indorsed by the pits, to a firm in 
 London and posted for collection to that firm, 
 but it never reached them. After the posting a 
 forged indorsement was put on the cheque, and 
 it was presented at the defts.' bank in Paris by 
 a person, purporting to be the last indorsee, who 
 bad no account at the defts.' bank. The defts. 
 paid the cheque, and sent it to their bank in 
 London, who credited their bank in Paris with 
 the value. The London bank refused to deliver 
 the cheque to the pits. The cheque, when it 
 reached the defts., was crossed generally. 
 
 In an action for conversion of the cheque : — 
 Held, that the defts., by paying the cheque, 
 and forwarding it to their London bank, and 
 crediting their Paris bank with the value, were 
 guilty of a conversion of the cheque in England, 
 and therefore the case was governed by English 
 law ; that the person who obtained payment of 
 the cheque was not a " customer " of the defts. 
 within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange 
 Act, 1882, 8. 82 ; that the defts., having paid the 
 cheque on a forged indorsement, were not pro- 
 tected by any of the provisions of the Bills of 
 Exchange Act, but were liable, under s. 24, for 
 the value of the cheque. 
 
 Kleinwort, Sons & Co. v. Comptoir National 
 d'Escompte de Paris, [1894] 2 Q. B. 157, followed. 
 Lacave & Co. V. Cbedit Lyonnais J 
 
 Collins J. [1897] 1 Q. B. 148 
 
 — Inspect. bankers' books in Scotland, Order to. 
 
 See DiscovEET — Documents. 9. 
 
 — Inspection of bankers' books. 
 
 See DisoovEBT — Documents. 8 — 11. 
 
 20, — Notes — Composition for loss of right to 
 issue notes — Consolidation affirms into company — 
 Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7*8 Vict. c. 32) ss. 10, 
 11, 12, 23, 24, 25, 23— Bank Note Act, 1856 (19 & 
 20 Vict. a. 20)— Bank Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict, 
 c. 32). 
 
 Five firms, two of which were London bankers 
 without right to compensation, and three county 
 bankers witli such right under the Bank Charter 
 Act, 1844, ss. 23, 24, agreed to sell their businesses 
 to a limited co., the considerations being shares 
 in the oo., and agreed in future not to carry on 
 business as bankers. The co. carried on business 
 at the old banks with the old staff : — 
 
 Held, that the banks had ceased to carry on 
 business, that the co. was not " such banker or 
 bankers" as the three county firms, and that 
 neither the firms nor the co. were entitled to be 
 paid any composition by the Bank of England. 
 Peesoott, Dimsdale, Cave, Tcgwell & Co. v. 
 Bank op England C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 351 
 
 21. — Overdraft — Banker and Customer — 
 Private accownt — Payment in of trust money — 
 Notice — Liability of hank. 
 
 Country bankers with whom A. had a current 
 account received from their London agents a sum 
 of money to be placed to the credit of A.'s trust 
 account. A. had no trust account with the 
 jjankers, and they accordingly placed it to the 
 credit of hia current account and advised him 
 thereof. A. knew it was trust money, but gave 
 no instructions to the bankers and continued to 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 YANKEE— amtinued. 
 
 draw on his account as usual. At the time the 
 trust money was credited to liis current account 
 A. was overdrawn on securities deposited with 
 the bankers, and the effect of so crediting him 
 was to largely reduce his overdraft temporarily. 
 A. however was in good credit, and the bankers 
 liad no intention of benefiting themselves and no 
 suspicion that A. contemplated a breach of trust, 
 and they continued to allow him a further and 
 ( xtended overdraft on further securities deposited 
 with them until his bankruptcy some time 
 afterwards : — 
 
 Held, that the bankers were not liable to 
 make good to A.'s cestuis que trust- the trust 
 money that had been lost under the above cir- 
 cumstances. Coleman v. Bucks and Oxon 
 Union Bank - Byrne J. [1897] 2 Ch. 243 
 
 2S. — Overdraft — Honouring without Imow- 
 ledge of Customer — Authority. 
 
 The Registrar-General of New South Wales 
 opened an account with a bank under a special 
 authority and instruction known to the bank for 
 the daily lodgment of the collections of his 
 department and their weekly transfer by his 
 cheque to the Colonial treasury. By the fraud 
 of a clerk in the Registrar's department less was 
 paid in during each week than was certified for, 
 bO that each week's cheque resulted in an over- 
 draft. The bank honoured the overdrafts without 
 calling the customer's attention to the fact : — 
 
 Held, that the Colonial Government for whom 
 the account was kept was not liable for the over- 
 drafts. London Chartered Bank of Abste alia 
 I'. Macmillan - p. C. [1892] A. C. 292 
 
 23. — Overdraft — Liability of Promoters of 
 projected Company — Novation. 
 
 The executive council of an exhibition held 
 to be liable for a.n overdraft on an account opened 
 in the name of such exhibition, the Court being 
 of opinion that the bank had never substituted 
 as their debtors the co. when formed for the 
 promoters. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1890] W. N. 181, 
 reversed. Coutts & Co. ^. Irish Exhibition in 
 London - C. A, [1891] W. N. 41 
 
 24. — Overdraft — Partner retiring from debtor 
 firm. 
 
 Where a bank allowed a firm to overdraw, 
 and A. retired from the firm in 1884, and the 
 overdraft was carried to the debit of the new firm, 
 find the bank in 1889 passed a resolution continu- 
 ing the overdraft for a little time, and in 1890 
 agreed with the new firm and a surety, B., for 
 guaranteeing payment to the bank of any balance 
 on the overdraft exceeding a certain sura : — 
 
 Held, that there was no agreement to give 
 time to Wie new firm, or to alter the relation 
 between the parties, and that the retired partner 
 was not released ; but quaere whether a proviso 
 ia the deed of dissolution of 1884 which gave 
 time to make arrangements with creditors pre- 
 vented A. from being discharged. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1894] 2 Ch. 32, afBrmed. 
 EousE V. Bbadfoed Bankins Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 586 
 — Order on banker to transfer in account — ■ 
 Stamp. 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 143. 
 
 BANEEB — continued. 
 
 — Production and inspection of banker's books. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 8 — 11. 
 
 — Shares — "Valuation of testator's estate— Bank 
 
 deposit receipts — Probate Duty. 
 See Victoria. 13. 
 25. — Stoclcbroker — Clients' securities deposited 
 to secure broker's indebtedness — Several accounts 
 — Appropriation of payments — Mights of owner of 
 deposited securities — Banker and customer. 
 
 Stockbrokers had two accounts with their 
 bankers — a current account and a loan account. 
 The brokers became defaulters on the Stock 
 Exchange on Jan. 13, and were on Jan. 24 adju- 
 dicated bankrupts. At the time of their stoppage 
 there was on the current account a balance of 
 1362Z. 10s. to their credit, and a balance of T.IOOZ. 
 was due from them to the bankers on the loan 
 account. They had deposited with the bankers 
 as security bonds and shares belonging to some of 
 their clients. This deposit was made without the 
 authority of the clients, but the bankers did not 
 Imow that the deposited securities were not the 
 property of the brokers. The deposit was made 
 (as the C. A. held, differing in this respect from 
 Byrne J.) to secure the general indebtedness of 
 the brokers to the bankers, and not merely their 
 indebtedness on the loan account. After the 
 stoppage of the brokers the bankers realized the 
 deposited securities, the proceeds of which were, 
 together with interest until sale, more than suffi- 
 cient to cover the balance due on the loan accouut, 
 and there remained in their hands a sum exceed- 
 ing the credit balance on the current account :— 
 HeZt?, that the two accounts must be. treated 
 as one, and that it was the duty of the bankers to 
 apply the 1362?. lOs. due from them on the cur- 
 rent account in reduction of the 7500J. due to 
 them on the loan account, and to use the deposited 
 securities to satisfy only the difference between 
 those two balances : 
 
 Held, therefore, that the sum remaining in 
 the bankers' hands belonged to the owners of the 
 deposited seouritie.^. 
 
 Two days before the stoppage of the brokers a 
 client had sent them a cheque to pay for some 
 stock which they had purchased for himi This 
 cheque was paid to their current account, and the 
 amount of it formed part of the 1362?. lOs. Tlie 
 purchase was not completed by the brokers : 
 
 Held, that the client had no equity as against 
 the owners of the deposited securities to be repaid 
 the amount of his cheque out of the 1362i. 10s. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 127; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 556, reversed on a conclusion of 
 fact. Mutton v. Peat 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. S. 98 1 [1900] 2 Ch. 79 
 
 26. — Stoclcbroker paying principal's money 
 into Ms own account. 
 
 When a broker or other agent entrusted with 
 the possession and apparent ownership of money 
 pays it away in the ordinary course of business 
 for onerous consideration, a transaction which is 
 fraudulent as between the agent and his employer 
 will bind the latter unless he can shew that 
 the recipient of the money did not act in good 
 faith. 
 
 Trustees of bank shares instructed a stock- 
 broker to sell them and deposit the proceeds in 
 
 E 
 
C 99 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 100 ) 
 
 BANKER — continued. 
 
 certain colonial banks. He sold the sbares to" 
 another stockbroker, and received in the ordinary 
 course a cheque for the price drawn in his own 
 favour. This cheque he paid into his own bank 
 account, then overdrawn. The bank knew the 
 cheque to be proceeds of a sale of shares, but did 
 not know or inquire in what capacity the broker 
 received it : — 
 
 Held, aifirming the decision of Ct. of Sess., 
 Thomson, &c. (Duiikip'a Trustees) v. Clydesdale 
 Ban!:, Ld., (1891) 18 E. 751, that the bank were 
 entitled to retain the proceeds of the cheque as 
 against the debt due to them by the broker. 
 Thomson v. Cltcesbale Bake 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 282 
 
 — Subrogation — Secured creditors — Unauthor- 
 
 ized borrowing. 
 
 See Railway. Powers. 30. 
 
 — Trustees — Investment — Convertible securities 
 
 — Bearer bonds — Custody. 
 
 See Tkustee. — Investments. 62. 
 
 — Trustees' powers of investment — Deposits with 
 
 banks— Laws of Victoria. 
 See VicTOBiA. 3. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 Additional rule, h&ing rule 112 b, dated 
 Aug- 19, 1896, as to costs of solicitor to petition- 
 .ing creditor. "W. N. 1896 (Sept. 12), p. 251 (1). 
 £ee Current Index, 1896, p. Iviil. 
 
 0. of the Bd. of Trade dated Jan. 10, 1896, 
 siCbstiiut ing a new Form for No. 74. {Notice of 
 rejection of proof of debt). W. N. 1896 (Jan. 18), 
 j^. 36. See Current Index, 1896, p. Iviii. 
 
 PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BaNKRCPTOY.] 
 
 Ijaic regarding, in case of companies amended hy 
 .60 Yid. c. 19. 
 
 0£i'-ial Assignee, dc, of estates of insolvent 
 debtors — Bd. of Trade 0. aholishing Offices of. 
 W. N. 1897 (April 10), p. 105. See Current 
 Index, 1897, p. Ix. 
 
 Official Reoeiveks.] Bd. of 'Trade 0. as 
 to distributing estates of debtors and duties in 
 relation thereto amongst. W. N. 1897 (Jan. 2), 
 p. 2. See Current Index, 1897, p. Ix. 
 
 In General, col. 100. 
 Act of Bankruptcy, col. 101. 
 Adjudication, col. 111. 
 Annulm,ent, col. 111. 
 .Appeal, col. 112. 
 Appropriation, col. 113. 
 ^Assets, col. 113. 
 Attachment, col. 118. 
 Bankruptcy Notice. See Bankkuftoy — 
 
 Act of Bankruptcy. 
 Charging Order, col. 118. 
 Colonial Law, col. 119. 
 Committee of Inspection, col. 119. 
 Contempt of Court, col. 120, 
 Costs, col 121. 
 County Court. See County Cohbt — 
 
 Bankruptcy Jurisdiction. 
 Veeds of Arrangement, col. 123. 
 Discharge, col. 123. 
 
 B&.'SK'RV'FTG'i— continued. 
 Disclaimer, col. 125. 
 Disqualification, col. 125. 
 Dividends, col. 126. 
 Examination, col. 126. 
 Execution, col. 127. 
 Fraudulent Preference, col. 131. 
 Insolvent Estates, col. 133. 
 Lunacy, col. 133. 
 Manager, col. 133, 
 Offences, col. 135. 
 Officers and Offices, col. 135. 
 Official Assignee, col. 135. 
 Official Seceiver, col. 135. 
 Order and Disposition, col. 1361 
 Partnership, col. 138. 
 Petition, col. 141. 
 Practice, col. 142. 
 Preference, col. 145. 
 Priority, col. 146. 
 Proof, col 146. 
 
 Protected Transaction, col. 155. 
 Proxy, col. 156. 
 Receiver, col. 156. 
 Seceiving Order, col. 157. 
 Bent, col. 163. 
 Beputed Ownership. See Bankkuftoy — 
 
 Order and Disposition. 
 Eetainer, col. 164. 
 Scheme of Arrangement, col. 164. 
 Secured Creditor, col. 165. 
 Set-off, col 169. 
 Small BanJtruptcy, col. 171. 
 Stay of Proceeding?, col. 171. 
 Trustee, col. 171. 
 
 Undischarged Banlcrupt, col. 178. 
 Void Settlement, col, 181. 
 Voluntary Settlement, col. 181. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Annuity— Appropriation of capital sum — 
 
 Married Woman — Restraint on antici- 
 pation. 
 See Annuity. 8. 
 
 — Assignee of equitable life estate — ^Letting 
 
 into possession. 
 
 See Settled Land — PossessioiL 92. 
 
 — Crown debt — Legacy duty— Priority. 
 
 See Revenue — legacy Duty. 124. 
 
 — Executor — Injunction restraining from further 
 
 acting as. 
 
 See Executor — Administration. 4. 
 
 — Forfeiture — Determinable life interest. 
 
 See Settlement — Forfeiture. 25. 
 
 — Forfeiture — Foreign bankruptcy — English 
 
 domioil. 
 
 See Will— Forfeiture. 98. 
 
 — Interest iu land — Limitations, Statute of — 
 
 Rights of beneficiaries whose trustees 
 
 are barred. 
 
 See New South Wales. 27. 
 
{ 101 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 102 ) 
 
 SaNKETIPTCY (In GaneiaX)— continued. 
 
 — Intestacy — Beneficial owner a bankrupt — 
 
 Limited grant of administration to trus- 
 tee in bankruptcy. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 35. 
 
 — " Legal disability," meaning of. 
 
 « See Will — Uncertainty, 215. 
 
 — Limitations, Statutes of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statutes of — Bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 — ■ Mortgagor, Bankrupt — Foreclosure — Account 
 — Practice. 
 See MOKTGAGE — Foreclosure. 16. 
 
 — Sequestration of benefice. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law— 
 Sec[uestration. 
 — - Solicitor. 
 
 See SoLiciTOB — Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Wife's unsettled reversion — Equity to settle- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Settlement — Equity to Settlement. 
 21. 
 
 Act of Bankruptcy. 
 
 1. — Assigmment of whole property — Assign- 
 ment hy partners for benefit of trade creditors only 
 — Beceiving order — Banlcruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 yict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (a). 
 
 By s. 4, sub-s. 1, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy if (a) " he 
 makes a conveyance or assignment of his property 
 to a trustee or trustees for the benefit of his 
 ■creditors generally " : — 
 
 Held, that an assignment by a debtor for the 
 benefit of his trade creditors only was not an act 
 T)f bankruptcy under clause (a). J» re Phillips. 
 J& parte Bakton 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 117 ; [1900] 2 ft. B. 329 
 
 2. — Assignment of wlwle property — Banlc- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. v. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 
 1(a). 
 
 A debtor assigned all his property except 
 leaseholds to trustees for the benefit of his 
 creditors, and executed a declaration of trust as 
 to the excepted property in favour of the same 
 trustees : — 
 
 Held, that this was a " conveyance or assign- 
 ment" of all his property within s. 4, sub-s. 1, of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and the deed was con- 
 sequently an act of bankruptcy. In re Hushes. 
 Ex parte 'H.VGB.-ES - C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 595 
 
 Eeferred to by G. A. Gentle v. Faulkner 
 11900], 2 Q. B. 267, 274. 
 
 3. — jJsiijfnmeni of whole property — Bank- 
 ruptcy Law, 1879, «. 151— ^e« No. 17 of 1877, 
 s. 10. 
 
 An assignment of the whole of a debtor's 
 property in consideration of a contemporaneous 
 advance and promises of future advances "in 
 order to enable the debtor to carry on his business 
 and in the reasonable belief "that he would 
 thereby be enabled to do so," lield not to be an 
 act of bankruptcy. Administratok-Genbral of 
 Jamaica v. Lascelles Db Mekcado & Co. In re 
 Eees' Bankruptcy - P. C. [1894] A. C. 135 
 
 4. — Assignment to one-man company — Fraudu- 
 lent conveyance — 13 Eliz. v. 5 — Bankruptcy Act, 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Act of Bankruptcy)— <!o«finMe(i. 
 
 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (6) ; ss. 
 43, 44. 
 
 A trader, who was liable under a judgment 
 for the costs of aa action, purported to sell liis 
 business to a co. which he had formed for the 
 purpose in consideration of fully paid-up shares 
 and of the co. undertaking to pay his debts. He 
 was the chairman, managing director, and secre- 
 tary of the CO. ; ho or his nominee held sub- 
 stantially the whole of the shares in it, and ho 
 had the complete control of it, including the power 
 to draw cheques, which he exercised in his own 
 favour. Within three months of this transaction 
 a bankruptcy petition was presented against him, 
 grounded on his non-compliance with a bank- 
 ruptcy notice in respect of the costs in question, 
 and a receiving order was made upon it. His 
 liabilities exceeded 2000^., with assets nil. Be- 
 tween the presentation of the petition and the 
 making of the order, a resolution was passed for 
 the voluntary winding-up of the co., and a 
 liquidator was appointed : — 
 
 Held, that the transfer was fraudulent and an 
 act of bankruptcy ; that the title of the trustee 
 to tho business related back to the date of the 
 transfer, and overrode the claims of the creditors 
 of the 00. in the winding-up; and that the liqui- 
 dator was bound to hand over to the trustee the 
 assets representing the business at the time of 
 the transfer. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1898] W. N. 164 (3), 
 reversed. In re C-arl Hirth. Ex parte The 
 Trustee 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 10 (2); [1899] 1 Q. B. 612 
 
 5. — Award — Execution — Seizure and sale of 
 goods — " Civil proceedings in the High Court " — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 71), s. 1 
 —Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. a. 49), 
 s. 12. 
 
 An application to enforce an award in the 
 same manner as a judgmoit or order to the same 
 effect under s. 12 of tho Arbitration Act, 1889, is 
 a " civil proceeding in the High Court " within 
 the meaning of s. 1 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890.- 
 Ex parte Caucasian Trading Corporation. In 
 re A Bankruptcy Petition 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 368 
 
 By the " Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1893" 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 58), an order for payment of 
 money under 53 & 54 Vict. c. 63, s. 10, was declared 
 to be a final judgment within 46 <fc 47 Vict. c. 52, 
 s. 4, sub-s. 1 (3). 
 
 6. — Bankruptcy Notice — Address of issuing 
 creditor — Bankruptcy Act, 18S3 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (3) — Bankruptcy Bules, 1886, 
 r. 136, Appx. Ft. 1, Form No. 6. 
 
 An address at which the creditor cannot be 
 found, but can only be heard of, so that the debtor 
 cannot pay the debt there, is not such an address 
 as is required by the Bankruptcy Act and Eules. 
 A bankruptcy notice stated the address of the 
 cre&itor who issued it to be " White's Club, St. 
 James', S.W." The creditor did not reside at 
 the club, and he was in fact out of England 
 during the whole of the seven days limited by 
 the notice for the payment of the debt. There 
 was evidence that, if the debtor had gone to the 
 club, he would have been referred to the creditor's 
 
 E 2 
 
( 103 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 1900. 
 
 ( lOi ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Act of Bankruptcy)— conMnwed 
 London solicitor, wlio held a general power of 
 attorney for the creditor, and could liave received 
 payment of the deht on his behalf :— 
 
 Seld, that the notice was invalid, and that 
 the non-payment of the debt -within the seven 
 days did not constitute an act of bankruptcy. 
 In re Stogdon. Ex parte Leigh 
 
 C, A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 534, 
 
 7. — ■ Bankruptcy Notice — Execution — Inter- 
 pleader — Bight of Execution — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 52), s. 4, subs. 1 (g). 
 
 Where goods taken in execution liave been 
 claimed by a third party before return by the 
 sheriff, and an interpleader summons has been 
 taken out and is pending, the execution creditor 
 cannot issue execution, and therefore cannot 
 serve a bankruptcy notice on the debtor. In re 
 Follows. Ex parte Follows 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B. 521 
 
 8. — Bankruptcy Notice — " Final judgment " 
 — Costs — Action upon Interlocutory order for pay- 
 ment of— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), s. 4. subs. 1 (3). 
 
 A judgment recovered in an action for the 
 recovery of costs payable under an interlocutory 
 order is a "final judgment" within s. 4, sub-s. 
 1 (jr), of the Banliruptoy Act, 1883. In re Boyd. 
 Ex parte MoDekmott C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 611 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Pritchett v. Englii^h and 
 Colonial Syndicate, [1899] 2 Q. B. 428, 434. 
 
 9. — Bankruptcy Notice—" Final judgment " 
 — Costs — Order on co-respondent in divorce suit — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1888 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, 
 subs. 1 (e), 1 (3). 
 
 An order on a co-respondent for payment of 
 the petitioner's costs made on the grant of decree 
 nisi in a divorce suit (afterwards made absolute) 
 is not a final judgment in an action within s. 4, 
 sub-s. 1 (3), of the Banl<ruptcy Act, 1883. In re 
 BiNSTEAD. Ex parte Dale 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 a. B. 199 
 
 IC. — Bankruptcy Notice — " Final judgment " 
 — Costs — Order upon motion in bankruptcy — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, 
 sub-s. 1 ((/). 
 
 An order to pay costs made on a motion in 
 bankruptcy is not a "final judgment" within 
 B. 4 (1) (g) of the Bankruptcv Act, 1883. In 
 re A Banekcptot Notice. Ffx parte Offici.al 
 Eeceivee C. a. [1896] 1 Q. B. 609 
 
 11. — Bankruptcy notice — "Final judgment" 
 — Costs — Separate judgments in partnership action 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * i1 Vict, v. 52), 
 o. 4, subs. (g). 
 
 In a parnership action the Court made two 
 orders, one for dissolution of partnership with 
 the usual accounts and inquiries, and another 
 dismissing a counter-claim and giving the pit. 
 his taxed costs up to and including the trial. 
 Subsequent costs were reserved ; — • 
 
 Held, that the order giving taxed costs was 
 a final judgment within s. 4, sub-s. 1 (3), of tlie 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883. In re Alexander. Ex 
 parte Alexander C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B, 216 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Taylor v. Boe, 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 413, 421. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Act of Bankruptcy)— con<i»jte(Z. 
 
 12. — Banln-uptcy notice — Foreigner out of 
 Jurisdiction — Bankriq)tay Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. e. 52), s. 4, subs. 1 (3); s. 6, subs. 1 (ti). 
 
 A banla-uptcy notice was issued under the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4, sub-s. 1 (g), against 
 a foreigner who had not ordinarily resided or had 
 a dwelling-house or place of business in England 
 within tlie preceding year and was then abroad. 
 The debtor subsequently coming to England 
 temporarily, he was served with the bankruptcy 
 notice in this country ; — ■ 
 
 Held, that the issue of the bankruptcy notice 
 was valid. In re Claek. Ex parte Betee, 
 Peacock & Co. C. A. [1886] 2 Q. B. 476 
 
 13. — Bankruptcy Notice — Irregularity — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vtct. c. 52), s. 4, 
 subs. 1 ((7). 
 
 A bankruptcy notice which is not in accor- 
 dance with the terms of the judgment on which 
 it is founded or which is in terms likely to 
 perplex the debtor, or does not clearly inform 
 him who is the creditor whom he is required to 
 pay, will be set aside. In re Howes. Ex parte 
 Hughes - - C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 628 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Low, [1895] 
 1 Q. B. 734, 736. See next Case. 
 
 14. — Bankruptcy notice — Irregularity — 
 Amendment — Joint debtors — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 * 47 Viet. 0. 52), s. 4, swbs. 1 (3) ; s. 143. 
 
 A. obtained judgment against B. and three 
 out of five co-defts. A. served a bankruptcy 
 notice on B. in which it was stated that judg- 
 ment had been recovered against B. and all five 
 co-defts. : — 
 
 Held, that the error was not material, as it 
 could not prejudice B., and that the notice 
 could be amended under s. 143 of the Act 
 of 1883 : 
 
 Held, also, that where judgment has been 
 recovered against several persons jointly, a bank- 
 ruptcy notice may be issued against one of them 
 without including the others. In re Low. Ex 
 parte Gibso>j - 0. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 734 
 
 15. — Bankruptcy notice — Judgment — Equit- 
 able assignment of judgment debt — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, subs. 1 (3)— 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (63 * 54 Viet. c. 71), s. 1. 
 
 A judgment creditor, who has made an equit- 
 able assignment of the judgment debt, may 
 nevertheless issue a bankiuptcy notice upon the 
 judgment under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4, 
 sub-s. 1 (3). In re Palmer. Ex parte Brisis 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 419 
 
 16. — Bankruptcy notice — Judgment debt — 
 Infant — Acceptance — Infants Belief Act, 1873 
 (37 * 38 Vict. 0. 62), s. 1— Bills of Exchange Act, 
 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 22. 
 
 An infant cannot bind himself by the accept- 
 ance of a bill of exchange, even when the bill is 
 given for the price of necessaries supplied to him 
 during infancy. Such an acceptance is wholly 
 void, even in the hands of an indorsee for value 
 without notice of the infancy, and bankruptcy 
 proceedings cannot be founded on a judgment on 
 such an acceptance. In re Solttkofp. Ex 
 parte Makqrett C. A. [1891] 1 ft, B. 413 
 
( 105 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1S91— 1900. 
 
 ( 106 ) 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Act of Bankruptcy)— coiiimaeii. 
 
 17. — Banliruptcy notice — Judgment debt — 
 Joinder of several — Banlcruplcy Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, subs. 1 ((/). 
 
 Two or more judgment debts cannot be in- 
 cluded in the same banliruptcy notice under s. 4, 
 sub-s. 1 ((/), of the Baulvrnptey Act, 1883. In re 
 Low. Ex parte Akgentixe Gold Fields, Ld. 
 
 C, A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 147 
 
 18. — Banliruptcy notice — Judgment debt — 
 Mairied looman — Married Women Act, 1882 
 <45 & 40 Vict. c. 75), s. 1 , sub-s. 5 — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ». 4, suh-s. 1 (<;)— 
 Banlcruptey Bules, 1886, r. 136, App. Form No. 6. 
 
 A judgment had been obtained against a 
 married woman trading separately from lier 
 husband in the ordinary form in (he case of a 
 maiTied woman — i.e. against her separate estate 
 and not as a personal judgment : — 
 
 Held, that on this judgment a bankruptcy 
 notice could not issue under s. 4, subs. 1 (3), of 
 the Bankraptcy Act, 1883, against the debtor, 
 for the uotice would not be '■ in accordance with 
 the terms of the judgment," as the notice 
 required the person served to pay the judgment 
 debt, whereas the judgment was only against 
 her separate estate. A bankruptcy noticB must 
 be in the fonn prescribed by Form 6 in the 
 Appendix to the Bankruptcy Eules, 1886. In re 
 Hannah Lynes. E.v parte Lestek cS; Co. 
 
 C, A. [1893] 2 ft, B. 113 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. In re Bewett, [1894] 
 
 1 Q. B. 328,331. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Clarlt, [1896] 
 
 2 Q. B. 476, 479. 
 
 19. — Banlcruptey notice — Judgment debt — • 
 Married woman — Death of husband — Banliruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (g)— 
 Bankruptcy Bules, 1886, r. 136, Appx. Form Ho. 6. 
 
 A judgment recovered against a married 
 woman does not, upon the death of lier husband, 
 render her personally liable to pay the judgment 
 debt, so as to entitle the judgment creditor to 
 issue a bankruptcy notice against her upon such 
 judgment. In re Hewett. Fx parte Levene 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B, 328 
 
 20. Bankruptcy notice — Judgment debt — Pay- 
 ment of part — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Viet. c. 52), js, 4, sub-s. 1 (3) — Bankruptcy Bules, 
 1886, r. 136, Appx. Form No. 6. 
 
 Where part of a judgment debt has been paid 
 the creditor is not entitled to serve a bankruptcy 
 notice in respect of the whole of such debt, as he 
 cannot issxie execution in respect of the part 
 which has been paid. la re Child. Ex parte 
 Child - - Div. Ct, [1892] 2 ft. B. 77 
 
 21. — Bankruptcy notice — Married woman — 
 Trading separately from husband — Married 
 Women Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 75), s. 1, 
 
 sub-s: 5. 
 
 On the facts, held that there was neither 
 separate property nor separate trading within 
 s. 1, sub-s. 5, of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, ' 1882. The meaning of " carj-yiog on a 
 trade separately from her husband " considered 
 by "V. Williams J. In re Helsby. Ex parte 
 Helsbt - - Div. Ct, [1893] W. N. 189 
 
 And see Nos. 18, 19 above. 
 
 BANKETJPXCY (Act of Bankruptcy)— coiitimtec?. 
 
 88. — Bankruptcy notice — Non-compliance 
 with bankruptcy notice — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 tS: iljict. c. 52), s. 4 (g). 
 
 Where a debtor has committed an act of 
 bankruptcy by non-compliance with a bank- 
 ruptcy notice under s. 4 (3) of the Act of 1883, u. 
 bankruptcy petition may be presented by any 
 creditor, although the creditor who served the 
 notice has subsequently to the act of bankruptcy 
 received payment of his debt. In re Powell. 
 Fx parte Powell - Div. Ct, [1891] 2 ft. B. 324 
 
 S3. — Bankruptcy notice — Partnership firm — 
 Infant partner— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. u. 52), ss. 4, 5, 6, 105 — Bankruptcy Bules, 
 1886, rr. 260, 262, 264— JJ. S. C, Order XLViii. 
 A. rr. 5, 8. 
 
 If an act of bankruptcy is committed by a 
 firm having an infant partner a receiving order 
 cannot be made against the firm simply, but can 
 be made against the members of the firm " other 
 than " the infant partner; and if a receiving 
 order has been made against tlie firm simply it 
 can be amended under s. 105 of the Bankraptcy 
 Act, 1883. 
 
 Judgment was recovered against a partner- 
 ship, one member of which, G. W. B., was an 
 infant. A bankruptcy notice was served, the 
 non-compliance with which was alleged in, the 
 petition as an act of bankruptcy, and a receiving 
 order was made : — 
 
 Meld, by H. L. (H.), varying C. A., that tlie 
 judgment should be amended by adding alter 
 the word "dofts." the words "other than 
 G. W. B." ; and that the bankruptcy proceedings 
 should be amended by adding these words after 
 the words " B. Brothers." In re Beaichamp 
 Bbothebs. Ex parte Beauchamp. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 1 ; varied by H. L. (E.) 
 sub nom. Lovell and Chkistjias v. Beatjohamp 
 
 [1894] A. C. 607 
 
 24. — Bankruptcy notice — Scottish judgment 
 registered in England — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (,g)— Judg- 
 ments Extension Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. v. 54), 
 ss. 3, 4. 
 
 , A judgment of the Ct. of Se.ss. in Scotland 
 registered in England under the Judgments 
 Extension Act, 1868, cannot be made the founda- 
 tion of a bankruptcy notice. 
 
 In re Watson [1893] 1 Q. B. 21, followed. 
 In re A Bankeuptoy Notice. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 383 
 
 85. — Bankruptcy Notice — Service out of 
 jurisdiction — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (48 & 47 
 
 Vict. c. 52), 6. 4, sub-s. 1 (3) ; s. 6, sub-s. 1 (d). 
 
 There is no jurisdiction under the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, to allow the service of a 
 bankruptcy uotice>.upon a foreigner out of the 
 jurisdiction. J» i-e Peabson. Ex parte V e,a.us,ot^ 
 C. A. [1892] 8 ft. B. 863 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Clark, [1896] 
 2 Q. B. 476, 479. 
 
 Considered hy C. A. In re A. B. & Co., 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 541, 545. 
 
 86. — Bankruptcy notice — Set aside, applica- 
 tion to — Adjournment of hearing — Ground for 
 setting aside— Bankruptcy A^l, 1883 (46 & 47 Vid. 
 
( IW ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, ] 891— 1900. 
 
 ( 108 ) 
 
 BANKKTJPTCY (Act of Bankruptcy)— coniintiet?. 
 c. 52), s. 4, siib-s. 1 (g) — Banhruiricy Bules, 1886 
 and, 1890, Bules 138 (2), 139, Form 8. 
 
 An adjournment of tlie hearing of an appli- 
 cation to set aside a bankruptcy notice canaot be 
 granted to the judgment debtor, unless, upon the 
 application for adjournment, sufficient ground, 
 •within s. 4, sub-s. 1 (3), of the Banljruptcy Act, 
 1883, and Eules 138 (2), 139, and Form 8 of the 
 Bankr-uptcy Eules, 1886 aud 1890, is shewn for 
 setting aside the bankruptcy notice. In re Cole. 
 Ex parte Attenbokough 
 
 Div, Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 290. 
 
 27. — Bill of exchange given for amount of 
 debt — Determination of credit by Act of Bank- 
 ruptcy — Petitimiing creditor's debt. 
 
 A petition in bankruptcy alleged as the 
 petitioning creditor's debt a sum due for goods 
 sold and delivered. Previously to the commis- 
 sion of the alleged act of bankruptcy, the debtor 
 had given to the petitioning creditor bills of 
 exchange for the price of tbe goods, which bills 
 had not matured at the date of the presentation 
 of the petition : — 
 
 Held, that the only effect of taking the bills 
 ■was to give the debtor a period of credit, that by 
 the act of bankruptcy the period of credit was 
 determined, and that the petitioning creditor's 
 debt was correctly stated in the petition. In re 
 Kaatz. Ex parte Eaatz - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 80 
 
 28. — Circular or notice to Creditors — Non- 
 Trader — Notice of Intention to suspend Payment 
 — Solicitor's Letter — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (ft). 
 
 Sect. 4, sub-3. 1 (/i),.of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, applies to non-traders as well as to traders. 
 
 Judgment creditors having pressed the debtor 
 for payment and threatened to levy execution, he 
 offered them a second mortgage on his freehold 
 estates as security, and with a view thereto his 
 solicitors wrote to the solicitors of the judgment 
 creditors as follows : '" As promised we send you 
 herewith statement showing income and expendi- 
 ture and amount of the mortsagcs on the estates. 
 We think it well to repeat what we stated to you 
 at our interview that a receiving order will be 
 applied for immediately execution is issued." 
 The security offered was declined, and shortly 
 afterwards the judgment creditors issued execu- 
 tion. The debtor at once presented a bankruptcy 
 petition and obtained a receiving oider. The 
 trustee in bankruptcy claimed moneys paid to 
 the debtor's solicitor between the date of the letter 
 and of the receiving order, on the ground that the 
 letter was an act of bankruptcy and that his title 
 related back thereto : — 
 
 Held, that the letter did not amount to a notice 
 of suspension or of intention to suspend pay- 
 ment, and therefore was not an act of bank- 
 ruptcy. Tkustee of Lokd Hill v. Eowlands 
 
 V. WUliams J. [1896] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 See also on another point, Hill v. Boivlands, 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 361. 
 
 29. — Circular or notice to Creditors — 
 "Notice" — Suspension of payment — Verbal ad- 
 mission of insolvency — Debt — Payment on a con- 
 tingency — Future partnership — " Liquidated sum " 
 — Petitioning creditor's debt — Bankruptcy Act, 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Act of Bankruptcy) — continued. 
 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (ft) ; s. 6, 
 sub-s. 1 (6). 
 
 Under an agreement made in Jan. 1900; 
 between M., a stockbroker, and T., witli a view 
 to T.'s ultimately becoming a member of the 
 Stock Exchange and entering into partnership 
 with M., T. paid 2000Z. into M.|s banking accovmt 
 subject to a condition that if T. should not, on or 
 before Sept. 29, 1900, become a member of the 
 Stock Exchange, or if, having become a member, 
 he should not be at liberty to enter a partnership 
 within that period by reason of his lecommenders 
 withholding their consent, then and in either of 
 those cases T. should have the option of deter- 
 mining the agreement by notice, whereupon the 
 2000;. should be repaid by M. 
 
 On June 28 M. was hammered on the Stock 
 Exchange, and on July 3 he told T. in conver- 
 sation that " he was utterly penniless," that "he 
 could not pay anybody," and that "he had lost 
 everything." Thereupon T., without having 
 given any notice determining the agreement, 
 presented a bankruptcy petition against M., 
 alleging that T. was indebted to him "in the 
 sum of 2000Z. lent by him to M. pursuant to the 
 agreement," and that the act of bankruptcy was 
 that the debtor gave him " notice" on July 3 of 
 having '' suspended payment of his debts " : — 
 
 Held, that the alleged debt of 2000Z. was not 
 "a liquidated sum, payable either immediately 
 or at some certain future time," within s. 6, 
 sub-s. 1 (6), of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and 
 was therefore not sufScient to support the 
 petition : — 
 
 Held, also, by Lord Alverstone C.J., that if 
 on July 3 T. had been in fact a " creditor " of 
 M., the statement then made by M. to T. would 
 have been a " notice " of suspension of payment 
 constituting an " act of bankruptcy " within s. 4, 
 sub-s. 1 (7i). In re Miller 
 
 C. A. [1900] W, N. 238 ; fee [1901] 1 Q. B. 51 
 
 30. — Circular or notice to Creditors — Notice 
 of intention to suspend payment — Bankruptcy Act^ 
 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 Qi). 
 
 A debtor sent to his creditors a circular 
 letter in these terms : " Being unable to meet 
 my engagements as they fall due invite your 
 attendance (at specified time and place) when I 
 will submit a statement of my position for your 
 consideration and decision." 
 
 Held, that this letter would naturally induce 
 the creditors to believe that the debtor intended 
 to suspend payment of his debts, and therefore 
 amounted to a notice that he was " about to 
 suspend payment of his debts," within s. 4, 
 sub-s. 1 (ft), of Bankruptcy Act, 1883, aud was 
 therefore an act of bankruptcy. Ceook v. 
 MOKLET - H. I. (E.) [1891] A. C. 316 
 
 (affirm. C. A. (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 320) 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. In re Scott, [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 619, 625. 
 
 31. — Circular or notice to Creditors — Notice 
 of suspension of- payment — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (ft). 
 
 A written notice by a debtor to a creditor that 
 he is about to suspend payment of his debts is. 
 admissible in evidence to prove an act of bank- 
 ruptcy, notwithstanding that the notice is ex- 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 110 ) 
 
 BANKETIPTCY (Act of Bankruptcy)— coiih'ntted. 
 pressed to be " without prejudice." In re 
 Daintrby. Ex parte Holt Div. Ct, [18931 
 
 2 Q. B. 116 
 
 33. — Circular or notice to Creditors — Notice 
 of suspension of payment — Declaration of inability 
 to pay — Intention to deal with creditors collectively 
 — Notice by non-trader — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ». 4, suh-s. 1 Qi). 
 
 A statement made by a debtor will amount to 
 a notice that he has suspended, or is about to 
 suspend, payments of his debis, withiu the mean- 
 ing of s. 4, sub-s. 1 Qi), of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, so as to constitute an act of bankruptcy, if 
 it is in effect a statement that the debtor is 
 unable to pay his debts, and intends to deal with 
 his creditors collectively. 
 
 Sect. 4, sub-s. 1 (7s), applies to non-traders as 
 
 well as to traders. In re Scott. ISx parte Scott. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 a. B. 619 
 
 33. — Circular or notice to Creditors — Soli- 
 citor's and accountant's charges — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 41, 42, 44. 
 
 On Aug. 15, 1892, a firm sent out a circular 
 stating " circumstances have placed us in finan- 
 cial difSculties, which makes it desirable for us 
 to consult with our creditors." " We are having 
 our books examined, and a statement prepared 
 by Messrs. P., chartered accountants, and as soon 
 as this is complete, we propose inviting you to a 
 meeting of our creditors." On Sept. 7 the firm 
 admittedly committed an act of bankruptcy. On 
 Sept. 17 a receiving order was made asjaiust the 
 firm. Between Aug. 15 and Sept. 14, Messrs. F. 
 collected money for the bankrupts, out of which 
 they made payments to themselves for preparing 
 the statement and to the solicitors for costs : — 
 
 Held, that the circular of Aug. 15 was an act 
 of bankruptcy, and that if an allowance was 
 made to Messrs. F. and the solicitors, it must be 
 only for services which had clearly benefited the 
 creditors, ire re Simonson". Bx parte Ball 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] 1 Q. B. 433 
 
 34. — Debtor absenting himself — Banhruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (d). 
 
 In order to show that a debtor has " absented " 
 himself within s. 4 (1) (d), of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, it is not necessary to show actual 
 physical absence from a particular place. 
 
 A., previous to a judgment against her, 
 adopted an assumed name, and after the 
 judgment removed, leaving no address, nor 
 giving any to her solicitor, through whom she 
 was being pressed : — 
 
 Seld, that A. had committed an act of 
 
 bankruptcy. In re Alderson. Ex parte Jackson 
 
 Div, Ct. [1895] 1 ft. B. 183 
 
 35. — Debtor — "Absenting himself—Married 
 woman — " Carrying on trade " — Separate estate- 
 Debtor — Liability to bankruptcy laws — Ceasing to 
 trade — Undischarged debts — deceiving order — 
 Bankruptcy Act, ltS3 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, 
 siib-s. 1 (dy— Married Women's Property Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 net. c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 5. 
 
 The debtor, a married woman, in 1898, pur- 
 chased a fniniture-polish business in Manchester 
 with money provided out of her separate estate, 
 and carried it on as " the Uneedit Company "in 
 a house in which she, her husband, nnd family 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Act of Bankruptcy)— conMimecJ. 
 were then living, and which had a private 
 entrance in one street and a " trade entrance " 
 in another, the husband taking part in the 
 management of the business. In Jan. one 
 Lambert supplied her with goods for the pur- 
 poses of the business to the value of nil., for 
 which she gave him bills of exchange. Early in 
 Feb. last she sold the business to a limited co., 
 and on Feb. 11 left Manchester and joined her 
 husband and children at lodgings in London, 
 whither the husband bad gone to lake up a 
 situation. In April they moved to another 
 residence without leaving any address. The 
 bills were dishonoured, and Lambert obtained 
 judgment upon them against the debtor, an order 
 for substituted service of the writ having been 
 obtained in consequence of the impossibility of 
 discovering her address. In Oct. Lambert pre- 
 sented a bankruptcy petition against her in 
 respect of the judgment debt, the alleged act of 
 bankruptcy being that the debtor was " absenting 
 herself with intent to defeat and delay her cre- 
 ditors," within s. 4, sub-s. 1 (d) of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883. 
 
 As it was again found impossible to serve the 
 petition upon her, an order was made for sub- 
 stituted service, and on Nov. 15 a receiving order 
 was made against her : — 
 
 Held, that the facts were suflBcieut to shew 
 that the debtor had absented herself withiu the 
 meaning of s. 4, sub-s. 1 ((J), of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 ; and as to the first point, that the 
 decision in In re Dagnall, [1896] 2 Q. B. 407, was 
 perfectly right; that the words of s. 1, sub-s. 5, 
 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, 
 " carrying on a trade separately from- her hus- 
 band," were not confined to the case of a married 
 woman carrying on trade at the time, in the 
 sense of actually conducting the business, but 
 applied so long as she had not discharged the 
 debts incurred in the business. The diifercace 
 of language in the Bankruptcy Acts, 1869 and 
 1883, was sufficient to justify the decision in 
 In re Dagnall. Moreover, the principle was long 
 ago settled by Lord Eldon in Ex parte Bamford 
 (1808-9), 15 Ves. 449, a decision under the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act of George III. The debtor was there- 
 fore subject to the bankruptcy laws. Appeal dis- 
 missed. Ire re Worslet C. A. [1900] W. N. 269 
 — Execution. 
 
 See Bankktjptoy — ExecntioD. 
 
 3G. — Holding by Sheriff of debtor's goods — 
 Holding for more than twenty-one days — Execution 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 s. i5— Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 c. 71), s. 1. 
 
 Where the sheriff remained in possession on 
 behalf of a judgment creditor for twenty-one 
 days and was then paid out, and later a receiving 
 order was made against the debtor, the execution 
 creditor was ordered to repay the money to the 
 trustee of the debtor, as the defts. must be held to 
 have notice of the act of bankruptcy committed 
 by the sheriff remaining in for more than twenty- 
 one days. Bdbns-Burns (Trustee in Bank- 
 ruptcy or) V. Brown C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 324 
 
 Keferred to by 0. A. Ire re North, [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 264, 268. 
 
( HI ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 112 ) 
 
 BANKRTTPTOY (Act of Bankruptcy)— con^mued;. 
 
 37 Holding hy Sheriff of debtor's goods— 
 
 Soldinq for twenty-one days— Computation of 
 time— Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. 
 
 V. 71), 8. 1. 
 
 To constitute an act of bankruptcy under s. 1 
 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, by seizure of the 
 debtor's goods by the sheriff's holding them foi- 
 twenty-one days, the holding by the sheriff must 
 be for twenty-one whole days excluding the day 
 of seizure. In re North. Ex parte Haslhok 
 
 C. A. [1895] a Q. B. 264 
 
 — Notice or circular to creditors. 
 
 See Nos. 28—33, ahove. 
 
 38. — Protected transactions — Banhruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 A 47 Ftci. c. 52), ss. 4, 49. 
 
 A transaction with a bankrupt which comes 
 
 ■within the terms of s. 49 of the Bankruptcy 
 
 Act, 1883, is protected by that section, although 
 
 it is an act of bankruptcy. Sheabs v. (tODDakd 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 406 
 
 — Registrar's judgment admissible — Laws of 
 
 New South Wales. 
 
 See New South Wales. 1. 
 
 Abjudication. 
 
 39. — Discretion of Court to refuse adjudica- 
 tion— Banhriiptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 fs. 18, 20. 
 
 (a) Where a receiving order has been made, 
 and a composition is not accepted in pursuance of 
 ?. 18 of the Act of 1883, the Court has no 
 discretion under s. 20 to refuse to adjudge the 
 
 ■ debtor bn rikrupt merely in order that the creditors 
 imay have time to reconsider the proposal for 
 "compositioa. In re Pisfold. Fx parte Pisfold 
 Div, Ct. [1892] 1 a. B. 73 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Lord Thurlow, 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 724, 731. 
 
 [Note. — It should be noted that s. 18 of the 
 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), was 
 
 i-epealed by the Bankruptcy Acl, 189U (53 & 54 
 
 Tict. c. 71), and is now replaced by s. 3 of the 
 
 .latter Act.] 
 
 (b) Banhruptcy Act, 1883(46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 /«. 20, sidj-s. 1 ; ». 105, svb-ss. 2, 4 ; s. 109. 
 
 But on an application for adjudication in 
 
 ■ a case within s. 20, sub-s. 1, of the Act of 1883 
 
 the Court is not bound forthwith to adjudge the 
 
 -debtor bankrupt, but may for good reasons 
 
 adjourn the proceedings under o. 105, Bub-s. 2. 
 
 In re Lord Thurlow. Ex parte Official 
 
 Eeoeiver - - C. A, [1896] 1 Q. B. 724 
 
 -— Lnaatic bankrupt — Jurisdiction — Committee. 
 
 See Lunacy — Bankruptcy. 2. 
 
 Annulment. 
 
 40. — Annulment by consent — Fraud on banJc- 
 ■rupley law — Secret agreement. 
 
 A banknipt agreed with B. that B. should 
 buy up the debts of the creditors who had proved. 
 All the creditors being satisfied or having 
 assigned the bankruptcy was annulled. After 
 the death of the bankrupt, L., a former creditor, 
 sought to prove against his estate for a sum 
 which the deceased had agreed by letter to pay 
 him in consideration of L. assigning his debt to 
 B. for £2000. This agreement had not been dis- 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Ammlment) — continued. 
 closed to the creditors or the Court of Bank- 
 ruptcy : — 
 
 Held, that L. could prove in the administra- 
 tion action because there was no duty to disclose 
 the agreement to the Court of Bankruptcy, as 
 the function of ttie Court was merely to ascertain 
 whether the proper pai-ties consented, nor to the 
 other creditors, as there was no common basis of 
 consent. In re McHenry. McDekmott v. Botd. 
 Levita's Claim 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 365 ; revers. North J. 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 428 
 
 41. — Bankrupts petition — Adjudication not 
 for benefit of creditors — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & in Vict. c. 52) s. 8, suJ}-s. 1. 
 
 P., who had an inalienable ijension, liad judg- 
 ment recovered against him. On a judgment 
 summons an order was made for j)ayment by 
 instalments. P. then presented his petition, with 
 the object of evading the judgment, and was 
 adjudicated bankrupt. The judgment creditor 
 was practically the sole creditor, and the assets 
 were very small : — 
 
 Held, that the presentation of the petition 
 was not an abuse of the process of the Court, and 
 did not entitle the Court to annul the adjudica- 
 tion. Ex parte Painteb. In re Painter 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 ft. B. 85 
 
 42. — Effect of annulment — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 71) s. %\— Bankruptcy Act, 
 1S83 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52) s. 25, sub-s. 2. 
 
 A creditor obtained by consent a judgment 
 for the amount of his debt. The debtor became 
 bankrupt, and the trustee rejected the creditor's 
 proof. The creditor did not appeal, but after 
 the annulment of the bankruptcy sought to 
 enforce his judgment : — 
 
 Held, that the rejection of the j)roof was an 
 act done by the Irustee within the meaning of 
 s. 81 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 : the rejection 
 of the debt was, therefore, valid and final, and 
 the creditor could not enforce his judgment. 
 Brandon v. McHenry - C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 538 
 
 But see Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 35, sub-s. 2. 
 
 — Of receiving order. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Beceiving Order. 196. 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 43. — Ahandojied appeal. 
 
 Where an appeal is abandoned the practice is 
 to make an order dismissing it with costs and 
 not an order giving leave to abandon it. In re 
 DowxiNQ. Ex parte Mardon 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 180 
 
 — Board of Trade's right of appeal. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Scheme of Arrange- 
 ment. 222. 
 
 44. — Court for appeal from incidental order 
 of Sigh Court — Bankruptcy Appeals (County 
 Courts) Act, 1884 (47 <Sc 48 Vict. c. 9) s. 2— 
 Bankruptcy Mules, 1886 and 1890, r. 134a. 
 
 The appeal from an incidental order of a 
 judge of the High Court for the time being 
 exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction should be to 
 a Div. Ct. constituted to hear appeals in bank- 
 raptcy matters. In re Dunhill. Ex parte 
 Wilson - - Piv, Ct, [1894] 2 ft. B. 554 
 
( 113 ; 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( IH ) 
 
 BAKXRUPTCY (Appeal)— conW«Mei. 
 
 46. — Notice of appeal — Banleruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 104 (d), 105 (4), 143— 
 Bankruptcy Rules, 1886 and 1890, r. 132. 
 
 Except under special oiicumstanoes the Court 
 will not extend the time for compliance with the 
 Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, r. 132, as to sending a 
 copy of the notice of appeal to the registrar, and 
 non-compliance should not be treated as an 
 irregularity which can he cured. In re Vitoria. 
 Ex parte Spanish CoKroRATiou 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 259 
 46. — Time for appealing — "Perfecting" of 
 order— Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, rr. 109, 130. 
 
 An order of the Div. Ot. was signed by the 
 registrar and sealed on Dec. 1, and filed on 
 Dec. 2 :— 
 
 Seld, that tlie order is perfected under Bank- 
 ruptcy Eules, 1886, r. 130, when signed by the 
 registrar, and that the time for appealing runs 
 from the date of liis signature : — 
 
 Held, also, that it is not necessary to perfect 
 an order that it should be filed with the pro- 
 ceedings. In re Helsby. Ex parte Trustee in 
 Bankruptcy C. A. [1994] 1 ft. B. 742 
 
 47. — Trustee — Appointment. 
 
 An appeal lies to the C. A. by the Bd. of 
 Trade from a decision of the High Court that the 
 objection of the Board to the appointment of a 
 trustee is invalid. J» re Lamb. £x parte Board 
 OP Trade C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 805 
 
 Discussed and followed. In re Mardon, 
 {1896] 1 Q. B. 140. 
 
 Appropriation. 
 48. — Pension — Appropriation of bankrupt's pay 
 or salary — Retired officer — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52) s. 53, sub-ss. 1, 2. 
 
 An officer who has been permitted to retire 
 from the army, and is in receipt of "retired pay " 
 under art. 1057 of the Royal Warrant of 1887, 
 though still an officer in the reserve, comes 
 within sub-s. 2, and not sub-s. 1, of s. 53 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1S83; and therefore upon his 
 bankruptcy an order may be mnde appropriating 
 a, portion of his retired pay for the benefit of 
 creditors under that eection without the consent 
 required by sub-s. 1. In re Ward. Ex parte 
 Ward C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 266 
 
 Assets. 
 
 49. — After-acquired property — Diecliarge con- 
 ditional on payment .of specified dividend — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Viet. o. 52) ss. 28, 44, 
 es— Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), 
 .s. 8, sub-s. 2(iii.). 
 
 A bankrupt's discharge was suspended until 
 he should pay 5s. in the pound. A legacy was left 
 him which wasmore than sufficienttopaytheos.: — 
 
 Beld, (1) that the order was not valid under 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, but having been acted 
 on for five years must be treated as valid ; (2) 
 that the trustee was entitled to the whole legacy, 
 and the bankrupt to an immediate discharge. 
 In re Hawkins. Ex paHe OrnoiAL Receiver 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 890 
 
 80. — After-acquired property — Leaseholds — 
 Vesting— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), 88. 44. 54, 55, i68. 
 
 BANKEirPTCY (Assets)— cojiiimwerf. 
 
 The propositions that all dealings by the 
 bankrupt in respect of after-acquired property 
 with bona fide purchasers for value are valid 
 against a trustee who has not intervened apjilies 
 to leaseholds. In re Clayton and Barclay's 
 CosTRACT - Chitty J, [1898] 2 Ch. 212 
 
 81. — After-acquired property — Partnership — 
 Personal earnings — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 '(46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 52) s. 53. 
 
 Where the personal earnings of an undis- 
 charged bankrupt are received periodically, and 
 are more than sufficient to provide for his 
 support, the balance may be made the subject ot 
 an order under s. 53 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 A'partner in a firm of dental surgeons mortgaged 
 his share in the business. The mortgagees 
 brought an action to realize their mortgage and 
 obtained a receiver ; subsequently the mortgagor 
 became bankrupt, but continued to carry on 
 business under the terms of the partnership deed. 
 The trustee claimed that the profits which since 
 the bankruptcy had been paid to the receiver 
 should be paid over to him : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the ( arnings of the bankrupt could 
 not be treated as his personal earnings, and even 
 if they were jiersonal earnings they lost that 
 cliaracter by being dealt with as part of a partner- 
 ship business, and vested in the trustee. In re 
 Eogeks. Ex parte Collins - V. Williams J. 
 [1894] 1 a. B. 425 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Roberts, [1900] 
 1 Q. B, 122, 129. 
 
 52. — After-acquired property — Real estate — 
 Intervention of Trustee —Banki uptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52) ss. 44, 58, 118. 
 
 A. sold real estate devised to him when an 
 undischarged bankrupt to B. The trustee subse- 
 quently discovered the fact, and claimed the 
 real estate : — 
 
 Held, that he was entitled, for the rule that, 
 until the trustee intervenes all transactions with 
 regard to after-acquired property between an 
 undischarged bankrupt and a bonS, fide purchaser 
 were valid against the trustee, did not apply to 
 real estate. In re New Land Development 
 Association and Gray. C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 Eererred to by Chitty J. In re Clayton and 
 Barclay's Contract, [1895] 2 Oh. 212. 
 
 53. — After-acquired property — Salary or in- 
 oome— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. e. 52), 
 s: 53, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The wages of a workman employed in a 
 colliery are not salary or income within s. 53 of 
 the Act of 1883 ; no order can, therefore, be made 
 for the payment of part of such wages to hii 
 trustee in bankruptcy. In re Jones. Ex parte 
 Lloyd - - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 231 
 
 84. — After-acquired property — Salary or in- 
 come— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 88.53,54. 
 
 In order to entitle the Court to appropriate 
 part of a bankrupt's salary or income to creditors 
 under s. 53, sub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act) 1883, 
 tho bankrupt must be in actual receipt of the 
 income or salary in question. A bankrupt actor, 
 after a receiving order had been made against 
 him, agreed that his employer should deduct 
 
( 115 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 116 ) 
 
 BANKSTJPTCY (A.aB&ts)— continued. 
 
 the gi-eater part of his salary in satisfaction of 
 
 debts which the employer had bought up : — 
 
 Held, that, as to the deducted portion, the 
 bankrupt was not in receipt of it, and that the 
 agreement as to deductions was valid. 
 
 Per Lord Esher M.K. : The Court ought not 
 to cut down too closely a bankrupt's means of 
 living. In re Shine. Ex parte Shine 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 a. B. 522 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Mdberts, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 122, 129. 
 
 — After-acquired property — Undischarged bank- 
 rupt. 
 
 See Bankkuptot — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 255—262. 
 
 65. — After-acquired property — Undischarged 
 hanlcrupt trading without knowledge of trustee — 
 Second bankruptcy — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 44, 54. 
 
 An undischarged bankrupt traded without 
 knowledge of his trustee and acquired property. 
 He assigned by deed all his personal property to 
 =1- trustee for his creditors, and became bankrupt 
 a, second time, the act of bankruptcy being the 
 execution of the deed : — 
 
 Held, that there had been no " dealing for 
 value " with the bankrupt after tlie first adjudi- 
 lation, and consequently nothing to disturb the 
 title, under s. 44 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, of 
 the trustee in the first bankruptcy to all property 
 acquired by the bankrupt prior to his discharge. 
 In re Clahk. Ex parte Beakdmoke 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 393 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Hunt v. Fripp, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 675, 681. 
 
 56. — Execution — Money paid to avoid sale 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. u. 71), 
 s. 11, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The provision in s. 11, sub-s. 2, of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1890, by which the trustee is entitled, 
 as against the execution creditor, to money paid 
 under an execution in order to avoid sale, does 
 not apply to money paid after execution issued 
 in order to prevent seizure, and the execution 
 creditor is entitled to such money as against the 
 tnistee. Bowek v. Hett. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 ft. B. 51; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1895] 2. Q, B. 337 
 
 57. — Execution against firm. — SaU of partner- 
 ship property — Bankruptcy of one partner — Inter- 
 pleader — Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (58 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 71), s. 11. 
 
 When execution has been levied against a 
 firm for a partnership debt, and one partner 
 presents his petition in bankruptcy within 14 
 days, and a receiving order is made against him, 
 s. 11, Eub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, does 
 not apply, and the oflSoial receiver is not entitled 
 to the net proceeds of sale in the hands of the 
 sherifi'. Dibb v. Bbook & Sons 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 338 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Cts. Wild v. Southwood, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 314, 319. 
 
 68. — Following trust money. 
 
 Trust money was invested in debentures of a 
 CO. which were about to be paid olf. The trus- 
 tees authorized H. & Co., a firm of bankers, with 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (^&.sseta)— continued. 
 whom they had an account on behalf of the 
 trust, to receive the proceeds of the debentures. 
 The bankers having to pay money to the co. did 
 not receive the amount of the debentures in cash, 
 but gave their own cheque to the co. for the 
 balance due, and credited the trust account with 
 1600Z., the amount of the debentures. H. & Co. 
 then suspended payment, having more than 1600L 
 at their own bankers : — 
 
 Held, that the doctrine of following trust 
 money did not apply, as the money secured by 
 the debentures had not been paid to H. & Co., 
 nor by H. & Co. to their bankers, and was inca- 
 pable of identification, and therefore the balance 
 at H. & Co.'s bankers was part of their estate. 
 In re Hallett & Co. Ex parte Blane 
 
 C.A. []894]2Q. B. 23T 
 
 59. — ■ Future payments — Equitable assignment 
 of — Contract for supply of chattels on hire — 
 Validity of assignment as against trustee in 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 A trader, who carried on the business of a 
 theatrical costumier, contracted with a co. to 
 supply dresses for a ballet and keep them in 
 repair for the sum of iOl. a, week for twelve 
 weeks commencing from a certain date. She 
 subsequently charged her right and interest 
 under the contract in favour of the pit. as security 
 for an advance made by him. The dresses were 
 duly supplied to the co. under the contract, but 
 before any moneys became payable under it the 
 trader became bankrupt : — ■ 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Lord 
 Chief Justice, [1896] 2 Q. B. 254, that the charge 
 iu favour of the pit. gave no title as against the 
 defts., the trustees iu bankruptcy, to moneys 
 which might become due under the contract after 
 the baiikruptoy. Wilmot v. Alton 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 160 (3) ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 17 
 
 60. — Lease — Belief against forfeiture — Bank- 
 ruptcy of lessee — Surrender of Leases Act, 1730 
 (4 Geo. 2, c. 28), s. 2 {FrearahW) — Common Law 
 Procedure Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 76), s. 212— 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 44, 
 168. 
 
 The right to relief against forfeiture of a 
 
 lease for non-payment of rent is a chose iu action, 
 
 and on bankruptcy vests in tlie trustee, who can 
 
 assign it to a purchaser. Howard v. Fanshawe 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 581 
 
 — Lease — Successive assignments — Covenants^ 
 
 " Property " of bankrupt. 
 See Landlord akd Tenant — Covenant. 
 11. 
 
 — Lunatic bankrupt. 
 
 See Cases under Ldnaot — Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Order and disposition— True owner. 
 
 See Cases under Bankecptoy — Order 
 and Disposition. 
 
 — Partnership — Articles — Clause as to bank- 
 
 ruptcy — Invalidity. 
 
 See Bankruptot — Partnership, 132. 
 
 Gl. — Pension — Indian pension — Payment to 
 trustee — Discretion — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 53, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction under s. 53, sub-s. 2, 
 of the Act of 1883 to order payment to the trustee 
 
( m ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 19C0. 
 
 ( lis ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Assets)— coniinuei. 
 in bankruptcy of a pension made inalienable by 
 the Indian legislature. There is no rule of law 
 that such an order should not be made ; but the 
 discretion is absolute and should be exercised 
 with regard to the facts in each particular case. 
 In re Saunders. Ex parte Saunders 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B. 117 ; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 424 
 
 62. — Protected transaction — Charging order 
 —Judgments Act, 1838 (1 <£• 2 Vict. c. 110), s. 14— 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 49. 
 
 A charging order under s. 14 of the Judgments 
 Act, 1838, is not a " contract, dealing, or transac- 
 tion" by or with the brankrupt "for valuable 
 consideration," protected by s. 49 of the Bant- 
 ruptoy Act, 1883, and is void against the trustee. 
 
 Semble, per Lindley L.J. : Notice that a 
 bankruptcy petition has been dismissed is not 
 constructive notice that an act of bankruptcy has 
 been committed by the debtor. In re O'Shea's 
 Settlement. Coukage v. O'Shea - C. A. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 325 
 
 Eeferred to by "V. Williams J. Wild v. 
 Southwood, [1897] 1 Q. B. 317, 318. 
 
 63. — Sale of business to company — Company 
 for benefit of bankrupt. 
 
 A trader, being in financial difBculties, sold 
 bis business to a limited co. The subscribers to 
 the memorandum of association of the co. were 
 either his relatives or employees. No cash was 
 paid by the co. for the business, and no shares 
 were issued to the public, and all tlie shares that 
 were issued were issued as fully paid up. The 
 trader was appointed the managing director of 
 the CO. Some months afterwards a receiving 
 order was made against the trader, and the same 
 day the co. passed resolutions for a voluntary 
 winding-up : — 
 
 Held, that the business and assets of the co. 
 formed part of the property of the bankrupt 
 divisible amongst his creditors, subject to a iirst 
 charge thereon in favour of the bona fide creditors 
 of the CO. In re Cabet. Ex parte Jeffkeys 
 
 V. WUliams J. [1895] 2 Q. B. 624 
 
 See In re Carl Hirth, 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 612. 
 
 64. — Solicitor's right to retain money paid to 
 him before, for services rendered after, knowledge 
 of act of bankruptcy. 
 
 (a) a solicitor, held to be entitled as against 
 the trustee to retain a sum which he had received 
 under an agreement to defend a person on a 
 criminal charge, the agreement and the receipt 
 of the money being before, but the services 
 rendered after, his knowledge of an act of 
 bankruptcy by that person. In re Chaelwood. 
 Ex parte Masters Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 643 
 
 (b) Solicitors ordered to pay over to the 
 trustee in bankruptcy a sum handed to them 
 before the bankruptcy of the debtors for defending 
 them on a criminal charge. In re Betts and 
 Ceais. Ex parte Cooper 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 56 
 
 (c) A client who owed money to his solicitor 
 deposited a sum of money with him to meet 
 future costs. Before this sum was spent the 
 client committed an act of bankruptcy, and was 
 afterwards made bankrupt : — 
 
 BANKRUPTCY dAsBsts)— continued. 
 
 Held, that the trustee's title related back to 
 the act of bankruptcy, and he was entitled to all 
 the unspent deposit; that the unspent money 
 could not be set off against the client's debt, as 
 the money was deposited for a specific purpose ; 
 and that there had not been mutual credits 
 within s. 38 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, since 
 one sum was due by the solicitor to the trustee, 
 and the other was due to the solicitor from the 
 bankrupt. In re Pollitt. Ex parte Mince 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 175 ; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 455 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Charlwood, 
 Ex parte Masters, [1894] 1 Q. B. 643. 
 
 65. — - Stipend of workhouse chaplain — Validity 
 of mortgage — Public policy — Public officer. 
 
 A chaplain of a workhouse mortgaged his 
 salary, which was paid out of the poor-rate, and 
 afterwards became bankrupt : — 
 
 Held (1) that the stipend, subject to the 
 charge, vested in the trustee ; (2) that the mort- 
 gage was not void as against public policy, for a 
 clergyman with a cure of souls is not a public 
 officer. An office is not public unless the officer 
 is paid out of national funds ami the discharge 
 of the duties of the officer is for the public benefit 
 in a direct or primary sense. In re Mirams 
 
 Cave J. [1891] 1 Q. B. 594 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Mogul Steamship 
 Co. V. McGregor, Gow & Co., [1892] A. C. 25, 45. 
 
 Attachment. 
 
 66. — Solicitor's liability — Debtors Act, 1869 
 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 4, sub-s. i— Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ». 9. 
 
 Bankruptcy of a solicitor who is in default 
 under is no bar to the attachment. 
 
 (a) In re Edye, a Solicitor 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 1 
 
 (b) In re Smith. Hands v. Andrews 
 Kekewich J. varied by C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Charging Order. 
 
 67. — Costs — Solicitor — Lien — ■ " Property 
 recovered or preserved " in bankruptcy proceedings 
 — Jurisdiction — Judge of High Court — Judge in 
 bankruptcy — Practice — Application to discharge 
 order — Ex parte proceedings — Time — Delay — 
 Solicitors Act, 186U (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127), s. 28. 
 
 Any judge of the High Court, whether sitting 
 in bankruptcy or not, can make a charging order 
 under s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860; and, 
 semble, so also can a judge who is a judge of the 
 Court of Bankruptcy alone, where in the course 
 of bankruptcy proceedings property has been 
 '' recovered or preserved." 
 
 A charging order under the section can be 
 made by any judge ot the Division in which the 
 " suit, matter, or proceeding " has been heard, 
 and the application for the order need not neces- 
 sarily be made to the particular judge who heard 
 the suit, matter, or proceeding. 
 
 In re Suffield and Watts, (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 
 693, and In re Wood, Ex parte Fanshawe, [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 314, considered. 
 
 An application to discharge a charging order 
 under the above section, as in all cases in which 
 it is sought to set aside ex parte proceedings. 
 
( 119 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 120 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Charging Oiiex)— continued.. 
 must be made promptly : for instance, an applica- 
 tion made after the lapse of two months from the 
 seryioe of the order, without sufficient cause 
 shewn for the delay, is too late. In re Deakin. 
 M parte Daniell C. A. [1900] 2 Q, B. 489 
 
 — Judgment debtor — Charging order on diyidend 
 
 — Costs — Property recovered. 
 
 See SoLiciTOB — Charging Order. 15. 
 
 68. — Jurisdiction in chambers — Solicitors Act, 
 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127), s. 28— Power of regis- 
 trar— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 ss. 93, dd— Bankruptcy Mules, 1886, r. 6. 
 
 The judge of the High Court in Bantruptcy 
 has power as a judge of the High Court, though 
 not under his banlsruptcy jurisdiction, to make 
 charging orders under s. 28 of the Solicitors Aut, 
 1860 ; and inasmuch as it is a power to be exer- 
 cised in chambers, he can delegate that power to 
 the registrar in bankruptcy. In re "Wood. Ex 
 parte Fanshawe - - - V. Williams J. 
 
 [1896] W. S. 163; [1897] 1 Q, B. 314 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Dealrin, [1900] 
 2 Q. B. 489, 496. 
 
 — Protected transaction — Completed execution. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Protected Transac- 
 ' tion. 187. 
 
 Colonial Law. 
 
 — Conflict of federal and provincial powers. 
 
 See Canada. 4. 
 
 69. — Land vesting in trustee — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Fici. c. 71), 8. 74. 
 
 The English Bankruptcy Act of 1869 applies 
 to all H. M.'s dominions. Therefore an adjudi- 
 cation under that Act vests in the trustee in 
 bankruptcy the bankrupt's title to real estate in 
 Ijflgos, subject to any requirements prescribed by 
 the local law as to the conditions necessary to 
 effect a transfer of real estate. Callender, 
 Sykes & Co. u. Colonial Secretary op Lagos 
 AND Da VIES P. C. [1891] A. C. 460 
 
 Committee of Inspection. 
 
 70. — " Profit derived from transaction arising 
 out of the hankruptcy" — Sanction of Court — 
 Solicitor to trustee — ■ Bankruptcy Pules, 1886, 
 r. 317. 
 
 By rule 317 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, 
 ■" No member of.a committee of inspection of an 
 estate shall, except under and with the sanction 
 of the Court, directly or indirectly, ... be 
 entitled to derive any profit from any transaction 
 arising out of the bankruptcy, or to receive out 
 •of the estate any payment for services rendered 
 by him in connection with the administration of 
 the estate " : — • 
 
 Sdd, that the sanction of the Court under 
 this rule cannot be given after the profit has 
 been derived, but must be obtained before the 
 businosB from which the profit is to be derived is 
 undertaken : 
 
 Held, also (reversing the decision of Williams 
 J.), that the " profit derived " by a solicitor is the 
 amount of his costs, less his disbursements out of 
 pocket in the particular matter, and that no 
 allowance can be made to him in respect of his 
 general office expenses. 
 
 Per Lord Esher M.E. ; When one of the 
 
 BAHKEUPTCY (Committee of Inspection)— corj/tZ. 
 members of a committee of inspection is the 
 managing clerk of a solicitor, though it is not a 
 breach of rule 317 to appoint that solicitor to be 
 solicitor to the trustee in the bankruptcy, yet on 
 general principles such an appointment would 
 be improper, and would be set aside by the Court 
 on application for the purpose. In re Gallabd. 
 Ex parte Gallard C. A. [1895] W. N. 146 (1) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 a. B. 68 
 
 71. — Sale by trustee to partner of member of 
 committee of inspection — Sale at an undervalue — 
 Damages — Delay — Bankruptcy Pules, 1880, r. 316. 
 
 The sale of a bankrupt's property by the 
 trustee in bankruptcy to a partner of a member 
 of the committee of inspection, such partner 
 buying for himself and not for the benefit of the 
 partnership, does not fall within the mischief of 
 rule 316 of the Bankruptcy Eules, 1886, which 
 enacts that " neither the trustee nor any member 
 of the committee of inspection of an estate shall, 
 while acting as trustee or member of such com- 
 mittee, .... either directly or indirectly, by 
 himself or any partner, clerk, agent, or servant, 
 become purchaser of any part of the estate"; 
 neither does the principle of Ex parte Moore, 
 (1881) 51 L. J. (Ch.) 72, apply. 
 
 In 1889 a trustee, with the approval of his 
 committee of inspection, sold part of a bankrupt's 
 estate to S. The sale was at an undervalue to 
 the knowledge of all parties concerned. A creditor 
 of the bankrupt became aware of the transaction 
 In Mar., 1891, but took no steps to impugn it 
 until Feb., 1897 :— 
 
 Held, that the creditor's right to relief against 
 S. was not barred by laches and acquiescence. 
 In re Gallard. Ex parte Gallard 
 
 V. ■Williams J. [1897] 2 Q. B. 8 
 
 Contempt of Court. 
 
 72. — Committal — Practice — Duly of Bankrupt 
 — Property abroad — Befusal to execute a power of 
 attorney — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (c. 52), ss. 24, 
 168. 
 
 The only asset of a bankrupt was some laud 
 in Guatemala in South America. By the law of 
 that State only the registered owner of property 
 is regarded, and it cannot be dealt with except 
 by him or imder a registered power of attorney 
 from him. The trustee in bunkruptcy had 
 received an offer of 1000?. for the land, which 
 he considered good and was desirous of accept- 
 ing, and, pursuant to s. 24 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, he requested the bankrupt to execute 
 a power of attorney to enable hiru to accept the 
 ofter and complete the sale. The bankrupt 
 refused, objecting to the form of the power of 
 attorney, and also suggesting tliat the land was 
 worth more than lOOOt: thereupon the trustee 
 applied to the Court for his committal to prison, 
 on the ground that his refusal was a contempt of 
 Court : — 
 
 Held, that under the circumstances the refusal 
 of the bankrupt was unreasonable, and an order 
 of committal was made, but not to be enforced If 
 within fourteen days the bankrupt executed a 
 power of attorney in a form approved of by the 
 registrar. In re Harris 
 
 Cave J. [1896] W. N. 83 (1) 
 
( 121 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 122 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY— contmued. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 Costs of Solicitor to Petitioning debtor — Bule 
 112 6. W. N. 1896 (Sept. 12) p, 251; Current 
 Index, 1896, p. Iviii. 
 
 Mode of paying certain Fees.] Bankruptcy 
 Acts, 1883 and 1890— Treas. Warrant, dated Feb. 2, 
 1899. W. N. 1899 (Feb. 18), p. 85. See Current 
 Index, 1899, pp. Ixiz. 
 
 73. — Appeal — Trustee in bankruptcy — Prac- 
 tice. 
 
 A trustee in bantruptcy who is respondent to 
 a successful appeal is not entitled, as a matter of 
 course, to have the costs paid out of the bank- 
 rupt's estate: unless he can make out a right 
 to the contrary, he will be ordered to pay them 
 personally. 
 
 Ex parte Stapleton, (1879) 10 Oh. D. 586, not 
 
 followed. In re Mackenzie. Ex parte Sheriff 
 
 OF Hektfordshire - C, A, [1899] W. N. 132; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 566 
 
 — Oharging order — Property recovered or pre- 
 
 served. 
 
 See Cases^ under Solicitob — Charging 
 Order. 
 
 — Security for costs — Jurisdiction — Joinder of 
 
 trustee. 
 
 See County Ooubt — Costs. 34. 
 
 74. — Security foi Practice — Appeal from 
 
 Receiving Order — Application to increase security 
 for costs — " Special Circumsiances " — Bankruptcy 
 Rules, 1886, r. 131. 
 
 Where a debtor appeals from a receiving order 
 made against him and lodges in court the sum of 
 20i. prescribed by rule 131 as security for the 
 costs of the appeal, the fact that the respondent's 
 costs of the appeal out of pocket will alone exceed 
 20?. is not a special ground for increasing the 
 amount of the deposit. 
 
 In re McHenry, (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 351, dis- 
 tinguished. In re Phillips. Ex parte Tkeeoetb 
 Bkick Oo. V. WiUiams J. [1896] 2 Q. B. 122 
 
 75. — Set-off — Practice — Bankruptcy Rules, 
 1886, )■. 353— iJ. S. a, Order Lxv., rr. 14, 27, 
 sub-r. 21. Costs of an appeal from a county 
 court to the High Court in proceedings in the 
 winding-up of a oo. cannot be set off against coats 
 of an appeal from a county court to the High 
 Court in bankruptcy proceedings, although the 
 two appeals are between the same parties. 
 
 Ex -parte GHffin, (1880) 14 Oh. D. 37, followed. 
 In re Bassbtt. Ex parte Lewis 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1896] 1 ft. B. 219 
 See also Peactice — Set-off. 
 
 76. — Taxation — County Court — Power of 
 Bd. of Trade to review —Practice — Costs of 
 stranger to the bankruptcy — Bankruptcy Rules, 
 1886 and 1890, r. 12i—Bam,krupicy Act, 1883 
 (46 4 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 73, sub-s. 3. 
 
 Rule 124 of the Banki-uptoy Kules, 1886 
 and 1890, which empowers the Bd. of Trade to 
 have " any bill of costs, charges, fees or disburse- 
 ments of any solicitor, manager, accountant, auc- 
 tioneer, broker, or other person," which has been 
 taxed by a registrar of a county court, reviewed 
 by a bankruptcy taxing master of the High 
 Court, does not apply to persons litigating with 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Costs)— continued. 
 the trustee outside the bankruptcy, but is con- 
 fined to the class of persons enumerated in the 
 rule and employed by the trustee in the bank- 
 ruptcy. In re Hunt. Ex parte Board of Trade 
 Wright J. [1898] 1 Q, B. 287 
 — Taxation — Disclaimer of leaseholds. 
 
 See Bankkuptcy — Disclaimer. 93. 
 
 77. — Taxation — Limitation of amount of costs 
 to be incurred — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 52), ss. 22 (9), 54 (1), 57 (3), 73 (3)— 
 Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, rr. 117, 337. 
 
 In taxing the costs of a solicitor employed by 
 an official receiver acting ns trustee the taxing 
 officer's jurisdiction is limited to the amount 
 which the official receiver has been authorized 
 to incur whether by the Bd. of Trade or the com- 
 mittee of inspection. In re Duncan. Ex parte 
 Official Eeceiver - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 879 
 
 78. — Taxation — Retainers to counsel — Discre- 
 tion of taxing master. 
 
 It is in the discretion of the taxing master in 
 bankruptcy, when taxing the bill of costs of a 
 solicitor to a trustee in bankruptcy, to allow 
 retainers to counsel, but as a general rule such 
 retainers will not be allowed. In re Nokdmann 
 Wright J. [1898] W. ». 150 (2) 
 
 79. — Taxation — Review — Appeal — Bank- 
 ruptcy Rules, 1886, rr. 112, 124 — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 105. 
 
 An appeal lies to the judge in bankruptcy from 
 tlie decision of the Bankruptcy Taxing Blaster, 
 who has, at the instance of the Bd. of Trade, re- 
 viewed the taxation of a county court registrar. 
 Special costs incurred, owing to adjournments, 
 at the instance of the official receiver disallowed, 
 the county court judge having made no special 
 order under s. 105 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 as to the items. In re Alison. Ex parte Jaykes 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 2 Q. B. 587 
 
 80. — ■ Taxation of Costs of trustee's solicitor — 
 Right of Official Receiver to attend — Bankruptcy 
 Rules, 1886 and 1890, r. 122. 
 
 An official receiver has no right, without the 
 leave of the Court, to be present at the taxation 
 of the bill of costs of the solicitor of a trustee in 
 bankruptcy. The registrar or the judge (as the 
 case may be) may, however, if he thinks iit, give 
 the official receiver leave to attend such taxation, 
 not as a litigant, but merely for the purpose 
 either of assisting the trustee or the taxing 
 master by his advice, or of enabling him to report 
 on the taxation to the Bd. of Trade. In re 
 Nash & Sons. Ex parte Crofton, Okaven & 
 WoKTHiNGTON Dlv. Ct, [1895] W. N. 135 (1) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 ft. B. 13 
 
 81. — Trustee — Bankrupt trustee — Charging 
 order — Solicitor and client. 
 
 Costs due to a trustee who has become bank- 
 rupt, whether incurred before or after bankruptcy, 
 are payable to the trustee in bankruptcy ; unless 
 the solicitor of the trustee obtains a charging 
 order in his favour. If costs are payable out of 
 a fund in court, the taxing master by his certifi- 
 cate would not make them payable to the 
 trustee's solicitor, but to the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy, unless the solicitor obtains a charging 
 order. They are not the solicitor's costs at all ; 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 124 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Costs)— continued. 
 they are the trustee's costs, and, being an asset 
 coming to Mm after bankruptcy, must be paid to 
 his trustee in bankruptcy. Baker v. Abbott 
 
 Eomer J. [1897] W. N. 38 (4) 
 
 82. — Undischarged hanlcrupt — Jurisdiction. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction to order an undis- 
 charged bankrupt to pay costs, where he appears 
 as a party to the proceedings without his trustee 
 in bankruptcy. 
 
 See In re Payne, (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 151. In 
 re Thomson". Thomson v. Thomson 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] W. N. 29 (4) 
 
 County Courts. 
 See County Court — Bankruptcy 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 Seeds of Arrangement. 
 
 Tlie Deeds of Arrangement Rules, 1890, dated 
 Nov. 26, 1890. W. N. 1890, (Deo. 13) ; St. E. & 
 0. 1890, pp. 342-349. 
 
 Order dated Dec. 18, 1890, as to Fees under 
 the Bankruptcy Acts, Table F. St. E. & 0. 1890, 
 p. 76. 
 
 Bules dated May i, 1891. St. E. & 0. 1891, 
 p, 193. 
 
 83. — Trustee's accounts — Banlcruptey Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. V. 71), s. 25 — Deed of Arrangement 
 Bules, 1890, rr. 7, 16; Appx. to Bules, Forms 
 2, 3, 6. 
 
 Sect. 25 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, either 
 does not apply to deeds of arrangement registered 
 hefore Jan. 1, 1891, or if it does apply to such 
 deeds, it only applies to accounts subsequent to 
 Jan. 1, 1891. In re Norm an. Mx parte Board 
 01? Trade - - C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 369 
 
 Discharge. 
 
 84. — Conditional Discharge — Banlcruptey 
 Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 52), ss. 28, 44, 65 ; 
 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 8, sub-s. 2 (iii). 
 
 A bankrupt's discharge was suspended until 
 he should pay 58. in the pound. A legacy was 
 left him which was more than sufficient to pay 
 the 5s. : — 
 
 Held (1) that the order was not valid under 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, hut having been acted 
 on for five years must be treated as valid; (2) 
 that the trustee was entitled to the whole legacy, 
 and the bankrupt to an immediate discharge. 
 In re Hawkins. Ex parte Official Receiver 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 890 
 
 86. — Effect — " Debt or liability incurred by 
 means of any fraudulent breach of truit." 
 
 Costs incurred in an action for fraudulent 
 breach of trust are not " a debt or liability in- 
 curred by means of any fraudulent breach of 
 trust," and the discharge releases the bankrupt 
 from them. In re Greer. Nappek v. Fanshawe. 
 Chitty J. [1895] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 86. — Misdemeanour — Befusal of Discharge — 
 Power to otherwise determine — " Special reasons " 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 d: 54 Vict. o. 71), 
 s. 8, siib-s. 2. 
 
 In cases coming within the words in s. 8, 
 eub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, " Provided 
 that the Court shall refuse the discharge in all 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Discharge)— eon«i»Ke(i. 
 cases where the bankrupt has committed any 
 misdemeanour under the Debtors Act, 1869, 
 ■unless for special reasons the Court other vfise 
 determines," if any order is made other than an 
 order absolutely refusing the discharge, sufficient 
 special reasons for the determination of the 
 Court must exist, and should be stated in the 
 order. In re Stevens. Ex parte Board op 
 Trade - Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 495 
 
 87. — Practice — Application for discharge — 
 Searing by the judge— Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, 
 »-. 8. 
 
 Motion on behalf of the bankrupt that the 
 further hearing of his application for discharge 
 might be transferred to and heard by the judge. 
 
 On the bankrupt's application for his dis- 
 charge coming on for hearing before the regis- 
 trar, it appeared from the official receiver's 
 report that the bankrupt had committed certain 
 offences under the Debtors Act, 1869. It also 
 appeared by the report that the bankrupt had 
 been engaged with various persons in trans- 
 actions involving issues ot fact of much difficulty 
 and sums of great magnitude. The registrar 
 directed the prosecution of the bankrupt for the 
 offences mentioned in the report, and adjourned 
 the further hearing of ,the bankrupt's applica- 
 tion : — 
 
 Held, that the fact that the registrar had 
 ordered the prosecution of the bankrupt was no 
 reason whatever for transferring the further 
 hearing of the application for discharge to the 
 judge ; but the objection that the report dealt 
 with transactions raising issues of fact of much 
 difficulty and involving sums of great magnitude 
 was entitled to weight, and on this ground the 
 order asked for was made, but it was directed 
 that the further hearing should stand adjourned 
 pending the result of the prosecution directed by 
 the registrar. In re Hooley 
 
 Wright J. [1899] W. KT. 47 
 
 88. — Befusal — Felony connected with bank- 
 ruptcy — Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict, 
 c. 71), s. 8. 
 
 Where a person embezzles money of his em- 
 ployer and subsequently becomes bankrupt, the 
 mere fact that the employer proves in the bank- 
 ruptcy for the amount so embezzled does not 
 cause the offence to be " a felony connected with 
 the bankruptcy " within the meaning of s. 8 of the 
 Act of 1890, as it is not ejusdem generis with the 
 felonies and misdemeanours dealt with by the 
 Debtors Act, 1869, and the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 
 In re Hbdley. Ex parte Board op Trade 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 a. B. 923 
 
 89. — Refusal — Power of Court to review — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 <fe 47 Vict. o. 52), s. 104. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction under s. 104 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to reconsider an absolute 
 refusal of an order of discharge and, if so minded, 
 to discharge the bankrupt. In re Tobias & Co. 
 Ex parte H. A. Tobias - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 463 
 
 90. — Suspension — Undue Preference — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 8, 
 sub-s. 3.(1). 
 
 A bankrupt, who was indebted to the executors 
 of his partner, and also to joint creditors of the 
 
( 125 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 126 ) 
 
 BAKKETJPTCY (Discharge)— coniimuet?. 
 firm, within three months of his hankruptcy paid 
 some of his own separate creditors in full. The 
 estate had paid 1 5s. in the pound, and was expected 
 to pay more. The registrar suspended his dis- 
 charge for two years. 
 
 Seld, that the registrar had to look to the 
 conduct of the bankrupt, and that the bankrupt 
 had been guilty of undue preference. 
 
 Senible, that even if the creditors would 
 certainly have been paid in full, it was not the less 
 " undue preference." In re Bkyant. Ex parte 
 BBTAitT - - C, A. [1896] 1 ft. 3. 420 
 
 91. — Withdrawal of application — Banlcruptcy 
 Act, 1883, (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. ?8. 
 
 After notice to the creditors and an adverse 
 report made by the official I'cceiver, the registrar 
 allowed the bankrupt-to withdraw his application 
 for discharge, on conditions as to costs and renewal 
 of application. 
 
 Held, that there was jurisdiction to allow the 
 withdrawal. In re Wallis. Ex parte Board 
 OF Tbade C. a. [1891] W. N. 68 
 
 Disclaimer. 
 
 92. — After-acquired leaseholds — Banlcruptcy 
 Act, 1883, (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 44, 54, 55, 168. 
 
 Qusere, whether s. 55 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, enables a trustee to disclaim after-acquired 
 leaseholds. In re Clayton and Bakclav's 
 OoNTRAOT Chitty J. [1895] 2 Ch. 212 
 
 93. — Costs — Leaseholds — Banlcruptcy Bules, 
 1886, r. 112, 8m6-s. 2. 
 
 The costs of a trustee's application under 
 s. 55 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to disclaim 
 leaseholds, are costs of a " proceeding under the 
 Act " which, as a general rule, are payable out 
 of the estate. Where, therefore, the assets are 
 under 300Z., such costs are taxable on the lower 
 scale, pursuant to rule 112, sub-s. 2, of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Eules, 1886. In re Pkooteb 
 
 Cave J. [1891] 2 ft. B. 433 
 — Proof for injury caused by disclaimer — Measure 
 
 of damages. 
 
 ■See Bankeuptct — Proof. 169. 
 
 Disqualification, 
 By the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 73), if. 46 (1) (c), provision is made dis- 
 qualifying from holding certain offices persons who 
 within five years hefore election or since election 
 hecome bankrupt or malee a composition or arrange- 
 ment with their creditors. 
 
 94. — • Occupation franchise — Banlcruptcy — Be- 
 presentation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 c. 102), s. 3—BanlcrupUy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 t. 52), s. 20. 
 
 A claimant in respect of the occupation of a 
 house as tenant became bankrupt during the 
 qualifying period. The trustee did not interfere 
 with the property, and the landlord continued to 
 accept rent from the bankrupt. 
 
 &Zdl, ihat he had been in continuous . occu- 
 pation as a tenant within s. 4 of the Represen- 
 tation of the People Act, 1867, and that the fact 
 that s. 20 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, had 
 vested the property in the trustee did not deprive 
 the bankrupt of his right to vote. Mackat v. 
 McGuiRB - DiT. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 260 
 
 BAHKRUPTCY (Disqualification)— conimued:. 
 
 95. — Betrospective effect of statute — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 52), s. 32. 
 
 Sect. 32 of the Act of 1883 is not retrospective ; 
 therefore a person adjudicated bankrupt before 
 Deo. 31, 1883, and undischarged, is not dis- 
 qualified for, e.g., a seat on a school board. In re 
 School Boakd Election for Parish of Pul- 
 
 BORffOGH. BoUBKE V. NuTT 
 
 C, A, [1894] 1 Q. B. 726 
 
 Considered by Jeune P. Lane v. Lane, [1896] 
 P. 183, 136. 
 
 Dividends. 
 
 96. — Assignment ofdioidend — Bight of assignee 
 to demand payment from trustee — Creditor — Banlc- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. a. 52), ss. 58, 63, 
 Formi 122 (a), 126. 
 
 Certain creditors of a bankrupt, whose proofs 
 had been allowed in the bankruptcy, assigned 
 their debts to the respondent, who applied to 
 the county court in which the bankrupt's estate 
 was being administered for an order under s. 63 
 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, that the trustee 
 should pay to the respondent the dividend pay- 
 able in respect of the debts so assigned. 
 
 Held, that there was no jurisdiction to make 
 the order. In re Frost. Ex parte Official 
 Eeceiver Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 48 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 ft. B. 50 
 
 Examination, 
 
 97. — Bankrupt called as u, witness — Cross- 
 examination hy party calling him — Practice. 
 
 This was an application by the official re- 
 ceiver as trustee iu the bankruptcy to set aside a 
 transaction between the bankrupt and his mother 
 in relation to some furniture. The bankrupt, 
 being called as a, witness in support of the 
 trustee's application, gave unsatisfactory answers, 
 and counsel for the trustee thereupon proposed 
 to cross-examine him as to answers he had given 
 at his public examination. 
 
 Per Wright J. : I think it very desirable that 
 the practice in bankruptcy should be that either 
 party to an application should be at liberty to 
 elicit from the bankrupt, when called as a 
 witness, what account he has given of a matter 
 on a previous occasion, without regard to who 
 calls him. It is important that this practice 
 should be known. In re Cusningham. Ex parte 
 Official Receiver Wright J, [1899] W. N. 68 
 — Parol evidence of bankrupt's admissions. 
 See Criminal Law— Evidence, 16. 
 
 98. — Pendency of action — Banlcruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 27. 
 
 Although the pendency of an action between 
 the trustee and a third party, in relation to the 
 bankrupt's property, is not an absolute bar to the 
 right of the trustee to examine the party under 
 8. 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the Court will 
 not as a general rule allow it, or will allow it only 
 under certain restrictions. In re Fbanks. Ex 
 parte Gittens V. Williams J. [1892] 1 ft. B, 646 
 
 99. Private examination — Application to 
 
 take depositions off file— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 27 — Banlcruptcy Bules, 
 1886, r. 12. 
 
 Every step taken, in a lankruptoy for the 
 purpose of enabling the Court to come to a final 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 128 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Examination)— co?i<«n«ec?. 
 determination ought to be placed on the file. 
 Deposition^ (taten at a private examination 
 under a. 27 of tlie Bankruptcy Act, 1883, at the 
 "ffioial receiver's instance) are a proceeding of 
 the Court within the Bankruptcy Kules, 1886, 
 r. 12, and should be placed on the file, and will 
 not be taken off on the application of the bank- 
 rupt. In re Be all. Ex parte Beall 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 135 
 Discussed by V. Williams J. In re Standard 
 Gold Mining Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 545, 548. 
 — Privilege of Parliament — Refusal to answer. 
 See Contempt of Court. 9. 
 
 100. — Public examim^tion ■ — Order to file 
 accounts of husiness alleged to liave been carried on 
 hij bankrupt — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), s. n— Bankruptcy Bules,^ 1886, rr. 6, 338. 
 
 A registrar in bankruptcy, in consequence of 
 allegations made by tlie bankrupt in his public 
 examination, ordered him to file accounts of a 
 business alleged by the bankrupt to have been 
 carried on by him only as clerk to his wife. 
 The order was made in the absence of and without 
 notice to the wife -. — 
 
 Beld, that the registrar had jurisdiction to 
 make the order ; that it did not amount to a final 
 iidjudioation on the title to the business : and that 
 i f an application were made to commit the bank- 
 rupt fur disobeying the order, it would still be I 
 iipen to him to prove tliat the business was his 
 wife's. In re Ckonmike. jEx parte Cronimire 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 246 
 
 Execntion, 
 See also under Execution. 
 
 101. — Assets — Part payment of judgment debt 
 — Subsequent receiving order — Benefit of execution 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. o. 52), s. 
 45, aub-s. 1. 
 
 By s. 45, sub-s. 1, of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, an execution creditor is not entitled to 
 retain the benefit of his execution against the 
 trustee in bankruptcy of the debtor unless he has 
 completed the execution before the date of the 
 receiving order ; by sub-s. 2 an execution against 
 goods is completed by seizure and sale. 
 
 Execution having been issued upon a judg- 
 ment for 80?. and costs, the sheriff on Dec. 31, 
 
 1898, levied under a writ of fi. fa. On Jan. 5, 
 
 1899, the debtor, under an arrangement with the 
 solicitors, of the execution creditors, paid the 
 solicitors a sum of iOl. on account, and gave to 
 the sheriff authority to re-enter under the writ 
 of fi. fa. upon default in payment of any of the 
 instalments of the balance at the agreed dates 
 for payment. The sheriff thereupon withdrew. 
 On Jan. 14 a receiving order was made against 
 the debtor on his own petition ; at that date the 
 sheriff had not re-entered under the writ of 
 fi. fa. :— 
 
 Held, that the execution had not been com- 
 pleted as to the iOl. at the date of the receiving 
 order, that the execution creditors were therefore 
 not entitled to retain the benefit of the execution, 
 and that the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled 
 to the 40Z. as part of the debtor's estate. In re 
 Ford, Ex parte OFnoiAL Beoeiver 
 
 Div. Ct. [18991 W. N. 245 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 264 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Execution) — continued. 
 
 ■ 102. — Execution creditor— Levy by slieriff — 
 Bankruptcy of judgment debtor — Tools of trade — 
 Small Debts Act, 1845 (8 * 9 Vict. e. 127), a. 8— 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 44, 
 54:— Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 51 Vict. e. 71), 
 s. 11. 
 
 A sheriff seized the grols of a judgment 
 debtor under a writ of fi. fa. at the suit of a 
 judgment creditor for more than 20^, and adver- 
 tised them for sale, except the debtor's tools of 
 trade, &c., to the value of 51., as provided by s. 8 
 of the Small Debts Act, 1S45. Before the sale 
 a receiving order was made against the debtor, 
 and thereupon he claimed tliat, by virtue of s. 44 
 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, his tools of trade, 
 &c., to the value of 201. were excepted from the 
 sale. The official receiver made no request to 
 the sheriff under s. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1890, and declined to interfere : — 
 
 Beld, (1) that s. 8 of the Small Debts Act, 
 1845, was in no way modified or extended by 
 s. 44 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 ; and (2) that 
 the sheriff was bound to sell, and under s. 11 of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, to hand over the pro- 
 ceeds of sale, less costs of execution, to the 
 official receiver, although, had there been no 
 sale, the debtor would have been entitled imder 
 s. 44 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to his tools of 
 trade, &c., to the value of 201. In re Dawson. 
 Ex parte Dawson Wright J. [1899] W. N. 53 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 54 
 
 103. — Execution creditor — Biglits of — Ad- 
 ministration of estate of deceased debtor — Execution 
 not completed by sale — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 52), ss. 45, 125. 
 
 An order for the administration of the estate 
 of a deceased debtor xinder s. 125 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, is hot equivalent to a receiving 
 order for the i^urposes of s. 45 of that Act, so as 
 to disentitle an execution cieditor of the deceased 
 debtor to retain, as ag.iinst the trustee of the 
 debtor's estate, tlie benefit of an execution not com- 
 pleted before the date of the administration order. 
 
 Judgment of Wright J., [1898] 2 Q. B. 28, 
 affirmed. Hasluck v. Clark 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 699 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re Blwdes, [1899] 
 2 Q. B. 347, 354. 
 
 104. — Execution creditor — Sheriff, Sale by — 
 Proceeds of sale — Landlord — Bent in arrear — 
 Lien — Priority — Paytuent by slieriff — Indemnity 
 — Title to proceeds of execution — Official receiver- 
 Trustee — " Goods of a debtor " — 8 Anne, c. 14 
 (c. 18 in Eev. Stat), s. 1 — Bankruptcy Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 11. 
 
 Where under an execution the sheriff sells 
 the goods of the judgment debtor, and subse- 
 quently, mider a. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, 
 receives from the official receiver notice of bank- 
 ruptcy proceedings commenced against the debtor 
 since the sale, together with a demand for pay- 
 ment of the proceeds of sale, he is entitled to 
 retain out of the proceeds and pay the landlord 
 of the premises on which the execution was 
 levied any arreais of rent due to him from tho 
 debtor, not exceeding the amount of one year's 
 rent, even though he, the sheriff, has not received 
 notice of the landlord's claim until after the sale, 
 
( 129 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 130 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Execution)— con«in«c(J. 
 and notwithstanding that the sale has deprived 
 the landlord of the lien given him on the goods 
 themselves by s. 1 of 8 Anne, c. 14 (o. 18 in 
 Revised Statutes). 
 
 The right of the landlord to be paid out of 
 the proceeds of sale in the hands of the sheriff, 
 ■where no bankruptcy intervenes — a right estab- 
 lished by the practice uniformly adopted under 
 the statute of Anne and recognised by judicial 
 authority long before the present law of bank- 
 ruptcy — is not affected by s. 11 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1890. TJie expression "the goods of a 
 debtor " in that section does not include the 
 goods of a judgment debtor, which are by the 
 statute of Anne impounded until the landlord is 
 paid ; nor are the proceeds of sale of those goods 
 to be handed by the sheriff to the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy under that section free from the right of 
 tlie landlord, sanctioned by long practice, or of 
 the sheriff for his own indemnity.' 
 
 In re McCarthy, (1881) 7 L. E. (Ir.) 473, ap- 
 proved and followed. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct. reversed. In re Macken- 
 zie. Ex parte Sheripp op Heetpobdshire 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 132; [1899] 2 ft. B, 566 
 —Execution creditor— Sale by sheriff— Sheriff 
 directed to withdraw. 
 See Bill op Sale. 48. 
 
 — Payment of money to avoid seizure. 
 
 See Bankkuptot — Assets, 56. 
 
 — Eeceivfng order — Poundage. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Beceiving Order. 215. 
 
 105. — Sale of Goods — Liability of Sheriff- 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & il Yik. c. 52), ss. 
 9, 45, 46. 
 
 A sheriff is justified in selling seized goods 
 after notice of a receiving order, at the request of 
 the official receiver, and a trustee subsequently 
 appointed has no ground of action against him 
 because the goods were not delivered up in 
 accordance with s. 4G of the Act of 1883. Trus- 
 tee OP Woolfoed's Estate v. Levy 
 
 C. A, [1892] 1 Q. B. 772 
 
 But see criticisms on judgment of Cave J. in 
 Lee V. Dangar, Grant & Co., C. A. [1892] 2 
 Q. B. 337. 
 
 Referred to 'by Lindley M.R. In re Tliomas, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 460 at p. 463. 
 
 106. — Sale of Goods— Sale by sheriff — Execu- 
 tion levied for over iOl. — Notice of bankruptcy 
 petition — Death of judgment debtor — Administra- 
 tion order— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 62), ss. 45, 125, svh-s. 6— Bankruptcy Act, 1890 
 (63 & 54 Vict. e. 71), «. 11, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The sheriff sold under an execution levied 
 for more than 20Z., and- within the fourteen days 
 limited by sub-s. 2 of s. 11 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1890, received notice of a bankruptcy peti- 
 tion against the judgment debtor, who died 
 shortly afterwards. After the fourteen days the 
 sheriff received notice of a petition under s. 125 
 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, for the administra- 
 tion of the estate of the deceased debtor, on which 
 an administration order was subsequently made : — 
 
 Held, that the judgment creditor was under 
 the circumstances entitled to the money in the 
 bands of the sheriff. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Execution)— conimtted. 
 
 Observations as to the extent to which the 
 provisions of Part III. of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, are applicable to an administration of a 
 deceased debtor's estate under s. 125 of that Act. 
 
 Qusere, whether an administration order is 
 equivalent to a receiving order for the purposes 
 of s. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. Watkins 
 V. Baenaed. V, WilUams J. [1897] 2 Q. B. 621 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Hasluck v. Clark, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 699, 705. 
 
 107. — Seizure of goods and possession of sheriff 
 for twenty-one days — Sheriff's fees — Possession 
 money — Continued possession at request of debtor 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), ss. 
 1,11. 
 
 The sheriff levied execution on the goods of 
 a debtor and remained in possession for fifteen 
 months. This was done at the request of the 
 debtor and with the consent of the execution 
 creditor. At the end of the fifteen months a 
 receiving order was made against the debtor on 
 his own petition, and the goods were sold On 
 the taxation of the costs of the execution, the 
 Bd. of Trade disputed the right of the sheriff to 
 possession money for tlie full period : — 
 
 Seld, that the act of bankruptcy created by 
 s. 1 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, consisted of — 
 first, tlie seizure by the sheriff; and, secondly, 
 his remaining in possession for tweuty-one days ; 
 and that liis subsequent continuing in possession 
 under the same seizure did not conatitute a 
 further or continuing act of bankruptcy; that 
 consequently there was no act of bankruptcy 
 under this section available against the debtor ; 
 and that the sheriff was entitled under s. 11 to 
 possession money for the full period as costs of 
 the execution. 
 
 .Tn re Hurley, (1893) 10 Morr. 120, approved 
 and followed. Decision of Wright J., [1898] 
 W. N. 171 (1), affirmed. In re Beeston 
 
 C. A, [1899] W. N. 18 (4) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 626 
 
 108. — Sheriff — Notice of bankruptcy petition — 
 Service — Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Viet, 
 c. 71), s. 11, st«6-s. 2 — Bankruptcy Mules, 1886, 
 r. 90. 
 
 Rule 90 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, which 
 provides that service of notices, orders, or other 
 proceedings shall be effected before the hour of 
 six in the afternoon, except on Saturdays, when 
 it shall be effected before the hour of two in the 
 afternoon, does not apply to the notice to the 
 sheriff of a bankruptcy petition mentioned by 
 s. 11, sub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. 
 
 Therefore, where a sheriff to whom money 
 had been paid by an execution debtor in order 
 to avoid a sale under an execution upon a judg- 
 ment for more than 20i. was, after two in the 
 afternoon of the fourteenth day after the payment, 
 being a Saturday, served with notice of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition upon which a receiving order was 
 made against the debtor : — 
 
 Held, that the sheriff must pay the balance of 
 the money so paid, after deducting his costs, to 
 the official receiver. Lole v. Betteeidgb 
 
 C.A. [1897] W.N. 178(3); 
 [1898] 1 Q, B. 266 
 — Sheriff — Sale of goods by. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 48. 
 
 F 
 
( 131 ) 
 BANKRUPTCY— conifo«ed. 
 
 DIGEST or OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 132 ) 
 
 Traudulent Preference. 
 
 109. — Bill of exchange — Payment of overdue 
 acceptance—Onus of proof— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 48. 
 
 When a bill of exchange is not presented for 
 payment at maturity but is held over at the 
 request of the acceptor and subsequently i>aid, 
 such a payment is not within the principle of 
 In re Clay & Sons, (1895) 3 Manson, 31, and may 
 be a fraudulent preference withiu s. 48 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 
 
 When a trustee in bankruptcy proves that 
 the debtor was insolvent at the time when he 
 made the payment that is impeached as a fraudu- 
 lent preference, the onus of proof shifts, and the 
 party supporting the payment must shew that it 
 was not made with the view of preferring him. 
 In re Baton & Co. Mx parte Vinet 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1897] 2 Q. B. 16 
 110. — Bin of Sale—PuUic Sealth Act, 1875 
 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. i, 150, 276. 
 
 The mere fact that a grantor gives a good 
 bill of sale in order to correct a mistake in the 
 original bill, so far from amounting in law to a 
 fraudulent preference, in fact negatives any 
 intention to prefer within s. 48 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883. Jn re Tweed ALE. 27a; jsarfe Tweedale 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 216 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Hill v. Wallasey Local 
 Board,. [1894] 1 Oh. 133, 145. 
 
 111. — Conveyance to make good hreaches of 
 trust— Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 e. 48. 
 
 A trustee, who had committed breaches of 
 trust and was insolvent, on the eve of his bank- 
 ruptcy conveyed an estate to make good the 
 breaches of trust, without any pressure or request 
 by his cestuis que trust : — 
 
 Held, that there was no fraudulent preference 
 withiu s. 48 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the 
 debtor's object being to shield himself from the 
 consequences of his breaches of trust. 
 
 Decision of 0. A. {New, France & Oarrard's 
 Trustee v. Hunting, [1897] 2 Q. B. 19) aflSrmed 
 sub nam. Shakp (Official Eeoeivek) v. Jackson 
 
 H. 1. (E.) [1899] W. N. 90; [1899] A. C. 419 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re BlacJiburn 
 & Co., [1899] 2 Oh. 725, 728. 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Vautin. Ex 
 parte Saffery, [1900] 2 Q. B. 325, 328. 
 
 112. — Repayment after act of bankruptcy — 
 Money lent for a special purpose — Dominant view 
 of debtor— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), ». 48. 
 
 When a debtor with bankruptcy impending 
 pays a creditor in the honest belief on reasonable 
 grounds that he is legally bound to make the 
 payment, it is not a fraudulent preference even 
 although the debtor is in fact under no legal 
 obligation to make the payment. In re Vautin. 
 Ex parte Safeert Wright J. [1900] W. N. 136 ; 
 > [1900] 2 Q. B. 326 
 
 113. — Set-off — Directors' fees — Calls — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 164— 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 48. 
 
 The directorof a CO. which was in embarrassed 
 
 BANKSVFTCY (Fraudulent Preference)— conid. 
 circumstances held shares in the co. not fully paid 
 up. He gave the co. a cheque for the balance 
 due on his shares, and on the same day received 
 from the co. a cheque for the same amount for 
 his fees. Within three months the co. was wound 
 up, and the liquidator sought to set aside the 
 payment of fees as a fraudulent preference : — 
 
 Held, that the payment was a fraudulent 
 preference having regard to the special legisla- 
 tion applicable to cos. which is to be read with 
 s. 48 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, in applying 
 that s. to insolvent cos. In re Washik6ton 
 Diamond Mining Co. - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 95 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Auriferous 
 Properties, Ld., [1893] 1 Ch. 697. 
 
 114. — Surety — " Creditor " — Company — 
 Windiiig-up — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), s. 16i— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 <& 47 
 Vict. e. 52), s. 37 ; s. 48, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The word "creditor" in s. 48 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (which avoids as a fraudulent 
 preference a charge or payment made by an 
 insolvent debtor " in favour of any creditor or 
 any person in trust for any creditor with a view 
 of giving such creditor a preference"), means 
 any person who at the date when the charge or 
 payment is made is entitled, if bankruptcy 
 supervenes, to prove in the bankruptcy and share 
 in the distribution of the bankrupt's estate. A 
 surety who has a right of proof under s. 37 of 
 the Act in respect of his contingent liability as 
 surety is such a person. A charge or payment, 
 therefore, made for the benefit of a surety, before 
 he has been called upon to pay as surety, may 
 be a fraudulent preference. 
 
 In re Paine, Ex parte Read, [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 123, is not on this point inconsistent with, and 
 has not been overruled by. In re Warren, Ex 
 parte Trustee, [1900] 2 Q. B. 138. In re Black- 
 pool MoTOH Car Oo. Hamilton v. Blackpool 
 Motor Car Co. Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 252 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 77 
 
 115. — Surety — Payment into bank to meet 
 accommodation bill — ■' Creditor " — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 37, 48. 
 
 The word " creditor " in s. 48 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (which avoids as a fraudulent 
 preference a payment made by an insolvent 
 debtor out of Ms own moneys in favour of any 
 creditor with a view to prefer such creditor), 
 means any person who at the date of the payment 
 is entitled, if bankruptcy supervenes, to prove in 
 the bankruptcy, and share in the distribution of 
 the bankrupt's estate. A surety, who has a right 
 of proof under s. 37 of the Act in respect of his 
 contingent liability as surety, is such a person. 
 A payment, therefore, to or for the benefit of a 
 surety, before he has been called upon to pay as 
 surety, may be a fraudulent preference. In re 
 Paine. Ex parte Read 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1896] W. N. 154 (2); 
 [1897] 1 ft. B. 122 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct.. In re Warren, [1900] 
 2 Q. B. 138, 140. 
 
 116. — Surety — Payment of creditor with a view 
 to prefer surety — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 52), s. 48. 
 
 In order to constitute a fraudulent preference 
 
( 133 ) 
 
 bt&iil^* OP OASfiS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 134 ) 
 
 Bankruptcy (Fraudulent Preference)— co»«A 
 ■within the meaning of s. 48 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, a payment made by a debtor to one of 
 his creditors must be made to the creditor intended 
 to be preferred. Where, therefore, an insolvent 
 debtor, who is jointly and severally liable with 
 two sureties upon a promissory note, pays the 
 amount of the note to the payee with the view of 
 preferring the sureties by releasing them from 
 their contingent liability upon the note, the pay- 
 ment is not a fraudulent preference within that 
 section, and the sureties cannot be ordered to pay 
 over to the trustee in bankruptcy the amount so 
 paid by the debtor. In re Wabren. Ex parte 
 Tetistee - - Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 138 
 
 Considered by Buckley J. In re Blackpool 
 Motor Gar Co., [1900] "W. N. 252. See [1901] 
 1 Ch. 77. 
 
 Insolvent Estates. 
 
 117. — Claim of widow — Co.s<« — Postponement 
 —Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), s. 10— 
 Married Wcmen's Property Act, 1882 (45 * 46 
 Vict. c. 75), s. 3. 
 
 In determining whether the estate of a 
 deceased person is insolvent the costs of adminis- 
 tration must be taken into account. By the 
 combined effect of s. 10 of the Judicature Act, 
 1873, and of s. 3 of the Married Women's Pro- 
 perty Act, -1882, the claim of a widow for a debt 
 due from the insolvent estate of her husband is 
 postponed to the claims of the other creditors. 
 In re Lenq. Tabn v. Emmerson. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 Considered by 0. A. In re WMtaker, [1900] 
 W. N. 239. 
 
 118. — Creditor's petition — Deceased debtor 
 resident abroad — Banlcruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. V. 52), ss. 95, 125, 127— Bankruptcy Rules, 
 1886, T. 274 ; Appx., P. I, Form 11. 
 
 A creditor's petition for the administration of 
 (he estate of a deceased insolvent ought, if the 
 debtor were not resident in England and died 
 out of England, to be presented to the High 
 Court of Justice, i.e. to the London Bankniptcy 
 Court. In re Evaks. Ex parte Evans 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q, B. 143 
 
 — Priorities — Insolvent estates — Administration. 
 
 See Cases under Bxeoutob — Insolvent 
 Estates. 
 
 Lunacy, 
 
 — Adjudication. 
 
 See Bakketjptct — Adjudication, 
 
 — Lunacy practice. 
 
 See LoNAcy— Bankruptcy, 
 
 Uanager. 
 
 119. — Pending petition — Practice- 
 receiver — Interim receiver — Special manager 
 Appointment of^Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. 0. 52), 88. 10, 12. , 
 
 A creditors' bankruptcy petition had been 
 presented against a firm of drug manufacturers, 
 but a receiving order had not yet been made. 
 Under s. 10 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the 
 official receiver was appointed interim receiver 
 of the assets of the firm. As the business was 
 a going concern, and many workpeople were 
 
 BANKBTTFTOT (Manager)— oontmuetZ. 
 employed in it, the question arose how the busi- 
 ness was to be carried on and the wages paid 
 until it had been decided whether a receiving 
 order should be made or not. Under the practice 
 in bankruptcy there seems to he some doubt 
 whether, under s. 12, empowering the ofScial 
 receiver to appoint a special manager, the official 
 receiver can make the appointment while he is 
 acting only as interim receiver under s. 10 : see 
 Vaughan Williams on Bankruptcy, 7th ed. 
 p. 57. 
 
 The C. A. directed the ofacial receiver to 
 appoint a special manager. In re A BANKKtrPTCY 
 Petition - - - C. A, [1900] W, N. 12 
 
 See also same case on other points. In re 
 A. B. & Co., 0. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 541, and 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 429, next Case. 
 
 — Preferential payments in bankruptcy — Ma- 
 
 naging director — " Clerk or servant." 
 See Company — Directors. 114. 
 
 — Private manager— Trust for creditors — Bight 
 in security — Pledge. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Preference. 158. 
 
 120. — Special manager of busiriess — Expenses 
 of management — Just allowances — Petition — 
 Official receiver — Interim receiver — Special 
 manager — Jurisdiction — Dismissal of petition — 
 Order appointing interim receiver. Validity of — 
 Business of alleged debtor carried on by special 
 manager — Accounts — Remuneration and expenses 
 of special manager — Charge on profits — Officers 
 of the Court, Protection of — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 10, \2— Bankruptcy 
 JZaZes,'1886, rr. 170-175. 
 
 Where, during the pendency of a bankruptcy 
 petition which is ultimately dismissed without 
 any receiving order having been made upon it, 
 the oflSoial receiver, on being appointed interim 
 receiver under s. 10 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 appoints, in exercise of his power under s. .12 
 ([1900] W. N. 12), n- special manager of the 
 alleged debtor's business, the special manager is 
 entitled to be reimbursed out of his receipts from 
 the business his expenses, including remunera- 
 tion, properly incurred by him in carrying it on 
 until the dismissal of the petition. 
 
 The fact that the special manager has, under 
 such circumstances, been in possession of and 
 carrying on the business does not entitle the 
 alleged debtor, on the petition being dismissed, 
 to treat him as a wrong-doer or to deprive him of 
 his right to protection as an officer of the Court ; 
 for, as the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to 
 entertain a petition against an alleged debtor, an 
 order appointing the official receiver a» interim 
 receiver during the pendency of the petition, 
 with the consequent right of appointing a special 
 manager under s. 12, continues valid until it is 
 set aside, and thus imparts validity to everything 
 done under it, even though it naay turn out to 
 have been eiToneously made — as where, at the 
 hearing of the petition, it appears that the alleged 
 debtor, being a foreigner not subject to the juris- 
 diction of the Bankruptcy Court, is not a " debtor ". 
 within the meaning of the. Act ([1900] 1 Q. B, 
 541), and, therefore, not subject to the provisions 
 for the appointment of an interim receiver or a 
 special manager^ ' . 
 
 F 2 
 
( IBS ) 
 
 DIGEST 01? dASUS, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( 139 )• 
 
 BANKEUPXCY (SLunagei)— continued. 
 
 Per Eigby L.J.: The power of the Bank- 
 rliptoy Court to appoint the official receiver to be 
 interim receiver under s. 10 of the Act arises 
 immediately upon the presentation of the petition, 
 ■whatever the result of the petition may be. 
 
 The special provisions of rules 170-175 (Bank- 
 rtiptcy Rules, 1886) relating to the appointment 
 of the official receiver as " interim receiver," and 
 providing for the deposit in advance of a sum for 
 his expenses, do not deprive him of his subsequent 
 right to reimbursement out of his receipts of all 
 expenses incurred by him in carrying out the 
 duties of his office. 
 
 Those rules apply exclusively to an interim 
 receiver, and not to a special manager at all. 
 
 The principles on which accounts should be 
 taken of tlie proceeds of a business carried on on 
 behalf of the owner, considered. In re A. B. 
 & Co. (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1900] Vr. N. 112; [1900] 2 ft. B. 429 
 
 Offences. 
 
 121. — " Felony connected with the hankrwptey " 
 —Sankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 8. 
 
 Embezzlement by the bankrupt prior to his 
 
 bankruptcy is not a felony connected with the 
 
 bankruptcy within s. 8 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 
 1890. In re Hedlet. Ex parte Board of Tkade. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 923 
 
 122. — Betrospectioe Enactment — Debtors Act, 
 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 11, sui-ss. 13, 14, 15 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Tict. c. 71), 
 ». 26. 
 
 S. 26 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, is not 
 retrospective, so as to render liable to conviction 
 under s. 11, sub-ss. 13, 14, 15, of the Debtors Act, 
 1869, persons who committed the acts incriminated 
 before Jan. 1, 1891, and presented his own peti- 
 tion after that date. Eeg. v. Geiffiths 
 
 C. C. E. [1891] 2 Q. B. 145 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Athlumney, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 547, 553. 
 
 123. — Undischarged bankrupt obtaining credit 
 —Intent to defraud— Behton Act, 1869 (32 & 33 
 7ict. c. 62), 8. I?,— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 31. 
 
 To constitute an offence under s. 31 of the 
 Banltruptcy Act, 1883, it is not necessary to 
 prove an intent to defraud. Keg. v. Dyson 
 
 C. C. B. [1894] 2 Q. B. 176 
 
 Officers and Offices. 
 124. — The history of the old Bankruptcy Court 
 in Basinghall Street and of Blaokwell Hall traced 
 and considered. Peekt v. Eames. Salaman v. 
 Eames. Meeoees' Co. v. Eames 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 658 
 Approved by 0. A. Wlieaton v. Maple & Co., 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 48. 
 
 Official Assignee, 
 Security — 0. dated April 12, 1894, as to the 
 security to be given by official assignee. St. E, & 
 0. 1898, p. 607. 
 
 Official Eeceiver. 
 126. — Powers as trustee without a committee of 
 inspection—Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Official Eeceiver)— co»«inue(^. 
 e. 52), s. 22, sub-s. 9 ; s. 57, sub-s. 3 ; ». 66— J3anft^ 
 ruptcy Rules, 1886, rr. 117, 337. 
 
 When the official receiver is trustee without 
 a committee of inspection, he is in the same 
 position as any other trustee appointed by 
 creditors, and when proceeding under s. 57 of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and the Bankruptcy 
 Bules, 1886, r. 117, must obtain the special 
 authority of the Bd. of Trade for the act pro- 
 posed to be done. In re Duncan. Fx parte 
 Duncan V. Williams J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 331 
 
 See next Case. 
 
 126. — Power as to employing solicitor — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 tict. c. 52), «. 22, 
 svi>-s. 9 ; s. 54, sub-s. 1 ; s. 57, sub-s. 3 ; s. 73, 
 sub-s. S— Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, rr. 117, 337. 
 
 When the official receiver is trustee without 
 a committee of inspection, the Bd. of Trade have 
 power to authorise him to employ a solicitor, and 
 to limit the amount of costs to be paid to him, 
 and only the amount so sanctioned will be 
 allowed out of the estate. In re Duncan. Ex 
 parte Official Eecefvee - C. A. affirm. 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1892] 1 a. B. 879 
 
 Order and Disposition. 
 
 127. — Reputed ownership — Assignment of debt 
 — Bill of exchange — Custom of trade — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52). 
 
 Bankrupts had, prior to their bankruptcy, 
 sold and consigned goods to customers in Spain 
 on the terms that the customers were to have six 
 months' credit from the date of the invoice, and 
 on the expiration of the first three months, but 
 not before, were bound to accept the bankrupts' 
 drafts at three months for the price of the goods. 
 The bankrupts, on making the consignments, 
 obtained advances from bankers upon the follow- 
 ing terms, namely, that they should draw for the 
 price of the goods upon their customers in Spain 
 at six months from the date of the invoice, and 
 hand the draft to the bankers, and, when tlie 
 period of three months from the date of the 
 invoice arrived, they should draw a bill of ex- 
 change upon the customer for the price of the 
 goods, and hand the bill to tlie bankers for them 
 to get it accepted by the customer, and, when the 
 bill was met, the unaccepted draft at six months 
 should be handed back to the bankrupts. The 
 bankrupts, in pursuance of this arrangement, 
 drew and handed to the bankers drafts for the 
 prices of goods sold and consigned to customers 
 in Spain at six months from the date of the 
 invoice, and at the commencement of the bank- 
 ruptcy these drafts were in the hands of the 
 bankers unaccepted and no notice of the trans- 
 action between them and the bankrupts had been 
 given to the customers : — 
 
 Held, that the debts owing by the Spanish 
 customers to the bankrupts were at the com- 
 mencement of the bankruptcy in the order and 
 disposition of the bankrupts, in their trade, by 
 the consent and permission of the true owners 
 under such circumstances that the bankrupts 
 were the reputed owners thereof. 
 
 A custom of trade by which goods are left in 
 the possession of persons to whom they do not 
 belong must, in order to exclude the doctrine of 
 
( 137 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 138 ) 
 
 SANERTTFTCY (Order and Disposition)— con<d!. 
 reputed ownership, be a custom known in busi- 
 ness generally, and not merely to persons dealing 
 in a particular market. In re Goetz, Jonas & 
 Co. Me parte The Tbostee 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 787 
 
 128. — Eeputed ovmersliip— Goods used by bank- 
 rupt " in his trade or business " — Stands used to 
 shew off goods in sliop — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 
 & 47 Viet. 0. 52), s. 44 {Hi.). 
 
 In order to establisli that goods were, at the 
 commencement of the bankruptcy, in the posses- 
 sion, order, or disposition of the bankrupt " in 
 his trade or business," within the meaning of 
 s. 44 (iii.) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, it is not 
 necessary to shew that the goods were such as 
 the bankrupt could pledge or sell in the course 
 of his business : it is enough to shew that they 
 were in his possession, order, or disposition for 
 the purposes of, or purposes connected with, his 
 trade or business. 
 
 In an action to recover possession of stands 
 used in the business of a mantle-maker for the 
 purpose of shewing off to advantage the mantles 
 iu her shop, it was proved that the stands were 
 in her possession with the consent of the pit., 
 who was the true owner of them; that the 
 mantle-maker subsequently became bankrupt, 
 and that the deft., her trustee iu bankruptcy, 
 had thereupon removed them from her shop : — 
 
 Seld, that there was evidence for the jury 
 that the stands were goods "in the possession, 
 order, or disposition of the bankrupt, in her trade 
 or business, by the consent and permission of the 
 true owner, under such circumstances that she 
 was the reputed owner thereof" within the 
 meaning of s. 44 (iii.) of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883. Shaeman v. Mason 
 . Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 217; [1899] 2 Q. B. 679 
 
 129. — True owner — Boole debts — Conveyancing 
 Ad, 1881 (44 * 4.'5 Vict. c. 41), s. 19, sub-s. 1, 
 cl. Hi.; s. li:— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 <fe47 Vict. 
 c. 52), s. 44 (iii.), s. 49 (d). 
 
 In order to take book debts out of the order 
 and disposition of an assignor the assignee must 
 give notice to the debtors, and take every possible 
 step to obtain possession of the debts. A mort- 
 gagee of book debts who, without notice of any 
 act of bankruptcy by the mortgagor, gives the 
 debtors notice of his assignment is entitled to the 
 protection conferred by s. 49 of the Act of 1883. 
 
 Although, from the absence of notice, consent 
 on the part of the true owner to a debt remaining 
 in the order and disposition of a bankrupt is 
 prima facie to be inferred, the inference wOl be 
 rebutted if the true owner takes every possible 
 step to obtain possession of the debt, or if his 
 failure to obtain possession is not attributable to 
 his own fault. Euttee v. Everett 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 872 
 
 130. — True owner — Eeputed ownership — Bill 
 of sale— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 i. 44, sub-s. 3 — BillsofSale Act (1878) Amendment 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 7. 
 
 Where the grantor of a bill of sale has become 
 bankrupt before making any default in payment 
 of the sums thereby secured, his possession of the 
 goods assigned by it under suoli circumstances 
 that be continues tebp the repute4 p-ffner thereof 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Order and Disposition)— cojrfcJ. 
 is a possession by him with the consent of the 
 true owner within the meaning of s. 44, sub-s. 3, 
 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. In re Ginqee. 
 Ex parte London and Universal Bank 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 «. B. 461 
 
 131. — True owner — Trust funds — Bankruptcy 
 Acts, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 106), ss. 125, 141 ; 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 44 (iii.). 
 
 Where the trustees named in a settlement of 
 property of a person who afterwards becomes 
 bankrupt have never executed or had any know- 
 ledge thereof, or decline the trusts, the bene- 
 ficiaries, and not the trustees, are the " true 
 owners " for the purpose of giving " consent and 
 permission "to the property being in the " orde r 
 or disposition" of the bankrupt as "reputed 
 owner" at his bankruptcy, so as to render the 
 propeity available for his creditors; and such 
 consent and permission can only be effectually 
 given by the beneficiaries when they are capable 
 of giving it, and not, for instance, married women 
 restrained from anticipation or infants. In re 
 Mills' Trusts - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 664 
 
 Compare Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 
 1849, s. 125, and Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 44 (iii.). 
 
 Partnership. 
 
 133. — Articles of Partnership — Clause as to 
 bankruptcy — Invalidity —Beceiver and managei — 
 Terms of appointment. 
 
 Partnersbip articles contained a clause pro- 
 viding for cesser of partnership on bankruptcy 
 and retention of bankrupt's share as a loan to 
 remaining partners. Three partners became 
 bankrupt, and the trustees in their bankruptcy 
 sued to have the bankruptcy clause declared 
 invalid, and for the appointment of a receiver 
 and manager of the business : — 
 
 Held, that the clause must be treated as void , 
 
 and that the solvent partner should be appointed 
 
 receiver and manager, but that he must give 
 
 security, pass his accounts, furnish the trustees 
 
 with proper accounts, allow them all reasonable 
 
 access to the books, and pay the balances in his 
 
 hands into a bank to be agreed. Collins v. 
 
 Barker - Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 678 
 
 — Future partner/ship — Payment on a contingency 
 
 — Verbal admission of insolvency. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 
 29. 
 
 133. — Infant partner — Receiving order. 
 
 If an act of bankruptcy is committed by a 
 firm having an infant partner a receiving order 
 cannot be made against the firm simply, but can 
 be made against the members of the firm " other 
 than " the infant partner : and if a receiving 
 order has been made against the firm simply it 
 can be amended under s. 105 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883. 
 
 Judgment was recovered against a partner- 
 ship, one member of which, G. W. B., was an 
 infant. A bankruptcy notice was served, the 
 non-compliauoo with which was alleged in the 
 petition as an act of bankruptcy, and a receiving 
 order was made : — 
 
 HeU, by H. L. (B.), varying C. A., that the 
 judgment should bo amended by adding after 
 thp wpr4 "defendants" tjje -jvords "other than 
 
( 139 ,) 
 
 , DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 110 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Partnership)— conMjtMed. 
 Gr. W. B." ; and that the bankruptcy proceedings 
 should be amended by adding these words after 
 the -words " B. Brothers." In re Beauohamp 
 Bbothees. Ex parte Beauohamp 
 
 C, A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 1 ; H. 1. (E.) sitft nom. 
 
 LOVELL AND CHRISTMAS V. BeAUOHAMP 
 
 [1894] A. C. 607 
 
 134. — Joint creditor — Banlcruptcy of all 
 partners. 
 
 After dissolution one partner brought a part- 
 -uership action, and a receiver and manager was 
 appointed. A judgment creditor of the firm 
 obtained on AprU 4 an order for the receiver to 
 pay him his debt and costs. On April 5 all the 
 partners were adjudicated bankrupt, but there 
 was no joint adjudication against the firm. In 
 drawing up the order the registrar dated the 
 same May 16, to let in an affidavit of the latter 
 fact : — 
 
 Eeld, that the judgment creditor was not 
 entitled to an order for payment of his debt and 
 costs, as the interest of each partner had vested 
 in his trustee in bankruptcy before May 16, and 
 because he had acquiesced in the postdating of 
 the order. Mitchell v. Weise. Ex parte 
 Fbiedheim - CMtty J. [1892] W. H. 139 
 
 — Loan in consideration of share of profits — 
 
 Postponement to other cr editors. 
 
 See Partnership — Contracts. 16. 
 
 135. — Partnership creditor — Separate estate of 
 partners — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 c. 52), s. 40, siib-s. 3. 
 
 Sect. 40 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 leaves the law as it was previously. Therefore, 
 where there is no joint partnership estate, a 
 creditor of the partnership is entitled to have his 
 debt paid out of the separate estates of the 
 separate partners on an equality with the separate 
 creditors. In re Budgett. Cooper v. Adams 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 2 Ch. 557 
 
 136. — • Partnership creditor — Separate estate of 
 partners — Proof hy solvent partner for ' separate 
 debt against separate estate of insolvent partner. 
 
 Where a partnership is insolvent and a proof 
 is tendered by the solvent partner against the 
 separate estate of the insolvent partner, in respect 
 of a separate debt, it is no objection thereto that 
 the dividend to be received from the insolvent's 
 separate estate will swell the surplus of what will 
 eventually go to the solvent partner's estate to 
 pay the joint debts of the partnership. In re 
 Head. Ex parte Head (No. 1) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1S94] 1 Q. B. 638 
 
 137. — Partnership debts — Dissolution — Writ 
 against firm after dissolution — Service on each 
 late partner — Judgment against late firm — lAoy 
 bility of partners after dissolution — Partner- 
 ship Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), s. 38— 
 flankruptcy notice against firm — Notice follow- 
 ing judgment — Petition against one late partner 
 only — Receiving order — Procedure — Irregularity 
 — Amendment — Application of Rules of SMpreme 
 Court to bankruptcy — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Viet. o. 52), g. 4, sub-s. 2 ; ss. 115, 143— 
 Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, rr. 136, 262, 353, and 
 Appendix, Form 6—R. S. C, 1883, Order XLvrii. a, 
 rr. .1-8. 
 
 Judgment was recovered, in default of appear- 
 
 BANKEUPTCT (Partnership) — continued. 
 ance, against a late partnership firm of "W. 
 Brothers," in an action brought against it after 
 its dissolution, for a debt incurred during the 
 partnership. The writ had been served on each 
 of the late partners, J. W. and T. W. A bank- 
 ruptcy notice in the usual form, and following the 
 judgment, was then addressed to " W. Brothers " 
 and served personally on each of the late partners. 
 The notice not having been' complied with, the 
 judgment creditor presented a petition against 
 J. W. alone : — 
 
 Held, by the Div. Ct., that the bankruptcy 
 notice was good, having followed the judgment ; 
 and that as it had been served on J. W. personally, 
 a receiving order on the petition could properly 
 be made against him. 
 
 On appeal by J. W. to the C. A. : — 
 
 Held, that under E. S. C, Order XLVin. a, 
 the action had been properly constituted against 
 " W. Brothers " as a firm, notwithstanding its 
 dissolution, since the cause of action had accmcd 
 before the dissolution (Partnership Act, 1890, 
 B. 38); and that, under the same order, the 
 judgment was enforceable against each of the late 
 partners : 
 
 Held also, by Lord Alverstone M.K. and 
 Eigby L.J. (Collins L.J. doubting), that under 
 8. 115 of the :^ankmptcy Act, 1883, bankruptcy 
 proceedings on the judgment would lie against 
 the firm notwithstanding its dissolution, and that 
 therefore the bankruptcy notice, though addressed 
 to a then non-existent firm, was sufficient to 
 support a receiving order under rule 262 of 
 the Bankruptcy Eules, 1886, against J. W. 
 alone : 
 
 But held, by Collins L.J., that even if tiie 
 bankruptcy notice was technically defective as 
 against J. W., yet under the circumstances the 
 defect was one that had not caused him any 
 " substantial injustice," and was therefore capable 
 of amendment under s. 143. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1900] W. N. 117, 
 affirmed. In re Wenham. Ex parte Battams 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 156 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 698 
 
 — Proof. 
 
 See Bankeuptot— Proof. 178—182. 
 
 138, — Quasi-partnership — Loan — - Interest 
 varying with -profits — Bankruptcy — Priority — 
 Agreement void for uncertainty — Partnership Acts, 
 1865 (28 * 29 Vict. t. 86), ss. 1, 5 ; 1890 (53 dc 54 
 Vict. c. 39), ss. 2, 3. 
 
 A person lent a trader money at a fixed rate 
 of interest, with a proviso tliat, if the trader could 
 not pay tlie agreed rate out of his profits, the 
 lender should make him an allowance : — 
 
 Seld, by Div. Ct., that the loan was in efl'ect 
 an advance at a rate of interest varying with 
 the profits, and, consequently, on the bankruptcy 
 of the trader the lender's claim must be post- 
 poned to those of the other creditors under s. 3 
 of the Partnership Act, 1890. 
 
 But held by 0. A., that the agreement was 
 void for uncertainty, and that the lender was 
 entitled to prove for the unpaid balance. Deci- 
 sion of Div. Ct., [1892] 1 Q. B. 587, reversed. 
 In re Vinoe, Ev parte Baxter 
 
 C, A, [1892] 2 Q. B, 478 
 
( 111 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 142 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY— coniJMCfl!. 
 
 Petition. 
 
 139. — Amendment — Adding petitioning credi- 
 tors—Time— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 0. 52), 86. 6, 105. 
 
 The Court ■will not amend a petition by 
 adding as petitioners, after the lapse of three 
 months from the act of bankruptcy on which the 
 petition is founded, creditors -whose debts are 
 other than those in respect of which the petition 
 was presented. In re Maund. Ex parte Maund 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 194 
 
 140. — Amendment — Bate of act of hanhruptcy 
 — Banlcruptcy notice — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 
 <fc 47 Vict. c. 52), 8. 4, sm6-s. 1 (3) — Bankruptcy 
 Rules, 1886 and 1890, r. 143, App. of Forms, 
 Form 10. 
 
 Where the act of bankruptcy relied on is 
 failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice, the 
 petition must state the date of the act of 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 A petition stated that a debtor had failed to 
 comply with a' bankruptcy notice served on him 
 on a day named : — 
 
 Held, that this statement was insufficient, 
 and that the petition should state that the debtor 
 had failed before a day eight days later than 
 that on which the notice was stated to have been 
 served, to comply with such notice : 
 
 Held, also, that the defect in not stating the 
 date of the act of bankruptcy was not a ground 
 for setting aside the receiving order, but ought 
 to have been amended on the hearing of the 
 petition, and could be amended by the Court on 
 an appeal from the making of the receiving 
 order. In re Dunhill. Ex parte Dunhill 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] a Q. B. 234 
 
 141. — Dismissal — Judgments Act, 1838 (1 <£ 2 
 Vict. e. 110), 8. li— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 49. 
 
 SemUe, notice that a bankruptcy petition has 
 been dismissed is not constructive notice that an 
 act of bankruptcy has been committed : Per 
 Lindley L.J. In re O'Shea's Settlement. 
 Courage v. O'Shea 
 
 C, A. [1895] 1 Ch. 325, at p. 331 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Wild v. Southwood, 
 [1897J 1 Q. B. 317, 318. 
 
 — Dismissal of — Effect of dismissed petition 
 under forfeiture clause in will. 
 See Will— Forfeiture. 99. 
 
 143. — " Bwellin^j-hoiise in England" — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 52), s. 6, 
 sm6-s. 1 (d). 
 
 Without defining " dwelling-house " in the s., 
 the 0. A. (affirming the registrar) dismissed a 
 petition on the ground tbat the debtor had 
 abandoned his house as a dwelling-house more 
 than a year previous to the filing of the petition, 
 although if he had chosen so to do he could have 
 gone to reside in it. In re Noedenfelt. Ex 
 parte Maxim-Nobdenfelt Guns and Ammu- 
 nition Co. - - C. A. [1895] 1 a. B. 151 
 
 143. — Notice of petition — Protected transaction 
 —Notice to sherig—" Sheriff " — Man in possession 
 —Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 52), 
 s, 168; 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 71), »• U, sub-s. 2. 
 
 BANKBTIPTCY (Petition)— coniraMed!. 
 
 A man iu possession, who seizes, keeps 
 possession of, and sells the goods of a judgment 
 debtor by direction of the sheriff, is not an 
 " officer charged with the execution of a writ or 
 other iM'ocess," and therefore is not a "sheriff" 
 within s. 168 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 ; 
 notice to him within fourteen days after sale, of 
 a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, is 
 therefore not notice to the sheriff within s. 11, 
 sub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, and does 
 not entitle the official receiver or trustee in 
 bankruptcy to the balance of the proceeds of sale. 
 Belltse v. M'Ginn Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 227 
 
 144. — Petitioning creditor's debt — Merger in 
 judgment — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 c. 52), s. 7, svb-s. 2. 
 
 A judgment on a simple contract debt 
 (though for most purposes merging the debt in 
 the judgment) does not extinguish the debt for 
 the purpose of bankruptcy' proceedings, and such 
 debt is still available to support a petition. The 
 law in this respect has not been altered by the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883. In re Kino and Beeslet. 
 Ex parte King and Bebsley 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 189 
 
 145. — Befusal of registrar to make receiving 
 order — Bes judicata— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 
 & in Vict. c. 52), s. 7. 
 
 A county court registrar refused to grant a 
 receiving order on a petition based on a judgment 
 debt, being of opinion, on inquiry into the consi- 
 deration on which the judgment was founded, 
 that there was not a good petitioning creditor's 
 debt. A second bankruptcy petition was pre- 
 sented in the London Court of Bankruptcy : — 
 
 Held, that the judgment, so long as it was not 
 set aside, was conclusive that there was a debt 
 between the judgment debtor and creditor, and 
 that the county court registrar had no jurisdiction 
 to decide that the judgment debt was not a valid 
 debt as between the parties to it. Therefore, all 
 he could do and did was to exercise his discretion 
 to refuse to make a receiving order. Therefore 
 it was not res judicata that there was not a valid 
 debt. In re Vitobia. Ex parte Vitobia 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 387 
 Approved by P. 0. King v. Henderson, 
 [1898] A. C. 720, 730. 
 
 146. — BigM to present — Debtor — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1888 (46* 47 Vict. 0. 52), s. 8, sub.-s. 1. 
 
 The course of legislation as to a debtor's 
 
 right to present his own petition traced by V. 
 
 Williams J. in ex parte Painter. In re Painter 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 85, at p. 88 
 
 147. — Bight to present — Purser of cost-book 
 mine. 
 
 A purser of a cost-book mine is only authorized 
 to sue on behalf of the company. He cannot, 
 under s. 13 of the Stannaries Act, 1869, present a 
 banliruptoy petition on their behalf in respect, 
 e.g., of a judgment debt obtained for unpaid 
 calls. In re Nance. Ex parte Abhmead 
 
 G. A. [1893J 1 Q, B, 590 
 
 Practice. 
 — Adding parties — Official receiver. 
 See Practice- Parties, 89, 
 
( H3 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( IW ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Piactice)— continued. 
 —Adding trustee a party— Liquidated damages. 
 See Pkaotice — Parties. 88. 
 
 148. — Affidavits — Service of copies — Sanlc- 
 ruptcy Bules, 1886, rr. 27, 29. 
 
 As a general rule copies of aflSdavits iu sup- 
 port of an application should be served with the 
 notice of motion. In re Wells. Ex parte 
 Collins V, Williams J. [1892] W. N. 96 
 
 149. — Consolidation — Separate estates — 
 Banliruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ». 112. 
 
 Where a partnership has been dissolved and 
 afterwards separate receiving orders are made 
 against the late partners, and there are joint 
 assets and liabilities still in existence, there is 
 jurisdiction to mate an order consolidating the 
 proceedings under the separate receiving orders. 
 In re Abbott V. WiUiams J. [1894] 1 Q. B. 442 
 — Oosta. 
 
 See Cases under Bankkuptcy — Costs. 
 — Debtor absconding before presentation of 
 petition — Arrest — Order made in exer- 
 cise of bankruptcy jurisdiction — Cer- 
 tiorari. 
 Bee County Court — Jurisdiction, 47. 
 
 160. — Dismissal of bankruptcy petition by con- 
 st nt — Increased debt. Second petition for — Seceiv- 
 irig order — Extortion — Pressure — Abuse of process 
 0} Court — Procedure — Leave of Court to with- 
 drawal of petition — Terms to be submitted to Court 
 — Debtor and creditor — Bankruptcy Act, 18iS3 
 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 52), ». 7, sub-s. 7. 
 
 Where a creditor, having presented a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against his debtor based upon a 
 particular debt, such as a judgment debt, consents 
 to its being dismissed upon the terms of the 
 debtor agreeing to pay a fresh debt of increased 
 amount, it is not an abuse of the process of the 
 Court for the creditor, in ease of the debtor 
 making default, to present a second petition 
 based upon the new debt, provided he has not 
 used extortion or pressure towards the debtor. 
 
 Leave to withdraw a creditor's bankruptcy 
 petition under s. 7, sub-s. 7, of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, should not be given without the Court 
 being first informed of the facts of the case and 
 the proposed terms of withdrawal, so that it may 
 exercise its judgment as to whether the case is 
 a proper one for allowing a withdrawal. In re 
 Bbbro C. A. [1900] W. N. 128 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 316 
 
 151, — Motions — Viva voce evidence. 
 
 Per Wright J. : His attention had been drawn 
 to the fact tli.at unnecessary expenses in bank- 
 ruptcy matters were incurred by applications to 
 the Court for orders that the evidence on pending 
 motions might be taken vivS. voce. In future a 
 party desiring that the evidence on a pending 
 motion should be taken vivS. voce must give 
 notice in writing to the other side, and if no 
 objection was raised within a week, then the 
 evidence would be taken that way, and no order 
 for the purpose would be required. But if any 
 objection was raised within the week, then an 
 application for the purpose must be made to 
 the Court at the peril of the party objecting. 
 Memorandum - Wright J. [1899] W. N. 121 
 
 152. — Order for administration of estate of 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Siactice)— continued. 
 
 deceased person — Banlcruplcy 'Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 
 Vict. c. 52), s. 125. 
 
 An order under a. 125 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, for the administration in bankruptcy 
 of the estate of a deceased debtor may be made 
 upon a petition served before the grant of probate 
 of letters of administration, if at the time of 
 the making of the order there is a duly con- 
 stituted legal personal representative of tlie 
 deceased before the Court. In re Sleet. Ex 
 parte Sleet C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 797 
 
 153. — Payment into court for leave to defend — 
 Bankruptcy of defendant before trial — Secured cre- 
 ditor — Pending action — R. S. C, 1883, Order xiY., 
 r. 6— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 s. 168. 
 
 Money paid into court under E. S. C, 1883, 
 Order xiv., for leave to defend, must be treated 
 as money paid in to abide the event, and is a 
 security to the pit. for the sum for which he may 
 obtain judgment at the trial ; and if the deft, 
 becomes bankrupt before the trial, the money 
 must remain in court until "the event" is 
 decided by the trial of the action, if that is to 
 be tried, or by adjudication upon a proof by the 
 pit. in tlie bankruptcy. In re Ford. Ex parte 
 The Trttstt'p 
 
 Wright J. [1900] W. N. 124; [1900] 2 Q. B. 211 
 See upon another point. Bankruptcy — 
 Execution. 101. 
 — Petition. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy — Petition. 
 
 154. — Security for costs — Foreigner resident 
 abroad— Bankruptcy Acts, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, 
 c. 71); 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52)— Bankruptcy 
 Rules, 1886 and 1890, rr. 131, 148. 
 
 tinder the Banki'uptoy Act, 1883, and the 
 Bankruptcy Rules, the Court has jurisdiction to 
 order a foreign creditor resident abroad to give 
 security for the costs of an appeal against the 
 rejection of his proof, but will not exercise its 
 discretion to do so where there is a fair subject of 
 dispute involved, and ought not to do so except 
 in extreme cases. In cases governed by the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1869, the Court will be guided 
 by the Act of 1883, and the rules thereunder. 
 In re Semenza. Ex parte Paget 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 15 
 — Stay of proceedings — ^Discontinuance by trustee. 
 See Bankruptcy — Stay of Proceedings. 
 
 165. — Two estates — Same trustee- 
 interests — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 <fc 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), ss. 21, 104. 
 
 G. was appointed ti-ustee of thji estate of E., 
 a bankrupt, and subsequently jof that of L. 
 G. was a creditor of E.'s esta4o for a large 
 amount, and of L.'s foi; a sinalji amount. The 
 only asset of either E. or L.^(fas an interest in 
 certain property as to haUj^i which E. alleged 
 that L. was trustee iorjgtai. The Bd. of Trade 
 objected to G.'s appointment as trustee for L.'s 
 estate, -eariirt^^round that his connection with 
 the bankrupt or his estate made it difficult for 
 him to act impal'tiially : — 
 
 Held, that the objection was valid : 
 
 Held, also, that the order appointing G. was 
 appeal3,ble, and that the Bd, of Trade were 
 
( 145 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 146 ) 
 
 BANKETJPICY (Practice)— coBtimued. 
 "persons aggrieved" by it. In re Lamb. Ex 
 parte Boakd of Trade C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 805 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re Mardon, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 140. 
 
 Preference. 
 
 — Fraudulent preference. 
 
 See Bankruptoy — Fraudulent Prefer- 
 ence. 
 
 — Preferential payments in bankruptcy. 
 
 8e» Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Preference. 
 
 166. — Preferential payments — Friendly Society 
 — Debt due from treasurer — Bankruptcy Act, 1 883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. iO— Bankruptcy Pre- 
 ferential Payments Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Viet. c. 62), 
 s. 2, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Tlie trustees of a friendly society bave by 
 s. 15 oftbe Friendly Societies Act, 1875, a 
 preferential claim on tbe assets of a bankrupt 
 treasurer of the society for the balance due from 
 him to the society at tbe commencement of the 
 bankruptcy, even where the moneys are not in 
 his possession in specie and cannot be traced. 
 In re ItfiLLEB. Ex parte Oppioial Eeoeiveb 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 a. B. 327 
 
 See 59 & 60 Viot. c. 25, s. 35 (b.) 
 
 157. — Preferential payments — Gas supply — 
 Gasworks Clauses Acts, 1847 (10 * 11 Vict. c. 15), 
 s. 16; 1871 (34 * 35 Vict. c. 41), ss. 11, 39— 
 Metropolis Gas Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 125), 
 ss. 4, 14-19, 39. 
 
 Arrt-ars of gas rent paid by the ofiScial 
 receiver to a gus co. to prevent the supply of gas 
 being out off from premises in the occupation 
 of a bankrupt are not preferential payments 
 which the trustee in bankruptcy can recover 
 back. In re Smith. Ex parte Mason 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1893] 1 Q. B. 323 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Paterson v. Gas Light 
 and Coke Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 476, 483. 
 
 — Preferential payments in bankruptcy — -Manag- 
 
 ing director — " Clerk or servant." 
 See Company— Directors. 114. 
 
 168. — Trust for creditors — Bigld in security 
 — Pledge — Private manager. 
 
 By trust deed executed July, 1895, S., a 
 farmer, conveyed his whole estate to M., " as 
 trustee and in trust and as my commr. (but 
 liereinafter called trustee) for the uses, ends, 
 and purposes after specified," " with full power 
 to manage the farm until expiry or renunciation 
 of the lease, to sell the stock, &o., to sue and 
 defend actions, pay rent and wages, and out of 
 the lemainder pay the creditors " of S. ; " or if 
 the remainder was inadequate, to call for claims 
 and divide the sums." S. was declared bankrupt 
 July 10, 1896. M. claimed a preferential right 
 to be paid a balance due to him in respect of his 
 actings in the management of the farm. He 
 alleged that at the date of the bankruptcy he 
 held the whole estate in security and for payment 
 of his advances, expenses, and remuneration as 
 trustee, and claimed full payment of his debt. 
 And in virtue of his having paid for the seed 
 and labour of sowing and caring for the crop of 
 1896, he specially olftifliefi tp bp proferje^ to tjje 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Preference)— conMnwetZ. 
 whole sum arising from the realization of the 
 crops, or such part as would recoup him for his 
 expenses, advances, and remuneration. The 
 trustee rejected M.'s claim so far as it included 
 law expenses after the date of the bankruptcy 
 and other small sums, and under deduction of 
 these sums the trustee admitted M.'s claim to 
 be an ordinary debt, rejecting the debt altogether 
 as a preferable one : — 
 
 Held, afiSrming the decision of Ct. of Sess., 
 Mess V. Hay {Sime's Trustee), (1898) 25 R. 398, 
 that M. had no right to a preferable claim, on 
 the ground that he had never held the bankrupt's 
 estate in security, and that the payments made 
 for seed and labour did not entitle him to a 
 preferable ranking. Mess v. Hay 
 
 H. L. (S3,) [1899] A. C. 233 
 
 Priority. 
 — Quasi partnership — Loan at interest varying 
 with profits. 
 See Bankruptcy — Partership. 138. 
 
 Proof. 
 
 Notice of rejection of proof of debt — A new 
 form substituted for No. 74, W. N. 1896 (Jan. 18), 
 p. 36 ; Current Index, 1896, p, Iviii. 
 
 159. — Alimony — Arrears accrued after re- 
 ceiving order. 
 
 Arrears of alimony under an order of the 
 Divorce Court, which became due after a receiving 
 order has been made against the husband, but 
 belbre discharge, cannot be proved for in bank- 
 ruptcy by his wife. In re Hawkins. Ex parte 
 Hawkins - - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 86 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Watkins v. Watkins, 
 [1896] P. 222, 226. 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J. Kerr v. Kerr, 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 439, 444. 
 
 160. — Alimony — Arrears accrued due before 
 receiving order — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Viet. c. 52), s. 37. 
 
 Arrears of alimony payable by a debtor to his 
 wife under an order of the Probate and Divorce 
 Div. of the High Court of Justice, which accrue 
 due before the making of a receiving order 
 against the debtor, are not provable by the wife 
 in the debtor's bankruptcy. 
 
 Per Hawkins and Williams JJ. (Wright J. 
 diss.) Kerr v. Kerr Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 439 
 
 161. — Amendment — Right to amend proof — 
 Secured creditor— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 
 Vict. c. 52), Sched. II., rr. 12a, 13. 
 
 By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, Sohed. II., rule 
 12a, where a secured creditor has valued his 
 security the trustee may " at any time " redeem it 
 on payment to. the creditor of the assessed value ; 
 and by rule 13 a secured creditor may " at any 
 time " amend his valuation and proof on shewing 
 that the security has increased in value since its 
 previous valuation. A secured creditor bavin" 
 valued his security, it subsequently greatly in° 
 creased in value, and thereupon the trustee gave 
 notice to redeem it, and tendered payment of the 
 assessed value to the creditor, who refused to 
 accept the tender : — 
 
 Held, that the creditor was entitled, under 
 njlp 13, to amend his yalnation and proof not- 
 
< 117 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 < 118 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY iViooi)— continued. 
 withstanding sucli tender and refusal. In re 
 Newton. Ex parte National Peovjncial Bank 
 OF England - Div. Ct. [1896] 2 ft. B. 403 
 
 162. — Annuity — Sale of business in considera- 
 tion of an annuity — Bankruptcy of purchaser — 
 Proof hy vendor for value of annuity — Postpone- 
 ment — Beference to Begistrar to assess value of 
 annuity — Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 c. 39), 8. 8. 
 
 Tlie 0. A. held that Wright J., [1899] 
 W. N. 41, had taken an erroneous view of s. 3 of 
 the Partnership Act, 1890, and allowed the appeal, 
 and referred the case hack to the Begistrar to 
 assess the value of the annuity; both parties 
 assenting to the reference to him for that 
 purpose. In re GiEVE. Bx parte Shaw 
 
 C. A. [1839] W. K. 72 
 
 183. — Bills of exchange — Lumping debts and 
 securities. 
 
 Although under ordinaiy circumstances a 
 creditor proving in a bankruptcy may properly 
 lump together his debts and securities, yet when 
 the debts are distinct in substance, with different 
 rights over as against third persons, or with 
 different securities, the trustee in the bankruptcy 
 may insist that proof shall not be made for a 
 lump snip, and may require the creditor to 
 distinguish and specify the particular debts 
 and the values of the securities for the same 
 respectively. 
 
 A bank were the indorsees of four bills of 
 exchange, of which A and C were drawn by one 
 person, and B and D by another person, upon 
 different acceptors, to the order of the same 
 payee, who indorsed them all to the same firm. 
 That firm indorsed them to another firm, who 
 indorsed them to the bank. The first-mentioned 
 firm executed a creditor's deed, which provided 
 for the distribution of their assets as in bank- 
 ruptcy. The bank proved under the deed for 
 the aggregate amount of the four bills, and, by 
 means of dividends under the deed and pay- 
 ments by the other persons liable upon the bills, 
 they received ia respect of the bills B and D 
 more than 20s. in the pound, but they had not 
 yet received payment in full of the other two 
 bills A and 0. The whole amount which they 
 had received was less than the total amount due 
 on all the four bUls :— 
 
 Held, that the trustee of the deed was entitled 
 to have the bills B and D delivered up to him, 
 and to have the surplus above 20s. in the pound 
 which the bank had received in respect of each 
 of those bills handed over to him. 
 
 Decision of Eomer J., [1898] 2 Ch. 413, 
 affirmed. In re Mobris. James v. London and 
 County Banking Co. C. A. [1899] W. N. 18 (3) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch, 486 
 
 164. — Company — Death of shareholder — In- 
 tolvent estate — Administration — Proof of debts — 
 Liability to future calls^Judicature Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. 0. 77), s. W~Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), «. 37, stib-ss. 3, 4, 6, 8. 
 
 By virtue of s. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, 
 and s. 37 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, a co. may 
 prove, in the administration of the estate of a 
 deceased shareholder whose estate is insolvent, 
 for the estimated value of the liability to future 
 
 BANKSITPTCY Qlioof)— continued. 
 calls in respect of the shares standing in his 
 name. In re MoMahon. Fulleb v. MoMahon 
 Stirling J. [1900] 1 Ch. 173 
 
 — Company — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 —Proof, 
 
 168. — Corporation — Dissolution — Claim of 
 dissolved corporation — Bight of the Crown — Bona 
 Vacantia. 
 
 A trading firm became bankrupt in 1847, and 
 a corporation created by statute proved in the 
 bankruptcy, with other creditors. In 1887 the 
 corporation was dissolved by an order of the Court 
 under the Companies Acts. Afterwards it was 
 discovered that the bankrupts had been entitled 
 to certain ry. shares, and the official receiver 
 recovered the value of the shares, and held the 
 proceeds as trustee in the bankruptcy. Another 
 creditor moved to expunge the proof of the dis- 
 solved corporation, claiming that the money to 
 which the corporation had been entitled as a 
 creditor, and which was then in the hands of the 
 official receiver as trustee, was divisible among 
 the stm existing creditors. 
 
 The county court judge made an order ex- 
 punging the proof. 
 
 On appeal by the Att.-Gen. on behalf of the 
 Treasury : — ■ 
 
 Held, reversing the order, that on the disso- 
 lution of the corporation the proceeds of the shares 
 in the hands of the official receiver as trustee in 
 the bankruptcy had passed to the Crown as bona 
 vacantia, and the Crown was entitled to the 
 amount. In re Higginson & Dean. Ex parte 
 Att.-Gen. - - Div. Ct. [1S99] 1 ft. B. 325 
 
 — Costs— Provable debt — Unliquidated damages. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — ^Proof. 204. 
 
 — Proof—" Cover "- 
 
 the event." 
 
 See Gaming. 28. 
 
 166. — Damages in the Divorce Court — Bank- 
 ruptcy of co-respondent — Provable debt — Judgment 
 summons — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 85), s. SS— Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 
 Vict. c. 62), s. 5— Bankruptcy Acts, 1883, 1890 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 37 ; 53 & 54 Vict. c. 71, 
 s. 10). 
 
 Damages awarded to a petitioner in the 
 Divorce Court against a co-respondent, and 
 ordered to be paid into court, although they will 
 not support a bankruptcy petition against the 
 co-respondent, are nevertlieless a debt provable 
 in his bankruptcy. The payment of such damages 
 therefore cannot, if his bankruptcy supervenes, 
 be enforced against him by a judgment summons 
 under s. 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869. 
 
 Wood v. Wood, (1868) L. R. 1. P. &■ M. 467, 
 followed. In re O'Gokman. Ex parte Bale 
 Wright J. [1899] W. N. 68 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 62 
 
 167. — Debts provable — Covenant — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 87. 
 
 The term "liability" in s. 37 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, includes a liability under a 
 covenant for the payment of money out of the 
 estate of the covenantor after his death, and the 
 value of such an obligation is provable as a 
 
 Money deposited to abide 
 
( 149 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 150 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (jeroof)— continued. 
 
 debt ou the bankruptcy of the covenantor. 
 
 Barnett v. King - - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. i 
 
 168. — " Debt provable in bankruptcy " — Debt 
 incurred after notice to creditor of act of bankruptcy 
 — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. v. 52), 
 ss. 9, 37. 
 
 Where a debt has been incurred by a bank- 
 rupt before the date of the receiving order, but 
 after notice to the creditor of an act of bankruptcy 
 available against the debtor, an action for the debt 
 cannot be maintained, it being a debt provable in 
 bankruptcy within the meaning of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, B. 87, sub-s. 3, although by 
 Bub-B. 2 of that section the creditor is subject to a 
 personal disqualification for proving it. Buck- 
 well V. NOEMAN - C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 622 
 
 169. — Disclaimer by trustee in bankruptcy — 
 Contract to talte shares in a company — Proof for 
 injury caused by disdaimer^Measure of damages 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 it- 47 Viet. c. 52), 
 s. 55. 
 
 By a contract made in Feb., 1898, H. agreed 
 to sell to a. CO. certain properties; and by the 
 same contract H. agreed to subscribe and pay for 
 in cash so much of the share capital of the oo. as 
 should not be taken up by the public. In the 
 events which liappened H. became bound under 
 the contract to take up and pay for certain pre- 
 ference shares and 25,000 ordinary shares of IZ. 
 each in the co. In June, 1898, H. became bank- 
 rupt, and in the July following his trustee in 
 bankruptcy disclaimed the contract. Soon after- 
 wards the CO. went into liquidation, and the 
 liquidator lodged a proof against H.'s estate for 
 damages for breach of the contract. H.'s estate 
 was estimated to realise not more that 4s. in the 
 pound. The liabilities of the co. were about 
 16,000Z., whilst its assets comprised, practically, 
 about 4000Z. at a bank and the claim against 
 H.'s estate. The liquidator made a call of 11. 
 per share on tlie ordinary shares of the co., and 
 claimed that the proof against H.'s estate should 
 stand at 23,000Z., on the ground that the measure 
 of damages for the injuiy caused to the co. by the 
 disclaimer was the loss of the call of 11. per share 
 on the 25,000 shares which H. was bound to take 
 np. The trustee admitted the proof for 10,500?. 
 only, that being the difference between the then 
 estimated assets and liabilities of tlie co. : — 
 
 Seld, that, as the disclaimer had put an end 
 to the contract, and the claim of the co. could 
 only be for damages for breach of the contract, 
 the trustee had assessed the damages on the 
 right principle, and that the proof must stand at 
 10,500Z. In re Hoolet. Ex parte United 
 Obdnance and Engineering Co. - Wright J. 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 579 
 
 170. — Disclaimer of shares— Damages. 
 
 A bankrupt held shares not fully paid up ; a 
 call was made on them, and before It was payable 
 his trustee disclaimed the shares." The co. then 
 went iBto liquidation, and the liqnidator lodged 
 a proof for the whole amount unpaid on the 
 shares. The trustee admitted a proof for the 
 amount of the call, but rejected the remainder. 
 The liquidator then lodged a proof for the balance 
 as damagea caused by the disclaimer: this the 
 trustee rejected ;— 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Bioot)— continued. 
 
 Held, that the liquidator was entitled to prove 
 for the damage caused by the disclaimer. In re 
 Hallett. ]ix parte National Insukanoe Co. 
 V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 166 
 171. — Disputed proofs — • Practice— Beceiviiuj 
 order — Scheme of arrangement — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), Sohed. II., rr. 22-27— 
 Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, rr. 214, 215. 
 
 After a receiving order, a debtor submitted 
 to the first meeting of his creditors a scheme to 
 pay a composition of 7s. Gd. in the pound to those 
 creditors whose debts he admitted. At the first 
 meeting proofs were lodged for 60,000Z., of which 
 proofs for 15,OO0Z. were admitted, but the debtor 
 wholly disputed the remaining 45,0002. The 
 admitted creditors accepted the scheme subject 
 to the sanction of the Court. The official re- 
 ceiver had no assets and no means of testing the 
 validity of the disputed proofs, which depended 
 on complicated questions of fact. The debtor 
 then applied to the Court that he might be at 
 liberty in the name of the official receiver (in- 
 demnifying him) to reject the disputed proofs or 
 to take proceedings to expunge or reduce them. 
 The official receiver objected to his name being 
 used : — 
 
 Seld, the proper course was for the debtor 
 to serve notice of motion on the creditors in 
 question asking that their proofs might be ex- 
 punged from the file of the proceedings. In re 
 Calveet - Wright J, [1899] W. N. 34 (3) 
 
 See also Nos. 177, 185, below. 
 173. — Guarantee— Appropriation of money as 
 payment — Construction of agreement. 
 
 Four persons guaranteed a debt to a bank. 
 Three of the guarantors deposited money with 
 the bank, which tlie bank was to carry to a 
 suspense account, it being agreed that the bank 
 might, when it so pleased, appropriate the 
 deposit as payment of the depositors' share of the 
 guarantee. The fourth guarantor became bank- 
 rupt, and the bank claimed to prove against his 
 estate for the whole of the guarantee : — 
 
 Held, that the bank was entitled to prove for 
 the whole amount of the guarantee, for the 
 payment to the suspense account with the 
 creditor was not a discharge until the creditor 
 had appropriated the money as payment of the 
 guarantee. Commercial Bank of Australia v. 
 OiTFiciAL Assignee of John Wilson & Co. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 181 
 173. — Guarantee by third party — Security- 
 Secured creditor — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 52), s. 168. 
 
 A. gave a promissory note to H. & Co. for 
 money lent, and also a transferable guarantee by 
 the 0. Co. H. & Co. handed the note and 
 guarantee to their bankers, who lent them 
 money. The note was dishonoured at maturity. 
 H. & Co. became bankrupt. The C. Co. went 
 into liquidation. D. sought to prove in the 
 bankruptcy of H. & Co. for the whole debt due 
 to him : — 
 
 Seld, that H. & Co. had parted with the 
 property in the note and the guarantee to 
 their bankers, and that the guarantee had not 
 been handed over to the bankers merely by way 
 of mortgage, gr lien on tjje bankrupts' property, 
 
( 151 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 152 ) 
 
 BANEEUPTCY {Tlrooiy— continued. 
 and therefore that the bankers were not secured 
 creditors within a. 168 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, and need not deduct the value of the 
 guarantee from the amount of their debt. In re 
 Hallett & Co. Ex parte Oooes, Biddulph & 
 Co. - - C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 256 
 
 174. — Husband and wife — Iioan hj wife to 
 husband for purposes unconnected with his busi- 
 ness — Proof against husband's estate — Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), 
 «. 3. 
 
 By s. 3 of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1882, ''Any money or other estate of the 
 wife lent or entrusted by her to her husband for 
 the purpose of any trade or business carried on 
 by him, or otherwise, shall be treated as assets of 
 her husband's estate in case of his bankruptcy, 
 under reservation of tlie wife's claim to a divi- 
 dend as a creditor for the amount or value of 
 such money or other estate after, hut not before, 
 all claims of the other creditors of the husband 
 for valuable consideration in money or money's 
 worth have been satisfied." On a claim by a 
 wife to prove against her husband's estate for 
 money lent to him : — 
 
 Held, that the section does not apply to a 
 loan by a wife to her husband for purposes 
 unconnected with liis trade or business. 
 
 In re Tidswdl, Ex parte Tidswell, (1887) 56 
 L. J. (Q. B.) 548, approved. In re Clabk. Ex 
 parte Schdlze - - C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 330 
 
 175. — Interest— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 
 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 37, 40, Sched. II., r. 21. 
 
 The effect of s. 37 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, and rule 21 in Sched. II. to tlie Act, is that 
 when a debt is by contract payable at a future 
 date, with interest in the meantime, and the 
 debtor becomes bankrupt before the time of 
 payment has iiriived, the creditor may prove for 
 interest accruing after the date of the receiving 
 order. In such a case the proper cause is to 
 prove for the principal sum as a present debt : 
 then under rule 21 to deduct a rebate of interest at 
 5 per cent, from the dividends upon it ; and then 
 to value the liability to pay interest and prove 
 for that value the dividend on which is to be paid 
 without any rebate. When the rate of interest 
 contracted for is 5 per cent, the proper course is 
 simply to prove for the principal sum as a present 
 debt, without any rebate. History of the law as 
 to proof for interest in bankruptcy considered. 
 In re Bbownb akd Winorove. Ex parte Ador 
 C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 574 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Wallace v. Universal 
 Automatic Machines Co., 0. A. [1894] 2 Oh. 547, 
 553. 
 
 176. Interest on mortgage — Transfer of mort- 
 gage — Assignment of equity of redemption — ■ 
 Arrears. 
 
 A mortgagor to two mortgagees assigned his 
 equity of redemption, and the estate of the two 
 mortgagees was transferred so as to vest in one 
 alone. The assignee of the equity continued to 
 pay interest on the mortgage, and when sued for 
 arrears suffered judgment by default, and was 
 subsequently adjudged bankrupt. The transferee 
 of the mortgage claimed to prove against his 
 estate fcr further ar):ea|-s of interest ; — 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Proof) — continued. 
 
 Beld, that the proof could not be allowed 
 since there was no privity of contract between the 
 assignee of the equity and the transferee of the 
 mortgage, and no personal liability on the part of 
 the assignee to pay interest. In re Erkington. 
 Ex parte Mason. Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 11 
 
 177. — Jurisdiction, creditor resident out of 
 tlie — Proof by — Notice of motion to expunge 
 proof — Service out of jurisdiction. 
 
 Leave given to serve the notice of motion on 
 the creditor in Edinburgh by registered post to 
 his address there ; and as to the Australian 
 creditor, by serving the notice on the firm of 
 solicitors in London who had lodged his proof. 
 In re Oalvebt - Wright J. [1899] W. S. 53 
 
 See also No. 171, above, and No. 185, below. 
 
 178. — Loan to firm on terms of sharing profits 
 — Subsequent advances without express stipulation 
 as to rate of interest — Dissolution of firm — Subse- 
 quent agreement vrith continuing partner to con- 
 tinue loan at fixed rate of interest — Postponement 
 —Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), 
 ss. 2, 3. 
 
 In 1893 A., B., and 0. executed a deed by 
 which A. and B. entered into partnership for a 
 term of years, and 0. agreed to lend them 1600Z. 
 as capital for the business, she to receive a share 
 of the profits in lieu of interest. In June, 1895, 
 A. and B. by deed, to which 0. was a party, dis- 
 solved partnership, B. continuing tlie business 
 and taking over and becoming solely responsible 
 for the debt due to C, which at this date com- 
 piised the 1600Z. and a further sum advanced by 
 her without any express stipulation as to interest. 
 lu Aug. 1895, B. and 0. entered into a deed 
 by which it was agreed that 0. should continue 
 to receive a share of profits in lieu of interest in 
 respect of the 1600Z., but that the further advance 
 and any future advances should carry a fixed 
 rate of interest. In 1S96 B. became bankrupt, 
 and 0. claimed to prove in competition with the 
 otlier creditors of the business in respect of all 
 her advances: — 
 
 Held, that 0. must be postponed in respect 
 
 of all her advances prior to Aug., 1895. In re 
 
 Mason. Ex parte Binq - Wright J. 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 810 
 
 179. — Loan to trader — Interest varying with 
 profits— Bocill's Act (28 * 29 Vict. c. 86), ss. 1, 5 
 Partnership Act, 1890 (53 &. 54 Vict. c. 39), 
 ss. 2, 3. 
 
 In 1881 A. lent B. 20,000?. at 5 per cent, 
 interest plus by way of additional interest a sum 
 equal to one-fourth of the net profits of B.'s 
 business. In 1886, on negotiations for repay- 
 ment, A. agreed in writing to continue the existing 
 loan, and B. agreed to pay interest thereon at 
 10 per cent.: — 
 
 Held, that the transaction of 1886 did not 
 amount to a re-lendiug, that s. 5 of the Partner- 
 ship Amendment Act, 1865 (now s. 3 of the 
 Partnership Act, 1880), applied, and that in the 
 bankruptcy of B., A. could not prove until all the 
 other creditors were paid in full. In re Hildes- 
 HEiM. Ex parte Trustee in Bankrcptoy 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 367 
 
 180. — Partnership, Agreement for a — Loan or 
 Partner sjiip — Loan tg Trader — Weelcly Payments 
 
C 153 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASeS, 1891— itJob. 
 
 ( ISi ) 
 
 feANKatrPTCY (Proof)— continued. 
 affixed Sum out of Profits— " Share of Profits" 
 — " Loan "—Partnership Act, 1890 (53 * 5i Vict, 
 c. 39), s. 2, sub-s. 3 (d); ss. 3, 10. 
 
 A contract that a person shall receive a fixed 
 sum " out of the profits " of a business is equi- 
 valent to a contract that he shall receive "a 
 share of the profits " within the meaning of sub- 
 s. 3 (d) of s. 2 of the Partnership Act, 1890. 
 
 Under a written contract A. lent B. 500Z. for 
 his business. A. was to have the sole control and 
 management of the business, and an option was 
 given him (which was not exercised) of becoming 
 a partner with B. in the business within a certain 
 time. For the use of his money A. was to be 
 paid the weekly sum of 31., afterwards reduced 
 to 2Z., "out of the profits" of the business. B. 
 was to draw like weekly suras. B. having become 
 bankrupt, A. claimed to prove for the money he 
 had advanced : — 
 
 Held, that, under the circumstances, A. was 
 not a partner ; but that he was in the position of 
 a person who was receiving a " share of the pro- 
 fits " of the business within the meaning of the 
 Partnership Act, 1890, s. 2, sub-s. 3 (d), and 
 therefore could not prove until all the other 
 creditors had been satisfied. In re Young. Ex 
 parte Jokes - V. Williams J. [1896] 2 Q, B. 484 
 
 181. — Partnership creditor — Separate estate 
 of partners — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), 8. 40, sub-s. 3. 
 
 Sect. 40, sub-s. 3 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1888, 
 leaves the law as it was previously. Therefore, 
 where there is no joint partnership estate, a 
 creditor of the partnership is entitled to have his 
 debt paid out of the separate estates of the 
 separate partners on an equality with the separate 
 creditors. In re Budgett. Coopbe v. Adams 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 2 Ch. 557 
 
 183. — Partnership creditor — Separate estate 
 of partners — Proof hy solvent partner for separate 
 debt against separate estate of insolvent partner. 
 
 Where a partnersliip is insolvent and a proof 
 is tendered by the solvent partner against the 
 separate estate ot the insolvent partner, in respect 
 of a separate debt, it is no objection thereto that 
 the dividend to be received from the insolvent's 
 separate estate will swell the surplus of what 
 will eventually go to the solvent partner's estate 
 to pay the joint debts of the partnership. In re 
 Head. £x parte Head (No. 1) 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1894] 1 ft. B. 638 
 
 183. — Principal and Surety — Guarantie to 
 Bank— Surety for whole Debt, but lAability limited 
 in Amount — Payment by Surety — Proof by Bank 
 for whole Debt. 
 
 A surety guaranteed a bank the payment of 
 all sums of money which then were or might 
 thereafter from time to time become due or 
 owing to the bank for their customer S., but 
 nevertheless the total amount recoverable from 
 the surety was not to exceed 3001. The guarantie 
 was to be a continuing security, and any divi- 
 dends which the bank might receive on the 
 bankruptcy of S. were not to prejudice their 
 right to recover from the surety to the full extent 
 of the guarantie any sums which after the receipt 
 of such dividends might remain owing to them 
 byS. 
 
 BANKETJPTCY (Proof)— con imtied. 
 
 S. became bankrupt, and the bank, afte* 
 receiving the 3001. from the surety, claimed to 
 prove in the bankruptcy for the full amount due 
 to them from S. The trustee in bankruptcy 
 contended that the proof ought to be reduced by 
 the amount the bank had received from the 
 surety : — 
 
 Held, that the bank were entitled to prove 
 for their whole debt without any deduction. In 
 re Sass. Ex parte National Pbovincial Bank 
 OF England, Ld. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] 2 ft. B. 12 
 
 184. — Provable debt — Surety — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 37. 
 
 Under s. 37 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the 
 liability of a bankrupt co-surety to contribution, 
 though unascertained at the time of the bank- 
 ruptcy proceedings, is a debt provable in bank- 
 ruptcy, and the bankrupt co-surety will be 
 discharged from all liability by a composition 
 under s. 18 of the Act. Wolmekshacsen v. 
 GuLLiOE - Wright J. [1893] 2 Ch. 514 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Bobinson v. Harkin, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 415, 426. 
 
 Explained by 0. A. Ellis v. Pond, [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 426, 454. 
 
 — Secured creditor. 
 
 See Cases under Bankeuptct — Secured 
 Creditor. 
 
 186. — Taxes — Proof for assessed — Scheme of 
 arrangement — Power of Court to go behind assess- 
 ment—Income Tax Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. 35), 
 S3. Ill, 113, US— Taxes Management Act, 1880 
 (43 * 44 Vict. 0. 19), 8. hi— Board of Trade 
 Regulations, May, 1888. 
 
 The rule that on a proof for a judgment debt 
 the Court will go behind the judgment and 
 ascertain whether there is a provable debt, does 
 not apply to a proof for assessed taxes. 
 
 Where therefore a debtor, who had carried in 
 a scheme of arrangement, applied to expunge a 
 proof for an assessment, to income tax under 
 Sciicd. D (which had not been appealed against), 
 on the ground that he had made no profits assest- 
 able to duty, the application was dismissed, but 
 without prejudice to any application he might be 
 advised to make to the Inland Revenue under 
 the Boaid of Trade Eegulationa of May, 1888. 
 In re Calveet. Ex parte Galveet 
 
 Wright J. [1899] 2 ft. B. 145 
 See also Nos. 171, 185, above. 
 
 186. — ■ Unpaid vendor's lien — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 <fc 47 Vict. u. 52), s. 168, Sched. I., r. 10. 
 
 Per V. Williams J. : Under Sched. I,, r. 10, 
 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, a secured creditor 
 who has voted and omitted to value his security 
 ought always to be allowed to withdraw his proof 
 and be relieved from being deemed to have 
 surrendered his security unless it clearly appears 
 that he has deliberately and purposely abandoned 
 his security. Affirmed by the 0. A. on the 
 ground that there was no debt to the creditor, 
 and that his proof was presented under a mis- 
 take. In re BtiEB. Ex parte Claeke 
 
 V. WUliama J. [1892] W. IT. 122; 
 afarmed by C. A. [1893] W. N. 138 
 
C 153 ) 
 
 'SATSiOiVVTCY— continued. 
 
 Frotected Transaction. 
 
 187. — " Completed execution " — Chaining 
 order on share in a partnership — Partnership Act, 
 1890 (53 * 5i Vict. c. 39), s. 23— Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 45, 49, 168. 
 
 A charging order under s. 23 of the Partner- 
 ship Act, 1890, upon a judgment debtor's interest 
 in a partnership, being a, proceeding m invitum, 
 is not a " transaction " protected by s. 49 of tlie 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 
 
 In re 0' Shea's Settlement, [1895] 1 Ch. 325, 
 followed. 
 
 When in such a case the partners by direction 
 of the Court jiay into court a sum of money in 
 redemption or purchase of the interest charged, 
 the transaction is not a " completed execution " 
 within the meaning of s. 45 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883. 
 
 Semhle, if the money had been paid out to the 
 execution creditor or the partners had paid him 
 the money direct, he ■would have got a good title. 
 Wild v. Southwood 
 
 V. Williams J. [1897] 1 Q. B. 317 
 
 188. — Contract for sale of lease — Deposit — 
 Act of hankruptcy hy vendor before completion — 
 A.ction to recover deposit — Banhruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ». 49. 
 
 On a contract for tlie sale of the lease of a 
 public-house a day was fixed for completion, and 
 tlie plaintiff, the purchaser, paid a deposit to the 
 defendants as stakeholders. It was a term of the 
 contract that the deposit should be forfeited in 
 case the purchaser refused to performHiis part of 
 the agreement. Before the date fixed for com- 
 pletion the vendor committed an act of bank- 
 ruptcy, which came to the notice of the purchaser, 
 who thereupon refused to complete, and de- 
 manded the return of the deposit : — 
 
 Held, that though the contract for sale was 
 protected by s. 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 the assignment and the payment of the purchase- 
 money, in pui-suance of the contract but after 
 notice of the act of bankruptcy, would not have 
 been protected, and that the purchaser was there- 
 fore not bound to complete, and was entitled to 
 recover the deposit. Powell v. Marshall, 
 Paekes & Co. - C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 710 
 
 189. — Mortgage of chose in action — Notice — 
 Order and disposition — Delay in mailing claim — 
 
 ■ Costs— Banhruptcy Act, 1883 (c. 52), ss. 44, 49. 
 
 In 1890 A. by deed assigned to a co. the 
 moneys to become due to him under a contract 
 with the War Office to secure the payment of 30Z. 
 No notice of this deed was given to the War 
 Office. In May, 1892, A. committed an act of 
 bankruptcy, and a receiving order was made 
 against him in Aug. 1892. On June 24, 1892, 
 A. by deed assigned the same moneys under the 
 same contract to the co. to secure the payment of 
 Til., which sum in fact included the previous 30i!. 
 Notice of this deed was at once given to the War 
 Office by the co., who were not aware of the act 
 of bankruptcy. In Nov., 1893, the trustee in 
 bankruptcy rejected the claim of the co. to be 
 secured creditors, and informed them that he 
 should shortly receive from the War Office the 
 money due under the contract. The co. took no 
 step to assert their claim until Dec, 1895 : — 
 
 biGES* Ot* CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 156 ) 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Protected Transaction)— conii. 
 
 Held, first, that the delay of two years did 
 not under the circumstances amount to an 
 abandonment by the co. of their claim ; secondly, 
 that the notice to the War Office was equivalent 
 to taking possession of the subject-matter of the 
 assignment, and, coupled with the deed of June, 
 1892, was a dealing for valuable consideration, 
 and therefore a protected transaction within 
 s. 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 ; and, thirdly, 
 that the co., having taken possession by their 
 notice, could then set up both their deeds of 
 assignment. In re Seaman. Ex parte Foenesb 
 Finance Co. V. Williams J. [1896] 1 Q. B. 412 
 — Charging order — Jurisdiction. 
 See Nos. 67, 68, ante. 
 
 Proxy, 
 
 190. — Attestation. 
 
 A person appointed by a creditor under 
 rule 15 of Sched. I. of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 to act as his proxy cannot himself be the attest- 
 ing witness to the instrument of proxy. In re 
 Pakeott. Ex parte Collen 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 151 
 
 Receiver. 
 
 191. — Appointment of receiver — Equitable 
 Execution — Practice — Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 
 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, stih-s. %— Bankruptcy Bules, 
 1886, rr. 93, SSS—Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 52), s. 93. 
 
 The Court of Bankruptcy has jurisdiction 
 under s. 25, sub-s. 8, of the Judicature Act, 1873, 
 to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execu- 
 tion for the purpose of enforcing orders for the 
 payment of money to the trustee in bankruptcy ; 
 but such an order will not, as a general rule, be 
 made on an ex parte application. In re Goudie. 
 Ex parte Official Eeoeivee 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1896] 2 Q. B. 481 
 
 192. — Service of notice — Tartnership^Action 
 for dissolution — Service on receiver appointed by 
 the Court — Bankruptcy Bules, 1890, t. 260. 
 
 Service of a bankruptcy notice on a receiver 
 and manager, appointed by the Court in an action 
 for the winding-up of a partnership business, is 
 not service on a person having the control or 
 management of the partnership business within 
 rule 260 of the Bankruptcy Eules, 1890. In re 
 Flowees & Co. C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 14 
 
 193. — Title of official receiver under Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 — Eegistration in Middlesex — 
 " Conveyance" — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 if: 47 
 Vict. c. 52), ss. 20, 54, 121— Middlesex Registry 
 Act, 1708 (7 Anne, c. 20), s. 1. 
 
 An order of adjudication in bankruptcy is not 
 a "conveyance" within the meaning of the 
 Middlesex Eegistry Act (7 Anne, c. 20), s. 1. 
 
 A debtor entitled to land in Middlesex was 
 adjudged bankrupt, and an order was made 
 under s. 121 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, that 
 his estate should be administered in a summary 
 way, so that no appointment of a trustee was 
 made. He never disclosed to the official receiver 
 the fact of his having the laud, and he subse- 
 quently mortgaged it to a mortgagee who forth- 
 with registered his mortgage: — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of Kekewich J.), 
 
( 15? ) 
 
 WGESl- Of OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 C 158 ) 
 
 Bankruptcy (SeceiveiO—coniinwed!. 
 that the title of the official receiver was not 
 postponed to that of the mortgagee by reason 
 of the order of adjudication not having been 
 registered. In re Caloott and Elvin's Con- 
 TEACT - - C. A, [1898] 2 Ch. 460 
 
 Beceiving Order. 
 
 194. — Absence of assets — Banlcruptoy Act, 
 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 7, sub-s. 3. 
 
 It is not a sufficient cause for refusing to 
 make a receiving order in bankruptcy that the 
 debtor has apparently no assets for distribution 
 among his creditors. In re Leonabd. Ex parte 
 Leonabd - - C. A. [1896J 1 ft. B. 473 
 
 195. — Absence of assets — Discretion of the 
 Court. 
 
 Where a debtor, against whom a bankruptcy 
 petition was presented, had not obtained his 
 discharge in a previous bankruptcy, and the 
 Court was convinced from all the circumstances 
 of the case that there were no assets which would 
 be available under a second bankruptcy, and that 
 the only result of making a receiving order would 
 be a waste of money in costs : — 
 
 Held that, the Court having a discretion in 
 the matter, a receiving order ought not under the 
 special circumstances of the case to be made. 
 In re Betts. Ex parte Betts 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 50 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Jiibb, [1 897] 
 1 Q. B. 641, 644. 
 
 193. — Annulment — Payment inlo Court — Paxj- 
 ment out after six years — Statute of Limitations 
 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16)— Banlcruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 
 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 35, 36. 
 
 The principles which, under the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, ss. 35, 86, govern the annulment of an 
 adjudication in bankruptcy are also applicable 
 to the annulment of a receiving order. A 
 receiving order was annulled on payment into 
 court by the debtor of a sum sufficient to pay in 
 full those of his creditors for the payment of 
 whose debts he could not produce receipts. After 
 six years, no proof or claim having been made in 
 the meantime by the creditors in question, the 
 debtor applied that the sum in court migiit be 
 paid out to him : — 
 
 Held, that the Statute of Limitations did not 
 apply, and that he was not entitled to the order. 
 But held, that on the Court being satisfied that 
 there was practically no possibility of the 
 creditors or their personal representatives being 
 found, and on reasonable security being given 
 by the debtor for the repayment into Court of 
 the money if at any time the creditors or their 
 personal representatives should appear and make 
 a claim, the sum in Court might be paid out to 
 the debtor. In re Dennis. Ex parte Dennis 
 
 V. WiUiams J, [1895] 3 ft. B. 630 
 ^ Arrears of alimony aocnied due before — Pi oof. 
 
 See Bankbtiptoy — Proof, 159. 
 — Effect on franchise." 
 
 See Bankbtjptct — Disqualification, 
 Pakmament — PrancMse. 39. 
 
 197. — Foreigner — Eeceiving order in Weu of 
 committal — Jurisdiction — Judgment debtor — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), «. 6, 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Beceiving Oiiev)— continued, 
 suh-s. 1 (d); 5. 103, sub-s. 5— Debtors Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 5. 
 
 "Where there is jurisdiction to commit a judg- 
 ment debtor under s. 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, 
 there is jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, s. 103, sub-s. 5, to make a receiving order 
 against him in lieu of committing him, even 
 although he is a foreigner not domiciled in 
 England, and has not within a year ordinarily 
 resided, or had a dwelling-house or place of 
 business in England, and consequently a bank- 
 ruptcy petition could not be presented against 
 him by reason of the provisions of s. 6, sub-s. 1 (d), 
 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. In re Olabk 
 Ex parte Claek - 0. A. [1897] W. N. 151 (i) ; 
 
 [1898] 1 ft. B. 20 
 
 198. — Foreigner resident abroad but trading 
 in England — Jurisdiction — Act of bankruptcy — 
 Assignment for benefit of creditors generally 
 executed abroad — Notice of suspension of payment 
 — Court of Banlcruptoy — " Debtor " — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. o. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (a), 
 (h) ; s. 6, sub-s. 1 ((Z). 
 
 The Court of Bankruptcy has no jurisdiction 
 to make a receiving order against a foreigner 
 resident out of the jurisdiction who, without him- 
 self coming within the jurisdiction, has carried 
 on business, contracted debts, and has assets 
 there, and has executed out of the jurisdiction 
 an assignment of his property for the benefit 
 of his creditors generally, or has given notice 
 of suspension of payment to creditors within the 
 jurisdiction. Such a person is not a " debtor " 
 within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 
 
 In re Pearson, [1892] 2 Q. B. 263, followed. 
 In re A. B. & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 50 ; [1900] 1 ft. B. 541, 545 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (B.) sub nom. 
 Cooke V. Cliarles A. Vogeler Co., [1901] A. 0. 102. 
 
 See also same case upon other points, No. 120 
 above. 
 
 199. — Forfeiture clause in will — " Become 
 payable to some other person" — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 9, 54, 70. 
 
 A will contained a condition determining a 
 life interest ou its " vesting in or becoming 
 payable to some other person " : — 
 
 Held, that the life interest was forfeited on a 
 receiving order being made against the life 
 tenant, for, by the force of that order, the life 
 interest became payable to, although it did not 
 vest in, the official receiver. In re SabtorIs's 
 
 ESTATE: SaKTOEIS V. SaETOEIS 
 
 C. A. (affirming Chitty J.) 1892 1 Ch. 11 
 
 200. — Forfeiture clause in will — " Liable to 
 be deprived " — Banlcruptoy petition. 
 
 A. was entitled, under his mother's will, 
 subject to a prior life interest, to the income 
 during his life of a fund, subject to gift over if 
 he should do anything whereby he was " liable 
 to be deprived" of the beneficial enjoyment 
 thereoif. Before his interest fell into possession 
 he committed an act of bankruptcy, A petition 
 was presented. His interest then fell in, and 
 the petition was dismissed, hut before the dis- 
 missal an instalment of the income became pay- 
 able to A. : — ■■ 
 JJeW, that the forfeiture clause had come into 
 
( 159 ) 
 
 DiiSESt 0¥ tJASiiS, 1891— 19d(). 
 
 ( J60 ) 
 
 BAifKETJPTCY (Eeoeiving Oiier)— continued. 
 operation and that the gift over took effect. In 
 re Loftus-Otway. Otway v. Otway 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 235 
 
 ^- In lieu of committal — Jurisdiction — Foreigner. 
 
 See No. 197, above. 
 -^ Infant partner. 
 
 See Bankktjptcy — Partnership. 133. 
 
 201. — Judgment debt — Power to go heliind 
 judgment — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), s. 7. 
 
 (a) When a judgment has been obtiiined by 
 compromise, and an application for a receiving 
 order is founded thereon, the Court has power to 
 reject the debt, as not being a good petitioning 
 creditor's debt, if on going into all the circum- 
 stances the cjmpromise appears, though not 
 fraudulent, to have been unfair and unreason- 
 able. In re Hawkins. Ex parte Tkoup 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B, 404 
 
 (b) On the hearing of a judgment creditor's 
 petition for a receiving order the Court of Bank- 
 juptcy has a discretion nnder s. 7, sub-s. 3, of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, on the application 
 of the judgment debtor himself, to go behind the 
 judgment, even in a case where the debtor has 
 previously applied in the action fo set aside the 
 judgment and his apfJicatiun has been refused, 
 and the refusal afBrmed by the C. A. In re 
 Frasee. Ex parte Central Bank of London 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 a. B. 633 
 
 202. — Judgment debt — Res judicata — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 7. 
 
 On a creditor's petition the registrar of a 
 Court of Bankruptcy cannot adjudicate whether 
 there is a valid debt on which the judgment is 
 louuded, or set the judgment aside or stay 
 execution, but has a discietion as to making a 
 receiving order. In re Vitoria. Ex parte 
 ViTORiA C. A. [1894] 2 Q, B. 387 
 
 Approved by P. C. King v. Henderson, 
 [1898] A. C. 720, 730. 
 
 203. — Married woman — Banlcruplcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 152— Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vid. c. 75), s. 1, 
 suh-s. 5. 
 
 .ludgment was obtained against a single 
 woman on a bill of exchange. She then com- 
 mitted an act of bankruptcy, and the creditor 
 piesented a petition for adjudication against her. 
 She promised to settle the demand, and prevailed 
 on the registrar to adjourn the onse till March 3. 
 On March 24 the registrar made a receiving 
 order. She was not carrying on a trade separately 
 from her husband : — 
 
 Held, that on the constructitm of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, and the Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882, as she was not carrying on 
 a trade separately from her husband, she was 
 not subject to the bankruptcy laws, and the re- 
 ceiving order must be discharged. In re A 
 Debtor. Ex parte The Debtor 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 a. B. 676 
 
 . — Married woman — " Carrying on trade " — " Ab- 
 senting herself." 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 35, 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Eeceiving Order) — continued. 
 
 204. — Married Woman — " Carrying on a 
 Trade" — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 5. 
 
 By a. 1, sub-s. 5, of the Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882, "Every married woman 
 carrying on a trade separately from her husband 
 shall, in respect of her separate property, be 
 subject to the bankruptcy laws in tlie same way 
 as if she were a feme sole." 
 
 A maixied woman having carried on a trade 
 separately from her husband sold the business. 
 Shortly afterwards she gave notice to her credi- 
 tors that she was about to suspend payment of 
 her debts, and thereupon a bankruptcy petition 
 was presented against her by two creditors in 
 respect of trade debts incurred by her prior to 
 the sale : — 
 
 Held, that a receiving order might be made 
 against her — 
 
 By V. Williams J. on the ground that the 
 fact of her having trade debts undischarged at 
 the date of the petition was evidence from which 
 it ought to be inferred that she was still carrying 
 on the trade at that date : 
 
 By Wright J. on the ground that having once 
 carried on a trade she continued, even after she 
 had ceased to carry it on, to be subject to the 
 bankruptcy laws in re.spect of the debts incurred 
 by her during the period of her trading. In re 
 Dagnall. Ex parte Soan and Mobley 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 0. B. 407 
 
 206. — Married woman trading separately from 
 husband in firm name — Action against firm — Act 
 of bankruptcy — Banlcruplcy notice — B. S. C, 
 Order XLVUI. a, rr. 5, 8, 11. 
 
 A receiving order cannot be made against a 
 married woman trading separately from her hus- 
 band under a firm uame on the ground of non- 
 compliance with a bankruptcy notice founded 
 upon a judgment obtained against her in the firm 
 name. In re Frances Handfoed & Co. Ex parte 
 Frances Handford C. A. [1899] W. N. 18 (2) ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 566 
 
 See also In re Wheeler's Settlement, [1899] 
 W.N. 141; [1899] 2 Ch. 717. 
 
 206. — Order on judgment summons — Setting 
 aside— Debtor's Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. v. G2), 
 s. 5— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 8. 9 — Bankruptcy Bules, 1886, r. 361 — County 
 Court Bules, 1889, Order xsv., r. 29. 
 
 After the maldng of a receiving order leave 
 was given to continue proceedings on a judgment 
 summons issued before the making of the re- 
 ceiving order ; — 
 
 Held, that by Order xxv., r. 29, of the County 
 Court Rules, 1889, as applied to all judgment 
 debtors by rule 361 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1886, 
 the receiving order was a bar to further proceed- 
 ings on the judgment summons. In re Nuthall. 
 Ford v. Nuthall C. A. [1891] W. N. 65 
 
 — Partnership — Dissolution — Bankruptcy notice 
 against firm — Bankruptcy petition 
 against one late partner — Irregularity. 
 See Bankruptcy — Partnership. 
 
 207. — Partnership firm — Infant partner. 
 
 A receiving order cannot be made against 
 a firm simply where one of the partners is a^i 
 
( 161 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 162 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Receiving Oiiev)— continued. 
 infant ; but can be made against the firm " other 
 than" the infant partner, and if made against 
 the firm simply, can be amended under b. 105 of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. In re Beauohamp 
 Bkothbbs. Ex parte Beauohamp 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 1 
 Varied by H. L. (E) sub nom. Lovell & Christ- 
 mas V. Beauehwmp, [1894] A. C. 607. 
 
 208. — Petition — Parties — Trustee with Bene- 
 ficial interest — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 
 Vict. 0. 52), ss. 5, 6. 
 
 If a trustee has himself a beneficial interest 
 in the debt, he need not join the cestui que trust 
 as co-petitioner in making application for a re- 
 ceiving order. In re Gamgee 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 106 
 
 209. — Petition — Petitioning creditor's debt — 
 " Liquidated sum, payable either immediately or 
 at some certain future time" — Banlcruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 6, sub-s. 1 (b). 
 
 A debtor, who owed lOOZ. for money lent, 
 accepted a bill of exchange at three months for 
 that amount and interest, and the creditor signed 
 a letter agreeing that the bill should be renewed, 
 provided the interest was paid from time to time. 
 The interest on the first bill was paid, and the 
 bill was renewed. Before the second bill became 
 payable the debtor committed an act of bank- 
 ruptcy, and the creditor presented a bankruptcy 
 petition against him. 
 
 On appeal from an order dismissing the 
 petition : — 
 
 Held, that the debt of lOOZ. was " a liquidated 
 sum, payable either immediately or at some 
 certain future time," within the meaning of a. 6, 
 sub-s. 1 (6), of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and 
 tlierefore the creditor was entitled to present the 
 petition, and a receiving order ought to be made. 
 In re Bakb. Ex parte Wolfe 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 616 
 
 210. — Mefusal — Probability that costs will 
 exceed assets — "Sufficient cause" — Banlcruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 7, sub-s. 3. 
 
 "Where a bankruptcy petition is presented 
 against a debtor, it is not sufficient cause, within 
 the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s 7, 
 sub-s. 3, for refusing to make a receiving order, 
 and dismissing the petition, that at the hearing 
 it appears probable that the amount of the costs 
 of bankruptcy proceedings will exceed the amount 
 of the assets available for distribution. 
 
 In re Belts, Ex parte Belts, [1897] 1 Q. B. 50, 
 distinguished. In re Jubb. Ex parte Bueman 
 AND Geeenwood Div. ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 641, 644 
 
 — Eefusal to make — Ees judicata. 
 
 See Bankbuptct — Petition. 145. 
 
 211. — Befusal to make — " Sufficient cause " — 
 ExioHimir— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), 8. 7, sub-s. 3. 
 
 A debtor had a life interest ceasing on bank- 
 ruptcy, but no other property. The petitioning 
 creditor did not agree to a proposal of the debtor 
 to secure and pay a composition, and a receiving 
 order was made : — 
 
 Hdd, that the fact that a receiving order 
 would destroy the only available asset was a 
 sufficient cause why no order should be made. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Receiving Oiier)— continued. 
 
 The petitioning creditor endeavoured to obtain 
 a sum from the debtor for agreeing to an adjourn- 
 ment of the petition : 
 
 Seld, that as he had made the petition a 
 means of endeavouring to extort money from the 
 debtor, no receiving order ought to be made on 
 it. In re Otway. Ex parte Otwat 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 812 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Leonard, [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 473, 474. 
 
 — Registration in Middlesex — Title of official 
 receiver under Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 
 See Bankbcptoy — Receiver. 193. 
 
 212. — Bescission — Arrangement with creditors 
 —Discretion — Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 u. 52), s. 104; 1890 (53 <fc 54 Vict. c. 71), ». 3, 
 svib-s. 6. 
 
 In the exercise of the general discretion given 
 to a Court of Bankruptcy by s. 104 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, to rescind its orders, the Court 
 may rescind a receiving order where an arrange- 
 ment is, subsequently to the making of the order, 
 effected by the debtor with his creditors other- 
 wise than in pursuance of the provisions of s. 3 
 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, though the Court 
 will only do so with great caution and under- 
 special circumstances which make it quite clear 
 that the arrangement is for the benefit of the 
 creditors, and the debtor has not been guilty of 
 misconduct in connection with his insolvency. 
 
 So held by A. L. Smith L.J. and Collins L.J., 
 Rigby L.J. dissenting. In re IzoD. Ex parte 
 The Official Reoeivee C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 241 
 
 213. — Bescission — Payment of debt — Bank- 
 ruptcy Mules, 1890, r. 13. 
 
 When a receiving order has been made the 
 Court, even though the proceedings under it have 
 been stayed, has a discretion as to its rescission, 
 and will not rescind the order merely upon the 
 consent of the petitioning creditor, nor without 
 a full investigation of all the circumstances in- 
 cluding the conduct of the debtor. 
 
 A receiving order had been made ; the debtor 
 paid the debt and applied to have the order 
 rescinded. The official receiver opposed :— 
 
 Held, that the order should not be rescinded. 
 In re Flatau. Ex parte Official Eeoeivbr 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 219 
 
 Referred io by 0. A. In re Izod, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 241, 248. 
 
 214. — Bescission — Begistrar's discretion — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. u. 52), 
 8. 104. 
 
 The Court will not be justified in interfering, 
 or induced to interfere, with the registrar's dis- 
 cretion to refuse to rescind a receiving order 
 except on a very strong case ; and before doing 
 so must consider the consequences of such a 
 rescission to future as well as to existing credi- 
 tors. In re Davidson. Ex parte Davidson 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 210 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Izod, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 241, 249. 
 
 — Eight to receiving order — Practice — Second 
 petition. 
 
 See Bankbuptct — Practice. 150. 
 G 
 
( 163 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 164 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Eeceiving Oriei)— continued. 
 
 — Set-off — Mutual debts or dealings — Act of 
 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankkcptct— Set-off. 235 — 237. 
 
 215. — Sheriff — Execution — Sale — Poundage — 
 Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. e. 55)— Order as 
 to Fees of August 31, 1888 [See W. N. Oct. 6,1888, 
 p. ii:!]— Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict, 
 c. 71), 8. 11, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A sberiffs officer is not entitled to poundage 
 where, after he has seized goods in execution 
 under a fi. fa., a receiving order is made against 
 the judgment debtor and the goods are delivered 
 to the ofBcial receiver or trustee in bankruptcy in 
 pursuance of s. 11, sub-s. 1, of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1890. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1898] "W. N. 154(1); 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 66, afBrmed. In re Thomas. 
 £x parte Shbkitf of Middlesex 
 
 C. A, [1899] W. N. 6 (1) ; 
 
 [I899J 1 Q. B. 460 
 
 216. — Sheriff, Notice to — Costs — Bankruptcy 
 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 11, sub-s. 1— 
 
 Bankruptcy Rules, 1886 & 1890, rr. 118, 119. 
 
 Under s. 11, sub-s. 1, of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1890, although interpleader proceedings be pend- 
 ing, a sheriff in possession must deliver the goods 
 or their proceeds to the official receiver on being 
 served with notice of a receiving order, and is 
 only entitled as against tlie official receiver or 
 trustee in bankruptcy to his costs up to the date 
 at which he received notice of the order. In re 
 Haekisok. Ex parte Shekifp of Essex 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] a a. B. Ill 
 
 Eefetred to by Lindley, M.E. In re Thomas, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 460, 463. 
 
 — Trade creditors — Act of bankruptcy — Assign- 
 
 ment for benefit of trade creditors only. 
 See Bankbuptct — ^Act of Bankruptcy. 1. 
 
 217. — Trustee in bankruptcy — Receiving order 
 against — Practice — Vacating office — Rescission of 
 receiving order — Restoration — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 85, 86, 87. 
 
 The 85th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 provides that "if a receiving order is made 
 against a trustee in bankruptcy he shall thereby 
 vacate his office of trustee." 
 
 A receiving order was made against a trustee 
 in bankruptcy, but was soon after rescinded on 
 the ground that it ought never to have been 
 made. A new trustee had not in the meantime 
 been appointed : — 
 
 Held, that the trustee was restored to his 
 
 original position. In re Newman. Ex parte 
 
 Official Eboeiver - - - Wright J. 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 687 
 
 Beceiving Orders. 
 
 A Quarterly Return shewing the number of 
 Receiving Orders in the High Court and the 
 several County Courts having Bankruptcy Juris- 
 diction, is published in the London Qazette. 
 
 Bent, 
 
 — Arrears of — Lion — Priority — Payment by 
 
 sheriff — Indemnity. 
 
 See Bankbuptot — Execution. 104. 
 218, — Distress — Rent accrued due. 
 Where a tenant becomes bankrupt during the 
 
 BAHKETTPTCY (Rent)— continued. 
 currency of a quarter, so much of the quarter's 
 rent as is apportionable to the part of the quai-ter 
 prior to the adjudication is, by the Apportion- 
 ment Act, 1870, "rent accrued due prior to the 
 date of adjudication" within s. 42 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, and the landlord is entitled 
 upon the expiry of the quarter to distrain. In re 
 HowELLS. Ex parte Mandlehekg & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q, B. 844 
 
 Betainer. 
 
 — Debt due from bankrupt legatee — Executor — 
 
 Eetainer. 
 
 Bee Executor — Eetainer. 59. 
 
 219. — Insoleent testator — BM due to executor 
 — Retainer in specie — Administration order — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. a. 52), s. 125, 
 sub-ss. 1, 9. 
 
 When the debt due to the executor of an in- 
 solvent testator exceeds the value of the testator's 
 assets, the executor is not bound to realize the 
 assets, i.e., convert them into money, before exer- 
 cising his right of retainer, but is entitled to 
 retain the assets in specie in satisfaction of his 
 debt. 
 
 Woodward v. Barcy, (1557) 1 Plow. 184, and 
 Chapman v. Turner, (1738) 9 Mod. 268; S. C. 
 Vin. Abr. Exor. D. 2, p. 72, discussed. In re 
 GiLBBBT. Ex parte Gilbert 
 
 Wright J, [1897] W. N. 174(1); 
 [1898] 1 Q. B, 282 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Rhoades, [1899] 
 2 Q. B. 347, 352. 
 
 — Mistake — Assets paid to official receiver with- 
 
 out retaining debt — Eepayment. 
 .See Executor — Eetainer. 58. 
 
 — Of legatee debtor to testator — Eetainer. 
 
 See ExBODTOE — Eetainer, 57. 
 
 Scheme of Arrangement, 
 
 220. — After-acquired property — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 52), s. 18, sub-ss. 12, 
 13 ; s. 44, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A scheme of arrangement operates only to 
 convey to the trustee property to which the 
 debtor is entitled up to the date of the approval 
 of the scheme by the Court. It does not, unless 
 there be an express stipulation to that effect, 
 include property coming to the debtor after that 
 date, as the approval of the Court is equivalent 
 to an order of discharge. In re Ceoom:. Eng- 
 land V. PbovInoial Assets Co. 
 
 Eekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch, 69S 
 
 221. — Approval bi/ Court — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1890 (63 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 3, sub-s. 9. 
 
 Tlie reasonable security for payment of 7s. Sd. 
 in the pound must be for payment at once or 
 within a short time less tbau a year. In re 
 Paine. Ex parte P Amu C. A, [1891] W. N. 208 
 
 222. — Approval by Court — Board of Trade's 
 right of appeal — Bankruptdy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. c. 71), s. 3, sub-s. 9 — Bankruptcy Rules, 
 Nov. 26, 1890, )•. 24. 
 
 Even though a proposed scheme provides 
 reasonable security for the payment of 7s. 6^ in 
 the pound the Court is not bound to approve the 
 
( 165 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, :891— 1900. 
 
 ( 16C ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Scheme of Arrangement)— oo»i(J. 
 scbeme, but lias a discretion in the matter under 
 8. 3, sub-s. 9, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. 
 
 The Bd. of Trade appealed against a scheme 
 of arrangement which had been approved by the 
 official receiver : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding the approval of 
 
 the official receiver, the Bd. were entitled to 
 
 appeal under the Bankruptcy Rules, Nov. 1890, 
 
 r. 24. In re Bure. Ex parte Board of Tbade 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 467 
 
 223. — Debt carrying interest exceeding 5 per 
 cent.—Bankruptey Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict a. 71), 
 s. 23 — Gonstriuition — Betrospective effect. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act, 1890, which was passed 
 on August 18, 1890, and came into operation on 
 January 1, 1891, provides (s. 23) that where a 
 debt, including interest, " has been proved " on 
 a debtor's estate, such interest shall for the 
 purposes of dividend be calculated at a rate not 
 exceeding 5 per cent, per annum, without preju- 
 dice to the right of the creditor to receive out of 
 the estate any higher rate of interest to which he 
 may be entitled after all the debts have been 
 paid in full : — 
 
 Meld, that the section was not retrospective 
 in its operation, and therefore did not apply to a 
 debt, including interest above 5 per cent., proved 
 under a scheme adopted by the Court before the 
 date of the passing of the Act. 
 
 Sewhle : If the scheme had been adopted 
 between the dates of the passing of the Act and 
 of its coming into operation,, the section would 
 have applied. In re Athlumnet. Ex parte 
 Wilson - Wright J. [1898] 2 Q. B. 547 
 
 224. — Deht provable in ianhruptcy — Sejection 
 of proof — Judgment — Execution — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), a. 18, sub-s. 8 ; s. 30, 
 sub-s. 2 ; s. 37, sub-s. 3. 
 
 A receiving order having been made against 
 the deft., a scheme of arrangement was agreed 
 to by his creditors, including the pit., who was a 
 judgment creditor. The trustee disallowed the 
 plt.'s proof on the ground that the judgment was 
 in respect of a gambling transaction. The pit. 
 issued execution : — 
 
 Held, that the execution must be stayed, on 
 the ground that the plt.'s claim was a debt 
 provable in bankruptcy, and that he was there- 
 fore bound by the scheme although he had not 
 received any benefit under it. Seaton v. Dbeb- 
 BUEST (LoBD) - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 863 
 
 — Proof for assessed taxes — ^Power of Court to 
 
 go behind assessment. 
 ^ See Bankruptot — Proof. 185. 
 
 Secured Creditor. 
 
 — Bill of sale — Second bill in substitution for first 
 
 — Bankruptcy of grantor. 
 See Bill of Sale. 52. 
 
 — Charging order on judgment debtor's share in 
 
 a partnership. 
 
 See Cases under Bankeuptct — ^Partner- 
 ship. 
 
 225. — Composition — Default in payment- 
 Death of debtor — Administration action — Balance 
 of mortgage debt — Claim by mortgagees to prove — 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Secured Creiitor)— continued. 
 Mode of procedure — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 18, sub-s. 11 ; s. 108. 
 
 In 1889 A. mortgaged certain property to 
 secure 2000Z. and interest. Shortly afterwards a 
 receiving order was made against A. on his own 
 petition. In July, 1890, he made u, composition 
 with his creditors under s. 18 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, which was approved of by the Court, 
 under which the creditors were to be paid by 
 three instalments extending over a year. 
 
 The mortgagees neither attended the creditors' 
 meeting nor assented to the scheme of compo- 
 sition. 
 
 Default was made in payment of the instal- 
 ments. A. died two months after the expiration 
 of the year, and this action was commenced by a 
 creditor for the administration of his estate, 
 which proved to be insolvent. 
 
 The mortgagees valued their security at 1500Z., 
 and claimed to be admitted as creditors in the 
 action for 500Z., the balance of their debt. Their 
 proof had been admitted by the trustee under 
 the composition deed : — 
 
 Held, that the Court of Bankruptcy had 
 jurisdiction to proceed in the bankruptcy of A. 
 under d. 108 and s. 18, sub-s. 11, of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, notwithstanding his death, and 
 that the strict course would be to allow the 
 applicants to take proceedings in that Court, but 
 the pit. having submitted, in order to save delay 
 and expense, to abide by the judgment of this 
 Court on what would be the result of those 
 proceedings, the claim was admitted. In re 
 Habdy. Hakdy v. Faemee 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 1 Ch. 904 
 
 Note. — It should be noted that s. 18 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52) was 
 repealed by the Bankruptcy Act, 1893 (53 & 54 
 "Viot. c. 71), and is now replaced by s. 3 of the 
 latter Act. 
 
 226. — Contract induced by fraud of bankrupt 
 — Election by vendor to affirm contract — Petition 
 by secured creditor — Biglit of trustee to redeem 
 security at value assessed in petition — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 6, sub-s. 2 ; 
 Sclied. I., r. 12, and Sehed. II., rr. 11-lS— Bank- 
 ruptcy Rules, 1886, r. 353 — Larceny Act, 1861 
 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), «. 100. 
 
 When a secured creditor presents a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against his debtor and adjudica- 
 tion follows, there is nothing in the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, or the rules thereunder, that entitles 
 the trustee in bankruptcy to redeem the peti- 
 tioning creditor's security at the value he places 
 on it in his petition. 
 
 V. bought shares of H. and induced H. to 
 give him the certificates of the shares and to 
 accept his cheque for 32982. 16g. in payment, 
 representing that it would be met. The cheque 
 was dishonoured and V. absconded. Soon after- 
 wards V. was adjudicated bankrupt on a petition 
 presented against him by H., based on the dis- 
 honoured cheque, H. alleging in his petition that 
 he had a security or lien on the shares, which 
 security or lien he valued at 3200Z. Meantime 
 H. had issued a warrant against Y., under which 
 he was arrested and committed for trial for fraud, 
 and subsequently convicted. Thereupon the 
 
 G 2 
 
( J67 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 168 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Secured Creditor)— conMnuecJ. 
 certificates of the shares were, on an order of the 
 Court made under b. 100 of the Larceny Act, 
 1861, restored to H. The trustee in bankruptcy 
 of V. then claimed to redeem the shares at the 
 value placed on them by H. in Ms petition :— 
 
 Held, first, that as the title to the shares had, 
 on the conviction of V., revested in H. under 
 s. 100 of the Larceny Act, 1861, he ought not lo 
 be deprived of them by reason of his mistake in 
 treating them as a security in his petition ; and 
 secondly, that even if H. had affirmed the con- 
 tract of sale for the shares, there was nothing in 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, or the rules there- 
 under, that entitled the trustee to redeem the 
 shares at the amount at which they were valued 
 in the petition. 
 
 In re Laeey, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 128, distin- 
 guished. In re Vautin. Ex parte Saffeky 
 
 Wright J. [1899] 2 ft. B. 549 
 
 227. — Execution Creditor — Possession iy 
 sheriff for more than 21 days — Act of Bankruptcy — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict c. 52), ss. 45, 
 46 ; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), ss. 1, 11. 
 
 To entitle an execution creditor to retain the 
 benefit of his execution against the trustee in 
 bankruptcy of the judgment debtoi-, the execution 
 must be completed by sale or receipt of the 
 amount of the levy before the sheriff has been in 
 possession for twenty-one days. If the sheriff 
 remains in for twenty-one days the act of bank- 
 ruptcy thereby committed under s. 45 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1890, of which the execution 
 creditor will be deemed to have notice, renders 
 the execution void. 
 
 (a) Figg v. Moore Bkothebs V. Williams J. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 690 
 
 (b) Tkostee of John Bukns-Bdkns v. Bhown 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 324 
 
 228. — Interest above 5 per cent. — Assessed 
 value of security allocated in discharge of interest — 
 Proof— Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 Sched. II, rr. 9, 11 ; 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 71), 
 s. 23. 
 
 Sect. 23 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, which 
 provides that where a debt proved against the 
 estate includes interest, such interest shall for 
 the purpose of dividend be calculated at a rate 
 not exceeding 5 per cent., does not prevent a 
 secured creditor who has realized or assessed his 
 security from allocating such value in discharge 
 of interest at a higher rate than 5 per cent., and 
 proving for the principal or balance of principal 
 due to him. J» re Fox and Jacobs. Ex parte 
 Discount Banking Co. of England and Wales 
 V, Williams J. [1894] 1 ft. B. 438 
 
 229. — Judgment creditor — Ex parte order for 
 receiver — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 c. 52), ss. 9, 10, 45, 168. 
 
 Judgment creditors failing to realize their 
 judgment obtained in the action ex parte an 
 order for a receiver to receive a share of residuary 
 estate which came to the debtor after tbe judg- 
 ment. The debtor became bankrupt before the 
 executors had paid over the share : — 
 
 Held, thnt the order appointing a receiver 
 should not have been made ex parte, and did not 
 make the creditors "secured precjitors" within 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Secured Creditor) — continued. 
 ss. 9 and 168 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 
 In re Potts. Ex parte Tatlob 
 
 0. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 648 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Crosliaw v. Lynd- 
 hurst Ship Co., [1897] 2 Ch. 159. 
 
 230, — Omission to value security — Inadver- 
 tence—Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 Sched. I, r. 10 ; Sched. II., rr. 11, 12, 13. 
 
 A secured creditor of a bankrupt who men- 
 tions his security in his proof and states that it is 
 worthless, does not omit to value his security 
 within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 Sched. I., r. 10 :— 
 
 So held by the 0. A. (A. L. Smith L.J. and 
 Chitty L.J., Collins L.J. doubting). 
 
 Where a creditor omits to value his security 
 by reason of erroneous information leading him 
 to suppose it to be worthless, there is not an 
 omission to value the security which arises from 
 inadvertence within the meaning of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, Sched. I., r. 10. In re Fieks. 
 Ex parte Piers - C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 627 
 
 — Payment into court for leave to defend — 
 Bankruptcy of defendant before trial. 
 See Bankruptcy — Practice. 153. 
 
 231. — Pending action — Payment into court 
 iHth denial of liability — Payment into court as 
 securiti/ for costs — B. S. C, Order xxil., r. 6 — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 ss. 45, 168. 
 
 Where a deft, under R. S. C, Order xxn., r. 6, 
 pays money into court in satisfaction of the plt.'s 
 claim with a deniiil of liability, and becomes 
 bankrupt before the trial, and the trustee in 
 bankruptcy declines to be made a party to the 
 action, the pit. is a seciu'ed creditor to the extent 
 to which Iiis proof in the bankruptcy for the 
 amount claimed by him in the action is admitted 
 by the trustee, tf the proof when admitted is 
 less tl an the sum so paid in, the pit. is a secured 
 creditor only for tbe amount so admitted, and the 
 trustee is entitled to the balance of the sum in 
 court. 
 
 Directions as to how the costs should be dealt 
 
 with in such a case when the pit. has paid money 
 
 into court as security for the deft.'s costs of the 
 
 action. Jn re Goh'ion. Ex parte Navalohand 
 
 V. Williams J. [1897] 2 ft. B. 516 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Ford, [1900] 
 2Q. B. 211,213. 
 
 ■ Proof — Right to amend. 
 
 See Bakkeuptcy — Proof. 
 
 161. 
 
 232. — Undpaid vendor's lien — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 168, Sclied. I, 
 r. 10. 
 
 A. sold to B. a policy of insurance, and 
 obtained judgment for specific performance of the 
 contract. B. became bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, by V. Williams J., that A. was in respect 
 of his unpaid vendor's lien a secured creditor 
 within 8. 168 of the act of 1883 : 
 
 Held, by C. A. that the judgment for specific 
 
 performance created no debt, and that A. was 
 
 not a secured creditor. In re Bdbr. Ex parte 
 
 CLAR5J3 - V. WUliams J. [1892] W. N. 122 ; 
 
 C. A. [1892] W, N. 138 
 
( i6& ) 
 
 DiGBSt OE* OASES, 1891— i&OO. 
 
 ( 1?6 ) 
 
 i&.'SKRJStTCY— continued. 
 
 Set-off. 
 — Company — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company — 'Windinq-iip 
 —Set-off. 
 
 233. — Contrast between " set-off" in hanli- 
 ruptcy and in winding-up. 
 
 The effect of set-off in bankruptcy and in 
 company winding-up contrasted. In re Wash- 
 ington Diamond Minino Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 95 
 
 Referred to by "Wrigbt J. In re Auriferous 
 Properties, Ld. [1898] 1 Oh. 697. 
 
 834. — Deposit of goods with authority to sell 
 subject to approval of price — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 38. 
 
 The debtor instructed auctioneers to sell his 
 bouse and furniture, and a sum of money became 
 due from bim to tbem in respect of their charges 
 for the sale of the furniture and the attempted 
 sale of the house. Subsequtntly he instructed 
 the auctioneers to remove to their own premises 
 certain pictures which had remained unsold, and 
 to sell them subject to bis approval of the price. 
 The debtor became bankrupt while the pictures 
 were still unsold, and the pictures were with 
 other property of tbe bankrupt subsequently sold 
 by the auctioneers, acting upon the instructions 
 of the debtor's trustee in bankruptcy. The 
 auctioneers claimed to deduct from the proceeds 
 the money due to them for their charges in respect 
 of the sale of tbe furniture and the abortive sale 
 of the house : — 
 
 Held, that the deposit by the debtor of the 
 pictures, with such an authority to sell and receive 
 the proceeds, constituted a giving of credit by 
 him to tbe defts. ; that there were therefore 
 mutual dealings between him and the defts. at the 
 date of the bankruptcy, in respect of which the 
 auctioneers had a right of set-off in bankruptcy 
 under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 38. Palmeb 
 V. Day & Sons - Div. Ct, [1895] 2 Q. B. 618 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J. In re Mid-Kent 
 Fruit Factory, [1896] 1 Oh. 567, 571. 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. In re Daintrey, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 546, 556. 
 
 235. — Mutual credits or dealings — Life assur- 
 ance CO. — Joint Stock Companies Arrangement 
 Act, 1870 (33<fe 34 Vict. v. 104), ». 2— Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 38. 
 
 The deft, effected with the pit. co. two policies 
 for a fixed period on his own life, which had not 
 matured at the date when the winding-up of 
 that CO. was commenced. Before such date 
 he had obtained loans from the co. on mort- 
 gage of the policies. By an arrangement under 
 the Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 
 1870, to which the deft, did not consent, the 
 policies of the pit. co. were transferred to the 
 0. Co., and the policies were largely reduced, the 
 deft.'s policies being reduced to an amount less 
 than the loans. In an action by the pit. co. 
 against the deft, to recover the amount of the 
 loans : — 
 
 Seld, that the deft, was entitled to set off the 
 amount of the original policies. 
 
 Judgment of Charles J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 405, 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Set-off)— comiinMei. 
 
 affirmed. Sovekeign Life Assoeanoe Co. v. 
 
 DODD - - C. A, [1892] 2 Q. B. 573 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Daintrey, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 546, 556. 
 
 286. — Mutual dealings — Administration 
 Order— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), ss. 38, 125. 
 
 C. had a speculative account with his brokers, 
 and on April 15, 1897, being short of money, he 
 instructed them to sell certain securities and 
 remit him the proceeds. The same day the 
 brokers sold and sent C. a cheque for 161J. The 
 next diiy C. died without having presented the 
 cheque for paymt-nt. On April 24 an order was 
 made for the administration of O.'s estate In bank- 
 ruptcy, and a trustee was appointed. On April 27 
 the trustee presented the cheque, but it was not 
 met, the brokers having stopped payment of it 
 because at that date 0. was indebted to them on 
 his general account in a much larger amount. 
 The trustee having brought an action against tho 
 brokers on their dishonoured cheque : — 
 
 Held, that s. 38 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 applied, and that under the circumstances the 
 brokers were entitled to set off the amount of 
 the cheque against the larger amount due to 
 them from 0. Watkins v. Lindsay & Co. 
 
 Wright J. [1898] W. K. 22 (4) 
 
 237. — Mutual debts or dealings — Act of bank- 
 ruptcy — Beceiving order — Debtor and creditor — 
 Account of mutual dealings — Date for taking ac- 
 count—Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 (fe 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 8.38. 
 
 D., a solicitor, being at the time indebted to 
 M., another solicitor, in a sum of 86Z., on Deo. 24, 
 1892, committed an act of bankruptcy of which 
 M. had no notice. On Deo. 31, 1892, D. sold his 
 business to M. under an agreement which fixed 
 as the price a portion of the profits expected to 
 be earned for three years from tho business sold. 
 Thereupon M. took possession of and carried on 
 the business. On Jan. 17, 1893, a receiving order 
 was made against D., but no profits had then been 
 earned from the business. At the end of the 
 three years a sum of 300Z. was found to be due 
 from M. to D. under the agreement as the price 
 of the business, and this sum H. paid to D.'s 
 trustee in bankruptcy after deducting the 86Z. 
 due from D. to M. The trustee however objected 
 that M. could not set off the 86t against the 300L ; 
 that he must pay the 300Z. in full and be satisfied 
 with a dividend on the debt of 86J. 
 
 The county court judge allowed the objection, 
 and an appeal by M. to the Div. Ct. was dis- 
 missed, the Court differing in opinion. On appeal 
 by M., by leave, to the 0. A. : — 
 
 HM, that tbe dealings between M. and D. 
 were " mutual dealings " within s. 38 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and that M. was therefore 
 entitled to set off the 86Z. due to him from D. 
 against the 300Z. due from him to D. ; also that 
 the date of the receiving order, and not that of 
 the act of bankruptcy, was the proper date at 
 which to ascertain what those dealings were, so 
 as to be capable of being made the subject of 
 set-off under the section. In re Dainteey. Fx 
 parte Mant - - C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 546 
 
( 171 ) 
 
 DlGlilST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 172 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Set-oS)— continued. 
 
 238. — Underwriter — Insurance brokers — 
 Claim hy trustee for salvage — Bight to set off 
 unpaid losses, . 
 
 The trustee in bankruptcy of an underwriter 
 sued insurance brokers, wbo had effected policies 
 with the underwriter, for moneys which had come 
 into their hands since the bankruptcy as salvage 
 in respect of losses which had been paid by the 
 underwriter before liis bankruptcy. The brokers 
 claimed to set off losses on other policies effected 
 by them witli the underwriter, which, in conse- 
 quence of bis bankruptcy, they had had to make 
 good to their principals, to whom they had 
 guaranteed the solvency of the underwriter : — 
 
 Held, that the brokers were not entitled to set 
 off those losses, since the sums received by way 
 of salvage were part of the bankrupt's estate, 
 which they only held as trustees for him. Elgood 
 V. Haeem Collins J. [1896] 2 Q. B. 491 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re Dainlrey, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 546, 556. 
 
 — Mutual credits or dealings — Solicitor and 
 client. 
 See Bankbuptct — Assets. 64. 
 
 Small Bankruptcy. 
 
 239. — Summary administration — Leave to 
 issue execution — Sect. 122, sub-s. 5, of the Act of 
 ISSS—Eules of Dec. 21, 1888, r. 15— Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 122, sub-s. 5. 
 
 While an order for summary administration 
 
 under s. 122 of the Act of 1883 is in force, the 
 
 county court has no power under sub-s. 5 of that 
 
 section to allow execution to issue. In re Peank 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 9 
 
 Stay of Froceedings. 
 
 240. — Attachment under s. 4 of Debtors Act, 
 1869— Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 4 ; 
 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 5i)~Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 9. 
 
 The prohibition in s. 9 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, relates to debts only, and does not take 
 away the jurisdiction of the Court to make an 
 order, under s. 4, sub-s. 3, of the Debtors Act, 
 1869, for the committal or attachment of a 
 defaulting trustee against whom a receiving 
 order in bankruptcy has been made, for such 
 orders are not to be regarded simply as a form of 
 civil process, but are punitive in their nature. 
 In re Smith. . Hands v. Andkews 
 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Trustee. 
 
 241. — Appeal — Appointment — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 21, 104. 
 
 An appeal lies to the 0. A. by the Bd. of 
 Trade from a decision of the High Court tbat the 
 objection of the Board to the appointment of a 
 trustee is invalid. In re Lamb. Ex parte Boabd 
 OF Teade - C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 806 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re Mardon, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 140, 145. 
 
 242. — Appointment — Objection by Board of 
 Trade — Conflicting interests — Two estates — Same 
 trustee — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Viet, 
 c. 52), ss. 21, 104. 
 
 G. was appointed trustee of the estate of E., 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Trustee) — continued. 
 a bankrupt, and subsequently of that of L. GL 
 was a creditor of B.'s estate for a large amount, 
 and of li.'s for a small amount. The only asset 
 of either B. or L. was an interest in certain pro- 
 perty as to half of which E. alleged that L. was 
 trustee for him. The Bd. of Trade objected to 
 G.'s appointment as trustee for L.'s estate, on the 
 ground that his connection with the bankrupt or 
 his estate made it difficult for him to act impar- 
 tially : — 
 
 Held, that the objection was valid. In re 
 Lamb. Ex parte Boaed of Tbadb 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 805 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re Mardon, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 140, 145. 
 
 243. — Board of Trade — Unclaimed or undis- 
 tributed Funds — Liability to account — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 1G2— Trustee 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 59), ss. 1, 8. 
 
 By s. 162, sub-s. 2 (a), of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, where, after the passing of the Act, 
 any unclaimed or undistributed funds or divi- 
 dends in the hands of any trustee empowered to 
 collect, receive, or distribute any funds or divi- 
 dends under any Act of Parliament mentioned in 
 the 4th schedule, or any petition, resolution, 
 deed, or other proceeding under or in pursuance 
 of such Act, have remained or remain unclaimed 
 or undistributed for six months after the same 
 became claimable or distributable, or in any other 
 case for two years after the receipt thereof by 
 such trustee, it shall be the duty of such trustee 
 forthwith to pay the same to the Bankruptcy 
 Estates Account at the Bank of England. 
 (6) The Bd. of Trade may at any time order 
 "such trustee" to submit to them an account 
 verified by afiSdavit of the sums received and 
 paid by bim under or in pursuance of any such 
 petition, resolution, deed, or other proceeding : — 
 
 Seld, that the Bd. of Trade were entitled to 
 enforce an order for an account against a trustee 
 under this section without proving tUat he had 
 had in his hands, after the passing of the Act, 
 any unclaimed or undistributed funds or divi- 
 dends. 
 
 Decision of Queen's Bench Division, [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 634, afSrmed. 
 
 Sect. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888, does not 
 apply to a trustee in bankruptcy. In re Coknish. 
 Ex parte Bd. op Trade C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 99 
 
 — Costs — Appeal — Trustee in bankruptcy. 
 See Bankeuptoy— Costs. 73. 
 
 244. — Costs — Appointment — Practice — Objec- 
 tion by Board of Trade — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 21, suh-s. 2. 
 
 AVhen the Bd. of Trade at the request of a 
 majority of the creditors notify to the Court, 
 under s. 21 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, their 
 objection to the appointment of a trustee in 
 bankruptcy, the Court will not exercise any 
 discretion in the matter on the merits of the 
 case, but will only decide whether the objection 
 is on the facts valid in point of law. 
 
 The fact that the trustee appointed by the 
 creditors is an accounting party to the estate, 
 and will as trustee have to investigate his own 
 account, is of itself a valid objection. 
 
( 173 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 174 ) 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Trustee)— conMnuei. 
 
 In re Lamb, 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 805, discussed 
 and followed. 
 
 When the Bd. of Trade object to the trustee 
 appointed by the creditors, and at the request of 
 the creditors notify that objection to the Court, 
 and the creditors alone appear bona fide to oppose 
 the objection of the Bd. of Trade, costs -will not 
 as a rule be given against the trustee although 
 the objection is upheld. In re Maedon 
 
 ' V. WiUiams J. [1896] 1 ft. B. 140 
 
 — Oosts — Employment of solicitor. 
 
 See Bahkruptcy — Official Beceiver. 126. 
 
 245. — Costs — Taxatifm — Fractice — Committee 
 of inspection — Employment of solicitor — Authority 
 to do particular things — Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 57, sub-s. 3 ; s. 73, sub-s. 3 ; 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. a. 71), s. 15, sub-s. 3— Bank- 
 ruptcy Rules, 1886, rr. 117, 285. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act, 1 883, a. 57, empowers a 
 trustee with the permission of the committee of 
 inspection to (amongst other things) employ a 
 solicitor to take any proceedings or do any busi- 
 ness which may be sanctioned by the committee 
 of inspection, and enacts : " The permission given 
 for the purposes of this section shall not be a 
 general permission to do all or any of the above- 
 mentioned things, but shall only be a permission 
 to do the particular thing or things for which 
 permission is sought in the specified case or 
 oases." 
 
 In 1897 the tenant for life of large settled 
 estates became bankrupt. The official receiver 
 at first acted as trustee with a committee of in- 
 spection, and, with the sanction of the committee, 
 employed A. & Oo. as his solicitors in all matters 
 relating to the letting and management of the 
 estates. In 1898 M. was appointed the trustee in 
 the bankruptcy with the same committee of in- 
 spection, and applied to them for permission to 
 employ A. & Co. in the same capacity as before. 
 Thereupon they passed the following resolution ; 
 " That Messrs. A. & Co. be employed by the 
 trustee where necessary." Under this resolution 
 M. employed A. & Oo. in all matters connected 
 with the letting and management of the estates. 
 All the debts having been paid, A. & Oo. carried 
 in their bill of costs for taxation. The bankrupt 
 objected to all items and charges relating to the 
 letting and management of the estates on the 
 ground that the written sanction of the committee 
 for the disputed matters had not been obtained 
 in accordance with the sections of the Acts and 
 the Eules above stated. The committee deposed 
 that they intended their resolution to apply to 
 the disputed matters. The taxing master having 
 overi'uled the objection, the pit. appealed : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that the resolution was in form 
 insufficient; (2.) that the sanction of the com- 
 mittee need not be in writing, provided it was 
 specific and given before the work was done ; and 
 (3.) that the bill of costs must be reviewed on this 
 footing. In re Yavasoub - Wright J. [1900] 
 W. N. 118 ; [1900] 2 ft. B. 309 
 
 — Grant of administration to — Intestacy — Shares 
 
 in foreign railways. 
 
 See Pbobate— Grant of Administration. 
 35. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Trustee)— contmaecZ. 
 
 — Income tax — Assignment for benefit of credi- 
 
 tors — Profits made by trustee in carrying 
 on part of insolvent debtor's business. 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 69. 
 
 246. — Mortgage of reversion by undischarged 
 hanhrupt— Sale by mortgagees — Injwruition. 
 
 An undischarged bankrupt mortgaged a con- 
 tingent reversion. The mortgagees put it up for 
 sale subject to the rights of the trustee and of 
 the creditors under the bankruptcy. The trustee 
 obtained a perpetual injunction from a county 
 court judge restraining the mortgagees from pro- 
 ceeding with the sale : — 
 
 Held, that the judge had no jurisdiction to 
 make such order, the proposed sale being within 
 the powers of the- mortgagees and not being of 
 any property vested in the trustee. Jw re 
 Evelyn. Ex parte General Pdblio Works 
 and Assets Oo. - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 302 
 
 — Official receiver acting as trustee. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Official Beceiver, 125 
 
 — Purchase as trustee — Statute of Limitations. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. " 23. 
 
 247. — Eelease of trustee — Fractice — Error in 
 administration — Bevocation by Board of Trade — 
 "Suppression or concealment of any material 
 fact"— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 <fc47 Vict.c. 52), 
 s. 82. 
 
 In Jan., 1898, a trustee in bankruptcy dis- 
 allowed a proof in the mistaken belief that it was 
 not a provable debt, and by an oversight notice 
 of rejection was not sent to the creditor. In 
 Feb., 1898, the trustee applied under s. 82, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Act to the Bd. of Trade for his 
 release. In March, 1898, he paid a dividend, 
 and in the list of proofs transmitted to the Bd. of 
 Trade marked the proof as "disallowed." In 
 April and May, 1898, he received letters written 
 on behalf of the creditor asking in effect when 
 the claim would be settled, but in the bon§. fide 
 belief that the proof had been properly dealt 
 with and disallowed he did not answer the 
 letters nor inform the Bd. of Trade that he had 
 received them. In June, 1898, the trustee 
 obtained his release under s. 82, sub-s. 2. In 
 July the creditor communicated with the Bd. of 
 Trade, who thereupon applied to the trustee for 
 an explanation. Some correspondence ensued, 
 and in Jan., 1899, the Bd. of Trade revoked the 
 order of release on the ground that it had been 
 obtained by the suppression or concealment of 
 material facts. The trustee appealed : — 
 
 Eeld, (1.) that the words "suppression or 
 concealment of any material fact " must be read 
 to mean such suppression or concealment as has 
 in it an element of fraud ; (2.) that on the 
 evidence the trustee had not wilfully withheld 
 information from the Bd. of Trade, and that 
 under the circumstances the order of the Bd. 
 revoking his release must be discharged, but 
 without costs. In re Habhis. Ex parte Has- 
 LUCK. - - - - Wright J. [1899] 
 
 W. IT. 61; [1899] 2 Q. B. 97 
 
 248. — Itelea.se of trustee — Svhsequ«at assets — 
 Bight of creditors to appoint new trustee — Practice 
 — Small bankruptcy — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. 0. 52), ss. 82, i21— Bankruptcy 
 
( 1?5 ) 
 
 OtGfiST 01' OAgES, 1^91—1900. 
 
 ( 176 ) 
 
 SANKETJPTCY (TmBtee)— continued. 
 Discharge and Cloture Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict, 
 c. 66), 8. 6, subs. 2. 
 
 In a summary bankruptcy, as in an ordinary 
 bankruptcy, after the release of the trustee or of 
 the official receiver acting as trustee, the creditors 
 have no power to appoint a new trustee to 
 administer further assets that may come in ; but 
 the official receiver is the trustee for that purpose, 
 if necessary. In re Leach. Ex parte Barnes 
 Wright J. [1900] W. N. 184; [1900] 2 ft. B. 649 
 
 249. — Remuneration — Alteration Inj Board of 
 Trade— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), s. 72, subs. 2 — Banlcruptcv Forms, 188C, 
 No. 122. 
 
 The Bd. of Trade has power under s. 72 of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, on the application of 
 Ihe prescribed number of dissentient creditors, to 
 fix the remuneration of the trustee not only when 
 tlie remuneration has been fixed by resolution 
 of the creditors, but also when it has been fixed 
 by a resolution of the committee of inspection in 
 pursuance of authority delegated to them by a 
 resolution of the creditors. In re Gallaku. 
 E.X- parte Haeeis. C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 632 
 
 250. — Bemuneration of trustee — Eesolution of 
 creditors — Ultra vires — Composition provided iy 
 debtor's father — " Amount realized by trustee " — 
 Bractice — Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), e. 72, subs. 1 ; 1890 (53 * 51 Vict. c. 71), 
 8. 15, subs. 1. 
 
 Under s. 72 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the 
 remuneration of a trustee is to be fixed by a 
 resolution of the creditors, and is to be a com- 
 mission or percentage payable partly on "the 
 amount realized " and partly on " the amount 
 distributed in dividend " ; and s. 15 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1890, enacts that the commission 
 payable on the amount realized is to be payable 
 " only on the amount realized by the trustee." 
 
 The creditors of a bankrupt accepted a com- 
 position, and the sura required to pay the com- 
 position was provided by his father and distributed 
 by the trustee. The creditors also passed a 
 resolution that the remuneration of the trustee 
 should be a commission of " 5 per cent, on all 
 amounts brought to credit and 5 per cent, on all 
 amounts distributed to the creditors." The trus- 
 tee claimed the commission on the sum provided 
 by the father as being an " amount brought to 
 credit " of the estate : — • 
 
 Held, that the resolution, not being in accord- 
 ance with the terms of s. 72 of the Act of 1883, 
 was ultra vires: 
 
 Held, also, that the words " the amount 
 realized" in a. 72 — apart from s. 15 of the Act 
 of 1890 — mean "the amount realized by the 
 trustee " ; that the sum provided by the father 
 was not a sum " realized by the trustee," and, 
 therefore, that the commission claimed was not 
 payable. 
 
 Semhle, the words " distributed in dividend " 
 in s. 72 mean " distributed in dividend out of 
 assets realized by the trustee." In re Christie. 
 Bx parte Cheistib 'Wright J. [1899] W. N . 217 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 ft, B, 6 
 — Rights over property of bankrupt. 
 
 See Cases under BANKRtiPTCY — Assets. 
 
 BAITKBUPTCY (Trustee) — continued. 
 
 261. — ■ Statute of Limitations — Banlcruptcp 
 Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 71), s. 72. 
 
 The Statute of Limitations runs against a 
 trustee in bankruptcy in the same way as it 
 would against the bankrupt himself. In reMAN- 
 SEL. Ex parte Norton C. A. [1892] W. N. 32 
 
 252. — Stock Exchange — Defaulting broker — 
 Rules of the Stock Exchange — Official assignee of 
 the Stock Exchange — Stock Exchange creditors — 
 Outside creditors — Sum due to and from stock- 
 jobbers — Book debts — Title of trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy as against official assignee. 
 
 On Jan. 3, 1899, a receiving order was made 
 against one W., a broker on the Stock Exchange, 
 on a creditor's petition based on an act of bank- 
 ruptcy committed on the previous Deo. 29; 
 adjudication followed, and one K. became the 
 trustee in bankruptcy. It happened that Deo. 29 
 was " ticket" day on the Exchange, Dec. 28 was 
 account day, and Dec. 30 was pay-day. On 
 Dec. 30, W. was ofScially declared a defaulter on 
 the Exchange, and the same day the official 
 assignee of the Stock Exchange, in accordance 
 with the practice and rules of the Exchange, 
 closed all W.'s contracts on the Exchange, and, 
 after receiving and paying all sums due to or by 
 members of the Exchange, there remained a 
 surplus of about 600(. in his hands. W. had 
 large outside liabilities. The oflBcial assignee had 
 notice of the act of bankruptcy committed on 
 Dec. 29. Two of the sums so received by the 
 ofiBoial assignee were : (1) a sum of 117J. 15«. 2d., 
 being the proceeds of cheques sent to W. on 
 Dec. 30 by outside customers to pay for certain 
 contracts made by him on their behalf with job- 
 bers on the Exchange ; (2) a sum of 1262i. 15s. 2d. 
 due to W. by jobbers op the Exchange : — 
 
 Held, on the evidence that as to 137i., part of 
 the sum of 1262Z. 15s. 2d., it represented merely 
 the provisional or " making up price " on " ticket " 
 day. It was therefore purely an artificial fund 
 temporarily created for a temporary and special 
 purpose, and not shewn to be in any sense the 
 property of the bankrupt or of any of liis clients, 
 and fell within the principle of In re Blumbly, 
 (1880) 13 Ch. D. 667, and therefore tlie trustee 
 was not entitled to it. As to the balance of 
 1262t 15s. 2d., it did not represent the amount 
 payable for the purchase or sale of a particular 
 sum of stock, but merely the differences payable 
 in the usual way on the Exchange in speculative 
 transactions made by W. on behalf of outside 
 clients, and which, if W. had received, he would 
 not have held in a fiduciary capacity for the out- 
 side clients. This balance, therefore, was merely a 
 book debt of W.'s, and was covered by the deci- 
 sion in King v. Huiton, [1899] 2 Q. B. 555; 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 504 (see next Case), and 
 passed to his trustee in bankruptcy. Tlie same 
 considerations applied to the 1171. 15s. 2rf., which 
 comprised sums sent to W. by outside clients, not 
 to pay for the purchase of any particular stJock, 
 but to provide for the differences payable by them. 
 The trustee, therefore, was also entitled to these 
 sums. In re Woodd. Ex parte King 
 
 Wright J. [1900] W. N. 84 
 
 258. — Stock Exchange, Rules of (he^— Title of 
 trustee in bankruptcy — Broker and cfustomer — 
 
C if'T ) 
 
 DtGtlST OV dAgfiS, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( 1?8 ) 
 
 EANKETJPTCY (Trustee)— continueci. 
 Customer's speculative account — BanJcruptcy of 
 brolcer — Differences due to customer — Surplus in 
 hands of the official assignee of the Stock Exchange. 
 A broker on the Stock Exchange was ofBoially 
 declared a defiiiilter. The same day the oflSoial 
 assignee, under the Knles of the Stock Excliange, 
 closed all accounts of the broker then open, and 
 received and paid all amounts owing by or to 
 him on the Stock Exchange, and, after payment 
 of all the Stock Exchange liabilities of the broker, 
 there remained a surplus in the hands of the 
 official assignee. Shortly afterwards the broker 
 was adjudicated bankrupt with large outside 
 liabilities. Part of tlie surplus above mentioned 
 comprised a sum of money which represented 
 diiferences, being profits, due on contracts made 
 with jobbers on the Stock Exchange by the broker 
 as agent for an outside customer, who was running 
 a speculative account on the Stock Exchange 
 through him, and which the broker, on the day 
 he became a defaulter, had he been then solvent, 
 would have received for the customer. Both the 
 customer and the trustee in bankruptcy of the 
 broker having claimed this sum of money, tlie 
 official assignee paid it into court under an 
 interpleader summons : — 
 
 Held, that the sum of money in question was 
 merely a book debt of the broker and formed 
 part of his general assets, and therefore passed to 
 his trustee in bankruptcy ; and that the remedy 
 of the customer was to prove in the bankruptcy 
 for the amount 
 
 Judgment of Phillimore J., [1899] W.; N. 
 
 135; [1899] 2 Q. B. 555, affirmed. Kino v. 
 
 HuTTON -, - C. A. [1900] W.N. 157! 
 
 [igOOjSQ. B. 504 
 
 — Tenant for life bankrupt — Consent of tenant 
 
 for life — Concurrence of trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 
 See Vendor and Puechaser — Convey- 
 ance. 45. 
 
 254. — Title — Perfecting title — Notice — Prio- 
 rily— Bankruptcy Acts, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 71), 
 ss. i, 17, 22 ; 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. v. 52), s. 50, 
 sub-s. 4 ; ss. 54, 168. 
 
 There is nothing in the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, to shew that it was the intention of the 
 legislature, when vesting a bankrupt's equitable 
 (■hoses in action in the trustee, to relieve him of 
 the effect of the rules of equity as to perfucting 
 his title by notice to the holders of the fund. _ A 
 bankrupt became entitled to a reversionary in- 
 terest in a fund held by trustees under a will, 
 but did not know of it nor include it in his state- 
 ment of affairs. Before his discharge it fell into 
 possession ; after discharge he mortgaged it to a 
 person who had no notice of the bankruptcy, and 
 gave notice to the trustees of his mortgage : — 
 
 Jleld, that the subsequent mortgagee by his 
 notice had obtained priority over the trustee in 
 bankruptcy. In re Stone's Will 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. N. SO 
 
 — Undischarged bankrupt — Eights of trustee. 
 
 See Cases under Bankbuptgt— Undis- 
 charged Bankrupt. 
 
 — Voluntary settlement— Eights of trustee. 
 
 See Cases under Bankeuptcy— Volun- 
 tary Settlements. 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Trustee)— continued. 
 
 — Water rate, Arrears of — Trnstee in bankruptcy 
 
 " Incoming tenant " — Paymnet of 
 
 arrears under protest. 
 
 See WATER^Water Bates. 25. 
 
 Undischarged Bankrupt. 
 
 255. — After-acquired properly — Assignment of 
 interest under will — Bona fides — Colonial law — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Viet. c. 52), ss. 
 44, 54. 
 
 The proposition laid down in Cohen v. Mitchell, 
 (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 262— that until his trustee 
 intervenes all transactions by a bankrupt after 
 his bankruptcy with any person dealing with 
 him bon^ fide and for value, in respect of his 
 after- acquired property, are valid against the 
 trustee — applies where the after-acquired pro- 
 perty consists of a legacy and a share of residue 
 under a will, even where the trustee intervenes 
 before the bequeathed property has reached the 
 hands of a bona fide equitable assignee. 
 
 An assignment of the future-acquired pro- 
 perty is not necessarily mala fide because at the 
 time the assignee has knowledge of the assignor's 
 bankruptcy and of the ignorance of the trustee 
 in bankruptcy that the bankrupt has acquired 
 the assigned property. 
 
 The law is the same on this point in the 
 Colony of Victoria. Hunt v. Feipp 
 
 Byrne J. [1897] W. N. 168 (3) ; 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 676 
 
 256. — After-acquired property — Assignment by 
 bankrupt —Slop order — Priority — Maintenance of 
 bankrupt. 
 
 Interpleader issue raising the question as to 
 who was entitled to a sum of 2581. paid into 
 court in an action of Tibbits v. Benton. Tibbita 
 had been adjudicated a bankrupt and was still 
 undischarged. The claimant Mercer was his 
 trustee in bankruptcy. Vans Colina also claimed 
 the fund under an assignment from the bank- 
 rupt : — 
 
 Held, that as Eenton had neither notice nor 
 knowledge of Vans Colina's assignment, and 
 Vans Colina had not obtained a stop order, the 
 trustee by giving his notices and obtaining a 
 stop order had obtained priority. The amount 
 of the allowance to be made out of the fund for 
 the maintenance of the bankrupt discussed. 
 Mercee v. Vans Colina 
 
 Wright J. [1900] 1 Q. B, 130, n. 
 
 257. — After-acquired property — Letters patent 
 — Boy allies — Personal earnings — Judgment of 
 County Court — Estoppel — Solicitor's lien for 
 costs — Bankruptcy Act, 1883, ss. 44, 53. 
 
 The principles which underlie s. 53 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, with respect to the 
 " salary or income " of a bankrupt, are also ap- 
 plicable to his "personal earnings." In each 
 case it is a question of amoimt, and he will be 
 allowed to retain only such a sum as is sufficient 
 for the reasonable maintenance of himself and 
 his family, and the residue will pass to his 
 trustee in bankruptcy. 
 
 An undischarged bankrupt took out letters 
 patent for an invention, and granted a licence 
 to a CO. to work the patented invention at a 
 royalty of 101. per week. Two instalments of the 
 
( 179 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 180 ) 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Undiscliarged Bankrupt)— coniA 
 royalty, i.e. 201., becomins; payable were claimed 
 by the trustee in bankruptcy as after-acquired 
 property of tbe bankrupt. The co. took out 
 an interpleader summons in the High Court, 
 which was remitted to a county court for decision. 
 The county court judge held that the 201. was in 
 the nature of personal earnings and belonged to 
 the bankrupt, and refused leave to appeal. Sub- 
 sequent royalties became due, and the trustee 
 applied to the Bankruptcy Court for a declaration 
 that they vested in him as after-acquired pro- 
 perty of the bankrupt : — 
 
 Seld, that the judgment of the county court 
 estopped the trustee from asserting that the 
 royalties were not the personal earnings of the 
 bankrupt, but that 51. a week was a fitting sum 
 for the reasonable maintenance of the bankrupt 
 and his family, and that the residue passed to 
 the trustee in bankruptcy : 
 
 But held, also, that the solicitor of the bank- 
 rupt had as against the trustee a first charge for 
 his costs of creating the fund, i.e., his costs pro- 
 perly incurred in taking out and maintaining the 
 letters patent and carrying through the arrange- 
 ments with the CO. 
 
 Semble, the royalties were not the "personal 
 earnings" of the bankrupt. In re Gkaidon. 
 Ex parte OrrioiAi, Eeoeivek 
 
 V. Williams J, [1896] 1 ft. B. 417 
 
 Keferred to by Phillimore J. Shoolbred v. 
 lioberts, [1899] 2 Q. B. 560, 563; 0. A. [1900J 
 2 Q. B. 497. 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. In re Eoherts, 1900, 
 1 Q. B. 122, 128. 
 
 258. — After-acquired property — Personal earn- 
 ings — Assignment for value before intervention by 
 trustee — Title of Assignee — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 44. 
 
 A bankrupt has a qualified property in goods 
 until the trustee in bankruptcy intervenes : — 
 
 Held, that as before any intervention the 
 bankrupt had transferred them to ihe claimants 
 for value, the title of the claimants was good. 
 Hampton v. Lubbook Biv. Ct. [1900] W. N. 18 
 
 259. — After-acquired property — Personal earn- 
 ings — Interpleader — Wagering contract — Money 
 deposited as stakes — Stakes claimed by trustee in 
 bankruptcy — Gaming Acts, 1845 (8 (fe 9 Vict. 
 c. 109), s. 18 ; 1892 (55 <£ 56 Vict. c. 9), s. 1— 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (4G & 47 Vict. a. 52), 
 ss. 44, 53. 
 
 The deft., a professional billiard player, who 
 was then an undischarged bankrupt, agreed to 
 play a match at billiards with another billiard 
 player for 100^ a side, and each party deposited 
 that amount with stakeholders. The deft, won 
 the match, and thereupon both the deft, and the 
 pit., his trustee in bankruptcy, claimed the 
 stakes. The stakeholders interpleaded; and, 
 the money having been paid into court, an issue 
 was directed to try whether the pit. or the deft, 
 was entitled to the money : — 
 
 Held (varying the order of Phillimore J., 
 [1899] W. N. 136 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 560), that the 
 pit. was entitled to the whole of the money. 
 Shoolbeed v. Egberts 
 
 C, A. [1900] W. N. 167; [1900] 2 Q. B, 497 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Undiscliarged Bankrupt) — eontd. 
 
 260. — After-acquired property — Personal earn- 
 ings — " Property of the bankrupt " — Trustee, right 
 of — Maintenance of bankrupt — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 44. 
 
 Under s. 44 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 which vests in the trustee all property belonging 
 to the bankrupt at the commencement of the 
 bankruptcy or acquired by him before his dis- 
 charge, all personal earnings of the bankrupt 
 between the commencement of his bankruptcy 
 and his discharge belong to his trustee, save only 
 what is necessary for the support of the bankrupt 
 and his family. 
 
 E., a professional billiard player, while an 
 undischarged bankrupt, entered into a contract 
 with a billiard-ball manufacturing Co., whereby 
 the CO. agreed to supply him annually for five 
 years, free of coat, with 2000 billiard balls of 
 their manufacture as and when required by him ; 
 and E. agreed that he would not, during the five 
 years, play public billiard matches (not beins; 
 championship matches) other than with balls 
 manufactured and supplied by the co. ; but the 
 contract did not impose any obligation on E. to 
 play billiards at all. The co. supplied E. during 
 his bankruptcy with balls according to the con- 
 tract, intending that he might sell them and 
 apply the proceeds to his own use : — 
 
 Held, that under s. 44 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, the balls belonged to the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy, the evidence shewing that they were not 
 wanted for E.'s support even if they could be 
 regarded as personal earnings, as to which quxre. 
 
 Appeal from Wright J. dismissed. In re 
 
 Eobekts - - C. A. [1899] W. N. 220 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 a. B. 122 
 
 261. — After-acquired property — Solicitor's bill 
 of costs — Chose in action — Assignee for value — - 
 Notice by trustee — Priority — Out of pocket 
 
 An undischarged bankrupt assigned for value 
 the amount of his taxed bill of costs as solicitor 
 for the petitioning creditors of a company in 
 liquidation. His trustee in bankruptcy gave 
 notice, before the assignee, to the liquidator of 
 the company claiming the amount of the taxed 
 bill as part of the after-acquired property of the 
 bankrupt. 
 
 Held, that the trustee was entitled to the 
 amount in priority to the assignee. 
 
 Mercer v. Fans CoUna, (1897) 67 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 424, followed. 
 
 In such a case the bankrupt's out of pocket 
 
 expenses will, if properly vouched, be allowed to 
 
 him out of the amount. In re Beail. Ex parte 
 
 The Official Receiver - Wright J. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 10 (3) ; [1899] 1 ft, B. 688 
 
 262. — After-acquired property — Surplus assets 
 — Mortgage by undischarged bankrupt — Ptirohase 
 of real estate — Contemporaneous agreement for 
 charge — Successive bankruptcies — Bights of trustees 
 — Vesting — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 e. 52), ss. 20, 40, sub-s. 5 ; ss. 44, 50, 54, 65, 168. 
 
 An undischarged bankrupt has power to dis- 
 pose of any part of his assets that may remain 
 after payment of his liabilities before that surplus 
 is ascertained. The decisions in In re Leadbitter, 
 (1878) 10 Ch. D. 388, and Ex parte Sheffield, In 
 
( 181 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 182 ) 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Undischarged Bankrupt)— conW. 
 re Austin, (1879) 10 Ch. D. 434, merely shew that 
 he cannot give an assignee a right to interfere in 
 the administration of his bankruptcy. 
 
 A charge given by an undischarged bankrupt 
 on specific property may be read as referring to 
 such part of the property as turns out to be 
 surplus. 
 
 Where an agreement for an advance to be 
 made to an undischarged bankrupt in order to 
 enable him to obtain a conveyance of real estate 
 is contemporaneous with an agreement that the 
 lender shall have a charge on the property so 
 purchased, and the lender has no notice of the 
 bankruptcy, the charge ■will be supported against 
 the tmstee. 
 
 Meux V. Smith, (1843) 11 Sim. 410, followed. 
 
 Where an undischarged bankrupt is made 
 bankrupt a second time, and there is, by reason 
 of the extent of his after-acquired property, a 
 surplus in the first bankruptcy, the trustee in the 
 second bankruptcy only takes that part of the 
 surplus which has not been effectually dealt with 
 by the bankrupt before the date of the second 
 bankruptcy. Bibd v. Pbilpott 
 
 FarweU J, [1900] 1 Cat. 822 
 
 — Clause validating the acts of de facto 
 
 directors. 
 
 See COMPAMY— Directors. 100. 
 
 — Costs — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Baukeoptot — Costs. 82. 
 
 — Obtaining Credit — Intent to defraud. 
 
 See Baitkbdptot — Offences. 123. 
 
 Void Settlement. 
 See Cases under Bankkuptct — Volun- 
 tary Settlement, 
 
 Voluntary Settlement. 
 See s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 
 
 263. — Damciges recovered in the Divorce Court 
 — Life interest determinable on bankruptcy — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 8. 47— 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict, 
 e. 85), s. 33. 
 
 In an action for divorce the husband was 
 awarded by a jury 1500Z. damages against the 
 co-respondent, and this sum was paid into court. 
 A settlement was then executed with the sanction 
 of the Court to which the husband was a party, 
 and by which the money was vested in trustees 
 upon trust for the wife for life whilst chaste and 
 unmarried, and then for the husband for life with 
 a gift over in the event of his bankruptcy, which 
 event happened : — 
 
 Held, that the damages were not " the pro- 
 perty" of the husband within the meaning of 
 s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and con- 
 sequently that the gift over of his life estate on 
 bankruptcy was not void as against his trustee 
 in bankruptcy. In re Stephenson. Ex parte 
 Brown - V. WUUams J. [1897] 1 Q. B, 638 
 
 264. — Discretionary trust to pay future debts 
 — Intent to defeat and delay future creditors- 
 Fraudulent Conveyancing Act, 1571 (13 Miz.c. 5). 
 
 A voluntary settlement, honestly entered into 
 at the time it is made, all then existing debts 
 being paid, and the settlor retaining an income 
 sufficient for reasonable and probable require- 
 
 BANKEUPTCY (Voluntary Settlement)— contot. 
 ments, ought not to be treated as fraudulent and 
 void under the statute 13 Eliz. c. 5, merely 
 because some years afterwards it has the effect of 
 defeating or delaying the subsequent creditors of 
 the settlor. 
 
 In 1891 A., a few days after attaining twenty- 
 one, executed a voluntary settlement whereby 
 she vested the whole of her property in trustees 
 with an absolute discretionary trust to apply 
 either capital or income in payment of any of her 
 then existing or future debts; and a further 
 discretionary trust to apply the income during 
 her life for the benefit of herself or any husband 
 or children. The deed contained a power for A. 
 to revoke the settlement with the consent of her 
 trustees. The few debts she had at the date of 
 the settlement were paid out of cash in hand. 
 On two subsequent occasions A. executed partial 
 revocations of the settlement, and portions of the 
 settled funds were applied by the trustees in 
 payment of her debts ; but the trustees refused a 
 third time to pay her debts, and thereupon, in 
 Feb., 1900, she was adjudicated bankrupt, having 
 no assets except the settled property : — 
 
 Held, that the settlement was not fraudulent 
 
 and void under 13 Eliz. u. 5, as against her 
 
 trustee in bankruptcy. In re Lane-Fox. Mb 
 
 parte Gimblett Wright J. [1900] W. K. 142 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 608 
 
 265. — Extent of avoidance — Voluntary settle- 
 ment — Void " OS against the trustee " — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 47. 
 
 A voluntary settlement which is " void against 
 the trustee "_under s. 47 of the Act of 1883 is 
 void for all purposes, and does not entitle the 
 trustee to stand in the place of the beneficiaries. 
 The trustee therefore has not priority over 
 incumbrancers subsequent to the settlement. 
 
 Semble, the effect of such an order is to 
 accelerate subsequent incumbrances generally. 
 Sanguinetti v. Stuokby's Bankinb Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] 1 Oh. 176 
 See also upon another point, Chitty J. 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 502. 
 Approved by 0. A. In re Farnham, [1895] 
 2 Ch. 799, 808. 
 
 266. — Father and son — Voluntary settlement — 
 Purchaser for value — Gift of money — Adoance- 
 ment— Business, Purchase of — Earmarking gift — 
 Alienation of gift — " Settlement of property " — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 47, 
 168. 
 
 In May, 1896, a trader, then in good credit, 
 sold his business to a limited co. promoted by 
 him for the purpose of purchasing it. He and 
 his son took between them practically the whole 
 of the shares issued by the co., and substantially 
 the whole of the debenture issue was taken by 
 the father himself. The co. was unsuccessful, 
 and, in May, 1898, went into voluntary liquida- 
 tion ; whereupon, with a view to preserving the 
 father's credit, he and hia son entered into an 
 arrangement by deed with the co., by Its liqui- 
 dator, and the co.'s ascertained creditors, whereby 
 the son purchased the co.'s business in considera- 
 tion partly of a sum in cash and partly of 
 payment by him of the debts due to the ascer- 
 tained creditors secured by joint and several 
 
( 1S3 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1^91-1900. 'X^ ( l§i ) 
 
 BANKEITPTCT (Voluntary Settlement)— conii. 
 promissory notes of the father and son ; and, 
 by way of further consideration, the father 
 surrendered his debentures and a private debt 
 due to him from the co. The father and son also 
 covenanted to pay off any then unascertained 
 creditors of the co., and to iademnify the co. and 
 its assets against all claims in respect of the 
 business, and the father covenanted with the son 
 that all moneys paid by him, the father, under 
 the arrangement, and all property thereby handed 
 over by him to the son, should be treated " as an 
 absolute and irrevocable gift" from him to the 
 son. 
 
 The son thereupon took over the business, 
 and carried it on with such success that, by 
 means partly of his earnings and partly by con- 
 tributions from the father, the whole of the 
 purchase-moneys and debts payable under the 
 arrangement were discharged. Subsequently, 
 in March, 1899, the father became bankrupt; 
 whereupon the trustee in bankruptcy applied to 
 have the transfer of the business to the son under 
 the arrangement of 1898 declared void as a 
 "settlement" within a. 47 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 :— 
 
 Held, by the C. A. (affirming Wright J.), 
 that the mere fact that the business had been 
 acquired by the sou partly by means of money 
 obtained from or paid by the father was not 
 sufficient to make the transfer a "settlement" 
 within 8. 47. 
 
 " Settlement " in s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, means such a conveyance or transfer by 
 the donor as contemplates the retention of the 
 property by the donee, either in its original form 
 or in such a form that it can be traced, and does 
 not extend to a conveyance or transfer of property 
 which cannot be traced, as, for instance, where 
 there is a gift of money to be employed in a busi- 
 ness or in the purchase of a business, and the 
 money is so employed or spent, the business itself 
 not being settled. 
 
 In re Player, Ex parte Harvey, (1885) 15 
 Q. B. T>. 682, approved of. The principles stated 
 in In re Vansittart, [1893] 1 Q. B. 181 ; In re 
 Tankard, [1899] 2 Q. B. 57, 60, 61, approved of. 
 In re Pldmmer - C. A. [1900] 2 Q, B. 790 
 
 267. — Gift of jewels hy husband to wife — 
 " Settlement"— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 52), s. 47. 
 
 A_ husband gave his wife valuable jewels on 
 certain anniversaries within two years of his 
 bankruptcy. There was no written transfer : — 
 
 Held, that the gifts were a " settlement," and 
 therefore void under s. 47, snb-s. 3, of the Act of 
 1883, as against the trustee in bankruptcy. In re 
 Vansittakt. Ex parte Brown (No. 1) 
 
 V. WUliams J. [1893] 1 Q, B. 181 
 
 Considered by Jeune P. Tasker v. Tasker, 
 [1895] P. 1, 6. 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Tankard, 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 57, 59. 
 
 See also In re Flummer, C. A. [19001 2 Q. B. 
 790. L J ■* 
 
 268. — CHft of jewels and money — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 <fc 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 47. 
 
 Gifts of personal property made by a bankrupt 
 
 BANKETTPTCY (Volnntary Settlement)— confoi, 
 within two years of his bankruptcy, without 
 restricting the donee's power of alienation, but 
 with intention that the donee shall use or retain 
 the property for an indeterminate time, are 
 voluntary settlements within the meaning of 
 s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and void as 
 against the trustee in bankruptcy, but without 
 prejudice to any sale or disposition of the property 
 made by the donee before the bankruptcy in good 
 faith and without notice of an available act of 
 bankruptcy. But the donee may have to account 
 for the proceeds of any such sale or disposition 
 remaining in his hands at the commencement of 
 the bankruptcy. 
 
 In re Player, (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 682, and 
 In re Vansittart, [1893] 1 Q. B. 181, considered. 
 In re Tankaed. Ex parte The Official Re- 
 ceiver - Wright J. [1899] W. TS. 60 ; 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 67 
 — Insolvent estate — Priorities. 
 
 See ExEODTOR — Insolvent Estates. 35. 
 
 269. — Life policy — Post-nuptial settlement — 
 Covenant to keep up policy, Absence of — Premiums 
 — Voluntary payment by settlor — Bankruptcy of 
 settlor — Policy moneys— Proportion not represented 
 hy each premium, — Voluntary " settlement " — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 47. 
 
 The payment of a premium on a life policy is 
 not to be regarded as securing a certain part of 
 the money assured by the policy. The whole of 
 the premiums are paid to keep up the policy, 
 and no proportionate part of the money payable 
 under it is represented by the payment of any 
 particular premium. 
 
 Consequently, where the owner of a policy on 
 his life by a post-nuptial settlement in 1877 
 assigned it to trustees for his wife and children, 
 and he himself continued to pay the premiums 
 voluntarily, being under no covenant with the 
 trustees to do so, and in 1899 became bankrupt 
 and died : — 
 
 Held, that no part of the payments of pre- 
 miums during the ten years preceding the bank- 
 ruptcy was a " settlement " within s. 47 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, so as to entitle the trustee 
 in bankruptcy to any proportionate part of the 
 policy moneys. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1900] W. N. 118, 
 
 reversed. In re Harrison & Ingram. Ex parte 
 
 Whinnet C, a. [1900] W. N. 174 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 ft. B. 710 
 
 270. — Purchaser for value and in good faith 
 from donee. 
 
 " Void " in s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 means " voidable " and a bon& fide purchaser for 
 value from a beneficiary under a settlement 
 falUng within the s., whether with or without 
 notice of the settlement, has a good title against 
 the trustee in bankruptcy. 
 
 (a) In re Vansittart. Ex parte Brown 
 (No. 2) - V. Williams J. [1893] 2 ft. B, 377 
 
 (b) In re Braix. Ex parte Norton 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 2 ft. B. 381 
 Approved by C. A. In re Carter and Kender- 
 dine's Contract, [1897] 1 Ch. 776. See No. 273, 
 below, 
 
 271. — " Purchaser in good faith "—Proviso for 
 cesser of husband's interest on bankruptcy — Bank- 
 
( 185 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 186 ) 
 
 BANKRUPTCY (Voluntary Settlement)— con<d. 
 rwptey Act, 1883 (46 <fc 47 Vict. o. 52), s. 47— 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. 
 e. 75), s. 3. 
 
 In order to constitute a " purchaser in good 
 faith " -within s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 it is sufficient if there be good faith on the part 
 of the purchaser ; it is not necessary that hoth 
 parties to the transaction should act in good faith. 
 A wife (married in 1883) after marriage allowed 
 her separate property to pass into her Imsband's 
 hands, but not as a gift nor as a loan for the 
 purposes of his trade. The husband having 
 applied part of the property to his own use, 
 settled the residue, together with property of his 
 own, upon trusts under which he took a life 
 interest, with a proviso for cesser in the event of 
 his bankruptcy ; the wife had no notice of any 
 fraudulent intention on the husband's part : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the settlement was not void 
 under s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883; (2) 
 that to the extent of the wife's property received 
 by the husband the proviso for the cesser of his 
 life interest was good ; and (3) that s. 3 of the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882, did not 
 apply. Mackintosh v. Poqose 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 1 Ch. 805 
 
 272. — Transfer of property in consideration 
 of liability undertaken — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 47. 
 
 A., in consideration of B.'s paying his debt 
 and taking on himself a liability, conveyed his 
 property in trust for C. ; and B., in consideration 
 of A. so conveying the property, agreed to pay 
 A.'s debt and to take on himself a liability : — 
 
 Meld, that tliere was a consideration moving 
 from A. to B. and from B. to A., and that, there- 
 fore, the transaction did not amount to a voluntary 
 settlement either by A. or B. within s. 47 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883. In re Dale and Elsden 
 Stirling J. [1892] W, N. 56 
 
 273. — Title — Trustee in iankruptcy of settlor 
 — Vendor and purchaser — Bona fide purchaser for 
 value—Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 ss. 47, 48, suh-e. 2. 
 
 According to the true construction of s. 47 of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, a voluntary settlement 
 is not void against the settlor's trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy from its date, but is only void against the 
 trustee from the time when his title accrues ; so 
 that if before that time the property comprised in 
 the settlement has been sold, bona fide, to a pur- 
 chaser for value, the title of the purchaser will 
 be good as against the trustee. 
 
 In re Brail, [1893] 2 Q. B. 381, and In re 
 Holden, (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 43, approved. In re 
 Briggt and Spiaer, [1891] 2 Oh. 127, overruled 
 In re Oabtek and Kendebddtb's Contract 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 Discussed by Wright J. In re Tankard, 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 57, 60. 
 
 BANKETJPTCT ETTLES AND OBDEES. See 
 
 Table of Mules and Orders of Court judicially 
 considered. 
 
 BAEBADOS— Application of Colonial Probates 
 Act, 1892. 
 
 See Pbobate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1892. 
 
 BAEBADOS— co»(in«e(J. 
 
 SoLioiTOB.] 0. in C. extending the Colonial 
 Attorneys Belief Act to Barbados. St. E. & 0. 
 1899, No. 573. Price id. 
 
 Law of Barbados. 
 
 1. — Water Supply Act, 1886, ss. 11, 23— 
 Compensation — Past and future profits. 
 
 Compensation for the abstraction of streams 
 of water by a co. under the Water Supply Act, 
 1886, includes the value of the owners' proprietary 
 interest, and that possible future benefit is an 
 element not to be excluded in assessing such 
 compensation. Teent-Stouohton v. Bakbados 
 Water Supply Co. - P. C. [1893] A. C. 602 
 
 BAEBED WIEE. 
 
 See Highway — Obstruction. 
 
 BAEBEB — Exercising " worldly labour, business, 
 or work" on Sunday. 
 See Sunday. 1. 
 
 BAEONY TITIE— Coal below low-water mark- 
 Lease of coal — Minor — ^Adoption. 
 ;£iee Mines — Leases. 12. 
 
 BAEEATEY — Master part-owner of ship — Mort- 
 gagee. 
 See Insubanoe — Karine. 28. 
 
 BASBISTEE. 
 
 — Counsel — Law patents — Fees. 
 
 See Fees — Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. 
 
 Me the proportion of the fees of junior counsel tn 
 
 those of their leaders in ci oil proceedings — Beport of 
 
 the General Council of the Bar. W. N. 1900 (Deo. 8), 
 
 p. 325. See Current Index, 1900, p. Izzzviii. 
 
 — Consultations. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Costs. 65. 
 — ■ Pees. 
 
 See Costs— XJonnsel's Fees. 
 
 — Mistake of 
 
 See OoMPBOMiSE. 2. 
 
 — Order striking off the roll reversed — Practice. 
 
 See Gold Coast. 2. 
 
 — Power to issue patents of precedence — Powers 
 
 of provincial legislature. 
 See Canada. 41. 
 
 — Retainers — Costs — Taxation — Discretion of 
 
 taxing master. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — Costs. 78. 
 Retainers of Counsel — Bule of the Profession — 
 General Council of the Bar. Vf. N. 1897 (June 6), 
 p. 183. See Current Index, 1897, p. Ixvii. 
 
 Betainers of Counsel — General Council of the 
 Bar—Betainer Rule 20. W. N. 1899 (Jan. 21), 
 p. 45. See Current Index, 1899, p. cxxii. 
 
 — Taxes management — Power to barristers and 
 
 solicitors to plead before the general 
 commissioners. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict 
 c. 10), s. 16. 
 
 BASE-FEE — Fee simple absolute— Acknowledg- 
 ment. 
 See Husband and Wipe- Generally. 5. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land — Base-Fee. 20. 
 BASTAEDY— Grant of administration. 
 
 See PROBATB—Grant of Administration 
 22. 
 
( 187 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 188 ) 
 
 BASTARDY— conWmMed!. 
 
 1. — Jurisdiction — Absence from England of 
 alleged father — Ceasing to reside in England within 
 the twelve months next after the birth — Bastardy 
 Laws Amendment Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Yict. c. 65), 
 8. 3. 
 
 By s. 3 of the Bastardy Laws Amendment 
 Act, 1872, an affiliation summons may be applied 
 for either before the birth of the child " or at 
 any time within twelve months from the birth of 
 such child .... or at any time within the twelve 
 months next after the return to England of the 
 man alleged to be the father of such child, upon 
 proof that he ceased to reside in England within 
 the twelve months next after the birth of such 
 child." — The alleged father of a bastard child 
 left England about a month before the child's 
 birth, and did not return till the child was 
 fifteen mouths old. The mother then took out a 
 summons which was dismissed for want of juris- 
 diction on the ground that the summons was out 
 of time. 
 
 Held, that the alleged father ceased to reside 
 in England during the whole period of his 
 absence ; that he was therefore a person wlio had 
 "ceased to reside in England within the twelve 
 months next after the birth of such child " within 
 the meaning of s. 3 of the Act of 1872, and that 
 the justices had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a 
 summons taken out within twelve months after 
 his return. Kes. v. Evans 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B. 228 
 
 Referred to by Jeune P. Heard v. Heard, 
 [1896], pp. 188, 190. 
 
 — Illegitimate children en ventre sa mere. 
 
 See Settlement — Construction, 8. 
 
 — Illegitimate children. 
 
 See WiLL^ChUdren. 36—38. 
 
 2. — Service of notice — " Last place of abode " 
 — Jurisdiction of Justices — 35 & 36 Vict. v. 65, 
 ss. 3, 4. 
 
 A bastardy summons was served at the house 
 where the putative father had resided when last 
 in England. At the time of the service he was 
 resident in America : — 
 
 Held, that his "last place of abode" for 
 service within s. i of the Bastardy Laws Amend- 
 ment Act, 1872, was his American residence, and 
 the service was bad : 
 
 Held, also, that the Court had power on an 
 application for a certiorari to inquire into the 
 validity of the service, as the jurisdiction of the 
 justices only attached on proof that the summons 
 was duly served. Eeg. v. Farmer 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 637 
 
 Referred to by Lawrance J. Beg. v. Webb, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 487, 491. 
 
 3. — Service of summons — Putative father out 
 of jurisdiction — " Last place of abode " — Bastardy 
 Laws Amendment Act 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 65), 
 s. 4. 
 
 By the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, 
 s. 4, after the birth of a bastard child, on proof 
 that the summons was left at the last place of 
 abode of the person summoned, six days at least 
 before the petty sessions, the justices may make 
 an order. 
 
 Shortly after the birth of a child the person 
 
 BkSTABjyS— continued. 
 
 alleged to be the father left the house where he 
 had up to that time resided, and went to America, 
 but the evidence did not show that he had any 
 place of abode in America. Ten days after the 
 birth a summons was left at the house where he 
 had resided : — 
 
 Held, that this house was his last place of 
 abode, within the meaning of the Act, and the 
 service was sufficient. 
 
 Dictum of Lord Selbome in Berlcley v. Tliomp- 
 son, (1885) 10 App. Cas. 45, at p. 49, explained 
 and distinguished. Eeo. v. Webb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B. 487 
 
 4. — Simultaneous applications to [several 
 justices — Summons heard on one application — Dis- 
 missal on merits — Summons issued on another of 
 the applications — Jurisdiction — Bastardy Laws. 
 Amendment Act, 1872 (35 * 36 Vict. v. 65), s. 3. 
 
 A bastard child having been born in Sept. 
 1896, the niother on Oct. 21, 1896, made three 
 separate applications to three different justices 
 for a bastardy summons against the deft., but as 
 she was at that time unable to find him the issue 
 of the summons was suspended. In July, 1897, 
 the mother, having found the deft., procured 
 one of the three justices to issue his summons 
 upon the application so made to him on Oct. 21, 
 1896. On Nov. 3, 1897, that summons was 
 heard, and dismissed on the ground that the 
 evidence was insufficient. On Nov. 17, 1897, she 
 procured another of the three justices to issue a 
 further summons againstthe deft., which summons 
 purported to be founded on the application to the 
 said justice of Oct. 21, 1896. The summons was 
 heard and a bastardy order made : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the three applications made on 
 Oct. 21, 1896, were in substance but one applica- 
 tion, and were exhausted by the hearing and dis- 
 missal of the summons on Nov. 3, 1897, and 
 that the order was consequently made without 
 jurisdiction. Eeo. v. Eobinson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 734 
 BATHS AND WASHHOUSES— .Ba<As and Wash- 
 houses Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. a. 29), amends the 
 Baths and Washhouses Acts. 
 
 Circular issued in 1899 by Loc. Gov. Bd. to 
 clerks to towns, urban districts and parish councils 
 with reference to this Act. 
 — Misapplication of rates. 
 
 See London — Vestries. 97. 
 
 BEACON— Buoy — Gas float — Salvage — Juris- 
 diction. 
 See Shipping— Salvage.. 239. 
 
 BEABEB — Debenture payable to — Usage. 
 See Negotiable Insteument. 2. 
 
 BED OF RIVEE— Presumption that, ad medium 
 lilum passes by conveyance — ^Eebuttal — 
 Evidence. 
 See Water. 41, 45. 
 
 " BEDDING"— Bedstead— Privileged^ from dis- 
 tress. 
 See Distress.112. 
 
 BEER — Public-house — Lease — Eestrictive cove- 
 nant. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant— CoYenant, 
 13, 15, 17, 18, 37. 
 
( 189 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 190 ) 
 
 i'EER— continued. 
 
 — Sale at unauthorised plaoe- 
 
 8ee Licensing Acts. 
 
 -Gifences. 
 28, 34, 35. 
 
 BEEBH01TS£S. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 BEHEING SEA SEAL EISHEEY— Conwe?i<&» 
 hetween Great Britain and the United States for 
 submission to arbitration of British claims. Bati- 
 Acations exchanged at London, June 3, 1896. 
 1896 [C. 8101]. Price id. 
 
 — Seal Fishery. 
 
 See FiSHBET — Sea, 
 
 BELGIUir — Extradition treaty between Great 
 Britain and. 1896 [C. 8285]. Price id. 
 
 Mabbiagbs.] Modification of form of decla- 
 ration to be issued by Belgium Legation in London 
 in cases of mixed marriages in U. K. between 
 British and Belgian subjects. Lond. Gaz. Feb. 19. 
 1897, p. 384. 
 
 — Fisheries Act. 
 
 jSee FiSHEEY — Sea. 
 
 BENEFICE. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 " BENEFICIAL OCCUPATION " — Preferential 
 payments. 
 
 See Company — ■Winding-up — Prefer- 
 ence. 
 
 BENEFICIAL OWNER— Conveyance as. 
 
 See Vendob and Puechaseb — Convey- 
 ance. 38, 89. 
 
 BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY. 
 
 See BtriLDiNG Society. 
 
 BERMUDA— Death duties. 
 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 1. — Will — Evidence of execution — Denial by 
 attesting witness — Testamentary capacity. 
 
 Case in which probate of a will which had 
 been originally granted on the evidence of the 
 two attesting witnesses was confirmed, notwitli- 
 standing that one of them retracted his evidence 
 and in effect swore to the signatures of testator 
 and witnesses having been forged, and the other 
 witness was not called. In the circumstances, 
 the later evidence of the one was held to be 
 incredible, and the absence of the other to be 
 satisfactorily explained. 
 
 Testamentary capacity is not disproved by 
 evidence of the testator's merely eccentric acts 
 and conduct. Pilkington v. Geay 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C, 401 
 BEKNE CONVENTION. 
 
 See OoPYBiGHT — International. 
 
 "BEST RENT"- Lease under Settled Land 
 Acts. 
 See Settled Land — Leases. 67. 
 
 " BETTERMENT "—Initial valuation— Trade in- 
 terest — Tied public-house. - 
 See Rates — Eateability. 31. 
 
 BETTING. 
 
 See Cases under Gamotg. 
 BETTING -HOUSE — Person found therein — 
 
 Arrest — Power to bind over — Evidence. 
 
 See Gaminq. 2. 
 
 BIAS— Arbitrator. 
 
 See Abbitbation— Arbitrator. 11—13, 
 19. 
 
 — Disqualification — Prosecution by council — 
 
 Adjudication by ordinary member. 
 See Justices — Disq^ualification. 49. 
 
 — General rule. 
 
 See Justices — Disqualification. 47. 
 
 — Pecuniary interest as ratepayer. 
 
 See Justices — Disqualification, 48. 
 
 — Salmon fishery. 
 
 See Justices — Disqualification. 52. 
 
 BICYCLE — Arrest of rider — Justification — Local 
 Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vid. c. 41), s. 85. 
 A constable who sees a person riding a bicycle 
 at night without a proper light, contrary to the 
 provisions of s. 85 of the Local Government Act, 
 1888, has no power to stop him for the purpose 
 of ascertaining his name and address. Hatton 
 «. Teeeby - Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 482 
 
 — Passengers' luggage — " Ordinary luggage." 
 
 See Railway — Passengers. 25. 
 
 2.— Toll, Liability to— " Carriage "—7 Geo. 3, 
 a. Ixiii. 
 
 By a special Act, passed in 1767, the owner 
 of a bridge across the Thames, and his heirs and 
 assigns, were authorized to take the following 
 (amongst other) tolls for passage over the bridge : 
 " For every coach, chariot, berlin, hearse, chaise, 
 chair, calash, wagon, wain, dray, cart, oar, or 
 other carriage whatsoever with four wheels the 
 sum of fourpence, and with less than four wheels 
 the sum of twopence " : — 
 
 Held, that a bicycle ridden over the bridge 
 was a "carriage" within the meaning of the 
 Act, so that the owner of the bridge was entitled 
 to take the toll of twopence in respect of the 
 bicycle. Cannan v. Eael op Abingdon 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 a. B, 66 
 BIGAMY. 
 
 See DivOEOE — Bigamy. 
 
 — Jurisdiction — Bigamy committed within the 
 
 Colony. 
 
 See New South Wales. 13. 
 
 BILL OF COSTS— Taxation. 
 
 "See Cases under Solicitob. 
 
 BILL OF 'EXCKATSQ'E — Acceptance, whether 
 qualified — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 61), ss. 8, 19, 3G. 
 
 If the acceptor of a bill of exchange desires 
 to qualify his acceptance, he must do so on the 
 face of the bill in clear and unequivocal terms, 
 and so that any person taking the bill could not 
 if he acted reasonably fail to understand that it 
 was accepted subject to an expressed qualifica- 
 tion. Meyee & Co. v. Deokoix, Vekley et Cie. 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 680 affirm. 
 C. A. (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 343 
 
 — Action on — Claim for interest specially in- 
 
 dorsed on writ. 
 See Pbactice— Writ. 290. 
 2. — • Alteration — Fraudulent alteration — Ac- 
 cepting bill which gives facilities for alteration — • 
 Negligence — Stamp of larger amount than neces- 
 sary — Estoppel — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), «. 64. 
 
 The acceptor of a bill of exchange is not 
 
( 191 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 192 ) 
 
 BILL or EXCSASQE—coniimied. 
 under a duty to take precautions against fraudu- 
 lent alteration in the bill after acceptance. 
 
 A bill for 5001. was presented for acceptance 
 ■with a stamp of much larger amount than was 
 necessary and with spaces left. The acceptor 
 wrote his acceptance and handed the bill to the 
 drawer, who fraudulently filled up the spaces 
 and turned it into a bill of 3500Z. Being sued 
 on the bill by a boiiS, fide holder for value the 
 acceptor paid 500i;. into court : — 
 
 Held, afBrming the decisions of Charles J., 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 660, and of the Court of Appeal, 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 536, that the acceptor owed no 
 duty of precaution to the pit., and was guilty of 
 no negligence, and was entitled to judgment. 
 
 Young v. Grote, (1927) 4 Bing. 253, commented 
 on. ScHOLriELD V. Earl of Londesbobough 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 514 
 — Cheque. 
 
 See Cases under Banker. 
 
 3. — Consideration, Action on — Bill coming 
 into hands of plaintiff after action brought. 
 
 Whore a buyer of goods has given a bill of 
 exchange for the price, an action will not lie for 
 the price, even after dishonour of the bill, if at 
 the date of the commencement of the action the 
 bill is outstanding in the hands of a third party. 
 It is not enough to entitle the pit. to succeed 
 that he is in possession of the bill at the date of 
 the trial. Davis v. Eeilly 
 
 Div. Ct, [1897] W, S. 162 (2); 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 4. — Dishonour — Days of grace — Payment — 
 Accruer of right of action — Bills of Exchange Act, 
 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. u. 61), ss. 14, 47. 
 
 A right of action does not accrue on a bill of 
 exchange until after the expiration of the whole 
 of the last day of grace, although a right to 
 protest and to give notice of dishonour accrues 
 immediately on refusal of payment. Kennedy v. 
 Thomas - - C. A. revers. Cave J. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 759 
 
 6. — Dishonour, Notice of — Banlt with several 
 Branches — Notice to wrong branch — Bills of Ex- 
 change Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 61), s. 49, 
 sub-ss. 12 (6), 13. 
 
 A branch of a country banking co. received 
 from a customer a bill of exchange and forwarded 
 it to a London bank for presentation. Tlie bill 
 was dishonoured, and the London bank on the 
 following day sent notice of dishonour by post to 
 a branch of the country banking co., but not to 
 the branch from which they had received the 
 bin. On the next day they discovered the mis- 
 take, and telegraphed notice of dishonour to the 
 branch from which they had received the bill. 
 The notice given by that branch, and all sub- 
 sequent notices, including that to the deft., who 
 was an indorser of the bill, were sent in due time. 
 In an action by the holder of the bill : — 
 
 Held,, by A. L. Smith and Eigby L.JJ., 
 Collins L.J. dissenting, that suflBcient notice of 
 dishonour had been sent by the London bank to 
 comply with the provisions of s. 49, sub-ss. 12, 
 13, of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. 
 
 Held, by Collins L.J., that for the purpose of 
 notice of dishonour the branches of a bank must 
 be regarded as distinct, that the written notice 
 
 BILL OF 'ESSSB.k.'SG'E— continued. 
 by the London bank, not having been sent to 
 their principals, was ineffective, and could not 
 be made eftective by the telegram, which was 
 out of time. Fielding & Co. v. Cokkt 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 a. B. 268 
 
 6. — Expenses — Froof — Bill of Exchange Act, 
 1882 (45 A 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 51, svh-ss. 2,5; s. 57, 
 sub-s. 1 (e) ; ss. 65-68, s. 97. 
 
 Drawers of unpaid bills of exchange are 
 entitled under s. 51, sub-s. 2, and s. 57, sub-s. 1, 
 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, to prove for 
 expenses of protest for non-payment, but not for 
 expenses of protest for better security or for com- 
 missions paid to their own bankers. In re 
 English Bank op the Eivek Plate. Ex parte 
 Bank of Brazil , - Chitty J. [1893] 2 Oh. 438 
 
 7. — Fictitious or non-existent person — Lia- 
 bility of bank for payment of forged bills — Bills of 
 Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 61), s. 7, 
 suh-s. 3. 
 
 A clerk prepared certain documents in the 
 form of bills to which he forged the names of 
 two firms with whom his principal had dealings, 
 one as drawer and the other as payee. He also 
 by fraud obtained the signature of his principal 
 as acceptor of the documents, and also to letters 
 advising the bank that they were coming in for 
 payment. The bank paid the money to the 
 forger : — 
 
 Hdd, by H. L. (Lords Bramwell and Field, 
 diss.), that the loss fell on the principal and not 
 on the bank : 
 
 Held, also, that if the Bills of Exchange Act, 
 1882, applied, the bills were payable to bearer, 
 as the words " fictitious or non-existent person " 
 in s. 7, sub-s. 3, included a real person who never 
 had or was intended to have any right to the 
 bill. Decisions of Charles J., (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 
 103; and C. A. (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 243. Bank 
 OP England v. Vagliano Bkothers 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 107 
 
 Eeferred to. Glutton v. Attenborough & Son, 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 306 ; H. L. (E) [1897] A. C. 90, 93. 
 — Forged indorsement — Payment to bona fide 
 holder — Eight to recover money. 
 See No. 15, below. 
 
 8. — Form — BiU made payable to " 
 
 order "—Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 61), ss. 3, 5, 7, 65. 
 
 An instrument made payable to " order," 
 
 the blank never having been filled in, must be 
 construed as payable to " my order " — that is, to 
 the order of the drawer, and, if indorsed by him, 
 it becomes a valid bill of exchange. Chambek- 
 lain v. Young C. A, [1893] 2 ft. B. 208 
 
 9. — Guarantee — Seneical — Variation. 
 
 A. guaranteed the payment of two bills of a 
 certain amount each as a condition for renewal. 
 The pits, did not renew the bills, but granted new 
 bills of a different amount; but the total sura 
 covered by the new bills was the same as that 
 covered by the old : — 
 
 Held, that " renew " was not used in a tech- 
 nical sense, and that the guarantor intended to 
 guarantee the debt represented by the old bills. 
 Decision of North J. [1892] W. N. 87, reversed. 
 Bakbek v. Mackeell - C. A, [1892] W. N. 133 
 
< 193 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 194 ) 
 
 BILL OF EXCHANGE— conimMeA 
 
 10. — Indorsement — Negotiation — Contempt of 
 Court — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Tict. 0. 61), ss. 2, 31, sm6-ss. 1, 4. 
 
 A deft, was restrained from negotiating certain 
 iills payable to his order. The bills at the date 
 of the order were in the possession of liis solicitor 
 as a security for a debt. Subsequently deft., 
 at the solicitor's request, indorsed one of the 
 JsilJs:— 
 
 Held, that the delivery of unindorsed bills to 
 the solicitor was not negotiating them ; that the 
 indorsement by converting the solicitor from a 
 transferee into a " holder " was negotiation ; and 
 that the solicitor, by exercising his right to call 
 for indorsement vmder s. 31, sub-s. 4, of the Bills 
 of Exchange Act, 1882, and the deft, by making 
 the indorsement were guilty of a contempt of 
 Court. " Bearer " means the person in possession 
 of a bill payable to " bearer." " Holder " means 
 the payee or indorsee of a bill or note. Day 
 V. LoNGHUBST - Stirling J. [1893] W. IT. 3 
 
 11. — Indorser — Bill not complete and regular 
 — Indorsement hy way of security — Bills of Ex- 
 change Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. e. 61), «s. 55, 56. 
 
 It was agreed between the pits, and A., who 
 owed them money, that they should draw a bill 
 on him, and that the deft., who was A.'s father, 
 should indor.se it to guarantee payment. They 
 accordingly drew a bill on A. to their own order 
 and, without indorsing it, gave it to A., who 
 returned it to them accepted by himself, and 
 indorsed by the deft. They then indorsed it, 
 and it was not paid at maturity. 
 
 In an action against the deft. :— 
 
 Held, that he was not liable as indorser under 
 s. 55 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, nor as 
 having incurred the liabilities of indorser under 
 s. 56, since at the time he put hia name on the 
 hill it was not complete and regular on the face 
 of it, as it lacked the plt.'s indorsement; nor 
 was he liable on a contract of suretyship, since 
 the provisions of the Statute of Frauds were not 
 satisfied. 
 
 The principles 1 aid do wn in SfeeZe v. McKirday, 
 
 (1880) 5 App. Cas. 754, are not affected by the 
 
 provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. 
 
 Jenkins & Sons v. Coombeb - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 168 
 
 12. — Infant — Acceptance — Infants' Belief 
 Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Viet. c. 62), s. 1— Bills of 
 Mxchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), ». 22. 
 
 An infant cannot bind himself by the accept- 
 ance of a bill of exchange, even when the Bill is 
 given for the price of necessaries supplied to him 
 during infancy. Such an acceptance is wholly 
 void, even in the hands of an indorsee for value 
 without notice of the Infancy. In re Solttkoff. 
 ExpaMe Mabgbett C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 413 
 
 — Liquidated demand — Indorsement of writ — 
 
 Bill of exchange — Expenses of noting. 
 
 See Pbaotice— Writ. 290. 
 
 13. — Misappropriation iy agent (24 & 25 
 Viet. e. 96) 8. 75. 
 
 Acceptances with the drawer's name in blank 
 were delivered by prosecutors to the prisoner to 
 be discounted. He subsequently completed the 
 hills, discounted them, and converted the pro- 
 ceeds to his own use : — 
 
 BILL OF EX.OHA.SCc'E— continued. 
 
 Held, that the acceptances were "securities 
 for the payment of money " within s. 75 of the 
 Larceny Act, 1861. Keg. v. Boweeman 
 
 C. C. E. [1891] 1 Q. B. 118 
 
 14. — Oral agreement to renew — Inadmissi- 
 hility of evidence — Bills of Exchange Act, 1862 
 (45 & 46 Vict. 0. 61), „. 21, sub-s. 2 (6) ; s. 29, 
 sub-8. 2. 
 
 Evidence of a contemporaneous oral agree- 
 ment to renew a bill of exchange is inadmissible 
 on the ground that its effect would be to contra- 
 diet the terms of the written agreement. 
 
 Young v. Austen, (1869) L. K. 4 C. P. 553, 
 followed. New Loudon Cbedit Stndioatb, Ld. 
 V, Nealb - C. A. [1898] 2 ft. B. 487 
 
 15. — Payment — Forged indorsement — Pay- 
 ment to hondjide holder — Bight to recover money. 
 
 When a bill becomes due and is presented 
 for payment, and is paid in good faith and the 
 money is received in good faith, if such an 
 interval of time has elapsed that the position of 
 the holder may have been altered, the money 
 so paid cannot be recovered from the holder, 
 although indorsements on the bill subsequently 
 prove to be forgeries. London and Eiveb Plate 
 V. Bank of Livebpool 
 
 Mathew J. [1896] 1 Q. B. 7 
 
 16. — ■ Payment and discharge — Cancellation 
 without authority. 
 
 Where an agent is employed by the holder of 
 a bill to receive payment from the acceptor, and 
 receives payment from him clogged with a con- 
 dition without assent to which the holder is not 
 entitled to retain the money paid, the agent is 
 not entitled to treat such conditional payment as 
 if it were an absolute payment, and to cancel the 
 bill, as paid before he has received the assent to 
 the condition. Decision of Ct. of Sess., Dominion 
 Bank v. Banlc of Scotland, (1889) 16 K. 1081, 
 affirmed. Bank of Scotland v. Dominion Bank 
 (ToBONTO) - H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 592 
 
 17. — Procuration — Acceptance or indorse- 
 ment "per pro" — Agent's authority. 
 
 Where an agent accepts or indorses " per pro," 
 the taker of the bill or note so accepted or in- 
 dorsed is bound to inquire as to the extent of the 
 agent's authority. Where an agent has such 
 authority, his abuse of it does not affect a bonS. 
 fide holder for value. Bbyant, Powis & Bbtant 
 V. Banque du Peuplb. Same v. Qdebeo Bank, 
 Ld. - _ - p. 0. [1893] A. 0. 170 
 
 18. — Promissory note — Document containing 
 imnecessary provisions — Bills of Exchange Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 83, suh-s. 3. 
 
 The pit. sued as indorsee of a document, 
 described as a promissory note, which provided 
 for payment of certain money by instalments, 
 the whole to become due on default In payment 
 of any one instalment and contained the follow- 
 ing clause : " No time given to, or security taken 
 from, or composition or arrangements entered 
 Into with, either party hereto, shall prejudice the 
 rights of the holder to proceed against any other 
 party " : — 
 
 Held, that the document was not a promissory 
 note, and could not be sued on as such. Kiek- 
 wooD V. Smith Div. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B. 583 
 
 H 
 
( 195 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 196 ) 
 
 BILL OF EXCHANGE— conMreae^. 
 
 19. — Promissory note— Note left in hands of 
 payee after payment — Negotiation hy payee — 
 Note obtained hy payee from holder hy fraud — 
 Note returned to maker — Liability of maker on 
 note — Holder for value — Overdue note — Holder 
 " in his own right " — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 
 (45 * 46 Tict. c. 61), s. 61. 
 
 In a. 61 of tlie Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, 
 ■which enacts that when the acceptor of a bill is 
 or becomes the holder of it at or after Its maturity, 
 in his own right, the bill is discharged, the 
 expression "in his own right" is not used in 
 contradistinction to a right in a representative 
 capacity, but indicates a right not subject to that 
 of another person, and good against all the 
 ■world. 
 
 The deft, gave three promissory notes to cover 
 his indebtedness to the payee, and subsequently 
 two more notes, in substitution for the first 
 three and to cover further advances. All the 
 notes were payable on demand and were given 
 on the understanding that they should not be 
 negotiated. The payee indorsed all five notes 
 generally to the pits. After the payee had so 
 negotiated the notes the deft, paid to him the 
 amount due on the last two notes, but the deft, 
 was not aware that the payee had parted with 
 the notes, and did not ask for or receive any 
 of them from him. At a later date the payee 
 obtained the five notes from the pits, by fraud, 
 and handed them to the deft. In an action by 
 the pits, on the notes : — 
 
 Held, that the deft., when he received back 
 the notes, did not become holder for value, since 
 the previous satisfaction of the notes by him 
 was not a consideration given by him when he 
 received back the notes, and that as they were 
 then overdue he acquired no better title than the 
 payee had while they were in his hands, and 
 that the pits., being entitled to disaflbm the 
 transaction between themselves and the payee, 
 by which the latter obtained possession of the 
 notes, could recover in the action. Nash v. De 
 Fkevillb - C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 72 
 
 — Stamp duty — Eeduotiou of duty on certain 
 
 bills of exchange. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict, 
 c. 9), 8. 10. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 142, 143. 
 
 20. — Promissory note — " On demand " — " At 
 Maturity " — Delivery — Benunciation — Parol — 
 " Maker "—Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 * 46 
 Vict. 0. 61), 88. 62 (8u6-s. 1), 89. 
 
 By s. 62, sub-s. 1, and s. 89 of the Bills of 
 Exchange Act, 1882, when the holder of a pro- 
 missory note at or after its maturity absolutely 
 and unconditionally renounces his rights against 
 the maker the bill is discharged, but the renun- 
 ciation must be in writing imless the note is 
 delivered to the " maker " : — 
 
 Held (aflSrming the decision of Kekewich J.), 
 that a parol renunciation by the holder of all 
 rights under a promissory note, accompanied by 
 a delivery of the note to a devisee of the maker, 
 the real estate in whose hands was liable to the 
 payment of the debt, and who had for some 
 time paid interest on it, did not operate as a 
 
 BILL OF 'EXCSANGX— continued. 
 discharge, for that although the word " maker " 
 would probably be held to include the executors 
 or administrators of the maker, it did not include- 
 his devisees. Edwaeds v. Walters 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 CSi. 15T 
 
 — Proof — Lumping debts and securities. 
 
 Sei Bankkuptot — Proof. 163. 
 
 — Rent, Bill of Exchange for — Landlord — ^Dis- 
 
 tress — ^Debentures — Eeceiver. 
 See Distbess. 4. 
 
 21. — gioen for Bent — Suspension of right of 
 distress. 
 
 The fact of a landlord taking a bill of ex- 
 change from his tenant for rent due is some 
 evidence of an agreement by the landlord to sus- 
 pend his remedy by distress during the currency 
 of the bill. Palmek v. Bhamlet 
 
 C. A, [1895] 2 a. B. 40» 
 
 — Reputed ownership— Assignment of debt — 
 
 Custom of trade. 
 
 See Bankeuptot — Order and Disposi- 
 tion. 127. 
 
 22. — Transfer — Indorsement abroad — Conflict 
 of laws — Equities — Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), S8. 29 (^sub-s. 2), 36 (s«6-s. 2),. 
 72 (sub-s. 2). 
 
 A bill of exchange drawn and accepted by 
 English firms and payable in England was 
 indorsed in Norway by the payees to the order 
 of M., who indorsed it in blank, and handed it 
 in Norway to S. as agent for A., an Englishman 
 resident in London, and for an English firm of 
 A. & Co. in which A. & J. were par-tners. \Mule- 
 the bill was current it was seized in executioo 
 under a Norwegian judgment against J., and 
 when overdue was sold by auction to M., who 
 sold the bill in Sweden to K. without any notice 
 of ^infirmity of title. On claims by K. and 
 A. & Co. to the proceeds of the bill : — 
 
 Held, (1) that as the question was, which of 
 two persons was entitled to receive payment ami 
 the payer was not affected, the Bills of Exchange 
 Act, 1882, s. 72, did not apply ; (2) that the case 
 was governed by the law of the country (Nor- 
 way) where the bill was transferred, and, OQ 
 that law, the equitable claim of A. & Co. couia 
 not be sustained. Alcock v. Smith 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 23S 
 
 23. — Words prohibiting transfer — Bills of 
 Exchange Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. v. 61), 
 ss. 8, 73, 76. 
 
 In order to prevent a cheque, drawn payable 
 to order, being negotiable, the intention must be 
 clearly expressed. Crossing the cheque to the 
 payee's account at a particular bank is not 
 sufficient. Conditions necessary for rendering » 
 cheque not negotiable considered. Nationai.. 
 Bank v. Silke - C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 435 
 
 BILL OF LADING. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Charterparty 
 (Bill of lading and). 
 
 BILL OF SALE. 
 
 The Bills of Sale Act, 1890, was amended hy 
 the Bills of Sale Act, 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 35). 
 
( 197 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 198 ) 
 
 BILL OF SAXE— continued. 
 
 1. — Address and description — Attesting wit- 
 ness—Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Viot. 
 c. 43), s. 9. 
 
 A bill of Bale contained two attestation 
 clauses attesting the execution by two diiferent 
 grantors. The name of the witness was the same 
 in both attestations, but the address and descrip- 
 tion of the witness was only appended to the 
 first attestation : — 
 
 Held, (1) that an irresistible inference arose 
 
 from what appeared on the face of the bill that 
 
 the witness of both clauses was the same ; (2) 
 
 that the bill of sale was valid. Bird v. Datby 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 29 
 
 2. — Address and description — Attesting wit- 
 ness and grantee. 
 
 In a bill of sale the grantee was described as 
 " the Discount Bank of London, of 6, Duncannon 
 Street, Charing Cross, in the County of Middle- 
 sex (of which said bank L. S. of the same place 
 is the sole proprietor)." The bill was attested 
 by a clerk of the grantee, who, in the attestation 
 clause, gave as his address his place of business 
 at the bank, and in the affidavit of execution 
 stated that he resided at another address ; — 
 
 Held, that the grantee was sufficiently 
 described, and that- the address of the attesting 
 witness was given and was sufficient. 
 
 Decisions of North J. and C. A. In re 
 Seseltine, Woodward v. Heseltine, [1891] 1 Ch. 
 464, reversed sub nom. Simmons v. Woodwabd 
 H. I. (E.) [1892] A. C. 100 
 
 Referred to bv C. A. Linfoot v. Foclcett, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 835, 847. 
 
 3. i — Address and description — Attesting wit- 
 ness — Form in seliedule — I^lls of Sale Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 9. 
 
 The meaning of the term " description '' in 
 the form in the schedule to the Bills of Sale Act, 
 1882, which requires the description of the 
 witness attesting a bill of sale to be given, is not 
 confined to the description of his occupation. 
 
 Where the attestation clause of a bill of sale 
 contained no description of an attesting witness 
 who had no occupation :— 
 
 Held, that the bill of sale was void as not 
 being in accordance with the form in the schedule 
 to the Bills of Sale Act, 1882. Sims v. Teollope 
 & Sojfs - C. A. [1896] W. H. 160 (4) ; 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 24 
 
 4. — Address and description — Grantor — 
 Address of—Validity— Bills of Sale Act (1878) 
 Amendment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 43), s. 9, 
 Sched. 
 
 A bill of sale given by way of security for 
 the payment of money by the grantor is void, 
 under s. 9 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, as 
 not made in accordance with the form in the 
 schedule, if the grantee's address be not given in 
 the bill of sale. Alteee v. Altkee. Staffobd- 
 BHiRB Financial Co., Claimants 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] a ft, B. 287 
 
 5. — Address and description — Grantor — 
 Gentleman of no occupation — Dormant partner — 
 Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 31), 
 t. 10. 
 
 Sect, 10 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, does 
 
 BILL OF SkVE— continued. 
 not require the grantor to state every under- 
 taking in which he was interested ; but he must 
 BO describe himself that those who knew him 
 would recognise him. 
 
 W., a country gentleman, was a sleeping 
 partner in certain firms ; in one case the partner- 
 ship was under articles, in the other cases at 
 will :— 
 
 Held, that his description in a bill of sale of 
 which he was grantor as " gentleman, of no 
 occuimtion," was substantially correct. Feast v. 
 EoBiNSON & Fisher Eomer J. [1894] W. N. 14 
 
 6. — Address and description — Grantor — 
 Residence— Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. 
 0. 43). 
 
 The address of the grantor of a bill of sale 
 appearing in the body of the bill need not be 
 his actual place of residence or his place of 
 business. 
 
 The grantor of a bill of sale gave in the body 
 of the bill of sale his address as that of a club of 
 which he was a member, to which letters might 
 be sent to him with the certainty that they would 
 be received by him : — 
 
 Held, that the bill of sale was not void as 
 deviating from the scheduled form. Doloini v. 
 DoLCiNi - - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 ft. B. 898 
 
 7. — Address and description — Grantor Icnown" 
 only under assumed name — Bill registered under 
 true name — Validity — Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 
 <fe 42 Vict. c. 31), «. 10, sub-s. 2. 
 
 An unmarried wom m of the name of Ott,. 
 about the year 1 879, went to live with a man as 
 his mistress and took the name of Mrs. Spencer, 
 by which name alone she was thenceforward 
 known. In 1893 the man made a settlement 
 upon her, and in that settlement she was described 
 by her true name of Ott. In 1899 she executed 
 an absolute deed of assignment of certain personal 
 chattels to the trustees of the settlement, by 
 whom it was registered, and in that deed of 
 assignment and the registration of it she was 
 described by the name of Ott alone, no reference 
 being made to the name of Spencer. The chattels 
 comprised in the deed having been seized in- 
 execution of a judgment, the trustees of the 
 settlement claimed them. On the trial of an^ 
 interpleader issue, it was contended by the execu- 
 tion creditor that the deed, not having beeit 
 registered in the name of Spencer, was invalid : — 
 
 Held, that the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, did 
 not require the name of the grantor to be stated 
 at all, and that consequently the insertion in the 
 register of a name other than that by which alone 
 the grantor was known would not invalidate the 
 registration, even though the effect of it was to 
 deprive persons searching the register of all means 
 of ascertaining therefrom whether the grantor 
 was the true owner or not of the chattels which 
 were in her possession. Stoees v. Spenoeb. 
 Hatdon, Claimant Div. Ct. [1900] 
 
 W, N. 141 ; [1900] 2 ft, B. 483 
 
 |8. — Address and description — Married woman 
 — Non-description of occupation — Validity — 
 Registration — Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 
 Vict. u. 31), «. 10, sub-s. 2. 
 
 In a bill of sale given by a married woman 
 living apart from her husband, and in the 
 
 H 2 
 
( 199 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 200 ) 
 
 BILI OF SALJ:— continued. 
 affidavit filed on registration, she was simply de- 
 scribed as a married woman, no occupation being 
 given. She was in fact employed as manager in 
 a dressmaking business at a weetly salary : — 
 
 Held, that the registration of the bill was 
 
 invalid, since her occupation ought to have been 
 
 described. Kemble v. Addison - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 430 
 
 9. — Affidavit of execution — Sworn hefore 
 solicitor of grantee — Validity of hill— Practice — 
 E. 8. C; Order xxxviii., r. 16 — " Party." 
 
 By Order xxxviii., r. 16, " No affidavit shall 
 be sufficient if sworn before the solicitor acting 
 for the party on whose behalf the affidavit is to 
 be used " : — 
 
 Held, that the above rule applies to affidavits 
 ■of execution of bills of sale, and that consequently 
 if an affidavit of execution be sworn before the 
 solicitor acting for the grantee in the prepara- 
 tion of the bill, the bill of sale will be void. 
 Bakbb v. Ambkose Wright J. [1896] 2 Q. B. 372 
 
 10. — Assignment for benefit of creditors — Ex- 
 clusion of creditors not executing within time 
 iimited— Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. 
 •«. 31), s. 4. 
 
 A debtor assigned all his personal estate to 
 trustees for the benefit of his creditors by a deed 
 registered under the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 
 1887, but not registered as a bill of sale. The 
 deed contained a proviso that no creditor should 
 benefit who d'd not within three months assent to 
 the deed : — ■ 
 
 Held, that notwith^tanding the proviso, the 
 deed was " an assignment for the benefit of the 
 creditors of the person making the same," within 
 s. 4 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, and did not 
 require to be registered as a bill of sale. 
 Hadley & Son v. Beedom 
 
 Div. Ct. [189S] 1 Q. B. 646 
 11. — Attesting witness — Validity of attesta- 
 /lion — Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), ss. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 The sole attesting witness of the bill of 
 .-sale was the agent and manager of one of the 
 firms who were grantees. He had conducted 
 the negotiations with respect to the giving of the 
 bill of sale and the payment of the composition, 
 and he had to see that such composition was paid 
 to the creditors other than the gi'antees : — 
 
 Held, that the bill of sale was duly attested, 
 'because the attesting witness was not a "party 
 ■thereto" within the meaning of s. 10 of the Act 
 .®f 1882. Peace v. Bbooks 
 
 Hawkins J. [1895] 2 Q. B. 451 
 13. — Attorney, power of, to execute hill of 
 ■sale — Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 
 1882 (45 <fc 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 10. 
 
 A valid bill of sale may be executed by 
 attorney and the grantee is not necessarily ex- 
 ■oluded from being such attorney. Furnivall v. 
 Hudson - - North, J. [1893] 1 Ch. 335 
 
 Considered by North J. Dennison v. Teffs, 
 £1896] 1 Ch. 611, 616. 
 
 13. — Attornment— Bills of Sale Ads, 1878 
 <41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), s. 6; 1882 (J 5 & 46 Vict. 
 ■c. 48), ss. 3, 8, 9, 15. 
 
 "W. mortgaged premises occupied by him. 
 
 BILL or SALE — continued. 
 The mortgage deed contained an attornment 
 clause, and a power of distress on non-payment 
 of rent by way of interest on the loan. Sub- 
 sequently, by letter written to the mortgagee, 
 W. acknowledged that he held the mortgaged 
 premises as tenant at a weekly rent slightly in 
 eicess of the interest under the mortgage, 
 admitted arrears of rent to be due, and under- 
 took to deliver up possession at any time on four 
 weeks' notice : — 
 
 Held, that the attornment clause and the 
 letter modifying it were bills of sale and void 
 under s. 8 of the Act of 1882 for want of registra- 
 tion. Gkeen v. Mabsh C. a. [1892] 2 ft. B. 330 
 
 14. — Authority to sell — Written authcyrity — 
 Licence to take possession — Bills of Sale Acts, 
 1878 (41 dc 42 Vict. o. 31) ; 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. 
 c. 43). 
 
 The owner of goods seized tmder a writ of 
 fi. fa. verbally agreed with an auctioneer that in 
 consideration of his paying out the sheriff the 
 auctioneer should hold possession of the goods, 
 sell them by auction, and pay the balance (if 
 any) to the owner. This agreement was reduced 
 into writing and the sheriff was paid out, the 
 man in possession remaining in possession for the 
 auctioneer : — 
 
 Held, that the written agreement was not an 
 assurance or licence to take possession, or in any 
 other respect a biU of sale within the Acts of 
 1878 or 1882; as it did not constitute the 
 auctioneer's title, and did not operate, and was 
 not intended to operate, the goods were actually 
 transferred from sheriff to auctioneer. Chaeles- 
 WOBTH V. Mills H. L, (E.) [1892] A. C. 231 ; 
 
 revers. C. A. (1890) 25 ft. B. D. 421 
 Followed by C. A. Mamsay v. Marqrett, 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 18, 23. 
 
 15. — Condition — Contemporary instruinent 
 containing condition not in bill of sale — Bills of 
 Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), s. 10, sub-s. 3. 
 
 A husband and wife executed a bill of sale to 
 T. on chattels to secure repayment of a loan of 
 3001. with simple interest. The wife on the 
 same day mortgaged her interest under certain 
 wills to T. to secure repayment of SOOZ. with 
 compound interest. Both securities were given 
 for the same debt and as part of the same trans- 
 action. The bill was registered, but the Mort- 
 gage was not : — 
 
 Held, that the agreement in the mortgage to" 
 pay compound interest was a condition which 
 ought to have been written on the same paper as 
 the bill, and that the bill was therefore void 
 under a. 10, sub-s. 3, of the Bills of Sale Act, 
 1878. 
 
 In considering whether a defeasance or con- 
 dition is within that sub-s., it is immaterial 
 whether it is in favour of grantor or grantee. 
 Bdwakds v. Mabous - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 587 
 
 16. — Condition not expressed in BiU — Bills 
 of Sale Acts, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), s. 10, 
 sub-s. 3 ; 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 43). 
 
 The pit. signed a bill of sale and paid the 
 first instalment, and the deft, sent him a receipt 
 in a book, on the cover of which were printed, 
 "Rules and regulations which are strictly 
 
( 201 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 18J1— 1900. 
 
 ( 2J2 ; 
 
 BILL or SA.L'E—cmtimied. 
 adhered to." These rules and regulations con- 
 tained various provisions very hurdeiisome to the 
 pit., and which had not previously been men- 
 tioned to him. He did not assent so as to bind 
 himself to them ; but the deft, afterwards wrote 
 to him treating the rules and regulatioas as part 
 of the bargain : — 
 
 Held, that the bargain being complete at the 
 time when the bill of sale was executed, and the 
 rules and regulations being no part of it, the 
 false statement of the deft, that they were part of 
 the bargain did not enable the Court to hold as 
 against him that they were part of it, and so to 
 bold the bill of sale void as being made subject 
 to a condition or defeasance not expressed in it. 
 LiNFOOT V. PocKETT - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 83S 
 17. — Coneideration — Statement of — Farm 
 stock, specific description of — Schedule — Accor- 
 dance with form — Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 
 46 Vict.c. 43), 88. 4, 8, 9. 
 
 A bill of sale given in consideration of a 
 present advance is bad if it fails to contain an 
 acknowledgment of the receipt of the money. 
 
 Where the chattels comprised in a bill of sale 
 are of a kind which requires to be replaced from 
 time to time by the substitution of other similar 
 chattels, as in the case of the live stock on a 
 farm, a more specific description of them in the 
 schedule is necessary than in the case of chattels 
 which do not require to be replaced with the 
 same degree of frequency, such as the furniture 
 of a house. 
 
 A bUl of sale expressed the consideration to 
 be a sum of money " now due and owing." In 
 fact, part of the said sum was advanced con- 
 temporaneously with the execution of the deed. 
 Part of the chattels comprised in the bill were 
 described in the schedule as " Stock : 2 horses, 
 4 cows." There was no evidence that at the 
 date of the bill there were any other horses or 
 cows on the premises of the gi-antor : — 
 
 Seld, that there was not such a specific de- 
 scription of the stock as to satisfy s. 4 of the 
 Bills of Sale Act, 1882 ; and that the bill of sale 
 was void on the grounds that the consideration 
 was not truly stated, and that, as the bill omitted 
 to acknowledge the receipt of the money then 
 advanced, it was not in accordance with the 
 statutory form. Davies v. Jenkins 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. BT. 252 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 133 
 18. — Consideration — Statement of — Money 
 " now paid " — Promissory note not yet due — JBttls 
 of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), «. 8. 
 
 A bill of sale stated the consideration of it to 
 be a sum of money " now paid " by the grantee 
 to the grantor. Of the money paid by the 
 grantee to the grantor a part was, in pursuance 
 of a previous agreement between them, applied 
 by the grantor to the retirement of a promissory 
 note then current upon which the grantor and 
 grantee were jointly and severally liable : — 
 
 Seld, that as the liability, to the satisfaction 
 of which the money was agreed to be applied, 
 was a liability to a third person and not to the 
 grantee, the fact that the liability was not a debt 
 already due did not render it obligatory to set 
 out in the bill of sale the agreement as to the 
 application of the money, and that the considera- 
 
 BILL OF SALE— e 
 
 tion of the bill was not untruly stated. In re 
 
 "WiLTSHiBE. Ex parte Etnon Div. Ct. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 236; [1900] 1 ft. B. 96 
 
 19. — Consideration not truly stated — Sum 
 payable infuturo — Sum under 30i. — Bills of Sale 
 Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 43), ss. 8, 9, 12. 
 
 A bill of sale purported to be given in con- 
 sideration of 13Z. 12«, then owing by the grantors 
 upon a promissory note and of 1&. Ss. then paid 
 to the grantors, making together the sum of 30;., 
 the receipt of which the grantors thereby acknow- 
 ledged. The promissory noto referred to was for 
 the sum of HI. 3s. id. payable by weekly instul- 
 ments of lis. id, of which one had been paid 
 and the remainder had not become payable when 
 the bill of sale was given. The consideration 
 paid for the promissory note was Wl. only. The- 
 sum of \Sl. 8s. was paid to the grantors upon the 
 execution of the bill of sale : — 
 
 Held, that the bill of sale was void as not 
 truly stating the consideration for which it was 
 given, and as being given in consideration of a 
 sum under 30Z. Daelow v. Bland 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 a. B. 12& 
 
 20. — Consideration — Statement of — Term for 
 defeasance of security — Bills of Sale Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), ss. 8, 9. 
 
 An untrue statement of the consideration is' 
 not a deviation from the form in the sched. to th& 
 Bills of Sale Act, 1882 ; and therefore does not 
 render the bill wholly void under s. 9, but only 
 in respect of the personal chattels comprised 
 therein under s. 8. A collateral agreement that 
 the bill of sale shall not be made available till 
 certain other securities were exhausted is not a 
 term for the " defeasance " of the security : and 
 the non-insertion of such agreement does not 
 make the bill void under s. 9, as not being in 
 accordance with the form in the schedule, 
 Hbseltine v. Simmons C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 54? 
 
 21. — Consideration — Statement of — Undis- 
 closed Trust— Bills of SaU Acts, 1878 (41 & 42 
 Vict. V. 31), ss. 8, 10, suh-s. 3; 1882 (45 & 4a 
 Vict. c. 4.8), s. 5. 
 
 A debtor who owed a sum of money partly 
 secured by an existing bill of sale executed a 
 second bill of sale of the same chattels to secure 
 a fresh advance, on the understanding that out 
 of the sum advanced he should pay off the exist- 
 ing debt. The bill of sale was expressed to be- 
 made in consideration of the fresh advance, with- 
 out alluding to the intended application of the 
 money. The money was actually paid to the 
 grantor and applied by him as agreed : — 
 
 Held, (1) that tiie coneideration was truly 
 stated ; (2) that there was no undisclosed trust 
 within the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, s. 10, sub-s. 3. 
 Thomas v. Seakles C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 40S 
 
 22, — Covenant — Construction of covenants — 
 Covenant for payment of instalments reducing 
 amount as well as for payment of interest annually, 
 on amount — Covenant to produce receipt for rent... 
 &c.— Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 43), s.?. 
 
 A bill of sale contained a covenant to pay the- 
 amount by equal yearly instalments, and also a 
 covenant to pay interest "on the said sum" at a 
 given rate payable quarterly : it also contained a 
 
( 203 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 204 ) 
 
 BILL OF SALE — continued. 
 covenant to produce receipts for rent, &c., and 
 a proviso excluding seizure for cases not specified 
 in s. 7 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882 :— 
 
 BeM, that (1) the covenant as to payment of 
 interest referred to the amount of principal due 
 from time to time. (2) The covenant to produce 
 receipts must be read subject to the qualification 
 in s. 7 (4), that the goods could only be seized if 
 the failure to produce the receipts should be 
 without reasonable excuse and that the bill was 
 valid. Wbabdale Coal and Iron Co. v. Hodson 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 598 
 
 23. — Covenant — Receipt for rent, rates and 
 taxes — Covenant to produce "when called upon" 
 last — Power to seine on breach of any covenant — 
 Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. a. 43), ss. 7, 9. 
 
 By a bill of sale the grantor covenanted (inter 
 alia) to produce " when called upon " the last 
 receipt for the rent, rates and taxes of the pre- 
 mises where the chattels were ; and the deed 
 provided that the chattels thereby assigned 
 should not be liable to seizure or to be taken 
 possession of by the grantee for any cause other 
 than those specified in s. 7 of the Bills of Sale 
 Act, 1882 (the section being set out) ; and then 
 followed a further proviso that if the chattels 
 thereby assigned should be seized or taken pos- 
 session of by the grantee " in consequence of the 
 breach of any of the covenants therein contained," 
 he should be at liberty to sell the same. The 
 trustee in bankruptcy of thci^^antor contended 
 that the bill of sale was void because the second 
 proviso enabled the grantor to seize on non-pro- 
 duction of receipts for rent, &c., on an oral 
 demand, whereas the Act requires the demand 
 to be made in writing : — 
 
 Held, that the deed considered as a whole 
 substantially complied with the provisions of the 
 Act, and was valid. In re Bullock. Ex parte 
 Ward Wright J. [1899] W. N. 114 1 [1899] 
 
 2 Q. B. 517 
 
 24. — Covenant against obtaining credit else- 
 where — Maintenance of security — Bills of Sale 
 Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. e. 43), ss. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 A bill of sale was given to secure the repay- 
 ment of money advanced by several creditors of 
 the grantor, in order to enable him to pay a oom- 
 poiition to them and to others of his creditors. 
 It contained stipulations that the grantor, a 
 trader, should not during the existence of the 
 security obtain credit to the extent of 101. with- 
 out the consent of one of the firms parties thereto, 
 but this clause was not to apply to purchases of 
 goods from any of those firms ; that the grantor 
 would give them the greater portion of his 
 business, and that he would keep proper books 
 of account of his business, and permit any of the 
 firms or their agent to inspect the same : — 
 
 ffeld, that the insertion of those stipulations 
 rendered the bill of sale void, under s. 9 of the 
 Act of 1882, as not in accordance with the form 
 in the schedule. Peace v. Brookes 
 
 Hawkins J. [1896] 2 Q. B. 461 
 
 25. — Covenant to produce last receipt for rent 
 —Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), ss. 
 
 A bill of sale contained a covenant by the 
 
 BILL OF SALE — continued. 
 grantor to produce his last receipts for rent, 
 rates and taxes, and a proviso that the chattels 
 assigned should not be liable to seizure for any 
 cause other than specified in s. 7 of the Act of 
 1882 :— 
 
 Held, that the bill was not void as deviating 
 
 from the scheduled form. Caetwright v. Began 
 
 Dir. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 900 
 
 26. — Covenant to replace worn-out furniture 
 — Maintenance of security — Bills of Sale Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), ss. 4, 6, 9. 
 
 A bill of sale contained a covenant that the 
 grantor would not remove furniture, the subject 
 of the bill of sale, except to be repaired, without 
 consent of the grantee, and would replace any 
 articles damaged or worn out by others of equal 
 value : — 
 
 Meld, that the covenant might be iuserted, as 
 being " for the maintenance of the security," and 
 that the bill of sale did not deviate from the 
 form in the schedule to the Bills of Sale Act, 
 1882, and was therefore good. Seed v. Bradley 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 319 
 
 27. — Date of execution — Omission from copy 
 — Insertion in original and in affidavit — Validity 
 — Filing of copy and affidavit — Bills of Sale Act, 
 1878 (41 * 42 Vict. 31), s. 10, sub-s. 2. 
 
 A bill of sale is not void because the copy of 
 the bOl of sale required to be filed by s. 10, sub- 
 s. 2, of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, leaves the date 
 of the execution of the bill of sale in blank, if 
 the date is truly stated in the original bill of 
 sale, and in the affidavit filed under the same 
 section. Thomas v. Egberts. Smith, Claimant 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 a. B. 667 
 
 — Debentures — Covering deed. 
 
 See CoMPAUx — Debentures. 34. 
 
 — Debentures of incorporated Company — Priority 
 
 over execution creditors. 
 , See Company — ^Debentures. 29. 
 
 28. — Debenture of industrial and Provident 
 Society— Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c, 43), 8. 17. 
 
 Inasmuch as there is not in the case of 
 societies registered under the Industrial and 
 Provident Societies Acts a statutory provision 
 requiring their securities to be registered, deben- 
 tures given by societies registered under these 
 Acts are not (like the debentures of companies 
 under the Companies Act, 1862), exempted by 
 s. 17 of the BUls of Sale Act, 1882, from the 
 statutory requirements in respect of bills of sale. 
 Great Nobthebn Ky. Co. v. Coal Co-operative 
 Society V. WUliams J. [1895] W. N. 142 (6) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 187 
 
 — Delay in possession and registration — 
 
 Validity. 
 
 See New South Wales. 2. 
 
 29. — Delivery Order— Bills of Sale Aois, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Vict, c 31), 88. 3, 4 ; 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 43), 8. 8. 
 
 The pit. borrowed two sums from the deft, 
 on the security of furniture warehoused with T., 
 giving two promissory notes and two memoranda 
 undertaking to pay interest on the two suras, and 
 handing to T. a delivery order in favour of the 
 
( 205 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 206 ) 
 
 BILL OF SA.'LE—eontinued. 
 deft. Tlie pit. having made default ip paymeut 
 4he deft, removed the furniture fromT.'s warehouse 
 and advertised it for sale : — 
 
 Held, that the delivery order did not require 
 registration as a bill of sale, the whole transaction 
 Ijeing one of pledge, and the delivery order being 
 «quivalent to possession by the pledges. Gbigg 
 «, National Guaewan Assubance Ca 
 
 Eekewich J. [1891] 3 Ch. 206 
 
 — Distress — Chattels of lessee on adjoining 
 mines. 
 See Mines— Distress. 8. 
 
 30. — SiriTw agre^ni^nl — Bills of Sale Ads, 
 1.878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 41), ». 4 ,- 1882 (45 & 46 
 Viet. a. 43), ss. 3, 9. 
 
 (a) To decide whether a document is or is 
 not a bill of sale the Court must look into the 
 teal trausactiofl between the parties.^ Pit. being 
 in want of money to pay his rent, requested his 
 landlord to distrain on his goods and sell them 
 to the deft. co. Pit. received the money, and 
 then entered into a hire-purchase agreement 
 ■with the 00. for the use of the furniture and 
 repurchase by njonthly instalments. The deft, 
 ■CO. subsequently seized the goods for default 
 4n compliance with the terms of the hiring agree- 
 eaent : — 
 
 Held, that the arrangement was not intended 
 to pass any beneficial interest to the defts. till 
 the execution of the hiring agreement, and that 
 *ill such execution the defts. had no title to the 
 goods, and that the hiring agreement was a bill 
 of sale, and not being registered was void. 
 
 Decision of Cave J. [1891] 1 Q. B. 1, reversed. 
 Beckett v. Towbe Assets Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 638 
 
 (b) To determine whether a hire-purchase 
 agreement be a real sale with conditions of re- 
 purchase, so as not to require registration as a 
 fcill of sale, or a mortgage, in a form intended to 
 «vade the Bills of Sale Acts, the Court must 
 consider the true nature of the document iu dis- 
 g)ute. United Fobty Pound Loan Club v. 
 Bbxton - - Fry L.J. [1891] 1 Q. B. 28, n. 
 
 (o) In considering whether a document is or 
 is not a bill of sale the Court must disregard the 
 form of the document and look into the true 
 nature of the transaction : — 
 
 Held, in the cases, that the documents did not 
 eejiresent the real transaction between the parties, 
 their intention being merely to create a security 
 for money, and therefore, as they were not 
 registered, the borrower was entitled to shew the 
 nature of the transaction, and could maintain an 
 action against the lender who had seized the 
 chattels for breach of the terms of the hiring 
 agreement. 
 
 (a) Madell v. Thomas & Co. 
 
 - C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 230 
 
 <J) Beckett v. Toweb Assets Co. 
 
 C. A [1891] 1 ft. B. 638 j revers. Cave J. 
 [1891] 1 ft. B. 1 
 
 (d) a gas-engine was let on hire at a rent 
 payable by instalments ; on payment in full the 
 agreement to be at an end and the engine to 
 become the property of the hirer : — 
 
 Held, that the property never passed to the 
 
 BILL or SAUS— continued. 
 hirer, and that the transaction did not amount to 
 a bill of sale. MoEntire v. Cbosslet Brothers 
 H. L, (I.) [1896] A. C. 457 
 
 See also Hdbson v. Oorriiige, C. A. [1897] 
 1 Ch. 183. 
 
 81, — Instalments — Interest — Bills of Sale 
 Act, 1882 (45 t& 46 Viet. c. 43), s. 9. 
 
 A bill of sale was given for a loan of 501. for 
 two years at 5 per cent, per mensem. It con- 
 tained a covenant to pay 21. 10s. on the 26th of 
 each month and balance and interest at end of 
 two years : — 
 
 Held, that the bill of sale was good, and in 
 accordance with the statutoiy form, as the pay- 
 ments of 21. 10s. per mensem were iutended to be 
 in respect of interest only. Edwards v. Mabston 
 C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 225 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Linfoot v. Foclcett, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 835, 847. 
 
 32. — Instalments — Payment hy — Default in 
 payment of one instalment — Seizure — Bills of Sale 
 Act, 1878, Amendment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 43), 8. 7. 
 
 The grantee of a bill of sale lent the grantor 
 moneys secured with interest by the bill, and 
 payable by monthly instalments :— 
 
 Held, that the grantee was entitled to seize 
 the whole of the goods on default of payment of 
 one instalment, although the bill contained no 
 express provision to that effect. In re "Wood. 
 Ex parte Woolfe - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 605 
 
 33. — • Instalments — Principal and interest — 
 Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), Sched. 
 
 A bill of sale is not void because it provides 
 
 for the payment of principal and interest by 
 
 instalments or does not limit the number of 
 
 instalments. In re Bargen. Ex parte Hasluck 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1894] 1 ft. B. 444 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Linfoot v. Pockett, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 835, 847. 
 
 34. — Instalments — Principal and interest — 
 Bais of Sale Acts, 1878;(41 * 42 Viet. a. 31), s. 10, 
 sm6-s. 3 ; 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. e. 43). 
 
 A bill of sale is not void under the Bills of 
 Sale Act, 1882, by reason of interest as well as 
 principal being included in the equal instal- 
 ments by which repayment is to be made, nor by 
 reason of the period over which the instalments 
 will extend not being expressed, nor by reason 
 of the fact that the principal and interest cannot 
 be exactly paid by means of instalments of tho 
 amount specified. Linfoot v. Pookett 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 835 
 
 35. — Interest — Default in payment of — 
 Seizure of goods — Belief — Bills of Sale Act, 1882 
 (45 dc 46 Vict. 0. 43), s. 7. 
 
 Under a bill of sale the principal sum thereby 
 secured was payable at the end of two years, 
 and in the meantime a certain sum was payable 
 monthly as interest. One of the monthly pay- 
 ments of interest being iu arrear, the grantee of 
 the bill of sale took possession of the goods 
 thereby assigned for the purpose of holding tho 
 same until payment of the interest due, but not 
 for the purpose of realizing the security by sale 
 of the goods : — 
 
 Held, that, under the above-mentioned cir- 
 
( 207 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 208 > 
 
 Bill or SALK—cmtinued. i 
 
 cumstances, an order could not be made under 
 ». 7 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, that upon pay- 
 ment of the principal, interest up to date, and 
 costSj the grantee of the bill of sale should give 
 up his security. 
 
 Ex parte Wiclcens, [1898] 1 Q. B. 513, distin- 
 guished. Mx parte Ellis - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1898] 2 Q, B. 79 
 — Interest — Instalments. 
 See No. 31, above. 
 
 36. — Interest — Sale — When interest ceases 
 to run. 
 
 Principal and interest secured by bill of sale 
 were payable by equal monthly instalments. 
 The borrower authorized the lender to sell, and 
 out of the proceeds deduct the amount for which 
 she was " liable " : — 
 
 Held, that on sale interest ceased t» run, and 
 the lender was entitled to retain unpaid principal 
 and interest to date only. West v. Dipeose 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. JX. 16 1 
 [1900] 1 Ck 837 
 
 37. — Marriage setttement, agreement fm 
 
 Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), 
 .-.. 4. 
 
 A memorandum of agreement for a marriage 
 settlement, although informal and not under seal, 
 is a " marriage settlement " within the exception 
 of B. 4 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, and is not a 
 bill of sale. Decision of Div. Ct., [1891] 1 Q. B. 
 634, afSrmed. Wenmau v. Lyon & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 192 
 
 38. — Mortgage of land and machinery — Statute 
 of Frauds — Agreement to malie assignment of 
 machinery — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), 
 s. iSilts of Sale Acts, 1878 (41 * 42 Vict. e. 31); 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43). 
 
 The A. CO. borrowed money from J. & J., 
 bankers, agreeing (but not in writing) to make 
 an assignment of certain machinery. The A. co. 
 demised the premises, where the machinery 
 was, to the B. co., who were to make half- 
 yearly payments to J. & J. to be applied in dis- 
 charge of the loan. J. & J. borrowed money from 
 P. & Co. (their London agents), and by letter 
 agreed to charge the machinery in possession of 
 the B. CO. The B. co. went into liquidation. 
 One of the partners in J. & J. died and an action 
 for accounts was brought ; the receiver in which 
 had received interest on the amount due from 
 the A. CO. : — 
 
 Held, that P. & Co. were not entitled to any 
 part of the interest, because (i.) some of the 
 chattels were lands within the meaning of the 
 Statute of Frauds, (ii.) as to the whole of the 
 chattels a duly registered bill of sale was neces- 
 sary. Jaevis v. Jaevis - North J. 
 [1893] W, N. 138 
 
 39. — Mortgage of land and machinery, &c. 
 The principle of In re Yates (38 Ch. D. 112) 
 
 — under which a conveyance of land and build- 
 ings used for a business passes the fixed trade 
 machinery on the premises, though not expressly 
 mentioned, and therefore is not a bill of sale of 
 the machinery — applies equally where the con- 
 veyance esprefsly mentions the fixed trade 
 machinery, either by reference to a schedule or 
 
 BILL OF SALE — continued. 
 
 otherwise.. In re Brooke. Bkooke v. Beookb 
 
 (No. 2) - - Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 60O 
 
 40. — Mortgage of land togetlier with fixeH 
 machinery — Non-registration — Invalidity — Bills 
 of Sale Ads, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), ss. 4, 5^ 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43). 
 
 A millwright conveyed to a bank, by way of 
 mortgage, to secure advances by them, certain: 
 lands, " together with all and singular the fixed 
 and moveable plant, machinery and fixtures, &e., 
 now or hereafter fixed to or placed upon or used 
 in or about the said hereditaments." The deed, 
 which was not registered as a bill of sale, con- 
 tained a covenant by the mortgagor to keep "the 
 said plant, machinery and fixtures," &c., in good' 
 repair and insured against fire. There was upon 
 the mortgaged premises fixed machinery which 
 was trade machinery within the Bills of Sale- 
 Act, 1878 :— 
 
 Held, that the deed was void as an un- 
 registered bill of sale with respect to the machi- 
 nery, and that the mortgagees could not sell it 
 either together with or without the lands mort- 
 gaged. Small v. National PEOviNCLiL Bake: 
 OF England - Stirling J, [1894] 1 Ch. 686 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. Brooke v. Broolie^ 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 600. 
 
 Referred to bv C. A. West London Syndicate 
 V. Inland Revenue, [1898] 2 Q. B. 507, 532. 
 
 Eeferred to by Eomer J. Johns v. Ware, 
 [1899], 1 Ch. 359, 364. 
 
 41. — Payment — Time of — Validity — Devia- 
 tion from statutory form — "Stipulaied time of 
 payment " — Covenant to pay "on or before " a, 
 named day — Statutory form — Bills of Sale Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Viet. c. 43), s. 9. 
 
 By a bill of sale, given as security for money, 
 the grantor agreed to pay the principal " on or 
 before " Nov. 1 : — • 
 
 Held, that this amounted to an agreement to- 
 pay on a fixed day, with a provision for the 
 defeasance of the security (at the option of the 
 grantor) on payment at an earlier date, and that- 
 the bill of sale was, therefore, "in accordance- 
 with " the form given in the schedule to the Bills, 
 of Sale Act, 1882, and was valid. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1899] W. N. 228, 
 reversed. 
 
 The provision in the statutory form that there 
 must be a " stipulated " time of payment means 
 that the time at which payment is to beoome- 
 obligatory upon the grantor must be fixed. Db- 
 Beaam v. Foed - C, A. [1899] W. N. 239 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 142^ 
 
 42. — Principal and agent — Agent's security- 
 for advances to his principal — Bills of Sale Act, 
 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), s. i— Amendment Act, 
 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 1. 
 
 By an agreement in writing between a foreign 
 manufacturer and his agent in B., it was provided 
 that advances made by the agent should "be- 
 covered and secured by the stock of goods which, 
 shall be in his hands," which the foreign princi- 
 pal bound himself not to let fall below a certairu 
 value. The principal terminated the agency and. 
 claimed to remove the goods without satisfying; 
 the agent's claims for the expenses of the agency. 
 
( 209 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 210 ) 
 
 BILL OF SALE — continued. 
 
 and contended that the agreement wag a bill of 
 
 sale and void for want of registration : — 
 
 Sdd, (1) that the agreement gave no power 
 to seize goods, but only to retain possession of 
 goods come to his hands; (2) that when the 
 gpods came to the agent's hands he had posses- 
 sion coupled with an agreement which gave him 
 a legal, not an equitable right, and the agi-ee- 
 ment was not void as a bill of sale. Mobkis v. 
 Delobbel-Fupo Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 362 
 
 43. — Mates, protection against — Priority — ■ 
 Bias of Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), «. 14 
 —Public Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Viet. c. 65), 
 ss. 256, 261. 
 
 S. 14 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, which 
 postpones the debt secured by the bill of sale to 
 claims for parochial ratas, does not apply where 
 the local authority proceeds to recover the rate 
 in default in the county court under s. 261 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, and not by distress 
 warrant under s. 256. Wimbledon Local Board 
 V. Underwood - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 836 
 
 44. — Megistration — Fixtures — Trade machin- 
 ery — Mortgage — Freeholds with fixed machinery 
 and fixtures — Non-registration — Power of sale — 
 Invalidity— Bills of Sale Act, 1854 (17 * 18 Vict. 
 V. 86). 
 
 The test whether a mortgage of a building 
 and fixtures requires registration under the Bills 
 of Sale Act as respects the fixtures, laid down 
 by Ex parte Barclay, (1874) L. K. 9 Ch. 576, 
 namely, that it depends on whether the deed 
 gives power to the mortgagee to sell or take 
 possession of the fixtures separately from the 
 building, is not limited to leaseholds, but is 
 equally applicable to a mortgage of freeholds, 
 notwithstanding that in the latter case fixtures 
 might be deemed to pass as part of the fee 
 simple. Johns v. Ware Bomer J. [1898] W. N, 
 172(2); [1899] 1 Ch. 359 
 
 45. — Registration — Renewal of registration — 
 Extension of time — Bankruptcy of grantor — Bills 
 of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), s. 14. 
 
 By inadvertence a bill of sale was not re- 
 registered after the first five years had expired, 
 and so became void. Before the mistake was 
 discovered tlie grantor became bankrupt :— 
 
 Meld, that the time for re-registration could 
 not then be extended under s. 14 of the Bills of 
 Sale Act, 1878, as the vested right of the trustee 
 in bankruptcy would thereby be defeated. In re 
 Parsons. Ex parte Fdeber 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 122 
 
 46. — Rent — Last receipt for — Reasonable 
 excuse for non-production — Rent due but not 
 demanded by landlord — Demand to send receipt 
 to grantee by post — Goods seized to realize security 
 — Relief against seizure — Jurisdiction to "make 
 such order as may seem just " — Order as to giving 
 up bill of sale — Costs of levy — Costs of application 
 —Bills of SaU Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vi^it. c. 43), s. 7. 
 
 The grantee of a bill of sale gave the grantor 
 notice in writing to send by post the last quartei's 
 receipt for rent. The rent had not been paid, 
 the landlord not having demanded it. No receipt 
 having been sent, the grantee seized, and claimed 
 the sum advanced, the whole of the interest 
 secured by the bill of sale, and the costs of the 
 
 BILL OF BUa'E— continued. 
 levy. The grantor applied for relief under s. 7 
 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, and the judge at; 
 chambers ordered that the grantee should with- 
 draw and give up the bill of sale upon the grantor 
 paying the principal sum with interest to date, 
 but without the costs of the levy, and ordered 
 the grantee to pay the costs of the application. 
 On appeal : — 
 
 Held, that the grantor had not "without 
 reasonable excuse" failed to produce his last 
 receipt for rent, within the meaning of s. 7, sub- 
 s. 4. of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882. 
 
 'Ex -parte Cotton, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 301, 
 approved. 
 
 Held, also, by Chitty and Collins L. JJ., that 
 a demand that the last receipt shall be sent to 
 the grantee by post is not a demand to produce 
 the receipt to him within the meaning of s. 7, 
 sub-s. 4, of the Act : 
 
 Edd, also, that, as the grantee had seized for 
 the purpose of realizing his security, the judge- 
 had jurisdiction to order him to withdraw and 
 give up the bill of sale on payment of the prin- 
 cipal with interest to date, and, as the seizure 
 was wrongful, to refuse to give him the costs of 
 the levy, and to order him to pay the costs of the 
 application. Ex parte Wickens 
 
 C. A. [1858] 1 ft. B. 64a 
 
 Distinguished. Ex parte Ellis, [1898] 2 Q. B. 
 79. See No. 1, above. 
 — Reputed ownership. 
 
 See Cases under Bankrcptoy — Order 
 and Disposition. 
 
 47. — Sale of goods — Receipt — Possession — 
 Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. u. 31), 
 «g. 4, 8. 
 
 A wife who had separate estate purchased 
 furniture, &o., from her husband, which were in 
 the house in which they lived; she stipulated 
 for a receipt, but paid the purchase-money before 
 obtaining it. The receipt was drawn up by the 
 wife's solicitor and contained these words, " which 
 I hereby acknowledge are now absolutely her 
 property " : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the receipt notwithstand- 
 ing those words formed no part of the bargain, 
 but that the property passed by a prior and 
 independent transaction, and that therefore the 
 receipt did not require registration as a bill of 
 sale, and that the wife was entitled as against an 
 execution creditor of the husband : 
 
 Held, also, per Bsher M.E., and Davey L.J.^ 
 that the situation of the goods being consistent 
 with either the husband's or the wife's possession 
 the law would attribute the possession to the one 
 having the legal title. Eamsat v. Makqrett 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B, 18 
 
 48. — Sale of goods by sheriff — Execution — 
 R. S. C, Order LYIL, r. 12 — Bankruptcy Act, 
 1900 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 11, 
 
 A debtor gave a bill of sale of goods as security 
 for a loan. The sheriff having taken the goods 
 in execution on behalf of a judgment creditor of 
 the grantor, the grantee gave the sheriff notice, 
 of his claim. The sheriff took out an interpleader 
 summons, and on the same day a receiving order 
 in bankruptcy was made against the grantor, 
 and he was afterwards adjudged bankrupt. The 
 
( 211 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 212 ) 
 
 BILL OF SA-LE— continued. 
 •ofBoial receiver did not claim the goods under 
 ihe Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 11, but appeared on 
 tlie hearing of the interpleader summons and 
 •concurred with the -judgment creditor in asking 
 for a sale under Order Lvn., r. 12, and an order 
 for the sale was accordingly made. It appeared 
 on the evidence that the sale of the goods by the 
 sheriff was not likely to produce enough to pay 
 what was due on the bill of sale : — 
 
 Seld, that, assuming Order lvii., r. 12, not to 
 he defeated by s. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, 
 a sale ought not to be ordered, and that as it was 
 ^ery doubtful whether the goods would realize 
 enough to pay the bill of sale holder, and neither 
 the official receiver, nor the judgment creditor 
 were willing to redeem or to give a guarantee 
 against loss if the proceeds of sale proved insuffl- 
 •oient, the proper course was to order the sheriff 
 4o withdraw. 
 
 Semble, that if the official receiver had asked 
 for the delivery of the goods to him under s. 11 
 ■of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, the operation of 
 Order lvii., r. 12, would have been excluded, but 
 that as he had not so done, but ae^ked for a sale, 
 ihat rule could be applied. Stekn v. Tegnek 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 153 (13); [1898] 1 Q. B. 37 
 
 49. — Satisfaction — Entry of — Affidavit of 
 noerifieation — S. S. C, Order LJi., t. 26 — Central 
 Office Practice Bules, r. 25. 
 
 The affidavit verifying the signature and 
 consent of the person entitled to the benefit of a 
 liill of sale to the entry of satisfaction of the bill 
 ■of sale need not be made by a solicitor. In re 
 White to Eubekt Div, Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 923 
 — Schedule. 
 
 See Bill of Sale, passim. 
 
 50. — Schedule or inventory fherrein referred to 
 —Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. a. 31), 
 «. 10, sub-s. 2; 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. o. 43), .-. 4. 
 
 A bill of sale specified the furniture, &o., in 
 •each room of a bouse: under "Study" was tlie 
 item " 1800 volumes of books as per catalogue." 
 The catalogue was not registered with the 
 Ijill :— 
 
 Held, thut the bill of sale was not void, since 
 the catalogue was not a sched. or inventory 
 referred to in the bill within 8. 10, sub-s. 2, of 
 the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, and the hooks were 
 fipeoifically described in the sched., and the words 
 • ■" as per catalogue " were not ret-trictive Of the 
 previous part Of the description of the books. 
 Davidson v. Carlton Bank 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 a. B. 82 
 
 51. — -Severability of subject-matter — Validity 
 ^BilU of Sale Acts, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), 
 «s. 4, 8 ; 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 9. 
 
 By one and the same deed the owner of a 
 piano assigned, by way of security for money, 
 the piano, and also the benefit of a hire purchase 
 agreement into wl)ich he had entered respecting 
 it:— 
 
 Held, that the assignment of the agreement 
 was severable from that of the piano, and that, 
 •consequently, the deed was not void in toto under 
 the Bills of Sale Acts for non-registration, or 
 because it was not in the statutory form. In re 
 Isaacson. Ex parte Mason 
 
 C. A. affirm, Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 833 
 
 BILL OF SALE— continued. 
 
 62. — Substituted bill — Second hill in iubstitu~ 
 tion for first — Bankruptcy of grantor — BiUs of 
 Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), Sched. 
 
 A second bill of sale, in substitution for the 
 first, had been accepted in ignorance of the 
 grantor's bankruptcy : — 
 
 Heid, that the second bill was entirely nuga- 
 tory and did not operate as a surrender or can- 
 cellation of the first one. In re Bae&en. Ex 
 parte Hasluok - - ^ V. WiUiams J. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 444 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Linfoot v. Pockett, 
 [1895] 2 Oh. 835, 847. 
 
 53. — Substitution — Specific description — 
 Plant— Horse— Bills of Sale Act (1878) Ammd- 
 ment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. o. 43), s. 6, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Horses used as cab-horses are not plant within 
 the meaning of s. 6, sub-B. 2, of the Bills of Sale 
 Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882. 
 
 Yarmouth v. France, (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 647, 
 distinguished. London and Bastebn Counties 
 Loan and Discount Co. v. Ckeast 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 768 
 
 54. — Trespass — Property in goods — Tender 
 — Trespass — Sedemption — Bills of Sale Act, 1882 
 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 43), 7 Sched. . 
 
 The grantee of a bill of sale seized the goods 
 on default in payment of an instalment due under 
 the bill, and after five days began to remove them. 
 The grantor then tendered the full amount due, 
 which the grantee refused to accept as being too 
 late : — 
 
 Held, (1) that no action for trespass could lie 
 agaiubt the grantee, for he had a right to the 
 possession of the goods ; but (2) that the grantor 
 might set off any damage to the goods caused by 
 the negligence of the grantee in the course of 
 removal. Johnson v. Dipbose 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 512 
 
 55. — True owner — Grantor — Bills of Sale Acts, 
 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31), «s. 8, 10, sub-s. 3 ; 1882 
 (45 & 46 Viet. c. 43), s. 5. 
 
 The grantor of chattels by a bill of sale by 
 way of security is still the true owner of the 
 chattels within s. 5 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, 
 and may execute a subsequent valid bill of sale 
 of the same chattels. Thomas v. SSakles 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 408 
 
 56. — True ovmer — Legal ovmer — Bills of Sale 
 Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 5. 
 
 The true owner of personal chattels described 
 in a bill of sale at the time of its execution within 
 s. 5 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, is the person 
 who is the legal owner thereof at the time of the 
 execution of the bill of sale irrespective of whether 
 he is also the equitable owner or only trustee for 
 another. In re Sabl. Ex parte Williams 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1892] 2 ft. B. 591 
 BILLETTING. 
 
 See Army and N.\vy. 
 
 BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 See Costs. 
 
 BIBBS — Bird collection — Moveable chattels — 
 Annexation to freehold — Mansion-house.- 
 See FlxTUBES. 1. 
 
 — Wild Birds I'rotection Acts. 
 See Wild Birds. 
 
( 213 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 211 ) 
 
 BISHOP. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 "BLACK LIST" — Trade libel — Intimidating 
 circular. 
 See Ikjunction. 36. 
 
 BLACKSMITH— Qualified person. 
 See Vbteeinaky SuEeEou. 
 
 BLANK lU WILL— " Charitable, pliilaiitliropio 
 or ." 
 See Ohakity. 17, 18. 
 
 BLANK TEANSFEE— Of Shares. 
 
 See Company— Shares. 292, 293. 
 
 BLENDED FUND— Interest. 
 
 See ExBCUTOB — Administration. 5. 
 
 BOAR — Parish bull and — Charge on great tithes 
 — Transfer of liability to custom. 
 See Custom. 1. 
 
 BOAED OF AGEICULTTJEE— ProceecJs of sale of 
 college 'property — Consent to application. 
 
 The consent of the BJ. is necessary before 
 moneys arising from purchase of college property 
 by a railway and paid into Court can be applied 
 in manner provided by s. 2 of the Universities 
 and College Estates Amendment Act, 1880. Ex 
 parte King's College, Cambridge (No. 1) 
 
 Nortli J. [1891] 1 Ch. 333 
 And see next Ca?e, 
 
 2. — Proceeds of sale of college property — 
 Evidence of consent to application. 
 
 The consent of tlie Bd. to a petition by a 
 college for the application of purchase-money in 
 Court should be evidenced by an order under 
 the hand and seal of the Bd. mentioned in s. 27 
 of the Universities and College Estates Act,1858. 
 Hx parte King's College, Cambkidge (No. 2) 
 
 North J. 1891 1 Ch. 677, at p. 680 
 
 BOAED OF EDUCATION. 
 
 See Schools — Board of Education, 
 
 BOAED OF TBADE — -Powers and jurisdiction of 
 the Bd. of Trade as to the following matters : — 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Power of Bd. of Trade to review taxation of 
 
 costs — ^County court. 
 
 See Bankhuptcy— Costs. 76. 
 
 — Eecovalion by Bd. of Trade — Release of 
 
 trustee — Error in administration. 
 See Bankbuptcy. 247. 
 
 — Scheme of arrangement approved by Official 
 
 Keoeiver, right of Board to appeal 
 against. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy— Scheme of arrange- 
 ment. 222. 
 — ^'Trustee's remuneration — power to alter. 
 See Bankeui'TCY— Trustee. 249. 
 
 -^ Unclaimed or undistributed funds — Liability 
 to account. 
 See Bankruptcy — Trustee. 243. 
 
 Boiler Explosions. 
 
 — Jurisdiction under Boiler Explosions Act. 
 
 See Boiler. 
 
 BOAED OF TEADE — continued. 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 
 
 — Control over Official Receivers. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Examina- 
 tion of Officers. 77. 
 
 — Fixing security of provisional liquidator 
 
 before winding-up order. 
 See Company — Winding-up — Lic[ui- 
 dator. 120. 
 
 Merchant Shipping. 
 
 — Detention of ship — Unseaworthiness. 
 
 See Shipping — In General. 1. 
 
 BOAEDING-HOTJSE- Lodging scholars attending 
 school — " Private residence." 
 &e Covenant. 4.. 
 
 BOILEE. 
 
 Explosions. 
 
 1. — Coal Mines — Jurisdiction of Board of 
 Trade— Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 & 1890 
 (45 & 46 Vict. 0. 22, and 53 & 54 Vict. c. 35). 
 
 A pipe conveying steam from a boiler outside 
 to an engine inside a coal mine exploded : — 
 
 Held, that the effect of s. 2 of the Boiler 
 Explosions Act, 1890, was to give the Bd. of 
 Trade jurisdiction to order an inquiry ; and also 
 that the pipe was a " boiler " within the inter- 
 pretation clause of the Boiler Explosions Act, 
 1882. Reg. v. Commbs. undbb the Boilee 
 Explosions Act, 1882 - - C. A. (affirm.) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 703 
 
 2. — " Used exclusively for domestic pur- 
 poses" — Boiler Explosions Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. e. 22), s. 4 — Boiler Explosions Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 35), s. 2. 
 
 A boiler used to warm offices or business 
 premises where the occupier does not reside, and 
 also to supply warm water for cleaning purposes 
 and for household purposes of a resident care- 
 taker, is " used exclusively for domestic pur- 
 poses " within the exception in s. 4 of the Boiler 
 Explosions Act, 18S2, and s. 2 of the Boiler 
 Explosions Act, 1890. Smith v. MI'lleb 
 
 Div. Ct [1894] 1 ft, B. 193 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Derelict boiler — Salvage — Amount of award 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 235. 
 
 BONA FIDE TEAVELLEE. 
 
 See Licensing Acts — Offences. \ 36 — 39. 
 
 BONA VACANTIA— Charity— Failure of objects 
 — Cy-pres. 
 See Friendly Society. 6, 7. 
 
 — Eight of Crown — Proceeds of sale of land 
 
 under Settled Land Act, 1882. 
 See Crown. 2. 
 
 — Bight of the Crown — Proof — Corporation — 
 
 Dissolution. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy — Proof. 165. 
 
 BOND — Condition not to commit hreaeh of injunc- 
 tion — Enumeration of prohibited acts — Condition 
 depending on one event — Liquidated damages — 
 B. S. C, Order xiv., r. 1. 
 
 A bond was executed by the deft, for the 
 the payment of lOOZ. to the pit. The condition 
 
( 215 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF GASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 216 ) 
 
 BONB — contimted. 
 
 of the bond was that if the deft, should at all 
 times thereafter, in obedience to a perpetual 
 injunction granted by the High Court of Justice, 
 refrain from trespassing on the plt.'s lands 
 therein mentioned, or the walls, gates, or fences 
 thereof, or inclosing the same, and from pulling 
 down or removing or otherwise injuring the 
 same, or inciting others to commit any such 
 trespasses, the obligation should be void. The 
 deft, conmiitted a breach of the injunction : — 
 
 Held, that the condition of the bond depended 
 on one event only, namely, a breach of the in- 
 junction, and that the sum secured by the bond 
 was a liquidated sum, to the recovery of which 
 the procedure of Order xiv., r. 1, was applicable. 
 , Stbiokland v. "Williams C. A. [1899] 1 «. B. 382 
 
 — Construction — ^Eecital and condition — Guaran- 
 
 tee. 
 
 See New South Wales. 23. 
 
 — Coupon of foreign government bond. 
 
 See Bevenue — Stamps. 142. 
 
 — For safe return — Forfeiture — Co-ownership — 
 
 Action of rebtraint — Jurisdiction. 
 See Shipping — Eestraint. 213. 
 
 — Loan to husband — Bond by husband to trus- 
 
 tees — Interest on — Statute of Limita- 
 tions. 
 See Husband and Wife— Bond. 27. 
 
 BOND (ADMINISTEATION). 
 
 See Pkoeate — Administration Bond. 
 
 " BOND, COVENANT, OE INSIEUMENT "— 
 
 Stamp. 
 
 See Kbvenub— Stamps. 144 — 146. 
 
 ■Registration of voters. 
 
 under Parliament — Fran- 
 
 BOND TO BEAEEE— Custody. 
 
 See Trustee. 47. 
 BONTTS — Definition — Companies Acl, 1S62 (25 & 
 26 Vict. c. 89), ». dS— Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 
 31 Vict. c. 131), „. 25. 
 
 " A bonus is a boon or gift over and above 
 what is nominally due to the receiver and which 
 is therefore something wholly to the good." 
 Therefore the occurrence of the word in a share 
 certificate puts a prudent man on his inquiry. 
 In re Eddtstone Marine Insurance Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 30 
 
 — Contributory — Bonus shares. 
 
 See CoMPANT — WiNDiNQ-UP — Contri- 
 butory. 25, 26. 
 
 — Income tax — Profits — Deduction. 
 
 See Ebvenue — Income Tax. 87. 
 
 BONUS DIVIDEND— Capital or income. 
 See Company— Dividends, 147. 
 
 BOOK DEBTS— Mortgage of 
 
 See Mortgage — Foreclosure, 23. 
 
 — In " Order and disposition '' of bankrupt. 
 
 See Bankruptcy- Order and Disposi- 
 tion. 129. 
 BOOKING — Railway regulations — Reasonable 
 
 facilities. 
 
 See Cases under Railway— Eailway 
 and Canal Traffic, 
 
 BOOKMAKEB— Place used for betting. 
 See Cases under Gaming. 
 
 BOOKS — Assistant overseer — Eight to rate-books. 
 See Parish Council. 2. 
 
 — Bankers' — Production and inspection of 
 
 See Discovert — Documents. 8 — 11. 
 
 — Of company — Right to custody. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 30. 
 
 — Copyright in. 
 
 See Copyright — Book. 
 
 — Inspection — Right to take free copies. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 21. 
 
 — Libel— Publication— Circulating library. 
 
 See Debamation — Libel. 27. 
 
 — Piracy — Infringement — Combining causes of 
 
 action. 
 
 See Copyright — Infringement. 11. 
 
 — Tithe apportionment — Custody. 
 
 See Parish Council. 1. 
 
 BOEOUGH. 
 
 See Cases under Corporation. 
 
 BOROUGH VOTE- 
 
 See Casi 
 chise. 
 
 BOEEOWEE. 
 
 See Money-lender. 
 
 BOEKOWING MEMBEE— Infant— Mortgage for 
 advances — Repudiation on attaining 
 twenty-one. 
 See Building Society — ^Mortgage. 7. 
 
 BOEEOWING POWERS — Societies' Borrowing 
 Powers Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 15), empowers- 
 certain societies to borrow money from persons and 
 corporations other tlian members. 
 
 — Agent's power of borrowing. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 2, 3. 
 ^ Company's powers of borrowing. 
 
 See Company — Borrowing Powers. 
 
 — Unauthorized borrowing — Subrogation — 
 
 Secured creditors. 
 
 See Railway — Powers. 30. 
 
 BOTTOMRY. 
 
 See Shipping — Bottomry. 
 
 BOUNDARY— Settlement of— Inclosure, &c., Ex- 
 penses Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 89). 
 W. N. 1900 (May 19), pp. 148, 144.. 
 See Current Index, 1900, p. xc. 
 
 — Alteration of boundaries — Costs — Liability of 
 
 added area. 
 
 See Corporation. 9. 
 
 — Fishings ex adverse glebe land. 
 
 See Fishery. 6. 
 
 Foreign State, status and boundaries of-— 
 
 Judicial cognizance — Practice — Appli- 
 cation to Foreign Oifice.' 
 See Evidence. 38. 
 1. — Bedge and ditch — Presumption— Acts of 
 joint ownership — Real Property Limitation Act, 
 1833 (3 <fe 4 Wm. 4, c. 27), s. 3. 
 
 Two properties belongiog to pit. and deft. - 
 were separated by a hedge and ditch. The hedge 
 was on plt.'s. side of the ditch, and both were 
 the property of plt.'s predecessor in title, who in 
 1868 had made certain use of the ditch, covered 
 over the ditch, putting in drain-pipes and allow- 
 in" the drainage of both houses to pass thereby. 
 
( 217 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 218 ) 
 
 BOUNDARY— conimaed. 
 
 Thenceforward deft, used the surface of the ditch 
 as part of his garden, while pit. cut the hedge 
 from deft.'s side when necessary, and on two or 
 three occasions opened the ditch to clean out the 
 drain : — 
 
 » ' Held, assuming that pit. had originally owned 
 the ditch, that deft.'s acts were sufficient to dis- 
 possess pit. within 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 3, and 
 that pit's rights were now statute-barred. 
 
 Qusere, whether presumption that a ditch 
 belongs to the owner of the adjacent hedge applies 
 to a natural watercourse or only to an artificial 
 ditch. Mabshall v. Taylor 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 641 
 
 — Of parish. 
 
 See Pabish. 
 
 BOTTNDAET WAIL- Mutual gable— Half cost 
 of erection. 
 See Scottish Law — ^Walls. 49. 
 
 — Notice to set back buildings.' 
 
 See London — Buildings. 19. 
 
 BRAND — ^Water-mark, use of, as trade-mark. 
 See Teade-maek — ^Eegistration. 32. 
 
 BRAWLING— Liability of clergyman for. 
 See EoOLESiASTiOAL Law. 46. 
 
 BREACH OF CONTRACT- Landlord and tenant. 
 See Cases under Landloed and Tenant. 
 
 — Licensee's right of action. 
 
 See Licence. 
 
 BREACH OF COVENANT. 
 
 See Cases under Landloed and Tenant 
 — Lease. 
 
 BREACH OF INJUNCTION. 
 
 See Cases under Contempt of Couet. 
 
 BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE— Cbno- 
 boration of Frmnise — 32 & 33 Vict c. 68, e. 2. 
 
 In an action for breach of promise of marriage 
 the mere fact that the deft, did not answer letters 
 written by the pit., in which she stated that he 
 had promised to marry her, was held no evidence 
 ■corroborating the plt.'s testimony in support of such 
 promise within 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, s. 2. Wiede- 
 mann V. Walfolb - C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 534 
 
 BREACH OF TRUST. 
 
 See Teustbe — ^Breach of Trust. 
 
 — Voluntary conveyance to make good — Fraudu- 
 lent preference. 
 
 See Bankeuptct — Fraudulent Prefer- 
 ence. 111. 
 
 RREACH OF UNDERTAKING— Committal or 
 attachment — Service of order containing 
 the undertaking — Solicitor. 
 See Peaotice — Undertaking. 272. 
 
 BREAD — Sale otherwise than hy weight — 3 Geo. 4, 
 ti. cvi. s. 4. 
 
 By 3 Geo. 4, c. ovi. s. 4 (which applies in 
 substance to the metropolitan area), any baker 
 or seller of bread who sells or causes to be sold 
 bread in any other manner than by weight is 
 liable to a penalty. 
 
 The respondent, a grocer and general dealer, 
 ■was asked by a purchaser for a twopenny loaf, 
 and served him with a loaf for which he paid 
 
 BREAD — continued. 
 
 2d. The loaf was not weighed in the shop in 
 the purchaser's presence, nor was any statement 
 made to him as to its weight, nor was there any 
 evidence that it had ever been weighed. When 
 subsequently weighed, the loaf, which resembled 
 in shape and appearance a 2 lb. loaf, weighed 
 2| oza. short of 2 lbs. : — 
 
 Held, that it was immaterial that the pur- 
 chaser had not asked for a loaf of a specific 
 weight, and that the respondent had sold bread 
 otherwise than by weight within the meaning of 
 the section. London County Codnoil v. Bead 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q. B. 288 
 
 BREWER — Covenant restraining traveller from 
 selling liquors. 
 See Eesteaint op Teade. 12. 
 
 — Income tax — Deductions. 
 
 See Bevenue — Income tax. 72, 73. 
 
 — Licence — ^Direct taxation. 
 
 See Canada. 42. 
 
 — Licensed house — Poor-rate — Assessment — 
 
 Competition of brewers — " Tied " houses. 
 See Bates — Rateability. 28 — 31. 
 
 — Licensing Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — Public-house. 
 
 See Inn. 
 
 BREWERY-" Fixed plant and machinery." 
 
 See Vendoe and Pueohaseb — Contract. 
 17. 
 
 BRIBERY— Agent. 
 
 See Peinoipal and Agent. 6, 7. 
 
 BRICKFIELD— Lighting rates— Laud. 
 See Steeets — Lighting. 14. 
 
 BRIDGE— Footpath— Mandamus. 
 
 See Railway — Roads and Streets. 56. 
 
 — Injunction to restrain building of — Aecommo - 
 
 datiou works. 
 
 See Eailway — Works. 68. 
 
 — Liability of corporation — Accident to bridge 
 
 under corporate control. 
 See Canada. 28. 
 
 — Liability of larger quarter sessions borough 
 
 to contribute to cost of bridge. 
 See Local Govebnmbnt. 2. 
 
 BRIDLE-PATH — Inclosure award — Eight of 
 public to whole width of road. 
 See Inclosuee. 2. 
 
 BBJEIS — Etiquette of the Bar. W. N. 1899 
 (Jan. 21), p. 45. See Current Index, 
 1899, p. cxxii. 
 
 — Instructions for brief — Costs — Trial of issue 
 
 of fact before judge — Originating sum- 
 mons. 
 See Company — Winding-up — Costs. 60. 
 
 BRINE PUMPING— % tJie Brine Pumping {Com- 
 pensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 40), compensation was provided for owners 
 of property suffering through the subsidence of the 
 ground caused by the pumping of brine. 
 
 BRITISH COLUMBIA— Laws of. 
 
 See Canada— British Colnmbia, 
 
( 219 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 220 ) 
 
 BRITISH OVJ&TSA—Appeah from^Arts. 23 to 27 
 of the 0. in C. dated June 20, 1831, regulating 
 appeals from the Supreme Court to S. M. in 
 Council. St, E. & 0. 1899, p. 1672. 
 
 — Documents and correspondence respecting the 
 question of its boundary. Pari. Paper, 1896 
 [C. 7926]. Price 3Jd. ParL Paper, 1896 [C. 7972]. 
 Price 4s. id. Maps, 2s. 9d. 
 
 — Application of the Colonial Probates Act, 
 
 1892. 
 
 See Pboeatb— Colonial Protates Act. 
 
 — Death duties. 
 
 See Ketbntib — Estate Duty. 
 
 — Surrender of fugitive criminals. 
 
 See ExTKADinoN. 
 
 BBITISH HONDTTKAS — Application of the 
 Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 See Peobatb — Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 1. — Limitations, Statute of — Registered title — 
 Adverse possession — Lands Titles Registry Act — 
 Consolidated Laws of 1887, c. 106, s. 30 ; c. 19, 
 S.5. 
 
 Held, with regard to the British Honduras 
 Consolidated Laws of 1887, that the provisions 
 of the Limitation Act (o. 19) apply to lands held 
 under a title registered under the Lands Titles 
 Registry Act (c. 106) ; and that consequently 
 twenty years' adverse possession extinguishes by 
 force of s. 5 of the former Act a title registered 
 under the latter Act. Belize Estate and Pko- 
 DUOB Co. V. QciLTBB P. C, [1897] A. C. 367 
 
 BRITISH INDIA. 
 See India. 
 
 BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT. 
 
 See Cases under Canada. 
 
 BROKER — Bankruptcy, Title of trustee in, as 
 against official assignee of Stock Ex- 
 change — Defaulting broker. 
 See Bankkuptoy — Trustee in Bank- 
 ruptcy. 252, 253. 
 
 — Clients' securities deposited to secure broker's 
 
 indebtedness — Appropriation of pay- 
 ments — Eights of owner of deposited 
 securities. 
 See Banker. 25. 
 
 — Liability for premiums — Policy. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 71 . 
 
 — Salvage — Eight to set-off unpaid losses. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy— Set-off. 238. 
 
 — Ship broker — Managing owner. 
 
 See SmppiNa— Managing Owner. 172. 
 
 — Stock Exchange. 
 
 See Cases under Stock Exchange. 
 
 — Wrongful sale by — Indemnity — Stock Ex- 
 
 change. 
 
 See Peincipal and Agent. 21. 
 
 BROOK— Whether tributary of river. 
 See FiSHBKT. 6. 
 
 " BROTHEL " — Offences against morality. 
 See Criminal Law. 54. 
 Justices. 1. 
 
 BUILDER — Continuing offence — Work executed in 
 contravention of hy-law — Continuance in same 
 state — Builder without power to remedy breach — 
 
 BUILDER — continued. 
 
 Publio Sealth Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Viet. c. 55), 
 
 8. 158. 
 
 By the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 158, where 
 the executiun of any work is an offence, in respect 
 whereof the offender is liable in respect, of any 
 by-law to a penalty, the existence of the work 
 during its continuance in such a form and state 
 as to be in contravention of the by-law shall be 
 deemed to be a continuing offence. 
 
 A builder was convicted for building a house 
 without sufficient air space, contrary to a by-law. 
 The builder was not the owner, and had not been 
 in possession, nor had any right to go on the pre- 
 mises after the conviction. Afterwards the 
 builder was prosecuted for a continuing offence 
 in respect of the continuance of the work in the 
 same state, in contravention of the by-law, and 
 convicted. 
 
 On a case stated : — 
 
 Seld, that the builder, having no power to 
 remedy tlie breach complained of, was not guilty 
 of a continuing offence, and tlie conviction was 
 wrong. Welsh & Son v. West Ham Cobpoea- 
 tion - - Div. Ct, [1900] 1 ft. B. 324 
 
 — Privilege — Hypothecary privilege — Law of 
 
 Quebec. 
 
 See Canada. 5. 
 
 BTTtLDING. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 
 
 Streets. 
 
 — Adjoining premises — Alterations — Eeasonable 
 
 use of a building — Injunction. 
 See JfursANCB. 
 
 — Agricultural Holdings Act. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Agricul- 
 tural Holdings. 
 
 — Burial ground. Building upon disused. 
 
 See Burial. 2, 3. 
 
 — Contract. 
 
 See Cases under Biilding Contract. 
 
 — Estate. 
 
 See Cases under Building Estate. 
 
 1. — Height of buildings — Street — General 
 Turnpike (^Scotland^ Act, 1831 (14 2 Will. 4, c. 43). 
 
 The corporation of a burgh which has by a 
 local Act adopted ss. 83 to 92 of the General 
 Turnpike (Scotland) Act, "so far as the' said 
 clauses are applicable to the roads and streets 
 witliin the extended burgh, and in so far as the 
 same are not inconsistent with this Act and the 
 Police Act," has power under that Act and s. 91 
 of the General Turnpike (Scotland) Act, 1831, 
 to restrain a proprietor of vacant land situate 
 within twenty-five feet of the centre of the street 
 from erecting a building thereon above the height 
 of seven feet. Decision of Ct. of Ses., (1894) 
 21 E. 682, affirmed. Schulze v. Galashiels 
 Corporation - H. L. (So.) [1895] A. C. 666 
 
 — Highways.! 
 
 See Highway. 
 
 — Hoardings. 
 
 See Hoarding. 
 
 — Inhabited House Duty. 
 
 iSee Cases under Revenue— House Duty. 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Gases under Landlord and Tenant. 
 
( 221 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 222 ) 
 
 BTTIIDING— coniMi ued. 
 — Light and air. 
 
 See Oases under Light and Are. 
 
 2. — Party wall — Adjoining oumers — Implied 
 contract to pay half cost of party wall. 
 
 A building society, who were the mortgagees 
 of a, building estate, joined with the mortgagor 
 in selling a site on the estate to a purchaser ; the 
 conveyance contained a covenant by the pur- 
 chaser to perform the building and other condi- 
 tions in the schedule, one of which was that the 
 purchaser first bmlding a party wall should be 
 repaid half the value by the purchaser of the 
 adjoining site. The purchaser, having built a 
 house on the site, mortgaged it to the building 
 society, who subsequently under their power of 
 sale sold it to the pit. At a later date the 
 building society, in exercise of their power of sale 
 under the original mortgage of the building 
 estate, sold the residue of the estate to a com- 
 pany, who in their turn sold to the defts. a site 
 adjoining the plt.'s house, the agreement of sale 
 containing a similar (though not verbally identi- 
 cal) condition as to party walls to that above 
 mentioned. The defts. built a house on their 
 site, making use for that purpose of the plt.'s 
 party wall, half of which (as provided by ,the 
 building conditions) was built on the plt.'s, and 
 half on the defts.', land : — 
 
 Held, that the circumstances raised an implied 
 contract on the part of the defts. to pay half the 
 cost of the party wall to the pit. as the owner 
 of the adjoining house, notwithstanding that the 
 wall had in fact been buUt by the plt.'s pre- 
 decessor in title. Ibving v. Thkneull 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 ft. B. 129 
 
 — Ee-building — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — Capital 
 Moneys. 
 
 — In Scotland. 
 
 See Oases under Scottish Law. 
 
 — Society. 
 
 See Cases under BniLDiNG Sooiett. 
 
 3. — Water tower — Effect of Public Health 
 Acts on subsequent Special Water Company's 
 Act — By-laws — Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 
 (10 <{; 11 Vict. c. 17), s. ^Z— Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 157—60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. cxvii (Local). 
 
 Sect. 93 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, 
 provides that nothing therein or in the Special 
 Act contained shall be deemed to exempt the 
 undertakers " from any Act for improving the 
 sanitary condition of towns and populous places 
 which may be passed in the same session of Par- 
 liament in which the special Act is passed, or 
 any future session of Parliament." A water co. 
 by their special Act, passed in 1897, and incor- 
 porating the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, 
 were empowered to erect and maintain a water 
 tower in a specified place. Shortly after the 
 special Act came into force the local sanitary 
 authority of the district, under the powers given 
 by s. 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875, made 
 by-laws providing that any person intending to 
 erect a building should give the local authority 
 notice of his intention and of the date on which 
 the building was to be comipenced, and deliver 
 
 BTJILDING- continued. 
 
 to them plans and sections of it, and a deeori|>- 
 tion of the materials with which it was to b& 
 constructed. The special Act did not incorporate- 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, but contained no- 
 provisions inconsistent with s. 157 of that Act or 
 with the by-laws : — 
 
 Held, with respect to the erection of the water 
 tower authorized by the special Act, that s. 93 of 
 the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, had not the 
 effect of exempting the water Co. from the pro- 
 visions of the Public Health Act, 1875, and that 
 they were bound to comply with the by-laws 
 made by the IocaI sanitary authority under that 
 
 Act. UOKEIELD ElTKAL COUNCIL V. CbOWBOEOUGH 
 
 Distbict Water Co. Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 664 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 See Oases under Masteb and Servant. 
 
 BUIIDING (CHURCH) ACTS — Faculty — Dis- 
 cretion. 
 See Eoclbsiastioal Law — raculty. IT. 
 
 BUILDING CO'SI'RkCt— Arbitration. 
 
 It is competent for the parties to a building- 
 contract to agree that the question of fraud on 
 the part of the arbitrator shall not be raised by 
 either of them. Tullis v. Jacson 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 3 Ch. 441 
 
 2. — Charges of quantity surveyor — lAabUity 
 — Usage. 
 
 By the usage of the building trade, the 
 builder whose tender is accepted is liable to the 
 quantity surveyor for the amount due for taking 
 the quantities, but if no tender be accepted the 
 building owner or architect is liable : — 
 
 Held, that the usage was reasonable and valici 
 and entitled, the surveyor to sue the builder. 
 NOBTH V. Bassett Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q, B, 33S 
 
 3. — Liquidated damages — Penalties for delatf 
 — Extras. 
 
 Where in a contract for the execution of 
 specified works it is provided that the works 
 shall be completed by a certain day, and, irt 
 default of such completion, the contractor shall 
 be liable to pay liquidated damages, and there is 
 also a provision that other work may be ordered 
 by way of addition to the contract, and additional 
 work is ordered which necessarily delays the 
 completion of the works, the contractor is exone- 
 rated from liability to pay the liquidated damages, 
 unless by the terms of the contract he has agreed 
 that, whatever additional work may be ordered, 
 he will nevertheless complete the works within 
 the time originally limited. 
 
 Westwood V. Secretary of State for India, 
 (1863) 11 W. E. 261 ; 7 L. T. 736, followed. 
 Jones V. St. John's College, (1870) L. E. 6 Q. B. 
 115, distinguished. Dodd v. Chubton 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 66? 
 
 4. — Non-completion before death of land- 
 owner — Devise of the land — Bight of devisee to 
 have the contract completed at cost of landowner's 
 personal estate. 
 
 A testator having in his lifetime entered into 
 a contract for the erection of buildings on land 
 belonging to him : — 
 
 Held, on the authority of Cooper v. Jarman, 
 (1866) L. B. 3 Eq. 98, that, the buildings not 
 
( 223 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF GASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 221 ) 
 
 BUILDING COST^ACT— continued. 
 
 •haTing been completed before the testator's 
 
 ■death, the devisee of the land was entitled to 
 
 have them completed at the cost of the testator's 
 
 personal estate. 
 
 >h The testator had also entered into a contract 
 
 for the erection of buildings upon land belonging 
 
 "to the devisee by an independent title, and these 
 
 buildings were not completed before the testator's 
 
 death : — 
 
 Held, that Cooper v. Jarman did not apply, 
 «,nd that, it not being shewn that the devisee had 
 given valuable consideration for the contract, 
 she was not entitled to have the buildings com- 
 pleted at the cost of the personal estate. In re 
 Day. Speake v. Dat North J. [1898] 2 Ch. 510 
 
 — Bateability of contractor for advertising 
 
 hoardings. 
 
 See Advertising Statiok. 
 
 — Eestrictive covenants. 
 
 See Cases under Landloed and Tenant. 
 Vendor and Pukchasee. 
 
 BTJILDING :EBTAT^ — Obstruction to light hy 
 Tioarding — Injunction. 
 
 A mortgagor in possession of a building 
 estate leased part thereof to A., the lease being 
 made pursuant to e. 18 of the Conveyancing Act, 
 1881, and the mortgagees not being parties. 
 Subsequently, the mortgagees conveyed another 
 part of the estate to B., who laid it out as a 
 cricket-ground, and erected a hoarding obstruct- 
 ing the lights of A.'s houses : — 
 
 Held, (X) that A.'s lease was binding on the 
 mortgagees; (2) that A. was entitled to an 
 unobstructed access of light to his houses subject 
 only if at all to restriction from buildings to be 
 erected on other parts of the estate ; (3) that the 
 hoarding was not a building and must be 
 removed as infringing A.'s rights. Wilson v. 
 Queen's Clxjb - Eomer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 622 
 
 — Restriction as to number of houses — "House" 
 
 —Flat. 
 
 See Covenant. 2. 
 
 — Eestrictive covenants. 
 
 See Cases under Landloed and Tenant. 
 Vendoe and Puechasbe. 
 
 2. — Bestrictive covenants — Acquiescence — 
 Alteration in character of estate — Injunction. 
 
 Where all the purchasers of lots of an estate 
 are bound by restrictive covenants not to allow 
 any trade or business to be carried on upon their 
 lots, equitable relief in enforcing the covenants 
 will be refused if the party suing has debarred 
 himself from such relief by delay or acquiescence, 
 ■or if the property has been so laid out and used 
 that the object of the covenants, namely, the 
 preserving the property as a residential property, 
 can no longer be attained; but it will not be 
 refused merely because in a few instances the 
 covenants have not been enforced. 
 
 Decision of Eomer J., [1896] 1 Oh. 653, 
 afiSrmed. Knight v. Simmonds 
 
 C, A. [1896] 2 Ch. 294 
 
 — Waterworks — Improvements. 
 
 See Settled Land — Capital Money. 26. 
 
 BUILDING LEASES— Settled laud. 
 
 See Settled Land — Leases. 68 — 70. 
 
 BUILDING LINE. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 
 Steeets. 
 
 BUILDING PLANS. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 
 
 Streets — Building Plans. 
 
 BUILDING BCWEJICZ— Restrictive condition- 
 Positive covenant — Implied negative stipulation. 
 
 Building land described as adapted for shops 
 and business premises was put up for sale by 
 auction subject to a condition that the purchasers 
 of certain specified lots should respectively cove- 
 vant with the vendors to erect within a given 
 time on each of the lots respectively purchased 
 by them a shop and dwelling-house of a given 
 minimum value, but the lots in question remained 
 unsold : — 
 
 Held, applying the test in Oriental Steamship 
 Co. V. Tylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 518, 527, that, having 
 regard to the absence of any express provision as 
 to the maintenance of the contemplated buildings 
 when erected as shops and dwelling-houses, no 
 negative stipulation ought to be implied that 
 nothing but shops and dwelling-houses should be 
 erected on the lots in question; consequently, 
 that the vendors could not be restrained, at the 
 instance of the purchaser of an adjoining lot, 
 from erecting on the unsold lots a fire-engine 
 station of a value exceeding the aggregate value 
 of the contemplated buUdings, there being no 
 such departure from the condition as to render 
 the whole transaction futile. Holfobd v. Acton 
 TJeban Disteiot Council - Stirling J. 
 
 [1898] 3 Ch. 240 
 — Eestrictive covenant — Prior purchaser — Benefit 
 
 — Burden. 
 
 See Covenant. 3. 
 
 2. — Bestrictive Covenant — Sale hy municipal 
 corporation. 
 
 A corporation offered at auction some of their 
 corporate land as building land in lots with 
 restrictive conditions. None of the lots were sold, 
 but subsequently pit. agreed with the corporation 
 to purchase two of the lots subject to the con- 
 ditions. The conveyance contained a covenant 
 by the pit. to observe the conditions, but no 
 covenant by the corporation io be bound by them 
 as to the unsold lots. The Treasury were not 
 informed that there was a building scheme. Sub- 
 sequently the corporation agreed to sell two other 
 lots to trustees for a church. The pit. was 
 refused an injunction restraining them from so 
 doing, for the Treasury had only approved what 
 was within the four corners of his conveyance, 
 and without their approval the pit. could not 
 sustain the larger outside right claimed by him. 
 Davis v. Leicestee Coepoeation 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 208 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Holford v. Acton 
 Urian Council, [1898] 2 Oh. 240, 246. 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY. 
 
 Building Societies Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. 
 c. 47), amends the Building Societies Acts. 
 
 Building Society Regulations, 1895, dated 
 January I, 1895. St. B. & 0. 1895, No. 16. 
 Price 2d. 
 
 County Court Rules {Nov.), 1900, Order XLI. A. 
 
( 225 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 226 ) 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY— conimMC(J. 
 
 W. N. 1900 (Dec. 8), p. 325. See Current Index, 
 
 1900, p. boudi. 
 
 In General, col. 225. 
 
 Arbitration, col. 225. 
 
 Dissolution, col. 225. 
 
 Mortgage, col. 227. 
 
 Ultra Vires, col. 228. 
 
 Winding-up, col. 230. 
 
 Withdrawal, col. 232. 
 
 In Qeneral. 
 
 — Income tax — Benefit building society — In- 
 
 terest on money lent to borrowing 
 
 member. 
 
 See Eetenue — Income Tax. 71. 
 
 — Keconveyauce to building society — Stamp — 
 
 Mortgage. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 168. 
 
 Arbitration. 
 
 1. — BigM of member to arbitration — Neglect 
 to appoint arbitrators — Mandamus — Building 
 Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42), ss. 16, 36. 
 
 Where the rules provide that all disputes 
 shall be settled by standing arbitrators, the High 
 Court;has no jurisdiction to decide disputes falling 
 within the rules ; but a member is not deprived 
 of the right of seeking arbitration by the failure 
 of the society to fill up the number of arbitrators, 
 since a mandamus lies to the society to direct 
 sucli filling up, and the number can be filled up 
 after the dispute has arisen. Nokton v. Counties 
 
 CONSEBTATIVE PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDINS 
 
 Societi - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 246 
 
 But see now the Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. u. 47), s. 20. 
 
 2. — Stating case. 
 
 The power of the Court under s. 19 of the 
 Arbitration Act, 1889, to order an arbitrator to 
 state, in the form of a special case for the opinion 
 of the Court, any question of law arising in the 
 course of the reference, applies to arbitrations 
 under the Building Societies Act, 1874. 
 
 Decision of C. A. In re Knight and Taber- 
 nacle Permanent Building Society, [1891] 2 Q. B. 
 63 afBrmed. Knight v. Tabernacle Permanent 
 Building Sooiett - H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 298 
 
 But see now the BuUding Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), s. 20. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Palmer & Co. and 
 Eoslcen & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 131, 138. 
 
 Dissolution. 
 
 3. — Calling up advanced shares — Building 
 Societies Acts, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. e. 42), s. 32 ; 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), s. 10. 
 
 An instrument of dissolution under s. 32 of 
 the Building Societies Act, 1874, is not equivalent 
 in its operation to a winding-up order made by the 
 Court. Under Buoh an instrument, 'advanced 
 members who had covenanted to pay up their 
 advances by instalments cannot be compelled to 
 do so forthwith. Sect. 10 of the Building Societies 
 Act, 1894, applies to a society the dissolution of 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY (Jiissolxitwn)— continued. 
 which was begun before, but was not completed 
 at, the time when that section came into operation. 
 Kemp v. Wright - C, A. [1895] 1 Ch. 121 
 partially reversing Eekewlch J. [1894] 2 Ch. 462 
 
 Considered by Stirling J. Botten v. City and 
 Suburban Permanent Building Society, [1895]' 
 2 Ch. 441. See No. 5, below. 
 
 See now Building Societies Act 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 47), s. 10. 
 
 4. — Instrument of dissolution — Signature — 
 Agent — Infant — Joint shareholder — Building 
 Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42), s. 32, 
 sub-s. 3 ; ss. 38, 39 — Secretary of State's Regula- 
 tions, 1884, rr. 13, 14. 
 
 The signature of a member of a building 
 society to one only of the two duplicate instru- 
 ments of dissolution is inoperative. 
 
 An infant member of a building society can. 
 consent to dissolution of the society ; and the 
 consent of a principal to such a dissolution may 
 be signed by an agent on his behalf. 
 
 For the purpose of consenting to dissolution 
 of a building society joint holders of a share are 
 to be considered one member, and must all sign 
 the instrument of dissolution. 
 
 A member of a building society who holds 
 shares both jointly and severally need not sign, 
 the instrument of dissolution in more than one 
 place to testify consent in respect of all his shares. 
 Dennison v. Jeefs North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 611 
 
 8. — Priority of members — Withdrawing- 
 members — Building Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38~ 
 Vict. c. 42), ss. 18, 32. 
 
 It is not competent for the members of a 
 building society by an instrument of dissolutioa 
 executed under the Building Societies Act, 1874, 
 to vary the rights of members under the rules of 
 the society by a provision taking away the 
 priority of withdrawing members over those 
 who have given no notice of withdrawal unless 
 the variation has been specially sanctioned at a- 
 special meeting held under s. 18 of the Act oi 
 1 874, of which notice has been given under the 
 rules of the society. Botten v. City and- 
 Suburban Permanent Building Sooiett 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch 441 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Allen v Gold Beefs of' 
 West Africa, Ld., [1900] 1 Ch. 656, 673. 
 
 6. — Priority of payment of menibers. 
 
 A building society having suffered loss,- 
 passed a resolution in 1889 to reduce the shares 
 from 121. to 101. The rules then in force entitled 
 any unadvanced member to withdraw his pay- 
 ments on account of shares by giving one month's 
 notice, such withdrawing members to be paid in 
 rotation, but not more than one withdrawing 
 member was entitled to be paid at each monthly.- 
 meeting. In Feb. 1890, altered rules were- 
 adopted entitling members to withdraw amounts 
 standing to their credit by giving one month's 
 written notice, the amount due in respect of 
 shares to be five-sixths of the net amount paid, 
 on them. In 1892 an instrument of dissolution,,, 
 under s. 32 of the Building Societies Act, 1874, 
 was executed and registered ; some members had 
 given notice of withdrawal before the losses wera-j 
 known, others before the reduction of the sharce- 
 
 I 
 
( 227 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 228 ) 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY (Dissolutim}- continued. ''■ 
 others after the reduction. One member had not 
 assented to the reduction. Other members had 
 not given notice of withdrawal : — 
 
 Beld, (1) that all the members were bound by 
 the reduction; (2) that the rule as to priority of 
 payment applied to all who had given a month's 
 notice of withdrawal before the date of the 
 instrument of dissolution. Babnard v. Tomson 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 374 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Sixth West Kent 
 Mutual Building Society v. Eills, [18991 2 Ch 
 60, 69. • L J 
 
 Mortgage. 
 ?• — In/ant borrowing member — Mortgage for 
 
 advances — Eepudiaticn on attaining twenty-one 
 
 Infants Relief Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. e. 62), s. 1 
 —Building Societies Act, 187i (37 & 38 Tiet 
 c. 42), S8. 13, 14, 21, and 38. 
 
 The Building Societies Act, 1874, ». 13, em- 
 powers building accitties registered under the 
 Act to make advances to its members by way of 
 mortgage ; s. 21 makes the rules of the society 
 binding on all the members; and s. 38 enacts 
 that any person under the age of twenty-one may 
 be admitted a member of the society, unless such 
 admission is prohibited by the rules, and may 
 give " all necessary acquittances." 
 
 The Infants Relief Act, 1874, s. 1, enacts that 
 all contracts, whether by specialty or by simple 
 contract, thenceforth entered into by infants for 
 the repayment of money lent or to be lent .... 
 shaU be absolutely void, but this enactment shall 
 not invalidate any contract into which an infant 
 , may, by any existing or future statute, or by the 
 rules of common law or equity, enter. 
 
 In 1898 T., a member of a building society 
 registered under the Building Societies Act, 1874, 
 aud whose rules enabled infants to become 
 members, obtained advances to enable her to 
 purchase some land and to complete some houses 
 thereon. The transaction was carried out by a 
 conveyance of the land to T., and a mortgage of 
 it by T. to the society in the usual form as security 
 for the advances made and to be made to her. At 
 this time T. was a minor, but this was not known 
 to the society. In 1899 T. attained her majority, 
 and shortly afterwards brought an action against 
 the society to set aside the mortgage as void 
 under the Infants Belief Act, 1874. The society 
 contended (1) that by virtue of the provisions of 
 ,-the Building Societies Act, 1874, and their rules, 
 the mortgage was valid ; and (2) that in any 
 event T. could not retain the property and at 
 the same time repudiate the charge created by 
 the mortgage : — 
 
 Held, without deciding the first question, that 
 the purchase and mortgage were one transaction, 
 and that under the circumstances T. could not 
 retain the property free from the charge upon it 
 ^or the advances made by the society. 
 
 Quosre, whether an infant borrowing member 
 of a building society registered under the Build- 
 ing Societies Act, 1874, and whose rules enable 
 infants to become members, can execute a valid 
 mortgage to the society for advances. Thueston 
 
 V. NOTTIKGHAM PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING 
 
 SooiETT - - Joyce J. [1900] "W. N, 239 ; 
 
 see [1901] 1 Ch, 88 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY (Mortgage)— co«<«nue(Z. 
 
 — Power of ^ale — Exercise by person not trustee 
 of society. 
 See Mortgage — Sale. 84. 
 
 — Eeconveyance to buUding society. 
 See Sevenub — Stamps. 168. 
 
 8. — Redemption — Advanced member — Altera- 
 tion of rules after date of mortgage — Buildina 
 Societies Act, 1886 (6*7 WiU. 4, e. 32). 
 
 An advanced member of a society executed a 
 niortgage to the society with a proviso for redemp- 
 tion on payment of the several sums which under 
 the constitution and rules and regulations of the 
 society ought to be paid in respect of his shares 
 and a covenant to the same effect. At the date 
 of the mortgage advanced members .were not 
 liable to contribute to losses ; but the rules were 
 subsequently altered so as to make them liable, 
 and a levy waa made for contribution to losses 
 suffered : — 
 
 Seld, that the advanced member wag not 
 [ entitled to redeem except upon payment of his 
 proportion of the levy. Bbadbury v. WtLD 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] 1 Ch. 877 
 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. Kemp v. Wriqht, 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 462, 469; C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 12l" 
 
 Ultra Vires. 
 
 9. — Alteration of rules — Repayment of fully 
 paid-up shares — Building Societies Act, 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42), ss. 16, IS— Building Societies 
 Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 47), ss. 1, 25, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The power of altering the rules of a building 
 society established under the Building Societies 
 Act of 6 & 7 "Will 4, and subsequently incor- 
 porated under the Building Societies Act, 1874, 
 now depends on s. 18 of the Act of 1874 and s. 1 
 of the Building Societies Act, 1894. 
 
 A resolution duly passed by a majority of 
 three-fourths of the members present at a special 
 meeting for making a rule that the amount due 
 from the society to each member in respect of 
 any share or shares held by him on December 1, 
 1896, should be deemed to be and taken as 
 thirty-three-fiftieths of the net amount paid on 
 such share or shares is not ultra vires. Stkoh- 
 
 MBNGEB V. FiNSBUBT (BOBOUGH Or) PeEMANENT 
 
 Investment Btjilding Society 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 469 
 Seferred to by Byrne J. Sixth West Kent 
 Mutual Building Society v. Hills, [1899] 2 Ch. 
 60, 69. 
 
 10. — Deposits — Liability of directors for 
 deposits in excess of the prescribed limits — Building 
 Societies Act, 1874 (37 * 38 Vict. c. 42), s. 43. 
 
 The secretary of a society received deposits in 
 excess of the prescribed limits, giving, in pursu- 
 ance of the director's authority so to do, pro- 
 visional receipts followed by formal receipts 
 signed by the directors, and appropriated part of 
 the moneys deposited : — 
 
 Held, that every director who was a member 
 of the board when the deposit was received was 
 personally liable under s. 43 of the Building 
 Societies Act, 1874, for the deposits made in 
 excess of the prescribed limits. Ceoss v. Fisher 
 C. A, [1898] 1 a, B. 467 
 
 But see now the Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), s. 15, 
 
( 229 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 230 ) 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY (Ultra Vires)— cantinued. 
 
 11. — Deposits — Building Societies Act, 1836 
 <6 * 7 Will. 4, e. 32). 
 
 A society under the Act of 1836 cannot make 
 a rale empowering the Society to borrow on 
 deposit so as to bind not only its assets but also 
 its members personally. In re West London 
 
 AND GenBEAL PeBMANENT BENEFIT BciLDINa 
 
 Society - - "Wright J. [1894] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 13. — Neto rules — -Known insolvency at time 
 «f passing^UUra vires — Transfer of properties to 
 members in exchange for shares — Payment of 
 interest on shares. 
 
 A rule conferring special powers of realization 
 and of compromising and settling claims may be 
 rightly passed by a building society after known 
 and recognised insolvency, so long as the rule 
 does not of necessity involve altering the consti- 
 tutional rights of its members inter se or the 
 eights^f creditors, inasmuch as it may be exercised 
 so as to be advantageous to all members alike. 
 
 If, however, such a rule is so exercised as to 
 give unfair or undue advantage to individuals, 
 this will be a breach of trust. 
 
 A building society under its rules issued three 
 •classes of shares — A, B, and 0. Of these the C 
 shares wer« preferential, the holders being en- 
 titled to be paid interest in lieu of bonus and 
 other periodical payments. In Oct., 1889, the 
 society passed a rule that after Dee. 31, 1890, 
 no further advances should be made upon shares 
 then existing, and that from and after the 
 passing of tie rule the withdrawal of shares 
 <other than shares) by priority of notice should 
 •cease, and that the funds of the society should be 
 applied, amongst other things, to the payment of 
 capital and interest on the shares. 
 
 On Oct. 28, 1891, the society passed the 
 following rule : " In order to facilitate the realiza- 
 tiott of any properties now or at any time in the 
 jiossession of the society, the directors shall have 
 jxjwer to sell the same or any part thereof to any 
 member, and receive in payment, either wholly or 
 in part, any fully paid or subscription shares held 
 hj the member, whether under notice of with- 
 drawal or not, provided that such shares shall be 
 taken subject to the deduction of any withdrawal 
 fee in force for the time being." 
 
 At the time of passing the rule of Oct., 1889, 
 and thenceforward the society was known both 
 to its officers and members to be insolvent in the 
 sense that the assets of the society were not suiB- 
 cient to repay in full the sum due to members on 
 their shares ; but there were no outside creditors. 
 
 The directors having acted in pursuance of the 
 above rule of Oct., 1891 : — • 
 
 Seld, in an action commenced against them 
 as having acted ultra vires, tliat the rule of Oct., 
 1891, was not ultra vires, and that the directors 
 were not liable for a breach of trust, and, further, 
 that the payment of interest on the shares was 
 in accordance with the contract notwithstanding 
 that the society was insolvent. Sixth "West 
 Kent MtiTUAL Building Societt v. Hills 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] 2 Ch. 60 
 
 13. — New rules — Known insolvency at time of 
 ■passing — VUra vires — Notice of withdrawal — 
 .Priority. 
 
 The Court declared that the shares in the 
 
 BUILDIN& SOCIETY (Ultra Viies)— continued. 
 society, in respect of which notice of withdrawal 
 was not given before the change of rules, were 
 preferential as regards payment of interest only, 
 and not as regards capital, but that the holders 
 of shares who gave notice to withdraw prior to 
 the change of rules were entitled to be preferred 
 over the holders of shares who had not then given 
 such notice, and that the new rule was invalid in 
 so far as it varied any then subsisting rights of 
 members. 
 
 In re Sunderland 3&.h Universal Building 
 
 Society, (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 394, followed. Sixth 
 
 West Kent Mdtoal Building Societt v. Shove 
 
 Stirling J. [1899] 2 Ch. 64, n. 
 
 14. — Power to lend on first mortgage — Subro- 
 gation — Fart payment of mortgage moneys by third 
 person — Postponement of security for balance. 
 
 A building society, having exhausted its 
 boiTowing powers, applied for a loan from an 
 insurance co., who lent 6000?. to H. on security 
 of property mortgaged by H. for 17,000Z. to the 
 society, which joined in the security to postpone 
 their own mortgage. The 60007. was handed to 
 the society by H., who was credited therewith in 
 part discharge of the 17,0007 : — 
 
 Held, (i) that the transaction with the 
 insurance co. was ultra vires the society; (2) that 
 the co.'s security for 60007. was postponed to the 
 society's security for 11,0007. ; and (3) that the 
 CO. was not entitled to the security as against the 
 society in respect of any part of the 60007. applied 
 in payment of any liabilities properly payable 
 by the society. Pobtsea Island Buildino 
 SooiBTT V. Babclay C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 298 
 
 affirm. Eomer J. [1894] 3 Ch, 86 
 
 Winding-up. 
 
 15. — Advanced and unadvanced members — 
 Contributories — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict, e- 89), s. 200. 
 
 A building society formed under the Act of 
 1836, but not registered under the Act of 1874, 
 was ordered to be wound up. By its rules 
 advanced members were not liable to contribute 
 to losses : — • 
 
 Held, that they were not liable as contribu- 
 tories in the winding-up. In, re Bbitannia 
 Peemanent Benefit Building Society 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] W, IT, 123 
 
 16. — Advanced members— Obligation to repay 
 immediately the future instalments of advance. 
 
 Advanced members of a society registered and 
 incorporated under the Act of 1874 held to be at 
 liberty to redeem on giving a certain notice and 
 paying the instalments specified in the mortgage 
 less a discount on instalments prepaid. The 
 ordinary period for repayment under the mort- 
 gage was twenty-one years. London Peovident 
 Building Societt v. Moegan 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q, B, 266 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. Kemp v. Wright, 
 [1894] 2 Oh. 462, 471. 
 
 But see now the Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. o. 47), s. 10. 
 
 17. — Contributory — Insolvency — Liability of 
 advanced and unadvanced members. 
 
 The liability of members of a building society 
 registered under the Act of 1836 for its ordinary 
 
 I 2 
 
( 231 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 232 ) 
 
 BTTILDING SOCIETY (Winding-up)— confenuci. 
 debts depends, not on the law of partnership nor 
 on the contract of the members inter se, but on 
 the-law of principal and agent, and if the assets 
 are insufScient such members, whether advanced 
 or unadvanced, are liable as contributoiies for 
 such debts if incurred while they were members. 
 
 In the winding-up of a society registered 
 under the Act of 1836, the claims were met in 
 the following order of priority : — 
 
 (1.) Costs of realization of assets including 
 costs of all parties on applications which were 
 test cases. 
 
 (2.) Payment of ordinary creditors and de- 
 positors pari passu. 
 
 (3.) Deficiency due to ordinary creditors and 
 estimated costs of winding-up other than realiza- 
 tion to be met by a call on all members advanced 
 or unadvanoed. 
 
 (4.) No further contribution by advanced to 
 loss of unadvanced members ; advanced members 
 to be entitled to redeem on payment according to 
 the rules and tables of the society and the contri- 
 bution under Head 3. In re West London and 
 General Permanent BENEriT Building Society 
 Wright J. [1894] 2 Ch. 362 
 
 18. — Contributory — LiabilHy of members 
 inter se — Advanced and preference shares. 
 
 On the winding-up of an unincorporated society 
 formed under the Act of 1836, and consisting of 
 advanced and unadvanced or depositing members 
 and holders of preference shares, it was found 
 that the assets, after payment in full of outside 
 creditors, were insufficient to repay the preference 
 Bhareholders, who by their agreement were to be 
 exempt from the losses of the society : — 
 
 Held, that the advanced and depositing 
 members must contribute rateably to repay the 
 preference shareholders in full with interest at 
 5 per cent. In re Eeliance Permanent Benefit 
 Building Society Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 77 
 
 19. — Jurisdiction — Transfer to High Court — 
 Building Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42), 
 ss. 4, 32. 
 
 Notwithstanding rule 146 of the County Court 
 Eules, 1890, the winding-up of a building society 
 registered under the Act of 1874 cannot be trans- 
 ferred to the High Court. In re Eeal Estates 
 Qo. - V. WiUiams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 398 
 
 But see now the Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), s. 8. 
 
 20. — Special case — Jurisdiction — Building 
 Societies Act, 1874 (37 * 38 Vict. c. 42), ss. i, 
 32, sub-s. i— Companies (_Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), t. 3, sub-s. 3. 
 
 In the winding-up in the county-court of a 
 building society registered under the Building 
 Societies Act, 1874, a special case for the opinion 
 of the High Court may be stated under s. 3 (3) 
 of the Winding-up Act, 1890. 
 
 Semble, the enactments from time to time in 
 force, whether previous or subsequent to the 
 Building Societies Act, 1874, for winding-up 
 companies in the Chancery Division apply to 
 such winding-up in the County Court. In re 
 Pobtsba Island Building Sooiett 
 
 V. WUUams J. [1893] 3 Ch. 206 
 
 But see nam the Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 47), s. 8 (1). 
 
 BUHDING SOCIETY (Winding-up)— com«i»U6(f, 
 
 21. — Winding-up — Unincorporated Society 
 certified after 1862 and before 1874 — Bepeal of 
 statute under whieh certified — Illegal company- 
 Jurisdiction to wind up— Companies Act, 1862. 
 (25 iSc 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 4, 199 — Building Societies 
 Acts, 1836 (6*7 Will. 4, c. 32) ; 1874 (37 * 38 
 Vict. c. 42), s. 40 ; 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), 8. 25. 
 
 In this case it was held that on the merits the 
 petition for the compulsory winding-up of this 
 society must be dismissed. The society was legal 
 when constituted, and ceased to enjoy the fuD 
 protection of the law in consequence of the 
 repeal of the Act of 1836, which was the only 
 Act which justified the society's existence. In a 
 literal sense, the society was formed " in pursu- 
 ance of some other Act ; " but " formed " in b. 4 
 of the Act of 1862 must mean formed and having 
 its existence recognised under the provisions of 
 an existing Act. Therefore the society appeared 
 to be an illegal one, and there was no jurisdiction 
 to wind it up. In re Ilpracombe Permanent 
 Mutual Benemt Building Society 
 
 Wright J. [1900] W. N. 249; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. W& 
 
 Withdrawal. 
 
 22. — Deposits — Withdrawal in rotation. 
 
 A rule provided for payment of withdrawals 
 in rotation where the available balance in hand, 
 was insufficient to pay all the depositors wishing 
 to withdraw : — 
 
 Held, that the rule suspended the right to 
 an action for the deposit. Brett v. Monarch 
 Investment Building Society 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. SBT 
 
 23. — Notice — Alteratiori in rules. 
 
 A withdrawing member will be affected by 
 an alteration duly sanctioned in the rules rela- 
 tive to withdrawal, although the alteration be 
 made after he has given notice to withdraw, and 
 his vested right to payment may by such altera- 
 tion be divested. Pepe v. City and Suburban 
 
 iPEHMANENT BoiLDINS SOCIETY 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. Sit 
 
 Notice of— New rules— Known insolvency at 
 
 time of passing. 
 
 See Building Society- Ultra Vires. 1^. 
 
 24. Priorities — Building Societies Act, 
 
 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42), 8. 32. 
 
 The question whether an investing member 
 of a building society may withdraw so as to 
 obtain priority over other members does not 
 depend on the answer to be given to the question 
 whether the society was solvent or insolvecit 
 when his notice matured, or on the answer to 
 be given to the question whether the membess 
 or officers of the society then knew that the 
 society was insolvent. The line is to be drawn 
 at the time when there is a stoppage of the 
 society's business, or a recognition, by those who 
 are entitled to form a judgment, that thebusmesa 
 must be stopped. In re Ambition iNVESTMNr 
 Building Sooibtt V. Williams J. [1896] 
 
 building OUO ^ ^ ^^^ ^^^ . |.^ggg^ ^ ^^ g^ 
 
 Rpferred to by Byrne J. Sixth West Kent 
 Muf^lBMing^sJety v. Hills, [1899] 2 Ch. 
 
 60, 69. 
 
( 233 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 234 ) 
 
 BUIIDING SOCIETY (Withdrawal)— conWnaed 
 
 26. — Winding-up — Construction of rules — 
 Withdrawal of members — Priority — Deceased 
 member — Executor — Loan by society to member — 
 SetH>ff. 
 
 The rules of a building society provided that 
 members might withdraw from the society on 
 giving certain notice ; that the amounts receiv- 
 able on withdrawal should be subject to any 
 payments or deductions as might be determined 
 by the directors; that payment of withdrawals 
 should be made according to priority of receipt 
 of notice by the society ; and that the directors 
 should have power to limit the number of shares 
 to be withdrawn in any one month, and to limit 
 the withdrawals so that they should not exceed 
 one-half of the monthly income from share sub- 
 ficriptions. The directors had determined by 
 resolution " that the terms of the rules limiting 
 the shares withdrawable be enforced." The 
 society went into voluntary liquidation. All 
 outside creditors had been paid, but the assets 
 were insufficient to meet the claims of all the 
 ahareholders : — 
 
 Seld, that members who had given notices of 
 withdrawal which expired before the commence- 
 ment of the winding-up were entitled to be paid 
 in full in priority to those whose notices had 
 matured later, or who had given no notice at all : 
 
 Held, also, that the executor of a member 
 who had died before the winding-up was entitled 
 to priority over withdrawing members. 
 
 A member who had given notice of with- 
 drawal, afterwards accepted from the society a 
 loan upon terms whereby he still continued to 
 receive interest upon his share, but paid interest 
 upon his advance : 
 
 Held, that he was not entitled in the winding- 
 up to set oif the amount of his share against the 
 unpaid balance of the loan. In re Counties 
 
 CONSEEVATIVE PekMANENT BENEFIT BCILDING 
 
 Society. Datis v. Norton 
 
 Stirling J. [1900] 2 Ch. 819 
 
 SXTLGABIA — Deeds, powers of attorney, contracts 
 and other documents emanating from-Vnited King- 
 dom, and intended to be produced in Bulgaria, 
 must be legalized at Foreign Office, London. 
 Xond. Gaz. April 23, 1897, p, 2248. 
 
 3TTLL — ^Parish bull and boar — Charge on great 
 tithes — Transfer of liability to custom. 
 See Custom. 1. 
 
 BTIIIION-EOOM — Bill of lading — Implied 
 warranty — Filncss to resist thieves. 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 46. 
 
 lUNGAIOW— " Wooden structure or erection of 
 a movable or temporary character." 
 See London — Buildings. 33. 
 
 3U0T — Beacon — GFas float — Salvage — Jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 239. 
 
 3TTRGH — ^Rates — Ultra ^ires — Costs of opposing 
 bill in Parliament. 
 See Scottish Law — Burgh. 3, 
 
 'BVRQLiLRY— Burglary Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict, 
 •e. 57), provides for the trial of burglaries by Courts 
 t>f Quaiter Sessions. 
 
 'EWRQL&B.Y— continued. 
 
 — Loss by theft — Entry by opening unlocked 
 
 shop door — " Actual forcible and violent 
 
 entry." 
 
 See Insurance — Burglary. 5. 
 
 — Policy — Waiver of prepayment of premium. 
 
 See Insubanoe — Burglary. 6. 
 
 BTTBIAL — Local Government (Joint Committees) 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 40), amends s. 53 of 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 * 57 Viet. e. 73), 
 as to Joint Committees for purposes of Burial 
 Acts. 
 
 Burial Act, 1900 (63 <t,64 Vict. o. 15) amends 
 the law relating to burial grounds. 
 
 1. — Cemetery — Fees — Service at funeral — 
 Burial Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 85), ss. 30, 32 
 —Burial Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 41), ss. 1, 5. 
 
 (1) Where a parish is comprised in the district 
 of a burial bd., formed under tbe Burial Act, 1852, 
 and the cemetery of the bd. is the burial ground 
 of the parish, s. 32 of that Act does not entitle 
 tlie incumbent to fees for the burial of a deceased 
 parishioner in the consecrated part of the ceme- 
 tery, if he was not present to perform the burial 
 service owing to non-receipt of notice, nor is the 
 bd. bound to give him notice of such a burial. 
 (2) Incumbents of ecclesiastical districts com- 
 prised in a burial bd. district have the same rights 
 quoad sacra only as they would have had in the 
 churchyards of their parishes or districts, and 
 have no right of fees for the interment of non- 
 inhabitants or non-parishioners in the cemetery, 
 nor for the grant of vaults or exclusive rights of 
 interment therein* (3) A burial bd. is under 
 no obligation to give the notice required by s. 1 
 of the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880, before 
 allowing burial without the Church of England 
 service in the consecrated part of the cemetery. 
 (4) Apart from the Act of 1880, it is illegal for 
 a burial bd. knowingly to permit an unqualified 
 or unauthorized person to conduct a religious 
 service at a portion of a cemetery which is the 
 burial ground of a parish. Wood ». Headinglet- 
 
 CUM-BUBLBT BUEIAL BOARD 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 713 
 
 — Cemetery — Income tax. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 74. 
 
 2. — Disused burial ground — Building re- 
 strictions — Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 34), s. 1— Disused Burial 
 Grounds Act, 1884 (47 * 48 Vict. 6. 72), ss. 2, 3— 
 Open Spaces Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 32), 
 ss. 2, 4, and Sched. 
 
 The combined eifect of the Open Spaces Act, 
 1881, s. 1, the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, 
 s. 2, and the Open Spaces Act, 1887, ss. 2, 4, and 
 schedule, make the term " disused burial ground " 
 (on which building is prohibited by s. 3 of the 
 Act of 1884) include land, whether consecrated or 
 not, set apart for, but never used for, interments. 
 In re Ponseobd and Newport District School 
 Board - - C A. [1894] 1 Ch. 464 
 
 3. — Disused burial ground. Building upon 
 — Sale or disposition '^ under the authority 
 of any Act of Parliament ' — Michael Angela 
 Taylor's Act (57 Geo. 3, a. xxix.), ss. 80-85, 96— 
 Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict, 
 c. 34), s. 1 — Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884 
 
( 235 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— J SOO. 
 
 ( 236 ) 
 
 BTIBIAL — continued. 
 
 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 72), ss. 3, 5— Open Spaces Act, 
 
 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 32), s. 4. 
 
 In 1885 land forming part of a disused burial 
 ground, building upon wliicb, except for the 
 purpose of enlarging places of worship, is pro- 
 hibited by s. 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds 
 Act, 1884, was acquired by tlie Commrs. cf 
 Sewers for the City of London under tlie powers 
 of 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix., for the purpose of street 
 improvements. A portion of the land so acquired 
 was afterwards resold by the Commrs. as surplus 
 land to the defta., a body of charity trustees, 
 who, with the consent of the Charity Commrs., 
 let it for general building purposes. 
 
 Id an action for an injunction to restrain the 
 defts. from building upon the land: — 
 
 Held, that it had been "sold under the 
 authority of an Act of Parliament " within s. 5 of 
 the Act of 1884, and consequently was excepted 
 from the operation of that Act. 
 
 Sect. 5 applies to a sale or disposition made 
 after the commencement of the Act. 
 
 In re Ecclesiastical Commrs. and New City of 
 London Brewery Co.'s Contract, [1895] 1 Ch. 702, 
 preferred upon this point to In re Trustees of St. 
 Saviour's Rectory and Oyler, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 
 412. Att.-Gen. v. Trustees of the London 
 Pabochial Charities 
 
 Stirling 3. [1896] 1 Ch. 841 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re Ecclesiastical 
 Commrs. and New City of London Brewery Co.'s 
 Contract, [1895] 1 Ch. 702, 711. 
 — Faculties for removal of bodies, &o. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law — 
 Faculty. 
 
 4. — Parochial purpose — Application of fees. 
 The repair of a parish church is a parochial 
 
 purpose within s. 36 of the Burial Act, 1852, and 
 fees received by a burial bd. under s. 34 of the 
 Act are applicable to that purpose. Reg. v. St. 
 Mabtlebone Vestrt C. A, [1895] 1 Q. B. 771 
 
 5. — Purchase of addition to burial ground — 
 Approval by Secretary of State — Burial Act, 1852 
 (15 * 16 Vict. c. 85), ss. 25, 26— Burial Act, 1853 
 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 134), 8. 6. 
 
 The burial board of Portsmouth, where by 
 Order in Council no new burial ground was to 
 be opened without the previous approval of one 
 of the Secretaries of State, contracted in 1889 
 with the consent of the vestry for the purchase 
 of a piece of land for the purpose of adding to 
 their existing cemetery. The purchase was not 
 to be completed till June, 1896. In the meantime 
 no interest was to run, and the vendor was to be 
 at liberty to remove the clay and make bricks on 
 the land. In 1895 the property and liabilities of 
 the board were transferred to the corporation. 
 Shortly before the time for completion the cor- 
 poration applied to the Home Secretary for his 
 approval of the land as » burial ground, which 
 he refused to give. The corporation then de- 
 clined to complete, and the vendor sued for 
 speoitio performance or damages : — 
 
 Held, by the 0. A., affirming the decision of 
 Byrne J. on this point, that s. 6 of the Act of 
 1853, which provides that no new burial ground 
 shall be " provided and used " within the limits 
 there specified without the approval of a Secretary 
 
 iVRlAL— continued. 
 
 of State, applied to an addition to an existing 
 
 burial ground. 
 
 But held, reversing the decision of Byrne 3. 
 that the section did not prohibit the contraetingr 
 to purchase land with the consent of the vestry- 
 for the purpose of a burial ground without the 
 approval of a Secretary of State, and that the 
 contract was binding and the vendor entitled fo 
 damages for the breach of it, he not insisting on 
 specific performance. TVaed v. Pobtbmoutb 
 Corporation - - C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 191 
 
 6. — Site of church — Open space — Burial 
 ground— Union of Benefices Acts, 1860, 1871 (2S 
 & 24 Vict. c. 142) ; 34 & 35 Vict. c. 90, s. i—Open 
 Spaces Acts, 1881, 1887 (44 & 45 Vicl. e. 34), a 1 ; 
 50 & 51 Vict. c. 32, ss. 2, 4, and Schedule — Disused 
 Burial Grounds Act, 1884 (47 & 48 VicL v. 72), 
 88. 2, 3, 5. 
 
 The site of a desecrated church in London 
 sold under the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, i» 
 not a " disused burial ground " within the Open 
 Spaces Acts so as not to be available for building. 
 The power to build is not affected by the Union 
 of Benefices Act of 1871. Sect. 5 of the DisBsea 
 Burial Grounds Act, 1 884, applies to dispositions 
 made after the Act. In re Eoclesiastioai* 
 CoMMKS. and New City op London Brewery 
 Co.'s Contract - North J. [1895] 1 Ch. 70S 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Att.-Gen. v. London 
 Parochial Charities Trustees, [1896] 1 Ch. 541. 
 
 — Cemetery company — New street — Expenses 
 
 of paving. 
 
 See London — Streets. 77. 
 BTTEMA — Marriage in — Evidence of validity — 
 Practice. 
 See Divorce — Evidence. 82. 
 
 BUESAE — Liability tq income tax on salary. 
 
 See Eevende — Income Tax. 80. 
 BUSINESS— Carried on by trustees. 
 
 See Trustee — Indemnity. 53. 
 
 — Rents and profits derived from busiBesst, 
 
 devise of — House of gravel-kind tenures. 
 See Will — Specific Devise. 198. 
 • — Eemunerution for carrying on, at a loss — 
 Death of partner. 
 .See Partnership — Dissolution. 22. 
 
 — Sale of to company — Assets 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Assets. 63. 
 
 — Sale of, to one partner — Canvassing old 
 
 customers — Injunction. 
 
 See Partnership — GoodwUL 26. 
 BTTTTEE— Adulteration of. 
 
 See Adulteration — Margarine. 
 'BY-I.&W— Definition. 
 
 A by-law is not an agreement, but a law 
 binding on all persons to whom it applies, 
 whether they agree to be bound by it or not. All 
 regulations made by a corporate body and in- 
 tended to bind not only themselves and their 
 servants but the public, are " by-laws " whether 
 valid or invalid in law. Per Lindley L.J. in 
 London Association op Shipowners and Brokers 
 V. London and India Docks Joint Committee 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 242, at p. 252 
 Referred to. Barraclough v. Broten, [1897} 
 A. C. 615, at p. 624. 
 
( 237 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 238 ) 
 
 BY-LAW— oo»<i)iue(i. 
 
 — Betting — ^Private ground used for betting — 
 
 " Place of public resort " — Validity. 
 See Cqepoeation- 1, 2. 
 
 — Betting in streets — Statutory enactment — 
 
 Kepugnancy. 
 See Gaminq. 30. 
 
 ^ Building plans. 
 
 See Steeets— Building Plans. 
 
 — Coal, as to sale of. 
 
 See Weights and Measures. 
 
 — Improper elaugbtering of cattle by servant 
 
 contrary to instructions — Liability, 
 See London — Slaughter-houses. 
 
 — Levying rate on lands outside rateable limit. 
 
 See New South WajjEs. 50. ■ 
 
 — London County. 
 
 See London — By-laws, 
 
 — Markets and fairs — Diseases of animals — 
 
 Ultra vires. 
 See Maeket. 1. 
 
 BY-LAW — continued. 
 
 — Noise in street. 
 
 See Nuisance. 20. 
 
 — Power to regulate a trade does not include 
 
 power to prohibit. 
 See Canada. 48. 
 
 — Railway company. 
 
 See Railway — Passengers. 
 
 — Requirement to show ticket — Reasonableness 
 
 See Team WAY. 10, 11. 
 
 — Streets and buildings. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 Steeets. 
 
 — Thames navigation. 
 
 See Shipping— Collision. 81 
 Cases under Thames. 
 
 — Using profane or obscene language — Legality. 
 
 See Steeets. 38. 
 
 — Water tower— Effect of Public Health Acts 
 
 on subsequent special water company's 
 
 Act. 
 
 See BuiLDi>fG. 3. 
 
( 239 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 240 ) 
 
 <!AB. 
 
 See Hackney Cakeiage. 
 
 ■CABLEBEAM— Mistake— Action on contract- 
 Onus proband!. 
 See Contract- Formation. 19. 
 
 «ABL£S. 
 
 See Shipping — Anchors and Chain 
 Cables. 
 
 CALENDAR MONTH— Computation of time. 
 See Justices. 20. 
 
 XIALLS — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — "Winding-up. 
 
 CANADA. 
 
 Generally, col. 239. 
 British Columhia, col. 247. 
 Manitoba, col. 249. 
 New Brunswick, col. 250. 
 Nortli-West Territories, col. 251. 
 Nora Scotia, col. 251. 
 Ontario, col. 252. 
 Quebec, col. 255. 
 
 Dominion and Constitutional Law. 
 (Powers of Federal and Provincial Legislatures.) 
 
 Generally. 
 
 1 — British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. e. 3), s. 91, sub-s. 15; e. 92, sub-s. 13— 
 Dominion Banh Act (46 Vict. c. 120). 
 
 The legislation of the Dominion Parliament, 
 60 long as it strictly relates to subjects enumer- 
 ated in B. 91, is of paramount authority, even 
 though it trenches upon matters assigned to tlie 
 provincial legislature by o. 92. Tennant i'. 
 XTkion Bank of Canada P. C. [1894] A, C. 31 
 
 Referred to by P. C. Att.-Gen. for Ontario 
 V. Alt-Gen. for the Dominion, [1896] A. C. 348, 
 360. 
 
 2. — British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. V. 3), ss. 58, 92, 109, 12e—Belations between 
 ■Crown and provinces. 
 
 The British North America Act, 1867, has 
 not severed tlie connection between the Crown 
 •tind the provinces : the relation between them is 
 the same as that between the Crown and the 
 Dominion in respect of the powers executive and 
 legislative, public property and revenues vested 
 in them respectively. Liquidatoks op the 
 JIamtime Bank of Canada v. Keceivek-General 
 <jF New Bktjnswick - P. C. [1892] A. C. 437 
 
 — British North America Act. 
 
 See Canada, passim. 
 
 — Accumulations — Substitution — Annuity — 
 
 Construction of will. 
 See Accumulations. 9. 
 
 3, — Banli— British North America Act, 1867 
 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 3), ss. 91, Q2— Validity of 
 
 CANADA (Generally) — continued. 
 
 Dominion Bank Ad (46 Vict. c. 120) — Ontario 
 
 Mercantile Amendment Act (c. 122 of the Bevised 
 
 Statutes of Ontario^ — Negotiability of warehouse 
 
 receipts. 
 
 Although warehouse receipts granted to itself 
 by a firm which has not the custody of any goods 
 but its own are not negotiable instruments within 
 the moaning of the Mercautile Amendment Act 
 (c. ] 22 of Kevised Statutes of Ontario) : — 
 
 Held, -that the Dominion Bank Act (46 Vict. 
 c. 120) while in force dispensed with that limita- 
 tion, validated such receipts, and transferred to 
 the indorsees thereof the property therein : 
 
 Bield, further, that the Bank Act was intra 
 vires of the Dominion Parliament. Tennant v. 
 Union Bank of Canada P. C. [1894] A. C. 31 
 
 Eeferred to by P. C. Att.-Gen. for Ontario 
 7. Att.-Gen. for the Dominion, [1896] A. C. 348, 
 360. 
 
 4. — Bankruptcy — British North America 
 Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 3), ss. 91, 92— Powers 
 of local legislature — Enactment ancillary to bank- 
 ruptcy law. 
 
 Held, that s. 9 of Ontario " Act respecting 
 assignments and preferences by insolvent per- 
 sons " (Revised Statutes of Ontario, c. 124), which 
 relates to assignments purely voluntary and 
 postpones thereto judgments and executions not 
 completely executed by payment, is merely 
 ancillary to bankruptcy law, and as such is 
 within the competence of the provincial legisla- 
 ture so long as it does not conflict with any 
 existing bankruptcy legislation of the Dominion 
 Parliament. Att.-Gen. of Ontaeio v. Att.- 
 Gen. for Canada P. C. [1894] A. C. 189 
 
 Eeferred to by P. C. Att.-Gen. for Ontario 
 V. Att.-Gen. for the Dominion, [1896] A. C. 348, 
 360. 
 
 6. — Builder^s privilege — Hypothecary privi- 
 lege—Civil Code of Lower Canada, arts. 2013 G 
 and 2103—59 Vict. c. 42. 
 
 Held, that under the Civil Cide, as amended 
 by 59 Vict. c. 42, a builder's privilege is limited 
 to one year from the date of registration thereof ; 
 and, with regard to an hypothecary privilege 
 conferred on suppliers of materials, it only arises 
 on notice being given to the proprietor under 
 art. 2013 G, and registered under art. 2103, and 
 lapses unless the prescribed legal proceedings 
 are taken within three months from the date of 
 notice. La Banque d'Hochelega v. Stevenson 
 P. C. [1900] A, C. 600 
 
 — Contract — Conditional promise to consider a 
 proposal favourably. 
 See Contract — Construction. 10. 
 
 6. — Contract — Construction — Breach of con- 
 tract — Appeals from judgment on petition of right. 
 
 Where the respondent contracted with the 
 Government to execute for a term of years the 
 printing and binding of certain public documents 
 
( 241 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 242 ) 
 
 CANADA (Generally) — contirmed. 
 at stipulated prices, but the Government did not 
 expressly contract to give to the respondent all 
 or any of the said work : — 
 
 Seld, that a stipulation to that e£fect could 
 not be implied, and that there was no breach of 
 contraft by reason of orders for work being 
 withheld. 
 
 An appeal lies to Her Majesty in Council 
 from a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench 
 on a petition of right. Eeo. v. Demees 
 
 P, C. [1900] A. C. 103 
 
 7. — Crmen debts — Bights of provincial govern- 
 Tment — British North America Act, 1867. 
 
 A claim by a provincial government in respect 
 of public moneys deposited at a bank in the 
 name of the Eeceiver-General of the province is 
 a Crown debt, and as such has priority over the 
 debts due to other depositors and simple contract 
 creditors. Liquibatobs of the Mabitime Bank 
 OP Canada v. Keceiveb-Genbbal op New 
 Bbunswiok p. C. [1893] A. C. 437 
 
 8. — Customs Tariff Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 c. 33), 8. i^R. 8. C. (1886) 49 Vict. e. 32, 8. 150— 
 Construction — Date of importation of goods. 
 
 Held, that by the true construction of the 
 Customs Tariff Act, 1894, s. 4, as amended by 
 the Tariff Act, 1895, which in effect directs that 
 duty be paid upon raw sugar " when such goods 
 are imported into Canada or taken out of ware- 
 house for consumption therein," the date at which 
 duty both attaches thereto and becomes payable 
 is when the goods are landed and delivered to 
 the importer or to his order, or, when they are 
 taken out of warehouse, if instead of being 
 delivered they have been placed in bond. 
 
 Sect. 150 of the Customs Act, 1886, which 
 directs that the precise time of the importation 
 of goods shall be deemed to be the time when 
 "they came within the limits of the port at which 
 they ought to be reported," refers on its true con- 
 struction to the port at which the goods are to be 
 landed — that is, where the effective report is to 
 be made. Such construction is required in order 
 to place a consistent, rational, and probable 
 meaning on the context and other clauses of the 
 Act. Canada Sdgab Kefining Co. v. Eeg. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A, C, 735 
 
 9. — Gas — Bight to stop supply of gas gene- 
 rally—Canada Act (12 Vict. c. 183), 8. 20—Con- 
 etruction — Gasworks Glauses (^Imperial) Act, 1847 
 <10 * 11 Vict. c. 15). 
 
 Seld, that, by the true construction of s. 20 
 of the Canada Act (12 Vict. o. 183), borrowed 
 from the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847 (Imperial 
 Parliament), the appellant co. is authorized to 
 cease supplying the respondent with gas at any 
 of .his houses on his neglect to pay its bill for 
 any one of them. There is nothing in the 
 flection to limit the authority of the co. to the 
 particular buUding in respect of which there has 
 been default, and such a limitation cannot he 
 Implied, Montkeal Gas Co. v. Cadieux 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 589 
 
 10. — Indian reserves — Idability to pay annui- 
 ties in respect thereof — British North America Act, 
 1867 (80 * 31 Vict. c. 3), 8S. 109, 111, 112. 
 
 By treaties in 1850 the Governor of Canada, 
 
 CANADA (Generally) — continued. 
 as representing the Crown and the provincial 
 government, obtained the cession from the Ojibe- 
 way Indians of lands occupied as Indian reserves, 
 the beneficial interest therein passing to the 
 provincial government, together with the lia- 
 bility to pay to the Indians certain perpetual 
 annuities : — 
 
 Held, that these lands being within the limits 
 of the province of Ontario, created by the British 
 North America Act, 18S7, the beneficial interest 
 therein vested under s. 109 in that province. 
 
 The perpetual annuities having been capital- 
 ised on the basis of the amounts specified in the 
 treaties, the Dominion assumed liability in re- 
 spect thereof under s. 111. Thereafter the 
 amounts of these annuities were increased accord- 
 ing to the treaties : 
 
 Held, that liability for these increased amounts 
 was not so attached to the ceded lands and their 
 proceeds as to form a charge thereon in the 
 hands of the province, under s. 109. They must 
 be paid by the Dominion with recourse to the 
 provinces of Ontario and Quebeo conjointly, under 
 ss. Ill and 112; in the same manner as the 
 original annuities. Att.-Gen. foe Dominion of 
 Canada v. Att.-Gen. foe Ontaeio. Att.-Gen. 
 FOE Quebec v. Att.-Gen. poe Ontabio 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. 0. 199 
 
 11. — Insurance, life — Validity of life policy 
 — Lawful holder — Civil Code of Lower Canada, 
 Art. 2590. 
 
 In an action on a policy of life insurance : — 
 Held, that the pit. was not a lawful holder. 
 As " the protector of the deceased whenever 
 he stood in need of protection" he had not 
 an insurable interest in his life within the 
 meaning of art. 2590 of the Civil Code of Lower 
 Canada : 
 
 Held, further, that a condition in the policy 
 that the same should on the lapse of a year or 
 upwards during which premiums have been 
 regularly paid become incontestable is no answer 
 to an objection founded on the terms of the Code. 
 Anotil v. Mandfactubebs' Life Insdbanoe Co. 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 604 
 
 12. — Intoxicating liquors — Canada Temper- 
 ance Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 13), «. 17— Con- 
 struction. 
 
 There having been numerous convictions of the 
 respondent, with accumulated penalties amount- 
 ing to $1400, for having on various occasions 
 sold intoxicating liquor, and thereby committed 
 offences under the Canada Temperance Act of 
 1864, a certiorari was granted in one case by the 
 Superior Court, on the ground that by the true 
 construction of s. 17, which provides that two or 
 more offences by the same party may be included 
 in the same complaint, a penalty of $100 was 
 sufScient for all offences under the Act during 
 the limitation period of three months prescribed 
 by s. 15 :— 
 
 Held, that, in the absence of express words to 
 that effect, s. 17 must be construed as permissive 
 merely, and not imperative. Wentwoeth v. 
 Mathieu - - - P. C. [1900] A. C. 212. 
 
 18. — Liquor Laws — British North America 
 Act, 1867 (30 * 31 Vict. c. 3), ss. 91, 92— Dis- 
 tribution of legislative powers — Power of prohibi- 
 
( 5:43 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 244 ) 
 
 CANADA (GeneraUy)— continued. 
 
 *'°^—p^'"^^^<i Temperance Act, 1886-Onfam Act 
 (53 Vief. c. 56), s. 18. 
 
 The general power of legislation conferred 
 upon the Dominion Parliament by s. 91 of the 
 British North America Act, 1867, in supplement 
 of its therein enumerated powers, must be strictly 
 confined to such matters as are unquestionably of 
 national interest and importance ; and must not 
 trench on any of the subjects enumerated in a. 92 
 as within the scope of provincial legislation, 
 unless they have attained such dimensions as to 
 affect the body politic of the Dominion. 
 
 Dominion enactments, when competent, over- 
 ride but cannot directly repeal provincial legisla- 
 tion. Whether they have in a particular instance 
 effected virtual repeal by repugnancy is a 
 question for adjudication by the tribunals, and 
 cannot be determined by either the Dominion or 
 provincial legislature. 
 
 Accordingly the Canada Temperance Act, 
 1886, so far as it purported to repeal the prohibi- 
 tory clauses of the old provincial Act of 1864 
 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 18) was ultra vires the Dominion. 
 Its own prohibitory provisions are, however, valid 
 when duly brought into operation in any pro- 
 vincial area, as relating to the peace, order, and 
 good government of Canada : 
 
 Bussell V. Reg. (7 App. Cas. 829) followed; 
 
 but not as regulating trade and commerce 
 within s. 91, sub-s. 2, of thg Act of 1867; 
 
 Citizens' Insurance Co. v. Parsons (7 App. Cas. 
 98) distinguished and Municipal Corporation of 
 Toronto v. Virgo ([1896] A. C. 88) followed. 
 
 Beld, also, that the local liquor prohibitions 
 authorized by the Ontario Act (53 Vict. c. 56), 
 8. 18, are within the powers of the provincial legis- 
 lature. But they are inoperative in any locality 
 which adopts the provisions of the Dominion Act 
 of 1886. Att.-Gen. for Ontabio v. Att.-Gen. 
 FOB THE Dominion - P. C. [1896] A. C. 348 
 
 14. — Practice — New trial — Verdict — Judg- 
 ment — Damages. 
 
 Where a jury found (1) that the death of the 
 plaintiffs wife had been accelerated, but not tri 
 any appreciable extent, by taking a dose of tartar 
 emetic negligently supplied by the defendants ; 
 (2) that the plaintiff had suffered no damage 
 thereby, but that his minor child had incurred 
 damage to the extent of $1000 : — 
 
 Held, that the action must be dismissed, 
 because the damages attributable to the defend- 
 ants were on those findings (which could not 
 properly be disturbed) inappreciable and iire- 
 coverable. 
 
 The Court of Queen's Bench was in error in 
 directing a new trial on the assumption that the 
 findings as to damages are contradictory and 
 illogical. Kerbt v. England 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 742 
 
 15. — Practice — Special leave to appeal — Con- 
 dition as to costs. 
 
 Special leave to appeal may be given on 
 terms that the appellants should be liable to pay 
 the respondent's costs in any event. Montkeal 
 Gas Co. v. Cadieux. Ex parte Montreal Gas 
 Co. - - - P. C. [1898] A. C. 718 
 
 — Nova Scotia — Finance Act, 1894. 
 See PuoBATE — Nova Scotia. 
 
 CANADA (QenexaHy)— continued. 
 
 16. — Railway Committee of Privy Council — 
 Canada Bailmay Act (51 Vid. c. 29), g. 262, 
 suh-ss. 3, 4 — Con3truction. 
 
 Held, that under the true construction of the 
 Railway Act (Canada), 51 Vict. c. 29, the power 
 conferred by sub-g. 4 of s. 262 upon the Railway 
 Committee of the Privy Council to exonerate a 
 ry. 00. during a specified portion of the year from 
 the duty of filling certain spaces specified in 
 sub-s. 4, did not apply to the duty imposed by 
 sub-s. 3 of filling certain other spaces specified 
 by Bub-s. 3. Such extension of power was not 
 authorized by the grammatical construction of 
 the sub-sections, nor rendered imperative by the 
 context. Geand Trunk Et. Co. of Canada v. 
 Washington - - P. C. [1899] A. C. 275 
 
 17. — Railway Company — Contract hy com- 
 pany ultra vires — Effect of consent judgment — 
 Estoppel — Terms on which, contract wiU he set 
 aside— Relief — Parties — Misjoinder. 
 
 Where by contract, ex facie legal and regular, 
 the appellant co. purported to incur liability to 
 the respondent for ry. construction in an amount 
 which was in reality calculated to cover the 
 amount of bonus and of price of issued shares 
 payable by agreement between the respondent 
 and all the shareholders of the co. irrespective of 
 either actual or estimated cost of construction : — 
 
 Held, that the contract w£is ultra vires of the 
 00. : 
 
 Held, further, that a consent judgment ob- 
 tained on the contract declaring the respondent's 
 lien on the co.'s ry. and other property, the ques- 
 tion of ultra vires not having been raised either 
 in the pleadings or on the facts stated, was of no 
 greater validity than the contract. 
 
 In a suit by the co. to set aside the contract 
 and judgment, held, that they must be set aside 
 on terms which were consented to of paying 
 to the respondent the balance due to him for 
 construction on a quantum meruit, securing the 
 amount thereof by bonds of the co. if and when 
 issued, the whole to be taken by him subject to 
 first and other charges in favour of sub-con- 
 tractors and banks in advance to them who had 
 acted on the faith of the judgment to which they 
 were not parties without notice of the illegalities 
 of the contract. 
 
 The CO. having joined some of their bond- 
 holders and shareholders as co-pits., raising ques- 
 tions affecting them individually, held, that the 
 action of the Court should be confined to issues 
 between the co. and the defts. Geeat Nobth- 
 West Centbal Ky. Co. v. Chaelebois 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 114 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Islington Vestry v. 
 Hornsey Urban Council, [1900] 1 Ch. 695, 706. 
 
 18. — Railways — Dominion Railways Act, 1888 
 (51 Vict. c. 29) — Arbitration — Review. 
 
 Where an award of compensation made in an 
 arbitration under the Canadian Railway Act, 
 1888 (c. 109 of the Revised Statutes of Canada), 
 was appealed from : — 
 
 Held, that the Court rightly exercised its 
 jurisdiction in reviewing the award by deciding 
 whether a reasonable estimate of the evidence 
 had been made. It was not authorized by the 
 section to disregard the award and deal with the 
 
( 245 ) 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 246 ) 
 
 CANADA (Generally) — continued. 
 evidence de novo as if it had been a Court of first 
 inatanoj. Atlantic and Nobth-Wbst Ky. Co. 
 V. Wood - - - P. C. [1896] A. C. 267 
 
 19. — Bailioay»— Dominion Railway Act, 1888 
 (51 Vict. c. W)^Closing lane. 
 
 A city council has power under the Canada 
 Kailway Act, 1888 (c. 109 of the Revised Statutes 
 of Canada), to assent to the closing, occupation 
 and use of a public lane by a ry. co. Casgrain 
 V. Atlantic and Nobth-Whst By. Co. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 282 
 
 20. — Bailways — Dominion Act, 1887(50 * 51 
 Vict. c. 39), 8. 1, item 88 ; s. 2, item. nS— Imported 
 steel rails — Street railioaye — Tramways — Law of 
 Canada — Construction. 
 
 Although there may be in various Canadian 
 Acts and for other purposes substantial distinc- 
 tions between rys. or ry. tracks and street rys. 
 and tramways, yet, for the purpose of separating 
 free and dutiable articles, such distinction is not 
 maintained in Canadian Act 50 & 51 Vict. c. 39, 
 and its three predecessors. 
 
 According to the true construction of that 
 Act (see s. 1, item 88, and s. 2, item 178), the 
 question whether imported steel rails are taxed 
 or free depends solely upon their weiglit, not 
 upon the character of the ry. track for which they 
 are intended. Tokonto Ry. Co. v. Res. 
 
 F. C. [1866] A. C. 6S1 
 
 21. — Itivers and lake improvements — " Public 
 hariours " — Fisheries and fishing rights — Bevised 
 Statutes of Canada, c. 92, c. 95, s. 4 — Becised 
 Statutes of Ontario, c. 24, g. 47 — Ontario Act of 
 1892 (55 Vict. e. 10}— British North America Act, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 3), ss. 91, 92, lOS— Distri- 
 bution of legislative powet — Construction. 
 
 Whatever proprietary rights vested in the 
 provinces at the date of British North America 
 Act, 1867, remained so unless by its express 
 enactment transferred to the Dominion. Such 
 transfer is not to be presumed from the grant 
 of legislative jurisdiction to the Dominion in 
 respect of the subject-matter of those proprietary 
 rights : — 
 
 Held, that the transfer by s. 108 and tlie 
 5th clause of its schedule to the Dominion of 
 " rivers and lake improvements " operates on its 
 true construction in regard to the improvements 
 only both of rivers and lakes, and not in regard 
 to the entire rivers. Such construction does no 
 violence to the language employed, and is reason- 
 ably and probably in accordance with the intention 
 of the Legislature : — 
 
 Seld, that the transfer of " public harbours " 
 operates on whatever is properly comprised in 
 that term having regard to the circumstances 
 of each case, and is not limited merely to 
 those portions on which public works had been 
 executed. 
 
 With regard to fisheries and fishing rights : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that s. 91 did not convey to the 
 Dominion any proprietary rights therein, although 
 the legislative jurisdiction conferred by the section 
 enables it to affect those rights to an unlimited 
 extent, short of transferring them to others. 
 
 (2.) a tiix by way of licence as a condition of 
 the right to fish is within the powers conferred 
 by Bub-ss. 4 and 12. 
 
 CANADA (Generally) — continued. 
 
 (3.) the same power is conferred on the Pro- 
 vincial Parliament by s. 92. 
 
 (4.) Bevised Statutes of Canada, u. 95, s. 4, so 
 far as it empowers the grant of exclusive fishing 
 rights over provincial property, is ultra vires the 
 Dominion. 
 
 (5.) Bevised Statutes of Ontario, c. 24, b. 47, 
 is with a specific exception intra vires the 
 province. 
 
 As regards Ontario Act, 1892, the regulations 
 therein which control the manner of fishing are 
 ultra vires. Fishing regulations and restrictions, 
 are within the exclusive competence of the 
 Dominion : see s. 91, subs. 12. 
 
 Secus with regard to any provisions relating: 
 thereto which would properly fall under the 
 headings " Property and Civil Eights" or " The 
 Management and Sale of Public Lands " : — 
 
 Held, further, that the Dominion Legislature 
 had power to pass Revised Statutes of Canada, 
 c. 92, intituled " An Act respecting certain Worka 
 constructed in or over Navigable Waters." Att.- 
 Gen. Fon Dominion of Canada v. Att.-Gen. foe 
 the Provinces op Ontario, Quebec, and Nova 
 Scotia - - - P. C. [1898] A. C. 70O 
 
 22. — Statute — Construction — Permissive statu- 
 tory powers — Injunction — LiaMlity for damages 
 — Water — Irrigation — Land slides. 
 
 Wherever, according to the sound construc- 
 tion of a statute, the legislature has authorized 
 a proprietor to make a particular use of Ms land, 
 and the authority given is in the strict sense of 
 law permissive merely, and ' not imperative, the 
 Legislature must be held to have intended that 
 the use sanctioned is not to be in prejudice of the 
 common law right of others. 
 
 Metropolitan Asylums District v. Hill, (1881) 
 6 App. Cas. 193, approved. 
 
 Where the effect of British Columbian legis- 
 lation was to authorize the respondents to irri- 
 gate their soil by the compulsory diversion of 
 water from any adjacent stream, lake, or river, 
 by conveying it over lands which do not belong 
 to them, and to run the surplus water after irri- 
 gation through adjacent lands by means of 
 flumes, ditches, or drains, all subject to provisions 
 for compensation, and the respondents brought 
 water upon their land in such manner as to be 
 the substantial cause of damage to the appel- 
 lants' line of ry. by causing a slide of their 
 land : — 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Court 
 below, that, in the absence of provisions shewing 
 an intention on the part of the legislature to 
 take away the appellants' right to protect their 
 property from invasion, they were entitled to an. 
 injunction to prevent the respondents' user of the- 
 water in disregard of their common law obligation 
 to do no damage to the appellants' land. Cana- 
 dian Pacific By. Co. v. Parke 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 635 
 
 23. — Stoclibrohing transactions — Civil Code, 
 art. 1233, " Commercial Matters "—Art. 1233 (7X 
 commencement of proof in writing — Art. 1233 (6), 
 Tiotice to produce — Authority to stoclthrolters is on 
 Stock Exchange terms — Law of Lower Canada. 
 
 In an action by stockbrokers against their 
 principal to recover the balance of their account 
 
( 247 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 248 ) 
 
 CANADA (Generally)— conM»Med. 
 
 in respect of sales and purohaEea of shares for 
 
 private speculation on his account : — 
 
 Held, (1) that these transactions were " com- 
 mercial matters" -within art. 1233, Civil Code, 
 which the pits, might prove by oral evidence; 
 and that a pit. was a competent witness under 
 B. 2 of 54 Vict. 0. 45. 
 
 (2) An admission by the deft, in his deposi- 
 tion that he employed the pits, as his stock- 
 brokers, and that they bought and sold something 
 for him, is a sufBcient commencement of proof in 
 writing under art. 1233 (7) to let in oral evidence 
 of the particulars. 
 
 (3) Art. 1238 (6) authorises reception of 
 secondary evidence of bojight and sold notes in 
 possession of the adverse party without a notice 
 to produce; and an objection thereto not taken 
 at the trial cannot be taken on appeal. 
 
 (4) The deft, in giving authority to the pits, 
 to do business on the Stock Exchange must be 
 taken, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
 to have employed them on the terms of the Stock 
 Exchange, and, therefore, to have authorized the 
 sale of his shares on failure to supply them with 
 the requisite funds. Fokget v. Baxter 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 467 
 24. — Trade-name — Right to injunction — 
 Colouraile imitation of name — What constitutes 
 false representation. 
 
 The appellant co., being the transferee of the 
 assets and goodwill of the dissolved Sabiston and 
 Lithographic and Publishing Co., sued to restrain 
 the respondent from carrying on business under 
 the name of the Sabiston Lithographic and Pub- 
 lishing Co., or any other name so framed as to 
 lead to the belief that his business was in suc- 
 cession to that of the dissolved co. : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent had no right so to 
 represent, but that there was no evidence that he 
 had done so, and tliat the appellants were not 
 •entitled to an injunction against the mere use of 
 the name. Monteeal Lithogkaphinq Co. d. 
 Sabiston - P. C. [1899] A, C. 610 
 
 British Columbia. 
 
 Administeation.] 0. in C. directing that the 
 Colonial Probates Act, 1892, shall apply. St, E. & 0. 
 1896, No. 960. 
 
 26, — "Actual settler for agricultural pur- 
 poses " — Pre-emption — British Columbia Land 
 Act, IS75— British Columbia Act (47 Vict. c. 14), 
 ». 23. ■ 
 
 A. claimed, as an actual settler for agrioul- 
 ■tural purposes, a right of pre-emption over certain 
 lands under the section. The lands had before 
 the Act been reserved for a town site : — 
 
 Held, that a settler means a person entitled 
 ■to record land under the British Columbia Land 
 Act, 1875 (38 Vict. c. 5), that the Act did not 
 apply to reserved land, and that 47 Vict. c. 14 
 ■gave no new right of pre-emption. Hoggan v. 
 Esquimalt ahd Nanaimo Ey. Co. 
 
 P, C. [1894] A, C. 429 
 
 26. — CatUe— Powers of provincial legislature 
 — Ultra vires — British Columbian Cattle Protec- 
 tion Acts, 1891, 1895 (54 Vict. c. 1 ; 58 Vict. c. 7). 
 
 The provision in the British Columbian 
 Cattle Protection Act, 1891, as amended in 1895, 
 
 CANADA (British Columbia) — continued. 
 to the effect that a Dominion ry. co., unless they 
 erect proper fences on their ry., shall be respon- 
 sible for cattle injured or killed thereon, is ultra 
 vires of the provincial parliament. 
 
 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Corporation of 
 the Parish of Notre Dame de Bonsecours, [1899] 
 A. C. 367, distinguished. Madden v. Nelson 
 
 AND FOKT ShEPPAED Et. Co. 
 
 P, C. [1899] A. C, 626 
 
 27. — Consent judgment with intent to delay 
 creditors— Consolidated Statutes, c. 51, s. 1. 
 
 Under s. 1 of c. 51 of the Consolidated Statutes 
 of British Columbia a consent judgment obtained 
 by the respondent bank against the insolvent 
 respondent tramway co., with intent to defeat or 
 delay the creditors of the latter, was held to be 
 null and void against them. 
 
 So long as the intent is proved, it is imma- 
 terial whether consent was given under pressure. 
 Edison Geneeal Eleoteio Co. v. "Westminstee 
 AND Vanoouvee Teamway Co. 
 
 P. C, [1897] A. C. 193 
 
 28. — Corporation — lAdbility of — Accident to 
 bridge under corporate control — By-law — British 
 Columbia Municipal Act, 1892 (55 Vict. c. 83). 
 
 The appellant corporation having, under 
 55 Vict, c, 33, de facto taken over the care and 
 control of a certain bridge : held, that their acts 
 with regard to it were primS, facie competent 
 corporate acts. It would lie on the corporation 
 to shew clearly that any acts done by their 
 officers under their direction were ultra vires and 
 illegal, and that conclusion could not be reached 
 merely by reason of their not having passed a 
 by-law under 55 Vict. c. 33 actually vesting the 
 bridge in them. 
 
 In an action to recover damages from them 
 for a fatal accident caused by the breaking down 
 of the said bridge over which a tramcar contain- 
 ing the deceased was running: — 
 
 Held, that the finding of the jury that an act 
 done by their ofSoer had materially weakened 
 the beam which afterwards broke amply justified 
 a verdict against them ; and that the liability, 
 if any, of the tram co. for passing an extra- 
 ordinarily heavy weight over it not having been 
 before the jury, could not he raised in appeal. 
 ViOTOBiA Cokpoeation ti. Patteeson. Same v. 
 Lang - - P, C. [1899] A, C. 615 
 
 29. — Mines and minerals — Precious metals — 
 Free miner's certificate — Construction — Law of 
 British Columbia — Act 47 Vict. c. 14, o. 3 — Act 54 
 Vict. c. 26. 
 
 By s. 3 of the British Columbia Act (47 Vict. 
 c. 14), land was granted to the Dominion Go- 
 vernment, the appellant co.'s predecessor in 
 title, " including all mines, minerals, and sub- 
 stances whatsoever thereupon, therein, and there- 
 under" : — 
 
 Held, in an action for wrongful ejectment by 
 the holder of a free miner's certificate under the 
 "British Columbia Placer Mining Act, 1891" 
 (54 Vict. 0. 26), applicable to a part of the land 
 granted, that he was entitled to mine for gold 
 and other precious metals thereon, the above 
 words not being sufficiently precise to transfer 
 to the applicants' predecessor the right of the 
 provinciiil legislature to administer the precious 
 
( 249 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 250 ) 
 
 CANADA (British Columbia) — contimied. 
 metals in the lands assigned. Esquimalt akd 
 Nanaimo Et. Co. v. Bainbeidqe 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 861 
 
 30. — Naturalisiation and aliens — Oliinamen — 
 Law of Canada — Legislative power — Ultra vires 
 —British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 c. 3), s. 91, suh-s. 25, and s. 92, sub-ss. 10, 13— 
 British ColurMa " Coal Mines Regulation Act, 
 1890 " (53 Vict. 0. 33), ». 4. 
 
 Held, that s. 4 of the British Columbian " Coal 
 Mines Eegulation Act, 1890," which prohibits 
 Chinamen of full age from employment in under- 
 ground coal workings, is in that respect ultra 
 vires of the provincial legislature. 
 
 Regarded merely as a coal-working regulation, 
 it would come within s. 92, sub-s. 10, or s. 92, 
 sub-s. 13, of the British North America Act. 
 But its exclBsive application to Chinamen who 
 are aliens or naturalized subjects establishes a 
 statutory prohibition which is within the exclu- 
 sive authority of the Dominion Parliament con- 
 ferred by s. 91, sub-s. 25, in regard to " naturali- 
 zation and aliens." Union Collibbt Co. of 
 Bbptish Columbia v. Bbtden 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 580 
 
 Uanitoha. 
 
 Appeals from — 0. in C. dated Nov. 26, 1892, 
 regulating appeals to Her Majesty in Council from 
 Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench for Mani- 
 toba. St. B. & 0. 1899, p. 1690. 
 
 — Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 See Pkobate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1892. 
 
 — Education, Power of provincial legislature 
 
 as to. 
 
 See Nos. 32, 35, Mow. 
 
 31. — Entry into Dominion — Dominion Statute 
 33 Viet. c. 3— Manitoba Public Schools Act, 1890. 
 
 The effect of the Dominion Statute 33 Vict. 
 c. 3 (under which Manitoba entered the Dominion) 
 considered. Citt op ■Winnipeg v. Babeett 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C, 445 
 
 Eeferred to by P. C. Brophy v. Att.-Gen. of 
 Manitoba, [1895] A. C. 202, 211. 
 
 32. — Practice — Appeal to Governor-General 
 in Council — British North America Acts, 1867 
 and 1871 — Dominion Manitoba Act, 1870 (33 Vict. 
 c. 3), s. 22, sulb-ss. 2, 3 — Denominational schools — 
 Remedies against provincial legislation. 
 
 (i.) An appeal lies to the Governor-General in 
 Council under a. 22, Bub-s. 2, of the Dominion 
 Manitoba Act, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 3), which applies 
 to rights and privileges acquired by legislation 
 in the province after the date of that Act. (ii.) 
 The Roman Catholics of Manitoba haying ac- 
 quired certain rights as to their denominational 
 schools, are affected in those rights by the 
 Manitoba Public Schools Act, 1890. (iu.) The 
 Governor-General in Council has power to make 
 remedial orders by way of supplemental rather 
 than repealing legislation. Bropht v. Att.-Gen. 
 OF Manitoba - - P. C. [1896] A. C. 202 
 
 33. — Baihoay — Dominion railway — Section 
 capable of tale — Jurisdietion of provincial Court 
 
 CANADA (Manitoba) — continued. 
 — Part of section outside jurisdiction of Court — 
 Construction of mortgage — Bevenues — Practice — 
 issues not raised in Courts bdow. 
 
 In a suit by the appellants, being mortgagees 
 of a division of 180 miles of the respondents' ry. 
 and of its revenues subject to working expenses, 
 for a sale of the division aud for a receiver and 
 other relief: — 
 
 Held, (1.) that this division of 180 miles is by 
 the law of Canada applicable to the ry. a section 
 capable of sale in its entirety, but that the pro- 
 vincial Court had no power to order a sale, part 
 of the section being within and part without its 
 jurisdiction; (2.) that so long as the ry. was 
 worked as a whole the revenues of the division 
 are subject along with other revenues to the 
 working expenses of the whole line, and that the 
 receiver was only entitled to the net earnings of 
 the division so ascertained. 
 
 Their Lordships declined to hear argument as 
 to the validity of the mortgage or of the power 
 of sale, or of the mortgagees' right of entry, the 
 pleadings aud evidence not raising those issues, 
 and the Courts below not having adjudicated 
 thereon. Geet v. Manitoba and Nokth 
 Westeen Et. Co. of Canada 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 254 
 
 34. — Railway — Street railway — Grant — Con- 
 struction — Manitoba Acts (45 Vict. c. 36 ; 45 Vict, 
 c. 37 ; 55 Vict. c. 36.) 
 
 Where a municipal council granted to a ry. co. 
 authority to construct, maiutain and work rys. in 
 its streets, with the exclusive right to such por- 
 tion of any street as shall be oooupied by the ry., 
 but with the plain intent that the co. should 
 have no concern whatever with any portion of 
 auy street not in actual occupation by their 
 rails : — ■ 
 
 Held, that a subsequent clause' in the deed of 
 grant giving to the oo. the refusal on terms of 
 other streets in the city for ry. purposes was 
 insufficient to constitute, contrary to the plain 
 meaning of the previous stipulations, a right of 
 monopoly in any of the streets of the city. 
 
 Qusere, whether if a monopoly had been con- 
 ceded it was ultra vires of the municipal council. 
 Winnipeg Street Ey. Co. v. Winnipeg Elboteig 
 Street Et. Co. and City of Winndpeg 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 61& 
 
 36. — Schools — British North America Acts, 
 1867 and 1871 — Dominion Manitoba Act, 1870 
 (33 Vict. c. 3) — Manitoba — Denominational schools' 
 — Powers of provincial legislature. 
 
 The legislature of Manitoba did not exceed 
 its powers in passing the Public Schools Act, 
 1890, and thereby abolishing the denominational 
 system of education established by law since the 
 union of Manitoba with Canada. City of Win- 
 nipeg V. Barrett. City or Winnipeg ■». Logan 
 P. C. [1892] A. 0. 44& 
 
 Eeferred to by P. C. Brophy v. Att.-Gen. of 
 Manitoba, [1895] A. C. 202, 211. See next Case. 
 
 New Bronswick, 
 
 — Death duties. 
 
 See Eevende — ^Estate Duty. 
 
 36. — Winding-up — Priority of Grown ovir 
 
( 251 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 252 ) 
 
 CANADA (New Brunswick)— co»<i»t«ed. 
 
 simple contract creditors — British North America 
 
 Act, 1867. 
 
 Simple contract debts due to the provincial 
 government from an insolvent bank take priority 
 over the other depositors and simple contract 
 creditors of the bank. Liquidatoes op the 
 Makitimb Bank of Canada v. Eeceiver- 
 
 CtEHEEAL OF NeW BeUNSWIOK 
 
 p. C. [1892] A. C. 437 
 
 North-West Territories. 
 
 Appeals from—0. in G. dated July 30, 1891, 
 regulating appeals to Her Majesty in Council from 
 the Supreme Court of North- West Territories. 
 St B. & 0. 1899, p. 1709. 
 
 Application of the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, 
 io the North-West Territories. Bee Pbobate — 
 Colonial Froliates Act. 
 
 Nova Scotia. 
 
 Application of the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, 
 to Nova Scotia. See Pbobate — Colonial Probates 
 Act. 
 
 37. — County Incorporations Act, 1879 — Con- 
 struction — Non-feasance — Claim for damages. 
 
 Public corporations under an obligation to 
 "keep in repair public roads and bridges are not 
 Jiable to an action for non-feasance unless the 
 legislature has shewn an intention to impose such 
 Siability upon them. The County Incorporations 
 Act, 1879, contains no indication of.any intention 
 to impose on a municipality incorporated under 
 it any liability for non-feasance. Munioipalitt 
 OP PicTOU u Geldeet p. C. [1893] A. C. 624 
 
 Applied by P. 0. Sydney Municipal Council 
 V. Bourke, [1895] A. C. 433. 
 
 38. - — Gold mining — Compensation — Arbitra- 
 tion — Bevised Statutes of Nova Scotia (5ih Series'), 
 «. 7, s. 19. 
 
 The warden of a municipality acting under 
 Mines and Minerals Consolidation Act (the 
 Eevised Statutes of Nova Scotia (5th series), c. 7, 
 fi. 19) appointed an arbitrator on behalf of a 
 landowner to estimate damages to be paid to him 
 l)y lessees from the Crown of gold mines under 
 the statute. The landowner had, received and 
 neglected . a notice under s. 18 of the Act to 
 appoint : — 
 
 Held, that the appointment was not a judicial 
 act, and that a fresh notice to the respondent was 
 not a condition precedent to its validity. The 
 award gave the landowner a fixed sum as 
 ■ettimated damages for aU works or occupation 
 necessary to or required by the mining lessee : 
 
 Held, that having regard to the subject- 
 matter and scope of the Act, the award was not 
 bad for uncertainty. Palgeavb Gold Mining 
 Co. V. McMillan P. C. [1892] A. C. 460 
 
 39. — Jurisdiction of Provirwial House of 
 Assembly — Immunities of its members — Order of 
 imprisonment — Revised Statutes, 5th Series, c. 3 — 
 Xaw of Nova Scotia. 
 
 The Nova Scotia House of Assembly has 
 statutory power to adjudicate that wilful dis- 
 obedience to its order to attend in reference to 
 a libel reilecting on its members is a breach of 
 
 CANADA (Nova Scotia) — continued. 
 
 privilege and contempt, and to punish that breach 
 
 by imprisonment. 
 
 In an action for assault and imprisonment 
 against members of the Assembly who had voted 
 for the pits.' imprisonment — 
 
 Held, that the sections of the Local Revised 
 Statutes, 5th Series, c. 3, which create the jui'is- 
 diction of the House and indemnify its members 
 against legal proceedings in respect of their votes 
 therein, are a complete answer to an attempt to 
 enforce civil liability for acts done and words 
 spoken in the House. Those sections, except so 
 far as they may be deemed to confer any criminal 
 jiirisJiction, otherwise than as incident to the 
 protection of members, are intra vires of the local 
 legislature, as relating to the constitution of the 
 province within the meaning of s. 92 of the British 
 North America Act, 1867, or under, the authority 
 of s. 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act (28 & 29 
 Vict. c. 63), which was recognised by the Act of 
 1867, s. 88. 
 
 Barton v. Taylor, (1886) 11 App. Cas. 197, 
 distinguished. Fielding ». Thomas 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 600 
 
 40. — Licence — Application for reneioal of — 
 Effect of repeal of section authorizing renewal — ■ 
 Bevised Statutes, 5th Series, c. VII. s. 95. 
 
 The appellants having obtaioed a licence to 
 work for two years under s. 95, c. VII., of the 
 Revised Statutes, 5th Series, afterwards applied 
 under the same section for a renewal thereof ; but 
 in the meantime s. 95 had been repealed by an 
 amending Act of 1889 : — 
 
 Held, that at the date of the application to 
 renew the power to grant it was gone, for even if 
 the amending Act were so construed as not to 
 interfere with vested rights, the appellants 
 possessed a privilege and not an accrued right in 
 reference to the renewal sought. 
 
 Main v. Stark, (1890) 15 App.,Oas. 384, referred 
 to. Reynolds v. Att.-Gen. fob Nova Sootia 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 240 
 
 Ontario. 
 
 (Formerly Upper Canada, see s. 6 of the British 
 North America Act, 18G7.) 
 
 — Application of the Colonial Probates Act, 
 
 1892, to Ontario. 
 
 See Pbobate — Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 — Bankruptcy, Power of provincial legislature 
 
 as to. 
 
 See No. 4, above. 
 
 41. — Barristers — Provincial Bar — Power to 
 issue patents of precedence— British North America 
 Act, 1867 (30 <fc 31 Vict. c. 3), .?. 92, sub-ss. 1, 4, 14 
 
 — Powers of provincial legislature — Bevised 
 Statutes of Ontario, 1877, c. 139. 
 
 Held, that, according to the true construction 
 of the British North America Act, 1867, s. 92, 
 sub-ss. 1, 4, 14, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1877, 
 c. 139, which empowers the Lieutenant-Governor 
 of the j)rovinc6 to confer precedence by patents 
 upon such members of the bar of the province as 
 ho may think fit to select, is intra vires of the 
 provincial legislatm-e. Att.-Gbn. fob Dominion 
 OF Canada v. Att.-Gbn. fob Pkovisce of 
 Ohtabio - - - P. C. [1898] A, C. 247 
 
( 253 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 254 ) 
 
 CANADA (Ontario) — continued. 
 
 42, — Brewers' Ucenceg —Bevised Statutes of 
 Ontario, c. 194, s. 51, eub-s. 2 — Direct Taxation — 
 British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. 
 e. 8), ». 92, svi-ss. 2, 9 — Powers of provincial 
 
 Held, that the Liquor Licence Act (Revised 
 Statutes of Ontario, o. 194), s. 51, sub-B. 2, which 
 requires every brewer and distiller to obtain a, 
 licence thereunder to sell wholesale within tlie 
 province, is intra vires of the provincial legis- 
 lature— ' 
 
 (o) as being direct taxation within sub-s. 2, 
 s. 92, of the British North America Act, 1867. 
 
 Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, (1887) 12 App. Gas. 
 575, followed. 
 
 (ft) as comprised within the term "other 
 licences" in sub-s. 9 of the same section. 
 Bhewees and Maltsters' Association or 
 Ontaeio v. Att.-Gejt. foh Ontario 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 231 
 
 48. — Company — Statutory duties of a 
 corporation — Breach— Cause of action. 
 
 Where by an Act extending the powers of 
 the respondent oo. certain duties and obligations 
 were imposed on it for the benefit of its customers 
 with a view to the reduction of the price of gas 
 contingent on the amount of surplus net profit, 
 but no pecuniary penalty was imposed for default 
 and no right of action given to persons aggrieved, 
 provision however being, made . for its accounts 
 being audited by direction of the mayor of the 
 corporation with whose assent the company was 
 originally established: — 
 
 Seld, that no individual customer had a right 
 of action against the company for non-compliance 
 with the provisions of the Act. Such a right 
 only arises where given by the Act, and especially 
 80 where the Act as in this case is in the nature 
 of a private legislative bargain, and not one of 
 public and general policy. Johnston anp 
 Toronto Type Foundry Co. v. Consumers' Gas 
 Co. of Toronto - P. C. [1898] A. C. 447 
 
 — Costs of appeals by special leave. 
 
 See Ehivy Council — Judicial Com- 
 mittee; Practice. 3. 
 
 44. — Custody of children — Habeas corpus — 
 Considerations other than- paternal rights — 
 Canadian Act, 18 Viet. c. 126. 
 
 The legal rights of a father are controlled as 
 to a child under twelve by the Canadian Act, 
 18 Vict. c. 126, framed on the principle of 
 Talfourd's Act, giving the Courts absolute 
 authority in their judicial discretion to deprive 
 him of the custody. In the case of children over 
 twelve such legal right is materially affected by 
 breaches of marital duty, considerations with 
 respect to the welfare of the children, and the 
 objection to separating them from each other. 
 Smart v. Smart - - P. C. [1892] A. C. 425 
 
 45. — Drainage worlcs — Onta.rio Municipal 
 Act of 1887' (B. 8. 0. c. 184), ss. 583, 586, 591— 
 Damages for non-feasance — Mandamus — Notice in 
 writing — Bemedy by arbitration, 
 
 , Held, on the construction of s. 583 (2) and 586 
 of the;al80v;e Act,, that notice in writing is not a 
 condition precedent to an action for damages for 
 
 CANADA (Ontario) — continued. 
 non-performance of the statutory duty of main- 
 taining and repairing drainage works : — 
 
 Held, also, that the remedy for damages for 
 negligent construction of drains was by arbitration 
 under s. 591. Ealeiqh (Corporation of) v. 
 Williams - - P. C. [1893] A. C. 640 
 
 46. — Insurance, Life — Policies of life assur- 
 ance — Proviso for cash payment of premium — 
 Onus probandi — Duties of insurers' agent — Pay- 
 ment of premium by notes discounted and then 
 dishonoured. 
 
 ' Where a life policy contains provisions to the 
 effect that it shall not be in force till the first 
 premium is paid, and that if a note he taken for 
 the first or renewal premium and not paid the 
 policy is void at and from default, the onus is on 
 the policy-holder to prove cash payment of the 
 premium. 
 
 Where the insurers' agent accepts in payment 
 of a premium a note which is not paid when due, 
 there is no presumption that he was to raise 
 money thereon as an agent for the insured and 
 pay the premium out of the proceeds. 
 
 And where the insurers accept their agent's 
 note in discharge of an account current between 
 them in which the agent was debited with the 
 amount of the premium, that affords no presump- 
 tion of an intention to treat their own agent as 
 agent for the insured, or the insuronce as subsist- 
 ing contrary to the terms of their contract with 
 the policy-holder. 
 
 Aceyy. Femie, (1840) 7 M. & W. 151, approved. 
 London and Lancashire Life Assurance Co. v. 
 Fleming - - P. C. [1897] A. 0. 499 
 
 47. — Railways — Canadian Act, 24 Vict. a. 83 
 — Ontario Act, 53 Vict. c. 105 — Construction — 
 Street railway — Grant. 
 
 Held, that the Canadian Act and the agree- 
 ment in pursuance thereof granted a privilege to 
 use the streets of Toronto for the purpose of a ry. 
 for thirty years only, and that the limit of time 
 applied not merely to the original ry. but also to 
 the various extensions authorized under the same 
 privilege. Toronto Street Ey. Co. v. Corpora- 
 tion OF Toronto - P. C, [1893] A. C. 611 
 
 48. — Trade— Power to regulate a trade does 
 not include power to prohibit — By-laws — Con- 
 struction — Ontario Revised Statutes, 1887, c. 184, 
 «. 495 (3). 
 
 A statutory power conferred upon a municipal 
 council to make by-laws for regulating and 
 governing a trade does not, in the absence of an 
 express power of prohibition, authorize the making 
 it unlawful to carry on a lawful trade in a lawful 
 manner : — 
 
 So held, where, under c. 184 of Revised 
 Statutes of Ontario, 1887, s. 495 (3), a municipal 
 by-law was passed prohibiting hawkers from 
 plying their trade in an important part of the 
 municipality, no question of apprehended nuisance 
 having been raised. Municipal Corporation of 
 THE City op Toronto v. Vibqo 
 
 P. 0. [1896] A. C. 88 
 
 Followed. Att.-Gen. for Ontario v. Att.-6en. 
 for the Dominion, [1896] A. C. 348. 
 
 Applied to by H. L. (Sc.). Scott v. Glasgow 
 Corporation, [1899] A. C. 470, 490. 
 
( 255 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 256 ) 
 
 CANADA (Qjitaxio)— continued. 
 
 49. — Tranafer of shares subject to a trust — 
 Constructive notice — Signature of bank manager as 
 " manager in trust." 
 
 See Bankeb. 5. 
 
 — Warehouse receipt, Negotiability of. 
 See No. 3, above. 
 
 Quebec. 
 
 (Formerly Lower Canada, see s. 6 of the British 
 North America. Act, 1867.) 
 
 50. — Advances — Purchases by husband in 
 names of wife and daughter — Advances — Account 
 by mandatory before action — Gifts by husband to 
 wife — Civil Procedure Code, s. 6. 
 
 The appellant after his wife's death sued his 
 daughter, the respondent, to recover as creditor 
 of herself and his wife's estate moneys which he 
 alleged that he had advanced to purchase pro- 
 perties in Quebec to which she was entitled 
 either in her own right or under his wife's 
 will:— 
 
 Seld, on the evidence, that he failed to 
 establish his claim. 
 
 And, qusere, whether advances made as his 
 wife's mandatory in charge of her estate could be 
 recovered in a suit brought before he had 
 rendered an account of rents and moneys received 
 in that character as well as disbursements. 
 
 Qusere, also, if the advances were in the 
 nature of gifts, whether those gifts were valid by 
 the Quebec law or by s. 6 of the Code of CivU 
 Procedure. Eddy v. Eddy 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 299 
 
 61. — Banlcing company — Shares — Transfer — 
 Trust— Notice — Bank Act (18 Vict. v. 202), 
 Canada. 
 
 Where executors in breach of trust transferred 
 shares in a bank, and the bank registered such 
 transfer, such registration was, under the special 
 Act of the bank (18 Viet. u. 202, Canada), not 
 wrongful unless the bank had actual knowledge 
 of the breach of trust. Simpson v. Molson's 
 Bank - - P. C. [1896] A. C. 270 
 
 62. — Company — Shares — Payment in cash — 
 Price of property sold to company — Quebec Bevised 
 Statutes, Art. 4722 (1), (5). 
 
 The shares of promoters of a co. incorporated 
 under the Revised Statutes of Quebec having been 
 credited as paid in full under an arrangement 
 by which half the amount thereof was paid in 
 cash and half by receipts on account of the 
 purchase price of the property acquired by the 
 company : — 
 
 Held, that under art. 4722, par. 1 (originally 
 enacted as a. 1 of Quebec Statute 47 Vict. v. 73, 
 and reproducing a. 25 of the English Companies 
 Act, 1867), the shares were rightly so credited ; 
 the promoters having acted in good faith and the 
 purchase price being fair. 
 
 Spargo's Case, (1873) L. E. 8 Oh. 407, 
 approved. Laeooque v. BEAUCHEMm 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 358 
 
 Keferred to by P. C. North Sydney Investment 
 and Tramway Co. v. Siggins, [1899] A. 0. 263, 
 273. 
 
 63. — Corporation, property of — Liability to 
 
 CANADA (ftnebec) — continued. 
 
 taxation — Municipal Code of Quebec, Art. 712, 
 
 sub-s. 3 — Conetru/ition. 
 
 By the true construction of art. 712, sub-s. 3, 
 of the Municipal Code of Quebec, property be- 
 longing to a corporation " for the ends for which 
 they are established, and not possessed solely by 
 them to derive a revenue therefrom," is not 
 taxable : — 
 
 But held, that a farm belonging to the appel- 
 lant corporation and worked by them as a farm 
 in order to derive revenue therefrom, is taxable, 
 although not detached from the residue of the 
 corporate property and occasionally used for the 
 above ends. Le Seminaiee de Quebec v. La 
 CoEPOEATlOil DE LlMOILOU P. C. [1899] A. C. 285 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 54. — Gaming — Principal and, broker — StocTc 
 Exchange transactions — Civil Code, Art. 1927. 
 
 Art. 1927 of the Civil Code does not differ 
 substantially from the Gaming Act, 1845 (8 & 9 
 Vict. 0. 109), s. 18, and renders null and void all 
 contracts by way of gaming and wagering. 
 
 Contracts made by a broker employed to 
 make actual contracts of purchase and sale, in 
 each case completed by delivery and payment, on 
 behalf of a principal whose object was not in- 
 vestment but speculation, are not gaming con- 
 tracts within the meaning of the Code. Fokget 
 V. OSTIGNY - P. C. [1895] A. C. SIS 
 
 56. — Information — Code of Civil Procedure 
 — Arts. 997, 998 — Attorney-GeneraVs powers — 
 General Railway Act, c. 109 of the Mevised 
 Statutes of Canada, 1888, «. 12. 
 
 Informations against associations under 
 art. 997 of the Civil Procedure Code apply only 
 to acts done in the assertion of some special 
 power, franchise, or privilege, not conferred 
 by law. 
 
 An allegation that a co. had closed a lane 
 under the pretext that they had acquired private 
 rights entitling them so to do is not sufficient 
 under the art. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction under art. 998 of 
 the Code to prohibit the issue of an informatioD 
 under art. 997, but when it has once been issued 
 the Att.-Gen. is dominus litis, and can discontinue, 
 &o., independently of the relator. Casokaxs v. 
 Atlantic and North-West Ev. Co. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 282 
 
 66. — Municipal election — Expiry of pre- 
 scribed time — Non-judicial day — Quebec Act, 
 42 & 43 Vict V. 53. 
 
 Where it was enacted bys. 12 of 42 & 43 Vict 
 (Quebec) c. 53, that any municipal elector might 
 demand the annulment of the corpojate appropria- 
 tion for expenditure within three months from 
 the date thereof on the ground of illegality, but. 
 that thereafter the right was prescribed and the: 
 appropriation valid : — 
 
 Held, that, on the expiration of the three- 
 months the elector's statutory right was at an 
 end, and could not be extended by any procedure 
 clause (see art. 3 of the Civil Procedure Code)' 
 which presupposed an existing right of action 
 and regulated its exercise. DECHisE v. Monteead 
 (City OF) - - P. C [1894] A, C. 640 
 
( 257 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891— 19 JO. 
 
 ( 258 ) 
 
 CANADA (Quebec) — continued. 
 
 57. — Parish — Creation — Cioil and canonical 
 jmisdiction— Revised Statutes of Quebec, ss. 3373, 
 
 3380. 
 
 Prooeedinga for civil recognition of a. new 
 parish are sufficiently founded on a decree for 
 canonical erection thereof. 
 
 Prooeedinga before the Commrs. of the diocese 
 with a yiew to civil recognition are not subject to 
 the review or control of a Court of justice. 
 
 An objection to the formation of a new pariah 
 on the ground that one of the old pariahes dia- 
 membered for that purpose ia in debt is valid 
 under Eevised Statutea of Quebec, a. 3380 ; but 
 where the debt relied on was contracted by the 
 Fabrique it must be proved that the Fabrique is 
 unable to pay it and that a levy on the Roman 
 Catholic freeholders of the parish haa been duly 
 authorized. Alexandke v. Brassakd 
 
 P. C. [1895] 301 
 
 58. — Prescription — Civil Code, Arts. 1056, 
 2262 (2,)—Construction. 
 
 On the construction of as. 1056, 2256 (2) of 
 the CivU Code of the Province of Quebec the 
 widow's right of action ia distinct from that of 
 the deceased; though the latter be barred by 
 prescription the former may still be extant. An 
 appeal to earlier law and decisions for the pur- 
 pose of interpreting a statutory code can only be 
 justified on some special ground auoh as the 
 doubtful import or previously acquired technical 
 meaning of the lauguage used therein. Kobin- 
 soN V. Canadian Pacific Ey. Co. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 481 
 
 59. — Prescription — Statutory acTinowledg- 
 ment of title — Immemorial possession. 
 
 The Canadian Act, 18 Vict. o. 3, recognised 
 as a seigneurie the appellants' rights over a strip 
 of sea coast, although the appellants could only 
 ahew a title which gave them a right to make 
 hunting and fishing stations on the land in 
 question : — 
 
 Seld, that the Court must give efi'ect to the 
 enactment as it stood : 
 
 Meld, alao, as to other landa claimed aa a 
 seigneurie by immemorial possession, that where 
 the true root of title ia shewn, the law of pre- 
 scription doea not apply. Labeadob Co. v. Eeg. 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 104 
 
 60. — Principal and agent— Construction of 
 power of attorney. 
 
 Where by a document indoraed " procuration 
 generale et speciale " a wife being sole owner 
 conatituted her huaband " son procureur gfoeral 
 et special " to administer her affairs, specifying 
 such acts as drawing bills of exchange and 
 making promissory notes : — 
 
 Held, that the wife's liability extended to all 
 promissory notes granted by the husband, and 
 was not limited by art. 181 of the Civil Code to 
 such notes as were required for purposes of the 
 administration. La Banque d'Hochelaga v. 
 JoDoiN - - P. C. [1895] A. C. 612 
 
 — Railway — Compensation for land taken. 
 
 See No. 18, above. 
 
 — Railway — Closing of public lane by. 
 
 Bee No. 19, above. 
 
 61. — Railways — British North America Act, 
 
 CANADA (Quabeo) — continued. 
 1867 (.30 * 31 Vict. c. 3), «. 91, suh-s. 29, and 
 s. 92, suh-s. 10 — Municipal Code of Quebec — Powers 
 of provincial legislature — Municipal legislation 
 affecting Dominion Railway. 
 
 By the true construction of British North 
 America Act, 1867, s. 91, sub-s. 29, and s. 92, 
 sub-s. 10, the Dominion Parliament has exclusive 
 right to prescribe regulations for the construction, 
 repair, and alteration of the appellant ry. ; and 
 the provincial legialature haa no power to regu- 
 late the atructuie of a ditch forming part of its 
 authorized works : — 
 
 But held, that the provisions of the municipal 
 code of Quebec, which prescribe the cleaning of 
 the ditch and the removal of an obatructiou which 
 had oauaed inundation on neiglibouring land, are 
 intra vires of the provincial legialature. Cana- 
 dian Pacific Ey. Co. v. CoRPOaATiON of the 
 Parish op Notke Dame db Bon8eoodrs 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 367 
 
 Distinguished by P. C. Madden v. Nelson 
 and Fort Sheppard Ry. Co., [1899] A. C. 626. 
 
 62. — • Riparian proprietor — NavigaMe river — 
 Sale of water power artificially created, 
 
 A riparian proprietor can acquire an interest 
 in the water power of a navigable river as derived 
 from a reaervoir artificially formed by a dam 
 aoroaa its channel; and can sell such interest 
 along with and as appurtenant to his land, and 
 even if the sale is ineffectual against the public 
 the vendor cannot impeach it on that ground. 
 Hamelin v. Bannerman p. C. [1895] A. C. 237 
 
 — Signing bills per pro. 
 
 See Prustoipal and Agent. 3. 
 
 63. — Underground wires — Power to lay wires 
 underground for purpose of supplying electricity, 
 and gas — Right to excavate streets — Quebec Act 
 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 77), s. 5 — Construction. 
 
 Sect. 5 of the respondent co.'s incorporating 
 Act (55 & 56 Vict. c. 77) empowers it on certain 
 conditions (which have been complied with) to 
 lay its wires underground as the same may be 
 necessary, and in so many streets, squares, high- 
 ways, lanes, and public places as may be deemed 
 necessary for the purpose of supplying electricity 
 and gas : — 
 
 Held, that the power to open streets, that is, 
 to break up their surface and excavate them, is 
 plainly involved in this provision, and that an 
 injunction obtained by the respondents to restrain 
 the municipality from interfering therewith was 
 properly granted. Citt of Montreal v. Stan- 
 dard Light and Power Co. 
 
 P. C, [1897] A. C, 527 
 
 CANAL — Canal Protection (London) Act, 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict, c. 16), provides for the protection of 
 dangerous places on canals in the County of 
 London. 
 
 — Canal owners. Liability of. 
 
 See Merchant Shipping (Liability of 
 Shipowners and Owners) Act, 1900 
 (63 & 61 Vict. c. 32). 
 
 — London canals. 
 
 See London — Canal. 
 
 — Mines and minerals — Eight of support. 
 
 See Mines. 26, 
 
 K 
 
DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 259 ) 
 
 GAKAL — continued. 
 
 — Railway and Canal Traffic Act. 
 
 See Eailwat — Railway and Canal Com- 
 mission, 
 
 — Eating. 
 
 See Bates — Bateability. 57. 
 
 1. — Support, Might to — Subjacent and adja- 
 cent minerals — Worlting — Undertaking not to sue. 
 
 The defts.' canal was constructed under an 
 Act of Parliament by wliich the canal was to be 
 open for use by the public on payment of tolls. 
 Two sections of the Act (37 and 38) were 
 identical in effect with the statutory provisions 
 construed by the H. L. in Knowles & Sons v. 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire By. Co., (1889) 14App. 
 Cas. 218, and Chamber Colliery Co. v. Boclidate 
 Canal Co., [1895] A. C. 564. 
 
 Pits, sued defts. for — (a) a declaration that 
 they were entitled to work all their adjacent 
 coal, although the result might be to endanger 
 or damage the canal, or, in the alternative, (b) a 
 declaration that pits, were entitled to be paid, 
 under B. o8, satisfaction for adjacent coal left as 
 canal protection. Pits, also claimed a declara- 
 tion that under ss. 37 and 38 they were entitled 
 to be paid satisfaction for the subjacent coal left 
 as protection : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled to declara- 
 tion (a), but that on the pits, and defts. making 
 admissions (substantially to the effect of the 
 referee's findings in the Chamber Colliery Case, 
 see [1891] 2 Q. B. 635) that the cost, if any, of 
 repairing damages to be sustained to the canal 
 and works by getting all the coal would he 
 trifling compared with the value of the coal 
 re^juired to be left for the absolute protection of 
 the canal and works, and that such damage 
 could be repaired from time to time, and would 
 not interfere with the navigation, and on the 
 defts. undertaking (substantially in accord with 
 the undertaking required by the C. A. in the 
 Chamber Colliery Case, [1894] 2 Q. B. 632, 642) 
 not to claim damages in the future in respect of 
 the pits, working the subjacent coal, and at their 
 own expense to repair any damage thereby 
 caused, the pits, were not entitled to any declara- 
 tion respecting the subjacent coal. New Moss 
 Colliery Co. v. Manchester, Shefpteld and 
 LiNOOLNSHiEE Et. Co. Byme J. [1897] 1 Ch. 725 
 
 CANCELLATION — Pension — Incapacity by in- 
 firmity. 
 See Police. 3. 
 
 CANDIDATE — Nomination of disqualified person 
 — Election — Eiglit to petition. 
 See CoKPOKATioN. 14. 
 
 CANON, ETC.— Eight to vote— Claim. 
 
 See Pakhament — Franchise. 41, 42. 
 
 — Stipend. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Church, 5. 
 
 CANON LAW — Legitimation per subsequens 
 matrimonium. 
 See Legitimaot. 2, 3. 
 
 CANVASSING CUSTOMEES —Injunction —Sale 
 of business to one partner — " Assets." 
 See Paetneeship— Goodwill. 25 — 28. 
 
 CAPACITY (TESTAMENTARY). 
 
 See Probate — Testamentary Capacity, 
 
 ( 260 ) 
 
 CAPE OF GOOD KO'PE— Appeals from — Charter 
 of Justice, dated May 4, 1832, regulating (Articles 
 50, 51 and 52) appeals from the Supreme Court of 
 the Colony to Her Majesty in Council. St. E, & 0. 
 1899, p, 1676. 
 
 [Application of the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, 
 See Probate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 
 Death Duty, 
 See Eevenub — ^Estate Duties. 
 
 Law of the Cape of Good Hope, 
 
 1, — Act of State — Concessions granted before 
 cession — Bights after Annexation — Jurisdiction of 
 municipal courts — Crovm Liabilities Act, 1888 
 (51 (fc 52 Vict. No. 37). 
 
 Held, that the appellants as grantees of con- 
 cessions made by the paramount chief of Pondo- 
 land cannot, aftier the annexation of Pondoland 
 by Her Majesty, enforce against the Crown the 
 privileges and rights conferred. 
 
 Annexation is an act of State, and any obli- 
 gation assumed under a. treaty to that effect, 
 either to the ceding sovereign or to individuals, 
 is not one which municipal courts are authorized 
 to enforce. 
 
 The Crown Liabilities Act, 1888, permits such 
 an action to be brought, but it does not em- 
 power the Court to make a declaration of right. 
 
 Secretary of State for India in Council v. 
 Kamachee Boye Sahaba, (1859) 13 Moo. P. C. 22, 
 followed. Cook v. Spbigg P, C, [1899] A. C. 572 
 
 2. — Agreement — Construction — Proviso — Mo- 
 nopoly of supply — Water required for mining 
 
 Where respondents had agreed for a specified 
 term to " obtain and purchase all the water re- 
 quired by them for their mining purposes " from 
 the appellants and from no other person or per- 
 sons, with a proviso excepting any water obtained 
 by them from their own mines : — 
 
 Held, that on the true construction of this 
 agreement the proviso was not limited to such 
 mines as the respondents possessed at the date of 
 the agreement ; and that on the other hand they 
 could not deprive the appellants of their mono- 
 poly of supply by obtaining it gratis elsewhere. 
 
 KiMBEELET WaTEEWOEKS Co. ■». De BeEES CON- 
 SOLIDATED Mines P, C, [1897] A. C, 515 
 
 3, — Company — Directors — Liability — issue 
 of shares at a discount. 
 
 Held, that the directors of a co. established 
 in South Africa could not issue shares at a 
 discount so as to make the holder liable for less 
 than their full amount. Where shares are, in 
 consideration of services rendered, issued at a 
 discount, the directors are liable to the co. ; but 
 in the absence of fraud or further resulting 
 damage to the co., no further than the amount 
 of the discount. 
 
 Semble, such further resulting damage could 
 not exceed the difference between the discount 
 price and the value of the shares if the services 
 and transactions founded thereon had not taken 
 place. HiESCHE v. Sims P, C. [1894] A. C, 654 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Welton v. Saffery, 
 [1897] A. C. 299, 325. 
 
( 261 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 262 ) 
 
 CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (law of the Cape of Good 
 Hope) — continued. 
 4. — Contract — Construction — " Flotation " — 
 British South Africa Companiy's Mining Ordi- 
 nance, 1890, 88. 26, 27, 28—C(mpany. 
 
 Where a prospector agreed with a syndicate 
 that his pay for services rendered in Matabele- 
 land or Mashonaland should be 250Z. on flotation 
 by the syndicate of every block of tea claims 
 pegged by him, and the syndicate agreed to sell 
 330 claims pegged by the prospector to a sub- 
 stantial CO. which had for one of its principal 
 objects the developing and working of gold 
 mines : — 
 
 Beld, that this was a flotation of the claims 
 within the meaning of the agreement, and that 
 the provisions of the Mining Eegulations of 1890, 
 ss. 26, 27,' and 28, were not imported into the 
 agreement so as to limit the meaning of flotation 
 to one by the British South Africa Co. or by the 
 claimholder with their consent, in either case 
 after the grant of an inspection certificate. 
 
 TOBVA EXPLOKING SYNDICATE V. KeLLY 
 
 p. C. [1900] A. C. 612 
 
 — Devise to " children " — Child legitimized by 
 law of Cape of Good Hope. 
 See Will— Children. 38. 
 
 5. — Lease — Improvements — Permanent build- 
 ings erected hy lessee — Right of removal. 
 
 Where a lessee being entitled by the terms 
 of his lease to remove all such improvements as 
 should be capable of removal without injury to 
 the land itself, pulled down a brick building 
 which he bad erected on the land demised, and 
 removed the materials except those composing 
 the stone foundations beneath the soil : — 
 
 Held, that this proceeding was authorized by 
 the lease, and in accordance with the lessee's 
 common law right under the Roman-Dutch law. 
 tiONDOir AKD South Afkioan ExPLOBATioir Co. v. 
 Db Beebs Oonsolidatbd Mines, Ld. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 461 
 
 6. — Pondoland Annexation Act, 1894, No. 2, 
 «. 2 — Construction — Extent of legislative power 
 conferred on the governor — Illegal proclamation of 
 arbitrary arrest, conviction, and punishment. 
 
 Sect. 2 of the Pondoland Annexation Act, 
 1894, gives authority to the Governor to add to 
 the existing la,ws, already proclaimed and in force 
 in the territories annexed, such laws as he " shall 
 from time to time by proclamation declare to be 
 in force in such territories " : — 
 
 JSeld, that this section did not, according to 
 its true construction, authorize the Governor to 
 make new laws, but only to transplant to the 
 new territories and enact there such laws as were 
 already in force in other parts of the Colony. 
 
 In 1895 the Governor, " in virtue of powers 
 vested in me by law," including the Act above 
 mentioned, issued a proclamation which set aside 
 the established law of Pondoland with respect to 
 arrest, trial, conviction and punishment, and 
 condemned the respondent untried and unheard 
 to imprisonment, the place and duration of his 
 captivity being left to the uncontrolled will of 
 the Governor. 
 
 In a petition for his discharge by the respond- 
 ent, who had been arrested thereunder : — 
 
 Held, that the proclamation was ultra vires of 
 
 CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (law of the Cape of Good 
 
 Hope) — continued, 
 any authority conferred upon the Governor by 
 s. 2 ; or of any authority at all except that of an 
 irresponsible sovereign, or of a supreme and 
 unfettered legislature. Sir John GoanoN Speigg 
 V. SiQOAu - - - P. C. [1897] A. C. 238 
 
 7. — Bevenue—^Company — Laws of Cape of 
 Good Hope, No. 3 of 1864, Sched. 17, s. 2, 
 head (6). 
 
 Where a co. was authorized by its memoran- 
 dum of association to carry on its business in any 
 part of the world : — 
 
 Held, that it was not taxable under No. 3 of 
 1864, Sched. 17, s. 2, head (6), which, on its true 
 construction, relates to companies, some of whose 
 dealings are specifically authorized "to be carried 
 on in this Colony." Mabshall v. Oepbn 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C, 603 
 
 CAPITAL — Charge on. 
 
 See Annuity. 4. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Oases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Income or — Dividends — Public company — 
 
 Apportionment. 
 
 gee Will — Dividends. 76. 
 
 — Income or — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 CAPITAL MONEY— Application of, under Settled 
 Land Acts. 
 See Settled Land — Capital Money. 
 
 CAPITATION GEANT — Loss of— Eule ultra 
 vires. 
 See Abmy and Navy. — Volunteers. 5. 
 
 CAPTURE — Notice of abandonment — ^Recovery 
 of ship — Total loss. 
 See Insukanoe — Marine. 29. 
 
 — Seizure by belligerent government of property 
 
 of its own subjects — Contract of in- 
 demnity — Validity. 
 See Insubanoe — Marine. 30. 
 
 CASGO — Bill of lading and oharterparty. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — ^Charter- 
 party. 
 CARNAL KNOWLEDGE— Offences against the 
 
 person. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 48 — 50. 
 
 " CASBIAGE " — Bicycle— Liability to toll. 
 ySee BiCTOLE. 2. 
 
 — Hackney carriages. 
 
 See Hackney Carriages. 
 
 — Servant of one person hired by another to 
 
 drive his carriage — Liability of hirer 
 
 for negligence of driver. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 77 — 82. 
 
 CABRIAGE OF GOODS— Charterparty. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Charter- 
 party. 
 
 — Railways. 
 
 See Cases under Railway. 
 
 CARRIAGE OF GRAIN. 
 
 See Shipping — Carriage of Grain. 
 K 2 
 
( 263 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 264 ) 
 
 CARBIEB — Contract to carry — Passenger — Ticket 
 Conditions — Evidence. 
 
 A. paid E. & Co. pasaage-money for a voyage 
 on their steamer and received a folded ticket on 
 wliich no writing was visible till it was opened. 
 On the ticket was a condition that the oo. would 
 not be liable beyond $100 for injury to the 
 passenger or his luggage. On an action by A. to 
 recover damages exceeding $100 for personal 
 injuries, the jury found that A. knew there was 
 writing on the ticket, but did not know that it 
 contained conditions as to the contract of carriage, 
 and that the co. did not do what was reasonably 
 sufficient to give A. notice of the conditions : — 
 
 Meld, that there was evidence on which 
 the jury could properly so find. Eiohakdson, 
 
 SpeNOE & Co. V. EOWNTEEE 
 
 H. I. (E.) affirm. C. A. [1894] A. C. 217 
 
 2. — Goods shipped without hill of lading — 
 Shipowner's liability. 
 
 The pit,, a wool merchant at Bradford, 
 bought wool in London and handed a delivery 
 order to the deft., who shipped the wool on board 
 his steamer in London, carried it by sea to Goole, 
 and forwarded it by rail to Bradford, charging 
 the pit. a through rate of 11. Is. Gd. per ton, 
 which covered all expenses of the transit from 
 London to Bradford, including insurance. The 
 insurance was eifected by the deft., who selected 
 the underwriters and paid the premium, after 
 receiving directions from the pit. as to the 
 amount per bale for which he was to insure. 
 The pit. did not receive possession of the policy ; 
 and on previous occasions, when losses had 
 occurred, the deft, had received payment from 
 the underwriters, and had settled with the pit. 
 The wool was shipped without a bill of lading. 
 In cases where the pit. imported wool, he insured 
 it for the whole transit, and the deft, cliarged 
 only \l. 5s. 9d. per ton for its conveyance from 
 London to Bradford : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, had insured the wool, not 
 as agent for the pit. but to cover his own liability 
 of carrier, and had undertaken a liability equal 
 to that of a common carrier, and had not, either 
 expressly or impliedly, stipulated for any limita- 
 tion of his liability, and therefore was liable 
 without proof of negligence. 
 
 Decision of Lord Eussell of Killowen C.J., 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 371, affirmed. Hill v. Scott 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 713 
 
 — Negligence — Liability — Loss by theft of com- 
 
 pany's servants — Special contract. 
 See Eailwat — Negligence. 16. 
 
 CASE STATED — On behalf of one prisoner only — 
 Prisoners jointly indicted — Misreception 
 of evidence. 
 See Ceiminal Law — Evidence. 22. 
 
 — On appeal from justices. 
 
 See Justices — Appeal. 30 — 35. 
 
 CASES — A list of Cases affirmed, reversed, followed, 
 overruled, or judicially commented on or over- 
 ruled or directly affected ly Statute or Order 
 during the years 1891-1900 inclusive is given in 
 the " Table of Cases Affirmed, &o.," at p. cclxxxi. 
 
 CASH — Advanced to ship. 
 
 See Inbubance — Marine. 23. 
 
 C A SH — contirmed. 
 
 1, — Agent — Payment by cheque instead of 
 cash — Auctioneer. 
 
 An agent employed to receive money must 
 not accept anything but cash unless it is in 
 accordance with the ordinary course of business 
 to receive a cheque. Pape v. Westaoott 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 a. B. 272- 
 
 CASTING VOTE— Election of mayor— Validity of 
 
 votes — Municipal election. 
 
 See Coepokation. 17. 
 CASTS OF EETIIT AND LEAVES— Sculpture. 
 
 See CopTEiGHT — Sculptuie. 41. 
 CATALOGUE — Probate — Will — Incorporated 
 
 document — Custody. 
 
 See PaoBATE— Grant of Probate. 98. 
 
 CATTLE — Fences — Britioh Columbian Cattle 
 Protection Acts. 
 See Canada. 26. 
 
 — Injury to cattle — Persons liable. 
 
 See Nuisance. 37 — 39. 
 
 — Insurance on live cattle. 
 
 See Insubanoe — Marine, 61. 
 
 CATTLE MARKET— Charges— Special Act. 
 See LiVEBPOOL Couets. 3. 
 
 CAUTIONAKY OBLIGATION. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Guaranty. 16. 
 
 CAVEAT— Entry of— Costs of litigation. 
 
 See Peobate — Grant of Probate. 88-. 
 
 — Eeal Property Acts. 
 
 See New South Wales. 39. 
 
 — Eeceiver before probate — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Peobate — Grant of Probate. 10.>. 
 
 CEMETERY— Burial. 
 
 See BuBiAL. 1. 
 
 — Grant of faculty for use as public street of 
 
 portion of consecrated cemetery or 
 
 churchyard closed for burials. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 31. 
 
 — Income tax. 
 
 See Eevenub — Income Tax. 74. 
 
 CEMETERY COMPANY— Whether "owners of 
 land," within Metropolis Management 
 Acts — New street. 
 See London — Streets. 77. 
 
 CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) ACT, 1900 (63 & 64 
 Vict. 0. 4), for talcing the Census for Great 
 Britain in year 1901. 
 
 CERTIFICATE— Analyst under Sale of Pood and 
 Drugs Act, 1875. 
 
 See Cases under Adulteration — 
 Analysis. 
 
 — Discharge — Discretion of Lunacy Commis- 
 
 sioners. 
 
 See Lunacy — Custody. 12. 
 
 — Incorporation of company — ^Whether conclu- 
 
 sive. 
 
 See Company — ^Registration, 258. 
 
 — Ownership of shares in company. 
 
 See Company— Shares. 267, 268, 298. 
 
 — Eeasonableness and propriety of particulars 
 
 of objection to patent. 
 
 See Patent- Practice. 30, 32. 
 
( 265 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 266 ) 
 
 CERTIEICktS— continued. 
 
 — Scrip certificate — Payment by instalments — 
 
 Eeoeipta for future payments indorsed 
 
 on certificate. 
 
 See Keventje — Stamps. 180. 
 
 — Shares fully paid-up — Contributory — Es- 
 
 toppel. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 30, 31. 
 
 — Solicitor — Discretion of registrar to refuse. 
 
 See SoLioiTOB. 110. 
 
 — Surveyor of highways as to extraordinary 
 
 traffic. 
 
 See Highway — Eepairs. 13. 
 
 CSETIOBABI— Bankruptcy jurisdiction— Order 
 made in exercise of. 
 See County Couet — Jnrisdictlon. 47. 
 
 — Confirmation of new licence — Excess of juris- 
 
 diction. 
 
 See Licensing Acts — Practice. 55. 
 
 — Jurisdiction of justices — Power to require 
 
 witnesses to be sworn. 
 
 See Licensing Acts— Practice 56. 
 
 — Licence — Excess of jurisdiction — Mandamus. 
 
 See Licensing Acts — Practice. 54. 
 
 1. — Thames Watermen — Court of Company 
 of — Judicial Order — Applications for licences — 
 Watermen's and Lighterman's Amendment Act, 
 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. cxxxiii.), s. 56 (Local). 
 
 Certiorari will not lie to xemovo an order, 
 made by the Court of the Company of Watermen 
 and Lightermen of the Eiver Thames under 
 «. 56 of the Watermen's and Lightermen's 
 Amendment Act, 1859 (Local), gi'anting a licence 
 to act as a waterman or lighterman within the 
 limits of the Act. Reg. ■;;. Watermen's Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 659 
 
 OESSEE- Admission of, of interest — Married 
 woman — Eestraint on anticipation. 
 See Husband and Wife. 43. 
 
 — Before trial — Nuisance. 
 
 See Nuisance. 5, 6. 
 
 — Of interest — On bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankkuptoy — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 271. 
 
 — " Off licence " — Order sanctioning removal — 
 
 Notice of application. 
 
 See Licensing Acts — Licence. 4. 
 
 «ESSEB CLAUSE. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 23, 24. 
 CESSPOOL. 
 
 See Sewers — Cesspools. 
 
 «EYLON. 
 
 Death Duties. 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 Law of Ceylon. 
 
 — Appeal to Judicial Committee — Divorce suit. 
 
 See Privy Council — Judicial Com- 
 mittee. 1. 
 1. — Fidei commission — Ordinances 21 of 
 1844, 10 of 1863, and 7 of ISll— Will— Construc- 
 tion — Jus accreecendi. 
 
 The law of fidei oommissum is not altered by 
 
 CEYLON (Law of Ceylon)— con(inMe(Z. 
 
 Ceylon Ordinances No. 21 of 1844, No. 10 of 1863, 
 
 and No. 7 of 1871. 
 
 Two spouses by joint will directed that after 
 the death of the survivor the lands in suit should 
 be created fidei oommissum, so that they may not 
 be sold, mortgaged, or in any way alienated, 
 and that " the three children of their deceased 
 daughter and their surviving daughter shall 
 divide into two and inherit according to custom, 
 and they and their descendants possess without 
 interruption " : — 
 
 Seld, that, by the true construction of the 
 will, the moiety devised to the three grand- 
 children was burdened with one fidei oommissum, 
 and not with three fidei commissa separately 
 applicable to the three shares. Accordingly one- 
 third share of such moiety did not vest absolutely 
 in each institute, so as to pass to his heir-at-law 
 not in the direct line of descent from the testa- 
 tors ; but the whole vested in the three institutes 
 jointly with benefit of survivorship and with 
 substitution of their descendants. Dona Maria 
 Abeyesekeba Hamini v. Daniel Tillekebatnb 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 277 
 
 . 2. — Fiscal sale — Ejectment. 
 
 In an action of ejectment the pit. had pur- 
 chased from the mortgagor of an estate, and the 
 deft, (subsequently), from the mortgagee, under 
 a fiscal sale obtained in proceedings to which 
 pit. was not a party : — 
 
 Held, that whether the pit. was or was not 
 hound by the fiscal sale, he could not in law or 
 justice eject the deft, without at least paying the 
 moneys due on the mortgage ; and that, whether 
 he was or was not entitled to redress, there being 
 no prayer for relief of that character, it could not 
 be decreed to him in that action. Murugaser 
 Marimuttu v. De Soysa P. C. [1891] A. C. 69 
 
 3. — Fiscal sale of testator's estate — Judgment 
 against executor who has not proved — Effect of ap- 
 plication for probate. 
 
 A creditor of a deceased debtor cannot sue a 
 person named as executor in the will of the 
 deceased unless he has either administered or 
 obtained a grant of probate, and a fiscal sale in 
 execution of a judgment against such person does 
 bind the deceased's estate. Mohamidu Mohideen 
 Hadjiar v. Pitchey p. 0. [1894] A. C. 437 
 
 4. — Matrimonial law. 
 
 The matrimonial law applicable to British or 
 European residents in Ceylon is the Roman-Dutch 
 law as it existed in the Colony at the date of the 
 Royal Proclamation of Sept. 23, 1799. That 
 law did not contain any power specially conferring 
 on the Colonial Courts jurisdiction to divorce a 
 vinculo European spouses resident in the Colony, 
 but whose marriage and domicil were in England. 
 Le Mesurier v. Le Mbsdeier (No. 2) 
 
 P. C. [1895] A, C. 517 
 
 Referred to by G. Barnes J. Armytage v. 
 Armytage, [1898] P. 178, 185. 
 
 5. — Patent — Infringement — Improvements — 
 Extent of protection. 
 
 Where a patent had been granted merely for 
 improvements upon the mechanism of an old and 
 known machine : — 
 
 Held, that the patentee's exclusive right 
 
( 267 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 268 ) 
 
 CEYION (law of Ceylon)— continued. 
 thereto could not be permitted to exceed the 
 exact terms of his specification ; and that tlie 
 defts.' improvements, which had the same object, 
 but were effected in a manner not strictly corre- 
 sponding to the specification, were not an in- 
 fringement of his patent. Bhown v. Jackson 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 446 
 
 6. — Registration — Priority — Mortgage ionds 
 — Unregistered ante-nuptial settlement — Ceylon 
 Land Segistration Ordinance VIII. of 1863, s. 39. 
 
 Held, that under s. 39 of the Oeylon Land 
 Eegistration Ordinance VIII. of 1863, an un- 
 registered deed of ante-nuptial settlement exe- 
 cuted by a wife is postponed to subsequently 
 registered mortgage bonds relating to the settled 
 estates and jointly executed by both husband and 
 wife, bona fide and for valuable consideration. 
 Gauder V, Dassenaike - P. C. [1897] A, C. 547 
 
 CHAFF-CUTTING MACHINES (ACCIDENTS) 
 ACT, 1897 (60 & 61 Viet. 0. 60), passed for pre- 
 vention of accidents by chaff-cutting machines. 
 
 CHAIN CABLES. 
 
 See Shipping — Anchors and Chain 
 Cables. 
 
 CHAIRMAN — Of improvement committee of 
 borough council. 
 See CoBPOBATiON. 6. 
 
 — at Meeting of company. 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 158, 169. 
 
 CHAIR-MAEKING— Of cabman's licence. 
 See Hackney Carriage. 3. 
 
 CHAMBERS— Appeal. 
 
 See Practice — Appeal. 1 — 4. 
 
 — Practice generally. 
 
 See Practice — Chambers. 
 CHAMPERTY. 
 
 See Solicitor — Champerty. 
 CHANCEL— Ecclesiastical law. 
 
 See Cases under Eoclesiastioai Law — 
 Faculty. 
 
 — Liability to repair — Tithe rent-charge — De- 
 
 ductions — Poor-rate. 
 
 See Rates— EateahUity. 56. 
 
 — Pew in chancel. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law — 
 Pews. 
 
 CHANCERY COURT OF LANCASTER. 
 
 See Lancaster Court. 
 
 CHANGE — Name of proprietor — Register. 
 See Tkade-mark. 15, 18. 
 
 CHANNEL — Narrow channel— Collision. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Collision. 
 
 CHAPEL — Endowments — Duty to render accounts 
 to Charity Commissioners. 
 See Charity — Commissioners. 3. 
 
 — Side chapel — Faculty. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 30. 
 
 CHAPLAIN— Salary of— Charitable institution. 
 See Eevence — Income Tax. 75. 
 
 — Workhouse— Validity of charge on salary. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Assets. 65. 
 
 CHARGE — Annuity on capital. 
 See Annuity. 4. . 
 
 — Debentures. 
 
 See Company — ^Debentures. 
 
 — Judgment debt. 
 
 See Cases under Judgment Debt. 
 
 — Land charges. 
 
 See Land Charges. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 Sei Cases under Mortgage. 
 
 — EaUway and Canal TrafBc Act. 
 
 See Railway — Railway and Canal 
 Traffic. 
 
 — Bent-charges. 
 
 See Rent-chaege. 
 
 — Settlement. 
 
 See Settlement — Charges. 
 
 — Streets — Frontagers. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 Streets. 
 
 — Will — Debts and legacies. 
 
 See Will — Charge of Debts, &c. 
 
 CHARGING ORDER— B. S. 0., Order XLTI. relates 
 to charging orders. 
 
 — Bantruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Charging Order. 
 
 1. — Company — Shares — Sale — Judgment Act, 
 1837 (1 cfc 2 Vict. c. 110), s. 14. 
 
 The remedy of a person having a charge 
 under s. 14 of the Judgment Act is sale, not 
 foreclosure. 
 
 An account and sale directed, with liberty for 
 the pit. if he did not have the conduct of the 
 sale. D'AuvERGNE v. Cooper 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 256 
 
 2. — Death of judgment debtor — Leave to issue 
 execution against executor — Clerical error — Cor- 
 rection — Charge on executor's interest — 1 <fe 2 Viet. 
 c. 110, ss. 14, 15— JJ. S. a, Order xxriii., r. 11 ; 
 Order XLII., ■,: 23 ; Order XLTi., r. 1. 
 
 Under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 14, there is no 
 power after the death of a judgment debtor to 
 make a charging order against his executor in 
 respect of a judgment debt of the deceased, unless 
 in some way judgment has been first obtained 
 against the executor. 
 
 Whether such a, judgment can be obtained 
 under the present practice, gusere. 
 
 Under s. 15 of the Act it is essential that the 
 person who is to shew cause against the making 
 absolute a charging order nisi should be the 
 person against whom the judgment was re- 
 covered. 
 
 The executor of a deceased judgmenf debtor 
 cannot shew cause against a charging order nisi 
 made in respect of a judgment recovered against 
 the deceased. 
 
 Leave given under rule 23 of Order xLn. to 
 issue execution against the executor of a deceased 
 judgment debtor does not operate as a judgment 
 against the executor ; it dispenses with the neces- 
 sity of recovering judgment against him, and 
 consequently does not satisfy the requirements of 
 ss. 14 and 15 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 :— 
 
 So held by the C. A. 
 
 Kaly V. Barry, (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. 452, and 
 
( 269 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 270 ) 
 
 CHARGING ORDER— coniinuecJ. 
 Finney v. Sinde, (1879) 4 Q. B. D. 102, com- 
 mented on. 
 
 An order obtained by a judgment creditor 
 after the death of the judgment debtor gave him 
 liberty to issue execution against the debtor's exe- 
 cutor, and ordered that, unless sufficient cause 
 were shewn to the contrary, the interest of the 
 debtor in a sum of Consols should stand charged 
 with the amount of the judgment. Before the 
 order was made absolute judgment was pro- 
 nounced for the administration of the debtor's 
 
 Held, by Stirling J., [1900] W. N. 13, that the 
 order could not be treated as charging the interest 
 of the executor, and that, having regard to the 
 judgment for administration, the Court ought not 
 to correct the form of the order : 
 
 Seld, therefore, that the order was bad. 
 
 Decision affirmed by the C. A., oil different 
 grounds. 
 
 Obseryationa by Stirling J. on the construction 
 of orders of the Court. Stewakt v. Rhodes 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 41 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 886 
 
 3. — Debtor's shares — Beneficial otimersliip — 
 " In his own right " — Judgments Act, 1838 (1 (fe 2 
 Vict. c. 110), s. 14. 
 
 (a) a director of a ry. co., in pursuance of an 
 amalgamation scheme with another co., sold his 
 shares to them, but remained on the register as 
 owner of the shares, and continued to act as a 
 director : — 
 
 Held, that a charging order on his qualifying 
 shares could not be granted, as he was not the 
 beneficial owner, and that the transferees were 
 not estopped from denying his beneficial owner- 
 ship. Howard v. Sadler 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 (b) Shares transferred into tho name of a 
 director (to give him the necessary qualification) 
 of which the transferors remain the beneficial 
 owners, are not held by the director in his own 
 right so as to be subject to a charging order 
 under s. 14 of the Judgments Act, 1838. Cooper 
 V. Geifpin - - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 740 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Howard v. Sadler, 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 1. See preceding Case. 
 
 • — Lunacy practice. 
 
 See LuNACT — Charging Order. 
 
 4. — Lunacy — Enforcing payment of costs — 
 B. 8. C, 1883, Order XLVi., r. 1. 
 
 An order enforcing payment of costs of an 
 inquiry in Lunacy by directing a transfer of 
 Consols is not a charging order and not bound 
 by the procedure laid down in Order xlvi., r. 1. 
 In re Cathcabt (No. 1) C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 466 
 
 5. — Mescinding order absolute — Judgments 
 Act, 1838 (l&Q. Vict. v. 110), ss. 14, 15. 
 
 Where a charging order nisi, under ss. 14, 15 
 of the Judgments Act, 1838, has become absolute, 
 the statute gjves no power to rescind it. Drew 
 V. Wilms. Ex parte Martin 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Q. B. 4S0 
 
 • — Solicitor's costs. 
 
 See Solicitor — Charging Order, 
 — Transfer of stock. 
 
 See Mortgage — roreclosure. 31. 
 
 CHARITABLE FITRFOSE. 
 
 See Charity. 
 
 CHARITY. 
 
 Charitable Trusts (Places of Religious Wor- 
 ship) Amendment Act, 1891 (57 & 58 Yict. v. 35), 
 amends the Charitable Trusts Acts. 
 
 Church affairs and charities — Provisions as to. 
 See London Government Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict, 
 a. 14), ». 18. 
 
 In General, col, 270. 
 
 Commissioners (Charity Commissioners), 
 
 col. 272. 
 Endowed Schools. See Charity — Com- 
 missioners. 
 Gift to Charity, col. 276. 
 Management, col. 281. 
 Mortmain, col. 283. 
 
 In General. 
 
 1. — Churchwardens — Income of charity 
 estates — Banhivg account — Anticipation of rents 
 — Charge on charitable property — Charitable 
 Trusts Amendment Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict, 
 c. 124), s. 29. 
 
 Estates held on old parochial trusts, the origin 
 of which was unknown, were in 1865 vested in 
 trustees by a deed of appointment of new trustees 
 upon trust to permit and suffer the churchwardens 
 of St. B., in the City of London, to receive and 
 take the rents as the same sliould from time to 
 time grow due and be payable as formerly had 
 been used, and for such cliaritable uses, intents, 
 and purposes as the s.ime had been usually 
 employed by the parishioners of the said parish, 
 whether in or about the repairs of the church, the 
 relief of the poor of the parish, or any other of 
 the public aifairs of the parish. The church- 
 wardens kept an account with a bank headed as 
 the account of the churchwardens, not mentioning 
 their names, and for many years this account had 
 keen kept as a continuous account, an adverse 
 balance at the end of one year being paid out of 
 rents of subsequent years. From 1885 to 1888 
 the then churchwardens, there being a temporary 
 diminution of income, obtained from the bank, 
 with the sanction of the Charity Commrs., ad- 
 vances amounting to 3000Z., which were carried 
 to the credit of the churchwardens in the account. 
 In 1891 a scheme by the Charity Commrs. under 
 the City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 36), came into effect, by which 
 the estates were vested in the Official Trustee of 
 Charity Lands, and the administration of the 
 rents in the Trustees of the London Parochial 
 Charities. The bank then sued the individual 
 churchwardens in whose time the advances had 
 been made for the advances; and the church- 
 wardens brought an action against the Official 
 Trustee of Charity Lands and the Trustees of the 
 London Parochial Charities to be indemnified 
 out of the rents against the claims of the 
 bank : — ■ 
 
 Held, by Eomer J., that on the construction 
 of the deed appointing new trustees, the church- 
 wardens for the time being could only receive the 
 rents as they became due and apply them, and 
 had no power to anticipate the income so as to 
 
( 271 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 1900. 
 
 ( 272 ) 
 
 CHAEITT (In GeneraT)— continued. 
 
 haTe a claim on the future income, and that 
 
 their claim therefore failed : 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that whether this was a 
 correct viewer not the churchwardens' claim was 
 defeated by the Charitable Trusts Amendment 
 Act, 1855, s. 29, which prohibits any sale, mort- 
 gage, or charge of a charity estate without the 
 approval of the Charity Commrs. Fell v. 
 Official Teustee of Chaeitt Lands 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 44 
 
 2. — "JUcclesiastical Charity" — Parish council 
 — Appointment of trustees — Churchwarden trustees 
 —Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), 
 B. 14, sub-ss. 1,2; «s. 70, 75, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The founder of an eleemosynary charity by 
 her deed of endowment declared that the objects 
 of the charity should be selected by the trustees 
 thereof (one of whom was to be the rector of the 
 parish) from amongst poor men and women resi- 
 dent in a certain parish who should have (1) 
 regularly attended divine service in the church 
 of the parish for a fixed period, (2) been par- 
 takers of the Holy Communion, (3) lived a 
 godly, righteous, and sober life to the glory of 
 God's Holy Name ; and she also declared that 
 the lay trustees should always be members of 
 the Church of England : — 
 
 Held, that the charity was one for the benefit of 
 members of the Church of England " as such," i.e., 
 in their character of members of that Church, and 
 to the exclusion of non-members thereof, and was 
 accordingly an ecclesiastical charity within s. 75 
 of the Local Government Act, 1894 ; and held, 
 therefore, that the parish council had no power, 
 under s. 14, sub-s. 1, of the same Act, to appoint 
 trustees of it. 
 
 In B. 75, sub-s. 2 (e), of the Act of 1894, the 
 words "or otherwise for the benefit of any 
 particular Church .... or any members tliereof 
 as such" are not to be construed as limited to 
 religious "benefit," to the exclusion of mere 
 temporal benefit. 
 
 There may be a charity in the legal sense 
 for purposes which are both eleemosynary and 
 ecclesiastical or religious. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J., [1898] 1 Ch. 391, 
 afSrmed. 
 
 A testatrix by her will (made in 1799) devised 
 a rent-charge to be paid to the churchwardens 
 for the time being of the parish of B. H. on a 
 certain day in every year for ever, and to be laid 
 out in the purchase of garments to be given to 
 " six old and poor widows of the said parish 
 whom they shall judge the properest objects to 
 receive the same with preference to those who 
 not being disabled by infirmity or sickness are 
 most constant in their attendance on the public 
 service of the church." 
 
 Held, first, that the charity thus created was 
 not an ecclesiastical charity within the meaning 
 of the Local Government Act, 1894 ; and, 
 secondly, that s. 14, sub-s. 2, of that Act had 
 application to tbe case of a non-eccle.siastical 
 cJiarity, the only trustees of which were church- 
 wardens, and accordingly that the parish council 
 had power to appoint trustees of such a charity 
 in place of the churchwardens. 
 
 The decision of North J., [1897] 2 Ch. 397, 
 
 CHAEITY (In General) — continued. 
 affirmed. In re Peeey Almshouses. In re Boss' 
 Chaeitt 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 168 (1), (2); [1899] 1 Ch. 21 
 See London Government Act, 1899 (62 & 63 
 Vict. c. 14), s. 23 (3). 
 
 — Common lodging-house — Liability to penalty 
 
 for keeping — Charitable institution — 
 
 Non-registration. 
 
 See LoBGiNG-HousE. 1, 2. 
 
 — Costs — Compulsory purchase — Charitable land 
 
 — Payment into court. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 2. 
 
 — Exemption from duty — Charitable trusts. 
 
 See New Zealand. 2. 
 
 — Income tax. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 75 — 77. 
 
 — Inhabited house duty. 
 
 See Eevence — House Duty. 53, 57. 
 
 — Eent-charge — Tenant for years — Personal 
 
 liability. 
 
 See Ebnt-ohabqe. 6. 
 
 — Salary of chaplain — Income tax. 
 
 See Eevehue — Income Tax. 75. 
 
 — Substitutional or alternative gift — Scheme. 
 
 See Will— Substitution. 201. 
 
 Commissioners. 
 (Charity Commissioners.) 
 
 3. — Accounts of charity — Wesleyan chapel 
 and endouTnents — Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 
 (16 <{; 17 Vict. c. 137), ss. 62, 66. 
 
 Tlie trustees of a Wesleyan chapel, which 
 was endowed, refused to render any accounts of 
 the endowments to the Charity Ccmmrs. :— 
 
 Held, that they must render accounts of the 
 endowments, for the exemption of buildings 
 registered for religious worship in s. 62 of the 
 Cliaritable Trusts Act, 1853, only applied to the 
 chapel itself and not to any property held with 
 it on a particular and specijfic trust. In re St. 
 John Steeet Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, 
 Chester - Stirling J. [1893] 2 Ch. 618 
 
 But See the Charitable Trusts (Places of 
 Eeligious Worship) Amendment Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Viet. c. 35). 
 
 4. — Application for scheme — Jurisdiction of 
 Commissioners — Cliaritahle Trusts Act, 18G0 
 (23 * 24 Vict. V. 136), ss. 2, 4, 6, 8. 
 
 When onco the trustees of a charity make 
 formal application to the Commrs. for a scheme, 
 the jurisdiction of the Commrs. attaches abso- 
 lutely to the charity, and cannot be put an end 
 to by the withdrawal of the application before 
 the scheme is completed. In re PooE Lands 
 Chaeity, Bethnal Geeen 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 400 
 
 5. — Consent — Sale — Sale by trustees of lands 
 under power in deed — Charity lands — Cliarity 
 founded by deed — "Scheme legally established" — 
 Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853, 1855 (16 & 17 
 Vict. c. 137, ss. 24, 26 ; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 124, s. 29) 
 —Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <fe 9 Viet. c. 18), 
 ss. 7-69. 
 
 A deed founding a charity, and duly enrolled 
 under 9 Geo. 2, o. 36, is not " a scheme legally 
 
( 273 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 274 ) 
 
 CHAEITY (Commissioners)— conJimjed. 
 established " withiu s. 29 of the Charitable Trusts 
 Amendment Act, 1855 ; and the trustees in whom 
 the lands of the charity are vested cannot sell 
 such lands under a power of sale contained in the 
 deed, otherwise than with the authority of Parlia- 
 ment, or of the Court, or with the approval of the 
 Charity Commrs. 
 
 The meaning of the expression "scheme 
 legally established " defined by the Court; and 
 the decision of Stirling J., [1895] W. N. 138 (3) ; 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 51, affirmed. In re Masons 
 Orphanage and London and North Western 
 Et. Co. C. a. [1896] 1 Ch. 596 
 
 6. — ■ Consent to action — Adminutration — 
 Scholarship — Contract or invitation — Refusal to 
 elect— Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 (16 & 17 
 Vict. c. 137), s. 17. 
 
 An action claiming that a person was entitled 
 to the possession and enjoyment of a soholarsliip 
 involves the partial execution or administration 
 of the trusts of the charity deed establishing the 
 scholarship, and consequently the consent of the 
 Charity Commrs. is necessary before the action 
 can be proceeded with. Eooke v. Dawson 
 
 CMtty J. [1895] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 7. — Consent — Lease — Lease for more than 
 twenty-one years — Charitable Trusts Act, 1855 
 (18 (fc 19 Vict. c. 124:), s. 29. 
 
 A lease by the trustees of a charity for more 
 than twenty-one years without the approval of 
 the Charity Commrs. (as required by s. 29 of the 
 Charitable Trusts Act, 1855) is not valid for 
 twenty-one years, but is absolutely void. Bjshop 
 OF Bangoe v. Parry Charles J. [1891] 2 ft. B. 277 
 
 8. — Consent — Mortgage — Jurisdiction — 
 Industrial school — Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 
 (16 * 17 Vict. e. 137), ss. 62, 6&— Proviso as to 
 extent of exemption in s. 62 — " Any cathedral, 
 collegiate, chapter, or other schools" — Ejusdem 
 generis rule — Endowment. 
 
 The proviso at the end of s. 62, excluding 
 "any cathedral, collegiate, chapter, or other 
 schools " from the " exemption " contained in 
 the section, does not extend to all echools of 
 whatever description, but only extends to the 
 schools there mentioned, and to schools of a 
 similar character. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J., [1898] 1 Ch. 610, 
 affirmed. 
 
 The trustees of an industrial scliool main- 
 tained by voluntary contributions. Government 
 grants, contributions from school boards, boards 
 of guardians, and other public authorities, and 
 possessed of lands and buildings occupied by the 
 school, presented a petition under Sir Samuel 
 Eomilly's Act (52 Geo. 3, c. 101) asking for the 
 sanction of the Court to a proposed mortgage of 
 part of the school lands and buildings ;— 
 
 Held, by the Court, that the consent of the 
 Charity Commrs. to the presentation of the 
 petition and to the proposed mortgage was 
 necessary, per Lindley M.E., upon the construc- 
 tion of s. 62 ; and, per Chitty J., having regard 
 to the nature of the property proposed to be 
 mortgaged. 
 
 The order of Stirling J., [1898] 1 Ch. 610, 
 reversed. 
 
 Government grants, and contributions by 
 
 CHARITT (Commissioners) — continued. 
 school boards, boards of guardians, and other 
 public authorities to an industrial school, are 
 not voluntary contributions within s. 62. In re 
 Stockport Eagged, Industrial, and Ebforma- 
 tort sohools 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. BT. 28 (4) ; [1898] 2 Ch. 687 
 Also same case, [1897] W. N. 156 (4). 
 See Charity — Management. 40. 
 
 9. — Consent — Sale of land — Charitable Trusts 
 Acts, 1853, 1855 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, ss. 24, 62, 
 66 ; 18 * 19 Vict. a. 124, ss. 29, 48). 
 
 Under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 and 
 1855, the consent of the Commrs. to the sale of 
 land belonging to a charity is not required when 
 the land is held in trust for the general purposes 
 of the charity, and is not subject to any specific 
 and particular trust distinct from those general 
 objects. In re Governors op the Ookpoeation op 
 Sons op Clergy and Skinner 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 178 
 
 10. — Endowed school — Dismissal of school- 
 master—Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 (16 * 17 
 Vict. c. 137), s. 17. 
 
 The consent of the Charity Commrs. is not a 
 necessary preliminary to obtaining an inter- 
 locutory injunction to restrain trustees from dis- 
 missing a schoolmaster, imtil the trustees have 
 held a formal and proper meeting and the school- 
 master has been heard on his defence. Fisher 
 V. Jackson - North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 84 
 
 10a. — Endowed school — Locus standi of peti- 
 tioners — Batepaying parents of scholars — -Endowed 
 Schools Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 56), ss. 19, 39. 
 
 In appeal from a scheme relating to a grammar 
 school : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the petitioners, who were rate- 
 payers of the borough where the school was 
 situate and parents of scholars attending the 
 school, were not in either capacity persons directly 
 affected by the scheme within the meaning of 
 s. 39, and, therefore, had no locus standi for 
 ajpeal; (2) that although an opinion of the 
 Commrs. that s. 19 applies is appealable, it is 
 so only as mentioned in the Act, which requires 
 that the petitioners be aggrieved by the scheme 
 and not by the opinion on which it is founded ; 
 (3) that they were not so aggrieved, for, whether 
 that opinion was right or wrong, the scheme 
 having receivfd the consents required by the 
 section, was in either view in conformity with 
 the Act. In re Endowed Schools Act, 1869, 
 1873, and 1874, and In re A Scheme relating 
 TO Grammar School in Colchester 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 477 
 
 11. — Endowed school — Scheme — Excepted 
 endowments — Jurisdiction — Endowed Schools Act, 
 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 56), s. 14. 
 
 The scheme under consideration proposed 
 that all the excepted educational endowments 
 should bo made over to the governing body con- 
 stituted by a scheme of 1890, in augmentation 
 of the endowments already comprised therein, 
 and should be dealt with and administered 
 according to that scheme : — 
 
 Held, that it was beyond the jurisdiction of 
 the Court to sanction the scheme in the face of 
 the opposition of the existing governing body, 
 
( 275 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 276 ) 
 
 CHARITY (Commssionera)— continued. 
 their title being founded on Eoyal Charter and 
 established by Act of Parliament, and no breach 
 of trust being charged. 
 
 Sect. 14 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, 
 has left the jurisdiction of the Court untouched 
 in regard to endowments within the fifty years' 
 limit, it has neither diminished nor increased the 
 jurisdiction. The section can at most assist the 
 Court in the exercise of its discretion. Att.- 
 Gen. v. Christ's Hospital 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 1 Ch. 879 
 
 12. — Endowed scliool — Scheme — Patronage — 
 Modern endowment — Endowed Schools Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Viot. a. 56), s. 3d— Welsh Intermediate 
 Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict, c. 40), s. 13. 
 
 In an appeal under s. 39 of the Endowed 
 Schools Act, 1869, against a scheme of the 
 Charity Commrs. under the Welsh Intermediate 
 Education Act, 1889 :— 
 
 Hdd, that the policy of the scheme cannot be 
 considered. It can only be modified so far as it 
 Is ultra Tires. Where there was no direction to 
 that effect in the instrument of foundation, nor 
 regulations prescribed by the founder or under 
 his authority in his lifetime or within fifty 
 years of the founder's death, the scheme need not 
 provide for religious instruction according to the 
 Established Church. Such regulatiou cannot be 
 presumed from practice extending over a long 
 period. Sect. 13 of the Act does not apply to 
 rights of patronage which are not at the date of 
 the Act exercised by a member of the governing 
 body or possessed in consequence of his gift. A 
 modern endowment under the Welsh Act is one 
 made since 1869. Such endowment if so mixed 
 with the old endowment as that it cannot be 
 conveniently separated must be deemed to be 
 part thereof. In re Endowed Schools Act, 1869, 
 AND Swansea Gkammak School 
 
 P. C. [1894] A, C. 252 
 
 13. — Endowed school — Scheme — Public scliool 
 — Maintenance — Endowed Schools Acts, 1869, 
 1873, 1874 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 56, 8S. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 
 24 ; 36 (fc 37 Vict. u. 87, ». 9 ; 37 * 38 Vict. c. 87, 
 s. 6). 
 
 A charitable foundation provided for scholar- 
 ships at Oxford for boys from six schools, one of 
 which was a public school within the meaning of 
 the Public Schools Act, 1868 :— 
 
 Held,' that such a provision was for the 
 "maintenance" of the schools and part of their 
 " educational endowment," and that the fact 
 that one of them was a public school did not 
 exclude the jurisdiction of the Charity Commrs. 
 to make a scheme for the management of the 
 whole charity under the Endowed Schools Acts. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Cheist Chukch, Oxford 
 
 North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 824 
 
 14. — Jurisdiction — Endowment — Funds aris- 
 ing from voluntary contributions — Lands Clauses 
 Act, 1845 (8 <fe 9 Vict. c. 18), s. 80. 
 
 The 0. Corporation had power to hold land 
 without licence under the Mortmain Act. The 
 corporation applied funds arising from voluntary 
 contributions for the general purposes of the 
 charity in purchase of land : — 
 
 Beld, (1) that the income of any endowment 
 means prima facie the income of any invested 
 
 CHARITY (Commissioners) — continued. 
 funds whether held on special trust or for the 
 general purposes of the charity ; (2) that in the 
 case of a charity partly supported by voluntary 
 subscriptions and partly by endowment, gifts for 
 the general purposes of the charity which may be 
 lawfully applied as income are exempt from the 
 jurisdiction of the Charity Commrs. ; (3) that the 
 funds invested in land did not lose their character 
 by such application, and that the land was not 
 subject to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commrs. : 
 (4) (by Kekewich J.) that the claim of the 
 Commrs. was not adverse litigation within s. 80 
 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, and that a ry. 
 which had purchased the land must pay the 
 costs of the application. In re Clebst Okphan 
 CoKPOKATioN - - C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 145 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Gilchrist 
 Educational Trust, [1895] 1 Ch. 367. See next 
 Case. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Stockport Ragged, 
 dc. Schools, [1898] 2 Ch. 697, No. 8, above. 
 
 15, — Jurisdiction — Endowment — Absolute 
 discretionary power — Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 
 (16 * 17 Vict. c. 137), ss. 62, 66. 
 
 A. bequeathed a fund to trustees with absolute 
 discretion to apply the bequest for the benefit 
 of a charity not supported by any voluntary con- 
 tributions r — 
 
 Held, that the bequest was an endowment of 
 a charity, but not a mixed charity within s. 62 
 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, and that the 
 Charity Commrs. were entitled to demand accounts 
 of the property and income of the charity. In re 
 Gilchrist Bddoational Trust 
 
 Kekewich J, [1895] 1 Ch. 367 
 — Jurisdiction of Commissioners — Endowed 
 Schools Act. 
 See Mandamus. 1. 
 
 Gift to Charity. 
 
 — ■ Accumulations — Surplus income. 
 See Accumulations. 1. 
 
 16, — Advowsons — Will — Failure of gift — 
 Bequest of trust funds to be applied " in grants 
 for or towards the purchase of advowsons or 
 presentations." 
 
 A bequest to trustees to expend the income or 
 any portion of the trust funds " in grants for or 
 towards the purchase of advowsons or presenta- 
 tions " is not a good charitable bequest. 
 
 Held, that since upon the true construction of 
 the will no trust, charitable or other, which the 
 Court could execute or control was annexed to 
 the advowsons or presentations for the purchase 
 of which the truotees had power to make grants, 
 and there was no general trust for charity binding 
 the whole fund, the whole gift failed and the 
 residuary estate was undisposed of. 
 
 Decision of C. A., In re Hunter. Hood v. 
 Att.-Gen., [1897] 2 Ch. 105, reversed and the 
 decision of Eomer J., [1897] 1 Ch. 518, restored. 
 Hunter v. Att.-Gen. and Hood 
 
 H. L. [1899] W, N, 71; [1899] A. C. 309 
 
 17, — Blanlc in will — " Charitable, Philan- 
 thropic or " — Construction of will — Legacy 
 — Charitable bequest. 
 
 . A bequest of money " for some one or more 
 
( 277 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 278 ) 
 
 CHARITY (Gift to Charity)— emtinued. 
 piirposes, charitable, phUanthropio or ," is 
 
 not bad aimply by reason of the existence of the 
 blank, but must be treated as one " for charitable 
 or philanthropic purposes." Such a bequest, 
 however, is not a good charitable bequest, as 
 there may be philanthropic purposes which are 
 not charitable. In re Maodupf. Macduff v. 
 Macduff - - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch, 451 
 
 Referred to by H. L., [1899] A. 0. 323. 
 
 18. — Blanks in vyUl — Charitable purposes — 
 " Religious Societies." 
 
 A bequest to a religious institution or for a 
 religious purpose is prima facie a bequest for n, 
 " charitable" purpose, and the law applicable to 
 "charitable" bequests, as distinguished from 
 ordinary bequests, should be applied. A gift 
 " to the following religious charities " (the names 
 being left blank) : — 
 
 Seld, to shew a general charitable intention, 
 which the Court would execute. Scheme directed 
 as to such part of the estate as was at the 
 testator's death pure personalty. 
 
 (a) In re White. White v. White 
 
 C. A. revers. Eekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 41 
 
 (b) Gates' and Jones' Case otherwise Jones' 
 Case - - - - [1893] 2 Ch. 49, n. 
 
 (0) In re Macduff C. A, [1896] 2 Ch, 462 
 
 19. — "Charitable purpose" — Anti-vivisection 
 society. 
 
 Societies for the suppression and abolition of 
 vivisection are within the legal definition of 
 the term " charity." In re Foveaux. Ckoss v. 
 London Anti- Vivisection Society 
 
 CMtty J. [1895] 2 Ch. 501 
 
 — Colonial law — Queensland. 
 
 See Queensland. 1. 
 
 — Colonial will — Land in England. 
 
 See Chaeitt — Mortmain. 43. 
 
 — Cy-pres — Failure of object. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 6, 7. 
 
 — Cy-pres — Failure of object — Charitable 
 
 legacy. 
 
 See Will — Lapse. 113. 
 
 20. — Cy-pres — Failure of object — Educational 
 charity— Somilly's Act, 1812 (52 Geo. 3, c. 101). 
 
 An educational charity became useless owing 
 to the effect of the Elementary Education Acts. 
 The Court sanctioned a cy-pr?;s scheme which 
 the Att.-Gen. had approved, although the Att.- 
 Gen. had not been formally served and did not 
 anpear on the petition. In re Bbadfokd School 
 OF INDUSTKT CMtty J. [1893] W. N. 60 
 
 SI. — Cy-pres — Failure of object — Religious 
 seminary. 
 
 A. by his will bequeathed a legacy " to the 
 rector for the time being" of a certain E. C. 
 seminary. A. died in 1893. Between the date 
 of the will and A.'s death the seminary ceased to 
 exist :-^ 
 
 Held, that the gift pointed to a particular 
 seminary, and that seminary having ceased to 
 exist in A.'s lifetime, the legacy lapsed. In re 
 Eymeb. Eymee v. Stanfibld 
 
 C. A. affirm, Chitty J. [1895] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. as to costs. In re Mac-' 
 duff, [1896] 2 Ch. 475. 
 
 CHARITY (Gift to Charity')— continued. 
 
 22. — Foreign objects, charity having only — 
 Charitable Trusts Act, 1601 (43 Eliz. o. 4.) 
 
 A testator left 20,000i. on trust, to transmit 
 the income to Germany to be applied for the 
 benefit of the poor of O. ; he also gave thvee- 
 fourtlis of the residue on the same trusts, and 
 empowered the trustees to transfer the corpus of 
 the trust funds to Germany if they thought fit : — 
 Held, by Chitty J., that impure personalty 
 did not pass under the bequest : 
 
 Held, by C. A., aflarming Chitty J., that a 
 gift in favour of poor foreigners resident abroad 
 was a charitable gift under 43 Bliz. c. 4, and 
 that the bequest was good as to pure personalty. 
 In re Geok. Feeund v. Steward 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 161 
 — Highway — Grant of soil of highway for 
 charitable use. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of — High- 
 way. 20. 
 
 23. — Highway — Repair of road — Boad trans- 
 ferred to local authority — Failure of trust. 
 
 The testator bequeathed 3000/. upon trust to 
 build galleries in a church and to construct a 
 causeway, and directed that 402. a year should be 
 laid aside for the repairs of the galleries and the 
 road as there should be occasion, and as the 
 trustees should think fit, and gave the residue 
 after these things were performed to other ob- 
 jects. An additional sum of 40Z. a year out of 
 the funds was subsequently ordered by the Court 
 of Chancery to be applied to the repairs of the 
 road. The road had recently come under the 
 control of a county council and a district council 
 so that the obligation to repair it rested on these 
 bodies : — 
 
 Held, that this circumstance did not put an 
 end to the trust, and that so much of the 80Z. a 
 year as was available for the repairs of the road 
 ought to be paid to the councils. Att.-Gen. v. 
 Day North J. [1899] W. N. 207; [1900] 1 Ch. 31 
 
 24. — Marshalling — Impure personalty. 
 Where a testator gave to a charity after it 
 
 pecuniary legacy all Ihe residue of her personal 
 estate, "save and except such parts thereof aa 
 cannot by law be appropriated by will to chari- 
 table purposes " : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the gift of the residue did not 
 operate as a direction to marshal the estate in 
 favour of the charity, and that the impure 
 personalty passed to the next of kin. In re 
 SoMBKS-CooKS. Wegg-Prossee v. Wegg-Peossee 
 Kekewioh J. [1895] 2 Ch. 449 
 
 25. — " Old and worn-out" clerks of a firm — 
 Charitable gift — Construction of will. 
 
 A testator, who died in 1855, bequeathed a 
 sum of 1890Z. Consols, to be invested in the 
 names of trustees, to form a fund to be called the 
 Superannuation Fund, for Uie purpose of pen- 
 sioning off old and worn-out clerks of the firm of 
 G. & S. In June, 1896, the firm of G. & S. was 
 amalgamated with the firm of B. & Co., and in 
 consequence of this amalgamation some diffi- 
 culties had arisen as to the proper objects and 
 distribution of the fund. The trustees nov? 
 applied for the determination of the following 
 questions : (1) Whether the gift was a good 
 ctiaritable gift; and, if so, (2) whether a scheme 
 
( 279 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 19C0. 
 
 ( 2£0 ) 
 
 CHAEIT7 (Gift to Chaiity)— continued. 
 ought not to be settled for the administration of 
 the fund, or whether the fund ought not to be 
 •applied cy-prfes for charitable purposes :— 
 
 Seld, that, amongst the other charitable 
 objects enumerated by 43 Eliz. c. 4, both the 
 "aged" and "impotent" were especially men- 
 tioned, and "old and worn-out" clerks came 
 within this description, and, having regard to the 
 phrase "pensioning off" and to the frame of the 
 gift, that poor clerks of the firm, and those un- 
 able properly to provide for themselves and their 
 families, were intended to be benefited. So long 
 as the gift was in favour of a section of the 
 public, if within the scope of charitable gifts, it 
 was a charitable gift; and the fact tliat the 
 section of the public was limited to persons born 
 or residing in a particular parish, district, or 
 county, or belonging to, or connected with, any 
 special sect, denomination, guild, institution, 
 firm, name, or family, did not of itself render 
 that which would be otherwise charitable void, or 
 take it out of the category of charitable gifts. 
 For these reasons the gift was held to be a good 
 charitable gift, and a scheme was directed to be 
 settled for the administration of the fund. In re 
 Gosling. Gosling v. Smith 
 
 Byrne J. ri900] W. N. 15 
 — Perpetuity. 
 
 See Will— Perpetuity. 151—154. 
 
 26. — Perpetuity, rule against. 
 
 (a) Tlie rule against perpetuities has no 
 application to the transfer in a certain event of 
 property from one charity to another. In re 
 Tylek. Ttlee v. Ttlek C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 Distinguished. See next Case. 
 
 (b) But this exception does not extend to oases 
 where (1) an immediate gift in favour of private 
 individuals is followed by an executory gift in 
 favour of charity, or (2) an immediate gift in 
 favour of charity is followed by an executory gift 
 in favour of private individuals. In re Bowen. 
 Lloyd Phillips v. Davis 
 
 Stirling J, [1893] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 27. — • Political and religious purposes — Gift 
 for. 
 
 The vicar of a parish by his will dated in 
 1897 devised to the vicar for the time being a 
 building used as a village club and reading-room 
 " to be maintained for the furtherance of Con- 
 servative principles and religious and mental 
 improvement and to be kept free from intoxicants 
 and dancing " :-^ 
 
 Held, a good charitable gift. In re Scow- 
 CKOFT. Okmrod v. Wilkinson 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 28. — Poor — Charitable purposes. 
 
 A gift in favour of poor foreigners resident 
 abroad is a charitable gift. In re Geok. Freund 
 I'. Steward - C. A. [1893] W. N. 161 
 
 29. — Poor — Gift " to the poor and tlie service 
 of God" — Will — Construction. 
 
 A gift by will " to the poor and the service of 
 God " is a good charitable gift. 
 
 Powerscourt v. Powerscourt, 1 Molloy, 616, is 
 
 an authority to this effect. In re Darling. 
 
 Farquhae v. Darling - - Stirling J. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 140 (12); [1896] 1 Ch. 60 
 
 CHAEITY (Gift to Charity) — continue. 
 
 — Self-supporting hospital — House tax — Exemp- 
 tion. 
 See Retende — House Duty. 57. 
 
 30. — Teaching shooting — Charitable purposes 
 — Public advantage — Charitable Trusts Act, 1601 
 (43 Eliz. c. 4), 8. 1. 
 
 A gift to the National Kifle Association for 
 teaching shooting, held to be valid. In re 
 Stephens. Giles v. Stephens 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 140 
 
 31. — Tomb — Bequest to maintain — So long as 
 the law permits— Validity. 
 
 A testator, after expressing his wish to be 
 buried in the inclosure in which his child lay in 
 the churchyard of B., bequeathed to the rector 
 and churchwardens for the time being of the 
 parish church, 800?. Consols to be invested in their 
 joint names, the interest and dividend to be 
 derived therefrom to be applied, so long as the 
 law for the time being permitted, in keeping 
 up the inclosure and decorating the same with 
 flowers : — 
 
 Held, that the gift was valid for at least a 
 period of twenty-one years from the testator's 
 death, and semble, that it was not charitable. 
 
 PiBERIGHT V. SALWEY 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] W. N. 86 (4) 
 
 32. — Tomb — Bepair of — Conditional gift. 
 
 A condition that a family vault shall be kept 
 in repair, attached to a gift of stock to charity 
 A., with a gift over on non-compliance to charity 
 B.:— 
 
 Held to be valid. In In re Ttlek. Tyler 
 V. Tyler C. A, affirming Stirling J. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Bowen 
 [1893] 2 gh. 491. 
 
 33. — Voluntary association — Clifford's Inn — 
 Inn of Chancery — Failure of objects — Charity. 
 
 By an indenture of feoffment of March, 1618, 
 a messuage and premises known as Clifford's Inn 
 was assured to certain members of the society, as 
 trustees, in consideration of 6002., with a declara- 
 tion that the true intent and meaning of the deed 
 was, that the said messuage " shall for ever here- 
 after retain and keep the same usual and ancient 
 name of Clifford's Inn and shall for ever here- 
 after be continued and employed as an Inn of 
 Chancery for the good of the gentlemen of that 
 society and for the benefit of the Commonwealth 
 as aforesaid, and not otherwise, nor to any other 
 use, intent or purpose." The property had long 
 been dealt with by the society as its own, and 
 for its own purposes, and the surviving members 
 of the society contended that it was not now 
 subject to or affected by any charitable trust, but 
 belonged to the individual members for their own 
 personal benefit, to be divided and disposed of as 
 they might think fit : — 
 
 Held, that the deed of 1618 negatived the 
 idea of private ownership, and proved a dedica- 
 tion to public or charitable objects, and that the 
 property now vested in the present trustees must 
 be held by them upon trust for charitable pur- 
 Smith v. Kerr 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 140; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 511 
 
( 281 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 282 ) 
 
 CHARITY (Gift to Ch&iity')— continued. 
 
 34. — Voluntary gift — Subsequent conveyance 
 for value— 27 Eliz. c. i. 
 
 A voluntary gift for charitable purposes is not 
 covinous within 27 Eliz. c. 4, and is not avoided 
 by a subsequent conveyance for value. Kamsat 
 V. GiLOHBiST - - P. C. [1892] A. C. 412 
 
 But see now the Voluntary Conveyances Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 21). 
 
 35. — Voluntary gift of property — Action to 
 set aside — Deeds of foundation — Mistalee. 
 
 In an action by a donor to set aside certain 
 voluntary deeds of gift founding charities in 
 London and Suffolk, it was held that where there 
 was neither fraud, nor undue influence, nor 
 fiduciary relationship between donor and donee, 
 nor mistake induce dJ^by those who derived benefit 
 under the gift, the donor could only obtain back 
 property which he had given away, by shewing 
 that he was under some mistake of so serious a 
 character as to render it unjust on the part of the 
 donee to retain the property given to him. And 
 it was also lield that in a long and complicated 
 deed of gift mistakes might be made which the 
 Court jnight rectify if desired by the donor so to 
 do, and yet such mistakes might not be important 
 and serious enough to enable the donor to set 
 aside the whole deed as failing iti substance to 
 carry out bis intention. 
 
 The decision of Byrne J. affirmed. Ogilvie 
 V. LiTTLEBOT C. A. [1897] W. N. 63 (1) 
 
 36. : — ■ Volunteer corps— Perpetuity. 
 
 A conditional gift by will for the benefit of a 
 volunteer corps held void as infringing the rule 
 against perpetuities. In re LoBD Stbathedbn 
 AND Campbell. Alt v. Steathbden and Camp- 
 bell - Bomer J. [1894] 3 Ch. 265 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Nottage, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 653. See next Case. 
 
 37. — Yacht-racing — Encouragement of — Per- 
 petuity — Purpose heneficial to the community. 
 
 N. by his will gave a sum the interest of 
 which was to be expended in providing a cup 
 to be given for the encouragement of yacht- 
 racing : — 
 
 Reld, that the gift being for the encourage- 
 ment of a mere sport, though it might be beneficial 
 to the public, could not be upheld as charitable 
 and was void for remoteness. In re Nottase. 
 Jones v. Palmek (No. 1) 
 
 C. A, affirming Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 649 
 
 management. 
 
 Charitable Trusts (Becovery} Act, 1891 
 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 17), facilitates the recovery of 
 rent-dmrges and other payments owing to 
 charities. 
 
 Bulei, dated May 27, 1892 {" E. S. O. Chari- 
 table Trusts (Becovery), 1892 "), made under the 
 Charitable Trusts {Recovery) Act, 1891. St. E. & 
 0. 1892 p. 907; W. N. 1892 (Appx, of 0, & E.), 
 p. 21. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 <fe 57 Vict. 
 V. 73), provides for the transfer to parish covncils 
 of the management of parochial charities not being 
 ecclesiastical. 
 
 38. — Investment — Option to invest on Oovern- 
 
 CHAEITY (Management)— coniinuee?. 
 
 meni or real securities — Exercise of option to invest 
 
 on real securities — Validity of gift. 
 
 The validity of a charitable gift by will is 
 not affected by the trustees exercising an option 
 to invest in real security. 
 
 A testatrix disposed separately of all such 
 parts of her personal estate " as could not by law 
 be devoted to charitable purposes." She thea 
 gave the residue of her personal estate to trus- 
 tees upon trust to convert it into money, invest 
 the proceeds on Government or real securities, 
 pay the income to her daughter for life, and after 
 her death to apply the capital for the benefit of 
 certain charities. The trustees during the life 
 of the tenant for life invested out of the pure 
 personalty two sums of 3501. and WOl. fn real 
 securities, and they remained so invested at the . 
 death of the tenant for life ; — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (reversing the decision of 
 Kekewich J.), that the charitable gifts were not 
 made pro tanto invalid by the investment in real 
 securities. 
 
 In re Corcoran, (1892) 62 L. J. (Oh.) 267, 
 distinguished. In re Hamilton. Cadoqan v. 
 FiTZKOT - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 617 
 
 39. — National school — Dismissal of school- 
 master. 
 
 An injunction granted restraining the com- 
 mittee of management from dismissing a school- 
 master because (1) one member of the com- 
 mittee had not been summoned, and (2) strangers 
 took part in the meeting : — 
 
 Heid, that the committee could act though no 
 elective members existed, but did not decide 
 whether the master ought to have had an oppor- 
 tunity of being heard. Lane v. Kokman 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 202 
 
 40. — Seal estate — Mortgage — Sanction of 
 Court— Bomilly's Act (52 Geo. 3, c. 101). 
 
 The Stockport Industrial Schools were estab- 
 lished by a trust-deed in 1866. The school 
 buildings were conveyed to trustees upon trust 
 to permit them to be used as a ragged, industrial 
 and reformatory school under a committee of 
 management. The trustees were empowered to 
 sell the original buildings and apply the proceeds 
 of sale in providing larger schools. The situa- 
 tion of the schools is now unsuitable, and the 
 buildings were too small for the purposes of the 
 trust. Notice had been given by the Govern- 
 ment inspectors that unless the buildings were 
 enlarged the number of children must be reduced. 
 The trustees proposed to sell the existing build- 
 ings and apply the proceeds, together with other 
 moneys in hand and a further sum to be raised 
 upon mortgage of the new premises, in buying a 
 new site and building larger schools. 
 
 Upon a petition presented by the trustees 
 under Bomilly's Act (52 Geo. 3, c. 101), the 
 Court, upon the authority of Be Ashton Charity, 
 (1856) 22 Beav. 288, sanctioned the proposeci 
 mortgage. In re Stookpokt Ragged, Industrial 
 
 AND EePOBMATOET SCHOOLS 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] W. N. 156 (4) 
 But see same case, C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 687, 
 No. 8, above. 
 
 41. — Two charities for one object. 
 
 Where two charities are being administered 
 
( 283 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 284 ) 
 
 CHARITY (Management)— conitnaei. 
 for the same object, viz., maintaiaiag a school, 
 the Court sanctioned the application of funds of 
 one charity in discharging a mortgage upon 
 property belonging to the other, but ordered the 
 mortgage to be kept alive in favour of the charity 
 out of -whose funds it was discharged in the 
 event of subsequent separation of the administra- 
 tion of the two charities. Cookbtjkn v. Eaphael 
 North J. [1891] W, N. 14 
 
 — By Charity Commissioners. 
 
 Bee Oases under Chaeity — Commis- 
 
 Uortmaln, 
 
 Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891 
 (54 cfe 55 Vict. 0. 73), amends the law relating to 
 Mortmain and Charitable Uses. 
 
 42. — Charitable bequest — Impure personalty 
 — Mortmain Act (9 Geo. 2, c. 36).J 
 
 "Where there was a contingent bequest of 
 residuary personalty on trust for the general 
 purposes of a Koman Catholic diocese, and at 
 testator's death a part (A) of the estate was in- 
 vested on mortgage of realty, and the trustees 
 subsequently similarly invested a further portion 
 (B), held that the bequest did not take effect on 
 the parts of the estate (A) and (B). In re 
 CORCOBAN. COBCOBAN V. BiDDELL 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 182 
 
 43. — Colonial will — Land in England — 
 Mortmiain Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 42). 
 
 The Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, 
 does not apply to Colonial wills. 
 
 Where A., domiciled in Victoria, by his will 
 gave money to an English corporation for the 
 purchase of land in England for a charitable 
 purpose : — 
 
 Seld, that the gift was governed by the law 
 of Yictoria, and, being valid by that law, bound 
 the executors to pay the legacy to the corpora- 
 tion. Cantekbdbt Coepobation v. Wtbuen 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 89 
 
 44. — Corporation stock — Charge on rates and 
 revenues — Mortmain Act (9 Geo. 2, c. 36), s. 3— 
 Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 42), ss. 4, 10, sub-s. Hi. 
 
 Corporation debenture stock charged on " the 
 rates and revenue of all landed and other pro- 
 perty of the corporation" is not an interest in 
 land within the Mortmain Act (9 Geo. 2, c. 36), 
 B. 3. nor within the Mortmain and Charitable 
 Uses Act, 1888, ss. 4, 10 (iii.). In re Pioeabd. 
 Elmslet v. Mitohel 
 
 North J. [1894] 2 Ch. 88; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 704 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Crossley, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 934. 
 
 45. — Devise of future estate — Mortmain and 
 Charitable Uses Acts, 1888, 1891 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 42, s. 4 ; 54 * 55 Vict. c. 73), ss. 3, 5. 
 
 Under s. 5 of the Mortmain and Charitable 
 Uses Act, 1891, land may be devised in favour of 
 charities for any estate or interest whatever 
 therein, whether the interest is in possession or 
 merely a future one. 
 
 Sect. 4 of Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 
 
 CHAEITY (Mortmain) — continued. 
 1888, so far as it applies to wills, is inconsistent 
 with and repealed by s. 5 of Mortmain and 
 Charitable Uses Act, 1891, but remains in force 
 so far as it is applicable to deeds. In re Hume, 
 Forbes v. Hume 
 
 C. A. affirming Stirling J. [1895] 1 Ch. 422 
 
 46. — Discretion of trustees — Mixed fund- 
 Pure and impure personal estate, and proceeds of 
 sale of real estate — Gift to " stick charitable in- 
 stitutions and objects as my trustees may deter- 
 mine " — Will — Charitable bequest — Charitable 
 Uses Act, 1735 (9 Geo. 2, c. 36), ss. 1, 3, 4. 
 
 A testator, who died before the Mortmain and 
 Charitable Uses Act, 1888, by his will gave real 
 and personal estate upon trust for sale and con- 
 version ; and directed his trustees to apply one- 
 tenth of the fund to " such charitable institu- 
 tions and objects as my said trustees may 
 determine " : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., (1) that the gift applied and 
 extended not only to the pure, but also to the 
 impure personal estate and the proceeds of the 
 real estate of the testator, and conferred upon the 
 trustees a power of selection ; (2) that if and so 
 far as the trustees selected charitable institutions 
 and objects exempted from the operation of 
 9 Geo. 2, c. 36, the names of the charitable in- 
 stitutions and objects selected would be read into 
 the will, and the gift would be a good charitable 
 gift in their favour ; (3) that, as to the impure 
 personalty and the proceeds of the sale of real' 
 estate, no exercise of the power of selection in 
 favour of an unexempted charitable institution or 
 object would operate as a valid gift. 
 
 If a gift of this kind gives the trustees a dis- 
 cretion enabling them to select such as are valid 
 from a class including valid and invalid objects, 
 that is sufficient to prevent the gift from being 
 voided by the statute of 9 Geo. 2, c. 36. 
 
 Although ^some parts of Stuart V.-C.'s judg- 
 ment in Leiois v. Allenby, (1870) L. E. 10 Eq. 668, 
 may be open to comment, there is no necessary 
 invalidity in such a gift as .was the subject of 
 that decision. 
 
 The principle upon which the Court proceeded 
 in Lewis v. Allenby is the same as that on which 
 the Court acted in Mayor of Faversham v. Eyder, 
 (1854) 5 D. M. & G. 350, University of London v. 
 Yarrow, (1857) 1 De G. & J. 72, and Carter v. 
 Green, (1857) 3 K. & J. 591. 
 
 Johnson v. Swann, (1818) 2 Madd. 457, and 
 Balier v. Sutton, (1836) 1 Keen, 224, if and so far 
 as they differ from Leiois v. AUeniy, must be 
 taken to be overruled. 
 
 Judgment of North J. [1896] W. N. 1 (4), 
 affirmed with a variation. In re Piekoet. 
 Whitwham v. Pieeoet C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 665 
 
 47. — Executor not express trustee for next of 
 kin — Title of heir-at-law and next of Itin barred 
 by Statute of Limitations — Will — Gift to charity 
 — Freeholds and leaseholds — Possession by executor 
 —Seal Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 
 Vict. c. 57) — Executors Act, 1830 (11 Geo. 4 and 
 1 Will. 4, c. 40) — Law of Property Amendment 
 Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 38), s. 13. 
 
 SptUer V. Maude, (1881) 32 Ch. D. 158, n., in 
 which it was held that the Boyal General 
 Theatrical Fund Association is a charity, was 
 
( 285 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891— 1900. 
 
 ( 286 ) 
 
 CHARITY (Mortmain)— conKnuetJ. 
 
 not overruled or intended to be overruled by 
 
 Oimnack v. Edwards, [1896] 2 Oh. 679. 
 
 The trusteesbip of executors creiited by the 
 Executors Act, 1830, was not intended to be 
 different in its nature from that which existed 
 previously under the rule established in courts 
 of equity — ^namely, that in the absence of special 
 circumstances executors were not to be regarded 
 as express trustees. 
 
 A testator, who died in 1873, gave all his 
 property charged with certain annuities to the 
 trustees of a charity, and appointed K. to be his 
 executor and gave him a legacy. The estate 
 included freehold and leasehold property. K. 
 entered into possession, and received the income 
 of the testator's estate on behalf of the charity 
 for a period of twenty years. Soon after the 
 testator's death he read over the will to the 
 testator's only son, who was his heir-at-law and 
 sole next of kin, but gave him no information as 
 to his rights under the will, having regard to the 
 gift being to a charity. The son died in 1895 
 without ever having claimed the estate. In an 
 action by the trustees of the charity for a declara- 
 tion who was entitled to the testator's estate : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the gift to the charity failed 
 under the Mortmain Act so far as the testator's 
 property consisted of realty or impure personalty; 
 (2) that K. was not an express trustee for the 
 next of kin, and that the title of the heir-at-law 
 to the freeholds and of the next of kin to the 
 leaseholds wa^ barred by statute. In re IjAOT. 
 KoTAL Gbnbbal Theatrical Fdnd Assooiation 
 V. Kydd - - Stirling J. [1899] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 48. — Interest in land — Mortmain and Chari- 
 table Uses Act, 1891 (54 dk 55 Viet. c. 73), s. 9— Will 
 made before, and death of testator after, passing of 
 Act— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 24. 
 
 A testator, who died after the passing of the 
 Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891, by his 
 will, made before the passing of the Act, gave to 
 a chaiity such part of residue " as may by law be 
 given for charitable purposes," with a separate 
 gift of the remainder to A. : — 
 
 Held, that the Act applied, and in the absence 
 of a contrary intention the whole of the residue, 
 realty as well as personalty, went to the charity. 
 In re Bkidgek. Bhompton Hospital fob Con- 
 sumption V. Lewis 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 44; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 297 
 
 49. — Metropolitan Stock — Interest in land — 
 Pure or impure personalty — Mortmain and Ghari- 
 tahle Uses Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 42), 
 «. 10 (m.). 
 
 Metropolitan Consolidated 3J per cent. Stock, 
 issued under the Metropolitan Board of Works 
 (Loans) Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yiot. c. 102), held to 
 be impure personalty, as conferring on the holders 
 an interest in land within s. 10 (iii.) of the 
 Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888. In re 
 
 CnOSSLET. BlEKELL V. GeEENHOUQH 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 928 
 
 50. — Metropolitan Surplus Land Stock — 
 Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888 (51 cfe 52 
 Vict. c. 42) — Metropolitan Bailway Act, 1885 
 (48 & 49 Vict. c. Ixxxix.). 
 
 A gift of Metropolitan Surplus Land Stock to 
 
 CHARITY (Mortmain)— conMnued. 
 a charity is valid, for under the Act creating the 
 stock the stockholder lias no power of reaching 
 the land, and the stock is not therefore an interest 
 in land within the meanin;? of the Act of 1888. 
 In this case the testator died in 1890 : the Act of 
 1891 provides for cases where the testator dies 
 after Aug. 5, 1891. In re Hollon. Fokbes v. 
 Haedoastle. - - C. A. [1893] W. BT. Ill 
 
 51. — Mortgage on waterworks — Fure or im- 
 pure personalty. 
 
 A mortgage on the water-rates and works, 
 given by a corporation to raise moneys for water- 
 works, held, not to be a charge on the under- 
 taking as a going concern, and not to confer on 
 the mortgagee an interest in land. The authori- 
 ties considered. In re Paekek. Wisnall v. 
 Paek - - Stirlmg J. [1891] 1 Ch. 682 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Fichard, [1894] 
 3Ch. 711. -^ 
 
 CHAEITY COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 See Chaeity — Commissioners. 
 
 CHART—" Map, chart, or plan " — Dress pattern. 
 See CoPYEieHT — Book. 4. 
 
 CHAHTEK— Powers of Crown to grant. 
 
 The powers of tlie Grown in 1720 as to the 
 grant of prerogative charters considered by 
 Lindley L.J. in Elve v. Boyton 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 501,"at p. 507 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Smith, 
 Davidson v. Myrtle, [1896] 2 Oh. 590. 
 
 CHARTER — To corporation — Forfeited recogni- 
 zance — Amercement. 
 See Ke venue— Forfeited Recognizances. 
 CHARTERPARTY. 
 
 See Oases under 
 
 Insueanoe — Marine. 
 Shipping— Charterparty. 
 CHATTEL— Bailment of. 
 
 See Cases under Bailment. 
 
 — Mounds of refuse produced in iron manufac- 
 
 ture — Minerals. 
 See Mines. 1. 
 
 — Movable — Annexation to freehold — Stuffed- 
 
 bird collection. 
 See Fixtukes. 1. 
 
 CHEAP TRAINS — Duty — Exemption —Third- 
 class passengers — Extra charge for 
 reserved carriage. 
 See Railway— Passengers. 21. 
 
 — Police officer — Inspector of weights and 
 
 measures — Conveyance at reduced rate. 
 
 See Eailway — Passengers. 24. 
 CHEMIN DE FER— " Baccarat." 
 
 See Gaming. 34. 
 CHEQUE. 
 
 See Cases under Banker. 
 
 CHIEF CONSTABLE — Payment of costs of— 
 Licensing appeals— Borough fund. 
 See Coepoeation. 10. 
 
 CHILDREN. 
 
 See Infant. 
 
 — Cruelty to. 
 
 See Cbiminal Law— Cruelty toiChildren. 
 
( 287 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 288 ) 
 
 CHILDREN— <!on«inue(i. 
 
 — Divorced parents. 
 
 See DiTOKOE — CMIdren. 
 
 — Employment of — Cleaning machineiy. 
 
 See Mastee and Sebvant — Factory 
 Acts. 
 
 — Gifts to by will. 
 
 See Will — Children. 
 
 CHIID-BEAEING— Woman past — Advancement 
 clause — " Expectant or presumptive 
 share" — Impossibility of issue. 
 See Will — Advancement. 20. 
 
 CHILI — -Evidence of law of — Executors — Powers 
 and duties — Grant to widow. 
 See Pkobate — Grant of Administration. 
 32. 
 
 — Extradition of fugitive criminals. 
 
 See Extradition. 
 CHIMNEY — Covenant for quiet enjoyment — 
 Breach by erection of buildings causing 
 lessee's chimneys to smoke. 
 See Lakdlokd and Tenant. 19. 
 
 CHIMNEY SWEEPER — By the Chimney Sweepers 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 51), chimney sweepers 
 were prohibited from hnocking or ringing bells, &c. 
 
 CHINA — ^ Chinamen — British Columbia Coal 
 Mines Regulations — Naturalization and 
 aliens. 
 See Canada. 30. 
 
 — Chinese immigration. 
 
 See ViOTOEiA. 1. 
 
 1. — Land taken for public purposes — " Ex- 
 tension '' of roads — Shanghai Land Regulation VI. 
 of 1 869 — Constrtiction. 
 
 Shanghai Regulation VI. of 1869 authorized 
 the municipal council of that place to take the 
 respondent's land as being required for the " ex- 
 tension of the lines of roads at present laid down 
 as means of communication in the settlement." 
 A proviso directed that no appropriation "for 
 roads other than those already defined " shall be 
 sanctioned or held lawful : — 
 
 Seld, that, on the true construction of the 
 regulation, " extension " is not restricted to the 
 enlargement of an existing road by adding to its 
 length or breadth, but includes new lateral 
 branches therefrom ; and that the roads " already 
 defined " are the roads mentioned in the whole of 
 the precediug part of the regulation including 
 the extensions. Shanqhai Munioipal Council 
 V. MoMuEBAY - P. C. [1900] A. C. 206 
 
 — Merchandise — Patents, Designs, and Trade 
 
 Marks. 
 
 See Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. 
 
 2, — Ship — Collision — Crossing vessels in 
 rivers — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at 
 Sea, 1884, AH. 22. 
 
 Art. 22 of the maritime rules, which relates 
 to vessels "crossing so as to involve risk of 
 collision," must be distinguished in its applica- 
 tion, (1 ) as regards vessels navigating the open 
 sea ; (2) as regards vessels passing along the 
 winding channels of rivers. In the latter case 
 the vessels must follow, and must be known to 
 intend to follow, the curves of the river bank ; — 
 
 Held, in this case, that the delt. vessel, though 
 
 CHINA — continued. 
 
 she ported her helm, kept the coui-se prescribed 
 by the nature of the locality ; and that at the 
 moment of porting the vessels were not crossing 
 vessels within the meaning of art. 22, since the 
 reasonable inference, having regard to the locality 
 and their previous courses, was that they would 
 avoid collision. 
 
 The Leverington, (1866) 11 P. D. 117, distin- 
 guished. OWNEES OF NOKWBGIAN SS. " NOE- 
 
 masdie" v. Ownees of British SS. " Pekin." 
 The " Pekin " - - P. C. [1897] A. C. 532 
 
 CHLORODYNE— Sale of. 
 See Poison. 2. 
 
 CHOSE IN ACTION — ^Assignment — Remedies of 
 insurers. 
 See Queensland. 3. 
 
 — Mortgage of — Notice — Undischarged bankrupt 
 
 — After-acquired property. 
 See Bankeuptoy — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 261. 
 
 — Passing by will. 
 
 See Will— Words. 211. 
 
 — Priority — Notice to existing trustees — Death 
 
 or retirement of trustees. 
 See Assignment. 5. 
 
 — Right to relief from forfeiture of lease. 
 
 See Cases under Landloed and Tenant. 
 
 CHURCH. 
 
 See Cases under Eoolesiastioal Law. 
 
 CHURCH BUILDING ACTS— Faculty. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 CHURCH RATE. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — - Church 
 Bates. 
 
 CHURCHWARDEN. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Church- 
 warden. 
 
 CHURCHYARD. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Churchyard. 
 
 CIRCULAR— Intimidating— Trade libel. 
 See Injunction. 86. 
 
 — Libellous. 
 
 See Deeamation — Libel 22, 24, 31, 32. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Threats. 53. 
 
 CIRCULAR TO CREDITORS. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy— ^Act of Bankruptcy. 
 28—33. 
 
 CIRCULATING LIBRARY— Libel — Publication 
 ■ — Book — Negligence. 
 See Defamation — Libel. 27. 
 
 CITATION— Divorce practice. 
 
 See Cases under DrvoROE. 
 
 — Grant of administration. 
 
 See Cases under Peobate — Grant of 
 Administration. 
 
 — Grant of probate. 
 
 See Cases under Peobate — Grant of 
 Probate. 
 
 — Parties — Res judicata — Will — ^Validity — Pro- 
 
 bate action. 
 
 See Estoppel. 4. 
 
t 2S9 ) 
 
 blGEST 01* CASES, 1891—1960. 
 
 ( 290 ) 
 
 Citation of cases. 
 
 See Law Reports. 
 CITY OF LONDON COUET. 
 
 See Cases under London — City of london 
 Court. 
 
 CIVIL SERVANT— Abolition of offioa— Compen- 
 sation. 
 See New South Wales. 3. 
 
 — Dismissal, 
 
 See New South "Wales. 4, 5. 
 
 CLAIM— Prancliise. 
 
 See Cases under Pabliament — Fran- 
 chise. 
 
 CLASS — Different classes of shareholders— Sepa- 
 rate general nieetings of each class — 
 Quorum. 
 See Company — Meetings. 165. 
 
 — Gifts to— Will. 
 
 See Will — Class. 
 
 CLAY — Entering lands sold to railway. 
 See Kail WAT — Minerals. 12. 
 
 CLEANSING— Sewer. 
 
 See Sewehb — Cleansing. 
 
 CLEANSING OF PERSONS ACT, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. u. 31), permits Local Autliorities to provide 
 Cleansing and Disinfection for persons infested 
 with vermin. 
 
 CLERGY. 
 
 See Cases under EoolbsiasTioal Law. 
 
 CLERGY DISCIPLINE ACT. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law. 
 CLERGYMAN. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 — Salary of workhouse chaplain. 
 
 See Bankkuptct — Assets. 65. 
 
 CLERK— Charitable gift— « Old and worn-out " 
 clerks of a firm. 
 See Chakity— Gift to Charity. 25. 
 
 — " Clerk or servant " — Managing director '' — 
 
 Preferential payments in bankiuptcy. 
 See Company — Directors. 114. 
 • — Embezzlement by. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Embezzlement. 12. 
 
 — to Justices — Incompatible of&ces — Disqualifi- 
 
 cation. 
 
 See Justices — Disqualification. 50. 
 
 — to Justices — Judicial expenses. 
 
 See Corporation. 20. 
 
 — Lodger franchise — Bedroom in employer's 
 
 house. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 70. 
 
 — Service — Foreign corporation — Agent — Ad- 
 
 miralty — Practice. 
 
 See Practice — Service. 182. 
 
 — Signature by auctioneer's clerk — Statute of 
 
 Frauds. 
 
 See Principal and Aqent. 1. 
 
 — Trade secrets — Duties of clerks as to. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant 
 — Trade Secrets, 
 
 CLERK (ARTICLED). 
 
 See Solicitor — Articled Clerk, 
 
 CLIENT— Solicitor and client. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor. 
 
 CLOAK ROOM — Lien for charges— Goods de- 
 posited by bailee. 
 See Railway — Stations. 63. 
 
 CLOG — On redemption. 
 
 See Mortgage- Redemption. 58 — 60. 
 
 CLOSETS— Water-oiosets. 
 
 See Cases under Water-closets. 
 
 CLOSURE— Meeting of shareholders. 
 
 See CojiPANY — Meetings. 159. 
 CLUB— Belling in. 
 
 See Gaming. 3. 
 
 — Conversion of part of residential flat info. 
 
 See Injunction. 32. 
 
 — Sale of liquors in. 
 
 See Licensing Acts — Offences. 28. 
 
 — Sick and accident. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant 
 — Truck. 
 COAL. 
 
 See Mines — Coal Mines. 
 
 — Cargo — Policy — Heating — Discharge and 
 
 sale — Loss of freight. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 52. 
 
 — Consumed in endeavouring to float stranded 
 
 steamship. 
 
 See Shipping— Average. 13. 
 
 — Insufficiency of — Charter-party — Warranty of 
 
 seaworthiness — Cargo burned as fuel. 
 See Shipping. 48. 
 
 — Necessaries — Action in rem— Maritime lien. 
 
 See Shipping- Necessaries. 179. 
 
 — Sale of coal. 
 
 See Weights and Measures. 
 
 COASTING TRADE — Foreign-going ship. 
 See Shipping— Pilotage. 187. 
 
 CO-CONTRACTORS— Parties— Addingdefendant. 
 
 See Practice — Parties. 80. 
 CODICIL. 
 
 See Will — Codicil. 
 
 COERCION — Marital — New Zealand Criminal 
 Code. 
 See New Zealand. 4. 
 
 CO-EXECUTOR — Misappropriation by. 
 See Cases under Exjicutor. 
 
 COFFIN-PLATES — Pattern — Registration — 
 Novel combination of old designs. 
 See Designs. 6. 
 
 COHABITATION — Desertion- Husband's adult- 
 ery — Refusal to lead chaste life — Wife 
 unable to continue cohabitation. 
 See Divorce — Desertion. 69. 
 
 — Desertion — Maintenance — ■ Jurisdiction of 
 
 justices. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 — Desertion without previous cohabitation. 
 
 See Divorce — Desertion. 68. 
 
 — Evidence of — Separation — Intercourse while 
 
 living apart. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe — Separation. 
 73. 
 
 L 
 
( 291 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 292 ) 
 
 C JHABITATION— conMnwei?. 
 
 — Resumption of cohabitation. 
 
 See Deed. 5. 
 
 — Substituted service of written demand for. 
 
 See DivoEOB — Practice. 117. 
 
 COKE— Whether " coal." 
 
 See London — Streets. 86. 
 
 COLIATERAL NEGLIGENCE — Independent 
 contractor. 
 See Negligence. 3. 
 
 — Independent contractor —Liability of prin- 
 
 cipal for negligence of. 
 See Master and Sekvant — Compensa- 
 tion. 8. 
 
 COLLECTING SOCIETIES AND INDUSTKIAL 
 ASSURANCE COMPANIES ACT, liSe— Consoli- 
 dation of the law — See 59 & 60 Vict. c. 26. 
 
 COLLECTION OF TAXES. 
 
 See Eevenue— Collection of Taxes. 
 COLLEGE. 
 
 See University, passim. 
 
 — Bursar — Office or employment of profit. 
 
 See Revenue— Income Tax. 80. 
 
 — Inhabited house duty. 
 
 See Revenue — House Duty. 53, 55, 62, 
 63. 
 
 — Theological college — Income tax — Exemp- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Revenue — ^Income Tax. 113. 
 
 COLLEGE OF MUSIC — Rates — Exemption — 
 
 Scientific society. 
 
 See Rates— Bateability, 36. 
 COLLIERY. 
 
 See Mines. 
 
 — • Mortgage of — ^Apportionment between tenant 
 for life and remainderman. 
 See Settled Land — Mortgages. 84. 
 
 — Subscriptions to coal owners' association. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 81. 
 
 COLLISION. 
 
 See Shlpping — Collision. 
 
 — Thames navigation. 
 
 See Thames. 
 
 COLLUSION. 
 
 See DivoECE — Collusion. 
 
 COLONIAL COURT OF ADMIRALTY— 0. in C. 
 
 dated Aug. 7, 1894 (The Consular Courts (Admir.) 
 0. in C. 1894), applying certain enactments of the 
 Colonial Court of Admiralty Act, 1890, to all 
 Courts having Vice-Admiralty jurisdiction under 
 Os. in 0. in places in Africa (local jurisdictions'), 
 China, Corea, Japan, Ottoman Empire, Persian 
 Coast, Slam, and Zanzibar. St. B. & 0. 1894, 
 p. 131. 
 
 And see Eoeeiqn Jurisdiction. 
 
 COLONIAL LAWS. 
 
 See Colony. 
 
 COLONIAL SOLICITORS. 
 
 See Solicitor — Colonial Solicitors. 
 
 COLONY— OoZomaZ Loam Act, 1899 (62 & 73 
 Vict. V. 36), authorizes certain Public Loans to 
 certain Colonies or places, 
 
 COLONY— continued. 
 
 — Appeals from the Colonies. 
 
 See List under Privy Council Appeals. 
 
 Colonial Law Generally. 
 
 1. — Bankruptcy. 
 
 The English Bankruptcy Act, 1869, applies 
 to the whole of Her Majesty's dominions. Cal- 
 
 LENDER, StKES & CO. V. COLONIAL SECRETARY OF 
 
 Lagos and Davies. Williams v. Davies 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 460 
 
 — Colonial grant — Intestacy — Re-sealing. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 
 ■ Colonial solicitors. 
 
 See SoLiciTOR- 
 
 -Colonial Solicitors. 
 
 2. — Federal and provincial rights — British 
 North America Act, s. 91, svb-s. 15 ; s. 92, svh-s. 13 
 — Dominion Banh Act (46 Vict. c. 120). 
 
 The mutual rights of the Dominion and Pro- 
 vincial Governments in Canada considered by 
 J. C. with regard to the following matters : — 
 
 (a) Bank Act of the Dominion. Tennant v. 
 Union Bank oe Canada [1894] A. C. 31 
 
 (e) British North America Act, 1867, ss. 91, 
 92. 
 
 Bankruptcy legislation. Att. - Gen. of 
 Ontario v. Att.-Gen. for Canada 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 189 
 
 Referred to by P. C. Att.-Gen. for Ontario v. 
 Att.-Gen. for the Dominion, [1896] A. C. 348, 360. 
 
 (c) Crown relations to Provinces. Liquida- 
 tors OE Maritime Bank of Canada v. Receiver- 
 General OP New Brunswick 
 
 P. C, [1892] A. C. 437 
 
 (d) Education Act -of Province. City of 
 Winnipeg v. Barrett - P. C. [1892] A. C. 445 
 
 Brophy v. Att.-Gen. oe Manitoba 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 202 
 
 8. — Governor's power to pardon contempt of 
 Court. 
 
 The prerogative of pardon extends to the 
 
 remission of a sentence of a purely punitive 
 
 character for contempt of Court. In re A 
 
 Special Reference from the Bahama Islands 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 138 
 
 Considered by C. A. Seaward v. Paterson, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 545, 559. 
 
 4, — Governor — Statutory limitation of power 
 to appoint judges — Supreme Court Judges Act, 
 1858, s. 2. 
 
 The power of the governor of a Colony having 
 constitutional government to add without limit 
 to the number of judges of the Supreme Court 
 without express parliamentary sanction con- 
 sidered. Buckley v. Edwards 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 387 
 
 — Grant of administration — Colonial grant — 
 
 Intestacy — Re-sealing. 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 63. 
 
 — Investments — Income tax. 
 
 " See Revenue — Income Tax. 82. 
 
 — Investment — Power for trustees to invest in 
 
 Colonial stock. 
 
 See Trustee — Investments. 
 
( 293 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 294 ) 
 
 COLONY (Colonial law Generally) — continued. 
 
 — Marriage — Colonial marriage — Evidence of 
 
 validity. 
 
 See Divorce — Evidence. 
 5. — Mortmain — Land in England. 
 The Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, 
 does not apply to Colonial wills. Cantekbubt 
 CoKPOEATioN V. Wtbtjrn P. C. [1895] A. C, 89 
 
 — Patent — Colonial patent — Conveyance on sale. 
 
 See Eevence— Stamps. 
 
 G. — Prerogative of the Crown — Priority 
 over simple contract creditors — British North 
 America Act, 1867. 
 
 The prerogative of the Crown, when not 
 expressly limited by local law or statute, is as 
 extensive in the Colonies as in Great Britain, 
 and gives a Colonial government priority in 
 bankruptcy in respect of a simple contract debt. 
 
 LiQTJIDATOBS OF THE MARITIME BANK OF CANADA 
 
 V. Eeoeiver-Genebal of New Betnswiok 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 437 
 
 7. — Prerogative of the Crown — Petition of 
 right — Colonial servants of the Crown hold office 
 during pleasure. 
 
 A Colonial Government is on the same footing 
 as the Home Government as to the employment 
 and dismissal of servants of the Crown ; and in 
 the absence of special contract they hold their 
 ofiioes during the pleasure of the Crown : — 
 
 Where A. during the absence on leave of B. 
 was gazetted to act temporarily in his office and 
 was dismissed before B.'s leave expired : — 
 
 Meld, that A. had no cause of action. Shen- 
 TON V. Smith P. C. [1895] A. C. 229 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. Dunn v. Beg, [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 119. 
 
 Peisoneks.] Colonial prisoners — Application 
 to Places under British Jurisdiction. The Colo- 
 nial Prisoner's Bemoval {South African") Order in 
 Council, 1896. St. E. & 0. 1896 TSo. 962. 
 
 — Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 See Peobate — Geant of Peobate^ 
 Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 — Striking off the rolls — Order of Colonial 
 
 Court — Jurisdiction . 
 
 See SoLioiTOE — Misconduct. 111. 
 
 — Trustees, Appointment of Colonial — Form of 
 
 Order. 
 
 See Settled Land. 129. 
 
 — Will — Colonial will — Land in England — 
 
 Mortmain. 
 
 See Ohaeity. 43. 
 
 COLUMBIA— Laws of. 
 See Canada. 
 COMMERCIAL CAUSES— iVoiice of the Queen's 
 Bench Division as to Commercial Causes, W. N. 
 1895 (Appz. of 0. & B.) p. 2. 
 
 — Appeal — Practice — Commercial list. 
 
 See Appeal. 6. 
 
 1. — Application to enter cause in commercial 
 list iefore appearance of defendant— ^Power to 
 order costs to he costs in the cause. 
 
 An application by a pit. to the judge charged 
 with Commercial business for leave to enter the 
 cause in the separate list of commercial causes 
 may be made before the appearance of the deft., 
 
 COMMEBCIAL CAVSES— continued. 
 and before the time for such appearance has 
 expired, and the judge has power to direct that 
 the costs of the application shall be costs in the 
 cause. Baret v. Peeuvian Coepoeation 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 208 
 
 ■2. — Transfer — Powers of judge. 
 
 The judge charged with commercial business 
 has no further power of dispensing with the 
 technical rules of evidence than any other judge 
 of the High Court. Eule 6 of the Notice of the 
 Q. B. Div. (above) as to commercial causes does 
 not purport to extend that power. 
 
 The object of the establishment of the com- 
 mercial court was not that on the one hand all 
 commercial causes or on the other hand only 
 short causes should be tried there, but that causes 
 should -be so tried which are likely to be more 
 speedily, economically, and satisfactorily tried if 
 brought betbre a judge having special familiarity 
 with mercantile transactions : — ■ 
 
 A cause will not be transferred from the Ch. 
 Div. to the Q. B. Div. to be tried as a commercial 
 cause merely because it is a commercial cause ; 
 but the Court will consider whether from its 
 nature it is likely to be more speedily, economi- 
 cally, and satisfactorily tried by the Commercial 
 Court. Baeelein v. Chakteeed, Mercantile 
 Bank - - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 488 
 
 COMMEBCIAL TBEATIES. 
 
 See Treaty. 
 
 COMMISSION — Agreement by vendor to pay 
 commission to purchaser's agent — Eight 
 of purchaser to recover from vendor. 
 See Vendoe and PnECHASEB. 3. 
 
 — Evidence — Subject-matter of action — Sending 
 out of jurisdiction for identification. 
 See Evidence. 26. 
 
 - For placing shares. 
 
 See COMFANT- 
 
 -Shares. 269. 
 
 • Receipt by trustee. - 
 
 See Trustee — Eemuneration. 
 
 95. 
 
 — To examine witness — Arbitrators— Divorce — 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Aeeiteation. 10. 
 
 COMMISSION CHABGEABLE — Action for — 
 
 Interpleader. 
 
 See County Court — Jurisdiction. 52. 
 
 — Agreement to share Stock Exchange losses. 
 
 See Principal and Surety — Contribu- 
 tion. 5. 
 
 COMMISSION (IN NAVY)— Power to resign. 
 See Abmy and Navy. 2. 
 
 COMMITTAL — Arrests, commitments, and exeol ' 
 tion of process. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Enfoicft 
 ment of Orders. 
 
 — Attachment. 
 
 See Cases under Attachment. 
 
 — Attachment or — Breach of undertaking — 
 
 Service of order containing the under- 
 taking — Solicitor, 
 See Peactiob — Undertaking. 272. 
 
 — Breach of injunction — Aiding and abetting. 
 
 See Contempt op Coubt. 2. 
 
 L 2 
 
( 295 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASEB, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 296 ) 
 
 eOVLTHlTTAh— continued. 
 
 •— Contempt — County court — Jurisdiction — 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 
 
 See Pkohibition. 1. 
 ■^ Contempt of Court. 
 
 See Bankbtjptoy — Contempt of Court. 
 
 — County courts. 
 
 See County Court — Committals. 
 
 — Interlocutory order — Leaveto appeal — Liberty 
 
 of subject — Kefusal to commit. 
 See Appeal. 25. 
 
 — Jurisdiction to make order — Workmen's Com- 
 
 pensation Act. 
 
 See Masteb and Servant— Practice. 
 90. 
 
 — Eeoeiving order in lieu of — Jurisdiction — 
 
 Foreigner. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Beceiving Order. 
 197. 
 
 COMMITTEE—Eight of, as representing creditors 
 of company in liquidation to take part 
 in proceedings. 
 
 See Company — WiNDiNQ-np— Petition. 
 153. 
 
 COMMITTEE OF INSPECTION. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Committee of Inspec- 
 tion, 
 Company — Winding-up— Committee 
 of Inspection. 
 
 COMMITTEE OF LUNATIC. 
 
 See Cases under Lunacy. 
 
 COMMON — By the " Law of Commons Amenchnent 
 Act, 1 893 " (56 <fc 57 Vict, c, 57), inclosures under 
 the Statute of Merton and the Statute of West- 
 minster the Second, without the consent of the Bd. 
 of Agric, were rendered invalid. 
 
 By the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 ■& 57 
 Viet. c. 73), district councils are empowered to act 
 for the prevention of the inclosure of commons. 
 
 Metropolitan Commons Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 43), amends the Metropolitan Commons Acts. 
 
 Commons Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 30), 
 amends the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and the 
 law relating to commons and open spaces. 
 
 1. — Commonable rights — Agreement for sale — 
 Action for specific performance — Counter-claim 
 — Finding of jury on trial of issue of fact — 
 Motion for new trial — Evidence — Admiesitkliiy — 
 Reputation — Deposition in suit to perpetuate testi- 
 mony — Survey and report as to manor made under 
 statute. 
 
 In an action in the Ch. Div. by a statutory 
 committee of commoners for specific performance 
 of an agreement to purchase commonable rights, 
 an order was made directing the trial before a 
 jury in the Q. B. Div. of the following issue of 
 fact, namely, whether a certain piece of land was 
 common land or subject to any commonable rights 
 either of the commoners of the parish of C, or of 
 the commoners of the parish of L. : — 
 
 Beld, that evidence of reputation was admis- 
 sible on the trial of such an issue. 
 
 Earl Dunravetn v. Llewellyn, (1850) 19 L. J. 
 (Q.B.) 388, 392 ; S. 0. 15 Q. B. 791, and Warnch 
 V. Queen's College, Oxford, (1871) L. E. 6 Oh. 716, 
 observed upon. 
 
 COMMON — continued. 
 
 A deposition made in the year 1815, in a suit 
 to perpetuate testimony by a witness examined 
 on commission on behalf of a predecessor in title 
 of the defts., was admitted in evidence at the 
 trial of this issue as being a statement made by 
 a person vouched by the party on whose behalf 
 the deponent was examined, and consequently 
 an admission by conduct of a predecessor in title 
 of the defts. This deposition had been sealed 
 up by the examiners, but was now found 
 unsealed : — 
 
 Beld, that the mere fact that the deposition 
 was now found to be unsealed was not evidence 
 of user or adoption by the party on whose behalf 
 the deponent was examined, and that, in the 
 absence of evidence of such user or adoption, the 
 deposition was inadmissible on the ground on 
 which it was admitted. 
 
 Richards v. Morgan, (1863) 4 B. & S. 641, 
 observed upon. 
 
 A survey and report made by a surveyor in 
 1816, in discharge of a duty imposed upon him 
 by the 8th section of the statute 34 Geo. 3, c. 75, 
 upon the occasion of a sale of Crown lands, and 
 produced out of the proper custody, is admissible 
 in evidence as a public document within the 
 decision in Sturla v. Freccia, (1880) 5 App. Cas. 
 623. Phillips v. Hudson, (1867) L. E. 2 Ch. 
 243, distinguished. Evans v. Merthyr Tydpil 
 Urban District Council C, A, [1899] 1 Ch. 241 
 
 Eesulation op Commons.] Commons Regs., 
 1899, dated Oct. 2, 1899, and Forms. St. B, & 0, 
 1899, p, 106, No, 750, 
 
 2, — Gravel — Digging gravel for roads — Jus- 
 tices — Jurisdiction — Highway Act, 1835 (5 ifc 6 
 Will. 4, c. 50), s. 51— Commons Act, 1876 (39 <t 40 
 Vict. c. 56), s. 20 — Discretion of justices to refuse 
 to make order. 
 
 By s. 51 of the Highway Act, 1835, power is 
 given^to a surveyor of highways to get and carry 
 away gravel, &c., in any waste land or common 
 ground. By s. 20 ot the Commons Act, 1876, 
 such right is not to be exercised, as regards 
 certain classes of commons, " without the consent 
 of the person or persons having the regulation or 
 management of the same, or in default of such 
 consent without an order of two or more justices 
 in petty sessions assembled .... who may in 
 their order prescribe such conditions as to mode 
 of working and restitution of the surface as to 
 them shall seem expedient." 
 
 The appellants having refused leave to the 
 respondents to take gravel from a common, the 
 latter applied to justices, who made an order 
 under s. 20 of the Commons Act, 1876, on the 
 express ground that the section only gave them 
 power to prescribe the conditions under which 
 the right given by s, 35 of the Highway Act, 
 1835, was to be exercised, and that they had 
 therefore no discretion to refuse altogether to 
 make an order :— 
 
 Held, that the decision of the justices was 
 wrong, and that they had absolute discretion, 
 under s. 20 of the Commons Act, 1876, to make 
 or refuse to make an order. Hayes Common Con- 
 servators V. Bromley Eubal District Council 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 821 
 
( 297 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 298 ) 
 
 COISMOS— continued. 
 
 3. — Indosure — Lord's rights as owner of soil 
 — Purchase hy railway company. 
 
 Under an Inolosure Act part of a \rabte was 
 allotted to the lord in trust for the cottagers as a 
 turf common. Subsequently a ry. co. took part 
 of this turf common, and paid the purchase-money 
 into court : — 
 
 Seld, that the lord was entitled to so much of 
 
 the fund in court as represented the value of the 
 
 soil. In re Christohoeoh Inclosuee Act (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. (38 Ch. D. 620) ; affirm, by H. L. (E.) 
 
 8»6. nom. ATT.-GBif. v. Meybick 
 
 [1893] A. C. 1 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Simcoe v. Fethick, 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 555. 
 
 — Inclosure award — ^Map — Evidence. 
 See Okiminal Law. 21. 
 
 4. — " Owner." 
 
 Lord of the manor held to be "owner" for 
 
 sewering expenses purposes in respect of a waste 
 
 allotted on charitable trusts. In re Chbistohurch 
 
 Inolosubb Act. Meyrick v. Att.-Gen. (No. 2) 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch. 209 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Homsey District Council 
 V. Smith, [1897] 1 Oh. 860. 
 
 8. — " Permanent common." 
 
 The dedication of Crown lands under a Colo- 
 nial Act as " permanent common " does not create 
 a common of pasturage, but a grant of the lands 
 for ever for common or public enjoyment. Sydney 
 Municipal Council o. Att.-Gen. fob New South 
 "Wales - - - P. C. [1894] A. C. 441 
 
 6. — Rights of common — Extinction on release 
 of seignorial rights. 
 
 On the release of seignorial rights in ancient 
 arable lands of customary freehold tenure, the 
 rights of common are not extinguished. Where 
 part of a farm is sold to a stranger, no rights of 
 common will in the absence of special grant pass. 
 BABDja V. Abingdon 
 
 C. A. affirm. Stirling J., [1892] 2 Ch. 374 
 
 Dictum of Stirling J. explained and corrected 
 by Chitty J. See Wallis v. Bands, [1893] 2 Oh. 
 75. 
 
 7. — Scheme for regulation under Metropolitan 
 Cormmns Act, 1866 (29 <£ 30 Vict. v. 122)— Effect 
 of Sclieme. 
 
 The Court held that, assuming the pit. had 
 made out a good paper title to the land, the fact 
 that it was included in the area of the common 
 as defined by the scheme was fatal to the action. 
 The scheme, which had all the force of an Act of 
 Parliament, provided that the conservators should 
 maintain the common as delineated in the plan 
 free of all encroachment, and should not permit 
 any trespass on or inolosure of any part thereof. 
 That was » positive enactment directing the 
 conservators to do what the Court was now asked 
 to restrain them from doing. It was true the 
 scheme contained a clause saving to all persons 
 all such estates, interests, or rights of a profitable 
 or beneficial nature in, over, or affecting the 
 common as they had before the confirmation of 
 the scheme ; but that did not extend to a right to 
 deny that any particular piece of land was within 
 the gcbeine, bv}t referred to rights in the nature 
 
 OOTiaiLO'S— continued. I 
 
 of profits £l prendre. The Act of 1866 provided 
 for the greatest publicity in the making of the 
 scheme, and persons who did not exercise their 
 right of objecting to the scheme before it was 
 confirmed could not successfully do so afterwards. 
 The Court in so deciding was following a 
 decision of Chitty J. in an unreported case of 
 Conservators of Chislehurst Common v. Newton 
 (1887), where the scheme was practically in the 
 same form as that in the present case. Cook v. 
 MiTOHAM Common Conservatobs 
 
 rarwell J. [1900] W. W. 252 
 — Waste — Custom of lord to make grants of — 
 
 Consent of homage — Enfranchisement 
 
 — Statutory reservation of rights of 
 
 common. 
 
 See Copyhold. 10. 
 8. — Winter eatage — Distribution of fund paid 
 for extinction of rights — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 
 (8 (£ 9 Vict. c. 18), se. 99, 101 — Commonable 
 Rights Compensation Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 15). 
 
 Lands subject to lammas rights were taken 
 by a local board and a sum paid as compensation 
 for such rights. Claims were allowed in respect 
 of 144 tenements. The arbitrator appointed to 
 report to the Court in what shares the persons 
 were entitled reported that the expense of deter- 
 mining this by reference to the winter eatage 
 would probably exhaust the fund, and that such 
 fund ought to be divided into 144 equal parts . 
 The Court, under Order xxxvi., r. 55, adopted 
 the report. Weatheeley v. Layton 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] W. S. 165 
 
 COMMON CAEEIEB— Negligence. 
 See Cabbieb. 
 Railway. 
 
 COMMON EMPIOYMENT— Liability for injuries 
 to workman. 
 Bee Oases under Mastee and Servant. 
 
 COMMON LODGING-HOTTSES. 
 
 See Cases under Lodging-housb. 
 
 COMMON SEAL, 
 
 See Corporation. 4. 
 
 COMMUNION TABLE— Reredos— Second com- 
 munion table in side chapel. 
 See EooLBSiASTiOAL Law — Faculty. 39, 
 41. 
 
 COMMUNITY OF GOODS— International law- 
 French law — Matrimonial domicil. 
 Bee Cases under Conflict of Laws. 
 
 DOMICIL. 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 Companies Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. v. 26), 
 amends the Companies Act, 1867. 
 
 Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), 
 amends the Companies Acts. For notes thereon 
 see [1900] W. N. 188 et seq. 
 
 Generally, col. 299. 
 
 Annual Summary, col. 300. 
 
 Audit, eol. 300. 
 
 Balance Sheets. See Discoveby. 1\, 
 
 Borrowing Powers, col. 301, 
 
 Calls, col. 302, 
 
( 299 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 300 ) 
 
 COMPANY 
 
 Contracts, col. 306. 
 
 Conversion of Stoolc into Shares, col. 312. 
 
 Costs, col. 312. 
 
 County Courts, col. 312. 
 
 Debentures, col. 312. 
 
 Directors, col. 336. 
 
 Distress, col. 352. 
 
 Dividends, col. 353. 
 
 False Statements, col. 356. 
 
 Formation, col. 356. 
 
 Guarantee, col. 356. 
 
 Incorporation, col. 356. 
 
 Meetings, col. 357. 
 
 Memorandum, Deed of Settlement, and 
 
 Articles, col. 362. 
 Misrepresentation, col. 369. 
 Mortgages and Charges, col. 370. 
 Offences, col. 371. 
 Practice, col. 371. 
 Promoters, col. 372. 
 Prospectus, col. 373. 
 iJaies and Taxes, col. 376. 
 JJecoJisirucWon, col, 376. 
 Seduction of Capital, col. 381. 
 Begister, col. 388. 
 Registration, col. 390. 
 Sliares, col. 392. 
 Unregistered Company, col. 40G. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Action — Limitation— Public authorities pro- 
 
 tection — Company dividing profits. 
 See Pdblio Authorities Peoteotion. 2. 
 
 — Assignment of debts — Conditional payment — 
 
 Effect of giving cheque or bill of 
 
 exchange. 
 
 See Tkade. 2. 
 
 — Assignment to one-man company — Fraudulent 
 
 conveyance — ^Act of bankruptcy. 
 See Bankkuptct — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 4. 
 
 — Building society. 
 
 See Cases under Building Society. 
 
 — Discovery — Documents. 
 
 See DisoovEET — Documents. 13, 14. 
 
 — Discovery — Interrogatories. 
 
 See DisoovEET — Interrogatories. 48. 
 
 — Estate duty — Succession duty — Disposition 
 
 by foreigner domiciled abroad — Property 
 
 situate abroad — Disposition to English 
 
 company. 
 
 See Eevenue— Estate Duty. 26. 
 
 — Executor de son tort — Liability to pay probate 
 
 duty. 
 
 See Eevenue— Probate Duty. 134. 
 
 — " Flotation " — Contract — Construction — Bri- 
 
 tish South Africa Company's Mining 
 
 Ordinance. 
 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 4. 
 
 — Forfeiture — Reasonable notice before action 
 
 for — Condition against liquidation. 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 56, 
 
 COMPAmr (Qeneiaay)— continued. 
 
 — Gas rate — Kefusal to supply receiver until 
 
 arrears due from company paid. 
 See Gas. 1. 
 
 — Improvement of land company. 
 
 See Improvement of Land Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 46). 
 
 — Income tax. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 83 — 90. 
 
 — Interrogatories. 
 
 See Disooveet — Interrogatories. 48. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of — Com- 
 pany. 
 
 — Lunacy — Sale of property in consideration of 
 
 shares — Jurisdiction. 
 See Lunacy — Sales. 42. 
 
 — Payment of interest — Ultra vires — New rules 
 
 — Known insolvency at time of passing. 
 See Building Sooiety — Ultra Vires. 1 2. 
 
 — Probate duty — Valuation of testator's estate. 
 
 See ViCTOEiA. 13. 
 
 — Proof of formation of — Prohibition. 
 
 See London — Mayor's Court. 46. 
 
 — Railway company. 
 
 See Cases under Railway. 
 
 — Reconstruction of company. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Eeconstruo- 
 tion. 
 
 — Sale — Shares — Judgment Act. 
 
 See Chaeging Oedee. 1. 
 
 — Shares deemed to be fully paid up — Liability. 
 
 See New South Wales. 8. 
 
 — Solicitor — Authority to defend action in 
 
 name of company — Dissolution pendente 
 
 lite — Costs. 
 
 See Pkincipal and Agent. 27. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 147 — 149. 
 
 — Surety — Administration bond. 
 
 See Peoeate. 11. 
 
 — Telephone company. 
 
 See Telegeaph. 
 
 — Trade name. 
 
 See Teade Name. 
 
 — Trustees' powers of investment — Deposits with 
 
 See ViCTOEiA. IS. 
 
 — Water companies. 
 
 See Cases under Water. 
 
 — Winding-up of company. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up. 
 
 Annual Summary, 
 
 Particulars of. See Companies Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), ss. 19, 20. For notes thereon 
 see [1900] W. N. 200, 
 
 Audit, 
 
 AuDiTOES.] Appointment, remuneration, 
 rights and duties of. See Companies Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), ss. 21-23. For notes thereon 
 see [1900] W, N, SCO. 
 
( 301 ) 
 
 COMPANY— co«f«n«ed. 
 
 BorroTvingf Powers. 
 
 — Arrangement Boheme — Dissentient debenture- 
 holders. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Scheme of 
 Arrangement. 219, 220. 
 
 1. — Implied power of horrowing money' — • 
 Trading company. 
 
 A CO. formed with the object of selling and 
 managing estates, &o., and making advances 
 and loans is a trading co., and as such has an 
 implied power to borrow money to a reasonable 
 extent : — 
 
 Held, therefore, an equitable mortgage of cer- 
 tain real estate, given by the directors to secure 
 an advance to the co. for the purpose of repaying 
 a depositor, wasi^valid. Law as to implied bor- 
 rowing powers considered. General Atjotion 
 Estate and Monbtakt Co. v. Smith 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 3 Ch. 432 
 
 2. — Irregularity — Notice — Common officer of 
 two companies. 
 
 Where one person is an officer of two cos. his 
 personal knowledge is not necessarily the know- 
 ledge of both the cos. The knowledge which he 
 has acquired as officer of one co. will not be im- 
 puted to the other co. unless he has some duty 
 imposed on him to communicate his knowledge 
 to the 00. sought to be affected by the notice, 
 and some duty imposed on him by that co. to 
 receive the notice ; and if the common officer has 
 been guilty of fraud, or even irregularity, the 
 Court will not draw the inference that he has 
 fulfilled these duties. 
 
 Gale V. Lewis, (1846) 9 Q. B. 730 ; 16 L. J. 
 (Q.B.) 119, distinguished. 
 
 The directors of a co. were empowered to 
 borrow money on its behalf, but not beyond a 
 certain limit without the consent of a general 
 meeting. A general meeting gave the required 
 consent, but the notices summoning the meeting 
 did not, as required by the regulations of the co., 
 specify that borrowing beyond the limit was to 
 be authorized by the meeting. The money was 
 borrowed from a society the secretary of which 
 was also the secretary of the co., and he knew of 
 the irregularity : — 
 
 Seld, that the knowledge of the secretary 
 could not be imputed to the society, and that the 
 money lent could be proved for in the winding-up 
 of the CO. In re Hampshiee Land Co. 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1896] 2 Ch, 743 
 
 3. — Mortgage of uncalled capital — Winding- 
 up — " Assets." 
 
 A mortgage was given to two directors to 
 indemnify them against promissory notes given 
 by them to the oo.'s bankers to secure overdrafts, 
 and also against guarantees given by them to 
 ry. cos. : — 
 
 Eeld, that the overdraft with the bank was 
 in substance a borrowing on uncalled capital, 
 and that the mortgage was valid as to the over- 
 drafts, but semble, not as to the guarantees : — 
 
 Beld, also, on the construction of the memo- 
 randum, that " assets" included uncalled capital. 
 In re Ptle Woees (No. 2) 
 
 Stilling 3. [1891] 1 Ch. 173 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 302 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Borrowing Powers)— eoniirmea!. 
 
 4. — Oral dliarge on uncalled capital. 
 Memorandum as interpreted by articles held 
 
 to authorize directors to borrow in any way they 
 chose, and therefore to give a bank an oral 
 charge on the uncalled capital. In re Tilbdet 
 Portland Cement Co. 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1893] W. N. 141 
 
 5. — Uncalled capital — Charging uncalled 
 capital — Sufficient authority — Articles of associa- 
 tion — Alteration hy special resolution. 
 
 The articles of association authorized the 
 CO. to borrow, upon mortgage of its freehold and 
 leasehold hereditaments, works, and " other pro- 
 perty and effects " for the time being of the oo., 
 or upon bonds or debenture notes of the co., or 
 " in such other manner as the co. may deter- 
 mine." The memorandum of association con- 
 tained no reference to any borrowing : — 
 
 Held, that the co. could under its articles 
 mortgage its uncalled capitil; and that, had it 
 been necessary so to do, the co. could by special 
 resolution have extended its articles so as to 
 confer upon itself the power to charge its uncalled 
 capital. 
 
 Newton v. Anglo - Australian Investment, 
 Finance, and Land Co., [1895] A, C, 244, discussed 
 and followed. Jackson v. Eainpobd. Goal Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 310 
 
 Calls. 
 
 — Action to enforce. 
 
 See Company — WiNDma-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 29. 
 
 — in Arrear. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Petition. 
 174. 
 
 — Death of shareholder — Insolvent estate — ^Proof 
 
 of debts— Liability to future calls. 
 See Bankedptoy — Proof. 164. 
 
 6. — Forfeited sliares. Calls on — Liquidation 
 — Past member of company — Reduction of capital 
 -^Special resolution — Irregularity — Certificate of 
 registration — Companies Acts, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), 88. 38, 51 ; 1867 (30 & 81 Vict. c. 131), 
 «s. 9, 11, 15, 16. 
 
 The articles of association of a co. provided 
 that any member whose shares had been forfeited 
 should, nevertheless, be liable to pay all calls 
 owing upon the shares at the^ time of the for- 
 feiture. The deft, had been the owner of shares 
 in the oo., but his shares had been forfeited for 
 non-payment of calls. More than a year after 
 the forfeiture the co. went into liquidation, and 
 the deft, was then sued for the unpaid calls : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding the provisions of 
 s. 38 of the Companies Act, 1862, sub-ss. 1, 3, 
 the action was maintainable, inasmuch as the 
 deft, was liable, not as a contributory, but as a 
 debtor to the co. 
 
 Where the resolution confirming a resolution 
 by a CO. to reduce its capital did not comply with 
 tlie terms of s. 51 of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 because there was not an interval of fourteen 
 days between the passing of the two resolutions, 
 but an order of the Court had been made in 
 accordance with the resolutions under s. 11 of the 
 Companies Act, 1867, and the Begistrar of joint 
 
( 303 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 304 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Calls)— continued. 
 Stock Companies had certified the registration of 
 the order, together with a minute approved by 
 the Court, in conformity with s. 15 of that Act :— 
 Held, (hat the certificate of the registrar was 
 conclusive evidence that a special resolution to 
 reduce the capital of the co. had been duly passed 
 in accordance with ». 51 of the Companies Act, 
 1862, and s. 9 of the Companies Act, 1867. 
 Ladies' Dbess Association, Ld. v. Pulbkook 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 376 
 — Death of shareholder — Notice to executors. 
 See Company — Shares. 270. 
 
 7. — Lien on shares — Alteration of articles 
 of association — Shareholder — Vendor's shares — 
 Fully paidshares — Vnpaidshares — Calls — Arrears 
 — Debts — Lien of company on unpaid shares — 
 Special resolution— Lien on fully paid shares for 
 arrears of calls on unpaid shares — Contract — 
 Retrospective effect of altered articles — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 (fe 26 Vict. e. 89), s. 50~General 
 meetings — Notice — Service — " Member " — Deceased 
 member— Legal personal representatives. 
 
 A 00. by one of its articles provided that it 
 8h( uld have a lien for all debts and liabilities of 
 ai y member to the co. " upon all shares (not 
 b( ing fully paid) held by such member." 
 
 The CO., by way of purchase-money for the 
 pioperty aoquiied by it, allotted fully paid shares 
 to 'A, a nominee of the vendor to the co. Z. also 
 applied for and had allotted to liim shares not 
 paid up. He was the only liolder of fully paid-up 
 shares. At his death he was indebted to the co. 
 in arrears of calls on the unpaid shares, but his 
 assets were insufficient to pay the arrears. There- 
 upon the CO., by special resolution under s. 50 of 
 the Companies Act, 18G2, altered the above article 
 by omitting therefrom the words " not being fully 
 paid," thus creating a lien on Z.'s fully paid 
 shares : — 
 
 Seld, by C. A., that the co. had power to alter 
 its articles by extending its lien to fully paid 
 shares : — 
 
 Held, also, by Lindley M.E. and Eomer L.J. 
 (V. Williams L.J. dissenting), that the lien so 
 extended, having been made in good faith, was 
 enforceable against Z.'s fully paid shares, since 
 he took them subject to the original articles and 
 the power of altering them given to the co. by 
 B. 50 of the Act, and did not make any special or 
 implied bargain that they should not be affected 
 by any subsequent alteration of the articles; and 
 that the fact of those shares being-vendor's shares 
 allotted in payment for the property purchased 
 by the co., instead of being shares paid for in 
 cash in the ordinary way, was immaterial. 
 
 James v. Buena Ventura Nitrate Grounds 
 Syndicate, [1896] 1 Ch. 456, and Andrews v. Gas 
 Meter Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 361, considered as to the 
 " retrospective " effect of an alteration by a co. of 
 its articles. 
 
 Where, under a co.'s articles, notice of general 
 meetings is to be given to "members," and such 
 notico may be served upon any " member " either 
 personally or by sending it prepaid by post ad- 
 dress- :d to " such member " at his registered 
 addre,'B, it is not necessary, in tho case of a 
 decea « ' I member, either to send a notice addressed 
 to him .>! his registef-ecj address, or to serve his 
 
 COMPANY (CbUs)— continued. 
 legal personal representatives unless they have 
 themselves become "members" by formal regis- 
 tration. 
 
 Judgment of Kekewioh J., [1899] W. N. 75; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 40, varied. Allen v. Gold Eeefs 
 
 or West Afbica, Ld. - [1900] W. N. 43 ; 
 
 C, A, [1900] 1 Ch. 656 
 
 — Prepayment of calls — " Discount." 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 218. 
 
 8. — Bight to make — Debenture-holders' action 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 95, 
 98, 102 — ■ Companies Winding-up Act, 1890 
 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 63), ss. 12, 13— Companies 
 Winding-up Bules, 1890, r. 92. 
 
 On a winding-up order the power of the 
 directors to make calls comes to an end, and the 
 only power to make calls is that given by statute 
 to the liquidator in the winding-up. Therefore, 
 when uncalled capital has been charged by the 
 CO. in favour of debenture-holders and a winding- 
 up order is made, the Coni-t cannot order either 
 a receiver appointed in an action to enforce the 
 debentures or the liquidator to make a call in 
 the action, and can only order the liquidator to 
 make a call in the winding-up. But the receiver 
 in the action may be empowered to proceed in 
 the name of the liquidator to enforce the call. 
 FowLEE V. Beoad's Night Light Co. 
 
 V. -WUliams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 724 
 (b) As a rule proceedings should be taken by 
 the liquidator and not by some other person in the 
 name of the liquidator ; in this case the receiver 
 was allowed to proceed in the liquidator's name 
 to get in the calls on an undertaking to leave 
 the books of the co. with the liquidator and to 
 indemnify him against costs. Habkison v. St. 
 Etienne Beeweby Co. 
 
 V. WUUams J. [1893] W. N. 108 
 
 9. — Sale of undertahing — Death of sliare- 
 holder — Notice. 
 
 The Z. Co. was empowered by its memoran- 
 dum of association to amalgamate with any other 
 00. or to sell its undertaking. By the articles, 
 fourteen days' notice was to be given of a call, 
 and might be served by being posted to the 
 registered address of a member. The Z. Co. sold 
 its undertaking and assets to the N. Co., and, 
 in accordance with the agreement, called up 
 their unpaid capital. P., a member of the Z. Co., 
 had died previously to the call. Notice was 
 posted to his registered address, and was retui-ned 
 marked " gone away " : — 
 
 Held, that a call of unpaid capital for the 
 purposes of the sale was not invalid, and that as 
 to notice, a "member" includes a deceased 
 member as long as the shares remain in his name. 
 New Zealand Gold Extbaotion Co. (Newbeby- 
 Vautin Peocess) v. Peacock 
 
 C. A. affirm. Ke^inedy J. [1894] 1 Q. B. 6S2 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Bank of South 
 Australia {No. 2), [1895] 1 Ch. 593 ; /ames v. 
 Buena Ventura Nitrate Grounds Syndicate, [1896] 
 1 Ch. 467 ; Wall v. London and Northern Assets 
 Corporation, [1898] 2 Ch. 479. 
 
 Discussed and applied by C. A. Allen v. Gold 
 Reefs of West Africa, Ld., [1899] 2 Ch. 40. 
 
 10, — Set-of— Debentmres — Notice — Calls 
 
( 305 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 306 ) 
 
 COMPANY (,Cails)— continued. 
 
 made hefore and after winding-up — Companies 
 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89). s. 75. 
 
 A shareholder, who was also a debenture- 
 holder, mortgaged debentures with his bank, and 
 the bank gave notice of the charge to the oo., but 
 not until a call had been made on the share- 
 holders. The 00. afterwards went into liquidation 
 and further calls were made : — 
 
 Held, that the co. were entitled to set off 
 against the debentures the call made before 
 notice of the charge, but not calls made after the 
 liquidation, for until the winding-up there was 
 no debt due in respect of the further calls, but 
 only a liability. In re TAUNTOff, Delmaed, Lane 
 & Co. Chkistie v. Taunton, Delmahd, Lane & 
 Co. - Stirling J. [1893] 2 Ch. 17S 
 
 11. — Set-off — Directors' fees — Fraudulent 
 preference. 
 
 Directors three months before the liquida- 
 tion, by exchanging cheques with tlie co., paid 
 calls owing by them out of the fees owing to 
 thera : — 
 
 Held, that this was a fraudulent preference. 
 In re Washington Diamond Mining Co. 
 V. Williams J. reversed by C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 95 
 
 Eeferred to by Wright J. In re Auriferous 
 Properties, Ld., [1898] 1 Ch. 697. 
 
 12. — Sliareholder — Subscriber of memorandum 
 of association — Liability to pay for shares — Issue 
 of shares on different terms — Directors — Breach of 
 duty — Power to malce calls — Duty to malce calls 
 on their own shares — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Tict. c. 89), ss. 8, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, 31, 38. 
 
 A subscriber pi the memorandum of associa- 
 tion of a CO. limited by shares is (in the absence 
 of any provision in the articles of association, or 
 of an express agreement between him and the 
 CO., to the contrary) not liable to make any 
 payment iu respect of the shares for which he 
 subscribes, except as and when calls are made 
 upon him in accordance with the provisions of 
 the articles. 
 
 If directors issue other shares besides those 
 which are taken by the subscribers of the memo- 
 randum, there is nothing to prevent them from 
 offering those shares on such terms as regards 
 payment to the company on application and 
 allotment as the directors may think expedient. 
 
 But if directors require other applicants for 
 shares to make payments on application and 
 allotment, and issue their own shares for which 
 they have subscribed the memorandum without 
 requiring any such payments to be made, and 
 without disclosing to the other shareholders this 
 difference between their position and that of the 
 directors, they commit a breach of duty, even 
 though in so doing they act without fraud, and 
 in the belief that they are doing nothing wrong. 
 
 Directors wlio so use their powers as to obtain 
 benefits for themselves at the expense of the 
 other shareholders, without informing them of 
 the facts, cannot be allowed to retain those 
 benefits, but must account for them to the co., so 
 that all the shaieholders may participate in them. 
 
 Decision of Cozens-Hardy J„ [1899] 2 Oh. 
 302, reversed. Alexander v. Automatic Teie- 
 PpopE Co, C. A. [1900] W, N, 93 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch, 69 
 
 COMPANY (CaUs)— contmuetZ. 
 
 13. — Special agreement as to calls — Share- 
 holder — Subscribers to memorandum of association 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 23 
 —Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), 
 8. 24, S'ub-s. 1. 
 
 Although the subscribers to a co.'s memo- 
 randum of association become on its incorpora- 
 tion members of the co. in respect of the shares 
 set opposite their names in the memorandum, 
 they are not, in the absence of a special agree- 
 ment, liable to pay anything on the shares 
 except in respect of calls made in the manner 
 provided by the articles. And where the articles 
 provide that the directors may make arrange- 
 ments on the issue of shares for a difference 
 between the holders of such shares in the amount 
 of calls to be paid and in the time of payment of 
 such calls, the directors may agree with sub- 
 scribers of the memorandum who are also direc- 
 tors that nothing shall on allotment be paid on 
 the shares set opposite their names in the memo- 
 randum, altbougli payments on allotment are 
 required from other shareholders. Alexander 
 V. Automatic TELErnoNB Co. Cozens-Hardy J. 
 [1899] W. N. 79 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 302 
 
 Heversed by C. A. See preceding Case. 
 
 Contracts. 
 
 — Adoption of contract made before its forma- 
 
 tion. Effect of company's — Payment of 
 
 shares iu cash — Set-off. 
 
 See New South Wales. 7, 8. 
 
 — Consent judgment — Effect of — Contract by 
 
 company ultra vires — Terms on which 
 contract will, be set aside. 
 See Canada. 17, 27. 
 
 — Directors — Contracts with company — Fidu- 
 
 ciary relation. 
 
 See Oases under CoMPANy — Directors. 
 
 14. — Fully paid shares — Leave to file contract 
 after issue of shares — Notice — Costs — Companies 
 Act, 1867 (30 * 31 Vict, c: 131), s. li— Companies 
 Act, 1898 (61 (fc 62 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 An agreement was entered into with a trustee 
 for an intended co. under which S., for a con- 
 sideration which was not cash, was to take fully 
 paid shares in the eo. when incorporated. This 
 agreement was acVpted with modifications by 
 the CO. when incorporated, but the second agree- 
 ment did not state the consideration given for 
 the shares. The first agreement was not tiled, 
 but the second one was filed before the shares 
 were issued. Some years afterwards a winding- 
 up order was made against the co., and, after the 
 decision in In re Kharaslthoma Exploring and 
 Prospecting Syndicate, [1897] 2 Ch. 451, the 
 official receiver and liquidator informed S., who 
 was previously unaware of the fact, that he was 
 liable to pay for the shares in cash. After the 
 coming into operation of the Companies Act, 
 1898 (Aug. 2, 1898), S. applied by motion to 
 the winding-up court for leave to file the first 
 contract with the Eegistrar of Joint Stock Com- 
 panies, and that on being filed it might be 
 directed to operate as if it had been filed before 
 the issue of the shares. The original of the first 
 contract was not in the possession of S. : — 
 
 Held, that copies of both contracts must bs 
 
( 307 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 308 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Ooiitta.ctB)— continued, 
 o^f^^fi to be filed, and to have the operation 
 asked for; that an office copy of the order must 
 also be filed, the filing to take place within one 
 month from the date of the order : 
 
 Seld, also (without laying down any general 
 rule), that S. must pay the costs of the ofScial 
 receiver of the application. In re May's Metal 
 OEPAHATiNG Syndicate 
 
 Wright J. [1898] W. N. 159 (5) 
 
 Another co. after incorporation agreed to 
 purchase a private business, the consideration 
 bemg fully paid shares. The agreement con- 
 tained a clause providing that prior to the issue 
 of the shares the co. should enter into and file 
 a separate agreement of even date therewith to 
 allot the fully paid shares to the vendors. The 
 agreement referred to (which was the only one 
 filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Com- 
 panies) provided for the allotment of the shares, 
 but did not state what was being given for the 
 shares except by reference to the other agree- 
 ment. After the coming into operation of the 
 Act of 1898, the vendors were advised that the 
 shares were not protected as fully paid having 
 regard to the ^decision in In re Maynards, Ld., 
 [1898] 1 Oh. 515. The vendors moved for leave 
 to file the first agreement, and that such filing 
 should have the operation of a filing before the 
 shares were issued. The co., still a going con- 
 cern, was served, but did not ask for costs. There 
 were no pressing creditors, and the vendors' 
 shares were of small nominal value : — 
 
 Held, without laying down any general rule 
 as to whether the Court would in future cases 
 direct notice to be given of the day for hearing 
 the application, and that any one desiring to 
 oppose could attend (see Palmer's Company Law, 
 2nd ed. p. 379)— that a duplicate of the original 
 first contract, which was in the applicants' pos- 
 session, must be filed, and that (except as to 
 costs) the rest of the order must follow the lines 
 of that made by Wright J. in in re May's Metal 
 Separating Syndicate, supra. In re Noktheen 
 Crbosotinq and Sleepee Co. 
 
 Byrne J. [1898] W. N. 169 (6) 
 
 15. — Filed contract — Nature of consideration 
 — Statement — Sufficiency — Shares — Mode of pay- 
 ment,— Companies Act,18e7 (30 & 31 Vict. 0. 131), 
 ». 25— Companies Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 A statement of the mere form or character of 
 the consideration of a contract filed under s. 25 
 of the Companies Act, 1867 — e.g., the sale to the 
 company of property the general nature of which 
 does not appear on the face of the contract — is 
 not a sufficient statement of the " nature of the 
 consideration" within the rule of In re S. Frost 
 & Co., C. A. [1899] 2 Oh. 207. In re Eobeet 
 Watson & Co. Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 120 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Oh. 609 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. In re British Colum- 
 bia Electric Sy. Ld., [1899] W. N. 260. 
 See No. 17, helow. 
 
 16. — Filed contract — Sufficiency of — Sliares 
 issued as fully paid — Companies Act, 1867 
 (30 (t 31 Vict. o. 131), s. 25. 
 
 The object of s. 25 of the Companies Act, 
 1867, is to have It shewn what shares are not to 
 be paid for in cash, and the nature of the con- 
 
 COMPANT (Contracts) — continued. 
 sideration other than cash which is to be given, 
 but not to compel disclosure of the agreement in 
 all its details. 
 
 On Dec. 6, 1894, a written agreement was 
 made between a syndicate and H., as trustee for 
 an intended co., whereby it was agreed that the 
 vendors should sell, and the co. should purchase, 
 a property called Millwood, in the Cape Colony, 
 which was fully described, and that as considera- 
 tion for the sale H., as the trustee for the in- 
 tended CO., should on or before Dee. 15 allot to 
 the vendors, or as they might direct, 22,500 fully 
 paid shares of 10s. each in the intended co., and 
 should also allot to the vendors, or as they might 
 direct, 277,493 shares of 10s. each in the in- 
 tended CO. upon each of which 8s. should be 
 deemed to have been paid. This agreement was 
 never filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock 
 Companies. The co. was registered on Dec. 6, 
 1894, and on Deo. 11 the directors resolved to 
 adopt the agreement. On Dec. 12 an agreement 
 in writing was made between the syndicate (called 
 the vendors) and the co. which provided that 
 the CO. would forthwith allot to the vendors, or 
 their nominee or nominees, 22,500 fully paid 
 shares of 10s. each in the co., and should allot to 
 the vendors, or as they might direct, 277,493 
 shares of 10s. each in the co. upon each of which 
 8s. should be deemed to have been paid " as 
 mentioned in an agreement dated Deo. 6, 1894. 
 In consideration of the allotment of such shares 
 as aforesaid the vendors will forthwith there- 
 after give to the co. possession of the premises 
 more particularly mentioned in the said agree- 
 ment. In all other respects the said agreement 
 is hereby confirmed." On Dec. 19, 1894, another 
 agreement in writing was made between the co. 
 and the syndicate, which provided that, in con- 
 sideration of the syndicate agreeing to give the 
 CO. immediate possession of " the lands and pre- 
 mises situate in the mining district of Millwood, 
 in the Cape Colony, more particularly mentioned 
 and referred to in an agreement dated Dec. 6, 
 
 1894, made between the syndicate and H., as 
 trustee for the Co.," the co. should forthwith allot 
 to the syndicate, or to their nominee or nominees, 
 22,500 fully paid shares of 10s. each in the co., 
 and for all purposes the said shares should be 
 deemed fully paid shares in the co. The syndi- 
 cate should with all possible expedition procure 
 the lands and premises to become vested in the 
 CO. free from all incumbrances. Both the con- 
 tracta of Dec. 12 and Dec. 19 were filed with the 
 Registrar of Joint Stock Companies — the first on 
 Deo. 13 and the second on Deo. 28. On Jan. 2, 
 
 1895, 1406 shares of 10s. each were allotted and 
 issued as fully paid to Markham and Darter 
 respectively as nominees of the syndicate. The 
 CO., being in liquidation : — 
 
 Held, that the filed contract of Dec. 19 was 
 a sufficient compliance with the requirements of 
 s. 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, or that at any 
 rate the two contracts of Dec. 12 and Dec. 19 
 were sufficient. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1899] W. N. 7 (1) ; 
 [1899] 1 Oh. 414, affirmed. In re Apkican Gold 
 Concessions and Development Co. Maekham 
 AND Daeteb's Case - C. A. [1899] W. N. 119 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Oh. 480 
 
( 309 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 310 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Contracts)— conimwed. 
 
 17. — Filing contract — Issue of fully paid 
 shares — Registered contract — Sufficiency — Descrip- 
 tion of property purchased — Beference to prior 
 contract. 
 
 By an agreement of April, 1897, between the 
 Colonial oo. of tlie one part, and a trustee on be- 
 half of the above-named oo. of the other part, it 
 was agreed that the oo. should purchase " the 
 whole of the undertakings, properties, and other 
 premises contracted to be sold to the Colonial 
 CO. " by an agreement of Dec, 1896, at a price to 
 be satisfied by the allotment to the vendors (inter 
 alia) of 200,000^. worth of fully paid-up shares 
 in the co. Tliis agreement was filed with the 
 Begistrar of Joint Stock Companies pursuant to 
 s. 25 of the Companies Act, 1867; 20,000 101. 
 shares were subsequently issued as fully paid up. 
 The question having been raised whether the filed 
 agreement contained a sufficient description of 
 the property purchased to comply with the re- 
 quirements of B. 25, as interpreted by some of the 
 recent decisions, the co. now moved for leave to 
 file the contract of Dec, 1896 : — 
 
 Held, that the case was covered by In re B. 
 Watson & Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 509, which he pro- 
 posed to follow, and that the description of the 
 property was insufficient. Liberty given to the 
 CO. to file the agreement of Dec, 1896. In re 
 Bkitish Columbia Eleotkic Railway, Ld. 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 260 
 — Piling contract — Contributory. 
 
 See Company — Wikding-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 33—35. 
 
 18. — Filing of memorandum in lieu of contract 
 — Practice — Procedure — Application for relief — 
 Bectifying register — Motion — Summons — Share- 
 holders, application hy some only — Forms of order 
 and memorandum — Companies Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. V. 26), s. 1. 
 
 An application under the Companies Act, 
 1898, s. 1, for leave to file a contract or a memo- 
 randum in lieu of a contract, may be made either 
 by motion or summons, but preferably by sum- 
 mons, and if by summons it should be heard in 
 open Court and not in chambers, following the 
 better practice on applications to rectify the 
 register of shareholders. 
 
 The application, if made by shareholders, may 
 be made by some only, and not necessarily by 
 all, of the shareholders affected. 
 
 Where a memorandum in lieu of a contract is 
 approved by the Court and ordered to be filed 
 with the Begistrar of Joint Stock Companies 
 under sub-s. 5, it is not necessary to file a copy 
 of the order as well as the memorandum, but the 
 memorandum should state on the face of it that 
 it has been approved by the Court and directed 
 to be filed by the order. 
 
 Forms of order and memorandum under the 
 
 Act. In re Whitefbiabs Pinanclal Co. In re 
 
 Beeves & Son, Ld. - - - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 165 (6); [1899] 1 Ch. 184 
 
 19. — Payment on void contract — Ultra vires 
 — Following trust money. 
 
 A 00. sued to recover from an ex-ambassador 
 of Persia a sum paid for a concession to the co. of 
 lotteries in Persia : — 
 
 Reld, that the co. could not recover the 
 
 COMPANY (Contracts) — continued. 
 money either (1) as trust money, as it had been 
 paid in accordance with the objects of the co., and 
 the directors were not acting ultra vires in making 
 such payment, nor (2) as money had and received, 
 for they could not follow the money into the 
 deft.'s hands. Persian Investment Coeporation 
 V. Pbinoe Malcolm Khan 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 49 
 
 20, — Preference and ordinary stoclcholders — 
 Incidence of income tax imposed by colonial legis- 
 lature. 
 
 An English co., which carried on business 
 in a Colony, passed resolutions under which a 
 class of guaranteed preference stockholders 
 became entitled to a cumulative payment of 
 interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum in 
 priority to the other stockholders. By a subse- 
 quent Act of the Colonial legislature a duty, in 
 the nature of income tax, was imposed on all 
 dividends or interest paid out of assets in the 
 Colony to the members of companies carrying on 
 business therein, and it was declared that the 
 duty payable in respect of the amount received 
 by any member should be a debt due by him to 
 the Crown : — 
 
 Held, that the contract between the preference 
 and ordinary stockholders being an English 
 contract, the rights under it of preference stock- 
 holders, not domiciled in the Colony, were not 
 affected by the Colonial Act, and that they were 
 therefore entitled to their 6 per cent, without 
 any deduction in respect of the Colonial duty. 
 Spillee v. Tubnee Kekewioh J. [1897] 1 Ch. 911 
 
 21, — Priority of contract — Contract on hehalf 
 of intended company — New contract — Patent — 
 Licence-. — Burden attaching to property. 
 
 In this case it was held, first, that there was 
 no ground for inferring a contract between the 
 pits, and the defts., and that the case fell within 
 In re Northumberland Avenue Hotel Co., (1886) 
 33 Ch. D. 16, and not within Howard v. Patent 
 Ivory Manufacturing Co., (1888) 38 Ch. D. 156 ; 
 secondly, that the obligations imposed by the 
 agreement of March 3 could not be treated as a 
 burden attaching to the licence itself within the 
 principle of Werderwan v. Sociite Gen&ale d'jSlec- 
 trieite, (1881) 19 Ch. D. 246. The pits, had, 
 therefore, no cause of action against the defts. 
 Bagot Pneumatic Tyee Co. v. Clipper Pneu- 
 matic Tyee Co. Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 372 
 
 — Projected company — Overdraft. 
 
 See Banker. 23. 
 
 — Proof for injury caused by disclaimer by 
 
 trustee in bankruptcy — Contract to take 
 share in company — Measure of 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 169. 
 
 22. — Batification and payment in cash — 
 Paid-up sliares — Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 81 
 riot. a. 131), s. 25. , 
 
 In order that a transaction between a co. and 
 an allottee of shares may be equivalent to a " pay- 
 ment in cash" of the amount payable on the 
 shares, there must be debts on each side which 
 could he extinguished by cross payments, e.g., the 
 CO, must owe the allottee money, and the allottee 
 
( 311 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 312 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Contracts)— conimuetJ. 
 must hare contracted to take the shares. In re 
 Johannesburg Hotel Co. Ex parte Zoutpans- 
 BEBG Pbospecting Co. C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 119 
 ^^PProved by P. 0. Larocque v. Beauchemin, 
 [18!i7] A. C. 365 ; North Sydney Investment and 
 Tramway Co. v. Higgins, [1899] A. C. 263. 
 
 23. — lieliefuhere no sufficient contract filed — 
 Fully paid shares — Jurisdiction — Affidavit in 
 support— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), s. 35— Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 c. 131), «. 25— Companies Act, 1898 (61 * 62 
 Vict. a. 26). 
 
 An application was made by a oo., wMch was 
 not in winding up, to Wright J., the winding-up 
 judge, for an order that a contract filed after the 
 issue of the shares to which it related should 
 operate as if it had been filed before such issue. 
 
 Wright J. held that he had jurisdiction to 
 make orders under the Act of 1898, as a judge of 
 one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Law or 
 Equity, and made the order; but said there was 
 no reason why applications under the Act, where 
 the CO. was not in winding-up, should not be 
 made to the ordinary judges of the Ch. Div. 
 Such applicatiops are properly made in court, 
 and should not as a rule be made in chambers. 
 In re Concessions Acquisition Syndicate 
 
 Wright J. [1898] W. N. 162 (1) 
 
 Affidavits in support of applications under 
 the Act of 1898 should not state the bare fact 
 that the omission to file a proper contract was 
 accidental or due to ioadvertence, but should set 
 out the circumstances under which the accident 
 or inadvertence occurred. In re Viotokia Beiok 
 AVoEKS Wright J. [1898] W. N. 162 (1) 
 
 24. — Ultra vires — Sale of undertaJcing — Com- 
 pensation to directors — Notice of extraordinary 
 ■meeting — Sufficiency of notice — Companies Clauses 
 Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 ife 9 Vict. u. 16), ss. 71, 
 85, 86, 99. 
 
 By a provisional agreement made between 
 two co.'s for the sale of the undertaking of the 
 one to the other, the purchasing co. agreed to 
 pay, in addition to the sum payable to the selling 
 CO., a substantial sum to the directors of the 
 selling CO. as compensation for loss of office, and 
 the agreement was made conditional upon its 
 adoption by the shareholders of the selling co. 
 The notice convening the meeting of shareholders 
 to consider the agreement described it simply aa 
 an agreement for the sale of the undertaking. 
 The selling co. was governed by the Companies 
 Clauses Act, 1845 : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the provision in favour of the 
 directors did not render the agreement ultra 
 vires, but (2) that the notice, by reason of its 
 omission to refer to this provision, did not fairly 
 disclose the purpose for which the meeting was 
 convened, and did not comply with s. 71 of the 
 Companies Clauses Act. 
 
 Southall v. British Mutual Life Assurance 
 Society, (1871) L. E. 6 Cli. 614, followed. 
 
 Button v. West Cork My. Co., (1883) 23 Ch. D. 
 654, distinguished. 
 
 Per v. Williams L.J. . Semhle, if the money 
 payable under this agreement to the directors 
 was a, bonus to theip in ponsidorivt}on of thejc 
 
 COMPANY (Coiitraots)^oo)!iin«e(Z. 
 facilitating the contract, the agreement would 
 not be binding upon a dissentient shareholder. 
 Kate v. Ceoydon Tbamwayb Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 358 
 
 GouverBian of Stock into Shares. 
 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. o. 48), 
 s. 29. For notes thereon see [1900] W. N. 202. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 — Debenture-holder's action — Costs. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 36 — 39. 
 
 — Liquidator's costs. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding- 
 up — Iiiquidator. 
 
 — Solicitor's lien — Charging order — Property 
 
 recovered for company — Application 
 
 after winding-up — Delay. 
 
 See Solicitor — Charging Order. 10. 
 
 County Courts. 
 
 High Bailiffs.] Inquiry and indorsement on 
 summons against registered company — Prsecipe 
 where registered company is defendant — Service, 
 &c., Ac.— County Court Rules {May), 1899. W. N. 
 1899 (April 29), p. 147. See p. xcii., anU. 
 
 JuEiSDiCTiON.] See County Court — Companies 
 (Winding-up) Jurisdiction. 
 
 Sebeutures. 
 
 25. — Definition —Debenture stock. 
 Debenture stock is borrowed money capitahzed 
 
 for purposes of convenience, and stands on an 
 entirely different footing from the ordinary 
 " shares " or " stock " of a oo. A gift by will of 
 " all my shares " in a co. will therefore not carry 
 debenture stock. In re Bodman. Bodman v. 
 BoDMAN Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 135 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Weeding, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 367. 
 
 26. — Agent — Autlmrity of — Debenture stock 
 certificate — Purchaser for value — Mortgagee. 
 
 A CO. applied to P., who had acted as its 
 broker, for a loan of 3000Z. on the security of 
 8000Z. of its debenture stock, which was by the 
 trust deed assignable free from equities. P. 
 asked G. to lend 6000?. on the stock, and he 
 consented to do so on the certificate for the 
 8000Z. stock being deposited. After P. had com- 
 municated with the CO., its secretary deposited 
 as required a certificate under its seal stating 
 that G. was the registered holder of 8000Z. 
 debenture stock of the oo., and that the stock 
 was only transferable by deed registered in the 
 co.'s books. G. then paid 6000Z. to P., who paid 
 the CO. only 3000i. :— 
 
 Held, that, although the certificate was not a 
 negotiable instrument, G. was entitled to assume 
 that P. had full authority from the co. to deal 
 with it, and was not concerned to see that P. 
 paid the 6000i. to the co. : and that in an action 
 to enforce the rights of the debeutiu:e stock 
 holders, G. could prove for 8000Z. provided he 
 did not receive dividends exceeding 6000Z. and 
 interest. Eomnson v. Montqomekyshike 
 BjjEWEEY Cp. V, Williams J. [1896] 2 Ch. 841 
 
( 313 ) 
 
 biOEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 t 314 ) 
 
 eOMPANY (Debentures)— conK«Me(?. 
 
 27. — Agreement to give debenture when called 
 upon — Waiver — Equitable security — Debenture- 
 holder's action. 
 
 In 1882 a co. torrowed money from P., for 
 •which they gave him a promissory note bearing 
 interest at 5 per oeat., and undertook that they 
 would at any time, when called upon by the 
 holder of the note, issue for the amount deben- 
 tures, bearing interest at 4J per cent., of a series 
 which constituted a second charge on the co.'s 
 assets, subject to a charge in favour of a first 
 series of dehentures previously issued. In 1894 
 an action was brought by debentiire-holders 
 against the co. to enforce their security. P. was 
 one of the pits., as a holder of a first debenture, 
 the other pit. being a holder of a second deben- 
 ture. P. did not then claim to be a holder of a 
 second debenture. He had continued to receive 
 interest at 5 per cent, on his promissory note, 
 and had not applied to the co. for debentures for 
 the amount. After judgment in the action P. 
 for the first time claimed to have debentures of 
 the second series issued to him for the amount 
 of his debt. The whole of the second series had 
 not been issued, and the amount remaining 
 unissued was sufficient to answer P.'s claim : — 
 
 Seld, that P. had not waived his right under 
 his agreement with the co. ; that he was in equity 
 a holder of debentures of the second series for 
 the amount of his debt ; and that he was entitled 
 in respect of that amount to share in the distribu- 
 tion of the co.'s assets as if he were a legal holder 
 of debentures of the second series. 
 
 In re Queensland Land and Coal Co., [1894] 
 3 Ch. 181, followed. Pegge v. Neath and Dis- 
 trict Tkamwats Co. North J. [1898] 1 Ch. 183 
 
 28. — Articles of association — Irregularities — 
 Valuable consideration — Director's authority to 
 seal. 
 
 B. & D., partners, dissolved partnership on 
 terms of a sum payable by B. to D. D. sold his 
 business to a co. of which he became a first 
 director. The articles gave the directors power 
 to borrow on debentures assignable free from 
 equities. No director was to vote in respect of 
 any contract in which he was interested, and if 
 he voted his vote was not to be counted. One 
 director was a quorum. Any debenture bearing 
 the common seal, issued for a valuable considera- 
 tion, was to bind the co. notwithstanding any 
 irregularity touching the authority of the directors 
 to issue the same (art. 115). Under pressure 
 from D., B. agreed that the sum due from him 
 should be secured by a debenture granted by the 
 CO. to B. and transferred to "D. D.'s solicitors 
 were given a copy of the articles. The co. owed 
 B. more than the amount due from B. to D. pay- 
 able by instalments not due at the date of the 
 debenture, and interest at 6 per cent, was pay- 
 able on undue instalments ; the debenture carried 
 interest at 5 per cent. Only B. and the secretary 
 signed the debenture : — 
 
 Held, that the seal was duly affixed; that it 
 was doubtful whether an uninterested director 
 was present at the sealing; that the seal had 
 been irregularly fixed ; but that these objections 
 were cured by art. 115 : 
 
 Eeld, also, that the change from 6 per cent. 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures)— conii»ue(Z. 
 to 5 per cent, was a sufficient consideratiotl io 
 support the debenture, and that the fact of D.'s 
 solicitors having a print of the articles did not 
 aifect D. with notice of the infirmities connected 
 with the issue of the debentures, as an examina- 
 tion of the articles would not shew that other 
 directors were not present when the debenture 
 was issued. Davies v. E. Bolton & Co. 
 
 V. WilUams J, [1894] 3 Ch. 678 
 — Bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 28. 
 
 29. — Bill of sale — Non-registration — Deben- 
 ture-holders — Priority over execution creditors — • 
 Bills of Sale Acts, 1854, 1878, 1882 (17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 36 ; 41 * 42 Vict. c. 31 ; 45 & 46 Vict. o. 43, 
 s. 17). 
 
 On the true construction of the Bills of Sale 
 Act, 1878, the mortgages or charges of any 
 incorporated co., for the registration of which 
 statutory provision has already been made by 
 the Companies Clauses Act, 1845, or by the Com- 
 panies Act, 1862, are not bills of sale within the 
 scope of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878. Limited 
 COS. with borrowing powers are within the words 
 " or other incorporated co." in s. 17, Bills of Sale 
 Act, 1882, even if the words are to be restricted 
 to cos. ejusdem generis with mortgage or loan 
 COS. In re Standard Mandfactuking Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 627 
 Referred to by C. A. in In re Opera, Ld., 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 260. 
 
 Beferred to by Kekewioh J. Taunton v. 
 Warwickshire (Sheriff of), [1895] 1 Ch. 738. This 
 case affirmed by 0. A , [1895] 2 Ch. 319. 
 
 Distinguished by Komer J. Bobson v. Smith, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 118. 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. Great 
 Northern By. Co. v. Coal Go-operative Society, 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 187. 
 
 Followed by North J. Bichards v. Kidder- 
 minster Overseers, [1896] 2 Ch. 221. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Boundwood Colliery 
 Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 390, 395. 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Davey & Co. v. 
 Williamson & Sons, [1898] 2 Q. B. 201. 
 
 30. — Boolis of company — Bight to custody of 
 — Debenture-holders — Beceiver and manage) — 
 Official receiver— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), 88. 23, 25-27, 32, 43, 56, 58, 67, 100, 
 154-156 — Companies (Winding up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. a. 63), s. 4, sub-ss. 3, 7, 8, and 
 Sched. I., cl. 3. 
 
 The receiver of the debenture-holders, whose 
 security practically included the whole of the 
 property of the co., claimed the books, &c., as 
 against the liquidator of the co. under an order 
 which directed that he (the receiver) should take 
 all books and documents relative to the deben- 
 tures : — 
 
 Held (notwithstanding the terms of the order), 
 that the official liquidator was entitled to the 
 custody of such of the books and documents of 
 the 00. as related to its management and bus.i- 
 neas, and were not necessary to support the title 
 of the debenture-holders, and that the receiver 
 was not entitled to any books and documents 
 
( 315 ) 
 
 DIGEST OV CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 316 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures)— con^jmuccZ. 
 which were not shewn to be documents of title. 
 Engel v. South Meteopolitan Skewing and 
 BOTTLINO Co. (No. 2) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 1 Ch. 442 
 
 81. — Charge on uncalled capital — Floating 
 security — Foreclosure. 
 
 The remedy by foreclosure is applicable to 
 the uncalled capital of a limited co. 
 
 Therefore, when debentures were a floating 
 security in the usual form charging all tlie pro- 
 perty of the CO., both present and future, includ- 
 ing uncalled capital, with a condition that on 
 default in payment of interest or on a winding-up 
 the principal should immediately become payable 
 and the condition was fulfilled, an order was 
 made directing the co. at the debenture- holders' 
 request to assign the several items comprised in 
 the debentures. 
 
 Form of foreclosure judgment on a mortgage 
 debenture. 
 
 (a) Sadlee v. 'Woblet 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 170 
 
 (b) Oldeet v. Union 'Woeks, Ld. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 77 
 (o) Halifax and Htjddeeseield Union 
 Banking Co. v. Eadolipfe, Ld. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 63 
 (d) In re Continental Oxygen Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 511 
 32. — Charge on uncalled capital — Priority — 
 New South Wales Act, 1874 (37 Vict. No. 19). 
 
 A CO. limited by shares can create a charge 
 upon its uncalled capital so as to confer priority 
 in the winding-up. 
 
 Where the memorandum of association autho- 
 rized the giving any security of any description 
 for money : — 
 
 Held, that this authorized a charge on the 
 whole uncalled capital in the absence of any 
 article excluding any part thereof from its opera- 
 tion. Newton v. Anglo-Austkalian Invest- 
 ment Co. (Deeentuee-holders) 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 244 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re May/air Properly 
 Co., [1898] 2 Ch. 28, 37. 
 
 — Contract to insure payment of debenture — 
 Liability. 
 See Insubanoe— Guarantee. 12. 
 
 33. — Covenant for payment on specified day 
 — Winding-up he/ore such day. 
 
 Where debentures issued by way of floating 
 security, and charging the undertaking with 
 repayment of principal and interest, contained a 
 covenant for payment on a specifled day and of 
 interest in the interim, but contained no condi- 
 tion making the principal payable on default in 
 payment of interest or on a winding-up : — 
 
 Held, that the principal sum is rendered due 
 and payable by a winding-up before such day. 
 Wallace v. Universal Automatic Machines 
 Co. C. A. varying Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 547 
 
 Form of judgment followed by Kekewich J. 
 Brinsley v. Lynton and Lynmouth Hotel and Pro- 
 perty Co., [1895] W. N. 53 
 
 34. — Covering deed — Receiver — Poor-rate — 
 District rale — Change of occupancy — Winding-up 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures)— conKwiiei. 
 — Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Yict. u. 43), s. li— Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict. V. 89), s. i3— Poor Rate Assessment 
 and Collection Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 41), 
 8. le—Publie Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 55), «. 211, sub-s. 3 — Conveyandiig and Law of 
 Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 24, 
 svh-s. 2 — Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 62), g. 1, sub-s. 1 (a). 
 
 A deed of charge on the assets of a co. regis- 
 tered under the Companies Act, 1862, to cover 
 debentures is not a bill of sale within s. 14 of the 
 Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882. 
 
 The general district rate of an urban sanitary 
 authority is not a tax or poor or other parochial 
 rate within the meaning of s. 14 of the Bills of 
 Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882. 
 
 A deed of floating charge on the assets of 
 a CO. gave power to the trustee to appoint a 
 receiver and manager, who was expressed to be 
 the agent of the mortgagor : — 
 
 Held, that, on a receiver duly appointed under 
 the power entering into possession of the premises 
 and commencing to carry on the business of the 
 CO., there was a change of occupancy within the 
 meaning of the Poor Eate Assessment and Col- 
 lection Act, 1869, 0. 16, and the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, 3. 211, sub-s. 3. 
 
 There is no preferential charge in respect of 
 rates on eifects of a co. in the hands of a receiver 
 for debenture-holders when the co. is being 
 wound up. BiCHAEDS v. Overseees of Kidder- 
 minster. EioHARDS V. Mayor of Kiddee- 
 minster - - North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 212 
 
 Considered. In re Marriage, Neave & Co., 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 663, 678. 
 
 35. — Debenture-holders^ action — Appointment 
 of official receiver to be receiver for debenture- 
 holders. 
 
 The rights of debenture-holders to nominate 
 their own receiver where there is a winding-up 
 considered. Beitish Linen Co. v. South Amekican 
 AND Mexican Co. V. Williams J. varied by C. A. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 36. — Debenture-holders' action — Costs. 
 Action by pit. on behalf of himself and all 
 
 other debenture-holders to enforce security and 
 settle priorities. The security was sold and the 
 proceeds paid into Court. On inquiry it was 
 found that the debentures did not rank pari 
 passu, but in order of date, and, consequently, 
 the proceeds being insufficient, the pit., who held 
 a late debenture, would get nothing : — 
 
 Held, nevertheless, that he was entitled to 
 his costs, except such (if any) as were incurred 
 in support of his own security only, the result of 
 the action being for the benefit of all the deben- 
 ture-holders. Caerick v. Wigan Tramways Co. 
 - Chitty J. [189SJ W. N. 98 
 
 37. — Debenture-holder's action — Costs — Party 
 and party costs. 
 
 The pit. in a debenture-holder's action is 
 allowed party and party costs of action only. 
 In re Queen's Hotel Co., Oaedifp. In re Vbb- 
 non Tin Plate Co. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 77 ; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 798 
 
( 317 ) 
 
 MGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 318 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures)— eowiJBtted. 
 
 38. — Debenture-holder's action — Costs of 
 ' ' realizatioa " — " Raising " of money. 
 
 Where the receiver in a debenture-holder's 
 action was autlioiized to pay certain annual sums 
 " as part of the costs of realization," and to 
 "raise" money to carry on the business of the 
 CO., and he created debentures purporting to have 
 priority over existing debentures, and where 
 there was a fund in court representing assets 
 of the CO. : — 
 
 Held, that (i.) " costs of realization " were 
 confined to costs of actual sale, and did not 
 include costs of preservation; (ii.) the order 
 authorizing the receiver to raise money gave him 
 by implication power to create a charge having 
 priority over the existing debentures ; and (iii.) 
 the fund in court must be applied first in satis- 
 faction of the annual payments, and secondly of 
 the charge created by the receiver. Lathom v. 
 Greenwich Fekkt Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 77 
 
 39. — Vehenture-holders' action — Counter-claim 
 hy company — Security for costs — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 69. 
 
 In an action brought before winding-up pro- 
 ceedings, the CO. counter-claimed against the 
 debenture-holders. After the winding-up the 
 pits, moved to strike out the counter-claim, or 
 that the co. should give security for costs. Ordered 
 that the co. find some person to give 50Z. as 
 security for costs. No order on the ofiSoial receiver. 
 Steong v. Caklyle Press (No. 2) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 51 
 
 40. — Debenture-holder's action — Declaration 
 of charge. 
 
 The general practice of the Ch. Div. is to 
 allow the judgment in a debenture-holder's action, 
 even if heard as a short cause or by default, to 
 contain a declaration of charge; but when there 
 has been a winding-up order the liquidator's 
 as.sent must be placed on record. Marwiok v. 
 Lord Thuelow V. Williams J. [1895] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 A declaration refused in Ohaelwood v. Lease- 
 hold Investment Co. - V. Williams J. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 47 
 
 See Marwiok v. Lord Thcblow 
 
 V. WUliams J. [1895] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 A declaration inserted — 
 
 (a) in Brinslby v. Ltnton and Lynmouth 
 Hotel and Property Co Kekewich J. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 53 
 
 (b) in Parkinson v. Wainweight & Co. 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 63 
 (o) Marwiok v. Lord Thuelow 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1895] 1 Ch. 776 
 
 41. — Debenture-holder's action — Declaration of 
 right to foreclosure. 
 
 A declaration of right to foreclosm-e can only 
 be made in court. Halifax and Huddeesfield 
 Union Banking Co. v. Eadolute Ld. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W.N. 63 
 
 43. — Debenture-holder's action — Practice — No 
 pleadings — Form of judgment. 
 
 This was a debenture-holder's action in which 
 there were no pleadings, but the co. admitted that 
 the pit. was the holder of a debenture which was 
 one of a series. The form of judgment was as 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 follows : "The deft. co. admitting that the pit. 
 is the holder of a mortgage debenture charged on 
 the deft, co.'s undertaking, stock-in-trade, &c., 
 and eflfects both present and future ; and the deft. 
 CO. admitting that this debenture is part of an 
 issue of 500 debentures ranking pari passu " ; 
 then followed usual accounts and inquiries, in- 
 cluding an inquiry whether there were any 
 incumbrances " other than the mortgage deben- 
 ture aforesaid " nifeoting the co.'s property. In re 
 British Kailway Careiage Metal Fittings, 
 &c., Co. Mason v. Bkitish Eailway Carriage 
 Metal Fittings, &o., Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] W, N, 173 (9) 
 
 43, — Debenture-holder's action — Procedure — 
 Shareholder plaintiff — Judgment — Certificate — 
 Uncalled capital — LiaMlity of plaintiff. 
 
 In an action against a limited co. by one 
 debenture-holder on behalf of himself and all 
 other debenture-holders, the chief clerk may, 
 under an inquiry directed by the judgment as to 
 the property charged by the debentures, find 
 what uncalled capital is due from the several 
 shareholders (where uncalled capital is part of 
 the security), notwithstanding that no calls can 
 actually he made in such an action ; and where 
 the pit. is himself a shareholder and is found 
 indebted in a sum of uncalled capital, he, being 
 a party to the action, is bound by that finding, 
 unless varied by the judge, the Court having 
 jurisdiction to decide in that action the question 
 of the plt.'s liability without leaving it to be 
 decided by other proceedings. Madeley v. Boss, 
 Sleeman & Co. - Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 505 
 
 44. — Debenture-holder's action — Receiver — 
 Priority— R. 8. C, 1883, Order xri., r. 9. 
 
 In a debenture-holder's action the Court will, 
 in a case of emergency, empower the receiver to 
 borrow money as a first charge on the undertaking 
 with priority over the debentures, for the preser- 
 vation of the property. Gbeenwood v. Algesiras 
 (Gibraltar) Ry. Co. - C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 205 
 
 46. — Debenture-holder sued in representative 
 capacity — R. 8. C, Order xvi., r. 9. 
 
 Where a debenture-holder is sued in a repre- 
 sentative capacity, under Order xvi., r. 9, an 
 order should be obtained authorizing him to 
 defend in that capacity, and the record should 
 bear the words " authorized by order dated, (fee, 
 to defend on behalf of himself and all other the 
 debenture-holders," Fakeield Shipbuilding 
 AND Engineering Co. v. London and East 
 Coast Express Steamship Co - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 64 
 
 See In re Continental Oxygen Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 
 511, at p. 513. 
 
 — Distress — Landlord — Bill of exchange for rent 
 — Eeceiver. 
 See Distress. 4. 
 
 46. — Enforcing security — Land out of juris- 
 diction, 
 
 A foreign (Connecticut) oo. domiciled in the 
 United States created an equitable charge on 
 land in Mexico to defts. as trustees to secure 
 debentures. The foreign co. failed, but the mort- 
 gage could not be enforced in Mexico, not being 
 registered. An English co. was formed to take 
 
( 319 ) 
 
 DiGEST 0]? dASliS, 1891— i90d. 
 
 t 32d ) 
 
 COMPANY (nebentvies)— continued. 
 over the liabilHiea of the insolvent co., and the 
 Mexican land was duly transferred to them with 
 express obligation to pay off thecharge out of the 
 proceeds of sale of the property : — 
 
 Held, that the new co. and its directors were 
 accountable in an English Court to the debenture- 
 holders for the proceeds of the Mexican land. 
 
 Keceiver refused. Mercantile Investment 
 AND Genekal Teust Co. v. EivEK Plate Tkust 
 Loan and Agency Co. (No. 1) 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 303 
 — Enforcing security — Tramway company — Sale 
 of undertaking. 
 See '1'kamwat. 3. 
 
 47. — First charge on uncalled capital — New 
 South Wales Act. 1874 (37 Vict. No. 19.) 
 
 A CO. limited by shares can create a charge 
 upon its uncalled capital ao as to confer priority 
 in the wiuding-up. 
 
 Where the memorandum of association autho- 
 rized Ihe giving any security of any descriptioa 
 for money : — 
 
 Held, that this authorized a charge on the 
 whole uncalled capital in the absence of any 
 arliole excluding any part thereof fiom its 
 operation, Netvton v. Anglo-Austealian In- 
 testment Co. (Debestuee-holders) 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 244 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Jaclison v. Raivford 
 Coal Co., [1896] 2 Ch.'340, 342. 
 
 Ecfcrred to by C. A . In re May fair Property 
 Co., [1898] 2 Ch. 28, 37. 
 
 48. — Floating charge — Preferential payments 
 in Panliruptcy Amendment Act, 18U7 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 19). 
 
 The Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy 
 Amendment Act, 1897, received the royal assent 
 on July 15, 1897. Before that date a winding- 
 up Older had been made against a co. which had 
 issued debentures creating a floating charge, and 
 a receiver had been appointed in an action for 
 realization of the debentru-es : — 
 
 Held, that the Act was not retrospective, and 
 did not apply so as to give priority over the 
 debenture-holders to the preferential creditors 
 referred to in the Act. 
 
 This decision was followed by Kekewich J. 
 ill Weeks v, Kent, Sussex and General Land 
 Society, [1898] W. N. 39 (1). In re Waveeley 
 Type Writer. D'Esterre v. Waveeley Type 
 Writer - Wright J. [1898] 1 Ch. 699 
 
 49. — Floating charge — lieceiver. 
 
 A CO. resolved on the issue of a defined number 
 of debentures of equal amount, ranking pari 
 passu, and creating a floating charge on the 
 assets. The amount secured was to become imme- 
 diately payaljle if the interest should fall into 
 arrcar. Some only of the debentures had been 
 issued when the interest fell into arrear; where- 
 upon an action was commenced on behalf of the 
 debenture-holders for realization of their security. 
 After the issue of the writ, hut before the appoint- 
 ment of a receiver, the co. issued further deben- 
 tures of the same issue to its solicitor to secure 
 his costs of defending the action on behalf of 
 the CO. : — 
 
 Held, that as no receiver had been appointed 
 
 COMPANY (Deteniiires) — continued. 
 the directors still had power, notwithstanding 
 the issue of the writ, to issue the further deben- 
 tures. In re Hubbard & Co. Wright J. [1898] 
 
 W. N. 158 (4) 
 
 50. — Floating charge — 8aU of business — 
 Injunction. 
 
 The objects of a co. comprised the carrying 
 on three distinct businesses, supplemental to one 
 another. The Court refused, at the instance of 
 debenture-holders having a floating charge on 
 the whole undertaking, to restrain the sale of one 
 business. In re Yivian & Co. Metropolitan- 
 Bank OF England and Wales v. Vivian & Co. 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 133 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 654 
 
 51. — Floating charge — Sale of Imsiness — 
 Injunction. 
 
 A CO. with power to amalgamate with or sell 
 its business and assets to another co. of the same 
 kind, contracted so to sell. In an action on behalf 
 of holders of debentures charged on the assets of 
 the CO., and maturing in case of a winding-up, 
 an injunction wns granted to restrain the co. 
 from parting with its assets. In re Borax Co. 
 Fostee v. Boeax Co. 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 34 (4) ; [1899] 2 Ch. 130 
 
 62. — Floating security — Equitable incumbran- 
 cers — Priority — Negligence — Possession of title- 
 deeds. 
 
 In 1885 a limited co. issued a series of deben- 
 tures charged upon all its property both present 
 and future, such charge to be a floating security, 
 but so that the co. was not to be at liberty to 
 create any mortgage or charge upon its freehold 
 or leasehold hereditaments in priority to the said 
 debentures. In 1895 the co. deposited t)ie title- 
 deeds of some of its property with its bankers, on 
 a memorandum of charge under seal, as a security 
 for an overdraft. When this charge was given, 
 the bank had no notice of the existence of the 
 debentures and made no inquiries. In 189G a 
 debenture-holders' action to enforce the security 
 was commenced in which an inquiry as to priorities 
 was directed : — 
 
 Held, that the debenture-holders, having left 
 tlie title-deeds with the co. so as to enable it to 
 deal with its property as if it had not been in- 
 cumbered, could not set up their prior charge 
 against the equitable mortgage to the bank ; that 
 the bank had not been guilty of negligence, and, 
 having a stronger equity that the debenture- 
 holders, was entitled to priority. In re Castell 
 cSi Beown, Ld. Koper r. Castell A Beown, Ld. 
 Bomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 315 
 
 63. — Floating security — Execution creditor. 
 Where the goods of a co. are taken iu execution 
 
 and money paid by debenture-holders to the 
 sheriff to stop the sale, but the money is not 
 handed over to the execution creditor, the holder 
 of a debenture which "is a floating security upon 
 all the property of the co. can still oust the 
 execution creditor. 
 
 Quxre, in case of actual sale and payment of 
 the money to the execution creditor. 
 
 (a) In re The Opeea Ld. - C. A. [1891] 
 3 Ch. 260 revers. Kekewich J. [1891] 2 Ch. 154 
 
( 321 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 322 ) 
 
 COMPANY (JiBbenixaes)— continued. 
 
 (b) Taunton v. Sheriff op Wakwiokshikb 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 734; 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 319 
 (o) Davet & Co. V. "Williamson & Sons 
 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 194, 201 
 
 54. — Floating security — Foreclosure — Absent 
 debenture-liolder. 
 
 In a debenture-holders' action, wliere the 
 debentures constitute a charge on the property of 
 a CO. by way of floating secuiity, foreclosure can- 
 not be ordered in the absence of any one debenture- 
 holder. 
 
 Sadler v. Worley, [1894] 2 Ch. 170, and Welch, 
 V. National Cycle Co., (1886) W. N. 97, Palmer's 
 Company Precedents, 6th ed. Part I., p. 909, 
 considered. In re Continental Oxygen Co. 
 Elias v. Continental Oxygen Co. 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1897] 1 Ch. 511 
 
 — " Floating security " — Foreclosure — Parties. 
 See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 27. 
 
 55. — Floating security — Garnishee order. 
 Debentures by way of "floating security " allow 
 
 the CO. to deal with its assets till winding-up, or 
 stoppage of business, or appointment of a receiver. 
 So where payment had been made by a debtor of 
 the CO. to a judgment creditor of the co. who had 
 obtained a garnishee order absolute, such pay- 
 ment is valid, although the debenture-holders 
 gave the garnishee notice of the debentures. 
 Words in a debenture prohibiting a co. from 
 creating a prior " charge " are to be read strictly, 
 and do not defeat the rights obtained under a 
 garnishee order. Eobson v. Smith Bomer J, 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 118 
 
 66. — Floating security— Goods seized in execu- 
 iion — Bights of debenture-holders. 
 
 A limited co. issned debentures secured by a 
 floating charge upon all the property of the co., 
 and also by a trust deed which vested in a trustee 
 for the benefit of the debenture-holders the lease- 
 hold property and uncalled capital of the co., and 
 gave him the right to call upon the co. to vest in 
 him all other property of the co. except chattels 
 within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Acts. 
 Before the time for the payment of the amount 
 secared by the debentures had arrived certain 
 goods of the co. charged by the debentures were 
 seized by the sheriff under a fi. fa. No winding- 
 up resolution was passed and no receiver appointed, 
 nor did the trustee put in force his powers under 
 the deed, but the debenture-holders claimed the 
 goods, and the sheriif interpleaded : — 
 
 Held, that the rights of the debenture-holders 
 .prevailed over those of the execution creditor 
 since, the goods seized being validly charged 
 with payment of the debentures, there was no 
 interest of the co. in them available to satisfy the 
 judgment debt. Davet & Co. v. "Williamson & 
 Sons, Ld. - Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 194 
 
 57. Floating security — Mortgage of assets of a 
 company — Priority. 
 
 A CO. issued debentures by which it undertook 
 to pay the principal at a distant day and interest 
 on fixed days half-yearly and charged by way of 
 floating security all its property present and' 
 future, ^ condition indorsed on the debentures 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 provided that " notwithstanding the said charge " 
 the 00. might in the course and for the pm'pose 
 of its business sell or otherwise deal with its 
 property until default should be made in payment 
 of interest for three months after the same should 
 have become due, or until an order or resolution 
 for winding up. After an instalment of interest 
 had been due more than three months but before 
 the debenture-holders had taken any step to 
 enforce their security the co. by an issue of bonds 
 mortgaged specific assets : — 
 
 Seld, upon the construction of the condition, 
 that after the expiration of the three months the 
 debentures remained a floating security till the 
 holders took some step to enforce it and prevent 
 the CO. from dealing with its property, and that 
 the debenture-holders were not entitled to an in- 
 junction restraining the co. from paying interest 
 to the bondholders. 
 
 The decision of 0. A., [1895] 2 Oh. 551, 
 affirmed. Governments Stock and Othee Se- 
 curities Investment Co. v. Manila Ey. Co. 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] "W. N. 174 (6) ; [1897] A. C. 81 
 
 68. — " Floating security " — Solicitor's lien. 
 
 A solicitor's lien for costs incurred prior to the 
 appointment of a receiver, held to prevail over 
 the rights of the debenture-holders and their 
 receiver, even where the debentures stipulated 
 that the co. should not be at liberty to create any 
 mortgage or charge in priority to the debentures. 
 A "floating security" discussed. Brunton u. 
 Electrical Engineering Corporation 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1892] 1 Ch. 434 
 
 Referred to by Eomer J. Mdbson v. Smith, 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 118, 126. 
 
 69. — Foreclosure — Chattels — Patents — Origin- 
 ating summons. 
 
 Foreclosure ordered in a debenture-holder's 
 action where the security consisted of (1) freehold 
 premises ; (2) goodwill, book debts, plant, &c. ; (3) 
 three patents. Foreclosure can be granted in an 
 action commenced by originating summons. Old- 
 ret V. "Union "Works Kekewioh J. [1895] "W. N. 77 
 
 60. — Foreign country, chargcon property in — 
 Receiver — French debt — Locality of debt — Unse- 
 cured creditor — Enforcing payment — Interference 
 with receiver — Contempt. 
 
 In Oct., 1899, receivers were appointed in 
 debenture-holders' actions of the undertaking and 
 of the property whatsoever and wheresoever both 
 present and future of an English co., the order 
 following the wording of the debentures. Among 
 the assets of the co. was a debt due to them from 
 a French firm. In Nov., 1899, P. & Co., English 
 creditors of the co., took proceedings in France 
 for the purpose of attaching the debt due to the 
 CO. from the French firm. The pits, in the deben- 
 ture-holders' action moved to restrain P. & Co. 
 from intercepting, attaching, or taking in execu- 
 tion, or attempting to obtain payment of moneys 
 due to the oo. from the French firm, or from 
 
 otherwise interfering with the receivers : 
 
 Held, on the authority of Liverpool Marine 
 Credit Co. v. Hwnter, (1867) L. E. 4 Eq. 62 ; (1868) 
 L. E. 3 Ch. 479, that the existence of the charge 
 created by the debenture, though valid accordinK 
 tfi Englial;i l^w, di^ pot entitle tjje debenturp. 
 
( 323 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 324 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Debentares)— continued. 
 holders to prevent P. & Co., who were unaeonred 
 creditors, from asserting and enforcing any rights 
 given them by French law against this French 
 debt; there being no equity in favour of the 
 debenture-holders as against P. & Co., that the 
 debt due from the French firm must be treated as 
 being situate in France and subject to French 
 law. and P. & Co. could not be prevented, at the 
 suit of the debenture-holders, from taking any 
 proceedings the law of Prance allowed for re- 
 covering their debt out of this French asset, and 
 that the attachment which alone was recognised 
 by the law of France ought to prevail over the 
 title of the debenture-holders : 
 
 Held, further, that the appointment of the re- 
 ceivers made no difference ; for though the Court 
 can appoint receivers over property out of the 
 jurisdiction, the receiver is not put in possession 
 of foreign property by the mere order of the 
 Court ; something else has to be done, and until 
 what is necessary has been done in accordance 
 vrith foreign law, any person, not a party to the 
 suit, who takes proceedings in a foreign country 
 is not guilty of contempt either on the ground 
 of interfering with the receivers' possession or 
 otherwise, and for this purpose no distinction 
 can be drawn between a foreigner and a British 
 subject. In re Maudslat, Sons & Field. IIabds- 
 LAT V. Maudslay, Sons & Field 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N, 51 ; 
 [190O] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 61. — Form of judgment — Debenture-holders' 
 action — Fraclice. 
 
 This was a debenture-holders' action in 
 which some discussion took place as to the form 
 of judgment. 
 
 Kekewich J. made some observations as to 
 the recurring necessity to animadvert on the 
 form of minutes as settled by counsel in actions 
 of this kind. In view of these observations, it 
 has been thought desirable to subjoin a copy of 
 the General Form of Judgment in a Debenture- 
 holders' Action settled by North J. and Keke- 
 wich J., and distributed by the senior registrar 
 amongst the Chancery registrars. 
 
 The Fokm above kefereed to. 
 
 Declare that the plaintiffs and all other the 
 holders of mortgage debentures of the defendant 
 company of the same issue as the plaintiffs' 
 debentures are entitled to a charge upon [Note. — 
 The property charged, hy the order is taken from 
 the language of the debenture which is produced 
 to the Registrar'] for securing the repayment of 
 the principal monies and interest in the deben- 
 tures mentioned. 
 
 liCt the following accoimts and inquiries be 
 taken and made : — 
 
 (1.) An account of what is due to the plain- 
 tiffs and the other holders of mortgage debentures 
 issued by the defendant company under and by 
 virtue of such debentures, [if more than one 
 series of debentures has been issued add, distin- 
 guishing the holders of the first mortgage deben- 
 tures and the second mortgage debentures in the 
 statement of claim referred to.] 
 
 (2.) An inquiry of what the property com- 
 prised in and charged by the said . mortgage 
 
 COMPAMY (Debentures) — continued. 
 debentures consists and in whom the same is 
 
 (8.) An inquiry what other incumbrances affect 
 the property comprised in or charged by the said 
 debentures or any and what parts thereof and in 
 whom the same are vested. 
 
 (4.) An account of what is due to such other 
 incumbrancers respectively. 
 
 (5.) An inquiry what are the priorities of 
 such other incumbrances and the said deben- 
 tures respectively, and what property other than 
 that comprised in the said debentures is com- 
 prised in such other incumbrances. 
 
 *(6.) An inquiry whether there are any, and 
 if any what, debts of the company which have 
 priority over the claims of the debenture-holders 
 under the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy 
 Amendment Act, 1897. 
 
 [*NoTE. — Tills inquiry is inserted when the 
 debentures constitute il floating charge ; see section 3 
 of the Act.] I 
 
 Adjourn further (jonsideration in chairibers. 
 
 Liberty to appl^. In re WolvekWamptos 
 
 DisTBiOT Bkeweby, Ld. Downes v. Wolvee- 
 
 HAJiPTON DisTEicT Beeweey, Ld. KeKewich J. 
 
 [1899] Tp, N. 229 
 
 See next Case. ^■' 
 
 62, — Form of judgment — Bebentufe-lwlder's 
 action — Principal money not due — Si^rity in 
 jeopardy — Practice. \ 
 
 This was a debenture-holder's action iii which 
 a receiver had been appointed-of tfie business 
 undertaking and property oT'the deft. co. The 
 pit. alleged that the debentures held by him 
 were the only debentures of the deft. co. now 
 outstanding. The principal moneys secured by 
 the debentures had not become payable, and a 
 sum which, at the date of the issue of the writ, 
 was due to the pit. in respect of interest on his 
 debentures was, after the issue of the writ, paid 
 into court to the credit of the action. The pit., 
 however, alleged that the deft. co. had ceased to 
 carry on its business, was unable to pay its debts, 
 and that his security was in jeopardy. The 
 action now came on upon motion for judgment in 
 default of defence. 
 
 Stirling J. made the order in the general 
 form adapted from that settled by North J. and 
 Kekewich J. in In re Wolverhampton District 
 Brewei-y, Ld., [1899] W. N. 229, directing (inter 
 alia) an account of what was due to the pit. and 
 the other holders (if any) of mortgage debentures 
 issued by the deft. oo. under and by virtue of 
 such debentures. Wissneb v. Levison and 
 Steinee - - Stirling J. [1900] W. N, 152 
 
 — Industrial, &o., society. 
 
 See Industeial and Peovident Society . 
 
 — Insure payment of debenture. Contract to. 
 
 See Insueanoe — Guarantee, 12. 
 
 63. — Interest — Statutes of Limitations — Deben- 
 ture stock — Companies Clauses Act, 1863 (26 & 27 
 Vict. c. 118), ss. 22, 27— Real Property Limitation 
 Act, 1833 (3 <fc 4 Will. 4), c. 27, s. 3. 
 
 A ry. CO.— incorporated by a special Act, 
 authorizing it to issue debenture stock, bearin" 
 interest, subject to Part III. (which inolude's 
 
( 323 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 326 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 S3. 22 and 27) of the Companies Olauses Act, 
 1863 — in 1885 issued debenture stock, for which 
 it gaye certificates under its common seal, and also 
 a warrant for interest under the signature of the 
 secretary. The warrant was never presented for 
 payment, and in 1896 the oo. went into voluntary 
 liquidation under another Act : — , 
 
 Seld, that, the liability being statutory, the 
 period of limitation was twenty years, and the 
 claim for interest mentioned in the warrant was 
 therefore not statute-barred. In re Ooknwall 
 Minerals Ey. Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1897] 2 Ch. 74 
 
 G4. — Isme — Power to issue debentures — Com- 
 panies (^Memorandum of Assodation) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), ss. 1, 3. 
 
 The deed of settlement of a oo. can under 
 s. 1, sub-s. 5 (a) of the Companies (Memorandum 
 of Association) Act, 1890, be altered so as to 
 enable the co. to issue debentures. In re Eeveb- 
 sioNAKT Interest Society (No. 1) 
 
 North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 615 
 
 65. — Issue — Power to issue debentures in 
 satisfaction of debts of founder of companij. 
 
 The directors of a co. had power under their 
 articles to raise money by the issue of debentures. 
 The CO. was formed to take over the business of 
 P., and was bound by an agreement to indemnify 
 him against the debts and liabilities shewn in a 
 balance-sheet mentioned in the agreement, among 
 which was a debt due to the pit. P. was 
 managing director of the oo., and he and his 
 brother were sole acting direotorB. They issued 
 debentures to the pit and other creditors of P., 
 which they accepted in satisfaction of their 
 debts : — 
 
 Held (reversing V. Williams J.), (1) that 
 although the debentures were not issued literally 
 for the purpose of raising money for the co., their 
 issue to pay debts of P. for which the co. was 
 ultimately liable was intra vires ; (2) that there 
 was no conflict of interest between P. and the oo. 
 in its corporate capacity, and that the debentures 
 were therefore in fact issued for the benefit of 
 the CO. and were valid : — 
 
 Held, also (affirming V. Williams J.), that the 
 issue of the debentures was not a fraudulent 
 preference of some of the creditors of the co. 
 Seliqman v. Pkinoe & Co. 
 
 C. A, [1895] 2 Ch. 617 
 
 — Issue at a discount. 
 
 See Railway — Powers. 31. 
 
 — Liquidator — Debenture-holders' action. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — liqui- 
 dator. 113—115. 
 
 66. — Majority — Power to bind dissenting 
 minority — Compromise. 
 
 (a) If the difficulties in the way of the enforce- 
 ment by the debenture-holders of their rights are 
 of BO substantial a character that a required 
 luajoi'ity might bona fide come to the conclubion 
 that it was desirable to compromise their rights, 
 a special resolution carried on by the requisite 
 majority is binding on the minority. Mekoantile 
 InvestAbnt and General TstrsT Oo. v. Eivek 
 Plate Trust, Loan and Aqency Co. (No. 2) 
 
 Eomer J. [1894] 1 Ch. 578 
 
 COMPANY (DebentUTes)— continued. 
 
 (b) The unspent portion of a fund held under 
 a trust for debenture-holders ordered by North J. 
 to be administered by the Court on the petition 
 of a minority of the debenture-holders, the Court 
 holding that the objects had failed for which the 
 fund had been created. 
 
 A compromise of the litigation sanctioned by 
 C. A. Collingham J). Slopbr. Foreign, American 
 AND General Investments Tkust Co. v. Slopee 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 96; C, A, [1894] 3 Ch. 716 
 
 67. — Majority — Power to bind dissentient 
 minority — " Compromise " — Notice of meeting^ 
 Time — Advertisement. 
 
 The question whether the majority of deben- 
 ture-holders can bind a dissentient minority by a 
 compromise depends on whether the rights given 
 by the debentures can be easily enforced. If the 
 rights are undisputed, and can be enforced with- 
 out difficulty, the majority cannot bind the 
 dissentient minority. 
 
 Secus, if, as in case (a) there is a real 
 difficulty. 
 
 Notice convening a meeting can be given by 
 advertisement in the newspaper, unless the 
 debenture deed requires some other form of 
 notice. 
 
 Meaning of " compromise " and " 14 days 
 before the date " of the proposed meeting, con- 
 sidered. 
 
 (o) Sneath v. Valley Gold, Ld. 
 
 C. A, affirm. North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 477 
 
 (d) Mercantile Investment and General 
 Trust Co. v. International Co. op Mexico 
 
 C. A. revers. Day J, [1883] Ch, 484, n. 
 
 (e) Mercantile Investment and General 
 Tbust Co. v. River Plate Trust, Loan, and 
 Agency Co. (No. 2) 
 
 Bomer J. [1894] 1 Ch, 578, at p. 596 
 
 68. — Majority, power to bind nitinority. 
 
 Held, in this case, that a majority of debenture- 
 holders had power to postpone their security, so 
 as to bind the minority. Follit v. Eddystone 
 Granite Quakries - Stirling J. [1992] 3 Ch. 75 
 
 — New Zealand Railways Construction and Land 
 Act — Debenture-holders, Eights of. 
 See New Zealand. 9. 
 
 89. — One man company — Private company — 
 Limited liability — Winding-up — Fraud upon 
 creditors — Liability to indemnify company in 
 respect of debts — Besdssion — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 <fc 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 6, 8, 30, 43. 
 
 It is not contrary to tlie true intent and 
 meaning of the Companies Act, 1862, for a trader, 
 in order to limit his liability and obtain the pre- 
 ference of a debenture-holder over other creditors, 
 to sell his business to a limited co. consisting 
 only of himself and six members of his own 
 family, the business being then solvent, all the 
 terms of sale being known to and approved by 
 the shareholders, and all the requirements of the 
 Act being complied with. 
 
 A trader sold a solvent business to a limited 
 CO. with a nominal capital of 40,000 shares of 11. 
 each, the co. consisting only of the vendor, his 
 wife, a daughter and four sons, who subscribed 
 for one share each, all the terms of sale being 
 
 M 2 
 
( 327 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 328 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures)— confintjed. 
 known to and approved by the shaTeholdeis. In 
 part payment of the purchase-money debentures 
 forming a floating security were issued to the 
 vendor. Twenty thousand shares were also issued 
 to him and were paid for out of the purobaae- 
 money. These shares gave the vendor the power 
 of outvoting the six other shareholders. No 
 shares other than these 20,007 were ever issued. 
 All tbe requirements of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 were complied with. The vendor was appointed 
 managing director, bad times came, the co. was 
 wound up, and after satisfying the debentures 
 there was not enough to pay the ordinary 
 creditors : — 
 
 Seld, that the proceedings were not contrary 
 to the true intent and meaning of the Companies 
 Act, 1862 ; that the co. was duly formed and 
 registered and was not the mere " alias " or agent 
 of or trustee for the vendor; that he was not 
 liable to indemnify the co. against the creditors' 
 claims ; that there was no fraud upon creditors 
 or shareholders ; and tiiat the co. (or the liquidator 
 suing in the name of the company) was not 
 enlitled to rescission of the contract for purchase. 
 
 Decisions of V. Williams J. and the C. A., 
 Sroderip v. Salomon, [1895] 2 Ch. 323, reversed. 
 Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Salomon & Co. v. 
 Salomon - H. I. (E.) [1897] A. C. 22 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. 
 Lagunas Syndicate, [1899] 2 Ch. 392, 422. 
 
 • Payable to bearer — Usage. 
 
 See Negotiable Instbument. 
 
 2. 
 
 70. — Power to cliarge uncalled capital — Beso- 
 lution under Companies Act, 1879 (42 & 48 Vict, 
 c. 76), o. 5 — Debenture-holders — Winding-up — 
 Frioriti/. 
 
 A limited oo. having, under its articles, power 
 to issue debentures charging its assets including 
 its uncalled capital, in Oct., 1892, passed a special 
 resolutiou under e. 5 of the Companies Act, 1879, 
 declaring that 51. per share remaining uncalled 
 up upon its ordinary iOl. shares aliould not bo 
 capable of beiog called up " except in the event 
 of and for the purpose of the company being 
 wound up." In June, 1894, when 51. 1 5s. remained 
 uncalled up, the co. issued debentures charging 
 all its undertaking and property, " including its 
 uncalled capital for the time being," with the 
 principal money and interest secured by the 
 debentures. The co. was afterwards ordered to 
 be wound up, and the question arose whether the 
 debentures issued by the oo. created a valid first 
 charge upon the 5/. per share reserved capital so 
 OS to entitle tbe debenture-holders to payment 
 thereout in priority to the other creditors and the 
 costs of winding-up : — 
 
 Beld, by the C. A., aflSrming the judgment of 
 Wright J., that upon the true construction of s. 5 
 of the Act of 1879, the co. had no power to create 
 any charge on that portion of its capital which, 
 in accordance with the resolution passed under 
 that section, could only be called up "in the 
 event of and for the purposes of the co. being 
 wound up." The Companies Act, 1879, and the 
 decisions in In re Fyle Works, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 
 534, and Newton v. Anglo-Australian Investment, 
 ""ncfncB an^ Land Co., |;ii:95] A. 0. 244, cpm- 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 mented on, and explained. In re Mavfaie 
 Eeopebty Co. Baetlett v. Mavpair Peopbkty 
 Co. - - C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 28 
 
 — Preferential payments in bankruptcy. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winting-up 
 — Preference. 
 
 71. — Priority — Borrowing powers — Railway 
 company — Companies Clauses Act, 1863 (26 & 27 
 Vii-t. c. 118), 8«. 22, 24 — Railway Companies Act, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 127), s. 24. 
 
 Sect. 24 of the Companies Clauses Act, 1863, 
 which enacts that the holders of debenture stock 
 shall not as among themselves be entitled to any 
 priority, applies only to debentures issued under 
 the same special Act, and not to all debentures 
 issued by the same co. : — 
 
 Sect. 24 of the Railway Companies Act, 1867, 
 which empowers railway cos. to issue debenture 
 stock subject to the provisions of Part III. of the 
 Act of 1863, applies to all ry. cos. which have 
 power to raise money by mortgage or bond, 
 although their special Act does not incorporate 
 Part III. of the said Act. In re Mekset Ry. Co. 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 287 
 
 72. — Priority — First and second issue — Re- 
 issue. 
 
 A second series of debentures was issued 
 before all the debentures of the first series had 
 been taken up. The second debentures were 
 subject to " debentures already issued " : — 
 
 Held, that this meant subject to all the deben- 
 tures of the first series, and therefore debentures 
 of the first series, excepting some which had been 
 paid off and re-issued, had priority although 
 issued after some of the second series. Listee 
 V. Heney Lister & Son 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1893] W. N. 33 
 
 73. — Priority — Floating security. 
 
 A CO. issued debenture stock purporting to bo 
 a first charge and which gave a floating security 
 on all its assets. It afterwards issued debentures 
 to other persons which also purported to be a first 
 charge and gave a like floating security : — 
 
 Beld, that the holders of the debentures, 
 whether they had or had not notice of the issue 
 of the stock, did not obtain priority over, but 
 ranked after the stock holders. Smith r. Eng- 
 lish AND Scottish Mekcantilb Investment 
 Trust - V. ■Williams J. [1896] W. N. 86 (6) 
 
 74. — Priority — Mortgage — Judicature Act, 
 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. 6. 
 
 A mortgage by the oo. of its interest in a fund 
 due to it from a fire insurance co. held under the 
 circumstances to have priority over the deben- 
 tures. English and Scottish Meecantile In- 
 vestment Teust v. Bbunton 
 
 Charles J. [1892] 2 ft. B. 1 ; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 700 
 
 — Priority — Scottish arrestment. 
 
 iSee Conflict of Laws. 3. 
 
 75. — " Property" — Charge on all present and 
 future ^^ property " of tlie company — Winding-up 
 of company. 
 
 A limited oo. having under its articles of 
 association power to borrow iponey upou deben- 
 tures charging its " property," both present apd 
 
( 329 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASteS, 1891—1960. 
 
 ( 330 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 future, inoludiug its uncalled capital, iasued 
 debentures oliarging its undertaking "and all 
 the property to which it now is, or shall at any 
 time hereafter become entitled." The company 
 afterwards went into liquidation; and it was 
 held by the Court of Appeal that the expression 
 " property " in the deljentures did not include 
 the capital of the company uncalled up at the 
 commencement of the liquidation. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J. affirmed ; and that 
 of Chitty J. in In re Streatham and General 
 Estates Co, [1897] 1 Ch. 15, approved. In re 
 Russian Spkatts Patent, Ld. Johnson v. 
 EussiAN Spbatts Patent, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch, 149 
 
 Eefeired to by Coizens-Hardy J. Alexander 
 V. Automatic Telephone Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 302, 
 306. 
 
 76. — Beceiver — Debentvre-holders' rights — 
 Company — Winding-up. 
 
 (a) As a general rule of convenience the 
 liquidator appointed in the winding-up of a oo. 
 should be appointed receiver for the debenture- 
 liolders or mortgagees. But if the debenture- 
 holders or mortgagees have already appointed 
 a receiver, under special powers given them by 
 their security, the Court will not displace him 
 by the liquidator. Wbere a judge has in the 
 exercise of his discretion refused to displace a 
 receiver by a liquidator, the C. A. will not inter- 
 fere with that exercise of discretion except under 
 special circumstances. In re Joshua Stubbs, 
 Ld. Barney v. Joshua Stubbs, Ld. 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] 1 Ch. i87 ; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 475 
 
 See next Case. British Linen Co. v. South 
 American and Mexican Co., 0. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 
 108, 111. 
 
 (b) The assets of a co. including a large 
 amount of uncalled capital were sufficient to pay 
 the debentures. The official receiver, who was 
 also provisional liquidator, was appointed by V. 
 Williams J. receiver and manager, in place of 
 the receiver and manager in a debenture-holders' 
 action, on au undertaking by him to keep a 
 separate account on behalf of the debenture- 
 holders. On appeal fresh evidence was produced 
 that a large amount of the assets consisted of 
 securities, which required to be realized by a 
 commercial person. The receiver in the action 
 was appointed by C. A. receiver of these parti- 
 cular assets, and the official receiver receiver of 
 the other assets. British Linen Co. v. South 
 American and Mexican Co. 
 
 V. WiUiams J. varied by C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 — Eecelver — Debenture-holders' rights — Distress 
 for rent. 
 See Mines. 8. 
 
 77. — Beeeiver — Debenture-Tidldera' rights — 
 Insolvency — Interest in arrear. 
 
 Mortgage debentures constituting an equit- 
 able charge were conditioned to become imme- 
 diately payable on interest being two months in 
 arrears. Interest fell into arrear and the co. were 
 not in a position to pay : — ■ 
 
 Held, that tbe debenture-holders were entitled 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 to a receiver though the two months had not 
 elapsed. Bissill v. Bradford Tramways Co. 
 (No. 1) - Stirling J. [1891] W. N, 61 
 
 78. — SecHver — Debenture-holders' rights — 
 Insolvency of mortgagor. 
 
 The Court will appoint a receiver to protect 
 the debenture-holders' security, if it be in jeopardy 
 owing to the co.'s insolvency, although the prin- 
 cipal is not immediately payable nor the interest 
 in arrears. McMahon v. North Kent Iron- 
 works Co. Kekewioh J. [1891] 2 Ch. 148 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Wallace v. 
 Evershed, [1899] 1 Ch. 894. 
 
 79, 80. — Receiver — Debenture-holders' rights 
 — Bealization of assets. 
 
 The Court, on the application of the only 
 debenture-holder, appointed by consent the 
 managing director of the co. as receiver and also 
 manager of its business pending realization, with 
 a view to its being sold as a going concern upon 
 terms as to wages and current expenses, accounts, 
 and immediate realization. 
 
 Form of order. Makins v. Percy Ibotson & 
 Sons - - - Kay J. [1891] 1 Ch. 133 
 
 On this case see Campbell v. Lloyd's, Barnett's 
 and Bosanquet's Bank, Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 
 136, n., and Whitley v. Challis, C. A. [1892] 
 1 Ch. 64. 
 
 Followed by North J. Edwards vr Standard 
 Boiling Stock Syndicate, [1893] 1 Ch. 574. 
 
 81. — Beceiver — Debenture-holders' rights. 
 The Court will appoint a receiver to protect 
 
 the debenture-holders' security, if it be in 
 jeopardy owing to the co.'s insolvency, although 
 the principal is not immediately payable nor the 
 interest in arrears. MuMahon v. North Kent 
 Ironworks Co. - Kekewlch J. [1891] 2 Ch. 148 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Wallace v. 
 Evershed, [1899] 1 Ch. 894. 
 
 82. — Beceiver — Debenture-holder^ rights — 
 Interest in arrear. 
 
 Debentures of a co. were conditioned to be- 
 come immediately payable on interest being two 
 months in arrear. An application for a receiver 
 was granted although the interest was less than 
 two months in arrear. Bissill v. Bradford 
 Tramways Co. (No. 1) StirUng J. [1891] W. N. 51 
 — Eecelver — Liquidator. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Liqui- 
 dator. 119. 
 
 83. — Beceiver — Power to debenture-holder to 
 appoint — Fiduelary power — Jurisdiction of 
 Court. 
 
 A CO. issued a series of debentures, each of 
 which contained a condition that, at any time 
 after the principal moneys thereby secured should 
 have become payable, the L. Corporation (one of 
 the debenture-holders) might by writing appoint 
 a receiver of all or any part of the property 
 thereby charged. In exercise of this power the 
 corporation, who were also shareholders intheoo., 
 appointed a receiver : — 
 
 Held, that the corporation were trustees of 
 this power on behalf of all the debenture-holders, 
 and were bound to exercise it in their interest 
 alone, and that as it was shewn that the appoint- 
 
( 331 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 332 ) 
 
 COMPAHY (Debentures)- co»ii»«ed 
 ment had been made in the interest of the share- 
 holders, and not in that of the debenture-holders, 
 the Court had jurisdiction to interfere to carry 
 out the trust, and accordingly to appoint ils own 
 receiver. 
 
 Decision of North J. afSrmed. In re Maske- 
 i^YNE BniTisH TypEWBiTEE, Ld. Stuaet v. 
 Maskelyne Bkitish Typewkitek, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 170 (2); [1898] 1 Ch. 133 
 
 84. — Meceioer — Trustees far debenture-holders 
 — Principal and agent — Lidbdityfor goods ordered 
 hy receiver. 
 
 A limited eo. mortgaged all its assets to 
 trustees for debenture-holders to secure payment 
 of the debentures, and by the deed it was pro- 
 vided that the trustees might in writing appoint 
 a receiver who should carry on the business of 
 the CO., and that any receiver so appointed 
 should be the agent of the co. who alone should 
 be liable for his acts and defaults.' The trustees 
 appointed a receiver under the deed and he took 
 possession of the assets and carried on the busi- 
 ness of the CO. Soon after his appointment the 
 CO. was ordered to be compulsorily wound up. 
 The receiver continued to carry on the business 
 and in so doing ordered goods from the respond- 
 ents. In an action against the trustees for the 
 price of the goods : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of C. A., Oasliell 
 V. Gosling, [1896] 1 Q. B. 669, that though after 
 the winding-up order the receiver ceased to be 
 the agent of the co., he did not thereby or at any 
 time receive any implied authority from the 
 trustees to act as their agent, and that as the 
 trustees never gave him any authority in fact 
 they were not liable for the goods. Goslisg v. 
 Gaskell H. L. (E.) [1897J A. C. S76 
 
 85. — Receiver and manager. 
 
 An appointment can be made (with consent 
 of CO.) though debentures are not yet due and no 
 interest is in arrear, where the debenture-holders 
 have a floating security, and execution has been 
 levied upon goods of the co. comprised in the 
 security and other actions against the co. are 
 pending. Edwabds v. Standard Eollino Stock 
 Syndicate - JfforthJ. [1893] 1 Ch. 574 
 
 KefeiTed to by Oozens-Hardy J. Wallace v. 
 Buershed, [1899] 1 Oh. 891, 894. 
 
 86. — Eeceioer and manager — Borrowing 
 power — Dehenture-Jtolders' action. 
 
 In a debenture-holders' action the pit. obtained 
 an order appointing two persons receivers and 
 managers of the property and assets comprised in 
 the debentures, and to manage the co.'s under- 
 taking. The order gave to the receivers and 
 managers " liberty for the purposes of the said 
 undertaking to borrow 700Z. at interest not ex- 
 ceeding" 51. per cent, per annum. The receivers 
 and managers, not requiring all the money at 
 once, overdrew with bankers to the extent of 
 500Z., and afterwards paid off the 5001. and 
 interest out of assets in their hands. Subse- 
 quently thoy overdrew again to the full extent 
 of 7001. without obtaining any further leave to 
 borrow : — • 
 
 Bold, that the borrowing power was not ex- 
 hausted to the extent of 5001. on the repayment 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 of that sum, and that the bankers' claim for 7001. 
 and interest must be allowed. Milwakd v. Avill 
 & Smaet, Ld. Wright J. [1897] W. N. 162 (1) 
 
 87. — Beceiver and Tnanager — Debenture not 
 actually due — Jurisdiction. 
 
 In an action by debenture-holders of a limited 
 CO. to enforce their security, the Court has juris- 
 diction to appoint, not only a receiver of the co.'s 
 property, but also a manager of its undertaking 
 and business, where the security is in jeopardy— 
 as for instance where the co. is practically insol- 
 vent and there is a pending winding-up petition 
 — notwithstanding that the security has not yet 
 "crystallized" by the debenture debt having 
 become actually due ; but as the appointment of 
 a manager is made only with a view to the pro- 
 bable necessity of realization it should extend 
 for a limited period only. In re Viotobia 
 Steamboats, Ld. Smith v. Wilkinson 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 158 
 
 88. — Beceiver and manager — Indemnity — 
 Priority. 
 
 A CO. for building operations being in diffi- 
 culties, a debenture-holder's action was com- 
 menced, and a winding-up petition was presented. 
 By consent an order was made in the latter that 
 the pit. in the action and the unsecured creditors 
 should raise a sum for the completion of the con- 
 tracts, wljich should have priority over all deben- 
 tures, and that two receivers and managers should 
 be appointed, but the co. was to incur no fresh 
 liabilities. 'The receivers and managers in carry- 
 ing out the contracts incurred expenses beyond 
 the sum raised. 
 
 Held, that the receivers were entitled to be 
 reimbursed in priority to the sum raised. Strapp 
 V. Bull, Sons & Co. Shaw v. School Boaed 
 OF London 
 
 C. A. reversing V. Williams J. [1895] 8 Ch. 1 
 
 — Kedemption on contingency — Stamp duty — 
 " Marketable secmity." 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 149. 
 
 89. — Bedemption on reconstruction of com- 
 pany—Companies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 8. 161. 
 
 Debentures were redeemable at par if the co. 
 were wound up otherwise than for the purposes 
 of reorganization or reconstruction ; under other 
 circumstances they were redeemable at a pre- 
 mium. An agreement for the amalgamation of 
 the CO. with another co. was held to be a sale and 
 not a r€ construction, and the debentures to be 
 therefore redeemable at par. Hooper v. Western 
 
 CODNTIES AND SoUTH WaLES TELEPHONE Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 90. — Bedemption — " Bedeemdble " sinking 
 fund — Prospectus. 
 
 Debentures issued by a co. provided that the 
 CO. should carry to the credit of a sinking fund in 
 each half-year the sum of 2500Z. which should be 
 applied in redecmiug at a specified premium, on 
 Jan. 1 and July 1 in each year, so many of the 
 debentures issued sis the sum from time to time 
 stimding to the credit of the sinking fund should 
 suffice to pay off, tiie particular debentures to be 
 redeemed on each occasion |being determined by 
 half-yearly drawings. The prospectus which the 
 
( 333 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 334 ) 
 
 COMPAHT (Debentures) — continued. 
 CO. had previouBly issued, inviting subscriptions 
 for the debentures, stated that they were to be 
 "redeemable within seventeen years by half- 
 yearly drawings on Jan. 1 and July 1 in each 
 year by the application of a sinking fund of 5000L 
 per annum " : — 
 
 Seld, that, even if the prospectus could be 
 looked at in order to ascertain the contract be- 
 tween the 00. and the debenture-holders, the 
 word " redeemable " meant only that the deben- 
 tures were to be liable to redemption during the 
 seventeen years, but that there was no obligation 
 upon the co. that they should all be redeemed 
 within that period. 
 
 Semble, however, that the debentures conlained 
 the whole contract between the co. and the deben- 
 ture-holders, and that the prospectus could not 
 be looked at for the purpose of interpreting 
 the contract. In re Chicago and North West 
 Gbaharies Co. Mobkison v. Same Co. 
 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 174 (2) ; 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 363 
 
 91. — Salvage expenses. 
 
 The Court refused an application to- raise a 
 sum of money with a view of preventing a depre- 
 ciation in the property, on the groimd that there 
 was no evidence that after the expenditure the 
 property could be sold at a price sufficient to 
 satisfy even the prior mortgages. Grounds on 
 which the Court will authorize salvage expendi- 
 ture considered. Seoueities Pbopeeties Invest- 
 ment COEPOBATION 1>. Bbi&HTON AlHAMBEA, Ld. 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] W. N. 15 
 
 92. — Set-off — Floating security — Liquidated 
 demand — Hypothecation — Powers of managing 
 director — Presumption of regularity. 
 
 A limited co. agreed to sell to H., B. & Co. 
 7000 barrels out of their stock at 3s. 6d. each. 
 H., B. & Co. paid for them ; but the co. fell into 
 difficulties, its stock of barrels was exhausted, and 
 as to more than 4000 it failed to deliver them. 
 The CO. had to the knowledge of H., B. & Co. 
 issued debentures in the usual form of floating 
 securities on all the property of the co. The 
 debenture-holders obtained the appointment of a 
 receiver, at which time H., B. & Co. owed the co. 
 a liquidated sum for rent, and had the above 
 claim against the co. in respect of the barrels : — 
 
 Beld (reversing the decision of North J.), that 
 the claim of H., B. & Co. against the co. was a 
 liquidated claim of Sg. Gd, for each barrel not 
 delivered, there being as to each such barrel 
 a total failure of consideration which entitled 
 H., B. & Co. to recover back their purchase- 
 money : 
 
 Seld, further, that H., B. & Co. could set off 
 this demand against what they owed to the co., 
 and that the faiowledge of the existence of the 
 debentures as a floating security at the time when 
 the debt due to them was contracted was not 
 such notice of an assignment as to prevent a 
 set-off binding the debenture-holders. 
 
 Persons dealing bonS. fide with a managing 
 director are entitled to assume that he has all 
 such powers as he purports to exercise, if they are 
 powers which according to the constitution of the 
 00. a managing director can have. 
 
 Shortly before the appointment of the receiver. 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 H., B. & Co. pressed the co. for security for their 
 claim as to the barrels ; and at a meeting between 
 them and the three directors of the co. it was 
 proposed, but not finally settled, that the co. 
 should issue debentures to H., B. & Co. by way 
 of security, and should hypothecate to them 
 various debts owing to the co. This meeting was 
 adjourned to the next day, when only two direc- 
 tors were present (the quorum being three), but 
 D., the managing director, was one of them. At 
 this adjourned meeting H., B. & Co. advanced to 
 the 00. money to pay wages, and D. gave them a 
 letter, signed by him on behalf of the board, by 
 which, in consideration of H., B. & Co. finding 
 cash for wages and payment of barrels, he agreed 
 to execute a deed in conjunction with the board 
 of directors creating and issuing to them the re- 
 mainder of an issue of debenture stock ; and he 
 also gave to them a number of orders addressed 
 to debtors of the co. informing them that the 
 debts due from them were hypothecated to 
 H., B. & Co. These orders were signed by T>. as 
 managing director. By the articles of the co. the 
 directors were authorized to appoint a managing 
 director, and to delegate to him such of the 
 powers of the board as they thought fit ; and it 
 was not disputed that the board had power to 
 hypothecate. There was no minute shewing what 
 powers had been delegated to D., nor of his 
 appointment as managing director, but he had 
 acted as such : — 
 
 Seld (reversing the decision of North J.), 
 that the hypothecations were valid. Biqgee- 
 STAFp V. Eowatt's Whaep, Ld. Howard v. 
 Eowatt's Whabp, Ld. - C. A, [1896] 2 Ch. 93 
 
 Applied by Wright J. Owen and Ashworth's 
 Claim, [1900] 2 Ch. 202, 278. 
 
 — Set-off — Unpaid calls against debentui'es. 
 
 See Company — Calls. 10. 
 
 93, — Specific performance — Agreement to lend 
 money — Action for breach of contract to pay instal- 
 ments of loan— Damages, Measure of. 
 
 The rule that specific performance cannot be 
 granted in respect of a contract to lend money 
 applies to a contract to lend to a co. money, pay- 
 able by instalments, upon the security of deben- 
 tures to be issued by the co. 
 
 Where the lender makes default in payment, 
 the moneys due for unpaid instalments do not 
 constitute a debt to the co., and the co. are only 
 entitled to damages for the actual loss caused by 
 the breach of contract. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1S97] 1 Q. B. 692, affirmed. 
 
 South Afbican Tebeitobibs, Ld. ■». Wallinbton 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1898] A, C. 309 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Ketende— Stamps. 147 — 149. 
 
 — Tramway company — Debenture-holder. 
 
 See Teamwat. 3 — 5. 
 
 94. — Transfer, Contract for — Interest in land 
 — ^" Floating security " — -Statute of Frauds. 
 
 Where debentures were charged upon the 
 property of a co, and the property includes 
 land : — 
 
 Seld, that a contract for sale of the debentures 
 was a contract for an interest in land within 
 8. 4 of the Statute of Frauds, the fact that the 
 
( 335 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 336 ) 
 
 COMPANY (lieientuves)— continued. 
 
 security is a "floating Beourity" making no 
 
 difference. Dkivek v. Bkoad 
 
 Mathew J. [1893] 1 Q. B. 539 ; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 744 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Wallace \. 
 Evershed, [1899] 1 Ch. 891, 894. 
 
 95. — Uncalled capital — " Assets." 
 Debentures were secured on all " the property, 
 
 assets, and revenues of the co.," uncalled capital 
 not being specifically mentioned : — 
 
 Held, that uncalled capital was included in 
 the word "assets." Page v. Inteknational 
 Agency and Industrial Trust 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] W. N. 32 
 
 — Uncalled capital. 
 
 SeeCoMPANT — ^Borrowing Powers. 3—5. 
 
 — Usage — Debenture payable to bearer. 
 
 See Negotiable Instrument. 2. 
 
 96. — Void debentures — Equitable charge. 
 "Where a co. borrowed money and were to issue 
 
 debentures, and such debentures were issued to 
 the lender in blank as to the names of the 
 obligees and secured with other debentures by a 
 covering deed : — 
 
 Meld, that the debentures were void, but that 
 the lender had an equitable security for the 
 amount of his loan, and was entitled to partici- 
 pate pari passu with tlie holders of valid deben- 
 tures in the property realized underthe covering 
 deed. In re Queensland Land and Coal Co. 
 Davis v. Maktin North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 181 
 
 Followed by North J. Pegge v. Neath and 
 District Tramways Co., [1898] 1 Ch. 183, 189. 
 
 97. — Winding-up — Debenture-lwlder's action 
 — Judgment — Transfer — Gross-claim by company 
 against transferor — Sight to registration. 
 
 After resolutions for the voluntary winding- 
 up of a 00. had been passed and a liquidator 
 appointed, and judgment had been given in a 
 debenture-holder's action against the co., E. be- 
 came transferee, by way of security for a loan, of 
 certain debentures from C, who had been a 
 director of the co. The conditions of the deben- 
 tures provided that transfers must be delivered 
 at the registered ofSce of the co. with a fee, and 
 such evidence of identity or title as the co. might 
 reasonably require, and thereupon the transfers 
 would be jegistered ; and that the principal and 
 interest secured by the debentures would be paid 
 without regard to any equities between the co. 
 and the original or any intermediate holder. 
 After E. had taken his transfer it was discovered 
 that C. had been guilty of misfeasance, and he 
 was ordered to pay a sum of money to the liqui- 
 dator in respect thereof. E., who had had no 
 notice of any cross-claim by the co., duly sent his 
 transfer to the liquidator, who was also receiver 
 in the action, for registration, but the liquidator 
 declined to register it, and claimed to deduct 
 O.'s debt to the co. from the amount due on his 
 debentures : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the right to transfer and to have 
 the transfer registered was not affected either by 
 the winding-up or by the judgment in the action, 
 and that consequently E. was entitled to receive 
 without deduction any dividend payable in respect 
 
 COMPANY (Debentures) — continued. 
 
 of C.'s debentures. In re Got & Co. PARMBfi 
 
 V. Got & Co. [1900] W. N. 88 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 98. — Winding-up ~" Property" both present 
 and future — Uncalled capital — Liquidation. 
 
 A CO., having power by its memorandum and 
 articles to borrow on the security of any of its 
 property both present and future, including its 
 uncalled capital, issued debentures charging the 
 undertaking and all its " property whatsoever 
 and wheresoever both present and future " with 
 payment of the sums advanced. The co. subse- 
 quently went ioto liquidation : — 
 
 Held, that the addition of the word "future" 
 did not extend the meaning of the term " pro- 
 perty" as defined by Stanley's Case, (1864) 
 4 D. J. & S. 407, and that the debentures were a 
 charge only on the property of the co. as it 
 existed at the commencement of the liquidation. 
 In re Stkbatham and General Estates Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] W. N. 164 (2) ; 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 15 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Bussian Spratts 
 Patent, Ld., [1898] 2 Ch. 149. 
 
 Sirectors. 
 
 Appointment.] Bestrictions on appointment 
 or advertisement of director. See Companies Act, 
 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 2. For notes tliereon 
 see [1900] W. N. 190. 
 
 99. — Appointment — Subscribers of memo- 
 randum—Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 s. 67 ; Table A., Arts. 35, 52, 53, 58, 62, 71. 
 
 A subscriber of the memorandum of a co. 
 incorporated without articles, and tlierefore 
 under Table A of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 convened a meeting of the subscribers to elect 
 directors. No directors had been appointed at 
 two general meetings held previously, although 
 certain persons had been acting as de facto 
 directors. A majority of the subscribers elected 
 six persons as directors : — 
 
 Held, that their appointment was valid. 
 Position of de facto directors, and the articles 
 relating to the appointment of directors in 
 Table A (arts. 35, 52, 58, 62) considered. John 
 Moklet Building Co. r. Barras 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ch. 386 
 
 100. — ■ Appointment — Undischarged banlcrupt 
 — Clause validating the acts of de facto directors. 
 
 No. 114 of the articles of a co. provided 
 that all acts done at any meeting of directors or 
 by any person acting as a director should, not- 
 withstanding that it should be afterwards dis- 
 covered that there was some defect in the 
 appointment of such directors or persons acting 
 as aforesaid, or that they or any of them were 
 disqualified, be as valid as if every such person 
 had been duly appointed and was qualified to be 
 a director. T., N., and S,, the de facto directors, 
 made a call, payment of which was resisted by 
 some of the shareholders on the ground that T. 
 N., and S., were not de jure directors. To shew 
 that they were not, vai'ious irregularities were 
 alleged, the most important of which was that 
 N. had according to the articles vacated his 
 office by parting with all his shares. After six 
 days he acquired other shares sufficient for a 
 
( 35? ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 338 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Diiectois)— continued. 
 
 qualificatiou, and continued to act as director. 
 His co-directors, -who bad power to fill up the 
 casual vacancy occasioned by his parting with 
 his shares, did not formally reappoint Mm, but 
 all along trealed him as a director; and it did 
 not appear that they ever knew that for six days 
 he had not been a shareholder : — 
 
 Held, by the 0. A., that a clause such as 
 art. 114 did not operate only as between the co. 
 and outsiders, but also as between the co. and its 
 members, and was sufBoient to cover such irregu- 
 larities as those alleged, and that the call was 
 valid. 
 
 Sowbeach Coal Co. v. Teague, (1860) 5 li. & N. 
 151, considered. 
 
 -T. was an undischarged bankrupt. One of 
 the articles provided that a director should vacate 
 his office if he became bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, that this did not prevent the appoint- 
 ment of a bankrupt to be a director. 
 
 Decision of Eidley J. reversed. Dawson v. 
 African Consolidated Land and Trading Co. 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 6 
 
 — Attachment— Order on corporation — Service 
 
 of order. 
 
 See Attachment. 13. 
 
 — Contract — Interest — Ejecting director. 
 
 See No. 109, ielow. 
 
 101. — Contract — Setting aside. 
 
 Question as to setting aside contract in which 
 it was alleged the directors had an interest apart 
 from that of the co. Elkon v. Edinburgh 
 Northern Tramways Co. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 636 
 
 102. — Contraet of service — Mxclusive right to 
 services. 
 
 A motion to restrain a person who, it was 
 alleged, had accepted the office of chairman and 
 director of the pit. co., from acting as director of 
 the deft. co. refused, there being no contract, 
 express or implied, that he would give his whole 
 or personal services to the pU. co. London 
 
 AND MaSHONALAND EXPLORATION Co. V. NEW 
 
 Mashonaland Exploration Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. IT. 165 
 
 103. — Contracts with company — Declaration of 
 interest — Collateral profits — Fiduciary chwraeter. 
 
 By the articles of association of a ry. co., it 
 was provided that a director should vacate his 
 office if he was concerned in, or participated in 
 the profits of, any contract with the co. with- 
 out declaring the nature of his interest; but 
 " no director shall vacate his office by reason of 
 his being a member of any corporation, co., or 
 partnership, which has entered into contracts 
 with or done any work for, the co. ; or by reason 
 of Ms being interested, either in Ms individual 
 capacity, or as a member of any co., corpora- 
 tion, or partnership, in any adventure or under- 
 taking in which the co. may also have an interest" ; 
 but the director was not to vote on contracts 
 of this kind, and if be did, Ms vote was not to be 
 counted. The ry. Co., of which P. was a director, 
 shortly after its formation entered into contracts 
 witb a steamship co. for the carriage and ship- 
 ment of bananas. F. was the largest share- 
 holder in the steamship co., and was also a 
 
 COMPANY (Directors)— cont««Me(Z. 
 partner in the firm that managed it : no dis- 
 closure of F.'s interest was made either in the 
 prospectus of the ry. co., or when the contracts 
 were entered into. The ry. co. brought an action 
 against F. to make him liable for all profits re- 
 ceived by him, as a shareholder in the steamship 
 CO., and as partner in the firm that managed it, 
 under the contracts with the pit. co. F. having 
 died before the trial, the action was revived 
 against his executors : — 
 
 Held, on the authority of Imperial Mercantile 
 Credit Association v. Coleman, (1871) L. K. 6 Ch. 
 5.58 (which has not been overruled on this point 
 by S. C. (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. 189), and on the arti- 
 cles of association, that F.'s estate was not liable 
 to account for any collateral profits made out of 
 the contracts entered into with the pit. co., and 
 that the action must be dismissed. Costa Eica 
 Et. Co. v. Porwood Byrne J. [1900] 1 Ch. 756 
 
 104. — Duties as to repairs — Companies Acts, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 9; 1877 (40 & 41 
 Vict. c. 26), s. 3. 
 
 The duties of directors as to maintaining and 
 repairing a co.'s property stated. In re Floating 
 Dock Co. of St. Thomas, Ld. 
 
 CMtty J. [1895] 1 Ch. 691 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re London and 
 New York Investment Corporation, [1895] 2 Ch. 
 860. 
 
 105. — Duties of directors — ■ Promoters — 
 Fiduciary relation — Appointment of directors of 
 one company as directors of the other — Memoran- 
 dum and Articles of Association — Contract — Sale 
 hy directors in one character to themselves in 
 another — DumI relation — Independent hoard — 
 Contract by company with its directors — Agency — 
 Prospectus — Concealment from shareholders of 
 material facts — Misrepresentation — Misfeasance — 
 Breach of trust — Vendor and purchaser — Voidable 
 contract — Mescission — Damages ■ — Delay — - Change 
 of position. 
 
 The L. Co. was promoted and formed by the 
 directors of the L. Syndicate for the purpose of 
 purchasing part of the property of the syndicate, 
 consisting of nitrate works. The directors of the 
 syndicate prepared and signed the memorandum 
 and articles of association of the co., the articles 
 nominating them as directors and stating 
 specifically that they were also the directors of 
 the syndicate. They also prepared the co.'s 
 prospectus and purchase contract, and affixed the 
 seals of the syndicate and of the co. to the latter. 
 The co.'s solicitors and secretary were also the 
 same as those of the syndicate. Two years after 
 the date of the contract and the completion of the 
 purchase the shareholders of the co., believing 
 that their property had been purchased at an 
 over- value and that there had been misrepresenta- 
 tions in the contract and prospectus, appointed 
 an independent board of directors who, after 
 investigating the facts and with the sanction of a 
 general meeting of the shareholders, brought an 
 action against the syndicate and the directors for 
 rescission of the contract and damages on the 
 ground of misrepresentation, misfeasance, breach 
 of trust, and concealment of material facts, but 
 not alleging fraud. From the date of the contract 
 
( 339 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 340 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Directors)— conisriMed. 
 and down to and also since the commencement of 
 the action the oo. had, first by its original 
 directors and afterwards by its independent 
 board, carried on business and worked the pro- 
 perty the subject of the contract. At the trial 
 Eomer J. dismissed the action : — 
 
 Held, by Liudley M.E. and Collins L.J., that 
 the CO. was not entitled to rescission or damages, 
 for (1.) at the date of the contract the co. had, 
 by its memorandum and articles, notice that its 
 directors were also the vendors or agents of the 
 vendor syndicate, and the mere fact that its 
 directors did not constitute an independent 
 board was not a suflftcient ground for setting 
 aside the contract ; (2.) there had been no mis- 
 representation made to, or any material fact 
 concealed from, any of the persons who were 
 members of the co. at the date of the contract, 
 those persons being the directors themselves; 
 (3.) although the contract and prospectus were, 
 on the evidence, misleading in certain particulars 
 which would have entitled the co. at the time to 
 repudiate the contract, yet through the sub- 
 sequent alteration of the property consequent on 
 its being worked by the co., the position of the 
 parties had been so changed that they could not 
 be restored to their original position ; and (4.) 
 the defts., the directors, had not been guilty of 
 such negligence or breach of trust as to render 
 them liable in damages in law for the loss 
 occasioned to the Co., or in equity to make good 
 the loss. 
 
 But held, by Eigby L.J., (1.) that, in the pro- 
 motion of the CO., the preparation and sealing of 
 the contract, and the preparation and issue of the 
 prospectus, the original directors had, while 
 acting as sole agents for the vendor syndicate, 
 constituted themselves sole fiduciary agents for 
 the purchasing CO., and that the co. was therefore 
 entitled to rescission (^but accounting for the 
 profits of its working), on the principle that no 
 fiduciary agent can bind his principal by a sale 
 to him of such agent's property, where the 
 principal has purchased without independent 
 advice ; and that the notice in the memorandum 
 and articles of the co. of the double relation of its 
 directors was ineffectual to discharge them from 
 the obligations involved in that principle; and 
 (2.) that the CO. had not lost its right to rescission 
 either (o) through delay — for time did not run 
 during the domination of the original directors 
 and the non-disclosure by them of material facts 
 — or (6) through alteration of the property, the 
 alteration having been in effect the act of the 
 vendor syndicate by its directors. 
 
 Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., 
 (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1218, and Salomon v. Salomon 
 & Co., [1897] A. C. 22, discussed. 
 
 Statement of the principles as to (1.) the 
 fiduciary relationship between the promoters of a 
 CO. and its shareholders; (2.) the validity of 
 contracts between a co. and its directors as 
 promoters ; (3.) the non-liability of directors for 
 losses when acting intra vires and honestly ; 
 (4.) the voidability of a contract for misrepresen- 
 tation ; and (5.) the impossibility of rescinding a 
 contract after change of position. Laodnas 
 Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 392 
 
 COMPANY (Directors) — continued. 
 
 106. — Embezzlement — " Clerh or servant " — 
 Director of company — Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 
 Vict. c. 96), 8. 68. 
 
 A director who is also employed as a servant 
 to collect money for the co. is liable to be con- 
 victed of embezzlement of such money as a clerk 
 or servant of the co. Eeg. v. Stuabt 
 
 C. C. E. [1894] 1 Q. B. 310 
 
 107. — Incapable of acting as a director — 
 Articles of association — Construction — " Place of 
 profit " — " Under." 
 
 A trustee of a covering deed relating to 
 debentures issued by a co., who was nominated 
 and paid by the co., held to be the holder of a 
 "place of profit under the co.," and therefore 
 incapable of acting as a director. Astlet v. 
 New Tivoli, Ld. - North J. [1899] 1 Ch. 151 
 
 108. — Indemnity — Money paid out of capital 
 by directors to shareholders — Order on directors to 
 replace it — Right of directors to indemnity from 
 shareholders. 
 
 Directors of a oo., which had not obtained the 
 sanction of the Court to a reduction of its capital, 
 distributed a portion of the capital amongst the 
 shareholders with their assent, and with notice 
 of the fact that the money so distributed was part 
 of the capital. The co. was subsequently wound 
 up, and the liquidator obtained an order that the 
 directors should replace the money on the ground 
 that the payment to the shareholders was ultra 
 vires : — 
 
 Beld, that the directors were entitled to an 
 indemnity from the shareholders. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1899] W. N. 14 (4); 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 480, afSrmed. Moxham v. Grakt 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 232 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 88 
 
 109. — ■ Interest in contract — Declaring interest 
 — Ejecting director. 
 
 The articles of the W. co. declared " that the 
 oifice'of any director shall be vacated, if" inter 
 alia " he participate in the profits of any contract 
 with the CO., without declaring his interest at 
 the meeting of directors at which such contract 
 is determined on." T., a director, was interested 
 in a contract of M. with the co. At the first 
 meeting after T.'s interest accrued, T. said he 
 was jointly interested with M., but did not declare 
 the precise nature of his interest. Subsequently 
 the other directors, without giving him notice, 
 passed a resolution declaring T.'s seat vacant : — 
 
 Held, that a director was bound not only to 
 declare that he had an interest, but to specify 
 what his interest was. On the other hand, a 
 director ought to have an opportunity of explain- 
 ing and justifying himself. Injunction granted 
 restraining the directors from excluding T. from 
 their meetings, holding meetings without giving 
 him notice, or interfering with him in the exercise 
 of his duties as a director. Declaration that T. 
 was a director refused. Tubnbull v. yf'ESS 
 ErciNG Athletic Club (Leeds) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 4 
 
 110. — Liability — After dissolution of com- 
 pany—Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 s. 111. 
 
 SemUe, a claim by creditors against the late 
 directors of a co. founded on payments of divi- 
 dends out of capital, is, in the absence of fraud, 
 
( 341 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 342 ) 
 
 COMPANY (JiixBctois)— continued. 
 
 barred by the winding-up and dissolution of the 
 
 CO. CoxoN V. GoRST Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 73 
 
 HI. — Liuhility — Issue of shares at a discount 
 — Extent of Udbility—Law of the Cape of Good 
 Hope. 
 
 Where directors, in consideration of services 
 rendered, issued shares at a discount, they are 
 liable to the co. ; but, in the absence of fraud or 
 further resulting damage to the co., no further 
 than the amount of tho discount : — 
 
 Semhle, such further resulting damage cannot 
 exceed the difference between the discount price 
 and the yalue of the shares if the services and 
 the transactions thereon had not taken place. 
 HiBsoHE V. Sims - - P. C. [1894] A. C. 654 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (B.). Welton v. Saffery, 
 [1897] A. C. 299, 325. 
 
 — Liability — Misfeasance. 
 
 See Nos. 115—123, helow. 
 
 — Liability of directors — ^Prospectus. 
 
 See Cases under Coup ant— Prospectus. 
 ^ Liability — Qualification shares. 
 See Nos. 124—135, below. 
 
 112. — Liability — Bepresentation, 
 
 The pits, contracted with a co. to supply 
 goods to be paid for in part by debentures. A 
 director who was chairman when the contract 
 was entered into, and knew there were no deben- 
 tures available, held not to be liable as for a 
 representation that there were debentures avail- 
 able. ElKINGTON & Co. V. HiJRTEB 
 
 Eomer J. [1892] 2 Ch. 452 
 
 113. — Liability — Ultra vires acts — Indemnity. 
 Directors issued debentures and shares as 
 
 fuUy paid to a contractor in order that he might 
 do certain necessary works, and in addition 
 inight pay certain creditors sums in excess of 
 their just debts, and take up shares in the co., 
 and otherwise benefit the shareholders and the 
 directors : — 
 
 Held, that the directors were liable to return 
 any benefit they had received, and were, except 
 one who had not participated in the scheme, also 
 liable to make good the excessive consideration 
 and indemnify the co. against loss on the shares 
 issued as paid up. London Tetjst Co. v. 
 Mackenzie - - Wright J. [1893] W. N. 9 
 
 114. — Managing director — " Clerk or servant " 
 — Preferential payments in Bankruptcy Acts, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 62), s. 1, svh-s. 1 (6),- 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 19), s. 3. 
 
 A managing director of a co. is not a " clerk 
 or servant" within the meaning of the Pre- 
 ferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888, 
 s. 1, sub-?. 1 (6). In re Newspaper Pbopeietary 
 Syndicate, Ld. Hopkinsun v. Newspaper Pro- 
 prietary Syndicate, Ld. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 140 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 115. — Misfeasance — Companies Winding-up 
 Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 10. 
 
 A summons, under s. 10 of the Act of 1890, 
 against directors, for misfeasance or breach of 
 trust in relation to the co., should state the 
 grounds on which it is suggested that the 
 matters complained of constitute a wrongful act 
 
 COMPANY (Directors) — continued. 
 
 or misfeasance for which the directors are 
 
 responsible : — 
 
 Where the alleged misfeasance consists of an 
 act which is not ultra vires the co., and not 
 fraudulent or dishonest, the directors are not 
 liable, unless it can be shewn that they did not 
 really exercise their discretion and judgment as 
 such directors, and that the omission to do so 
 resulted in loss or damage to the co. In re New 
 Mashonaland Exploration Go. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 3 Ch. 577 
 
 116. — Misfeasance — Improper allotment of 
 shares to director at undervalue — Measure of 
 damage. 
 
 It being held that directors of a co. had 
 improperly allotted a large number of shares to 
 themselves at an undervalue :— 
 
 Held, that the directors must account to the 
 CO. for the profits which they had derived from 
 the sale of such of the shares thus allotted as 
 they had disposed of, and that as to the shares 
 which they retained the proper measure of the 
 damages was, under the circumstances, not the 
 highest price at which any shares of the co. had 
 been sold during the period for which the 
 directors had held their shares, but the market 
 value of the shares at the dates at which they 
 were respectively allotted to the directors, and 
 that the directors must pay to the oo. the excess 
 (if any) of that market value above the sums 
 which they had paid to the co. for the shares 
 respectively. 
 
 Decision of North J. affirmed with a slight 
 variation. 
 
 A stay of inquiries directed by a judgment 
 pending an appeal will be granted only under 
 very special circumstances. Shaw v. Holland 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch, 305 
 ' 117. — Misfeasance — Judgment and discretion 
 — Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (63 & 54 
 Vict. c. 63), s. 10. 
 
 Loans the security for which was not given. 
 Question whether directors had exercised their 
 judgment and discretion as agents of the co. in 
 making certain advances. In re New Mashona- 
 land Exploration Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 577 
 
 118, — Misfeasance — Limitations, Statute of — 
 Payment of interest out of capital — State demand. 
 
 Payment of interest out of capital where there 
 are no profits is ultra vires, notwithstanding a 
 clause in the articles that interest shall be paid 
 on all moneys paid up on shares. Where direc- 
 tors paid interest out of capital, they were held 
 liable to make good the payments made during 
 the period of their directorships, with interest at 
 4 per cent. The Statute of Limitations is no 
 bar to an action which seeks to make directors 
 liable, for the directors are in the position of 
 trustees. A claim in 1889 by the liquidator in 
 a winding-up of 1886 against the estate of a 
 director who died in 1883, held not to be a stale 
 demand. In re Sharpe. In re Bennett. 
 Masonic and General Liee Assurance Co. v. 
 Sharpe - - C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 154 
 
 See now the Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 59), s. 8. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Loch v. Queens- 
 
( 343 ) 
 
 DiaEST O'P CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 344 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Directors)— cojife'nMe^. 
 
 land Investment and Mortgage Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 
 
 397, 402. This case was affirmed [1896] A. C. 
 
 461. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re National Banh of 
 Wales, [1899] 2 Ch. 629. 
 
 119. — Misfeasance — Limitations, Statute of 
 —Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 69), ss. 1 
 (3), 8. 
 
 The directors of the A. eo. took shares in the 
 B. CO. in satisfaction of a debt due from H., 
 whose business the B. co. was taking over. 
 More than six years after, in the winding-up of 
 the A. CO., the liquidator issued a summons for a 
 declaration that the directors were liable for the 
 money so employed : — 
 
 Held, that as directors were by the decisions 
 taken out of the benefit of the Statute of Limi- 
 tations — their position being likened to that of 
 trustees — ^it was right they should now have the 
 same protection that the Act of 1888 gave to 
 trustees. There being no evidence of "fraud or 
 fraudulent breach of trust," the summons must 
 be dismissed. 
 
 Decision of "Wright J., [1894] W. N. 5, 
 affirmed. In re Lauds Allotment Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 616 
 
 Eeferred to by Eomer J. In re Severn 
 and Wye and Severn Bridge By. Co., [1896] 
 1 Ch. 559, 566. 
 
 120. — Misfeasance — Payment of dividends out 
 of capital — Banldng company — Losses charged 
 against capital — Right of liquidator after payment 
 of creditors to recover from directors dividends im- 
 properly paid — Damages for misfeasance — Interest 
 ■ — Income tax — Advances on improper security — 
 Lien mi compamfs own shares — Duty of director — 
 Negligence — Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 10— Limitation Act, 1623 
 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16), s. S— Income Tax Act, 1853 
 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 40. 
 
 Though the paid-up capital of a limited co. 
 cannot be lawfully returned to the shareholders 
 under the guise of dividends or otherwise, yet the 
 law does not| prohibit such a co. — even if it be a 
 banking co. — from paying dividends unless its 
 paid-up capital is intact. 
 
 The payment of dividends out of the excess 
 of the receipts over the outgoings of a year, after 
 making some allowance for bad debts, losses 
 made in previous years being ignored and in 
 effect thrown on the capital, does not amount to 
 a payment of dividends out of capital. If paid- 
 up capital has been lost, its subsequent applica- 
 tion in the payment of dividends is impossible. 
 
 Excluding cases in which it would be obvious 
 that a particular debt or outlay could not be 
 reasonably charged to capital, the question what 
 losses can be properly charged to capital and 
 what to income is a matter for business men to 
 determine, and on such a matter the opinions of 
 honest and competent men may differ. There is 
 no hard and fast legal rule on the subject. 
 
 But if expenses or payments are obviously 
 improperly charged to capital simply to swell 
 the apparent profits and to make it appear that 
 dividends may properly be declared, dividends 
 declared and paid under such circumstances can 
 
 COMPANY (Directors) — continued. 
 
 no more be justified than if they were paid out 
 
 of capital. 
 
 A director who is acting honestly himself is 
 entitled to trust the officers of the co. not to 
 conceal from him what they ought to report to 
 him, if he has no reasonable ground for suspect- 
 ing that they are deceiving him. 
 
 Directors are not liable for all their mistakes, 
 but only for negligence which is in a business 
 sense culpable or gross. Nor is a director liable 
 for untrue representations made to the share- 
 holders if he honestly believed the representa- 
 tions to be true and had at the time reasonable 
 grounds for his belief. 
 
 The liquidator in the winding-up of a limited 
 CO. can recover from the directors dividends im- 
 properly paid by them, even though the creditors 
 of the CO. have been satisfied. 
 
 Turquand v. Marshall, (1869) L. K. 4 Ch. 376, 
 distinguished. 
 
 A director resigned his office, and his resigna- 
 tion was accepted by the board. After this his 
 name appeared as one of the directors in a report 
 presented by the board to the shareholders. He 
 took no part in the preparation of the report or 
 in recommending the dividend proposed by it : — 
 
 Held, that, even if he knew that his name 
 appeared in the report as a director, he was not 
 liable for the statements contained in it or the 
 recommendation of the dividend. 
 
 Clause 15 of the articles of association of a 
 limited banking co. provided that the co. should 
 have a paramount lien on all the shares held by 
 any shareholder for all his debts to the co., and 
 empowered the directors in case of non payment 
 of any such debt, or in the event of the bank- 
 ruptcy of the shareholder, to sell his shares, and 
 apply the proceeds in discharge of his debt. 
 Clause 98 empowered the directors to lend the 
 funds of the co., or give credit, with or without 
 security, and provided that no advances without 
 security should be made or credit given to any 
 director : — 
 
 Held, that the lien given by clause 15 was a 
 security within claiise 98, and that a loan might 
 be made to a director without any other security 
 than the lieu, if the board considered his shares 
 to be of sufficient value. 
 
 A former director of a banking co. was 
 ordered to pay to the liquidator of the co. a 
 sum of money, together with interest thereon at 
 5 per cent, per annum, on the ground that he 
 had been guilty of a misfeasance in sanctioning 
 the payment of dividends to the shareholders out 
 of capital : — 
 
 Held, by Wright J., [1899] W. N. 26, that 
 the director was not entitled under s. 40 of the 
 Income Tax Act, 1853, to deduct income tax 
 from the interest, it being in the nature of 
 damages. In re National Bank of Wales, Ld. 
 C. A. [1899] W. N, 131 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 629 
 
 Effect of order under b. 10 of 53 & 54 Viot. 
 c. 63. See 56 & 57 Viot. c. 58. 
 
 121. — Misfeasance — Promotion money. 
 
 The insertion in the agreement for sale to 
 the CO. of the names as vendors of persons who 
 had no real interest in the property, held to be a 
 
( 815 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 3i6 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Directors) — continued. 
 device for enabling such persons to get fully 
 paid-up shares for their services as promoters, 
 and the issuing such shares held to be a mis- 
 feasance on the part of the directors. In re 
 Westmoeeland Green and Blue Slate Co. 
 Bland's Case - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 612 
 
 122. — Misfeasance — Satification — Trustee 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. u. 59), ss. 1, 8. 
 
 Less than six years before the winding-up of 
 the A. CO. the directors bought shares in the B. 
 CO. X., the chairman, and Y., were not present 
 at the meeting where this investment was sanc- 
 tioned, but X. took the chair and signed the 
 minutes, and V^. was present at the meeting when 
 the minutes of the previous meeting were read 
 and confirmed. X. took the chair at the next 
 general meeting of the co. and said : " We care- 
 fully considered the matter and have no reason 
 to regret our decision " : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., affirm. Wright J., that the 
 mere presence of X. and Y. at the confirming 
 meeting was not sufficient to make them liable, 
 but, revera. Wright 3,., that X.'s conduct shewed 
 him to have taken an active part in the invest- 
 ment, and that he was responsible for it. In re 
 Lands Allotment Co. C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 616 
 
 Referred to by Eomer J. In re Severn and 
 Wije and Severn Bridge By. Co., [1896] 1 Oh. 
 559, 566. 
 
 — Misfeasance — Refusal to register transfer of 
 shares. 
 See Company— Shares. 297—299. 
 
 123. — Misfeasance — Undisclosed gifts from 
 vendor — Companies ( Winding-up} Act, 1890 
 (52 & 53 Viet. c. 63), s. 10. 
 
 Under the vendor's agreement with the co., 
 duly filed before allotment, twenty fully paid-up 
 founders' shares were allotted to each of four 
 directors, A., B., C. D. Subsequently the vendor 
 transferred to each of the four directors 250 
 ordinary shares, part of his consideration. A 
 prospectus issued to the public did not mention 
 the transfer of vendor's shares to the directors. 
 On the winding-up A., B., 0., and D. were held 
 liable for the par value of the ordinary, but not 
 of the founders' shares. In re Postage Stamp 
 Automatic Delivery Co. 
 
 V. Williams, J. [1892] 3 Ch. 666 
 
 Appeal dismissed, the appellants not appear- 
 ing _ _ - [1892] W. N. 162 
 
 Qualification of Dibeotob.] Vacating office 
 —Penalty. See Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 
 Vict. c. 48), s. 3. I'or notes thereon see [1900] 
 W. N. 190. 
 
 124. — Qualification shares — Agreement to 
 qualify. 
 
 Forty unpaid shares, being the number neces- 
 sary for a director's qualification, were allotted 
 to the pit. without his knowledge. The pit. 
 acted as a director, and subsequently acquired 
 forty paid-up shares : — 
 
 Held, that the [pit., when he acted as a 
 director, knew what was the qualification of a 
 director, and yet had allowed mOTe than ^ 
 
 COMPANY (Directors)— coniinaeti. 
 reasonable time to elapse without acquiring it. 
 He must, therefore, be considered to have had 
 notice that the shares registered in his name 
 were the shares he had agreed to take when ho 
 acted as director, and he was liable for them as 
 a contributory. In re Portuguese Consolidated 
 COPPBE Mines, Ld. Ex parte Lord Inchiquin 
 North J. affirm, by C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 28 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re International 
 Cable Co., [1892] W. N. 34 ; Ire re Printing, Tele- 
 graph and Construction Go. of the Agence Havas, 
 Ex parte Cammell, [1894] 1 Oh. 528. This last 
 case was affirmed by 0. A., [1894] 2 Oh. 392. 
 
 125. — Qualification shares — Agreement to 
 qualify. 
 
 Where a person has accepted the office of 
 director and acted as such, an agreement is to 
 be inferred between him and the co., that he will 
 serve the co. ou the terms, as to qualification and 
 otherwise, contained in the articles of association. 
 In this case, there being sufficient shares to 
 enable an allotment to be made, the director was 
 held to be a contributory to the extent of the 
 qualification. In re Anglo- Austrian Printing 
 AND Publishing Union. Isaacs' Case 
 
 Stirling J. affirm, by C. A. 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 168 
 
 Dictum of, Stirling J., at p. 164, followed by 
 Kekewich J. 'In re Bread Supply Association, 
 [1893] W. N. 14. 
 
 Distingfflhed by 0. A. Ex parte Cammell, 
 [1894] 2 Ch^392. 
 
 126. — Qualification shares — Agreement to 
 qualify — Acting before acquiring qualification. 
 
 Directors, when duly authorized by the co., 
 may act before they have acquired their qualify- 
 ing shares, and may receive remuneration for so 
 acting. In re International Cable Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] W. N. 34 
 
 127. — Qualification shares — Agreement to 
 qualify. 
 
 A director, who had acted as such, was placed 
 on the list of oontributories in respect of the 
 qualifying shares, although as a fact no shares 
 had ever been allotted to him, nor had he applied 
 for any. In re Bread Supply Association 
 
 Kekewich 3. [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 128. — Qualification shares — Agreew.ent to 
 qualify— Contributory. 
 
 E. was named in the articles of the H. Co. as 
 one of its first directors. The articles provided 
 that the first directors might act without acquir- 
 ing their qualification, but that if they did not 
 acquire it " within one month of their appoint- 
 ment, they shall be deemed to have agreed to 
 take the same, and the same shall be allotted to 
 them accordingly." E. after the registration 
 wrote a letter referring to his having signed a, 
 proposed prospectus, shewing E.'s name as » 
 director, and the articles of the co. He never 
 acted as a director. Later he wrote resigning on 
 account of pressure of business and referring to 
 his having consented to join the board : — 
 
 Held, that by the first letter E. had authorized 
 t}ie CO. tJ bold him out as a director, and liaij 
 
( 347 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 348 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Directors)— con(in»e(J. 
 allowed himself to be named a first director, and 
 that this was evidence that he had accepted office 
 on the terms of the articles, and had agreed to 
 take the shares, and that this was corroborated 
 by the second letter. Therefore his name must 
 remain on the list. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1894] W. N. 15, 
 affirmed. In re Heeoynia Coppee Co. 
 
 C. A. affirm. Wright J. [1894] 2 Ch. 403 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. Salisbury-Jones and 
 Dale's Cktse, [1894] 3 Ch. 356, 358. 
 
 129. — Qualifimtion shares — Agreement to 
 qualify — Qualification — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Viet. c. 89), s. 23. 
 
 A director in a co. whose articles contain a 
 provision as to qualification shares has not by 
 accepting office completed a contract to become a 
 member, but only a contract to qualify by taking 
 the required shares within the specified time, 
 and does not become so merely by lapse of the 
 time for taking shares; the lapse of the time 
 merely amounts to an offer, and no agreement 
 exists till acceptance of that offer, e.g., by placing 
 the director on the register. In re Issue Co. 
 Hutchinson's Case - V. 'Williams, J. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 226 
 
 130. — Qualification shares — Period allowed 
 to qualify — Besignation. - 
 
 By tlie articles of association of a oo. it was 
 provided that the subscribers shoi^(7":fi the first 
 directors, that a director " may act oefore acquir- 
 ing his qualification, but shall in any case acquire 
 the same witliin Ihree months from his appoint- 
 ment, and unless he shall do so he shall be 
 deemed to have agreed to take the said shares." 
 Three of the subscribers acted as directors by 
 signing a paper appointing a director in their 
 stead within the three months allowed to 
 qualify : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., revers. "Wright J. (Lindley L.J. 
 diss.), that upon the construction of the articles, 
 as the three subscribers ceased to be directors 
 ■within the three months, they could not be 
 deemed to have agreed to take their qualifying 
 shares, and their resigning within the period 
 allowed for qualification released them, as the 
 obligation to hold the shares ceased on resigna- 
 tion, and the obligation to acquire the shares was 
 merely ancillary to the obligation to hold them. 
 In re R. Bolton & Co. Palisbuey- Jones and 
 Dale's Case (No. 1) C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 356 
 
 See also same case upon application to vary 
 the minutes upon a question of costs, [1895] 
 1 Oh. 333. 
 
 131. — Qualification shares — Eectification of 
 register — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 V. 89), s. 25. 
 
 To fix a director with liability iu respect of 
 his qualification shares, where these have been 
 registered in his name without his application or 
 knowledge, it is essential to shew that he has 
 acted as a director at a time when he could not 
 properly so act without being qualified. The 
 articles of the A. Co. provided for qualification of 
 directors, that the first directors should be allowed 
 one month from the first general allotment to 
 
 COMPANY (Directors) — continued.' 
 qualify, and that a director should vacate his 
 office if he did not qualify iu the prescribed time. 
 0. signed the memorandum for one share, at- 
 tended several board meetings -within but not 
 after the one month, but never applied for his 
 qualifying shares. At the first general allotment, 
 at which C. was not present, his qualifying shares 
 were allotted to him and his name was placed 
 on the register without his knowledge. As soon 
 as he became aware, of this he resigned, and did 
 not act as a director after the expiration of the 
 prescribed period for qualification : — 
 
 Held, by Stirling J., that C. was not estopped 
 from denying that he had agreed to take the 
 shares. On appeal fresh evidence was adduced 
 to the effect that C.'s name was entered on certaiiL 
 loose sheets called allotment sheets signed by 
 the chairman and secretary before his resignation, 
 and copied into the formal register after the 
 same : 
 
 Held, by C. A., that C.'s name had not been 
 placed on the register till after his resignation, 
 and that he had entered into no binding agree- 
 m'.-nt to take the shares : — 
 
 Semhle, that if the allotment sheets had been 
 intended and treated as a register of shares by 
 the directors, the entry in them would have been 
 valid registration. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., [1894] 1 Ch. 528, 
 affirmed. In re Feinting Telegeaph and Con- 
 STEUOTiON Co. OP the Agence Havas. Ex parte 
 Cammell - C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 392 
 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. Hutchinson^ 
 Case, [1895] 1 Ch. 226, 231. 
 
 132. — Qualification shares — Memuneralion — 
 Apportionment — Apportionment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Vict. a. 35). 
 
 The articles of association of a oo. provided 
 (inter alia) as follows: "(80.) The qualification 
 of a director shall be the holding of shares of the 
 CO. of the nominal amount of 250i. A first director 
 may act before acquiring his quaUfioation, but 
 shall in any case acquire the same within one 
 month from his appointment, and unless he shall 
 do so he shall be deemed to have agreed to take 
 the said shares from the co., and the same shall 
 be forthwith allotted to him accordingly." N. 
 was one of the first directors, and from June, 
 1896, to Nov., 1897 (when the co. went into 
 liquidation), he attended eight meetings of the 
 board of directors. He did not acquire any 
 shares within a month of his appointment ; but in 
 March, 1897, he acquired twenty-five shares of 
 lOZ. each, not from the co., but from its promoter. 
 The directors never agreed as to the proportions 
 in which the remuneration was to be divided 
 amongst them : — 
 
 Held, that the agreement by N. to serve the 
 CO. on the terms of the articles as to qualification 
 and otherwise, and the agreement by the co. to 
 remunerate him, were cross and not interdepen- 
 dent contracts ; that N. could not " cease " to bold 
 a qualification which he never possessed ; that as 
 a member of the board he was nevertheless 
 entitled to remuneration ; but that he could only 
 claim his share of the remuneration for one year, 
 against which must be set off the 250^ due from 
 him to the co. for the qualification shares which 
 
( 349 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 350 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Directors)— eoj!<m«ed!. 
 he had agreed to take. Salton v. New Beeston 
 Cycle Co. - Cozena-Hardy J. [1899] W. N. 40 ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 775 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Central de 
 Kaap Gold Mines, [1899] W. N. 216, 235. 
 
 See also Salton Y, New Beeston Oycle Co., [1900] 
 1 Ch. 43. 
 
 133. — Qualification sliares — Secret agreement 
 hetwein director and promoter — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 165— Companies 
 {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), 
 s. 10. 
 
 In 1887 A., as a consideration for becoming a 
 director, took an undertaking from S., one of tlie 
 promoters, that if A. should at any time desire to 
 part with his qualifying shares, S. would buy 
 them at the price A. paid for them. In 1888 
 A. resigned his directorshii), and S. accepted a 
 transfer of bis shares, and paid A. the original 
 price of them. On the winding-up of the co., 
 held, that the money received by A. from S. must 
 be accounted for to the co. In re Nobth Atistea- 
 LiAN Tekritort Co. Archer's Case 
 
 C. A. reversing Kekewich J. [1892] 1 Ch. 322 
 
 134. — Qualification shares — Shares held " in 
 his own right" — Charging order. 
 
 Shares transferred into tho name of a director 
 BO as to give him the necessary qualification, and 
 of which the transferors remained the beneficial 
 owners, cannot be charged under s. 14 of the 
 Judgments Act, 1838, for payment of a judgment 
 debt incurred by the du'ector. Cooper v. Griffin 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 740 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Howard v. Sadler, 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 1. See next Case. 
 
 135. — Qualification shares — Sliares held " in 
 his own right " — Beneficial ownership. 
 
 A direction in articles of association or in an 
 Act of Parliament that a director must, as his 
 qualification, hold shares "in his own right," 
 does not mean that he must be personally and 
 beneficially interested in the shares. 
 
 PulbrooJc V. Richmond Consolidated Mining 
 Co., (1878) 9 Ch. D. 610, followed reluctantly. 
 Howard v. Sadler - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 136. — Quorum — Breach of regulations hy 
 directors — Validity of acts as regards third 
 parties. 
 
 A co.'s articles of assouiatiou provided that its 
 affaii'S should be conducted by a council of 
 administration ; that the number of members of 
 the council should not be less than three ; that 
 the continuing council might act notwithstand- 
 ing any vacancy; and that the council might 
 determine the quoruin necessary for the trans- 
 action of business. The members of the council 
 became reduced to two, and those two members 
 acting in the name of the oo. gave securities for 
 debts of the co. to persons who had no knowledge 
 of the irregularity. It was not proved that any 
 resolution fixing a quorum had been passed by 
 the council : — 
 
 Held, that the securities so given were binding 
 on the CO. 
 
 One of the securities was transferred by the 
 creditor to whom it was given to one of the two 
 
 COMPANY (Directors) — continued. 
 
 members of tlie council, who had himself paid off 
 
 the secured debt : — 
 
 Held, that the security was valid in the hands 
 of the transferee. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1900] W. N. 66; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 272, reversed on the first point and 
 affirmed on the second. 
 
 In re Scottish Petroleum Co., (1883) 23 Oh. D. 
 413, followed. In re Bank of Syria. Oweu 
 AND Ashwobth's Olaim. Whitworth's Claim 
 C. A, [1900] W. N. 286 ; see [1901] 1 Ch. 115 
 
 137. — Quorum — Sealing of deed hy secretary 
 — Validity of deed irregularly executed. 
 
 The articles of a co. empowered the directors 
 to fix the number of directors who should form a 
 quorum. The directors by resolution fixed three 
 as a quorum. Two directors only were present 
 at a meeting where the seal of the co. was 
 affixed by tho secretary to a mortgage deed : — 
 
 Seld, that it was not the duty of the mort- 
 gagees to inquu'e whether the secretary was duly 
 authorized to affix the seal, and tliat it must be 
 taken that the deed was duly executed. 
 
 Decision of North J. reversed. County op 
 Gloucester Bank v. Rudey Merthyr Steam 
 AND House Coal Colliery Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 629 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Bank of 
 Syria, [1900] W. N. 66 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 272 ; C. A . 
 [1901] 1 Oh. 115. 
 
 138. — Remuneration — Directors^ fees — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. u. 89), ». 38, 
 sub-s. 7. 
 
 The articles of association of a co. required 
 its directors to possess a share qxialification ; and 
 provided that the remuneration of the board 
 " shall be an annual sum of lOOOi. to be paid out 
 of the funds of the co." : — 
 
 Held, that although these provisions in the 
 articles were only part of the contract between 
 the shareholders inter se, the provisions were, on 
 the directors being employed and accepting office 
 on the footing of them, embodied in the contract 
 between the oo. and the directors; that the 
 remuneration was not due to the directors in their 
 character of members, but under the contract so 
 embodying the provisions ; and that, in the 
 winding-up of the co., the directors were entitled 
 to rank as ordinary creditors in respect of the 
 remuneration due to them at the commencement 
 of the winding-up. 
 
 Ex parte Cannon, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 629, 
 distinguished. In re New British Iron Co. 
 Ex parte Beokwith Wright J. [1898] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 139. — Remuneration — Directors' fees — Volun- 
 tary winding-up — Application to the Court — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. e. 89), s. 138. 
 
 The articles of association of a co. provided 
 that " The directors shall be paid out of the 
 funds of the co. as follows, viz. a sum of 150Z. per 
 annum to the chairman, and a sum of lOOJ. per 
 annum to each ordinary director .... by way 
 of remuneration for their ordinary services." 
 The CO. having gone into voluntary liquidation on 
 March 1, 1898, the directors claitned payment of 
 remuneration at the rate of 150Z. and lOOZ. 
 respectively from Juno 30, 1897, when they were 
 
( 351 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 352 ) 
 
 COMPANY (JArectoiB)— continued. 
 last paid, and -which was the end of the co.'s 
 financial year, to the date of their resignation 
 eliortly before the winding-up, and, on the 
 refusal of the liquidator to pay, they issued 
 an originating summons, raising the question 
 whether they were entitled to payment, under 
 s. 138 of the Companies Act, 1862. Each of the 
 applicants held fully paid shares. One of them 
 died when the case was part heard, and his 
 executor applied to be allowed to continue the 
 proceedings, but the liquidator refused his 
 consent, 
 
 Beld, upon reconsideration, that the appli- 
 cants (other than the executor of the deceased 
 applicant), being contributories, came within the 
 words of B. 138 of the Act of 1862 and were 
 entitled to apply, although the application was 
 with reference to a claim by them to be paid 
 certain directors' fees. 
 
 It followed that without consent the Court 
 could not add the executor of the deceased 
 applicant as a party to the proceedings. It was 
 alleged that the directors had stated that they 
 would waive their fees; but, even if that had 
 been proved, it would not be enough to deprive 
 them of the right of payment unless some altera- 
 tion of position had thereby been brought about. 
 It was also alleged, though not proved, that the 
 services of the directors were useless. But 
 because some of the work they did was of no use 
 payment could not be refused. If the articles 
 had said that the remuneration was to be so 
 much for each year, there could be little question 
 that, as Cozens-Hardy J. held in Saltan v. New 
 Beeeton Cycle Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 775, nothing could 
 have been claimed except for services for a full 
 year. After some doubt as to the meaning of the 
 article in this case, held that there could be no 
 apportionment. One strong argument was that, 
 if a director served a day or two, he would, if the 
 opposite view were taken, be entitled to be paid 
 de die in diem. Short of so holding, he could 
 not say that under the article a director was 
 otherwise entitled than to a lump sum for a 
 .year's services. The application must be 
 dismissed. In re Central de Kaap Gold 
 Mines Wright J. [1899] W. N. 216, 235 
 
 140. — Remuneration — " Net profits." 
 
 The articles of a co. provided that the direc- 
 tors should receive 3 per cent, of the net profits 
 by way of remuneration. The co. sold its business 
 as a going concern to a new co. and made a large 
 proiit : — 
 
 Held, that the directors were not entitled to 
 3 per cent, on the profits of the sale. Frames v. 
 
 BULTFONTEIN MINING Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 140 
 
 141. — Bemuneration — Payment out oj capital 
 — Bond fide estimate of assets— Validity of resolu- 
 tion— Cinl Procedure Act, 1833 (8 <fc 1 WiU. 4, 
 c. 42), 8. 28. 
 
 In 1883 a resolution was passed by the share- 
 holders of the A. Co. declaring net profits on 
 .which by the articles the diiectors were to have 
 10 per cent, by way of remuneration. The profits, 
 which were not distributed, as a resolution was 
 passed to wind up the oo. voluntarily, were based 
 p;j a bp.lajicershegf iu ijvhioh iissets hfi(} been 
 
 COMPANY (Directors) — continued. 
 greatly over-estimated, but which had been made 
 out bona fide. All the creditors had been paid, 
 and the directors claimed the 10 per cent, on the 
 net profits declared in 1883. If the said profits 
 were distributed as dividend a large portion of it 
 would come out of capital : — 
 
 Held, that, as it was not impossible for reason- 
 able men to have in 1883 taken the view then 
 taken in estimating the profits, the directors 
 were entitled to the remuneration by way of 
 percentage they claimed. In re Peeuvian Guano 
 Co. Ex parte K-E.m Wright J. [1894] 3 Ch. 690 
 
 — Bemuneration — Proof — Directors' fees. 
 
 See Company — Winding-dp — Proof. 
 205. 
 
 — Eomuneration — Qualification shares — Appor- 
 
 tionment. 
 
 See No. 132, above. 
 
 142. — Bemuneraticm — Receiver — Appointment 
 — Equitable execution. 
 
 The Court refused to appoint a receiver of 
 
 fees due to deft, as director on the ground that 
 
 there was a legal mode of execution against them 
 
 by attachment. Hamilton v. Bbogden (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 36 
 
 — Unpaid calls— Set-off of fees against — Fradu- 
 
 lent preference. 
 
 See Company — Winding-dp — Prefer- 
 ence. 192. 
 
 143. — Vacating office — Absence through illness 
 — Articles of association — Remuneration — Proof. 
 
 Absence may be sufficient to vacate the office 
 of director if no other circumstances are shewn, 
 but if it is shewn that the absence is in- 
 voluntary it cannot be said that the director had 
 absented himself : — 
 
 Held, that the more reasonable construction 
 was that the article in question meant that the 
 oflice of a director was vacated if he voluntarily 
 or deliberately absented himself without special 
 leave for the period mentioned. The proof must 
 be admitted for one year's remuneration. In re 
 London and Nobthehn Bank. Mack's Claim 
 Wright J. [1900] W. N. 114 
 
 Vacating office — Penalty. See Companies Act, 
 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), .s. 3. For notes thereon 
 see [1900] W. N. 190. 
 
 Distress. 
 
 — Coal mine — Chattels of lessee on adjoining 
 
 mine. 
 
 See Mines — Distress. 8. 
 
 144. — Bates — Change of occupation — Beceiier 
 and manager, order appointing — Possession — 
 Parish rates — Preferential charge — Debenture — 
 Equitable charge — Poor Belief Act, 1601 (43 Eliz. 
 c. 2), s. '2 — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 161— Poor Rate Assess- 
 ment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 41), 
 s. 16. 
 
 The existence of an equitable charge on goods 
 does not protect them from distress for poor-rate. 
 
 Where an order is made appointing a receiver 
 and manager of a co.'s business, but not 
 directing delivery-up of possession to him, and 
 thereupon the receiver and manager enters upon 
 t|ie co.'s premises for the purpose of managing 
 
( 353 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 334 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Disttess}— continued. 
 nnd carrying on the businees, there ia no 
 change of occupation within s. 16 of the Poor 
 Eate Assessment and CoUeotion Act, 1869 ; and 
 accordingly, under a. 2 of 43 Eliz. c. 2, and a. 161 
 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, the 
 co.'a goods are liable to distress for the whole 
 of the parish rates made for the half-year 
 in which the order has been made ; and this 
 right of distress vested in the churchwardens and 
 overseers of the parish prevails aa against the 
 equitable charge created by debentures charging, 
 in the usual form, all the property of the co., 
 where there is no assignment of chattels in the 
 covering deed. 
 
 Whether poaaession taken by a receiver ap- 
 pointed under an order directing the co. to 
 deliver up possession to him creates a change 
 of occupation within a. 16 of the Poor Eate 
 Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, qussre. 
 
 Eiohards v. Kidderminster Overseers, [1896] 
 2 Ch. 212, considered. In re Mabkiage, Nbave 
 & Co. NoETH OF England Trustee, Debenture 
 and Assets Corpokation v. Marriage, Neave & 
 Co. - - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 663 
 
 Dividends. 
 
 148. — Accretion to capital — Capital or profits. 
 
 An appreciation in total value of capital 
 assets, if duly realized by sale or getting in of 
 some portion of such assets, may in a proper case 
 be treated as available for purposes of dividend : 
 LubJjocTc V. British Sank of South America [1892] 
 2 Ch. 198. The question of what la profit avail- 
 able for dividend depends upon the result of the 
 whole accounts, fairly taken for the year, capital, 
 as well as profit and loss, and although dividends 
 might be paid out of earned profits in proper 
 cases, although there had been a depreciation of 
 capital, the Court did not think that a realized 
 accretion to the estimated value of one item of 
 the capital assets would be deemed to be profit 
 divisible amongst the shareholders without refer- 
 ence to the result of the whole accounts fairly 
 taken. Foster v. New Trinidad Lake Asphalt 
 Co. - - Byrne J. [1900] W.N. 257; 
 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 208 
 
 146. — Annual general meeting — Dividend — 
 Accounts — Construction of articles. 
 
 The articles of a co. provided for the sub- 
 mission of accounts up to a date within three 
 months and reports thereon, the sanction of a 
 dividend, and the transaction of the ordinary 
 business at the annual general meeting : — 
 
 Seld, that a. final dividend could not be 
 
 sanctioned except at an annual general meeting 
 
 at which accounts up to the prescribed date and 
 
 ■ reports thereon were submitted. Nicholson v. 
 
 Ehodesia Trading Co. 
 
 Worth J. [1897] 1 Ch. 434 
 
 147. — Bonus dividend — Capital or income. 
 
 A bonus dividend was returned to the share- 
 holders of a CO. in the form of seventy-five fully 
 paid new shares of 101. each. The new shares 
 were sold for 1363!. :— 
 
 Seld, that of this sum 7501. was income and 
 the rest capital. In re Noethage. Ellis v. 
 Bab?ield - r JTorth J. [1891] W, N. 84 
 
 COMPANY (DiviienAs)— continued. 
 
 148. — Capital or income. 
 
 A CO. sold its undertaking for a sum which, 
 after deducting an amount equivalent to the 
 paid-up capital, left a large surplus : — 
 
 Beld, that this surplus was profit and not an 
 accretion to capital, and might as profit be dis- 
 tributed in dividends. Principles on which the 
 accounts of a trading oo. should be kept. Lun- 
 BOOK V. British Bank op South America 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 2 Ch. 198 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Yerner v. Oerwral and 
 Commercial Investment Trust, [1894] 2 Ch. 239, 
 266. 
 
 149. — Capital or income — Net profits. 
 
 Action by a shareholder claiming an injunc- 
 tion against the co. paying dividend except out 
 of net profits, paying dividend out of assets 
 representing capital, and declaring net profits 
 without setting apart a sum to meet contingent 
 liabilities, as provided by the articles : — 
 
 Held, on the facts, not to be maintainable, on 
 the ground that capital had not been returned to 
 the shareholders in any form. Levee v. Land 
 Secukities Co. Kekewich J. [1894] "W. N. 21 
 
 160. — Depreciation of assets. 
 
 The articles of an investment trust co. pro- 
 vided for the application to dividends of receipts 
 from the dividends, income, profits, bonuses and 
 advantages payable in respect of the co.'s invest- 
 ments. 
 
 By depreciation the present value of tha 
 investments shewed a heavy loss of which some 
 portion was irrecoverable ; during the past 
 financial year the investments produced an 
 income which substantially exceeded the ex- 
 penses of management. 
 
 On the construction of the articles, held, that 
 this excess was applicable for payment of divi- 
 dend notwithstanding ahrinkage in the value of 
 investments or loss of fixed capital, although 
 where the income of a co. arises from the turning 
 over of circulating capital no dividends can be 
 paid unless that capital is kept up to its original 
 value, and that it was not necessary for the oo. 
 to apply for a reduction of capital imder the 
 Companies Act of 1877 before paying a dividend, 
 and that the Court should not under such circum- 
 stances interfere with a declaration of dividend 
 provided it was in accordance with the articles. 
 Vernek v. General and Commercial Invest- 
 ment Trust - C. A. affirm. Stirling J. 
 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 239 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. in next case. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re National Bq,nli ;tf 
 WaXes, Ld., [1899] 2 Ch. 629, 671. 
 
 151. — Payment of dividends — Depreciation of 
 capital. 
 
 In the absence of any special article or con- 
 tract by a 00. there is nothing to compel them to 
 keep up their fixed capital or assets to a given 
 value and to restrain them from paying dividends 
 till they have done so. But floating or circulating 
 capital must be kept up, otherwise it will enter 
 into and form part of the excess of receipt? over 
 expenditure. Wilmbe v. McNamara & Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 245 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekeyrjoh J. Bishop v. 
 
 N 
 
( 355 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 356 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Dividends)— coBfaniied. 
 
 Smyrna and Cassaba Py. Co., ri895'l 2 Ch. 265, 
 270. 1 ! I- J > 
 
 152. — Payment of dividends— " Profits avail- 
 ahlefor dividend" — Setting aside reserve fund — 
 Articles partly excludinq Table A — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), Sched. I, Table A, 
 clause 74. 
 
 The Court allowed the appeal against the 
 deoiBion of Kekewich J., holding that clause 74 
 of Table A was not excluded by implication, and 
 that "profits from time to time available for 
 dividend," meant the net profits after deducting 
 all sums properly deducted by the directors, 
 before arriving at the amount applicable to divi- 
 dend. The application to a reserve fund was a 
 proper one. Eishbb v. Black aud White Pns- 
 LiSHiNO Co. - C. A. [1900] W. N. 271 
 
 — Payment of dividends out of capital — Director 
 — Misfeasance. 
 See CoMPANT — Directors. 120. 
 
 163. — Payment out of capital — Bona, fide 
 estimate of assets — Validity of resolution — Civil 
 Procedure Act, 1833 (3*4 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 28. 
 
 In 1883 a resolution was passed by the share- 
 holders of the A. Co. declaring net profits on 
 which by the articles the directors were to have 
 10 per cent, by way of remuneration. The 
 proiits, which were not distributed, as a resolution 
 was passed to wind up the co. voluntarily, were 
 based on a balance-sheet in which assets had 
 been greatly over-estimated, but which had been 
 made out bona fide. All the creditors had been 
 l)aid, and the directors claimed the 10 per cent, 
 on the net profits declared in 1883. If the said 
 profits were distributed as dividend a large por- 
 tion of it would come out of capital : — 
 
 Held, that, as it was not impossible for reason- 
 able men to have in 1883 taken the view then 
 taken in estimating the profits, the directors 
 were entitled to the remuneration by way of 
 percentage they claimed. In re Pehuvian Guano 
 Co. Ex parte Kemp Wright J. [1894] 3 Ch. 690 
 
 184. — Paym,ent out of capital — Over-estima- 
 ting assets. 
 
 A land co., having incurred a bad debt, wrote 
 it off by over-estimating the value of their pro- 
 perty. In a subsequent year they proposed to 
 pay a dividend, although if the assets, which had 
 depreciated, had been properly valued, no profit 
 had been made : — 
 
 Held, that there was no ground for the inter- 
 ference of the Court.. Bolton v. Natal Land 
 AND Colonization Co. 
 
 Eomer J. [1892] 2 Ch. 124 
 
 Beferred to by Stirling J. Wilmer v. 
 McNamara & Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 245, 254. 
 
 165. — Preference shares — Cumulative divi- 
 dend — Payment out of net profits of each year. 
 
 The memorandum of association of a co. con- 
 tained this clause : " The capital of the co. is 
 150,000i. divided into 10,000 ordinary shares of 
 lOZ. each, and 5000 preference shares of 10?. each. 
 The holders of preference shares shall be entitled 
 out of the net profits of each year to a preference 
 dividend at the rate of 10/. per cent, per annum 
 on the amount for the time being paid or deemed 
 to be paid up thereon. After payment of such 
 
 COMPANY (J>ivi6.enAs)— continued. 
 preferential dividend the holders of ordinary 
 shares shall be entitled to a like dividend at the 
 rate of 101. per cent, per annum on the amount 
 paid on such ordinary shares. Subject as afore- 
 said, the preference and ordinary shares, shall 
 rank equally for dividend " : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of Chitty J.), 
 that the preference shareholders were not entitled 
 to a cumulative dividend of lOZ. per cent, so as to 
 have the deficiency in one year paid out of the 
 profits of a subsequent year before paying any- 
 thing to the ordinary shareholders. 
 
 Henry v. Great Northern By. Co., 1 De G. & J. 
 606, and Webh v. Earle, L. K. 20 Eq. 556, dis- 
 tinguished. Staples v. Eastman Photoseaphic 
 Matekials Co. - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 303 
 
 — Shares issued as dividend — Apportionment. 
 
 See Settled Land — Apportionment. 4. 
 
 False Statements. 
 
 Penalty for false statement. See Companies 
 Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 28. For notes 
 thereon see [1900] W. N. 202. 
 
 — Prospectus. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Prospectns 
 
 Formation. 
 
 156. — Effect of — Will — " Ceaseto carry on the 
 business." 
 
 On the construction of a will, held that where 
 beneficiaries turned a business into a limited co. 
 they "ceased to carry on the business." In re 
 Sax. Earned v. Sax 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 104 
 
 — Shares payable by instalments — Calls. 
 
 See Company — ^VINDI^•G-^p — Liqui- 
 dator. 112. 
 
 Guarantee. 
 
 Companies limited by guarantee. Provisions 
 as to. See Companies Act, 1900 (63 * 61 Vict. 
 0. 48), «. 27. For notes thereon see [19001 W. N. 
 201. 
 
 — Company limited by guarantee — Contribu- 
 
 tories. 
 
 Bee Company — Winding-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 36. 
 187. — Shares — Capital — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25*26 Victc. 89), ss. 7, 14. 
 
 It is not ulh'a vires for a co. limited by 
 guarantee to divide the " undertaking " into 
 " shares or interests," and to provide for the 
 increase from time to time in the number of 
 members, and for the transmission of shares in 
 a manner analogous to that in a co. having a 
 share capital. Malleson v. Gesekal Mineral 
 Patents Syndicate, Ld. 
 
 North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 538 
 
 Income Tax, 
 See Eevence — Income Tax. 83 — 90. 
 
 Incorporation. 
 
 Conclusiveness of certificate of incorporation. 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 tt- 64 Vict. e. 48), 
 s. 1. For notes thereon see [1900] W. N. 189, 
 
( 357 ) 
 
 COJUVAIIY— continued. 
 
 Meetings. ^ 
 
 See aho Oases under Compaky — 'Wind- 
 ing-up— Meetings. 
 Statutoet Meeting.] First statutory meet- 
 ing of company — Extraordinary general meeting. 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. o. 48), 
 ss. 12, 13. For notes thereon see [1900] W. N. 
 197 et seq. 
 
 — Adjournment of a meeting — ^Power of chair- 
 
 man to refuse. 
 See Natal. 4. 
 
 — Advertisement — Notice of meeting of deben- 
 
 ture-holders. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 67. 
 
 158. — Chairman — Powers. 
 
 The function of the chairman is to preserve 
 order, conduct proceedings regularly, and take 
 care that the sense of the meeting is properly 
 ascertained with regard to any question before 
 it. He has no power to adjourn or dissolve a 
 meeting before it has finished the business for 
 which it is convened, and if he does so the 
 meeting is competent to resolve to appoint 
 another chairman and go on with the business. 
 National Dwellings Sooiett v. Sykes 
 
 CMtty J. [1894] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 159. — Closure — Sale'of assets — Amalgamation 
 — Distribution of consideration — Meeting of sJiare- 
 holders. 
 
 The objects of the A. Co. as stated by art. 3 
 of its memorandum were (inter alia) (o) to raise 
 capital and invest it in such bonds, stocks, and 
 securities as therein mentioned; (i) to sell any 
 part of the assets and to accept the consideration 
 in cash, shares, or other securities, and to divide 
 any assets of the co. in specie among its share- 
 holders ; (o) to amalgamate with any persons, 
 COS., or firms carrying on business of a like 
 nature. The D. Co. carried on a similar business. 
 The A. Co. agreed with the D. Co. to sell to the 
 D. Co. all its assets (except 3325 21. shares in the 
 D. Co. which the A. Co. held) for 60,99H., to be 
 satisfied as to 59,736i!. by allotment of 29,868 
 fully paid-up shares of 21. each in the D. Co., 
 and the balance of 1255?. in cash or fully paid-up 
 shares at the option of the A. Co. It was pro- 
 vided by the agreement that the shares so 
 allotted and the shares in the D. Co. already held 
 by the A. Co. were to be divided among the 
 shareholders of the A. Co. in manner therein 
 mentioned. It was doubtful whether the mode 
 of division was not illegal as interfering with the 
 rights of the shareholders under the memorandum 
 and articles : — 
 
 Held, that the proposed sale being a sale of 
 the assets of the A. Co. with a substantial excep- 
 tion was within (i), and that the transaction was 
 also warranted by (o) as being an amalgamation. 
 
 Held, also, that the proposed division of 
 shares, being a matter with which the D. Co. 
 had nothing to do, did not, even if illegal, affect 
 the validity of the agreement for sale, and that 
 an interlocutory injunction to prevent the A. Co. 
 from carrying the agreement into eifect had been 
 properly refusfd nn an undertaking by the A. Co. 
 not to divide the shares till after the trial other- 
 wise than in accordance with the rights of 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891-:-1900. 
 
 ( 358 ) 
 
 COMPAKY (Meetings)- confenwed. 
 
 the shareholders under the memorandum and 
 
 articles. 
 
 At a meeting of shareholders it is not com- 
 petent to the majority to come determined to 
 vote in a particular way on .any question, and to 
 refuse to hear any arguments "to the contrary ; 
 but when the views of the minority have been 
 heard, it is competent to the chairman with the 
 sanction of a vote of the meeting to declare 
 the discussion closed and to put the question to 
 the vote. 
 
 At a meeting held to confirm a resolution 
 passed by the requisite majority at a former 
 meeting so as to make it a special resolution, it 
 is irregular to propose an amendment to that 
 resolution. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J. aflirmed. Wall v. 
 London and Noetheen Assets Cokpoeation 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 469 
 And see No. 168, below. 
 — of Debenture-holders. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 66—68. 
 
 160. — Notice — Irregularity — Shareholder — 
 General meeting — Special resolutions — Directors' 
 interest — Non-disclosure — Conditional notice. 
 
 The notice of an extraordinary general meet- 
 ing must disclose all facts necessary to enable 
 the shareholder receiving it to determine in his 
 own interest whether or not he ought to attend 
 the meeting ; and pecuniary interest of a director 
 in the matter of a special resolution to be pro- 
 posed at the meeting is a material fact for this 
 purpose. 
 
 Eaye v. Croydon Tramways Co., [1898] 1 Ch 
 358, followed. 
 
 A notice of two meetings to be held in imme- 
 diate succession to consider seriatim two alterna- 
 tive resolutions, one at each meeting, is not 
 rendered an invalid notice of the second meeting 
 by an express provision that it will only be held 
 in the event of the first resolution not being 
 passed at the first meeting. 
 
 Alexander v. Simpson, (1889) 43 Oh. D. 139, 
 distinguished. Tiessen v. Hendehson 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 45 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 861 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Violet Consolidated Gold 
 Mining Co., [1899] W. N. 66. 
 
 161. — Notice of meeting — Conditional notice — 
 Validity — Form of notice — Practice — Special 
 resolutions. 
 
 The articles of association provided that thirty 
 days' notice should be given to the members 
 before every general meeting ; to save time and 
 expense, the notice of both meetings was con- 
 tained in one document : this notice was dated 
 Feb. 19, 1900, and, so far as material, was as 
 follows : " Notice is hereby given that an extra- 
 ordinary general meeting of the co. will be held 
 at the oflSces of the co. on March 23, when the 
 subjoined resolution will be proposed." 
 
 " Notice is hereby also given that an extra- 
 ordinary general meeting of the co. will be held 
 at the offices of tlie co. on April 7, when a 
 report will be presented of the proceedings at tho 
 extraordinary general meeting of the co. to be 
 held on March 23, and the subjoined resolution 
 will, if passed by the requisite majority at that 
 
 N 2 
 
( S59 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 360 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Meetings)— con«im«e(Z. 
 
 meeting, be submitted for confirmation as a 
 
 special resolution." 
 
 " Should the said resolution not be passed by 
 the requisite majority at the meeting to be held 
 on March 23, due notice will be given to the 
 shareholders that the meeting on April 7, of 
 which notice is now given, will not be held." 
 
 Then followed the resolution for reduction of 
 capital of the above-named co. The meetings 
 were held on the days named, and the resolution 
 was passed and confirmed. 
 
 Seld, that the notice convening the second 
 general meeting was good, the meeting-valid, and 
 that the special resolution in this case had been 
 duly passed and confirmed. In re Espuela Land 
 AND Cattle Co. Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 139 
 
 162. — Notice of meeting of directors — Notice of 
 husinees to he transacted — Authority to use name 
 of company. 
 
 Directors of a CO., being the select managing 
 body, can at any meeting of the board deal with 
 all affairs of the co. then requiring attention, 
 whether ordinary or not, and previous notice of 
 the special business is not a necessary condition 
 of the proceedings being valid. 
 
 S,, T., and TV. were the directois of a newly- 
 formed CO., no shares in which had been allotted, 
 two directors being a quorum. T. and W., with- 
 out notice to S., held a meeting on Feb. 14, at 
 which they appointed X. a director, appointed 
 solicitors and bankers, and accepted an offer for 
 the use of offices. On the 22nd, S., who had 
 heard of these resolutions, obtained a memo- 
 randum, signed by five of the seven signatories to 
 the memorandum of association, authorizing him 
 to use the name of the oo. in an action to prevent 
 the directors from carrying out the resolutions of 
 the 14th, and on the same day he issued a writ 
 against T. and W., in which ho and ihe co. were 
 co-pits. On the same day, before the writ bad 
 been served, S. received a notice that a board 
 meeting would be held on the 24th, not stating 
 the nature of the business to be done, and a 
 letter from W. stating that the business done on 
 the 14th would be brought up again. On the 
 24th, S. did not altend, and T. and W. appointed 
 X. and y. directors, and allotted to each of them- 
 selves the number of shares which was the 
 qualification of a director, and affirmed the reso- 
 lutions of the 14th. The writ was then amended 
 by adding X. and Y. as defts., and asking a 
 declaration that the resolutions of the 24th were 
 void, and an injunction to restrain the defts. from 
 acting upon them, and to restrain X. and Y. 
 from acting as directors. The co., pursuant to a 
 resolution passed on the 24th, moved, by the 
 solicitors appointed by the above resolutions, to 
 have the name of the co. struck out as used 
 without authority : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of North J., that 
 t he resolutions of Feb. 24 were valid, and X. 
 and Y. duly elected directors : — 
 
 Held, further, that S. had used the name of the 
 c 0. without authority ; that, as the resolutions of 
 Feb. 24 were valid, the motion to strike the name 
 out was authorized ; and that it must be sti-uok 
 out with costs to be paid by S. La Compagnie 
 BE Matville v. Whitley C. A. [1896] 1 Oh, 788 
 
 COMPANY (Meetings) — continued. 
 — Proxies — Scheme of arrangement. 
 
 See Company — WiNDiNG-trp — Scheme of 
 Arrangement. 222—225. 
 
 163. — Proxies — Mode of counting poll — Com- 
 panies Act, 18C2, s. 51, Table A — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 * 26 Viet. c. 89), ss. 51, 129, Bched. I., 
 Table A, arts. 42, 43, 48, 51. 
 
 At a meeting of shareholders of a co. the 
 articles of which allow voting by proxy, although 
 no poll is demanded the chairman, in ascertain- 
 ing the number of votes given, must count the 
 vote of each person who has appointed a proxy, 
 not according to the number of shares held by 
 him, but as one vote. In re Biuwell Bkos. 
 
 V. Williams 3. [1893] 1 Ch. 603 
 • Overruled by C. A. Ernest v. Loma Gold 
 Mines, Ld., [1897] 1 Ch. 1. 
 
 164. — Proxies — Blanks in proxies — Meeting of 
 sliareholders — Special resolution — SJiow of hands 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 51 
 —Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 89), s. 80. 
 
 At a meeting of the shareholders of a co. 
 the articles of which allow voting by proxy, the 
 chairman, in ascertaining the number of votes 
 given on a show of hands, must count the vote 
 of each person who holds proxies as a single 
 vote, and not count a vote for each of tho 
 members whose proxies he holds. 
 
 In re Bidwell Brothers, [1893] 1 Ch. 603, 
 overruled. 
 
 A notice convening an extraordinary general 
 meeting to confirm a special resolution was 
 accompanied by a circular from the secretary 
 and directors with a proxy attached, asking for 
 the return of the proxy in support of the resolu- 
 tion ; by a printer's^crrortlie date of the meeting 
 was left blank in tlio proxy. Several of tho 
 members executed and returned their proxies 
 (which were duly stamped) without filling up 
 the blanks, which were filled up by the secre- 
 tary before the proxies were lodged with the 
 company : — 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of Chitty J., 
 [189G] 2 Ch. 572, that these proxies were valid 
 within the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1891, 
 s. 80. Erkest v. Loma Gold Mines, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Considered by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Had- 
 leigh Castle Gold Mines, Ld., [1900] 2 Ch. 419, 
 423. 
 
 165. — Quorum — Different classes of share- 
 holders — Separate general meetings of each class — 
 Articles of association. 
 
 The articles of a limited co. whose capital 
 was divided into different classes of shares pro- 
 vided} (art. 13) that any agreement modifying 
 the rights attached to each class must be con- 
 firmed by an extraordinary resolution passed at a 
 separate general meeting of the holders of shares 
 of that class, and " all the provisions hereinafter 
 contained as to general meetings shall, mutatis 
 mutandis, apply to every such meeting, but so 
 that the quorum thereof shall be members hold- 
 ing or representing three-four-ths of the nominal 
 amount of the issued shares of the class." The 
 subsequent provisions as to general meetings 
 provided (inter alia) (art. 66) that the quorum 
 
( 861 ) 
 
 DIGKSl' OF CASES, 1891^1900. 
 
 ( 862 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Jieeimga)— continued. 
 thereat should, be members personally present, 
 not being less than three in number, holding or 
 representing one-tenth of the issued capital of 
 the CO.; and (art. 68) that if at an adjourned 
 meeting a quorum was not present those members 
 ■who were present should bo a quorum. These 
 articles were said to be in the common form : — 
 
 Meld (aflSrming the decision of Kekewioh J.), 
 that although the provisions as to general meet- 
 ings were to apply, mutatis mutandis, to class 
 meetings, they must be so applied subject to the 
 provision above quoted, which was inserted in 
 art. 13 for the purpose of protecting the rights of 
 the privileged class of shareholders ; and accord- 
 ingly at all class meetings, whether adjourned 
 or not, the quorum must be three-fourths of the 
 members of the class required by art. 13. 
 Hemans v. Hotchkiss Obdnanob Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 169 (8); [1899] 1 Ch. 115 
 — Quorum — Directors. 
 
 See Company — Birectors. 136, 137. 
 
 166. — Resolution — Evidence — Declaration of 
 chairman — Shareholders' meeting — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 * 26 rict. c. 89), s. 51. 
 
 Apart from fraud, the declaration of the 
 chairman of a meeting that a special resolution 
 has been passed is conclusive. 
 
 At a meeting of a co. duly convened to pass 
 an extraordinary resolution to wind up volun- 
 tarily, the chairman declared the resolution 
 carried on a shew of hands ; a poll was not 
 demanded by five members. On a petition by a 
 holder of paid-up shares to wind the co. up com- 
 pulsorily, the Court refused to entertain the 
 question whether the resolution was carried by 
 the requisite majority. 
 
 Young v. South African and Australian Ex- 
 ploration and Development Syndicate, [1896] 
 W. N. 60 (1) ; [1896] 2 Oh. 268, not followed. 
 In re Hadleigh Castle Gold Mines, Ld. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 148 1 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 419 
 
 167. — Sanctioning scheme under Act of 1870 — 
 Meetings of shareholders — Joint Stock Companies 
 Arrangement Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict, l: lOi), 
 ..2. 
 
 The Court may sanction a scheme under the 
 Act of 1870 without calling any meeting of the 
 shareholders of the co. — at any rate if they are 
 really not interested in the liquidation, and 
 accordingly are not receiving anything. Where 
 all the shares had been issued and were fully 
 paid up, and after payment of debts and costs 
 there would be no surplus available for distribu- 
 tion amongst the shareholders, the Court, without 
 calling a meeting of the shareholders, sanctioned 
 a scheme under which a new co. was to be formed 
 to which the assets of the old co. were to be 
 transferred, creditors on the old co. in respect of 
 loans, and such trade and other creditors as 
 should be willing to accept the same taMng fully 
 paid shares in the new co. in satisfaction of their 
 debts, and the new co. paying to the liquidator a 
 sum sufficient to pay creditors who should not 
 accept shares a dividend of 6s. in the pound on 
 their debts, and also to pay the expenses of the 
 winding-up, including the scheme — charges, 
 liens, and securities being left unaffected by the 
 
 COMPANY (JHeeitiagB)— continued. 
 
 scheme. In re Browneields Guild Potter'? 
 
 Society Wright J. [1898] W. N. 80 (4) 
 
 — Voting — ^Alteration of rights. 
 
 See Company — ^Reduction of Capital. 
 230. 
 168. — Voting — Evidence — Articles of associa- 
 tion. 
 
 An article provided that votes tendered at a 
 meeting and not disallowed at the meeting or an 
 adjournment thereof should be valid for all pur- 
 
 Held, that in the absence of fraud or mala 
 fides a resolution for voluntary winding-up could 
 not be impeached upon the ground that votes 
 had been improperly received. Wall v. London 
 and Northern Assets Corporation 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 10 (4); [1899] 1 Ch. 550 
 
 And see No. 159, above. 
 
 169. — Voting — Show of hands — Declaration by 
 chairman — " Conclusive evidence " — Shareholder 
 — Action disputing declaration — Notice of special 
 general meeting — " General nature" of business — ■ 
 Sufficiency of notice — " Member " — " Member 
 entitled to vote" — Meeting, general — Special reso- 
 lution—Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. o. 89), 
 s. 51, Table A, arts. 35, 37, 42. 
 
 The declaration of the chairman at a special 
 general meeting of shareholders under s. 51 of 
 the Companies Act, 1862, that the special resolu- 
 tion has, on a show of hands, been carried, is not 
 " conclusive evidence " of the fact so as to pre- 
 clude a shareholder from disputing the validity 
 of the resolution by legal proceedings on the 
 ground, for instance, that it has not been carried 
 by the statutory majority. 
 
 Although a notice under s. 51 of the Com- 
 panies Act, 1862, of a special general meeting of 
 a CO. regulated by Table A sufficiently complies 
 with art. 35 if it states the " general nature " of 
 the business, it is nevertheless desirable, where 
 the business is of great importance, such as the 
 proposed substitution of new articles of associa- 
 tion for Table A, to supplement the notice with 
 an explanatory circular. 
 
 Qusere, whether, in the case of a co. regulated 
 by Table A to the Companies Act, 1862, any 
 distinction is to be drawn between " members " 
 who may constitute a quorum under art. 37, and 
 " members entitled to vote " under s. 51 of the 
 Act. Young v. South Aerican and Australian 
 Exploration and Development Syndicate 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 268 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Bad- 
 leigh Castle Gold Mines, Ld., [1900] 2 Ch. 419 
 422. 
 
 — Winding-up of company. 
 
 See Company — ^Winding-up — Meetings, 
 
 Memorandum and Articles. 
 
 (Memorandum, Deed of Settlement, and Articles 
 of Association.) 
 
 170. — Advertisement of order sanctioning an 
 alteration of the memorandum of association of a, 
 company — Practice — Companies Memorandum of 
 Association Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62). 
 
 Where an order was made, on a petition under 
 
( 363 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 364 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Memorandum and Articles) — contd. 
 the Companies (Memorandum of Association) 
 Act, 1890, sanctioning an alteration of the memo- 
 randum of association of a co., but not directing 
 any change in the name of the co., the Court 
 directed that the order should be advertised in 
 the same way as the petition was advertised. 
 In re CoppEE Mines Tinplate Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] W, N. 20 (4) 
 
 171. — AUeration of memorandum of associa- 
 tion — Advertisement of order confirming alteration 
 — Companies (^Memorandum of Association^ Act, 
 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 62), ss. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 The Companies (Memorandum of Association) 
 Act, 1890, contains no express direction, similar 
 to the direction in s. 15 of the Companies Act, 
 1867, with regard to orders for the reduction of 
 capital, that an order confirming an alteration of 
 the memorandum of association shall be adver- 
 tised; and although the Court has jurisdiction 
 under s. 3 to direct such order to be advertised 
 in a special case as a general rule, the Court will 
 not require that course to be adopted. In re 
 Lanoastee Banking Co., Ld. 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] W. N. 3 (1) 
 
 172. — Boiler insurance — Companies (Memo- 
 randum of Association) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 c. 62), s. 1, sub-s. 5, clause (d). 
 
 In exercising the powers given by the Com- 
 panies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890, 
 s. 1, sub-8. 5 (d), the Court should regard as 
 convenient and advantageous those things which 
 experience and the opinions of traders reasonably 
 shew to be of that character. 
 
 A CO. sought to make extensive alterations 
 in their memorandum, enabling them to com- 
 bine other businesses of an independent though 
 not of an unconnected character. The Court 
 required, amongst other amendments, (1) an 
 alteration in the name of the co. ; (2) an under- 
 taking that the extended powers should not be 
 exercised until either the present policy-liolders 
 had assented or their policies had expired; 
 (3) omission or modification of provisions in the 
 altered memorandum which transgressed the 
 reasonable limits of combination. In re Na- 
 tional BoiLEE Insubance Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 1 Ch. 306 
 
 173. — Cliange of directs— Alteration of memo- 
 randum of association— Companies (Memwrandum 
 of Association) Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 62), 
 
 «. 1. . . 
 
 Petition for confirmation of an alteration m 
 the memorandum of association of the above co. 
 The objects of the co. in the original memorandum 
 were to hold and work one steamship, and it was 
 expressly provided that the co. should not have 
 more than one steamship at the same time. The 
 objects as intended to be altered would comprise 
 the holding any number of steamships at the 
 same time. No shareholder objected, and the 
 only creditor assented. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. considered that such a 
 sweeping change as was contemplated would_ be 
 more properly carried out by a reconstruction, 
 and he did not think that if any shareholder had 
 opposed he would have confirmed the proposed 
 alteration. But looking to the fact that no 
 
 COMPANY (Memorandum and Articles)— cojrf(J. 
 shareholder opposed, and the expense that would 
 be incurred in reconstruction, he did not thmfc 
 he ought to refuse to confirm the proposed 
 alteration. J» re Beenicia Steamship, Ld. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 24 
 
 174. Confirmation by Court— Addition of 
 
 loords— Companies (Memorandum of Association) 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 1, s"*-/- 5- 
 
 Where a co. petitioned under s. 1 of the Act 
 of 1890 for confirmation of special resolutions 
 addin" to the purposes of the co. " and to carry 
 on general stores and to contract for the execution 
 of work, and the rendering of services of all 
 kinds":— ^ , „ 
 
 Seld, that the words " to contract, &c., were 
 too wide ; but under the power in s. 1 (5) to con- 
 firm an alteration in part, the alteration would be 
 confirmed with the addition," incidental thereto. 
 
 In re Spiees & Pond, Ld. „ „ , „e /<.^ 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 135 (2) 
 
 175. _ Peed of settlement previously altered hy 
 private Acts— Companies (Memorandum of Asso- 
 ciation) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), ss. 1, 3. 
 
 Petition by co. to alter its deed of settlement 
 so as to enable it to issue debentures. The deed 
 of settlement bad already been altered by private 
 
 Held, (1) that, notwithstanding the private 
 Acts, there was jurisdiction to sanction an altera- 
 tion of the deed of settlement; and (2) that the 
 proposed alteration was one which came within 
 sub-s. 5, s. 1, of the Companies (Memorandum) 
 Act 1890. In re Eeveesionabt Interest Society 
 (No. 1) - North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 615 
 
 176. — Electrical purposes limited to telephones 
 —Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 1. 
 
 In this case the co. were allowed to alter their 
 memorandum so as to supply electricity, &o., for 
 other than telephonic purposes, on condition of 
 making a suitable change of name. In re 
 Okiental Telephone Co. 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] W. N. 153 
 
 177. — Enlargements of objects of company — 
 Confirmation-Companies (Memorandum of Asso- 
 ciation) Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 62j, s. 3, 
 
 svh-s. 5. . ,-., J 
 
 Petition under the Companies (Memorandum 
 of Association) Act, 1870, for the confirmation of 
 enlargements of the objects of the above com- 
 pany. The definition of the objects in the original 
 memorandum of association (dated 1864) was 
 contained in one paragraph. The definition of 
 the objects in the memorandum proposed to be 
 substituted extended over twenty-one paragraphs. 
 The Court was satisfied on the evidence that 
 the extension of objects desired was required, 
 under the changed circumstances, in the interests 
 of the 00. ; but in its opinion a large part of the 
 proposed new definition was covered by the 
 language of the original memorandum. It was 
 not within the scope of the Act of 1870 simply to 
 rewrite in modem foim the definition of the 
 objects. The proposed alterations so far as they 
 related to new objects were sanctioned. In re 
 Consett Ieon Co. - - Cozens-Hardy J. 
 [1900] W, N, 274 
 
( 365 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 366 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Memorandum and Articles) — contd. 
 
 178. — Evidence — Beduction of capital — Alter- 
 ation of memorandum — Companies Acts, 1867 
 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131; 40 & 41 Vict. c. 2G)— Com- 
 panies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890 
 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 62). 
 
 In case of a petition for alteration of the 
 memorandum, a copy of the memorandum and 
 articles, and the original minute-book of the 
 proceedings of general meetings, should be made 
 exhibits to the affidavit in support. In re Omnium 
 Investment Co. V. Williams J. [1896] 2 Ch. 127 
 
 179. — Extension of objects — Powers of Court 
 — Companies {Memorandum of Association) Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 1. 
 
 The Court sanctioned resolutions extending 
 the objects defined in the memorandum of asso- 
 ciation of a CO., adding words to the language 
 of the resolutions so as to limit the extended, 
 objects. 
 
 In re Spiers & Pond, Ld., [1895] W. N. 135, 
 approved. 
 
 In re National Boiler Insurance Co., [1892] 
 1 Ch. 806, distinguished. In re Fleetwood 
 Estate Co. North J. [1897] W. N.' 20 (3) 
 
 180. — " Govemmsnt" securities — Objects — 
 " Main purpose " — Dissentient minority — Duty of 
 the Court — Companies {Memorandum of Associa- 
 tion) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 1, sub-ss. 2, 
 4, 5 {a), {b). 
 
 (a) First application by a oo. formed to invest 
 in " Government " securities only for leave to 
 alter memorandum bo as to give power to invest 
 in securities generally, refused (1) because the 
 alteration was not an " improved means " to obtain 
 the " main purpose " of the co. ; (2) because a 
 minority of the debenture-holders objected. The 
 Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 
 1890, considered, and principles stated on which 
 the Court should proceed in entertaining applica- 
 tions under it. In re Governments Stock In- 
 vestment Co., Ld. (No. 1) 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 649 
 Note. — This case was explained in In re 
 Foreign and Colonial Government Trust Co., 
 StirUng J. [1891] 2 Ch. 395, below. 
 
 (b) Companies {Memorandum of Association) 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 1, sub-ss. 3, 
 5{d). 
 
 A CO. formed for the purposes of investing 
 moneys in Foreign, Colonial, or British Govern- 
 ment or municipal securities was allowed to alter 
 its business so as to be able to invest its funds in 
 the securities of any co. or corporation incor- 
 porated under Foreign, Colonial, or British law. 
 The Court imposed a condition that theco. should 
 alter its name so as not to mislead creditors into 
 the belief that it only invested in Government 
 securities. In re Foreign and Colonial Govern- 
 ment Tebst Co. Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ch. 395 
 
 Followed by Kekewich 3. In re Alliance 
 Marine Assurance Co., [18'92] 1 Ch. 300. 
 
 (c) Second application for leave to alter 
 memorandum so as to enable the co. (1) to invest 
 in securities of any co. and not only in Govern- 
 ment stock ; (2) to create a security in favour of 
 debenture stock-holders. A larger majority of 
 debenture-holders consenting, the Court agreed 
 
 COMPANY (Memorandum and Articles) — contd. 
 to the suggested alteration on condition that the 
 CO. gave the debenture-holders further security 
 by way of floating charge on the assets, and 
 changed their name. In re Government Stocks 
 Investment Co. (No. 2) 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 697 
 
 181. — Jurisdiction — Alteration of memo- 
 randum of association — Sanction of Courts—Mean- 
 ing of " Court " — Companies (Memorandum of 
 Association) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 1— 
 Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890(53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 63), ss. 1, 2, 32, 33. 
 
 The jurisdiction to confirm alterations in 
 memorandums of association is vested— 
 
 (a) in the judge to whom winding-up juris- 
 diction is assigned by the Order of March 26, 
 1892. In re Mining Shares Investment Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 3 Ch. 660 
 (m) And also in a judge of the Ch. Div. In re 
 Islington and General Eleotrio Supply 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 81 
 
 182. — Jurisdiction — Company under Joint 
 Stock Companies Act, 1856 — Companies {Memo- 
 randum of Association) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 62), s. 1. 
 
 In the case of a co. registered under the Joint 
 Stock Companies Acts and not under the Com- 
 panies Acts — 
 
 (a) Eomer J. ordered a petition to stand over, 
 with liberty to amend, so as to enable the co. to 
 register under the Companies Act, 1862. In re 
 General Credit Co. - [1891] W. N. 163 
 
 (b) Kekewich J. sanctioned an alteration in 
 the memorandum on the ground that registration 
 under the Joint Stock Companies Acts is, by 
 virtue of s. 176 of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 equivalent for this purpose to registration under 
 the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890. In re Niteo- 
 
 PHOSPHATE and OdAMS ChEMIOAL MaNUEE Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 141 
 
 183. — Jurisdiction — Alteration of memo- 
 randum — Com,panies Act, 1862 (25 &26 Vict. c. 89), 
 8. 176 — Companies {Memorandum of Association) 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 1, sub-s. 1; a. 3, 
 siib-s. 2. 
 
 Although the Act' 53 & 54 Vict. a. 62 only 
 extends in terms to cos. "registered under the 
 Companies Acts, 1862 to 1886," yet, inasmuch as 
 it and those Acts are to be " construed as one 
 Act," and by s. 176 of the Act of 1862 that Act 
 applies to cos. formed and registered under any 
 of the Joint Stock Companies Acts as if they had 
 been formed and registered under the Act of 
 1862, the Court has jurisdiction to confirm resolu- 
 tions for the alteration or definition of the objects 
 of a CO. formed before and registered under the 
 Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. 
 0. 47). 
 
 The decisions of Kekewich J. in In re Nitro- 
 phosphate and Odams Chemical Manure Co., 
 [1893] W. N. 141, and In re Song Kong and 
 China Gas Co., [1898] W.N. 158 (3), preferred to 
 that of Homer J. in In re General Credit Co., 
 [1891] W. N. 153, in which case s.- 176 of thn 
 Act of 1862 was apparently not cited. In re 
 Copiapo Mining Co. 
 
 Wright J, [1899] W. N. 25 (1) 
 
( 367 ) 
 
 DIGEST OiP CASES,«1891— 1900. 
 
 ( 368 •) 
 
 COMPANY (Memorandum and Articles)— con W. 
 
 184. — Juriidiction of Court— Alteration of 
 memorandwm of association — Company under 
 Joint Slock Companies Act, 1856 (lb & 20 Vict. 
 V. 47). 
 
 Oii a petition unrltr the Companies (Memo- 
 randum) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), for the 
 alteration of the memorandum of association of a 
 CO. registered under the Joint Stock Companies 
 Act, 1856, the question arose whether the Court 
 had jurisdiction to make the order. In support 
 of the jurisdiction reference was made to In re 
 Nitro-phosphate and Odams Chemical Manure Co., 
 [1893] W. N. 141, where Kekewich J. held that 
 in such a case the Court had jurisdiction, on the 
 ground that registration Under the Act of 1856 is, 
 by virtue of s. 176 of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 equivalent for this purpose to registration under 
 the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890. It was, how- 
 ever, mentioned that in a previous case of In re 
 General Credit Co., [1891] "W. N. 153, a contrary 
 view had been intimated by Eomer J. It was 
 stated that it did not appear that the decision of 
 Eomer J. had been called to the attention of 
 Kekewich J. in 1893, nor that the attention of 
 Eomer J., in 1891, had been called to s. 176 of the 
 Act of 1862. Under these circumstances, Keke- 
 wich J. now adhered to his former decision, and 
 held that the Court had jurisdiction to make the 
 order. In re Hong Kong and China Gas Co. 
 
 Kekewich J, [1898J W. N. 158 (3) 
 
 185. — Jurisdiction to confirm resolution — 
 Alteration of memorandum — Absence of capital — 
 Winding-up of company — Companies (Memoran- 
 dum of Association) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), 
 s. 1, sub-s. 1 — Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. a. 63), s. 1, svh-ss. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 The High Court has jurisdiction to wind up 
 » registered unlimited co. which has no shares 
 and no capital, and therefore has jurisdiction to 
 sanction an alteration of its memorandum of 
 association. In re North of England Iron 
 Steamship Insurance Assooiation 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 30 ; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 481 
 
 186. — Marine insurance— Companies (Memo- 
 randum of Association) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 62), «. 1. 
 
 Where a marine insurance co. proposed to 
 alter their memorandum so as to extend their 
 business to certain other classes of insurance 
 connected with ships and maritime matters, an 
 alteration in the name of the co. was required. 
 In re Alliance Marine Insurance Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 1 Ch. 300 
 
 187. — Operations limited to India — Com 
 panics {Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890 
 (53<fc54: Fic<. c. 62), 8. 1. 
 
 On confirming an alteration in the memo- 
 randum of association of a co., the effect of which 
 was.to enlarge the area of a co.'s operations, the 
 Court imposed the condition that the name of 
 the CO., which indicated that its operations were 
 limited to one country, must be altered so as no 
 1 onger to contain such a suggestion. In re Indian 
 Mechanical Gold Extracting Co. 
 
 Bomer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 638 
 
 188. — Powers of the company — Alteration of 
 articles— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 
 COMPAUT (Memorandnm and Articles) — contd. 
 c. 89), ss. 16, 5Q— Companies Act, 1879 (42 * 43 
 Vict. c. 76), s. 5. 
 
 A CO. cannot contract itself out of the power 
 to alter its articles. M. took shares in the N. Co. 
 on the faith of a prospectus, which stated 4Z. per 
 share " is to be reseiTed capital, which under the 
 Act of 1879 it is not competent to the directors to 
 call up." Art. 12 of the co.'s articles of associa- 
 tion provided that the il. a share should only be 
 called up in case of winding-up. 13y special 
 resolution the co. substituted for art. 12 articles 
 declaring that 21. was to be called up in a certain 
 manner, and the other 21. only with the sanction 
 of a general meeting : — 
 
 Seld, that the co. had validly altered the 
 articles. Malleson v. National Insurance and 
 Guarantee Corporation 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 200 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Peveril Gold Mines, 
 Id., [1898] 1 Ch. i22, 130. 
 
 Alteration (with Sanction of Court) of Memo- 
 randum or Deed of Settlement under ss. 1 and 2 of 
 the Companies {Memorandum) Act, 1890! 
 
 189. — Preference shares — Increase of capital. 
 A limited co., having no authority under its 
 
 memorandum or articles of association to create 
 any preference between different classes of shares, 
 may by special resolution alter its articles so as 
 to authorize the directors to issue preference 
 shares by way of increase of capital. 
 
 Rutton V. Scarhorongh Cliff Hotel Co., (1865) 
 2 Dr. & Sm. 521, overruled. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1896] W. N. 87 (8), 
 reversed. Andrews v. Gas Meter Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 361 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Allen v. Gold Beefs of 
 West Africa, [1900] 1 Ch. 656, 672. 
 
 — Eeconstruotion of company — Alteration of 
 memorandum and articles of association. 
 See Cases under Company — Reconstruc- 
 tion, 
 
 190. — Hegistration of order- — Difficulty in 
 registration owing to the Vacation — Penalty^ 
 Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 The CO. were unable owing to the Vacation 
 to obtain an office copy of the order sanctioning 
 the alteration within the fifteen days prescribed 
 by the Act of 1 890 for delivery to the Registrar 
 of Joint Stock Companies. The registrar refused 
 to register : — 
 
 Seld, that the registrar should register, 
 although the Court could not compel him to do so: 
 otherwise the co. would be always " in default," 
 and for ever liable to a daily penalty of 101. 
 In re Criooieth Piee and Harbour Co. 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 15 
 
 191. — Hegistration of order — Enlarging lime 
 for — Companies (Memorandum of Association) 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 62), s. 2, stt6-s. 1 ; s. 3 
 s«6-s. 2 General Order, Nov., 1862, rule 73. 
 
 A resolution altering the memorandum had 
 been passed and entered, but not in time for the 
 CO. to deliver a copy to the registrar as required 
 by s. 2 of the Act of 1890. The Court refused 
 to post-date the order, but enlarged the time for 
 
( 369 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 370 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Memorandum and Articles)— conW. 
 deliveriag the copy, under the Companies Acts 
 Eules of Nov., 1862, r. 73. In re Eeteksionart 
 Intekest Society (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 60 
 
 192. — Signature to memorandum of association 
 — Subscription hy infants — Certificate of incorpora- 
 tion— Cmnpanies Act, 18£2 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 ss. 6, 18. 
 
 The certificate of incorporation is not con- 
 clusive to prevent the objection that the memo- 
 randum was not signed by seven persons. In re 
 Laxon & Co. (No. 2) 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 555 
 
 — Surplus assets — Distribution of. 
 
 See Cases under Company — ^Winding-up 
 — Assets. 
 
 193. — Time — Extension of — Alteration of 
 memorandum of association — Confirmation hy 
 Court — Registration of order — Companies (ilfemo- 
 randum of Association) Act, 1890 (58 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 62), o. 2, sub-ss. 1, 2 — General Order, November, 
 1862, T. 73. 
 
 On March 18 an order was made under s. 1 of 
 the above Act, confirming an alteration of the 
 memorandum of association of the above co. in 
 accordance with a special resolution passed by 
 tbe shareholders. The order was not passed and 
 entered until after the expiration of the fifteen 
 days from its date limited by s. 2 of the Act for 
 its registration : — 
 
 Held, under these circumstances, that the 
 time for registration be extended. 
 
 In re Beversionarif Interest Society, [1892] 
 W. N. 60 (which case had since been followed 
 by Eomer J.) followed. In re Bbin's Oxygen 
 Co. - - - North J. [1899] W. N. 44 
 
 194. — Validity of deed of settlement — Supple- 
 mentary deed — Lien of company on shares — Comr 
 panics Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 188, 191, 
 196, 209. 
 
 A supplementary deed of settlement, iiTegu- 
 larly executed, was registered in 1861. The co. 
 was afterwards registered under the Act of 1862 
 as a limited co. In 1888 the pit. purchased shares 
 in the co. Under the powers of the supple- 
 mentary deed the co. refused to register the pit. 
 as a shareholder on the ground that his vendor 
 was indebted to them and they had a lien on the 
 shares. The pit. then sought to set aside the 
 deed as irregular : — 
 
 Held, that, though the deed was once voidable, 
 it was then too late to set it aside. Boalek v. 
 Bkodhttest (No. 1) Stirling J, [1892] W. N. 49 
 
 Misrepresentation, 
 
 195. — Action of deceit — Absence of fraud. 
 Per C. A. : The effect of Derry v. Feeh, (1889) 
 
 14 App. Cas. 337, is to settle once for all that an 
 action against directors for negligent as distin- 
 guished from fraudulent misrepresentation in a 
 prospectus cannot be maintained. Consequently, 
 in this case, there being no fraud proved, but 
 only gross carelessness, the appeal must be 
 allowed, but without costs. In the absence of 
 evidence that the engineers' reports were in- 
 orrect, queere whether the falsity of the statement 
 
 COMPANY (Misrepresentation) — continued. 
 that they were prepared for the directors was 
 material. 
 
 Decision of Eomer J., [1890] "W. N. 210, dis- 
 missed. Angus ii. Clipfokd 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch 449 
 
 196. — Application for shares — Company not 
 
 K. applied for shares before the co. was 
 registered. An application was made by him to 
 have his name removed from the register on the 
 ground of misrepresentation in a preliminary 
 prospectus issued by the promoters : — 
 
 Held, that the statement in the prospectus, 
 though issued by the promoters before the forma- 
 tion of the CO., was the basis of the contract 
 between the co. and K., and was material to the 
 contract. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1892] W. N. 29, 
 reversed. In re METKOPOiiiTAN Coal Consumers' 
 Association. Karbebg's Case 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Lynde v. Anglo- 
 Italian Hemp Spinning Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 178, 
 183. 
 
 Followed by C. A. TampUn's Case, [1892] 
 W. N. 146, below. 
 
 197. — Application for shares — Draft pro- 
 spectus. 
 
 The promoters of a co. before the formation 
 of the CO. issued a draft prospectus containing 
 misrepresentations. The formal prospectus issued 
 after the formation was substantially the same 
 and equally misleading : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., that T., who had applied for 
 shares on the faith of the draft prospectus only, 
 was entitled to a rescission of his agreement to 
 take shares, as the draft prospectus was not 
 issued by the co. : 
 
 Held, also, by Eomer J., C, who had applied 
 for shares on the faith of both prospectuses, was 
 entitled to rescission. 
 
 (a) In re Canadian (Direct) Meat Co. 
 Champion's Case Eomer J. [1892] W. N. 94 
 
 (b) In re Canadian (Direct) Meat Co. 
 Tamplin's Case C. A. [1892] "W. N. 146 revers. 
 
 Eomer J. [1892] W. N. 94 
 
 — Prospectus. 
 
 See Cases under Company— Prospectus. 
 
 198. — Transferee of shares — Rescission — 
 Agent. 
 
 A transferee of shares cannot obtain rescission 
 of a contract to take shares and rectification of 
 the register on account of misrepresentations in 
 the prospectus, even though the transfer be but 
 nominal (the transferor being his agent and the 
 calls paid to him), unless the co. was informed 
 that the appellant was only an agent. Hyslop 
 V. Morel, Brothers, Corbet & Son, Ld. 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 19 
 
 Mortgages and Charges. 
 
 Registration of mortgages and charges — Rectifi- 
 cation of register — Entry (^satisfaction — Penalties. 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), 
 8s. 14-18. For notes thereon see [1900] W. N. 198 
 et seq. 
 
( 371 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 372 ) 
 
 COMPAHY (Mortgages and Charges)— continued. 
 
 — Debentures. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 
 
 — Distress — Interest — Liquidators. 
 
 See Company — Windino - trp — Mort- 
 gages. 130. 
 
 199. — Mortgage debentures — Deposit of securi- 
 ties in land registry — Debenture actions-Mortgage 
 Debenture Acts, 1865, 1870 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 78, 
 ss. 10, 46 ; 33 <fe 34 Vict. c. 20, ss. 8, 9). 
 
 Tbe Court has no power to order securities, 
 ■wbicb have been deposited -with the Registrar of 
 the Land Eegistry Office by a land securities co., 
 to be delivered up to a receiver appointed in a 
 debenture-holder's action, or to a liquidator in 
 the -winding-up of the CO., unless such securities 
 have been redeemed or sold. 
 
 The decision of Wright J. reversed. Somee- 
 SET V. Land Seoueitibs Co. C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 464 
 
 Offences. 
 
 — Default in forwarding list of members to re- 
 
 gistrar—" Criminal cause or matter " — 
 Appeal. 
 
 See Appeal. 7. 
 
 — Proceedings against delinquent officers of co. 
 
 See Cases under Company — ^Winding-dp 
 — Proceedings against Delinquent 
 Officers. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 Service of summons on Companies facilitated. 
 See Explanatory Memorandum to County Court 
 Uules {May), 1899, and rules 1, 2, and 7. W. N. 
 1899 (May 20), p. 171. See Current Index, 1899, 
 p. cxi. 
 
 200. — Evidence — Unstamped documents — 
 Undertaking by solicitor to a company to stamp — 
 Application to be relieved from undertaking . 
 
 During the hearing of a motion to rectify the 
 register of shareholders of a co. some documents 
 were tendered in evidence on behalf of the co. 
 The objection was taken that they were un- 
 stamped, and counsel for the co., on instructions, 
 gave the usual undertaking that the documents 
 should be stamped. They were then put in and 
 read. 
 
 On motion ex parte, on behalf of the solicitor 
 of the CO., that the solicitor might be relieved 
 from his undertaking as he never intended to 
 give his own personal undertaking to stamp the 
 documents, but intended the undertaking to 
 apply to his client, the co. The stamps amounted 
 to 5001. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. : An undertaking is never 
 accepted from a co. But I cannot entertain this 
 matter on an ex parte application. The objection 
 was taken by the Court for the benefit of the 
 Inland Eevenue, and they 'ought to be heard 
 upon it. The co. are also interested parties. 
 Notice of this application ought to be served on 
 both of these parties. 
 
 If an affidavit is produced by the proper 
 officer of the co. stating in effect that the co. do 
 not intend to appeal and do not desire the docu- 
 ments to be entered in the order as part of the 
 evidence read on the motion, that will satisfy me 
 so far as the co. is concerned. But notice must 
 
 COMPANY (Practice) — continued. 
 
 be given to the Inland Eevenue, and when the 
 
 parties are ready it can be mentioned again. In 
 
 re COOLOAEDIE GOLDFIELDS, Ld. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J, [1899] W. N. 128 
 
 201. — Notice to company — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 23, 39. 
 
 In,the absence of evidence to the contrary, the 
 Court will infer that a clerk in the registered office 
 of a 00. is, during business hours, and whilst 
 the secretary is absent, so far in charge of the 
 office that he has authority to receive a notice, so 
 as to make it a communication to the co. In re 
 Bheweey Assets Coepobation. Teuman's Case 
 Wright J. [1894] 3 Ch. 272 
 
 — Winding-up of company. 
 
 See Cases under Company — ^Windwg-up 
 —Practice. yi^s^ 
 
 Promoter. 
 
 — Contract by promoter — Omission from pro- 
 
 spectus — Concealment — " Fraudulent " 
 
 prospectus. 
 
 See Company — Prospectus. 209. 
 
 202. — Fiduciary relation — Ratification — 
 XTltra vires — 43 Geo. 3, c 151, s. 15. 
 
 Promoters agreed with contractor for execu- 
 tion of works at a fixed price, expenses incurred 
 iu obtaining special Act to be borne by con- 
 tractors. The next day, by a second agreement, 
 two of the promoters agreed to relieve the con- 
 tractors of the expenses of the Act for 17,000Z. 
 Eatification of the second agreement by the co. 
 was alleged : — 
 
 Held, that the company were entitled to the 
 benefits of this second agreement : 
 
 Held, also, that this was an agreement which 
 the CO. could not ratify. Mann v. Edinbuegh 
 
 NOETHEHN TeAMWAYS Co. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 69 
 
 203. — Secret profit of promoter — Misfeasance 
 —Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 59), s. 8 ; 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 (£54 Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 10. 
 
 Tiiis was an appeal from the decision of 
 Wright J., noted [1897] W. N. 174 (5) ; and it 
 was held by the Court that although H. was one 
 of the promoters of the co. within s. 10 of the 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, and as such 
 could not retain against the co. any secret profit 
 made by him at the expense of the co., the 250Z. 
 in question did not come within that rule. Upon 
 the facts H. had not misapplied, or retained, or 
 become liable or accountable for any money of 
 the CO., or been guilty of any misfeasance or 
 breach of trust in relation to the co. to the extent 
 of the money sought to be recovered by him, and 
 the CO. had no right to require H. to pay over to 
 it the 250i, paid to him, nor any cause of action 
 against him in respect of it. The appeal was 
 accordingly allowed. In re Sale Hotel and 
 Botanical Gardens Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 40 (2) 
 
 204. — Secret profit by promoters — Duty ofdis- 
 chswre. 
 
 A syndicate was formed to raise a fund, buy a 
 property, and resell it to a co. or some other pur- 
 chaser ; the fund to be in the names of trustees 
 
( 373 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 374 ) 
 
 COMPAirr (Promoter)— conKnued. 
 who were to promote and register a co. to which 
 they should resell the property, and who if a oo. 
 should be foimed were to be directors. The 
 trustees bought up some of the charges upon the 
 property for sums below the amount which the 
 charges afterwards realized, and thereby made a 
 profit for the syndicate of 20,000^. They bought 
 the property for 140,000?., formed a limited co. 
 and resold the property for 180,000i. to the co., of 
 which they were the first and at that time the 
 only directors. They issued a prospectus inviting 
 applications for shares and disclosing the two 
 prices of 140,000Z. and 180,000Z. but not the profit 
 of 20,0002. That some profit had been made by 
 buying up the charges might have been discovered 
 by a close examination of a contract which was 
 referred to in the co.'s memorandum and articles 
 of association and in the prospectus. Shares 
 were issued and the co. afterwards went into 
 liquidation : — 
 
 Held, that the trustees ought to have disclosed 
 to the CO. the profit of 20,000i.; that they had 
 not disclosed it ; that the fact that the oo. could 
 not now rescind was no bar to relief ; and that 
 the appellant as one of the trustees was bound to 
 replace that portion of the 20,O00Z. which had 
 been paid to the trustees as their share. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., In re Olympia, Ld., [1898] 
 2 Ch. 153, afiirmed. Gluokstbin v. Baknes 
 H, L. (E.) [1900] TV. H. 92; [1900] A. C. 240 
 
 Prospectus. 
 
 Piling of Peospeotus.] Specific requiremenfi 
 as to particulars of prospectus — Restriction on 
 alteration of teimis mentioned in prospectus. See 
 Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Viot. c. 48), ss. 9-11. 
 For notes thereon see [1900] W. N. 194 et sej. 
 
 — Directors. 
 
 See CoMPANT — ^Directors. 
 
 — Directors — Shares — Contributoiy. 
 
 See CoMPANT —Winding-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 34. 
 
 205. — Directors — Statement that directors will 
 talce shares not talcen by vendor — Estoppel — 
 Implied agreement. 
 
 The prospectus of a Co., approved and issued 
 by the directors after the registration of the co., 
 and inviting subscriptions tor the preference 
 shares and debenture capital, stated that the 
 directors would take all the ordinary shares 
 which were not taken by the vendors to the co. 
 The vendors (who were two of the directors) and 
 others took all the ordinary shares except 367. 
 No ordinary shares were ever allotted to any of 
 the other directors, and none of those directors 
 was ever placed on the register of shareholders in 
 respect of any ordinary shares. In the winding-up 
 of the CO., there being no evidence, except the- 
 prospectus, of any agreement between the co. and 
 one of the non-vendor directors that he should 
 take any ordinary shares : — 
 
 Held, that the prospectus was not satisfac- 
 ■ tory proof of an agreement binding the co. to 
 allot and the director to accept such shares, and 
 that he was not liable in respect of any ordinary 
 shares, either on the ground of agreement or on 
 the ground of estoppel. 
 
 COMPANY (Prospectus) — continued. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1898] W. JST. 71 (1), 
 reversed. In re Moobe Brothers & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 18 (S); [1899] 1 Ch. 627 
 
 208, — Fraudulent misrepresentation — Share- 
 holder — Repudiation by plea — Forfeiture of shares 
 —Companies Act, 1867 (30 * 31 Vict. c. 131), 
 8. 38. 
 
 Where a person is induced by a fraudulent 
 prospectus to apply for an allotment of shares, 
 and his shares are afterwards forfeited by his 
 failure to pay calls, he ceases to be a shareholder 
 and becomes a mere debtor to the co., and if he 
 has done nothing to afSrm the contract he may 
 repudiate it and defend an action for calls on the 
 ground of the fraud. 
 
 A prospectus which merely specifies the dates 
 of and names of the parties to contracts in com- 
 pliance wilh the Companies Act, 1867, ». 38, does 
 not give notice of circumstances contained in the 
 contracts which are material to be known and 
 the omission of which causes the prospectus to 
 give a false impression. 
 
 The decision of the Irish C. A., ([1895] 2 I.E. 
 207) affirmed. Aaron's Keeps, Ld. v. Twiss 
 
 H. I. (I.) [1896] A, C. 273 
 
 Keferred to by 0. A. In re Olympia, Ld., 
 [1898] 2 Oh. 153, 178; H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 
 240. 
 
 207. — Fraudulent prospectus — Practice — 
 Shareholder— Action against company and directors 
 — Causes of action — Misjoinder — Separate relief 
 against separate defendants — " Actio personalis 
 moritur cum persona " — Deceased director — Legal 
 personal representatives, liability of — Directors' 
 Liability Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. a. 64), «. 3. 
 
 Where an action is brought by a shareholder 
 against the co. and its directors for relief in 
 respect of an improperly issued prospectus, the 
 fact that the relief claimed against the several 
 defts. may differ in detail is no ground for objec- 
 tion that the action is bad as joining separate 
 causes of action against separate defts., for in 
 substance there is only one cause of action, 
 namely, the improper issue of the prospectus. 
 Neither is it improper to join in such an action 
 the legal personal representatives of a deceased 
 director alleged to have been a party to the issue 
 of the prospectus. 
 
 Whether the maxim " Actio personalis moritur 
 cum persona" applies in the case of a deceased 
 director who may have inourre"d liability under 
 8. 3 of the Directors' Liability Act, 1890, qurnre. 
 
 Gower v. Couldridge, [1898] 1 Q. B. 348, and 
 Tliompson v. London County Council, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 840, explained. Prankenburg v. Great 
 HoESELBss Carriage Co. 
 
 C, A. [1900] W. N. 2 1 [1900] 1 Q. B. 504 
 
 208. — Intention to induce purchase of shares — 
 Liability to purchaser — Publicatimi of false state- 
 ments confirming those of prospectus — Purchase of 
 shares by person who had received prospectus — 
 Liability of person causing publication. 
 
 Where the object with which the prospectus 
 of a 00. is issued is not merely to induce appli- 
 cation for an allotment of shares, but also to 
 induce persons to whom it is sent to purchase 
 shares in the market, its function is not exhausted 
 
( 515 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 376 ) 
 
 COMPANY (ViosT^ectus)— continued. 
 when the co. has gone to allotment, and 
 the person issuing the prospectus is responsible 
 for the consequences of a false representation 
 contained in it, and known to him at the time to 
 be false, to any person to whom the prospectus 
 has been sent who is induced by the false repre- 
 sentation to purchase shares, and thereby sustains 
 a loss : — 
 
 Peek V. Gurney, (1873) L. K. 6 H. L. 377, dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 Where a person who has issued the prospectus 
 of a CO., containing a false representation, known 
 to him at the time to be false, subsequently 
 causes to be published a false representation lo 
 the same effect as that of the prospectus, with 
 the direct intent of inducing persons to purchase 
 shares in the co., he is responsible for the conse- 
 quences of so doing to any one who, having 
 received a prospectus, purchases shares on the 
 faith of the false representation so published, and 
 thereby sustains a loss. Andrews v. Mockfokd 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 372 
 
 209. — Misrepresentation — Misleading state- 
 ment — " Untrue statement" — Director — Promoter 
 — Sliareholder — Contract — Rescission — Damages 
 — Compeiuation — Directors' Liability Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 64), s. 3, sub-s. 1 — Contract by 
 company, directors, or promoters — Omission from 
 prospectus — Concealment — " Fraudulent " pro- 
 spectus — Waiver clause in prospectus or application 
 form — Catching conditions — Notice — Companies 
 Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 38. 
 
 A misleading statement in a prospectus is an 
 " untrue statement " within s. 3, sub-s. 1, of the 
 Directors' Liability Act, 1890. The liability 
 imposed by that section for any untrue statement 
 in a prospectus is absolute and is in no way 
 affected by the consideration whether the state- 
 ment was untrue in the sense in which it was 
 used by those who issued the prospectus. Persons 
 issuing a prospectus containing an untrue state- 
 ment can only escape liability under the statute 
 by proving that they had " reasonable ground " 
 for believing the statement to be true in fact. 
 
 Sect. 38 of the Companies Act, 1867 — which 
 enacts that every prospectus shall specify the 
 dates and names of the parties to any contract 
 entered into by the co. or the promoters, 
 directors or trustees thereof, and that any 
 prospectus not specifying the same shall be 
 deemed "fraudulent" on the part of the pro- 
 moters, directors and officers of the co. know- 
 ingly issuing the same — cannot be evaded by a 
 general waiver clause in the prospectus, or in 
 the form of application for shares, to the effect 
 that a subscriber for shares shall waive all claim 
 for non-compliance with the section. A waiver 
 clause, to be effectual as against a subscriber, 
 must fairly disclose the circumstances which 
 confer the rights which by the clause he agrees 
 not to enforce. 
 
 The Court will refuse to give effect, as against 
 a shareholder, to a " tricky " waiver clause in a 
 prospectus or application form, upon the same 
 principles as are applicable to catching conditions 
 of sale as between vendor and purchaser or to 
 general words in releases. 
 
 Judgment of Kekewioh J., [1899] W. N. 26(2), 
 
 COMFANT (Prospectus) — continued. 
 afSrmed. Gheenwood v. Leathee Shod Wheel 
 Co. - C. A. [1900] W. N. 1 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 421 
 Sect. 38 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 131 is repealed by 
 Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. v. 48), Sched. 
 and see s. 10 (5) of the later Act. 
 
 210. — Misrepresentation by agent — Shares — 
 Rescission of contract. 
 
 A person suing a company to obtain rescis- 
 sion of an agreement to take shares in it must, 
 generally speaking, bring his case under one of 
 the following heads: (1) Where the misrepre- 
 sentations are made by the directors or other the 
 general agents of the co. entitled to act and act- 
 ing on its behalf. (2) Where the misrepresenta- 
 tions are made by a special agent of the co. 
 while acting within the scope of his authority, 
 including the case of a person constituted agent 
 by subsequent adoption of his acts. (3) Where 
 the CO. can be held affected, before the contract 
 is complete, with the knowledge that it is induced 
 by misrepresentation. (4) Where the contract is 
 made on the basis of certain representations, 
 whether the particulars thereof were known to 
 the CO. or not, aad it turns out that some of them 
 were material and untrue. Ltnde v. Anglo- 
 Italian Hemp Spinning Co. ' - Eomer J. 
 [1895] W. N. 149 (1) ; [1896] 1 Ch. 178 
 
 211. . — Shares — Contract — Rescission — Noti- 
 disclosure of material facts. 
 
 Where a person applies for shares in a co. on 
 the faith of statements contained in a prospecttis 
 issued by the co. and inviting applications for 
 shares, and the prospectus contains no actual 
 misrepresentation, and the shares are allotted, 
 the applicant is not entitled to rescission of his 
 contract merely because the prospectus did not 
 state all the material facts pro and con. which 
 might induce a person to apply for shares, or 
 prevent him from applying. The applicant is 
 only entitled to rescission on the ground of non- 
 disclosure of facts where the facts not disclosed 
 are such that the omission to disclose them 
 renders the prospectus as it stands misleading. 
 MoKeown v. Boudaed Peveeil Geae Co. 
 
 Eomer J. [1896] W. N, 36 (S) 
 
 — Untrue statements in^Director's liability — 
 
 Action, Accruer of cause of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statdte of. 11. 
 
 Bates and Taxes. 
 
 212. — Construction of Colonial Act — Law of 
 Cape of Good Hope, No. 3 of 1864, Sched. XVIL, 
 s. 2, Bead B. 
 
 On the construction of a Colonial Eevenue 
 Act, the J. C. held, that a co. authorized by its 
 memorandum of association " to carry on business 
 in any part of the world " was not liable under a 
 section applying to companies whose regulating 
 instrument described them as carrying on dealings 
 in the Colony. Maeshall v. Oepen 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 606 
 
 — Income tax. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax, 83 — 90. 
 
 Beconstrnctlon. 
 313, — Contributory — Application for shares — 
 
( 377 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 378 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Eeconstruction) — continued. 
 Withdrawal lief ore allotment — Winding-up of 
 company. 
 
 By a reconstruction or amalgamation agree- 
 ment tlie C. Co. and its liquidators agreed to 
 transfer its goodwill and assets to the M. Co., 
 part of the consideration for the transfer being 
 that every member of the C. Co. should, in respect 
 of each share therein held by him, " be entitled 
 as of right to claim an allotment" of either a 
 debenture bond, or two ordinaiy shares of 51. each 
 in the M. Co. credited with 11. per share paid up, 
 and the agreement provided that the M. Co. 
 should, within a mouth from the date of the 
 agreement, allot and issue the bonds and shares 
 claimed, subject to this, that it should not be 
 bound to allot shares to any one to whom under 
 its articles it could have objected as a transferee 
 of shares. The agreement further provided that 
 a claim must be made within twenty-one days 
 from the date thereof by sending in to the M. Co. 
 or to the liquidators of the C. Co. a signed claim 
 in -writing, and that the liquidators should within 
 seven days from that date give notice in writing 
 to each member of the 0. Co. stating the number 
 of bonds or shares which he was entitled to claim 
 as of right, with proper forms of claim. The 
 liquidators duly gave notice to W., a shareholder 
 in the 0. Co., who within the twenty-one days 
 signed a document, addressed to the directors of 
 tlie M. Co., claiming an allotment of ten ordinary 
 shares with 11. per share paid up, and agreeing 
 to accept the same and to pay the further moneys 
 payable thereon when called upon. Before any 
 acceptance of the offer or the allotment of the 
 shares subsequently made, W. wrote to the M, 
 Co. withdrawing his application. In the subse- 
 quent winding-up of the M. Co. the liquidator of 
 that CO. sought to have "W. retained on the list of 
 contributories in respect of the ten shares : — 
 
 Held, that the document sent to W. was an 
 application which could be withdrawn by him 
 before acceptance, and not an acceptance of a 
 prior offer by the M. Co., and that he was not 
 liable as a contributory. In re Metropolitan 
 FiKE Insdbaucb Co. Wallace's Case 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N, 171 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 671 
 
 214. — Dissentient members — Bights of — 
 Articles of association — Ultra vires — Voluntary 
 winding-up — Sale of assets to new company — 
 Shares in purchasing company — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 161. 
 
 A CO. cannot, by its articles of association, 
 deprive members of the protection afforded to 
 them by s. 161 of the Companies Act, 1862, in 
 the event of their dissenting from a sale of tho 
 co.'s assets in a winding-up in consideration of 
 shares in a new co. 
 
 A CO. by its articles gave the liquidator, in the 
 case of a voluntary winding-up, power (irrespec- 
 tive of the powers conferred upon him by the 
 •Companies Acts, and as an additional power), 
 with the authority of a special resolution, to sell 
 the undertaking and assets of the co. for shares 
 fully or partly paid up, or the obligations of or 
 ■other interest in any other co., and to make an 
 agreement for the allotment to the shareholders 
 direct of the proceeds of sale in proportion to 
 
 COMPANY (Reconstruction) — continued. 
 their respective interests in the co. The articles 
 further provided that upon any sale thereunder, 
 or under s. 161 of the Companies Act, 1862, no 
 member should be entitled to require the 
 liquidator either to abstain from carrying into 
 effect the sale or the resolution authorizing the 
 same, or to purchase his interest in the co. ; but 
 that the liquidator might, upon the request in 
 writing of a dissentient member, sell his shares 
 or interest and pay over to him the net proceeds 
 thereof : — 
 
 Seld, that the articles were ultra vires and 
 inoperative so far as they purported to deprive 
 dissentient shareholders of the rights conferred 
 upon them by s. 161. Payne v. Cobk Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1900] 1 Ch. 308 
 
 216. — Division of assets — Shareholders — 
 Winding-up of company — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. e. 89), s. 161. 
 
 This CO. was in course of voluntary liquidation 
 for the purposes of reconstruction under s. 161 of 
 the Companies Act, 1862. The assets had been 
 transferred to a new co. in consideration of shares 
 in the new co. equal in number to the shares in 
 the old CO. In pursuance of the reconstruction 
 agreement the voluntary liquidator offered a 
 number of shares in the new co. to each share- 
 holder in the old co. equal to the number of 
 shares held by him in the old co. ; and sold the 
 shares in the new co. that were not accepted by 
 shareholders in the old co. There was no pro- 
 vision in the agreement for the distribution of tho 
 proceeds of sale : — 
 
 Held, that the purchase-money was divisible 
 among the shareholders who had not taken up 
 shares in the new co. in proportion to their 
 respective holdings. In re Lake View Extended 
 Gold Mine (Westebn Australia), Ld. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 44 
 — Liquidation of company for purposes of recon- 
 struction — Lease — Proviso for re-entry. 
 See Landlord and Tenant — lease. 56. 
 
 216. — Preferred and ordinary shareholders, 
 rights of— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), 88. 133, 161. 
 
 A CO. with ordinary shareholders and share- 
 holders preferred as to income only went into 
 voluntary liquidation for the purpose of recon- 
 struction. By a resolution under s. 161 of the 
 Act of 1862, preference shares in the new co. were 
 allotted to the old preference shareholders ; — 
 
 Held, that the resolution was invalid, for 
 upon a winding-up taking place, preference and 
 ordinary shareholders stood on an equal footing, 
 and it was not competent for a majority of share- 
 holders, under s. 161, to give a benefit to one 
 class of shareholders over the other. Simpson v. 
 Palace Theatre, Ld. 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] W. N. 91 
 
 217. — Reasonahle notice — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 161. 
 
 The S. Co. was being wound up voluntarily. 
 T„ a shareholder, had changed his address with- 
 out notice to the co. In a, scheme to reconstruct 
 the 00. shares in the new co. with a certain sum 
 paid up were to be offered to the shareholders. 
 The liquidator posted on April 17 notices to the 
 effect that shareholders must exercise their option 
 
( 379 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 380 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Keconstruotion)— coMiiKMei. 
 by April 25 ; this was subsequently extended to 
 April 28. The new oo. was registered on April 28, 
 but the agreement relating to the shares was 
 not entered into till May 3. The agreement did 
 not limit the time within which the old share- 
 holders were to apply for shares. T. did not 
 know of what was occurring till May 5. On 
 May 7 he called at the co.'s office and applied for 
 his shares, but was told he was too late : — 
 
 Held, that the liquidator had been too quick, 
 that fresh notices should have been sent to the 
 shareholders after May 3, and that T. was en- 
 titled to the shares, or, if that was impossible, to 
 damages. In re South Austkalian Peteoleum 
 Fields, Ld. V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 189 
 
 318. — Sale of assets to new company — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 riot. c. 89), 8. 161. 
 
 The memorandum may exclude the operation 
 of s. 16 of the Act of 1862, m the event of a sale 
 by the co. of its undertakings to another cc, the 
 whole or part of the consideration for such sale 
 being shares in the purchasing co,, although at 
 the time of the execution of the contract for sale 
 it is contemplated to wind up the selling co. 
 voluntarily. Cotton v. Imperial and Foeeign 
 Agency and Investment Coepoeation 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 3 Ch. 454 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Payne v. The Cork 
 Co., Ld., [1900] 1 Ch. 308, 314. 
 
 219. — Schema — Agreement — Transfer or sale 
 of midertaleing to new company — Shares in new 
 company, application for — Time limit — Appropri- 
 ation hy new company of unclaimed shares — Share- 
 holders of old company, rights of — Forfeiture of 
 Shares — Ultra vires — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 161. 
 
 Where, on the voluntary winding-up of a co., 
 a reconstruction agreement is entered into, pur- 
 suant to a special resolution under s. 161 of the 
 Companies Act, 1862, between that co. and its 
 liquidator of the one part and the new co. of the 
 other part, for carrying out a transfer or sale of 
 the undertaking of the old oo. to the new, and 
 providing that every holder of shares in the old 
 CO. " shall be entitled as of right " to claim an 
 allotment of an equivalent number of shares in 
 the new co., further provisions fixing the time 
 within which the application for shares must be 
 sent in to the new co., and placing the shares not 
 applied for within that time at the disposal of 
 the new co,, are not ultra vires ; and therefore a 
 member of the old co. who is not a dissentient ■ 
 member within the proviso in the section, and 
 whose application is out of time either through 
 negligence or accident, such as absence abroad or 
 illness, cannot compel the new oo. to allot him 
 the shares. 
 
 But whether, on an application to sanction a 
 proposed scheme of reconstruction containing a 
 clause placing shares not applied for by members 
 of the old CO. within a stipulated time at the dis- 
 posal of the new Co., the Court will sanction 
 such a clause without some modification for the 
 protection of members of the old en., qvjsre. 
 
 Observations of Lord Bsher M.R. in Nicholl 
 v. Eberhardt Co., (1889) 61 L. T. 489; 1 Megone, 
 402, not followed. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1899] W. N. 97, 
 
 COMPANY (Beconstruction) — continued. 
 reversed. Buedett-Coutts v. TstrE Blue (Han- 
 nan's) Gold Mine - C, A. [1899] W. N. 113 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Oh, 616 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re Canning Jarrah 
 Timber Co. (^Western Australia'), Ld., [1900] 1 Oh. 
 708, 715. 
 
 220. — Scheme of arrangement with creditors — 
 Sanction of Court — Underwriting agreements — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 1. 161 
 — Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 
 (33 & 34 Vict. 0. 104). 
 
 A CO. having paased special resolutions for a 
 voluntary winding-up and the adoption of a 
 scheme of arrangement with their debenture- 
 holders, the scheme was assented to by the 
 statutory majority of the debenture-holders, as 
 provided by the Joint Stock Companies Arrange- 
 ment Act, 1870. 
 
 The scheme provided (inter alia) that a new 
 CO. should be formed, and that the liquidator 
 should enter into an agreement with that co. for 
 the transfer to it of the undertaking and assets of 
 the old CO. ; that the new co. should issue deben- 
 ture stock to the debenture-holders of the old co. 
 in satisfaction of their debentures; that every 
 shareholder in the old co. should be entitled to 
 claim a share in the new co. in respect of each 
 share held by him in the old co. ; that the new 
 CO. should not be bound to allot any share unless 
 the member entitled thereto should, within three 
 weeks from the sanction of the scheme by the 
 Court, claim his allotment and make a specified 
 payment on account of the liability thereon ; and 
 that as regarded unclaimed shares the liquidator 
 should use his best endeavours to sell the same, 
 and should divide the net proceeds of sale rate- 
 ably among the non-claiming members of the old 
 CO. Subject to the provisions of the scheme, 
 the new co. was to take over and discharge all 
 the liabilities of the old co. and to indemnify the 
 old CO. 
 
 Among the special resolutions passed by the 
 shareholders of the old co. was one which autho- 
 rized the directors and the liquidator or either of 
 them " to procure underwriting for all or any of 
 the capital of the new co., on such terms and 
 conditions as they or he may approve, and to pay 
 for the same out of the assets of the co." 
 
 In pursuance of this resolution the liquidator 
 entered into two agreements with persons who 
 agreed to apply for and take up all the shares in 
 the new co. which should not be taken up by the 
 shareholders in the old oo., in consideration of a 
 commission of 3d. per share on all the shares of 
 the new co., 250,000 in number. 
 
 No shareholder of the old co. had given a 
 notice under s. 161 of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 requiring the liquidator to purchase his shares. 
 
 Upon a petition under the Joint Stock Com- 
 panies Arrangement Act, 1870, for the sanction 
 of the Court to the scheme : — 
 
 Held, by Cozens-Hardy J., that the under- 
 writing agreements were illegal, and that the 
 Court ought not to sanction the scheme. 
 
 The 0. A. sanctioned the scheme on the 
 undertaking of the liquidator (1) to pay the un- 
 secured cieditors of the old oo. in full out of the 
 assets in his hands ; (2) not to act upon the reao- 
 
( 381 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 382 ) 
 
 COUFANT (Becoastrnction) — omUinued. 
 lution as to underwriting, and to procure the 
 cancellation of the underwriting agreements, and 
 (3) that three shareholders of the old oo. who 
 opposed the scheme should, if they elected within 
 three days to dissent from the special resolutions 
 passed by the co., be entitled to all the statutory 
 rights of dissentient shareholders imder ss. 161 
 and 162 of the Companies Act, 1862. In re 
 Cannino Jarrah TrMBBR Co. (Western Aus- 
 tralia) C. A. [1900] W. N. 75; [1900] 1 Ch. 708 
 
 221. — Shares partly paid up — Registration of 
 contract — Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 c. 131), e. 25. 
 
 By an agreement of March, 1897, under which 
 the deft. co. had been reconstructed, it was pro- 
 vided that, as part of the consideration for the 
 transfer of the assets of the old co. to the deft. 
 CO., the liquidator of the old co. should be en- 
 titled to have allotted to him or his nominees 
 200,000 shares of 10s. each in the deft. co. with 
 7s. 6d. per share credited thereon as paid up, upon 
 applying for the same within two months from 
 the date of this agreement, and making a small 
 further payment with such application. This 
 agreement was filed with the Registrar of Joiot 
 Stock Companies; the pit. co. haying applied 
 for 6500 of these 200,000 shares under the option 
 so conferred upon them, the question was raised 
 whether the filing of the above agreement was a 
 sufficient compliance with s. 25 of the Companies 
 Act, 1867 :— 
 
 Meld, following Msner and McArthur's Case, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 759, that the filing of the recon- 
 struction agreement of March, 1897, was a suffi- 
 cient compliance with s. 25 of the Companies 
 Act, 1867. 
 
 In re Coolgardie Consolidated Gold Mines, Ld., 
 (1898) 14 Times L. E. 277, and In re Jackson & 
 Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 348, distinguished. Transvaal 
 ExpLOBDira Co. v. Albion (Transvaal) Gold 
 Mines, Ld. - Byrne J. [1899] W. K. 122 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 370 
 — Voluntary winding up of company. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Volun- 
 tary. 
 
 Seduction of Capital, 
 
 222. — Ajssets — Investment — Surrender of part 
 to improve value of remainder — Companies Act, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vid. c. 131) ; 1877 (40 & 41 Vict, 
 u. 26). 
 
 A limited co., having power to invest its 
 capital and acting within the scope of its 
 business as described in its memorandum, is at 
 liberty to surrender part of a particular invest- 
 ment with a view to improving the remainder ; 
 and such a surrender is not a " reduction of 
 capital" requiring the sanction of the Court 
 within the Acts of 1867 and 1877. Thomson v. 
 Tbustbes, Executors, and Seoubities Insurance 
 Corporation - Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 454 
 
 223. — AvaUdble assets — Ooodvnll — Reserve — 
 Unappropriated profits — Preference shares — Com- 
 pa/nies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), «. 11— 
 Companies Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 The Court will not confirm a reduction of 
 capital unless satisfied that it will not work 
 unjustly or inequitably. 
 
 COMPANY (Eeduotion of Capital)— coirfinstei. 
 
 Share capital comprised ordinary shares and 
 shares carrying a fixed cumulative preference 
 dividend, with no preference as to capital and no 
 voting power. The Court refused to confirm a 
 reduction on the ground (inter alia) that the 
 reduction would benefit the ordinary shareholders 
 at the expense of the preference shareholders. 
 
 In ascertaining the available assets of a co. 
 for the purpose of a reduction of capital, the 
 amounts of reserve and unappropriated profit and 
 the value of goodwill are to be taken into account. 
 
 On an opposed petition to confirm a reduction 
 of capital the Court will not act on the balance 
 of speculative expert evidence as to the value of 
 mining property. In re Babbow Hematite 
 Steel Co. - Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 236 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 846 
 
 224. — Capital in excess of requirements of 
 company — Form of minute to be registered. In re 
 Lamson Store Service Co. 
 
 Stirling J, [1897] 1 Ch. 875, n. 
 
 225. — Capital " in eaicess of the wants of the 
 company " — Return to shareholders — Issue of 
 debentures — Companies Acts, 1867 and 1877. 
 
 The Court, upon the requirements of the 
 Companies Act, 1867, ss. 13, 14 being satisfied, 
 confirmed a scheme of reduction under which a 
 portion of the capital of a company was to be 
 returned to the shareholders, although a part of 
 the portion so returned was to be immediately 
 borrowed from them by the company on deben- 
 tures. In re Nixon's Navigation Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 872 
 
 226. — Capital lost or unrepresented by avail- 
 able assets — Mxtinction of class of shares — Com- 
 panies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 9; Com- 
 panies Acts Amendment, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 26), 
 
 8.3. 
 
 Keduction of capital no longer represented 
 by available assets can be effected by cancelling 
 the whole of two out of three classes of shares. 
 
 Where there are different classes of shares in 
 a CO. a loss of capital should fall on that class 
 which according to the constitution of the co. is 
 tbe proper class to bear it. In re Floating 
 Dock Co. op St. Thomas, Ld. 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] 1 Ch. 691 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re London and 
 New York Investment Corporation, [1895] 2 Ch. 
 860, 867. 
 
 227. Company which has ceased to carry on 
 business — Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 
 C. 131), 88. 9, 11. 
 
 Tlie W. Co. had ceased to carry on business, 
 and only continued for the purpose of selling one 
 particular piece of land : — 
 
 Held, that a petition to reduce the capital 
 could not be entertained, and the provisions of 
 the Companies Act, 1867, ss. 9-11, were not ap- 
 plicable, as the sole object was to distribute the 
 assets among the shareholders. In re Wallasey 
 Beick and Land Co. - ' - Kekewich J, 
 
 [1894] W. N. 20 
 
 228. — Confirmation by " Court " — Jurisdiction 
 — Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict^ c. 131), 
 88. 9, 12— Companies (,Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 
( 383 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 384 ) 
 
 COMPANY (KedTiction of Capital)— continued. 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), ss. 1, 2, 32, suh-s8. 2, 33— 
 Order of March 26, 1892. 
 
 (a) The Order of March 26, 1892, transferring 
 certain company oases to V. Williams J. does not 
 apply to petitions for reduction of capital. In re 
 Islington and General Blbotbic Supply 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 81 
 Considered by V. Williams J. In re Mining 
 Shares Investment Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 660. 
 
 (b) The judge to whom winding-up jurisdic- 
 tion is assigned by the Order of March 26, 1892, 
 has jurisdiction to confirm a reduction of capital 
 when the amount of such capital, paid up or 
 credited as paid up, exceeds 10,OOOZ. In re 
 Ocean Queen Steamship Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 2 Ch. 666 
 
 229. — Confirmation hy Court — Fower to dis- 
 pense with settling list of creditors — Companies 
 Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Viet. c. 131), s. IZ— General 
 Order of March 21, 1868. 
 
 On a petition for confirmation of special reso- 
 lutions to reduce capital invohing the diminution 
 of liability on unpaid capital and the return of 
 paid-up capital to the shareholders, the Court has 
 no power to dispense with the settling of the list 
 of creditors required by s. 13 of the Act of 1867, 
 even though there may be evidence before the 
 Court that the co. has no debts unsatisfied. In re 
 Lamson Stoee Service Co. In re National 
 Kevebsionaey Investment Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 726 
 
 Eeported on another point, Stirling J., [1897] 
 
 1 Oh. 875, n. 
 
 230. — Different classes of sharelwlders — 
 Alteration of voting rights. 
 
 The Court has power in a proper case to con- 
 firm a resolution for reduction of capital notwith- 
 standing that the voting powers may be thereby 
 affected. 
 
 Sutton V. Scarborough Cliff Hotel Co., (1865) 
 
 2 Dr. & Sm. 521, and In re Continental Union 
 Gas Co., (1891) 7 Times L. E. 476, observed 
 upon. 
 
 In re Pinkney & Sons Steamship Co., [1892] 
 
 3 Ch. 125, referred to. In re Colmer (James), 
 Ld. - Boraer J. [1897] 1 Ch. 624 
 
 See also Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., G. A. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 361. 
 
 231. — Dispensing with words " and reduced " 
 —Companies Act, 1877 (40 * 41 Vict. c. 26), s. 4. 
 
 On an order being made confirming the re- 
 duction of capital of a co. carrying on business 
 abroad, by cancelling capital lost or unrepresented 
 by available assets, the judge having winding-up 
 jurisdiction dispensed altogether with the further 
 use of the words " and reduced," remarking that 
 he generally dispensed with the words in the 
 case of companies carrying on business abroad. 
 In re Sumatra Tobacco Plantations Co. 
 
 Wright J. [1898] W. N. 80 (8) 
 
 232. — Evidence — ■ Companies Acts, 1867 
 (30 * 31 Vict c. 131); 1877 (40 & 41 Vict c. 26); 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict c. 62). 
 
 On a petition for reduction of capital a copy 
 of the memorandum and articles of association 
 
 COMPANY (Reduction of Capital) — continued. 
 and of the minute-book of the proceedings of 
 general meetings should be made exhibits. 
 
 Where reduction is to be effected by can- 
 celling paid-up capital which has not been paid 
 up in cash, it must be proved that the shares 
 were issued pursuant to a contract duly filed 
 under s. 25 of the Companies Act, 1867. In re 
 Omnium Investment Co. 
 
 V. WUUams J. [1895] 2 Ch. 127 
 
 233. — Form of order — CompanUs Acts, 1867 
 (30 & 31 Vict e. 131); 1877 (40 * 41 Vict c. 26). 
 
 Form of minute to be registered of an order 
 for reduction of capital where shares are not 
 equally paid up, some calls being in arrear. 
 In re International Conversion Trust 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 100 
 
 234. — Founders' shares — Extinguishment — 
 Confirmation by the Court — Compaiiies Acts, 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict c. 89), s. 53 ; 1867 (30 & 31 Vict 
 e. 131), s. 11 ; 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 26), ss. 3, 4. 
 
 An investment co., whose capital was divided 
 into founders', preference, and ordinary shares, 
 had by depreciation in the value of its invest- 
 ments suffered a considerable loss of capital, and 
 there appeared to be no reasonable prospect of 
 anything ever coming to the holders of the 
 founders' shares, either in respect of capital or 
 dividend. By the constitution of the co. the 
 founders' shares were, in the event of liquidation, 
 to bear in the first instance losses of capital. The 
 memorandum of association provided that prefer- 
 ence shares might be issued on such terms as 
 the CO. should by special resolution determine. 
 Shares preferred both as to capital and dividend 
 were issued by the directors without any special 
 resolution having been pa.ssed ; but at meetings 
 subsequently held and attended by all classes of 
 shareholders resolutions were unanimously passed 
 adopting the teims under which the preference 
 shares were issued. The co. presented a petition 
 for the confirmation by the Court of resolutions 
 for reduction which involved the total extinction 
 of the founders' shares and threw the remainder 
 of the loss upon the ordinary shares : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the issue of the preference 
 shares without the passing of a special resolution 
 was capable of ratification by the co. and had 
 been ratified ; and (2) that the scheme of reduc- 
 tion was not unfair and ought to be sanctioned. 
 In re London and New York Investment Cor- 
 poration - - Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 860 
 
 236. — Lost capital — Freliminary expenses — 
 Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict c. 131), ss. 9, 
 11 ; Companies Act Amendment Act, 1877(40 & 41 
 Vict c. 26), s. 3. 
 
 Application to reduce capital by an amount 
 representing (1) deficiency on insurance fund, 
 (2) preliminary expenses, refused, becanse (1) that 
 in estimating the deficiency the value of the 
 goodwill had not been calculated; and (2) that 
 the effect would be that preliminary expenses 
 might be paid out of capital, and then written 
 off by reducing the capital. Moreover, capital 
 properly expended in preliminary expenses is 
 not lost capital or unrepresented by available 
 assets within s. 3 of the Companies Act, 1877. 
 In re Abstainers and General Insurance Co. 
 North J. [1891] a Ch. 124 
 
( 385 ) 
 
 DIGBSl' OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 386 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Reduction of Capital) — oontiniied. 
 
 236. — Part of capital only — Companies Acts, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131) ; 1877 (40 * 41 Vict, 
 c. 26). 
 
 The Court may sanction a resolution reducing 
 tlie whole of its original oupital shares apart 
 fruiu any reduction of the preference capital. 
 
 Qusere, whether the Court will sanction a 
 reduction of part only of one class of capital. 
 In re Aqkiocltubal Hotel Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 237. — Partial reduction of same class of shares 
 ■—Companies Acts, 18i)7 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131) ; 
 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 The Court has power, under the Companies 
 Acts, 18b7 and 1877, to sanction a resolution by 
 a limited co. for a partial reduction of one class 
 of shares, e.g., original shares already issued and 
 fully paid up, leaving the unissued shares un- 
 reduced. But if the articles give a voting power 
 proportionate to the holding of original shares, 
 the Court will require an alteration in them so 
 as to make the voting power pn iportionate to 
 the reduced capital. The Court will not at once 
 dispense' with the words " and reduced," that 
 addition' being requisite to give for such period 
 as the Court thinks reasonable warning to the 
 public of the financial position of the co. 
 
 (a) In re Pinkney'& Sons Steamship Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 125 
 
 (b) In re NBWBEEY-.VAUTifr (Patents) Gold 
 Extraction Co. Stirling J, [1892] 3 Ch. 127, n. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. in (a). 
 
 238. — Petition io confirm — Seduction of 
 capital. 
 
 The CO. was incorporated in 1887 with a 
 capital of 40,000i., divided into 40,000 shares of 
 11. each. Of these shares 30,000 were issued to 
 the vendors as fully paid up, and 10,000 were 
 subscribed for and paid up in full. 
 
 In 1892 the capital of the oo. was increased to 
 100,000!. by the issue of 60,000 shares of 12. each, 
 the whole of which was duly issued. 
 
 The share capital having been found to be 
 largely in excess of the requirements of the 
 CO., in March, 1899, a special resolution was 
 passed, which was afterwards duly confirmed, 
 whereby it was resolved that the capital of the 
 CO. should be reduced to 70,000J. divided into 
 40,000 shares of 1?. eacli fully paid up, and 
 60,000 shares of 10s. each, on which varying 
 amounts had been paid. The resolutions in 
 favour of the reduction were passed unanimously, 
 and there was no opposition to the petition. 
 
 Petition to confiim reduction of capital 
 granted. In re Phcebe Gold Mining Co. 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 182 
 
 239. — Practice — PetiiiMi — Evidence. 
 
 On a petition for reduction of capital an 
 affidavit that the necessary resolutions have been 
 duly passed and confirmed by the shareholders is 
 not always sufficient, but a minute of the meet- 
 ings duly signed is primS, facie evidence that the 
 meetings have been properly convened. In re 
 
 Leicester MoBTOAGE Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. S. 108, 116 
 
 240. — Practice— Title to petition, &c.— Com- 
 
 COMPAHY (Reduction of Capital)— cortimijed. 
 panics Act, 1887 (30 * 31 Vict. c-. 181), s. 11— 
 General Order, March 1868, r. 2. 
 
 The name of the co. shouldj as a matter of 
 convenience, be placed first in the title to the 
 petition, advertisements, notices, &c. In re 
 YrooLLET Coal Co. Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 19 
 
 241. — Practice — Title of petition — Jurisdic- 
 tion—Companies Acts, 186^ (SO & 31 Vict. c. 131) ; 
 1877 (40 & 41 Vict c. 26) — Companies ( Winding- 
 up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. e. b3), s. 1— Order of 
 March 26, 1892— Order of Nov. 7, 1893. 
 
 Semble, it is unnecessary that a petition for 
 the reduction of capital should, besides being 
 intituled " In the matter of the A. Co., &c., and 
 in the matter of the Companies Acts, 1867 and 
 1877," be also intituled " In the matter of the 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890." A juiige 
 acting under the Order of Nov. 7, 1893, in the 
 absence of the winding-up judge on circuit, has 
 jurisdiction to hear such petitions. In re Alumi- 
 NICM Co. - Wright J. [1894] W. N. 6 
 
 242. — Preference shares — Payment off — Com- 
 panies Act, 1877 (40 * 41 Vict. c. 26), s. 4. 
 
 In pursuance of the terms of the articles a 
 sinking fund of 20 per cent, of the profits was 
 set aside to pay off the preference shares. Appli- 
 cation was then made to reduce the capital by 
 the amount so paid : — 
 
 Sdd, that this was a contract binding on 
 both the ordinary and preference shareholders, 
 and that the reduction as proposed did not involve 
 a " payment to any shareholder of any paid-up 
 capital," and was therefore permissible. No 
 inquiry as to creditors ordered. In re DiciDo 
 PiEK Co. - - Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 354 
 
 243. — Procedure. 
 
 ■Where there is no power in the articles of a 
 CO. to reduce its capital, it may do so by special 
 resolution to take such power, and at the second 
 meeting confirming such special resolution, to 
 pass special resolutions exercising the power. 
 In re John Ckosslet & Sons 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 55 
 
 244. — Purchase hy company of its oion shares. 
 A CO. formed under statutory powers purchased 
 
 under authority of a special Act partly paid-up 
 shares in the name of trustees, who eventually 
 transferred the shares into the name of the co. 
 Subsequently the oo. was compulsorily wound up, 
 and the liquidator sought to make a call on 
 shareholders to the extent of the amount unpaid 
 on the purchased shares : — 
 
 Held, that the effect of the purchase and 
 transfer was to extinguish the shares, and the co. 
 on being wound up could -not be placed on the 
 list of contributories. In re Sovereign Lmb 
 AssuBANCE Co. - - ■ - Chitty J. 
 
 afErmed by C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 279 
 
 245. — Purchase hy company of its ownshares 
 — Sale of assets — Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. c. 131, 8. 9— Companies Act Amendment Act, 
 1877 (40 * 41 Vict. c. 26), «. 3. 
 
 A CO. sold part of its assets of an onerous 
 nature to some shareholders. Part of the con- 
 sideration was that the purchasing shareholders 
 should surrender their shares. The co. proposed 
 
 O 
 
( 387 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 388 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Reduction of Ca.-pita.l)—cmtinued. 
 to reduce their capital to the extent of the sur- 
 rendered shares : — 
 
 Held, (1) that this was not a purchase by the 
 CO. of their own shares ; (2) that the sanction of 
 the Court was not required except for the treat- 
 ment of the shares when surrendered as perma- 
 nently extinguished; (3) that the application 
 was in effect merely to authorize the co. to reduce 
 its nouiinal capital to the extent of shares which 
 it could not want when the sale had been carried 
 out, and should be granted. In re Denver 
 Hotel Co. C. A. ravers. North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 495 
 
 Commented on by H. L. (E.) British and 
 American Trustee and Finance Corporation v. 
 Cmiper, [1894] A. C. 399, 402. 
 
 246. — Purchase hy company of Us own shares 
 —Companies Acts, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), 
 «8. 9, 11 ; 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. o. 26), ss. 3, 4. 
 
 The B. Co had power under its articles to 
 reduce capital by paying off capital. The shares 
 were divided into ordinary shares, partly paid up, 
 and founders' shares fully paid up. The co. 
 carried on business in England and in the U. S. 
 This was disadvantageous, and it was determined 
 that the co. should make over the investments in 
 the U. S. to the shareholders there, their shares 
 being cancelled, and that the English share- 
 holders should take the English assets and an 
 agreed sum by way of adjustment. A special 
 resolution was duly passed to carry out this 
 agreement : — 
 
 Beld, reversing C. A., that the reduction of 
 capital was within the powers given by the Acts 
 of 1867 and 1877, and that as the arrangement 
 was fair and equitable it should be confirmed. 
 British and American Trustee aud Finance 
 corpobation v. coupeb 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1894] A. C. 399 
 Applied by C. A. In re London and New 
 York Investment Corporation, [3895] 2 Ch. 860. 
 
 247. — Repayment to shareholders. 
 In this case less than lialf the shares had been 
 
 issued, and all issued had been fully paid up. 
 The paid-up capital being in excess of the 
 requirements of the oo., the Court confirmed the 
 reduction of al' the shares from 51. to ?>l. ; 11. in 
 cash to be returned in respect of each fully paid- 
 up share: confirmation subject to production of 
 an affidavit by the chairman of the co. or some 
 responsible person that the position of the co. 
 liad not altered since the chief clerk's certificate. 
 In re Saeett Oil Co. North J. [1892] W. N. 133 
 
 248. — Repayment to shareholders — Power to 
 call up again — Practice — Affidavit of debts — Com- 
 panies Acts, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), ss. 11, 16, 
 and 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 26), s. 3. 
 
 A petition under the Companies Acts, 1867 
 and 1877, asked for the confirmation by the 
 Court of the reduction of the capital of a limited 
 CO. in pur...uauce of a special resolution which 
 provided for the repayment to the shareholders 
 respectively of 201. per share, upon the footing 
 that the 20Z., or any part thereof, might be called 
 up again. The master's certificate, dated May 23, 
 found that there were no debts, claims, or liabili- 
 ties affecting the co. on Feb. 5, and that no claim 
 had been made in answer to advertisements 
 
 COMPANY (Beduetion of Capital)— coratmiteii. 
 issued under an order of the Court, and that the 
 time fixed for making claims had expired : — 
 
 Held, on the authority of In re Fore Street 
 Warehouse Co., [1888] W. N. 155, and other cases 
 referred to in Palmer's Company Precedents, 
 7th ed.. Part I., p. 974, that the Court had power 
 to sanction the proposed reduction. But the 
 Court required that an affidavit should he made 
 (following the language of the certificate) proving 
 that at the present date there were no debts, &c., 
 affecting the co. Ire re Watson, Walker & 
 Qdickpall, Ld. North J. [1898] W. N. 69 (7) 
 219. — Reserve fund — Appropriation to pay for 
 shares— Companies Acts, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), 
 88. 9, 11, 13, 14, 25 ; 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 26), 
 88. 3, 4. . , - 
 
 In pursuance of a clause in the articles of 
 association, the co. formed a reserve fund and 
 spent it on improving their fleet. Subsequently 
 resolutions were passed, purporting to divide the 
 reserve fund among the shareholders by issuing 
 to them unissued shares as fully paid, to the 
 amount of the reserve fund. Application was 
 now made for leave to reduce the capital : — 
 
 Held, that whether the transaction did or did 
 not involve a " diminution of liability in respect 
 of unpaid capital," the second issue of shares had 
 not in fact been paid for, as the reserve had 
 alreaiiy been spent. 
 
 Application ordered to stand over until the 
 creditors had been ascertained. In re Eastern 
 and Australian Steamship Co. 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 31 
 — Special Resolution — Irregularity— Certificate 
 of registration. 
 See Company — CallsS. - 
 
 250. — Words "and ^fuced" — Companies 
 Acts, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131) ; 1877 (40 & 41 
 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 On the hearing of a petition for jeduotion of 
 capital the Court will not at once dispense with 
 the addition of the words " and reduced." In re 
 PiNKNEY & Sons Steamship Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 3 Ch. 125 
 
 Begister. 
 
 251. — Copies — Right of debenture-holder to 
 take— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 8.43. 
 
 The right of a creditor or member of a co. to 
 inspect tlie register of mortgages under s. 43 of 
 the Companies Act, 1862, includes a right to 
 take copies of the register. Nelson v. Anglo- 
 American Land Mortqage Agency Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch, 180 
 
 252. — Copies — Right to take— Inspection- 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 32. 
 
 ■The right to inspect the register of members 
 of a CO., which is conferred by s. 32 of the Com- 
 panies Act, 1862, carries with it the right to take 
 extracts from or to make copies of the entries in 
 the register. 
 
 The right (also given by the section) to require 
 a copy of the register on payment is in addition 
 to, and not in substitution for, the above implied 
 right. 
 
 The "register" includes the entries of the 
 
C 389 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 390 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Register)— (!onh»M«d. 
 names of persons who have been, but have ceased 
 to be, members of the co. by reason of the for- 
 feiture of their shares or otherwise. Boord v. 
 Apkioan Consolidatbd Land and Teading Co. 
 North J. [1897] W, N. 174 (3); [1898] 1 Ch. 696 
 
 253. — Inspection —Register of members — Com- 
 pany in voluntary liquidation — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 32. 
 
 The provisions of 3. 32 of the Companies Act, 
 1862, with regard to the inspection of registers 
 of members do not apply to the case of a co. in 
 liquidation. In re Kent Cqalfields Syndicate, 
 Ld. _ _ . c. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 784 
 
 254. — Inspection of register — Begister of Mort- 
 gages — Companies Act, 1862 (c. 89), ss. 43, 156. 
 
 The word "books" in s. 156 of the Companies 
 Act, 1862, includes the register of mortgages 
 required to be kept by s. 43. When an order 
 baa been made for winding up a co. by or under 
 the supervision of the Court, the power given by 
 s. 43 to order inspection of the register by any 
 creditor or member of the co. no longer exists, 
 and the only right of inspection which a creditor 
 contributory has is such as he obtains " in con- 
 formity with the order of the Court " under s. 156. 
 SoMEESET V. Land Seoueities Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1897] W. N. 39 (6) 
 
 255. — Rectification — Jurisdiction — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. S5— Companies 
 Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 On an application under s. 35 of the Act of 
 1862 being made to the winding-up judge for 
 rectification of the register of a co. which was not 
 being wound up, 
 
 Wright J. said that he had no special juris- 
 diction in such a case, and that in cases under 
 s. 35 of the Act of 1862, or under the Act of 
 1898, he would only entertain applications where 
 the CO. was in winding-up. Where there waa no 
 winding-up, such applications when in the Ch. 
 Div. ought to be made to one of the ordinary 
 judges of that Div. In re British Columbian 
 Exploitation and Gold Estates, Ld. 
 
 Wright J. [1899] W. N. 32 (1) 
 
 2S6. — Rectification of register. — Shareholder — 
 Underwriting letter — Acceptance — Principal and 
 agent — Authority to apply for shares — Estoppel. 
 
 By an underwriting letter, addressed to the 
 Mines Co., Stark offered to subscribe or find sub- 
 scribers, on or before Sept. 21, for 10,000 shares, 
 " or such less number as may be accepted by 
 you," in the Consort Co., which tlie Mines Co. 
 were promoting, " and, in the event of my failing 
 to comply with the terms herein stated, I 
 authorize you, as my agent on my behalf and in 
 my name, to apply for the number of shares (full 
 or reduced as the case may be), guaranteed by me 
 as above." It was agreed that the letter was 
 irrevocable, provided that 40,000 shares were 
 underwritten or applied for prior to the public 
 issue of the prospectus of the Consort Co., and 
 allotment made on or before Sept. 30. No notice 
 of the acceptance of this offer was sent to Stark, 
 but a form of acceptance at the foot of it was 
 signed by the secretary of the Mines Co. The 
 Cionsort Co. having been registered, the Mines 
 Co., without any previous notice to Stark, applied 
 on his behalf for an allotment to him of shares in 
 
 COMPANY (Begister) — continued. 
 the Consort Co., and 9000 shares were accordingly 
 allotted to him and registered in his name. 
 Upon a motion by Stark to rectify the register by 
 omitting his name : — 
 
 BeH, by the C. A., that the underwriting 
 letter did not constitute a contract binding Stark 
 to take shares until it had been accepted by the 
 Mines Co. and notice of acceptance had been 
 given to him ; that the authority to the Mines 
 Co. to apply for shares in his name did not arise 
 until he had been informed by that co. of the 
 number of shai-es for which they accepted his 
 offer, and he had failed to apply himself for that 
 number ; that he was not estopped as agninst the 
 Consort Co, from denying the authority of the 
 Mines Co. to apply for shares in his name ; and 
 that he was entitled to have his name removed 
 from the register of members of the Consort Co. 
 
 Decision of North J. as to estoppel reversed. 
 
 Ex parte Harrison, (1893) 69 L. L. (N.S.) 204, 
 distinguished. In re Consobt Deep Level Gold 
 Mines, Ld. Ex parte Stabk 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 675 
 — Eectiflcation — Winding-up — Debts and lia- 
 bilities incurred before — Costs incurred 
 after — Proof. 
 
 See Company — Winjoing-up — Proof, 
 204. 
 
 257. — Restoration of name to register — Peti- 
 tion — Jurisdiction — Companies Act, 1880(43 Vict, 
 c. 19), 8. 7, sub-s. 5. 
 
 Sect. 7, sub-s. 5, of the Companies Act, 1880, 
 provides that a co. desiring the restoration of its 
 name to the Register of Joint Stock Corupanies, 
 from which it has been strui-k off by the registrar, 
 may apply to " the superior Court in which the 
 CO. is liable to be wound up." A petition fur this 
 purpose having been presented and set down 
 before North J. : — 
 
 Held, that, although North J. is not the judge 
 to whom the winding-up of cos. has been assigned, 
 he had jurisdiction to make the order for restora- 
 tion, which was accordingly made. In re City 
 Lands Investment Coepoeation, Ld. 
 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 162 (2) 
 
 Begistration. 
 
 258. — Certificate of incorporation — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. v. 89), ss. 6, 18. 
 
 The certificate given by the registrar under 
 s. 18 of the Companies Act, 1862, is not conclu- 
 sive that all the requisitions of the Act as to in- 
 corporation have been complied with. Thus, if 
 the certificate shew that seven persons signed the 
 memorandum, whereas only six really signed, one 
 subscriber signing twice in different names, the 
 CO. was not properly incorporated, and therefore 
 the Court has no jurisdiction to make a winding- 
 up order. 
 
 In this case the C. A. being satisfied that in 
 fact seven persons signed, the winding-up order 
 was made. In re National Debentcee and 
 Assets Cobpoeation 
 
 C. A. afSrming Eekewich T, [1891] 2 Ch. 605 
 
 Distinguished by V. Williams J. In re Lacon 
 & Co. {No. 2), [1892] 3 Ch. 555, , 
 
 See Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. o. 48), 
 Schedule, 
 
 92 
 
( 391 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891— 190d. 
 
 ( 392 ) 
 
 COMPANT (JBiegistra,tion}—aonimued. 
 
 — Contract — Eeoonstruotion of company — Shares 
 
 partly paid up. 
 
 See Company — Eeoonstruotion. 221. 
 
 259. — Illegal association — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), »■. i— Partnership Act, 
 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 116), s. 1. 
 
 Though an association of more than twenty 
 persons if unregistered is prohibited by s. 4 of 
 the Act of 1862, a member thereof may be con- 
 victed of embezzlement of moneys belonging 
 thereto. Ees. v. Tankaed 
 
 C. C, E. [1894] 1 Q, B. 548 
 
 260. — Infants, Signature of memorandum hy 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 ss. 6, 18. 
 
 Infants are " persons " within a. 6 of the Act 
 of 1862, and can therefore be signatories to the 
 memorandum of association. Subsequent avoid- 
 ance of the infant's contract does not invalidate 
 the registration of the co. or any intermediate 
 acts affecting the rights of third persons. In re 
 Laxon & Co. (No. 2) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 655 
 
 261. — Neio name — Irregularity — Bestoring old 
 name— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 8. 13. 
 
 The Court authorized a co. to adopt a new 
 name, and the Registrar of Joint Stock Com- 
 panies registered it. Subsequently it was dis- 
 covered that the resolutions for changing the 
 name were irregular and void. On an application 
 to restore the old name : — 
 
 Held, that all the Court could do was to 
 discharge its own orders and leave the co. to 
 apply to tlie Bd. of Trade to vacate the existing 
 registration and restore the old name. In re 
 Australasian Mining Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 74 
 
 262. — Private partnership — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), Part ril., a. 180. 
 
 A partnership formed, not for carrying on a 
 business, but simply for the purpose of being 
 incorporated under the Companies Act, 1862, in 
 order that it may be forthwith wound up, cannot 
 be registered as a joint stock co. under Part VII. 
 of that Act. Whether a partnership which ia 
 constituted solely by contract between the 
 members is a co. "duly constituted by law" 
 under s. 180 of the Companies Act, 1862, so as to 
 be registered under Part VII., qusere. Eeg. v. 
 Eegistear op Joint Stock Companies. Ex 
 parte Johnston - C. A. revers. Div. Ct. 
 
 and affirming the decision of the Eegistrar ; 
 [1891] 2 Q. B. 598 
 
 — Unregistered company — Embezzlement of 
 
 property. 
 
 See Cbiminal Law — Embezzlement. 13. 
 
 Scheme of Arrangement. 
 
 — Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870; 
 
 inapplicable to the Colonies. 
 See ViOTORiA. 2. 
 
 — Eeconstruction. 
 
 See Cases under Company— Eeconstruc- 
 tion, 
 
 QOWSKSY— continued. 
 
 Shares. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Compasy 
 — Windings-up, 
 
 263. — Definition — Shares in company — Deben- 
 ture stock. 
 
 A bequest of all a testator's "shares" in a 
 public CO. will not pass debenture stock. In re 
 BoDMAN. Bodman v. Bodman 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 3 Oh. 135 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Weeding, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 364, 367. 
 
 264. — Acceptance — Withdrawal of offer hef ore 
 — Acceptance by post — Company — Sliares — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), «s. 35, 
 39, 62. 
 
 J. applied for shares in a co., but before the 
 letter of allotment Was posted — except by being 
 delivered to a postman in a London street to be 
 posted by him — a letter withdrawing his applica- 
 tion was delivered at the oo.'s registered office 
 and opened by the secretary. By the rules of 
 the Post Office town postmen are forbidden to 
 take charge of letters for the post : — 
 
 Held, that the withdrawal was received by 
 the CO. before the allotment letter was posted, 
 and that there was no contract by J. to take the 
 shares. In re London and Northern Bank. Ex 
 parte Jones , Cozens-Hardy J. [1899] W. N. 230 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 220 
 
 Allotment, Eestriotion as to.] See Com- 
 panies Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. c. 48), ss. 4-8. 
 For notes thereon see [1900] W. N. 191. 
 
 — Deceased shareholder — Allotment of new 
 
 shares — Option. 
 See No. 270, below. 
 
 266. — Allotment — Double allotment — ilfemo- 
 randum of association — Companies Acts, 1862 
 (26 * 26 Vict. a. 89), s. 23 ; 1867 (30 <t 31 Vict, 
 c. 131), s. 25 ; 1898 (61 <£ 62 Vict. c. 26), s. 1. 
 
 The certificate of incorporation of a co. 
 operates as the issue of shares subscribed for on 
 the memorandum of association. 
 
 Circumstances under which (distinguishing 
 In re Jarvis & Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 193) t.hares 
 subscribed for on the memorandum of association 
 of a CO. were held to be the same as shares sub- 
 sequently applied for by and allotted to a vendor 
 as fully paid up. 
 
 Under those circumstances the Court ordered 
 the CO. to file a contract to take the shares as 
 fnlly paid up, which should operate as a auflScient 
 contract to satisfy s. 25 of the Companies Act, 
 1867, and as if it had been filed on or before 
 the issue of the shares. In re Whitehead & 
 Brothers, Ld. Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 90; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 804 
 
 Sect. 25 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 1 31 is repealed by 
 Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), s. 33 
 and Soiled. 
 
 Not followed by Kekewich J. In re Dawnay, 
 Ld., [1900] W. N. 152. See No. 272, below. 
 
 — Allotment — Improper allotment of shares to 
 
 director at undervalue — Director — Mis- 
 feasance — Measure of damage. 
 See Company — Directors. 116. 
 
( 393 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 394 ) 
 
 COMPANY (aiiaies)— continued. 
 — Allotment — WitMrawal before — Contributory. 
 See Company — Keconstruction. 213. 
 
 266. — Appliiiation for shares — WitMrawal — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 8U), 
 ss. 23, 39. 
 
 Withdrawal of an application for shares may 
 be made orally before notice of allotment is given. 
 In re Beewert Assets Cokpoeation. Teuman's 
 Case Wright J. [1894] 3 Ch. 272 
 
 267. — Certificate — Estoppel — Damages — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. o. 89), ». 31. 
 
 A share certificate issued by a co, under their 
 corporate seal, stating that the person named in 
 it is the owner of a specified number of shares in 
 the CO., estops the oo. from afterwards denying 
 his title to the shares; and, if the co. are unable 
 to give him the sharf s, they are liable in damages 
 by reason of their refusal to register tlie purchaser 
 from him. 
 
 Semble, per C. A., that in such a case an action 
 against the co. for damages can be maintained 
 either by the person named in the certificate or 
 by a purchaser from him. Tomkinson v. Balkis 
 Consolidated Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 614; affirm, by H. L. (E.) 
 [1893] A. C. 396 
 
 Keferred to by Farwell J. Dixon v. Kennaway 
 & Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 833, 839. 
 
 268. — Certificate — Share certificate — Duty of 
 director — Putting to rest — Estoppel — Conduct — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 31. 
 
 The duty of examining and checking share 
 certificates issued by a co. may as a rule be 
 properly left to the secretary. In that case a 
 director is not estopped from denying the accuracy 
 of a certificate passed at a board meeting at 
 which he is ijreaent. 
 
 Whether the same rule applies to a director 
 who signs the certificate, qusere. 
 
 A certificate, though inaccurate, estops the 
 (30. from denying its accuracy against any person 
 relying on it, including (unless it is based on a 
 forged transfer lodged by him) the person to 
 whom it is issued, and that person, if put to rest 
 by the certificate, so as to lose his remedy against 
 his broker or transferor, is entitled to damages 
 against the co. 
 
 The onus of proving that there is no present 
 effective remedy against the broker or transferor 
 lies on the person put to rest by the certificate ; 
 the onus of proving that there was no effective 
 remedy at the date of the certificate lies on 
 the CO. 
 
 Knights t. Wiffen, (1870) L. K. 5 Q. B, 660, 
 665, and Ballcis Consolidated Co. v. Tomkinson, 
 [1893] A. 0. 396, followed and applied. 
 
 Simm V. Anglo-American Telegraph Co., (1879) 
 , 5 Q. B. D. 188, distinguished. Dixon v. Kenna- 
 way & Co. - Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 94 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 833 
 
 — Charging order — Judgment debt — Mainte- 
 nance of lunatic — Scheme. 
 See Lunacy — Charging Order. 6. 
 
 . — Charging order — Sale. 
 
 See CgAKGiNG Oepek. 1. 
 
 COMPANY (ShaTes)— continued. 
 
 269. — Commission for placing — Stoclchrolier's 
 commission. 
 
 It is not ultra vires for a limited co. to pay 
 brokers a reasonable commission or brokerage for 
 placing shares. Metropolitan Coal Consumers' 
 Association v. Sceimgegue 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B, 604 
 
 270. — Deceased shareholder — Increase of 
 capital — Allotment of new shares - Option — Legal 
 personal representative — " Memher " — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), Table A, art. 27— 
 Notice — Offer of new shares — Posting to registered 
 
 " Member " in art. 27 of -Table A to the 
 Companies Act, 1862— which provides that on 
 the increase of the capital of a co. the new shares 
 shall be offered to the " members " in proportion 
 to tlieir existing sliares — includes a deceased 
 member so Icng as his name is on the register. 
 
 Thus, where, in the case of a co. regulated by 
 Table A, new shares had been created by special 
 resolution in the lifetime of a member, but were 
 not actually offered to the members of the 
 company until after his d th : — 
 
 Held, that the legal pe- '■, 1 representative of 
 the deceased member, v\ hose name still remained 
 on tlie register, cuulil rt quire an allotment of the 
 shares which the latter v. ould, if living, have been 
 entitled to have offered him, these shares not yet 
 having been disposed of by the co. ; but, qusere, 
 as to the title of the legal personal representative 
 to the shares, if, as was not the case, the oo. had 
 sent by post a letter oontaiaing the offer directed 
 to him at the registered address of the deceased 
 member, or directed to the place of abode or 
 business of the representative or his solicitor, and, 
 not having received an answer applying for the 
 shares within the time limited by the letter, had 
 proceeded to dispose of them otherwise. 
 
 Where one of the articles of association of a 
 limited oo. prescribes a particular mode of allot- 
 ment of new shares, qusere, whether it is com- 
 petent for the CO. by special resolution to sanction 
 a different mode of allotment without having first 
 passed a special resolution duly altering that 
 article. Jambs v. Buena Ventuea Niteate 
 Geounds Syndicate - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 456 
 
 Keferred to by 0. A. Allan v. Gold Beefs of 
 West Africa, Ld., [1900] 1 Ch. 656, 077. 
 
 — Exchange of — Stamp — Conveyance on sale. 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 156. 
 
 — Foreign company — Probate duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Probate Duty. 130. 
 
 271. — Forfeiture — Shares partly paid up — 
 Forfeiture — He-allotment — Sale of shares credited 
 with part of anwunt paid thereon. 
 
 A CO. under its articles had power to forfeit 
 shares for non-payment of calls, and to sell, re- 
 allot, or dispose of, the same as they thought fit. 
 On its ordinary lOi!. shares, calls varying from 3Z. 
 to 11. had been paid, and a large number of these 
 had been forfeited. In the course of proceed- 
 ings for the reduction of the capital of the co., 
 the directors proposed to change the forfeited 101. 
 shares into 51. 5s. shares credited with 2i. 5s. as 
 paid thereon, and to offer these to the holders of 
 
( 395 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 396 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Shares)— omtiiiued. 
 
 ordinary shares at the price of 30s. per each 
 
 reduced forfeited share. 
 
 . Seld, affirming the decision of Eomer J., that 
 the CO. were not bound to treat the forfeited 
 shares as if nothing had been paid upon them ; 
 that this was not in effect an issue of shares at a 
 discount; and that the article empowering the 
 company to sell its forfeited shares was valid, and 
 autliorized the directors to deal with them in the 
 way they proposed to do. Morrison v. Tkustees, 
 
 EXECUTOKS, AND SECnBITIES INSURANCE CoKPOBA- 
 
 TiON, Ld. - - C. A. [1898] W. S. 164 (3) 
 
 272. — Identity of shares — Fayment in cash — 
 Signatory to memorandum of association — Subse- 
 quent written contract — Companies Acts. 1867 
 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 25; 1898 (61 * 62 Vict, 
 c. 26), s. I. 
 
 The facts of this case were substantially, with 
 slight distinctions, identical with tljose in In re 
 F. W. Jarvis & Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 193. The 
 question accordingly arose whether the decision of 
 Eomer J. in the case last cited applied, or wljether 
 the case fell within tlie more recent decision of 
 Coze --Hardy J. in In re Whitehead & Brothers, 
 Ld., [1900] 1 Oh. 804. 
 
 Held, tliat the decision in In re Jarvis & Co. 
 ought to have been followed. It did not appear 
 from the report of In re Whitehead & Brothers, 
 id., that Cozens-Hai dy J. had any better evidence 
 of identity than was before Eomer J. in the 
 former case. The distinctions relied upon in 
 argument between this case and that before 
 Eomer J. were not sufficient standing alone to 
 justify a departure from his decision. In re 
 Archibald D. Dawnay, Ld. - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1900] W. H, 152 
 
 Sect. 25 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 131 is repealed hy 
 Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. u. 48), ». 33 
 and Sched. 
 
 273. — Issue at a discount — Distribution of 
 surplus assets. 
 
 Where new shares are issued at a discount of 
 70 per cent, and on a voluntary winding-up there 
 is a surplus, such surplus must be applied in 
 paying the old shareholders 70 per cent, per 
 share. J« re Weymouth and Channel Islands 
 Steam Packet Co. 
 
 C. A. affirm. North J. [1891] 1 Ch, 66 
 
 See In re Railway Time, &c., Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 
 255,262; [1897] A. C. 299. 
 
 274. — Issue at a discount — Issue of fully 
 paid-up original shares at a discount — Companies 
 Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 <fe 9 Vict. c. 16), 
 «. eO— Companies Clauses Act, 1863 (26 & 27 
 Vict. 0. 118), s. 21 — Companies Clauses Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Vict. e. 48), s. 5. 
 
 A CO. governed by the Companies Clauses 
 Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending 
 it, may issue fully paid-up original shares at a 
 sum less than their nominal amount in the same 
 manner as new shares can, under the authority of 
 those Acts, be issued. Btatham v. Bbighton 
 Marine Palace and Pier Co. 
 Eomer J. [1898] W. N. 168 (4) ; [1899] 1 Ch, 199 
 
 275. — Issue at a discount— Purchase by share- 
 holder in the market. 
 
 Where shares were in pursuance of a circular 
 
 COMPANY (ahaieay-continued. 
 issued at a discount to old shareholders, and an 
 old shareholder bought such shares on the market, 
 he was held not to have constructive notice of the 
 ultra vires act, nor to be bound to examine the 
 register, and not liable as a contributory. In re 
 New Chile Gold Mining Co. 
 
 StlrUng J. [1892] W. N. 193 
 
 276. — Issue at a discount^Winding-up — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Viet. c. 89), s. 79, 
 sub-s. 5. 
 
 Issue of shares at a discount is not a ground 
 for winding up the co. on the petition of a fully 
 paid-up shiireholder— even where, if the amounts 
 unpaid were called up, there would be a surplus 
 to be divided among the members of the co. 
 In re Pioneers of Mashonalaxd Syndicate 
 
 V. Wiiaams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 731 
 
 See In re Railway Time, &c., Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 
 255,265; [1897] A. C. 299. 
 
 277. — Issue at a discount — mtra vires issu^ — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. e. 89), ss. 7, 8, 
 12, 25, SS— Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 c. 131), s. 25. 
 
 The issue by a co. of nominally paid-up shares 
 at a discount is ultra vires, and the shares are 
 held subject to the liability to pay to the co. in 
 cash so much of the nominal value of the shares 
 as has not been paid, and the register will be 
 ordered to be rectified accordingly. In this case 
 the question was raised, not in a winding-up, 
 but in an action by the ordinary shaireholders, 
 and the memorandum provided for the issue of 
 capital with such conditions, &c., as the co. might 
 direct. 
 
 Per Lord Herschell : In a winding-up the co. 
 could not be entitled to call on the preference 
 shareholders for more than the agreed payment, 
 and then only so far as necessaiy for the discharge 
 of the obligations of the co. and the costs of the 
 winding-up. Ooeegum Gold Mining Co. op 
 India v. Eoper. Wallboth v. Eopeb 
 
 H. 1. (E.) affirm. C. A. and North J. 
 [1892] A. C. 125 
 
 Explained by V. Williams J. In re Pioneers 
 of Mashonaland 'Syndicate, [1893] 1 Ch. 731. 
 
 Dicta of Lord Herschell commented on by 
 Kekewich J. In re Railway Time, &c., Co., [1895] 
 1 Oh. 255 ; [1897] A. 0. 299. 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re S. Frost & Co., 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 207, 211. 
 
 278. — Issue at a discount — TJltra vires issue. 
 Held, that the directors of a co. established in 
 
 S. Africa could not issue shares at a discount so 
 as to make the holder liable for less than their 
 full amount. Where shares are, in consideration 
 of services rendered, issued at a discount, the 
 directors are liable to the co. ; but in the absence 
 of fraud or further resulting damage to the co., 
 no further than the amount of the discount. 
 
 Semble, such further resulting damage could 
 not exceed the difference between the discount 
 price and the value of the shares if the services 
 and transactions founded thereon had not taken 
 place. Hibsohb v. Sims P. C. [1894] A. C. 664 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (E.) Welton v. Saffery, 
 [1897] A. 0. 299, 325. 
 
( 397 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 190Q. 
 
 ( 398 ) 
 
 COMFAITS' (Shares')— nontinued. 
 
 279. — Issue at a disoount — Ultra vires isstie — 
 Cmnpanies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 38 ; 
 1877 (80 & 31 Vict. v. 131), s. 25. 
 
 A CO. has not power to provide by its articles 
 or otherwise for the issue of shares at a discount 
 BO as to render the holders thereof not liable to 
 pay the nominal amount thereof in fiJl. 
 
 (a) In re Bailwat Time Tables Publtshinq 
 Co. Ex parte Welton C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 255 ; 
 affirmed hy H. L. (E.) sub nam. Welton v. 
 Satfebt - - - [1897] A. C. 299 
 
 (b) In re Wetmooth and Ohaiwbl Islands 
 Steam Packet Co. - C. A. affirm. North J. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 280. — Issue of shares as fully paid — Com- 
 panies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 25— 
 Begistered contract — Sufficiency — Statement of 
 consideration — Property purchased described 
 merely by reference — Bectifieation of register — 
 Form of order. 
 
 Where the contract registered under s. 25 of 
 the Companies Act, 1867, on the issue of fully 
 paid shares as part of the consideration for the 
 sale of property to a co., sufficiently described 
 the vendor and the co., and the amount and mode 
 of payment of the purchase-money, but described 
 the property sold merely by reference to the 
 schedule to a previous contract : — 
 
 Meld, on the authority of In re Kharaslihoma 
 Mxploring and Prospecting Syndicate, [1897] 2 Ch. 
 451, that the consideration for the issue of the 
 shares was insufficiently stated, and that an order 
 ought to be made for the rectification of the 
 register of shareholders. 
 
 The order for rectification in such a case ought 
 simply to direct that the name of the share- 
 holder should be struck oflf the register, and ought 
 not to direct the registration of another contract 
 and subsequent registration of the name: See 
 Chadwyck Healey on Companies, 3rd ed. p. 384. 
 In re Maynabds, Ld. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 615 
 
 See Companies Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. o. 26). 
 
 Dissented from by C. A. In re Frost & Co., 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 207. See next Case. 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Northern 
 Creosoting and Sleeper Co., [1898] W. N. 158 (5). 
 
 281. — Issvs of fully paidrup shares — Begis- 
 tered contract — Sufficiency — Slmres to be paid for 
 otherwise than in cash — Statement of consideration 
 — Description of property purcliased — Beference 
 to prior contract — Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. e. 131), s. 25. 
 
 A contract in writing between a vendor and 
 a CO., filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock 
 Companies, recited that by a prior agreement of 
 a certain date, made between the vendor and a 
 trustee for the co., it was agreed that the vendor 
 should sell and the co. should purchase " certain 
 leasehold messuages, shops, and premises " and 
 " all the goodwill of the several businesses carried 
 on by the vendor on the same respective premises, 
 together with all the machinery, plant, horses 
 and carts, fixtures and fittings used in connection 
 with the said several businesses." It also recited 
 the incorporation of the co., and that, by an 
 agreement made between the vendor, the trustee, 
 
 COMPANY {Shaxes)— continued. 
 and the co., it was provided that the purchase- 
 money should be paid or satisfied by the allot- 
 ment to the vendor of a specified number of fully 
 paid-up shares, and payment of a specified amount 
 in cash. The contract then witnessed that it was 
 agreed that the co. should file " this agreement " 
 and should allot to the vendor a specified 
 number of fully paid-up shares, and that the 
 same should be accepted by the vendor in satis- 
 faction of that portion of the purchase-money 
 which under the prior agreement was to be 
 satisfied by the allotment of fully paid-up shares. 
 Neither of the recited agreements was filed. On 
 a motion, by holders of some of the fully paid-up 
 shares issued to the vendor, to rectify the register 
 by striking out their names : — 
 
 Held, that the contract which had been filed 
 determined, within the meaning of s. 25 of the 
 Companies Act, 1867, that payment for the 
 shares allotted to the vendor was to be otherwise 
 than in cash, and sufficiently stated the nature 
 of the consideration for the issue of the shares. 
 
 Judgment of Romer J., [1898] 2 Ch. 556, 
 affirmed. 
 
 In re Maynards, [1898] 1 Ch. 515, dissented 
 from. In re S. Fbost & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 83; [1899] 2 Ch. 207 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Bdbert 
 Watson & Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 509. 
 
 282. — Lien — Assignment — Lien on shares for 
 debt due to company — Conveyancing and Law of 
 Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), ss. 2, 15. 
 
 A lien amounts to an equitable charge on the 
 shares of the debtor and is within ss. 2, 15 of the 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881. The debtor can, there- 
 fore, require the co. on the debt being paid to 
 assign their lien to his nominee. Evebitt ii. 
 Automatic Wbighinq Machine Co. 
 
 North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 506 
 
 283. — Lien — Waiver — Lien lost or waived. 
 A lien conferred on a co. by its articles of 
 
 association on all shares registered in the name 
 of a member for his debts to the co., such member's 
 right to transfer the shares while he remains 
 indebted being thereby made dependent on the 
 approval of the directors, is valid. Such lien 
 may be discharged by a new arrangement between 
 the indebted member and the co., the terms of 
 which are incompatible with its retention, or 
 which shew an intention to waive it. 
 Bank oe Aebioa v. Salisbuby Gold Mininq Co. 
 P. C, [1892] A. 0. 281 
 — Mortgage — Chose in action — Power of sale. 
 See MoBTGAGE — Sale. 85. 
 
 284. — Payment in cash — Contract in writing — 
 Omission to file — " Inadvertence " — Sufficiency — 
 Supplemeiital contract — Companies Act, 1867 
 (30 & 31 Viet. c. 131), s. 2S— Cmnpanies Act, 
 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 26), s. 1, sub-ss. 1, 4. 
 
 By a contract in writing dated October 18, 
 1897, the owner of a business agreed to sell it 
 to a CO. for a specified sum of money to ba 
 paid wholly or partly in cash, shares, or deben- 
 tures as the directors should determine. Subse- 
 quently the directors allotted specified shares to 
 the vendor as fully paid up in respect of a part 
 of the purchase-money, but no written contract 
 to that effect was entered into. The original 
 
( 399 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 400 ) 
 
 COMPANY (ShaieB)— continued. 
 contract was not filed as required by s. 25 of the 
 Companies'Act, 1867, the omission to file it being 
 due to the fact that the parties were ignorant of 
 the '{jrbvisions of the Act. "Upon an application 
 by the vendor for an order for the filing of the 
 original contract with the Eegistrar of Joint Stock 
 Companies under the provisions of s. 1 of the 
 Companies Act, 1898 : — 
 
 Held, that the omission to file the contract 
 was due to " inadvertence " within the meaning 
 of the Act : 
 
 Beld, however, that the contract was not 
 sufBoient within the meaning of the Act, inas- 
 much as the determination by the directors as to 
 the mode in which payment was to be made was 
 supplemental to the original contract, and with- 
 out this determination there was no complete 
 contract : 
 
 Held, therefore, that there must be an order 
 that a supplemental contract be entered into, 
 that the supplemental contract be filed with the 
 original contract, and that the entire contract 
 when so filed should operate as if it had been 
 filed at the time of the issuing; of the shares. 
 In re Jackson & Co. Kekewioh J. [1899] 1 Ch. 348 
 -Distinguished by Byrne J. Transvaal Ex- 
 ploring Co. V. Albion (Transvaal) Gold Mines, Ld , 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 370. 
 
 285. — Payment of shares in advance of calls — 
 Interest out of capital — Companies Act, 1S62 
 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), ss, 14, 19, 38 ; Tahle A, s. 7. 
 
 The directors of a co. limited by shares may 
 receive payment from a shareliolder of any 
 amounts remaining unpaid on his shares, and 
 may pay out of capital interest on sums so paid 
 up in advance of calls, either under Table A of 
 the Companies Act, 1862 (if applicable), or under 
 provisions to the same eff'ect in the co.'s articles 
 of as'sociatiim, provided they do so in good faith 
 and in the honest exercise of the discretion con- 
 fided tu direoiors. .. . i ■ i 
 
 The decisions of Stirling J. and C. A., [1896] 
 1 Ch. 397, affirmed. ': 
 
 Dale V. 3Iartin, 9 L. R. Ir. 498 ; 11 L. E. Jr. 
 371,' approved. ■». Look i;. Queensland Invest- 
 ment and Land Mortgage Co. 
 
 ■ .1 H. L. (E.)[1896] A. C. 461 
 
 886. — Sale by Court — Perishable goods — 
 Order fm- sale — " Goods" — B. S. C, Order 1 1-., r. 2. 
 
 Shares in a limited co. can lie sold by order of 
 the Court, as coming within the words "goods, 
 wares, or merchandise" in Order L.,r. 2. Evans 
 V. Davies Kekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 218 
 
 287. — Sale of assets to new company — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. u. 89), s. 161. 
 
 It is competent for a co. by memorandum of 
 association to exclude the oper>ition of s. 161 of 
 the Act of 1862, In the event of the sale by the 
 00. of its undertakings, the whole or part of the 
 consideration for such sale being shares in the 
 purcha.-ing co., althougli at the time of tho 
 execution of the contract for sale a voluntary 
 winding-up of the selling co. is contemplated. 
 Cotton v. Imperial and Pokeign Agency and 
 Investment Corpokation 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 3 Ch. 454 
 ■ ' • Referred to by Stirling J. Payne v. We 
 Cork Co., Id., [1900] l Ch. 308, 314, 
 
 COMPANY (Shares) — continued. 
 
 288. — Signatory to memorandvm of association 
 for 6500 shares — Sale of business by signatory 
 for 6500Z. payable by 6500 fully paid-up shares — 
 Same shares — Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. 
 e. 131), s. 25— Companies Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Viet. 
 0. 26), 8. 1, sub-ss. 1 and 4. 
 
 A CO. was formed to take over the business 
 carried on by J. J. signed the memorandum of 
 association for 6500 shares of 11. each. The co. 
 was registered on Oct. 4, 1897; on Oct. 8 a 
 contract in writing between J. and the co. 
 was executed, whereby J. agreed to sell his 
 business to the co. in consideration of 6500Z. 
 payable by the allotment to him of 6500 fully 
 paid-up shares of IZ. each in the co. The 6500 
 shares were duly allotted to J. under the con- 
 tract. No other shares other than those were 
 ever applied for by or allotted to J., and there 
 was evidence to shew that the 6500 shares for 
 which J. signed the memorandum of associa- 
 tion were considered by all parties to be the same 
 6500 shares issuable to him under the ooutract, 
 and that J. did not intend by so signing the 
 memorandum of association to render himself 
 liable to take any shares other than the 6500 
 mentioned in the contract : — 
 
 Held, on motion made under s. 1, sub-ss. 1 
 and 4, of the Companies Act, 1898, for an order 
 for filing a fresh contract in writing, or in the 
 alternative for filing a memorandum specifying 
 the consideration for which the .shares were 
 issued, that the case was not within the Act, that 
 the contract filed under ,s. 25 of the Act, of 1867 
 was a proper and sufficient contract, and that the 
 object of the application was not to get rid of any 
 liability under, that contract, but' to obtain in- 
 directly the decision of the Court whetlier or not 
 J. was under some pliability in respect' of the 
 shares for |Which he, sijrned the memorandum of 
 association, and that it was not contemplated by 
 the Act of 1898 that" it' should, be "used for the 
 decision of such a question," and the niotion was 
 refused.* In re F. "W. Jarvis & Co. 
 Eomer J. [1898] W. N. 165 (5) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 193 
 Distinguished by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Whitehead & Brothers, Ld., [1900] 1 Ch. 804. 
 
 Approved by Kekewioh J. In re Dawnay, 
 Ld., [1900] W. N. 15i 
 
 289. — Stockbrolier's commission — Issue of 
 s/iares — Act ultra vires. 
 
 There is notliing illegal or contrary to the 
 policy of the Companies Acts in a co. paying 
 stockbrokers a commission for proeuriug pei'sons 
 to take shares. Metropolitan Coal Consu- 
 
 MEKS' ASSOOIATION V. SORIMGEOUR 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 604 
 See 63 & 64 "Vict. u. 48, s. 8, sub-s. 8. 
 
 290. — Surrender — Issue of new shares in ex- 
 change. 
 
 A CO. may by special resolution , vary its 
 articles so as to give itself power to accept sur- 
 renders of old shares in exchange for new' shares, 
 in a case where the surrenders are ^made' bonfi, 
 fide, and not so as to enable 'shareholders to 
 eseape liability. A co. which by its memorandum 
 of absociatiou has power to issue new shares with 
 preferential rights, both as regards payment of 
 dividendp ap4 repayment of papital, cim by 
 
( 401 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 402 ) 
 
 COMPAirsr (Shares)— conimiied. 
 special resolution give itself power to issue new 
 shares with preferential rights to some of its 
 ordinary shareholders, iu consideration of their 
 bona fide surrender of an equivalent amount of 
 their ordinary shares. Eiohbadu v. City op 
 CmoAGO Grain Eleyatobs, Ld. 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 3 Ch. 459 
 
 — Tenant for life and remaindermen — Capital or 
 income. 
 
 See Settled Land — Apportionment. 
 4—8. 
 
 291. — Title to shares — Deceased shareholder — 
 Scotch sequestration — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. 0. 89), ss. 30, 77— B. S. C, 1883, Order xvi., 
 /■. 46. 
 
 A., domiciled in Scotland, was the holder of 
 shares in the T. Co. A. died, and his estate was 
 sequestered, M. being the trustee iu the seques- 
 tration. The T. Co. went into liquidation, and 
 the liquidator held money payable to tlie share- 
 holders. In an action of multiplepoinding M.'s 
 claim (as trustee of the estates of a Scotch 
 firm of merchants) was allowed, as was that of 
 one B. : — 
 
 Held, that no order under Order xvi., r. 46, 
 was necessary, but that the liquidator should 
 pay the sum due in respect of A.'s shares to M. 
 on the receipt of M. and B. In re Tcticokin 
 Cotton Pbess Co. 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1894] W. N. 181 
 
 292. — Transfer — Blank transfer — Legal title 
 — 8tamp-j-True consideraiion — Companies Clauses 
 ConiolidaticmAct, 1845 (8 ifc 9 Vict. e. 16), ss. 14, 
 15. ' ' 
 
 The certificate and a blank transfer of trust 
 stock were deposited by a trustee with a bank to 
 secure his own overdraft. The transfer was 
 signed and sealed by the trustee, but the name 
 , of the transferee was in blank ; the bank had no 
 notice of the trust. The bunk subsequently 
 filled in their own name as transferee, aud 
 having the certificate were registered as 
 owuej s : — 
 
 ■ Held, that, as the transfer was not executed 
 as a transfer to the bank, it did not pass the 
 legal estate, and that the prior equity of the 
 benetioiaries prevailed. 
 
 Semble, the fact that the transfer was un- 
 stamped, and did not state the true considera- 
 tion, did not muke it invalid. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [189.3] 1 Ch. 610, 
 afiirmed. Powell v. London and Pbovinoial 
 Bank - - C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 55S 
 
 293. — Transfer— Blank transfer— Title — 
 Mstoppel — Blank filled in by pledgee. 
 
 A. gave a certificate for shares transferable 
 otherwise than by deed to B., his broker, for sale, 
 and handed him a blank transfer. B. pledged 
 the blank transfer and the certificate with C. 
 C.'s solicitor filled up the blank transfer with the 
 name of C.'s clerk. B. never paid anything to 
 A. on account of the shares : — 
 
 Held, that A. was not estopped from setting 
 up his title against C, aud that he was entitled 
 to recover the share certificate and blank transfer. 
 Fox V. Mabtin - Kekewich J. [1896] W. H, 36 
 
 COMPANY (Shares)— conWnMed. 
 
 294. — Transfer — Lien on shares — Priority of 
 transferee. 
 
 An executrix of an estate indebted to a co. 
 sold shares therein to P. A dividend was de- 
 clared on the shares, and subsequently P. re- 
 gistered the transfer. The co. in exercise of their 
 lien appropriated the dividend to satisfy their 
 claim against the estiite : — 
 
 Held, that P. could stand in the position of 
 the CO. as creditor of the estate, but hud no 
 priority over the shareholders or other creditors. 
 In re SIacmukdo. Penfield v. Maomurdo 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 73 
 
 295. — Transfer — Lien on shares — Priority. 
 A. held 565 shares in a co. to which he was 
 
 indebted, and whose articles gave them a primary 
 lien for debts due to them from members. A. 
 Eold 525 shares to B., who did not know of the 
 indebtedness ; subsequently C. obtained a charg- 
 ing order on the remaining forty shares under a 
 judgment obtained against A. : — 
 
 Beld, that as between B. and A. the debt of 
 the Litter to the co. should be thrown exclusively 
 on tlie forty shares, and that C. as an execution 
 creditor could only take the beneficial interest 
 of A. in the forty shares. Gray v. Stone 
 
 Eomer J. [1893] W. N. 133 
 
 296. — Transfer — Priority — Equitable claim. 
 As between two persons claiming title to 
 
 shares registered in the name of a third person 
 in a CO. formed under the Companies Act, 1862, 
 with articles' regulating the ' transfer of shares, 
 the title prior in date prevails unless the claimant 
 second in point of time has acquired '.the full 
 status of shareholder before the co. receive notice 
 of the prior titled , To be a full shareholder in 
 this sense the transferee must be registered, or 
 have an immediate right to be registered. It is 
 not sufficient to claim under a valid transfer if 
 the CO. have still a right under their articles to 
 delay or nfuse registration. Moore v. North 
 Western Bank - Bomer J. [1891] 2 Ch. 599 
 
 297. — ■ Transfer — Refusal to register — Cause 
 of action — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 89), s. 31. 
 
 Semble, an action for damages can be main- 
 tained either by the person named in the certi- 
 ficate or by a purchaser from him. Tomkinson 
 V. Balkis Consolidated Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 614 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) sub nom. 
 Balkis Consolidated Co. v. Tomkinson 
 
 [1893] A. C, 396 
 
 Followed and applied by Farwell J. Dixon 
 v. Kennaway & Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 833. 
 
 In such a case the measure of damages is the 
 value of the shares at the time of the refusal. 
 
 Semble, the Court has no jurisdiction under 
 s. 35 of the Companies Act, 1862, to order a co. 
 to pay damages except in cases where an order 
 is made fur the rectification of the register. 
 
 Note : In this case the parties, had agreed to 
 be hound by s. 35. In re Ottos Kopje Diamono 
 Mines - - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 618 
 
 298. — Transfer — Sefnsal to register — Certifi- 
 
( 403 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 404 ) 
 
 COMPANY (Shazes,)— continued. 
 cate—Eetoppel^Gompanies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), 8. 35. 
 
 A share certificate of ownership issued by a 
 CO. is not a warranty of title, but estops the co. 
 from afterwards denying that the person named 
 in the certificate is tlie owner of the shares. If 
 tlie CO. refuse to register the shares on such cer- 
 tificate they are liable in damages. 
 
 (a) In re Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 618 
 
 (b) Balkis Consolidated Co. ». Tomkinson 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B, 614 ; affirm, by H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1893] A, C. 396 
 
 299. — Transfer — Refusal to register — Conceal- 
 ment of grounds of refusal — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 35. 
 
 Tlie rule that directors who have power to 
 refuse to register a tiansfer of shares are not 
 bound to disclose their reasons for refusing, if 
 they liave considered the question and have acted 
 bona fide, applies to cases where their power is 
 limited to particular grounds for refusal as well 
 as to cases where their power is absolute. In re 
 COALPOET China Co. - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 404 
 
 300. — Transfer— Registration of — Interlocu- 
 tory injunction restraining proceedings in winding- 
 up— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. v. 89), 
 ss. 35, 131. 
 
 Application for an order that certain trans- 
 fers of shares should be registered. It appeared 
 that in an action of Tiessen v. Henderson, [1899] 
 W. N. 45 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 861, see No. 15, aJiove, an 
 interlocutory injunction had been granted re- 
 straining the directors and proposed liquidator 
 of the CO. from carrying out certain resolutions 
 for a voluntary winding-up of the co. with a view 
 to reconstruction. There was no appeal from 
 this interlocutory order. Under these circum- 
 stances the directors had refused to register the 
 transfers. 
 
 Kekewieb J. said that, though ho was ex- 
 tremely reluctant to perpetuate a deadlock, he 
 could not hold that the Court ought, if it had the 
 power, to direct registration of these transfers, 
 knowing that it was possible that within a reason- 
 able time the registration might be bad by fores 
 of the statute. It could not be said that the 
 directors were refusing to register without sufS- 
 cient cause. The case, therefore, was not 
 brought within s. 35. He accordingly refused 
 the application, but granted leave to appeal, and 
 directed that the applicants, if they appealed, 
 but not otherwise, should pay the costs of the 
 application. In re Violet Consolidated Gold 
 Mining Co. - Kekewich J. [1899] "W. N. 66 
 
 301. — Transfer — Rescission — Agent. 
 
 A transference of shares cannot obtain rescission 
 of a contract to take shares and rectification of 
 the register on account of misrepresentation in 
 the prospectus, even though the transfer be but 
 nominal, the transferor being his agent and the 
 calls paid by him, unless the co. was informed 
 that the applicant was only an agent. Hyslop 
 V. Mokel Brothers, Cobhet & Son, Ld. 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 19 
 
 303, — Transfei — Restriction on free transfer 
 — Transfer Articles — Compulsory transfer in the 
 
 COMPANY (Shares) — continued. 
 
 event of bankruptcy — Perpetuity — Fraud on 
 
 bankruptcy law — Validity of articles. 
 
 Action for a declaration that the defts. were 
 not entitled to require the transfer of the bank- 
 rupt's shares at a fixed price, and that the transfer 
 articles of the co. were void ; and for an injunction 
 to restrain the co. from enforcing a transfer of the 
 bankrupt's shares at any price, or alternatively at 
 any price less than the fair and actual value 6' 
 the shares. 
 
 Farwell J. said that to hold that a provision 
 in articles which compelled a man to sell his 
 shares for all time at a particular price and to 
 particular persons was bad because it was repug- 
 nant to absolute ownership and tended to per- 
 petuity would be to apply to modern co. law 
 principles which were wholly inapplicable. The 
 contract contained in the articles was an incident 
 of the share, and the rule against perpetuity did 
 not apply to personal contract. In the absence 
 of mala fides, and the contract being a fair one 
 equally binding on all who entered into it, there 
 was nothing obnoxious to the bankruptcy law In 
 such provisions as these. Action dismissed. 
 Boheland's Trustee v. Steel Brothers & Co. 
 Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 251; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 279 
 
 303. — Transfer — Trustees— Form, of order. 
 
 (a) a vesting order of shares under s. 35 of 
 the Trustee Act, 1850, should vest in the trustees 
 simply " a riglit to call for a transfer and to 
 transfer the stock or shares," and to receive the 
 dividends. In re New Zealand Trust and 
 Loan Co. C. A. [1893] 1 Ch, 403 
 
 Dictum of C. A. as to form of vesting order 
 disapproved. In re Joliffe's Trusts, [1893] 
 W. N. 84. 
 
 Explained by L.JJ. See next Caee. 
 
 (b) Trustee Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. e. 60), 
 s. 26— Lunacy Act, 1890 (S3 4 54 Vict. c. 5),8. 136, 
 sub-ss. 2, 5, 6. 
 
 In the above case the trustees might have 
 become liable for calls, and hence the usual form 
 of order was departed from. In re Gregson 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 233 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re C. M. 0., Spimter, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 824. 
 
 (o) The best form of order in the case of 
 Consols is to direct the trustees to transfer the 
 stock into their own names. In re Joliffe's 
 Trusts - - Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 84 
 
 (d) " Stock," in the Trustee Acts, 1850, 1852, 
 includes shares in a limited co., whether fully 
 paid up or not. In re New Zealand Trust anb 
 Loan Co. - - C. A [1893J 1 Ch. 403 
 
 See now s. 50 of the Trustee Act, 1893, which 
 embodies this decision on this point. 
 
 304, — Transfer after winding-up order — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 35, 87 , 
 98,153. , , ^ 
 
 In the case of a sale and transfer of shares in 
 a CO. after a compulsory winding-up order, the 
 transferee is not entitled to be registered as 
 owner of the shares without the sanction of the 
 Court ; the Court has power to order the reotifi' 
 cation of the register of members by the inaer- 
 
( 405 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 406 ) 
 
 COMPANY (ShKies)— continued. 
 tion of Buoh transferee's name ; bnt the exercise 
 of that power is discretionary, and such an order 
 ought not to be made except on strong grounds. 
 In re Onward Building Society (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. aiBrm. Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 463 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Taylor, Phillips, and 
 Richard's Case, [1897] 1 Oh. 298, 309. 
 
 — Transfer of shares subject to a trust — Con- 
 structive notice — Signature of bank 
 manager as " manager in trust." 
 See Bankeb. 5. 
 
 305. — Transfer — Voluntary transfer hy 
 vendor to third person. 
 
 The rule that a person taking property under 
 a voluntary conveyance cannot hold that pro- 
 perty as against a previous purchaser for value 
 from the person by whom thn property has been 
 conveyed applies in a co. Geaham v. O'Connoe 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 157 (10) 
 
 306. — Unclaimed dividends — Statute of 
 Limitations. 
 
 When a co. declares a dividend on its shares, 
 a debt immediately becomes payable to each 
 shareholder In respect of his dividend for which 
 he can sue at law, and the Statute of Limitations 
 immediately begins to run. The declaration 
 does not make the co. a trustee of the divi- 
 dend for the shareholder, and an entry of the 
 liability in the co.'s books — at any rate when no 
 special part of its assets is set tiside as represent- 
 ing the dividend and no notice of the entry is 
 given to the shareholder — does not take the case 
 out of the statute. 
 
 Quasre, whether, in the case of a co. under 
 the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, the period of 
 limitation is six or twenty years. In re Seveen 
 AND WvE and Seveen Beidge Et. Co. 
 
 Eomer J. [1896] 1 Ch. 659 
 
 307. — Underwriting — Notice. 
 
 The pit. agreed with A., one of the promoters 
 of a CO., to underwrite a certain number of shares. 
 By the terms of the agreement, if the pit. did 
 not himself apply for shares by a certain date, 
 A. was to apply in his name and receive the 
 allotment as his agent. Tlie pit. did not apply 
 himself. A. accordingly applied, and a propor- 
 tionate number of shares was allotted to the 
 pit. :— 
 
 Held, that there was a binding contract to 
 take the shares, and the allotment was good. 
 Shaw v. Heney Bentlby & Co. and Yoekshiee 
 IBeeweeies, Ld. - North J. [1893] W. N. 83 
 
 308. — Underwriting contract — Register, 
 removal of name from-^Authority to apply for 
 shares — Authority coupled with an interest. 
 
 P. promoted a co. for the purpose of purchasing 
 from him and working a mining property. On 
 Feb. 21, 1896, C. signed an underwriting letter 
 addressed to P. by which he agreed, in considera- 
 tion of a commission, to subscribe for 1000 shares 
 in the co., such number to be reduced according 
 to the number of shares taken by the public. C. 
 further agreed that the agreement and applica- 
 tion should be irrevocable, and, notwithstanding 
 any repudiation by him, should be sufScient to 
 authorize P. to apply for shares on behalf of C. 
 and the co. to allot them. P. by letter accepted 
 
 COMPANY (_Sb.axes)— continued. 
 these terms. The co. was incorporated on 
 March 24, and the subscription list was advertised 
 to open on March 27, and close on the 30th. On 
 March 27, C, who had applied for 1000 shares, 
 stopped the cheque he had given for the deposit, 
 and on the 30th wrote to P. and to the secretary 
 of the CO. repudiating the agi'eement. P., how- 
 ever, on April 2, applied on behalf C. for 980 
 shares, which, in the events which had happened, 
 was the number he was bound lo take, according 
 to the terms of the letter, and the co. allotted 
 these shares to C. and put him on the register in 
 respect of them : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of Stirling J.), 
 that C. was rightly placed on the register and 
 was not entitled to liave his name removed, for 
 that the authority given to P. by the under- 
 writing letter to apply for shares on behalf of P. 
 was an authority coupled with an interest, and 
 therefore not revocable. In re Hannan's Em- 
 PEEBS Gold Mining and Development Co. 
 Carmiohael's Case - C. A. [1896] 2 Oh, 643 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Consort Deep 
 Level Gold Mines. Ld., [1897] 1 Ch. 575, 582. 
 
 — Winding-up of company. 
 
 See Company — Winding-ttp, passim. 
 
 — Withdrawal. 
 
 See Nos. 264, 266, above. 
 
 — Withdrawal before allotment— Contributory. 
 
 See Company — Eeconstruotion. 213. 
 
 Unregistered Company. 
 309. — Embezzlement— Illegal association- 
 Beneficial oimers of property — Companies Acts, 
 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 4^Parliamentary 
 Act, 1868 (31 * 32 Vict. o. 116), s. 1. 
 
 A person can be convicted of the embezzlement 
 of the property of an illegally constituted club of 
 which he is a member, for though the club has 
 •no legal existence as an association, the members 
 thereof may have a legal existence as beneficial 
 owners of property. Eeg. v. Tankaed 
 
 C. 0. E. [1894] 1 a. B. 548 
 And see Company— Winding-up— Un- 
 registered Company. 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP. 
 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1893, amends 
 s. 10 of the Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63). 
 
 Stamp Duty.] Extension to companies oj 
 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 144, as to exemption from 
 stamp duty. See Finance Act, 1895 (58 Viet, 
 e. 16), ». 16. 
 
 Peeperential Payments in Bankruptcy.] 
 The law regarding, in the case of companies, 
 amended hy 60 Vict. c. 19. 
 
 Companies Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 26), 
 amends the Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 e. 131). 
 
 Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 6i Vict. o. 48), 
 amends the Companies Acts. As to winding-up, see 
 ss. 24-26 et seq. For notes thereon see [1900] 
 W. N, 201. 
 
 The Companies Winding-up Bulei, 1890, dated 
 Nov. 26, 1890. W, N. Dec. 20, 1890 ; St, E. & 0. 
 1890, pp. 232-321. 
 
( 407 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 408 ) 
 
 COMPANY— ■WINDING-ITP—eonKreMed;. 
 
 General Rules, dated April 20, ISSTi, made pur- 
 suant to 8. 26 of tlie Companies ( Windinq-up) Act, 
 
 1890, W. N. May 9, 1891, p. 10; StT B. & 0. 
 
 1891, p. 49. 
 
 Order of the Bd. of Trade dated Feb. 13, 1891, 
 under r. 3 (2) of the Companies (^Winding-up) 
 Rules, 1890. W. N, Felj. 81, 1891, p. 8; Sc. E. & 
 0. 1891, p. 42. 
 
 Order dated Dec. 17, 1891, made hy the Ld. 
 Chanc. with the concurrence of the Treas. as to 
 Fees under the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 
 1890. W. N. 1892 (Appx. of 0. & E.) p. 1 ; 
 St. E. & 0. 1891, pp. 56, 60. 
 
 Bd. of Trade Notice dated Jan. 8, 1892, 
 under r. 3, cl. 2, of the Companies ( Winding-up) 
 Mules, 1890. W. If . 1892 (Appx, of 0. & E.) p. 2 ; 
 St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 44. 
 
 Bd. of Trade Notice dated Jan. 8, 1892, 
 under r. 3, cl. 2, of the Companies ( Winding-up) 
 Mules, 1890. W. N. 1892 (App. of 0. & E.) 
 p. 8 ; St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 46. 
 
 Tlie " Companies Winding-up Mules, 1892," 
 dated April 6, 1892, mude under the Companies 
 Acts, 18ti2 to 1890, and the Judicature Act, 1881. 
 W. N, 1892 (Appx, of 0, a E,) p. 16 ; St. E. & 0, 
 
 1892, p. 49. 
 
 Order made hy the Ld. Chanc, June 24, 1892, 
 and approved hy Treas., June 25, 1892, as to 
 reduction of fees under Order of Dec. 17, 1891, 
 where liquidation talies place only partly in 
 England. W, N. 1892 (Appx. of 0. & E.) p. 28 ; 
 St. B. & 0. 1892, p. 66. 
 
 Mules dated Aug. 10, 1892, Companies (Wind- 
 ing-up) Mules, Aug. 1892. W. N. 1892 (Appx. 
 of 0. & E.] p. 29 ; St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 65. 
 
 General Mules, dated Dec. 3, 1 892, made pur- 
 suant to s. 26 of tlie Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 
 1890. W. N. 1892 (Appx. of 0. & E.), p. 36; 
 St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 65, 
 
 General Mules, dated March 29, 1893, made pur- 
 suant to s, 26 of tlie Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 
 1890. W, N. 1893 (Appx, of 0, & E.) p. 3; 
 St. E. & 0. 1893, p. 61. 
 
 Order made by the Ld. Chanc. Aug. 24, 1893, 
 and approved by Treas. Aug. 31, 1893, sanctioning 
 a reduction in the Fees Order of Deo. 17, 1891. 
 W, N. 1893 (Appx, of 0, & E.), p, 4 ; St. E, & 0. 
 (1893), p. 52. 
 
 Order of the Bd. of Trade, dated Jan. 31, 1894, 
 under r. 3 (2) of the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Rules, 1890. W. N. 1894 (Appx. of 0. & E.), 
 p. 1. 
 
 General Rules, dated April 2, 1895 (" The Com- 
 panies Winding-up Rules, 1895.") W. N. 1895 
 (Appx. of 0. &. E,), p. 3 ; St. E. & 0. 1895, No, 538. 
 Price id. 
 
 Order of the Bd. of Trade, dated June 26, 1895, 
 under r. 3 (2) of the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Rides, 1890. W. N. 1895 (Appx. of 0. & E.), p. 22. 
 
 General Rule, dated Nov. 26, 1895 (" The Com- 
 panies Winding-up Rule, Nov. 1895.") W. N. 
 1895 (Appx. of 0. & E.), p. 23 ; St. E. & 0. 
 1896, No, 678. Price Jd. 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-TJP-cowtJnued. 
 
 Rule as to attendance of partieg in Chambers, 
 being r. 173 .4 of the Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. e. 63). W. N. 1898 (April 11), 
 p. 87 ; W. N. 1896 (May 30), p. 158. See Current 
 Index, 1896, p. Iviii. 
 
 Mode of paying certain fees — Companies 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890 — Treas. Warrant, dated 
 Feb. 2, 1899. , W. N. 1899 (Feb. 18), p, 65. See 
 Current Index, 1899, p. Ixxxvii. 
 
 Liquidator's statement of account and affidavit 
 verifying same — Form of, in lieu of existing 
 forms. W. N. 1899 (July 29), p. 247. See 
 Current Index, 1899, p. Ixxxviii. 
 
 Enforcement of Orders — Arrests, commitments, 
 and execution of process — General Rules dated 
 Dec. 28, \SS^, pursuant to the Companies (Wind- 
 ing-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. o. 63). W. N. 
 1900 (Jan, 6), p. 1. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. Ixxiii, 
 
 Generally, col. 409. 
 
 Amalgamation, col. 409. 
 
 Arbitration, col. 409. 
 
 Assets, col. 410. 
 
 Calls. See Company — Calls ; and Com- 
 PANT — Winding-up — Contributory. 
 
 Cmnmittee of Inspection, col. 419. 
 
 Compulsory Winding-up, col. 419. 
 
 Contributory, col. 420. 
 
 Costs, col. 433. 
 
 County Courts. See County Coukt. 
 
 Debentures. See Company — ^Debentures. 
 
 Defunct Companies, col. 439. 
 
 Directors. See Company — Directors. 
 
 Enforcement of Orders, col. 439. 
 
 Examination of Officers, col. 439. 
 
 Examination of Witnesses, col. 442. 
 
 Execution, col. 443. 
 
 Indemnity, col. 444. 
 
 Jurisdiction, col. 445. 
 
 Liquidator, col. 446. 
 
 Meetings. See Company — Meetings, 
 
 Mortgages, col. 453. 
 
 Officers, col. 454. 
 
 Official Receiver, col. 454. 
 
 Mention, col. 455. 
 
 Practice, col. 466. 
 
 Preference, col. 467. 
 
 Proceedings against Delinquent Officers,- 
 col. 469. 
 
 Proof, col. 472. 
 
 Receiver. See Company— Winding-up 
 — Official Eeceiver. 
 
 Meconstruction. See Company— Eecon- ■ 
 struction. 
 
 Mules and Orders, col. 475. 
 
 Scheme of Arrangement, col. 476. 
 
 Set-off, col. 479. 
 
 Statement of Affairs, col. 480. 
 
 Staying Proceedings, col. 481. ; 
 
 Unregistered Company, col. 482. 1 
 
 Voluntary Winding-up, col. 482. 
 
( 409 
 
 DIUEST OF CASES, 1891—1900: 
 
 ( 4i0 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP— coniintwd 
 Geneially, 
 
 — Building society. 
 
 See Cases under Bbildinq Society. 
 
 — Creditor — Attachment of debt — Garnialiee 
 
 order — Judgment. 
 See Attachment. 12. 
 
 — Foreign country — Charge on property in — 
 
 Eeoeiver — French debt — Enforcing pay- 
 ment. 
 See Company — Debentures. 60. 
 
 — Friendly society. 
 
 See Cases under Friendly Society. 
 
 — Landlord — Kestraining distress. 
 
 See Distress. 4. 
 
 — Liquidation for purposes of reconstruction — 
 
 Lease — Proviso for re-entry. 
 See Landlokd and Tenant — rorfeiture. 
 56. 
 
 — Literary and scientific institution. 
 
 See SciENTiFio Society. 
 
 Amalgamation. 
 
 — Call consequent on sale of undertaking — Ultra 
 
 vires — Death of shareholder. 
 See Company — Calls. 9. 
 
 — Reconstruction of company. 
 
 See Cases under Company— EeconBtruo- 
 tion. 
 
 Arbitration. 
 
 1. — Award — Time for making — Umpire — 
 Jurisdiction — Arhitratort "called on to act" — 
 Notice to appoint umpire — Company — Voluntary 
 vdnding-up — Reconstruction — Sale of assets — DiS' 
 sentient member — Purchase of interest — " Agree- 
 ment"— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), 88. 16, 161, le^i—Arbitratim Act, 1889 
 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), Sched. I. (c). 
 
 The articles of association of a co. provided 
 that, " If at any time a sale or arrangement 
 shall be made or proposed in pursuance of s. 161 
 of the Companies Act, 1862, the purchase-money 
 to be paid for the interest of any dissentient 
 member shall be such sum of money as the liqui- 
 dator can obtain by selling the shares, stock or 
 other property to which such dissentient member 
 would have been entitled upon the completion of 
 the sale or arrangement had he not expressed his 
 dissent." 
 
 The CO. resolved upon a voluntary winding- 
 up, and authorized the liquidator to enter into 
 an arrangement for the sale of the business and 
 assets of the co. to a new co. : — 
 
 Beld, that the above clause of the articles did 
 not amount to an " agreement " within the mean- 
 ing of s. 162 of the Companies Act, 1862, so as to 
 deprive a member of the co. who dissented from 
 the arrangements of his right under that section 
 to have the value of his interest in the co. 
 determined by arbitration. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J. affirmed. 
 
 Semble, that the "agreement" intended by 
 B. 162 is an agreement between the dissentient 
 member and the liquidator in the winding-up of 
 the 00. ' 
 
 Wlien a notice is served upon arbitrators by 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Arbitration)— conicJ. 
 one of the parties to the arbitration to appoint an 
 umpire, they are " called upon to act " in the 
 matter of the arbitration within the meaning of 
 clause (c) of Sohed. I. to the Arbitration Act) 
 1889, and the three months within which the 
 arbitrators are by that clause bound to make 
 their award run from the service of that notice 
 upon them. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., [1898] 2 Ch. 633, 
 reversed. Baking-Gould v. Shakpington Com- 
 bined Pick and Shovel Syndicate 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 73; [1899] 2 Ch. 80 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Payne v. Tlie Cork 
 Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 308, 317. 
 
 See also In re Canning Jarrah Tirriber Go. 
 ^Western Australia) Ld., C. A. [1900] 2 Ch, 708, 
 717. 
 
 Assets, 
 for benefit 
 
 of one person - 
 
 2. — Company 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 A trader, being in financial difficulties, sold 
 his business to a limited co. The subscribers to 
 the memorandum of association of the eo. were 
 either his relatives or employees. No cash was 
 paid by the co. for the business, and no shares 
 were issued to the public, and all the shares that 
 were issued were issued as fully paid up. The 
 trader was appointed the managing director of 
 the CO. Some months afterwards a receiving 
 order was made against the trader, and the same 
 day the co. passed resolutions for a voluntary 
 winding-up : — 
 
 Held, that the business and assets of the co. 
 formed part of the property of the bankrupt 
 divisible amongst his creditors, subject to a first 
 charge thereon in favour of the bonS, fide credi- 
 tors of the CO. In re Cakey. Ex parte JsrEEEYS 
 V. Williams, J. [1895] 2 Q. B. 624 
 See In re Carl JSirth, 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 612. 
 
 — Glasgow Bank (Liquidation) Act, 1882. 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 88. 
 
 3. — Insolvent company — Assets covered by 
 debentures — Admitted insolvency. 
 
 Where a petition is presented by an unsecured 
 creditor asking that a co. may be ordered to be 
 wound up on the ground that it is unable to pay 
 its debts, the defence that although the co. is 
 insolvent a winding-up order will not result in 
 any gain to the unsecured creditors because the 
 assets are covered by and insufficient to satisfy 
 debentures (see In re Chapel House Colliery Co., 
 24 Ch. D. 259) will not be accepted in the case 
 of a private co. without the Court obtaining very 
 full information as to what has become of the 
 co.'s property, and whether tliere is reasonable 
 ground for supposing that, by impeaching the 
 debentures, something can be obtained for the 
 unsecured creditors. In re London Health 
 Electrical Institute - - V. Williams, J. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 170 (3) 
 
 4. — Investments — " Depreciation " — " Ap- 
 preciation " — Earnings since liquidation — Capital 
 or income. 
 
 An investment made by a limited co. on 
 capital account having fallen in value, the amount 
 
( 411 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 412 D 
 
 COMPANY-WINDING-TrP(Assets)-co»M«tte(Z. 
 of depreciation was, in the half-yearly acoounts, 
 debited to revenue. When the oo. afterwards 
 went into liquidation, the Investment had risen 
 again in value, and the liquidator in his accounts 
 credited to revenue as " appreciation " the amount 
 which had previously been debited as depre- 
 ciation : — 
 
 Eeld, that the amount credited by the liqui- 
 dator to revenue as "appreciation" must be 
 treated as income, and not as capital, it being 
 merely a restitution to profits of what had been 
 previously taken from profits. 
 
 Earnings by a limited co. since the commence- 
 ment of its liquidation are capital and not income. 
 Bishop v. Smykna and Cassaba Ry. Oo. (No. 2) 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 596 
 
 5, — Profits — Earnings before liquidation — 
 Priority. 
 
 Money standing to the revenue account of a 
 limited co. at the date of the commencement of 
 liquidation and representing net profits earned 
 prior to liquidation is applicable in payment of 
 arrears of dividend due on preference shares in 
 priority to payment of a deficit on capital account 
 and of the costs of liquidation. Bishop v. 
 Smtbna and Cassaba Ey. Co. (No. 1) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch, 265 
 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Odessa 
 Waterworks Co., [1897] W. N. 166 (3). 
 
 6. — Surplus assets — Articles of association. 
 The articles of association of a co. with a 
 
 nominul capital divided into II. shares provided 
 th[it if on the winding-up of the co. the surplus 
 assets should be insufficient to repay the whole 
 of the paid-up capital, such surplus assets should 
 be distributed so that as nearly as might be the 
 losses should be borne by the members in pro- 
 portion to the capital paid, or whicli ought to 
 have been paid, on the shares held by them 
 respectively at the commencement of the winding- 
 up, other than amounts paid in advance of calls. 
 Sliortly after incorporation 100,000 shares were 
 issued on each of whicli the sum of 5s. was paid 
 up, and 25,000 further shares each of which was 
 at once fully paid up. No calls were ever made, 
 lu the wiuding-up of the co., after paying debts 
 and expenses there remained assets sufficient to 
 repay the holders of the 25,000 shares 15e. per 
 share, but insufficient to repay all the paid-up 
 capital on the 125.000 shares :— 
 
 Held, that a call (actual or in account) of 3e. 
 per share must be made on the holders of the 
 100,000 shares, so as to make these shares paid 
 up to the extent of 8s. per share ; that the amount 
 so called must be applied in repayment of 128. 
 per share to the holders of the 25,000 shares, 
 making their shares also paid up to the extent of 
 8s. per share, and that the assets in hand would 
 then be divisible among the holders of the whole 
 of the 125,000 shares pro rata. 
 
 Ex parte Maude, (1870) L. E. 6 Ch. 51, and 
 Birch V. Cropper, (1889) 14 App. Gas. 525, 
 distinguished. In re Anglo-Continental Coe- 
 POBATioN or Westeen Australia 
 
 Wright J. [1898] 1 Ct, 327 
 
 Distinguished by Wiight J. In re Mutoscope 
 and Biograph Syndicate, [1899] 1 Ch, 896. 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Assets)— corefenaeti. 
 
 7. — Surplus assets — Articles of association — 
 Construction of. 
 
 The capital of a co. was 25,075?. in 25,000 
 shares of \l. each, and 1500 shares of Is. each, 
 with power in the memorandum of association to 
 attach any preferential rights. By clause 3 of 
 the articles of association, the IZ. shares were to 
 be ordinary shares, and the Is. shares were to be 
 founders' shares, and as between the two classes 
 the profits of the co. distributable as dividend 
 were to be applied as to one-fourth in paying 
 dividends on the ordinary shares, and as to the 
 residue in paying dividends on the founders' 
 shares. By clause 15 every founders' share con- 
 ferred fifty votes, and every ordinary share one 
 vote. Clause 39 was as follows : " In the event 
 of a winding-up of the co., the surplus assets 
 available for distribution among the holders of 
 the shares in the original capital shall belong 
 as to one-fourth to the holders of the ordinary 
 shares in the original capital in proportion to the 
 ordinary shares aforesaid held by them respec- 
 tively, and as to the other three-fourths to the 
 holders of the founder's' shares in the original 
 capital in proportion to the founders' shares held 
 by them respectively." The liquidators in the 
 winding-up raised the question whether the true 
 construction of the expression " the surplus assets 
 available for distribution amongst the holders of 
 the shares " was, (a) the surplus after discharging 
 .debts, liabilities, and costs of winding-up, and 
 making good to the shareholders the amounts 
 paid on their shares, or (6) the surplus after dis- 
 charging debts, liabilities, and costs only : — 
 
 Held, that the case was governed by In re 
 New Transvaal Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 750, notwith- 
 standing the addition of the words in italics 
 (which were omitted from the articles in that 
 case), and that construction (a) was the proper 
 one. In re Peabody Gold Mininq Corporation 
 Wright J. [1897] W. N. 170 (3) 
 
 8. — "Surplus assets," Meaning of — Con- 
 struction of articles of association. 
 
 The term "surplus assets," when used in 
 articles of association providing for distribution 
 among the shareholders on a winding-up taking 
 place, has no such recognised technical meaning 
 that the Court is bound to construe it a.s referring 
 to the assets after providing only for debts, 
 liabilities, and costs, without recouping paid-up 
 capital. 
 
 The capital of a co. was 100,200?. in 100,000 
 ordinary shares and 200 founders' shares respec- 
 tively of 11. each, all of which (except one 
 founders' share) were issued and fully paid up. 
 
 One of the articles of association was as 
 follows : " If the co. shall be wound up, one-fifth 
 of the surplus assets (if any) shall belong to 
 and be divided among the holders of founders' 
 shares, and the remaining four-iifths of such 
 surplus assets shall belong to and be divided 
 among the holders of ordinary shares in propor- 
 tion to the amount of capital paid up on the 
 shares held by them." 
 
 Another article had provided that the profits 
 in each year should be applicable in or towards 
 payment of a dividend of 8 per cent, on the 
 amount paid up on the ordinary shares, and that 
 
( 413 ) 
 
 Dl&EST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 414 ) 
 
 COMPANY— -WINDING-TrP (Assets)— contmaetJ. 
 the surplus (If any) should be divided, as to one- 
 fifth among the holders of founders' shares, and 
 as to the other four-fifth^ among the holders of 
 ordinary shares in proportion to the amounts for 
 the time being paid up tbereon. 
 
 The 00. went into voluntary liquidation, and, 
 after providing for all debts, costs, and liabilities, 
 a sum of about 90,0002. remained for distribution 
 among the shareholders : — 
 
 Eeld, that, having regard to both articles, 
 " surplus assets " meant the assets remaining after 
 providing for debts, costs, and liabilities, and also 
 recouping the paid-up capital subscribed by all 
 the shareholders. In re New Transvaal Co. 
 
 V. WUUams J. [1896] 2 Ch. 750 
 
 Followed by Wright J. In re Pedbody Gold 
 Mining Corporation, [1897] W. N. 170 (3). See 
 preceding Case. 
 
 9. — Surplus assets. 
 
 By the memorandum of association of the 
 B. Co., one of its objects was to sell its under- 
 taking and all or any part of its property with 
 power to accept as the consideration any shares, 
 stocks or obligations of any other oo. ; and the 
 capital was divided into 6 per cent, preference 
 shares (having a preferential right both as to 
 capital and income) and ordinary shares. By the 
 articles (64) the profits of each year were to be 
 first applied in paying the preferential dividend 
 and any arrears thereof unpaid in any previous 
 year ; (72) the holders of any class of shares 
 might, by extraordinary resolution at a meeting 
 of that class of holders, consent to the -abandon- 
 ment of any preference or priority; (134) on 
 winding-up, if the siu:plus assets should be more 
 than sufficient to repay paid-up capital, the 
 excess should be distributed in proportion to the 
 capital paid, or which ought to have been paid, 
 but without prejudice to the rights of holders of 
 shares issued on special conditions ; (136) the 
 liquidator might with the sanction of an extra- 
 ordinary resolution divide assets in specie. By 
 an agreement in writing the B. Co. agreed IJo 
 sell its undertaking and property (except a sum 
 sufficient to pay a 10 per cent, dividend to the 
 ordinary shareholders, and a 6 per cent, dividend 
 to the preference shareholders) to the X. Co., 
 the consideration being a sum, payable to the 
 B. Co., equal to il. per ordinary share and 11. 4s. 
 per preference share, to be satisfied in debenture 
 stock and shares of a new co. to be called the 
 A. Co. This agreement did not point out how 
 the consideration was to be divided amongst the 
 preference and ordinary shareholders, but the 
 proposed mode of distribution was explained in 
 a circular sent with the notices of an extra- 
 ordinary meeting of the B. Co., at which, when 
 held, it was resolved that the agreement should 
 be approved and the directors should be autho- 
 rized to carry the same into effect. The pro- 
 posed mode of distiibution was different from 
 that pointed out by the articles. The debenture 
 stock and shares in the A. Co. which formed the 
 consideration were allotted to the B. Co., which 
 afterwards went into voluntary liquidation, and 
 the liquidator, who had not enough in hand to 
 pay the dividends under the agreement without 
 
 COMPAKT— WINDING-UP (Assets)— oontorafd. 
 selling some of the stock and share consideration, 
 applied for the direction of the Court : — 
 
 Held, that — in the circumstances, and without 
 laying down any general rule — Somes v. Ourrie, 
 (1855) 1 K. & J. 605, was an authority warranting 
 the Court in inferring an arrival by the share- 
 holders at an unwritten agreement for a mode of 
 distribution different from that prescribed by the 
 articles. 
 
 Griffith V. Paget, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 894, distin- 
 guished. In re Beeston Pneumatic Tyke Co. 
 Wright J, [1898] W. N. 34 (4) 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. In re North 
 West Argentine Sy. Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 882. 
 
 10. — Surplus assets — Distribution — Articles 
 of association. 
 
 The regulations of a oo. with a nominal 
 capital in 11. shares provided that if upon the 
 winding-up the surplus assets should be more 
 than sufficient to repay the whole paid-up capital, 
 the excess should be distributed among the mem- 
 bers in proportion to the capital paid or which 
 ought to have been paid on the shares held by 
 them respectively at the commencement of the 
 winding-up. Some of th^ shares issued were 
 fully paid up ; on others only 10s. per share had 
 been paid. There was an excess in the winding- 
 up after paying debts and expenses and repaying 
 all the paid-up capital : — 
 
 Held, that the excess was distributable in 
 proportion to the capital actually paid up. 
 
 In re Anglo-Continental Corporation of Western 
 Australia, [1898] 1 Ch. 327, distinguished. In re 
 
 MUTOSOOPE AND BlOGRAPH SYNDICATE 
 
 ■Wright J. [1899] W. N. 77 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 896 
 
 11. — Surplus assets — Distribution not accord- 
 ing to legal rights — Implied term in resolution — 
 Shareholders — Powers of majority. 
 
 The A. Co., with a capital of 550,000!. divided 
 into shares of 101. each, of which 35,000 wero 
 preference shares and 20,000 were ordinary 
 shares, and with articles of association which 
 were silent as to how the surplus assets were to 
 be divided between the two classes of share- 
 holders in the event of winding up, entered into 
 an agreement, under a power in its memorandum 
 of association, to sell its undertaking and assets 
 to the C. Co. 
 
 Part of the consideration for the sale was a 
 sum of 310,0002. stock of the C. Co., which was to 
 be distributed among the holders of the preferred 
 and deferred shares of the A. Co., and accepted 
 by them in satisfaction of their interests in the 
 property sold ; and the agreement was expressed 
 to be conditional on all necessary resolutions of 
 the shareholders of the A. Co. being passed. 
 
 The agreement was silent as to the propor- 
 tions in which the stock was to be divided between 
 the two classes of shareholders, and so was the 
 notice convening a meeting of the shareholders to 
 pass a resolution approving the agreement and 
 authorizing the directors of the A. Co. to carry 
 the same into effect. A circular sent by the 
 secretary of the A. Co. with the notice stated that 
 the purchase consideration to the shareholders of 
 310,0002. stock was to be distributed among them 
 in the proportion of 210,0002. to the preferred 
 
( 415 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 416 ) 
 
 COMPANY-WINDING-UP (AssbU)— continued. 
 shareholders, and 100,000?. to the deferred share- 
 holders. This suggested mode of distribution 
 was referred to at the meeting, where it was also 
 pointed out that the suo;gested mode was not in 
 accordance with the legal rights of tlie two classes 
 of sharehol.lers in a winding-up. There were 
 absentees from the meeting, and only a majority 
 of the shnreholders present voted for the 
 resolution : — 
 
 Held, that the Court could not (as it had 
 done in Somes v. Currie, (1855) 1 K. & J. 6i'5, 
 and In re Beeston Pneumatic Tyre Co., [1898] 
 W. N. 34 ; 14 Times L. E. 338) draw an inference 
 from the facts that all the parties concerned hud 
 agreed upon a mode of distribution not in accord- 
 ance with the legal rights of the two classes of 
 shareholders, and that, unless successful proceed- 
 ings could be taken against the A. Co. or its 
 directors, or to set aside the resolution, or all 
 individual consents of shareholders could be 
 obtained, the liquidators must distribute the 
 310,0002. stock in accordance with the legal rights 
 of the shareholders. In re North West Akgen- 
 TINE Ely. Co. - Wright J. [1900] W. N. 243 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 882 
 
 12, — Surplus assets — Distribution of surplus 
 assets — Memorandum of association — Construction. 
 
 Summons by liquidator to ascertain the prin- 
 ciples upon which the surplus assets of the oo. 
 available for distribution among the shareholders 
 ought to be distributed. The assets, after paying 
 debts and costs of liquidation, were not sufficient 
 to return to the shareholders in full the paid-up 
 capital. The capital consisted of 100,OOOZ., 
 divided into 19,960 ordinary shares of 51. each, 
 and 200 founders' shares of 11. each. The 
 founders' shares were fully paid up. Some of 
 the ordinary shares were fully paid up. Some 
 had only 11. 15s. paid on them: — 
 
 Held, upon the construction of the clauses of 
 the memorandum of association, that the assets 
 in hand plus the amount of unpaid calls must be 
 divided between all the shareholders in the pro- 
 portion of 51. to the holder of an ordinary share 
 and 11. to the holder of a founders" share, the 
 holders of unpaid shares being debited with the 
 amount of the calls which they had not in fact 
 paid. The surplus assets must be taken to include 
 the sums payable by the shareholders who had 
 not paid up in full. In re Welsh Whisky 
 Distillery Co. - - Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 59 
 
 13. — Surplus, Distribution of— Shares issued 
 at discount. 
 
 A CO. issued unallotted old shares and some 
 new shares at a discount of 70 per cent. For 
 some time all the shares were treated pari passu ; 
 but on a voluntary winding-up : — 
 
 Held, that the issue at a discount was ultra 
 vu-es, and that the two classes of shares could 
 not be treated on the same footing, and the 
 surplus must first be applied in paying the original 
 shareholders 70 per cent, per share. In re Wey- 
 mouth AND Chaknel Islands Steam Packet Co. 
 C. A. affirm. North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Applied and followed by C. A. In re Bail- 
 way Time Tables Publishing Co. Exparte Welton, 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Assets)— eonUnUed. 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 255. This case was affirmed by 
 H. L. (B.) sub rum. Welton v. Saffery, [1897] 
 A. C. 299. 
 
 14. — Surplus, Distribution of — RigMs of 
 contributories inter se — Sale of unaertaldng at a 
 profit. 
 
 The undertaking of a canal co. formed under 
 the Companies Acts was sold by special Act at 
 a price which left a surplus in excess of the 
 liabilities and the capital paid upon ordinary 
 and preference shares. Directions by the Co'irt 
 as to the application of net profits made during 
 current year of sale, and the distribution of the 
 reserve fund for insurance and depreciation 
 among preference and ordinary shareholders : 
 also as to rights of shareholders to reopen past 
 accounts. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1891] 1 Ch. 155, varied. 
 In re Bkidgewateb Navigation Co. 
 
 C, A. [1891] 2 Ch. 317 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. ' Bishop v. Smyrna 
 and Cassaba By. Co., [1895].2 Ch. 692, 602. 
 
 16. — Surplus, Distribution of — Companie 
 Acts, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 109, 133, sub- 
 8S. 1, 10. 
 
 Distribution of surplus assets in a voluntary 
 winding-up, where certain shares were fully paid 
 and advances at interest had been made on 
 others. In re Wakefield Eolling Stock Co. 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1892] 3 Oh. 165 
 
 16. — Surplus assets — Preference shares — ■ 
 Bevenue representing dividends never declared. 
 
 A CO. was incorporated in 1872 having a 
 capital of 850,0002. in preferred and defen-ed 
 shares of 20Z. each, the preferential rights of 
 the former being only in respect of dividend. 
 Art. 101 was as follows : " The directors may, 
 with the sanction of the co. at the ordinary 
 general meeting, declare a dividend to be paid to 
 the members in proportion to thfir shares, subject, 
 however, to" arts. 105 and 102. By art. 102 no 
 dividend was to be declared to be paid on deferred 
 shares unless and until the net profits for the 
 current year should have enabled the directors 
 to declare and pay on the preferred shares a prefe- 
 rential dividend of 6 per cent, for that year ; and 
 after payment on deferred shares of a dividend 
 of 6 per cent, for the current year, the residue, if 
 any, was, subject to art. 105, to be equally divided 
 between both classes of shareholders pari passu 
 in proportion to the amounts paid up on the 
 shares. Art. 103 enabled interim dividends to 
 be paid, and art. 104 prohibited the declaration 
 or payment of any dividend except out of profits. 
 Art. 105 provided that the directors might set 
 aside out of the profits or receipts of the co. 
 such sum as they might think proper to form a 
 " sinking fund " for the redemption of capital, or 
 to a " contingency fund " to meet any unforeseen 
 or prospective liabilities, and might further out 
 of the profits set aside such sum as they might 
 think proper as a reserve fund for equalising 
 dividends, or for any other purposes of the co. 
 The 30,000 preferred and 12,472 deferred shares 
 which were issued were fully paid up. A large 
 
( 417 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF (JASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( «8 ; 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Assets)— co»Kn«e<i. 
 outlay being required for the construction of 
 ■vforke, no dividend was ever paid on the deferred 
 shares, but in each of the years 1875, 1887, 1889, 
 1893, and 1894 a dividend of 1 or IJ per cent, on 
 the preferred shares was paid. In Sept., 1895, 
 the CO. went into voluntary liquidation, and 
 shortly afterwards the undertaking was sold. 
 After paying creditors, a sum of about 220,0002. 
 remained for division amongst the shareholders. 
 The articles did not state how the surplus assets 
 in case of winding-up were to be distributed. 
 The preference shareholders claimed to have 
 certain sums paid to them in respect of dividend 
 before any of the balance of assets, after paying 
 debts, was paid on account of capital : — 
 
 Held, that as the sums claimed in priority 
 had not actually been declared as dividend, it 
 was not sufficient for the preference shareliolders 
 to shew that, had the co. been a going concern, 
 the amounts claimed in priority might have been 
 declared as dividend, and that on the articles 
 their claim to priority failed. 
 
 In some years prior to 1895 there were balances 
 of revenue over expenditure — not representing 
 cash in hand, but being a fund out of which if 
 made good a dividend might lawfully have been 
 declared and paid — ^enough to pay part of the 
 preferential dividend of 6 per cent., and when 
 one of the yearly dividends was declared at an 
 ordinary meeting of the co., the following words 
 were added to the resolution then passed: "It 
 being understood that " a sum named " shall 
 remain to the credit of the revenue account." 
 The preference shareholders claimed that out of 
 the balance divisible a sum equal to part of the 
 amount standing to the credit of revenue account 
 ought to be distributed amongst them in priority 
 as preferential dividend, either as a debt due 
 from capital to revenue, or as a debt due from 
 the CO. to the preference shareholders : — 
 
 Sdd, that this claim failed also, as there was 
 no agreement, but only the keeping up of a credit 
 in the accounts in favour of revenue so as to ear- 
 mark that which, when represented by cash, 
 might be considered as available for future divi- 
 dend or for any of the purposes mentioned in 
 art. 105. 
 
 Sdd, therefore, that the balance was divisible 
 among all the shareholders as return of capital. 
 
 Bishop V. Smyrna By. Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 265, 
 distinguished on the ground that under the 
 memorandum of association in that case the 
 preference shareholders were entitled to their 
 preferential dividends irrespective of a declara- 
 tion of dividend. 
 
 Birch V. Cropper, (1889) U App. Cas. 525, 
 distinguished on a similar ground. In re Odessa 
 Waterwobks Co. Byrne J. [1897] W. N. 166 (3) 
 
 17. — Surplv^ assets — Bemuneration — Deben- 
 ture-holders — Principal and agent — Jurisdiction. 
 
 Debentures gave power to the holders to 
 appoint a receiver to realize the assets of the co., 
 without stating what he was to do with the 
 surplus, or that he was to be the agent of the 
 mortgagors. A receiver appointed under this 
 power claimed to retain surplus assets as his 
 remuneration, and the liquidator of the co. 
 :applied by summons in the winding-up for an 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Assets)— coniJuMscJ. 
 order fixing the remuneration, and that the 
 balance should be paid over to him : — 
 
 Held, that the receiver was the agent of the 
 mortgagee, not of the co. ; and that, whether 
 that were so or not, there was no jurisdiction to 
 make the order on the summons, but the liqui- 
 dator must bring an action against the receiver. 
 In re Vimeos, Ld. - - Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 [1900] W. N, 23 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 470 
 
 18. — Surplus assets — Undistributed assets — 
 Payment into company's liquidation account — 
 Companies (Winding-upy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 c. 63), s. 15. 
 
 Sect. 15 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 
 1890, is not limited to compulsory winding-ups. 
 
 Therefore in the case of (a) a co. being wound 
 up under supervision, or (6) a co. being wound up 
 voluntarily, the liquidator may be required by 
 the Bd. of Trade to pay undistributed assets into 
 the co.'s liquidation account. 7» re Stock and 
 Share Auotion and Bankinq Co. In re Spiral 
 Wood Ccttinq Co. In re Hull Land, &o., Co. 
 V. WUliams J. [1894] 1 Ch. 736 
 
 19. — Surplus assets — Unlimited company — 
 Deed of settlement — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), ss. 109, 133. 
 
 Sects. 109 and 133 of the Companies Act, 
 1862, do not supply a rule for the mode of 
 adjusting loss of capital or of distributing surplus 
 assets, but only supply the necessary powers for 
 giving effect to the rights and interests of the 
 parties. In ascertaining those rights in the case 
 of co.'s constituted under the Companies Acts, 
 in the absence of any provision in the memo- 
 randum or articles of association, the capital 
 account must first be equalized, and the balance 
 must be appropriated according to the nominal 
 amount of the shares, and a clause in the memo- 
 randum or articles regulating the distribution of 
 dividends will not of itself govern the distribution 
 of surplus. 
 
 In the case of co.'s not constituted under the 
 Acts effect must be given to any clause, in the 
 deed under which the co. was constituted, with 
 regard to surplus assets, but a provision as to 
 distribution of dividends does not of itself govern 
 the distribution of surplus. 
 
 Somes V. Carrie, (1855) 1 K. & J. 605, and 
 Sheppard v. Seinde, Punjaub and Delhi By. Co., 
 (1887) 36 W. K. 1, distinguished and com- 
 mented on. 
 
 By the deed of settlement under which u 
 company was originally constituted losses were 
 to be made good by the shareholders "in pro- 
 portion to their respective shares," profits were 
 to be divided amongst them "according to the 
 amount of their respective shares," and upon a 
 winding-up the residue, after paying debts, was 
 to be "divided between the several proprietors" 
 — namely, shareholders — " for the time being in 
 proportion to their respective shares." The shares 
 were of 101. each. Some were fully paid, others 
 were only paid up to the extent of 61. 10s. per 
 share, and some of both classes had been issued 
 at a premium. The co. was afterwards regis- 
 tered under Part VII. of the Companies Act, 
 1862, as an unlimited co. It sold its undertaking 
 and went into voluntary liquidation, and after 
 
 P 
 
( 419 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 420 ) 
 
 COMPANY— ■WIHDING-TJP (A.8setB)—contiimed. 
 payment of its debts and the costs of liquidation 
 had a surplus more than sufficient to return all 
 the paid-up capital : — 
 
 Held, that the surplus must first be applied 
 in returning the paid-up capital, and that the 
 balance must be distributed amongst all the 
 shareholders in proportion to the nominal amounts 
 of their shares, and without regard to the pre- 
 miums paid by any shareholders, or the manner 
 in which dividends were payable or had in fact 
 been paid. In re Driffield Gas Lioht Co. 
 
 Wright J. [1898] 1 Ch. 451 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Mutoscope 
 and Biograpli Syndicate, [1899] 1 Ch, 896, 898. 
 
 Calls. 
 See Cases under Company — Calls ; and 
 Company — Windinq-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 
 
 Committee of Inspection. 
 
 20. — Altering Constitviion of — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), a. 91— Companies 
 (Winding-up') Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), 
 88. 6, 9, 23, 24, Sched. I, r. 6. 
 
 Where a creditor, or a class of creditors (with 
 a substantial interest), of a co. which is being 
 wound up by the Court is, through no fault of 
 his or its own, unrepresented on the committee of 
 inspection, the Court may either (a) direct the 
 liquidator to summon a meeting of the creditors 
 to consider whether one or more members of 
 the committee should be removed and some 
 other person or persons, representative of the 
 "aggrieved" and unrepresented creditor or credi- 
 tors, appointed in substitution ; or (6) may order 
 fresh first, or further meetings of the creditors 
 and oontributories to be summoned for the follow- 
 ing purpose of s. 6 of the Act of 1890, namely, to 
 determine whether an application is to be made 
 to the Court to appoint a committee of inspection, 
 and who are to be its members if appointed. In 
 re Eadfoed & Bkight, Ld. 
 
 Wright J. [1900] W. N. 263 
 Meported [1901] 1 Ch, 372 
 
 Compulsory Winding-up. 
 
 21. — Compulsory or supervision order — Second 
 petition. 
 
 Although s. 8 of the Companies,(Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890, enlarges the JTu:i3diotiou of the Court 
 as to compulsory orders, yet a shareholder who 
 differs from the majority must still aUege and 
 prove grounds for supposing that he wUl derive 
 substantial benefit from the compulsory order 
 before the Court will grant it, on his petition, 
 against the wishes of the majority. A share- 
 holder who presents a petition after notice of 
 another petition must prove proper independent 
 grounds, or he will be cast in costs. In re Doke 
 Galleky, Ld. - North J. [1891] W. N. 98 
 
 22. — Debt due under agreement with voluntary 
 liquidator— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 V. 89), ss. 95, 133, 8i«6-ss. 7, 145, 161. 
 
 A debt due from a co, under an agreement 
 between it and its voluntary liquidatofs and 
 
 COMPANY — .WINBING-TTP (Compulsory Wind- 
 ing-up) — continued. 
 another person is sufficient to support a petition 
 for winding up the co, by the Court. 
 
 Special resolutions were passed by the S. Co. 
 for voluntary winding-up and appointing liqui- 
 dators who were authorized to enter into an 
 agreement with the U. Co. for the transfer to 
 them of the S. Co.'s assets and liabilities. The 
 U. Co. agreed to pay the liabilities of the S. Co., 
 such part of which as was not covered by the 
 assets of the S. Co. to be treated as a debt to the 
 U. Co. from the S. Co. The liquidators were to 
 make a call to meet such part : — 
 
 Held, that the liquidators were empowered 
 by ss. 95, 133 of the Act of 1862 to enter into 
 the agreement. In re Bask of South Austbalia 
 (No, 2) - - C, A. affirm. V. Williams J. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch, 578 
 
 [Note in this case that In re Bank of South 
 Austbalia, V. Williams J. [1894] 3 Ch. 722, was 
 doubted.2 
 
 Contributory. 
 
 23. — Application for shares — BeaZ or fictitious 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89),s.23. 
 
 The directors of a co. agreed, in order to make 
 it appear that all the shares were allotted, that 
 tUey should apply for the unallotted shares, it 
 being understood that no liability should attach 
 to them in respect of such shares. Accordingly, 
 A. applied for certain shares in the name of his 
 son. The son was registered as shareholder, but 
 no allotment or call was made : — 
 
 Held, that this case must be governed by the 
 law of contract, and, there being no contract by 
 A. to take the shares, that A.'s executors were 
 not contributories. In re Britannia Fiee As- 
 sociation. Cotbntry's Case 
 
 C, A. revers. Kay S. 
 [1891] 1 Ch, 202 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. Savigni/s Case, 
 [1899] W. N. 1 (2). 
 
 — Application for shares — Withdrawal before 
 allotment. 
 See Company — ^Eeconstruction. 213. 
 
 24. — Balance order — Action to enforce — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 <£ 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 75, 101, 
 102, 120. 
 
 The CO., being unable to serve a balance order 
 on the deft, because he was out of the jurisdic- 
 tion, brought an action for debt in respect of the 
 same amount as that stated in the balance order, 
 plus interest, and obtained leave to serve the 
 writ out of the jurisdiction : — 
 
 Held, that the action was maintainable as an 
 action for debt, although it could not have been 
 brought to enforce the balance order. 
 
 Per 0. A. A balance order is not in the 
 nature of a judgment, but is a mere summary 
 order for the better getting in of a portion of the 
 assets. The original right of action of the co. for 
 the calls is not merged in it or destroyed by it. 
 Westmobeland Gkeen and Blue Slate Co. ■». 
 Feilden 
 
 Kekewich J,, affirm, by C, A. [1891] 3 Ch. 15 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Friichett v, English and 
 Colonial Syndicate, [1899] 2 Q. B. 428, 434. 
 
 25. — "Bonus" shares — Transferee for value 
 
( 421 ) 
 
 DlGtUST 01 CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( i22 ) 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — 
 
 continued. 
 —Companies Acts, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. v. 89), 
 8. 38 ; 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 25. 
 
 Where the original allottees of certain bonua 
 shares had been placed, on the list of contrLbu- 
 tories, the executors of a deceased transferee for 
 value of some of such shares were put on the list. 
 For the word " bonuy," which was written across 
 each certificate, put the transferee on his inquiry, 
 and there was other evidence to shew that he 
 knew the circumstances of issue. In re Eddy- 
 stone Marine Insubance Co. (No. 3) 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 30 
 
 26. — Bonus Shares — Companies Act, 1867 
 (30 * 31 Vict. c. 131) 8. 25. 
 
 By a contract with a trustee for a co. about to 
 be formed it was agreed that seventy-five out of 
 the hundred shares of the co. should be allotted 
 as fully paid up to the vendors as the considera- 
 tion for the property thereby agreed to be sold, 
 and this agreement was filed with the Eegistrar 
 of Joint Stock Companies. Shortly after the 
 incorporation of the co. some friends of the 
 vendors were willing to subscribe in cash for 
 the rest of the shares ; and it was suggested that 
 the vendors were receiving too many shares and 
 too great a voting power, and that they should 
 give up twenty-five of their shares to these cash 
 subscribers. Subsequent resolutions of the board 
 of directors, and another agreement with the co., 
 recognised that 5000?. in cash had by mistake 
 been omitted from the former agreement although 
 it was part of the consideration, and confirmed 
 the payment of that sum to the vendors, and sub- 
 ject to this alteration and to twenty-five of the 
 seventy-five shares being distributed by the 
 vendors among the cash subscribers, and to 
 the approval of an extraordinary general meeting 
 of the CO., the old agreement was adopted. The 
 new agreement was also filed with the registrar. 
 An extraordinary meeting approved the trans- 
 action, and the co. then allotted twenty-five of 
 the vendors' shares to the cash subscribers direct, 
 under certificates stating that the shares were 
 fully paid up. No invitation was given to the 
 public to apply for shares, although it was con- 
 templated that the public should be appealed to 
 later on. In the winding-up of the co. certain 
 creditors proved their debts, and the liquidator 
 applied to have the cash subscribers (some of 
 whom were directors at the time of the above trans- 
 action) placed on the list of contributories : — 
 
 Rdd, that if the vendors had been entitled to 
 the twenty-five distributed shares the effect of 
 allotting the shares to the cash subscribers direct 
 would not have placed the latter in a worse 
 Dosition than if the shares had been allotted to 
 the vendors and then transferred, but that as the 
 vendors were never entitled to the twenty-five 
 shares as part of the consideration, and the agree- 
 ment was really between the co. and the cash 
 subscribers for a gift of shares from the co. to the 
 cash subscribers, the filing of the contracts did 
 not help the subscribers, and they were liable to 
 contribute the full nominal amount of the bonus 
 shares in cash. In re Alkaline Keduotion 
 .SsJOOiOAm Ames's Case ,,„„„-,„.,.,„.,,, 
 V. Williams J. [1896] W, N. 79 (1) 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — 
 
 continued. 
 — Company purchasing its own partly-paid 
 shares. 
 
 See Company — Reduction of Capital. 
 245. 
 37. — Pisclaimer of shares hy trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy — Damages. 
 
 Where a trustee in bankruptcy disclaims 
 shares and the co. goes into liquidation the 
 liquidator is entitled to prove for damages caused 
 by the disclaimer. In re Hallbtt. Ex parte 
 National Inbtjbancb Co. 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1894] W. N. 166 
 
 28. — Election to avoid contract to tahe-shares 
 — Effect of opposing winding-up petition as con- 
 tributory — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), s. 35 — Companies Winding-up Bvies, Aprilj 
 1892, Rule 20, Form 2. 
 
 Where a person to whom shares in a coj have 
 been allotted has commenced proceedings, before 
 the filing of a winding-up petition against the co., 
 to obtain rescission of the contract (if any) to take 
 the shares, the election thus made by him to 
 avoid the contract is not departed from by his 
 subsequently opposing the petition in the character 
 of a oontritatory. In re Bbinsmead (T. E.) & 
 Sons. Tomlin's Case - - Wright J. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 162 (3); [1898] 1 Ch. 104 
 
 29. — Enforcing payment of calls made before 
 winding-up — Application to stay proceedings tUl 
 costs of discontinued action by company paid — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), «. 101 
 —B. S. C, 1883, Order xxvi., rr. 1, 4. 
 
 A CO., while a going concern, sued Y. for calls 
 on shares alleged to be held by him. Before the 
 action was ripe for trial the co. resolved on volun- 
 tary winding-up, and the liquidator settled Y. on 
 the list of contributories in respect of the amount 
 of the calls. The liquidator then by notice dis- 
 continued the action, and took out an originating 
 summons against Y. under ss. 101 and 138 of the 
 Companies Act; 1862, for a balance order in 
 respect of the calls. Y.'s costs of the action 
 having been taxed, and the liquidator having 
 refused to pay them, Y. applied for a stay of the 
 originating summons until payment : — 
 
 Beld, that Y. was not entitled to the stay, but 
 that the amount of the costs must be deducted 
 from any sum recovered by the liquidator on the 
 originating summons. 
 
 Cook V. Sathway, (1869) L. K. 8 Eq. 612, and 
 M'Cabe v. Bank of Ireland, (1889) 14 App. Caa. 
 416, distinguished. In re United Sekvioe Asso- 
 ciation - - Wright J. [1900] W. N. 243 
 Reported [1901] 1 Ch. 97 
 30. — Estoppel— Certification on transfer. 
 Where a transfer for value purporting to relate 
 to fully paid shares in a co. bears on the face of 
 it a certification by the secretary of the co. that 
 the share certificate has been lodged with the co., 
 the certification amourits to a statement that a 
 certificate of the shares described in the transfer 
 lias been IpdgeS,, and the co. is estopped from 
 denying that! the shares are fully paid up, even 
 though no certificate has been lodged with the 
 secretary or the certificate lodged does hot say 
 whether the shares are fully paid up 6;r not. 
 Bishop Y, Ballm Consolidated Co. (25 Q. B, D 
 
 V% ' 
 
C 423 i 
 
 ilGEST 6P cases, 1891— 1900. 
 
 ( 42i j 
 
 eOMPANT — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — 
 
 continued. 
 512) observed upon. In re Concessions Teust. 
 McKay's Case - V. WiUiams J, [1896] 2 Ch, 767 
 
 31. — Eskippel — Shares "fully paid " — 
 Original allottee-^Gompanies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. e. 131), s. 55. 
 
 Before a eo. was incorporated P. gave W. 
 5001. on W. promising to procure an allotment to 
 P. of one hundred fully paid 51. shares in the co. 
 when incorporated. W. was entitled under an 
 agreement with the co. (which was not filed with 
 the Eegistrar of Joint Stock Companies) to fully 
 paid shares in the co., and after the co. was in- 
 corporated W. had one hundred of these shares 
 allotted to P. as his nominee. The certificate 
 stated untruly that the shares were fully paid. 
 No part of the 5001. was ever paid to the co. P. 
 sold twenty of the shares, and never repudiated 
 any of them : — 
 
 Held, in the winding-up of the co., that it was 
 estopped from denying that the shares were fully 
 paid, and that P. was not liable as a contributory. 
 In re Building Estates Brickfield Co. Pak- 
 edky's Case _ _ _ v. ■Williams J. 
 
 [1896] W. N.142 (2); [1896] 1 Ch. 100 
 
 Distinguished by Wright J. Marliham and 
 Darter's Case, [1899] 1 Ch. Hi ; C. A., [1899] 
 2 Ch. 480. 
 
 32. — Fictitious name — Shares applied for in. 
 S., who was the promoter and a director of a 
 
 CO., applied for shares therein on an application 
 form which he signed with another name used by 
 him when carrying on a business. He paid the 
 application moneys with a cheque signed in his 
 own name. Subsequently the co. was wound up, 
 and S. absconded and was adjudicated a bank- 
 rupt. The liquidator put the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy on the list of contributories in respect of 
 the shares. The trustee applied to have his 
 name removed on the ground that, even if the 
 signature to the application form was that of a 
 fictitious person, there was no contract by S. 
 to take the shares, and he relied on Coventry's 
 Case, [1891] ICh. 202:— 
 
 Held, (a) that Coventry's Case was distinguish- 
 able because there was there only a pretended 
 application for shares in order that it might 
 appear that unallotted shares had been allotted ; 
 and (6) following Tugh and Sharman's Case, 
 (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 566, that it must be taken 
 that S. had intended to obtain the shares him- 
 self, and therefore his estate was liable to contri- 
 bute. In re Centkal Klondykb Gold Mi'ninq 
 Co. Satigny's Case - - Wright J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 1 (2) 
 — Filing of contracts. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Contract. 
 
 38. — Filed contract — Fully paid-up sliares — 
 Consideration for issue of — Begistered contract — 
 Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 25. 
 
 In order to comply with s. 26 of the Com- 
 panies Act, 1867, the filed contract with reference 
 to the issue of fully paid shares for a consideration 
 other than cash must state the actual considera- 
 tion given for the shares, and it is not sufficient 
 for the iiled contract to recite that by a previous 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-TTP (Contributory) — 
 
 continued. 
 unfiled agreement it was agreed to allot the 
 shares "for the considerations therein men- 
 tioned." 
 
 Observations as to the particularity with 
 which the consideration for the issue of paid-up 
 shares must be described in the filed contract. 
 In re Kharaskhoma Exploring and Pbospeoting 
 Syndicate - C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 451 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re S. Frost & Co., 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 207, 212 ; Marhham and Barter's 
 Case, [1899] 2 Ch. 480, 487. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. In re Robert 
 Watson & Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 509, 512. 
 
 34. — Filing insufficient contract — Paid-up 
 shares — Liability of directors — Companies Act, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), 8. 25— Companies 
 Act, 1898 (61 <fc 62 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 Where an objection was taken that relief 
 under the Companies Act, 1898, could not be 
 given where it was sought to have placed on the 
 file a memorandum of a verbal contract different 
 in its terms from the insufficient written contract 
 already filed, and that the Court by ordering the 
 filing of a contract could only relieve where there 
 was in existence a contract in writing which 
 could be filed, it was held that the Act applied 
 where there was no written contract at all, and 
 also where a contract had been filed which was 
 different in its terms from the one which the 
 applicant for relief wished to have filed, the Act 
 being intended to deal with every kind of slip 
 resulting in non-compliance with the Act of 
 1867, and that the applicant must therefore be 
 relieved (except in respect of the shares which 
 had been allotted for his own benefit for having 
 subscribed in cash for certain shares) on the 
 terms of paying the liquidator's costs. But, held, 
 that the directors were not entitled to relief. 
 In re ToM Tit Cycle Co. Fisher's Case 
 
 Wright J. [1899] W. N. 35 (6) 
 
 36. — File contract — Omission to — Shareholder 
 —Relief— Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 c. 131), 8. 'i5—Gompanies Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 26). 
 
 Eelief under the Companies Act, 1898, may 
 be refused on the ground of matter of prejudice 
 although it does not amount to bad faith, or gross 
 negligence, or illegal conduct on the part of the 
 applicant for relief. 
 
 E. sold his business to a co. of which he was 
 to be governing director. There was a written 
 agreement for the sale of the business which 
 provided that the consideration for the sale 
 should be satisfied by the allotment to E. — 
 nothing being said aboiit his nominees — of cer- 
 tain fully paid shares in the co., and this agree- 
 ment was filed with the Eegistrar of Joint Stock 
 Companies before the shares were issued. 
 
 S. & B. agreed with R. to help him to dispose 
 of the shares by circulating the co.'s prospectus 
 amongst their customers, with personal letters 
 recommending the shares, on the terms of 
 receiving, as nominees of E., 200 of his fully 
 paid shares, and a sum of 6d. on each share 
 applied for on their recommendation. Shares 
 
( 425 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( i26 ) 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — 
 
 continued. 
 not forming part of the shares mentioned ia the 
 agreement were afterwards allotted to S. & B. as 
 fully paid. It was not shewn that S. & B. made 
 any inquiry except from E. as to the truth of the 
 prospectus (which in the opinion of the Court 
 omitted to state the most material part of the real 
 contract) or as to the value of the shares. In the 
 winding-up of the co. S. & B. were placed and 
 retained on the list of contributories : — 
 
 Held, that S. & B.'s application for relief 
 under the Act of 1898 must be refused. In re 
 KoxBtJBGHB Pbess. Spiers & Bevan's Case 
 
 Wright J. [1899] W. N. 1 (1); 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 210 
 
 36. — Giiarantee — Company limited by — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. v. 89), s. 38. 
 
 In the winding-up of a co. limited by 
 guarantee, a member is only liable to be placed 
 on the list of contributories in respect of the 
 amount which by the memorandum of association 
 of the CO. he has undertaken to contribute in the 
 event of its being wound up. Although he may 
 be sued for sums which he is only bound to pay 
 under the articles of association, he is not liable 
 as a contributory in respect of such sums. 
 
 MaxweU'g Case, (1874) L. B. 20 Eq, 585, and 
 McKewan's Case, (1877) 6 Ch. D. 447, distin- 
 guished. In re Bangor asd Kobth Wales 
 Mdtual MAEUfE Pkoteotion Association. 
 Baikd's Case - Wright J. [1899] W. N. 93 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 693 
 
 37. — Identity— Alleged contract of memiership 
 — Error of subscriber as to identity of company. 
 
 Shortly before Nov., 1895, B. took steps with 
 a view to becoming a Fellow of an old-established 
 society called " The Auctioneers' Institute of the 
 United Kingdom." In Nov., 1895, X., an officer 
 of a recently incorporated society (with unlimited 
 liability) named "The Institute of Auctioneers 
 and Valuers," called, on B. and asked him to 
 become a member of it. B. believed the new 
 society to be the old one, and in this belief, which 
 was known to and fostered by X., B. applied for 
 membership in the new society, and received a 
 certificate of membership. In answer to his sub- 
 sequent inquiries of the new society, untruthful 
 statements were made to B. which resulted in his 
 remaining in his error as to the identity of the 
 society . — 
 
 Held, that the principle of Cundy v. Lindsay, 
 (1878) 3 App. Cas. 459, applied ; that there was 
 not even a voidable contract to become a member, 
 but no contract at all ; and that B. was entitled 
 to have his name removed from the list of contri- 
 butories in the winding-up of the new society, 
 although he had not before the winding-up com- 
 menced taken any step to have it declared that 
 he was under no liability. In re Intern ational 
 Society of Auctionbebs and Valuebs. Baillie's 
 Case - Wright J. [1897] W. N, 171 (4) ; 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — , 
 
 oontiniied. 
 winding-up of the co. cannot be excluded or 
 limited by the articles of association of the co. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J. affirmed. In re Pbvekil 
 Gold Mines, Ld. C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 122 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. Payne v. The Cork 
 Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 308, 315. 
 
 39. — Paid-up shares — Estoppel — Allottee — 
 Certificate tliat shares are fully paid up. 
 
 The appellant lent money to a limited co. 
 upon the terms that he should have as collateral 
 security fully paid shares in the co., and the co. 
 handed to the appellant certificates for 10,000 
 shares of \l. each. The certificates stated that 
 he was the registered holder of the shares, and 
 that on each of them the full amount had been 
 paid. No money had in fact been paid upon the 
 shares, which were issued from the co. direct to 
 the appellant, but he did not know this, and 
 believed the representation that they were fully 
 paid shares. An order having been made to 
 wind up the co., the appellant was placed on the 
 list of contributories : — 
 
 Held, that since the co. had obtained the 
 loan by a representation that the shares were 
 fully paid, which the appellant believed and 
 acted upon, the co. and the liquidator were 
 estopped from alleging that the shares were not 
 fully paid, and that the appellant was entitled to 
 have his name removed from the list of contri- 
 butories. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., In re Veuve Monnier et ses 
 
 File, Ld., Ex parte BloomenthalllS96'] 2 Ch. 525, 
 
 reversed. Sub. nom. Bloomenthal v. Foed (Li- 
 
 QuiDATOE OP Veuve Monniee et ses Fils, Ld.). 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 156 
 
 Keferred to by Farwell J. Dixon v. Kenna- 
 way & Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 833, 842. 
 
 — Paid-up shares — Eatifioation and payment in 
 cash. 
 See Company — Contracts. 22. 
 
 40. — Paid-up shares — Certificates — State- 
 ment accompanying certificate — Shares returned — 
 Contract not registered — Companies Acts, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), «. 23 ; 1867 (30 * 31 Vict, 
 c. 131), s. 25. 
 
 Certain persons were promised founders' paid- 
 up shares in a co. They received certificates, 
 which did not state that the shares were fully 
 paid up : they without any condition acknow- 
 ledged the receipt of the certificates, which they 
 subsequently returned on receipt of a letter from 
 the secretary asking for the return on the ground 
 that the shares had never been allotted : — 
 
 Held, that these persons were not members of 
 the CO. and must be taken off the list of contri- 
 butories. 
 
 Transferees of a vendor held not liable to con- 
 tribution in respect of founders' shares, the 
 certificates of which did not state that they were 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 110 fully paid up, but which were accompanied by a 
 
 38. — Limitation by articles of association — 
 Petition, Bight to — Contributory — Validity — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Viet. c. 89), s. 82. 
 
 The right given by s. 82 of the Companies 
 ^ct,.1862, tp a contributory to petition for tlje 
 
 letter from the secretary so stating. In re Mac- 
 DONALD, Sons & Co. 
 
 C. A. affirm. V. WUliams J. [1894] 1 Ch. 89 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J, Parbury's 
 Case, [1896] I Qh, 100, 102, * " 
 
( 427 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( 428 ) 
 
 COMPANY — ■WINDING-TJP (Contributory )— 
 continued. 
 
 41- — Paid-up shares — Contract — No payment 
 in any form registered— Companies Acts, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ». 38, sub-s. 4 ; 1867 (30 & 31 
 Viet. V. 131), s. 25. 
 
 _ A CO., on increasing its capital, presented the 
 original shareholders with certain shares which 
 were issued as fully paid up, and a contract in 
 respect of these shares was registered under s. 25 
 of the Act of 1867 ; the contract reciting that the 
 shares were given in consideration of services 
 rendered in promoting and advancing the interests 
 of the company : — 
 
 Held, on the winding-up of the co., that the 
 transaction was ultra vires, and that the share- 
 holders were oontributories notwithstanding the 
 registered contract. A registered contract under 
 8. 25 only relieves the allottees from payment in 
 cash, but there must be payment in some other 
 form. In this case there was no payment, the 
 consideration being illuspry. In re Eddtstone 
 Marine Insurance Co. (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. affirm. Wright J. [1893] 3 Ch, 9 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J. in In re Tlieat- 
 rical Trust, Ld. Chapman's Case, [1896] 1 Ch. 
 771. 
 
 — Paid-up shares issued at a discount. 
 
 See Company— Shares. 273—281. 
 
 42. — Partnership — Member of a firm — Appli- 
 cation hy firm — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), s. 23. 
 
 D., a member of a firm D. & W., signed in his 
 own name the memorandum of the G. Co. for 100 
 shares, 'Vhioh was a director's qualification; he 
 was appointed one of the first directors. D. & W. 
 acted as agents for the co. D. & W. applied for 
 100 shares, which were allotted to them and paid 
 for. D.'s name was never placed on the register. 
 There was evidence that it was agreed that 
 in consideration of having the agency, the firm 
 of D. & W. were to take and pay for 100 
 shares, that D. signed the memorandum on the 
 understanding that it must be signed hy an 
 individual, and it was considered necessary that 
 he should sign the application in the firm's 
 name : — 
 
 Held, if the co. chose to accept the firm as 
 members, that was not inconsistent with D.'s 
 agreement to take the shares ; there was only an 
 arrangement. to take one set of shares. D.'s name 
 was therefore removed from the list of contri- 
 butories. In re Gloey Paper Mills Co. Dun- 
 ster's Case - - - - C. A. revers. 
 
 V, Williams J. [1894] 3 Ch. 473 
 
 43. — Payment not in cash — Companies Act, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. e. 131), s. 2,5. 
 
 If the consideration payable for shares is 
 illusory or permits an obvious money measure to 
 be made shewing that discount has been allowed, 
 filing the contract under which the shares were 
 issued with the registrar will not relieve the 
 allottee from obligation to pay. But the Court 
 is not bound in each case to inquire whether the 
 price was reasonable, or whether what was given 
 for the shares had a cash value in the market 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-TTP (Contributory) — 
 
 continued. 
 equal to the nominal value of the shares. In re 
 Theatrical Trust, Ld. Chapman's Case 
 
 V. Williams J. [1895] 1 Ch. 771 
 Considered by C. A. In re Wragg, Ld., [1897] 
 1 Ch. 796, 832. 
 
 See In re Eddystone Marine Insurance Co., 
 0. A. affirm. Wright J. [1893] 3 Ch. 9. 
 
 44. — Procedure for declaring aharehMer 
 liable to contribution — Companies Act; 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 133, sub-s. 138. 
 
 If in a voluntary winding-up the liquidator 
 believes a shareholder is liable to be put on the 
 list of oontributories (e.g., in respect of qualifying 
 shares), the proper course is to put the shareholder 
 on the list as a contributory, leaving him to his 
 remedies under s. 133, sub-s. 8, of the Act of 
 1862; the liquidators should not apply under 
 s. 138 for a declaration of liability and an order 
 to direct payment of the amount found due. 
 In re Cornwall Bbiok, Tile, and Terra Cotta 
 Co. - - V. WUliams J. [1893] W. N. 9 
 
 46. — Purchase-moneys of vendor's property — 
 Payment in fully paid-up shares — Issue of shares 
 at a discount — Contract shares — Liability of 
 vendors^-Apportionment of value — Stamp duty — 
 Value of properly purchased — Inquin/ into — Com- 
 panies Act, 1867 (30 * 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 25. 
 
 Although a limited co. cannot release a share- 
 holder from the obligation to pay for his shares 
 either in money or money's worth, and cannot 
 therefore issue its shares at a discount, it can, 
 provided the contract is duly registered under the 
 25th section of the Companies Act, 1867, buy 
 property at any price it thinks fit, and can pay 
 for such property in fully paid-up shares ; and 
 the transaction will be valid and binding upon 
 its creditors if the co. has acted in it honestly 
 and not colourably, and has not been so imposed 
 upon by the vendor as to be entitled to be relieved 
 from its bargain. 
 
 The value received by the co. is measured by 
 the price at which the co. agreed to buy the pro- 
 perty it sought to acquire ; and whilst the trans- 
 action is unimpeached that is the only value 
 which this Court can take into consideration. 
 
 Decision of V. Williams J., [1896] W. N. 1 66 (5), 
 affirmed. I»re Wkagg.Ld. C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 796 
 
 46. — Rectification of register — Neglect to file 
 written contract — Companies Acts. 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict.fc. 89), «. 35; 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), 
 s. 25." 
 
 Agreement for the sale to the P. Co. of fully- 
 paid shares in the 0. Co. in consideration of the 
 allotment, to the holders of the shares, of fully- 
 paid shares in the P. Co., provided that before 
 the issue of any of the shares to be allotted a 
 sufficient contract in writing should be filed with 
 the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. By 
 mistake the contract was not filed until after the 
 shares had been issued. On discovering the 
 mistake, one of the allottees gave notice of motion 
 for an order to rectify the register; but before 
 the motion was lieard the co. was ordered to be 
 wound up : — 
 
 Held, that rectification should only be ordered 
 on the terms that due provision should be made 
 
( 429 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OABBS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 430 ) 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — 
 
 continued. 
 for all the debts and liabilities of: tbe P. Co. 
 ■whiob had accrued between, the dates of issuing 
 the shares and giving the notice of motion. In re 
 Pebsebvation Syndioate 
 
 V. -WUUamB J. [1895] 2 Ch, 768 
 
 47. — Besdseion of contraot to talie shares — 
 Time within which to take proceedings. 
 
 Where a oo. applied under the Enles of. the 
 Supreme Court, Order xrv., for leave to sign final 
 judgment in an action for calls, and leave to 
 defend was obtained by the shareholder upon an 
 affidavit stating his intention to counter-claim for 
 rescission of the contract to tate shares on the 
 ground of misrepresentation, and disclosing no 
 other ground of defence, and this occurred before 
 the presentation of a winding-up petition, but 
 the counter-claim was delivered after the peti- 
 tion and before the winding-up order made upon 
 it: — 
 
 Held, that the shareholder was not too late to 
 apjily for relief. 
 
 Mx paHe- Stevenson, (1867) 16 W. E. 95, dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 Decision of "Wright J., [1899] W. N. 34 (5); 
 [1899] 1 Oh. 770, reversed. In re General 
 Eailwat Syndicate. Whiteley's Case 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 28 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 366 
 
 48. — Return of cash siibscription — Beduction 
 of capital. 
 
 A CO. limited by shares was incorporated in 
 Nov. 1897, with a nominal capitaL divided into 
 11. shares. By its articles of association (80) 
 the qualification of a director was the holding of 
 100 shares, and (30, 31) a transfer of shares was 
 required to be signed by the transferor and 
 transferee and to be in a prescribed form. And 
 the directors had power to accept a surrender of 
 shares. Lord W. was aslied by his solicitor, and 
 consented, to l)eoome one of the directors in Dec, 
 1897, and applied in writing for 100 shares on 
 the understanding that he was to be a director. 
 On Jan. 11, 1898, the 100 shares were allotted to 
 him. He acted as a, director and paid 501. on 
 the shares, and was placed on the register of 
 members for 100 shares, which were numbered. 
 He was, however, of opinion that the co. had 
 gone, to allotment on an insuffloient capital, and 
 "determined to have nothing further to do with 
 the 00." if he could get back what he had paid. 
 MoAndrew and McAllister had applied for 
 shares in the co., and the co. had more than 
 enough shares to satisfy an allotment to them 
 over and above the shares taken by Lord W. ; 
 but by arrangement with the co. the hOlr.-'paii by 
 Lord W. was returned to him, the shares allotted 
 to him were cancelled, a note as to the cancella- 
 tion being placed in the register under the entry 
 as to his uame and shares, and 100 shares bearing 
 the same numbers were allotted to McAndrew 
 and McAllister, who paid for them in full in 
 cash. 
 
 In April, 1899, a winding-up order was made 
 against the co;, and,. the liquidator having placed 
 Lord W.'s name oh the list of contributories for 
 100 shares on which nothing was paid. Lord W. 
 applied to have his name removed therefrom. 
 
 "Wright J. said that, although the articles 
 
 COMPANY— "WINDING-UP (Contributory) — 
 
 contimted. 
 empowered the directors to accept a surrender of 
 shares, what had happened was not intended as 
 a surrender, and he agreed with the liquidator's 
 counsel that a surrender would not operate so as 
 to enable the directors to repay the applicant 
 what he had paid on his shares. "What was the 
 effect of the purported cancellation and re-allot- 
 ment ? "Was it a transfer or a revesting of the 
 shares in the co. — a return of his money to 
 the applicant, and a distinct re-allotment to 
 McAndrew and McAllister ? It was for the 
 applicant to shew that the transaction was a 
 transfer, a,nd he had failed to do it. His counsel 
 had pointed out that if the applicant was held 
 liable, the shares would be fully paid up tvrice 
 over ; but that would not have been the case if 
 to McAllister and McAndrew there had been 
 allotted some of the other shares which the co. 
 had at their disposal. If there had been no 
 other unissued shares at the co.'s disposal, and 
 the liquidator had attempted to,obtain payment 
 twice over on the same shares, the result would 
 have been different. In re Oompanies Gtjabdian 
 Society. Lord "Wallscoubt's Case 
 
 "Wright J. [1899] "W. N. 258 
 
 49. ■ — Settling list — Power of official receiver — 
 Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 63) — Companies ( Winding-up) Bules, 1890, 
 r. 83. ■ 
 
 An official receiver; when acting as provisional 
 liquidator, can settle a list of contributories, being 
 included in the term "liquidator" mentioned in 
 rule 83 of the Companies ("Winding-up) Eules, 
 1890. In re English' BaSk ov the Kivee Plate 
 (No. 1) - - CMtty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 391 
 
 50. — Shares issued at a discount — Adjustment 
 of rights of contributories— Companies Acts, 1862 
 (25 <fc 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 38 ; 1867 (30 * 31 Vict, 
 c. 131), s. 25. 
 
 It being ultra vires, for a limited co. to issue 
 shares at a discount or by way of bonus, 
 although authorized to do so by the articles of 
 association, the holders of shares so issued are 
 not thereby relieved from liability, in a winding- 
 up, to calls for the amounts unpaid on their shares 
 for the adjustment of the rights of contributories 
 inter se, as well as for the payment of the com- 
 pany's debts and the costs of winding-up. 
 
 Pecislon of 0. A., In re Bailway Time Tables 
 Publishing Col, Ex parte Welton, [1895] 1 Ch, 255, 
 affirmed. Lord Herschell dissenting. Siib nom. 
 Welton v. Saeitsey H. L, (E.) [1897] A. C. 299 
 
 51. — Shares not fully paid — Begistered con- 
 tract—Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), 
 «. 25. 
 
 A contract need not, in ' order to comply with 
 B. 25 of the Companies Act, 1867, be made directly 
 between the allottee of the shares and the co. the 
 shares of which are to be issued ; and it need not 
 siiew on the face of it wMchpartioular shares are 
 to be allotted, although the onus lies on the 
 allottee to shew that his shares are within the 
 registered contract. 
 
 By a written agreement between the S. Co. 
 and the trustee for the 0. Co., the C. Co. agreed 
 to purchase certain patent rights from the B. Co., 
 
( 431 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 432 ) 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contribulory) — 
 
 continued. 
 and to allot to each siareliolder in the S. Co. 
 certain 1?. shares in the C. Co., to be credited 
 ■with 198. paid up. The C. Co. when registered 
 adopted this agreement by a deed indorsed 
 thereon, and the agreement eo indorsed was duly 
 filed. E. & M., ■who were not shareholders in the 
 S. Co., were allotted shares as nominees of the 
 6'jareholders, and on paying Is. per share were 
 i-egistered as holders of fully paid-up shares : — 
 
 Held, that the agreement and the indorsed 
 deed were sufficient within s. 25 of the Act of 
 1867 although not executed by E. or M. In re 
 Common Petboleum Engine Co. Elsner and 
 McAethdb's Case Eomer J. [1896] 2 Ch. 769 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. Transvaal Exploring 
 Co. V. Albion (Transvaal) Gold Mines, Ld., [1899] 
 2 Ch. 370. 
 
 52. — Transfer of shares during voluntary 
 liquidation — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 e. 89), ss. 38, 131, 133, 153. 
 
 The power of a voluntary liquidator under 
 s. 131 of the Companies Act, 1862, to sanction a 
 transfer of shares made after the commencement 
 of the winding-up, involves the power to alter the 
 register of members ; and the transferor is there- 
 upon released from the liability which he was 
 under at the commencement of the winding-up 
 to contribute as a present member, and the trans- 
 feree alone is the person to be placed on the A 
 list of contributories. 
 
 "Where successive transfers are sanctioned by 
 the liquidator under s. 131, the ultimate trans- 
 feree only is liable to contribute as a present 
 member, the transferor and prior transferor being 
 liable as past members. 
 
 Decision, of v. Williams J., [1896] 2 Ch. 851, 
 reversed. In re National Bank op Wales. 
 Tavlob, Phillips, and Eiokards' Cases 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 298 
 
 63. — Transferee of shares — Sliares nominally 
 
 '" up. 
 
 A purchaser of shares nominally fully paid 
 held to be bound by his agent's knowledge that 
 the shares were not in fact paid up. The agent 
 was a confidential clerk, who had investigated 
 the co.'s affairs for the purchaser on another occa- 
 sion. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., [1891] W. N. 2, 
 affirmed. In re Halifax Sugab Refining Co. 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 29 
 
 84. — Underwriting agreement — Shares. 
 
 O. by an underwriting letter agreed with the 
 promoter of a co. in consideration of a commission 
 •' at any time within three months if and as called 
 upon by you to subscribe or find responsible sub- 
 scribers " for certain shares, and in default autho- 
 rized the promoter " to subscribe for the said 
 shares in my name." O. was never requested to 
 subscribe or find subscribers, but on the authority 
 of his letter an application was made in his name 
 and shares allotted to him : — 
 
 Held, that the letter did not amount to an 
 application for allotment, but was only an autho- 
 rity to subscribe for shares in O.'s name if he did 
 not subscribe or find subscribers if and when 
 re(jueste4 tp dp so, \7hich he had npt b?en. 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-TTP (Contributory) — 
 
 continued. 
 Therefore his name must be excluded from the 
 list of contributories. In re Harvey's Oyster 
 Co. Obmerod's Case 
 
 V. WUliams J. [1894] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 65. — Underwriting letter. 
 
 On June 17, 1892, H. signed and delivered to 
 the promoters of a co. a letter agreeing that upon 
 the public issue of its shares he would, in consi- 
 deration of a percentage, subscribe for 400 shares. 
 If the whole issue was bon§. fide subscribed for by 
 the public, no allotment was to be made to H. 
 The letter also contained an authority to the 
 promoters, in the event of H. not applying for 
 shares, to apply for them in his name, and an 
 authority to the directors to allot them to him — 
 " This engagement is binding on me for two 
 months from (his date." The shares were offered 
 to the public on June 20, 21, and 22, but very 
 few applications were made. On July 1, when 
 the public subscription list was closed, the pro- 
 moters signed a memorandum at the foot of the 
 letter dated July 1, 1892, and accepting H.'s 
 offer. The letter with the memorandum thereon 
 and an application by the promoters in H.'s name 
 were on the same day sent to the co., and the 
 shares were thereupon allotted to H. His name 
 was put on the register of shareholders. He 
 knew of this, and he paid the co. the allotment 
 money in respect of the shares, received his certi- 
 ficates, and on two occasions voted by proxy ; but 
 it was not shewn that he knew when the offer 
 was accepted. The name was still on the register 
 when the co. went into liquidation nearly two 
 years afterwards : — 
 
 Meld, by V. Williams J., that the promoters 
 could not wait to see the result of the invitation 
 to the public, and after it had failed, accept H.'s 
 offer, and that he was not liable as a contributory : 
 
 Ifeld, by Lopes and Kay L.JJ., (Lindley L.J. 
 doubting), that the expression " This engage- 
 ment is binding on ine for two months " meant 
 that the offer made by the letter was to be open 
 for acceptance for two months ; that the shares, 
 therefore, were properly applied for in H.'s name, 
 and that the allotment to him was valid : — 
 
 Held, that, whether the application for shares 
 was authorized or not, H., having accepted them 
 without inquiry, and having acted as u share- 
 holder for nearly two years up to the time of the 
 winding-up, could not now be heard to contend 
 that he was not a shareholder. In re Hemp, 
 Yakn and Cordage Co. Hindley's Case 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 66. — Unlimited company — Withdrawal of 
 members — Bight to withdraw in absence of express 
 power. 
 
 There is nothing in the Companies Acts to 
 prevent an unlimited co. from validly providing 
 in its memorandum and articles for the with- 
 drawal of members from the 00., and, sem^le, it 
 may provide for a return of capital to the members 
 of the partnership : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that, where members have 
 withdrawn in pursuance of such a power, they are 
 under no liability in the winding-up. Whether, 
 in the absence of an express power in the memo- 
 randum or articles, an unlimited co. can {illow its 
 
( 433 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 434 ) 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Contributory) — 
 
 continited. 
 members to withdi'aw from liability ns such, 
 qumre. In re Borough Commeboial and Butld- 
 itTG Society (No. 1) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 2 Ch. 242 
 
 Costs, 
 Mode of paying certain Fees.] Companies 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890 — Treas. Warrant dated 
 Feb. 2, 1899. W. N. 1899 (Feb. 18), p. 66. See 
 Current Index, 1899, p. Izzzvii. 
 
 57. — Action commenced before winding-up. 
 
 A shareholder commenced an action against 
 the CO. for rescission of a contract to take shares. 
 Tlie CO. went into voluntary liquidation, and the 
 pit., on summons in the winding-up, obtained a 
 declaration in his favour : — 
 
 Held, that the costs related back to the begin- 
 ning of the action and were » debt owing from 
 the CO. to him, for which he must prove in the 
 winding-up ; but that they were not costs in 
 the winding-up which the liquidator should pay. 
 In re Snyder Dynamite Projectile Co. Peck 
 ■u. Snyder Dynamite Projectile Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] W. N. 37 
 
 88. — Creditors petition — Sight of creditor to 
 winding-up order — Indemnity for costs. 
 
 An unpaid creditor of a co. is not entitled 
 to a winding-up order unless he can shew that 
 the general body of the creditors will derive 
 benefit from the order being made ; it is not 
 enough for him to shew that he himself will be 
 benefited by it. 
 
 A CO., which had not sufficient assets to 
 satisfy the claims of its debenture-holders, took 
 legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt and 
 failed, and was ordered to pay costs to the 
 successful party. The debt in question purported 
 to form part of the security for the payment of 
 the debentures, and had it been recovered the 
 debenture-holders alone would have been bene- 
 fited thereby. The successful party, failing to 
 get payment of his costs from the co,, applied to 
 the Court for a winding-up order with a view 
 to compelling the co. to enforce its right of 
 indemnity for the costs against the debenture- 
 holders for whose benefit the legal proceedings 
 had been taken : — 
 
 Held, that, as the enforcement of the right of 
 indemnity would confer no benefit upon the 
 general body of the creditors, the winding-up 
 order ought not to be granted. In re Green- 
 wood & Co. - Div. Ct, [1900] a ft, B. 306 
 
 69, — Hearing of petition. 
 
 Where a winding-up order is made, or refused, 
 and it is stated that there is to be " the usual 
 order" as to costs, creditors or contributories 
 supporting the successful side— generally the 
 petitioner or the company — wiU not be allowed 
 to receive or share in any costs if they are repre- 
 sented by the same solicitor as the solicitor by 
 whom the successful side is represented — this 
 practice having . been recently adopted by Y. 
 Williams J. [N.B.— When one solicitor repre- 
 sents the petitioner, or.co., and also persons in the 
 same interest, the names of the persons last named 
 should be ad^ed to the brief for \he. petitioner 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Costs)— co«<mMe(Z. 
 or CO., as the case may be. — Reporter. In re 
 Brighton Marine Palace and Pjbr Co. 
 
 Byrne J. [1897] W, N, 12 (3) 
 
 60, — Instructions for brief — Trial of issue of 
 fact before judge — Originating summons — R. 8. C. , 
 1883, Order hxxi., r. la; Appendix N, Items 81, 
 82, 82a. 
 
 A petition was presented for the compulsory 
 winding-up of a co. which was already in volun- 
 tary winding-up ; but at the hearing the judge 
 made no order except that the question was 
 to be tried as on a summons under s. 138 of 
 the Companies Act, 1862, "costs reserved"; he 
 also fixed a certain date for the trial. On that 
 date witnesses were examined, and the .ludge 
 decided substantially in favour of the applicant 
 with costs. No summons had so far been taken 
 out, and on drawing up the order the registrar 
 required a summons to be taken out in the volun- 
 tary winding-up. As an originating summons 
 had previously been taken out by the liquidator 
 for a private examination under s. 115 of the Act 
 of 1862, on which an order had been made for an 
 examination and reserving "liberty to apply," 
 the registrar directed that the summons to be 
 taken out and mentioned in the order was to be 
 an ordinary and not an originating summons. 
 On taxation the registrar disallowed the costs of 
 instructions for brief: — 
 
 Held, that as the direction for trial treated 
 the summons as issued in a " pending cause or 
 matter," within the meaning of E. S. C, 1883, 
 Order lxxi., r. la, the summons was not an origi- 
 nating summons ; that although, if Appendix N 
 to the Kules, item 81, was construed strictly, it 
 referred to an issue of fact directed to be tried as 
 such, yet on taxation substance was to be re- 
 garded, and in substance the trial was of an issue 
 of fact before a judge; and that the costs of 
 instructions for the brief of the applicant's 
 counsel must be allowed. In re Consolidated 
 Exploration and Finance Co. 
 
 Wright J, [1899] W. N. 127; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 699 
 
 61, — Liquidator— Costs — Shareholder — Fully 
 paid shares — Omission to file contract — Companies 
 Acts, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. e. 131), s. 25 ; 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 Where, after a winding-up has commenced, 
 relief has been granted to a shareholder under 
 the Companies Act, 1898, the terms, if any, im- 
 posed as a condition of obtaining the relief are 
 in the discretion of the Court, to be exercised 
 according to the circumstances of each case. 
 
 And where the payment of the liquidator's 
 costs is made a condition of obtaining relief, there 
 is no general rule as to whether the costs ought 
 to be as between solicitor and client or party and 
 party ; but in determining this question the Court 
 will have regard to the assistance given to the 
 liquidator by the applicant and the reasonable- 
 ness of opposing the application. In re Farmer's 
 United. Stephenson's Case 
 
 Wright J. [19.00] 2 Ch; 442 
 
 62, — Liquidator's liability. 
 
 Certain persons applied by summons to have 
 their names remoyed I'ronj the Jist of contribu- 
 
( 435 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 436 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-TO(Costs)-coji<&«€(J. 
 tories in a winding-up. The liquidator opposed ; 
 the summons was dismissed, but on appeal, the 
 appeal was allowed with costs : — 
 
 Sdd, that the applicants were entitled to 
 costs only out of the assets of the co. and not 
 against the liquidator personally. In re E. 
 Bolton & Co. Salisbubt-Jones & Dale's Case 
 (No. 2) - - c. A, [189B] 1 Ch. 333 
 
 63. — Official liquidator — Costs of — Bight to 
 appeal — Order to pay costs personally. 
 
 The principle laid down in In re Silver Valley 
 Mines,(l8Si) 21 Ch. D. 381, that an ofBoial liqui- 
 dator ordered to pay costs personally may appeal 
 against such an order, extends to the case of an 
 official receiver ordered to pay costs personally 
 by a county court judge, and enables him to 
 appeal against such an order to the Divisional 
 Court. In re Eaynes Park Golp Club, Ld. 
 Ex parte Official Eeoeiveb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B, 961 
 
 64. — Official receiver — Public examination. 
 Official receivers, although they are officers of 
 
 the Court and under the obligation to perform 
 duties imposed on them by statute, are (with 
 some exceptions) subject to the rules of the Court 
 as to costs which apply to ordinary litigants. 
 An official receiver made a report to the Court 
 which was in accordance with s. 8, sub-s. 2, 
 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, so 
 far as the meaning of that clause could be 
 gathered from the decisions of the Courts which 
 had then been pronounced. The Court, after 
 considering the report, ordered a public examina- 
 tion of the persons named In the report, but 
 before the examination could take place, the 
 House of Lords, in another case (Ex parte Barnes, 
 [1896] A. C. 146), decided that s. 8, sub-s. 2, 
 required the official receiver's report to contain 
 certain allegations which had not been made in 
 the report in this case : — 
 
 Held, on a successful application to discharge 
 the order for public examination, that the official 
 receiver, being a litigant and in fault, must be 
 ordered to pay the costs of the application, and 
 that the words " out of the assets of theco." must 
 be omitted from the order. In re Hounslow 
 Beewekt Co. V. Williams J. [1896] W. N. 46 (6) 
 
 65. — Originating summons — Taxation — 
 Counsel's fees — Companies (Winding-up) Bules, 
 1890, r. 78— Order of Dec. 17, 1891, Table B, 
 Fart IV.— B. S. C, 1883, Order Lxv., r. 27, 
 svh-rr. 30, 39, 40, 48 ; Appendix N, Title " Instruc- 
 tions." 
 
 A report of the official receiver or a liquidator 
 in support of a misfeasance summons is not on 
 taxation to be treated as equivalent to a pleading 
 or affidavit. 
 
 On the hearing' of a misfeasance summons 
 adjourned into Court and heard on oral evidence 
 — as between party and party — (1) costs for 
 official receiver's report were allowed as for draw- 
 ing and copying a statement of facts ; (2) instruc- 
 tions for brief were disallowed; (3) fees, &o., of 
 third counsel were allowed ; (4) consultations 
 after the first one were disallowed ; (5) refreshers 
 to counsel were held to be within the taxing 
 officer's discretion. 
 
 Semlle, as to (2), that the rule should be 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Costs)— «on<in««d. 
 altered to allow costs for instructions in a mis- 
 feasance case. In re Anglo-Austbian Peintins 
 AND Publishing Union 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] 2 Ch. 622 
 
 66. — Outside litigation. Costs of — Action 
 commenced hefore winding-up. 
 
 While a co. was a going concern it commenced 
 an action against B. The co. afterwards passed 
 an extraordinary resolution for a voluntary wind- 
 ing-up, which was continued under the supervision 
 of the Court. The liquidators obtained the leave 
 of the winding-up Court to continue the action, 
 but B. obtained judgment in the action against 
 the CO. with costs : — 
 
 Held, that the principle of Soyntonv. Boyntm,, 
 (1879) 4 App. Cas, 733, applied, and that as the 
 liquidators had adopted the action ab initio, B. 
 was entitled to be paid all his costs in full, and 
 not merely the costs as from the commencement 
 of the winding-up with liberty to prove for the 
 costs previously incurred. In re London Deapeet 
 Stobes - - Wright J. [1898] 2 Ch. 684 
 
 67. — Second petition — Companies (Winding- 
 up) Bules, 1892, r. 20. 
 
 A second petitioner held to be entitled to costs 
 of his petition up to time when he had notice of 
 first petition, and allowed to share in the one set 
 of costs allowed to creditors supporting the first 
 petition. In re Sheeinsham Development Co. 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 6 
 
 68. — Second petition — VndertaMng by first 
 petitioner to share costs. 
 
 A winding-up petition stood over on the terms 
 of the order in In re St. Thomas' Dock Co., (1876) 
 2 Ch. D. 116, including an undertaking by the 
 CO. to give the petitioner notice of any other peti- 
 tion. A second petitioner presented a petition, 
 and was informed that > previous petition had 
 been filed. The second petitioner did not com- 
 municate with the first. The co. did not inform 
 the first petitioner of the existence of the second 
 petition. An order for winding-up was made on 
 the first petition : — 
 
 Held, that the second petitioner must have Ms 
 costs. 
 
 V. Williams J. stated the course he should 
 pursue in future, that a petition should stand 
 over on the terms of the order in In re St. Thomas' 
 Dock Co. In re Scott and Jackson 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 184 
 
 69. — Security for — Official receivers and liqui- 
 dators — Misfeasance summons — Companies (Wind- 
 ing-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 10. 
 
 In a compulsory winding-up a small dividend 
 only'had been paid to the debenture-holders, and 
 there was enough to pay another small dividend 
 to them. The official receiver and liquidator 
 took out a misfeasance summons against officers 
 of the CO., and they applied for security for their 
 costs of the summons, the application being op- 
 posed by the official receiver and liquidator : 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction at the 
 hearing of the summons to make the ofBoial 
 receiver and liquidator personally pay the. costs, 
 and that in considering whether it should do so 
 it would have regard to the fact that he had 
 opposed an application for security, and that on 
 
( 437 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 438 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-TO (Coste.)— continued. 
 this ground the application for eeourity must be 
 refused, but without costs. In re W. Potvell & 
 Sons - - _ Romer J. [1896] 1 Ch. 681 
 
 70. — Successful litigant — Priority — Imme- 
 diate payment — Companies (Winding-up) Bules, 
 1890, r. 31. 
 
 Kule 31 of the Companies CWinding-up) 
 Rules, 1890, does not affect the priority which 
 under the old practice attached to costs ordered 
 to be paid by the liquidator out of the assets to a 
 successful litigant, and the costs so directed to be 
 paid are prima facie payable immediately and in 
 full out of the net assets. The onus is on the 
 liquidator to shew that immediate payment from 
 the assets cannot be made, and if he shews that 
 other persons have a prior right or are entitled 
 pari passu with the successful litigant, no order 
 for payment will be made without providing for 
 the other claims. The date of the order gives 
 no priority, but payment will not be indelinitely 
 postponed until all claims come in. In re Londou 
 Mbtalluegical Co. - - V. Williams J. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 768 
 
 See In re United Service Association, "Wright J. 
 [1901] 1 Ch. 97, 100. 
 
 71. — Successful litigant — Realization. 
 Certain persons successfully applied to be 
 
 struck off the list of contributories, and the liqui- 
 dator was ordered to pay the costs out of the 
 assets of the co. The assets, including calls 
 made and recovered subsequently to the order, 
 were insufficient to pay their costs and the costs 
 of the liquidation : — 
 
 Seld, that they were only entitled to costs out 
 of the assets of the oo., and that an order ought 
 not to be made for costs against the liquidator 
 peisonally unless he had done something to 
 render him personally liable. In re Staffoed- 
 SHiEE Gas and Coke Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 623 
 
 Overruled in next case (a). 
 
 (a) In re Bolton & Co. Salisbuby-Jones 
 AND Dale's Case (No. 2) C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 333 
 
 (b) Contra, In re Staffoedshihe Gas and 
 Coke Co. Kekewich J. [1893] 8 Ch. 623 
 
 72. — Supervision order — Liquidator's costs. 
 "Where in a voluntary liquidation the Court 
 
 directs a supervision order instead of a compulsory 
 order as demanded by a creditor, no costs or 
 remuneration will be allowed to the liquidator 
 without taxation. 
 
 ' (a) In re Civil Sbevioe Bbeweet Co. 
 
 V. -Williams J. [1893] W. N. S 
 
 (b) In re "Watbepeooi" Matbkials Co. 
 
 V. WUUam% J. [1893] W. N, 18 
 
 73. — Supervision order — Petitioning creditor 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Viet, v. 89), 
 «8. 110, 144.. 
 
 "Where on the petition of a creditor an order is 
 made continuing a voluntary winding-up under 
 the supervision of the Court, the costs of the 
 liquidator incurred prior to the supervision order 
 are payable in priority to the petitioner's costs 
 of obtaining the order; but the latter costs are 
 
 COMPANY— -WIirDING-UP (Costs)— con«i««fid:. 
 payable in priority to the costs of the liquidator 
 under the supervision order. In re New York 
 Exchange Co. Kekewich J. [1893] 1 Ch. 371 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Sanitary Burial 
 Assooiation, [1900] 2 Ch. 289, 296. 
 
 74. — Supervision order — Petitioning creditor 
 — Companies (Winding-up") Bules, April, 1892, 
 r. 20. 
 
 A petition asked for a compulsory order or 
 such other order as might seem just. At the 
 hearing the petitioners supported a supervision 
 order . — 
 
 Held, that in future if persons meant to sup- 
 port a supervision order and not a compulsory 
 order they must say so in their notices, otherwise 
 they would get no costs if a supervision order only 
 was granted. In re "Woodeow, Hooper & Co. 
 
 V. Williams J, [1893] W. N. 38 
 
 78. — Voluntary winding-up — Dissolution — 
 Jurisdiction — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), ss. 142, 143 — Taxation — Coste unneces- 
 sarily incurred — Plaintiff ordered to give security 
 for costs — Stay of proceedings — Affidavits filed iy 
 defendant during stay. 
 
 Notwithstanding the dissolution of a co. by 
 reason of the expiration of three months from 
 the registration of the return made by voluntary 
 liquidators to the Registrar of Joint Stock Com- 
 panies under s. 148 of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 the Court has jurisdiction against the co. in a 
 proceeding commenced after the date of the 
 registration, but before the end of the three 
 months, even though the hearing does not take 
 place till after the end of the three months. 
 
 In re Crodkhaven Mining Co., (1866) L. R. 
 3Eq. 69, followed. 
 
 The authority of that case has not been 
 impeached by In re Pinto Silver Mining Co., 
 (1878) 8 Ch. D. 273 ; In re London and Caledonian 
 Marine -Insurance Co., (1879) 11 Ch. D. 140; or 
 Coxon V. Gorst, [1891] 2 Ch. 73. 
 
 An order was made dismissing an action with 
 costs, because the pits, had failed to comply with 
 a previous order that they should give security 
 for the costs of the action. That order contained 
 the usual stay of proceedings by the pits, until 
 the security should be given. Immediately before 
 the order for security was made, the pits,' motion 
 for an injunction had been ordered to stand over 
 for a fortnight, the deft, undertaking to deliver 
 to the pits, copies of his affidavits within ten days. 
 In pursuance of this undertaking the deft, pre- 
 pared his affidavits during the stay of proceedings 
 by thO; pits. On the taxation of costs under the 
 order dismissing the action, the taxing master 
 held that the deft, ought not to be allowed the 
 costs of his affidavits, on the ground that they 
 ought not to have been prepared during the stay 
 of pWoeodings : — 
 
 Meld, that the taxing master had acted on ai 
 wrong principle, and that the costs of tlje affida- 
 vits ought not to have been disallowed upon that 
 ground. "Whiteley Exebcisbe, Ld. v. Gamagb 
 North J. [1898] 2 Ch. 406 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Salton v. New 
 Beeston Cycle Co.^ [1900] 1 Oh. 43, 47. 
 
( 439 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 440 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-TTP—oon/mMe<i. 
 County Courts, 
 
 — Jurisdiotior. 
 
 See GouNTY Codkts— Companies (Wind- 
 iNG-up) — Jurisdiction. 
 
 Debentures, 
 See Cases tmder Compant — Debentures. 
 
 Defunct Companies. 
 
 Amendment of law as to striking names of 
 defunct companies off register. See Companies 
 Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. c. 48), «. 26. For notes 
 thereon see [1900] W, N, 201. 
 
 Directors. 
 
 See Oases under Company — Directors. 
 
 Enforcement of Orders. 
 Arrests, commitments, and execution of process. 
 General Bules, Dec. 28, 1899, pursuant to {he Com- 
 panies ( Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 63) 
 —Forms. W. N. 1900 (Jan. 6), p. 1. See Current 
 Index, 1900, p. Ixxiv. 
 
 Examination of Officers. 
 
 Under s. 8 of the Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 
 
 76. — Admissibility — Companies ( Winding-up) 
 Rules, April 1892, r. 27 — Companies ( Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. e. 63), ss. 8 (7), 26. 
 
 The rule is not ultra vires, and is not in 
 conflict with s. 8, sub-s. 7, of the Act, as the 
 deposition is only to be used as evidence against 
 other persons in the same way as an aiSdavit, 
 that is to say, the witness must be produced for 
 cross-examijiation if required. Validity of rules 
 discussed. Iti re London and General Bank 
 (No. 1) V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 165 
 
 See also C. A. [1895] 2 Cb. 166, 673. 
 
 77. — Duty of official receiver — Control of 
 Board of Trade — Companies (^Winding-up) Act, 
 1890 (53 * 54 Viet. c. 63), ss. 8 (7), 26. 
 
 The function of ofHcial receivers under the 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, s. 8, sub-s. 2, 
 as to reporting and applying for an order for public 
 examination is a function which they perform as 
 officers of the Court ; and they must act ou their 
 own responsibility exclusively in the matter, and 
 not under the direction, or subject in auy way to 
 the interference of the Bd. of Trade. Pbaotioe 
 Note - Fer V. WiUiams J. [1894] W. N. 44 
 78. — Fraud on outside public — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 <fc 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 91, 145— Com- 
 panies (Winding-up) Acts, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 8. 
 
 Sect. 8 of the Act of 1890 is not intended to 
 apply where charges are made against the co. of 
 fraud only in the course of its business with the 
 outside world, or of its conduct witli persons not 
 members of the co., and creditors will not be 
 prejudiced by a voluntary winding-up and the 
 absence of an examination under s. 8 of the Act 
 of 1890. in « Medioal Batteby Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] 1 Ch. 444 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re E. Bishop & 
 Sons, Id., [1900] 2 Oh. 254, 261, 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Examination of 
 Officers) — continued. 
 79. — Further report of official receiver neces- 
 sary — Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & Hi 
 Vict. u. 63;, o. 8 — Companies ( Winding-up) Bules, 
 1890, r. 71. 
 
 An order for public examination under s. 8, 
 sub-s. 3, of the Act of 1890 cannot be made until 
 the official receiver has made a further report 
 under s. 8, sub-s. 2, expressing the opinion that 
 there has been fraud, and shewing that the 
 persons whom it is proposed to examine have 
 taken part in the promotion or formation of the 
 CO., or been directors or officers thereof. 
 
 (a) In re Gkeat Keugeb Gold Mining Co. 
 Ex parte Baknabd 
 
 C. A. revers. V. Williams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 307 
 
 Discussed. Ex parte Barnes, [1896] W. N: 
 26(5); [1896] A. 0. 146. 
 
 (b) In re Trust and Investment Cokpora- 
 TioN or South Aprioa. In re Bertram Ltji- 
 paard's Vlei Gold Mining Co. 
 
 C. A, revers, V, WiUiams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 332 
 
 Explained by V. Williams J. In re Laxon 
 & Co. (^No. 3), [1893] 1 Ch. 210. 
 
 Explained by C. A. In re General Phosphate 
 Corporation {No. 2), [1895] 1 Ch. 3, 5. 
 
 The order may be made ex parte, leaving the 
 persons affected to move to discharge it if they 
 allege it to have been made without jurisdiction. 
 It is not necessary that the report should name 
 those persons as having been parties to any fraud. 
 In re Trust and Investment Corporation op 
 South Apeica. In re Bertram Luipaabd's Vlei 
 Gold Mining Co. C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 332 
 
 Explained by V. WiUiams J. In re Laxon & 
 Co. (2Vb. 3), [1893] 1 Ch. 210. 
 
 80. — Further report of official receiver — Evi- 
 dence in contradiction — Application to remove 
 from file — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 8. 
 
 Where the Court has jurisdiction to make and 
 has exercised its discretion by making an order 
 for public examination under s. 8 of the Act of 
 1890, the order will not be discharged ou the 
 ground that fraud is not sufficiently shewn by 
 the official receiver's report ou which the order 
 is based. And where the report is made in good 
 faith the Court will not allow evidence to be 
 adduced to rebut the charges of fraud therein ; 
 and will not take the report off the file, or remit 
 it to the official receiver in order that other 
 facts, on which the person ordered to be examined 
 relies, may be stated in the report. In re New 
 Tbavellbes' Chambers, Ld. 
 
 Bomer J. [1896] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 Eeferred to by* Wright J. In re National 
 Stores, Ld., [1899] 2 Ch. 773, 776; C. A. [1900] 
 1 Ch. 27. 
 
 81, — Further report of official receiver — Fraud 
 imputed — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 8. 
 
 The further report of the official receiver need 
 not in terms state, that fraud has been committed ; 
 it is sufficiejjt if it staite facts -^rhioh suggest th^ 
 
( 44i ) 
 
 faiGEST Ol* CASilS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 4i2 ) 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Examination of 
 
 Offioers) — continued. 
 existence of suoli fraud.^Companies (Winding- 
 up) Act, 1890, B. 8. sub-si 2. 
 
 (a) In re Laxon & Co. (No. 3). 
 
 V. ■WilUams J. [1893] 1 Ch, 210 
 
 (b) Ire re Bikkdale Steam Laundry and 
 
 Cakpbt Beating Co. Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 386 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re General Phosphate 
 
 Corporation, [1895] 1 Ch. 3. 
 
 82. — Order may 6e made ex parte. 
 
 An order under s. 8, sub-s. 3, of the Companies 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890, may be made ex parte. 
 
 (a) In re Great Krugeb Gold Mining Co. 
 .Ec pai-fe Barnard C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 307; afSrmed 
 by H. L. (E.) svb nom. Ex parte Barnes, [1896] 
 
 A. C. 146. 
 
 (b) In re Trust and Investment Corporation 
 OP South Aprioa. In re Bertram Luipaard's 
 Vlei Gold Mining Co. C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 332 
 
 Explained by V. Williams J. In re Laxon & 
 Co. {No. 3), [1893] 1 Ch. 210. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re General Phosphate 
 Corporation, [1895] 1 Ch. 3. 
 See No. 85, helow. 
 
 83. — Private' examination — Subsequent pro- 
 ceedings against examinee^Inspection of deposi- 
 tion—Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 g. 115 — Companies (^Winding-up") Bute, Nov., 1895. 
 
 In Dec, 1897, in the winding-up of a co., D., 
 one of its directors, was examined under s. 115 of 
 the Companies Act, 1862. In March, 1898, the 
 liquidator in the name of the co. commenced an 
 action against the directors, including D., for 
 alleged misfeasances, and in this action interro- 
 gatories were administered for the examination 
 of D. Before answering, D. applied in the 
 wioding-up for liberty to inspect and take an 
 ofSce copy of the deposition taken at his private 
 examination. He had already put in a full 
 defence to the statement of claim, and offered to 
 give an undertaking to use his best endeavours 
 to prevent the communication of the deposition 
 to the other defts., or their solicitors or counsel : — 
 
 Held, that leave to inspect and take a copy of 
 the deposition ought to be granted. In re Mer- 
 chants' FntE Ofpice - - - Wright J. 
 [1899] W. N. 10 (8) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 432 
 
 84. — Promoters, directors and officers — Comr 
 panics (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 63), ». 8. 
 
 The Coiirt has no jurisdiction to direct any 
 person to be publicly, examined under s. 8, sub- 
 
 B. 3, of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, 
 unless the official receiver has made a " further 
 report" under sub-s. 2 from which it appears 
 that in his opinion, a fraud has been committed 
 by a person in the promotion or formation of the 
 CO., or by a director or other officer of the co. ia 
 relation to the co. since its formation. 
 
 And the power to direct a public examination 
 of the persons mentioned in sub-s. 3 does not apply 
 to any one of them against whom a primS, facie 
 case of fraud has not been disclosed by the 
 "further report" of the official receiver. Ex 
 parte Baenes - H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 146 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Examination of 
 Offioers) — continued. 
 
 85. — Public exuitiination — Offi,cial receioer's 
 report — Com,panies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. a. 63), s. 8, sub-ss. 2, 3. 
 
 The official receiver's further report under 
 s. 8, sub-s 2, of the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890, should include matters of information 
 and belief, and whether an actual expression 
 of his opinion that fraud has been committed 
 by some person within the description in the 
 section (not defining the person) is or is not a 
 condition precedent to an order for public ex- 
 amination, it is a convenient practice which the 
 Court will require the official receiver to follow, 
 that he should state that facts, of which he has 
 information and which he believes to be true, and 
 which are set out in his report, constitute a prima 
 facie case of fraud. The Court has no jurisdic- 
 tion to direct such an examination unless the 
 official receiver states expressly in his further 
 report that in his opinion some fraud had been 
 committed, or the facts stated in the report shew 
 clearly that in his opinion such a fraud has been 
 committed ; and a mere suggestion of suspicion is 
 not enough. 
 
 (a) In re General Phosphate Corporation. 
 In re Northern Transvaal Gold Mining Co. 
 In re Delhi Steamship Co. 
 
 C. A. affirm. V, WiUiams J. [1895] 1 Ch. 3 
 
 (b) In re Laxon & Co. (No. 3) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 210 
 
 (c) In re Birkdale Steam Laundry and 
 Carpet Beating Co. Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 386 
 
 Examination of Witnesses. 
 Under s. 115 of the Companies Act, 1862. 
 
 86. — Depositions, Eight to inspection of. 
 (A) Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 8. 115. 
 
 Officers of a co. and others having been 
 examined under s. 115 of the Act of 1862, subse- 
 quent to action brought by the liquidator to rescind 
 a contract, one of them, in cross-examination on 
 behalf of the liquidator under commission, was 
 asked whether certain questions had been put to 
 him in the examination under s. 115 ; he said, 
 " Yes." He was then asked if he made certain 
 answers, when he declined to answer till his 
 deposition was read to him. This was done. He 
 was also told what others said in their depositions 
 and asked whether he contradicted them : — 
 
 Held, that the defts. were not entitled to 
 inspect the depositions. 
 
 Semble, that the witness was not entitled to 
 refuse to answer till his depositions were read to 
 him. 
 
 Semble, that the questions as to the evidence 
 of other persons under s. 115 were improper. 
 North Australian Territory Co. o. Golds- 
 borough, MOBT & Co. 
 
 C, A. affirm. Kekewich J, [1893] 2 Ch. 381 
 
 See also Company — Winding-up — Ex- 
 amination of Offioers, above. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. (Mdstone v. Wil- 
 liams, Deacon & Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 47, 53. 
 
 (b) Companies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 
( 443 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 444 ) 
 
 COMPANY — •WINDIITQ.'OP (Examination of 
 ■Witnesses) — aontinvsd. 
 
 8.115 — Companies {Winding-wp)Bulea, April IS^i, 
 TT. 11, 32. 
 
 In a winding-up — at any rate under a com- 
 pulsory order — every contributory and every ad- 
 mitted creditor has a right to inspect and take 
 copies of depositions taken at a private examina- 
 tion, whether the evidence was given by himself 
 or by others. In re Standard Gold Mining Co. 
 V. Williams J. [1896] 2 Ch, 645 
 
 Beferred to by Wright J. In re Merchant^ 
 Fire Office, [1899] 1 Ch. 432, 436. 
 
 87. — Discharge order for public examination, 
 Application to — Time — Delay — Companies 
 QWinding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 8. 
 
 An application for the discharge of an order 
 for public examination made in chambers, under 
 B. 8 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, 
 must be made with reasonable diligence : — 
 
 Seld, that a delay of two months in making 
 Buch an application was unreasonable, and that 
 on that ground the application was properly 
 dismissed. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1899] W. N. 215; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 773, afSrmed. In re National 
 Stoebs, Ld. - C, A. [1899] W. N. 233 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 27 
 
 88. — Objections — Taking notes — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. e. 89), a. 115. 
 
 A witness objected to give evidence in the 
 presence of two persons: one, the former chief 
 clerk of the co., was employed by the liquidator 
 in making out the accounts ; the other, the clerk 
 of the liquidator's solicitors, was employed in 
 taking notes : — 
 
 Held, that the witness's objections were not 
 valid. Notes can only be taken for the purpose 
 of cross-examination, and must be destroyed im- 
 mediately afterwards. In re W. Heseltine & 
 Son, Ld. - - Stirling J. [1891] W. H. 26 
 
 89. — Summoning, Mode of — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), .. 115. 
 
 The proper mode of summoning a person 
 before an examiner, under s. 115 of the Com- 
 panies Act, 1862, is by a summons in chambers, 
 and not by subpoena ; the reason being that the 
 Court must be satisfied that the person sum- 
 moned is capable of giving the information 
 mentioned in that section. In re Wbstmobeland 
 Gbeen and Blub Slate Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 2 
 
 90. — Supervision order — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 115, 147. 
 
 la a winding-up under a supervision order the 
 Court can of its own motion direct an examina- 
 tion under s. 115 of the Act of 1862. In re Land 
 Seotjkitibs Co. V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 91 
 
 Ezecutiou. 
 
 91. — Execution creditor — Possession of sheriff 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (o. 89), ss. 87, 163. 
 
 The rule under which the Court gives effect 
 to the rights of an execution creditor when the 
 sheriff ia in possession at the date of the com- 
 mencement of the winding-up, applies in favoau' 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Exeoution)— confcj. 
 of other execution creditors who, prior to such 
 commencement, have lodged their writs of execu- 
 tion with the sheriff in possession. Form 366, 
 Palmer's Co. Free. 6th ed, vol. ii. p. 306, followed. 
 In re Hille India Eitbbbb Co. (No. 2) 
 
 Byrne J. [1897] W. N. 20 (8) 
 
 92. — Foreign action — Injunction — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vicl. c. 89), s. 163. 
 
 The S. Co. was being wound up compulsorily. 
 The liquidator with the sanction of the Court 
 contracted to sell the assets in Brazil (where 
 most of the property of the co. was) to H. F., 
 who was resident ia England, obtained judgment 
 against the co. in Brazil, and obtained an embargo 
 on part of the assets in Brazil. F. claimed priority 
 by Brazilian law. There were debentures ex- 
 ceeding the value of the assets, which had priority 
 over other debts. 
 
 Ordered, that the embargo should be removed 
 on the liquidator placing a sum to a separate ac- 
 count to meet any claim F. could establish. In re 
 Centeal StfGAE Faotokies of Brazil. Flack's 
 Case - - North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 369 
 
 93. — Judgment creditor — Order appointing 
 receiver — Equitable execution — " Secured creditor " 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 87, 
 leS— Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), 
 8. 10. 
 
 A judgment creditor of a co. obtained an order 
 appointing a receiver of the moneys receivable in 
 respect of the debtor's interest in a ship and her 
 freight without prejudice to the rights of prior 
 incumbrancers. Before the order was acted upon 
 an order was made to wind up the co. : — 
 
 Held, that the order appointing a receiver 
 did not confer on the judgment creditor any 
 charge on the debtor's property so as to make 
 him a secured creditor, and was not equivalent to 
 a seizure of the property in execution : 
 
 Held, therefore, that in the absence of special 
 circumstances the Court ought not in the exer- 
 cise of its discretion under s. 87 of the Companies 
 Act, 1862, to allow the order to be further pro- 
 ceeded with. Ceoshaw v. Ltndhuest Ship Co. 
 StirUng J. [1897] 8 Ch. 154 
 
 94. — Writ of fieri facias — Company — Wind- 
 ing-up — Companies (^Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 1, sm6-s. 6. 
 
 Although s. 1 (6) of the Companies (Winding- 
 up) Act, 1 890, gives to the county court winding 
 up a CO. "all the powers of the High Court," 
 the county court has no jvirisdietion to issue a 
 writ of fieri facias to the sheriff to enforce by 
 execution an order of that Court directing a 
 person to pay moneys received by him on behalf 
 of the 00. to the liquidator. In re Bassett's 
 Plaster Co. - - Div. Ct, [1894] 2 Q. B. 96 
 And see Sheriff. 
 
 Fraudulent Preference, 
 
 See Cases under Company — Windinq-up 
 — Preference. 
 
 Indemnityi 
 
 — ' COippany for benefit of one person. .^ 
 See Bankkottox — Assets, 63, 
 
( 445 ) 
 
 mOKST OB" CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 446 ) 
 
 COMPANy-WINDINQ-UP-cwtwMed. 
 
 Jaiisdiction, 
 — Building society. 
 
 See Oases under Builbino Society — 
 Winding-up. 
 
 95. — County court — Metropolitan courts — 
 Lompanies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 0- 63), s. 1, subs. 3, 5. 
 
 The metropolitan county courts have no juris- 
 diction to wind up COS.; and their districts are 
 attached for winding-up purposes to the High 
 Court. Order 29th Nov., 1890. In re Ooubt 
 BuEEAu, Ld. (No. 2) Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 18 
 
 96. — County court — Petition presented before 
 1891~Companie8 (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. a. 63), ss. 1, 31. 
 
 A petition presented but not heard before 
 Jan. 1, 1891, will be heard by the High Court, 
 although the amount of the paid-up capital be 
 within the limit prescribed for winding-up in the 
 county court, under the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890, a. 1, sub-s. 8. In re London & Yobk- 
 SHIEE Mutual Money Club Co. 
 
 North J. [1891] W. K. 2 
 
 97. — County court — Title to property — Liqui- 
 dator and stranger — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), ss. 98, \&ir— Companies (Windinq-uv) 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 63 ) 
 
 A county court judge has no jurisdiction 
 under the Companies Acts to decide questions 
 of title to property between the liquidator and a 
 stranger, which arose before the commencement 
 of the winding-up. In re Ilklby Hotel Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 a. B. 248 
 
 98. — County court — Transfer — Building 
 Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42), sa. 4, 32— 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. 
 c. 63), s. 1, 8it6-s. 5— County Court Bules, 1892, 
 r. HO— Order of Lord Chancellor of Nov. 29, 
 1890. 
 
 A transfer of winding-up proceedings can 
 only he made to a court having jurisdiction under 
 the Act of 1890 : thje City of London Court is 
 not such a court. In re Eeal Estates Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 398 
 And see County Couet — Jurisdiction, 
 
 99. — County court— Transfer to Sigh Court — 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 63), 8. 3. 
 
 The High Court has power under s. 3 of the 
 Companies ("Winding-up) Act, 1890, to transfer 
 from a county court to the High Court a winding- 
 up petition on which no order has been made. 
 Jnre Laxon & Co. (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. affirm. V. Williams 3. [1892] 3 Ch. 31 
 
 100. — Industrial and provident societies — 
 Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1876 
 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 45), s. 17 — Companies (Winding- 
 up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), ss. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, 
 made no alteration in the law relating to the 
 winding up of societies registered under the 
 Industrial Provident Societies Act, 1876. The 
 only cpurii ivihich can wind up such societies is 
 the county court of the district in which the 
 society has its registered ofBce, The Compajoies 
 
 WXHDING-irP (Jurisdiction) , 
 
 COMPANY - 
 
 continued. 
 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890, only applies to cos. 
 which before the passing of the Act, the High 
 Court had power to wind up. In re London 
 
 AND SUBUEBAN BaNK 
 
 North J, [1892] 1 Ch. 604 
 But see now Industrial and Provident Societies 
 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 39), s. 59. 
 
 Approved by V. Williams J. In re Seal 
 
 Estates Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 398. 
 
 See now Building Societies Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 47), s. 8 (2). 
 
 101. — Petition to wrong Court —Transfer- 
 Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 (fc 54 Vict 
 c. 63), ss. 1 (sub-ss. 3, 7), 3. 
 
 Where the paid-up capital of a co., the 
 nominal capital bf which was 250,0002., was lOH 
 and a petition for winding-up was presented to 
 the Uigh Court, an order was made for winding- 
 up, and the proceedings were transferred to the 
 county court. In re Milfoed Haven Shippinq 
 Co. - - ~ Eomer J. [1895] W. N. 16 
 
 102. — i Scotland — Company registered in^ 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 <fc 26 Viot. c. 89), ss. 81 
 171, 199— Companies (Winding-up) Act. 1890 
 (53 <fc 54 Fic<. / 63), ss. 1, 32, 33. ' 
 
 Petition asking for a winding-up order against 
 a CO. registered in Scotland but carrying on busi- 
 ness in that country and in England. 
 
 The Court held, that it had no jurisdiction to 
 make a wmding-up order. The petition allowed 
 to be withdrawn. In re Scottish Joint Stock 
 Tbust - - Wright J. [1900] W. N. 114 
 
 103. — Stannaries Court — Transfer — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss 81 141 • 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. 
 0. 63), ss. 1 (sub-s. 1, 2, 4), 3, 32. 
 
 Where a co. is formed to work mines within 
 the Stannaries " or elsewhere in England," but is 
 not shewn to be actually working mines beyond 
 the Stannaries, the jurisdiction to wind up the co 
 or to entertain an application in its voluntary 
 winding-up is in the Stannaries Court, and where 
 proceedings have been taken in that Court, the 
 High Court will not exercise its power to retain 
 the proceedings before itself, but will transfer 
 them to the Stannaries Court. In re New 
 Tekbas Tin Mining Co. 
 
 V. WiUiama J. [1894] 2 Ch. 344 
 
 Liquidator. 
 
 Form of liquidator's Statement of Account, and 
 ^M^i^t verifying same in lieu of existing Forma. 
 W N. 1899 (July 29), p, 247. See Current Ind« 
 1899, p. Ixxxviu. ' 
 
 , 1.04- — .fppointment—Court'a power to appoint 
 additwnal Itqmdator in voluntary windina-ui>— 
 Cmnpames Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Viot. e. 89), Is. 138, 
 
 I8i'"i^-„hif trV*\°£ ^^^ Companies Act, 
 1862, enable the Court having jurisdiction to 
 wmd up COS. to appoint a liquidator in a volun- 
 tary wmdmg-np, not. only, inhere there is no 
 liquidator acting ^or in ,the place of a liquidator 
 who IS by the Court removed from his o&e, but 
 also m any other oasp where due cause is shewn 
 
( m ) 
 
 £)IGEST OF CASi5S, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( as ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (liquidator)-coraf(J. 
 for appointing a liquidator— e.g., when an addi- 
 tional liquidator ia required— and the appointment 
 may be made on the application of the existing 
 liquidator. In re Sunlight Ikoandescent Gas 
 Lakp Co. - Wright J. [1900] 2 Ch. 728 
 
 105. — Appointment — Discretion of Court — 
 Companies (^Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 51 Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 6, suh-ss. 1, 3 — Companies (Windinq-uv) 
 Rules, 1890, r. 63. 
 
 Under s. 6, suh-s. 1 (a) of the Companies 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890, the right of the majority 
 of the creditors and contributories present at the 
 statutory meetings to have their nominee ap- 
 pointed as liquidator is subject to the control of 
 the Court, which in the exercise of its discretion 
 may refuse to appoint the nominee or any 
 liquidator and leave the winding-up in the hands 
 of the official receiver. The unanimous deter- 
 mination of the creditors and contributories 
 mentioned in r. 63, sub-r. 2, of the Companies 
 (Winding-up) Rules, 1890, refers to unanimity of 
 all the creditors and contributories at the meet- 
 ings, and not to unanimity in the result of the 
 two meetings. In re Johannesburs Land and 
 Gold Trust Co. Chitty 3. [1892] 1 Ch. 583 
 
 106. — Appointment — Discretion of Court — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 91. 
 
 Altheugh the Court has directed a meeting of 
 creditors to be called in order to ascertain the 
 wishes of the creditors, it may yet refuse to 
 sanction an appointment made by a large majority 
 of those present at the meeting. In this case the 
 Court refused to sanction the appointment made 
 at the meeting, and instead appointed the 
 accountant who had been directed by the Court 
 to act as chairman of the meeting. In re Land 
 Development Association 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 23 
 
 107. — Appointment — Provisional liquidator — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 85— 
 Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 c. 63), s. 4, suh-s. 5. 
 
 On a petition to wind up a co. the Court has 
 power to appoint a provisional liquidator other 
 than the official receiver. In re Unionist Club, 
 Ld. - CMtty J. [1891] W. N. 64 
 
 108. — Appointment — Provisional liquidator — 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 18S0 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 63), ss. 4, 5. 
 
 Before the hearing of a petition for compulsory 
 winding-up a co. then in voluntary liquidation, 
 an application was made for appointment of a 
 provisional liquidator other than the official 
 receiver. The' Court appointed the official 
 receiver, but restricted his powers to making an 
 application to the Court for the appointment of 
 some one as a special manager. In re Bound & 
 Co. V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 21 
 
 109. — Appointment — Validity — Notice of reso- 
 lution — Voluntary winding-up of company. 
 
 As soon as a resolution for the voluntary 
 winding-up of a co. is passed, a liquidator may 
 be appointed without special notice ; and, in the 
 casQ of a voluntary winding-up by special resolu- 
 tion, where the notice of the confirmatory meeting 
 includes notice of a resolution for the confirma- 
 tion of the appointment of a named person as 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Liquidator)— (TO!<(j. 
 liquidator, and that resolution is dropped, a 
 resolution for the appointment of another person 
 may be proposed and carried without further 
 notice. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1899] W. N. 258, 
 reversed. In re Tbenoh Tubeless Tyke Co. 
 Bethell v. Tbenoh Tubeless Tyke Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 42 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 408 
 
 110. — Appointment of liquidator after wind- 
 ing-up order — Official receiver — Companies 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), 
 ss. 4, 6, 
 
 After an order for the winding-up of a co. has 
 been made, the Court has no power to appoint a 
 liquidator other than the official receiver until 
 an application has been made under s. 6 of the 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, for the 
 appointment of a liquidator in his place. In re 
 John Eeid & Sons, Ld. - Div. Ct. [1900] 
 
 2 a. B. 634 
 
 111. — Appointment of new in place of retiring 
 liquidator in voluntary liquidation — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 141. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction under s. 141 of the 
 Act of 1862 to appoint a new liquidator of a co. 
 in voluntary liquidation, not only on the removal, 
 but also on the retirement, of an existing liqui- 
 dator. In re Sheppt Portland Cement Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 184 
 
 112. — Calls — Making immediate call — Shares 
 payable hy instalments — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 (fc 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 7, 38, 98, 102. 
 
 A new CO. was formed fur the purpose of 
 carrying into effect a contract for the purchase of 
 the undertaking of an existing co. By the 
 contract which was scheduled to the articles of 
 the new co. it was agreed that shareholders in 
 the existing co. should be entitled in respect of 
 their shares to certain partly paid-up shares in 
 the new co., and should pay the balance owing 
 for such new shares in seven half-yearly instal- 
 ments. Several shareholders accepted shares in 
 the new co. on these terms. On the winding-up 
 of the new co., held, that the contract was only 
 in force during the life of the new CO., and did 
 not preclude the liquidator from making an 
 immediate call for the whole of the unpaid 
 balance of the shares taken under it. Cordova 
 Union Gold Co. Kekewich J. [1891] 2 Ch. 680 
 
 — Contributory. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Contributory. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Costs. 61 
 —63. 
 
 113. — Debenture-holders — Displacing receiver 
 by liquidator — Discretion of Court. 
 
 As a general rule of convenience the liqui- 
 dator of a 00. being wound up should be appointed 
 receiver for the debenture-holders. But if the 
 debenture-holders have appointed a receiver 
 under a special power given them by their 
 security, the Court will not displace him by the 
 liquidator. In certain cases the Court will 
 appoint a liquidator to act as manager and 
 receiver of the business. The C. A. in the 
 absence of special circumstances will not overrule 
 
( 449 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 450 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Liquidator) —contd. 
 the discretion of the judge of first instance 
 refusing to displace a receiver by a liquidator. 
 In re Joshua Stdbbs, Ld. Babney v. Joshua 
 Stubbs, Ld. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 187 ; affirmed by 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Ch. 475 
 See British Linen Go. v. South American and 
 Mexican Co., 0. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 108, 111. 
 
 114. — Debenture-holders' action — Official 
 receiver. 
 
 The assets of a oo. including a large amount 
 of uncalled capital were sufficient to pay the 
 debentures. The official receiver, who was also 
 provisional liquidator, was appointed by V. 
 Williams J. receiver and manager, in place of 
 the receiver and manager in a debenture-holders' 
 action, on an undertaking by him to keep a 
 separate account on behalf of the debenture- 
 holders. On appeal fresh evidence was produced 
 that a large amount of the assets consisted of 
 securities, which required to be realized by a 
 commercial person. The receiver in the action 
 was appointed by 0. A. receiver of tliese particular 
 assets, and the official receiver receiver of the 
 other assets. Bbitish Linen Co v. South 
 American and Mexican Co. 
 V. Williams J. varied by C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 115. — Debenture-holders' action — Priority. 
 
 The sheriff, on seizing, on behalf of an execu- 
 tion creditor, goods belonging to a limited co., 
 takes, at all events before sale by him, subject to 
 the rights of debenture-holders under debentures 
 charging all the property of the co. Whether, 
 after sale by the sheriff, the debenture-holders 
 lose their priority, qusere. 
 
 (a) In re The Opeea, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 260 revers, Kekewich J. 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 164 
 
 (b) Taunton v. Shekipp ot Wabwickshibe 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 319 affirm. Kekewich J. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 734 
 And see Cases under Company — Deben- 
 tures. 
 — Eight of liquidator after payment of creditors 
 to recover from directors dividends im- 
 properly paid. 
 See Company — Directors. 120. 
 
 116. — Employment of solicitor — Litigation — 
 Costs — Companies ( Winding-up} Act, 1 890 (53 (J; 54 
 Vict. c. 63), s. 12, sub-ss. 1, 4. 
 
 On a summons intituled in an action brought 
 by the holders of debentures charging uncalled 
 capital and also in the winding-up, an order was 
 made that the liquidator should call up any un- 
 called capital, and for this purpose should " take 
 all necessary proceedings for enforcing such call, 
 and out of the first moneys coming to his hands 
 in respect thereof" should be at liberty to retain 
 lOOl. to provide for his proper costs, charges, and 
 expenses of and incidental to making the call 
 and enforcing the same, the order being made 
 without prejudice to any question as to the liqui- 
 dator's right to apply for a further allowance for 
 costs. The liquidator, without any further 
 authority from the Court or the committee of 
 inspection, employed solicitors, and instead of 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Liquidator)— co«R 
 proceeding in the ordinary mode (by balance 
 order) brought actions to recover the calls. The 
 committee sanctioned some subsequent steps in 
 the litigation. The taxing master allowed all 
 the costs notwithstanding objections by the official 
 receiver (a) that the sanction of the Court or 
 committee had not been obtained before the com- 
 mencement of the actions; (6) that the like 
 sanction had not been obtained to the employ- 
 ment of the solicitors ; (o) that if the order was 
 sufficient authority the costs authorized to be 
 incurred were limited to 1001. : — 
 
 Held, that the order was only meant as a 
 performance of the function thrown on the Court 
 by sub-s. 1 of s, 12 as to sanctioning the bringing 
 of legal proceedings, and only authorized pro- 
 ceedings generally, leaving it to the Court to say 
 what they should be ; that the sanction of the 
 committee, though not obtained prior to the 
 initiatory steps in the proceedings, justified future 
 steps to which the sanction had been previously 
 obtained ; that sanction, under sub-s. 1,'to taking 
 proceedings did not dispense with the necessity 
 for obtaining sanction, under sub-s. 4, to the 
 employment of a particular solicitor; and that 
 although the Court had power to give subsequent 
 sanction to proceedings taken without this sanc- 
 tion to employ a solicitor, it would not as a rule 
 exercise the power except in cases of urgency . 
 Some only of the costs were therefore allowed. 
 In re London Metallubgioal Co. 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1897] 2 Ch. 262 
 
 — Sale by liquidator of undertaking — Fiduciary 
 relation — Setting aside sale — Interest 
 on profits. 
 
 See Vendoe and Puechaseb. — Interest. 
 53. 
 
 117. — First meetings of creditors and contri- 
 butories — Differences — Companies ( Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 6— Companies 
 '"" "" -ufi) JRules, 1890, r. 63 — Companies 
 
 ( Winding-up) Rules, April, 1892, /. 25. 
 
 Where the contributories unanimously agreed 
 that the official receiver should be appointed 
 liquidator, and eight creditors whose debts 
 amounted to 12,000t voted for the official receiver, 
 and nine creditors whose debts amounted to 
 3000Z. for another person, five of the eight being 
 directors against whom allegations had been 
 made. The Court appointed the official receiver 
 liquidator, as there was no prima facie case 
 against the directors, and their views as creditors 
 could not be disregarded. In re Bloxwioh Ibon 
 AND Steel Co. - Wright J, 1894 W. N. Ill 
 — First meeting of creditors. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Meetings. 
 
 118. — Liabilities of — Negligence — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), a. 138. 
 
 A liquidator is the agent of the co., and is not 
 strictly speaking a trustee for the creditors or 
 contributories. He is not, therefore, in the 
 absence of fraud, mala fides, or personal mis- 
 conduct, liable to them for delay in paying debts 
 or distributing surplus assets. Knowles v Scott 
 Eomer J. [1891] 1 Ch. 717 
 
 119. — Official receiver acting as liquidator 
 
 Appeal— Companies (Winding-up) Mules, 1890, 
 
( 451 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( 452 ) 
 
 COMPANY— ■WINDING-UP (liquidator)- comiA 
 re. 110, 111, 112, 178— Companies (Windinq-up) 
 Bides, 1892, r. 3. 
 
 An application by way of an appeal from a 
 decision of the official receiver acting as ^liqui- 
 dator must be made in Oliambers. Rule 3 of the 
 Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1890, ouly 
 applies to appeals from the official receiver acting 
 as such. In re National Wholemeal Bread 
 AND Biscuit Co. Ex parte Baines 
 
 V. Williams J. [1892] 2 Ch. 467 
 — Preferential payments by liquidator. 
 
 Bee Cases under Company — WiNDrnG-up 
 — Preference. 
 
 120, — Provisional liquidator, Appointment of 
 — Security — Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (58 * 54 Vict. 0. 63), s. 4, sub-ss. 1, 2, 5; ». 31, 
 eub-s. 3 ; s. 32, sui-s. 3 — Companies {Winding-up) 
 Rules, 1890, rr. 32, 67. 
 
 Under r. 67 of the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Eules, 1890, the Board of Trade has power to fix 
 the security to be given by a liquidator before as 
 well as after the making of a winding-up order. 
 In re Mercantile Bank of Australia 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 204 
 
 121. — Provisional liquidator, Appointment of 
 — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. c. 63), s. 4, suh-ss. 1, 2, 5; s. 31, suh-s. 3; 
 s. 32, suh-s. 3 — Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 
 1890, rr. 32, 67. 
 
 Whether the Court has power under s. 4 of 
 the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, to appoint, 
 as provisional liquidator before the making of a 
 winding-up order, some person other than the 
 official liquidator, qusere. 
 
 (a) In re Mbbcantilb Bank of Australia 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 204 
 
 (b) In re North Wales Gunpowder Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 220 
 Contra (o) In re Unionist Clue, Ld. 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 64 
 (d) In re Bound & Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 21 
 
 122. — Provisional liquidator. Appointment of 
 — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. c. 63), ss. 4, 6. 
 
 After the winding-up order is made the official 
 receiver becomes provisional liquidator, and the 
 Court has no longer power to appoint any other 
 person. In re North Wales Gunpowder Co. 
 
 C. A. revers. Div. C. [1892] 2 ft. B. 220 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re John Beid & 
 Sons, Ld., [1900] 2 Q. B. 634, 635. 
 
 123, — Remuneration — Liquidator's solicitor — 
 Costs — Petitioning creditor — Priorities — Volun- 
 tary winding-up — Supervision order — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 110, 144— 
 Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1890, r. 31. 
 
 Where a co. has gone into voluntary liquida- 
 tion and appointed a liquidator, and afterwards, 
 on a creditor's petition for a compulsory order, a 
 supervision order is made directing the peti- 
 tioner's and liquidator's costs to be taxed and 
 paid out of the assets, the liquidator's remunera- 
 tion for the period from the commeuoement of the 
 winding-up to the supervision order must be 
 postponed to the taxed costs of the petitioner and 
 of the liquidator's solicitor, and also to anv 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Liquidator)- conid 
 further costs for work properly done by the 
 solicitor by the authority of the liquidator subse- 
 quently to the order. 
 
 Ire re New York Exchange Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 
 371, considered. In re Sanitaet Burial Asso- 
 ciation, Ld. - - C, A. [1900] W, N. 121 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 289 
 
 124. — Restrictions on — Voluntary mnding-up 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 <t- 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 96, 
 133, sub-ss. 7, 149, 151 — Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. a. 63), ss. 6, 9, 12. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction, by placing restric- 
 tions on a voluntary liquidator or by dispensing 
 with restrictions on an official liquidator, almost 
 to turn a winding-up under supervision into a 
 winding-up of the cause or the converse. 
 
 The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, does 
 not apply to a voluntary winding-up, but can be 
 utilized by the Court for the puipose of putting 
 restrictions analogous to those imposed by the 
 legislature, where desired by the creditors, upon 
 the powers of an official liquidator in a compulsory 
 winding-up. Form of order. In re Watson & 
 Sons, Ld. Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 55 
 
 — Settling list of contributories. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Contributory. 
 
 125. — Supervision Order — Liquidator' 
 report. 
 
 lu future orders that voluntary liquidations 
 shall be continued under the supervision of the 
 Court will requii'e the liquidator to make reports 
 to the registrar in cos. winding up as to the 
 progress of the winding-up, only quarterly, instead 
 of every month, as heretofore. In re Horner & 
 Co. - Wright J. [1898] W, N, 169 (7) 
 
 126. ■ — Supervision order — Security — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 150. 
 
 Where a co. is being voluntarily wound up and 
 the winding-up is continued under a supervision 
 order and the voluntary liquidator has not given 
 security, if an additional liquidator is appointed 
 by the Court he will be required to give security. 
 In re Hampshire Land Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] 2 Ch. 632 
 
 127. — " Undistributed assets " — Companies 
 Liquidation Account — Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 15, sub-s. 3— 
 Companies Winding-up Rules, 1890, r. 1270. 
 
 In Dec, 1895, a limited co., being unable to 
 pay the interest on its debentures, went into 
 voluntary liquidation. On April 15, 189G, the 
 Court sanctioned a scheme under the Joint Stock 
 Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 (33 &34 Vict, 
 c. 104), which provided that the uncalled capital 
 of the CO. should be called up by the voluntary 
 liquidators, and that they should thereout, by 
 Sept. 1897, pay sums amounting to a dividend of 
 12s. 6d. in the pound to the debenture-holders, 
 the balance being payable in 1902, and the inte- 
 rest being kept down in the meantime. Any 
 surplus from calls, after payment of the first 
 dividend, might be . applied, according to the 
 liquidators' discretion, for management and other 
 expenses. The scheme also gave the liquidators 
 power to borrow for the purpose of protecting and 
 developing the assets. On the debenture-holders 
 
( ,453 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 454 ) 
 
 COMPAiry— WINDING-UP (Li(iuidator)—co»<<l 
 being paid off, the winding-up was to be stayed, 
 and the oo. was to resume business. By a trust 
 deed executed in pursuance of the scheme the 
 liquidators covenanted to apply the proceeds of 
 the call in accordance with the scheme. In May 
 and Sept., 1897, the liquidators filed with the 
 Eegistrar of Joint Stock Companies the State- 
 ments of account required by s. 15 of the Com- 
 panies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 ; but they refused 
 to pay into the Companies Liquidation Account 
 the surplus of calls shewn by the acooimts to 
 be stUl in their hands or under their control, 
 although directed tp^do so by the Bd. of Trade. 
 On a motion by the Board for an order to comply 
 with its direction : — 
 
 Meld, that the money was not " undistributed 
 assets " within s. 15, sub-s. 3, of the Act of 1890, 
 and that the liquidators could not be called on to 
 
 ?ay it into the Companies Liquidation Account. 
 h re Lahd Mobtsagb Bank op Flobida 
 
 Wright J. [1898] 1 Ch. 444 
 
 UeetingG. 
 See Cases under Company^ Meetings. 
 
 128. — First meeting of creditors — Power to 
 re-summon — Companies Witiding-wg Act, 1890 
 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 6. 
 
 Where at a first meeting of creditors the 
 
 functions of that meeting have been performed, a 
 
 further — not a fresh — first meeting of creditors 
 
 can be summoned. In re Chaele^EetnoLds &Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1895] W. N. 31 
 
 129. — Bight to ivote — Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 63), Behed..!., clauses 7 
 and 11 — Companies- (Winding-up) Rules, 1S90, 
 rr. 110 and 111. 
 
 ,. A proof tendered by accountants for work 
 done partly before and partly after the com- 
 mencement of the winding-up, in respect of a 
 reconstruction scheme, the total amount of the 
 debt claimed being sworn to, held, not to fall 
 within clause 7 of Sched. I. of the Companies 
 ( Windiug-up) Act, 1 890. A summons to expunge 
 such proof was therefore dispiissed with costs, 
 in re Canadian Pacipio Colonization Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 122 
 
 Mortgages. 
 
 See also Company — Mortgages and 
 Charges. 
 
 130. — Distress — Interest — Liquidators — Fos- 
 session-^Companies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. a. 89), 
 SS.87, 163, 
 
 Where the liquidators and receivers of a 
 cotton-mill co. in liquidation, and whose mill 
 was in mortgage, took possession of tjie, mill with- 
 out any objection on the part of the mortgagee, 
 "and kept it in working order so as to prevent 
 deterioration and to enable them to sell it as a 
 going concern, the Court refused to give the mort- 
 gagee leave to distrain for interest accrued since 
 the date of taking Jossession, holding that the 
 possession of the liquidators and receivers was as 
 much for the benefit of the mortgagee as of the co. 
 
 It is easier for a landlord to obtain leave to 
 distrain* for rent accrued after a winding-up 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Mortgages)— co»W. 
 order than for a mortgagee to obtain leave to 
 distrain for interest. 
 
 In re Lancashire Cotton Spinning C°> 35 
 Ch. p. 656, and In re' Brown, Bayley arid Dixon, 
 18 Ch. D. 649, cohsideited. In re Hwginshaw 
 Mills and Spinning Co. C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 844 
 
 Officers. 
 
 — Examination of officers. 
 
 See Company — ^Winding-up — Examina- 
 tion of Offloers. 
 
 — Proceedings against delinquent ofdcers. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Proceed- 
 ings against Delinquent Officers. 
 
 Official Keceiver. 
 
 See also Cases under Eeoeivek, 
 
 — Debenture-holders' action. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 76—88. 
 
 131 1 — Petition by official receiver — Public ex- 
 amination — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 <fe 54 Vict. c. 63), ss. 8, 14. 
 
 It is not a matter of course to make a com- 
 pulsory winding-up order under s. 14 of the 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act,: 1890, but the 
 section applies to every case where the official 
 receiver after such an order would possess any 
 power which the voluntary liquidator cannot 
 exercise, and which is necessary in order that 
 there may be an efficient winding-up in the in- 
 terests, of the creditors or contributories— e.g., 
 where misfeasance proceedings are contemplated 
 and a public examination is absolutely ne^ceesary 
 in order to obtain a sufficient disclosure as -to the 
 facts. In re 1897 Jubilee Sites Syndicate ., 
 Wright J. [1899] W. N. 86; [1899] 2 Ch. 20.4 
 
 132. — Proceedings in name of official receiver. 
 
 The official receiver is not to allow proceed- 
 ings to b6,;taken in his, name simply on persons 
 giving an indemnityj or on counsel on their behalf 
 advising that there is a clear case. He must act 
 on his own judgment. If there is a committee 
 of inspection, or a committee representing the 
 creditors, the _ official receiver may act on their 
 opinion that such >prbeeeding8 should be taken. 
 Pbactice Note 
 
 Per V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 166 
 
 133. — Proceedings in name of official receiver 
 — Indemnity. 
 
 The official receiver should not allow his name 
 to be used on an indemnity being given, at any 
 rate till the official -receiver had satisfied himself, 
 by taking counael's opinion, as to the propriety of 
 the proceedings, because as soon as he allows his 
 name to be so used he ceases to have control over 
 the proceedings. In re Anglo-Saedinian Anti- 
 mony Co. - V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 186 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J., [1894] W. N. 
 166. ■ See preceding Case. 
 
 — Eeport of oiOfioial receiver. 
 
 See. Cases, under Company — Winding-up 
 — ^Examination of Officers. 
 Hi.— Report of offiaialreceiyer— Sufficiency — 
 Finding of fraud — Ord:er for ^pMio eosandrtaMon 
 
 — Jurisdiction — , Companies (-Winding-up) Act, 
 1890 (53 cfe, 54 Vict. c. 63), «. S-rMotim to dis- 
 
( 455 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 456 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDIHG-TTP (Official Beoeiver)— 
 
 continued, 
 charge order for public examination — Time — 
 B. S. C, Order LviiL, r. 15. 
 
 To enable the Court to make an order, under 
 Bub-B. 3 of s. 8 of the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890, for a public examination of a person 
 who is alleged to have taken part in the promo- 
 tion or formation of a oo. in liquidation, the 
 further report of the official receiver under 
 sub-B. 2 must not only state that that person had 
 taken part in the promotion or formation, and 
 that, in the opinion of the official receiver, fraud 
 bad been committed by him in the promotion or 
 formation, but must also state facts shewing a 
 basis for the official receiver's opinion, and 
 warranting the judge in calling upon the person 
 implicated for an explanation. 
 
 Observations as to the proper mode of framing 
 the report. 
 
 Order of Wright J. affirmed. 
 
 Per Wright J. : Notice of motion to dischaige 
 an ex parte order for public examination under 
 sub-s. 3 ought to be given within a reasonably 
 short time. 
 
 Whether the time for giving such a notice is 
 fixed by Order Lvni., r. 15, of the Rules of the 
 Supreme Court, qinere. In re Civil, Naval and 
 
 MiLITAKT OUTPITTEES, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 216 
 
 136. • — Sanction] to proceedings — Companies 
 iWinding-up) Aa, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), 
 88. 4, 27, svb-s. 1 — Companies ( Winding-up^ Btdes, 
 1890, r. 165. 
 
 The question as to when the taking of pro- 
 ceedings by the official receiver requires the sanc- 
 tion of the Court, and when the authority of the 
 Bd. of Trade, discussed. In re New Zealand 
 Loan and Meeoantilb Agenot Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] W. K. 200 
 
 186. — Statement of affairs — Companies ( Wind- 
 ing-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), 8. 7. 
 
 An order to submit a statement of affairs 
 ought not to be made at the instance of the 
 official receiver until the registrar lias satisfied 
 himself that the person required to make the 
 statement had the materials for doing bo. In 
 future applioationa for such orders must be made 
 to the judge himself. In re Columbian Gold 
 Mines - - V. WiUiams J. [1894] W. N. 92 
 
 Petition. 
 (Petition and Order.) 
 
 137. — Abuse of process — Demurrahle petition 
 —Companies Acts, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. a. 89), 
 .. 85 ; 1867 (30 * 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 40. 
 
 Where a petition is presented ostensibly for a 
 winding-up order, but really for another purpose, 
 such as putting pressure on a Co., the Court has 
 an inherent jurisdiction to prevent such an abuse 
 of process, and will do so, without requiring an 
 action to be commenced, by restraining the 
 advertisement of the petition, and staying all 
 proceedings on it. In re A Company 
 
 V. Williams J, [1894] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 138. — Advertisement — Amending advertise- 
 ment of petition — Companies Winding-up Bules, 
 April, 1892, r. 19 ; Ibid. Form 3. 
 
 Where the advertisement of a petition for 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Petition)— conii. 
 winding-up omits the foot-note set out in Form 3 
 of April, 1892, the Court will not overlook the 
 irregularity, but will require the petition to be 
 re-advertised in the proper form. 
 
 In re Mont de Fietgof England, Ld. (1892) 37 
 S. J. 48, not followed on this point. In re Hille 
 Indla Euebeb Co. Byrne J. [1897] W. N. 6 (4) 
 
 139. — Advertisement — Certificate of registrar. 
 North J. stated that in future he should adopt 
 
 the rule laid down by CMtty J., and not allow 
 a winding-up petition to be called on for hearing 
 unless the certificate of the registrar was pro- 
 duced that the petition had been properly adver- 
 tised. In re Keeshaw & Pole, Ld. 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 202 
 
 140. — Advertisement — Compulsory or super- 
 vision order — Application at hearing for super- 
 vision order. 
 
 In this case an adjournment was directed for 
 the purpose of fresh advertisements, and event- 
 ually a supervision order reluctantly granted. 
 In re New Oriental Bank Corpokation (No. 1) 
 V. Williams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 663 
 
 Followed by V. Williams J. In re Civil Ser- 
 vice Brewery Co., [1893] W. N. 5. 
 
 141. — Advertisement — Defect — Companies 
 ( Winding-up) Bules, 1890, r. YIl — Companies 
 ( Winding-up) Bules (Feb.), 1891, rr. 2, 3 ; Form 2. 
 
 A formal defect in the date fixed for the hear- 
 ing lield not to invalidate petition, there being no 
 proof that any one was misled by the mistake. 
 In re Broad's Patent Night Light Co. 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 6 
 
 142. — Advertisement — Defect — Companies 
 (Winding-up) Bules, 1890, r. 177 (1) — Companies 
 (Winding-up) Bules, 1892, r. 19; Form 3. 
 
 Where the foot-note required by r. 19 and 
 F. 3 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1892, 
 was omitted, the Court made an order without 
 fresh advertisement, but stated lliis would not 
 form a precedent. The voluntary liquidator was 
 allowed his costs of appearance. In re Mont de 
 Piete of England 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1892] W. N. 166 
 
 143. — Advertisement of petition — Defunct com- 
 pany — Service of petition — Companies Act, 1880 
 (43 & 44 Vict. 19), s. 7 — Companies Winding-up 
 Bules, 1890, t. 35. 
 
 Where the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies 
 has struck the name of a defunct company oif the 
 register under s. 7 of the Companies Act, 1880, 
 the proper remedy oJ' a creditor is to petition for 
 a winding-up order. In such a case neither tlie 
 provisions as to service of the petition contained 
 in the Rules of 1890, nor the provisions as to 
 service contained in the Act of 1880, apply, but 
 special directions as to service must be obtained. 
 In re Anqlo-Amerioan Exploration and De- 
 velopment Co. 
 
 V. Williams L.J, [1897] W. N. 162 (3); 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 100 
 
 144. — Advertisement — Irregularity in adver- 
 tisement — Companies (Winding-rip) Bules, 1890 
 rr. 34, 177. 
 
 An order made on a petition notwithstanding 
 an irregularity in the advertisement ; the Couit 
 holding, under rule 177 of the Companies Rules, 
 
( 45? ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 458 ) 
 
 COMPANY— -WINBING-TTP (Petition)— con«<f. 
 1890, that the irregularity did not invalidate the 
 prooeodinga. In re Boll, Bevan & Co. 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N, 170 
 
 145. — Advertisement — Beadvertisement on 
 amendment of petition. 
 
 Where a petition asking for continuance of 
 a voluntary winding-up under supervision is 
 amended so as to ask for a compulsory order, the 
 petition must be readvertised. In re National 
 Wholemeai, Bkead and Biscuit Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] 2 Ch. 161 
 
 146. — Advertisement — Beadvertisement on 
 amendment of petition. 
 
 "Where a petition asks for a compulsory order 
 or a supervision order, but at the hearing a super- 
 vision was alone applied for, held that the petition 
 must be readvertised, and it must be shewn clearly 
 that only a supervision order vfould be asked for 
 at the hearing. 
 
 (a) In re New Mokgan Gold Minins Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 79 
 
 (b) In re New Omental Bank Coepobation 
 (No. 1) V. WUliams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 663 
 
 (o) In re Civil Sebvice Bbewebt Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 8 
 
 147. — Advertisement — Supervision order — 
 Beadvertisement. 
 
 In future, when a petition for winding-up is 
 amended by inserting a prayer for a supervision 
 order, and the petition is ordered to be readver- 
 tised as amended, the new advertisement must 
 appear not only in the Gazette, but in all the 
 newspapers in which the original advertisement 
 appeared. In re Dombet & Son 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1895] W. N. 146 (2) 
 
 148. — Affidavit in support of petition — Defect 
 or irregularity — Companies Winding-up Bules, 
 1890, rr. 36, 177 (1.). 
 
 Where a petition for winding-up is presented 
 by an individual and not by a co., the affidavit in 
 support, referred to in rule 36 of the Companies 
 Winding-up Eules, 1890, cannot be made by the 
 petitioner's manager; and non-compliance with 
 the rule by filing only an affidavit by a person 
 not by the rule authorized to make the affidavit 
 cannot be waived by the Court as a "formal 
 defect " or an " irregularity " within the meaning 
 of rule 177 (1.) In re Chakterland Stores and 
 TBADDfG Co. Wright J. [1900] W. N. 235 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 870 
 
 149. — Affidavit of service — " Sealing " — Com- 
 panies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (5,S (fc 54 Vict, 
 e. 63) — Companies (Winding-up) Bules, 1890, 
 rr. 3, 73; Appx., Forms 14 and 15. 
 
 There being no " seal of the Court," the Court 
 authorized the affidavit of service of a petition to 
 be sworn without the words in the appendix form 
 which purports to state that the deponent had 
 served a copy of the petition " duly sealed vrith 
 the seal of the Court." 
 
 Semble, that a seal will be necessary to put in 
 force Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, ss. 39, 
 40. In re The Court Bubeau, Ld. (No. 1) 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 9 
 
 150. — Affidavit statutory, hy clerk to solicitors 
 — Petition. 
 
 Where the petitioners for a winding-up were 
 
 COMPANY— WINDINB-tJP (Petition)— MBi^. 
 absent on the continent of Europe, the Court 
 allowed the statutory affidavit to be made by a 
 clerk to the solicitors acting for them, who had 
 full knowledge of the proceedings to obtain 
 judgment for the debt on which the petition was 
 founded. In re Caebaba Maeblb Co. 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1896] W. N. 87 (9) 
 
 _ 161. — Affidavit supporting petition — Notice of 
 filing. 
 
 In its observations in In re New Weighing 
 Machine Co., [1896] W. N. 48 (4), cited 9 Palmer's 
 Company Precedents, 7th ed. p. 69, the Court did 
 not intend to lay down the rule that notice must 
 be given to a co. of the filing of the statutory 
 affidavit in support of a winding-up petition 
 against it, but only meant that when an addi- 
 tional or supplemental affidavit was filed notice 
 of the filing thereof should be given in order to 
 avoid unnecessary applications for adjournments 
 for the purpose of answering the additional affi- 
 davit. In future it wUl be unnecessary to give 
 notice of the filing of the statutory affidavit. 
 Pbactioe Dibeotion 
 
 Wright J. (after consultation with 
 V. WUliams L.J.) [1898] W. N. 7 (10) 
 
 152. — Affidavit supporting petition — Notice of 
 filing. 
 
 Although there is no express rule requiring 
 notice to be given to the company of the filing of 
 the statutory affidavit in support of a winding-up 
 petition, the practice of giving notice of filing 
 is a convenient one, and must in future be 
 followed. In re New Weighing Machine Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] W. N. 48 (4) 
 
 163. — ■ Appearance — Committee of creditors — 
 Companies (Winding-up) Rules (Feb.), 1891, ». 3. 
 
 A notice of intention to appear at the hearing 
 was given on behalf of six persons who were 
 acting as a committee of the creditors. The 
 Court refused to recognise the persons as a com- 
 mittee representing the creditors, and treated the 
 notice as given solely on behalf of the persons 
 named in it. In re Mid-Kent Peuit Factoby 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 66 
 
 164. — Compulsory or supermsion order — 
 Second petition— Companies (Winding-up) Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 8. 
 
 Although s. 8 of the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890, enlarges the jurisdiction of the Court 
 as to compulsory orders, yet a shareholder who 
 differs from the majority must still allege and 
 prove grounds for supposing that he will derive 
 substantial benefit from the compulsory order 
 before the Court will grant it, on his petition, 
 againstthewishesofthemajodty. A shareholder 
 who presents a petition after notice of another 
 petition must prove proper independent grounds, 
 or he will be cast in costs. In re Doe6 Gallebt, 
 Ld. - - North J. [1891] W. N. 98 
 
 155. — Costs — Companies ( Winding-up) Bules, 
 (Feb.), 1891. 
 
 Costs of attending the hearing of a winding- 
 up petition will be disallowed to all creditors who 
 omit to slate in their notice of intention to appear 
 whether they intend at the hearing to support or 
 oppose the petition, as required by the Companies 
 
( 459 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 460 ) 
 
 COMPAirr— WINDING-tTP (Petition)— contd. 
 ■Winding-up Rules, Feb. 1891. In re G-eben, 
 McAllan & Peilden, Ld. 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W, N. 137 
 
 166. — Disputed debt. 
 
 At the time when the winding-up petition in 
 this case was presented, the creditor presenting 
 it had obtained judgment against the co. for the 
 debt on which the petition was grounded. Before 
 the hearing of the petition the judgment had 
 been rerersed by a Div. Ct., but the petitioner 
 had presented an appeal from that decision to 
 theC. A.:— 
 
 Seld, that the judgment, having been re- 
 versed, must be taken to have been wrong, and 
 that the petition must be dismissed with costs. 
 In re Anglo-Bavarian Steel Ball Co. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1899] W. S. 80 
 
 167. -^. Equitable debt. 
 
 The P. Co. held shares in the X. Co. on which 
 certain calls were due. The X. Co. so charged 
 or dealt with the calls as to pass the real interest 
 in them to Y. for value received. The X. Co. 
 went into liquidation, and with its liquidator, but 
 without the concurrence of Y., presented a peti- 
 tion for the winding-up of the P. Co. in respect 
 of the unpaid calls ; — 
 
 Held, without deciding whether there was an 
 actual equitable assignment to Y., or whether he 
 could himself have petitioned for winding-up, 
 that no winding-up order ought to be made on the 
 X. Co.'s petition. In re Pentalta Exploeation 
 Co. - Wright J. [1898] W. N. 65 (8) 
 
 168. — Evidence required from opponents. 
 
 Those opposing a, compulsory order for wind- 
 ing-up should, when connected with the co., state 
 on affidavit such matters as are within their know- 
 ledge, as to the promotion, formation, or failure 
 of the CO., as go to negative the necessity or 
 desirability of inquiry into such matters. And 
 where there is a pending debenture-holder's 
 action, the opponents to the petition should also 
 state the date of issue of the debentures, and the 
 consideration for such debentures, ire re J. H. 
 Evans & Co. V. WUUams J. [1892] W. N. 126 
 
 169. — Foreign company with branch office and 
 assets in England — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), s. 199. 
 
 The Court, on the assumption that the prin- 
 cipal liquidation would take place abroad, made 
 a compulsory order winding up a foreign co. with 
 a branch oifice and assets in England, but con- 
 fined the liquidator's powers to the English assets. 
 In re Fedeeal Bank of Atjstealia 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1893] W, N. 46 ; 
 afarm. by C. A. [1893] W. N, 77 
 
 160. — Grounds for order — Allegation of fraud 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Viet. c. 89), s. 79, 
 sub-ss. 5, 91 — Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 8. 
 
 Compulsory order made on ground that the 
 substratum of the co. was gone. 
 
 Semble, that an allegation that an investiga- 
 tion is necessary in consequence of fraud in the 
 promotion is now sufBoient for a compulsory order, 
 and that a majority of shareholders cannot now 
 force a minority to forego their statutory right of 
 
 COMPANY— WINDIKG-TTP (Petition)— conW. 
 investigation under s. 8 of the Act of 1890. In 
 re Geneeal Phosphate Cobpoeation (No. 1) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W. N 142 
 
 161. — Grounds for order — Compulsory order 
 for voluntary winding-up — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 91, H5 — Companies 
 iWinding-up) Act, 1890 (58 * 54 Vict. e. 63), s. 8. 
 
 Where the control of the business and deben- 
 tures was substantially in the hands of one man 
 and his immediate family, and their nominee had 
 been appointed both receiver and voluntary liqui- 
 dator, held, that it was desirable in the interests 
 of the creditors that the voluntary liquidation 
 should not continue, but that an order for com- 
 pulsory winding-up must be made. In re Medi- 
 cal Battery Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] 1 Ch. 444 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re E Bishop & 
 Sons, Ld., [1900] 2 Ch, 254, 261. 
 
 162. — Grounds for order — Jurisdiction — 
 Fraud — Shareholder's petition — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), «8. 79 sub-s. 5, 
 129 8id)-8. 3, 145 — Directors' meeting — Essential 
 formality. 
 
 An order to wind up a co. compulsorily will 
 be made on the petition of a holder of a paid-up 
 share, notwithstanding that an extraordinary 
 resolution has been passed, under s. 129, suh-s. 3, 
 of the Companies Act, 1862, to wind up volun- 
 tarily. 
 
 Fraud is a ground, but not the only ground, 
 on which this jurisdiction is exercisable. 
 
 After a committee of investigation had re- 
 ported in favour of proceedings against the direc- 
 tors of a CO. to make them liable for misfeasance, 
 an extraordinary resolution was passed to wind 
 up the CO., and steps were taken to dissolve the 
 CO. and destroy the books. The co. was ordered 
 to be wound up on the petition of a holder of a 
 paid-up share. 
 
 An extraordinary resolution under s. 129, 
 Bub-s. 3, of the Companies Act, 1862, to wind up 
 a 00. voluntarily : — 
 
 Meld, ineffectual because the notices summon- 
 ing the meeting had been issued by the secretary 
 without the authority of a resolution of the 
 directors duly assembled at a board. In re Hat- 
 craft Gold Eeduotion and Minino Co. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 106; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 230 
 
 163. — Grounds for order — "Just and equit- 
 able"— Companies Act,1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 0. 89), 
 8.79. 
 
 A winding-up petition was presented by a 
 creditor whose debt was ptiyable at a future date 
 under a scheme of arrangement under which the 
 CO. was formed. It was not alleged that the co. 
 was at present insolvent, but that insolvency 
 must inevitably result at an early date if the co, 
 was continued under the conditions imposed by 
 the scheme. The co. was registered, and carry- 
 ing on business, and had its head office in New 
 South Wales, but it had a branch office in London, 
 and proceedings had been commenced in the 
 Colony, in which an order had been made to 
 summon meetings to sanction a new scheme of 
 arrangement under a Colonial statute. It was 
 
( 461 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 462 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Petition)— con«(J. 
 admitted that the sole object of the petition was 
 to haye a scheme sanctioned in England under 
 the Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 
 1870. The petition was not opposed by the co. :— 
 Seld, that it was just and equitable that a 
 winding-up order should be made. In re Aubtka- 
 LiAN Joint Stock Bank 
 
 V. Williams J. [1897] W. N. 48 (3) 
 
 164. — Grounds for order — " Just and 
 able "—Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Viet. c. 89). 
 «. 79. 
 
 The doctriue to be gathered from early cases 
 — that the Court will not order a company to be 
 wound up on the ground that it is "just and 
 equitable that the company should be wound up " 
 (the 5th head of s. 79 of 1862) unless the facts 
 relied on shew a case ejusdem generis with those 
 referred to in the four preceding heads of the 
 section — may now be disregarded; e.g., a com- 
 plete deadlock as to the management of the 
 company's affairs is now considered a ground for 
 making a winding-up order. In re Sailing Ship 
 "Kentmeeb" Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1897] W. N. 58 (2) 
 
 165. — Grounds for order — " Just and equit- 
 able" — Disappearance of substratum— Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Viet. v. 89), s. 79. 
 
 A 00. called the " Kronand Metal Co., Ld.," 
 was formed to take over the business of a part- 
 nership trading as the Kronand Metal Co. ; but 
 the memorandum referred slightly to business in 
 manufacturing metals generally as being amongst 
 the objects of the co. A prospectus was issued 
 (inviting subscriptions for shares) which was 
 entirely devoted to descriptions -and commenda- 
 tions of " Kronand Metal " and the prospects of 
 the 00. with reference to the manufacture thereof. 
 The objects of the memorandum of association 
 were not stated in or indorsed on the pro- 
 spectus. On the faith of this prospectus R. and 
 others took shares in the co. The co. after 
 many months' trading had never manufactured 
 " Kronand Metal " in large quantities, had never 
 made a profit on that business, had principally 
 devoted itself to carrying on business by manu- 
 facturing articles made of brass, and, even on its 
 entire business, had so far made a considerable 
 loss. E. petitioned for a winding-up order on 
 the ground that " Kronand Metal " manufactur- 
 ing, the principal object and substratum of the 
 CO., was gone : — 
 
 Held, that as the manufacturing of goods in 
 other metals was not entirely ancillary to the 
 principal object, and the " Kronand Metal " busi- 
 ness had, with " nursing " — namely, by continu- 
 ing the other metal business — a chance, although 
 a small one, of life, the substratum could not be 
 said to be entirely gone, and that, having regard 
 to the fact that a large majority of the share- 
 holders opposed the petition, a winding-up order 
 must be refused. In re Kronand Metal Co. 
 
 Wright J. [1899] W. N. 14 (5) 
 
 166. — Grounds for order—" Just and equit- 
 able " — Substratum gone — Fraud — Companies Aot, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 79, sub-s. 5. 
 
 A CO. fraudulent in its inception, carrying on 
 a small business at a loss, having no capital of its 
 own — all the subscribed capital having foimd its 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Petition)— oomW. 
 
 way into the hands of the real, though not the 
 ostensible, promoters — and hopelessly embarrassed 
 by numerous actions brought by shareholders on 
 the ground of fraud, was ordered by the C. A. 
 (affirming. V. Williams J.) to be wound up, the 
 Court holding that the case was one in which it 
 was "just and equitable," within s. 79, sub-s. 5, 
 of the Companies Acl;, 1862, to make the order, 
 that being the most effective means for recovering 
 for the shareholders the money dishonestly re- 
 tained by the real promoters. 
 
 Decision of V. WiUiams J., [1896] W. N. 
 170 (4) ; [1897] 1 Ch. 45, affirmed. In re Bbins- 
 MEAD (T. E.) & Sons C, A. [1897] 1 Ch. 406 
 
 167. — Grounds for order — Shareholder's peti- 
 tion — Shares issued at discount — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. a. 89), s. 79, sub-s. 5. 
 
 That shares in a limited co. have been issued 
 at a discount is not a ground for making a wind- 
 ing-up order on the petition of a fully paid-up 
 shareholder, even if where the amounts unpaid 
 on the shares were called up, there would be a 
 surplus for division among the members of the co. 
 In re PiONEEES of Mashonaland Syndicate 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1893] 1 Ch, 731 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Railway Time 
 Table Publishing Co., Ex parte Welton, [1895] 
 1 Oh. 255, 265 ; [1897] A. 0. 299. 
 
 168. — Grounds far winding-up order — " Just 
 and equitable" — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), «. 79. 
 
 A CO. was formed with the primary and 
 principal object of taking over the undertakings, 
 assets, and liabilities of three other cos. each of 
 which had as its principal object an adventure iu 
 seats for the Diamond Jubilee. A loss had been 
 made on this adventure, and all that remained 
 to be done was to return the surplus assets to the 
 shareholders after deducting the losses and ex- 
 penses. The directors, however, were contem- 
 plating embarking on other business, which in 
 the Court's opinion was ultra vires the co. :— 
 
 Seld, that it was " just and equitable " that 
 the CO. should be wound up. 
 
 Ex parte Fox, (1871) L. E. 6 Oh. 176, distin- 
 guished. 
 
 Semble, that the old rule — that the words 
 "just and equitable" in clause 5 of s. 79 of the 
 Companies Act, 1862, are to be construed as 
 relating only to matters ejusdem generis with 
 the grounds for wiading-up mentioned in the 
 earlier parts of the section — has of late been 
 considerably relaxed. In re Amalgamated 
 Syndicate - V, WilUams J. [1897] 2 Ch. 600 
 
 169. — Order — Drawing up order. 
 
 A petitioner having failed to draw up the 
 order for winding-up, the Court, in the interest 
 of the creditors and the contributories, a deben- 
 ture-holder's action being pending, granted leave 
 to a creditor to draw up the order. In re South 
 Metropolitan Brewing and Bottling Co. 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] W. N, 81 
 
 170. — Parties attending — Companies ( Wind- 
 ing-up) Bules {February), 1891, r. 4, Form 3. 
 
 Where no parties attend the hearing of a 
 winding-up petition, the solicitor for the peti- 
 tioner should for convenience file list, under 
 
( 463 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 464 ) 
 
 COMPANY— •WINDING-UP (Petition)— conid. 
 r. 4, Form 3, of the Comjianies Winding-up 
 Kules, Feb., 1891, of parties attending, with a 
 written notice across it that no persons intended 
 to appear, or by letter to the registrar signifying 
 that no persons had given notice of intention to 
 appear. In re Australasian Alkaline Redtjo- 
 
 TION AND SmELTINS SYNDICATE 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 209 
 
 1111 ■ — Postponement of drawing up of order. 
 
 Semhle, where it is desired that an oppor- 
 tunity should be given for payment of the 
 petitioner's debt and the consequent avoidance 
 of an order, the proper course is for the petition 
 to stand over for a fortnight, and, on being 
 mentioned when replaced in the paper, the 
 winding-up order will be made unless the 
 petitioner's debt and costs is satisfied in the 
 meantime, the position of parties to be unaltered 
 during this period. The practice of making 
 winding-up orders which are not to be drawn 
 up until a future date is objected to by the 
 registrar's ofBce. In re Bakee, Tuokees & Co. 
 Wright J. [1894] W. N. 33 
 
 172. — Prima facie right of creditor to order — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 <fe 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 79, 
 91 — Companies (^Winding-up') Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. c. 63), «. 8. 
 
 Apart from the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 
 1890, a credilor unable to obtain payment of his 
 debt is primS, facie entitled to a compulsory 
 winding-up order. The refusal of such an order 
 is only justified when no possible benefit can 
 result from making it. Since the Act of 1890 it 
 is sufiScient to justify a compulsory order to shew 
 that an investigation under the Act is likely 
 to benefit the creditors. In re Keasnapolsky 
 Restaueant and Winter Garden Co. 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 174 
 
 173. — Might to present — Debenture-holder — 
 Statutory company. 
 
 A CO. formed by Act of Parliament which 
 incorporated the Companies Clauses Act, 1845, 
 issued debentures. The co. failing to pay the 
 debentures, one of the debenture-holders obtained 
 judgment against them, but failed to obtain 
 payment of his debt : — 
 
 Held, that neither the fact that a debenture- 
 holder had a right to a receiver nor the fact that 
 the 00. was formed with statutory powers for the 
 public advantage, could deprive the debenture- 
 holder, who had exhausted his other remedies, 
 of his ordinary rights as a creditor to present a 
 winding-up petition. In re Boeough oe Poets- 
 MODTH (Kingston, Fbatton and Southsea) 
 Teamways Co. Stirling J, [1892] 2 Ch. 362 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Marshall v. South 
 Staffordshire Tramways Co., [1895] 2 Oh. 36, 54. 
 
 174. — Eight to present — Shareholder — Cidls 
 unpaid. 
 
 As a general rule the Court will not hear a 
 petition by a shareholder who is in arrear in 
 payment of calls, but there may be circumstances 
 in which the Court ought not to refuse to hear 
 such a petition on terms. In re Crystal Reef 
 Gold Mining Co. - North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 408 
 
 175. — Small debt. 
 
 In future, where a petition is presented in 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Petition)— (m<<J. 
 respect of a small debt, no winding-np order will 
 be made, or if made will be made without costs. 
 In re Herbert Standeing & Co. 
 
 Per V. Williams J. [1895] W. N. 99 
 
 176. — Small debt — Debt of petitioner under 
 501— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. v. 89), 
 IS. 79, 80. 
 
 The petitioners prayed that the co. might be 
 wound up by the Court. The co., the registered 
 ofBce of which was within the metropolitan county 
 courts district, had a nominal capital of 5000Z., 
 of which only 114Z. was paid up. The petitioners 
 were judgment creditois for 20Z. 198. id., and 
 they had issued execution, which had been 
 returned unsatisfied. They had also applied to 
 the CO. for payment, but without success. It was 
 alleged that one of the petitioners owed the co. 
 12i!. for calls made on shares held by him. 
 
 " The High Court is reluctant to lend itself as 
 a collector of small debts by means of its winding- 
 up jurisdiction, and fn future winding-up orders 
 will not usually be made where the debt is small, 
 and when the order is made it will be without 
 costs. In re Herbert Standring & Co., [1895] 
 W. N. 99." 
 
 Where the debt on which the petition was 
 founded was small in amount, the petitioner 
 should allege and make out some special ground 
 for making a winding-up order. In the present 
 instance a sufficient case had not been made. 
 Petition dismissed with costs. In re Fancy 
 Dress Balls Co. Wright J. [1899] W. N. 109 
 
 177. — Statement as to period of petitioner's 
 shareholding — Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. 
 c. 131), ». 40. 
 
 The winding-up petition in this case omitted 
 to state facts shewing that the petitioner, who 
 was a shareholder, had held his shares for at 
 least six months during the eighteen months 
 prior to the commencement of the winding-up. 
 The company was not represented at the hearing 
 of the petition : — 
 
 Eeld, that where the co. did not appear, 
 the Court, before making a winding-up order on 
 a shareholder's petition, should be satisfied that 
 the petitioner had held his shares for the period 
 required by the Act of 1867, but this fact might 
 be shown by affidavit, and it was unnecessary to 
 amend the petition. In re Glendower Steam- 
 ship Co. Wright J. [1899] W. N. 114 
 
 178. — Supervision order — Conditions — Costs. 
 On the hearing of a petition for a compulsory 
 
 winding-up order, the Court, at the request of 
 the petitioner, made an order for winding-up 
 under supervision without readvertisement of 
 petition. In re Civil Service Beeweby Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W, N. 5 
 
 179. — Transfer from county court to High 
 Court — Companies (Winding-up') Act, 1890 
 (53 <(■ 54 Viet. c. 63), s. 3. 
 
 The High Court has power under s. 3 of the 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, to transfer 
 from a county court to the High Court a winding- 
 up petition on which no order has been made. 
 In re Laxon & Co. (No. 1) 
 
 C. A, affirm. V. WiUiams J. [1892] 3 Ch. 31 
 
 180. — Transfer from High Court to county 
 
( 465 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 4«6 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Petition)— conid. 
 cgurt — Companies (Winding -up) Act, 1890 
 (68 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 1, svJi-s. 5 ; s. 3. 
 
 A transfer of winding-up proceedings can 
 only be made to a Court having jurisdiction 
 under the Act of 1890 : the City of London Court 
 is not such a Court. In re Ebal Estates Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 398 
 
 See now Building Societies Act, 189i (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 47), s. 8, sub-s. 1. 
 
 181. — Transfer from High Court to Stannaries 
 Court. 
 
 Where a co. is formed to work mines within 
 the Stannaries " or elsewhere in England," but 
 is not shewn to be actually working mines be- 
 yond the Stannaries, the juiisdiotion to wind up 
 the CO. or to entertain an application in its 
 voluntary winding-up is in the Stannaries Court ; 
 and where proceedings have been taken in that 
 Court, the High Court will not exercise its power 
 to retain the proceedings before itself, but will 
 transfer them to the Stannaries Court. In re 
 New Tekeas Tin Mining Co. 
 
 V. Williams J, [1894] 2 Ch. 344 
 
 182. — Transfer to county court — Extension of 
 objects — Paid-up capital under 10,OOOZ. — Jurisdic- 
 tion — Companies (Memorandum of Association') 
 Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 62), «. I— Companies 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. e. 63), ss. 1 
 (sub-ss. 1, 3, 7), 2. 
 
 A CO. with a paid-up capital not exceeding 
 lO.OOOZ. presented a petition asking for the con- 
 firmation of the High Court to alterations in its 
 memorandum of association with reference to its 
 objects, the petition being assigned to Wright J. 
 as the winding-up judge. The registered office 
 of the CO. was within the district of a county 
 court having winding-up jurisdiction. 
 
 Order made confirming the alteration as asked, 
 but the proceedings ordered to be transferred to 
 the county court. In re Kugelet Gas Co. 
 
 Wright J. [1899] W. K. 127 
 
 183. — Unopposed petition — Order of hearing 
 — General Bules of Feb. 14, 1891, under Com- 
 panies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, rr. 3, 4. 
 
 North J. stated that, having regard to the 
 provisions of the Companies Winding-up Eules, 
 Feb. 1891, rr. 3, 4, he should treat a winding-up 
 petition as unopposed, and hear it when first 
 called, if no notice of opposition had been received 
 by the registrar. The order to be of course 
 subject to the risk of its being stopped after- 
 wards, if it should turn out that notice of opposi- 
 tion had been given to the petitioner. In re 
 Inman&Co. North J. [1891] W. N. 202 
 
 184. — Verification — Petition by limited com- 
 pany — " Principal officer" — Companies ( Winding- 
 up) Bules, 1890, r. 36. 
 
 Held, that a liquidator of the petitioning co. 
 was a " principal officer " of the co. within r. 36 
 of the Companies Winding-up Eules, 1890, and 
 therefore the proper person to make the affidavit 
 verifying the petition. In re Eeview Publishing 
 Co. - V. WiUiams J. [1893] W. N. 5 
 
 188. — WilMrawal of petition — Substituting 
 another petition — Notice of appearance — Com- 
 panies (Winddng-up) Eules (April), 1892, rr. 20, 
 
 COMPANT— WINDING-UP (Petitioii)-(mid. 
 21 — Compames (Windifig-up) Bules of March 
 1893, r. 2. 
 
 A., B., and 0. were creditors, C.'s debt being 
 disputed. A. had petitioned, but was personally 
 willing to withdraw his petition. A.'s solicitors 
 had received notice from B. of his intention to 
 appear and support. They also represented C, 
 but no notice under r. 20 of April, 1892, had been 
 given of C.'s intention to appear. The solicitors 
 had at the foot of the list of appearances required 
 by r. 21 of April, 1892, written a statement that 
 C. intended to appear and support. An order 
 was made substituting C. as petitioner. In re 
 Inviota WoBKa, Ld. 
 
 V. WUIiams J. [1894] W. N. 39 
 
 Practice. 
 Attendance of parties in Chambers, Mule as to, 
 being r. 173a of the Companies (Windinq-up) Act, 
 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 03). W. N. 1896 (April 11), 
 p. 87 ; W. N. 1896 (May 30), p. 168. See Current 
 Index, 1896, p. Iviii. 
 
 186. — Amendmsnt — Misrepresentation in pro- 
 
 An alleged shareholder in a co. was allowed 
 to amend his statement of claim for rescission, 
 after presentation of a winding-up petition, by 
 enlarging his original allegations of misrepre- 
 sentation when discovered, but not by adding a 
 new cause of action. Cooksedgb v. Metkopoli- 
 TAN Coal Consumebs' Assooiation 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 132 ; affirm, by 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 148 
 
 — Discovery — Discretion of judge — Officer of 
 
 Government department. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 13, 14. 
 
 — Interrogatories — Answer by officer of com- 
 
 pany. 
 
 See DiscovEET — Interrogatories. 48, 49 . 
 
 187. — Judgment in rem — Ship — Lien — Pro- 
 ceedings in foreign court — Bight to retain proceeds 
 
 Whilst a ship, owned by the pits., an English 
 CO., was loading at Bombay for a voyage to 
 Hamburg, her master was induced by fraud to 
 sign bills of lading for goods which were never 
 put on board. The bills of lading were indorsed 
 for value without notice of the fraud to the defts., 
 an English banking co. By the law of Germany 
 non-delivery of the goods specified in a bill of 
 lading entitles the holder of the bill to a lien 
 upon the vessel. The ship sailed, and whilst sire 
 was at sea a petition was presented for the wind- 
 ing-up of the pit. CO., and on the day on which 
 the ship arrived at Hamburg a winding-up order 
 was made. On the same day the defts., who had 
 in the meantime discovered the fraud, took pro- 
 ceedings in the German Court at Hamburg to 
 aiTeat the ship and to enforce their lien. The 
 German Court ordered the ship to be sold • 
 declared the defts. to be entitled to the lien 
 claimed, and ordered that lien to be satisfied out 
 of the proceeds of the sale. The liquidator of 
 the pit. CO., who had not appeared in the pro- 
 ceedings in the German Court, brought an action 
 in England in the name of the co. against the 
 
( 467 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 468 ) 
 
 COMPANY— -WINDING-UP , (Practice)— eo»M. 
 defta. to recover from them the amount which 
 they had received under the German judgment 
 as money had and received to the pita.' use, 
 seeking to make them liable aa trustees of the 
 money for the benefit of the general body of the 
 oo.'s creditors : — 
 
 Beld (afBrming the judgment of Collina J., 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 55) that, the judgment of the 
 German Court being a judgment in rem, the 
 money received by the defta. under it waa not 
 aubject to any trust in favour of the general body 
 of the co'a. creditors, and that the action -was not 
 maintainable. Minna Ceais Steamship Co. v. 
 Chaetered Mercantile Bank op India, London 
 AND China C. A. [1897] 1 Q, B. 460 
 
 — Petition and order. 
 
 See Oases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Petition. 
 
 Preference. 
 
 188. — Debenture action — Preferential Pay- 
 ments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act, 1897 
 (60 * 61 Vict. u. 19), s«. 2, 3. 
 
 In an action brought to enforce debentures 
 issued by Meaby & Co., a receiver and manager 
 of the property comprised in the debenturea waa 
 appointed on Aug. 6, 1897. A compulsory 
 winding-up order was afterwards made against 
 the CO. ; and subaequently the action was trana- 
 ferred to Wright J., and one Elliot took out a 
 summons in the action asking that he might be 
 admitted aa a preferential creditor of the co. in 
 priority to the debenture-holdera in reapect of a 
 sum alleged to be arrears of salary due to the 
 applicant from the co., and that the receiver 
 might be ordered forthwith, out of the assets 
 then in or coming to his hands, to pay the 
 amount to the applicant : — 
 
 Held, that the proper course was to apply for 
 an inquiry as to the preferential creditors, and 
 the matter would then be worked out in chambers. 
 The case must be referred to chambers. In future, 
 in judgments in debenture actions, where there 
 was a floating charge, a direction should be in- 
 serted for an inquiry as to preferential creditors, 
 and the matter would then be dealt with on 
 further oonsidei-ation. In re Meaby & Co. Clarke 
 V. Meabt & Co. Wright J. [1899] W. N. 68 
 
 189. — Debenture-holders' action — Practice — 
 Form of judgment — Inquiry as to preferential 
 payments — Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 62), ». 1— Preferential 
 Payments in Bankruptcy (^Amendm^nt) Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Viet. c. 19), s. 2. 
 
 The pits, in a debenture-holders' action 
 moved for judgment in the usual form, all parties 
 consenting. 
 
 In addition to the usual accounts and in- 
 quiries, an inquiry was directed to be inserted 
 whether there were any and what creditors entitled 
 to preferential payment under the Preferential 
 Payments in Bankruptcy Acts, 1888 and 1897, 
 and what if anyhting was due to such creditors 
 respectively. In re Bibmingham Breweries, Ld. 
 Ward v. Birmingham Breweries, Ld. 
 
 Stirling J. [1899] W. N. 92 
 
 190. — Debenture-holder's action — Practice note 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Preference)— contd. 
 — Preferential payments in bankruptcy — Under- 
 taking by plaintiff — Form of order — Receiver. 
 
 The undertaking given by the pit. in a de- 
 benture-holder's action on the appointment of a 
 receiver who is to act at once is to be so framed 
 as to extend to all liabilities which would be 
 covered by the security when completed, and not 
 only to the receiver's receipts. In re Debenture- 
 holders' Actions - Stirling J. [1900] W. N. 58 
 
 191. — Debentures — Floating charge — Prefer- 
 ential Payments in Bankruptcy {Amendment) Act, 
 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. e. 19), s. S— Receiver— Posses- 
 sion, 
 
 The debentures were secured by a floating 
 charge on the undertaking and assets of the co. 
 The CO. was not in liquidation, and no receiver 
 had been appointed by the Court, but a receiver 
 appointed by the debenture-holders, under a 
 power contained in the debentures, had taken 
 possession of the property charged by the deben- 
 tures :— 
 
 Held, that the possession of the receiver, if 
 not taken "by" was taken "on behalf of" the 
 debenture-holders, that the Act consequently 
 applied, and that an inquiry thereunder must be 
 directed in the form now in general use. In re 
 Barney's, Ld. Fallows v. Barney's, Ld. 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 103 
 — Fraudulent conveyance— Assignment to one 
 man company — ^Act of bankruptcy. 
 See Baukbuptcy. 
 
 193. — Directors' fees— Unpaid calls — Set-off. 
 
 Within three months before the liquidation of 
 the CO. the directors, by exchanging cheques with 
 the CO., paid calls owing by them out of the 
 directors' fees owing to them by the co. : — 
 
 Held, that, conaidering the then poaition of 
 the CO., this waa a fraudulent preference of them- 
 selves by the directors. The effect of set-ofl' in 
 bankruptcy and winding-up proceedings con- 
 trasted. In re Washington Diamond Mining 
 Co. C. A. revers. V. WiUiams J. [1893] 3 Ch. 95 
 
 Eeferred to by Wright J. In re Auriferous 
 Properties, Ld., [1898] 1 Ch. 697. 
 
 192a. — Fraudulent preference — Preference 
 for conscience's sake — Companies Act, 1862 (25 (fe 26 
 Vict. a. 89), s. AQi^-Bankruptey Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 52), s. 48. 
 
 The preferential payment of a creditor of a co. 
 within the three mouths prior to the point which, 
 in the case of a co. is, by s. 164 of the Companies 
 Act, 1862, equivalent to an act of bankruptcy by 
 an individual trader is an undue or fraudulent 
 preference if the payment is made, not merely to 
 discharge a legal obligation, but because the 
 directors think that it would be a hardship on 
 the creditor and against their conscience to leave 
 him to his right to prove in the winding-up. 
 In re W. Blackburn & Co. Buckley's Case 
 
 Wright J. [1899] 2 Ch. 725 
 
 193. — Preferential payments — Liability for 
 rates — Liquidator's possession — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. e. 89), ss. 138, 163. 
 
 The test to be applied to ascertain whether a 
 CO. in liquidation is liable to payment of rates in 
 full is whether there has been a " beneficial occu- 
 pation" of the premises within the meaning of 
 
469 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 470 ) 
 
 COMPANY— "WINDING-TIP (Preference)— con«d 
 the Eating Acts. Therefore, where a liquidator 
 places a caretaker in possession of leaseholds on 
 which are plant, intending to sell the premises 
 and plant, but not to sell the business as a going 
 concern, he must pay in full rates made after the 
 commencement of the winding-up. In re Blazer 
 Fire Lighter, Ld. 
 
 V. WUUams J. [1895] 1 Ch. 402 
 
 Proceedings against Delinquent Officers.. 
 
 By the " Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1893" 
 (56 & 57 Vicf. 0. 58), an order for payment of 
 money under 53 <fe 54 Vict. o. 63, «. 10, was de- 
 clared to he a final judgment within 46 (£47 Vict, 
 e. 52, g. 4, siib-s. (1) (gi). 
 
 194. —Auditors— Companies Act, 1879 (42 <fc 43 
 Viet. c. 76). 
 
 Auditors are officers of a co. within s. 10 of 
 the Act of 1890, and if guilty of malfeasance may 
 be made liable in proceedings under that section. 
 In re London and General Bank (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 166 
 
 Followed by 0. A. In re Kingston Cotton 
 Mills Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 6; [1896] 2 Oh. 279, 283. 
 
 196. — Auditors — " Officer of company " — 
 — Balance-sl/,eet — Companies .4ci, 1879 (42 & 43 
 Vict. c. 76); «. 7 — Companies {Winding-up} Act, 
 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. C 63), s. 10. 
 
 In the case of a banking co., where the audi- 
 tors are appelated under s. 7 of the Companies' 
 Act, 1879, and spoken of as officers of the co. in 
 the articles. Although it is not the duty of the 
 auditors of a company, appointed under the Act 
 of 1879, to consider whether its business is 
 prudently or imprudently conducted, it is their 
 duty to consider and report to the shareholders 
 whether the balance-sheet exhibits a correct view 
 of the state of the co.'s affairs, and its true 
 financial position at the audit. They must 
 ascertain tfiis by examining the books of the co., 
 and must take reasonable care that what they 
 certify as to the co.'s financial position is true. 
 And except in very special cases it is their duty 
 to place before the shareholders the necessary 
 information as to the true financial position of 
 the CO., and not merely to indicate the means of 
 acquiring it. 
 
 An auditor presented a confidential report to 
 the directors calling their attention to the in- 
 sufficiency of the securities on which the capital 
 of the CO. was invested, and the difficulty of 
 realizing them, but in his report to the share- 
 holders merely stated that the value of the assets 
 was dependent on realization, and in the result 
 the shareholders were deceived as to the condi- 
 tion of the CO., and a dividend was declared out 
 of capital and not out of iacome : — 
 
 Held, that the auditor had been guilty of mis- 
 feasance under s. 10 of the Act of 1890, and was 
 liable to make good the amount of the dividend 
 paid. In re London and General Bank (No. 3) 
 C. A. affirm. V. Williams J. [1895] 2 Ch. 673 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re National Bank of 
 Wales, Ld., [1899] 2 Ch. 629, 670. 
 
 196. — Auditor — " Officer " — Misfeasance — 
 Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 63), 8. 10. 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Proceedings against 
 Delinquent OSusdm)— continued. 
 An auditor may or may not be an " officer " 
 of a CO., and prima facie he is not ; but if he is 
 appointed to the office of auditor to the co., and 
 acts in that office, he will be an " officer " within 
 s. 10 of the Cfoiipanies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 ; 
 and in case the co. is wound up he will be liable 
 to a misfeasance summons under that section in 
 respect of dividends declared upon the faith of 
 his audit ; and no irregularity in his appointment 
 would avail him as a defence. But, seeing that 
 the word " auditor " does not occur in s. 10, the 
 performance of auditor's work upon a given 
 occasion by a person who has never been ap- 
 pointed to the office of auditor of the co. does not 
 make that person an "officer " of the co. so as to 
 render him liable under the section. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J. reversed. In re 
 Western Counties Steam Bakeries and Milling 
 Co. _ _ _ C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 617 
 
 197. — Auditors — Misfeasance of officers — , 
 Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 (fe 54 Vict. 
 V. 63), s. 10. 
 
 An auditor of a limited co. was appointed 
 under articles of association which, so far as they 
 related to the audit of accounts, were in sub- 
 stantially the same terms as the audit clauses of 
 Table A and as the articles of association in In re 
 London amd General Bank, [1895] 2 Ch. 166, 
 although it was not a joint stock banking co.: — 
 
 Seld, on the authority of that case, that he 
 was an officer of the co. within s. 10 of the Com- 
 panies (Winding-up) Act, 1890. 
 
 Per V. Williams J. : In every case where an 
 auditor of a co. is appointed under articles of 
 association which impose upon him the duty of 
 examining the balance-sheet and reporting to the 
 members whether, in his opinion, it is a full and 
 fair balance-sheet, containing the particulars 
 required by the articles, and properly drawn up 
 so as to exhibit a true and correct view of the 
 co.'s affairs, he is an officer of the co. within 
 s. 10 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 In re Kingston Cotton Mill Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. t 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re Western Counties 
 Bteam Bakeries and Milling Co., [1897] 1 Oh. 
 617, 622. 
 
 198. — Costs — Debentures — Companies {Wind- 
 ing-up) Act, 1890 (53 (fe 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 10. 
 
 Moneys recovered in a winding-up (a) in pro- 
 ceedings under s. 10 of the Companies (Winding- 
 up) Act, 1890, and {b) by calls on contributories, 
 belong to the holders of debentures charging all 
 the undertaking and property of the co., present 
 and future, including its uncalled capital for the 
 time being, and are not, where the total assets 
 are not sufficient to pay the debenture-holders in 
 full, subject to costs directed by the winding-up 
 order to be paid out of the assets of the co. 
 
 But, semble, that the costs incurred by the 
 liquidator in proceedings under s. 10 must be 
 paid out of the money recovered in those pro- 
 ceedings. In re ANGLO-AtrsTEiAN Printing and 
 Publishing Union. Brabodrne v. Anglq- 
 AtJSTRiAN Printing and Publishing Union 
 
 V. Williams J. [1895] 2 Ch. 891 
 
( 471 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891^1900, 
 
 ( 472 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Prooeedings against 
 
 Delinquent OMceis)— continued. 
 — Costs — Delinquent directors — Provision in 
 scheme for costs of proceeding against. 
 See Company — Winding-up. 217. 
 
 199' — Directors — Presents to directors — Com- 
 panies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 ^§3 & 54 Vict. 
 c. 63), s. 10. 
 
 Directors cannot pay themselves for their 
 services or make presents to themselves out of 
 the co.'s assets unless authorized to do so by the 
 iastvument regulating the co. or by the share- 
 holders at a properly convened meeting. The 
 assets of an incorporated co., tliough a private 
 CO., are not the property of the shareholders for 
 the time being, and if the directors misapply 
 those assets by applying them to purposes for 
 which they cannot be lawfully applied by the co. 
 itself, the co. upon being properly set in motion 
 can make them liable. In re George Newman 
 & Co. C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 674 
 
 Eefcrred to by C. A. Seligman v. Prince & 
 Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 617, 626. 
 
 200. — Duties as to stocMaking — Auditors — 
 Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 u. 63), s. 10. 
 
 Held (affirming the judgment of V. Wil- 
 liams J.), that where an officer of a co. has com- 
 mitted a breach of his duty to the co., the dii-ect 
 consequence of which has been a misapplication 
 of its assets, for which he could be made respon- 
 sible in an action, such breach of duty is a "mis- 
 feasance " for which he may be summarily pro- 
 ceeded ; against under the Companies (Winding- 
 up) Act, 1890, s. 10, and it is not necessary that 
 an action should be brought. 
 
 For some years before a co. was wound up, 
 balance-sheets signed by the auditors were pub- 
 lished by the directors to the shareholders in 
 which the value of the co.'s stock-in-trade at the 
 end of each year was grossly overstated. The 
 auditors relied on certificates, wilfully false, 
 given by J., one of the directors who was also 
 manager, as to the value of the stock-in-trade. 
 Dividends were paid for some years on the footing 
 that the balance-sheets were correct ; but if the 
 stock-in-trade had been stated at its true value 
 it would have appeared that there were no profits 
 out of which a dividend could be declared. If 
 the auditors had compared the different books 
 and added to the stock-in-trade at the beginning 
 of the year the amounts purchased during the 
 year, and deducted the amounts sold, they would 
 have seen that the statement of the stock-in-trade 
 at the end of the year was so large as to call for 
 explanation ; but they did not do so : — 
 
 Seld, that, it being no part of the duty of 
 the auditors to take stock, they were justified in 
 relying on the certificates of the manager, a 
 person of acknowledged competence and high 
 reputation, and were not bound to check )iis 
 certificates in the absence of anything to raise 
 suspicion, and that they were not liable for the 
 dividends wrongfully paid. 
 
 An auditor is not bound to be suspicious 
 where there are no circumstances to arouse sus- 
 picion ; ije ig only bound to exercise a reasonable 
 amount of care and skill 
 
 Decision of V. Williams J., [1895] W. N. 100 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Proceedings against 
 
 Delinquent Officers) — continued. 
 (3); [1896] 1 Ch. 331, reversed. In re King- 
 ston Cotton Mill Co. (No. 2) 
 
 C, A. [1896] 2 Ch. 279 
 
 201. — Bale of claim for misfeasance — Deben- 
 ture action — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (c. 63), 6. 10. 
 
 In an action to realize debentures granted by 
 a CO., which was afterwards ordered to be wound 
 up, a summons was taken out by the official 
 receiver and liquidator asking for the leave of 
 the Court to take misfeasance proceedings against 
 the directors and auditors of the co., and that the 
 costs might be provided by the receiver in the 
 action. A majority of the debenture-holders was 
 opposed to misfeasance proceedings being taken 
 at the expense of the assets covered by the de- 
 bentures, and also to abandoning the claims of 
 the debenture-holders to any sums recovered in 
 the proceedings. A suggestion was, however, 
 made by a debenture-holder tliat if there were 
 people who believed they could make » good 
 thing out of a misfeasance summons they would 
 he prepared, for the right to step into the deben- 
 ture-holders' shoes, to pay a substantial .sum, but 
 that the right should not be given up without 
 anything in return : — 
 
 Held, that an order must be made directing 
 the receiver to sell by auction the claim against 
 the directors and auditors. Wood v. Woodhouse 
 AND Eawson United 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] W. N. 4 (4) 
 — Acts ultra vires, but not fiaudulent. 
 See Company — Directors. 113. 
 
 Proof, 
 
 202. — Amending proof — " Inadvertence " — 
 Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict 
 c. 63), 5. 6, sub-s. 2 ; Sched. X, r. 8. 
 
 A creditor, the holder of a direct security, 
 believing it to be collateral security, did not 
 value it, and proved for the full amount of his 
 debt. Before the liquidator was appointed he 
 found out las mistake, and sought to amend his 
 proof by placing a value on his security and re- 
 taining the benefit thereof and reducing the 
 amount of his proof : — 
 
 Held, this was an " inadvertence " within 
 the Winding-up Act, 1890, Sched. I., i. 8, and 
 the Court could allow the amendment on terms 
 as to costs. In re Henry Lister & Co. Ex parte 
 
 HUDDBRSPIELD BANKING CO. 
 
 North J, [1892] 2 Ch. 417 
 
 203. — Bill of exctiange — Ex-penses — Bill of 
 Exchange Act, 1SS2 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 51, 
 sub-ss. 2, 5 ; s. 57, sub-s. 1 (c) ; ss. 65-68, s. 97. 
 
 Drawers of unpaid bills of exchange are 
 entitled to prove for expenses of protest for non- 
 payment of bills, but not for expenses of protest 
 for better security or for commissions paid to 
 their own bankers. In re English Bank of the 
 River Plate. Ex parte Bank oe Brazil 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 438 
 
 204. — Costs — Rules in Bankruptcy — Share- 
 holder — Rectification of register — Wiriding-up — 
 Debts and liabilities incurred before — Costs in- 
 curred after — Contingent liability — Provable debt 
 
( 473 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 474 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINBING-TTP (Proof)— continMei. 
 — Unliquidated damages — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict, c 89), ss. 35, 158— Judicature Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), «. \Q— Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Via. o. 52), s. 37. 
 
 A BhaTeholder in a limited co. having ap- 
 plied, before its winding-up, for reotiflcation of 
 the register under s. 35 of the Companies Act, 
 1862, and repayment of the sum paid for his 
 shares, obtained, after the winding-up, an order 
 for rectification and repayment, and was admitted 
 by the official receiver, who was also the liqui- 
 dator, to prove for the sum ordered to be repaid, 
 but not for the costs of the application : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A. (affirming the decision of 
 Wright J. on appeal from the official receiver), 
 that the application not being a claim for 
 unliquidated damages, and the register having 
 been rectified, the sum sought to be repaid was 
 clearly a provable debt, and accordingly that, 
 under s. 37 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, made 
 applicable to companies in liquidation by s. 10 of 
 the Judicature Act, 1875, the costs should be 
 added to the provable debt. 
 
 The rules as to proof in bankruptcy for costs 
 of proceedings taken against the bankrupt before 
 or after the bankruptcy, stated. In re Bbitish 
 Gold Fields of West Apbioa 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 73; [1899] 2 Ch. 7 
 — Death of shareholder — Insolvent estate — 
 Proof debts. 
 See Bankecptct — Proof. 164. 
 
 205. — Directors' fees — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Viet. c. 89), s. 38, svb-s. 7. 
 
 In the voluntary winding-up of the oo. the 
 directors (all of whom had acted and were duly 
 qualified) claimed to prove for their remunera- 
 tion. The assets were insufficient to pay them 
 and the other creditors in full, and the liquidators 
 applied under s. 138 of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 to have it determined whether the directors were 
 entitled to prove for the remuneration claimed in 
 competition with the other creditors, having 
 regard to s. 38 of the Act : — 
 
 Seld, that if the case were one of a gratuity 
 given to the directors which depended merely 
 on their being members of the co., Ex parte 
 Cannon, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 629, would be followed. 
 But this case does not depend on membership, 
 but, as in another case, on whether they con- 
 tinued in office on the terms of the articles as to 
 remuneration. They were continued in office 
 by the co. according to a contract made with 
 reference to the articles, and their remuneration 
 does not depend on membership. They are, 
 therefore, entitled to prove in competition with 
 the other creditors. In re Al Bisodit Co. 
 
 Wright J. [1899] W. S. 116 
 
 206. — Fully paid sliares taken in payment of 
 debt — Failure of consideration — Creditor— Pay- 
 ment or satisfaction of debt. 
 
 A creditor of a co. for a -sum partly secured 
 by debentures of the co. and partly unsecured 
 surrendered the debentures to the co. upon the 
 terms of the co. giving him new debentures for 
 a smaller amount and fully paid-up shares for 
 the balance (secured and unsecured) of the debt, 
 and he had the shares registered in the name of 
 a trustee. In the winding-up of the oo, some of 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Proof)-c(m<m«6(i. 
 the shares were held to be unpaid. The trustee 
 having been settled on the list of oontributories iii 
 respect of the unpaid shares, took an assignment 
 of the debt, and claimed to prove for the amount 
 due on the shares : — 
 
 Held, that to the extent of the unpaid shares 
 there had been no payment or satisfaction of the 
 debt, and that the trustee was not precluded by 
 being a member of the oo. from taking an assign- 
 ment of the debt and proving for the unpaid 
 balance. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J., [1898] W. N. 52 (1), 
 reversed. In re Eailwat Time Tables Publish- 
 INS Oo. Fx parte Welton 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 108 ; affirmed suh nom. 
 Welton v. Saffert, [1897] A, C. 299 
 
 207. — Landlord and tenant — Bankruptcy — 
 Proof by lessor — Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 77), s. 10. 
 
 Amount of present and future liability under 
 
 a lease for which the landlord is entitled to prove 
 
 in the winding-up of the tenant co. discussed in 
 
 In re New Oriental Bank Corporation (No. 2) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] 1 Ch. 753 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re Panther 
 Lead Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 978. See next Case. 
 
 208. — Landlord and tenant — Proof by lessor 
 — Creditor — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), s. 158— Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 77), 8. 10. 
 
 Since the decision of the House of Lords in 
 Hardy v. Fothergill, (1888) 13 App. Cas. 351, the 
 old cases as to proofs in the winding-up of insol- 
 vent COS., in respect of their liabilities under 
 leases, require reconsideration; and it is the 
 duty of the Court to as.sist a lessor in proving in 
 respect of an insolvent co.'s obligation as lessee, 
 where he desires to prove at once for his loss on 
 the footing of the lease being treated as deter- 
 mined. 
 
 Semhle, that proof may at once be made in 
 respect of all liabilities — present or future, certain 
 or contingent — of the company as lessee. 
 
 In re New Oriental Bank Corporation (No. 2), 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 753, distinguished. In re Panther 
 Lead Co. - - Eomer J. [1896] 1 Ch. 978 
 
 209. — Landlord and tenant— Sent — Eent due 
 in advance — Apportionment — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. 0. 89), ss. 85, 87, 138, 163. 
 
 S. & Co. let a shop to a co. at a rent payable 
 quarterly, " two quarters' rent to be always due 
 and payable in advance if required." On Deo. 20 
 the CO. went into voluntary liquidation, but the 
 liquidator continued to occupy the shop. On 
 Dec. 28 S. & Co. demanded the' rent due Dec. 25 
 and two quarters in advance, and on refusal of 
 payment S. & Co. distrained :— 
 
 Held, that the rent for the Deo. quarter must 
 be apportioned, and that S. & Co. could only 
 prove for the rent accruing up to Dec. 20, but 
 that they were entitled to be paid in full for the 
 rest of the Dec. quarter and for so much of the 
 next two quarters as the liquidator should continue 
 in beneficial occupation, rent during such occu- 
 pation being paid by him as expenses in the 
 winding-up; but for the remainder of those' two 
 
( 475 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 476 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Vtoof)— continued. 
 quarters they could only prove in the liquidation. 
 Shaokell & Co. V. Ohoblton & Sons 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 378 
 
 210. — Secured creditor — Bealization of assets 
 —Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), s. 10 
 —Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 s. 9, suh-ss. 2, 168; Sehed. II., r. 9 —Bankruptcy 
 Bules, 1886, rr. 2, 73, 75. 
 
 A secured creditor of a co. in liquidation who 
 has exhausted his security without satisfying his 
 debts, is not entitled to apply the proceeds of the 
 security in payment, first, of interest subsequent 
 to the winding-up, and then in reduction of prin- 
 cipal. He can only prove for the balance due to 
 him for principal and interest at the date of the 
 winding-up after deducting the amount received 
 on realizing the eeourity. He is entitled to set 
 off profit realized since the winding-up against 
 interest accrued during the same period. In re 
 London, Wendsor, and Greenwich Hotels Co. 
 Qcaetermaine's Claim. 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 1 Ch. 639 
 
 211. — Set-off — Costs — Companies (Winding- 
 up) BuUs,'iS90, rr. 110, 111, 112, llS— Companies 
 Iwinding-up') Bules, 1892, r. 3. 
 
 A liquidator may examine into a debt owed 
 to the CO. by a person claiming to prove in order 
 to arrive at the amount of, if any, proof to be 
 admitted. In this case the liquidator was directed 
 to admit the proof with liberty to apply to have 
 it expunged if so advised. Costs of appeal from 
 rejection of proof, but not of the proof, granted 
 to applicants out of the assets. In re National 
 Wholemeal Bread and Biscuit Co. Ex parte 
 Baines (No. 2) V. Williams J. [1892] 2 Ch. 457 
 
 212. — Work done partly he/ore icinding-up — 
 Accountant — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), Sched. I., clauses 1 and 11 — 
 Companies (Winding-up) Bules, 1890, rr. 110 and 
 111. 
 
 A claim by accountants for work done partly 
 before and partly after the commencement of 
 winding-up considered. In re Canadian Pacific 
 Colonization Corporation, Ld. 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W, N. 122 
 
 Beconstruction, 
 See Cases under Compant- 
 tion. 
 
 Bnles and Orders. 
 
 -Eeconstruo- 
 
 213, — Application of Act — Companies (Wind- 
 ing-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 68), s. 4, 
 euh-ss. 1, 2, 5 ; s. 31, sub-s. 3 ; 6. 32, sub-s, 3 — Com- 
 panies (Winding-up) Bules, 1890, rr. 32, 67. 
 
 The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, ap- 
 plies to a CO. whicfli has not a registered office in 
 England, but has carried on business there. In 
 re Mercantile Bank of Australia 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 204 
 
 214. — Application of Order of March 26, 1892 
 — Business of the Courts. 
 
 (a) Statement by Chitty J. that the order 
 would come into effect as from May 14, 1892, in 
 every case, unless the judge should think fit to 
 retain any particular case under rule 1 of the 
 Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1892 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 77 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-ITP (Bules and Orders) 
 
 — continued. 
 
 (b) The effect of the order explained by 
 Chitty J. The order does not relate to petitions 
 for the reduction of capital, or to petitions for 
 altering memorandums of association. In re 
 Islington and General Elbctbiq Supply 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 81 
 
 Considered by V. Williams J. In re Mining 
 Shares Investment Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 660. 
 
 Scheme of Arrangement. 
 
 216. — Compromise stibject to sanction of Court 
 — Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 
 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 104). 
 
 In a voluntary winding-up a scheme of ar- 
 rangement under the Joint Stock Companies 
 Arrangement Act, 1870, was agreed to by the 
 debenture-holders, unsecured creditors, and con- 
 tributories, and contained the following clause : 
 " A proper trust deed to give effect to the provi- 
 sions of this scheme relating to the existing 
 debentures shall be prepared and executed, and 
 such trust deed shall contain provisions for 
 calling meetings of the holders of the existing 
 debentures and confeixing power upon a majority 
 in number representing three-fourths in value of 
 such holders, present, either in person or proxy, 
 at any meeting, to make binding upon all the 
 holders of the existing debentures any compro- 
 mise or arrangement which the Court would, 
 under the Joint Stock Companies Arrangement 
 Act, 1870, have power to sanction if the company 
 were in liquidation and the same had been agreed 
 to as therein mentioned " : — 
 
 Held, that this clause was a delegation to a 
 majority of the debenture-holders of the powers 
 of the Court under the Act ; and that the scheme 
 would only be sanctioned on the clause being 
 modified by making the compromise or arrange- 
 ment therein referred to subject to the sanction 
 of the Court. In re Land Mortgage Bane of 
 Florida - T. WUUams J, [1896] W. K. 48 (5) 
 
 216. — Costs — Provision for Taxation — Joint 
 Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Viet. c. 104). 
 
 The Court will not sanction a scheme of 
 arrangement under the Act of 1870 which pro- 
 vides for the payment of costs, or the remunera- 
 tion of persons whose assistance is required to 
 carry out the scheme, unless express provision is 
 also made for bringing in the costs and remune- 
 ration for taxation or allowance by the Court. 
 In re Mortgage Insurance Corporation 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1896] W. N. 4 (8) 
 
 217. — Delinquent directors — Provision in 
 scheme for costs of proceeding against. 
 
 In future any scheme under the Joint Stock 
 Companies Arrangement Act, 1870, must provide 
 that the new co. should undertake to obey the 
 order of the Court as to any proceedings (including 
 the application of part of the assets of the old co. 
 to the costs thereof) which the Court might think 
 right to have taken against officers of the old co. 
 V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 166 
 
 218. — " Discount " — Prepayment of calls. 
 
 In an ordinary commercial document the word 
 
( 477 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 478 ) 
 
 COMPANY— WnroiNG-TrP (Scheme of Arrange- 
 ment) — continued. 
 "discoimt" meana rebate of interest, and not 
 " true " or mathematical discount : — 
 
 So held, by the C. A., in the case of a scheme 
 for arrangement -with tie creditors of a co. in 
 course of liquidation by which an option was 
 given to shareholders to prepay calls " under dis- 
 count at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum." 
 
 The decision of V. Williams J. reversed. In 
 re Land SEonBiTiss Co. Ex parte Fabquhae 
 
 C. A, [1896] 2 Ch. 320 
 
 219. — Dittentient creditors — Sanction of Court 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89) s. 91 
 . — Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 
 (33 & 34 Vict. a. 104), s. 2— Stamps Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. e. 39), s. 15, sub-s. 3 ; «. 80. 
 
 Where there is nothing unreasonable or unfair 
 in the scheme as between different classes of 
 creditors, the Court will defer to the expressed 
 opinion of the majority of the creditors. In re 
 English, Scottish, and Australian Charteebd 
 Bank - - C, A. affirm. V. Williams J. 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 385 
 
 Se&In re Canning Jarrah Tiniher Co. (Western 
 Australia), Id., C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 708. 
 
 220, — Dissentient debenture-holders — Sanction 
 of Court — Joint Stock Companies Arrangement 
 Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 104), s. 2. 
 
 The power given by the Joint Stock Com- 
 panies Arrangement Act, 1870, s. 2, to sanction 
 a scheme of arrangement between a co. in liqui- 
 dation and its creditors extends to debenture- 
 holders and other secured creditors, and enables 
 the Court to sanction a scheme, although it 
 deprives debenture-holders of theb security wholly 
 or in part. Considerations for the Court before 
 sanctioning such a scheme. In re Alabama, 
 New Obleans, Texas and Pacieio Jitnction 
 Eailway Co. - - C. A. affirm. North J. 
 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 213 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re English, Scottish and 
 Australian Chartered Bank, [1893] 3 Ch. 385. 
 
 221. — Effect on guarantee for debt of company 
 — Preserving liability of old shareholders — Joint 
 Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Vict. e. 104), s. 2. 
 
 X. deposited a sum with a bank and insured 
 his deposit with an insurance corporation. Sub- 
 sequently the bank was wound up. A scheme 
 was framed containing no provision that sureties 
 should not be released. It provided for the for- 
 mation of a new co. to take over the business 
 and most of the liabilities of the old co. The 
 remaining liability of 201. on the shares was to be 
 called up immediately, but every shareholder in 
 the old CO. was entitled to apply for shares in 
 the new co. equal in number to his old shares 
 and credited with 151. paid np, and was to be 
 indemnified by the new bo. against any calls on 
 the old shares : — 
 
 Held, that (i.) it was unnecessary and would 
 not be right to introduce a reservation of rights 
 against sureties, when a scheme was sanctioned 
 by, or under the supervision of, the Court ; (ii.) 
 it was unnecessary to insert in the order sanction- 
 ing the scheme words expressly staying actions 
 or discharging contributories from further lia- 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-UP (Scheme of Arrange- 
 ment) — continued. 
 bility ; (iii.) the Court would insist on the inser- 
 tion of provisions preserving the liability of 
 shareholders in the old co. in the memorandum 
 and articles of the new co. In re London 
 Chaetebed Bank of Australia 
 
 V. Williams J, [1893] 3 Ch. 540 
 
 222. — Proxies — Agent named inpaper — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), «. SI— Joint 
 Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Viot. c. 104), s. 2— Stamps Act, 1891 (54 * 55 Vi<it. 
 c. 39), s. 15, sub-s. 3 ; s. 80. 
 
 Proxy papers in which the agent is named 
 are not irregular. In re English, Scottish, and 
 
 AUSTBALIAN CHARTERED BaNK 
 
 C. A. affirm. V. Williams J. [1893] 3 Ch. 385 
 
 223. — Proxies — Creditors abroad — Joint Stock 
 Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. 
 0. 104), s. 2. 
 
 Where there is only one liquidation, every 
 creditor, wherever residing, is entitled to be heard 
 thereat, but semble, that where there are several 
 liquidations in different countries, only the 
 creditors in each country may be entitled to a 
 hearing in such country. In re Queensland 
 National Bank 
 
 V, Williams J. [1893] W. N. 128 
 
 224. — Proxies-^Creditors abroad — Stamp — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 8. 91— 
 Joint Slock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870 
 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 104), s. 2— Stamps Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 15, sub-s. 3; «. 80. 
 
 The Court is not bound to follow the general 
 practice of producing proxies at meetings, when 
 the result of so doing would be to defeat the 
 scheme, and may act on a foreign teliegram as 
 evidence of proxy voting abroad. 
 
 Proxies in which the day of meeting is not 
 named are good if stamped with a 10s. stamp 
 within thirty days of being received in England 
 under s. 15, sub-s. 3, of the Stamps Act, 1891. 
 In re English, Scottish, and Australian Char- 
 tered Bank 
 
 C. A. affirm. V. Williams J. [1893] 3 Ch, 385 
 
 226. — Proxy — Form of— Joint Stock Com- 
 panies Act, 1870 (e. 104). 
 
 Proxy papers to be used at meetings to con- 
 sider schemes of arrangement under the Act of 
 1870 should follow the ofaoe-form settled by 
 the judge, which empowers the proxy " to vote 
 for me, and in my name [blank] the said scheme, 
 either with or without modification as my proxy 
 may approve," and contains opposite the blank 
 a marginal note as follows : "If for, insert ' for.' 
 If against, insert ' against,' and strike out the 
 words after ' scheme ' and initial such alterations." 
 Practice Dibeotion 
 
 V, WilUams J. [1896] W. N. 56 (2) 
 — Eeconstruction of company. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Secoustruc- 
 tion. 
 
 226. — Transfer to new company — Contingent 
 liability — Joint Stock Compamies Arrangement Act 
 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 104), s. 2. 
 
 A. transferred the lease of mines to the B 
 Co., which agreed to indemnify A. thereunder.' 
 The B. Co. went into liquidation, and a scheme 
 
( 479 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 480 ) 
 
 COMPAHT— WHTDING-TTP (Scheme of Arrange- 
 ment) — continued. 
 was duly approyed under wMch the C. Co. was 
 to take over the assets and liabilities of the B. 
 Co., and to pay the unsecared creditors. A. took 
 out a summons in the winding-up, to have a sum 
 deposited to meet his contingent liability for 
 rents, &c. : — 
 
 Sdd, by C. A., affirming Wright J., that A, 
 was bound by the scheme. 
 
 Serribk, by Wright J., that A. could compel 
 the C. Co. to indemnify him as from time to time 
 he might be called on to pay anything under the 
 leases; but the C. Co. not being a party, A.'s 
 rights against it could not be declared. 
 
 Qtuere, per C. A., whether A. would have been 
 entitled, apart from the scheme, to have the 
 assets of tlie B. Co. impounded to meet his con- 
 tingent liability under the leases. In re MiDLAifD 
 Coal, Coke akd Ibon Co. Ceaig's Claim 
 
 C. A. affirm. Wright J. [1895] 1 Ch, 267 
 
 As to the last point, see re New Oriental Sank 
 Corporation (No. 2.), V. WiUiams J., [1895] X Ch. 
 753, 755. 
 
 ■ Costs. 
 
 Set-off. 
 
 See Company — WnroixG-rr • 
 211. 
 
 ■ Proof. 
 
 227. — Creditor-conlribulory — Insolvent com- 
 pany holding shares — Set-off of debt against calls 
 —Bankrup&y Ad, 1883(46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 38 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 
 16, 38, 101— Judicature Act, 1875 CSS & 39 Vict, 
 c. 77), s. 10. 
 
 The 6. Co., Ld., held shares in the A. Co., 
 Ld., and before either co. went into liquidation 
 calls were made on the shares, and the A. Co. 
 became indebted to the G. Co. for money lent. 
 
 The A. Co. was ordered to be wound up by 
 the Court, and the G. Co., being insolTent, passed 
 an extraordinary resolution for voluntary winding- 
 up:— 
 
 Bdd, that 6. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, 
 did not enable the liquidator of the G. Co. to set 
 off the debt against the calls. In re AcBirEBors 
 Pbopekties - Wright J. [1898] 1 Ch. 691 
 
 See next Case. 
 
 228. — Creditor-contributory — Insolvent com- 
 pany holding shares — Set-off of debt against calls 
 -Bankruptcy Act, 1.S83 (46 <t 47 Vict. c.:yl),s. 38 
 —Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 ss. 16, 38, Wl— Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 77), 8. 10. 
 
 The G. Co. Ld., held shares in the A. Co., 
 Ld., and before either co. went into liquidation 
 calls were made on the shares, and the A. Co. 
 became indebted to the G. Co. for money lent. 
 
 The A. Co. having been ordered to be wound 
 up by the Court, and the G. Co., which was in- 
 solvent, having passed an extraordinary resolution 
 for voluntary winding-up, Wright J. held that 
 s. 10 of the Judicature Act, 1*7.5, did not enable 
 the liquidator of the G. Co. to set off the debt 
 against the callg : [1898] 1 Ch. 691 :— 
 
 Held, Bubsequently, that in the winding-up 
 of the A. Co. the G. Co. could not take any 
 dividend on the debt until it had paid up all 
 
 COMPA»T— WINDUfG-TTP (6et-o«y— continued. 
 calls in the winding-up of the A. Co. In re 
 AuEiFEBors Pbopebties, Ld. (No. 2) 
 
 Wright J. [1898] 2 Ch. 428 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re Goy & Co., [1 900] 
 2 Ch. 149, 154. 
 
 Bee preceding Case. 
 
 — Debentures — Liquidated demand — Hypothe- 
 cation. 
 See CoMPAKx — Debentures. 92. 
 
 229. — Mutual dealings — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 52), s. dS-Judieature Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), s. 10. 
 
 The characteristic of mutuality is still as 
 necessary under the mntnal credit clause of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, as under the mutual credit 
 clauses of prior Bankrnptey Acts, in order that a 
 set-off may be claimed. Where moneys of a co. 
 are paid to a person for certain specified purposes, 
 and after those purposes are satisfied a balance 
 remains with the payee, he cannot, if a winding- 
 up takes place, set off a debt owing to him by 
 the CO. unless he can shew that the balance was 
 retained by him with the consent of the co. In re 
 Mid-Kest Fbot Factobt 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] 1 Ch. 667 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re DaiiUrey, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 546, .562. 
 
 230. — Sent — Option to purchase assets — Dam- 
 ages for breach of contract — Mutual credits. 
 
 The K. Co. held coal mines, &c., under a lease, 
 which provided that at the determination of the 
 term the lessors should have an option to pur- 
 chase certain plant, &c., at a valuation. In 
 Feb., 1891, the co. went into voluntary liquida- 
 tion which was continued under supervision. In 
 Dec, 1892, the letsors obtained an order allowing 
 them to distrain for rent accrued tince the liqui- 
 dation, and to re-enter. They distrained and re- 
 entered, but an order was made by consent that 
 the distress should be withdrawn and a valuation 
 should be made of such plant as the lessors were 
 entitled to buy, any question as to set-off to be 
 determined by the Court. The lessors claimed to 
 set off damages for breaches of covenant as to 
 working the coal : — 
 
 HM, that the lessors had no right to the 
 plant at the date of winding-np ; their right arose 
 when they exercised iheir option; so that the 
 rules as to mutual dealings and set-off did not 
 apply. That the landlord's right to preference 
 only included what could be distrained for, and 
 not damages for breach of covenant; therefore 
 the lessors could only Ett off rent accrued since 
 the liquidation. In re Kidsgbove Steel asd 
 Iron Co. - - Chitty 3. [1894] W. H. 25 
 
 — L'npaid calls against debentures and directors' 
 fees. 
 See Company — Calls. 10. 
 
 Statement of A&irs. 
 
 231. — Befutal by director or officer to submit 
 statement — Jurisdiction of Court — Companies 
 (Windingup} Act, 1890 (53 <fe 54 Vict. c. 63), 
 «. 7. 
 
 Where an order has been made in a county 
 court for the winding-up of a co., and a director 
 
( 481 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 482 ) 
 
 COMFAKT — WINDING -TIP . (Statement of 
 
 Affairs) — continued. 
 or other officer of the Co., having been required 
 by the ofSoial receiver to submit to him a state- 
 ment of the affairs of the oo., under s. 7 of the 
 Companies (Winding-nj)) Act, 1890, has refused 
 to do so, the Court has jurisdiction to order such 
 director or other officer to submit such statement, 
 notwithstanding that s. 7, sub-s. 5, provides that 
 " if any person, without reasonable excuse, makes 
 default in complying with the requirements of 
 this section, he shall be liable to a fine." In re 
 New Pab Consols, Ld. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 673 
 
 See aUo Pbohibition. 1. 
 
 Staying Froceedingg. 
 
 232. — Execution — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 <fe 26 Vict. c. 89), «. 85— Judicature Act, 1873 
 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 24, tvb-e. 5— Companies 
 {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 63). 
 
 Notwithstanding the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890, SB. 2, 32, and the Lord Chancellor's 
 Order of Nov. 29, application to stay proceedings 
 must be made to the Court in which the action 
 is pending, and not to the Court having jurisdic- 
 tion over the winding-up. In re General See- 
 viOB Co-OPEBATivB STORES - C. A. affirm. 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] 1 Ch. 498 
 
 233. — Execution — Company domieiled in Scot- 
 land—Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. e. 89), 
 e. 122. 
 
 The Court refused to stay execution pending 
 an appeal against a co. domiciled in Scotland, on 
 the ground that an order of the C. A. would be 
 enforceable in Scotland under s. 122 of the Com- 
 panies Act, 1862. In re Queensland Meeoantile 
 AND Agency Co. Ex ■parte Union Bank of 
 Atjstbalia (No. 2) - North J. [1891] W. N. 132 
 
 234. — Practice— CompoMies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 
 Vict. e. 89), 8. 89. 
 
 After a winding-up order had been made 
 against a oo. on a creditor's petition, practically 
 all the creditors were paid off or settled with, 
 and the co. moved for an order rescinding the 
 winding-up order : — 
 
 Held, that the proper order to be made was 
 to stay all proceedings in the winding-up, and 
 that the order would only be made on the notice 
 of motion being amended so as to ask for a stay 
 of proceedings, and by the joinder of a creditor or 
 contributory as applicant, and on the terms of 
 liberty being given for any dissentient creditor 
 or the official receiver to apply within three 
 months to remove the stay. In re Baxi'ebs, Ld. 
 Wright X [1898] W. N. 60 (3) 
 
 236. — Scottish action — Invalidity — Bdation 
 laclc— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 88. 87, 151. 
 
 Proceedings were allowed to be continued in 
 u Scottish action founded on arrestments made 
 previous to the liquidation on certain bills of 
 exchange drawn by the co., although there was 
 evidence that the arrestments had been obtained 
 by means of a mis-statement and were in fact 
 invalid, the Court holding that it was bound to 
 treat the ?,rreetmentB as vfilid until they were 
 
 COMPANY— WINDIKG-irp (Staying Proceed- 
 ings) — continued. 
 recalled by the Scottish Courts. Kelation back 
 of title considered. In re West Cumberland 
 Ibon and Steel Co. - - V. Williams J. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 713 
 
 Supervision Order, 
 
 — Costs — Supervision order. 
 
 See Company — Winding-iip — Costs, 72 
 —74. 
 
 — Power of Court to order examination of wit- 
 
 nesses. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Examination of Witnesses. 
 
 236. — Supervision order — Monthly report to 
 Cov/rt— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 «. 147. 
 
 An order continuing voluntary winding-up of 
 a CO. under supervision of the Court was made 
 containing a direction that liquidator should once 
 a month report in writing to tho registrar as to 
 the progress of the liquidation and the realization 
 of the assets. In re Peitohaeb, Offob & Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 163 
 
 237. — Voluntary liquidator — Board of Trade 
 — Companies {Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Viet. c. 63), 8. 15. 
 
 The Bd. of Trade can enforce the provisions of 
 s. 15 of the Act of 1890 against liquidators, not 
 only in a winding-up by order of the Court, but 
 also in a voluntary winding-up whether under 
 supervision or not. In re Stock and Shabe 
 Auction and Banking Co. In re Spieal Wood 
 Cutting Co. In re Hull Land and Pbopeety 
 Investment Co. V. Williams J. [1894] 1 Ch, 736 
 
 Unregistered Company. 
 
 238. 239. — " More than seven members " — Bes 
 judicata — Companies Act, 1862 (25 (fc 26 
 
 Vict. c. 89), 8. 199. 
 
 An unregistered co. cannot be wound up under 
 s. 199 of the Companies Act, 1862, unless there 
 are more than seven existing members at the 
 time of the winding-up petition. The represen- 
 tatives of deceased members, trustees of bankrupt 
 members or past members are not members in 
 this sense. A winding-up order is not a judg- 
 ment in rem, and if made improperly is not 
 binding on strangers. In re Bowling and 
 Welby's Conteact - C, A. affirm. Stirling J. 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 663 
 See also Company — Unregistered Com- 
 pany. 
 
 Voluntary Winding-up. 
 
 240. — Compulsory order — Prejudice to 
 creditors— Wishes of creditors— Compulsory order 
 
 Discretion of Court— Companies Act, 1862 
 
 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 91, 145, 149. 
 
 The voluntary winding-up of a co. is no bar 
 to a Compulsory order if the general body of the 
 creditors desire it, although no individual creditor 
 proves in accordance with s. 145 of the Com- 
 panies Act, ] 862, that his rights will be prejudiced 
 by a voluntary vrinding-up. 
 
 In such a case the right of the general body 
 of the creditors to have effect given to their 
 
 R 
 
( 483 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 484 ) 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Voluntary Wind- 
 ing-up) — continued, 
 wishes under as. 91 and 149 is untouched by 
 s. 145, although the primS, facie right of an indi- 
 vidual creditor to a compulsory order, ex debito 
 justitisB, is restricted by that section. 
 
 In re West Hartlepool Ironworks Co., (1875) 
 L. R. 10 Oh. 618, In re Gold Co., (1879) 11 Oh. D. 
 701, and In re The Varieties, Ld., [1893] 2 Oh. 
 235, followed. 
 
 In re New Yorh Excliange, Ld., (1888) 39 
 Oh. U. 415, and In re Russell, Cordner & Co., 
 [1891] 3 Oh. 171, distinguished. In re E. Bishop 
 & SoMS, Ld. - Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 110 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 254 
 
 241. — Compulsory order — Mights of majority 
 —Cmnpanies Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 79, 
 sub-s. 5 ; ss. 91, 129. 
 
 The Oourt will order a compulsory winding-up 
 notwithstanding a resolution for voluntary liqui- 
 dation passed by a majority of the shareholders if 
 the Oourt is satisfied that the substratum of the 
 CO. is gone, and that the resolution was not pro- 
 perly obtained, e.g., by the preponderating influ- 
 ence of one shareholder, and that there are 
 matters requiring investigation. In re The 
 Vaeieties, Ld. V. Williams J. [1893] 2 Ch. 236 
 
 Referred to by Parwell J. In re E. Bishop & 
 Sons, Ld., [1900] 2 Oh. 254, 259. 
 
 242. — Compulsory order. Eight of creditor to — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 145 
 — Companies (^Winding-up) Mules, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. c. 63), ss. 8, 9. 
 
 Notwithstanding the powers conferred upon 
 the Oourt by the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 
 1890, a creditor is not entitled to an order for the 
 compulsory winding-up of a oo, which lias resolved 
 to wind up voluntarily, unless he can shew, as 
 provided by s. 145 of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 that his rights will be prejudiced by the voluntary 
 winding-up. In re Eussell, Cokdnee & Co. 
 
 North J. [1891] 3 Ch. 171 
 
 Referred to by Farwell J. In re E. Bishop & 
 Sons, Ld., [1900] 2 Ch. 254, 259. 
 
 See No. 240, above. 
 
 S43. — Compulsory order — Shareholder's peti- 
 tion for — yjfecf of voluntary iiu'ndimj-ujj. 
 
 A petirioii tor a coiupulsory winding-up order 
 wa^ presented by n. fully paid shareholder who 
 Was supported by a considcralile number of the 
 other shareholders. Resolutions for voluntary 
 winding-up had been passed with a view to a 
 reconstruction, which had, however, proved 
 abortive at the time of the hearing of the peti- 
 tion. There were also matters which appeared 
 to require investigation : — 
 
 Held, that a compulsory winding-up order 
 must be made, and that, in arriving at that con- 
 clusion, the fact that the voluntary winding-up 
 was not an ordinary one, but was resolved upon 
 with the view to a specific object which had 
 tailed, was a reason for strongly influencing the 
 Court. In re Gutta Pekoha Corporation 
 
 Cozeus-Hardy J. [1900] W. H. 164 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch, 666 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Voluntary Wind- 
 ing-up) — continued. 
 
 244. — Compulsory or supervision order- 
 Second petition — Companies (^Winding-up') Aet, 
 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 8. 
 
 Although s. 8 of the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890, enlarges the jurisdiction of the Court 
 as to compulsory orders, yet a shareholder who 
 differs from the majority must still allege and 
 prove grounds for supposing that he will derive 
 substantial benefit from tlie compulsory order 
 before the Court wiU grant it, on his petition, 
 against the wishes of the majority. A shareholder 
 who presents a petition after notice of another 
 petition must prove proper independent grounds, 
 or he will bo oast in costs. In re Doke Gallery, 
 Ld. - North J. [1891] W. N. 98 
 
 245. — Contributory — • Application for 
 declaration of liability — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 133, sub-s. 8 ; s. 138. 
 
 If a liquidator believes that a shareholder is 
 liable to be put on the list of contributories (e.g., 
 in respect of qualifying shares), the proper course 
 is to put the shareholder on the list as a contribu- 
 tory, leaving him to his remedies under s. 133, 
 sub-s. 8, of the Act of 1862 ; the liquidator should 
 not apply under s. 138 for a declaration of liability 
 and an order to direct payment of the amount 
 found due. In re Cokstwall Bkiok, Tile, and 
 Terra Cotta Co. V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 9 
 
 246. — Debt incurred after commencement of 
 winding-up — Companies Act, 1862 (25 .& 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), s. 147. 
 
 (a) There is no jurisdiction to make a super- 
 vision order on the petition of creditors whose 
 debt has been incurred after the commencement 
 of the winding-up, although the agreement under 
 which the debt has arisen and the voluntary 
 liquidation form part of one scheme. In re Bank 
 OF South Australia (No. 1) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] 3 Ch. 722 
 But see next Case. 
 
 (b) a debt due from a co. under an agree- 
 ment between it and its voluntary liquidators and 
 another person is sufiicient to support a petition 
 by that person for tlie winding up of the co. by the 
 Court. In re Bank of South Ai-stralia (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [18a8] 1 Ch. 678 
 
 247. — Injunction against — Companies Aet, 
 ISQi (25 & 2B Vict. o. 89), s. 129. 
 
 The pit. clamied that the co. hiid, by an 
 agreement with him, contracted itself out of its 
 statutory right to wind up voluntarily, and 
 applied for an injunction. Application refused, 
 on the ground that no case had been made out 
 which would justify the Court in restraining the 
 00. from exercising their statutory power under 
 s. 129 of the Companies Act, 1862. Ellis v. 
 Dadson and F. a. Ellis & Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 43 
 
 248. — Execution — Stay of proceedings — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 133, 
 138, 163. 
 
 Where the goods of a oo. have been taken in 
 execution after the passing of the resolution for 
 voluntary winding-up, the Oourt has jurisdiction 
 
( 485 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 486 D 
 
 COMPANY — WINDING-UP (Voluntary Wind- 
 
 mg-np) — contimied. 
 to stay further prooeedinga on the execution. 
 Westbubt v. Twigo & Oo. Geegson, Claimant 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 77 
 
 249. — Fowersof directors — Calls — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. <,-. 89), ». 133, sm6-8. 5 ; 
 s. 139. 
 
 A general meeting of a co. in voluntary 
 liquidation held under s. 139 of the Act of 1862 
 has power to elect directors, and to sanction the 
 exercise by them of the power of enforcing calls, 
 and selling, transferring,- and forfeiting shares 
 contained in the articles of association. In re 
 Faiebaibn Bngineerins Co. Ladd's Case 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 450 
 
 250. — Beconstraction — Voluntary winding- 
 up — Option of shareholders to take shares in new 
 company ^Application hy shareholder — Failure 
 of liquidator to procure allotment — Liability in 
 damages — Jurisdiction — Companies Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 98, 133, 138, 151, 161— 
 Companies ( Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 5i Vict, 
 e. 63), ss. 10, 13 — Companies Winding-up Rules, 
 1890, rr. 89, 90. 
 
 A scheme for the reconstruction of a co., 
 which was in voluntary liquidation under the 
 supervision of the Court, provided that the 
 undertaking should be sold to a new co., and 
 that the shareholders should have the option of 
 taking shares in the new co. in proportion to 
 their holding in the old. In accordance with 
 the terms of a circular issued by the liquidator, 
 B., a shareholder in the old oo., signed an appli- 
 cation for shares in the new co. and sent it, with 
 a cheque for the required deposit, to the bankers 
 of the CO., who sent him a receipt therefor. The 
 bank subsequently sent to the liquidator, at his 
 request, a list of persons who had applied for 
 shares, but did not include therein the name of 
 B. The liquidator afterwards sold the whole of 
 the shares unapplied for, together with those 
 which should have been allotted to B. He had 
 no assets undistributed in his hands except the 
 proceeds of sale of the shares unapplied for, and 
 he had no shares which he could allot to B. 
 Upon a summons by B. in the winding-up : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had no jurisdiction to 
 declare the liquidator liable in damages. In re 
 Hill's Waterfall Estate and Gold Mining 
 Co. - Stirling J. [1896] 1 Ch. 947 
 
 251. — Scottish sequestration — Rent — Leave to 
 proceed-^Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 89), ss. 87, 163. 
 
 The Court set aside a Scottish sequestration 
 (in the nature of distress for rent) as coming 
 within s. 163 of the Companies Act, 1862, but 
 gave leave to proceed with the sequestration 
 under s. 78 on terms. 
 
 Scottish landlord's right of hypothec con- 
 sidered. In re Wanzeb, Ld, 
 
 North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 305 
 
 252. — Supervision order — Costs — Priority — 
 Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 110, 
 Hi. 
 
 The rule whereby the costs of the petitioning 
 creditor have priority applies as much to a wind- 
 ing-up under supervision under s. 144 of the Com- 
 panies Act, 1862, as to a compulsory one under 
 
 COMPANY— WINDING-TrP (Voluntary Wind- 
 ing-up) — continued, 
 a. 110, but does not extend to costs of the liqui- 
 dator incurred previonsly to the supervision order. 
 In re New Yokk Exchange Co. 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] 1 Ch. 371 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Sanitary Burial 
 Association, [1900] 2 Ch. 289, 296. 
 
 " COMPANY INCORPORATED BY STATUTE "— 
 
 A CO. incorporated by charter under a special 
 Act of Parliament is " a oo. incorporated by Act 
 of Parliament " within those words in an invest- 
 ment clause, for the co. owes its creation to the 
 joint effect of the charter and the Act. Blve v 
 BoTTON - - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 601 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Ire re Smith. 
 Davidson v. Myrtle, [1896] 2 Ch. 590. 
 
 " COMPARATIVE COST AND CONVENIENCE," 
 
 See Peaotioe — Service. 219. 
 
 COMPENSATION— Agricultural holdings. 
 
 See Landlokd and Tenant — Agri- 
 cultural Holdings. 
 
 — Civil servant — Abolition of office. 
 
 See New South Wales. 3. 
 
 — Costs — Security for — Appeal under Workmen's 
 
 Compensation Act, 1897. 
 See Costs. 61. 
 
 — Damage past and future — Laws of Victoria. 
 
 See Victoria. 4. 
 
 — "Full compensation'' — Costs of legal pro- 
 
 ceedings—Extra costs — Public Health 
 
 — Arbitration. 
 
 See Costs — Taxation. 76. 
 
 — Jamaica Act — Accommodation works — Statu- 
 
 tory officer. 
 
 See Jamaica. 2. 
 
 — Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts — Compensa- 
 tion. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of— Directors' Liability 
 
 Act. 
 
 See Cases under Limitations, Statute 
 OP — Company. 
 
 — Lord of the manor — Allotment for turbary — ■ 
 
 Legal estate in land. 
 See Inolosuee. 4. 
 
 — Market gardeners — " Contract of tenancy." 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 6. 
 
 — Minerals — Notice of intention to work — ^Arbi- 
 
 tration — Duty of company to take up 
 
 award. 
 
 See Railway — Minerals. 11. 
 
 — Minerals and mines. 
 
 See Cases under Mines. 
 
 — Misdescription — Clause excluding compensa- 
 
 tion — Specific performance — Possessory 
 title. 
 
 See Vbndok and Puechasee — Conditions 
 of Sale. 6. 
 
 — Misleading particulars— Statement by auc- 
 
 tioneer— Speci6c performance. 
 See Vendor and Puechaseb — Conditions 
 of Sale. 11. 
 
 E 2 
 
( 487 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 488 ) 
 
 COMPENSATION— comMnaed. 
 
 — Open contract— Eestrictive covenants — Spe- 
 
 cific performance. 
 
 See Vendoe and Pukchasee. 70. 
 
 — Kailway Clauses Acts. 
 
 See Railway — Compensation. 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 COMPETITION— Prize competition— Prediction 
 of coming event — Births and deaths in 
 London during named week. 
 See LoTTERT. 3. 
 
 COMPLETION OF PURCHASE. 
 
 See Cases under Vendor and Pdrohabeh. 
 
 COMPOUND. 
 
 See Poison. 4. 
 
 COMPOUND INTEBEST— Breach of trust— Accu- 
 mulation clause — Wilful default — Eate 
 of interest. 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 19. 
 
 COMPOUND SETTLEMENT— Settled Laud Acts. 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 COMPEOMISE— ij. S. C, Nov., 1893 (iOrder XVI., 
 r. 9a), relates to approval of oompromisea. 
 
 — Costs — Lien — Infants. 
 
 See SoMOiTOR — Lien. 99. 
 
 — Infant — Adoption on full age of lease made by 
 
 trustees. 
 
 See Infant. 3. 
 
 — Judgment of — Receiving order. 
 
 See Bankhcptot — Beceiving Order. 
 201. 
 
 1. — Jurisdiction to approve compromise — 
 Ahsenl persons — Dissentient persons. — E. S. C, 
 Order xvr., r. 9a. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction under Order xvl, 
 r. 9a, to approve a compromise between the 
 parties to an action, and to make it binding on 
 absent persons who have not assented. But the 
 Court cannot bind those who have dissented ; and 
 if it sanctions the compromise will do so only on 
 the terms of making provision to satisfy the full 
 claims of the dissentients. Collinqham v. 
 Sloper. Foreign, American and General In- 
 vestments Trust Co. v. Sloper 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 716 
 
 — Material fact not disclosed — Silence. 
 
 See Specific Performance. 2. 
 
 2. — Mistake — Client and counsel — Statement 
 of counsel. 
 
 Where, acting upon general instructions given 
 by a clieot to compromise a litigation, counsel 
 consents to a compromise under a misapprehension, 
 such as where, intending to concede one thing, 
 he inadvertently concedes another, or where 
 counsel on both sides are not ad idem, neither the 
 counsel nor the client is bound by the compromise, 
 and the Court will set it aside. 
 
 Upon the question of the extent of the autho- 
 rity given by a client to his counsel to compromise 
 litigation to which the client is a party, the Court 
 will accept the statement of counsel if made from 
 
 COMPROMISE — continued. 
 
 his place at the bar, without requiring it to be 
 
 made on oath. Hickman v. Berens 
 
 C. A. [1895] 3 Ch. 638 
 Referred to by C. A. Wilding v. Sanderson, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. g34,'544. 
 
 — Power to bind dissenting minority. 
 
 See Company — ^Debentures. 66 — 68. 
 
 — Sale of business to one partner — " Assets " — 
 
 Goodwill — Canvassing old customers. 
 See Pabtneeship. 25. 
 
 — Solicitor — Compromise by party without know- 
 
 ledge of — Lien for costs. 
 See Solicitor — Lien. 100. 
 
 — Solicitor — Compromise of claim by — No im- 
 
 plied authority. 
 
 See SonciTOB — Authority. 2. 
 
 COMPULSION OF LAW— Money paid under. 
 See Mistake. 1. 
 
 COMPULSOIf! ABSENCE— Voters. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 17 — 25. 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 See Cases under Shippinq — Pilotage. 
 
 COMPULSORY POWERS— of School Board— Ee- 
 strictive covenant. 
 See Schools — School Board. 8. 
 
 ■ — Streets and buildings. 
 
 See London— Streets. 
 Streets. 
 
 — of Water company. 
 
 See Water — Supply. 
 
 COMPULSORY PURCHASE- of Lands. 
 See Land Clauses Acts, 
 Railway. 
 
 — Tramway. 
 
 See Tramway Company. 
 
 — Water company. 
 
 ySee Watee. 
 
 COMPULSORY WINDING-UP OF COMPANY. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up, passim. 
 
 CONCEALED FRAUD— Effect of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 13 — 16. 
 
 CONCEALMENT— By wife from intended hus- 
 band — Pregnancy — Nullity of marriage. 
 See Divorce— Nullity. 97. 
 
 — Identity of lender — Fraud — ^Eight of borrower 
 
 to repudiate. 
 
 See Contract — Illegality, 20. 
 
 — Material facts — Guarantee — uberrima fides. 
 
 See Insueance — Guarantee. 11. 
 
 CONCILIATION ACT, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 30), 
 
 makes better provision for the prevention and settle- 
 ment of trade disputes. 
 
 CONCURRENCE— Executors — Land transfer — 
 Title — Conveyance. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 79. 
 
 — of Husband to wife's deed. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 5, 31—36. 
 
 — Trustee in bankruptcy. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 45. 
 CONCURRENT WRIT— Irregularity. 
 See Practice — Service. 205. 
 
f 489 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 490 ) 
 
 CONDITION— ia Bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 15, 16. 
 
 — Compliance with, in fire insurance policy — 
 
 Non-suit. 
 
 See New South Wales. 26. 
 
 — Contract — Impossibility of performance — ^Im- 
 
 plied condition — Measure of damages. 
 See OoNTEAOT — Performance. 28. 
 
 — Contract for sale — Time during which condi- 
 
 tion may be performed — ^Absence of ex- 
 press stipulation. 
 See Vendor and Pubchaseb. 22. 
 
 — Discretion to attach, to grant of licence. 
 
 See Theatre. 1. 
 
 — Exempting from responsibility — Passenger's 
 
 luggage. 
 
 See Eailwat— Passengers. 26. 
 
 — Implied^Contract — Sale by description — 
 
 Acceptance. 
 
 See Sale of Goods. 3. 
 
 — Jurisdiction — Conditional deyise to lunatio — 
 
 Election — Performance of condition by 
 
 committee. 
 
 See Lunacy — Powers. 30. 
 
 — Not to commit breach of injunction — Condition 
 
 depending on one event — Liquidated 
 
 damages. 
 
 See Bond. 
 
 — Precedent — Charge for use of sidings — Arbi- 
 
 tration — Jurisdiction — Difference before 
 
 action brought. 
 
 See Railway — Sidings. 61. 
 
 — Precedent — Exchange contracts — Bepudia- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See CONTEAOT. 9. 
 
 — Precedent — Warranty or — Breach — Waiver. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 25. 
 
 — Precedent — Shipment to be made between 
 
 specified dates — Measure of damages. 
 iSee Sale of Goods. 5. 
 
 — Precedent — " Subject to approval of form of 
 
 agreement " — Mistake — Kescission — • 
 " Wilful default." 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Eescis- 
 sion. 71. 
 
 — Precedent — Waiver. 
 
 See Specific Performance. 12. 
 
 — Precedent to appeal — Question of law raised 
 
 at trial— Request to make a note. 
 See County Court. 12. 
 
 — Precedent as to reference to arbitration — 
 
 Staying actions. 
 
 See Arbitration — Costs. 38. 
 
 — Recital and — Guarantee — Bond — Construc- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See New South Wales. 23. 
 
 — Restrictive condition — Positive covenant — 
 
 Implied negative stipulation. 
 See Building Scheme. 1. 
 
 — Reverter — Common law condition — Shifting 
 
 use — Rule against perpetuities— Title. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 76. 
 
 — against particular User — Vendor and pur- 
 
 chaser — Fraud. 
 
 See Speciotc Performance. 5. 
 
 CONDITION— conMrsiJeii. 
 — inWUl. 
 
 See Will— Condition. 
 
 CONDITIONAL FEE SIMPLE— Reverter— Wills 
 Act — Devise. 
 See Will— Reverter. 178. 
 
 CONDITIONAL GEANT—Licence— Certiorari- 
 Mandamus. 
 See Licensing Acts. 54. 
 
 CONDITIONAL LIMITATION— Tenant for life— 
 " In possession." 
 See Settled Land. 93. 
 
 CONDITIONAL NOTICE— Meetings of company. 
 See Company — Meetings. 160. 
 
 CONDITIONAL PAYMENT— Debt — Effect of 
 giving cheque or bill of exchange. 
 See Trade. 2. 
 
 CONDITIONAL PROMISE— To consider a propo- 
 sal favourably — Construction of contract. 
 See Contract — Construotiou. 10. 
 
 CONDITIONAL WILL— Grant of probate. 
 See Probate. 85. 
 
 CONDITIONS — Breach of— Building agreement 
 — Option to purchase. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 81. 
 
 CONDITIONS OF SALE. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Conditions 
 of Sale. 
 CONDONATION. 
 
 See Divorce — Condonation, 
 
 CONDUCTMONEY— Practice— Examination. 
 
 See Evidence. 80. 
 Peobate. 86. 
 CONFESSION — Admissibility as evidence. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Evidence, 17. 
 
 CONFESSION OF DEFENCE. 
 
 See Practice — Pleading. 160. 
 
 CONFLICT OF LAWS — Bills of exchange — 
 Transfer — Indorsement abroad — 
 Equities. 
 See Bill of Exchange. 22, 
 
 1, — Contract — Locus solutionis — English or 
 Scotch contract. 
 
 In a, contract between persons living in dif- 
 ferent countries under different systems of law, 
 it is a question in each case by what law the 
 parties intended that their rights either under 
 the whole or any part of the contract was to be 
 interpreted. A contract between A,, a Scotch 
 distiller, and B., a merchant in London, was 
 made in E., but was to be performed in S. It 
 contained an arbitration clause for reference to 
 two members of the London Corn Exchange or 
 their umpire : — 
 
 Seld, that the law of E., and not that of S., 
 applied to tlie arbitration clause, and made it 
 obligatory. Hamlyn & Co. v. Taliskeb Distil- 
 LBET - H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. 202 
 
 Principles laid down applied by Kekewich J. 
 South African Breweries Co. Ld. v. King, [1899] 
 2 Oh. 173; C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 273. See next 
 Case. 
 
 See Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 13). 
 
( 491 ) 
 
 DiaEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 492 ) 
 
 CONFLICT OF LAV^B— continued. 
 
 2. — Contract — Locm tolutionis — hocus con- 
 tractus — Form of contract — Contract to he 
 performed in different countries. 
 
 By an agreement in writing, executed at 
 Johannesburg, in the South African Eepublio, 
 and made Ibetween a co. having its registered 
 office in London, but carrying on business in 
 South Africa, and a British subject resident at 
 Johannesburg, the latter agreed to serve the co. 
 as brewer or otherwise in its] business carried on 
 at Johannesburg and in the Colony of Natal and 
 elsewhere in South Africa, and provision was 
 made , for his residence in Johannesburg. The 
 agreement was framed in the English language 
 and was in English form : — 
 
 Held, that the rights of the parties under the 
 agreement ought to be governed by the law oif 
 the South African Eepublic. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1899] W. N. 98 ; 
 [1899] 2 Oh. 173, affirmed. South Afeioau 
 Bkeweries, Ld. v. King 
 
 C. A, [1900] W. N. 28 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 273 
 
 3. — Debentures — Priority — Arrestment. 
 
 A Queensland co. issued debentures charged 
 on uncalled capital, but did not, as was necessary 
 to give priority in Scottish law, communicate 
 the charge to the shareholders. Subsequently a 
 Scottish CO., in an action against the Queensland 
 CO., obtained an " arrestment " of all unpaid calls 
 due from Scottish shareholders : — 
 
 Held, that, with regard to the Scottish pro- 
 perty, the Scottish law prevailed, and that the 
 Scottish co.'s arrestment gave them priority over 
 the debenture-holders. 
 
 Decision of North J. [1891] 1 Cb. 536, 
 affirmed. In re Queensland Mercantile and 
 Agency Co. Ex parte Australasian Invest- 
 ment Co. Ex parte The Union Bank of 
 Australia C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 219 
 
 4. — Divorce — Foreign judgment— Procedure 
 — Irregularity — Recognition hy English Court. 
 
 A judgment or decree pronounced by the 
 Court of a foreign country will be treated and 
 acted upon here as final, notwithstanding any 
 irregularity of procedure under the local law, 
 provided the foreign Court had jurisdiction over 
 the subject-matter and over the persons brought 
 before it, and the proceedings do not offend 
 against English views of substantial justice. 
 
 Thus, where a decree for divorce had been pro- 
 nounced by the proper court in Florida in an 
 undefended action by the husband against the 
 wife on the ground of her violent and ungovern- 
 able temper, both the parties being domiciled 
 and resident in Florida, an alleged irregularity 
 in service of process was held not to be a ground 
 for questioning the validity of that decree in an 
 action brought by the wife in the English courts 
 to enforce a claim arising out of her alleged 
 second marriage to a British subject. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. Pember- 
 TON V. Hughes - C. A. [1899] W. N. 23 (6) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 781 
 
 See Hay v. Northcote, Farwell J. [1900] 2 Ch. 
 262. 
 
 — Divorce. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce — Jurisdiction. 
 
 CONFLICT OF L&.'WS— continued. 
 
 — Federal and provincial powers. 
 
 See Cases under Canada. 
 
 5. — Foreign power of attorney. 
 
 Question whether a power of attorney was to 
 be governed by foreign or English law : — 
 
 Held, that expert evidence must be given as 
 to whether the giver of the power intended it to 
 be acted on in England; and that if he so in- 
 tended, the extent of the authority, so far as 
 transactions in England were concerned, must 
 be determined by English law. Chatenat v. 
 Brazilian Submarine Telegraph Co., Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 79 
 
 6. — Infant — Marriage settlement — Female 
 infant — Ratification — Repudiation — Marriage 
 with foreigner — Cliange of domidl hy marriage — 
 Operation of English law. 
 
 Prior to the marriage in 1864 of an Irish lady 
 under twenty-one with an Austrian, marriage 
 articles in English form were executed by her 
 and her intended husband, by which it was 
 declared and agreed by and between the parties 
 thereto that, in case the marriage should take 
 place, the then personal property and certain 
 after-acquired personal property of the lady 
 should be vested in trustees upon the usual trusts 
 of an English marriage settlement. After the 
 marriage the husband retained his Austrian 
 domicil. In 1880 a settlement in English form, 
 which purported to be made in pursuance of the 
 articles, was executed by the husband and wife 
 in Paris. The wife afterwards executed appoint- 
 ments of new trustees of the settlement, and 
 in 1889 she exercised in favour of one of her 
 daughters a power of appointment reserved to 
 her by the settlement. In 1893 the husband and 
 wife executed in Austria, in accordance with 
 Austrian law, a notarial act, by which they pur- 
 ported to revoke and annul the marriage articles 
 and the settlement of 1880, and to vest in the 
 wife the unrestricted administration of all her 
 property. In 1896 the husband and wife and 
 their four children (all of whom had attained 
 twenty-one) brought an action against the trustees 
 in the Ch. Div., claiming a declaration that, by 
 virtue of the notarial act of 1893, the marriage 
 articles and the settlement were wholly cancelled 
 and annulled and were void by Austrian law. 
 
 By Austrian law a husband and wife have a 
 right to revoke their marriage contract, notwith- 
 standing the birth of issue and acts of ratifica- 
 tion, and this right of revocation cannot be 
 waived, and is not lost by lapse of time : — 
 
 Held, that, inasmuch as upon her marriage 
 the wife acquired the Austrian domicil of her 
 husband and became subject to Austrian law, 
 she never could ratify the settlement or deprive 
 herself of the right to repudiate it, the result 
 being that she never had the power, either before 
 or after her marriage, of making an irrevocable 
 contract. 
 
 Consequently the English doctrine, that the 
 voidable contract of an infant will bind him if 
 he does not repudiate it within a reasonable time 
 after he attains twenty-one, had no application : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that the wife was not bound 
 by the marriage articles or by the settlement, 
 
( 493 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 494 ) 
 
 CONrilCT OF LAVrS—contimied. 
 
 and that the revocation by the notarial act of 
 
 1893 was effectual. 
 
 Decision of Cozens-Hardy J., [1899] 2 Ch. 569, 
 reversed. Viditz v. O'Haoan 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 103; [1900] 2 Ch. 87 
 
 — Jurisdiction of American Courts to dissolve 
 
 marriage of an Englishman domiciled 
 
 in this country. 
 
 See Divorce— -Jurisdiction. 87. 
 
 — Lunatic, Foreign — Foreign Court — Declara- 
 
 tion of lunacy — Money in English bank 
 — Payment to tutenr of estate. , 
 See LxjiTACV — Practice. 37. 
 
 7. — Lumatic, Foreign — Wnglish property — 
 Movdbles — Fersonal estate — Private inte/rnational 
 law — Curator — Ad/minittrateur proviadre — MigM 
 to sue in England — Order of foreign Court — Juris- 
 diction — Detinue — Trover — Practice — Lunatic 
 not so found, action hy — Next friend — Maintenance 
 — Scheme — Creditors — Priority — Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Tict. c. 5), ss. 117, 13i— Form of judg- 
 ment — Stoalc — Vesting order. 
 
 An action brought in a proper case in Ihe 
 name of a lunatic not so found by hia next friend, 
 for the recovery of his property may, in the 
 absence of any lunacy proceedings, be main- 
 tained ■without the sanction of the Court in 
 Lunacy. 
 
 The Court in Lunacy, having property of a 
 lunatic under its control, will, as between the 
 lunatic and his creditors, see that proper pro- 
 vision is made out of the property for his main- 
 tenance, as the first and paramount consideration ; 
 but, subject to that, the Court will not withhold 
 a creditor from exercising his legal rights. 
 
 A foreign curator or administrateur provisoire 
 of a lunatic, not so found judicially, domiciled 
 and resident abroad, is not necessarily an im- 
 proper person to sue in this country as next friend 
 for the recovery of the lunatic's personal property 
 here, though, if such next friend is resident 
 abroad, he may be required to give security for 
 costs. 
 
 The Court in Lunacy has no jurisdiction 
 under s. 134 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, to order 
 the transfer of securities in this country standing 
 in the name of or vested in a person of unsound 
 mind, not so found, residing out of the jurisdic- 
 tion of the High • Court, unless his status has 
 been altered by his being judicially declared 
 lunatic according to the law of the place where 
 he is residing. 
 
 G., domiciled and resident in Belgium, de- 
 posited with an English bank for safe custody, in 
 his name, certificates and scrip for securities of 
 great value. On his death in 1892 his widow, 
 then also domiciled and resident in Belgium, 
 took out administration in England to his estate, 
 and had the securities then standing to his ac- 
 count, and also a sum of cash representing 
 dividends thereon collected by the bank on his 
 account, transferred to a new account opened by 
 her at the bank in her own name. 
 
 In 1897 she became lunatic, though she was 
 not BO declared judicially, and was placed in a 
 foreign lunatic asylum. D., a Belgian, was 
 appointed by the Belgian Court her " administra- 
 teur provisoire," with power to collect and get in 
 
 CONrLICT OF LAVrS— continued. 
 her personal estate, and subsequently D. obtained 
 in England letters of administration de bonis non 
 to G.'s estate, whereupon he brought an action in 
 England against the bank in the names of him- 
 self and of Madame G. (the writ not stating that 
 she was of unsound mind or that he was suing as 
 her next friend) claiming, in his double capacity 
 of legal personal representative of G. and of 
 administrateur provisoire of Madame G., to have 
 the certificates, scrip and cash standing in her 
 name delivered up to him. North J., upon the 
 action coming on before him for trial, took the 
 preliminary objection that it was improperly con- 
 stituted in that Madame G., being of unsound 
 mind, could not sue without a next friend, where- 
 upon D. was appointed next friend, and the title 
 of the action was amended accordingly. The 
 trial having then proceeded on that footing. 
 North J. held that the defts., the bank, could not 
 safely deliver the properly to the pit. D. without 
 the authority of an order of the Court in Lunacy ; 
 and also that as the action was not one for the 
 protection of the lunatic's person or property, but 
 in the nature of detinue, it was not a form of 
 action in which the lunatic could sue by her 
 next friend. The pit. D. appealed, having first 
 obtained from the Belgian Court an order giving 
 him leave to appeal with a view to recovering 
 the property : — 
 
 Meld, by C. A.,(l.) that as D. and Madame G. 
 had together a clear legal title to the property 
 sought to be recovered, D. was entitled, suing in 
 hia own name and as next friend of Madame G., 
 to demand the delivery of her property to him 
 and could give the bank a good discharge ; and 
 (2.) that, in the absence of lunacy proceedings in 
 this country, the Court was bound, on general 
 principles of private international law, to recog- 
 nise the order of the Belgian Court giving D. 
 leave to prosecute the appeal and to obtain and 
 give a good discharge for the property. 
 
 Scott V. Bentley, (1855) 1 K. & J. 281, con- 
 sidered and approved; In re Barlow's Will, 
 (1887) 36 Ch. D. 287, discussed. 
 
 Form of judgment, including vesting order as 
 to stock in Madame G.'s name. 
 
 Decision of North J. [1899] W. N. 107, re- 
 versed. DiDisHEiM V. London and Westminstek 
 Bank - - - C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 15 
 
 Distinguished by Cozens-Hardy J. New York 
 Security and Trust Co. v. Keyser, [1901] W. N. 14 
 
 8, — Marriage — Domioil, Matrimonial — 
 Community of goods — International law — Movable 
 goods-^Frencli law. 
 
 A Frenchman and Frenchwoman married in 
 France without any contract, so that according 
 to French law their rights inter se as to property 
 were subject to the law of community of goods. 
 They came to England and were permanently 
 domiciled there. The husband became a 
 naturalized British subject, amassed a large 
 fortune and died in England, leaving his wife 
 surviving and having made an English will by 
 which he disposed of all his property : — 
 
 Held, that as to movable goods the rights of 
 the wife under the French marriage law as to 
 community of goods were not affected by change 
 of domicil, and that the widow was entitled to 
 
( 495 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891'-1900. 
 
 ( 486 ) 
 
 CONFLICT OF IJ^.WS— continued. 
 the share of her husband's personal estate to 
 which she would have been entitled if they had 
 remained domiciled in France. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1898] W. N. 52 (4); 
 [1898] 2 Oh. 60, reversed and the decision of 
 Kekewioh J., [1898] W. N. 12 (3); [1898] 
 1 Ch. 403, restored. 
 
 Lashley v. Hog, (1804) 4 Paton, 581,. dis- 
 tinguished. De Nicols v. Cdrliek 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1899] W. N. 256 ; [1900] A. C. 21 
 
 See also next Case. 
 
 9. — Marriage — Bomidl— Change of domicil 
 
 — Immovable goods — French law^-Lex rei site— 
 
 Community of goods — Statute of Frauds, 1676 
 
 (29 Gar. 2, c. 3), ss. 4, 7. 
 
 A Frenchman and Frenchwoman married in 
 France without any express marriage contract, so 
 that according to the French law their rights as 
 to property were subject to the law of community 
 of goods. Subsequently they came to England 
 and acquired an English domicil, and the 
 husband amassed a large fortune, part of which 
 he invested in real and leasehold property here. 
 He died iu the lifetime of the wife, having 
 purported to dispose of all his property by an 
 English will. It having been held that as to 
 movables the wife was entitled notwithstanding 
 the change of domicil to a one-half share under 
 the law of community of goods, the question arose 
 whether she was entitled on the same footing to 
 a share of the real and leasehold property : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that there being here a special 
 marriage contract defined by reference to the 
 French Code, it had the same binding effect aa 
 an express contract, and was enforceable against 
 the real and leasehold property in this country, 
 subject to the question whether the Statute of 
 Frauds required the contract to be in writing, as 
 creating an interest in land; (2.) on the autho- 
 rity of Forster v. HaU, (1800) 5 Yea. 308 ; 4 E. K. 
 128, and Dale v. Hamilton, (1846) 5 Hare, 869, that 
 the Statute of Frauds did not apply, inasmuch as 
 this was in substance a contract for a partnership, 
 and the property required for the purposes of the 
 partnership was by operation of law held for 
 those purposes : 
 
 Held, therefore, that the real and leasehold 
 property was subject to the community of goods. 
 In re De Niools. De Niools v. CtrRLiEB 
 Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 146 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 410 
 
 10. — Marriage — Nullity of — Consular mar- 
 riage in France — Frenchman and Englishwoman 
 ■ — Validity of ceremony — Consular Marriage Act, 
 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 68)— Foreign Marriage Act, 
 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 23). 
 
 A marriage between a Frenchman and an 
 Englishwoman duly solemnized in France under 
 the Oonsular Marriage Act, 1849 (repealed and 
 virtually re-enacted by the Foreign Marriage 
 Act, 1892), is valid as regards form in England, 
 though declared invalid as regards form by a 
 French Oourt. 
 
 Simonin v. Mallac, (1860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 67, 
 followed. Hat v. Noethoote 
 Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 134 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 262 
 
 11. — Mortmain — Oift of money by colonial 
 mil to be invested in land in England. 
 
 The validity of a gift by a Colonial will made 
 
 CONFLICT OP LAWS— continued. 
 by a person domiciled in the Colony of money to 
 be invested in land in England depends on the 
 colonial law and not on the English Mortmain 
 Acta. Cantebbtiet Coepobation v. Wtbubn 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 89 
 
 12. — Movable fund in Scotland — Parties 
 domiciled in England. 
 
 A question between domiciled English parties 
 as to the title to a movable fund situated in 
 Scotland ia generally a question of English law. 
 North Western Bank v. Potntee (John), Son 
 AND Macdonalds H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 66 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (So.) Inglis v. Robertson, 
 [1898] A. C. 616, 626. 
 
 13. — Partnership — Administration of estate 
 of deceased partner — Foreign law — Lex fori. 
 
 Creditors of a firm carrying on business in 
 Spain brought an action in England, on behalf of 
 the firm's creditors, against the executors of a 
 member of the firm (who had died in England 
 leaving property there) claiming that his estate, 
 after payment of his funeral and testamentary 
 expenses and separate debts, was liable for the 
 firm's debts, and asking for administration on 
 that footing. The defence was that the rights of 
 the parties were governed by the law of Spain, 
 under which the firm's creditors were not entitled 
 to proceed against the separate estate of a de- 
 ceased partner until after they had exhausted 
 the property of the firm : — 
 
 Held, following Bullock v. Caird (L. B. 10 
 Q. B. 276), that the matter stated in the defence 
 was mere procedure, and that the defence was 
 bad. In re Doetsoh. Matheson v. Ltjbwig 
 
 Bomer J. [1896] 2 Ch. 836 
 
 — Penal law — Enforcing in foreign state — In- 
 
 terpretation of law — ^Distinction between 
 public and private penalties. 
 See Inteenational Law. 7. 
 
 — Pledge — Documents of title — Foreign arrest- 
 
 ment— Goods in Scotland. 
 See Factob. 3. 
 
 — Power of appointment — Execution — Domiciled 
 
 foreigner — Unattested will — Validity. 
 See Power. 17. 
 
 14. — Bight to question validity of decree — 
 Scotch action — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 89), ss. 87, 151, 
 
 Prior to the liquidation of a'co. an action was 
 brought in Scotland founded on arrestments made 
 on bills of exchange. There was evidence that 
 the arrestments had been obtained by mis-state- 
 ments and were in fact invalid : — 
 
 Held, that the Court was bound to treat them 
 as valid until recalled by the Scotch Courts. 
 In re West Oumbeeland Iron and Steel Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 713 
 
 15. — Superstitious uses — Bequest to persons 
 resident abroad — Testator resident in England. 
 
 A domiciled Englishman gave a legacy to a 
 Jesuit College in Victoria to be spent in masses 
 for the souls of himself and wife. The gift was 
 valid by the law of Victoria : — 
 
 Held, that English law applied and the gift 
 
 was void. In re Eluott. Elliott v. Elliott 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 9 
 
 16. — Will in French form — Movable property 
 
( 497 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, ISOl-^lDOO- 
 
 ( 408 ) 
 
 CONFLICT OF LAWS— continued. 
 in England — Bomicil — French subjects — English 
 marriage^Husband and wife — Change of domieil 
 — Intention — Bevooation of ante-nuptial will — 
 Matrimonial law — Testamentary law — Private 
 international law— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), 
 «. 18. 
 
 An unmarried Frenotwoman resident in Eng- 
 land executed a holograph will in French and 
 valid according to French law. Subsequently 
 she Bet up a business ia England and married 
 there, according to English law, but without any 
 settlement, a French refugee who had come over 
 to escape a sentence of imprisonment passed on 
 him by the French Court. After the marriage 
 the business was continued, by the husband and 
 wife jointly, the husband taking in his own name 
 leases of the business premises. About two years 
 after the expiration of the period of prescription 
 under the French law, the husband sold his in- 
 terest in the business to his wife, assigned the 
 leases to her, and returned to France and took 
 up his permanent abode there. The wife re- 
 mained in England and continued carrying on 
 the business until her death : — 
 
 Held, by Eigby and V. Williams L.JJ. 
 (Lindley M.R. dissenting) that the domieil of the 
 husband, and consequently of the wife, at the 
 time of the marriage was English, and, therefore, 
 that the question of validity of the ante-nuptial 
 will was governed by English and not by French 
 law, so that the will was revoked by the marriage. 
 
 Decision of Jeune J. reversed. 
 
 Per Lindley M.E.: Sect. 18 of the Wills Act, 
 1837, does not apply to the wills of foreigners 
 domiciled abroad. 
 
 Per V. Williams L.J. : The rule of English 
 law which makes a woman's will null and void 
 on her marriage is part of the matrimonial law, 
 and not of the testamentary law. 
 
 Change of domieil by evidence of intention, 
 as affecting the status of husband and wife 
 discussed. In re Mabtin. Loustalan v. Lous- 
 TAiAN C. A. [1900] W. K. 103; [1900] P. 211 
 
 17. — WUl — Unattested will — Domiciled 
 foreignei — Immovables — Leaseholds — Adminis- 
 , tration with will annexed — Lex rei sites — Lex 
 domicilii— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 9. 
 
 The beneficial interest in leasehold property 
 in England will not pass under the will of a 
 domiciled foreigner executed according to the 
 law of his domieil, but not attested as required 
 by the Wills Act, notwithstanding that letters of 
 administration with the will annexed have been 
 granted by the Probate Div. Pepin v. BeuyJire 
 Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 164; [1900] 2 Ch. 504 
 
 CONFLICT OF STATUTES— Annuity. 
 
 See Statute. 4. 
 CONJUGAL EIGHTS — Restitution of — Substi- 
 tuted service of written demand for 
 
 cohabitation. 
 
 See DivOBCE. 117. 
 CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION— Vaccination. 
 
 See VACOiNATiOif. 1. 
 CONSECBATION OF CHUKCHTABDS— Ground 
 
 " adjoining " to an existing churchyard 
 
 — Intervening highway. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 20. 
 
 CONSENT— Affiliation of colleges. 
 See University. 1. 
 
 — Board of Agriculture. 
 
 See BoAED op Aoeicultcee. 1 
 
 — Charity Commissioners. 
 
 See Charity — Commissioners. 6 — 9. 
 
 — Condition on marriage — ^Power of appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Marriage. 
 
 — Dismissal of bankruptcy petition by consent- 
 
 Practice. 
 
 See Bankedptoy — Practice. 150. 
 
 — Leaseholds — Assignment — Default of vendor 
 
 in obtaining lessor's consent — Loss of 
 
 bargain — Damages. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdbchasbe. 26. 
 
 — Lessor's — Unreasonable refusal — Unwilling 
 
 purchaser — Covenant against assign- 
 ment. 
 See Vendor and Pdrchaser. 95. 
 
 — ■ Next of kin — Proof on motipn — Lost will — 
 Practice — Small estate. 
 See Peobate— Lost Will. 132. 
 
 — Eedemption — Mortgagee owner of limited 
 
 estate. 
 
 See Mortgage — Eedemption. 71. 
 
 — Riparian owner — Stream — Interruption — 
 
 Local authority — "Injuriously affect- 
 ing." 
 See Water. 43. 
 
 — Secretary of State — Purchase of addition to 
 
 burial ground. 
 See Bubial. 5. 
 
 — Tenant for life — Investment clause — ^Personal 
 
 security — Loan to tenant for life. 
 See Trustee — Investments. 67. 
 
 — of Tramway company — Eight to lay wires — 
 
 Power to open street. 
 See Telephone. 4. 
 
 CONSENT JUDGMENT — Effect of contract by 
 company ultra vires— Terms on which 
 contract will be set aside. 
 See Canada. 17. 
 
 — Judgment with intent to delay creditors. 
 
 See Canada. 27. 
 
 CONSENT OEDEE — Agreed costs — Waiver of 
 taxation — Payment out of Court. 
 See Costs — Taxation. 81. 
 
 — Dismissing action with costs — " Judgment 
 
 obtained " by defendants — Public autho- 
 rities protection. 
 See Costs. 45. 
 
 — Setting aside — Mistake. 
 
 See Pkaotice— Setting Aside. 237—239. 
 
 CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE — Underwriter's 
 liability for — Cost of disposing of cargo 
 rendered worthless by sea peril. 
 See Insdeanoe — Marine. 44. 
 
 CONSEEVATOES— of Thames. 
 
 See Cases under Thames. 
 
 CONSIDEEATION— Action on— Bill coming into 
 hands of plaintiff after action brought. 
 See Bill of Exchange. 3. 
 
( 499 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 500 ) 
 
 COSSIDERA.TIOV— continued. 
 
 — Assignment of leaseholds — Stamp duty— 
 
 Eent. 
 
 See Eevende — Stamps, 160. 
 
 — Bills of sale — Statement of consideration. 
 
 See Bill of Sale— Consideration. 17, 
 18, 20, 21. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Illegal — Cheque — Bet on horse-race. 
 
 See GrAMiNO. 7. 
 
 — Illegal — Marriage with sister of deceased wife. 
 
 See Settlement. 31. 
 
 — Post-nuptial settlement. 
 
 See FfiAUDULENT Conveyance. 1. 
 
 CONSIGNEE— Bill of lading. ~ 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 26. 
 
 CONSOLIDATION— Bankruptcy proceedings. 
 See Bankbbptot — Practice. 149. 
 
 — Causes — ^Application by plaintiff. 
 
 See Cases under Pbaotioe — Parties. 
 
 — Consolidated suits — Petition for restitution 
 
 of conjugal rights — Cross-petition claim- 
 ing dissolution of marriage — Eight to 
 begin. 
 See Divorce — Practice. 101. 
 
 ■ — Libel — Practice — Jurisdiction. 
 See Defamation. 1. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgage — Consolidation. 
 
 — Salvage actions — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 249. 
 
 CONSOLS— Charging order on. 
 
 See Moetgaqe — Foreclosure. 31. 
 
 — Conversion of. 
 
 See Cases under National Debt. 
 
 — Eight of cestui que trust to inspect — Search 
 
 for incumbrances. 
 See Tbusteb. 55. 
 
 — Transfer — Enforcing order for — Appointment 
 
 of person to transfer. 
 
 See Peactice — Judgment. 32. 
 
 — Transfer — Form of order — Lunatic sole trustee 
 
 ■ — Vesting order. 
 See Lunacy. 49. 
 
 CONSPIRACY — Combination of traders to engross 
 trade. 
 
 It is not unlawful for traders to combine for 
 the purpose of keeping trade in their own hands, 
 or extending their trade and increasing their 
 profits, BO long as they are not actuated by per- 
 sonal malice or by an intention to ruin their 
 rivals, and do not use any unlawful means. 
 
 Decision of C. A., (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 598, 
 aiSrmed. Mogul Steamship Co. v. MoGkegob, 
 Gow & Co. - - H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 26 
 
 See Suttley v. Simmons, [1898] 1 Q. B. 181, 
 184 ; Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1, 23. 
 
 . 2' — Conspiracy to injure a person hy prevent- 
 ing others from dealing with him — Maliciously 
 procuring breach of contract. 
 „p,?i?i!"" f- <^'/'=«ted the jury that if the defts., 
 members of a trade union, had induced persons 
 
 CONSPIBACY— conMmMed!. 
 
 to break contracts made with the pit. and not to 
 enter into further contracts with him, altiiough 
 only with the object of compelling the pit. to 
 adhere to the rules of the trade union, there 
 would be malice in point of law, for which the 
 defts. would be liable in damages, and that a 
 malicious conspiracy to prevent persons from 
 entering into contracts with another, made to 
 injure him in the exercise of his lawful business, 
 if followed by damage, was actionable : — 
 
 Held, that the directions were right. The 
 right of action for maliciously procuring a breach 
 of contract is not confined to contracts in the 
 nature of personal service. Tempeeton v. Eus- 
 SELL (No. 2) - C. A. [1893] 1 Q, B. 715 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Allen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. C. 1, 94. 
 
 — Intimidation — Seamen — Conspiracy and Pro- 
 
 tection of Property Act. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law — Conspiracy. 1 — 3. 
 
 3. — Legal injury — Combination to induce a 
 person not to employ another — Conspiracy to do an 
 act not amounting to an actionable wrong — Em- 
 ployer and worlcmen. 
 
 A conspiracy to do certain acts (not being 
 criminally punishable) gives a right of action 
 only where the acts agreed to be done, and in 
 fact done, would, had they been without pre- 
 concert, have involved a civil injury to the pit., 
 for which he would have had a right of action. 
 
 Kearney v. Lloyd, (1890) 26 L. E. Ir. 268, 
 approved and followed. Huttlet v. Simmons 
 
 Darling J. [1898] 1 Q. B. 181 
 
 4. — Trade combination — Intent to injure — 
 Cause of action. 
 
 Motion to strike out a statement of claim 
 which in substance alleged that the defts. mali- 
 ciously combined with others to prevent the pits, 
 from carrying on their trade by inducing third 
 persons not to deal with the pits., and that by 
 means of that combination the defts. occasioned 
 damage to the pits. 
 
 Bigham J. (Phillimore J. contra) held that 
 the statement of claim disclosed no cause of 
 action, and gave judgment for the defts. Boots' 
 Cash Chemists, Lancashire, Ld. v. Geundy 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 142 
 
 — Trade union — Strike — Picketing. 
 
 See Cases under Tbadb Union. 
 
 CONSPIEACT, AND PROTECTION OF PEO- 
 
 PEBTY— Strike— "Watching or beset- 
 ting " — Injunction. , 
 See Cases under Tbadb Union. 
 CONSTABLE. 
 
 See Police. 
 
 — Eeport — Libel. 
 
 See Defamation. 19. 
 
 CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 See under Headings of subject-matter of 
 Construction. 
 
 CONSTRUCTIVE RESIDENCE. 
 
 See Poor Law — Settlement. 13. 
 
 CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST— Trustee de son tort. 
 See Teustee — Breach of Trust. 41 . 
 
( 501 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 502 ) 
 
 CONSULAE MABBIAGE— In France— Prenoh- 
 man and Englishwoman — Validity of 
 ceremony. 
 See OoNFLTCT OF Laws. 10. 
 
 COITTA&IOTTS DISEASE. 
 
 See Animal. 
 
 CONTANGO. 
 
 See Stock Exchakqb. 9. 
 CONTEMPT OF COUET— Attachment. 
 See Cases under Attachment. 
 
 1. — Attachment — Disobedience of order of 
 Irish Court — Power of English Court— i\ Geo. 3, 
 o. 90, 8. 6. 
 
 Motion by the pit. In an action brought in 
 the High Court of Justice in Ireland, Oh. Div., 
 that the pit. might be at liberty to issue a writ of 
 attachment against the deft., J. S. Newell, for 
 his contempt in not having obeyed an order 
 made by that Court on May 7, 1896. By an 
 order of the Lord Chancellor, dated Aug. 10, it 
 was ordered that the order of the Irish Court 
 (which had been exemplified to the English 
 Oomt) should be enrolled in the English High 
 Court, and this was done on Aug. 28. The deft, 
 was in England ;— 
 
 Held, on the authority of Bazleton v. Bright, 
 [1873] W. N. 8, and Pennefather v. Sliort, [1866] 
 W. N. 102, 126, subject to the- aconraoy of those 
 reports being verified by the registrar, that the 
 Court had, under the Act 41 Geo. 3, c. 90, o. 6, 
 power to make the order asked for. 
 
 Time was given to the deft., who appeared in 
 
 person, to apply to the Irish Court to discharge 
 
 the order of May 7, which he alleged to have 
 
 been irregularly obtained. Newell v. Newell 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 160 (2) 
 
 2. — Breach of injunction — Person not en- 
 joined or party to action — Aiding and abetting — 
 
 Committal. 
 
 There is a clear distinction between a motion 
 to commit a man for breach of an injunction on 
 the ground that he was bound by the injunction, 
 and a motion to commit a man on the ground 
 that he has aided and abetted a deft, in a breach 
 of an injunction. In the first case the order is 
 made to enable the pit. to get his rights ; in the 
 second, because it is not for the public benefit 
 that the course of justice should be obstructed. 
 
 The Court has undoubted jurisdiction to com- 
 mit for contempt a person flot Included in an 
 injunction or a party to the action who, knowing 
 of the injunction, aids and abets a deft, in com- 
 mitting a breach of it. 
 
 Decision of North J. affirmed. Seaward v. 
 Pateeson - - C. A, [1897] 1 Ch. 545 
 
 3. — Camera, Proceedings in. 
 
 It is contempt of Court to publish in a news- 
 paper an account of proceedings which a judge 
 had decided should not be'disclosed by determin- 
 ing to hear the case in private. In re Maktin- 
 DALE - - - North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 193 
 
 4. — Circular — Libel — Interlocutory injunc- 
 tion. „ . .. u 
 
 Interference with the course of justice by a 
 party publishing ex parte statements is not less 
 contempt of Court because the statements are libel- 
 lous, or because the party is prepared to justify 
 the libel, or because the libel deals with the 
 
 CONTEMPT OF COVRT—<iontinued. 
 merits of the action. Therefore the issuing by a 
 party of a libellous circular commenting on the 
 merits of an action will be restrained by inter- 
 locutory injunction. But the issue of a circular 
 containing a warning merely and no comment on 
 a pending action is not a contempt. Coats (J. & 
 P.) V. Chadwick - Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 347 
 
 — Committal — Duty of bankrupt, 
 
 See Banketiptoy. 72. 
 
 — County court — " Matter.'' 
 
 See County Court — Appeal. 3. 
 
 5. — Discretion — Trustee — Debtors Ad, 1878 
 (41(fc42 Yict.0. 54). 
 
 In exercise of its discretion (under the Debtors 
 Act, 1878), the Court refused to grant a writ of 
 attachment against a trustee who had disobeyed 
 an order to pay into Court the amount of mis- 
 applied trust money where the trustee had re- 
 ceived no personal benefit from the breaoti of 
 trust and was unable to pay. Aylesfoed (Earl 
 of) v. Earl Poulett (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 60 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Smith, [1893] 2 
 Ch. 1, 10. 
 
 — Divorce Court. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce- Costs, 
 
 — Jurisdiction — Committal — County court — 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 
 See Prohibition. 1. 
 
 6. — Newspaper — Innocent loan of paper con- 
 taining scandalous matter respecting a Court — 
 Committing judge ordered to pay costs. 
 
 Contempt of Court may be committed by pub- 
 lication of scandalous matter respecting the Court 
 after adjudication as well as pending a case 
 before it. In England committals for such con- 
 tempts have become obsolete : in small colonies 
 consisting principally of coloured populations 
 they may still be necessary in proper eases : — 
 
 But held, that where the appellant was neither 
 printer nor publisher nor writer of such scandalous 
 matter, but had innocently lent the paper con- 
 taining it to a friend without knowledge of its 
 contents, he was neither constructively nor neces- 
 sarily guilty of contempt of Court, and that the 
 judge who committed him must pay the costs of 
 appeal to Her Majesty in Council. MoLeod v. 
 St: AUBYN - ■ P. C. [1899] A. C. 549 
 
 7. — Newspaper comments — Publication tend- 
 ing to influence result of proceedings. 
 
 An application was made for an attachment 
 against the respondents, for contempt of Court in 
 publishing certain articles in a newspaper. It 
 appeared that the applicant, who had been sub- 
 editor and manager of the paper, was charged 
 with attempted arson, and remanded. An article 
 was then published in the paper, alluding to the 
 facts that the property of the newspaper company 
 was for sale, and that the applicant had been 
 arrested, and the charge of arson was pending. 
 That charge was dismissed, but others were pre- 
 ferred, on two of which the applicant was com- 
 mitted for trial. While he was awaiting trial 
 an article was published, announcing that one of 
 the respondents had purchased the paper, and 
 appealing for support, and alluding to the charges 
 pending against the applicant, and shoitly after- 
 
( 503 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 (. 504 ) 
 
 CONTEMPT OF COVRT— continued. 
 ■wards a report was published of a meeting of a 
 committee of a county council, at which a reso- 
 lution was carried that the action of the chief 
 constable in obtaining legal assistance for the 
 police in the case of the prosecution pending 
 against the applicant should be confirmed : — 
 
 Held, that the publications in question did 
 not appear to be intended, and were not calcu- 
 lated, to prejudice the fair trial of the charges 
 pending against the applicant, and therefore no 
 attachment ought to issue. Eeo. v. Payne and 
 CooPEK - Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 677 
 
 8. — Pardon. 
 
 The prerogative of pardon extends to the 
 remission of a sentence of a purely punitive 
 character for contempt of Court. In re A Special 
 Eefekenoe ebom the Bahama Islands 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 138 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Semcard v. Faterson, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 545, 659. 
 
 9. — Privilege of Parliament — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52)— Sanh-uptcy Rides, 
 1886, rr. 70, 88. 
 
 (a) Motion to commit a member of Parlia- 
 ment for refusing to submit to examination 
 touching a bankrupt's affairs : — 
 
 Seld, that the member was protected by Ms 
 privilege from attachment. That the order for 
 committal was not punitive in its nature, but a 
 civil process to enforce obedience to the order of 
 the C'ourt, and that against all merely civil pro- 
 cess the privilege protected. In re Aemsteono. 
 Ex parte hisBSAY - V. Williams J. 
 
 [1892] I Q. B. 327 
 
 (b) Quxre, whether a defaulting trustee, being 
 a peer of the realm, is privileged from ariest 
 under a writ of attachment. Atlespoed (Eael 
 OP) V. Eael Poulett North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 60 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Smith, [1893] 
 2 Ch. 1. 
 
 — Privilege— Member of Parliament. 
 
 See Paeliament — Privilege. 142. 
 
 10. — Publication of comments on adminis- 
 tration of justice — Personal abuse of judge with 
 reference to his conduct as judge. 
 
 The publication in a newspaper of an article 
 containing scurrilous personal abuse of a judge, 
 with reference to his conduct as a judge in a 
 judicial proceeding which lias terminated, is a 
 contempt of Court punishable by the Court on 
 summary process. Eeo. v. Gkat 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B, 86 
 
 — Eeceiver, interference with — Charge on pro- 
 
 perty in foreign country — Enforcing 
 
 payment. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 60. 
 
 11. — Sequestration — Disobedience of order of 
 the Court — Commitment. 
 
 The principles on which the Court acts when 
 it is asked to sequestrate the property of a co. 
 upon the ground of disobedience to one of its 
 orders are the same as those applicable where it 
 is sought to commit a private individual to prison 
 for contempt. lu these cases, casual, or acci- 
 dental and unintentional disobedience to an order 
 of the Court is not enough to justify either 
 
 CONTEMPT or COtr&T— continued. 
 sequestration or committal : the Court must be 
 satisfied that a contempt of Court has been com- 
 mitted — in other words, that its order has been 
 contumaciously disregarded. Faibclotjqh v. 
 Manchester Ship Canal Co. 
 
 C, A. [1897] W. N. 7 (13) 
 
 12. ■ — ■ Witnesses, Interfering with. 
 
 (a) Two persons interested in an action wrote 
 to persons whom they tnew would probably be 
 called as witnesses, making charges against paiiies 
 to the action : — 
 
 Held, that this was a contempt of Court. 
 Wellby v. Still Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 6 
 
 (e) Party committed for attempting to intimi- 
 date witness. Bkomilow v. Phillips 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 209 
 
 CONTINGENCY— Eedemption on —Debenture- 
 Stamp duty. 
 See Eevende — Stamps. 149. 
 
 CONTINGENT ANNUITY — Settlement estate 
 duty — Incidence. 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty. 29, 34. 
 
 CONTINGENT INTEREST— Construction of will. 
 See Will — Contingent Remainder. 68 . 
 
 — Infants — Maintenance — Term for raising 
 
 portions. 
 
 See Infant. 30. 
 
 — Stamps, on settlement of. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps, 181. 
 
 1. Woman past child-bearing. 
 
 A. was absolutely entitled to personalty in 
 the event -of B., a woman of 70, not having 
 issue : — 
 
 Held, that the Court might authorize the 
 current income and accumulations to be paid to 
 A. In re LowMAN. Devenish v. Pester 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 348 
 
 Explained and distinguished by C. A. In re 
 Hocking, [1898] 2 Ch. 567. 
 
 CONTINGENT LEGACY — " Settlement estate 
 duty " — Incidence. 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty, 16. 
 
 CONTINGENT REMAINDER. 
 
 See Will — Contingent Remainder, 
 
 CONTINGENT SETTLEMENT— Finance Act. 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty, 21. 
 
 CONTINUATION ACCOUNT— Death of principal 
 —Contracts for sale and repurchase aller 
 death — Liability. 
 See Stock Exchange. 2. 
 
 CONTINUING CAUSE OF ACTION. 
 See Damages. 3. 
 
 CONTINUING OFFENCE— Builder without power 
 to remedy breach. 
 See Builder. 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 Generally, col. 505. 
 Breach, col. 507. 
 Construction, col. 509. 
 Determination, col. 510, 
 Formation, col. 510. 
 Illegality, col. 512. 
 
DiaEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 505 ) 
 
 CONTBACT— conKniMcJ. 
 Parties, col. 514. 
 Performance, col. 514. 
 Personal, col. 515. 
 Bescission, col. 516. 
 Siib-contraot, col, 517. 
 Time, col. 517. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 1. — Ahandonment of contract — Might to sue 
 on quantum meruit — Building on defendant's land 
 — Evidence of new contract. 
 
 The pit., a builder, who had contracted to 
 erect certain buildings on deft.'s land for a lump 
 sum, after he had done part of the work, aban- 
 doned the contract, and the deft, thereupon com- 
 pleted the buildings : — 
 
 Seld, that the pit. could not recover from the 
 deft, in respect of the work which he had done 
 as upon a quantum meruit, there being no evi- 
 dence of any fresh contract to pay for the same. 
 
 Munro v. Butt, (1858) 8 E. & B. 738, followed. 
 SuMPTER V. Hedges C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 673 
 
 — Accounts — Finality of audit. 
 
 See Account. 2. 
 
 2. — Action founded on contract — Personal 
 injury — Negligence — County Courts Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 116. 
 
 An action by a passenger against a ry. oo. for 
 personal injuries caused by the negligence of the 
 co.'s servants is founded on tort and not on 
 contract, 
 
 (a) even though the passenger has taken a, 
 ticket. Tatlob v. Manohesteb, Sheffield and 
 LiNCOLNSHiKE Ey. Cc! C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 134 
 
 (b) or though the negligence is an act of omis- 
 sion or misfeasance. Kelly v. Mbtkopolitan 
 Ey. Co. - - - C A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 944 
 
 (c) Meux v. G-beat Eastben Ey. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 387 
 
 — Action impeaching contract. 
 
 See Aebitbation — Staying Proceedings. 
 55. 
 
 — Agent. 
 
 See Cases under Peinoipal and Asent. 
 
 — Agistment. 
 
 See Agistment. 1. 
 
 — Bill of exchange — Dishonour by buyer — Pos- 
 
 session of goods — Consent of seller. 
 See Sale op Goods. 7. 
 
 — Building contract. 
 
 See Building Conteact. 
 
 — Carriage — Delay — Owner's risk-note — Con- 
 
 struction. 
 
 See Eailway. 4. 
 
 — Commonable rights — Evidence — Admissibility 
 
 — Agreement for sale. 
 See Common. 1. 
 
 — Company law. 
 
 See Company and Company— Winding- 
 up. 
 
 — Corporation— Municipal-Members of council 
 
 shareholders in trading company — 
 
 Validity. 
 
 See CoBPOBATioN. 5, 
 
 ( 506 ) 
 
 CONTBACT (Gteneva,lly)~iiontinued. 
 
 — Costs of reasonable defence by purchaser of 
 
 action against him by sub-vendee. 
 See Damages. 2. 
 
 — " Differences " — " Cover " system — Gambling 
 
 transaction — Nullity. 
 See Stock Exchange. 3, 
 — ■ District council. 
 
 See District Council. 1. 
 
 — Effects of company's adoption of contract made 
 
 before its formation — Payment of shares 
 
 in cash — Set-off. 
 
 See New South Wales. 7. 
 
 — Employer and workman. 
 
 See Cases under Mastbb and Servant. 
 
 — ■ Fraud — Induced by, of bankrupt — Election 
 by vendor to afSrm contract — Eight of 
 trustee to redeem security at value 
 assessed in petition. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Secured Creditor. 
 226. ' 
 
 — Frauds, Statute of. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 14. 
 
 — Guarantee — Concealment of material facts — 
 
 Contracts in which " uberrima fides " is 
 
 required. 
 
 See Insurance, Guarantee. 11. 
 
 — " Highest net money tender " — Practice — 
 
 Striking out statement of claim. 
 See Tender. 3, 
 
 — Indemnity of bail to produce prisoner — Illegal 
 
 contract. 
 See, Bail. 
 
 — Infant. 
 
 See Infant — Contracts. 
 
 — Insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insurance. 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Oases under Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 — Lease, Sale of — Act of bankruptcy by vendor 
 
 before completion — Action to recover 
 
 deposit. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 188. 
 
 — Locus contractus. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 2. 
 
 — Locus solutionis. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 1, 2. 
 
 — Lunacy practice. 
 
 See Lunacy — Contracts. 
 
 — Marine insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insurance, Marine. 
 
 — Married woman. 
 
 See Cases under JIusband and Wipe. 
 
 — Master and servant. 
 
 See Cases under Masteb and Servant. 
 
 — Partnership. 
 
 See Pabtnebship — Contract. 
 
 — Party wall — Implied contract to pay half cost 
 
 of — Adjoining owners. 
 See Building. 2. 
 
 — Privity of contract— Broker, default of— Lia- 
 
 bility of client to jobber— Principal and 
 
 agent. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 11. 
 
( 507 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 508 ) 
 
 CONTRACT (GeaeiaMy)— continued. 
 
 — Priyity of contract— Contract on behalf of 
 
 intended company — New contract — 
 
 Patent — ^Licence. 
 
 See Company — Contracts. 21. 
 
 — Eesciasion. 
 
 See Cases under Venbob and Pdeohaseb 
 — Rescission, 
 
 — Eestraiut of trade. 
 
 See Cases under Eesteaint of Trade. 
 
 — Sale of goods. 
 
 See Sale op Goods. 
 
 — Sale of lands. 
 
 See Oases under Vendor and Pub- 
 
 CHASEK. 
 
 — Soottiah law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Contracts. 
 
 — Shipping contracts. 
 
 See Oases under Shipping. 
 
 See Cases under Eevendi; — Stamps. 
 
 — To take shares — Proof for injury caused by 
 
 disclaimer by trustee in bankruptcy — 
 
 Measure of damages. 
 
 See Bankbcptoy — Proof. 169. 
 
 — Ultra vires — Effect of consent judgment — ■ 
 
 Terms on which contract will be set 
 
 aside. 
 
 See Canada. 17. 
 
 ■ — " Use " — Construction of contract. 
 See New Zealand. 3. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Cases under Vendob and Pur- 
 
 OHASEE. 
 
 — Wagering — Undischarged bankrupt — After- 
 
 acquired property — Personal earnings. 
 See Bankedptcy. 257 — 262. 
 
 — Way-leave. 
 
 See Way-leave. 
 
 — Works abroad — Foreign currency — Period of 
 
 conversion into English money. 
 See AococNT. 1. 
 
 Breach. 
 
 — Breach of contract- 
 See Canada. 
 
 -Construction. 
 6. 
 
 3. — Contract to advance mmiey — Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sul-s. 6. 
 
 By a mortgage deed A. agn ed to make further 
 advances to P. P. assigned his right under this 
 deed to B., who gave notice to A. In forgetful- 
 ness of this notice A. made a further advance 
 toP.: — 
 
 Held, that no action lies for breach of a con- 
 tract to lend money unless the contract binds some 
 money or fund. Western Wagon and Property 
 Co. V. West - - Chitty J, [1893] 1 Oh, 271 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. South African Terri- 
 tories V. WaUington, [1897] 1 Q. B. 692, 695. 
 
 4. — Contract of personal service — Remedy. 
 Where a manager agreed to give during a 
 
 specified term his whole time to the management 
 of the plt.'s business, but without negatively 
 contracting not to serve any one else : — 
 
 Held, that the Court would not grant an 
 
 CONTRACT (Breach)— co»fo'»ue(J. 
 injunction restraining the manager from giving 
 part of his time to a rival co. Whitwood 
 Chemical Co. v. Habdman 
 
 C. A. reversing Eekewich T. [1891] 2 Ch. 416 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Ehrman v. Bar- 
 tholomew, [1898] 1 Ch. 671, 673. 
 
 6. — Malicious procuring — Trade union — 
 Bight of action. 
 
 The right of action for maliciously procmiug 
 a breach of contract is not confined to contracts in 
 the nature of contracts of personal service : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that persons, members of a 
 trade union, who had induced traders to break 
 their contracts with the pit., with the object of 
 compelling the pit. to comply with the rules of 
 the trade union, were liable to him in damages. 
 Tempeeton v. Eussell (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 a. B. 715 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.), Allen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. C. 1, 95. 
 
 6. — Maliciously procuring discharge of ser- 
 vant — Bight of action. 
 
 An action will not lie against a person who 
 maliciously induces a master to discharge a ser- 
 vant if injury results thereby to the servant, 
 though the discharge does not constitute a breach 
 of the contract of employment. Flood v. Jackson 
 C. A. [1895] 2 a. B. 21 ; [1898] A. C. 1 
 — in consideration of Marriage. 
 
 See Settlement — Construction. 4. 
 
 7. — One party — Breach by— Bight of other 
 party to repudiate — Term, not going to root of 
 contract — Bailway company. 
 
 , Appeal against a decision of North J., whereby 
 he declared that a breach by the defts. of one 
 clause in an agreement between themselves and 
 the pits, entitled the pits, to determine and put 
 an end to the whole agreement, and that it must 
 be treated as determined. The agreement was 
 dated June 4, 1864, and was scheduled to and 
 confirmed by the Ehymney Eailway (Northern 
 Lines) Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. cclxxv.). 
 Clause 17 provided that "Except as herein 
 mentioned neither co. shall either directly or 
 indirectly seek any new line from one side of the 
 [Ehymney] Valley to the other to take away the 
 trafljc of either co." North J. held that the defts. 
 had in 1898 committed a breach of this clause, 
 and that the pits, were entitled to repudiate the 
 agreement entirely. 
 
 The Court allowed the appeal, holding that, 
 though there had been a breach of clause 17, the 
 pits, were not entitled to repudiate the contract, 
 but their remedy was in damages. 
 
 If there is a distinct' refusal by one party to 
 a contract to be bound by its terms in the future, 
 the other party may treat the contract as at an 
 end : see Withers v. Beynolds, (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 
 882 ; 36 E. E. 782, Preface, v. ; Hochster v. De 
 la Tour, (1853) 2 E. & B. 678 ; Mersey Steel and 
 Iron Co. V. Naylor, Benzon & Co., (1884) 9 App. 
 Cas. 434, 442. Short of such a refusal, the true 
 principle to be deduced from all the oases was 
 that you must ascertain whether the action of 
 the party who was breaking the contract was 
 such that the other party was entitled to conclude 
 that the former no longer intended to be bound 
 
( 509 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( SIO 
 
 CONTRACT (Breach)— contowei. 
 by its provisions : see 9 App. Oas. 443. A breach 
 not going to the root of the contract did not 
 entitle the other party to rfipudiate : see 9 App. 
 Gas. 444, and Johnstone v. Milling, (1886) 16 
 Q. B. D. 460, 471. In the present case there 
 was no express refusal by the defts. to be bound 
 by the provisions of the agreement, and it could 
 not be said that any breach of clause 17 went to 
 the root of the whole agreement, and defeated the 
 substantial consideration for it. Khtmnet Ey. 
 Co. V. Bbecon and Mebthyr Tydfil Junction 
 Rt. Co. - - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 169 
 
 Construction. 
 
 8. — Aufhority of agent — Lump sum — Varia- 
 tion — Batification. 
 
 Where the pits, contracted with the agent of 
 an absent shipowner to effect certain speoifled 
 repairs (all confined to damage by stranding), 
 and instead of doing the work as stipulated 
 alleged that they had, on the agent's authority, 
 done the equivalent thereto or better, and in the 
 same contract stipulated that they should be 
 paid for repairs due to deterioration at scheduled 
 prices stated by them : — 
 
 Hdd, that, it appearing that the agent's 
 authority to their knowledge was limited to the 
 said specified repairs, they could not recover on 
 the contract, which was an entire one, and in 
 its entirety had never been performed : 
 
 Meld, further, that the shipowner haying 
 taken the ship as repaired and sold, it did not 
 thereby ratify the contract. 
 
 Appleby v. Myers, (1867) L. E. 2 0. P. 651, 
 followed. FoBMAN & Co. Pkopbietaby, Ld. v. 
 The Ship " Liddbsdale " P. C. [1900] A. C. 190 
 
 — Authority to sign — ^Principal and agent- 
 Instructions to sell — Eeal estate. 
 See Vendok and Puechaser. 16. 
 
 9. — Condition precedent — Exchange contracts 
 ' — Repudiation. 
 
 Where bankers contracted with A. to pay in 
 exchange for silver sterling money or its equiva- 
 lent at certain prices, but at the same time stipu- 
 lated that the goods in payment for which the 
 silver would be received should be financed 
 through them : — 
 
 Sdd, that financing the gnoda was a condition 
 precedent to the contract. But that both parties 
 were reciprocally bound to settle leasdnable terms 
 of financing, and that as the bankers repudiated 
 the obligation, A. was entitled to judgment on 
 the contract. Bank of China, Japan and the 
 Stbaits v. Ambeican Tbading Co. 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 266 
 
 10. — Conditional promise to consider a propo- 
 sal favourably — Construction of contract — Appeal 
 from Canada. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Courts 
 below, that a written promise by the appellants 
 that if satisfied with the respondent as a customer 
 they would favourably consider any application 
 by him to renew a subsisting contract between 
 them on its expiration does not impose a legal 
 obligation to grant it. Montbeal Gas Co. v. 
 Vasey - - - P. C, [1900] A. C. 896 | 
 
 CONTRACT (Construction)— coniijiaeii. 
 
 — Director of company. 
 See Cases under Company — Director. 
 
 — Entire contract — Common transaction. 
 See Solicitor — Retainer. 125. 
 
 11. — Evidence — Admissibility of extrinsic 
 evidence — " Total cost of works " — Construction of 
 contract. 
 
 Words with a fixed meaning in a written con- 
 tract cannot be explained by oral evidence to 
 mean something different from what they ex- 
 press. Where the words used are susceptible of 
 more than one meaning extrinsic evidence is 
 admissible to shew what were the facts which 
 the negotiating parties had in their minds. 
 
 Where a written contract provided that the 
 respondent, a ry. engineer, should receive extra 
 commission "on the estimate of 35,0002. in the 
 event of my being able to reduce the total cost 
 of the works below 30,000J." :— 
 
 Held, that evidence was rightly admitted to 
 shew to what items of cost the estimate related. 
 Bank op New Zealand v. Simpson 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 182 
 — " Flotation " — British South Africa Company's 
 Mining Ordinance. 
 See Cape op Good Hope. 4. 
 12. — Implied terms — Necessary implication — 
 Agreement for sale of products of a business. 
 
 The defts. agreed to sell to the pits, all 
 brewers' grains made by the defts., at the average 
 of the rates charged each year by certain specified 
 firms, from July 10, 1885, until Sept. 30, 1895. 
 In 1890 the defts. sold their business, and in con- 
 sequence ceased to supply grains to the pits. : — 
 
 Held, that a term could not be applied in the 
 contract to the effect that the defts. would not by 
 any voluntary act of their own prevent themselves 
 from continuing the sale of grains to the pits, for 
 the period mentioned. Hamlyn & Co. v. Wood 
 &Co. 
 
 C. A. reversing Mathew J. [1891] 2 Q. B, 488 
 
 Determination, 
 
 — Partnership — Death of partner — When con- 
 tract terminated by. 
 See Partnership — Contract. 15. 
 
 13. — Reasonable notice. 
 A lady supplying water to a local authority 
 
 on the same terms as to her tenants, gave three 
 months' notice of her intention to determine the 
 supply : — 
 
 Held, that three months' notice was not suffi- 
 cient. Hunslet Guardians v. Ingram 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 61 
 
 Pormation, 
 
 14. — Advertisement — Fulfilment of conditions 
 — Wager — Insurance lAfe Act, 1774 (14 Geo. 3, 
 c. 48), 6. 2— Gaming Act, 1845 (8 (fc 9 Vict. c. 109). 
 
 The proprietors of a medical preparation 
 advertised that they would pay 1002. to any 
 person who caught influenza after using the pre- 
 paration in and for a certain manner and period. 
 A person who complied with these conditions 
 caught the influenza : — 
 
 Held,ihaX the above facts established a con- 
 tract which was neither a contract by way of 
 
( 511 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 5X2 ) 
 
 CONTRACT (Formation)— coniimMccJ. 
 wagering (8 & 9 Vict. c. 109), nor a policy 
 (14 Geo. 3, c. 48, b. 2), and that the lOOi. was 
 recoverable. 
 
 Decision of Hawkins J., [1892] 2 Q. B. 484, 
 
 affirmed. Caelill v. Caeeolio Smoke Ball Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 256 
 
 Referred to by Cozena-Hardy J. Johnston v. 
 Boyes, [1899] 2 Ch. 73, 77. 
 
 15. — • Agreement for lease — Signature not final 
 — Parol evidence — Escrow. 
 
 The pit., a spinster, having signed an agree- 
 ment for the lease of a house to her by the deft., 
 the deft, subsequently signed it, and handed it to 
 his solicitor with instructions not to part with it 
 except on condition that the pit. obtained some 
 responsible person to join in the lease — a condi- 
 tion which the pit. declined to fulfil : — 
 
 Held, that evidence was admissible to shew 
 that no agreement was come to between the 
 parties, and that the true effect of the transaction 
 was that the deft, declined to enter into an agree- 
 ment on the terms of the written document, but 
 at the same time made a counter offer which 
 was rejected, and that there was no agreement. 
 Pattle v. Hornibrook Stirling J, [1897] 1 Ch. 25 
 
 16. — ■ Author and publisher — Publishing agree- 
 ment — Assignability. 
 
 The principle established by Stevens v. Sen- 
 ning (1854) 1 K. & J. 168, Beade v. Bentley, (1857) 
 3 K. & J. 271, and Hole v. Bradbury, (1879) 
 12 Ch. D. 886, that a publishing agreement 
 between an author and a publisher, or a firm of 
 publishers, is personal lo the individuals entering 
 into it, and that the benefit of such an agreement 
 is not assignable without the author's consent, 
 applies equally to the case of a similar agreement 
 between an author and a limited co. Geitfith v. 
 Tower Publishing Co. and Moncriefp 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 21 
 
 17. — Letter in envelope taken as one document 
 — Memorandvm, in writing — Name of parties — 
 Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. i—Sale of 
 Goods Act, 1893 (56 4 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 4. 
 
 An envelope and a letter which is shewn by 
 evidence to have been inclosed in it are so con- 
 nected' together that the envelope may be used to 
 supply the name of one of the parties to a memo- 
 randum in writing of a contract within a. 4 of the 
 Statute of Frauds, or s. 4 of the Sale of Goods 
 Act, 1893. Peaeoe v. Gakdnee 
 
 C. A, [1897] 1 Q. B, 688 
 
 17a. — letters — Acceptance — Time — With- 
 drawal of offer. 
 
 Letters accepting an open offer and with- 
 drawing the offer were posted on the same day. 
 The letter of withdrawal was received before the 
 letter of acceptance :— 
 
 Held, nevertheless, that the withdrawal was 
 too late. An offer which is likely to be accepted 
 by letter is accepted when the letter is posted ; 
 but a withdrawal of such an offer dates only 
 from the time when the fact of the withdrawal is 
 known to the other party. Henthokn v. Fkaser 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Clj. 27 
 
 18. — Telegram — Negotiation by telegram — 
 Acceptance of offer not proved. 
 
 A. telegraphed to B., "Will you sell us 
 
 CONTRACT (Formation) — continued. 
 B, H. P. ? Telegraph lowest cash price ? " B. 
 telegraphed in reply, " Lowest price for B. H. P. 
 9001." A. telegraphed, "We agree to buy 
 B. H. P. for 9001, asked by you." B. did not 
 reply : — 
 
 Held, that there was no contract. The final 
 telegram was not the acceptance of an offer to 
 sell, as there was no offer to sell, only an offer to 
 buy, the acceptance to which must be express. 
 Harvey v. Facet - P. C. [1893] A. C. 652 
 
 19. — Telegraphic code — Cablegrams — Mistake 
 — Action on contract — Onus prdbandi. 
 
 Where parties have corresponded by means 
 of a telegraphic code, it is for the pit., in an 
 action for breach of contract, to shew that the 
 proposal made by him and accepted by the deft, 
 is so clear and unambiguous that the deft, can- 
 not be heard to say that he misunderstood it. 
 It is not a matter for the Court to construe. 
 Falck v. Williams - P. C. [1900] A. C. 176 
 
 Illegality. 
 
 20. — Fraud — Loanofm,oney — Concealment of 
 identity of lender — Bight of borrower to repu- 
 diate. 
 
 The pit., a money-lender, advertised under a 
 fictitious name, and the deft, borrowed money 
 and gave a promissory note to secure the sum 
 borrowed and interest. In an action on the pro- 
 missory note the jury found that the pit. inten- 
 tionally concealed his identity to induce the 
 deft, to borrow money of him as if from another, 
 and that the deft, was so induced ; that the pit. 
 did so fraudulently ; that the deft, entered into 
 the contract believing that he was doing so with 
 a person of the fictitious name given by the pit., 
 and that the deft, repudiated the contract within 
 a reasonable time after he discovered that the 
 pit. was the person with whom he had con- 
 tracted : — 
 
 Held, that the fraudulent concealment by the 
 pit. of his identity with a person whose repu- 
 tation in business was such that the deft, would 
 not have dealt with him was material to the 
 inducement which brought about the contract, 
 which the deft, was therefore entitled to repudiate 
 within a reasonable time after the discovery of 
 the fraud. Gordon v. Street 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 641 
 
 21. — niegal consideration — Stifling u, prose- 
 cution — Implied condition. 
 
 To avoid the prosecution of a relative for 
 misappropriating moneys the pits, made up the 
 amount misappropriated partly in cash and 
 partly by promissory notes and a deposit of secu- 
 rities : — 
 
 Held, that the promissory notes and the de- 
 posit were founded on an illegal consideration 
 and were void. 
 
 Decision of V. Williams J., [1891] 2 Ch. 587, 
 affirmed. Jones v. Merionethshire Permanent 
 Benefit Bdilding Society 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 173 
 
 22. — Illegal consideration — Stifling prosecu- 
 tion. 
 
 The secretary of a land society was indebted 
 thereto for moneys used by him in payment of his 
 
t Sl3 ) 
 
 btGESl? OF CASES, 189i— ISJod. 
 
 C 514 ) 
 
 CONTRACT (inegaMtj)— continued. 
 own debts. His wife by deed charged her pro- 
 perty as security for these sums. An action by 
 her to set this deed aside, on the ground that it 
 had been executed under pressure and undue 
 influence and to stifle a prosecution, was dis- 
 missed on the ground that though the Court 
 below had decided ia her favour, it Iiad not found 
 as a fact that there was any pressure or undue 
 influence, and that the burden of proof of such 
 pressure or influence lay upon the pit. McClat- 
 CHiE V. Haslam - C. A. [1891] W. H. 191 
 
 — Illegal contract — ^Bail to produce prifioner — 
 Indemnity. 
 See Bail. 
 
 23. — lUegal contract — Purdiase of sliares — 
 Agreement to buy shares at a fictitious premium — 
 Bigging the market. 
 
 An agreement between two or more to pur- 
 chase shares in order to induce would-be buyers 
 of shares in a company to believe, contrary to the 
 fact, that there was a bon4 fide market for its 
 shares, and that the shares were at a real pre- 
 mium, is an illegal transaction and may be made 
 the subject of an indictment for conspiracy, and 
 no action can be maintained in respect of such 
 agreement or purchase of shares. Tlie Court 
 will take judicial notice of any such criminal 
 conspiracy appearing In the evidence even where 
 the illegality is not pleaded. Scott v. Bkowk, 
 DoERiNG, McNab & Co. Slaughtek & Mat v. 
 BnowN, DoEBiNG, MoNab & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 724 
 
 Eeferred to by Kennedy J. Gedge v. Boyal 
 Exchange Assurance Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 214, 220. 
 
 — Illegal stipulation, Efi'ect of, where good con- 
 sideration for contract — Coal Mines 
 Begulation. 
 See Mines. 7. 
 
 24. — Illegality ^Bemoteness — Uncertainty — 
 Statutory confirmation — Contract to give "first 
 refusal" of land — Interest in land — Purchasers 
 with notice — Injunction. 
 
 An agreement scheduled to an Act of Parlia- 
 ment was thereby "confirmed and declared to be 
 valid and binding upon the parties thereto" : — 
 
 Held, that every clause of the agreement had 
 statutory validity, so that no objection on the 
 ground of remoteness or uncertainty could be 
 taken. 
 
 Sevenoahs, Maidstone and Tunbridge By. Co. 
 V. London, Chatham and Dover By. Co., (1879) 
 11 Ch. D. 625, and Kent Coast By. Co. v. London, 
 Chatham and Dover By. Co., (1868) L. E. 3 Ch. 
 656, followed. 
 
 Caledonian By. Co. v. Chreenoch and Wemyss 
 Bay By. Co., (1874) L. E. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 347, 
 London, Chatham and Dover By. Co. v. South 
 Hastern By. Co., (1888) 40 Oh. D. 100, and Beg. 
 v. Midland By. Co., (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 540, 
 distinguished. 
 
 A racecourse co. agreed with a canal oo.. that 
 if it should be at any time proposed to use their 
 racecourse for dock purposes tlio racecourse co. 
 should give the canal co. the first refusal 
 thereof: — 
 
 Beld, (1.) A proposed user by any inteaaiBg 
 
 CONTHACT (Illegality)— conh'nuedt. 
 
 purchaser (includiilg the canal oo.) entitled the 
 
 canal co. to a first refusal. 
 
 (2.) The racecourse co. could not sell the 
 racecourse without informing tlie canal co. of 
 the actual cash price tlie intending purchaser 
 was oftering, and offering it to them at that 
 price. 
 
 (3.) The right of first refusal could be enforced 
 against an intending purchaser with notice thereof 
 on two grounds — namely : 
 
 (a) It was an interest in the land : London 
 and South Western By. Co. v. Oomm, (1882) 20 
 Oh. D. 562. 
 
 (6) While the matter rested in fieri, the Court, 
 by an inverse application of the principle of 
 WiUmott V. Barber, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96, could 
 restrain the intending purchaser from accepting 
 a conveyance of the legal estate in breach of his 
 vendor's prior contract. Manchestek Ship Canal 
 Co. V. Manchester Eaoecoubse Co. 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 134; [1900] 2 Oh, 362 
 
 — Payment on void contract. 
 
 See Company — Contracts. 19. 
 
 — Statute of Frauds. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute op. 14. 
 
 Parties. 
 
 25. — Joint contractors — Married woman — Bee 
 judicata. 
 
 The rule that judgment recovered against 
 one of two joint contractors is a bar to an action 
 against the other applies equally when one of the 
 joint contractors is a married woman contracting 
 in respect of her separate property. Hoare v. 
 NiBLETT - Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 781 
 
 Performance. 
 
 26. — Alternative — One alternative impossible. 
 A. covenanted by deed to pay 10002. to B. or 
 
 to transfer to B. lOOOJ. wortli of fully paid-up 
 shares in a co. to be formed by A., the capital of 
 such CO. not to exceed 12,0002. A. formed a co. 
 with a capital of 12,0002., divided into 600 pre- 
 ference shares and 600 deferred shares of 102. 
 each, and transferred 100 of the latter to B. :— 
 
 Held, by Stirling J., that the shares A. had 
 agreed to transfer were to be shares in a oo. in 
 which all the shareholders stood on a footing of 
 equality. This he had put it out of his power to 
 perform, and must therefore perform the other 
 alternative by paying the 10002. Aflirm. by 0. A. 
 on the ground that "10002. worth of shares" 
 meant shares worth 10002. on the market, and 
 that the shares transferred had no marketable 
 value. MoIlquham v. Tatloe 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Oh. 53 
 
 — Contract to be performed in part without the 
 jurisdiction. 
 See Pbaotiob— Servioe. 199, 206 — 210. 
 
 27. — Impossibility — Fire. 
 
 Performance of a contract to empjoy a tra- 
 veller lor a fixed period is not excused because 
 the employer ceased to carry on business after 
 his manufactory had been destroyed by Are. 
 Tubner v. Goldsmith 
 
 C. A. levers, Orantltaiu J. [1891] 1 ft. B. 544 
 
 S 
 
( 515 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 516 ) 
 
 CONTBACT (Performance)— conK»tte(i. 
 
 28. — Jmpoisibility of performance — Implied 
 condition — Measure of damages. 
 
 By a contract made in Oct., 1899, the defts. 
 sold to the pits, a cargo of cotton-seed, to be 
 shipped at certain Egyptian ports daring the 
 month of Jan., 1900, per steamship Orlando, and 
 to be delivered to the pits, in the United King- 
 dom. The contract provided that, "In case of 
 prohibition of export, blockade, or hostilities, 
 preventing shipment, this contract or any un- 
 fulfilled part thereof is to be cancelled." In 
 Dec, 1899, the Orlando was, without default on 
 the part of the defts., stranded, and was so much 
 damaged as to render it impossible for her to 
 arrive at the ports of loading before the end of 
 Jan. ; and on Dec. 20 notice of that fact was 
 given to the pits. Upon receipt of that notice 
 the pits, might have bought in the market 
 another cargo of cotton-seed in substitution for 
 that sold to them by the defts., but they declined 
 to do so. The market was rising, and by the 
 end of Jan. the market price had risen consider- 
 ably above the point at which it stood at the 
 time when the pits, had notice of the stranding. 
 The . pits, sued the defts. for breach of their 
 contract, claiming as damages the difference 
 between the contract price and the market price 
 at the end of Jan. : — 
 
 Held, that the contract must be read as 
 subject to an implied condition that, in tlie event 
 of tbe ship not arriving at the ports of loading 
 within the stipulated time in a fit state to receive 
 the cargo, the contract should be treated as at 
 an end; that the implication of that condition 
 was not excluded by the clause expressly pro- 
 viding for tlie cancellation of the contract in the 
 specified events; and that the defts. were not 
 liable. 
 
 Semhle, that if the pits, had been entitled to 
 recover, inasmuch as they were under the circum- 
 stances bound to endeavour to mitigate the loss, 
 the measure of their damages would have been 
 the difierence between the contract price and 
 the market price at the date when they had 
 notice of the stranding, and no more. Nickoll 
 & Knkjht v. Ashton, Edeidge & Co. Mathew J. 
 [1900] W. N. 116 ; [1900] 2 ft. B. 298 
 
 Personal. 
 
 29. — Of service. 
 
 An order to justify tbe grant of an injunction 
 in aid of a contract of service, there must be, if 
 no express negative clause, at least an express 
 negative purpose. 
 
 (a) Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Habeman 
 
 C. A. reversing Kekewich J. [1891] 2 Ch. 416 
 
 (b) On the construction of certain letters, 
 held, that there was a negative covenant con- 
 tained therein. " Stab " Newspapee Co. v. 
 O'OoNKOB - Kekewioh J. [1893] W, N. 114 ; 
 
 compromised on appeal [1893] W. N. 122 
 And see Cases under Masteb and Seb- 
 vant— Contract. 
 
 30. — Contract of service — Agreement to devote 
 whole time — Unreasonable negative stipulation — 
 Breach of contract — Injunction — Master and ser- 
 vant. 
 
 A toveller for the pits., a fiim of wine mer- | 
 
 CONTEACT (Personal) — continued. 
 chants, agreed to devote the whole of his attention 
 and time to the business of the pits., and not 
 directly or indirectly to engage or employ himself 
 in any other business, or transact any business 
 with any other person or persons than the pits, for 
 a term of ten years. The traveller having left 
 the pits.' employ and entered that of another 
 firm, the pits, moved for an injunction to restrain 
 him from engaging in any other business, and 
 from acting as a traveller for any other firm of 
 wine merchants during the term of ten years : — 
 
 Held, that the negative stipulations in this 
 contract were unreasonable and ought not to be 
 enforced, and that the application must therefore 
 be refused. Eheman v. Babtholomew 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 671 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Bdbirmon & Co. v. Heuer, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 451. 
 
 See also Cases under Eesteaint of 
 Tbade. 
 
 Bescission, 
 
 31. — Dealing with purchased pivperty — De- 
 hentures — Intervention in debenture action. 
 
 A bank had bought debentures in the M. Co. 
 from the T. Co. and claimed rescission on the 
 ground of misrepresentation ; after discovery of 
 the misrepresentation the bank attended and 
 took an active part in a debenture action : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the bank were entitled to rescission 
 unless (a) their conduct had so injured the deben- 
 tures as to make it unjust for the T. Co. to take 
 them back, or (6) the bank had elected to keep 
 the debentures. Until judgment the bank was 
 entitled to keep the debentures and to protect 
 them : — 
 
 Held, also, on the facts, that the bank had not 
 lost their right to rescind. Impeeial Ottoman 
 Bank v. Tedstees, Exeoutoes, and Secdbities 
 Investment Cobpobation 
 
 Eomer J. [1895] W. N . 23 
 
 32. — Innocent misrepresentation — Indemnity. 
 
 Action by lessees against their lessor claim- 
 ing rescission of a lease on the ground of alleged 
 misrepresentation, and an indemnity against all 
 costs and charges incurred. 
 
 The pits., who were exhibitors of prize 
 poultry, alleged that, relying on a representa- 
 tion by the deft.'s agents that the sanitary con- 
 dition of the premises was perfect, they took 
 the lease, and placed valuable stock there. 
 The defts. admitted that the premises were 
 insanitary. 
 
 In order to avoid calling unnecessary evidence 
 as to the alleged losses and expenses, it was 
 arranged that the nature and extent of the pits.' 
 right to indemnity, if established, should be first 
 decided. 
 
 Held, that the indemnity Would only extend 
 to rights and obligations created by the contract 
 Bought to be rescinded, such as rent, rates, and 
 repairs paid or executed under the covenants of 
 the lease. It would not cover the losses and 
 expenses claimed which came under the head of 
 damages pure and simple, and could not be 
 recovered in an action based on innocent mis- 
 representation. 
 
 Neichigging v. Adam, (1886) 3-1 Ch. D. 582j 
 
C 517 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 518 ) 
 
 CONTRACT (Rescission)— confmwA 
 
 (1888) 13 App. Cas. 308, discussed. Whittino- 
 
 TON V. Seale Hatne 
 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 31 
 
 — Misrepresentation. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Contract. 9, 
 
 33. — Misrepresentation — Laches. 
 Although, as a rule, a person who wishes to 
 
 escape from a contract on the ground of misre- 
 presentation must determine it immediately he 
 discovers the misrepresentation, nevertheless, 
 where a purchaser discovers that a misrepresen- 
 tation made to him by the vendor is untrue, and 
 the vendor in effect suggests that if time be given 
 him the misrepresentation may be cured and the 
 purchaser be put in as good a position as if the 
 representation had been true, then the purchaser, 
 by giving the vendor time for that purpose, does 
 not lose his right at the end of that time, if the 
 vendor fails to make good his suggestion, to rely 
 on the misrepresentation as a ground for deter- 
 mining the contract, and to determine it accord- 
 ingly. TiBBATTB V. BODLTER 
 
 Eomer J. [1895] W. N. 162 (4) 
 
 — One-man company — Debts of founder. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 69. 
 
 — Sale by directors in one character to them- 
 
 selves in another — Voidable contract — ■ 
 
 Damages. 
 
 See CoMP ANT— Directors. 105. 
 
 — To take shares — Contributory. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Contributory. 
 
 Sub-contract. 
 
 34. — Sub-contractor's rigid to property in 
 incomplete article. 
 
 The defts. gave a limited co. an order to con- 
 struct two tanks on the deft.'s premises, for making 
 which the co. entered into a sub-contract at a 
 reduced price with the pit. The co. became 
 insolvent, when the tanks (which were not fix- 
 tures, but were too heavy to move) were partially 
 completed : — 
 
 Meld, that the property in the tanks was in 
 the pit., and that he had a lien on the purchase- 
 money payable by the defts. to the co. Bel- 
 lamy ij.'Davby - Romer J. [1891] 3 Ch. S40 
 
 An appeal by the debenture-holders of the co. 
 was di.smissed by consent C. A. [1891] W. N. 192 
 
 Time. 
 
 35. — Time limited, — Option 'of purchase — 
 Three months' notice — Notice by agent — Unautho- 
 rized argent — Satification. 
 
 Articles of partnership provided that on the 
 death of either partner, the survivor should have 
 the option of purchasing the deceased partner's 
 share, upon giving notice in writing of his inten- 
 tion so to do within three months from the death, 
 and that in ascertaining the value of the deceased 
 partner's share after such notice, nothing should 
 be allowed for the goodwill of the business. The 
 surviving partner was of unsound mind, but 
 notice of his intention to purchase was given on 
 his behalf bv hia solicitor within three months 
 frcm the death. An ordei- was subscqueiifly 
 
 CONTRACT (Time)— continued. 
 made under the Lunacy Acts authorizing a notice 
 being given on his behalf, and a second notice 
 was given accordingly, but after the three months 
 had expired : — 
 
 Held, that as the option to purchase had not 
 been exercised within the time limited there 
 was no contract which could be confirmed by 
 the second notice, and consequently, that the 
 committee of the surviving partner was rot 
 entitled to the benefit of the provision in the 
 articles. 
 
 Holland v. King, (1848) 6 0. B. 727, followed. 
 
 Bolton Partners v. Lambert, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 
 295, distinguished. Dibbins v. Dibbins 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 348 
 
 CONTRACT DEBT— Simple contract debt charged 
 on land — ^Period of limitation. 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 30. 
 
 "CONTRACT MADE"— Eeservation of right to 
 levy church rate upon any. 
 ■ See EoOLESiASTioAL Law — Church Rates. 
 6. 
 CONTRACTOR— Liability of principal for negli- 
 gence to public body. 
 See Pbinoipal and Agent. 10. 
 
 — Negligence of — Liability of owner for— Con- 
 
 tract to raise sunken wreck in navigable 
 
 river. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 83. 
 
 — Negligence of public- body — Contract to exe- 
 
 cute works — Liability of employer. 
 See Negligence. 3. 
 
 — Kateable occupation — Hoardings — Advertis- 
 
 ing contractor. 
 
 See Kates— Rateability. 10. 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 See Cases imder Master and Servant. 
 
 CONTRARY INTENTION— Locke King's Acts- 
 Exoneration of realty. 
 See Cases under Will — Exoneration. 
 
 CONTRIBUTION — Apportionment of dock 
 charges and expenses — Ship docked for 
 repair of sea damage. 
 See Insurance — Marine. 47. 
 
 — Between co-trustees — Breach of trust. 
 
 See Trustee— Breach of Trust. 21, 22. 
 
 — By county council to maintenance of main 
 
 roads. 
 
 See Highway — Repairs. 23. 
 
 — Gambling partnership — Bets paid by one 
 
 partner— Claim, 
 See Gaming. 9. 
 
 — Mutual insurance society — Insurance by agent, 
 
 member of association — Shipowner not 
 
 member — Liability. 
 
 See Insurance, Marine. 63, 64. 
 
 — Principal and surety. 
 
 See Principal and Surety- Contribu- 
 tion, 
 
 — Between joint wrongdoers. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Joint Delinauents. 
 21. 
 CONTRIBUTORY. 
 
 See CoMPANTr—WnroiNQ-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 
 
 g 2 
 
( 519 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 520 ) 
 
 CONTSIBUTOEY MOETGAGE — Investment — 
 Breach of trust — Priority. 
 See Tbustee. 39. 
 
 CONTBIBTJTORY NEGLIGENCE— Collision. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — CoUlBion. 
 
 — Fence machinery, Neglect to — Compensation 
 
 to injured perssn. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Sekvant 
 — Factory Acts. 
 
 — Level crossing — Gatelreeper's duty. 
 
 See Railway — Level Crossings. 7, 8. 
 
 — Towage — Stranding — Salvage. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 246. 
 
 CONVENT— Legacy for benefit of. 
 
 See Peobate — Grant of Administration. 
 30. 
 
 CONVEESION— Absolute gift subject to execu- 
 tory limitation — Reversionary interest — 
 Enjoyment in specie. 
 See Will,— Absolute Gift. 10. . 
 
 — Cheque — Forged indorsement — " Customer.'' 
 
 See Banker. 9. 
 
 — Discretionary power of postponement — Tenant 
 
 for life and remainderman — Rate of 
 
 interest. 
 
 See Settled Land — Interest. 58. 
 
 — Document — Damages, Measure of — Money 
 
 had and received. 
 See Trover. 6. 
 
 — Estoppel — Proximate cause of loss — Liability 
 
 of warehouseman. 
 See Trover. 4. 
 
 — Lunatic — Contract to purchase real estate — 
 
 Voidable contract — Completion of pur- 
 chase by committee. 
 See Lunacy — Contracts. 10. 
 
 — Partition action. 
 
 See Partition. 1, 2, 7, 8. 
 
 — Postponement at discretion of trustees — 
 
 " Intermediate income." 
 See Aooumulations. 4. 
 
 1. — Power of sale — Heal estate — Devolution. 
 A will devised realty on trust to raise money 
 
 by sale or mortgage, and subject thereto to pay 
 the rents and profits to A. and B. successively for 
 life, and on the death of the survivor for the 
 benefit of B.'s children absolutely. The will 
 contained a power of sale with a trust for re- 
 investment in freeholds, copyholds, or leaseholds, 
 with an interim power of investment in personalty. 
 The trustees sold and invested in Consols; the 
 trust for re-investment was never exercised : — 
 
 Seld, that the share of a child of B., who died 
 intestate after the exercise of the power of sale 
 and during the life of the last tenant for life, 
 devolved on his heir. In re Bird. Pitman ti. 
 Pitman North J. [1892') 1 Ch. 279 
 
 — Real estate — Co-parceners — Law of inherit- 
 
 ance — Tracing title from " purchaser." 
 See Intestacy. 1 . . 
 
 2. — Seal estate — Option to purchase — 
 Inteataey. 
 
 A, demised premises to B.* on lease with an 
 option to purchase witliin six months of A.'s 
 
 CONVEESION — continued. 
 
 decease. A. died intestate; B. exercised the 
 
 option : — 
 
 Seld, that the purchase-money was personally, 
 and went to the legal personal representative of 
 A. In re Isaacs. Isaacs v. Reginali- 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 3 Ch. 506 
 
 3. — Real estate — Fartnerihip. 
 
 An owner in fee of land sold an undivided 
 moiety to a surveyor on terms ; that payment was 
 to be made by instalments, the surveyor was to 
 manage the property, and neither party was to 
 part with any in terest without consent of other : — 
 
 Held, that there was no conversion of tile 
 realty into personalty. Principles regulating the 
 devolution of land held for a partnership or 
 other commnn object discussed. In re Wilson. 
 Wilson v. Holloway North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 340 
 — Real estate — Postponement of sale — Interim 
 rents — Enjoyment in specie. 
 See Settled Land— Apportionment. 10. 
 
 4. — Real estate — Trust for sale — Devolution. 
 Where real estate is devised upon trust for 
 
 conversion into personalty to be held upon trusts 
 which partially fail, the proceeds of sale and the 
 land (if any) unsold both result to the heir as 
 personal estate. In re Richebson. Scales v. 
 Heyhoe (No. 1) - Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 379 
 
 6. — Real estate — Trust for sale — Remoteness. 
 
 To create in equity a conversion of realty into 
 personalty, the trust or power of sale must be 
 absolute and effective. If the trust for sale is 
 void for any cause, e.g., for remoteness, no con- 
 version takes place. 
 
 (a) Goodies v. Edmunds 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 3 Ch. 455 
 
 (b) In re Wood. Tullett v. Colville 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 381 affirm. Eekewich J. 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 310 
 
 6. — Realty devised in trust for sale — Partial 
 failure of trusts. 
 
 Where real estate is devised upon trust for 
 conversion into p rsonalty to be held upon trusts 
 which in the result partially fail, the proceeds of 
 the land sold and the land (if any) unsold both 
 result to the heir as personal estate. In re 
 RicHERSON. Scales v. Heyhoe (No. 1) 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 379 
 
 7. — Residuary gift — Successive interests — 
 Leaseholds. 
 
 A testator directed that the rents and profits 
 of his residuary real and personal estate should 
 be paid to his wife for life ; and after her death 
 he gave his residuary estate to others in succession, 
 subject to certain annuities, and conferred on the 
 annuitants a power of distress. The residuary 
 estate included both freeholds and leaseholds : — 
 
 Held, that neither the direction to pay rents 
 nor the power of distress afforded any sufficient 
 indication of an intention that the leaseholds 
 should be enjoyed in specie, and that they ought 
 to be treated as converted at the expiration of a 
 year from the testator's death, in accordance with 
 tbe rule in Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth, (1802) 
 7 Ves. 137 a. 
 
 Craig v. Wheeler, (1860) 29 L. J. (Ch.) 371, 
 approved and followed. 
 
 Oou'e V. Crisford, (1853) 17 Beav. 507, Wear- 
 
( 521 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 322 ) 
 
 CONVERSION— conijnuetJ. 
 
 ing V. Wearing, (1856) 23 Beav. 99, and Vacliell 
 V. Boberts, (lb63) 32 Beav. 140, commented npun. 
 In re Game. Game v. Younq 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 881 
 — Retainer of unauthorized investment — Bate of 
 
 interest. 
 
 See Settled Land— Interest. 57. 
 
 8. — Specific devise of realty siibject to a lease 
 with option to purcTiase. 
 
 Testator by his will specifically devised 
 certain freeholds, and bequeathed his residuary 
 real and personal estate to other persons. Subse- 
 quently he made a codicil which expressly con- 
 firmed the will, but did not refer in terms to the 
 property specifically devised. On the same day 
 he granted a lease of the specifically devised pro- 
 perty with an option of purchase, which was 
 exercised after the testator's death : — 
 
 Held, that the confirmation of the will 
 
 indicated a snfScient intention to pass to the 
 
 devisee whatever interest tlie testator had in the 
 
 property, and that the proceeds of the sale did 
 
 not fall into residue. In re Pyle. Pylb v. Pyle 
 
 Stirling T. [1895] 1 Ch. 724 
 
 And see Settled Land — Apportionment, 
 
 &c. 
 
 — Trover. 
 
 See Cases under Tkoveb. 
 
 — Trust for. 
 
 See Settled Land — Apportionment. 
 9,10. 
 CONVEKSIOH OF DOCUMENT — Damages — 
 Measure of — Non-negotiable instrument 
 — Money had and received. 
 See Troveb. 6. 
 
 CONVEKSION or GOODS. 
 
 See Cases under Tr.ovBK. 
 
 CONVEESION OP NATIONAL DEBT— Of New 3 
 
 per cent. Annuities into 2| per cent. 
 
 Consols. 
 
 See Cases under National Debt. 
 
 CONVEESION OF STOCK INTO SHABES, 
 
 See Company — Conversion of Stock into 
 Shares. 
 
 CONVEYANCE— Bankruptcy practice. 
 See Cases under Bankkuptct. 
 
 — Base fee turned into fee absolute. 
 
 See Will— Estate Tail. 78. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company — "Winding-t;p. 
 
 — Covenant against overlooking lights— Build- 
 
 ings " adjoining " land of vendors. 
 See Light and Air. 1. 
 
 — Fraudulent conveyances. 
 
 See Fbadddlbnt Conveyances. 
 
 — Presumption that bed of river ad medium 
 
 filum passes by— Eebuttal— Evidence— 
 
 Admissibility. 
 
 See Wateb. 41, 45. 
 
 — Scottish. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Conveyance. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Bbvende- Stamps, lol- 160. 
 
 CONVEYANCE- cojiWnued. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Vendor and Pubohasee — Convoy- 
 anoe. 
 
 — Voluntary conveyance. 
 
 See Voluntary Conveyances. 
 
 — Wife's. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife. 
 
 CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF.PEOPEaTY. 
 
 See also Cross-references to the Convey- 
 ancing and Law of Properly Statutes. 
 Conveyancing Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. o. 13) 
 amends the Act of 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41). 
 
 Trustee Act, 1893 (56 <fc 57 Vict. c. 53) repeals 
 88. 31-38 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, and s. 5 
 of the Conveyancing Act, lb82 (45 & 46 Vict. 
 c. 39). 
 
 — Costs — Scale fee. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor — Costs. 
 
 — " Die without child or children '' — Executory 
 
 gift over. 
 
 See Will— Children. 35. 
 
 1. — Discharge of incumbrances on sale — • 
 Question of construction as to interests in futuro — 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. e. 41), s. 5. 
 
 Upon an application to the Court under s. 5 of 
 the Conveyancing Act, 1881, to make provision 
 for incumbrdnces on land, and the sale of tlie 
 land freed therefrom, the Court will decide a 
 question of construction involving the determina- 
 tion of interests in futuro, if the decision of such 
 question is necessary in order to ascerlain what 
 sum of money ought to be set aside to answer the 
 incumbrances. On appeal the Court did not 
 refuse to decide the question on the ground that 
 it affected the future rights of unborn children, 
 the interests of those children being the same as 
 those of the existing children who were before 
 the Court. In re Fkeme's Conteact 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Oh. 256 ; C. A. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 778 
 
 — Covenant against assignment without licence. 
 
 See Covenant. 1. 
 
 — Illegal distress — Mortgage — Beceiver. 
 
 See Distress. 11. 
 
 — Infant — Accumulations. 
 
 See Infant— Maintenance. 28. 
 — • Lease — ^Forfeiture. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — For- 
 feiture. 
 
 — Leases. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and 
 Tenant — lease. 
 
 — Light — Implied easement — Movtgngee — 
 
 Power of sale. 
 
 See Light and Air. 14. 
 
 — Merger — Legal estate — Expressed grant of 
 
 fee — Leasehold title in equity — Inten- 
 tion. 
 See Meegee. 2. 
 
 — Mortgagee in possession — Specific devise by 
 
 executor beneficially entitled to mort- 
 gage debt. 
 See Will— Specific Devise. 197. 
 
 — Mortgage — Receiver- Illegal distress. 
 
 See Distress. \\. 
 
( 523 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 524 ) 
 
 CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PEOPEBTY— 
 
 — oontinued. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Cases under Mortgage. 
 
 — Power of api^ointment. 
 
 See Cases under Powers. 
 
 — Questions between vendor and purchaser.' 
 
 .See Cases under Vendok and Pue- 
 
 OHASBB. 
 
 — Eestraint on anticipation. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Bestraint on Anticipation. 
 
 — Trustee — Appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Tuustee — Appointment. 
 
 CONVICTION— Bar to action. 
 
 See Pbiendlt Society. 12. 
 
 — Effect of, on ownership of goods. 
 
 See Factor. 7. 
 
 — Previous conviction — Evidence — Examination 
 
 of defendant. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Evidence. 18. 
 CO-OWNEES— Action of restraint— Bond for safe 
 return — Forfeiture — Jurisdiction. 
 See Shippins — Eestraint. 213. 
 
 — Invention — Eight to use — Disclosure — Injunc- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Secret Process. 
 
 — of Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Ownership. 
 
 — of Ship. 
 
 See Shipping — Necessaries, 179. 
 
 CO-PAECENEES— Joint tenants or— Devise to 
 testator's " right heirs " — Female heii'S. 
 See Will — Joint Tenancy. 112. 
 
 — Law of inheritance — Real estate — Tracing 
 
 title from " purchaser." 
 See Intestacy. 1. 
 
 COPIES— Appeals, 
 
 See Appeal. 81. 
 
 — Appeals — Notes of proceedings in Court below 
 
 ■ — ■ Summary Jurisdiction (Married 
 
 Women) Act. 
 
 See Appeal. 86, 37. 
 
 — Eight to take — Register of members — Inspec- 
 
 tion. 
 
 ;See Company— Eegister. 251 — 253. 
 
 — Eight to inspect and take — Eegister of mort- 
 
 See Company — Register. 254. 
 
 COPYHOLD— Cop2/7)oZ(Z Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 c. 46), consolidates the law relating to copyholds. 
 
 1. — Admittance — Acceptance of rent — Seizure 
 quousque — Statutes of Limitations Acts, 1 838 
 (8 * 4| Will. 4, c. 27); 1874 (37 & 38 Vict, 
 c. 57). 
 
 Held, by C. A., affirming Wright J., that the 
 acceptance of quit-rents by the lord of the manor 
 in respect of copyholds from a person paying as 
 heir or surrenderee implies an admittance of such 
 person as tenant if the lord knows that the quit- 
 rents are so paid :— fieZcZ, by C. A., varying 
 Wright J., that the Statutes of Limitation apply 
 to a seizure quousque of copyholds by the lord 
 
 COPYHOLD — oontinued. 
 
 of the manor, and begin to run when after pro- 
 clamation or notice the heir fails to come in and 
 be admitted. Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Paeb 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 480 
 
 2, — Admittance — Seizure quousque — Implied 
 admittance. 
 
 The Statutes of Limitations apply to a seizure 
 quousque of copyholds by the lord of the manor, 
 and begin to run when after proclamation or 
 notice the heir fails to com e in and be admitted. 
 Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Parr 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Q. B. 420 
 
 — Custom — Fines on renewal of leases for lives 
 — Income or capital. 
 See Settled Land — Copyholds. 50. 
 
 3. — Customary obligation to repair — Custom 
 of the manor — Breach of ohligation hy tenant — 
 Bemedy of lord against tenant's executors. 
 
 The testatrix of the defts. was admitted 
 tenant for life of certain copyhold tenements of 
 a manor. By the custom of the manor the 
 tenants weTe bound to repair their tenements, 
 and the only mode in which that obligation had 
 been enforced had been by presentment, fine and 
 forfeiture. Upon the death of the testatrix the 
 premises were found to be out of repair. More 
 than six months after the defta., as her executors, 
 had taken upon themselves the administration of 
 her effects, the lord brought an action against 
 them for dilapidations : — 
 
 Meld, that the testatrix, by accepting the 
 tenancy according to the custom of the manor, 
 impliedly contracted to discharge the customary 
 obligation to repair; that for the breach of her 
 implied contract the lord was not confined to his 
 customary remedy by presentment, fine and for- 
 feiture, but had a remedy by action,; and that 
 that remedy by action, sounding in contract and 
 not in tort, survived against her executors. 
 Blackmorb v. White 
 
 Lord EnsseU of KiUowen C.J. [1898] W. N. 172(6); 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 293 
 
 Commented on by Kekewich J. In re I. 
 {Infants'), [1890] 1 Ch. 719, 723. 
 
 ■ Enfranchisement — Fines. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 3. 
 
 4. — Fine on admittance — Limitation of 
 Action — Point from which time hegins to run — 
 Civil Procedure Act, 1833 (3 <£■ 4 mil. 4, v. 42), 
 s. 3. 
 
 The lord of a manor was entitled to an arbi- 
 trary fine on the admittance of a tenant to copy- 
 hold. He brought an action for the fine more 
 than six years after the admittance, but less than 
 six years from the assessment and demand of the 
 fine: — 
 
 Held, that the period of limitation began to 
 run from the time of the admittance, and that 
 the lord's right was therefore barred by 3 & 4 
 Will. 4, 0. 42, s. 3. Monokton v. Payne 
 
 A, L. Smith L. J. [1899] 2 Q. B. 603 
 
 5. — Heriot custom — Heriot service — Might to 
 seize without the manor. 
 
 A beast which is due to the lord, of a manor 
 by heriot custom may be seized without the 
 
( 52S ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 526 ) 
 
 COTYSOLTt—cmtinued. 
 
 manor, although the beast has never been within 
 
 the manor. 
 
 Quaere, whether a right in the lord of a manor 
 to take a heriot as due by heriot service can exist 
 in the case of copyhold tenements of the manor. 
 Western v. Bailey - C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 86 
 
 6. — Married woman tenant on the rolls — 
 Declaration of trust by deed acknowledged— Effect 
 of — "Disposition" — Fines and Recoveries Act, 
 1833 (3 *;4 Will, i, e. 74), s. 77. 
 
 A declaration of trust of copyholds by a 
 married woman, tenant on the rolls of the manor, 
 by a deed acknowledged under the Fines and 
 Recoveries Act, is a "disposition" within the 
 meaning of s. 77 of the Act, and will effectually 
 bind the copyholds as against her customary 
 heir. Such a case is not within the proviso of 
 the section. Carter v. Carter 
 
 Stirling J, [1895] W. N. 138 (5); 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 62 
 
 7. — Proclamation for heir — Notice — Statutes 
 of Limitations, 1833 (3*4 Will. 4, u. 27), s. 9 ; 
 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57). 
 
 There had been no admission on the court 
 rolls in respect of copyhold since 1786, and pro- 
 clamation was made for the heir in 1876 and 
 1877, and B., who was in possession, sought to be 
 admitted, but failed as he could not shew a clear 
 title. C, a son of B., was tenant to his father 
 for more than twenty years prior to B.'s death in 
 1891. C. also was not admitted, as he could not 
 make a clear title. C. claimed that under the 
 Statute of Limitations he had acquired a good 
 title against the lord of the manor and B.'s cus- 
 tomary heirs, and that the property had become 
 freehold : — 
 
 Held, that C.'s contention failed. Beighton 
 V. Beighton - Somer J. [189S] W. N. 119 (7) 
 
 8. — Quit-rent — Copyhold quit-i-ent — Extinc- 
 tion hy non-payment — Statutes of Limitations, 1833 
 (3 (fe 4 Will. 4, e. 27), 8. 2 ; 1874 (37 & 38 Vict, 
 c. 57), «. 1. 
 
 A copyhold quit-rent is extinguished by non- 
 payment for more than twelve years, and is not 
 like a rent reserved or a lease excepted from 
 the operation of tbe Statutes of Limitations (3 & 4 
 Will. 4, c. 27 ; 87 & 38 Vict. c. 57). Howitt v. 
 Eael of Harrington 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 9. — Quit-rent — Extinction hy non-payment. 
 A quit-rent payable in respect of a copyhold 
 
 tenement is not excepted from the operation of 
 the Statutes of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, 
 and 37 & 38 Vict. c. 37), and where it has re- 
 mained unpaid without acknowledgment for 
 twelve years the right to recover it is barred. 
 Howitt v. Earl or Harrington 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 '^ Vesting order — Death of vendor before com- 
 pletion—Form of order. 
 See Trustee— Vestry Order. 102. 
 
 10. — Waste of manor — Enfranchised copy- 
 holder — Statutory reservation of common rights- 
 Copyhold Act, 1852 (15 * 16 Vict. c. 51), s. 45 
 [see now the Copyhold Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 46)]. 
 
 A custom that the lord with consent of the 
 
 CQTi'KOIj'D— continued. 
 
 homage may make grants of waste to be held on 
 copyhold tenure, although a sufSciency of common 
 be not left, may be a good custom, and, if proved, 
 a grant of the waste, with the consent of the 
 homage, i.e., the majority of tbe homage, may be 
 made in spite of the opposition of a commoner, 
 who, having enfranchised his tenement under 
 the Copyhold Act, 1852, was no longer able to 
 attend the manor court. Eamsby v. Crttddas 
 
 C, A. [1893] 1 Q, B. 228 
 COPYRIGHT. 
 
 Boole, col. 526. 
 
 Design. See Design. 
 
 Dramatic, col. 528. 
 
 Infringement, col. 528. 
 
 International, col. 532, 
 
 Music, col. 535. 
 
 Newspapers. See Oopyeight — Periodi- 
 cal. 
 
 Periodical, col. 536. 
 
 Picture, col. 538. 
 
 Sculpture, col. 539. 
 
 Book, 
 
 1. ■ — Advertisement card — Begistration — Copy- 
 right Acts, 1842 (5 (fe 6 Vict. c. 45), ss. 2, 11 ; 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict. e. 68). 
 
 An advertisement sheet in the shape of a 
 hand which opened and shewed on one side the 
 "lines of life," and on the other descriptive 
 verses, is capable of registration as a " book," it 
 being within the definition of a " sheet of letter- 
 press " which is included in the word " book" : — 
 Held, also, that there is sufficient registration 
 if the proprietor of the work is registered with- 
 out requiring the writer of the verses or the 
 artist to be registered, and that the certificate of 
 registration is prim^ facie evidence of proper 
 registration. Hildesheimer v. Dunn 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] W. H. 66 
 — Book containing drawings — Registration. 
 See Copyright — Infringement. 19. 
 2. ' — British International Copyright — Im- 
 portation into Great Britain of copies printed 
 where the book was first published — Copyright 
 Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. 45), ss. 2, 11, 13, 15, 17— 
 International Copyright Act, 1844 (7 <fc 8 Vict. 
 c. 12), ss. 2, 3, 10. 
 
 The pit. was owner of the British interna- 
 tional copyright of a book first published in 
 Germany. The deft, imported and sold in Great 
 Britain copies printed in Germany by the owner 
 of the German copyright : — 
 
 Held, by Lindley and Eigby L.J J. (dis- 
 sentieute Lopes L.J.), reversing the decision of 
 Kekewich J., that the pit. was entitled to re- 
 strain this importation and sale, for that s. 10 
 of the International Copyright Act, which, as 
 regards any book in which there is British inter- 
 national copyright, prohibits the importation into 
 Great Britain without the consent of the pro- 
 prietor of such copyright, of copies printed in 
 any foreign country except that in which the 
 book was first published, does not form a com- 
 plete code as to the importation of copies and 
 that s. 3, which provides that the enactments in 
 
t 527 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 528 ) 
 
 COPYSIGHT (Book)— conimaed 
 the Copyright Act shall apply to books in which 
 there is British international copyright in the 
 same way as if such books had been first pub- 
 lished here, made ss. 15 and 17 of the Copyright 
 Act applicable to the book in question, and that 
 as under those sections the owner of the copy- 
 right could, if the book had been first published 
 in Great Britain, have restrained the importaiion 
 of these copies, the owner of the British inter- 
 national copyright could do so. Pitt Pitts v. 
 George & Co. - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 866 
 
 3. — Directory — Headings — GopyriqM Act, 
 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. 45), ». 18. 
 
 Tlie proprietor of a trades directory has copy- 
 right in the headings, although the letterpress 
 consist only of advertisements, and also in the 
 arrangement of the advertisements, the Court 
 holding that it was a fair inference that they 
 had been composed or arranged on the terms 
 that the pit. should have the copyright in them. 
 Lamb v. Evans (No. 1) - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 218 
 affirm. Chitty J, [1893] 3 Ch. 462 
 
 Followed by O. A. MoU v. Green, [189.5] 
 2 Q. B. 315. 
 
 4. — Bress pattern — "Map, chart, or plan" — 
 Copyright Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. e. 45), s. 2. 
 
 A cardboard pattern sleeve containing upon 
 it scales, figures, and descriptive words for 
 adapting it to sleeves of any dimensions, is not 
 the subject of copyright as a map, chart, or plan 
 within 8. 2 of the Copyright Act, 1842 : — 
 
 Sernble, it might be the subject of a patent as 
 «n instrument or tool. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1893] 2 Ch. 377, 
 reversed. IIollineake v. Trcswell 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 420 
 
 Followed by C. A. Boosey v. Whigltt, [1900] 
 1 Ch. 122, 12.5. 
 
 Eeferred to by II. L. (E.). Walter v. Lane, 
 [1900] A. C. 539, 562. 
 
 — Infringement — Piracy — Pjofits. 
 
 See CoPTHiGHT — Infringement. 11. 
 
 6. — Sale of blocks — Unassignable licence — 
 Copyright Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45), s. 15. 
 
 The pits., being registered owners of the copy- 
 right in books containing illustrations drawn by 
 themselves, supplied copies of the drawings to 
 persons for advertising purposes, the copies being 
 generally printed by themselves and supplied to 
 the customers on advertising sheets. Occasion- 
 ally, for a money consideration, they supplied 
 blocks of the drawings, so that the customers 
 might print the designs with other matter not 
 printed by pits. ; for this purpose they sold blocks 
 to L. There was no written agreement with or 
 licence to L. as to the use of the blocks. Deft, 
 with permission of L. used the blocks to print 
 drawings which they published : — 
 
 Held, that the licence did not constitnte an 
 assignment of copyright, but was a mere autho- 
 rity to L. personally to print therefrom for his 
 own advertisements or trade, and that pits, were 
 entitled to an injunction restraining defts. from 
 using the blocks. 
 
 Semble, an injunction would not have been 
 granted restraining L. from personally using the 
 
 COPYBIGHT (Book)— continued. 
 
 blocks, although he had no written licence. 
 
 CooPEB V. Stepheks Somer J. [1895] 1 Ch. 567 
 
 6. — Time-tables — Part of work protected — 
 Copyright Act, 1842 (5 <£ 6 Vid. c. 45), ». 19. 
 
 A. printed monthly time-tables as to the train 
 service in the neighbourhood of P., including 
 four pages of information as to circular tours. 
 B. printed similar tables, including the four 
 pages as to circular tours. Interdict granted 
 restraining B. from jmnting the matter as to the 
 circular tours, but as to the remainder, held, that 
 as the information in both A. and I5.'s tables 
 was derived from the books of the railway cos., 
 it could not be said to be appropriation of A.'b 
 work : — 
 
 Held, also, that although the matter as to cir- 
 cular toura only formed a small part of A.'s book, 
 it could be treated as an independent work, and 
 protected by copyright law. Leslie v. Young 
 AND Sons - - H. I, (So.) [1894] A. C. 335 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Walter v. Lane, [1899] 
 2 Ch. 749, 757; [1900] A. C. 539. 
 
 Design. 
 
 Bee Designs. 
 
 Dramatic. 
 
 7. — Author — Original play — Sole liberty of 
 representation — Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833 
 (3*4 Will. 4, c. 15), «. 1. 
 
 The sole liberty of representing a play vests, 
 under s. 1 of the Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833, 
 in the author when the work is written and 
 finished. The first public performance confers 
 no priority, but only fixes the period from which 
 (if entitled to it) the endurance of the sole liberty 
 of representation is to be calculated. 
 
 Semble, the sole rights in two plays, which 
 though the same in substance are original and 
 unaided productions, may be vested in different 
 persons. Ebichardt v. Saptb 
 
 Hawkins J. [1893] 2 Q. B. 308 
 
 — Dramatic piece — Right of performance. 
 
 See Copyright — Music. 29. 
 
 8. — Infringement — Interim injunction dis- 
 solved — Damages. 
 
 An interim injunction was granted to restrain 
 the deft, from acting his own dramatised version 
 of a novel, on the ground that the novelist had 
 already founded a drama on the novel. The 
 injunction was dissolved at the trial. 
 
 Question as to how the undertaking as to 
 damages was to be assessed, and what deductions 
 were to be made as to deft.'s possible earnings if 
 he had continued his playing tour with other 
 pieces. Sohlesingee v. Bedford 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 57 
 
 — International copyright — Jurisdiction to re- 
 
 strain infringement. 
 
 See Cases under Copyright — Inter- 
 national. 
 
 Infringement. 
 (Practice as to Infringement Generally.) 
 9. — A ssignment — Licence to copy • — Suhse- 
 
 qnent assignment — Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 
 Vict. 0. 68), ss. 3, 4, 6. 
 
 Action by assignee of the copyright in a 
 
( 529 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 530 ) 
 
 COPYRIGHT (Infringement)— con Km«ed!. 
 picture against a person claiming to be a 
 previous licensee for infringement dismissed on 
 the ground that the assignors did not register 
 their copyright until after the assignment, and 
 the assignees were not registered at all. London 
 Pbinting and Publishing Alliance, Ld. v. Cox 
 C. A. reversing V. Williams J., 
 Xindley L.J. dissent. [1891] 3 Ch. 391 
 
 Followed hy Kekewioh J. Petty v. Taylor, 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 465. 
 
 10. — Assignment — Registration — Infringe- 
 ment — Right of unregistered assignee to sue — 
 Copyright Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict. u. 45), ss. 13, 24. 
 
 The assignee of a copyright under 5 & 6 Vict. 
 c. 45, must be registered |)efore he can maintain 
 an action for its infringement. 
 
 Dictum of Cockburn C.J. in Wood v. Boosey, 
 (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 340, not followed. Liveb- 
 pooL General Beokbbs' Association, Ld. u. 
 
 COMMEBOIAL PbESS TbLEGBAM BuBEAUX, Ld. 
 
 Kennedy J. [1897] 8 «. B. 1 
 
 11. — Boole — Piracy- — Action on the case — 
 Detinue — Trover — Combining causes of action-r— 
 Limitation of actions — Damages — Proceeds of 
 conversion — Profits — Delivery up of copies — 
 Copyright Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. 45), ss. 15, 
 23, 26 — Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 2. 
 
 A proprietor of copyright in a book who has 
 a remedy for infringement by " a special action 
 on the case " under s. 15 of the Copyright Act, 
 1842, is not precluded from suing the offender, if 
 he thinks fit, under s. 23, either in detinue or in 
 (rover, or, if necessary, in both combined; and 
 all the remedies under both sections may be pur- 
 sued by action in the Ch. Div. 
 
 In an action for infringement by a proprietor 
 of copyright in a book, where the deft, had still 
 in his possession some of the infringing copies 
 and had sold others but without making any 
 profits on the sales : — • 
 
 Meld, that the pit. was entitled, in addition to 
 the usual injunction, to delivery-up of the copies 
 in the deft.'s possession and to damages repre- 
 senting the actual amount of the proceeds of the 
 copies sold. Muddock v. Blackwood 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1897] W. N. 158 (4) ; 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 58 
 
 12. — Costs — Right to indemnity or costs— 
 "Full costs" — Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833 
 
 3*4 Will, i, V. 15), s. 2— Costs Act, 1842 (5 & 6 
 Vict. c. 97), 8. 2— County Courts ^ci, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. 0. 43), 8. 116— .B. S. C, Orders xxii., r. 7 ; 
 LXV., r. I. 
 
 Where an author claimed and recovered four 
 penalties of 408. each for four infringements of 
 his dramatic copyright : — 
 
 Held, that, although he was not entitled to 
 costs, having recovered less than Wl. in an action 
 of tort (s. 116, County Court Acts, 1888), yet he 
 might have his costs faxed on the fooling of 
 obtaining a full indemnity under 5 & 6 Vict. 
 c. 97, s. 2. 
 
 Per C. A. : The question of costs was governed 
 by the statute. The Judicature Acts and Eules 
 do not overrule the provisions of special statutes 
 
 COPYRIGHT (Infringement)— coKiintfeti. 
 granting special costs in particular cases. Eeeve 
 V. Gibson - - Div. Ct. atfirmed by C. A, 
 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 652 
 
 13. — Costs— "Full costs" — Copyright Act, 
 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45), s. 16— Double Costs Act, 
 1842 (5 * 6 Vict. c. 97), s. 2. 
 
 An action for infringement was dismissed 
 " with full costs, to be taxed by the taxing 
 master " : — ■ 
 
 Held, that this meant "party and party 
 costs " only. Avebt v. Wood 
 
 C. A. afarm. North J. [1891] 3 Ch. 115 
 
 But see now Public Authorities Protection 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1 (6). 
 
 14. — Evidence of infringement. 
 
 Where the original picture was abroad, proof 
 of the infringement of the copyright by photo- 
 graphing an engraving sworn to be an exact 
 copy of the picture, and made under the super- 
 vision of the artist, was allowed by production of 
 the engraving by a person who had seen the 
 original picture. Lucas v. Williams & Sons 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B, 113 
 
 15. — Injunction — Right of property in un- 
 published information — Action, Cause of — 
 Procuring breach of Contract — Proof of damage. 
 
 In order to support an action for maliciously 
 inducing persons to break their business contracts 
 with the pit. proof of specific damage need not 
 be given; it is sufBcient to prove facts from 
 which it may properly be inferred that some 
 damage must result to the pit. from the deft.'s 
 wrongful acts. 
 
 Under a contract made between the pits, and 
 the committee of the London Stock Exchange, 
 valuable information as to the prices of stocks 
 and shares from time to time during the day was 
 collected on the Stock Exchange, and supplied 
 to the pits, and printed on tapes and sheets of 
 letterpress in their office. The deft., having 
 surreptitiously obtained such information, pub- 
 lished it in the same form before its publication 
 by the pits. : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, had a right of property 
 at common law in the information, and were 
 entitled to an injunction to restrain the deft, 
 from infringing that right by continuing to pub- 
 lish it. Exchange Telegraph Co. v. Gbegoky 
 & Co. - C. A. [1895] W. N. 138 (6) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 147 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Exchange Tele- 
 graph Co. V. Central News, Ld., [1897] 2 Ch. 48, 
 53. 
 
 — Interim injunction dissolved — Damages. 
 See Copyeight — Dramatic. 8. 
 
 16. — PenaZties — Fine arts — Principal and 
 agent — Indecency of work and infringements — 
 Costs— Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict, c. 68), 8. 6 — International Copyright Act, 
 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 33), s. 2, S!ib-8. 3— Bern 
 Convention, art. 2. 
 
 The joint effect of s. 2, sub-s. 3, of the Inter- 
 national Copyright Act, 1886, and art. 2 of the 
 Bern Convention, is- that an author suing in 
 England in respect of an infringement of foreign 
 copyright must prove that he is entitled to pro- 
 tection in the country of origin of the work, but 
 
( 531 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 532 ) 
 
 COPYEIGHT (Infringement)— conWnMe^. 
 
 that right once established, his remedy depends 
 
 entirely on the English law. 
 
 An author whose copyright is infringed in 
 any manner mentioned in s. 6 of the Fine Arts 
 Copyright Act, 1862, is entitled to recover sepa- 
 rate penalties against every infringer, whether 
 principal or agent, master or servant, the mini- 
 mum penalty in every case being a farthing for 
 each copy by him pirated. 
 
 Ex parte Beal, (1868) L. K. 3 Q. B. 387, and 
 Ellis V. Marshall & Son, (1895) 64 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 757, followed. 
 
 Where an action in respect of infringement 
 of copyright fails on the ground of the indecency 
 of the work, and the indecency has been repeated 
 in the infringements, the action will be dismissed 
 without costs. Baschet v. London Illustkated 
 Standard Co. Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 215 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 Eeferred to by Kelrewich J.. Hildeaheimer 
 V. Faulkners, Ld., [1900] W. N. 170. See next 
 Case. 
 
 17. — ■ Penalty—" Every such offence " — Known 
 coin of the Realm — Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 68), s. 6. 
 
 The main question between the parties was 
 whether the penalty should be fixed at a farthing 
 for each copy put in circulation, which would 
 amount to 1054!. 15s. lOd. in all, or whether it 
 should be fixed at a fraction of a farthing for 
 each copy : — 
 
 Held, that " every such offence " in s. 6 
 referred to a repetition, copy, or other imitation, 
 and, according to the decision in Ex parte Beal, 
 (1868) L. K. 3 Q. B. 387, the pit. was entitled to 
 a penalty for each copy circulated ; the sum 
 forfeited must be some recognised sum, not 
 merely a sum whicli could be expressed in 
 figures, but a sum whicli existed in reality, and 
 which could be recovered, and, having regard to 
 the difficulty there would be in recovering the 
 fraction of a farthing, the Court felt obliged to 
 fix the penalty at a farthing for each copy, though 
 it would have been glad to have been able to 
 avoid coming to a conclusion which woiild give 
 an extravagant amount for pictures of an ephe- 
 meral character. On the defts. paying 2002. to 
 the pit., and paying the rest of the money into 
 com-t, the Court stayed execution pending an 
 appeal. 
 
 Ellis V. Marshall & Son, (1895) 64 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 757; 11 Times L. E. 522; Bascliet v. London 
 Illustrated Standard Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 73, and 
 Green v. Irish Independent Co., [1899] 1 Ir. Eep. 
 386, referred to. Hildesheimeb v. Faulkneks, 
 Ld, - - Kekewich J. [1900] W. N, 170 
 
 18. — Printers — Tortfeasors — Damages. 
 Where printers know that what they are 
 
 printing is a piracy, and the purposes for which 
 it is intended to use the pirated copies when 
 delivered, 'they are ^tortfeasors jointly with the 
 persons for whom such copies are printed, and 
 are jointly liable in damages to the persons 
 whose copyright is infringed. Lamb v. Evans 
 (No. 2) - - Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 156 (2) 
 
 19. — Registration — Validity — Trustee or 
 agent — Book containing drawings — Literary and 
 
 COPYRIGHT (Infringement) — continued, 
 artistic — Copyright Act, 1842 (5 <£ 6 Vict. c. 45), 
 8. 13— Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 68), ss. 1, 4. 
 
 Eegistration of copyright under the Copyright 
 Act, 1842, or the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862, 
 in the name of a person who is a mere agent or 
 nominee of the proprietor of the copyright, and 
 not a trustee of the copyright for him, is bad ; 
 and joinder of the unregistered proprietor as oo- 
 plt. with the person so improperly registered 
 will not render an action for infringement of the 
 copyright maintainable. 
 
 London Printing and Publishing Alliance v. 
 Cox, [1891] 3 Ch. 291, followed. 
 
 Accordingly, where copyright which belonged 
 to a limited co. was registered in the sole name 
 of their managing director, and it was not shewn 
 that he was a trustee of the copyright for them, 
 an action for infringement of the copyright by 
 the director and oo. as co-pits, was held not to be 
 maintainable. 
 
 Eegistration of a book under the Copyright 
 Act, 1842, in the name of the author of the letter- 
 press, does not confer any protection in respect of 
 drawings which are introduced into the book as 
 illustrations and the art copyright in which is 
 vested in other persons. 
 
 Grace v. Newman, (1875) L. E. 19 Eq. 623, 
 distinguished. 
 
 Under the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862, it 
 is not necessary that any agreement in writing 
 should be made or entered on the register where 
 registration is in the name of the person for or 
 on behalf of whom a drawing is made or executed 
 for a good or valuable consideration. Pettt v. 
 Taylob - Kekewich J. [1896] W. N, 167 (6); 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 465 
 
 20. — Tenancy in cmnmon — CopyriglU Act, 
 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 12), ss. 3, i— International 
 Copyright Act, 1886 (49 * 50 Vict. c. 33), s. 6. 
 
 Although the registered owners of a copyright 
 take as tenants in common, and not as joint 
 tenants, yet any one or more of them may 
 maintain an action against a stranger for an in- 
 fringement of the entire copyright. L.^tjei v. 
 Eenad - - Per Kekewich J. 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 402, at p. 413 
 
 International. 
 
 AuSTElA-HuNGAET.] 0. in C. dated April 30, 
 1894, bringing the copyright convention with 
 Austria-Hungary into force as from May 11, 1894. 
 St. R. & 0. 1894, p. 41. 
 
 0. in 0. dated Feb. 2, 1895, applying the 0. in 
 C. of April 30, 1894, as to copyright with Austria- 
 Hungary to certain Colonies. St. S. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 65. Price id. 
 
 0. in C. dated May 11, 1895, applying the 0. 
 in C. of April 30, 1894, as to copyright with 
 Austria-Hungary to India. St. E. & 0. 1896, 
 No. 247. Price Id. 
 
 Japan.] 0. in C. dated Aug. 8, 1899, extend- 
 ing Bern Convention to. St. B. & 0. 1899, No. 593 ; 
 lond. Oaz. Aug. 11, 1899, pp. 4973, 4974. 
 
 MoNTENEQKO.] 0. in G. declaring that pro- 
 visions ofOs. in C. dated Nov. 28, 1887 and March 
 
( 533 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 534 
 
 COPYRIGHT (International)— cojitoaed. 
 
 7, 1898, shall cease to apply to. St. E, & 0. 1899, 
 
 Ko. 594. J^fD 
 
 MoNTBNEQKO.] 0. in C. dated May 16, 1893, 
 extending the International Copyright Acts to 
 Montenegro. St. B. & 0. 1893, p. 83. 
 
 Reference to the whole of the previous 0. in 0. 
 as to International Copyright is given in the 
 " Index to the Statutory Rules and Orders" 1893 
 edition. St. 0. P. 
 
 Pkoteotion of Adthors of Wokks.] 0. in 
 G. dated Aug. 1, 1896, under International Copy- 
 right Acts, 1844 to 1886, extending the provisions 
 of the Principal Order to the kingdom of Norway. 
 St. B. & 0. [1896] No. 683 ; 
 Lond. Eraz. Ang. 4, 1896, p. 44S1 
 
 0. in G. dated March 7, 1898, varying the pro- 
 visions of the 0. in G. of Nov. 20, 1887. St. B. & 0. 
 1898, p. 34, No. 260. 
 
 Hatti.] 0. in C. dated May 19, 1898, extend- 
 ing the provisions of 0. in G. of March 7, 1898, to 
 the Eepublie of Hayti. St. E. & 0. 1898, p. 39, 
 No. 415. 
 
 21. — Application to existing worlcs — Inter- 
 national Copyright Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 33), 
 g. 6. 
 
 A., a French subject, had composed a polka, 
 and first produced it in France before the 0. in 
 C. of Nov. 28, 1887, but had not acquired copy- 
 right in the IJnited Kingdom. Before the O. in 
 C. was gazetted, an English publisher printed the 
 polka, and the deft., a bandmaster, bought a copy 
 and played it before and after that date : — 
 
 Held, that there was evidence that the deft, 
 had an interest arising in connection with the 
 lawful production of the work in the United 
 Kingdom which was subsisting and valuable 
 when the O. in C. was published, and that he 
 was therefore protected by s. 6 of the Copyright 
 Act, 1886. MoDL V. Gboenings 
 
 C, A. affirm. A. Xi. Smith and Grantham JT. 
 [1891] 2 a. B. 443 
 
 Explained by Chitty J. Schauer v. J. C. & J, 
 Field, [1893] 1 Oh. 35. 
 
 Followed by Charles J. Hanfstaengl Art 
 Publishing Co. v. Eolloway, [1893] 2 Q. B. 1. 
 
 — Book — Importation into Great Britain of 
 
 copies printed where book was first 
 
 published. 
 
 See CoPTKiGHT — Book. 2. 
 
 — Book containing drawings — Registration — 
 
 Validity. 
 
 See CoPTBiGHT — Infringement. 19. 
 
 23. — Dramatic work — Jurisdiction to restrain 
 infringement — Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833 
 (3*4 Will. 4, c. 15). 8. 1. 
 
 Under the Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833, 
 s. 1, and art. 2 of the Bern Convention, the English 
 proprietor enjoys in any country of the Inter- 
 national Copyright Union the rights which that 
 country's law gives to natives there. Therefore, 
 proceedings by him to restrain an infringement in 
 that country by a British subject must be taken 
 in the Coxirts and according to the law of that 
 country ; and the English Courts have no juris- 
 diction. "MoEOOOO Bound" Syndicate, Ld. v. 
 Hakeis - - Kekewich J. [1896] 1 Ch. 634 
 
 COPYBIQHT (International)— conJinaed. 
 
 23. — Expiration, of right — Copyright Act, 
 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 12), ss. 8, i— International 
 Copyright Act, 1886 (49 * 50 Vict. c. 33), s. 6. 
 
 Where a copyright has expired before the 
 
 passing of the International Copyright Act, 1886, 
 
 that Act creates no new right. Laxjm v. Renad 
 
 C. A. affirm. Kekewich J. [1892] 3 Ch. 402 
 
 24. — Foreign work of art — Registration — • 
 Right to sue — Production— Copyright Act, 1842 
 (5 <fe 6 Vict. (J. 45) — International Copyright Act, 
 1844 (7 (fc 8 Vict. c. 12)— Copyright Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict, c. 68 — International Copyright 
 Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. u. 33). 
 
 (a) Where the 0. in C. adopting the Inter- 
 national Copyright Act, 1886, does not apply its 
 provisions as to registration, the provisions of 
 general Copyright Acts will apply. If a person 
 be registered under s. 4 of the Fine Arts Copy- 
 right Act, 1862, as owner of the English copy- 
 right in a foreign picture, he , can sue for 
 infringement, although not registered under the 
 International Copyright Acts. Pishbukn v. Hol- 
 LiNGSHEAD - Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ch. 371 
 
 Not followed by Charles J. Hanfstaengl Art 
 Publishing Go. v. Holloway, [1893] 2 Q. B. 1. 
 
 Disapproved by C. A. Hanfstaengl v. American 
 Tobacco Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 347. 
 
 (b) Foreign work of art^-Registration — Pro- 
 duction — Right to sue — Copyright Act, 1842 (5*6 
 Vict. c. 45), s. 13 ; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 68), 
 s. 4 — InteriMtional Copyright Act, 1886 (49 & 50 
 Vict. c. 33), s. 6. 
 
 (1) Sect. 6 of the International Copyright Act, 
 1886, applies to every foreign literary or artistic 
 work produced before Dec. 8, 1887, the date at 
 which the O. in C, Nov. 28, 1887, came into 
 operation, whether the works were produced 
 before or after the passing of the Act, June 25, 
 1886; (2) registration of a foreign work under 
 s. 4 of the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862, was 
 not a condition precedent to suing for infringe- 
 ment ; (3) the interest contemplated by the pro- 
 viso in s. 6 must be a direct subsisting pecuniary 
 interest in the continuation of the production. 
 Hanfstaengi, Abt Ptjelishing Co. v. Holloway 
 Charles J. [1893] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Hanfstaengl v. American 
 Tobacco Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 347, 351. See next 
 Case. 
 
 (o) The 0. in C. of Nov. 28, 1887, adopting 
 the Bern Convention of Sept. 5, 1887, contains 
 no provisions as to the registry and delivery of 
 copies of foreign works of art ; therefore registra- 
 tion under the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862, 
 is not necessary to give the owner of the English 
 copyright of such a picture a right to sue for 
 infringement, Hanfstaengl v. Ameeioan To- 
 bacco Co. - C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 347 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Pitt Pitts v. George & 
 Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 866, 871. 
 
 26. — " Published " — Produced — Copyright 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. e. 68), ss. 4, 12— Inter- 
 national Copyright Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 33), 
 88. 4, 11. 
 
 "Published" in s. 11 of the International 
 Copyright Act of 1886 is applicable to a painting. 
 
( 535 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 536 ) 
 
 COPYRIGHT (International)— comiinued. 
 and the country where it is first published is the 
 country of origin mentioned in art. 2 of the Con- 
 vention of Bern, so that compliance with the 
 formalities preseiibed by the laws of that country 
 gives the owner the right to sue in this country. 
 "Produced" in the same section means, as the 
 case requires, published or made or performed 
 or represented. Hanfstaengl v. American To- 
 BACOO Co. - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 347 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Pitt Pitts v. George & 
 Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 866, 871. 
 
 26. — Saving of rights and interests previously 
 acquired — Trade-marh — International Copyright 
 Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 33), s. 6. 
 
 A picture was painted in Germany before 
 Dec. 1885. In Jan. 1887, A. registered as a 
 trade-mark a photograph of the picture, with the 
 word " trade-mark " across it, and (subsequently 
 to the O. in C. of Dec. 1887, extending the Inter- 
 national Act to Germany) used reproductions of 
 the picture without the word trade-mark on 
 show-cards and price-lists. In 1892 B. registered 
 himself as owner of the copyright in the picture, 
 and brought an action against A. for infringe- 
 ment by the show-cards : — 
 
 Held, that the defts. were protected by the 
 proviso in s. 6 of the International Copyright 
 Act, 1886, nnd the show-cards, being in substance 
 a reproduction of the trade-mark, were a legiti- 
 mate way of advertising the trade-mark. Schauek 
 V. J. C. & J. Field - Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 86 
 — Tableaux vivants. 
 
 See CorTRiGHT — Picture. 39, 40. 
 
 27. — "Translation" — Copyright Act, 1852 
 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 12), ss. 3, 4; (49 * 60 Vict, 
 c. 20), «. 6. 
 
 A " translation " of a foreign play, in order 
 to be protected under the law of International 
 Copyright, need not be absolutely literal; it is 
 sufficient if it is substantially a translation. 
 liAUBI 1). Eenad 
 
 Per Kekewich J. [1892] 3 Ch. 402, at p. 414 
 
 Music. 
 
 28. — " Copy" — "Sheet of music" — Mechanical 
 organ — Perforated music sheet — Musical directions 
 for performance — Infringement — Copyright Ad, 
 1842 (5 4 6 Vict. c. 45), 88. 2, 15. 
 
 The defts. sold for use in a mechanical organ 
 called an " iEolian " perforated rolls of paper 
 representing the musical score of certain songs 
 in the music of which the pits, had the copy- 
 right. The rolls were inserted in the organ, and 
 were unrolled by its mechanism when actuated 
 by the performer, bo that the passage of air 
 through the perforations in the rolls into the 
 pipes of the organ produced corresponding 
 musical notes the pitch and duration of which 
 were determined by the position and length of 
 the perforations. The organ contained also 
 stops, swells and pedals, whereby variations of 
 pace and expression could be effected at the will 
 of the performer ; and in the margin of some of 
 the rolls were directions as to time and expres 
 sion which were also to be found in the pits, 
 songs : — 
 
 Held (affirming Stirling J., [1899] W. N. 45 
 
 COPYEIGHT (VLuBic)-^continued. 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 836), that the rolls, so far as they 
 contained perforations, were part of the organ, 
 and were not " copies " of ," sheets of music " 
 within the Copyright Act, 1842, and were, there- 
 fore, not an infringement of the pits.' copyright ; 
 and also (reversing Stirling J.), that, apart 
 from the pits.' musical scores and when not 
 used in connection with them, the pita.' direc- 
 tions as to time and expression were not pro- 
 tected by their copyright. Booset v. Whight 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 249 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 122 
 
 29. — Dramatic piece— Bight of performance 
 —Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833 (3 4 4 WiU. 4, 
 c. 15), 88. 1, 2— Copyright Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict, 
 c. 45), 88. 2, 20 ; 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 40), s. 2— 
 51 * 52 Vict. c. 17. 
 
 To bring a musical composition within the 
 provisions of the Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833, 
 it must have the characteristics of a dramatic 
 piece, and whether it has such characteristics 
 must be determined in each case by the nature of 
 the composition itself. 
 
 A song that does not require for its represen- 
 tation either dramatic effect or scenery is not a 
 dramatic piece, altliough it is intended to be 
 sung in appropriate costume on the stage of 
 music-halls. 
 
 When a musical composition is published, in 
 order to entitle the owner of the light of public 
 representation or performance thereof to sue for 
 penalties for the unlicensed performance of such 
 composition, the right of representation or per- 
 formance must have been reserved by notice 
 printed on every published copy, as provided by 
 the Copyright (Musical Compositions) Act, 1882 ; 
 and this is equally the case where the musical 
 composition is also a dramatic piece within the 
 Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833. Fuller v. 
 Blackpool Winter Gardens and Patilioh Co. 
 C, A, [1895] 2 Q. B. 429 
 
 Periodical. 
 
 30. — 'Registration of first number — Protection 
 of subsequent numbers — Copyright Act, 1842 (5 4 6 
 Vict. <;. 45), 6. 19. 
 
 A perpetual injunction granted extending to 
 the protection of the contents of future numbers 
 of a periodical of which the first number had 
 alone been registered. Bbadbubt r. Sharp 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] W. N. 143 
 
 And see abore. Book. 
 
 31. — News agency^— TJnpublished information 
 — Copying by rival firm — Injunction. 
 
 It is competent for a news agency to coUect 
 infoimation from a public source and transmit it 
 to subscribera to whom it is new upon the terms 
 that they shall not communicate it to third parties ; 
 nnd the Court will interfere by injunction to 
 restrain a subscriber from communicating such 
 information to a third party in breach of his 
 contract, and also to restrain a third party from 
 inducing a subscriber to break his contract by 
 supplying him with such information with a view 
 to publication. Exchange Telegraph Co. r. 
 Central News, Ld. Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 48 
 
 32. — Newspaper — Coloured plate — Periodical 
 
C 537 ) 
 
 DIGEST 01" CASES, IgSl— 1900. 
 
 ( 538 ) 
 
 COPYEIGHT (Periodical) -coniiBMed. 
 -^Copyright Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. i5)— Fine 
 Arts Gopyrighl Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 68). 
 
 A coloured plate headed " Supplement" to a 
 periodical registered as a newspaper under the 
 Copyright Act, 1842, and referred to as "Our 
 illustration for this week," though not physically 
 attached to the newspaper, held to be part of 
 the newspaper as regards copyright. Comyns v. 
 Hyde - - Stirling J. [1896] W. K. 9 
 
 33. — Newspaper copijing from other news- 
 paper. 
 
 The form of expression in which news is 
 conveyed is subject of copyright. A practice by 
 newspapers to copy from other newspapers is no 
 defence to a copyright action. Walteb v. Stein- 
 Koppp - - North J, [1892] 3 Ch. 489 
 
 34. — Newspaper — Reports of public speeches 
 — " Authoi- " of report— Copyright Act, 1842 (6 <t 6 
 Vict. c. 45); s«. 2, 3, 18. 
 
 A person who makes notes of a speech 
 delivered in public, transcribes them, and pub- 
 lishes in a newspaper a verbatim report of the 
 speech, is the " author" of the report within the 
 meaning of the Copyright Act, 1842. is entitled 
 to the copyright in the report, and can assign the 
 copyright. 
 
 So held by the Earl of Halsbury L.C. and 
 Lords Davey, James of Hereford, and Brampton, 
 Lord Robertson dissenting. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1899] W. N. 212 ; [1899] 
 2 Ch. 749, reversed, the decision of North J. 
 restored and the injunction made perpetual. 
 Walter v. Lane 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. H. 178 ; [1900] A. C. 539 
 
 35. — Newspaper — Selection of horse in race — 
 Copyright Act, 1842 (5 <fc 6 Vict. c. 45), ss. 18, 19. 
 
 The announcement of the horses which a news- 
 paper has selected as winners is notln the nature 
 of a literary composition which can be protected 
 under the Copyright Acts ; and the publication 
 of a race-card giving lists of the horses selected 
 by various papers is not an infringement of the 
 copyright in the newspapers. The Court wUl 
 not define in general terms what amounts to a 
 "literary composition." Chilton v. Pbogkess 
 
 PWNTING AND tuBLISHING Co. 
 
 C. A. affirm. Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 29 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Exchange Telegraph Co. 
 V. Gregory & Co., [1896] 1 Q. B. 147, 157. 
 
 36. — Serial published in periodical— Separate 
 publication — Megistration — Copyright Act, 1842 
 (5 4 6 Vid. c. 45), ss. 2, 3, 18, 19. 
 
 The author of a contribution to a periodical 
 ,who has not parted with his copyright to the 
 proprietor of the periodical may sue an infringer 
 before publishing his contribution in a separate 
 form. 
 
 Where the author has registered the series of 
 contributions to the periodical, stating as the date 
 of first publication the date when the first part 
 was published in the periodical, the effect of s. 19 
 ■of the Copyright Act, 1842, is that the regis- 
 tration protects each contribution of the series 
 which has been subsequently so published. 
 JoHNSos V, Geoboe Newnes, Ld. 
 
 Bomer J. [1894] 3 Ch. 663 
 
 GOVf&lQKt-Bontinued. 
 
 Picture. 
 
 37. — Pliotograph — Author — '■ Oood dnd 
 valuable consideration " — "For or on behalf of" 
 —Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 68), 
 SB. 1, 6. 
 
 The "author" of a photograph within the 
 meaning of s. 1 of the Pine Arts Copyright Act, 
 1862, is the person who geneially controls the 
 operation, and a person who performs the manual 
 operations under his control and direction is not 
 the author. A portrait taken on the terms tliat 
 the photographer may sell copies, though without 
 payment by the subject, is made for a " good and 
 valuable consideration" within the proviso in 
 the section : but where it is the intention of the 
 parties that the negative shall be kept by the 
 photographer as his own property, it is not made 
 "for or on behalf of" the subject, and therefore 
 the proviso does not apply. The words " any 
 other person " in s. 6 of the Act mean any person 
 other than the author, and consequently include 
 the person photographed. Melville v. Mirkob 
 OP Life Co. - Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 531 
 
 38. — Beproduction of substantial part — In- 
 fringement. 
 
 The pit. was the owner of the copyright in 
 a picture and engraving known as "Can't you 
 talk ? " which represented a coUio dog seated on 
 his haunches on a stone floor looking down at the 
 upturned face of a child ; there was a wall in the 
 background with a door on one side through 
 which a cat was looking ; above the dog was a 
 table on which was a tub with a spoon in it. 
 The defts. were the owners of a periodical in 
 which was a woodcut which almost exactly repro- 
 duced the whole of the pit's engraving with the 
 exception of the child, whose position was replaced 
 by a tortoise and two cats : the woodcut was 
 given as an illustration of a story entitled " A 
 Strange Visitor." On a motion for an injunction 
 to restrain the defts. from selling any copies of 
 this periodical and woodcut: — 
 
 Held, tliat as the defts. had taken a sub- 
 stantial portion of the pit's engraving and repro- 
 duced it in the woodcut with slightly different 
 surroundings, this constituted an infringement of 
 the pit's copyright, and that he was accordingly 
 entitled to an injunction. Bbooks v, Beligious 
 Tbact Society ' Bomer J. [1897] W. N. 25 (6) 
 
 39. — Tableaux vivants — Illustration — In- 
 fringement — Bern Convention ■ — Foreign laio 
 
 Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. e. 68), ss. 1, 2, 
 4, 6— International Copyright Act, 1886 (49 & 50 
 Vict. c. 33), s. 2, sub-s. 3. 
 
 H. was the owner of the copyright in pictures 
 painted in Germany. The E. Co. exliibited at a 
 music-liall tableaux vivants taken from the 
 pictures. N. in a newspaper published reproduc- 
 tions of sketches taken from the tableaux : — 
 
 Held, that the representation of pictures by 
 tableaux vivants formed by grouping in the same 
 way as the figures in the pictures living persons 
 in the same dress and the same attitudes is not an 
 inlringement of the copyright. Hanpstaenql v. 
 Bmpieb Palace (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. affirm. Stirling J, [1894] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 On motion for injunction against the news- 
 papers, held, by Stirling J., (1) that theBftwB- 
 
( 539 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 540 ) 
 
 COPYRIGHT (Bictyae)— continued. 
 paper illustratioDB were copies of H.'s pictures, 
 and that it made no difference that they were 
 copies from intermediate representations which 
 were not infringements. (2) That assuming that 
 H.'s rights were governed by German law, lie was 
 equally entitled to succeed, and granted an in- 
 junction. Hanfstaengl v. Empike Palace 
 (No. 2). Hanfstaengl v. Newnes 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch 109 
 
 But held, by C. A,, reversing Stirling J., that 
 there was no infringement. 
 
 Seirible, H.'s rights were governed by German 
 and not by English law. 
 
 Qusere, whetlier the owner of a foreign copy- 
 right in a picture can bring an action for in- 
 fringement without registering his copyright in 
 England C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 109, at p. 123 
 
 And lield, by H. L. (E.), afSrming C. A., that 
 tlie sketches were not in fact copies, reproduc- 
 tions, or colourable imitations of the pictures. 
 Hanfstaengl v. H. & E. Baines & Co. 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1895] A. C. 20 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Eoosey v. Whight, 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 836, 843. 
 
 40. — Tableaux vivants — Painted hackgrounds 
 —Copynght Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 68), s. 6. 
 
 Where living pictures representing H.'s 
 pictures had been exhibited with painted back- 
 grounds, held, on the facts, that as to the back- 
 grounds there had been iufringement of H.'s 
 copyright. Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace 
 (No. 3) - Stirling J. [1896] W. N. 76 
 
 Hanfstaengl v. Newnes 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 109 
 — . Foreign work of art. 
 
 See International, above. 
 
 Sculpture. 
 
 41, — Casts of fruit and leaves — Copyright 
 {Sculpture) Act, 1814 (54 Geo. 3, c. 56). 
 
 Casta made from models of natural fruit and 
 leaves are "new and original" "casts of" a 
 " subject being matter of invention in sculpture " 
 within the meaning of, and entitled to protection 
 under, the Act 54 Geo. 3, c. 56. Caproni v. 
 Albebti - Mathew J. [1891] W. H. 200 
 
 COPYRIGHT— DESIGNS. 
 
 See Designs. 
 
 COBEA — Merchandise, Patents, Designs, and 
 Trade Marks. 
 See Foreign Jueisdiction. 
 
 CO-RESPOHDENT — Divorce practice. 
 See Divorce — Co-Respondent, 
 
 CORONER. 
 
 Coroners Act, 1892 (55 * 56 Vict. c. 66), 
 amends tlie law as to the appointment of coroners. 
 
 Lincolnshire Coroners Act, 1899 (62 & 63 
 Viet. c. 48), constitutes the Divisions of Lincdln- 
 thire separate counties for all the purposes of the 
 Coi'oners Acts. 
 
 Yorkshire Coroners Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 39), constitutes the Sidings separate counties. 
 
 L I* — Appointment— Bight of county courwnl — 
 
 CORONER — continued. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Viet. c. 41), 
 
 ss. 3, sub-ss. (ic), (xi), 5, 59. 
 
 The right of a county council, under s. 5 of the 
 Local Government Act, 1888, to appoint coroners 
 is confined to oases where coroners were formerly 
 elected by the freeholders of a county under a 
 writ de ooronatore eligendo, and does not extend 
 to cases where they were appointed by lords of 
 franchises or otherwise than by election of the 
 freeholders. In re Local Government Act, 
 1888. Ex parte London Cotintt Codncil 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 33 
 
 — Coroner's inquisition — Sufficiency of — 
 
 Pleading. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Practice. 60. 
 
 2. — Jurisdiction— Treasure trove — Coroners 
 Act, 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. v. 71), s. 36. 
 
 The jurisdiction of a coroner with reference to 
 treasure trove is limited by s. 86 of the Coroners 
 Act, 1887, to the determination of " who was the 
 finder and who was suspected thereof." He has 
 no jurisdiction to determine a question of title 
 between the Crown and any other claimant. 
 Attorney-General v. Moore 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 676 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Att.-Gen. v. Albany 
 Hotel Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 696, 701. 
 
 3. — Jury — Exemption — County Juries Act, 
 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 5U), ss. 1, 2, 8, 25, 52— Juries 
 Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 77), ss. 3, 9, and Sched. 
 —Coroners Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 71), s. 3. 
 
 Tlie exemption fiom service on juries which 
 is conferred by a. 52 of the County Juries Act, 
 1825, and by s. 9, and the Sched. of the Juries 
 Act, 1870, extends to service on coroners' juries. 
 Coroner's order fining a solicitor's managing 
 clerk for not serving on his jury quashed. In re 
 Dutton - - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 486 
 
 CORPORATE CONTRACTS AND OFFICE. 
 
 See Cases under Corporation. 
 CORPORATION. 
 
 Municipal Corporations Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 9), amends the Municipal Corporations 
 Act, 1882, as to the division of boroughs into 
 wards. 
 
 Municipal Elections.] By tlie Police Dis- 
 abilities Removal Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vid. o. 6), 
 the Police Disabilities Bemoval Act, 1887, was 
 extended to municipal and other similar elections. 
 
 Joint Tenancy.] Power for corporations to 
 hold property as joint tenants. See Bodies Cor- 
 porate {Joint Tenancy) Act, 1899 (62 * 63 Vict, 
 a. 20). 
 
 — Action for malicious prosecution against — 
 
 Liability. 
 
 See Malicious Prosecution. 1. 
 
 — Appeal — Interlocutory order. 
 
 See Appeal. i 
 
 — Apprenticeship to —Legality. 
 
 See Apprentice. 3. 
 
 — Attachment — Enforcement 'Jaj, of director— 
 
 Service of order. 
 
 See Attachment. 13. 
 
 — Betting generally. 
 
 See Cases under Gaming. 
 
C 541 ) 
 
 UlGJJST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 542 ) 
 
 CORPOEATION— comMmMei. 
 
 1. — Betting — By-laws — Validity — Private 
 ground tisedfor betting — '^ Place of pMio retort" 
 — Middleslorough Improvement Act, 1877 (40 & 41 
 Vict. p. XXX.), 8. 25. 
 
 The Middlesborough Improvement Act, 1877, 
 a. 25, empowers the corporation to make " suoh 
 by-laws as they may thiiik fit for the prevention 
 of betting .... in the public streets .... and 
 other places of public resort within the borough." 
 
 The corporation made a by-law that " any 
 person who shall frequent and use any street .... 
 or other place of public resort within the borough 
 .... for the purpose of bookmaking or betting 
 .... shall be liable to a penalty." 
 
 The appellant used for the purpose of book- 
 making an uninclosed piece of private ground 
 within the borough, bounded by streets. Book- 
 makers and other persons habitually used the 
 ground for betting, but without permission from 
 the owner. The appellant and the other book- 
 makers conducted their business in an orderly 
 manner, and caused no nuisance, annoyance, or 
 obstruction. The appellant was convicted under 
 the by-law. 
 
 Held, that the by-law was within the power 
 given by the Act, and was valid ; that, aa the 
 ground was in fact habitually used hj the public, 
 it was a "place of public resort," within the 
 meaning of the by-law ; and that the appellant 
 was rightly convicted. Kitson v. Ashe 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. H. 16 (10) ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 425 
 
 2. — Betting — By-law — Validity — Using 
 streets for betting — Municipal Corporations Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), «. 23. 
 
 Sect. 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 
 1882, empowers the council of a borough to.make 
 by-laws "for the good rule and government of 
 the borough, and for prevention and suppression 
 of nuisances not already punishable by virtue of 
 any Act in force throughout the borough." 
 
 A by-law made under this section prohibited, 
 under a penalty, any person from frequenting 
 and using any street or other public place wilhin 
 the borough for the purpose of bookmaking or 
 betting : — 
 
 Held, that the by-law was one which could 
 properly be made for the good rule and govern- 
 ment of the borough, and was, therefore, valid. 
 Bdenett v. Bekky - - [1896] 1 Q. B. 641 
 
 Beferred to by 0. A. Thomas v. Suiters, 
 [1900] 1 Oh. 10, 13. 
 
 — Borough fund — Appeal against refusal of 
 
 licence — Costs of ehief constable. 
 See No. 10, bdow. 
 
 . — Borough fund — ^Application of — Parliamentary 
 opposition — Costs. 
 See No. 11, below. 
 
 — Borough vote — Registration of voters. 
 
 See Oases under Pabliament. 
 
 — Bridge — Accident to bridge under corporate 
 
 control — Liability. 
 See Canada. 28. 
 
 ■ Buildings. 
 
 See Cases imder Stkbetb. 
 
 COBFOBAIION — continued. 
 
 — Charter to — Forfeited recognizance — Amerce- 
 ment. 
 See Eevenue — Forfeited Becognizances. 
 
 3. — Contracts — Capacity of municipal corpora- 
 tion to contract. 
 
 A municipal corporation subject to the Munici- 
 pal Corporation Act, 1882, and a local improve- 
 ment Act agreed to pay to a ry. co. an annual 
 sum for fifteen years, to obtain toll free passage 
 for foot passengers over a bridge belonging to 
 the ry. : — 
 
 Held, that the corporation could not pay any 
 moneys out of the borough fund nor make any 
 borough rate or general improvement rate under 
 either Act for the purpose of such payments ; but 
 tliat the agreement was void, and that the annual 
 payment might be made out of any surplus left of 
 the borough fund or rates after satisfying the 
 provisions of the Acts. 
 
 Decision of C. A,, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 492, 
 affirmed. Att.-Gen. v. Coepokation of New- 
 CASTLE-upoN-TiNE H. L. (K.) [1892] A. C. 668 
 
 4. — Contracts — Common seal — • Batijication 
 of contract — Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. a. 50), ». 22, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Specific performance will not be decreed of a 
 contract with a municipal corporation which is 
 not under seal nor signed by a person authorized 
 under seal, nor ratified under seal, nor partly 
 performed or acted on. Oxfoed Cobpobation v. 
 Ceow - - Eomer J. [1893] 3 Ch. 835 
 
 6, — Contracts — Municipal corporation — Con- 
 trOfCt with trading company — Validity — Members 
 of council sha/reholders in the company — Persons 
 " directly or indirectly interested or concerned in " 
 the contract — City of London Sewers Acts, 1848 
 (11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii.), ss. 83-42, 116; 1851 
 (14 & 15 Vict. c. xci.), ss. 53, 57. 
 
 By contracts the Commrs. of Sewers of the 
 City of London contracted with an Electrical 
 Engineering Co. for lighting the City by elec- 
 tricity. In Aug., 1891, the contracts were trans- 
 ferred to the pits., and from that date the City 
 had been lighted by electricity under the con- 
 tracts. At the date of the contracts the sole 
 power of lighting the streets of the City was 
 vested in the defts. acting by the commrs. under 
 the provisions of the City of London Sewers Acts, 
 1848 and 1851. By the City of London Sewers 
 Act, 1897, the commrs. ceased to exist, and their 
 powers, duties, and liabilities became vested in 
 the defts. In 1898 certain facts came to the 
 knowledge of the defts. which caused them to 
 repudiate the contracts ; and thereupon the pits, 
 brought this action, claiming a declaration that 
 the contracts were valid and subsisting, and 
 binding on the defts. 
 
 It appeared that at the date of the contracts 
 some of the members of the Common Council of 
 the defts. were shareholders of the Electrical 
 Engineering Co., and also of the pit. Co., and it 
 was contended by the defts. that this fact rendered 
 the contracts null and void by virtue of s. 42 of 
 the City of London Sewers Act, 1848. That 
 section enacts that " no person, being a commr., 
 or a member of the Court of Aldermen, or of the 
 Common Council of this City, shall be directly or 
 indirectly interested or concerned in any contract 
 
( 543 ) 
 
 DiaBsT OF CASES, issi— isoo: 
 
 ( 544 5 
 
 CORPORATION— conimMerf. 
 which shall be made or entered into by or on 
 behalf of the commrs. for the execution of any 
 ■works by this Act directed or authorized to be 
 done or executed .... or for any other matter 
 or thing whatever, upon pain that every such 
 contract shall be null and void " :— 
 
 Held, that s. 42 did not apply, and that the 
 pltg. were therefore entitled to judgment with 
 costs. City of London Eleoteio Lighting Co. 
 V. London Cokpokation 
 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 116 
 
 6. — Corporate office — Chairman of improve- 
 ment committee — Power of amotion. 
 
 Semble, per Lopes L.J., that a power of 
 amotion from a corporate ofSce exists with regard 
 to the chairman of an improvement committee of 
 a borough council, and that dishonesty and mal- 
 versation on his part is an indictable offence. 
 Booth v. Arnold - C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 671 
 
 7. — Corporate office — Sesignation of office — 
 Office when vacant — Outgoing alderman — Munici- 
 pal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 50), 
 s. 36, sub-ss. 1 and 2 ; s. 60, subs. 3. 
 
 Kesignation of his office by a borough alder- 
 man in the manner provided by s. 36, sub-s. 1, of 
 the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, will not 
 render the office vacant until it is declared to be 
 vacant by the borough council with the forma- 
 lities prescribed by sub-s. 2 ; and, consequently, 
 an alderman, who in the course of rotation is 
 about to go out of office under s. 14, sub-ss. 6 and 
 7, cannot by merely resigning his office before 
 the ordinary day of election of aldermen, and in 
 the absence of a declaration by the council that 
 the office is vacant, get rid of his disqualification 
 to vote at the election of aldermen under s. 60, 
 Bub-s. 8. Pease v. Lowden - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 8 (5) ; [1899] 1 ft. B. 386 
 
 8. — • Corporate property — Alienation of cor- 
 porate lands. 
 
 By ss. 108, 109 of the Municipal Corporations 
 Act, 1882, the approval of the Treasury (now the 
 Loc. Govt. Bd.) is essential to the terms and 
 conditions in case of a sale of corporate lauds. 
 Therefore the purchaser cannot claim rights out- 
 side the four corners of the conveyance to him 
 duly approved. Davis v. Leicester Corporation 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 208 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Holford v. Acton 
 Urban Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 240, 246. 
 
 9. — Costs — Alteration of boundaries — lAa- 
 bility of added area — Local Government Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41). ss. 54, 59. 
 
 By a Provisional Order under the sections 
 above referred to, confirmed by Act of Parlia- 
 ment, and coming into operation on Nov. 9, 1898, 
 an area forming part of the district of the 
 Plympton District Council was taken from that 
 district and added to the borough of D. The 
 order contained the following clause : — 
 
 " XV. (1.) If at the time of the commence- 
 ment of this order any action or proceeding or 
 any cause of action or proceeding is pending or 
 existing by or against the rural district council 
 in relation exclusively to any part of the added 
 areas tlie same shall not be in anywise prejudi- 
 cially affected by reaeoA of the making of this 
 
 CORPORATION — continued. 
 
 order, but may be continued, prosecuted, and 
 
 enforced by or against the corporation of thd 
 
 borough." 
 
 An action had been commenced in March, 
 1898, by Jackson against the council for an in- 
 junction to restrain a sewage nuisance. The 
 houses, the sewer, and the cesspool were all 
 within the added area, but the plt.'s land was 
 just outside it. In May, 1899, the D. Corpora- 
 tion was added as deft., and in July, 1899, an 
 undertaking was given by both defts. to the pit., 
 who admittedly had a good cause of action and 
 was entitled to his costs : — 
 
 Held, that the action was an action pending 
 on Nov. 9, 1898, in relation exclusively to part of 
 the added area within Clause XV. of the order, 
 with the result that all liability attached to the 
 council in relation to the action was transferred 
 to and attached to the corporation. It was un- 
 necessary to consider whether the whole cause of 
 action arose within the added area ; it was suffi- 
 cient that the houses, the sewers, and the cesspool 
 were all within it. It was also unnecessary to 
 consider whether, but for the order, the costs 
 would or would not have been "general ex- 
 penses " within s. 229 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, chargeable upon the whole district, and 
 not " special expenses " of the added area unless 
 and until so determined by the Loc. Govt. Bd. 
 The corporation must pay the costs of the pit., 
 the council, and the application. Jackson v. 
 Plympton St. Mary Kural District Council 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 16 
 
 10. — Costs — Borough fund — Licensing appeals 
 — Appeal against refusal of licence — Payment of 
 costs of chief constaMe — Municipal Corporations 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 140, sub-ss. 1-3, 
 88. 141-143, 190, 191, 5th Sched. Fart U. 
 clause 5 (d), clause 12 — Municipal Corporations 
 (Borough Funds) Act, 1872 (35 & 86 Vict. u. 91), 
 
 8.2. 
 
 A municipal corporation cannot, where there 
 is no surplus of the borough fund, legally pay 
 thereout costs incurred by the chief constable in 
 opposing by direction of the council appeals 
 against the refusal of justices to renew the 
 licences of publicans. 
 
 Qusere, whether if there be a surplus it can 
 legally be applied to payment of such costs. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1898] 1 Q. B. 604, affirmed. 
 Tynemouth Corporation v. Att.-Gkn. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 71 ; [1899] A. C. 293 
 — Costs — Dismissal of action against corporation. 
 See Costs — Public Authorities Protec- 
 tion. 46. 
 
 11. — Costs — Municipal corporation — Parlia- 
 mentary opposition — " Bights, privileges, and 
 duties " — Application of borough fund — Municipal 
 Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 5U), s. 140, 
 Sched. v.. Fart XL (12). 
 
 An alteration in the price of gas in the dis- 
 trict of a municipal corporation, a large consumer 
 for public lighting and otherwise, does not affect 
 its "rights, privileges, and duties" within the 
 principle of the decision in Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of 
 Brecon, (1878) 10 Ch. D. 204. 
 
 At the instance of a gas oo., suing as rate- 
 payers, a municipal corporation, who had not 
 
( 545 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 540 ) 
 
 CORPOEATION— conMn«e(Z. 
 complied with the requirementa of s. 4 of the 
 Borough FundB Act, 1872, was restrained from 
 applying any part of its borough fund (there 
 being no surplus) to tlie costs of opposition before 
 Parliament to a bill promoted by the gas eo^ 
 which would affect the price of gas. Att.-Gbn. 
 V. Swansea Oobpobation 
 
 North J. [1898] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 — Costs — Public authorities protection. 
 
 See Oases under OosTS — Fublio Autho- 
 rities Froteotion, 
 
 — Oounty council. 
 
 See Oases under County Council. 
 
 12. — Defamation— Charge of corrupt practices 
 — Ahsenee of special damage. 
 
 The light of a corporation to sue for libel is 
 confined to protection of their property. Where 
 a municipal corporation sued for a libel imputing 
 corrupt practices : — 
 
 Held, that, as a corporation, as distinguished 
 from the individuals composing it, cannot be 
 guilty of corrupt practices, the statement of claim 
 disclosed no cause of action. Mancbesteb Oob- 
 pobation V. WiLUAUB Siv. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 94 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. South Hetton Coal Co. 
 V. North Eastern, News Association, [1894] 1 Q. B. 
 133, 142. 
 
 13, — Defamation — Trading company. 
 Statements defamatory of a trading co. in 
 
 respect of the management of its business are 
 actionable without proof of special damage. 
 South Hetton Coal Co. v. Nobth Eastebn 
 News Association - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 133 
 
 — Dissolution — Proof — Eight of the Crown — 
 
 Bona vacantia. 
 
 See Bankbuptot — Proof. 165. 
 
 — Election — Expiry of prescribed time. 
 
 See Canada. 56. 
 «14. — Election — Bight to petition — " Candi- 
 date " — Nomination of disqualified person — 
 Muni<npal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 <fe 46 Vict, 
 c. 50), St. 77, 88. 
 
 The petitioner and respondent were nominated 
 in proper form for election to the office of coun- 
 cillor for a ward in a borough. The petitioner at 
 the time of his nomination was interested in a 
 contract with the corporation of the borough. 
 The respondent objected to the petitioner's nomi- 
 nation on the ground that he was, by reason of 
 his interest in the contract, disqualified for 
 election. The mayor allowed the objection, and 
 the respondent, being the only other person nomi- 
 nated, was declared elected. It was conceded by 
 the respondent, upon the authority of Fritehard 
 V. Mayor of Bangor, (1888) 13 App. Oas. 241, that 
 the mayor had no jurisdiction to entertain the 
 objection to the petitioner's nomination, but it 
 was contended that the petitioner had no right 
 to present a petition : — 
 
 Eeld, (1.) that the petitioner was disqualified 
 for nomination, none the less because he might 
 by assigping his interest in the contract have got 
 rid of his disqualification before the date of the 
 poll; but 
 
 Held, (2.) that the petitioner, although dis- 
 qualified for election and nomination, having in 
 foc^ ^g!} ^pofljioate^ ip ptofSf 6s(m, was 9 
 
 COEPORATION— (!on<j»ued 
 "candidate" within the meaning of s. 77, and 
 consequently entitled under s. 88 to present a 
 petition for the purpose of questioning the 
 election of the respondent. 
 
 Monks V. Jackson, (1876) 1 0. P. D. 683, 
 distinguished. Habpobd v. Linsket 
 
 OiT. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 8S2 
 
 15. — Election of alderman — Petition — Quo 
 warranto — Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 
 (45 <fe 46 Vict. c. 50), ss. 60, 87, 225. 
 
 At an election of an alderman, the mayor, 
 who presided, voted for himself, causing an 
 equality of votes. He then gave the casting 
 vote in his own favour, and declared himself 
 elected : — 
 
 Held, that the validity of the election could 
 only be questioned by an election petition, and 
 that a writ of quo warranto would not lie. Keg. 
 V. MoBTON - - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 39 
 
 16. — Election of councillor — Ineligibility of 
 loomen. 
 
 Sect. 73 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 
 1882, which makes an election good and valid if 
 not impeached within twelve months, does not 
 render the election of a woman valid after the 
 lapse of the prescribed time : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that the deft, was liable to 
 the penalties under s. 41 of the same Act. De 
 SouzA V. Cobden - C. A. [1891] 1 ft, B. 687 
 — Election of county council— Death of candi- 
 date between nomination and poll. 
 See County Council — Election, 1. 
 
 17. — Election of mayor — Validity of votes — 
 Casting vote. 
 
 Where a salary is attached to the office of 
 mayor, a candidate cannot vote for himself, as 
 he has a pecuniary interest within d. 22, sub- 
 s. 3, of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. 
 Sect. 42, sub-s. 1, which validates acts of a dis- 
 qualified person in a corporate office, does not 
 prevent an inquiry on an election petition into 
 the validity of a vote given by such a person in 
 virtue of such office. Sect. 12, sub-s. 1 (c), which 
 disqualifies persons from being councillors who 
 have a share or interest in any contract applies 
 to a person appointed chemist to the council how- 
 ever small the value of the contract. Sect. 12, 
 Bub-B. 2 (o), which provides that a person is not 
 disqualified as councillor by reason of .having 
 an interest in a lease in which the corporation 
 is interested, applies to a letting for one day. 
 Sect. 61, Bub-B. 4, which gives in caae of equality 
 of votes a casting vote to the chairman " although 
 not entitled to vote in the first instance," does 
 not prevent the chairman if not disqualified from, 
 voting in the first instance. Nell v. Lonobottom 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft, B. 767 
 
 18. — Election— Municipal franchise — Qualf 
 fication — Continuous occupation — Municipal Cor 
 porationf Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 60), s. 3. 
 
 Where A. owned premises including a build- 
 ing where he carried on business, and A. trii^is- 
 ferred premises and business to a co. who on 
 the same day demised the buildiLg to A. who 
 continued to occupy it : — 
 
 Held, that there had been continuous oconpa- 
 tion c^ tb? buiJdipg. Timmis v. Albibton 
 
 ^- Wv.ot. [iW]8a-». w 
 
 7 ^ 
 
( 547 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 548 ) 
 
 COEPOEATION— cojiMreued. 
 
 19. ■ — Election — Municipal francliiee — Quali- 
 fieation — Joint occupation — Payment of rates — 
 Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 50), s. 11, sub-s. 2 (a). 
 
 Where a person was in joint occupation of 
 licensed premises under verbal agreement with 
 his mother, and paid the rates, although not on 
 the rate-book as a ratepayer : — 
 
 Seld, that he was qualified by occupation and 
 payment of rates, and entitled to be enrolled as 
 a burgees within the meaning of the Municipal 
 Oorporations Act, 1882, b. 11, sub-s. 2. Unwin 
 V. McMuLLEN C. A. [1891] 1 Q, B. 694 
 
 — Elective auditor of corporation — Kemunera- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Local Government. 1. 
 
 — Foreign corporation — Service — Agent — Clerk 
 
 — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Pbaotioe — Service. 182. 
 
 — Harbour rates — Investments — Judicial factor 
 
 — Ourator bonis — Liability. 
 See Teustee — Investments. G5. 
 
 — Highways. 
 
 See Cases under Highway. 
 
 — Interrogatories — Answer by officer of corpora- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Discovery — Interrogatories. 49. 
 
 20. — Judicial expenses — Clerk to justices of 
 a horough under 10,000 population loith separate 
 commission of the peace — jPetty Sessions Act, 1849 
 (12 * 13 Vict. c. 18), 8. I— Municipal Corpora- 
 tions Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 140— ioca? 
 Government Act, 1888 (51 <fe 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 84. 
 
 Sect. 84 of the Local Government Act, 1888, 
 imposes on a county council the obligation to 
 pay the salary of a clerk to the justices of a 
 borough within the administrative county, with 
 population under 10,000 and a separate commis- 
 sion of the peace, and all fees and costs not 
 excluded in the fixing of the salary should be 
 paid into the county fund. In re Hekefokd- 
 
 SBIEE CODNTY CoUNOIL AND LeOMINSTEK TowN 
 
 CouNOiL, AND In re Local Government Act, 
 1888 - Div, Ct, [1896] 1 Q. B. 48 
 
 Overruled by C. A. Tlietford Corporation v. 
 Norfotlc County Council, [1898] 2' Q. B. 468. 
 
 — Liability of — Accident to bridge under corpo- 
 
 rate control. 
 See Canada. 28. 
 
 — Libel — Malice — Privileged occasion. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 15. 
 
 — London County Council and Borough Council' 
 
 franchise. 
 
 See London — Electors. 
 ^- Mayor — Election of. 
 
 See No. 17, above. 
 
 21. — Mayor's salary — Increase of, for illegal 
 purpose. 
 
 A payment made in form by way of addition 
 to a mayor's salary is not legal unless it is a 
 bona fide increase of salary. The corporation of 
 Cardiff added to the mayor's salary for 1893 
 (1) iOOl. as interest on 10,000^ they were autho- 
 rized to contribute towards purchase of a site for 
 a certain college ; (2) 6501. for celebration of the 
 Duke of YotWs marriage. The cheque for thi? 
 
 CO'RFO^ATIO'S— continued. 
 
 sum was not paid direct to the mayor, but drawn 
 
 and carried to a particular banking account: — 
 
 Beld, that the first payment was illegal, as 
 the local Act by which the grant of 10,0002. was 
 authorized did not give power to pay interest on 
 that sum beforehand, and it was not for the 
 benefit of the inhabitants or improvement of the 
 borough within s. 143 of the Municipal Corpora- 
 tions Act, 1882. But held, as to the second pay- 
 ment, that it was competent for the corporation 
 to add to the mayor's salary if by reason of some 
 event of national importance his expenditure as 
 mayor in festivities was likely to be increased, 
 although the manner in which the matter had 
 been done raised a doubt as to the legality of the 
 present payment. Att.-Gen. v. Cobporation op 
 Cabdiep Eomer J. [1894] 2 Ch. 337 
 
 — Municipal courts — Jurisdiction of — Act of 
 
 State — Concessions granted before ces- 
 sion — Eights after annexation. 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 1. 
 
 — Parliamentary opposition — Costs — Application 
 
 of borough fund. 
 See No. .11, above. 
 
 22. — Pecuniary interest in'. 
 
 Where a salary is attached to the office of 
 mayor a candidate cannot vote for himself. Nell 
 V. Longbottom - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 767 
 — ■ Police. 
 
 See Police. 
 
 23. — Profane or obscene language — Prdlnhi- 
 tion of use of profane or obscene language — By- 
 laio made "for good rule and government," and 
 "for prevention and suppression of nuisances " — 
 Validity — Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 23 — Local Government 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 16. 
 
 The respondent was charged under a by-law 
 made by a county council under s. 16 of the 
 Local Government Act, 1888, which was as 
 follows : " No person shall, in any house, build- 
 ing, garden, land, or other place, abutting on, or 
 near to, a street or public place, make use of 
 any violent, abusive, profane, indecent, or obscene, 
 language, gesture, or conduct, to the annoyance 
 of any person in such street or public place." 
 
 The facts were sufficient to justify a convic- 
 tion if the by-law was valid, but the justices 
 declined to convict. 
 
 Seld, that the by-law was made for " good 
 rule and government," and " for prevention and 
 suppression of nuisances," within the meaning of 
 8. 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, 
 and therefore was valid under s. 16 of the Local 
 Government Act, 1888, and the respondent ought 
 to be convicted. Mantle v. Jordan 
 
 Div. Ct, [1897] 1 Q. B. 248 
 
 — Proxy election — Eeturning officer. 
 
 See Thames. 3. 
 
 — Public authorities protection. 
 
 See Cases under Public Authorities 
 Protection ; and under Costs — 
 Fublio Authorities Protection. 
 
 24. — Sating powers — Negligence. 
 
 Where a local Act has incorporated a body of 
 oommrs. for public purposes and given them 
 rating powers, the corporation is bound, unless 
 
( 549 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 550 ) 
 
 CORPORATION — continued. 
 the contrary be clearly shewn from the terms of 
 the local Act, to levy a rate to satisfy a liability 
 incurred by the negligence of their servants, and 
 to do so notwithstanding that they have already 
 levied rates up to the limits allowed by their 
 Act for capital expenditure. Gallbwokthy v. 
 Selby Dam Dbainage Commks. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 348 
 
 85. — Bepair of bridges and Mghways — 
 lAdbility for non-feasance. 
 
 A public corporation to which an obligation 
 to keep roads and bridges baa been transferred is 
 not liable to an action in respect of mere non- 
 feasance, unless the legislature has shewn an 
 intention to impose sucK a liability. 
 
 (a) Piotou (Municipality of) v. Gbldekt 
 
 P. C, [1893] A. C. 524 
 Applied by P. C. Sydney Municipal Council 
 V. Bourhe, [1895] A. 0. 433. 
 
 (b) Oowlet v. Newmakket Local Board 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 345 
 (o) Oliver v. Hoksham Local Boaed. 
 Thompson v, Bbiqhton Coepoeation 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B, 332 
 
 (d) Mdnioipal Oodncil op Sydney v. Botjebe 
 
 P. C. [1895] A, C, 433 
 
 — Sanitation. 
 
 See Cases under Ntjisanoes. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See Oases under Stebbts. 
 
 — Service of writ — Foreign corporation carrying 
 
 on business in England — Agent. 
 See Peaoticb — Service. 183. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 
 
 — Statutory duties — Breach — Causes of action. 
 
 See Canada. 43. 
 
 — Taxation — Liability — Municipal code of 
 
 Quebec. 
 
 See Canada. 53. 
 
 — Trading — Omnibus business — Ultra vires. 
 
 See London — County Council. 38. 
 
 26. -T- Ultra vires^ Newspaper — Libel — Prin- 
 cipal and agent — Action against editor — Defence 
 of action by proprietor — Indemnity. 
 
 A nursing association incorporated by royal 
 charter were the proprietors and publishers of a 
 newspaper on nursing, and employed one of the 
 members of the association as honorary editor. 
 An action for libel having been brought against 
 the editor alone in respect of an article inserted 
 in the newspaper under the express instructions 
 of the association : — 
 
 Beld, that as a matter of ordinary business, 
 and apart from any question aa to the legal 
 right of the editor to he indemnified, the funds 
 of the association could be lawfully applied in 
 undertaking the defence of the action. Beeay 
 V. EoYAL British Nurses' Association 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch, 272 
 
 27. — Unwholesome meat — Offences — Damage 
 by reason of seizure — Costs of summons — "Full 
 compensation" — Arbitration — Findings of arbi- 
 trator— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. 
 c. 55), ss. 116, 117, 308. 
 
 - Meat belonging to the pit, and alleged, to be 
 
 C ORFOR HTlO'S—continued. 
 unwholesome was seized by the inspector of 
 nuisances of the deft, corporation and condemned 
 by a magistrate. The owner was proceeded 
 against, but the summons was dismissed by the 
 justice for a defect in form, and no order was 
 made as to costs. On an arbitration under the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, the arbil^rator found 
 that the meat was sound, and awarded the pit. 
 compensation. In an action on the award : — 
 
 Held, that the finding of the arbitrator aa to 
 the soundness of the meat was conclusive ; that 
 the corporation were liable to pay to the pit. full 
 compensation for the damage sustained by reason 
 of the acts of the ofiBoer ■ of the corporation ; and 
 that such full compensation included the costs to 
 which the pit. was put in opposing the summons. 
 Walshaw v. Beiohouse Coepoeation 
 
 C. A, [1899] 2 ft. B. 286 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Sarnett v. Eccles Cor- 
 pm-ation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 423, 428. 
 
 CORPORATION DUTY. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 105, 106. 
 
 CORPORATION STOCK. 
 
 See Chaeity — Mortmain, 44. 
 
 CORPUS — Income or — Tenant for life and remain- 
 derman. 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE — Copy of — Taxation of 
 costs. 
 See Costs — Taxation. 73. 
 
 — Production of documents. 
 
 See DisoovEEY — Documents. 36, 37. 
 
 CORROBORATION— Affidavit of petitioner. 
 See DivoEOE — Practice. 100. 
 
 — Of evidence of accomplice. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law — Evidence. 14. 
 
 CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES— .Bi/ the 
 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1895 
 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 40), making or publishing false 
 statements concerning a candidate was declared to 
 he an illegal practice. 
 
 — Appeal, Eight of — Decision of High Court. 
 
 See Appeal. 13. 
 
 — Error in return of election expenses — Penalties. 
 
 See Parliament. 9. 
 
 — Libel on corporation — ^Whether actionable. 
 
 See OoHPOEATiON. 26. 
 
 — Municipal elections. 
 
 See Corporation. 14 — 19. 
 
 — Prosecution for, at municipal election — Private 
 
 prosecutor — Defendant's right to costs, 
 
 where acquitted. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Costs. 4., 
 
 COST-BOOK MINE— Purser's powers— Bankruptcy 
 petition — Right to present— Stannaries Act, 1869 
 (32 * 33 Vict. V. 19), ss. 2, 13. 
 
 A purser or secretary of a cost-book, mine is 
 only authorized to sue on behalf of the co. He 
 cannot present a bankruptcy petition on their 
 behalf m respect, e.g.,of a judgment debtobtained 
 for unpaid calls. In re Nance. Ex parte Ash- 
 MBAD - - - C. A, [1893] 1 ft. B. 690 
 
 COSTERMONGER. 
 
 See London — Streets, 
 
 T 2 
 
( 551 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 552 ) 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 B. S. C, 1883, Order Lzr., reUtes,to costs. 
 Generally, col. 551. 
 Administration, col, 555. 
 Appeal, col. 557. 
 Apportionment, col. 558. 
 Costs of Reference, col. 559. 
 Counsel's Fees, col. 559. 
 County Court. See County Cotjet — 
 
 Costs. 
 Discretion of Court, col. 561. 
 Executor. See Cases under Exeoutob. 
 Bouse of Lords, col. 563. 
 Interest on Costs, col. 563. 
 Interlocutory Applications, col. 564. 
 Lunacy — Practice. See LtrNAoy — Costs. 
 Married Woman, col. 564. 
 Payment into Court. See Pbactioe — 
 
 Payment into Court. 
 Payment out of Court, col. 565. 
 Public Authorities Protection, col. 565. 
 Security for Costs, col. 568. 
 Set-off, col. 570. 
 Sets of Costs, col. 571. 
 Severance of Defence, col. 571. 
 Shorthand Notes, col. 571. 
 Solicitor, Personal Payment by, col. 572. 
 Taxation, col, 572. 
 Unnecessary Proceedings, col. 575. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 See under heading of subject-matter of 
 Costs. 
 
 — Accounts — Ketiring partner. 
 
 See Paktneeship. 3. 
 
 — Adding plaintiff without authority — Liability 
 
 of solicitor. 
 
 See Pkactioe — Parties. 90. 
 
 — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Cases under SfflPPiKG. 
 
 — Affidavit — " Informatiop and belief" — Irregu- 
 
 larity — Evidence — Inadmissibility. 
 See Evidence. IS. 
 
 — Annuity. 
 
 See Cases under Annuity. 
 
 — Arbitration. 
 
 See Cases under Abbitbation. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy— Costs. 
 
 — Bills of sale. 
 
 See Cases under Bill op Sale. 
 
 — Boundaries— Alteration of— Liability of added 
 
 area. 
 
 See CoBPOBATioN. 9. 
 
 -.- Boundary wall — Mutual gable— Half cost of 
 erection. 
 See Scottish Law, 49. 
 
 — Bridges — Liability of larger quarter sessions 
 
 boroughs to contribute to costs of. 
 ^ee Loo All GrOVEBSilljNT, ?, 
 
 COSTS (Generally) — continued. 
 
 — Chief constable — Borough fund. 
 
 See CoBPOEATiON. 10. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Commercial list — Application to enter cause 
 
 in, before appearance of defendant. 
 See CoMMEEciAL Causes. 1. 
 
 — Copyright. 
 
 See Cases under Copteight. 
 
 1. — Costs out of estate — Probate action — Real 
 estate. 
 
 In a probate action judgment was given for 
 the pit. establishing the will (which contained 
 specific devises of real estate, but no residuary 
 devise), and the deft.'s costs were ordered to be 
 paid out of the estate, but no order was made as 
 to the costs of the pits, propounding the will. 
 The deceased's estate consisted of real estate, 
 part only of which was devised, and personal 
 estate not sufficient to pay the costs of the 
 action : — 
 
 Mdd, that the order of the Probate Div. could 
 only refer to the estate over whinh it had juris- 
 diction (viz., personalty), and that the Ch. Div. 
 had no jurisdiction except under special circum- 
 stances to order the costs in the Probate Div. to 
 be paid out of the real estate. In re Shaw. 
 Betdges v. Shaw Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 615 
 
 — County council — Separate court of quarter 
 
 sessions — Liability for costs of. 
 
 See County Council — Expenses. 3. 
 
 — County court. 
 
 See County Couet — Costs. 
 
 — Criminal law. 
 
 See Cbiminal Law — Costs. 
 
 — Crown debt — Legacy duty — Priority — Costa 
 
 against the Crown. 
 
 See Revenue — legacy Duty. 124. 
 
 — Crown side — Case stated on appeal from 
 
 quarter sessions. 
 
 See Obown Office. 1. 
 
 — Discontinuance — Costs of adjournment into 
 
 court. 
 
 See Peactice — Discontinuance. 14. 
 
 — Distress. 
 
 See Cases under Distbess. 
 
 2. — District registries — Liverpool district 
 registry — Taxation — Affidavit — Evidence — 
 Charges and expenses of Liverpool solicitors' at- 
 tendances in London — R. S. C, 1883, Order LXY. 
 r. 27, sub-r. 43. 
 
 The taxation of party and party costs in the 
 Liverpool and Manchester District Registries 
 proceeds on the same principles as obtain in the 
 London Taxing Master's Offices, where the costs 
 in other district registries are taxed. 
 
 There is no hard and fast rule that in no case, 
 where proceedings have been initiated in a dis- 
 trict registry and are heard in London on affidavit 
 evidence only, will the costs of the country 
 solicitors' attendanoe at the hearing in London 
 be allowed. 
 
 Such costs may be allowed in very ex.. 
 oe£tio(ml oages^ where i^o Loadpn agent iias besc 
 
C S53' ) 
 
 CfftESt OS* OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 554 ) 
 
 eOSTS (Otenetany)— continued. 
 
 employed, e.g., where charges of fraud or personal 
 
 misconduot have been made and have failed. 
 
 Deoisiou of Byrne J. affirmed. In re DixoK. 
 ToTJSBY V. Sheppield - C. A. [1898] 2 Ch, 443 
 
 — Divorce. 
 
 See Divorce — Costs. 
 
 — Drain — ^Abating nuisance by making new. 
 
 See Nuisance. 13. 
 
 — Drainage expenses — Capital or income. 
 
 See Settled Land — Capital Honey. 28. 
 
 — Drainage works required by local authority — 
 
 Liability of tenant — Covenant. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 25. 
 
 — Election law. 
 
 See Parliament— Costs. 
 
 — Election petition. 
 
 See District Council — Elections. 
 
 — Fraud, Charges of — Agreement — Finality of 
 
 audit. 
 
 iSee Account. 2. 
 
 — Highway. 
 
 See Cases under Highway. 
 
 — House of Lords. 
 
 See Appeal. 17. 
 
 — Husband and wife. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wipe. 
 
 — Infant. 
 
 See Cases under Inpant. 
 
 — Judicial Committee. 
 
 See Pbivt Council — Judicial Com- 
 mittee. 3. 
 
 — Lancaster Court. 
 
 See Cases under Lancaster Court. 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Oases under Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 — Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts — Costs. 
 
 — Legitimacy Declaration Act. 
 
 See Legitimacy. 1. 
 
 — Licensing Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — Liverpool Court of Passage. 
 
 See Liverpool Courts. 
 
 — Lunacy practice. 
 
 See Lunacy — Costs. 
 
 — Mayor's Court — Libel — Less than 51. re- 
 
 covered. 
 
 See London — Uayor's Court. 44. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgage — Costs. 
 
 — Newspaper — ^Innocent loan of paper contain- 
 
 ing scandalous matter respecting a 
 Court — Committing judge ordered to 
 pay costs. 
 See Contempt op Court. 6. 
 
 — Opposing bill in Parliament — Bnrgh — Bates 
 
 Ultra vires. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 3. 
 
 — Parliamentary opposition — Application of 
 
 borough fund. 
 
 See COBPOEATION. 11. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Cases under Patent. 
 
 COSTS (Generally)— oonfe'»«e(i. 
 — ■ Partition actions. 
 
 See Cases under Partition. 
 
 — Party wall — Implied contract to pay half cost 
 
 of — Adjoining owners. 
 See Building. 2. 
 
 8. — Payment into court before defence-^ 
 Acceptance in satisfaction — Order on plaintiff to 
 pay defendant's costs — Jurisdiction — B. S. C, 
 1883, Order xxiL, r. 7. 
 
 Where money has been paid into court before 
 delivery of defence, and accepted by the pit. in 
 satisfaction, within the time limited by Order xxii., 
 r. 7, there is no jurisdiction to order the pit. to 
 pay ttie costs of the deft, incurred between the 
 dates of the payment into court and the accept- 
 ance in satisfaction. 
 
 Order xxn., r. 7, is applicable to cases in 
 
 which there are no pleadings. Lombr v. Waters 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 326 
 
 — Payment into court by one defendant — Ver- 
 
 dict for less than amount paid in — 
 Liability of other defendant for costs. 
 See Negligence. 3. 
 
 — Poor law. 
 
 See Cases under Poor Law. 
 
 — Privilege — Bill of costs — ^Production of docu- 
 
 ments. 
 
 See Discovery. 36. 
 
 — Probate actions. 
 
 See Cases under Probate. 
 
 — Prosecutions. 
 
 See Cases under Criminal Law. 
 
 — Eailway. 
 
 See Eailway — Costs. 
 
 — of Eeasonable defence by purchaser of action 
 
 against him by sub-vendee. 
 See Damages. 2. 
 
 — Eeceiver. 
 
 See Oases under Eeceiver. 
 
 — Eevenue case. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 115. 
 
 — Eevenue case — Eailway and Canal Com- 
 
 mission. 
 
 See Eailway. 50. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land — Costs. 
 
 — Sequestration — Payment of costs — Service. 
 
 See Sequestration. 5. 
 
 — Sewers. 
 
 See Cases under London— Sewers. 
 
 — Sheriff's costs. 
 
 See Cases under Sheripp. 
 
 — Solicitor's costs. 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See Cases under London — Streets. 
 Streets. 
 
 — " Testamentary expenses " — Administration 
 
 on intestacy — Estate duty. 
 See Will — Testamentary Expenses . 
 205. 
 
 — Trade-mark. 
 
 See Cases under Trade-mark. 
 
( 555 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 556 ) 
 
 COSTS (Generally)— confenaefZ. 
 
 — Troops summoned to preserve the peace— 
 
 Expenses of maintenance — Liability. 
 See County Council. 10. 
 
 — Trustees. ■ . 
 
 See Cases under Trustee. 
 
 — offer of Undertaking by defendant. 
 
 See Injunction. 29. 
 
 — Underwriter's liability for consequential dam- 
 
 age — Cost of disposing of cargo rendered 
 
 worthless by sea peril. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 44. 
 
 — Unnecessary or improper parties — Setting 
 
 aside settlement. 
 See Settlement. 12. 
 
 — Unwholesome meat — Findings of arbitrator. 
 
 See CoKPOEATioN. 27. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Cases under Vendor and Purchaser. 
 
 — Water— Supply of, to house — Owner — Ex- 
 
 penses. 
 
 See Water. 11. 
 
 4. — Will, Construclion of — Disputed devise 
 — Summons it/ executors — Land Transfer Act, 
 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. v. 65). 
 
 Summons by the executors of a testator, who 
 died after the Land Transfer Act, 1897, came 
 into operation, for the determination of the ques- 
 tion whether, under the terms of the testator's 
 will, a certain piece of freehold land was included 
 in a specific devise, or belonged to the heir-at- 
 law as undisposed of, the will containing no 
 general devise of real estate. The devisees and 
 the heir-at-law were made respondents to the 
 summons. 
 
 Per Kekewich J. I am not prepared to lay 
 down any general rule by way of guidance to 
 myself or other judges in subsequent cases, as 
 the matter has not been very fully argued. 
 There is a good deal to be said in favour of the 
 view that since the Land Transfer Act, 1897, an 
 executor occupies the position of a trustee of real 
 estate. But even if that be so, I am not pre- 
 pared to hold that there has been any alteration 
 of the ordinary rule as to costs in the case of a 
 conflict between devisees and an heir-at-law. 
 The devisees had to make out their title against 
 the heir-at-law. They have made their claim, 
 and failed. They are in the same position as to 
 costs as if they had brought an action under the 
 old law. They merely have the advantage of 
 being saddled with lighter costs owing to the less 
 expensive form of proceeding. The executors' 
 costs win he taxed as between solicitor and client 
 and charged on the property, with liberty to 
 apply as to the same. I do not now suggest that 
 I can make any order as to raising these costs. 
 Tlje costs of the heir-at-law will be taxed as 
 between party and party and paid by the devisees. 
 In re Peel. Woodcock v. Holdroyd 
 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 308 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 Administration. 
 
 See also tinder Bxecutob. 
 
 5. — Administration action — Order for pay- 
 ment — Defaulting trustee — Supplemental order — 
 
 COSTS (Administration) — continued. 
 Jurisdiction — Extravagant litigation — DisalloW' 
 ance of costs. 
 
 Though the Court has no jurisdiction to alter 
 or vary an order after it has been passed and 
 entered, yet it may make a supplemental order ; 
 such as an order directing that the party benefited 
 by the previous order shall not be entitled to 
 receive any benefit under it except on certain 
 conditions. 
 
 In an administration action an order was 
 made in 1887 directing the trustees to raise a sum 
 of taxed costs which they had incurred to their 
 solicitor and to pay into court the amount when 
 raised. The trustees raised the amount but, 
 instead of paying it into court, allowed their 
 solicitor to retain it in payment of his costs, 
 although no order for actual payment had been 
 made. In 1892 the trustees obtained orders 
 directing certain further costs to be taxed and 
 paid to them, and those orders were duly passed 
 and entered; but before they had been acted 
 upon Kekewich J. was informed of the default 
 of the trustees under the order of 1887, and more- 
 over that the taxed cosis directed to be raised by 
 that order amounted to about one-third of the 
 value of the whole estate, and had mostly been 
 incurred in fruitless and unnecessary proceedings 
 carried out under the advice of the trustees' 
 solicitor. He accordingly made an order supple- 
 mental to the orders of 1892, directing that, 
 although the taxation of costs under those orders 
 should be proceeded with, none of those costs 
 should be paid to the trustees until they had first 
 complied with the order of 1887. On appeal that 
 supplemenlal order was afSrmed. 
 
 Observations on the jurisdiction of the Court 
 as to disallowing costs improperly incurred in an 
 administration action. 
 
 Brown v. Burdett, (1877) 37 Ch. D. 207, dis- 
 cussed. In re Scowby. Scowby v. Soowby 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 741 
 
 6. — Settlement — Appointment. 
 
 By the exercise of the usual special power of 
 appointment in a marriage settlement, portions 
 of a fund were appointed to several children and 
 the residue to another child : — 
 
 Held, following In re Orford, CartwrigM v. 
 Due del Balzo, [1896] 1 Ch. 257, that the costs 
 of an action to administer the trusts of the settle- 
 ment fund with consequential inquiries must be 
 paid rateably out of the appointed shares. 
 
 More than one appointment of sums having 
 been made to some of the children : — 
 
 Held, that only one set of costs should be 
 allowed in respect of each child, such set where 
 there had been separate mortgages by any child 
 of the severally appointed sums, to be appor- 
 tioned rateably between the several appointments 
 to such child and paid to the first mortgagee of 
 each such appointed sum. In re Hill's Settle- 
 ment Trusts. Hill v. Equitable Keveksion- 
 ary Interest Society 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] W. N. 177 (1) 
 
 7. — Will — Partial appointment. 
 
 'The donee, under a will, of a special power 
 of appointment by deed or will over the residue 
 of the testator's estate exercised the power by 
 
C 55? ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 558 ,) 
 
 COSTS (Administration)— continued. 
 
 appointing portions only of the fund, the residue 
 
 going as in default of appointment : — 
 
 Seld, that the costs of an action to administer 
 the testator's estate most be borne rateably by 
 the appointed share and the unappointed residue. 
 In re Hill's Estate. Hill v. Equitable Ee- 
 
 VBBSIONAEY InTEEEST SOCIETY 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] W. N. 177 (2) 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 — Appeal — Consent of guardians. 
 See Kates — Appeal, i. 
 
 8. — Costs in discretion of judge — Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Yict. e. 66), s. 49— Cosis of 
 examination as to debtor's means and of garnishee 
 proceedings — B. S. C, 1883, Orders XLII., rr. 32, 
 34 ; XLV., r. 9. 
 
 The pit. having obtained judgment and being 
 unable to obtain payment of his debt, obtained, 
 under Order xlii., r. 32, an order to have the 
 debtor examined as to hia means. The debtor 
 on his examination admitted having a retiring 
 pension and a. balance at his bankers. The pit. 
 then obtained a garnishee order against the 
 banters, and by that means recovered part of his 
 debt. He then applied for his costs of the 
 examination proceedings and of the garnishee 
 proceedings. The master refused to -make any 
 order, on the ground, as was stated by affidavit, 
 that tha practice in the Q. B. Div. was to treat 
 such proceedings as a luxury, the costs of which 
 the pit. could not throw on the deft. The pit. 
 appealed; the judge iii chambers :diBmisBed the 
 appeal, as was stated; on the same ground, and 
 refused leave to appeal. The pit. applied to the 
 0. A., who gave leave, and he then appealed 
 against the order in chambers : — . i ; 
 
 Held, that as by the express terms of the; 
 Judicature Act, 1873, s. 49, no appeal will lie 
 from any order as to costs which are left to the 
 discretion of the Court except by leave of the 
 judge making such order, and the costs in ques- 
 tion were, by the terms of Order xLii., r. 34, and 
 Order xlv., r. 9, in the discretion of the judge, 
 the appeal must be' dismissed, though the Court 
 stated their inability t6 understand the practice 
 alleged to exist in the Q. B. Div. that examina- 
 tion of a debtor as to his means, and proceedings 
 to attach debts due to him, were luxuries the 
 costs of which the debtor ought not to be called 
 on to pay. Adlinoton v. Contngham 
 
 C. A, [1898] 2 Q. B. 492 
 
 9. — Costs on higher scale — Special grounds — 
 B. 8. C, Order Lxr., r. 9. 
 
 An appeal lies on the question whether any 
 facta exist constituting special grounds for allow- 
 ing coata on the higher scale liuder Order Lxv., 
 r. 9. Paine ■!<. CmsHOXM C. A. [1891] 1 Q, B. 831 
 
 — Lunacy — Coats of inquiry. 
 
 See liUNACT — Costs. 11. 
 
 — Pauper appeals, Practice as to costs in — 
 
 Appeal from New. Zealand. 
 See Husband and Wife.' 75. 
 
 — Quarter sessions — Appeal to — Order for main- 
 
 tenance—Sum adjudged to be paid more 
 
 than 32. 
 
 See Poor Law. 9. 
 
 COSTS (Appeal) — continued. 
 
 — Quarter sessions — Appeal' to-^Payment by 
 
 treasurer of county or borough — 
 
 Vagrancy. 
 
 See Justices. . 4. 
 
 — Special leave to appeal — Condition as to costs 
 
 — Practice. 
 
 See Canada. 15. 
 
 — Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act 
 
 — Appeal — Notes of proceedings in 
 Court below. 
 See Appeal, 36. 
 
 — Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife 
 —Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 10. — Trustee — " Costs, charges and expenses " 
 — Discretion of judge — Leave to appeal — Judica- 
 ture Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 49— 
 R. S. C, Order lxv., r. 1. 
 
 Where costs are in the discretion of the judge, 
 the C. A. will assume that he has exercised his 
 discretion, and will not entertain , an , appeal, 
 unless it is satisfied that he has not exercised- his 
 discretion, but has applied some rule which he 
 considered as excluding it. 
 
 The City of. Manchester, (1880) 5 P. D. 221, 
 followed. Charles v. Jones, (1886) 33 Ch., D. 80, 
 not followed. _ , . r 
 
 An appea,l from an order for payment of 
 " costs, charges and expenses " will not lie as to 
 " costs " only, if the order is right as to " charges 
 and expenaes." 
 
 Charles v. Jones, 33 Ch. D. 80, followed on 
 this point. In re Chennell, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 492, 
 not followed. Bew v. Bew 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 132 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 467 
 
 H. — Trustee's costs in another action — 
 B. S. C.,: 1883, Order lxv., r. 1 — Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36, & 37. Vict. c. 66), s. 49. 
 
 A judgment with costs was given in the Q: B. 
 Div. against a trustee who detained title-deeds. 
 He then took out a summons in the Ch. Div. and 
 got an order for payment of these costs out of 
 the trust estate : — 
 
 . Seld, that an appeal lay to the C. A., since 
 the question was not one of costs within Order 
 LXV., r. 1, but of charges and expenses alleged to 
 have been inouiCred in the execution of the trusts. 
 In re Beddoe. Downes v. Cottam 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 647 
 
 Apportionment, 
 
 , ; . 12. — Claim and counter-claim — Admission of 
 claim subject to comder-elaim. 
 
 On a. trial beftire judge without a jury the 
 claim was admitted by defts. subject to a counter- 
 claim, and the costs of the action were allowed to 
 pits, and of the counter-claim to the defts. On 
 taxation the pits, claimed to be allowed the 
 general costs of the action as if they had recovered 
 the amount claimed less the counter-claim : — 
 
 Held, that the costs of the claim and counter- 
 claim must be taxed as if they were separate 
 actions. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1891] W. N. 87, reversed. 
 FiNSKA Angfabtygs Aktiebolaget v. Brown, 
 TooGOOD & Co. - C, A, [1891] W, N. 116 
 
( 5S9 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES; 1891—1909. 
 
 ( 560 ) 
 
 COSTS (ApportionniMit)— oontinued. 
 
 IS- — Fartnenhip action — Costs how payable 
 — Debt from, partnership to one of the partners — 
 Priority. 
 
 In a partnerghip action the partnersliip assets 
 consisted of a und in court : — 
 
 Held, that t .e fund should be applied first in 
 paying a debt due to one partner on loan account, 
 then in placing the partners on a footing of 
 equality as regarded capital, that the surplus 
 should be applied in payment of the costs of the 
 action, and that the rest of the costs should be 
 borne by the partners in proportion to their 
 interests. Boss v. White 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 326 
 
 14. — Plaintiff successful as to one-third o^ 
 claim — Costs — Discretion of judge — B. 8. C., 
 Order LXr., r. 1. 
 
 The pit., resident in Cheshire, sued in Middle- 
 sex deft., resident in Flintshire, for 6401., and 
 recovered a verdict for 200Z. Ordered, under 
 Order Lxv., r. 1, that the pit. should be allowed 
 as against the deft, one-third of his costs, to be 
 taxed as if the trial had been at Chester, and 
 that the deft, should be allowed against the pit. 
 two-thirds of bis costs, to be taxed on the trial as 
 held in Middlesex. Roberts v. Jones. Willet 
 V. Gbbat Nobthebn Et. Co. 
 
 Hawkins J. [1891] S Q. B. 194 
 
 16. — Plaintiff successful on only one issue. 
 
 Of two issues involved in an action pit. 
 succeeded in one only, and an order was made to 
 tax and set off deft.'s costs relative to issue on 
 which he was successful, and to tax pit's costs 
 of rest of action : — 
 
 Mdd, that the proper course in the Ch. Div. 
 was to apportion the costs rateably between the 
 issues, and not to construe the order as giving 
 the pit. all his costs, except so far as they had 
 been increased by the issue on which he had 
 failed. Jenkins v. Jackson 
 
 0. A, [1891] 1 Ch. 89 
 
 Costs of Beference. 
 See Cases under Abbitkation — Costs. 
 
 16. — Seference to special referee — Costs of 
 action — R. S. C, Order xxxTl., r. 59. 
 
 An action was referred to a special referee 
 with the full powers of » judge of the High 
 Court, and the referee directed that the defts. 
 recover against the pit. the costs of the action 
 and of the award : — 
 
 Held, that the costs of the action included the 
 costs of the reference. Patten v. West op Eng- 
 land Ibon, Timber, ahd Chaeooal Co. 
 
 DiT. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 169 
 
 Counsel's Fees. 
 
 — Moneys received by solicitor for client. 
 See SoLioiTOK. 30. 
 
 !''• — Refreshers — " Clear day " — Second day. 
 
 (a) The rijjht to a refresher fee can only arise 
 where the trial has lusted a " clear day " beyond 
 the trst five hours, whether "clear day" means 
 a separate day of the week or only an additional 
 
 COSTS (Counsel's Fees) — continued. 
 
 period of five hours. Walkbb v. CbtstaI 
 
 Palace District Gas Co. 
 
 DiT. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 300 
 
 Note. — But contra, see (b), (c) and (d) below. 
 
 Dissented from by Butt J. The Courier, 
 [1891] P. 355. 
 
 And by Div. Ct. O'Hara, Matthews & Co. v. 
 Elliott & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 362. 
 
 (b) a collision case extended over two hours 
 and a quarter on the first day, and five hours and 
 a half on the second day. On taxation of costs, 
 between party and party, refresher fees were 
 allowed to the counsel of the successful party in 
 respect of the last two and three-quarter hours on 
 the second day : — . 
 
 Held, that the taxing officer had a discretion 
 to allow some refresher fee for any time during 
 which the trial was substantially prolonged 
 beyond five hours. The " Coubiee " 
 
 Butt J. [1891] P. 366 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. O'Hara, Matthews & 
 Co. V. Elliott & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 362. 
 
 Applied by Bruce J. The Hestia {No. 2), 
 [1895] W. N. 100. 
 
 (o) A ease before a jury lasted four and a 
 half hours the first day, and five hours the 
 second : — 
 
 Hdd, that the counsel ought to be allowed 
 refreshers for work done on the second day after 
 the expiration of the time necessary to make up 
 five hours, because such work was done on a 
 " clear day " subsequent to the expiration of the 
 five hours within the meaning of Order lxv., 
 r. 27, sub-r. 8. O'Haea, Matthews & Co. ■». 
 Elliott & Co. - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 362 
 
 Applied by Bruce J. The Hestia. See below. 
 
 (d) Where two salvage actions were tried 
 together, and the evidence in the first action 
 was, so far as applicable, to be used in evidence 
 in the second action : — 
 
 Held, that the attendance of counsel was 
 necessary during the hearing of both actions, 
 and that refreshers should be allowed. The 
 " Hebtla " (No. 2) Bruce J. [1895] W. N. 100 
 
 — Refreshers to counsel — County court practice. 
 
 iSee CoTOJTT CouBT — Costs. 26. 
 
 — Special allowance where no local bar. 
 
 See CotiNTT Court — Costs. 24. 
 
 18. — Three counsel. 
 
 Costs of three counsel allowed, as between 
 party and party, in a case raising many questions 
 of law. Dash«ood ». Magniao (No. 2) 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. K. 64 
 
 19. — Three counsel — Costs of, allowed — 
 Lunacy— B. S. C, Order LXV., r. 27, svh.-rr. 9, 47. 
 
 Costs of three counsel allowed in a Lunacy 
 inquiry of unusual length and difficulty. In re 
 Cathoart (No. 2) - C. A. [1893] W. K. 107 
 
 — Trustees — Costs of severance — Allowance of 
 
 two counsel — Taxation. 
 See Trustee — Costs. 45. 
 
 County Court Scale. 
 See Cases under County Court— Costs, 
 
( 561 ) 
 
 tOSrS— continued. 
 
 Siscretion of Court. 
 Order Lxr., r. 1, and s. 5 of the Judicature 
 Act, 1890, relate to the discretion of the Court as 
 to costs. 
 
 20. — Oompuhory purchase under special Act 
 — Costs of payment out — Jurisdiction — B. S. G. , 
 1883, Ord^ Lxv., r. 1 — Judicature Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 44), s. 5. 
 
 Sect. 5 of the Judicature Act, 1890, gives the 
 Court jurisdiction over the costs in a petition for 
 payment out of purchase-money of property pur- 
 chased compulsorily under a special Act (in this 
 case Michael Angelo Taylor's Act (57 Geo. 3, 
 o. xxiv.), which contains no provision as to the 
 costs of applications for payment out of purchase- 
 money. 
 
 Judgment of Chitty J., [1894] 1 Ch. 53, 
 affirmed. In re Fishes C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 450 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. In re Wrexham, Mold 
 and Connah's Quay By. Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 261, 
 269. 
 
 21. — Costs of former trial to abide " result" 
 of second trial — Befusal of certificate for costs. 
 
 In an action of tort a new trial had been 
 granted, with a direction that costs of the former 
 trial should follow the "result" of the second 
 trial, and at the new trial a verdict was found 
 for one farthing damages, and the judge refused 
 a certificate for costs : — 
 
 Held, that " result " meant the result of the 
 new trial with regard to costs, and that the pit. 
 was not entitled to any costs of the first trial. 
 
 BeOTHEETON v. METEOPOLITAlf DiSTBICT Et. 
 
 Joint Committee - C. A, [1894] 1 Q. B. 666 
 
 22. — Default of defence. 
 
 Where a pit. moved for judgment in default 
 of defence under Order xxvii., r. 11, the judge 
 has the same discretion as to costs under 
 Order lxv., r. 1, as in all other cases, with which 
 the 0. A. will not interfere unless there has been 
 a disregard of principle or misapprehension of 
 facts. YoTJNQ V. Thomas C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 134 
 
 23. — " Oood cause " — Action tried with a 
 jmry — Order LXV., r. 1. 
 
 In an action for breach of contract to put 
 house drainage in proper order, the pit. made » 
 claim for special damage consequent on illness 
 which broke out in his family, acting on the 
 opinion of his doctor that tlie illness arose from 
 defective drainage. The pit. succeeded in the 
 action, but failed on this claim, and the judge 
 gave the deft, the costs of the items of special 
 damage on which the pit. had failed : — 
 
 Seld, that there was " good cause " for the 
 order. Foestek v. Fabquhar 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q,. B. 664 
 
 24. — Habeas corpus — Judicature Act, 1890 
 (53<fe54F«. c. 44), es. 4, 5. 
 
 The right to grant a writ of habeas corpus 
 not being confined to the Crown side of the Q. B. 
 Div., there is jurisdiction when granting an 
 application for habeas corpus to order the deft, 
 to pay the costs of the application under s. 5 of 
 the Judicature Act, 1890. Reo. v. Jones 
 
 Biv. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B, 382 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 562 ) 
 
 COSTS (Discretion of CoTot}— continued. 
 
 25. — Jurisdiction — Order Lxr., rr. 1, 20— 
 Costs already dealt with under Order xiv., r. 9 (a). 
 
 On an application under Order xiv., r. 1, the 
 judge at chambers, on appeal from an order of a 
 master, gave liberty to defend, and directed that 
 the costs of the application to the master, and of 
 the appeal, should be costs in the cause. At the 
 trial, before a judge without a jury, judgment 
 was entered for the pit. with costs, less the costs 
 of the proceedings under Order xiv. : — 
 
 Held, that the judge at the trial had no juris- 
 diction with regard to costs dealt with by an 
 order of a judge at chambers, and that his judg- 
 ment must be varied accordingly. Koosen v. 
 Eobe - - - C. A. [1897] W. N. 25 (9) 
 
 26. — Prohibition ^- Bule absolute withmit 
 pleadings. 
 
 The right to grant prohibition not being ex- 
 clusively in the jurisdiction of the Crown side of 
 the Q. B. Div., the High Court, in making a 
 rule absolute for prohibition without pleadings, 
 may make an order as to costs under s. 5 of the 
 Judicature Act, 1890. Eeg. v. London County 
 (Justices op) (No. 3) C. A. [1894] 1 a. B. 453 
 
 27. — Proper place of trial — " For good 
 cause " — Costs — Discretion of judge. 
 
 Where the place of trial of country cases has 
 been improperly fixed, the Court has jurisdiction 
 in its discretion to disallow the costs of the suc- 
 cessful pit. so far as increased by the improper 
 selection of the venue. Eobbets u. Jones. 
 WiLLEY V. Geeat Noetheen Et. Co. 
 
 Hawkins J. [1891] 2 Q. B. 194 
 
 — Eevcnue appeals. 
 
 See Eevenue. 100, 115, 124. 
 
 28. — Stay of proceedings — Company in liqui- 
 dation — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 s. 85— Judicature Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. o. 44), 
 
 8.5. 
 
 Where an order is made staying proceedings 
 in an action brought against a co. which is being 
 voluntarily wound up to the plt.'s knowledge 
 when the writ issued, the Court or judge has 
 power to order the pit. to pay the costs of the 
 application. Fbbeman v. Geneeal Publishinq 
 Co. - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 380 
 
 — Trade-mark — Infringement. 
 
 See Teade-maek. 1. 
 
 29. — Trustee's costs — Betaining out of estate — 
 Judge making no order as to costs. 
 
 Where, on an originating summons calling on 
 a trustee for his aoootmts, the judge does "not 
 think fit to make an ,order as to the costs," it 
 operates as a judicial decision that the trustee is 
 not entitled to his costs of the action, and is 
 inconsistent with his retaining them out of the 
 estate. In re HooaKiNsoN. Hodgkinson v. 
 HODGKINSON C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 Executors. 
 See Cases under Executor. 
 
 Higher and Lower Scale, 
 
 Order LXV., rr. 7, 8, 9 relate to costs on the 
 higher and lower scale. 
 
( 563 ) 
 
 CIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( sei ) 
 
 COSTS (Higher and Lower Scale)— continued. 
 
 30. — Higher scale — Allegations of fraud— 
 B. 8. a, 1883, Order Lxv., r. 9. 
 
 An allegation of fraud is not in itself a special 
 ground, within Order Lxv., r. 9, sufBoient to 
 enable the Court to order costs to be paid on 
 the higher scale, although the action be one 
 which involves a great deal of investigation and 
 a lengthy trial. Assets Development Co. v. 
 Close Beothees & Co. - - Buckley J. 
 [1900] W. N. 176 ; [1900] 2 Ch, 717 
 
 31. — Special grounds — Jurisdiction, 
 Before a judge can allow fees on the higher 
 
 scale in App. N., there must be special grounds. 
 On the question whether there be special grounds, 
 an appeal lies. Unless special grounds be shewn, 
 the Court will not interfere with the judge's 
 discretion. Paine v. Chisholm 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Q. B. 631 
 
 32. — Special grounds — Action for misrepre- 
 sentation as to public-liouse taliings. 
 
 The trial of an action for deceit as to the 
 takings of a public-house lasted seven days : — 
 
 3eld, that the action involved no difficulty 
 sufficient to justify an order for costs on the 
 higher scale, Paine v. Chisholm 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 a. B. B31 
 
 33. — Special grounds— Scientific evidence — 
 Admiralty action — Plans — B. S. C, Order LXV., 
 r. 9. 
 
 In an Admiralty action relating to a claim 
 for damages against a, port authority for not 
 keeping the bed of the harbour in a proper con- 
 dition for ships to lie on at low water, a defence 
 was raised that the dnmage sustained was due to 
 the inherent weakness of the injured ship, which 
 made it necessary to call a number of scientific 
 witnesses and to prepare plans shewing the 
 strength in constraction of the ship : — 
 
 Meld, that the pits, were entitled to costs on 
 the higher scale, on the ground that the case 
 was special in its nature, and had been so pre- 
 sented as greatly to facilitate its trial. The 
 " BOBiN " - - Jeune J. [1892] P. 96 
 
 34. — Special grounds— Scientific, expert evi- 
 dence — Patent action — B. S. C, 1883, Order Lxv., 
 r. 9. 
 
 In an action for infringement of an electrical 
 patent, the decision depended on questions not of 
 law but of electrical science, and most of the 
 witnesses were experts in science : — 
 
 Beld, that costs should be allowed on the 
 higher scale under Order lxv., r. 9. Hopkinson 
 1). St. James' and Pall Mall Eleoteio Lighting 
 Co. - - Eomer J. [1893] W. N. 5 
 
 House of lords. 
 
 — Injunction — Offer of undertaking by defendant. 
 
 See Injunction. 29. 
 
 — Successful pauper appellant — Practice. 
 
 See Appeal. 17. 
 
 Interest on Costs. 
 
 J '~„ ^°^t^ paid to solicitor on undertaldng to 
 refund— Successful appeal— Eepayment. 
 
 At the trial of tliis action judgment was given 
 
 COSTS (Interest on Costs) — continued. 
 for the pits., with costs. The defts. intending to 
 appeal, it was ordered that they should pay the 
 amount of the pits.' taxed costs to their solicitors, 
 on their personal undertaking to refund the 
 amount in case the appeal should succeed. The 
 C. A. reversed the decision, and ordered that the 
 pits, should pay the defts.' costs in both courts. 
 The defts. had paid 1105^ to the pits.' solicitors, 
 this being the amount of the pits.' taxed costs. 
 In drawing up the order of the C. A. the regis- 
 trar inserted a direction that the pits, should pay 
 the 1105?. to the defts., together with interest 
 thereon, from the date of payment to the pits.' 
 solicitors up to the date of the judgment of the 
 C, A. The C. A. had not given any express 
 direction for the payment of interest. The pits, 
 objected to pay the interest, and moved to vary 
 the order accordingly : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the direction for payment of interest 
 must be omitted. 
 
 Per Lindley M.E. : The direction for payment 
 of interest ought not to be inserted as a common 
 form. He would not express any opinion whether 
 the Court had power to order interest to be paid. 
 Edge & Sons v. W. Gallon & Son 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. H. 137 
 
 36. — Order for costs — Judgrhe^its Act, 1838 
 (1*2 Vict. 0. 110), 68. 17, 18, 20— JJ. S. C, 1883, 
 Order XLIL, rr. 14, 16. 
 
 An interlocutory order directing the payment 
 of costs by one person to another comes within 
 s. 18 of the Judgments Act, 1838, and carries 
 interest on the costs thereby awarded as from the 
 date of such an order. Taylob v. Eoe (N"o. 3) 
 Stirling J. [1894] 1 Ch. 413 
 
 Interlocutory Applications. 
 
 37. — Costs reserved. 
 
 Where interlocutory applications have been 
 ordered to stand to the trial and are not then 
 mentioned to the judge, the costs of such applica- 
 tions are to be treated as costs in the action and 
 taxed accordingly, and need not be mentioned in 
 the judgment. VVhere interlocutory applications 
 have been disposed of, but the costs have been 
 reserved, such costs are not to be mentioned in 
 the judgment or order, or allowed on taxation, 
 without the special direction of the judge. 
 British Natural Premium Provident Associa- 
 tion V. Bywater - Byrne J. [1897] 2 Ch. 631 
 
 Married Woman. 
 
 38. — Bestraint on anticipation-^Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. e. 63), 
 
 8.2. 
 
 In view of s. 2 of the Married Women's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1893, where an action by a married 
 woman is dismissed with costs, the words " with 
 liberty to apply for payment out of any property 
 which is subject to a restraint on anticipation," 
 should be added to the order. Davies v. Tee- 
 HAERis Bbewbry Co." Chitty J. [1894] W. N. 198 
 
 39. — Bestraint on anticipation — Proceeding 
 instituted. 
 
 (a) The words "proceeding instituted" in 
 s. 2 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1893, 
 
( 565 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 566 ) 
 
 COSTS (Married Woman) — continued. 
 do not include a motiou or appeal by a married 
 woman deft. Hood Bakrs v. Oathoart (No. 2) 
 C. A. affirm. North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 376 
 This case was approved by H. L. (E.). Sood 
 Barrs v. Seriot, [1897] A. 0. 177. 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. HoUi'ngton v. Dear, 
 [1895] W. N. 35. 
 
 (b) a counter-claim is included in those 
 words. Hood Babes v. Cathoakt (No. 4) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 a. B. 873 
 (o) A petition presented by a married woman 
 deft, is not included. Hollington o. Dear 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 35 
 
 40. — Security for costs — Appeal — Married 
 woman— Attachment — Order LYIIL, r. 15. 
 
 The question whether au order shall be made 
 for security for the costs of an appeal to the 
 C. A. is in all cases a matter for the discretion of 
 the Court. 
 
 Semble, however, that, as a general rule, such 
 an order will not be made where the appeal is 
 against an order for attachment. Hood Barrs v. 
 Hebiot - - - C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 375 
 
 See Hood Barrs v. Seriot, H. L. (E.) [1897] 
 A. C. 177. 
 
 41. — Set-off — Married Women's Property Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. a. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 2—B. S. C, 
 Order LXV., r. 27, su6-s. 21. 
 
 In an action aga.inst a married woman, judg- 
 ment was recovered against her, execution as to 
 costs recoverable in the action being limited to 
 her separate property. Subsequently, after the 
 married woman had become a widow, the pits, 
 became liable to her for costs in other proceed- 
 ings :— 
 
 Held, that the plts.'s costs in the first action 
 could be set off against costs payable to deft, 
 personally on the subsequent proceedings. Pelton 
 Brothers, v. Harrison (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 118 
 
 Payment into Court. 
 
 — Payment into court on admission. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Payment 
 into Court. 
 
 Payment out of Court. 
 
 42. — Petition — Service on parties hound hy 
 scheme under City of London Parochial Charities 
 Act, 1883. 
 
 The costs of service of a petition for payment 
 out of Court on various corporations and public 
 bodies, disallowed, as being unnecessary, since 
 the parties miglit have been joined as co-peti- 
 iioners. An application to limit the general 
 costs to such as would have been incurred if the 
 application as to sums under 10002. had been by 
 summons was refused. In re Beotoe and 
 Churchwardens of St. Albans, Wood Street 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] W. S. 204 
 
 — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Payment out 
 of Court. 
 
 Public Authorities Protection. 
 
 43. — Act done in execution of Act of Podia- 
 ment-^PuUio Highway— Action of trespass— Costs 
 
 COSTS (Public Authorities Protection)— oona 
 as hetween solicitor and climt— Public Authorities 
 Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1 (b) 
 — Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 a. 73), «. 26. 
 
 A landowner denying that a road over his 
 land was a public highway, and threatening pro- 
 ceedings against any person using it, two officials 
 of the county councU were directed by the council, 
 acting under the provisions of the Local Grovern- 
 ment Act, 1894, s. 26, to use the road for the 
 purpose of formally testing the right, which 
 they accordingly did. The landowner thereupon 
 brought an action of trespass against them, but at 
 the trial it was found that the road was a public 
 highway, and judgment was given for the 
 defts. : — 
 
 Held, that, the acts in respect of which the 
 action was brought having been done by the 
 defts. in pursuance or execution or intended 
 execution of the Local Government Act, 1894, 
 s. 26, the case came within the Public Authorities 
 Protection Act, 1893, s. 1, and therefore the defts. 
 were entitled to costs to be taxed as between 
 solicitor and client under that section. Green- 
 well V. Howell - C. A. [1900] W. N. 49 ; 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 535 
 
 44. — Action against public authority — Bis- 
 cretion to deprive successful defendants of costs — 
 B. 8. C, Order Lxr., r. 1 — Public Authorities 
 Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. e. 61), s. 1 (6). 
 
 The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, 
 s. 1 (6), which provides that, wherever in an 
 action within the Act a judgment is obtained by 
 the deft., it shall carry costs to be taxed as 
 between solicitor and client, does not take away 
 the discretion given to the judge at the trial by 
 Order lxv., r. ] , to deprive the successful deft, of 
 costs for good cause : — 
 
 So held, affirming the judgment of Lord 
 Kussell of Killowen C.J. 
 
 What constitutes " good cause " within 
 Order l.kv., r. 1, discussed. Bostook v. Ramsey 
 Urban District Council 
 
 Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. [1899] W. N. 261 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 357; C. A. [1900] W. H. 169; 
 
 [1900]2Q. B. 816 
 
 45. — Consent order dismissing action with 
 costs — Costs — Taoxttion — Action against public 
 authority — " Judgment obtained " by defendants — 
 Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (66 & 57 
 Vict. c. 61), s. 1 (6). 
 
 In an action against a county council for acts 
 done by them in pursuance of the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1894, an order was made in chambers 
 by consent that the action be dismissed, and that 
 the pit. do pay to the defts. their taxed costs of 
 the action : — 
 
 Held, that the defts. had obtained judgment 
 within the meaning of s. 1 (6) of the Public 
 Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and that the 
 costs must therefore be taxed as between -solicitor 
 and client. Shaw v. Hertfordshire County 
 Council - C. A. [1899] W. N. 103 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 282 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. Bostoeh v. Baimtey' 
 I7rfcaji Co«nc«, [1900] 2 Q. B. 616, 627. ' 
 
 46. — Dismissal of action against corporation 
 
C 667 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, lg91— 1900. 
 
 ( S08 ) 
 
 COSTS (Public Authorities Protection)— comiii. 
 — " Action " — Injimction — Costs as 'between solici- 
 tor and client — Frtblic Authorities Protection Act, 
 1893 (56 <fe 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1, siib-ss. (b), (c). 
 
 The word "action" as used in s. 1 of the 
 Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, includes 
 all actions in the Ch. Div., whether actions for an 
 injunction or actions partly for an injunction and 
 partly for damages. Therefore in any such 
 action against a public authority judgment for 
 the defts. carries the right to an order for costs 
 to be taxed as between solicitor and client, and 
 the Court has no discretion in the matter. 
 Haebop v. Ossett Coepoeation 
 
 Bomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 525 
 
 Referred to by Eomer J. Toms v. Clacton 
 Urban District Council, [1898] W. K. 61 (10). 
 See next Case. 
 
 47. — Dismissal of action against public autho- 
 rity — Costs as between solicitor and client — Public 
 Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 u. 61), e. 1 , sub-s. (V). 
 
 An action was brought against an urban 
 district council claiming an injunction to re- 
 strain the defts. from using certain portions of 
 land purchased by them for a cemetery on the 
 ground that the pit. was entitled to the bene- 
 tit of B. 9 of the Burial Act, 1855 (18 & 19 
 Vict. c. 128), prohibiting interments within 
 1 00 yards of a dwelling-house without the con- 
 sent of the occupier. The action having been 
 tried and dismissed, the defts. asked for costs as 
 between solicitor and client under s. 1, sub-s. (6), 
 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, 
 citing Rarrop v. Ossett Corporation, [1898] 1 Ch. 
 525:— 
 
 Seld, that the action was brought against the 
 defts. for an " act done in pursuance of a public 
 duty," and that the Act consequently applied, 
 and the defts. were entitled to costs as between 
 solicitor and client. Toms v. Clacton Ueban 
 DiSTEioT CouNOiL - - Bomer J. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 61 (10) 
 
 48. — Judgm,ent for defendants — Action for 
 acts done in execution of Statute — Costs as between 
 solicitor and client — Public Autliorities Protection 
 Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. c. 61), «. 1. 
 
 By the Public Authorities Protection Act, 
 1893, s. 1, judgment for the deft, in an action 
 brought in respect of acts or alleged defaults in 
 execution of an Act of Parliament, or of any 
 public duty-or authority, carries costs as between 
 solicitor and client. This provision does not 
 apply to appeals. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., reported as Fielding y. Morley 
 Corporation, [1899] 1 Ch. 1, affirmed. Fielden 
 V. MoELBT Coepoeation 
 
 H. L, (E.) [1900] W, N. 40; [1900] A. C. 133 
 
 49. — Judgment for defendant with costs — 
 Taxation — Costs as between solicitor and client — 
 Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 61), 8. 1, sub-s. (6). 
 
 ■Where a deft., a public authority, in an action 
 falling within the Public Authorities Protection 
 Act, 1893, succeeds, so that substantially the 
 deft, obtains judgment, the deft, is entitled under 
 the Act to costs to be taxed as between solicitor 
 and client, notwithstanding that the judgment 
 
 COSTS (Public Authorities Protection)— c<m<(?. 
 as drawn up merely directs the pit. to pay the 
 def t.'s costs without directing how such costs are 
 to be taxed. The omission of such a direction 
 will not deprive the deft, of the benefit of the 
 statute, the Court having no discretion in the 
 matter when once it is clear that in substance 
 judgment has been obtained by the deft. It is 
 not necessary that the judgment itself should 
 shew on its face that the action was one falling 
 within the Act. 
 
 Finlay v. Seaton, (1808) 1 Taunt. 210, Forman 
 v. Dawes, (1843) H M. & W. 730, and Lister v. 
 Leather, (1858) 4 K. & J. 425, discussed. North 
 Metropolitan Tramways Co. v. London County 
 Council - Bomer J. [1898] 2 Ch. 146 
 
 Referred to by C. A. BostocTc v. Ramsey 
 Urban Council, [1900] 2 Q. B. 616, 643. 
 
 Security for Costs. 
 
 Ordei' LXT., rr. 6, 6a, relate to security for 
 costs. 
 
 50. — Appeal — Security for costs, ordered but 
 not given — Application by appellant for stay of 
 execution. 
 
 An appellant, having been ordered to give 
 security (lOZ.) for the costs occasioned by his 
 appeal, but not having yet given the security, 
 applied to the Court to stay execution, pending 
 the appeal, under the order appealed from : — 
 
 Held, that the application for stay of execution 
 was a proceeding in the appeal, and that the 
 Court could not listen to it until the security had 
 been given. In re Coepoeation op British In- 
 VESTOES - C. A. [1897] W. N. 36 (3) 
 
 81. — Delay — Application after delivery of 
 defence— R. S. 'C, 1«83, Order lxt., r. 6. 
 
 The Court has under Order lxt., r. 6, of the 
 Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, a discretion 
 to order security for costs to be given at any 
 stage of the proceedings, and there is no hard 
 and fast rule that the application for security 
 must be made before any material step is taken 
 in the action. Accordingly, an application by a 
 deft, for security to be given by the pit. is not too 
 late merely because it is made after the delivery 
 of the defence. The rule laid down in Mariano 
 V. Mann, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 419, and Lydney and 
 Wigpool Iron Ore Co. v. Bird, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 
 358, applied. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. In re 
 Smith. Bain v. Bain C. A. [1896] W. N. 88 (16) 
 
 62, — Foreign company — Appellant resident 
 abroad — Assets within the jurisdiction — Fluctuat- 
 ing assets. 
 
 There is no hard and fast rule that a person 
 resident abroad must give security for costs. 
 Such residence msikes a prim6 facie case for re- 
 quiring security, but held, that a foreign co. 
 resident abroad need not give security for the 
 costs of an appeal where it could shew sufficient 
 goods within the jurisdiction to answer the costs 
 of the proceeding. In re Apollinaris Co.'s 
 Trade-maeks (No. 1) - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 68, — Foreign company — Trade-mark — Appli- 
 cation to expunge mark — Bight of foreign company 
 to appear. 
 
 A foreign co. which had no address for Bervice 
 
( 569 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 570 ) 
 
 COSTS (Security for Costs.)— continued. 
 in this country, but who appeared and submitted 
 to the jurisdiction, held to be entitled to be added 
 as respondents to a motion for expunging a trade- 
 mark registered by them without giving security 
 for costs. In re La Sooiete Anonymb des 
 Vebrbbies de l'Etoile (No. 1) 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] W. N, 119 
 
 54. — Foreign defendant resident abroad — 
 Counter-claim substantially amounting to defence 
 — Discretion. 
 
 Where a counter-claim was set np by a deft, 
 resident out of the jurisdiction which arose out of 
 the same transaction as the claim, and amounted 
 substantially, although not technically, to a 
 defence to the action : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had a discretion to refuse 
 to order security for costs to be given. Neck v. 
 Taylob - C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. S60 
 
 55. — Foreign plaintiff — Temporary residence 
 within the jurisdiction — B. S. C., Order LXV., 
 
 r. 6 (a). 
 
 The words of Order Lxv., r. 26 (a), which 
 require a foreigner " temporarily resident within 
 the jurisdiction " to give security for costs, have 
 an elastic meaning : — 
 
 Held, that they did not apply to a foreigner 
 who shewed that his business engagements would 
 keep him in England for neaily twelve months. 
 MiCHiELS V. Empire Palace Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. H. 38 
 
 56. — Foreign plaintiff resident abroad — Action 
 on foreign judgment. 
 
 Where a foreigner resident out of the juris- 
 diction brings an action in this country, the fact 
 that the action is brought on a foreign judgment 
 recovered in proceedings in which the deft, ap- 
 peared does not affect the right of the deft, to 
 security for costs. Cbozat v. Beogden 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 30 
 
 57. — Foreign plaintiff resident abroad — New 
 trial. 
 
 Where in an action by a foreigner resident 
 abroad who has given security for costs of the 
 action under an order made at chambers, the deft, 
 succeeds and the pit. moves for a new trial, 
 application should be made at chambers to 
 increase the amount of the security, and an 
 appeal from chambers in such a case lies direct 
 to the C. A. Bentsest v. Taylob, Sons & Co. 
 (No. 1) - C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 193 
 
 58. — Foreigner resident abroad — General in- 
 quiry — Claimant to fund in court — Person in 
 position of plaintiff. 
 
 As a general rule a claimant under a general 
 inquiry cannot be required to give security for 
 costs. 
 
 Where a solicitor was ordered to pay into 
 court a fund in his hands belonging to a client 
 subject to the claims of certain alleged incum- 
 brancers thereon, and an Inquiry was directed 
 who was entitled thereto, a foreign claimant 
 resident out of the jurisdiction was ordered to 
 give security for costs upon the ground that, in 
 the special circumstances of the case, the inquiry 
 was equivalent to an interpleader issue in which 
 the claimant was in the position of a pit. In re 
 JtfUWABD & Co, T C. A. [1900] W. N. 42 ; 
 ■ ' ^1900] 1 Oh. 408 
 
 COSTS (Security for Coits)— continued. 
 
 — FormS. pauperis. 
 
 See Cases under Pbaotioe — Formi 
 Pauperis. 
 
 — New trial — Foreign plaintiff resident abroad. 
 
 See No. 57, above. 
 
 59. — New trial. Motion for — Judicature Act, 
 1890 (53 * 51 Vict. c. 44), s. 1—B. S. C, Order 
 LViii., r. 15. 
 
 As a general rule security for costs will not 
 be ordered against an applicant for a new trial. 
 Heoksoheb v. Ceoslby 0. A. [1891] 1 Q. B, 224 
 
 — Payment into court as security for costs — 
 
 Denial of liability. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Secured Creditor. 
 231. 
 
 60. — Person resident abroad — Mespondent to 
 petition for revocation of patent — Actor. 
 
 A patentee, resident out of the jurisdiction, 
 who comes in as a respondent to a petition to 
 revoke his patent is in no sense an " actor " in the 
 meaning of the observations of the Court in 
 Apollinaris Co. v. Wilson, (1886) 31 Ch. D. 632, 
 and the fact that he would or might be required 
 to begin does not for the present purpose put him 
 in the position of a pit., and the fact that he 
 was or might be defending on behalf of others 
 was immaterial. In re Millee's Patent 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 4 
 
 61. — ■ Wm-Tiinen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 (£61 Viet. c. 37) — Appeal under — Security for 
 costs of appeal — E. 8. C, Order Lviii. r 15. 
 
 The ordinary rule of practice of the C. A. as 
 to ordeiing security for the costs of an appeal is 
 applicable to appeals under the Workmen's Com- 
 pensation Act, 1897. Hall v. Snowdon, Hub- 
 BAED & Co. - C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 593 
 
 62. — Writ — Indorsement of plaintiff's address 
 — Wrong address indorsed — Motion to set aside writ 
 — Plaintiff out of jurisdiction — B. 8. C, Order 
 IV., r. 1. 
 
 On a motion by the deft, to set aside the writ 
 and the service tliereof, on the ground that the 
 true address of the pits, was not indorsed thereon, 
 the pits, being an American oo. out of the juris- 
 diction, and the deft, not being able to find them 
 at the address given in England : — 
 
 Held, that the proper order to make was, that 
 the pits, should give security for costs and pay 
 the costs of the motion. Pittseuegi Cbtished 
 Steel Co. v. Jacob Maex & Co. 
 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 36 (5) 
 
 Sequestration. 
 
 See Case under Sequesteation. 
 
 Set-oif. 
 
 63. — House of Lords— B. 8. C, 1883, Order 
 LXV., r. 14, 
 
 The Appeal Committee after final judgment 
 has been given in the appeal will not set off costs 
 due by an appellant in the H. L. against balance 
 costs due to the appellant as the result of a deci- 
 sion In the 0. A. If there is a probability of any ' 
 question of costs or any other matter arising after 
 and as incident to the appeal, the matter ought 
 to be mentioned at the hearing. Eussbll v. 
 Edbsbli, - - K, I, (D.) [1898] A. C, 307 
 
( 571 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 572 ) 
 
 COSTS (Set-off)— eonMrnaed. 
 
 — Married woman, Action against. 
 
 Bee Husband and Wife. 47. 
 
 G4. — Solicitor's lien — Independent proceedings 
 
 —B. S. C, 1883, Order LXV., rr. li, 27, suh-r. 21. 
 
 Oosts incurred in the High Court cannot be 
 
 set off against costs obtained in the county court, 
 
 although the proceedings are between the same 
 
 parties. Order lxv., r. 14, does not applyto costs 
 
 in independent proceedings. Hasbell v. Stanley 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 1 Ch. 607 
 
 See also In re Bassett 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] 1 Q. B. 219 
 
 Sets of Costs. 
 
 66. — Settled land — Tenant for life — Costs of 
 sale — Separate solicitors — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. e. 38), s. 2, sub-s. 6 ; s. 21, sub-s. X; 
 «. 53. 
 
 Twenty-five persons bad been declared by an 
 order of the Court to have the powers of a tenant 
 for life. On a sale of the settled property the 
 vendors employed one solicitor to conduct the 
 sale, but in carrying out the sale, four of them, or 
 their incumbrarioers, employed other solicitors to 
 peruse and complete : — 
 
 Eeld, that there was nothing to disentitle the 
 four persons from employing separate solicitors, 
 and that their costs should be allowed out of the 
 proceeds of the sale. Smith v. Lancaster 
 
 C. A. reversing Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 439 
 
 Severance of Defence. 
 
 66. ■ — Administration action — Practice — Ap- 
 portionment of costs — Ttiglit of appeal — Judicature 
 Ad, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. u. 66), s. 49— iJ. S. C, 
 1883, Order LXV., r. 1. 
 
 A trustee ought not to be deprived of his costs 
 out of the trust estate merely on the ground that 
 he has severed from his co-trustee in his defence 
 to an action to administer the estate. 
 
 He ought to have an opportunity of explaining 
 the reasons for his severance, so that the Court 
 may be able to decide judicially whether the 
 severance was improper. 
 
 The allowance of the costs of a trustee out of 
 the trust estate is not a matter " left to the dis- 
 cretion of the Court " within the meaning of s. 49 
 of the Judicature Act, 1873; and consequently a 
 trustee has a right to appeal against an order 
 depriving him of costs out of the estate, and 
 giving the whole of the costs to his co-trustee. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J, reversed. In re 
 Isaac. Ckonbach v. Isaac 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 251 
 — Allowanceof two counsel — Taxation— Trustees. 
 Bee Tkustbb — Costs. 45. 
 
 — Builder — Indemnity — Third party procedure. 
 
 Bee LiBBT and Air. 14. 
 
 — Separate sets of oosts — Probate action. 
 
 See Probate. 92. 
 
 Shorthand ITotes. 
 
 — Consultations with counsel — Shorthand notes. 
 See New South Wales. 1 1 . 
 
 67. — Motion for new trial — Summing up of 
 
 judge 
 
 Application having been made, on behalf of 
 
 COSTS (Shorthand Notes) — continued. 
 the successful party on a motion for judgment or 
 a new trial of the action, that the costs of a short- 
 hand writer's notes of the summing-up of the 
 judge at the trial might be allowed : Lord Bsher 
 M.E. (having consulted all the other judges of 
 the C. A.) said that there was no hard and fast 
 rule that such costs would never be allowed, but 
 they would be allowed only in very exceptional 
 cases. The present case was not an exceptional 
 one, and therefore the costs would not be allowed.. 
 Andrews v. Mockford 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 372, at p. 385 
 
 — Particulars of objections — Practice. 
 
 See Patent— Practice. 30—33. 
 
 68. — Transcript of judgment — Reported case. 
 Costs of a transcript of shorthand notes of 
 
 judgments of Lord Justices allowed though a full 
 report of the case had been published. In re 
 Cathoaht (No. 2) C. A. [1893] W. N. 107 
 
 Solicitor, Personal Payment by. 
 
 — Bankruptcy of client — Submission to pay. 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 26. 
 ■ — Generally. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor — Costs. 
 
 69. — Personal order to pay — Notice, Omission 
 to give— Absence of material witness — R. S. C, 
 1883, Order Lxr., r. 11. 
 
 On application for adjournment of a trial 
 owing to the illness of a material witness, the 
 solicitors may be ordered to pay the costs of the 
 day where they fail to give proper notice of such 
 illness, if known by them in time to keep the case 
 out of the list. Shorter v. Tod-Heatlt 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 21 
 
 — Eepayment of costs — Eeversal of judgment. 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 71. 
 
 70. — • Unauthorized use of plaintiff's name — 
 Right of defendants to apply for payment of costs 
 by solicitors. 
 
 Where an action is brought in the name of a 
 person as pit. without his authority, and he sub- 
 sequently repudiates the action, the defts., on 
 application in the action, may obtain an order for 
 payment of their costs by the solicitor who issued 
 the writ. 
 
 So lield, in a case where an infant was joined 
 as oo-plt. by solicitors on the assumption that he 
 was of full age. 
 
 Friclter v. Van Grutten, [1896] 2 Ch. 649, 
 considered and applied. Geilinger v. Gibbs 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 479 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 71. — Appeal — Number of copies of documents 
 to be furnished. 
 
 On an appeal relating to the construction of 
 a will one copy only was furnished for the use of 
 the Lords Justices, the reason alleged for this 
 course being that the taxing masters were chary 
 of allowing the cost of three copies in a small 
 case. The Lords Justices protested against the 
 notion that it was possible for the Court to per- 
 form its duty properly in construing a will or 
 other instrument unless a copy of such instru- 
 ment was j)rovided for the use of each member 
 
( 573 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 574 ) 
 
 COSTS (Taxation)— conMnwd. 
 of the Court, and intimated that the cost of 
 copies so provided ought to he allowed on taxa- 
 tion. Note on Pbaotioe 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 8 (18) 
 
 72. — • Common order for taxation, liow ob- 
 tained. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction to make a common 
 order to tax either on summons, or motion, or 
 petition of course, or on writ of summons. In re 
 Fenton - Kekewioh J. [1894] W. N. 128 
 
 — Copyright — Infringement — Solicitor and client 
 
 costs. 
 
 See CoPYKiGHT — Infringement. 12, 13. 
 
 73. — Correspondence. 
 
 The allowance or taxation of the costs of 
 copies of correspondence used at the- trial is a 
 matter for the discretion of the taxing master ; 
 hut in exercising his discretion he ought to ascer- 
 tain how much was necessary and proper to be 
 supplied to counsel or the Court for the proper 
 argument and decision of the case. Bddgett v. 
 BuDOETT (No. 2) Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 202 
 
 Eeferred to hy Kekewich J. In re Margetts, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 263, 265. 
 
 74. — Counter-claim. 
 
 In an action where there is a claim and 
 counter-claim, the party ordered to pay or receive 
 the costs of the action pays or receives the whole 
 of such costs as if there were no counter-claim. 
 
 The party ordered to pay or receive the costs 
 of the counter-claim pays or receives the costs 
 occasioned hy the counter-claim, and in deter- 
 mining what they are, costs which have been 
 saved by a counter-claim being brought instead 
 of a cross-action are not to be taken into account. 
 
 Costs which have been incurred partly in 
 support of or in opposition to a defence, and 
 partly in support of or in opposition to a counter- 
 claim, must be apportioned by the taxing master, 
 but no costs incurred ia the action which have 
 not been increased by reason of the counter-claim 
 are to he apportioned. 
 
 Saner v. Bilton, (1879) 11 Oh. D. 416, and 
 Shrapnel v. Laing, (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 334, con- 
 sidered. 
 
 Decision of Channell J., affirming the decision 
 of the taxing master, reversed. Atlas Metal 
 Ca V. MiLLEK - - C. A. [1898] 2 ft. B. 500 
 
 — ' County court registrar- — Taxation by. 
 See Bankruptcy — Costs. 76. 
 
 75. — Discretion and duty of taxing master. 
 Where the taxing master has gone through 
 
 the whole of the pleadings and evidence the 
 Court will not interfere with his discretion. The 
 judge ought not to go into matters of detail. 
 
 (a) BUD6ETT V. BUDGETT (No 2) 
 
 ^ Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 202 
 
 (b) Oliver v. Bobbins 
 
 , Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 199 
 
 — In district registry. 
 
 See Pbaotioe— District Eegistry. 19, 20. 
 
 76. — "FuU compensation" — Extra costs — 
 Local government— Damage by reason of exercise of 
 powers of Act—Costs of legal proceedings— Public 
 health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 308. 
 
 "full compensation" for damage sustained 
 
 COSTS (TaxAtiov.)— continued. 
 by reason of the exercise of any of the powers of 
 the Act under s. 308 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, does not include extra costs of legal pro- 
 ceedings which have been incurred, over and 
 above the taxed party aud party costs, by a 
 person against whom the local authority has 
 unsuccessfully proceeded under the Act. 
 
 Proceedings having been taken under ss. 94- 
 96 of the Public Health Act, 1875, by the 
 respondents, a local authority, against the appel- 
 lant in respect of a nuisance, an order to abate 
 the nuisance was made against the appellant by 
 the justices. He appealed against the order to 
 quarter sessions, who dismissed the appeal, sub- 
 ject to a case. On the hearing of the case a 
 Div. Ct. ordered that the order of quarter sessions 
 should be quashed with costs, and that the 
 respondents should pay to the appellant his costs 
 of the appeal to the High Court to be taxed. 
 The costs of the two appeals were taxed and 
 paid to the appellant. In prosecuting the appeals 
 the appellant reasonably incurred costs to a 
 greater amount than the taxed costs, which he 
 received, and he claimed from the respondents 
 the difference between the taxed costs and the 
 amount so expended by him, as compensation 
 under s. 308 of the Public Health Act, 1875 :— 
 
 Held, that he was not entitled to recover the 
 amount so claimed by him. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1900] W. N. 96 ; [1900] 
 
 2 Q. B. 104, affirmed. Babnett v. Eooles 
 
 COEPOEATION - C. A. [1900] W. N. 146 ; 
 
 [1900] 8 Q. B. 423 
 
 77. — Representation order — B. S. C, 1883, 
 Order :syi., r. 32; Order lxy., r. 1. 
 
 On deciding as to the construction of a will, 
 representation orders were made in respect of 
 each of the three classes of persons interested : — 
 
 Held, that costs should be given as between 
 solicitor and client. In re Davies. Jenkins v. 
 Davies - - Kekewich J. [1891] W. H. 104 
 
 78. — Service — Claim for liquidated demand — • 
 Payment of debt and costs — Further costs of sub- 
 stituted service — Taxation — Fixed costs — B. S. C, 
 Order III., r. 7 ; Order LXV., r. 27, sub-r. 38 — 
 Practice Bule 18. 
 
 Appeal from an order of a judge at chambers 
 refusing a review of taxation of costs. The writ 
 of summons was specially indorsed with a claim 
 for 410Z. and three guineas costs. An order was 
 obtained for substituted • service. The amount 
 indorsed on the writ was paid, within four days 
 of service, to the plt.'s solicitors, who demanded 
 in addition 21. 10s. for the cost attending the 
 substituted service, and that sum was paid under 
 protest. The deft, obtained an order to tax 
 under Order iiL, r. 7. The plt.'s solicitors carried 
 in a bill for 61. is. 8d., the extra amount over 
 the sum received being for costs subsequently 
 incurred. The master indorsed the order " Costs 
 allowed at il. 3s.," that is, three guineas the 
 amount indorsed on the writ and 11. for fixed 
 costs of substituted service under the Central 
 Office Practice Rule 18, and he directed that the 
 pit. should pay the costs of the order aud taxa- 
 tion. The pit. put in objections to which the 
 master answered that he had taxed, according to 
 the invariable rule of pwiotice, after consulting 
 
( 575 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— :900. 
 
 ( 576 ) 
 
 COSTS (Taxaiion)— continued. 
 the Lead of the Writ Department. The pit. ap- 
 plied for an order to review the taxation, which 
 ■was refused by Lawrance J., who gave leave to 
 appeal. Flatau v. Cdllen 
 
 C. A, [1899] W. N. 206 
 
 79. — Taxing master's reasons. 
 
 The taxing master should in all cases shew to 
 both parties the reasons he is prepared to submit 
 to the Court for the disallowance of any item. 
 Dashwood v. Maqsiao (No. 2) 
 
 CMtty J. [1892] W. N. 54 
 
 80. .— Trustee's costs — Statute-barred items. 
 Where there is a direction to ascertain the 
 
 costs, charges, and expenses of trustees, statute- 
 barred costs should be included, for the Statutes 
 of Limitation bar the remedy, not the debt, and 
 the object of the order is to give effect to the 
 trustee's right of indemnity, which extends to 
 fair claims of every kind, and not merely to those 
 enforceable by action. Budsett v. Budgett 
 (No. 2) - - Kekewioh J. [1895] 1 Oh. 202 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. In re Margetts, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 260, 265. 
 
 81. — Waiver of taxation — Agreed costs — Con- 
 sent order — Payment out of court. 
 
 It is not the practice to pay agreed costs to 
 solicitors, without the personal knowledge of the 
 party interested in such payment; tlierefore upon 
 an application, by consent of pits, and deft., for 
 leave to alter an order of November 30, 1897, by 
 waiving taxation of costs thereby directed, and 
 for payment out of a fund in court of an agreed 
 amount of costs to the pits.' solicitor, the Court 
 directed a letter to be written by the solicitor to 
 the person interested in the fund, and lield that, 
 upon production to the registrar of a letter in 
 reply waiving taxation and consenting to payment 
 of the agreed amount of costs, the order might be 
 annulled as asked. In re Cosiek. Hill Bros. v. 
 Humphreys Eomer J. [1898] W. N. 8 (13) 
 
 83. — Witnesses' expenses — B. S. C, 1883, 
 Order LXV., r. 27, sub-rr. 9, 37. 
 
 Allowances for travelling and hotel expenses 
 of witnesses are in the discretion of the master, 
 and are not regulated by the common law scale 
 of 1853. East Stonehouse Local Board v. 
 ViCTOEiA Brewekt Co. North J. [1896] 3 Ch. 514 
 
 83. — Witnesses' expenses — Scientific witnesses 
 — Preparatory experiments. 
 
 Fees charged by scientific witnesses in patent 
 actions for time occupied in making experiments 
 preparatory to the trial will be allowed on taxa- 
 tion. Leonhakdt v. Kalle 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] W, N. 97 
 
 — Taxation by county court registrar. 
 See Bankruptcy — Costs. 76. 
 
 TTimecessary Proceedings. 
 
 84. — Next friend — Useless litigation. 
 
 The costs of upsuooessful litigatiop by next 
 friend should not bo paid out of the estate. 
 
 (a) Obtervations of Lindley L.J, In re Fish. 
 Bennett v. Bennett C. A, [1893] 2 Ch, 413, 422 
 
 (n) In ro Hicks. Lindon v. Hemery 
 
 Nprth J. [1893] W. N, 138 
 
 COSTS— continued. 
 
 Witnesses. 
 
 — Expenses of witnesses. 
 
 See above, Taxation, 
 
 CO-STTEETY. 
 
 See Principal and Surety — Contri- 
 bution. 1—3, 7. 
 
 COTTAB — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise, 44. 
 
 COTTON CLOTH FACTOEIES ACT, 1897. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Taotory 
 Acts. 
 
 COUNCIL— County. 
 
 See County Council. 
 
 — District. 
 
 See District Council. 
 
 — Parish. 
 
 See Parish Council. 
 
 COUNSEL. 
 
 See Babristbe. 
 
 " COUNSELLING " COMMISSION OF OFFENCE 
 — Cruelty to animals — Information — 
 Summary jurisdiction. 
 jSee Justices. 5. 
 
 COUNTEE-CLAIM. 
 
 See Practice— Pleading. 149 — 155. 
 
 ■ — ■ Action by foreign Sovereign — Discovery. 
 See International Law. 4. 
 
 — Costs — Taxation, 
 
 See Costs. 12, 74. 
 
 COUNTEEPAET— Of lease. Costs of. 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 58. 
 
 COUNTY — Contribution for special purpose — 
 County rate basis — Apportionment. 
 See Bates — EateabUity, 16. 
 
 — Council. 
 
 See County Council. 
 
 — County rate. 
 
 See Cases under Kates. 
 
 — Transfer of part of one county to another 
 
 county — Adjustment of liabilities. 
 See Local Government — Transfer. 6,7. 
 COUNTY COUNCIL, 
 
 Election, col. 576; 
 Expenses, col. 577. 
 Powers, col. 579. 
 
 Election, 
 
 County Councils (Elections) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. 0. 68), amends the laic as to County Council 
 Elections. 
 
 Povxr to county councils to remove difficulties 
 at, under Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 73). See Local Government QElectitms) 
 Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. u. 1). 
 
 Disqualification.] Members of Local Autho- 
 rities Relief Act, 1900 (63 ct- 64 Vict. o. 46), relieves 
 members of county councils and others. 
 
 Elections.] County Councils (EUctions) Amendr 
 ment Act, 1900 (63 <fe 64 Vict. c. 13), amends thu 
 County Councils (Eketionf) Apt^ 1891 (84 <^ 55 
 
( 57f ) 
 
 DlGESt Of CASfiS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 5l8 ) 
 
 COtlNTY COUNCIL (lleotioay—contimied. 
 
 Vict. V. 68), as to date of holding quarterly meeting 
 
 of county councils. 
 
 1- — Election of county council — Practice — 
 Death of candidate between nomination and poll — 
 Duty of returning officer to countermand poll — 
 Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 <£; 46 Vict, 
 e. 50), «. 58— Ballot Act, 1872 (35 * 36 Vict, 
 c. 33), g, 1. 
 
 Where, at a contested election for a county 
 council, a candidate dies between the nomination 
 and the poll, it is the duty of the returning officer 
 for the division in which he was a candidate to 
 countermand notice of the poll. Eeg. v. Stewakt 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 552 
 
 2. — Incapacity of vjomen — Municipal Cor- 
 poration Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), ss. 41, 73 
 — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. 
 V. 41), 88. 2, 75. 
 
 Sect. 73 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 
 1882, which makes an election good and valid if 
 not impeached within twelve months, does not 
 render the election of a woman valid after the 
 lapse of the prescribed time :^- 
 
 Meld, therefore, that tlie deft, was liable to 
 the penalties under s. 41 of the same Act. De 
 SouzA V. CoBDEN - C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B, 687 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 8. — Borough having population under 10,000 
 — Separate court of quarter sessions — Liability 
 for costs — Salary of recorder — Fees of clerk of the 
 peace — Salary of clerk to justices — Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Viet. c. 41), ss. 35, 38, 84. 
 
 In the case of boroughs having a separate 
 court of quarter sessions and commission of the 
 peace, which contained according to the census 
 of 1881 a population of less than 10,000, the 
 lioeal Grovernment Act, 1888, has not tranferred 
 the obligation of paying the salary of the re- 
 corder, the fees of the clerk of the peace, and 
 the salary of the clerk of the borough justices 
 from the borough to the county council. 
 
 Appeal from Wills J., [1898] 1 Q. B. 141, 
 dismissed, and cross-appeal allowed. 
 
 Decision in Ex parte Kent County Council and 
 Council of Sandwich, [1891] 1 Q. B. 389, and 
 In re County Council of Herefordshire, [1895] 
 1 Q. B. 43, to tlie contrary, overruled. Thbtfobd 
 CoBPOBATioN V. Norfolk Codnty Codncil 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 468 
 
 4. — Expenses of pauper lunatics — Power to 
 fix amount of charge — Lunacy Act, 1853 (16 d: 17 
 Vict. c. 97), «. 54 — Local Government Act, 1888 
 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 41), ss. 62, 86. 
 
 The committee whioli the county council ap- 
 points for visiting asylums cannot, as the old 
 visiting committee could, fix the' amount which 
 a corporation must pay towards the maintenance 
 of its pauper ^lunatics. The amount must be 
 fixed by agreement or by arbitration. Howlett 
 V. Maidstone Cob?oration C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B.'illO 
 
 5. — EM)enses, of. quarter and petty sessions — 
 Municipal Corporations Ait, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 50), ss. 169, 248, sub-ss. 2, 5 — Local Government 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), «.' 35, sub-ss. 2, 5 ; 
 8. 38, aub-s. 5 ; 8. 100: 
 
 (a) 8emble,that under the Local Government 
 Act, 1888, where the population of a borough 
 
 COUNTY COUNCIL (Expenses)— conMnttei. 
 having a separate court of quainter sessions is 
 10,000 or upwards, the expenses of quarter and 
 petty sessions are payable out of the borough 
 rates ; where the population is under 10,000, out 
 of the county rate. Ex parte County ComfOiL 
 OF Kent and Council of Doveb (No. 1). Ex 
 parte County Council of &nt and Council of 
 Sandwich - - Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 389 ; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 725 
 Overruled by 0. A. Tlietford Corporation v. 
 Norfolk County Council, [1898] 2 Q. B. 468. See 
 No, 3, above. 
 
 (b) The salary of the clerk to the justices of 
 a borough having a separate commission of the 
 peace, but no separate court of quarter sessions, 
 and a population under 10,000, is payable out of 
 the county rate, all fees and costs received by the 
 clerk not excluded in the fixing of his salary are 
 payable to the county fund. In re County 
 Council op Hebefobdshire and Leosunstbb 
 Town Council, and In re Local Government 
 Act, 1888 - - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 ft. B. 43 
 
 Overruled by C. A. Thetford Corporation v. 
 Norfolk County Council, [1898] 2 Q. B. 468. See 
 No. 3, a6o»e. 
 
 6. — Main roads in county divided into hun- 
 dreds — Highways and Locomotives (^Amendment) 
 Act, 1878 (41 * 42 Vict. c. 77), s. 20— Local 
 Government Act, 1888 (51 (t 52 Vict. v. 41), ss. 11, 
 23, 68. 
 
 Where an order has been made imder s. 20 of 
 the Highways Act, 1878, declaring every main 
 read to bo repairable by tlje hundred, and one 
 half the expenses to be repayable out of a special 
 rate in the hundred, the repairs are "general 
 county purposes," and the county fund should 
 be recouped from the Exchequer Contribution 
 Account so much of the expenses as is not pro- 
 vided by the special rate in the hundred. Keg. 
 V. Dolby (No. 2) - Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B, 736 
 
 7. — Main roads — Footways, repair of, in urban 
 district. 
 
 The Local Government Act, 1888, s. 11 (2), 
 imposes on the comity council the duty of contri- 
 buting to the cost of maintaining and repairing, 
 in an urban sanitary district, the footways on the 
 sides of disturnpiked roads, which were consti- 
 tuted main roads by s. 13 of the Highways and 
 Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878. In re BuB- 
 
 SLEM COBPOEATION AND StAFFOEDSHIRE CoUNTY 
 
 Council - - C. A. [1895] W. N. 146 (4) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 ft. B. 24 
 Affirmed by H. L. (E.). Derby County Councilv. 
 Urban District of Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick, 
 [1896] A. C. 315. 
 
 8. — Main roads maintained by urban autho- 
 rity — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 41), S3. 11, 35. 
 
 Where an urban authority retains the powers 
 and duties of maintaining the main roads in its 
 district, the amount to be paid to it by the county 
 council in respect of such main roads can only be 
 settled, in dejault of agreement, by the arbitra- 
 tion of the Local Government Board, In re 
 Bedfordshiee County Council and Bedfobd 
 Urban Sanitary Authority 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 786 
 "U 
 
( S?9 ) 
 
 MGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( S^o ) 
 
 COUNTY COUNCIL (Exyenses)— continued. 
 
 9. — Police — Cost of maintenance— Borough 
 force — Constdble$ from other force — Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41). s. 2i, stib-s. 
 2 (jy-Police Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 45), s. 25. 
 
 A borough maintaiDing its own police ia 
 entitled under s. 24, sub-g. 2 (j), of the Local 
 GoTernment Act, 1888, to be paid by the county 
 council one-half of the cost of the pay and cloth- 
 ing of extra police temporarily added from another 
 police force under s. 25 of the Police Act, 1890, 
 and paid for by agreement. Beg. v. County 
 Council of West Riding of Yoekshiee 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 805 
 
 10, — ■ Troops summoned to preserve the peace — 
 Expenses of maintenance — Liability — Mandamus. 
 
 Troops were brought into a county, on the 
 application of the county magistrates, for the pur- 
 pose of suppressing riots, and preserving peace 
 and order in the county. By agreement with the 
 magistrates certain tradesmen supplied the troops 
 with food and lodging while quartered in the 
 county. 
 
 On an application for a mandamus to the 
 county council to pay for the food and lodging 
 supplied : — 
 
 Held, afBrming the judgment of the Div. Ct., 
 [1899] W. N. 60 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 26, that no duty 
 was imposed by law on those who administered 
 the county funds to pay the expenses of the 
 maintenance of the troops, and a mandamus 
 could not be granted. Keg. v. Glamokgan 
 County Council. Ex parte Miller 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 138 ; [1899] 2 ft. B, 636 
 
 Powers. 
 
 Highways and Bridges Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 63), confers further powers with -respect to 
 main roads and other highways and bridges on 
 county coniicils and other authorities. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 tS: 57 Vict, 
 c. 73), gives further powers, with respect to parish 
 and district councils, to county councils. 
 
 Bules of the Supreme Court dated Aug. 10, 
 1892, OS to determining questions under s. 29 of the 
 Local Government Act, 1888, as to the transfer of 
 powers to county councils. W. N. 1892 (Appx. of 
 0. & E.), p, 29 J St. R. & 0, 1892, p. 908. 
 
 11. — Appeal as to transfer of powers — Local 
 Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 29. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the High Court upon 
 questions submitted to them under s. 29 of the 
 Local Government Act, 1888, was consultative 
 only, and not judicial. Consequently no appeal 
 can lie from their decision. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 725, 
 affirmed. Ex parte County Council of Kent 
 and the Council of the Boroughs of Dovbr 
 AND Sandwich (No. 2) C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 725 
 
 But see now Local Government Act, 1894 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 70, and Judicature Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, sub-s. 5. 
 
 — By-law— Validity — Betting in streets. 
 
 See Gaming. 29—32. 
 
 — By-law — Validity — Prohibition of obscene 
 
 language. 
 
 See Streets. 38. 
 
 COUNTY COUNCIL (Sowers)— continued. 
 
 12, — Coroners — Local Government Act, 1888 
 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 3, sub-ss. (a), (xi) .-s. 59. 
 
 The right of a county council to appoint 
 coroners is confined to cases where coroners were 
 formerly elected by the freeholders under a writ 
 de coronatore eligendo, and does not extend to 
 cases where they were appointed by lords of 
 franchises or otherwise than by election by free- 
 holders. In re The Looal Government Act, 
 1888. Ex parte London County Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 a. B. 33 
 
 — London County Council. 
 
 See Cases under London, 
 
 — Music and dancing. 
 
 See Cases under Music and Dancing. 
 
 13, — Folice districts— Police Act, 1840 (3 <fe 4 
 Vict. c. 88), ss. 3, 27, 28 — Local Government Act, 
 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 3, sub-s. 1 ; 8. 9, 
 sub-s. 1. 
 
 The power to divide a county into police dis- 
 tricts is vested in the standing joint committee. 
 Ex parte Leicestershire County Council and 
 the Standing Joint Committee of the County 
 OF Leicester Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 63 
 
 — Rivers Pollution Prevention Act — Enforce- 
 ment of, by county council. 
 See Cases under Water — Pollution. 
 
 14, — Poor-rate — Itidustrial school. 
 
 The county council are rateable to the poor- 
 rate in respect of the occupation of an industrial 
 school established by justices under the Industrial 
 Schools Acts, 1866 and 1872, and vested in the 
 council by the Local Government Act, 1888. 
 Ddbham County Council v. Chester-le-Street 
 Assessment Committee 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 330 
 And see Oases under Kates — Bate- 
 abUity. 
 
 COUNTY COUNCIL (LONDON). 
 
 See London — County Coimoil. 
 COUNTY COUET. 
 
 The County Court Mules, 1892, dated Feb. 5, 
 1892. St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 108. 
 
 The County Court Rules, July, 1892, dated 
 Aug. 5, 1892. W. N. 1892 (Appx, of 0, & E.) 
 p, 34 ; St, E. & 0, 1892, p. 163, 
 
 Bules dated Feb. 25, 1895, as to proceedings in 
 Appeals under s. 10 of the Finance Art, 1894, 
 1896 W, N, (Appx, of 0. & E.), p. 3; St. E, & 0, 
 1896, No, 111, L. 6. Price Id. 
 
 Fees and Stamps,] Treas. Order, dated 
 Nov. 22, 1894, varying the Order of Jan. 1889, as 
 to High Bailiff' s fee for default Summons. W. N. 
 1894 (Appx, of 0, & E,), p, 6; Lond. Gaz,, 
 Dec, 18, 1894, p. 7455, 
 
 The County Court Bides, 1895, dated. Ap. 8, 
 
 1895. 1895 W. N. (Appx. of 0, & E,), pp, 4-21 ; 
 St, E, & 0, 1895, No, 206, L. 10, Price 3d. 
 
 County Court Bules dated April 15, 1896, 
 W, N, 1896 (May 17), p, 139, See Current Index, 
 
 1896, p, Ix, 
 
 Order of Sec. of State, dated Oct. 26, 1896, 
 W, N. 1896 (Nov, 28), p, 307. See Current Index, 
 1896, p. Ixviii. 
 
( 581 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 582 ) 
 
 COUNTY COVRT— continued. 
 
 County Court Rules (Bee.), 1896, dated Nov. 19, 
 
 1896. W. H. 1896 (Nov. 28), p. 307. See Current 
 Index, 1896, p. Ixvii. 
 
 County Court Bules (MarcK), 1897, dated 
 Feb. 15, 1897, and Explanatory Memorandum. 
 W. N. 1897 (Feb. 20), p. 63 ; (March 6), p. 75. 
 These Rules have been annulled by the Rule Com- 
 mittee. W, N. 1897 (May 8 and 15), pp. 157, 
 159. 
 
 Fees.] Order as to — Liverpool and Manchester 
 District Registries. W. W. 1897 (Jan. 2), p. 6. 
 
 HoLlDATS.] Annual Vacation at Christmas. 
 "W. N. 1897 (Deo. 11), p. 344. See Current Index, 
 
 1897, p. Ixi. 
 
 Stannames.] JBy the Stannaries Court (_Aholi- 
 tion) Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. v. 45), the Court of 
 the Vice- Warden is abolished. 
 
 STANNAsrES CouRT.] Fees under the Stan- 
 naries Court {Abolition') Act, 1896. Order as to. 
 W. S. 1897 (May 15), p. 159. See Current Index, 
 1897, p. Ixii. 
 
 Stannabies Cotiet;] Jurisdiction — County 
 Court {Stannaries Jurisdiction) Rules, 1897, dated 
 Feb. 15, 1897. W. N. 1897 (Feb. 20), p. 61. 
 See Current Index, 1897, p. Ixiil. 
 
 STANNAEiEa CoUKT.] Jurisdiction — Order 
 dated Dec. 16, 1896, under the Stannaries Court 
 (Abolition) Act, 1896. W. N. 1897 (Jan. 23), 
 p. 43. jSee Current Index, 1897, p. Ixvi. 
 
 BAifKEDPTCT JiTEisDicTioN.] Bankruptcy and 
 Companies — Order of the Lord Chancellor, dated 
 May 28, 1898, as to the jurisdiction of County 
 Courts in Bankruptcy and Companies Winding- 
 up. W. TSf. 1898 (June 25), p. 241. See Current 
 Index, 1898, p. lix. 
 
 County Court Rules (.May), 1899, dated April 18, 
 
 1899, and which came into force on May 30, 1899. 
 W. H. 1899 (April 29), p. 147; Explanatory 
 Memorandum, W. N. 1899 (May 20), p. 171. See 
 Current Index, 1899, pp. xcii., cxi, 
 
 County Courts Districts and County Courts 
 Admiralty, Bankruptcy and Companies ( Winding- 
 up) Jurisdiction Orders in Council, 1899. See 
 Rules and Orders of Court published in the 
 Weekly Notes during the year 1899. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p. Ixix. 
 
 Bankbtjptot JnEiSDiOTioN.] See 0. in C. 
 dated May 19, 1899. W. N. 1899 (July 1), p. 235. 
 See Current Index, 1899, p. cxv. 
 
 Companies (Windinq-itp) Jueisdictiou.] See 
 Os. in C. dated May 19, 1899. W. N, 1899 
 (July 1), p, 235. See Current Index, 1899, 
 
 p. CXT. 
 
 County Courts (Investment) Act, 1900 (63 & 64 
 Vict. c. 47), amends the law with regard to the 
 investment of money paid into a county court. 
 
 Coimty Courts (Districts) Postponement Order, 
 No. 10, postpones the coming into operation of 
 certain provisions of " The County Courts (Dis- 
 tricts) Order in Council, 1899," as to London. 
 W. N. 1900 (July 28), p. 221. See Current Index, 
 
 1900, p. IxxT. 
 
 County Court Rules (Nov.) 1900, dated Nov. 27, 
 
 COITNTY COVB,T— continued. 
 
 1900. W. N. 1900 (Dec, 8), p, 321. See Current 
 
 Index, 1900, p. Ixxv. 
 
 Generally, col. 582. 
 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice. 
 
 See SnippiifO. 
 Appeal, col. 582. 
 Costs, col. 585. 
 Execution, col. 590. 
 Jurisdiction, col. 591. 
 Practice, col. 595. 
 Receiver, col. 597. 
 Transfer and Remittal, col. 597. 
 Winding-up, col. 598. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Distress — Privileged from — Bedstead — 
 
 " Bedding." 
 
 See Distress. 12. 
 
 — Employers' liability. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 — Infants. 
 
 See Infant. 
 
 Admiralty Practice and Jurisdiction. 
 See Cases under Shipping. 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 16), regulates appeals from 
 County Courts to Divisional Courts. 
 
 — Admiralty case. 
 
 See Cases under Shippin9 — Appeal. 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcv — ^Appeal. 
 
 1. — City of London Court — Judges notes — 
 Sliorthand notes — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 43), s. 121. 
 
 On an appeal from the City of London Court 
 on the ground of misdirection as it is impossible 
 to request the judge to make a note at the time 
 when the point arises, as the point does not arise 
 till the close of the summing-up, the judge is 
 not bound to furnish a copy of his note. There- 
 fore an appellant is entitled to obtain a transcript 
 of the notes taken by the shorthand writer 
 employed by the corporation, and the costs 
 thereof, but only such costs as are necessary ; in 
 ordinary cases only the costs of the summing-up 
 ought to be allowed. Barber v. Btjrt 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 437 
 
 2. — Claim not exceeding 20Z. — Counter-claim, 
 exceeding Wl. — Right of appeal without leave — 
 County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 8. 120. 
 
 The absolute right of appeal given by s. 120 
 of the County Courts Act, 1888, in actions of 
 contract and tort, where the debts or damage 
 claimed exceeds Wl., extends to cases where the 
 deft.'s counter-claim exceeds 20i!., although the 
 claim of the pit. ia below that amount. Smith v. 
 Gill - - Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B. 166 
 
 3. — Contempt of Court — " Matter " — County 
 
 V 2 
 
( 583 3 
 
 blGES* 01* CASES, 1891— I^OOj 
 
 ( §84 ) 
 
 COUNTY COTJET (Appeal)— con^inMed. 
 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Tict. v. 43), as. 48, 120, 
 
 186. 
 
 An order of a county court judge fining a 
 person for assaulting a county court bailiff in the 
 execution of his duty is not appealable, as the 
 proceeding is not a "matter" within s. 186 of 
 the County Courts Act, 1888 :- 
 
 Semble, that a proceeding, in respect of which 
 there is a form of summons appended to the rules, 
 is a "matter" within the s., although there is 
 no rule prescribing how it shall be commenced. 
 Lewis v. Owen - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 102 
 
 4. — Death of party to appeal. 
 
 "Where after entry of an appeal from a county 
 court one of the parties dies, the High Court has 
 jurisdiction to add his personal representative. 
 Blakewat v. Patteshall 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 247 
 
 5. — Extension of time — B. 8. C, Order Lix., 
 r. 16. 
 
 No distinction or practice ought to be recog- 
 nised, as governing the exercise of tlie discretion 
 vested in the Court, between applications for ex- 
 tension of time made previous to the trial and 
 applications made after judgment. Cusaok v. 
 London and Noeth Western Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 ft, B. 347 
 
 — Forma pauperis — Crown side. 
 
 See PbaotiCb— Forma Fauperii. 23. 
 
 6. — Injunction — Action claiming less than 
 201. damages— County CouHs Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. 0. 43), «. 120. 
 
 In an action for trespass in the county court 
 the pit. claimed 408. damages and an injunction. 
 The judge having given judgment for the pit. for 
 damages and an injunction : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, might appeal against so 
 much of the judgment as granted the injunction 
 without first obtaining the leave of the judge, 
 notwithstanding the provisions of s. 120 of the 
 County Courts Act, 1888. Bbtjnb v. James 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 417 
 
 — Limited leave to appeal to Court of Appeal. 
 
 See DisTSESS. 10. 
 
 7. — New trial — Order for — County Courts 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 120. 
 
 Whether the verdict was against the weight 
 of evidence is a question of fact for the county 
 court judge. If to the decision of that question 
 he apply the rule of law stated by the H. L. (E.) 
 in Metropolitan By. Co. v. Wright, (1886) 11 App. 
 Cas. 152, there is no appeal from his decision. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 496, 
 affirmed. How v. London and Noeth Westben 
 Et. Co. - - - C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 891 
 
 8. — New trial — Befusal to grant — County 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 120. 
 
 An appeal lies against the refusal of a county 
 court judge to grant an application for a new 
 trial, on the ground that his decision was wrong 
 in point of law. Pole v. Bhight 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 603 
 
 9. — Non-direction — Practice— County Courts 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Tict. v. 43), s. 120. 
 
 The rule that no appeal lies from a county 
 court extept upon a point of luw tnken at the 
 
 COTJKTY COVB^ (Appeal)— oonttnued. 
 trial applies to the case of an omissioil ty ttd 
 judge in his summing-up to give the jury proper 
 and necessary directions as to the law. The party 
 desirous of appealing on the ground of such non- 
 direction must take the objection at the time so 
 as to give the judge an opportunity of correcting 
 his direction. CLiproHD v. Thames Ironwoeks 
 AND Shii-buildino Co. Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 314 
 
 10. — Point of law riot raised at trial — Em- 
 ployers' LiaUlity Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 42)— 
 County Courts Act, 1888 (51 <£ 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 «. 120. 
 
 Under s. 120 and the following clauses of the 
 County Courts Act, 1888, there is no right of 
 appeal from a county court, except upon a ques- 
 tion of law raised and submitted to the county 
 court judge at the trial. Smith v. Bakee & 
 Sons - - H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 326 
 
 11. — Probate — " Point of law " — Probate Act, 
 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), ««. 54 to 58 ; (21 & 22 
 Vict. c. 95), 0. 11 — County Courts Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), «. 120. 
 
 A decision by a county court judge, that he 
 could not revoke a grant of letters of administra- 
 tion in the absence of fraud, is a decision on a 
 point of law from which an appeal lies under the 
 joint operation of ss. 54-58 of the Court of Probate 
 Act, 1857, and s. 120 of the County Courts Act, 
 
 1888. COPELAHD V. SiMISTEB 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] P. 16 
 — Prohibition to judge of county court — ^Practice 
 and procedure. 
 See Prohibition. 1 — 5. 
 
 12. — Question of law raised at trial — Bequest 
 to make a note — Condition precedent to appeal — 
 County Courts Act, 1888 (51 4 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 ». 120— JJ. S. C, 1883, Order Lix., r. 8. 
 
 It is a condition precedent to the right of 
 appeal to the High Court from the judgment of a 
 county court judge, under the County Courts Act, 
 1888, 8. 120, that the question of law relied on in 
 support of the appeal shall be raised at the trial, 
 but a request to the judge to make a note is not 
 a condition precedent, and therefore if the notes 
 of the judge are not produced, the Court has 
 jurisdiction, under E. S. C, 1883, Order lix., 
 r. 8, if satisfied that the question of law was 
 raised at the trial, to bear the appeal upon other 
 evidence, though a request to make a note has 
 not been made. Wohloemutbb v. Costs 
 
 Diy. Ct. [1899] 1 ft. B. SOI 
 
 18. — Befusal of leave to appealhy Divisional 
 Court — Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal to give 
 leave to appeal — Practice — Judicature Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, stib-s. 5. 
 
 This was an action tried in the county court, 
 in which judgment was given for the pit. On 
 appeal to the Div. Ct. the judgment was affirmed, 
 and leave to appeal was refused. Application 
 was made by the deft, ex parte to the C. A. for 
 leave to appeal, which was granted. 
 
 By the Court : It seems to be clear that this 
 matter has been already before the Court, and 
 that it has been decided that such a case as the 
 present is within s. 1, sub-s. 5, of the Judicature 
 Act, 1894. The preliminary objection that where 
 leave to appeal hae been refused by a Div. Ct, 
 
( 585 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 586 ) 
 
 COUNTY COTJBT (Appeal)— co»«i»««d!. 
 there is no appeal to the 0. A., therefore, cannot 
 be sustaineiJ, and the case must be heard. God- 
 man V. Moses - 0. A. [1900] W. N. 179 
 
 14. — Service of — Notice of appeal — ij. S. C, 
 Order Lix., r. 12. 
 
 The notice of motion referred to in E. S. 0., 
 Order lis., r. 12, must be served on the respond- 
 ent's solicitors within the twenty-one days pre- 
 scribed. Service on the London agents ia not 
 sufficient. Powelii v. Thomas 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] X Q. B, 97 
 
 14a. — Rivers FoUution Act, 1876 — County 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. o. 43), ss. 120-124. 
 
 An appeal from a county court on the merits 
 under s. 11 of the Act of 1876 is, by s. 124 of the 
 County Courts Act of 1888, brought within s. 120. 
 
 KlEKHEATON DiSTBIOT LoCAL BOABD V. AlNLBT, 
 
 Sons, & Co. - Per Bowen and Smith L.JJ. 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 274 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. and C. A. In re 
 County Council of Derbyshire v. Mayor, &c., of 
 Derby, [1896] 2 Q. B. 58, 299. This case was 
 affirmed by H. L. (B.) [1897] A. C. 550. 
 
 16. — Stamp objection — Practice — County 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. e. 43), «. 164— 
 B. S. C, 1888, Order xxkik., r. 8. 
 
 An appeal to the High Court does not lie from 
 the ruling of a county court judge that a docu- 
 ment tendered in evidence at the trial of an action 
 before him is sufficiently stamped and admissible. 
 Mandbr v. Eidgwat Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 601 
 
 City of London Court. 
 See London — City of London Court. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 Order Lxr., r. 12, relates to taxation on tlie 
 County Court scale of costs in actions brought in 
 the High Court. 
 
 Copies of documents made for use in Court 
 where counsel not employed. See Explanatory 
 Memorandum to County Court JBuUs (May), 1899, 
 and rule 67. W. H. 1899 (May 20), p. 173. See 
 Current Index, 1899, p. ozl. 
 
 16, — Action founded on tort — Contract of 
 agistment — Bailment — Negligence — County Courts 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 62 Vict. c. 43). s. 116. 
 
 An action founded on the common law liability 
 of a bailee is an action founded on tort within 
 the meaning of s. 116 of the County Courts Act, 
 1888. TcBNER V. Stallibeass 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 66 
 
 17. — Action involving question of title to here- 
 ditament. 
 
 Action in High Court for damage to reversion 
 by interference with flow of water through a pipe 
 on deft.'s land, to which pit. claimed to be enti- 
 tled. Deft, refused to admit plt.'s title to the 
 easement, pleaded licence from plt.'s tenant, and 
 paid 40g. into court. Pit. took out the 408. in 
 satisfaction. The premises in respect of which 
 the easement was claimed exceeded 502. per 
 annum : — 
 
 Held, that the action could not have been com- 
 menced in the county court, because a question of 
 title io a heredjtfiment arose which thftt Court 
 
 COTTNTY COXTKT (Costa)— continued. ' 
 had no jurisdiction to try; and that, therefore, 
 the pit., although he had recovered leas than 101. 
 in an action of tort, was entitled to his costs of 
 the action, notwithstanding the provisions of the 
 County Courts Act, 1888, s. 116. Howorth v. 
 SuTOLiFFE - - C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 368 
 
 18. — Action ru)t maintainable on County Court 
 Order — Order for payment of costs. 
 
 An action is not maintainable upon an order 
 
 of a county court for payment of costs. Fuebbr 
 
 V. Taylor - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 180; 
 
 [1900] 2 ft. B. 719 
 
 19. — Action of contract — Judgment, Amount 
 of— 501. recovered — E. 8. C, Order LXV. r. 12 — 
 Couniy Court Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 8. 116. 
 
 Where exactly 50Z. is recovered in an action 
 of contract brought in the High Court, the costs 
 must be taxed on the county court scale; the 
 express words of Order lxv., r. 12, applying that 
 scale where a "sum not exceeding 501." is re- 
 covered, prevailing over the inference from the 
 words "but less than 501." in s. 116 County 
 Courts Act, 1888. Millinqton v. Haewood 
 
 C, A. [1892] 2 ft. B, 166 
 
 20. — Action of tort or contract. 
 
 An action brought by a ry. passenger against 
 a ry. co. for personal injuries caused by the negli- 
 gence or misfeasance of a servant of the co., 
 whether the passenger has or has not a ticket, ia 
 an action of tort within s. 116 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888. 
 
 (a) Taylor v. Manchester, Shbfeield and 
 
 Lincolnshire Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 134 
 
 (b) Kelly v. Metropolitan Ey. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 944 
 
 (c) Meux v. Great Eastern Ey. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 387 
 
 21. — Action struck out for want of jurisdiction 
 — Practice — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. e. 43), 88. 88, 89, 113, 114. 
 
 Where an action in a county court is struck 
 out for want of jurisdiction under s. 114 of the 
 County Courts Act, 1888, the Court may, if it 
 shall think just, award costs against the defend- 
 ant. Watson v. Pbtts (No. 2) - Div. Ct. 
 [1899] W. ». 10 (6) ; [1899] 1 ft. B. 430 
 
 22. — Administration action — Discretion of 
 registrar over taxation — Insolvency of estate — 
 County Court Bides, 1889, Order L. A, r. 20. 
 
 The costs of the administrator in an adminis- 
 tration action in the county court are discretion- 
 ary fees or allowances within the meaning of 
 Order L. A., r. 20, of the County Court Eules, 
 1889. Upon the taxation of such costs the 
 registrar may take into account the fact that the 
 estate is insolvent, and may disallow items which 
 would be allowed in the case of a solvent estate. 
 Per Wills J.: In such a case the adminis- 
 trator's right to costs should be confined to such 
 costs as are necessary for the protection of the 
 estate. Pain v. Bowdbn [1896] 2 ft, B, 301 
 
 23. — Application for judgment under Order 
 XIV. — Leave to defends— Case remitted to county 
 court — Costs of application under Order xiv. to 
 be costs in the cause' — Comity Courts Act, 1888 
 
( 587 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 588 ) 
 
 COUNTY COUET (^Coits)— continued. 
 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 65, 116— i2. S. C, 1883, 
 
 Order XIY., r. 9 (a). 
 
 In an action to recover under a contract a sum 
 above Wl; but less than 50!., the pit. applied for 
 judgment under Order xiv. The deft, obtained 
 leave to defend on payment of the amount claimed 
 into court, and the money was paid in. An order 
 was subsequently made on the application of the 
 pit., and afBrraed by a judge at chambers, remit- 
 ting the action to the county court, and directing 
 that the costs of the application under Order xiv. 
 should be costs in the cause. On appeal : — 
 
 Held, that as the case was not brought within 
 B. 116 of the County Courts Act, 1888, or Order 
 XIV., r. 9 (a), there was no jurisdiction to make 
 the order as to the costs of the application under 
 Order xiv. 
 
 Qusere, whether an order purporting to make 
 costs under Order xrv. costs in a county court 
 action could be made at the hearing under Order 
 XIV., r. 9 (a). Dunn v. Appleton 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 a. B. S64 
 
 24. — Fics to counsel — Special allowance loliere 
 no local har. 
 
 In a taxation of costs in a county court on the 
 higher scale, the special item No. 86 which may 
 be allowed by order of the judge to counsel where 
 there is no local bar in, or within twenty miles 
 of, the court town, can only be allowed once in 
 the same case, although the counsel engaged 
 may have been present in court on more than 
 one occasion. Atkinson v. Matok, &o., op 
 Carlisle • [1896] 1 Q. B. 393 
 
 25. — Siglier and lower scale — Solicitor and 
 client — Party and party — County Courts Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 118. 
 
 Where the sum claimed is over Wl., but the 
 sum recovered is under 101., costs as between 
 party and party must be taxed on the lower 
 scale ; but the taxing officer may, as between 
 solicitor and client, allow a larger sum, so that it 
 does not exceed the higher scale. In re Langlois 
 AND BiDBN - C. 4. [1891] 1 Q. B. 349 
 
 26. — Befresliers to counsel. 
 
 A county court has jurisdiction to allow re- 
 freshers to counsel when a case cannot be heard 
 on the day fixed for hearing, " and is adjourned 
 for want of time." Heap v. Peaet 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 a. B. 110 
 
 27. — Eemitted action — Judgment in Sigh 
 Court for part of claim — Scale applicable in county 
 court— County Courts Act, 1S88 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 43), s. 65. 
 
 In an action of contract brought in the High 
 Court, upon an application for judgment under 
 Order xiv., an order was made that the pit. be 
 at liberty to sign final judgment for a sum of 
 27Z., part of the amount claimed, with costs to be 
 taxed ; that the defts. have leave to defend as to 
 a sum of 21. odd, which was the residue of the 
 claim then remaining in dispute and that the 
 action be tried in the county court under s. 65 of 
 the County Courts Act, 1888. The defts. paid 
 the 27i!. and taxed costs, and afterwards the pit. 
 lodged the writ and order in the county court. 
 At the trial in the county court the pit. recovered 
 the 21. odd, with costs :— 
 
 Seld, that he was entitled to a taxation of his 
 
 COUNTY COURT (Costs)— continued. 
 costs on the lower scale in use in county courts 
 where the sum recovered exceeds 21. but does not 
 exceed Wl., and not on the higher scale (Col. B.), 
 where the sum recovered exceeds 20Z. but does 
 not exceed 50Z. 
 
 Keeble v. Bennett, [1894] 2 Q. B. 329, distin- 
 guished. Bailey v. Watbon & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft, B. 270 
 Overruled by 0. A. Wliite v. Headland's 
 Patent Electric Storage Battery Co. [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 507, 509. 
 
 28. — Remitted action — Judgment under 
 Order XIT. for part of claim — Judgment for 
 defendant in county court — County Courts Act, 
 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. e. 43), ss. 65, 113. 
 
 In an action brought in the High Court to 
 recover 20?. 2s. as the price of goods sold and 
 delivered, an order was made under Order xiv. 
 by which leave was given to the pits, to sign 
 judgment for 81. 14s. if that amount was not paid 
 within seven days, and leave was given to the 
 deft, to defend as to the residue of the claim, 
 and it was ordered, under s. 65 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, that the action should be tried 
 in the county court. The deft, paid the sum 
 of %l. 14s. under the order, and at the trial in 
 the county court judgment was given for him, 
 no order being made as to costs : — 
 
 Held, that, the pits, having succeeded in 
 the action in recovering the sum of 8Z. 14s. the 
 deft, was not entitled to costs, although he 
 had obtained judgment in the county court. 
 Wkight and Sons v. Bull 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 ft. B. 124 
 29. — Bemitted action — Judgment under 
 Order XIT. for part of claim — Becovery in county 
 court of residue — ScaXe applicable in county court 
 —County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. o. 43), 
 8.65. 
 
 In an action brought in the High Court to 
 recover TAl. 8s. 3(i. as the price of goods sold and 
 delivered an order was made under Order xiv. by 
 which leave was given to the pit. to sign judg- 
 ment for 53Z. 8s. Sd., and leave was given to the 
 defts. to defend as to the residue of the claim, 
 and it was ordered under s. 65 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, that the action should be tried 
 in the county court. The pit. signed judgment for 
 53i. 8s. id. under the order, and at the trial in 
 the county court he recovered judgment for 20Z. 
 the residue of his claim, and costs : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was entitled to have his 
 costs in the county court taxed upon the scale 
 applicable where the amount recovered exceeds 
 50L 
 
 KeMe v. BenneH, [[1894] 2 Q. B. 829, ap- 
 proved of. 
 
 Bailey v. Watson & Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 270, 
 overruled. White v. Headland's Patent Elec- 
 tric Stobagb Battebt Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 15(6)'; 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 607 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Wriglit & Son v. 
 Bull, [1900] 2 Q. B. 124, 127. 
 
 SO. — Bemitted action — Payment of part of 
 claim — Transfer as to remainder — County Courts 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 65. 
 
 Where in an action in the High Court for 
 
( 589 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 590 ) 
 
 COUNTY COURT (Costs)— continued. 
 more than 50!., part was paid in under Order xiv., 
 and the action remitted to a county court as to 
 remainder, and that was paid in in the county 
 court : — 
 
 Held, that pit. had recovered the whole 
 
 amount in the action, and was therefore entitled 
 
 to costs on Scale (over 501.). Kebble v. Bennett 
 
 Div.^Ct. [1894]aQ. B. 329 
 
 Referred to by C. A. White v. Headland's 
 Patent Electric Storage Battery Co., [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 507, 511. 
 
 31. — Memitted action — Practice — Taxation 
 —County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 43), 
 ss. 65, 118. 
 
 The provision of s. 118 of the County Courts 
 Act, 1888, which prevents the recovery by a 
 solicitor from his client of costs incurred in a 
 county court, unless they have been allowed on 
 taxation, only relates to cases in which there is 
 an application for taxation. Therefore the solici- 
 tor may recover such costs without taxation, where 
 there has been no application for it, and the client 
 is no longer entitled to taxation. 
 
 By Lord Bsher M.K. and Lopes L.J. : Where 
 an action in the High Court has been remitted to 
 the county court, the above-mentioned provision 
 of the County Courts Act, 1888, does not affect a 
 solicitor's right to recover the costs incurred in 
 the High Court before the order remittin'g the 
 action. Cubison v. Mayo 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 2iS 
 
 33. — Semilted action — Sum recovered less 
 than 201— County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. 
 e. 43), ss. 65, 116. 
 
 An action of contract, which could have been 
 brought in the county court, was commenced in 
 High Court and remitted, after some proceedings, 
 to the county court, where less than 20Z. was 
 recovered : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was not entitled to any 
 costs. White v. Cohen C, A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 580 
 
 33. — Bemitted action — County Courts Act, 
 1888 (51 <fe 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 65, 116. 
 
 An action of contract brought in the High 
 Court for more than ROl. was remitted to the 
 county court after the pits, had recovered less 
 than 201: under Order xiT. They recovered in 
 all less than 502. : — ■ 
 
 Held, that pits, were not entitled to costs on 
 the Supreme Court scale in respect of the part of 
 the . proceedings which had taken place in the 
 High Court. Wilson v. Statham 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 261 
 — Eiver Pollution Prevention Acts — Costs under. 
 See Water. 
 
 34. — Security for costs — Jurisdiction — Be- 
 mitted action — Bankruptcy of plaintiff — Joinder 
 of trustee— County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. 
 c. 43), ss. 65, 94. 
 
 Where an action of contract, brought in the 
 High Court, is ordered to be tried in a county 
 court, under s. 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888, 
 and before the pit. has lodged the original writ 
 and the order with the registrar of the county 
 court, he becomes bankrupt, and a trustee is ap- 
 pointed, and an order is made joining the trustee 
 as pit. in the action, the judge of the county 
 
 COUNTY COUET CCosts)—continued. 
 court has no jurisdiction to order the trustee to 
 give security for the costs of the action under 
 e. 94. Hemming v. Da vies 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 660 
 
 36. — Signature of particulars — •County Court 
 Bules, 1889, Order xzr/l., r. 4, Sched. " Costs." 
 
 The rule requiring particulars and copies to 
 be signed by the solicitor in order that he may 
 claim costs, is satisfied if the particulars be 
 signed by the solicitor's clerk in pursuance of a 
 general or special authority for that purpose. 
 Fbanoe v. Button Div, Ct, [1891] 2 ft. B, 208 
 
 — Admitted set-off. 
 
 See County Couet — Jurisdiction. 42, 
 
 36. — .Sam less than 101. recovered in action 
 founded on tort — Action "which could have been 
 commenced in a county court " — Practice — County 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 116. 
 
 An action is one which " could have been 
 commenced in a county court " within the meaning 
 of the County Courts Act, 1888, s. 116, if it is an 
 action of a kind which a county court can enter- 
 tain, altliough the amount claimed by the pit. 
 may exceed the limit of the county court juris- 
 diction. Goldhill V. aarhe, (1893) 68 L. T. 414, 
 disapproved of; Lovejoy v. Cole, [1894] 2 Q. B., 
 861, followed. Solomon v. Mulliner and Motor 
 CABRiAdE Sotply Co. C. A, [190O] W. N. 260 ; 
 see [1901] 1 K. B. 76 
 
 — Taxation — Power of Board of Trade to review 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Costs. 76. 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. c. 37).] Treasury Order, dated June 16, 
 1898, regulating Fees under the. W. N, 1898 
 (Dec. 17), p, 407. See Current Index, 1898, 
 p, czzxiz. 
 
 Execution. 
 
 37. — Judgment recovered in High Court for 
 amount of debt — Order made in county court for 
 payment of debt by instalments — Execution — 
 Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict.' c. 62), s. 5— 
 County Court Bules, 1889, Order 2XV., r. 26. 
 
 If a creditor, who has recovered judgment 
 against his debtor in the High Court, afterwards 
 obtains from a county court judge an order under 
 s. 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, for payment of the 
 debt by instalments, he cannot, so long as that 
 order is in force, issue execution upon his judg- 
 ment in the High Court. 
 
 The dicta of Cave J, in In re Ives, Ex parte 
 Addington, (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 670, 671, dissented 
 from, and the principle of Jones v. Jenner, (1856) 
 25 L. J. (Ex.) 319, approved. Montgomery & 
 Co. V. De Btjlmes - C. A. [1898] 2 a. B. 420 
 
 38. — Sale of goods claimed by third party — 
 Title of purchaser — County Courts Act, 1888 
 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 156. 
 
 Where, a claim having been made to goods 
 taken in execution by the bailiff of a county 
 court, the claimant does not make the deposit or 
 give the security required by s. 156 of the County 
 Courts, Act, 1888, and the bailiff sells the goods 
 under the authority given by that section, the 
 sale gives the purchaser a good title to the goods, 
 although they were the property of the claimant 
 at the time of the seizure. Goodlock v. Cousins 
 C, A, [1897] 1 Q, B, 658 
 
( 591 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 592 ) 
 
 COTJTTTT COTJST (ExecnUon)— continued. 
 
 39. — Stay — Sufficient cause — County Courts 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 153. 
 
 The mere inability of a deft, to pay owing to 
 ■want of means is not a "sufficient cause," within 
 s. 153 of the County Courts Act, 1888, to give the 
 judge jurisdiction to stay execution. Atten- 
 BOKOUGH V. Henschel Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 833 
 
 40. — Practice — High hailiff — Fees — County 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 154, 
 160. 
 
 _ Where the high bailiff of a county court 
 seizes goods under a warrant of execution, and 
 subsequently distrains on other goods of the 
 judgment debtor to satisfy a claim for rent made 
 by the landlord under s. 160 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, the execution and distress are 
 to be treated as separate proceedings, and the 
 high bailiff is entitled to a separate set of posses- 
 sion fees in respect of each proceeding. In re 
 Bkostbe. Ex parte Prubdah 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 429 
 
 Jaiisdiction, 
 
 41. — Acquiescence — Prohibition — Agricul- 
 tural Holdings {England) Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vid.. 
 c. 61), e. 24. 
 
 Where total absence of jurisdiction appears 
 on the face of the proceedings in a county court, 
 the Supreme Court is bound to grant prohibition 
 although the applicant may have acquiesced in 
 the exercise of jurisdiction by the couaty court. 
 Faequhakson v. Moegan 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 a. B. 552 
 And see Cases under Pkohibition. 
 
 42. — Admitted set-off — Admission T>y plaintiff 
 only— County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 43), s. 57 — Rules of Supreme Court, 1883, 
 Order LXV., r. 12. 
 
 Where a set-off is admitted oa the writ by 
 the pit. and adopted and acquiesced in through- 
 out the proceedings by the deft., it is an admitted 
 set-off within s. 57 of the County Courts Act, 
 1888. LovEJOT V. Cole 
 
 Sir. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 861 
 
 43. — Agricultv/ral Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 61) — Registrar referee— County Court 
 Rules, 1889, Order XL., r. 7 — Costs. 
 
 So much of Order XL., r. 7, of the County 
 Court Kules, 1889, as provides that an applica- 
 tion to appoint a referee under the Agricultural 
 Holdings Act, 1883, may be disposed of by the 
 registrar unless one of the parties gives written 
 notice of his desire to be heard before the judge, 
 is ultra vires and bad. 
 
 A referee or umpire making an award under 
 the Act cannot order costs to be paid as between 
 solicitor and client. In re Geipfiths & Morkis 
 Biv. Ct, [1895] 1 Q. B, 866 
 
 44. — Arrears of rent-charge — Action hy trustees 
 of charity — Prohibition — Title in question — 
 Chantahle Trusts Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 137)^ 
 s. il— County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 43), e. 60. 
 
 The pits., trustees of a charity, sued in the 
 county court to recover arrears of a rent-charge 
 of 101. a year issuing out of the defts.' land. 
 
 COTTNTT COTTET (Jurisdiction) — continued. 
 The summons referred to the Charitable Trusts 
 Act, 1853, and leave to proceed had been obtaiaed 
 under that Act. 
 
 On an application for a prohibition : — 
 Held, that the action was not "proceedings 
 under this Act," within the meaning of s. 41 of 
 the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, and therefore 
 the jurisdiction of the county court was not 
 excluded by that section : 
 
 Held, also, that the title which came in ques- 
 tion, within the meaning of s. 60 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, was the title to the rent-charge, 
 not the title to the land, and therefore the value 
 of the hereditaments in dispute did not exceed 
 501. by the year, and the county court had juris- 
 diction. Bassano v. Beablbt 
 
 [1896] 1 a, B, 645 
 
 45. — Cause of action — County Courts Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 74. 
 
 In an action to recover the price of goods sold 
 and delivered the default in payment is part of 
 the cause of action. Therefore, where A., who 
 carried on business at B., sold and delivered 
 goods to G., the contract being made and the 
 goods delivered out of the jurisdiction of the 
 Court at B., but payment was to be made at 
 B., held that the Court at B. had jurisdiction. 
 NoETHET Stone Co. v. Gidney 
 
 C, A, affirm. Div. Ct. [1884] 1 a B. 99 
 
 46, — Cause of action. Action in district in 
 which, arose — Practice — Leave to commence action 
 — Discretion as to grant or refusal — Validity of 
 rule— County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 43), s. 74 — County Court Rules, 1889, Order v., 
 r. 9a. 
 
 On an application, under s. 74 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, for leave to conmience an action 
 in the county court in the district of which the 
 cause of action wholly or in part arose, the county 
 court judge or registrar has a, discretion as to 
 the grant or refusal of leave, and is not bound 
 to grant leave when it is shewn that the cause 
 of action wholly or in part arose within that 
 district. 
 
 Order v., r. 9o, of the County Court Eules, 
 1889, by which on such applications the judge or 
 registrar shall exercise his discretion in each 
 case as to the grant or refusal of leave in accord- 
 ance with the circumstances, is not ultra vires, 
 or repugnant to the statute, but is valid. Reg. 
 V. TuENEE (Judge) and Hodgson - Div. Ct, 
 [1897] 1 a B. 445 
 
 47. — Certiorari — Order made in exercise of 
 hanlcruptcy jurisdiction. 
 
 Certiorari does not lie to bring up an order of 
 a county court judge made when exercising 
 bankruptcy jurisdiction. 
 
 The decision of 0. A,, [1898] 2 Q. B. 680, 
 affirmed. Skinneb v. Northallerton Cobnty 
 ConRT Judge - H. L. (E.) [1899] W. K, 96 ; 
 
 [1899] A. C. 439 
 
 — City of London Court. 
 
 See London — City of London Court. 
 
 — Company — Winding-up. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 
( 593 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 594 ) 
 
 COUNTY COURT (Juvisiiotion)— continued. 
 
 — Company — Winding-up — Jurisdiction — Com- 
 mittal for contempt. 
 iSee PEOHramoN. 1. 
 
 48. — Contempt of court — Solicitors Act, 1843 
 (6 (S; 7 Vict. c. 73), ss. 2, 35, 36— County GouH 
 Act, 1846 (9 * 10 Vict. c. 95), s. US— Solicitors 
 Act, 1860 (23. <6 24 Vict. c. 127), «. 26— County 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 <fc 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 162. 
 
 A county court judge has no jurisdiction 
 under s. 26 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, to commit 
 for contempt an unqualified person who has acted 
 in a county court action. Beq. v. Judge of 
 Bbompton Coukty Coubt - - Div. Ct. 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 195 
 
 49. — " Easement " — Jurisdiction to try ques- 
 tions involving rigM to — County Courts Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 56, 60. 
 
 The deft, claimed as an " easement" the right, 
 as one of the public, to ground his barge on the 
 bed of a navigable river : — 
 
 Meld, that the county court judge had no 
 jurisdictioii to try the case. The jurisdiction to 
 try cases involving easements given by the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, s. 60, only applies to easements 
 in respect of which there exist dominant and 
 servient tenements. Hawkins v. Edttek 
 
 - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 668 
 
 Approved by C. A. Moworth v. Sutcliffe, 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 358, 362, 364. 
 
 50. — Execuloi-y agreement for lease. 
 
 The deft, entered on premises of value over 
 500J. under an executory agreement for a lease. 
 Kb subsequently gave six months' notice and left. 
 An action was brought for rent in the county 
 court : — 
 
 Held, that the equitable doctrine that a 
 
 Eerson who enters under such an agreement is to 
 e treated as in under its terms can only be 
 applied" where the "court in which the action is 
 brought has concurrent jurisdiction in law and 
 equity, and that thej pit. could not recover. 
 Poster v. Beeves - C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 255 
 
 51. — Infringement of patent — County Courts 
 Act, 1888 (51 * 62 Vict. c. 43), s. 56. 
 
 The right or privilege granted by letters 
 patent for a new invention is a " franchise " 
 within the meaning of s. 56 of the County Courts 
 Act, 1888, and, therefore, an action in which the 
 validity of a patent comes in question cannot be 
 tried in a county court. Beg. v. Judge op the 
 Halifax County Couet C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 263 
 
 63. — Interpleader — House agent — Action for 
 commission — Claims hy different parties. 
 
 The pits., auctioneers, sued the deft, for 
 35Z, 12«., agreed commission, in respect of the 
 sale of a house. A second firm of auctioneers 
 claimed 251. from the deft., for commission in 
 respect of the same sale of tlie same house. 
 
 Beld, that the county court could not give 
 the deft, relief by way of interpleader. G-bbatoeex 
 „. Shackle - Div. Ct. [1895] 3 a. B. 349 
 
 53^ — Lunatic — Vesting order — Lunacy Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Via. c. 5), ss. 132, 133. 
 
 A county court judge has no jurisdiction 
 Bpder the Lunacy Act, }890, s. 132, to inake a, 
 
 COUNTY COURT (3-aiisiietiOTi)— continued. 
 vesting order for the transfer of stock standing 
 in the name of a lunatic. In re Noyce 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 97 ; 
 
 affirm, by C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 642 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Sliortridge (_A 
 
 Person of Unsound Mind), [1895] 1 Ch. 278, 286. 
 
 54. — Neglect to levy execution — Action against 
 high bailiff — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. 0. 43), ss. 35, 43, 49. 
 
 An action will lie to recover damages against 
 the high bailiff of a county court, at the suit of a 
 party aggrieved by his neglect in the performance 
 of his duties as high bailiff, notwithstanding the 
 provisions of s. 49 of the County Courts Act, 
 1888, enabling the county court judge, in such 
 oases, to order the high bailiff to pay damages to 
 the party aggrieved. Watson v. White 
 
 [1896] 2 ft. B. 9 
 
 65. — Question of title — County Courts Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. u. 43), ss. 56, 60, 116. 
 
 The pit. sued in the High Court for damage 
 to his reversion by reason of the deft.'s inter- 
 ference with the flow of water through a pipe 
 under the deft.'s land to which the -pit. claimed 
 to be entitled in respect of his premises. The 
 deft, refused to admit the plt.'s title to the ease- 
 ment claimed, pleaded leave, and licence from 
 the plt.'s tenant, and, while denying liability, 
 brought 40s. into court. The. pit, took the 40s. 
 out of court in satisfaction of his"' claim.' The 
 yearly value'of the premises in respect of which 
 the easement was claimed exceeded '50l~:— ■ 
 
 Meld, that' the action could not have been 
 commenced in the county court, because a ques- 
 tion of title to a hereditament arose which tbat 
 Court Lad no jurisdiction to, try.' Howoeth v. 
 SuTCLiEPE - ' - C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 368 
 
 66. — Remitted action — Counter-claim ■ — ■ 
 County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 8.65. 
 
 A pit. claiming 25Z. recovered 8^ under 
 Order xiv. discontinued. The deft, had counter- 
 claimed. A master of the High Court then 
 remitted the counter-claim of 18J. 10s. to the Cily 
 of London Court : — 
 
 Meld, that under s. 65 of the County Courts 
 Act, 1888, there was no jurisdiction to remit the 
 counter-claim. Beg. v. Judge of the City of 
 London Couet (No. 1) Div. Ct. [1891] 3 ft. B. 71 
 
 57. — Bemitted action — Unliquidated damages 
 —County Cowrts Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. v. 43), 
 8.65. 
 
 (a) The claim of a pit. for unliquidated dam- 
 ages cannot be remitted to a county court under 
 B. 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888, even where 
 the writ is indorsed with a claim for a specified 
 sum. Bassett v. Tong - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1894] 3 ft. B. 332 
 Beferred to by C. A. Guilford v. Lambeth. 
 See next Case. 
 
 (b) An action of contract brought in the High 
 Court for a, sum not exceeding lOOJ., to which 
 a counter-claim for unliquidated damages is 
 pleaded, can be remitted to the county court. 
 GuiLFOBD V. Lambeth 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894]i2ft, B. 833; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 92 
 
( 596 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 596 ) 
 
 COUNTY COUET (Jurisdiction)— contimjied. 
 
 68. — Bemitting action to — Practice — Transfer 
 of action, when made — County Courts Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. e. 43), s. 66. 
 
 Where an order has been made for the remis- 
 sion of an action to a county court under the 
 County Courts Act, 1888, s. 66, the action remains 
 in the High Court, until the pit. has lodged the 
 original writ and the order with the registrar of 
 the county court in accordance with the section ; 
 and, consequently, until that has been done the 
 High Court still has jurisdiction to malie an 
 interlocutory order in the action. D'Eeeioo v. 
 Samuel - - C. A. [1896] 1 Q, B. 163 
 
 — Stannaries Court — Jurisdiction in winding-up 
 
 cases — Transfer. 
 
 See County Couet — ^Winding-up. 
 
 59. — Tithe — Bedemption money — Tithe Act, 
 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 8), s. 10, suh-s. i. 
 
 A county court has jurisdiction under ss. 2, 
 10, sub-s. 4, of the Tithe Act, 1891, to make an 
 order for recovery of redemption money and 
 expenses. Keg. v. Patebsos - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 31 
 
 — Transfer to and from county court. 
 
 See Company — Winding-dp — Petition. 
 179-182. 
 
 60. — Writ of fieri facias — Company — Wind- 
 ing-up — Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 
 54 Vict. c. 63), 8. 1, suh-s. 6. 
 
 Although s. 1, sub-s. 6, of the Comi)anies 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890, gives to the county 
 court winding up a oo. "all the powers of the 
 High Court," the county court has no jurisdiction 
 to issue a writ of fieri facias to the sheriff to 
 enforce by execution an order of that Court 
 directing a person to pay moneys received by 
 him on behalf of the oo. to the liquidator. In re 
 Bassett's Plaster Co. - - Div. Ct. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 96 
 
 Practice. 
 
 High Bailiff.] Inquiry and indorsement on 
 eummons against registered company — County 
 Court Bules (May), 1899. W. N. 1899 (AprU 29), 
 p. 147. See Current Index, 1899. p. xoii. 
 
 Payment into Court — Money paid in with denial 
 of liability — County Court Bules (May), 1899, 
 Order ix., r. Ylaa. W. N. 1899 (AprU 29), p. 147. 
 See Current Index, 1899, p. xcii. 
 
 Disoontinoancb, Confession, Admission, and 
 Payment into ok out of Couet.] County Court 
 Bules (May), 1899, Order is. W. N. 1899 (AprU 
 29), p. 149. See Current Index, 1899, p. xou. • 
 
 61, — Discovery — Married Woman — County 
 Court Bules, 1892, Order xxY., r. 47. 
 
 Where a judgment or order has been obtained 
 against a married woman for the recovery or pay- 
 ment of money, an order may under Order xxv., 
 r. 52, of the County Cfiurt Rules, 1892, be made 
 for her examination as to her separate estate. 
 Countess of Aylesfoed v. G-eeat Western 
 Ey. Co. - - C, A. [1892] 2 ft. B, 626 
 
 — Interlocutory application — Subsequent action 
 in High Court raising same question. 
 See Pbaotiob— Pleading. 164. 
 
 COirilTY COURT (VmetiQti)— continued. 
 
 62. — Jurisdiction of registrar — Power to strike 
 out counter-claim — Prohibition — County Courts 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. o. 43), «. 90— County 
 Court Bules, 1889, Order XXII., r. 6. 
 
 Where a registrar on a default summons gave 
 judgment without further proof of the debt and 
 struck out the counter-claim : — 
 
 Held, that even if he was wrong in so doing, 
 
 it was a matter for appeal and not for prohibition. 
 
 HoopEE V. Hill - C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 659 
 
 — Jurisdiction generally. 
 
 See County Court — Jurisdiction. 
 
 63. — Notice of statutory defence — Statute of 
 Frauds, s. 17— Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 71), s. i— County Court Bules, 1889, 1892, 
 1895, Order x., r. 18 (a). 
 
 In an action on a contract for the sale of 
 goods of the value of 101. the defence of the 
 Statute of Frauds (as re-enacted by the Sale of 
 Goods Act, 1893) is a " statutory defence " within 
 the meaning of Order x., r. 18 (o), of the County 
 Court Eules, 1889, and the deft, if he intends to 
 rely on it must give notice of it under rule 10. 
 Beutton v. Branson Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 219 
 
 64. — Payment into court — Denial of liability 
 — County Court Bules, 1889, Order IX., r. 11, 
 Form 104 (a). 
 
 In an action in the county court to recover 
 271. for work done, the defts. paid 101. into court 
 without denial of liability : — 
 
 Held, that the payment into court merely 
 admitted a liabUity to the extent of lOZ., and 
 that except as to that amount the defts. were not 
 precluded from shewing that the work was not 
 done at their request. Hennell v. Davies 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 367 
 
 65. — Bight of audience of solicitors — County 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 72. 
 
 A solicitor who has taken out his certificate 
 and who is employed as managing clerk by a 
 firm of solicitors has no right of audieuoe in 
 matters in which his employers are retained, 
 although he has the entire management of the 
 proceedings, as he is not "the solicitor acting 
 generally in the action." Ebg. v. Oxfordshiee 
 County Coubt Judge - _ - Div. Ct. 
 [1894] 2 Q, B. 440 
 
 — Special defence — Notice — Statutes of Limita- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute or. 37. 
 
 66. — Bides — Practice of county court — County 
 Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 164— 
 County Court Bules, 1892, r. 146. 
 
 Semhle, that s. 164 of the County Courts Act, 
 1888, gives power to frame such rules only as 
 regulate the practice of the coimty court, and not, 
 e.g., to frame a rule in the terms of s. 3, sub- 
 s. 5, of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890. 
 In re Poetsea Island Building Society 
 
 V. WUliams J. [1893] 3 Ch. 205 
 
 — Liverpool Court. 
 
 See Oases under Liveepool Oouets. 
 
 67. — " Statutory defence " — Notice of injury 
 —Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. 
 
( 597 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 598 ) 
 
 COTTNTY COUET (Practice)— continuecJ. 
 
 c. 42), 8. 4 — County Court Mules, 1889, Order x, 
 
 rr. 10, 18. 
 
 In an action under the Employers' Liability 
 Act, 1880, the deft, cannot rely upon the defence 
 that the notice of injury required by s. 4 of the 
 Act has not been given, unless he has given 
 notice that he intends to rely upon it as a 
 "statutory defence" pursuant to Order x., rr. 10 
 and 18, of the County Court Eules. Conboy ii. 
 Peacock - Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 6 
 
 68. — Summons issued out of district — Affidavit, 
 Form of — Claim exceeding 51. — Counti/ Courts Act, 
 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. a. 43), ss. 74, 88— County Court 
 Rules, 1889, Form 14 a— iJ. 8. C, Order r., 
 rr. 9 a, 10. 
 
 In the affidavit for leave to issue a default 
 summons out of the district, paragraph 4 of the 
 Form 14a of the County Court Eules, 1892 (that 
 deft, is not a domestic or menial servant, &c.), is 
 not material when the amount exceeds 51., and 
 it is not necessary to insert the paragraph. The 
 marginal note to the paragraph is incorrect. 
 Gordon v. Evans - C. A, [1894] 1 ft. B. 218 
 
 — Workmen's compensation; — New trial — Juris- 
 diction of county court judge. 
 See Masteb and Servant — Practice. 
 92. 
 
 Beceiver. 
 See aXso Cases under Keobiveb. 
 Eemunebation — Neglect.] As to appoint- 
 ment of receiver hy way of equitahle execution, &e. 
 See Explanatory Memorandum to County Court 
 Rides (.May), 1899, and rules 18 to 23. W. N. 
 1899 (May 20), p. 171. See Current Index, 1899, 
 p. czi. 
 
 Transfer and Bemittal, 
 
 69. — Bemittal — " Convenient " — Court — 
 County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 es. 65, 74. 
 
 Under s. 65 of the Act of 1888, a judge in 
 chambers has jurisdiction to send actions of 
 contract for an amount imder WOl. for trial in 
 the county court "in which the action might 
 have been commenced," whether by leave or as 
 of right, or " in any Court convenient thereto," 
 i.e., convenient to the parties. Bubkill v. 
 Thomas - - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 99 ; 
 affirm, by C, A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 312 
 
 70. — Bemittal — "Action" — Tort — Counter- 
 claim—County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. 
 V. 43), «. 66. 
 
 In an action in the High Court the deft. 
 counter-claimed for damages for slander, the deft, 
 became bankrupt, and the action was stayed 
 except as to the counter-claim. The pit. sought 
 to have security for costs, or else to have the 
 action remitted : — 
 
 Beld, that the counter-claim for tort was not 
 an " action " within the meaning of s. 66 of the 
 County Courts Act, 1888, and there was no juris- 
 diction to remit it. Delobbel-Flipo v. Vaett 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 663 
 And see County Court— Jurisdiction. 
 56-58. 
 
 71. — Bemittal— Jurisdiction of high court— 
 
 COUNTY COURT (Transfer and Eemittal)— conW. 
 County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 <s. 65— iJ. 8. C, Order xvn., r. 8. 
 
 (a) a deft, to a case in the High Court died 
 intestate, and, before an administrator was ap- 
 pointed, the case was remitted. An application 
 was subsequently made by the administrator to 
 the High Court on the ground that the remittal 
 did not apply to him. Application refused. 
 After a case has once been remitted, although 
 irregularly, to a county court, all proceediugs 
 must be taken in that court. The High Court 
 has no longer jurisdiction to make an order in 
 the action. Dcke v. Davis 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 107 ; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 260 
 
 (b) County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 43), Ft. III., c. 65 ; Ft. IV., s. 116. 
 
 After transfer from the High Court to the 
 county court, a High Court judge has no juris- 
 diction to maike any order in the action. Harris 
 & Sons v. Judge - C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B, 566 
 
 Followed by C. A. Funn v. Appleton, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 564, 566. 
 — Eemitted action — Costs. 
 
 See County Court— Costs, 23, 27—33. 
 
 72. — Transfer — Building society — Winding- 
 up — County Court Bules, 1892, r. 146. 
 
 Notwithstanding r. 146 of the County Court 
 Eules, 1892, there is no power to transfer to the 
 High Court the winding-up of a society registered 
 under the Building Societies Act, 1874. In re 
 Eeal Estates Co. - - V, Williams J, 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch, 398 
 
 But see now the Building Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47), ». 8. 
 
 Winding-up. 
 
 73. — Stannaries Court — Jurisdiction in 
 winding-up cases — Transfer. 
 
 Where a co. is formed to work mines within 
 the Stannaries " or elsewhere in England," but is 
 not shewn to be actually working mines beyond 
 the Stannaries, the jurisdiction to wind up the 
 CO. or to entertain an application in its voluntary 
 winding-up is in the Stannaries Court, and where 
 proceedings have been taken in that Court, the 
 High Court will not exercise its power to retain 
 the proceedings before itself, but will transfer 
 them to the Stannaries Court. In re New 
 Terras Tin Mining Co. 
 
 V, Williams J, [1894] 2 Ch. 344 
 
 COUNTY FEANCHISB. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament — Fran- 
 chise. 
 COUPON— For interest of perpetual bond— Ee- 
 issue. 
 See Eevenue— Stamps. 142. 
 
 "COUPON COMPETITION" — Office used for 
 betting — Events relating to horse-races. 
 See Gamiko. 6. 
 
 C0UE3ING — Eabbits— Cruelty to animals. 
 See Criminal Law. 8. 
 
 COUET — Jurisdiction. 
 
 Beld, on an appeal from the Supreme Court 
 of Trinidad and Tobago, that that Court, sitting 
 
( 599 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 600 ) 
 
 COTTRt— continued. 
 
 in appeal, could not exercise a jurisdiction not 
 poBsessed by the Court of first instance. Att.- 
 Gbn. FOB Tbinidad and Tobago v. Ekiohe 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 518 
 
 COUET OF CHANCERY OF lANCASTEE. 
 
 See Lanoastee Coubt. 
 
 COURT OF PASSAGE, LIVEEPOOl. 
 
 See LiTEEPoOL Couets. 
 
 COVENANT. 
 
 See also Cases under Landlobd and 
 Tenant. 
 
 — Apprenticeship deed. 
 
 See AppEENTlOE, passim, 
 
 1. — Assignment — Covenant against, without 
 licence — Licence to assign — " Fine or sum of 
 money in the nature of a fine " — Deposit by way of 
 security — Conveyancing Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. 
 V. 13), 8. 3. 
 
 A building lease, which had been granted 
 under a building contract relating also to other 
 property, contained an absolute covenant not to 
 assign -without licence. The lessors on being 
 applied to for a licence to assign refused to grant 
 it unless the lessee would deposit with them 
 2000Z. as a further security for the 'performance 
 by him of the unperformed part of the building 
 contract : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of Stirling J.), 
 that^the deposit with the lessors of a sum of 
 money which, if the lessee performed the building 
 contract, would revert to him, was not payment of 
 a " fine or sum of money in the nature of a fine " 
 within the meaning of the Conveyancing Act, 
 1892, s. 3, and that the lessors might lawfully 
 require such a deposit as a condilion for granting 
 the licence. In re Cosh's Conteaot 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 9 
 
 — Assignment, Qualified covenant against — 
 
 Unwilling purchaser — Lessor's consent 
 — Unreasonable refusal. 
 See Venbob and Pubchaseb — Contract. 
 26. 
 
 — BiU of sale. 
 
 See Cases under Bill of Sale. 
 
 — Breach — Person not enjoined aiding in — In- 
 
 junction. 
 
 See Contempt of Coubt. 2. 
 
 2. — Building estate — Restriction as to number 
 of houses — " House " — Flat — Construction of cove- 
 nant. 
 
 A buUding containing several residential flats 
 constitutes only one house within the meaning of 
 the word "house" in a covenant not to erect 
 more than a certain number of houses, unless 
 there is some context which cuts down or alters 
 the popular interpretation of the word. 
 
 Decision of Cozens-Hardy J., [1900] W. N. 
 23, affirmed. Kimbeb v. Admans 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 43 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 412 
 
 — Bvdlding scheme — Eesidential estate. 
 
 See Building Estate. 2. 
 
 3. — Building scheme — Bestrictive covenant — 
 Prior purchaser — Benefit — Burden. 
 
 The deft., a lessee of an assign of Diummond 
 with notice of the covenants, having sold beer, 
 
 COVENANT — continued. 
 
 wine, and spirits in a house on a certain plot A, 
 
 the pits, brought this action to restrain him. 
 
 Held, that there was a building scheme as to 
 the whole of the property, and the sales thongh 
 at different times all formed part of one trans- 
 action. But the question, as stated in Nottingham 
 Patent Brick and Tile Co. v. Butler, (1886) 
 15 Q. B. D. 261 ; 16 ib. 778, was whether the 
 stipulations were meant by the vendor and under- 
 stood by the buyers to be for the common advan- 
 tage of the several purchasers. Now, Drummond 
 bought before the auction, and, although the 
 plan shewed that the vendor intended to include 
 Drummond's property in the scheme, there was 
 nothing to shew that Drummond had any inten- 
 tion to take the benefit or subject himself to the 
 burden of the scheme as regards the other pur- 
 chasers. His conveyance was inconsistent with 
 any such intention. He could, therefore, not 
 have enforced the scheme, and he was conse- 
 quently not bound by it lor want of reciprocity. 
 So far, therefore, as they relied on the scheme, 
 the pits.' claim failed. But they also claimed as 
 assigns of the benefit of Drummond's covenants. 
 This was not expressly assigned, but it was suffi- 
 cient if the vendor represented or contracted that 
 the purchasers should have the benefit : PenciU v. 
 Cowlishaw, (1878) 9 Ch. D. 125 ; (1879)11 ib. 866, 
 
 Now, the particulars, plan,' and stipulations 
 in the present case, coupled with the fact that 
 lot 7 was expressly described as a site for an 
 hotel or tavern, raised an irresistible inference 
 that the vendor intended and contracted that the 
 purchasers of lot 7 should have the benefit of 
 Drummond's covenant not to use the land as a 
 site for licensed premises. The pits, were, there- 
 fore, entitled to enforce the covenant, as assigns 
 of the vendor, and the injimotion must go. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1900] "W. N. 22, 
 affirmed. Naldeb and Collteb's Bbeweet Co. 
 V. Haeman - C. A. [1900] W. N. 180 
 
 — Compensation — Specific performance — Open 
 
 contract — Eestrictive covenants. 
 See Vbndob and Pubchaseb. 70. 
 
 — Contract affecting land — Writ — Service out 
 
 of the jurisdiction. 
 
 See Peactioe — Service. 206. 
 
 — Death — Breach of covenant — Liability for, 
 
 after lessor's death — Liability of lessor's 
 general estate. 
 See New Zealand. 
 
 — Drainage expenses — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under London — Sewers. 
 
 — For title by committee. 
 
 " See Lunacy — Sales. 43. 
 
 — Giving of time. 
 
 See Cases under Peinoipal and Subett 
 — Discharge. 
 
 — Implied — Eecital of agreement. 
 
 See Infant. 42. 
 
 — Implied, against incumbrancers— " Outgoings " 
 
 — Private street works. 
 See Streets. 34. 
 
 — Implied covenants for title — Mistake — Eectifi- 
 
 cation — ^Parol evidence. 
 See Vendob and Pubohabbb — Con* 
 tr»?t, 88, 
 
( 601 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( d02 ) 
 
 COYESMIT—Bontinued. 
 
 — Joint owners — ^When construed as several oi 
 
 joint and several — Survivorship. 
 See Patent — ^ Joint Grant. 13. 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Cases under Laudlokd and Tenant. 
 
 — Lease— Diversion of spring — " Stream." 
 
 See Water— Water Eights. 38. 
 
 — Leaseholds — Tenant for life and remainder- 
 
 man — ^Liability. 
 
 See WiLi — leaseholds. 119. 
 
 — Liability of tenant for life. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land —Lease- 
 holds. 
 
 — Light — Conveyance — Covenant against over- 
 
 looking lights — BuQdiugs "adjoining" 
 
 land of vendors. 
 
 See Light and Aib. 1. 
 
 — by Mortgagee to make further advances — 
 
 Tacking — Priorities. 
 See Mortgage. 49. 
 
 — Not to molest — Separation — Divorce proceed- 
 
 ings. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe — Separation. 
 68. 
 
 — Partnership, articles. 
 
 See Oases under Partnership. 
 
 — Patent — Joint grant-7-Title— Survivorship. 
 
 See Patent — Joint Grant. 13. 
 
 4. — " Private residence " — School — Boarding 
 and lodging tcholara attending school — Breach of 
 covenant. 
 
 A covenant not to use a house " for any trade 
 or manufacture, or for any other purpose than a 
 private residence," is broken by using it as a 
 boarding-house for scholars attending a school iu 
 the neighbourhood kept by the owner of the 
 house in question. . • 
 
 Such user practically converts the house from 
 a " private residence " to the business of a board- 
 ing-liouse. Hobson v. Tulloch 
 
 Bomer J, [1898] 1 Ch. 424 
 
 — for Quiet enjoyment — Compensation — Pur- 
 
 chase of land subject to lessee — ^Injury 
 
 to lessee. 
 
 See Railway. 3. 
 
 — Restraint of trade. 
 
 See Cases under Restraint op Trade. 
 
 — Restrictive — Building estate. 
 
 See Building Estate. 2. 
 
 — Restrictive — Continuance of loan — Redemp- 
 
 tion — Collateral advantage — Injunction. 
 See Mortgage. 62. 
 
 — Restrictive condition and covenant. 
 
 See Building Scheme. 1, 2. 
 B. — Restrictive covenant— Benefit — Covenant 
 Twnning with the land — Covenant enforceable in 
 equity — " One messuage " — " House " — " Private 
 
 equity 
 
 residence " — " Eesideniial flats: 
 
 When the benefit of a restrictive covenant has 
 been once clearly annexed to oue piece of land, 
 there is a presumption that it passes by an 
 assignment of that land, and it may be said to 
 run with, the land in equity as well as at law, 
 without proof of special bargain or representation 
 on the assignment of the laud. The covenant iu 
 
 COVEITANT — continued. 
 
 such a case runs with the land because the 
 assignee has purchased something which inhered 
 in or was annexed to the land which he bought. 
 The purchaser's ignorance of the existence of the 
 covenant does not defeat the presumption, though 
 it may be rebutted by proof of facts inconsistent 
 with it. 
 
 The owners of building land and their mort- 
 gagees conveyed a plot of the land in fee to a 
 purchaser, who entered into a covenant with the 
 mortgagors (but not with the mortgagees) that 
 no more than one messuage or dwelling-house 
 should at any one time be erected or be standing 
 on the plot, and that such messiiage should be 
 adapted for and used as and for a private resi- 
 dence only. The conveyance stated that the 
 covenant, was entered into with intent .that it 
 might so far as possible bind the premises thereby 
 conveyed and every part thereof, into whosesoever 
 hands the same might come, and might enure to 
 the benefit of the mortgagees, their heirs and 
 assigns, and others claiming under them to all or 
 any of . their lands adjoining or near to the 
 premises. 
 
 The mortgagors, afterwards conveyed another 
 plot of land near to the first in fee to a piirchaser 
 who had no knowledge of the coyenaiit entered 
 into by the purchaser of the first plot : — 
 
 Held, that assigns of the second plot could 
 enforce the restrictive covenant against an assign 
 of the first plot. 
 
 Decision of Farwell J., [1899] W. N. 223, 
 affirmed. 
 
 Held also, that the erection on the first plot 
 of a large block of buildings, which were to be 
 occupied as residential flats, would be a breach 
 of the covenant. 
 
 The covenant having been released by the 
 mortgagors (so far as they lawfully could) as 
 regarded the number of houses to be erected, the 
 purchaser's devisee covenanted ' with the mort- 
 gagors that every messuage to be erected on the 
 land should be adapted for and used as and for a 
 private residence only : — ... 
 
 Held, that the erection of the proposed building 
 would be a breach of the covenant also. 
 
 An injunction was accordingly granted to 
 restrain the assign of the first plot from erecting 
 such a block of buildings upon it. Rogers v. 
 HosBGOOD - - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 167 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 388 
 
 Referred to by Farwell J. '■'■Muller v. Trafford, 
 [1901] 1 Ch. 61. 
 
 e.- 
 
 tion. 
 
 ■ Restrictive covenant — Occupier-r-Injunc- 
 
 A person was in joint or sole occupation of a 
 house, and managing the business in it, with 
 notice of the covenants restricting its user, and 
 was using the house in a way forbidden by the 
 restrictive covenants : — 
 
 Held, that an injunction could be granted re- 
 straining him from such user. A mere occupier 
 is liable to such an injunction. Mandeb v. 
 Faloke (No. 1) - - C. A. [1891] 2 Ch, 554 
 
 — Restrictive covenant — Rescission. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdeohasbe — Besois- 
 sio», 66—68. 
 
( 603 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, lg9l-1900. 
 
 ( 604 ) 
 
 COVE'SA.TUT— continued. 
 
 7, — Mestrictive covenant — Tied public-liouse 
 — Mortgagor and mortgagee — Assigns — Under- 
 lessee — Notice. 
 
 The owner of a leasehold public-hovise, subject 
 to a first mortgage, made a second mortgage to 
 the partners in "John Brothers," bre-wers, in 
 consideration of an advance by them out of their 
 partnership account, the partners being first de- 
 scribed separately and afterwards referred to as 
 John Brothers. 
 
 By a separate deed of the same date, made 
 between the same parties described as in the 
 second mortgage, the mortgagor in further con- 
 sideration of the advance covenanted with " John 
 Brothers, their executors, administrators, and 
 assigns," to bind the house to " John Brothers " 
 for the entire supply of beer, wines, and spirits 
 so long as he, his executors, administrators or 
 assigns, should be in possession or occupation. 
 
 Both mortgages were subsequent to the 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881. 
 
 The transferee of the first mortgage and the 
 assign of the equity of redemption, then in pos- 
 session, having together made an underlease to 
 the deft., a publican, with notice of the cove- 
 nant, the pits., who had purchased the business 
 of John Brothers together with their right of 
 supply to the public-house, and had taken a 
 transfer of the second mortgage and an assign- 
 ment of the benefit of the deed of covenant, sought 
 to enforce the tie against the deft. : — 
 
 Held, on the construction and intention of the 
 deeds, that — 
 
 1. The benefit of the covenant was not limited 
 to the original firm of John Brothers, but ran 
 with their business. 
 
 2. The covenant bound any one deriving title 
 under the original mortgagor, including an under- 
 lessee with notice, who, though not an assign, 
 could be bound in equity by a restrictive cove- 
 nant. 
 
 3. The deft., though apparently deriving 
 title to his underlease under the first mortgagee 
 as well as under the mortgagor in possession, 
 must, according to the rule in Boacli v. Wadham, 
 (1805) 6 East, 289, be considered to hold under 
 the better title, which, having regard to ». 18, 
 Bub-s. 1, of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, was that 
 derived from the mortgagor in possession. He 
 could not, therefore, set up the paramount title 
 of the first mortgagee against the pits. 
 
 4. On the above grounds the pits, were entitled 
 to enforce the tie against the defts. John 
 Beothees Aberqaew Bebwbbt Co. V. Holmes 
 
 Kekewioh J., [1899] W. N. 267 ; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 188 
 
 Bight of one tenant in common to sue without 
 
 joining the others. 
 See Tenancy in Common. 1. 
 Eunning with land — Covenant for quiet en- 
 joyment — Injunction — ^Damages — Com- 
 pensation. 
 See Eailwat. 3. 
 
 — in Separation deed. 
 
 See Gases under Husband and Wite— 
 Separation. 
 
 — Settlement— Covenants to settle. 
 
 See SETTLEjrENT — CovenantSt 
 
 C0VESAS7— continued. 
 
 — Sewers — Drainage expenses. 
 
 See Cases under London — Sewers. 
 
 — Stamp duty — Agreement to execute mortgage. 
 
 See Kevbnue — Stamps. 167. 
 
 — " Tied " public-house — " Clog " on redemption 
 
 — Covenant by mortgagor to take beer 
 from mortgagee only. 
 See MOETGAGE. 60. 
 
 — for Title. 
 
 See Vendor and PnECHASEE. 28, 81, 82. 
 
 — To pay — Legacy of same amount — Satisfac- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 37. 
 
 — To pay money at a certain time — Interest. 
 
 See Interest. 1. 
 
 — To pay water rate — Water supplied for trade 
 
 purposes. 
 
 See Water. 29. 
 
 — " Usual covenants " — Purchase of leaseholds. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdeohasee. 25. 
 
 COVENT GARDEN MARKET— Parties— Repre- 
 sentative action. 
 See Practice — Parties. 113. 
 
 " COVER "—Contract. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 3, 6. 
 
 — Gambling contracts. 
 
 See Gaming. 28. 
 
 COWSHEDS. 
 
 See Dairy. 
 
 CREDITORS' DEED— Construction of 
 See Deed. 3. 
 
 CREMATION— J?ac«%. 
 
 The Ecclesiastical Court will not grant a, 
 faculty for the removal of remains after burial for 
 cremation. 
 
 Serrible, that where there has been a cremation 
 under the directions of the deceased there is no 
 legal objection to the burial of the resulting 
 ashes in consecrated ground accompanied with 
 the use of the Buvial Service. In re Dixon. 
 
 Consist. Ct, of london [1892] P. 386 
 
 CREW SPACE— Limitation of liability— Exemp- 
 tion from registry — " Tons burden " — 
 " Tonnage." 
 See Shipping. 164. 
 
 " CRIMINAL CAUSE OR MATTER "—Appeal. 
 See Appeal. 7 — 11. 
 
 — Appeal to Privy Council. 
 
 See Peivy Council — Judicial Committee. 
 
 4. 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 Expenses oe Witnesses, &c.] Segs. made by 
 the Secy, of State, dated Feb. 27, 1895, under the 
 Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1851, alter' 
 ing the regs. as to costs and expenses in criminal 
 prosecutions. St. R, & 0, 1896, No. 106. L. 5. 
 Price id. 
 
 Eegs. made by the Secy, of State dated Dec. 21, 
 1895, under the Criminal Justice Administration 
 Act, 1851. St. E. & 0. 1895, No. 685. Price id. 
 
 Criminal business at Assizes — Report — General 
 
( eos ) 
 
 btaESt 01* OASfig, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( 606 ) 
 
 CRIMINAL lAVr— continued. 
 
 Counoil of the Bar. W. N. 1899 (July 1), p. 236. 
 
 See Current Index, 1899, p, oxvili. 
 
 Generally, col. 605. 
 
 Bail. See Bail. 
 
 Burglary, col. 606. 
 
 Conspiracy, col. 606. 
 
 Costs, col. 607. 
 
 Cruelty to Animals, col. 607. 
 
 Cruelty to Cliildren, col. 608. 
 
 Emiezzlement, col. 609. 
 
 Evidence, col. 610. 
 
 False Pretences, col. 613. 
 
 Felony, col. 615. 
 
 Fine or Imprisonment, col. 616. 
 
 Forgery, col. 616. 
 
 Larceny, col, 616. 
 
 Malicious Damage, col. 618. 
 
 Malidout Prosecution. See Malicious 
 
 Pboseoution. 
 Offences against Morality, col. 619. 
 Offences against the Person, col. 619. 
 Offences against Property, col. 620. 
 Offences hy Public Officers, col. 621 . 
 Offences against the State, col. 621. 
 Practice, col. 622. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Betting. 
 
 See Cases under Gaming. 
 
 — Chancel — Criminal suit against rector for non- 
 repair of — Appeal—Jurisdiction. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 57. 
 
 — Churcliwarden — Criminal suit against. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 9, 10. 
 
 — Desertion — Husband absconding under crimi- 
 
 nal charge. 
 
 See DivoBCE — Desertion. 66. 
 
 — Drunkenness. 
 
 See DECNKBirarESs. 
 
 — Duty of churchwardens to obtain faculty 
 
 before removing human remains. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 10. 
 
 — Extradition. 
 
 See EXTEADITION. 
 
 — Foreign enlistment. 
 
 See FoEEiGN Enlistment. 
 
 — Fugitive offenders. 
 
 See Extradition — Fugitive Criminals. 
 
 — Gaming. 
 
 See Cases under Gajmino. 
 
 — Habitual drunkards. 
 
 , See Deunkenness. 
 
 — Libel. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 
 
 — Misdemeanour— Discharge of bankrupt — Ee- 
 
 fusal of. 
 
 See Bankettptct— Discharge. 88. 
 
 — New Zealand Criminal Code— Marital co- 
 
 ercion. 
 
 See New Zealand. 4. 
 
 CSIMINAL LAW (Generally) — continued. 
 
 — Nuisance. 
 
 See Oases under Nuisance. 
 
 — Person induced by misrepresentation to commit 
 
 crime — ^Right of action. 
 
 See FoEEiGN Enlistment Act. 2. 
 
 — Picketing — "Watching and besetting" — In- 
 
 junction. 
 
 See Cases under Trade Union. 
 
 — Servant — Criminal liability of master for act 
 
 of servant. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 71, 72. 
 
 — Slander. 
 
 See Defamation — Slander. 
 
 — Theft— Loss by— Entry by opening unlocked 
 
 shop door — " Actual forcible and violent 
 
 entry." 
 
 See Insurance — Burglary, 5. 
 
 — Theft by servant of railway company. 
 
 See Eailway — ^Negligence. 16. 
 
 — Trustee, convicted of felony — Appointment of 
 
 new trastee. 
 
 See Trustee — Appointment. 8. 
 
 — Vagrancy. 
 
 See Oases under Vagrancy. 
 
 — Will — Beneiioiary convicted of wilful murder 
 
 of testatrix — Certificate of conviction not 
 
 admissible. 
 
 See Lancaster Court. 1. 
 
 Bail, 
 
 See Bail. 
 
 Burglary. 
 
 The Burglary Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 57), 
 provides for the trial of turglaries hy Courts of 
 Quarter Sessions. 
 
 Conspiracy. 
 
 1. — Intimidation — Seamen — Conspiracy and 
 Protection of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 86), ss. 7, 16. 
 
 Sect. 16 of the Cohapiraoy and Protection of 
 Property Act, 1875, which enacts that the Act shall 
 not apply to seamen, means seamen as defined by 
 the Merchant Shipping Acts — ^that is to say , persons 
 employed or engaged on board ship. The section, 
 therefore, does not exempt from the punishments 
 prescribed by the Act persons whose calling or 
 occupation is the sea, but who are not actually so 
 employed or engaged. Eeg. v. Lynch 
 
 C. C. E. [1898] 1 Q. B. 61 
 
 2. — Intimidation — Conspiracy and Protection 
 of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Viet. c. 86), s. 7. 
 
 In a conviction under s. 7 of the Conspiracy 
 and Protection of Property Act, 1875, the "acts 
 which he had a legal right to do " must be 
 specified. Eeg. o. MoKenzie 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 519 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. /. Lyons & Sons v. 
 WilMns, [1899] 1 Ch. 25.5, 266. 
 
 3. — Intimidation — Trade union — Threat of 
 strike unless employer ceases to employ workmen 
 not members— (6 Geo. i, c. 129), s. 3— Trade 
 Union Act, 1871 (34 & 85 Vict. a. 31), ss, 2, 3— 
 Criminal Law — Violence, &c.. Act, 1871 (31 & 35 
 
( 607 ) 
 
 DIGES* OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( eog ) 
 
 CRmiNAL LAW (Conspiracy) — continued. 
 
 Viet. c. 32), s. 1 — Conspiracy and Protection of 
 
 Property Aet, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 86), ss. 3, 7, 
 
 subs. 1. 
 
 A threat to strike unless the employer ceases 
 
 to employ non-union men is not intimidation 
 
 within s. 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of 
 
 Property Act, 1875. Conkok v. Kent. Gibson 
 
 V. Lawson. Cukean v. Teeleaten 
 
 Lord Coleridge C.J., Mathew, Cave, 
 A. L. Smith and Charles JJ. [1891] 2 ft. B. 845 
 See J. Lyons & Sons v. Wilkins, C. A. [1896] 
 
 1 Ch. 811, 82i; Allen y. Flood, H. L. (E.) [1898] 
 
 A. 0. 1, at p. 17. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 Pegs, of Secy, of State dated Feb. 27, 1895. 
 St. K. & 0. 1895, No, 106, L. 5. Price id. 
 
 Begs, of Seey. of State dated Dec. 21, 1895. 
 St. E. & 0. 189S, No. 585, L, 34. Price id. 
 
 Pegs, made by tlie Secy, of State governing the 
 allowances to prosecutors and witnesses in criminal 
 prosecutions. Offic. & Pari. Puhl. 1898, April. 
 Price Id. 
 
 Costs.] Order, dated Sept. 7, 1896, made by 
 the Secy, of State as to the allowances to witnesses 
 in Criminal Prosecutions. St. E. & 0. 1896, 
 No. 836. Price id. 
 
 Begs, made by Secy, of State governing the 
 allowances to prosecutors and witnesses in criminal 
 prosecutions. St. E. & 0. 1899, various. Price Id. 
 
 4. — Corrupt practices at municipal election. 
 Prosecution for — Private prosecutor — Defendant's 
 right to costs where acquitted — Corrupt Practices 
 Prevention Act, 1851 (17 <t 18 Vict. o. 102), s. 12 
 — Corrupt and IlUgal Practices Prevention Act, 
 
 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 51), s. 5S— Municipal 
 Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 
 
 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 70), «. 30. 
 
 Where a private prosecutor prefers an indict- 
 ment charging the commission of a. corrupt 
 practice at a municipal election, the deft., if 
 acquitted of the charge, is entitled to recover 
 from the prosecutor the coats sustained by 
 reason of the indictment. Eeg. v. Law 
 
 Bucknill J. [1900] 1 Q. B. 606 
 
 6. — Costs — Obstruction of highways — 16 & 17 
 Vict. o. 30, s. 5. 
 
 On removing by certiorari an indictment 
 containing seven counts into the High Couit, tlie 
 prosecutors bound themselves to pay tlie deft.'s 
 costs if she were acquitted on the indictment. 
 The deft, was acquitted on five out of the seven 
 counts : — 
 
 Held, that this was not acquittal within the 
 meaning of the recognizance, and the deft, could 
 not claim her costs. Kes. v. Bayaed 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 181 
 
 [Note. — 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, s. 5, was repealed 
 by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1892, as being 
 superseded by the Crown Office Bules, 1886.] 
 
 Cruelty to Animals, 
 
 And see under Aniual. 
 Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 
 1900 (G3 & (J4 Vict. c. 38), is an Act for the pre- 
 vention of cruelty to wild animals in captivity. 
 
 CEIlIINAI LAW (Owelty to Animals)— contd. 
 
 6. — Caged lions — Domestic animals — Cruelty 
 to Animals Acts, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), ss. 2, 
 29 ; 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 60), ». 3. 
 
 Lions kept in a cage and kept in subjection 
 and made to jump over a board are not " domestic 
 animals " within 12 & 13 Vict. o. 92, b. 29, and 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 60, s. 3, and an information fur 
 treating them cruelly was held bad. Haeper v. 
 Maecks - - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 a. B. 319 
 
 Eeferred to by V. Williams J. Yates v. 
 Eiggins, [1896] 1 Q- B. 166, 168. See next Case. 
 
 See also 63 & 64 Vict. c. 33, s. 1. 
 
 7. — " Domestic animal " — Tame seagull — 
 Ciuelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 <fc 13 Vict. c. 92), 
 ss. 2, 2Q~Cruelty to Animals Aet, 1854 (17 <t 18 
 Vict. c. 60), s. 3. 
 
 The respondents were charged, under the 
 Ciuelty to Animals Act, 1849, s. 2. with cruelly 
 ill-treating a tame seagull. The bird had been 
 the property of its owner for three years, and was 
 used by her in her business as a photographer. 
 It was tame, and was kept in a field. One wing 
 having been pinioned, it could not fly, but could 
 get out of the field by going down a river. It 
 would go to its owner when called, and feed from 
 the hand : — 
 
 Seld, that the seagull, was not a "domestic 
 animal," within the meaning of the Cruelty to 
 Animals Acts, 1849, s. 29, atd 1854, s. 3, "and 
 therefore the respondents could not be convicted. 
 Yates v. Higgins - Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q, B. 166 
 
 See 63 & 64 Vict. c. 33, s. 1. 
 
 8. — Babbit coursing — "Domestic animals" — 
 Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), 
 ss. 2, 29 ; 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 60), «. 3. 
 
 Persons who have captured and kept wild 
 rabbits for coursing, and who have Hi-treated the 
 rabbits during the coursing, cannot be convicted 
 of cruelty to animals, rabbits in this case not 
 being "domestic animals" within 12 & 13 Vict, 
 c. 92, s. 29, and 17 & 18 Vict, c. 60, s. 3. Aplin 
 ■V. PoKEiTT Div. Ct. [1893] 8 Q. B. 67 
 
 See 63 & 64 Vict. c. 33, s. 1. 
 
 Cruelty to Children. 
 
 Preventi'M of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 41), consolidates the law for the 
 prevention of cruelty to children. 
 
 — Examination of defendant — Previous con- 
 viction. 
 See Criminal Law — Evidence. 18. 
 
 9. — Manslaughter — Infant child — Neglect to 
 procure medical aid— Conscientious objection to 
 medical aid — " Wilfully neglect " — Prevention of 
 Cruelty to Children Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 41), 8. 1. 
 
 The prisoner was charged with the man- 
 slaughter of his infant child, of which he had the 
 custody. He belonged to a sect who objected on 
 religious grounds to calling in medical aid, and 
 to the use of medicine, and he had wilfully and 
 deliberately abstained from providing medical 
 aid and medicine, which were necessary for the 
 child, though he knew it to be dangerously ill, 
 but in other respects he had done aU he could 
 
(■ 60^ ) DIGEST' Of OASES, 1891—1900. ( 610 ) 
 
 eBlMINAL LAW (Cruelty to ChUdren)— conid 
 ih the test interests of the child. Medical aid 
 would have prolonged, and prohahly saved, the 
 child's life, and the prisoner had the means to 
 procure medical aid : — 
 
 Seld, that there was evidence that the prisoner 
 had wilfully neglected the child in a manner 
 likely to cause injury to its health, within the 
 meaning of the Act, and having thereby caused 
 or accelerated its death, he was rightly convicted 
 of manslaughter. Ebs. v. Senior - C. C. B. 
 [1898] W. N. 168 (7) ; [1899] 1 «. B. 283 
 
 10. — Proof of age of child — Prevention of 
 Cruelty to Children Act, 1894(57 * 58 Vict. c. 41). 
 
 On the trial of an indictment for unlawfully 
 and wilfully neglecting children under the age of 
 sixteen, contrary to the Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Children Act, 1894, the children were not pro- 
 duced before the Court, and the only evidence as 
 to their ages was that of two persons who said 
 that they had seen the children and stated what 
 they believed were their respective ages, all of 
 them being under sixteen, and that of the mistress 
 of a school who said that the elder children 
 attended a public elementary school, and she 
 believed they were within the statutory age 
 limit : — 
 
 Held, that there was evidence proper to be 
 left to the jury that the children were under 
 sixteen. Beg. v. Cox 0. C. E. [1898] 1 Q. D. 179 
 
 Embezzlement. 
 
 11. — Assistant overseer — Parish council — 
 Local Government Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), 
 8. 5, siib-ss. 1, 2 (c); s. 81, svJ>-s. 3. 
 
 Although by s. 5, sub-s. 1, of the Local 
 Government Act, 1894, the power of appointing 
 and revoking the appointment of assistant over- 
 seers in rural parishes having a parish council is 
 transferred to the parish council, an assistant 
 overseer becomes when appointed the servant, not 
 of the parish council, but of the inhabitants of 
 the parish ; and in an indictment for embezzling 
 money collected by him from the ratepayers, he 
 is correctly so described, and the money so em- 
 bezzled is rightly laid as the property of the 
 inhabitants. Reg. v. Smallman 
 
 C. C. E, [1896] W. H, 157 (I); [1897] 1 ft. B. 4 
 
 12. — Clerk or servant — Director of company 
 —Larceny Act, 1861 (24 * 25 Vict. c. 96), 8. 68. 
 
 A director of a limited co., who is also 
 employed as a servant to collect money for the 
 CO., is liable to be convicted of embezzlement of 
 such money as a clerk or servant of the co. Keg. 
 V. Stuabt - - C. C. B. [1894] 1 ft. B. 310 
 
 13. — Illegal association — Benefiaial owners of 
 property— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), s. i— Partnership Act, 1868 (31 <fe 82 Vict, 
 c. 116), s. 1. 
 
 A person can be convicted of the embezzle- 
 ment of the property of an illegally constituted 
 club of which he is a member, for though the club 
 has no legal existence as an association, the 
 members thereof may have a legal existence as 
 beneficial owners of property. Eeg. v. Tankabd 
 C. C.E, [1894] 1 Q. B. 648 
 .— Larceny. 
 
 See Cbimistal Law— Larceny. 
 
 CaiMINAL L&W— continued. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Criminal Ihidence Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 36), amends the law of evidence. 
 
 14. — Accomplice — Corroboration — Extradi- 
 tion Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 52), a. 3, sub-s. 1. 
 
 It is not the law that a prisoner must neces- 
 sarily be acquitted in the absence of corroborative 
 evidence, and the evidence must be laid before 
 the jury in each case. It is the practice to warn 
 the jury ithat they ought not to convict unless 
 they think that the evidence of an accomplice is 
 corroborated. In re Mbunibb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 415 
 
 15. — Admissibility — Evidence of crimina 
 acts other than those charged — Criminal Law 
 Amendment Act, 1883 (46 Vict. No. 17), s. 423. 
 
 Evidence tending to shew guilt of criminal 
 acts other than those charged is not admissible 
 except upon the issue whether the acts charged 
 were designed or accidental, or unless to rebut a 
 defence otherwise open. M. and his wife were 
 convicted of the murder of an infant, received 
 from its mother on representations as to their 
 willingness to adopt it on payment of a sum 
 inadequate to its support beyond a very limited 
 time, and whose body was found buried in the 
 garden of a house occupied by them : 
 
 Held, that evidence of other infants having 
 been received from their mothers on like repre- 
 sentations and terms, and that bodies of infants 
 had been found buried in the gardens of several 
 houses occupied by the prisoners, was relevant to 
 the issue. Makin v. Attornet-Genebal fob 
 New South Wales - P. C. [1894] A. C. 87 
 — Admissibility — Proof of guilty knowledge — 
 
 Acts in respect of which defendant had 
 
 been previously acquitted. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law — False Pretences. 
 28. 
 
 16. — Admissibility — Public examination of 
 bankrupt — Parol evidence of bankrupt's admissions 
 —The Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 s. 17, sub-s. 8. 
 
 By s. 17, sub-s. 8, of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, on the public examination of a debtor he 
 " shall be examined upon oath,|and it shall be his 
 duty to answer all such questions as the Court 
 may put or allow to be put to him. Such notes of 
 the examination as the Court thinks proper shall 
 be taken down in writing, and shall be read over 
 to and signed by the debtor, and may thereafter 
 be used in evidence against him" : — 
 
 Held, that sub-s. 8 did not exclude any other 
 mode of proving the debtor's admissions made at 
 his public examination ; so that, on the trial of 
 an indictment against a bankrupt for misde- 
 meanours under the Debtors Act, 1869, where 
 notes of his public examination had been taken 
 but not read over by or to or signed by him, parol 
 evidence of the person who took the notes was 
 admissible to prove such admissions. Eeq. v. 
 Erdheim - C. C. E. [1896] 2 Q. B. 260 
 
 17. — Confession. 
 
 Before a confession can be received in evidence 
 of criminality it must be proved affirmatively 
 that the confession was free and voluntary, that 
 is, that it was not preceded by any inducement 
 
 X 
 
( 611 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 612 ) 
 
 CRIMINAL lAW (Evidence)— conKTOetf. 
 held out by any person in authority to make a 
 statement. In this case the inducement was held 
 out by the employer of the prisoner to his relatives, 
 and it was inferred, but not proved, that it was 
 communicated to the prisoner. No sufficient 
 proof was given that the confession was free and 
 voluntary : — 
 
 Held, that it was inadmissible in evidence. 
 Esa. V. Thompson C. C. R. [1893] 3 Q. B. 12 
 
 18. — Examination of defendant — Previous 
 conviction — Prevention of Cruelty to Children 
 Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. o. il)— Criminal Evidence 
 Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 36), ss. 1, 6. 
 
 The appellant was charged before a court of 
 summary jurisdiction with an offence under the 
 Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894, and 
 gave evidence on his own behalf as that Act 
 permits. He was asked in cross-examination 
 whether he had not been previously convicted of 
 a similar offence,' and answered that he had. 
 The Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, s. 1, enables 
 " every person charged with an offence " to give 
 evidence on his own behalf ; but (/) " a person 
 charged and called as a witness in pursuance of 
 this Act" shall not be asked or required to 
 answer any question tending to shew that he has 
 been convicted of any other offence than that 
 with which he is charged. By s. 6 "this Act 
 shall apply to all criminal proceedings, notwith- 
 standing any enactment in force at tlie com- 
 mencement of this Act." 
 
 The court of summary jurisdiction convicted 
 the appellant : — 
 
 Held, that s. 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act, 
 1898, applied; that the evidence of the appel- 
 lant's previous conviction was wrongly admitted, 
 and, therefore, that the conviction was bad. 
 Chaenook v. Merchant Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 10 ; 
 [1900] 1 a. B. 474 
 
 — False pretences — Proof of guilty knowledge. 
 
 See Chimin AL Law — False Pretences. 28. 
 
 19r — Fabricating evidence for future use. 
 
 It is the custom among merchants on the 
 arrival of a cargo of grain to takes samples sealed 
 by both buyer and seller, in case arbitration pro- 
 ceedings might be necessary. The deft , who had 
 been appointed to take the samples, tampered 
 with the sample-bags, and substituted inferior 
 grain with intent that the samples so altered 
 should be used in evidence : — 
 
 Held, that this was an indictable misde- 
 meanour at common law. Kbs. v. Veeones 
 
 C. C. B. [1891] 1 a B. 3eo 
 
 20. — Handwriting, proof of, by comparison — 
 Skilled witness— {2,8 & 29 Vict. c. 18), s. 8. 
 
 A witness giving evidence to prove hand- 
 writing need not have gained his skill in com- 
 paring handwriting in the way of his profession 
 or business. It is sufficient if he is experienced. 
 Beg. «.^Silverlook C. C. E, [1894] 2 ft. B. 766 
 
 — Letter written by defendant — Opinion of 
 
 witness as to meaning. 
 See Ceiminal Law — False Pretences. 
 29. 
 
 . ®\' — ^ap of inelosure award wTietJier ad- 
 missible to prove boundaries of highway. 
 
 A map of an inelosure award is inadmissible 
 
 CBIMIN'AL LAW (Evidence) — continued. 
 to prove the boundaries of a highway against a 
 deft, on an indictment for obstructing a highway, 
 whose property is adjacent to the highway, and 
 who was not subject to the jurisdiction pi the 
 Inelosure Commrs. in making their award. Ees. 
 V. Beeoer - - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 823 
 
 22. — Migreeeption of evidence — Friicmert 
 jointly indicted — Case stated on behalf of one 
 prisoner only — Crown Cases Act, 1848 (11 & 12 
 Vict. c. 78), s. 2. 
 
 Where two prisoners jointly indicted have 
 been convicted, and a question has been reserved 
 for the consideration of the Court for Crown 
 Cases Eeserved on behalf of one of them, that 
 Court has power, under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 78, s. 2, 
 if it shall be of opinion that the objection raised 
 is valid and that it affects the conviction of both 
 prisoners, to quash the conviction of the other 
 prisoner as well as that of the prisoner on whose 
 behalf the question has been reserved. Beg. v. 
 Saotdebs - - C. C. E. [1899] 1 ft. B. 490 
 
 23. — Perjury — Materiality. 
 
 All false statements wilfully and corruptly 
 made by a witness as to matters which affect hia 
 credit are material, and he is liable to be con- 
 victed of perjury in respect of them. A person 
 charged with selling beer without a licence swore 
 falsely that on a previous charge he had not 
 authorized a plea of guilty, and that such plea 
 was without his knowledge and against his 
 will :— 
 
 Held, that as such statements affected his 
 credit as a witness they were material, and that 
 he was rightly convicted of perjury. Eeg. v. 
 Bakee - C. C. E. [1894] 1 ft. B, 797 
 
 34. — Rape — Particulars of complaint made 
 by prosecutrix. 
 
 Upon the trial of an indictment for rape, or 
 other kindred offences against wornen or girls, 
 the fact that a complaint was made by the pro- 
 secutrix shortly after the alleged occurrence, and 
 the particulars of such complaint, may, so far as 
 they relate to the charge against the prisoner, be 
 given in evidence on the part of the prosecution, 
 not as being evidence of the facts complained of, 
 but as evidence of the consistency of the con- 
 duct of the prosecutrix with the story told by 
 her in Ithe witness-box, and as negativing con- 
 sent on her part. Eeg. v. Lilltman 
 
 C. C. E. [1896] 2 ft. B. 167 
 
 26. — Refraining from giving evidence, Com- 
 ment on prisoner — New South Wales Criminal 
 Law and Evidence Amendment Act (55 & 56 Vict. 
 No. 5). 
 
 Comments by a judge in his summing-up on 
 the fact that a deft, who is competent to igive 
 evidence has not tendered himself as a witness 
 are lawful, but may not be expedient. Kops v. 
 Eeg. Ex parte Kops P. C. [1894] A, C. 660 
 
 26. — Bight of counsel for prosecution to sum 
 up where prisoner gives evidence — Criminal Evi- 
 dence Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 36), ts. 2, 3. 
 
 Where, upon the trial of an indictable offence, 
 the person charged gives evidence in his own 
 behalf, but does not call witnesses, the counsel 
 for the prosecution is entitled, immediately after 
 the person charged has given his evidence, to 
 
( 613 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 614 ) 
 
 CEIKINAIi law (Evidence)— cojiiTOuei. 
 sum up the case for the Grown, and in so doing 
 to comment upon the evidence given by the 
 person charged. Eeg. v. G-ardnee C, C. E 
 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (4); [1899] 1 Q. B. 160 
 
 — Right of Court to comment on prisoner's 
 failure to give evidence. 
 See Criminal Law — False Pretences. 
 30. 
 
 False Pretences. 
 
 Explanation to he given of "false pretences.'' 
 See Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1899 (62 <fc 63 Viet, 
 c. 22), s. 3 and Sched. 
 
 Summary Jurisdiction as to False Pretences — 
 Circular letter dated Aug. 14, 1899, issued hy 
 Secy, of State to clerics to justices in petty sessional 
 divisions, calling attention to the extension of the 
 magistrates' jurisdiction in dealing with indictable 
 offences contained in the Summary Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1899 (62 & 68 Vict. c. 22). 
 
 27. — Adiletic sports — Competitor in handicap 
 — False statements as to name and performances — 
 Attempt to obtain prize. 
 
 On the trial of an indictment for attempting 
 to obtain property by false pretences the following 
 facts were proved. 
 
 Entries for two handicaps were sent to the 
 secretary of an athletic meeting, in the name of 
 Sims, containing statements as to the recent per- 
 formances of Sims, which were very moderate, 
 and in consequence Sims was given long starts. 
 The entries were not written by either Sims or 
 the prisoner. At the meeting the prisoner, who 
 was a good runner, personated Sims, who was 
 absent, and came in first in both races. After 
 the first race the handicapper asked the prisoner 
 whether he was really Sims, whether the per- 
 formance given in the entry form was really his, 
 and whether he had never won a race, as stated 
 in the entry. He answered these questions, 
 falsely, in the affirmative : — 
 
 Held, that the attempt to obtain the prizes 
 was not too remote from the pretence, that the 
 case was rightly left to the jury, and the prisoner 
 was properly convicted. 
 
 Beg. V. Larner, (1880) 14 Cox C. C. 497, dis- 
 approved. Eeg. v. Button 
 
 C, 0. E. [1900] W. N. 176 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 697 
 
 28. — Evidence — Admissibility — Proof jof 
 guilty knowledge — Acts in respect of which defend- 
 ant had been previously acquitted. 
 
 The deft, was indicted for obtaining a cheque 
 by falsely pretending that another cheque, which 
 he then gave to the prosecutor, was a good and 
 valid order for the payment of money. The 
 prosecutor deposed that he gave his cheque to 
 the deft, on the faith of the deft.'s statement that 
 a cheque, which the deft, then gave to the pro- 
 secutor, was a good cheque. The cheque given by 
 the deft, was dishonoured. The deft, stated that 
 when he gave the cheque he expected a payment 
 which would have enabled him to meet it. The 
 deft, was acquitted. He was then tried on a 
 second indictment, charging him with obtaining 
 from other persons three sums of money on three 
 cheques which were dishonoured. To prove 
 guilty knowledge the prosecutor in the first case 
 
 OEIMINAL LAW (False Pretences)- conttnMd 
 was called and gave the same evidence as in the 
 first case. Deft, was convicted, and the ques- 
 tion as to the admissibility of the evidence was 
 reserved : — 
 
 Held, by Lord Eussell of Killowen C.J., 
 Mathew, Grantham, Wright, Darling, and 
 Channell JJ. (Bruce and Eidley JJ. dissenting), 
 that the evidence which had been given on the 
 first indictment, upon which the deft, had been 
 tried and acquitted, was legally admissible upon 
 the trial of the second indictment, for the purpose 
 of proving guilty knowledge, and the conviction 
 was right. Eeo. v. Ollis - - - C. C. B. 
 
 [1900] W. N, 184 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 768 
 
 29. — Evidence — Letter written by defendant 
 — Opinion of witness as to meaning. 
 
 Upon the trial of an indictment for obtaining 
 goods by false pretences, a letter written by the 
 deft, to the prosecutor respecting the goods was 
 put into the hands of the prosecutor, who was 
 asked what opinion he formed as to the position 
 or occupation of the deft, upon the receipt of the 
 letter : — 
 
 Held, that, although the question of the 
 proper inference to be drawn from the letter 
 was for the jury, the question was admissible 
 to shew the inference iu fact drawn from it by 
 the prosecutor. 
 
 A deft, who has been convicted upon an 
 indictment charging him with obtaining credit 
 for goods by false pretences cannot be afterwards 
 convicted upon a further indictment charging 
 him with larceny of the same goods. Eeq. r. 
 King - - 0. C. E. [1897] 1 «. B. 214 
 
 80. — Evidence of subsequent frauds — Right of 
 prisoner to give evidence before grand jury — 
 Bight of Court to comment on prisoner's failure 
 to give evidence — Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 
 (61 * 62 Yict. c. 36), 8. 1. 
 
 On the trial of an indictment for obtaining 
 eggs by false pretences, it was proved that the 
 prisoner had falsely represented by advertise- 
 ments in newspapers that he was carrying on a 
 bona fide dairyman's business. Evidence was 
 admitted that subsequent to the transaction in 
 question he had obtained eggs from other persons 
 by means of similar advertisements : — 
 
 Held, that the evidence Was properly admitted. 
 
 The Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, does not 
 confer on a prisoner the right of giving evidence 
 on his own behalf before the grand jury, nor 
 does it deprive the Court of the right to comment 
 on the failure of the prisoner to give evidence at 
 the trial. Eeq. v. Ehodes 
 
 0. C. E. [1899] 1 Q. B. 77 
 
 31. — False pretences — Form of indictment. 
 
 (a) An indictment for obtaining or attempting 
 to obtain money by false pretences must aver the 
 person to whom the false pretences were made 
 and the person from whom the money was ob- 
 tained or attempted to be obtained. Eeg. v. 
 SowEKBY - - C, C. [1894] 2 Q. B. 173 
 
 (b) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 8. But a count in 
 an indictment charging that A., by causing to 
 be inserted in a newspaper a fraudulent adver- 
 tisement (setting it out), did falsely pretend to 
 the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen that 
 
 X 2 
 
( 615 ) 
 
 fclGBS^ 0# CASteS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( eie ) 
 
 CBIUINAL LAW (False Tieteuces)— continued. 
 (setting out the false pretence), by means of 
 ■which false pretence he obtained a cheque from C, 
 tliough inartistioally drawli. was held sufficient. 
 Eeo. v. Silveelook C. C. B. [1894] 2 ft. B. 766 
 
 (o) Larceny Act, 1861 (24: & 25 Vict. a. 96), 
 8. 95. 
 
 An indictment under s. 95 of the Larceny 
 Act, 1861, charging tlie receiving goods knowing 
 the same to have been unlawfully obtained by 
 false pretences, is good, although it does not 
 specify the nature of the pretences. Taylok v. 
 Keg. - - _ Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 25 
 
 Referred to by Hawkins J. Beg. v. Biley, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 309, 312. 
 
 32. — Juriediclion — False pretences made in 
 Scotland — Goods obtained in England — Debtors 
 Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 62), «. 11, sub-s. 13; 
 «. 13, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The deft., who carried on business in the 
 county of Durham, obtained goods on credit in 
 that county from a traveller of the prosecutors 
 by means of false representations made by the 
 defendant to the prosecutors in Glasgow, in 
 which place they carried on business : — 
 
 Held, that the offence was properly triable in 
 the county of Durham. 
 
 Per Hawkins, Wills and Bruce JJ., on the 
 ground that the offence consisted in obtaining 
 the goods, and not in making the false pretences 
 whereby they might be obtained, and that there- 
 fore an English Court has jurisdiction to try a 
 charge of obtaining goods by false pretences 
 where the goods have been obtained within the 
 jurisdiction of the Court dealing with the charge, 
 although the false representations may have 
 been made beyond the jurisdiction of the English 
 Courts. 
 
 Per Wright J., on the ground that, under the 
 circumstances disclosed in the case, the posses- 
 sion of the goods by the defendant might be 
 treated as a possession in the county of Durham 
 under a representation made in Glasgow and 
 continuing in the county of Durham. 
 
 Rex V. Buttery, cited in 4 B. & A. at p. 179, 
 
 and Pearson v. McGowran, (1825) 3 B. & C. 700, 
 
 discussed. Eeg. v. Ellis - - C. C. E. 
 
 [1898] W. BT. 162 (2) ; [1899] 1 a. B. 230 
 
 33. — Obtaining credit by fraud— Debtors Act, 
 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 13, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The deft, ordered a meal in a restaurant ; 
 he made no verbal representation at the time as 
 to his ability to pay, nor was any question asked 
 liim with regard to it. After the meal he said 
 that he was unable to pay, and that he had 
 (as was the fact) only one halfpenny in his 
 possession : — 
 
 Held, that he could not be convicted of the 
 offence of obtaining goods by false pretences, but 
 that he was liable to be convicted of obtaining 
 credit by means of fraud within the meaning of 
 8. 13, sub-s. 1, of the Debtors Act, 1869. Kbq. v. 
 Jones - - C. C. E. [1897] W. N. 167 (4) | 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 119 
 
 Felony. 
 
 Separation of juries in cases of felony permitted 
 by 60 Vict. e. IB. / .- j i- 
 
 CBIMIKAL LAW — continued. 
 
 Fine or Imprisonment. 
 
 Release of prisoner on payment of portion of 
 fine. See 62 * 63 Vict. c. 11, s. 1. 
 
 Fine or imprisonment {Scotland and IreUmd) 
 Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 11), assimilates the law 
 of Scotland and of Ireland as to imprisonment in 
 default of payment of Fines to that of England. 
 
 Forgery. 
 
 34. — Obtaining money by forged instrument 
 — Forged telegram — Forgery Act, 1861 (24 & 25 
 Vict. c. 98), 8. 38. 
 
 The prisoner was indicted under a. 38 of the 
 Forgery Act, 1861, for obtaining certain money 
 by means " of a certain forged instrument, to 
 wit, a forged telegram." It appeared that the 
 prisoner, who was a clerk in a post office, sent to 
 a bookmaker a telegram offering a bet on a 
 certain horse for a certain race. The telegram 
 purported to have been handed in prior to the 
 running of the race, and the bookmaker accepted 
 the bet and ultimately paid the amount won on 
 that understanding. In reality the telegram 
 was despatched by the prisoner after he had 
 received the news that the race had been won by 
 the horse in question; — 
 
 Held, by Hawkins, Mathew, and Wills JJ. 
 (Lord Eussell of Killowen C.J. and V. Williams J. 
 doubting), that the telegram was a forged instru- 
 ment witliin the meaning of s. 38, and that the 
 indictment was good. Eeg. ii. Eilet 
 
 C. C. E. [1896] 1 Q. B. 309 
 
 larceny. 
 
 Jurisdiction.] The Larceny Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 52), amends the law with respect to the 
 jurisdiction exerciseable in cases relating to the 
 receipt or possession of stolen property. 
 
 — Allegation of reasonable suspicion — Search- 
 
 warrant. 
 
 See JcsTiOES. 12. 
 
 35. — Animus furandi — Function of jury. 
 Upon a trial for larceny the question whether 
 
 the goods were taken animo furandi is a question 
 of fact for the jury. 
 
 A prisoner was indicted for stealing milk ; at 
 the conclusion of the case the jury announced 
 that they were not agreed upon their verdict. 
 They were then asked by the chairman whether 
 they believed tlie evidence for the prosecution, 
 and answered the question in the affirmative; 
 the chairman then directed a verdict of guilty to 
 be entered : — 
 
 Held, that the conviction was bad, there 
 having been no finding by the jury tliat the 
 prisoner had acted animo furandi. Eeg. v. 
 FAnNBOKOUQH - 0, C. E. [1895] 2 Q. B, 484 
 
 — Embezzlement. 
 
 See CRIMINAL Law — Embezzlement. 
 
 — False pretences. 
 
 See Criminal Law — False Pretences. 
 
 36. — Misappropriation by agent — Acceptances 
 —Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), s. 75. 
 
 Certain bills accepted by the prosecutors 
 were delivered to the prisoner to be discounted. 
 
( 617 ; 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 618 ) 
 
 CBIMINAL LAW (LaTceny)— continued. 
 The drawer's name was not then filled in. Sub- 
 sequently the name was filled in and the bills 
 discounted. The prisoner, in breach of a written 
 agreement, misappropriated the money : — 
 
 Held, that the acceptances, at the time of 
 their delivery, were securities for the payment of 
 money within the meaning of s. 75 of the Larceny 
 Act, 1861. Beg. v. Bowbeman 
 
 C. C. B. [1891] 1 a. B. 112 
 
 37. — Misappropriation hy agent — Money in- 
 trusted for safe custody — Larceny Act, 1861 
 (24 & 25 Vict. a. 96), ss. 75, 76— Extradition Act, 
 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 52). 
 
 An agent who is intrusted with money with- 
 out any direction in writing with a view to 
 investment and misappropriates it is guilty of an 
 offence within s. 76 of the Larceny Act, 1861. 
 A bailee cannot be convicted of larceny when he 
 is at liberty or is bound to convert the article 
 delivered to him into something else before 
 returning it or delivering it to the person to 
 whom he is instructed to deliver it. 
 
 Written instructions are essential to con- 
 stitute an offence within s. 75 of the Larceny 
 Act, 1861. In re Bbllenoontre 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 122 
 
 88. — Money paid or deposited under contract 
 induced by fraud. 
 
 Where the owner of money or goods parts 
 with the possession of them under a contract 
 induced by fraud, but does not intend to part 
 with the property in them until the other party 
 to the contract has fulfilled bis part of the 
 bargain, the person so fiuudulently obtaining 
 possession of the money or goods may be con- 
 victed of larceny by a trick. Kes. v. Edssett 
 
 C. C. E. [1892] 2 ft. B. 312 
 — Eeasonable suspicion — Search - warrant — 
 Legality. 
 See Justices. • 12. 
 
 89. — Beceiving. 
 
 A servant of carriers removed a parcel in their 
 depot to a different part of the premises and 
 redirected it to the prisoners. The carrier's 
 superintendent being informed of this, inspected 
 the parcel, replaced it in the place selected by 
 the thief, and sent it to the prisoners, who received 
 it. The conviction was quashed on the ground 
 that the carriers, having resumed possession 
 before the receipt by the prisoners, the parcel 
 had ceased to be stolen property. Eeg. v. 
 ViLLENSKT - - C. C, E. [1892] 2 ft. B. 697 
 
 40. — Beceiving — Property stolen hy wife 
 from husband — Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. 
 c. 96), ». 91 — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. V. 75), ss. 12, 16. 
 
 Two prisoners, a man and a woman, were 
 indicted for stealing property in a dwelling- 
 house, and, in a second count, for receiving the 
 same property. The woman was the prosecutor's 
 wife, and the man had lodged in their house. 
 After he left, the woman packed up the property 
 in question, and sent it to the man, and after- 
 wards left the house, and joined him, and the two 
 lived together. The property was found in their 
 possession. The jury found the woman guilty of 
 stealing, ai>d tjie man of receiving. The ques- 
 
 CEIMINAL lAW (Larosny) — continued. 
 
 tion was reserved, whether the man could be 
 
 indicted for receiving the property : — 
 
 Sold, that, as the stealing by a wife of her 
 husband's property did not amount to a felony 
 either at common law or by virtue of the Larceny 
 Act, 1861, but was made a criminal offence by 
 the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, ss. 12, 
 16, the man was not liable to be convicted under 
 the Larceny Act, 1861, s. 91, of receiving pro- 
 perty stolen by the woman from her husband, 
 and the conviction was wrong. 
 
 Beg. v. Smith, (1870) L. E. 1 C, 0. 266, ap- 
 proved and followed. Eeg. v. Btbbeteb 
 
 C. C. B. [1900] W. N. 176; [1900] 2 ft. B. 601 
 
 41. — Restitution of stolen property— Current 
 coin of the realm — Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 
 Vict. a. 96), «. 100. 
 
 A coin which is current coin of the realm 
 may be sold as a curiosity, and in such a case, if 
 the seller is a thief who has stolen it from the 
 owner and who has subsequently been prosecuted 
 to conviction, an order for its restitution to the 
 owner may be made under s. 100 of the Larceny 
 Act, 1861 :— 
 
 Semble, that no such order could be made if 
 the coin had been passed into circulation as cur- 
 rent money, although it might be possible to 
 identify it. 
 
 A thief stole from the respondent a five- 
 pound gold piece (which by Eoyal proclamation 
 had been made current coin of the realm) and 
 changed it with the appellant, who was a dealer 
 in curiosities, for five sovereigns : — 
 
 Held, that under the circumstances the coin 
 had not been received by the appellant as current 
 coin, and that an order might be made under 
 s. 100 of the Larceny Act, 1861, ordering the 
 appellant to restore it to the respondent. Moss 
 V. Hanoook - Div, Ct. [1899] 2 ft. B. Ill 
 
 Halicious Damage. 
 Maliciously setting fire to woods, heath, gorse, &c. 
 See Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict, 
 c. 22), Sched. 
 
 42. — Assertion of right — Using more force 
 than necessary — Malicious Injuries to Property 
 Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. e. 97), s. 51. 
 
 On the trial of an indictment for malicious 
 damage to property under 24 & 25 Vict. o. 97, 
 s. 51, where the defence set up is a claim of right, 
 the proper direction to the jury is : " Did the 
 defts. do what they did in the exercise of a sup- 
 posed right? " adding that if, on the facts before 
 them, the jury come to the conclusion that the 
 defts. did more damage than they could reason- 
 ably suppose to be necessary for the assertion or 
 protection of that right, then the jury may 
 properly and ought to find the defts. guilty of 
 malicious damage under s. 51. Eeg. ■». Clemens 
 C. C. E, [1898] 1 ft. B, 566 
 
 43. Milk — Adding water to — Fraudulent 
 
 jnolive — Absence of malice — Malicious Injuries to 
 Property Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97), s. 52. 
 
 A milk-carrier who damages his employer's 
 milk by adding water to it, with no intention of 
 injuring his employer, but in order to make a 
 proflt for hjmself by inore^^in^ tlie Ijnjk of thg 
 
( 619 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 620 ) 
 
 CKimiNAL LAW (Malicious Damage)— conid. 
 milk, is guilty of an oifence under s. 52 of the 
 Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861. 
 
 Hall V. Richardson, (1889) 5i J. P. 3i5, dis- 
 approved. EOPEB V. EInott 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 868 
 
 44. — Trespass on grass field — Actual damage 
 — Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861 (24 & 25 
 Vict. c. 97), s. 52. 
 
 The appellant, a trespasser, walked across a 
 grass field of the respondent. The grass was 
 long, and the appellant did damage to the grass 
 to the value of Qd. : — 
 
 Held, that he was liable to be summarily 
 convicted under s. 52 of the Malicious Injuries to 
 Property Act, 1861, which makes it an offence to 
 " wilfully or maliciously commit any damage, 
 injury, or spoil to or upon any real or personal 
 property whatsoever .... for which no punish- 
 ment is hereinbefore provided." G-atpokd v. 
 Chouler - Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B, 316 
 
 IlalicioiiB Frosecution. 
 
 See Maiioious Peosecution. 
 
 Offences against Morality. 
 
 — Betting. 
 
 See Cases under Gamiug. 
 
 45. — " Brothel "■ — Criminal Law Amendment 
 Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 69), s. 13, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A woman who occupies a house and is therein 
 visited by men who have immoral intercourse 
 with her cannot be convicted of keeping a brothel, 
 where she is the only woman so occupying or 
 using the house. Singleton v. Ellison 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 607 
 
 — Brothel— Prosecution for keeping. 
 
 See Jdstioes. 1. 
 
 Offences against the Person. 
 
 46. — Aiding and abetting — Felonious wound- 
 ing—Unlawful wounding. 
 
 Upon the trial of an indictment against two 
 prisoners charging one with feloniously wound- 
 ing with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and 
 the other with aiding and abetting in the com- 
 mission of the felony, if the principal be con- 
 victed of the misdemeanour of unlawfully wound- 
 ing the second prisoner may be convicted of 
 aiding and abetting him therein. Eeg. v. 
 Waudey C, C. E. [1895] 2 Q. B. 482 
 
 47. — Attempt, Evidence of — Discharge of 
 loaded arms — Offence against the Person Act, 1861 
 (24 & 25 Vict. a. 100), s. 18. 
 
 Evidence that the prisoner tried to fire a 
 loaded revolver, and would have fired but for the 
 forcible interference of bystanders : — 
 
 Beld, suiBcient proof of an offence within 
 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 18. Reg. v. Duckworth 
 C. C, E, [1892] a ft. B, 83 
 
 48 Canal hnowledge of girl between thirteen 
 
 and sixteen — Aiding and abetting — Criminal Law 
 Amendrnents Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 69), s. 5. 
 
 A girl between thirteen and sixteen, who aids 
 and abets a male person in having carnal con- 
 nection with her, or solicits and incites such 
 
 OBIMINAL LAW (Offences against the Person) 
 
 — continued. 
 person to have such connection, has not com- 
 mitted any criminal offence. Reg. v. Tyrrell 
 C, 0. E. [1894] 1 ft. B. 710 
 
 49. — Carnal knowledge of girl under thirteen 
 — Emission — Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 
 (48 & 49 Vict. e. 69), 8. 4. 
 
 To prove the offence of unlawfully and 
 carnally knowing a girl under the age of thirteen, 
 under s. 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 
 1885, it is not necessary to prove emission. Reg. 
 V. Marsden - C. C. B. [1891] 2 ft. B. 149 
 
 50. — Carnal knowledge of girl under thirteen 
 by male under fourteen — Criminal Law Amend- 
 ment Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 69), s. 4. 
 
 A male under fourteen cannot be convicted 
 under s. 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 
 1885, of carnal knowledge of a girl under thirteen. 
 Reg. v. Waite - C. C. E. [1892] 2 ft. B. 600 
 
 51. — Carnal knowledge — Power to convict of 
 indecent assault — Criminal Law Amendment Act, 
 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 69), ss. 4, 9. 
 
 A male under fourteen who is tried on an 
 indictment under s. 4 of the Criminal Law Amend- 
 ment Act, 1885, for carnal knowledge of a girl 
 under thirteen, though entitled to acquittal for 
 that offence, may under s. 9 of the Act be con- 
 victed of indecent assault. Whether he might 
 have been convicted of an attempt at rape, qusere. 
 Reg. v. Williams C. C. E. [1893] 1 ft. B. 320 
 
 62. — Indecency — Procuring commission of act 
 of gross indecency — "Another male person" — 
 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 (48 & 49 
 Vict. c. 69), 8. 11. 
 
 By s. 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment 
 Act, 1885, " any male person who .... procures 
 .... the commission by any male person of any 
 act of gross indecency with another male person 
 shall be guilty of a misdemeanour " : — 
 
 Held, that where the prisoner had procured 
 the commission by another male person of an act 
 of gross indecency with the prisoner himself the 
 offence was complete. Reg. v. Jones and Bower- 
 bank - C. C E. [1896] 1 ft. B. 4 
 
 53. — Manslaughter— Neglect of person of fuU 
 age. 
 
 A woman living with and entirely maintained 
 by her aunt so neglected her in illness by not 
 supplying her with food nor medical and other 
 assistance that she died : — 
 
 Held, that the woman was properly convicted 
 of manslaughter. Keg. v. Instan 
 
 C. C. E. [1893] 1 ft, B. 450 
 
 — Rivers pollution — Interrogatories — Whether 
 proceedings civil or criminal. 
 See Discovery — Documents. 39. 
 
 Offences against Property. 
 
 And see Criminal Law, passim. 
 
 54. — Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. u. 62) 
 8. 13, siib-s. 2 — Intent to defraud creditors. 
 
 A pit. in an action to recover unliquidated 
 damages is not until recovery of judgment a 
 "creditor" of the deft, within the meaning of 
 s. 13, sub-s. 2, of the Debtors Act, 1869, which 
 
( 621 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 622 ) 
 
 CSIMINAL LAW (Offences agaiast Property)— 
 
 contirmed. 
 makes it a misdemeauour for any person to make 
 any gift, delivery, or transfer of or any charge 
 upon his property with intent to defraud his 
 creditors or any of them. 
 
 A deft, to such an action, who has, during 
 the pendency of the action, but before judgment, 
 given a bill of sale over his furniture with intent 
 to defeat any judgment which the pit. may obtain, 
 cannot therefore be convicted under that sub- 
 section of having made a charge on his property 
 with intent to defraud the pit. in the action. 
 Ebg. v. Hopkins amd Ferguson 
 
 C. C. S, [1896] 1 Q, B, 652 
 
 55. — Demanding money with menaces — Lar- 
 ceny Act, 1861 (24 <fc 25 Vict. c. 96), s. 44. 
 
 In order to constitute the offence of sending 
 a letter demanding money with menaces within 
 s. 4 of the Larceny Act, 1861, it is not essential 
 that the " menace " should be a threat of injury 
 to the person or property of the prosecutor, or a 
 threat to accuse him of a crime ; the offence 
 may be committed if there be a threat to accuse 
 him of misconduct not amounting to an offence 
 against the criminal law. Keg. v. TomUnson 
 
 C. C. a, [1895] 1 ft. B. 706 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E). Allen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. C. 1, 17. 
 
 — False pretences — Form of indictment for 
 offences involving. 
 
 See Obiminal Law — False Pretences. 
 31. 
 
 56. — " Obtaining credit " — Bankrwptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. Zl— Debtors Act, 
 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 18. 
 
 An intent to defraud is not a material ingre- 
 dient in the offence of " obtaining credit '' within 
 the section. Keg. v. Dyson • 
 
 C. C. E. [1894] 2 ft. B. 176 
 
 Offences by Public Officers. 
 
 67. — Misconduct hy an overseer. 
 
 An offence by an overseer, within the mean- 
 ing of s. 51 of the Parliamentary Eegistration 
 Act, 1843, is not an indictable misdemeanour. 
 Tlie criminal liabilities of public officers con- 
 sidered. Beg. v. Hall - - Charles J. 
 [1891] 1 ft. B. 747 
 
 Fol lowed. Saunders v. Holborn District Board 
 cf Works, [1895] 1 Q. B. 64, 69. 
 
 Offences against the State. 
 — Politioal'offence. 
 
 See EXTJBADITION. 
 
 58. — Uttering counterfeit eoinr^Preiiious con- 
 viction — Coinage Offences Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict, 
 c. 99), St. 9, 12, 37. 
 
 In ss. 9, 12 of the Coinage Offences Act, 1861, 
 "conviction" means only the. finding .by the jury 
 of a verdict of guilty or a plea of guilty. There- 
 fore a person so found guilty, and released on 
 recognisance to come up for judgment when called 
 on, when convicted again is a person who has 
 been "preyiously convicted." Keg. v. Blast 
 
 C. 0. E. [1894] a ft. B. 170 
 
 CEIMINAL JjA'W— continued. 
 Practice. 
 
 59. — Adding counts to indictment for offences 
 not included in summons — Procedure — Administra- 
 tion of Justice Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 42), s. 5— 
 Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 <fc 12 Fieft- 
 c. i?,)— Betting Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 119), 
 ss. 1, 3 — Vexatious Indictments Act, 1859 (22 & 23 
 Vict. c. 17), s. I— Criminal Law Act, 1867 (30 d: 3 1 
 Vict. c. 35),- s. 1 — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879 (42 dk 43 Vict. u. 49), s. 17. 
 
 Where a person accused of an offence triable 
 summarily elects, under s, 17 of tlie Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879, to be tried by a jury, the 
 accused may be committed ,for trial in respect of 
 any indictable '.offence disclosed by the deposi- 
 tions ; and in cases to which the Vexatious Indict- 
 ments Act, 1859, does not apply, or in which the 
 operation of that Act is limited by 30 & 31 Vict. 
 Vict. c. 35, s. I, counts may be added in respect 
 of any indictable offence disclosed by the deposi- 
 tions, although the accused was not summoned 
 in respect thereof. Keg. v. Bbown 
 
 C. C. E. [1895] 1 ft. B. 119 
 
 Referred to by Hawkins J., [18971 1 Q. B. 
 579. 599. 
 
 — Appeal — Jurisdiction — "Criminal cause or 
 
 matter." 
 
 See Appeal. 7—11. 
 
 — Appeal from justices. 
 
 . See Cases under Justices. 
 
 — Appeal to Privy Council — Practice. 
 
 See Pbivy Cotincil — Judicial Com- 
 mittee. 4. 
 
 — Bankruptcy offences. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Offences. 
 
 60. — Coroner's inquisition — Sufficiency of — 
 
 A coroner's inquisition stated that the cause 
 of the death of the deceased, was injury resulting 
 from a fall into a quarry, and that " by the neglect 
 of" (three named persons) "to fence or cause to 
 be fenced the said quarry the said " (deceased) 
 " fell therein, and that therefore the said " (threfe 
 persons) " did feloniously kill " the deceased : — 
 
 Seld, that as the inquisition qualified the 
 finding of manslaughter by a statement of the 
 ground of the finding, and that statement shewed 
 no legal ground for it, the inquisition was bad on 
 the face of it, and might be quashed. Eeg. v. 
 Clerk of Assize of Oxfokd Cibooit 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 370 
 
 — Jury — Trial at Gibraltar should be by. 
 See Gibealtar. 1. 
 
 61. — Libel — Form of indictment — "Mali- 
 ciously "—Libel Act, 1843 (6 i 7 Vict. c. 96), s. 5. 
 
 An indictment for libel alleging that the 
 libel was " unlawfully " published is good al- 
 though it does not allege that the libel was pub- 
 lished "maliciously," as s. 5 of the Libel Aot,^ 
 1843, does not create a new offence nor define an 
 old one, but merely enjoins the punishment for 
 an existing common law offence. 
 
 Semble, that if it had been necessary to allege 
 malice, the defect was cured by verdict. Eeg. v. 
 Munslow - - C. C, E. [1896] 1 ft. B. 768 
 
( 623 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 624 ) 
 
 CEIMINAL LAW (Practice)— conJinued 
 
 62. — New trial — Obstruction of highway. 
 When a deft, ia found guilty on an indictment 
 
 in the Q. B. Div. of obstructing a highway, a 
 new trial may be granted for misdirection, misre- 
 ception of eyidence, and verdict against evidence. 
 Eeg. v. Bergek - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 823 
 — Special leave to appeal in criminal caseB — 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Japan. 1 . 
 
 63. — Subpoena duces tecum — Detention of 
 property for purposes of trial — Justices Protection 
 Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 44), 6. 5— Extradition 
 Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Viet. a. 52), s. 9. 
 
 Where articles are produced in court by wit- 
 nesses, it is right and necessary for the Court to 
 preserve and retain them so that they may bo 
 always available for the purposes of justice till 
 the trial is concluded. The possessory title of a 
 purchaser not in market overt of stolen goods ia 
 divested by his production of them in court under 
 a subpoena duces tecum. Eeg. v. Lushingtoii. 
 Ex parte O-ITO - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 420 
 
 64. — Time of commencing prosecution — Mis- 
 demeanour — Criminal Law' Amendment Act, 1885 
 (48 * 49 Vict. c. 69), ss. 5, 9. 
 
 By . 5 of the Oriminal Law Amendment Act, 
 1885, it is a misdemeanor to unlawfully carnally 
 know a girl between the ages of thirteen and 
 sixteen, and there is a proviso thatno prosecution 
 for that offence shall be commenced more than 
 three months after the commission of the offence. 
 By 8. 9 on the trial of an indictment for rape, the 
 deft, may, if the jury think the facts warrant it, 
 be acquitted of the felony and convicted of the 
 misdemeanor under s. 5. The deft, waa com- 
 mitted for trial for rape, the offence having been 
 committed less than three mouths before his 
 committal for trial. On his trial, which took 
 place more than three months after the commis- 
 sion of the offence, he waa indicted only for the 
 misdemeanor under s. 5, and convicted : — • 
 
 Seld, that the prosecution for the misde- 
 meanor of which he waa convicted was com- 
 menced leaa than three montha from the commiaion 
 of the offence ao aa to comply with the proviso to 
 s. 5. Beg. I). West C. C. B. [1897] W, N. 175 (6) ; 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 174 
 
 65. — Writ of error — Dispensing with attend- 
 ance of plaintiff in error in cases of felony. 
 
 Where a person convicted of felony alleges 
 error upon the record, the Court may, if the pit. 
 in error be in cuatody, dispense with his attendance 
 in court upon the argument of the writ of error. 
 KiOHARDS 1). Eeg. ^Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 674 
 
 CEOFTER — Eegiatralion of voters. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 44. 
 CKOSS-EXAMINATION— Admission of evidence 
 
 of respondent against co-reapondent — 
 
 Bight to cross-examine. 
 
 See Divorce — Evidence. 75. 
 Alimony — ^Answer of husband — Eegistrar — 
 
 Discretion. 
 
 See Divorce — Alimony. 3. 
 Ooata — Proof in solemn form — Notice by 
 
 defendant of intention to cross-examine 
 
 only. 
 
 jSfe Probate — Gyant of Protate, 91, 
 
 CEOSS-EXAMINATION— cojiimtied. 
 
 — Documents — Eejection. 
 
 See Evidence. 33. 
 
 — Unstamped doctiment. 
 
 See Evidence. 43. 
 
 — Witness called by judge — Eight to cross- 
 
 examine. 
 
 See Evidenoe. 46. 
 
 CEOSS PEOCEEDINGS— Action by foreign aove- 
 reign — Diecovery. 
 See International Law. 4. 
 
 CEOSSING VESSELS IN EIVEES— Eegulationa 
 for preventing collisions. 
 See China. 2. 
 
 CEOWN FIEF— Law of Jersey. 
 See Jersey. 1, 2. 
 
 CEOWN — Act of State — Concessions granted 
 before cession — ^Eights after annexation. 
 See Cape or Good Hope. 1. 
 
 1. — Action for ejectment — Equitable defence. 
 In an action of ejectment by the Crown a deft. 
 
 may set up any equitable defence which would 
 be good against a private pit. 
 
 Judgment held to have been rightly entered 
 for the deft, where a concluded contract with the 
 Crown was proved, entitling him to the iaaue of 
 a grant of the land in auit. Att.-Gen. fob 
 Trinidad and Tobago v. Bourne 
 
 J. C. [1895] A. C. 83 
 
 2. — JBona vacantia — Failure of lieirs — Might 
 of Crown — Proceeds of sale of land under Settled 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38). 
 
 A testator, who died in 1882, by his will dated 
 in 1879, devised freehold land to his wife for life, 
 and appointed truateea and executors of his will, 
 but made no further or other devise. There was 
 no heir-at-law of the testator forthcoming. The 
 widow, aa tenant for life, sold the land under the 
 powers of the Settled Land Act, 1882, truateea 
 for the purpoaes of the Act having previously 
 been appointed. The purchaae-money waa paid 
 to the trustees, who on the death of the widow 
 converted the securiticB on which the money was 
 inveated and retained the proceeda, amounting 
 to 1900L The question was whether the Crown 
 or the truateea were entitled to the money : — 
 
 Held, that the tenant for life being dead, the 
 money waa held by the truateea for the heir, if 
 any, and there being no heir, the Crown waa 
 entitled to the money, in its existing state, and 
 not aa inaiating upon the reconversion of it into 
 land : Taylor v. EaygaHh, (1844) 14 Sim. 8, dis- 
 tinguished. Declaration that the Crown was 
 entitled to the fund as bona vacantia, and the 
 residue, after payment of costs, charges, and ex- 
 penses, to be paid accordingly, and, as the trustees 
 had converted the securities, to carry interest at 
 4 (and not 3) per cent, from the conversion until 
 payment. In re Bond. Panbb v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1900] W. N. 122 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 18 
 
 — Bona vacantia — Proof — Corporation — Disaolvi- 
 tion — Eight of the Crown. 
 See PANKRWTOT-^Proof. 1Q5, 
 
( 625 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 626 ) 
 
 CROVT'S— continued. 
 
 8. — Charters. 
 
 The power of the Crown in 1720 as to the 
 grant of charters considei'ed by Lindley L.J. . 
 
 At that date a prerogative charter could confer 
 the right to sue and be sued, to use a common 
 seal, and to make by-laws, but could not confer a 
 monopoly or render the persons incorporated 
 liable for calls. Elve v. Boyton 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 601, at p. 807 
 
 Distinguished. In re Smith, Davidson v. Myrtle, 
 [1896] 2 Oh. 590. " 
 
 — Oivil servants — Power to dismiss at pleasure. 
 
 See New South Wales. 3 — 5. 
 
 4. — Civil service — Tenure of office — Power of 
 dismissal at pleasure. 
 
 Servants of the Orown, civil as well as military, 
 except in special cases where it is otherwise pro- 
 vided by law, hold their offices only during the 
 pleasure of the Orown. Dunn v. Eeo. 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 160 (4); [1896] 1 «. B. 116 
 Eeferred to P. 0. Gould v. Stuart, [1896] 
 A. 0. 575. 
 
 5. — Colonial servants of the Grown. 
 
 A colonial government is on the same footing 
 as the home government as to the employment 
 and dismissal of servants of the Orown ; and in 
 the absence of special contract they hold their 
 offices during the pleasure of the Orown : — 
 
 Where A. during the absence on leave of B. 
 was gazetted to act temporarily in his office and 
 was dismissed before B.'s leave expired : — 
 
 Held, that A. had no cause of action. Shenton 
 V. Smith - - - P. C. [1895] A. C. 229 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. See preceding Case. 
 
 — Contract made by public servant of — Liability. 
 
 See Pkinoipal and Agent. 11. 
 
 — Costs against the Crown — Crown debt — Legacy 
 
 duty — Priority. 
 
 See Eevbnub — Legacy Duty. 124. 
 
 — Exclusive user by — Exemption. 
 
 See Bates — Eateability. 21. 
 
 — Executors — Proceeds of sale of realty not 
 
 effectually disposed of. 
 See Escheat. 1. 
 
 — Exemption from rates of property of volunteer 
 
 corps. 
 
 See Bates. 19. 
 
 — Foreshore — Sea. 
 
 See PiSHBBY. 4. 
 
 — Gold mines — Eights of Orown. 
 
 See Mines. 10. 
 
 — Liability of servants of the Orown — Preroga- 
 
 tive — Jurisdiction. 
 See Teespass. 2. 
 
 8. — Military service — Engagement made with 
 military officer by the Orown — Petition of right. 
 
 No engagement made by the Orown wititi any 
 ot its military or naval officers la respect of ser- 
 vices either present, past, or future, can be 
 enforced in any court of law. Mitchell v. The 
 Queen - - C, A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 121, n. 
 
 7. — Pardon. 
 
 The prerogative of pardon extends to cases of 
 
 CKOVl'S— continued. 
 
 imprisonment for contempt of Court. In re A 
 Special Bepebence fbom the Bahama Islands 
 P. C. [1893] A. C, 138 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Seaward v. Paterson, 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 545, 559. 
 
 — Pension — Bight to — Victoria Public Service 
 Act, 1890—" Prosecutor for the Queen." 
 See ViOTOKiA. 10. 
 
 8. — Prerogative of Crown — Action hetween 
 subjects involving rights of the Crown — Transfer to 
 revenue side — Information by Attorney-Oeneral — 
 Stay of proceedings. 
 
 In an action of trespass in a county court 
 against tenants of the Orown, a question affecting 
 the rights of the Orown over certain land was in- 
 volved. Judgment was given in the county 
 court for the pit. for damages and an injunction, 
 against which the defts. appealed. The Att.-Gen. 
 then filed an information against the pit. praying 
 for a declaration of the rights of the Crown in 
 the matter : — 
 
 Meld, that the Crown was entitled to an order 
 for the transfer of the county court appeal to the 
 revenue side of the Q. B. Div. and for a stay of 
 proceedings therein until after the hearing of 
 the information. Loed Stanley of Aldeeley 
 V. Wild & Son - C. A. [1899] W. N. 265 : 
 
 [1900] 1 a. B. 266 
 
 9. — Prerogative of Crown — Practice — 
 Transfer — Venue— Mode of trial — Selection of 
 Court — Surface of highway. 
 
 Action brought in the Oh. Div. by the Att.- 
 Gen. at the relation of the corporation of Sunder- 
 land, and by the corporation as co-pits., in effect 
 to compel the defts. to restore the surface of a 
 highway in the district of the corporation alleged 
 to have been deprived of lateral support by the 
 excavations of the defts. or their predecessors. 
 
 This was an application by the defts. for the 
 transfer of the action to the Q. B. Div. to 
 be tried at the Durham Assizes by a special 
 jury. The main ground for the application was 
 that it was desirable that there should be a view 
 of the locus in quo. The application was resisted 
 on the ground that it was an interference with 
 the prerogative right of the Crown to select its 
 own Court ; and also on the merits. 
 
 K-ekewich J. said that if he had to decide this 
 question simply on the ground of convenience 
 he would be in favour of transferring the action 
 to the Q. B. Div. to be tried at the Durham 
 Assizes ; but, with regard to the mode of trial, 
 when an action was transferred to another 
 Division, he thought that the better practice 
 was to leave it to the discretion of the judge 
 of that Division to determine whether the action 
 should be tried with or without a jury, and 
 whether with a special or a common jury 
 Without presuming to interfere with the exeroist 
 of that discretion, having regard to the fact that 
 this case would involve the examination of plans, 
 he could see some advantages in having it tried 
 by a judge without a jury. There remained the 
 important question whether the Att.-Gen., suing 
 not strictly ex officio but at the relation of others, 
 had at the present time a prerogative right to 
 selpQt; the tribun^ in whicl( t^e actjon shpuW b§ 
 
( 627 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 628 ) 
 
 CROWN — continued. 
 
 tried; but in the view which he took it was 
 unnecBBsary to decide that question. He had 
 always attached great weight to the discretion of 
 the_ plaintiff in determining in what Division an 
 action should be brought, but that was not con- 
 clusive because there were cases in which that 
 discretion might be exercised so as to interfere 
 with the administration of justice. But the dis- 
 cretion of the Att.-Gen. differed from the dis- 
 cretion of an ordinary pit., because the Att.-Gen. 
 did not give his fiat without a full consideration 
 of the facts of the case, and he should not feel 
 justified in interfering with the exercise of that 
 discretion except in a very strong case. Applica- 
 tion refused. Att.-Gen. v. "WiLSoif 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1900] W. N, 263 
 
 10. — Prescription against Crown. 
 
 The Crown, not being named in s. 3 of the 
 Prescription Act, 1832, is not bound by it; con- 
 sequently no right of light can be obtained by 
 virtue of that section over Innds in possession of 
 the Crown, whether held directly or through 
 trustees. The general words in s. 2, in which 
 the Crown is named, do not apply to an easement 
 of light, which is exclusively governed by s. 3 
 and subsequent ancillary sections. 
 
 (a) Pebbt v. Bames. Salamah v. Eames. 
 ATbboeks' Co. v. Eames 
 
 CMtty J. [1891] 1 Ch, 658 
 
 (b) Wheaton v. Maple & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 48 
 
 — Priority of Crown debts — Debts due to Boards 
 
 of Education — Law of Newfoundland. 
 See Newfoundland. 1. 
 
 — Priority over simple contract creditors. 
 
 See Colony. 6. 
 
 — Priority — Specialty and simple contract debts. 
 
 See Execdtoh — Insolvent Estates. 38. 
 
 - Eateability. 
 
 See Bates- 
 
 -Eateability. 18—21. 
 
 — Eelations between Crown and provinces. 
 
 See Canada. 38. 
 
 — Bight of the Crown — Discovery — Production 
 
 of documents. 
 
 See DisoovEET — Documents. 15. 
 
 11. — Treasure trove. 
 
 The jurisdiction of a coroner with reference 
 to treasure trove is limited by s. 36 of the Coroners 
 Act, 1887, to the determination of " who was the 
 finder and who was suspected thereof." He has 
 no jurisdiction to determine a question of title 
 between the Crown and any other claimant. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Moore Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch, 676 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Att.-Gen. v. Albany 
 Sotel Co., [1896] 2 Oh. 696, 701. 
 
 13. — Treaty — Interference with private rights 
 — Acts of State. 
 
 Quxre, whether the Crown has the power of 
 compelling its subjects to obey the provisions of 
 a treaty made to tei'minate or avert war, or inter- 
 ttrmg with private rights, without the authority 
 ot the Legislature. The municipal Courts have 
 jurisdiction to inquire as to the validity, inter- 
 
 CEOWN — continued. 
 
 pretatiou, &o., treaties, &c,, under which private 
 rights have been interfered with. Walkeb v. 
 Baied - - - P. C. [1892] A. C. 491 
 
 — Trespass — Prerogative of the — Action against 
 
 Lords of the Admiralty. 
 See Teespass. 2. 
 
 CEOWN LANDS-T^Fees in office of land revenue. 
 See Land Eevenue. 
 
 — Laws of New South Wales. 
 
 See Oases under New South Wales. 
 
 CEOWN OFFICE. 
 
 The Crown Office Bules, 1886, relate to the 
 procedure and practice of tlie Crown Office. 
 
 1. — Appeal from quarter sessions — Costs — 
 B. S. C; Order Lxv., r. 1 — Judicature Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 44), ss. 4, 5. 
 
 The practice on the Crown side of the Q. B. Div. 
 is preserved unaltered by s. 4 of the Judicature 
 Act, 1890 ; and there is no power to give costs to 
 a successful appellant in a case stated by quarter 
 sessions, on an appeal against a poor-rate, and 
 brought up by order instead of certiorari. London 
 County Council v. West Ham Ovebseeks (No. 2) 
 C, A. [1892] 2 Q. B, 173 
 
 But see Judicature Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Tict. 
 0. 16), s. 2, sub-s. 3. 
 
 Referred to by Chitty J. In re Fisher, [1894] 
 1 Ch. 53, 55; 0. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 450. 
 
 2. — Mandamus — Prerogative writ. 
 
 The Court will not refuse to grant a preroga- 
 tive writ of mandamus in every case in which an 
 action of mandamus would lie. Beg. v. London 
 AND NoETH Western By. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 «. B. 512 
 
 3. — Mandamus — Prerogative lorit — Second 
 application. 
 
 A second application for a prerogative writ of 
 mandamus to compel a corporation to perform a 
 statutory duty will not he entertained after the 
 first has been discharged, on the ground that no 
 demand and refusal have been made. Beg. i\ 
 Bodmin Justices Div, Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 21 
 
 ■ Pauper, Appeal by. 
 See Praotioe- 
 
 -rorma Pauperis, 
 
 CEOWN SIDE, 
 
 See Crown Office. 
 
 Practice — Forma Pauperis. 23. 
 
 CEOWN SUITS ACT — Company— Executor de 
 son tort — Liability to pay probate duty. 
 See Eevenue — Probate Duty. 134. 
 
 CBTJCIFIX. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law — 
 Faculty. 
 
 CEUELTY— Divorce practice. 
 
 See Oases under Divorce. 
 
 — Prevention of cruelty to animals. 
 
 See Animals. 
 
 Criminal Law— Cruelty to Animals. 
 
 — Prevention of cruelty to children. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Cruelty to Children, 
 
( 629 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 630 ) 
 
 CRUELTY — continued. 
 
 — Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 
 
 1895. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife— 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 CUBICLE— Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Parliament — rranohise. 128, 129. 
 
 CULPA LATA — Annual accounts— Liability of 
 trustees. 
 Scs Tbustee— Breach of Trust. 23. 
 
 CUBATOB — Englisli property — Eight to call for 
 transfer. 
 See Ldnaot — Vesting Order. 46. 
 
 CUBATOB BONIS. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Lunacy. 26. 
 
 — Investments — Liability — Judicial factor — 
 
 Harbour rates. 
 
 See Tbustee — Investments. 65. 
 
 CUETEST OF ENGLAND. 
 
 See Cases under Tenant bt the Cue- 
 
 TESY. 
 
 CUBTILA&E — "Premises within the same cur- 
 tilage.'' 
 See London — Sewers. 60. 
 
 CUSTODY — Infant — Practice — Irish Divorce 
 Bill. 
 See DivosoE — Children. 21. 
 
 — Infant children. 
 
 See Infant — Custody. 
 
 — Libraiy catalogue — Will — Incorporated docu- 
 
 ment.; 
 
 See Peobate. 98. 
 
 — Lunatic. 
 
 See Cases under Lunacy — Custody. 
 
 — Parish documents — Justices — Jurisdiction — 
 
 Order for removal. 
 
 See Pabish Councils. 1. 
 
 — Power of Ordinary as to, and disposal of records. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Custody of 
 Becords, &c. 
 
 — Title-deeds. 
 
 See Title-deeds. 
 
 — Title-deeds — Person having powers of tenant 
 
 for life — Possession. 
 
 See Settled Land. 95 — 97. 
 
 — Trastees — Investment — Convertible securi- 
 
 ties — Bearer bonds — Bankers. 
 See Tbustee — Custody of Title-deeds, 
 &o. il. 
 CUSTOM— Charterparty — Construction — Extent 
 of exclusion of custom. 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 16. 
 
 — Copyholds — Eepairs — Breach of obligation by 
 
 tenant — Eemedy of lord against tenant's 
 
 executors. 
 
 See Copyhold. 3. 
 
 — Copyholds — Fines on renewal of leases for lives 
 
 — Income or capital. 
 
 See Settled Land — Copyholds. 50. 
 
 — Grants of manorial waste. 
 
 See Copyhold. 10. 1 
 
 CUSTOM — continued. 
 
 — Hiring domestic servants — Eeasonableness. 
 
 See Masteb and Servant. 68. 
 
 — Inconsistency with contract — Charterparty. 
 
 See Shippdig- Charterparty. 21. 
 
 — London. 
 
 See Cases under London — Custom. 
 
 1. -^ Parish iull and boar — Parson — Great 
 tithes, charge on — Inclosure Act — Allotment of 
 lands in lieu of tithes — Transfer of liability to 
 custom. 
 
 Where, under an Inclosure Act, lands have 
 been allotted " in satisfaction and discharge of " 
 the great tithes, the burden of keeping up a 
 custom that the parson as owner of the great 
 tithes shall provide and keep a bull and boar for 
 the common use of the parishioners is not, in the 
 absence of express words in the Act to that effect, 
 shifted to the allottees of those lands. Lanch- 
 BUEY V. Bode - Kekewich J. [1898] 2 Ch. 120 
 
 — Eeasonableness. 
 
 See Building Contbact. 2. 
 
 — Eeasonableness — Contract — Notice — Deter- 
 
 mination. 
 
 See Master and Sebvant. 68. 
 
 — Trade — Eeputed ownership — Assignment of 
 
 debt — Bill of exchange. 
 See Bankeuptoy — Order and Disposi- 
 tion, 127. 
 
 2. — ■ Validity — Mecreation — Custom laid in 
 inhabitants of more parishes than one. 
 
 A custom for the inhabitants of several ad- 
 joining or contiguous parishes to exercise the 
 right of recreation over land situate in one of 
 such parishes is bad. Edwaeds v. Jenkins 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] W. N. 142 (4) ; 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 308 
 
 CUSTOMEBS — Broker, bankruptcy of^Surplus 
 in hands of official assignee of Stock Ex- 
 change — Title of trustee in bankruptcy. 
 See Bankeuptoy — Trustee. 252, 253. 
 
 — Canvassing — Injunction. 
 
 See Cases under Pabtnebship — Good- 
 will. 
 
 — Cheque — Defective title — Eeceiving payment 
 
 for a " customer " — Liability of banker, 
 See Bankee. 9. 
 
 — Closing account — Mortgage to secure amount 
 
 owing on account current — Power of 
 
 sale. 
 
 See Bankee. 3. 
 
 — Disclosure of names of customers — Patent 
 
 action — Account of profits. 
 See Patent — Discovery. 3. 
 
 — Effect of crediting, with amount of cheque 
 
 deposited — Effect of drawee bank 
 certifying cheque — Usage. 
 See Newfoundland. 2. 
 
 — Soliciting. 
 
 See Eesteaint op Teade. 15, 16. 
 
 — Soliciting customers — Sale of business — 
 
 Goodwill. 
 
 See Cases under Pabtneeship— Good- 
 will 
 
( 631 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 632 ) 
 
 CUSTOMERS— con/i»i«!(Z. 
 
 — Trade secret^?. 
 
 See Master and Sbkvant — Trade 
 Secrets, 
 
 CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE. 
 
 Bee Caees under Eevenue. 
 
 CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, 1894— Laws of Canada 
 — Date of importation of goods. 
 See Canada. 8. 
 
 CY-PRES— Charity— Failure of objecis. 
 See Feiendly Society. 6, 7. 
 
 — Charity— Gift to. 
 
 See Chakity— Gift to Charity. 20, 21. 
 
 CYPRUS. 
 
 Law of Cyprus. 
 
 — Admiralty jurisdiction in. 
 
 See FoEEiGN Jueisdiotion. 
 
 CYPRUS (Law of Cyprus) — continued. , 
 
 — British jurisdiction in. 
 
 See FoBEiGN Jueisdiotion. 
 
 -^ Extradition. 
 
 See EXTEADITION. 
 
 1. — Legitimacy — Roman Catliolie Ottoman 
 subjects — Law of marriage. 
 
 By the law of Cyprus the legitimacy of a 
 Eoman Catholic Ottoman subject is to be ascer- 
 tained by the canon law of his Church. By the 
 canon law illegitimate children are legitimated 
 by the marriage of their parents authorized by 
 dispensation. By the Hatti Humaioun of 1856 
 and the Cyprus Statute Law of April 11, 1884, 
 suooession is regulated by creed, and that the 
 right to inherit follows from the establishment 
 of legitimacy. Parapano v. Happaz 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 165 
 
( e§3 ) 
 
 biGBST 0^ CASE^, 1891— 19o5. 
 
 ( g§4 3 
 
 D. 
 
 DAIRY' — Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order, 
 1899, dated Feb. 7, 1899. St. K. & 0. 1899, p. 470, 
 No. 135. 
 
 1. — ■ Air-spaoe — Power of loodl authority to 
 regulate — Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 74), s. Zi— Dairies, Cowsh'eds, 
 and Milkshops Order, 1885, s. 13. 
 
 The power given by the Contagious Diseases 
 (Animals) Act, 1878, and the Dairies, Cowsheds, 
 and Milljshops Order, 1885, to local authorities 
 to make regulations for prescribing and regulating 
 the ventilation of dairies and cowsheds, permits 
 a local authority to make regulations respecting 
 air-space in such places. Baker v. Williams 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B 23 
 
 — Kon-removal of milk — " Building." 
 
 See Nuisance. 18. 
 
 — Milk — Sale — Written warranty — " Milk to be 
 
 pure new milk." 
 See Adulteration. 26. 
 SAKAGE. 
 
 See Damaqes. 
 
 DAMAGES — ^Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Cases under Sbippinq. 
 
 — Agent, Authority of — Consideration moving 
 
 from the principal — Special damage. 
 See Principal and Aqent. 4. 
 
 — Book — Piracy — Infringement — Profits. 
 
 See Copyright. 11. 
 
 1. — Compensation — Statutory right to commit 
 damage. 
 
 Where a right is given by statute to do acts 
 causing damage to other person's property, 
 subject to the payment to such person of com- 
 pensation, and the statute provides a special 
 tribunal for assessing the amount of compensa- 
 tion, if such tribunal becomes non-existent, a 
 person whose property has been damaged by the 
 exercise of the statutory right is entitled to have 
 the amount of compensation assessed in the High 
 Court. Bentlet v. Manchester, Sheffield 
 AND Lincolnshire Ey. Co. 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 222 
 
 2. — Contract — Costs of legal proceedings — Sale 
 of goods — Sub-sale — Costs of reasonable defence by 
 purchaser of aelion against him by sub-vendee. 
 
 The pit., a coal merchant at Cardiff, having 
 contracted with shipowners for the supply of coal 
 to their steamers there, entered into a contract 
 with the defts., who were colliery proprietors also 
 carrying on business at Cardiff, for the supply 
 to him of coal, which was expressly stated to be 
 for shipment in those steamers. The defts. com- 
 mitted a breach of their contract in not supplying 
 coal under it with reasonable despatch, in con- 
 sequence of which the supply of coal to one of 
 the steamers by the pit. was delayed and the 
 steamer was detained. The shipowners thereupon 
 made a claim of 150Z. upon the pit. in respect 
 of her detention, and subsequently brought an 
 notion against him to enforce their claim. The 
 
 DAMAGES — continued. 
 
 pit. gave notice of the dlalm and action to the 
 defts., who repudiated all liability, and refused to 
 take up the defence) stating however that they 
 considered the claim preposterouSj and the amount 
 of it excessive. The pit. thereupon defended the 
 action, paying 201. into court, and at the trial he 
 succeeded in shewing that the sum so paid in 
 was sufficient. He then brought an action against 
 the defts. for breach of their contract. The judge 
 at the trial found that the course taken by the 
 pit. in defending the action against him was 
 reasonable : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was entitled under the 
 rule in Hadley v. JBaxendale, (1854) 9 Ex. 341, 
 to recover from the defts. as damages the amount 
 of the costs reasonably incurred by him in defend- 
 ing the action against him over and above the 
 amount which he had received for costs as between 
 party and party from the pits, in that action. 
 
 Hammond & Co. v. Dussey, (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 
 79, followed. 
 
 Baxendale v. London, Chatham and Dover By. 
 Co., (1874) L. E. 10 Ex. 35, discussed. Agius v. 
 Great Western Colliery Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 11 (8); [1899] 1 ft. B. 413 
 
 — Contract — Impossibility of performance — 
 
 Implied condition. 
 . See Contract. 28. 
 
 — Contract to take shares — Proof for injury 
 
 caused by disclaimer by trustee in 
 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 169. 
 
 — Conversion of document — Non-negotiable in- 
 
 strument — Money had and received. 
 See Trover. 6. 
 
 — Copyright." 
 
 See Cases under Copyright. 
 
 — Covenants — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 — Covenant running with land — Covenant for 
 
 quiet enjoyment— Injunction — Compen- 
 sation. 
 See Eailway— Compensation. 3. 
 
 — Debentures — Breach of contract. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 93. 
 
 — Directors — Misfeasance — Improper allotment 
 
 of shares to director at undervalue. 
 See Company — Directors. 116. 
 
 — Distress — Damage feasant. 
 
 See Distress. 5. 
 
 — Divorce — Condonation. 
 
 See Divorce. 28. 
 
 — Divorce — Married woman — Knowledge of 
 
 co-respondent — Absence of evidence — 
 Direction to jury. 
 See .Divorce. 85. 
 
 — Divorce Court— Bankruptcy of co-respondent 
 
 — Provable debt — Judgment summons. 
 See Bankruptcy— Proof. 184. 
 
( 635 ) 
 
 DiaEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 636 ) 
 
 BAMAGSS — continued. 
 
 — by Flood — Artificial watercourse — Sluice- 
 
 gate—Obligation of owner to repair — 
 
 Easement. 
 
 See Water. 37. 
 
 — Gas — Neglect or refusal to supply. 
 
 See Gas. 1. 
 
 — Gas company — Statutory powers — Nuisance 
 
 — Excavation — Injunction — Ancient 
 lights, Interference with. 
 See Support. 1. 
 
 — Husband and wife living apart — Separation 
 
 caused by wife — Subsequent adultery. 
 See Husband and Wife. 75. 
 
 — Implied grant — Derogation — Measure of 
 
 damages. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Landlord's 
 liabUity. 70, 71. 
 
 Order XXXVI., rr. 56-58, relates to writs of in- 
 quiry and references as to damages. 
 
 3. — Inquiry as to damages — Continuing 
 cause of action — R. S. C, Order XXXTI., r. 58. 
 
 In aa inquiry as to damages in respect of a 
 continuing cause of action, the damages are to 
 be assessed down to the date when the assess- 
 ment takes place. Hole v. Chard Union 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 293 
 
 4. — Inquiry as to damages for illegal deten- 
 tion. 
 
 An inqu iry was directed as to damages occa- 
 sioned by detention of cargoes of guano, but 
 the judgment contained no declaration that the 
 detention had been illegal, nor defined the period 
 of time during which it continued. The chief 
 clerk assessed the damages on the assumption 
 that the detentionjlasted from the arrival of the 
 cargoes at their ports of discharge until the 
 date of the judgment, although prior to the judg- 
 ment a receiver had been appointed of the cargoes 
 in controversy : — 
 
 Eeld (1) that the illegal detention ceased on 
 the appointment of the receiver ; (2) that damages 
 for the actual period of illegal detention should 
 be computed at 5 per cent, on the value of the 
 cargoes, and 4 per cent, on the damages so ascer- 
 tained from the cesser of the illegal detention. 
 Perdvian Guano Co. v. Dketeus 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 166 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re A. B. & Co. {No. 2), 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 429, 440. 
 
 8. — Inquiry — Writ of — . 
 An assessment of damages under a .writ of 
 inquiry is for purposes of appeal equivalent to 
 the trial of the action. William Eadam's 
 Microbe Killer Co. v. Leather 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q, B. 85 
 And see Injunction. 14. 
 
 — Instalments— Purchase-money payable by — 
 
 Omission to pay last instalment — Kepu- 
 diation of contract — Specific perform- 
 ance. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser— Contract, 
 35. 
 
 — Interest on bond. 
 
 /See HuBBiND AND Wife— Bond, 27, 
 
 DAMAGES — continued. 
 
 — Irrigation — Land slides — Liability — Injunc- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Canada. 22. 
 
 — Leaseholds — Assignment — Lessor's consent — 
 
 Default of vendor in obtaining — Loss of 
 
 bargain. 
 
 fi'ee. Vendor and Purchaser. 26. 
 
 — Libel — Action for — Publication in foreign 
 
 country. 
 
 See Defamation — libel. 29. 
 
 — Light, Interference with. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Air. 
 
 — Liquidated damages — Condition not to commit 
 
 breach of injunction — Condition depend- 
 ing on one event. 
 See Bond. 
 
 — Liquidated damages — Penalties for delay — 
 
 Extras. 
 
 See Building Contract. 3. 
 
 — Liquidated damages — ^Penally — Public-house. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 13. 
 
 — Malicious damage. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Malicious Damage. 
 
 — to Manufacturer — Underselling — Trade com- 
 
 petition. 
 
 See Trade. 1. 
 
 6. — Mischievous animal — Evidence of scienter 
 — Ferocious dog — Negligence. 
 
 In order to support an action for damages for 
 the bite of a dog it is necessary to shew that the 
 dog had to the deft.'s knowledge bitten or 
 attempted to bite some person before it bit the 
 pit. ; it is not sufficient to shew that it had to 
 the deft.'s knowledge attacked and bitten a goat. 
 Osborne v. Chooqueel 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B, 109 
 
 — Misrepresentation — Wrongful act done by 
 
 deceased person — " Actio personalis 
 moritur cum persona." 
 See Executor. 6. 
 
 — New trial — Practice. 
 
 See Canada. 14. 
 
 7. — Non-completion of worlcs — Penalty. 
 
 A contractor bound himself to pay a certain 
 sum as liquidated damages in the event of non- 
 completion of sewerage works by a specified 
 date : — 
 
 Held, that, as the sums were to be paid on a 
 single event only, viz., on the non-completion of 
 works, they were to be regarded as liquidated 
 damages and not as penalties. Law v. Local 
 Board of Ebdditch ■ C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 127 
 
 — Obstructions —Payable for removal of — Colli- 
 
 sion clause. 
 
 ^^ee Insurance — Marine. 38. 
 
 — Parties — Separate causes of action. 
 
 See Practice — Parties, 118. 
 
 — Passenger's luggage — Condition exempting 
 
 from responsibility. 
 
 See Railway — Passengers, 26. 
 
 — Patent — Infringement. 
 
 See Cases under Patent. 
 
 8. — Refusal to transfer shares — Companies 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 35. 
 
 The measure of damages for refusal to register 
 
( 637 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 638 ) 
 
 SAUA&ES — continued. 
 
 a transfer of shares is the value of .the shares at 
 the time of refusal. In re Ottos Kopje Diamond 
 Mines - - - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 618 
 
 — Eemoteness — Contractor of works. 
 
 See Pbincipal and Agent. 10. 
 
 — Eemoteness^Nervous shock. 
 
 See Action. 2. 
 
 — Remoteness — ^Policy — Collision — Loss by de- 
 
 tention during repairs. 
 
 See Insckanoe — Uarine. 34. 
 
 — Eemoteness — ^Public body. 
 
 See Pbingipal and Agent. 10. 
 
 — Eepairs — Lease and sub-lease. 
 
 See Cases under Landlokd and Tenant. 
 
 9. — Restraining sale of shares. 
 
 The question in this case was as to the 
 damages payable under an undertaking given 
 when an interlocutory injunction was granted 
 to a pit. in an action which was subsequently 
 dismissed : — 
 
 Seld, that the amount payable was the dif- 
 ference between the price of the shares when 
 the injunction was granted and their price when 
 the summons for a sale was issued. Mansell 
 V. Bbitish Linen Co. Bank 
 
 Bomer J, [1892] 3 Ch. 159 
 
 — Sale by directors in one character to them- 
 
 selves in another — Voidable contract — 
 
 Eesciflsion. 
 
 See Compant — Directors. 105. 
 
 — Salvage — Practice — Solicitors' undertaking — 
 
 .Arrests. 
 See Shippinq — Salvage. 2i7. 
 
 10. — Samoa — Suit relating to land in. 
 
 In a suit for the recovery of land in Samoa, 
 held, that the measure of damages was the value 
 of the produce which the lands were capable of 
 yielding at the time they were taken possession 
 of, after deducting the expenses of management. 
 However wilful and long-continued the trespass 
 may have been, there is no law which autho- 
 rizes the disallowance of such expenses or the 
 infliction of a penalty on the defts. beyond the 
 loss sustained by the pit. MoAethub & Co. v. 
 Cornwall - - - P. C. [1892] A. C. 75 
 
 — Sewers — 'Duty of local authority to make — 
 
 Eemedy for default. 
 See Sewebs. 2. 
 
 — Shipment to be made between specified dates 
 
 — Condition precedent. 
 See Sale op Goods. 6. 
 
 — Shooting accident. 
 
 See Trespass. 1. 
 
 — Special damage — Slander. 
 
 See Defamation — Slander, 36. 
 
 — Stranding — Duty of harbour authority. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Harbour. 
 
 — Subsidence — Liability of lessee. 
 
 See Mines — Leases. 18. 
 
 — Support — Eight to lateral — Adjacent lands — 
 
 Escape of pitch — ^Injunction. 
 See SuPFOBT. 1, 2. 
 
 — To cargo — Deviation — Bill of lading. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping— Deviation. 
 
 DAUAOES — continued. 
 
 — To cargo by heat — Bill of lading — Exceptions 
 
 — "Accidents of the seas." 
 
 See Shipping — Exceptions. 129. 
 
 — Trespass by tipping spoil — Measure of 
 
 See Tbespass. 3. 
 
 — Trover. 
 
 See Cases under. Tbovee. 
 
 — Trustee carrying on business — Tort — Eight of 
 
 trustee to indemnity. 
 See Trustee. 53. 
 
 — Undertaking as to — Crown — Interlocutory 
 
 injunction. 
 
 See Injunction. 10. 
 
 — Unliquidated — Bankruptcy of defendant — ■ 
 
 Makiag trustee a party. 
 See Practice — Parties. 88. 
 
 — Unliquidated — Damages for misrepresenta- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Executor. 6. 
 
 — Voluntary settlement — Life interest deter- 
 
 minable on bankruptcy. 
 jSee Bankbuptcy. 263. 
 
 — Waiving tort and claiming profits — ^Wrong to 
 
 public. 
 
 See Tort. 2. 
 
 — "Waste— Sub-demise for purpose of rubbish 
 
 shoot — Injunction. 
 See Waste. 2. 
 
 — Waste by tenant for life— Dilapidation of 
 
 buildings — ^Depreciation of marsh lands. 
 See Settled Land. 89. 
 
 DAMNUM ABSQUE INJUBIA— UnderselUng— 
 Damage to manufacturer — Misrepre- 
 sentation — Trade competition. j 
 See Teade. 1. 
 
 DANGEBOUS MACHINEEY — Factories and 
 workshops — Accident to workman — 
 Compensation 
 
 See Masteb and Sebvant — Factories 
 Acts. 63, 61. 
 
 DAITGEBOUS PEBFOEMANCES ACT, ISgi 
 (60 & 61 Vict. C. 62), extends the age under which 
 the employment of young persons in dangerous 
 performances is prohibited. 
 
 DANGEBOUS STEUCTUBE. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and Tenant 
 — Landlord's Liability. 
 
 — London buildings. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 11, 12, 
 
 DANUBE— Navigation-Collision. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision, 58. 
 
 DAY— Lay day— Bill of lading. 
 
 See Shipping — Demurrage. 109, 110. 
 
 — Eunning day — Bill of lading. 
 
 See Shipping— Demurrage, 114. 
 
 DE PEEBOGATIVA EEGIS— Conditional devise 
 
 to lunatic — Jurisdiction — Election 
 
 Performance of condition by committee. 
 See Lunacy. 30. 
 
 DEAD— Prayers for. 
 
 See BooLEBiASTioAL Law— Faculty. 33. 
 
t 6S9 ) 
 
 DJGESt 01* fiAsilS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 640 ) 
 
 DEATH — of alleged Adulterer before suit — 
 Practice. 
 See DiTOBOE. 36. 
 
 — Allotment of new shares — Deceased share- 
 
 holder — Legal personal representative. 
 See Company — Shares. 270. 
 
 •— of Appointees in lifetime of donee of power- 
 Lapse. 
 See PffWEES. 43. 
 
 ^- of Candidate between nomination and poll — 
 Election of county council. 
 See County Council. 1. 
 
 •^ Contract — ■ Non-completion before death of 
 landowner — Eight of devisee to have 
 contract completed at cost of landowner's 
 personal estate. 
 See Building Contract. 4. 
 
 — Declaration by deceased member against in- 
 
 terest — Act of ownership. 
 See Evidence. 1. 
 
 — of Defendant between trial and judgment — 
 
 Date of judgment. 
 
 See Pkaotice — Judgment. 31. 
 
 — Diary of deceased solicitor. 
 
 See Evidence. 6. 
 
 — Director — '' Actio personalis moritur cum per- 
 
 son8, " — Liability of director. 
 See CoMPANT — Prospectus. 207. 
 
 — Judgment debtor — Charging order — Leave to 
 
 issue execution against executor. 
 See Chakqing Order. 2. 
 
 — Member of company. 
 
 See Company. 9. 
 
 — Notice of meeting — ^Deceased member. 
 
 See Company — Calls. 7. 
 
 — Objects of fund — Unapplied surplus — Main- 
 
 tenance of individuals — Eesulting trust 
 for subscribers. 
 See Trust. 5. 
 
 — Partner. 
 
 See Cases under Partneeship. 
 
 — Partners — Action against partners in- firm 
 
 name— Death of partner after appear- 
 ance — Form of defence of surviving 
 partner. 
 See Practice — Pleading. 159. 
 
 — of Petitioner — Variation of settlements. 
 
 See Divorce. 120. 
 
 — Power of appointment — Death of excepted 
 
 object. 
 
 See Powers. 2. 
 
 — Presumption of — Practice — AiBdavit. 
 
 See Evidence. 40. 
 
 — Presumption of death — Probate. 
 
 See Probate — Presumption of Death. 
 
 — Kegistration of voters. 
 
 See Parliament — Pranohise. 45, 46. 
 
 — Shareholder — Insolvent estate — Proof of debts 
 
 — Liability to future calls. 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 164. 
 
 — Survivor — Death of both legatees before 
 
 determination of life interest. 
 See Will— Survivor. 203. 
 
 D'EAtK— continued. 
 
 — of Vendor before completion — Copyholds- 
 
 Vesting order — Form of order. 
 See Trustee — Vesting Order. 102. 
 
 — Witness — Judge's note of evidence — Admis- 
 
 sibility. 
 
 See Divorce — Evidence. 79. 
 
 DEATH DUTIES. 
 
 See Cases uader Revenue. 
 
 DEBENTURE. 
 
 See Company— Debentures. 
 
 DEBT — Acknowledgment — ^Promise by one of 
 several executors. 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 3. 
 
 — Assignment. 
 
 See Cases under Assignment. 
 
 — Bankruptcy — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Charge on land — Legal remainder— Receiver 
 
 — " Actual delivery in execution." 
 See Judgment Debt. 1. 
 
 — Conditional payment — Effect of giving cheque 
 
 or bill of exchange. 
 See Trade. 2. 
 
 — Executor — Payment of assets to official re- 
 
 ceiver without retaining debt — ^Mistake 
 — Repayment — Eifect of vesting order. 
 See Cases under Executor. 
 
 — Garnishee order — Action upon — Judgment — 
 
 Company — ^Wiuding-up — Creditor. 
 See Attachment, 12. 
 
 — Imprisonment for. 
 
 See Cases under Imprisonment. 
 
 — Legacy — Recital — Erroneous statement of 
 
 indebtedness. 
 
 See Will — Falsa Demonstratio. 89. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of. 
 
 See Cases under Limitations, Statute 
 
 OP. 
 
 1. — Locality of debt. 
 
 Though a debt has no absolute local existence, 
 yet it is a well-settled rule that it possesses an 
 attribute of locality. A simple contract debt is 
 within the area of the local jurisdiction within 
 which the debtor for the time being resides. The 
 locality of a specialty debt is where the specialty 
 is found at the time of the creditor's death. 
 CoMMRS. OF Stamps v. Hope 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 476 
 
 Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Maudslay, Sons & Field, Maudslay v. Maudslay, 
 Sons & Field, [1900] 1 Ch. 602, 608. 
 
 — Maintenance — Sum due under maintenance 
 
 order — Recoverable as a civil debt — 
 Summary jurisdiction. 
 See Poor Law. 8. 
 
 — Mortgage by partner to secure debt of part- 
 nership — Sufficiency of partnership 
 
 See Paetnebship. 41. 
 
 — Poor law. 
 
 See Cases under Poor Law. 
 
 — Preference — Specialty and simple contract 
 
 debts. 
 
 See Executor. 25. 
 
( 641 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 642 
 
 DEBT — continued. 
 
 — Proof for, in bankruptcy. 
 
 See Oases under Bankruptcy — Proof. 
 
 — KeoeiTer — Part payment by — Acknowledg- 
 
 ment — Statute of Limitations. 
 See MoBTSAGE — Becelver. 57. 
 2. — Satisfaction of, by legacy — Legacy to 
 creditor of greater amount. 
 
 A testator was indebted to B. in a sum pay- 
 able within three months of A.'s death. A. left 
 to B. a legacy of greater amount than the debt. 
 No time was fixed for payment of the legacy : — 
 
 Held, that the debt was not satisfied by the 
 legacy. In re Hoblook. Calham v. Smith 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 1 Ch. 516 
 
 — Set-off of debt against calls — Creditor-con- 
 
 tributory — Insolvent company holding 
 shares — ^Winding-up of company. 
 See Company — Winding-dp — Set-off. 
 227. 
 
 — Shares — ^Fnlly paid shares taken in payment 
 
 of debt — ^Proof — Failure of considera- 
 tion. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Proof, 
 206. 
 
 — Specialty and simple contract. 
 
 See ExECUTOB — Administration, 25. 
 
 — Statute-barred debt — Ketainer. 
 
 See Executor — Retainer. 60. 
 
 — Trust for payment of debts — Family arrange- 
 
 ment — ^Liability of estate. 
 See Settlement. 3. 
 
 SDBTOBS ACT, 1869, 
 
 See Cross-references under the Statute 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, in the Table of 
 Statutes judicially considered. 
 
 DECEIT — Action of — Misrepresentation. 
 
 See Company — Misrepresentation. 195. 
 
 1, — Action for — Practice — Infringement — 
 Evidence — Inspection — View hy judge — B. S. C, 
 1883, Order £., r. 4. 
 
 Action by pits, for an injunction to restrain 
 deft., a rival omnibus proprietor, from running 
 omnibuses painted and lettered in imitation of 
 pits.' omnibuses. At the trial, after hearing the 
 evidence of pits.' secretary and panel-painter or 
 writer, Farwell J., with the consent of the parties, 
 inspected pits.' and deft's rival omnibuses, and 
 then stated his conclusion that the painting and 
 lettering of deft.'s omnibus was calculated to 
 deceive the casual passenger ; whereupon the 
 pits, did not offer any evidence of actual decep- 
 tion, and in the result an injunction was 
 
 Held, that the evidence called by the pits, 
 was wholly insufficient to support the conclusion 
 arrived at by the learned judge below. In an 
 action for deceit such as this, a view by a judge 
 under Order L,, r. 4, and sn impression derived 
 by him ftom that view that the deft.'a article so 
 closely resembled the pits.' as to be calculated 
 to deceive, could not take the place of evidence 
 of deceit. In the present case evidence of actual 
 deception should have been called in support 
 of tho pits.' case. Appeal allowed. London 
 Gen^ba;. OMNiBrg Co, .. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^_ ^^ 249 
 
 DECEPTION— Trade name — Similarity of name 
 — Company. 
 See Trade Name. 2. 
 
 " DEDUCING " TITLE— Solicitors' remuneration. 
 See Cases under Solicttok — ^Costs, 
 
 DEDUCTIONS— Income tax. 
 
 See Cases under Ebvenue — Income Tax, 
 
 — Legacies and bequests. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Absolute Gift, 
 
 — Miners' wages — Coal mines. 
 
 See Mines — Coal Mines. 6. 
 
 — Eent. 
 
 See Landlokd and Tenant — Bent. 
 
 — Sucoession duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Succession 
 Duty. 
 
 DEED— Custody. 
 
 See Title-deeds. 
 
 — Delivery to one of several grantees — Evidence 
 
 — Adm issibility. 
 
 See Moetgage— Escrow. 15. fl 
 
 — Effect of recitals in — Notice— Estoppel. 
 
 See Keoitals. 1. 
 
 — Execution of — Presumption. 
 
 See Powers. 13. 
 
 1. — General words— Things ejusdem generis — 
 Constritction of deed. 
 
 f- Where in the operative part of a deed general 
 words follow an enumeration of particular thingti, 
 these words are primS, facie to be construed as 
 having their natural and larger meaning, and 
 are not to be restricted to things ejusdem generis 
 with those enumerated unless there is something 
 which shews an intention so to restrict them. 
 Anderson v. Anderson C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 749 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Stockport Bagged 
 Industrial and Beformatory Schools, [1898] 2 Oh. 
 687, 696. 
 
 — Lost deeds — Secondary evidence. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdrchasbr. 101. 
 
 2. — Beservation of right to work mines — 
 Bight, whether exclusive. 
 
 A clause in a conveyance in fee, executed in 
 1783, and reserving liberty to work mines, held 
 not to operate as an exception and reservation of 
 the mines and minerals, but only as a grant by 
 the deft.'s predecessor in title of a right to work 
 tbem : — 
 
 Held, further, that there was in the deed no 
 indication of an intention to grant an exclusive 
 mining licence sufficient to rebut the established 
 presumption against such an exclusive licence. 
 
 Decision of V. Williams J., [1891] 3 Ch. 504, 
 affirmed. Duke or Sutherland v. Heathcote 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 475 
 
 3. — Besulting trust. 
 
 The partners in a business, by a deed reciting 
 the inability of the firm to pay their creditors, 
 assigned the business and property to trustees 
 upon certain trusts for the creditors. The deed 
 contained no provision for the eventuality of a 
 surplus, but that eventuality occurred : — 
 
 Held, that there was, on the construction of 
 the deed, an absolute disposal for the benefit of 
 the preditor.--, aad no i); suiting trijst for the 
 
( 643 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 (' 644 ) 
 
 93. 
 
 DEED — continued. 
 
 assignors could be implied. Smith v. Cooke. 
 Stoket v. Cooke 
 
 H. 1. (E.) [1891] A. C. 297 reversing C. A. 
 and restoring Kekewich J. (1890) 48 Ch. D. 38 
 Applied by C. A. Gunnach v. Edwards, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 679, 684. 
 
 4. — Rule in Slidley's Case, (1581) 1 Co. Eep. 
 
 Gift to A. for life with an ultimate limitation 
 " to the use of such person as at the decease of 
 A. shall be his heir-at law and of the heirs 8,nd 
 assigns of such person " : — 
 
 Held, that the rule in Shelley's Case did not 
 apply, and that A. took merely a life estate with 
 a contingent remainder in fee to the person who 
 at his death answered the description of his heir 
 or co-heirs-at-law. Evans v. Evans (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 173 
 
 5. — Separation deed ietween man and woman 
 not married — Resumption of co-lmbitation. 
 
 In a separation deed between A. and B., who 
 was living with him as his mistress, A. covenanted 
 to pay an annuity to B. during her life. They 
 resumed co-habitation, and the man died : — 
 
 Beld, that the resumption of co-habitation did 
 not cause the annuity to cease. 
 
 Sectis in the case of a separation deed between 
 husband and wife. In re Abdy. Rabeeth v. 
 Donaldson (No. 2) - C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 455 
 
 — Title-deeds. 
 
 See Title-deeds. 
 
 — Title-deeds — Possession — Priority — Negli- 
 
 gence. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 
 
 52. 
 
 Title-deeds — Purchaser for value without notice 
 
 — Omission to require production — 
 Equitable mortgage — Priority. 
 ;See Mortgage — Priority. 48. 
 
 Title-deeds — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Vendor and PnEOHASER — Title- 
 deeds. 
 DEED OF AREANGEMENT. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Deed of Arrangement. 
 
 DEED OF GIFT. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Convey- 
 ance. 49. 
 
 DEED OF SEVEBANCE. 
 
 See Cases under Joint Tenancy. 
 
 DEEDS. 
 
 See Deed. 
 
 DEFACEMENT— Cabman's licence. 
 See Hackney Caeeiages. 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 Ubd, col. 643. 
 Slander, col. 651. 
 
 Libel. 
 
 — Circular commenting on merits of an action. 
 See Contempt oe Court. 4. 
 
 ■ — Ciroulatlon of newspaper — Interrogatories. 
 See DisooTERY — Interrogatories. 50. 
 1. — GoneoUdation of actions — Practice - 
 
 DEFAMATION (Libel)— continued. 
 
 Jurisdiction — Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888 
 
 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 64), s. 5. 
 
 There is jurisdiction under the Law of Libel 
 Amendment Act, 1888, s. 5, to make an order 
 consolidating actions of libel brought by the same 
 person against several defts. in respect of the 
 same or substantially the same libel before the 
 delivery of defences in the action. Stone v. Press 
 Association - C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 159 
 
 2. — Corporation — Joint stock trading com- 
 pany — Statements injurious to trade — Fair com- 
 ment. 
 
 An action for libel lies at the suit of a joint 
 stock CO. for statements defamatory of the character 
 of the CO. in respect of the management of their 
 business, without proof of special damage. The 
 sanitary condition of cottages let by a colliery co. 
 to its workmen is a matter of public interest, and 
 fair comment thereon is not libellous. South 
 Hetton Coal Co. u. North Eastern News 
 Association - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 133 
 
 3. — ■ Corporation — Municipal Corporation — 
 Charge of corrupt practices — Absence of special 
 damage. 
 
 The right of a corporation to sue for libel is 
 confined to the protection of their property. In 
 an action by a municipal corporation for a libel 
 imputing corruption : — 
 
 Held, that as a corporation, as distinguished 
 from the individuals composing it, cannot be 
 guilty of corrupt practices, the statement of claim 
 disclosed no cause of action. Manohestes 
 Corporation v. Williams 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 94 
 
 Beferred to by C. A. South Hetton Coal Co. 
 V. North Eastern News Association, [1894] 1 Q. B. 
 133, 142. 
 
 — Costs — Mayor's Court — Less than 51. re- 
 
 covered. 
 
 See London — Mayor's Court. 44. 
 
 4. — Criminal prosecution — Newspaper appeal 
 from order of judge allowing prosecution — Laio of 
 Libel Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 64), 
 s. 8. 
 
 An appeal does not lie from an order made by 
 a judge at chambers, under s. 8 of the Law of 
 Libel Amendment Act, 1888, allowing a criminal 
 prosecution to be commenced against the pro- 
 prietors, &c., of a newspaper for a libel published 
 therein. Ex parte Pulbrook 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B, 86 
 
 — Discovery — Inspection of documents. 
 
 See Discovery. 23, 24. 
 
 5. — Falsehood, imputation of. 
 
 Where the name " Ananias " had been applied 
 to A.'s newspaper : — 
 
 Held, that there was no necessary implication 
 of wilful and deliberate falsehood to A., and that 
 whether it was used extravagantly or for the 
 purpose of conveying an imputation on A. was a 
 question for the jury. Australian Newspaper 
 Co. v. Bennett - p. c. [1894] A. C, 284 
 
 — Foreign State, action by — Counter-claim. 
 
 See Practice — Pleading. 150. 
 
 — Form of indictment for. 
 
 See Criminal Law— Practice, 61. 
 
( 615 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 646 ) 
 
 DEFAMATION (Libel)— eontimed. 
 
 6. — Inntiendo — Issue. 
 
 Held, in this case, that the question of the 
 construction of letters alleged to be defamatory 
 should be left to the jury. John Eitchib & Co. 
 V. Sexton - - H, I. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 69 
 
 7. — Interlocutory injunction. 
 
 The deft, in a libel action after losing the 
 case continued to publish documents repeating 
 the libels complained of. The pit. commenced 
 an action for an injunction and damages : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to grant 
 an interlocutory injunction to restrain further 
 publication of the libel ; 
 
 (a) but such injunction refused on the ground 
 that there was no such danger of injury to the 
 pit. in person or property as to make it right to 
 grant it. Salomons v. Knight 
 
 C. A, affirm. North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 294 
 
 (b) Injunction granted. CoLLAEDt;. Mabshall 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 571 
 
 8. — Interlocutory injunction — Contempt of 
 Court. 
 
 The issue by a party of a circular containing 
 libellous ex parte statements and comments on the 
 merits of an action is a contempt of Court which 
 will be restrained by interlocutory injunction. 
 Coats (J. & P.) v. Chadwick 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 347 
 
 9. — Interlocviory injunction — Exhibition of 
 effigy — Discretion, 
 
 Before the Court will grant an interlocutory 
 injunction restraining publication of an alleged 
 libel, it must be satisfied that the case is so clear 
 that a verdict for the deft, would be set aside. 
 M. had been tried for murder in S. and a verdict 
 of not proven was found. T. exhibited an eflSgy 
 of M. in London, and L. did the same at Birming- 
 ham, in both cases in close proximity to "the 
 Chamber of Horrors," and connected by reference 
 with the scene of the murder : — 
 
 Held, by Div. Ct., that the exhibitions were 
 clearly libellous, and that M. was entitled to an 
 injunction till trial. Some evidence of M.'s con- 
 sent was produced before C. A., which held that 
 tho case was not clear enough to entitle M. to. an 
 injunction : 
 
 Held, also (Lord Halsbury diss,), that an in- 
 junction should only be granted in cases where 
 a verdict for the deft, would be set aside as 
 unreasonable : 
 
 Held, also, per Lord Halsbury and Davey L.J., 
 that the jurisdiction to issue injunctions in cases 
 of libel is not confined to trade libels. Monson 
 V. Tussatjds, Ld. Monson v. L. Tussaud 
 
 Both Courts [1894] 1 Q,. B. 671 
 
 Dictum of Lord Halsbury not followed by 
 0. A. Kitts V. Moore, [1895] 1 Q. B. 253, 264. 
 
 10. — Interlocutory injunction — Newspaper. 
 
 (a) An injunction to restrain the sale of a 
 newspaper containing an alleged libel, refused, 
 the Court holding that the truth of the libel 
 ought to be determined by a jury, and the action 
 transferred to the Q. B. Div. Plumely v. 
 Pbrrtman - - North J. [1891] "W. N. 64 
 
 (b) There is jurisdiction to grant an inter- 
 locutory injunction to restrain the sale of a news- 
 paper containing a libellous article, but the 
 
 DEFAMATION (IAh6l)—contimied. 
 
 jurisdiction should only be exercised under very 
 
 special circumstances : — 
 
 Held, per full C. A. (Kay L.J. diss,), that the 
 circumstances of the case did not warrant an 
 injunction. Bonnard v. Peervman 
 
 C. A. (reversing North J.) [1891] 2 Ch. 269 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. J. Lyons & Sons v. 
 Wilkins, [1896] 1 Ch. 811, 827. 
 
 11. — Justification — Particulars, 
 
 A review of plt.'s book stated that the pit. 
 was " by his own confession, a most barefaced 
 liar":— 
 
 Held, that pit. was entitled to particulars 
 specifying the pages in the book at which the 
 several passages relied on by the defts. in support 
 of their defence of justification occurred, and the 
 first and last words of such passages. Devebeux 
 V. Olabkb & Oo. - Div. Ct. [1891] 3 Q. B. 882 
 
 12. — Justification — Particulars. 
 
 In a libel action where the charge against the 
 pit. in the alleged libel is general, a deft, plead- 
 ing justification must state in hia particulars tho 
 facts upon which he relies in support of his 
 justification. Zieeenbebq v. Laeouohebe 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B, 183 
 
 Dictum explained. Waynes Merfhyr Co. v. 
 D. Radford & Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 29, 34. 
 
 — Maintenance by third party of action for. 
 
 See SoLioiTOE — Champerty. 4. 
 
 — Newspaper — Defence of actioil by proprietor 
 
 — -TJltra vires. 
 
 See CoRPOEATiON. 26. 
 
 — Newspaper — Inspection of original manu- 
 
 script. 
 
 See DisoovEET — Dootiments. 24. 
 
 13. — Practice — Misdirection — New trial — 
 "Substantial vrrong or miscarriage" — Action. for 
 libel — B. S. C, Order xxxix., r. 6. 
 
 In an action for libel the judge misdirected 
 the jury in favour of the pit. upon a material 
 part of the libel and the jury gave a verdict for 
 large damages. The 0. A. thought that the 
 nature of the libel was such that the jury would 
 have been entitled * to give, and would probably 
 have given, the same verdict, even if the direc- 
 tion had been the other way, and refused the 
 deft.'s application for a new trial on the ground 
 that in their opinion no "substantial wrong or 
 miscarriage" had been occasioned by the mis- 
 direction, within the meaning of Order xxxix., 
 r. 6 :— 
 
 Hdd, reversing the decision of the C. A., that 
 since the assessment of damages is the peculiar 
 province^ of the jury in an action for libel, and 
 since the jury had not had the deft.'s real case 
 submitted to them and might, in assessing the 
 damages, have been influenced by the misdirec- 
 tion, there had been a substantial wrong or 
 miscarriage within Order xxxix., r. 6, and that 
 there must be a new trial. Beat v. Ford 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 44 
 
 14. — Practice — Payment into court — News- 
 paper — Pleading — Libtl Act, 1843 (6 (fc 7 Viet. 
 e. 96), ». 2— iJ. S. C, Order xxir., r. 1. 
 
 The defts. in an action for a libel iinblished 
 
 Y 2 
 
( 647 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 648 ) 
 
 DEFAMATION (Libel)— continued. 
 ill a newspaper pleaded by way of defence, in 
 accordance with the Libel Act, 1843, s. 2, that 
 the libel was published ■without actual malice, 
 and without gross negligence, an apology, and 
 payment into court of 51. The jury at the trial 
 found that the libel was published without actual 
 malice, but not without gross negligence, and 
 that the apology was sufficient, and they assessed 
 the damages at 51. : — 
 
 Held, that the defts., having made the pay- 
 ment into court as part of a defence under the 
 Libel Act, 1843, s. 2, and having failed at the 
 trial on that defence, were not entitled to avail 
 themselves of the payment into court as being 
 made under Order xxii., r. 1, and therefore the 
 pit. was entitled to judgment. Oxlbt v. Wilkes 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 56 
 
 16. — Privileged occasion — Absolute privilege 
 — Communication made by officer of state in course 
 of official duty. 
 
 A communication made by Secretary of State 
 in Council for India to the Parliamentary Under- 
 Secretary to enable the latter to answer a question 
 asked in the House of Commons with regard to 
 the treatment of an officer in the army, by the 
 Indian military authorities, is absolutely privi- 
 leged, being made by an officer of state to his 
 subordinate in the course of his official duty : — 
 
 Held, that an action for defamation founded 
 on such a statement could not possibly be main- 
 tainable ; and should, therefore, be dismissed as 
 vexatious. Chattekton v. Seoeetaey of State 
 FOR India in Codnoil C. A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 189 
 
 16. — Privileged occasion — Extract from Be- 
 gister of County Court Judgments. 
 
 The publication without malice in a journal 
 for the protection of tradesmen of a mere copy of 
 what is contained in a register of judgments 
 which by statute the public have a right to 
 inspect is privileged. Seakles v. Scaelett 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. E, 56 
 
 17. — Privilege — Judicial 'proceeding — Peti- 
 tion for order for reception of lunatic — Defamatory 
 statement in particulars — Immunity from action 
 —Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Fic«. o. 5). 
 
 A justice of the peace, or other judicial autho- 
 rity, to whom an application is made, under the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, on a petition for an order for 
 the reception and detention of a lunatic, is acting 
 judicially, and consequently defamatory state- 
 ments made in the course of the proceedings are 
 not actionable. Hodson v. Pare 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 466 
 
 18. — Privileged occasion — Seport of judicial 
 proceedings. 
 
 The publication without malice of a fair and 
 accurate report of proceedings in open court 
 before magistrates upon an ex parte application 
 for a summons for perjury is privileged. Kimbee 
 V. Press Association C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 66 
 
 19. — Privileged occasion — Constable — Publi- 
 cation ordered by justices — Report. 
 
 Where the justices for a borough, to facilitate 
 business, at the general annual licensing meeting 
 ordered the head constable to issue to persons 
 navmg busmess at the meeting copies of his 
 
 DEFAMATION (Libel) — continued. 
 
 report stating grounds of objection to renewal of 
 
 licences : — 
 
 Held, that the publication was upon a privi- 
 leged occasion, and that in the absence of express 
 malice an action for libel would not lie against 
 the head constable for defamatory statements in 
 the grounds of objection. Andrews v. Nott 
 Bower - C. A. [1895J 1 ft. B. 888 
 
 20. — Privileged occasion — Excess of privilege 
 — Defamation — Malice. 
 
 The appellant acted for some time as agent 
 to an insurance oo. at his own offices. After 
 some correspondence as to a change of terms 
 upon which the parties could not agree, the co.'s 
 secretary sent to persons who insured through 
 the appellant a circular stating that the agency 
 of the appellant at his offices had " been closed 
 by the directors." The appellant having brought 
 an action for libel against the co. the judge ruled 
 that the statement was capable of a defamatory 
 meaning but that the occasion was privileged. 
 The jury found a verdict Tor the pit., that the 
 statement was a libel, that it was untrue, and 
 that the defts. had exceeded the privilege, but 
 did not find actual malice : — 
 
 Held, that judgment must be for the co., on 
 the grounds that the statement was not capable 
 of a defamatory meaning, that it was true, that 
 the occasion was privileged, that the finding of the 
 jury as to excess of privilege was insufficient, and 
 that there was no evidence of malice for the 
 jury. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 2 Q. B. 156, affirmed. 
 Nevill v. Fine Art and General Insurance 
 Co. - H.L.(E.) [1896] W. N. 171(6); 
 
 [1897] A. C. 68 
 
 21. — Privileged occasion — Licensing com- 
 mittee — Justices' Protection Act (11 & 12 Vict. 
 c. 44), ss. 8, 9 — Local Government Act (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 41), ss. 3, 28, 78. 
 
 The functions of a county council in respect 
 of granting licences for music and dancing are 
 not judicial, but administrative only : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that a councillor is not enti- 
 tled to absolute immunity for words spoken to 
 the committee, but only to the ordinary privilege 
 attaching to a privileged occasion. Eotal 
 Aquaeium and Summer and Winter Garden 
 SooiETT V. Parkinson C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 431 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Hodson v. Pare, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 455, 457. 
 
 22. — Privileged occasion — Monthly circular 
 to servants. 
 
 The defts. in a printed monthly circular 
 issued to their servants stated they had dismissed 
 the pit. for gross neglect of duty : — 
 
 Held, that the occasion was privileged, in the 
 absence of evidence of malice or abuse of autho- 
 rity, as it was clearly to the interest of the defts. 
 that their servants should know that gross mis- 
 conduct would be followed by dismissal. Hunt 
 v. Great Kobthern Et. Co. (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 189 
 
 23. — Privileged occasion — Onv^ probandi. 
 
 A communication, injurious to the character 
 of another, if made bonS. fide from a sense of duty, 
 legal, moral or sjooial, is privileged, and the ojiu| 
 
ei9 ) 
 
 JDIGEST OF tiASBS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 650 ) 
 
 Defamation (libei)— contmuec?. 
 
 of proving malice or tliat the deft, was not acting 
 from a sense of duty lies ou the pit. 
 
 (a) Jenoxibe v. Delmege 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 73 
 
 (b) Stcabt v. Bell C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 341 
 
 (c) Bbat v. Fokd 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1896] A. C. 44, 46 
 
 24. — Privileged occasion — Solicitor — Letter 
 written in discliarge of duty — Publication to clerks. 
 
 A solicitor, acting on behalf of his client, 
 wrote and sent to the pit. a letter containing 
 defamatory statements about her ; the letter was 
 dictated to one clerk and copied into the letter- 
 book by another : — 
 
 Seld, that the occasion was privileged, since 
 the communication, if made by the solicitor 
 direct to the pit., would have been privileged, 
 and the publication to the clerks was necessary 
 and usual in the discharge of his duty to his 
 clients, and was made in the interest of his 
 client. BoxBins v. Goblet Feeees 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 842 
 
 25. — Privileged occasion — Solicitor — Letter 
 written in discliarge of duty. 
 
 A solicitor, on behalf of his client, gave 
 written notice to an auctioneer not to part with 
 the proceeds of sale of goods intrusted to him for 
 sale on the ground that the owner of the goods 
 had committed au act of bankruptcy : — 
 
 Held, that the occasion was privileged, since 
 the solicitor was acting in the ordinary course of 
 his duty to his client, and that the occasion would 
 have been privileged if the client had himself 
 written the letter. Bakee v. Cakeiok 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 838 
 
 26. — Privileged occasion — Statement made to 
 •person believed to have interest or duty. 
 
 A libel is not privileged because the person 
 making the same honestly and reasonably believed 
 that the person to whom it was made had an 
 interest or duty in the matter, if as a fact that 
 person has not such interest or duty. Hebditch 
 V. MacIlwaine - C. A, [1894] 2 Q. B. 64 
 
 27. — Publication — Circulating library — Boole 
 ciraidated in ignorance qf libel contained in it — 
 
 The proprietors of a circulating library 
 circulated copies of a book which, unknown to 
 them, contained a libel on the pit. In an 
 action for libel brought against them by the 
 pit., they failed to shew that it was not 
 through negligence on their part that they did 
 not know that the book contained the libel when 
 they circulated it : — 
 
 Seld, that they were liable as publishers of 
 the libel. 
 
 Emmens \. Pottle, (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 354, dis- 
 cussed. VlZETBLLT V. MuDIE's SeLBCT LiBEART, 
 
 Ld. - - - C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 170 
 
 28. — Publication — Copying letter. 
 It is the duty of a person sending a letter 
 which may be libellous to write it himself and 
 mark it private, and if a, copy be necessary to 
 copy it himself : — 
 
 Held, in this case there had been a publication 
 both to the deft.'s clerks who wrote and copied 
 the letter and to the plt.'s clerks who opened and 
 
 DEFAMATION {"Laely— continued. 
 read the letter in their usual course of duties, and 
 that neither occasion was privileged. Puli man 
 V. Hill & Co. - C. A. lio.iJ 1 Q. B. 524 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Boxsins v. Goblet 
 Freres, [1894] 1 Q. B. 842. 
 
 29. — Publication in a foreign country — 
 Alleged libel — Action for damages — Jurisdiction 
 — Procedure — Pleading. 
 
 An action will lie in this country in respect of 
 an act committed outside the jurisdiction if the 
 act is wrongful both in this country and in the 
 country where it was committed; but it is not 
 necessary that the act should be the subject of 
 civil proceedings in the foreign country. 
 
 The rule enunciated in Phillips v. Eyre, (1870) 
 L. B. 6 Q. B. 1, and The M. Moxham, (1876) 
 1 P. D. 107, applied. Maohado v. Fontes 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 231 
 
 30. — Trade libel — Advertisement — Bival 
 traders. 
 
 An action wUl not lie for a false statement 
 disparaging a trader's goods without special 
 damage. 
 
 An injunction wiU not be granted where no 
 action lies. 
 
 Qusere, whether an action will lie in any case 
 for disparaging a trader's goods merely by saying 
 that some other trader's goods are better either 
 generally or in some specified respect. 
 
 W., proprietor of V.'s food for infants, &c., 
 bought from M. and sold to his customers M.'s 
 infants' food. W. was in the habit of affixing to 
 the wrappers on M.'s food a label stating that 
 V.'s food was far more nutritious and healthful 
 than any other : — 
 
 HM, by H. L. (E.), reversing C. A. and restor- 
 ing Eomer J., that W.'s conduct did not amount 
 to a trade Ubel, but was merely a puff by a rival 
 trader. Mellin v. White 
 
 C. A. and Bomer J, [1894] 3 Ch. 276 ; 
 H, L. (E,) [1895] A. C. 154 
 
 Eeferred by C. A. Hubbuele & Sons v. Wilkin- 
 son, Heywood & Clark, [1899] 1 Q. B. 86, 91. 
 
 31. — Trade libel — Injury to trade — Placard 
 — Circular — Injunction — Jurisdiction. 
 
 The Court has power to restrain by injunction 
 on interlocutory motion the publication of pla- 
 cards and circulars containing false statements 
 iniurious to trade. Collaed v. Marshall 
 
 Chitty [1892] 1 Ch. 571 
 And see No. 34, behw. 
 
 32. — Trade libel — Intimidating circular — 
 Injunction. 
 
 Where a trade union published a poster 
 headed "T.'s black list," giving the names of 
 non-union men employed by T. : — 
 
 Hdd, by Kekewich J., that as on the evidence 
 the principal motive was to injure T. and his 
 non-union workmen, and as the injury was being 
 inflicted from day to day, T. and his workmen 
 were entitled to an interlocutory injunction 
 against the trade union and their servants, &c., 
 and against the secretary and other officers who 
 were defts. by name without addition. Tbollope 
 V. London Building Trades Fedeeation 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] W. N. 29 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A. on the ground that a prima 
 
( 651 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 652 ) 
 
 DEFAMATION (libeyj—continued. 
 facie case had been made out that the defts. had 
 gone further than they were entitled to do, and 
 that they had refused to give an undertaking 
 not to continue the publication. 
 
 C. A. [1895] "W. N. 45 
 
 33. — Trader — Disparagement of goods — 
 Slander of go ids — Comparison of plaintiff's goods 
 with those of d findant— Cause of action — B. 8. C, 
 Order xxv., rr. 2, 4. 
 
 H., a manufacturer of zinc paint, by his 
 statement of claim alleged that the deft. W. 
 was "falsely and maliciously" publishing in 
 China and Japan copies of a report of experi- 
 ments testing the zinc paints of H. and W., in 
 which report the experimenter certified that 
 W.'s paint had a slight adyantage over H.'s, but 
 that for all practical purposes they could be 
 regarded as equal. The statement of claim went 
 on to allege that the report, and each statement 
 in it, was untrue, that H.'s paint was not equal 
 or inferior, but superior to W.'s, and that H. had 
 by reason of the premises been injured in bis 
 business and credit. W. applied to strike out 
 the statement of claim as shewing no reasonable 
 cause of action. The master made an order for 
 striking out the statement of claim unless within 
 a limited time H. amended it by alleging special 
 damage with full particulars. Kennedy J. dis- 
 charged this order : — 
 
 Held, on appeal, that a statement by a trader 
 that his own goods are superior to those of another 
 trader, even if untrue and the cause of loss to the 
 other trader, gives no cause of action ; that the 
 allegation that the statement was made mali- 
 ciously could not convert a statement primS. 
 facie lawful into one primS, facie unlawful ; that 
 the allegation and proof of special damage would 
 not improve the plt.'s case ; and that judgment 
 in the action must be entered for the deft, under 
 Order xxv., r. 4. Hubbuok & Sons, Ld. v. Wilkin- 
 son, Hetwood & Olakk, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B, 86 
 
 — Untrue statement — Unauthorized use of name 
 — Injury — Libel. 
 See Name. 1. 
 
 34, — Words not actionaUe per se^Injury to 
 trade. 
 
 In an action for words not actionable per se, 
 but constituting an untrue statement maliciously 
 published, which statement is intended or reason- 
 ably likely to produce, and in the ordinary course 
 of things does produce, a general loss of business 
 as distinct from the loss of particular known 
 customers, evidence of such general loss of 
 business is admissible, and sufficient to maintain 
 the action. EATCLiFrE v. Evans 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 624 
 
 And see Nos. 30 — 33, above. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Suhhuclc & Sons v. 
 WilUnson, Beywood & Clarli, [1899] 1 Q. B. 86, 
 94. 
 
 Slander. 
 
 Slander of Women Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 0. 51), amends the law rdatinq to the slander of 
 
 DEFAMATION (Slander)— 00B<imMe(i. 
 
 36. — Imputation on town councillor of 
 drunltenness and unfitness for office. 
 
 With respect to offices not of profit, an action 
 for slander will not lie in the absence of proof of 
 special damage unless the imputation be one 
 which if true would be a ground for removing 
 the pit. from his office. Alexander v. Jenkins 
 C. A. [1893] I Q. B. 797 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Booth v. Arnold, [1895] 
 1 Q. B. 571, 575. 
 
 36. — Imputation on town counaillor of mis- 
 conduct inpublic office — Special damage, absence of. 
 
 Words importing dishonesty or malversation 
 in a public office of trust are actionable per se 
 although the office be not one of profit, and 
 special damage need not be proved. Booth v. 
 Arnold - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 571 
 
 — Interrogatories— Action for slander. 
 
 See Discovery — Interrogatories. 58. 
 
 — Misjoinder of plaiutifl's. 
 
 See Peaotioe — Parties. 106. 
 
 — Privileged occasion — County councOlor — 
 
 Licensing committee. 
 
 See Musio and Danoing. 3. 
 
 37. — Privileged occasion — Presence of re- 
 porters. 
 
 A statement was made by a member of a 
 board of guardians at a meeting of the board at 
 which reporters were present : — 
 
 Held, that the privilege which would attach 
 to statements, if made before guardians only, was 
 not taken away by the presence of reporters or 
 the public. Pittabd ■;;. Oliver 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Q. B. 474 
 
 38. — Privileged occasion — Repeating sus- 
 picions as to servant to master. 
 
 The deft, told S., who was a guest in his 
 house, that the police had informed him that S.'s 
 valet was suspected ot theft. S. thereupon 
 dismissed his valet, who sued the deft, for 
 slander ; — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (Lopes L.J. diss.), that, the 
 occasion was privileged, the deft, being under a 
 moral and social, if not a legal, obligation to 
 communicate to S. the information he had received 
 from the police. Stuart v. Bell 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q, B. 341 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Nevill v. Fine Art and 
 General Insurance Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 156, 165 ; 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 68. 
 
 And see Jenoure v. Delmege, P. 0. [1891] A. C. 
 73. 
 
 — Striking out embarrassing pleadings. 
 
 See Pbactioe — Pleading, 162. 
 DEFENCE. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Pleadings, 
 DEFUNCT COMPANIES. 
 
 See Company — Defunct Companies, 
 DELAY — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Cases under SmppiNO. 
 
 — Charging order — Application to discharge — 
 
 Ex parte proceedings — Eractice. 
 See Bankkcptoy. 67. . 
 
( 653 ) 
 
 DIGBS'C OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 654 ) 
 
 SDLAY — continued. 
 
 — Chai'teiparty — Exceptions — Lock-out — Acci- 
 
 dent to railway. 
 Bee Shipping. 131. 
 
 — Clauee allowing deviation at premium to be 
 
 arranged — ^Policy. 
 
 See iNsuEAsrcE — Uarine. 46. 
 
 — Completion of contract for sale of lands — 
 
 " Default "—Interest. 
 
 See Vendok and Pukohasek. 52. 
 
 — Contract of carriage — Owner's risk note — 
 
 Construction. 
 See Eailwat. 4. 
 
 — Demurrage obligation, Continuance o.'' — Delay 
 
 at loading port. 
 
 See SnippiNa — Demurrage, 105. 
 
 — Divorce proceedings. 
 
 See Cases under Divokce. 
 
 — Express trust — Statutes of Limitations. 
 
 See Eeatids, Statute of. 23. 
 
 — In enforcing order for costs against co-respond- 
 
 ent — Execution. 
 See DivoEOE. 48. 
 
 — In proving will — Loss of interest. 
 
 See ExECUTOK. 41. 
 
 — Penalties for — Liquidated damages — Extras. 
 
 See Btolding Conteaot. 3. 
 
 — Probate duty paid under protest — ^Application 
 
 for refund. 
 
 See New South Wales. 38. 
 
 — Purchase by trustee — Express trust. 
 
 See Teustee. 84. 
 
 — Keasonable — "Punctual" payment. 
 
 See MOBTGASE. 39. 
 
 — Sale by directors in one character to them- 
 
 selves in another — ^Voidable contract — 
 
 Kescission — Damages. 
 
 See COMPANT — Directors. 105. 
 
 — Sale of reversion — Equitable interest. 
 
 See Specific Peeeobmance. 4. 
 
 — Solicitors' lien — Charging order — Property 
 
 recovered for company — Application 
 after winding-up. 
 See SoLiciTOB. 10. 
 
 DELIVEEY — Antecedent to gift — ^Essentials to 
 gift. 
 See Donatio Mobtis CausA. 2. 
 
 — Time allowed for taking — Charge for use of 
 
 sidings — Jurisdiction of arbitrator. 
 See Railway. 62. 
 
 DELIVEEY OBDEE — 
 
 Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 (41" * 42 Viet. c. 31), 
 ss. 3, 4; 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 8. 
 
 A " delivery order " on furniture warehousers 
 does not require registration as a bill of sale. 
 Gbigg v. National Guabdian Assdeanoe Co. 
 
 Per Kekewich J. [1891] 3 Ch. 206 
 
 DELUSIONS — WiU — Eelevanoy — Capacity. 
 See Will. 171. 
 
 DEMAND— For rates— Written or verbal. 
 See Eatbs — Eecovery. 66. 
 
 DEMONSTEATIVE LEGACY— Specific legacy or 
 — Construction of will. 
 See Will — Legacy. 124. 
 
 DEMITEEAaE. 
 
 See Shipping— Demurrage. 
 
 DENMAEK. 
 
 See Patent. 
 Teade-maek. 
 DENTIST — Eight to be registered— Qualification. 
 
 See Medical Peactitioneb. 1. 
 "DEPENDANTS" — Workmen's Compensation 
 
 Act, 1897. 
 
 See Mastbe and Seevant. 9, 10. 
 
 DEPOSIT — By way of security — Licence fo 
 assign. 
 See Covenant. 1. 
 
 — Cheque for — Custom — Sale of land by auction 
 
 — Refusal to accept highest bidder. 
 See Vendoe and Pueohaseb. 50. 
 
 — in respect of Inspection of documents. 
 
 See DisoovEET. 2. 
 
 — Parliamentary — Deposits and bonds. 
 
 See Pabliament — Deposits and Bonds. 
 1, 2, 3. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Vendoe and Pubohasee — ^Deposit. 
 
 — Wagering — Agreement by way of — Recovery 
 
 of deposit from stakeholder. 
 /See Gaming. 9. 
 
 — With bank. 
 
 See Insdeance. 13. 
 
 DEPOSIT NOTE — Banker's — Indorsement and 
 delivery — Equitable assignment. 
 See VoLtJNTAET Gift. 1. 
 
 DEPOSITION — In suit to perpetuate testimony — 
 E vidence — Admissibility. 
 See Common. 1. 
 
 — Inspection of deposition — Private examina- 
 
 tion — Subsequent proceedings against 
 
 examinee. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 86. 
 
 — Office copy of — Discovery — Production of 
 
 documents — Privilege. 
 See DiscoVEEY. 28. 
 
 DEPEECIATION— Of capital— Assets. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Assets. 4. 
 
 DEPEIVATION— Sentence of— Subsequent de- 
 position by bishop. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 47. 
 
 DEEELICT VESSELS. 
 
 See Shipping — Derelict Vessels. 
 
 DEEOGATION — Prom grant — Building land— 
 Liglit. 
 See Vendoe and Pubohasee. 40. 
 
 — from Grant — Landlord's liability. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 70, 71. 
 
 DESCENT — Co-parceners — Tracing title from 
 " purchaser." 
 See Intestacy. 1. 
 
 DESCEIPTION— of Deponent— Affidavit. 
 See Evidence. 15. 
 
 — Property in foreclosure order nisi. 
 
 See MoBTGAQE — roreolosure. 19. 
 
 — Witness and grantee of bill of sale — ^Address 
 
 and description. 
 
 See Bill of Sale, 1 — 8, 
 
( 6S5 ) 
 
 DIGEST 01" OASES, 1^91—1900. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 bESCEIPTIVE ■WOED— Trade-mark. 
 
 See Cases under Teade-makk. 
 '— Trade name. 
 
 See Cases under Tbade Name. 
 DESERTION. 
 
 See Divorce— Desertion. 
 
 — Limitations of time for proceeding. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 91. 
 
 — Maintenance — Neglect to provide. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 92. 
 
 — Wages— forfeiture — Deductions. 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 265. 
 DESIGNS (COPYEIGHT IN DESIGN). 
 
 See also under Copybight. 
 Mules in proceedingsiefore Judicial Committee 
 of Privy Council under Patents, Designs and 
 Trade Marks Act, 1883, s. 25. W. N. 1897 
 (Dec, 11), p. 343. See Current Index, 1897. 
 
 Pees.] Notice under the Public Offices Fees 
 Act, 1879, and Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks 
 Act, 1883. W. N. 1898 (Dec. 3), p. 397. See 
 Current Index, 1898, p. xcix. 
 
 Eegistbation op Design.] New rule substi- 
 tuted for rule 6 of Designs Rules, 1890. See De- 
 signs Rules, dated Sept. 15, 1898. W. N. 1898 
 (Dec. 17), p. 408. See Current Index, 1898, 
 p. xcviii. 
 
 Practice, col. 655. 
 
 Registration, col. 656. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 1. — Amendment — Particulars of objections — 
 Terms. 
 
 (a) The rule of practice in patent actions 
 tliat a deft, "will be allowed to amend his par- 
 ticulars of objections on terms that the pit. may 
 elect to discontinue his action, and the deft, bear 
 the costs subsequent to the delivery of his first 
 particulars, applied by North J. in an action to 
 restrain infringement of copyright in registered 
 designs. Mokkis, Wilson & Co. v. Coventry 
 Machinists Co. - North J. [1891] 3 Ch. 418 
 
 (b) But held by C. A. (commenting on this 
 case) that the discretion to allow amendment of 
 particulars in an action for infringement is not 
 affected by any practice as to the terms on which 
 such amendment will be allowed. Woolley ii. 
 Beoad (No. 2) - C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 317 
 
 2. ■ — Interrogatories — Penal action— Patents, 
 &c.. Act, 1888 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 58. 
 
 An action to recover the 50i. allowed to the 
 registered proprietors of the registered design for 
 a contravention of s. 58 of the Patents, &c.. Act, 
 1883, is a penal action, and therefore the pit. 
 cannot interrogate the deft. Saundees v. Wiel 
 (No. 1) - - - C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 321 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Derby Corporation v. 
 Derbyshire County Council, [1896] 2 Q. B. 53, 58 ; 
 [1897] A. C. 550. 
 
 3. — Right to sue — Unregistered licensee — ■ 
 Patents, &c., Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 67), 
 ss. 68, 59. 
 
 A person with the sole right of selling, under 
 a verbal licence, goods manufactured under a 
 fni'fn '"' "^"^^'Sn, has no right to sue for an 
 infringement, or for injuries in respect of the 
 
 DESIGNS (Practice) — continued. 
 same, such right belonging exclusively to the 
 registered proprietor. Woolley v. Beoad (No. 1) 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 a. B. 806 
 
 Beglstration, 
 
 4. — Infringement of design — Pattern, shape, 
 and configuration — Infringement — Patents, &c.. 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), «. 6Q— Designs 
 Rules, 1883, r. 9. 
 
 The pits, registered a design for an upright 
 hexagonal metal stove, the sides of which had the 
 representation in metal work of a church window, 
 of a particular style of architecture, with tracery 
 above and below, the design being registered as 
 applicable to pattern, shape, and configuration. 
 The defts. produced a hexagonal upright stove 
 with a design of a church window, of a difierent 
 stylo of architecture, with different tracery, but 
 the general appearance of the stove was very 
 similar to that of the pits.' stove : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of Kekewich J., 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 593, that the defts.' stove was an 
 obvious imitation of the pits.' stove and an in- 
 fringement of his copyright. 
 
 Secla Foundry Co. v. Walker, Hunter & Co., 
 (1889) 14 App. Cas. 550, applied. 
 
 Where a design is registered as applicable to 
 pattern, shape and configuration, the registration 
 applies to the design as a whole, and it is pro- 
 tected although in one of those particulars it 
 may not be novel. The owner of a registered 
 design is not deprived of his right to protection 
 merely because he places on the articles which 
 he sells, besides the registered number of his 
 design, other numbers which ought not to be 
 there. Where a design is registered, and before 
 the expiration of the term of protection the same 
 design with an unimportant variation is regis- 
 tered, the origiual design may be copied as soon 
 as the original term of protection expires, pro- 
 vided the variation is not copied. John Haepee 
 & Co. V. Weight and Butlek Lamp Manufac- 
 TCEiNG Co. - C. A. [1896] W. N. 146 (3) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch, 142 
 
 Refer] ed to by C. A. In re Clarlte's Design 
 [18S6] 2 Ch. 38, 51. 
 
 6. — " Neto and original design " — Patents, 
 (fee. Act, 1883, s. 47. 
 
 It is not necessary for registration that the 
 design should be novel in its subject-matter. It 
 is sufficient if the application of the design to 
 some article of manufacture be novel. A design 
 in metal for handles of spoons representing a 
 view of Westminster Abbey taken from a photo- 
 graph, held to be a proper subject for registra- 
 tion. Saundees v. Wiel (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 470 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Clarhe's Design, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 38, 44. 
 
 6. — " New or original " — Registration of 
 design — Applicable for pattern — "Pattern" — 
 Marking articles — Statutory requirements — " All 
 proper steps'' — Coffin plates — Patents, &c., Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. v. 57), ss. 47, 51, 60— Desjons 
 Rules, 18£0, r. 9. 
 
 The term "design " in s. 60 of the Patents, &c., 
 Act, 1883, was not intended to be used in any 
 
C 657 ) 
 
 DtGESl' OF dASteS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 658 ) 
 
 DESIGNS (Registration) — continued. 
 technical sense as excluding anything that would 
 ordinarily fall -within it ; and " pattern " as used 
 in that section might include " shape " or " con- 
 figuration " or " ornament." 
 
 The decision of the C. A., In re Bollason's 
 Registered Design, [1898] 1 Oh. 237, affirmed. 
 Heath & Sons, Ld. v. Eollason 
 
 H. L, (E.) [1898] A. C. 499 
 
 7. — Registration — Designs — Shape — Patents, 
 &c., Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 57), ss. 47, 60— 
 Patents, &c.. Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. o. 50). 
 
 C. registered a design for a " Lamp for electric 
 lighting, applicable for its shape." It was, ia 
 fact, a design for a lamp-shade, consisting of a 
 reflecting screen which had been commonly used 
 lor gas lights, and a ventilating top not materially 
 differing from those which had been used before 
 for gas, except that a chimney which was required 
 for gas lights, but not for electric lights, was 
 omitted : — 
 
 Seld (reversing the decision of North J.), 
 that what C. had registered was substantially 
 the old form of lamp-shade with the omission of 
 the chimney, which was useless when the shade 
 was to be applied to electric lights, and that there 
 was no such originality or novelty in the design 
 as to make it a proper subject of registration. 
 In re Clabkb's Design - C. A. [1896] 8 Ch. 38 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re RoUason's Regis- 
 tered Design, [1898] 1 Oh. 237, 246 ; H. L. (E.) 
 [1898] A. 0. 499. 
 
 DESPATCH MONEY— Bill of lading. 
 See Shipping. 33. 
 
 DETENTION — Property for production at trial 
 abroad. 
 
 See Cbiminal Law. 6,3. 
 Exteadition. 1. 
 
 — Ship — Insufficient depth of water — Charter- 
 
 party. 
 
 See Shipping. 38. 
 DETEEMINATION OF CONTRACT- Contract- 
 Hiring of domestic servants — Custom — 
 Eeasonableness. 
 See Mastee and Servant. 68. 
 
 — Tenancy. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant — Determi- 
 nation of Tenancy and Holding Over. 
 
 — Tenancy at will — Doing of repairs by land- 
 
 lord. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 44. 
 
 — Tenancy at will — Mortgage — Creation of 
 
 fresh tenancy. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 43. 
 
 — Trust— Eoad taken over by local authority. 
 
 See Chaeity. 23. 
 DETINUE — Book — Piracy— Infringement — 
 Combining causes of action. 
 See COPTKIGHT. II. 
 
 — Conversion — Demand and refusal —• Time 
 
 when beginning to run. 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 17. 
 1. — Lease fraudulently oUainedr—Conmrsion 
 —Demand and refusal— Statute of Limitations. 
 
 A lease belonging to the pit. was fraudulently 
 deposited with B. B. became bankrupt and the 
 
 DETINUE — continued. 
 
 lease was hnnded to the deft, by the trustee as 
 security. Both B. and deft, were ignorant of the 
 fraud : — 
 
 Held, that the Statute of Limitations only 
 began to run from the date of demand by the pit. 
 and refusal by the deft., and not from the receipt 
 of the deed by B. 
 
 Qusere, whether the original receipt of the 
 lease by B. was sufficient evidence of conver- 
 sion by him. Millee v. Dell 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 468 
 
 EefeiTed to by Stirling J. London and Mid- 
 land Banlc V. Mitchell, [1899] 2 Ch. 161, 166. 
 
 2. — Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839 
 (2 <fe 3 Vict. c. 71), s. 40. 
 
 A magistrate's order, under s. 40 of the Me- 
 tropolitan Police Act, 1839, for the delivery of 
 goods detained is no bar to an action for special 
 damage arising out of the same detention. Mid- 
 land Ey. Co. V. Mabtin & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 178 
 
 3. — Property hy finding — Chattels found on 
 private property — Ring found in pool of water. 
 
 The possessor of land is generally entitled, as 
 against the finder, to chattels found on the land. 
 
 The deft., while cleaning out, under the pits.' 
 orders, a pool of water on their land, foimd two 
 rings. He declined to deliver them to the pits., 
 but failed to discover the real owner. In an action 
 of detinue : — 
 
 Seld, that the pits, were entitled to the rings. 
 
 Bridges v. Hawkesworth, (1851)21 L. J. (Q.B.) 
 75, distinguished. South Staefokdshiee Water 
 Co. V. Shakman - Div. Ct. [1896] 2 ft. B. 44 
 
 — Trover — Combining causes of action — Piracy. 
 
 See Copyright. 11. 
 DEVASTAVIT — Executor — Breach of trust— 
 Eeliunoe on solicitor — Eelief from lia- 
 bility. 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust, 25. 
 
 — Executor guilty of — ^Breach of trust — Court's 
 
 power to excuse. 
 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust, 26. 
 
 DEVIATION— Drainage of group of houses by 
 combined operation — Subsequent devia- 
 tion — Sewer — Nuisance. 
 See London — Sewers, 55. 
 
 — " Lateral deviation." 
 
 See Statutes — Generally. 15. 
 
 — Policy — Delay — Clause allowing deviation at 
 
 premium to be arranged. 
 See Insueanoe — Marine. 46. 
 
 — Shipping. 
 
 See Shipping — Deviation, 
 
 DEVICE— Trade-m ark. 
 
 See Cases under Teade-maek. 
 
 DEVISE — Construction of will. 
 See Cases under Will, 
 
 DEVISEES — Eepresentation in action — " Class," 
 See Peaotioe — Parties. 114. 
 
 DIARY — Entries in — Admissibility as evidence. 
 See Evidence. 7. 
 
 — Of deceased solicitor — Admissibility. 
 
 See Evidence. 6. 
 
( 659 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 660 ) 
 
 DIE — For making fictitious stamp— Possession 
 " without lawful excuse." 
 See Post Office. 1. 
 
 " DIFFERENCES "—Contract—" Cover " system 
 — Gambling transaction — Nullity. 
 See Stock Exchange. 3. 
 
 DIGNITY — Former wife marrying a commoner — 
 Continued use of title derived from 
 former husband — ^Injunction. 
 See Husband and Wife — Title of 
 Honour. 96. 
 
 DILAPIDATION— Buildings— Waste by tenant 
 for life — Depreciation of marsli lands — 
 
 See Settled Laud. 89. 
 
 DIEECTIONS— Summons for. 
 
 See Peaotice— Summons for Directions. 
 
 DIEECTOBS. 
 
 See Company — Directors. 
 
 — Building society — Ultra vires. 
 
 See Building Sooiett — Ultra vires. 10. 
 
 DIRECTORY— Copyright. 
 
 See Copteight — Book, 3. 
 
 — Work done by paid canvassers — Eight of 
 
 employer. 
 
 See Cases under Masteb and Servant 
 — Trade Secrets. 
 
 DISAPPEARANCE— Of person entitled— Grant 
 of administration — Necessity for cita- 
 tion. 
 
 See Pbobate — Grant of Administration. 
 28. 
 
 — Trustee. 
 
 See Tkustee — Vesting Order. 105. 
 
 DISBT7ESEMENTS— Insurance of. 
 
 See Insueance — Marine. 23. 
 
 — by Master. 
 
 See Shipping — lien. 160. 
 
 DISC — Overloading — Liability of owner tor act of 
 master. 
 See Shipping. 185. 
 
 DISCHARGE- Attachment. 
 
 See Attachment. 6. 
 
 — Bankrupt — After-acquired property. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 73. 
 
 — Bankrupt — Practice. 
 
 See Bankrupt — Discharge. 
 
 — Discretion of Lunacy Commissioners. 
 
 See Lunacy. 13. 
 
 — Eeoeiver and manager — Pinal account — Eight 
 
 to indemnity. 
 
 See Eeceivee — Discharge. 26. 
 
 — Ship. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Demurrage. 
 
 — Statutory — Securities. 
 
 See Insueance. 12. 
 
 — Surety. 
 
 See Peinoipal and Surety — Discharge. 
 
 — Time for applying to discharge order— Public 
 
 examination. 
 
 See Company— Winding-up— Examina- 
 tion. 87. 
 
 DISCLAIMER- Bankruptcy practice. 
 See Bankruptcy — ^Disclaimer. 
 
 — Partial disclaimer — Property in England and 
 
 abroad. 
 
 See Teustee — ^Disclaimer. 49. 
 
 — Patent — Practice. 
 
 See Patent — Disclaimer. 
 
 — Trade-mark. 
 
 See Cases under Teade-maek. 
 
 DISCONTINUANCE — Licence — Public-house— 
 Lease — Covenant. 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 18. 
 
 — Non-suit. 
 
 See Practice — Discontinuance. 
 • — Practice. 
 
 See Practice — Discontinuance. 
 
 — Of user by one for several years — Former 
 
 concurrent user by two firms. 
 See Trade Name. 4. 
 
 DISCOUNT — Commercial meaning of. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 218. 
 
 — Issue of shares at a discount. 
 
 See Company— Shares. 273—279. 
 DISCOVERY, 
 
 Order xxxi. relates to Discovery. The Order 
 was amended by M, S. C. of Nov., 1893. 
 
 When granted, col. 660. 
 
 Deposit, col. 660. 
 
 Documents, col. 661. 
 
 Interrogatories, col. 672. 
 
 Particulars, col. 676. 
 Infants — See Explanatory Memorandum to 
 County Court Bules {Maij), 1899, and rule 24, 
 W. N. 1899 (AprU 29), p. 149 ; (May 20), p. 171. 
 See Current Index, 1899, pp. xcii., cxi. 
 
 When granted. 
 
 1. — Discretion. 
 
 There is no hard and fast rule as to the class 
 of cases in which particulars will be ordered to 
 be delivered before discovery, or discovery to be 
 given before particulars ; but the Court wUl, in 
 the exercise of its discretion, look at all the cir- 
 cumstances in each case. Waynes Meethye 
 Co. V. D. Eadfoed & Co. 
 Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 150 (4); [1896] 1 Ch. 29 
 
 Deposit. 
 
 Order xxxi., r. 26, requires a deposit in Court 
 as security for the costs of discovery. 
 
 2. — Further deposit — Inspection of documents 
 referred to in answer to interrogatories— E. S. C, 
 Order xxxi., rr. 15, 17, 18, 26. 
 
 Where interrogatories have been delivered, 
 and the deposit of 51. required by Order xxxi., 
 r. 26, on an application for discovery of docu- 
 ments made, and the affidavit in answer refers to 
 documents, an order can be made for inspection 
 of such documents under rules 15, 18, without 
 requiring a further deposit. Mooee v. Peachet 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B, 707 
 
 3. — Increase deposit — Application to — Time 
 —Object of deposit, B. S. C, Order xxxi., r. 26. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction to order an in- 
 crease in the deposit, although the application is 
 
( eei ) 
 
 DIGEST OP' OASES, 1891— 1900. 
 
 ( 662 ) 
 
 DISCOVERT (De-posit)— continued. 
 
 not made at time when order for discovery was 
 
 made. 
 
 The object of the deposit required by 
 Order xxxi., r. 26, is to prevent jiarsh and 
 oppressive use of the machinery of discovery, by 
 requiring a pledge of good faith on the part of 
 the person seeking it. Cooke v. Smith 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 509, 619 
 
 On another poiut, see Smithy. Goolie, [1891] 
 A. C. 297. 
 
 4. — Several defendants — Discovery of docu- 
 ments — B. 8. C, Order xxxi., r. 26. 
 
 A pit. who brings an action for one and the 
 same cause against several defts. is entitled to 
 discovery of documents from all of them on pay- 
 ment of one sum of 51., even where they sever in 
 their defence. Joyce v. Bbail 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 459 
 
 5. — Several defendants — Discovery of docu- 
 ments — Interrogatories — JJ. S. C, Order XXXI., 
 ■•-. 6. 
 
 A pit. who brings an action against several 
 defts. who sever their defences and appear by 
 different solicitors must pay into court under 
 Order xxxi., r. 26, separate sums of 5Z. both for 
 discovery of documents and for leave to serve 
 interrogatories. Livekpool and Manchester 
 Aebated Bbead and Caee Co. v. Firth 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 1 Ch. 367 
 
 Commented on by Div. Ct. Joyce v. JBeall, 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 459, 462. See preceding Case. 
 
 Documents, 
 (Docnments, Production and Inspection of.) 
 6. — Affidavit of documents — Description — 
 
 In an action for trespass, the defence to which 
 was right of way, pits, filed an affidavit of docu- 
 ments, which described certain documents as 
 numbered 1 to 26, and tied up in a bundle 
 marked A, and initialed by B. : — 
 
 Held, that the affidavit was sufficient, as it 
 sufficiently described the documents to enable 
 the Court to make and enforce an order for their 
 production. Bdddbn v. Wilkinson 
 
 0. A. reversing Div. Ct. 
 [1893] 2 ft. E. 432 
 
 Followed by C. A. Milbanlc v. Milbanh, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 376, 384. 
 
 7. — Affidavit of documents — Description — 
 Svfficiency. 
 
 Where an affidavit of documents is made 
 under a common order for discovery of documents, 
 it is not enough to tie the documents in bundles 
 and number each bundle. Each document must 
 be identified by being specifically marked, and 
 if they are tied up in bundles a description must 
 be given of the character of the documents in 
 each bundle. Cooke v. Smith 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 509 
 
 On another point, see Smith v. GooJie, [1891] 
 A. C. 297. 
 
 8. — Banking account — Inspection of — 
 Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. 
 
 c. 11), 8. 7. . . 1. 1 . 
 
 An order for inspection of entries m a banker s 
 
 DISCOVERY (Documents)— com«m«e(J. 
 books under s. 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence 
 Act,' 1879, will as a general rule be made only 
 where they are entries in an account which is in 
 form or substance the account of one of the par- 
 ties to the litigation. If the Court has jurisdic- 
 tion under that section to order inspection of the 
 banking account of a person not concerned with 
 the litigation, it will exercise that jurisdiction 
 with the greatest caution. 
 
 The pit. sued to rescind a contract for pur- 
 chase by him of shares in a co. from the deft., on 
 the ground that the deft, had induced him to 
 enter into the contract by misrepresentations, 
 one of which was that the co. had a certain large 
 balance at its bankers at that time. Before the 
 action was set down for trial the pit. applied to 
 the Court under s. 7 of the Bankers' Books 
 Evidence Act, 1879, for liberty to inspect and 
 take copies of any accounts of the co. in their 
 bankers' books. Kekewich J . made an order for 
 inspection with the qualification, "but such in- 
 spection is to be limited to shewing the balance 
 of the said co. in the books of the said bankers on 
 the 2nd of Dec, 1895 " :— 
 
 Held, that this order must be discharged. 
 Pollock v. Gable 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 152 (7) ; [1898] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 9. — Bankers' books — Legal proceeding in 
 England — Order to inspect bankers' books in Scot- 
 land — Practice — Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 
 1879 (42 & 43 Viet, c 11), ss. 7, 10. 
 
 In a legal proceeding in England, the Court 
 or a judge has power, under s. 7 of the Bankers' 
 Books Evidence Act, 1879, on the application of 
 any party to the proceeding, to order that such 
 party shall be at liberty, for the purposes of such 
 proceeding, to inspect and take copies of any 
 entries in a banker's book in either of the other 
 divisions of the United Kingdom. Kissam v. 
 Link - - - - [1896] 1 ft. B. 574 
 
 10. — Bankers' books. Inspection of — Privilege 
 — Affidavit of documents — Sealing up entries — 
 Subpoena duces tecum — Bankers' Book Evidence 
 Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 11), «. 7. 
 
 A pit. in obedience to an order of the Court 
 had produced her pass-books, sealing up certain 
 parts which she swore were irrelevent to the 
 matters in issue. An application was then made 
 under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, to 
 inspect the bankers' books : — 
 
 Held, that it must be refused as an attempt to 
 get behind the privilege which allowed the party 
 producing documents to seal up irrelevant 
 matter : — 
 
 Held, also, that an application to issue a 
 subpoena duces tecum for the bankers to produce 
 the books must be refused without prejudice to 
 any application to the judge at the trial. In re 
 Wood. Pabnell (formerly O'Shea) v. Wood 
 
 C. A. [1892] P, 137 
 
 Approved of by C. A. South Staffordshire 
 Tramways Co. v. Ebbsndth, [1895] 2 Q. B. 
 669, 676. 
 
 11. — Bankers' books, Inspection of — Privilege 
 — Entries not relevant — Account of person not 
 party to action — Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 
 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 11), s. 7. 
 
 The jurisdiction to order inspection of entries 
 
( 663 ) 
 
 DI&EST OI' CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( GOi ) 
 
 BiSCOVERy (Documents) —continued. 
 in Baukeis' books under s. 7 of the Bankers' 
 Books Evidence Act, 1879, ought to be exercised 
 in conformity with the general law as to dis- 
 covery, by which a party to an action is entitled 
 to refuse discovery of entries which he swears to 
 be irrelevant. 
 
 Therefore, where the deft, in an action stated 
 on affidavit that entries in his banking account 
 were irrelevant to the matters in dispute :— 
 
 Held, that an order for inspection of those 
 entries before the trial ought not to be made 
 under the above-mentioned Act. 
 
 Semhle, inspection of entries in a banker's 
 books relating to an account kept in the name of 
 a person not a party to the action can be ordered 
 under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, 
 where the Court is satisfied that those entries 
 will be admissible in evidence against a party to 
 the action at the trial ; but such an order ought 
 not to be made unless very strong grounds are 
 shewn for thinking that there are entries in the 
 account which are material to the case of the 
 party asking for inspection. South Stapfoed- 
 SHiEE Tramways Co. v. Ebbsmith 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 669 
 
 12. — Commission issued hy Court in another 
 part of the United Kingdom — Persons not parties 
 to the proceedings — ■ Commissions for taking 
 Affidavits Act, 1843 (Jo&l Viet. a. 82), s. 5. 
 
 The only process intended to be enforced by 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 82, s. 5, is the production of docu- 
 ments as ancillary to the examination of a wit- 
 ness ; and there is not jurisdiction to make an 
 order amounting to discovery against persons not 
 parties to the action. Burohabd v. Maofaelane. 
 Ex parte Tindall C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 241 
 
 — Company — Balance-sheets furnished for 
 
 income-tax assessment. 
 See Discovert. 14. 
 
 — Company — Books — Eight to take free copies. 
 
 See Discovert. 21. 
 
 — Deposition — Private examination — Subsequent 
 
 proceedings against examinee. 
 See COMPANT — ^Winding-up. 83. 
 
 13. — Company— Documents— Action hy share- 
 holder of company — Allegation of conspiracy to 
 defraud company — Company made defendants — 
 Obligation on company to malte discovery of docu- 
 ments — Objection by defendant that discovery may 
 tend to criminate him — Objection must he talcen on 
 oath — B. S. C, Order xxsi., r. 12. 
 
 An action was brought by a shareholder in a 
 CO., on behalf of himself and other the share- 
 liolders of the co., against the directors and 
 another deft, alleging a conspiracy to defraud the 
 CO., and that they had been defrauded thereby, 
 and claiming damages to be paid to the co. The 
 CO. were made defts. : — 
 
 Meld, that the co. were an "other party" to 
 the action within the meaning of Order xxxi., 
 r. 12, and could be called on to make discovery of 
 documents : — 
 
 Seld, also, that an objection by a deft, that 
 the diEoovery of documents may tend to criminate 
 nim can only be taken to the production of the 
 documents alleged to have that effect, and not 
 to the order for discovery, and must be taken 
 
 DISCOVEEY {Tioovmeati)— continued. 
 
 upon oath. Spokes v. Geosvenoe and West 
 
 End Et. TERMrnns Hotel Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 — Company — Register of members. 
 
 See Cases under Compant — ^Register. 
 
 14. — Company — Winding-v/p — Froduclion of 
 doctiments — Income tax returns — Discretion of 
 judge — Officer of Government department — Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 115. 
 
 Under s. 115 of the Companies Act, 1862, the 
 judge has a discretion as to making an order for 
 the production of documents, and the C. A. will 
 not readily interfere with the exercise of his dis- 
 cretion, though it has jurisdiction to do so in a 
 proper case. 
 
 The liquidator of a co., in order to obtain 
 evidence in support of a misfeasance summons 
 which he had issued against the directors of the 
 CO. and the auditors, applied under s. 115 for an 
 order that the surveyor of taxes should attend for 
 examination and produce some balance-sheets of 
 the CO. which had been delivered to him for the 
 purpose of assessment of income tax. The sur- 
 veyor objected to produce these documents, and 
 the Board of Inland Revenue supported his 
 objection by a resolution that their production 
 would be " prejudicial and injurious to the public 
 interests and service " : — 
 
 Held, by Wright J., [1899] W. N. 259, that 
 an order for production ought not to be made 
 under s. 115 : 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the exercise by the judge 
 of his discretion ought not to be interfered with. 
 
 Per Eomer L.J. : The question for decision 
 was not necessarily the same as that which might 
 arise, on the hearing of the misfeasance summons, 
 with regard to a subpoena for the production of 
 the documents in question. 
 
 Per Wright J. : It is not in every case essential 
 that the principal officer of a Government depart- 
 ment should himself attend in court to take such 
 an objection to the production of documents in 
 the possession of the department. In many cases 
 the Court will be satisfied of the validity of the 
 objection by other evidence — e.g., by the affidavit 
 of a responsible officer. In re Joseph Har- 
 GEEAVES, Ld. - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 13 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 347 
 
 — Copies — Eight to take. 
 
 See No. 21, below. 
 
 — County court. 
 
 /See County CouET — Practice. CI. 
 
 16. — Crown, Might of the — Information — 
 Production of documents — Ownership of foreshore 
 and bed of river — Crown Suits, do., Act, 1865 
 (28 & 29 Viet. c. 104), ss. 13, 14, 15, IG— Rules of 
 Court for regulating the Procedure and Practice in 
 Suits by English Infonnation (_Easter Term, 1860), 
 rr. i (1), 5 (5). 
 
 By information in the Q. B. Div. (Queen's 
 Eemembrancer's side) against a corporation, the 
 Att.-Gen. on behalf of the Crown claimed a 
 declaration that the foreshore and bed of a river 
 within certain limits belonged to the Crown. 
 The defts. by their answer claimed to be owners 
 of the same foreshore and bed, within the limits 
 of a port and including the part claimed by the 
 Crown, and to be also conservators of the river ; 
 
C 665 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 666 ) 
 
 DISCOVERY (Documents)— confmueii. 
 and tkey aet out a list of documents relating to 
 the part claimed by the Crown, and alleged that 
 they had no other relevant documents. The 
 Crown did not except to the answer within tlie 
 time limited by the Rules of Easter Term, 
 1866 :— 
 
 Held, that the Crown had the same right of 
 discovery against the corporation as a subject had 
 against a subject in an ordinary action, and that 
 the omission to except to the answer was no bar 
 to such right : 
 
 And held further, that the Crown was entitled 
 to discovery not only of the documents relating 
 to the parts of the river claimed by the informa- 
 tion, but also of anything which might tend to 
 shew that the defts. were not absolute owners of 
 the foreshore and bed of the river to the extent 
 which they claimed to be, including all their acts 
 of ownership as conservators or otherwise, and 
 the documents relating thereto. 
 
 The principles oiAtt.-Gen. v. London Corpora- 
 tion, (1850) 2 Mao. & G. 2i7, and Att.-Gen. v. 
 Emerson, (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 19 1, applied. Att.- 
 Gen. V. NBWCASTLE-TJPaN-TTNB COKPORATION 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B, 384 
 
 — Evidence. 
 
 See Cases under Evidence. 
 
 — Foreign Sovereign — Action by — Cross-pro- 
 
 ceedings. 
 
 See International Law. 4. 
 
 16. — In forma pauperis — Action in — Case laid 
 before counsel— Inspection, Might to — Exhibit to 
 affidavit— B. S. C, Order xvi., rr. 23, 24. 
 
 A pit. suing in forma pauperis cannot be 
 ordered to produce for inspection by the deft, the 
 case laid before counsel under Order xvi., r. 23, 
 and his opinion thereon, even where they have 
 been made exhibits to the affidavit filed in 
 accordance with Order xvi., r. 24. 
 
 In re Binchliffe, [1895] 1 Oh. 117, distin- 
 guished. Sloane v. Britain Steamship Co. 
 
 C, A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 185 
 
 17. — Infant. 
 
 An infant party to an action cannot be com- 
 pelled to make discovery of documents. Curtis 
 V. MtiNDT - - Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 178 
 
 But see now Order XXXI., i. 29, added hy 
 U. S. C, Nov. 1893. 
 
 18. — Infant — Next friend — Affidavit of docu- 
 ments — B. S. C; Order xxxi., r. 12 — Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 100. 
 
 The next friend of an infant pit. is not a 
 " party " to the action who can be ordered to 
 make discovery of documents. Scott v. Consoli- 
 dated Bank Kekewich J. [1893] W. H. 56 
 
 But see now Order xxxi., r. 29, added hy 
 B. 8. a, Nov. 1893. 
 
 19. — Inspection — Documents forming part of 
 defendants' case only— Affidavit conclusive. 
 
 In an action for an alleged misrepresentation 
 in the prospectus of a co. the statement com- 
 plained of was that 12,500 persons had enrolled 
 themselves as annual subscribers to the co. In 
 an affidavit of documents the defta. stated that 
 they had in their posaessiQij 12,500 applications 
 \<y persons vfi^hipg to be f!nxolle4 ^s »niii*al sub- 
 
 DISCOVERY (Dooumeuts)—oo«WnMe(Z. 
 
 scribers to the co., but that they objected to 
 produce them on the ground that they were part 
 of the evidence supporting the defts.' case, and 
 did not support or tend to support the plt.'s case, 
 and contained nothing Impeaching the case of 
 the defts. ; — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was not entitled to inspec- 
 tion of the applications. Frankenstein v. Gavin's 
 HonsE-TO-HousE Cycle Cleaning and Insurance 
 Co. - - C, A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 68 
 
 20, — Inspection — Documents referred to in 
 affidavit — Order xxxi., rr. 15-18. 
 
 Notice of motion to set aside an award on the 
 ground of misconduct of an arbitrator having 
 been given, an affidavit was sworn by the arbi- 
 trator for the purpose of being used by the party 
 in whose favour the award was made at the hear- 
 ing of the motion. This affidavit referred to 
 certain letters which had passed between that 
 party's solicitor and the arbitrator. The affidavit 
 was not filed, but a copy of it had been furnished 
 to the opposite party : — 
 
 Held, that the letters were documents referred 
 to in an affidavit within the meaning of Order 
 XXXI., r. 15, and therefore a judge had jurisdiction 
 to make an order for inspection of them under 
 rule 18 of the order. In re Fbnneb and Lord 
 
 C, A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 667 
 
 21. — Inspection of ioolcs — Bight to take free 
 copies — Companies Act, 1862 (25 <fe 26 Vict. c. 89), 
 s. 156. 
 
 An order had been made in the ordinary form 
 (see Palmer's Company Precedents, 7th ed. vol. ii. 
 pp. 112, 113) giving the applicant liberty to in- 
 spect documents in the possession of the liquidator 
 at all reasonable timea, and to take copies at hia 
 own expense ; and the question was raised whether 
 the applicant was at liberty to take the copies 
 and extracts himself, or only to have copies fur- 
 nished to him on paying for the same : — 
 
 Held, that the order had been made in the 
 ordinary form — to take copies — which meant to 
 take copies without paying for them. In re 
 Arauco Co. - "Wright J. [1899] W. N, 134 
 
 22, — Lease — Forfeiture of. Action for — 
 Affidavit of documents — Interrogatories — B. S. C, 
 Order xxxi., rr. 1, 2, 12. 
 
 In an action to enforce a forfeiture of a lease 
 for breach of covenant the Court will not giant 
 discovery of documents or leave to administer 
 interrogatories for the purpose of establishing the 
 forfeiture. 
 
 Pye V. Butterjield, (1864) 5 B. & S. 829, 
 approved of. Seaward v. Dennington, (1896) 44 
 W. E. 696, overruled. Mexboeoogh (Earl oe^ 
 V. Whitwood Urban District Council ■ 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. Ill 
 — Libel — Interrogatories. 
 
 See Discovery- Interrogatories. 50, 51. 
 
 23. — Libel — Particulars of justification — In- 
 spection of documents — B. S. C., Order xxxvi 
 r. 37. 
 
 In an action for libel, if the deft, puts in a 
 plea of justification and delivers particulara in 
 support of liis plea, the issues to be tried under 
 that plea are limited to the matters referred to 
 ii^ the particulars ; an4 the 46ft, cap only obtain 
 
( 667 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 DISCOVEBT (DocnmBnts)— continued. 
 discovery of documents relating to those matters. 
 ToBKSHiRE Pbovident Lite Assueanoe Co. v. 
 Gilbert & Kivinston C. A, [1895] 2 Q. B. 148 
 
 24. — lAbel in newspaper — Original manu- 
 script — Discretion — Inspection of documents — 
 Jt. 8. a., Order xxxi., r. 18. 
 
 In an action against llie proprietors of a news- 
 paper for a libel published therein the defts., 
 ■who had admitted the publication of the libel 
 and pleaded an apology and payment into court, 
 stated in an affidavit of documents made by them 
 that they had in their possession a manuscript 
 which they objected to produce on the ground 
 that it was the original contribution to them, and 
 that which was published by them as admitted 
 in their defence : — 
 
 Meld, that an order ought not to be made for 
 inspection by the pit. of the manuscript. 
 
 Hennessy v. Wright. (1888) 24 Q. B. D. 445, 
 followed. Bustros v. White, (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 
 423, considered. Hope v. Brash 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 188 
 
 — Omission to require — Title-deeds — Purchaser 
 
 for value without notice — Equitable 
 
 — moitga ge^Priority. 
 
 See Mortgage — Priority. 48. 
 
 25. — Order to attend and produce documents 
 — Tliird party — Right of person summoned to raise 
 objections to production — M. S. C, Order xxxvii., 
 r. 7. 
 
 An order to attend and produce documents 
 before a special examiner of the Court under 
 Order xxsi., r. 7, is in the nature of a subpoena 
 duces tecum. It may be made ex parte and on 
 a person not a party to the action. Any legal 
 objection to production of any particular docu- 
 ment can be made at the examination. The rule 
 cannot be used for private inspection, but must 
 have reference to some proceeding in the litiga- 
 tion. In re Smith. Williams v. Feere 
 
 North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 323 
 
 — Patent action. 
 
 See Patent — Discovery. 3. 
 
 26. — Photographs of documents — B. S. C, 
 Order XXXI., r. 14 ; Order L., r. 3. 
 
 The Court has power to allow a party to an 
 action to take photographs of documents in the 
 possession of the other party. Lewis v. Earl of 
 LoNDESBOEOUGH Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 191 
 
 27. — Policy of insurance on transit by post — 
 Discovery before delivery of defence — Order' for 
 production (underwriters) — B. S.C. ,18S3, Appx. K, 
 No. 19. 
 
 Title-deeds, insured for transit in the post by 
 land and sea, were lost. The policy was in the 
 form of an ordinary Lloyd's policy, altered so as 
 to include transit by land as well as by sea. 
 Defts., before delivery of defence, applied for dis- 
 covery, as on a marine policy of the various docu- 
 ments specified in the form Appx. K, No. 19 : — 
 
 Held, thiit they were only entitled to an 
 affidavit of documents in the ordinary form under 
 Order xxxi., r. 12, and that the peculiar practice 
 prevailing in marine insurance actions did not 
 apply. Henderson v. Underwriting and 
 AGENCY Association Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 557 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. China Traders' In- 
 
 DISCOVERY (Documents) — continued, 
 suranee Co. v. Boyal Exchange Assurance Corpora- 
 tion, [1898] 2 Q. B. 187, 191. 
 
 28. — Privilege — Accounts — Of/ice copy of de- 
 position — Production of documents. 
 
 In an action against G. and her trustee in 
 bankruptcy for breaches of trust committed by 
 her as administratrix of her deceased husband's 
 estate, the plaintiff's solicitors had prepared 
 certain accounts which were produced to her on 
 examination before an examiner, and admitted 
 by her to be correct. The action was afterwards 
 compromised, and the depositions of G., to which 
 the accounts were exhibited, were entered as read 
 in the order of compromise. The accounts 
 related to transactions between G. and a firm of 
 bankers with whom she had (in alleged breach 
 of trust) deposited securities belonging to her 
 husband's estate, to secure advances to herself. 
 In another action by the same pits, against the 
 bank, the defts. claimed production (1) of the 
 accounts, and (2) of the office copy of G.'s deposi- 
 tions, both of which were in the plt.'s possession. 
 
 JSeld, that the accounts were privileged, but 
 the copy depositions was not. 
 
 North Australian Territory Co. v. Goldsborough, 
 Mori & Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 381, foUowed. Gold- 
 stone V, Williams, Deacon & Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] W. N. 148 (3) ; 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 47 
 
 29. — Privilege — Affidavit of documents — Pro- 
 duction — Matter tending to impeach case of party 
 claiming privilege — Information by Attorney- 
 General — Claim of Crown to foreshore. 
 
 On an information by the Att.-Gen. claiming 
 on behalf of the Crown a declaration of title to 
 foreshore, it was ordered by a Div. Ct. that the 
 deft, should make a further affidavit of discovery 
 and should produce for inspection by the inform- 
 ant all documents therein specified except such 
 as the deft, should by his affidavit identify and 
 state to relate solely to the case of the deft, and 
 to contain nothing impeaching the case of the 
 deft, or supporting the case of the informant : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., on the authority of Morris v. 
 Edwards, (1890) 15 App. Cas. 309, that the order 
 must be varied by striking out the words " im- 
 peaching the case of the deft, or," as the deft.'s 
 affidavit would be sufficient to support an objection 
 to produce documents without those words. Att.- 
 Gen. v. Newoastle-upon-Tyne Coeporation 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B, 478 
 
 — Privilege — Bankers' books. Inspection of. 
 See Nos. 8 — 11, above. 
 
 30. — Privilege — Documents i7iprevious action 
 —Secondary evidence. 
 
 The deft, in an action to try a right of fishery, 
 after judgment had been given for the pit., acci- 
 dentally discovered certain documents prepared for 
 the defence of a previous action dealing with the 
 same subject-matter, which action was defended 
 at the cost of a predecessor in title of the plt.'s, 
 The pit. obtained possession of the documents 
 after copies of them had been taken by the deft. 
 The deft, having appealed : — 
 
 Held, (1) following Minet v. Morgan, (1878) 
 L. E. 8 Ch. 361, that the documents remained 
 privileged, (2) loUowing Lloyd v. Mostyn, (1842) 
 
( 
 
 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 670 ) 
 
 DISCOVERY (Documents)— co)i«»Med. 
 10 M. & W. 478, that the deft, was not precluded 
 on the ground of privilege from giving secondary 
 evidence of their contents. 
 
 Wheeler v. Le Marchant, (18S1) 17 Ch. D. 675, 
 is not inconsistent with Minet v. Morgan. Cal- 
 CEAFT V. Guest - C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 789 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Ooldstone v. 
 Williams, Deacon & Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 47, 52, 
 
 31. — Privilege — Fraud, Charge of — Solicitor 
 and client — Insj^ction hy judge — B. S. C, 1883, 
 Order xxxi., r. 19a, sui-r. 'X 
 
 Wliere fraud is alleged against a deft., com- 
 munications between himself and his solicitor as 
 to the subject-matter of the alleged fraud are not 
 privileged from production, there being no dis- 
 tinction in this respect between a crime and a 
 ciyil fraud ; and it is immaterial for this purpose 
 whether the solicitor is or is not a party to the 
 alleged fraud. 
 
 The practice as to inspection by the judge 
 himself, under Order xxxi., r. 19a, sub-r. 2, of 
 documents for which privilege is claimed, dis- 
 cussed. Williams v. Queekada By., Land and 
 COPPBE Go. -. Kekewioh J. [1898] 2 Ch. 781 
 
 32. — " Privilege " — Irrelevancy — Production 
 of doouments — Sealing up — Belevancy — Inspection 
 by Court or judge — Jurisdiction — B. S. C, 1883, 
 Order xsxi., r. 19a, stih-r. 2. 
 
 The word " privilege " in Order xxxi., r. 19a, 
 sub-r. 2, is not to be construed in a narrow sense 
 so as to exclude the case of an objection to dis- 
 covery based on the ground of irrelevancy. It 
 includes any ground on which inspection is 
 sought to be resisted. Ehkmann ». Ehrmann 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 826 
 
 33. — Privilege — Ltmacy. 
 
 Inspection will not be permitted to a litigating 
 party who applies for it before the trial of the 
 litigation in order to find out his adversary's case. 
 The doctrine of privilege and the principles 
 applicable to inspection discussed and explained 
 with special reference to doouments in the custody 
 of the Court in Lunacy. In re Strachan 
 
 0. A, [1898] 1 Ch. 439 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Ooldstone v. 
 Williams, Deacon & Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 47, 54. 
 
 34. — Privilege — Mode of claiming — Docu- 
 ments relating to plaintiffs own case only. 
 
 In an action for trespass to which a defence 
 of right of way was pleaded, it was sworn by the 
 pit. in his affidavit of documents that a certain 
 bundle of documents related solely to the plt.'s 
 case, and not to that of the defts., and did not 
 tend to support it, and protection from production 
 was claimed : — 
 
 Semble, (1) that it was not necessary to swear 
 that the doouments did not tend to impeach the 
 plt.'s case ; (2) that the doouments were privi- 
 leged. Bddden v. Wilkinson 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 432 
 
 38. — Privilege — Order to attend and produce 
 documents. 
 
 A claim of privilege for doouments ordered to 
 be produced under Order xxxr., t. 7, can be made 
 at the time and place where production is ordered. 
 In re Smith. Williams v. Feeee 
 
 .North J. [-1891] 1 Ch, 323 
 
 DISCOVEEY (Documents) — continued. 
 
 36. . — Privilege — Solicitor and client — Bills of 
 costs — Correspond,ence between solicitor and client 
 relating to litigation — Becords of proceedings at 
 chambers — Production of docum^ents — Practice — 
 B. S. C, Order xxxi., r. 19a. 
 
 Mere records of what takes place in chambers 
 in the course of a hostile litigation in the presence 
 of parties on both sides are not privileged from 
 production. There is no distinction, for this 
 purpose, between proceedings in chambers and 
 proceedings in open court. 
 
 Correspondence which is protected on the 
 ground of professional privilege is not rendered 
 liable to discovery merely because it contains 
 statements of fact as to what has taken place in 
 chambers in the course of hostile litigation and 
 in the presence of parties on both sides. 
 
 Where privilege was claimed for certain entries 
 in bUls of costs relating to litigation on the 
 ground that they were copies of or extracts from 
 notes or memoranda made by the solicitor pending 
 the litigation for the purpose of enabling him to 
 conduct the litigation on his client's behalf, and 
 there was nothing in the affidavit by which privi- 
 lege was claimed inconsistent with the entries 
 being mere notes by the solicitor or his clerk of 
 what had taken place in chambers in the presence 
 of both parties, the Court exercised its discretion 
 under Order xxxL, r. 19a, to open and inspect 
 the sealed entries. Ainswobth v. Wilding 
 Stirling J, [1900] W, W, 132; [1900] 2 Ch, 316 
 
 37. — Privilege — Solicitor and client. Commu- 
 nications between — Evasion of statute — Production 
 of documents. 
 
 The privilege from production of confidential 
 communications between a solicitor in his pro- 
 fessional capacity and his client does not extend 
 to communications which came into existence for 
 the purpose of the client's procuring advice as 
 to the mode in which he might evade the pro- 
 visions of a colonial statute imposing a duty in 
 respect of property. Keg. v. Bclltvant 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B, 163 
 
 38. — Privilege — Transcript of shorthand- 
 writer's notes — Bankruptcy — Examination —Banlc- 
 ruptay Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 27. 
 
 A solicitor to a trustee in bankruptcy held, in 
 his official capacity, a private examination of the 
 bankrupt and others, with a view of advising the 
 trustee whether he should commence an action 
 against the bankrupt for the purpose of setting 
 aside a transfer of the bankrupt's business as 
 being in fraud of his creditors. On bringing the 
 action, the trustee declined to produce a short- 
 hand transcript of the examination : — 
 
 Held, that the transcript was privileged, and 
 need not be produced. Leaeoyd v. Halifax 
 Joint Stock Banking Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 686 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A, Calcraft v. Guest, [1898]' 
 1 Q. B. 759, 762. 
 
 39. — Bivers, Pollution of — Proceedings in 
 county court whether civil or criminal — Bight of 
 complainant to interrogate — Bivers Pollution 
 Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 75), ss. 
 3, 10. 
 
 Where a statute creates an offence and em- 
 
( 671 ) 
 
 DiaBST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 672 ) 
 
 DISCOVERY (pocjimetitB)— continued. 
 powers a county court to make an order requiring 
 any person to abstain from committing the offence, 
 and also to impose a penalty upon any person dis- 
 obeying the order, the county court may in pro- 
 ceedings taken to obtain an order grant discovery 
 against the deft, since discoTery in proceedings 
 to obtain an order could not expose the deft, to a 
 penalty. 
 
 So held with regard to ss. 3, 10 of the Rivers 
 Pollution Prevention Act, 1876. 
 
 Decisions of Div. Ct., [1896] 2 Q. B. 53, and 
 0. A., [1896] 2 Q. B. 297, affirmed. Debet Coe- 
 
 PORATION V. DeKBTSHIKE CoUlfTY COUNCIL 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 660 
 
 40. — Sealing up — Production of hooks — 
 Common order — Liberty to seal up irrelevant 
 entries — Form of order giving liberty to cover up 
 without sealing. 
 
 A party to an action, who has obtained against 
 his opponent the common order for production 
 and inspection of books and documents, giving 
 liberty to the opponent to seal up such parts of 
 the books as do not relate to the matters in ques- 
 tion, is not entitled to insist upon the actual seal- 
 ing up of such parts of the books where bo doing 
 would Interfere with the conduct of the opponent's 
 business or be oppressive; and the covering up 
 upon oath of the irrelevant parts of such books is 
 a sufficient compliance with the order. Gkaham 
 V. Sutton, Oaeden & Co. C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 761 
 
 — Ship's papers — Action by underwriters against 
 
 re-insurer — Practice. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 70. 
 
 — Solicitor and client — Privilege. 
 
 See Nos. 36, 37, above. 
 
 41. — Solicitor's lien — Production of docu- 
 ments — " Possession or power " — B. S. C, 1883, 
 Order SXXI., r. 12. 
 
 It is not an answer to an application for pro- 
 duction of documents that they are in the hands 
 of the respondent's former solicitors who claim a 
 lien over them for costs, and that he disputes the 
 bill; but the order for production will contain 
 liberty to apply in case he really cannot obtain 
 the documents. Lewis v. Powell 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 678 
 
 42. — Subpoena duces tecum — Motion to set 
 aside — Costs — if. S. C, Order xxxyii., r. 30 ; 
 Order LXX., r. 1. 
 
 An action was brought against the Koyal 
 College of Surgeons as to certain rights of access 
 to or user of the College Hall. The secretary 
 ivas subpoenaed to produce at the trial a mass of 
 documents, some of which had been decided by 
 the 0. A. to be irrelevant. The secretary moved 
 to set aside the subpoena : — 
 
 Held, that the subpoena was oppressive, and 
 that the secretary was entitled to have it dis- 
 charged with costs. Steele v. Savoey 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] W. N. 196 
 
 43. — Trade-mark cases — Form of order for 
 productions. S. C, Order XXXL, r. 12. 
 
 In a proceeding to remove trade-marks from 
 the register after all the evidence was concluded 
 except the cross-examination of tyro witnesses, 
 
 DISCOVEET (Documents) — continued. 
 
 the applicant took out a summons for discovery 
 
 of documents : — 
 
 Seld, by Kekewich J., that an -order should 
 be made, but that in trade-mark cases the 
 common order for discovery should not be used, 
 and directed (1) that discovery should be given 
 by the member of the respondent firm to be 
 examined in Court ; (2)1 that tlie discovery should 
 be limited to documents relating to certain 
 specified questions ; (3) that notwithstanding the 
 generality of the order it should not be obligatory 
 to set forth a schedule or otherwise to mention 
 all the labels or other documents constituting a 
 class, but that it should suffice as regarded each 
 class to mention a specimen or specimens fairly 
 representative of the whole : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A. (reversing the decision of 
 Kekewich J.), that this order was oppressive at 
 that stage of the proceedings, and must be dis. 
 charged without prejudice to any order which 
 the judge might make at the trial as to produc- 
 tion of documents, the respondents undertaking 
 to state the labels on which they relied, and to 
 produce documents in court. In re Wills' 
 Teade-maeks - C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 201 
 
 44. — Traders — Rival traders — Inspection — 
 Discretion to refuse general inspection — Interroga- 
 tories— B. S. C, Order xxxi., rr. 1, 12. 
 
 An action was brought by the Att.-Gen. at 
 the relation of tramcar makers against a tramway 
 CO. to restrain it from using its capital in excess 
 of its statutory powers to make tramway rolling- 
 stock. General inspection of documents, including 
 all the deft, oo.'s books, was asked for : — 
 
 Held, that to make such an order would be to 
 expose all the books of the deft. co. to the 
 inspection of rivals in trade. 
 
 Order refused, but interrogatories allowed as 
 to capital or moneys applied in making rolling- 
 stock. Att.-Gen. v. Noeth Metropolitan 
 Tramways Co. - North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 70 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Cases under Vendor and Puechasee. 
 
 Interrogatories. 
 
 By B. S. C. Nov. 1893, Order xxxi. teas 
 ameiided as to interrogatories. 
 
 By B. 8. G. Nov. 1893, t, 13. no interrogatories 
 may be administered unless allowed by a judge. 
 
 46, — Admission of facts — Particulars. 
 
 Action to set aside an agreement on the 
 ground of fraud. 
 
 The pit. applied for leave to deliver certain 
 interrogatories mainly directed to obtaining admis- 
 sions of facts alleged in the statement of claim. 
 
 Per Kekewich J. : The modem practice of 
 exacting particulars and admission of facts not 
 really in dispute, added to the large means of 
 discovery by disclosure of documents and, where 
 occasion requires it, inspection of premises or 
 machinery, has rendered unnecessary and incon- 
 venient interrogatories of the ancient type which 
 were always open to objection. My practice is 
 to decline applications for leave to administer 
 interrogatories where the object is to demand 
 admissions of fact alleged by the interrogating 
 party, and denied or not admitted by the oppo- 
 
( C73 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 19J0. 
 
 ( 674 ) 
 
 DISCOVERY (Interrogatories)— conKftued. 
 jaent, or to obtain information which may equally 
 well be supplied by particulars. As regards 
 admissions of fact, it is often urged, as it was 
 here, that a litigant will hesitate to state on 
 oath what he ■will without hesitation state in 
 pleadings, and that there is difficulty in other- 
 wise obtaining admission of facts, even though 
 Qot really in dispute ; and it is further urged 
 that an admission by an affidavit in answer to 
 interrogatories is useful in limiting the issues to 
 be tried, and therefore in reducing the time 
 •occupied by the trial and the costs. I recognise 
 the importance of this in the abstract ; but prac- 
 4;ioally I find that the interrogated party seldom 
 makes such clean admissions as secure the advan- 
 tages aimed at, and, failing that, little if anything 
 is gained. As regards facts not really in dispute, 
 I believe that the power of requiring admissions 
 is not sufficiently used. If parties insiist, as they 
 generally do, on asking their opponents to admit 
 as facts, dates and events about which there is 
 room for doubt or argument, of course the en- 
 deavour to obtain admissions breaks down ; but 
 if the demand is limited to facts not really in 
 dispute, that is, which can be admitted cleanly, 
 or subject to some simple qualification, I find 
 that it is generally acceded to, and the -power 
 which the Court has of throwing the costs on 
 any one who has increased them by declining 
 reasonable admissions is not forgotten. The 
 right to particulars, though sometimes attempted 
 to be abused, is of the greatest value, and often 
 gives a litigant fur more information than can be 
 obtained by an answer to interrogatories, es- 
 pecially when the particulars are aided, as they 
 generally are, by discovery of documents bear- 
 ing on them. If the pit. had submitted some 
 short interrogatories directed mainly to para- 
 graphs H and 12 of the defence, I should have 
 been disposed to allow them, and even now I 
 am not prepared to say that the pit. cannot so 
 modify the submitted interrogatories as to obtain 
 leave to deliver in a shortened and altered form ; 
 but, as he does not propose to do this, and my 
 objections go to a very large proportion of lengthy 
 interrogatories, I think it better to refuse the 
 applicaiion altogether, making the costs those of 
 4he defts. in any event. 
 
 The C A. dismissed the appeal without pre- 
 judice to any further application that the pit. 
 might make as to getting some of the inter- 
 ffogatories allowed by the judge in chambers. 
 Defts.' costs of the appeal to be theirs in any 
 «vent. Olaekb v. Clabke 
 
 C, A. [1899] W. H. 130 
 
 46. — Allowance of interrogatories Try judge — 
 Objection to answer— B. S. 0., Order xxxi., 
 rr. 1, 6. . 
 
 In a partnership action, A. and E. were defts. 
 as executors of a deceased partner W., K. was a 
 <left. on his own account. An order was made 
 in re W.'s estate, giving A. the conduct of the 
 defence on behalf of the executors. The pit. 
 exhibited interrogatories to A. and E., which 
 were laid before the judge and allowed (with 
 alterations) : — 
 
 Sdd, that A.'s being appointed to defend the 
 suit on behalf of W.'s estate did not affect plt.'s 
 
 DISCOVERY (Interrogatories) — continued. 
 right to interrogate E. Tlie allownnoe by a 
 judge of interrogatories does not amount to u. 
 decision that a party is bound to answer them, 
 but leaves him at liberty to take any objection to 
 answering which he might otherwise have taken. 
 An appeal from the allowance of interrogatories 
 by a judge will not be allowed unless the judge 
 has gone on a wrong principle or done substaniial 
 injustice. Peek v. Eay C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 282 
 
 47. — Answer— Sufficiency — Agents of testator 
 — Executor, how far hound to inquire. 
 
 When a man is interrogated about acts done 
 in the presence of persons employed by him, their 
 knowledge is his knowledge, and he is therefore 
 bound, in order to enable him to answer, to make 
 inquiry of those persons, whether they be servants 
 or agents, such as bankers and solicitors. This 
 rule does not apply to an executor interrogated 
 as to actions done by his testator twenty years 
 before his death in presence of his bankers, &o., 
 as an executor has no duty to inquire into the 
 actions of his testator so long before his death. 
 Alliott v. Smith Kekswich J. [1895] 2 Ch. IH 
 
 48. • — Company — Action against ■ — Application 
 to interrogate niemher — Notice of application — 
 B. S. C, Order xxxL, r. 5. 
 
 Where a joint stock co. being a pnrty to an 
 action, an application is made by the opposite 
 party for an order allowing the delivery of 
 interrogatories to a member of the co. under 
 Order xxxi., r. 5, notice of the application ought, 
 as a rule, to be served upon him. Chaddook 
 V. British South Afkioa Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 153 
 
 — Company — Discovery of documents. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 13, 14. 
 
 49. — Corporation — Interrogatories — Answer 
 iy officer of corporation — Fractice — B. S. C, 
 Order XXXI., rr. 1, 5, 24. 
 
 An officer of a co., answering on their behalf 
 interrogatories administered to them in an action, 
 is only bound to answer as to his knowledge 
 acquired in the course of his employment by 
 the CO., and as to the result of inquiries mado 
 by him of the other officers and agents of the 
 CO. with regard to their knowledge acquired iu 
 the same way. 
 
 He is not bound to answer as to his own 
 knowledge, or to make inquiries of the other 
 officers or agents of the co. as to their knowledge, 
 acquired accidentally or in some other capacity. 
 
 The answer of an officer of a co. on 
 their behalf, being their answer, can be read 
 against them, and they can only be required to 
 answer as to that with respect to which an 
 individual litigant in their position would have 
 been bound to answer. Wblsbaoh Incandeboent 
 Gas Lighting Co. v. New Sunlight Incandes- 
 cent Co. 
 
 C. A. [190O] W. Ht. 120; [1900] 2 Ch, 1 
 
 50. — Libel — Circulation of newspaper. 
 
 The pit. in an action for libel against the 
 proprietors of a local newspaper having adminis- 
 tered an interrogatory to the defts. asking how 
 many copies were printed and circulated of the 
 issue of the newspaper which contained tho 
 
 Z 
 
( 675 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 676 ) 
 
 DISCOVEET (Interrogatories) — continued. 
 alleged libel, the defts. answered that a consider- 
 able number of copies of that issue were printed 
 and published : — 
 
 Jteld, that the answer was sufficient. 
 
 Parn^ll v. Walter, (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 441, 
 overruled on this point. Whittaker v. Soak- 
 BOHOUGH Post Newspaper Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 148 
 
 SI. — Libel — Evidence in mitigation of 
 damages — B. S. C, Order xxxvi., t. 37. 
 
 Where the deft, has within the time limited 
 by Order xxxTi., r. 37, furnished particulars to 
 the pit. as to" the evidence he intends to give in 
 initigation of damages in an action for defama- 
 tion, the deft, can adminster interrogatories as 
 to the matters refeiTed to in the particulars. 
 SoAiFE V. Kemp & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 0. B. 319 
 — Libel — Particulars of justification. 
 
 See DisoovEKT — Particulars, 61, 62. 
 
 62. — Penal action — Designs. 
 
 An action to recover the 5GI. allowed to the 
 registered proprietor of a registered design for a 
 contravention of s. 58 of the Patents, &o., Act, 
 1883, is a penal action, and, therefore, the pltff. 
 is not entitled to interrogate the deft. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1892] 2 Q. B. 18, 
 afBimed. Saundees v. Wiel (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 321 
 
 Keferred to by Div. Ct. Derbij Corporation 
 V. Derbyshire County Council, [1896] 2 Q. B.'53, 
 58 ; [1897] A. C. 550. 
 
 53. — Principal resident abroad — Action in 
 name of agent — Staying action till discovery made. 
 
 Where the agent of a principal resident abroad 
 brings an action in his own name, the deft, is 
 entitled to discovery to the same extent as if the 
 principal were the pit., and to have the action 
 stayed until discovery is made. Willis & Co. i>. 
 Baddeley - - C. A, [1892] 2 ft, B. 324 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. China Traders' Insur- 
 ance Go. T.Eoyal Exchange Asswance Corporation, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 187, 190. 
 
 54. — Privileged documents — Power to ad- 
 minister interrogatories as to contents — B. S. C, 
 Order xxxi., r. 1. 
 
 There is no power to administer interroga- 
 tories as to the contents of documents privileged 
 from inspection. Emmott & Co. v. Walters 
 
 Div, Ct. [1891] W. N. 79 
 
 — Privilege — Documents, Production and inspec- 
 tion of. 
 See Discovert — Documents, 28 — 38. 
 
 55. ■ — • Belevancy — Previous transactions 
 between the same parties — B. S. C, Order xxxi. r. 1. 
 
 An interrogatory is not admissible if the facts 
 stated in answer to it would not be relevant 
 evidence in chief on an issue in the action. 
 Where it was alleged that D. and C, a bankrupt, 
 hail carried on business in buying and selling 
 land in co-partnership, and a declaration was 
 Claimed that a certain piece of land belonged to 
 ■u. nnd o. m co-partnership : — 
 
 Held, that interrogatories as to particulars of 
 
 DISCOVEET (Interrogatories) — continued. 
 previous transactions between the parties were 
 not relevant to the issue in the action; and 
 oppressive. Kennedy v. Doeson 
 
 0. A, [1896] 1 Ch. 334 
 
 66. — Bival traders — Affidavit as to docu- 
 ments. 
 
 In an action by the Att.-Gen. at the instance 
 of tramcar makers to restrain a tramway co. from 
 making tramway rolling stock : — 
 
 Held, that limited interrogatories as to the 
 capital employed by the tramway co. in the 
 manufacture in question should be allowed. 
 Att.-Gen. [v. Noeth Metropolitan Tramways 
 Co. - - North J, [1892] 3 Ch. 70 
 
 — Eivers, Pollution of. 
 
 See Discovert — Documents. 39. 
 
 67, — Setting aside or strihing out — B. S. C.^ 
 Order xxxi., r. 7. 
 
 Order xxxi., r. 7, applies whether leave has or 
 has not been obtained to administer interroga- 
 tories. If the interrogatories looked at as a whole 
 are unreasonably or vexatiously exhibited, or are 
 prolix, oppressive, unnecessary, or scandalous (i.e., 
 within the rule), the Court may set aside or 
 strike .out the whole, though one or more taken 
 alone may be unobjectionable. Oppenheim & Co. 
 V. Sheffield - C, A, [1893] 1 ft. B, 5 
 
 But see now r. 13 of B. S. C. Nov. 1823, sub- 
 stituted for 0. XXXI., r. 2, ofB. S. C. 1883. 
 
 58. — Slander — Action for — B. S. C, Order 
 xxXL, r. 1. 
 
 In an action for slander the pit. administered 
 the following interrogatories to the deft. : — 
 
 " Did you on or about March 1 , or when, 
 speak the following words of the pit. " (setting 
 out the words alleged in the statement of claim 
 to have been spoken by the deft, of the pit.), " or 
 words to that effect." * 
 
 " Were the said words spoken in the presence 
 of two persons named in the statement of claim, 
 and other persons, or any and which of them f " — 
 
 Seld, that these were proper interrogatories, 
 and that the deft, must answer them. 
 
 Decision of Lawrance J, reversed. Dal- 
 
 GLIESH V. LowTHBR - C, A, [1899] W, N. 133 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 ft, B, 590 
 
 — Traders — Rival traders. 
 
 See No. 44, above. 
 
 Particulars. 
 
 Order xix., rr. 6, 7, relate to particulars. 
 
 — Admission of facts. 
 
 See No. 45, above. 
 
 59. — Covenant in restraint of trade — Special 
 damage — Particulars of plaintiffs' claim. 
 
 In an action for breach of a covenant in 
 restraint of trade, the defts. admitted that the 
 covenant had been broken, and the pits, were 
 granted an inquiry as to damages sustained by 
 him, and an order on the defts. was made for an 
 affidavit of documents : — 
 
 Held, by North J., that the pits, must make 
 a statement in writing of the heads under which 
 they claimed damage, and that the time for filing 
 the deft.'s affidavit of documents should be 
 
( 677 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 678 ) 
 
 DISCOVERY (Particulars) — continued. 
 extended till fourteen days after the particulars 
 were filed : — 
 
 fleZ(7, by C. A., (1) that aa the pits, were 
 ignorant of the breaches of covenant they could 
 only comply with the order by setting out every 
 imaginable ground of damage; (2) that the order 
 did not amount to an order for particulars of 
 damage ; (3) that it was useless, as it could not 
 be complied with without inspection of the deft.'s 
 books. Order discharged. Maxim Nokdenfelt 
 Guns and Ammtjnition Co. ». Noedenfelt 
 (No. 2) - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 122 
 
 — Defamatory statement in — Petition for order 
 
 for reception of lunatic — Libel — ^Privi- 
 lege. 
 See Defamation — Libel. 17. 
 
 — on Election petition. 
 
 See Parliament — Election Petition. 
 12—15. 
 
 60. — Fraud — Order XIX., r. 6. 
 
 There is no hard and fast rule as to the class 
 of oases in which particulars will be ordered to 
 be delivered before discovery, or discovery to be 
 given before particulars ; the Court will exercise 
 its discretion upon all the circumstances in each 
 case. 
 
 In an action in which the pits, alleged that 
 they had lost business by reason of the fraudulent 
 acts of the defts., giving one specific instance 
 of fraud in their statement of claim (whi(3i was 
 admitted by the defts.), and alleging that "on 
 divers other occasions" the defts. had taken 
 orders from " divers other persons " for coal from 
 the pits.' colliery, and fraudulently supplied coal 
 not purchased from the pits. : — 
 
 Held, that as the defts. had means of ascer- 
 taining from their books whether other frauds of 
 the kind alleged had been committed, which the 
 pits, had not, the defts. were not entitled to 
 particulars before giving discovery. 
 
 Dictum of Kay L.J. in Ziereriberg v. Lahoacliere, 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 189, explained. "Waynes Mek- 
 
 THYK Co. V. D. EaDFOKD & Co. 
 
 Chitty 3. [1895] "W. N, 150 (4) ; 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 29 
 
 • Interrogatories — Admission of facts. 
 
 See DisooYEEX— Interrogatories. 
 
 45. 
 
 61. — Libel — Justification. 
 
 A review of plt.'s book stated that the pit. 
 was "by his own confession a most barefaced 
 liar":— 
 
 Held, that pit. was entitled to particulars 
 specifying the pages in the book at which the 
 several passages relied on by the defts. in support 
 of their defence of justification occurred, and the 
 first and last words of such passages. Devereux 
 V. Claekb & Co. - Dir. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 882 
 
 62. — Libel — Justification — Order xix., 
 rr. 6, 7. 
 
 In an action of libel where the charge against 
 the pit. in the alleged libel is general in its 
 nature, a deft, who pleads a justification must 
 state in his particulars the facts on which he 
 relies in support of his justification, with the 
 same precision as in an ir.dii-tmont; till he has 
 
 DISCOVEET (Particulars) — continued. 
 
 done this his defence is bad and he is not entitled 
 
 to discovery. Zieeenberg v. Labouohere 
 
 C. A, [1893] 2 Q. B. 183' 
 
 Dictum in, explained by Chitty J. Waynes 
 Mertliyr Co. v. D. Radford & Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 29. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Torlcshire Providenf 
 Life Assurance Co. v. Gilbert and Rivinston^ 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 148, 151, 154, 
 
 — Parliamentary election petition. 
 
 See Parliament — Election Petition.. 
 12—15. 
 
 — Patents. 
 
 See Patent — Discovery. 
 
 63. — Privilege — Particulars — Production — 
 Inspection— B. S. C, Order XIX., rr. 6,7; Order- 
 XXXI, rr. 15, 19a (2). 
 
 A deft, may be ordered to give particu-- 
 lars of documents referred to in his pleading,- 
 even though he has in an afiidavit of documents- 
 effectually claimed for those documents privilege 
 from production. 
 
 The right to particulars and the right to' 
 production are distinct and independent rights. 
 
 The pit. claimed a, declaration that she was- 
 entitled (subject to incumbrances) in fee simple- - 
 to an estate of which the deft, was in possession', 
 and her title to which he denied. 
 
 By his defence the deft, said (paragraph 3) 
 that the mortgagees had, in the valid exercise of " 
 their statutory power of sale, sold and conveyed thei - 
 estate to him for valuable consideration, and thafe 
 he purchased the same in good faith and with- 
 out notice of any claim which the pit. might', 
 have had to the estate in priority to the title of ' 
 the mortgagees, and the deft, relied on his title ■ 
 as such bona, fide purchaser, and he said (para- ■ 
 graph 4) that he had remortgaged the property, 
 so purchased by him to the same mortgagees,, 
 and that the action could not be maintained in. 
 their absence. 
 
 The deft, made an affidavit of documents by 
 which he sufficiently claimed protection from 
 production for a bundle of documents which in- 
 cluded the deeds by which the transactions 
 referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the defence, 
 had been carried out : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding this claim to pro-- 
 tection, the deft, must give particulars of those ■ 
 transactions — namely, the date of the sale audi' 
 conveyance to him by the mortgagees, and what 
 was the valuable consideration for the same ; the 
 date of the remortgage by him, and for how much 
 it was given. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J. reversed. Milbank 
 V. Milbank - C. A. [1900] W. N. 35 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 376;. 
 
 64. — Becovery of land — Heir-at-law, Claim as. 
 
 (a) In an action for the recovery of land as-; 
 heir-at-law of an intestate, the deft, is entitled! 
 as a matter of course to particulars shewing the- 
 links of relationship to the intestate relied on by- 
 the pit. as constituting his heir-at-law. Palmer- 
 V. Palmer Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 318 
 
 (b) In an action to establish title as heir-at- 
 law of an intestate an order was made on the 
 pit. to deliver particulars of how he claimed to 
 
 Z 2 
 
( 679 ) 
 
 DIGEST OV CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( C^O ) 
 
 DISCOVEEY (Particulars)— conh'nwed. 
 
 bo heir-at-law, sbewing the links of relationship 
 
 on which he relied : — 
 
 HeM, that the proper order in such a case was 
 to direct the pit. to give the best pedigree he 
 pould from the materials in his possession. 
 
 Bl.AOKLtDaE V. AndERTON 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 112 
 
 — of Sale. 
 
 See Cases under Vendob and Pueohaseb. 
 
 — Solicitor's clerk signing particulars. 
 
 See CoDNTY CocBT — Costs. 35. 
 
 66. — Terms of order — Dismissal of aciion. 
 
 Where a pit. is ordered to give particulars, 
 under Order xix., r. 7, one of tbe terms of the 
 order may be that the action shall be dismissed 
 unless proper particulars are delivered within a 
 certain time. Datey v. Bentinck 
 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 185 
 
 DISCRETION— Acceptance of letters of request 
 — Faculty — Licence of Secretary of 
 State before opening of vault not re- 
 quired. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law— Faculty. 29. 
 
 — of Charity Commissioners. 
 
 See Cases under Chakitt — Charity Com- 
 missioners. 
 
 — Common accounts refused at the trial — ^Mis- 
 
 conduct of trustee. 
 See Account. 6. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Costs. 
 
 — Discovery — Company — "Winding-up — Produc- 
 
 tion of documents. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 14. 
 
 — Divorce practice. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce. 
 
 — Guardianship of infant. 
 
 See Infant. 23. 
 
 — Heirlooms — Sale by tenant for life. 
 
 See Hethlooms. 4. 
 
 — Justices — Licence — Offences — Application by 
 
 owner for authority to carry on business. 
 See Licensing Acts. 9. 
 
 — Leave to commence action — Grant or refusal. 
 
 See County Coubt — Jurisdiction. 46. 
 
 — Lunacy — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Lunacy. 
 
 — Of court to refuse adjudication. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy. 39. 
 
 — Of ordinary. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Eaculty. 
 
 — Receiver — Appointment — Legal estate. 
 
 See Keceivek. 2. 
 
 — Eescission — Ktoeiving order — Arrangement 
 
 with creditors. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 195. 
 
 — of Registrar — Costs — Insolvency of estate. 
 
 See County Court — Costs. 22. 
 
 — Solicitor— Certificate — Discretion of registrar 
 
 to refuse. 
 
 See Solicitor. 110. 
 
 — To attach condition to grant of licence. 
 
 See Tueatke. 1. 
 
 DISCRETION — continued. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Trustee— Discretion. 
 
 — Trust for benefit and advancement of legatee 
 
 — Discretion. 
 See Will. 127. 
 
 DISEASES OF ANIMALS. 
 
 See Animal. 
 
 DISENTAIL — Value of expectancies — Proof — 
 Eemit. 
 See Scottish Law — Entail. 15. 
 
 DISHONOUE— Bill of exchange. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 4, 5. 
 
 DISMISSAL — Bankruptcy petition. 
 See Bankruptcy. 141, 150. 
 
 — Civil servant — Laws of New South Wales. 
 
 See New South Wales. 
 
 — Servant. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Dismissal. 
 57. 
 
 — Wrongful — Contract for employment. 
 
 See Arbitration. 6. 
 
 DISORDERLY HOUSE — " Brothel " — Offences 
 against morality. 
 See Criminal Law. 45. 
 
 — Property used as a disorderly house — Specific 
 
 performance. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 72. 
 • 
 
 — Room used for " public entertainment on 
 
 Sunday" — "Keeper" of room — ^Person 
 managing or conducting " entertain- 
 ment." 
 See Sunday. 3. 
 
 "DISPOSITION"— Settlement of personal pro- 
 perty — Estate duty — Exemption. 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 23. 
 
 DISPOSSESSION— Land— Inference from equi- 
 vocal acts — Real property limitation. 
 See Limitations, Statcte op. 32. 
 
 DISQUALIFICATION— Arbitrator— Bias. 
 
 See Arbitration — Arbitrator. 11 — 13. 
 
 — Bankraptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Disqualification. 
 
 — " Candidate ' — Nomination of disqualified 
 
 person — Election — Right to petition. 
 See Corporation. 14. 
 
 — Incompatible olEoes- Clerk to justices. 
 
 See Justices. 50. 
 
 — Justice. 
 
 See Justices — ^DisquaMcation. 
 
 — Member of school board — Sale of materials to 
 
 contractor with board. 
 
 See Schools — School Board. 5. 
 
 — Registration of voters. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 — School board member. 
 
 See Schools — School Board. 3 — 5. 
 
 DISSOLUTION— Building society. 
 
 See BuiLDisa Society — Dissolutioii. 
 
 — Company. 
 
 See Company — WiNDiNG-rp, 'passim. 
 
( CSl ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 682 ) 
 
 JyiSSOLVTIOS— continued. 
 
 — Corporation— Proof— Eight of the Crown — 
 
 Bona vacantia. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 165. 
 
 — Coats incurred after, of partnership- Liability. 
 
 iSee SoLiciTOB. 90. 
 
 — Distribution of assets. 
 
 See Scientific Society. 2. 
 
 — Frieudly society. 
 
 jSee PuiENDLT Society. 4. 
 
 — Marriage. 
 
 See Cases under Divokoe. 
 
 — Partnership, 
 
 See Pabtnekship — ^Dissolution. 
 
 — Partnership — Kegistration of trade-mark. 
 
 See Trade-maek. 53. 
 
 — Trade union — Unexpended funds — Besulting 
 
 trust. 
 
 See Trade Union. 3. 
 
 DISTINCTIVE WOED. 
 
 See Cases under Trade-mark — Kegis- 
 tration. 
 
 DISTBESS. 
 
 Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1895 (58 & 59 
 Vict. c. 24), amends the laio as to distress. 
 
 Rules dated Nov. 29, 1895, under the Law of 
 Distress Amendment Act, 1895. W. K. 1896 
 (Jan. 18) p. 35 ; Current Index, 1896, p. Ixviii. 
 
 Sule dated Feb. 13, 1896, stating date of com- 
 mencement of Act. W. N. 1896 (Feb. 22) p. 69 ; 
 re-issued and dated March 26, 1896. Current 
 Index, 1896, p. Izviii. 
 
 1. — Bailiff — Acting as hailiff — Uncertificated 
 person — Law af Distress Amendment Act, 1888 
 (51 <fe 52 Vict. c. 21), s. 7. 
 
 A managing director of a co. was held liable 
 for a trespass for levying in person a distress for 
 rent upon the goods of one of the co.'s tenants, he 
 not liaving a written certificate from the county 
 court judge to act as a bailiff. Hogarth v. 
 Jexninhs - - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 907 
 
 2. — Bankruptcy — "Bent accrued due prior 
 to date of order of adjudication " — Apportionment 
 Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 35)— Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. v. 52), ss. 9, 42, Sehed. B, 
 r. 9. 
 
 Where a tenant becomes bankrupt during 
 the currency of a quarter, so mucU of the 
 quarter's rent as is apportionable to the part of 
 the quarter prior to the adjudication is, by the 
 Apportionment Act, 1870, "rent accrued due 
 prior to the date of adjudication" within s. 42 of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and the laudlord is 
 entitled upon the expiry of the quarter to dis- 
 train upon the goods of the bankrupt. In re 
 HowELLS. Mx parte Mandleberg & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 a. B. 844 
 
 3. — Bill of exchange for rent due— Suspen- 
 sion of remedy. 
 
 Where a tenant gave his landlord a bill of 
 exchange for rent due : — 
 
 Sdd, that there was evidence to go to the 
 jury of an agreement by the landlord to suspend 
 his right of distress during the currency ot the 
 bill. Paluer v. Bramlby 
 
 . C. A. [1895] 2 a. B. 405 
 
 DIST'KESS— continued. 
 
 — Collection of taxes — Powers of collectors — 
 
 Expiration of collector's year. 
 
 See Eetende — Collection of Taxes. 1 1 . 
 
 4. — Company — Winding-up (voluntary) — 
 Landlord — Restraining distress — Bill of exchange 
 for rent — Debentures — Receiver — Companies Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 88. 87, 138, 163. 
 
 H. granted a lease to X. which was purchased 
 by a CO., but no assignment of it was taken. Tho 
 CO., however, entered into occupation of the 
 demised premises, and gave H. bills of exchange 
 for rent overdue, whioli bills were dishonoured. 
 After the dishonour tho co. passed an extra- 
 ordinary resolution for voluntary winding-up, 
 and then tho landlord distrained for tho rent on 
 the co.'s chattels. These, however, were subject 
 to a floating security contained in debentures 
 covering all the co.'s assets, which were insuffi- 
 cient in value to satisfy the debenture debt. No 
 receiver had been appointed. The liquidators 
 having moved to restrain the landlord from 
 proceeding with the distress : — 
 
 Held, (1) that, but for the existence of the 
 debenture?, and notwithstanding Ex parte 
 Clemence, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 154 (which the Court 
 declined to follow), tho landlord would have 
 been restrained, as he had a light to prove in the 
 winding-up ; but (2) tliat, as tho assets were 
 covered by the debentures and were insufScient 
 to fatisfy the debenture debt, the liquidator had 
 no right to intervene, following on this point 
 Ex parte Purssell, (1887) 34 Ch. D. 616, an 1 that 
 the non-appointment of a receiver made no 
 difference. In re Harpur's Cycle Fittings Co. 
 
 ■Wright J. [1900] W. N. 187 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 731 
 
 5. — Damage feasant — For what damage 
 things may be distrained. 
 
 'rrespaasing animals may be distrained for 
 
 damage feasant for injuries to other animals aa 
 
 well as damage to the freehold. Boden v. Roscois 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 a. B. 608 
 
 6. — Entry — Getting over wall into yard. 
 
 A bailiff, in order to distrain for rent, climbed 
 over a wall into the backyard of the house, and 
 entered and distrained : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the distress was lawful. Long v. 
 Clarke 
 
 C. A. affirm. Collins J. [1894] 1 Q. B. 119 
 
 7. — Entry — Outer door — " A man's house is 
 his castle." 
 
 The effect of this maxim id to extend the 
 immunity to the outer door not only of all 
 dwelling-houses, but also of all buildings what- 
 Boever, and to the outer gatea cf all inclosures aa 
 regards both distress anJ execution. 
 
 The decision of Bowen L.J., [1893] W. N. 67, 
 affirmed. American Conckntkated Meat Co. 
 V. Hendry C. A. [1893] W. N. 82 
 
 Discussed. Hodder v. Williams, C. A. [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 663, 668. 
 
 8. — Execution — Judgment against lessee for 
 years — Writ of elegit — Judgment creditor tenant 
 by elegit — Liability to indemnify lessee against 
 payment of rent — Distress — Fractice. 
 
 0., who was lessee of Isind for a term of years, 
 mortgaged the same to the pits, by way of sub- 
 
( eis ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 684 ) 
 
 DlSTU^aS—continued. 
 
 demise, less the last three days of the term, and 
 coyenauted to pay the rent and perform the cove- 
 DantB in the lease. The deft., who was the owner 
 of the demised property suhjeot to C.'s term, 
 recoyered judgment against her in the Q. B. Diy. 
 for two quarters' rent, and sued out a writ of 
 elegit under which the sheriff, after inquisition, 
 deliyered the property to him. After the inquisi- 
 tion the pits, appointed a receiyer under their 
 mortgage. The deft, recoyered nothing under 
 his judgment and took no further steps under the 
 elegit, but afterwards distrained on the property 
 for a further half-year's rent. In an action to 
 restrain the distress : — 
 
 Held, (1) that, assuming the deft, was by 
 virtue of the elegit an assignee of C.'s term, he 
 only took it for a limited purpose, and could not 
 be treated (on the principle of MouU v. Garrett, 
 (1872) L. E. 7 Ex. 101) as surety for her and 
 bound to indemnify her against the payment of 
 the rent ; (2) that the property was delivered to 
 the deft., not in respect of the mere reversion 
 •expectant on the determination of the sub-demise, 
 but to the extent of C.'s interest as mortgagor in 
 possession ; that that interest was determined by 
 the appointment of the receiyer, and consequently 
 the title of the deft, as tenant by elegit had either 
 been extinguished or suspended : 
 
 Held, therefore, that the deft, was entitled to 
 •distrain. Johks v. Pink 
 
 StirUng J, [1900] 1 Ch. 296 
 
 9. — • Expiration of tenancy — New tenancy — 
 -8 Anne, c. 14, ss. 6, 7. 
 
 The right to distrain after the expiration of a 
 tenancy given by 8 Anne, u. 14, ss. 6, 7, does not 
 apply where the tenant remains in possession of 
 part of the demised premises under a new tenancy 
 ■created by agreement. 'Wilkinson v. Peel 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 516 
 
 10. — Goods impounded on premises — Man in 
 possession — Distress for Sent Act, 1737 (11 Geo. 2, 
 «. 19), «. 10 — Practice — Appeal from county court 
 — Limited leave to appeal to Court of Appeal. 
 
 Where goods distrained for rent by a landlord 
 haye been impounded on the premises under 
 11 Geo. 2, 0. 19, s. 10, it is not requisite that any 
 •one on the landlord's behalf should be left in 
 possession of the goods. 
 
 Decision of Diy. Ct., [1899] W. N. 12 (10) ; 
 £1899] 1 Q. B. 470, affirmed. 
 
 In an appeal from a county court to a Diy. Ct., 
 leave to appeal on one point haying been given 
 by the Div. Ct., the C. A. confined the argument 
 to the point as to which leave to appeal had 
 been given, and refused to allow the appellant to 
 go into another point which had been raised in 
 the county court and in the Div. Ct. Jones v. 
 BiEBNSTEiN - - C. A. [1900J 1 Q. B. 100 
 
 ■ Guardians levying- 
 See Lunacy. 
 
 -Eeceiver in lunacy, 
 40. 
 
 11. — Illegal distress — Mortgage — Eeceiver — 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. o. 41), s. 19, 
 suh-s. 1 (m.) ; e. 24, sub-ss. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 Where a receiver of the rents of mortgaged 
 property has been appointed by tlie mortgagee, 
 tne mortgagor cannot distroin without the ro- 
 
 DISTEESS— coniinuecJ. 
 
 ceiver's authority even after the receiver has 
 
 refused to do bo. Woolston v. Boss 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 24; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 788 
 
 — Jurisdiction of justices as to validity of 
 
 warrant. 
 
 See Justices. 16. 
 
 — Distress — Chattels of lessee on adjoining 
 
 mine. 
 
 See Mines. 8. 
 
 — Penalty — Public undertaking. 
 
 See Teamway. 12. 
 
 — Poor-rate. 
 
 See Bates— Eeoovery. 62. 
 
 12. — Privileged from distress — Bedstead — 
 " Bedding " — Law of Distress Amendment Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 21), 6. 4^County Courts Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 147. 
 
 The " bedding " privileged from distress for 
 rent under the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 
 1888, and the County Courts Act, 1888, includes 
 a bedstead used by the tenant as part of his 
 sleeping accommodation. Davis v. BLakeis 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 17; [1900] 1 Q. B. 729 
 
 — Bates. 
 
 (See Rates — Eecovery. 62 — 64. 
 
 — Bates— Priority of bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill of Sale — Priority. 43. 
 
 13. — Beceioer appointed — Prior ineum- 
 hrancer in possession — Motion — Costs. 
 
 Where a landlord is in possession before a 
 receiver is appointed, he need not apply for leave 
 to proceed with his distress, and if he does apply, 
 he will not be allowed costs. Engel v. South 
 Meteopolitan Brewing and ' Bottling Co. 
 (No. 1) - - Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 31 
 
 — Bent — Scottish sequestration. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 251. 
 
 14. — Taxes — Sum due not exceeding 201. — 
 Charges for man in possession — Beal possession — 
 Distress (^Costs') Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. 93), s. 1— 
 Distress {Costs) Act, 1827 (7 * 8 Geo. 4, c. 17). 
 
 By the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817, no person 
 making a distress for rent where the sum de- 
 manded and due does not exceed 201. shall 
 receive more than the charges fixed in the 
 schedule to the Act, and " no person or persons 
 whatsoever shall make any charge whatsoever 
 for any act, matter, or thing mentioned in the 
 said schedule, imless such act shall have been 
 really done." By the Distress (Costs) Act, 1827, 
 the provisions of the previous Act were extended 
 to distresses for assessed taxes or other rates or 
 taxes where the sum demanded and due does not 
 exceed 201. 
 
 Where goods are distrained for taxes less in 
 amount than 201., the collector who distrains has 
 no right to the statutory charge for a man in 
 possession unless he has remained in real posses- 
 sion, or unless there is an agreement binding on 
 the person whose goods are distrained to pay such 
 charges. Lumsden v. Bubnett 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 177 
 
 15. — Tliird party's goods — Bight to distrain — 
 Want of title in lessor — Estoppel. 
 
 Though a tenant who has been let into jxis- 
 
( 685 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 68G ) 
 
 SISTBESS — coniinued. 
 
 session of land by a lessor is estopped from 
 disputing his lessor's title, third persons not 
 claiming possession of the laud under the tenant 
 are not eo estopped. A person who lets land to 
 which he has no title cannot distrain for arrears 
 of rent due from his tenant the goods of a third 
 person brought on the premises by the tenant's 
 licence. Tadman v. Henman 
 
 Charles J. [1893] 2 ft. B. 168 
 
 16. — Wairei- of riglit of re-entry — Action to 
 recover possession — Common Law Procedure Act, 
 1852 (16 & 16 Vict. a. 76), s. 210. 
 
 A distress for rent is not a waiver of the 
 landlord's right of re-entry, so as to prevent him 
 from maintaining an action to recover possession, 
 under s. 210 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 
 1852. Thomas v. Lclham 
 
 C. A. revers. Mathew J. [1895] 2 Q. B. 400 
 
 DISTRIBUTION— Assets— Dissolution of society. 
 See SoiENTirio Society. 2. 
 
 — Period of— Advancement — Interest. 
 
 See "WiiiL — Advancement. 24. 
 
 — Period of — Gift to class — ^Lapso — Survivor- 
 
 ship. 
 
 See Will. 49. 
 
 — Postponed period of — Conditional institution 
 
 — Succession — Vesting. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Succession. 44. 
 
 DISTEIBUTIONS, STATUTE OF—" Intestate "— 
 " Next of Icin in blood " — Settlement — Gonstruc- 
 tion. 
 
 In a gift to next of kin a reference to the 
 death of the propositus intestate imports division 
 among blood relations according to the Statute 
 of Distributions. 
 
 Consols were settled on ti-ust after the death 
 of M. A. Gray for " the next of kin in blood to 
 the said M. A. Gray .... in case she had so 
 died intestate and unmarried " : — 
 
 Seld, that children of deceased brothers and 
 sisters of M. A. Gray were entitled as well as 
 living brothers and sisters to share in the fund. 
 In re Gray's Settlement. Akees v. Seabs 
 
 North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 802 
 
 DISTEICT COUNCILS. 
 
 By the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 it- 57 
 Vict. c. 73) urban sanitary authorities were called 
 Urban District CouMcils, and Sural District 
 Councils were established in all rural districts. 
 
 Expenses of Members of Rural District Councils 
 attending Local Oovernment Conferences, Order of 
 the Local Government Board (JTo. 34,707), dated 
 Dec. 28, 1896, as to payment of. St. E. & 0. 1896, 
 No. 1115. 
 
 Oaths — Exemption of chairman — Bee Chair- 
 men of District Councils Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, 
 c. 22). 
 
 District Councils {Water Supply Facilities') 
 Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 44), gives facilities for 
 a pure water supply in Rural Districts. 
 
 Contracts, col. 686. 
 Elections, col. 686. 
 Powers, col. 686. 
 
 DISTEICT aOVTSClLS— continued. 
 Contracts. 
 
 1. — Pecuniary penalty — Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 174, sub-s. 2. 
 
 It is imperative that a contract by an urban 
 authority, whereof the value exceeds 50Z., shall 
 specify some pecuniary penalty to b3 paid in 
 case the terms of the contract are not duly iier- 
 formed, and in the absence of such provision the 
 contract cannot be enforced against the urban 
 authority. British Insulated Wire Co. v. 
 Prescot Urban District Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B. 463 
 
 On appeal, the appeal was dismissed on the 
 
 understanding that the Loc. Govt. Bd. would 
 
 sanction payment of the arrears, and that a new 
 
 contract with a penalty clause should be executed 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 638 
 
 Elections, 
 
 Rural Councils— Rural District Councillm-s' 
 Election Order, lS9S,_dated Jan. 1, 1898. St. E. 
 & 0. 1898, p. 302, No. 2. 
 
 Urban Councils — Urban District Councillors' 
 Election Order, 1898, dated Jan. 1, 1898. St. E. 
 & 0. 1898, p. 264, No. 1. 
 
 2. — Election petition — Costs — Ballot Act, 
 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. a. 33). 
 
 M., a candidate in a district council election, 
 duly withdrew his name, but his name was acci- 
 dentally printed on the ballot papers, but not in 
 the notice of poll, numerous copies of which 
 were posted in the ward. At the election the 
 returning officer told many of the voters that M. 
 was not a candidate. M. obtained thirty-four 
 votes : — 
 
 Held, that the election was void, and that 
 the petition should be allowed with costs against 
 the respondents other than the returning officer. 
 Liability of returning officer for costs discussed. 
 Wilson v. Ingham - Div. Ct. [1895] W. N. 99 
 See also Cases under Parliament. 
 
 3. — Nomination paper — Validity of — Elec- 
 tion — Finality of returning officer's decision — ■ 
 Rural District Councillors' Election Order, 1898, 
 r. 7 (2). 
 
 A nomination paper of a candidate for election 
 as a rural district councillor is not invalid by 
 reason of its having been signed by the proposer 
 and seconder before the name of the candidate 
 was filled in. Cox v. Davies 
 
 Div. Ct, [1898] 2 Q, B. 202 
 
 Powers. 
 
 — Drainage. 
 
 See Seweks. 
 
 — Highways. 
 
 See Highway. 
 
 — Nuisances. 
 
 See Cases under Nuisance. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See Cases under Streets. 
 
 DISTEICT COUNCILLOES AND GUAEDIANS 
 (TEEM OF OFFICE) ACT, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict, 
 c. 16), mahes further provision for the term of 
 office of district councillors and guardians. 
 
( 687 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— lOCO. 
 
 ( CSS ) 
 
 DISTEICT HEGISTRY— Piacticc. 
 
 See Peactice— District Kegistry. 
 
 DISTEICT SUBVEYOE— Powers of. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 29. 
 
 " DISUSED BtTRIAI GROUND "—Faculty. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law — 
 Faculty. 
 
 DITCH — Hedge and — Acts of joint ownership — 
 Presumption. 
 See Boundary. 1. 
 
 DIVEESION— Highway. 
 
 See Highway — Diversion. 
 DIVIDED PARISHES ACT, 1876. 
 
 See Cases under PoOB Law. 
 
 DIVIDEND — Apportionment — Income or capital. 
 See Will— Dividends. ' 76. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy — Dividends. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See CoMrANY — Dividends. 
 
 — Income tax, Deduction of. 
 
 See Kevenue — Income Tax. 92. 
 
 — Ecceiver of dividends of stock in Bank of 
 
 England. 
 .See Lunacy. 38. 
 DIVORCE. 
 
 Alimony (Maintenance and), col. 687. 
 
 Bigamy, col. C92. 
 
 Children, col. 693. 
 
 Collusion, col. 694. 
 
 Condonation, col. 694. 
 
 Co-respondent, col. 696. 
 
 Costs, col. 699. 
 
 Cruelty, col. 702. 
 
 Desertion, col. 703. 
 
 Evidence, col. 705. 
 
 Jactitation of Marriage, col. 707. 
 
 Judicial Separation. See Husband and 
 
 Wife — Summary Jurisdiction. 
 Jurisdiction, col. 707. 
 Ijunacy, col. 709. 
 Maintenance, col. 687. 
 Nullity (Nullity of Marriage), col. 709. 
 Practice, col. 711. 
 
 Uestitution of Conjugal Rights, col. 111. 
 Separation. See Husband and Wife — 
 ' Separation. 
 
 Settlements (^Variation of Settlements), 
 
 col. 718. 
 Summary Jurisdiction. See Husband 
 
 and Wife — Summary Jurisdiction. 
 Title of Honour. See Husband and 
 
 Wife — Title of Honour. 
 
 Alimony. 
 
 (Maintenance and Alimony.) 
 
 1. — Accord and satisfaction — Consideration 
 —Matrimonial Causes Act, 1866 (29 * 30 Vict. 
 ■-. 32). ^ 
 
 A. obtained a divorce from her husband, in 
 tne course of wliieh an order was made that the 
 
 DIVORCE (Alimony) — continued. 
 Iiusband should pay her iOl. per annum. A_ 
 married again, and when 161. was due under the 
 order A. and her husband agreed, by writing not 
 under seal, in consideration of a payment of lO/.^ 
 to give up all claim to future payments under the 
 order : — 
 
 Held, that the agreement, being for the 
 release of all payments under the order in con- 
 sideration of tlie payment of a sum less than 
 what was actually due and payable, was void for 
 want of consideration, and did not prevent A. 
 from enforcing payment of subsequent instal- 
 ments in arrear. Underwood i;. Underwood 
 
 C. A. revers. Jeune P. [1894] P. 204 
 
 2. — Aliermtion—Maintenance — Decree against 
 husband — Divorced loife — Alienation Divorce Act, 
 18.57 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 32— Divorce and 
 Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment Act, 1866 
 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 32), 8. 1—Eules of Dec. 2(5, 1865, 
 rr. 95 to 103. 
 
 Sums of money ordered under s. 1 of the 
 Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act Amend- 
 ment Act, 1866, to be paid by a husband for the 
 maintenance of his "divorced wife, are a purely 
 personal allowance, and so long as the order sub- 
 sists can neither be alienated nor released. 
 
 The decision of tlie President affirmed. 
 Watkins v. Watkins C. A. fl896] P. 322 
 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. Kerr y. Kerr, 
 [1897] P. 439, 442. 
 
 3. — Answer of husband — Cross-examination 
 — Itegistrar — Discretion — Restitution of conjugal 
 rights — Divorce Court Rules, 1865, rr. 86, 191 — 
 Practice — Proceedings in chambers — Kcidence — 
 Note of registrar or master. 
 
 Upon a petition before the registrar for ali- 
 mony pendente lite, the wife is not entitled as u 
 matter of course, under rules 86 and 191 of the 
 Divorce Court Rules, 1865, to an order for cross- 
 examination of her husband upon his answer, 
 even though there uiay be a great discrepancy 
 between the amount of his income as alleged by 
 her in the petition and the amount as stated ia 
 his answer. 
 
 Whether the husband should be ordered to 
 attend for cross-examination is a matter tntirely 
 for the discretion of the registrar, and the Court 
 will not inter.'ero with the exercise of his discre- 
 tion unless satisfied that he has cither proceeded 
 on a wrong principle or has exercised his discre- 
 tion wrongly. 
 
 Whore there is no very great discrepancy be- 
 tween the two figures, it is not the practice of 
 the Court to order the attendance of the husband 
 for cross-examination. 
 
 Wliere a wife in her petition for alimony pei3>- 
 dente lite put the income of her husband, a 
 baronet, at 70,000i. a year, while the husband in 
 his answer put" it at 16,600Z. only, supportiug his 
 statement by full aud detailed particulars, the 
 registrai-, on the hearing of the petition, and the 
 judge on appeal from him, refused an application 
 by the wife for an order on the husband to attend 
 for cross-examination, and allotted the wife 3000?. 
 a year as alimony. On appeal to the U. A. : — 
 
 Held, tliat 3000?. a year was an adequate 
 allowance for the wife pendente lite, and that as 
 the registrar had properly exercised his discretion 
 
( 6sa ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1030. 
 
 ( 690 ) 
 
 DIVORCE (Alimoay) — continued. 
 in allotting that sum, the Conrt would not inter- 
 fere by ordering the husband to atleud for croBB- 
 examinatioa as to his means. 
 
 On an appeal from an order of a registrar or 
 master the Court will only recognise a note of the 
 I'egistrar or master as evidence of what took place 
 before him, an affidavit by either party being 
 inadmisBible. Sykes v. Sykes 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 306 
 
 Referred to by Jeune P. Kettlewell v. KettU- 
 well, [1898] P. 138, 141. 
 
 4. — Arrears — Proof for in hankruptcy. 
 Arrears of alimony under an order of the 
 
 Divorce Div. accrued after the receiving order 
 but before discharge cannot be proved for by the 
 wife in the husband's bankruptcy. In re Haw- 
 kins. Ex parte Hawkins 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 26 
 Referred to. Kerr v. Kerr, [1897] 2 Q. B. 
 439, 440. 
 
 5. — JDum so?a et casta clause. 
 
 (a) Provision made for maintenance of a wife 
 proved guilty of adultery without tlie insertion 
 of a dum sola et casta clause. Landee v. 
 Lander - - Eannen P. [1891] P. 161 
 
 Distinguished by G. Barnes J. Edwards v. 
 Edwards, [1894] P. 33. 
 
 Eef erred to by Jeune P. Kettlewell v. Kettle- 
 well, [1898] P. 138, 142. 
 
 (b) There is no general rule that a dum sola 
 et casta clause must be inserted in an order 
 granting permanent maintenance, unless there 
 be some reason for omitting it. Circumstances 
 which should guide the Court considered. Wood 
 ■„. Wood - - C. A. [1891] P. 272 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. Kettlewell v. Kettle- 
 well, [1898] P. 138, 142. See No. 10, helow. 
 
 6. — Injunction — Practice — Dissolution of 
 marriage — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 <fc 21 
 Vict. c. 85), s. 32. 
 
 Where, a wife having obtained a decree nisi 
 for the dissolution of her marriage, an order had 
 been made pursuant to s. 32 of the Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1857, that the husband should secure 
 a sum for her maintenance, and that, for that 
 purpose, it should be referred to one of the con- 
 veyancing counsel of the Ch. Div. to draw a deed, 
 the Court granted an injunction restraining the 
 husband, his servants and agents, from dealing 
 with certain of his property until the execution 
 of the deed, Newton v. Newton 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1895] W. N. 152 (5) ; 
 [1896] P. 36 
 
 7. — Judicial separation — Practice — Injunc- 
 tionr—Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. 
 c. 85), s. 22. 
 
 Where, in a suit by a wife for judicial separa- 
 tion, an order for alimony pendente lite had been 
 made jgainst the husband, the Court refused to 
 restrain the husband from dealing with certain 
 of his property. Oarteb v. Carter 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 35 
 
 8. — Jurisdiction — Nullity. 
 
 As a rule a marriage de facto carries the right 
 to alimony pendente lite until it is finally declared 
 to be void. There is jurisdiction to order alimony 
 
 DIVORCE (Alimony)— continued. 
 pendente lite in a husband's suit for nullity of 
 marriage, on the ground that the wife was within 
 the prohibited degrees. The application may bo 
 made by the wife after a decree nisi has been 
 pronounced, if the decree has not been maie 
 absolute, even though the time at which it might 
 have been made absolute has passed. Fouen in 
 FODEN - - - C. A. [1894] P. 307 
 
 9. — Misconduct nf wife — Judicial separalion 
 — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict, 
 c. 85), s. 17. 
 
 Following the old Ecclesiastical Court, the 
 Court has jurisdiction to grant permanent nli- 
 moiiy to a wife against whom a decree of judicial 
 separation has been made on account of her mis- 
 conduct, aud has also power fi om time to time to 
 vary such order. Gooddest v. Goodden 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 396 ; 
 a&m. by C. A. [1892] P. 1 
 
 10. — Permanent maintenance — Clause " dum 
 sola et casta" — Large income — Settled property 
 tluit of husband alone — Test of what would haee 
 been an adequate jointure. 
 
 A wife obtained a divorce from her husband 
 on the ground of his adultery and cruelty. The 
 uicome of the husband had been 19,000J. a year, 
 and the wife, who had herself brought nothing 
 into settlement, had 1400i. a year under her mar- 
 riage settlement. 
 
 The Court, on the petition of the wife for 
 permanent maintenance, considering that 30001. 
 a year would have been an adequate jointure for 
 the widow of a man in the husband's position, 
 granted her IBOOi. a year in addition to her pre- 
 sent allowance, the additional 1600Z. a year to be 
 payable " dum sola et casta vixerit." 
 
 Sylces V. Syhes, [1897] F. 306, and Wood v. 
 Wood, [1891] P. 272, followed. Kettlewell v. 
 Kettlewell (1) Jeune P. [1898] P. 138 
 
 11. — Permanent maintenance — Clause " dum 
 sola " without " et casta." 
 
 An order for permanent maintenance may be 
 made containing a clause "dum sola vixeiit" 
 without the addition of "et casta." Smith r. 
 Smith - Jeune P. [1898] P. 29 
 
 12. — Permanent maintenance — Payment to 
 wife without settlement — Costs — Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 82. 
 
 Where, on a petition for permanent main- 
 tenance by a wife, who liad obtained a divorce 
 from her husband on the ground of adultery and 
 desertion, it appeared that the husband had net 
 been heard of for several years, and that there 
 was a sum of 3202. standing to his credit in an 
 action in the Chan. Div., the Couit ordered the 
 wife's costs to be paid out of the fund aud tlio 
 balance to be paid to her tor her and her chil- 
 dren's maintCDance. 
 
 Morris v. Morris, (1861) 31 L. J. (P. M. & A. 
 33), followed. Stanley v. Stanley 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1898] P. 227 
 
 13. — " Property of wife " — Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1857 (20 <fc 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 32. 
 
 An annual sum which the Court had on disso- 
 lution ordered under s. 32 of the Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1857, to he paid to the wife, held to 
 be " property of the wife," even though the deetl 
 
( C91 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 692 ) 
 
 DIVORCE (AiimoJij)— continued. 
 to secure it had not been executed. The wife 
 was therefore allowed to prove as a creditor in 
 the administration of the husband's estate. In re 
 Tatham. Bensaude v. Hastings 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] W. N. 150 
 
 14. — Respondent's income — PartnersTiip profits 
 — Order under Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, or 
 the Act of 1856. 
 
 "Where the husband's income under certain 
 circumstances is liable to be greatly reduced, the 
 inclination of the Court will be to make an order 
 for an annual sum under the Act of 1866 rather 
 than under that of 1867. 
 
 A wife obtained a decree nisi for dissolution. 
 The husband was partner in a firm ; by the 
 partnership deed he was only allowed to draw a 
 limited amount of the profits without leave of his 
 partner : — 
 
 Sekl, by H. L. (E.), revers. C. A. and restor- 
 ing Jeune P., that the husband must be ordered 
 (under the Act of 1866) to secure permanent 
 maintenance for the wife on the basis of one- 
 third of his average profits, and not on the basis 
 of one-third of the amount he was allowed to 
 draw. Hanbuey v. Hanbuet (No. 2) 
 
 Jenne P. [1894] P. 102 ; C. A. [1894] P. 315 ; 
 H. I. (E.) [1895] A. C. 417 
 
 15. — Sesjpondent's income — Voluntary allow- 
 ance to husband — Practice. 
 
 Where in a suit for dissolution of marriage or 
 for judicial separation there has been a full 
 inquiry into the husband's means upon an appli- 
 cation for alimony pendente lite, the amount of 
 permanent alimony or permanent maintenance to 
 be allotted to the wife will be determined upon 
 the evidence then given, without a repetition of 
 such inquiry upon the petition for permanent 
 alimony or maintenance. 
 
 For the purpose of determining the amount 
 of permanent alimony or maintenance, recourse 
 may be had to iucome of which the husband has 
 no legal power to enforce the payment. 
 
 A husband, who was largely indebted to his 
 brother, was in receipt of a voluntary allowance 
 from him so long as he should remain out of the 
 country : — 
 
 Held, that the voluntary allowance was pro- 
 perly included in the husband's income for the 
 purpose of fixing the amount of permanent main- 
 tenance. BONSOK r. BONSOB 
 
 Jenne P. [1897] P. 77 
 
 16. — Eespondent's means. 
 
 In a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage 
 she applied for alimony pendente lite. The 
 husband filed a balance-sheet, shewing a loss on 
 his whole busiuess for the year, and the registrar 
 made an order on him and his partner to pro- 
 duce their account-books. They accordingly 
 produced a ledger for the last year, but refused 
 to allow it to be inspected : — 
 
 Held, that the registrar had power under 
 rule 191 to require an inspection" of the ledger, 
 and a writ of attachment issued to enforce com- 
 pliance with his order. Cakew v. Cabew 
 
 Jenne P. [1891] P. 360 
 
 }^'^- — Respondent's means. 
 n,„ 1 "? 'Application for alimony pending suit by 
 the Imsband for dissolution of marriage, the witfe 
 
 DIVOECE (Alimony) — continued. 
 is entitled to require that the husband shall state 
 on oath the net profits of his business; but, 
 except in a very strong case, the Court will not 
 call for documents which would disclose partner- 
 ship accounts, Tonge v. Tonge 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 51 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Sykee v. Sylies, [1897] 
 P. 306, 311. 
 
 — Separation deed. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Separation. 
 
 18. — Separation deed — Allowance for wiff?s 
 maintenance — Subsequent alteration of circum- 
 stances — Dissolution of marriage — Judicial separa- 
 tion — Alimony — Maintenance and education of 
 children — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 it 21 
 Vict. c. 85), ss. 32, 35 — Matrimonial Causes Act, 
 ^ 859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. 61), ss. i, 5— Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 32), s. 1. 
 
 Notwithstanding that by an agreement for 
 separation, made between a husband and wife on 
 withdrawal of the wife's petition for divorce, the 
 wife has agreed to accept from the husband a 
 specified sum for maintenance, to be paid in any 
 event whether the marriage should thereafter be 
 dissolved or not, the Court has power under the 
 Divorce Acts, after a decree for dissolution on a 
 fresh petition by the wife based on misconduct of 
 the husband since the agreement, to disregard 
 the agreement and order permanent alimony to 
 be paid to her at a rate exceeding the amount 
 specified in the agreement, if the husband's 
 means on inquiry permit : at all events, if the 
 agreement does not contain an express covenant 
 by the wife not to sue for increased alimony in 
 the event of a divorce grounded on future mis- 
 conduct of the husband. But whether such a 
 covenant is valid, qumre. 
 
 Again, when by a separation deed the wife 
 has agreed to accept a specified sum for mainte- 
 nance, the deed to become void if the marriage is 
 afterwards ' ' dissolved " for any future misconduct 
 by either party, the Court has a similar power to 
 order the payment of permanent alimony to the 
 wife after a decree for judicial separation by 
 reason of the husband's misconduct since the 
 execution of the deed, if there has been such an 
 alteration of circumstances as renders it unjust 
 that the wife should be bound by the deed. 
 
 The statutory power of the Court in relation 
 to the maintenance and education of the children 
 after a decree forjudioial separation or for disso- 
 lution of marriage is not affected by any previous 
 agreement between the parents. 
 
 Gandy v. Gandy, (1882) 7 P. D. 168; (1885) 
 30 Ch. D. 57, considered and explained. Bishop 
 V. Bishop. Jddkins v. Judkins 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 138 
 
 — Summary jurisdiction. 
 
 See Oases under Husband and Wife — 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 Bigamy. 
 
 19. — Ignorance of law — Discretion of Court 
 — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 <t 21 Vict, 
 c. 85), s. 31. 
 
 A husband and wife separated by agreement 
 
( 693 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1903. 
 
 ( 694 ) 
 
 DIVORCE (Bigamy)— continued. 
 in writing, and the husband, believing that by 
 the effect of such agreement the marriage was 
 legally dissolved, married again. On discovering 
 his mistake he again cohabited with his wife. 
 She subsequently committed adultery. The 
 Court, under the special circumstances, granted 
 the man a divorce, notwithstanding his bigamy. 
 Whitwobth v. Whitwobth 
 
 G. Barnes J, [1893] P. 85 
 
 Children. 
 
 20. — Access to cliildren — Wife guilty of adul- 
 tery— Divorce Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict.'c. 85), 
 s. 35; Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 * 23 
 Vict. c. 61), s. 4. 
 
 The Court is not prccluiled from making an 
 order giving the divorced wife access to her 
 children, but as a general rule such an or Icr will 
 not be made. Handlet v. Handley 
 
 C. A. [1891] P. 124 
 
 21. — Custody — Jrisli divorce hill — Infant. 
 In an Irish divorce bill, although no separate 
 
 action has been instituted in Iichmd to obtain 
 the custody of infant children after a decree for 
 separation a mensS, et thoro has been pronounced, 
 the House of Lords will sanction a clause giving 
 the custody of the children to the innocent party. 
 Mrs. Addison's Case, (1801) Maoq. Prac. H. L. 
 p. 5Q8, followed. Haet's Divokce I3ill 
 
 H. L. (D.) [1898] A. C. 305 
 
 22. — ■ Custody — Setting aside order. 
 
 On it being shewn that the mother, the peti- 
 tioner, was no longer fit for the custody of her 
 children, the order was set aside and the custody 
 given to the husband, but the wife's maintenance 
 was not reduced. Witt v. Witt 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 163 
 
 23. — Children over sixteen — Jurisdiction. 
 
 (a) The Court has no power to make orders as to 
 children over sixteen, either in regard to custody, 
 education, or maintenance. Blandfoed v. 
 BLANDraBD - Butt P. [1892] P. 148 
 
 Overruled by C. A. Thomasset v. Tlwmasset, 
 [1891] P. 295. 
 
 (b) Nor to continue orders for the payment 
 of suras for the maintenance of such children. 
 Oliveb v. Oliveb - Jenne J. [1892] W. N. 84 
 
 (c) The Court has power to make orders 
 respecting the custody, maintenance and educa- 
 tion of children until they attain the age of 
 twenty-one years. Thomasset v. Thomasset 
 
 C. A. revers. Jeune P. [1894] P. 295 
 Referred to by C. A. Bishop v. Bishop, Jud- 
 hins V. Judhins, [1897] P. 138, 154. 
 
 (d) The Court has 'power under s. 45 of the 
 Act of 1857 to vary settlements in favour of 
 children over sixteen. Midwinter v. Midwinteb 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 93 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Thomson v. Tliomson, 
 [1896] P. 263, 270. 
 
 24. ■ — Discovery — Infant. 
 
 Practice of Divorce Court as to discovery con- 
 sidered. Discovery ought not to be required 
 from a party to divorce proceedings when it is 
 sought for no other purpose than to prove such 
 party guilty of adultery. Whether an order for 
 
 DIVORCE (ChUdren)— conKnaet?. 
 discovery cannot J^be made against an infant iu 
 proceedings for divorce, gumre. Eedeekn v. 
 Eedfebn - - C. A, [1891] P. 139 
 
 {But see now R. S. C, Nov. 1893, Order xxxi., 
 r. 29, St. B. & 0. 1883, p. 550.] 
 
 Collusion. 
 
 25. — Condonation of adultery suppressed hy 
 collusion — Intervention — Costs — Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 144), e. 7. 
 
 A wife obtained a decree nisi ; sulsseqiiently 
 she condoned the offences. There was collusion 
 to suppress the condonation. The husband com- 
 mitted adultery after the condonation : — 
 
 Held, (1) that collusion to suppress the fact of 
 condonation after decree nisi was sufficient 
 ground for refusing to make. decree absolute; 
 (2) that facts establishing such collusion weie 
 '■ iiiaterial facts " within the Matrimonial Causes 
 Act, 1857, s. 7 ; (3) that as the suit was not con-i- 
 pleted till decree absolute, the petition, though 
 not presented, had been prosecuted in collusion ; 
 (4) that such collusion might be brought forward 
 by the Queen's Proctor under s. 7 of the Act of 
 1860, and was ground for rescinding decree nisi. 
 EoGEBS V. EoGEBS Jeune P. [1894] P. 161 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. Churchward v. Church- 
 ward, [1895] P. 7, 24. 
 
 26. — Findings in former suit — Rescission of 
 decree nisi for collusion. 
 
 A wife petitioned for divorce ; the jury found 
 that the husband had been guilty of adultery and 
 cruelty : the Queen's Proctor intervened, and the 
 deci^ee nisi was set aside for collusion and sup- 
 pression of material facts. Afterwards the 
 husband petitioned for a divorce : — 
 
 Held, that the rescission of the decree did not 
 prevent the findings of the jury in the former 
 suit being conclusive evidence in the second. 
 
 Decision of Jeune P., [1893] P. 185, affirmed. 
 Bctleb v. Butlee (No. 1) - C. A. [1894] P. 25 
 
 27. — What amounts to — Matrimonial Causes 
 Acts, 1857, 1860 (20 & 21 Vict. e. 85), s. 30; 
 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 144), ss. 5, 7. 
 
 If the initiation of a suit be procured, and its 
 conduct (especially if abstention from defence be 
 a term) provided for by agreement, that con- 
 stitutes collusion, though no one can put his 
 finger on any fact falsely dealt with or withheld. 
 The various definitions of collusion reviewed and 
 considered. Chuecshwaed v. Chubchwaed 
 
 Jeune P, [1895] P. 7 
 
 Condonation. 
 
 28. — Adultery subsequent to condonation. 
 Adultery subsequent to condonation makes 
 
 the condonation alone no ground for rescinding 
 decree nisi. Eogebs v. Eogebs 
 
 Jenne P. [1894] P. 161 
 Followed by Jeune P. Churchward v. Church- 
 ward, [1895] P. 7, 24. 
 
 29. — Conduct conducing to adultery — Verdict 
 of jury — Discretion-r:Dissolution of marriage — 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 (£21 Vict o 85) 
 ». 31. 
 
 On a petition by a husband for the dissolu- 
 tion of his maiTiage, adultery by the wife was 
 
( 695 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 6£6 ) 
 
 DIVORCE (Condonation)— coniim«€(Z. 
 admitted, but the jury found that the petitioner 
 had been guilty of " wilful neglect or misconduct 
 conduciog to the adultery " within tlie meaning 
 of s. 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857. 
 
 It appeared that the parties were domestic 
 servants. The respondent had had an illegitimate 
 child by the petitioner before the marriage. 
 During their married life, between 1883 and 1894, 
 ihe petitioner was abroad for long periods witli 
 his master ; and the respondent meanwhile kept 
 a lodging-house, the petitioner remitting to her 
 regularly an adequate weekly allowance. The 
 parties lived unhappily owing to the enforced 
 separation. In 1891 a child was born, the result, 
 as the respondent admitted, of the adultery im- 
 puted to her in the petition. 
 
 The Court, notwithstanding the verdict of 
 the jury, pronounced a decree nisi for the dis- 
 solution of the marriage, but directed that it 
 sliould not be made absolute until the petitioner 
 had secured to the respondent, by a proper deed, 
 tlie annual sum of 201., payable in equal monthly 
 instalments, commencing from the date of the 
 (lecrie nisi, during their joint lives, dum sola et 
 casta vixerit. Parry v. Parky 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 37 
 
 30. — Damages — Goals — Divorce and Matrimo- 
 nial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. u. 85), 
 ts. 30, 33, 59. 
 
 A husband petitioned for divorce on the 
 ground of his wife's adultery with A. and B. 
 He claimed damages and costs against A., and 
 costs against B. The jury found that the re- 
 spondeut had committed adultery with A. and B., 
 but tliat the adultery with A. had been condoned. 
 The petitioner was not aware of the adultery 
 with a. when he condoned that with A. Jeune P. 
 (lismis-ed A fiom the suit and gave him his costs, 
 and granted a decree nisi on the adultery with 
 B.:— 
 
 Held, by C. A., (1) that condonation is not 
 avoided by previous undisclosed adultery with 
 another ; (2) that condonation is a bar to a judg- 
 ment for damages, and (3) that the petitioner 
 may be ordered to pay the co-respondent's costs. 
 Bernstein r. Bernstein (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 292 
 
 31. — Damages — Second petition. 
 
 A husband having presented a petition 
 charging his wife with adultery with A. condoned 
 tlie offence, and allowed the petition to be dis- 
 missed. Subsequently he presented a second 
 petition, charging adultery with B., and obtained 
 leave to add the charges in the first petition 
 against A., and to insert a claim for damages 
 against A. : — • 
 
 held, on motion to dismiss A. from the suit, 
 that the condonation was no bar to the claim 
 for damages. Bernstein r. Beiinstein (No. 1) 
 Jeune P. [1892] P. 375 
 But see Bernstein v. Bernstein (No. 2) 
 
 [1893] P. 292 
 
 32. — Decree nisi not made absolute — Matrimo- 
 nial Causes Act, 18.57 (20 A 21 Vict. c. 85), 8. 30. 
 
 A wife obtained a decree nisi, but no steps 
 were taken to make it absolute. Believing she 
 was fiee to do en, she went through a form of 
 
 DIVORCE (Condonation) — continued. 
 marriage with a man with whom she lived until 
 his death : subsequently she resumed cohabita- 
 tion with her husband, but left him on the ground 
 of his cruelty. On her petition, held that tlie 
 Court was entitled to make the original decree 
 absolute. Moobe v. Mooee 
 
 e. Barnes J. [1892] P. 382 
 This case was followed by Jeune P. Sogers 
 V. Bogers, [1891] P. IGl. See Divorce— Collu- 
 sion. 25. 
 
 33. — Deed of separation. 
 
 In a suit for judicial separation the husband 
 pleaded that his wife had committed adulteiy. 
 She replied that the adultery had been condoned 
 by a covenant in a separation deed not to com- 
 mence or prosecute proceedings in relation to 
 antecedent oifences. There was no other con- 
 donation, nor had the parties again cohabited : — • 
 
 Held, that the covenant was not equivalent to 
 condonation, and that the husband miglit plead 
 the wife's former misconduct in answer to her 
 petition. GooCH v. Goocn Jeune P. [1893] P. 99 
 
 34. — Conduct — Inducing adultery. 
 Neither a hastily expressed wish that the wife 
 
 should go and live with her eventual seducer, 
 nor the husband refusing absolutely an allowance 
 to support his wife unless she returns to live with 
 him or some of her relations ready and willing to 
 take her, is in either case conduct inducing 
 adultery. 
 
 1st Case. Todd's Divorce Bill. 2nd Case. 
 Scovell's Divorce Bill 
 
 H. L. [1896] W. N. 60 (3) 
 
 Co-respondent. 
 
 — Bankruptcy of co-respondent — Damages — 
 
 Provable debt — Judgment summons. 
 See Baskedptcy — Proof. 1G6. 
 
 — Costs, order for, against co-respondent. 
 
 See DivoacE — Costs, in — 49. 
 
 35. — Damages — Married woman — Knowledge 
 of corespondent — Absence of eridence — Direction 
 to jury. 
 
 "Where in a petition by the husband for 
 divorce on the ground of adultery claiming 
 damages against the co-respondent, no evidence 
 was given on behalf of the petitioner that the 
 co-respondent knew that the respondent was a 
 married woman : — 
 
 Held, that damages might, nevertheless, be 
 assessed against the co-respondent. 
 
 The rules at common law in actions for 
 crim. con. applied to claims for damages in 
 divorce cases ; and the direction of Tindal C.J. 
 in Calcraft v. Harhorough {Earl of), (1831) 4 
 C. & P. 499, at p. 501, adopted and followed by 
 G. Barnes J. Lord v. Lord 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1900] P. 297 
 
 36. — Deatli of alleged adulterer before suit — 
 Motion to dispense with making co-respondent — 
 Practice. 
 
 Where, in a petition for dissolution of mar- 
 riage, adultery is charged with a person who 
 died before the institution of divorce proceedings, 
 the petitioner must apply to the Court for an 
 order to be excused from making him a co-re- 
 
( 097 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 608 ) 
 
 DIVOBCE (Co-respondent) — continmd. 
 Bpondent, even though adultery be charged 
 agiiiost a second person who has been made a 
 eo-respondent to the suit. Slaytok v. Slaytor 
 AND Jackson - Jenne P. [1897] P. 85 
 
 37. — Dispensing with co-respondent — Practice 
 — Biishand's petition — Confession by wife — Name 
 of alleged adulterer. 
 
 In a petition by the husband for dissolution 
 of marriage, it was alleged (par. 3) that about 
 the end of 1890 the respondent committed adul- 
 tery with a man whose name was unknown to 
 the petitioner, and that in consequence thereof 
 ehe, on Aug. 14, 1897, gave birth to a child of 
 which the petitioner was not the father. 
 
 In par. 5 it was further alleged that from 
 Sept. 1897, until the date of the petition (Oct. 25, 
 1900), the respondent frequently committed adul- 
 tery with men unknown ; and that (par. 5) between 
 June 19, 1900, and Aug. 11, 1900, at a certain 
 address the respondent committed adultery with 
 men unknown. 
 
 Upon application to the Court to proceed 
 without citing any person as co-respondent, it 
 appeared that diligent attempts had been made 
 to trace a man, whose name was given by the 
 lespondent at the time she was served with the 
 citation and copy petition aa "Alfred LRmb," 
 whom she said resided at St. Michael's, in the 
 city of Liverpool, and whom she stated to hare 
 been employed by a well-known shipping firm as 
 a foreman cattleman on one of that firm's 
 steamers. The respondent at the same time 
 stated that she did not know this man's address 
 more definitely, but that he resided, when at 
 home, with his mother. 
 
 From the afSdavifs filed in support of the 
 motion, it appeared that, upon inquiries being 
 made of the firm named by the respondent, they 
 stated that no cattlemen were in fact employed 
 by tliem, but were engaged by other persons 
 interested in the conveyance of the cattle. Further 
 inquiried had failed to trace any such person. 
 
 Jeune P. ordered the petition (par. 3) to be 
 amended hy alleging that at about the end of 
 1896 the respondent " committed adultery with 
 a man whose name is helieved to be Alfred Lamb, 
 in consequence whereof she on Aug. 14, 1897, 
 gave birth to a child of wliich your petitioner 
 was not th« father, but of which it is believed that 
 j^Se man whose name is believed to be Alfred Lamh 
 is the father." The amended petition need not be 
 re-served on the respondent under the circum- 
 stances ; but the petitioner must cite " Alfred 
 lamb" by advertisements to be settled in the 
 registry. Thompson v. Thompson 
 
 Jeune P. [1900] "W. N. 254 
 
 38. — Intervention — Answer containing no 
 ■claim for cross-relief — Matrimonial Causes Act, 
 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), 8. 28— Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. o. 32), s. 2. 
 
 A husband, in his answer to a petition by his 
 wife for dissolution of marriage, made a counter- 
 charge against her of adultery with a specified 
 person, without claiming cross-relief, or "such 
 further or other remedy as the nature of the case 
 may require": — 
 
 Held, that the Court had no power to allow the 
 alleged adulterer to intervene. 
 
 DITOBCE (Co-respondent)— conWnuecJ. 
 
 WJieeler v. Wheeler and Rhodes, (1889) 
 14 P. D. 154, considered. Habeop v. Hareop 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 61 
 
 Followed. See next Case. 
 
 39. — Intervention — Wife's petition — Husband's 
 answer — Counter-charge of adultery — Cross-peti- 
 tion— Tliird party, application by— Jurisdiction — 
 Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857, 1866 (20 & 21 
 Vict. e. 85, ». 28; 29 & 30 Vict. c. 32, s. 2)— 
 Appeal to House of Lords — Judicature Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. a. 68), s. 9. 
 
 Where «, husband in his answer to his wife's 
 petition made a counter-charge against her of 
 adultery with a person named, but did not ask 
 for any relief whatever beyond the simple 
 dismissal of the petition : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., affirming Jeune J., that 
 under the circumstances the answer could not be 
 treated as a cross-petition under s. 2 of the 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1866, but merely as 
 an ordinary defence, and that therefore the 
 Court had no jurisdiction, on the opposition of 
 the husband, to allow the alleged adulterer to 
 intervene. « 
 
 Harrop v. Harrop, [1899] P. 61, followed. 
 
 Application under s. 9 of the Supreme Court 
 of Judicature Act, 1881, for leave to appeal to 
 the House of Lords refused. Lowe v. Lowe 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 71 ; [1899] P. 204 
 
 40, — Practice — Leave to proceed without co- 
 respondent — Discretion of judge — Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 28. 
 
 The mere belief of a petitioner, founded on 
 the evidence then before him, that a person 
 accused of being the adulterer is not guilty, is 
 not in itself sufficient to excuse him from making 
 that person a co-respondent; if, however, the 
 Court is satisfied that no evidence can be ob- 
 tained against the accused person, it may exercise 
 its discretion under s. 28 of the Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1857, and allow the petitioner to 
 proceed without joining him as co-respondent. 
 
 Jones V. Jones, [1896] P. 165, and Saunders v. 
 Saunders, [1897] P. 89, considered and explained. 
 Edwabds v. Edwaeds Jenne P. [1897] P. 316 
 
 41, — Practice — Leave to proceed without — 
 Petition for divorce — Discretion of judge — Matri- 
 monial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. u. 85), 
 s. 28 — Divorce Court Rules, 1865, rr. 4, 6. 
 
 The discretion given to the judge, by s. 28 
 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, to allow a 
 petition for a divorce to proceed, on special 
 grounds, without making any co-respondent, is 
 to be exercised with regard to the principles laid 
 down in or to be gathered from the Act and the 
 Rules, and to the circumstances of each particular 
 case, and cannot be fettered by any general rule 
 of practice. 
 
 The rule laid down in Jones v. Jones, [1896] 
 P. 165, at p, 170, disapproved as a rule of general 
 application. 
 
 A husband, who had been absent from Fng- 
 land for more than two years, ascertained, when 
 he returned home, that his wife had recently 
 given birth to a child, of which he was not tho 
 father. She registered the birth of the child, 
 giving her own name as the mother, but without 
 
( 699 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 700 ) 
 
 DIVORCE (Co-respondent)— con<MiMe(J. 
 giving the name of any father. She took out a 
 bastardy summona against H., whom she alleged 
 to be the father of the child, but, at the time 
 appointed for its hearing, she did not appear, and 
 the summons was struck out. The husband did 
 not believe that H. was the father of the child, 
 and his solicitor, after making careful inquiry, 
 was unable to obtain any evidence against H. 
 H. was prepared to swear that he had never had 
 intercourse with the wife. The husband pre- 
 sented a divorce petition, in which he alleged 
 that the wife had committed adultery with a man 
 whose name was unknown to him : — 
 
 Held, that the husband should be allowed to 
 proceed with the petition without naming any 
 co-respondent. • 
 
 Decision of G. Barnes J. reversed by the 0. A., 
 A. L. Smith L.J. dissenting. Saundees v. 
 Saundeks - - - C. A. [1897] P. 89 
 
 Explained by Jeune P. Edwards v. Edwards, 
 [1897] P. 316. See preceding Case. 
 
 42. — Practice — Necessity for malting a person 
 co-respondent — Inability to prove adultery — Matri- 
 monial Causes Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict. c. 85), 
 ss. 28, 33. 
 
 Where the relief sought by the petitioner is 
 on the ground of adultery alleged to have been 
 committed with a man, who is alive, and whose 
 name and identity are known, the petitioner 
 mubt make that person a co-respondent ; and the 
 Court ought not to excuse him from so doing, 
 merely because he finds that he cannot obtain 
 evidence which will prove his case as against 
 that co-respondent. 
 
 So held by G. Barnes J., with the assent of 
 Sir F. Jeune, President. Jones c. Jones 
 
 [1896] P. 165 
 
 Censidered by Jeune P. Edwards v. Edwards, 
 [1897] P. 316, 319. 
 
 43. — Substituted service — Necessity of affi- 
 davit hy petitioner — Rules of 1865, it. 10, 11, 
 12, 13. 
 
 On an application to allow substituted service 
 of a petition on a co-respondent, there should be 
 an affidavit by the petitioner. Williams v. 
 Williams and Fooook 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 153 
 
 Costs. 
 
 44. — Attachment — Order on respondent to pay 
 petitioner's costs. 
 
 Where a respondent, who had been ordered 
 after decree nisi to pay a certain sum into Court 
 to meet the petitioner's costs, had not complied 
 with the order, the Court refused to issue an 
 attachment, but varied the order by directing the 
 payment to be made to the petitioner's solicitor, 
 on the undertaking that he should lodge it in 
 Court. Haet v. Haet 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] W. N. 162 
 
 45. — Attachment — Security for costs — Undis- 
 charged bankrupt. 
 
 An undischarged bankrupt respondent failed 
 to comply with an order to give security for the 
 wife s costs. He was proved to be in the posses- 
 
 DITOECE (Costs) — continued. 
 
 sion of means not under the control of the trustee 
 
 in bankruptcy : — 
 
 Held, that the bankruptcy did not prevent the 
 Court from attaching him. Shine v. Shine 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 289 
 
 46. — Co-respondent — Banlcruptcy notice — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Firf. c. 52,'', s. 4, 
 svh-s. 1 (c), 1 (g% 
 
 Order for payment of costs by co-respondent 
 in decree nisi (afterwards made absolute) held not 
 to be a final judgment on which a bankruptcy 
 notice could issue. In re Binstead. Ex parte 
 Dale - - - C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 199 
 
 47. — Co-respondent — Death before payment — 
 Beceiver. 
 
 A co-respondent condemned in the costs of a 
 divorce action died before payment. His estate 
 being less than the costs, the petitioner was 
 appointed receiver subject to the right of the co- 
 respondent's widow to take out administration 
 and give security for the' unpaid costs ; the right 
 to be exercised within one week. Waddell v. 
 Waddell - Butt P. [1892] P. 226 
 
 48. — Co-respondent — Order for costs against 
 — Practice — Delay in enforcing order — Leave to 
 issue execution. 
 
 Where a decree nisi for dissolution of mar- 
 riage has been made with costs against the 
 co-respondent, and no steps have been taken for 
 upwards of six years to enforce the order for 
 costs, application should be made to the Court 
 for an order that the petitioner be at liberty to 
 issue execution against the co-respondent. Good- 
 win V. Goodwin and Abnold 
 
 Jeune P. [1897] P. 87 
 
 49. — Co-respondent out of jurisdiction. 
 
 Where a co-respondent appeared uncondi- 
 tionally and then filed an answer alleging his 
 domicil was foreign, the Court dismissed him 
 from tlie suit, but gave him only his costs of 
 appearance. Grange v. Grange 
 
 Jeune P. [1892] P. 245 
 
 50. — Discretion — Divorce Court Act, 1857 
 (20 & 21 Yid. c. 85), s. 5\~,Tudicatiire Act, 1873 
 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 6G), s. 49 — Appellate Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), s. W—Divorce 
 Court Rules, 158, 159, 199, 201. 
 
 Under s. 51 of the Divorce Act, 1857, the costs 
 of any suit or proceeding under the Act are 1*^, 
 the discretion of the Court, and the C. A. is pre- 
 cluded by s. 49 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and 
 s. 20 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, from 
 reviewing the exercise of such discretion. Eus- 
 SELL V. EussBLL (No. 1) - C. A. [1892] P. 152 
 
 51. — Enforcing order. 
 
 Injunction granted restraining respondent 
 from parting with specific property until the 
 petitioner had the opportunity of enforcing her 
 order as to costs. Brewis v. Brewis 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] W. N. 6 
 
 62, — Pauper— Divorce Act, 1857 (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 85), s. 51. 
 
 Subject to the discretion of the Court under 
 s. 51 of the Divorce Act, 1857, it is the practice 
 in the Probate Div- to allow a husband suing in 
 forma pauperis for dissolution of marriage only 
 his or his solicitor's costs out of pocket, including 
 
( 701 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 702 ) 
 
 DIVORCE (Costs)— continmd. 
 those of the certificate, and in the latter case a 
 reasonable sum for office expenses, against the 
 co-respondent : — 
 
 Semble, per Jexme P., that a barrister or a 
 solicitor may receive fees from such pauper peti- 
 tioner, and that a solicitor not assigned by the 
 Court, but employed by such pauper petitioner, 
 can sue his client on a retainer ; also that the 
 respondent and co-respondent may, if successful, 
 obtain an order for full costs against such pauper 
 petitioner; also that there is no clear rule of 
 practice as to whether the respondent should 
 obtain an order for security for costs against such 
 pauper petitioner; but each case must be dealt 
 with on its own merits. 
 
 Decision of Jeune P., [1895] P. 276, affirmed. 
 BlOHAKDSON V. KlOHAKDSON C. A. [1895] P. 346 
 
 See In re Baphael, Kekewich J., [1899] 1 Ch. 
 853; 0. A. [1899] W. N. 212. 
 
 53. — Pauper petitioner — Fractice— Interven- 
 tion of Queen's Proctor. 
 
 A pauper petitioner, who is unsuccessful upon 
 the intervention of the Queen's Proctor, is liable 
 to be condemned in the full costs of the inter- 
 vention. White v. "White 
 
 Jeune P. [1898] P. 124 
 
 54. — Queen's Proctor's costs — Co-respondent 
 —Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1860, 1878 (23 & 24 
 Vict. c. 144), s. 7 ; (41 * 42 Vict. c. 19), s. 2. 
 
 A co-respondent ordered to pay the costs of 
 the Queen's Proctor's intervention. Taplen v. 
 Taplen - - ColUns J. [1891] P. 283 
 
 55. — Unnecessary charges of cruelty. 
 Where the communication of venereal disease 
 
 is charged as cruelty, and such communication is 
 the only evidence of adultery, the costs of other 
 charges of cruelty will, on a wife's successful 
 petition for dissolution, be disallowed. Ash v. 
 Ash - G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 222 
 
 56. — Wife's costs — Abortive trial. 
 
 (a) At the trial of a petition by a husband for 
 divorce the jury disagreed, and were discharged 
 without giving a verdict. The Court, upon the 
 application of the wife, made an order that her 
 costs of the hearing should be taxed and paid in 
 full, and refused to limit such costs to the amount 
 deposited in Court. Hueley v. Hitelet 
 
 Collins J. [1891] P. 367 
 Eollowed by Butt P. See next Case. 
 
 (b) In a divorce action the husband and wife 
 mutually charged each other with adultery. On 
 the trial the jury found for the husband, but were 
 unable to agree on the counter-charge against 
 the wife : — 
 
 Held, that the wife was entitled to her costs. 
 
 DEIiAPOEOB V. DeLAFOKOB 
 
 Butt P. [1892] W. N. 68 
 
 57. — Wife's costs — Attachment. 
 
 The Court refused to attach a petitioner, who 
 had not complied with an order to secure a sum 
 for his wife's costs, on his shewing want of means 
 as the reason for non-compliance. Clarke «. 
 Claekb - - Jeune J. [1891] P. 278 
 
 88 Wife's costs— Bmd to wife's solicitor — 
 
 IHvorce Court Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 51 
 
 DIVORCE (Costs)— continued. 
 
 —Judicature Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 06), s. 49 
 
 — Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1867 (39 & 40 Vict. 
 
 c. 59), s. 20— Divorce Mules, 158, 159, 199, 201— 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 Where the Court has not allowed the wife any 
 costs the bond given by the husband to the wife's 
 solicitor cannot be enforced against him. The 
 question of costs being in the discretion of the 
 Court there is no appeal from the decision of the 
 Court refusing to allow such a bond to be 
 enforced. Ktissell v. Kussell (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1892] P. 152 
 
 59. — Wife's costs pendente lite — Bules of 
 Dec. 26, 1865, r. 158 (1). 
 
 Mode in which discretion of Court is to be 
 exercised. Allen v. Allen (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1894] P. 134 
 
 60. — Wife's costs — Solicitor's lien. 
 
 The C. A. has jurisdiction to order the hus- 
 band's costs of an unsuccessful appeal by the 
 wife to be paid out of money paid by him into 
 court to defray the wife's costs at the hearing. 
 Such an order will not be made to the prej udice 
 of the lieu of the wife's solicitor, even where the 
 appeal was hopeless, unless he has so conducted 
 himself as to justify so strong a measure. Hali. 
 V. Hall - - - C. A. [1891] P. 302 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Eussell v. Bussell, [1892] 
 P. 152, 156. 
 
 Cruelty. 
 
 61. — Delay — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 31 — Matrimonial Causes 
 Act, 1859 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 144), s. 5. 
 
 In this case the Court, without giving an 
 opinion as to whether a long course of neglect 
 and immorality involving great mental trouble on 
 the wife, but without actual violence, amounted 
 to legal cruelty : — 
 
 Held, that a delay of twenty years, not satis- 
 factorily explained, prevented the petitioner from 
 obtaining redress. Beacolekk v. Beauolerk 
 (No. 1) - C. A. affirming Butt J. [1891] P. 189 
 
 Eeferred to by Jeune P. Beauclerh v. Beau- 
 clerk (No. 2), [1895] P. 220, 222. 
 
 62. — Discretionary iar — Findings of adultery 
 against respondent and co-respondent and of cruelty 
 against petitioner — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 (20 & 21 Vict. a. 85), ss. 31, 32. 
 
 On a husband's petition the jury found that 
 the respondent and co-respondent had committed 
 adultery, and that the petitioner had been guilty 
 of cruelty but not of adultery ; but there was no 
 finding as to whether the cruelty had conduced 
 to the adultery. G. Barnes J., in the exercise 
 of his discretion, and being of opinion that the 
 cruelty had not conduced to the adultery, granted 
 decree nisi, not to be made absolute till petitioner 
 had secured to the respondent, by deed, an allow- 
 ance of 362. per annum, dum sola et casta vixerit. 
 Edwahds v. Edwaeds G. Barnes J. [1894] P. 33 
 
 Eeferred to by Jeune P. Prym v. Pryor, 
 [1900] P. 157, 159. 
 
 63. — Legal cruelty. 
 
 A long course of systematic neglect and insult 
 involving d:inger«to the wife's health, although 
 
( 703 ) 
 
 DIGEST Oi' CA'SE^, 1801—1000. 
 
 ( 70i ) 
 
 BIVOBCE (Cmsltj)— continued. 
 
 mot accompanied by actual violence, constitutes 
 
 Segal cruelty. Bethdne v. Bethcite 
 
 Hannen P. [1891] P. 205 
 Commented on by Butt P. Beauclerlc v. Beau- 
 clerk, [1891] P. 1S9. 
 
 64. — Unfounded charges. 
 
 A false charge of having committed an un- 
 natural criminal offence brought by a wife against 
 iier husband, although persisted in, is not suflB- 
 eient evidence of legal cruelty to support a peti- 
 tion by the husband for judicial separation. But 
 such conduct on the part of the wife justifies the 
 Court in refusing to accede to her petition for 
 restitution of conjugal rights. Edssell v. Kus- 
 SELL (No. 2) - _ c. A. [1895] P. 315 
 
 Desertion. 
 
 65. — Definition — Matrimonial Causes Act, 
 1857 (20 tt 21 Vict. u. 85), s. 21. 
 
 Separation by consent and desertion distin- 
 guished. Makont v. MoCakthy 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 21 
 
 66. — Criminal charge — Husband absconding 
 under. 
 
 Where it appeared that more than two years 
 before a wife's petition for dissolution, her hus- 
 band, who had ibrmed an adulterous connection 
 ■with another woman, had absconded in order to 
 a,void criminal proceedings, falsely stating to her 
 that he intended to be away only for a sliort 
 time, and had since concealed his address from 
 her, the Court, on the authority of Drew v. Dreio, 
 <1888) 13 P. D. 07, found him guilty of desertion. 
 Wynne v. Wynne Jeune P. [1898] P. 18 
 
 87. — "Desertion" — Husband's refusal to dis- 
 charge adtiXterous servant — Consequent separation 
 hy wife — Decree. 
 
 Upon a wife's petition for divorce on the 
 grounds of desertion and adultery, it appeared 
 that the respondent had refused to break oif 
 relations with and to discharge a servant with 
 whom, when taxed, he admitted that he had com- 
 mitted adultery. The petitioner thereupon left the 
 house, and, although overtures wore subsequently 
 made by the respondent for a resumption of 
 cohabitation, tlje petitioner never returned home, 
 owing to the persistent refusal of the respondent 
 io discharge the servant in question : — 
 
 Held, tliat the conduct of the husband con- 
 jstituted " desertion " within the meaning of the 
 Divorce Acts. Koch v. Koch 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 221 
 
 68. — Desertion without previous cohabitation. 
 
 There may be desertion without previous co- 
 habitation. 
 
 Where a husband and wife separated immedi- 
 ately after their marriage, and never cohabited, 
 but it appeared that it was the husband who re- 
 fused to cohabit, the wife having been always 
 willing to do so, the Court found that the hus- 
 band had been guilty of desertion. De Lawben- 
 QUE V. De Laueenqub* - - - Jeune P. 
 
 [1898] W. N. 164(4) ; [1899] P. 42 
 
 ^^',~ Husband's adultery— Befusal to lead 
 chaste life— Wife unable to continue cohabitation. 
 in order to oonttitute desertion, tlicrc must be 
 
 DIVORCE (Deseitioyi.)— continued. 
 
 a cessation of cohabitation and an intention on 
 
 the part of the accused party to desert the other. 
 
 It is not always, or necessarily, the guiUy 
 party who leaves the matrimonial home : the 
 party who intends to bring the cohabitation to 
 an end, and whose conduct in realify causes its 
 termination, commits the act of desertion. 
 
 There is no substantial difference between 
 the case of a husband who intends to put an end 
 to a state of cohabitation and does so by leaving 
 his wife, and that of a husband who, with the 
 like intent, obliges his wife to separate from him. 
 
 In a case where a husband is carrying on an 
 adulterous intercourse with another woman or 
 other women, although he does not biing the 
 adulteress into the matrimonial home and commit 
 adultery with her there, the wife may express ber 
 willingness to remain with him on condition that 
 he give up the connection complained of; and, if 
 the husband refuse to do so, and the wife with- 
 draw from cohabitation in consequence of the 
 refusal, the husband is guUty of desertion, as he 
 must be taken to intend the consequences of his 
 action. The situation then produced is just the 
 same as if the guilty husband left his wife. At 
 tho end of two years the statutory offence of 
 desertion is complete, and the wife is entitled to 
 relief on that ground. Sickbkt v. Sickeet 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 278 
 — " Eeasonable cause." 
 
 See Scottish Law — Divorce. 12. 
 
 70. — Refusal by wife, without catise, of marital 
 intercourse — Subsequent adultery of husband — 
 Wife's desertion no bar to relief — Decree of judi- 
 cial separation. 
 
 A wife who, without cause, refuses to permit 
 marital intercourse to her husband, cannot allege 
 desertion without reasonable cause by him if in 
 consequence he refuses to live with her, and is 
 herself in such circumstances guilty of desertion 
 without reasonable cause. 
 
 Desertion without reasonable excuse for two 
 years and upwards is no bar to a petition for 
 judicial separation on the ground of subsequent 
 adultery. Stnge d. Synge 
 
 Jeune P. [1900] P. 180 
 
 71. — Unreasonable delay in presenting peti- 
 tion—Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857, 1884 (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 85), s. 31 ; 47 <fc 48 Vict. c. 68), s. 5. 
 
 In 1890 the petition of a wife who married iu 
 1858, but had lived apart from her husband since 
 1870 under a separation deed, was dismissed for 
 unreasonable delay. Subsequently she obtained a 
 decree for restitution. A decree nisi was granted 
 for desertion (i.e., for non-compliance with the 
 restitution decree) and adultery. The question 
 of the extent to which the impediment of delay 
 is avoided by obtaining a restitulion decree con- 
 sidered. Beauolerk v. Beatjolekk (No. 2) 
 
 Jeune P. [1895] P. 220 
 And see Divorce — Nullity. 94. 
 DivoKOE — Practice. 100. 
 
 72. — What amounts to. 
 
 A husband and wife were living apart under 
 a separation deed, by which the husband cove- 
 nanted to make weekly payments to the wife. 
 The husband having ceased to make the pay- 
 
( 705 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 18J1— 1900. 
 
 ( 706 ) 
 
 DIVOKCE (TieseitioTL)— continued. 
 ments, the wife offered to resume cohabitation ; 
 but the husband refused to do so. The wife then 
 applied for an order for maintenance under the 
 Married Women's (Maintenance in Case of Deser- 
 tion) Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. «. 52) :— 
 
 Jield, that, in order to constitute desertion 
 within the Act, the parties must be living 
 together as man and wife when the desertion 
 takes place; that the husband's refusal of the 
 wife's offer to resume cohabitation did not con- 
 stitute desertion ; and that there was therefore no 
 evidence of desertion. Kbs. v. Lebesche 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 a. B 418 
 
 Eeferred to by Jeune P. Bradshaw v. Brad- 
 shaw, [1897] P. 24, 26. 
 
 [The Married Women Maintenance in Case of 
 Desertion Act, 1886, was repealed, and further 
 provision made by the Summary Jurisdiction 
 {Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39).] 
 
 Hyidence. 
 
 73. — Admissibility — Acts of adultery subse- 
 quent to date of petition — Practice. 
 
 Evidence of acts of adultery subsequent to 
 the date of the petition may be admitted for the 
 purpose of shewing what inference the Court 
 ought to draw from evidence of previous acta of 
 familiarity. Wales v. Wales 
 
 O. Barnes J. [1900] F. 63 
 
 74. — Admissibility — Entry in official docu- 
 ment — Queen's Begulations — X on-commissioned 
 officer^Decree. 
 
 Wife's petition for dissolution of marriage on 
 the grounds of cruelty and adultery. 
 
 At the hearing the cruelty was proved by the 
 petitioner and duly corroborated ; but, in the 
 absence on active service of a military doctor 
 who was said to have attended the respondent 
 while stationed in London in Jan. and Feb., 1899, 
 counsel for the petitioner tendered, as the only 
 available evidence of the adultery alleged in the 
 petition, the evidence of a staff-sergeant who 
 knew the respondent very well as the husband 
 of petiiioner, and who produced from the regi- 
 mental headquarters an army form (No. B. 178), 
 from which it appeared thiit W. G. Gleen, who 
 was a non-commissioned officer, was admitted 
 into the Block Station Hospital on Jan. 20, 
 1899, suffering from gonorrhoea, and that he 
 remained in hospital for twenty-nine days. 
 
 On behalf of the. petiiioner, it was submitted 
 that this " medical history sheet " was evidence 
 of the facts therein stated, and counsel referred 
 to the Eegulations for Army Medical Services, 
 1897, rr. 200, 208, and 443, and cited Wallace v. 
 Cook, (1804) 5 Esp. 117 (see Watson v. King, 
 (1815) 4 Camp. 272; 16 E. E. 790), and several 
 other authorities summarized in Eoscoe's Nisi 
 Prius; ed. 1900, pp. 213, 214. 
 
 The Court held that the case was proved, and 
 pronounced a decree nisi with costs, and gave the 
 petitioner the custody of the two children of 
 the marriase. Gleen v. G leen 
 
 Jeune P. [1900] W, N, 2S8 
 
 75. Admission of evidence of respondent 
 
 against co-respondent— Bight to cross-examine. 
 The evidence of one party cannot be received 
 
 DIVORCE (Evidence) — continued. 
 as evidence against another unless the latter has 
 an opportunity of cross-examination. Therefore, 
 in a divorce suit, if the respondent's evidence 
 tends to incriminate the co-respondent, and the 
 co-respondent is not allowed to cross-examine, 
 the judge should distinctly direct the jury to 
 disregard that evidence as against the co- 
 respondent. 
 
 Semble, that the co-respondent has a right to 
 cross-examine the respondent as to any evidence 
 tending to incriminate him. Allen v. Allen 
 (No. 1) - - C. A, [1894] P. 248 
 
 76. — Decree in previous suit. 
 
 On a petition by a wife for dissolution of her 
 marriage on the ground of adultery coupled with 
 desertion, the decree in a previous suit in which 
 her husband had been co-respondent was pro- 
 duced; This decree stated that the jury found 
 that the respondent had been guilty of adultery 
 with the co-respondent, and that he had been 
 condemned in costs, but contained no finding by 
 the jury that the co-respondent had been guilty 
 of adultery with the respondent : — 
 
 Held, that the decree was not by itself suffi- 
 cient evidence of adultery against the husband. 
 EcCK V. Edok G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 152 
 
 77. — Identification — Use of photographs — ■ 
 Praxitice. 
 
 In matrimonial eases, except under very 
 special circumstances, the Court will not act 
 upon identification by a photograph only. Fkiih 
 V. Feith and Paice - G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 74 
 
 — Identity — Nullity suit. 
 
 See DivoKCE — Nullity of Marriage. 92. 
 
 78. — Irish Divorce Bill — Evidence taken in 
 India. 
 
 Evidence taken in India on commission, and! 
 received and acted on by the Q. B. Div. of the 
 High Court of Justice in Ireland, admitted to be 
 used on the second reading of an Irish divorce 
 bill. Jones' Divoece Bill. 
 
 H. I. (D.) [1899] A. C. 348 
 
 79. ■ — Judge's note of evidence — Admissibility 
 — Divorce bill — Substituted service — Veceastd' 
 witness. 
 
 A certified copy of the judge's notes of the 
 evidence of a witness called by the petitioner at 
 the hearing of a petition for divoice a mensa et. 
 thoro cannot, in case of the death of the witness,, 
 be received as proof of the matters deposed to by 
 him upon the second reading of a bill for divorce 
 presented by the petitioner. Griffin's Divorce 
 Bill - - H. 1. (D.) [1896] A. C. 133 
 
 80. — Marriage — Colonial marriage — Eri- 
 denee of validity — Practice — Colony of Hong-Kong. 
 
 Where, upon the hearing of a petition to dis- 
 solve a marriage which had been celebrated in 
 the Colony of Hong-Kong, it was stated on behalf 
 of the petitioner that the only legal expert avail- 
 able to give evidence of the validity of the 
 marriage, according to the laws and Ordinances 
 of Hong-Kong, demanded a prohibitive fee, the 
 Court gave leave to prove the marriage by read- 
 ing an affidavit of an ex-Governor of the Colony, 
 who was not a member of the legal profession, 
 but who deposed that he was conversant with 
 
 2 A 
 
( 707 ) 
 
 DIGE!ST OF CAfcES, 1891— U'JO. 
 
 ( 7.8 ) 
 
 DIVOECE (Evidence)— conimuetJ. 
 
 the laws and ordinances in force in the Colony. 
 
 COOPER-KINQ V. COOPEE-KiNG 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1900] W. N. 32 ; [1900] P. 65 
 
 81. — Marriage,Evidenceof — Proof of marriage 
 between Christians in British India — Indian 
 Act XV. of 1872 (JVie Indian Christian Marriage 
 Act of 1872) — Births' and Deaths' Registration 
 Act, 1836 (6 4 7 Will, i, c. 86), 8. 3S— List of 
 registers and records in the custody of the 
 Registrar-General at Somerset House. 
 
 The solemnization of a marriage between 
 
 Christians in British India is proved by the 
 
 production of a certificate of the marriage from 
 
 "the India Office. Westmacott v. Webtmacott 
 
 G. Barnes 3. [1899] F. 183 
 
 82. — Marriagein Burma — Evidence of validity 
 — Practice. 
 
 In addition to the evidence of the petitioner, 
 sail that is required to prove the validity of a 
 ■marriage of a British officer in Burma is to 
 
 subpoena an official from the War Office and for 
 ^him to produce the " Army Marriage Eegister," 
 •which is liept pursuant to the Army Acts. 
 
 Adams v. Apams G, Barnes J. [1900] W. N. 32 
 
 — Marriage solemnized on board British warship 
 
 without licence or banns. 
 See Maekiage. 2. 
 
 Jactitation of Marriage. 
 
 ^3. — Acquiescence of petitioner. 
 
 The jury found that the petitioner had at a 
 former period acquiesced in the representation 
 of the respondent that she was his wife, but 
 could not agree whether there was a legal 
 marriage :— 
 
 Held, on this finding, that the petition must 
 
 - be dismissed. Thompson v. Eoueke (No. 2) 
 
 Barnes J, [1893J P. 11 ; aflSrin. by C. A. 
 [1893] P. 70 
 
 Judicial Separation. 
 
 ^See Gases under Huseakd and Wife — 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 ' 84. — Domicil — " Matrimonial domicU." 
 The permanent domicil of the spouses within 
 a territory is necessary to give the territorial 
 Court jurisdiction so to divorce a vinculo that its 
 decree to that effect shall have extra-territorial 
 authority in international law. The so-called 
 " matrimonial domicil " said to be created by 
 bona fide residence of the spouses within a 
 territory of a less degree of permanence than 
 is required to fix their true domicil cannot be 
 recognised as creating such jurisdiction. Deci- 
 sions of English and Scottish Courts as to 
 matrimonial domicil considered. Le Mesueiee 
 V. Le Mesceier - P. C. [1895] A. C. 617 
 
 Commented on by G. Barnes J. Armytage v. 
 Armytage, [1898] P. 178, 185. 
 
 85. — Domicil — Matrimonial home — Residence 
 within jurisdiction at commencement of suit — ■ 
 Cruelly committed outside jurisdiction — Appre- 
 hension of further acts of cruelty — Powers of 
 Ecclesiastical Court to grant relief —Judicial 
 
 DITOBCE (Jurisdiction) — continued. 
 
 separation — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 
 (20 & 21 Vict. 0. 85), ss. 7, 22, 25, 26. 
 
 By the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 85), s. 22, " In all suits and proceedings, 
 other than proceedings to dissolve any marriage, 
 the said Court shall proceed and act and give 
 relief on principles and rules which, in the 
 opinion of the said Court, shall be as nearly as 
 may be conformable to the principles and rules 
 on which the Ecclesiastical Courts have hitherto 
 acted and given relief." 
 
 In a proceeding for a divorce a mensa et thoro 
 on the ground of cruelty, where the parties 
 resided within its jurisdiction at the commence- 
 ment of the suit, an Ecclesiastical Court would 
 have granted relief irrespective of their domicil, 
 and it would have made no difterence that the 
 necessity for protection arose in consequence of 
 cruelty committed outside its jurisdiction, where 
 the appiehension of further acts of cruelty 
 remained. 
 
 The petitioner for a judicial separation bad 
 been, before her marriage, a domiciled English- 
 woman. Her husband's domicil was in Australia, 
 where, after her marriage, she resided with him. 
 Owing to cruelty committed by him while they 
 were travelling in Italy, she sought the protection 
 of her parents in England, and established a 
 home for herself and her children in this country. 
 He followed her here and required her to return 
 to him with the children, which she was afraid 
 to do owing to her apprehension of a repetition 
 of the cruelty. At the commencement of the 
 suit both parties were living within the jurisdic- 
 tion : — 
 
 Held, that the Court, exercisiog the power of 
 the Ecclesiastical Court under the section, had 
 jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Aemttage r. 
 Aemttage - G. Barnes J. [1898] P. 178 
 
 86. — Domicil. 
 
 Two persons born in France of parents bom 
 in England but resident iu France, were married 
 in England, but subsequently resided in France. 
 The husband on coming of age had made a 
 declaration of his intention to retain Britisb 
 nationality, and he and his father contemplated 
 return to England. He deserted Ms wife and 
 went to the Australian colonies : — 
 
 Held, that the domicil of the parties was 
 English. G-odldee v. GtOuldeb 
 
 Lopes L.J. [1892] P. 240 
 
 — Domicil — Co-respondent out of jurisdiction. 
 
 See DivOBOE— Costs. 49. 
 
 — Domicil, Scottish. 
 See Scottish Law- 
 
 -Divorce. 12. 
 
 87. — Foreign divorce — Domicil. 
 
 An American married an Englishman domi- 
 ciled in England. Husband and wife lived in 
 England for a short time, when the wife went to 
 America on a visit. The wife never returned. 
 Subsequently she obtained a divorce in Penn- 
 sylvania on the ground of the husband's cruelty, 
 and remarried : — 
 
 Held, that the Courts of Pennsylvania had no 
 jurisdiction to divorce a British subject domiciled 
 iu this country who had never submitted himself 
 to its jurisdict.on, and that the remai-riage of the 
 
( 709 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, ISfU— 190J. 
 
 ( 710 ) 
 
 ])IVOBC£ (Jurisdiction) — continued. 
 
 wife in America entitled the husband to a decree 
 
 tor divorce in England. Gbeen v. Geeen 
 
 Gr. Barnes J. [1893] F. 89 
 
 88. — Witnesses examined hy foreign tribunal. 
 In a petition for dissolution the co-respondent 
 
 £led an Act on petition denying the jurisdiction. 
 The petitioner had obtained an order for ex- 
 amination of witnesses at Vienna, which was 
 suspended pending the hearing of the Act on 
 petition ; in the meantime he applied to the 
 Court at Vienna to summon witnesses before it. 
 On the application of the respondent an injunc- 
 tion was granted restraining him from further 
 prosecuting the Viennese proceedings. Abm- 
 STRouG V. Akmsteong Jeune J. [1892] P. 98 
 
 Lunacy. 
 
 89. — Insanity, how far a defence. 
 
 (a) Though a wife is subject to insane delu- 
 sions on certain points, if at the time she commits 
 adultery^ she is capable of appreciating the 
 nature of the act and its probable consequences, 
 her insanity is not a defence to a petition by her 
 husband for dissolution. Yabeow v. Yakbow 
 
 Butt P. [1892] P. 92 
 
 (b) Assuming that insanity is a defence to 
 proceedings for diyorce, the plea of insanity to be 
 good must state that the insanity is lasting and 
 abiding without hope of recovery or amelioration, 
 and not that it is merely recurrent or intermittent. 
 
 Queere, whether insanity can under any cir- 
 cumstances afford a defence to a petition for 
 divorce. Eights of wife where husband is sub- 
 ject to dangerous mania considered. Hanbtibt 
 ». Hanbukt - Butt P. [1892] P. 223 
 
 90. — Practice — Respondent a person of un- 
 sound mind — No appearance to citation — Appoint- 
 ing guardian ad litem — Obligation upon p^itioner 
 to apply — Divorce (Additional) Hules, 1875, r. 193 
 — B. S. C, Order XJII., r. 1. 
 
 Where a respondent, in a suit for dissolution 
 of marriage, is a person of unsound mind not so 
 found by inquisition, it ia incumbent upon the 
 petitioner, even though suing in formS, pauperis, 
 to apply for an order that some proper person be 
 assigned guardian of the respondent. Giles v. 
 Giles - - G. Barnes J. [1899] W. N. 224 ; 
 
 [1900J P. 17 
 
 NuUity. 
 
 (Nullity of Uarriage.) 
 
 — "Alimony — Power to order, notwithstanding 
 nullity of marriage. 
 See, DivoBCB— Alunony. 8. 
 
 91. — Coercion. 
 
 According to the petitioner, the respondent 
 threatened tliat he would blow his brains out if 
 she refused to maiTy him there and then. Ac- 
 cording to the officiating clergyman, she went 
 through the ceremony without any sign of un- 
 willingness. The marriage was never consum- 
 mated : — 
 
 Held, that the facts were insufficient to rebut 
 the presumption of consent ; that the marriage 
 was valid, and that the suit must be dismissed. 
 CobPEB V. Ceane - CoUins J. [1891] P. 369 
 
 DIVORCE ('SuWity)— continued. 
 
 92. — Evidence of identity — Nullity suit. 
 The Court requires formal evidence of the 
 
 respondent's identity to be given in an unde- 
 fended suit for nullity of marriage. H. (othee- 
 wisE G.) V. H. 0. Barnes J. [1900] W. K. 130 
 
 93. — Nullity of marriage — Duress. 
 
 On the trial of a petition for a declaration of 
 nullity of marriage, on the ground of duress, the 
 following facts appeared. The petitioner, a girl 
 of seventeen, went through the ceremony of 
 marriage with the respondent in a church on 
 June 5, 1889. He was a friend of her brother's. 
 She had met him only a few times, and he had 
 never spoken to her of marriage, or professed 
 affection for her. She stated that on the day in 
 question her mother told her they were going 
 for a drive, and that they drove to the church, 
 where they found the respondent : that she 
 thought she was being betrothed to him, and 
 would not have submitted even to that if sho 
 Lad not been so much under her mother's in- 
 fluence, that she did what she was told ; that, 
 on leaving the church, she threw away the ring; 
 that she had never seen the respondent since ; 
 and that none of her family then knew what 
 had happened except her mother, who died in 
 1890. A few days before, the respondent had 
 obtained a marriage licence, falsely stating in 
 his affidavit that tbe petitioner's father consented 
 to the marriage. On June 5 he sailed for South 
 Africa with the petitioner's brother, and on their 
 arrival told him of the marriage. Her brother 
 returned in 1889, but did not mention the matter 
 to any member of his family except his mother, 
 who told him to say nothing about it. In 1893 
 the petitioner went through the ceremony of 
 marriage with another man. In the same year 
 the respondent wrote to her father from South 
 Africa, claiming her as liis wife. 
 
 The Court, upon consideration of the evidence, 
 found that the petitioner had never consented to 
 marry the respondent, but had gone through the 
 ceremony as one of betrothal, and in doing so 
 had been to such an extent under the influence 
 of her mother and the respondent that she was 
 not a free agent, and granted a decree nisi of 
 nullity. FoBD v. Stieb G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 1 
 
 9i. — Impotence — Delay — Sincerity. 
 
 A wife, seven years after her marriage, took 
 proceedings for nullity on the ground that (as 
 the fact was) the marriage had not been con- 
 summated owing to the impotence of her husband. 
 It appeared that the impossibility of sexual 
 intercourse had caused unhappy relations between 
 the petitioner and the respondent, in consequence 
 of which they had separated, but that since the 
 filing of the petition she had offered to return to 
 him: — 
 
 Held, that the conduct of the petitioner had 
 not been such as to constitute an estoppel by 
 reason of want of sincerity, and that she was en- 
 titled to a decree of nullity. L. (otheewise B.) 
 ». B. - - - Jeune P. [1895] P. 274 
 
 95. — Impotence — Marriage settlements — Peti- 
 tion for variation-^" Property settled "^Matrimo- 
 nial Causes Acts, 1859j 1878 (22 & 23 Viet. e. 61, 
 s. 5 ; 41 ({; 42 Vict. c. 19, s. 3). 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Court, conferred by 
 
 2 A 2 
 
( 7!1 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( v;2 ) 
 
 BIVOKCE (Sni\ity)-conUnued. 
 the 5th section of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 
 1859, and extended by the 3rd section of the 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, to inquire into 
 the existence of ante-nuptial and post-nuptial 
 settlements, and to make orders varying the Eame, 
 13 not limited to any particular class of nullity 
 cases, but includes all oases in which a decree 
 of nullity has been pronounced, upon -whatsoever 
 ground. 
 
 "Property settled," vrithin the meaning of 
 the two sections, refers only to that particular 
 property the benefit of which is, by the marriage 
 settlement, conferred in the ordinary way on the 
 parties or their children, and does not extend to 
 cr include the whole estate of the respondent, 
 out of which the " property settled " may have 
 been carved and which may be all mentioned in 
 the schedules appended to the marriage settle- 
 ment. 
 
 The Court has no power to bring into the 
 settlement a fund or estate which is not to come 
 into settlement until a certain event shall 
 iiappen, before that event happens in fact. 
 DonuER V. Ward G. Barnes J. [1900] P. 130 ; 
 reversed by C. A. [1901] P. 20 
 
 96. — Non-cciteummation — Inference — Nullity 
 Suit. 
 
 It is open to the Court to draw from non- 
 consummation after cohabitation the inference of 
 fome latent incapacity on the part of the re- 
 spondent. 
 
 The principle laid down by the Court 
 (Jpune P.) in F. v. P. (falsely called i^.), (1896) 
 75 L. T. (N.S.) 192, followed and extended to the 
 converse case of a male respondent. B. (other- 
 ■wiSE H.) V. B. G. Barnes J. [1900] W. N. 130 ; 
 
 see [1901] P. 39 
 
 ST, — Pregnancy of wife by another man at 
 time of marriage — Concealment by wife from in- 
 tended husband — Fraud. 
 
 Concealment by a woman from lier husband 
 at the time of hor marriage of the fact that she 
 is then pregnant by another man does not render 
 the marriage null and void. Moss v. Moss 
 (OTHERWISE ArciiER) Jeune P, [1897] P. 363 
 
 98. — Scoilieh divorce. 
 
 A liusbaud's petition for divorce having been 
 dismissed the parties, all of whose domioil was 
 Englisli, resorted to Scotland, and by agreement 
 through a common agent, commenced divorce 
 proceedings there. Tlie Ct. of Sess. pronounced 
 a decree of divorce, and the respondent and co- 
 respondent were married in the Isle of Man : — 
 
 ffeld (1), tliat the Ct. of Sess. had no jurisdic- 
 tion to dissolve the first marriage ; (2) that the 
 second marriage was null and void. Bonaparte 
 V. BONAPABTB - G. Bames J. [1892] P. 402 
 
 Practice. 
 
 99. — Affidavit of petitioner — Necessity for 
 corroboration of — Dissolution of marriage — Co- 
 respondent — Leave to proceed vnthout making a 
 corespondent — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 (20 <fc 21 Vict. c. 8.5), s. ■28—Bules of 1865, rr. 4, 5. 
 
 Where, upon a motion for leave to proceed 
 witl;out making a co-respondent, it appeared that 
 the affidavit of the petitioner was not oorrobo- 
 
 DI70BCE (Practice) — continued. 
 rated, the Court ordered au adjournment in order 
 that au affidavit in corroboration miglit be filed, 
 and stated that, in future, if the affidavit of the 
 petitioner were not corroborated, any such motion 
 would probably be dismissed. Baebek v. Barber 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 7S 
 
 100. — Confirming decree nisi — Delay. 
 ^Vheie a wife had obtained a decree nisi but 
 
 delayed more than a year without taking steps to 
 obtain the final decree : — 
 
 Meld, on an application by the respondent, 
 that the petitioner must apply within a week to 
 make the decree absolute or the petition would 
 be dismissed. Lewis v. Lewis 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 212. 
 — • Conflict of laws — Foreign judgment — 
 
 Iriegularity — Becognition by English 
 
 Court. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. i. 
 
 101. — Consolidated suits — Petition for resti- 
 tution of conjugal rights — Answer alleging adulteri^ 
 — Cross-petition, claiming dissolution of marriage 
 — Questions for jury — Onus probandi — Sight to 
 begin. 
 
 Where a wife petitioned for restitution of con- 
 jugal rights, and the husband in answer alleged 
 that she had committed adultery, and, in a cioss- 
 petition, claimed the dissolution of his marriag© 
 on that ground : — 
 
 Held, that the husband's counsel ought to 
 begin. Smith v. Smith Jeune P. [1900] P. 66 
 
 102. — Damages — Measure of — Husband and 
 wife living apart — Separation caused by wife — 
 Subsequent adultery. 
 
 Upon a husband's petition for dissolution of 
 marriage claiming damages, it appeared that the 
 husband and wife separated after a cohabitation 
 of only a few months on account of the wife's 
 overbearing and insulting conduct and language 
 towards her husband, culminating iu actual 
 violence to him on more than one occasion. 
 
 It was proved, and not denied, that, rather 
 more than a year after the separation, the 
 co-respondent, who had been acting as hei 
 solicitor, committed adultery with the respondent, 
 and that this improper intimacy continued foi 
 about twelve months : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding the separation and 
 the fact that it had been caused by the violent 
 conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner, 
 the latter was entitled to some damages; that th& 
 fact of the co-respondent's frequent adultery hav- 
 ing rendered reconciliation absolutely out of tha 
 question was a material element for consideratioir 
 in fixing damages; and, that the jury were 
 entitled to consider also, and to decide as a 
 matter to be inferred from all the circumstances 
 of the case, whether the respondent and co- 
 respondent had not misconducted themselvea 
 together at a time anterior to the date proved by 
 affirmative evidence and admitted and alleged 
 by the co-respondent as the first date when 
 adultery took place between himself and the 
 respondent. 
 
 Weedon v. Timhrell, (1793) 5 T. E. 357, and 
 Malcormon v. Givins, The Times, Feb. 27, 1873, 
 considered. Evans v. Evans 
 
 Jeune P. [1899] P. 195 
 
i 7x3 ) 
 
 .DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 714 ) 
 
 OIVOBCE (Piactice}— continued. 
 
 iOS. — Decree nisi — Petition for maintenance 
 ■ — Enforcing order — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 <20 * 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 32. 
 
 Sect. 32 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, 
 «oupled with the General Kules and Regulations, 
 rr. 96, 102, enable the Court before a decree nisi 
 has been made absolute to confirm the registrar's 
 report approving of maintenance, to order tlie 
 husband to secure the maintenance on the decree 
 being made absolute, and until then to restrain 
 him from parting with so much of his properly 
 as would not leave suCBcient for the security. 
 
 FoiTO of order. Watebhocse v. 'W'ateehquse 
 C. A. [1893] P. 284 
 
 104. — Decree nisi rescinded — Hesumption of 
 toJiahitation — Queen's Proctor intervening. 
 
 A husband petitioner after decree nisi forgave 
 his-wife and resumed cohabitation with her. On 
 affidavits to this effect by the husband and wife, 
 the Court rescinded the decree and dismissed the 
 petition, without requiring the Queen's Proctor 
 to file a formal plea. Flower v. Flower 
 
 Jetme P. [1893] P. 290 
 
 105. — Discretion, Judicial— Adultery of ilie 
 wife — Cruelty of the husband — Discretional har — 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict. 
 V. 85), s. 31 — Decree. 
 
 The discretion conferred upon judges of the 
 Divorce Court by s. 31 of the Matrimonial Causes 
 Act, 1857, is not an absolute or arbitrary, but a 
 judicial discretion, and is intended to be exer- 
 cised in conformity with the former practice of 
 the House of Lords. Cruelty on the part of a 
 petitioner, in order to bar a claim for a divorce, 
 must either have led to the adultery of the re- 
 spondent, or be entirely wanton and unprovoked 
 in its character. 
 
 In considering what terms should be imposed 
 upon a petitioner who has been found guilty of 
 cruelty towards the respondent, the Court takes 
 into consideration all the facts of the particular 
 case before it, and considers the interetts not 
 merely of the parties, but of the child or children 
 (if any) of the marriage. 
 
 Where the means of the petitioner (husband) 
 were very small and uncertain, and the respond- 
 ent's parents, whose character and goodwill were 
 unquestioned, had offered to look after tho only 
 child of the marriage, the Court, in granting a 
 decree, assented to an arrangement which had 
 been arrived at between the parties subsequently 
 to the verdict, whereby the formal custody of the 
 child was given to the respondent and no allow- 
 ance was ordered against the petitioner. Pbtob 
 V. Pbtok - - - Jeune P. [1900] P. 157 
 
 106. — Discretion of Court — Misconduct of 
 ipetitioner — Adultery — Wife's petition —Wilful 
 neglect or misconduct of husband conducing to 
 wife's adultery — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), e. 31. , , ,^ ,,. 
 
 The circumstances to be considered by the 
 Court in exercising its discretion under s. 31 of 
 the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, 
 to grant a divorce to a wife who has been guilty 
 of adultery, include the case of the husband 
 causing or conducing to her adultery by his own 
 wilful neglect or misconduct. 
 
 A husband, who had treated Lis wife with 
 
 SIVOBCE (Practice) — continued. 
 great cruelty during cohabitation, finally deserted 
 her and went to live with another woman. More 
 than seven years after the desertion the wife, 
 not knowing whether her husband was alive, 
 and without making inquiry, commenced to live 
 with another man ; the cohabitation continued 
 long after the time when it came to the wife's 
 knowledge that her husband was alive. Subse- 
 quently, and after tho wife had ceased to live in 
 adultery, her husband was convicted under (he 
 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, of an 
 aggravated offence on a young girl not amount- 
 to rape : — 
 
 Seld, that under the circumstances the wife's 
 adultery did not disentitle her to a decree of dis- 
 solution of marriage. Symons v. Stmons 
 
 Jeune P. [1897] P. 167 
 107. — Divorce hill — Definitive decree of divorce 
 — Action for criminal conversation — Standing 
 Orders, Nos. 175, 177 — Domiciled Irishman — 
 Jurisdiction of the English Court — Evidence tahen 
 in India. 
 
 Ureat caution ought to be observed in allow- 
 iag a petition for divorce to proceed in the Eng- 
 lish Divorce Court where there is ground for 
 supposing that the parties are domiciled out of 
 the jurisdiction. 
 
 It is not necessary for the first reading of an 
 Irish divorce bill that a definitive sentence of 
 divorce h. mensa et tlioro should have been pro- 
 nounced in the Irish Courts. 
 
 Where in the proceedings upon an Irish 
 divorce bill it appears that no action for criminal 
 conversation has been brought against a co- 
 respondent who was not domiciled and could not 
 be served in Ireland, the House of Lords may 
 allow the bill for divorce to be received. 
 
 Where there is no means of enforcing the war- 
 rant of the House of Lords to take evidence in 
 parts of India, the evidence as taken and used in 
 a previous suit in the English Court of Divorce 
 may be allowed to be used quantum valeat. 
 
 Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier, [1895] A. C. 517, 
 referred to. Sinclaib's Divokce Bill 
 
 H. 1. (D.) [1897] A. C. 469 
 108. — Intervention — Decree nisi — Queen's 
 Proctor intervening — Alleged adulterer not allowed 
 to intervene. 
 
 (a) a wife obtained a decree nisi. The 
 Queen's Proctor intervened on the ground that 
 the petitioner was living in adultery with A. 
 A. took out a summons to intervene : — 
 
 Held, that he was not a party, and could not 
 be permitted to intervene. Ghieve v. Gkieve 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 288 
 
 Eeferred to by G. Barnes J. Harrop v. 
 Harrop, [1899] P. 61, 63. 
 
 (b) a wife obtained a decree nisi. The 
 Queen's Proctor intervened on the ground of 
 collusion, &o., and during the trial obtained leave 
 to add a charge that the petitioner bad committed 
 adultery with A. A took out a summons to 
 intervene ; — 
 
 Held, that he was not a'party, and could not 
 be permitted to intervene. Cabew v. Cabew 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1894] P. 31 
 
 Eeferred to by G. Barnes J. Harrop v. 
 Harrop, [1899] P. 61, 63. 
 
( 715 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 716 ) 
 
 DIVOECE (Practice)— cont4»M«<i. 
 
 109. — Jury, Questions for — Husband's petition 
 —Delay— Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 85), 8. 31. 
 
 Where the Queen's Proctor intervened to 
 prevent a decree nisi obtained by a husband being 
 made absolute on the ground of unreasonable 
 delay in presenting the petition, the proper 
 questions for the jury were held to be, When did 
 the petitioner first know or have reason to believe 
 that the respondent had committed adultery? and 
 when did the petitioner first take action in order 
 to obtain a divorce ? Bbougham v. Brougham 
 
 Jeune P. [1895] P. 288 
 
 HO. — Jury, Trial hy — Jactitation of mar- 
 riage. 
 
 It is not the practice to order a suit of jacti- 
 tation of marriage to be tried by a jury if no 
 defence has been put in. Thompson v. Eoueke 
 (No. 1) - - - C, A. [1892] P. 244 
 
 111. — New trial. Motion for — Enlargement of 
 time — Imposition of terms — Divorce suit — Supreme 
 Court of Judicature Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 44), s. 1—B. S. C, Order Lxiv., r. 7. 
 
 By virtue of the Supreme Court of Judicature 
 Act, 1890, which provides that from and after 
 Oct. 20, 1890, every motion for a new trial, in 
 any cause or matter in the High Court which 
 has been tried with a jury, shall be heard and 
 determined by the C. A., the practice with regard 
 to a new trial of a divorce cause is regulated 
 (not by the practice under the Matrimonial 
 Causes Acts but) by the practice of the C. A., 
 and consequently rule 7 of Order lxiv. of E. S. C. 
 applies, and empowers the Court to grant an 
 enlargement of the time within which to move 
 for a new trial of the cause, and as a condition 
 of so doing to impose terms on the party who 
 makes the application. 
 
 In 1892 a wife petitioned for a judicial separa- 
 tion on the ground of her husband's adultery. 
 The husband by his answer denied the adultery, 
 and also alleged that, at the time of his marriage 
 with the petitioner, she had a husband living. 
 At the trial in Jan., 1895, the jury found on the 
 evidence that the husband had committed 
 adultery, and that at the time of the marriage 
 the first iausband was dead. A decree for judicial 
 separation was made. In Sept., 1895, the first 
 husband (who had not been heard of since 1858) 
 returned to England. In Oct., 1895, the second 
 husband presented a petition for declaration of 
 nullity of marriage. The wife pleaded the ver- 
 dict and decree in the former suit as an estoppel. 
 At the trial G. Barnes J. was satisfied of the 
 identity of the man who had returned ; but held 
 that he coiild not make a decree of nullity while 
 the verdict and decree in the first suit stood un- 
 impeached. The second husband (with the leave 
 of the C. A.) moved in the first suit for an enlarge- 
 ment of the time within which to apply for a 
 new trial : — 
 
 Held, that the application ought to be granted, 
 but only on the terms of the applicant under- 
 taking to secure the payment to the respondent 
 dunng their joint lives of an allowance for her 
 maintenance, the amount of which was fixed by 
 the Court. Wilkiks u Wilkins 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 1C8 I 
 
 DIVOECE (Practice) — continued. 
 
 112. — New trial — Notice of setting down four 
 — Surprise — Divorce Court Mules, rr. 44, 47. 
 
 The solicitor of the petitioner for a divorce 
 wrote to the respondent's solicitor a letter, headed 
 with the title of the cause, in which he said, 
 " I have set this cause down for trial." No other 
 notice was served : — 
 
 Held, that this letter was a sufficient notice, 
 within rule 44 of the Divorce Court Rules, of the 
 cause having been set down for trial. 
 
 The respondent's solicitor, in the belief that a 
 more formal notice ought to be given, did not 
 watch the cause list, and the cause came on for 
 trial without his knowledge, and a decree for a 
 divorce was made in the absence of the respond- 
 ent. She applied for a new trial on the ground 
 of surprise. 
 
 The Court ordered a new trial on the under- 
 taking of the solicitor personally to pay the costs 
 thrown away. Fluistek v. Fluistek aud Huttok 
 0. A. [1896] W. N. 176 (15); [1897] P. 22 
 
 113. — - Petitions — Full names and titles of 
 parties to he stated. 
 
 Parties should be described in petitions and 
 
 proceedings properly and accurately. If this is 
 
 not done, mistakes may be made and the identity 
 
 of parties kept back. Bbougham v. Bbougham 
 
 Jeune P. [1900] W. N. 130 
 
 114. — Bape — Dissolution of marriage — 
 Divorce Ad, 1857 (20 * 21 Viat. <;. 85), s. 27. 
 
 A respondent, who had been convicted under 
 s. 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, 
 of an attempt to have unlawful and carnal know- 
 ledge of a girl under the age of thirteen, was 
 found to have been guilty of rape, and a decree 
 nisi granted for the dissolution of his marriage. 
 Coffey v. Coffey G. Barnes J. [1898] P. 169 
 
 115. — Rehearing — Application for — Practice 
 — Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1 890 (53*54 
 Vict. c. 44), s. 1 — Bules of Divorce Court, 1865, as 
 amended in August, 1885, rule 62. 
 
 An application for rehearing of a divorce 
 cause tried by a judge without a jury must be 
 made to a Div. Court of the Probate, Divorce, 
 and Admiralty Div. according to rule 62 of the 
 Divorce Eules, and not to the C. A., the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 c. 44), s. 1, applying only to causes or issues 
 tried with a jury. Smith v. Smith 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 293 
 
 116. — Sequestration — Practice — Bight of se- 
 questrators — Money held J)y third person, not party 
 to the action — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 (20 * 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 52. 
 
 The right of sequestrators to attach moneys, 
 alleged to be held by third persons for the judg- 
 ment debtor, but denied by them to be so held, 
 cannot be determined upon a motion in a suit to 
 which the third persons are not parties, unless 
 they appear and submit to the jurisdiction of the 
 Court. 
 
 A co-respondent in a divorce suit not having 
 paid the damages assessed against him by the 
 jury, a writ of sequestration was issued against 
 his property, in pursuance of which the seques- 
 trators applied by a motion in the suit for an 
 order calling upon the trustees of his marriage 
 settlement to pay into court any moneys in their 
 
( 717 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 718 ) 
 
 DIVORCE (Viactiee)— continued. 
 hands belonging to him. The trustees disputed 
 their liability to the co-respondent, and the juris- 
 diction of the Court to make the order : — 
 
 Held, that, as the trustees were not parties to 
 the suit, and disputed their liability to the co- 
 respondent, and the jurisdiction of the Court, the 
 Court had no power to make the order on motion 
 in the suit. Cbaig v. Craig and Hamp 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 171 
 
 117. — Service — Svbstituted service of written 
 demand for cohabitation — Restitution of conjugal 
 rights— Rules of 1869, r. 175. 
 
 Where the intended respondent in a suit for 
 restitution of conjugal rights had left the country, 
 and letters addressed to him by his wife at his 
 last known residence and place of business re- 
 spectively, and containing a written demand for 
 cohabitation, had been returned through his soli- 
 citors, who declined to furnish her with her hus- 
 band's address, the Court allowed substituted 
 service of the demand for cohabitation required 
 by rule 175 to be made on the husband's solici- 
 tors. In re Tucker G. Barnes J. [1897] P. 83 
 
 Bestitntion of Conjugal Bights. 
 
 — : Alimony pendente lite — Cross-examination — ■ 
 Kegistrar — Discretion. 
 See DivoKCE — Alimony. 3. 
 
 118. — Conduct of petitioner — " Desertion with- 
 out reasonable cause" — Matrimonial Causes Act, 
 1884 (47 4 48 rict. c. 68), s. 5. 
 
 By the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1884 (47 & 48 
 Vict. c. 68), s. 5, "If the respondent shall fail to 
 comply with a decree of the Court for restitution 
 of conjugal rights, such respondent shall there- 
 upon be deemed to have been guilty of desertion 
 without reasonable cause, and a suit for judicial 
 separation may be forthwitli instituted, and a 
 sentence of judicial separation may be pro- 
 nounced, although the period of two years may 
 not have elapsed since the failure to comply with 
 the decree for restitution of conjugal rights." 
 
 In a suit for restitution of conjugal rights 
 brought by a second wife, it appeared that differ- 
 ences bad arisen between her and her husband, 
 due to her inability to agree with her step- 
 children, his daughters by the former marriage, 
 and that she had in consequence left her home, 
 and her husband had refused to receive her 
 back: — 
 
 Held, on consideration of the evidence, that 
 the wife had done nothing to disentitle her to 
 maintain a suit for desertion without reasonable 
 cause, within the meaning of s. 5 of the Matri- 
 monial Causes Act, 1884, as interpreted by the 
 C. A. in Russell v. Russell, [1895] P. 315; 
 affirmed by H. L. (D.) [1897] A. 0. 395, and 
 that she was therefore entitled to a decree for 
 restitution of conjugal rights. Oldkoyd v. Old- 
 BOTD - - G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 175 
 
 119, — Fractiae — Decree — Service out of juris- 
 diction. 
 
 The fact that a decree for restitution of con- 
 jugal rights has been served upon a respondent 
 when temporarily resident out of the jurisdiction 
 does not vitiate its effect, if it also appear that 
 the respondent was, for all practical purposes, as 
 
 DIVORCE (Restitution of Conjugal Rights) — 
 
 continued. 
 capable of complying with the decree, within the 
 time limited therein, as if he had been served in 
 this country. Dicks v. Dicks 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 275 
 
 — Substituted service of written demand for 
 
 cohabitation. 
 
 See Divorce — Practice. 117. 
 
 — Varying settlement. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce — SettlementE. 
 
 Separation. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — ■ 
 Separation. 
 
 Settlements. 
 (Variation of Settlements). 
 
 120. — Application by executor of deceased 
 petitioner — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 & 23 
 Vict. c. 61), s. 5 — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 19), s. 3 — Reslraint on anticipa- 
 tion — Conveyancing and Law of Properly Act, 
 1881 (44 & 43 Vict. c. 41), s. 39. 
 
 Meld, by C. A., afSrming the decision of the 
 President, that the power of altering marriage 
 settlements given to the Court by s. 5 of the 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, and s. 3 of the 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, is limited to such 
 alterations as are for the personal benefit of the 
 husband, wife or children of the marriage. 
 Where, therefore, a petitioner dies after obtaining 
 a decree absolute for dissolution of the marriage 
 and after presenting a petition for variation of 
 the marriage settlement, and there are no children 
 of the marriage, the petition for variation abates 
 by the death of the petitioner, and the proceedings 
 cannot be continued by his personal represen- 
 tatives for the beneiit of his estate. 
 
 On a decree nisi for divorce being made on 
 the petition of the husband, terms were arranged 
 that the petitioner should secure the respondent 
 120Z. a year for life, and that she should consent 
 to their marriage settlement being annulled : — 
 
 Seld, by C. A., that, as the respondent was 
 by the marriage settlement restrained from 
 anticipation, this agreement was not binding on 
 her, and that the objection could not bo remedied 
 under the powers given to the Court by the 
 Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 39. Thomson v. Thomson 
 C. A. [1896] P. 263. 
 
 121. — Colonial decree of nullity (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 85, s. 45; 22 4 23 Vict. c. 61), s. 5. 
 
 There is no jurisdiction to entertain a petitioa 
 to vary settlements based on a decree of nullity 
 of marriage obtained iu a Colonial Court. Mooke 
 (falsely called Bull) v. Bull 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 279 
 
 123. — Extinction of husband's interest(22 & 23 
 Vict. c. 61), s. 5. 
 
 A marriage was dissolved on the wife's peti- 
 tion. There had been a settlement of property, 
 practically the whole of which came fiom the 
 wife. The settlement contained a provision that 
 after the husband's death, if the wife married 
 again she could" appoint half the income to the 
 second husband fur life, and appoint half the 
 
( 719 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— lOaO. 
 
 ( 72J 
 
 DIVORCE (Settlements)— cojiiOTMed. 
 
 capital among the children of the Beoond 
 
 marriage : — 
 
 Held, that the proper settlement to be made 
 should extinguish the husband's beneficial in- 
 terest and powers of consent, &c,, as if ho were 
 dead, but should not accelerate the wife's power 
 to re-settle, which should only be exercised on 
 the death of the first husband. Pollakd v. 
 PoLLAKD - - Jeune P. [1894] P. 172 
 
 Eefered to by G. Barnes J. Hartopp v. 
 Hartopp, [1899] P. 65, 71. 
 
 123. — Inquiry hefore final decree — Mairi- 
 monial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), 
 K. i5— Matrimonial Causes Act, 1860 (23 * 24 
 Vict. c. HI), s. 6. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction before pronouncing 
 a final decree for the dissolution of a marriage to 
 ilireot im inquiry as to the wife's properly, so 
 that it may be in a position to order a settlement 
 ;is soon as the final decree is pronounced. Other- 
 wise, if the property were subject during cover- 
 ture to a restraint on anticipation, the wife, by 
 marrying again immediately after the decree, 
 might put it out of the power of the Court to 
 order tlie settlement. On directing such an 
 inquiry the Court will order the husband to give 
 security for the costs of the inquiry. Midwintek 
 V. Midwinter (No. 1) - C. A. [1893] P. 38 
 
 124. — Interest of children — Variation of 
 settlements — ■ Wife's power of appointment to 
 Husband — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 85), s. 45 — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 
 (22 * 23 Vict. c. 61), s. 5. 
 
 By the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 & 23 
 Vict. c. 61), s. 5, " The Court, after a final decree 
 of nullity of marriage or dissolution of marriage, 
 may inquire into the existence of ante-nuptial or 
 post-nuptial settlements made on the parties 
 whose marriage is the subject of the decree, and 
 may muke such orders with reference to the 
 application of the whole or a portion of the pro- 
 perty settled either for the benefit of the children 
 of the marriage or of their respective parents as 
 to the Court shall seem fit." 
 
 The principle of the decisions on the section 
 is that, where the breaking up of the family life 
 has been caused by the fault of the respondent, 
 the Court ought to place the petitioner and the 
 children in a position as nearly as circumstances 
 will permit the same as if the family life had not 
 been bioken up. 
 
 Where, therefore, a wife, whose marriage had 
 been dissolved on the ground of her adultery, 
 had under her marriage settlement ^ power of 
 appointment in her husband's favour, if he 
 should survive her, over a fund, which, apart 
 from the exercise of the power, would upon her 
 death have vested in the children of the mar- 
 riage, and this was the husband's only interest 
 in his wife's property under the settlement, the 
 Court held that, as it was reasonable to suppose 
 that, if the family life had continued, she would 
 have exercised the power in his favour, the income 
 should, after her death, be paid to him during 
 his lifetime. 
 
 Noel v. Noel,(\S85) 10 P. D. 179, Crisp v. 
 Crisp, (1872) L. E. 2 P. & M. 426, Forsyth v. 
 Forsyth, [1891] P. 863, Pollard v. FolUxrd, [1894] 
 
 DIVOECE (Settlements) — continned. 
 
 P. 172, and Hipwell v. Hipwell, [1892] P. 147, 
 
 considered. Haetopp v. Haktopp 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 68 
 
 125. — Intervener. 
 
 Where an intervener's name has been struck 
 out of the title of the petition, the Court will not 
 reinsert it in proceedings for variation of settle- 
 ments. CONNEMAEA V. CONNEMAKA 
 
 Butt P. [1892] P. 102 
 
 126. — Mistake — Variation of settlement — 
 Selief in equity — Jurisdiction — Terms — Matri- 
 monial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Viet. e. 85), 
 s. 45 — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 (22 & 23 
 Vict. c. 61), s. 5 — Married woman — Disposition of 
 real and personal estate — Fines and Beeoveries 
 Act, 1833 (3 <fc 4 Will 4, c. 74), ss. 1, 77— Malins' 
 Act (20 & 21 Vict. c. 57). 
 
 By a post-nuptial settlement executed in 1877, 
 and acknowledged by the wife under the Fines 
 and Eecoveries Act, property of the wife was 
 settled upon trusts for the benefit of the husband 
 and wife and the issue of the marriage ; and the 
 husband and wife covenanted for the settlement 
 of the wife's after-acquired property. In Nov. 
 1 898, the marriage was dissolved ou the ground 
 of the adultery" of the wife. In Dec. 1893, 
 the husband presented a petition for variation 
 of the settlement, setting out the funds subject 
 to the trusts thereof; and the wife by h<r 
 answer admitted the same to be correct. On 
 April 24, 1894, a consent order was made on the 
 petition varying the settlement by directing pay- 
 ment of certain annual sums to the husband and 
 the only child of the marriage. The wife, having 
 married the co-respondent, brought an action for 
 a declaration that Ctrtain property which upon 
 the petition for variation had been assumed by 
 all parties to be bound by the settlement was not 
 so bound. The Court being of opinion that the 
 property in question was not included in the 
 settlement, and that the terms of the order for 
 variation had been agreed to by the parties under 
 a common mistake, granted relief to the plain- 
 tiff, but upon the terms that any application 
 to the Divorce Court, imder s. 45 of the Act 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, for a further settlement upon 
 the husband and child of the marriage, should be 
 dealt with in all respects as if it had been made 
 before April 24, 1894, and was being considered 
 by the Court on that day. 
 
 Eeal estate which devolved upon the wife upon 
 the intestacy of her father, who died in 1893, was 
 held not to be at the date of the settlement an 
 " estate " in land within the meaning of s. 77 of 
 the Fines and Eecoveries Act ; and interests in 
 personal estate, to which she became entitled 
 under the will of a testator who was living at 
 the date of the settlement, were held not to be 
 " future interests " of which she could dispose 
 under the provisions of Malins' Act. 
 
 The " future interests " contemplated by the 
 Act are interests to which, at the date of the 
 disposing deed, the married woman has some 
 existing title at law or in equity. Alloard v. 
 Walkbb Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 369 
 
 127. — Parties domiciled in Scotland at the 
 time of the man-iage (22 * 23 Vict. c. 61), s. 25. 
 
 The Court has power to entertain a petition 
 
( 721 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASKS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 722 ) 
 
 DIVORCE (Settlements) — continued. 
 for Yaxiatiou of settlements although the peti- 
 tioner and respondent were domiciled in S. at the 
 time of tho marriage, and although the settle- 
 ments were made in the Scotch form. Fobstth 
 J). FoESYTB - - Jeune P. [1891] 363 
 
 Keferred to by G. Barnes J. Sartopp v. 
 Sartopp, [1899] V. 65, 71. 
 
 -;— Petition for variation of marriage settlement 
 — Marriage settlements — " Property 
 settled " — Nullity — Impotence. 
 See DivOECE — Nullity. 95. 
 
 128. — Reconreyance — Failure of Umitatione 
 in settlement — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859 
 <22 & 23 Vict. e. 61), s. 5. 
 
 M. obtained a divorce from liis wife. The 
 limitations in the marriage settlement after a 
 life interest to M. and before remainder to M. 
 all failed witli the exception ot a remainder to 
 M.'s children by any subsequent marriage : — 
 
 Beld, that an order could and should be made 
 under s. 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859, 
 for the reconveyance of the property to M. 
 absolutely. Meeedtth v. Meredtth 
 
 Jeune P. [1895] P. 92 
 
 129. — Varying settlement — Restitution of 
 Conjugal Sights. 
 
 Considerations for the Court as to the varia- 
 lion of settlements ia favour of the husband 
 where the wife refuses campliance with the 
 decree. Swift v. Swift 
 
 Hannen P. [1891] P. 129 
 
 This case was explained hy C. A. Michell v. 
 Michel L (No. 1), [1891] P. 208. See next Case. 
 
 130. — ■ Varying settlement — Restraint on 
 anticipation. 
 
 Per C. A. : A restraint on anticipation pre- 
 vents the Court from ordering a settlement for 
 the benefit of the liusband of the property of a 
 wife wlio refuses to comply with a decree for 
 restitution of conjugal rights. Michell v. 
 Michell (No. 1) - C. A. [1891] P. 208 ; 
 
 revers. Jeune J. [1891] P. 166 
 
 The husband's petition for a, settlement 
 under a. 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1884, 
 was accordingly dismissed, but without costs. 
 Michell v. Michell (No. 2) 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 305 
 
 131. — Wife's costs. 
 
 "Where the husband was unable to pay the 
 costs of the wife's petition : — 
 
 Held, that the settlement made on the mar- 
 riage might be varied in order to raise the costs 
 of the suit and the petition for variation, al- 
 though the husband had brought nothing into 
 the settlement. Hipwell v. Hipwbll 
 
 Butt P. [1892] P. 147 
 
 Referred to by G. Barnes J. Sartopp v. Sar- 
 topp, [1899] P. 65, 72. 
 
 132. Wife's property on husband and children 
 —Matnmonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Viet. 
 «. 85), 88. 35, 45. ^ ^^, 
 
 On a petition for the variation of settlement 
 of a guilty wife, the Court settled a fixed amount 
 of the wife's property on the husband, independ- 
 ently of any fluctuation in the value of property, 
 and refused to insert a dum solus clause or to 
 
 BIVOBCE (Settlements) — continued. 
 
 limit the children's allowance to sixteen years of 
 
 age. MiDwiNTEK V. Midwinter (No. 2) 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 93 
 — • Damages recovered — Voluntary settlement. 
 
 , See Bankruptcy — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 263. 
 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Cases under Husband aud Wife— 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 Title of Honour. 
 
 — Former wife marrying a commoner — Con- 
 tinued use of title derived from former 
 husband — Injunction. 
 See Hdsband and Wife — Title of 
 Honour. 97. 
 
 DOCK. 
 
 Dock Owners, Liability or.] See Merchant 
 Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) 
 Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 32). 
 
 1. — Control of doclc-master — Obstruction — ■ 
 Requisition — Penalty — Shipping — West India 
 Docks Act, 1831 (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. lit.'), s. 101. 
 
 By s. 101 of the West India Docks Act, 1831, 
 a penalty is imposed on every master or person 
 iu charge of any ship, lighter, &c., who places 
 or suffers it to remain in the river Thames 
 within 200 yards of any of the dock entrances, 
 unless for the purpose of coming into or going 
 out of the docks ; and every master, &c., of any 
 ship, barge, &c., so placed within such distance 
 who does not immediately remove it from within 
 such distance " on being thereunto required by 
 the dock-master or dock-masters " is made liable 
 to a fine for every hour that " such obstruction 
 shall remain after such requisition made." 
 
 Notices requiring the removal of vessels from 
 within the prohibited distance were signed 
 beforehand in blank by tho dock-master, and, 
 upon a vessel mooring within that distance, tho 
 date and the name of the vessel were filled up 
 by the lockman, who, if the person in charge 
 refused to move, served him with the notice 
 without consulting the dock-master as to the 
 removal of that particular vessel : — 
 
 Seld, tliat the notice, although only signed 
 in blank by the dock-master and filled in by hia 
 subordinate, was a good requisition by the dock- 
 master : 
 
 Seld, further, that in order to constitute an 
 offence under the section there need not be an 
 actual or imminent obstruction to any paiticular 
 ship or to the trafBc generally, a vessel moored 
 within the prohibited distance constituting (if 
 not removed upon notice) an obstruction within 
 the meaning of the section. Duokham v. Gibbs 
 Div. Ct. [1900J 1 Q. B. 394 
 
 2, — Dock company — Statutory powers — By- 
 laws. 
 
 Eegulations issued by a dock co. under its 
 special Act and the Harbour Clauses Act, 1847, 
 but not confirmed as by-laws in manner prescribed 
 by s. 85 of the latter Act : — 
 
 Beld, not to be binding on a shipping co. using 
 the dock, save by agreement. A shipping co. is 
 not entitled save by agreement to have berths 
 
( 723 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801— IIJOO. 
 
 ( 724 ) 
 
 SOCK — continued. 
 
 appropriated for ships or otiier special aooommo- 
 dation. London Association of Shipowneks 
 AND Bkokbeb v. London and India Docks Joint 
 Committee - - C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 242 
 ■ Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Barraclough v. 
 Srown, [1897] A. 0. 615, 624. 
 
 — Dock expenses — Apportionment — Ship sur- 
 
 veyed while in dock for Lloyd's classifi- 
 cation. " 
 See Insurance — Marine. 47. 
 
 — Eating of dock. 
 
 See Eates — Rateability. 22—24. 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 See Masteb and Servant — Compen- 
 sation. 11, 12, 48, 49, 51, 52. 
 
 DOCUMENTS — Ancient document tendered in 
 support of ancient possession. 
 See EvroBNOE. 1. 
 
 — Custody — Order for removal of parish docu- 
 
 ments — Justices — Jurisdiction . 
 See Parish Council. 1. 
 
 — Custody and disposal — Power of Ordinary. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 11. 
 
 — Discovery. 
 
 See Cases under Discovery. 
 
 — Not in possession of vendor — Expense of ob- 
 
 taining. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 100. 
 
 — Production and inspection of documents. 
 
 See Cases under Discovert — Documents. 
 
 — In solicitor's possession before action — Third 
 
 parties — Eight to production. 
 See Solicitor. 97. 
 
 — Titlfe-deeds — Eight to possession— Tenant for 
 
 life. 
 
 See Settled Land. 97. 
 
 D0Q8 — Importation of Bogs Order of 1897. Loud. 
 Gaz. May 7, 1897, p. 2540. 
 
 Bahies Order and Muzzling Order. Loud. 
 Gaz. March 33, 1897, pp. 1678, 1682. 
 
 Importation of Dogs (^Amendment) Order of 
 June 14, 1898. Lond. Gaz. June 14, 1898, 
 p. 3636. 
 
 Vogs {Landing from Ireland) Order, dated 
 July 26, 1899. lond. Gaz. July 28, 1899, p. 4651. 
 
 — Dog licence. 
 
 See Eevenue — Dog licence. 12. 
 
 — Mischievous animal — Evidence of scienter — 
 
 Ferocious dog — Negligence. 
 See Damages. 6. 
 
 DOLUS MALUS — Priority of unregistered transfer 
 — Eegistered transfer set aside — Law of 
 Natal. 
 See Natal. 2. 
 
 " DOMESTIC ANIMALS "-Cruelty. 
 
 See Cases under Criminal Law — 
 Cruelty to Animals. 
 
 « DOMESTIC PURPOSES "—Used exclusively for 
 Explosions. 
 See Boiler. 2. 
 
 DOMICIL — Children of British-horn subjects resi- 
 dent in France. 
 
 Question as to domioil of children born in 
 
 HOVIICIL— continued. 
 
 France of British-boru subjects resident in 
 
 France. Ggcldee v. Godldbk 
 
 Lopes L.J. [1892] P. 240 
 
 2. — Definition. 
 
 (a) The domicil of a person is that place or 
 country in which his habitation is fixed without 
 any present intention of removing therefrom. 
 In re Craignish. Ceaignish v. Hewitt 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 180 
 
 (b) The permanent domicil of the spouses 
 within a territory is necessary to give the terri- 
 torial court jurisdiction so to divorce a, vinculo 
 that its decree to that effect shall have extra- 
 territorial authority in international law. The 
 so-called " matrimonial domicil " said to be 
 created by bon^ fide residence of the spouses 
 within a territory of a less degree of permanence 
 than is required to fix their true domicil can- 
 not be recognized as creating such jurisdiction. 
 Decisions of English and Scottish Courts as to 
 matrimonial domioil considered. Le Mesubiek 
 V. Le Mesueier P. C. [1895] A. C. 517 
 
 Commented on by G. Barnes J. Armyiage v. 
 Armytage, [1898] P. 178, 185. 
 
 3. Domicil of origin. 
 
 Where the domicil of birth is changed during 
 infancy by a change of the domicil of the father, 
 the changed domioil is not the domicil of origin 
 of the infant. In re Craignish. Craignish v. 
 Hewitt - - C. A. [1892] 3 Ch, 180 
 
 4. — Fatherless infant — Be-marriage of mother 
 — CJiange of mother's domicil. 
 
 The mother of fatherless infants has a power 
 of changing their domicil vested in her for their 
 welfare, and she may abstain from exercising it 
 when she changes her own domicil. B., a widow 
 with children all domiciled in S., re-married N. 
 (a domiciled Scotchman). Subsequently N. went 
 to reside in E., and B. and all her children except 
 0. followed him and acquired an English domicil. 
 0. continued to live with an aunt in S. till her 
 death in her twenty-second year : — 
 
 Held, that B. had abstained from changing 
 
 C.'s domicil when she changed her own, and that 
 
 C. retained her Scotch domicil. In re Beaumont 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 3 Ch. 490 
 
 — Foreign bankruptcy — English domicil — For- 
 
 feiture. 
 
 See Will — Forfeiture. 98. 
 
 6, — Foreign divorce — Domicil. 
 
 An American married an Englishman AomU 
 ciled in E. Husband and wife lived in B. for a 
 short time, when the wife went to America on a 
 visit. The wife never returned. Subsequently 
 she obtained a divorce in Pennsylvania on the 
 ground of the husband's cruelty, and re- 
 married ; — 
 
 Held, that the Courts of Pennsylvania had no 
 jurisdiction to divorce a British subject domiciled 
 in this country who had never submitted himself 
 to its jurisdiction. Gbees ». Gkbbn 
 
 Barnes J. [1893] P. 89 
 
 — Foreign domioil — ^Will made in execution of 
 
 power — Limited or general grant. 
 See Probate. 55. 
 
( 725 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES,. 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 720 ) 
 
 SOUICIL — continued. 
 
 — Divorce bill — Domiciled Irishman — Jurisdic- 
 
 tion of the English Court. 
 See Divorce. 107. 
 
 — Lunacy — Foreign domioil — Foreign Court- 
 
 Declaration of lunacy — Money in 
 English bank — Payment to tuteur. 
 See Lunacy. 37. 
 
 ■ — Marriage — Change of domioil — Immovable 
 goods — French law — Lex rei sitae — 
 Community of goods — Statute of Frauds. 
 See CoNPLiCT OP Laws. 9. 
 
 — Marriage, Change of domioil by — Marriage 
 
 ■with foreigner — Settlement — Infant— 
 Batification — Repudiation. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 6. 
 
 — Marriage — Matrimonial domicil — Movable 
 
 goods — French law. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 8. 
 
 — Payment out of court — Infants domiciled in 
 
 France — French law — Eight of father 
 to receive children's money. 
 See Pkactice — Payment out of Court, 
 lil. 
 
 — Power of appointment — Domiciled foreigner — 
 
 Unattested will — Validity. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 17. 
 
 — Queensland — Laws of — Succession and Probate 
 
 Duties Act, 1892 — Succession defined. 
 See Queensland. 6. 
 
 — Eesidenoe within jurisdiction at commence- 
 
 ment of suit — Cruelty committed outside 
 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 See DivoEOE. 85. 
 
 — Scottish — Divorce. 
 
 See Scottish Law — ^Divorce. 12. 
 
 — Will — Donee of power a domiciled French- 
 
 woman — Holograph will of donee in 
 French language unattested. 
 See PowEBS. 18. 
 
 • — Will — French subjects — English marriage- 
 Change of domioil — Intention — Eevoea- 
 tion of ante-nuptial will. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 16. 
 
 DONATIO MORTIS CAVSL—Bondsdepositedin 
 safe. 
 
 The delivery of the key of a wardrobe in 
 which was kept the key of a safe accompanied 
 by the words " take the bonds, all is yours," held 
 to pass the bonds in the safe. Mustapha v. 
 Wedlake - Mathew J. [1891] W. N. 201 
 
 Note. — In a will case the gift of a desk " and 
 its contents," among which was the key of a tin 
 box containing securities, was held to give no 
 title to the contents of the box. In re Eobson. 
 EoBSON V. Hamilton Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch, 659 
 2. — Essentials to gift — Delivery antecedent to 
 
 gift. 
 
 The rule that delivery of a chattel is essential 
 
 in order to constitute a valid donatio mortis causS, 
 
 is satisfied by an antecedent delivery of the 
 
 chattel alio intuitu to the donee. Cah? v. Moon 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 ft. B. 283 
 
 ■ Inventory duty — Delivery, 
 
 See Eevenue — Inventory Duty. 
 
 116. 
 
 DONATIO MORTIS CAVSA.— continued. 
 
 3. — Ktmcupative will — Validity. 
 
 An old lady, shortly before her death and in 
 anticipation thereof, expressed a desire to give 
 all her property to the deft, upon certain con- 
 ditions, and directed him to record her wishes in 
 writing, which he did. The document purported 
 to give to the defendant all the properly she 
 might have at her death, subject to his settling 
 up her affair's, seeing to her burial, and mating 
 certain specified payments to named charities. 
 She then delivered to the deft, a deposit note and 
 share certificate, saying, " Take charge of them. 
 If I get better you will bring them back ; if not, 
 you will know what to do with them." She sub- 
 sequently told him where to find some gold and 
 notes, but gave him no further directions as to 
 them : — 
 
 Seld, that, looking at the transaction as a 
 whole, the intention of the deceased was that the 
 specific articles should be dealt with simply as 
 part of the property which she meant to dispose 
 of as from her death, and over which she meant 
 to reserve dominion during her life; that con- 
 sequently there was no valid donatio mortis 
 causa. In re Dash. Solicitor to the Tbbascrt 
 V. Lewis StirUng J. [1900] W. N. 186 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 812 
 DORMANT ACTION— Sequestration. 
 See Sequestbation. 4. 
 
 DORMANT PARTNER— Grantor— Gentleman of 
 
 no occupation. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 5. 
 DOUBLE PORTION— Legacy. 
 
 See Will— Satisfaction. 190. 
 
 DOWER — Abatement — Widow's charge — ■ Intes- 
 tates' Estates Act, 1820 (53 * 5t Viet. c. 29), 
 ss. 2, 4. 
 
 Dower out of real estate of an intestate is 
 subject to abatement in respect of the widow's 
 charge of 500Z. imposed on the intestate's estate 
 by the Intestates' Estates Act, 1890. In re 
 Chakkieee. Duket v. Chaeeieee 
 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 912 
 
 2. — Annuity in satisfaction of dower — ■ 
 Priority— Dower Act, 1833 (3 <£ 4 Will. 3, c. 105), 
 s. 12. 
 
 Where a testator by his will disposes of all 
 his real estate, out of which, if he died intestate, 
 his widow would be entitled to dower, and gives 
 a legacy to his wife which he declares to be in 
 satisfaction of her dower, and also other legacies, 
 and dies seised of real estate, his widow is not 
 entitled to priority under s. 12 of the Dower Act, 
 1833, over the other legatees in the event of the 
 personal estate being insufficient to pay all the 
 legatees in full. In re Gkeenwood. Green- 
 wood V. Geeenwood Chitty J. [1892] 2 Ch. 295 
 
 3, — Bight to — Cesser of life estate — Ettate 
 pur autre vie — Special occupant. 
 
 Where the husband's equitable estate in pos- 
 session was severed from his legal estate in 
 remainder by the interposition of a succession 
 of estates tail which might possibly have 
 arisen : — 
 
 Seld, that his widow was not entitled to 
 dower. In re Miohell. Mooee v. Mooee 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 87 
 
( 727 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 728 ) 
 
 DRAIN. 
 
 See London — Sewers. 
 Seweus. 
 
 — Eepair of — Substituting now drain — Glasgow 
 
 Police Acts. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Sewers. 39. 
 
 DRAMATIC WORK— Copyright in. 
 See CoPYBiGHT — Dramatic. 
 
 DRAWINGS— Applicable for pattern— Registra- 
 tion of design. 
 See Design. 6. 
 
 — Book containing — Registration — " Proprietor." 
 
 See CoPYBiGHT. 19. 
 
 DREDGER— Loss of use of— Collision- Remote- 
 ness of damage. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 61- 
 
 DRESS-PATTERN. 
 
 See Copyright — Book. 4. 
 
 DRIVER — Negligence — Workmen's Compensa- 
 tion Act. 
 
 See Master and Sektant — Master's 
 XiabUity. 78. 
 
 DRUGS— Sale of food and. 
 
 See Cases under Adultekation. 
 
 DRUNKARD. 
 
 Inebriates Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Viet. c. 60), pro- 
 vides for the treatment of habitual inebriates. 
 
 Jnebriafes Act, 1899 (62 * 63 Vict. e. 35), 
 amends the Inebriates Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 60), as to (1.) Expenses of prosecution; (2.) 
 Power to deal summarily with offences. 
 
 Control of guardians over orphans and children 
 of "persons unfit to have control of th&m. See 
 Poor Law Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. v. 37), s. 1, 
 svh-s. 1 (iii.). 
 
 — Clergyman. 
 
 Si-e Ecclesiastical Law — Offences by 
 Clergymen. 48, 59. 
 
 DR tJNK ABD— continued. 
 — Imputation of. 
 
 See DErAMATiON- 
 
 -Slander. 35. 
 
 — Incapacity resulting from drunkenness — 
 
 Wilful refusal or neglect of person to 
 maintain himself. 
 See Vagkancy. 2. 
 
 — Offence under Licensing Acts. 
 
 See Licensing Acts — Offences. 
 
 DUE DILIGENCE— Exceptions. 
 See Shipping. 133. 
 
 DUM CASTA CLAUSE. 
 
 See Divokce — Alimony. 5. 
 
 — Covenant to pay annuity — CoTenant not to 
 
 molest. 
 
 See Husband and Wife — Separation. 
 68—71. 
 DUPLICATE ENTRIES— Notice of selection- 
 Appeal from revising barrister. 
 See Paeliament. 119. 
 
 DURATION— Annuity. 
 
 See Annuity. 7. 
 
 DURESS — Nullity of marriage. 
 
 See Divokce— Nnllity. 93. 
 
 DUTCH LAW — Collision — Compulsory pilotage — • 
 Liability of owner. 
 See Shipping. 189. 
 
 DUTY — ^Public revenue. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue. 
 
 " DWELLING-HOUSE IN ENGLAND." 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — ^Petition. 1 42. 
 
 DWELLING-HOUSES. 
 
 See Small Dwellings Acquisition. 
 
 — Public revenue. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — House Duty. 
 
( 729 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 730 ) 
 
 E. 
 
 EABKINGS — Appointment of receiver of — Equit- 
 able execution. 
 See Keoeivek. 4. 
 
 — Investments — Earnings since liquidation — 
 
 Capital or income. 
 
 See CoMPANT — ^WiNDiNS-np — Assets. 4. 
 
 — Profits — Earnings before liquidation — Priority. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Assets. 5. 
 
 — Undischarged bankrupt. 
 
 See Cases under Bankhuptcy — Tlndis- 
 charged Bankrupt. 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 See Master and Sebvant — Compensa- 
 tion. 13—24. 
 
 EASEMENT — Abandonment — Evidence to shew. 
 
 Evidence to shew abandonment of an ease- 
 ment considered. James v. Stevenson 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 162 
 
 — Air. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Air. 
 
 — Artificial watercourse — Sluice-gate — Obliga- 
 
 tion of owner to repair. 
 See Water. 37. 
 
 2. — • County Court jurisdiction. 
 
 The deft, claimed as an easement the right, 
 as one of the public, to ground his barge on the 
 bed of a navigable river : — 
 
 Seld, that the county court judge had no 
 jurisdiction to try the case, the jurisdiction to 
 try cases involving the title to easements given 
 by the County Courts Act, 188S, s. 60, only 
 applying to easements in respect of which there 
 exist dominant and servient tenements. Haw- 
 kins V. Butter - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 668 
 
 Approved by C. A. Soworth v. Sutcliffe, 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 358, 362, 364. 
 
 — Grant of new easement — " Conveyance of 
 
 property " — Scale fee. 
 
 See Solicitor. Costs. 39. 
 
 — Issue of fact as to variation of easement 
 
 claimed — Question of fact not submitted 
 
 to jui-y. 
 
 See Jamaica. 
 
 3. — Lands Clauses Act—Taldng of easement 
 under — " Land." 
 
 An easement taken under the Lands Clauses 
 Act, 1845, is taken as " land," but the procedure 
 for compensation is different from that when the 
 soil is taken, and the remedy is under s. 68 of 
 the Act. London School Board v. Smith 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 37 
 
 — Light and air. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Aib. 
 
 4, Opening loclis on river — Dominant and 
 
 servient tenement— Prescription— Presumptiori of 
 legal origin -Lost grant— Prescription Act, IBd^ 
 (2 <fc 3 Will. 4, e. 71), s. 2. 
 
 An easement, exercised for the beneht ot the 
 
 EASEMENT — continved. 
 
 dominant estate, is not invalid merely because- 
 from the very nature of the right its exercise by 
 the dominant estate confers some benefit upon 
 other tenements. 
 
 The corporation of Godmanohester as owners, 
 of certain lands had for more than 200 years- 
 opened as of right the gates of certain sluices or 
 locks belonging to the appellant upon the River 
 Ouse in time of flood or likelihood of flood in 
 order to prevent damage to those lands : — 
 
 Held, that the easement was good and wa» 
 none the worse because the exercise of it also 
 benefited lauds belonging to other persons ; and 
 that the corporation could maintain their righi 
 either by s. 2 of the Prescription Act, 1832, or by 
 the fiction of a lost grant. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1896] 1 Ch. 214, affirmed, 
 Simpson v. Godmanohester Corpobatiom 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 693 
 — Support — Working minerals. 
 
 See Mines — Working Generally. 24— 
 31. 
 
 5. — Tramway agreement — Personal or read 
 right — Removal of tramway. 
 
 Where a servitude, such as a right of way for 
 a tramway, is claimed as having been granted 
 by an instrument in writing subscribed by the- 
 proprietor of the land burdened, the fact that the 
 dominant tenement has not been acquired at the 
 date of the instrument cannot, after it has beeo 
 actually acquired, prevent the servitude from> 
 becoming a legal accessory to the dominant tene- 
 ment, provided the servitude was so used as 1* 
 give reasonable notice of the burden to any person 
 in whom the property of the land might subse- 
 quently become vested. And altliough the in- 
 strument granting the privilege was in terms 
 which might appropriately be employed in the 
 constitution of a personal obligation only, that 
 is not conclusive against the constitution of a 
 proper burden upon the land, if it be matter of 
 reasonable inference from the terms of the docu- 
 ment, or the circumstances of the case, that the 
 constitution of a real servitude was what the- 
 parties contemplated. 
 
 An agreement between the proprietor of the- 
 estate of W., the feuars of part of that estate, 
 and a ry. co., provided for the use and construc- 
 tion by the ry. co. of a tramway through the- 
 lands of W., including the lands of the 
 feuars : — - 
 
 Held (Lord Morris dissenting), reversing- 
 Ct. of Sess., (1897) 24 R. 1148, that the privi- 
 lege of working the tramway as long as it 
 continued was intended to bind, and did bind, 
 all singular successors of the feuars in their 
 lands. North British Ey. Co. v. Park Yard. 
 Co. - H. L, (So.)-[1898] A. C. 643 
 
 6. — Tunnel — Occupation not exclusive, Ivt 
 paramount — Batedbility of. 
 
 Land may be occupied in the enjoyment of 
 
( 731 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 732 ) 
 
 'EkSl^THEST— continued. 
 
 an easement so as to make the occupier liable to 
 [loor rate, and that although the owner of the 
 soil may have reserved rights of possession 
 subordinate to the paramount rights he has 
 granted. The test of rateability is not whether 
 the rights granted are corporeal or incorporeal, 
 but whether there is occupation, which is a 
 question of fact. Holywell Union and Halktn 
 Paeish v. Halkvn Distkict Mines Dkainage Co. 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 117 
 
 7. — Tunnel under highway — Exclusive occu- 
 pation — Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 * 
 4 Will. 4, c. 27), o. 2 — Statute of Limitations, 
 1874 (37 & 38 Yict. e. 57), s, 1. 
 
 A tunnel under a highway held to be an 
 hereditament and not an easement, and therefore 
 as defts. had been in exclusive possession for 
 more than twelve though less than twenty years 
 they had acquired a statutory title as against the 
 owner of the sub-soil of the highway. Bevan v. 
 London Pohtland Cement Co. 
 
 Eomer J. [1892] W. N. 151 
 
 8. — Water — Implied grant of supply of — 
 Equitable mortgagor. 
 
 A. was the owner of two freehold and adjoin- 
 ing properties, Broadhaven House and Swanswell. 
 In and prior to June, 1897, Broadhaven House 
 was supplied with water from a well on Swans- 
 well through a line of pipes. In Jan., 1895, A. 
 created an equitable mortgage in favour of a bank 
 by a deposit of the deeds of Swanswell with an 
 agreement to execute a legal mortgage. In 
 April, 1895, A. conveyed Broadhaven House for 
 value to the pit., the conveyance, being " with 
 the appurtenances." In July, 189.5, A. executed 
 a legal mortgage of Swanswell to the bank. In 
 Sept., 1897, the bank, in exercise of their power 
 of sale, sold and conveyed Swanswell to the deft., 
 who at the time was aware of the existence of the 
 line of pipes. 
 
 The deft, had given the pit. notice to re- 
 move the pipes ; the pit. brought this action for 
 an injunction to restrain the deft, from disturbing 
 them : — 
 
 Held, that the principle of Bcddington v. 
 Athe, (1887) 35 Ch. D. 317, applied, and that, 
 as the equitable mortgage was prior to the con- 
 veyance of Broadhaven House to the pit., there 
 was no implied grant of the supply of water 
 from Swanswell, and, consequently, that the 
 action could not be maintained. Davies d. 
 Thomas Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 244 
 
 — Way— Eight of. 
 
 Bee Cases under Way. 
 
 " EBOLINE "— Eegistration. 
 
 See Teade-makk. 42. 
 
 " ECCLESIASTICAL CHABITY "—Churchwarden 
 trustees. 
 See Chakity. 2. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. Circulars 
 issued by the Comms. to their metropolitan lessees 
 iiiith reference to the transfer to the lessees of their 
 reversions. Pari. Paper, 1893 (99). Price, Id. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. 
 
 The Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 (55 * 56 Yict. 
 c. 32), makes provision as to offences by " clergy- 
 men," 
 
 " The Clergy Discipline Eules, 1892," regulat- 
 ing procedure under 55 & 56 Vict. c. 32. St. B. & 
 0. 1892, p. 258. 
 
 Additional Bule dated March, 1893, amending 
 r. 22 of the Clergy Discipline Rules, 1892. St E. 
 & 0. 1893, p. 73. 
 
 Scale of Fees and Costs dated March, 25, 1893, 
 under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892. St. B. & 
 0, 1893, p. 804. 
 
 Order of the Privy Council dated Dec. 10, 
 1895, approving table of Ecclesiastical Fees and 
 Payments. St. E. & 0. [1895] No. 680. 
 
 Olebe Eules and Fees. See Ecclesiastical 
 Law — Glebe. 
 
 Loans by Queen Anne's Bounty.] Inaumhents 
 of Benefices Jjoans Extension Act, 1896 (59 <fe 60 
 Vict. <;. 13), extends the time for the repayment of 
 Loans granted by Queen Anne's Bounty to Incum- 
 bents. 
 
 Benefices Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict. c. 48), 
 amends the law relating to the patronage of 
 benefices, and to their avoidance on sequestration, 
 and to amend the Pluralities Acts, 1838 and 1885. 
 
 Union of Benefices Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict, 
 c, 23), amends the Union of Benefices Act, 1860. 
 
 Cleegy Discipline Act, 1892.] Draft rule 
 dated April 29, 1898, in substitution for rule 34 
 of the rules under the above Act. Lend. Gaz, May 3, 
 1898, p. 2755. 
 
 SuFFBAGAN BiSHOP.] Suffragan Bishops Act, 
 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 11),' explains the Act of 
 26 Een. 8, c. 14. 
 
 Benefices Act, 1898 (61 ifc 62 Vict. c. 48)— 
 Benefice Eules, 1898, which came into operation 
 on Jan. 1, 1899. W. N. 1899 (Jan. 7), p, 1. See 
 Current Index, 1899, p. Ixix. 
 
 Benefices Eules, 1899 (dated March 15, 1899). 
 W. N. 1899 (March 18), p. 79; corrections, 
 W. N. 1899 (March 25), p. 91. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p. Ixziii. 
 
 Notice under the Puhlic Offices Fees Act, 1879. 
 W. N. 1899 (Aug. 19), p." 260. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p. Ixxxvii. 
 
 Eates.] Exemption of owner of tithe rent- 
 charge attached to a benefice from one-half of rates 
 to which Act applies. See Tilhe Eentcharge 
 [Rates) Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 17). 
 
 Church affairs and charities — Provisions as 
 to. See London Government Act, 1899 (62 & 63 
 Vict. c. 14), s. 18. 
 
 Generally, col. 732. 
 
 Advowson, col. 733. 
 
 Church, col. 7;H. 
 
 Church Eates, col. 735. 
 
 Churchwardens, col. 736. 
 
 Custody of Records, ic, col. 738. 
 
 Faculty, col. 738. 
 
 Glebe, col. 751. 
 
 Income Tax. SeeEEVENUE — Income Tax. 
 
 Offences by Clergymen, col, '^52. 
 
 Parish Clerk, col, 754. 
 
( 733 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 18i(l— 1900. 
 
 ( 734 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW— conKn^eA 
 Parsonage Mouse, eol. 754. 
 Fews, col. 754. 
 Practice, col. 756. 
 Mepairs, col. 756. 
 Situal, col. 756. 
 Sale of Property, col. 758. 
 Sequestration, col. 758. 
 Simony, col. 760. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Augmentation of benefice — Charge upon land. 
 
 See Eent-ohakge. 
 
 — Bistop — Discretion under Public Worship 
 
 Act. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Bitual. 62. 
 
 — Burial. 
 
 See Cases under Burial. 
 
 — "Ecclesiastical charity " — Parish council — 
 
 Appointment of trustees — Churchwarden 
 
 trustees. 
 
 See Chakitt. 2. 
 
 — Income tax — Assembly hall used for church 
 
 purposes. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 77. 
 
 — Income tax — Chaplain's salary — Charitable 
 
 institution. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 75. 
 ■ — Income tax — Church manse. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 78, 79. 
 
 — Incumbent's fees. 
 
 See BuEiAL. 1. 
 
 — Non-ecclesiastical charity — Churchwarden 
 
 trustees. 
 
 See Chabitt. 2. 
 
 — Parish — Creation — Civil and canonical juris- 
 
 diction — Laws of Quebec. 
 See Canada. 57. 
 
 — Registration of voters— Canons residentiary. 
 
 See Pabliament — Eranchise. 41, 42. 
 
 — Registration of Voters — Lay brother — Service 
 
 franchise. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 126. 
 ~- Registration of voters — Religious community. 
 See Parliament — Eranchise. 131 — 133. 
 
 — Scottish law — Church. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Church. 
 
 — Tithe rent-charge — Liability to repair chancel 
 
 — Deductions. 
 
 See Rates— Kateahility. 56. 
 
 — Vicar — Lands allotted to vicar " and his suc- 
 
 cessors " — Application of capital money. 
 See Settled Land. 126. 
 
 Advowson, 
 
 1. — Description — "Meal estate in the county 
 of i." — Burrmmding circumstances — Will — Inten- 
 tion. 
 
 An advowson in gross, though not aptly de- 
 scribed as a hereditament or real estate " situate " 
 or " in " a particular county or place, may pass 
 under a device of "all other my real estate in 
 the county of L." where the surrounding circum- 
 stances or the presumed intention of the testator 
 admit of such a construction. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Advowson)— coiiM. 
 
 Crompton v. Jarratt, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 298, 
 examined and distinguished. 
 
 A testator gave one of his sons the option of 
 acquiring a family estate, " and all other my real 
 estate in the county of L ," at a certain price, as 
 part of liis share under the will, and, in the 
 event of his exercising such option, devised to 
 him the said estates absolutely. The testator 
 owned two advowsons, both situate in the county 
 of Lincoln, and close to the estate which he had 
 purchased at the time of buying the said estate. 
 The son having exercised his option to take the 
 estate at tlie price named by the testator, the 
 question was now raised whether the advowsons, 
 being in gross, passed under the words "other 
 real estate in the county of L. " : — 
 
 Held, under the circumstances, that these 
 words were sufficient to pass the advowsons to 
 the son. In re Hodgson. Taylor v. Hodgson 
 Bomer J. [1898] 2 Ch. 545 
 
 3. — Presentation to living — Soman Catholic 
 patron — Benefice Act, 1713 (13 Anne, c. 13) — 
 The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford Act, 
 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 48), ss. 28, 45. 
 
 A presentation by a college on the nomina- 
 tion of a Roman Calholic patron held to be 
 absolutely void under 13 Anne, c. 13. Boyej 
 V. Bishop op Noewich P. C. [1892] A. C. 4lf 
 
 (a«arm. Arches Ct.) [1892] P. 41 
 
 — Presentation office fees. 
 
 See Fees — Presentation OfiSce. 
 
 — Purchase of — Gift to promote spread of Evan- 
 
 gelical principles. 
 See Charity. 16. 
 
 3. — Quare impedit — Usurpation — Exchange. 
 As between patrons with alternate turns of 
 
 presentation to a benefice, a presentation on an 
 exchange of livings must be reckoned as a turn. 
 If one patron wrongfully usurp the turn of another, 
 the order of turns of presentation is not thereby 
 altered, but the ousted patron after six months 
 loses his turn, and cannot requite by usurping 
 against the wrongdoer by way of retaliation. 
 
 On this point there is no distinction between 
 usurpation by a stranger and by a person party 
 or privy to the title. Keen v. Denny 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 — Sale of advowson in gross — Freehold pro- 
 
 perty. 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 77. 
 
 — Will — Failure of gift — Bequest of trust funds 
 
 to be applied for or towards purchase of 
 advowsons or presentations. 
 See Charity. 16. 
 
 Church. 
 
 4. — Church Building Acts — Church land 
 talcen hy public body — Application of purchase- 
 mmiey — Power of Ecclesiastical Commissioners — 
 Church Building Act, 1840 (3 <£ 4 Vict. c. 60), 
 «. 19. 
 
 A piece of land having been in 1846, under 
 the authority of the Church Building Acts then 
 in force, voluntarily granted in fee to the Church 
 Building Commrs. for ecclesiastical purposes, a 
 church was built thereon. The whole of the 
 land was inclosed, and in 1849 the church was 
 
( 7^5 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, ISJl— 1900. 
 
 ( 73G ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Chxtxei.)— continued. 
 coEsecratefl. So muoli of the land as was not 
 actually occupied by the church was not con- 
 secrated. In 1891 the London County Council, 
 under their statutory powers, purchased part of 
 the unconsecrated inclosure, and the purchase- 
 money was paid into court under the Lands 
 Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Tlie purchased 
 land was afterwards conyeyed by the vicar to 
 the county council. Upon a summons by the 
 vicar for payment out : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding the consecration, 
 the Ecclesiastical Commrs. (as the successors of 
 the Church Building Commrs.) had power, under 
 s. 19 of the Church Building Act, 1840, with the 
 consent of the oiiginal donor of the land, to 
 direct that the purchase-money should be applied 
 to any of the purposes mentioned in that sec- 
 tion : — 
 
 Held, also, that the payment of part of the 
 principal money remaining due upon a mortgage 
 to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty of the 
 glebe, profits, and emoluments of the vicarage, 
 made by a former vicar to secure the repayment 
 of a loan made to him by the governors for the 
 purchase of a vicarage-house, was an eccle- 
 siastical purpose within the meaning of s. 19. 
 JUx parte London County Council. Ex parte 
 ViCAB OF Christ Chukch, East Gkeenwioh 
 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 520 
 
 — Endowment of. 
 
 See Ch.\eity — Gift to Charity. 16. 
 
 — Pews. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law 
 — Pews. 
 
 — Repair of church. 
 
 See BuBiAL. 4. 
 
 — Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Church. 
 
 8. ■ — Site of cliurcli — New street — Faving 
 expenses — Chureh Building Act, 1845 (8 it- 9 Vict, 
 c. 70), s. 13. 
 
 Where part of the site of a church is con- 
 secrated, the whole freehold of the site vests, 
 under s. 13 of the Church Building Act, 1845, in 
 the incumbent : the Ecclesiastical Cummrs. 
 thereupon cease to be OT^ners, and are not liable 
 to contribute towards the cost of paving a new 
 street. Plumstead Disteict Boaed of Woeks 
 «. Ecclesiastical Commes. foe England 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 361 
 
 — Site of church — Open space — Burial ground. 
 
 See BUEIAL. 6. 
 
 And see Ecclesiastical Law, passim. 
 
 Church Bates. 
 
 6. ' — Abolition— Beservation of rigid to levy 
 church rate under local Act upon " any contract 
 made" or for good and valuable consideration — 
 The Burials Act, 18.')2 (15 & 16 Vict, c 85). s. 36 
 —Church Rates Abolition Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. 
 c. 109), «. 5. 
 
 The '• contract made '' or good consideration 
 given mentioned in s. 5 of the Compulsory Church 
 Hate Abolition Act, 1868, must be found in or 
 gathered from the local Act. 
 
 On the construction of the Morylebone local 
 Acts :— •' 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Church Bates)— fo?rf(?. 
 Held, that there was no power to levy a rate. 
 Keg. v. Vestey op St> Maeylebone 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 771 
 
 7. — ■ Assessment — " Full annual rent or value " 
 — Cliurcli Bate, St. Nicliolas, Harwich Act. 
 
 By a locd Act (1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. cxiv.), s. 8. 
 the churchwardens of a parish were required to 
 make a rate " on the full annual rent or value " 
 of all houses rateable to the relief of the poor : — 
 
 Held, that " full annual rent or value " meant 
 full net annual value, and that the rate could not 
 be made on the gross estimated rental. Eose v. 
 Watson Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 95 
 
 Churchwardens. 
 
 By the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 <fc 57 
 Vict. c. 73), the civil functions of churchwardens 
 loere transferred to parish councils. 
 
 8. — Admission of by Archdeacon— Power of 
 bishop to inhibit — Ministerial act. 
 
 The admission by an archdeacon of persons 
 elected to the ofSce of churchwarden is a minis- 
 terial act, and the bishop has no power to inhibit 
 the archdeacon from performing it. 
 
 Bex V. Simpson, (1726) 1 Str. 609. followed. 
 
 Keg. v. Sowieb - Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 257 ; 
 
 see [1901] 1 ft. B. 66 
 
 9. — Criminal suit against churchwarden — 
 Jurisdiction — Duty of churchwarden with respect 
 to collections at morning and evening service — 
 Alms dish — Usage of church — Control of church- 
 wardens over moneys collected for church expenses. 
 
 By the accustomed practice of a parish church, 
 when collections from the congregations were 
 made either at the morning or the evening 
 service on Sundays, the collecting bags were 
 brought after the coUectinn up to the chancel 
 steps and placed in the alms dish there held by 
 the minister for the purpose of receiving the- 
 same and placing them on the Communion Table. 
 One of the churchwardens of the parish was 
 charged in a criminal suit with having committed 
 oifences against ecclesiastical law in that during 
 the time he. held ofiSce he had at the morning 
 service on one Sunday and the evening seivici; 
 on another Sunday vexatiously refused to place 
 the bag in which he had collected money from, 
 the congregation in the alms dish in accordance 
 with the above practice. At the hearing these- 
 charges were sufficiently proved : — 
 
 Held, that, in so deviating from the practice 
 in use in the matter, the respondent had offended 
 against the laws ecclesiastical, and that he ought 
 to follow such practice for (he future unles* 
 otherwise ordered by the bishop. 
 
 Where collections for ordinary church expenses 
 are made at the morning and evening service* 
 in parish churches, the churchwardens are iho 
 proper custodians of the moneys collected, and 
 such moneys should be placed by them at a baulc 
 to an account in their joint names. 
 
 Semble : For unreasonably refusing to sign iv 
 joint cheque on such account for the payment of 
 IJroper chirrch expenses a churchwarden is liabfe- 
 to be articled in a criminal srut in the Ecclesi- 
 astical Court. Howell v. Holdeoyd 
 
 Consist. Ct, cf WakeBeld [1E97] P. 188 
 
( 737 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 738 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Cliiirohwardens) — 
 
 continued. 
 — " Eocleaiastical charity " — Parisli council — 
 
 Churchwarden trustees. 
 
 See Chakitt. 2. 
 
 10. — Criminal suit against churchwardens — 
 Jurisdiction — Duty of churchwardens to obtain 
 faculty before removing human remains — Burial 
 Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. e. 81), s. 23— Faculty to 
 carry out directions in Order in Council for pre- 
 venting vaults becoming dangerous to public health. 
 
 The churchwardens of a parish church wholly 
 closed for burials, who, purporting to act under 
 the provisions of an Order in Council under the 
 23rd section of the Burials Act, 1857, directing 
 the removal and reinterment elsewhere of human 
 remains underneath the church, do or cause to he 
 <lone the acts therein directed without obtaining 
 a faculty from the Ordinary, are guilty of an 
 offence against the laws ecclesiastical, in respect 
 of which they may be cited to appear to answer 
 articles to be administered to them in a criminal 
 euit. 
 
 The 23rd section of the Burial Act, 1857, 
 provides (inter alia) that it shall be lawful for 
 Her Majesty, upon the representation of one of 
 Her Majesty's principal secretaries of State, by 
 •and with the advice of Her Privy Council from 
 time to time, to order such acts to be done by or 
 Tinder the direction of the churchwardens or such 
 otlier persons as may have the care of any vaults 
 ■or places of burial, for preventing them from 
 becoming or continuing dangerous or injurious 
 to tlie public health, and such churchwardens or 
 other persons shall do or cause to be done all acts 
 ■ordered as aforesaid. 
 
 Orders in Council issued under the above sec- 
 tion and served on the churchwardens of a parish 
 church ordered that the churchwardens or the 
 persons having the care of the vaults under the 
 church should adopt or cause to be adopted the 
 following measures, namely, that the whole of 
 the human remains lying beneath the floor of the 
 chur.-'h should be removed, and reburied in a 
 specified cemetery or in some other legal burial 
 ground. In consequence of the service of these 
 Orders in Council, the churchwardens, without 
 having obtained any faculty from the Ordinary, 
 pulled down all the pews in the church, took up 
 -the flooring and monumental slabs in the same, 
 and removed certain coffins and human remains 
 buried thereunder, for the purpose of reinterring 
 them elsewhere. It appeared that burials in the 
 parish had been by law wholly discontinued in 
 the year 1853, and that since that year no burial 
 was recorded to have taken place there : — 
 
 Held, that the acts of the churchwardens, not 
 having been authorised by a faculty, were illegal, 
 and the Orders in Council afforded no justifica- 
 tion for-what had been done by them ; such Orders 
 being either wholly ultra vires or to be construed 
 as merely directing an application for a faculty 
 to carry out their terms : 
 
 Meld, also, that, on the petition of the rector 
 of the parish church and the churchwardens, a 
 faculty might issue authorising for sanitary 
 reasons the removal of the remains and their 
 re-interment in consecrated ground. Lee v. 
 Hawtbet - Consist. Ct. of London [1898] P. 63 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Churchwardens) — 
 continued. 
 
 — Election as vestry clerk. 
 
 See Qtro Wakranto. 4. 
 
 — Income of charity estates — Anticipation of 
 
 rents — Charge on charitable property. 
 See Charity. 1. 
 
 — Trustee, with overseers, of parish lands. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 2^. 
 
 — Trustees — ^Non-eoclesiastioal charity. 
 
 See Cbabitt. 2. 
 
 Custody of Beoords, &c. 
 
 11. — Power of Ordinary to make orders as to 
 the custody and disposal of records deposited 
 amongst archives of diocese — Document of special 
 liistorical interest to citizens of foreign sovereign 
 State — Comity — Delivery up for transmission to 
 Massachusetts of manuscript history of voyage of 
 " Mayflower " and Plymouth plantation, containing 
 entries of births, deaths, and marriages. 
 
 On the petition of the Ambassador of the 
 United States of America, the Chancellor of the 
 Diocese of London directed that the manuscript 
 known as " The Log of the Mayflower," and con- 
 taining the history of the voyage of that vessel 
 to America in 1620 and of the then new-founded 
 Piymouth plantation, together with entries of the 
 births, marriages, and deaths of many of the first 
 settlers in New England and their immediate 
 descendants, should — -as a record of the greatest 
 national interest and importance to the President 
 and citizens of the United States — be delivered 
 out of the custody of the officials of the See of 
 London to the Ambassador for the purpose of 
 being transmitted to America, and there deposited 
 under the official custody of the Governor of 
 Massachusetts for the time being, on the con- 
 ditions that a photographic facsimile reproduction 
 of the manuscript, verified by affidavit, should be 
 deposited in the registry of the Consistory Court 
 of London, and that all proper facilities should 
 be afforded by the future custodians of the origi- 
 nal to persons desiring to make searches therein 
 or of obtaining extracts therefrom, and that a 
 certificate of the due delivery thereof, signed by 
 the Governor of Massachusetts, of having received 
 it, and testifying his acceptance of its custody on 
 the conditions imposed, be transmitted to the 
 registrar. 
 
 The Ambassador of the United States having 
 ceased to hold office since the decree was made, 
 the Court did not think fit to vary the decree ; 
 for in taking charge of the manuscript he was to 
 act not as ambassador, but as the personal dele- 
 gate of the Court. In re The Log of the May- 
 flower - Consist. Ct. of London [1897] P. 808 
 
 Faculty. 
 18. — Burial— Burial Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict, 
 c. 81), s. 23. 
 
 (a) Where an Order in Council is issued 
 under s. 23 of the Burials Act, 1857, directing 
 the removal and reinterment of human remains 
 under a church, a faculty is necessary for carrying 
 out the Order. Eeotor, &c., of St. Michael 
 Bassishaw v. Pabibhionerb of Same 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1893] P. 233 
 (B) Burial Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict. c. 81), s. 23. 
 And it is the duty of the Consistory Court 
 
 2 B 
 
( 739 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 740 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (IsLCvlty)— continued. 
 to grant a faculty directing the churchwardens to 
 remove the remains. In this case proyisoes were 
 inserted in the faculty for the safeguard of the 
 fabric of the church, and for authorising the 
 famOies of persons buried in the vaults to remove 
 the remains of their relatives to any consecrated 
 burial-ground they might select. Costs of the 
 faculty declared to be incidental to the carrying 
 out of the Order in Council. Eeotoh, &o., op 
 St. Maet-at-Hill with St. Andeew Hubbaed 
 V. Paeishionees op Same Consist. Ct. of London 
 
 [1892] P. 394 
 Followed in preceding case. 
 
 13. — Burial — Cremated remains — Interment 
 of in parish ohurcli closed for hurials — Urn con- 
 taining cremated remains — Church Building Act, 
 18l8 (58 Geo. 3, c. 45), s. SO— Burials Act, 1853 
 (16 & 17 Vict. 0. 134), s. 3—PuUio Health Act, 
 1848 (11 * 12 Vict. c. 63), s. S3—FubUo Bealth 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 343, Sched. V., 
 Part. III. 
 
 On an application for a faculty to place in a 
 niche in the wall of a church closed for burials 
 by Order in Council a sealed urn containing the 
 cremated ashes of a dead body : — 
 
 Held, that the provisions prohibiting " burial " 
 did not apply to the depositing of cremated ashes, 
 and that there was jurisdiction to grant the 
 faculty, but that the placing of the urn in the 
 wall might be inconvenient : 
 
 Held, also, that as there were no objections 
 on sanitary grounds to placing the urn below the 
 floor of the church, a faculty for that purpose 
 might issue, subject to a proper fee to the in- 
 cumbent for the interment. 
 
 Semble, cremated remains cannot lawfully be 
 interred in a parish church except under a faculty 
 from the Ordinary. In re Keee 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1894] P. 884 
 
 14. — • Burial — Cremation. 
 
 Where both burial and cremation are desired, 
 the cremation must come first. The Court will 
 not grant a faculty for the removal of remains 
 after burial for cremation. But the ashes of a 
 cremated person may be buried in consecrated 
 ground. In re DiiON Consist. Ct. of London 
 
 [1892] P. 386 
 
 15. — Chancel ' screen — Confirmatory faculty 
 for retention of chancel screen of carved figures 
 representing Our Lord on the Cross, the Virgin 
 Mary, and St. John — Representation of historical 
 scene not lilcely to he object of superstitious 
 reverence. 
 
 A figure of Our Lord upon the Cross was in 
 1880 placed in a parish church above, and on the 
 centre of the screen separating the chancel from 
 the nave ; and in 1893 there were placed on one 
 side thereof a figure of the Virgin Mary, and on 
 the other side thereof a figure of St. John. All 
 the figures were carved in wood, were about 
 2 ft. 9 in. in height, the central figure being 
 rather higher than the two others, and all had 
 been placed in the church without the sanction 
 of a faculty. There was not in the church any- 
 thing of the nature of a rood-loft or rood-stairs, 
 and no candles were round or in front of the 
 figures. In 1896 the rector and churchwarden of 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Saxsulty)— continued. 
 the parish instituted a cause of faculty praying 
 the Ordinary to authorize by faculty the reten- 
 tion of the three figures on the screen, and filed 
 aiBdavits stating that the services of the church 
 had been conducted in accordance with the direc- 
 tions of the Book of Common Prayer, and that 
 there was not and had not been anything in the 
 said services or in the attitude of those attending 
 the services to indicate or suggest any probability 
 of worship, adoration, or any superstitious rever- 
 ence being paid to the figures on the screen. No 
 person appeared to oppose the grant of the 
 faculty. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Diocese of Norwich 
 ordered the faculty to issue as prayed. Bectob, 
 &c., OP Baesham, Sufpolk v. Paeishiokebs, &c., 
 OP THE Same Consist. Ct. of Norwich. 
 
 [1896] P. 256 
 
 See next Case. 
 
 16. — Chancel screen, Sestoration of — Figures 
 
 of Our Lord upon the Cross, St. Mary, and St. John 
 
 — Architectural decorations not lilcely to he abused 
 
 hy superstitious reverence. 
 
 A crucifix with the accompanying figures of 
 the Virgin Mary and St. John is not forbidden 
 by law to be erected on a chancel screen, but 
 may be placed in that position in a parish church 
 under a faculty where the Ordinary is satisfied 
 that it is not likely to be abused by superstitions 
 reverence being paid to it. 
 
 A faculty authorizing the restoration in a 
 parish church of a stone chancel screen or interior 
 chancel arch of pre-Eeformation date by placing 
 on three existing pedestals springing from orna- 
 mental tracery in the upper parts of such screen 
 or interior arch three stone figures without gild- 
 ing or painting, each two feet thi'ee inches high — 
 one, the central figure, representing Our Lord 
 upon the Cross, and the other two representing 
 respectively the Virgin Mary and St. John — was 
 granted by the Consistory Court of St. Albans on 
 the Ordinary being satisfied that the figures 
 would be for the purpose of architectural decora- 
 tion only, and that there was no ground for 
 reasonable apprehension that they would be 
 abused or made the subject of superstitious 
 reverence. Gkeat Baepield (Vicae op) v. Ah. 
 HAVING Ikteeest - Consist. Ct. of St. Albans 
 
 [1897] P. 185 
 
 17. — Cliancel screen gates — Discretion — Be- 
 fusal of faculty — Figures on cliancel screen repre- 
 senting Our Lord upon the Cross, the Virgin Mary, 
 and St. John— Evidence — Clmrch Building Act,- 
 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 70), s. l—Seleot vestry— Effect 
 of resolution of meeting of pew-renters of parochial 
 chapel of ease. 
 
 A petition by the vicar and churchwardens of 
 the parish church of K., and the ohapelwardens 
 of a ch9,pel of ease in the parish of B., asking for 
 a faculty to authorize the erection in the chapel 
 of a chancel screen with gates, and with a cruci- 
 fix and figures of the Virgin Mary and St. John 
 placed on the top of the screen, was supported hy 
 a resolution of a meeting of the pew-renters of 
 the chapel. The vestry for ecclesiastical purposes 
 of the parochial area in which both the parish 
 church and the chapel of ease were situate, was 
 a select vestry of the whole civil parish of K>, 
 
( 741 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 712 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Facvity)— continued. 
 which compriseil a larger area than the parooliial 
 area above mentioued, and the vestry had passed 
 no resolution either in favour of or against the 
 grant of the faculty : — 
 
 Held, 
 
 (i.) That n. resolution of the select vestry 
 might be dispensed with. 
 
 (ii.) That a faculty for chancel screen gates 
 ought not to be granted. 
 
 (iii.) That a faculty for a crucifix with or 
 without figures on either side placed on a chancel 
 screen ought not to be granted. Eiohmond 
 (ViOAK of) and Ohapelwakdens op St. 
 Matthias, Eiohmond v. All Persons having 
 Interest, &c. - - Consist. Ct. of Hochester 
 
 [1897] P. 70 
 
 Referred to. Great Barfield (Vicar of) v. All 
 having Interest. See preceding Case. 
 
 18. — Chancel screen gates — Discretion of 
 Ordinary. 
 
 The rector, &c., of a parish petitioned for a 
 faculty to erect a chancel screen with gates, 
 which when shut would cut off communication 
 from the nave to the chancel, and it appeared 
 that the gates would be kept open during divine 
 service and closed at other times, and would be a 
 protection to the contents of the chancel. 
 
 A. Held, by the Chancellor of St. Albans, 
 that the grant of a faculty would be an exercise 
 of his discretion in opposition to the decision of 
 the Court of Arches in Bradford v. Fry, (1878) 
 4 P. D. 93, but intimated that he would grant a 
 faculty for the screen without the gates. Eeotok, 
 &o., OF St. Andrew, Eomfoed v. All Persons 
 HAVING Interest, &o. Consist. Ct. of St. Albans 
 
 [1894] P. 220 
 
 B. Held, by the Chancellor of London, on 
 being satisfied in his discretion that the erection 
 would be of utility, that the faculty should be 
 granted. 
 
 (a) St. James Norland (Vioae, &c.) v. 
 Parishioners of the Same 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1894] P. 256 
 (e) St. Peter's, Eaton Squabe (Vioar, &o.) 
 V. Parishioners of Same 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1894] P. 350 
 
 19. — Churchyard — -Conversion of to secular 
 uses— Burials Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Jiet. c. 85), 
 g. 44. 
 
 (a) a faculty refused for widening the road- 
 way bounding the churchyard by throwing into 
 the road a strip of consecrated ground which 
 had been added to the churchyard. In this case 
 (i.) the proposed widening would have enabled 
 (a) a pathway to be made on the side of the 
 road adjoining the churchyard, and (6) the 
 expense of fencing part of the burial ground to 
 be provided for ; and (ii.) burials had been pro- 
 hibited in the slip of ground proposed to be 
 taken. In re Plumstead Burial Geotind 
 
 Consist. Ct. of Rochester [1895] P. 225 
 
 Eeferred to by Consist. Ct. of Peterborough. 
 St. Nicolas, Leicester (Vicar of)y. Langton [1899] 
 P. 19, 32. 
 
 (s) A faculty granted for a similar purpose. 
 In this case burials had taken place in the part 
 proposed to be taken, and the faculty was opposed 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Teacvlty)— continued. 
 by owners of graves proposed to be interfered 
 with. Hove, St. Andrew's (Vicar, &o.) v. 
 Mawn Consist. Ct. of Chichester [1895] 
 
 P. 228, n. 
 
 20. — Consecration — Ground " adjoining " to 
 an existing churchyard — Intervening highway — 
 Consecration of Clmrchyards Act, 1867 (30 <fc 31 
 Vict. c. 133). 
 
 Land may adjoin and may be added to an 
 existing churchyard within the meaning of the 
 Consecration of Churchyards Act, 1867, although 
 it is separated therefrom by a highway. 
 
 A plot of ground separated from a churchyard 
 by a highway about twenty feet wide was held 
 to be "adjoining to an existing churchyard" 
 within the meaning of the Act. In re Baroness 
 Bateman and Pabker's Contract 
 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 301(1) ; 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 599 
 — '• Adjoining " premises. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 36. 
 
 21. — Disused hurial ground, faculty for erec- 
 tion of churchyard wall with arcade on — Disused 
 Burial Grounds Act, 1884 (47 * 48 Vict. c. 72), 
 s. 3— Open Spaces Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 32), 
 ss. 4, 14 — Meaning of " building " — Refusal of 
 faculty for pictures at east end of chancel of parish 
 church — Discretion — Wishes of parishioners — Evi- 
 dence — Memorials. 
 
 A faculty for the erection on a disused burial 
 ground of a churchyard wall, one side of which 
 would be so built as to form an arcade or covered 
 way for the protection from the weather of 
 frescoes proposed to be painted on the panels of 
 that side of the wall which would be inside the 
 churchyard, was granted, the Ordiaary being of 
 opinion that the wall or structure in question 
 was not a "building" prohibited to be erected 
 on a disused burial ground by the Disused Burial 
 Grounds Act, 1884, and the Open Spaces Act, 
 1887. 
 
 Where the vestry of a parish and the peti- 
 tioners are unanimous, or substantially so, in 
 favour of accepting a presentation picture of 
 merit for the decoration of their parish church, 
 the introduction of the picture into the church 
 may be properly sanctioned by a faculty, unless 
 the picture appears to be likely to be abused by 
 superstitious reverence, or be otherwise inappro- 
 priate in a church, or be such as might reason- 
 ably give offence to present or future parishioners ; 
 but where it was proposed that such a picture 
 should be introduced into the church of an admir- 
 ably worked parish, and conscientious objections 
 which might be entertained by members, of the 
 congregation, without disparagement to the views 
 of others in favour of it, were taken to it as a 
 church decoration by a substantial minority of 
 resident parishioners who were members of the 
 Church of England, and it appeared that its 
 introduction into the church would offend the 
 religious feelings of that minority and introduce 
 discord into the parish where it had never existed 
 before, it was held to be the duty of the Court to 
 refuse to grant a faculty for its introduction. 
 
 Instance of a faculty suit in which memorials 
 and counter-memorials signed by parishioners 
 were admitted in evidence by consent. Yioab 
 
 2 B 2 
 
( 713 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 711 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Faculty)— coniinued. 
 OP St. Botolph, Aldeesgate Without v. 
 Pabisbionebs of Same Consist, Court of London 
 
 [1900] P. 69 
 
 22. — Disused churchyard — Flights of steps and 
 entrances. 
 
 Faculty granted allowing construction of 
 flights of steps and entrances thereto in two 
 disused churchyards in the City of London for 
 the purpose of giving access to chambers for the 
 transformation and storing of electricity adjoin- 
 ing the churchyards. In re St. Benet Shebehog. 
 In re St. Nicholas Aoons 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1893] P. 66 n. 
 
 23. — Disused churchyard — Fuhlic garden — 
 Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1 881 (11 dc 45 Vict. 
 <;. 34), s. 5. 
 
 Faculty granted to allow use of closed church- 
 yard as a public garden, subject to certain rules 
 as to vaults still kept in repair. Vioad, &o., of 
 St. Botolph without Aldgate v. Pabishionees 
 of Same (No. 2) Consist Ct. of London 
 
 [1892] P. 173 
 
 24. — Disused churchyard — Transformer cham- 
 bers for electric lighting — 1 & 2 Vict. o. v , Royal 
 Exchange Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. cli.). 
 
 Faculty granted allowing construction of 
 chambers und. r two disused churchyards in the 
 City of London for the storing and transformation 
 of electricity : — 
 
 Held, also, that the fact that one churchyard 
 woB vested by local Acts in the corporation, to 
 the intent that it might for ever remain unbuilt 
 on and unused for any purpose except such orna- 
 mental purpose as the bishop should approve, 
 did not preclude the Court from granting the 
 faculty. In re St. Nicholas Cole Ajbet. In re 
 St. Benet Fink, Chuechtard 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1893] P. 68 
 
 Eeferred to by Consist. Ct. of Peterborough. 
 St. Nicolas, Leicester v. Langton, [1899], P. 19, 
 32. 
 
 26. — Disv,sed churchyard — Widening road 
 (14 * 15 Vict. c. xci.\ s. ?5. 
 
 Faculty granted to fanction an agreement to 
 give up part of a closed churchyard to widen a 
 roadway, and for the removal of the bodies 
 disturbed by the arrangement to a country 
 cemetery. 
 
 Jurisdiction as to the removal of bodies con- 
 sidered. ViOAB, &o., OP St. Botoiph withoht 
 Aldgate v. Pakishionebs of Same (No. 1). 
 
 COMMRS. op SeWEBS OP CiTT OP LONDON, &C. V. 
 
 Same - Consist. Ct. of London [1892] P. 161 
 Not followed by Consist. Ct. of Koohester. 
 
 In re Plumstead Burial Ground, [1895] P. 225, 
 
 240. 
 
 Eeferred to by Consist. Ct. of Peterborough. 
 
 St. Nicolas, Leicester v. Langton, [1899] P. 19, 31. 
 
 26. — Exhumation for purposes of Verification 
 — Jurisdiction of ordinary over all bodies hurled 
 in consecrated ground — Licence of Secretary of 
 Slate— Burial Act, 1857 (20 <fe 21 Vict. c. 81), 
 ». 25. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Ordinary over all 
 bodies buried in consecrated ground is not affected 
 by s. 25 of the Burial Act, 1857, which requires 
 the licence of a Secretary of State for the removal 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Tacrdty)— continued. ' 
 of any body from any place of burial unless it be 
 removed from one consecrated place of burial to 
 another by faculty granted by the Ordinary. 
 
 The Ordinary may grant a faculty for tlie 
 exhumation, for the purpose of identificatiou, of 
 a body which has been buried in consecrated 
 ground, and the licence of the Secretary of State 
 is not a condition precedent to the grant, although 
 the faculty may be inoperative until the licence 
 has been obtained. 
 
 Semble : A body buried in consecrated ground 
 cannot be removed without the sanction of the 
 Ordinary. Keg. v. Db. Tbisteam, Judge of 
 Consistoby Court of London 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 371 
 
 Referred to by Dr. Tristram. Druce v. Young, 
 [1899] P. 84, 99. 
 
 27. — Footpath across churchyard for use of 
 parishioners and public — Proviso for closing foot- 
 path one day in the year. 
 
 In a faculty granted for a fenced-in footpath 
 across a closed parish churchyard for the use of 
 the parishioners with right of way for the public, 
 a proviso was inserted for the footpath to be closed 
 on one day in the year in order to shew that it 
 remained an integral portion of the churchyard 
 with certain limitations on its use. St. John 
 the Baptist, C'abdifp (Vicab op) v. Parish- 
 ioners OF Same - Consist. Ct. of Llandaff 
 
 [1898] P. 155 
 
 28. . — Interest requisite for promotion of faculty 
 suit — Parishioners having jiames on rate-book — 
 Ornaments of the church — Architectural decorations 
 — Crucifixes — Ornaments Mubric — 3 & 4 Edw. 6, 
 c. 10 — Refusal of confirmatory faculty — Church- 
 wardens — Undertaking to replace Tables of Com- 
 mandments — Canon 82 of Canons of 1603 — Taber- 
 nacle for reception of Reserved Sacrament. 
 
 A crucifix is neither a lawful church orna- 
 ment nor an architectural decoration the reten- 
 tion of which in a church can be authorized by 
 faculty, and where a crucitix has been introduced 
 into a parish church the Ordinary has jurisdic- 
 tion to direct its removal by the churchwardens 
 without proof that it is likely to have super- 
 stitious reverence paid to it. 
 
 A parishioner of a parish in the City of 
 London whose name is on tlie rate-book as 
 occupier of a room in the parish taken solely to 
 enable him to bring a civil suit in the court, has 
 a sufBcient interest to promote a cause of faculty 
 to obtain the removal of unlawful church orna- 
 ments out of the parish church of the parish of 
 which he is a parishioner. 
 
 The curate in charge of a parish in which the 
 incumbent was non-resident introduced into the 
 parish without lawful authority two crucifixes, 
 one a movable crucifix of brass about eighteen 
 inches high placed on a Tabernacle for the Ee- 
 served Sacrament standing on the Eetuble in the 
 chancel of the church, and the other a crucifix 
 three feet in height affixed to the north wall of 
 the church by the side of and slightly above the 
 level of the pulpit; and during his tenure of 
 office, from about 1880 to 1894, there were in the 
 church, besides these crucifixes and Tabernacle, 
 a censer and the Stations of the Cross ; incense 
 was used in the church, and during the Com- 
 
( 745 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1S91— 1900. 
 
 ( 746 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (F&eiatj)— continued. 
 munion Service the •wine was mixed with water, 
 ♦ Between 1894 and 1898 a succeeding curate, the 
 crucifixes and Tabernacle still remaining in the 
 church, introduced there a picture of the Virgin 
 Mary, and the next year a shrine to the Virgin 
 Mary called an " Altar of Eepose," and a statue 
 of the Madonna and Child; and services were 
 conducted in the church in which the crucifixes 
 were used by the minister and members of the 
 congregation for superstitious purposes. After- 
 wards an application was m*ide by three parish- 
 ioners for a faculty to authorize the removal of 
 the crucifixes out of the church, and the incum- 
 bent and churchwardens appeared as opponents, 
 and prayed for a confirmatory faculty for the 
 retention of the crucifixes. 
 
 It appeared that several past chvirchwardons 
 and many of the parishioners had disapproved of 
 and protested against the introduction and re- 
 tention of the crucifixes, and that in 1898 another 
 curate in charge had been appointed, whilst there 
 was no evidence that during the time he had 
 been the ofSoiating minister the crucifixes had 
 been used superstitiously. 
 
 It further appeared that before the hearing of 
 the suit the Tabernacle for the Eeserved Sacra- 
 ment had been removed out of the church : — 
 
 Held, that the Court must refuse the prayer 
 for a confirmatory faculty, and issue a faculty 
 directing and authorizing the churchwardens as 
 officers of the Ordinary to remove the crucifixes 
 out of the church, because — first, they were either 
 in themselves illegal church ornaments or illegal 
 architectural decorations ; and, secondly, if not 
 in themselves illegal as church ornaments or 
 architectural decorations, they were — having 
 regard to the facts that they were introduced 
 into the church for superstitious purposes, and 
 were so used for nearly twenty years, and might 
 be so used again, and had been a cause of offence 
 to several churchwardens and parishioners, some 
 of whom, though supporting a resolution of vestry 
 against the petitioners, did not thereby express 
 any opinion for their retention — articles and 
 things the retention of which in the church it 
 would be an unwise exercise of the discretion of 
 the Court to authorize. 
 
 Semble : A Tabernacle for the reception of 
 
 the Eeserved Sacrament is not a lawful church 
 
 ornament. Kensit v. Eeotob of St. Ethel- 
 
 BUBGA, BiSHOPSQATE WiTHiN Consist. Ct. of 
 
 London [1900] P. 80 
 
 29. — Jurisdiction — Acceptance of letters of 
 request granted in aid of probate action — Court of 
 Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 29— 
 Judicature Act Amendment Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. V. 77), «. 18— Discretion — 6 & 7 Will i, 
 c. cxxxvi., s. i— Burials Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict. 
 c. 81), a. 25— Jurisdiction to decree faculty for 
 opening a vault and coffin in consecrated burial 
 ground for the purpose of identification and to 
 remove remains there buried — Licence of Secretary 
 of State before opening vault not required. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Diocese of London, 
 in the exercise of his judicial discretion, may 
 accept letters of request, signed by the President 
 of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Divs., re- 
 questing that in aid of the trial of an issue in a 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Faculty)— confinucd. 
 probate action a faculty may be granted autho- 
 rizing t!je opening of a vault in a consecrated 
 burial ground in the diocese, and the opening 
 and inspection of a coffin there buried, for the 
 purpose of identification, and issue a faculty to 
 give effect to such letters of request : — 
 
 Seld, that the Court, in the exercise of its 
 discretion, would accept the letters of request, 
 reject the evidence tendered on behalf of the 
 opponents, and decree a faculty to issue according 
 to the tenor of the letters of request : 
 
 Held, also, that s. 25 of the Buria's Act, 1857, 
 did not require that a proviso should be inserted 
 in the faculty that the faculty was granted 
 subject to the licence of one of Her Majesty's 
 principal Secretaries of State. 
 
 Semble, that the faculty might be lawfully 
 acted upon without any such licence having been 
 obtained. Dbuoe v. Young 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1899] P. 84 
 
 30. — Jurisdiction — Erection on churchyard 
 closed for burials — Schools and parish hall to be 
 used for mission services — -Disused Burial Grounds 
 Act, 1884 (47 * 48 Vict. c. 72), s. 3— Meaning of 
 "enlargement of church, chapel, meeting-house, or 
 other places of worship." 
 
 The 3rd section of the Disused Burial Grounds 
 Act, 1884, provides that after the passing of that 
 Act it shall not be lawful to erect any buildings 
 upon any disused burial ground (defined by that 
 Act to mean a burial ground in respect of which 
 an Order in Council has been made for the dis- 
 continuance of burials therein in pursuance of 
 tlie Burials Acts, 1852 and 1853), except for the 
 purpose of enlarging a church, chapel, meeting- 
 house, or other places of worship : — 
 
 Held, that the Ordinary had, without infring- 
 ing the above section, jurisdiction to authorize by 
 faculty tlie rebuilding and extenaion by way of 
 enlargement of schools and a parish hall erected 
 on a disused burial ground within the Act, and 
 which were used for mission services for adults 
 and children, and which it was intended to use 
 when rebuilt for the same purposes supplemental 
 to the services in the parish church, and to meet 
 the growing wants of the parish. ViCAR OP St. 
 James the Less, Bethnal Geeen v. Pakishionees 
 OF Sajie - Consist. Ct. of London [1899] P. 55 
 
 31. — Jurisdiction — Grant of faculty for use 
 as public street of portion of consecrated cemetery 
 or churchyard closed for burials, and setting bach 
 of cemetery or churchyard wall — Retention of 
 cause. 
 
 The Ordinary has jurisdictiim to grant a 
 faculty authorizing a poition of a consecrated 
 cemetery or churchyard, closed for burials by 
 Order in Coimcil to be used for widening a public 
 street. Any faculty granted for this purpose 
 should cuntain exact particulars of the measure- 
 ments of the portion of the cemetery or church- 
 yard proposed to be used for the widening. 
 
 The rector and churchwardens of a parish 
 church in the diocese of Exeter, and the corpora- 
 tion of a borough in which a consecrated cemetery 
 forming an addition to the parish churchyard 
 was situate, petitioned the Ordinary for a faculty 
 to authorize a strip of the cemetery being used 
 for widening an adjoining public street, and the 
 
( 747 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 748 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LA"W (Faculty)— contirejietZ. 
 boundary wall of the. cemetery being set back so 
 as to form the boundary wall between the re- 
 maining portion of the cemetery and the widened 
 street. It appeared that the street proposed to be 
 widened was only 16 feet wide, and too narrow 
 for the trafSo along it, and that the proposed 
 widening would be not only for the general con- 
 venience and safety of the public, but particularly 
 of the rector and his parishioners, to the former 
 of whom and the churchwardens moreover, by 
 way of consideration, a sum of money was in- 
 tended to be paid by the corporation. It also 
 appeared that the strip of the cemetery proposed 
 to be thrown into the street had been closed for 
 interments under an Order in Council, and that 
 the proposed alteration of the width of the street 
 had been unanimously approved by the parish 
 vestry. The Chancellor of the Diocese of Exeter 
 refused to issue citation, being of opinion that he 
 had no jurisdiction to grant the faculty prayed 
 for. The petitioners appealed to the Arches 
 Court of Canterbury. 
 
 The Dean of Arches allowed the appeal, re- 
 tained the cause, and, the allegations in the 
 petition having been verified by affidavit, decreed 
 a faculty to issue in accordance with the prayer 
 of the petitioners. In re Bidefokd Parish. 
 Ex parte Keotok, &o., of Bidefoed 
 
 Arches Ct. of Canterbury [1900] W. H. 184 ; 
 [1900] P. 314 
 
 32. — Memoriah iij pariehioners against a 
 faculty — Evidence. 
 
 (a) Seld, to be admissible. Vicar or Tet- 
 BUKT V. Chuechwaedens, &o., OP Tetburt 
 
 Consist. Ct. of Gloucester [1892] P. 271, u. 
 
 (b) Held, not to be admissible. Nickalls v. 
 Brisooe Consist. Ct. of Rochester [1892] P. 269 
 
 33. — Memorial inscription — Frayers for the 
 dead. 
 
 So much of an application as prayed for a 
 faculty for placing in a church the words " De 
 caritate tua ora pro anima H. mortuse," was 
 rejected by the Chancellor in the exercise of his 
 discretion. EQEEToy v. All of Odd Rode 
 
 Consist. Ct. of Chester [1894] P. 15 
 
 34. — Military colours. Affixing of, to walls of 
 chancel of parish church — Jurisdiction — Interest 
 — Member of Parliament — St. Margaret's, West- 
 minster — Cliurchwardens — Confirmatory faculty. 
 
 The Ordinary has jurisdiction to authorize by 
 faculty the affixing of military colours as church 
 ornaments to the walls of the chancel of a parish 
 church where it appears that a former rector of 
 the church has approved of their being placed in 
 the chancel. 
 
 The rector of a parish church has no legal 
 light without the sanction of a faculty to remove 
 out of the chancel church ornaments, such as 
 military colours, placed there without a faculty 
 in a permanent position with the concurrence of 
 a former rector and former churchwardens. 
 
 A member of the Commons House of Parlia- 
 ment has a sufficient interest to institute a faculty 
 suit in respect of alterations in or additions to 
 the parish church of St. Margaret's, West- 
 minster : — 
 
 Semble, the churchwardens of a parish church 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LA"W (faculty)— continued. 
 to which military colours, no longer required for 
 use in Her Majesty's service, have been pre- 
 sented, have vested in them the legal property 
 in the colours for the purpose of safe custody in 
 all cases where the colours are not affixed to the 
 freehold. Vincbnt v. Etton 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1897] P. 1 
 
 35. — Pathway — ■ Exclusive right to u«e of 
 pathway across closed churchyard — Construction 
 or faculty — Refusal to grant suhsequent faculty 
 derogating from previous grant — Ecclesiastical 
 Leasing Acts, 1842 and 1858 (5*6 Vict. c. 108 ; 
 21 & 22 Vict. c. 57) — Practice — Refusal of Appel- 
 late Court to interfere with discretion of Ordinary. 
 
 In 1891 a faculty issued from the registry of 
 the Consist. Ct. of London authorizing the rector 
 and churchwardens of a parisli in the City of 
 London, in conjunction with a co. owning pre- 
 mises abutting on the churchyard of the parish 
 — a churchyard closed for burials under Order 
 in Council — to make a pathway inclosed on the 
 sides by railings, across the churchyard from 
 the co.'s premises to a public thoroughfare on 
 the opposite side of the churchyard, provided a 
 specified rent was paid to the rector and his 
 successors during a term of years. The faculty 
 recited an agreement between the rector and 
 churchwardens and the co. whereby the former 
 agreed to concur in granting to the co. a right of 
 way over the pathway afterwards authorized by 
 the faculty for the term, and on payment of the 
 rent there mentioned ; all the works to be done 
 at the co.'s costs, and " such right of footway to 
 be for themselves their tenants and any others 
 authorized by them in common with the rector 
 and churchwardens and any others authorized by 
 the rector and churchwardens." In 1892, after 
 the CO. had done and paid for the works and 
 whilst the term of years was still unexpired, the 
 rector and churchwardens agreed with other 
 owners of premises abutting on the churchyard 
 adjacent to the co.'s premises to concur in granting 
 to such owners a right of footway over the path- 
 way made under the faculty of 1891, subject to 
 the rights of the co., and also over a new footpath 
 to be made over a piece of the churchyard to join 
 the footpath so already made, and petitioned the 
 Consist. Ct. of London for a faculty to make a 
 new footpath and to remove a portion of the 
 above-mentioned railings ; the owners of the pre- 
 mises desiring the right of way over the two 
 footpaths intervening in support of the petition : — 
 
 Held, by the Consist. Ct. of London, that the 
 faculty asked for must be refused, as the faculty 
 of 1 891 had granted to the co. and their assigns 
 the enjoyment for a term of years not yet expired 
 of the pathway made under that faculty to the 
 exclusion of the other occupiera of premises 
 abutting on the churchyard, and the Ordinary 
 ought not to sanction by faculty anything being 
 done in derogation of the exclusive right so 
 granted : 
 
 Held, further, by the same Court, that the 
 operation of the Ecclesiastical [Leasing Acts of 
 1842 and ]858 is confined to glebe lands and 
 property of that description, and does not extend 
 to enable the incumbent of a parish, with the 
 consent of the patron of the living and the Ecole- 
 
( 749 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 750 ) 
 
 ICCLESIASTICAL LAW (T^acTilty)— continued. 
 siastioal Oommrs., to grant leases of or rights 
 over all or any portion of the churchyard of the 
 parish : 
 
 Held, on appeal by the Arches Court of Can- 
 terbury, that the construction put on that faculty 
 by the Court below was correct, and, the grant 
 or refusal of the faculty prayed being in the 
 discretion of the Ordinary, by whom that discre- 
 tion had been properly exercised, the Appellate 
 Court ought not to interfere, and the appeal must 
 be dismissed. 
 
 Observations by the Chancellor of the Diocese 
 of London as to the practice of the Consist. Ot. of 
 London on the grant of faculties for the formation 
 and use of private pathways across churchyards 
 closed for burials, and as to the provisoes to be 
 inserted in such faculties. Eeotob, &o., ot St. 
 Gabriel, Fenchurch Street v. City of LomDOsr 
 Eeal Property Co. - Consist. Ct. of London, 
 
 [1896] P. 95 
 
 Referred to by Consist. Ct. of Peterborough. 
 St. Nicholas, Leicester (Vicar of) v. Langton, 
 [1899] P. 19, 32. 
 
 36. — Refusal of confirmatory faculty — " Sta- 
 tions of the Cross " — Crucifioies — Communion rails 
 — Tables of Ten Commandments, Lord's Prayer, 
 and Apostles' Creed — Chancel Platform — Darken- 
 ing of windows in chancel — Lam,ps reflecting light 
 en Communion Table — Faculty — Communion Table 
 — Meredos — Second Communion Table in side 
 chapel. 
 
 The incumbent of a parish church having 
 without a faculty, and contaary to the vote of the 
 vestry and the wishes of the parishioners, intro- 
 duced into the church pictures representing the 
 ■" Stations of th§ Cross " proved to have been used 
 superstitiously and four crucifixes, placed cur- 
 tains over the Ten Commandments, the Lord's 
 Prayer, and the Apostles' Creed engraved on the 
 «ast chancel wall, and darkened the chancel by 
 affixing permanent blinds on the east window 
 and a side chancel window, the Court ordered 
 that within three months the " Stations of the 
 Cross," the crucifixes, and the curtains should be 
 removed out of the church by tlie incumbent, 
 and the outside blinds over the above- mentioned 
 windows taken down by him. 
 
 If the incumbent should not comply with the 
 order of the Court within three months of its date, 
 the Court would be prepared to issue a faculty to 
 the parishioners' churchwarden to carry out the 
 order. 
 
 The erection in the chancel of a Communion 
 Table with a reredos in substitution for the 
 Communion Table formerly . there, though made 
 by the incumbent in opposition to a vote of the 
 vestry, was sanctioned by a^ confirmatory faculty 
 from the Court, on the ground of its being an 
 artistic improvement to the church, subject to 
 the platform on which the Communion Table 
 stood being extended round the north end of the 
 Table so as to enable the minister to officiate 
 during the Communion Service standing at the 
 north end. 
 
 The Court also sanctioned by confirmatory 
 faculty the erection in the church of a side chapel 
 with a Communion Table in it, though objected 
 to by the parishioners, subject to the chapel being 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW Cenaxiltj)— continued. 
 separated from the church on a plan to be approved 
 of by the Court. 
 
 Sieveking v. Kingsford, (1866) 36 L. J. (Eco.) 1, 
 followed. In re St. Mark's, Martlebone Road. 
 VioAR OF St. Mark's v. Parishioners of St. 
 Marks Consist. Ct. of London [1898] F. 114 
 
 37. — Bemoval of human remains. 
 
 Jurisdiction as to the removal of bodies con- 
 sidered, and provisions as to exemption of family 
 vaults which will be inserted in faculties. Incli- 
 nation of Court to consult wishes of persons 
 interested. Rector, &c., op St. Helen's, Bishops- 
 GATB, WITH St. Mary Outwich v. Parishioners 
 OF Same Consist. Ct. of London [1892] P. 259 
 
 38. — Removal of human remains and use of 
 strip of closed churchyard for widening of public 
 highway. Faculty for — Joint petition by incumbent 
 and churchwardens and highway authority — 
 Practical necessity for proposed worlts — Issue of 
 faculty to incumbent and churchwardens. 
 
 Where it appeared that the widening of a 
 public highway abutting on a churchyard of 
 a parish church would be a benefit both to the 
 congregation attending the church and to the 
 public in general, and that in the opinion of 
 the highway authority — a municipal corporation 
 —it was practically necessary that the widening 
 should be effected by including therein a strip of 
 the churchyard closed for burials by Order in 
 Council, a faculty was granted to the incumbent 
 and churchwardens of the chni'ch authorizing the 
 removal of human remains interred in the portion 
 of the churchyard required for the widening and 
 the setting back of the churchyard fence so as to 
 throw such portion of the churchyard into the 
 highway on the Ordinary being satisfied that an 
 adequate consideration would be paid by the 
 corporation in return for the rights sanctioned, 
 
 The corporation had joined in petitioning for 
 the faculty, but was omitted from the grant, the. 
 Ordinary being of opinion that it was preferable 
 that the grant should be made to individuals. 
 VioAR OP St. Nicholas, Leicester v. Langton 
 Consist, Ct. of Peterborough [1899] P, 19 
 
 39. — Reredos — Triptych — Painted panels — 
 Sculptured figure. 
 
 A faculty was granted for a, reredos of oak 
 eight feet high, consisting of a triptych with 
 panels of which the wings could be closed; on 
 the centre panel was a painting of the Last 
 Supper, and on the side ones of the Agony in 
 the Garden and the Risen Christ with the Marys 
 at the Tomb. The reverse side of the wings 
 were plain. The whole was surmounted by carved 
 figures of Our Lord, Moses, and Elias and angels. 
 The faculty was subject to the condition that 
 the triptych was always to remain open during 
 divine service. Ticar, &c., op St. John,Pendle- 
 BCRY V. Parishioners op the Same 
 
 Consist. Ct, of Manchester [1896] P, 178 
 
 Referred to by Consist. Ct. of Norwich. Bar- 
 sham, Suffolk (Rector, &c., of) v. Parishioners of 
 Sams, [1899] P. 256, 260. 
 
 40. — Rood loft — Rood beam — Rood — Wooden 
 figures on rood beam — Cliancel screen gates — Side 
 screens — Choir stalls. 
 
 A faculty was applied for to retain the fo]Iow« 
 
( 751 ) 
 
 PIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 752 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW {'Ea.imltj)— continued. 
 ing works introduced without a faculty : a chancel 
 Boreen without gates, a rood loft resting on the 
 screen, a rood beam with crucifix with figures of 
 the Virgin Mary and St. Jolm on it ; and for the 
 erection of the following new works : the placing 
 on the rood beam of two other figures, gates to 
 the chancel screen, screens across the aisles, and 
 choir stalls with screens behind them : — 
 
 Held, that the rood loft and wooden figures 
 were illegal, but that as the property in the 
 church required protection a faculty could issue 
 for the chancel screen, for gates to the same, for 
 the aisle screens with gates, and for the choir 
 stalls and screens. Vicak, &o., of St. John the 
 Baptist, Timbekhill d. Eectoes, &o., op St. 
 John the Baptist, Timbebhill 
 
 Consist. Ct. of Norwlcli [1895] P. 71 
 
 Eeferred to by Consist. Ct. of St. Albans. 
 Great Bardfield (Vicar of) v. All having Interest, 
 [1897] P. 185, 187. 
 
 41. — Second communion table — Separation of 
 side chapel. 
 
 Before granting a faculty for a second Com- 
 munion Table in a side chapel the Court should 
 be satisfied that the side chapel is separated 
 from the aisle by trellis work or otherwise so as 
 to indicate that it is a side chapel authorised to 
 be used when the chancel or nave is not used for 
 divine service. Vioae, &o., of St. Peter's, 
 Eaton Sqcaee v. Pakishionees of the Same 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1894] P. 350 
 
 42. — Stained glass window in channel. 
 
 The discretion of the Ordinary as to granting 
 or refusing a faculty for a stained glass window 
 in a chancel is the same as if it were sought to 
 place the window in any other part of the church. 
 
 NiCKALLS V. BkiSOOB 
 
 Arches Ct. of Canterbury [1892] P. 269 
 
 Glebe. 
 
 Rules made hy the Sd. of Agric, Aug., 1892, 
 and approved hy the Ld. Ghana., as to the sale of 
 Glebe land under the Glebe Lands Aet, 1888. 
 St. B, & 0. 1892, p. 11. 
 
 Glebe Lands Act, 188S (51 & 52 Vict. c. 20)— 
 Sale of Glebe Land Rules, dated March 15, 1897. 
 W. N. 1897 (AprU 24), p. 117. See Current 
 Index, 1897, p. Ixviii. 
 
 Exchanges of glebe for other land, and of 
 land for tithe rent-charge — Inclosure, &c.. Expenses 
 Act, 1868 (.SI & 32 Vict. c. 89). W. N. 1900 
 (May 19), pp. 143, 144. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. xc. 
 
 — Boundary of glebe — Church of Scotland. 
 See Scottish Law — Church. 4. 
 
 43. — Lands allotted to vicar " and his succes- 
 sors " — Settlement — Improvements — Capital money 
 —Lands Glauses Act, 1845 (8 <£ 9 Vict. c. 18), 
 B. 69— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Viet. c. 38), 
 ss. 2, 21, 32— Settled Land Aet, 1887 (50 & 51 
 Vict. c. 30), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 An award, pursuant to an Inclosure Act, of 
 lands in respect of glebe to M. and his successors, 
 vicars of C, is not an instrument limiting an 
 estate or interest in land " to or in trust for any 
 persons by way of succession " so as to constitute 
 a settlement within the meaning of a. 2, sub-s. 1, 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Glebe)— continued. 
 of tbe Settled Land Act, 1882. But wheref^part 
 of lands awarded to the vicars of C. pursuant to 
 an Inclosure Act had been taken by a rly., and 
 the purchase-money paid into Court, tben by the 
 combined operation of s. 32 of the Settled Land 
 Act, 1882, and s. 69 of the Lands Clauses Act, 
 1845, and upon the authorities, sucb money may 
 be dealt with as capital money arising under the 
 Settled Land Acts; and the Court has discre- 
 tionary jurisdiction under the Settled Land Act, 
 1887, to autborize the application of them in tbe 
 redemption of terminable rent-cbarges on glebe, 
 created under the Land Improvement Act, 1864. 
 Mx parte ViCAR op Castle Bytham. Ex parte 
 Midland Ey. Co. - Stirling J. [1895] 1 Ch. 348 
 
 44. — Mines in glebe lands — Ecclesiastical 
 Commissioners — Right to injunction against illegal 
 mining— \S Eliz. c. 10 ; 13 Eliz. c. 20 ; 14 ELiz. 
 c. 11; 14 Eliz. 0. 14 ; 5 <fc 6 Vict. c. 108, ss. 6, 20,- 
 21 & 22 Vict. c. 57, ss. 1, 2, 10. 
 
 After the passing of the restraining statutes 
 of Elizabeth, the opening of mines in glebe lands, 
 and the letting of mines by tbe incumbent, even 
 with the consent of the patron and ordinary, were 
 illegal until the passing of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 108, 
 which enabled tbe mines to be leased witb the 
 consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. 
 
 The Ecclesiastical Commissioners can main- 
 tain an action to restrain the working of mines 
 in glebe lands otherwise than under a lease 
 sanctioned by them. 
 
 An incumbent cannot lawfully continue, or 
 authorize a tenant, to work mines in glebe lands 
 wbich have been unlawfully opened. Ecclesi- 
 astical COMMIiS. u. WODEBOnSE 
 
 Eomer J. [1895] 1 Ch. 552 
 — Sale by vicar — Purchase by trastee of settled 
 estate — Successive tenants for life- 
 Charge on trust estate — Vendor's lien. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser— Lien. 
 56, 56a. 
 
 Income Tax. 
 
 '■ee Eevenue — Income 
 77—79, 110, 113. 
 
 Tax, 74, 75. 
 
 Offences by Clergymen. 
 
 45. — Appeal — Security for costs — Church 
 Discipline Act (3 <£ 4 Vict. c. 86), s. 15. 
 
 Security for costs ordered on appeal in a 
 criminal suit promoted by the respondent under 
 the Church Discipline Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict, 
 c. 86), it being sbown that the appellant was in a 
 state of poverty, and had not paid any of the 
 costs of the original suit. O'Malley v. Bishop 
 OF Norwich - - Arches Ct. of Canterbury 
 
 [1892] P. 175 
 
 46. — Brawling — Liability of clergyman for 
 — Penalty — Churchyard — Ecclesiastical Courts 
 Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 32), s. 2. 
 
 Sect. 2 of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 32, which provides 
 that " any person " who shall be guilty of riotous, 
 violent, or indecent behaviour in any churches, 
 chapels, or churchyards shall be liable to a 
 penalty, applies as well to persons in Holy Orders 
 as to laymen. Vallancey v. Fletcher 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 265 
 
( 753 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 754 ) 
 
 ECCirSIASTICAL LAW (Offences by Clergymen) 
 
 — continued. 
 
 47. — Deprivation — Sentence in Consistory 
 Court — Subsequent deposition by bishop — Clergy 
 Discipline Act, 1892 (55 <fc 56 Vict. c. 32), s. 8. 
 
 Where a clergyman 13 deprived by sentence 
 of the Consistory Court, and it appears to the 
 bishop of the diocese that such clergyman ought 
 also to be deposed from Holy Orders, tlje sentence 
 of deposition, under the Clergy Discipline Act, 
 1802, s. 8, need not be delivered concurrently 
 with that of deprivation, but may be passed at a 
 subsequent time. Eeg. •». Dubham (Lobd Bishop 
 of) - - C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 414 
 
 48. — Drunkenness — Habitual Drunkenness — 
 Stale charges. 
 
 A bishop refused to institute a clergyman to a 
 nev? living on the ground of habitual drunken- 
 ness in his past cure : — 
 
 Held, that the bishop was not limited in his 
 inquiries to the period prescribed for prosecution 
 in the Church Discipline Act, 1840. Amount of 
 proof necessary to justify this refusal, and the 
 staleness of the charges considered'. Maebiner 
 V. Bishop op Bath and Wells 
 
 Arches Ct. of Canterbury [1893] F. 145, n. 
 See also No. 50, below. 
 
 49. — " Freaching " — " Ministration " — 
 "Ornaments of the minister" — Slack gown in 
 Pulpit — Custom — Long usage — WiU — Charitable 
 legacy — Gift for endowment of church — Continuing 
 condition. 
 
 A testatrix bequeathed 1500Z. towards the 
 endowment of a church, provided certain con- 
 ditions were carried out in every particular, and 
 under this stipulation alone was her executor 
 empowered to pay it. One of the conditions, 
 called by the testatrix an " abiding condition," 
 was " that the black gown shall be worn in the 
 pulpit, unless there shall be any alteration in the 
 law rendering it illegal." 
 
 The fund being in court in an action to 
 administer the estate of the testatrix : — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (Lord Eussell of Killowen C. J., 
 Lindley and A. L. Smith L.JJ.), agreeing with 
 North J., [1892] 1 Ch. 95, that the condition was 
 a continuing condition, so as to entitle the in- 
 cumbent of the church to the income of the fund 
 from time to time so long as he performed the 
 condition. 
 
 It is not illegal for a clergyman of the Church 
 of England to wear a black gown in the pulpit 
 when preaching, the legality of the black gown 
 in preaching being sanctioned by the continuous 
 usage of centuries uncontrolled by positive law 
 or judicial decision. 
 
 Decision of North J. affirmed. 
 
 Dictum of Sir K. Phillimore in Elphinstone v. 
 Furchas, (1870) L. E. 3 A. & E. 91, disapproved 
 of. 
 
 BidsdaU v. Clifton, (1877) 2 P. D. 276, con- 
 sidered. 
 
 In re Bobinson. Weight ■». Tugwell 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 85 
 
 50. — Scandalous conduct— Proof of drunken- 
 ness — Practice — Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 
 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 32), as. 2, 12. 
 
 The offence of " occasioning scandal and evil 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Offences by Clergymen> 
 
 — continued. 
 
 report" is not an offence which can be legally 
 tried under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892. 
 Practice of the Court stated as to admitting to- 
 proof in a criminal suit charges of habitual 
 diTinkenness and of acts of drunkenness, the. 
 precise dates of which the piosecutor cannot, 
 specify. Bishop of Eoohestee v. Haeeis 
 
 Consist. Ct. of Eochester [1893] P. 137 
 
 See also No. 48, above. 
 — Simony. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law— Simony. 
 
 Parish Clerk. 
 
 61. — Appointment of — Sequestration. 
 
 The rights and position of an incumbent after 
 sequestration, except so far as they are interfered 
 with by the express terms of the Sequestration 
 Act, 1871, remain unaltered. It is he, therefore, 
 and not the curate in charge, who is the proper 
 person to appoint a new parish clerk. Laweenoe 
 V. Edwaeds (No. 1) Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch, 144: 
 
 52. — Nature of office. 
 
 The office of a parish clerk is a temporal not 
 an ecclesiastical office. Laweence v. Edwaeds 
 (No. 2) - Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 72 
 
 See now Local Government Act, 1894 (57 & 58' 
 Vict. c. 73), s. 17. 
 
 Parsonage House. 
 
 53. — Application of purchase-money. 
 Where part of a churchyard had been sold 
 
 under a private Act, and the purchase-money 
 had been paid into Court :— 
 
 Held, that the application of the money in 
 buying a house unsuitable for a vicarage, and 
 altering it so as to become suitable, was the same 
 as in buying a house that had been made suitable 
 by the vendor, and that the application could be 
 allowed. Ex parte Vicab of St. Botolph, 
 Aldgate - North J. [1894] 3 Ch, 541 
 
 Pews. 
 
 54. — Jurisdiction — Be-pewing of portion of 
 new parish church originally appropriated ta 
 school children — Absence of power in Ordinary to 
 authorize the creation of pew-rents — Position of 
 parishioners subscribing to church expenses — 
 Church Building Act, 1818 (58 Geo. 3, e. 45), ss. 
 75, 77, 84, S5—Chv/rch Building Act, 1822 (3 Geo. 4, 
 c. 72), 8«. 36, 37 — Churchwardens. 
 
 The seats in a new parish church were in 
 1885 allotted by the Ecclesiastical Commrs. as 
 follows: two pews for the vicar of the parish 
 and his family : 315 sittings to be let to pew- 
 renters ; 222 sittings as free seats, and seventy- 
 two sittings as seats for children, in the expecta- 
 tion that the population of the parish would in 
 the main be composed of working men. This 
 expectation was not realised, and m 1898 the 
 vicar and churchwardens of the parish applied 
 to the Ordinary to authorise by faculty the substi- 
 tution of pews for adults in the place of the 
 seventy-two sittings allotted as children's seats 
 as above mentioned, and the letting of the sub- 
 stituted pews at pew-rents to be expended in 
 church improvements and expenses : — 
 
 Held, that the Ordinary had no jurisdiction 
 
( 755 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 756 ) 
 
 JICCLESIASTICAI LAW (Pewsy-continued. 
 to grant a faculty appropriating to other pur- 
 poses seats allotted by the Eoolesiastical Commrs. 
 as free seats or authorizing the letting of any 
 seats to pew-renters, but that a faculty might be 
 decreed in his discretion for the substitution of 
 pews for adults in which the churchwardens 
 imight seat parishioners in the place of the 
 ■seventy-two sittings for children : the allotment 
 ■of such sittings having been made by the Eccle- 
 siastical Commrs. without statutory authority. 
 
 Senible, the churchwardens of a church built 
 under the Church building Acts may in seating 
 the parishioners in seats in the church not appro- 
 priated to pew-renters or allotted as free seats by 
 "the Ecclesiastical Commrs. give a preference to 
 applicants who voluntarily subscribe to a fund 
 for church improvements and expenses. Vioar 
 OF St. Saviock, Westgate-on-Sea v. Pabish- 
 
 lONERS OF SAME, HOUSEMAN INTERVENING 
 
 Commissary Ct. of Canterbury [1898] P. 217 
 
 55. — Few in church — Right appurtenant to a 
 Iwuse — Frescription. 
 
 A pew may be annexed to a dwelling-house 
 ty a faculty, and a faculty may be presumed 
 upon evidence of exclusive possession and repair 
 for a long period. Long-continued user, incon- 
 sistent with mere possession by permission of 
 the churchwardens, held to have established the 
 right to a pew, although there was no evidence 
 of any faculty, and there was evidence that the 
 pew liad been originally acquired under circum- 
 fltances which would not confer a legal right. 
 Philipps v. Halliday H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 228 
 affirm. C. A. 23 Q. B. S. 48 
 
 Eeferred to by Charles J. Siileman-Gibhard 
 T. Willcinson, [1897] 1 Q. B. 749, 760. 
 
 66. — Few in chancel — Site of ancient pew — 
 Might appurtenant to house in parish — Frescrip- 
 tion — Evidence — Exclusive possession — Acts of 
 ownership other than repair — Lay rector — Sight 
 to chief seat in chancel. 
 
 The claimant of a right by prescription to a 
 pew in the chancel of a parish church in respect 
 of his ownership and occupancy of an ancient 
 house in the parish must, as against the Ordi- 
 nary, prove, not merely exclusive possession of 
 the pew by himself and his predecessors, but also 
 some act of user or assertion of proprietary right 
 inconsistent with mere possession by permission 
 of the churchwardens. The right to such a pew 
 is subject to the burden of repair, but it is un- 
 necessary to prove actual repair where evidence 
 is given of other such acts of user or assertion of 
 proprietary right, repair being only one of many 
 possible acts of user. "Upon such proof being 
 given, a lost faculty should be presumed. 
 
 The removal of the woodwork of a pew in the 
 chancel and the substitution of chairs for the 
 former seats is an act ot ownership or assertion 
 of proprietary right inconsistent with any right 
 in the Ordinary, and, together with exclusive 
 possession, is sufBoient to prove the claimant's 
 right ; such removal will not amount to an aban- 
 donment of the right, unless it be coupled with 
 circumstances indicating an intention to abandon. 
 
 Ee-lining a pew is not an act of repair. 
 
 bemhU, per Charles J. : The right of the lay 
 sector to the chief seat in the chancel of the 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Pews)— continued. 
 parish church is not coniined to a single seat for 
 his personal occupation. Stileman-Giebabd v. 
 Wilkinson Charles J. [1897] 1 Q. B. 749 
 
 Practice. 
 
 57. —Appeal — Jurisdiction — Criminal suit 
 against rector for non-repair of chancel — Repairs 
 done by churchwardens — Fractice — Dismissal of 
 appeal without hearing argument — Surrogate. 
 
 Where on an appeal by promoters it appeared 
 from the process transmitted to the Arches 
 Registry that the Court below bad no jurisdic- 
 tion over the cause in which the appeal was 
 asserted, and might be liable to be stopped by a 
 writ of prohibition if it entertained the appeal, 
 the Court of Arches, having before it an applica- 
 tion by the appellants for leave to proceed with 
 the appeal, notwithstanding the proper time for 
 filing the appellants' proxy had elapsed, dis- 
 missed the appeal with costs without hearing 
 arguments from either the appellants or the 
 respondent. 
 
 The Ecclessiatioal Courts have no jurisdiction 
 to entertain a criminal suit against a lay rector 
 who has neglected to perform his duty of repair- 
 ing the chancel of the church of which he is the 
 rector, unless the chancel was out of repair at 
 the time of the institution of the suit. Neville 
 V. KiRBY Consist. Ct. of Lichfield [1898] P. 160 
 — Appeal — Security for costs. 
 See No. 45, aliove. 
 
 58. ■ — • Special leave to appeal — Frivolous 
 Application — Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 (55 & 
 56 Vict. 0. 32), s. 4, suh-s. 2. 
 
 Leave to appeal will not be given under the 
 Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, s. 4, sub-s. 2, in 
 respect of the facts unless there is a prima facie 
 case; and, in the absence of even a definite 
 suggestion to that effect, an application for leave 
 is idle and frivolous. In re Evans v. Woods. 
 Ex parte Woods - - P. C. [1900] A. C. 338 
 
 Bepairs. 
 
 59. — Jurisdiction — Criminal suit promoted 
 hy churchwardens against lay rector to compel 
 repair of chancel — Monition. 
 
 The articles in a criminal suit promoted by 
 the churchwardens of a parish against the lay 
 rector of a parish church, charged that the 
 chancel of the church was in a very dilapidated 
 condition, and that the respondent, though 
 legally bound to repair it, had for four years 
 refused and neglected to do so. On the 
 respondent giving an afiBrmative issue to the 
 articles and submitting tojudgment, the Ordinary 
 pronounced that the respondent had offended 
 against the ecclesiastical law, and admonished 
 him to do the repairs required. Mobley v. Lea- 
 croft Consist. Ct. of Southwell [1896] P. 92 
 
 Bitnal. 
 
 60. — Ablution. 
 
 Ablution, if not part of the communion service, 
 is lawful. 
 
 Fer Archbishop of Canterbury in Read i;. 
 
 Bishop of Lincoln - - - [1891] P. 9 ; 
 
 affirm, by P. C. [1892] A. C. 644 
 
( 757 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 758 ) 
 
 ICCLESIASTICAI LAW {^ituaXy— continued. 
 
 61. — Agnus Dei. 
 
 The singing by the clioir of "The Agnus" 
 before and during the reception of the elements 
 is not illegal. Bead v. Bishop of Lincoln 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury [1891] P. 9 ; 
 affirm, by P. C. [1892] A. C. 644 
 
 62. — Bishop's discretion — Staying proceedings 
 — PuUic Worship Regulation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 
 
 Vict. B. 85), ss. 8, 9. 
 
 (a) a representation was sent to the Bishop of 
 London requesting him to allow proceedings to 
 have the reredos in St. Paul's removed as being 
 unlawful. The bishop refused, his reasons being 
 based on his view that such litigation, in his 
 ■opinion, entailed mischievous results : — 
 
 Seld, by C. A., that his answer was sufficient. 
 Allckoft v. Bishop of London 
 
 C. A. (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 213 ; 
 
 affirm, by H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 666 
 
 Eeferred to by Consist. Ct. of St. Albans. 
 
 Great Bardfield (Vicar of) v. All having Interest, 
 
 [1897] P. 185, 189. 
 
 (b) In this case the representation was the 
 same as in the former one, except that it alleged 
 that the reredos had in fact encouraged idolatrous 
 practices. The bishop, relying on his former con- 
 sideration of the question, refused the petition : — 
 
 Seld, by Hawkins J. and H. L. (B.), that the 
 
 answer was sufficient. Eeq v. London (Bishop 
 
 •OF) - - - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 48 ; 
 
 affirm, by fl. L, (E.) [1891] A. C. 666 
 
 Held, in both cases, by H. L. (E.), that whether 
 the reasons of the bishop were good or bad, he 
 had acted within his jurisdiction, and honestly 
 exercised his discretion and judgment. All- 
 
 CBOFT V. LOBD BiSHOP OF LONDON. LiGHTON V. 
 
 LoED Bishop of London 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 666 
 
 63. — Church Discipline Act — Duration of 
 admonition to abstain from illegal acts — Church 
 Discipline Act (3 (fe 4 Vict. c. 86). 
 
 Admonitions to abstain from illegal acts in 
 the future were granted in 1885 and 1886, and 
 for disobedience to them the clerk was im- 
 prisoned and suspended for some time. In 1891 
 application was made to enforce these admoni- 
 tions for fresh offences alleged to be committed 
 in 1890 :— 
 
 Sdd, that the application ought not to be 
 granted, such admonitions not being intended to 
 be effective during the whole of the offender's 
 life. Hakes v. Cox 
 
 Oh. Ct. of York [1892] P. 110 
 
 64. — Concealing manual Acts. 
 Performing manual acts whilst standing in 
 
 such a position that they cannot be seen by the 
 communicants is illegal. Bead v. Bishop of 
 Lincoln - Arch, of Canterbury [1891] P, 9 
 See next Case. 
 
 65. — Eastward position. 
 
 It is not illegal for the priest to stand at the 
 N. end of the W. side of the table from the com- 
 mencement of the Communion Service to the 
 ordering of the bread and wine before the Prayer 
 of Consecration. Bead v. Bishop of Lincoln 
 
 Arch, of Canterbury[1891] P. 9 ; 
 affirm, by P. C. [1892] A. C, 614 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAI LAW ('RitTial)— continued. 
 
 66. — Finality. 
 
 The rule as to the finality of decisions of the 
 Privy Council is not equally binding as regards 
 decisions which relate to ritual and ecclesiastical 
 practice and depend to some extent on the 
 accuracy of historical research. Bead «. Bishop 
 OP Lincoln - - P. C, [1892] A, C, 644 
 
 67. — Lighted candles. 
 
 Two candles, not required for the purpose of 
 giving light, were alight throughout the celebra- 
 tion on the table without objection on the part of 
 the respondent, who was officiating as bishop ; 
 there was no evidence either of a ceremonial use 
 of the lights, or that the respondent had in- 
 troduced them as unlawful ornaments : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent was not responsible 
 therefor, and that his making no objection 
 thereto was not an ecclesiastical offence. Bead 
 V. Bishop of Lincoln 
 
 Arch, of Canterbury [1891] P. 9 ; 
 affirm, by P. C. [1892] A. C, 644 
 
 68. — Making sign of the Cross. 
 
 Making the sign of the Cross during the 
 absolution and benediction is illegal, for it is a 
 ceremony additional to the ceremonies of the 
 Church. Bead v. Bishop of Lincoln 
 
 Arch, of Canterbury [1891] P, 9 ; 
 [1892] A, C. 644 
 
 69. — Mixed chalice. 
 
 The mixing of wine with water in and as part 
 of the Communion Service is, but the use of a 
 cup mixed beforehand is not, illegal. Bead v. 
 Bishop op Lincoln 
 
 Arch, of Canterbury [1891] P. 9 ; 
 affirm, by P. C. [1892] A. C. 644 
 
 70. — Monition. 
 
 Where promoters have established the com- 
 mission of an ecclesiastical offence, they are not 
 entitled as of right to a monition ; the arch- 
 bishop is entitled, on being satisfied that the 
 offence will not be repeated, to accept the 
 assurance of future submission. Bead v. Bishop 
 OP Lincoln - - P, C. [1892] A. C. 644 
 
 — Parish clerk, Appointment of. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Parish Clerk. 
 51. 
 
 Sale of Property. 
 Canons' liouses, sale of — Application of proceeds 
 of. See Manchester Canonries Act, 1899 (62 & 63 
 Vict. c. 28). 
 
 — Ecclesiastical land granted by bishop to 
 
 grantee for life, but during his tenure 
 
 of an ecclesiastical office. 
 
 See Settled Land — Settlement. 126. 
 
 SecLuestration. 
 
 71, — Effect on status of incumbent — Sequestra- 
 tion Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. a. 45), ss. 1, 5, 6. 
 
 The rights and position of an incumbent 
 after sequestration remain unaltered, except so 
 far as they are interfered with by the express 
 terms of the Sequestration Act, 1871. Lawrence 
 f. Edwards (No. 1) Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 144 
 
 See also Lawrence v. Edwards (No. 2), 
 Chitty J. [189y 2 Ch, 72 
 
 72. — Jurisdiction — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 52), s. 52 — Inability of 
 
( 759 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 760 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Ssquestration)— conW. 
 Ordinary to relax sequestration where bankruptcy 
 of incumbent of sequestered lieing discliarged — 
 Sequestration Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 45), 
 ss. 1-4. 
 
 The Ordinary haB no jurisdiction to relax 
 the sequestration of the benefice of a bankrupt 
 clergyman it the debts provable in the bank- 
 raptcy are unpa-'d, although the bankrupt has 
 obtained his order of discharge. 
 
 The 52nd section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 provides that " where a bankrupt is a beneficed 
 clergyman the trustee may apply for a seques- 
 tration of the profits of tlie benefice, and the 
 certificate of the appointment of the trustee shall 
 be sufBcient authority for the granting of seques- 
 tration ■without any writ or other proceeding, and 
 the same shall accordingly be issued as on a writ 
 of levari facias founded on a judgment against 
 the bankrupt." 
 
 The incumbent of a benefice having been 
 adjudged a bankrupt, a sequestration of the 
 profits of the benefice was granted under the 
 above section by the bishop of the diocese, who 
 appointed a sequestrator of the benefice, and 
 (after the sequestration had been in force for 
 more than six months) a stipendiary curate to 
 serve the cure, assigning to the latter a yearly 
 stipend. Subsequently an order was made in 
 the bankruptcy discharging the bankrupt, and 
 he applied by petition to the Consist. Ct. of 
 the diocese praying the Court to relax the 
 sequestration, to direct the discharge of the 
 sequestrator, and to revoke the appointment of 
 the stipendiary curate. The trustee in the bank- 
 ruptcy opposed the application, and objected that 
 the debts provable in the bankruptcy still re- 
 mained in part unsatisfied : — 
 
 Beld, by the Chancellor of the Diocese of 
 Winchester, that so much of the application as 
 asked for the relaxation of the sequestration and 
 the discharge of the sequestrator must be refused, 
 as the Ecclesiastical Court had no jurisdiction to 
 determine the question whether the discharge of 
 the bankrupt acted as a satisfaction of the 
 sequestration : 
 
 Held, also, by the same judge, that the re- 
 mainder of the application ought to be referred 
 fo the bishop to be dealt with ia his discretion. 
 In re Lawkence 
 
 Consist. Ct. of Winchester [18%] P. 244 
 See next Case. 
 
 73. — Sequestration of benefice — Beneficed 
 clergyman — Bankruptcy — Discharge of bankrupt 
 — After-acquired properti/ — Future profits — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 52), 
 ss. 30, 52. 
 
 A beneficed clergyman having been adjudi- 
 cated a bankrupt in April, 1889, the trustee in 
 the bankruptcy, on May 31, 1889, obtained from 
 the bishop a sequestration of the profits of the 
 benefice, by which the sequestrator was directed, 
 after making certain payments, to pay the residue 
 of the profits to the trustee. On May 9, 1894, 
 the bankrupt obtained an order of discharge. 
 Ho then brought an action against the trustee, 
 claiming a declaration that, as against the 
 trustee, the pit. from and after the date of the 
 mscbarge was entitled to receive the profits of 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Sequestration)— ?on/^. 
 the benefice, and an injunction to restrain the 
 deft, from receiving the residue thereof : — 
 
 Held, that-for this purpose there was no dis- 
 tinction between the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883; that the profits of 
 the benefice accruing due after the discharge 
 were not after-acquired property of the bankrupt ; 
 and, on the authority of Jix parte Chick (1879) 
 11 Ch. D. 731, that the trustee in the bank- 
 ruptcy was, notwithstanding the discharge, 
 entitled to receive the residue of the profits 
 under the sequestration until the debts provable 
 in the bankruptcy had been paid. The action 
 was accordingly dismissed. Lawkence v. Adams 
 North J. [1898] W. N. 168 (2) 
 See previous Case. 
 
 Simony. 
 
 74. — False declaration under Clerical Sub- 
 scription Act, 1865 (28 (t- 29 Viet. c. 122) — 
 Meaning of " offence against morality not being o 
 question of doctrine or ritual " — Clergy Discipline 
 Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 32), ss. 2, 12— Clergy 
 Discipline Act, 1892, Procedure Rules, r. 34. 
 
 The 2nd section of the Clergy Discipline Act, 
 1892, provides, inter alia, that if a clergyman is 
 alleged to have been guilty of any immoral act, 
 immoral conduct, or immoral habit, or of any 
 offence against the laws ecclesiastical, being an 
 offence against morality and not being a question 
 of doctrine or ritual, he may be prosecuted by 
 any person approved by the bishop, and tried in 
 the Consist. Ct. of the diocese in which he holds 
 preferment ; and by the 34th rule of the Pro- 
 cedure Rules made under the Act, a clergyman 
 holding no preferment may be prosecuted under 
 the Act in the Consist. Ct. of the diocese in 
 which he resides. 
 
 The complaint in a criminal suit lodged in 
 the registry of the Consist. Ct. of London at the 
 instance of a person approved by the bishop, 
 charged the deft., a clergyman resident iu 
 the diocese, with having been guilty of offences 
 against the laws ecclesiastical, being offences 
 against morality and not being a question of doc- 
 trine or ritual, by having within the five years 
 last past, and within the diocese, been guilty of 
 simony, and knowingly made a false declaration 
 against simony under the Clerical Subscription 
 Act, 1865. The defendant brought in an answer 
 denying that the offences alleged in the com- 
 plaint were offences against the laws ecclesias- 
 tical, being offences against morality within the 
 meaning of the 2nd section of the Clergy Disci- 
 pline Act, 1892, and at the hearing of tlie issues 
 of law raised on the pleadings, contended that 
 the Consist. Ct. of London had no jurisdiction to 
 entertain the suit : — 
 
 Held, by the Ordinary, that the Consist. Ct. 
 of London had jurisdiction in the suit under the 
 Clergy Discipline Act, 1892. Lee v. Flack 
 
 Consist. Ct. of London [1896] P. 138 
 
 75. — Tmmorality — Clerical Suhscription Act, 
 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 12-2)— False declaration 
 against simony — Clergy Discipline Act, 1892 
 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 32), ss. 2, 12. 
 
 Held, that in order to punish the offence of 
 simony in a clerk resort cannot be had to the 
 
( 761 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 762 ) 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Simony)— continued. 
 provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892, 
 but proceedings must still be taken under the 
 Act of 1840. The immorality against which the 
 Act of 1892 is directed is so defined by bb. 2 and 
 12 as to exclude simony from its scope : 
 
 Held, also, that a false declaration against 
 simony under the Clerical Subscription Act of 
 18G5 cannot be isolated from the charge of simony 
 and brought within the scope of the Act of 1892. 
 Beneficed Clekk v. Lee P. C. [1897] A. C. 226 
 
 ECTJADOE— Treait/ of Oct. 18, 1880, between Gi-eat 
 Britain and Ecuador denounced. Lond. Gaz. 
 Kay 27, 1898, p. 3212, 
 
 EDUCATION ACTS. 
 
 See Cases under Schools. 
 
 <" EFFECTS " — Devise and beq^ueath of — Whether 
 including realty. 
 See Will— Words. 213. 
 
 EFFIGY— Exhibition of. 
 
 See Injukction. 15. 
 
 EGYPT — Correspondence respecting Lawsuit 
 brought against Egyptian Government in regard 
 to appropriation of money for expenses of Dongdla 
 Expedition. 1897. [C. 8306.] Price 5d. 
 
 — Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. 
 
 See Foreign Jchisdiction. 
 
 EJECTMENT — Crown— Action by — Prerogative 
 Equitable defence. 
 See Ckown. 1. 
 
 — Defence to action of. 
 
 See Peaotiob— Writ. 286. 
 • — Fiscal Sale. 
 
 See Ceylon. 2. 
 
 — Mortgagor in possession — Ejectment for 
 
 breach of covenant. 
 
 See Landlokd and Tenant. 79. 
 
 — Eeceiver — Disputed title — Defendant in 
 
 possession. 
 
 See Eeceiveb. 10. 
 
 — Setting aside verdict — Withdrawal of facts 
 
 from jury. 
 
 See Jamaica. 3. 
 
 " EJUSSEM GENERIS." — General words. 
 See Deed — Construction. 1. 
 
 " ELDEST SON" — Settlement — Construction. 
 
 See Settlement — Construction. 5. 
 . Will — Construction. 
 
 See Will— Eldest Son. 77. 
 ELECTION— Absolute gift— Gift on condition. 
 
 See WUl. 168. 
 
 — After-acquired property— Compensation. 
 
 See Infant— Settlement. 39. 
 _ Conditional devise to lunatic- JuriBdictiou— 
 
 Performance of condition by committee. 
 
 See LiNACT. 30. 
 Married woman— Property— Contract. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 17. 
 _ Possible issue-Declaration by Court-Form 
 
 of order. 
 
 SeejiNFANT. 21. 
 
 — To rescind contract to take shares. 
 
 See Company— Winding-up. 28, 47. 
 
 ELECTION — continued. 
 
 — Waiver of tort — Joint tortfeasors — Com- 
 
 promise by accepting proceeds of sale- 
 Action of trover against the other. 
 See TiiOVEB. 9. 
 
 ELECTION LAW — Local Government (Elections) 
 Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. u. 1), continues tem- 
 porarily certain powers for the removal of diffi- 
 culties at elections under the Local Government 
 Act, 1891 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73). 
 
 — County councils' elections. 
 
 See County Council. 
 
 — District council. 
 
 See District Council. 
 
 — London county electors' disqualification. 
 
 See London — Electors. 
 
 — Married woman — Qualification — Ownership 
 
 of property in parish. 
 See Local Govebnment. 
 
 — Municipal. 
 
 See CoKPOKATioy. 
 
 — Municipal election — Prosecution for corrupt 
 
 practices at — Private prosecutor — De- 
 fendant's right to costs where acquitted. 
 See Ckiminal Law — Costs. 4. 
 
 — Parish Council. 
 
 See Parish Council. ; 
 
 — Parliament. 
 
 See Oases under Parliament. 
 
 — School boaril . 
 
 See Cases under Schools — School Board. 
 
 — Thames Conservancy Board. 
 
 See Thames. 3. 
 
 ELECTRIC LIGHTING — Electric Lighting 
 (^Clauses) Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 19), incor- 
 porates in one Act certain provisions usually 
 contained in Provisional Orders made- under the 
 Acts relating to Electric Lighting. 
 
 Application for Licexces, &c ] Bules dated 
 Sept. 1899, with respect to applications for licences 
 and provisional orders, &c., under the Electric 
 Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890. St. R. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 1822. 
 
 — Powers of urban authority as to electric 
 
 lighting. 
 
 See Streets. 11. 
 
 — Power to lay wires underground — Eight to 
 
 excavate streets. 
 
 See Canada — Quebec. 63. 
 
 — Use of disused churchyard. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 24. 
 
 ELECTRICITY — Vibration — Nuisance. 
 See Nuisance. 9. 
 
 ELEGIT — Earnings of business — Eeceipts of 
 theatre — Equitable execution. 
 See Eeceiver. 4. 
 
 — Sheriff — Duty to file writ and inquisition. 
 
 See Sheriff. 16. 
 
 ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS. 
 
 See Schools. 
 
 EMBARRASSING PLEADINGS— Joinder of pilot 
 as defendant. 
 See SuirriNG. 2C6.- 
 
( 763 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 764 ) 
 
 EMBEZZLEMENT. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law — Embezzlement. 
 EMPLOYEE AND WORKMAN. 
 
 See Cases under Masteb and Servant. 
 
 EMPLOYMENT— Children. 
 
 See Schools — Attendance of Children. 1. 
 
 — on Sunday — Jews. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Tactory 
 Acts. 61. 
 
 EH VENTEE SA MEEE — Children — " Issue 
 living " — Child en ventre sa mere. 
 iSee Will— Children. 42. 
 
 — Illegitimate children en ventre sa mere. 
 
 See Settlement. 7. 
 ENDOWED SCHOOL. 
 
 See Cases under Charity — Commis- 
 sioners. 
 "ENDOWMENT." 
 
 See Cases under Charity. 
 
 ENFEANCHISEMENT — Copyholds — Lands 
 taken by railway. 
 See Lands Clauses Act. 3. 
 
 — Copyhold — iRiglits as to common. 
 
 See Cases under Common. 
 Copyhold. 
 
 ENGINES — Damage to steamship. 
 
 See Shipping — Average. 13. 
 
 — Trade fixture — Hiring agreement. 
 
 See Fixtures. 7. 
 
 ENGINEEEING WOEK— Employment on, in, or 
 about — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 See Master and Servant — Compensa- 
 tion. 25. 
 
 ENGEOSSMENTS— Probate pieces and — Non- 
 contentious business. 
 See Probate — Practice Note. 133. 
 
 ENLAEGEMENT— Objects of company. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Memoran- 
 dum. 
 ENLISTMENT. 
 
 See Foreign Enlistment. 
 
 ENEOLMENT— Presumption of. 
 
 See Limitations^Statute of. 
 
 ENTAIL— Estate Duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty. 24. 
 
 — Scottish Law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Entail. 15. 
 
 ENTEETAINMENT— Sunday observance. 
 
 See Sunday. 3. 
 ENTRY— Power of. 
 
 See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. 0. 50), s. 5. 
 
 — Forcible entry — Eemoving roof of house. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 45. 
 
 — Land under oral agreement. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 12. 
 
 — Power of, by constable on licensed premises. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 45. 
 
 — Shop door — Entry by opening — Loss by theft 
 
 — " Actual forcible and violent entry." 
 See Insurance — Burglary. 5. 
 
 — To distrain. 
 
 See Distress. 
 
 ENTEY— CO Tiimiied. 
 
 — Water-closets — Jurisdiction — Order for entry 
 
 on premises — Local authority. 
 See Watee-olosets. 2. 
 
 ENVELOPE — Letter and, taken as one document 
 — Statute of Frauds. 
 See Contract. 
 
 EPILEPTIC CHILDEEN— Elementary education. 
 See Schools. 
 
 EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT— Banker's deposit 
 note — Indorsement and delivery. 
 See Voluntary Gift. 1. 
 
 — Debt — Notice — Debtor and creditor — Negoti- 
 
 able instrument. 
 See Assignment. 
 
 — Judgment debt — Bankruptcy notice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 15. 
 
 — Lease — " Assigns " — Option to purchase. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 80. 
 
 EQUITABLE CHAEGE. 
 
 See Company — Dehentnre. 
 
 EQUITABLE DEFENCE— Crown suits. 
 
 See Crown. 
 
 EQUITABLE EXECUTION— Bankruptcy prac- 
 tice. 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Charge on land — Receiver — Legal remainder 
 
 — Sale — " Actual delivery in execution." 
 See Judgment Debt. 1. 
 
 — Company practica. 
 
 See Cases under Company and CoMPAirr 
 —Winding-up. 
 
 — Receiver. 
 
 See Receiver. 14. 
 
 EQUITABLE INTEREST- Sale of reversion- 
 Delay. 
 See Speoipio Performance. 4. 
 
 EQUITABLE JUEISDICTION — Underground 
 trespass — Fraud — Statute of Limita- 
 tions. 
 See New South Wales. 20. 
 
 EQUITABLE MOETGAGE. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Debentures. 
 Mortgage. 
 
 — Of shares in a company to secure debt — Fore- 
 
 closure action after debt barred. 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 27. 
 
 EQUITABLE SUB-MORTGAGE — Conflicting 
 equities — Notice — Priority. 
 See Mortgage. 14. 
 
 EQUITABLE SECURITY— Debenture. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 52. 
 
 EQUITABLE TENANT FOE LIFE, 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 EQUITY OF REDEMPTION — Investment — 
 Capital money. 
 See Settled Land. 61. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgage —Redemption. 58. 
 
 — Purcliase in England of—Property situate out 
 
 of the tJnited Kingdom — Agreement 
 
 for sale — Stamp. 
 
 See Revenue- Stamps. 169. 
 
( 765 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 766 ) 
 
 EQTJITY TO SEITLEMENT. 
 
 See Settlement — Equity to Settlement. 
 
 EEEOH— Writ of— Dispensing with attendance 
 of pit. 
 See Criminal Law — Practice, 65. 
 
 ESCHEAT — Bastardy— Grant of administration — 
 Practice. 
 See Pkoeate. 22. 
 
 1. — Proceeds of sale of realty not effectually 
 disposed of — Mzecutors or the Crown entitled — 
 Intestates Estates Act, 1884 (47 * 48 Vict. o. 71), 
 8S. 4, 7. 
 
 A testatrix died without an heir, haying 
 devised a house of which she was legally seised 
 in fee simple to her executors, upon trust for sale, 
 and out of the proceeds to pay her debts, funeral 
 expenses, and legacies. There was no gift of 
 residue : — 
 
 Held, that the balance of proceeds of sale, after 
 paying the debts, expenses, and legacies, did not 
 belong to the executors for their own benefit, but 
 escheated to the Grown. In re Wood. Att.- 
 Gen. v. AifDEESON Bomer J. [1896] 2 Ch. 596 
 
 ESGBOW — Agreement for lease — Signature not 
 final. 
 See CoNTEAOT. 15. 
 
 — Deed — Delivery to one of several grantees — 
 
 Evidence — Admissibility. 
 See MoETSAGE. 15. 
 
 — Mortgage by deposit —Conflicting equities — 
 
 Priority. 
 
 See Moetgage. 14. 
 
 ESTATE AGENT — Authority to find ci purchaser 
 — Contract hy agent. 
 
 Instructions given to estate agents to find a 
 purchaser and negotiate a sale, held not to amount 
 to an authority to bind the vendor by a conti'act. 
 To bind the vendor there must be an express 
 authority to the agent to enter into a contract on 
 behalf of the vendor. Chadburn v. Mooee 
 
 Kekewieh J. [1892] W. N. 126 
 ESTATE DUTY. 
 
 See Eeventje — Estate Duty. 
 
 ESTATE PUE ATTTEE VIE— Special occupant — 
 Devoluticm of estate — Intestacy — Wills Act, 1837 
 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 6. 
 
 A testator who died in 1873 devised his real 
 estate to trustees upon trust to pay the rents and 
 profits unto and for the benefit of his three 
 daughters, A., B., and C, and their issue, in equal 
 shares for and during the term of their natural 
 lives respectively, and the life of the longer liver 
 of them. On the death of A., leaving three 
 children, the Court had decided that these 
 children became absolutely entitled in thirds to 
 A.'s share; two of A.'s children having since 
 died intestate : — , . i. 
 
 Held, that no special occupant having been 
 designated, the interest of A.'s deceased children 
 passed to their respective legal personal repre- 
 sentatives under s. 6 of the Wills Act (1 Vict. 
 
 Wan V. Byrne, (1845) 2 J. & Lat. 118, and 
 PhUpotts V. James, (1784) 3 Doug. 425, distin- 
 guished. /» re Sheppaed. SHE^PtS?! 9 r^''^ 
 NINO - - Eomer J, [1897] 2 Ch. 67 
 
 ESTATE PUE AUTEE VIE- continued. 
 
 2. — Special occupant — Devolution of estate — 
 Wills Act (1 Vict. 0. 26), s. 6. 
 
 An estate pur autre vie was created by the- 
 conveyance of the appellant's life estate in lands 
 to the appellant and the respondent to hold to 
 the use of them and their heirs upon oertaiit 
 trusts, with a declaration that all the estates and 
 interests conveyed to the respondent were con- 
 veyed to her as trustee for an infant : — 
 
 Held, that the infant's equitable estate was- 
 not an estate to him and his heirs, and that there 
 being no " special occupant " the infant's estate 
 upon his death passed to his administratrix under 
 s. 6. of the Wills Act (1 Vict. 0. 26). 
 
 The decision of the 0. A. in Ireland ([1895]. 
 1 1. E. 44) aflSrmed. Eabl op Mountoashell ti.. 
 More-Smyth - [1896] A. C. 158 
 
 ESTATE TAIL— Will. 
 
 See Will— Estate Tail. 
 
 ESTOPPEL, 
 
 — Admission by married woman as to proviso- 
 
 defeating her interest. 
 
 See Husband and Wiee. 43. 
 
 — Appointment — Recital — Construction of 
 
 settlement. 
 
 See Settlement. 33. 
 
 1, — Assistance in prior action hy person under 
 indemnity to defendant — " Privies in estate " — 
 Estoppel by record. 
 
 A resolution purporting to be in pursuance of 
 power to compromise contained in a debenture 
 trust deed given by the A. Co. was passed by a 
 majority of debenture-holders, for accepting, irn 
 lieu of debentures, shares in the B., the pur- 
 chasing CO. Dissentient debenture-holders re- 
 covered judgment against the A. Co. for arrears 
 of interest on the ground that there were no- 
 circumstances of difficulty which enabled the- 
 majority to bind the minority to the compromise ;. 
 the B. Co. assisted in the defence and paid the- 
 costs thereof: — 
 
 Held, in a subsequent action by the dissentient 
 debenture-holders suing on behalf of all the 
 holders to enforce against the B, Co. and the lands- 
 assigned to them by the A. Co., that the deben- 
 ture charge (which through want of registration, 
 was not valid according to the local law) that 
 the B. Co. were not estopped by the former judg- 
 ment from adducing evidence to shew that 
 through non-registration of the charge and other- 
 circumstances difficulties bringing the power of 
 compromise into play had arisen. 
 
 A purchaser of land cannot be estopped as- 
 privy in estate by a judgment in an action against 
 his vendor commenced after the purchase when 
 such purchaser has given the vendor an indem- 
 nity and has assisted him in defending an action 
 by a third person ; in subsequent proceedings the- 
 purchaser is estopped only between the vendor 
 and the purchaser. Mercantile Investment- 
 and General Trust Co. v. Eiver Plate Trust, 
 Loan and Agency Co. 
 
 Eomer J. [1894] 1 Ch. 678 
 
 — Authority to apply for shares — Underwriting 
 letter. 
 See Company— Shares. 307, 308. 
 
( 767 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( "708 ) 
 
 ESTOPPEL— co»(roue(Z. 
 
 — Bailee — Eight to set up jus tertii. 
 
 See Interpleader. 1. 
 
 2. — Bailment — Attornment hy bailee — Ware- 
 ftouseman— Estoppel en pais — Property in goods 
 obtained by fraud — Jus tertii — Trover — Measure 
 of damages. 
 
 The owner of goods lying at a warehouse was 
 iaduoed by the fraud of F. to instruct the ware- 
 houseman to transfer the goods to F.'s order. F. 
 then sold the goods to an innocent purchaser, 
 who before paying tlie price obtained a statement 
 from the warehouseman that he lield the goods 
 to the purchaser's order. On the diseoyery of 
 F.'s fraud the warehouseman refused to deliver 
 io H. In an action of trover by the purchaser 
 against the warehouseman : — 
 
 Held, that the warehouseman having attorned 
 to the purchaser, was estopped from impeaching 
 his title. 
 
 Semble, per Lord Halsbury, that the true 
 owner, having enabled F. to hold himself out 
 as the owner, could not set up his title 
 against lliat of an innocent purchaser from F. 
 Hendeeson & Co. i;. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 a. B. 621 
 
 3. — Bailment — Bailor and bailee — Jus tertii. 
 A bailee of goods cannot avail himself of the 
 
 title of a third person to goods as a defence to an 
 action of detinue, except by shewing that he is 
 defending the action on behalf and by the 
 authority of such third person. Eogers, Sons & 
 Co. V. Lakbebt & Co. C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 318 
 
 — Bill of exchange. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 2. 
 
 — Contract by company ultra vires — Effect of 
 
 consent judgment. 
 See Canada. 17. 
 
 — Contract of indemnity — Evidence. 
 
 See New South Wales. 10. 
 
 — Contributory — Certificate that shares are fully 
 
 paid-up. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 30, 31. 
 
 — Conversion — Proxima te cause of loss — Liabili ty 
 
 of warehouseman. 
 See Trover. 4. 
 
 — Director parting with qualifying shares. 
 
 See Charging Order. 3. 
 
 — Divorce. 
 
 See Divorce— Nullity. 94. 
 
 — Divorce proceedings. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce — Collusion. 
 
 — Ejectment — Law of Western Australia. 
 
 See Australia. 4. 
 
 4. — Judgment — Practice — Administration — 
 Bes judicata — Person not a party or bound by 
 judgment — Cognizance of former proceedings — 
 Accepting benefit of judgment — Estoppel by conduct 
 — Absent parties — Class representation — Rules of 
 Supreme Court, 1883, Order xri., rr. 11, 32. 
 
 A person not a party to an action or summons, 
 nor technically bound by the judgment, but fully 
 cognizant of the proceedings who stands by and 
 deliberately takes the benefit of a decision on 
 the construction of a will under which a par- 
 ticular fund is dietributed, is estopped by his 
 
 ESTOPPEL— co»<in«ed. 
 
 conduct, where the circumstances are identical, 
 from reopening any of the questions covered by 
 the former judgment by means of a fresh action 
 or summons relating to another fund under the 
 same will, though claiming in respect of a dif- 
 ferent interest. 
 
 An order appointing some one to represent a 
 class, such as next of iiin, is not binding on one 
 of the next of kin who has a distinct and inde- 
 pendent interest in another capacity. In re 
 Lart. Wilkinson v. Blades. 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 788 
 
 5. — Judgment by consent. 
 
 A judgment by consent creates an estoppel to 
 the same extent as a judgment, where the Court 
 has exercised a judicial discretion. In re South 
 American and Mexican Co. Ex parte Bank of 
 England. - - C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 37 
 
 6. — Judgment for salvage in Admiralty Court 
 — Action against underwriter — Defence that loss 
 did not arise from perils insured against — Ship — 
 Marine insurance. 
 
 The captain of a steamer that had, during a 
 voyage, run short of coal engaged a steam trawler 
 to tow her to her port of discharge. The owner 
 of the trawler brought an action in the Admiralty 
 Court and recovered a sum of money for salvage. 
 In an action by the owner of the steamer to 
 recover, from an underwriter who had insured 
 the ship against perils of the sea, the amount 
 paid under the judgment : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, was not concluded 
 by the judgment of the Admiralty Court from 
 setting up that the loss did not arise from any of 
 the perils insured against. Ballantyne v. 
 MACKINNON - C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 455 
 
 Considered by Collins J. Minna Craig 
 Steamship Co. v. Chartered Mercantile Bank of 
 India, London and China, [1897] 1 Q. B. 55, 61. 
 
 — Licence — Renewal — Objection on same 
 
 grounds as previous objection to transfer. 
 See Licensing Act. 21. 
 
 — Married woman — Restraint on anticipation — 
 
 Admission of cesser of interest. 
 See Husband and Wife. 43. 
 
 7. — Misrepresentation, 
 
 The defts., trustees of a will, sold parcels of 
 land (X.) to B., which he mortgaged to C. Sub- 
 sequently B. induced one of the defts. to sell to 
 him a piece of land (Y.) which, though B. 
 represented the contrary, was in fact part of X. 
 B. mortgaged Y. to D., the pit. Eventually C. 
 took possession. The pit. then sued the defts. 
 for compensation for loss caused by their mis- 
 representation, or, in the alternative, for breach 
 of covenant for title : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the second conveyance of Y. 
 did not contain such a distinct avermeut that the 
 defts. were seised at the time of this conveyance 
 as would estop them fiom denying that they were 
 so seised ; (2) that as the pit. had no legal estate 
 with which the covenants could run, he could not 
 sue on the covenants ; (3) that the pit. had no 
 remedy for misrepresentation by the defts., the 
 representation having been made honestly. 
 Whether, if the conveyance had been in terms 
 suifioicnt to create an estoppel, the defts. could 
 
( 769 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 770 ) 
 
 ESTOPPEL— con(t«t(efZ. 
 
 have successfully pleaded fraud by B., quisre. 
 
 Onwaed Building Society v. Smithson 
 
 C. A. revers. Kekewich J. [1893] 1 Ch. 1. 
 
 ■ — ^Prospectus — Statement that directors will take 
 shares not taken by Tender — Implied 
 agreement. 
 See Company — Prospectus. 205. 
 
 — Eeceipt — Mortgagor's signature induced by 
 
 fraud of his solicitor — " Non est factum ' 
 — Title of mortgagee. 
 See MoBTGAQE. 56. 
 
 — Recitals in deed, Effect of— Notice. 
 
 See Kegitals. 1. 
 
 8. — Bes judicata — Metropolitan Police Court 
 Act, 1839 (2*3 Vict. u. 71), s. 40. 
 
 (a) To constitute a good plea of res judicata, 
 it must be shewn that the former suit was one in 
 which the pit. might have recovered precisely 
 what he seeks in the second. 
 
 A magistrate's order under s. 40 of the 
 
 Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, is no bar to an 
 
 action for special damage arising out of the same 
 
 detention. Midland Ey. Co. v. Mabtin & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 172 
 
 (b) To establish the plea of res judicata 
 the judgment relied on must have been pro- 
 nounced by a Court having concurrent or ex- 
 clusive jurisdiction on the question claimed to 
 have been adjudged, and have given judgment 
 directly upon such question. Att.-Gen. fob 
 Teinidad and Tobago v. Beiche 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 518, 523 
 
 (c) H. had from time immemorial repaired a 
 highway ratione tenurse. In 1782 the highway 
 became vested in trustees who materially altered 
 it. In 1866 the Court decided that H. was not 
 liable to be rated for the repair of the highways 
 in the district, but the fact of the alteration was 
 not brought before the Court : — 
 
 Held, that this decision did not make the 
 case res judicata, as the fact of the alteration 
 had not been brought to the attention of the 
 Court. Heath v. Weaveeham (Ovebseees, &c., 
 op) - - - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 108 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Dalton Overseers 
 V. North Eastern By., [1900] A. C. 345, 351. 
 See also Highway — ^Bepairs. 11. 
 Intebpleadeb. 4. 
 
 — Ees judicata 
 rate. 
 See Highway 
 
 Decision quashing previous 
 11. 
 
 — Ees judicata— Validity of patent. 
 See Patent. 12.' 
 
 9. — Bes judicata— Will— Validity— Probate 
 action — Citation of parties-Court of Probate Act, 
 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 63. 
 
 "Where the heir-at-law of a testator is made 
 deft., as one of the testator's next of kin, in 
 a probate action to establish his will, and appears 
 and contests its validity in the action, he cannot 
 afterwards dispute the validity of the will in 
 respect of real estate affected by it, notwithstand- 
 ing that he was not cited to appear in the action 
 as heir-at-law. Beahdsley v. Bbaedsley 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 ft. B. 746 
 
 ESTOPPEL — coniiniied. 
 — Sale by agent. 
 
 See Factor. 8. 
 
 10. — Settlement of land hy grantor liaving no 
 title — Entry of tenant for life under settlement 
 and acquisition hy him of possessory title — Eights 
 of remaindermen — Statutes of Limitations — Beal 
 Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 <t 4 Will. 4, 
 c. 27), s. 34. 
 
 Where a grantor, who has no title, purports 
 by deed to convey a piece of land to A. for life 
 witli remainders over, and A. enters upon the 
 land under the deed, and afterwards acquires a 
 good title by possession against the true owner, 
 A. and his privies are respectively estopped, as 
 against the remaindermen, from disputing the 
 validity of the deed. 
 
 HawUbee v. Sawlcsiee, (1853) 11 Hare, 230, 
 Anstee v. Nelms, (1856) 1 H. & N. 225, and Board 
 v. Board, (1873) L. E. 9 Q. B. 48, approved and 
 adopted. 
 
 The doctrine of Board v. Board, L. E. 9 Q. B. 
 48, is no part of the law of will.^, and applies to 
 estates taken under instruments of whatever 
 character. 
 
 Per Lindley and Eigby L. J.T. : It is difficult 
 to reconcile Kernaghan v. M'Nally, (1861) 12 
 Ir. Ch. Eep. 89, with Scott v. Nixon, (1843) 3 
 D. & War. 388. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J., [1897] 1 Ch. 440, 
 affirmed. Dalton v. Fitzgeeald 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 86 
 
 11. — Sewage Worhs — Order to execute — 
 Matter of Beeord — Bivers Pollution Prevention 
 Act, 1876 (39 * 40 Vict. c. 75), s. 3. 
 
 By s. 3 of the Eivers Pollution Prevention 
 Act, 1876, it is made an offence to permit sewage 
 to flow into a "stream" from a sewer con- 
 structed at the date of the passing of the Act 
 without using the best practicable means to 
 render the sewage harmless. And by s. 20 the 
 term- " stream " is defined to include only such 
 tidal waters as may be determined by the Loo. 
 Govt. Bd. by order. Jurisdiction is by the Act 
 given to the county court to make an order 
 restraining the further commission of the offence, 
 and ordering the offenders to execute the neces- 
 sary sewage works to render the sewage harm- 
 less, and to inflict penalties for disobedience to 
 such order. 
 
 Proceedings having been taken in a count/ 
 court under the Act against the defts. for per- 
 mitting sewage to flow into a certain river, and 
 neglecting to use the best practicable means 
 to render the sewage harmless, the defts. 
 consented to an order declaring them to have 
 committed the alleged offence and ordering them 
 to execute the necessary sewage works to pre- 
 vent its continuance. At the date of that order 
 the defts. were under the belief tljat the part of 
 the river into which the sewage flowed was non- 
 tidal. Subsequently the defts., having been 
 summoned for penalties for disobedience of the 
 order, sought to shew that the part of the river 
 into which the sewage flowed was tidal water, 
 and that as there had been no order of the Loc. 
 Gevt. Bd. declaring it to be a stream, they had 
 committed no offence : — 
 
 Seld, that the order of the county court was 
 
 2 C 
 
( 771 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1831—1900. 
 
 ( 772 ) 
 
 ESTOTT'EL— continued. 
 
 equivalent to a judgment, and that the defts. 
 were estopped from disputing that they had 
 committed the alleged offence, or from con- 
 tending that the order of the Court in so far as 
 it applied to the locus in quo vias without 
 jurisdiction. Joint Committee op the Eiter 
 
 ElBBLB V. CkOSTOS UbeAN COUNCIL 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 a. B. 251 
 
 — Sewers — Agreement to admit foreign sewage 
 
 — Laches and acquiescence — Injunction 
 
 — Public body. 
 
 Bee London — Sewers. 62. 
 
 — Sewers — Liability to repair. 
 
 See London — Sewers. 61. 
 
 — Share certificate — Duty of director — Putting 
 
 to rest. 
 
 See Company— Shares. 267, 268. 
 
 12. — Sliares — Tranfer of sliares. 
 
 A. gave a certificate for shares transferable, 
 by writing not under seal to B., his broker, for 
 sale, and handed him a blank transfer. B. 
 pledged the blank transfer and the certificate 
 with C. C.'s solicitor filled up the blank with 
 the name of C.'s clerk. B. never paid anything 
 to A. on account of the shares : — 
 
 Meld, that A. was not estopped from setting 
 up his title against 0. Fox v. Maetin 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1895] W. N. 36 
 
 — Stamp of larger amount than necessary — 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 2. 
 
 13. — Statement operating as an estoppel. 
 
 A statement to operate as an estoppel must 
 be clear and unambiguous. The doctrine of 
 estoppel as applicable to innocent misrepresenta- 
 tions discussed and explained. Low v. Boovekie 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 82 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Wyatt. 
 White V. Ellis, [1892] 1 Ch. 188. This Case 
 aifirm. by H. L. (E.)sub Twm. Ward v. Feniberton, 
 [1893] A. C. 369. 
 
 • - Surrender by operation of law — Determina- 
 tion of tenancy — Estoppel by conduct. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 40. 
 ^ Voluntary settlement — Setting aside — Eecti- 
 fication — Power of appointment. 
 See Settlement. 29. 
 ~- Workmen's Compensation Act — Time for 
 making claim. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant — 
 Practice. 
 ETIftUETTE OF THE 'B&S. — Fees—Brief — 
 Public Analyst practising at (lie Bar. W. N. 
 1899 (Jan. 21), p. 45. See Current Index, 1899, 
 p. exxii. 
 
 EVANGELICAI PRINCIPLES— Gift to promote 
 spread of — Purchase of advowsons. 
 See Charity. 16. 
 EVICTION— Of grantee from part of land- 
 Grant or reservation — Apportionment of 
 rent-charge — Acreage or value. 
 See Eent-oharqe. 1. 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 See also under Specific Titles. 
 Order xjcxvir, relates to evidence generally. 
 
 EVIDENCE— conJintMd. 
 
 Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 36), amends the law of evidence. 
 
 — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping. 
 
 — Admissibility of evidence. 
 
 See Evidence, passim. 
 
 1. — Admissibility — Ancient Document ten- 
 dered in support of ancient possession — Act of 
 ownership — Declaration of deceased person against 
 interest — Admission by tenant as to landlord's 
 title. 
 
 In an action brought to determine the title 
 to certain land, the pit. tendered in evidence an 
 ancient document coming from the proper custody 
 which purported to be signed by M., a tenant of 
 a predecessor in title of the deft , and which 
 stated that J., a predecessor in title of the pit., 
 had been persuaded to stop all proceedings at 
 law that he then had against M. for wilfully and 
 without leave bringing his sheep and cattle on 
 to J.'s freehold land therein specified (which was 
 assumed to be part of the land in dispute) for 
 which wilful trespass M. bound himself to pay 
 16s. costs, and that he would for the fature keep 
 his own and other people's sheep and cattle from 
 trespassing on the said land to the utmost of his 
 power : — 
 
 Held, that the document was admissible in 
 evidence, not as an admission by the tenant as to 
 title, in which case it would not be evidence 
 against the landlord, but as evidence of an act 
 of ownership by a predecessor in title of the 
 pit. :— 
 
 Decision of Byrne J. reversed. 
 
 Tlie principle of Malcolmson v. O'Dea, (1863) 
 10 H. L. C. 593, applied. 
 
 Papendick v. Bridgwater, (1855) 5 E. &B. 166, 
 distinguished. Blandy-Jenktns v. Earl of 
 Dunraven - - C. A. [1899] W. N. 88 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 121 
 • — Admissibility — Ancient facts. 
 See No. 24, behw. 
 
 2. — Admissibility ■ — Arbitration — Setting 
 aside award — Admission by Arbitrator. 
 
 Evidence of an admission out of court by an 
 arbitrator that he made his award improperly, is 
 not admissible in support of an application to set 
 aside the award. In re Whiteley and Egberts' 
 Arbitration Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 558 
 
 3. — Admissibility — Company — Winding-up 
 
 — Depositions — Companies XWinding-up') Act, 
 1890, ss. 8 (7), 26 — Companies (Winding-up) 
 Bules, April, 1892, r. 2J. 
 
 Depositions taken at the public examination 
 of witnesses under the Companies (Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890, can be used as evidence against other 
 persons in the winding-up, subject to a right to 
 require the witness to be produced for cross- 
 examination. In re London and General Bane 
 (No. 1) - V. Williams J. [1894] W. N. 155 
 
 4. — Admissibility — Contract — Ambiguous 
 subject-matter. 
 
 Where a written agreement to purchase a 
 leasehold interest wag ambiguous on the face of 
 it:— 
 
 Held, that evidence adduced, not to contradict 
 
( 773 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 771 ) 
 
 WTlDHSCS—oonUnued. 
 
 the written agreement, but to shew what was the 
 subject-matter, was admissible. Clarke v. 
 Coleman - - C.A. [1895] W. N. 114 (2) 
 
 6. — Admissibility — Contract — Letter signed 
 hy agent's cleric. 
 
 In an action for specific performance of a con- 
 tract for sale of land, the purchaser relied on four 
 letters purporting to be written by the vendor's 
 agent. Two of these were signed by the agent's 
 clerk : and in the last, which was signed by the 
 agent, there was no reference to these two : — 
 
 Held, that parol evidence to connect the two 
 sets of letters was inadmissible. Pottbk v. 
 Peters - - Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 37 
 
 6. — Admissibility — Diary of deceased soli- 
 citor. 
 
 Seld, that entries in the diary of a deceased 
 solicitor are not admissible evidence of the truth 
 of the statements conta,ined in them as against a 
 third party. 
 
 Bawlins v. Biclcards, (I860) 28 Beav. 370,- 
 doubted as being apparently inconsistent with 
 Bright v. Legerton, (1861) 2 De G. F. & J. 606, 
 
 617. EOEOTD V. OOULTHAKD 
 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 25 (7) ; [1897] 2 Ch. 554 
 This case was affirmed by 0. A., [1898] 2 Ch. 
 358. 
 
 7. — Admissibility — Entries in solicitor's diary. 
 
 Serrible, that to make entries in a diary admis- 
 sible as evidence after the decease of the writer, 
 it must be shewn that they were written in pur- 
 suance of some duty on the part of the person 
 making them, and not merely for the personal 
 convenience of the writer. Entries in the diary 
 of a deceased solicitor were tendered in evidence 
 in a controversy as to the validity of a post- 
 nuptial settlement which he had prepared ; — 
 
 SM, that the solicitor in making the entries 
 bad no duty to make them. Hope v. Hope 
 (No. 2) - - - C. A. [1893] W. N. 20 
 
 And see preceding Case. 
 
 8. — Admissibility — Notice of intention to read 
 evidence taJcen in other cause. 
 
 Order xxxvn., r. 3, has the effect only of 
 doing away with the necessity of an order to 
 read evidence taken in another action, but does 
 not affect the admissibility of the evidence in 
 the cause in which it is sought to read it. 
 Phintinq Telegraph and Oonsteuotion Co. 
 
 OF THE AgENCE HAVAS V. DeUOKER 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 801 
 
 9. — Admissibility — Historical worles. 
 Where it is important to ascertain ancient 
 
 facts of a public nature, historical works may be 
 referred to as evidence thereof. Kbad v. Bishop 
 opLtncoln - - P. C. [1892] A. C. 644 
 
 10. — Admissibility — Medical evidence — 
 
 The Court refused to admit medical evidence 
 as to permanent want of virility of a man seventy- 
 two years of age, for the purpose of allowing 
 
 immediate distribution of a fund. P v. 
 
 N North J. [1896] W. N. 175 (13) 
 
 — Admissibility— Ownership of bed of river- 
 Presumption. 
 See Water. 41, 45. 
 
 EVIDENCE— contmaetZ. 
 
 11. — Admissibility — Power of appointment — 
 Intention. 
 
 Where a' bequest is not prima facie specific, 
 and can be satisfied out of the testor.'s own pro- 
 perty, evidence as to the state of the testatrix's 
 property at the time of her will and death is not 
 admissible to prove that the bequest was meant 
 to be an exercise of a power of appointment. 
 In re Htjddleston. Bruno *. Eyston 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 595 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Milner, 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 563, 565. 
 
 12. — Admissibility — Promissory note insuffi- 
 ciently stamped. 
 
 A promissory note insufficiently stamped is 
 not admissible in evidence to prove the receipt 
 of the money for which the note was given. 
 Ashling v. Boon Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 568 
 
 See Birchall v. Bullough, Div. Ct. [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 325, 326. 
 
 13. — Admission — Severability of statement. 
 A statement made in Jan. 1893, to the effect, 
 
 "I have not banked any money this last eight 
 months, as I have dissolved partnership with my 
 brother last April " : — 
 
 Held, that the statement was evidence to go 
 to a jury that A. was still a partner in June, 
 1893. Brown v. Wren Bros. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 a. B. 390 
 
 Order xxxvili. relates to affidavits and depo- 
 sitions. 
 
 — Applicant reading respondent's affidavits 
 
 before his own — Practice. 
 See Solicitor. 100. 
 
 14. — Affidavit — Commissioner (22 Vict. c. 16, 
 s. 1 ; 52 Vict. e. 10, s. I. 
 
 An affidavit will not be taken off the file 
 because it was sworn before a commr. who has 
 been struck off the rolls, but whose commission 
 has not been revoked. Ward v. Gamgee 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 165 
 
 — Company — Winding-up — Affidavit in support 
 
 of petition — " Defect or irregularity." 
 See Company — Winding-up. 148. 
 
 15. — Affidavit — Description of deponent — 
 " Gentleman"— B. S. C, 1883, Order xxxrin., 
 rr. 8, 14. 
 
 One of the deponents to an affidavit, a soli- 
 citor, was described therein only as "gentle- 
 man " : — 
 
 Held, that the vagueness of the description 
 did not justify the refusal to file the affidavit. It 
 is only in affidavits as to the fitness of trustees 
 that the value of the deponent's evidence ought 
 to be supported by a better description than the 
 vague term of " gentleman." In re Dodsworth. 
 Spenoe v. Dodsworth Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 657 
 
 — Affidavit— Documents. 
 
 See Cases under Discovery — Documents. ■ 
 
 16. — Affidavit — Exhibit — Right to inspect. 
 Irrespective of any questions as to discovery, 
 
 property, or privilege, if a document is made an 
 exhibit to an affidavit, any person who has a right 
 to inspect and take copies of the affidavit has 
 L 2 C 2 
 
( 775 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— ISOO. 
 
 rrc ) 
 
 EVIDENCE— continued. 
 
 a similar right as to the exhibit also. In re 
 HiNOHLiFFE (No. 1) - C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 117 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Sloane v. Britain Steam- 
 ship Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 185, 187. 
 
 — Affidavit, Exhibit to — Discover}- — Case laid 
 
 before coimse]. 
 
 See DiscovEEY — ^Documents. 16. 
 
 IV. — Affidavit — Fitness of proposed trustees. 
 
 A statement that proposed trustees are "persons 
 in good credit in the neighbourhood in which they 
 respectively carried on business," held lo be a 
 eufiSeient statement of tlicir pecuniary means. 
 In re Smith's PoLioy TnuSTS. Smith v. Smith 
 Kekewich J. [1894] Vf. N. 68 
 
 — Affidavit — I'orm — Foreclosure — Non-payment 
 
 of mortgage debt. 
 
 See MoKTGAGE — Foreclosure. 35. 
 
 — Affidavit— Garnishee — Sufficiency. 
 
 See Attachment. 7. 
 
 18. — Affidavit — Information and belief — Frac- 
 tice — Interlocutory motion — Insufficient affidavit — 
 E. S. C, Order .xxxviii., r. S. 
 
 An affidavit or information and belief founded 
 on statements made to the deponent by an inform- 
 ant, who declined to repeat them on affidavit 
 unless subpoenaed, was not admitted on an inter- 
 locutory motion, in a case where the informant 
 might have been but was not subpoenaed, and no 
 iriemediable injury could result from the exclu- 
 sion of the evidence. In re Anthony Bikrell 
 Peabce & Co. DoiG V. Anthony Birkell Pearce 
 & Co. Geoos v. Same - - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 76 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 80 
 
 19. — Affidavit — "Information and helief" — 
 Irregularity — Inadmissibility — Costs — B.S.C., 
 1883, Order Xi.xviu., r. 3. 
 
 An affidavit of information and belief, not 
 stating the source of the information or belief, is 
 irregular, and therefore inadmissible as evidence, 
 whether on an interlocutory or a final applica- 
 tion ; and a party or solicitor attempting to use 
 such an affidavit will do so at his peril as to 
 costs. In re J. L. Young Manufaotukinu Co. 
 Young v. J. L. Young Manufacturing Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 234 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 753 
 
 — Affidavit — Necessity for corroboration of poti- 
 
 t i oner's — Practice. 
 
 See Divorce — Practice. 99. 
 
 — Affidavit — Notice of filing. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 152. 
 
 — Affidavit — of execution — Sworn before solicitor 
 
 of grantee — Validity. 
 See Bill of Sale. 9. 
 
 — Affidavit — Payment out of Court — Married 
 
 woman — Affidavit of no settlement. 
 See Practice — Payment out of Court. 
 143. 
 
 — Affidavit — Presumption of death — Practice. 
 
 See Evidence. 40. 
 
 20. — Affidant — Production of office copy — 
 Practice. 
 
 The party on whose behalf an affid nit is filed 
 is the person who is bound to produce the office 
 copy, if a copy be required. Makshall v. Na- 
 tional Peovinoial Bake of England 
 
 Kekewich J. [18S2] W. N. 34 
 
 EVIDENCE — continued. 
 
 — Affidavit — Sealing — Petition — Affidavit of 
 
 service — Petition. 
 
 See Company — "Winding-up. 149. 
 
 — Affidavit — Service — Affidavit of service of 
 
 order disobeyed — Non-service of copy — 
 
 Dispensation. 
 
 See Attachment. 4. 
 
 — Affidavit — Service — Non- service of copy — 
 
 ' Waiver. 
 See Attachment. 2. 
 
 21. —^ Affidavit — Service of copies — Time — 
 —BanJiruptey Rules, 1886, rr. 27, 29. 
 
 As a general rule copies of affidavits in sup- 
 port of a bankruptcy application should be served 
 with the notice of motion. i» re Wells. Ex parte 
 Collins V. Williams J. [1892] W. N. 9© 
 
 — Affidavit — Statutory, made by clerk to solici- 
 
 tors — Petition. 
 
 See CoMPASY — Winding-up. 151. 
 
 — Affidavit — Summons issued out of district — 
 
 Claim exceeding 51. 
 
 See County Court — Practice. 63. 
 
 — Affidavit — Sworn before commissioner who- 
 
 has been struck off the rolls. 
 See No. 13, alove. 
 
 22. — Affidavit sworn before " correspondent "■ 
 of party's solicitor— B. S. C. 1883, Order xixrin., 
 r. 16. 
 
 Affidavits were sworn before a country solici- 
 tor, who was the "correspondent" of the plt.'s 
 London solicitors : — 
 
 Held, that they must be taken off the file as 
 being insufficient under Order xxxviii., r. 16. 
 Parkinson v. Crawshay 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 85 
 
 — Affidavit — Verifying Cause of Action — Writ 
 
 specially indorsed. 
 
 See Practice — Writ. 280. 
 
 23. — Agent of Foreign Poicei Bight of 
 
 Government not recognised by British Government 
 to sue. 
 
 In two actions injunctions were applied for 
 to restrain the defts. from parting with money 
 belonging to the Republic of Chili. The motions 
 were supported by affidavits of R., describing 
 himself as confidential agent of the Government 
 of Chili, and making statements as to a state of 
 civil war in Chili ; — 
 
 Held, that E. had given no proof that he waa 
 the agent of the Republic, nor even of one of the 
 parties now at war in that country. Republic op 
 Chili v. Rothschild. Republic of Chili v. 
 Baring Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 138 
 
 — Ambiguity — Will — Admissibility of evidence. 
 
 See Will— Evidence. 83— 83b. 
 
 — Ambiguity in charterparty — Bill of lading. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 15, 16. 
 
 24. — Ancient facts. 
 
 Where it is necessary to ascertain ancient 
 facts of a public nature historical works may be 
 referred to. Read v. Bishop of Lincoln 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 644 
 
 — Appeal — Judge's notes of oral evidence ia . 
 
 Court below. 
 See Appeal. 31 . 
 
( 777 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 778 ) 
 
 'EVinHTSCli— continued. 
 
 25, — Appeal from comptroller referred by 
 Board of Trade to Court — Trade Marie Rules, 
 , 1890, r. 23. 
 
 On an appeal from the decision of the comp- 
 troller to register a trade-mark, the Bd. of Trade 
 relerred the appeal to the Court, on motion for 
 directions ns to evidence. An order was made 
 ibr the motion to be set down in the witness list, 
 affldavits to be filed by the parties, and the 
 Jnotion to be heard on the statutory declarations 
 used before the comptroller, and the above- 
 mentioned affidavits and the cros^-examination 
 in court of any deponent as to whom notice to 
 cross-examine should be given by the other side. 
 In re Eogee's Tbade-maek 
 
 North J. [1894] W. N. 173 
 
 — Arbitration — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Akbithatiox. 
 
 — Arrest on warrant — No evidence — Power to 
 
 bind over. 
 
 /See Gaming. 2. 
 
 — Authority of iuland revenue officer, Proof of 
 
 — Jurisdiction. 
 See Justices. 7. 
 
 — Bankera' books. 
 
 See Cases under Banker. 
 
 — Bankrupt's public examination, notes of. 
 
 See Bankkuptcy. 100. 
 
 36. — Commiseion — Subject-matter of action — 
 Sending out of juriidtction for identification — 
 S.S.C., 1883, Order xxxvn., r. 5 ; Order i., r. 3. 
 
 Where witnesses are to be examined on com- 
 mission out of the jurisdiction of the Court, an 
 order maybe made that the subject-matter of the 
 action shall be sent out of tho jurisdiction for 
 the purpose of identification by the witnesses. 
 Chaplin v. Puttiok. Laing, Claimant 
 
 C. A. [1898J 2 ft. B. 160 
 
 27. — Commission to take evidence abroad — 
 Practice — Examination of witnesses abroad — 
 Letters of request — Dissolution of partnership. 
 
 A commission or letters of requett for Ihe 
 examination of witnesses abroad ought not to be 
 issued unless the evidence which it is proposed 
 to obtain is evidence directly material to an issue 
 in the cause, and not merely evidence which may 
 be incidentally useful in corroboration of other 
 evidence. 
 
 In an action for a dissolution of a partnership 
 in England between wine merchants, on the 
 ground of alleged misconduct of the deft, 
 the pits, alleged that the deft, had bribed 
 nn employee of Pickford & Co. to inform him 
 of the names and addresses of persons to whom 
 Pickford & Co. forwarded wines on behalf of 
 -Continental wine merchants, so that the firm 
 might canvass those persona for orders, and that 
 this became known, and brought the firm into 
 bad repute. The books of Pickford & Co. during 
 the period to which thi.? charge related had been 
 destroyed. The pits, set out a list of the names 
 and addresses of the persons and firms to and by 
 whom wines had been sent througli Pickford & 
 Co., and applied for letters of request to examine 
 witnesses in Germany for the purpose of proving 
 that wines were forwarded on their behalf duiing 
 the period in question by Pickford & Co. Stirling J. 
 
 EVIDENCE— coretznuetZ. 
 
 ordered the letters of request to issue unless the 
 deft, made admissions as to (lie forwarding of 
 wines by Pickford & Co. :— 
 
 Held, that this oider ought to be discharged, 
 for that the evidence sought did not tend to prove 
 bribery, though it might be useful in corrobora- 
 tion of direct evidence of bribery, and that it was 
 not reasonable to require the admissions sug- 
 gested, as the matters could not be within the 
 deft.'s own knowledge, and he could only obtain 
 information about them by writing to rival 
 tradesmen. Ehemann v. Ehrmann 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2Ch. 611 
 
 28. — Commission to taJee evidence of party 
 abroad — Defendant's application — Discretion — 
 E. 8. C. 1883— Order xxxvil., t. 5. 
 
 In granting or refusing a commission to take 
 evidence abroad there is a material difference 
 between a foreign pit. and a foreign deft., and 
 the Court will not regard the case of a deft, 
 with the same strictness as that of a pit. who has 
 chosen his own forum. Prima facie, a foreigner 
 who is sued in this country is entitled to a com- 
 mission to examine him in the .place where he 
 lives. 
 
 (a) Defts., who were foreigners resident 
 abroad, were temporarily in England when action 
 was brought, were served, and entered appear- 
 ance. They then returned abroad, and applied 
 for a commission to examine them and their wit- 
 nesses resident abroad. The Court was satisfied 
 that the defls. had not gone abroad to avoid or 
 delay the trial : — 
 
 Meld, that the defts. were entitled to the 
 commission. Ross v. Woodford 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 38 
 
 (b) a deft, resident in Canada was served in 
 London with a writ in an English action. Ho 
 applied for a commission to takchis own evidence 
 in Canada. His presence in London had not been 
 for the purpose of defending tlie action : — 
 
 Sdd, that he was entitled to the commission, 
 and was not bound to attend the trial personally. 
 New v. Bdbns - — C. Af [1894] W. N. 196 
 
 29. — Company — Reduction of capital. 
 
 (a) On a petition for reduction of the capital 
 of a CO., evidence is required that the meetings 
 at which tho necessary resolutions were passed 
 and confirmed were properly convened. In re 
 Leioebteb Mortgage Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 108 
 
 (b) a copy of the memorandum aud articles 
 and of the minute-book of the proceedings at 
 general meetings should be exhibited, and where 
 reduction is to be effected by cancelling paid-up 
 capital it must be proved that the shares to be 
 cancelled were issued under a contract duly filed. 
 In re Omnium Investment Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] 2 Ch. 127 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Com- 
 pany — Winding-up. 
 
 — Company in liquidation. 
 
 See Company — Wisding-up — Examina- 
 tion of Witnesses, 
 
 30. — Conduct money — Judgment debtor — 
 Examination — R. S. C, Order XLll., r. 32 ; Order 
 
( 779 ) 
 
 EVIDENCE— eonWnuec?. 
 
 XXXVII., r. 9; Order lAl., r. 4; Order Lxx., 
 
 r. \. 
 
 Order xxxvn., r. 9, does not apply to the case 
 of a judgment debtor brought up under Order 
 XLn., r. 32, for examination in chambers as to 
 his property or means of satisfying the judgment. 
 He is only entitled to what, under the circum- 
 stances, is a reasonable sum for conduct money, 
 and the Court will not interfere with the master's 
 exercise of his discretion as to what ia reasonable. 
 Kendbxl v. Grtjitdt - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 16 
 
 — Contract to carry — Passenger — Ticket — Con- 
 
 ditions. 
 
 See Caeeiee. 1. 
 
 — Copyright — Infringement. 
 
 See CoPTKiSBT — Infringement. 
 
 31. — CoTTohoration — Eeidence Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Vict. 0. 68), s. 2. 
 
 Silence ia not evidence of an admission, unless 
 there are ciroumBtanoes which render it more 
 reasonably probable that a man would answer 
 the charge made against him than that he would 
 not. Fer Bowen L.J. in Wledbmann- v. Wal- 
 POlE - C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 534, at 639 
 
 32. — Corrdboraiion— Extradition Act, 1870 
 (33 & 34 Vict. 0. 52), s. S, subs. 1. 
 
 Absence of corroboration of the evidence of 
 an accomplice does not entitle the accused as 
 a matter of law to be acquitted by a jury or not 
 to be committed for trial : per Cave J. In re 
 Meukiee Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q, B. 415, at p. 418 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Costs. 
 
 — Criminal matters. 
 
 See Cases under Ceiminal Law. 
 
 33. — Cross-examination — Documents — Rejec- 
 tion. 
 
 On the trial of an aciion referred to a special 
 referee, a witness in cross-examination was asked 
 if he had any letters relating to the cause of 
 action. He produced a mass of correspondence. 
 Counsel proposed to call for them seriatim, and 
 read each and cross-examine on them. This the 
 referee refused to allow on the ground that it 
 would occupy an inordinate time. Counsel then 
 wished to put the letters in en bloc, have copies, 
 and then examine them at his leisure. This 
 was also refused : — 
 
 Held, that the proper course would have been 
 to ask for an adjournment to examine the corre- 
 spondence, and select what was material. In re 
 Maplin Sands - - C. A. [1894] "W. N. 184 
 
 afErm. Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 141 
 
 34. — Declaration — Evidence — Admission — 
 Consent. 
 
 A declaration of the Court is a judicial act, 
 and should not be made on admissions or by 
 consent, but only when the Court is satisfied 
 by evidence. To save expense such evidence 
 may be produced before the chief clerk, who, 
 without making a certificate, may inform tlie 
 Court if he is satisfied, and iu that case the order 
 may go. Williasis v. Powell 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W, H. Hi 
 
 — Diary of deceased's solicitor. 
 
 S'-e iA'o.s. G, 7, abnre. 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 780 ) 
 
 EVIDENCE— co«f2'»«ed. 
 
 — Divorce practice. 
 
 See Cases under DivOECE. 
 
 35. — Dormant funds — Supreme Court Funds 
 Rules, 1886, r. 101. 
 
 Where funds in an action had been dormant 
 since 1872, they were transferred to the trustee 
 in bankruptcy of a person entitled without strict 
 proof of the existence of creditors in a position 
 to be paid. Peatt v. Willis. Gbat v. Willis 
 North, J. [1895] W. N. 9 
 
 — Easement — ^Abandonment of easement. 
 
 See Easement. 1. 
 
 — Escrow — Deed — ^Delivery to one of several 
 
 grantees. 
 
 §ee MOETGAGB. 15. 
 Order XXXVII., rr. 39-52, relate to examiners of 
 the Court. 
 
 36. — Examiner — Limitation of time for com- 
 pletion of examination — R. S. C. 1883, Order 
 XXXVII., rr. 5, 39. 
 
 Kekewich J. stated, that in making an order 
 for examination before an examiner he should 
 limit the time vrithin which the examination 
 must be completed. Gedte v. Pelling 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 44 
 
 37. — Examinei — Special examiner — Country 
 cases — R. S. C. 1883, Order xxxrji. 
 
 The practice of the Court is not to appoint a 
 special examiner even in a country case, where 
 the expense of sending down an examiner of the 
 Court would be" extravagant with reference to 
 the amount in dispute. Application to appoint 
 a commissioner of oaths as special examiner 
 refused. Baddelet v. Bailey 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 56 
 
 — Foreign power of attomoy. 
 
 See Conflict oe Laws. 5. 
 
 38. — ■ Foreign State — Status and boundaries of 
 — Practice — Judicial cognizance — Application to 
 Foreign Office. 
 
 The Court takes judicial cognizance not only 
 of the status, but also of the boundaries of foreign 
 States, and if in doubt will apply for information 
 to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
 whose reply is conclusive. Fostee v. Globe 
 Ventuee Syndicate, Ld. 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 69 ; [1900] 1 Oh. 811 
 
 — Fraud — Solicitor to both parties. 
 
 See MOETGAGE. 15. 
 
 — Frauds, Statute of 
 
 See Cases under Feauds, Statute of. 
 
 — Identity of parcels — Admissibility of parol 
 
 evidence — Statute of Frauds. 
 See Vendoe and Pueohaser. 30. 
 
 — Lease — Agreement for — Signature not final — 
 
 Escrow. 
 
 See Contract — Formation. 15. 
 
 — Memorials by parishioners against a faculty. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty, 32. 
 — • Nuisance. 
 
 See Cases under Xijisance. 
 
 39, — Official referee's report— No motion to 
 vary—R. S. C, 1883, Order xxxvi., r. 54. 
 
 When the official referee has made his report 
 on accounts and inquires directed by judgment. 
 
( 781 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 782 ) 
 
 EVIDENCE— comtinaeA 
 
 and no motion haa been made to vary his report, 
 the Oourt cannot go into the evidence which was 
 before him. In re Fitton. Haebt v. Fitton 
 Stirling J. [1893] W. N. 201 
 
 — Parol — Admissibility — ^Written agreement. 
 
 See New South Wales. 21. 
 
 — Parol — Statute of Frauds — Pureliase as 
 
 trustee. 
 
 See Fbauds, Statute op. 23. 
 
 ~- Prescription — Fishing — Public right — Non- 
 tidal waters. 
 See FisHEBT. 12. 
 
 — Prescription — Pew in chancel — Exclusive 
 
 possession. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Pews. 5G. 
 
 — Presumption^Deed more than thirty years 
 
 old. 
 
 See Powers. 13. 
 
 — Presumption — Eebuttal — Inclosure Act — 
 
 Award. 
 
 See "Watek. 45. 
 
 40. — Presumption of death — Affidavit — Frae- 
 tice — Trdbate Division. 
 
 On an application for leave to depose as to 
 the death of a person who had disappeared, the 
 afadavit of the applicant referred to letters from 
 that person which were not produced or accounted 
 for, and did not explain the delay which had 
 occurred in making the application, and. there 
 •was no corroborative statement or belief of the 
 death : — 
 
 Held, that the hearing must be adjourued for 
 a further and better statement. In the Goods 
 OP Claekb - - Jeune P. [1896] P. 287 
 
 — Presumption of death — Probate practice. 
 
 See Peobate — Presumption of Death. 
 138. 
 
 41. — Privilege — Solicitor and client — -Conver- 
 sation ietween one party and the solicitor of the 
 other — Joint consultations. 
 
 All statements made at joint consultations 
 between parties and their respective solicitors or 
 counsel, even though made by one party to the 
 solicitor or counsel of the other, are privileged : 
 so also is a statement made by one party to the 
 solicitor of the other at an interview between 
 them alone, held at the request of that other 
 party. EooHEroucAULD v. Boustead 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1896] W. W. 74 (2) 
 
 See also upon other points, Rochefoucauld v. 
 Boustead, 0. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 196 ; C. A. [1898] 
 1 Oh. 550. 
 
 — Probate practice. 
 
 See Cases under Pbobate. 
 
 — Production and inspection of documents. 
 
 See Cases under Discovery. 
 
 42. — • Promissory note- 
 ciently stamped. 
 
 A promissory note insufficiently stamped is 
 not admissible in evidence to prove the receipt of 
 the money for which the note was given. Ash- 
 ling V. liooN - Kekewioh J, [1891J 1 Ch. 568 
 
 See Birchall v. Bullough, Div. Ct. [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 325, next Case. 
 
 EVIDENCE— confinMed 
 
 43. — Promissory note — Unstamped document 
 — Cross-examination — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 39), 8. 14, sub-s. 4. 
 
 In an action for money lent, an insufficiently 
 stamped promissory note, purporting to be signed 
 by the deft, and expressed to be given for money 
 lent, was put into the deft.'s hands by the pits.' 
 counsel for the purpose of refreshing his memory 
 and obtaining from him an admission of the 
 loan : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled to use the 
 note for that purpose, notwithstanding the pro- 
 visions of the Stamp Act, 1891, that an instru- 
 ment not duly stamped "shall not be given in 
 evidence or be available for any purpose what- 
 ever." Bieohall v. Bullough 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 325 
 
 — Eectification of deed. 
 
 See Settlement — Eectification. 29. 
 
 — Eeports of Chancery visitors. 
 
 See Lunacy — Practice. 33. 
 
 — Sale of land. 
 
 See Feauds, Statute op. 17, 18. 
 
 — Select vestry — Eesolution of meeting of pew 
 
 renters. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 17i 
 
 — Service by post — Notice. 
 
 See Pkactice — Service. 225. 
 
 — Special damage — Injury to trade. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 30 — 33. 
 
 — Statement of counsel. 
 
 See CoMPEOMisE. 2. 
 
 — Trade-mark — Evidence of intent to deceive. 
 
 See Teade Name. 7. 
 
 — Unstamped documents. 
 
 See Company — Practice. 200. 
 
 — Will — Construction of. 
 
 See Will — Evidence. 83. 
 
 — Will — Execution — Denial by attesting witness. 
 
 See Beemudas. 
 
 — Witness, Attesting — Bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 1. 
 
 44. — Witness — Conduct money — Judgment 
 debtor — Examination. 
 
 See No. 40, above. 
 
 — Witness — Examination of. 
 
 See Ahblteation — Arbitrators. 10. 
 
 45. — ■ Witness — Bight of plaintiff to ecdl de- 
 fendant after deft.'s case closed-. 
 
 After deft.'s case is closed, the pit. will not 
 be allowed to call the deft, as witness, unless 
 there has been some representation by the other 
 side that the deft, would be examined in support 
 of his own case. Baeker v. Fuelong 
 
 Bomer J. [1891] 2 Ch. 172 
 
 46. — Witness called by judge — Bight to cross- 
 examine. 
 
 When a witness is called by the judge 
 neither party has a right to cross-examine with- 
 out leave of the judge. If the evidence is adverse 
 to either party, leave should be given to crosa- 
 examine with reference to his answers, but a 
 general fishing cross-examination should not be 
 allowed. Ooulson v. Disbobough 
 
 C, A. [1894] 2 Q. E. 316 
 
( 783 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 781 ) 
 
 EVIDENCE— coniinuetJ. 
 
 — Scientific witness, fees of. 
 
 See Costs. 
 
 Patent — Practice. 27, 28. 
 
 47. — Witness — Suhpcena — Time — Practice — 
 S. S. a, 1883, Order xxxvii., rr. 26-34. 
 
 Motion fo discharge writs of subpoena served 
 on the ground that they were taken out at such 
 early time and under such circumstances as 
 amounted to an oppressive abuse of the process of 
 the Court. 
 
 North J., without laying down any rule as to 
 the earliest time at which a writ of subpoena 
 should be taken out, considered that in these 
 cases there had been an abuse of the process of 
 the Court, and discharged the writs. He ob- 
 served that a subpoena runs only for the current 
 sittings, and there was no possibility that the 
 trial could take place during the present sittings. 
 London and Globe Fikance Cokpokation -b. 
 Kaufman - - North J. [1899] W. N. 240 
 
 — Witness— Writing to. 
 
 See Contempt of Court. 12. 
 
 EXAMINATION— Arbitration. 
 
 See Abbitkation— Arbitrators. 10. 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Examination. 
 
 — Bankrupt's admissions, par^l evidence of — 
 
 AdmissibiUty. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Evidence. 16. 
 
 — Comp.my practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 
 — WiNDING-rP. 
 
 — Costs — Proof in solemn form — Notice by de- 
 
 fendant of intention to cross-examine 
 
 only. 
 
 .yee Probate. 91. 
 
 — Cross-examination. 
 
 See under Ohoss-examination. 
 
 — Examiner of Court. 
 
 See Evidence. 3G, 37. 
 
 — Lunatic. 
 
 See Lunacy. 
 
 — Of persons other than judgment debtor — 
 
 Inquiry as to separate property. 
 See Husband and Wife. 50. 
 
 — Separate examination — Married woman — 
 
 Practice. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 58. 
 
 — Witness — Conduct-mo;iey. 
 
 See Evidence. 30, 4-1. 
 EXCAVATION — Gas company — Statutory powers 
 — Nuisance — Injunction. 
 See Support. 1. 
 
 — Powers of vestries, &c., to prohibit. 
 
 See London — Streets. 73. 
 
 — Streets — Underground wiies. 
 
 See Canada. G3. 
 13XCEPTED PEEILS. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Exceptions. 
 EXCEPTIONS. 
 
 See Shipping— Exceptions. 
 
 EXCHANGE— Shares- Stamp — Conveyance on 
 sale. 
 
 See Revenue- Stamps. 156. 
 
 EXCHANGE CONTEACTS — Contracts to pay 
 sterling in exchange for silver. 
 /SeeCosTBACT — Construction. 9. 
 
 EXCISE. 
 
 See under Kevbnce. 
 
 EXECTTTION. 
 
 Order XLli., r. 83a, added to [1896] W, N. 
 (Ap. 11), p. 37, confirmed [1896] W. N. (June 6}^ 
 p. 185. See Current Index, 1896, p. It. 
 See Sheriff, passim. 
 
 — Affidavit of — Sworn before solicitor o£ 
 
 grantee — Validity. 
 See Bill of Sale. 9. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Execution. 
 
 — Bill of sale — Sale of goods by sherift. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 48. 
 
 — Company — Winding-up. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Execution. 
 
 — County Court practice. 
 
 See County Coubt — Execution. 
 
 — Date of — Filing copy of bUl of sale and 
 
 affidavit — Validity. 
 See Bill of Sale. 27. 
 
 — Death of judgment debtor — Leave to issue 
 
 execution against executor. 
 See Chabgins Obdek. 2. 
 
 — Debt — Garnishee order, action upon. 
 
 See Attachment. 12. 
 
 — Equitable — Charge on land — Legal remainder 
 
 — Receiver — " Actual delivery in execu- 
 tion." 
 See Judgment Debt. 1. 
 
 — Equitable execution — Receiver. 
 
 See Cases under Receiver. 
 
 — Equitable execution — Receiver — Secured 
 
 creditor. 
 * See Company — Winding-up. 93. 
 
 — Examination of persons other than judgment 
 
 debtor — Inquiry as to Separate property. 
 See Husband and Wife. 50. 
 
 — Foreign action — Injunction. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 92. 
 
 — Goods seized in — Interpleader — Application 
 
 of proceeds of sale. 
 See Interpleader. 8. 
 
 — Goods seized in — Floating security — Eights 
 
 of debenture-holders. 
 
 See Company — ^Debentures. 56. 
 
 — Irish judgment — Debt. 
 
 See Judgment Debt. 4. 
 
 — Judgment — " Action on a contract." 
 
 See Railway — Practice. 39. 
 
 — Judgment recovered in High Court for amount 
 
 of debt — Older made in county court 
 
 for payment by instalments. 
 
 See County Court — Execution. 37. 
 
 — Leave to issue— Order for costs — Delay. 
 
 See Divorce— Costs. 48. 
 
 — Neglect to levy — Action against high bailiff. 
 
 See County Court — Jurisdiction, 54. 
 
 — On property of retired'partner. 
 
 See Pkactioe — Service. 227. 
 
 — Power of attorney — Presumption. 
 
 See Powers of Attorney. 1. 
 
( 785 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 786 5 
 
 EXECUTION— conKnuetJ. 
 
 — Receiver — Appointment of— Priority. 
 
 See Company — Winding-tjp. 93. 
 
 — Receiver — Future earnings. 
 
 See Judgment Debt. 5. 
 
 — Sale of goods claimed by third party — Title. 
 
 See CouNTT CouET — Execution, 38. 
 ' — Seizure of goods in — Interpleader — Payment 
 into court by claimant — Seizure of the 
 goods by another execution creditor. 
 See Interpleadek. 2. 
 
 — Stay — Sufficient cause. 
 
 See County Coukt — Execution. 39. 
 
 — Stay of — Security for costs ordered but not 
 
 given. 
 
 See Costs— Security for Costs. 50. 
 
 — Warrant of — Judgment in rem — Sale of bhip 
 
 — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. 202. 
 
 — Writ of fieri facias — Company winding-up. 
 
 See Company — Windikg-i;p. 94. 
 
 EXECUTION CREDITOR. 
 
 See Cases under Bankeuptcy — Execu- 
 tion. 
 
 — Lunatic — Priority — Maintenance. 
 
 See Lunacy. 19. 
 ■ — Possession of sheriff. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 91. 
 ■ — Sale by sheriif— Sheriff directed to withdraw. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 48. 
 
 ■Execution of process— Assets, commit- 
 ments, and. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Enforce- 
 ment of Orders. 
 
 EXECUTION OF WILL 
 
 See Peobatb — Execution. 
 
 EXECUTOR (EXECUTORS AND ADMINIS- 
 TRATORS). 
 
 Accounts. . See Account. 
 Administration, col. 785. 
 Costs, col. 793. 
 Insolvent Estates, col. 795. 
 Investments, col. 797. 
 Liabilities, col. 797. 
 Poivers, col. 799. 
 Retainer, col. 801. 
 
 Accounts. 
 
 See Cases under Account. 
 
 Administration. 
 
 — Absent parties — Accepting benefit of judg- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Estoppel. 4. 
 
 — Acknowledgment by. one of two executors and 
 
 trustees — Arrears of interest — Mort- 
 gage. 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 2, 3. 
 
 — Administration -Bond. 
 
 See FiiOBATE — Administiatlon Bond. 
 
 — Annuity — Deficiency of assets — Right to pay- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Annuity. 6. 
 
 EXECUTOR (Administration) — continued. 
 
 — Annuity — Insolvent estate — Appropriation of 
 
 capital sum — Married woman — Restraint 
 on anticipation. 
 
 See Annuity. 8. 
 
 1. — Appropriation to provide for deferred 
 legacies. 
 
 The testator by his will gave immediate 
 legacies, and legacies deferred until the death of 
 liis wife. The wife re-married, and lier interest 
 undc-r the will was thereby reduced to the 
 receipt of a life annuity : — 
 
 Held, that the deferred legatees were entitled 
 to have 2i per cent. Consols of a present value 
 equal to the amount of their respective legacies 
 set aside; and that if 2f per cent, were pur- 
 chased, and they were liable to be reduced to 2J 
 per cent., one-tenth more in value should be 
 purchased, ire re Tbedwell. Jeffeay^. Tbbd- 
 WELL (No. 2) - North J. [1891] W, N. 201 
 
 2. ■ — Assent to legacy. 
 
 That an executor has made general payments 
 to or for the benfit of a legatee of leaseholds or 
 other property is not (in tlie absence of represen- 
 tations on the subject by the executor to the 
 legatee) sufficient to enable the Court to infer 
 that the legacy has been assented to. Thoenb v. 
 Thoene Romer J. [1893] 3 Ch. 198 
 
 3. — Attorney — Distribution of estate. 
 Summons in the matter of the estate of T. R. 
 
 who died in England a domiciled Englishman 
 possessed of personal estate situate entirely in 
 England. He died intestate, leaving a widow 
 and children resident abroad. Pit. had obtained 
 letters of administration of the estate of the 
 deceased as attorney for the widow, the deft, to 
 the summons. She haJ not been otherwise con- 
 stituted the legal personal representative of the 
 deceased anywhere. All debts had been paid. 
 The object of the summons was to determine 
 whether the pit. ought to hand over the assets to 
 the widow, his principal, or distribute them 
 himself among the next of kin. 
 
 Held, that the attorney could not take a good 
 discharge from the widow. In re Rendell. 
 Wood v. Rendell 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 257 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy, passim. 
 
 4. — Bankruptcy — Injunction restraining 
 executor from further acting as executor — Juris- 
 diction. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction to restrain an 
 executor who has become bankrupt since the 
 death of the testator from further acting as 
 executor ; and, if there is a co-executor willing 
 to Continue to act, will not require tlie appoint- 
 ment of a receiver. Bowen v. Phillips 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 174 
 
 — Bastardy — Escheated land — Land Transfer 
 
 Act. 
 
 See Pkobatb — Grant of Administration. 
 22. 
 
 5. — Blended funds — Interest on moneys paid 
 out of one Court fund in aid of another. 
 
 An annuity charged on fund No. 1 abated 
 each year when the income of that fund fell 
 
( 787 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 788 ) 
 
 EXECUTOR (Administration)— conii)ii(ei. 
 beneath a certain amount. In the course of 
 administration obligations on fund No. 1 were 
 paid out of the capital of another fund :— 
 
 Seld, that interest at 4 per cent, should be 
 allowed out of the income of fund No. 1 on the 
 amount for the time being owing to fund No. 2. 
 Sybk v. Gladstone North J. [1892] W. N. 178 
 
 — Breach of trust — Liability. 
 
 8ee Cases under Trustee — Breach of 
 Trust. 
 
 — Concurrence of all executors — Land transfer 
 
 — Title — Conveyance. 
 See Vendoe and Pukohasek. 79. 
 ' — Customary obligation to repair — Remedy of 
 lord against tenant's executors. 
 See Copyhold. 3. 
 
 6. — Damages for misrepresentation, claim for 
 — Wrongful act done ly deceased person — Benefit 
 to Ms estate — Unliquidated damages — " Actio 
 personalis moritur cum persona " — Administration 
 action. 
 
 The purchaser from a testator of certain 
 worthless shares in a limited co. claimtd to be 
 entitled to prove in an administration action for 
 damages for misrepresentation against the testa- 
 tor's estate, and assessed his damages at 250Z., 
 the price paid by him for the shares : — 
 
 Held, that where, as here, there was nothing 
 among the assets of the .deceased that at law or 
 in equity belonged to the claimant, and the 
 damages wliich had been done to him were un- 
 liquidated and uncertain, the executors of the 
 wrong-doer could not be sued merely because his 
 estate might have benefited by the wrong com- 
 plained of ; that the damages claimed were none 
 the less unliquidated and uncertain from the fact 
 that the claimant might be able to prove that 
 the measure of his damages was tlie amount of 
 the purchase-money paid for the shares, and 
 that, for these reasons, the claim could not be 
 allowed. In re Dunoan. Teekt v. Sweeting 
 Bomer J. [1899] W. N. 14 (1); 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 387 
 — ■ Death duties. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 — • Death of judgment debtor — Leave to issue 
 
 execution against executor. 
 
 See Chaeging Oedbr. 2. 
 
 7. — Debts, Certificate of — Bes judicata — 
 Scottish judgment — Judgments Extension Act, 1868 
 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 54), s. 3. 
 
 A claimant against an estate obtained a 
 Scottish judgment, and registered it in England 
 under the judgments Extension Act, 1868, and 
 also claimed in the administration. The chief 
 clerk by his final certificate excluded the claim 
 as barred by the Statute of Limitations : — 
 
 Seld, by North J., that the claim was barred 
 by the certificate, and injunction continued 
 restraining the claimant from enforcing his judg- 
 ment : 
 
 Seld, by 0. A., that the claimant was, under 
 the Act of 1868, in the same position as if on the 
 day of re^istiation he had obtained judgment for 
 tho amount in an English Court, and was entitled 
 10 prove in the administration. Order varied by 
 restrainmgthe claimant from enfoicing thejudg- 
 
 EXECUTOE (Administration)— confenuetZ. 
 ment, but admitting him as a creditor in the 
 administration action for the amount of his judg- 
 ment and the costs of registering it. In re Low. 
 Bland v. Low. - - C, A. [1894] 1 Ch. 147 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re 4 Banlcruptoy 
 Notice, [1898], 1 Q. B. 382, 386. 
 
 8. — Debt owing to estate barred by Statute of 
 Limitations. 
 
 A testator who had in his lifetime advanced 
 to three of his sons various sums, taking acknow- 
 ledgments therefor, by his will gave to such sons 
 certain specified freeholds and leaseholds, and 
 also gave them certain shares in his residuary 
 estate. The right of action (if any) in respect of 
 the advances had become barred by the Statute 
 of Limitations : — 
 
 Seld, that the three sons ought to bring int» 
 account, as against their respective shares of the 
 residue, any sums due by them respectively to- 
 the testator at the day of his death, with interest 
 at 4 per cent, from that date : — 
 
 Held, also, that the sons were entitled to the 
 properties specifically given to them, without 
 making good^what (if anything) they owed to the 
 testator's estate. In re Akeeman. Akeeman v. 
 Akbrman - Kekewioh J, [1891] 8 Ch. 213 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Watson, 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 925, 931. 
 
 Referred to by Stirliug J. In re Goy & Go.f 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 149, 153. 
 
 — Debts — Order in which funds applied in pay- 
 
 ment of — Power of appointment. 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 24. 
 
 9. — Debts — Pecuniary legatee — Marshalling 
 — Beai estate charged with dehts. 
 
 A testator bequeathed a pecuniary legacy to 
 his son B. The personal estate was insufficient 
 to pay the legacy in full after payment of debts 
 and funeral and testamentary expenses: — 
 
 Held, that B. was entitled to have the assets- 
 marshalled so as to stand in the place of creditors 
 against the real estate so far as the debts, funeral 
 and testamentary expenses had been paid out of 
 the personalty. In re Salt. Beothwood v. 
 Keeling ■ - Chitty J. [1895] 2 Ch. 203 
 
 — Debts chargeable on foreign assets — ^Probate. 
 
 See VioTOEiA. 11. 
 
 — De son tort — Liability to pay probate duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Probate Duty. 134. 
 
 — Devastavit — Breach of trust — Belief from 
 
 liability. 
 
 See Trustee— Breach of Trust. 25—27. 
 
 — Documents in solicitor's possession before 
 
 action — Third parties — Right to pro- 
 duction. 
 See SoLicrroE — ^Lien. 97. 
 
 — Escheat to Crown— Proceeds of sale of realty 
 
 not disposed of. 
 Sec Escheat. 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 — r.X'joutor — AbwJute K'ft subject to executory 
 
 limitation — Reversionary interest — Con- 
 version — Enjoyment in specie. 
 See AViLL— Absolute Gift. 10. 
 
( 789 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 790 ) 
 
 £X£C1JI0B (Administration) — continued. 
 
 — Exoneration of real estate — Locke King's Act 
 
 — " Contrary intention." 
 
 See Cases under Will — Exoneration. 
 
 — Guilty of devastavit — Breach of trust — Court's 
 
 power to excuse. 
 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 25, 26. 
 
 10. — Foreign land — Trusts for sale — Devise 
 on trusts void under foreign law. 
 
 "Where a testator devises lands situate in a 
 foreign country on trusts void under the foreign 
 law and there is a trust for sale valid under that 
 law, the trustees must hold the proceeds of sale 
 upon the trusts declared by the will. Until sale 
 the proceeds of the unsold land devolve in accor- 
 dance with the foreign law. In re Pierot. 
 "Whitwham v. Pieboy North J. [1895] 1 Ch. 83 
 
 11. — Form of judgment — Special inquiries. 
 The business of a testator whose estate was 
 
 the subject of an administration action had been 
 carried on by the executors after his death, and 
 creditors of the business so carried on took out an 
 originating summons and asked that special 
 inquiries might be directed. The Court refused 
 the application. In re Bach. Walker v. Bach. 
 Llotd's Bank v. Bach 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 108 
 
 12. — Identity of executor — Ambiguity — Ex- 
 trinsic evidence. 
 
 (a) Where there is ambiguity as to the 
 identity of an executor, evidence of sun-ounding 
 circumstances is admissible to clear up that 
 ambiguity : — 
 
 Semble, that evidence of declarations by the 
 testator is not admissible in such a case. In the 
 Goods op Chappell - Jeune J. [1894] P. 98 
 
 (b) In the Goods op Ashton 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 83 
 
 13. — Land situate in foreign country — Trust 
 for sale — Devise on trusts void under foreign law. 
 
 Where a testator devises lands situate in 
 Italy on trusts void under the Italian law, and 
 there is a trust for sale valid under that law, the 
 trustees must hold the proceeds of the sale upon 
 the trusts declared by the will. The rents of the 
 unsold land till sale devolve in accordance with 
 Italian law. In re Piebct. Whitwham v. 
 PiEBCT - North J. [1895] 1 Ch. 83 
 
 14. — General and special — " Personal repre- 
 sentatives" of surviving trustee — Appointment of 
 special and general executors hy will of surviving 
 truelee — Conveyancing and Laio of Property Act, 
 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 31. 
 
 Sect. 31 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, does 
 not authorize an appointment of trastees in con- 
 tinuation to himself by a sole surviving trustee 
 by his will. The persons in possession of a 
 general grant of probate of the will of a surviving 
 trustee are his " personal representatives " within 
 B. 31 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, and their 
 deed of appointment of new trustees is valid, 
 notwithstanding the appointment of special 
 executors In that behalf and their subsequently 
 obtaining a limited grant of probate. In re 
 Pakker s Trusts Kekewich J. [1894] 1 Ch, 707 
 
 — Grant of administration. 
 
 See Probate— Grant of Administration. 
 
 EXECUTOR (Administration)— cojifo'rjtjed:. 
 
 — Heirlooms. 
 
 See Cases under Heirlooms. 
 
 — Heii'looms— Tapestry. 
 
 See Fixtures. 4. 
 
 15. — Infant — Legacy to infant appointed! 
 executor — Interest. i 
 
 A legacy to an infant appointed executor does 
 not carry interest until the infant attains twenty- 
 one and acts as executor. In re Gardner. Long v. 
 Gardner (No. 1) - North J. [1892] W. N. 164 
 
 — Insolvent estate. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Judicial trustee — Appointment — Application 
 
 by beneficiary — Sole executor — Discre- 
 tion of Court. 
 See Trustee — Judicial Trustees. 72. 
 
 16. — Legatees adopting creditor's action. 
 Where a creditor's action has been brought. 
 
 for the administration of the estate of a testator 
 or intestate, the legatees or next of kin cannot; 
 avail themselves of that action for the purpose of 
 obtaining administration and distribution of the 
 surplus of the estate, even though the creditor i» 
 willing to give up the conduct of the action 
 through his interest in it having ceased. In such 
 a case the proper course is — as under the old 
 practice — for the legatees or next of kin to com- 
 mence a fresh action for administration, the pro- 
 ceedings in the creditor's action being stayed. 
 In re Ainsworth. Cockcbopt v. Sanderson 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 153 (9). 
 
 17. — Liability of real estate for payment of 
 debts and legacies — Exoneration of personal estate. 
 
 Land belonging to a tenant in tail in posses- 
 sion was delivered in execution under a writ of 
 elegit. The judgment debtor died, and gave no- 
 direction exonerating his personal estate from the 
 debt. 
 
 Held, that Lock6 King's Acts were not appli- 
 cable, and that the judgment debt was not. 
 chargeable on the land in exoneration of the- 
 personal estate. In re Anthony. Anthony v^ 
 Anthony (No. 2) Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 498 
 
 — Locke King's Acts — Exoneration of real estate- 
 
 — Exoneration of personal estate. 
 See Cases under Will — Exoneration. 
 
 18. — Loclie King's Acts — Vendor's lien — - 
 Building agreement. 
 
 A building agreement provided for leases 
 with ground-rents up to 1801. a year; and, at- 
 tlie option of the lessor, for further leases on 
 payment by her of twenty-two years' pui'chase of 
 the further ground-rents. The lessor executed 
 the option, and died before completion : — 
 
 Meld, that her devisees took the land included 
 in the agreement subject to discharging the 
 amount payable in respect of the further leases. 
 In re Kidd. Bbooman v. Withall 
 
 North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 55& 
 
 — Lunacy practice. 
 
 , See Cases under Lunacy. 
 
 . 19. — Moneys representing specific legacy- 
 Debt owing to estate. 
 
 Where a debtor to a testator's estate is a 
 specific legatee of the profits of a business repre- 
 sented by moneys in the hands of the executors^ 
 
( 791 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 190D. 
 
 ( 792 ) 
 
 'EX'ECVTOB.{MmmistiSitlony— continued. 
 
 tliey may retain such moneys as against llie debt. 
 
 In re Taylor. Taylor v. Wade 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 671 
 20. — Mortgage debt — " Contrary intention " — 
 Exoneration— Lodce King's Act, 1854 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 113). 
 
 A direction to pay out of a specified fund " all 
 -and every liability which he (testator) might 
 have incurred during life or that might remain 
 'unpaid at his death" held not to exonerate 
 certain realty specifically devised from a mortgage 
 thereon. In re Hoopeb. Ashfokd v. Bbooks 
 
 Kekewicli J. [1892] W. N. 151 
 
 — Mortgagee in possession — Specific devise by 
 
 executor beneficially entitled, to mort- 
 . gage debt. 
 See Will — Specific Devise. 197. 
 
 — Not express trustee for next of kin — Title of 
 
 heir-at-law and next of kin barred by 
 Statute of Limitations. 
 See Chakity. 47. 
 
 — Notice to, of calls. 
 See ConPANY- 
 
 -CaUs. 9. 
 
 — Personalty left to executor — Probate duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Probate Duty. 
 
 81. — Practice — Adding as parties — Suit — 
 It. S. a, 1883, Order .xv/., r. 11 ; Order AJ.r///., 
 T. 11 Order xi.i., r. 3. 
 
 (a) In a beneficiary's action for administra- 
 tion of an estate, after judgment was passed and 
 entered, in the course of inquiries in chambers it 
 was found that an executor who liad not proved 
 at first had come in and proved. The pit. moved 
 to amend pleadings and judgment by adding the 
 ■executor as deft. : — 
 
 Held, that the better course was to order that 
 the executor submitting to be bound as if origi- 
 nally joined, further proceedings should be 
 ■carried on against him as if he had been an 
 original deft. In re Dkaocp. Field -b. Dkaoop 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 43 
 
 (b) In an action for general account against 
 a surviving executor and trustee, it is not neoes- 
 eary that the representative of a deceased trustee 
 or executor should be made a party by the pit. 
 There is power (o add such representative under 
 -Order xvi., rr. 11, 48, if the deft, requires it, and 
 the circumstances of the case render it advisable. 
 In re Harrison. Smith v. Allen 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 22. — Practice — Administration action — 
 
 Plaintiff in representative capacity — Action on 
 
 T)ehalf of all creditors — Title of action — li. S. C, 
 
 1883, Order in., r. 4. 
 
 If the writ in a creditor's action for the ad- 
 ministration of real and personal estate does not 
 show that the pit. is suing on behalf of all the 
 xither creditors of the deceased, this fact ought to 
 appear in the title of the statement of claim, and 
 not merely in the body thereof. 
 
 Eyre v. Cox, (1876) 24 W. R. 317, explained. 
 ■In re Tottenham. Tottenham v. Tottenham 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 628 
 
 — Tractice— Parties. 
 
 Hee Practice— Parties. 78, 86, 91—94, 
 114—117. 
 
 EXECUTOE (Administration)— cowiratteii. 
 
 23. — Practice — Payment of sums under 101. 
 
 In view of the present facilities for trans- 
 mitting money through the post office and 
 otherwise, in future no exception will be made 
 in the case of small sums from the general 
 practice, and such sums will not in future be 
 paid to the solicitor of the pits, as formerly. In 
 re Bell. Bell v. Bell 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 9 
 
 — Probate Duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Probate 
 Duty. 
 
 — Probate of will. 
 
 See Cases under Peobate. 
 
 — Receiver — -Appoinfment of. 
 
 See Cases under Reoeivee. 
 
 — Revocation of administration. 
 
 See Probate — Hevocation of Adminis- 
 traticn. 
 
 24. — Practice — Secured creditor — Proof — 
 Interest — Rules of administration — Judicature 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), ». 10. 
 
 In an action to administer an insolvent estate, 
 a secured creditor realised his security and proved 
 for the balance of his debt; the debts proved 
 were paid in full : — 
 
 Held, that a question between that creditor 
 
 and the general creditors os to interest was not 
 
 governed by the rules in bankruptcy. In re 
 
 Henley. Alcock v. Henley - North J. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (6) 
 
 — Practice — Set-off — Mutual dealings. 
 
 See Bankktjptcy — Set-off. 236. 
 
 25. — Preference — Specialty and simple con- 
 tract debts — Administration of Estates Act, 1869 
 (^Hinde Palmer's Act, 32 & 33 Vict. u. 46). 
 
 Simple contract debts cannot be paid in pre- 
 ference to specialty debts in the case of an 
 insolvent estate. In re Hakkey. Cunlifpe 
 Smith v. Hankey North J. [1899] W. N. 10 (1) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 541 
 
 26. — Priorities of equitable interests — Notice 
 — Executor-legatee — Equitable assets — Mortgage. 
 
 The rule — that a purchaser for value, of an 
 asset of the testator, from an executor who is also 
 residuary legatee, acquires a title free from the 
 claims of unsatisfied creditors of the testator, if 
 the purchaser took without notice of the unsatis- 
 fied debts or of anything which made it improper 
 for the executor so to deal with tho asset — 
 applies in the case of equitable as well as legal 
 assets; provided that neither the executor nor 
 the Court administering the testator's estate still 
 retain control over the asset, as, e.g., in Noble 
 V. Brett (1858), 24 Beuv. 499, and Hooper v. Smart 
 (1875), 1 Ch. p. 90. 
 
 In 18/8 the registered holder of ry. stocks 
 cjvenantcd to pay an annuity to the trustees of a 
 settlement during the joint lives of himself and 
 liis wife and the life of the survivor. In 1882 he 
 died having bequeathed all his property to his 
 widow, aud appointed her his executrix. The 
 widow proved the will, and by various deeds 
 from 1886 to 1892 transferred the stocks to her 
 bankers to secure a debt of her own. In Dec, 
 1892, the widow gave an equitable charge on 
 the stocks to the pit. to secuie advances made 
 
( 793 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 791 ) 
 
 EXECTTTOB (Administration) — continued. 
 to her. Neither the bankers nor the pit. when 
 taking their respective securities had knowledge 
 or notice that any debt of the testator remained 
 nnpaid, or that the widow was not entitled to 
 deal with the stocks as she did, and the pit., 
 before he had notice that there was any indebted- 
 ness of the testator, gave notice of his charge to 
 Ihe bankers. The bankers sold the stocks, and, 
 having retained the amount owing to them, paid 
 the balance into court : — 
 
 Held, that the plt.'s charge on the balance 
 had priority over the claims of the settlement 
 trustees. Geaham v. Dkummond 
 
 Eomer J. [1896] 1 Ch. 968 
 
 — Probate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Prohate 
 Duty. 
 
 — Sale of leaseholds by — Title. 
 
 See Vendok and Purchasek— Title. 84. 
 
 27. — Scottish testator — ■ English and Scotch 
 realty — Annuities — Charitable lepacies. 
 
 A domiciled Scotsman by his will left his 
 whole estate, real and personal, on trust, after 
 paying debts and certain legacies and annuities, 
 &c. for divers charitable institutions, and directed 
 that his affairs should be administered according 
 to the law of S. He left English and Scottish 
 realty, and sufficient personalty to satisfy all 
 debts, legacies and annuities, &c. It was con- 
 ceded that the charitable gifts, so far as payable 
 out of Englisli realty were void. By Scottish 
 law debts, testamentary and funeral expenses, 
 and legacies are a primary charge on moveable 
 or personal estate, and annuities are a primary 
 charge on heritable or real estate : — 
 
 Held, that the Scottish law applied and the 
 annuities must be borne by the English and 
 Scottish realty rateably. In re Hewit. Lawson 
 V. Duncan - Eomer, J. [1891] 3 Ch. 568 
 
 — Trustee. 
 
 See Cases under Tbustee. 
 
 — Valuation of testator's estate — Bank shares. 
 
 See Victoria. 13. 
 
 — Vouching accounts. 
 
 See Account. 7. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 28. — Account duty — Costs — Successiveappoint' 
 merits. 
 
 Where a person having a life interest and 
 power of appointment, exercised it successively 
 by deeds and will. 
 
 Held, that the account duty and costs of 
 administration were payable out of the several 
 sums appointed rateably. In re Shaw. Tucket 
 V. Shaw - North J. [1895] 1 Oh. 343 
 
 29. — Accounts — Administration action — Ad- 
 ministrator —Hisalloiced claim — Balances — Pay- 
 ment into court— Interest — Next of Itin — Unsuccess- 
 ful prolate action — Distribution — Setting of 
 administrator's costs — Assignees, rights of. 
 
 An administrator is entitled to his costs of an 
 administrutioii action even though the action 
 has been caused by a claim by him for the allow- 
 ance of certain payments made by him out of 
 the estate and subsequently disallowed in his 
 accounts In the action ; provided the claim was 
 
 EXECIJTOE (Costs) — continued. 
 made under an honest mistake, and was neither 
 fraudulent nor monstrous. Nor, if he complies' 
 with an order for payment into court of the- 
 balance representing the payments so disallowed, 
 is he, in the absence of special circumstances, 
 chargeable with interest thereon. 
 
 By the judgment in a probate action, unauo- 
 cessfully brought by two of the children and next 
 of kin of a father who had died leaving a will, 
 against the executor for revocation of the probate, 
 the defendant's costs were ordered to be taxed 
 and to be paid by the pits. Subsequently, in an. 
 actlon for adrainistratio]i of the estate of the 
 mother, who had died intestate, the defendant, 
 her administrator, who was the same person aa 
 the executor of the father, paid into court in that, 
 action a balance which had been found due from 
 him in taking the accounts. On a summons in 
 that action for the distribution of that balance 
 among the several persons entitled to the intes- 
 tate's estate, two of whom were the assignees of 
 the shares of the two next of kin pits, in the 
 probate action :^ 
 
 Held, that the deft, was entitled to set off his 
 costs of the probate action, which had been taxed 
 but not yet paid, against the shares of the two 
 assignees, whose assignments were dated one- 
 before and the other after the judgment in the 
 probate action ; — 
 
 Taylor v. Tayl<»; (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 155, 
 followed. In re Oones. Gheistmas d. Jones 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 30. — Apportionment of costs — Real and per- 
 sonal estate — " Testamentary expenses." 
 
 A testatrix provided that in ease the proceeds- 
 of her real and leasehold property (except certain 
 specified houses being her only realty) should 
 be insufficient to pay her debts, funeral and 
 teslamentary expenses and legacies, the deficiency 
 should be payable out of her personal estate. 
 Judgment having been given for the administra- 
 tion of the real and personal estate : — 
 
 Held, on further consideration, that, notwith- 
 standing the direction in the will as to the- 
 payment of testamentary expenses, the costs of 
 the action must, so far as they had been increased, 
 by the administration of the real estate, be borne- 
 by that estate. In re Copland 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 137 (1) 
 
 — Claim by widow — Costs— Postponements. 
 
 See Executos — Insolvent Estates. 34. 
 
 — Costs of severance— Trustees — Allowance of 
 
 two counsel — Taxation. 
 See Trustee — Costs. 45. 
 
 — Disallowance of costs — Extravagant litigation. 
 
 See Costs — Administration. 5. 
 
 — Discretion of registrar — Insolvency of estate. 
 
 See County Couet. 22. 
 
 — Interest on — " Person liable." 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 50. 
 
 31. — Jurisdiction — Trustee — Personal profit. ' 
 Under an order made on further consideration 
 
 in an administration action costs were paid to' 
 solicitors in the action. They paid over half the 
 profit costs to a solicitor trustee, one of the defts. 
 in the action : — 
 
 Held, that there was no jurisliction on. 
 
( 795 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 796 ) 
 
 IXECTTTOE CCoste)— continued. 
 eummons in the action to order the deft, trustee 
 to pay into court the amount of profit costs paid 
 to him. In re Thoepe. Vipont v. Kadolitfe 
 
 North J. [1891] a Ch. 360 
 
 32. — Practice — Seal estate — Personal repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 Upon the further consideration of a creditors' 
 action for the administration of a testator's real 
 and personal estate, the executrix, who was a 
 deft, asked that her costs as between solicitor 
 and client and her proper charges and expenses 
 might be paid out of moneys representing pro- 
 ceeds of sale of real estate. 
 
 The personal estate available for payment of 
 ■debts was wholly insufficient, but it appeared 
 from the master's certificate that the executrix 
 had received, and properly accounted for per- 
 sonal estate to a considerable amount : — 
 
 Held that, to the extent of the amount of 
 personal estate so received and accounted for by 
 the executrix, she was entitled to be indemnified 
 and paid her solicitor and client costs and charges 
 and expenses out of the proceeds of sale of the 
 realty, but that the balance of her costs, if any, 
 would be payable as between party and party out 
 of the proceeds of sale of real estate. M re 
 Haebys. Haebys v. Howells 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 147 
 
 — Severance in defence — Eight of appeal. 
 
 See Costs — Severance. 66. 
 • — Solicitor — Costs — Foreign documents — Trans- 
 lations. 
 See SoLiciTOB — Costs. 47. 
 
 — Solicitor-executor — Profit costs — Power to 
 
 charge — Insolvent estate. 
 
 See SoLiciTOB — Solicitor Trustee. 134. 
 
 33. — Specific legacy — Costs of realization — 
 Mesiduary estate. 
 
 Where reasonable costs were incurred in 
 Tealising a speoifloally bequeathed mortgage 
 -debt in India, and had been deducted from the 
 amount received by the Indian attorney of the 
 English exors. : — 
 
 Seld, that these were properly chargeable by 
 ■exors. against the residuary estate, and that the 
 ■specific legatee was entitled to be reimbursed out 
 of the residue. Inre'&nams. Hood o. Hall 
 
 CMtty J. [1893] W. N. 161 
 
 Insolvent Estates. 
 
 ■" 34. — Claim of widow — Costs — Postponement 
 —Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), s. 10 
 — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Tict. c. 75), s. 3. 
 
 In determining whether the estate of a 
 ■deceased person is insolvent the costs of adminis- 
 tration must be taken into account. By the 
 ■combined effect of s. 10 of the Judicature Act, 
 1875, and of s. 3 of the Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882, the claim of a widow for a 
 ■debt due from the insolvent estate of her husband 
 is postponed to the claims of the other creditors. 
 In re Leng. Takn v. Bmmeeson - C. A. [1895] 
 
 1 Ch. 652 
 See next Case. 
 
 36, . — Creditors — Priorities — Voluntary dM 
 Priorities— Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. 
 
 EXECUTOB (Insolvent Estates)— conimMed. 
 
 c. 77), 8. 10— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 
 c. 52), s. 40, sub-s. 4. 
 
 The effect of s. 10 of the Judicature Act, 
 1875, is to introduce into. the administration of 
 the estates of deceased insolvents by the Ch. 
 Div. the rule in bankruptcy that voluntary 
 creditors are to be paid pari passu ■with creditors 
 for value. 
 
 Decision of Cozens-Hardy J., [1900] W. N. 
 175 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 676, affirmed. In re Maggi, 
 (1882) 20 Ch. D. 545. and Smith v. Morgan, 
 (1880) 5 C. P. D. 337, disapproved. In re 
 Whitakee. Whitakek v. Palmee 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 239 ; see [1901] 1 Ch. 9 
 
 36. ■ — Executor — Siglit of retainer — Hinde 
 Palmer's Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 46). 
 
 A. died leaving an estate of 4700Z. and owing 
 to B. his executrix a specialty debt of 1937Z., as 
 also a simple contract debt of 1146Z. and owing 
 a specialty debt of YliSl. to C, and other simple 
 contract debts amounting to 7854Z. : — 
 
 HeM, that B. first took her specialty debt in 
 full, that the balance would then be apportioned 
 in the proportions of 1745Z. to 9000Z. (the total 
 amount of simple contract debts), that C. would 
 take the whole amount apportioned to specialty 
 debts, and that B. would retain her simple 
 contract debt in full out of the amount appor- 
 tioned to simple contract debts, and the re- 
 mainder would go among the simple contract 
 creditors. In, re Beiggs. Eaep v. Beiggs 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] W. N. 162 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. In re Beniinck, [1897] 
 1 Ch. 673. 
 
 Keferred to by North J. In re Banltey, 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 541, 543. 
 
 — Insolvent testator — Debt due to executor — 
 Ketainer in specie. 
 See Bankeupct — ^Retainer. 219. 
 
 37. — Priority — Bates — Preferential Payments 
 in Bankruptcy Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 62), 
 s. 1, sul-s. 6 ; s. 3— Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 77), s. 10. 
 
 The priority as to rates and wages conferred 
 by the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1888, applies in the case of a deceased insol- 
 vent whose estate is being administered in the 
 Chancery Division where the date of his death 
 occurs after the commencement of the Act, 
 Dictum of Liadley L.J. in In re Leng, [1895] 
 1 Ch. 652, 656, approved and followed. In re 
 Hetwood. Paekington v. Heywood 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 693 
 
 Eeferred to Cozens-Hardv- In re Whitaker, 
 C. A. [1901] 1 Ch. 9. 
 
 38. — Specialty and simple contract debts — 
 Crown debt — Priority — Administration of assets — 
 Sinde Palmer's Act (32 & 33 Vict. c. 46). 
 
 A testator died insolvent after 1870 owing 
 specialty and simple contract debts, including a 
 simple contract debt to the Crown. The assets 
 were more than sufficient for payment of the 
 Crown debt after satisfying the specialty debts : — 
 
 Held, having regard to 32 & 33 Vict. c. 46, 
 that the assets ought first to be apportioned rate- 
 ably between the specialty and simple contract 
 debts, and that the Crown debt ought then to be 
 
( 797 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 798 ) 
 
 HXECTITOR (Insolvent -Estates}— continued. 
 taken out of the amount apportioned to the simple 
 ■contract debts. 
 
 The principle of Wilson v. Coxwell, (1883) 23 
 •Cb. D. 764, In re Jones, (1885) 31 Ch. D. 440, and 
 In re Briggs, [1894] W. N. 162, applied. 
 
 In re Williains' Estate, (1872) L. E. 15 Eq. 270, 
 ■distinguished. In re Bbntinok. Bentinck v. 
 Bentinok - - Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 673 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Sanlcey, 
 C1899] 1 Ch. 541, 543. 
 
 Investments. 
 
 39. — Settlement — Investment — Lord St. 
 Leonards' Act, 1860 (23 * 24 Vict. c. 38), «. 10— 
 B. S. a, 1883, Order xxii., r. 17. 
 
 The Court will not invest trust funds in 
 «ecurities prohibited by the settlor. 
 
 In re Wedderbum's Trusts, (1878) 9 Oh. D. 
 112, not followed. Ovet v. Ovet. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] 2 Ch. 524 
 — Trustee. 
 
 See Cases under Trustee — Investments. 
 
 Liabilities. 
 
 40. — Action against executor who lias not 
 iproved — Fiscal sale of testator's property. 
 
 A creditor of a testator cannot sue a person 
 named in the will as executor, unless he has 
 either administered or obtained a grant of pro- 
 foate ; and a sale in execution of a judgment ia 
 «uch an action does not bind the testator's estate. 
 
 An order for probate without an actual grant 
 does not prove the will or shew an acceptance of 
 the trusts of the will by the executor. Letters 
 ■of administration, even if irregularly granted, 
 are valid till revoked. Mohamidti MoHiDEEtf 
 Hadjiae v. Pitchey - P. C. [1894] A. C. 437 
 
 41. — Breach of duty — Wilful default — Omis- 
 Mon to enahle secured creditor to realise his security 
 — Loss of interest — Action hy residuary legatee — 
 Will— -Neglect to t&Jce out probate. 
 
 The executors appointed by a testator did not 
 prove the will until nearly seven years after his 
 ■death. Part of the testator's estate consisted of 
 moneys payable under a policy of insurance on 
 the life of the testator, which he bad equitably 
 mortgaged to his bankers as security for a larger 
 amount. The insurance society would not pay 
 ■over the moneys without production of the pro- 
 bate, and for nearly seven years the executors 
 paid the bankers or their transferee out of the 
 ■estate interest at 5 per cent, on their debt. 
 
 After production of the probate the insurance 
 ■CO. paid over the policy moneys to the bankers' 
 transferee, together with interest at 1 per cent, 
 per annum from the time when such moneys 
 became payable ; and the difference between the 
 interest thus received and paid was 1511. 14s. 8d. 
 
 The executors never had sufficient assets in 
 their hands to pay all the testator's debts ; and 
 it was 
 
 Held, that the executors could not be ordered 
 to account on the footing of wilful default or 
 breach of diity by reason of this loss of interest to 
 the estate. 
 
 Per Ohitty L.J. : On taking the common 
 ■accounts of their receipts, executors can properly 
 
 EXECUTOB (liabilities)— comfmued 
 
 be, and often are, charged with a devastavit 
 
 arising on the accounts themselves. 
 
 Fer V. Williams L.J. : No action would lie 
 for neglect to take out probate, and the plt.'s 
 only remedy would be by citing the executor in 
 the Probate Div. 
 
 The decision of North J., [1897] 1 Ch. 422, 
 affirmed. In re Stevens. Cooke v. Stevens. 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N, 175 (7); [1898] 1 Ch. 162 
 
 42. — Co-executor — Liability for default of — 
 Putting assets into sole control of one executor — 
 Unnecessary act. 
 
 An executor who does an act by which his 
 co-executor obtains sole possession of assets of the 
 testator is only liable for misapplication by his 
 co-executor if the act was " unnecessary." Such 
 an act is not unnecessary if done in the regular 
 course of business. A. made his wife B., J., and 
 C. his executors. A. was the registered holder 
 of certain American ry. shares; these shares 
 could either be sold as registered shares or be 
 unregistered and then sold as shares to bearer ; 
 the latter was the ordinary course of business. 
 J. requested B. and C. to unregister the shares. 
 This was done. J. misappropriated part of the 
 proceeds, and absconded within eleven months of 
 A.'s death ; — 
 
 Held, (1.) that unregistering the bonds and 
 handing them to J. to sell were not " unnecessary" 
 acts, and that B. and 0. were not liable for J.'s 
 misappropriation ; (2.) that as J. was trusted by 
 A., and as B. and C. had no reason to suspect 
 him, there had been no such delay in calling 
 upon J. for an aooount as to make B. and C. 
 liable. In re Gasquoine. Gasquoine v. Gas- 
 QUOINE - - - C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 470 
 
 48a. — Duties and liabilities — Inquiry as to 
 his testator's transactions. 
 
 It is no part of an executor's duties to inquire 
 into transactions of his testator twenty years 
 before his death. Alliott v. Smith 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. Ill 
 
 — Highway repairs — Liability for. 
 
 See Highway — Bepairs. 16. 
 
 — Mistake in payment of probate duty. 
 
 See Eevenue— Probate Duty. 133. 
 
 43. — Payment of liabilities — Transfer of 
 shares— Lien of company — Priority. 
 
 An executrix of an estate which was indebted 
 to a CO. sold shares therein to P. A dividend 
 was declared on the shares, and subsequently P. 
 registered the transfer. The co., in exercise of 
 their lien, appropriated the dividend to satisfy 
 the executrix's debt : — 
 
 Held, that P. could stand in the position of 
 the CO. as creditor, but had no priority. In re 
 Maomukdo. Penfield v. Maomuedo 
 
 North J. [1892] W. IT. 73 
 
 44. — Statute-Barred debt — Payment — Lia- 
 
 Though as a general rule an executor may 
 pay a statute-barred debt, he may not pay such a 
 debt when it has been judicially declared to be 
 statute-barred. Whether an executor may pay a 
 statute-barred debt against the declared wish of 
 his co-executor, qusere. 
 
 An executor against the wish of his co-executor 
 
( 799 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 800 ) 
 
 EXECTJTOE(I,iabUitieB)— conirawcd. 
 paid a debt which bad been declared, on an ad- 
 ministration summons, to be etatnte-birred:— 
 
 Held, that both he and the payee -who had 
 received the money tlirough the wrongful act of 
 her agent, and that agent who had notice of all 
 the Jacts, were liable to refund. M:dgeley v 
 MiDGELEY - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 282 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Budqett v. 
 Budgett, [1895] 1 Ch. 202, 215. 
 
 45. — Statute of Limitations — Originating 
 summons. 
 
 A residuary legatee has a riglit to compel an 
 executor to plead the statute against an old 
 claim, and may enforce the right on an origina- 
 ting summons. 
 
 Objects of procedure under Order i.r. rr. 3, 4, 
 
 considered. In re Wenham. Hunt v. Wesham 
 
 North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 59 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Budqett v. 
 Budgett, [1895] 1 Ch. 202, 217. 
 
 Powers. 
 
 46. — Appropriation of assets — Residue. 
 Executors may appropriate specific assets to a 
 
 trust share of residue, or transfer them to the 
 legatee of a share, in advance of final division. 
 
 Executors entitled to two-fifths of a residue, 
 the other three-fifths being settled, before final 
 division transferred securities, since risen in 
 value, at the market price, to one of themselves 
 as part of his fifth share : — 
 
 Held, that, though there was no corresponding 
 appropriation in respect of the settled shares, the 
 transaction was valid against the beneficiaries. 
 In re Riohaedson. Morgan v. Eiohakdson 
 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 512 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Nickels, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 630, 635. 
 
 47. — Assent to legacy — Part of residue. 
 Executors let the residuary legatee into 
 
 possession of a mine, part of the residue, without 
 any assignment of their interests and before all 
 the debts were paid. The legatee was sued as 
 the person in possession for not remedying 
 breaches of covenant. He claimed that the 
 executors wore the persons to be sued : — 
 
 Held, that his possession was complete and 
 he was the proper deft, because (1) that no 
 assignment by the executor was necessary; (2) 
 that an executor could assent to the bequest as 
 regarded a part of the residue only without 
 thereby assenting as to the rest of it. Austin v. 
 Beddoe - North J. [1893] W. W. 78 
 
 48. — Carrying on business — Executors supply- 
 ing goods. 
 
 Principle on which an executor, who had been 
 managing an hotel belonging to the testator's 
 estate, and supplying it with wine and spirits 
 from his own business and beer of his own 
 brewing, was to account for profits and receive 
 his allowances. In re Williams. Moeoan v. 
 Williams - - Korth J. [1892] W. N. 81 
 
 „„ ?.?• Carrying on business — Priorities of 
 creditors—Indemmly. 
 
 (A) A testator's business was carried on by 
 
 EXECUTOE CBowers)— continued. 
 his executors under the provisions of his will and 
 with the assent of his creditors, and was properly 
 carried on. Questions considered — (1) the rela- 
 tive rights of the creditors of the testator andthe- 
 subsequent trade creditors of the executors against 
 the assets of the testator's estate at the time of 
 his death, and against the assets subsequently 
 acquired for (he estate by carrying on th& 
 business ; (2) tl}e executors' right to indemnity ; 
 and (3) the right of the trade creditors to avail 
 themselves of that indemnity : — 
 
 Held, that the executors were entitled (in 
 priority to the testator's creditors) to be indemni- 
 fied against the liabilities wh;ch they had 
 properly incurred, and that the indemnity waa 
 not limited to that portion of the assets which 
 had come into existence or had changed its form 
 since the testator's death. Dowse v. Gorton 
 
 C. A. 40 Ch. D. 536 ; varied by H. I. (E.> 
 [1891] A. C. IBff 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. In re Baybould, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 199, 200. 
 
 (b) The principle that an executor carrying 
 on a testator's business with the assent, either 
 express or implied, of the testator's creditors is 
 entitled (in priority to the testator's creditors) to 
 be indemnified out of the estate against the lia- 
 bilities properly incurred by him in carrying on 
 the business, is applicable where a, receiver and 
 manager has been appointed in an administration, 
 action to carry on the business in succession to 
 the executor, and whether the will does or does 
 not contain a power to carry on the business. 
 In re Bbooke. Bkooke v. Bkooke (No. 2) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 600 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. West London Syndicate 
 V. Inland Bevenue Commrs., [1898] 2 Q. B. 507^ 
 532. 
 
 (o) Where the trustees and executors of a 
 will carried on the testator's business after his- 
 death and incurred trade debts, and were in 
 default in rendering proper accounts, but were not 
 in default in payment of money : — 
 
 Held, that to deprive them of their indemnity 
 they must be in default in payment and not 
 merely in rendering accounts, and that the trade 
 creditors were entitled to prove against the- 
 estate through the right of the trustees to- 
 indemnity. In re Kinn. Kidd v. Kidd 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 7» 
 
 50. — Mortgage of assets — Mortgage to building, 
 society. 
 
 An executor is not entitled on behalf of the 
 estate to take shares in a building society or to 
 make the estate liable for him as a shareholder^ 
 A mortgage by an executor to a building society^ 
 though made to secure not only money advanced, 
 and interest thereon, but all moneys becoming 
 due from him as a shareholder, is not wholly 
 void as against the beneficiaries, but is good as. 
 against the beneficiaries to the extent of tha 
 money advanced and reasonable interest, provided 
 that the advance was made iu good faith to the 
 executors as such. Thokne v. Thokne 
 
 Eomer J. [1893] 3 Ch. 196 
 
 51. — Powers after renouncing probate. 
 
 A testator gave the residue of his estate tO' 
 
( 801 ) 
 
 DiGESl? OP OASES, 1891^1900. 
 
 ( 802 ) 
 
 SXECUTOR (Vovreis)— continued. 
 
 suoh charities "as my executors herein named 
 
 may select " : — 
 
 Held, on the construction of this particular 
 
 will, that the power was giyen to the executors in 
 
 their official capacity and was exerciseable only 
 
 by those who had proved. Cbawitord v. Fokshaw 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 261 revers. Kekewioh J. 
 
 40 Ch. D. 642 
 
 82. — Tower of sale — Devise of land charged 
 with legacies. 
 
 A charge of legacies on land devised benefici- 
 ally in fee or in tail does not give executors a 
 power of sale. In re Eebbeck. Bennett v. 
 Eebbeok CMtty J. [1894] W. N. 68 
 
 63. — Power to appropriate specific 'portion of 
 assets. 
 
 Although there is no special power in a will 
 to appropriate specific portions of the estate, the 
 executor has power to do so : otherwise it would 
 be impossible in many cases to wind up the 
 estate. A residuary legatee has power to accept 
 such an appropriation in accord and satisfaction 
 of his share or of part of his share. In re Lepine. 
 
 DOWSETT V. CCLYEK 
 
 C. A. revers. Kekewich J. [1892] 1 Ch. 210 
 Referred to by Stuling J. In re Nickels, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 630, 635. 
 
 Retainer. 
 
 54. — Form of administration bond — Rigid of 
 retainer — Administration to creditor — Decree for 
 administration. 
 
 The personal representative may still retain 
 his own debt, notwithstanding a decree for ad- 
 ministration made in a suit by other creditors, 
 notwithstanding the assets out of which he seeks 
 to retain came to his hands after the decree, and 
 notwithstanding the present form of a creditor's 
 administration bond, which provides for a due 
 course of administration "rateably and propor- 
 tlonably and according to the priority required 
 by law and not unduly preferring his own debt 
 or the debts of any other of the creditors of the 
 deceased by reason of being an administrator as 
 aforesaid." 
 
 Nunnv. Barlow, (1824) 1 S. & S. 588, examined 
 and followed. Jones v. Evans, (1876) 2 Ch. D. 
 420, distinguished. Davies v. Pabet 
 
 Eomer J. [1899] 1 Ch. 602 
 
 But see now Note of Probate Practice, [1899] 
 W. N. 262 — Probate — Administration Bond. 8. 
 
 55. — Sight of retainer — Administrator — 
 Retainer. 
 
 The suit of Dowding v. Mellish was instituted 
 some years previously to 1851 for the adminis- 
 tration of the estate of R. Bradshaw. The suit 
 of Pulman v. Meadows was a creditor's suit in- 
 stituted' in 1851 for the administration of the 
 insolvent estate of J. Mills. A sum of Consols 
 in court in the suit of Dowding v. Mellish had 
 recently been transferred to the credit of that 
 suit to the account of the share of J. Mills. The 
 applicant in this summons was a creditor of the 
 estate of, and now administrator with the will 
 annexed, of J. Mills. On his application the 
 sum in court to the account of the share of J. 
 Mills in the suit of Dowding v. Mellish had been 
 
 EXECUTOE (Reta.iner')— continued. 
 transferred to the suit of Pulman v. Meadows. 
 The object of this summons was to determine 
 whether, in exercise of an administrator's right 
 of retainer, the applicant was entitled to the sum 
 in court : — 
 
 Held, that the applicant was not entitled to 
 the fund in court. Pulman v. Meadows 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 273 
 
 66. — Right of retainer — Annuity. 
 
 An administratrix, an annuitant under cove- 
 nant by her intestate, whose estate is insolvent, 
 is entitled to retain all arrears falling due 
 during administration, but only to prove for the 
 value of her future annuity. In re Beeman. 
 Fowler v. Jades North J. [1895] W. N. 151 (1) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 48 
 
 87. — Right of retainer — Legatee debtor to tes- 
 tator — Bankruptcy of legatee. 
 
 A father deposited with a, bank a sum of 
 2400Z. (money of his own) as a continuing security 
 for any amount which might from time to time 
 be owing to the bank by a firm in which two of 
 his sons were the only partners. Interest on the 
 deposit was from time to time paid by the bank 
 to the father. By his will the father gave 
 legacies and shares of residue to the two sons. 
 At the date of his death the sons owed 8858L to 
 the bank, and tlie sons were afterwards adjudi- 
 cated bankrupts. The bank proved in the bank- 
 ruptcy for the whole 8858?. No dividend having 
 yet been paid in the bankruptcy, but it being 
 admitted to be improbable that the estate would 
 realize enough to pay the bank in full, and that 
 the bank would ultimately appropriate tlie 
 deposit of 2i00l. towards the payment of the 
 firm's debt : — 
 
 Held, that the trustees of the father's will were 
 not entitled to retain the legacies and shares 
 thereby bequeathed to the sons against the 
 liability of the father's estate as surety to the 
 bank, but that the trustee in the bankruptcy was 
 entitled to receive those legacies and shares. 
 In re BrNNS. Lee v. Binns - North J. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 584 
 
 58. — Right of retainer — Debt — Assertion of 
 right — Insolvent Testator — Administration order — 
 Official receiver, vesting in — Vesting order, effect 
 of — Payment of assets to official receiver without 
 retaining debt — Mistake — Repayment — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883 (i6 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 125, 
 sub-ss. 1, 2, 5, 9,. 
 
 An executor who is a creditor of his testator 
 is not bound, in order to preserve his right of 
 retainer out of the assets he has got in, to assert 
 his right before occasion arises, as on an attempt 
 to take assets out of his possession : if he asserts 
 it then, his right will be protected, unless he has 
 done some act, by release or otherwise, to deprive 
 himself of it. 
 
 When an order has been made under s. 125, 
 sub-ss. 1, 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, for the 
 administration of the estate of an insolvent 
 testator, thus vesting the estate in this official 
 receiver under sub-s. 5, the effect of the order is 
 to vest in the official receiver so much only of 
 the estate as is properly distributable among the 
 creditors, and not to deprive third parties of any 
 rights which they have acquired to withdraw 
 
 2 D 
 
( 803 ) 
 
 DIGUST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 804 ) 
 
 EXECUTOR (Retamevy—oontinued. 
 
 from distribution assets in their possession and 
 
 ■wMch tbey have a rifrht to retain. 
 
 Thus, such an order does not deprive an 
 executor creditor of his legal and equitable right 
 of retainer out of the assets which he has got in, 
 even though by mistake and in ignorance of his 
 rights he has paid over the assets to the oflScial 
 ieoeiver under the administration order ; nor is 
 he deprived of that right by proving for his debt 
 in the bankruptcy, if on discovering his error he 
 withdraws his proof. In that case he is entitled 
 tp be repaid the sum he would have been entitled 
 to retain had the assets been sliU in his posses- 
 sion. 
 
 Decision of "Wright J., [1899] W. N. 41, [1S99] 
 
 1 Q. B. 905, afBrmed. In reEnOADES. Ex parte 
 Ehoades C. a. [1899] 2 Q. B, 347 
 
 — Right of retainer — Debt — Insolvent estate. 
 
 See ExECDTOK — Insolvent Estate. 36. 
 
 — Eight of retainer — Debt — Insolvent testator 
 
 — Retainer in specie. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Retainer. 219. 
 
 59. — ■ Bight of retainer — Debt due from bank- 
 rupt legatee. 
 
 A surety for a mortgagor bequeathed to him 
 a share of the residue of his estate, subject to the 
 life interest of the testator's widow. After the 
 death of the testator the mortgagor became bank- 
 rupt. He never obtained a discharge, and the 
 bankruptcy was never closed. Neither the mort- 
 gagees nor the testator's executors proved in the 
 bankruptcy. After the bankruptcy the executors 
 made some payments to the mortgagees in pur- 
 suance of the testator's liability under his con- 
 tract of suretyship : — 
 
 Held, that, on the death of the tenant for life, 
 the executors were entitled, notwitlistanding the 
 bankruptcy, to retain out of the mortgagor's share 
 of the residue the amount of the payments which 
 they had thus made to the mortgagees, with 
 interest thereon at 4 per cent. In re Watson. 
 TuENER V. Watson - North 3. [1896] 1 Ch. 925 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Binns, [1896] 
 
 2 Ch. 584. See No. 57, above. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Qoy & Co., 
 Ld., [1900] 2 Cli. 149, 153. 
 
 60. — Eight of retainer — Debtor and creditor 
 — Statute-barred debt — Payment out of Court. 
 
 In 1890 an inquiry was directed as to the 
 persons interested in a fund standing to tlie 
 account of the legal personal representative of 
 G. H., deceased, the surviving partner in several 
 firms. G. H. had died in 1842, and the fund 
 had been carried to this account in 1S83. In 
 1892 it was found that one-fourth of the fund 
 belonged to G. H., and on Aug. 10, 1893, in 
 the presence of his administrator de bonis non, 
 an order was made carrying over the share of 
 G. H. to a separate account, and directing an 
 inquiry as to the persons beneficially interested 
 hi it. P. H. was a creditor of G. H., but his debt 
 liad been barred by the Statute of Limitations. 
 Before the inquiry had been answered the per- 
 sonal representative of F. H., who was also 
 administrator de bonis non of G. H., claimed to 
 have the fund paid out to her as legal personal 
 representative of G. H., the object being to exer- 
 
 EXECUTOE (Retainer)— continued. 
 
 cise a right of retainer over the fund for the debt 
 
 due to her as personal representative of F. H. : — 
 
 Meld, by Stirling J., that the Court will not 
 order a fund to be paid out to an executor or 
 administrator having the legal title to a statute- 
 barred debt merely in order to enable him to 
 acquire a right of retainer thereout : — ■ 
 
 Held, on appeal, that even if the Court would 
 otherwise have done so, the representative of 
 G. H. could not ask to have the fund paid out to 
 her when the effect of so doing would be to 
 defeat the inquiry which had been directed in 
 the presence of the then legal personal represen- 
 tative of G. H. Teevoe v. Hutchings 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 844 
 
 61. — Eight of retainer — Administration — 
 Delay — Indemnity — Debt — Surety. 
 
 In an administration action an executor does 
 not lose his right of retainer merely by reason of 
 delay — such as not claiming his right until after 
 the chief clerk has made his certificate under the 
 judgment — or by the fact of his having paid the 
 assets into court or to a receiver, provided the 
 delay can be satisfactorily explained and there 
 are assets against which he can exercise his 
 right. 
 
 The right of indemnity belonging to an 
 executor who is surety for an unpaid debt of his 
 testator creates an equitable debt in respect of 
 which he may exercise the right of retainer. 
 
 In re Harrison, (32 Ch. D. 395) considered. 
 In re Giles. Jones v. Pennepathee 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] 1 Ch. 956 
 
 62. — Eight of retainer — Mortgage by intestate 
 — Surety — Administratrix — Specialty creditor. 
 
 A., being entitled for life to certain lease- 
 hold property with remainder to B., mortgaged 
 the same to secure 800Z., B. joining in the mort- 
 gage so as to bind her estate in remainder ; and 
 A. covenanted with B. to pay all moneys secured 
 by the mortgage, and to keep indemnified the 
 estate and interest of B. in the premises against 
 all such moneys ; and further, in case B. should 
 at any time thereafter pay any money for the 
 redemption of the premises, forthwith to repay 
 such money with interest. 
 
 A. died intestate in 1893 without having paid 
 the mortgage debt, and administration was 
 gi'anted to B., who duly paid the interest : — 
 
 Held, in a creditor's action for the adminis- 
 tration of A.'s estate, that B. was at law a 
 specialty creditor in respect of the whole debt, 
 and was entitled to retain the assets of the 
 intestate in her hands to answer the debt. In re 
 Allen. Adoook v. Evans - - Chitty J. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 345 
 
 63. — Eight of retainer — Notice — Folhioing 
 assets — Creditor of higher degree — Succession duty 
 — Plene administravit. 
 
 The settled rule that an executor who pays 
 creditors without notice of the existence of a 
 creditor of higher degree, is not liable to account 
 for the sums so paid at the instance of that 
 creditor applies to the retainer by an executor of 
 a debt due to himself. 
 
 Blake v. Gale, (1886) 32 Ch. D. 571, 577, dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 By the exercise of a joint power of appoint- 
 
( 805 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 806 ) 
 
 EXECTITOE (Retainer)— coniinued. 
 ment, 112,0002., representing real estate, was 
 withdrawn from a settlement and paid to a son 
 in the lifetime of his father. The son died in 
 1895, leaving an estate worth 3200^ His execu- 
 trix distributed tlie estate among creditors of 
 equal degree, retaining the bulk of it in satis- 
 faction of a debt of her own. The father having 
 died in 1896, succession duty became payable, 
 and the trustees of the settlement claimed that 
 the duty on the 112,0002. ought to be paid out 
 of the son's estate in priority to the other 
 creditors : — • 
 
 Seld, that the executrix having distributed 
 the assets without notice of this debt, bona fide 
 and without undue haste, the estate had been 
 fully administered ; and that the trustees, though 
 creditors of a higher degree, had no right to follow 
 the assets retained by the executrix in discharge 
 of her own debt. In re Fltjtdee. Wingfield 
 V. Ebskine - Komer J. [1898] 2 Ch. 662 
 
 64. — MigM of retainer — Order reserving rigid 
 of retainer — Payment under order to creditor in 
 higher degree. 
 
 In a creditor's action for the administration 
 of the real and personal estate of a testatrix, one 
 of the executors was found to be a simple con- 
 tract creditor of the estate to an amount exceed- 
 ing 2502. By an order made in the action 
 the executors were directed to pay,-" out of 
 moneys in their hands forming part of the 
 testatrix's outstanding personal estate," a sum of 
 2502. to certain specialty creditors of the testatrix, 
 but the order was to be "without prejudice to 
 any question of retainer" by the executors or 
 either of them. The 2502. was paid accordingly. 
 Subsequently a^receiver was appointed to get in 
 the estate. The question was whether the right 
 of retainer by the executor who was a creditor 
 was lost or preserved to the extent of the 2502. so 
 paid away : — 
 
 Meld, that the case was within the principle 
 of Richmond v. White, (1879) 12 Ch. D. 361, as 
 explained in In re Compton, Norton v. Compton, 
 (1885) 30 Ch. D. 15. The payment must be 
 treated as made for the convenience of adminis- 
 tration, and, as it was expressly made out of the 
 outstanding personal estate, the fact that it was 
 to creditors in a higher degree made no differ- 
 ence, though the case might have been other- 
 wise if the payment had been to a secured 
 creditor out of the subject-matter of his 
 security : 
 
 Held, therefore, that to the extent of the 2502. 
 the right of retainer was preserved. In re Lance. 
 Shaep v. Eebbeck. Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 29 
 
 65. — Right of retainer — Pauper — Deceased 
 pauper — Guardians. 
 
 The executor of a deceased pauper can retain 
 a debt due to himself before satisfying the claim 
 of the guardians for maintenance during the last 
 year of tte pauper's life. Laveb v. Botham 
 & Sons. Cbesteeeield Union (Guaedians), 
 Claimants - - Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 69 
 
 — Eetainer — Payment into court at instance of 
 executor. 
 
 See PeacTice — Payment into Court. 
 132. 
 
 EXECUTOE DE SON TOET— Testator foreign 
 subject domiciled abroad — Liability to 
 pay probate duty. 
 &e Kevbnub — Probate Duty. 134. 
 
 EXECUTORY AGREEMENT— Special occupant. 
 See Cases under Estate pue Autee Vie. 
 
 EXECUTORY DEVISE. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Contingent 
 Remainder. 
 
 EXECUTORY INSTRUMENT — Absolute gift 
 subject to — Eeversionary interest — Con- 
 version — Enjoyment in specie. 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 10. 
 
 — Ancient document — Contemporaneous usage 
 
 or interpretation — Construction. 
 See Wat-leave. 1. 
 EXECUTORY LIMITATION — Contingent re- 
 mainder or — ^Appointment. 
 See PowEES — ^Validity. 46. 
 
 EXEMPTION— Duty. 
 
 See Cases under Beventje. 
 
 — Duty — Third-class passengers — Extra charge 
 
 for reserved carriage. 
 
 See Eailwat — Passengers. 21. 
 
 — Erom liability as to goods. 
 
 See Shipping— Exceptions. 
 
 — From registry — Limitation of liability — 
 
 " Tons burden" — " Eegister tonnage." 
 See Shipping — Limitation of Liability. 
 165. 
 
 — Oaths. 
 
 See Chairmen of District Councils Act, 
 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 22). 
 
 — Poor-rate. 
 
 See Cases under Eates. 
 
 — Eate — Highway — Liability to repair fratione 
 
 tenurse — Sum paid in discharge of 
 
 liability. 
 
 See Highway — Repairs. 26. 
 
 — Eates. 
 
 See Eates. 
 
 — Taxes and assessments — City of London — 
 
 Statute— Implied repeal. 
 See Statutes. 7. 
 EXERCISE — Power of appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Powehs— Exercise. 
 
 — Power of attorney. 
 
 See PowEK 01" Attoenet. 
 
 EXHIBIT— Affidavit. 
 
 See Evidence. 16. 
 
 EXHUMATION— For purposes of verification- 
 Licence of Secretary of State— Faculty. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 26. 
 
 EXONERATION— Liability of real estate for 
 payment of debts and legacies— Personal 
 estate. 
 See ExECtiTOE. 17—20. 
 
 — Eent-charge— Sale of part of land. 
 
 See Settled Land. 105. 
 Separate estate — Eestraint on anticipation — 
 
 Payment of husband's debts. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 51 . 
 -^ Will, Construction of. 
 
 See Will — Exoneration. 
 
 2 D 2 
 
( 807 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 808 ) 
 
 EXPECTANCY — Resulting trust — Cestui qui 
 trust dead— Failure of gift. 
 See Trust. 4. 
 
 — Value of expectancies — Disentail — Proof — 
 
 Eemit. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 14. 
 
 EXPECTANT OR PRESUMPTIVE SHARE— Ad- 
 vancement clause — Impossibility of issue 
 — Womaa past child-bearing. 
 See Will — Advancement. 20. 
 
 EXPERIMENTS— Preparatory to trial of patent 
 action. 
 See Patent — Practice. 28. 
 
 EXPERTS— Evidence of— "Will— Obliteration. 
 See Peoeate — Grant of Probate. 112. 
 
 EXPULSION— Member of trade union— Injunc- 
 tion — Illegal objects. 
 See Teade Union. 10. 
 
 EXTENSI0N~Of patent. 
 
 See Patent — Prolongation, 
 
 EXTINGTTISHMENT-Eounders' shares. 
 
 See Company — Reduction of Capital. 
 226, 234. 
 
 — Landlord's title— Hotch-potch clause — Non- 
 
 payment of rent— Absolute title of 
 
 tenant. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 23. 
 
 — Mortgage— Statute of Limitations. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of— Mort- 
 gages. 26. 
 
 — Power of appointment. 
 
 See Powers — Extinction. 
 
 — Tolls— Prescriptive right- Extinguishment of 
 
 old franchise by statutes. 
 See Tolls. 1. 
 
 EXTORTION. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Receiving Order. 211. 
 Criminal Law— Offences against 
 property. 55. 
 
 — Liability of sheriff. 
 
 See Shekief. 8. 
 
 EXTRADITION. 
 
 By ilie Extradition Act, 1895 (58 A .59 Vict, 
 c. 33), the Acts of 1870 and 1873 loere amended so 
 far as respects the magistrate by wliom and the 
 place in which the case may be heard and the 
 criminal held in custody. 
 
 Reference to the whole of the Extradition Orders 
 in Council under the Extradition Acts issued prior 
 to 1891 is given in the ''Index to the Statutory 
 It ales and Orders" 1893 edit. St. 0. P. The 
 following is a list of the 0. in 0. issued since 
 Dec. 31, 1889, icith references to the annucd 
 volumes of Statutory Orders in which then are 
 printed : — 
 
 1 „„f ^o^'NTiNE Republic] 0. in. G. dated Jan. 29 
 lb94 applying the Extradition Acts, 1870-1873 to 
 I'll^^aentine Republic and the Treaty of May 22 
 1889. St. K. & 0. 1894, p. 78. 
 
 Belgium.] 0. in. O. dated Nov. 27 1896 
 
 EXTRADITION— coniinuei. 
 
 Republic of Bolivia.] 0. in C. dated Oct. 20, 
 1898, applying the Extradition Acts, 1870 to 1895, 
 to. lond. Gaz. Oct. 25, 1898, p. 6201. 
 
 British Guiana.] Surrender of fugitive 
 criminals. — 0. in C. dated July 7, 1897, extending 
 s. 18 of the Extradition Act, 1870, to colony of 
 British Guiana. St. R. & 0. 1897, p. 120, 
 No. 574. 
 
 British India.] 0. in C. dated Nov. 21, 1895, 
 directing that tlie Extradition {India") Act, 1895, 
 shall have effect in British India as if part of the 
 Extradition Acts, 1870, and 1873. St. E. 0. 
 
 1895, No. 568. Price id. 
 
 Chile — Fugitive Criminals.] 0. in. C. dated 
 Aug. 9, 1898, applying the Extradition Acts, 1870 
 to 1895, to Republic of Chile. lond. Gaz. Aug. 12, 
 1898, p. 4839 ; Pari. Paper [C. 9051]. 
 
 Cyprus.] " The Cyprus Extradition 0. in C. 
 1895." St. R, & 0. 1895, No. 136. Price id. 
 
 " Tlie Cyprus Extradition 0. in C. 1895, No. 2." 
 St, R. & 0. 1895, No. 582. Price id. 
 
 France.] 0. in. G. dated Feb. 22, 1896, apply- 
 ing the Extradition Acts to France. Operation of 
 said Acts is suspended within Dominion of Canada. 
 lond. Gaz. Feb. 25, 1896, p. 1117 ; St. R. & 0. 
 
 1896, No. 54, p. 104. 
 
 French Guiana and Trinidad.] 0. in C. dated 
 Nov. 20, 1894, as to extradition from French 
 Guiana to Trinidad. St. R. & 0. 1894, p. 116. 
 
 German Peoteotorates.] 0. in G. dated 
 Feb. 2, \?X)5, applying the Extradition Acts, 1870- 
 1873, to the German Protectorates in Africa, New 
 Guinea, and Pacific Ocean and the Treaty of 
 May 5, 1894. St. R. & 0. 1895, No. 58. Price ^d. 
 
 Italy — San, Marino, Republic op — Fugitive 
 Criminals.] 0. in C. directing that the Extradition 
 Acts shall apply to. St. R. & 0. 1900, No. 168 ; 
 lond. Gaz. April 17, 1900, p, 2491. 
 
 Liberia.] 0. in. 0. dated March 10, 1894, 
 applying the Extradition Acts to Liberia and the 
 Treaty of Dec. 16, 1892. St. E. & 0. 1894, p. 88. 
 
 Monaco.] 0. in C. dated May 9, 1892, apply- 
 ing the Extradition Acts to Monaco and the Treaty 
 of Dec. 17, 1891. St. R. & 0. 1892, p. 455. 
 
 Netherlands.] Fugitive Criminals 0. in C. 
 dated Feb. 2, 1899, directing tlmt the Extradition 
 Acts shall apply. St. R. & 0. 1892, p. 731, 
 No. 83. 
 
 Orange Free State.] 0. in C. dated March 20, 
 
 1891, applying tlie Extradition Acts to the Orange 
 Free State and the Treaty of June 25, 1890. 
 St. R. & 0. 1891, p. 279. 
 
 Portugal.] 0. in C. dated March 3, 1894, 
 applying the Extradition Acts to Portugal and the 
 Treaty of Oct. 17, 1892. St. R. & 0, 1894, p. 95. 
 
 Portuguese India.] Foreign Office notifica- 
 tion. Mar. 9, 1891, of the termination on Jan. 14, 
 
 1892, of the Treaty of Dec. 26, 1878, as to extradi- 
 tion from the Indian possessions of Portugal. 
 Lond. Gaz, March 10, 1891, p, 1339. 
 
 Roumania.] 0. in C. dated April 30, 1894, 
 applying the Extradition Acts to Roumania and 
 the Treaties of BJar. 31, 1893, and Mar. 13, 1894. 
 St, R. & 0. 1894, p. 105. 
 
 Straits Settlements.] 0. in C. dated 
 
( 809 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 810 ) 
 
 EXTRADITION— conMnuetJ. 
 Oct. 26, 1896, amending previous Orders as to 
 extradition from Straits Settlements. S, B. & 0. 
 1896, No. 679, p. 579. 
 
 Uruguay.] 0. in 0. dated Nov. 2i, 1891, 
 applying tlw Extradition Acts to the Bepuhlic of 
 Uruguay and the Protocol of Mar. 20, 1891. St. 
 B. & 0. 1891, p. 285. 
 
 1. — Detention of property for purpose of trial 
 abroad— Extradition Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict, 
 c. 52, s. 9 ; 11 <6 12 Vict. a. 44, s. 5). 
 
 On the hearing of an application to extradite 
 a person accused of theft abroad, O., a witness, 
 produced certain articles under a sirbpcena duces 
 tecum which he had purchased from the prisoner. 
 After the magistrate had committed the prisoner 
 to await the Secretary of State's warrant, he 
 orally directed a constable to take charge of the 
 property for production at the trial abroad. 0. 
 applied, under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44, s. 5, for an 
 order directing the property to be given up to 
 him: — • 
 
 Held, that the magistrate was functus oflBcio 
 when he had committed the prisoner, and any 
 subsequent direction as to the property, whether 
 given or omitted, was not an act relating to the 
 duties of his office, and that the Court had no 
 jurisdiction to make the order. 
 
 Held, further, that assuming the Court had 
 such jurisdiction, O.'s possessory title (if any) had 
 been lawfully divested by their passing out of 
 his possession under ilie eubpcena duces tecum, 
 and therefore that he was not entitled to the relief 
 asked. Keg. v. Lushinotoit. Ex parte Otto. 
 
 Div Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 420 
 
 2. — Evidence of accomplice — Corroboration — 
 One committal for two offences — Extradition Act, 
 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. o. 52), s. 3, suh-s. 1. 
 
 M. was charged with causing two explosions 
 in France, one of which caused loss of life. On 
 an application for a writ of habeas corpus, it 
 was objected that (1) there was no evidence of 
 the identity of the prisoner with the person 
 accused; (2) tliat the charges depended on the 
 uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice ; (3) 
 that there were two charges and one com- 
 mittal r — 
 
 Held, that (1) the evidence of identity was 
 sufficient; (2) that the evidence of the accom- 
 plice was corroborated, and, even if it were not, 
 that the magistrate had discretion as to whether 
 the evidence was sufficient for committal; (3) 
 that separate committals were not necessary. 
 In re Mecniek - Div. Ct. [1894] 3 Q. B. 415 
 
 3. — Falsification of accounts — " Faux " — 
 "Faux en gcritures de commerce" — Extradition 
 treaty with France, Art. 3 (2, 18) — Code Fgnal, 
 Art. Ul— Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), 
 «. 83— Falsification of Accounts Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. a. 24). 
 
 The offence in English law of fraudulent 
 falsification of accounts by a director, public 
 officer, or member of a public company is an 
 offence within art. 147 of the French Code Penal, 
 and is covered by the expression "faux en fei- 
 tures de commerce " in that article. Although 
 it mav not amount to forgery according to 
 English law, that offence is an extradition 
 
 EXTRADITION— cOTjh'mued. 
 crime within the French version of art. 3 (2) of 
 the extradition treaty with Franco, and withiu 
 the English version of art. 3 (18) of the same 
 treaty, and also within the Extradition Acts. 
 In re Akton (No. 2) [1896] 1 Q. B. 509 
 
 See also next Case. 
 
 4. — Jurisdiction — Bona fides of Demand for 
 Surrender — Offence of a Political Character — 
 Extradition Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Viet. c. 52), s. 3, 
 sub-s. 1. 
 
 Where the surrender of a fugitive criminal is 
 demanded by the Government of a friendly 
 State for offences within the provisions of the 
 Extradition Act, 1870, and of the extradition 
 treaty with that State, the Court has no juris- 
 diction to inquire whether the demand for 
 surrender is made in good faith and in the 
 interests of justice. 
 
 The provision of s. 3, sub-s. 1, of the Extra- 
 dition Act, 1870, by which a fugitive criminal 
 shall not be surrendered if he proves to the 
 satisfaction of the Court that the requisition 
 for his surrender has been made with a view to 
 try or punish him for an offence of a political 
 character, applies only to an offence of a political 
 character which has been already committed. 
 In re Abton (No. 1) - [1896] 1 Q. B, 108 
 See also previous Case. 
 
 5. — Political offence — Habeas Corpus — Extra- 
 dition Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 52), s. 3 (1). 
 
 The decision of a magistrate, who commits a 
 prisoner for extradition, that the offence charged 
 is not of a poUtioal nature, is subject to review by 
 the Court on an application for habeas corpus. 
 Definition of a crime incidental to and forming 
 part of a political disturbance is a political 
 offence. In re Casiioni 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 149 
 
 To constitute a political offence there must 
 be two parties in the State each seeking to 
 impose the government of their choice on the 
 other. The definition includes anarchist crimes. 
 In re Mbunibk Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 415 
 
 6. — Sufficiency of charge — Fraud by a bailee 
 —24 & 25 Vict. e. 96, ss. 75, 76 ; 33 d: 34 Vict. c. 
 52. 
 
 In order to justify the extradition of the 
 subject of a foreign State, there must be evidence 
 of an act committed; by him in the foreign 
 country amounting to an offence against the 
 law of such country, and which, if committed in 
 England, would amount to an offence against 
 English law. In re Bellenoonteb 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 132 
 
 7. — ■ Surrender of British subjects — Treaty 
 with Belgium — Person " liable to be surrendered " 
 —Extradition Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 52), s. 6. 
 
 By a. 6 of the Extradition Act, 1870, " where 
 this Act applies in the case of any foreign State, 
 every fugitive criminal of that State, who is in or 
 suspected of being in any part of Her Majesty's 
 dominions .... shall be liable to be apprehended 
 and surrendered in manner provided by this 
 Act." 
 
 By a treaty made between this country and 
 Belgium the contracting parties undertook to 
 deliver up to each other reciprocally fugitive 
 
( 811 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 812 ) 
 
 EXTEADITION— ( 
 
 offenders accused of certain specified offences; 
 but it was expressly provided that " in no case, 
 nor on any consideration whatever, shall the 
 high contracting parties be bound to surrender 
 their own subjects, whether by birth or natura- 
 lisation." 
 
 The surrender of a British subject was 
 demanded by the Belgian Government in respect 
 of certain extradition offences of the commission 
 of which there was sufficient prima facie evidence 
 to justify his extradition, and an order for his 
 committal was made by a magistrate with a view 
 to his surrender : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the accused, although a British 
 subject, was a person " liable to be surrendered " 
 within the meaning of s. 6 of the Extradition 
 Act, 1870, and that the order of committal was 
 rightly made. 
 
 Under the provisions of the treaty with 
 Belgium, the ordinary proceedings in extradition 
 may be talsen in the case of a British subject ; it 
 
 EXTEADITION— conimtteiZ. 
 is not necessary that in each particular case the 
 surrender should be the result of negotiations 
 between the respective Governments and of an 
 express consent by the British Government to 
 the extradition. In re Galwet 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 230 
 EXTEAOEDINAEY EXPENSES— Highways. 
 See Cases under Highway — Eepairs. 
 
 EXTEAOEDINAEY TITHE, 
 
 See Tithe, 
 
 EXTEAOEDINAEY TEAFPIC— Highways. 
 See Cases under Highway — Eepairs. 
 
 — Locomotives. 
 
 See Locomotives. 
 
 EXTEINSIC EVIDENCE— Contract— " Total cost 
 of works." 
 See CONTEAOT. 11. 
 
 — Intention — Will — Construction. 
 
 See Will— Evidence, 83— 83b. 
 
( 813 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OAgES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 8H ) 
 
 F. 
 
 FACTOR — Bill of exchange — Dishonour by buyer 
 — Possession of goods — Consent of seller. 
 See Sale of Goods. 7. 
 
 1. — ■ Hire and purchase agreement — Conslruc- 
 tion — Property in goods. 
 
 Held, on the construction of a hiring agree- 
 ment, that the parties having plainly expressed 
 their intention that, in a certain event, the 
 property should not pass to the hirer, that event 
 having happened the property did not pass, and 
 the transaction was therefore not within the 
 Bills of Sale Acts. MoEntike v. Ckosslby 
 Bkothess . H. L, (I.) [1895] A. C. 457 
 
 — Judicial factor — Curator bonis — Liability — 
 Harbour rates. 
 See Trustee — -Investments. 65. 
 
 3, — " Mercantile agent " — Person 
 In sell on commission — Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 
 Vict. e. 45), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 B., who was employed by the pits, to sell 
 goods at a salary and on commission, pledged, 
 without authority, some articles with the defts., 
 who received them in good faith and in the 
 ordinary course of business : — 
 
 Held, that B. was not a mercantile agent 
 within the meaning of the Factors Act, 1889, 
 B. 1, and therefore s. 2 of that Act afforded no 
 defence. The meaning of " mercantile agent " 
 explained. Hastings v. Peakson 
 
 Div. Ct [1893] 1 Q. B. 63 
 Distinguished by Bruce J. Shenstone & Co. 
 V. Hilton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 452. See No. 4, helow. 
 
 3, — Pledge -^ Documents of title — Foreign 
 arrestment — Conflict of laws— Goods in Scotland — 
 Factors Acts, 1889, 1890 (52 (fc 53 Vict. o. 45, ss. 
 3, 9 ; 53 * 54 Vict. c. 40, s. 1). 
 
 Where goods are lodged in warehouses in 
 Scotland a pledgee of the goods must, to make 
 effective aU real rights which depend on the 
 constructive delivery of the goods, give notice of 
 the pledge to the warehouse-keeper. 
 
 The Factors Act, 1889, extended to Scotland 
 by the Factors (Scotland) Act, 1890, enacts— s. 3 : 
 "A pledge of the documents of title to goods 
 shall be deemed to be a pledge of the goods " ; 
 and s. 1 : " For the purposes of this Act " (sub-s. 5) 
 •"The expression 'pledge' shall include any 
 contract, pledging, or giving a lien or security on, 
 goods, whether in consideration of an original 
 advance or of any further or continuing advance 
 or of any pecuniary liability." Sect. 9 prescribes 
 that the effect of delivery or transfer of the docu- 
 ments of title of the goods under any pledge, &o., 
 by a person who having bought the goods obtains 
 with the consent of the seller possession of the 
 goods or documents of title, shall have the same 
 effect as if the person making the delivery or 
 transfer were a mercantile agent in possession of 
 the goods or documents of title with the consent 
 of the owner. 
 
 Goods were stored by G., a domiciled English- 
 man, in a bonded warehouse in Glasgow, trans- 
 
 TA.GTO'R— continued. 
 
 ferred into tho name of G. as owner ; and the 
 warehouse-keeper issued to G. delivery orders 
 showing tliat the goods were held to G.'s order 
 "or assigns by indorsement hereon." G. ob- 
 tained a loan from I., an English merchant, 
 and delivered to him in England a letter 
 of hypothecation bearing that ho deposited a 
 part of the goods with him in security, with 
 power of sale, and G. indorsed and handed to I. 
 the delivery warrants. I. did not intimate or 
 give notice of the right he had acquired to the 
 warehouse-keeper. E. & B., claiming as personal 
 creditors of 6., arrested the goods in the hands of 
 the warehouse-keeper in order to found jurisdic- 
 tion agains"t G. in Scotland ; and then raised an 
 action against him in the Scottish Court, upon 
 dependence of which they again arrested the 
 goods, claiming through the arrestment a prefer- 
 able right thereto : — ■ 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the majority 
 of the whole Scottish judges, (1897) 24 E. 758 
 that the case was governed by the law of Scot- 
 land, and that the right of the pledgee, I., in tho 
 goods was defeated by the arrestment executed 
 by E. & B., I. not having intimated his pledge to 
 the warehouse-keeper : 
 
 Held, also, that s. 3 of the Factors Act, 1889, 
 was merely intended to define the full effect of 
 the pledge of tlie documents of title made by a 
 mercantile agent, and that it had no application 
 to the case of the pledge of the documents of title 
 by one in the position of G., who was not a 
 mercantile agent within the meaning of the Act ; 
 nor was G. a pledgor within a. 9 of the same 
 Act. Inglis v. Eobbetson 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1898] A. C, 616 
 
 — Possession of document of title — Consent of 
 seller — Stoppage in transitu. 
 See Sale op Goods. 7. 
 
 4. ■ — ■ Possession — Delivery — " Mercantile 
 agent" — Hiring agreement — Factors Act, 1889 
 (52 & 53 Vict. e. 45), s. 9. 
 
 A. let a piano to B. under a hiring agreement 
 by which B. was to pay as hire monthly instal- 
 ments, and when all the instalments were so 
 paid the piano was to become the property of B. 
 G, an auctioneer, in good faith and with no 
 knowledge of A.'s rights, received the piano, sold 
 it, and paid the proceeds to B. : — 
 
 Held, that C. had agreed to buy and ob- 
 tained with consent of A. possession of the piano ; 
 that delivery by B. to C. had the same effect as 
 if B. was a mercantile agent; that "delivery 
 under any agreement for sale " was not confined 
 to delivery to the receiver pursuant to a sale by 
 the deliveror ; that " agreement for sale, pledge, 
 or other disposition " included a delivery of goods 
 to be sold by the receiver for the benefit of the 
 deliveror, and that therefore C. was protected 
 from liability by s. 9 of the Act. Shenstone & Co. 
 V. Hilton - - Bruce J. [1894] 2 Q. B. 462 
 
( 815 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 816 ) 
 
 FACTOR— coniOTueti. 
 
 6. — Possession under agreement — Option to 
 purchase — Hiring agreement— Pledge hy hirer — 
 Factors Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 45), s. 9. 
 
 The expression in s. 9 of the Factors Act, 
 1889, " a person having agreed to buy goods," 
 means a person who has bound himself by agree- 
 ment to buy, and does not include a person 
 having an option to buy, the owner being bound 
 to sell if the option is exercised. 
 
 A person who merely hires goods with an 
 option of purchase cannot give a good title to a 
 pledgee, under s. 9 of the Factors Act, 1889, until 
 he has paid all his instalments and exercised hia 
 option. Decision of 0. A., [1894] 2 Q. B. 262, 
 reversed. Helbt v. Matthews 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 471 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Payne v. Wilson, [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 537. 
 
 6. — Sale of goods — Possession of goods under 
 hire and purchase agreement — Factors Act, 1889 
 „. 9. 
 
 A. being in possession of furniture under a 
 hire and purchase agreement made with B., sold 
 and delivered the same, before the last payment 
 had accrued due or been paid, to C. : — 
 
 Held, that the sale to C, who had acted in 
 good faith and without notice of B.'s rights, was 
 valid under s. 9 of the Factors Act, 1889. Lee 
 V. Bdtleu C. a. [1893] 2 Q,. B. 318 
 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.) Selby v. 
 Matthews, [1895] A. 0. 471. See No. 5, above. 
 
 7. — Sale of goods — Conriction of hirer — 
 Larceny Act, 1860 (24 it 25 Vict. c. 90), ss. 3, 100 
 —Factors Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 45), s. 9— Sale 
 of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. v. 71), ss. 21, 24, 
 25, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Where a person having possession of goods 
 under a hire and purchase agreement sells them 
 to a purchaser in good faith and without notice, 
 the conviction of the hirer for larceny as a bailee 
 of the goods does not divest the purchaser of the 
 property in them. Payne v. Wilson - Div. Ct. 
 [189S] 1 a. B. 653 ; this decision revers. 
 by C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 537 
 
 8. — Sale of goods — Sale hy agent — Condition 
 against selling loithout further authority — Estoppel 
 —Factors Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, e. 94), ,j. 4 ; (52 ct 53 
 Vict. c. 45), s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 2, sub-s. 1. 
 
 B. entrusted a table-top to G., who was a 
 dealer in similar articles. The table-top was not 
 to be sold to any person or at any price without 
 B.'s authorization. If sold, the cheque was to be 
 handed to B. intact, who was to pay a com- 
 mission. G. sold the table to E. for 200/. without 
 B.'s authorization. E. was to pay S. 1701. to 
 satisfy a judgment S. had against G., snd 30L 
 to G. E. gave S. a diamond valued between 
 them at 120Z. and 501. in cash : — 
 
 Seld, that G. was acting altogether outside 
 his authority in selling, and therefore E. acquired 
 no title, and B. was not estopped from disputing 
 E.'s title : 
 
 Beld, also, that as the table was never 
 entraated for sale, and as the mode of payment 
 r/w- ™ ""cordanoe with the ordinary course 
 of buamesa, E. was not protected by the Factors 
 
 FACTOE — continued. 
 
 Act in force at the time (6 Goo. 4, c. 94, e. 4). 
 
 Biggs v. Evans - Wills J. [1894] 1 ft. B. 88 
 
 FACTOET. 
 
 See Mastee and Servant — Factory 
 Acts. 
 FACULTY. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — ^Faculty. 
 
 FAIB COMMElfT — Joint stocktrading company 
 — Statements injurious to trade. 
 See Defamation — Libel. 2. 
 
 FAIRS — Markets and — By-laws. 
 
 See Makket and Faibs. 1. 
 
 "FAIRWAY "—Definition of. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 63. 
 FALKLAND ISLANDS— Colonial Probates Act, 
 
 1892. 
 
 See Pkoeate — Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 — Death Duties. 
 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 FALSA DEMONSTSATIO— Construction of will. 
 See Cases under Will — Falsa Demon- 
 stratio. 
 
 — Parcels — Eight of way — Misdescription — 
 
 Construction of Lease. 
 
 See Landlokd and Tenant — Lease. 75. 
 
 FALSE DESCRIPTION-" Physician." 
 
 See Medioal Peaotitioner. 3. 
 
 FALSE IMPRISONMENT— By manager of a 
 public house. 
 .See Master and Servant. 83. 
 
 ■ Returning from training. 
 
 See Army and Navt- 
 
 -Volunteers. 8. 
 
 FALSE PRETENCES. 
 
 See Criminal Law — False Pretences. 
 
 FALSE REPRESENTATION- Eight of action- 
 Person induced ))y misrepresentation to 
 commit crime. 
 See Foreign Enlistment Act. 2. 
 
 1. — Trade rivalry — Unfair competition — 
 Fraud — Testimonials, improper use of — Cause of 
 action — Interlocutory injunction. 
 
 The pit. having invented a system of treating 
 diseases by hot air, there appeared in a medical 
 paper an article containing a favourable account 
 of this system, with particulars of its application 
 to specific cases. The deft., who was the inventor 
 of a rival system of hot-air treatment, circulated 
 amongst the patients of the pit. a pamphlet 
 containing extracts from this article, but the ex- 
 tracts omitted all mention of the plt.'s name, and 
 were so made as to induce the belief that the 
 article, and the specific statements of fact therein, 
 related to the deft.'a system. There was evi- 
 dence that some of the plt.'s patients were misled 
 by these extracts, but no evidence of any actual 
 damage. Upon motion for injunction : — 
 
 Held, by Stirling J., [1899] W. N. 125, that, 
 in the absence of any attempt by the deft, to 
 pass ofif his system as the plt.'s, the Court 
 ought not to interfere by way of interlocutory 
 injunction. 
 
 Franks v. Weaver, (1847) 10 Beav. 297; 8 
 L. T. (O.S.) 510, explained and distinguished. 
 
 The principle of Batty v. Hill, (1863) 1 H. & M. 
 
( 817 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 818 ) 
 
 FALSE EEPBESENTATION—conMnMerf. 
 264, followed. Tallbkman v. Dowbino Radiant 
 Heat Co. - C. A. [1899] W. N. 234 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 — What _ constitutes — Trade name — Colourable 
 
 imitation of name — Eight to injunction. 
 See Canada. 24. 
 
 FALSE STATEMENTS— Penalty. 
 
 See Company — False Statements. 
 
 FALSE TRADE DESCEIPTION — Merchandise 
 marks. 
 
 See Cases under Teade-mark — Merchan- 
 dise Marks. 
 
 FALSE WAEEANTy— Scienter— Sale of food 
 and drugs. 
 See Adiiltekation. 24. 
 
 FALSEHOOD— Imputation of. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 5. 
 
 — Justification — ^Particulars. 
 
 /See DiiFAMATioN — Libel. 11. 
 
 FAMILY ASRANGEMENT—Eepresentations in- 
 ducing consent to — Eeduction. 
 See Scottish Law — Contract. 8. 
 
 — Trust for debts — Liability of estate. 
 
 See Settlement. 3. 
 
 FANCY WOED— Trade-mark— Eegistration. 
 
 See Cases under Tkade-mark. 
 
 FAEE — Passengers. 
 
 See Railway — Passengers. 22. 
 
 FAEM — Market garden, conversion into— " Ame- 
 liorating waste " — " Improvements." 
 
 The conversion of a farm Into a market 
 garden is not necessarily a breach of a covenant 
 to cultivate " according to the best rules of hus- 
 bandry," and buildings, such as bot-houses, 
 erected on a farm, and rendering; it more profit- 
 able, are "improvements" within the Agricul- 
 tural Holdings Act, 1883. Meux v. Cobley 
 
 Eekewich J. [1892] 2 Ch. 2S3 
 
 FATAL ACCIDENTS — Alien — Negligence of 
 British subject — Cause of action outside 
 jurisdiction. 
 See Negligence. 1. 
 
 — Limitation of action — ^Neglect in execution of 
 
 Act of Parliament. 
 
 See PoblioAuthobities Protection. 3. 
 
 — Transfer of action — Decree for limitation of 
 
 liability in the Admiralty Division. 
 See Practice- Trial. 264. 
 
 FATHER— Eights over children. 
 
 See Cases under Infant — Custody. 
 
 FEDEEAL GOVEENMENT — Conflict between 
 powers of and of Provincial — Dominion 
 and Constitutional law. 
 See Oases under Canada. 
 
 FEE AND LIFE-RENT — Agricultural leases — 
 Powers of life-renter to grant. 
 See Scottish Law — Landlord and 
 Tenant. 25. 
 
 — Succession duties— Estate duty. 
 
 See Scottish Law— Succession. 42. 
 
 FEES. 
 
 Banlcruptcy. See Bankruptcy. 
 
 Burial. See Bdrial. 
 
 Cleric of the Crown in Chancery, col. 818. 
 
 Company. See Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 County Court. See County Court. 
 
 Directors'. See Company — Directors. 
 
 District Surveyor's. See London County 
 — Buildings. 29. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Court. See Ecclesiastical 
 Law. 
 
 Justices. See Justices. 
 
 Land Charges. See Land Charges. 
 
 Land Registry. See Land Eegistry. 
 
 Land Registry {Middlesex Deeds'). See 
 Middlesex Registry. 
 
 Land Revenue. See Land Revenue. 
 
 Jjand Transfer. See Land Tbansfek. 
 
 Liverpool District Registry. See Liver- 
 pool Courts. 
 
 Patent Office. See Patent — Patent 
 Office. 
 
 Presentation Office, col. 818. 
 
 Registration of Trade-marlis. See Trade- 
 mark. 
 
 See Sheriff. 
 
 — Ship — Transfer — Eegistration. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. 210. . 
 
 Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. 
 
 Order of Lord Chancellor dated June 20, 1871, 
 appointing the fees to he taken. St. R. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 1563. 
 
 Presentation Office. 
 
 Order of Lord Chancellor dated July 18, 1871, 
 appointing the fees to he taken in the office of the 
 Lord Chancellor's Secretary of Presentations, St. 
 E. & 0. 1899, p. 1566. 
 
 FELONY- — Separation of juries in cases of felony 
 permitted hy 60 Vict. c. 1 8. 
 
 — Bankruptcy, Felony connected with. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 88. 
 
 — Dispensing with attendance of plaintiff in 
 
 error. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Practice. 65. 
 
 FEMALE PARTY- Description. 
 
 See Practice— Writ. 276. 
 
 FEMALE TENANT FOE LIFE— Eight to pos- 
 session — Equitable tenant for life. 
 See Settled Land. 96. 
 
 FENCE — British Columbian Cattle Protection 
 
 Acts. 
 
 See Canada. 
 
 26. 
 
 — Liability of owner of fence adjoining highway 
 
 — Defective condition — injury to child. 
 See Nuisances. 10. 
 
 — Machinery. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Factory 
 Acts. 
 
 — Eailway company. 
 
 See Eailway — Fences. 
 
( 819 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 820 ) 
 
 FERTILIZEES AND FEEDING STnFFS. 
 
 See Adtiltekation — Fertilizers and 
 Feeding Stuffs. 
 
 FICTITIOUS NAME— Shares applied for in. 
 
 See Company — "Winding-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 32. 
 
 " FICTITIOUS OE NON-EXISTENT PEESON." 
 
 — Liability of bank for payment of forged bills. 
 
 See Bill op Exchange. 7. 
 
 FIDEI COMMISSUM— Will -Jus acoresoendi. 
 See Ceylon. 1. 
 
 FIDUCIAEY EELATION— Concealed fraud. 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 13. 
 
 — Concealment — Setting aside sale — Liability of 
 
 liquidator — Interest on profits. 
 See Vendoe and Pubohaser. 53. 
 
 — Director — Contracts with company — Declara- 
 
 tion of interest — Collateral profits. 
 See Company — Directors. 103. 
 
 — Directors, duties of — Sale by directors in one 
 
 cliaracter to themselves in another. 
 See Company — Directors. 105, 
 
 — Independent advice. 
 
 See Settlement. 34. 
 
 — Mortgagor and mortgagee. 
 
 See Mobtgage. 15. 
 
 — Principal and agent — Statute of Limitations. 
 
 See Pabtnebship. 1, 32. 
 ■ — Eatification — Promotion — Ultra vires. 
 
 See Company. 202. 
 ■ — Solicitors. 
 
 See SoLioiTOB — Fiduciary Eolation. 
 
 FIEBI FACIAS — Writ of^Company^Winding- 
 up. 
 See County Court — Jurisdiction. 60. 
 
 — Writ of — Collision — Unpaid balance of 
 
 damages. 
 
 See Shipping— Collision. 57. 
 
 FIGUEES— Sculptured. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 39. 
 
 FIJI — Appeals peom Fiji.] 0. in C. dated 
 Feb. 22, 1878, regulating appeals from the Supreme 
 Court of Fiji to Her Majesty in Council. St. 
 E. & 0. 1899, p, 1S88. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 See Probate — Grant op Probate — 
 Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 Death Duties. 
 
 See Kevenub — Estate Duty, 
 
 Law of Fiji. 
 
 1. — ■ Boundaries of town — Construction of 
 proclamation — High-water mark on the sea-shore. 
 
 By proclamation the western boundary of a 
 town was declared to be the sea-coast at high- 
 water mark and the eastern boundary to be a 
 specified distance therefrom ; — 
 
 Held, that reclaimed foreshore was withiu 
 the town, the western boundary of which was 
 the high-water mark for the time being, and the 
 eastern boundary that fixed absolutely by the 
 proclamation. Smart & Co. v. Town Board of 
 " - - P. C. [1893] A. C. 301 
 
 FILING — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Piling copy of bill of sale and affidavit- Date 
 
 of execution. 
 See Bill op Sale. 27. 
 FINAL JUDGMENT— Bankruptcy notice founded 
 on. 
 S?e Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 9. 
 
 FINANCE ACTS. 
 
 See Cases under Ebvbnoe. 
 
 FINANCING — Condition precedent — Exchange 
 contracts — Repudiation. 
 See Contract— Construction. 9. 
 
 FINE — Admittance to copyhold — Limitation of 
 action — Point from which time begins 
 to run. 
 See Copyhold. 4. 
 
 — Copyholds — Enfranchisement — Compensa- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Act. 3. 
 
 — Engaging seamen for foreign ship — Civil debt. 
 
 See Shipping. — Seamen. 258. 
 
 — Forfeited recognizance — Amercement — Con- 
 
 struction of charter to corporation. 
 
 See Revenue — Forfeited Eecognizances. 
 
 — Licence to assign — Deposit by way of security. 
 
 See Covenant. 1. 
 
 — Mitigation of statutory — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Justices. 8. 
 
 — Penalty for non-payment — Offences — Street 
 
 musician. 
 
 See Music and Dancing. 5. 
 
 — Release of prisoner on payment of portion of 
 
 fine. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Fine or Imprison- 
 ment, 
 
 — Renewal of leases for lives — Copyholds — 
 
 Income or capital. 
 
 See Settled Land— Copyholds. 50. 
 
 FINE ASTS— CVipyright. 
 
 See Cases under Copyright. 
 
 — Royal College of Music — Rates — Exemption 
 
 — Scientific societies. 
 See Rates. 3G. 
 FIEE. 
 
 False Alarms of Fire Act, 1895 (58 & 59 rid. 
 0. 23), imposes a penalty for giving False Alarms 
 of Fire. 
 
 Parish Fire-engines Art, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict. c. 
 38), enables parish councils to borrow fire-engines. 
 
 1. — Control of premises on fire — Eight to 
 exclude the public — Towns Police Clauses Act, 
 1847 (10 (t- 11 Vict. c. 89), s. 32~PtMic Health 
 Act (38 d- 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 171. 
 
 A fire brigade provided by a local authority 
 has control of the premises where a fire takes 
 place, and may exclude the public, including 
 volunteer fire brigades. Carter v. Thomas 
 
 Div. Ct, [1893] 1 ft, B. 673 
 
 2. — Expenses of use of fire-engine — Towns 
 Police Clauses Act, 1847 (10 <fc 11 'Vict. c. 89), 
 s. 33. 
 
 The expense of sending engines to extinguish 
 fires outside their district incurred by a local 
 
t 821 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 822 ) 
 
 riBE — continued. 
 
 authority is to be borne by the person receiving 
 the rack-rent of the land or building where the 
 fire occurs. Sale v. Phillips 
 
 Div. Ct, [1894] 1 ft. B. 349 
 
 — Hydrants — Right of waterworks company to 
 
 use — User without consent of London 
 County Council. 
 See Watbb. 12. 
 
 — Insurance. 
 
 See Insubance — ^Fire, 7 — 10. 
 
 — Policy — Coal cargo — Heating — Discharge and 
 
 sale — Loss of freight. 
 
 See Insukanoe — Marine. 52. 
 
 — Policy — Compliance with condition in policy 
 
 — Non-suit. 
 
 See New South Wales. 26. 
 
 — Policy — Insurance — Ship stranded — Subse- 
 
 quent destruction by fire. 
 See Iksukance— Marine. 48. 
 
 riEEABMS— Attempt to discharge — Evidence. 
 See Cbiminal Law. 
 
 riRE-PITJG. 
 
 See Water — Supply. 13. 
 
 FIBM — Application for shares by a firm. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Contrihu- 
 tory. 42. 
 
 nSCAL SALE— Law of Ceylon. 
 See Ceyion. 2, 3. 
 
 riSHEKY. 
 
 Sea, col. 821. 
 
 Salmon and Freshwater, col. 823. 
 
 Sea. 
 
 Belgian Deolaeation.] Noticeliringing pi. 1 
 of the Fisheries Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. o. 37), 
 into operaiion on Sept. 15, 1891, Lond. Gaz. 
 Sept. 8, 1891, p. 4777. 
 
 North Sea Pisheeies.] By the North Sea 
 FisUries Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 17), the Act 
 of 1888 was repealed. 
 
 Bd. of Trade notice dated April 11, 1891, 
 fixing the day for the Act of 1893 to come into 
 force. St. E. & 0. 1894, p. 123. 
 
 0. in C. dated April 30, 1894, malting regs. 
 under s. 5 of the Act of 1893 as to licences under 
 art. Hi. of the scheduled convention, St. R. & 0. 
 1894, p. 134. 
 
 Seal Eisheet.] O. in C. dated June 23, 1891, 
 under the Seal Fishery (Behring's Sea) Act, 1891 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 19). Lond, Gaz. June 24, 1891, 
 p. 3365. 
 
 0. in C. dated May 16, 1893 (" The Seal Fishery 
 (Behring's Sea) 0. in C. 1893"). Lond. Gaz. 
 May 19, 1893, p. 2899, 
 
 By the Seal Fisheries (North Faeific) Act, 1895 
 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 21), the Act of 1893 was repealed 
 and fresh provision made. 
 
 0. in 0. dated Nov. 21, 1895 ("The Seal 
 Fisheries (North Pacific) 0. in C. 1895"). 
 St. R. & 0. 1895, 569. Price id. 
 
 By the Behring Sea' Award Act, 1891 (57 * 58 
 Vict. c. 2), the [Behring Sea Award was carried 
 into effect. 
 
 FISHERY (Sea) — continued. 
 
 0. in G. dated April 30, 1894 (" The Behring 
 Sea Award 0. in 0. 1891"). St, R, & 0. 1884, 
 p. 129. 
 
 0. in C. dated Feb. 2, 1895 (" The Behring 
 Sea Award 0. in C. 1895 "). St. E. & 0. 1896; 
 No. 61. Price ^d. 
 
 By-laws.] Begs, made hy Bd. of Trad,e, 
 dated Nov. 9, 1894, with respect to the maldng of 
 hy-laws under the provisions of the Sea Fisheries 
 Regulation Acts, 1888 to 1894. St, R. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 1828. 
 
 PoEEiGsr Boats.] 0. of Bd. of Customs, 
 dated April 2, 1884, directing that the provisions 
 of the Customs Consolidated Act, 1876, and the 
 Acts amending the same, shall apply to foreign sea 
 fishing boats. St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 1887, 
 
 1. — Oysters — Foreign Oysters — Sale in close 
 seasons— ^Fisheries Oyster, Crab and Lobster Act, 
 1877 (40 * 41 Vict. c. 42), 8. 4. 
 
 Oysters taken in foreign waters and relaid 
 and stored until wanted for sale, in English 
 waters, where they do not breed, may be sold in 
 the close season. Eobeetson v. Johnson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 129 
 
 2. — Sea fisheries — Fisheries committee — 
 Appointment of officer — Conditions as to expendi- 
 ture — Power of one of several councils to impose— 
 Sea Fisheries Begulation Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 54), s. 6. 
 
 By s. 6, sub-s. 1, of the Sea Fisheries Kegu- 
 lation Act, 1888, " Subjfect to any restrictions or 
 conditions as to expenditure made by the council 
 or councils by whom a local fisheries committee 
 is appointed, the committee may appoint such 
 fishery officers as they deem expedient " for the 
 purposes therein specified : — 
 
 Held, that the restrictions and conditions as 
 to expenditure in connection with the appoint- 
 ment of a particular officer cannot be made after 
 the officer has been appointed. 
 
 Semble, that where a local fisheries committee 
 has been appointed by more county or borough 
 councils than one, it is open to any one of such 
 councils to make restrictions or conditions as to 
 expenditure under the above section without the 
 assent of the other councils. Eeg. v. Mayoe, &o., 
 of Plymouth V. WiUiams J. [1896] 1 ft. B. 168 
 
 Considered by Div. Ct. Eeg. v. North Biding 
 of Yorkshire County Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 201, 
 212. See next Case. 
 
 3. — Sea fisheries — Fisheries committee— Con- 
 ditions as to expenditure — Power of one of several 
 councils to oppose — Sea Fisheries Begulation Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 51), «. 6, sm6 s. 1. 
 
 Where a local sea fisheries committee con- 
 tains representatives of more than one county or 
 borough council, it is not open to any one of such 
 councils to make conditions or restrictions as to 
 expenditure under s. 6, sub-.s. 1 of the Sea 
 Fisheries Begulation Act, 1888, but the conditions 
 or restrictions referred to in that subsection can 
 only be imposed by the common agreement of all 
 the councils represented on the committee. 
 
 Beg. V. Mayor, &c., of Plymouth, [1896] 1 Q. B. 
 158, considered. Eeg. v. Noeth Biding of 
 YoRKSHiBE County Council 
 
 Div. Ct, [1899] 1 ft, B, 201 
 
( 823 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 82i ) 
 
 FISHERY {Sea,)— continued. 
 
 i. — Several fishery in tidal waters — Fore- 
 sliore of the sea. 
 
 Prima facie the Crown is entitled to every 
 part of the foreshore of the sea between high and 
 low water-mark. But, proof of the ownership of 
 a several fishery over part of the foreshore raises 
 a presumption against the Crown that the free- 
 hold of that part is in the owner of the fishery. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Emerson 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1891] A. C. 649 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Ecroyd v. Goult- 
 hard, [1S97] 2 Ch. 554, 571 ; C. A. 1 1898] 2 Ch. 
 358. 
 
 Salmon and Freshwater. 
 
 5. — Boundary — Fishings ex adverso glebe 
 lands — Salmon fishings. 
 
 Where in a pending cause it appears that the 
 Crown has a prima facie claim to the salmon 
 fishings in dispute, the Court ought to direct 
 intimation to be made to the Crown authorities ; 
 and stay the action pending their decision to 
 appear or bring a separate action. 
 
 The pursuer's lands of Ardoe and the de- 
 fender's lands of Banchory marched inland, and 
 were both bounded by the Kiver Dee. But at 
 the river there was interjected between these 
 two estates the glebe of Banohory-Devenick, 
 which extended along the river front 350 yards. 
 The minister liad no title to the salmon fishings. 
 The titles of Ai'doe and Banchory included the 
 salmon fishings "belonging to" the lands; but 
 these titles contained no express grant to the 
 fishings ex adverso the glebe. The pursuer 
 admitted that the defender had an exclusive 
 right to the fishings eastward from a drain lead- 
 ing to the river from the offices of the manse, 
 but he claimed the exclusive right fiom the east 
 march of Ardoe up to the same drain, a space of 
 135 yards. The defender maintained that the 
 fishings in question belonged to him, as being ex 
 adverso of his lands of Kirkton of Banchory : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the Ct. olSess., 
 21 K. 282, that it was a matter of reasonable 
 inference from the proof that the glebe included 
 no part of the lands of Kirkton, but did include 
 portions of Banchory and Ardoe, and that the 
 disputed fishings remained with Ardoe. Ogston 
 V. Stewakt H, I. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 120 
 
 — British North America Act — Rivers and lake 
 — Fishing lake. 
 See Canada. 21. 
 
 6. — Fishery district — Limits — Tributary — 
 Salmon Fisheries Act, 1865 (28 * 29 Vict. a. 121) 
 — Liverpool Corporation Waterworhs Act, 1880 
 (43 & 44 Vict. c. cxliii.). 
 
 A Secretary of State's certificate under the 
 Salmon Fishery Acts, 1861 to 1876, defined the 
 limits of the Severn Fishery District as including 
 " so much of the Eiver Severn and of all of the 
 tributaries of the said river" as was situate 
 within certain counties : — 
 
 (a) Meld, that a reservoir, formed by damming 
 the valley and enclosing the waters of tlie Eiver 
 Vyrawy, was not a " tributary " of the Severn, 
 and, therefore, not within the Severn fishery 
 district, although the Vyrnwy was formerly a 
 tributary of the Severn, and water still over- 
 
 FISHEET (Salmon and Freshwater) — continued. 
 flowed from the reservoir into the Severn. George 
 V. Carpentbe - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q, B. 505 
 (e) Beld, that a brook running into a river 
 which in turn ran into the Severn was a tribu- 
 tary of the Severn within the certificate. Evans 
 V. Owens - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 ft. B. 237 
 
 7. — Fishery — Salmon —Device to catch fish — 
 Nets — " Other like instrument " — Salmon Fishery 
 Act, 1861 (24 * 25 Vict. c. 109), s. 8— Salmon 
 Fishery Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 71), s. 18. 
 
 A fishing net with an illegally small mesh is 
 not a " like instrument " to a snare within the 
 meaning of s. 8 of the Salmon Fishery Act, 1861, 
 as extended by s. 18 of the Salmon Fishery Act, 
 1873; and, therefore, the mere possession of such 
 a net, although with the intention of catching 
 salmon by means thereof, is not an offence within 
 those Acts. Jones v. Davies 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 405 
 
 8. — Illegal methods — Fixed engines — Toot 
 and haul net — -Prescription, — Salmon Fishery Acts. 
 
 The toot and haul net used in the estuary of 
 the Tay is fastened by a rope at one end to the 
 shore. The net is then placed on a boat or coble ; 
 the boat with its net is pulled out by means of 
 an overhaul rope to an anchor in the stream ; the 
 boatman on reaching the anchor attaches the net 
 at about twenty yards from its end to a floating 
 rope fastened to the anchor ; the end of the net 
 is then turned inward towards the shore forming 
 a bend or hook, and the men on shore haul the 
 net taut. Another rope attached to the boat 
 keeps the net upright. The net is retained in 
 this upright position until a fish strikes it, when 
 the outer end is freed and hauled in by fishermen 
 on shore so as to encircle the fish : — 
 
 Held, aflirming the decision of the Ct. of Sess. 
 (1899) 1 F. 651, that this mode of fisiiing for 
 salmon was an illegal method within the mean- 
 ing of the Salmon Fishery Acts. 
 
 Second Appeal. 
 
 Salmon fishing — Hang nets — Illegal methods. 
 
 The drift or hang nets used in the Eiver Tay 
 
 are from 80 to 220 yards long and 12 to 19 feet 
 
 in depth, and are shot into the river about an 
 
 hour before the turn of the tide both at high and 
 
 low water, when the current is least. They are 
 
 run out of a boat over the stern, in a straight line 
 
 across the river, and followed with the current 
 
 by a man in a boat, who, when he sees or feels 
 
 the net struck by a fish, rows to the spot and 
 
 captures the fish entangled in the net, or, if the 
 
 fish is getting away, he secures it with a gaff. 
 
 The net is not fixed to any post on the shore ; — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 
 that fishing in the tidal portions of the Eiver 
 
 Tay with drift or hang nets was an illegal method 
 
 of fishing for salmon within the meaning of the 
 
 Salmon Fishery Acts. Weddesbubn v. Duke of 
 
 Atholl. Duke of Atholl v. Glover Incoe- 
 
 POEATiON OF Perth H. L. (Sc.) [1900] A. C. 403 
 
 — Inclosure Act— Waste land — Bed of river — 
 
 Eight of fishing — Eeservation to lord 
 
 of manor — Territorial rights. 
 
 See Water. 45. 
 
 9. — Justice present at meeting of conservancy 
 hoard — Disqualification — Salmon fisheries — 
 
C 825 ) 
 
 DiaES'I* OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 826 ) 
 
 I'ISHEBY (Salmon and Freshwater) — continued. 
 Salmon Fishery Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. v. 121), 
 ss. 27, 61. 
 
 A justice -who is present at a meeting of a 
 oonservanoy board when a resolution is passed to 
 take proceedings for tlie violation of provisions 
 of the Salmon ITisheries Acts is disqualified from 
 adjudicating on proceedings so authorized, not- 
 withstanding s. 61 of the Salmon Fishery Act, 
 1865. Eeg. v. Henlet 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 604 
 Eeferred to Lawrance J. Beg. v. Burton, 
 Ex parte Young, [1897] 2 Q. B. 468, 472. 
 
 10. — Licence, or grant of incorporeal here- 
 ditament — Profit a pendre — Disturbance of rights 
 of grantee — Action by owner of incorporeal here- 
 ditament. 
 
 E. granted by deed to the pits, for a term 
 of years "the exclusive right of fishing" in a 
 defined part of the Elver C, with a proviso that 
 "the right of fishing hereby granted shall only 
 extend to fair rod and line angling, and to netting 
 for the sole purpose of procuring fish-halts. The 
 deft, wrongfully discharged into the stream water 
 loaded with sediment, the effect of which was to 
 drive away the fish and injure the breeding : — 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that the grant did not give 
 •' mere licence to fish, hut a right to fish and to 
 carry away the fish caught ; hut this was a profit 
 a pendre, and was an incorporeal hereditament ; 
 and that the pits, had a right of action against 
 any one who wrongfully did any act by which 
 the enjoyment of the rights given to them by the 
 deed was prejudicially affected. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. Pitz- 
 QERALB V. FlKBANK C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 96 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Eeroyd v. Coulthard, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 54, 565 ; 0. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 358. 
 
 11. — Offences under Salmon Fishery Acts 
 — Justice — Summary proceedings — Limitation of 
 time—Becovery of penalties — Salmon Fishery Act, 
 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 71), s. Si—Summary Juris- 
 diction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 riot. c. 43), s. 11. 
 
 The effect of s. 62 of the Salmon Fishery Act, 
 1873, and s. 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1848, is that a penalty for an offence under the 
 Salmon Fishery Acts may be recovered sum- 
 marily if the complaint be made within six 
 months from the commission of the offence. 
 MoBws V. Duncan [1898] W. N. 148 (4); 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 4 
 — Ownership of bed of river — Presumption — 
 
 Eebuttal— Evidence — ^Admissibility. 
 
 See Watee. 41. 
 
 12. — Fvhlic right — Non-tidal waters. 
 
 The public cannot by prescription or other- 
 wise obtain a legal right to fish in a non-tidal 
 river even though it is navigable. But evidence 
 of fishing by the public as of right is admissible, 
 but not conclusive, as evidence in derogation of 
 a claim to a several fishery. 
 
 (a) Smith v. Andkews 
 
 ^ ^ North J, [1891] 2 Ch. 678 
 
 (b) Blodnt v. Xatabd 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 681, n. 
 
 (c) Hindson v. Ashey C. a. [1896] 2 Ch. 1 
 Cd) Ecroyd v. Coulthaed 
 
 ^ ' C A. [1898] 2 Ch. 358. 
 
 FISHERY (Salmon and Freshwater) — continued. 
 
 — Eipariau owner — Several fishery — Accretions. 
 
 See Water. • 41, 45. 
 
 13. — Trout stream— Erection of weir or dam 
 — Injunction — Fresh-water fishery. 
 
 The erection in a river or stream (whether 
 frequented by salmon or not) of a weir whereby 
 non-migratory fish are prevented from reaching 
 the upper portions of the stream, constitutes an 
 injury to the owners of fisheries on those upper 
 waters, in respect of which they may have a 
 cause of action on damage shewn. Barker v. 
 Patilkner Stirling J. [1898] W, N. 69 (8) 
 
 FIXTaRES— Agricultural holdings— Buildings. 
 See IjANdlokd asd Tenant — Agricul- 
 tural Holdings. 10. 
 
 — Mortgage of fixtures. 
 
 See FiXTOEES, passim. 
 
 — Mortgage of land together with fixed machi- 
 
 nery — Non-registration — Invalidity. 
 See Bill of Sale. 40. 
 
 1. — Movable Chattels — Annexation to free- 
 hold — Stuffed-bird collection — Mansion-house — ■ 
 Settled estate — Tenant for life. 
 
 A bird gallery in a settled mansion-house 
 contained a valuable collection, commenced over 
 sixty years ago, of stuffed birds, which were 
 attached to movable wooden trays placed in iron 
 glass-fronted cases affixed to the walls of tlie 
 gallery. 
 
 In an action between the present tenant for 
 life of the mansion-house and the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy of the late tenant for life : — 
 
 Seld, that the contents of the cases were not 
 to be treated as annexed to the freehold, but were 
 movable personal chattels, and as such belonged 
 to the trustee in bankruptcy of the late tenant 
 for life. 
 
 The decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. 
 
 D'EyncouH v. Gregory, (1860) L. E. 3 Eq. 382, 
 discussed. Viscount Hill v. Bullock 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 482 
 
 2. — Purchase and hire agreement — Bights of 
 mortgagee against owner affixtures. 
 
 By leaving a mortgagor in possession the 
 mortgagee impliedly authorizes him to carry on 
 his business and to hire and bring in such fixtures 
 as are necessary for his trade, and agree with the 
 owners as to their removal. 
 
 A. held a nursery garden under lease from B. 
 and agreed with C. to supply him with hot water 
 apparatus on the hire and purchase system for a 
 sum payable by instalments; the apparatus to 
 remain C.'s property until payment of the last 
 instalment, and on default of payment C. to be at 
 liberty to remove the same. B. joined in the 
 agreement (which was not under seal) to enable 
 0. to do this. Afterwards A. mortgaged his land 
 to D. who had no notice of the agreement. After 
 the mortgage, C, who had no notice thereof, set up 
 the apparatus which was fixed in brickwork : — 
 
 Held, that C. was entitled to remove the 
 apparatus on default of payment by A. Gough 
 V. Wood & Co. C. A, [1894] 1 Q. B. 713 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. Hudderefield BanUi g 
 Go. V. H. Lister & Son, Ld., [1895] 2 Ch. 273 ; 
 Sdbson v. Gorringe, [1897] 1 Ch. 182. 
 
( 827 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 828 ) 
 
 VXXTU'R'ES— continued. 
 
 3. — Bights of mortgagee against owner of 
 trade fixtures. 
 
 By leaving a mortgagor in possession the 
 mortgagee impliedly authorizes him to carry on 
 his business, and to hire and bring in such fixtures 
 as are necessary for his trade, and to agree with 
 the owners as to their removal, and cannot claim 
 to include in his security trade fixtures set up or 
 removed under such agreements. Gough v. 
 "Wood & Co. - C, A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 713 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Huddersfield Banldng 
 Co. V. H. Lister & Son. Ld., [1895] 2 Ch. 273 ; 
 ^oUon V. Gorringe, [1897] 1 Cli. 182. 
 
 .4. — Tapestry — Heirlooms — Will — Executor 
 and heir. 
 
 Tapestry which had been cut and pieced so 
 as to cover the walls of a room and the spaces 
 left by the doors and mantelpiece, and hung by 
 being nailed to wooden battens let into the 
 plaster and nailed to the brickwork : — 
 
 Meld, to pass as a fixture under a devise of 
 the mansion-house. 
 
 ^D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, (1866) L. B. 3 Eq. 382, 
 followed. NoETOU v. Dashwood 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 497 
 
 Keferred to Kekewich J. Viscount Sill v. 
 Bulloch, [1897] 2 Ch. 55, 63. 
 
 5. : — Trade fixtures — Contract for erection of 
 trade machinery to be paid for hy instalments — 
 Prior mortgage of premises including machinery 
 thereafter erected — Failure of mortgagor to pay 
 instalments of purchase-money — Bight of vendor 
 to remove machinery. 
 
 A CO., lessees of a colliery, mortgaged it 
 together with all machinery then standing or 
 thereafter to be erected, and subsequently entered 
 into a contract for the erection of machinery to 
 be paid for by instalments, such machinery to 
 remain the property of the vendors until fully 
 ]iaid for. On the failure of the mortgagor to pay 
 the instalments the vendors were held entitled to 
 remove their machine notwithstanding proceed- 
 inigs by the mortgagees to enforce their security. 
 
 CUMEEELAND UNION BaNKINO Co. V. MaBTPOKT 
 
 Hematite Ikon and Steel Co. Jn re Makypokt 
 Hematite Ikon and Steel Co. (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 415 
 Followed by G. A. Gough v. Wood & Co., 
 [1891] 1 Q. B. 713, see No. 2, ahove. 
 
 .Discussed by C. A. Huddersfield Banhing Co- 
 V. Henry Lister & Son, Ld., [1895] 2 Ch. 273, 
 282 ; Hohson v. Gorringe, [1897], 1 Ch. 182. 
 
 6. — Trade fixtures — Contract for erection of 
 trade machinery to he paid for hy instalments. 
 
 A CO., lessees of a colliery, mortgaged it 
 together with all machinery then standing or 
 thereafter to be erected, and subsequently entered 
 into a contract for the erection of machinery to bo 
 paid for byiustalments, such machinery to remain 
 the property of the vendors until fully paid for. 
 On the failure of the mortgagor to pay the 
 instalments the vendors were held entitled to 
 remove their machine notwithstanding proceed- 
 ings by the mortgagees to enforce their security. 
 (..umberland Union Banking Co. v. Makypokt 
 
 riXTUSES— conimiiCfJ. 
 
 Hematite Ibon and Steel Co. (No. 2). In re 
 
 Martpoet Hematite Iron and Steel Co. 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 415 
 
 Followed by C. A. Gough v. Wood, [1894] 
 1 Q. B. 713. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Hohson y. Gorringe, [1897] 
 ICh. 182. 
 
 7. Trade fixture — Hiring agreement — Gas 
 engine — Mortgage of trade premises — Entry of 
 mortgagee into possession — Bight of removal hy 
 owner. 
 
 In determining whether or not a chattel has 
 become a fixture, the intention of the person 
 affixing it to the soil is material only so far as it 
 can be presumed from the degree and object of 
 the annexation. 
 
 Holland v. Hodgson, (1872) L. K. 7 C. P. 328, 
 explained. 
 
 Wood V. Hewett, (1846) 8 Q. B. 913, and 
 Lancaster v. Em, (1859) 5 C. B. (N.S.) 717, dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 A gas engine was let out on the hire and 
 purchase system under an agreement in writing, 
 which provided that it should not become the 
 property of the hirer until the payment of all the 
 instalments, and should be removable by the 
 owner on the failure of the hirer to pay any in- 
 stalment. The engine was affixed to freehold 
 land of the hirer by bolts and screws to prevent 
 it from rooking, and whs used by him for the 
 purposes of his trade. Default having been made 
 in the payment of the instalments, the engine 
 was claimed by the owner, and also by a mort- 
 gagee of the land, who took his mortgage after 
 the hiving agreement and without notice of it, 
 and had entered into possession while the engine 
 was still on the land : — 
 
 Held, that the engine was suiBciently annexed 
 to the land to become a fixture, and that any 
 intention to be inferred from the terms of the 
 hiring agreement that it should remain a chattel 
 did not prevent it from becoming a fixture ; and 
 consequently that it passed to the mortgagee as 
 part of the freehold : 
 
 Held, further, that even if a licence to remove 
 the engine could be implied from the mortgagee 
 leaving the mortgagor in possession, the entry of 
 the mortgagee into possession determined such 
 
 liC6IlC6 
 
 Goiigh V. Wood & Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 713, and 
 Cumberland Union Banking Co. v. Maryport 
 Haimatite Iron and Steel Co., [1892] 1 Ch. 415, 
 discussed. Hobson v. Gokkinge 
 
 C. A. [1897] lCh.182 
 
 — Trade machinery. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 38—40. 
 
 — Valuation of fixtures, crops, &c. — Sale by 
 
 tenant for life. 
 
 See Settled Land. 45. 
 
 PLAGGING rOOTWAY — Apportionment of 
 expenses. 
 See LoNDOK— Streets. 68. 
 
 FLATS — Conversion of part of residential, into a 
 club. 
 See InjckctIon. 32. 
 
( 829 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 830 ) 
 
 tliAIS— continued. 
 
 — Covenant by landlord to appoint resident 
 
 porter. 
 
 See Specific Pekfokmancb. 7. 
 
 1. — Implied obligation — Common scheme.' 
 An injunction granted to restrain the con- 
 version into a club of a large part of a building 
 constructed for occupation in residential flats, at 
 the instance of a tenant under an agreement in 
 common form binding her to rules adapted to 
 residential purposes. Hudson «. Cbipps 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 161 (5) 
 
 — Liability of landlord to persons using stair- 
 
 case — Implied agreement. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 68. 
 
 — Eestrictive covenant — Benefit — Covenant 
 
 running with the land — "Private resi- 
 dence " — " Eesidential flats " 
 See Covenant. 2, 5. 
 
 — Whether separate " buildings " — District sur- 
 
 veyor's fees. 
 
 Se-e London — Buildings. 29. 
 
 FLOATING CHARGE— Debentures. 
 
 See Cases under Debentures. 
 
 " FLOATING SECnEITY "— What is a "floating 
 
 security " discussed in Bkdnton v. Electekal 
 
 Engineebing Coepoeation Kekewioh J. [1892] 
 
 1 Ch, 434, at p. 439 
 
 — Debentures. 
 
 See COMPANT — Debentures. 48—58. 
 
 — Debentures — Transfer. 
 
 See Eeadds, Statute of. 5. 
 
 — Debenture-holders — Parties. 
 
 See Mobtsaqe— Foreclosure. 27. 
 
 FLOOD — Damage by — Artificial watercourse — 
 Sluice-gate — Obligation of owner to re- 
 pair. 
 See Watee. 37. 
 
 — Flooding by sewers — Nuisance — Liability. 
 
 See Sewees. 6. 
 
 "FLOTATION"— Contract — Construction — 
 British South Africa Company's Mining 
 Ordinance. 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 4. 
 
 FOG — Collision of vessels. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 63—66. 
 
 FOLLOWING ASSETS— Protection of creditors- 
 Voluntary assignment of policy — Credi- 
 tors' administration action. 
 See Feauduleht Conveyance. 5. 
 
 — Betainer — Notice — Creditor of higher degree 
 
 — Plene administravit. 
 
 See ExBouTOE — Retainer. 63. 
 
 FOOD — Unsound food. Destruction of — Duty of 
 magistrate — Public Health {London) Act, 1891 
 (51 & 55 Vict. c. 76), 8. 47. 
 
 Where proceedings are taken before a magis- 
 trate under s. 47 of the Public Health (London) 
 Act, 1891, for the condemnation as diseased, or 
 unsound, or unwholesome, or unfit for the food of 
 man, of an article seized by a medical officer of 
 health or sanitary inspector under the provisions 
 of that section, the magistrate has no jurisdiction 
 to inquire whether the article was intended for 
 the food of man, but" is bound to order its destruc- 
 
 FOOD — continued. 
 
 tion upon being satisfied that it is in fact 
 diseased, or unsound, or unwholesome, or unfit 
 for the food of man. Thomas v. Van Os 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q, B. 448 
 
 2. — Unsound fruit — Found in the possession 
 of any person — Public Health {London) Act, 1891, 
 8.47(3). 
 
 A. sold walnuts which turned out to be un- 
 sound. A notice was posted in his shop to the 
 effect that the walnuts were sold on the condition 
 that the buyer should sort them and destroy any 
 which were unsound. A. was charged under 
 s. 47, sub-s. 3, of the Public Health (London) 
 Act, 1891, and elected to be tried on indictment. 
 The jury were directed to find him guilty if he 
 sold the walnuts when unfit for the food of man, " 
 unless he proved that he did not know and had 
 no reason to believe they were so, and were told 
 to disregard the printed notice : Held, by C. C. E. 
 (Mathew J. dissent), that the conviction must be 
 quashed : Held, by C. C. E. (Mathew J. dissent.), 
 that the vendor can only be convicted under 
 sub-s. 3 where the article is liable to be seized 
 after it has got into the possession of the pur- 
 chaser : Held, by Hawkins, Grantham, Charles, 
 Lawrance, Wright, Bruce, and Kennedy JJ., that 
 the jury should have been asked whether the 
 sale was subject to the notice, and whether the 
 walnuts were sold for the food of man : Held, by 
 Mathew and Cave JJ., that assuming the notice 
 was embodied in the contract of sale, that A. was 
 not thereby relieved from the duty imposed by the 
 sub-section, and that the jury should not be asked 
 whether the walnuts were sold for the food of 
 man: Held, by Mathew J., that when A. sold 
 the walnuts they were sold to be used for food 
 when unsound, and were, therefore, liable to be 
 seized under the sub-section, and that the con- 
 viction should be affirmed. Eeg. i). Dennis 
 
 C. C. E. [1894] 2 Q. B. 458 
 
 8, — Unsound meat — Guilty knowledge. 
 
 On a summons under s. 117 of the Public 
 Health Act, 1875, charging a person with having 
 unsound meat on his premises for sale, it is not 
 necessary to shew that the defendant had per- 
 sonal knowledge of the condition of the meat. 
 Blakee v. Tillstone Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 345 
 
 4. — Unsound meat — Not exposed for sale. 
 
 A person having in his possession unsound 
 meat intended for human food . can be convicted 
 under s. 117 of the Public Health Act, 1875, not- 
 withstanding that he has not exposed the meat 
 for sale. Mallison v. Cakr 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B, 48 
 
 6. — Unsound meat — Seized but not con- 
 demned — Full compensatioii. 
 
 The owner of meat seized as unsound and 
 brought before a justice for condemnation under 
 ss. 116, 117 of the Public Health Act, 1875, is 
 not entitled as of right to attend and give 
 evidence in defence of the meat; but the justice 
 may, if he thinks fit, hear evidence tendered by 
 the owner ; and if the justice after so doing 
 refuses to condemn the meat the full compensa- 
 tion to which the owner will be entitled under 
 s. 308 will include the costs reasonably incurred 
 in resisting the condemnation of the meat. 
 
( 831 ) 
 
 DIGEST 01? Oases, idai^igoo. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 FOOD — continued. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ot., [1893] 1 Q. B. 679, affirmed. 
 
 In re Batek and Bikkenhead Coepobation 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 77 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Barnett v. Eccles 
 Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 423, 428. 
 
 6. • — • Unsound meat — Not exposed for sale — 
 Nuisances Bemoval Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. v. 
 117), s. 2. 
 
 A person sending bad moat to market cannot 
 be convicted under the Nuisances Removal Act, 
 1863, s. 2, unless the meat has been actually 
 exposed for sale ; mere ownership of the meat is 
 not sufficient. I'aelow v. Tbbrett 
 
 Div. Ct, [1891] 2 Q. B. 107 
 
 (^Sect. 2 was repealed and further provision 
 made hy the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 
 (54 * 55 Vict. a. 76), .•<. 47.] 
 
 FOOD AND DRUGS— Sale of. 
 
 See Cases under Adtiltekation. 
 
 FOOTPATH— Bridge— Mandamus. 
 
 See Eailwat. 56. 
 — ■ Evidence of liability to repair ratione tenuras 
 
 — Remedy against a person so liable to 
 
 repair. 
 
 See Highway. 19. 
 
 — Faculty— Proviso for closing foothpath across 
 
 churchyard on one day in the year. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 27. 
 
 FOOTWAY. 
 
 See Highway. 19—21. 
 Way, Eight of. 
 
 FORCIBLE ENTRY— Landlord and tenant— Re- 
 moving roof of house. 
 See TitESPASs. 4. 
 
 FORECLOSURE — Absent debenture-holder — 
 Floaling security. 
 See Company — Debentures. 54. 
 
 — Debentures. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 31, 41. 
 
 — Mortgagors. 
 
 See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 
 
 — Mortgage of reversion — Arrears of interest — 
 
 Statute-barred debt — Retainer. 
 See Settled Land. 89. 
 
 FOREIGN ACTION — Embai go — Company — 
 Winding-up. 
 See Injdnotion. 7. 
 
 — Injunction — Execution. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Execution. 
 92. 
 
 FOREIGN ARRESTMENT— Pledge— Documents 
 of title — Conflict of laws — Goods in 
 Scotland. 
 See Factok. 3. 
 
 FOREIGN ASSETS— Debts chargeable en— Pro- 
 bate. 
 See Viotohia. 11. 
 
 FOREIGN BANKRUPTCY— Forfeiture— English 
 domioil. 
 See Will — Forfeiture. 98. 
 
 FOREIGN CO-DEFENDANT — Adding — Resi- 
 lience abroad— Discretion of Court. 
 See Practice— Parties. 77. 
 
 FOREIGN COMPANY — Agent for, assessed in 
 his own name — Income tax. 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 90. 
 
 — Certificates of shares transferable in this 
 
 country. 
 
 See Revenue — Probate Duty. 130. 
 
 — With branch office and assets in England. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Petition. 
 159. 
 FOREIGN COPYRIGHT. 
 
 See Copyright — International. 
 
 FOREIGN CORPORATION- Carrying on business 
 in England — Service of writ — Agent — 
 Jurisdiction. 
 See Pkaotioe — Service. 183. 
 
 FOREIGN COUNTRY — Charge on property — 
 French debt — Enforcing payment. 
 See Company — Debentures. 60. 
 
 — Copyright — Infringement. 
 
 See Injunction. 9. 
 
 — Delivery up of document of int^rcot to — 
 
 Comity. 
 
 See EcoLESiASTiOAL Law — Custody of 
 Records, &c. 11. 
 
 — Divorce proceedings in — Separation — Cove- 
 
 nant not to molest. 
 
 See Husband and Wife— Separation, 
 68. 
 
 — Lunatic — English persons lawfully detained 
 
 abroad. 
 
 See Lunacy — Custody. 13. 
 
 — Publication of libel in — Action for damages — 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 29. 
 
 FOREIGN COURT— Absent foreigner- Personal 
 action. 
 See International Law. 6. 
 
 — Decree of — Irregularity — Nullity — Jurisdic- 
 
 tion — Recognition by English Courts. 
 See Conflict op Laws. 7. 
 
 — Execution — Company registered in Scotland. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 102, 233. 
 
 — Judgment in rem — Ship— Liquidator. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Practice. 
 187. 
 
 — Scottish action — Invalidity — Relation back. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 235. 
 
 FOREIGN CURATOR- Lunatic — Residence out 
 
 of jurisdiction — English stocks and 
 
 shares — Transfer. 
 
 See Lunacy — Vesting Order. 46. 
 FOREIGN CURRENCY— Contract— Works nbro ^d 
 
 — Period of couvercion into English 
 
 money. 
 
 See Account. 1. 
 
 FOREIGN DIVORCE— Domiciled Englishman- 
 Jurisdiction of foreign Court. 
 See Divorce — Jurisdiction. 87. 
 
 FOREIGN DOCUMENTS— Translations-Solicitor 
 — Costs — Administration. 
 See Solicitor — Costs, 47. 
 
 FOREIGN DOMICIL— Conflict of laws. 
 
 See Cases under Conflict of Laws. 
 
( 833 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 834 ) 
 
 FOREIGN TiOTILIClL— continued.} 
 
 — Gi'ftnt of administration. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 33, 34, 55. 
 
 — Lunacy. 
 
 See Lunacy. 13, 29, 36, 37. 
 
 FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT — Area of opera- 
 tion of Act — Pleading — Foreign Enlistment Act, 
 1870 (33 ct- 34 Vict. c. 90). 
 
 By s. 11 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, 
 " If any person within the limits of Her Majesty's 
 dominions, and -without the licence of Her 
 Majesty, prepares or iits out any naval or mili- 
 tary expedition to proceed against the dominions 
 of any friendly State, the following consequences 
 shall ensue: (1.) Every person engaged in svich 
 preparation or fitting out, or assisting therein, 
 or employed in any capacity in such expedition, 
 shall be guilty of an offence" : — 
 
 Held, that, if there be an unlawful prepara- 
 tion of an expedition by some person within Her 
 Majesty's dominions, any British subject who 
 asoists in such preparation will be guilty of an 
 offence even though he renders the assistance 
 from a place outside Her Majesty's dominions. 
 
 By s. 2 of the said Act, " This Act shall 
 extend to all the dominions of Her Majesty." 
 And by s. 3, " This Act shall come into opera- 
 tion in the United Kingdom immediately on the 
 passing thereof, and shiUl be proclaimed in every 
 Britisli possession by the governor thereof as soon 
 ns may be after he receives notice of this Act, 
 and shall come into operation in that Biitish 
 possession on the day of such i^roclamation." 
 
 An indictment alleged that " within the limits 
 of Her Majesty's dominions nnd after the coming 
 into operation therein of the Act called 'The 
 Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870,' " certain offences 
 against the said Act were committed : — 
 
 Held, that tlie indictment sufficiently alleged 
 the Act to have been in operation in tliat part of 
 Her Majesty's dominions in which the alleged 
 offences were committed. Keg. v. Jameson 
 
 [1896] 2 Q, B, 425 
 
 2. — False representation — Bight of action — 
 Person induced hy misrepresentation to commit 
 crime— Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Vict.c. 90), s. 11. 
 
 Where a. person is induced by the fraudulent 
 misrepresentation of another to do an act which, 
 in consequence of such misrepresentation, he 
 believes to be neither illegal or immoral, but 
 which is in fact a criminal offence, he has a right 
 of action against the person so inducing him for 
 damages sustained by him in consequence of his 
 having done such act. Burrows r. Ehodes and 
 Jameson Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B, 816 
 
 3. — When foreign States hegin to be " at war " 
 —Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870 (33 <fc 34 Vict. 
 c. 9;j), s. 8. 
 
 A State is at war within the meaning of the 
 Foreign Enlistment Act as soon aa hostilities 
 have in fact begun, whether war has been formally 
 declared or not, and that it is an offence to do 
 any of the acts prohibited by s. 8 with the know- 
 ledge that hostilities have in fact begun, whether 
 the British Government has officially notified the 
 existence of the state of war by a declaration of 
 
 FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT— continued. 
 neutrality or not. United States of America 
 V. Felly Bigham J. [1899] W. N. 13 (9) 
 
 FOREIGN FIRM— Action against— Service. 
 See Practice — Service. 108. 
 
 — Branch in England — Liability. 
 
 See Partnership. 40. 
 
 — Lex fori — Action against deceased partner. 
 
 See Conflict oe Laws. 13. 
 — ■ Parties — Some members resident abroad — 
 Amendment of writ — Fresh causes of 
 action. 
 See Practice — Parties. 82. 
 
 — Security for costs. 
 
 See Costs— Security for Costs. 52—58. 
 
 — Stamp — English trade-maik and goodwill. 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 161. 
 
 FOREIGN GAME— Sale without excise licence. 
 See Revenue — Game Licence. 49. 
 
 FOREIGN-GOING SHIP— Coasting trade. 
 See Shipping — Pilotage. 187. 
 
 FOREIGN JUDGMENT- Action on. 
 
 See Costs — Security for Costs. 56. 
 
 — Divorce — Irregularity — Recognition by Eng- 
 
 lish Court. 
 
 See Conflict op Laws. 
 
 FOREIGN JURISDICTION. 
 
 Heference to the wlwle of the Foreign Jurisdic- 
 tion Vrders in Council under the Extradition Actx 
 issued prior to 1891 and (Jan. 1, 1893) in force is 
 given in the " Index to the Statutory Pules and 
 Orders," 1893 edit. St. 0. P. 
 
 The following is a list of the Orders in Council 
 issued subsequently to Dec. 31, 1890 : — 
 
 Africa.] 0. in G. dated May 9, 189 1, revoldng 
 0. in C. of Jan. 27, 1885, and June ."0, 1890, as 
 to South Africa. St. R. & 0. 1891, p. 335. 
 
 0. in C. dated JiUy 30, 1891, amending this 
 last Order. St. R. & 0. 1891, p, 298. 
 
 0. in C. dated Dec. 12, 1891, extending the 
 Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to certain places in 
 South Africa. St. E. & 0, 1891, p. 307. 
 
 0. in C. dated June 28, 1882 (■' The Africa 0. 
 in C. 1892 "). St. R. & 0. 1893, p. 486. 
 
 O. in C, dated July 37, 1893 (" The Africa O. 
 in C. 1893 "). St. R. & 0. 1893, p. 308. 
 
 0. in C. dated July 18, 1894 (" The Matabele- 
 land 0. in C. 1894 "). St. R. & 0, 1894, p. 133. 
 
 0. in C. dated Oct. 3, 1895, as to the validity 
 of certain marriages solemnised within the limits 
 of the Matabeleland 0. in C, 1894. St. R. & 0. 
 1896, No. 407. Price ^d. 
 
 0. in G. dated June 29, 1896, as to exercise of 
 British jurisdiction in certain territories »« South 
 Africa. St. R. & 0. 1896, No. 576, p. 117. 
 
 0. in C. dated Jan. 15, 1897, amending the 
 Amatongaland 0. in G. 1896. St. R. & 0. 1897, 
 p. 133, No. 82. 
 
 0. in C. dated July 7, 1897 ('• The East Afnca 
 0. in a 1897 "). St. R. & 0, 1897, p. 134, No. 675. 
 
 Africa — Lagos Protectorate.] ■ 0. in C. 
 dated Dec. 27, 1899. St. R. & 0. 1899, p. 63S, 
 No. 993. 
 
 Africa-- NoETH-E ASTERN EhOBEsia,] 0. in 
 
 2 E 
 
( 835 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 836 ) 
 
 FOREIGN JUKISDICTION—eojiKmMed. 
 
 G. Jan. 29, 1900. St. E. & 0. 1900, No. 89 ; lond. 
 
 Gaz. Feb. 9, 1900, p. 901. 
 
 East Afkioa Pkoteotokate.] 0. in G. dated 
 Oct. 7, 1899. St R. & 0. 1899, p. 616, No. 757 ; 
 lond. Gaz. Oct, 17, 1899, p. 6233. 
 
 China, Japan, and Cobea.] Merchandise 
 Maries Act, 1887 — Patents, Designs, and Trade 
 Marks Acts, 1883 to 1888) 0. in G. dated Feb. 2, 
 
 1899. St. R. & 0. 1899, p, 639, No. 82. 
 
 0. in G. dated Oct. 7, 1899. St. E, & 0. 1899, 
 p. 964, No. 759; Loud. Gaz. Oct. 17, 1899, p. 6241. 
 
 China — China and Coeea.] Consular and 
 Marriage Fees 0. in G. 1900. loud. Gaz. Feb. 6, 
 
 1900, p. 783 ; St. E. & 0. 1900, No. 90. 
 Supreme Gourt 0. in G. dated March 3, 1900. 
 
 lond. Gaz. March 9, 1900, p. 1618; St. R. & 0. 
 1900, No. 167. 
 
 China, Japan, and Cokea.j China, Japan, 
 and Gorea (Supreme Gourt) 0. in C. dated July 14, 
 1899. St. R. & 0. 1899, p. 641, No. 572. 
 
 China, Japan, and Cohea — Japan.] 0. in C 
 dated Oct. 7, 1899, declaring that certain provisions 
 of previous 0. in G. shall cease to he in force within 
 Japan. St. R. & 0. 1899, p. 642, No. 756. 
 
 C-JPKUS.] 0. in G. dated May 9, 1892, 
 approving Proclamation as to Currency. St. E. & 
 0. 1892, p. 41. 
 
 O. in G. dated Nov. 23, 1893, applying the 
 Colonial Courts of Admir. Act, 1890, with certain 
 exceptions and qualifications, to the Supreme Gourt 
 of Cyprus. St. R. & 0. 1893, p. 309. 
 
 Tlte Cyprus Coinage Order, 1895, dated Feb. 2, 
 1895. St. E. & 0. 1895, No. 65. Price Id 
 
 The Cyprus Extradition Order, 1S95, dated 
 March 8, 1895. St, E, & 0, 1895, No. 136. 
 Price Id. 
 
 The Cyprus Extradition Order, 1895, No. 2, 
 dated Dec. VI, 1895. St. E. & 0. 1895, No. 582. 
 Price id. 
 
 Gambia, Tekkitoeies adjacent to.] 0. in C. 
 dated Nov. 23, 1893, regulating British jurisdic- 
 tion within territories adjacent to the Gambia. 
 St, R. & 0, 1893, p, 311 ; lond. Gaz. Nov. 28, 1893, 
 p. 6961. 
 
 Japan.] 0. in G. dated Oct. 7, 1899. Lond. 
 Gaz. Oct, 17, 1899, p, 6234. 
 
 MoEoooo.] 0. in G. dated May 9, 1892 (" The 
 Morocco Fees 0. in C. 1892 "). St. E. & 0. 1892, 
 p, 85. 
 
 Ottoman Empire.] 0. in G. dated Feh. 23. 
 1891, as to Fees in Consular Courts. Order of 
 Oct. 26, 1875, revoked, and Order of 1873 amended. 
 St, E. & 0, 1891, p. 300. 
 
 0. in G. Nov. 24, 1891, ("The Ottoman 
 Tribunals 0. in C. 1891")- St. R. & 0. 1891, 
 p, 305, 
 
 TAe Ottoman Dominions (Prisoners' Eemoval) 
 Order in Council, 1895, dated Felj. 2, 1895. St. 
 S. & 0, 1895, No. 53, Price id. 
 
 " Tlie Ottoman Dominions (Courts') 0, in C. 
 1895," dated March 8, 1895. St, E, & 0. 1895, 
 No. 139. Price id. 
 
 TCQ?°''S™,?^ Nigeria.] 0. in C. dated Dec. 27, 
 1899. St. K, & 0. 1899, p. 628, No. 994. 
 
 FOEEIGN JURISDICTION— confa'niied. 
 
 Ottoman Empiee.] Tlie Ottoman Dominions 
 (Supreme Gourt) 0. in C, 1896. St. R. & 0. 1896, 
 No. 693, p. 120. 
 
 Ottoman Empiee — Eptpt.] 0. in G. dated 
 Aug. 8, 1899. Schedule of Orders repealed. See 
 St. R. & 0. 1899, p. 643, No. 595; Lond. Gaz. 
 Aug. 11, 1899, p. 4949. 
 
 Paoifio.] 0. in C. dated March 15, 1893 
 (" The Pacific 0. in C. 1893 ")• St. R. & 0. 1893, 
 p. 313. 
 
 \_Tliis 0. in G. repeals and consolidates the 
 Western Pacific Orders in Council of 1877, 1879, 
 and 1880.] 
 
 Paoipic Ocean — Ellice and Gilbeet Islands 
 AND Solomon Islands.] 0. in G. dated Nov. 26, 
 1897, as to powers which may be exercised by 
 Deputy Commrs. or Residents under the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60). St. E. 
 & 0. 1897, p. 158, No. 884. 
 
 The Pacific 0. in G. 1893, Amendment Order, 
 
 1899, dated Aug. 8, 1899. St. E. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 704, No. 596. 
 
 Peesian Coast and Islands.] 0. in C. dated 
 Oct. 3, 1895 (" The Persian Coast and Islands 
 0. in G. 1895"). St. R. & 0. 1895, No. 408. 
 Price id. 
 
 SiEEEA Leone, Teekitoeies adjacent to.] 
 0. in G. Aug, 24, 1895, as to British jurisdiction 
 in territories adjacent to Sierra Deone. St. E. & 0. 
 1895, No. 397. Price Id. 
 
 Somali and Beunel] (Repeal) 0. in G. 1900. 
 St. E. & 0. 1900, No. 57; Lond. Gaz. Jan. 16, 
 
 1900, p. 281. 
 
 Somaliland Peotectoeate.] 0. in G. dated 
 Oct. 7, 1899. Lond. Gaz. Oct. 17, 1899, p. 6235 ; 
 St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 705, No, 758. 
 
 SocTHEEN Nigeeia.] 0. in C. dated Dee. 27, 
 1899. St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 634, No. 995. 
 
 SOCTHERN Ehodesia — Natuealization.] 0. 
 in G. dated March 7, 1899. St. R. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 621, No. 180. 
 
 SouTHEEN Rhodesia.] 0. in C. doled Feb. 2, 
 1899. St. R, & 0, 1899, p. 620, No. 81. 
 
 Tueket.] See Ottoman Empiee, above. 
 
 West Afeica.] Lagos Protectorate 0. in C. 
 Dec. 27, 1899. Lond. Gaz. Jan. 5, 1900, p. 74. 
 
 West Aeeioa.] Nigerian O.'s in C. Dec. 27, 
 1899. Lond. Gaz. Jan. 6, 1900, pp. 69, 71. 
 
 Zanzibar.] 1890. Nov. Foreign Office Notifi- 
 cation of assumption of British Protectorate over 
 the dominions of the Sidtan of Zanzibar. Lond. 
 Gaz, Nov. 4, 1890, p. 5802. 
 
 0. in G. dated March 16, 1892 (•' The Zanzibar 
 0. in G. 1892 "). St. R. & 0. 1892, p. 488 ; Lond. 
 Gaz. March 18, 1892, p. 1590. 
 
 0. in G. dated May 16, 1S93 (" The Zanzibar 
 Trade Maries 0. in C. 1893 "). St. E. & 0. 1893, 
 p. 405. 
 
 0. in C. dated July 17, 1893 (" Tlie Zanzibar 
 (Jurisdiction) 0. in G. 1893 "). St, E. & 0. 1893, 
 p. 406. 
 
 0. in C. dated July 7, 1897. St. E. & 0. 1897, 
 p. 159, No. 576. 
 
( 837 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 FOREIGN JURISDICTION— confenaecJ. 
 
 1. — Jurisdiction of Consular Courts in Japan 
 — Counter-claim against Japanese plaintiff. 
 
 By treaty the British Courts and the Japanese 
 territorial Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over 
 claims against British and Japanese subjects 
 respectively. Accordingly, the Consular Courts 
 have no jurisdiction to entertain a counter-claim 
 in an action by a Japanese pit. against a British 
 deft. Imfekial Japanese Goveenment i'. Penin- 
 sular AND Omental Steam Navigation Co. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. 0. 644 
 
 2. . — ■ Fowers of judge of Consular Court 
 The Consular Court of Madagascar was by 
 
 O. in C. of Feb. 4, 1869, vested with plenary civil 
 jurisdiction over all British subjects within its 
 limits, though it was not created in the sense of 
 English law a Court of Eecord : — 
 
 Held, that a judge of such a Court is entitled 
 to the same degree of protection which is 
 accorded by the law of England to the judge of 
 a Court of Eecord; and that an action for 
 damages will not lie against liim for dismissing 
 without proof an action which he held to be 
 vexatious. Haggaud v. Pelicier Fkeees 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 61 
 
 Note. — The Madagascar Court is now made 
 a Court of Beoord under the Africa O. in C. of 
 Oct. 15, 1889 : see observations of 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. at p. 65 
 
 3. — Practice of Consular Courts in Japan. 
 There is no authority expressed in or to be 
 
 implied from the rules of the Supreme Court of 
 China and Japan to warrant the joinder in one 
 suit of different and. distinct causes of action not 
 being causes of action by and against the same 
 parties. Peninsular and Oriental Steam 
 Navigation Co. v. Tsone Kijima 
 
 P. C, [1895] A, C. 661 
 Referred to by C. A. Stroud v. Lawson, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 44, 50. 
 
 — Special leave to appeal in criminal cases. 
 See Japan. 
 
 4. — Western Pacific — Jurisdiction of High 
 Commissioner's Court. 
 
 In a suit in the High Commissioner's Court 
 for the recovery of land in Samoa, and for 
 damages for conversion of its produce, it ap- 
 peared that the defts. did not dwell within the 
 bounds of the said islands, but that they had a 
 store in Samoa, af&xed to which was a signboard 
 with the name of their firm, where they carried 
 on business by servants and agents : — 
 
 Held, that under the Paoifio Islanders' Pro- 
 tection Acts, 1872, 1875, the Foreign Jurisdiction 
 Acts, 1843-1875, the 0. in C. of Aug. 13, 1877. 
 and the Treaty between H. M. and the King of 
 Samoa of Aug. 28, 1879, the defts. were within tlie 
 jurisdiction of the Court, and that the latter was 
 competent to gi-antthe relief prayed. BIcAktiiur 
 & Co. V. Cornwall P. C. [1892] A. C. 75 
 
 Note. — The jurisdiction over Samoa of the 
 above Court was abrogated by the Treaty of 
 June 14, 1889, between H. M., the U. S., and 
 Germany, establishing a, Supreme Civil Court 
 for the island : see observations of P, 0. 
 
 [1892] A. C. at p. 81 
 
 FOREIGN LAWS. 
 
 See Cases under Ooneliot op Laws. 
 
 DOMIOIL. 
 
 International Law. 
 
 — Charterparty construction — English or Ger- 
 
 man law — Non-delivery of goods 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 22. 
 
 1. — English will as to land in Italy — In- 
 validity of Trusts by Italian law. 
 
 Case in which was considered the effect of 
 Italian law on a trust in the will of an English 
 testator to sell certain lands in Sardinia and 
 apply the proceeds. In re Piercy. Whitwham 
 «. PiEROY - - North. J. [1895] ICh. 83 
 
 FOREIGN LIQUIDATION— Equitable execution. 
 See Receiver. 7. 
 
 FOREIGN LUNATIC— Curator— Right to sue in 
 England — Order of foreign Courts- 
 Jurisdiction. 
 See CoNrLiOT oe Laws. 7. 
 
 — Entitled to real estate in England — Practice. 
 
 See Lunaov. 29. 
 
 FOREIGN MANUFACTURER— Posting patented 
 article to England — Infringement 
 See Patent — Infringement. 6. 
 
 FOREIGN MARRIAGE. 
 
 See Cases under Confliot op Laws. 
 Marriage. 
 FOREIGN MORTGAGE. 
 
 See Revenue — Probate Duty. 135. 
 
 FOREIGN OFFICE — Collection of treaties between 
 Great Britain and Foreign Poivers, and of the 
 Laws, Decrees, and Os. in C. concerning the same. 
 See Treaty. 
 
 FOREIGN OYSTERS — Sale in close season. 
 See Fishery. 1. 
 
 FOREIGN PATENT— Lapse. 
 
 Sec Patent — Prolongation. 41,42. 
 
 FOREIGN POWER OF ATTORNEY. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 5. 
 
 FOREIGN PRINCIPAL— Exercising trade in 
 United Kingdom. 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 97. 
 
 FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS ACT, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. 0. 63), prohibits their importation. 
 
 FOREIGN RECEIVER — Power to give receipts — 
 Belgian law. 
 See Receiver. 4. 
 
 FOREIGN SECURITY— Made or issued in United 
 Kingdom — Stamp duty. 
 See Revenue. 162. 
 
 FOREIGN SHIP — ^Engaging seamen for— Fine — 
 Civil debt. 
 See Shipping. 258. 
 
 — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Shipping— Necessaries. 180, 181. 
 
 FOREIGN SOVEREIGN— Action by— Discovery 
 — Cross proceedings. 
 See International Law. 4. 
 
 — Proof of status of sovereign — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Intbenational La-^, 5. 
 
 2 E 2 
 
( 839 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 840 ) 
 
 FOREIGN STATE— Action by— Counter-claim- 
 Libel. 
 See Peaotioe — Pleadings. 150. 
 
 — Action by — Cross proceedings — Discovery. 
 
 See International Law. 4. 
 
 — Status and boundaries of — Judicial cogniz- 
 
 ance — Practice — Application to Foreign 
 
 Office. 
 
 See Evidence. 38. 
 
 FOREIGN STATEMENT— General average pay- 
 able per — Dutch law. 
 See Insueanoe — Marine. 57. 
 
 FOREIGN SUBJECT— Payment out of court- 
 Jurisdiction. 
 See Lunacy. 36. 
 
 FOREIGN TRIBUNAL— Jurisdiction. 
 
 See DivoKCE. 87. 
 
 FOREIGN WILL. 
 
 See Will — Foreign Will. 
 
 FOREIGNER— Bankruptcy notice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 12. 
 
 — Conflict of laws. 
 
 See Cases under Conflict of Laws. 
 ■ — Estate duty. 
 
 See Bevenue — Estate Duty. 26. 
 
 — Power of appointment. 
 
 See Powers — Exercise. 17. 
 
 — Receiving order — Jurisdiction — Foreigner 
 
 resident abroad but trading in England. 
 .See Bankruptcy — Receiving Order. 198. 
 
 — Eeceiving order in lieu of committal — Juris- 
 
 diction. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Receiving Order. 197. 
 
 — Security for costs. 
 
 See Costs. 52—58. 
 
 — Succession duty — Disposition by foreigner 
 
 domiciled abroad — Property situate 
 abroad — Disposition to English com- 
 pany. 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 26. 
 
 — Testator foreign subject domiciled abroad — 
 
 Company — Executor de son tort — Lia- 
 bility to pay probate duty. 
 See Ee venue — Probate Duty. 134. 
 FORESHORE— Sales, &c.] Statement. From 
 Jan. 1, 1892, to Dec. 31, 1896. Pari. Paper, 1897 
 (285). Price 2^(3,. 
 
 — Ci'own lease— Injunction — Limits of public 
 
 user. 
 
 See Seashore. 
 1. — Definition. 
 
 Wliore in a proclamation setting out boun- 
 daries tlie liigh-watLT mark is spceititd : — 
 
 Ilelil, that the high-wati r mark for the time 
 
 being is meant, and that reelaimed foreshore is 
 
 included. !?mart & Co. v. Town Board op Suva 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 301 
 
 — Discovery — Claim of Crown to foreshore — 
 
 Matter tending to impeach case of party 
 
 olaiming privilege. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 29. 
 
 — Discovery— Production of documents— Eight 
 ot the Crown. 
 
 FORESHORE — continued. 
 
 — Nuisance on — Pollution of river. 
 
 See Water. 4. 
 
 — Eights of the Crown. 
 
 See Fishery. 4. 
 
 — Eight to fix moorings as incident to naviga- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Thames. 9. 
 
 FOREST OF DEAN- 
 
 See Trust. 
 
 -Gale. 
 3. 
 
 .■^^v. T>- 
 
 i=cnTET?.T_]Oocum6nts. l.^i. 
 
 FORFEITED RECOGNIZANCE. 
 
 See Eevenue — Forfeited Recognizances. 
 
 48, 
 
 FORFEITURE — Bankruptcy practice. 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Benefit under Will. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Condition. 
 Will — Forfeiture. 
 
 — Bond for safe return — Jurisdiction — Co- 
 
 ownership — Action of restraint. 
 See SmpfiNG — Restraint. 213. 
 
 — Lease. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant— Forfeiture. 
 
 — Lease — Affidavit of documents. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 22. 
 
 — Licence. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — Power of Minister to declare a forfeiture of 
 
 conditional purchases. 
 
 See New South Wales. 22. 
 
 — Eailway ticket. 
 
 See Cases under Eailway — ^Passengers. 
 
 — Settlement — Construction. 
 
 See Settlement — Forfeiture. 
 
 — Shares — Deceased member — Eegistered 
 
 address — Notice. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 270. 
 
 — Shares — Prospectus — Fraudulent misrepresen- 
 
 tation — Eepudiation. 
 See Company. 206. 
 
 — Shares — Ee-allotment — Sale of shares cre- 
 
 dited with part of amount paid thereon. 
 See Company — Shares. 271. 
 
 — Shares — Eeoonstruction — Scheme — Appro- 
 
 priation by new company of unclaimed 
 
 shares. 
 
 See Company — Reconstrnotion. 219. 
 
 Deductions. 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 265. 
 
 — Will. 
 
 See Will — Forfeiture. 
 
 FORGERY— Forged transfers. 
 
 By the Forged Transfers Act, 1891 (54 * 55 
 Vict. c. 54), Piii-clidxers of Stuck were Freseri-ed 
 from Looses liy Forged Transfers. 
 
 Jjy the Forged Transfers Act, 1892 (55 & 56 
 Vict. c. 36), the Act of 1891 teas explained. 
 
 — Alteration — Negligence — Estoppel. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 2. 
 
 — Cheque — " Customer " — Liability of banker. 
 
 See Banker. 19. 
 
 — Forged telegram — Obtaining money by. 
 
 See Ohiminal Law — Forffsry. 34. 
 
( 841 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 842 ) 
 
 FORGERY— corefemMecJ. 
 
 — Indorsement — Payment to bon8, fide holder — 
 
 Eight to recover money. 
 See BiLi, OF Exchange. 15. 
 
 — Payment of forged documents purporting to 
 
 he hills. 
 
 See Banker. 18. 
 
 FORGETFTJLNESS- Breach of covenant— Eight 
 of re-entry — Equitable relief against 
 forfeiture. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 60. 
 
 — Dismissal — Contract — Misconduct of servant. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 57. 
 
 rORMA PATTPERIS. 
 
 See Practice — Eorma Pauperis. 
 
 FORMATION— Company. 
 
 See Company— Formation. 
 
 — Contract. 
 
 See Conteaot — Formation. 
 
 FORTUNE TELLER — Pretending to tell for- 
 tunes. 
 See Vagrancy. 1. 
 
 FOUNDERS' SHARES. 
 
 See Company — Reduction of Capital. 
 234. 
 Company — Winding-tip — Contribu- 
 tory. 40. 
 FRANCE. 
 
 See French Law. 
 
 FRANCHISE OF ELECTORS. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament — Fran- 
 chise. 
 
 FRANCHISE OF PATENT. 
 
 See County Cocet — Jurisdiction. 51. 
 
 FRAUD — New issue as to negligenee. 
 
 Where charges of fraud and deceit have 
 failed, the person making them will not be 
 allowed to raise new issues as to negligence on 
 appeal. Conneoticdt Fire Insurance Co. ». 
 Kavanagh p. C. [1892] A. C. 473 
 
 -^ " Actual " — Solicitor and client. 
 
 See Mortgage — Priority. 52. 
 
 — Act of bankruptcy — Indirect motive of peti- 
 
 tioner. 
 
 See New South Wales. 1. 
 
 — Agents. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 1, 12 — 14. 
 
 — Bankruptcy law. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Company matters. 
 
 See Cases under Company. 
 -Concealed fraud — Duties and liabilities- 
 Breach of Trust. 
 See Trustee. 79, 80. 
 
 — " Concealed fraud." 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 13 — 16. 
 
 — Concealment of identity of lender — Fraud — 
 
 Eight of borrower to repudiate. 
 See Contract. 20. 
 
 — Costs— Chargeof fraud— Agreement — Finality 
 
 of audit. 
 
 See Account. 2. 
 
 FRAUD — continued. 
 
 — Costs — Higher scale — Allegations of fraud. 
 
 See Costs. 30. 
 
 — Dealing with purchased property — Debentures 
 
 — Intervention in debenture action — 
 
 Eescission. 
 
 See Contract — Rescission. 31. 
 
 — Finding of fraud — Eeport of official receiver 
 
 — SuflSoiency — Order for public examina- 
 tion. 
 See Company — Winding-up. 134. 
 
 — Fund in court — Payment out to wrong person 
 
 • — Eeplacement. 
 
 See Pbincipal and Agent. 14. 
 
 — Imitation of rival traders' goods — Injunction. 
 
 See Trade Name. 5. 
 
 — Judgment obtained by — Fresh action to set 
 
 aside judgment — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Practice — Setting Aside, 240, 241. 
 
 — Limitations, Statutes of. 
 
 Sef Limitations, Statutes of — Fraud. 
 
 — Misrepresentation — Laches. 
 
 See Contract — Rescission. 33. 
 
 — Negligence — Stamp of larger amount than 
 
 necessary. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 2. 
 
 — Not on members of a company — Fraud on 
 
 outside public. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Examina- 
 tion of Officers. 78. 
 
 — Obtaining credit by fraud — Debtors Act. 
 
 See Criminal Law — False Pretences. 
 33. 
 
 — Power — Fraud on. 
 
 See Powers —Exercise. 19. 
 
 — Pregnancy — Concealment by wife fromintended 
 
 husband — Nullity of marriage. 
 See Divorce — Nullity, 97. 
 
 — Promissory note returned to maker — Liability 
 
 of maker on note — Overdue note — 
 Holder " in his own right." 
 See Bill of Exchange. 19. 
 
 — Property in goods obtained by — Jus tertii — 
 
 Trover. 
 
 See Estoppel. 2. 
 
 — Prospectus. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Prospectus, 
 
 — Eeoeipt — Mortgagor's signature induced by 
 
 fraud of his solicitor — " Non est factum " 
 — Estoppel — -Title of mortgagee. 
 See Mortgage. 56. 
 
 — Shares — Eestriction on free transfer — Validity 
 
 of articles — Fraud on bankruptcy law. 
 See Company — Shares. 302. 
 
 — Solicitor to both parties — Eepresentatiou to 
 
 lender by agent of borrower. 
 See Mortgage. 15. 
 
 — Trade rivalry — Improper use of testimonials — 
 
 Interlocutory injunction. 
 See False Eepeesentation. 
 
 — Trade-mark — As to user of. 
 
 See Trade-mark — Registration. 39. 
 
 — Underground trespass— Equitable jurisdiction 
 
 — Statute of Limitations. 
 See New South Wales. 20. 
 
( 813 ) 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 844 ) 
 
 FBAtlD — continued. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser — Conditions against 
 
 particular user. 
 
 See SpeOWIO PERFOBMiNOE. 5. 
 
 FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (29 Car. 2, c. 3).— Section 3 
 — Surrender of lease — Parol consent — Statute of 
 Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. S—Eeal Property Act, 
 1845 (8*9 Vict. 0. 106), s. 3. 
 
 Parol consent of an old tenant to a new lease 
 does not operate as a surrender of the old lease 
 by operation of law or otherwise, so as to take the 
 case out of the operation of s. 3. There is no siir- 
 render by operation of law unless the old tenant 
 give up possession to the new tenant at or about 
 the time of the grant of the new lease to -which 
 he assents. Wallis v. Hands 
 
 CMtty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 75 
 
 — Agents. 
 
 See Pbinoipal and Agent. 1, 12—14. 
 
 — Condition precedent — Specific performance — 
 
 Mistake— Rescission — " Wilful default." 
 See Vendoe and Pukchaser. 21. 
 
 — Contract — Acceptance of offer. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 14. 
 
 2. — Section 4 — Correspondence referring to a 
 formal contract — Specific performance. 
 
 Where a vendor wrote to an intending pur- 
 chaser accepting his offer, and incloses a contract 
 for his signature, if the contract contains stipula- 
 tions not contained in the previous correspond- 
 ence, e.g., restriction of commencement of title, 
 limitation of time for completion, and require- 
 ment of a deposit, which was returned unsigned : — 
 
 Held, that an action for specific performance 
 must be dismissed, as no definite arrangement 
 had been arrived at. Jones v. Daniel 
 
 Komer J. [1894] 2 Ch. 332 
 
 — Deposit — Cheque for — Custom — Eefusal to 
 
 accept highest bidder. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 50. 
 
 3. — Section 4 — Guarantee — Indemnity — 
 Verial promise — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, 
 e. 3), s. 4. 
 
 A promise by deft, to indemnify pit. against 
 a liability -which pit. is about to contract with a 
 third person is not within s. 4'of the statute. 
 
 An oral promise by deft, to pit. that, if pit. 
 would accept certain bills for a firm in -which 
 deft.'s son was a partner, deft, would provide 
 pit. with funds to meet the bills, is a promise 
 of indemnity and not of guarantee, and therefore 
 not required to be in writing. Guild & Co. v. 
 Conrad C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 885 
 
 4. — Section 4 — Guarantee — Indemnity — 
 Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3) s. 4. 
 
 Per Kekewich J. and C. A. The recital in a 
 will that the testator has guaranteed a firm in 
 respect of a debt is a sufScient note or memor- 
 andum signed by the testator : — 
 
 Held, however, by C. A., that in this case the 
 agreement was not a guarantee, but an agreement 
 to indemnify against loss, and did not therefore 
 require a memorandum in writing. In re Hoyle. 
 HoyLB V. HoTLE Both Courts [1893] 1 Ch. 84 
 
 — Identity of parcels— Admissibility of parol 
 
 evidence. 
 
 See Vesdor and Purchaser. 30. 
 
 FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (29 Car. 2, c. S}—contd. 
 
 5. — Section 4 — Interest in land — " Floating 
 security" — Debentures — Transfer. 
 
 Where debentures are charged on the pro- 
 perty of the CO. : and the property includes 
 land : — 
 
 Held, that a contract for the sale of the 
 debentures is a contract for an interest in land 
 witiiin s. 4. The fact that the security is a 
 " floating security " makes no difference. Drivee 
 V. Broad Mathew J. [1893] 1 Q. B. 539 ; 
 
 affirm, by C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 744 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Wallace v. 
 Emrslied, [1899] 1 Ch. 891, 894. 
 
 6. — Section 4 — Interest in land — Machinery- 
 Statute of Frauds (29 Gar. 2, c. 3), s. 4— Sills of 
 Sale Acts, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 31) ; 1882 (45 * 46 
 Vict. c. 43). 
 
 Certain machinery held to be an interest in 
 land within the section. Jartis v. Jar-vis 
 
 North J. [1893] W. S. 138 
 
 — Letter and envelope taken as one document. 
 
 See Contract. 17. 
 
 7. — Section 4 — Letter signed Tjy purchaser on 
 paper on which vendor's name and address printed 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser — Statute of Frauds 
 (29 Car. 2, c. 3), o. 4. 
 
 The pit., -who lived at 285, St. Ann's Eoad, 
 went to the Warwick Castle Hotel, which was 
 kept by the deft., on April 3, 1899, when, after 
 some conversation about the sale of a piece of 
 land, the pit. took out of a paper-rack a sheet of 
 the note-paper used in the hotel, at the head of 
 which were printed the following words: "The 
 War-sviok Castle Hotel, Pier Avenue, Clacton-on- 
 Sea, Sole Proprietor, Wm. Thos. Hook." The 
 pit. then wrote on the paper — as he alleged, at 
 the deft.'s dictation — as follows: "285, St. Ann's 
 Eoad, Stamford Hill, N. April 3, '99. T. Hook, 
 Esq. Dear Sir, — I hereby agree to give you the 
 sum of 590Z. for the piece of land at the corner of 
 Marine Parade and Tower Eoad. Please instruct 
 your solicitor to forward the contract to me. 
 (Signed) F. J. Hucklesby, 6 Marine Parade." 
 The pit. brought an action for specific perform- 
 ance of the contract between the parties alleged 
 to be contained in the letter. The deft, pleaded 
 the Statute of Frauds : — 
 
 Held, that the printed heading formed no part 
 of the letter. The object of such a heading was 
 to give information as to the place to which any 
 reply was to be given, but by adding the address 
 at St. Ann's Eoad the pit. had in effect struck out 
 the printed address. 
 
 Schneider v. Norris, (1814) 2 M. & S. 288; 
 15 E. E. 250 ; Evans v. Hoare, [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 593, and Torret v. CHpps, (1879) 27 W. E. 706, 
 distinguished. 
 
 The deft, had written no part of the document, 
 and the mere fact that the document, written by 
 the pit., contained the deft.'s name was not suffi- 
 cient. No memorandum had been signed by him. 
 If it had been proved that the deft, dictated the 
 document, and thus did something equivalent to 
 saying, " Sign that as the contract between us," 
 there might have been a contract. But no such 
 dictation took place. The -words as to instructing 
 a solicitor also shewed that the document was not 
 
( 845 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 846 ) 
 
 FEATJDS, STATUTE OF (39 Car. 2, o. Z)—contd. 
 to be a contract or something containing terms 
 wMch were to be embodied in a formal contract. 
 They meant, " Send me the document which is 
 a contract within the Act." Action dismissed. 
 HxjoKLESBT V. HooK Bucklejr J. [1900] W. N. 45 
 
 8. — Section 4 — Liability undertalien at the 
 request of another— Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, 
 V. 3), s. 4. 
 
 If A. undertakes a liability at the request of 
 B. and upon a promise by B. to pay to A. what 
 he pays under the liability, B.'s promise is not 
 within the statute. Tn re Bolton's Estate. 
 MoBAiiT V. Bolton Chitty J, [1892] W. N. 114 ; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1892] "W. N. 163 
 
 An appeal was dismissed on the ground that 
 on the evidence it was for B.'s own debt A. had 
 rendered himself responsible, and that the statute 
 had therefore no application. 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 163 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Guild & Co. v. Conrad, 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 885. , 
 
 — Marriage — Domicil, Ohange of — Immovable 
 
 goods — French law — Lex rei sitie — 
 ommunity of goods. 
 See CoNFLiOT oi? Laws. 9. 
 
 9. — Memorandum — Lessee not named — Per- 
 son wJw paid 501. — Sufficient description — Land- 
 lord and tenant — Agreement for further lease. 
 
 A landlord verbally agreed to grant his 
 tenant, the assign of an existing lease of the 
 Warden Arms, a further lease of twenty-four 
 years for a fine of 501., on receipt of which sum 
 in cash the landlord signed and handed to the 
 tenant the following memorandum : — ■ 
 
 " . . . . Dear Sir, — In consideration of you 
 
 having this day paid me the sum of 50Z I 
 
 hereby agree .... to grant you .... a further 
 lease of 24 years . . .of ... . the Warden 
 Arms .... to run immediately after the expi- 
 ration of . . . the now existing lease " 
 
 The name of the proposed lessee was not 
 stated in this memorandum : — 
 
 Seld, that, for the purposes of the Statute of 
 Frauds, the proposed lessee was sufficiently de- 
 scribed as the person who had paid the 501. 
 
 Whether the reference to a further lease 
 would by itself have identified the proposed 
 leasee with the existing tenant, quxre. Caer v. 
 Lynch - - Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 69 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 613 
 
 10. — Section 4 — Memorandum — Purchaser's 
 name filled in by auctioneer's cleric. 
 
 Where at a sale, L., the highest bidder for a 
 lot, gave his name and address to the auctioneer's 
 clerk, and followed him to the table where the 
 clerk filled in the blanks in a printed memorandum 
 with L.'s name and address, but L. refused to 
 sign the memorandum, and ultimately refused to 
 complete ; — 
 
 Held, that there was a sufficient signature on 
 behalf of L., and that there must be judgment for 
 specific performance. Sims v. Landeay 
 
 Eomer J. [1894] 2 Ch. 318 
 
 11. — Section 4 — Notice to quit — Commence- 
 ment of tenancy—" On " or "from " day specified 
 
 FEAUDS, STATUTE OF (29 Car. 2, u. S)—conld. 
 — Agreement not to be performed within u, year — 
 Oral agreement. 
 
 Where a house Was let on a yearly tenancy 
 and there was an oral agreement to extend the 
 tenancy beyond a year : — 
 
 Held, that the oral agreement was invalid 
 under the Statute of Frauds, there being no 
 fresh demise. Sideeotham v. Holland 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 378 
 
 12. — Section 4 — Oral agreement — Letting for 
 non-continuous period — Entry — Payment of rent 
 on account — Bight of landlord to recover balance 
 of rent— Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4. 
 
 The pit. orally agreed to let a piece of waste 
 ground to the deft, for three successive Bank 
 holidays ; the deft, was to have exclusive posses- 
 sion of the ground on those days, and to pay 45/!. 
 for the use of the ground, paying an instalment 
 of 15Z. for each of the three days. The deft, 
 entered and occupied the land on the first of the 
 three days, and after entry paid the first instal- 
 ment of 15Z. ; he refused to occupy the ground 
 on the other two days, or to pay to the pit. the 
 balance of the rent. In an action by the pit. to 
 recover the two remaining instalments, the deft, 
 contended that the claim was barred by the 
 Statute of Frauds, s. 4 : — 
 
 Held, that there having been an entry for the 
 purpose of occupation under an agreement for a 
 single letting (although the period of the agreed 
 letting was not continuous) at a single rent, and 
 a payment of rent on account of the entry, the 
 plt.'s right to recover the balance was not affected 
 by the fact that the agreement was not in writing, 
 and the Statute afforded no defence to the claim. 
 Sjiallwood v. Sheppaees 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B. 627 
 — Oral contract — Part payment. 
 See Sale or Goons. 2. 
 
 13. — Part performance — Agreement for lease 
 -Increased rent— Payment of rent-^Parol evi- 
 
 A landlord having verbally agreed with his 
 yearly tenants to grant them a lease for twenty- 
 one years of the messuage held by them (without 
 the inclusion in the lease of any additional pro- 
 perty) at an increased rent, the tenants for some 
 time afterwards paid the increased rent : — 
 
 Held, that the decision in Nunn v. Fabian, 
 (1865) L. E. 1 Ch. 35 (as explained by Bag- 
 gallay L.J. in Humphreys v. Ureen, (1882) 10 
 Q. B. D. 148, 156), applied, notwithstanding 
 anything laid down in Maddison v. Alderson, 
 (1883)8 App. Cas. 467; that the payment of 
 rent was a sufficient part performance to take 
 ihe case out of the Statute of Frauds ; and that 
 parol evidence of the agreement was therefore 
 admissible. Millee & Aldwoeth, Ld. v. Shabp 
 Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 16 (12); 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 622 
 
 14. — Section 4 — Part performance — Contract 
 — Possession talcen before, but continued after, 
 parol contract — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, 
 c. 3), B. 4. 
 
 Possession taken before, but continued after, 
 a parol contract for a lease may, if unequivocally 
 referable to the contract, constitute part per- 
 
( m ) 
 
 Digest oif oases, i89i— i90o. 
 
 ( §48 ) 
 
 FKAtJDS, STATUTE OF (29 Car. 2, c. S)—contd. 
 formanoe, takiug the case out of the Statute of 
 Frauds. 
 
 A contract for a lease of land for more than 
 three years was, after negotiation, entered into 
 and red uced into writing in the form of a draft 
 lease, which, howCTer, was not signed by the 
 intended lessor. Shortly before the contract was 
 made, the intended lessee was let into possession, 
 and he subsequently continued in possession and 
 paid rent according to the terms of the draft 
 lease : — 
 
 Held, that, although the entry into possession 
 was antecedent to the contract, yet the subse- 
 quent continuance in possession beinsr, under 
 the circumstances, unequivocally referable to the 
 contract, constituted a part performance sufficient 
 to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds. 
 HODSON V. Heuland 
 
 Keke-Bich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 428 
 15. — Section 4 — Part performance — Contract 
 relating to interest in land — Allegation of partner- 
 ship— Resulting trust — Admission of parol evi- 
 dence — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4. 
 
 Tlie pit. alleged that he and tlie deft, had 
 had several transactions together as partners in 
 joint adventures, and that in AprU, 1898, they 
 determined to acquire certain property with a 
 view to mining for gold. He further alleged that 
 he and the deft, arranged with the owner of the 
 property for the grant of a lease to tlie deft, on 
 behalf of himself and the pit., and that a lease 
 and a Crown licence were granted to the deft, on 
 behalf of himself and the pit. The deft, had 
 since worked the mine, but had refused to recog- 
 nise the plt.'s title or interest, and wrongfully 
 claimed to be entitled to the sole benefit of the 
 lease and licence. The pit. claimed a declara- 
 tion that the deft, was trustee of one moiety of 
 the property for him, and consequent relief : — 
 
 Held, that the plea of the Statute of Frauds 
 must be allowed. Before parol evidence could 
 be admitted as to the contract it was necessary 
 to show that a partnership existed. It was not 
 enough merely to plead a partnership in order to 
 get rid of the defence of the statute. The case 
 was governed by Caddick v. Shidmore, 2 Do G. 
 & J. 52, which was binding on the Court. The 
 authorities relied upon by the pit. aa to the 
 statute being used as an instrument of fraud 
 ■were all cases of trust. Here there could be 
 no trust unless the partnership were proved. 
 The law was laid down in Britain v. Sossiter, 
 (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 123. and Maddison v. Aderson, 
 (1883) 8 App. Cas. 467. Isaacs v. EvAns 
 
 Farwell J. [1899J W. N. 261 
 — Practice — Notice of statutory defence — Sale 
 of goods. 
 See County Coijet — Practice. 63. 
 
 16. — Section 4 — Principal and agent — Con- 
 tract — Memorandum in im'iting — Signature hij 
 agent " thereanio laufully authorized" — Statute 
 of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4. 
 
 A letter written by an agent within the scope 
 of liis authority, which refers to and recognises 
 an unsigned document as containing the terms of 
 a contract made by his principal, is a sufficient 
 
 .ectiou of the Statute of Frauds, and it is not 
 
 FEATTDS, STATUTE OF (29 Car. 2, u. Z}—contd. 
 necessary, in order to satisfy the statute, that 
 the principal should have authorized the agent 
 to sign the letter as a record of the contract. 
 
 Smith V. Webster, (1876) 3 Ch. D. 49, dis- 
 cussed. John Geiffiths Cycle Coepoeation v. 
 HujiBBE & Co. C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 414 
 
 17. — Section 4 — Sale of land — Description of 
 Vendor—Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4. 
 
 Specific performance of an agreement made 
 with the " agents of the vendor " refused, because 
 neither in the agreement nor subsequent corre- 
 spondence was the vendor sufficiently identified 
 to satisfy s. 4 of the statute. Coombs v. Wilkes 
 Eomer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 77 
 
 18. — Section 4 — Sale of land — Letters signed 
 hy agent's clerk. 
 
 in an action for specific performance, to which 
 s. 4 of the statute was pleaded, the purchaser 
 relied on four letters purporting to be written by 
 the vendor's agent; two of which were signed 
 by the agent's clerk : — 
 
 Held, that parol evidence could not be ad- 
 mitted to connect the letters signed by the clerk 
 with those signed by the agent. JPotter v. Petees 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 37 
 
 19. — Specific performance — Agreement for 
 lease — Concluded agreement. 
 
 Held, that there was no concluded agreement 
 between the parties. There was no agreement 
 on the part of the pits, to take the lease unless 
 the house was put into a satisfactory sanitary 
 state, and no agreement by the deft, to put the 
 house into a satisfactory sanitary state, and, 
 although that condition might have been waived 
 by the pits, there was no waiver of the condition 
 before the date of repudiation, and the parties 
 were never ad idem. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1899] W. N. 40, 
 reversed. Moeitz v. Knowles - C. A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 83 
 
 — Signature by auctioneer's clerk on behalf of 
 
 purchaser. 
 
 See Pkincipal and Agent. 1. 
 
 20. — Section 4 — Sufficiency of signature — 
 Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4. 
 
 An agreement to serve for three years, in the 
 form of a letter addressed to the delts., was signed 
 by the pit. The defts.' name was inserted at the 
 beginning of the letter by a duly authorized 
 agent, but the letter not otherwise signed by 
 them : — 
 
 Held, that the defts.' name, so inserted, was a 
 sufficient signature by them to satisfy s. 4 of the 
 statute. Evans v. Hoaee 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 59 
 
 — Settlement — Mistake — Non-execution of a 
 
 power — Death of donee — Parol evidence. 
 See Seitlement — Sectiflcation. 29. 
 
 21. — Section 4 — Vendor's name — Agent for 
 vendor — Beference to formal contract — Vendor and 
 purchaser — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), 
 s. 4. 
 
 The vendor's name was omitted from the 
 conditions of sale by auction of a house and from 
 the indorsed form of contract to be signed by a 
 purchaser. The house was not sold at the 
 
c m ) 
 
 MGES* op cases, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 850 ) 
 
 FEAtTDS, STATUTE OF (29 Car. 2, c. 3)—cnntd. 
 auction ; but subsequently the deft, sent a letter 
 addressed on the face of it to J. & Co., who were 
 the auctioneers, offering to purchase the house 
 for 350Z., and statiug thut if his offer was accepted 
 he would " sign contract on auction particulars." 
 J. & Co. replied by letter stating that on behalf 
 of their client (who was the vendor), naming her, 
 they accepted the offer "subject to contract as 
 agreed. We enclose draft contract." The draft 
 was identical with the contract embodied in the 
 conditions of sale and indorsement, except that 
 the draft stated the vendor's name; but the deft, 
 never signed it : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that as the offer contained the 
 names of both contracting parties (though one 
 was only agent of an undisclosed vendor), on its 
 acceptance there was a valid contract within the 
 Statute of Frauds ; (2.) that ttie acceptance was 
 absolute and unconditional, inasmuch as a form 
 of contract defiuitive in all its terms was identi- 
 fied by the offer, and that signature to the form 
 of contract was unnecessary. 
 
 Morris v. Wilson, 5 Jur. (N.S.) 168, followed. 
 FiLBT V. HouNSELL Bomet J. [1896] 2 Ch, 737 
 
 22. — Sections i, 7 — fleading statute— Prac- 
 tice — Amendment — statute of Frauds, 1677 (29 
 Car. 2, o. 3), ss. i, 7. 
 
 The statute must be pleaded if intended to 
 be relied on as a defence ; but it is not necessary 
 to plead any particular section. Where, however, 
 the deft, pleaded s. 4, he was not allowed to 
 amend or avail himself of s. 7. James v. Smith 
 Kekewich J, [1891] 1 Ch. 384 
 
 The C. A., without dealing with the applica- 
 tion of the Statute of Frauds, held that the pit. 
 had not established the fact of agency. James v. 
 Smith C. A, [1891] W. N. 175 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. EocJiefoucauld v. 
 Boustead, [1897] 1 Ch. 196, 206. See next Case. 
 
 23. — Section 7 — Evidence — Admissibility of 
 parol evidence — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, 
 c. 3), 8. 7 — Purchase as trustee — Express trust — 
 Statutes of Limitations — Bankruptcy Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Vict. e. 71), s. i9— Delay— Taking 
 accounts before official referee — Practice — Arhiira- 
 tion Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 13, 14— 
 Eules of Supreme Court, 1883, Order xxxill., 
 rr. 2, 3, 4, 
 
 Prior to 1873 the pit., a married woman, was 
 owner of certain estates in Ceylon subject to a 
 considerable mortgage. In 1873 the mortgagees 
 sold and conveyed the estates to the deft., who, 
 without the privity of the pit., raised large sums 
 by mortgage of them, and afterwards became 
 bankrupt in 1879, and obtained his discharge in 
 1880. The estates were afterwards sold by the 
 mortgagees. The plt.'s case was that the deft, 
 had purchased the estates as trustee for her 
 subject to a lien for his advances. In 1880 the 
 deft.'s trustee in bankruptcy repudiated the 
 plt.'s title. The deft, never expressly did so, 
 and the pit. never gave either of them to under- 
 stand that she had given up her claim ; but she 
 took no active steps to assert it till 1894, when 
 she commenced an action against the deft, asking 
 for a declaration that the deft, purchased as a 
 trustee for her, and for an account of his dealings 
 
 FEATTDS, STATUTE OF (29 Car, 2, c. Zy-ccmtd. 
 with the property, and payment of what should 
 be found due from him. The deft, pleaded — 
 (1) that the estates were conveyed to him as 
 beneficial owner; (2) that the trust alleged by 
 the pit. was not evidenced by any writing signed 
 by the deft., and that the Statute of Frauds was 
 a defence ; (3) that the plt.'s claim, if proved, 
 was barred (a) by the deft.'s bankruptcy ; (6) by 
 the Statutes of Limitations ; (c) by laches and 
 delay. Kekewich J. held that no trust was 
 proved, and dismissed the action on the first 
 ground. The C. A., being of opinion that the 
 evidence, which partly consisted of letters signed 
 by the deft., completely proved that the deft, 
 purchased as a trustee for the pit., and held the 
 estates as such trustee subject to a lien for his 
 expenditure : — 
 
 Held, that even if the letters signed by the 
 deft, did not contain enough to satisfy s. 7 of the 
 Statute of Frauds, parol evidence was admis- 
 sible; and as the whole of the evidence taken 
 together established that the deft, had purchased 
 as a trustee, the pit. was entitled to a decree. 
 
 The Statute of Frauds does not prevent proof 
 of a fraud, and it is a fraud for a person to whom 
 land is conveyed as a trustee, and who knows it 
 was so conveyed, to deny the trust and claim the 
 land as his own. Theiefore a person claiming 
 laud conveyed to another may prove by parol 
 evidence that it was so conveyed on trust for the 
 claimant, and may obtain a declaration that the 
 grantee is a trustee for him. 
 
 Bartlett v. Fickergill, (1759) 1 Eden, 515, is 
 inconsistent with a series of later decisions, and 
 is not now law. 
 
 A trust thus established is an express trust 
 within the definition given in Soar v. Ashwell, 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 390, and the Statute of Limita- 
 tions, therefore, is no defence to the claim ; nor 
 is the bankruptcy of the grantee, if governed by 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, a defence to an action 
 for an account of his dealings with the estates, 
 since by s. 49 of that Act bankruptcy does not 
 bar the claims of a cestui que trust. 
 
 Tiie deft, knew that land held by the deft, 
 was claimed by the pit. as having been conveyed 
 to the deft, as a trustee for her ; and in the cor- 
 respondence between them he never denied her 
 title, though he never expressly admitted it. 
 The pit. took no proceedings for twelve years 
 after the correspondence between them had 
 ceased : — ■ 
 
 Held, that as she had done nothing actively 
 to lead the deft, to suppose that she had given 
 up her claim, there was nothing against her but 
 the lapse of time ; and that the mere lapse of 
 time in a case of express trust was not a bar. 
 
 A very difficult account directed to be taken 
 
 by an official referee instead of in chambers, on 
 
 account of the great saving cf time which would 
 
 thus be effectecl. Eoohefouoauld v. Boustead 
 
 C. A [1897] 1 Ch. 196 
 
 See also Bochefoucauld v. Boustead, 0. A. 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 550. 
 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. In re Gallard, 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 8, 15. 
 
 24. — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), 
 ss. 7, 8 — Creation or declaration of trust of lands 
 
( 851 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 852 ) 
 
 FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (29 Car. 2, c. 3)—contd. 
 ■ — Assignment of leaseholds ly wife to husband for 
 limited purpose. 
 
 The Duchess of M., for the purpose of 
 enabling her husband to raise money, assigned a 
 lease to him, -which he mortgaged ; there was 
 evidence that he intended to re-assign the lease, 
 subject to the mortgage, to the Duchess, but this 
 was never done. On his death a creditor's 
 action was brought for administration of his 
 estate, in which the Duchess claimed to be 
 entitled to the lease subject to the mortgage : — 
 
 Seld, that the equity of redemption belonged 
 to the Duchess, as the Statute of Frauds cannot 
 be used to cover what would amount to a fraud. 
 In re Duke of Maklboeough. Davis v. White- 
 bead Stirling J. [1894] 2 Ch. 133 
 
 — Agents. 
 
 See Pkinoipal and Agent. 1, 12—14. 
 
 25. — Section ^7^" Memorandum" — Connect- 
 ing documents — "Acceptance." 
 
 Three documents were advanced as forming a 
 memorandum of a parol contract — (1) An iuvoice 
 signed by pits, only ; (2) An advice-note from 
 the deft.'s carrier stating amount of goods but 
 not the price, with the deft.'s indorsement 
 thereon rejecting the goods; and (3) n letter 
 from the deft, to the pits, referring to his rejection 
 of the goods : — 
 
 Held, not to constitute a memorandum within 
 s. 17. 
 
 Eeld, also, that inspection of the goods by 
 the deft, at the carrier's wharf did not amount to 
 an " acceptance." Tayloe v. Smith 
 
 C. A, [1893] 2 Q. B. 65 
 
 [By the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 71), s. 17 of the Statute of Frauds was repealed 
 and re-enacted, witli a definition of " acceptance."'\ 
 
 Keferred to by 0. A. Abiott cfc Co. v. Wolscy, 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 97, 102. 
 
 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE -5?/ the Volun- 
 tary Conveyances Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. o. 21), 
 it was provided that voluntary conveyances ifhond 
 fide arc not to he avoided under 27 Uliz. c. 4. 
 
 — Assignment to one-man company. 
 
 See B ANKETJPToy — Act of Bankruptcy. 4. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Oases under Bankkuptoy — Pre- 
 ference and Bankeuptoy — Voluntary 
 Settlement. 
 
 1. — Consideration — Bankruptcy — Post- 
 nuptial settlement — Intent to defeat and delay 
 creditors — 13 Eliz. c. 6 — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (e. 52), s. 47. 
 
 In Oct., 1894, the bankrupt, who was 
 married and had then recently attained the age 
 of twenty-one years, executed a post-nuptial 
 setilnment whereby he settled property upon 
 trust for himself for life, or until he should charge 
 or incumber his life interest, with a gift over for 
 the benefit of hia wife and children. The con- 
 sideration for the settlement was a covenant by 
 his mother to pay him during her life an annuity 
 of 50Z. per annum, and a covenant by his brother 
 to pay him an annuity of 252. per annum until 
 r»r,?- 1 ^"^mf"^™*' ^^^"^ the brother was to be 
 repaid, ihe settlement had been induced by 
 
 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE— contoaecJ. 
 the mother and brother with the view of saving 
 the bankrupt's property, as he was a man of 
 very extravagant habits and had already during 
 his minority incurred debts to a considerable 
 amount. A sum of 3000Z. was left out of the 
 settlement to pay these debts, and was handed 
 to him for that purpose. In May, 1895, the 
 bankrupt cliarged his life interest under the 
 settlement, and in Oct., 1895, a receiving order 
 was made against him. The trustee claimed that 
 the settlement was void both under s. 47 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and also under 31 Eliz. 
 c. 5:— 
 
 Held, that the settlement was not void under 
 a. 47, as the covenant of the mother was a suffi- 
 cient consideration for it ; and further, that it 
 was not void under the Statute of Elizabeth, as 
 the evidence failed to show that it was executed 
 with intent to defeat and delay creditors. In re 
 Tetley - V. Williams [1896] W. N. 86 (2) 
 
 — Discretionary trust to pay future debts — 
 Intent to defeat and delay futui'e cre- 
 ditors. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Voluntary Settle- 
 ments. 264. 
 
 2. — Purchaser for value without notice — Pro- 
 tection of creditors — Fraudulent Conveyance Act, 
 1571 (13 Eliz. c. 5, 8s. 1, 5). 
 
 By a settlement void against creditors under 
 13 Eliz. 0. 5, s. 2, a reversionary life interest was 
 reserved to the settlor, which he subsequently 
 charged by way of equitable mortgage to a 
 person who advanced his money without notice 
 that the settlement was fraudulent :— 
 
 Held, that s. 5 protected a subsequent pur- 
 chaser, without notice, of any interest under such 
 a settlement, whether the interest was legal or 
 equitable, and the deed impeached was not void 
 in respect of his interest. Halifax Joint Stock 
 Bank v. Gleehill - Kay J. [1891] 1 Ch. 31 
 
 3. — Sliares — Galls — Residuary legatee — 
 Protection of creditors. 
 
 T., by the will of her late husband, took all his 
 property, including shares in a co. She did not 
 transfer the shares into her own name. Four years 
 after a call was made on the shares. T. trans- 
 ferred by deed all the property except the shares 
 to L., who covenanted to lodge, clothe, and feed 
 T. :— 
 
 Held, that the "debts" of the testator in- 
 eluded liabilities which sooner or later might 
 have to be discharged, and that the deed was 
 void as against creditors of the testator. In re 
 Teoughton. Rent and General Colleoting 
 AND Estate Co. c. Teoughton 
 
 Kekewich, J, [1894] W, N. 164 
 
 4. — Voluntary assignment of policy of 
 assurance — Investment of policy moneys hy assignee 
 — Creditors' administration action — ■ Following 
 assets — Protection of creditors (13 Eliz. c. 5). 
 
 A testator voluntarily assigned two policies of 
 assurance to his niece, who on the death of the 
 testator, which happened shortly afterwards, 
 received the policy moneys and invested them 
 with other moneys of her own upon mortgage. 
 The testator's estate proved to be insolvent. In 
 a creditors' administration action the validity of 
 
( 853 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 854 ) 
 
 FEATJDTJtENT CONVEYANCE— eon«mued!. 
 these assignments was impeached under 13 Eliz. 
 c. 5, and the pits, moved for an order for 
 payment into court of the policy moneys, or for a 
 receiver : — 
 
 Held, that, if the fund existed in specie, it 
 would be assets of the testator, assuming the 
 assignments to be within the Statute of Elizabeth, 
 and the Court would have jurisdiction to secure 
 the fund for the benefit of the creditors until the 
 determination of that question ; and that there 
 had been no such alteration in the nature of the 
 fund as to oust the jurisdiction of the Court, the 
 fund being still in the hands and under the con- 
 trol of the assignee, although not in its original 
 shape; and, accordingly, the Court exacted an 
 undertaking from the assignee not to receive the 
 moneys secured by the mortgages, so far as they 
 represented the policy moneys, and not to deal 
 with the mortgages except with the sanction of 
 the Court. In re Mouat. Kingston Cotton 
 Mills Co. v. Mouat - - - Stirling J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 37 (1) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 831 
 
 S. — Voluntary gift — Subsequent conveyance 
 for value — Protection of creditors. 
 
 A voluntary gift for charitable purposes is not 
 
 covinous within 27 Eliz. c. 4, and is not avoided 
 
 by a subsequent conveyance for value. Ramsat 
 
 V. Gilchrist - - P. C. [1892] A, C. 418 
 
 And see Cases under Bankruptcy — 
 
 Voluntary Settlement. 
 
 FEAUDXTLENT MOTIVE— Malicious injuries to 
 property — Adding water to milk — Ab- 
 sence of Malice. 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 FEAUDULENT PEEFEEENCE— Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Fraudulent Prefer- 
 ence. 
 Company — Windinq-up — Prefer- 
 ence. 
 
 FEEEHOLD LEASE— Interesse termini. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 73. 
 
 FEEEMAN FEANCHISE— Borough vote. 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 48. 
 
 FEEIGHT— Insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insurance — Marine. 
 
 — Shipping. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Freight. 
 FEENCH GUIANA— Extradition from. 
 See Extradition. 
 
 FEENCH LAW — International Exhibition at 
 Paris.] 0. in O. dated Feb. 2, 1899. Lend. Gaz. 
 Feb. 3, 1899, p. 682. 
 
 — Consular mariiage in France — Frenchman 
 
 and Englishwoman — Validity of cere- 
 mony. 
 See Conflict op Laws. 10. 
 
 — Debt — Debenture- holders — Charge on pro- 
 
 perty in foreign oountry-rEeceiver — 
 Enforcing payment — ^Oontempt. 
 See Company — Debentures. CO. 
 
 — Domicil. 
 
 See Cases under Domioil. 
 
 — Extradition. 
 
 See Extradition Acts. 
 
 FEENCH LK'V— continued. 
 
 — Marriage — Domicil, Change of — Immovable 
 
 goods — Lex rei sita3 — Community of 
 goods — ^Statute of Frauds. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 9. 
 
 — Matrimonial domicil — International law — 
 
 Movable goods — Community of goods. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 8. 
 
 — Payment out of court — Infants domiciled in 
 
 France — Eight of father to receive 
 children's money. 
 
 See Practice- Payment out of Court. 
 141. 
 
 — Will — Power of appointment. 
 
 See Powers— Exercise. 22, 23. 
 
 — Will in French form— Marriage in England 
 
 — Eevocation of will by marriage — 
 
 Change of domioil. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 16. 
 
 — Will proved abroad — Probate of copy. 
 
 See Probate. 127. 
 
 FEIENDLY SOCIETY. 
 
 _ By the " Friendly Societies Act, 1 893 " (56 * 57 
 Vict. a. 30), the Friendly Societies Acts were 
 amended as to the stating of a special case on a 
 question of law. 
 
 By the Friendly Societies Act, 1895 (58 * 59 
 Vict. c. 26), the Act of 1875 was amended as tu 
 Appeals and as to divers other particulars. 
 
 The Treasury Regs., 1896. St. E. & 0. 1896, 
 No. 18. Price 3Jd. 
 
 Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. 
 c. 25), consolidates the law relating to Friendly 
 and other societies, and repeals certain Acts. 
 
 Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance 
 Companies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 26), con- 
 solidates the Acts relating to Friendly Societies 
 and Industrial Assurance Companies which receive 
 contributions and premium,s by means of collectors. 
 
 Guide Booh of the Friendly Societies office. 
 O&c. & Pari, Publ. April, 1896. Price Qd. 
 
 Begs., dated Jan. 1, 18Q7,made by the Treasury 
 under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the 
 Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance 
 Companies Act, 1896. St. E. & 0. 1897, p. 181, 
 No. 6. Price 3d. 
 
 Begs., dated June 15, 1897, made by the Trea- 
 sury under the Friendly Societies .Act, 1896. 
 St. E, & 0. 1897, p. 231, No. 428. Price id. 
 
 Societies' Borrowing Powers Act, ISdS (61 & 62 
 Vict. ij. 15), empowers certain societies to borrow 
 money from persons and corporations other than 
 meinbers. 
 
 Friendly Societies, Industrial and Provident 
 Societies, and Trade Unions — Index to Beports of 
 Chief Begistrar of Friendly Societies for the 21 
 years, 1875 to 1895, inclusive. Pari. Paper, 1897- 
 98. Price 3id. Beport for tlie year 1S96. Pari, 
 Paper, 1897. 97-11. Price 3d. 
 
 County Court Bules (Nov.) 1900, Order xu. a. 
 W. N. 1900 (Dec. 8), p. 326. See Current Index, 
 1900, p. Ixxxii, 
 
 1. — Alteration of Bules, Effect of. 
 Sect. 27 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 63), enacted that friendly 
 
( 865 ) 
 
 MG-BSt OF CASES, 1891—1906. 
 
 ( 866 ) 
 
 FEIENDLY SOCIETY— continued. 
 
 Bocieties might alter, amend, or rescind their 
 
 rules or make new rules. 
 
 A rule of a friendly society made at a time 
 ■when that Act was in force provided that " No 
 new rule shall be made, nor any of the rules 
 lierein contained or hereafter to be made shall 
 be amended, altered, or rescinded, unless with 
 the consent of a majority of the members present 
 at a general meeting " : — 
 
 Meld, that that rule of itself conferred an 
 independent power of altering the rules of the 
 society, which power survived notwithstanding 
 the repeal of the Act. 
 
 A person became a member of a friendly 
 society at a time when the rules of the society 
 contained a general provision that the rules 
 might be altered. After he had become entitled 
 under the rules to a benefit from the funds of the 
 society in the nature of a superannuation allow- 
 ance, and whilst he was in actual receipt of it, 
 tlie lules of (he society were so altered as to have 
 the effect of depriving him of that benefit in 
 case of a breach by him of the altered rules. To 
 such alteration of the rules he did not assent 
 except in so far as the fact of joining the society 
 which had a general power of alteration consti- 
 tuted an assent : — 
 
 Held, that he was bound by the alteration. 
 Smith v. Galloway Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 71 
 
 2. — Bankrupt treasurer — Freferential claim 
 —Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 60), 8. 15 il)—Banlcruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 
 Vict. c. 52), s. 40 — Freferential Payments in 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 62), s. 2 (1). 
 
 The trustees of a friendly society have, under 
 o. 15, sub-s. 7, of the Act of 1875, a preferential 
 claim on the assets of their treasurer, when bank- 
 rupt, for the balance due from him to the society 
 at the commencement of his bankruptcy, even 
 tliougb he has not in possession the moneys in 
 specie, and they cannot be traced. In re Miller. 
 Ex parte Official Reoeivek 
 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 337 
 
 See Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 25), s. 35 (b). 
 
 3. — ■ Dispute — Arhitration — ■ Misconduct of 
 arhitratoi's — Jurisdiction of justices — Friendly 
 Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 60), s. 22. 
 
 In an arbitration between a member of a 
 friendly society and the society, the arbitrators 
 excluded the claimant from the room duving the 
 examination of two witnesses, and gave him no 
 opportunity of cross-examining them. By one of 
 the rules of the society, " where no decision is 
 made on a dispute wiihiii forty days of applica- 
 tion for reference to arbitration, the member may 
 apply to a court of summary jurisdiction" : — 
 
 Held, that as the arbitrators had given a 
 decision which was valid until set aside, the 
 jurisdiction of justices to hear the complaint did 
 not arise. Bache l\ Billinghaji 
 
 C, A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 107 
 
 See Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 25), o. 68 (6). 
 
 „,„*• —/-^i'ljolution — Infant members — Branch 
 J^rf^/i: ^"-^^ r"°:' - <^-o^<^rning committee - 
 Knendly Societies Act, 1855 (18 d; 19 Vict. ^. 03) 
 
 FEIENDLY SOCTETt— continued. 
 
 ss. 9, 13, 15, 25, il— Friendly Societies Act, 1875 
 
 (38 & 39 Viet. c. 60), ss. 6, 15, sul-s. 8 ; s. 25. 
 
 In 1873 a friendly society, called the "Loyal 
 Social Design Lodge," instituted a society to be 
 called the juvenile branch of the lodge, and 
 drew up rules for it which were registered and 
 certified. The society was to consist of persons 
 between the ages of six and eighteen. By rule 3, 
 it was to be " governed" by a committee of eight 
 appointed by the lodge. It was provided by 
 rule 21 that no rules should be altered without 
 the consent of a majority of members present at 
 a special meeting. The members having been 
 reduced to six persons about sixteen years of age, 
 one of the members and the fathers of the rest 
 on their behalf, without the consent of the com- 
 mittee, signed an instrument for dissolution of 
 the society and distribution of its funds under 
 the Friendly Societies Act, 1855, s. 13, and the 
 Friendly Societies Act, 1875, s. 25, and the dis- 
 solution was advertised. The trustees in whom 
 the property of the society was vested brought 
 an action to set aside the instrument. Keke- 
 wich J. held that it must be set aside, on the 
 ground that the fathers had no sufficient autho- 
 rity to sign on behalf of their children : — 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that as the Act of 1875 
 preserved the rules of old societies so far as they 
 were not contrary to the Act, rule 3 was still in 
 force ; that it was to be considered a fundamental 
 rule of the society from which the members could 
 not escape ; that the members could not dissolve 
 the society without the consent of the committee ; 
 and that the instrument of dissolution must be 
 set aside. 
 
 Whether, if the infant members had power 
 by themselves to dissolve the society by signing 
 an instrument of dissolution, an instrument 
 signed for them by their fathers, guardians, or 
 agents would suffice, qumre. Eudd v. James 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 664 
 
 5. — Dissolution — Bight of appeal — Friendly 
 Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 60), s. 25, 
 suh-s. 8 (e). 
 
 A member has no right of appeal under s. 25, 
 sub-3. 8 (e), of the Act of 1875, against an award 
 of' the chief registrar dissolving the society, 
 merely on the ground that he is dissatisfied 
 with the provision made for settling his claims. 
 WiLMOT V. Gkaob - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 812 
 
 See now 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 80, sub-s. 5. 
 
 [See now r. 58 and Form AY of the Friendly 
 Society Begs., 1890, which differ from those 
 referred to in the above case.] 
 
 6. ■ — ■ Failure of objects — Poverty — " Charity " 
 — Charitable legacy — Lapse — Cy-pres. 
 
 In 1800 a friendly society was established to 
 provide, by subscriptions, contributions, and fines, 
 an "invested fund" for the relief, by means of 
 annuities, of members, their widows and children, 
 if in distressed circumstances. 
 
 By the will of a testator who died in 1893 a 
 legacy of 500Z. was bequeathed to the society for 
 the purposes thereof. At that time there were 
 only three annuitants living, being widows of 
 deceased members, and there was only one 
 member remaining, who was also sole surviving 
 trustee of the " invested fund," which was amply 
 
( 857 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 858 ) 
 
 FRIENDLY SOCIETY— c<mtinued. 
 
 suflScient to provide for the three annuities. 
 
 Subsequently two of the three annuitants died. 
 
 On an originating summons by the executors 
 of the will against the sole surviving member, 
 sole surviving annuitant, and the residuary 
 legatees, to ascertain whether the society was 
 entitled to the legacy : — • 
 
 Held, (1.) that the society was a "charily" 
 within Commissioners for Special Purposes of the 
 Income Tax v. Pemsel ([1891] A. C. 531); (2.) 
 that it was a charity existing at the testator's 
 death and therefore the legacy had not lapsed ; 
 and (3.) that the legacy, not being required for 
 the remaining annuity, was applicable oy-pres. 
 
 Gunnach v. Edwards ([1896] 2 Ch. 679) dis- 
 tinguished. In re BocK. Bbutt v. Maokbt 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1896] 2 Ch. 727 
 See next Case. 
 
 7. — Failure of objects — Surplus or unex- 
 pended funds — Charity^Cy-pres — Bona vacantia 
 — Resulting trust. 
 
 In 1810 a society was established to raise a 
 fund, by the subscriptions, fines and forfeitures 
 of its members, to provide annuities for the 
 widows of its deceased members. In 1830 the 
 rules were revised, and the society conformed to 
 the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act, 
 1S29, but the objects of the society were in no 
 way altered. By 1879 all the members had died. 
 The last widow-annuitant died in 1892, the society 
 then having a surplus or unexpended fund of 
 1250Z. :— 
 
 Held, that there was no resulting trust in 
 favour of the legal personal representatives of the 
 members of the society; that the society was 
 not a "charity," and therefore the unexpended 
 fund was not applicable cy-prcs to charitable 
 purposes ; and that the fund passed to the Crown 
 as bona vacantia. 
 
 Decision of Chitly J. [1895] 1 Ch. 489 re- 
 versed. Cdnnack v. Edwards 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 679 
 
 Eef erred to by Byrne J. In re Printers' 
 Transferrers Amalgamated Trade Protection So- 
 ciety, [1899] 2 Ch. 184, 189. 
 
 8. — Industrial assurance company — Offences 
 — Assurance on life — lAfe Assurance Companies 
 Act, 1870 (33 .& 34 Vict. c. 61), s. 2— Friendly 
 Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 60), ss. i, 28. 
 
 A society registered under the Companies 
 Acts, but not under the Friendly Societies Acts, 
 1875, held to be a society within s. 28 (2) of the 
 Act of 1875. Newbolc Fmendly Societt v. 
 Baelow Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q,. B. 128 
 
 9. _ Jurisdiction — Dispute as to title to he 
 member— Friendly Societies Act, 1S75 (38 * 39 
 Vict. c. 60), s. 22 — Friendly Societies Act, 1895 
 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 26), s. 10, sub-s. 1 . 
 
 The Friendly Societies Act, 1895, s. 10, sub- 
 s. 1, merely extended the period during which 
 s. 22 of the Friendly Societiis Act, 1875, was 
 applicable to disputes withiu it, and did not 
 extend the provisions of that section to a class of 
 disputes not previously within it, namely, dis- 
 putes as to the title of a person to be a member 
 of the society. The jurisdiction of the Court 
 
 FRIENDLY SOCIETY— continued. 
 
 was therefore not ousted with regard to such 
 
 disputes by those enactments. 
 
 Prentice v. London, (1875) L. E. 10 C. P. 679, 
 and Willis v. Wells, [1892] 2 Q. B. 225, followed. 
 Pallisbk v. Dale C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 257 
 
 10. — .Turisdiction — Dispute between member 
 and society^Friendly Societies Act,1875 (38 <£■ 39 
 Vict. c. 60), s. 22. 
 
 Sect. 22 of tlie Act of 1875 and the rulps of 
 a society held to apply only to disputes arising 
 between members and the society, and not to 
 include a dispute as to whether a person who has 
 bteu expelled from a society is entitled to be re- 
 instated. Willis v. "Weli.s 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 225 
 
 But see now the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 
 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 25), s. 68 (1). 
 
 11. — Life Insurance — Friendly Societies Act, 
 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 115), s. 2 (1). 
 
 The provisions of s. 2 (1) of tlie Act of 1850, 
 enabling a member of a friendly society to insure 
 his life for the benefit of his widow, &c., are not 
 affected by s. 2 of 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, which require 
 the name of the person for whose benefit a policy 
 is effected to be inserted therein. Atkinson v. 
 Atkinson Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 114 (3) 
 
 12. — Misappropriation by officer — Friendly 
 Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vi'ct. u. 60), s. 16, 
 sub-s. 9. , 
 
 Where a friendly society avail themselves of 
 their statutory remedy against a defaulting 
 otficer, under s. 16, sub-s. 9, of the Act of 1875, 
 and the officer is convicted and punislied under 
 the proceedings so taken, and ordered to repay 
 the moneys received by him for the society, the 
 society's remedy by action is barred, Veknon v. 
 Watson - Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 400 ; affirm, by 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 388 
 
 See 59 & 60 Vict. o. 25, s. 87, sub-s. 3. 
 
 -13. — Nomination by member — Amount insured 
 exceeding 1001. — Eevocation by subsequent will — 
 Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 60, 
 s. 15, sub-s. 3. 
 
 A nomination made by a member of a friendly 
 society under s. 15, sub-s. 3, of the Friendly 
 Societies Act, 1875, to an amount not exceedinir 
 loot, is valid, although the total amount pnyable 
 by the society on tlie death of the nominator 
 exceeds that sum. Such a nomination is not 
 revocable in any manner other than that pre- 
 scribed by the sub-section, and therefore is not 
 revocable by a subsequent will of the nominator. 
 Decision of Mathew J., [1898] 1Q.B.469, reversed. 
 Bennett v. Slatek C. A. [1898] W. N. 150(5); 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 45 
 
 14. — Treasurer — Secretary — Officer of the 
 society — " By virtue of his oftl^e ' ' — Friendly 
 Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. o. 60), s. 15, 
 sub-s. 7). 
 
 Under the rules of a friendly society a treasurer 
 was appointed, whose duty was to render . an 
 account of all moneys received and paid by him, 
 to take charge of the funds, and pay all demands; 
 and also a secretary, whose duty was to keep the 
 accounts and perform the usual secretarial duties. 
 The secretary, with the knowledge and consent 
 
( 859 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 860 ) 
 
 FRIENDLY SOCIETY— continued. 
 of the trustees of the society and the treasurer, 
 received moneys of the society and misapplied 
 tliem. On his death an action was commenced 
 to administer liis estate, and a claim was carried 
 in by the trustees of the society to be paid in full 
 in priority to other creditors. 
 
 Held, following m parte Fleet (4 D. G. & Sm. 
 52), that though an ofBcer of the society the 
 secretary liad not received the moneys so mis- 
 applied by virtue of his odice within sub s. 7 of 
 s. 15 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, so as to 
 give the trustees a priority. In re Abeedeiu. 
 Hagon 1). Aberdein - - - Chitty J. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 154 (5) 
 FRIVOLOUS APPLICATION — Practice— Clergy 
 
 Discipline Act, 1892 — Special leave to 
 
 appeal. 
 
 See EcoLESiASTiOAi. Law — Practice. 68. 
 
 FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS ACTION- 
 
 ing proceedings. 
 See Peactioe. 161. 
 
 " FROM " — Duration of policy — From Nov. 24, 
 1887 — Day excluded — Accident. 
 See Insueance — Accident. 2. 
 
 FRONTAGER. ' 
 
 See Cases under London — Streets. 
 Seweks. 
 Street^. 
 
 FROST — Gas supply interrupted by. 
 See Gas. 4. 
 
 FROZEN MEAT — Warranty — Seaworthiness — 
 Fitness of refrigerating machinery. 
 See Shipping. 143. 
 
 FRUIT 
 
 ; — Unsound — Found in the possession of 
 RTiv nerson. 
 
 any person 
 See Food. 2. 
 
 FUGITIVE CRIMINALS— Extradition of. 
 
 See Exteadition. 
 
 FUGITIVE OFFENDERS — Committal to await 
 return — Powers to admit to bail. 
 See Bail. 1. 
 
 "FULL ANNUAL RENT OR VALUE." 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Church 
 Rates. 7. 
 FUNDS IN COURT— Eevivor. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Revivor. 
 177. 
 
 FURNISHED HOUSE— Implied condition of fit- 
 ness for occupation. 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 67. 
 
 FURNITURE — The words " furniture and articles 
 of household use or ornament " in a. will held 
 not to pass an altar-stone and relics placed in a 
 jirivate chapel. Petee v. Peeeees 
 
 Romer J. [1891] W. N. 171 
 — Policy on ship — What inoladed under term 
 
 " furniture." 
 
 See Insueance — Marine. 55. 
 
 FURNITURE WAREHOUSERS— DeZioerj/ order 
 —Bills of Sale Acts, 1878, 1882 (41 & 42 Vict, 
 c. 31), ss 3, 4, (45 * 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 8. 
 
 A " delivery order " on furniture warehousers, 
 even if given for the purpose of giving effect to 
 a contract of pledge, does not require registra- 
 tion as a bill of sale. Gkigg v. National G0Ae- 
 EiAN AssDEANOE Co. Per Kekewlch J. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 206 
 FURTHER ADVANCES— Additional stamp. 
 See Kevbnite — Stamps. 171. 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
 
 See Peactice — Further Consideration. 
 
 FUTURE EARNINGS — Judgment debtor — 
 Equitable execution. 
 See Eeoeiver. 3. 
 
( 861 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 862 ) 
 
 GALE— In Forest of Dean. 
 See Tkust. 3. 
 
 GAMBIA— Death Duties. 
 
 8ee Eevenue — Estate Duty. 
 — British jurisdiction in territories adjoining. 
 
 See Foreign Jukisdiotiok. 
 
 GAHE — Excise licence — Foreign game — Game 
 Licences Act, 1860 (23 * 2-t Vict. c. 90), s. 14— 
 Stamp Act, 1861 (24 * 25 Vict. c. 91), ». 17. 
 
 An excise license to deal in game under tlie 
 Game Licences Act, 1860, s. 14, is not required 
 to enable a person to deal in England in game 
 which has been killed abroad. Podney v. 
 EcoLES - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 82 
 
 But see now the Customs and Inland Eevenue 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. k,. 7), o. 2. 
 
 8. — Qround game — Occupier of land — Alien- 
 ation of right to lull — Ground Game Act, 1880 
 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 47), ss. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 The pit., who was occupier of a farm witli 
 the sole right of talring game and rabbits on it, 
 in 1889 agreed iu writing to let to the deft, for 
 an annual sum the sole right of killing all 
 winged game, hares and rabbits " on tlie 
 farm " : — 
 
 Held, tliat this agreement was not made void 
 by s. 3 of the Ground Game Act, 1880. MoIigan 
 V. Jackson - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 ft, B. 885 
 
 3. — Gi-ound game — "Occupier of land" — 
 Owner occupying his own land — Ground Game 
 Act, 1880 (43 <fe 44 Vict. v. 47), ». 1. 
 
 An owner occupying iiis own land is an 
 " occupier of land " within the meaning of the 
 Ground Game Act, 1880, s. 1. 
 
 The owner of land granted to the pit. a lease 
 of the exclusive right of sporting upon the land, 
 and subsequently, during the currency of the 
 lease, sold and conveyed the freehold to the 
 deft., who entered into occupation of the land. 
 The deft, caused the rabbits on the land to 
 be trapped, claiming as occupier a right to do 
 so under the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 
 1880, whereupon the pit. brought an action 
 against him for infringement of the plt.'s exclu- 
 sive right of sporting : — 
 
 Held (by V. Williams L.J. and Eomer L.J., 
 A. L. Smith L.J. dissenting), that the deft., being 
 the occupier, was entitled under the Ground 
 Game Act, 1880, to kill the grouud game, none 
 the less because he happened to be also the 
 owner. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1899] 2 Q. B. 436, 
 affirmed. Anderson v. Vioaet 
 
 C. A, [1900] W. N. 128 ; [1900] 3 Q. B. 287 
 
 4. — Ground game — Bight given to occupier — 
 Agreement to alienate — Advantage in consideration 
 of forbearing to exercise — Agreement to leave game 
 unsliot — Claim for compensation — Landlord and 
 tenant— Ground Game Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. 
 c. 47), & 3. 
 
 A statement of claim alleged that the pit. 
 
 GAME — continued. 
 
 became tenant to the deft, of a farm, induced by 
 a promise that, if the pit. left the ground game 
 unshot for the deft.'s benefit, the deft, would 
 compensate the pit. for damage done to the plt.'s 
 crops by the' ground game ; that the pit. allowed 
 the ground game to go unshot, and the deft, shot 
 over the farm ; and the growing crops of the pit. 
 were damaged by the ground game, and the pit. 
 claimed compensation. 
 
 The deft, pleaded that the agreement was 
 void in law by reason of the Ground Game Act, 
 1880, s. 3, and the statement of claim disclosed 
 no cause of action. 
 
 On argument of the point raised on the 
 pleadings : — 
 
 Held, that the agreement purported to alien- 
 ate the right given by the Act to the occupier to 
 kUl and take the ground game, and purported to 
 give the occupier an advantage in consideration 
 of his forbearing to exercise his right, within the 
 meaning of s. 3, and was therefore void, and the 
 plaintiif was not entitled to recover. Shebkard 
 V. GASOOiaNE - Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 129 ; 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 279 
 
 — Interference with shooting rights — Trespass 
 
 on highway. 
 
 See Way, Eight of. 11. 
 
 5. — Sporting rights — Reservation severable as 
 to ground game and winged game — Ground Game 
 Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. o. 47), s. 3. 
 
 Sect. 3 of the Ground Game Act, 1880, which 
 'makes void " every agreement, condition, or 
 arrangement whicli purports to divest or alienate 
 the right of the occupier as declared, given, and 
 reserved to him by this Act," avoids them only 
 so far as they are contrary to the provisions of 
 the Act. Where, therefore, a lease of a farm 
 contains a" reservation to the lessor of the ex- 
 clusive right of the lessor and his friends to 
 enter upon the farm for the purpose of sporting, 
 the reservation is severable ; and, although void 
 as to the ground game as being in contraventiou 
 of the provisions of the Act, is nevertheless 
 good as to the winged game. Stanton v. Brown 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q. B. 671 
 GAMING (BETTING AND GAMING)— Bj/ the 
 Betting and Loans (Lnfants) Act, 1892 (55 <fc 56 
 Vict. c. 4), inciting infants to bet was rendered 
 penal. 
 
 By the Gaming Act, 1892 (55 * 56 Vict. c. 9), 
 the Gaming Act, 1845 (8 <fc 9 Vict. c. 109), was 
 amended as to the repayment of gambling debts. 
 
 — Gaming Act, 1892 — Eetrospeotivity. 
 
 See No. 21, beloiv. 
 
 1. — Account of winnings, Might to — AgreC' 
 ment to share profits in betting transaction. 
 
 Where A. andB. entered into a partnership to 
 share profits of betting on races, and A. advanced 
 money for the purpose of the partnership : — 
 
 Held, that as B. had received money en 
 
DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 864 ) 
 
 GAMING — continued. 
 
 account of A. and Ihe betting part of the 
 transaction was purely collateral, A. was en- 
 titled to have an account. Haevey v. Hakt 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 72 
 
 2. — • Arrest on warrant — Power to hind over 
 — Evidence — Betting-kouse — Person found therein 
 —33 Hen. 8, c. 9, s. 9—2 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 9— 
 Gaming Act, 1845 (8*9 Viet. c. 109), u. 3, 6, 
 First Schedule— Betting Act, 1853 (16 * 17 Vict, 
 c. 119), ss. 1, 2, 3, 11. 
 
 A person who ia found in a beiting-house, 
 and i3 arrested on a warrant, under 16 & 17 Yict. 
 c. 119, s. 11, can be bound over, under 33 Hen. 8, 
 o. 9, B. 9, no more to play, haunt, or exercise, from 
 thenceforth at any gaming-house, notwithstand- 
 ing that there is no evidence against him, beyond 
 the fact of his having been found in such betting- 
 house. MUKPHT V. Akeow 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 527 
 
 — Banlciupt — After-acquired property — Per- 
 
 sonal earnings — Interpleader — Wager- 
 ing — Contract. 
 
 See Bahkecptoy — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 259. 
 
 3. — Club — Place used for letting — Betting 
 Ad, 1853 (16 <fc 17 Viet. c. 119), ss. 1, 3. 
 
 5. 1 of the Belling Act, 1853, does not apjily 
 to the case of members of a bonS. fide club betting 
 with each other in the club. Dowses v. Johnson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q, B. 203 
 
 4. — Common gaming house — User of house or 
 room for unlawful gaming — Gaming Souses Act, 
 1854 (17 <fe 18 Vict. c. 38), s. 4. 
 
 By s. 4 of the Gaming Houses Act, 1854, " any 
 person, being the owner or occupier, or having 
 the use of any house, room, or place, who shall 
 open, keep, or use the same for the purpose of 
 unlawful gaming being carried on therein," is 
 made liable on summary conviction to a penalty 
 not exceeding 500L 
 
 U'he deft., with three friends whom he met' 
 went to his house for the purpose of having a 
 game of cards ; afier playing whist, they played 
 for money a game called " German Bank," which 
 the jury found to be an xmlawful game. There 
 was no evidence that they or any one else had 
 over playtd an unlawful game of cards at the 
 deft.'s house on any otlier occasion : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, could not be convicted 
 under Ihe above section of using the house or 
 room for the purpose of unlawful gaming being 
 carried on therein : 
 
 Seld, also, that the question whether a 
 particular game of cards is an unlawful game is 
 a question uf law for the judge, and not of fact 
 for the jury. Beg. v. Davies 
 
 C. C. E. [1897] 2 Q. B. 199 
 
 — Contract — "Differences" — "Cover" system — 
 
 Gambling transaction — Nullity. 
 See Stook Exchange. 3, 6. 
 
 6. — Conviction for heeping room for betting. 
 
 5. 1 of the Betting Act, 1853, deals with two 
 distinct offences, viz. ; — Opening, keeping and 
 using places for the purpose of — (1) betting with 
 persona resorting thereto, and (2) receiving money 
 as deposit on bets. 
 
 (A) Though the second offence is not proved, 
 
 GAMIITG — continued. 
 
 a conviction for the first offence is good. Bond v. 
 
 PLU5IB - Div. ct. [1894] 1 a. B. 169 
 
 Referred to hy 0. A. Powell v. Kempton 
 Park Racecourse Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 242, 274 ; 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] A. 0. 143. See No. 14, hdow. 
 
 (b) Administration of Justices Act, 1848 (11 
 * 12 Vict. c. 42), s. iS—Jervis Act, 1848 (11 & 12 
 Vict. c. i2)— Gaming Act, 1853 (16 A 17 Vict, 
 e. 119), ss. 1, 3 — Vexatious Indictments Act, 1859 
 (22 (fc 23 Vict. c. 17), «. 1— Criminal Law Act, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 35), s. I— Summary Juris- 
 diction Act, 1879 (42 * 43 Vict. c. 49). 
 
 It is not necessary for a conviction for keeping 
 a house for the purpose of betting with persons 
 resorting thereto to prove any actual resorting, 
 and it is enough to shew that the house was 
 opened and advertised as a betting-house. But 
 if evidence of resorting is relied on, it must be of 
 physical " resorting " as that term is used in its 
 ordinary sense. Eeg. v. Beown 
 
 C. C. R. [1895] 1 Q. B. 119 
 
 Referred to by Hawkins J. Bawhe v. Bmin, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 579, 599. See No. 15, below. 
 
 6. — " Coupon competition '' — OJice used for 
 betting — Events relating to horse-races — Betting 
 Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. u. 119), s. 1. 
 
 The deft, was the occupier of an ofBce and the 
 proprietor of a newspaper published weekly at 
 that office. Each number of tho "paper contained 
 a notice of what was called a " coupon competi- 
 tion " — that ia to say, of a promise by the deft, to 
 pay a certain specified sum of money to such 
 persons as should correctly guess the result of a 
 certain horse-race then shortly about to be run, 
 and should write their guesses upon certain forms 
 called "coupons," which were issued with each 
 number of the newspaper, and should return the 
 coupons so filled up to the deft.'s office, together 
 with the sum of one penny in respect of each 
 guess made. A large number of persons every 
 week sent in to the deft.'s office coupons filled 
 up as aforesaid, accompanied by remittances of 
 money. The deft, was upon these facts convicted 
 under the Bettiug Act, 1853, of having unlawfully 
 kept the office for the purpose of money being 
 received by her as the consideration for under- 
 takings to pay thereafter money on events relating 
 to horse-races : — 
 
 Held, that tlje conviction was right. Eeg. r. 
 Stoddaet - C. C. E. [1900] W. N. 258 
 
 Reported [1901] 1 Q. B. 177. 
 
 7.' — Illegal consideration — Cheque — Bet on. 
 horse-race — 9 Anne, c. 14 — Gaming Act, 1835 
 (5*6 Will, i, c. 41), s. 1. 
 
 Where a cheque was given by the deft, in 
 payment of bets upon horse-races lost by him, 
 and indorsed by the payee to the pit. for value 
 with notice of the consideration for which it was 
 given : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. could not maintain an 
 
 action upon the cheque, as it must be deemed by 
 
 virtue of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41, to have been given 
 
 for an illegal consideration. Woolf v. Hamilton 
 
 C. A, [1898] 2 a. B. 837 
 
 — Judgmetit in respect of wagering transaction. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy— Scheme of Attangte- 
 
 ment. 224. 
 
( 
 
 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 86G ) 
 
 GATIING — continued. 
 
 8. — Lottery— Nempaper— Betting Acts, 1853 
 (16 & 17 Vict. e. 119), ss. 1, 3, 4 ; 1874 (37 & 38 
 Vict. c. 15), s. 3, subs. 3. 
 
 The defts. published a newspaper contaioing 
 coupons to be filled up by purchasers of the paper 
 with the names of the horses selected by the 
 purchasers as likely to come in first, second, 
 third, and fourth in a race. For every coupon 
 filled up after the first the purchaser paid a 
 penny, and the defts. promised a prize of lOOZ. 
 for naming the first four horses correctly : — • 
 
 ■Held, that the transaction was not a lottery, 
 nor betting, and the defts. were not liable to be 
 couvioted either for selling chances in a lottery 
 or for keeping their office as a betting-house. 
 Stoddaet v. Sagak. Sagae v. Stoddart 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B. 474 
 
 Keferred to by 0. A. SiM v. Cox, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 198, 200. 
 
 9. — Partnership — Moneij paid in respect of 
 agreement void under 8 <£ 9 Vict. c. 109 — Agree- 
 ment hy way of gaming or wagering — GanMing 
 partnership — Bets paid by one partners-Claim for 
 contribution — Gaming Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. 
 V. 9), s. 1. 
 
 Where one person advanced money to another 
 for the purpose of making bets on horses on their 
 joint account, and the money so advanced was 
 lost on such bets : — 
 
 Seld, that, by reason of the provisions of the 
 G-aming Act, 1892, tlie person who had advanced 
 the money could not maintain an action against 
 the other for half of the amount so lost. 
 
 Tatam v. Beeve, [1893] 1 Q. B. 44, approved 
 of. Saitesy v. Maybb C. A. [1900] W. H. 242 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Q, B. 11 
 — Partnership, Gambling. 
 
 See Paktneeship — ^Accounts. 4, 5. 
 
 10. — " Place " — Defined place where betting 
 carried on — Betting Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict, 
 c. 119), ss. 1, 3. 
 
 The respondent, a bookmaker, and his clerk 
 entered inclosed grounds in which horse-races 
 were being carried on, and put up a cane structure 
 about five feet high with four legs or supports, 
 and having on the top a board on which were 
 painted the words "Bob Patch " (the respondents 
 name), "London. All in run or not — pay first 
 past tlie post." Before each race the odds offered 
 by the respondent against the various horses 
 running were written on the board. He stood 
 on a box placed close to the structure, and invited 
 people to bet with him; and, assisted by his 
 clerk who stood near, made bets ou each race 
 with backers of the horses running : — 
 
 Seld, on these facts that the respondent had 
 used a " place for the purpose of betting with 
 persons resorting thereto," within the meaning of 
 16 &*17 Vict, c. 119, s. 1. Bkown v. Patch 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 46; [1899] 1 Q. B, 892 
 
 11. — "Place" used for betting — Archway in 
 street— Betling^ Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 119), 
 ss. 1, 3 — Criminal Law. 
 
 The prisoner was in the liabit of going to an 
 archway which was a private thoroughfare lead- 
 ing from a i^ublic street into a yard containing 
 4welling-houses, stables, and workshops, for the 
 
 GAMING — continued. 
 
 purpose of betting with persons resorting to him 
 
 there : — 
 
 Meld, that the archway was a "place" within 
 the meaning of the Betting Act, 1853, and that 
 the prisoner was rigTitly convicted under that 
 Act. 
 
 Powell V. Kempton Parle Bacecourse Co., [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 242 ; [1899] A. C. 143, considered. Reg. 
 V. HnMPHRET C, C. B. [1898] 1 ft. B. 875 
 
 12. — " Place " used for betting — " Betting 
 imth persons resorting thereto " — Betting Act, 1853 
 (16*17 Vict.c. 119), ss. 1,3. 
 
 The respondent, a professional bookmaker, 
 was charged with using a certain place called 
 " The Pit Heap " for the purpose of betting with 
 persons resorting thereto upon contingencies 
 concerning horse-races. 
 
 The Pit Heap was a piece of ground, com- 
 prising about one-eighth of an acre, bounded by 
 various buildings and hoardings and a row of 
 posts and a road. It was occasionally occupied 
 by shows, for which rent was paid to the owner ; 
 otherwise the publin had free access. On the 
 day in question no one was in personal charge of 
 it. On that day the Lincolnshire Handicap was 
 run. In the morning a crowd began to assemble 
 on the Pit Heap, and soon afterwards the appel- 
 lant came on to the ground, and stationed himself 
 at a point on it, with his back against a Iroarding, 
 where he remained about three hours. During 
 that time men in the crowd came to him, gave 
 him money, and made bets with him on the 
 Lincolnshire Handicap, of which he made entries 
 in his betting-book. 
 
 The justices found that the spot where the 
 appellant stood was a " place," and was used by 
 him " for the purpose of betting with persona 
 i-esorting thereto," within the meaning of the 
 Betting Act, 1853. 
 
 On a case stated : — 
 
 Seld, that the decision of the justices was 
 right, and the appellant was rightly convicted 
 under s. 3. MoInaney v. Hildeeth 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B, 600 
 
 13. — "Place'' used for belting — " Betting 
 with persons resorting thereto " — Payments of bets 
 made elsewhere — Betting Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict, 
 c. 119), s. 1. 
 
 The respondent, a bookmaker, was charged 
 with using the bar of a beerhouse for the purpose 
 of betting with persons resorting thereto. He 
 went to the beerhouse on several days, at the 
 fcanae hour in the evening of each day, and persons 
 who had made bets with him elsewhere, and had 
 won, came to the beerhouse, and he paid the bets 
 to them in the bar. • 
 
 On a case stated by a police magistrate : — 
 Seld, that paying bets, previously made else- 
 where, was nut using the bar for the purpose of 
 betting with persons resorting thereto, witliin the 
 meaning of the Betting Act, 1853, s. 1, and the 
 respondent could not be convicted. Beadfobd v. 
 Dawson Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 307 
 
 14. — Place " used " for betting — Racecourse — 
 Inclosure on — "Place Kept and used" — Betting 
 Act,.lS53 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 119), ss. 1, 3. 
 
 Adjacent to a racecourse there was an un- 
 covered inclositje of abput a quarter of an acre, 
 
 3 F 
 
( 867 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 868 ) 
 
 GA'ULISG— continued. 
 
 fenced in by iron rails, to ■which when race-meet- 
 ings were held the public were admitted by the 
 owners of the racecourse on payment of an 
 entrance fee. Among the five hundred to two 
 thousaud persons so admitted were always one or 
 two hundred professional bookmakers, aud most 
 of the persons admitted, other than the book- 
 makers, went for the purpose of backing horses 
 with the bookmakers, but some did not bet at all. 
 The bookniakers, who were accompanied by their 
 clerks, did not use any apparatus sucli as a desk, 
 stool, umbrella, or tent, but any partioalar book- 
 maker was usually to be found in or near the 
 same part of the iuclosure, calling out the odds 
 to attract backers. In some cases the backers 
 were required by the bookmakers to deposit their 
 stakes ; in others credit was allowed. This use 
 of the inclosure was known to and permitted by 
 the owners thereof: — 
 
 Neld, afSrming the decision of the C. A., 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 242 (Lords Hobhouse and Davey 
 dissenting), that the inclosure so used was not 
 " a place opened, kept or used " for the purposes 
 prohibited by the Betting Act, 1853. 
 
 Held, contra (by Lord Hobhouse and Davey), 
 that the inclosure was a " place kept and used " 
 by the owners for the purpose of the bookmakers 
 who used it betting with persons resorting thereto, 
 and (by Loid Davey) for the purpose also of the 
 bookmakers receiving deposits of money on bets, 
 and that the case fell within the Act. 
 
 Hawke V. Dunn, [1897] 1 Q. B. 579, overruled. 
 PowEr.L V. Kempton Pakk Eaceoourse Co. 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1899J W. N, 32 (3) ; 
 [1899] A, C. 143 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Selton v. Bushy, 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 380, 383. 
 
 15. — " Place " used for — Inclosure on race- 
 course — Betting by boolcmaJcer in various parts 
 of inclosure — "Betting with persons resorting 
 thereto"— Betting Act, 1853(16 & 17 Vict., u. 119), 
 ss. 1, 3. 
 
 The respondent, a professional bookmaker, 
 was charged with unlawfully using a certain 
 place, to wit, an inclosure situated upon a race- 
 course, for the purpose of betting with persons 
 resorting thereto, on contingencies relating to 
 horse-races. 
 
 The inclosure was contained within the race- 
 course, whicli was itself inclosed. Admittance 
 was obtained by piiyment — to the racecourse of 
 Is., to the inclosure of IZ. At a race-meeting the 
 respondent, accompanied by his clerk, was ad- 
 mitted within the inclosure, where he shouted 
 the odds agaiust tlie horses about to run, inviting 
 persons to bet with him. The backer in each 
 case was required to pay tlie money for which he 
 backed the liorse to the respondent, and received 
 a ticket bearing the names of the respondent and 
 the horse, and the odds laid. If tlie horse won 
 the respondent repaid to the backer his stake, 
 and paid him the odds. The respondent did not 
 confine himself to any fixed spot in the inclosure, 
 and had no apparatus to denote tlie spot where 
 he carried on his operations, but moved about 
 and made bets in various parts. He had no 
 ■-oiitrol Over the management of the incldSuio. 
 
 Un a case st'atcti by JHstiegS •— 
 
 GAMING — continued. 
 
 Held, that the inclosure was a " place," and 
 was used for the purpose of the respondent 
 " betting with persons resorting thereto," within 
 the meaning of the Betting Act, 1853, s. 1, and 
 therefore the respondent was liable to be con- 
 victed under s. 3. Hawke v. Dunn 
 
 Div. Ct, [1897] 1 a. B, 579 
 
 Overruled by H. L. (E ). Powell v. Kempton 
 Park Racecourse Co., [1899] A. C, 143. See pre- 
 ceding Case. 
 
 16. — " Place " used for purposes of belting — 
 Betting Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 119), ». 3. • 
 
 The respondent was in the habit of going to 
 a certain piece of ground, which was bounded on 
 one side by a hoarding and on two other sides by 
 stays supporting the hoarding, for the purpose of 
 betting with persons resorting thereto : — 
 
 Held, that the piece of ground was a " place " 
 within the meaning of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, s. 3, 
 and that the respondent ought to have been 
 convicted under that section. Ldddell v. Loft- 
 HOTSB Div. ct, [1896] 1 Q. B. 295 
 
 Referred to by Darling J. Brown v. Patch, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 892, 896. 
 
 17. — Principal and hroJter — . I lleged gambling 
 transactions — Quebec, Law of — Gaming Act, 1845 
 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 109). 
 
 Art. 1927 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada 
 (Quebec) does not differ substantially from s. 18 
 of the Gaming Act, 1845, aud renders null and 
 void all contracts by way of gaming and wager- 
 ing. FOKGET V. OSTIGNT P. C. [1895] A. C. 318 
 
 18. — Pvblic-house, Bar of — Place " used "/'"■ 
 betting— Betting Act, 1853 (16 <fe 17 Vict. 119), 
 s. 3. 
 
 A bookmaker was in the habit of attending 
 at the bar of a licensed beerhouse daily at 
 certain hours for the purpose of betting with 
 persons resorting thereto, and he carried on there 
 a business of ready-money betting with the 
 knowledge aud permission of the licensed occu- 
 pier of the beerhouse. His hours of attendance 
 at the beerhouse were known to his customers, 
 who came there for the purpose of transacting 
 betting business with him. The beerhouse keeper 
 had no interest in the bets made, and the book- 
 maker had no interest in or control over the 
 business of the beerhouse or the liouse itself: — 
 
 Held, that the bookmaker " used " the bar of 
 the beerhouse for the purposes prohibited by the 
 Betting Act, 1853. Belton v. BnSBT and Woods 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 115; [1899] 2 Q. B. 380 
 
 19. — Public-house — Using public-house bar for 
 betting with persons resorting thereto — Betting Act, 
 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 119), s. 1. 
 
 On each of throe days the deft, was in the bar 
 of a beerhouse, and persons came in, took slips of 
 paper which were hanging on the wall, wrote on 
 them the names of the horses they wished to 
 back, aud handed the slips with the money 
 inclosed to deft. On one day ho received two 
 slijis containing money in the bar, but as a rule 
 he went outside and received the slips and money 
 on the doorstep of the house : — 
 
 Held, that there was evidence to go to the 
 jury that deft, had used the bar for the purpose 
 
( 869 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 870 ) 
 
 GAUINCr — continued. 
 
 of betting with persons resoTting tliereto on each 
 
 of the days. Keg. v. Wokton 
 
 C. C. B. [1895] 1 Q. B. 227 
 Referred to by Hawkins J. Hawlte v. Dunn, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 579, 597. See No. 15, above. 
 
 20, — ■ Fuhlic-liouse — Using puMic-lwuse tap- 
 room for hetting. 
 
 The reapondent was Ihe occupier of a beer- 
 house, and it was shown tliat he knowingly per- 
 mitted a bookmaker to come into the taproom 
 and use the room for the purpose of betting with 
 persons who frequented the beerhouse : — 
 
 Held, that, although the bookmaker did not 
 occupy any iixed part of the room, the respondent 
 was guilty of an offence under ss. 1, 3 of tlie 
 Betting Act, 1853. Hornsby v. Eaggett 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 20 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Powell v. Kempton 
 Park Racecourse Co., [1899] A. C. 143, 173. 
 
 — Public resort — Betting — Private ground used 
 for — " Phice of public resort " — By-laws 
 — Validity. 
 See CoKPOBATiON. 1, 2. 
 
 21. — Eeeovery — Money paid "in respect of" 
 hits— Gaming Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 9). 
 
 Tlie Gaming Act, 1892, is not retrospec- 
 tive : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that a person who has paid 
 betting losses for another, before the Act wiis 
 passed, may still bring an action to recover the 
 money so paid. Knight v. Lee 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 a. B. 41 
 
 22. — Eeeovery — Money paid "in respect of" 
 heis—8 & 9 Vict. c. J09~Gaming Act, 1892 (55 <£ 
 56 Vict. 0. 9), s. 1. 
 
 The deft, asked the pit. to pay money to four 
 men, which he did. The money was due to 
 them from the deft, on betting transactions, but 
 there was no evidence that the pit. knew that 
 the payments were for bets : — 
 
 Seld, that the money was paid in respect of a 
 gaming contract witliin s. 1 of the Gaming Act, 
 1898, and that the pit. could not recover. Tatam 
 V. Reeve - - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 44 
 
 23. — > Speculative purchases of stock — Sloclc- 
 brolcer. 
 
 Where a stockbroker is employed to make 
 and makes actual contracts for the purchase and 
 sale of stocks, in each case completed by delivery 
 and payment, on behalf of a principal whose 
 object is not investment but speculation, the 
 broker's contracts are not gaming contracts 
 within the Gaming Act, 1845. i''OKGET v. Ostigny 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 318 
 
 24. — Speculative transactions in shares — 
 Anonymous associations or syndicates — Natal, 
 Law of. 
 
 Tlie law of Natal does not render it illegnl 
 for any person or association to buy and sell 
 shares as a speculation. Ladghton r. Guiffin 
 P, C. [1895] A. C. 104 
 
 25. — StaJteholder — Action to recover stake- 
 Gaming Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 109). 
 
 Money deposited with a stakeholder to abide 
 the result of a foot-race between the depositor 
 and a third person is not money paid under or in 
 
 GAUINCr — continued. 
 
 respect of a wagering contract within the Gaming 
 Act, 1892, and therefore, if demanded by the 
 depositor from the stakeholder before payment 
 over to the third person, can be recovered by 
 action. O'Sullivan v. Thomas 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 a. B, 698 
 Referred to by 0. A. Surge w. Ashley & Smith, 
 Ld., [1900] 1 Q. B. 744, 746. 
 
 26. — Stakeholder — Recovery of deposit from 
 — Shareholder — Wagering — Agreement by way of— 
 Gaming Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict. a. 109)— Gaming 
 Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 9), s. 1. 
 
 The Gaming Act, 1892, s. 1, does not prevent 
 
 the recovery by the depositor from the stakeholder 
 
 of money deposited to abide the event of a wager. 
 
 O'Sullivan v. Thomas, [1895] 1 Q. B. 698, 
 
 approved of. Bdkge v. Ashley & Smith, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 63 ; [1900] 1 Q.. B. 744 
 — Stock Exchange — Gaming and wagering con- 
 tracts. 
 See Cases under Stock Exchange. 
 
 27. — Stock Exchange — Payment of differences 
 — Money deposited as cover— Action to recover 
 hack money — Gaming Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict, 
 c. 109), s. 18. 
 
 In an action to recover hack money deposited 
 as cover for differences which might arise on 
 gambling transactions in stocks and shares, it 
 appeared that the money was treated by the 
 defts., to the knowledge of the pit., as appro- 
 priated to meet his losses to the deftS., and that 
 the whole amount had been so appropriated 
 before the pit. gave notice to terminate the 
 gambling transaction : — 
 
 Beld, that the pit. could not reeovei'. 
 
 The Gaming Act, 1845, applies equally to 
 money or valuable things deposited with the 
 other party to tlie bet as to those deposited with 
 a stakeholder. Stbaohan v. Universal Stock 
 Exchange (No. 2) - C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 697 
 
 Referred to. In re Cronmire, C. A. [1898] 
 2 Q. B. 383, 395. 
 
 28. — Stockbroker — Purchase and sale of 
 shares — Payment of differences — Balance due from 
 h'olcer — Purcha'e of shares from broker — Balance 
 to be taken in payment — Breach of contract by not 
 delivering — " Cover " — " Money deposited to abide 
 the event" — Bankruptcy — Proof — Gaming Act, 
 1845 (8 (t 9 Vict. c. 10«), s. 18. 
 
 Gaming contracts between a stockbroker and 
 his client, for differences on the sale and purchase 
 of stocks, and shaves, resulted in a balance in 
 favour of the client. It was agreed that the 
 broker should sell certain slock to the client 
 which he would accept in payment of the balance 
 due to him, and in pursuance of this agreement a 
 contract note was forwarded by the broker. The 
 stock was not delivered, and the client sought to 
 prove in bankruptcy, against the lestate of the 
 broker, for damages for nou-delivery of the 
 stock : — 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Wright J., 
 that, as the balance resulting fiora the gambling 
 transactions could not have been recovered frora 
 tlie broker, there was no consid,eratiou for the 
 promise to deliver the stock, and no proof could 
 be admitted in respect of the non-delivery. 
 
 2 P 2 
 
( 871 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 872 ) 
 
 GAMING — continued. 
 
 The client had deposited money with the 
 broker as cover to secure him against loss on the 
 gaming transactions which had resulted in a 
 balance in favour of the client : — ■ 
 
 Held, afSrming the judgment of Wright J., 
 that, the money deposited not having been used 
 for the purpose for which it was deposited, proof 
 in respect of the amount was admissible. In re 
 Cronmiee. Ex parte Wacd 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 383 
 
 29. — Streets — Betting — Wagering — London 
 County Council — By-laio — Validitij — Municipal 
 Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. e. 50), g. 23 
 — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 41), 8. 1&— Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867 (30 * 
 31 Vict. c. 134), 8. 23. 
 
 A by-law made by the London County Council 
 provided that " no persoo shall frequent and use 
 any street or other public place, on behalf either 
 of himself or any other person, for the purpose of 
 bookmaking, or betting, or wagering, or agreeing 
 to bet or wager, with any person, or paying or 
 receiving, or settling bets " : — 
 
 Held, that this by-law was within the power 
 conferred by s. 23 of the Municipal Corporafrions 
 Act, 1882 (applied to county councils by s. 16 of 
 the Local Government Act, 1888), to make by- 
 laws for the " good rule and government " of the 
 county ; that it was not repugnant to s. 23 of the 
 Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, and was reason- 
 able, and therefore valid. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J. affirmed. 
 
 WMle V. Morley. [1899] 2 Q. B. 34, and Bur- 
 nett V. Berry, [1896] 1 Q. B. 641, approved. 
 
 Strickland v. Hayes, [1896] 1 Q. B. 290, and 
 Colder and Hehhle Navigation Co. v. Filling, 
 (1845) 14 M. & W. 76, distinguished. Thomas v. 
 SuTTEi:s - - C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 10 
 
 30. — Streets — Betting in streets — Statutory 
 enactment — Local Government — By-law — Repug- 
 nancy — Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867 (30 d- 31 
 Vict. c. 1.S4), s. 23. 
 
 A by-law made by the London Couuty Council 
 provided that no person sliould frequent and use 
 auy streetor other public place for the purpose of 
 betting, under a penalty, iiy s. 23 of the Metro- 
 politan Streets Act, 1867, any three or more 
 persons assembled together in any part of a 
 .^tiect for the purpose of betting shall be deemed 
 to be obstructing the street, and each of them 
 shall be liable to a penalty : — 
 
 Held, that the by-law was not repugnant to 
 s. 23, and was valid. White v. Morley 
 
 Dlv. Ct. [1899] W. E. 67 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 34 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Thomas v. Suiters, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 10. See preceding Case. 
 
 31. — Streets — Betting in — Local authority — 
 London County Council — By-law — Validity — 
 Municipnl Corporations .ioi, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict, 
 c. 50), s. 'I'i— Local Government Act, 1888(51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 41), s. Iti—Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867 
 (30 .t 31 Vict. c. 131), s. 23. 
 
 A by-law made by the London County CouQcil 
 provided that '.' no person shall frequent and use 
 any street or other public place, on behalf either 
 
 of boSkinc'oi: beUin<?T°°' ^°' -^^^ ^"'''^"''^ 
 ■■^ ".liiuj,, 01 oetting, or wagering, or agree- 
 
 GAMING — continued. 
 
 ing to bet or wager, with any person, or paying 
 
 or receiving, or settling bets " : — 
 
 Held, that this by-law was within the power 
 conferred by s. 23 of the Municipal Corporations 
 Act, 1882 (applied to county councils by s. 16 of 
 the Local Government Act, 1888), to make by- 
 laws for the " good rule and government " of the 
 county ; that it was not repugnant to s. 23 of the 
 Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, and was reason- 
 able, and therefore valid. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. aflSrmed. 
 
 White V. Morley, [1899] AV. N, 67; [1899] 
 2 Q. B. 34,|and Burnett v. Berry, [1896] 1 Q. B. 
 641, approved. 
 
 Strickland v. Hayes, [189G] 1 Q. B. 290, and 
 Calderand Hehhle Navigation Co. v. Pilling, (1845) 
 14 M. & W. 76, distinguished. Thojias v. 
 SoTTEES C, A. [1899] W. N. 206 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 10 
 
 32. — Street — Wagering in struct — Vagrant 
 Act Amendment Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Viet. c. 38), 
 
 8.3. 
 
 In order to convict on an information charging 
 a person that he did unlawfully bet, by way of 
 wagering, in a certain street, with certain articles 
 used as a means of such wagering, to wit, written 
 papers and coins, contrary to the Vagrant Act 
 Amendment Act, 1873 (36" & 37 Vict. c. 38), s. 3, 
 it is necessary to allege and prove that he was 
 guilty of wagering or gaming at some game or 
 pretended game of chance. Eidgeway r. Fabx- 
 DALE - Div. Ct. [1892] 2. Q. B. 309 
 
 33. — Sweepstalce — House used for purpose 
 of a— Criminal law — Betting Act, 1853 (16 & 17 
 Vict. c. 119), ss. 1, 3. 
 
 A person who permits his house to be used 
 for the s.ale of tickets and the receipt of purchase- 
 money for such tickets in an ordinary sweepstake 
 on a horse-race does not commit any offence 
 against the Betting Act, 1853. Eeg. v. Hobbs 
 C. C. E. [1898] 2 Q. B. 647 
 
 — Undischarged bankrupt — After-acquired pro- 
 
 perty — Wagering contract — Stakes 
 claimed by trustee. 
 See Bankruptcy. 259. 
 
 34. — Unlawful games — " Baccarat " — " Clte- 
 min de fer," 33 Hen. 8, c. 9, s. 11 ; 17 (fc IS Vid. 
 0. 38, 8. 4. 
 
 In a covenant in a lease not to play "bac- 
 carat," "chemin de fer baccarat" is included. 
 " Chemin de fer baccarat " is an unlawful game 
 in the same sense as is " baccarat banque." 
 Fairtlough v. AVhitmore 
 
 Stii-ling J. [1895] W. N. 52 
 
 — Lottery — Newspaper. 
 
 See A'o. 8, ahove. 
 
 35. — Wager — Advert isanent — Fulfilment of 
 conditions. 
 
 The ]iroprietors of ti medical preparation 
 advertised that they would pay 1001. to any 
 person who caught influenza after using the 
 preparation in and for a cerlnin manner and 
 period. A person who complied with these 
 conditions caught the influenza : — 
 
 Held, that the above facts established a eon- 
 tract which was neither a contract by w.iy of 
 wagering within tho Gaming Act, 1S45, nor a 
 
( 873 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 874 ) 
 
 Gk'SS.lSO— continued. 
 
 policy within 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, s. 2, and that the 
 
 1001. was recoverable. Cablill v. Caebolio 
 
 Smoke Ball Co. Hawkins J. [1892] 2 ft. B. 484 ; 
 
 affirmed by C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 256 
 
 36. — Wagering — Agreement hy way of loan of 
 money to pay deposit — Condition for repayment on 
 winning stdlces — Right to recover loan — Gaming 
 Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 9), s. 1. 
 
 The Gaming Act, 1892, enacts that any 
 promise, express or implied, to pay any person 
 any sum of money paid by him under or in 
 respect of any contract or agreement rendered 
 void by the Gaming Act, 1845, shall be null and 
 void, and no action shall be brought or main- 
 tained to recover any such sum of money. 
 
 Tlie deft, entered into a 'wageiing contract 
 with a third party and money was paid by the 
 pit. at the request of the deft, to a stakeholder 
 to abide the event of the wager. The money 
 was to be repaid by the deft, if he received the 
 stakes, which he did. In an action to recover 
 the money : — ■ 
 
 Meld, that the payment made by the pit. 
 to the stakeholder was made in respect of a con- 
 tract made void by the Gaming Act, 1845, and 
 the contract to repay it was within the terms of 
 the Gaming Act, 1892, and was void. Garnet v. 
 Plimmek - - C. A, [1897] 1 ft. B, 634 
 
 Eef erred to by C. A. Burge v. Ashley & Smith, 
 Ld., [1900] 1 Q. B. 744, 748. 
 
 GABSEIT — Covenant to Iceep a garden " open and 
 unbuilt upon " — Urinal. 
 
 Semble, the erection of a public urinal may 
 not be a breach of a covenant to keep a garden 
 open and unbuilt upon, and may noji be a nuisance. 
 
 GeAHAM v. COEPOBATIOlf OE NeWCASTLE-ON-TtNE 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1892] W. N. 134 
 See also [1893] 1 Q. B. 643. 
 
 2. — Disused churchyard — ■ Public garden — 
 Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 34) s. 5. 
 
 Faculty granted to allow use of closed church- 
 yard as a public garden, subject to certain rules 
 aa to vaults still kept in repair. Vioak, &a., of 
 St. Botolph withodt Aldgate v. Pabishioners 
 OP Same (No. 2) Consist. Ct. of london 
 
 [1892] P. 173 
 — Market - garden — " Agricultural land " — 
 " Buildings." 
 See Eates — Eateability. 34. 
 
 QABDENEB — Market gardener. 
 See Market-garden. 
 
 6ABNISHEE. 
 
 See Cases under AtTaobmeKT. 
 
 GAS — Arrears of gas rate — Mefusal to supply re- 
 ceiver until arrears due from company paid — 
 Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 15), 
 s. 16 — Gas Light and Coke Company's Act, 1872 
 (35 & 36 Vict. 0. xxiii.), s. 18. 
 
 A limited co. (M. & Co.) was supplied with 
 gas by a gas oo. In Feb., 1896, P. was appointed 
 manager and receiver of the business of M. & Co. 
 by debenture-holders, and shortly afterwards 
 P. and S. were appointed by the Court joint 
 receivers and managers in an action on behalf of 
 a higher class of debenture-holders. They 
 
 GAS — continued. 
 
 entered and carried on the business, and were 
 supplied with gas by the gas co. At the time 
 when P. was appointed there was due to the gas 
 company 90Z. for gas supplied to M. & Co. The 
 gas CO. threatened to cut off the supply unless 
 the 90i!. arrears was paid, and the receiver brought 
 an action to restrain them. Kekewich J. granted 
 an injunction to restrain them from doing so, 
 holding that the receivers were new tenants 
 entitled in their own right to a supply of gas 
 without liability for the arrears due from 
 M. & Co. :— 
 
 Held, on appeal, that the relation of the pits. 
 to M. & Co. was not that of incoming and out- 
 going tenant, but of caretaker and owner, and 
 that the pits, were in no better position against 
 the gas company than M. & Co. were, and could 
 not claim a supply of gas except on payment of 
 the arrears. Pateeson v. Gas Liqbt and Coke 
 Co. - - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 476 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Marriage, Neave 
 & Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 663, 676. 
 
 3. — Gasworks — Statutory Duty — Breach— 
 Jtemedy — Whether action lies — Supply of gas- 
 Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict, c. 41), 
 ss. 11, 12, 36. 
 
 An action will not lie against a gas co., to 
 which the provisions of the Gasworks Clauses 
 Act, 1871, apply, for damages sustained by a 
 consumer by reason of their failure to give him a 
 supply of gas suiHoient in amount and in purity 
 to satisfy the requirements of the Act. The con- 
 sumer's only remedy is to proceed for penalties 
 under s. 36 of the Act. Clegs, Parkinson & 
 Co. V. Eaebt Gas Co. [1896] 1 ft. B. 692 
 
 — Income tax on profits of corporation. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 106. 
 
 3. — " Occupier " — Supply — Payment of 
 arrears^ Gasworks Clauies Act, 1S71 (34 & 33 
 Vict. 0. 41), ss. 11, 39— Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847 
 (10 & 11 Vict.c. 15), s. 10— Metropolis Gas .Act, 
 1860 (23 * 24 Vict. c. 125) ss. 4, 14-19, 39— Gas- 
 worhs Glauses Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 41) 
 ss. 11, 39. 
 
 A gas CO. cut off the gas from premises, then 
 occupied by the official receiver, until all Ihe 
 arrears owing by the debtor were paid. The 
 receiver paid under protest : — 
 
 Held, that the trustee in bankruptcy could, 
 not recover the money so paid, for the receiver 
 was not in the position of an incoming tenant to 
 whom gas must be supplied without payment of 
 arrears, but the occupation of the debtor con- 
 tinued notwithstanding the receiving order. In 
 re Smith. Ex parte Mason 
 
 V, WiUiams J. [1893] 1 ft. B. 323 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Paterson v. Gas Light 
 and Coke Co., See No. 1, above. 
 
 — Eight to stop supply of gas generally — Law 
 
 of Canada. 
 
 See Canada. 9. ■ 
 
 4. — Statutory obligation — Swpply interrupted 
 by exceptional frost — Bichmond Gas Act, 1867 
 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 0.) — Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871 
 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 41) ss. 24, 2,0— Bichmond Gas 
 Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. xxxv.). 
 
 A gas CO. was by its special Acts required to 
 
( 875 ) 
 
 blQBST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 876 ) 
 
 GAS — continued. 
 
 supply a statutory minimum of gas to the public 
 lamps in Eichmond for a fixed annual sum per 
 lamp. The gas oo. failed to supply the statutory 
 quantity of gas during a severe frost, and the 
 corporation declined, in consequence, to pay the 
 full amount of the statutory annual charge for 
 each lamp : — 
 
 Held, that the failure of the co., througli vis 
 major, to fulfil their statutory obligation did not 
 excuse the corporation from fulfilling theirs, and 
 that they must pay the full annual charge per 
 lamp, although they did not receive the full 
 amount of gas. In re Richmond Gas Co. akd 
 EicHMOND (Stjkkey) Coepokation 
 
 Div, Ct. [1893] 1 a. B. 56 
 
 — Surface, Letting down — Gas company — Statu- 
 
 tory powers — Nuisance — Ancient lights. 
 Interference with — lujunction. 
 See SuppoBT. 1. 
 
 — Wires underground — Power to lay wires unJer- 
 
 grouud — Eight to excavate streets. 
 See Canada. 63. 
 
 GAS FLOAT - 
 
 court 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 
 
 Jurisdiction — Couuty 
 239. 
 
 GAS MAINS— Eating of 
 
 See Rates — Bateability, 2t). 
 
 GATES— Chancel screen. 
 
 See EooLEsiASTicAi, Law — Faculty. 
 15—18, 
 
 GAVELKIND — Title deduced from infant heir. 
 
 Circumstances under which a purchaser of 
 gavelkind land was held entitled to refuse to 
 accept the title, infant heirs in gavelkind being 
 proved to have execuled feoffments to the vendor 
 upon an insufficient consideration. In re Mas- 
 
 KELL AND GoLDFINCH's CoNTKAOT 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 625 
 
 GENERAL AVERAGE— Marine Insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insukanoe — Marine. 
 
 — Shipping. 
 
 See Shippinq — Average. 
 
 GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BA.'R—Criminal 
 business at Assizes — Report. W. N. 1899 (July 1), 
 p. 236, See Current Index, 1899, p. czvUi. 
 
 Retainer — Mule 20 — Etiquette — Public Analyst 
 practising at the Bar. W. N. 1899 (Jan. 21), 
 p. 46. See Current Index, 1899, p. cxxii. 
 
 Non-payment of counsel's fees. W. N. 1889 
 (Oct. 28J, p. 312. See Current Index, 1899, 
 p. cxxi. 
 
 Etiquette — Report. W. N. 1900 (Dec. 8), 
 p. 331. See Current Index, 1900, p. xc. 
 
 Re the proportion of Hie Fees of Junior Counsel 
 to those of their Leaders in Civil proceedings 
 —lieport. W. N. 1900 (Deo. 8), p. 329. See 
 Current Index, 1900, p. Ixitxviii. 
 
 GENERAL MEETINGS— Company practice. 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 
 
 GENERAL ORDERS AND RULES. 
 
 For list of Rules and Orders of Court iudiciallii 
 
 \Zf^l^'■^ ''""i'3 1891-1900, see Table of Rulei 
 judicially considered, at p. 
 
 GENERAL WORDS— Adjoining houses — Simul- 
 taneous conveyance of houses to different 
 persons — Eight of way. 
 See Way, Eight of. 
 
 — Building land — Light — Derogating from 
 
 grant. 
 
 See Vendok and Purchaser. 40. 
 
 — Things ejus Jem generis — Construction of 
 
 deed. 
 
 See Deed. 1. 
 
 GEOGRAPHICAL NAME — Invented name — 
 « Eboline." 
 See Teade-mabe — Registration. 40. 
 
 GERMANY — German protectorates in Africa, 
 New Guinea, and Pacific — Extradition 
 from. 
 
 See EXTKADITION. 
 
 — Tonnage of ships. 
 
 See Shipping — Tonnage. 
 
 GIBRALTAR. 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to. 
 See Peobate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1892. 
 
 Death Duties. 
 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 Regs, dated Bee. 19, 1898, for control of 
 Admiralty Waters at. Lend. Gaz. Jan. 13, 1899, 
 pp. 223-225. 
 
 1. — Criminal jurisdiction and procedure — ■ 
 Supreme Court at Gibraltar — Morocco Consular 
 Court — Trial at Cfibraltar should be by jury. 
 
 The Consular Court of Morocco and the 
 Supreme Court of Gibraltar having a concurrent 
 jurisdiction in the matter of an offence charged 
 against the appellant, be was arrested in London 
 and ordered by the Q. B. Div. to be tried before 
 the Supreme Court at Gibraltar. 
 
 Held, that as an incident to that order he was 
 entitled to be tried according to the procedure of 
 that Court, that is (see s. 38 of the Gibraltar 
 Order in Council), by a jury. Spilsbury v. Keg. 
 P. C. [1899] A C. 392 
 GIFT TO CHARITY. 
 
 See Cases under Charity — Gift to 
 Charity. 
 
 Satisfaction of Debt by Legacy. 
 See Debt. 2. 
 
 1 — Verbal gift — Suf/icitncy. 
 
 A husband assigned his furniture for valuable 
 consideration to his wife's father. The father 
 subsequently gave it verbally to the wife. The 
 furniture had not been moved from the husband's 
 house : — 
 
 Held, that manual delivery was not necessary 
 to complete the verbal gift to the wife, but that 
 possession was given and taken, and that the gift 
 was complete and good against the husband's 
 creditors. Kilpin v. Katley. Eatley Claimant 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 582 
 
 — Voluntary gift. 
 
 See Cases under Voluntary Gift. 
 
 — Will— Gift by. 
 
 See Cases under Will. 
 
( 877 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 878 ) 
 
 GISL — Carnal knowledge of. 
 
 See CsiMnrAL Law. 48 — 51. 
 
 GLASGOW BANK IiauiDATION ACT, 1882— 
 Income tax — Profits and gains. 
 See Eeventje — Income Tax. 88. 
 
 GLASGOW POLICE ACTS— Eepair of drain- 
 Substituting new drain. 
 See Scottish Law — Sewers. 39. 
 
 GLASSHOTTSE — " Improvements " — " Ameliorat- 
 ing waste" — Agricultural Holdings (^England') 
 Act. 
 
 Grlasshouses erected on a farm for the growth 
 of hothouse produce for the market held to be 
 " improvements " within tlie Agricultural Hold- 
 ings Act, 1883. Meux v. Coblbt 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 2 Ch. 253 
 
 — Eating — Market garden — " Agricultural land." 
 
 See Bates — ^Eateability. 34. 
 GLEBE. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law— Glebe. 
 
 GOLD-COAST— Application of Colonial Probates 
 Act, 1892, to. 
 
 See Pkobate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1892. 
 
 — Death duties. 
 
 See Eeventje — ^Estate Duty. 
 
 Law of the Gold Coast. 
 
 1. — Bankruptcy — Jurisdiction.- 
 
 The Supreme Court of the Gold Coast had no 
 bankruptcy jurisdiction in 1877, and therefore 
 could not act as an auxiliary to the English 
 Court under s. 74 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. 
 Callendee, Stkes & Co. v. Colonial Secretary 
 OP Lagos and Da vies. Williams v. Da vies 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 460 
 
 2. — Barrister and solicitor — Order striJcing 
 off the roll reversed — Practice. 
 
 "Where the Court, having rightly acquitted a 
 barrister and solicitor of fraudulent intent in 
 Jiaving antedated a mortgage deed which he had 
 drawn for the mortgagor, and in having inserted 
 in it the sum of 250i. for 150Z., nevertheless 
 removed bis name from the roll for having put 
 the mortgage in evidence on behalf of the mort- 
 gagee in an interpleader suit without informing 
 the Court thatthe date was false : — 
 
 Held, that the second charge fell with the 
 first, there being no evidence that the appellant 
 had any reason to believe that the mortgagee had 
 not, as he stated in evidence, advanced tlie 
 consideration mentioned in the deed at or before 
 the date it bore ; and it also appearing that it 
 was immaterial to the question at issue on the 
 interpleader whether the deed was antedated or 
 not. Ex parte Ebnner - P, C. [1897] A. C. 318 
 
 GOLD MINES. 
 
 See Mines — Gold Mines. 
 
 GOLF — Agreement — Lease or licence — Interest in 
 land— Oolf ground — Fencing roundpuiting greens 
 — Custom. 
 
 By agreement the defts. agreed to let and the 
 pits, to take all that full and free right and 
 liberty for tho pits, and other members of the 
 club and their friends to play golf on the fields 
 in question exclusive of all other persons. The 
 
 GOLF — continued. 
 
 pits, were empowered to do all such work as they 
 might deem requisite for preparing and laying 
 of putting greens, mowing and keeping down 
 rank or rough grass, and otherwise laying out and 
 improving the golf course and for keeping the 
 same in condition. They had power to put up a 
 movable pavilion and to put up stiles over the 
 hedges. The defts. agreed not to mow the fields, 
 but to keep them grazed. The pits, had put up 
 posts round the putting greens with a single iron 
 wire round to keep cattle and horses from the 
 putting greens. The defts. had removed the 
 posts and wire, which they complained of as being 
 dangerous to horses and cattle, and as interfering 
 with grazing on the putting greens. The pits, 
 claimed a mandatory injunction to compel the 
 defts. to restore the fences. The defts. put in a 
 counter-claim for damages for (inter alia) mowing 
 more grass than the agreement allowed, and 
 injury to a horse from the wire fencing, and an 
 injunction to restrain the pits, from fencing in 
 the putting greens. They raised, among other 
 defences, the contention, that the agreement was 
 a mere licence and terminable at the defts.' option, 
 and not an agreement for a lease : — 
 
 North J. held, on the evidence of custom as 
 to fencing putting greens, that no agreement to 
 allow the greens to be fenced in could be implied ; 
 that the agreement did not give the pits, the 
 exclusive right to occupy any part of the land, 
 and amounted to a mere licence. He dismissed 
 the action and gave the defts. assessed damages 
 and costs. He refused them an injunction on 
 the ground that, there being a mere licence they 
 could revoke; an injunction would be futile. 
 Edwards v. Sdmmerton 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 120 
 GOODS — Advertising goods for sale at wholesale 
 
 price — Damnum absque injuria. 
 
 See Trade Competition. 
 
 — Carriage of by sea. 
 
 See Cases under Carrier and under 
 Shippino — Charterparty. 
 
 — Distress. 
 
 See Cases under Distress. 
 
 — Factor. 
 
 See Cases under Factor. 
 — ■ Larceny of. 
 
 See Cases under Criminal Law — Lar- 
 ceny. 
 1. — Pledge.topersoninposscssion — Saleof Qoods 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 25, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A merchant sold wine stored in the cellars of 
 a warehouseman, and afterwards pledged the 
 wine to tlie warehouseman for advances made in 
 good faith without notice of the sale : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the pledge conferred no title to the 
 wine. Nicholson v. Harper 
 
 North J. [1895] 2 Ch, 415 
 
 — Sale of. 
 
 See Cases under Sale of Goods. 
 
 — Slander of — Comparison of plaintiff's goods 
 
 with those of defendant — Cause of 
 
 action. 
 
 See Defamation. 33. 
 
 GOODWILL— Assignment— Validity. 
 
 See Trade-mark- Eegistration. 40. 
 
( 879 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1S91— 1900. 
 
 ( 880 ) 
 
 GOOD'WILI— cojrfTOKed!. 
 
 — English trade-mark and — Foreign firm. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 161. 
 
 — I^easeliold interest in licensed house — Con- 
 
 veyance on sale. 
 
 See Eevekue— Stamps, 152. , 
 
 — Partnerskip. 
 
 See Partnbbship — Goodwill. 
 
 — Public-house— Real Estate Charges Act. 
 
 See Mortgage — Eights of Mortgagee. 
 75. 
 
 — Stamp — Conveyance on sale — Contract 
 
 "made" in the United Kingdom. 
 See Eevenue— Stamps. 157. 
 
 GOVERNMENT— Agent of executive— Liability 
 of servant of the Crown. 
 See Trespass. 2. 
 
 GOVEENOE— Power to ajipoint judges. 
 See Colony. 4. 
 
 — Power to pardon — Contempt of Court. 
 
 See CoLONT. 3. 
 
 G5AIN — Duty payable— Grain brought into port 
 of London for sale. 
 See London — Grain Duty. 42. 
 
 GEANT— Construction of deed of grant. 
 See Canada. 34. 
 
 — Derogating from — Light — Building estate. 
 
 See Vendor and Pueohasee. 40. 
 
 — Incorporeal hereditament — Disturbance of 
 
 rights of grantee. 
 See Fishery. 10. 
 ~- Light and air. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Aie. 
 
 — Lost — Opening locks on river — Prescription. 
 
 See Easement. 4. 
 -^ Eeservation from grant — Bedrock and coal 
 
 neither having any commercial value — 
 
 Injunction. 
 
 See MINES. 23. 
 ~- Eeservation or — Eviction of grantee from part 
 
 of land — Apportionment of rent-chiirge 
 
 — Acreage or value. 
 
 See Eent-charge. 1. 
 
 — Tolls — Prescriptive right — Extinguishment of 
 
 old franchise by statute. 
 See Tolls. 1. 
 . — "Water — Implied grant of supply of water — 
 Equitable mortgagor. 
 See Easement. 8. 
 
 — Way, right of. 
 
 See Cases under Way, EigST of. 
 
 GEANT AD COLLIGENDUM — Administration 
 
 with the will annexed — Necessity for 
 citation of heir-at-law. 
 See Probate. 40. 
 
 — Next of kin abroad — Necessity for the imme- 
 
 diate sale of a business. 
 See Probate. 47. 
 
 GEANT OP ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 See Cases under PeobaTe — Grant of 
 Administration. 
 GEANT OF PROBATE, 
 
 See Cases under PropAte — Grant of 
 Probate. 
 
 GRASS FIELD— Trespass on — Actual damage — 
 Malicious injury to property. 
 See Criminal Law. 14. 
 
 GRAVEL- Digging of. 
 
 See Commons Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. 
 0. 30), s. 8. 
 
 — Digging, for roads — Justices— Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Common. 2 
 
 — Gravel pits— Direction to carry on business 
 
 till, were exhausted. 
 
 See Will— Perpetuity. 101. 
 
 GRAZING— Income tax— Grazing and shootings 
 over farm — Separate leases. 
 See Eevenue- Income Tax. 99. 
 
 GRAZING CONTRACT— No parting with posses- 
 sion by occupier — Borough vote. 
 See Parliament— Franchise. 49. 
 
 G'KE^G'Y, — Naturalization laws. Pari. Papers, 
 1896 [C. 7869]. Fiiee id. 
 
 GEEENHOUSE— Ancient lights— Prescription— 
 " Building " — Injunction. 
 See Light and Aib. 9. 
 
 GEEENWICH HOSPITAL ACT, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. 0. 24), amends the Greenwich Hospital Acts 
 1865 to 1892. 
 
 GEENADA (ISLAND OF). 
 
 See Probate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1893. 
 
 GEOCEE — Assistant to, whether a "workman." 
 See Master and Servant — Contract. 
 55. 
 
 " GEOGGING "— Prohibition against grogging 
 casks which have contained spirits. 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 10), s. 4. 
 
 GROUND GAME. 
 
 See Cases under GamH. 
 
 GROUND-RENT — Costs of sanitary works — 
 Leasehold houses — Capital or income. 
 See Settled Land. 62, 65. 
 
 GUARANTEE — Bond — Construction — EecitrJ 
 and condition. 
 See New Sodth Wales. 23. 
 
 — Charterparty — Colliery guarantee — Strike 
 
 clause — Colliery on strike. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 20. 
 
 — Companies limited by guarantee, Provisions 
 
 as to. 
 
 See CoMPANY^Guarantee. 
 
 — Eifect of, in Bankruptcy — Appropriation of 
 
 money as payment — Construction of 
 
 agreement. 
 
 See Bankruptcy— Proof. 172, 173. 
 
 — Frauds, Statute of. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 3, 4. 
 
 — Insurance. 
 
 See Insurance — Guarantee. 
 
 — Interest — Appropriation of payments — Bank- 
 
 ing account — Interest converted into 
 
 principal. 
 
 See Interest. 3. 
 
 — Lis alibi pendens — Staying proceedings. 
 See Shipping — Practice. 199. 
 
( 881 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 C 882 ) 
 
 aVAB.ATSITE'E— continued. 
 
 — Release — Benewal — ^Variation. 
 
 See Bill oi? Exchange. 9. 
 - — Surety. 
 
 See Cases under Pkinoipal and Surety. 
 
 GTTARANTEE SOCIETY— Receiver and manager 
 - — Surety — Premiums — Allowances. 
 See Paktnekship — ^Receiver. 42. 
 
 GUARANTY — Cautionary obligation. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Guaranty. 16. 
 
 GUARD (RAILWAY)— Whether a "-worltman" 
 — Sick and Accident Fund. 
 See Master and Servant — Truck. 106. 
 
 GUARD-BOX — Stop-cock — Repair — Right to 
 break up street — Negligence. 
 See Water — Supply. 16. 
 
 GUARDIAN— Costs— Jurisdiction of House of 
 Lords over costs. 
 See Poor Law. 1. 
 
 — Grant of administration to clerk of — Pauper 
 
 lunatic — Small intestacy. 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 54. 
 
 — Infant. 
 
 See Cases under Infant. 
 
 — Poor Law. 
 
 See Cases under Poor Law. 
 
 GUARDIAN AD LITEM. 
 
 See Infant — Guardian ad Litem, 
 
 — Divorce practice. 
 
 See DiTOBOE — Lunacy. 90. 
 
 — Probate action. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Probate, 97. 
 
 GUERNSEY — Appeals from — Order in Council 
 dated May 13, 1823,and July 15, 1835, regulatinci 
 appeals from Guernsey to Her Majesty in Council. 
 St. R. & 0. 1899, pp. 1677, 1680. 
 
 — Telephone wires — Illegal stretching of tele- 
 
 phone wires across public streets — • 
 
 Powers of local authority — Removal of 
 
 wires. 
 
 See Telephone. 2. 
 
 GUEST — Loss of property — Liability of inn- 
 keeper. 
 See Innkeeper. 1, 2. 
 
 — Right of innkeeper to give notice to leave. 
 
 See Innkeeper. 5. 
 
 GUILTY KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 See Food. 3. 
 
 GUN BARBEL PROOF ACT, 1868— JJitZes and 
 regs. dated March 10, 1896, in lieu of those 
 repealed. Lond. Gaz. March 24, 1896, p. 1889. 
 
 GUN LICENCE—" Vermin "—Rabbits. 
 
 See Revenue — Gun Licence. 50. 
 
DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 884 ) 
 
 H. 
 
 HABEAS CORPUS— Appeal— Custody of infant. 
 See Appeal. 16. 
 
 — Costs — Discretion of Court. 
 
 See Costs — Discretion of Court. 24. 
 
 — Extradition. 
 
 See ExTBAWTiON. 5. 
 
 1. — Imposnhility of obeying writ. 
 
 The Q. B. Div. made and the C. A. affirmed 
 an order absolute for the issue of a writ of habeas 
 corpus on the application of the mother of a boy 
 against B., who before the commencement of the 
 proceedings had without authority lianded the 
 boy over to a person to be taken to Canada : — 
 
 Held, by the H. L. (E.), that the writ was 
 properly issued, on the ground that the applicant 
 was entitled to have the facts fully investigated 
 on the return : 
 
 Semble, that the writ ought not to be issued 
 in eases where a person has at some time prior 
 to its issue unlawfully detained or wrongfully 
 parted with the custody of another : 
 
 Semble, also, that it is a good return to state 
 that the detention had ceased before the issue of 
 the writ. Decision of C. A., (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 
 283, afSrmed with variation. Barnardo v. Ford. 
 Gossaqe's Case - H. L, (E.) [1892] A. C. 326 
 
 See Custody of Children Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 3), a. 3. 
 
 • Infant — Custody. 
 
 See Cases under Infant- 
 
 -Custody. 
 
 2. — Practice — Civil proceedings — Necessary 
 wilness in custody — Motion or petition — Form of 
 order. 
 
 Upon motion that a writ of habeas corpus 
 might issue to the governor of one of Her 
 Majesty's prisons to bring up a person (in prison 
 for contempt) to give evidence in an action in 
 tlie Ch. Div., the Court made an order in accord- 
 ance with Form V. given at p. 89 of hieton on 
 Decrees, 1891 ed. vol. i., the order not to be given 
 out until the probable date of trial thould be 
 ascertained, and then the date to be filled in by 
 the registrar : — 
 
 Semble, the practice as stated in the Annual 
 Practice (1897), p. 727, will not be followed. 
 Jenks v. Ditton - Stirling J. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 66 (4) 
 HACKNEY CA'R'RU.G'E— Penalties for defrauding 
 cabmen — Amendment of the law— See London Cub 
 Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 27). 
 
 HacTiney and stage carriages — 0. dated Aug. 18, 
 1897, made under the Metropolitan Public Carriage 
 Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 115) by Secy, of State. 
 St. E. & 0. 1897, p. 477, No. 736. 
 
 Os. of Secy, of State dated April 26 and 
 July 5, 1899, in pursuance of Metropolitan Public 
 Carriage Act, 18B9 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 115). St. 
 
 4^45' ^*^^' '^''' ^^''' ^°'^^' *^^''' '^^ ^*' ^^^^' 
 
 1. — Cab— Negligence of driver— Liability of 
 
 HACKNEY CAKRIAQ'E—ccmtinued. 
 
 registered proprietor — London Saclcney Carriages 
 Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Viet. c. 86). 
 
 So far as the public is concerned, the regis- 
 tered proprietor of a hackney carriage is respon- 
 sible for the acts of the driver whilst he is plying 
 for hire, as if the relationship of master and 
 servant existed between them, even though it 
 does not in fact exist. Keen v. Henky 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 292 
 
 2. — Cab — "■Place" — Railway station — Be- 
 fusal of driver to drive hirer into station — London 
 Saclcney Carriage Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 33), 
 s. 17. 
 
 By s. 17 of the London Hackney Carnage Act, 
 1853, " Every driver of a hackney carriage who 
 shall refuse to drive such carriage to any place 
 within the limits of this Act, not exceeding six 
 miles, to which he shall be required to drive any 
 person hiring or intending to hire such carriage," 
 shall be liable to a penalty : — 
 
 Held, that the interior of a ry. station, 
 although the private property of the ry. co., is 
 a "place" within the meaning of the section. 
 :Ex parte Kippms Div. Ct. [1896] W. N. 158 (7); 
 
 [1897] 1 ft. B. 1 
 
 3. — Driver^ licence — Defacement — Chair- 
 marlang — " Matter of complaint '' — Hackney 
 Carriage Act, 1843 (6 <£: 7 Vict. c. 86), ss. 8, 22. 
 
 "Where the foreman of a cab-owner inserted 
 two dates of leaving the service of the cab-owner 
 in the appropriate column of a driver's licence, 
 and also added his name : — 
 
 Held, that the entries were not in compliance 
 with s. 8 of the Hackney Carriage Act, 1843, but 
 amounted to a defacement of the licence, and 
 that such defacement was a "matter of com- 
 plaint " within s. 22 of the Act, and that though 
 it was not alleged that the driver had actually 
 been refused employment, there was evidence of 
 loss or damage upon which the magistrate could 
 award compensation. Norris v. Bikoii 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B. 639 
 
 — Negligence of driver. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 77 — 82. 
 
 — Kemedy for non-payment of cab fare. 
 
 See Justices. 2. 
 
 HALL — OfBce or — Inhabited house duty. 
 
 See Revenue — House Duty. 55, 56. 
 
 HANDWRITING — Proof of, by comparison- 
 Expert. 
 See Ckiminal Law — Evidence. 20. 
 
 HABBOUB. 
 
 See Shipping — Harbour. 
 
 HARBOUR AUTHORITY. 
 
 See Shipping — Harbour. 
 
 HARBOUR DUES— Quays— Rateability. 
 See Bates — Rateability, 42. 
 
( 885 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 886 ) 
 
 HAKBOUE MASTER. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Harbour. 
 HARBOUR RATES— Investment— Judicial factor 
 — Curator bonis — Liability. 
 See Trustee — Investments. 65. 
 
 HARES— Alienation of rigbt to kill. 
 See Game. 2—5. 
 
 HASTINGS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1885— Drain, 
 
 Liability to repair. 
 
 See Sewers — Repairs. 31. 
 
 HAVERING ATTE-BOWER — 0. in G. dated 
 May 9, 1K92, uniting the liberty of Saveiing-atte- 
 Bmier with the County of Essex. St. R. & 0. 1892, 
 p. 104 ; Lend. Gaz. May 13, 1892, p. 2793. 
 
 HAWKER- Penalty— Sale by licensed bawker 
 of goods for which licence unnecessary. 
 See Markets and Faies. 
 
 HEAT — Damage to cargo by — Bill of lading — 
 Exceptions — "Accidents of the seas." 
 See Shipping — Exceptions. 129. 
 
 — Discharge and sale — Coal cargo — Policy — 
 
 Loss of freight. 
 
 See Insdranoe — Marine. 52. 
 
 — Nuisance — Injunction — Restaurant — Adjoin- 
 
 ing premises. 
 
 See Nuisances. 4. 
 
 HEDGE — Presumption — Acts of joint ownership. 
 See BouNDART. 1. 
 
 HEIGHT— Of buildings. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 15, 16. 
 
 HEIR— Gift to for life. 
 
 See Will— Words. 216. 
 
 HEIR-AT-IAW— Grant of administration. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 39, 40. 
 
 HEIRIOOMS — Precatory trust— Words of re- 
 quest. 
 See Will — Precatory Trust. 170. 
 
 1. — Sale of heirlooms — Application of pro- 
 ceeds of sale in repairing unsold lieirlooms — ■ 
 Salvage — Jurisdiction — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. e. 38) s. 37, subs. 2. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction lo authorise 
 trustees to pay out of the proceeds of sale of 
 heirlooms the expenses of the repair and renova- 
 tion of other heirlooms, consisting of pictures, 
 settled by the same will and remaining unsold. 
 In re Countess Waldegeave. Earl Walde- 
 GRAVE V. Earl of Selboene 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 240 
 
 2. — Sale of heirlooms— Discretion of Court- 
 Tenant for life, Extravagance of. 
 
 In re Hope's Settlement 
 
 Chitty J. [1899] 2 Ch. 691, n. 
 
 3. — Sale of heirlooms — Fetter on power of 
 sale under Act— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 38), ss. 37, 51. 
 
 There is no jurisdiction to sanction ex post 
 facto, under s. R7 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, 
 the sale of heirlooms, but where they have been 
 sold to advantage the Court will protect the 
 trustees by directing them to take no steps for 
 the recovery V those sold. In re Ajies. Ames 
 V. Ames - - North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 479 
 
 HEIRLOOMS — continued. 
 
 4. — Sale of heirlooms — Onus of proof — 
 Tenant for life. Extravagance of — Bemaindermen, 
 Wishes of — Settlor, Intention of — Discretion of 
 Court— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. 
 c. 38), s. 37 — Appeal — Hearing before two judges 
 ■ — Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1889 (62 ifc 63 
 Vict. c. 6). 
 
 A tenant for life applying to the Court under 
 s. 37 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, for leave to 
 sell heirlooms with a view to obtaining an 
 increased income, must shew that the proposed 
 sale is in the interests of all parties entitled 
 under the settlement, and the' fact of his having 
 got himself into difficulties by his own extiava- 
 gance is not a circumstance which will have any 
 weight witl the Court in favour of a salo. 
 
 If the application is for leave to sell an heir- 
 loom of unique character and historical repute, 
 such as a famous jewel or work of art, the Court, 
 in the exercise of the judicial discretion given to 
 it by the Act, will have regard to the intention 
 of the settlor and also to the wishes and feelings 
 of the remaindermen. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 78, 
 affirmed on appeal before two judges of the Court 
 of Appeal under the Supreme Court of Judica- 
 ture Act. 1899. 
 
 Decision of Chitty J. in In re Hope's Settle- 
 ment, [1889] 2 Ch. 691, n., approved of. In re 
 Hope. De Cetto v. Hope 
 
 C. A, [1899] W. N. 113; [1899] 2 Ch. 679 
 See also No. 6, below. 
 
 5. — Sale of heirlooms — Settlement of chattels 
 as — Land charged with jointures and portions — 
 Sale of heirloom — -Vendor and purchaser — Land 
 purchased loilh proceeds — Settled Land Act. 1 882 
 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2], sub-s. 7; s. 22, sub-ss. 
 5,1: s. 24, sub-ss. 2, 4, 5 ; s. 37. 
 
 Where land is settled and chattels are also 
 settled to devolve with the land as heirlooms, the 
 settled land being charged with jointures and 
 portions for younger children, on a sale of the 
 heirlooms under s. 37 of the Settled Land Act, 
 1882, and the investment of the proceeds in land, 
 the land so purchased is not subject to the 
 charges created by the settlement affecting the 
 land settled. 
 
 In re Dulte of Marlborough's Settlement, (1886) 
 32 01). D. 1, observed upon. In re Duke of 
 Marlborough and Governors of Queen Anne's 
 Bounty - Romer J. [1897] 1 Ch. 712 
 
 — Tapestry — -Executor and heir. 
 See Fixtures. 4. 
 
 6. — Tenant for life — Making good loss— 
 Setaining income — Mecouping trust estate — Eight 
 of trustees. 
 
 Under a will certain chattels were settled so 
 as to devolve with the estates as heirlooms ; the 
 tenant for life was to be allowed the use and 
 enjoyment of the heirlooms, but the trustees were 
 directed to see that they were adequately in- 
 sured against loss or damage by fire and properly 
 preserved at the expense of the usufructuary 
 thereof for the time being. In pursuance of this 
 direction the tenant for life had been allowed to 
 keep possession of the heirlooms, some of which 
 he had kept in his rooms in London. The tenant 
 
( 887 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 HEIKIiOOMS— co?i<!»iMe(^. 
 
 for life got into pecuniary diiBculties, and some 
 of these heirlooms were distrained upon by his 
 landlord for arrears of rent and sold. The value 
 of those that had been thus sold had been 
 estimated at 5501. The tenant for life had been 
 adjudicated a bankrupt and had obtained his 
 discharge, but his life interest had been sold by 
 the trustee in bankruptcy. The question now 
 raised was whether the trustees could retain in- 
 come, as against the purchaser from the trustee 
 in bankruptcy, to make good the amount lost to 
 the trust estate by the sale of the heirlooms : — 
 
 Seld, that the trustees were entitled to be 
 paid out of income the loss the trust estate had 
 suffered by reason of the carelessness of the 
 tenant for life in allowing his landlord to dis- 
 train on these heirlooms; the tenant for life had 
 had the benefit of the money produced by the 
 sale of these chattels in the payment of his debt ; 
 and the trustees had a right to retain the income 
 until the loss was made good to the estate, and 
 this right to retain was superior to the right of 
 the trustee in bankruptcy, or of any persons 
 claiming through him. In re Hope. De Cetto 
 ■u. Hope - Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 76 
 
 See also No. 4, above. 
 
 — Trust for person entitled to " actual " posses- 
 
 sion of realty — Absolute gift. 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 4. 
 
 "HELD OUT OR RECOMMENDED TO THE 
 PUBLIC." 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 165. 
 
 HERIOT — Eight to seize without the manor. 
 See Copyhold. 5. 
 
 HERITABLE SECURITY. 
 
 See Scottish Law— Heritable Securi- 
 ties. 
 
 — Conveyance on gale — Ad valorem duty. 
 
 /See Revenue — Stamps. 151. 
 
 " HERITOR" — Church and manse — Assessment 
 of way-leave. 
 See Wateb— Water Rates. 30. 
 
 HEYWOOD. 
 
 See SalTobd Hundred CoUet. 
 
 " HIGH SEAS "—Foreign ship— Foreign port- 
 Action in rem — Necessaries. 
 See Shipping — Necessaries. 180. 
 
 HIGHER SCALE— Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Costs. 
 
 Solicitor — Costs, 
 
 HIGHWAY. 
 
 In General, col. 888. 
 
 Diversion, col. 889. 
 
 Extraordinary Traffic. See HIGHWAY — 
 Repairs. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. See Limitations, 
 Statute of — Highway. 
 
 Locomotives on Highways. See Loco- 
 motive. 
 
 Obstruction, col. 889. 
 
 Property in, col. 891. 
 
 Sailways. See Railway — renoes. 
 
 Sate. See Highway — Repairs, 
 
 'KlGIL'WkY— continued. 
 Repairs, col. 891. 
 Tolls, col. 898. 
 Trespass, col. 898. 
 The Highways and Bridges Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 63) conferred further powers with respect 
 to main roads and other highways and bridges on 
 County Councils and other Authorities. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 0. 73; makes provision for the transfer of highways 
 to the control of District Councils. 
 
 — Locomotives on Highways Acts. 
 
 See Locomotives. 
 
 In General, 
 
 See London — Streets, 
 Stkeets. 
 
 — Closing lane. 
 
 See Canada. 19. 
 
 — Digging gravel for road — Justices — Jurisdic- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Common. 2. 
 
 — as to Easements of way. 
 
 See Cases under Wat, Eight op. 
 
 — Evidence of boundaries. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law — Evidence. 21. 
 
 — " Extension " of roads. 
 
 See China. 1. 
 
 — Faculty for removal of human remains for 
 
 widening road. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 20, 25, 31. 
 
 — Fences — Railway companies. 
 
 See Railway — Fences. 
 
 — Interference with road — Penalty for not sub- 
 
 stituting sufficient road. 
 
 See Railway — Roads and Streets, 57. 
 
 — Intervening — Consecration — Ground " adjoin- 
 
 ing" to an existing churchyard. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — iPaculty. 20. 
 
 — Limitations, Statutes of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statutes of — High- 
 way, 
 
 — Locomotives. 
 
 See Locomotive. 
 
 1. — Lowering surface of street — Mains and 
 pipes of water company thereunder — Fowers and 
 duties of highway authority — Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 98— Toicns 
 Improvement Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict, 
 c. 34), s. 61. 
 
 A water oo. in exercise of statutory powers 
 laid down pipes under the surface of a street, and 
 the highway authority of the district afterwards, 
 in exercise of the power in that behalf given by 
 s. 98 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, 
 proposed to lower the surface of the street, and 
 to do so without altering or disturbing the 
 position of the pipes, but so as to leave only a 
 few inches of soil over them. 
 
 In an action by the water co. to restrain the 
 highway authority from lowering the surface of 
 the street without at the same time lowering the 
 pipes of the co. to a corresponding depth under 
 the new surface :— 
 
 Meld, that the 98th section of the Act of 1855 
 did not impose upon the highway authority, 
 
( 889 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 890 ) 
 
 HIGHWAY (In Oeneml)— continued. 
 when exercising the power thereby given to them 
 of altering the level of a street, any express or 
 implied duty to exercise also at their own expense 
 the power by the same section given of altering 
 the position of the j)ipes thereunder, for the 
 benefit of the water cc, in u. case where the 
 highway authority did not require for their own 
 purposes to interfere « ith such pipes. 
 
 The decision of Kekewioh J. reversed. 
 
 Gas Light and CoJce Co. v. Vestry of St. Mary 
 Ablolis, (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 1, distinguished; 
 Geddis v. Bann Seservoir Proprietors, (1878) 
 3 App. Gas. 430, distinguished and explained. 
 
 SODTHWAKK AND VaUXHALL WatEK Oo. V. 
 
 Wandsworth District Board of "Works 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 — Pasturage— Prescription — Profit a prendre — 
 
 Surveyor of highways. 
 See Inolostjee. 5. 
 
 — Pathway. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 35. 
 
 — Sewers. 
 
 See Cases under SE"BTi;RS. 
 
 — Soil of — Street in town — Eight of adjoining 
 
 owner — Ad medium filum vise. 
 See Vendor and Pdrohaser — Convey- 
 ance. 43. 
 
 — Steam-roller — Licence — "Used" within the 
 
 county. 
 
 See LoooMOTiVE. 1. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See Cases under Streets. 
 
 — Surface - water sewers — " Sewage or filthy 
 
 water." 
 
 See Sewers. 32. 
 
 — Tunnel under highway — Exclusive occupation. 
 
 See Easement. 7. 
 
 — Way, Eight of. 
 
 See Cases under Wat, Eight of. 
 
 Diversion. 
 
 2. — Fixing notice — " End of highway " — 
 Highway Act, 1835 (5*6 Will. 4, e. 50), s. 85. 
 
 Sect. 85 of the Highway Act, 1835, recjuires 
 certain noticps to be fixed at the end of the higli- 
 way before the highway can be diverted : — 
 
 Held, tliat " end of the highway " meant the 
 end of tie portion proposed to be diverted. 
 Beg. v. Justices cf Surbey (No. 1) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 633 ; 
 affirm, by C, A. [1892] 1 ft, B. 867 
 
 Extraordinary Traffic. 
 See Highway — Eepairs. 
 
 Iiocomotives on Highways. 
 
 See Cases under Locomotive. 
 
 Obstmctlon. 
 Barbed Wire.] By the Barhed Wire Act, 
 1893 (.56 & 57 Vict, c 32), provision was made 
 for preventing the use of barhed wire for fences in 
 thoroughfares. 
 
 . 3. — Dricer leaving horse tmailended while 
 "passing upon" highway— Hiqhways Acts, 1835 
 (6 <fe 6 Will, i, c. 50), 8. 78. 
 
 Sect. 78 of the Highway Act, 1835, which 
 
 HIGHWAY (Obstruction)— cojiimaed 
 makes it an offence for the driver of any carriage 
 to be at such distance from it " whilst it shall 
 be passing upon the highway that he cannot 
 have the direction and government of the horses 
 or cattle drawing the same," applies where the 
 driver leaves tlie carriage standing by the road- 
 side. Phythian v. Baxendale 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 768 
 
 4. — Liability of surveyor — Highway Act, 
 (5&e Will i, c. 50), s. 56. 
 
 A heap of stones was left on a highway by a 
 person employed by the surveyor to repair the 
 road. The surveyor did not know of the obstruc- 
 tion : — 
 
 Held, that he was not liable for en offence 
 under s. 56 of the Highway Act, 1835. Haed- 
 oastle v. Bielbt Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 709 
 
 5. — Seasonable user — Loading and unloading 
 of goods — Public nuisance — Injunction. 
 
 In a case of doubt or difficulty the right of 
 the occupier of premises abutting on a highway 
 to make a reasonable use of it, for the purpose of 
 loading and unloading goods at his premises, 
 must yield to the public right of unobstructed 
 passage along the highway. 
 
 It ]s in each case a question of degree whether 
 the exercise of this private right of access to 
 premises, which must of necessity involve some 
 obstruction of the highway, is or is not reason- 
 able, and in determining this question regard 
 must be had to all the facts of the case. 
 
 Traders carrying on a large business in a 
 populous town, at premises situate in a street tlio 
 roadway of which was less than twenty feet wide, 
 kept as many as six vans at once during every 
 alternate hour in the daytime loading and un- 
 loading goods at their premises, thus occupying 
 half the width of the street, and seriously ob- 
 structing the passage of vehicles through it : — 
 
 Held, that this was an unreasonable use of the 
 highway, and that it amounted to a public 
 nuisance the continuance of which must be re- 
 strained by injunction. Att.-Gen. v. Brighton 
 AND Hove Co-operative Supply Association 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 13 I [1900] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 6. — Pemoval of obstruction — Local authority 
 —Powers— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 
 Vict. 0. 55), s. 149 — Local Government Act, 1894 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 26. 
 
 An urban district council has power to remove 
 encroachments upon any highway vested in it bv 
 s. 149 of the Public Health Act, 1875, without 
 first taking proceedings, summarily or by indict- 
 ment, against tlie person alleged to have en- 
 cioached. Eeynolds v. Urban District Council 
 OF Phesteign [1896] 1 Q. B. t04 
 
 Considered bv Stirling J. Murray v. Epsom 
 Local Board, [1897] 1 Ch. 35, 39. 
 — Subsidence caused by mining operations^ 
 
 Absence of appreciable damage — Eiglit 
 
 to support. 
 
 See Mines. 27. 
 
 7. — Trees — Might to prune or lop—" Lop " — 
 Highway Act, 1835 (5 (fc 6 Will, c. 50), s. 65. 
 
 " Lop," as used in s. 65 of the Highway Act, 
 1835, means to cut off the branches laleially, and 
 the section does not authorise justices or the 
 
( 891 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 892 ) 
 
 HIGHWAY (Obstruction)— confmuefJ. 
 
 surveyor to cut off the tops of any trees. Unwin 
 
 V. Hakson C. a. [1891] 2 Q. B. 115 
 
 Property in Highway. 
 
 8. — Conveyance of adjoining land — Ad 
 medium filum vise. 
 
 Where a piece of land adjoining a highway is 
 conveyed, the soil of the highway ad medium 
 filum is presumed to pass by the conveyance. 
 But the presumption may be rebutted. Mere 
 reference to a plan the measurement and colour- 
 ing of which excludes the highway does not 
 rebut this presumption; but where (1) the high- 
 way and the other land on the ordnance map re- 
 ferred to in the deed are numbered separately, 
 (2) the valuation of timber does not include the 
 trees on the highway, (3) the measurement and 
 colouring of the plan excludes the highway : — 
 
 Held, that these circumstances taken together 
 rebutted the presumption. Pbyok v. Petke 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 11 
 
 9. — Vestry — Presumptions of lawful origin — 
 OwnersMp — Presumption of grant for purpose not 
 requiring enrolment — Statute of Limitations — 
 Charitable Uses Act, 1835 (9 Geo. 2, c. 36), s. 3— 
 Poor Relief Act, 1819 (59 Geo. 3, c. 12), s. 17. 
 
 The vestry of a parish had let the grazing on 
 a highway made under an inclosure award ever 
 since the award, viz., for 115 years: — 
 
 Held, (1) that a lawful origin must be pre- 
 sumed from the long usage ; (2) that the lawful 
 origin to be presumed in this case was, that the 
 soil of the highway had been granted to church- 
 wardens and overseers, as trustees, under tlie 
 Charitable Uses Act, of lands belonging to the 
 parish ; (3) with regard to enrolment of thie grant, 
 tliat in the absence of proof of non-enrolment an 
 enrolment if necessary might be presumed, or it 
 might be presumed that no enrolment was neces- 
 sary in this particular case; and (4) that the 
 parish had consequently gained a title under the 
 statute to the soil of the highway, subject to the 
 public right of way. Haigh v. West 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 19 
 
 Bailways, 
 
 See Railway — Fences. 
 
 Bate. 
 See helow, Repairs. 
 
 Bepairs. 
 
 10. — Action against highway authority — ■ 
 Time. 
 
 Action against an urban authority for negli- 
 gence when acting in its capacity of a highway 
 authority : — 
 
 Held, that such an action must be brought 
 within tlie three months prescribed by s. 109 of 
 the Highway Act, 1835, and that it was not 
 sufficient if the action were brought within the 
 six months prescribed by s. 264 of the Public 
 Healtli Act, 1875. Graham v. Newcastle-upon- 
 Tyne COKPOKATION (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 643 
 
 [Sect. 109 of the Highway Act, 1835, and s. 264 
 of the Public Health Act, 1875, were repealed and 
 further provision made by the Public Authorities 
 Protection Act, 1893 (56 * 57 ViM r 61) ] 
 
 HIGHWAY (Bepairs) — continued. 
 
 11. — Exemption from highway rate — Liability 
 to repair ratione tenune — Alteration of highway — 
 Estoppel — Bes judicata — Highways Act, 1 835 (5 <{; 
 6 Will. c. 50), s. 33. 
 
 The appellants had from time immemorial 
 repaired a certain highway ratione tenuroe, ,ind 
 were consequently exempt from contributing to 
 the repair of other highways in the districts. In 
 1782 the highway was placed under trustees who 
 materially altered it. In 1862 the trust expired, 
 but the appellants, believing that their liability 
 siill existed, continued to repair the highway. 
 In 1866 the Court of Q. B. decided that they 
 were not liable to be rated for the repair of the 
 highways in the district, but the fact of the 
 alteration of the highway by the trustees was not 
 brought before the Court. In 1892 the highway 
 was declared a main road, and the appellants 
 ceased to repair it : — 
 
 Held, that the duty to repair ratione tenuraj 
 and with it the exemption from being rated had 
 come to an end by the alteration of the highway 
 by tlie trustees : — 
 
 Held, also, that the previous decision did not 
 
 moke the case res judicata, as the fact of the 
 
 alteration had not been brought to tho attention 
 
 of the Court. Heath v. Weavekham Oveeseeks 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 108 
 
 13. — Excessive weight — Extraordinary traffic — 
 " Person by whose order such weight or traffic has 
 been conducted " — Highways and Locomotives 
 (Amendment) Act, 1878 (41 (t 42 Vict. u. 77), 
 8. 23. 
 
 The respondentcontractedwith several persons 
 for the delivery to him of materials required for 
 his residence, the prices including carriage in 
 be payable and the property in the materials 
 to pass on delivery and acceptance at his resi- 
 dence. The materials were conveys d by a certain 
 highway. The respondent knew that the con- 
 tractors intended to send the materials by that 
 highway by traction engines and trucks, but he 
 did not employ or pay the carriers or give direc- 
 tions as to the route or the mode of conveyance. 
 Extraordinary expenses having been incurred by 
 the highway authority by reason of the damage 
 caused by excessive weight passing along the 
 highway or extraordinary traffic thereon, within 
 s. 23 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amend- 
 ment) Act, 187S:— 
 
 Held, that the respondent was not a " person 
 by whoso order such weight or traffic had been 
 conducted " within the meaning of that section, 
 and that he was not liable for the expenses. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1897] 1 Q. B. 351, affirmed. 
 Kent Codnty Council d. Lord Geeakd 
 
 H. L, (E.) [1897] A. C. 633 
 
 13. — Extraordinary traffic — Extraordinary 
 expenses — Certificate of surveyor — Highways and 
 Locomotives {Amendment) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 
 Vict. i>. 77), s. 23. 
 
 A certificate of the surveyor to a highway 
 board as to extraordinary expenses incurred upon 
 highways in their district is not bad by reason 
 of the fact that it includes more than one high- 
 way, and does not particularize or describfe the 
 highways included. A separate certificate need 
 
( 893 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 894 ) 
 
 HIGHWAY (Repairs) —continued. 
 
 not be given in respect of each highway. Wirral 
 
 Highway Boaed v. Kewell 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 827 
 
 14. — Extraordinary traffic — Extraordinary 
 expenses — Highways and Locomotives (^Amendment) 
 Act, 1878 (41 <fe 42 Vict. c. 77), s. 23. 
 
 " Extraordinary traffic," as distinct from " ex- 
 cessive weight," includes all such continuous or 
 repeated user of the road by a person's vehicles 
 as is out of the common order of traffic, and as 
 may be calculated to damage the highway and 
 iuorease the expenditure on its repair. Hill v. 
 Thomas - C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 333 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Eflierley Grange Coal Go. 
 V. Aucldand District Miqhway Board, [1894] 
 1 Q. B. 37. 
 
 15. — Extraordinary traffic — Extraordinary 
 expenses — Highways and Locomotives (^Amendment) 
 Act, 1878 (41 * 42 Vict. c. 77), o. 23. 
 
 (a) Carrying stone from a quarry held to be 
 extraordinary traffic, so as to make the appellant 
 liable for extraordiuary expenses for repairs. In 
 this case stone traffic was found to be a recognised 
 business in the neighbourhood, but not the 
 ordinary or recognised traffic of the road in 
 question. Whitebkead v. Sevenoaks Highway 
 UoAKD - Div. ct. [1892] 1 Q, B. 8 
 
 (b) Contractors carrying for purposes of a 
 battery 9000 loads of shingle and cement held 
 liable for extraordinary traffic. Hill v. Thomas 
 
 C. A, [1893] 2 Q. B. 333 
 
 (c) In delermining whether traffic is " extra- 
 ordinary" regard must be had, not to all the 
 roads in the neighbourhood, but to the particular 
 road in question. Therefore colliery owners, 
 who since 1890 had carted large quantities of 
 coal to a railway station via. a, particular road, 
 were held liable for extraordinary traffic, though 
 other coal owners ordinarily used other roads in 
 a similar manner. Ethbeley Grange Coal Co. 
 V. Auckland Distbiot Highway Board 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 37 
 
 16. — Extraordinary traffic — Liability of 
 CTiecutors — Highways and Locomotives (Amend- 
 
 'menf) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 77), s. 23. 
 
 Proceedings under s. 23 of the Highways and 
 Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878 (41 & 42 
 Vict. c. 77), are in the nature of an action for a 
 personal tort, and therefore cannot be taken 
 against an executor. Stoey v. Sheard 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q,. B, 515 
 
 17. — Extraordinary traffic — Person by or in 
 consequence of whose order such traffic has been 
 conducted — Highways and Locomotives (^Amend- 
 ment) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Viet. c. 77), s. 23— 
 Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 29), s. 12. 
 
 The defts., on March 2, 1898, entered into a 
 contract with a firm to carry out for them certain 
 building operations; and on March 16, 1898, 
 they entered into another contract with another 
 firm for the erection of temporary buildings. The 
 work under the first contract was completed on 
 April 15, 1899, and under the second contract on 
 Sept. 23, 1899. In the course of executing these 
 contracts extraordinary traffic was conducted over 
 certain highways within the plt.'s highway 
 district, and they were p'ilt to extradrdiiiary 
 
 HIGHWAY (Repairs) — continued. 
 expenses in repairing them. In an action com- 
 menced on Dec. 22, 1899, to recover those expenses 
 from the defts. : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled to succeed, 
 since the extraordinary traffic had been conducted 
 " by or in consequence of " the order of the defts., 
 within the meaning of s. 12 of the Locomotives 
 Act, 1898, but that the proceedings to recover 
 the amount in respect of the damage caused in 
 the execution of the first contract were too late, 
 having been commenced more than six months 
 after the completion of that contract. Epsom 
 Urban Council v. London County Council 
 
 Bigham J. [1900] 2 Q. B. 751 
 
 18. — Extraordinary traffic — Person by whose 
 order traffic is conducted — Highways and Loco- 
 motives (Amendment) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, 
 c. 77), s. 23. 
 
 Contractors contracted to deliver ballast, and 
 arranged with owners of traction engines to 
 convey the ballast from their wharf to the place 
 of delivery. They exercised no control over the 
 nser of tlie engines, the weights carried, or the 
 route. The carriage of the ballast caused extra- 
 ordinary traffic whereby the road was damaged : — 
 
 Held, that the contractors were the persons 
 liable as the persons by whose order such traffic, 
 the aggregate amount of which had caused the 
 damage, had been conducted. Kent County 
 Council v. Vidler C. A. [1895] 1 Q, B, 448 
 
 19. — Footpath — Evidence of liability to repair 
 ratione tenurse — Remedy against a person so liable 
 to repair. 
 
 The deft, was the occupier of two adjoining 
 fields through which ran a public footpath cros.s- 
 ing the fence between the two fields by means of 
 a stile. The deft, and his predecessors in occu- 
 pation had occasionally done slight repairs to the 
 footpath and the stile ; but theio was no evidence 
 that he or they had ever been required by the 
 highway authority to do so. The pit., who was 
 using the footpath as a member of the public, 
 fell in getting over the stile, in consequence of 
 tlie stile being out of repair, and was injured. 
 He sued the deft., charging that he was liable to 
 repair ratione tenurss : — 
 
 Held, that the fact of the repairs done by the 
 deft, and his predecessors, being consistent with 
 such repairs having been done by them for their 
 own benefit, was no evidence of any liability to 
 repair ratione tenurse. 
 
 Quiere, whether an action will lie against a 
 person liable to repair a public way ratione 
 tenuriB for special damage suffered by a member 
 of the public in consequence of the way being 
 out of repair. Eundle v. Hearle 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 83 
 
 — Footway and bridle-path — Inclosure award — 
 
 Eight of way. 
 See Inclosuee. 2. 
 
 — Footways — Flagging— ^Apportionment of ex- 
 
 penses. 
 
 See LosDON— Streets. 67, 68. 
 
 20. — Faoiviays— Repair of, in Urban districts 
 — Main rodd— Highway's and L'ddoMotiitei (Ameiid- 
 Mgnf) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 77), s. 13— 
 
( 895 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 HIGHWAY (Repairs)— corf&tieti. 
 
 Tjocal Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. e. 41), 
 
 s. 11. 
 
 A county council is liable under the Local 
 Government Act, 1888, s. 11, sub-s. 2, to contribute 
 towards the costs of maintaining and repairing 
 in an urban district the paved footways upon or 
 at the sides of disturnpiked loads which have 
 become main roads under the Highways and 
 Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, s. 13. 
 Jn re Mayor, &o., of Bueslem and County 
 Council of Staffokdshire 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 24 
 
 Approved of by H. L. (E.) Berhy County 
 Council V. Matlock Bath, <!■(!., [1896] A. 0. 315. 
 See next Case. 
 
 21. — Footways — Repair of, in urban districts 
 — Main road — Highways and Locomotires {Amend- 
 ment) Act, 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. c. 77), f. 13— 
 Load Government Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. o. 41), 
 s. 11. 
 
 A county council is liable under the Local 
 Government Act, 1888, c. 41, s. 11, sub-s. 2, to 
 make to the urban authority an annual payment 
 towards the costs of the maintenance and repair 
 in an urban district of the paved footpaths upon 
 or at the sides of disturnpiked roads which have 
 become main roads under tlie Highways and 
 Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, c. 77, s. 13. 
 
 The decisions to this effect in In re War- 
 minster, d'c. (25 Q. B. D. 450), and In re Burslem, 
 &c., [1896] 1 Q. B. 24, approved. Dekby County 
 Council v. Ukban Disteiot of Matlock Bath 
 AND SCAETHIN NiCK H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 315 
 
 22. — lAahiliiy of urban authority for non- 
 repair. 
 
 A local authority is not liable to an action for 
 damages for injuries caused by non-repair of a 
 highway or of a bridge thereon. 
 
 (a) Municipality op Pictou v. Geldeet 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C, 624 
 
 (b) Municipal Council of Sydney v. Bouekf, 
 
 P. C, [1895] A. C. 433 
 (u) Cowley v. Newmarket Local Boaed 
 
 H. L. (E.) affirm. C. A. and 
 Denman J. [1892] A. C. 345 
 In this case the local authority were held 
 not to be liable for injuries caused to the pit. 
 owing to a drop in the levtl of the footway made 
 by an adjoining landowner without the sanction 
 of the authority. The question of breach of 
 statutory duty considered. 
 
 (d) Where a local authority properly inserted 
 (a) a man-hole, (b) a sewer-grating in the high- 
 way, both of which were in good repair, but pro- 
 jected in consequence of non-repair of the high- 
 way by the same local authority, who were in 
 each case the road as well as the sewer authority, 
 and caused damage to the pit. : — 
 
 Held, that the only breach of duty of the 
 authority was in not repairing the highway, for 
 which no action would lie. 
 
 («) TnoMPSON V. Beighton Coepoeation 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 332 
 (b) Olivee c. Hoesham Local Boaed 
 
 C. A. [^894] 1 ft. B. 332 
 
 23. — Main roads—Maintenance by urban 
 authority— Contribution by County Council— Arbi- 
 
 HIGHWAYS (Eepairs) — continued. 
 
 tration — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 
 Vict. c. 41), as. 11, 35. 
 
 Where an urban authority retains the powers 
 and duties of maintaining the main roads in its 
 district, the amount to be paid to it by the county 
 council in respect of such main roads can only be 
 settled, in default of agreement, by the arbitra- 
 tion of the Loo. Govt. Ed. In re Bedfoedshieb 
 CocNTY Council and Bedfoed TTeban Sanitaey 
 AuTHOEiTY - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 786 
 
 24. — Main roads in county divided into hun- 
 dreds. 
 
 Where an order has been made under s. 20 
 of the Highways and Locomotives Amend- 
 ment Act, 1878, declaring every main road to be 
 repairable by the hundred in which it was situate 
 and one-half the expenses to be repayable out of 
 a special rate in the hundred, the repairs are 
 " general county purposes " within ss. 11, 23, 68, 
 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and the 
 county fund should be recouped from the Ex^ 
 chequer Contribution Account, so much as is not 
 provided by the special rate in the hundred. 
 Res. v. Dolby (No. 2) , 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 736 
 
 25. — Hate — Highway parish without church — 
 Publication— Poor Act, 1743^ (17 Geo. 2), c. 3, 
 s. 1— Highway Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, 
 s. 27—Parish Notices Act, 1837 (7 Will. 4, 1 Vict, 
 c. 45), s. 2— Poor Bate Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 20), s. 4. 
 
 A highway rate was made for H., a highway 
 parish, which was neither a poor-law nor an 
 ecclesiastical parish, and in which there was no 
 consecrated building. Notice of the rate was 
 posted on a schoolroom and a Wesleyan chapel 
 as being conspicuous places in H. 
 
 Held, that this was due publication. EeS. r. 
 AVoLFEESTAN Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 451 
 
 26. — Exemption — Liability to repair ratione 
 tenures — Sum paid in discharge of liability — 
 Highway Act, 1885 (5 ifc 6 Will. 4, c. 50), s. 33— 
 Highway Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 61), s. 35. 
 
 In a hamlet forming part of a township all . 
 the highways were repairable by the occupiers 
 of lands ratione tenuree, and highway lates were 
 not leviable by reason of the exemption in the 
 Highway Act, 1835, s. 33. A ry. co. occupied 
 lands in the hamlet, and, prior to the afler-men- 
 tioned order, were liable ratione tenurse to repair 
 a portion of a highway therein. An order was 
 made by justices under the Highway Act, 1862, 
 s. 35, by which it was declared that all the high- 
 ways in the hamlet should be parish highways, 
 and be repaired by the highway board of the 
 district in which the hamlet was situated. The 
 order fixed the sums to be paid by the respective 
 occupiers of lands previously liable to repair 
 ratione uatura) " in full discharge of all claims 
 thereafter in respect of the repair and main- 
 tenance of the highways" as provided by the 
 Act. These sums were nominal in amount. 
 They were duly paid. The co. were subsequently 
 rated in respect of their lands in the hamlet for 
 expenses incurred in the repair of higliways 
 within the district, including those in the 
 hamlet -.-^ 
 
 Held, that the order did not operate to deprive 
 
( 897 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 89g ) 
 
 Highway (Repairs) — contimied. 
 the ry. co. of their previously existing exemption 
 from highway rates, and that the co. were exempt 
 from payment of so much of the rate as was 
 levied in respect of the repair of highways in 
 the hamlet. 
 
 Decision of the 0. A. (reversing the judgment 
 of Div. Ct., [1898] 2 Q. B. 66), [1899] W. N. 64 ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 1026, affirmed. Dalton Oveb- 
 SEEES V. North Eastern Kt. Oo. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 126 ; [1900] A, C. 345 
 
 — Repairable by inhabitants at large — Fronta- 
 
 gers — Paving. 
 
 See Cases under Streets — Paving, &c., 
 Hzpenses. 
 
 — " Eepairable by the inhabitants at large '' — 
 
 Sewering. 
 
 See Cases under Sewers — Eepairs, 
 
 27. — Eepairable ratione tenurx — Person liable 
 — Owner not in occupation of land — Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. e. 73), e. 25, sub- 
 s. 2. 
 
 By s. 25, sub-s. 2, of the Local Government 
 Act, 1894, " "Where a highway repairable ratione 
 tenurm appears .... not to be in proper repair, 
 and the person liable to repair the same fails 
 when requested so to do .... to place it in 
 proper repair, the district council may place the 
 highway in proper repair, and recover from the 
 person liable to repair the highway the necessary 
 expenses of so doing " : — 
 
 Seld, that an owner of lands who was not the 
 occupier of them was not " the person liable to 
 repair the highway " within the meaning of the 
 section. Cuckfield Eural District Council v. 
 GORINQ " Div. ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 865 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Daventry Bural 
 Council V. Parker, [1900] 1 Q. B. 1, 4. See next 
 Case. 
 
 28. — Mepairahle ratione tenurse — Recovery of 
 expenses of repair — Person liable — Owner not in 
 occupation — Local Government Act, 1894 (56 1£ 57 
 Vict. c. 73), s. 25, sub-s. 2. 
 
 By s. 25, sub-s. 2, of the Local Government 
 Act, 1894, " "Where a highway repairable ratione 
 tenurse appears . . . not to be in proper repair, 
 and the person liable to repair the same fails 
 when requested so to do .... to place it in 
 proper repair, the district council may place the 
 highway in proper repair, and recover from the 
 person liable to repair the highway the necessary 
 expense of so doing" : — 
 
 ILeld, that an owner of lands who was not the 
 occupier of them was not " the person liable to 
 repair the highway " within the meaning of the 
 section. 
 
 Cuckfield Swral Council v. Goring, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 865, approved. Daventet Kural 
 ConNCiL V. Parker C. A. [1899] "W. N. 210 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 ft. B. 1 
 
 29. — Bepairable ratione tenurse — Eecovery of 
 expense of repair — Person liable — Owner not in 
 occupation — Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 73), s. 25, sub-s. 2. 
 
 By s. 25, sub-s. 2, of the Local Government 
 Act, 1894, " "Where a highway repairable ratione 
 tenurse appears .... not to be in proper repair, 
 and the person liable to repair the same fails when 
 
 HIGHWAY (ILe^ahs)— continued. 
 requested so to do .... to place it in proper 
 repair, the district council may place the highwoy 
 in proper repair, and recover from the person 
 liable to repair the highway the necessary 
 expenses of so doing " : — 
 
 Held, that an owner of lands who was not the 
 occupier of them was not " the person liable to 
 repair the highway " within the meaning of the 
 section. 
 
 Cuckfield Rural Council v. Goring, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 865, approved. Daventry Rural 
 Council v. Parker - C. A. [1909] 1 ft. B. 1 
 
 — Road transferred to local authority^-Failure 
 
 of trust. 
 
 See Charity. 23. 
 
 30. — Surveyor — Debt incurred by predecessor 
 — Liability — Highway Act, 1835 (5 (t 6 Will. 4, 
 c. 50). 
 
 An action does not lie against a surveyor of 
 highways appointed under the Highway Act, 
 1835, for the price of materials supplied to his 
 predecessor for the repair of highways where 
 such predecessor died insolvent after having 
 received from the parish sufficient money to pay 
 for the materials. Frodinqham Iron and Steel 
 Co. v. Bowser - Div, Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 791 
 
 Tolls. 
 
 31. — Turnpike Acts — Tolls — Exemption — Car- 
 riage employed in Military Service of Crown — 
 Army Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 58), s. 143. 
 
 The exemption from payment of toll in 
 passing along a turnpike road or over a bridge 
 contained in s. 143 of the Army Act, 1881, in 
 favour of carriages " employed " in the military 
 service of the Crown and conveying officers or 
 soldiers of the regular forces on duty does not 
 extend to the private carriage of an officer used 
 by him for his own convenience while on duty. 
 Craig v. Nicholas Div, Ct. [1900] 2 ft, B. 444 
 
 Trespass. 
 See Cases under Trbsfass. ' 
 
 — Action of trespass— Public authorities pro- 
 
 tection — Costs as between solicitor and 
 
 client. 
 
 See Costs. 43. 
 
 32. — Trespass to land — Use of highway other' 
 wise than as such. 
 
 The pit. was possessed of land which was 
 crossed by a highway. A trainer of raoe-horsea 
 had agreed with the pit. for the use of some of 
 his land for the training and trial of race-horses. 
 A view of the land so used was obtainable from 
 the highway on the plt.'s land. The deft, was 
 one of the jiroprietors of a publication which 
 gave accounts of the doings of race-horses in 
 training. On the occasion in respect of which 
 the action was brought, the deft, walked back- 
 wards and forwards on a portion of the highway 
 on the plt.'s land, about fifteen yards in length, 
 for a period of about an hour and a half, watch- 
 ing and taking notes of the trials of the race- 
 horses on the plt.'s land. The pit. having brought 
 an action of trespass against him in respect of 
 his user of the highway as aforesaid, and the 
 jury having found for the pit. : — 
 
 Held, that the deft.'s acts had exceeded tlio 
 
 2 G 
 
( 899 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( 900 ) 
 
 HIGHWAY (TiesT^ass)— continued. 
 ordinary and reasonable user of a highway as 
 such to which the pnhlio are entitled, he there- 
 fore was guilty of a trespass on the plt.'s land. 
 
 Harrison v. Dulce of Butland, [1893] 1 Q. B. 
 142, followed. Hickman v. Maiset 
 
 C. A, [1900] -W. N. 72 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 752 
 
 HIKE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT. 
 
 See Oases under Factor. 
 
 — 'Whether requiring registration. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 30. 
 
 HIRE OF SHIP — Oesser of hire during ineffi- 
 ciency of ship. 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 35. 
 
 HIRING — In consideration of yearly payment 
 — Stamp. 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 140. 
 
 — Lightship, Loss of use of — Hire of substitute 
 
 — Collision — Eemoteness of damage. 
 See Shipping— Collision. 72. 
 
 — Servant. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Hiring. 
 
 — Severable covenant — Injunction. 
 
 See Eestraint of Trade. 19. 
 
 KOATLJilSQ— Building. 
 
 A hoarding erected for advertising purposes 
 
 held not to be a "building" within a covenant 
 
 against erecting any building. Foster v. Pbaser 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 158 
 
 See also Advertising Station. 
 
 — Dangerous structures — Disturbance of pave- 
 
 ment — Duty to restore pavement after 
 
 hoarding removed. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 11. 
 
 — Rateable occupation — Advertising contractor. 
 
 See Rates — Rateability. 11. 
 
 HOLPING OVER. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Determi- 
 nation of Tenancy and Holding Over. 
 
 HOLOGRAPH WILI— Power of appointment- 
 Donee of power a domiciled French- 
 woman — Holograph will of donee in 
 French language unattested. 
 See Powers- Exercise. 18. 
 
 HONG EONG — Appeals from — Additional instruc- 
 tions, dated Jan. 21, 1846, for permitting appeals 
 to be made to the Queen in Council from the 
 Supreme Court of Hong Kong. St. R. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 1681. 
 
 — Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 See Probate — Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 — Death Duties. 
 
 See Eevenite — Estate Duty. 
 
 — Marriage — Evidence of validity — Practice — 
 
 Colonial marriage. 
 
 See Divorce — Evidence. 80 — 82. 
 
 "HONOUR" POIICY. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 59. 
 HOP-GSOTTND, 
 
 See Tithe. 2. 
 HORSES. Exportation of. 0. of JBd. of Agri- 
 culture dated Nov. 25, 1898, as to. loud. Gau. 
 Nov. 26, 1898, p. 7394. 
 
 HORSES- 
 
 — • Plant — Specific description. 
 See Bill of Sale. 53. 
 
 HORSE-RACE — Selection of winner. 
 
 See CopteiQht — Periodical. 35. 
 
 HOSPITAL — Exemption from house tax. 
 See Eevbnoe— House Duty. 57. 
 
 — Small-pox hospital. 
 
 See Nuisances. 11, 12. 
 
 HOTCHPOT — Construction of will. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Advancement. 
 
 — Settlement. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement — Hotclipot. 
 
 — Settlement without the clause. 
 
 See Powers — Exercise. 21. 
 
 HOTEL. 
 
 HOUSE. 
 
 See Inn. 
 
 See Buildings. 
 
 London — Buildings. 
 
 Streets. 
 
 " HOUSE "—Flat— Building estate. 
 See Covenant. 2. 
 
 HOUSE AGENT — Interpleader — Action for com- 
 mission — Claims by different parties. 
 See County Court — Jurisdiction. 52. 
 
 HOUSE DUTY. 
 
 See Revenue — House Duty. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 — Offences — Sale without licence — Sale by 
 servant of the House. 
 See Licensing Acts. 43. 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS — Appeals to House of Lords 
 — Practice. 
 See Appeal. 17—23. 
 
 ■ Appeal to — Practice. 
 
 See Divorce — Co-respondent. 
 
 39. 
 
 1. — Death of a Law Lord who has heard an 
 appeal in the Souse of Lords, hut dies before 
 delivery of the judgment. See Lord Advocate 
 V. Wemyss - H. L. (So.) [1899] W. N. 124 
 
 3. — Practices-Souse of Lords decision — lies 
 judicata — Tramways, Compulsory purchase of — 
 Tramways Act, 1870 (33 <fc 34 Vict. c. 78), s. 43. 
 
 A decision of the H. L. upon u, question of 
 law is conclusive and binds the House in subse- 
 quent cases. An erroneous decision can be set 
 right only by an Act of Parliament. London 
 Tramways Co. v. London County Council 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A, C. 376 
 — Practice — Set-off of costs. 
 
 See Costs— Set-off, 63. 
 HOUSE REFUSE— Scavenging^Refuse of trade. 
 See Cases under London — Removal of 
 Refuse. 
 
 HOUSE TAX. 
 
 See Revenue — House Duty. 
 
 HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament — Fran* 
 cbise. 
 
C 901 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 HOUSING OF THE WORKING CtASSES- 
 
 fousmg oftlw WorMng Classes Act, ]896 (59 & 
 bU Ktci c. 31), amends the Act of 1890, c. 70, as 
 to re-vestmg of lands. 
 
 ^fla'^''"i!"?r "-^ '''® TPbrfragr Classes Act, 1900 
 (.bS & 64 Vtet. c. 59), amends Fart III. of the 
 fomng of tlw WorUng Classes Act, 1890 (53 & 
 54 Vict. c. 70). 
 
 — Party dissatisfied with award of arbitrator— 
 Refusal of leave to appeal. 
 See Appeal. 32. 
 
 HUMAN REMAINS— Faculty for removal of, for 
 widening public highway. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 10. 
 
 HUNDEED— Eoads repairable by— Eepairs. 
 See Highway — Repairs. 24. 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 _ Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 * 57 
 Vict. e. 63), amends the Married Women's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. o. 75). 
 
 Inoomb Tax.] Married woman — Exemption 
 of income arising from business of wife. See 
 Finance Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. o. 24), s. 5. 
 
 Marriage Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 58), 
 amends the law relating to the attendance of Regis- 
 trars at marriages in Nonconformist places of 
 worship. 
 
 . County CouH Rules (May), 1899, Order V. 
 {Married Women suing) ; Order A\xin. (Form of 
 Judgment against Married Women). W N. 1899 
 (AprU 29), p. 147; (May 80), p. 171. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p. zcii. 
 
 Generally, col. 901. 
 
 Banlcruptcy, col. 908. 
 
 Bond, col. 909. 
 
 Contracts, col. 910. 
 
 Conveyance, col. 911. 
 
 Costs. See Costs— Married Woman. 
 
 Divorce. See Divorce. 
 
 Equity to Settlement. See Settlement 
 
 Equity to Settlement. 
 
 Marriage Contract, col. 913. 
 
 Practice, col. 913. 
 
 Probate, col. 914. 
 
 Pestraint on Anticipation, col. 915. 
 
 Separation, col. 922. 
 
 Summary Jurisdiction, col. 924. 
 
 Title of Honour, col. 930. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 !• — Absolute interest^Intgrest for life for 
 separate use with general testamentary power of 
 appointment to exors. — Married Woman's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 The effect of the Act of 1882 is to place 
 married women in the same position as femes 
 sole or men so far as the effect of the release of a 
 general power of appointment is concerned, and 
 by virtue of the Act the life interests and interests 
 in reversion of married women are alike limited 
 to their separate use, and the two interests 
 coalesce on release of an intervening power of 
 appointment. In re Davenport. Tuenek v. 
 KiNa - - Kekewich J. [1896] 1 Oh. 361 
 
 ( 902 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Genemny)-continued. 
 
 — Advances— Purchases by husband in names of 
 
 wife and daughter— Account— Law of 
 
 Quebec. 
 
 Sie Canada. 50. 
 
 a. — After-acquired property— Covenant by 
 husband alone that after-acquired property of wife 
 shall be settled— Marriage settlement. 
 
 A marriage settlement contained a covenant 
 by the husband alone that all the real and 
 personal estate above a certain value which 
 should at any time during the coverture by any 
 means be acquired by the wife or the husband in 
 her right should forthwith be settled upon the 
 trusts of the settlement. The wife was a partv 
 to and executed the deed, During the coverture 
 she became entitled under the will of her father 
 to certain real estate : — 
 
 Seld, that the property in question was bound 
 by the covenant. In re Haden. Coling v 
 Haden - Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 230 
 
 - Annuity — Appropriation of capital sum — 
 
 Restraint on anticipation. 
 See Annuity. 8. 
 
 3. — Ante-nuptial contract— Personal liaUUty 
 
 The personal liability of a mnrried woman at 
 common law upon contracts made by her before 
 marriage is not taken away by the Act of 1882 
 
 A., a spinster, accepted a bill of exchange, arid 
 subsequently married. B, the holder of the 
 bill, applied for .judgment under Order xiv A 
 alleged m her affidavit, by way of defence, that 
 she had subsequently married :— 
 
 Held, that B. was entitled to judgment against 
 A. personally. Eobikson, King & Co. v. Lynes 
 Div. Ct, [1894] 2 Q. B. 577 
 
 — Appointment to husband — Liability of 
 
 appointed fund to debts. 
 See POWEK.S. 81. 
 
 i.— Assignment of reversionary interest- 
 Legal chose in action-Policy (20 & 21 Vict 
 c. 57). 
 
 ■ .T^\x°^''^ " ^"y personal estate whatsoever " 
 m the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, are wide 
 enough to include, and do include, a legal cliose 
 in action, such as a policy of insurance effected 
 lu a married woman's own name, and should not 
 be oontined to such equitable cjioses in action as a 
 legacy or other moneys or securities held in trust 
 lor her. Witheeby v. Eaokham 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 57 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Cases under Bankbuptcy. 
 
 , , ^- ~ -^"*£ fee— Fee simple absolute— Achnow- 
 
 rJT^'"i7u,TT"'"'^T^''"^' ""'^ Recoveries 
 Act (3 * iWill. 4, c. 74), ss. 1, 15, 19, 40, 77- 
 
 Marned Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 * 46 
 V%ct. c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 1 ; s. 2. 
 
 A base fee created by vendors, when spinsters 
 can be turned into a fee simple absolute by 
 the vendors, ,f married since 1882, without 
 acknowledgment or the concurrence of their 
 husbands. In re Deummond and Davies' Con- 
 TEACT - . Chitty J. [1891] ich. 524 
 
 — Bond-Interest on-Loan to husband-Penalty 
 
 — btatute of Limitations. 
 See Husband and Wife— Bond. 27 
 2 g"2 
 
( 903 ) 
 
 DIGEST Of CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 904 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (GeneraUy)— continued. 
 
 — Breach of trust at Instigation of tenant for life 
 
 • — Married woman — Indemnity. 
 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 30, 34. 
 
 — Claim of widow against insolvent estate of 
 
 husband. 
 
 See Executor — Insolvent Estates. 34. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Costs — Married 
 Woman. 
 
 6. — Damages recovered — Tort to wife — 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 <fc 46 
 Vict. c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 2 ; s. 5. 
 
 An amount awarded to a wife as damages for 
 personal injuries is her separate property :— 
 
 Held, therefore, a garnisheei order attaching 
 the money to answer a judgment debt of the 
 husband, who had been a co-pit. in the action, 
 was invalid. Beasley v. Ronet 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 a. B. 509 
 
 7. — Debts — General power of appointment — ■ 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 3, 4 ; s. 4. 
 
 Under tlie Act of 1882, o. 1 (3), (4), and s. 4, 
 property appointed by a married woman by will 
 under a general power became on her death liable 
 to her debts and other liabilities even though she 
 had no separate estate at the time she contracted 
 them. In re Ann. Wilson v. Akn 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 1 Ch. 549 
 
 IBut see now the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1893, by which s. 1, sub-s. 3, 4, of the Act of 
 1882 loas repealed.'] 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Huglies, [1898] 
 1 Ch. 529, 535. 
 
 — Deed of settlement by wife's father — Eights 
 
 of husband and wife in seltled estate — 
 Claim of husbaiid's heir. 
 See Jersey. 3. 
 
 — Dissolution of marriage. 
 
 See Cases under Diyoeoe. 
 
 — Divorce. 
 
 See Cases und-er Divorce. 
 
 — Estate duty — Property settled by husband or 
 
 wife— Exemption — Postponement. 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 28. 
 
 8. — Gift by will — Separate shares. 
 
 AVhere there is a gift to a class which 
 includes a husband and wife, the husband and 
 wife take separate shares. In re GuE. Smith 
 D. GUB - - North J. [1892]'W, N, 132 
 
 — Gift to son and wife in succession — Remar- 
 
 riage of son after date of will. 
 See Will — Marriage. 141. 
 • — Grant of administration — Limited administra- 
 tion — Will of married woman. 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 51, 52, 55. 
 
 — Guardianship of infant. 
 
 See Cases under Infant — Custody. 
 
 — Infant — Settlement by. 
 
 See Cases under Infant — Settlements. 
 
 9. — Interlocutory injunction — Married woman 
 without separate estate. 
 
 An interlocutory injunction was granted at 
 the instance of a married woman, although it 
 was Urged that l.or undertaking in damages -^as 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Generally)— coni4««e(Z. 
 illusory, she not having any separate estate. 
 Pike v. Cave - Kekewich J. [1893] W. H. 91 
 
 — Joint income — Assessment of husband on wife 
 
 profits. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 100. 
 
 10. — Joint tenancy — Covenant to settle after- 
 acquired property. 
 
 A husband and wife covenanted to settle the 
 wife's after-acquired property. P. executed a 
 voluntary settlement with an ultimate trust in 
 favour of his next of kin of whom the wife was 
 one of three : — 
 
 Held, that on the death of P. the joint interest 
 of tlie wife was severed by the opei ation of the 
 covenant to settle after-acquired property. In re 
 Hewett. Hewett v. Hallett 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 362 
 
 11. — Joint tenancy — Dissolution of marriage 
 — Landlord & Tenant Act, 1704 (4 ifc 5 Anne, 
 c. 3), ». 27 ; Married Woman Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 75), ss. 1, 5. 
 
 Land were conveyed before the commence- 
 ment of the Act of 1882 to a husband and wife 
 and to the survivor in fee : — 
 
 Held, that so long as the marriage lasted, 
 husband and wife were tenants by entireties, but 
 that after the marriage was dissolved each 
 became a joint tenant, and the wife's interest 
 belonged to her separate use, and that she was 
 entitled to an 'account as from the date of the 
 divorce. 
 
 Other estates were conveyed after the com- 
 mencement of the Act in terms which but for 
 their marriage would have given them a joint 
 estate : — 
 
 Held, that the wife had therein a joint 
 estate to her separate use, and that she had a 
 right to an account of the rents and profits as 
 from the date when llie husband and wife ceased 
 to live together. Thoknley v. Thornley 
 
 Eomer J. [1893] 2 Ch. 229 
 
 — Joint will — Husband and wife. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Probate. 101. 
 
 12. — LiabilHy of husband — Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882 (45 A- 46 Vict. v. 75), s. 1, 
 sub-s. 3 ; s. 23. 
 
 A., by deed of gift, gave property to his wife 
 for her " own proper use and benefit.'' A. died, 
 and the wife subsequently married the deft., and 
 after 1882 borrowed money of the pit. She died 
 intestate, and the pit. sued her husband, who 
 had taken possession of the property : — 
 
 Held (1), that the property was separate 
 property, and bound by tlie wife's contract; 
 (2) that it passed to her husband jure mariti, 
 and administration was unnecessary ; (3) that 
 the husband was the personal representative of 
 his wife within s. 23 of the Act of 1S82, and 
 liable to the extent of the property. Surman v. 
 Wharton Div, Ct. [1891] 1 Q, B. 491 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Wlieeler's 
 Settlement Trusts, [1899] 2 Ch. 717, 722. 
 
 13. — Life assurance policy—Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 93), s. 10. 
 
 In 1877 A. insured his own life, and the policy 
 declared that the funds of the co. should be liable 
 to the payment of the sum insured to the wife 
 
( 905 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 906 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Generally)— continued!, 
 and children of the assured, pursuant to the 
 provisions of the Married "Women's Property Act, 
 1870, s. 10. A. died in 1891, leaving a widow 
 and children : — 
 
 Seld, that the widow and children took as 
 joint tenants. In re Davies' Policy Trusts 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 90 
 
 — Lodger franchise — Sole tenant. 
 
 See Pabliament — Franchise. 82. 
 
 — Lunatic— Eight of husband to be appointed 
 
 committee of person of lunatic wife. 
 See Lunacy — Custody. 14. 
 
 — Marital coercion — New Zealand Criminal 
 
 Code. 
 
 See New Zealand. 4. 
 
 14. — Marriage of Scotchman with English- 
 looman — jus mariti — Ante-nuptial contract. 
 
 On the marriage of a Scotsman with an 
 Englishwoman upon whom property has already 
 been settled, an ante-nuptial contract confirming 
 the wife in her rights according to English law 
 is desirable so as to preclude the husband from 
 setting up on his wife's death a claim jure mariti 
 to her property under Scottish law. In re Cbaig- 
 NisH. Cbaigkish ». Hewitt 
 
 C, A [1892] 3 Ch. 180 
 
 — Marriage settlement. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement. 
 
 — " Married woman " — Construction of will. 
 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 8. 
 
 15. — Parajphernalia — Gift by husband to wife 
 of jewels — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 7.5), ss. 1, 2, 17. 
 
 The Married Women's Property Act, 1882, 
 has not abolished the general law as to gifts of 
 paraphernalia. 
 
 A., who married after the passing of the Act, 
 gave liis wife presents of jewellery, as birthday 
 presents, and she to his knowledge kept the jewels 
 in her possession, or in a bank in cases stamped 
 with her initials. It also appeared that he made 
 the presents in the same manner and with the 
 same words as in making her presents before 
 marriage, and till lie took proceedings for a 
 divorce never suggested that the jewels were 
 only lent to her. Most of the presents were 
 made on Christmas Days or her birthdays, or as 
 " peace offerings " after disputes : — 
 
 Held, that the jewels were not paraphernalia, 
 but the separiite property of the wife. Tasker 
 V. Taskbb - - Jeune P. [1895] P. 1 
 
 — Policy — Trust for wife and children — Appoint- 
 
 ment of trustees. 
 
 See Insueance — Life. 16. 
 
 16. — Possession — Sale of goods — Beceipt for 
 purchase-money. 
 
 As since the passing of the Act of 1882 a 
 husband and wife stand in the same position as 
 two men formerly did where possession as between 
 them is doubtful, it follows the title to the goods. 
 Per Lord Esher M.K. and Davey L.J. in Eamsay 
 V. Mabgbett - - C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 18 
 
 — Power of appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Powers. 
 
 — Power of appointment — Kelease — Married 
 
 woman. 
 
 §e§ PowsKs. iO, 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Generally)— conimuei. 
 
 17. — Protection order — Married woman — • 
 Feme sole — Property — Contract — Debts and Lia- 
 bilities — Assets — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 (20 ^(£ 21 Vict. V. 85), ss. 21, 25, 26— Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 75), 
 s. 4. 
 
 A married woman, while under a protection 
 order obtained by her under s. 2 1 of the Matri- 
 monial Causes Act, 1857, is in the position of a 
 feme sole as regards all property coming to her 
 after the date of the order (s. 25), and also for 
 all purposes of contract (s. 26) ; so that her exe- 
 cution by will since the Married Women's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1882, of a general power of appoint- 
 ment created subsequently to the date of the 
 protection order makes the property appointed 
 liable, under s. 4 of the latter Act, for debts or 
 liabilities incurred by her while under the order, 
 even though they may have been incurred before 
 that Act, s. 4 extending to an appointment since 
 the Act by a married woman who had debts and 
 liabilities existing at the date the Act came into 
 operation. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J. affirmed. In re 
 
 HOGHES. BEANDON V. HUGHES 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 529 
 
 18. — Protection order — Restraint on anticipa- 
 tion — Receiver — -Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 
 (20 * 21 Vict. c. 85), ss. 21, 25, 26. 
 
 A married woman, who was entitled to an 
 equitable life interest in the rents of certain 
 premises for her separate use without power of 
 anticipation, was deserted by her husband and 
 obtained a protection order under the Matrimonial 
 Causes Act, 1857. She afterwards executed a 
 mortgage of her life interest covenanting to pay 
 the mortgage debt. Judgment was obtained 
 against her as a feme sole in an action on the 
 covenant : — 
 
 Held, that, although the Act allowed a 
 married woman with a protection order to sue 
 and be sued as a feme sole, it did not apply to 
 property to which she was entitled before the 
 protection order; consequently the restraint on 
 anticipation prevailed, and no receiver of the 
 property could be appointed. Hill v. CoorEE 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 85 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewioh J. In re Hughes, 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 535. 
 
 — Bates — Procedure for recovery of — Married 
 
 woman — Owner. 
 
 See Bates — ^Recovery. 62. 
 
 — Eeceiver — Appointment — Jurisdiction — 
 
 Married woman — Costs. 
 See Eeceivee. IS, 19. 
 
 — Eeoeiving — Property stolen by wife from 
 
 husband — Larceny. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law — Larceny. 40. 
 
 — Eeoeiving order — ^Married woman. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy. 35. 
 
 — Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — ^Husband and Wife, 
 
 — Security for costs — ^Appeal — Attachment. 
 
 See Costs— Married Woman. 40. 
 
 — Separate examination — Title of petition. 
 
 See Settled Land— f racfioe. lOQ, 
 
( 907 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900 
 
 ( 908 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Generally) — continued. 
 
 19. — Separate property. 
 
 The meaning of separate property discussed 
 by Kay L.J. in Pelton Bros. v. Haekison 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 422 at p. 425 
 
 See Married Women's Property Act, 1893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. u. 63), s. 1. 
 
 — Separate property — Restraint on anticipation. 
 
 /Vee Gases under Husband and "Wife — 
 Restraint on Anticipation. 
 
 — Separation and separation deed. 
 
 See Husband and Wife — Separation. 
 
 — Separation — Summary jurisdiction. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 20. — Sequestration — Separate property — Ee- 
 i>traint on anticipation — Income accruing after 
 date of order — Married Women's Property Acta, 
 ]SW2 (-15 (fc 46 Vict. c. 75), s 1; 1893 (56 <fc 57 
 Vict. c. 63), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 C, a married woman wlio was tenant for life 
 of re;il estate for her separate use without; powei' 
 of antioipiition, disoljeyed three orders to pay 
 taxed c lists to II., and leave was given on Jan. l."i, 
 ISOI, to issue a writ of sequestration against her 
 Be]iarato property, not subject to restraint on 
 anticipation. The writ was issued on l-'eli. 8; 
 iifter March 25, L., an agent of C, received rents 
 of proiieriy, tubject to re.-traint on anticipation, 
 and ]iaid them nvir t" C. H. applied for an 
 iuj unction restraining C from receiving the rents 
 due on March 25, or in the alternative, for leave 
 to issue n i-econd writ of sequestration. H., also, 
 applied for an order that L. should pay the rent 
 liver to the sequestrators: — 
 
 Meld, hy 0. A., affirm. North J., that the 
 n>;iterial date was that of the order to pay the 
 costs, at that date the March rents were not due, 
 and could not be affected by the sequestration 
 without anticipatinf!^ them ; 
 
 Jlc-lil, also, that a second sequestration could 
 not affect anything not affected by the first, 
 therefore both motions must be dismissed : 
 
 Held, also, by C. A., that s. 2 of the Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1893, does not give 
 jurisdiction to alter the effect of an order made 
 liefore tlie Act came into operation. In re 
 LuMLEY. J^.c parte Hood Barbs 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 135; see [1897] A. C. 177 
 
 — Settlement. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement. 
 
 — Settlement by infant. 
 
 See Infant— Settlement. 
 
 — iSiiuimary Jurisdiction (Married M'omen) Act 
 
 — Appeals— Notes of proceedings in 
 Court below. 
 See Nos. 94—96. 
 
 21. — Tenancy hy the curlesy — Meal estate of 
 wife — Deroiidion — Married Women's Property 
 Act. 1882 (45 it- 46 Vict. c. 75), ss. 1 {sub-s. ]), 5. 
 
 The Aet of 1882 does not deprive a husband 
 of his tenancy by the curtesy in bis wife's undis- 
 posed real estate on her death. Hope v. Hope 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 336 
 
 23. — VaUdity of contract — Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882 (45 ct 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 1, 
 
 HTTSBAND AND WIFE (Generally)— conijnuaJ. 
 bind her separate property under the Act of 
 1882 unless she has some separate property at the 
 date of the contract. If she have some separate 
 estate at the time, a charge on it will affect 
 after-acquired property, but not otherwise. A 
 restraint on alienation or anticipation of in- 
 come given to a woman is of no av.iil unless 
 the income is given to her for her separate use. 
 AVhere in a will there are no words expressly 
 giving a married woman income for her separate 
 use, a subsequent restriction on alienation will 
 not create a separate use by implication. Stog- 
 DON V. Lee - - C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 But see now Married Women's Property Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63), s. 1 (a). 
 
 Pieforred to by C. A. In re Lumley, [1806] 
 2 Ch. 694. i" L J 
 
 — Will — Married woman. 
 
 See Will — Married Woman. 
 
 23. — Will — Death of husband — He-execution 
 — Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 T7c(. c. 63), B. 3. 
 
 Sect. 3 of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1893, applies to every wUl of a married 
 woman who dies after the date of the Act. In re 
 
 WyLIE, WyLIE tl. JIOFFAT 
 
 Eomer J. [1895] 2 Ch. 116 
 
 24. — Will before Act of 1832— Property ac- 
 quired under the Act — Married Women's Property 
 Aet, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. a. 75), ss. 1, 5. 
 
 A married woman, dying in the lifetime of 
 her husband, can leave, hy will during coverture 
 and made before the Act of 1882, property 
 acquired under that Act. J» re Bovten. James 
 V. James - Chitty J. [1892] 2 Ch. 291 
 
 — Will — French subjects — English marriage — 
 
 Change of domioil — Intention — Revoca- 
 tion of ante-nuptial will. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 16. 
 
 — Will- Probate. 
 
 See Husband and Wife — Probate. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Bankruptcy notice — Married woman trading 
 
 separately from husband in firm name. 
 See Bankruptcy — Beceiving Order, 
 203—205. 
 
 25. — ■ Banliruptcy of wife — Banliruptcy Acts, 
 1882 (45 <t: 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 1, siib-s. 5 ; 1883 
 (46 it 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, sub-s. 1 (g) — Bankruptcy 
 Mules, 1886, r. 136. 
 
 A bankruptcy notice cannot issue against a _ 
 married woman iu respect of a judgment obtained 
 against her separate estate, for tlie bankruptcy 
 notice can only require the person served to pay 
 tho judgment debt, whereas the judgment 
 against a married woman is not personal, but 
 merely binds her separate estate. In re Hamjah 
 Ltnes. JSx parte Lester & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q, B. 113 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. In re Clnrh 
 2 Q. B. 476, 479. " "' 
 
 sub-s. 2,3, 4. 
 A married 
 
 woman cannot contract so as to J 
 
 [1896] 
 
 - Judgment against married woman-Death of 
 husband— Bnnki-uptoy notice 
 See BANKRurroY — Act of ui^-i 
 18, 19. Bankruptcy. 
 
( 909 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 910 ) 
 
 HTTSBAND AND WIFE (Bankruptcy)— conid. 
 
 — Loan by wife to husband for purposes uncon- 
 
 nected with his business — Proof. 
 See Bankbuptoy — Proof. 17i. 
 
 — Married woman — " Carrying on trade " — 
 
 "Absenting himself" — " Undischarged 
 debts " — Eeoeiving order. 
 See Bankeuptcy — ^Act of Bankruptcy. 
 35. 
 
 26. — Separate estate — Restraint on anticipa- 
 tion — Separate trading— Death of husband — Title 
 of trustee in hankruptey — Married Women's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 5 ; 
 s. 1^— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 
 s. 152. 
 
 Where a married woman, entitled to separate 
 estate with a restraint on anticipation, trades 
 separately from lier husband and becomes bank- 
 rupt, her separate estate, subject to the restraint 
 on anticipation, vests in her trustee in bankruptcy 
 and, on the death of her husband in her lifetime, 
 is assets for her creditors. 
 
 In such a case the restraint on anticipation is 
 in the nature of an incumbrance which is re- 
 moved by the death of the husband. 
 
 Felton Brothers v. TTarrison, [1891] 2 Q. B. 
 422, discussed. In re Wheeleb's Settlement 
 Trusts. Bkiggs v. Eyan 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1899] W. N. 141 ; 
 [1899] 3 Ch. 717 
 Bond. 
 
 27. — Bond hy husband — Interest on bond — 
 Marriage settlement — Wife's property — Life in- 
 terest — Separate use — Meslraint on anticipation — 
 Trust fund — -Loan to husband — Bond hy husband 
 to trustees — Interest-hearing security — Penalty — 
 Damages — Express, tru-i — Bond in husband's 
 possession — Fresumptiun of payment — Statute- 
 barred debt—i & 5 Anne, c. 16, ss. 12, 13 (o. 3 in 
 1 Rev. Stat. p. 784) — Statute of Idmitations — Civil 
 Procedure Ad, 1833 (8 (fe 4 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 5. 
 
 By a marriage settlement, dated in 1847, a 
 fund belonging to the wife was vested in 
 trustees in trust for investment "on real or 
 personal securities bearing interest," with power 
 of varying investments with the written consent 
 of the husband and wife or the survivor, and to 
 pay the income to the wife for her separate use 
 without power of anticipation, then to the husband 
 for life, and after the death of the survivor, as to 
 the capital, upon the trusts therein mentioned. 
 
 In 1852 the trustees, on the written consent 
 of the wife, lent the trust fund in cash to the 
 husband on the security of his bond in a penal 
 sum, conditioned for repayment to the trustees of 
 the sum advanced with Interest at 4 per cent, 
 per annum, six months after date. The bond 
 contained no stipulation in terms for payment of 
 interest beyond the six months. 
 
 The husband and wife lived together in amity 
 for more than twenty years after the date of the 
 bond, the wife dying in 1876 and the husband in 
 1896. At his death the bond was found in his 
 possession. He never, either during his wife's 
 lifetime or afterwards, paid any interest on the 
 bond or gave any written acknowledgment of his 
 indebtedness under it : — 
 
 Beld, affirming Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 134 ; 
 [1899] 2 Oh. 561, that the bond debt was not 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE {Hani)— continued. 
 barred by the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 
 WUl. 4, c. 42), s. 5, on the grounds (1.) that the 
 bond, lieiDg a penalty bond, was an interest- 
 bearing security carrying interest (though not 
 mentioned) beyond the date fixed for payment of 
 the debt ; (2.) that as the husband and wife had 
 lived together in amity it was unnecessary, in 
 order to prevent the statute from running, to go 
 through the formality of the husband paying the 
 interest to the trustees, the trustees paying it to 
 the wife, and the wife paying it to the husband ; 
 and (3.) that, as the husband took with full 
 notice that the money lent was trust money and 
 liable to investment on interest-bearing security, 
 he was in the position of an express trustee : Soar 
 V. Ashwell, [1893] 2 Q. B. 390, 396 : 
 
 Held, also, that no presumption of discharge 
 of the bond arose from the mere fact of its being 
 in the obligor's possession at his death. 
 
 Sects. 12 and 13 of the statute 4 & 5 Anne, 
 c. 16, merely recognised and confirmed the 
 doctrine, previously established by the Court of 
 Equity, that, in the case of a bond with a penalty, 
 the true iutept of the penalty was to secure pay- 
 ment, not only of the stated principal money and 
 interest on the day fixed, but also of subsequent 
 interest down to the actual payment of the prin- 
 cipal, although the bond contained no stipulation 
 for interest beyond the day fixed. Under that 
 statute the interest is payable as interest, and 
 not as damages for non-payment on the day fixed. 
 
 The nature of single and penalty bonds, and 
 the liability to interest on them respectively, 
 discussed. 
 
 Bonafous v. Bybot, (1763) 8 Burr. 1370, 
 Spickernell v. Sotham, (1854) Kay, 669, Amos v. 
 Smith, (1862) 1 H. & 0. 288, Cook v. Fowler, 
 (1874) L. R. 7 H. L. 27, and Soar v. Ashwell, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 890, discussed. In re Dixon. 
 Heynes v. Dixon - C. A. [1900] W. N. 144 ; 
 
 [1900] 3 Ch. 561 
 Contracts. 
 
 38. — Joint contractors — Bes judicata. 
 
 The rule that judgment recovered against one 
 of two joint contractors is a bar to an action 
 against the other applies equally when one of the 
 joint contractors is a married woman contracting 
 in respect of her separate property. . Hoarb ». 
 NiELETT - Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 781 
 
 29. — • Beversion— ^Election. 
 
 A separation deed executed in 1875, not 
 acknowledged by the wife, provided for payment 
 by the husband of an annuity to the wife ; who 
 covenanted to release, when discovert a rever- 
 sionary life interest in real and personal estate : — 
 
 Held, that on the death of the husband the 
 wife Was not bound to release her life interest by 
 having received the annuity. 
 
 The doctrine of election by a married woman 
 discussed. Harlb v. Jabman - North J. 
 
 [1895] 3 Ch. 419 
 
 30. — Unity of person — Husband's liability- 
 Contract by wife — Fraud by wife — Tort — Lia- 
 bility of husband — Practice — Action against wife 
 — Joinder of husband — Married Women' i Property 
 Act, 1883 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Although a husband is not liable on his wife's 
 contract, he is liable for any fraud or other tort 
 
( 911 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 912 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Contracts)— eomJinued. 
 Qommitted by her during the coverture, unless it 
 is directly connected with the contract and is the 
 means of effecting or inducing it and is part 
 of the same transaction. That liability, which 
 existed before the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1882, is not affected by the Act. nor is the 
 remedy of the party injured limited by the Act 
 to the wife's separate estate, if any. 
 
 Thus, where since the Act a contract had been 
 entered into by K., a married woman, with E., 
 under which B. was to pay K. a sum of money in 
 a certain event, and subsequently K. induced E. 
 to pay her the money by a false representation 
 that the event had happened, it was held (I) by 
 Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 244; [1900] 1 Ch. 203, 
 and by the C. A., that as the contract had not 
 been induced by the fraud and was altogether 
 independent of it, K.'s husband was liable to E. 
 in damages for his wife's fraud; and (2) 
 
 IZeM, bythe C. A., that the Married "Women's 
 Property Act, 1882, did not exempt the husband 
 from his liability. 
 
 Liverpool AdelpM Loan Association v. Fair- 
 hurst, (1854) 9 Ex. 422, Wright v. Leonard, (1861) 
 11 C. B. (N.S.) 258, on the first point, and SeroTta 
 V. Katlenlurg, (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 177, Jon the 
 second, approved of. 
 
 The expression "need not be joined" in s. 1, 
 sub-3. 2, of the Act does not mean that, whenever 
 a pit. is suing a married woman in contract or in 
 tort, he " shall not " join the husband with her, 
 but only that the joinder, which was formerly 
 necessary, is now unnecessary if the pit. is seek- 
 ing to obtain satisfaction out of the wife's separate 
 estate alone. Eable v. Kingboote 
 
 C. A, [1900] "W. N. 162 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 585 
 
 Conveyance. 
 
 31. — Jurisdiction of Chancery Division — 
 Fines 'and Recoveries Act, 1833 (3 * 4 Will, i, 
 c. 74), s. 91— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict, 
 c. 66), ss. 16, 34. 
 
 Kefuf al by the judge of the Ch. Div. to make 
 an order under s. 91 of the Fines and Eecoveries 
 Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will, i, c. 71), dispensing with 
 the husband's concurrence in a wife's conveyance. 
 
 Semble, under special circumstances the Ch. 
 Div. may exercise concurrent jurisdiction with 
 the Q. B. Div. in this behalf. In re Ellen 
 Giles Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 73 
 
 32. — Married woman — Trustee — Sale of real 
 estate held on truest for sale — Conveyance to pur- 
 chaser — Concurrence of husband — Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), 
 ss. 1, 18, 24. 
 
 The Married Women's Property Act, 1882, 
 does not enable a woman married since the com- 
 mencement of the Act, being a trustee of real 
 estate for sale, to convey to a purchaser except 
 with the concurrence of her husband, and by a 
 deed acknowledged by her. In re Haekness 
 
 AND ALLSOrp'S COXTEACT 
 
 North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 358 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Brooke and 
 Fremlin's Contract, [1898] 1 Ch. 647, 650. 
 
 33. — Wife's conveyance — Married woman — 
 Mortgagee — Separate property — Conveyance to 
 purchase hij mortgagor and mortgagee— Married 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Conveyance) — contimied. 
 Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), 
 ss. 1, 5 — Acknowledgment of deed unnecessary. 
 
 A married woman, to whom, subsequently to 
 the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, real 
 estate is conveyed by way of mortgage to secure 
 money belonging to her as her separate property, 
 and convey lo a purchaser from the mortgagor 
 without the concurrence of her husband, or 
 acknowledgment of the deed of conveyance by 
 her under the Fines and Eecoveries Act. 
 
 The decision in In re Sarkness and Allsopp's 
 Contract, [1896] 2 Ch. 358, distinguished, as not 
 being applicable to the case of a married woman 
 who is a mortgagee, and not a trustee. In re 
 Bkooke and Feemlin's Conteaot 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 647 
 
 34. — Wife's reversionary chose in action— 
 Matins' Act (20 & 21 Vict. c. 57). 
 
 Previous to their marriage husband and wife 
 agreed to settle, inter alia, a policy of insurance 
 on the life of another, to which the wife was 
 entitled under an instrument made previous to 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57. A memorandum of this 
 agreement was signed by the husband only before 
 the marriage, and after the mamage the husband 
 only executed the settlement. The wife subse- 
 quently assigned the policy to the trustees of the 
 settlement. After this the wife in exercise of 
 a power under the settlement mortgaged the 
 policy : — 
 
 Beld, that the wife had by her conduct 
 elected to confirm the settlement, and was there- 
 fore bound thereby, and that the mortgage was 
 valid. Geeenhill v. Noeth Beitish asd Mee- 
 
 OANTILE InSUEANOE Co. 
 
 StirUng J. [1893] 3 Ch. 474 
 Referred to by North J. Harle v. Jarman, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 419, 425. 
 
 35. — Wife's reversionary interest in personalty 
 — Instrument made before Malins' Act — Malins' 
 Act (20 & 21 Vict. c. 57). 
 
 A., by will made before Dee. 31, 1857, gave to 
 H., a married woman, a reversionary interest in 
 her residuary estate. By a codicil subsequent to 
 the above date, A. gave additional legacies : — 
 
 Held, that the " instrument" under which H. 
 took was the will which was made prior to the 
 date of operation of 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57. In re 
 Eloom. Latboen v. Geoveb- Weight 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 303 
 
 36. — Wife's reversionary life interest — As- 
 signment — Married woman — JBeneficial interest in 
 trust money invested on mortgage of realty — 
 " Estate " — " Interest in land " — Fines and Re- 
 coveries Act, 1833 (3 (fc 4 Will. 4, c. 74), ss. 1, 77 
 — Mortmain Act (9 Geo. 2, o. 36), s. 3. 
 
 In a case not falling within Malins' Act 
 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 57) :— 
 
 Held, by Lindley and A. L. Smith, L.JJ. 
 (Kay L.J. dissentiente), that a married woman's 
 equitable reversionary life interest in a sum of 
 money properly invested by her trustees upon a 
 mortgage of land, is an interest in land within 
 s. 77 of the Fines and Eecoveries Act, so that she 
 can dispose thereof by deed acknowledged and 
 with her husband's concurrence. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J., [1895] W. N. 
 
( 913 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 914 ) 
 
 HTTSBAND AND WIFE (Conveyance)— eonimued. 
 143 (8), reversed. In re Newton's Trusts (23 Oh. 
 D. 181) overruled. Milleb v. Collins 
 
 e. A. [1896] 1 Ch, 573 
 
 Costs. 
 See OosTS — Married Woman, 
 
 Divorce, 
 
 See DivOECE. 
 
 Equity to Settlement, 
 See Settlement — Equity to Settlement, 
 
 Harriage Contract, 
 
 37. — Promise hy wif e' s father to leave her " a 
 share " of his estate — Specific performance. 
 
 In 1873 a father, prior to the marriage of his 
 daughter, in a letter to her intended husband 
 stated ; " You are of course aware that with my 
 large family Eliza will have little fortune. She 
 will have a share of what I leave after the death 
 of her mother, who I wish to leave in comfortable 
 independence if I should leave her a widow." 
 The intended husband accepted the letter as 
 giving him some rights, and the marriage took 
 place. The father afterwards acquired a large 
 fortune, and died in 1898. His wife predeceased 
 him. By his will he left a legacy of 2000Z. to 
 the daughter, and gave the residue of his estate 
 equally between six of his other seven children. 
 The daughter and her husband claimed by virtue 
 of the letter to be entitled to an equal eighth 
 share of the father's estate : — 
 
 Held, first, that the letter did not constitute 
 a contract by the father, but was merely an ex- 
 pression of his intentions; secondly, that if it 
 were a contract, it was an obligation to leave, not 
 an equal eighth share, but some portion or share 
 of his estate to the daughter, and was fulfilled 
 by the legacy. In re Fickus. Fabina v. Fiokus 
 Cozens-Hardy J, [1900] W. N. 4 ; 
 [1900] 1 Oh, 331 
 Practice, 
 
 38. — Attachment — Process — Married woman 
 administratrix — Order for payment into court — 
 Form of Order — Non-compliance with order — 
 Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), ss. 4, 5— 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. IS), s. 1, sub-s. 2 ; ss. 18, 24— ij. S. C, 
 1883, Order XLll., rr. 4, 24. 
 
 Where a married woman administrairix is 
 ordered to pay into court a sum of money belong- 
 ing to the estate of the intestate and shewn by 
 her account of the intestate's personal estate to 
 be in her possession, in the absence of any 
 evidence that she has committed a devastavit, 
 the order should be in the common form and 
 should not be restricted to payment out of her 
 separate estate ; and if she fails to comply with 
 the order the Court has jurisdiction to make an 
 order for attachment against her. 
 
 Scott V. Mmley, (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 120, ex- 
 plained and distinguished. 
 
 But serMe, if the object of the order had 
 been, not for the better securing of the fund, but 
 to compel the married woman to make good a 
 loss occasioned by her devastavit, the order 
 should have been made in the form prescribed in 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Practice)— confanued 
 Saott V. Morley, and she would not have been 
 liable to attachment for non-compliance with it. 
 In re Tuknbull. Tuenbcll v. Nicholas 
 
 Stirling J. [1899] W, N. 229 ; [1900] 1 Ch, 180 
 
 — Costs — Action by or against — Married woman. 
 
 See Oases under Costs — Married Woman. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Husband and Wife — Restraint on 
 Anticipation. 44 — 47. 
 
 39. — Form of judgment — Action against 
 mdow on contract made during coverture. 
 
 Where judgment is recovered in an action 
 against a widow upon a contract entered into by 
 her during coverture after the jjassing of the 
 Married Women's Properly Act, 1882, and before 
 the passing of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1893, the plaintiff is not entitled to a judg- 
 ment in the ordinary form as though the deft, 
 were a feme sole; he can only sign judgment in 
 the form settled by the C. A. in Scott v. Morley, 
 (1887) 20 Q. B. X>. 120, in an action against a 
 maiTied woman, with such verbal alterations as 
 are necessary to adapt that form to a judgment 
 against a widow. Softlaw v. Welch 
 
 C, A. [1899] W. N. 113; [1899] 2 ft. B. 419 
 
 — Payment out of Court ■ — Married woman — 
 
 Affidavit of no settlement. 
 See Peaotioe — Payment out of Court, 
 143. 
 
 40. — Title of petition for appointment of 
 trustees — Policy by husband for benefit of wife — 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Vict. c. 93), s. 10. 
 
 A widow, whose husband died in 1898, peti- 
 tioned for tlie appointment of trustees to receive 
 payment of the money secured by a policy of 
 assurance effected by liim in 1874, under the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1870, and ex- 
 pressed to be for her benefit : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the petition was properly entitled 
 only in the matter of the Act of 1870. 
 
 In re Boutar's Policy Trusts, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 
 236, not followed. 
 
 In re Adam's Policy Trusts, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 
 
 525 ; 48 L. T. 727, and the opinion expressed by 
 
 Stirling J. in In re Turnbull, [1897] 2 Ch. 415, 
 
 followed. In re Kuyfee's Policy Teusts 
 
 North J. [1898] W, N. 151 (9); [1899] 1 Ch. 33 
 
 Probate. 
 See Cases under Peobate. 
 
 — Joint will — Death of wife. 
 
 See Peobate — Grant of Probate, 104. 
 
 — Grant of administration to husband. 
 
 See Peobate— Grant of Administration. 
 51, 52, 55. 
 
 41. — Married woman — Will — Invalid bequest 
 ■ — Grant of general probate to husband — Implied 
 assent to will. 
 
 Since the coming into operation of the 
 amended rules 15 and 18 of the Probate Eules 
 (Non-Contentious Business), which provide that 
 probate of the will of a married woman shall 
 take the form of ordinary grants of probate with- 
 out any exception or limitation, a husband who 
 obtains probate of his wife's will in general form 
 
( 015 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 916 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Px6ba.te)—continmd. 
 is not deemed to have assented to the will as a 
 disposition of property -which she had no right 
 to dispose of by will without his assent. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., [1898] 1 Ch. 637, 
 affirmed. 
 
 JSeld, further, that upon the true construction 
 of the will the property in dispute was not in- 
 cluded in the bequest, and, therefore, that the 
 question of assent did not arise. In re Atkinson. 
 "Wallek v. Atkinson C. A. [1899] W. N. 51 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch, 1 
 — Will of wife founded on invalid protection 
 order — Desertion. 
 See Peoeate — Grant of Prohate. 106. 
 
 Eestraint on Anticipation. 
 
 42. — ■ Absolute gift — Direction for "payment.^^ 
 A testatrix bequeathed a share of her residuary 
 
 estate to trustees in trust for her brother for life, 
 and after his decease in trust for one of her nieces, 
 and the will contained a declaration that the 
 shares of nieces " should be paid to their separate 
 use free from the control of any present or future 
 husband without power of anticipation." The 
 brother beino; dead : — 
 
 Held, on the authority of In re Bown, (1884) 
 27 Ch. D. 411, that the niece was entitled to 
 immediate payment of her share notwithstanding 
 the words restraining anticipation. In re Feakon. 
 HoTCHKiN V. Matok - - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (12) 
 
 43. — Admission ofcessor of interest — Estoppel 
 — Separate estate — Married woman. 
 
 A married woman Wiis entitled to the income 
 of property during her life, for her Separate use 
 without power of anticipation, subject to a proviso 
 that on a specified event her interest should 
 cease, and the property be held in trust for her 
 husband. In order to assist her husband to make 
 an arrangement with a creditor, she executed a 
 deed-poll, whereby she admitted (believing tlien 
 that it was true, though, as she afterwards 
 alleged, it was not in fact true) that the event 
 mentioned in the proviso liad occurred, and that 
 her life interest had determined, and she released 
 that interest in favour of her husband. On the 
 faith of tliis deed the creditor entered into 
 arrangements with the husband for his benefit. 
 The wife subsequently, notwithstanding the deed, 
 claimed to receive the income of the property 
 during her life : — 
 
 Held, tliat she could not by admission or 
 estoppel or in any other way by her own act get 
 rid of the protection afforded by tlie restraint on 
 anticipation, and that her riglit to receive the 
 income was unaffected by her admission contained 
 in the deed-poll. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1897] 2 Ch. 223, 
 affirmed. Lady Bateman v. I'abeb 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch, 144 
 
 See Lady Bateman v. Faher, Kekewich J., 
 [1809] W. N. 241 ; C. A. [1900] AY.N. 157. 
 
 44. — Appeal hy married wom.an defendant — 
 Costs — " Proceeding instituted " — Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 it 57 Vict. c. 63), 
 
 An appeal by a woman from a judgment iu an 
 action m which she is defendant is not a "pro- 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Eestraint on Anticipa- 
 tion) — continued. 
 ceeding instituted " within the meaning of the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1893, c. 63, s. 2, 
 and an order cannot be made under that section 
 for the payment of the costs of the opposite party 
 out of her separate property which is subject to a 
 restraint upon anticipation. The section applies 
 only to an action or other litigation initiated by 
 a woman. 
 
 Hood Barrs v. Gathcart, [1894] 3 Ch. 376, 
 approved. Hood Bakes v. Hebiot 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 177 
 
 45. — Costs — Suit without next friend — Mar- 
 ried Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 75), s. 1, svb-s. 2 ; b. 19. 
 
 Where costs are ordered to be paid by a 
 married woman, suing under the MaiTied Women's 
 Property Act, 1882, without a next friend, pay- 
 ment of them can be enforced against any separate 
 property to which she is entitled free from 
 restraint on anticipation at the time when the 
 order to pay costs is made. The restraint on 
 anticipation ceases, as to any sums forming part 
 of the income, so soon as they come into tlie 
 trustees' hands : — 
 
 Held, tlierefore, that the trustees could pay 
 their costs out of arrears of income detained in 
 their hands by an administration order. Cox v. 
 Bennett - C. A, [1891] 1 Ch, 617 
 
 See now s. 2 of the Married Women's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. o. 63). 
 
 See also Fillers v. Edwards, [1894] W. N. 212. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Lumley, [1896] 
 2 Ch. 690, 694. 
 
 46. — Costs where tliere is a restraint on 
 anticipation — Married Women's Property Act, 
 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. c. 63), s. 21. 
 
 (a) Where an action by a married woman is 
 dismissed with costs, the words " with liberty to 
 apply for payment out of any property which is 
 subject to a restraint on anticipation " should be 
 added to the order. Davies v. Tkehakeis 
 Brewery Co. - Chitty J. [1894] W. N. 198 
 
 See now s. 2 of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1893. 
 
 (b) An order made before the Act of 1893 
 for costs against a married woman, restraint 
 from anticipation in proceedings instituted hy 
 herself cannot be enforced under the Act of 1893. 
 In re Lumley. Ex parte Hood Bakes 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 135 
 
 47. — Costs — Set-of — Married Woman's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1882 (45 ct 46 Vict. c. 75), ». 1, sub-s. 2— 
 M. S. C, Order LXV., r. 27, sub-s. 21. 
 
 An action against a married woman, which 
 she lost, execution as to costs recoverable in the 
 action was limited to her separate property. 
 Subsequently, after the married woman had 
 become a widow, the plaintiff became liable to 
 her for costs in other proceedings : — 
 
 Held, that the pltffs.' costs in the first action 
 could he set off against costs payable to deft, 
 personally on the subsequent proceedings. Pel- 
 ton Bkotheks v. Hakeison (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 a. B. 118 
 
 Followed by C. A. Softlaw v. Welch, [1899] 
 2 Q. B. 419, 426. 
 
( 017 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 918 ) 
 
 HtrSBANI) AND WIFE (Restraint on Anticipa- 
 tion) — continued. 
 48. — Execution — Married Women's Fropertii 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), .. 1, sub-ss. 
 1, 2, 3, 4 ; s. 19. 
 
 (a) a judgment cannot be enforced under 
 the Act of 1882 by any kind of process against 
 aii'ears of the income of the separate estate of a 
 married "woman restrained from anticipation, 
 aOL'ruing due after the date of the judgment. 
 
 Semble, that the Act of 1893 does not alter 
 the effect of a married -woman's contracts on 
 property restrained from anticipation. Hood 
 Barks v. Oathoabt (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 559 
 Keferred to by C. A. In re Lumley, [1896] 
 2 Oh. 690, 693. 
 
 (b) A restraint on anticipation attached to 
 rents in arrear, but not yet received : — 
 
 Held, that a receiver could not be appointed 
 by way of equitable execution of such rents. 
 PiLLEKS V. Edwabds C. A. [1894] "W. N. 212 
 
 49. — Husbaiid's debts — Conveyancing and 
 Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), 
 ». 39. 
 
 On application under s. 39 of the Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881 (41 & 45 Vict. o. 41), to remove 
 a married -woman's restraint on anticipation for 
 tlie purpose of paying her husband's debts : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the Act -was not intended to apply 
 
 in such a case. In re S 's Settlement. 
 
 G. V. 0. - - Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 127 
 
 50. — Inquiry as to separate estate — Practice — 
 Execution — Married woman — Examination of 
 person other than judgment debtor — 11. S. C, 1S83, 
 Order xxjvn., r. 28 ; Order XLII., •/-. 32. 
 
 A direction that an inquiry is to be held as to 
 the estate of a married woman against whom 
 judgment has been obtained, with a view to 
 ascertain if she has separate property free from 
 restraint on anticipation, does not aullxorize the 
 examination of any person other than the judg- 
 ment debtor. Hood Baeks v. Hekiot. Ex parte 
 Bltth - C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 338 
 
 51. — Indemnity against husband — Order 
 removing restraint — Separate estate — Sestraint on 
 anticipation — Practice in cJtamlers — Married 
 woman — Payment of husband's debts — Exonera- 
 tion — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict, 
 c. 41), ». 39. 
 
 A wife entitled under a settlement to a life 
 interest in property subject to a restraint from 
 anticipation obtained from the Court, for the pur- 
 pose of raising money to pay off her husband's 
 debts, two orders nnder s. 39 of the Oohveyanoing 
 Act, 1881, charging her life interest with the 
 sums of 23,000i. and 22,000Z. She afterwards 
 brouglit an action against her husband for a 
 declaration that lie was liable to indemnify her 
 against the two charges created on her separate 
 property for the payment of his debts, and the 
 action was dismissed by Kekewich J. (see [1897] 
 W. N. 159 (6) ; [1898] 1 Ch. 47). 
 
 Upon appeal, it was held that, under tlie cir- 
 cumstances of the case, no inference could be 
 drawn in favour of the wife of any right to be 
 indemnified by her husband, and the appeal was 
 dismissed. 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Ke,straint on Anticipa- 
 tion)— ooniroiiei?. 
 The doctrine that if a wife charges licr 
 separate property to pay her husband's debt she 
 is prima facie regarded as lending, and not 
 giving him the money raised, and as entitled to 
 liave the property exonerated by him, is purely 
 equitable. It is based upon an inference to be 
 drawn from the cireumstanoes of each case, and 
 there may be circumstances which prevent it 
 from arising : so that until an inference in favour 
 of tlie wife arises, there is no presumption for the 
 husband to rebut. 
 
 In cases where orders have been made under 
 s. 39 of the Act of 1881, it is the order of the 
 Court which binds the estate of tlie wife, and not 
 what she does when the restraint on anticipation 
 is removed ; and although it miglit be convenient 
 for the order to indicate the liusband's liability 
 to indemnify the wife in cases where it is in- 
 tended he should be liable to do so, the silence 
 of the order in tliis respect does not negative the 
 existence of the wife's right to indemnity wliere 
 it can be inferred from the circumstances. Paget 
 V. Paget - - - C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 470 
 
 Referred to. Sarron v. Willis, [1899], 2 Ch. 
 578, 586. 
 
 — Insolvent estate — Separate estate — Eestraint 
 
 in anticipation — Appropriation of capital 
 sum — Administration. 
 See Annuity. 8. 
 
 52. — Judgment after cessation of coverture — 
 Separate property — Mestraint upon anticipation 
 
 — Wife's contracts during coverture — Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 1. 
 
 By the Married Women's Property Act, 1893, 
 s. 1, " Every contract hereafter entered into by 
 a mariied woman .... (o) shall be deemed to be 
 a contract entered into by her with respect to 
 and to bind her separate property, whether she 
 is or is not in fact possessed of or entitled to any 
 separate property at the time when she enters 
 into such contract : (6) shall bind all separate 
 property which she may at that time or there- 
 after be possessed of or entitled to ; and (e) shall 
 also be enforceable by process of law against all 
 property which she may thereafter while dis- 
 covert be possessed of or entitled to ; Provided 
 that nothing in this section contained shall 
 render available to satisfy any liability or obliga- 
 tion arising out of such contract any separate 
 property which at that time or thereafter she is 
 restrained trom anticipating." 
 
 A married woman, who was possessed of 
 separate property the income of which she was 
 restrained from anticipating, entered into a con- 
 tract, and was subsequently divorced. Judgment 
 having then been obtained (against her, it was 
 sought Ito enforce it by means of a garnishee 
 order attaching income which had accrued due 
 to her from this property subsequently to the 
 divorce : — 
 
 Held, that this income was protected by the 
 
 proviso to the section, and could not be attached. 
 
 Baknett v. Howaed. Union Bank oe London, 
 
 Gaenishees - - C, A. [1900] W. N. 179; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q, B. 784 
 
( 019 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 920 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Eestraint oa Anticipa- 
 tion) — contimied. 
 
 63. — ■ Judgment against married woman — 
 Arrears of income- — Starried Women's Property 
 Act, 1882, c. 75, ss. 1, 19. 
 
 Where a married woman ia entitled to property 
 for lier separate use without power of anticipa- 
 tion, the restraint on anticipation does not apply 
 to income accrued due : and a judgment creditor 
 may enforce the judgment against income which 
 has accrued due at or before the date of the 
 judgment. 
 
 The reasoning on this point iu Hood Barrs v. 
 Cathcart [1894] 2 Q. B. 559, 570 overruled. 
 
 Decision of C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 212 reversed. 
 Hood Bakes v. Hbeiot 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 174 
 
 Referred to by C. A. 
 2 Ch. 690, 693. 
 
 In re Lumley, [1896] 
 
 54. — Judgment against inarried woman — 
 Arrears of income due after judgment — Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), 
 ss. 1, 19. 
 
 Where a married woman has separate estate 
 restrained from anticipation, the Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882, does not enable a judgment 
 to be enforced against arrears of income to which 
 the restraint applies, accruing duo after the date 
 of the judgment : and the decision of the C. A. 
 to that effect in Sood Barrs v. Cathcart [1894] 
 2 Q. B. 559 is not affected by the judgment of 
 the li. L. in Sood Barrs v. Heriot [1896] 
 A. C. 174. Whiteley v. Edwakds 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 48 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Lumley, [1896], 
 2 Ch. 690, 693. 
 
 55. — " Proceedings instituted " — Married 
 Women's Property Acts, 1882, 1893 (45 & 46 Vict. 
 c. 75, s. 1, (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 (a) Whether the words " proceeding insti- 
 tuted " ia s. 2 of the Act of 1893 include a motion 
 or appeal by a married woman deft., qumre. In 
 re Lumley. Ex parte Hood Barks 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 135; see [1897] A. C. 177 
 
 (b) Meld, not to include such motion or 
 appeal or. step in an action. Hood Bakks v. 
 Cathoakt (No. 2) C. A, [1894] 3 Ch. 376 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Sollington v. Dear, 
 [1895] W. N. 25. 
 
 (o) Sect. 2 of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1893, applies to suits commenced prior to 
 and pending at tlie date of the Act. In re GoD- 
 
 FBEY. ThOBNE-GeOKGE V. GODFKEY 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 12 
 
 (d) A counter-claim by a married woman 
 deft, is a " proceeding instituted " by lier within 
 tlio Married AYomen's Property Act, 1893, a. 2, 
 and such counter-claim having been dismissed 
 there is jurisdiction to order the costs to be paid 
 out of her separate property notwithstanding 
 any restraint on anticipation. 
 
 "Where an order has been made dismissing an 
 application by such a deft., with costs, the Court 
 oLw f? ^^ jurisdiction in a subsequent order 
 appomtmg a receiver to direct that those costs 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Eestraint oa Aaticipa- 
 
 tiou) — contimied. 
 should be paid out of property subject to restraint. 
 Hood Bakes v. Cathoakt (No. 4) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 873 
 (e) A petition presented by a married woman, 
 in an action in which she is deft., is not a " pro- 
 ceeding instituted," so as to render the restrained 
 property liable for costs. Hollington v. Dear 
 Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 35 
 
 56. — Removal by Court of restraint — Con- 
 veyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 
 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 39. 
 
 Restraint on anticipation of property settled 
 on a married woman for life, with remainder to 
 her husband for life, was, under the circumstances, 
 removed till further order, to the extent of allow- 
 ing the income to be applied in payment of pre- 
 miums on policies on the husband's life, and 
 towards keeping down interest on mortgages in 
 which she had purported to join with her hus- 
 band, on the mortgagee undertaking to reduce 
 the rate of interest, and not to enforce payment 
 of the principal without leave of the Court. 
 In re Milnek's Settlement 
 
 Komer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 547 
 
 67. — Removal hy the Court — "Benefit" — 
 Payment of debts incurred through extravagance 
 — Married woman — Conveyancing and Law of 
 Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 39. 
 
 The Court will not make an order under s. 39 
 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, in a case where 
 it is sought to remove the restraint on anticipa- 
 tion merely for the purpose of raising money for 
 the payment of debts incurred through the extra- 
 vagance of the married woman or her husband. 
 
 The decision of Chitty J., [1896] 1 Ch. 901 
 affirmed. In re Pollakd's Settlement 
 
 C. A. -[1896] 2 Ch. 552 
 
 58. — Separate examination — Practice — Mar- 
 ried woman — Settled Estates Act, 1877 (40 ct- 41 
 Vict. c. 18), s. 50 — Married Women's Property Act, 
 18S2 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), ss. 1, 5— Woman mar- 
 ried before, but property acquired after. Act of 
 1882. 
 
 Where a woman, married before the com- 
 mencement of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1882, is a party to an application under the 
 Settled Estates Act, 1877, relating to property 
 her interest iu which was acquired after the 
 commencement of the Act of 1882, she need not 
 be examined separately as provided by s. 50 of 
 the Act of 1877. 
 
 In re Harris's Settled Estates, (1884) 28 Ch. D. 
 171, applied and followed. In re Batt's Settled 
 Estates - Kekewich J. [1897] 2 Ch. 68 
 
 59. — Separate examination dispensed with — 
 Married n-oman — Settled Estates Acts, 1877 
 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 18), s. 50. 
 
 The Court dispensed with the separate ex- 
 amination under s. 50 of the Settled Estates Act, 
 1877, of a woman, married before 1883, consenting 
 to a sale of land, she being an object of a discre- 
 tionary trust as to income during her husband's 
 life. In re Tesseyman's Settled Estate 
 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 167 (6) 
 
 60. — Separate use. 
 
 A restraint on alienation or anticipation of 
 
( &^1 ) 
 
 biaasT 01? oases, isai— iooo. 
 
 ( 922 5 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Restraint on Anticipa- 
 tion) — continued. 
 income given to a womau is of no avail unless 
 the income is given to her for her separate use. 
 A gift to her separate use will not be implied 
 from the mere existence of a restraint on antici- 
 pation. STOGDON^). Lee C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 But see now Married Women's Property Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. o. 63), a. 1 (a). 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. In re Lumley, [1896] 
 2 Oh. 694. 
 
 61. — Separate use. Legacy for — Seizure hy 
 liusband — Statute of Limitations — Trustee Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. o.59), a. 8— Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 12. 
 
 A -woman who was married in 1851 received 
 in ] 87G a legacy of 3001. given for her separate 
 nse, but was forcibly deprived of the money by 
 her husband, who knew tliat it was a legacy. 
 ■During tlie husband's lifetime the wife fre- 
 quently asked hiiu for the money ; but no pro- 
 ceedings to veooier it were taken until after his 
 death, wliich occurred in 1894 : — 
 
 Held, that the husband was affected witli 
 notice of the separate use, and was a trustee of 
 the money for his wife ; that tlie Statute of 
 Limitatious was no defence to proceedings by her 
 against his executors ; and that the wife was 
 entitled to be paid the amount of the legacy, 
 with interest at 4 per cent, from the date of her 
 husband's death. Wassell v. Leggatt 
 
 Eomer J. [1896] 1 Ch. 554 
 
 62. — " Separate use " — Married woman, Gifts 
 to — "Sum of money not exceeding 2001." — Sums 
 under different titles — Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Viet. c. 93), s. 7. 
 
 A wife married in 1877 became, under the 
 will of a testator who died in 1880, entitled to a 
 sum of 180Z. and also to an unascertained share 
 of residue assumed to somewhat exceed the sum 
 of 2,01. :— 
 
 Held, as between the husband and wife, that, 
 although the wife took the 1801. and share of 
 residue under the same instrument, she did so 
 under different titles, and therefore s. 7 of tlie 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1870, must be 
 ajjplied to each sum sejiarately and not to both 
 in the aggregate, so that the 1801., being by itself 
 " a sum of money not exceeding 200Z.," belonged 
 to the wife " for her separate use." In re Davies. 
 Harbison v. Davis - - - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 204 
 
 63. — Separate use — Married Woman's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 75). 
 
 A restraint on anticipation may, in a settle- 
 ment made since the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1882, came into operation, be effectually 
 annexed to a life estate thereby given to her, 
 though not in terms limited to her separate use, 
 and only made separate estate by force of the 
 Act. 
 
 Such restraint is not invalidated by the life 
 estate being given without impeachment jf waste. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1893] W. N. 13, affirmed. 
 In re Lumley. Ex parte Hood Baees 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch, 690 
 — Tenant by the courtesy. 
 
 See Settled Land. 117. 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Eestraint on Antioipci 
 tion) — continued. 
 
 64. — Widow — Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1882,'(45 & 46 Viet. c. 75), s. 1, sub-s. 2, 4. 
 
 Deft, was sued after the death of her husband 
 in respect of a liability incurred by her during 
 coverture, and judgment was recovered against 
 her limited to her separate property not subject 
 to any restriction against anticipation : — • 
 
 Held, that the removal by reason of her 
 husband's death of the restraint on anticipation 
 did not make property subject to such restriction 
 liable. Pelton Bkotheks v. Haeeison 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 422 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Wheeler's Settlement Trust, [1899] 2 Ch. 717, 722. 
 
 See Married Women's Property Act, 11393 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63), a. 1. 
 
 65. — Widow — Money hrouglit into court — 
 Right of successful plaintiff to money so brought 
 in. 
 
 The deft., a married woman possessed of 
 separate property not subject to any restraint 
 on anticipation, entered into a covenant for pay- 
 ment of a sum of money. On an action on the 
 covenant, the deft., wlio had in the meantime 
 .become a widow, obtained leave to defend on 
 payment of 5001. into court under Order xiv. 
 Judgment having been given for the pit. : — 
 
 Held, that he was entitled to have the 5001. 
 paid out to him forthwith. Bied v. Baestow 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 94 
 
 Separation. 
 (Separation and Separation Deeds.) 
 
 66. — Acts committed before or subsequent to 
 date of separation deed. 
 
 A proviso that the covenants, &c., of a deed 
 shall be void if a petition be filed for divorce, &c., 
 for acts committed before or subsequent to date 
 of deed is severable. Therefore that part of the 
 deed which relates to acts committed " before " 
 being valid a declaration that the covenants, &o., 
 are void can be made. Beunton v. Dixon 
 
 CMtty J. [1892] W. N. 105 
 — Condonation. 
 
 See DivoEOE. Condonation. 
 
 67. — Authority of husband — Husband's rights. 
 Where a wife refuses to live with her husband, 
 
 he is not entitled to keep her in confinement in 
 order to enforce restitution of conjugal rights. 
 Beg. v. Jaokson - C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 671 
 
 68. — Cooenant not to molest — Divorce pro- 
 ceedings in foreign country — Separation by agree- 
 ment. 
 
 Where a deed of separation between husband 
 and wife contains a covenant by the former not 
 to molest the latter, the taking proceedings in a 
 foreign court to procure a divorce is not of itself, 
 and without evidence of an intention to annoy, a 
 breach of the covenant. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1897] 2 Q. B. 304, re- 
 versed. Hunt v. Hunt C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 547 
 
 69. — Covenant to pay annuity — Covenant not 
 to molest — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), ?. 1, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Husband and wife separated by deed. The 
 
( 923 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 924 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Separation)— conimMfd. 
 husband covenanted to pay the wife an annuity ; 
 and she covenanted not to molest, annoy, or inter- 
 fere "with her husband. The deed contained no 
 duni casta clause : — 
 
 Seld, that the fact of the wife's oommitling 
 adultery resulting in the birth of a child was no 
 defence to an action by her for arrears of the 
 annuity. Sweet v. Sweet 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q, B, 12 
 
 70. — Covenant to pay annuiiy — liesum^ption 
 of ooliahitation. 
 
 Semhle, an annuity payable under a separation 
 deed between husband and wife ceases to be pay- 
 able if cohabitation is resumed. In re Abdt. 
 ■Rabbeth v. Donaldson (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 456 
 
 71. — Covenant to pay annuity — Separate Mse. 
 Covenant, by husband in a separation deed to 
 
 pay annuity for wife's separate use during joint 
 lives. The annuity was in arrear on the death 
 of husband : — ■ 
 
 Seld, that the separate use came to an end 
 on the death of husband and did not bind the 
 arrears. Stogdon v. Lee 
 
 C, A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 631 
 
 But see now Married "Women's Property Act, 
 1893 (56 & .57 Vict. c. 63), ». 1 (a). 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Lumley, [1836] 
 2 Ch. 694. 
 
 72. — Dissolution of marriage — Separation 
 deed. 
 
 A husband having been guilty of cruelty, he 
 and Ids wife separated upon the terms of a deed 
 by which tliey agreed that neither party should 
 take proceedings against the other for dissolution 
 of marriage or judicial separation on the ground 
 of previous misconduct, but that tlie deed should 
 be void in case the marriage sliould be dissolved 
 or a judicial separation granted on the ground of 
 subsequent misconduct liy either. The husband 
 afterwards committed adultery. He did not plead 
 the deed in answer to his wife's petition. 
 
 The Court granted a decree nisi for the disso- 
 lution of the marriage. 
 
 Rose V. Base, (1882) 7 P. D. 225; (1883) 
 
 8 P. D. 98, distinguished. Dowling v. Dowling 
 
 G. Barnes J, [1898] P, 228 
 
 73. — Intercourse ichile living apart — Evi- 
 dence of ooliahitation — Separation agreement. 
 
 Husband and wife entered into a deed of 
 separation under which the husband covenanted 
 to pay a weekly sum to the wife during their 
 joint lives if they should so long live separate 
 from one another. While they were living apart, 
 acts of connubial intercourse took place. In an 
 action by the wife to recover arrears of payments 
 due under the deed : — 
 
 Held, that the fact that intercourse had taken 
 place was not of itself conclusive evidence that 
 the separation had come to an end so as to make 
 the deed of no effect. Eowell v. Eowell 
 
 C, A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 9 
 — Judicial separation. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 r.J^f', J^Iarriage contract under Froicli law 
 (47 ct 48 Viet. c. 61), s. 14. 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Separation)— coKfa««e(?. 
 The question in this case was as to the i^ower 
 of the registrar of the Divorce Court under the 
 terms of a separation agreement to determine 
 certain questions of French law, and to vary the 
 conditions of a marriage contract made under 
 that law. De Eicoi v. De Kicoi 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 378 
 — Eetainer of trust property to satisfy annuity 
 
 — Separation deed. 
 
 See Tedstee — Retainer. 99. 
 
 76. — Setting aside — Suit to set aside — Sepa- 
 ration and annnity deed — Discredited fraudulent 
 representations — Subsequent adultery of wife — 
 Practice as to costs in pauper appeals— Laics of 
 New Zealand. 
 
 A deed of separation and annuity will not be 
 set aside at the instance of the husband on the 
 ground of fraudulent representations by the wife 
 as to her innocence which were discredited by 
 him at the time of its execution, nor on the 
 ground of subsequent adultery, when the deed 
 contains no condition as to chastity. 
 
 Decree reversed with such costs as are payable 
 in the Colony in pauper appeals ; the appellant 
 to be entitled to such costs of the appeal as she 
 would be entitled to according to the rule whicli 
 prevails in the H. L., which rule is adopted by 
 the Board. Wasteneys v. Wasteneys 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 446 
 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 76. — Aggravated assaidt — .Turisdiction — 
 Separation order by Justices — Matrimonial Cames 
 Act, 1878 (41 ct- 42 Virt. c. 19), s. i—Summary 
 Jurisdiction ^Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 * 
 59 Vict. c. 39). 
 
 Where a separation order has been made under 
 the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, s. 4, against 
 a husband convicted of an aggravated assault 
 upon his wife, and such order does not contain 
 a provision for the wife's maintenance, there is 
 no jurisdiction to make a subsequent order for 
 maintenance. Woodhead v. Woodhead 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] P. 343 
 
 [Note.^ — Sect. 4 is repealed and furtlKr provi- 
 sion made l)y the Summary Jurisdiction [Married 
 Women) Ant, 1895 (58 ct 59 Vict. v. 39).] 
 
 77. — • Allowance for wife — Husband's earnings 
 — Mode of assessing proportion to he allowed — 
 Separation order — Practice — Summary Jurisdic- 
 tion {Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 * 59 Vict, 
 c. 39. 
 
 In assessing the amount which a husband is 
 to be ordered to pay for the support of his wife 
 who has obtained a separation order against him 
 under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married 
 Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Viet. e. 39), courts 
 of summary jurisdiction ai'e to be guided by the 
 principles and practice upon which allotments of 
 alimony are made in cases of judicial separation 
 in the High Court. Cobb r. Cobb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] P. 294 
 
 78. •— Appeals — Practice — Summary Juris- 
 diction {Married TFome»i)^ct, 1S95 (58 ct 59 TiQt. 
 c. 39, s. 11. 
 
 Upon an appeal to the Probate, Divorce and 
 Admiralty Div. from the decision of a court 
 
( 925 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Summary Jurisdiction) 
 
 — continvad. 
 of summary jurisdiction under the Summary 
 Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, the 
 practice under the Divorce Acts has no applica- 
 tion, and it is not necessary that any case should 
 be stated or filed. The practice in such appeals 
 is governed by Order lix., rr. 4a, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 
 and 16. Swoffer v. Swoffer 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] P. 131 
 
 79. — Summary Jurisdiction — Appeal from 
 Justices — Mode of Appeal — Summary Jurisdiction 
 (JXarried Women) Act, 1895 (58 * 59 Vict. c. 89), 
 s. 11. 
 
 There is no power in a court of summary 
 jurisdiction to state a case for the opinion.of the 
 Q. B. Div. upon a point of law arising on an 
 application for an order under the Summary 
 Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895 ; the 
 only mode in which their decision can be ques- 
 tioned is by an appeal to the Probate, Divorce 
 and Admiralty Div. under s. 11 of that Act. 
 Manders v. Mandeks Div. Ct. [1897J 1 Q. B. 474 
 
 80. — Appeal — Offences against the Person 
 Act, 1861 (24 * 25 Vict. c. 100), s. iS— Matri- 
 monial Causes Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Viet. c. 19), 
 s. 4. 
 
 A husband was convicted under 24 & 25 Vict, 
 c. 100, s. 43, of an aggravated assault, and an 
 order was made by the justices giving the wife a 
 judicial separation and maintenance. The 
 husband appealed : — 
 
 Meld, that there was no appeal against the 
 conviction. The appeal against the oider made 
 on the conviction dismissed on its merits. Lewin 
 V. Lewin - Jeune J. [1891] P. 254 
 
 81. — Costs — Judicial separation — Practice — 
 Agreement for settlement of suit — Separation deed 
 — Costs. 
 
 The parlies to a wife's suit for judicial separa- 
 tion entered into an agreement for the settlement 
 of it, which provided (inter alia) that a separation 
 deed 'should be executed ; that the husband 
 should pay the wife's taxed " costs of suit " ; and 
 that the agreement might he made a rule of 
 Court : — 
 
 Held, that the costs of and incident to the 
 preparation and settlement of the deed were not 
 " costs of suit" which the husband was bound to 
 
 pay- 
 Decision of Jeune P. ([1896] P. 75) affirmed. 
 Lancaster v. Lancaster - C, A. [1896] P. 118 
 83. — Costs — Separation order — Practice — 
 Husband's appeal — Case remitted to justices — 
 Wife's costs — Summary Jurisdiction (Married 
 Women) Act, 1895 (58 * 59 Vict. c. 39). 
 
 Where h, wife has obtained an order under 
 the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) 
 Act, 1895, she is entitled to lier costs of support- 
 ing that order upon appeal, even though she 
 should prove unsuccessful in the Div. Ct. 
 
 A husband andwife separated in 1887, when 
 a document headed "Memorandum of Agree- 
 ment " was signed by them and witnessed by a 
 solicitor. Twelve years later the wife returned 
 from abroad, went to her husband's house, and 
 was refused admission. She thereupon took out 
 a summons against her husband under the Sum- 
 
 ( 926 ) 
 Summary Jurisdiction) 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE- 
 
 continued. 
 
 mary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, 
 charging her husband with neglect to maintain 
 her, and by such neglect causing her to leave and 
 live separate and apart from him. The husband 
 and wife were the only witueases before the 
 justices, who made an order for separation and 
 allowance in favour of the wife. 
 
 Held, that as the document was conclusive 
 one way or tlie other, and as the justices had not 
 had all the evidence before them to enable them 
 properly to test its validity, the case must go 
 back for rehearing ; but the appellant was 
 ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the 
 appeal. Medway v. Medwat 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] P. 141 
 
 83. — Summary jurisdiction — Costs of summary 
 proceedings — Separation order — Summary Juris- 
 diction (Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. 
 c. 38), ss. 4, 5. 
 
 By ss. 4 and 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction 
 (Married Women) Act, 1895, any married woman, 
 whose husband shall have been guilly of certain 
 specified kinds of misconduct towards her, may 
 apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for an 
 order under the Act, and the Court may make an 
 order containing various specified provisions for 
 her protection, including (s. 5, sub.-s. (d)) " a 
 provision for payment by the applicant or the 
 liusband, or both of them, of the costs of the 
 Court, and such reasonable costs of either of 
 the parties as the Court may think fit." The 
 solicitor acting for a married woman in an appli- 
 cation, which was unsuccessful, to a court of 
 summary jurisdiction for an order under the 
 Act, brought an action for his costs against the 
 husband. The court of summary jurisdiction 
 had not made, or been asked to make, any pro- 
 vision for the costs : — 
 
 Held, that the action could not be maintained, 
 because the Act intended to exclude any remedy 
 in respect of costs other than that specified in 
 s. 5, sub-s. (d). Cale v. James 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 418 
 
 84. — Cruelty — " Legal cruelty " — Judicial 
 separation — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 
 21 Vict. u. 85), 6. 22, and 1884 (47 '* 48 Vict. 
 C.68). 
 
 A false charge of having committed an un- 
 natural criminal oflTence brought by a wife against 
 her husband, although published to the world and 
 persisted in after she did not believe in its truth, 
 is not sufScient evidence of legal cruelty to entitle 
 the husband to a judicial separation : — 
 
 So lield, by the majority of the House of Lords 
 (Lords Herschell, Watson, Macnaghten, Shand, 
 and Davey : Lord Halsbury L.C, Lords Hob- 
 house, Ashbourne, and Moriis dissenting). 
 
 The effect of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 
 1884, debated, but not decided. Earl Eussell 
 V. Countess Eussell (No. 2) 
 
 H. I, (D.) [1897] A. C. 395 
 
 85. — Cruelty — Uetrospective operation of 
 section — Persistent cruelty — Summary jurisdiction 
 {Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39), 
 s. 4. 
 
 The provision of s. 4 of the^SummaryfJuris- 
 diction (Married Women) Act, 1895, ^giving 
 
( 92t ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CAsfiS, 1 §91— 1900. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND Wlf E (Summary Jurisdiction) 
 
 — continued. 
 jurisdiction under the Act to a court of aummary 
 jurisdiction in cases where a hushand has been 
 guilty of persistent cruelty to his Wife, thereby 
 causing her to live apart from him, is retro-- 
 spective In its operation, and applies to acts of 
 ciuelty committed before the Act came into force. 
 Lane v. Lane - - Div. Ct. [1896] P. 133 
 
 86. — Desertion — Limitation of time for pro- 
 ceedings—Summary Jurisdiction {Married Women) 
 Act, 1895 (58 * 59 Vict. c. 39), s. 4—11 * 12 Vict, 
 c. 43, s. 11. 
 
 For tlie purpose of proceedings under s. 4 of 
 the Summary Juritdiction (Married Women) Act, 
 1895, the desertion of a married woman by her 
 husband is a continuing act ; an application by 
 the wife for an order under that section need not, 
 therefore, be made within six months of the com- 
 mencement of the desertion. Hbakd v. Heahd 
 Div. Ct. [1896] P. 188 
 
 87. — Desertion — Neglect to provide reasonable 
 maintenance — Cohabitation — Jurisdiction of 
 justices — Summary Jurisdiction {Married Women) 
 Act, 1895 (58 * 59 Vict. c. 39), s. 4. 
 
 In order to give jurisdiction to justices under 
 so much of s. 4 of the Summary Jurisdiclion 
 (Married Women) Act, 1895, as provides that 
 any married woman, whose husband shall have 
 deserted her, or been guilty of wilful neglect to 
 provide reasonable maintenance for her, and shall 
 by such neglect have caused her to leave and live 
 separately and apart from him, may apply to a 
 court of summary jurisdiction for an order under 
 the Act, it is esseutial that there should be a 
 cohabitation which is broken by the act of the 
 husband ; but such cohabitation does not neces- 
 sarily imply that the parties must be living 
 together continually under one roof. 
 
 A married female domestic servant, who never 
 lived with her husband under the same roof, was 
 visited from time to time by liira at the house of 
 her mistress, and a child (which subsequently 
 died) was born of the marriage in a lying-in 
 hospital. The husband refused to receive his 
 wife in the house where he lodged, or to give her 
 any help towards her maintenance : — 
 
 Held, that the cohabitation was suflSoient to 
 give jurisdiction to the justices under the above 
 section to make an order under the Act. 
 
 Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, (1869) L. E. 1 P. & M. 
 G94, and Meg. v. Leresche [1891] 2 Q. B. 418 
 t;xplaiued and distinguished. Bkadshaw v. 
 Bradshaw - - Div. Ct. [1897] P. 24 
 
 88. — Desertion — Wife's petition — Judicial 
 separation. 
 
 A wife suing for divorce on the ground of 
 adultery and cruelty failed to prove the cruelty. 
 It was also proved that the wife had deserted her 
 husband before he committed adultery : — 
 
 Held, that notwithstanding her desertion, the 
 wife was entitled to convert her petition for 
 divorce into a petition for judicial separation. 
 DuPLANY V. DuPLANT Jeune J. [1892] P. 53 
 
 Considered by Jeune F. Synqe v. Synqe 
 [1900] P. 180, 204. 
 
 89. — Evidence — Offences against the Person 
 Act, 18G1 (24 & 25 Vicl. c. 100), s. i3~Mairi- 
 
 HUSBAND AND WlFE (Summary Jurisdiction) 
 
 — continued, 
 monial Causes Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 19), 
 
 »■• 4- 
 
 A husband who has been convicted by justices 
 of an aggravated assault upon his wife is entitled 
 to give evidence before them on an application 
 by her for a separation order under s. 4 of the 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878. Jones v. Jones 
 Div. Ct. [1895] P. 201 
 See Note to No. 76, above. 
 
 90. — Evidence — Eesdnddng separation order 
 — "Fresh evidence " — Definition — Summary Juris- 
 diction (Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 <fe 59 
 Vict. c. 39), ss. 4, 7. 
 
 "Fresh evidence" within the meaning of the 
 Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 
 1895, s. 7, to confer jurisdiction to rescind a 
 separation order previously made under s. 4, 
 must be such as would afford ground for a new 
 trial or rehearing in any other class of case. It 
 must be evidence which could not reasonably 
 have been made available at the date of the 
 order, or it must relate to something which has 
 happened since the date of the order, and which 
 affords ground for revision within the terms 
 of the Act under which the order was made. 
 Johnson v. Johnson - Jeune P. [1900] P. 19 
 — Evidence — Notes of proceedings. 
 See Nos. 94—96, below. 
 
 91. — Maintenance — Jurisdiction of justices — 
 Persistent cruelty causing wife to live separately — 
 Wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance 
 causing wife to live separately — Limit of time for 
 proceeding ■ — Summary Jurisdiction {Married 
 
 Women) Act, 1895 (58 4 59 Vict. c. 39), ss. 4, 8— 
 Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict, 
 c. 43), 6-. 11. 
 
 By the Summary Jurisdiction (Married 
 Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39), s. 4, 
 " Any married woman .... whose husband 
 shall have been guilty of persistent cruelty to 
 her, or wilful neglect to provide reasonable main- 
 tenance for her or her infant children whom he 
 is legally liable to maintain, and shall by such 
 cruelty or neglect have caused her to leave and 
 live separately and apart from him, may apply to 
 any court of summary jurisdiction .... for an 
 order or orders under this Act." 
 
 By s. 8, "All applications under this Act 
 shall be made in accordance with the Summary 
 Jurisdiction Acts." 
 
 By the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848(11 & 12 
 Vict. 0. 43), s. 11, "In all cases where no time is 
 already or shall hereafter be specially limited for 
 making any such complaint or laying any such 
 information in the Act or Acts of Parliament re- 
 lating to each particular case, such complaint 
 shall be made, and such information shall be 
 laid, within six calendar months from the time 
 when the matter of such complaint or information 
 respectively arose." 
 
 Persistent cruelty by a husband to a wife, 
 and wilful neglect by him to provide reasonable 
 maintenance for her, in consequence of which he 
 causes her to leave and live separately and apart 
 from him, within the meaning of s. 4 of the 
 Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 
 1895, are not continuing offences. The limit of 
 
( 929 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 930 ) 
 
 HUSBAND AND 'WIFE (Summary Jurisdiction) 
 
 — continued. 
 time imposed by tlie reference in a. 8 to s. 11 of 
 the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, applies, 
 and the complaint must in each case be made 
 within six calendar months of the offence. Ellis 
 «. Ellis - Div. Ct. [1896] P. 251 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ot. Medway v. Medway, 
 £1900] P. 141, 143. 
 
 92. — Maintenance — Neglect to provide — Evi- 
 dence of means — Summary Jurisdiction (Married 
 Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. o. 39), «. 4— 
 Appeal — Costs of wife when unsuccessful respon- 
 dent. 
 
 Upon the hearing by a couit of summary 
 jurisdiction of a summons taken out by a married 
 woman under s. 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction 
 (Married Women) Act, 1895, charging her hus- 
 band with wilful neglect to provide reasonable 
 maintenance for her, the Court, before making an 
 order, must be satisfied that the husband either is 
 in receipt of actual earnings, or has the capability 
 of earning a livelihood ; evidence of means cannot 
 be entirely dispensed with. 
 
 Where a married woman is an unsuccessful 
 respondent in an appeal to the Probate, Divorce, 
 and Admiralty Div. under the Summary Juris- 
 diction (Married Women) Act, 1895, the Court, 
 without laying down any binding rule of practice, 
 will in ordinary cases follow the practice in 
 matrimonial causes, and order her costs of the 
 appeal to be paid by the husband. Eaenshaw v. 
 Eaenshaw - Div. Ct. [1896] P. 160 
 
 93. — Maintenance — Seduction of — Discre- 
 tion of justices — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 19), s. 4. 
 
 The justices have a discretion to grant or 
 refuse a summons to reduce the amount of main- 
 tenance ordered to a wife. Eeo. v. Htjggins 
 (No. 1) - Div. Ct. [1891] W. N. 88 
 
 See Note to No. 76, above. 
 
 94. — Note of the evidence — Justices — Duty of 
 Clerk to justices — Summary Jurisdiction (^Married 
 Women') Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Viet. c. 39), ss. 4, 5, 11 
 — Appeal to Probate Division. 
 
 On an application by a married woman for an 
 order for judicial separation, custody of children, 
 or maintenance, under s. 5 of the Summary Juris- 
 diction (Married Women) Act, 1895, it is the duty 
 of the clerk to the justices to make a note of the 
 evidence and of the reasons for the decision, and 
 supply the note, should there be au appeal, to the 
 Prob. Div. Bobinson v. Eobinson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] P. 163 
 
 95. — Notes of proceedings — Separation order 
 — Summitry Jurisdiction (^Married Women) Act, 
 1895 (c. 39), «. 4. 
 
 On an appeal by a husband against an order 
 of justices made under this section, it appeared 
 that no notes of the evidence or of the reasons for 
 the decision could be produced. 
 
 The Court said that this omission was most 
 inconvenient and unsatisfactory, and led to 
 serious and unnecessary expense, and that they 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE (Summary Jurisdiction) 
 
 — continued. 
 hoped that in future notes of the evidence and of 
 the reasons for decisions under the Act would be 
 sent to them. Jagqek v. Jaggeb 
 
 Jeune F. and G. Barnes J. 
 [1896] W. N. 63 (2) 
 96. — Notes of proceedings — Practice — 
 Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, ' 
 1895 (c. 39). 
 
 Upon the hearing of an appeal under the 
 Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 
 1895, the Court said that it would be a great 
 convenience if, on the hearing of applications 
 under that Act, the magistrates' clerks would 
 take notes of the proceedings and forward them 
 (in case of appeal) to the Probate, Divorce and 
 Admiralty Div. ; and also if the magistrates 
 would in all cases say shortly on what grounds of 
 fact or law they based their decision. Hauling 
 V. Habling - Jeune P. and G. Barnes J. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 28 (12) 
 
 Title of Honour. 
 
 97. — Married woman — Dignity — Incorporeal 
 hereditament — Marriage with a peer of the realm 
 — Divorce — Former wife marrying a commoner — 
 Continued use of title derived from former husband 
 — Courtesy title — Jactitation of marriage — In- 
 junction. 
 
 Where the marriage of a commoner with » 
 peer of the realm has been dissolved by decree 
 at the instance of the wife, and she afterwards, 
 on marrying a commoner, continues to use the 
 title she acquired by her first marriage, she does 
 not thereby, though having no legal right to the 
 user, commit such a legal wrong against her 
 former husband, or so affect his enjoyment of the 
 incorporeal hereditament he possesses in his title, 
 as to entitle him, in the absence of malice, to an 
 injunction to restrain her use of the title. 
 
 A man has no such property in his name as to 
 entitle him to prevent » woman, not his wife, 
 claiming to be such, unless she does so 
 maliciously. 
 
 Decision of G. Barnes J., [1900] P. 118, 
 reversed. Cowley v. Cowlbt 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 180; [1900] P. 306 
 
 HTDBANTS — Fire hydrants — Bight of water- 
 works company to use — User without 
 consent of the London County Council. 
 See Water. 12. 
 
 HYPOTHEC — Scottish law — Landlord's right of 
 sequestration. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Staying 
 Proceedings. 233. 
 
 HTPOTHECAEY PRIVILEGE— Builder's privi- 
 lege — ^Law of Quebec. 
 See Canada. 5. 
 
 HYPOTHECATION — ^Liquidated demand — Float- 
 ing security — Set-off. 
 See Company — Debentures. 92. 
 
 HYPOTHETICAL TENANT— Sewage works. 
 See Bates — Kateability. 49. 
 
 2 H 
 
( 931 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 932 ) 
 
 IDENTIFICATION— Of name with goods by user 
 — Trade name — Injunction. 
 See New South Wale^. 48. 
 
 — Sending out of jurisdiction for — Evidence- 
 
 Commission — Subject-matter of action. 
 See Evidence. 26. 
 
 — Use of Photographs — Evidence. 
 
 See DivoKCE — Evidence. 77. 
 
 IDENTITY— Concealment of identity of lender- 
 Fraud — Eight of borrower to repudiate. 
 See CoNTKACT — Illegality. 20. 
 
 — Error of subscriber as to, of company — Alleged 
 
 contract of membership. 
 See Company — WiNDiNG-trp — Contribu- 
 tory. 37. 
 
 — Evidence — Nullity suit. 
 
 See Divorce — NnlUty. 92. 
 
 — Parcels— Admissibility of parol evidence — 
 
 Statute of Frauds. 
 See Vendoe and Pukchaseb. 30. 
 IGNOKANCE OF lAW— Bigamy— Bar to divorce. 
 See DivOECE — Bigamy. 19. 
 
 ILLEGALITY- Consideration for settlement- 
 Marriage with sister of deceased wife. 
 See Settlement. 31. 
 
 — Contract — Bail to produce prisoner — In- 
 
 demnity. 
 See Bail. 1. 
 
 — Of contract. 
 
 See CoNTEAOT — Illegality. 
 ILLEGALLY DEALING— Intoxicating liquors- 
 Unlicensed premises— Buyer. 
 See Licensing Acts. 40. 
 
 ILLEGITIMACY— Settlement. 
 
 See Settlement — Construction, 7. 
 
 — Settlement of poor — Illegitimate pauper — 
 
 Birthplace — Derivative settlement oi 
 
 parent. 
 
 See Poor Law. 16. 
 
 — Will, Construction of. 
 
 See Will — Illegitimacy. 
 ILLEGITIMATE CSIU)— Custody. 
 
 The authorities do not establish the proposi- 
 tion that the legal rights of the mother of an 
 illegitimate child as to its custody are the same 
 as those of the father of a legitimate child. But 
 semble, that the obligation cast on the mother of 
 an illegitimate child by 4 & 5 Will. 4, o. 76, s. 71, 
 to maintain it till it attains the age of sixteen, 
 involves a right to its custody. Per Lords 
 Hersohell and Field in Barnaedo v. MoHugh 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. 0. 388 
 
 — Eeparation to parents on death of illegitimate 
 
 child. 
 
 See Scottish Law- 
 
 •Negligenoe. 30. 
 
 ILLNESS— Of executor. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 23, 68, 
 
 ILLDSTEATION— In newspaper. 
 
 See CoPYEiGHT — Picture. 39. 
 
 IMMIGRATION — Alien's rights — Victoriao 
 Chinese Act. 
 See ViOTOEiA. 1. 
 
 IMMORALITY — False declaration against simony 
 ^Clerical Subscription Act, 1865. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Simony. 75. 
 
 — Maintenance — Education — Bringing up — 
 
 Immoral home — Breach of trust — 
 Trustee's discretion — Control of Court. 
 See Infant. 32. 
 
 IMMUNITY CLAUSE— Breach of trust— Liability 
 of trustee — Negligence. 
 See Teustee— Breach of Trust, 29. 
 
 IMPLICATION— Gift " after decease " of wife- 
 Life estate^Intestaoy. 
 See Will — Eesidue. 175. 
 
 — Of obligation not to use information obtained 
 
 during service. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Trade 
 Secrets. 100. 
 
 IMPOTENCE. 
 
 See Oases under Divorce — Nullity. 
 
 IMPOUNDING — Goods — Distress — Man in 
 
 possession. 
 
 See Disteess. 10. 
 IMPRISONMENT 
 
 for Contempt of Court, col. 932. 
 
 far Debt, col. 932. 
 
 for Offences, col. 934. 
 
 for Contempt of Court. 
 
 1. — Interfering with witneis. 
 
 (a) Party committed for attempting to inti- 
 midate a witness. Beomilow ». Phillips 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 209 
 
 (b) Persons interested in an action committed 
 for writing to the probable witnesses in the action 
 making charges against parties to the action. 
 Wellbt v. Still (No. 1) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 6 
 
 for Debt. 
 
 2. — D^tors Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 4 
 — Default in payment of a sum of money. 
 
 An order was made in interpleader proceed- 
 ings that the sheriff should sell and pay A., the 
 claimant, the execution creditor B. undertaking 
 to make good any deficiency. There was a 
 deficiency, and an order was made that B should 
 pay A. within four days : B. failed to do so : — 
 
 Held, that the case was one of " default in 
 payment of a sum of money " within s. 4 of the 
 Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), and that 
 an order for commitment could not be made. 
 Buckley v. Crawford. Towhend, Claimant 
 
 Div, Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B, 105 
 
( 933 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 934 ) 
 
 IMPRISONMENT (for Tiebt)— continued. 
 
 3. — Debtors Aot, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 62), 
 S3. 4, 5 — " Execution " of judgment — Judgments 
 Extension Act, 1868 (31 * 32 Vict. c. 54), 
 ss. 1, 4, 
 
 An order for committal of a debtor upon a 
 judgment summons under the Act of 1869 is not 
 "execution" of the judgment: therefore there 
 is no jurisdiction under ss. 1, 4 of the Judgments 
 Extension Act, 1868, to make such an order in 
 relation to an Irish judgment. In re 'Watsoii. 
 lEx parte Johnston. Johnston v. Watson 
 
 C. A. affirm. [1893] 1 Q. B. 21 
 
 4. — Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. e. 62), 
 s. 4, sub-s. 3 — Partner — Fiduciary capacity. 
 
 One partner receiying assets of the partner- 
 ship on account of himself and liis co-partners, 
 is not liable to imprisonment under s. 4, sub-s. 3, 
 of the Debtors Act, 1869, as a person acting in a 
 fiduciary capacity. Piddooke v. Bdbt 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 5. — Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), 
 s. 4, svlb-s. 4 — Solicitor — Bamlcrupt — Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 52), ss. 9, 10. 
 
 Notwithstanding s. 9 of Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, a writ of attachment will issue against a 
 solicitor under s. 4, sub-s. 4, of the Debtors Act, 
 1869, for default in payment of a sum of money, 
 although the solicitor has become bankrupt since 
 the date of the order for payment. In re Edye 
 (a Solicitob) - Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 1 
 
 — Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4, sub-s. 4 — Solicitor — 
 
 Default in payment of balance due to 
 
 client. 
 
 See Solicitob — liability. 86. 
 
 6. — Debtors Acts, 1869 and 1878, s. 4 (3) 
 
 — Trustee — Bankrupt trustee — Discretion of 
 Court. 
 
 The prohibition in s. 9 of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1883, does not take away the jurisdiction of 
 the Court to order, under s. 4, sub-s. 3, of the 
 Debtors Act, 1869, the committal or attach- 
 ment of a defaulting trustee against whom a 
 receiving order in bankruptcy has been made, 
 for such commitments are not to be regarded 
 simply as a form of civU process, but are 
 punitive. 
 
 Fer C. A., reversing Kekewicb J., a trustee 
 is not dishonest and fraudulent merely because 
 he neglects his trust, and thereby wrongs those 
 whom it is his duty to protect. He is not there- 
 fore liable to attachment on that ground. In re 
 Smith. Hands v. Andrews - Kekewioh J, 
 varied by C. A, [1893] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 7. — Debtors Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. u. 54)— 
 Trustee — Discretion of Court. 
 
 In the exercise of its discretion under the 
 Debtors Act, 1878, the Court refused to allow a 
 writ of attachment to issue against a trustee. 
 
 Qusere, whether such trustee, being a peer of 
 the realm, was privileged from arrest. Earl of 
 Aylbsfobd v. Eabl Poolett (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 60 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Smith. See 
 preceding Case. 
 
 — Eates — Distress and imprisonment. 
 
 See Kates— Beeovery. 62, 63. 
 
 IMPRISONMENT— conientjet?. 
 
 for Offences, 
 
 By the Penal Servitude Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 69), further provision was made as to the 
 punishment of offences by imprisonment. 
 And see Criminal Law, passim. 
 
 — Household franchise — Confinement to camp 
 
 for military offence. 
 
 See Paeliament— Franchise. 20. 
 
 — Immunity of members of Provincial House of 
 
 Assembly. 
 
 See Canada — Nova Scotia. 39. 
 
 — Kelease of prisoner on payment of portion of 
 
 fine. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Fine or Imprison- 
 ment, 
 
 — Returning from training — Assault and false 
 
 imprisonment — Obedience to order of 
 
 superior officer. 
 
 See Akmt and Navy — ^Volunteers, 8. 
 
 IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE— Chairman of— 
 Corporate oflElce. 
 See OoEPORATiON. 6. 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF LAND ACT, 1899 (62 & 63 
 
 Vict, c, 46), amends previous enactments. 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS— Compensation for. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and Tenant 
 — Agricultural Holdings. 
 
 — "Improvement charge" — "Improvement 
 
 area." 
 
 See London. 69. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgage — Sale. 82. 
 
 — Partition action. 
 
 See Partition. 5, 6. 
 
 — Permanent building erected by lease — Eight 
 
 to removal. 
 
 See Cape oe Good Hope. 5. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 1. — Tenant in common — Mortgage — Sale. 
 
 The present value of improvements due to 
 expenditure by a tenant in common in fee of one 
 half, and tenant for life of the other half, of real 
 estate (not exceeding the expenditure) allowed 
 in distributing the surplus proceeds of sale by a 
 paramount mortgagee among the persons entitled 
 to the equity of redemption. In re Cook's Mort- 
 gage. Lavtledge v. Tyndall - North J, 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 923 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Bill v. Sickin, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 579, 581. 
 
 — ■ Will — Real estate — Repairs — Absence of 
 power to mortgage. 
 See FoyrnR. 
 
 " IN CASE THE PARTIES DIFFER." 
 
 See Peaotioe — Judgment. 35. 
 
 " INADVERTENCE "—Amendment of proof. 
 
 See Company — ^Windinq-up — Proof, 202. 
 
 — Secured creditor — Omission to value seoui'ity. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Secured Creditor, 280, 
 2 H 2 
 
( 935 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 936 ) 
 
 INCAPACITY— Executor. 
 
 See Pkoeate — Grant of Administration. 
 23. 
 INCLOSTIEE. 
 
 Commons Act, 1899 (62 * 63 Vict. c. 80), 
 amends the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and the 
 law relating to Commons and Open Spaces. 
 
 Inclosure, &c.. Expenses Act, 1868 (31 & 32 
 Vict, c, 89) — Eees to he taken in respect of trans- 
 actions under the Tithe and other Acts, in accor- 
 dance with the provisions of the. W. N. 1900 
 (May 19), p. 143. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. zc. 
 
 1. — Award, Finality of — Mistake — Inclosure 
 Acts, 1845 (8*9 Vict. v. 118, s. 105 ; 1848 (11 & 12 
 Viet. c. 99), ss. 13, li— Commons Act, 1876 
 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 56), s. 38. 
 
 Land belonging to a stranger was ty mistake 
 included iu a partition made under the Inclosure 
 Acts. In an action to enforce the award against 
 the stranger : — 
 
 Held, (1) that s. 105 of the Inclosure Act, 
 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 118), did not make an award 
 under the Inclosure Acts conclusive as to the 
 title of the allottee ; and (2) that in this case the 
 award, not having been made on the application 
 of persons not interested in the land within b. 13 
 of the Act of 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 99), was 
 made without jurisdiction and could not be en- 
 forced. Jaoomb v. Tubneb 
 
 Collins J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 47 
 
 — Award — Presumption that bed of river ad 
 
 medium filum passes. 
 See Water. 41, 45. 
 
 2. — Award — Bight of way — Footway and 
 hridle-path. 
 
 Where an inclosure award had allotted a road 
 fifteen feet wide as a footway and bridle-path : — 
 
 Held, that the public were entitled to use the 
 whole width of the road, and not merely a part 
 sufBcient (i.e., 3J ft.) for the purposes of a foot- 
 way and bridle-path. PuLLm v. Eepfell 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] W. N. 39 
 
 Sect. 109 of Highway Act, 1835 (5 ife 6 Wai. 4, 
 c. 50) was repealed by 56 & 57 Vict. c. 61. 
 
 — Charge on great tithes — Allotment of lands in 
 
 lieu of tithes — Transfer of liability to 
 
 custom. 
 
 See Custom. 1. 
 
 — Commons. 
 
 See Cases under Common. 
 
 — Corporation duty, Liability of allotment to. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 66. 
 
 — Highway — Ownership of soil. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 20. 
 
 3. — Manorial rights — Reservation of mines — 
 Working powers. 
 
 Under an Inclosure Act, part of a common 
 was allotted to the lord of the manor, in compen- 
 sation for his right to the soil of the common, 
 and the residue to the commoners ; and the Act 
 provided that nothing therein contained should 
 prejudice the right of the lord to the royalties 
 incident to the common, but that he and all 
 persons claiming under him should at all times 
 rovI?fY T. ^°^^ '"^^ ^"J°y ^^^ ™'°es and other 
 to all •„"+»„? '^^f "11 ample and beneficial manner 
 all intents and purposes as he or they could or 
 
 I'SCLOSV'R'E— continued. 
 
 might have held and enjoyed the same in case 
 this Act had not been made," provided always 
 that in case the owner for the time being of the 
 royalties, or any person claiming under him, 
 should work any mines lying under any of the 
 allotments, the person working the same should 
 make reasonable satisfaction for the damage and 
 spoil of the 'ground to the person for the time 
 being in possession of such ground: — ■ 
 
 Held, that the Act conferred on the owner for 
 the time being of the mines, as incident to the 
 enjoyment thereof, all usual working powers, 
 which included the right of sinking shafts on any 
 of the allotments for the purpose of winning and 
 carrying away minerals under any part of the 
 common. 
 
 Bell V. Love (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 547 ; (1884) 
 
 9 App. Cas. 286, discussed. Hatles v. Pease 
 
 AND Paetneks, Ld. - - Stirling J. [1899] 
 
 W. N. 15 (9); [1899] 1 Ch. 567 
 
 — Mines — Eight to support of surface — ^In- 
 
 closure Acts. 
 ;S'ee Mines. 30. 
 
 — " Place " used for betting. 
 
 See Cases under Gamins. 
 
 4. — Turbary — Allotment for — Legal estate in 
 land — Compensation to lord of manor — Inclosure 
 Act, 1845 (8 4 9 Vict. c. 118), ss. 34, 73, 76. 
 
 An allotment of land made in pursuance of 
 ss. 34 and 73 of the Inclosure Act, 1845, to the 
 churchwardens and overseers of a parish in trust 
 to allow the occupiers of certain ancient cottages 
 in the parish to get turf therefrom vests the 
 legal estate in the land in the churchwardens 
 and overseers. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Meyrich, [1893] A. C. 1, and Seg. 
 V. Inclosure Commrs., (1871) 23 L. T. 778, dis- 
 tinguished. SiMCOE V. Pethiok 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 555 
 
 6. — Unallotted land — Adjoining owner — Lord 
 of the manm — Prescription — Profit a prendre — 
 Pasturage — Surveyor of highways. 
 
 An Inclosure Act provided for the allotment 
 of land to the lord of the manor in compensation 
 for all right of soil : — 
 
 Held, that the soil of land set out as a private 
 road in pursuance of the Act was vested in the 
 allottees of the adjacent land ad medium filum. 
 
 The herbage of a road was by an inclosure 
 award made in 1822 allotted to the suiTeyor of 
 highways for depasturing sheep only, in aid of 
 rates. For more than fifty years the surveyor 
 had let the pasturage for cattle and horses. The 
 Court presumed an enlargement of the right to 
 depasture by grant from the owners of the soil to 
 the surveyor. Neavebson v. Peterboeough 
 EuEAL Council Cozens-Haidy J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 244 ; see [1901] 1 Ch. 22 
 
 — Waste land — Bed of river — Eeservation to 
 
 lord of manor — Territorial rights. 
 See Watee. 45. 
 
 INCOMBUSTIBLE MATEEIALS— Buildings. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 27. 
 INCOME— Bankrupt. 
 
 See Cases under Bankeuptot — Assets 
 and under Bankruptcy — TTndis- 
 oharged Bankrupt, 
 
( 937 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 938 ) 
 
 I'SCOTHE— continued. 
 
 — Capital or — Tenant for life and remaindermen. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — Appor- 
 tionment. 
 
 — " Intermediate income." 
 
 See Accumulations, i. 
 
 — Property in Ireland. 
 
 See Lunacy — Maintenance. 25. 
 
 INCOltfE TAX. 
 
 See Kevenub — Income Tax. 
 
 INCOEPOBATED LAW SOCIETY — Inquiry — 
 Discretion. 
 See SonoiTOB — Misconduct. 114. 
 
 — Jurisdiction of Committee. 
 
 See Solicitor — Misconduct. 116. 
 
 INCOBPOEATION— Company. 
 
 See Company — Incorporation. 
 
 — Conditions of charterparty — Bill of lading — 
 
 Freight. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 36. 
 
 — Probate — Will — Library catalogue. 
 
 See Probate. 98. 
 
 ■ Testamentary papers. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Probate. 
 
 102. 
 
 INCOHPORATION OF INDEPENDENT WILIS 
 
 — English and foreign — Practice. 
 See Proeatk. 121. 
 
 INCOEPOEEAL HEEEDITAME NT— Licence, or 
 grant of — Disturbance of rights of 
 grantee. 
 See Fishery. 10. 
 
 — Title of honour. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 97. 
 
 INCUMBEANCE— Costs of incumbrancers. 
 See Partition. 4. 
 
 — Discharge— Application of capital money — 
 
 See Settled Land. 37. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Cases under Mortgage. 
 
 — Private street — Improvements charge on 
 
 premises — Date — Vendor and pur- 
 chaser. 
 See Streets. 34. 
 
 — Sale by second mortgagee — Costs of vendor's 
 
 solicitor. 
 
 See Solicitor. 63. 
 
 — Tenant for life. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Convey- 
 ance. 45. 
 
 INDECENCY — Infringement of copyright — 
 Costs. 
 See Copyright. 16. 
 
 — Procuring commission of act of indecency — • 
 
 "Another male person." 
 See Criminal Law. 52. 
 
 INDEMNITY. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up, passim. 
 
 — Bail to produce prisoner — Illegal contract. 
 
 See Bail. 1. 
 
 — BUI of lading — Indemnity clause — Third- 
 
 party notice. 
 
 See Shipping— Charterparty. 27. 
 
 INDEMNITY— conimMed. 
 
 — Contract of — Estoppel — Evidence as to aban- 
 
 donment of claim. 
 
 See New South Wales. 10. 
 
 — Contract — Bescission — Innocent misrepresen- 
 
 tations — Indemnity. 
 See Contract. 32. 
 
 — Contract of — Subrogation. 
 
 See Insurance— Fire. 9. 
 
 — Contract of — Validity — Seizure by belligerent 
 
 government of property of its own 
 
 subjects. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 30. 
 
 — Costs by way of. 
 
 See Copyright— Infringement. 12. 
 
 — Costs of justices — Indemnity costs, Right to — 
 
 Appeal against refusal to renew licence. 
 See Licensing Acts. 48. 
 
 — Directors — Money paid out of capital to shnre- 
 
 holders — Order on directors to replace 
 it — Eight to indemnity from share- 
 holders. 
 See Company — Directors. 108. 
 
 — Executor's right. 
 
 See Executor — Powers, 49. 
 — • Executor — Surety — Bight of retainer. 
 See Executor — Eetainer, 61. 
 
 — Fraud upon creditors — Debts of founder 
 
 See Company. 69. 
 
 — Frauds, Statute of. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 3, 4. 
 
 — Lease — Covenant by assignee to indemnify 
 
 assignor — Breach of covenant before 
 
 assignment. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 30. 
 
 — Lease — Successive assignments — Covenants 
 
 — " Property " of bankrupt. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant; 11. 
 
 — Libel — Action for against editor — Defence of 
 
 action by proprietor. 
 See Corporation. 26. 
 
 — Paymeat of husband's debts — Separate estate 
 
 — Restraint on anticipation. 
 See Husband and Wife. 51. 
 
 — Principal and agent — Duty of agent to sue. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 60. 
 
 — Receiver and manager — Final account — Dis- 
 
 charge — Eight to indemnity. 
 See Eeoeiver. 26. 
 
 — Beoital in will — Promise. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 3. 
 — ■ Bent — ^Payment by lessee — Liability of sub- 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 87. 
 
 — Stamp duty — Policy of insurance against 
 
 accident — Employer and workman. 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 164. 
 
 — Stock Exchange— Wrongful sale by broker. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 21. 
 
 Subrogation — Benefit of contract entered into 
 
 by assured. 
 
 See Insurance — Fire. 9. 
 
 — Third party — Builder — Severance of defence 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Light and Air. 14. 
 
( 939 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 940 ) 
 
 INDEMNITY— conimaed. ] 
 
 — Trustee. 
 
 See Tbustee — Indemnity. 
 
 — Trustees of will. 
 
 See ExEOUTOK — Powers. 49. 
 
 — Trustee's right of— Purchase of land by- 
 
 trustee of settled estates — Entry by 
 tenant for life — Nonpayment of prin- 
 cipal. 
 See Venbor and Purohasek — Lien. 56. 
 
 — Ultra vires^Money paid by directors to share- 
 
 holders — Right of directors to indem- 
 nity. 
 See Company — Directors. 113. 
 
 — Winding-up order, Eight of creditor to. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 58. 
 INDIA, 
 
 Death Duties. 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 Extradition, 
 
 ,See EXTEADITION. 
 
 Pensions. 
 
 See Bankkuptcy — Assets. 61. 
 
 Salaries, &c., of Judges. 
 Bules dated May 11, 1891, fixing tlie salaries, 
 &c., of the Judges of the Sigh Courts in India. 
 St. E. & 0. 1891, p. 314. 
 
 — Evidence taken in — Irish divorce bill. 
 
 See DivoEOE — Evidence. 78. 
 
 — Pension — Payment to trustee. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Assets. 61. 
 — • Proof of marriage between Christians in 
 British India— Evidence. 
 See Divorce — Evidence. 81. 
 
 INDIAN ARMY PENSION DEFICIENCY FUND 
 
 — Increase of annuity and reduction of rate of 
 interest. See Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, 
 c. 28), s. 87. 
 
 INDIAN KESEBVES— Liability to pay annuities 
 in respect thereof. 
 iSee Canada. 10. 
 
 INDICTMENT— Form of— Procedure. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Practice. 61. 
 INDOESEMENT— Bill of exchange. 
 
 See Bill op Exchange. 10, 11. 
 
 — Forgery — Cheque — Liability. 
 
 See Bankee. 19. 
 
 — Writ. 
 
 See Cases under Peactioe — Writ, 
 
 INDUSTEIiL ASSUEANCE COMPANY, 
 
 See Friendly Society. 8. 
 
 IHDTJSTEIAL AND PEOVIDENT SOCIETY. 
 
 Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. u. 39), consolidates and amends the 
 laws relating to Industrial and Provident 
 Societies. 
 
 Treas. Beg. dated Jan. 1, 1894, were made 
 under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 
 1893. St. E, & 0. 1894, p, 168 (No, 731). 
 
 Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1894 
 (57 & 68 Vict. c. 8), amends the Act of 1893 as to 
 the island of Jersey. 
 
 INDTTSTEIAL AND PEOVIDENT SOCIETY— 
 
 contirmed. 
 
 Industrial and Provident Societies (^Amend- 
 ment) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 30), further 
 amends the Act of 1893. 
 
 Collecting Societies.] Industrial Assur- 
 ance Companies, 1896 (59 * 60 Vid. o. 26), con- 
 solidates the law relating to Friendly Societies, (fee, 
 which receive contributions and premiums hy means 
 of collectors. 
 
 Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 47), repealed so far 
 as relates to registered societies hy the Friendly 
 Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 25), Srd 
 Schedule. 
 
 County Court Bules (Nov.), 1900, Ord. XLl. A. 
 W. N. 1800 (Dec. 8), p. 328 ; see Current Index, 
 1900, p. Ixxxii. 
 
 1. — Application of profits — " Lawful pur- 
 pose " — Strike — Industrial and Provident Societies 
 Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 45), s. 12, sub-s. 7. 
 
 The application to "any lawful purpose" of 
 the profits of an industrial society, authorized by 
 s. 12, sub-B. 7, of the Industrial and Provident 
 Societies Act, 1876, must bo taten to mean an 
 application to any lawful purpose ejusdem 
 generis with the general purposes of the 
 society : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that a contribution to a strike 
 fund was illegal. Waebueton v. Huddees- 
 
 PIELD INDUSTKIAL SOCIETY 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 213 ; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 817 
 But see now Industrial and Provident Societies 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. o. 39), s. 10, sub-s. 6. 
 
 2. — Debentures — Bills of Sale Act (1878) 
 Amendment Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 43, s. 17. 
 
 Debentures issued by a society registered 
 under the Industrial and Provident Societies 
 Acts, and charging the society's personal chattels 
 by way of security for the payment of money, are 
 not exempted by s. 17 of the Bills of Sale Act 
 (1878) Amendment Act, 1882, from the statutory 
 requirements in respect of bills of sale. 
 
 In re Standard Manufacturing Co., [1891] 
 1 Oh. 627, distinguished. Great Noetheen Ey. 
 Co. v. Coal Co-operative Society 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] 1 Ch. 187 
 
 3. — Intestacy of member — Power of com- 
 mittee to distribute property — Industrial and Pro- 
 vident Societies Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 45), 
 s. 11, sub-s. 6 — Industrial and Provident Societies 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 39), s. 27. 
 
 By s. 27 of the Industrial and Provident Socie- 
 ties Act, 1893, if any member of a society entitled 
 to property thereia dies intestate without having 
 made any nomination thereof then subsisting, the 
 committee may without letters of admiuistration 
 distribute the same among such persons as appear 
 to them on such evidence as they deem satisfac- 
 tory to be entitled by law to receive the same : — 
 
 Held, that the power of tlie committee to dis- 
 tribute the property was entirely discretionary, 
 and that they could not be compelled by action 
 to exercise their discretion. Esckitt v. Tod- 
 MORDEN Co-operative Society 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] I Q. B, 461 
 
( 941 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 942 ) 
 
 INDTJSTEIAI AND PEOVIDENT SOCIETY— 
 
 continued. 
 
 4. — Winding-up — Jurisdiction. 
 
 A society registered under the Industrial and 
 Provident Societies Act, 1876, is not within the 
 Companies Winding-iip Act, 1890, and cannot 
 be wound up under that Act, and can only be 
 wound up by tbe proper county court under the 
 Act of 1876, and the County Court Acts. In re 
 London akd Subueban Bank 
 
 North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 604 
 But see now Industrial and Provident Societies 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. o. 39), s. 58. 
 
 Approved by V. Williams J. In re Real 
 Estates Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 398. 
 
 See now Building Societies Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. 0. 47), s. 8, sub-s. 2. 
 
 5. — Winding-up — Jurisdiction of County 
 Court — Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 
 1876, 1893 (39 <£ 40 Viet. c. 45), e. 17 ; (56 * 57 
 Vict. c. 39), ss. 58, 59 — Companies (^Winding-up) 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), s. 10. 
 
 The enactments from time to time in force for 
 the winding-up of cos. in the Ch. Div. held to 
 apply to the winding-up of a registered industrial 
 flociety which was pending in a county court at 
 the passing of the Industrial and Provident 
 Societies Act, 1898, and had not been trans- 
 ferred to the High Court under s. 59 of that Act. 
 In re Febndale Industrial Co-operative 
 Society - - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 828 
 
 INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS. 
 
 See Schools — Industrial and Eeforma- 
 tory Schools. 
 
 — Charity Commissioners — Jurisdiction — Con- 
 sent. 
 See Chabitt. 8. 
 
 INEBBIATES. 
 
 See Dednkenness. 
 
 IN FOBMA PATTPEEIS— Practice. 
 
 See Peaotioe — Forma Pauperis. 
 
 INFANT. 
 
 Custody of Children Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 ■c. 3), amends the law relating to t%e custody of 
 ■children. 
 
 By the ' " Betting and Loans (Infants') Ant, 
 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 4), inciting infants to het 
 or to horrbio money was rendered penal. 
 
 By the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 41), which repealed and 
 ■consolidated the law as to cruelty to children, pro- 
 msion was made as to the custody of children. 
 
 Infant Life Protection Act, 1897 (60 * 61 
 Vict. c. 57), amends, the law for their belter pro- 
 tection. 
 
 Direction of Secy, of State, dated Nov. 26, 
 1897, as to the manner in which an abstract of the 
 provisions of the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, 
 shall be published by Local authorities. St. E. & 0., 
 1897, p. 239, No. 826. -■ 
 
 Infant suingv-'Diseovery and inspection — See 
 Explanatory Memorandum to Coimty Court Mules 
 (JMay) ' 1899, and rules d to 5 and rule 24. 
 W. N. 1899' (May 30), p. 171. See Current Index, 
 1899, p. ozi. 
 
 INFANT— con</n«e(^. 
 
 Guardian ad litem — Appointment of — See 
 Explanatory Memorandum to County Cov/rt Bules 
 (May) 1899, and rules 8 to 13. W. N. 1899 
 (May 20), p. 171. See Current Index, 1899, 
 p. cxi, 
 
 Mines (Prohibition of Child Labour Under- 
 ground) Act, 1900 (63 <£ 64 Vict. c. 21). 
 
 Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892 (55 & 56 
 Vict. c. 4), s. 2, amsnded as to presumption of 
 Icnowledge of infancy. 
 
 See Money-lenders Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict, 
 c. 51), s. 5. 
 
 Generally, col. 942. 
 
 Contracts, col. 943. 
 
 Costs. See Inpant — Practice. 
 
 Custody, col. 946.- 
 
 Election, col. 948. 
 
 Maintenance, col. 949. 
 
 Necessaries, col. 953. 
 
 Offences by, col. 954. 
 
 Practice, col. 954. 
 
 Settlements, col. 955. 
 
 Ward of Court, col. 957. 
 
 ■ Generally. 
 
 — Accumulations. 
 
 See Infant — Maintenance. 23, 24. 
 
 — Borrowing member — Mortgage for advances— 
 
 Bepudiation on attaining twenty- one. 
 See BuiLDiNQ Society. 7. 
 
 — Cestui que trust — Breach of trust — New 
 
 trustees — Liability of retiring trustees. 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 38. 
 
 — Contingent remainders — Intermediate rents — ■ 
 
 Legal and equitable limitations. 
 See "Will. 74. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Infant — Practice. 36, 37. 
 
 — Gavelkind lands — Title. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaseb. 85. 
 
 1. — Jurisdiction. 
 
 The juriisdiotiou of the Court over the real 
 estate of an infant with regard to sale or raising 
 money for the benefit of the infant or the state 
 considered. In re De Teissier's Settled 
 Estates. In re Db Teissier's Trusts. De 
 Teissier v. De Teissier 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Lord De Tabley, 
 [1896] W. N. 162 (16). 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Montagu, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 685, 690. This case was affirmed 
 by C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 8. 
 
 See also Stanford y. Roberts, Buckley J. [1901], 
 W. N. 16. 
 
 — Lease by. 
 
 See Speoipio Performance. 1, 
 
 — Legacy to. 
 
 See Will— Legacy. 129. 
 
 2. — Management of land during minority — • 
 Appointment of trustees — Practice — Infant takinq 
 
( 943 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 944 ) 
 
 INFANT (Generally) — continued. 
 
 'by descent — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. 
 
 c. 41), s. 42, svh-s. 1. 
 
 Summons by the mother and guardian of an 
 infant, for the appointment of trustees, under 
 and for the purposes of s. 42 of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881, of lands to which the infant was 
 entitled in fee simple in possession as the heir- 
 at-law of a deceased great-uncle intestate, since 
 the Laud Transfer Act, 1897, had come into 
 operation, and of whose estate the mother of the 
 infant had been appointed administratrix. The 
 personal estate had been administered and the 
 debts paid. The mother disclaiiped her rights 
 (if any) as trustee under the Land Transfer Act, 
 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. o. 65), or s. 43 of the Con- 
 veyancing Act : — ■ 
 
 BeXd, following In re Glover, [1899], 1 Ir. 387, 
 that s. 42, sub-s. 1, extended to lands descended. 
 The Court would have hesitated to make an 
 appointment of trustees adversely to the mother's 
 riglits as guardian or otherwise, but she having 
 disclaimed, the order in the terms of the summons 
 could properly be made. In re Cowley 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 264 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 38 
 
 — Neglect to procure medical aid — Conscientious 
 
 objection — ^Manslaughter. 
 See Ckiminal Law. 9, 53. 
 
 — Partner — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankeuptot — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 23. 
 
 — Partnership. 
 
 See Partnership — Infants. 
 
 — Partition action — Keal estate of infant — Older 
 
 for sale. 
 
 See Partition. 1. 
 
 — Payment out of court — Infants domiciled in 
 
 France — French law — Eight of father 
 to receive children's money. 
 See Practice— Payment out of Court. 
 141. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land — Infants. 
 
 — Signature — Instrument of dissolution of build- 
 
 ing society. 
 
 See Building Society. 4. 
 Friendly Society. 4. 
 
 — Signature of memorandum of association by. 
 
 See Company— Begistration. 260. 
 
 — Solicitors' costs — Compromise — Lien — Judg- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Solicitor — Lien. 99. 
 ' — Vesting order — Form and effect of. 
 
 See Trustee — ^Vesting Order. 106. 
 
 Contracts. 
 
 3. — Adoption on full age of lease made hy 
 trustees — Compromise — Lapse of time — Coal 
 mines. 
 
 The right of an owner of entailed and un- 
 entailed estates adjoining the sea to work coal 
 below low water-mark was challenged by the 
 Crown during his minority. The trustees of the 
 unentailed lands, who were also curators of the 
 minor, entered into a transaction with the Crown 
 whereby the trustees on their part accepted a 
 lease ot the whole coal below low water-mark ex 
 
 INFANT (Contracts) — continued. 
 adverse the whole estates, and the Grown agreed 
 not to claim damages in respect of the coal 
 worked in the past. Shortly after the proprietor 
 came of age, but in ignorance of his rights, he 
 accepted an assignment of the lease, and also 
 obtained from the Crown a reduction of the 
 royalty payable, and a modification of the mode 
 of working the coal. Fourteen years after the 
 proprietor came of age he raised an action for 
 declarator that the trustees had no right to sign 
 the agreement in respect of the entailed estate, 
 and that their whole agreement with the Crown 
 wag null; and, secondly, that his actings while 
 he was ignorant of his rights did not imply 
 adoption of the agreement and lease. 
 
 Meld, that the respondent the proprietor was 
 barred by lapse of time coupled with his actings. 
 
 The decision of Ct. of Sess., (1896) 24 K. 216, 
 reversed. Lord Advocate v. Wemyss 
 
 H. I, (So.) [1899] W. N. 124 
 
 4. — Apprenticeship deed — Benefit of Infant 
 — Employers and Workmen Act, 1875 (38 & 39 VicL 
 c. 90), ss. 5, 6. 
 
 A clause in an apprenticeship deed provided 
 that the master need not pay wages to the 
 apprentice during any look-out of his workmen, 
 but gave liberty to the apprentice to get work 
 elsewhere ; — • 
 
 Held, that the provision was so much to the 
 detriment of the infant that the apprenticeship 
 deed was void, and not enforceable under ss. 5, 6 
 of the Employers and Workmen Act, 1876. 
 Corn v. Matthews C, A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 310 
 
 Keferred to by Div. Ct. Green v. Thompson, 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 1, 5. 
 
 5. — Apprenticeship deed — Contract not far 
 benefit of infant — Employers and Workmen Act, 
 1875. 
 
 By a deed of apprenticeship of an infant it 
 was provided that the apprentice should serve 
 for a term of years, excepting the usual holidays 
 and days on which the master's business should 
 be at a standstill through accident beyond the 
 control of the master, and that during the said 
 term, excepting and subject as aforesaid, the 
 master should pay the apprentice wages for her 
 services : — 
 
 Held, that the provision that the master 
 should not be liable to pay wages to the appren- 
 tice during the excepted period was not so 
 disadvantageous to her as to render the appren- 
 ticeship deed incapable of being enforced against 
 her under the Employers and Workmen Act, 
 1875. 
 
 Corn V. Matthews, [1893] 1 Q. B. 310, distin- 
 guished. Green v. Thompson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 1 
 ■ — Apprenticeship deed — Covenant to pay pre- 
 mium. 
 See No. 34, below. 
 
 6. — Debt incurred during infancy — Infants 
 Belief Act, 1874 (37 * 38 Vict. c. 62), s. 2. 
 
 An acceptance given by an infant to com- 
 promise an action brought subsequent to his 
 majority for a debt inouried during infancy:— 
 
 Held, to be merely a ratification of the original 
 contract, or a promise after full age to pay a debt 
 
( 945 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 946 ) 
 
 INrAHT (Contiaots)— continued. 
 contracted during infancy, and, theiefore, ayoided 
 by s. 2 of the Infants Kelief Act, 1874. Smith 
 V. King - - Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 643 
 
 — Lease of coal— Adoption — Coal below low 
 water-mark — Barony title. 
 'See Mines. 12. 
 
 7. — Railway shall not be liahlefor negligence, 
 Contract that. 
 
 A rly. contracted with colliers, that in con- 
 sideration of reduced fares, the co. should not be 
 liable for negligence, and further tliat the infants' 
 executors, administrators, and relatives should 
 indemnify the ry. against any action under Lord 
 Campbell's Act : — 
 
 Held, that in the case of an infant the contract 
 was so far prejudicial as to be unfair to him, and 
 was therefore not binding on him. Flowee v. 
 London and Nokth Westebn Bt. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 a. B. 65 
 
 8. — Bepudiation — Shares — Bight to recover. 
 An infant applied for shares in a co., and paid 
 
 the amount due on application and allotment. 
 No dividend was received by her, nor did she 
 attend any meetings. While still under age she 
 brought an action to remove her name from the 
 register and for the return of the moneys. The 
 CO. then went into liquidation. 
 
 Meld, that the only advantage the infant got 
 was the allotment of the shares and the fact that 
 her name was for a time on the register, wbich 
 was not BufiSoient to support the contract, and that 
 she was entitled to prove in the liquidation for 
 the amount paid for the shares. Hamilton v. 
 Vaughan-Shebbin BLEOTErcAL Engineeeing Co. 
 Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch. 589 
 
 9. — Service, Contract of. 
 
 A contract entered into by an infant by which 
 he gets employment, coupled with a bargain on 
 his part that he will not compete in business 
 "with his master after his service ceases, held to be 
 beneficial to the infant, and therefore good. 
 Evans v. Waee North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 602 
 
 10. — Service, Contract of — Insurance against 
 accident — Exoneration of employer. 
 
 An infant entered the sei-vice of a ry. co., 
 and agreed to become a member of an insurance 
 society and to be bound by its rules. TJie ry. co. 
 contributed to the funds of the society. The 
 rules provided compensation for other accidents 
 than those covered by the Employers Liability 
 Act, 1880, but restricted the compensation to less 
 than the amount which could be recovered under 
 that Act, which contained provisions forfeiting 
 benefits in default of notice of an accident, in 
 case of various breaches of the regulations, and 
 referring disputes to arbitration: — 
 
 Hdd, that the agreement to become a member 
 of the society and to be bound by its rules was 
 part of a contract of service into which an infant 
 was competent to enter : — 
 
 Held, also, that the contract was an answer to 
 an action against the ry. co. by the infant under 
 the Act, for the restrictive covenants were such 
 as an insurance society might reasonably make 
 for the protection of its funds ; and the contract 
 taken as a whole was for the benefit of the infant 
 
 INFANT (Contracts)— confe'nued. 
 
 and binding on him. Clements v. London and 
 
 North Westebn Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 482 
 
 Custody. 
 
 11. • — Action in England for judicial separa- 
 tion against domiciled Scotchman — Guardianship 
 of Infants Act, 1886 (49 * 50 Vict. v. 27), s. 5. 
 
 A wife bad brought an action in England for 
 judicial separation from her husband, a domiciled 
 Scotsman, and had removed the children to 
 England, and the Ct. of Sess. had by interlocutor 
 ordered her to give custody of them. On her 
 undertaking to abandon the proceedings in 
 England and to commence without delay an 
 action in Scotland the H. L. recalled the inter- 
 locutor and remitted the cause to the Ct. of Sess. 
 to sist the proceedings pending the decision of 
 sucli action : the wife to have interim custody of 
 the children, and the husband reasonable access. 
 GiBBS (or Stevenson) ■;;. Stevenson 
 
 H. I. (Sc.) [1894] W. N. 104 
 
 12. — Appointment of guardian iy mother — ■ 
 Guardianship of Infants Act, 18S6 (49 & 50 Vict, 
 c. 27), 5. 3, sub-s. 2, s. 13. 
 
 The provisional appointment or nomination 
 by a mother, during the father's lifetime, under 
 s. 3, sub-B. 2, of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 
 1886, of guardians of her infant child after her 
 death, should be, in form, an appointment of 
 guardians to act "jointly with the father." 
 Conditions on which the Court will, after the 
 mother's death, confirm such appointment or 
 altogether displace the father considered. In re 
 
 G (an Infant) 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1892] 1 Ch. 292 
 
 13. — Appointment of guardian by mother — 
 Bemoval — Jurisdiction— Guardianship of Infants 
 Act, 1886 (49 * 50 Vict. c. 27), s. 3, sub-s. 2, s. 13. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Court, so far as it 
 relates to infants not wards of Courts, is limited 
 to the appointment and removal of guardians. 
 The Court has jurisdiction to remove a guardian 
 appointed by the mother under the Act of 1886, 
 if satisfied that it is for the benefit of the infant 
 to do so. The parents of two children were 
 Eoman Catholics. After the father's death the 
 mother became a Protestant, and appointed as 
 guardian a Protestant lady, who took care of the 
 children for some time during the mother's life- 
 time, and brought them up as Protestants. The 
 Court under the circumstances refused to remove 
 the guardian appointed by the mother. In re 
 MoGeath (Infants) North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 496 ; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 143 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Newton, [1896] 
 1 Ch. 740, 747. 
 
 14. — ■ Guardianship — Mother surviving sole 
 guardian — Beligion — Protestant parents — Ilemar- 
 riage of mother — Boman Catholic husband — 
 Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict, 
 c. 27), s. 2 — Discretion of the Court. 
 
 Under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, 
 where there is no guardian appointed by the 
 father in existence, the mother, if surviving the 
 father, is entitled to be the sole guardian of an 
 infant child of the marriage ; and although the 
 Court has power in such case, both under the 
 
( 947 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 948 ) 
 
 INFANT (Custody) -con^TOttecZ. 
 Act and of its own jurisdiction, to appoint a 
 guardian to act jointly with the mother, the fact 
 that the mother has married a second husband of 
 a faith different to that which she professes and 
 in which the infant is being educated, is not of 
 itself sufficient to justify the exercise of the power, 
 so long as there is no personal misconduct or 
 interference with the proper bringing up of the 
 infant. 
 
 5;The Court will only interfere where it is 
 shewn that, having regard to the real benefit of 
 the infant, it ought to do so. 
 
 Appeal from Kekewich J. allowed. In re X. 
 X. v.Y. - - C. A. [1899] W. N. 15 (8) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 626 
 
 15. — Guardianship — Parental authority — 
 Wards of Court — Meligious education — Misconduct 
 
 of father. 
 
 Although by law it is the right of the father 
 to have the care and custody of his infaut 
 children and to have them brought up in his 
 own religion, the welfare of the infanta is the 
 paramount consideration, and the Court has 
 jurisdiction in a proper case to deprive a father 
 of the custody of his children, and to disregard 
 his wishes as to their religious education. The 
 conduct of a living father may be such as to 
 compel the Court to exercise this jurisdiction. 
 
 A Koman Catholic father allowed his two 
 infant children by a deceased Protestant wife to 
 be brought up in the Protestant faith until one 
 of them was fifteen and the other eleven years of 
 age, and his conduct to them, in the view of the 
 Court, shewed that he had abdicated his parental 
 rights. The children were wards ot Court, and 
 the father, being desirous of resuming his parental 
 authority, applied to the Court for an order that 
 the children might thenceforth be brought up in 
 the Roman Catholic faith : — ■ 
 
 Held, by C A., affirming the judgment of 
 Kekewich J., that it would be injurious to the 
 welfare of the children that their religious training 
 should be altered, and that, having regard to 
 the conduct of the father and the circumstances 
 of the case, his application must be refused. In 
 re Newton (Infants) C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 74.0 
 
 16. — Guardianship — Eeligion. 
 
 Where an orphan, the child of a Protestant 
 father and Eoman Catholic mother, had been 
 left without la guardian, the Court, considering 
 only the welfare of the child, but having due 
 regard to the wishes of the father as to her 
 religious education, ordered her to be delivered 
 to the mother's cousin, a Protestant, to be brought 
 up as a Protestant, although the child had been, 
 with the father's consent, baptized as a Eoman 
 Catholic. An antenuptial agreement as to the 
 religion of the children is not binding on the 
 father nor on the Conrt. In re Violet Nevin 
 <AN Infant) - ■ - Chitty J. 
 
 [affirm, by C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 299 
 
 17. — Guardianship — Talfourd's Act (2 <fc 3 
 Vict. a. Si)— Custody of Infants Act, 1873 (36 cfc 
 37 Vict. c. 12)— Guardianship of Infants Act, 
 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 27), s. 5 
 
 Aot lol^^- ^ "^ *lie Guardianship of Infants 
 accour;? +?: ^^^. ^°"''' ^^"■s. softer taking into 
 account the various considerations mentioned in 
 
 INFANT (Custody) — continued. 
 that section, full jurisdiction to override entirely 
 the common law rights of a father in relation to 
 the custody of his infant children. 
 
 In " having regard to ... . the conduct cf 
 the parents and the wishes as !well as of the 
 mother as of the father," the Court will not treat 
 the parents in an unequal manner or differently 
 the one from the other, but will take the whole 
 conduct and wishes of both parents into con- 
 sideration. 
 
 The Court will in a proper case give a mother 
 the custody of her infant children, notwith- 
 standing that the mother may have been guilty 
 of matrimonial misconduct. In re A. and B. 
 (Infants) - C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 786 
 
 18. — Illegitimate child — Eights of mother — ■ 
 
 — Guardianship. 
 
 (a) In determining who is entitled to have 
 the custody and control over an illegitimate 
 child, the Court, in exercising its jurisdiction 
 with a view to the benefit of the child, wiU 
 primarily consider the wishes of the mother. 
 Ees. v. Barnakdo. Jones' Case 
 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 194 ; 
 
 affirm, by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Babnaedo v. 
 
 MoHuGH [1891] A. C. 388 
 
 (b) The authorities do not establish the pro- 
 position that the legal rights of the mother of an 
 illegitimate child as to its custody are the same 
 as those of the father of a legitimate child. But 
 semhle, that the obligation cast on the mother 
 of an illegitimate child by 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, 
 s. 71, to maintain it till it attains the age of six- 
 teen, involves a right to its custody. Per Lords 
 Herschell and Field in Baknabdo «. McHugh 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 388 
 But see Custody of Children Act, 1891 (51 & 
 55 Vict. ^. 3), =. 3. 
 
 — Habeas corpus — Considerations other than 
 
 paternal rights. 
 See Canada. 44. 
 
 ■ Irish Divorce Bill — Practice. 
 See DivoEOB — Evidence. 
 
 78. 
 
 19. — Paternal authority controlled hy ex- 
 ternal considerations. 
 
 The extent to which the Court will interfere 
 with a father's legal power over his children 
 considered in a case where the common law as 
 modified by a Canadian statute framed on the 
 principle of Talfourd's Act applied. Smakt v. 
 Smart P. C. [1892] A. C, 426 
 
 20. — Eight of parent to guardianship. 
 
 The Court will consider the interests of the 
 child if it be essential, and for its interests will 
 refuse the legal guardian the custody of the 
 child even without misconduct on the guardian's 
 part. Eeo. v. Gtngall C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 232 
 And see Cases under DrvoKCE— Children. 
 
 Election. 
 
 21. — Possible isstte— Declaration by Court — 
 Form of order. 
 
 By settlement J. B. settled certain freehold 
 houses upon trust for each of his four children, 
 the defls. J., A,, M. and S., for life with remainder 
 for their respective children in fee simple. 
 
( 949 ) 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 950 ) 
 
 INFANT (Election)— conHnued. 
 Subsequently J. B. by will purported to dispose 
 again of the property comprised in the setlle- 
 ment, giving it in a manner inconsistent with the 
 settlement, and he had given other property 
 upon trusts in favour of his said four children 
 and their issue similar in every respect to the 
 trusts declared by the settlement. The property 
 given by the will was in each case of greater 
 value than tliat given by the settlement. J. had 
 children who were infants. A., M. and S. were 
 spinsters. A. was a person of unsound mind not 
 80 found by inquisition, and she appeared by her 
 guardian ad litem. 
 
 The trustees of the settlement, who were also 
 the trustees and executors of the will, took out a 
 summons asking (1) whether it would be for the 
 benefit of the issue or possible issue of the said 
 four defts. that the said defts. should respec- 
 tively elect for themselves and their issue to 
 take under the will and not under the settlement ; 
 and (2) that it might be declared that each of 
 the said four defts. and his or her issue respec- 
 tively took under the wiU and not under the 
 eettlement. 
 
 Kekewich J. made the following order : It 
 appearing by the evidence that it is for the 
 benefit of the deft. A. and of the issue or possible 
 issue of the defts. J., A., M. and S. that the said 
 defts. should elect for themselves and their issue 
 to take under the provisions of the above-men- 
 tioned will and not under the provisions of the 
 above-mentioned settlement, this Court doth 
 declare that they ought so to elect, and tbat 
 each of the said defts. J., A., M. and S. and his 
 or her issue respectively take under the provisions 
 of the above-mentioned will and not under the 
 provisions of the above-mentioned settlement. 
 In re Baenett. Baker v. Babnett 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1900] W. N. 81 
 
 Maintenance. 
 
 22. — Accounts — Chmrdian and ward — Main- 
 tenance and establishment of pupil heir. 
 
 Where the mother is the sole guardian of the 
 heir to large estates the sum allowed the mother 
 for the upkeep of establishment and education 
 of the heir ought to be such sum as prudent 
 guardians would allow to her " as mother." To 
 decide what is a reasonable sum all the circum- 
 fitances of each case must be considered ; the 
 governing consideration being what is for the 
 interest of the heir. 
 
 Whether the guardian of a minor heir is a 
 relative or not, strict yearly accounts of the 
 administration of the minor's property ought to 
 be kept. Babnes (or Eoss) v. lloss 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 625 
 
 23. — Acemnulations — Vested life interest — 
 Eight to fund accumulated during minority — 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 43, 
 £ub-ss. 2, 3. 
 
 Where a testator gave to an infant an imme- 
 diate vested life interest in his residuary 
 «state : — 
 
 Beld, that the income which accumulated, 
 after maintenance, between the testator's death 
 and the infant's marriage, belonged to her abso- 
 lutely and was not an accretion to capital, the 
 
 INFANT (Maintenance) — continued. 
 immediate gift shewing an intention (sub-s. 3), to 
 exclude the provisions of sub-s. 2, s. 43, of the 
 Conveyancing .Act, 1881. In re Humphreys. 
 Htjmpheeys v. Levett - C. A, [1893] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 24. — AccumuUxticms — Trust — Validity — Be- 
 moteness — Discretion of trustees — Time for exercise 
 — Power to resort to past accumulations — Will — 
 Construction. 
 
 A testator bequeathed to trustees the residue 
 of his personal estate, upon trust for investment 
 and to apply the whole income, or such part 
 thereof as his trustees or trustee for the time 
 being in their absolute discretion should think 
 fit, in or towards the maintenance, education, 
 apprenticeship, or in any other manner for the 
 benefit of the child or children of the testator's 
 sister, until they should respectively attain the 
 age of twenty-three, and to accumulate and 
 invest as capital any unapplied portion of the 
 income. And upon further trust, as to both capi- 
 tal and income of the investments, to stand 
 possessed thereof upon trust for the child, if only 
 one, or all the children, if more than one, of the 
 sister who, either before or after her decease, 
 should attain twenty-three (such children, if 
 more than one, to take in equal shares as tenants 
 in common), and the issue of such of the children 
 of the sister as might be then dead, such issue 
 taking only as tenants in common the share 
 which their respective parents would have taken 
 if living. 
 
 The testator died in Feb., 1888. His sister, 
 who was a widow, had only two children, a 
 daughter who attained twenty-three on March 
 10, 1892, and a son who was born on May 28, 
 1874. On Jan. 30, 1889, upon a summons issued 
 by the trustees of the will, the sister's two children 
 being defts., the Court was of opinion that the 
 bequest of the residuary personalty to her children 
 was void for remoteness, but that the persons to 
 take the residuary personalty could not be deter- 
 mined till her death. And it was ordered that 
 the trustees should accumulate the surplus income 
 until further order. The trustees had never ap- 
 plied any part of the income under the discre- 
 tionary trust for maintenance, &o., but had 
 accumulated the whole in accordance with the 
 order. TTpon a summons in 1895 by the sister's 
 two children : — 
 
 Held, that the trust for maintenance was 
 distinct from the trust of the capital of the 
 residuary personalty, and was valid; that tho 
 trustees could now exercise the discretion given 
 to them by the will; that in their absolute 
 discretion they might now apply all or any part 
 of the income which accrued down to March 10, 
 1892, and of the accumulations thereof, in or 
 towards the maintenance, &c., of the two pits., 
 and similarly might apply all or any part of the 
 income from March 10, 1892, and of the accumu- 
 lations thereof, and of the future income and 
 accumulations until the younger pit. should 
 attain twenty-three for his maintenance, &c. In 
 re Wise. Jaokson v. Pabeott 
 
 North J, [1896] ICh. 281 
 
 25. — Advancement. 
 
 The legal operation and effect of clauses for 
 maintenance and advancement where no legal 
 
( 951 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 952 ) 
 
 INFANT (Maintenance) — continued. 
 estate is vested in tte trustees, discussed and 
 stated. Dean v. Dean CMtty J. [1891] 3 Ch. ISO 
 Followed by North J. Sijmes v. Symes, [1896] 
 
 X Oil. Lt L^ iill. 
 
 26. — ChiU above sixteen — Divorce came — 
 Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857, 1859 (20 & 21 Viet. 
 ^■. 85), s. 35 ; (22 & 23 Viet. c. 61), s. i. 
 
 The Court has power to make orders in a 
 divorce cause respecting the custody, main- 
 tenance, and education of children during the 
 whole period of their infancy— that is, till they 
 attain the age of twenty-one years. Thomasset 
 V. Thomasset - C. A. revers. Jenne P. 
 
 [1894] P. 295 
 And see Cases under Divokce — Children. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Bishop v. Bishop. 
 JudJdns V. Judldns, [1897] 138, 154. 
 
 27. — ■ Contingent gift of leaseholds — Share 
 ■vesting at twenty-one — Separation from general 
 estate — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 * 45 Vict, 
 c. 41), s. 43. 
 
 A testator gave leasehold property upon trust 
 to pay the income to his daughter during her life, 
 and after her death to transfer the same to all 
 her children, in equal shares, the shares to vest 
 at twenty-one, and in the case of daughters at 
 twenty-one or marriage. The testator gave bis 
 residuary estate upon certain trusts. The 
 daughter died leaving several children, all 
 infants : — 
 
 Held, that the effect of the bequest being to 
 separate the leaseholds from the general estate 
 of the testator, the intermediate income until 
 one of the childreu attained a vested interest was 
 applicable to the maintenance of the infants. 
 Kidman v. Kidman, 40 L.J. (Ch.) 359, followed. 
 Furneaux v. Rucker, [1879] W. N. 139, dis- 
 approved. In re Woodin. Woodin v. Glass 
 
 C. A. revers. North J. [1895] 2 Ch. 309 
 
 28. ' — Contingent interest — Intermediate in- 
 come — Gift to members of class for life contingently 
 on attaining twenty-one— Conveyancing Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 43. 
 
 (a) a testator gave his residuary estate, 
 subject to certain annuities, to a class for life, 
 contingently on their attaining twenty-one : — ■ 
 
 . Held, that the surplus income could not be 
 employed for the maintenance of infants, but 
 belonged to such of the class as had attained 
 twenty-one, and that s. 43 of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881, did not apply. In re Jeefert. Bukt 
 V. Abnold - North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 671 
 
 This case was overruled in In re Holford. 
 Holford V. Holford, C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 30, (d) 
 belmo. 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re Jeffery. Arnold 
 V. Burt, [1895] 2 Ch. 577. 
 
 (B) Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 * 45 Vict. 
 
 c. 41), «. 43. Trustees held to have power under 
 
 s. 43 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, to devote, 
 
 for the maintenance of infants, the intermediate 
 
 income of property in which the infants had, 
 
 under a will, an interest contingent on their 
 
 ^^^'^'r^"^ "S® "wliile all the class are infants and 
 unmarried. 
 
 INFANT (Maintenance) — continued. 
 
 Whether the first infant who attains twenty- 
 one would be entitled to the whole income, quiere. 
 
 (a) In re Burton's Will. Banks v. Heaven 
 CMtty J. [1892] 2 Ch. 38, at p. 46 
 
 Q)) In re Adams. Adams v. Adams 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 329 
 
 In re Adams was overruled in In re Holford. 
 Holford V. Holford, (p) below. 
 
 (e) III re Caldwell [1894] W. N. 13 
 
 (0) Where a testator gave a fund to grand- 
 nephews and nieces in equal shares as tenants in 
 common contingents on their attaining twenty- 
 one, and where some of the class had, and others 
 had not, attained that age : — 
 
 Held, that the income belonged to those of 
 the class who had attained twenty-one in equal 
 shares as tenants in common, notwithstanding 
 that the will directed the income of the share of 
 each of the class during minority to be paid to 
 the parent forming the connecting link with the 
 testator for the exclusive benefit of such parent. 
 In re Caldwell. Hamilton v. Hamilton 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 13 
 See now next Case. 
 
 (d) Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict, 
 c. 41), s. 43. A testator gave his residuary per- 
 sonalty on trust to divide it equally between such 
 of a class of sis as should attain twenty-one. One 
 of the class who had alone attained twenty-one, 
 held entitled to one-sixth of the original capital 
 and of the accumulated fund and income down to 
 the time of her interest vesting, but not to the 
 income of the remaining five-sixths of the capital 
 of the fund during the suspense of vesting : the 
 income of such five-sixths being applicable, under 
 s. 43 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, during the 
 suspense to the maintenance of the five infants. 
 In re Holford. Holford v. Holfokd - C. A. 
 
 affirm. CMtty J. [1894] 3 Ch. 30 
 Held by Eomer J. not to apply in In re 
 Aherill, [1898] 1 Ch. 523. 
 
 (e) Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict, 
 c. 41), s. 43. Property was settled on trust for 
 such members of a class (capable of increase) as 
 should attain twenty-one : — 
 
 Held, that the accumulated income was 
 divisible into as many shares as there were 
 members in existence; that one share was 
 payable to each adult ; and one share was ap- 
 plicable under s. 43 of the Conveyancing Act, 
 1881, for the maintenance of each infant. In re 
 Jeffery. Arnold v. Bdrt - - North J. 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 677 
 
 29. — Contingent interest — Intermediate in- 
 come — Bight to — Specific contingent legacy — Con- 
 veyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 43. 
 
 Where there is a specific gift to an infant on 
 attaining twenty-one, the intermediate income 
 does not pass. 
 
 Bat where a specific legacy is segregated from 
 the mass of the testator's estate, to go as a con- 
 tingency it carries with it all accretions to the 
 contingent legatee on the happening of the .con- 
 tingency. 
 
 Therefore, where stock was bequeathed on 
 trust for such of a class as shall attain twenty- 
 one, held that the members of the class on attain- 
 
( 953 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 954 ) 
 
 INFANT (Maintenance) — continued. 
 ing twenty-one were entitled to the intermediate 
 income, and by a. 43 of tlie Conveyancing Act, 
 1881, the trustees had power to allow main- 
 tenance out of the income. In re Clements. 
 Clements v. Veabsall Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 665 
 Applied by C. A. In re Woodin. Woodin v. 
 Glass, [1895] 2 Ch. 309. 
 
 30. — Contingent interests — Settled estates — 
 Terms for raising portions. 
 
 Where portions are given to younger children 
 under a settlement made by a fatlier, or other 
 person standing in loco parentis, and the settle- 
 ment contains no provision for the maintenance 
 of the children, interest by way of maintenance 
 for the children during minority will be allowed 
 on their portions although their interests are 
 contingent. In re Gbeavbs' Settled Estates. 
 Jones v. Gkeaves Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 144; 
 
 [1900] a Ch. 683 
 
 31. — Contingent interest — Trustees — Discre- 
 tion — Jurisdiction of Court to interfere. 
 
 A testator declared that after the decease or 
 marriage again of his wife, his trustees should 
 apply the whole or saeh part of the income of 
 the expectant share of any child for or towards 
 the maintenance, &c., of such child. The widow 
 married again, and the trustees declined to 
 make her an allowance towards the infant's 
 maintenance : — 
 
 Held, that there was no absolute trust to 
 apply the income for the maintenance, but a 
 discretionary trust, equivalent to a power, and 
 that the Court would not interfere with the bonS, 
 fide exercise of the trustees' discretion. In re 
 Bbtant. Bbtant v. Hiokley 
 
 CMtty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 32. — Education — Bringing up — Immoral 
 home — Trustee's discretion — Control of Court — 
 Breach of trust — Guardian — Schoolmistress — 
 Landlord of lodgings. 
 
 A trustee who, in pursuance of a trust to main- 
 tain, educate, and bring up infants, brings them 
 up in an iinmoral home, commits a breach of trust. 
 
 Bequest of a fund to a wife during her widow- 
 hood, " she maintaining, educating, and bringing 
 up" the testator's unmarried infant sons and 
 unmarried daughters. The widow, whUe duly 
 maintaining and educating the children, lived 
 in adultery with a married man in the home she 
 provided for them : — 
 
 Held, that this was a breach of the trust im- 
 posed on her, and that the Court could administer 
 the fund. 
 
 Castle V. Castle, (1857) 1 De G. and J. 352, 
 
 followed. In re G. (Infants) - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 38 (2); [1899] 1 Ch. 719 
 
 — Legacy to infant by parent— Interest by way 
 
 of maintenance. 
 
 See "Will— legacy. 180. 
 
 — Poor-law settlement. 
 
 gee Cases under PooB Law. 
 
 — "Eefuse or neglect" to reside in mansion- 
 
 house. 
 
 See Will— Condition. 62. 
 
 Necessaries. 
 
 33. — " Kecessa/riet"—Bill of exchange— Ac- 
 ceptance— Infants Bdief Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. 
 
 INFANT (Necessaries) — continuM. 
 
 c. 62, 8. 1) ; BilU of Excliange Act, 1882 (45 & 40 
 
 Vict. c. 61), 8. 22. 
 
 An infant cannot bind himself by the accept- 
 ance of a bill of exchange, even although the 
 bill be given for the price of necessaries supplied 
 to him during infancy, and such an acceptance is 
 wholly void. In re Solttkoff. Ex parte Mab- 
 gbett - - C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 413 
 
 34. — " Necessaries " — Payment of premium. 
 A covenant under seal was entered into by an 
 
 infant, with the consent of his guardian, that he 
 would pay what was held to be a reasonable 
 premium, if he were taught the business to which 
 he was apprenticed. In an action to recover the 
 balance of the premium, the jury found that the 
 deed was a provident and proper arrangement, 
 and necessary if the infant wished to learn the 
 business, and that the premium was fair and 
 reasonable, and that instruction had been given 
 under the deed : — 
 
 Held, that the liability of the infant for 
 necessary instruction duly provided stood on the 
 same footing as that for ordinary necessaries 
 supplied to him, and that the master could 
 recover for the instruction as necessaries without 
 reference to the covenant. Walteb v. Evebabu 
 C. A. afarm. Grantham J. [1891] 2 Q. B. 369 
 
 35. — " Necessaries '' — Infant performing at 
 music halls — Theatrical agent. 
 
 An infant who earned her living by perform- 
 ing at music halls employed a theatrical agent 
 to procure her engagements on commission. The 
 agent procured her engagements and the infant 
 had the benefit of them. In an action by the 
 agent for the commission :— 
 
 Held, that infancy was a defence. Lofthousb 
 V. Beown - - Biv. Ct. [1898] W. N. 52 (2) 
 
 Offences by. 
 
 — Education Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Schools. 
 
 — Offences against the person. 
 
 See Cases under Ceiminal Law — Offences 
 against the Person. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 36. — Costs — Jurisdiction — Infant defendant 
 ordered to pay costs. 
 
 Where an injunction was granted to restrain 
 an infant deft, from representing that the 
 business carried on by him was connected with 
 the business ctoi-ied on by the pit. : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to order 
 the infant deft, to pay the costs of the action. 
 
 ChvJjb V. Griffiths, (1865) 35 Beav. 127, and 
 Lempriere v. Lange, (1879) 12 Ch. D. 675, fol- 
 lowed. WooLF V. WooLF Kekewich J. [1898] 
 W. N. 173 (10); [1899] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 37. — Costs of useless litigation hy next friend. 
 Costs of unsuccessful litigation by next 
 
 friend. 
 
 (a) Observations of Lindley L.J. In re EiSH. 
 Bennett v. Bennett C. A, [1893] 2 Ch. 413, 422 
 
 (b) In re HiCBS. Lindon v. Hembby 
 
 North J, [1893] W. N. 138 
 — Discovery — Infant plaintiffs. 
 
 See Discoveey — Documents, 17. 
 
( 955 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 956 ) 
 
 INFANT (Practice) — continued. 
 
 — Discovery — Infants — Next friend. 
 
 See DisoovBBT — Documents. 18. 
 
 Settlements. 
 
 38. — After-acquired property (18 & 19 Vict. 
 c. 43) s. 1. 
 
 By B. 1 of tlie Infants Settlement Act, 1855, 
 an infant is empowered, with the sanction of the 
 Court, to enter into a coyenant to settle after- 
 acquired property; and such a covenant will 
 apply to and bring within the settlement an 
 interest acquired by the settlor under the will 
 of a person who dies after the execution of 
 the settlement, as being property in expectancy 
 within s. 1 of the Act. J« re Johnsoit. Moobe 
 V. Johnson North J. [1891] 3 Ch. 48 
 
 39. — After-acquired property — Election — 
 Compensation. 
 
 Covenant by husband and infant wife in an 
 antenuptial settlement, drawn in the ordinary 
 form but not approved by the Court, to settle 
 the wife's present and future property. On the 
 marriage being dissolved, a declaration was sought 
 that the covenant was inoperative : — • 
 
 Held, (1) that the covenant was inoperative, 
 except as to property which had already fallen 
 into possession; (2) that if the wife elected to 
 avoid the covenant her reversionary interests in 
 other property under the settlement and in a 
 house settled by deed of even date recited in the 
 settlement should be impounded to compensate 
 those who lost by her election, but that such 
 compensation was subject to the restraints on 
 anticipation. Hamilton v. Hamilton 
 
 North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 40. — After-acquired property — Wife an 
 infant — Deed iy wife on majority affirming 
 settlement — Not acknowledged. 
 
 Where a wife after attaining twenty-one by 
 deed affirms a settlement executed by her before 
 marriage whilst an infant, such settlement is 
 binding on her, even though it be unacknow- 
 ledged and contain a covenant to settle after- 
 acquired property. In re Hodson. Williams 
 V. Knight - - Chitty J. [1894] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 Referred to by North J. Harle v. Jarman, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 419, at p. 428. 
 
 41. — Appointment — Death under twenty-one 
 
 — Infants SettUment Act, 1855 (18 * 19 Vict, 
 c. 43), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 In order to make a settlement on her marriage, 
 an infant, with the sanction of the Court, exer- 
 cised a general power of appointment. The 
 infant died under age and without issue : — 
 
 Seld, that, as she was not tenant in tail, the 
 appointment was good, notwithstanding her death 
 under age; that by the appointment she had, 
 subject to the settlement, made the property 
 her own, and that, on failure of the limitations 
 in the settlement, it passed to her husband as 
 her administrator. Sect. 2 of the Infants Settle- 
 ment Act, 1855, does not avoid appointment 
 under s. 1, except where the infant is tenant in 
 tail. In re ScoTT. Soott v. Hanbukt 
 
 North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 298 
 
 — Katifioatiou — Marriage settlement — Eepudi- 
 
 ation— Eectification. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 6. 
 
 INFANT (Settlements) — continued. 
 
 42. — Mepudiation — Married woman — Sepa- 
 rate estate — Settlement hy infant — Subsequent repu- 
 diation — Married Women's Property Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. V. 75), ss. 2, 19 — Construction — 
 Recital of agreement — Implied covenant. 
 
 The principle stated in Sancock v. Hancock, 
 (1888) 38 Ch. D. 78— namely, that s. 19 of the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882, prevents 
 B. 5 of that Act from interfering with any settle- 
 ment which would have bound the property if 
 the Act had not been passed — applies also to s. 2 
 and to settlements by which the wife is not 
 bound. 
 
 SUvens v. Trevor-GarricJc, [189.3] 2 Ch. 307, 
 followed. 
 
 An ante-nuptial settlement made between the 
 intended husband, the intended wife (an infant), 
 and trustees recited an agreement that property 
 belonging to the wife and then in the hands of 
 the trustees should be settled. By the testatum 
 the wife, in pursuance of the agreement, declared 
 that tlie trustees should hold the property on 
 certain trusts. There was no declaration or 
 covenant by the husband. On attaining twenty- 
 one the wife repudiated the settlement : — 
 
 Held, that there was an agreement between 
 the husband and the trustees, and that the recital 
 of that agreement was operative as between the 
 parties to it, although unaccompanied by any 
 obligation binding on the infant wife. The hus- 
 band's marital right was affected by the agree- 
 ment; there was, therefore, a settlement which 
 would have bound the property if the Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882, had not been 
 passed, and the wife was not entitled to have 
 the trust funds transferred to her as her separate 
 estate. Buokland v. Buokland 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 169; [1900] 2 Ch. 534 
 
 43. — Repudiation — Reasonable time — Costs. 
 Covenant to settle after-acquired property. 
 
 A husband sought, five years after he came of 
 age, to set aside a marriage settlement which 
 had been made when he was an infant. The 
 settlement was for his benefit as an infant, but 
 had not been confirmed by the Court : — • 
 
 Held, by H. L. (E.) and by C. A. (revers. 
 
 Homer J.) that (1) the settlement was voidable, 
 
 not void ; (2) the repudiation came too late ; 
 
 (3) in order to establish the invalidity of au 
 
 infant's repudiation of a contract after he comes 
 
 of age, it is not necessary to shew his knowledge of 
 
 the facts and of his rights, as in a case of waiver, 
 
 acquiescence, or election. Carter v. Silbek. 
 
 Caeteb v. Hasluok Somer J. [1831] 3 Ch. 553 ; 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch, 278 ; C. A, affirm. 
 
 by H, L, (E.) siib nom. Bdwabds v. Carter 
 
 [1893] A. C, 360 
 
 44. — Repudiation — Reasonable time. 
 
 (a) Application to set aside a settlement 
 made in 1857, without the sanction of the Court, 
 on the marriage of the applicant, then an infant. 
 Nothing was received under the settlement until 
 1890 :— 
 
 Held, that the repudiation was made in reason- 
 able time, as there was no reason why the applicant 
 should take any steps in the matter until the 
 settlement took effect. In re Jones. Farrington 
 V. FoREESTEB North J. [1893] 2 Ch, 461 
 
( 957 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900 
 
 ( 958 ) 
 
 INFANT (Settlements)— conWrejied. 
 
 (b) Application made in 1890 after divorce to 
 set aside settlement made in 1879, held to be made 
 in reasonable time. Hamilton v. Hamilton 
 
 North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 396 
 
 45. — Repudialion — Married Women's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), ss. 2, 19. 
 
 An infant on ber marriage in 1890 joined 
 mtb ber busband in assigning a sum to trustees 
 of ber settlement : — 
 
 Meld, that the sum was effectually included 
 in the settlement by the- husband's assignment, 
 and could not be dealt -with by the wife, not- 
 withstanding her disaffirming the settlement 
 on attaining twenty-one. Effect of ss. 2, 19, of 
 the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, con- 
 sidered. Stevens v. Tkeyok-Gakriok 
 
 Chitty J, [1893] 2 Ch. 307 
 
 Eeferred to by Buckley J. Buehland v. 
 Buckland, [1900] 2 Ch. 534, 538. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land — Infants, 
 
 — Signature to instrument of dissolution of 
 
 society. 
 
 See Building Sooiett. 4. 
 
 — Tenant in tail in possession — Form of vesting 
 
 order. 
 
 See Tkustbe — Vesting Order. 106. 
 
 — Variation of settlements — Interest of children 
 
 — Wife's power of appointment to 
 
 busband. 
 
 See DivoECE — Settlements. 124. 
 
 46. — Wife an infant — Deed hy wife on ma- 
 jority affirming settlement. 
 
 Where a wife after attaining twenty-one by 
 deed affirms a settlement executed by her before 
 marriage whilst an infant, such settlement is 
 binding on her, even though it be unacknow- 
 ledged and contain a covenant to settle after- 
 acquired property. In re Hodson. Williams 
 V. Knight - - Chitty J. [1894] 2 Ch, 421 
 
 Applied by Cozens -Hardy J. Viditz v. 
 O'Hagan, [1899] 2 Ch. 569, 575. This Case 
 was reversed by C. A., [1899] 2 Ch. 87. 
 
 Ward of Court. 
 
 47. — Enforcement of order for custody — 
 8ergeant-at-arms — Tipstaff— Proper officei — Form 
 of order. 
 
 Notwithstanding the changes made by the 
 Judicature Acts, there still is such an officer as 
 the " Sergeant-at- Arms attending the Court," 
 and he is the proper officer to execute and enforce 
 all orders for the production or custody of a ward 
 
 of Court. G V. L 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 126 
 
 48. — Marriage after attaining twenty-one^- 
 Settlement. 
 
 A. obtained leave of the Court to pay his 
 addresses to a ward of Court on an undertaking 
 that he would abide by the directions and orders 
 of the Court. No directions were given or 
 applied for. Immediately after the ward came 
 of age she made a settlement of her property, 
 giving a joint power of appointment to husband 
 and wife in priority to the other trusts, and the 
 
 INFANT (Ward of Ooviit)— continued. 
 
 marriage was arranged to take place without the 
 
 consent of the Court : — 
 
 Beld, that A.'s undertaking operated only so 
 long as the lady continued to be a ward of Court, 
 and A. would not be committing a contempt in 
 marrying, and that the Court had no jurisdiction 
 to restrain the parties from marrying, or the ward 
 from disposing of her property, as she pleased. 
 Bolton v. Bolton - C, A. [1891] 3 Ch. 270 
 
 INFECTIOUS DISEASES — PmMjo SealtJi Act, 
 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 19), makes further provi- 
 sion as to Epidemic, Endemic and Infectious 
 Diseases and repeals Acts relating to Quarantine. 
 The Public Health (Ports) Act, 1896 (59 * 60 
 Vict. c. 20), assigns powers under Infectious 
 Disease Prevention Act, 1890, to port samitary 
 authority. 
 
 Notification — Infectious Disease (Notification') 
 Extension Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. e. 8), extends 
 the Act of 1889 to districts (Huddersfield Corpo- 
 ration excepted) in which it has not ieen adopted. 
 
 — Infectious disorder — Order of removal. 
 
 See Justices. 11. 
 
 IN FOBHA FAUFEBIS. 
 
 See Phaotice — Forma Fauperis. 
 
 INFOEMATION— Attorney-General's powers- 
 Laws of Quebec. 
 See Canada. 55. 
 
 — By whom it may be laid. 
 
 See Mine. 16. 
 
 — Consent in writing of chief constable — Sunday 
 
 observance. 
 See Sunday. 2. 
 
 — " Counselling " commission of offence — 
 
 Cruelty to animals — Summary jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 See Justices. 5. 
 
 — Discovery — Production of documents — ^Eight 
 
 of the Crown. 
 
 See DiscovEET — Documents, 15, 29. 
 
 — Dismissal — Costs — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Justices. 3. 
 
 — Larceny — Reasonable suspicion — Search- 
 
 warrant. 
 
 See Justices. 12. 
 
 — Prerogative of Crown — Transfer to revenue 
 
 side — Information, by Attorney-General 
 — Stay of proceedings. 
 See Ceown. 8, 9. 
 
 — Eight of private person to prefer. 
 
 See Diseases ov Animals Act. 
 
 — Two offences in one information— Jurisdi 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Justices. 23, 24. 
 
 INFRINGEMENT- Copyright. 
 
 See Copyright. 
 
 — Design. 
 
 See Design. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Patent. 
 
 — Trade-mark. 
 
 See Teade-maek. 
 
 — Trade name. 
 
 See Teadb Name. 
 
( 959 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 960 ) 
 
 INHABITED HOUSE DUTY. 
 
 See Revenue — House Duty. 
 
 INHEBIIANCE — Co-parceners or joint tenants 
 — Devise to testator's "right heirs" — 
 Female heirs. 
 See Will. 112. 
 
 INHEEITANCE ACT, 1833 — Co-parceners — 
 " Purchaser " tracing title from. 
 See Intestacy. 1. 
 
 ISHIBITION— Churchwarden— Admission of by 
 Archdeacon — Bishop to inhibit. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Church- 
 wardens, 8. 
 
 INJUNCTION. 
 
 Order L. relates to interlocutory orders as lo 
 injunctions. 
 
 1. — Agreement hy infant and adult — Ee- 
 pudiation — Specific performance. 
 
 An infant and adult who were joint tenants 
 entered into an agreement with the pit. to grant 
 a lease. The pit. sued for specific performance 
 of the agreement and for an injunction against 
 granting a lease to any other person : — 
 
 Seld, that an injunction could only be 
 granted where a case was made out for specific 
 performance, that specific performance by the 
 infant was out of the question, and on the 
 evidence could not be had against the adult : 
 therefore the pit. was not entitled to an injunc- 
 tion. LUMLEY V. RaVENSOROPT 
 
 C. A. revers. Day J. [1895] 1 Q. B. 683 
 
 — Air. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Air. 
 
 — Alimony — Order for — ^Enforcement of. 
 
 See DivoBCE — Alimony. 6, 7. 
 
 — Ancient lights — Prescription — Greenhouse — 
 
 " Building." 
 
 See Light and Air. 9. 
 
 Appeal — Action claiming less than 201. 
 
 damages. 
 
 See County Court — Appeal. 6. 
 
 — Arbitration — Unfitness of arbitrator. 
 
 See Abbitkation— Arbitrators. 20. 
 
 2. — Arbitration — Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 
 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, subs. 8. 
 
 r J The Court has jurisdiction to restrain by 
 injunction proceedings in an arbitration where 
 an action is pending impeaching the agreement 
 containing the submission. Kitts v. Moore 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 3. — Breach, of contract — Contract of service. 
 
 (a) An injunction ought not to be granted in 
 the case of an agreement which though negative 
 in form is affirmative in substance. An agree- 
 ment in writing between pit. and deft, provided 
 that deft, should employ pit. and that deft, 
 would not, except in case of misconduct or 
 breach of the agreement, require 'pit. to leave 
 his employ : — 
 
 Seld, that though the clause was negative in 
 form it was affirmative in substance, and that an 
 injunction against breach thereof should not be 
 granted. Davis v. Foreman - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1894] S Ch. 654 
 
 (b) Where a manager agreed to give during 
 a specified term his whole time to the manage- 
 
 IN JUNCTION — continued. 
 
 ment of the plt.'s business, but without nega- 
 tively contracting not to serve any one else :— 
 
 Seld, that the Court would not grant an 
 
 injunction restraining the manager from giving 
 
 part of his time to a rival co. Whitwood 
 
 Chemical Co. v. Haedman - C. A. revers. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] 2 Ch. 416 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Star Newspaper Co. 
 V. O'Connor, [1893] W. N. 114. 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. Ehrman v. 
 Bartholomew, [1898] 1 Ch. 670. 
 
 4. — Breach of contract — Theatrical engage- 
 ment. 
 
 Deft., an actor, agreed with pit., a theatrical 
 manager, to act and to understudy as a member 
 of pit's CO. for a certain time, subject to certain 
 rules, by one of which he was prohibited from 
 acting at any other theatre without permission. 
 Deft, acted elsewhere without permission. Pit. 
 applied for an injunction to restrain deft, from 
 acting at any theatre other than that where 
 plt.'s company played. Deft, in an affidavit in 
 opposition to the application alleged that pit. 
 had verbally promised that deft, should act in 
 certain parts, but had not kept the promise : — 
 
 Held, that the negative stipulation against 
 acting elsewhere could be enforced by injunction, 
 that the alleged verbal promise could not, with- 
 out evidence of bad faith on the part of deft., be 
 considered in construing the contract, that the 
 allotting of parts to deft, was no part of the 
 contract, and that an injunction ought to be 
 granted. Gbimston v. Cuningham 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 125 
 
 — Breach of injunction — ^Aiding and abetting — 
 
 Committal. 
 
 See Contempt of Court. 2. 
 
 — Bridge, Injunction to restmin building of — 
 
 — Accommodation works. 
 See Railway. 68. 
 
 — Building estate. 
 
 See Cases under Building Estate. 
 
 6. — Company — Directors. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunc- 
 tion restraining directors of a co, from excluding 
 one of their number from board meetings, and 
 from interfering with him in the discharge of his 
 duties as a director. Turnbull v. West Ridinq 
 Athletic Club (Leeds) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 4 
 
 6. — Company — Voluntary winding-up — Com- 
 panies Ads 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 89) s. 129. 
 
 The Court will not except in a very strong 
 case interfere by injunction to prevent the exer- 
 cise by a CO. of its statutory power to put an end 
 to its existence by voluntary winding-up. Ellis 
 V. Dadson Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 43 
 
 7. — Company— Winding-up — Foreign action 
 — Embargo — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89) 8. 163. 
 
 In the winding-up of an English co. a sale of 
 assets abroad was sanctioned by the Court. A 
 creditor of the co. resident in England obtained 
 judgment in the foreign Court, and levied an 
 embargo on the assets abroad. He was ordered 
 to remove the embargo on terms of a sum being 
 
( 961 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 962 ) 
 
 INJUNCTION— conKnued. 
 
 placed to a separate account to meet any claim 
 he might establish. In re Central Sugar 
 Factories op Brazil. Flack's Case 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch, 369 
 
 8. — Company — Winding-up— Petition — Com- 
 panies Acts, 1862, 1867 (25 <fc 26 Vict c. 89) s. 85 ; 
 (30 & 31 Vict. 0. 131) S.540. 
 
 Where a petition is not presented bonS, fide to 
 obtain a winding-up order, but really for another 
 purpose, such as putting pressure on the co., the 
 Court has inherent jurisdiction to prevent such 
 an abuse of process, and will do so by restraining 
 the advertisement of the petition and staying all 
 proceedings on it. In re A Co. 
 
 V. Wimams J. [1894] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 — Condition not to commit breach of — Condition 
 
 depending on one event — Liquidated 
 
 damages. 
 
 See Bond. 1. 
 
 — Contingent interest — Presumptive next of kin, 
 
 See "Will — Contingent Gift. 67. 
 
 — Continuance of loan — Eedemption — Eestric- 
 
 tive covenant — Collateral advantage. 
 See Mortgage — Eedemption. 62. 
 
 — Contract of service — Agreement to devote 
 
 whole time — Breach of contract. 
 See Contract. 30. 
 
 — Contract to give "first refusal" of land — 
 
 Interest in land — Purchaser with notice. 
 See Contract. 24. 
 
 — Copyright. 
 
 See Cases under Copyright. 
 
 9. — Copyright — Infringement — Foreign coun- 
 try— Copyright Act, 1883 (3 (fe 4 Will. 4, c. 15). 
 
 The Court has no jurisdiction to grant an 
 injunction to restrain tl;e infringement, in a 
 foreign country comprised in the International 
 Copyright Union, by an English subject of an 
 English dramatic copyright. " Morocco Bound " 
 Syndicate, Ld. v. Harris 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 534 
 
 10. — Crovm, Action on hehalf of — Interlocu ■ 
 tory injunction — Attorney-Oeneral — Undertalting 
 in daTnages. 
 
 In granting an interlocutory injunction at the 
 instance of the Att.-Gen. on behalf of the Crown, 
 the Court will not, as a general rule, require the 
 Att.-Geu. to give the undertaking in damages 
 usually required from an ordinary pit. as a 
 condition of his obtaining such an injunction. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1896] W. N. 88 (14), 
 affirmed. Att.-Gen. v. Albany Hotel Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 90 (5) ; [1896] 2 Ch. 698 
 
 — Divorce practice. 
 
 See Oases under Divorce. 
 
 — Costs — Dismissal of action against corporation. 
 
 See Cases under Costs— Public Authori- 
 ties Protection. 
 
 — Covenant running with land — Covenant for 
 
 quiet enjoyment — Damages — Compen- 
 sation. 
 See Railway. 3. 
 
 — Executor — Injunction restraining executor 
 
 from further acting as executor, j 
 See Executor. 4. 
 
 INJUNCTION — continued. 
 
 11. — Executors of a deceased judgment 
 creditor. 
 
 Executors of a deceased judgment creditor 
 are not entitled to apply for an injunction against 
 the judgment debtor's dealing with his property, 
 since they have no substantive right against the 
 debtor's property to which the injunction would 
 be ancillary. Norburn v. Norburn 
 
 Div. Cit. [1894] 1 Q. B. 448 
 
 12. — Ex parte — Suppression of facte— Dis- 
 charge without cross notice. 
 
 If on a motion for an injunction, or in the 
 alternative for continuance of an interim injunc- 
 tion already obtained ex parte, it appears that 
 the interim order was irregularly obtained by 
 suppression of facts, the Court may discharge 
 the ex parte order without a cross notice of 
 motion. Boyce v. Gill 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W. N, 108 
 
 13. — Ex parte — Suppression of material facts. 
 
 A solicitor in applying for an ex parte injunc- 
 tion suppressed the fact, which he thought 
 immaterial, that he had himself begun bank- 
 ruptcy proceedings against his client ; the result 
 being that the undertaking in damages proved 
 worthless : — 
 
 Seld, that the solicitor had committed a, 
 serious error of judgment, for which he was 
 personally liable both in costs and under the 
 undertaking as to damages. Schmitten v. 
 Faulks CMtty J. [1893] W. N. 64 
 
 — Foreshore — Crown lease — Limits of public 
 
 user. 
 
 See Seashore. 
 
 — Fresh-water fishery — Trout stream — Erection 
 
 of weir or dam. 
 See Fishery. 13. 
 
 — Gas company — Statutory powers — Nuisance — 
 
 Excavation — Ancient lights, interference 
 
 with. 
 
 See Support. 1. 
 
 — Glebe lands — Lease of Mines — Ecclesiastical 
 
 Commissioners • — Eight to injunction 
 
 against illegal mining. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law— Glebe. ^44. 
 
 — Guardians of the poor — Out-door relief — 
 
 Strikes. 
 
 See Poor Law. 
 
 — Highway — • Obstruction — Eeasonable u?er — 
 
 Loading and unloading of goods. 
 See Highway. 5. 
 
 14. — Inquiry as to damages — Damages up to- 
 date of certificate. 
 
 The pits, brought action against the defls. for 
 an injunction to restrain them from polluting a 
 stream. Chitty J. at the trial granted a perpetual 
 injunction against the C. Union, to be suspended 
 till Aug. 25, 1890, and directed an inquiry into 
 damages. 'The defts. continued to pollute the 
 stream, and in 1893 the chief clerk gave his 
 certificate, certifying the damages up to the date 
 of the certificate, July 24, 1893 :— 
 
 Held, that it was right to certify damages 
 down to the date of the certificate, as there was a 
 continuing cause of action within the meaning of 
 Order xxxvi., r. 58. Hole v. Chard Union 
 
 0. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 293 
 ■I 1 
 
( 963 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 964 ) 
 
 INJUNCTION— continued. 
 
 — Interference -with flow of water — Tunnel for 
 
 draining mine— Mala fides. 
 See Wateb. 39. ; 
 
 — Interim — Appeal from. 
 
 See Appeal. 2i. 
 
 — Interim — Appeal from — Trespass— New South 
 
 "Wales Mining on Private Lands Act. 
 See New South Wales. 37. 
 
 15. — Interlocutory — Exhibition of effigy — 
 Liheh-Biscretion^Judimture Act, 1873 (36 & 37 
 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, svh-i. 8. 
 
 Before the Court will grant an interlocutory 
 injunction restraining publication of an alleged 
 libel, it must be satisfied that the case is so clear 
 that a verdict for the deft, would be set aside. 
 The pit. had been tried for murder in Scotland, 
 and a verdict of not proven had been found. 
 The defts, exhibited an effigy of the pit. in 
 London, and L. did the same at Birmingham, in 
 both cases in close proximity to the " chamber of 
 horrors," and connected by reference to the scene 
 of the murder :— 
 
 Held, by Div. Ot., that the exhibitions were 
 clearly libellous, and that M. was entitled to an 
 injunction till trial. Some evidence of the plt.'s 
 consent was produced before C. A., which held 
 that the case was not clear enough to entitle tlie 
 pit. to an injunction : — 
 
 Held, also. Lord Halsbury diss., that an injunc- 
 tion should only issue in cases where a verdict for 
 the deft, would be set aside as unreasonable : — 
 
 Held, also, per Lord Halsbury and Lopes L.J., 
 that the jurisdiction fo issue injunctions in cases 
 of libel is not confined to trade libels. Monson 
 V. TussAUDs, Ld. Monson v. L. Tussaud 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 671 
 
 Dictum of Lord Halsbury commented on by 
 C A., Kilts V. Moore, [1895], 1 Q. B. 253, 264. 
 
 16. — Interlocutory — Libel. 
 
 (a) An injunction to restrain the sale of a 
 newspaper containing an alleged libel, refused, 
 the Court holding that the truth of the libel 
 ought to be determined by a jury in the Q. B. 
 Div. Plumbly v. Pekbyman 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 64 
 
 (b) There is jurisdiction to grant an inter- 
 locutory injunction to restrain the sale of a 
 newspaper containing a libellous article, but the 
 jurisdiction should only be exercised under very 
 special circumstances : — 
 
 Held, per full 0. A. (Kay L.J. diss.), that 
 the circumstances of the case did not warrant 
 an injunction. Bonnakd v. Peekyman 
 
 C. A. revers. North J., both Courts 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 269 
 Discussed by Chitty J. Collard v. Marshall, 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 571. 
 
 Followed and discussed by C. A. Monson v 
 Tussauds, Ld., [1894] 1 Q. B. 671. 
 
 (0) The issue by a party of a circular con- 
 taining libellous ex. parte statements and com- 
 ments on the merits of an action is a contempt of 
 Oourt which will be restrained by interlocutory 
 injunction. Coats (J. & P.) v. Chadwiok 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 347 
 TO CoLLAED V. Marshall 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 671 
 
 IN JUNCTION— conitjiued . 
 
 — Interlocutory — Strike — " Watching or beset- 
 
 ting." 
 
 See Tbade Union. 11—13. 
 
 — Interlocutory — Trade rivalry — Fraud — Im- 
 
 proper use of testimonials. 
 
 See False Eepeesentation. 1. 
 
 17. — Jurisdiction — Injunction — Proceedings 
 before justices — Public Health (^Buildings in 
 Streets') Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 52), 8. 3 — 
 B. S. a, 1883, Order xxv., r. 5. 
 
 The Court will not interfere by way of in- 
 junction or declaration of right where the Legis- 
 lature has pointed out a mode of procedure before 
 a magistrate ; unless (it seems) in very special 
 circumstances. 
 
 Lord Auckland v. Westminster District Board 
 of Works, (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 597, Kerr v. Preston 
 Corporation, (1876) 6 Ch. D. 463, and Stannard v. 
 Vestry of St. Giles, Camberwell, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 
 190, considered. Geand Junction Watekwoeks 
 Co. V. Hampton Ueban Disteict Council 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 331 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. Merthyr 
 Tydfel Union, [1900] 1 Ch. 516, 550. 
 
 18. — Jurisdiction to grant. 
 
 Sect. 25 (8) of the Judicature Act, 1873. has 
 not enlarged the jurisdiction of the Court, so 
 as to enable it to grant an injunction where, 
 before the Act, it could not have done so. 
 KiTTS V. MooEE - C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 — Land acquired for specific purpose — ^Applica- 
 
 tion of part not required to another 
 permanent purpose — Local Government 
 Board — Jurisdiction. 
 See Local Goveenment — Lands. 3. 
 
 19. — Lands Clauses Act — Easement — Land — 
 Bight of way. 
 
 Where land taken under the Lands Clauses 
 Act included a private road, over which A. claimed 
 a right of way. A., not having been paid com- 
 pensation, pulled down a hoarding surrounding 
 the land : — 
 
 Held, that an injunction would go against A., 
 as his remedy was under s. 68 of the Lands 
 Clautes Act. London School Boaed v. Smith 
 Kekewich J, [1895] W, N. 37 
 
 20. — Legal remedy—Quo warranto — Judica- 
 ture Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. 8. 
 
 Where, independently of the Judicature Act, 
 1873, there is a right which can be asserted 
 either at law or in equity, then a. 25 (8) of the 
 Act provides that where it is right in order to 
 do effectual justice an injimction may be granted. 
 A member of a school board having been impro- 
 perly declared to be disqualified, an injunction 
 was granted restraining the board from electing 
 a new member in his place, notwithstanding he 
 had a remedy by quo warranto. Eichaedson v. 
 Methley School Boaed 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 610 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Turnbull v. West 
 Biding Athletic Club {Leeds), Ld., [1894] W. N. 4. 
 
 — Level crossing — Speed of trains. 
 
 See Eailway — Level Crossings. 10. 
 
 — Light — Ancient lights. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Aib. 
 
( 965 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 966 ) 
 
 XSJVSCnOTS—eontimied. 
 
 — Mandatory-^Form of — Pulling down build- 
 
 ings — ^Practice. 
 
 See Streets. 4. i 
 
 — Mandatory^-Tllegal breaking lip of street — 
 
 Local authority— Extent of ownership. 
 See London — Streets. 91. 
 
 — Mandatory, action for^— Death of plaintiff. 
 
 See Pbactice — Parties. 91. 
 
 21. — ■ Mandatory — Pulling down wall. 
 
 (a) There is power to grant a mandatory in- 
 junction in a proper case. The pit. sought a 
 mandatory injunction to pull down a wall which 
 obstructed his ancient lights. He had not been 
 guilty of any delay or acquiescence, and the 
 obstruction to light was material : — 
 
 Held, that the defts. should be ordered to 
 pull the wall down, and that the pit. was not 
 bound to accept damages by way of remedy. 
 Shiel v. Godfrey & Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 115 
 
 (b) a party wall held in common separated 
 the gardens of the pits, and deft. The pits. 
 pulled down part of the wall and rebuilt it as 
 part of an addition to their house, with concrete 
 foundations and footings extending further into 
 the property of the deft, than the original foun- 
 dation. At the height of the old wall they set 
 back the new wall half the thickness of the old 
 wall: — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled to a parti- 
 tion of the wall vertically and longitudinally. 
 A mandatory injunction against permitting the 
 foundation and footings to remain on deft.'s land 
 refused. Matfaih Property Co. ■». Johnston 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 508 
 
 See Johnston v. May/air Property Co., North J., 
 [1893] W. N. 73. 
 
 — Minerals — Reservation from grant^-Eedrock 
 
 and coal neither having any commercial 
 
 value. 
 
 See Mines— Working, 23. 
 
 22. — Mortgage hy undischarged hanlcrupt — 
 Sale iy mortgagees. 
 
 An undischarged bankrupt mortgaged a 
 reversion. The mortgagees put it up for sale 
 subject to the rights of the trustee in the bank- 
 ruptcy : — 
 
 Seld, that there was no jurisdiction to grant 
 a,n injunction restraining the sale. In re Evelyn. 
 Ex parte General Public Works and Assets 
 €o. - - V. Williams J. [1894] 2 Q. B. 302 
 
 23. — Motion by defendant — No counter-elaim 
 JOed— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. e. 66), 
 s. 2.5, sub-s. 8— B. S. C, 1883, Order L., r. 6. 
 
 A deft, who has not filed a counter-claim 
 cannot apply for an injunction against the pit. 
 unless the relief sought is incident to or arising 
 out of the relief sought by the pit. If the deft, 
 desires any other relief before the time arrives 
 for delivery of a counter-claim, he must issue a 
 writ in a cross-action. Carter v. Fey 
 
 C. A. afSrm. Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 541 
 
 24. — Notice of action — Interlocutory manda- 
 tory injunction — Evading service of writ. 
 
 The deft, was erecting a building near the 
 plt.'s house. The pit. warned the deft, that if the 
 
 VSTVSCtlOTS— continued. 
 
 building were continued he would sue to restrain 
 it as an obstruction of his ancient lights. After 
 action brought the deft, evaded service of the 
 writ for several days, and in the meantime con- 
 tinued the building till substituted service on 
 him was effected : — 
 
 Held, that the deft.'s evasion of the writ 
 brought the case within the principle of Daniel v. 
 Ferguson, [1891] 2 Ch. 27, and that the pit. was 
 entitled to an interlocutory mandatory injunction 
 ordering the deft, to pull down so much of the 
 building as had been erected after the plfc had 
 warned the deft, that he intended to bring an 
 action. VoN Joel v. Hornsey 
 
 C. A. afSrm. Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 774 
 
 25. — Notice of motion — Service out of juris- 
 diction. 
 
 Semble, that leave to serve notice of motion 
 for an injunction with the writ out of the juris- 
 diction cannot be granted. Manitoba and 
 North West Land Corporation v. Allan 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 432 
 
 — Noxious trade — Eeasonable use of property. 
 
 See Nuisances. 21. 
 
 — Nuisance. 
 
 See Cases under Nuisances, 
 
 26. — Nuisance artticipated — Quia timet action 
 — Small-pox hospital. 
 
 An iojunction to restrain an apprehended 
 future nuisance will not be granted unless the 
 applicant can shew a strong case of probability 
 that the apprehended mischief will in ffict arise. 
 The defts. proposed to establish a small-pox 
 hospital in an adjoining district. The pits, con- 
 tended that the nature of the scheme and the 
 position selected constituted it a public nuisance 
 dangerous to the health of the neighbourhood : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, had failed to shew a proba- 
 bility that the apprehended danger would arise. 
 
 Qusere, whether the public benefit derivable 
 from the existence of the hospital did not counter- 
 balance the alleged dangers, from its institution. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Manchester Corporation 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 87 
 
 27. — Nuisance — Noise — Music. 
 
 Action between two neighbours, each of 
 whom asked for an injunction to restrain musical 
 noises on the part of the other. Injunction 
 granted against deft, restraining him from 
 making noises in his house so as to vex or annoy 
 pit. Christie v. Davey 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 316 
 
 28. — Nuisance — Noise — Noise caused by 
 several persons. 
 
 The acts of two or more persons may taken 
 together constitute such a nuisance that the 
 Court will restrain all from such acts, although 
 the nuisance caused by the act of any one of them 
 taken alone would be inappreciable and would 
 not be restrained by injunction. Lambton v. 
 Mellish. Lambton v. Cox 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 3 Ch, 163 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Sadler v. Great Western 
 Ely. Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 688, 693. 
 
 — Nuisance— Sewers — Claim of right — Prescrip- 
 
 tive right in third parties. 
 See Sewers. 25. 
 
 2 12 
 
( 967 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 968 ) 
 
 ISWSCTIOS— continued. 
 
 89. — Offer of undertaking by defendant — 
 Costs. 
 
 In an action to restrain the infringement of a 
 patent a deft., on being served mth the writ, 
 offered to undertake not to infringe, to give the 
 other relief claimed by the writ, and to pay the 
 plt.'s costs. Notwithstanding this offer the pit. 
 delivered a statement of claim and particulars of 
 breaches. The deft, then delivered a defence; 
 and the pit. moved for judgment in the terms of 
 the statement of claim : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. ought to have accepted the 
 undertaking oifered; and, on the deft.'s giving 
 the undertaking, the Court declined to grant an 
 injunction, giving to the pit. costs down to the 
 date of the oifer and the costs of the day's 
 appearance, and to the deft, the other costs 
 subsequent to the offer. Jenkcnb v. Hope 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 161 (6); [1896] 1 Ch. 278 
 
 — Partition — Injunction on against building 
 
 encroachment. 
 
 See Paktition. 12. 
 
 30. — Partner of unsound mind — Interference 
 with business. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction to restrain a 
 partner of unsound mind from interfering in the 
 partnership affairs so as to injure the partner- 
 ship business during the pendency of an action 
 for dissolution on the ground of such unsound- 
 ness. J u.S Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch. 72 
 
 — Partner making list of customers. 
 
 See Cases under Paktnekship — Goodwill. 
 
 — Patent — Infringement. 
 
 See Cases under Patent. 
 
 — Picketing — "Watching and besetting" — 
 
 " Wrongfully and without legal autho- 
 rity." 
 See Tkade Union. 8, 11—13. 
 
 — Practice — Claim for damages — Joinder — 
 
 Separate causes of action. 
 See Peaotice— Parties. 118. 
 
 — Preaching on the beach — Nuisance. 
 
 See Seashore. 
 
 31. — Trospective injury. 
 
 Where it is proved that a proposed building 
 will injure a legal right of light, the owner of 
 the right is, in the absence of special circum- 
 stances, entitled to an injunction to restrain the 
 erection of the building. 
 
 Quxre, whether in such a case the Court 
 would have jurisdiction to give damages for the 
 prospective injury in lieu of the injunction. 
 Martin v. Price - C. A. revers. Kekewich J. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 Followed by C. A. Shelfer v. City of London 
 Electric Lighting Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 287, 311, 316; 
 Jordeson v. Sutton, Southwater & Drypool Oas Co., 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 217. 
 
 — Public body— Infringement of statute — Evi- 
 
 dence of injury — Speed of trains. 
 See Kailway— level Crossings. 10. 
 
 32. — Residential flat — Implied obligation — 
 Comfnon sclieme. 
 
 An injunction was granted to restrain the 
 conversion into a club of a large part of a 
 ouudiug, adapted to occupation in residential 
 
 ISJVSCTIOS— continued. 
 
 flats, at the instance of a tenant who held under an 
 agreement in a common form binding the tenants 
 to rules suitable only for residential puiposes. 
 HtJPSON V. Cbipps North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 265. 
 
 — Eiparian owner — Spring — Alteration of 
 
 natural flow. 
 See Water. 42. 
 
 — Eiparian owner — Stream — ^Altferation of flow 
 
 — "Injuriously affecting." 
 See Water. 43. 
 
 — Sale of business — Floating charge. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 51. 
 
 — Schoolmaster, Eestraining dismissal of — 
 
 Management. 
 See Charity. 39. 
 
 — Service out of jurisdiction. 
 
 See Practice — Service. 212. 
 
 — Severable covenant — Contract of hiring and 
 
 service. 
 
 See Restraint op Trade. 19. 
 
 — Sewage, Agreement to admit foreign — Public 
 
 body — Estoppel — Laches and acquies- 
 cence. 
 See London — Sewers. 62. 
 
 33. — Statutory powers — Electric lighting — 
 Vibration- — Eight of reversioner to sue — Eleetric 
 Lighting Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 56), ss. 10, 12, 
 sub-s. 2; ss. 17, 32 — Electric Lighting Act, 1888 
 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 12)— Lord Cairns' Act (21 & 22 
 Vict. V. 27). 
 
 In a case of continuing actionable nuisance, 
 the jurisdiction of the Court to award damages- 
 instead of an injunction ought only to be exer- 
 cised under very exceptional circumstances. 
 
 Per A. L. Smith L.J. : Damages may be given 
 instead of an injunction, when the following 
 requirements are all found in conjunction, viz., 
 where the injury to the plt.'s rights is — (i.) small ; 
 (ii.) capable of being estimated in money; 
 (iii.) capable of being adequately compensated 
 by a small sum; (iv.) when an injunction would 
 be oppressive. Shelfer v. City op London 
 Electric Lighting Co. Meux's Brewery Co-. 
 V. The Same (No. 1) C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287 
 
 — Support — Eight of lateral — Adjacent lands — 
 
 Escape of pitch — Damages. 
 See Support. 2. 
 
 34. — Suspensionof injunction — Court lo which 
 application should be made. 
 
 A judge of the High Court has jurisdiction 
 to extend the period of suspension of an injunc- 
 tion granted by C. A. and suspended by that 
 Court. Shelper v. City op London Electric 
 LiGHTiNO Co. Meux's Brewery Co. v. The 
 Same (No. 2) - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 388 
 
 86. — Threat of proceedings— Offer of all that 
 could be obtained on motion — Costs. 
 
 Where on a threat of proceedings the deft, 
 through his solicitor writes to the pit. offering 
 all that he could obtain on an interlocutory 
 motion, and there is no suggestion that the offer 
 would not be carried out, and notwithstanding 
 pit. brings his action and moves for an injunction, 
 such motion will be refused with costs. Snuggs 
 V. Seyd & Kelly's Credit Index Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] W. N. 95 
 
( 969 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 970 
 
 ISJVSiynOJI—amtmued. 
 
 — Title of honour — Divorce — Former wife marry- 
 
 ing a commoner — Continued use of title 
 derived from former husband. 
 See Husband and Wife — Title of 
 Honour. 97. 
 
 36. — Trade libel — Intimidating circular. 
 Where a trade union publisitied a poster 
 
 headed " T.'s Black List," giving the names of 
 T.'s non-union workmen : — 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that as on the evidence 
 the principal motive was to injure T. and the 
 non-union men, and as the injury was being 
 inflicted from day to day, T. and the non-union 
 men were entitled to an injunction against the 
 trade union and their servants, &o., and against 
 the secretary and other officers, who were defts. 
 by name without addition. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A. on the ground tliat a 
 prima, facie case had been established that the 
 defts. had gone beyond what they were entitled 
 to do, and had refused to give an undertakihg to 
 desist pending the action. Teollope v. London 
 BniLDma Trades Federation 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 29 ; 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 46 
 
 — Trade-mark. 
 
 See Cases under Tbade-maek. 
 
 — Trade name. 
 
 See Cases under Trade Name. 
 
 — Trade name — Colourable imitation of name — 
 
 What constitutes false^representation. 
 See Canada. 24. 
 
 — Trade name — ^Identification of name with 
 
 . goods by user. 
 
 See New South Wales. 48. 
 
 37. — Tradename — Misleading advertisements 
 — Form of order. 
 
 The clefts, issued advertisements, cards, and 
 circulars, calculated to lead to the belief that the 
 deft.'s business was the same as or a branch of 
 the pit's business : — 
 
 Held, that it was a case for granting perpetual 
 injunction to prevent the defts. advertising or 
 carrying on their business without clearly dis- 
 tinguishing their business from that of the pit. 
 
 WOLMEBSHAUSEN V. WoLMERSHAUSEN & Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 87 
 
 — Trade, Restraint of — ^Illegal objects — Expul- 
 
 sion of member — Jurisdiction of Court. 
 See Teade Union. 10. 
 
 88. — Trade secrets. 
 
 A former servant can be restrained from using 
 forms copied by him from those used by his 
 employer, and from using copies or extracts from 
 a register of persons with whom his employer did 
 business for the purpose of canvassing them. 
 
 (a) Louis v. Smellib 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 115 (7) 
 
 (b) Eobb v. Green C. A. [1895] 2 a. B. 315 
 
 afBrm. Hawkins J. [1895] 2 ft. B. 1 
 
 (o) Lamb v. Evans (No. 1) - C. A. [1893] 
 
 1 Ch. 218 affirm. Chitty J. [1892] 3 Ch. 462 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Sobb v. Green, [1895] 
 
 2 Q. B. 315. 
 
 — Trellis screen, Erection of. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 12. 
 
 INJUNCTIOK— comtmued 
 
 89. — Undertaking as to damages — Prinaiple 
 of assessment of damages. 
 
 Where an interim injunction is dissolved only 
 such damages are to be awarded under the under- 
 taking as naturally flow from the grant of the 
 injunction. An interim injunction was granted 
 to restrain breach of copyright by dramatising a 
 novel. The defts. had made considerable profits 
 by his drama. On dissolution of the injunction 
 he claimed that damages payable on the plt.'s 
 undertaking should include loss of profits on the 
 tour of a dramatic co. which was to include his 
 drama in their repertory : — 
 
 Held, that the damages must be limited to 
 the profit lost on the drama to which the in- 
 junction applied. Schlesinqer v. Bedford 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. K. 57 
 
 40. — Undertaking as to damages — Married 
 women without separate estate. 
 
 It is not a sufficient ground for refusing an 
 
 interlocutory injunction to a married woman that 
 
 her undertaking in damages will be illusory, she 
 
 not having any separate estate. Pike v. Cave 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. K. 91 
 
 41. — Undertaking as to damages — Suppression 
 of facts. 
 
 Where a solicitor applying for an ex parte 
 injunction suppressed material facts as to the 
 solvency of his client : — 
 
 Held, that he should be made personally 
 liable on the client's undertaking as to damages 
 and for the costs. Sohmitten v. Faulks 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 64 
 
 — Vacant land — Deposit of filth by third parties. 
 
 See Nuisance. 40. 
 
 — Waste — Lease to construct a reservoir — Sub- 
 
 demise for purpose of rubbish shoot. 
 See Waste. 2. 
 
 — Water — -Irrigation — Land slides. Liability for 
 
 damages. 
 
 See Canada. 22. 
 
 42. — Where action does not lie. 
 
 An injunction will not be granted restraining 
 the disparagement of a trader's goods where an 
 action does not lie. Mellin v. White 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 154 affirm. Bomer J. 
 and revers. C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 276 
 
 — Witnesses examined by foreign tribunal. 
 
 See Divorce — Jurisdiction. 88. 
 
 INJURIOUS TO HEALTH— Ingredient or matter. 
 See Cases vmder Adulteration. 
 
 INLAND BEVENTJE. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue. 
 
 INN — Agreement for sale — Transfer of licence — 
 Interim protection. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Contract. 
 32. 
 
 — Bar of public-house — Place " used " for 
 
 betting. 
 
 See Gamino. 18. 
 
 — Covenant — Liquidated damages — Penalty. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 13. 
 
 — "Discontinuance" of public-house licence — 
 
 Covenant. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 18. 
 
( 971 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES,. 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 972 ) 
 
 INN — continued. 
 
 — Forfeiture . — > Protection of underlessee — 
 
 Vesting order — ^Variation in amount of 
 
 rent. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 — Goodwill of business — ^Keal Estate Oharges 
 
 Act. 
 
 See MoBTGAGE. 75. 
 
 — Improvements — Definition — " Btiilding pui- 
 
 See Settled Land. 27. 
 
 • Inhabited house duty. 
 
 See Kevenoe — Inhabited House Duty. 
 
 ■ Leasehold interest in licensed house — Good- 
 
 will — Conveyance on sale — Stamp. 
 See Eeventje — Stamps. 152. 
 
 ■ Licence. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 ■ Licence duty — OfBoe occupied with certifi- 
 
 cated house — Stables. 
 
 See Eevenue — Licence Duty. 128. 
 
 - Mortgage — Clogging the equity of redemption 
 
 — " Tied " public-house. 
 See MoKTGAQE. 58. 
 
 ■ Part of building used for dwelling-house 
 
 approaches. 
 
 See London. 26. 
 
 ■ Eateable value — ^Evidence of advantageous 
 
 situation and business done. 
 See Bates — ^Eateability. 31. 
 
 ■ Kateability — Poor-rate — ^Assessment — Compe- 
 
 tition of brewers—" Tied " houses. 
 See BATES-^Eateability. 30. 
 
 - Eestrictive beer covenant — Public-house — 
 
 Lease. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 17. 
 
 - Eestrictive covenant — Prohibiting sale of 
 
 beer and spirits — Continuing covenant 
 broken for an uninterrupted period of 
 twenty-four years-^Waiver. 
 See Vendor and Pukohasek. 68. 
 
 - Eestrictive covenant— " Tied " public-house — 
 
 " Clog " on redemption — Covenant by 
 
 mortgagor to take beer from mortgagee 
 
 only. 
 
 See Mortgage — Eedemption. 60. 
 
 - Eestrictive covenant — Tied public-house — ■ 
 
 Mortgagor and Mortgagee — Assigns— 
 Under-lessee — Notice. 
 See Covenant. 7. 
 
 - Eestrictive covenant prohibiting sale of beer 
 
 and spirits — Waiver. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 68. 
 
 ■ Eestrictive covenant — Covenant not to buy 
 
 ■wines except from lessor. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 15. 
 
 • Shop Hours Act — Hotel — Domestic servant. 
 
 See Shop. 2. 
 
 Usual public-house contraot^Uncertainty. 
 See Vendor and Purohaseb. 73. 
 
 INNKEEPER — Liah'Uty — " Guest " — Loss of 
 property. 
 
 ■he pit,, being on his way from his place of 
 
 property 
 T. 
 
 INNEEEFEB — continued. 
 
 business in Liverpool to his -home outside the 
 town, went into the dining-room of an hotel in 
 Liverpool, kept by the defts., to get a meal, 
 and put his overcoat in a place where coats were 
 ordinarily kept in that room. The coat was 
 missing when he had finished his meal. Sleep- 
 ing accommodation for guests at the hotel was 
 provided if required ; but a great number of 
 people used it every day for the purpose of 
 dining there only : — • 
 
 Held, that there was sufficient evidence to 
 establish the relation of innkeeper and guest 
 between the defts. and the pit. so as to make 
 them liable for the loss of the coat without 
 proof of negligence on their part. Obohabd ». 
 Bush & Co. Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 284 
 
 2. — Liability — Loss of guest's property — 
 Onus prdbandi (26 & 27 Vict. c. 41), s. 1. 
 
 To relieve an innkeeper of his statutory 
 liability under 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41, to the extent 
 of 30Z. for loss of a guest's property, the inn- 
 keeper must shew contributory negligence on 
 the part of the guest. To enable the guest to 
 claim more than 30?., he must shew that the loss 
 occurred through the "wilful act, default, or 
 neglect " of the innkeeper : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A. on the facts, that neither 
 party had proved default by the other : 
 
 Held, by A. L. Smith J. and Fry L.J., that 
 
 the pit. was not a " guest," and the innkeeper 
 
 was not liable. Medawar v. Grand Hotel. 
 
 Co. - - - C. A. (Fry I. J. diss.) 
 
 revers, A. L. Smith J. [1891] 2 Q, B. 11 
 
 3. — Lien — Goods of third person. 
 
 A commercial traveller who travelled for the- 
 pits, went in the course of their business to stay 
 as a guest at the deft.'s inn. While he was. 
 there the pits, sent to him certain parcels of 
 goods for sale in the district. The deft, at the 
 time they were received into his inn had express 
 notice that the goods were the property of the 
 pits., but he received them as the baggage of 
 the traveller, who subsequently failed to pay for 
 his board and lodging in the inn : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, had a lien upon the 
 
 goods in respect of the debt. Eobbins & Co. v. 
 
 Gray - - Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B, 1i \ 
 
 affirm, by C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 601 
 
 4. — Music — Innlceeper providing piano — 
 Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890 (53 & 5i 
 Vict. c. 59), s. 51. 
 
 A licensed victualler had in the public smoke- 
 room of his house a pianoforte on which cus- 
 tomers were in the habit of playing for the 
 amusement of themselves and others resorting 
 to the room. He made no extra charge either 
 for the use of the piano or for the entertainment 
 thus afforded, nor did he pay or encourage the 
 performers. He was convicted under s. 51 of 
 the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, 
 for having kept or used the room for public 
 entertainment without a licence for the pur- 
 pose : — 
 
 Held, that the conviction was wrong. Bbear- 
 
 LEY i;. Moblet - - - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1899] W, N. 84 ; [1899] 2 Q.. B, 121 
 
 5. — Obligation to lodge traveller — Guest 
 losing character of traveller — Cesser of right to 
 
( 973 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 971 ) 
 
 INNKEKPEE— conKnijed. 
 
 lodging — Right of innkeeper to give notice to 
 
 leave. 
 
 The common law liability of an innkeeper to 
 receive and lodge, a guest attaches only so long 
 as the guest is a traveller, and a person who has 
 been received at an inn as a traveller does not 
 necessarily continue to reside there in that 
 character. Whether at any given time during 
 his residence he is still a traveller is a question 
 of fact, and one of the ingredients for determining 
 this fact is the length of time that has elapsed 
 since his arrival. If the guest has lost the 
 character of traveller the innkeeper is not bound 
 to supply him with lodging, but is entitled, on 
 giving reasonable notice, to require him to leave. 
 Lamond v. Bichard C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 641 
 
 INN OF CHANCEBT— Voluntary association- 
 Failure of objects. 
 See Ohabitt. 33. 
 
 INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATION — Indem- 
 nity. 
 See CoNTBAOT. 32. 
 
 INNOCENT PURCHASER — Infringement of 
 trade-mark — Dealings of small amount 
 — Costs. 
 See Teade-maek. 1. 
 
 INNS OF COVRT — Consolidated regulations 6f 
 the four Inns of Court as to the admission of 
 students, calls to the iar, &c. W. N. July 18, 
 1891, p. 321. 
 
 INQUEST. 
 
 See CoEOUEE. 
 
 ■ — Sufficiency of — Pleadings— Ooroner. 
 See Ceimznal Law. 
 
 INSANE DELUSIONS — Will — Relevancy — 
 Capacity. 
 See Will. 171. 
 
 INSANITY. 
 
 See Cases under Lunatic. 
 • — Probate — Grant of administration. 
 
 See Pbobatb — Grant of Administration. 
 53, 5i. 
 
 — Wife. 
 
 See Oases under Divoeoe — Lunacy. 
 
 INSOLVENCY — Administration. 
 
 See Cases imder Exeoutoe — Insolvent 
 Estates. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Oases under Bankeuptot. 
 
 — Creditor-contributory . — Insolvent company 
 
 holding shares — Set-off of debt against 
 calls — Winding-up of company. 
 See Company — ^WiHDiNG-np. 50. 
 
 i — Insolvent estate — Solicitor-executor — Power 
 to charge. 
 See Solicitor. 134. 
 
 — Priority — Kates — Preferential payments in 
 
 bankruptcy^-Administratiou. 
 See Exeoutoe. 37. 
 
 INSPECTION — Discoveiy. 
 
 See Cases under Discoveet. 
 
 INSTALMENTS— Purchase-money payable by — 
 Omission to pay last instalment — Re- 
 pudiation of contract — Specific perform- 
 ance — Damages. 
 
 See Vendoe and Pubohaseb — Contract. 
 35. 
 
 — Under bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill or Sale. 34. 
 -^ Under mortgage — Fixtures. 
 See FiXTDEES. 5. 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— Brief— Costs. 
 
 See CoMPAsry — Winding-up — Costs. 60. 
 
 " INSTRUMENT "-Conveyance. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. 35. 
 
 — Whether bill of sale or not. 
 
 See Oases under Bill or Sale. 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 Companies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. a. 26), con- 
 solidates the Acts relating to Friendly Societies 
 and Industrial Assurance Companies which receive 
 contributions and premiums liy means of collectors. 
 Stamp duty— Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, 
 c. 28), s. 13, extends s. 116 of the Stamp Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), as to composition on policies. 
 
 Accident, col. 974. 
 
 Burglary, col. 975. 
 
 Fire, col. 976. 
 
 Guarantee, col. 977. 
 
 Life, col. 979. 
 
 Marine, col. 982. 
 
 Accident, 
 
 1. — Policy — Construction of — " External " 
 injury. 
 
 A policy insured against accidents caused by 
 " violent accidental external and visible means," 
 but not against accidents arising from " natural 
 disease or weakness or exhaustion consequent 
 upon disease." The pit. injured his knee while 
 stooping to pick up something from the floor. 
 He had never suffered from any weakness of the 
 knees or knee-joint : — 
 
 Held, that this accident arose from " external 
 means," and also by "violent accidental and 
 visible " means within the meaning of the policy. 
 Hamltn v. Ceown Accidental Insurance Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q, B. 750 
 
 2. — Policy — Construction of — " From." 
 
 A policy insured against " claims for personal 
 injury in respect of accidents caused by vehicles 
 for twelve calendar months from Nov. 24, 1887," 
 to the amount of " 2501. in respect of any one 
 accident." A tramcar was overturned, forty 
 persons injured, and compensation to the amount 
 of 833i. claimed. The defts. said the overturning 
 was one accident, and refused to pay more than 
 2501. :— 
 
 fleZd, that " anyone accident" meant "injury 
 in respect of which a person claimed compensa- 
 tion," and the defts. were liable for the SS31. 
 " From held to exclude Nov. 24, 1887, and to 
 include Nov. 24, 1888, the day of the accident. 
 South Staefoedshiee Teamwats Co. v. Sickness 
 AND Accident Assueance Association 
 
 C. A. & Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 402 
 
 Referred to by North J. Sheffield Corporation 
 
( 975 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 976 ) 
 
 INSTTEANCE (Accident)— conWrnaed). 
 
 V. Sheffield Accident Assurance Association., [1898] 
 
 1 Ch. 203, 209. 
 
 See Infant— Contracts. 10. 
 
 3. — Policy — Contract — Senewal — Continu- 
 ation of old contract — New contract — Policy money 
 — Insolvency — Creditors' deed. 
 
 Accident policy renewable yearly bo long as 
 the assured pays the specified premium in advance 
 and the insurance co. consent to receive it, and 
 requiring the assured at each renewal to give 
 notice of any change in his state of health since 
 the payment of the last premium, with power for 
 the CO. in such case to determine the policy. 
 
 Upon the payment of the premium for each 
 year, an entirely new contract arises for that year 
 only, and the amount payable under it on the 
 accidental death of the assured in the current 
 year for which a premium has been paid is not 
 affected by any assignment or other obligation 
 made or entered into by the assured in any pre- 
 vious year and not extending to after-acquired 
 property. Stokell v. Hbtwood 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] W. N. 65 (1); 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 459 
 
 4. — Policy covering accident sustained in 
 discharge of insured's duty — Nervous sliock arising 
 from fright — Right to recover under policy. 
 
 The pit. was a signalman in the employment 
 of the defts., a ry. co., who entered into a con- 
 tract of insurance with him, by which they agreed 
 to pay a weekly allowance in case of his being 
 incapacitated from employment by reason of acci- 
 dent sustained in discharge of his duty in the 
 co.'s service, such insurance, to be absolute for 
 all accidents, however caused, occuriing to the 
 insured in the fair and ordinary discharge of his 
 duty. The pit. in the discharge of his duty 
 endeavoured to prevent an accident to a train by 
 signalling to the driver, and the excitement and 
 fright arising from the danger to the train pro- 
 duced a nervous shock which incapacitated him 
 from employment. In an action to recover from 
 the defts. the weekly allowance : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. had been incapacitated by 
 accident within the meaning of the policy. 
 Pdgh v. London, Brighton and South Coast 
 Ey. Co. C. a. [1896] 2 Q. B. 248 
 
 Beferred to by "Wright J. Wilkinson v. 
 Downton, [1897] 2 Q. B. 57, 60. 
 — Stamps — " Policy of insurance against acci- 
 dent" — Workmen's compensation. 
 See Eevencb — Stamps. 164:. 
 
 Burglary. 
 
 5. — Burglary and househrealcing — Loss by 
 theft— Bntry by opening unlocked iliop door — 
 Breaking open show-ease — "Actual forcible and 
 violent entry. " 
 
 A policy of insurance on stock-in-trade recited 
 that the assured was desirous of effecting an 
 insurance " against loss or damage by burglary 
 and housebreaking as hereinafter defined," and 
 the risk insured against was expressed to be loss 
 of the property insured " by theft following upon 
 actual forcible and violent entry upon the pre- 
 mises wherein the same is herein stated to be 
 situate." The insured property, which was 
 stated in the policy to be situate on premises 
 
 INSUBANCE (Burglary) — continued. 
 No. 78, Strand, was in a shop at that address, 
 the front door of which was shnt, but not locked 
 or bolted, and access to the shop could be 
 obtained by turning the handle of the door. In 
 the early morning before business hours, duriDg 
 the temporary absence of a servant of the assured, 
 some person opened the front door, entered the 
 shop and, breaking open a locked-up compart- 
 ment or show-case within, which formed a portion 
 of the shop, stole therefrom part of the insured 
 property . — 
 
 Seld (reversing the judgment of a Div. 
 Ct., [1898] 2 Q. B. 1-36), that the loss which 
 occurred as above mentioned was not covered by 
 the policy. In re Geokge and the Goldsmiths' 
 AND Genebal Bukglaet Insubanoe Association 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 27 (5) ; [1899] 1 Q. B, 695 
 
 6. — Insurance against burglary — Execution of 
 policy — Retaining possession of policy — Com- 
 pleted contract — Recital — Waiver of prepayment 
 of premium. 
 
 A proposal for an insurance of goods against 
 loss by burglary having been made by the pit. 
 to the deft. co. on Dec. 14, 1895, the seal of the 
 CO. was afSxed to a policy in conformity with the 
 proposal at a meeting of the directors upon 
 Dec. 27, and the policy was signed by two 
 directors of the co. and their secretary. The 
 policy recited that a premium had been paid for 
 an insurance against loss by burglary from Dec. 
 14, 1895, to Jan. 1897, and purported to insure 
 the plt.'s goods accordingly. It contained a 
 provision that no insurance by way of renewal or 
 otherwise should be held to be effected until the 
 premium due thereon should have been paid. 
 Upon the night of Dec. 26, or early in the 
 morning of Dec. 27, a loss of goods included 
 in the policy by burglary had taken place. The 
 policy remained in the hands of the co., and 
 nothing was paid by way of premium : — 
 
 Seld, that the policy constituted a completed 
 contract of insurance ; that by the recital therein 
 the defts. had waived the condition for prepay- 
 ment of the premium ; and therefore that the 
 policy had attached. Eobekts v. Secueitt Co. 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. Ill 
 
 Jire. 
 — Compliance with condition in policy — Non- 
 suit — Practice. 
 See New South "Wales. 26. 
 
 7. — Condition precedent — Arbitration. 
 
 A condition ta a policy required that where 
 a difference arose as to the amount payable in 
 case of fire, the matter should be referred to 
 arbitrators to be chosen by the parties; and 
 also, that before an award no action should be 
 brought : — 
 
 Held, that an award as to damage was a 
 condition precedent to bringing the action. 
 Caledonian Insdkanoe Co. v. Gilmoub 
 
 H. 1. (So,) [1893] A. 0. 85 
 
 8. — Condition precedent — Warranty. 
 
 A policy was taken out which the pit. war- 
 ranted to bo identical in rate, terms, and interest 
 with the policies of two other companies. The 
 policy, as a fact, differed considerably from both : — 
 
 Held, that the warranty was a condition pre- 
 
( 977 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 978 ) 
 
 INSURANCE (Kre) — continued. 
 cedent to the existence of any obligation, and the 
 breach in the warranty avoided the policy. 
 Babnabd «. Fabeb C. a. [1893] 1 Q. B. 340 
 
 9. — Contract of iniemnity — Remedies of 
 assured against third parties — Might of insurer to 
 subrogation — Benunciation of remedies hy assured 
 — Bight of insurer to recover value of remedies 
 renomioed. 
 
 A policy of fire insurance being a contract of 
 indemnity, the insurer is entitled to recover from 
 the assured, not merely the value of any benefit 
 received by him by way of compensation from 
 other sources in excess of his actual loss, but also 
 the full value of any rights or remedies of the 
 assured against third parties which have been 
 renounced by him and to which, but for such 
 renunciation, the insurer would have a right to 
 be subrogated. Decision of Collins J. affirmed, 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 377. West gi' England Fire 
 Insurance Co. v. Isaacs 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 226 
 
 — Equitable tenant for life — Liability — Cove- 
 
 nants. 
 
 See Settled Land. 108. 
 
 — Ship stranded — Subsequent destruction by 
 
 fire. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 48. 
 
 10. — Warranty of truth of statements in pro- 
 posal — Condition. 
 
 Where in the proposal for a policy of insur- 
 ance against fire the applicant warrants the 
 statements therein to be true, a contract on the 
 part of the insured that the facts are such as 
 they are represented to be is imported. Ham- 
 BRouGH V. Mutual Life Insurance Co. or New 
 York - -- - C. A. [1895] W. N. 18 
 
 Guarantee. 
 
 11, — Concealment of material facts — Uberrima 
 fides. 
 
 On the application of the appellant the re- 
 spondent, an underwriter at Lloyd's, underwrote 
 an instrument in the form of a policy whereby he 
 guaranteed the solvency of a person who was 
 surety for the repayment by the borrower of 
 money lent by the appellant. The respondent 
 made no inquiry as to the rate of interest payable 
 by the borrower or as to the circumstances of the 
 loan, and no information was given to him on 
 those points. In fact the interest was over 30 per 
 cent, and the borrower was unable to repay the 
 loan. In an action on tbe policy the jury found 
 that the transaction was not one of ^exceptional 
 risk : — 
 
 3eld, that the non-disclosure of the rate of 
 interest and the circumstances of the loan did 
 not constitute a defence, there being no evidence 
 that those facts were material to the only risk 
 undertaken by the respondent, namely, the 
 solvency of the surety. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1899] 1 Q. B. 782, granting 
 a new trial, reversed. Sbaton v. Bubnand. 
 Buenand v. Seaton H. I. (E.) [1900] W. N. 48 ; 
 
 [1900] A. C, 135 
 
 12. — Securities — Contract to insure payment 
 of debenture at maturity— Postponement of date 
 
 INST7B ANCE (Guarantee)— continued, 
 of maturity hy special resolution of debenture- 
 holders — Liability of insurer. 
 
 The pit., the holder of a debenture in a co. 
 which matured for payment on Nov. 4, 1895, 
 effected a policy of insurance with the defts. 
 which, after reciting that the debenture matured 
 on that day and that the pit. had paid a premium 
 for insurance until that date, guaranteed to the 
 pit. the due payment of the principal money 
 secured by the debenture, if the debtors should 
 make default for more than three calendar 
 months in payment of any principal money due 
 " under the debenture." Subsequently, by a 
 special resolution of the debenture -holders, which 
 was neither assented to nor dissented from by the 
 pit., the date for payment of the debentures of 
 the CO. was postponed. The plt.'s debenture was 
 not paid off on Nov. 4, 1895, nor in three calendar 
 months after that date : — 
 
 Held, that, assuming the special resolution to 
 be valid, the contract was neveitheless one of 
 insurance against the default of the co. to pay 
 the amount of the debenture on the original 
 date ; that there had been a default by the co. 
 to pay money due under the debenture within 
 the meaning of the policy ; and that the pit. was 
 therefore entitled to recover the amount of the 
 policy from the defts., who were entitled on pay- 
 ment to be subrogated to the plt.'s rights as 
 modified by the special resolution. Finlat v. 
 Mexican Investment Cobpobation 
 
 Charles J. [1897] 1 ft. B. 517 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. Seaton v. Heath, Seaton 
 V. Burnand, [1899] 1 Q. B. 782, 790. This case 
 was reversed by H. L. (B.) [1900] A. C. 135. 
 See preceding Case. 
 
 13. — Securities — Deposit with banh — Insur- 
 ance or suretyship — Statutory discharge. 
 
 By a document headed " policy of insurance " 
 the defts. guaranteed to the pit. the " assured " 
 payment of a deposit with a bank in a Colony if 
 the bank should make default in payment. The 
 bank made default. Subsequently a scheme of 
 arrangement was sanctioned by a meeting of 
 creditors and the Colonial Court. Under a 
 Colonial statute the scheme was binding on the 
 pit. who, however, did fcot assent to the scheme : — ■ 
 
 Held, by 0. A. (affirm. Div. Ot.), that the 
 defts. were liable on their contract notwith- 
 standing the scheme of arrangement. 
 
 Fer Lord Esher M.H. and Lopes L.J., the 
 contract was one of insurance against the default 
 of the bank to pay. Therefore the dofts. were 
 liable to pay, but were entitled to be subrogated 
 to the rights of the pit. under the scheme of 
 arrangement. 
 
 Per Kay L. J., whether the contract was one 
 of insurance or one of suretyship, the scheme of 
 arrangement operated to discharge the bank 
 under the statute and not by way of accord and 
 satisfaction, and did not defeat the right vested 
 in the pit. under the contract upon default made 
 by the bank. Dane v. Mobtgage Insubance 
 Cobpobation C. A, [1894] 1 Q. B. 54 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Seaton v. Heath, Seaton. 
 V. Burnand, [1899] 1 Q. B. 782, 790. This case 
 was reversed by H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 135. 
 See No. 11, above. 
 
( 979 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 980 ) 
 
 nSSTrRASCS— continued. 
 Life. 
 
 Payment into Court — Life Assurance Com- 
 panies (Payment into Court) Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 8), gives power to life assurance companies 
 to pay money into Court in certain cases. 
 
 Rules dated July 29, 1896, under fids Act. 
 W. N. 1896 (Aug. 1), p. 229 ; Mule in substitution 
 of that printed on Atig. 1, 1896 {p. 229). W. N. 
 1896 (Oct. 31), p. 291. See Current Index, 1896, 
 p. Ivi. 
 
 Bwle 41a, dated Aug. 10, 1896, as to lodgment 
 schedule of moneys paid into Court. W. N. 1896 
 (Aug. 29), p. 243. See Current Index, 1896, 
 p. Ivii. 
 
 — Deposit — ^Payment out — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See- Pkaotiob — Payment out of Court. 
 139. 
 
 14. — Friendly society. 
 
 An insurance by a member of a friendly 
 society therein effected under 13 & 14 Vict. 
 c. 115, s. 2 (1), does not fall within 14 Geo. 3, 
 e. 48, s. 2, and does not therefore require to have 
 inserted the name of the person for whose beneiit 
 it is effected. Atkinson v. Atkinson 
 
 CMtty J. [1895] W. N. 114 (3) 
 
 — Income tax — Participating policy-holders — 
 
 Return of premium by way of bonus — 
 
 Annual profits or gains. 
 
 See Eetenue — Income Tax. 101. 
 
 14a. — Insurable interest — 14 Geo. 3, v. 48, 
 ss. 1, 3. 
 
 A promise by pit. to the mother of a child, 
 the plt.'s step-sister, to take care of the child : — 
 
 Held, to give an insurable interest so far as to 
 secure repayment of the expenses undertaken by 
 her. Barnes v. London, Edinbukgh and Glas- 
 gow Life Insueance Co. - - Div. Ct. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 864 
 
 — Keeping up premiums as between tenant for 
 
 life and remainderman — Apportionment. 
 See Settled Land — Apportionment. 12. 
 
 15. — Knowledge of agent — Construction of 
 policy. 
 
 An illiterate person, blind of one eye, signed, 
 at the request of an agent of an insurance co., an 
 application for a policy on a form which stated 
 that he had no physical infirmity. The policy 
 agreed to pay 250Z. for (inter alia) the loss of one 
 eye and 600Z. for total blindness. The insured 
 lost his remaining eye by an accident : — 
 
 Seld, that the knowledge of the agent that the 
 insured was blind of one eye affected the co., thac 
 the policy was good, and the insured could re- 
 cover as for total blindness. Bawden v. London, 
 Edinbtjb&h and Glassow Life Insuhanoe Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 534 
 
 — Life salvage. 
 
 See Cases under Instjeancb — ^Marine. 
 Shipping— Salvage. 
 
 — Lloyd's policy — Life salvage. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 76. 
 
 — Mortgage — Surrender of policy — Payment " iu 
 
 the meantime " — Payment by mortgagor 
 
 or his agent. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 29. 
 
 INSTTEANCE (LUe)— continued. 
 
 — Mortgagee taking possession of real estate — 
 
 Eedemption action — Eight to redeem 
 
 policy separately." 
 
 See MoETGAGE — Sedemptiou. 64, 67. 
 
 — Policy — ^Estate Duty — Settled property. 
 
 See Eevenue— Estate Duty. 35. 
 
 — Policy — Payment of premium by notes dis- 
 
 counted and then dishonoured. 
 See Canada — Ontario. 46. 
 
 — Policy — Succession duty. 
 
 See Eeventje — Succession Duty. 185. 
 
 16. — Policy — Trust for wife and children — 
 Appointment of trustees — Married Women's Pro- 
 perty Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 93), s. 10— 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 75), ss. 11, 22. 
 
 A policy for the benefit of a wife and children 
 effected under s. 10 of the Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1870, by a husband who dies after 
 the commencement of the Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882, does not vest in the legal 
 personal representatives of the husband in trast 
 for the beneficiaries as provided by s. 11 of the 
 Act of 1882, but a trustee must be appointed 
 under s. 10 of the Act of 1870. 
 
 In re Adam's Policy Trusts, (1883) 23 Ch. D. 
 525, and In re Soutar's Policy Trust, (1884) 26 
 Ch. D. 286, discussed. In re Tuenbull. Tuen- 
 BULL V. Tuenbull Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 415 
 
 17. — Policy in favour of wife and children — 
 Joint tenancy — Married Women's Property Act, 
 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 93), s. 10. 
 
 In 1877, A. insured his own life, and the 
 policy declared that the funds of tlie co. should 
 be liable to the payment of the sum insured to 
 the wife and children of the assured, pursuant to 
 the provisions of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1870. A. died in 1891, leaving a widow and 
 children : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the widow and children took as 
 joint tenants. In re Davies' Policy Teusts 
 
 CMtty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 90 
 
 18. — Policy in favour of wife — Death of 
 insured through crirne of wife — Married Women's 
 Property Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 11. 
 
 The executors of a person who has effected 
 an insurance on his life for the benefit of his wife 
 can maintain an action on the policy notwith- 
 standing that his death was caused by a felonious 
 act of his wife. The trust created by the policy 
 under s. 11 of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1882, having been defeated by reason of her 
 crime, the insurance money becomes part of the 
 assured, and as between his legal representatives? 
 and the insurers no question of public policy 
 arises to afford a defence to the action. Cleaver 
 V. Mutual Reserve Fond Life Association 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 147 
 
 — Premiums — Voluntary payment by settlor — 
 
 Bankruptcy by settlor — Policy moneys 
 — Proportion not represented by each 
 premium. 
 
 See Bankeuptct — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 269. 
 19. — Provision for wife and children of 
 assured— Wills Act, 1837 (7 Will. 4, 1 <£ 2 VicL 
 c. 26), s. 27. 
 
( 981 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 982 
 
 INSTOIAKCE (Litey—cmiinued. 
 
 A policy of insurance gave a power of nom- 
 ination to the assured, and provided that in 
 default the moneys should go to his widow and 
 children. The will of the insured, who never 
 made any nomination, disposition or charge 
 affecting the policy, contained a gift of residue, 
 but did not refer to the policy or to sums due on 
 any assurances : — 
 
 Beld, that the policy was valid and that the 
 moneys were distributable under the provisions 
 of the policy, and not as residuary estate. In re 
 Davies. Davies v. Davies 
 
 North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 63 
 — Kemedies of insurers — Subrogation. 
 See Queensland. 3. 
 
 20. — Mepudiation of assurer's 
 Action for declaration of liability brought before 
 death of assured. 
 
 . P. insured his life with the defts., and 
 assigned the policy to the pit. After two pre- 
 miums had been paid, the defts. refused to 
 receive any further premium, and repudiated 
 liability on the policy. Pit. brought an action 
 in the lifetime of P., claiming a declaration that 
 the policy was valid, and an injunction to restrain 
 the defts. from repudiating it : — 
 
 Seld, that, on the defts. undertaking that if 
 an action was hereafter brought on the policy 
 they would not rely as a defence on the non- 
 payment of premiums on the due-days, the action 
 would be dismissed. Honoue v. Equitable Life 
 AssuBANCE Society of the United States 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 67; [1900] 1 Ch. 852 
 
 21. — Salvage premiums — Eeimbursement. 
 On an assignment of leaseholds subject to a 
 
 mortgage to an insurance co. which was collater- 
 ally secured by a policy, it was agreed that the 
 policy should bqlong to the vendor, who was to 
 pay the premiums. This he failed to do, and 
 the purchaser had to pay several premiums to 
 prevent the mortgage being called in. The 
 policy finally lapsed, but the insurance co. ex 
 gratia allowed the surrender value, which was 
 less than the salvage premiums, and wrote the 
 amount off the mortgage debt. The vendor 
 claimed to have a lien on the leaseholds for the 
 amount, and a declaration that he as surety stood 
 in the place of the mortgagees of the policy. 
 Claim dismissed. Tippett v. Strutt 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 112 
 
 — Succession duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — Succession Duty. 185. 
 ' — Title-deeds — Custody of — Retention of per- 
 sonal estate. 
 
 See Vendor and Pueohaser — Title- 
 deeds. 99. 
 
 — Validity of life policy — Lawful holder. 
 
 See Canada. 11. 
 
 — Voluntary settlement — No provision for keep- 
 
 ing policies on foot. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 269. 
 33. — Warranty of truth of statements in pro- 
 posal — Condition. 
 
 Where in the proposal for a policy of life 
 insurance tlie applicant warrants the statements 
 therein to be true, a contract on the part of the 
 
 INSURANCE <^tei)— continued. 
 insured that the facts are such as they are repre- 
 sented to be is imported. Hambrough v. Mutual 
 Life Insurance Co^ of Kbw York 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 18 
 
 marine. 
 
 23. — Abandonment — Cash advances for ship's 
 disbursements-^Prepaid freight — Mights of under- 
 writer on ship. 
 
 The pits, were insurers of the hull and 
 machinery of the defts.' steamship whilst on a 
 voyage from Pensacola to West Hartlepool. The 
 vessel stranded at the entrance to the latter 
 harbour, and was abandoned by the defts. to the 
 pits, as a constructive total loss, but the cargo of 
 timber was subsequently delivered. At Pensacola 
 the sum of 1677?. 19s. lOd had been advanced to 
 the master by (he charterers, under a clause in 
 the charterparty, by which " Sufficient cash for 
 ship's ordiuary disbursements at port of loading 
 to be advanced the master by the charterers or 
 their agents at the (agreed) exchange, ship 
 paying 2J per cent, commission, including in- 
 surance. Master to give his draft, on owners or 
 consignees, as required and customary to cover 
 same, which shall be paid out of the first freight 
 collected." The defts. accepted from the con- 
 signees of the cargo, who held the master's draft 
 for value, the freight less the above sum ; but ' 
 the pits, claimed the gross freight as a benefit 
 incident to the ship : — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (Lord Esher M.E., Lopes and 
 Kay L.JJ.), affirming the decision of Bruce J., 
 [1895] P. 293, that the defts., in accounting to 
 the pits, for the freight, were entitled to deduct 
 the sum of 1677Z. 198. lOd., as, by the terms of 
 the charterparty, the cash advanced_at Pensacola 
 was equivalent to prepaid freight, and, as such, 
 did not pass to the pits, on the abandonment of 
 the vessel and subsequent delivery of the cargo. 
 The"EedSba" - - C. A. [1896] P. 20 
 
 24. — Articles of association imported into 
 policy — Alteration not legally passed — Condition. 
 
 A. insured a ship with the M. Co. The 
 policy imported the articles of association into 
 the contract. Eive years before the contract the 
 CO. altered their articles by adding " it shall be a 
 condition of this insurance that the assured shall 
 keep one-fifth (of the value of such ship) unin- 
 sured." This article was not legally confirmed, 
 but was registered and printed on the back of 
 the policy. A. also insured his ship with another 
 CO., so that altogether he had insured for more 
 than four- fifths of the ship's value : — 
 
 Seld, that notwithstanding the irregularity 
 in the procedui-e by which the article had been 
 altered, it was binding on A., and that, having 
 broken the condition, he could not recover on 
 the policy. Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1893) 20 E. 
 442, affirmed. Muirhbad v. Forth and North 
 Sea Steamboat Mutual Insurance Association 
 H. L. (S.) [1894] A. C. 72 
 
 25. — Attachment of risk. 
 
 An open policy insured goods "as interest 
 may apjpear or be hereafter declared" to,' any port 
 of Spain west of Gibraltar, and thence inland 
 through Spain. There was a marginal note pro- 
 viding that deviation or change of route not 
 
( 983 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891— ] 900. 
 
 ( 984 ) 
 
 INSURANCE (Maxine)— continued. 
 included in the policy wag to be covered at a 
 premium to be arranged. The pits, declared 
 under the policy a consignment of goods which 
 had in fact, but not to their knowledge, been 
 shipped on a vessel bound to a port east of 
 Gibraltar. The vessel was lost west of Gibraltar 
 before touching any Spanish port : — 
 
 Seld, that the risk had never attached, and 
 
 defts. were not liable. Simon, Isbael & Oo. v. 
 
 Sedgwick - - C. A. affirm. Wright J. 
 
 [1893] 1 Q. B. 303 
 
 26. — Attachmmt of risk — Policy — Ships 
 " sailing " on or after a specified date. 
 
 In an action on a policy of marine insurance 
 on goods in ships "sailing on or after March 1," 
 it appeared that the ship in question had finished 
 loading her cargo before ten o'clock at night on 
 Feb. 29, and, having previously cleared the 
 Oustom House, was then ready fo proceed to sea ; 
 but by a regulation of the port ships were not 
 permitted to go out to sea after dark. At ten 
 o'clock the master, with the object of keeping his 
 erew on board so as to be ready to start early in 
 the morning, moved the ship away from the 
 wharf about five hundred yards out into the river 
 and there anchored. In so moving the ship, he 
 placed her in a slightly more advantageous posi- 
 tion for starting than she would have been in if 
 she had remained at the wharf, but the gaining 
 of that advantage was no part of the master's 
 motive in moving her. On the following morn- 
 ing, March 1, she proceeded on her voyage : — 
 
 Held (afBrming the judgment of Mathew J., 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 27), that the ship sailed on 
 March 1, and not on Feb. 29, and that the policy 
 attached. Sea Insubance Co. v. Blogg 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 398 
 
 — Average — General average. 
 
 See Nos. 56, 57, beloio. 
 
 27. — Average — General average loss — Policy 
 — Sliip valued for policy at less than real value — 
 Salvage — Liability of underwriter. 
 
 The defts. insured the pits.' ship for 33,000Z., 
 the ship being valued in the policy at that sum. 
 During the currency of the policy a general 
 average loss was sustained and a salvage claim 
 bad also to be paid. In the salvage action and 
 the average statement the value of the ship was 
 fixed at !40,000Z., and the rights of all parties 
 were adjusted on that footing. In an action on 
 the policy : — 
 
 Held, that the defts. were only liable to make 
 good to the pits, thirty-three-fortieths of the 
 salvage and general average losses. Steamship 
 Balmoral Go. v. Maeten 
 
 Bigham J. [1900] 2 Q. B. 748 
 
 — Average — Shipping practice. 
 
 See Shipping — Average. 
 
 28. — Barratry of master- — Ferils of the sea — 
 Mortgagee of ship. 
 
 Upon an advance of money to enable the 
 
 borrower to carry out an arrangement by which 
 
 he was to become part-owner of a ship, and to be 
 
 appointed her captain, which arrangement was 
 
 »fW " ?: '^^"^^^ out, it was agreed that the 
 
 8hlres°!,f^">,"^'^v'?^ ^^""""^^^ ^y a mortgage of bis 
 shares m the ship, and that he should cause an 
 
 INSTTEANCE (Kaxine')— continued. 
 insurance to be effected on the ship to cover the 
 mortgagee's interest. An insurance was effected, 
 upon the instructions of the mortgagor and the 
 co-owners of the ship, by the ship's husbands as 
 well in their own names as for and in the name 
 or names of all and every other person or persons 
 to whom the same should appertain in part, or in 
 all, against, among other things, perUs of the 
 sea and barratry of the master and mariners. It 
 being alleged by way of defence to an action 
 upon the policy of insurance by the executore of 
 the mortgagee that the ship had been wilfully 
 cast away by her captain, the mortgagor : — 
 
 Held, upon the argument of a preliminary 
 question in the action, that, assuming the ship 
 to have been so cast away, the mortgagee was 
 nevertheless entitled to recover upon the policy 
 of insurance in respect of a loss by perils of the 
 sea, if he had nothing to do with the appoint- 
 ment of the mortgagor as captain ; or in respect 
 of a loss by barratry of the master, if he had 
 taken part in his appointment. 
 
 The decision of Mathew J., [1897] 2 Q. B. 42, 
 affirmed. Small v. United Kingdom Marine 
 Mutual Insurance Assooiation 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 311 
 — Bottomry — Maritime risk — Maritime interest. 
 See Shipping — Bottomry. 14. 
 
 29. — Capture — Notice of abandonment — Me- 
 covery of ship after action brought — Total loss. 
 
 A ship, insured under a policy covering war 
 risks, was, whilst carrying contraband of war 
 destined for one of two belligerent governments, 
 captured by a cruiser belonging to the other. 
 Thereupon the shipowners gave to tlie under- 
 writers notice of abandonment, which was refused ; 
 and shortly afterwards they commenced an action 
 on the policy. Subsequently, the war being at 
 an end, the prize court of the captors decreed the 
 ship to be returned to her owners : — 
 
 Held, that the return of the ship after the 
 commencement of the action did not disentitle 
 the owners to recover as for a total loss. EuTS v. 
 Eotal Exchange Assurance Corporation 
 
 Collins J. [1897] 2 Q. B. 135 
 
 30. — Capture — Property of alien enemy — 
 Existing state of war — Intention to wage war — 
 Seizure by belligerent government of property of 
 itsoum subjects — Contract of indemnity — Validity. 
 
 The principle of law which invalidates in- 
 surance of an alien enemy's property does not 
 apply to insurance against seizure by a belligerent 
 government of the property of its own subjects. 
 
 Gold, the property of a co. carrying on business 
 in the Transvaal, was insured with British 
 underwriters, by a policy containing a clause 
 against capture, for transit from mines in the 
 Transvaal to the United Kingdom, and during 
 transit was seized by the Transvaal Government. 
 The policy was made, and the loss occurred, 
 before the actual commencement of hostilities 
 between Her Majesty's Government and the 
 Transvaal. The co. sued on the policy, and the 
 underwriters defended on the ground that the 
 plaintiffs were alien enemies, and the loss was by 
 arrest, restraint, or detainment by the Transvaal 
 Government, incidental to actual or expected 
 hostilities against Her Majesty, and made for a 
 
( 985 ) 
 
 BIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 9S6 ) 
 
 IHSTTRANCE (Marine) — continued. 
 purpose connected therewith, namely, to supply 
 that Grovernment -with funds "with which to levy 
 ■war on Her Majesty. It was agreed that no 
 dilatory plea should be set up based upon the 
 fact that the pit. oo. was alien and could not sue 
 ■while the war lasted, but the case should be dealt 
 with as-if the war were over : — 
 
 Meld, that the intention of the Transvaal 
 Government to wage war subsequently could not 
 be treated as creating an actual state of war, and 
 that the commencement of the war, which took 
 place a few days later, could not have the effect 
 of making the seizure a hostile act : — 
 
 Held, also, that the subsequent breaking out 
 of war did not invalidate the contract of insurance, 
 and the pits, were entitled to recover. Dkiefon- 
 TEiN Consolidated Gold Mines v. Janson. 
 "West Kand Centbal Gold Mines Co. v. De 
 KouQEMONT Mathew J. [1900] 2 ft. B. 339 
 
 31. — Chartered freight — " Canedling of char- 
 ter "■ — Delay fhrov,gh, perils of the sea. 
 
 A policy of insurance upon freight contained 
 a provision " No claim arising from the cancelling 
 of any charter . . . shall be allowed." The vessel 
 was delayed by perils of the sea ; no agreement 
 to set aside the charter was made, but the voyage 
 contemplated by the charter became impos- 
 sible : — 
 
 Meld, that the charter had not been cancelled 
 within the meaning of the provision, and that 
 the assured were entitled to recover upon the 
 policy. In re Jameson and Newcastle Steam- 
 ship Feeight Insdkancb Association 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 90 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 510 
 reversed. 
 
 32. — Chartered freight — Loss of hire. 
 
 A ship was chartered from the pits, on terms 
 that the hire should cease if and while the ship 
 was out of repair preventing the working of the 
 ship for more than 24 working hours. The pits. 
 insured the chartered freight against the ordinary 
 perils, including fire ; the ship was damaged by 
 fire, and the hire ceased for 13 days : — 
 
 MeU, that the pits, were entitled to recover 
 on their policy as the loss of hire was the direct 
 result of one of the perils insured against. The 
 " Alps " G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 109 
 
 Followed and approved by C. A. The 
 Bedouin, [1894] P. 1. 
 See next Case. 
 
 Beferred to by C. A. Branhelow Steamship 
 Co. V. Canton Insurance Office, [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 178, 188. 
 
 33. — Chartered freight— Loss of hire—Non- 
 communieation of material facts. 
 
 A ship was chartered from the pits, on terms 
 that the hire should cease if and while the ship 
 was out of repair for more than twenty-four 
 hours. By a slip initialled by deft, the insured 
 risk was described as " freight chartered ~ as 
 if chartered on board or not on board " for three 
 months "one-tliird diminishing each month. 
 By the policy the insured risks were ' of the 
 seas, &o.," in the usual form. Payment of hire 
 ceased from an accident caused by sea perils for 
 
 INSTTEANCE (Marine) — continued. 
 twenty-eight days. An action was brought on 
 the policy to recover the hire so lost : — 
 
 Mdd, that the deft, was liable as the hire 
 ceased through the peril insured against, that, 
 though the whole freight might eventually be 
 earned, the loss due to the postponement fell on 
 the policy, and that the description on the slip 
 sufficiently gave the deft, notice that he was 
 insuring freight under a time charter containing 
 the twenty-four hours' clause. The " Bedouin " 
 C. A. affirm. G. Barnes J. [1894] P. I 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Asfar & Co. v. Blundell, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 123, 134. 
 
 34. — Collision — Loss by detention during re- 
 pairs — Damages — Berrwteness — Construction of 
 policy. 
 
 Barges were insured against loss or damage, 
 which the insured should sustain, or become 
 liable to others for, by reason of the collision of 
 the barges with any other vessel. The barges 
 having been damaged by collision, the insured 
 claimed damages for loss in consequence of deten- 
 tion of the barges during repairs : — 
 
 Meld, that, in order to be recoverable, the loss 
 must be proximately caused by the perils insured 
 against, and that the damages claimed were too 
 remote, and could not be recovered under the 
 policy. Shblbodknb & Co. v. Law Investment 
 AND Insurance Coepokation, Ld. 
 
 Kennedy J. [1898] 2 ft. B. 626 
 
 36. — Collision clause — Construction — Sunt 
 paid "in respect of injury to such other ship or 
 vessel itself " — Expenses of removal of wreck. 
 
 By a collision clause in a policy of marine 
 insurance on ship the underwriters agreed that, 
 if the ship assured should come into collision 
 with any other ship or vessel, and the assured 
 should in consequence thereof be found liable to 
 pay, and should pay, any sums, not exceeding- 
 the value of the ship assured " in respect of injury 
 to such other ship or vessel itself, or to the goods 
 and effects on board thereof, or for loss of freight 
 then being earned by such other ship or vessel," 
 they would pay the assured a certain proportion 
 of the sums so paid, but it was provided that this 
 agreement should not be construed as extending 
 to any sums the assured might become liable to 
 pay in respect of loss of life or personal injury to 
 individuals from any cause whatever. 
 
 The ship assured having come into collision 
 with and sunk a tug in a river, commissioners 
 acting under statutory powers removed the wreck, 
 and claimed the expenses of so doing from the 
 tug-owners, who paid them, and recovered the 
 amount so paid in the Court of Admiralty from 
 the assured :-r- 
 
 Meld, that the collision clause did not cover 
 the sum so recovered from the assured, inasmuch 
 as it was not paid " in respect of injury to such 
 other ship or vessel itself." Buegee v. Indemnity 
 Mutual Maeine Assurance Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N, 145 ; [1900] 2 ft. B. 348 
 
 36. — Collision clause — " Piers or similar 
 structures." 
 
 Where a ship was lost through being driven 
 by the wind and sea against a sloping bank 
 artificially formed outside the breakwater of a 
 
( 987 ) 
 
 DIGEBT OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 988 ) 
 
 IHSUBAITCE Qiaxiae)— continued. 
 
 harbour by laying down loose bonldere in the sea 
 
 to protect the breakwater : — 
 
 Held, that the loss came within the words 
 "loss through collision with piers or similar 
 structures " in a policy of re-insurance. Union 
 Mabinb Insdbanoe Co. v. Bokwiok 
 
 Mathew J. [1895] 2 ft. B. 279 
 
 37. — Collision clause — Proviso — Gonstruction. 
 A proviso to the collision clause in a policy 
 
 read as follows: "This clause shall in no case 
 extend to any sum which the assured may become 
 liable to pay or shall pay for removal of obstruc- 
 tions under statutory powers consequent on such 
 collision" : — 
 
 Held, that damages paid to owners of a ship 
 sunk in collision with the assurers' ship in 
 respect of the removal of the sunken ship under 
 statutory powers was covered by the proviso, and 
 not recoverable from the insurers. The " North 
 Britain " - C. A. reversing G. Barnes J. 
 
 [1894] P. 77 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Burger v. Indemnity 
 Mutual Marine Assurance Co. [1900] 2 Q. B. 340, 
 350. 
 
 38. — Collision clause — Proviso — Construction 
 of proviso " that iliis clause shall in no case extend 
 to any sum which the assured may become liable to 
 pay or shall pay for removal of obstructions under 
 statutory powers." 
 
 A collision clause in a policy of marine 
 insurance, covering damages payable in respect 
 of a collision with another vessel, contained a 
 proviso " that this clause shall in no case extend 
 to any sum which the assured may become liable 
 to pay or shall pay for removal of obstructions 
 under statutory powers." The insured vessel 
 came into collision with another vessel, which 
 sank and was removed as an obstruction by 
 commissioners under statutory powers. Both 
 vessels were to blame for the collision. The 
 owners of the insured vessel paid as damages to 
 the owners of the sunken vessel a moiety of the 
 sum which the latter had paid to the com- 
 missioners for the expenses of the removal, and 
 made a claim upon the underwriters in respect of 
 the moiety: — 
 
 Held, that the proviso must be construed as a 
 business document prepared by men of business 
 for their own use, and as business men would 
 understand it: that it was not confined to 
 payments made directly by the assured to the 
 persons who caused the obstruction to be removed, 
 but included indirect payments such as the 
 moiety in question, and that the underwriters 
 were not liable. 
 
 The North Britain, [1894] P. 77, approved. 
 Tatham, Bromaqe & Co. v. Burr. The " En- 
 gineer " - H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 382 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Burger v. Indemnity 
 Mutual Marine Assurance Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 348, 
 350. 
 
 39. — Collision clause — Proximate cause. 
 
 A ship was insured against collision with any 
 °%«t. but not against perils of the sea. Her 
 paddle-wheel came into collision with a snag in a 
 nver, and the cover of the condenser was broken. 
 xue water entered the ejection-pipe and came in 
 
 INSURANCE (Uaiine)— continued. 
 through the hole in the condenser. The ejection- 
 pipe was plugged, and so long as the ship was at 
 anchor this stopped any damage; but on her 
 being towed into dock, the wash of the water 
 threw out the plug, and the ship had to be 
 beached to save the crew : — 
 
 Held, that the collision was the proximate 
 cause of the injury, and that the hole in the 
 condenser was a continuing cause of damage and 
 the real cause of the loss of the ship, and there- 
 fore the policy covered the loss. Eeisobee v. 
 BoBWiOK - C. A. affirm. Kennedy J. [1894] 
 
 2 ft. B. 548 
 
 40. — Collision clause — SunJcen wreck. 
 
 A policy of re-insurance covered the risk of 
 loss or damage through "collision with (inter 
 alia) any sunken wreck." The ship ran aground 
 and was found to be resting on the wreck of a 
 steamer, the ribs of which projected through the 
 sand ; she subsequently shifted on to a bank of 
 iron ore which had once formed part of a ship's 
 cargo : — 
 
 Hdd, that the damage in both cases was 
 "through collision vrith sunken wreck" within 
 the clause in the policy. The " Munboe " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 248 
 
 41. — Collision clause — Tug and tow. 
 
 A policy insuring the ship N. from the Clyde 
 (in tow) to Cardiff, contained a collision clause. 
 While in tow the N.'s tug came into collision 
 with and sunk another vessel, whose owners 
 recovered damages against ship and tug : — 
 
 Held, that tlie collision of the tug with the 
 
 injured vessel was a collision with the N. within 
 
 the policy. McCowan v. Baine. The " Niobe " 
 
 H. I. (So.) [1891] A. C. 401 
 
 Referred to by Jeune J. The Englishman v. 
 The Australia, [1894] P. 239, 244. 
 
 42. — Constructive total loss. 
 
 The doctrine of constructive total loss applies 
 only as between an underwriter and his assured, 
 and cannot be invoked as between shipowner and 
 charterer. Per Lord Esher M.R. Assioueazioni 
 GrBNEBALi V. SS. Bessie Morris Co. 
 
 [1892] 1 ft. B. 671 ; 
 C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 652, at p. 657 
 
 43. — Constructive total loss — ioss by fire — 
 " Burnt." 
 
 A ship is not " burnt " within the meaning of 
 
 the memorandum in a Lloyd's policy unless tbo 
 
 injury by fire is considerable enough to constitute 
 
 a substantial burning of the ship as a whole. 
 
 The " Glenliyet " G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 164 ; 
 
 varied by C. A. [1894] P. 49 
 
 — Contract in writing — Misrepresentation — 
 
 Burden of proof. 
 
 See New South WaCes. 30. 
 
 44. — Cost of disposing of cargo rendered 
 worthless by sea peril — Insurance on ship — Perils 
 of the seas—Conseqv,ential damage, underwriter's 
 liability for. 
 
 A ship, insured under a time policy on hull 
 and materials, machinery and boilers, against 
 perils of the seas and all other perils, losses, and 
 misfortunes which might come to her hurt, 
 detriment, or damage, was, during the currency 
 
( 989 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 990 ) 
 
 INSUEANCE (Marine)— comiinMei. 
 of the policy, injured through a collision in the 
 Thames whilst making JFor London, her port of 
 destination, a hole being knocked in her bottom. 
 Her cargo, cotton seed^ through the action of the 
 water and mud which came through the hold, 
 became rotten, offensive, and worthless, and 
 neither the cargo owners nor their undei-writei s 
 would pay freight or take delivery. After the 
 collision part of the cargo was put into lighters 
 in order to allow the, ship to be taken into dry 
 dock, where she was temporarily patched. Subse- 
 quently she was towed to the Millwall Dock to 
 discharge the rest of the cargo, and thereupon 
 the sanitary authority of the district ordered her 
 to abate the nuisance caused by the offensive 
 condition of the cotton seed and to remove it. 
 The ship accordingly was taken down to Dagen- 
 ham Pier, and her cargo was there discharged by 
 contractors on to land belonging to them. In an 
 action on the policy by the shipowners to recover 
 from their underwriter the cost of dealing with 
 the cargo between the date of the collision and 
 the date of its arrival at Dagenbam, and also the 
 contractoro' charges for discharging and disposing 
 of it there : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were not entitled to recover 
 any of such cost or charges. 
 
 Judgment of Bigham J., [1898] 1 Q. B. 821, 
 aiBrmed. Field Steamship Co. v. Btjeb 
 
 C. A, [1899] 1 ft. B. 579 
 
 45. — Damage to part of goods insured — Cost 
 of examining undamaged part. 
 
 L. insured goods in cases free from average 
 under 3 per cent., average to be recoverable on 
 each package separately or on the whole. Part 
 of the goods were damaged, and the whole was 
 unpacked and examined, and the damaged part 
 sold : — 
 
 Seld, that the underwriters were not liable 
 for any expenses incurred in relation to any 
 part of the cargo other than those cases which 
 contained goods that had been damaged. J. Ly- 
 SAGHT, Lr. V. Coleman 
 
 C. A. aflarm. Wills J. [1895] 1 ft. B. 49 
 
 46. — Deviation — Delay — Clause allowing 
 deviation at premium to he arranged. 
 
 The pits, insured with the defts. by a Lloyd's 
 policy a box containing bullion " at and from 
 Boodinni to London," in a P. & O. steamer, 
 " including all risks of every description from 
 the mines by escort to railway station at Kaichur 
 (forty miles) thence by rail (400 miles) to 
 Bombay, thence to London." The policy con- 
 tained a clause covering the assured "in the 
 event of deviation oi change of voyage at a 
 premium to be hereafter arranged." At Eaiehnr 
 the station-master improperly refused to receive 
 the box at other than owner's risk rate, and the 
 official in charge of it took it for safety to the 
 pits.' head office at Secunderabad, 170 miles 
 from Kaichur, and off the route from that place to 
 Bombay ; the box was kept there for a month in 
 the pits.' safe while arrangements were being 
 made with the ry. co. The box was then 
 taken to Raitjhurand forwarded by the prescribed 
 route to Londpp,, where upon arrival a bar of 
 gold was found to be missing; it had in fact been 
 
 IKSUBANCE (Marine) — contintied. 
 
 stolen while the box was in the pits.' office at 
 
 Secunderabad : — 
 
 Held, that the taking of the box to Secundera- 
 bad was a necessary act done in the prosecution 
 of the insured journey, and was within the scope 
 of the adventure; that the risk was always a 
 transit risk; that the delay at Secunderabad was 
 unreasonably long, and that there was at that 
 place an unjustifiable deviation not covered by 
 the premium paid, but that, being a deviation in 
 the course of the voyage, it was covered by the 
 deviation clause in the policy, and the defts. were 
 therefore liable. Htdebabad (Deocan) Co. v. 
 WiLLotiGHBY - Bigham ]'. [1899] 2 ft. B, 530 
 — Discovery — Documents. 
 
 See DiscovEET — Documents. 27. 
 
 47. — DocTe expenses — Ship docked for repair 
 of sea damages-Ship surveyed while in dock for 
 Lloyd's classification — Apportionment of dock 
 charges and expenses — Contribution. 
 
 There is no principle of law which requires a 
 person to contribute to an outlay merely because 
 he has derived a material benefit from it. 
 
 During a voyage covered by a policy of marine 
 insurance a vessel was damaged by a peril in- 
 sured against and was therefore put into dry 
 dock for the necessary repairs. The survey of 
 the vessel for renewing her classification was hot 
 due, but the owners (without causing delay or 
 increase of dock expenses) took advantage of her 
 being in dry dock to have the survey made, and 
 her classification was renewed : — 
 
 Held, that the expenses of getting the vessel 
 into and out of the dock, as well as those incurred 
 in the use of the dock, fell upon the underwriters 
 alone, and could not be apportioned between them 
 and the owners. 
 
 Decisions of Mathew J., [1897] 2 Q. B. 456, 
 and C. A. [1898] W. N. 35 (6) ; [1898] 1 Q. B. 722, 
 reversed. 
 
 The Vancouver Case (Marine Insurance Co. v. 
 China Transpacific Steamship Co.), (1886) 11 
 App. Gas. 573, distinguished. ErABou Steam- 
 ship Co. V. London Assueance 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 254; [1900] A. C. 6 
 
 — Estoppel — Judgment. 
 
 See Estoppel. 6. 
 
 48. — Fire, Insurance against — Ship stranded 
 and depreciated in value — Subsequent destruction 
 by fire. 
 
 The plt.'s vessel was insured by the defts. by 
 a valued time policy against loss or dainage by 
 fire. While so insured she stranded, and sus- 
 tained siich injuries that the cost of repairing 
 her would have been greater than her value 
 when repaired. Thirty-six hours afterwards she 
 was completely destroyed by fire. 
 
 In an action by the pits, on the policy': — 
 Seld, that the defts. were liable for the full 
 amount for which they had insured the vessel. 
 WooDsiDE V. Globe Maeinb Insurance Co. 
 
 Mathew J. [1896] 1 ft. B. 105 
 
 49. — Freight — Commencement of risk — Time 
 of engagement of goods — Loading port. 
 
 , By a policy on freight "at and from any port 
 or ports of loading on the west coast of South 
 America to any port or ports of discharge in the 
 
( 991 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 992 ) 
 
 INSTJKANCE (Marine)— coaiinttee?. 
 
 United Kingdom " the freight was to be covered 
 
 " from the time of the engagement of the goods." 
 
 Goods were engaged for the vessel which was 
 to earn the freight, and were ready for shipment 
 in her at the time of her loss, which occurred 
 before she arrived at her first loading port on the 
 west coast of South America : — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (Lord Esher M.E., Kay and 
 A. L. Smith L.JJ.), affirming the decision of G. 
 Barnes J., [1896] P. 154, that the "engagement" 
 clause must be construed with reference to the 
 voyage described in the policy, and, therefore, as 
 the vessel had not arrived at her first loading 
 port on the west coast of South America, the risk 
 had not attached. The " Copeknious " 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 237 
 
 60. — Freight — Loss of — Time policy — Ex- 
 ception — " Claim consequent on loss of time " — 
 Loss of time arising from peril of the sect. 
 
 A time policy of insurance on freight was 
 warranted "free from any claim consequent on 
 loss of time, whether arising from a peril of the 
 sea or otherwise." During a voyage the steamer's 
 main shaft broke through a peril of the sea and 
 the vessel returned to her port of loading. It 
 was there found that the necessary delay for 
 repairs would frustrate the objects of the adven- 
 ture, and the charterers, as they were entitled to 
 do by the foreign law applicable, put an end to 
 the charter and the freight was lost. In an action 
 on the policy for total loss of freight : — 
 
 Held, that the claim was consequent on loss 
 of time within the meaning of the exception, and 
 that the underwriters were not liable. 
 
 The decision of the 0. A., [1897] 1 Q. B. 29, 
 affirmed. Bensaude v. Thames and Meeset 
 Maeine Insubanoe Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 609 
 
 Referred to by Mathew J. Turnbull, Martin 
 & Co. V. Hull Underwriters' Association, [1900] 
 2 Q. B. 402, 405. 
 
 51. — Freight — Loss of — Exception — " Claim 
 conseqaent on loss of time." 
 
 A policy of insurance was effected on the 
 outward voyage of a steamer from London to 
 Australian ports for freight expected to be earned 
 on the homeward voyage, the subject-matter 
 being described as " upon freight of frozen meat, 
 chartered or as if chartered " ; the policy was 
 warranted " free from any claim consequent on 
 loss of time, whether arising from a peril of the 
 sea or otherwise." The ship, which was a general 
 ship, having three of her five holds fitted with 
 refrigerating machinery for frozen meat, arrived 
 at Sydney on her outward voyage, and while 
 discharging her outward cargo a serious fire 
 broke out off board which destroyed the refri- 
 gerating apparatus, in consequence of which it 
 became impossible to carry frozen meat upon the 
 return voyage to England. In an action on the 
 policy for total loss of freight on frozen meat : — 
 
 Held, that the case could not be distinguished 
 from Bensaude v. Thames and Mersey Marine 
 Insurance Co., [1897] A. C. 609, on the ground 
 that the freight was not chartered freight ; that 
 the claim was therefore consequent on loss of 
 +w *^^*™ *^® meaning of the exception, and 
 tnat the underwriters were not liable. Tubnbdll, 
 
 INSTJEANCE (Marine) — continued. 
 Maetin & Co V. Htjll Undebweitebs' Associa- 
 tion, Ld. - Mathew J. [1900] S ft. B. 403 
 
 52. — Freight — Loss of — Policy — Construction 
 — Coal cargo — Heating — Discharge and Sale — 
 Peril of " Fire . . . and all other losses and mis- 
 fortunes." 
 
 The pits, chartered their vessel to carry a 
 cargo of coals from Newcastle, New South Wales, 
 to Valparaiso at 15s. per ton payable on delivery, 
 and they effected insurances with the deft, under- 
 writers on the freight upon the ship by policies 
 which insured against fire and " all other perils, 
 losses, and misfortunes that have or shall come 
 to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the subject- 
 matter of the insurance or any part thereof." 
 
 The vessel only delivered a portion of the 
 cargo at her port of discharge as, a few days after 
 starting on the voyage, she was compelled to put 
 into Sydney owing to the heating of the coals, 
 and, on the recommendation of surveyors, the 
 larger portion of the cargo was discharged and 
 sold, entailing a consequent loss of freight : — 
 
 Held, by G, Barnes J., that the defts. were 
 liable to make good to the pits, the loss of freight 
 as a partial loss under the policies, for, though 
 no part of the coal was ever actually on' fire, it 
 was reasonably certain that, if the vessel had 
 continued on her direct voyage, the temperature 
 of the coal would have risen until spontaneous 
 combustion ensued, involving, in all probability, 
 the destruction of ship and cargo by fire, so that 
 there was an existing condition of things pro- 
 ducing imminent danger of fire, not merely a 
 fear of fire, or, if it was not a loss by fire, it was 
 a loss ejusdem genei-is covered by the words " all 
 other losses and misfortunes." The " Knight of 
 St. Michael" G. Barnes J. [1898] P. 30 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Iredale v. China Traders' 
 Insurance Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 515, 518. 
 
 63. — Freight — Lump chartered freight — Loss 
 not hy perils insured against — Cesser of liability 
 clause — Loss of hill of lading freight — Waiver of 
 lien for chartered freight. 
 
 Shipowners eifected a policy of marine insur- 
 ance on chartered freight under a chai'terparty, 
 by which a ship was chartered for a voyage at a 
 lump freight, and it was provided that the muster 
 should sign bills of lading at any rate of freight 
 the charterers might require, but not under char- 
 tered rates, or difference to be settled in cash, 
 on signing bills of lading, that the charterers' 
 liability should cease upon shipment of the 
 cargo, provided the cargo was worth the freight, 
 dead freight, and demurrage on arrival at the 
 port of discharge, and that the vessel should 
 have a lien on the cargo for recovery of all 
 freight, dead freight, demurrage, and all other 
 charges whatsoever. The charterers loaded the 
 ship with a general cargo, and the master signed 
 bills of lading, by which the goods mentioned iu 
 each bill of lading were made deliverable to the 
 consignees thereof upon payment of the bill of 
 lading freight in respect of those goods. The 
 total amount of the bill of lading freight on 
 the goods shipped exceeded the amount of the 
 chartered freight. On the voyage the ship ran 
 aground, and a certain portion of the cargo was 
 in consequence jettisoned or otherwise lost. The 
 
( 993 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 994 ) 
 
 INSTJEAKCE (Marine) -coiWnjiefZ. 
 ship, having been floated again, ultimately com- 
 pleted her voyage with the remainder of the 
 cargo, -which was worth the freight, dead freight, 
 and demurrage on arrival of the ship. Owing to 
 the loss of cargo as before mentioned, the amount 
 of the bill of lading freight received by the ship- 
 owners was less than that of the chartered freight. 
 Tlie shipowners brought an action against the 
 underwriters on the policy to recover the difference 
 between the two amounts : — 
 
 Seld, that the action was not maintainable, 
 the loss not having been occasioned by a peril of 
 the sea, but by the pits.' own action in not so 
 framing the bills of lading as to preserve to 
 themselves their lieu over the whole cargo for 
 the chartered freight. Bbankelow Steamship 
 Co. V. Canton Insueanoe Office Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 178 
 54. — Freight — Valued policy — Over value. 
 Pits., whose vessel was on the way to N., 
 insured the homeward freight with defts. for 
 ISOOi. on I' freight valued at 55003." The value 
 at that time was reasonable, but the ship was 
 unavoidably delayed and freights fell, and she 
 sailed with a full cargo the freight on which was 
 3250Z., of which 952Z. was paid in advance. The 
 vessel was wrecked and 22983., the freight at 
 risk, was lost. Pits, collected 32503. from other 
 insurers and claimed 15003. from defts. The 
 defts. contended that the valuation must be 
 opened, and that, on the actual amount of freight 
 at risk, the pits, had been fully indemnified 
 under other policies : — 
 
 Held, that the valuation was binding, but 
 that 16113. must be deducted from the 55003., 
 being a sum proportional to the 9523. prepaid 
 freight, leaving 38893. the value at risk, and that 
 as pits, had already received 22983., so they were 
 entitled to recover 6393. and a small return of 
 premium from defts. The " Main " 
 
 6. Barnes J. [1894] P. 320 
 85. — " Furniture" what included under term 
 — Policy on ship. 
 
 Where a ship was usually employed in the 
 Black Sea grain trade, and it was necessary under 
 the circumstances of that trade that she should 
 be provided with separation cloths and dunnage 
 mats for the proper carriage of her cargo : — 
 
 Held, (affirming the judgment of Bigham J., 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 401), that a time; policy upon the 
 ship and her furniture covered a loss of such 
 cloths and mats, although at the time when the 
 loss occurred the vessel was not engaged in the 
 before-mentioned trade, and the cloths and mats 
 were not in use but stowed away in the forepeak. 
 Hogaeth v. Walker 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. ». 127; [1900] 2 Q. B. 283 
 
 56. — General average — Ship in hallaet — 
 Chartered homeward freight — " Foreign statement " 
 
 A policy was granted on chartered homeward 
 freight — general average payable "as per foreign 
 statement if required." Expenses were incurred 
 in harbour by ship on outward voyage in ballast, 
 but not for preservation either of ship or freight, 
 and included in an average statement purporting 
 to be made up in accordance with American law : — 
 
 Held, that as the ship was under charter 
 
 INSUBANCE (Marine)— coniiftued. 
 outward bound to her loading port, and the only 
 persons interested in the ship and chartered 
 freight were the ship-owners, there could not be 
 any general average loss for which the under- 
 writers were liable under the policy, and, that as 
 there was no need for any foreign adjustment, 
 the foreign statement clause had no eifect. The 
 "Bbigella." - G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 189 
 
 Not followed by Mathew J. Montgomery 
 & Co. V. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Co., 
 [1901] 1 Q. B. 147. 
 
 67. — General average payable per foreign 
 statement — Adjustment — Dutch law. 
 
 Pits, insured a ship and freight with defts. 
 by two policies. Each provided that general 
 average should be payable per foreign statement, 
 and contained a sue and labour clause, and 
 covered loss through negUgence of the master. 
 The bills of lading exempted strandings, even if 
 occasioned by the master's negligence. The ship 
 was stranded through such negligence, and 
 expenses were incurred. At the port of discharge 
 in Holland a statement was prepared of the 
 general average expenses, and the proportions 
 due from ship, freight, and cargo. The defts. 
 paid their share of these, but the consignees were- 
 held by the Dutch Courts not to be liable for- 
 general average : — ■ 
 
 -H'e3c3, that the foreign statement was con- 
 clusive between assured and underwriter as ta 
 what were general average expenses and as t» 
 their apportionment, and that the assured could 
 not select certain items out of the expenses and 
 allege that by English law they were particular 
 average on the ship, or particular charges recover- 
 able under the sue and labour clause. The 
 " Mabt Thomas " 
 
 C. A. affirm. &. Barnes J. [1894] P. 108 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Milburn & Co. v. 
 Jamaica Fruit Importing and Trading Co. of 
 London, [1900] 2 Q. B. 540, 547. 
 
 58. — Goods not in ship at time of stranding — 
 Freight — Valued policy. 
 
 A cargo of maize was insured for a fixed sum, 
 including a sum for advance on freight. It was 
 described as consisting of two separate lots to be 
 shipped at different ports. The policy covered 
 all risks in craft, and contained a warranty 
 against particular average unless the ship or 
 craft were stranded. The ship, after taking in 
 the first lot, stranded between, the foreign ports,, 
 but got off, reached the second port, and took 
 on board the second lot of maize which had 
 been waiting in craft, i.e., in lighters. The 
 whole cargo was damaged on the homeward 
 voyage :— 
 
 Held, that particular average could not be 
 adjusted on the maize not on board the ship at 
 the time of the stranding, and that the insurance 
 " in craft " only related to damage done while on 
 craft : — 
 
 Held, also, that the policy was to be treated 
 as a policy on valued goods, and not a policy 
 where the advanced freight was separately 
 insured. 
 
 Held, also, that a merchant valuing his goods 
 for a valued policy has a right to value them as 
 
 2 K 
 
( 995 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 996 ) 
 
 INSTTBANCE (Marine)— conh'maed. 
 at the port of destination, i.e., to include freight. 
 Thames and Mebsey Marine Insubanoe Co. v. 
 Pitts, Son & King 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 476 
 
 69. — " Honour " policies — " Hull and ma- 
 cltinery " — " Disbursements." 
 
 Pit. effected a time policy on the hull and 
 machinery of a vessel, warranting a certain part 
 of the value uninsured. He had also effected 
 by " honour " policies insurance on " disburse- 
 ments " : — 
 
 Seld, by Kennedy J. and C. A., that the 
 "honour" policies being on " disbursemeuts " 
 •did not cover any part of the subject-matter of 
 the policies on the hull and machinery, and 
 therefore did not infringe the warranty. 
 
 Held, also, by Kennedy J., that the " honour " 
 policies, though void in law under 19 Geo. 2, 
 ■c. 37, were effective to infringe such a warranty. 
 8ed qusere per C. A. Eoddiok v. Indemnity 
 MwT0AL Mabine Insukance Co. - Kennedy J. 
 [1893] 1 ft. B. 836 ; C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 380 
 
 60. — Indemnity — Principal and agent — Duty 
 ■of agent to sue. 
 
 Pits, hired deft.'s tug and agreed to indem- 
 nify deft, against all loss, damage, expenses, or 
 costs to which deft, might be put by reason of 
 collision or otherwise, and pit. agreed to keep 
 tlie tug fully insured and to indemnify deft, to 
 the extent of the money received by him under 
 the insurance. A barge of plt.'s while in tow of 
 the tug caused a collision, and pits, had to pay 
 damages, costs, &c. Deft, had insured the tug 
 for part only of its value. The insurers refused 
 to pay the damages, costs, &o. ; whereon deft, 
 offered to hand the policies over to pits. ; but 
 pits, required deft, either to sue the underwriters 
 or to pay the damages, &c., as damages for 
 breach of contract. On deft.'s refusal pits, com- 
 menced proceedings and sued deft., who paid 
 into Court tlie proportion of the damages on the 
 uninsured part of the tug's value : — 
 
 Held, that deft, was entitled to judgment as 
 he had not broken his contract, and was not 
 bound without an indemnity to sue the under- 
 writers. Williams, Tobebt & Co. v. Knight. 
 The "Lord of the Isles " 
 
 Bruce J. [1894] P. 342 
 
 61. — Dive cattle — All rislcs, including mor- 
 tality from any cause whatsoever — Detention in 
 port of refuge — Extra fodder — Suing and labour- 
 ing clause. 
 
 A marine policy of insurance on live cattle 
 against all risks, including mortality from any 
 cause whatsoever, renders the insurer hable, under 
 the suing and labouring clause, for the extra 
 cost of fodder supplied to the cattle whilst the 
 vessel in which they are shipped is detained 
 in a port of refuge for necessary repairs due to 
 perils of the sea, for there is danger of total loss 
 unless the expense is incurred. The "Pome- 
 eanian " - G. Barnes J. [1895] P. 349 
 
 62. — . Misrepresentation — Burden of proof, 
 y^^ere insurers resist payment of a risk on 
 
 t He ground of misrepresentation, the burden is 
 on them to prove very clearly the making of the 
 
 INSUEANCE (Marine) — continued. 
 misrepresentation. Davies v. National Fibe 
 AND Mabine Insdbance Co. of New Zealand 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 485 
 
 63. — ■ Mutual'insurance. 
 
 On the construction of a mutual insurance 
 policy, held that no one but a member of the 
 association could sue thereon. Montgomekie v. 
 United Kingdom Mutuai Steamship Associa- 
 tion, Ld. Wright J. [1891] 1 ft. B. 370 
 
 64. — Mutual insurance society — Action for 
 contributions — Insurance by agent, member of 
 association— Shipowner not member — DiabilUy. 
 
 The pits., a mutual insurance association, 
 sued the defts. for contributions or premiums 
 payable in respect of an insurance of the defts.' 
 ship in the pits.' club. 
 
 By the policy, which was in the form of a 
 Lloyd's policy, and subject to the pits.' memo- 
 randum and articles of association and rules, the 
 defts.' manager! insured the ship in his own 
 name, and for, and in the names of, all persons 
 to whom the same might appertain. By the 
 memorandum one of the objects of the association 
 was the mutual insurance "of ships which the 
 members may be authorised to insure in their 
 own names." The articles defined a member as 
 any person who, on behalf of himself, or of any 
 other person, insures any ship in the association, 
 and empowered a committee of the association to 
 assess the members rateably in order to provide 
 a fund to meet losses, and stipulated that the 
 association should not be liable for losses, except 
 to the extent of the fund which it could recover 
 from members or persons liable. The rules pro- 
 vided for payment of premiums, for which the 
 ships were to be assessed. 
 
 The defts. authorised the manager of their 
 ship to enter her in the club, which he did, and 
 he so became a member of the club, within the 
 meaning of the pits.' memorandum and articles 
 of association, and personally liable to pay the 
 contributions or premiums, which, under the 
 articles of association and the rules, might be 
 levied by the committee of the club. He became 
 insolvent, and unable to pay, and the pits, 
 sued the defts., as being the persons on whose 
 behalf, and for whose benefit, the insurance was 
 effected : — 
 
 Held, that the defts., being owners of an 
 insurable interest, were the persons for whom 
 the insurance was effected, that there was 
 nothing in the memorandum and articles of 
 association, or the rules, to exclude their liability 
 to pay the premiums, and the pits, were entitled 
 to recover. 
 
 United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance 
 Association v. Nevill, (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 110, dis- 
 tinguished. British Marine Mutual Insurance 
 Co. V. Jenkins - Bigham J. [1899] W. N. 262 ; 
 [1900] 1 ft, B, 299 
 
 65. — Negligence of master — Doss by — Master 
 also part owner — Policy. 
 
 In an action by the owners of a ship, includ- 
 ing the master, on a policy of marine insurance, 
 for loss within the perils insured against, the fact 
 that the loss arose through the negligent naviga- 
 tion of the master, not amounting to. wilful negli- 
 gence, affords no defence to his claim. Teimder, 
 
.( 997 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1831—1900. 
 
 ( 988 ) 
 
 INSTTEANCE (lla,ime)~-continued. 
 Anderson & Co. v Thames and Mersey Maeine 
 Insurance Co. Trindek, Andebson & Co. v. 
 North Queensland Insurance Co. Trinder, 
 Anderson & Co. v. Weston, Crocker & Co. 
 
 G. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 114 
 
 66. — Particular average — Stranding— Cargo 
 ■not on board. 
 
 A ship carrying rice, a parcel of which was 
 insured with a special memorandum waiTanted 
 free from particular average unless the ship be 
 stranded, was obliged to put into port for repairs. 
 While there, her whole cargo being on shore, she 
 was stranded : — 
 
 Held, that the insurers were not liable. The 
 ■" Alsace Lorraine " G, Barnes J. [1893] P, 209 
 
 67. — Policy — Clause partly in print, partly 
 ■in vrriting. 
 
 A policy of marine insurance expressed to be 
 on freight of meat, "at or from M. V. to any 
 ports in the Eivers P., P. and U.," provided " that 
 the assurance shall commence from the loading 
 on board at M. V." It was known to both parties 
 that meat could not be loaded at M. V. The 
 •words " M. V." were In writing, the rest of the 
 •clause being in print : — 
 
 Held, that the clause was to be rejected as 
 being absolutely inapplicable, and that the policy 
 attached. Htdarnes Steamship Co. ■». Indem- 
 OTTT Mutual Marine Assurance Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 500 
 reversing Wills J. [1894] 2 Q. B. 590 
 
 68. — Policy on stock to he conveyed out and 
 home hy registered letter. 
 
 B. sent certificates of Stock to F. at A. by 
 registered letter. F. was to obtain new coupon 
 sheets and return certificates and coupons to B. 
 B. obtained from the defendants a policy upon 
 the certificates, &c., on board " the ship or vessel 
 called the Post Office Conveyances, Eegistered " 
 " at and from London to A. and back to London," 
 " including all risk of whatsoever nature until 
 safely returned to B." F. misappropriated the 
 stock : — 
 
 Held, that the intention was to insure a 
 single adventure beginning with the delivery of 
 the certificates to the post office and ending 
 with the delivery to B. of the certificates and 
 coupons, and that the defendants were liable 
 under the policy. Baring Brothers & Co. v. 
 Marine Insurance Co. Cave J. [1893] W. N. 164 
 
 69. — Policy — S'libscription hy syndicate — 
 Contra^^ ■whetlier joint or several. 
 
 A number of underwriters, styling themselves 
 the S. Syndicate, by their manager underwrote 
 a policy of marine insurance, the form of their 
 subscription of which was as follows : " The 
 S. Syndicate, C, Manager." Then followed the 
 names of the individual members of the syndicate, 
 against each of which names was written a 
 certain fractional proportion of the total sum 
 insured. The policy contained a special clause 
 entitling the assured " by way of security for the 
 performance of the obligations of the subscribing 
 underwriters and of each and every of them " to 
 the benefit by way of charge upon any policies of 
 reinsurance that might be effected by them. The 
 policy was in other respects in the form of an 
 
 INSTJKANCE (JUatina')— continued. 
 ordinary Lloyd's policy, the assurers being 
 thereby expressed to bind themselves " each one 
 for his own part " : — 
 
 Held, that on the face of the policy the con- 
 tract of the assurers was several and not joint, 
 and that they were individually liable only for 
 the proportions standing against their respective 
 names. Ttser v. Shipowners' Syndicate (Re- 
 assured) - Mathew J. [1896] 1 Q. B. 135 
 
 70. — Practice — Discovery of sliip's papers — 
 Action hy underwriter against re-insurer. 
 
 In an action by an underwriter on a policy of 
 marine insurance brought by him against a re- 
 insurer, the latter is entitled to discovery of ship's 
 papers. China Traders' Insurance Co. v. 
 EoYAL Exchange Assurance Corporation 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 187 
 
 71. — Premium — Liability of hrdker for 
 Custom — " Company^s policy." 
 
 The rule of law, founded on mercantile custom, 
 by which the broker, and not the assured, is 
 liable to the underwriter for the premium upon 
 a policy of marine insurance, is not limited to 
 the ordinary form of Lloyd's policy, but extends 
 also to a " company's policy," which contains a 
 promise by the assured to pay the premium. 
 Universo Insurance Go. op Milan v. Merchants' 
 Marine Insurance Co. C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 93 
 
 Judgment of Collins J., [1896] W. N. 160 (6) ; 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 205, affirmed. 
 
 72. — He-insurance — Collision clause — Col- 
 lision 'with sunTcen harge— Policy. 
 
 The pit. underwrote a time policy on a 
 steamer, containing a clause that if the steamer 
 should come into collision with any other vessel, 
 and the insured should have to pay damages, 
 the insurers would pay. 
 
 The deft, underwrote a policy of re-insurance, 
 on the same steamer, for the same period, 
 subject to the same clauses and conditions as the 
 original policy, and to pay as might be paid 
 thereon, but only to pay all claims for loss or 
 damage done or received through collision. 
 
 During the period covered the steamer struck 
 a barge, which had just been struck by collision 
 with another vessel, and the steamer was damaged. 
 The barge was raised next day, and sailed to her 
 home port, and was repaired : — 
 
 Held, that, although, at the moment when 
 the steamer struck her, the barge could not have 
 been navigated, yet, as she became navigable as 
 soon as she was raised, there was a collision 
 between two navigable vessels, in respect of 
 which the pit. was entitled to recover on the 
 policy of re-insurance. Chandler v. Blogo 
 
 Bingham J. [1898] 1 Q. B. 32 
 
 73. — Be-insuranoe — Contract " to pay as may 
 he paid " on original policy. 
 
 The W. Co. having insured a ship re-insured 
 part of the rate with the B. Co. and paid the 
 premium. The re-insurance policy contained the 
 following clause : " Being a re-insurance apply- 
 ing to the lines of the W. Co., policy Ko. , 
 subject to the same terms and conditions as the 
 original policy, and to pay as may be paid 
 thereon." The ship suffered damage by perils 
 insured against : — 
 
 Hdd; that payment by the co. on the original 
 2 K 2 
 
( 999 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1000 ) 
 
 INSTTEANCE (Marine)— coriimued. 
 policy ■was not a condition precedent to recovery 
 on the policy of re-insurance. In re Eddtstone 
 Mabine Insueanoe Co. Ex parte Western In- 
 STJKANCE Co. - Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 423 
 
 74. — Meinsurance — Policy — " Open cover " 
 — Sum insured not specified — Contract for sea in- 
 surance — Validity — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 39), 88. 9a, 95. 
 
 By a document called an " open cover " 
 the deft., with other underwriters, agreed to re- 
 insure the pits, to the extent of the excess, 
 over certain amounts mentioned in the document, 
 upon risks undertaken by them from time to 
 time, on goods shipped by certain steamship lines 
 therein mentioned. The limit of the excess on 
 any one ship and the proportion of this amount 
 taken by each underwriter were specified. Goods 
 which were insured by the pits, on a steamship 
 of one of the lines, were lost by "a peril in- 
 sured against, and the pita, paid the insurance 
 and sued the deft, for his proportion of the 
 excess : — ■ 
 
 JSeild, that the document was a "contract for 
 sea insurance " with s. 93, sub-s. 1, of the Stamp 
 Act, 1891, which by that sub-section was not 
 valid unless expressed in a policy of sea in- 
 surance, and that, as it did not specify " the sum 
 or sums insured " as required by sub-s. 3, it was 
 invalid as a policy of sea insurance, and could not 
 he stamped and sued on as such, nor could it be 
 sued on as a contract to issue a policy. 
 
 Judgment of Mathew J., reported [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 829, affirmed. Home Maeine Insukance 
 Co. V. Smith - C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 351 
 
 — Salvage — Judgment for — Action against 
 
 underwriter. 
 
 See Estoppel. 6. 
 
 — Salvage, Life — Contract with passengers — 
 
 Tender. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 241. 
 
 76. — He-insurance — " Subject to same terms 
 as original policy " — Folicies in existence at date 
 of re-insurance — Policies coming into existence 
 stibsequently — Limit of liability of re-insurer. 
 
 A time policy of insurance on a ship was ex- 
 pressed to be " a re-insurance of policy or policies " 
 (here there was a blank space not filled in) 
 " and subject to the same terms, conditions, and 
 clauses as original policy or policies and to pay as 
 may be paid thereon." The assured had under- 
 written two time policies on the ship, and these 
 were in force when the re-insurance was effected. 
 Subsequently, during the currency of the re-in- 
 siiranoe policy, the two other policies came to an 
 end, and he underwrote a fresh time policy of 
 insurance of the same subject-matter, differing as 
 to the valuation of the ship and in other respects 
 from the two earlier policies. A loss occurred 
 and was paid under the fresh policy : — 
 
 Held, that the original policies referred to in 
 the re-insurance policy were the policies then 
 in existence, and that the liability of the re- 
 insurer did not extend to losses which might be 
 incurred by the assured under a policy not con- 
 taining the same terms, conditions, and clauses 
 as the original policies. 
 
 Judgment of Kennedy J., [1898] 1 Q. B. 739, 
 
 INSUEANOE Q/Laime)— continued. 
 
 reversed. Lower KmuE and Wuetembebg In- 
 
 scEANCE Association v. Sedgwick 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 179 
 
 76. — Salvage, Life — Lloyd's policy — Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 544, 
 552. 
 
 Life salvage paid under the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1894, s. 544, is not recoverable upon a 
 Lloyd's policy in the usual form. Nourse v. 
 Liverpool Sailing Ship Owneks' Mutual Peo- 
 teotion and indemnity association - c. a. 
 
 [1896] 2 ft. B. 16 
 
 77. — Seaworthiness — Implied warranty of. 
 By a policy of marine insurance on cattle it 
 
 was provided that the fittings of the ship were to 
 be approved by Lloyd's surveyor. The fittings 
 were in fact so approved. During the voyage a 
 large number of the cattle died, owing partly to 
 the insufficiency of the appliances for ventUaticBi 
 and partly to the insufficient number of cattle- 
 men appointed to attend to them ; — 
 
 Seld, that the ship was unseaworthy in both 
 respects, that Ihe implied warranty of seaworthi- 
 ness was not excluded by the provision as to the 
 approval of the fittings, and that the underwriters 
 were not liable. Sleigh v. Ttsee 
 
 Bigham J. [1900] 2 ft. B. 33& 
 
 — Stamp duty — Time policy, including a number 
 
 of sliips. 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 163. 
 
 — Subrogation — Eemedies of insurers — Effect of 
 
 payment under policy. 
 See Queensland. 3. 
 
 78. — Termination of risk — " Final port " — 
 Construction of policy, 
 
 A ship was insured by the pits. " at and 
 from Sydney to Newcastle, N.S.W., while there 
 and thence to any port or ports place or places on 
 the West Coast of South America .... while 
 there and thence to any port or ports" in the 
 United Kingdom. . . . The pits, re-insured with 
 the defts. a portion of their risk by a poUoy 
 which was expressed to be " at and from 
 Newcastle, N.S.W., to any port or ports place oi 
 places in any order on the West Coast of South 
 America and for thirty days after arrival in final 
 port however employed." 
 
 The ship sailed with a cargo of coal from 
 Newcastle, N.S.W., and proceeded to Valparaiso, 
 on the West Coast of South America, where she 
 discharged her cargo; she there loaded a small 
 quantity of ballast and sugar and sailed for 
 Taloahuano, another port on that coast, in order 
 to finish loading there a cargo for the United 
 Kingdom ; before reaching Talcahuano she was 
 totally lost, the loss occurring more than thirty 
 days after her arrival at Valparaiso : — 
 
 Beld, that the expressions in the re-insurance 
 policy, " port or ports place or places " and " final 
 port," were not limited to ports or places of dis- 
 charge and final port of discharge respectively, 
 but must be construed to include ports or places 
 of loading and final port of loading for the voyage 
 to the United Kingdom; and that the pits., 
 who had paid the claim of the owner on the 
 original policy, were therefore entitled to recover 
 
( 1001 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1002 ) 
 
 INSTJEANCE (Kaiine)— continued. 
 from the defts. on the policy of re-insurance. 
 Ceockee v. Stuege - - Mathew J. 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 330 
 
 79. — Time policy — liepairs to ship — Particular 
 nyerage loss — Subsequent total loss — Assured not 
 liable for cost of repairs — Non-liability of under- 
 
 A vessel, imder a charter to toad home, sus- 
 tained damage on the outward voyage which was 
 repaired on arrival at the port of loading, and a 
 payment on account of the particular average loss 
 was made to the shipowners by the underwriters 
 on a time policy on hull and machinery. 
 
 The repairs were paid for at the port of 
 loading by the charterers as disbursements secured 
 by a draft in their favour (including commission 
 and insurance), signed by the master, pledging 
 *he ship for repayment on safe arrival at the 
 port of discharge. This draft was insured by 
 the charterers. The vessel was totally lost oil the 
 homeward voyage ; and the underwriters on the 
 time policy paid for a total loss, but the ship- 
 owners brought an action against them to recover 
 the balance of the particular average loss. The 
 underwriters counter-claimed for a return of the 
 payment on account : — 
 
 Held, first, that the shipowners could not 
 recover as they were never personally liable for 
 the cost of the repairs, and had sustained no loss, 
 the amount of the draft, on the loss of the ship, 
 having been paid to the charterers by their 
 insurers; secondly, that the underwiiters were 
 entitled to a return of the amount paid on 
 account, as a jjayment made without prejudice and 
 under a mistake of fact. The "Doea Foestee " 
 G. Barnes J. [1900] p. 211 
 
 80. — Time policy — Warranty — Amount in- 
 sured. 
 
 A warranty in a time policy that a vessel 
 shall not be insured beyond a named amount 
 means that it shall not be effectively insured to a 
 larger amount ; such a warranty is not broken by 
 the owner taking out a new policy to cover the 
 probable deficiency upon a policy effected with 
 an underwriter who becomes insolvent, although 
 the total nominal amount insured is thereby 
 made to exceed the amount limited by the 
 warranty. 
 
 A time policy upon hull and machinery of a 
 steamship valued at 12,000!. contained a proviso, 
 "Warranted 2400Z. uninsured." The owner 
 effected time policies to the total amount of 
 9600!., one of the policies being effected with a 
 syndicate to the amount of 5000Z. During the 
 currency of the policies the syndicate stopped 
 payment, and eventually the large majority of its 
 members became insolvent. The owner, estimat- 
 ing that the syndicate policy was not eifective 
 for more than 2000!., took out further policies 
 upon the ship for 3000!. The ship was lost, and 
 the total amount that the owner could in the 
 most favourable event recover upon all the 
 policies was less than 9600!. : — 
 
 . Held, that there had been no breach of the 
 warranty. General Insueanoe Co. or Teieste, 
 JjD. (Assioueazioni Geneeali) v. Cory 
 
 Mathew J. [1897] 1 Q. B. 335 
 
 INStraANCE (Kavme)— continued. 
 
 81. — Valued policy — Constructive total loss. 
 Where a ship has been sunk in deep water, 
 
 the underwriters cannot escape liability as for a 
 total constructive loss by gratuitously intervening 
 and taking upon themselves, between the date 
 of notice of abandonment and the time when 
 legal proceedings are commenced under the 
 policy, the expenses of raising the insured vessel 
 and saving her from being a constructive total 
 loss. And such a gratuitous expenditure will 
 not relieve the underwriters from their contractual 
 liability. 
 
 The test whether a ship has become a con- 
 structive total loss is the same in English as in 
 Scottish law, although these laws may differ in 
 regard to the date at which the test ought to be 
 applied. In considering whether a constructive 
 total loss has occurred, the question is whether a 
 shipowner of ordinary prudence and uninsured 
 would have gone to the expense of raising a 
 sunken ship and repairing her. 
 
 A ship insured under a valued policy was 
 struck by a squall and sunk in harbour. The 
 underwriters received notice of abandonment 
 from the insured ; but before action brought they, 
 by a large expenditure of their own, raised the 
 ship and claimed that, as the ship could at the 
 date of the action have been repaired by the ex- 
 penditure of less money than her total value, the 
 loss was not a total but a partial one : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of Ct. of Sess., 
 (1897) 24 E. 893, that the underwriters could 
 not change a constructive total loss into a partial 
 loss by intervening and raising the ship at their 
 own expense. Sailikg Ship " Blaiemoee " Co. v. 
 Macbedie H. L. (So.) [1898] A. C. 593 
 
 82, — • Wagering policy — 1 Insurable interest — • 
 " F.p.i. clause " — "Ship" — Marine Insurance Act, 
 1745(19 Geo. 2, 0. 37), 8. 1. 
 
 A policy of marine insurance whereby the 
 assured is entitled to be indemnified against loss 
 in respect of the non-arrival of a ship at a certain 
 port by a certain date is a policy of insurance on 
 the ship within the meaning of 19 Geo. 2, 
 c. 37, s. 1. 
 
 Where, on the trial of an action, the plt.'s 
 case discloses that the transaction which is the 
 basis of his claim is illegal, the Court cannot 
 properly ignore the illegality or give effect to the 
 claim, even if the illegality be not pleaded or 
 relied on by the defts. The Court will, there- 
 fore, not enforce a policy of marine insurance 
 which is illegal under 19 Geo. 2, u. 37, s. 1, by 
 reason of its containing a clause that the policy 
 itself is to be deemed a full and sufBcient proof 
 of interest, although that defence is not set 
 up by the underwriters. Gedqe v. Kotal Ex- 
 change ASSUEANOE COEPOEATION 
 
 Kennedy J. [1900] 2 Q. B. 814 
 83. — Warranty of truth of statements in pro- 
 posal — Condition. 
 
 Where in the proposal for n policy of marine 
 insurance the applicant warrants the statements, 
 therein to be true, a contract on the part of the 
 insured that the facts are such as they are repre- 
 sented to be is imported. Hambeough v. Mutual 
 Life Issueanoe Co, oe New Yoek 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 18 
 
( 1003 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( lOOi ) 
 
 INTENT— Guilty iotent— Selling food deficient 
 in quality. 
 See Adulteration. 19. 
 
 — Merchandise marks — False trade description 
 
 — Absence of intent to deceive — Lia- 
 bility. 
 See Teade-jiark. 4. 
 
 INTERDICT— Descriptive name. 
 See Trade Name. 3. 
 
 — Snow — Street — Obstruction — Tramways. 
 
 See Nuisance. 29. 
 
 INTEEESSE TERMINI — Covenant for quiet 
 enjoyment — Trespass — Damages. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 73. 
 
 ■ Freehold leases. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 74. 
 
 INTEREST — Acknowledgment — Presumption 
 of payment by devisee in. fee also tenant 
 for life of the money. 
 See LniiTATiONS, Statute of. 4, 6. 
 
 — Acknowledgment by one of two executors and 
 
 trustees — Mortgage — Arrears. 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 2. 
 
 — Advances. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 19. 
 
 — Arrears of. 
 
 See Settled Land. 13. 
 
 — Bankruptcy — Proof. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 175, 176. 
 
 — Bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 35. 
 
 — Bond — Damages. 
 
 See Bond. 1. 
 
 — Bond — Loan to husband — Bond by husband 
 
 to trustees — Statute of Limitations. 
 See Husband and Wife. 27. 
 
 — Calls — Payment of shares in advance of — 
 
 Interest out of capital. 
 See Company. 7. 
 • — ■ Charge on waterworks. 
 
 See Charity — Mortmain. 51. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Oases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Contingent legacy. 
 
 See Will — Legacy. 122. 
 
 — Contract for sale of lands — Delay in comple- 
 
 tion— " Default." 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 52. 
 
 — Costs — Interest on. 
 
 See Costs — Interest on Costs. 
 
 — Costs — Administration action ■ — " Person 
 
 liable."' 
 
 See Solicitor. 50. 
 
 — Costs paid to solicitor on undertaking to 
 
 refund — Successful appeal — Repayment. 
 /S'te Costs— Interest on Costs. 35. 
 
 !■ — Covenant to pay a sum of money within 
 six calendar months after death — Time certain — 
 Interest—^ & 4 TT7H. 4, c. 42, s. 28. 
 
 A testator covenanted that his executors or 
 administrators should pay a sum of 2000i. within 
 SIX calendar months after his decease. Default 
 
 INTEREST — continued. 
 
 was made in payment of the sum at the time 
 
 named : — 
 
 Held, that the sum carried interest &om the 
 time named to the date of payment ; the sum 
 being " payable at a certain time " within the 
 meaning of s. 28 of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42. 
 
 Knapp V. BurnaJyy, (1861) 9 W. E. 765, 
 followed. In re Horner. Fooks v. Hoenee 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 188 
 
 2. — Bate from which to run — Gift of money 
 to he laid out in the purchase of an annuity — • 
 Legacy — Construction of will. 
 
 A testator gave to his executors the sum of 
 10002. " to be laid out by them in the purchase 
 of an annuity for the life of my daughter M. : — 
 
 Seld, that the gift was not of an annuity, but 
 was an ordinary trust legacy followed by a direc- 
 tion for the application of the money, and that 
 consequently interest only commenced to run 
 twelve months after the testator's death. In r& 
 Friend. Friend v. Young 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] W. N. 26 (6> 
 
 — Debentures — Overdrawing banker's account 
 
 — Subrogation. 
 
 See Railway— Powers. 30. 
 
 — Debentures — Statutes of Limitations. 
 
 See Company — ^Debentures. 63. 
 
 — Default in payment of — Seizure of goods — 
 
 EeUef. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 35. 
 
 — Delay by vendor. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Interest. 
 52. 
 
 — Disallowed claim — Balances — Payment into 
 
 court. 
 
 See ExEOUTOE. 29. 
 
 — Fiduciary relation — Interest on profits — Set- 
 
 ting aside sale — Sale by liquidator of 
 
 undertaking of company. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 53. 
 
 — Liability of interest to income-tax — Decree for 
 
 repayment of price with interest. 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 102. 
 
 — Money lent to borrowing member of benefit; 
 
 society — Income tax. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 71. 
 
 — on Legacy. 
 
 See Will — Legacy. 122. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of — Arrears of interest. 
 
 See Settled Land. 13. 
 
 3. — Limitations, Statute of — Continuing} guar- 
 antee — Appropriation of payments — Banking ac- 
 count — Interest converted into principal. 
 
 In an action on a guarantee it appeared that 
 the deft, had guaranteed to the pits., a baijiing 
 CO., payment of all moneys which might be owing 
 to them in account with a customer with interest, 
 commission, and other banking charges; and it 
 was provided that the guarantee should be a con- 
 tinuing guarantee, and should not be withdrawn 
 except by six moaths' written notice from the 
 guarantor. The pits, made advances to the 
 customer by honouring his overdrafts from time 
 to time down to a period more than six years 
 before the action, but made no advances subse- 
 quently to that period, and the customer paid 
 
( 1005 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1006 ) 
 
 I'STE'R'EST— continued. 
 
 s}ims in to his account with the bank against his 
 liability from time to time down to a period 
 within six years before the action. At the end 
 of each half-year the pits, debited him in account 
 with the interest for the half-year on the amount 
 owing by hira from time to time, and earned 
 forward the balance to his debit as the amount 
 owing at the commencement of the next half- 
 year : — 
 
 ffeld, that the pits.' right of action upon the 
 guarantee in respect of the sums advanced by 
 them to the customer was barred by the Statute 
 ot Limitations, but tliat the action was maintain- 
 able in respect of interest which had accrued due 
 from the customer within six years before the 
 action and had not been paid. 
 
 The rule with regard to the appropriation of 
 payments by which interest is presumed to be 
 paid before principal is not applicable in the case 
 of interest on an overdrawn account which accord- 
 ing to the practice of bankers has been from time 
 to time converted into piincipal. Park's Banking 
 Co. V. Yates C. A. [1898] 2 ft. B. 460 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of — Debenture stock. 
 
 See CoMPAKT — ^Detentures, 35. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of— Loan to husband — 
 
 Bond by husband — Interest on bond. 
 See Husband and Wife — Bond. 27. 
 
 — Loss of — Executor — ^Wilful default — Breach 
 
 of duty. 
 
 See ExECUTOE — Liabilities. 41. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See MoETGAGE — Interest. 
 
 — Mortgage — Winding-up of company — Distress. 
 
 See Company — Winding -vf — Mort- 
 gages. 130. 
 
 — Partition — Sale — Set-oif. 
 
 See Pabtition. 14. 
 
 — Payment by devisee. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 6. 
 
 — Proof — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy— Proof. 175, 176. 
 
 — Eate of — Breach of trust — Accumulation 
 
 clause — Wilful default — Compound 
 
 interest. 
 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 19. 
 
 4. — Bate of interest — Interest on moneys. 
 
 Semhle, where interest is payable under 3 & 4 
 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 28, the Court is not bound to 
 give interest at the rate of 5 per cent., but will 
 follow the current rate of interest at the time. 
 
 Observations of Kekewich J. as to the rate of 
 interest which should be allowed injudicial pro- 
 ceedings. London, Chatham and Dovee Rail- 
 way Co. V. South Eastern Eailway Co. 
 
 Fer Kekewich J. [1893] 1 Ch. 120 ; 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 429 
 
 — Eate to be charged. 
 
 See Trustee — Interest. 57. 
 
 — Scheme of arrangement — Debt carrying in- 
 
 terest exceeding 5 per cent. — Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1890— Eetrospective effect. 
 See Bankeuptcy. 223. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land— Interest. 
 
 ISI'EBXSI— continued. 
 
 — Solicitor's bill of costs — " Person liable." 
 
 See Solicitor. 59. 
 
 — Trustee. 
 
 See Teustee — Interest. 
 
 — Ultra vires — Payment of interest on shares — 
 
 New rules^Known insolvency at time 
 
 of passing. 
 
 See Building Society. 12, 13. 
 
 — Varying with profits — Partnership— Contract 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Proof. 138. 
 
 — Vendor and jiurohaser. 
 
 See Vendoe and Pueohasee — Interest. 
 
 5. — Wlien payable. 
 
 Where the instrument under which a sum is 
 payable makes the day of payment depend on a 
 future contingent event, such time is not a time 
 certain within 3 & 4 Will. 4, o. 42, s. 28, and 
 such sum does not carry interest unless there has 
 been a demand for payment with notice that 
 interest would be claimed, and interest cannot be 
 given as damages for detention of the debt. 
 London, Chatham and Dovee Eailway Co. v. 
 South Eastern Eailway Co. 
 
 C. A. revers. Kekewich J. [1892] 1 Ch. 120 ; 
 affirm, by H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 429 
 
 See In re Kingston Cotton Mill Co., C. A. 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 9. 
 
 Eeferred to by Chitty J. In re Horner, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 188, 191. 
 
 — " Wilful default " — Condition precedent — 
 
 Specific performance — Mistake — Ee- 
 scission. 
 
 /See Vendor AND Purchaser. 71. 
 ^- Writ — Claim for interest specially indorsed on 
 writ. 
 See Practice— Writ. 283. 
 
 6. — Wrongful talcing of minerals — Interest 
 on compensation. 
 
 A claim was made in 1891 to add interest to 
 damages certified in an action brought in 1871 
 for minerals wrongfully taken : — 
 
 Held, that, although interest at 4 per cent, 
 might have been granted at the trial, it was too 
 late to grant it after twenty years. 
 
 Held, also, that the action was an equitable 
 action for an account of profits made out of a 
 trespass, and not an action for money had or 
 received, or one for trover or trespass de bonis 
 asportatis, within 3 & 4 Will. 4, o. 32, s. 29, so 
 that damages could not be given in the nature 
 of interest. Decision of Stirling J., (1890) 44 Ch. 
 D. 694, affirmed. Phillips v. Hompray 
 
 0. A. [1892] Ch. 1 465 
 INTEBESX (DISftUALIFYING) — Disqualifica- 
 tion of justice by. 
 
 See Cases under Justices — Disqualifica- 
 tion. 
 
 INTEEIM INCOME. 
 
 See Will— Income. 108, 109. 
 
 INTERIM INJUNCTION— Appeal from. 
 See Appeal. 24. 
 
 — Appeal from — Trespass— New South Wales 
 
 Mining on Private Lands Act. 
 See New South Wales. 37. 
 
( 1007 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1008 ) 
 
 IHTEEIM USEE — Laud not immediately re- 
 quired for purpose for whioh it was 
 acquired. 
 See Local Government. 4. 
 
 INTEEIOCTJTOEY INJUNCTION. 
 
 See Injunction. 15, 16. 
 
 INTEELOCUTOEY MOTION— Information and 
 belief— Insufficient affidavit. 
 See Evidence. 18. 
 
 INTEELOGUTOEY OEDEE— Appeal. 
 
 See Appeal. 19, 25—27, 50—52. 
 
 INTEENATIONAl COPYEIGHT. 
 
 See CopYEiGHT — International. 
 
 INTEENATIONAL LAW. 
 
 See also Oases under Conflict oe Laws 
 and under DomiciL. 
 
 1. — Alien's rights. 
 
 An alien has not a legal right enforceable by- 
 action to enter British territory. Musgeove v. 
 Chun Teeono Tot - P. C. [1891] A. C. 272 
 
 2. — ■ Ambassador, immunities of — Statute of 
 Limitations — Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708 
 (7 Anne, c. 12, s. 3). 
 
 The immunity of a foreign ambassador from 
 process in the country extends for such a reason- 
 able period after the presentation of his letters of 
 recall as is necessary for him to wind up his 
 oiSoial business and prepare for his return home ; 
 he is not deprived of his immunity if his successor 
 is appointed during that period. The Limitation 
 Act, 1623, does not begin to run against the 
 creditors of an ambassador of a foreign State 
 while he is in this country and duly accredited 
 during the period above referred to. The pro- 
 visions of Order xi. as to service of writs out of 
 the jurisdiction does not annul the right under 
 4 Anne, c. 16, to bring an action on the return 
 from beyond seas of a person against whom there 
 is a right of action. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1S94] 1 Q. B. 533, 
 affirmed. Mcsukus Bet v. Gadban 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 a. B. 352 
 
 — Conflict of laws. 
 
 See Cases under Conflict of Laws. 
 
 — Copyright. 
 
 See CoPTKiGHT — International. 
 
 3. — Divorce — Jurisdiction — Domicil. 
 
 The only domicil internationally accepted as 
 giving the Courts of a territory power to pro- 
 nounce a decree of divorce a vinculo internation- 
 ally valid is permanent domicil within the terri- 
 tory. Mere "matrimonial domicil" does not 
 create such jurisdiction. Le Mesueier v. Le 
 Mbsueiek - P. C. [1895] A. C. 517 
 
 Discussed by G. Barnes J. Armylage v. 
 Armytage, [1898] P. 178, 185. 
 
 — Domicil. 
 
 See Cases under Domicil. 
 
 4. — Foreign sovereign. Action hy — Discovery 
 — Cross proceedings — Counterclaim for damages 
 struck out. 
 
 A foreign sovereign suing in the courts of this 
 country submits to the jurisdiction to the extent 
 only that (1) he mubt give discovery ; (2) cross 
 proceedings in mitigation of the relief cliiimed 
 by him can be taken againtt him. 
 
 INTEENATIONAL LAW — continued. 
 
 A foreign State sued to restrain dealing with, 
 and for the appointment of a new trustee of, 
 funds lodged in England in the names of a trustee 
 for the \iits. and a trustee for the defts. who hold 
 a concession from the pits, for the construction of 
 a ry. in their territory. A counter claim for 
 damages in respect of alleged breaches of the 
 terms of the concession was struck out. South 
 African Eepublic v. La Compagnee Erakoo- 
 Belge du Chesiin de Per du Nord 
 
 North J. [1898] 1 Ch. 190 
 
 6. — Foreign sovereign — Jurisdiction — Proof 
 of status of sovereign. 
 
 The English Courts have no jurisdiction over 
 an independent foreign Sovereign unless he 
 submits to the jurisdiction in the face of the 
 Court. Therefore, where a foreign Sovereign 
 resides in England, and enters into a contract 
 under an assumed name as if a private individual, 
 he is not liable to be sued for a breach of the 
 contract. A certificate from the Foreign oriOolonial 
 Office is conclusive as to the status of such a Sove- 
 reign. Mighell v. Sultan of Johoee 
 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 149 
 
 Referred to by Farwell J. Foster v. Globe 
 Venture Syndicate, Ld., [1900] 1 Ch. 811, 813. 
 
 6. — Foreign tribunal — Absent foreigner — Per- 
 sonal action. 
 
 No territorial legislation can give jurisdiction 
 which any foreign Court ought to recognise 
 against absent foreigners who owe no allegiance 
 or obedience to the Power which so legislates. 
 
 In all persoual actions the Courts of the 
 country in which the deft, resides, not the Courts 
 of the country where the cause of action arose, 
 should be resorted to. 
 
 Ex parte money decrees passed by the Court 
 of F. against a person who had been treasurer of 
 F., but at the date of suit had ceased to be such, 
 aud was resident in J., of which State he was a 
 domiciled subject, held to be a nullity by inter- 
 national law. Sirdar Guedtal Singh v. Rajah 
 OF Faeidkote - p. C. [1894] A. C. 670 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Pemberton v. Hughes, 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 781, 791. 
 
 7. ' — Penal laws — Enforcing in foreign state — 
 Interpretation of law — Distinction between public 
 and private families. 
 
 By a law of the State of New York penalties 
 were inflicted on debtors for "misrepresentation." 
 The penalties were paid to the creditors in 
 satisfaction pro tanto of their debt. The New 
 York Courts had decided that actions for these 
 penalties were criminal actions. An action was 
 brought in an Ontario Court upon a judgment 
 of a New York Court under this statute : — 
 
 Meld, that these actions, being by a subject 
 to enforce in his own interest a liability for the 
 protection of his private rights, were remedial 
 and not penal within the rule of international 
 law which prohibits the Courts of one state from 
 executing the penal laws of another state : 
 
 Held, also, that it was the duty of the Ontario 
 Court to decide whether the New York statute 
 was remedial or fully penal, and that it was not 
 bound by the interpretation of the New York 
 CoDETS. Huntington v. Attrill 
 
 P. C. [1893] A, C. 150 
 
( 1009 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1010 ) 
 
 TNTEENATIONAL LAW— continued. 
 
 — Copyright. 
 
 See Copyright — ^International. 
 INTERPLEADER. 
 
 Order Lvii. relates to interpleader. 
 
 Amendment as to interpleader practice, Order 
 LTil. W. N. 1896 (April 11), p. 87, confirmed 
 "W, N. 1896 (June 6), p. 188. See Current Index, 
 1896, p. Ivi. 
 
 As to County Courts, W. N. 1896 (May 16) 
 p. 139; (Nov. 28) p. 307. See Current Index, 
 1896, p. Ixi. 
 
 — • Appeal — Issue tried without a jury. 
 See Appeal. 28. 
 
 — Appeal — Summary decision. 
 
 See Appeal. 29. 
 
 — Appeal — Time for appealing. 
 
 See Appeal. 51. 
 
 — Execution against firm — Bankruptcy of one 
 
 partner. 
 
 See Bankeuptot — Assets. 57. 
 
 1. — Bailee — Estoppel — Bight to set up jus 
 tertii — B. S. C. Order Lrii., rr. 1, 2. 
 
 Where wharfingers, with whom goods were 
 stored, had written a letter to a bank, stating 
 that they held the goods to the bank's order, on 
 the faith of which statement the bank advanced 
 money on the goods, and subsequently that bank 
 and another bank claimed the goods adversely to 
 one another: — 
 
 Held, on an application by the wharfingers for 
 relief by way of interpleader, that, assuming the 
 before-mentioned letter to constitute an estoppel, 
 nevertheless an interpleader order might be 
 made restraining the claimants from proceeding 
 against the wharfingers in respect of their claims 
 except in respect of any claim whioli the first- 
 mentioned bank might have upon the letter, and 
 directing the trial of an issue between the two 
 banks on the question to which of them the 
 goods belonged. 
 
 Atteriborough v. St. Katharine's Dock Co., 
 (1878) 3 C. P. D. 450, dicta in, followed. Mx 
 parte Mebsbt Docks aud Hakbour Board 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 19 (9) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 548 
 
 — Bankrupt — After-acquired property — Personal 
 
 earnings — Wagering contract. 
 See Banketjptoy — TTndischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 259. 
 
 2. — Goods in execution — Seizure of — Payment 
 into cowt by claimant — Seizure of the goods by 
 .another execution creditm — Goods claimed by 
 claimant — Further payment into court. 
 
 Where goods seized in execution under a 
 judgment have been claimed and the claimant 
 has paid into court money to abide the event of 
 an interpleader issue between himself and the 
 execution creditor, and the goods are again seized 
 in execution by another judgment creditor and 
 again claimed by the claimant and an inter- 
 pleader issue is ordered, to prevent the goods 
 being sold the claimant must pay money into 
 court as security to the second execution creditor, 
 and to abide the event of the second interpleader. 
 KoTCHiE I), Golden Sovereions, Ld. Briuht, 
 Claimant - , - C. A. [1898] 2 Q,. B. 164 
 
 IKTEKPIEA Ti'EB.— continued. 
 
 3. — Goods seized in execution — Order for sale 
 — Application of proceeds of sale — " In such manner 
 and upon such terms as may be just " — R. S. C, 
 Order LVII., r. 12. 
 
 By Order lvii., r. 12, " When goods or chattels 
 have been seized in execution by a sheriff or other 
 ofScer charged with the execution of process of 
 the High Court, and any claimant alleges that 
 he is entitled, under a bill of sale or otherwise, to 
 the goods or chattels by way of security for debt, 
 the Court or a judge may order the sale of the 
 whole or a part thereof, and direct the application 
 of the proceeds of the sale in such manner and 
 upon such terms as may be just." 
 
 A sheriff seized goods in execution under a 
 judgment of the High Court. The goods were 
 claimed by the grantee of a bill of sale, as secu- 
 rity for a debt due to him from the judgment 
 debtor. The debt was payable, with interest at a 
 high rate per cent., by instalments extending over 
 a period of several months, the greater part of 
 which had not expired. The sheriff interpleaded, 
 and a judge at chambers, on the application of 
 the judgment creditor, under Order lvii., i. 12, 
 ordered the sale of the goods, and the payment 
 to the claimant of the balance of his debt with 
 interest at the agreed rate, but only up to the 
 time of such payment. On appeal : — 
 
 Held, by Lord Bsher M.E. and A. L. Smith L. J., 
 Eigby L.J. dissenting, that the power of the 
 judge to make an order as to the application of 
 the proceeds of the sale upon such terms as may 
 be just was not limited by the practice of the 
 Courts of Equity in suits for redemption, that the 
 judge had power to make the order, and that the 
 order was just. Porster v. Clowber 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 362 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardv J. West v. 
 Biprose, [1900] 1 Ch. 337, 340. " 
 
 4. — Goods taken in execution — Deposit by 
 claimant — Deposit paid out to judgmsnt creditor 
 — Second 'executions—Estoppel — County Court Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43) s. 156. 
 
 A claimant in interpleader deposited the 
 value of the goods to abide the event of the issue. 
 She failed to establish her claim, and the money 
 was paid to the judgment creditor in part 
 satisfaction. The judgment creditor levied again 
 on the same goods : — 
 
 Held, that the judgment creditor by taking 
 the deposit out of court was estopped in respect 
 of the same judgment from disputing that the 
 claimant was the owner of the goods. Haddow 
 V. Morton Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 95 ; affirm, by 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 565 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Kotehie v. Golden 
 Sovereigns, Ld., [1898] 2 Q. B. 164, 166. See 
 No. 2, above. 
 
 ■ House agent — Action for commission. 
 See County Court — Jurisdiction. 
 
 52. 
 
 5. — Intervention by creditor with priority 
 before money handed over. 
 
 Where the goods of a co. are taken in execu- 
 tion and money paid by debenture holder to 
 sheriff to stop the sale, but the money is not 
 handed over to the execution creditor, the holder 
 of a debenture constituting a charge by way of 
 
( 1011 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1012 ) 
 
 INTEBPIEADEE— cojifenued. 
 
 floating security over all the property of the co. 
 may still intervene so as lo oust the execution 
 creditor. 
 
 Quasre, in case of actual sale and payment of 
 the money to the execution creditor. Taunton 
 V. Sheriff of Wab"wiokshike 
 
 [1895] 1 Oh. 734 ; C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 319 
 
 6. — Issue not tried — Slieriff — Costs — M. S. C, 
 Order LVil. r. 15. Goods seized by the sheriff 
 under a fi. fa. were claimed by the claimant. 
 The sheriff obtained an interpleader order for an 
 issue to be tried in the county court. The 
 landlord claimed for rent, which the execution 
 creditor did not meet. The sheriff went out of 
 possession, and the issue was not tried. An 
 application was made by the sheriff to discharge 
 the order for trial of the issue, and by the 
 execution creditor that the claim should be 
 barred and the costs and those of the sheriff paid 
 by the claimant : — 
 
 Ileld, that the execution creditor should pay 
 
 the sheriff his costs, and that the claimant should 
 
 pay to the execution creditor half the sheriff's 
 
 costs from the date of claim. Lawson v. Carter 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] W. N. 6 
 
 7. — Jurisdiction of district registrar. 
 
 A district registrar has no jurisdiction under 
 the E. S. C, 1883, to make an interpleader order. 
 Hood & Sons v. Yates 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 240 
 
 But see now 0. xxxr., » . 5a, of E. S. C. Aug. 
 1894. 
 
 Commented on by C. A. Toionend v. KirJc- 
 ham, [1898] 1 Q. B. 51. 
 
 8. — Money in hands of sheriff to abide order 
 of Court — Bight of sheriff to retain till order. 
 
 In interpleader proceedings an order was 
 made transferring the proceedings to the county 
 court, the claimants to be at liberty (o pay a sum 
 of money to the sheriff for the release of the 
 goods seized, " to abide the order of the county 
 court." The execution creditor abandoned his 
 claim, and the claimants had judgment, but the 
 judge refused as unnecessary an order as to the 
 money in the hands of the sheriff. The sheriff 
 refused to pay and the claimants brought an 
 action against him for money had and received : — 
 
 Held, that the sheriff was not bound to pay 
 over without an order of the county court. 
 DiscotrsT Banking Co. of England and Wales 
 V. Lambaedb - C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 329 
 
 9. — Meceiverehip order — Liquidation. 
 Judgment creditors of a French co. obtained 
 
 ex parte an order for a receiver of the co.'s interest 
 in goods in the possession of a firm in B., and 
 subject to a lien in their favour. The co. then 
 went into liquidation in France. An issue was 
 directed to try the title to the net proceeds of the 
 goods as between the liquidator of the co. and 
 the judgment creditors : — 
 
 Seld, that the receivership order operated as 
 equitable execution, and that the judgment 
 creditors were entitled to the proceeds of the 
 goods. Levasselb v. Mason & Barry, Ld. 
 
 C. A, [1891] 2 a. B. 73 
 
 INTEEPLEADEE— con(«na«(Z. 
 
 — ■ Sheriff's costs — Notice of receiving order — 
 Bankruptcy. 
 See Sheriff. 12, 13. 
 
 10, — Value of the goods — County Court Mules, 
 1889, Order L. A, r. 12. 
 
 The " value of the goods " within Order L. A, 
 
 r. 12, of the County Court Rules, 1889, is the 
 
 amount (plus the damages) found by the judge 
 
 to be the value of the goods seized, and not the 
 
 amount (plus the damages) paid into Court. 
 
 Stueham v. Stanbeidge - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1895] 1 a. B. 870 
 
 And see County Court — Jurisdiction. 
 
 52. 
 
 INTERPEETATION— of Foreign penal statute. 
 See International Law. 7. 
 
 — of Eules and Orders. 
 
 See "Table of Eules and Orders" judi- 
 cially considered. 
 
 — of Statutes. 
 
 See Statutes. 
 
 Table of Statutes judicially con- 
 sidered during the years 1891- 
 1900. 
 
 INTEEEOGATOEIES— Discovery. 
 
 See DisoovEEY— Interrogatories. 
 
 INTEEVEKTION— Co-respondent. 
 
 See Divorce— Co-respondent. 38, 39. 
 
 — Of Queen's Proctor — Practice. 
 
 See DivoKOE — Practice. 108. 
 
 INTESTACY— Projjj'ieni Nominations and Small 
 Intestacies Act, 1883, c. 47, repealed so far as 
 relates to registered societies. See Friendly Socie- 
 ties Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 25). 
 
 1. — Co-parceners — " Purchaser," tracing title 
 from — Seal estate — Inheritance, law of — Descent — 
 Heir-at-law — Issue — Ancestor standing in place of 
 —Inheritance Act, 1883 (3*4 Will. 4, c. 106), ' 
 ss, 1, 2 — Beal estate of lunatic — -Sale — Conversion 
 — Lunacy Eegulation Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 
 70), ss. 124, 135— [BepeaZed hy 53 Vict. c. 5, s. 342]. 
 
 The doctrine of Cooper v. France, (1850) 19 
 L. J. (Ch.) 313 — that on the death intestate of a 
 co-parcener, a co-heiress of the purchaser of land, 
 her son, notwithstanding s. 2 of the Inheritance 
 Act, 1833, stands in her place quoad her share — ■ 
 applies equally in favour of her more remote 
 lineal descendants. 
 
 Accordingly, on the death intestate of a son 
 of such a co-parcener, it was held that the entire 
 share descended on the nephew of such son (the 
 nephew being a grandson of the co-parcenei'), 
 and that no part thereof descended to the 
 descendants of a sister of the co-parcener. 
 
 The purchase -money of a lunatic's descended 
 moiety of land sold in 1863 under s. 124 of the 
 Lunacy Eegulation Act, 1853, held, under s. 135, 
 transmissible, upon his death intestate, in pre- 
 cisely the same manner as the descended moiety 
 if the same had not been sold. In re Matson. 
 James v. Dickinson Kekewioh J. [1897] 2 Ch, 609 
 
 — Dower — Widow's charge. 
 
 See DoWER. 1. 
 
( 1013 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 (■ 1014 )^ 
 
 ITiTESTACY— continued. 
 
 — Grant of administratiou. 
 
 See Cases under Pbobate — Grant of Ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 — Member of society — Power to distribute pro- 
 
 perty. 
 
 See Industrial and Provident So- 
 ciety. 3. 
 
 — " Next of kin in blood " — Settlement. 
 
 See Distributions, Statute op. 
 
 — Partial — Teroe, jus relictse, and legitim. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Succession. 46. 
 
 2. — Partial — Bights of vndow under the 
 Intestate Estates Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 29). 
 
 The Intestates' Estates Act, 1890, does not, 
 like the Statute of Distributions (22 & 23 Car. 2, 
 c. 10), apply to cases of partial intestacy. The 
 phrase "testamentary expenses" in s. 6 of the 
 first named Act is a slip in the drafting, aad 
 means expenses of letters of administration and 
 of administration generally. In re TwiGG. 
 TwiQG V. Black CMtty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 579 
 
 And see Executor and Probate, passim. 
 
 — Proceeds of sale of realty not disposed of. 
 
 See Escheat. 1. 
 
 — Special occupant — Devolution of estate. 
 
 See Estate pur Autre Vie. 1, 2. 
 
 — Trust to accumulate income beyond twenty- 
 
 one years. 
 
 See Accumulations. 5. 
 
 — Will — Eemoteness — Vesting — Maintenance. 
 
 See "Will. 167. 
 
 INTESTATES' ESTATES. 
 See Dower. ] . 
 
 INTIMIDATIOIT— Employer and workman. 
 See Cases under Conspiracy. 
 
 — Trade Union. 
 
 See Cases under Trade Union. 
 
 INTOXICATING IIQTJOES. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 INVENTED WORD— Registration. 
 
 See Cases imder Tbade-maek. 
 
 INVENTION — Eight to use— Co-owners— Dis- 
 closure — Injunction. 
 See Secret Peocebs. 
 
 INVENTORY DUTY— Stamp duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — Inventory Duty. 117. 
 
 INVESTMENT — ifant^s in Court— Order xxii., 
 r. 17 A.— Rule dated Feb. 10. W. N. 1897 
 (Feb, 20), p. 61. See Current Index, 1897, 
 p. Ixxxvi. 
 
 — Administration action. 
 
 See ExECOiTGE — Investments. 
 
 — By wife of accumulations — Covenant to settle 
 
 after-acquired jaroperty. 
 See Settlement. 13. 
 
 — Exercise of option to invest on real securities 
 
 — Validity of gift. 
 See Ohabity. 38. 
 
 — Improper — Breach of trust— Eelief from lia- 
 
 bility. 
 
 See Trustee — Investments. 64. 
 
 INVESTMENT— eoniinaeti. 
 
 — Increase of value of investments — Appoint- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Powers. 15. 
 
 — Investment trust company — Profits or gains. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 85. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land — Investments. 
 
 ■ Trustees. 
 
 See Tkustee- 
 
 -Investments, 
 
 — Trustees' powers of investment — Deposits 
 
 with banks — Law of Victoria. 
 See Victoria. 3. 
 
 — -Workmen's Compensation Act — Investment 
 for benefit of dependants. 
 See Master and Servant — Compensa- 
 tion. 30. 
 
 IBEIAND — Appeals to House of Lords. 
 See Appeal. 19, 20. 
 
 1. — Clergyman's residence — Agreement for a 
 letting for — Erection of huts for evicted tenants. 
 
 Held, on the construction of an inartificially 
 drawn agreement for a lease made in 1839 for 
 providing a residence for a Eoman Catholic 
 priest, that the erection of huts on the demised 
 premises for the protection and shelter of evicted 
 tenants was inconsistent with the purpose for 
 which the holding had been let. The decision 
 of Ir. C. A., (1891) 29 L. R. Ir. 230 affirmed. 
 Kbhoe v. Marquis op Laksdowne 
 
 H. L. I. [1893] A, C. 451 
 
 — Disobedience of order of Irish Court — Power 
 
 of English Court. 
 
 See Contempt op Court. 1. 
 
 — Irish Divorce Bill — Evidence taken in India. 
 
 See Divorce — Evidence. 78. 
 
 — Irish Divorce Bill 
 
 Practice. 
 
 See Divorce — Children. 21. 
 
 — Irish judgment — " Execution " — Enforcing 
 
 judgment in England. 
 See Judgment Debt. 4. 
 
 2. — Marriage in Protestant Episcopalian 
 church — Certificate — Proof of marriage — Evi- 
 dence. 
 
 A copy of an entry in the register of marriages, 
 duly certified by the clergyman of the church 
 where the marriage so registered has been 
 solemnised, is sufficient to prove a lawful mar- 
 riage according to the rites and ceremonies of 
 the Protestant Episcopalian Church of Ireland. 
 Whitton v. Whitton Jeune P. [1900] P. 178 
 
 — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 IREEGULAEITY— Bankruptcy notice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 13,14. 
 
 — Company — Borrowing powers. 
 
 See Company — Borrowing Powers. 2. 
 
 — Foreign judgment— Divorce— Eecognilion by 
 
 English Court. 
 
 See Conflict op Laws. 4. 
 
 Infant — Custody — 
 
( 1015 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1016 ) 
 
 lEEEGTJLAEITY— cojifinwed. 
 
 — Notice of general meeting — DireotorB' interest 
 
 — Non-disolosure. 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 160. 
 
 — Partnership — Dissolntion — Bankruptcy peti- 
 
 tion against one late partner. 
 
 See Bankkuptct — Partnership. 137. 
 
 — Service. 
 
 See Attachment. 14. 
 
 — Service of writ out of the jurisdiction. 
 
 See Peaotioe— Service. 202, 205, 213. 
 
 IEEELEVANC7 — Production of documents — 
 Privilege. 
 See Discovert — Documents. 10, 11, 40. 
 
 — Striking out pleadings — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Pleading. 
 
 lEEEMOVABILITT OF PATJPEE— Settlement. 
 See Cases under Poor Law. 
 
 lEEIGATION — Land slides — Injunction — • 
 Liability for damages. 
 See Canada. 22. 
 
 ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) ACT, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 27), amends the law with respect to customs 
 duties in the Isle of Man. 
 
 " ISSUE "— " Children "—Construction of will. 
 See Cases under Will — Children. 
 
 ISSUE LIVING. 
 
 See Will — Children. 42. 
 
 ISSUE OF SHAEES— Company— Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Compant and Company 
 
 — WiNDING-trP. 
 
 ITALY— San Marino, Kepublic of. 
 See Extradition. 
 
 — Administration. 
 
 See Executor — Administration. 13. 
 
( 1017 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1018 ) 
 
 J. 
 
 JACTITATION OP MARRIAGE. 
 
 See DivoECE — Jactitation of Marriage. 
 
 — Title of honour — Former wife marrying a 
 
 commoner — Continued use of title de- 
 rived from former husband — Injunction. 
 See Htoband and Wife — Title of 
 Honour. 97. 
 JAMAICA. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 See Peobate — Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 Xaw of Jamaica. 
 
 1. — Barihruptoy — Jurisdiction — Annidment 
 — Act of Bankruptcy — Assignment — Bankruptcy 
 Law, 1879, s. 151— ^c< No. 17 of 1877, s. 10. 
 
 The judge sitting in bankruptcy has juris- 
 diction to revoke a provisional order or annul an 
 adjudication under s. 151 of the Bankruptcy Law, 
 187'9. An application for that purpose need not 
 be made to the full Court under s. 10 of Law 
 No. 17 of 1877. An assignment of the whole of 
 a debtor's property, in consideration of a con- 
 temporaneous advance and promise of further 
 assistance " in order to enable the debtor to carry 
 on his business, and in the reasonable belief that 
 he would thereby be enabled to do so," is not an 
 act of bankruptcy. Administeatok-Gbnebal op 
 Jamaica v. Lascelles, De Mekoado & Co. In re 
 Bees' Bankkuptct - P. C. [1894] A. C. 135 
 
 2. — Compensation — Accommodation worlts — 
 Statutory officer— Law 12 of 1889, ss. 20, 29. 
 
 Where by a Colonial Act the promoters of a 
 ry. were authorised to take lands, through a 
 Government ofScer, compensation being payable 
 by the Government, and the owners of the land 
 were entitled to such accommodation works as 
 may be fixed by agreement when the amount of 
 the compensation is being settled : — 
 
 Sdd, that as the statutory power of assessing 
 compensation was entrusted to the officer^ the 
 making of agreements for accommodation works 
 was within the scope of his authority, and he 
 could within reasonable limits bind the co., 
 although the statutory duty of paying for such 
 works was imposed on the co. West India Im- 
 
 PEOVEMENT Co. V. AtT.-GeN. OP JAMAICA 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 243 
 
 — Libel — ^Privileged occasion— Onus pjobandi. 
 
 See Defamation — libel. 23. 
 
 — Mortgagor and mortgagee— Sale by mortgagee 
 
 after previous sale to himself— Eights of 
 purchaser— Eight of mortgagee to cost 
 of improvements. 
 See Mortgage— Sale. 82. 
 
 3. — Practice — Misdirection — Withdrawal of 
 facts from jury— Setting aside verdict— Ejectment 
 action. 
 
 Where, in an action of ejectment, the pits. 
 title is admitted, it is misdirection to withdraw 
 the facts from the jury (who could not agree) 
 
 JAMAICA (Law of Jamaica) — continued. 
 and direct a verdict for the defts. on the ground 
 that the pits, had not proved possession during 
 any part of the statutory period. Evidence 
 having been submitted which, if believed, proved 
 their possession of part of the lands sued for, a 
 new trial was rightly ordered. Kingston Eace 
 Stand v. Matob and Council op Kingston 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 609 
 
 4. — Practice — Trial — New trial — Question 
 of fact not submitted to jury — Issue of fact as to 
 variation of easement claimed — Jamaica Code of 
 Civil Procedure, s. 438. 
 
 In an action by the respondents for damages 
 in respect of a nuisance committed by the appel- 
 lants and for an injunction, it was alleged that 
 the appellants, who had a prescriptive right to 
 load, unload, and store coals on their wharf in 
 such manner as to spread their coal dust over the 
 respondents' wharf, had within twenty years so 
 extended the site of their operations and altered 
 the structure of their works and the conduct of 
 their business as to produce injurious eflfects not 
 covered by any prescriptive right. The question 
 submitted was whether the appellants' works 
 taken as a whole had by their extension been 
 rendered more injurious than before to the 
 respondents' works taken as a whole. The jury 
 found that there had been no increase in incon- 
 venience and discomfort to the respondents, and 
 a verdict was entered for the appellants. On 
 motion before the Full Court judgment was given 
 for the respondents, on the ground that the change 
 in the incidence of the dust produced by the 
 extension and alteration of site and works so 
 altered the nature of the easement as to con- 
 stitute a new wrong : — 
 
 Held, on appeal, that the question whether 
 by this extension and alteration there had been 
 a variation in the kind of servitude imposed on 
 the respondents substantial enough to cause a 
 new and appreciable wrong was a question of 
 fact which had not been submitted to the jury, 
 and that there must be a new trial. 
 
 Under s. 438 of the Jamaica Code of Civil 
 Procedure the Court cannot decide a question of 
 fact never submitted to the jury, though it may 
 draw inferences of fact not inconsistent with the 
 findings. Eotal Mail Steam Packet Co. v. 
 Geoeqe & Beandat p. C. [1900] A. C. 480 
 
 — Property in— Probate duty— Local situation 
 of asset. . 
 See Eevenue — Probate Duty. 135. 
 
 5. — Bailway hands — Agreement with Govern- 
 ment — Error in confirming law — Constructiorir— 
 Yearly or half-yearly bonds — Accounts. 
 
 By an error in the wording of the law con- 
 firming an agreement between the colonial 
 government and a ry. co., certain second mortgage 
 bonds bearing guaranteed interest, the amount of 
 which was to depend on the yearly eaminss. 
 were treated as half-yearly bonds with interest 
 
( 1019 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1020 ) 
 
 JAMAICA (Law of Jamaica) — eonlinued. 
 contingent on half-yearly profits. Bonds were 
 then issued in terms of the agreement and not of 
 the law, and by a certificate of the Government 
 were erroneously certified to be according to the 
 law : — 
 
 Held, (1) that, reading agreement and law 
 together, the bonds should be treated as yearly 
 bonds, and the accounts should be taken at the 
 end of each year, and not on the footing that 
 there was to be a rest at the end of every half- 
 year ; (2) that the costs of the issue of the bonds 
 could not he charged against their income to 
 the prejudice of the holders ; (3) that the amount 
 chargeable for stores on the expenditure of any 
 year must be regulated by what was fair in the 
 interest of all concerned. Jamaica Bt. Co. v. 
 Att.-Gen. of Jamaica P. C. [1893] A. C. 127 
 
 6. — Trade - mark — Segistration of Trade 
 Marks Law, 1888— " Club Soda"— Alleged mis- 
 representation of Ms goods by the plaintiff. 
 
 In an action by the appellant, who had regis- 
 tered his English trade-mark of " Club-Soda " in 
 Jamaica, under Law 17 of 1888, it appeared that 
 the respondents persisted in selling their goods 
 under the same name in a way calculated to 
 deceive : — 
 
 Held, that the appellant was not disentitled 
 to relief merely because he had printed on hia 
 label the words " maniifactured in Ireland by 
 H.M. Royal Letters Patent." Those words, 
 explained by the evidence to relate to patented 
 machinery, did not necessarily represent or induce 
 belief contrary to the fact that the ingredients of 
 their article were patented. Cochbane v. Mac- 
 NISH & Son - P. C. [1896] A. C. 226 
 
 Followed by C. A. Powell v. Birmingham 
 Vinegar Brewery Co., [1896] 2 Oh. 54, 84. This 
 case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. 0. 
 710. 
 
 JAPAN — As to registration of patents, designs, 
 and trade-marks. Lend. Gaz. Jan. 8, 1897, p. 125. 
 
 Protection of patents, trade-marks, &c., ex- 
 tended to British siibjects. Lond. Gaz. Jan. 1, 
 1897, p. 3. 
 
 Desekteks.] Apprehension of seamen wlu> 
 desert from British merchant ships in that country. 
 St. R. & 0. 1898, No. 419. Price Jd. Lond. 
 Gaz. Feb. 4, 1898, pp< 646, 668; May SO, 
 p. 3132. 
 
 Consular and Marriage Fees 0. in C. 1900. 
 St. B. & 0. 1900, No. 91 ; Lond. Gaz. Feb. 6, 1900, 
 p. 779. 
 
 — Copyright. 
 
 See OopYBiGHT — International. 
 
 — Crossing vessels in rivers — Regulations for 
 
 preventing collisions. 
 See China. 2. 
 
 — Jurisdiction of Consular Courts. 
 
 See Foreign Jukisdictiok. 1. 
 
 ^ Merchandise, Patents, Designs, and Trade 
 Marks. 
 See Foreign Jurisdiction. 
 
 . ^■, Practice — Special leave to appeal in 
 criminal cases— Consular Court in Japanr-Juris- 
 
 JAPAN — continued. 
 
 diction — Foreign Jurisdiction Act (6 <£ 7 Vict. 
 
 c. 94). 
 
 Under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act (6 & 7 
 Vict. 0. 94) Her Majesty has power to constitute 
 for Japan a Court by 0. in 0. with a jury of five 
 with jurisdiction over Her Majesty's subjects. 
 
 The rule as to special leave to appeal in 
 
 criminal cases laid down in In re Dillet, (1887) 
 
 12 App.- Cas. 459, re-affirmed. Ex parte Cakew 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 719 
 
 JERSEY — Appeals from—0. in C. dated May 19, 
 1671, and July 15, 1835, regulating appeals to Her 
 Majesty in Council from the island of Jersey. St. 
 E. & 0. 1899, pp. 1680, 1684. 
 
 Law of Jersey. 
 
 1. — Crown fiefs — Alienation in mortmain. 
 Where land held of the Crown as seigneur is 
 
 brought into mortmain the purchaser is bound to 
 pay to the Crown the indemnity due by law in 
 respect of the consequent loss or diminution in 
 value of the seigneurial rights. But the Crown 
 is also not entitled to interpose a nominal va.'isal 
 to pay duties or service in respect of the property. 
 For ascertaining the indemnity the Court sbpuld 
 fix the percentage to be paid by the purchaser, 
 but refer it to experts to value the property. 
 Att.-Gen. and Beoeiveb-General for Jersey 
 V. Turner - P. 0. [1893] A. C. 326 
 
 2. ■ — Crown fiefs- — LiaMlity of pr€mt. 
 
 The Crown has the right to demand of the 
 Queen's prevot receveur in the parish of St. John 
 personally the payment of the rents due, par 
 assemblage, in respect of its fief whether or no 
 he has received the contributions from his co- 
 tenants. The Crown is under no obligation to 
 furnish the pre'v6t with a list of the contrihu- 
 tories. Att.-Gen. and Beoeiver-Genebai, for 
 Jersey v. Le Moignan - P. C. [1892] A. C. 402 
 
 3. — Deed of settlement by vyife's faflier — 
 Bights of husband and wife in settled estate — 
 Claim of husband's heir. 
 
 By the law of Jersey a conveyance of real 
 estate by a husband to hia wife, stante inatri- 
 monio, to the prejudice of his lawful heirs, is 
 invalid. 
 
 Where, by a deed of family arrangement, it 
 appeared that a husband and his wife, separated 
 quant aux biens, each took from her father 
 (subject to a charge of an annuity in his favour) 
 a conjoint interest in the settled lands during 
 their joint lives, with the chance of the fee on 
 survivorship : — 
 
 Held, that the deed was in no sense a convey- 
 ance by the husband of any interest acquired by 
 him thereunder; and that on his death before 
 his wife his interest ceased and could not pass to 
 his heirs. Broomeb v. Abthub 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 777 
 
 4. — Inheritance — Collateral succession — 
 Bight of representation. 
 
 The prmciple of representation with regard 
 to personal and acquired real estate, introduced 
 by the Jersey enactments of Feb. 13, 1851, and 
 March 26, 1873, is complete and general,, aod 
 subject to no exception. Therefore the grand- 
 daughter of an elder sister of the deceased waa 
 
( 1021 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1022 ) 
 
 JEBSEY (law of Jersey) — continued. 
 held to be prinoipal heir in preference to the son 
 of a younger sister. De Quettevillb v. Hamon 
 (Peebee) - - P. C. [1893] A. C. 632 
 
 JETTISON OF CAEeO, 
 
 See Shipping — Average. 9. 
 
 JEWS — Employment of, on Sunday. 
 
 See Master and Sebtants — Eaotory 
 Acts. 61. 
 
 — Marriage — Validity — Domiciled British sub- 
 jects — Prohibited degrees of con- 
 sanguinity — Lex domicilii. 
 
 See Mabeiage. 1. 
 
 JOINBEE —Actions. 
 
 See Cases under Pbactioe — Parties, 
 
 ■ Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. 
 
 205—207. 
 
 — Counter-claim — Cause of action against plain- 
 
 tiff by defendant jointly with another 
 
 person. 
 
 See Practice. 149. 
 
 — Husband — Action against wife — Fraud by 
 
 wife — Tort — Liability of husband. 
 See Husband and Wife. 30. 
 
 — Parties. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Parties. 
 
 — Trustee in bankruptcy — Security for costs — 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See County Court — Costs. 31. 
 
 JOINT CONTEACTOaS -Adding defendants. 
 See Practice — Parties. 80, 81. 
 
 — Judgment signed against one — Eelease of 
 
 other. 
 
 See Practice — Setting Aside. 242. 
 
 JOINT SEBTOBS — Bankruptcy notice against 
 one of. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — ^Act of Bankruptcy. 
 14. 
 
 JOINT DELINaXTENTS. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Joint Delinquents. 
 
 JOINT GEANT— Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Joint Grant. 
 
 JOINT GITAEANTOE— Discharge. 
 
 See Principal and Surety. 8. 
 
 JOINT LESSEE — Notice of abandonment by a — 
 Joint gold-mining lease — ^Law of New 
 South Wales. 
 See Mines. 9. 
 
 JOINT OCCirPATION— Registration of voters. 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 50—57. 
 
 JOINT OE SEVEEAL LIABILITY — Policy — 
 Subscription by syndicate. 
 See Insurance— Marine. 69. 
 
 JOINT PATENTEES— Covenant by— When con- 
 strued as several or joint and several — 
 Survivorship. 
 See Patent. 13. 
 
 JOINT STOCK COMPANIES AEEANGEMENT 
 ACT, 1870— Inapplicable to the Colonies. 
 See Viotobia. 2. 
 
 JOINT STOCK COMPANY. 
 
 See Cases under Company. 
 
 — In the nature of a — Statute — Construction. 
 
 See Scientific Society. 1. 
 
 JOINT TENANCY. 
 
 Cobpoeations.] Power for corporations to 
 liold property as joint tenants. See Bodies Cor- 
 porate (iJoint Tenancy) Aot, 1899 (62 * 63 Vict. 
 0. 20). 
 
 — Absolute gift— Secret trust — Notice. 
 
 See Tbust. 7. 
 
 — Devise in — Contingent remainder. 
 
 See Will — Contingent Eemainder. 75. 
 
 — Husband and wife. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 10, 11. 
 
 — Policy of insurance. 
 
 See Insurance — Life. 17. 
 
 — Eegistration of voters — Joint or sole occupa- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 50 — 57. 
 
 1. — Severance — Covenant to settle after- 
 acquired property. 
 
 H., M. and A. became entitled as joint 
 tenants under a voluntary settlement made by P. 
 M. had previously entered into a covenant in an 
 antenuptial settlement to settle after-acquired 
 property. H. then died. M. and A. executed a 
 deed of severance, assigning the funds to trustees, 
 one moiety for the benefit of each of them : — 
 
 Held, that on the death of P. the joint interest 
 of M. was severed by the operation of the cove- 
 nant to settle after-acquired properly. In re 
 Hewett. Hewett v. Hallett 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 362 
 
 2. — Severance — Effect of marriage — Lease by 
 husband of one joint tenant and the other joint 
 tena/nt. 
 
 The marriage of a woman having a joint 
 estate in freeholds or leaseholds does not operate 
 as a severance of her joint tenancy ; nor does the 
 granting of a lease by the husband and the other 
 joint tenant, reserving the rent to the lessors 
 jointly, necessarily effect a severance of the wife's 
 joint tenancy. Palmer v. Eich Stirling J. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 174 (7) ; [1897] 1 Ch. 134 
 
 3. — Severance — What constitutes. 
 
 In order to amount to severance of a joint 
 tenancy the act of a joint tenant must be such as 
 to preclude him from claiming by survivorship 
 any interest in the subject-matter of the joint 
 tenancy. A joint tenant of a fund in court took 
 out a summons to have his share paid out to him. 
 but died before any order had been made on the 
 summons : — 
 
 Held, that there had been no severance. 
 
 Senible, that it would have been otherwise 
 had an order been made. In re Wilks. Child 
 V. BuLMER - - Stirling J. [1891] 3 Ch. 69 
 
 — Tacking — Further advance — Second mort- 
 
 gage — Trustees. 
 See Mortgage. 91. 
 
 — Will — Construction. 
 
 See Will — Joint Tenancy. 
 
 4. — Will — Devise — " All and every the 
 children." 
 
 A devise of realty to "all and every the 
 
( 1023 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1024 ) 
 
 JOINT lES ASCY— continued. 
 children of A. their heirs and assigns for ever," 
 held to create a joint tenancy. Binning v. Bin- 
 ning - Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 116 (16) 
 
 JOINT TOBTFEASOES— Admiralty practice. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 67, 68, 86. 
 
 See Cases under Release. 
 
 — Scottish Law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Joint Delinquents. 
 21. 
 
 JOINTTTKE — Deeds executed by successiye 
 tenants for life under powers conferred 
 by will — Sale by tenant for life. 
 See Settled Land. 133. 
 
 — Estate duty — " "Without any deduction what- 
 
 soever" — Assessment of duty — Limited 
 
 owner. 
 
 See Eevenue— Estate Duty. 36. 
 
 — Portions. 
 
 See Cases under Powers. 
 
 — Sale of heirlooms — Land purchased with 
 
 proceeds. 
 
 See Heiklooms. 5. 
 
 — Settlement. 
 
 See Settlement — Jointures. 
 
 — Test of what would have been an adequate 
 
 jointure — Permanent maintenance. 
 See DivoEOE — Alimony. 10. 
 
 JOINT WILL— Husband and wife. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Probate. 104. 
 
 JUDGE — Consular Court — Africa Order in 
 Council of Feb. 4, 1869 — Immunity from action. 
 
 By O. in C. dated Feb. 4, 1869, the Consular 
 Court of Madagascar was invested with plenary 
 civil jurisdiction over all British subjects within 
 the area specified by the order, but was not ex- 
 piessly created a Court of Record. The judge of 
 the Court was sued for abuse of his judicial 
 powers :— 
 
 Held, that while sitting and acting as judge 
 he was entitled to the same protection as the 
 judge of an English Court of Record, and that 
 r;n action of damages would not He against him 
 for dismissing without proof an action which he 
 hold to be vexatious, since in so doing, however 
 inadequate his reasons, be was acting within his 
 jurisdiction. Haggabd v. Pblicieb Fk{)bes 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 61 
 
 2. — Court of Becord of Cohny — Act done in 
 exercise of judicial office — Malicious motive — Im- 
 munity from action. 
 
 No action lies against a judge of the Supreme 
 Court of the Colony in respect of any act done 
 by him in his judicial capacity, even though he 
 acted oppressively and maliciously, to the pre- 
 judice of the pit. and to the perversion of justice. 
 Andehson v. Gorkib - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 668 
 
 — Judge's notes — Condition precedent to appeal 
 
 — Question of law raised at trial — 
 
 Request to make a note. 
 
 S'ee County Codkt — AppeaL 12. 
 
 — Judge's notes — Practice — Appeal — Notes of 
 
 oral evidence in Court below. 
 See Appeal, 36. 
 
 JUDGE — continued. 
 
 — Judge's notes. 
 
 See CouNTT Court — Appeal. 1, 12. 
 
 — Personal abuse of judge with reference to 
 
 his conduct as judge — Publication of 
 
 comments. 
 
 See Contempt op Court. 10. 
 
 — Salaries, &c., of Indian judges. 
 
 See India. 
 
 3. — Statutory limitation of power to appoint 
 
 The Governor of a Colony having constitu- 
 tional government cannot without express legis- 
 lative sanction appoint judges of the Superior 
 Court in excess of the number for whose salary 
 legislative provision has been made. The law of 
 England as to the appointment of judges reviewed 
 and adopted as applicable to such colonies. 
 Buckley v. Edwards P. C. [1892] A. C. 38T 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Judgment. 
 
 JUDGMENT CEEDITOE— Bankruptcy. 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Charging orders on fund in lunacy. 
 
 See Lunatic — Maintenance. 17. 
 
 JUDGMENT DB'BT — Charge on land — Legal 
 remainder — Receiver — Equitable execution — 
 " Actual delivery in execution " — Judgments Acts, 
 1838, 1864 (14 2 Fict. e. 110, s. 13 ; 27 * 28 
 Vict. c. 112,88.1,4) — Practice — Sale — Summons — 
 Petition— R. S. C, Order LV., t. 9 b. 
 
 A judgment debt is not enforceable as a 
 charge against the judgment debtor's legal 
 remainder in real estate : nor does an order 
 obtained by the judgment creditor appointing- 
 a receiver constitute an "actual delivery in 
 execution" within s. 1 of the Judgments Act, 
 1864, entitling the creditor to a sale of the 
 remainder under s. 4. 
 
 Decision of North J. affirmed. 
 
 Per North J. : An application by a judgment 
 creditor for a sale under s. 4 of the Judgments 
 Act, 1864, for the recovery of bis debt, is now 
 more properly made by summons and not by 
 petition: R. S. C, Order lv., r. 9b. In re 
 Harrison and Bottomlet - C. A. [1899J 
 
 W. N. 15 (7) ; [1899J 1 Ch, 465 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Johns v. Pink, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 296, 306. 
 
 2. — Charge cm land — Beversion — Judgments 
 Acts, 1838 (1*2 Vict. c. 110), s. 13 ; 1864 (27 & 
 28 Vict. c. 112), s. 1. 
 
 A remainder in real estate to a married 
 woman contingent on her having no children is 
 an interest to which s. 1 of the Judgments Act, 
 1864, applies, and the judgment creditor does not 
 get a charge under s. 13 of the Act of 1838. 
 Hood Bares v. Cathoaet (No. 5) 
 
 North J. [1895] 2 Ch. 411 
 
 — Charging order — Shares — Maintenance of 
 
 lunatic — Scheme. 
 
 See Lunacy — Maintenance. 20. 
 
 — Charging order — Shares held in own right. 
 
 See Charging Order. 3. 
 
( 1025 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1026 ) 
 
 JUDGMENT DEBT— con<«ime(?. 
 
 3. — Debtor's reversionary interest in person- 
 ■alty. 
 
 There is no jurisdiction to make a declara- 
 tion of charge upon a judgment debtor's rever- 
 sionary personalty in favour of a judgment 
 creditor who has been appointed receiver of such 
 property. Flegg v. Peentis 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 428 
 
 — Equitable assignment of — Bankruptcy notice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 15. 
 
 4, — Execution — • Irish judgment — Judgments 
 ISxt&nsion Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. v. 54), sa. 1, 4 
 —Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), ss. 4, 5. 
 
 The procedure by judgment summons under 
 the Debtors Act, 1869, is not "execution " of the 
 judgment debt within s. 4 of the Judgments Bx- 
 tensioQ Act, 1868, and consequently an English 
 Court has no jurisdiction to issue a judgment 
 summons for the purpose of enforcing a registered 
 Irish judgment. In re Watson. Ex parte 
 Johnston. Johnston v. Watson 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B, 21 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re A Banltruptey 
 Notice, [1898] 1 Q. B. 383. 
 
 5. — Execution — Beceiver^Future earnings. 
 There is no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver 
 
 ■of the future earnings of a judgment debtor, by 
 way of equitable execution of a judgment. 
 Holmes v. Millagb 
 
 C. A. revers. Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 551 
 Considered. Cadogan v. Lyric Theatre, C. A., 
 £1894] 3 Ch. 338. 
 
 And see Eboeivee. 
 
 — Joinder of one or more in same bankruptcy 
 
 notice. 
 
 See Bankbuptot — ^Act of Bankruptcy. 
 17. 
 
 ■6. — Partnership firm — Receiving order. 
 
 Where a firm includes an infant partner 
 judgment cannot be recovered ogains-t tlie firm 
 simply, but may be recovered against the defen- 
 dants other than the infant partner ; nor can a, 
 receiving order be made on or against the firm 
 simply. 
 
 (a) In re Beattchamp Beotheks. Ex parte 
 Beauchamp C. a. [1894] 1 ft. B. 1 ; varied by 
 
 H. L. (E.) sub nom. Lovell & Chbistmas 
 {v. Beauchamp [1894] A. C. 607 
 
 (b) Haeeis v. Beauchamp Beothees (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 801 
 [Note. — This ease seems to be overruled by 
 
 (A)-] 
 
 And see Cases under Bankkcptct — Part- 
 nership, 
 
 — Eeceiver and manager — Preferential payments 
 
 — Proper outgoings — Compensation. 
 See Kail WAT. 55. 
 
 JUDGMENT DEBTOIt-Bankruptcy of— Costs— 
 Property recovered — Charging order on 
 dividend. 
 See SoLiciTOE. 15. 
 
 — Death of— Administration order — Sale by 
 
 Sheriff. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Execution. 103, 106. 
 
 JUDGMENT DEBTOE— fionfiHiied. 
 
 — Death of — Leave to i^sue execution against 
 
 executor. 
 
 See Ohaeging Okdee. 2. 
 
 — Examination of — Conduct money. 
 
 See Evidence. 30. 
 
 — Execution — Sale by sheriff — Payment of rent 
 
 out of proceeds. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — Execution. 104. 
 
 — Eeceiving order in lieu of committal — 
 
 Foreigner. 
 
 See BANKBtPTCT — Beceiving Order. 
 197. 
 
 — Sale of interest in laud. 
 
 See Peactice— Originating Summons. 
 74. 
 
 JUDGMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1868— Bank- 
 ruptcy notice — Scottish judgment regis- 
 tered in England. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 24. 
 
 JUDICIAL ACT— Of returning ofBcer. 
 See Thames. 3. 
 
 JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 See Peivy Council — Judicial Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 JUDICIAL EXPENSES— Of corporation. 
 See CoBPOBATioN. 20. 
 
 JUDICIAL rACTOB — Investments — Curator 
 bonis — Liability — Harbour rates. 
 See Tbcstee — Investments. 65. 
 
 JUDICIAL ISQiJnS.Y— Domestic f mum— Persona I 
 interest of member of tribunal. 
 
 A person who is acting in a judicial character 
 must stand in such a relation to the matter of 
 inquiry that he caunot be reasonably suspected 
 of any bias. If he has any pecuniary interest 
 however small in the result of the proceedings he 
 will be disqualified from acting. Allinson v. 
 GrENEBAL Medical Council 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 760 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. Burton, [ 1 897] 
 2 Q. B. 468, 473. 
 
 JUDICIAL SEPARATION. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 JUDICIAL TRUSTEE. 
 
 See Tbusteb — Judicial Trustees. 
 
 JURISDICTION. 
 
 Bee Cases under Heading of Subject- 
 matter of JUEISDICTION. 
 
 JURY — Separation of juries in cases of felony 
 permitted by the Juries Detention Act, 1897 (60 
 Vict. o. 18). 
 
 Special Juries Act, 1898 (61 Vict. o. 6), amends 
 the law as to special juries. 
 
 1. — Exemption — CJoroner's jury — Common 
 Juries Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 50) ss. 1, 2, 8, 25, 52 
 —Juries Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 77) ss. 3, 9, 
 Sched.— Coroners Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 71), 
 s. 3. 
 
 The exemption of solicitors' managing clerks 
 from service on juries which is conferred by 
 s. 52 of the County Juries Act, 1825, and by s. 9, 
 
 2 L 
 
( 1027 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1028 ) 
 
 JUET — continued. 
 
 and the Sched. of the Juries Act, 1870, extends 
 
 to service on coroneis' juries. In re Dutton 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 a. B. 486 
 
 — Question of fact not submitted to jury — 
 
 New trial — Issue of fact as to variation 
 of easement claimed. 
 See Jamaica. 4. 
 
 — Eight to be tried by jury — Justices — Summary 
 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 See Justices. 14. 
 
 — Trial at Gibraltarshould be by. 
 
 See GiBEALTAB. 1. 
 
 — Trial by — Admiralty jurisdiction — County 
 
 court — Practice. 
 
 See Shipping — ^Practice. 196. 
 
 — Trial by^Bxchequer prosecutions. 
 
 See Revenue. 172. 
 
 — Trial by — Jurisdiction of Court of Chancery 
 
 of County Palatine of Lancaster. 
 See Lancaster Court. 1. 
 
 — Trial by jury. 
 
 See Pbaotice— Trial. 256, 257. 
 
 — Withdrawal of facts from — Misdirection. 
 
 See Jamaica. 3. 
 
 JUSACCEESCENDI— "Will— Construction— Fidei 
 commissum. 
 See Ceylon. 1. 
 
 JTTS TEETH— Bailor and bailee— Fraud. 
 
 See Estoppel. 
 
 — Eight to set up — Bailee — Estoppel. 
 
 See Interpleader. 1. 
 
 JUSTICES. 
 
 Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women') Act, 
 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. k. 39), amends the law relating 
 to the Summary Jurisdiction of Magistrates in 
 reference to Married Women. 
 
 Bwle and Schedule of Additional Forms dated 
 Nov. 5, 1895, under the Summary Jurisdiction 
 Acts. St. E. & 0. 1895, 483, L. 24. Price id. 
 
 Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1899 (62 <fc 63 
 Yict.c. 22), amends the Summary Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict c. 49). 
 Generally, col. 1027. 
 Appeals to Sigh Court, col. 1038. 
 Appeals to Quarter Sessions, col. 1040. 
 Glerh to Justices, col. 1042. 
 Disqualification, col. 1042. 
 Jurisdiction and Practice. See Justices 
 — Generally. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 [Note. — Under this sub-heading are included 
 Cases relating to the Jurisdiction of Justices 
 and Practice generally.] 
 
 — Apprenticeship deed — Contract not for benefit 
 
 of infant. 
 
 See Infant. 4, 5. 
 
 — Bastardy laws. 
 
 See Cases under Bastardy. 
 Bastardy laws— Simultaneous applications to 
 several justices. 
 See Bastardy. 4. 
 
 JUSTICES (Generally)— conhnwecZ. 
 
 — Betting. 
 
 See Cases under Gaming. 
 
 — Betting — Private ground used for — " Place of 
 
 public resort " — By-laws — Validity. 
 See Corporation. 1. 
 
 — Bicycle. 
 
 See Cases under Bicycle. 
 
 — Bread — Sale otherwise than by weight. 
 
 See Bread. 
 
 1. — Brothel — Prosecution for keeping hrothel — 
 Disorderly Houses Acts, 1751-2 (25 Geo. 2, e. 36), 
 s. 5, 6, 7 ; (58 Geo. 3, c. 70), s. 7 — Criminal Law 
 Amendment Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict c. 69), s. 13. 
 
 It is not necessary to proceed by information 
 in proceedings under s. 13 of the Criminal Law 
 Amendment Act, 1885. A justice is bound to 
 issue his warrant for the arrest of a person accused 
 by two inhabitants of a parish of keeping » 
 disorderly house, in accordance with the pro- 
 visions of 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, s. 6, which applies to 
 summary proceedings under s. 13 of the Criminal 
 Law Amendment Act, 1885. Eeg. v. Newton 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 648 
 
 — Buildings. 
 
 See Cases under Buildings. 
 
 London — Buildings. 
 Streets. 
 
 — "Candidate" — Nomination of disqualified 
 
 person — ^Election — Eight to petition. 
 See Corporation. 14. 
 
 — Coal. 
 
 See Cases under Weights and Mea- 
 sures. 
 
 — Continuing offence — By-law — Builder without 
 
 power to remedy breach. 
 See Builder. 
 
 2. — Cab-fare — Order to pay cab-fare and costs 
 — Imprisonment — Pailway Clauses Act, 1845 (8 & 
 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 145 — Town Police Clauses Act, 
 1847 (10 (t- 11 Vict c. 89), s. 66— Summary Juris- 
 diction Acts, 1879 (42 * 43 Vict c. 49), ss. 6, 35 ; 
 1884 (47 * 48 Vict c. 43), ss. 4, 5. 
 
 An order to pay a cab-fare and costs under 
 s. 66 of the Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847, is 
 an order to pay a " sum of money claimed to be 
 due and recoverable on complaint to a court of 
 summary jurisdiction " within s. 6 of the Sum- 
 mary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, and is therefore not 
 enforceable by imprisonment, but only as a civil 
 debt under s. 35 of the latter Act. Eeg v. Kers- 
 wiLL - , - - Div. Ot. [1895] 1 Q. B. I 
 
 8. — Costs — Dismissal of information — Order 
 against complainant for costs — Summary Juris- 
 diction Acts, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43), s. 22; 1879 
 (42 & 43 Vict c. 49), ss. 35, p. 
 
 An order for costs made against a complainant 
 wliose information is dismissed may, where no 
 sufficient distress is found, be enforced by com- 
 mittal if it is proved that the complainant has or 
 has had since the date of the order means to pay. 
 Eeg. v. Lord Mayor of London. Ex parte 
 Boaler Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 146 
 
 4. — Costs of appeal to quarter sessions — Pay- 
 ment by treasurer of county or borough — "Place" 
 —Vagrant Act, 1824 (5 Geo. 4, c. 83), s. 9. 
 
 By s. 9 of the Vagrant Act, 1824, upon an 
 
( 1029 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1030 ) 
 
 JUSTICES (QeneraUy)— co«i!i»«ed. 
 appeal to quartev sessions against a conviction 
 under the Act, the justices in quarter sessions 
 are empowered to order the treasurer of "the 
 county, riding, division, or place in which the 
 offence shall have been committed," to pay the 
 prosecutor's costs. 
 
 A county borough had a separate commission 
 of the peace, but not a separate court of quarter 
 sessions. An appeal from a conviction under the 
 Act; by the borough justices having been suc- 
 cessfully brought to the quarter sessions for the 
 county, an order was made by quarter sessions 
 upon the borough treasurer for payment of the 
 prosecutor's costs : — 
 
 Held, that the word " place " in the section 
 must be construed as ejusdem generis witli 
 "county, riding, division," and meant a place 
 having a separate court of quarter sessions ; and 
 that the order of quarter sessions was therefore 
 wrongly made upon the borough treasurer, and 
 should have be^n made upon the treasurer of the 
 county. Keg. v. West Kidikq Justices 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q. B. 291 
 
 — Costs of chief constable— Payment of — Borough 
 
 fund — Appeal against refusal of licence. 
 See COBPOKATION. 10. 
 
 — Costs of summary proceedings. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe — Summary 
 Jurisdiction. 81 — 83. 
 
 — Criminal law. 
 
 See Oases under Cbiminal Law. 
 
 — Cruelty to animals. 
 
 See Oases under Criminal Law — Cruelty 
 to Animals. 
 
 8. — Cruelty to animals — Offence punishable 
 upon summary conviction — Information — " Coun- 
 selling" commission of offence — Summary Juris- 
 diction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43), s. 5— 
 Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict, 
 c. 92), s. 2. 
 
 A person who has counselled the commission 
 of an offence punishable on summary conviction 
 may, under s. 5 of ihe Summary Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1848, be convicted upon an information 
 which charges him with having committed such 
 offence as a principal offender. 
 
 A deft, was, therefore, held liable to con- 
 viction upon an information which charged him 
 with having cruelly ill-treated a horse by causing 
 it to be worked in an unfit state contrary to s. 2 
 of 12 & 13 Vict. 0. 92, although the offence proved 
 was that he had knowingly counselled the owner 
 of the horse to cause the act of cruelty to be done. 
 Benford v. Sims Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 641 
 
 -7- Cruelty to children- 
 
 See Cases under Cbimtnal Law — 
 Cruelty to Children. 
 
 — Dock-master — Control of — Obstruction — West 
 
 India Dgcks. 
 See Dock. 1. 
 
 — Duty of — Dog licence — Certificate of exemp- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Ebvenue —Dog Licence. 12. 
 
 6. — Election to be tried on indictment — Add- 
 ing counts to indictment for offences not ini~hided 
 in summons — Indictable Offences Act, 1848 (11*12 
 
 JUSTICES (Generally) — continued, 
 Vict. c. 42), s. 25 — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 
 (11 & 12 Vict. a. i3)~Setting House Act, 1853 
 (16 (6 17 Vict. c. 119), ss. 1, 3— Vexatious Indict- 
 ments Act, 1859 (22 & 23 Viet. a. 17), ». \— Crimi- 
 nal Law Amendment Act, 1867 (30 & 81 Vict, 
 c. 35), 8. 1— Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 
 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), s. 17. 
 
 Where a person accused of an offence triable 
 summarily elects, under s. 17 of the Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879, to be tried by a jury, the 
 accused may be committed for trial in respect of 
 any indictable offence disclosed by the deposi- 
 tions ; and in cases to which the Vexatious In- 
 dictments Act does not apply, or in which the 
 operation of that Act is limited by 30 & 31 Vict. 
 c. 85, s. 1, counts may be added in respect of 
 any indictable offence disclosed by the deposi- 
 tions, although the accused was not summoned 
 in respect thereof. Eeg. v. Brown 
 
 C. C. B. [1895] 1 Q. B. US' 
 
 Eeferred to by Hawkins J. Hawke v. Dunn, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 579, 599. 
 
 — Employment of child by parent " for purposes 
 
 of gain." 
 
 See Schools. 1. 
 
 — Engaging seamen for foreign ship — Fine — 
 
 Civil debt. 
 
 See Shippins — Seamen. 258. 
 
 — Examination of defendant — Previous convic- 
 
 tion — Prevention of cruelty to children. 
 See Criminal Law — Evidence. 18. 
 
 7. — Excise prosecution — Officer of Inland 
 Revenue — Proof of authority — Excise Act, 1827 
 (7 <fc 8 Geo. 4, c. 53), s. 71 — Inland Revenue Regu- 
 lation Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 21), ss. 21, 24. 
 
 Where in an information by an inland revenue 
 olEcer for excise penalties an allegation is made 
 that the Inland Bevenue Commrs. had ordered 
 the prosecution, such allegation is sufficient proof 
 of such order without further or other evidence, 
 since the provisions of s. 71 of 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 53, 
 are not impliedly repealed by ss. 21, 24 of the 
 Inland Eevenue Begulation Act, 1890. Dteb v. 
 ToLLET _ . - [1894] 2 ft. B. 794 
 
 — Factory Acts. 
 
 See Oases under Master and Servant 
 Factory Acts. 
 
 — False pretences. 
 
 See Cases under Criminal Law — False 
 Pretences. 
 
 — False trade description — Oral statement — 
 
 Description in invoice written at pur- 
 chaser's request. 
 See Teade-makk. , 
 
 8. — Fine — Mitigation of statutory fine — 
 Jurisdiction — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 
 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), s. 4 — Cotton Cloth Factories 
 Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict c. 62), s. 13. 
 
 The power given to courts of summary juris- 
 diction by s. 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879, to reduce the prescribed amount of a fine, if 
 it be imposed as in respect of a first offence, does 
 not enable them to reduce the prescribed amount 
 of the fine imposed by s. 13 of the Cotton Cloth 
 Factories Act, 1889, which enacts that where 
 there is a contravention of or non-compliance 
 
 2 L 2 
 
( 1031 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1032 ) 
 
 JUSTICES (Generally)— coraiinued. 
 with the i^rovisions of tlie Act, and after written 
 notice from the inspector the acta are continued 
 or not remedied, the occupier of the factory is to 
 be liable, on summary conviction, for the first 
 offence to a penalty of not less than 5!. nor more 
 than lOl. OsBOBN v. Wood Bbothebs 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] W.W. 174(6); 
 [1897] 1 a. B. 197 
 
 — Fugitive offender — Committal to await return 
 
 — Power to admit to bail — Jurisdiction. 
 See Bail. 1. 
 
 — Hawker, licensed — Sale by, of goods for which 
 
 licence unnecessary — Penalty. 
 See Markets and Faxes. 2. 
 
 . — • House used for purpose of a sweepstake — 
 Betting Act — Criminal law. 
 See Gaming. 33. 
 
 9. — Industrial Sclwols Act, 1866 (29 * 30 Vict. 
 c. 118), 8. 14. 
 
 The Industrial Schools Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. 
 c. 118), does not contain a code of criminal pro- 
 cedure and is not punitive in its character, but 
 is intended for the protection of chUdren coming 
 ■within its operation. Where, therefore, a child 
 apparently under fourteen years of age is charged 
 before a court of summary jurisdiction with Lir- 
 ceny, and the charge is dismissed, but evidence 
 is given that he frequents the company of reputed 
 thieves, he may be sent to an industrial school 
 under s. 14 of the Act without being brought 
 afresh before the Court by summons or otherwise 
 upon a substantive charge under that section. 
 Eeg. v. Jennings Div. Ct. [1895] W. K. 142 (7) 
 
 10. — Infectious disease — Order for removal to 
 hospital — Finality of order— Justices — Jurisdic- 
 tion— FuUic Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict, 
 ■c. 55), 8. 124. 
 
 The validity of an order for the removal to a 
 hospital of a person suffering from a dangerous 
 infections disease, made ex parte by a single 
 justice under s. 124 of the Public Heallh Act, 
 1875, cannot be inquired into upon the hearing 
 of a summons under that section before a court 
 of summary jurisdiction for obstructing the exe- 
 cution of the order. Keg. v. Davey 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 301 
 
 11. — Infectious disorder — Order for removal 
 ■of patient — "Proper lodging or accommodation" 
 —Justices -Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 55), s. 124. 
 
 Sect. 124 of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 enables justices to order the removal to a hospital 
 of any person suffering from a dangerous infec- 
 tion? disorder who is " without proper lodging or 
 accommodation." Where it was proved that a 
 person suffering from such a disorder had proper 
 lodging and accommodation, so far as he himself 
 ■was concerned, at his father's house, but that he 
 could not be properly isolated and there would 
 be danger of infection to the other inmates of 
 the house if he remained there : — 
 
 Held, that there was evidence that he ■was 
 
 " without proper lodging or accommodation " 
 
 within the meaning of b. 124. War^wiok v. 
 
 Uuaham _ Diy. ct, [1899] W. N. 88 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 191 
 
 JTTSTICES (Generally) — continued. 
 
 — Information — Consent in writing of chief 
 
 constable. 
 
 See Sunday. 2. 
 
 12. — Information — Sufficiency of information 
 — Allegation of reasonable suspicion of larceny — 
 Specification of goods alleged to be stolen — Search- 
 warrant — Legality of warrant. 
 
 A search-warrant may be issued on an allega- 
 tion of reasonable suspicion of larceny. 
 
 On an application to a justice of the peace 
 for a search-warrant, the sworn information upon 
 which the application was made stated that the 
 informant "hath just and reasonable cause to 
 suspect and doth suspect that W. J. has in his 
 possession certain property belonging to " (the 
 informant), " and that he has requested the said 
 W. J. to allow him to search several boxes which 
 the said W. J. has had packed ready to be taken 
 away, and which he refuses to be looked through." 
 The justice issued his warrant, which was exe- 
 cuted. In an action of trespass alleging that the 
 information was insufficient, and that the ■warrant 
 ■was consequently illegal and without juris- 
 diction : — 
 
 Held, aflSrming the judgment of the Lord 
 Chief Justice, [1896] 2 Q. B. 418, that it is not 
 necessary in such an information to allege that 
 a larceny has in fact been committed, but that 
 it is enough to allege a suspicion that a larceny 
 has been committed ; that it is not necessary to 
 specify in the information the particular goods 
 for which a search is desired ; that the informa- 
 tion in question substantially averred that the 
 informant suspected certain property of his to 
 have been stolen; and that it was sufficient to 
 give the iustice jurisdiction. Jones «. GEKHiAif 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 374 
 13. — Intimidation— Conviction — Conspiracy 
 and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. V. 86), 8. 7. 
 
 In a summary conviction under s. 7 of the 
 Conspiracy or Protection of Property Act, 1875, 
 for intimidation, the acts which the person had 
 a legal right to do must be specified. Keg. v. 
 MoKenzie - - Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 519 
 
 Referred to by C. A. /. Lyons & Sons v. 
 1 WatMns, [1899] 1 Ch. 255, 266. 
 
 — Jurisdiction — Desertion — ^Maintenance. 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 — Jurisdiction— Digging gravel for roads. 
 See Common. 2. 
 
 — Jurisdiction under Lands Clauses Acts. 
 See Cases under Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 — Jurisdiction under Licensing Acts. 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — Jurisdiction— Margarine Act, 1887. 
 See Adulteration — Margarine. 
 
 — Jurisdiction under Public Health Acts. 
 See Cases under Nuisance. 
 
 14. _ Jurisdiction— Bight to be tried by jury 
 —Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict, 
 e. 49), s. 17, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Where a person appears before a court of 
 summary jurisdiction, charged with an offence to 
 which s. 17 of tho Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879, applies, the Court ought, in pursuance of 
 
( 1033 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1031 ) 
 
 JUSTICES (Generally)— conimaed. 
 snb-a. 2, to inform him of his right to he tried by 
 a jury before he pleads to the charge. If he be 
 not informed of that right and, after the charge 
 has been gone into, pleads guilty, the conviction 
 is bad. 
 
 Semhle : It is immaterial wli ether or not he 
 knew of his right to be tried by a jury, and im- 
 material -whether or not the Court knew, before 
 the proceedings commenced, that he meant to 
 plead guilty in the course of the case. Res. v. 
 CooKSHOTT - Div, Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 582 
 
 — Jurisdiction — Truck Act — Absence of work- 
 
 man without leave. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 91. 
 
 — Licensing Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — Licensing Acts — Hearing and determination 
 
 according to law. 
 See Mandamus. 3. 
 
 — Local government. 
 
 See Local Government. 
 
 — Lodging-house, common — Liability to penalty 
 
 for keeping — Charitable institution — ■ 
 
 Non-regifitration. 
 
 See Lodging-house. 1, 2. 
 
 — London Building Act — Service of notices. 
 
 See Cases under London — Buildings. 
 
 15. — Lunacy — Justices acting under s. 299, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Tict. 
 c. 5) — Power to state special case. 
 
 Application made by a relieving ofBcer of a 
 union for an order under s. 299, sub-s. 1, of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, directing him to seize a sum 
 of money standing in the Post Ofiice Savings 
 Bank in the name of a lunatic who had become 
 chargeable to the union for the purpose of paying 
 the expenses of maintenance and incidental 
 expenses incurred or to be incurred in relation 
 to the lunatic. The justices having declined to 
 make the order, the relieving officer applied to 
 them to state a special case for the opinion of 
 the Court. The justices ttated a case subject 
 to the question whether they had any power to 
 state it : — 
 
 Held, that the justices when acting under 
 s. 299 were not acting as a court of summary 
 jurisdiction, and had consequently no power to 
 state a case under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 11). In re William 
 Bethell - Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 47 
 
 — Lunatic, pauper — ■ Eeception order — "Work- 
 
 house situate outside union. 
 See Lunacy — Powers. 31. 
 
 — Maintenance order. 
 
 See Cases under Poor Law. 
 
 — Blalicious damage to property. 
 
 See Cases under Criminal Law — 
 Ualicious Damage. 
 
 — Married women — Summary Jurisdiction (Mar- 
 
 ried Women) Act, 1895. 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 — Merchandise marks. 
 
 See Trade-mark— Merchandise Marks, 
 
 JUSTICES (QeneraHy)— continued. 
 
 — Merchandise marks — Criminal liability of 
 
 master for act of servant. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 72. 
 
 — Milk. 
 
 See Adulteration — Milk. 
 
 — Mitigation of statutory flue. 
 
 See No. 8, above. 
 
 — Nuisance by sewerage — Drainage by houses 
 
 — Want of structural convenience — 
 Liability of owners. 
 See Sewers. 26. 
 
 — Overseer, assistant — Biglit to rate-books — 
 
 Appointment. 
 
 See Parish Councils. 2. 
 
 — Nuisances and sanitation. 
 
 See Cases under Nuisance. 
 
 — Patent agents — Kegistration — Validity of 
 
 rules — Saving of rights acquired. 
 See Patent — Registration. 49. 
 
 — " Physician " — False description. 
 
 See Medical Practitioner. 3. 
 
 — Poor law. 
 
 See Cases under Pooe Law. 
 
 — Poor-rates. 
 
 See Cases under Bates. 
 
 16. — Foor-rate — Distress warrant — Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 43), 
 ss. 7, 10— Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 13, sub-s. 11. 
 
 Justices sitting to hear an application to issue 
 a distress warrant for the non-payment of poor- 
 rates are a court of summary jurisdiction within 
 s. 13, sub-s. 11, of the Interpretation Act, 1889, 
 not necessarily exercising a merely ministerial 
 duty, but are authorized to inquire into the 
 validity of the objections taken by the party 
 summoned, and may state a case for the opinion 
 of the High Court. Fourth City Mutual 
 Building Society v. Churchwardens, &c., of 
 East Ham - - Diy, Ct, [1892] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 17. — Poor-rate — Bate-boolc not conclusive. 
 The overseers of a parish summoned A. for 
 
 non-payment of rates. A. was on the rate-book, 
 but on the hearing of the summons tendered 
 evidence to shew he was only a caretaker. The 
 justices declined to hear the case, considering 
 the rate-book conclusive, and made an order for 
 payment: — 
 
 Held, that the rate-book was not conclusive, 
 and that the justices were bound to hear the 
 case. Beg. v. London Justices (No. 1) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] W. N. 86 
 
 Prisons.] Aule dated April 6, 1899, under 
 0. 29 of Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, as to 
 application of sums paid under s. 9 of Prison Act, 
 1898. St. B. & 0, 1899, No. 204, L. 6. 
 
 — Public authorities protection. 
 
 See Public Authorities Protection. 
 
 — Bates. 
 
 See Cases under Bates. 
 
 — Bates — Estoppel — Ees judicata - 
 quashing previous rate. 
 See Highway. 11. 
 
 - Decision 
 
( 1035 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1036 ) 
 
 JUSTICES (Gsnexally)— continued. 
 
 — Kates — Exemption— Sum paid in discharge of 
 
 liability to repair ratione tenurie. 
 See Highway. 26. 
 
 — Bates — Statute — Implied repeal — Exemption 
 
 from, taxes and assessments — City of 
 
 London. 
 
 See Statute. 7. 
 
 — Eeceiving — Property stolen. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law — Larceny. 39, 40. 
 
 18. — Hes judicata — Metropolitan Police Courts 
 Act, 1839 (2*3 Vict. c. 71), s. 40. 
 
 To constitute a good plea of res judicata, it 
 must be sliewa that tbe former suit was one in 
 which the pit. might have recovered precisely 
 what he seeks in the second. 
 
 A magistrate's order under s. 40 of the 
 
 Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, is no bar to an 
 
 action for special damage arising out of the same 
 
 detention. Midland Ey. Co. v. Martin & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 172 
 
 — Sale of food and drugs. 
 
 See Cases under Adulteration. 
 
 — Sqlmon — Device to catch fish — Nets. 
 
 See Fishery. 7. 
 
 — Salmon Fishery Acts — Eecovery of penalties 
 
 — ^Limitation of time. 
 See Fishery. 11. 
 
 — School board — Disqualification of member. 
 
 See Schools — School Board. 5. 
 
 — Seamen — Wages — Advances. 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 266. 
 
 19. — Separation order — Evidence — (24 & 25 
 Vict. c. 100), 8. 43 — Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 19), s. 4. 
 
 A husband who has been convicted by 
 justices of an aggravated assault upon his wife 
 is entitled to give evidence on an application by 
 her to them for a separation order under s. 4 of 
 the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878. Jones v. 
 Jones - - Jeune P. [1895] P. 201 
 
 — Separation order — Husband and wife. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Summary Jurisdiction, 
 
 — Servant — Misconduct of — Forgetfulness — 
 
 Contract — Dismissal. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 57. 
 
 — Sewers. 
 
 See LoNDON^Sewers. 
 Sewers. 
 
 — Street. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 Streets. 
 
 — Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Oases under Justices. 
 
 — Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act. 
 
 See Oases under Husband and Wipe — 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 — Thames navigation — By-law — Waterman on 
 
 tug to assist in navigation — Ultra vires. 
 See Thames. 12. 
 
 20. — Time — Computation of — Cruelty to 
 Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Viet. c. 92), s. 14. 
 
 By s. 14 of tlie Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Apimala Act, 1849, any cmplaint is to be made 
 wituin one calendar m'nth after the alleged 
 
 JUSTICES (Generally) — continued. 
 
 offence. On June 30 a complaint was macje in 
 
 respect of an offence committed on May 30 : — 
 
 Held to be in time, the day on which the 
 offence was conmiitted being excluded from the 
 computation of time. EAroLippE v. Bartholo- 
 mew - - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 161 
 
 21. — Time — Limitation of — • Conviction — 
 Piiblic Health (^London) Act, 1891— Closing order 
 — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict, 
 c. 43), s. n—PuUic Health (London) Act, 1891 
 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 76), «. 5, subs. 9. 
 
 The limitation of six months, within which 
 complaint must be made, imposed by s. 11 of the 
 Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, applies to pro- 
 ceedings for acting contrary to a closing order, 
 in breach of s. 5, sub-s. 9, of the Public Heallh 
 (London) Act, 1891, and therefore a conviction 
 for such an offence, which imposes a fine in 
 respect of every day during a period exceeding 
 six calendar months, is bad. Eeg. v. Slade. 
 Ex parte Sajjndees Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B. 247 
 
 22. — Time — Limitation of — Bate — Summons 
 — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict, 
 c. 43), s. 11. 
 
 Sect. 11 applies to the hearing of a summons 
 before justices for arrears of water-rate, and 
 where the sum accrued due more than six 
 months before the date of the summons the 
 justices have no jurisdiction. East London 
 Waterworks Co. v. Oharle.s 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 730 
 
 — Limitation of — Eecovery of penalties — Sum- 
 
 mary proceedings. 
 See Fishery. 11. 
 
 — Trespass on grass-field — Actual damage — 
 
 Malicious injury to property. 
 See Criminal Law. 44. 
 
 — Turnpike Act — ToUs — Exemption — Carriage 
 
 employed in military service of Crown. 
 See Highway. 31. 
 
 23. — Two informations on same facts — Hear- 
 ing of second information before decision of first. 
 
 Where two informations are brought on the 
 same facts, different offences being charged, and 
 the justices are not entitled to hear the evidence 
 on the second information before deciding the 
 first, held, a conviction after such a course of 
 procedure is bad. Hamilton v. Walker 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 25 
 
 24. — Ttco offences — Information disclosing 
 two offences — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 
 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43), ss. 1, 10. 
 
 Though a prosecutor may be required to 
 elect on which charge he will proceed, the 
 inclusion of two offences in one information is a 
 " defect in substance " within the meaning of 
 a. 1 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, and 
 no objection to the information can be allowed 
 in respect of it. Eodqbks v. Eichaeds 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 555 
 
 — Unsound food, Destruction of — Duty of magis- 
 
 trate. 
 
 See Food. 1. 
 25. — "Unsound meat — Guilty Imowledge — 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Viet. v. 55), 
 ss. 116, 117. 
 
 On a summons under s. 117 of the Public 
 
( 1037 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1038 ) 
 
 JUSTICES (Generally)— coniinweiJ. 
 Health Act, 1875, charging a person with having 
 unsound meat on his premises for sale, it is not 
 necessary to shew that the defendant had per 
 sonal knowledge of the condition of the meat. 
 Blakeb v. Tillstone Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 346 
 
 26. — Unsound meat — Not exposed for sale — 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Viet. e. 55), ss. 
 116, 117. 
 
 A person having in his possession unsound 
 meat intended for human food can be convicted 
 under s. 117 of the Public Health Act, 1875, not- 
 withstanding that he has not exposed the meat 
 for sale. Mallinson v. Cabb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 48 
 
 27. — Unsound meat — Seized hut not con- 
 demned — Full compensation — Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 116, 117, 308. 
 
 The owner of meat seized as unwholesome 
 and brought before a justice for condemnation 
 under ss. 116, 117 of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 is not entitled as of right to attend and give 
 «vidence in defence of the meat ; but the justice 
 may, if he thinks fit, hear evidence tendered by 
 the owner; and if the justice after so doing 
 refuses to condemn the meat, the full compensa- 
 tion to which the owner will be entitled under 
 s. 308 will include the costs reasonably incurred 
 in resisting the condemnation of the meat. In re 
 
 JiATEE AND BiBKENHEAD COEPOBATION 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 879 ; 
 affirm, by C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 77 
 
 — Vaccination — Conscientious objection — Ke- 
 
 quirement of production of birth certifi- 
 cate. 
 See Vaooikation. 1. 
 
 28. — Vaccination — Previous conviction. 
 
 If a person has been fined for disobedience to 
 an order for the vaccination of a child, he cannot 
 be fined a second time for disobedience under the 
 eame order. Eeg. v. Poetsmo-dth Justices 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 491 
 
 — Vaccination ofScer — Duty of guardians to 
 
 appoint — ^Mandamus. 
 See Vaccination. 3. 
 
 — Vagrancy — Wilful refusal or neglect of person 
 
 to maintain himself — Incapacity result- 
 ing from drunkenness. 
 See Vaseanot. 2. 
 
 — Vagrant Acts — Pretending to tell fortunes — • 
 
 Intent to deceive — Kogue and vagabond. 
 See Vageanot. 1. 
 
 — "Water tower- Effect of Public Heallh Acts 
 
 on subsequent special water company's 
 Act — By-laws — Buildings. 
 See Bdildinqs. 3. 
 
 — Water. 
 
 See Oases under Watee. 
 — ■ Water-closets. 
 
 See Cases under Watbb-closets. 
 
 — Weight indicated exceeding weight of article 
 
 sold — " False or unjust." 
 
 See Weights and Measuees. 2. 
 
 — Wooden structure used in connection with 
 
 traffic of railway — Licence of county 
 
 council. 
 
 See London. 32. 
 
 JUSTICES (Generally)— eonJinucrf. 
 
 29. — Jurisdiction of High Court — Might to 
 recover expenses in Court of Summary Jurisdiction 
 — Wreclcs, removal of — Harbours, Docks, and Piers 
 Clauses Act, 1847 (10 * 11 Viet. c. 27), s. 56. 
 
 Where a statute gives a right to recover 
 expenses in a court of summary jurisdiction 
 from a person who is not otherwise liable, there 
 is no right to come to the High Court for a 
 declaration that the applicant has a right to 
 recover the expenses in a court of summary juris- 
 diction : he can only take proceedings in the 
 latter court. 
 
 The construction of a. 56 of the Harbours, 
 Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, adopted in 
 The Crystal. [1894] A. C. 508, applied to s. 47 of 
 the Aire and Calder Navigation Act, 1889 
 (52 & 53 Vict. c. xxxii.). Baeeaclough v. Beown 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 615 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Ait.-Gen. v. Merthyr 
 Tydfil Union, [1900] 1 Ch. 516, 550. 
 
 Appeal. 
 [Appeals generally. See Cases under Appeal.] 
 
 Appeals to the High Court. 
 
 30. — Case stated — Number of counsel heard. 
 Upon the argument of a special case only one 
 
 counsel is heard on each side, except when the 
 case is stated upon an order of sessions, when it 
 is brought before the Court upon an order nisi to 
 quash, and then all the counsel instnicted on 
 both sides may be heard. Spceling v. Bantopt 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 384 
 
 31. — Case stated — Poor-rate — Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1884 (47 * 48 Vict e. 43), ss. 7, 
 10— Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict c. 6.3), 
 8. 13, sub-s. 11. 
 
 Justices acting on the hearing of an applica- 
 tion for a distress warrant to enforce poor-rates 
 sit as a court of summary jurisdiction, and may 
 state a case for the High Court as to any question 
 of law raised by the application. Fotjeth City 
 Mutual Building Societt v. Chuechwabdens 
 
 AND OVBESEEES OP EAST Ham 
 
 Div. ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 661 
 
 32. — Case stated — Service of notice — Waiver 
 — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict, 
 c. 49), s. 33 — Summary Jurisdiction Rules, 1886, 
 r. 18. 
 
 It is necessary that all the justices who may 
 have heard the case be served with the written 
 notice requiring them to state a special case. 
 Service on those who signed the decision, in this 
 case two out of the five justices, is not sufficient. 
 If the statute, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, be not strictly 
 complied with, the High Court has no jurisdic- 
 tion to hear the appeal, notwithstanding that the 
 respondent is willing to waive the informality. 
 Westmoee v. Paine Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 482 
 
 33. — Case stated — Service of notice — Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict c. 43), s. 2. 
 
 The High Court has no jurisdiction to hear 
 an appeal by way of case stated under 20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 43, 8. 2, unless the appellant has given the 
 respondent notice in writing of the appeal with a 
 copy of the case before transmitting the case to 
 the High Court. Edwaeds v. Eobeets 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 302 
 
( 1033 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1010 ) 
 
 JUSTICES (Appeals to the High Court)— mnW. 
 
 34. — Case stated — Serviceof notice — Licensing 
 court. 
 
 JuBtices, when sitting to grant licences under 
 the Alehouse Act, 1828, are a court of summary 
 jurisdiction within the meaning of the Interpre- 
 tation Act, 1889, s. 1.^, sub-3. 11, and service of 
 notice of appeal by case stated from them is 
 governed by s. 33 of the Summary Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1879, and is sufficient if served on their 
 clerk only. Eeg. v. Jtjstioes of Pontypool. 
 Eeg. u. Justices of Glamokganshire 
 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 621 
 
 Overruled by H. L. (E). Boulter v. Kent 
 Justices, [1897] A. C. 556, 564. 
 
 35. — Case stated— Transmission — (20 & 21 
 Tict. c. 43), s. 2. 
 
 The transmission to the Court of a case stated 
 under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, includes lodging the 
 case in the Crown Oiiice within the statutoiy 
 period. Aspinall v. Scttov 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 349 
 
 — Case stated under Quarter Sessions Act, 1849. 
 
 See Appeal. 41. 
 
 36. — Certiorari — Bastardy — Power of Su- 
 preme Court to inquire into validity of justices' 
 order — Bastardy Laic Amendment Act, 1872 
 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 65), ss. 3, 4. 
 
 In proceedings to enforce an order of justices 
 the High Court will not hear evidence to im- 
 peach their decision on the facts; but in pro- 
 ceedings to bring up and quash their ord^r the 
 Court is bound to consider the evidence before 
 the justices, but is not bound to confine itself to 
 that evidence, nnd may hear other evidence to 
 arrive at » determination on the question of 
 jurisdiction : 
 
 Held, therefore, that the Court had power 
 to inquire into the validity of the service of a 
 bastardy order, as the jurisdiction of the justices 
 only attaches on proof that the summons was 
 duly served ; and held, that in this case the 
 service was held to be bad, because not served at 
 the putative father's "last place of abode," which 
 was his then American residence, and not the 
 house be occupied when last in England. Eeg. v, 
 Faemer - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 637 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. Webb, [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 487, 490. 
 
 — Costs — Crown office — Appeal from quarter 
 
 sessions. 
 
 See Ceown Office. 1. 
 
 — Criminal cause or matter — Application to 
 
 enforce general district rate. 
 See Appeal. 11. 
 
 — Husband and wife — Appeal from justices. 
 
 See Husband and Wife — Summary 
 Jurisdiction. 78—80, 94—96. 
 
 • — Licensing justices — Appeal from. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 37. — Mandamus — Power of Supreme Court 
 to inquire into jurisdiction nf' justices — Quarter 
 bessjons Act, 18i9 (12 A 13 Virt. c. 45), ss. 5, 6— 
 ^ummary Jurisdiction Acts, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. 
 "■ 4.-i), s. 27 ; 1879 (42 .1- 43 Vict. c. 49), ss. 31, 32, 
 
 JUSTICES (Appeals to the High Court)— amJ<?. 
 55 ; 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 43), 8. 6—Inierpretati(m 
 Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 13, sub-s. 11. 
 
 The High Court has jurisdiction to correct ai 
 mistake made by justices as to the extent of their 
 own jurisdiction by certiorari, mandamus or pro- 
 hibition according to the circumstances of the 
 case, or by mandamus where jurisdiction is 
 declined by certiorari, or prohibition where it is 
 usurped ; and for the purpose must examine into 
 the extent of the jurisdiction of the justices. 
 Justices cannot give themselves jurisdiction by 
 an erroneous finding either of fact or of law. 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1895] 1 Q. B. 214, affirmed. 
 Eeg. v. Londoit Jn.srio£s (No. 4) 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 616 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Reg. v. Staffordshire. 
 Justices, [1898] 2 Q. B. 231, 235. 
 
 38. — Mandamus — Matrimonial causes — Sep~ 
 aration order — Maintenance — Reduction of. 
 
 Bale nisi for justices to determine an applica- 
 tion for a summons to reduce the amount of an 
 allowance ordered to a wife : — 
 
 Held, that as the justices had a discretion to 
 grant or refuse the summons, and had exercised! 
 it bona fide, the rule must be discharged. Matri- 
 monial Causes Act, 1878, 8. 4. Keg. v. Huggiks 
 (No. 1) - Div. Ct. [1891] W. H . 88 
 
 Sect. 4 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878» 
 was repealed by s. 12 of the Summary Jurisdiction 
 (Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39), 
 and further provision made. 
 
 Appeals to Quarter Sessions. 
 
 39. — Costs — Taxation out of sessions — Con- 
 sent. 
 
 Semble, per Lord Halsbury and A. L. Smith 
 L.J., that where no consent has been given tn 
 taxation out of sessions a subsequent court of 
 quarter sessions has no jurisdiction to make aii 
 order on the clerk of the peace to tax the costs. 
 
 Per Lord Herschell, in H. L. (E.): The 
 practice to tax out of sessions has become so 
 common, that the slightest evidence of consent 
 would suffice. Midland Ey. Co. v. Edmonton 
 Union - - - C. A. (Lindley L.J. diss.) 
 [1895] 1 a. B. 357 ; affirm, by H. L. (E.) 
 [1895] A. C. 485- 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (E.). TTest Ham Union v. 
 Churchwardens, &c., of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, 
 [1896] A. C. 477, 485. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Manchester, Sheffield, d. 
 Lincolnshire By. Co. v. Doncaster Union, C. A., 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 117, 121. 
 
 — Costs — Expenses of, in boroughs over and 
 under 10,000 inhabitants. 
 iSee County Council — Expenses. 3>. 
 
 40. — Deposit in lieu of recognizance. 
 
 Although justices may allow a deft, who 
 wishes to appeal to quarter sessions to make a 
 deposit instead of entering into recognizances, 
 the deposit must be made strictly in accordance 
 with 8.31, snb-s. 3, of the Summary Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1879, i.e., within three days after giving 
 notice of appeal that the justices allowing the 
 deposit may have the notice of appeal before 
 them ■.—Held, therefore, that a deposit made 
 
( 1041 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1042 ) 
 
 JUSTICES (Appeals to Quarter Sessions) — contd. 
 before giving notice was inyalid. Eeo. v. 
 Akglesea Jostiobs (No. 2) - Div. Ct. [1892] 
 
 2 Q,. B. 29 
 
 41. — Recognizance— Court hef ore which recog- 
 nizance to he entered into — Summary Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. v. 49), ». 31, subs. 3. 
 
 (a) The recognizance to prosecute au appeal 
 from an order of a court of summary jurisdiction 
 under s. 13 (3) of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879, may be entered into before any court of 
 summary jurisdiction, whether acting for the 
 same county as the Courts from whose order the 
 appeal is brought or not. Eeg. v. Ddeham 
 Justices - - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 ft. B. 801 
 
 (b) Deposit instead of recognizance — Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), s. 31, 
 sidi-ss. 2, 3. 
 
 Although justices may allow a deft, who 
 wishes to appeal to quarter sessions to make a 
 deposit instead of entering into recognizances, 
 the deposit must be made strictly in accordance 
 with B. 31, sub-s. 3, of the Summary Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1878, i.e., within three days after giving 
 notice of appeal that the justices allowing the 
 deposit may have the notice of appeal before 
 them : — 
 
 Meld, therefore, that a deposit made before 
 giving notice was invalid. Beg. v. Anglesea 
 Justices (No. 2) Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 29 
 
 42. — Sentence — Fronedure at hearing — Juris- 
 diction to quash conviction. 
 
 An appeal may be brought to quarter sessions 
 against a summary conviction on the sole ground 
 that the sentence was excessive, and the convic- 
 tion may be quashed on that ground. 
 
 Where the respondent does not appear before 
 the quarter sessions the Court is justified in 
 quashing the conviction, inasmuch as by the 
 procedure on such appeals the respondent has to 
 begin and prove the matters complained of. 
 Eeg. v. Sdbreit Justices - Div. Ct. [1892] 
 
 2 Q. B. 719 
 
 43. — Service of notice of appeal — Practice — 
 Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 f^ict 
 V. 49), s. 31, sub-s. 2. 
 
 (a) Under s. 31, sub-s. 2, of the Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879, notice of appeal is 
 sufficient if addressed to and served on the 
 justices' clerk, and it is not necessary that it 
 should be addressed to the convicting justices. 
 Eeg. v. Essex Justices 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 490 
 
 (b) Sect. 31 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879, applies to appeals from licensing justices to 
 quarter sessions. Service of notice of appeal on 
 some of the justices or their clerk and the chief 
 constable of the county held sufficient. Keg. v. 
 Glamoeganshiee Justices, Keg.- v. Pontypool 
 Justices - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 621 
 
 Overruled by H. L. (E.) Boulter v. Kent 
 Justices, [1897] A. C. 556. 
 
 44. — Service of notice of appeal on solicitor of 
 party — Du/ration of solicitor's authority — Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 31, sub-s. 2. 
 
 A., a solicitor, represented B. in a successful 
 application for an affiliation order. Subsequently 
 
 JUSTICES (Appeals to Quarter Sessions) — contd. 
 a notice of appeal was given to A., who accepted 
 it on behalf of B. : — 
 
 Held, that A.'s authority to represent B. 
 
 terminated when the order was obtained, and, 
 
 therefore, the service of tlie notice of appeal on 
 
 A. was invalid. Eeg. v. Justice of Oxfordshire 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 149 
 
 45. — Summary conviction after election to bo 
 tried summarily for indictable offence— Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879, ss. 12, 19. 
 
 Where » person charged before a court of 
 summary jurisdiction with an indictable offence 
 elects to be dealt with summarily under s. 12 of 
 the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, and is 
 convicted, he lias no right of appeal under s. 19 
 of the Act, which relates only to appeals from 
 convictions under past or future Acts. Eeg. v. 
 London Justices. Ex parte Lambert 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 664 
 
 Clerk to Justices. 
 
 — Clerk to justices to borough under 10,000i 
 
 population — Judicial expenses. 
 
 See County Council— Expenses. 3. 
 
 — Disqualification — Justice — Incompatible 
 
 offices. 
 
 See Justices — Disqualification. 50. 
 
 — Duty of Clerk to — Summary Jurisdiction 
 (Married Women) Act — ^Appeal to Pro- 
 
 bate Division. 
 See Husband and Wife ■ 
 Jurisdiction. 93. 
 
 - Summary 
 
 Disqualification. 
 
 46. — Appeal against Poor-rate — 16 Geo. 2, e. 
 18, ss. 1, 3—27 & 28 Vict. c. 39, s. 6. 
 
 Justices at borough and county petty and 
 special sessions are not disqualified from hearing 
 appeals against poor-rate, notwithstanding that 
 they are — 
 
 (a) rated in the parish in which such rate 
 was made. Keg. v. Bolingbrokb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B, 34T 
 
 (b) Justice of Peace Act, 1742-3 (16 Oeo. 
 2, c. 18), ss. 1, 3), or are chargeable with the rate 
 appealed against. Ex parte Overseers of Work- 
 ington - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 41& 
 
 47. — Bias — General rule — Medical Act, 185& 
 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90), ss. 28, 29. 
 
 The law as to bias as disqualifying a person 
 from acting judicially considered. Allinson v.. 
 General Medical Council 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 760 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. Burton, [1897], 
 2 Q. B. 468, 472. 
 
 48. — Bias — Pecuniary interest as ratepayer. 
 A justice who was a ratepayer of the parish 
 
 and witio moved a resolution at a vestry meeting 
 calling upon the deft., to remove a heap from the 
 side of the highway, held to be disqualified from 
 adjudicating on a summons against the deft., on 
 the grounds (1) that his acts afforded a reasonable 
 suspicion of bias; (2) that he had a pecuniary 
 interest as a ratepayer in the result of the- 
 summons. Keg. v. Gaisford 
 
 Div, Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 381 
 
( 1043 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1044 ) 
 
 JUSTICES (Disqualification)— ooniinwccZ. 
 
 49. — Bias — Probability of — Interest — Pro- 
 secution by Council of Incorporated Law Society- 
 Adjudication by ordinary member of society — 
 Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. 
 u. 68), e. 1. 
 
 On the hearing of a summons for falsely pre- 
 tending to be a solicitor, contrary to s. 12 of the 
 Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874, a magistrate, 
 who was a practising solicitor, and an ordinary 
 member of the Incorporated Law Society, sat and 
 adjudicated. The proceedings were taken by the 
 council of the Incorporated Law Society, who 
 alone had power to direct prosecutions, ordinary 
 members having no control over the proceedings 
 of the society. 
 
 On the argument of an order nisi for a certio- 
 rari to quash the conviction : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the circumstances did not shew any 
 probability of bias on the part of the magistrate, 
 that he was not disqualified by his membership 
 of the Incorporated Law Society, either as having 
 a pecuniary interest in the proceedings, or as 
 being a prosecutor, and therefore he was justified 
 in adjudicating. Eeq. v. Bueton. Ex parte 
 Young Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 468 
 
 60. — Incompatible offices — Cleric to justices. 
 
 The position of clerk to justices is incompa- 
 tible with that of justice of the peace ; and there- 
 fore where a person who held the ofSce of clerk 
 to justices was elected to another office which 
 carried with it the position of justice of the peace, 
 
 JUSTICES (Disqualification) — continued. 
 
 his acceptance of the latter office vacated that of 
 
 clerk to the justices. Beg. v. Douglas 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 560 
 
 61. — Interest — Membership of interested class 
 —Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 204), 3. 361. 
 
 In a summons against a person for continuing 
 in charge of a ship after a qualified pilot has 
 offered to take charge of her, a qualified pUot 
 belonging to the pilotage district in which the 
 oifence is alleged to have been committed has 
 such an interest as disqualifies him from acting 
 as a justice, although by the nature of his 
 employment be is not brought into competition 
 with unqualified pilots. Eeg. v. Huggins 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 563 
 
 52. — Salmon Fishery Act, 1865 — Salmon 
 Fishery Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 121), ss. 27, 61. 
 
 A justice who is present at a meeting of a 
 conservancy board when a resolution is passed to 
 take proceedings for the violation of provisions of 
 the Salmon Fishery Acts, is disqualified from 
 adjudicating on proceedings so authorized, and 
 the disqualification is not removed by s. 61 of the 
 Salmon Fishery Act, 1865. Eeg. v. Henley 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 504 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. Burton, 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 468, 472. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION — Bicycle — Arrest of rider with- 
 out proper light. 
 See Bicycle. 1. 
 
 K. 
 
 "KEEPER"— Of house used for public enter- 
 tainment. 
 See Sunday. 3. 
 
 KEY- Delivery of key. 
 
 See Donatio Moetis CatjS.5.. 1. 
 — Gift by will of desk containing key. 
 
 See Will— Words. 211. 
 
( 1045 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1046 ) 
 
 L. 
 
 LABEL — Distinctive word — " Addition " to 
 mark. 
 See Trade-maek. 21. 
 
 — Sale of food and drugs. 
 
 See Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51), bs. II, 12. 
 
 lABTJAN— Death duties. 
 
 See Kevenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 LACHES — Action for revocation of letters of 
 administriilion — Acquiescence. 
 See Pkoeate — Eevooation. 145. 
 
 — Lis pendens — Registration. 
 
 See MoETGAGE — Priority. 44. 
 
 — Begistration of trade-mark — Publici juris — 
 
 User. 
 
 See Tbadb-maek. 45. 
 
 — Sewers — Injunction — Public body — Es- 
 
 toppel. 
 
 Se^ London — Sewers. 62. 
 
 — Underground trespass — Equitable jurisdiction 
 
 — Fraud — Statute of Limitations. 
 See New South "Wales. 20. 
 
 LAGOS. 
 
 AppUoation of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 See Peobate — Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 Death Duties. 
 See Ebventje — Estate Duty. 
 
 Law of Lagos. 
 
 1. — Bankruptcy — Land of iankrupt in Lagos 
 vests in trustee under Act of 1869 — Jurisdiction of 
 Supreme Court. 
 
 The English Bankruptcy Act of 1869 applies 
 to all H. M.'s Dominions, and, therefore, an 
 adjudication under that Act operates to vest in 
 the trustee in bankruptcy the bankrupt's title to 
 real estate situate in Lagos, subject to any 
 requirements prescribed by the local law as to 
 the conditions necessary to a transfer of real 
 estate. The Supreme Court of Gold Coast Colony 
 had no bankruptcy jurisdiction in 1877, and could 
 not act as auxiliary to the English Court of 
 Bankruptcy under s. 74 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1869. Callbndee, Stkes & Co. ®. Colonial 
 Seoebtaet op Lagos and Davies. Williams v. 
 Daties - - - P. C. [1891] A. C. 460 
 
 LAIBAQE — Eateable value — Evidence of receipts 
 and expenditure — ^Admissibility of evi- 
 dence. 
 See Eatbs— EateabUity. 32. 
 
 LAKE — Cleansing — Duty of tenant for life. 
 
 Cleansing an ornamental lake or pond is not 
 a duty imposed on a tenant for life by the 
 ordinary repairing clause in a settlement by will. 
 
 The decision of Chitty J. affirmed. Dash- 
 wood V. Magniac (1) 
 
 C. A. (Kay L.J. diss.) [1891] 3 Ch. 306 
 
 LANCASTER COTJST. 
 
 Chancery Court. 
 
 Gbneeal Edles.] " The Chancery of Lan- 
 caster Rules, 1894," dated Dee. 10, 1894. St. B. 
 & 0. 1894, p. 191 (STo. 486). 
 
 Judicial Trustees.] Application to Palatine 
 Courts. See Judicial Trustee Rules, 1897, r. 30, 
 dated Aug. 31, 1897. W, N, 1897 (Sept, 18), 
 p. 267 ; Current Index, 1897, p. Ixxviii. 
 
 Teustees.] Proceedings under the Trustee 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 46). General Order ■ 
 and Rules of the Court of Chancery of the County 
 Palatine of Lancaster, dated Dec. 19, 1893. 
 St. B. & 0. 1896, p. 712. 
 
 1. — Jurisdiction of Court of Chancery of 
 County Palatine of Lancaster — Trial by jury — 
 Will—Beneficia/ry convicted of wilful murder of 
 testatrix — Action hy next of kin of testatrix far 
 declaration that heneftdary's interest forfeited — 
 Evidence — Certificate of conviction rwt admissiMe 
 —Lord Cairns' Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 21)— Sir 
 John Rolfs Act (25 * 26 Vict. c. 42). 
 
 A certificate of a conviction upon an indict- 
 ment for felony is in a civil proceeding res inter 
 alios acta, and is not admissible as evidence of- 
 the fact that the person charged committed the 
 felony in respect of which he was convicted. 
 This rule has not been affected by recent altera- 
 tions in the law of evidence at criminal trials. 
 
 The Court of Chancery of the County Pala- 
 tine of Lancaster has jurisdiction under Lord 
 Caims' Act to direct that any question of fact 
 arising in a suit or proceeding be tried by a 
 special or common jury before the Court itself, 
 and has jurisdiction under Sir John Eolt's Act 
 to direct an issue to try any question of fact by a 
 jury at the Assizes. 
 
 By her will Y. gave, devised, and bequeathed 
 a moiety of her residuary real and personal estate 
 to W., who was tried, convicted, and sentenced 
 to death (though subsequently reprieved) for tlie 
 wilful murder of Y. In an action by the next of 
 kin of Y. for a declaration that W. had, by reason 
 of his felonious act in wilfully murdering the 
 testatrix, forfeited all his beneficial interest in 
 the moiety of her residuary personal estate (there 
 being no real estate), and for a declaration that 
 the testatrix died intestate as to such moiety, the 
 pits, tendered as conclusive proof that W. mur- 
 dered the testatrix a certificate under the 14 & 15 
 Vict. 0. 99, 8. 13, of the trial, conviction, and 
 sentence of W. for the wilful murder of the 
 testatrix : — 
 
 Held, that such certificate was not only not 
 conclusive proof of the fact alleged, but was not 
 even admissible as evidence of the fact in the 
 civil proceedings. 
 
 Upon summons by W. to have the question 
 of fact of the alleged wilful murder of the testa- 
 trix by him tried before the Vice-Chanoellor 
 with a jury : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction under 
 
( 1047 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1048 ) 
 
 lANCASTEB COUET (Chancery Court)— conM. 
 Lord Cairns' Act to direct the question of fact to 
 be tried by a jury before itself, and under Sir 
 John Eolt's Act to direct an issue to try the 
 question of fact by a jury at the Assizes ; that 
 this was a question of fact which ought to be 
 tried by a jury ; and that, under the circum- 
 stances, such question would be better tried 
 before a judge and jury at the Assizes. Yates 
 V. KTrrlN-TATLOK AND Waek 
 
 The Vioe-ChanceUor [1899] W. N. 141 
 
 2. — Practice — Oosts — Taxation — Higher and 
 
 lower scalee — Matter in question under amount 
 
 of 3001. — Chancery Court of Lancaster — Orders 
 
 of November ilth and iSth, 1884. 
 
 The Order of the Chancery Court of the 
 County Palatine of Lancaster of Nov. 28, 1881, 
 " as to Court Fees and Solicitors' Costs," which 
 prescribes the fees and costs to be allowed " in 
 any case in Court under the amount or value of 
 300Z.," applies only to cases under that amount or 
 value to which, but for that order, the lower scale 
 of fees and coats established by the Order of 
 Nov. 27, 1884, as to Court Fees and Solicitors' 
 Costs would have applied. In re Manchestek 
 Eeal Ice Skating and Supply Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. Sr. 63 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 673 
 
 3. — Practice — Enforcing order — Defendant 
 out of jurisdiction — Court of Chancery of Lan- 
 caster Acts, 1850, 1854 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 43, s. 15 ; 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 82, s. 7). 
 
 B., one of the defts. in an action commenced 
 in the Chancery Court of the County Palatine of 
 Lancaster (Liverpool District), entered an appear- 
 ance in that action by his solicitors on May 12, 
 1897. By the judgment in the action, dated 
 July 8, 1897, it was declared that a payment 
 made by another deft., W., to B , to the know- 
 ledge of the latter out of trust moneys in the 
 hands of W., was a breach of trust to which B. 
 was a party, and that the sum paid ought to be 
 considered as money then in the possession or 
 under the control of B. as a trustee or person 
 acting in a fiduciary capacity ; and it was thereby 
 ordered and adjudged that W. and B. should 
 within seven days after service of the judgment 
 pay the amount into Court. The judgment was 
 served on B., but neither he nor W. paid the 
 amount in, and on January 17, 1898, on motion 
 by the pits., the Palatine Court gave leave to 
 the pits, to serve a writ of attachment on B. for 
 his disobedience to the judgment. By reason of 
 B. residing at Bishop Auckland, out of the juris- 
 diction of the Palatine Court, the order could 
 not be enforced without the assistance of the 
 High Court. The pits, moved ex parte to make 
 the order an order of the High Court under 
 8. 15 of the Court of Chancery of Lancaster Act, 
 1850:— 
 
 Held, that notwithstanding s. 7 of the Court 
 of Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1854, this was the 
 proper step to be taken to enforce the order. 
 
 DUNMOEE V. WhAKAM 
 
 Byrne 3. [1898] W. N. 16 (7) 
 4. — Practice— Transfer of judgment to High 
 
 Court — Production of " transcript " of judgment of 
 
 Palatine Court — Costs. 
 
 Sect. 15 of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 43 must be strictly 
 
 complied with, and where u pit. against whom 
 
 LANCASTEE COTJET (Chancery Court)— co»«^. 
 judgment has been given does not reside, and 
 has no goods, in the County Palatine, an ex parte 
 motion may be made to make the judgment of 
 the High Court, but a transcript of the judgment 
 and not the original judgment must be produced. 
 An order for transfer carries the costs of the 
 motion. Duke v. Clabke 
 
 North J. [1894] W. N. 100 
 
 LAND. 
 
 Improvement of Land Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict, 
 c. 46), amends previous enactments. 
 
 Meaning of " Land," col. 1048. 
 Registration, col. 1048. 
 
 Meaning of " Land." 
 
 1. — Coal mines. 
 
 " Land " does not include coal mines in s. 33 
 of the Lighting and Watching Act, 1833. 
 
 The decisions of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 567, 
 and C. A., [1894] 2 Q. B. 11, affirmed. Thuesbt v. 
 Bbiekoliffe-with-Extwistle Chuechwakdens, 
 
 &o. - 
 — Local 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 33 
 Government Board — Jurisdiction — 
 Land acquired for specific purpose — 
 Application of part not required to 
 another permanent purpose. 
 See Local Goveenment. 3. 
 
 Eegistration. 
 
 — Colonial laws. 
 
 See List under Peivy Council— Privy 
 Council Appeals. 
 
 Land RegisTey.] Land Registry {New Build- 
 ings) Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 19), enacted for the 
 acquisition of property for huilding a new Land 
 Registry Office and other public offices in London 
 and for purposes connected therewith. 
 
 Fees payable under the Land Registry Act, 
 1862, &c. W. N. 1900 (Dee. 22), p. 335. See 
 Current Index, 1900, p. xoiv. 
 
 J^ees payable under the Land Transfer Acts. 
 W. N. 1900 (Dec. 22), p. 335. See Current Index, 
 1900, p. xciv. 
 
 — Land Transfer Act. 
 See Land Tbansfbe. 
 
 — in Middlesex. 
 See Middlesex Eegistey. 
 
 a. — Mortgage debentures — Deposit of securi- 
 ties with registrar. _ . 
 
 The Court has no power to order securities 
 which have been deposited with the registrar of 
 the Land Registry OfBce by a land securities co. 
 to be delivered up to a receiver uppointed in a 
 debenture-holder's action or to a liquidator in the 
 winding-up of the co., unless such securities have- 
 been redeemed or sold. 
 
 The decision of Wright J. reversed. Someeset 
 V. Land Secueitibs Co. C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 464 
 
 3. — Registration of purchaser with indefeasible 
 title— Sale by mortgagee under statutory power of 
 sale— Evidence thai power has arisen — Land 
 Registry Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 53), s. 17— 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 it- 45 Vict. c. 41), 
 s. 21, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The question in this case was as to the; 
 
( 1049 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1053 ) 
 
 LANS (Begistration) — eonlimied. 
 evidence required to shew that the power of sale 
 had arisen acting under which mortgagees had 
 couveyod to the applicant for registration : — 
 
 Held, that an affidavit hy the purchaser was 
 insufficient which denied knowledge but did not 
 deny notice of any objection to registration. In 
 re Tbitton - North J. [1891] W. N. 194 
 
 — in Yorkshire. 
 
 See Yorkshire. 
 
 lAOT) CHAEGES— Agricultural holdings. 
 
 See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. 0. 50), b. 3. 
 
 Land Charges Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. v. 26), 
 amends the law relating to charges on land and to 
 matters connected therewith. 
 
 Order of Ld. Chanc. dated Aug. 3, 1900, to 
 the effect that s. 1 of Land Charges Act, 1900, sAaM 
 come into operation on Sept. 1, 1900. W. N. 1900 
 <Ang. 18), p. 234. See Current Index, 1900, 
 ■p. zcii. 
 
 Fees, Eule as to.] Land Charges Begistra- 
 tion and Searches Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 51), 
 and Land Charges Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. c. 26). 
 "W. IT. 1900 (Sept. 8), p. 246. See Current Index, 
 1900, p. xcii. 
 
 LAND BEGISTET. 
 
 See Land. 
 
 LAND EEVENUE— Ceown Lands.] Office of 
 land revenue records and enrolments — Treas. war- 
 rants dated Dec. 21, 1896, and Sept. 4, 1897, 
 prescribing fees payable in Office of Land Mevenue, 
 <to., for enrolments, certified copies and searches ; 
 " Expedition " fees. St. E. & 0. 1899, pp. 1574, 
 1576. 
 
 LANS TAX. 
 
 See Bevenue — Land Tax. 
 
 LAND TEANSFEE. 
 
 LaTid Transfer Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 65), 
 establishes a real representative and amends the 
 Land Transfer Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 87). 
 
 Draft order under, as to place of registry and 
 as respects County of London on arid after July 1, 
 1898, registration of title to land to he compulsory 
 •on sale. W. N. 1897 (Sec. 4), p. 340; Current 
 Index, 1897, p. Ixxix. 
 
 Provisional Land Transfer Rules, 1897. W. N. 
 1898 (Jan. 8), p. 5, rescinded by r. 279 of the 
 Land Transfer Rules, 1898 ; Current Index, 1898, 
 p, Ixxxiv. 
 
 Land Transfer Rules and Forms, 1898. W. N. 
 1«98 (Aug. 20), p. 283; Current Index, 1898, 
 ]p. Ixi. 
 
 Memorandum as to Land Transfer Rules, 
 W. N, 1898 (Oct, 8), p. 327 ; Current Index, 1898, 
 p. Iz. 
 
 The several portions of county of London men- 
 tioned wliere registration of title to land is to be 
 compulsory. W. N. 1898 (July 23), p. 263; 
 <Oot. 29), p. 373 ; Current Index, 1898, p. xciv. 
 
 Memorandum as to compulsory registration in 
 the County of London. W. N. 1898 (Sec. 17), 
 p. 412 ; Current Index, 1898, p. xevi. 
 
 Operation postponed to Jan. 1, 1899. W. N. 
 
 LAND TEANSFEE— eon<i»Me(i. 
 
 1898 (Sept. 24), p. 319; Current Index, 1898, 
 p. xciy. 
 
 Order as to Fees. W. N. 1898 (Nov. 19), 
 p. 389 ; Current Index, 1898, p. xciv. 
 
 Registrar may proceed with registration until 
 Jan. 1, 1899, notwithstanding the Land Transfer 
 Rules, 1898. W. N. 1898 (Nov. 5), p, 380; 
 Current Index, 1898, p. xciv. 
 
 Land Transfer Rules, June, 1899, which came 
 into operation on July 17, 1899. W. N. 1899 
 (June 3), p. 183 ; (July 8), p. 239 ; explanatory 
 Observations ihereon, (July 8), p. 240 ; Current 
 Index, 1899, pp. czxiii., oxxiv. 
 
 Originating summons to ascertain heir-at-law, 
 &c. Neil) rule. R. S. C, Ord. LV., r. 4a. W. K. 
 
 1899 (Aug. 12), p. 255; Current Index, 1899, 
 p. czxviii. 
 
 London.] Memorandum as to registration of 
 title in the county of. W. N. 1899 (Sept. 30), p. 287 ; 
 Current Index, 1899, p. cxxv. 
 
 Postponement of operation of 0. in G. dated 
 July 18, 1898, as regards certain portions of. 
 W.i N. 1899 (Oct. 21)', p. 299 ; (Sec. 9), p, 359 ; 
 Current Index, 1899, p. cxxvi. 
 
 — Administration — Bastardy — Escheat. 
 
 See Pbobate. 22. 
 
 — Administration — Grant to heir-at-law of in- 
 
 testate wife, passing over husband. 
 See Pbobate. 39. 
 
 — Administration — Practice — Eeal estate — Ap- 
 
 plication by heir-at-law. 
 See Pbobate. 62. 
 
 — Administration witli the will annexed — Grant 
 
 ad colligendum — Necessity for citation 
 of heir-at-law. 
 See Pbobate. 40. 
 
 — Costs — ^Will — Construction — Disputed devise 
 
 — Summons by executors. 
 See Costs. 4. 
 
 — Executors — Concurrence of all executors — 
 
 Conveyance. 
 
 SeeVENDOE andPdbohaseb — Title. 79. 
 
 — Middlesex Deeds — Rectification of register. 
 
 See Middlesex Eegistet. 
 
 LANBLOED AND TENANT. 
 
 Agricultural Holdings, col. 1051. 
 
 Compensation for Improvements. See 
 Landlobd and Tenant — Agricul- 
 tural Holdings. * 
 
 Covenant, col. 1055. 
 
 Determination of Tenancy and Holding 
 Over, col. 1064. 
 
 Distress. See Distbess. 
 
 Entry, col. 1066. 
 
 Flats, col. 1066. 
 
 Forfeiture, col. 1066. 
 
 Furnished House, col. 1074. 
 
 Landlord's Liability, col. 1074. 
 
 Lease, eol. 1075. 
 
 Mortgages, col. 1079. 
 
 Option to Purchasi, col. 1079. 
 
( 1051 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1052 ) 
 
 LANDIOBD AND TSS AST— continued. 
 Bent, col. 1080. 
 Scotland. See Scottish Law — Landlord 
 
 and Tenant, 
 Specific Performance, col. 1082. 
 Surrender, col. 1082. 
 Underlease, col. 1083. 
 
 Agricnltnral Holdings. 
 
 Tenants Compensation Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. c. 57), amends the law with respect to com- 
 pensation due to tenants on land under mortgage. 
 
 By the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 
 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 27), the Agricultural Hold- 
 ings {England) Act, 1883, was amended and ex- 
 tended as to Market Gardens. 
 
 Bating of occupiers of agricultural land 
 amended by Agricultural Bates Act, 189&(59 & 60 
 Vict. <;. 37). 
 
 Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. 
 c. 50), amends the law relating to Agricultural 
 Holdings. 
 
 Agricultural Holdings (England') Acts, 1883 to 
 1900, &c.~County Court Bules (Nov.), 1900, 
 Ord. X£.A. W. N. 1900 (Deo. 8), p. 323. See 
 Current Index, 1900, p. Ixziz. 
 
 — Agricultural lease — " Determination of 
 
 tenancy " — " Separation of the crop." 
 See Scottish Law — Landlord and 
 Tenant. 22, 
 
 — Agricultural rates. 
 
 See Rates. 16, 34, 
 
 1. — Compensation for crops — ''Allotment," 
 what is — Lease — Allotments and Cottage Gardens 
 Compensation for Crops Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict, 
 c. 26), s. 4. 
 
 By s. 4 of the Allotments and Cottage Gardens 
 Compensation for Crops Act, 1887, " allotment " 
 means (inter alia) " any parcel of laud of not 
 more than two acres in extent held by a tenant 
 under a landlord and cultivated as a garden " : — 
 
 Held, that a piece of land less than two acres 
 in extent, occupied by a seedsman for the pur- 
 pose of his business, and having in it vegetables, 
 fruit trees, and flowering plants which he sold, 
 was not " cultivated as a garden," and was, 
 therefore, not an " allotment " within the defini- 
 tion in s. 4. Cooper v, Pearse Div. Ct. [1896] 
 W. N. 40 (3) J [1896] 1 Q. B. 562 
 
 2. — Compensation for improvements — Agree- 
 ment — Bight of tenant under agreement — Agri- 
 cultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 61), s. 57. 
 
 Sect. 57 of the Agricultural Holdings 
 Act, 1883, provides that "a tenant shall not 
 be entitled to claim compensation by custom or 
 otherwise than in manner authorized by this 
 Act in respect of any improvement for which 
 he is entitled to compensation under or in pur- 
 suance of this Act " : — 
 
 Held, that this provision only applied to a 
 tenant claiming compensation under the Act, 
 iiiid did not exclude the right of a tenant to 
 claim, under an agreement outside the Act, com- 
 pensation for improvements in respect of which 
 
 LANDIOBD AND TENANT (Agricnltural Hold- 
 ings) — continued. 
 he might have claimed compensation under the 
 Act. In re Pearson and I'Anson, 
 
 Div. Ct [1899] 2 a. B. 618 
 
 3. — Compensation for improvements — Agree- 
 ment—Tenant giving up possession hefore expira- 
 tion of term — Agricultural Holdings (England) 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 57. 
 
 A tenant of agricultural land and his landlord 
 agreed that the land should be given up before 
 the expiration of the term, and that the tenant 
 should receive compensation in respect of feeding 
 stuffs, which is an improvement comprised in the 
 1st Bohed. to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 
 1883, and of three other matters not mentioned 
 in the Act. The amount to be paid was to be 
 ascertained by two valuers appointed by the land- 
 lord and the tenant respectively. In an action 
 by the tenant to recover the amount agreed on 
 by the valuers : — 
 
 Held, that such an agreement between land- 
 lord and tenant is not prohibited by the Agri- 
 cultural Holdings Act, 1883 ; that the claim not 
 being for compensation under the Act, the pro- 
 cedure under the Act did not apply to it ; and 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in the 
 action. Newby v. Bckersley 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 465 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Pearson and PAnson, 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 618, 627, 630. See 
 preceding Clase. 
 
 4. — Compensation for improvements — Arbi- 
 tration — Landlord's counter-claim — Agricultural 
 Holdings (England) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 61), ss. 6, 7,'24. 
 
 In an arbitration under the Agricultural 
 Holdings Act, 1883, where a greater amount is 
 awarded to the landlord in respect of waste and 
 breaches of covenant than is awarded to the 
 tenant as compensation for- improvements, the 
 landlord cannot recover the balance under the 
 procedure given by the Act. In re Holmes and 
 FOKMBY - - Div. ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 174 
 
 Distinguished. In re Lloyd and Tooth, C. A. 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 559, 663. No. 7, lelow. 
 
 5. — Compensation for improvements — Charge 
 on holdings — Agricultural Holdings (England) 
 Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 61), ss. 29, 61. 
 
 Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, 
 the executors of a landlord, tenant for life, who 
 have been compelled under the Act to pay com- 
 pensation for improvements to an outgoing tenant, 
 who had claimed compensation and whose 
 tenancy had been determined before the death of 
 the landlord, are entitled to a charge upon the 
 holding in respect of the amount which they 
 have so paid. 
 
 Decision of V. Williams J. reversed. Gough 
 v. Gough - - C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 665 
 
 6. — Compensation for improvements — " Con- 
 tract of tenancy " — Tenancy from year to year 
 — Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 
 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 27), s. 4 — Agricultural Holdings 
 (England) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 61.' 
 
 By an agreement dated Oct. 22, 1886, the 
 owner of a piece of land let the same to a tenant 
 from Sept. 29, 1886, at the rent of m. 12s. a 
 
( 1053 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( lOoi ) 
 
 lANDIOBD AND TENANT (Agrioultiiral Hold- 
 ings) — continued. 
 year, payable quarterly on the four usual quarter- 
 days for payment of rent in every year, and the 
 tenant agreed to pay the said rent at the times 
 aforesaid, and to use the said premises as garden 
 ground only, and to manure, crop, and cultivate 
 the same in a hushandlike manner, and it was 
 agreed that the tenancy might be determined by 
 either party giving to the other three calendar 
 mouths' notice to quit, or of his intention of 
 quitting, as the case might be, on any day of the 
 year. The land so let was used by the tenant as 
 a market-garden. In Oct. 1896, the landlord 
 gave the tenant notice to quit. The tenant 
 claimed compensation for improvements under 
 s. 4 of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 
 1895, which is to be read as part of the Agri- 
 cultural Holdings Act, 1883 : — 
 
 Seld, that the agreement created a tenancy 
 from year to year, and therefore the tenant came 
 within s. 4 of the Market Gardeners' Compensa- 
 tion Act, 1895, as having held under a " contract 
 of tenancy" as defined by s. 61 of the Agri- 
 cultural Holdings Act, 1883. 
 
 Doe V. Grafton, (1852) 18 Q. B. 496, com- 
 mented on. King v. Eveesfield 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 83(1); 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 475 
 
 7. — Compensation for improvements — Counter- 
 notice of claim by landlord — Arbitration — Award 
 to landlord of amount in excess of tenant's claim — 
 Enforcement of award — Agricultural Moldings 
 (mighmd) Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 61), ss. 6-9, 
 22— Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Viet. c. 49), 
 s. 12. 
 
 An outgoing tenant of a farm gave due notice 
 of intention to claim from the lessor compensa- 
 tion for improvements under the Agricultural 
 Holdings Act, 1883, and the lessor gave due 
 notice of intention to counter-claim against 
 the tenant for breaches of covenant. After 
 the expiration of the time for giving notices of 
 claim prescribed by the Act, both parties gave 
 notices of further claims, some of which were in 
 respect of matters not within the Act. Referees 
 and an umpire having been appointed in pur- 
 suance of the Act, before the reference proceeded, 
 an agreement in vrriting was made between the 
 parties by which all matters in difference as 
 stated in the claims and counter-claims were 
 referred to the referees and umpire already ap- 
 pointed under the Act, and it was agreed that 
 all the said matters shall be dealt with in one 
 award only of the said referees or umpire. The 
 referees disagreeing, the umpire made an award 
 by which he found that a certain amount was 
 due from the lessor to the tenant, and a larger 
 amount was due from the tenant to the lessor, 
 and awarded that the tenq,nt should pay the 
 balance to the lessor. The amount not being 
 paid : — 
 
 Seld, that leave might be given to the lessor 
 to enforce the award in the same manner as a 
 judgment or order to the same effect under s. 12 
 of the Arbitration Act, 1889. In re Lloyd and 
 Tooth - - C. A. [1899] 1 «. B. 659 
 
 8. — Compensation for improvements— Notice 
 of claim— Determination of tenancij— Agricultural 
 
 lANBLOKD AND TENANT (Agricultural Hold- 
 ings) — continued. 
 Holdings (England) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 61), «. 7. 
 
 A tenant of a farm on a yearly tenancy was 
 by the terms of his lease to hold the land from 
 Feb. 2 and the buildings from May 1. In June, 
 1896, he gave notice to the landlord of his inten- 
 tion to deliver up the land on Feb. 2, 1897, on 
 which latter date he duly delivered up possession 
 of the land. On Feb. 26, 1897, he gave notice 
 to the landlord under the Agricultural Holdings 
 Act, 1883, claiming compensation for unexhausted 
 improvements; and on May 1, 1897, he gave up 
 possession of the buildings. 
 
 By s. 7 of the said Act notice of claim for 
 compensation must be given two months at least 
 before the determination of the tensmcy ; — • 
 
 Held, that the tenancy determined within the 
 
 meaning of the Act on Feb. 2 and not on May 1 , 
 
 and that the notice of claim was consequently 
 
 too late. MoELET v. Caetek - Div. Ct. [1897] 
 
 W. N. 153 (8) ; [1898] 1 Q. B. 8 
 
 — Compensation for improvements — Eemoval — 
 
 Eight of — Permanent buildings erected 
 
 by leasee. 
 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 5. 
 
 9. — " Determination of tenancy." 
 "Determination of tenancy" in s. 7 of the 
 
 Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 62), which is identical with the 
 section in the English Act, means the time when 
 the tenant finally gives up possession of his 
 " holding." Black v. Clay 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 368 
 See Morley v. Carter, [1898] 1 Q. B. 8, 11. 
 No. 8, above. 
 
 10. — "Improvements" — Glasshouses — "Ame- 
 liorating waste " — Agricultural Holdings(Mngland) 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), ss. 34, 5i. 
 
 A covenant to farm in a husbandlike manner 
 according to the practice of the neighbourhood is 
 not broken by erecting glasshouses for the growth 
 of garden produce, if, as in this case, many of 
 the neighbouring farms were wholly or partially 
 cultivated as market gardens. 
 
 Per curiam, the glasshouses in question were 
 " improvements " within the Agricultural Hold- 
 ings Act, 1883. Meux v. Cobley 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 2 Ch. 253 
 See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 4. 
 
 — Market gardens — Compensation. 
 
 See No. 6, above. 
 
 — Market gardens. 
 
 See Market Gardeners' Compensation 
 Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 27). 
 
 — Prohibition — County court — Want of jurisdic- 
 
 tion — ^Acquiescence. 
 See Pkohibition. 4. 
 
 — Small holdings. 
 
 See Small Holdings. 
 
 Compensation for Improvements. 
 
 See Cases under Landloed and Tenant 
 — Agricultural Holdings. 
 
( 1055 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1056 ) 
 
 lANDLOKD AND TSS AST—continued. 
 
 Covenant. 
 
 See also under Covenant. 
 
 — Assignment — Covenant not to assign. 
 See No. 14, ielow. 
 
 11. — Assignment — Successive assignments — 
 Covenants to pay rent and indemnify assignors — 
 Bankruptcy of first assignee — Purchase by lessee 
 of banlirupt's right to indemnity — Release of bank- 
 rupt's estate — " Properly " of bankrupt — Chose in 
 action — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. 
 <:. 52), ss. 20, 44, 50, sj4!)-s. 5, 56, 57, 168. 
 
 A lessee assigned the lease to assignee No. 1, 
 ■who assigned it to assignee No. 2, each assign- 
 ment containing a covenant by the assignee to 
 pay the rent, and keep his assignor indemnified 
 against the covenants in the lease. 
 
 Assignee No. 1 became bankrupt, assignee 
 No. 2 died, and the lessee, who had been called 
 upon to pay the rent, bought from the bankrupt's 
 trustee, and took an assignment of, the bankrupt's 
 right to indemnity, -withdrawing a proof he (the 
 lessee) had carried in, and releasing the estate 
 i)i the bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, that the right of the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy of assignee No. 1 to sue the executors of 
 assignee No. 2 upon his covenant to indemnify 
 was " property " within the meaning of s. 168 of 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and assignable by 
 the trustee; and that damages in an action by 
 the trustee against tlie executors would not be 
 confined to the dividend payable to the lessee in 
 respect of his proof against the estate of assignee 
 No. 1, but extended to the whole amount of the 
 obligation under the covenants to pay and in- 
 demnify entered into by such assignee : 
 
 And held also, upon the construction of the 
 deed of assignment and release, that tlie lessee 
 had acquired the right of the trustee to sue the 
 executors of assignee No. 2, and that the release 
 did not extend to all the estate of the bankrupt, 
 but that the asset assigned to the lessee must be 
 •excluded from it. 
 
 The judgment of North J., [1 898] W. N. 18 (4), 
 affirmed. In re Perkins. Potsek v. Betfus 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 182 
 
 — Breach of covenant — Forfeiture — Relief. 
 
 See Cases under Landlokd and Tenant 
 ■ — Forfeiture. 
 
 12. — Building and annoyance — Covenant 
 ■against — Erection of trellis screen — Adjoining 
 lessees — Injunction. 
 
 The lessee of a plot in a building estate cove- 
 nanted not to erect or build thereon any building 
 •except a stable, &o., and also not to do anything 
 that might be an annoyance, &c., to any tenant 
 of the lessor. On a house being erected on an 
 •adjoining plot 20 feet from the lessee's boundary 
 and facing it, the lessee put a trellis-work screen 
 12 feet high on the top of the boundary wall 
 which was 8 feet high : — 
 
 Held, (1) that on the construction of the deed 
 *' building" therein included any erection, and 
 that therefore the screen was a breach of the 
 covenant against building; (2) that on the facts 
 the screen interfered with the adjoining tenant's 
 pleasurable enjoyment of his house, and was 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Covenant)— con W. 
 
 therefore a breacli of the covenant against annoy- 
 ance. Wood v. Coopeb - - Eomer J. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 671 
 
 — Death — ^Liability for breach after lessor's death 
 
 — Liability of lessor's general estate. 
 See New Zealand. 6. 
 
 — Licence for sale of wine and beer — Implied 
 
 covenant by tenant not to surrender. 
 See No. 90, below. 
 
 13. — Liquidated damages — Penalty — Public- 
 house — Offence under Licensing Acts 
 
 The lease of a public-house contained a cove- 
 nant not to contravene the provisions of any 
 Licensing Act so as to be convicted in any court, 
 and in that event to pay to the landlord 50Z. by 
 way of liquidated damages : — 
 
 Held, that the 50Z. was payable as liquidated 
 damages, and could not be relieved against as a 
 penalty. Waed v. Monaghan 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 123 (8) 
 
 — Not to assign — Covenant against assignment 
 
 without licence — Deposit as a condition 
 for granting licence. 
 See Covenant. 1. 
 
 14. — Not to assign without licence. Covenant — 
 Licence not to be unreasonably withheld — Befusal 
 because lessor desires possession. 
 
 A lease contained a covenant by the lessee 
 not to assign without licence, " such licence not 
 to be unreasonably withheld in the case of any 
 respectable and responsible person who may be 
 the proposed assignee," and a clause for re-entry 
 on breach of any of the covenants of the lease. 
 The lessor withheld a licence to assign because 
 he desii'ed to obtain possession of the premises. 
 In an action by the lessor to recover possession 
 for breach of the covenant : — 
 
 Held, that the licence had been unreasonably 
 withheld, and that the lessor was not entitled to 
 recover. Bates i'. Donaldson 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 241 
 
 — Not to buy beer, &c., covenant. 
 
 See No. 17, below. 
 
 16. — Not to bay wines except from lessor, his 
 successors or assigns. Covenant — Hotel — Lessee's 
 covenant — Proviso for abatement of rent — Covenant 
 running with the land — Assignment of wine busi- 
 ness — Assignment of lease. 
 
 A lease by a wine merchant of an hotel for 
 thirty years at a rent of 1500J. a year contained 
 a covenant by the lessee with the lessor, his heirs 
 and assigns, that he, the lessee, would not during 
 the term buy or sell on the premises any foreign 
 wines other than should have been supplieil by 
 the lessor, his successors or assigns ; and it was 
 provided that so long as the lessee should observe 
 this covenant the lessor should allow the lessee 
 an abatement of 751. from each quarter's rent. 
 
 The lessor died during the term. The pits., 
 who were his executors, sold his wine business to 
 the firm of W. & P. ; and the lessee assigned the 
 lease of the hotel to the defts. The defts. claimed 
 that, so long as they continued to buy wines from 
 W. & P., they were entitled to the abatement 
 from each quarter's rent; but the pits, insisted 
 that, when the ownership of the wine business 
 and the ownership of the reversion upon the lease 
 
( 1057 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( i058 ) 
 
 tANDIOED AND TENANT (Covenant)— conid 
 ■were severed, the covenant to buy wines ceased 
 to be operative, and consequenlly that the defts. 
 were not entitled to the benefit of the proviso : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that, although the covenant to buy 
 wines did not in terms include the assigns of the 
 lessee, the burden of it ran with the tenant's 
 interest under the lease, and (2.) that the assigns 
 of the lessee were still bound by the covenant 
 and entitled to the benefit of the proviso for 
 abatement of rent. 
 
 The decision of Kekewich J. afiBrmed. White 
 
 V. Southend Hotel Co. - - C. A. [1897] 
 
 W. N. 36 (6); [1897] 1 Ch. 767 
 
 16. — Not to carry away liay and straw. Cove- 
 nant — Penalty — Damages — Stipulations of vary- 
 ing importance — Lease of farm. 
 
 Where a lease of a farm contained a covenant 
 by the lessees not to sell hay or straw off the 
 premises during the last twelve months of the 
 term, but to consume the same upon the pre- 
 mises, and provided that an additional rent of 3h 
 per ton should be payable by way of penalty for 
 every ton of hay or straw so sold, and it appeared 
 that there was a substantial difference between 
 the mauuiial value of hay and that of straw : — 
 Held, that the sum so made payable was a 
 penalty and not liquidated damages. Willson 
 V. Love - C. A, [1896] 1 Q, B. 626 
 
 — Production of deeds — Contract for lease — 
 
 Eight of lessee to acknowledgment or 
 
 covenant for production. 
 
 See Vendor and Pueohaseb. Title- 
 deeds. 97. 
 
 17. — Tvhlic-house — Bestrictive heer covenant 
 — Assignment of reversion. 
 
 By lease made in 1889 between A. H., de- 
 scribed as of " The Brewery, Neehells, Birmin"-- 
 ham, brewer Chereiuafter called ' the lessor ')," 
 and N., described as a " beer retailer (hereinafter 
 called ' the lessee ')," the lessor demised unto the 
 lessee a beerhouse for fourteen years. The lease 
 contained the following covenant : " And the 
 lessee hereby covenants with the lessor " " that 
 lie, the lessee, his executors, administrators, 
 lessees, tenants, and assigns, and all other persons 
 for the time being carrying on the business of a 
 beer retailer or publican upon the said premises 
 will and shall during the said term of years 
 hereby granted deal exclusively with the lessor 
 or his firm of H. & Sons or his or thtir successors 
 in business for all beers, ales, porter, stout (except 
 bottled stout), and other like articles which shall 
 be sold or consumed upon the said hereby de- 
 mised premises, or shall be brought thereon to be 
 so sold or consumed ; and will not nor shall 
 during the said term on any pretence whatsoever 
 purchase, take in, or receive, or have in his or 
 their possession, or directly or iadirectly sell or 
 dispose of, or permit the sale, disposal, or con- 
 sumption, in or upon the said premises of any 
 such articles other than such as shall have been 
 purchased or taken of the lessor or his firm or his 
 or their successors in business, provided that he 
 or they shall be willing to supply the same at 
 the price and terms usually charged by the 
 lessor or his firm to his or their tenants." 'l"he 
 lease also contained a declaration that " where 
 the context allows the expressions 'the lessor' 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Covanant)— conii. 
 and ' the lessee ' used in these premises include 
 besides the said A. H. his executors, adminis- 
 trators, and assigns, besides the said N. his 
 executors, administrators, and assigns." The 
 lease was afterwards assigned to tlie deft. J., who 
 carried on on the premises the business of a beer 
 retailer and publican. A. H., in 1891, assigned 
 the reversion expectant on the lease to a co., 
 which, in 1896, assigned such reversion to the 
 pit. CO. H. & Sons were still carrying on their 
 business at the brewery at Neehells. The delt. 
 refused to deal exclusively with the pit. co. for 
 his beers, and that co. brought an action for an 
 injunction to restrain him from buying his beers 
 elsewhere. He was willing to buy his beers from 
 H. & Sons :— 
 
 Held, that the covenant, as e.'splained by the 
 interpretation clause, restricted the dealings in 
 beer to dealings with the lessor, his executors, 
 administrators, or his firm while he was a member 
 thereof; that the lessor, his executors, adminis- 
 trators, or assigns were the persons to dictate to 
 the tenant as to where he was to purchase his 
 beers; and that the pit. co. was entitled to the 
 injunction. Birmingham Brewijiies, Ld. v. 
 Jameson Byrne J. [1898] W. N. 15 (8) 
 
 This decision was reversed on- appeal. See 
 Record of Business C. A. [1898] W. N. 45, 146 
 
 — ■ Bestrictive wine covenant — Hotel. 
 See No. 15, above. 
 
 18. — Public-house licence—" Discontinuance '' 
 of — " Assigns" — Underlessee. 
 
 The lessee of a public-house covenanted to 
 conduct the business so as to afford no ground 
 for " discontinuing the licence " : — 
 
 Held, that read with tlie context "discon- 
 tinuing" meant not refusing to renew but for- 
 feiting the licence. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1898] 1 Q. B. 716, affirmed. 
 Bryant v. Hancock & Go. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 118 ; [1899] A. C. 442 
 
 19. — Quiet enjoyment — Breach by erection 
 of buildings on adjoining land causing lessee's 
 chimneys to smolte. 
 
 The deft, was the owner of two adjoining 
 pieces of land. On one of these he erected a 
 house whioli he demised to the pit., with whom 
 he covenanted for quiet enjoyment without 
 any interruption or disturbance from or by the 
 lessor, or any person lawfully or equitably claim- 
 ing under him. The deft, then erected on the 
 other piece of land buildings of such a height 
 that they caused the chimneys of the plt.'s house 
 to smoke badly :— 
 
 Held, that the deft, had broken his covenant. 
 Tebb v. Cave Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 45 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 642 
 
 20. — Quiet enjoyment — Derogation from grant 
 — Uight to establish marltet — " Prescribed limits " 
 —Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. u. 55), 
 
 e. 166. 
 
 A cattle salesman occupied premises under 
 leases granted by a municipal corporation with 
 covenants for quiet enjoyment, and used the pre- 
 mises for the sale of cattle. The corporation, 
 after the grant of the leases, acting as urban sani- 
 tary authority, established a cattle market in the 
 
 2 M 
 
1059 ) 
 
 MGliST Ot' OASJiS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( lodo ) 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Covenant)— confd. 
 borough, and published a listof tolls. The aales- 
 man was convicted of selliog cattle on the said 
 premises, which were within the borough, but not 
 within Ihe limits of the market : — 
 
 Belcl, (1.) that the creation of the borough 
 market was not a derogation from the grant of the 
 leases ; (2.) that the leases gave no right to sell 
 cattle within s. 166 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, with which the corporation could not inter- 
 fere by establishing a market ; (3.) that the sales- 
 man was liable to a penalty under s. 13 of the 
 Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847. Spurling 
 V. Bantoft - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 384 
 
 — Quiet enjoyment — Injunction — Purchase by 
 
 railway company of reversion on lease — 
 Covenant running with land. 
 See Railway. 3. 
 
 — Quiet enjoyment — Interesse termini — Tres- 
 
 pass. 
 
 See No. 73, lelow. 
 
 21. — Quiet evjoyment — Interruption — Breach 
 of covenant against assignment — Subsequent as- 
 signment of reversion — Be-entnj hy assignees of 
 reversion — Consent judgment. 
 
 The deft, was the lessee of a shop, the lease 
 containing a covenant by him not to assign or 
 underlet the premises. There was a condition 
 for re-entry upon breach of any of the covenants 
 in the lease. The deft, let the premises to the 
 pit. for the remainder of the term, this lease 
 containing a covenant by the deft, for quiet 
 enjoyment of the premises by the pit. without 
 any interruption by the deft, or any person law- 
 fully claiming through him. Subsequently the 
 original lessor assigned the reversion, and the 
 assignees of the reversion brought nn action 
 against tlie deft, to recover possession of the pre- 
 mises as upon the breach of covenant against 
 assignment. The deft, gave the pit. notice of 
 the action, telling him that there was no defence, 
 and signed a consent to judgment for possession, 
 under which the pit. was evicted : — 
 
 Held, that, as the deft, had a good defence to 
 the action, the breach of covenant having occurred 
 before the assignment of the reversion, the act of 
 the deft, in consenting to judgment for possession 
 was the cause of the interruption of the plt.'s 
 enjoyment, and was therefore a breach of the 
 covenant for quiet enjoyment. Cohen v. Tannak 
 C. A. [1800] W. N. 162; [1900] 2 Q. B. 609 
 
 22. — Quiet enjoyment — Mine — Underground 
 water. 
 
 The deft, leased a mine to the P. Co. and sub- 
 sequently an adjoining mine at a higher level to 
 the pit. The plt.'s lease contained a covenant for 
 quiet enjoyment. The P. Co., while properly 
 working their mine, tapped a large body of 
 underground water, which, after flooding them 
 out, rose up into the plt.'s mine : — 
 
 Held, that the deft. Wiis not liable under the 
 covenant. Habkison, Ainslie & Co. v. Lobd 
 MuNCASTEE - C. A. [1?91] 2 Q. B. 680 
 
 23. — Quiet enjoyment — Underlease — Inter- 
 ruption — Re-cntrij hy original lessor for breach of 
 covenant. 
 
 An assignee of an underlease sued the sub- 
 
 LANDLOED AND TENANT (Covenant)— 0071^. 
 lessor for breach of a covenant- for quiet enjoy- 
 ment on the ground that the superior landlord 
 had re entered for breach of a covenant in the 
 head lease : — 
 
 Held, that an interruption from the superior 
 landlord was not an interruption from "any 
 person claiming by, througli, or under" the sub- 
 lessor, and therefore was not a breach of the 
 covenant for quiet enjoyment in the sub-lease. 
 Kelly v. Eogeks - C, A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 910 
 
 — ■ Rates — Covenant to pay water rate — ^Water 
 supplied for trade jjurposes. 
 See Water— Water Bates. 29. 
 
 — Rates and taxes — Sanitary nuisance — Ex- 
 
 penses of abating. 
 
 See London — Sawers. 52— .54. 
 
 — Rates and taxes — Tramway — Covenant by 
 
 tenant to keep free from all expenses 
 
 whatever. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 24. 
 
 24. — Bates, taxes, and assessments — Corenant 
 to pay— Street — Expenses of paving — Summary 
 recovery from owner — Claim hy owner against 
 tenant— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict, 
 c. 55), s. 150. 
 
 Expenses of paving, &c., a street, recovered in 
 a summary manner, by an urban authority, from 
 the owner of premises outside the metropolis, 
 under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 150, cannot 
 be recovered by the owner from his tenant, under 
 a covenant by the tenaat to pay " all rates, taxes, 
 and assessments whatsoever, which now are, or 
 during the term shall be, imposed or assessed 
 upon the premises, or the landlords or tenants in 
 respect thereof, by authority of Parliament or 
 otherwise, except the landlord's property tax." 
 Baylis v. Jiggens - - Channell J. [1898] 
 
 W. N. 64 (3) ; [1898] 2 Q. B. 315 
 
 25. ■ — Bates, taxes, Ac. — Drainage worlcs re- 
 quired by local authority. Cost of — Liability of 
 tenant — Covenant hy tenant to pay and discharge 
 " all taxes, rates, duties and assessments payable 
 in respect of the demised premises" — Metropolis 
 Management Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), 
 8. 85 ; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), ss. 64, 96. 
 
 A tenant covenanted with his landlord that 
 he would pay and discharge " all taxes, rates, 
 duties and assessments whatsoever, which now 
 are, or hereafter shall become, payable for or in 
 respect of the premises hereby demised, or any 
 part thereof, whether parliamentary, parochial 
 or otherwise, except the landlord's property 
 tax " : — 
 
 Held, that under this covenant the tenant 
 was liable to pay the cost of drainage works, the 
 execution of which was required by the local 
 authority under s. 85 of the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 30 (2), 
 affirmed. 
 
 Brett V. Mogers, [1897] 1 Q. B. 525, approved. 
 Faelow v. Stevenson - C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 128 
 
 — Repair — Landlord under no covenant to— 
 
 Liability of landlord — Dangerous condi- 
 tion of demised premises. 
 See No, OH, below. 
 
( loei ) 
 
 titGttiS* Ot* dlstiS, 1^91— l9(Jd. 
 
 ( 16^^ 
 
 liANDLOED AND TENANT (Covenant)— conW. 
 
 26. — ■- " Repair, maintain, and uphold " — In- 
 herent defect in premises. 
 
 A lessee covenanted to repair and maintain 
 the demised premises. The house, -which was 
 old, became dangerous owing to faults in the 
 foundation, and had to be pulled down : — 
 
 Beld, that the lessee was not liable on his 
 covenant for the oo.st of rebuilding. 
 
 Tiie age and condition of a house at the be- 
 ginning of the tenancy are to bj taken into con- 
 sideration in deciding whether there has been a 
 breach of a general covenant to repair. Lister 
 V. Lane - C. A. [189S] 2 ft. B. 212 
 
 — Eepairs — Continuing breach. 
 See No. 32, below. 
 
 27. — Repairs — Damages, Measureof — Breach 
 of covenant. 
 
 The proper measure of damage.") in an action, 
 brought after the expiration of the term for a 
 breach of covenant to repair, is the cost of putting 
 the premises into the state of repair required by 
 the covenant. The fact that the incoming tenant 
 has effected the repairs' at his own cost will not 
 deprive the lessor of liis right to recover the full 
 damages. Joyneb v. Weeks 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 31 
 
 28. — Repairs — Damages — Measureof — Breach 
 of cove7iant. 
 
 Principle upon which damages for non-repair 
 of premises should bo assessed in an action 
 brouglit after the termination of the lease, where 
 the lessor had in a previous action for the s;ime 
 object obtained money as damages from the 
 lessee, but no repairs had been eifccted. Hender- 
 son (,-. Thobn Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 161 
 
 29. — Repairs — Damages — Measure of — Lease 
 and sub-lease — Covenants to keep and yield up in 
 repair. 
 
 Where a lease contains covenants to keep the 
 demised premises in repair and to deliver them 
 up i:i good repair, and a sub-lease is granted 
 containing similar covenants with i<otice to tlae 
 sub lessee of the original lease, and the lessee 
 brings ail aclion agaiuot the sub lessee for breach 
 ol' his covenant to keep in repair, it is right in 
 assessing the damages to take into account the 
 liability of the lessee upon the covenants in the 
 original lease. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 2 Ch. 377, affirmed. 
 
 Co> QUEST V. Ebbetts - H. L. (E.) [1896] 
 
 W. N. 87 (10); [1896] A. C. 490 
 
 30. — Repairs — Indemnity — Mesne assignment 
 — Covenant by assignee to indemnify assigrior — 
 Breach of covenant before assignment — Liability. 
 
 A lease, the reversion ou which was vested in 
 the pit., contained a covenant by the lessee to 
 repair and keep in repair the demised premises. 
 By virtue of divers mesne assignments and other 
 acts in the law the term had become vested in 
 the defts., the executors of a deceased assignee 
 of the lease. They, as " trustees," assigned tlie 
 premises, which were then out of repair, for the 
 residue of the term to an assignee, who cove- 
 nanted with them thenceforth to pay the rent 
 reserved by the lease, and perform the lessees 
 covenants therein contained, and to keep them 
 indemnified from the payment and performance 
 
 lANDLOSD AND TENANT (Covenant)— con<(i. 
 thereof respectively. The premises remaining 
 out of repair, the pit. subsequently brought an 
 action against the deits. for breach of the cove- 
 nant to repair, and they brought in their assignee 
 as third party. The pit. having recovered 
 damages against the defts. in the action :— 
 
 Held, that the third party was liable under 
 his covenant to indemnify them against those 
 damages. GoooH v. Cluttekbuck. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 96 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 148 
 
 31. — Repairs — Lease to trustee — Covenant 
 by lessee to repair — Occupation by cestui que trust 
 — Liability of cestui que trust for breach of trustee's 
 covenant. 
 
 A lease of a house contained a covenant by 
 the lessee for himself and his assigns to repair, 
 and also a declaration that the lessee held the 
 premises in trust for the deft. The deft, occupied 
 tlie premises during the whole of the term, as it 
 was intended by the parties that she should do, 
 and she paid the rent. Upon the expiry of the 
 term the premises were out of repair : — 
 
 Held, that the fact of the deft, having the 
 benefifial interest in the loase did not, either 
 by itself or coupled witii the fact of occupation 
 by her, create any equitable liability in her for 
 the breach of the lessee's covenant. Ramaqe v. 
 Wo-MAOK Wright J. [1899] W. N. 246 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 116 
 
 32. — Repairs — Notice of breach — Continuing 
 breach — Breach after expiration of notice — Right 
 to re-enter — Rent due before action — Joinder of 
 claim for possession and claim for rent — Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 14, 
 suh-s. 1. 
 
 A lease contained a general covenant to repair 
 aud a covenant to repair within three months 
 after notice. The premises being out of repair, the 
 lessor gave notice to the lessee under the Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881, to repair within a given time. 
 Three days after the expiration of the notice a 
 quarter's rent became due. No repairs having 
 been done by the tenant, the lessor brought an 
 action to recover possession, and in the action 
 claimed the quarter's rent: — 
 
 Held, that, the breach of covenant being a 
 continuing one, no new notice was required in 
 respect of the non-repair after the expiration of 
 the time specified in the notice, and that the 
 claim for rent did not aifect tlie light to posses- 
 sion in respect of non-repair after the date when 
 the rent fell due. Penton v. Barnett 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 276 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Serle, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 652, 65a. 
 
 33. — Repairs — Underlessee — Liability of — 
 Breach of covenant. 
 
 An underlessee (even though of the whole 
 premises in the head lease) is nut as between 
 himself and the original lessor i^ " lessee " within 
 s. 2 (1) of the Conveyancing Ac-t, 1892, and 
 therefore the lessor is not entitled to recover 
 from him the costs of solicitor and surveyor 
 incurred in preparing u, scliedule of defects in 
 repair. 
 
 The deMsion of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 472, 
 reversed. Nind v. Nineteenth Centdby Bcild- 
 iNa Society - - C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 226 
 
 2 M 2 
 
( 1063 ) 
 
 iJlGBST OP CASES, 1891— 19dd. 
 
 ( 1064 3 
 
 lANDIOED AND TENANT (Covenant)— conic?. 
 
 — Ecstriotive ooTenant. 
 
 See Landlokd and Tenant, passim. 
 
 ^- Restrictive covenant — Occupier — Injunction. 
 See Covenant. 6. 
 
 '- Restrictive covenant — Tied public-liovise — 
 Aasigns — TJnderlessee — Notice. 
 See Covenant. 7. 
 
 34. — Sith-letting— Breach — Measure of damages. 
 
 A lessee, in breach of bis covenant not to 
 sublet without the written consent of the lessor, 
 sublet his premises to a turpentine distiller. 
 The house was burnt down : — 
 
 Beld, that the loss caused by the fire was the 
 natural result of the breach of covenant, and was, 
 therefore, recoverable as damages in the action. 
 Lepla II. EoGEBS Hawkins J. [1893] 1 ft. B. 31 
 
 — Sub-letting— Mistake — ^Forgetfulness — Equit- 
 
 able relief against forfeiture. 
 See No. 66, helow. 
 
 36. — Trade — Covenant hy lessor imt to let 
 adjoining land for purposes of— Lessee not entitled 
 to enforce covenant as to user between lessee of 
 adjoiniTig land and lessor. 
 
 The deft. W., the owner of a row of houses, 
 let No. 3 to H. as a shop for carrying on a speci- 
 fied business. The lessee covenanted to use the 
 premises for that business only, and the lessor 
 covenanted not to let any of the other houses for 
 the purposes of the same business. The pit. 
 was the assignee of H.'s lease, continuing the 
 
 Afterwards W. let No. 1 to the deft. B., tak- 
 ing a covenant from B. to use the premic-es only 
 lor the purposes of another specified business. 
 
 The deft. B. sold various articles which, as 
 the Court found, were comprised in the plt.'s 
 business : — 
 
 Held, that W. had broken no covenant of his 
 own, and was not bound to sue B. for the breach 
 of his covenant with W. at the request of the 
 Jilt., who was neither covenantee nor assignee of 
 B.'s coveniint ; and the pit., therefore, could sue 
 neither W. nor B. 
 
 Kemp V. Bird, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 549, 974, fol- 
 lowed, notwithstanding Fitz v. lies, [1893j 1 Ch. 
 77. AsuBT V. Wilson - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 36. — Trading— Covenant against allowing — 
 " A djoining " premises. 
 
 " Adjoining premises " do not include all the 
 houbes in a block of buildings, but are confined 
 to the next-door premises. 
 
 The view expressed by Parke J. in Bex v. 
 Badges, (1829) Mood. & M. 341, that " ground 
 cannot be properly said to adjoin a house, unless 
 it is absolutely contiguous, without anything 
 between them," adopted. Vale & Sons v. Moob- 
 GATE Street and Bkoad Stbeet Bdildings, Ld. 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1899] W. N. 62 
 
 Distinguished by Buckley J. Itid, Coope & 
 Co. V. Hamblin, [1900] W. N. 24; but this case 
 was reversed by C. A. [1900] W. N. 270. 
 
 — Ground "adjoining" to an existing church- 
 
 yard. 
 
 ^ee Ecclesiastical Law. 20. 
 
 LANDLOED AND TENANT (Covenant)— cojiiei. 
 
 37. — "Usual covenants" — Public-house — 
 Agreement for lease — Vendor and Purchaser Act, 
 1874 (37 A 38 Vict. c. 78), s. 9. 
 
 Question as to what are "usual covenants" 
 in the lease of a public-house, and as such to be 
 inserted in a lease where the contract is silent as 
 to covenants. In re Lander and Baglet's Con- 
 tract - - Chitty J. [1892] 3 Ch. 41 
 
 — " Usual covenants " — Purchase of leaseholds. 
 
 See "Vendor and Purchaser — Contract. 
 25. 
 
 Determination of Tenancy and Holding Over. 
 
 — " Determination of tenancy " — Agricultural 
 
 holdings. 
 
 See No. 9, aljove. 
 
 38. — Determination — Notice — Suffiidency of 
 notice. 
 
 In the case of a lease determinable at the 
 end of seven years by six months' notice, a letter 
 by the lessee stating that he would not be able to 
 stop over the first seven years of his term unless 
 his rent was reduced held to Le sufficient to de- 
 termine the lease. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1895] 1 Q. B. 231, 
 affirmed. Burt v. Thompson 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. 44; [1898] 1 ft. B. 696 
 
 39. — Determination — Notice to quit — Yearly 
 tenancy — Commencement of tenancy — -"At " — 
 " From." 
 
 A yearly tenancy was expressed in the agree- 
 ment to commence " on " May 19, and the appor 
 tioned rent to the next quarter-day, June 24, was 
 to be paid on signing the agreement, and the 
 future rent to be paid on the usual quarter-days, 
 and in a subsequent year six months' notice to 
 quit was given for May 19 ; — 
 
 Held, that the tenancy commenced on May 19 
 and not on June 24, and expired at midnight on 
 May 18 : 
 
 Held, also (A. L. Smith L.J. doubting), that 
 the notice for the anniversary of the commence- 
 ment of the tenancy was sufficient, and that 
 there was no distinction between tenancies com- 
 mencing "at" a particular time or "on "a par- 
 ticular day and "from" the same day : 
 
 ifeM, also, that an oral agreement to continue 
 the tenancy beyond a year was invalid under the 
 Statute of Frauds, there being no fresh demise. 
 
 Decision of Bruce J. reversed. Sidebotham 
 
 V. Holland - C. A. [1895] W. N. 3 ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 378 
 
 40. — Estoppel hy conduct — Surrender by 
 operation of law — Determination of tenancy. 
 
 The deft, was tenant to the pit. from year to 
 year of a Lady Day holding. In Dec, being 
 desirous of surrendering his tenancy at an earlier 
 date than tliat for which he could then give a 
 valid notice to quit, he entered into an oral 
 agreement with the pit. to surrender at the 
 following Midsummer. On the faith of this 
 agreement the pit., with the deft.'s knowledge 
 and assent, sold the premises to a purchaser with 
 the right to possession at Midsummer. At Mid- 
 summer the deft, refused to give up possession ; 
 whereupon the pit. brought ejectment : — 
 
 Held, that the actiou was maintainable upon 
 
( 1065 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1066 ) 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Determination of 
 
 Tenancy and Holding Over) — continued. 
 the grounds: (1.) that the agreement of Dec, 
 although bad as an agreement to surrender by 
 reason of its not being iu writing, as required by 
 ths Statute of Frauds, amounted to an acceptance 
 of a new tenancy to end at Midsummer, and that 
 the acceptance of that new tenancy worked a 
 surrender of the old one by operation of law ; 
 and (2.) that the deft, by his conduct iu allowing 
 the pit. to contract an obligation to his purchaser 
 on the faith of the agreement was estopped from 
 disputing that his original tenancy was one which 
 terminated at Midsummer. Fenneb v. Blake 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 17 ; [1900] 1 ft. B. 426 
 
 41. — Holding over — Implied yearly tenancy — 
 Implication of law. 
 
 If a tenant remain in possession by conseut 
 after the expiration of a lease, and there is no 
 stipulation to the contrary, the law implies a 
 yearly tenancy on such of the terms of the former 
 lease as are not inconsistent with such a tenancy. 
 
 The implication in this case was con6rmed by 
 the terms of a letter containing a notice to quit, 
 sent aft«r the expiration of the original lease. 
 DoDGAL V. McCabthy C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 736 
 
 42. — Holding over — Telephone wire — Notice 
 dttermining tenancy — Acceptance of rent — Waiver 
 of notice. 
 
 In 1889 the N. Co. supplied a telephone wire 
 and apparatus to K. for three years at a rent 
 payable quarterly ; upon the expiration of the 
 term the parties contiaued the agreement by 
 mutual consent. On Dec. 30, 1893, the last day 
 of a quarter, the N. Co. gave notice terminating 
 the agreement forthwith and demanded rent up 
 to Dec. 31, being one day beyond the quarter. 
 The rent was paid and accepted by the N. Co. 
 On motion to restrain the N. Co. from cutting 
 the wire : — 
 
 Sdd, that the agreement created the relation 
 of landlord and tenant between the N. Co. and 
 K., and therefore the acceptance of rent for a day 
 beyond the notice determining the tenancy acted 
 as a waiver of that notice. An injunction granted 
 restraining the N. Co. from interfering with the 
 wire and apparatus. 
 
 Eules as to injunction ordering specific per- 
 formance considered. Keith, Pbowsb & Co. v. 
 Natjonal Telephone Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 147 
 
 43. — Notice to quit — Yearly tenancy — " End 
 of the current year " — Determination of tenancy. 
 
 A tenant held premises on a yearly tenancy 
 from Lady Day to Lady Day. On March 24, 
 1898, her landlord gave her notice to quit and 
 deliver up the premises " on June 24, 1898, or at 
 the end of your current year's tenancy" :^ 
 
 Held, that the notice must be construed in 
 accordance with the intention of the landlord, 
 and that since it was impossible to suppose that 
 it was intended to be a notice to quit on March 25, 
 1898, when the current year's tenancy expired, it 
 must be taken to be a good notice to quit the 
 premises on March 25, 1899. 
 
 Doe V. Culliford, (1824) 4 D. & E. 248, 
 followed. 
 
 Doe V. Morphett, (1845) 7 Q. B. 577, dissented 
 from. Weidp v. DtpB Div. Of. [1900] l ft. B. 23 
 
 LANDLOBD AND TENANT (Determination of 
 Tenancy and Holding Over) — continued. 
 
 44. — Weekly tenancy — Determination — Neces- 
 sity for notice — Injury caused hy defective repair 
 of demised premises. 
 
 A weekly tenancy is not determined without 
 notice at the end of each week. The continu- 
 ance of the tenant's occupation on the expir.ition 
 of each week does not render the landlord liable 
 for the defects then existing, as if there had been 
 a re-letting. Bowen v. Andebson 
 
 Div. Ct, [1894] 1 ft. B. 164 
 
 Distress. 
 See Cases under'DisTRESS. 
 
 Entry. 
 
 — Distress. 
 
 See Cases under Distress. 
 
 45. — Forcible entry — Bemomng roof of house — 
 Injury to furniture — Action of trespass — Secovery 
 of Tenements Act, 1838 (1*2 Vict. c. 74). 
 
 On a tenant refusing to quit after due notice, 
 justices issued a warrant ordering him to give 
 up possession within twenty-one days. On the 
 same day a builder under the landlord's orJers 
 began to remove the tiles of the house, prepara- 
 tory to rebuilding, and in so doing damaged the 
 tenant's furniture. The tenant sued for trespass 
 and damage : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the landlord's common law 
 right of entry was not suspended by the issuing 
 of the possession warrant ; (2) that the removal 
 of the tiles did not amount to a forcible entry, 
 and the tenant had no cause of action. Jones v. 
 Foley Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 730 
 
 — Ke-entry — Forfeiture. 
 
 See Cases under Landlobd and Tenant 
 — Forfeiture. 
 
 Flats. 
 
 — Block of offices — Dangerous staircase — Land- 
 
 lord's liability. 
 See No. 68, ielow. 
 
 46. — Covenant — Specific performance — Porter 
 — Besidenlial flats. 
 
 Specific performance of a covenant by the 
 landlord to appoint a resident porter to a build- 
 ing let in flats refused on the ground that to 
 enforce the complete performance of the covenaut 
 (i.e., that the porter should perform certain duties 
 for the tenants) would require supervision which 
 the Oouit could not undertake. 
 
 The decision of A. L. Smith J., [1892] 1 
 Ch. 427, reversed. Ktan v. Mutual Tontine 
 Westminster Chambers Association 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 116 
 
 Keferred to by Kekewich J. Davis v. Fore- 
 man, [1894] 8 Ch. 654, 658. 
 
 — Bestrictive covenant — User — Private rosi - 
 
 dence. 
 
 See Covenant. 2, 5. 
 
 Forfeiture. 
 
 47. — Assign, Covenant not to — Equitable as- 
 signment — Declaration of trust-~Condition against 
 
1007 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1068 ) 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Forfeiture)— cmrfd 
 assignment for henefit of creditors — " Disposing of 
 the land leased " — Notice before action — Service 
 on " lessee "—Judicature Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict, 
 c. C6), s. 24, siib-s. 4 — Conveyancing Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 14, sub-ss. 1, 6 (i.) ; s. 67, 
 sub-s. 2. 
 
 Bya lease the lessee covenanted not to assign 
 or underlet the demised premises without the 
 consent of the lessor, and there was a proviso for 
 re-entry on breach of any of the covenants, or if 
 the lessee should (inter alia) execute an assign- 
 ment for the benefit of his creditors. The lessee 
 executed an assignment of all his real and 
 personal property, except that of a leasehold 
 tenure, to a trustee for the benefit of his creditors, 
 and lie declared that he would stand possessed of 
 all his leasehold property ujjon trust for the 
 trustee and to assign aud dispose of the same in 
 such manner as tlie trustee should direct for the 
 jiurposes of the deed. The trustee entered into 
 possession of the demised premises, but no legal 
 assignment of them was executed. The lessor 
 served upon the trustee a notice alleging as 
 ground of forfeiture the execution by the lessee 
 of the assignment. In an action against the 
 lessee to recover possetsion of the premises : — 
 
 Seld, that, as there had been no legal assign- 
 ment of the premises, there had been no breach of 
 the covenant against assignment : 
 
 Held, also, that the condition against assign- 
 ment for the benefit of creditors was not a condi- 
 tion against disposing of the land leased within 
 the meaning of s. 14, sub-s. 6(i.), of the Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881, and therefore service of notice 
 on the lessee under s. 14, sub-s. 1, was necessary 
 before the lessor could enforce his right of re- 
 entry ; and that service of the notice on the 
 trustee under the deed was not a sufficient com- 
 pliance with the provisions of s. 14, sub-s. 1, and 
 s. 67, sub-s. 2, of the Act. 
 
 A condition against the disposing of the hind 
 leased within the meaning of s. 14, subs. 6 (i.), of 
 the Conveyancing Act, 1881, means a condition 
 which on its face is against the disposing of the 
 land leased. Gentle v. Faulenek 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 267 
 
 48. — Banliruptcy — Forfeiture on hjmliruptcy 
 of lessee or assigns — Assignment of lease — Subse- 
 quent banh-uptcy of lessee. 
 
 In a lease there was a covenant not to assign 
 without the consent in writing of the lessor, 
 " such consent not to be withheld to a respectable 
 and responsible tenant," and a proviso for re- 
 entiy if (inter alia) " the lessee, his executors, 
 administrators, or assigns should become bank- 
 rupt." The lessee assigned, with the consent of 
 the lessor, and subsequently to such assignment 
 beciime bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, tliat the proviso for re-entry referred 
 only to the bankruptcy of the person wlio for the 
 time being was possessed of the term, and that 
 consequently no forfeiture had been incurred. 
 
 Quaere, whether the right to enforce a for- 
 feiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee is affected 
 by an annulment of the bankruptcy. Smith v. 
 _„„„„... "Wright J. [1891] 2 Q. B. 394 
 
 Grokow 
 
 <^f,]^f''r?J^,^-? ^y C). A. Horsey Estate, Ld. V. 
 Stetger, [18a0] 2 q. B. 79, 89. s/e m. 56, below. 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Forfeiture)— cwiW. 
 
 49. — Bankruptcy of lessee — Relief — Under- 
 lessee — Conveyancing Acts, 1881, 1892 (44 (fc 45 
 Viet. c. 41, o. 14, sub-ss. 2, 6 ; 55 <fc 56 Vict. u. 13, 
 s. 4). 
 
 The provisions of s. 4 of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1892 (enabling the Court to grant relief to 
 an underlessee upon forfeiture by the lessee), 
 extend to cases in which the Court would have 
 no power to gi-ant relief to the lessee himself. 
 
 The conditions on which relief ought in such 
 a case to be granted to the underlessee considered. 
 
 The history of the statutory power to grant 
 relief against forfeiture traced. Cholmeley 
 School, Highgate v. Sewell (No. 2) 
 
 Charles J. [1894] 2 Q. B. 906 
 
 60. — Building — Repairs — Covenant to build 
 
 — Covenant to repair — Continuing breach — 
 Waiver — Recovery of possession — Notice of breach 
 — Sufficiency — Relief against forfeiture — Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881 (44 * 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 14. 
 
 The pits, demised to the defts. a piece of 
 laud, and the defts. covenanted within twelve 
 months to erect certain buildings thereon, and 
 also at all times during the term of the lease to 
 keep the premises " so to be erected as aforesaid 
 in good and substantial i epair, and the same in 
 good and substantial repair" to deliver up at 
 the expiration of the term. The lease contained 
 a proviso for re-entry on breach of any of the 
 lessees' covenants. The buildings were never 
 erected, but tlie pits, accepted the quarter's rent 
 which accrued next after the expiration of the 
 twelve months limited for the erection of the 
 buildings. The pits, afterwards served upon 
 the defts. a notice under the Conveyancing Act, 
 1881, s. 14, referring to the building covenant 
 only, aud calling upon the defts. to erect the 
 buildings. In an action for recovery of posses- 
 sion : — 
 
 Held, that the building covenant was broken 
 once for all at the expiration of the twelve 
 months, and was not a continuing covenant ; 
 that the repairing covenant implied an obliga- 
 tion to erect the buildings, and there was, there- 
 fore, a continuing breach of it ; but that inasmuch 
 as the notice under the Conveyancing Act only 
 referred to the building covenant as to the 
 breach of which there was a waiver, and did not 
 mention the breach of the repairing covenant, 
 the notice was insufficient and the action failed. 
 Jacob v. Down - Stirling J. [190O] W. N. 99 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 156 
 
 — Discovery — Affidavit of documents. 
 
 See DiscovEKT — Documents. 22. 
 
 51. — Notice — Sufficiency — Breach of covenant 
 ■ — Right to possession— Conveyancing Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 14. 
 
 A notice served by a lessor on his lessee 
 under s. 14 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, merely 
 informing the lessee that he " has not kept tlie 
 same premises well aud sufficiently repaired,' and 
 the party and other walls thereof," is ntjt suffi- 
 cient, as it does not direct the attention of the 
 lessee to the particular breaches complained of, 
 so as to give him an opportunity of remedying 
 them before an action is brought against him. 
 
 Fletcher v. Nolies, [1S97] 1 Oh. 271, followed. 
 
 The fact that such a notice sufficiently speci- 
 
( 1069 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 1070 ) 
 
 lANDLOED AND TENANT (Porfeiture)— eonid 
 fles other breaches of covenant which are com- 
 plained of will not make the notice sufficient 
 within the section. In re Sekle. Gregout v. 
 Seble Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 Bistingnished by Buckley J. Fannellv. City 
 of London Brewery Co., [1900] 1 Oh. 496. See 
 No. 53, helow. 
 
 52. — Notiee — Validity — Procedure — Coti- 
 veyarmng Aet, 1881 (44 & 45 Viet. c. 41), s. 14. 
 
 A notice under s. 14 (1) of the Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881, requiring the lessee to remedy 
 a breach of covenant is good, though it does not 
 require payment of compensation in money. A 
 writ and not an originating summons is the 
 proper mode to raise the question of the validity 
 of such a notice. 
 
 The decision of North J., [1892] 2 Oh. 328, 
 aifirmed. Look v. Peaeoe C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 271 
 
 Referred to by Buckley J. Pannell v. City of 
 London Brewery Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 496, 501. See 
 next Case. 
 
 63. ■ — Notice had in part — Breach of covenant 
 — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. o. 41), 
 s. 14. 
 
 A notice under s. 14 of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881, referring to several distinct alleged 
 breaches of covenant is not invalidated in toto 
 because it turns out that although some of the 
 alleged breaches have occurred the others have 
 never taken place, or that the lessor is not en- 
 titled to rely on them. 
 
 Horsey Estate, Ld. v. Steiger, [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 79, and In re Serle, [1898] 1 Ch. 652, dis- 
 tinguished. Pannell v. City of London 
 Brewekv Co. 
 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 16; [1900] 1 Ch. 496 
 
 54. — Notice of " particular breach " of cove- 
 nant — Sufficiency of notiee — Action to recover 
 possession — Damages — Conveyancing Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 14, svh-s. 1. 
 
 The notice to be served by a lessor on his 
 lessee, under s. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881, "specifying the particular breach of 
 covenant complained of," to entitle the lessor to 
 enforce by action a right of re-entry for the 
 breach, must be given in such detail as will 
 enable the lessee to understand what is com- 
 plained of, so that he may have an opportunity of 
 remedying the breach before action brought. 
 
 A mere general notice of breach of a specified 
 covenant is not sufficient. 
 
 A notice by a lessor to his lessee that " you 
 have broken the covenants for repairing the 
 inside and outside of the houses" (describing 
 them) contained in a specified lease : — 
 
 Held, to be insufficient, and on this ground 
 an action by the lessor to recover possession of 
 the demised houses for breach of covenant was 
 dismissed with costs : ^ • j. ■ 
 
 Held, also, that the lessor could not maintain 
 the action for damages for the breach. Fletoheb 
 «.NoKE8 - - North J. [1897] 1 Ch, 271 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Serle, [1898] 
 1 Ch. 652. See No. 61, above. 
 
 55. — Be-entry— Chose in action--. 
 of lease by trustee in hanlcruptcy— Belief. 
 
 The jurisdiction to grant a lessee relief against 
 
 LANDLOED AND TENANT (Forfeiture)— coiii(£. 
 forfeiture for non-payment of rent is not confined 
 to oases where the lessor has re-entered under 
 legal process, but extends to eases where the 
 lessor has recovered possession without the aid of 
 the Court. In such a case an order may he made 
 declaring that the lessee may hold the lands 
 according to the lease, without any new lease. 
 This right is a chose in action, and in the case of 
 a bankrupt vests in his trustee, who is entitled 
 to assign it to a purchaser. HowiKD v. Fan- 
 SHAWE - Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 581 
 
 56. — Be-entry — Proviso for — Condition 
 against liquidation — Winding-up of company^ 
 Condition running with the land — Covenant not 
 to assign or underlet — Notice before action for 
 forfeiture — Beasonable notiee — Conveyancing Acts, 
 1881, 1892 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 14, siih-ss. 1, 6 ; 
 55 * 56 Vict. 0. 13, s. 2, sub-s. 2). 
 
 The reversion on the lease was conveyed to 
 the pits, and the lease was assigned by the 
 lessees with the pits.' consent to the defts., an 
 individual and a joint stock co. The deft. co. 
 subsequently passed a resolution for a voluntary 
 winding-up, not by reason of insolvency, but for 
 the purpose of reconstruction with additional 
 capital : — 
 
 Held, that the deft. co. had entered into liqui- 
 dation within the meaning of the condition con- 
 tained in the lease ; and, 
 
 Semble, that the condition ran with the land. 
 
 But held, also, that a sufficient notice under 
 s. 14, sub-s. 1, oftheConveyancingAct, 1881, was 
 a condition precedent to enforcing the forfeiture, 
 the effect of s. 2, sub-s. 2, of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1892, being to take the case of a forfeiture 
 on bankruptcy or liquidation out of sub-s. 6 of 
 s. 14 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, for a year 
 from the date of the bankruptcy or liquidation ; 
 and that the notice given was not sufficient, and 
 therefore the action was not maintainable. 
 
 A lease contained a covenant by the lessees 
 for themselves and their assigns not to assign or 
 underlet the premises without the consent of the 
 lessors, which was not to be unreasonably with- 
 held. Assignees of the lease entered into an 
 agreement for the sale thereof by which it was 
 provided that at a certain period, though the 
 purchase might not then be completed, the pur- 
 chasers should be let into possession of the pre- 
 mises, and should from that day pay the rents 
 and outgoings in respect of the same. The pur- 
 chasers were let into possession under that agree- 
 ment, the purchase remaining uncompleted : — 
 
 Held, that so letting them into possession was 
 not a breach of the covenant against assignment 
 or underletting without the consent of the 
 
 Judgment of Hawkins J., [1898] 2 Q. B. 259, 
 reversed. Horsey Estate, Ld. v. Stbigeb and 
 Petkimte Co. - - C. A, [1899] W. N. 82 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 79 
 
 Discussed by Buckley J. Pannell v. City of 
 London Brewery Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 496. 
 
 57. — Be-entry — ■ Belief — Conveyancing Act, 
 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 14. 
 
 A lessee cannot apply under s. 14 of the 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881, for relief against re- 
 
( 1071 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1072 ) 
 
 lANDLORD AND TENANT (Forfeiture)— con«(J. 
 entry or forfeiture after the lessor has actually 
 re-entered. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich affirmed. Eogeks v. 
 EiOE - C. A. [1892] 2 Cli. 170 
 
 See now Conveyaucing Act, 1892 (55 & 56 
 Vict. c. 13), a. 2, sub-s. 1, 
 
 58. — He-entry — Biglit of — Breach of covenant 
 — Covenant not to sub-let without landlord's consent 
 — Mistake — Forgetfulness — Equitable relief against 
 forfeiture. 
 
 In a lease for years tlie lessees covenanted 
 not to underlet, assign, or part with the posses- 
 sion of the premises, or any part thereof, wittout 
 the consent in writing of the lessors, such consent 
 not to be unreasonably withheld. The lease 
 contained a power to re-enter upon bjeaoh of any 
 of the covenants. The lessees, without asking 
 for the consent of the lessors, underlet a part of 
 the premises to a tenant who already occupied 
 under the lessors, and to whom no objection 
 could have been reasonably taken. In an action 
 by the lessors to recover possession of the pre- 
 mises for breach of covenant : — • 
 
 Held, that the fact that the breach of cove- 
 nant had been committed through forgetfulness, 
 or because the lessees thought it unimportant, 
 did not form a ground for giving them equitable 
 relief against forfeiture for breach of the cove- 
 nant, and that the pits, were entitled to succeed 
 in the action. 
 
 Barrow v. Isaacs & Son, [1891] 1 Q. B. 417, 
 followed. 
 
 Hyde v. Warden, (1877) 3 Ex. D. 72, ques- 
 tioned. Eastebn Telegraph Co. v. Dent 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 835 
 
 59. — Relief — Compensation for breach of 
 covenant — Ejectment — Solicitors and surveyor's 
 costs of preparing notice — Conveyancing Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. V. 41), s. 14. 
 
 The " compensation " for breach of covenant 
 which a lessee is liable to pay under s. 14 of the 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881, does not include the 
 costs incurred by the lessor in consulting and 
 employing a solicitor and surveyor in respect of 
 the preparation of the notice required by that 
 section. Skinners' Co. v. Knight 
 
 C, A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 542 
 
 Overruled. See Conveyancing Act, 1892 
 (55 & 56 Yict. c. 13), s. 2, sub-s. 1. 
 
 60. — Belief — Partiesnecessary—Originallessee 
 —Common Law Procedure Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. 
 c. 126), «. 1. 
 
 Mortgagees by way of underlease applied for 
 relief against a forfeiture for non-payment of 
 rent, but did not make the original lessee, against 
 whom the forfeiture had gone, a party to the 
 application : — 
 
 Held, that relief ought not to be given in the 
 absence of the original lessee. Hare v. Elms 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 604 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Howard v. Fan- 
 shaive, [1895] 2 Oh. 581, 589. " 
 
 ri„„^^ ^•'lief—Eepairs— Breach of covenant— 
 
 rTi--'%TTl^^}f' 1«8'' 1892 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, 
 «• .14 , 55 cfc 56 Vict. 0. 13, ss. 2 4) 
 
 A lessee who in obedience to a notice from his 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Forfeiture)— conW. 
 lessor under s. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881, remedies the breach of covenant speci- 
 fied and makes the compensation demanded, and 
 thereby renders unnecessary an application to 
 the Court umier sub-s. 2 for relief from forfeiture 
 for such breach, is not relieved under the provi- 
 sions of tliat Act within the meaning of s. 2, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Conveyancing Act, 1892, tliat 
 expression referring not to s. 14, sub-s. 1, of the 
 Act of 1881, but to relief granted by the Court 
 under that Act or the Act of 1892. 
 
 The decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 472, 
 reversed. Nind v. Nineteenth Century Build- 
 ing Society C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 226 
 
 62. — Belief — Underlessee — Breach of cove- 
 nant not to assign — Negligence — Conveyancing 
 Acts, 1881, 1892 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 14; 
 55 & 56 Vict. c. 13, s. 4). 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction under the Con- 
 veyancing Act, 1892, to relieve an underlessee 
 against a forfeiture of the original lease, though 
 such forfeiture was occasioned by breach of a 
 covenant not to assign or underlet without licence, 
 and therefore could not be relieved against in 
 favour of the lessee under the Conveyancing Act, 
 1881, with which the later Act is to be read 
 together. This jurisdiction, however, will be 
 exercised with caution and sparingly, and the 
 underlessee asking for its exercise must shew 
 that he is blameless, and has taken all precau- 
 tions which a reasonably cautious au'l careful 
 person would use. 
 
 Where, therefore, L. pui'chased an underlease 
 under a contract which did not give him a right 
 to call for the title of the original lessee, who 
 was bound by covenant not to assign or underlet 
 without licence, and he purchased with the in- 
 tention of laying out a considerable sum upon 
 the property : — 
 
 Held, that L. had been guilty of negligence 
 in entering into such a contract, that he was pre- 
 cluded from properly investigating the title, and 
 that relief against a forfeiture by the original 
 lessee for breach of the covenant ought not to be 
 granted to him. Imray v. Oakshette 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q, B. 218 
 
 63. — Relief — Underlease — Frotection of 
 underlessee — VeMing order — Pvhlic-house — ■ Dis- 
 cretion of Court — Variation in amount of rent — ■ 
 Conveyancing Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 13), s. 4. 
 
 Action by lessors to recover possession of a 
 tavern let on lease to 0. & Co. for a term of years 
 at a yearly rent of 3001. The lease gave a power 
 of re-entry to the lessors if and whenever the 
 lessees or their assigns being a co. should enter 
 into liquidation whether compulsory or voluntary. 
 By underlease C. & Co., iu consideration of a 
 premium of 8000Z., sub-let the tavern to the deft. 
 F. for a period of years at a yearly rent of 800i., 
 reducible to 300Z. so long as he should get his 
 beers from C. & Co. This the deft. F. had 
 always done. 
 
 Subsequently C. & Co. and two other brewing 
 COS. amalgamated, and for this purpose each of 
 the amalgamating cos. went into voluntary 
 liquidation. 
 
 Pits, claimed that the liquidation of C, & Co, 
 
( 1073 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 107i ) 
 
 lANDLOBD AND TENANT (Forfeiture)— conidl. 
 was a forfeiture of the lease. Deft. F. counter- 
 claimed for an order under the Convejancing 
 Act, 1892, vesting in him the demised premises 
 for the residue of the underlease : — 
 
 Meld, on the authority of Sorsey Estate, Ld. 
 V. Steiger, [1899] 2 Q. B. 79, tliat there was a 
 forfeiture, and that the lease and the underlease 
 were absolutely gone. The Legislature by s. 4 
 of the Conveyancing Act, 1892, did not revive 
 the underlease, but vested a new estate in the 
 underlessee. The vesting might be for part of 
 the term or of part of the property, but it could 
 not be for any longer term than the original sub- 
 demise. The section conferred upon the Court a 
 very wide discretion as to the conditions upon 
 which a vesting order should be granted, and 
 enabled it to impose such conditions as tlie 
 circumstances of each particular case miglit re- 
 quire. The covenant as to buying beer from 
 C. & Co. would, of course, not be inserted in the 
 new lease. Upon the evidence the rent of 3001. 
 was too small a rent to pay for the tavern if it 
 was not a tied house. There would be a reference 
 to chambers to consider what was a fair rent. 
 EwAET V. Fktee Eekewich J. [1900] W. N. 82 ; 
 this case was affirmed by C, A, 
 [1901] W. N. 2; [1901] 1 Ch. 499 
 
 64. — Belief — Underlessee — Vesting order — 
 Pra etice — Defence and counter-claim — Con vey- 
 ancinq Acts, 1881, 1892 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, ss. 14, 
 69 ; 55 & 56 Vict. e. 13, s. 4). 
 
 An application by an underlessee for a vesting 
 order under s. 4 of the Conveyancing Act, 1892, 
 may be made by defence and counter-claim in the 
 lessor's action for possession. Cholmelet School, 
 HiGHGATE V. Sewell (No. 1) - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 254 
 
 65. — Belief — Underlessee of part of premises 
 — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), 
 s. 14. 
 
 The Court cannot relieve an underlessee of 
 part of the demised premises from a forfeiture 
 incurred for breach of covenant to repair contained 
 in the head lease. Bcbt v. Gbat 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 98 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Nind v. Nineteenth 
 Oektuet Bdilding Society [1894] 2 ft. B. 226 
 
 See now Conveyancing Act, 1892 (55 & 56 
 ^^ict. u. 13), s. 4. 
 
 66. — Belief — Underletting — Mistake — Forget- 
 
 A tenant, contrary to his covenant, underlet 
 vithout the written consent of the landlord. The 
 lonsent, if asked, must have been granted. Tiie 
 imission was solely due to the solicitor forgetting 
 examine the head lease. The landlord claimed 
 re-enter : — 
 
 Held, that omission to ask for consent due to 
 he forgetfulness of the tenant's agent was not a 
 mistake " in respect of which the Court could 
 :rant equitable relief against forfeiture for breach 
 f covenant. Baekow v. Isaacs & Son 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B, 417 
 
 Followed. Eastern Telegraph Co. v. Dent, 
 . A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 835. No. 58, above. . 
 
 LANDLORD AND T'ESKST— continued. 
 Parnished House. 
 
 67. — Fitness for occupation — Continuance of 
 condition during term. 
 
 On the letting of furnished lodgings there is 
 no implied agreement that the lodgings shall 
 continue fit for ocoupatiou during the term. 
 Sakson v. Eoberts C, A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 395 
 
 Landlord's Liability. 
 
 68. — Block of offices — Dangerous staircase — 
 Implied agreement to repair. 
 
 The deft, owned a building and Jet different 
 floors separately as chambers and offices, retain- 
 ing in his own possession and control the stair- 
 case, which was the only means of access : — 
 
 Held, that there was by implication an agree- 
 ment by the landlord with his tenants to keep 
 the staircase in repair, and therefore a duty on 
 the landlord's part towards peisons having busi- 
 ness with the tenants and using the staiioase to 
 keep it in repair. Mili,ee v. Hancock 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 177 
 
 69. — Dangerous condition of demised premises 
 — Landlord under no covenant to repair — Injury 
 to person using premises — Liability of landlord — 
 Negligence. 
 
 A landlord who lets an unfurnished house in 
 a dangerous condition, he being under no liability 
 to keep it in repair, is not liable to his tenant, or 
 to a person using the premises, for personal in- 
 juries happening during the term, and due to the 
 defective state of the house. Lane v. Cox 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 415 
 
 70. — Implied grant — Derogation — Measure of 
 damages — Damage by vibration caused by lessor 
 on adjacent land. 
 
 A lessor sued a lessee for rent. The lessee 
 counter-claimed for damages from a nuisance 
 caused by the lessor, who worked a pump on land 
 adjacent to that leased, and caused a house on it 
 to be useless. The house was old at the com- 
 mencement of the term, and the vibration would 
 not have injured a reasonably solid house : — 
 
 Held, that the lessor was liable under an im- 
 plied obligation not to derogate from his grant, 
 and could not therefore rely upon any defence 
 by user of adjoining property so as to interfere 
 with the stability of the demised premises founded 
 on the state of the house at the commencement 
 of the term : — 
 
 Held, also, that the lessee was entitled to 
 damages, not only for the value of the term, but 
 also for expenses which were a natural cons:;- 
 quence of the lessor's tort, such as the expense 
 of removing his business. Gbosvenok Hotel 
 Co. u. Hamilton C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 836 
 
 71. — Lease for express purpose — Derogation 
 from grant — Easement — Access of air. 
 
 The grantor of land to be used for a particu- 
 lar purpose is under an obligation to abstain 
 from doing anything on his adjoining property 
 which would prevent the land granted from 
 being used for the purpose for which the grant 
 was made. An easement to access of air is uot 
 acquired by a grant in general terms, and not for 
 a specific purpose, excej)t where such right is 
 enjoyed through a 4efiftite aperture or (jefiftite 
 
( 1075 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1076 ) 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (landlord's Lia- 
 
 tility) — continued. 
 channel. M. sold the goodwill of a bnsiness and 
 leased the premises on ■which it was carried on 
 to A. A. covenanted to carry on the business 
 during the terro, and M. covenanted for quiet 
 enjoyment. M. died. L. & Co. purchased land 
 from his representatives, including the parcel 
 leased to A. and adjoining land, and erected 
 buildings thereon, which obstructed the access of 
 air necessary to A.'s business : — 
 
 Held, that L. & Co. were under an obligation 
 to abstain from doing anything on the adjoining 
 land which would substantially interfere with 
 the carrying on of the business. A. by a revo- 
 cable licence from M. put up certain ventilators 
 which were obstructed by L. & Co.'s buildings : — 
 
 Held, that as the licence was revocable A. was 
 not entitled to an injunction, but was entitled to 
 an inquiry as to damages. ALDI^f v. Latimer 
 Clakke, Muibiiead & Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch. 437 
 
 72, — Premises let in floors — Injury from over- 
 flowing cistern — Negligence of plumber. 
 
 The deft, was the owner of premises to which 
 water was laid on, and he had a cistern on the 
 fourth floor. The pit. became tenant of the 
 ground floor, and took his supply of water from 
 tlie deft. A leakage from the cistern having 
 been noticed by the pit., ho informed the deft., 
 who instructed a competent plumber to remedy 
 it. In consequence of the negligence of the 
 plumber an overflow occurred, which damaged 
 the plt.'s goods : — 
 
 Seld, that the deft, was not liable, since the 
 pit. La,d assented to the water being on the pre- 
 mises, and therefore the deft., by instructing a 
 competent plumber to remedy the leakage, had 
 discharged his duty to the pit. Blake v. Wooli' 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 426 
 
 Lease. 
 
 By the Conveyancing Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict, 
 c. 13), ilie Act of 1881 was amended. 
 
 — Agreement for — Signature not final — Parol 
 
 evidence 
 
 See CoNTKAOT — Formation. 15. 
 
 — Agreement for lease — Statute of Frauds. 
 
 See Cases under Fkauds, Statute of. 
 
 — Agricultural holdings. 
 
 See Landlokd and Tenant — Agricul- 
 tural Holdings. 
 
 — Bribe from lessee — Eeceipt of — Validity. 
 
 See Settled Land — Leases. 67. 
 
 — Building estate — Restriction as to number of 
 
 houses — Flat. 
 See Covenant. 5. 
 
 ■ — Clergyman's residence — Agreement for letting 
 for — Erection of huts for evicted 
 tenants. 
 See Ireland. 1. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor. 
 
 — Covenants. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant— Covenant. 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Zense)— continued. 
 
 — Determination of tenancy. 
 
 See Laudlord and Tenant — Determi- 
 nation of Tenancy and Holding Over. 
 
 — Distress. 
 
 See Cases under Distress. 
 
 — Entry. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Entry, 
 
 — Fines on renewal of lease for lives — Copyholds 
 
 — Income or capital. 
 See Settled Land. 50. 
 
 — Forfeiture. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — For- 
 feiture, 
 
 — Glebe lands — Ecclesiastical leasing — Contract 
 
 for sale by vicar — Non-payment of prin- 
 cipal — Vendor's lien. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Lien. 56, 
 56a. 
 
 — Gold lease application — Appeal from interim 
 
 injunction — Trespass — New South 
 Wales Mining on Private Lands Act. 
 See New South "Wales, 37. 
 
 — Gold mines. 
 
 See Mines — Gold Mines, 
 
 — Golf ground — Lease or licence — Interest in 
 
 land. 
 See Golf, 
 
 — Ground game. 
 
 See Cases under Game. 
 
 — Improvements — Permanent building by lessee 
 
 — Eight of removal. 
 
 See Cape op Good Hope. 5. 
 
 — Income tax — Power of landlord to pay, with 
 
 right of recovery. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. 
 0. 10), s. 10. 
 
 — Income tax — Separate leases of grazing and 
 
 shootings over farm. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax, 99. 
 
 — Income tax on renewal flues. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 95. 
 
 — Infant — ^Adoption on full age of lease made by 
 
 trustees. 
 
 See Infant — Contracts. 3. 
 
 73, — Interesse termini — Covenant for quiet 
 enjoyment — Trespass — Damages. 
 
 A person having only an interesse termini 
 cannot maintain an action on a covenant for quiet 
 enjoyment ; nor an action for trespass, nor for 
 damages. Wallis v. Hands 
 
 CMtty J, [1893] 2 Ch. 75 
 
 74. — Interesse termini — Freelwld leases — Sur- 
 render of Leases Act, 1730 (4 Geo. 2, c. 28), s. 6. 
 
 The phrase is not applicable to freehold 
 leases. Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Tbeb- 
 MEB - Chitty J, [1893] 1 Ch. 166 
 
 — Joint tenancy. 
 
 See Cases under Joint Tenancy. 
 
 — Liability of landlord. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Landlord's 
 Liability. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of — Agreement for lease, 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 
 
( 1077 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1078 ) 
 
 LANDLOED AND TENANT (lease)— coniimted 
 
 — Lwnatie. 
 
 See Lunacy — leases, 
 
 — Merger — Agreement for lease — Life estate 
 
 — Intention — Benefit. 
 See Mekger. 1. 
 
 — Minerals. 
 
 See Mines — Leases. 
 
 — Mortgage. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant —Mortgages. 
 
 — Option to purchase. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Option to 
 Fnrchase. 
 
 75. — Parcels — Hight of way —Misdescription 
 — Falsa demonstratio— Common mistalce — Hectifi- 
 cation — Construction of lease. 
 
 Where in a grant or devise the desjription of 
 parcels is made up of more than one part, and 
 one part is true and the other false, there, if the 
 part whicli is true describes the subject with 
 jsufiBcient legal certainty, the untrue part will be 
 rejected as falsa demonstratio, and will not 
 vitiate the grant or devise. The doctrine is not 
 to bo confined to cases where the first part of the 
 description is true and the latter untrue, it being 
 immaterial in what part of the description the 
 falsa demonstratio occurs. 
 
 Rooms on the second floor of Nos. 13 and 11, 
 Old Bond Street were demised, together with free 
 ingress and egress for the lessee " through the 
 stain 'ase and passages of No. 13 " to and from 
 tlie demised premises : there was no staircase in 
 No. 13 leading to the demised premises, but 
 there was a staircase in No. 14 : — 
 
 Held, upon the evidence, that there had been 
 a common mistake, the intention of the parties 
 being that the lessee should have the use of the 
 staircase of No. 14, and that accordingly the 
 doctrine of falsa demonstratio did not apply; 
 but the Court ordered the lease to be rectified by 
 the substitution of the staircase of " No. 14 " for 
 that of "No. 13," thus in effect aflirming the 
 order of Eomer J., [1898] W. N. 81 (8) ; [1898] 
 2 Ch. 551. CowEN V. Teuefitt, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 102 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 309 
 
 — Premium on leases — Execution of power of 
 
 appointment over real estate. 
 See Power. 5. 
 
 — Proof by lessor — Winding-up of insolvent 
 
 company. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Proof. 
 207—209. 
 
 — Quiet enjoyment — Covenant for. 
 
 See No. 19—23, 73, uhove. 
 
 — Recovery of possession 
 
 See Cases under Limitations, Statute 
 OF — Possession. 
 
 — Ee-entry — Forfeiture. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Forfeiture. 
 
 — Eent. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Eent. 
 
 — Eesoission — Innocent misrepresentation — In- 
 
 demnity. 
 
 See Contract — Eesoission. 32. 
 
 — Sale of leaseholds — Deeds recited but not 
 
 abstracted in chief. 
 
 ;gfee Venpor.anp PoBOHASBR — Title. 86, 
 
 lANDLOED AND TENANT (Lease)— continued. 
 
 — Settled land. 
 
 See Settled Land — Leases. 
 
 — Severance — Effect of marriage. 
 
 See Joint Tenancy. 2. 
 
 — Specific performance. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Specific 
 Performance. 
 
 — Sporting rights. 
 
 See Cases under Game. 
 
 — Stamp — Yearly payment for automatic 
 
 machine. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. ] 40. 
 
 — Stamp — Yearly payment for telephonic com- 
 
 munication. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 140. 
 
 — Surrender. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — -Surrender. 
 
 — Tenant at will — Doing of repairs by landlord 
 
 — Determination of will. 
 See Limitations, Statute of — Tenancy 
 at "Will. 14. 
 
 — Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Underlease. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Under- 
 lease. 
 
 76. — Validity — Consideration — Receipt clause 
 — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. u. 41), 
 s. 18, sub-s. 6 ; s. 55. J - ■ 
 
 A lease was granted for ninety-nine years in 
 consideration, inter alia, of moneys expended on 
 building : — 
 
 Held, on the evidence, that the lease was 
 invalid under s. 18, sub-s. 6, of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881, as not reserving the best rent without 
 any fine being taken : 
 
 Held, also, that the statement of the con- 
 sideration was not a "receipt" which would give 
 a purchaser of the lease the benefit of s. 55 of the 
 same Act. Eenker v. Tolley 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] W. N. 90 
 
 — Valuation of fixtures, crops, &o. — Sale by 
 
 tenant for life. 
 
 See Settled Land. 45. 
 
 77. — Waste — "Ameliorating waste" — "Im- 
 provements." 
 
 To obtain an injunction against a tenant to 
 restrain waste it must be proved that what the 
 tenant is doing is prejudicial to the inheritance. 
 If it improves the value of the land it is not 
 waste. " Ameliorating waste " discussed. Meux 
 V. CoBLBY - Kekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 253 
 
 — Waste — Sub-demise for purpose of rubbish 
 
 shoot — Alteration of demised premises. 
 See Waste. 2. 
 
 — Water — Covenant — Diversion of spring — 
 
 " Stream." 
 
 See Water — Water Eights, 38. 
 
 — Water rate — Covenant to pay — ^Water supplied 
 
 for trade purposes. 
 
 See Water— Water Bates. 29. 
 
( 1079 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1080 ) 
 
 LANDLOED AND TENANT— confa'nMed. 
 
 mortgages. 
 
 — Lease — By mortgagor in possession — Fore- 
 closure by mortgagee — Lease binding 
 on moitgagee. 
 See MoRTSAGE — lease, 41. 
 
 78. — Mortgage— Subsequent lease hy mort- 
 gagor — Notice to pay rent to mortgagee. 
 
 A mortgagor let the mortgaged premises 
 subsequently to the mortgage : — 
 
 Held, that the mere fact of the tenant re- 
 maining in possession after notice to pay rent to 
 the mortgagees was not evidence of an agreement 
 that he should become tenant to the mortgagee. 
 TowEKSON V. Jackson C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 484 
 
 79. — Mortgagor in possession — Ejectment for 
 breach of covenant — Be-entri/ — Judicature Act, 
 1873 (.S6 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, suh-s. 5. 
 
 The Judicature Act, 1873, s. 2.5, sub-s. 5, 
 does not give to a mortgagor in possession of 
 laud, subject to a lease, the right to re-enter for 
 breach of the covenants of the lease. Matthews 
 V. USHEB C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 535 
 
 79a. — Relation of landlord and tenant under 
 attornment clause in mortgage — Conveyancing Act, 
 1881 (44 * 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 18. 
 
 A mortgagor in possession leased to A., pur- 
 suant to s. 18 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, the 
 mortgagees not being parties :— 
 
 Held, that A.'s lease was binding on the 
 mortgagees. Wilson v. Queen's Club 
 
 Eomer J, [1891] 3 Ch. 522 
 
 Option to Forchase. 
 
 80. — "Assigns" — EquitaMe assignees — Posses- 
 sion — Notice — 1 Vaiver. 
 
 Decision of Roraer J., [1898] W. N. 150 (7); 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 8G, reversed on the facts ; the corre- 
 spondence bi tween the parties shewing that the 
 contracting parties had proceeded on the assump- 
 tion that the pits., though equitable assignees 
 only of tlie lease, were entitled to exercise the 
 option of purchase thereby given, and also shew- 
 ing that the delt., the reversioner in fee, had 
 waived the notice required by the lease to be 
 given of (he intention to exercise the option. 
 Fbiaky Holroyd and Healey's Bkewekies, Ld. 
 0. Singleton C. A. [1899] W. N. 96 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 261 
 
 81. — Building agreement — Interest of tenant 
 after exercise of option — Breach of conditions — 
 Boioer of landlord to determine. 
 
 By a liuilding agreement the deft, agreed to 
 erect certain buildings, and carry out certain 
 works, on the plt.'s land within a specified time, 
 and " forthwith to proceed " with and complete 
 the works, when a lease for ninety-nine years 
 was to be granted ; the agreement provided that 
 if the deft, did not perform the several stipula- 
 tions therein contained, the pit. might by notice 
 in writing determine the agreement and re-enter ; 
 it also contained an option to the deft, to purchase 
 the freehold. The pit. being dissatisfied with the 
 slow progress made by the deft., gave him notice 
 to determine the agreement ; but the deft, haviug 
 previously gi ven notice to the pit. of his intention 
 to exercise the option to purcjiq.se, deplined to 
 
 lANDLOED AND TENANT (Option to Purchase) 
 
 — continued. 
 give up possession. On an action by the pit. to 
 restrain the deft, from trespassing on or inter- 
 fering with the plt.'s possession of the land : — 
 
 Held, on the evidence, that the deft, had made 
 default in not " forthwith proceeding " to carry 
 out the stipulations of the agreement; but that 
 as there was no condition precedent that the deft, 
 should not have committed any breach of the con- 
 ditions contained in the building agreement, the 
 option to purchase was well exercised, and a 
 binding contract was thereby made for the sale 
 and purchase of the property; that the deter- 
 mination of the leasing part of the building 
 agreement by the notice given to the deft, for 
 breach of its conditions, did not destroy or affect 
 the contract for sale created by the exercise of 
 the option to purchase ; and that the plt.'s action 
 must therefore be dismissed. 
 
 The rights and position of a purchaser in the 
 interval between the commencement of the con- 
 tract and the completion of the purchase dis- 
 cussed. Baffety v. Sohomeld 
 
 Eomer J. [1897] 1 Ch. 937 
 
 — Machinery — Rent— Damages for breach of 
 
 contract. 
 
 See Company — WiNiiXNQ-tP — Set-off. 
 230. 
 82. — Option io purchase within prescribed 
 time — Construction of clause — Date of notice. 
 
 A lease contained an option to purchase the 
 leasehold premises within three years on giving 
 six months' previous notice : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the notice, to be in time, must be 
 given so as to fall within the three years, i.e., not 
 later than two and a half years after the period 
 began to run. Eiddell v. DtrKUFOBD 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 30 
 
 Eent. 
 
 See also under Rent. 
 
 — Arrears of rent — Lien — Priority — Payment by 
 
 sheriff — In demnity. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Execution. 10 1. 
 
 ' Beat rent." 
 
 See Settled Land- 
 
 -Leaser. 67. 
 
 83, — Company — Winding-up — Proof by lessor. 
 
 The rule had down in Hardy v. FothergiU, 
 (1888) 13 App. Gas. 851, does not apply where a 
 lessor is proving, in respect of the liability of his 
 lessee under a suljsisting lease, whether the lessee 
 is an insolvent eo. which is being wound up, or is 
 a bankiupt. 
 
 Where such a co. was the lessee of l.ind for 
 fourteen years, with a power to determine the 
 lease at the end of seven years on paying tlio 
 rent and peiforming the covenants up to date, 
 and the winding-up took place before the end of 
 seven years: — 
 
 Held, that the lessor was entitled to claim in 
 respect of the liability of the oo. as if the lease 
 bad been for fourteen years certain. In re New 
 Oriental Bank Corporation (No. 2) 
 
 V. WilUams J. [1896] 1 Ch. 753 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. In re Panther 
 lead Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 978, 
 
( 1881 ) 
 
 biofes* 0# CASfiS, 1881— 1^00. 
 
 ( 108§ ) 
 
 lANDIORfi AND TENANT (Rent)— con^mued. 
 
 84. — Company~Winding-iip— Proof for rent 
 -^Adcance rent — Apportionment. 
 
 A. let a shop to a co., leut payable quarterly, 
 " two quarters' rent to be always due and pay- 
 able in advance if required." On Dec. 20 the co. 
 went into voluntary liquidation, but the liqui- 
 dator continued to occupy the shop. On Deo. 28 
 A. demanded the rent due Dec. 25 and two 
 quarters in advance, and on refusal of payment 
 A. distrained : — 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that the rent for the 
 Dec. quarter must be apportioned, and tijat A. 
 could only prove for the rent accruing up to 
 Deo. 20, but that they were entitled to be paid in 
 full for the rest of the Dec. quiirter and so much 
 of the next two quarters as the liquidator should 
 continue in beneficial occupation ; but for the 
 remainder of those two quarters they could only 
 prove ill the liquidation. Shaokell & Co. v. 
 Choelton & Sons Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 378 
 
 — Distress — Chattels of lessee on adjoining 
 
 mines. 
 
 See Minks— Distress. 8. 
 
 — Distress for rent. 
 
 See Cases under Distress. 
 
 — Eviction, Apportionment on — Kent payable in 
 
 advance. 
 
 See Apportionment. 1. 
 
 — Non-payment of rent — Hotchpot clause — 
 
 Absolute title of tenant. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 23. 
 
 85. — Payablein advanceif required— Demand 
 — Distress — Heasonable notice. 
 
 A tenant agreed to pay his rent "quarlerly 
 oil the usual quarterly days and always if re- 
 quired ill advance " : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the effect of this agreement 
 was I hat the rent was due throughout in advance ; 
 (2) that whether any demand was made or not 
 the demand might be made at any time during 
 the currency of the quarter, and distress might 
 follow immediately on demand, if delay would 
 defeat the landlord's remedy. London and 
 Westminstek Loan'Anu Discount Co. v. London 
 and North "Western Ey. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft, E. 49 
 86. — Re-entry for non-payment of rent— Con- 
 struction of proviso. 
 
 Proviso granting right of re-entry " if and 
 whenever any one quarter's rent should be in 
 arrear for twenty-one days and no sufficient dis- 
 tress could be found " : — 
 
 Held, that the landlord could enforce the 
 proviso after levying a distress which was only 
 ijufficient to pay two out of the three quarters' 
 rent owing. sShephbrd v. Bergbb 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 697 
 — Rent, repairs, and renewal fines — Apportion- 
 ment between tenant for life and re- 
 mainderman. 
 See Settled Land. 10. 
 
 87. — Sub-lease hy assignee — Liability of stib- 
 lessee — Bent reserved by original lease — Payment 
 by lessee — Indemnity — money paid. 
 
 The lessees of premises having assigned the 
 term, the assignee mortgaged the premises by 
 
 LANDLOBD AND TENANT Client)— continued. 
 way of sub-demise. The mortgage provided 
 that, upon default by the mortgagor, the mort- 
 gagees might enter into possession, or receipt of 
 the rents and profits of the premises, and demise 
 or sell the same, and out of moneys so received 
 by them, whether rs rents and profits or pur> 
 chase-money, should in the first place pay the 
 rent reserved by the original lease. The mort- 
 gagees, having entered into possession, did not 
 pay rent which accrued due under the lease 
 while they were in possession. The lessees, 
 having been compelled to pay it, sued the mort- 
 gagees to recover the amount so paid by them : — 
 Held, that the action was not maintainable. 
 Moule V. Garrett, (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 132 ; 
 (1872) 7 Ex. 101, distinguished. Bonner v. 
 Tottenham and Edmonton Permanent Invest- 
 ment Building Society 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 165 (10); [1899] 1 ft. B. 161 
 
 88. — Tithe rent-charge — Payment by tenant — 
 From what rent deduction may be made. 
 
 Each deductiuu in respect of a payment <if 
 tithe rent-charge under s. 80 of the Tithe Act, 
 1836, should be made from the next payment of 
 rent, and cannot be brought into account in the 
 payment of any subsequent rent. Dawes v. 
 Thomas - - C, A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 414 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Landlord and 
 Tenant. 
 
 Specific Performance. 
 
 89. — Agreement — Personal arrangement or 
 lease for lives. 
 
 By an agreement premises were let upon cer- 
 tain conditions, the landlord agreeing (inter 
 alia) that if the said conditions were kept and 
 the rent paid on the usual quarter days he would 
 not raise the rent of the premises nor terminate 
 the tenancy of the tenant or his wife. Upon an 
 action of ejectment: — 
 
 Held, that the tenant was entitled to a lease 
 of the premises for the lives of himself and his 
 wife (who was living). The lease to be settled 
 by the Court in case the parties differ. 
 
 Duxbnry v. Sandiford, (1808) 78 L. T. (N.S.) 
 230, questioned and not followed. 
 
 This case was reversed by C. A. (1899) 80 
 L. T. (N.S.) 552; Record of Business, [1898] 
 W. N. 161. Mardell v. Curtis 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1899^ W. N. 93 
 
 — Covenant — Porter — Residential flats. 
 See No. 46, abore. 
 
 Surrender, 
 
 90, — Covenant — Licence for sale of wine and 
 beer — Implied covenant by tenant not to surrender. 
 
 A lease of licensed premises contained a cove- 
 nant not to carry on any other business than that 
 of retailer of tobacco, wine, and beer to be con- 
 sumed off the premises, with a proviso for re- 
 entry in case of the tenant ceasing to carry on 
 such business : — 
 
 Held, that there was no implied obligation on 
 the tenant not to surrender the licence. 
 
( 1088 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1084 ) 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT (Surrender)— ccmM. 
 Decision of North J., [1897] W. y. 39 (7), 
 affirmed. Laoon v. Laceby 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 46 (3) 
 
 See upon anotlier point. Laceet ». Lacon & 
 Co. - - - [1899] A. C. 222 
 
 — Determination of tenancy — Estoppel by con- 
 
 duct. 
 
 See No. 40, above. 
 
 91. — Parol consent — Statute of Frauds. 
 Parol consent of an old tenant to a new lease 
 
 does not operate as a surrender of the old lease 
 by operation of law or otherwise, so as to take the 
 case out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds, 
 s. 3. There is no surrender by operation of law, 
 unless the old tenant give up possession to the 
 new tenant at or about the time of the grant of 
 the new lease to which he assents. "Wali.is r. 
 Hands Chitty J. [1893] 2 Cli. 75 
 
 92. — Underleases — Effect of surrender on — 
 Conveyance as '* beneficial owner " — Implied cove- 
 nants/or title — Secret incumbrances. 
 
 S., the deft., conveyed as " beneficial owner " 
 lands to B., who sold them to the pit. S. liad 
 previously granted a lease to B. ■which B. had 
 surrendered, but without informing S. that lie 
 had, when lessee, granted sub-leases by way of 
 mortgage. After B. had bought the land the sub- 
 leases were discovered, and B. claimed damages 
 from S. for breach of covenant against incum- 
 brances implied in his conveyance as beneficial 
 owner : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the sub-lessees claimed 
 through S. ; that the term had not been merged 
 by the surrender fo as to exclude the sub-leases, 
 and consequently, as S.'s covenant ran with the 
 land, and B.'s fraud did not, S. was liable to the 
 nit. for damages. 
 
 The decision of Eomcr J., [1892] W. N. 115, 
 reversed. Davjd v. Sabin C. A, [1893] 1 Ch. 523 
 
 Underlease. 
 
 — Covenant — Quiet enjoyment — Re-entry by 
 
 original lessor for breach of covenant. 
 See No. 23, above. 
 
 93. — Covenants — Sub-lease — Implied cove- 
 nants for title or for quiet enjoyment — Duration of 
 covenants. 
 
 A. held a term of years in a house and sub- 
 leased it to B. liy indenture for ii term exceeding 
 his own term, acting by mistake but In good faith. 
 The sub-leate did not contain the word "demise," 
 nor any express covenants for title or lor quiet 
 enjoyment: — 
 
 Held, that, assuming that in the absence of 
 the word "demise" either of such covenants 
 could be implied in the lease, the duration of the 
 covenant was limited by that of the lessor's own 
 estate, and that consequently the pits, could not 
 recover. 
 
 The decision of Lord Russell of Killowen C.J., 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 820, afBimed. Bavnes & Co. v. 
 Lloyd & Sons - C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 610 
 
 — Eftect of surrender on underleases. 
 
 See No. 92, above. 
 
 94. — Grant or assignment of— Title—" Lease- 
 
 LANDLOED AND TENANT (Underlease)— co«<<i. 
 liold reversion" — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 41), B. 3, sub-s. 1 ; s. 13, sub-s. 1. 
 
 On a contract to underlet, or to assign an 
 underlease, the underlessee or purchaser has a 
 rinbt to call for the lease of the lessor or assignor. 
 "Leasehold reversion" (Conveyancing Act, 1881, 
 s. 13, sub-s. 1, s. 3, sub-s. l),a title to whicli need 
 not be shewn to an underlessee or assignee, means 
 the leasehold reversion to the lease out of which 
 the sub-le6se is to be granted, and not the rever- 
 sion to the underlease. Gosltng v. 'Woot.f 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 39 
 
 95. — Senewal, Covenant for — Ptrsonal cove- 
 nant — Covenant running with land — Perpetuity — • 
 Assignee of reversion — 32 Hen. 8, c. 34, s. 2. 
 
 D. A., who was sub-lessee of certain premises, 
 demised the same to P. fon the residue of the 
 term then vested in him less ihe last days there- 
 of, and covenanted for himself, his executors, 
 administi'ators and assigns, that in case he should 
 obtain from tlie freeholdtr, his heirs or assigns, 
 any extension of the term for which he then held 
 the premises, then he, his executors, adminis- 
 trators or assigns, would grant to P. a new lease 
 for such extended term as would include the un- 
 expired residue of the original term granted to 
 P., and the further term, less the last days 
 thereof, which might be granted to D. A. by the 
 freeholder, his heirs or assigns. D. A. died, and 
 his reversion became vested in the deft., who 
 surrendered his term to the freeholder and 
 obtained from him a new lease for an extended 
 term, sulject to existing underleases. P. having 
 died, the pit. acquired from his executors his 
 interest in the premises, and then claimed 
 specific performance of D. A.'s covenant with 
 P\:— 
 
 Held, (1) on the construction of the covenant, 
 that it was personal to D. A. alone, and did not 
 bind his representatives; (2) that the covenant 
 was not strictly a covenant for renewal, and did 
 not on that account run with the land; but, 
 assuming that it did run with the land, the 
 doctrine of perpetuity had no application ; and 
 (3), following Brereton v. tuoheij, (1858) 8 Ir. 
 C. L. Eep. 190, Kent v. Stoney, (185U) 9 Ir. Cli. 
 Rep. 249, and Coey v. Paseoe, (1899) Ir. Ch. 12.% 
 that the covenant ran with the reversii n which 
 was vested in the covenantor at the time when he 
 entered into the covenant; and, consequently, 
 that the statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 34, s. 2, did not 
 apply. On these grounds the action was dis- 
 missed. MuLLEK V. Tkaffokd 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 251 ; 
 see [ISOl] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 — Sale of underlease — Scale charge. 
 
 See SoLiciTOK — Costs. a5. 
 
 — Underlessee — Forfeiture — Relief. 
 
 See Nos. 62 — 66, above. 
 
 — Underlessee — Restrictive covenant — Tied 
 
 public-house — Mortgagor and mort- 
 gagee — Assigns — Notice. 
 See CovENAHT. 7. 
 LANDOWNEB — Railway company — Way-leave 
 — Construction — Ancient document — 
 Contemporaneous usage or interpreta- 
 tion. 
 See Way-leave. 
 
( 1685 ) 
 
 uiGEST 01* CASES, 1891—1966. 
 
 ( l08(5 ) 
 
 i.ANDS CLAUSES ACTS. 
 
 Compensation, col. 1085, 
 Costs, col. 1089. 
 Practice Generally, col. 1091. 
 Superfluous Lands, col. 1092. 
 
 ' Compensation. 
 
 1. — Apportionment — Minerals — Apportion- 
 ment of compensation moneys between capital aiid 
 income — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <£ 9 Vict, 
 c. 18), s. 69. . 
 
 Minerals were bought by a ry., and the pro- 
 ceeds paid into court. A tenant for life claimed 
 the whole sum or at least an apportioned pj,i t, on 
 the ground that, being unimpeachable for waste, 
 he might have gotten all the minerals in his 
 lifetime : — 
 
 Seld, that as the case was governed by s. 69 
 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1815, there could be no 
 apportionment of capital, and he was only entitled 
 to the income. In re Robinson's Settlement 
 Trusts Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 129 
 
 2. — Compulsory purchase — Charitable land — 
 Payment into court — Ileinvestm,ent — Costs — Lands 
 Clauses Act, 1815 (8 <{; 9 Vict. u. 18), ss. 69, 
 76, 80. 
 
 Petition for the investment in tlie name of the 
 official of charitable property of money in court 
 paid in by tiie Corporation of Leeds as the 
 purchase-money for land vested in the otBcial 
 trustee of charitable land on trust for the Leeds 
 Grammar School, taken under compulsory powers 
 by the Leeds Corporation. The amount of 
 purchase-money was determined by arbitration 
 between the governors of the Leeds Grammar 
 School and the corporation. A dispute arose 
 between the parties as to whether tlie purchase- 
 money ought to be paid into court. The corpora- 
 tion insisted that the trustees and the official 
 trustee of charitable land could and ought, with 
 the concurrence of the Charity Commrs., give 
 a good discharge for the purchase-money. They 
 paid the money into court, as under s. 76 of the 
 Lands Clauses Act, 1845. 
 
 The Court considered the purchase an ordinary 
 compulsory purchase from a party under disability, 
 and that the purchase-money was necessarily paid 
 into Court, and made the common order for the 
 corporation to pay the costs of the petition. In re 
 Leeds Gbammab School 
 
 Cozens-Haf dy J. [1900] W. N. 250 
 
 3. — Copyholds — Enfranchisement — Fines — 
 Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <fc 9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 95, 
 96, 97. 
 
 A ry., which had taken copyholds in 1873, 
 was required by the lord to enfranchise in 
 1887 :— 
 
 Held, that in view of the obligation imposed 
 by the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, ss. 96, 97, on the 
 CO. to enfranchise within one month of taking 
 copyholds or three months from the enrolment of 
 the conveyance, the compensation for enfranchise- 
 ment must be assessed on the value of the lands 
 at the time when they were taken or the convey- 
 ance enrolled ; but fines payable on other occa- 
 sions, e.g., on the death of a lord, were to be 
 assessed on the value of the land when the fines 
 
 LANDS CLAUSES ACTS (Compensation)— conM. 
 
 became due after the taking and prior to the 
 enrolment of the conveyance. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J., [1891] 3 Ch. 443, 
 reversed. Lowtiier v. Caledonian Ey.-Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 See also In re Marquis of Salisbury and 
 London and North Western Ry. Co., Jessel M.K. 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 75, n. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Lands Clauses AoTS^Costs. 
 
 — Covenant for quiet enjoyment — Injury to lessee 
 
 — Statutory powers. 
 See Eailwat. 3. 
 
 4. ^- Easement — School site — Eight of way — 
 Compensation — Injunction — Lands Clauses Act, 
 1845 (8 (fc 9 Vict. c. 18), s. 68. 
 
 An easement taken under the Lands Clauses 
 Act, 1845, is taken as " land," but the procedure 
 for compensation is difi'ercDt from that when the 
 soil is taken and the remedy of the owner of the 
 tenement over which the easement is taken is 
 under s. 68 of the Act. London School Board 
 V. Smith - Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 37 
 
 5. — Interest less than a year — Magistrate's 
 power — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <fc 9 Vict. u. 18), 
 ss. 8.5, 121. _ 
 
 If a notice to treat is given but not acted on 
 the notice is of no eflect. The question whether 
 a magistrate has power to determine the amount 
 of compensation under s. 121 of the Lands Clauses 
 Act, 1845, depends on whether the tenure be 
 yearly or loss at the time when possession taken, 
 not what it was when the abortive notice was 
 given. Keg. v. Kennedy 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 633 
 
 Considered and explained. See next Case. 
 
 6. — Interest less than a year — Taking part 
 of land — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 tfc 9 Vict, 
 c. 18), ss. 85, 121. 
 
 N. held land on lease for thirty years from 
 1889, determinable as to the whole or part by the 
 lessor by three months' notice. A ry. with com- 
 pulsory powers for the purchase of land gave N. 
 notice to treat as to part of the land. N.'s lessor 
 then gave him three months' notice as to that part 
 of the land. During the currency of the notice 
 the ry. took possession. The compensation was 
 assessed by a metropolitan magistrate : — 
 
 Held, that assuming that N. was entitled to 
 compensation for damage to the residue of the 
 term in respect of the adjoining lands, the magis- 
 trate had no jurisdiction under s. 121 to assess it, 
 and that he had only jurisdiction to assess com- 
 pensation for the value of N.'s interest in the 
 land taken and for damage to tlie adjoining 
 lands during the currency of the notice. Bexley 
 Heath Ev. Co. v. North C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B, 579 
 
 7. — Mine' — Lease of colliery — Bight of lessee 
 to sink shaft in land of lessor not included in 
 demise — Seasonable approval of lessor — Compensa- 
 tion — Lands injuriously affected — Railway com- 
 pany — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <fc 9 Vict 
 c. 18), s. 68. 
 
 A lease of a colliery with its buildings, pits, 
 shafts, and works, together with the veins of coal 
 
( log? ) 
 
 biGiist OF CASSs, i89i— iSddi 
 
 ( 1088 ) 
 
 tANDS CLAUSES ACTS (Compensation)— co«ii. 
 linder a, specified acreage of adjoining land the 
 f-tirfaoe of which was not included in the demise 
 contained a proviso that the lessee might at any 
 time during the term sink a pit or pits in any 
 part of the lands the surface of whioli was not 
 demised, but so that the position of the pits 
 should be subject to the reasonable approval of 
 the lessor. The lessor having contracted to sell 
 a portion of the surface to a ry. CO., the co. gave 
 to the lessee a notice to treat in respect of his 
 interest in the surface of the land taken by Ihem, 
 and the lessee gave to the lessor notice under the 
 lease of his intention to sink a pit in the land so 
 taken : 
 
 Seld, that the i ight to sink a pit in the land 
 the surface of which was not included in the 
 demise, although subject to the reasonable 
 approval of I lie lessor, gave the lessee an interest 
 in land which was the subject of compensation 
 under s. 68 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. In re 
 Masters and Gkeat Western Et. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 677 
 
 — Minerals — Notice of intention to work — Arbi- 
 
 tration — Duty of company to take up 
 
 award. 
 
 See Bail WAT. 11. 
 
 — Minerals under canals — Right to support of 
 
 surface. 
 
 See Mines. 38. 
 
 — Minerals under railways. 
 
 See Cases under Railway — Minerals. 
 
 8. — Part of a huildfng — Manufactory — ■ 
 Lands Glauses Act, 1845 (8 <£ 9 Vict. c. 18), s. 92. 
 
 Where a ry. co. propose to talic part of a 
 building, another part cf which is used as a 
 mauufactory, they are taking part of the manu- 
 factory, and therefore bound to take the whole 
 thereof. Brook v. Manchester, Sheffield and 
 Lincolnshire Rt. Co. CMtty J. [1895] 2 Ch. 671 
 
 9. — '^ Fart of house" — Material detriment 
 to remainder — Access over land taken — Bailicay 
 company — " Eoad" — Poicer of company to grant 
 right of way — Arhitraiion — Finality of Scottish 
 award — Eight of one tenant in common — Lands 
 Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1S45 (8 4 9 Vict. c. 19), 
 s. %()— Railways Clauses (^Scotland) Act (8 <t 9 
 
 Vict. V. 33), ss. 46, 49, 60. 
 
 A ry. CO. were entitled by a section in their 
 fpecial Act, notwithstanding s. 90 of the Lands 
 Glauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, to take a portion 
 of certain houses or other buildings or manu- 
 factories scheduled in their Act without being 
 obliged to take the remainder, if the portion 
 taken could, in the opinion of the authority to 
 whom the question of disputed compensation 
 should be submitted, be severed from the re- 
 mainder of the property without material detri- 
 ment thereto. The co. gave notice to treat for 
 232 square yards, a portion of the scheduled 
 property, which formed an access used jointly 
 by the respondents and another firm. The re- 
 spondents required the ry. co. to take the'whole 
 of their pioperty. A statutory submission to 
 aibltration containing the question, whether or 
 not the portion of laud containing the 232 square 
 yards could be severed from the remainder of 
 
 LANDS CLAUSES ACTS (Compensation) — contd. 
 the property of the respondents without material 
 detriment, reserving only the question whether 
 s. 90 of the Lands Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, 
 applied, was entered into. Before the arbitrator 
 the ry. co. offered to allow access to the remainder 
 of the respondents' property under a bridge over 
 the portion taken. The arbitrator found that 
 the portion containing 232 square yards could 
 not be severed without material detriment to the 
 remainder of the respondents' property, and 
 awarded compensation upon the assumption that 
 the CO. were bound to take the whole premises 
 In an action to recover the amount awarded : — 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Second 
 Division of the Court of Session, (1898) 35 Sco. 
 L. R. 404, that whether the arbitrator was right 
 or wrong in declining to take the offer of the co. 
 into consideration in assessing the compensation, 
 his award, until set aside by a proper process, was 
 binding on the Court, and could not be revieweil. 
 
 Gonty v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire 
 By. Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 439, distinguished. Cale- 
 donian Rt. Co u. Tueoan 
 
 H. L. (So,) [1898] A. C. 256 
 
 10. — Part of property — Railway company — 
 Statutory right to talte portion of property — Excep- 
 tion if ^^ material detriment" to remainder — Access 
 over land taken — Power of company to grant right 
 of way — Arbitration — Power of arbitrator to con- 
 sider sufficiency of access — Lands Clauses Act, 
 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 18), s. 92— Special ease stated 
 hy arbitrator — Costs in Court of Appeal — Arbitra- 
 tion Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 20. 
 
 A ry. CO., under their special Act, were en- 
 titled, notwithstanding s. 92 of the Lands Clauses 
 Act, 1845, to take a portion of certain houses or 
 other buildings or manufactories scheduled in 
 their Act without being obliged to take the re- 
 mainder, if the portion taken could, in tiie opinion 
 of the authority to whom the question of dis- 
 puted compensation should be submitted, be 
 severed from the remainder of the property with- 
 out material detriment thereto. The co. -gave 
 notice to treat for a portion of certain property, 
 and, before the arbitrator appointed under the 
 Lands Clauses Act to assess compensation, they 
 undertook to provide access to the remainder of 
 the property by means of a right of way over the 
 portion taken. On a eate stated by the arbitrator 
 in his award : — 
 
 Held, that the arbitrator was entitled, in 
 determining whether there would be "material 
 detriment" to the remainder of the property 
 arising from the taking of a portion, to take into 
 consideration all the circumstances of the case, 
 including the sufficiency of the proposed access : 
 
 Held, also, that as the giving the proposed 
 right of way over the lands of the co. was not 
 inconsistent with the purposes for which the 
 lands were taken, the co. had power to grant it. 
 
 Mulliner v. Midland By. Co., (1879) 11 Oh. D. 
 611, commented on. 
 
 The C. A. has power under the Arbitration 
 Act, 1889, to deal with the costs of an appeal on 
 an award stated iu the form of a special case for 
 the opinion of the Court. 
 
 Holliday v. Wakefield Corporation, 20 Q. B. X>. 
 699 ; [1891] A. C. 81 ; no longer applies iu such a 
 
( 1089 5 
 
 DiGtesd? OF c!as:^s, issi— ifidd. 
 
 ( 1090 ) 
 
 LANDS ClAUSES ACTS (Compensation)— conid 
 case. GoNTT v. Manchester, Sheffield and 
 Lincolnshire Ey. Co. C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 439 
 
 Distinguished. Caledonian Ru. Go. v. Turcan, 
 H. L. (So.) [1898] A. G. 256. 
 
 See preceding Cam. 
 
 — Person injuriously affected — ^Restrictive cove- 
 
 vant 
 
 See School — School Board. 8. 
 
 11. — FvMic parJc — Land let for — Power to 
 re-enter if compulsorily taken. 
 
 The claimants demised Lmd to a corporation 
 at a low rent on condition of its being laid out 
 and maintained as a public park. The lease 
 contained a proviso tliat in case any part of the 
 lanl should be compulsorily taken under the 
 powers of any Act of Parliament it should be 
 lawful for the claimants to re-enter upon and 
 repossess it. Part of the land having been com- 
 pulsorily taken by a ry. co. under the powers of 
 an Act of Parliament : — • 
 
 Seld, that the claimants were entitled to the 
 commercial value of the land taken as freed from 
 the lease, and not merely to tlie capitalised value 
 of the rent paid therefor by the corporation. 
 In re Morqan and London and North Western 
 Kt. Co. - Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q, B. 469 
 
 12. — School — Injurious affection — Intention 
 to use land for particular purpose — Special 
 adaptahilily. 
 
 The claimants bought some land with the 
 intention of building a school upon it, for which 
 purpose it was specially adaptable. Before they 
 had begun to build they received notice from a 
 ry. CO. to treat for tlie purchase of part of 
 the land. In consequence of the construction 
 of the ry. the part of the land not taken by 
 the CO. would be rendered less suitable for the 
 purpose of a school ; and there was no other site 
 ia the neighbourhood equally suitable for the 
 purpose : — 
 
 Held, that in assessing the compensation pay- 
 able to the claimants their intention to use the 
 site for a school ought to be taken into considera- 
 tion, although they had done nothing towards 
 carrying that intention into execution. Bailey 
 V. Isle of Thanet Light Rys. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [19C0] 1 Q. B. 722 
 
 Costs. 
 
 Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. c. 55)— Scale of 
 sheriff's fees for inquiries under the Lands Clauses 
 Act, 1845 (8 <fe 9 Vict. c. 18). W. N. 1900 
 (Sept. 8), p. 245. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. zcviii. 
 
 Lands Clauses (^Taxation of Costs') Act, 1895 
 (58 * 59 Vict. <i. 11), provides as to fees for taxing 
 costs in ccrmpensation inquiries and arbitrations. 
 
 — Appeal— Costs in Court of— Special case. 
 
 See No. 10, above. 
 
 13. — Arbitration — Award talcen up and fees 
 paid by landowner— Taxing Master's certificate- 
 Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <fc 9 Vict. c. 18), 68. 34, 
 35. 
 
 If a landowner -whose claim against a ry. co. 
 for the purchase-money of land compulsorily 
 
 LANDS CLAITSES ACTS (Goais)— continued. 
 taken has been allowed, and who is entitled to 
 the costs of the arbitration, pay the umpire's fees 
 himself, and lakes up the award instead of wait- 
 ing for this to be done by the co., he cannot 
 recover from the co. the sum so paid. 
 
 A decision of the taxing master disallowing 
 the sum so paid as costs in the arbitration is con- 
 clusive, and is not subject to review by the Court. 
 Earl of Shrewsbury ?;. Wirral Eys. Committee 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 812 
 
 But see now the Lands Clauses (Taxation of 
 Costs) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 11). 
 
 14. — Arbitration — Offer made by company — 
 Compensation — Land compulsorily taken — Lands 
 Clauses Act, 1845 (8 (fe 9 Vict. c. 18), «. 34. 
 
 A ry. CO. seeking to acquire land under the 
 provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, an 
 arbitration took place under that Act to deter- 
 mine the amount of compensation to be paid by 
 them to the owner of the land. The co. had 
 previously made an offer of the sum of 11,0002. 
 Part of the landowner's claim was in respect of 
 damage that would be caused to the residue of 
 his land, which was building land, by cutting it 
 off from the natural outfall for its drainage. 
 When the parties came before the arbitrator, it 
 was agreed between them that a right should be 
 reserved to the landowner of making a sewer, for 
 the purpose of draining his land, under the ry. 
 and land of the company ; and consequently no 
 claim in respect of such damage as before men- 
 tioned was ultimately submitted to the arbitrator. 
 The arbitrator awarded the sum of 10,029Z. to the 
 landowner : — 
 
 Held, that, although the sum awarded was 
 less than the amount of the co.'s offer, the co. 
 were liable under s. 34 of the Lands Clauses Act, 
 1845, to pay the costs of the arbitration to the 
 landowner on the ground that the award was not 
 in respect of the same subject-matter as that in 
 respect of which the offer was made. Milej v. 
 Great Western Ey. Co. C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 432 
 
 16. — Letters of administration. Taking out — 
 Compulsory taking of land — Payment of 'purchase- 
 money into court — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <£ 9 
 Vict. c. 18), ss. 80, 82. 
 
 Leaseholds which stood limited by will to one 
 for life and subject thereto to a class of children 
 and grandchildren of the testator absolutely, 
 were, during the life tenancy, taken compulsorily 
 by a ry. co. and the purchase-money paid into 
 court. On the death of the tenant for life the 
 fund, which was divisible into eleven shares, 
 ■was ordered to be distributed. All the original 
 legatees and the executors had died since the 
 payment into court, and, for the purpose of ob- 
 taining payment out, letters of administration 
 were taken out to the estates of all the deceased 
 beneficiaries : — 
 
 HeU, following Ex parte Kelly, (1893) 31 L. E. 
 Ir. 137, and Ex parte Borke, [1894] 1 Ir. B. 146, 
 that the co. must pay the costs of taking out the 
 letters of administration. In re Lloyd and 
 North London Ky. Co. (City Braijoh) Act, 1861 
 Stirling J, [1896] 2 Oh. 397 
 
 16, — Petition for payment of income of funds 
 in court representing purchase-money under Lands 
 
 2 N 
 
( io§i 3 
 
 bieiils^ ov cases, i89i— 1900. 
 
 ( 109^ 3 
 
 lANDS CLAUSES ACTS (,Costs)— continued. 
 Glauses Act, 1845 (8 <fc 9 Vict. c. 18), «. 80— 
 U.S. a. Order LV., r. 2 (7). 
 
 Senible, that the undertakers must bear the 
 costs of a petition where the necessity for a peti- 
 tion instead of a summons arises from the com- 
 plicated nature of the settlement to which the 
 lands were subject. In re Jackson 
 
 North J. [1894] W. N. 60 
 
 17. — Petition, for payment of purchase-money 
 out of court. 
 
 Where an Act enabling a public body to take 
 land compulsorily contains no provision as to the 
 costs of payment out of court of moneys paid in, 
 the Court hits jurisdiction under s. 5 of the Judi- 
 cature Act, 1890, to order the public body to pay 
 the costs of and incidental to a petition for pay- 
 ment out. 
 
 Judgment of Ohitty J., [1894] 1 Ch. 53, 
 affiimed. In re Fjsheb C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 450 
 
 Referred to. In re Wrexham, Mold and 
 Connah's Quay Ry. Co., C. A. [1900] 1 Cli. 261, 
 269. 
 
 18. — Reinvestment of purchase-money — Ap- 
 portionment — Form of order — Lands Clauses Act, 
 1815 (8*9 Vict. a. 18), ». 80. 
 
 The general rule, that the costs of reinvest- 
 ment in land of funds paid into court under the 
 Lands Clauses Act, 1845, by diiferent public 
 bodies are to be borne equally by the dilierent 
 bodies, does not apply when there is great in- 
 equality in the amounts as paid by tlie different 
 bodies, but the scale fee, surveyor's fee, and ad 
 valorem stamp duty will be apportioned rateably 
 between tlie different bodies. In re Btshopsgate 
 FoDNDATioN Chitty 3. [1894] 1 Ch. 185 
 
 19. — Reinvestment of purchase-money — Peti- 
 tioner's costs limited to costs of summons — R. S. C, 
 Order L v., r. 1— Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 (fc 9 
 Vict. c. 18), s. 80. 
 
 Tln-ee sums of Consols in court represented 
 the investment of purchase-money received from 
 three ry. cos., A., B., and C, in respect of lands 
 of a charity taken by them. The A. co., in whose 
 base the amount exceeded 1000!., had agreed to 
 pay 40i. in lieu of costs. On petition for the 
 transfer of the Consols to the official trustees of 
 charitable funds : — 
 
 Held, that the costs of the B. and C. cos. must 
 be limited to the amount wliich would have been 
 payable on a summons. Att.-Gen. v. St. John's 
 Hospital, Bath North J, [1893] 3 Ch. 181 
 
 Practice Generally. 
 
 20. — Notice to treat — Tunnel — Subsoil — " Ap- 
 propriate and use" — Easement — " Land" — Entry 
 on lands liefore agreement — Lands Clauses Act, 
 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 3, 18, 68, 84, *c. 
 
 Wiiere the special Act of a ry. co. gave them 
 the right to make a tunnel and to " appropriate 
 and use " the subsoil of plt.'s land for that pur- 
 pose without wholly taking the land : — 
 
 JTeW, that "appropriate" meant appropriate 
 by way of purchase, that in having bought the 
 subsoil the co. were taking " land " and not 
 meiely an easement, and that consequently 
 notice to treat under the Lands Clauses Act, 
 
 LANDS CLAUSES ACTS (Practice Generally)— 
 
 continu^ed. 
 1845, must be given before appropriating and 
 using the subsoil. Farmer v. Waterloo and 
 City Rt. Co. Kekewioh J. [1895] 1 Ch. 527 
 
 21. — Payment out of deposit — Service — Doi'- 
 mant fund — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict, 
 c. 18)', s«. 85-87. 
 
 Payment out of court to a co. was ordered of 
 sums deposited by them many years ago under 
 B. 85 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, without 
 service on the landowners or their representatives ; 
 the purchase-money in each case having been 
 paid and there being evidence that the deposits 
 had been accidentally overlooked. Ex parte 
 Midland Ey. North J. [1894] W. N. 38 
 
 Superfluous Lands. 
 
 22. — Pre-emption — Compulsory sale — Lands 
 Clauses Act, 1845 (8 * 9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 127-129. 
 
 Land acquired by the A. ry. co. for the pur- 
 poses of their undertaking was, within the period 
 prescribed by statute for the sale by that co. of 
 their superfluous lands, compulsorily purchased 
 by the B. ry. co. : — 
 
 Held, that such compulsory sale afforded no 
 ground for inferring that the land was not re- 
 quired by the A. co. for the purjioses of their 
 undertaking and was thus superfluous land within 
 the Lands Clauses Act, 1845; and accordingly 
 that tlie right of pre-emption under o. 128 of 
 that Act did not arise. 
 
 Lord Garington v. Wycombe By. Co.. (1868) 
 L. E. 3 Ch. 377, and Hobbs v. Midland Ry. Co., 
 (1882) 20 Ch. D. 418, discussed. 
 
 Judgment of Kekewich J., [1895] W. N. 
 116 (13), reversed. Donqill v. North Eastern 
 Ey. Co. - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 121 
 
 23. — Sale— Covenant to resell a portion — In- 
 validity of sale — Extent of — Lands Clauses Act, 
 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 18), s. 127. 
 
 A ry. 00. sold superfluous lands with a 
 covenant to resell cerlain portions to them if 
 required : — 
 
 Meld, that though the covenant rendered void 
 under s. 127 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, the 
 sale of these portions, the sale of the remainder 
 was valid. Eay v. Walker 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 88 
 
 24. — Terminus — Land adjoining — Negotia- 
 tions by railway company to sell — Lease of portion 
 —Lands Clauses {Scotland) Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict, 
 c. 19), o. 120. 
 
 The directors of a ry. Co., before the expii atlon 
 of ten years from the time limited by the special 
 Act for the completion of their works, considered 
 proposals for the purchase from the co. of land 
 adjoining one of their terminal stations, and after 
 the ten years had expired they also considered 
 proposals, and eventually leased a portion for the 
 building of a district post-ofBce. The adjoining 
 landowner claimed the land as "superfluous 
 land" within the meaning of s. 120 of the 
 Lands Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845 : — 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the First 
 Division of the Court of Session, (1897) 24 B. 1156; 
 34 Sco. L. E. 828, that whether the land had 
 become superfluous or not was a question of 
 
( 1093 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1094 ) 
 
 tANDS CLAUSES ACTS (Superfluous lands)— 
 
 continued. 
 mixed law and fact; and that on the evidence 
 the land had not become superfluous. 
 
 London and South Western By. Co. v. JBlaoh- 
 more, (1870) L. R. 4 H. L. 610, distinguished. 
 Macfie v. Oallandek and Oban Eailwat Com- 
 pany - H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 270 
 
 LANDS CLAUSES ACTS— Kateability of under- 
 taking. 
 See Kates — Eateahility. 40,41. 
 
 LANDS TITLES REGISTRY ACT — Registered 
 title — Adverse possession. 
 See British Honduras. 1. 
 
 LANE — Closing lane — Railway company. 
 See Canada. 19. 
 
 LAPSE — Charity — Failure of objects — Cy-pres. 
 See Friendly Society. 6. 
 
 — Death of appointees in lifetime of donee of 
 
 power. 
 
 See Powers. 43. 
 
 — Of foreign patent — Prolongation. 
 
 See Patent. 41. 
 
 — Of gift by will. 
 
 See Oases under Will — Lapse. 
 
 LARCENY. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Larceny. 
 
 LAUNDRIES — Application of Factory Acts to. 
 See Factory and Workshop Act, 1895 
 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 37), s. 22. 
 
 " LAWFUL PURPOSE "—Subscription to strike 
 fund. 
 See Industrial Society. 1. 
 
 " LAW REPORTS." 
 
 Citation of cases.'] Observations of Kel;e- 
 wich J. as to authority of cases not reported in 
 The Law Reports. Owen v. Richmond 
 
 [1895] W. N. 29 
 
 LAY DAYS^Demurrage. 
 
 See Shippins— Demurrage. 102, 109, 
 110, 118. 
 
 LAY RECTOR —Repair of chancel. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 59. 
 
 — Right to chief seat in chancel — Prescription- 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Pews. 56. 
 
 LEASE. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and Tenast. 
 
 LEASEHOLDS— Abstract— Assignment, 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 1. 
 
 — Assignment — Lessor's consent — Default of 
 
 vendor in obtaining — Loss of bargain — 
 Damages. 
 
 See Vendor and Pukchasee— Contract, 
 26. 
 
 — Assignment— Stamp duty — Consideration •=- 
 
 Rent. 
 
 See Revenue --Stamps. 160. 
 
 — Conversion — Residuary gift — Successive 
 
 interests. 
 
 See Conversion. 7. 
 • i— Conveyance on sale — Leasehold interest m 
 licensed house^Goodwill. 
 See EEVENUE^Stamps. 157. 
 
 LEASEHOLDS —continued. 
 
 — Covenants — Rent — ^Repairs — Liability. 
 
 See Will— Leaseholds. 119. 
 
 — Domiciled foreigner — Unattested will — Im- 
 
 movables — Administration with will 
 
 annexed. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 17. 
 
 — Leasehold area — Crown Lands Acts — Re- 
 
 sumed area. 
 
 See New South Wales. 18. 
 
 — Leases. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord AND Tenant. 
 
 — Non-disclosure of onerous covenants. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Contract. 
 24. 
 
 — Sale of leaseholds. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 84. 
 
 — Sale of leaseholds — Scale fee. 
 
 See Solicitor— Costs. 57. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts — Tenant for life and 
 
 remainderman. 
 
 See Settled Land — Leaseholds. 
 
 — Stamp duty — " Conveyance or transfer or 
 
 sale " —Assignment— Consideration- 
 Rent. 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 152. 
 
 — Waste— Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 See Waste. 3. 
 LEASING POWERS- Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land— Leases. 
 
 LECTURE— Sunday observance. 
 
 See Sunday. 3. 
 LEEWARD ISLANDS— 0. in C. dated Nov. 29, 
 1898, asfenting to Bill to amend the Leeward 
 Islands Act, 1871. St. R. & 0. 1898, p. 1291. 
 
 Appeals from— 0. in G. dated March 24, 1880,. 
 regulating appeals from the Supreme Court of the 
 Leeward Islands to Her Majesty in Council. St. 
 R. & 0. 1899, p. 1592. 
 
 — Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 See Probate. 
 
 — Death duties. 
 
 See Revenue— Estate Duty. 
 
 LEGACY. 
 
 See Cases under Will. 
 
 LEGACY DUTY. 
 
 See Revenue— Legacy Duty. 
 LEGAL ESTATE— Conflicting equities— Priority 
 of mortgagees 
 See Mortgage— Priolity. 54. 
 
 — Devise to trustees. 
 
 See VENDOR AKD PubcHasbh— Title. 8U. 
 
 — Failure of beneficiaries, 
 
 See Trustee- Legal Estate. 
 
 76. 
 
 LEGITIMACY— DecZaraiiore of-^ Petition under 
 the Leqitimacy Declaration Act, 1858 (21 & 22 
 Fic«. c 93), S8. 4, 5, 7, 8, ll-C08fs. 
 
 In proceedings on a petition under the Legi- 
 timacy Declaration Act, 1858, the Court has 
 Jurisdiction to order a person who has been cited 
 and who has intervened and opposed the petition 
 to pay the petitioner's costs. 
 
 Per Butt P.! The Att.-Gen. is not liable 
 
 2 N 2 
 
1695 ) 
 
 blGEST 01* CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1096 ) 
 
 tEGlTIUkCY— continued. 
 to pay and cannot receive coBts in such pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Deciaion of Butt P., [1892] P. 217, affirmed. 
 Bain v. Att.-Gen. - C. A. [1892] P. 261 
 
 2. — Legitimation per suhfequens matri- 
 monium — Inheritance of land in England — 
 Domicil. 
 
 A child legitimised by the subsequent mar- 
 riage of its parents under the law of their domicil 
 can take English land as a legitimate child 
 nnder a devise by will of realty. In re Gket's 
 Tetjsts. Gket v. Stampord - Stirling J. 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 88 
 
 3. — Legitimation per suhsequens niairi- 
 mnnium — lioman Catholic Ottoman subjects — 
 Canon law. 
 
 By the canon law of the Eoman Catholic 
 Church illegitimate children of a Roman Catholic 
 father and orthodox mother are legitimized by 
 the mariiage of their parents authorized by 
 dispensation. Paeapano v. Happaz 
 
 P. C, [1894] A. C. 165 
 LENDER— Money-lender. 
 
 See Money-lender. 
 
 LETTER OF INSTRUCTION— Ambiguity— Un- 
 executed testamentary documents — 
 Debt. 
 See Probate- Grant of Probate. 79. 
 
 LETTER — Contract — Letter signed by purchaser 
 on paper on which vendor's name and 
 address printed. 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 7. 
 
 — Contract by letters— Acceptance and with- 
 
 drawal of oiler — Time. 
 See Contract. 17a. 
 
 — Envelope and letter taken as one document^ 
 
 Statute of Frauds. 
 See CONTKACT. 17. 
 
 — Payment into court — On admissions. 
 
 See Practice — Payment into Court. 125. 
 
 — Service by post — Notice — Public Health Act. 
 
 See Practice — Service. 224, 225. 
 
 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 See Cases under Probate. 
 
 LETTERS OF ALLOTMENT— Letters of renuncia- 
 tion — Increase of duty on. 
 See Finance Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Yict. 
 c. 9), =. 9. 
 
 LETTERS OF REQUEST — Acceptance of — 
 Faculty — Jurisdiction — Licence of 
 Secretary of State before opening vault 
 not required. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 29. 
 
 — Examination of wilnessea abroad — Practice. 
 
 See Evidence. 27. 
 LETTERS PATENT. 
 
 See Patent — Letters Patent. 
 LEVEL CROSSINGS. 
 
 See Railway — Level Crossings. 
 
 LEX FOHI— Administration of estate of deceased 
 partner. 
 See CosFLlcT of La^s. 18. 
 
 LEX REI SIT.a;— Marriage— Domicil, Change of 
 — Immovable goods — French law — 
 Community of goods — Statute of Frauds. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 9. 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 See nnder Heading of Subject-matter of 
 Liability. 
 
 "LIABLE TO BE SEIZED "—Unsound fruit. 
 See Food. 1. 
 
 LIAR — Falsehood, imputation of. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 5. 
 
 — Justification — ^Particulars. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 11, 12. 
 
 LIBEL. 
 
 See Dbpamation — Libel. 
 
 LIBERIA— Extradition. 
 
 See Extradition. 
 
 LIBERTY. 
 
 See Havering- atte-Bower. 
 London — Sessions. 
 
 LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT — Motion to commit 
 — Leave to appeal. 
 See AiPEAL. 33. 
 
 LIBRARY. 
 
 Public Libraries Act, 1892 (55 * 56 Vict, 
 c. 53), consolidates and amends previous Acts. 
 
 Public Libraries (^Arnendment) Act, 1893 
 (56 <fc 57 Vict. u. 11), amends the Public Libraries 
 Act, 1892. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 it 57 Vict, 
 c. 73), 2nd sched., amends the Piiblic Libraries Act, 
 1892. 
 
 Libraries Offences Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 53), provides for the punishment of offences in 
 libraries. 
 
 — Income tax^Public free library — Subscription 
 
 library. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 109. 
 
 — Income tax — Public library — Literary or 
 
 scientific institution — Exemption. 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 105. 
 
 — Libel — Publication — Book — Circulating 
 
 library. 
 
 See Defamation— Libel. 27. 
 
 -luoorpo- 
 
 98. 
 
 LICENCE. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — Armorial bearings — Licence to carry. 
 
 See Revenue. 10. 
 
 — Book — Sale of blocks — Unassignable licence. 
 
 See Copyright. 
 
 — Brewer's licences — Diieot taxation. 
 
 See Canada. 42. 
 
 — Copyright— Licence to copy— Subsequent as- 
 
 signment. 
 
 See CoPYKicnT. 
 
 — County council— Exemption— "Wooden struc- 
 
 ture used in connection with trafiSo of 
 
 railway. 
 
 See LoNroN — Buildings, '32, 
 
 • Library catalogue — Probate — Will- 
 rated document — Custody. 
 See Probate— Grant of Probate, 
 
( 1097 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1098 ) 
 
 lACESCE— continued. 
 
 — Ooyenant against assignment without— Deposit 
 
 by way of security. 
 See Covenant. 1, 
 
 — " Disoontinuauoe " of— Public-house— Lease. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Covenant. 
 18. 
 
 — Excise. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenije. 
 
 — Faculty — .Jurisdiction — Licence of Secretary 
 
 of State before opening vault not re- 
 quired. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 2S, 29. 
 
 — Fishing — Eight to fish and caiTy away the 
 
 fish caught — ^Profit k prendre. 
 See Fishery. 10. 
 
 — Foreign Game — ^Licence to sell. 
 
 See Be VENUE — Game Licence. 49. 
 
 — Golf ground — Lease or licence — Interest in 
 
 land. 
 
 See GOLE. 1. 
 
 — Music and dancing. 
 
 See London — Music and Dancing. 
 
 — Not to be unreasonably withheld. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 14. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Patent — licence. 
 
 — Pawnbroker's. 
 
 See Pawnbroker. 
 
 — Public-house — Oontract for sale of — Transfer 
 
 of licence. 
 
 See Vendor and Pcbohasee — Contract. 
 32. 
 
 1. — Revocation — Breach of contract by licensor 
 — Licensee's right of action — Posting advertise- 
 ments on hoarding. 
 
 Pit. and deft, agreed orally that deft, should 
 let his wall to pit. for bill-posting, at 21. 10s. a 
 year, pit. to erect a hoarding, on which the bills 
 were to be posted. Pit. erected ■ the hoarding, 
 posted bills, and made several payments. Deft, 
 gave notice to pit. that the hoarding must be 
 removed, and nearly a month later deft, took it 
 down. 
 
 In an action to recover damages for breach of 
 contract : — 
 
 BeZd, that, although the permission to post 
 bills was a licence, and therefore, not being by 
 deed, was revocable, the action was maintainable 
 for breach of contract, and therefore pit. was 
 wrongly nonsuited. 
 
 Wood V. Leadbitter, (1845) 13 M. & W. 838, 
 distinguished. Kebhison v. Smith 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 ft. B. 445 
 
 — Steam-roller — "Used" within the county. 
 
 See Locomotive. 1. 
 
 — Theatre — Discretion to attach condition to 
 
 grant. 
 
 See Theatre. 1. 
 
 — Water — Licence to take — ^Public well — Local 
 
 authority — Injunction. 
 See Watee. 43. 
 «= Waterman or lighterman — Judicial order. 
 See C^RTiQiJARi. 1, 
 
 LICENSING ACTS, 
 
 In General, col. 1098. 
 Licence, col. 1098, 
 Offences, col. 1105. 
 Police, col. 1111. 
 .Practice, col. 1111. 
 
 In General." 
 
 — Canada Temperance Act — Construction, 
 
 See Canada. 13. 
 
 — Licence — Lease of public-bouse — Breach of 
 
 covenant. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 15, 17, 18, 
 
 — • Liquor laws — ^Power of prohibition— Distribu- 
 tion of legislative powers. 
 See Canada. 13, 
 
 — Stage licence, Grant of— Condition. 
 
 See Theatre. 1, 
 
 Licence, 
 
 — Appeals. 
 
 See LiCENSiNQ Acts— Practice, 47 — 53. 
 
 — Canada, Laws of. 
 
 See Canada. 12, 13. 
 
 — Jurisdiction of justices. 
 
 See Licensing Acts, passim. 
 
 1. — New licence — Confirmation of provi- 
 sional licence — Rules of practice imposing coiv- 
 dition on right to oppose — Licensing Act, 1872 
 (35 * 36 Vict. e. 94), ss. 37, 43. 
 
 By.s. 37 of the Licensing Act, 1872, a grant 
 of a new licence in counties by licensing justices 
 is not valid unless confirmed by the county 
 licensing committee. By s. 43, any person who 
 opposes before licensing justices the grant of a 
 new licence, and no other person, may oppose 
 the confirmation of the grant by the confirming 
 authority; by the same section power is given 
 in counties to the justices in quarter sessions to 
 make rules as to the proccdings to be adopted 
 for confirmation of new licences. 
 
 A court of quarter sessions, acting under s. 43, 
 made a rule that every person intending to oppose 
 the confirmation of any provisional licence before 
 the county licensing committee must, within 
 seven days after the grant of the provisional 
 licence, give notice to the applicant and to the 
 clerk of the peace of his intention to oppose the 
 confirmation : — 
 
 Held, that the rule was ultra vires, as imposing 
 a condition upon the statutory right to oppose the 
 confirmation of the licence not imposed or autho- 
 rized by the statute. Reg. v. Bird. Ex parte 
 Needbs - - Div, Ct, [1898] 2 ft, B. 340 
 
 2. — Notice of application for certificate — 
 Computation of time — Wine and Beerhouse Act, 
 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 27), s. 7 — Licensing Act, 
 1872 (35 * 36 Viet. u. 94), ss. 40, 43, 50. 
 
 The twenty-one days' notice required by s. 7 
 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, is to bo 
 computed, not from the first day of the licensing 
 sessions, but from the day on which the applica- 
 tion is actually heard. Reg. v. Pownall 
 
 Div, Ct, [1893] 2 ft. B. 158 
 
 — Notice of objection and opposition — Renewal. 
 
 See Nos, 13—17, bdom. 
 
( 1099 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1100 ) 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Lioence)— continued. 
 
 — Notices. 
 
 See also Nos. 3 — 5, 12 — 17, below. 
 
 3. — Notices — Sufficiency — Justices proceeding 
 on insufficient notice — Mandamus to hear and 
 determine — Premises talcen for public purpose — - 
 Application for licence in respect of other pre- 
 mises — Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Oeo. 4, c. 61), s. 14 
 —Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. 
 u. 27), 6. 7— Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. 
 V. 94), s. 40. 
 
 The holder of a licence in respect of a house 
 about to be pulled down for a public purpose 
 gave the notices required by s. 14 of the Ale- 
 house Act, 1828, of his intention to apply for a 
 licence in respect of another house not then 
 licensed. The notices given did not comply with 
 the provisions of a. 40 of the Licensing Act, 1872. 
 The licensing justices at a special session granted 
 the application upon information that the notices 
 were m order. A rule nisi having been obtaiued 
 for a writ of mandamus to the justices to hear 
 and determine the application according to 
 law: — 
 
 Seld, by a Div. Ct., that the notices were not 
 in order, and that the justices had acted without 
 jurisdiction, but that, as they had heard and 
 determined the application, a. mandamus, ought 
 not to issue : 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the notices were good, 
 as the specific provisions with regard to them in 
 o. 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, had not been 
 expressly or impliedly repealed by s. 40 of the 
 Licensing Act, 1872. Eeg. v. Nicholson 
 
 0. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 455 
 
 4. — " Off licence " — Order sanctioning removal 
 — Application for new licence — Notice of applica- 
 iion — Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), 
 s. 50. 
 
 The holder of an " off licence " for the sale of 
 beer, wine and spirits in respect of certain 
 premises applied at the general annual licensing 
 meeting for a renewal of that licence. He also 
 applied for a new licence of a similar description 
 in respect of other premises, having given the 
 notices requisite in applications for new licences, 
 but not those requisite in applications for orders 
 for removal. The licensing justices granted the 
 application for the new licence on condition that 
 he gave up the licence for the first-mentioned 
 premises and ceased forthwith to carry on the 
 sale of beer, wine and spirits there. The 
 applicant agreed to do this and the new licence 
 was granted : — 
 
 Held, that this was neither in form nor in 
 substance an order sanctioning the removal of a 
 licence, and that the justices had an absolute 
 discretion to grant the new licence. 
 
 Decisions of the Q. B. D. and 0. A {Reg. v. 
 
 Tlwrnton, Ex parte Lacon & Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 
 
 308 ; [1898] 1 Q. B. 334) reversed. Laoeby v. 
 
 Lacon & Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N, 36 (9); [1899] A, C. 222 
 
 6. — Removal of licence-holder — Application 
 hy new tenant — Notice — Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 
 Geo. 4, c. 61), ss. i, li— Licensing Act, 1872 
 (35 it 3G Vict. c. 94), s. 40, suh-s. 2 ; s. 74. 
 
 When a licence is applied for by a new tenant 
 under s. 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1S28, on the 
 
 IICENSIN& ACTS (Licence) — continued. 
 ground that the occupier has removed therefrom 
 and yielded up possession, s. 40, sub-s. 2, of the 
 Licensing Act, 1872, does not apply, and it is not 
 necessary to give fourteen days' notice of the 
 application ; and there is nothing in the Acts to 
 warrant the justices in requiring fourteen days' 
 notice as a sufficient notice. Beg. v. Hughes 
 
 Div. Ct, [1893] 2 a. B. 530 
 
 6. — Renewal — Beerhouse — Licensed premises 
 not used for sale of beer for long period — Wine 
 and Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 27), 
 s. 8. 
 
 A beerhouse licence had been continuously 
 renewed in respect of premises which had been 
 licensed prior to May, 1869 ; but the licence had 
 not been exercised and no beer had been sold on 
 the premises for a long period : — 
 
 Seld, that this fact gave the justices no juris- 
 diction to refuse to renew the licence to a new 
 tenant who intended to carry on the premises as 
 bona fide licensed premises, but that they were 
 still limited to the four grounds of objection 
 specified in s. 8 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 
 1869. 
 
 Eeg. V. Gotham, [1898] 1 Q. B. 802 ; Symons 
 
 V. Wedmore, [1894] 1 Q. B. 401, discussed. 
 
 Maokeell v. Brentford Justices - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 141 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 387 
 
 7i — Renewal — Beerhouse licensed on May 1 , 
 1869 — Pulled down for public purpose — Transfer 
 — Discretion of justices — Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 
 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. 14 — Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 27), ss. 8, 19. 
 
 Justices have a general discretion under 
 s. 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, to refuse the 
 transfer of licence of a beerliouse granted before 
 May 1, 1869, and thenceforward renewed from 
 time to time wliich is about to be pulled down 
 for a public purpose, and are not limited to the 
 four grounds mentioned in s. 8 of the Wine and 
 Beerhouse Act, 1869. Tkaynok v. Jones 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B, 83 
 
 8. — Reneioal — Beerhouse licensed on May 1, 
 1869 — Refusal — Justices bound to state grounds — 
 Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, 
 c. 27), ss. 8, 9. 
 
 When justices refuse an application for the 
 renewal of a beerhouse which was licensed on 
 May 1, 1869, and has been continuously so 
 licensed, they must at the time of refusal state 
 the grounds of ttieir refusal ; otherwise a manda- 
 mus to hear and determine the application will 
 be granted. Eeg. v. Thomas 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 426 
 
 9. — Renewal — Discretion of Court of sum- 
 mary jurisdiction — Forfeiture of licence — Applica- 
 tion by owner for authority to carry on business — 
 Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49), s. 15. 
 
 A licensed person having become disqualified 
 from holding a licence in consequence of his 
 having been convicted of selling spirits without 
 a licence, the owner of the premises applied to 
 a Court of summary jurisdiction uuder s. 15 of 
 the Licensing Act, 1874, for authority to carry 
 on the business on the same premises until the 
 next special sessions : see Hx parte Flinn & Son, 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 154. (See No. 42, below.) The 
 premises in question were licensed premises on 
 
( 1101 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1102 ) 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Lieenee)— continued. 
 May 1, 1869, and the licence had since been re- 
 newed from time to time, and therefore a renewal 
 or transfer of the licence could only be refused 
 on one or more of the four grounds speciiied in 
 the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, 
 c. 27), ss. 8, 19. 
 
 The Court of summary jurisdiction, however, 
 Iieard evidence on other grounds of objection 
 than the four specified in that Act, and refused 
 the application on such other grounds, but at the 
 direction of the Court stated this special case for 
 their opinion : — 
 
 Meld, that the Court of summary jurisdiction 
 could only refuse tlie application on one of the 
 four specified grounds, and that, as Ihey had not 
 done so, they had no power to refuse to the 
 owner of the premises authority to carry on the 
 same business upon the same premises until the 
 next special sessions for licensing purposes under 
 s. 15 of the Licensing Act, 1874. Case remitted. 
 Ex parte Flinn & Sqns 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 135 
 S(e also No. 42, below. 
 
 10. — lieneual — Discretion of justices — Licens- 
 ing Acts, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. 1 ; 1872 (85 * 36 
 Tict. V. 94), s. 42 ; 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. v. 49), 
 6. 26. 
 
 The discretion of justices as to granting or 
 refusing a licence by way of renewal under the 
 Licensing Acts, 1828, 1872, and 1874, in respect 
 of exciseable liquors to be drunk on the pre- 
 mises is absolute, provided it be exeioised 
 judicially. 
 
 The licensing justices have a discretion to 
 refuse the renewal on the ground of remoteness 
 fi(im police supervision, and the character and 
 necessities of tljo neighbourhood. 
 
 Decision of C. A. (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 239, 
 affirmed. Shaep v. Wasefield 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 173 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Seg. v. County Council 
 of West Riding of Yorkshire, [1896] 2 Q. B. 386, 
 388. 
 
 11. — Renewal — New Tenant — Refusal of re- 
 newal to — Subsequent application for licence by 
 second new tenant — Juriediction of justices — Ale- 
 house Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. 14. 
 
 An application was made under b. 14 of the 
 Alehouse Act, 1828, for a licence by a second 
 new tenant after refusal of renewal to new tenant 
 and expiry of licence : — 
 
 Held; that the justices had jurisdiction to 
 grant the application. Baldwin v. Dover Jus- 
 tices - Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 421 
 
 12. — Renewal — Notice of appeal — Service — 
 Power of justices to state a case — Alelwuee Act, 
 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), ss. 27, Si—Summary Juris- 
 diction Acts, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), ss. 31, 33 ; 
 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. a. 43), «. 1— Interpretation 
 Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 63), 8. 13, sub-s. 11. 
 
 Licensing justices are " a court of summary 
 jurisdiction" (Interpretation Act, 1889, s. 13, 
 sub-s. 11), and appeals from them are governed 
 by s. 31 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. 
 Licensing justices have therefore power to state 
 a case. A notice of appeal by case stated to 
 quarter sessions was seryed on the justices' clerk, 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Licence)— continued. 
 
 the head constable, and on several, but not all, of 
 
 the justices : — 
 
 Held, that the service on the clerk was in 
 itself sufficient. Keg. v. Glamorgansuiee Jos- 
 TICES. Eeg. v. Ponttpool Justices 
 
 C. A, [1892] 1 Q. B. 621 
 
 Overruled by H. L. (E.). Boulter v. Kent 
 Justices, [1897] A. C. 556. 
 
 13. — Renewal — Notice of objection — Omis- 
 sion to state grounds of refusal — Wine and Beer- 
 house Acts, 1869, 1870 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 27, ss. 8, 
 19 ; 33 * 34 Vict. e. 29, s. 7)— Licensing Acts, 1872, 
 1874 (35 & 36 Vict. e. 94, «. 42; 37 (fc 38 Vict, 
 c. 49, 8. 26). 
 
 On appeal from refusal of a licence all the 
 objections which were open before the justices 
 are open before the quarter sessions. The holder 
 of a licence, the renewal of which could only be 
 refused on one or more of four grounds specified 
 in the Wine and Beerhouse Acts, 1869, 1870, had 
 been served with notice of objection in due time. 
 The justices refused the renewal, but omitted to 
 state on what ground. Tlie holder appealed to 
 quarter sessions, and was not served with fresh 
 notice of objection. At the appeal he contended 
 that as the justices had stated no ground for 
 their decision the appeal should be granted. The 
 Court overruled this contention, and proceeded 
 to hear the case on its merits. The appellant 
 then withdrew, declining to take further part in 
 the proceedings. The Court heard the appeal 
 and dismissed it, giving no ground for the re- 
 fusal : — 
 
 Held, that the appeal had been heard and 
 determined. Ex parte G orman 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 23 
 
 14. — Renewal — Notice of opposition — Notice 
 not purporting to be by direction of justices — 
 Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 27), 
 ss. 8, W— Licensing Act, 1872(33*36 Vict.o.Si), 
 s. 42. 
 
 That a notice given under s. 42 of the Licens- 
 ing Act, 1872, does not state on its face that it is 
 given by direction of the justices is an irregu- 
 larity which is waived by the appearance of the 
 appellant. An appeal in such a case to quarter 
 sessions is a rehearing; and that Court cim enter- 
 tain and decide on any objection raised by the 
 notice. Whiffen v. Malling Justices 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B, 362 
 
 15. — Renewal — Notice of opposition — Person 
 holding temporary authority to carry on business 
 under 5 & ti Viet. c. 44, s. 1 — Licensing Act, 1872 
 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), «. 42 — Special ease stated 
 by justices — Proper parly to be respondent — Sum- 
 mary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 * 43 Vict. c. 49), 
 e. 33. 
 
 A person holding an interim authority under 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 44, s. 1, to carry on business is not 
 a " licensed person " applying for a renewal of 
 " his " licence, within s. 42 of the Act of 1872, 
 and is therefore not entitled to the notice therein 
 mentioned. 
 
 Wliere a case is stated under s. 33 of the 
 Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, as to refusal of 
 a licence, the superintendent of police who hftd 
 opposed the licence, ancl to whom notice of appeal 
 
( 1103 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1104 ) 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Licence)— eontinued. 
 
 had been given, held to be rightly constituted 
 
 respondent. Price v. J^meb 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 428 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ot. Symons v. Wedmore, 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 4'01. 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Eeg. v. London Justices, 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 616, 635. 
 
 16. — Renewal — Notice of opposition — Service 
 —Licensing Act, 1872 (.35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 42. 
 
 The written notice under s. 42 of the Licens- 
 ing Act, 1872, of intention io oppose the renewal 
 of a licence need not be served on the holder 
 personally. It is sufficient if it be left wii 
 servant on the licensed premises. Ei^^arte 
 
 PORTINGELL - C. A. lliS^fTQ. B. 15 
 
 17. — Renewal — Notice of opposition — Service 
 — Time — Adjourned meeting — Licensing Act, 1872 
 (.35 * 36 Vict. c. 94), g. 42, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The words in s. 42, sub-s. 2, of the Licensing 
 Act, 1 872, which require notice of opposition to 
 a renewal to be ser\ed on the licensed person 
 "not leas than seven days before the commence- 
 ment of the general annual licensing meeting," 
 must be taken to mean the commencement of the 
 adjourned meeting for the part of the petty ses- 
 sional division in which the licensed house is 
 situate, and not necessarily the first annual 
 meeting in the division. Beg. v. Anglesey Jus- 
 tices (No. 1) Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 860 
 
 18. — Renewal — Objection — Request for ad- 
 journment — Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict, 
 c. 94), s. 42. 
 
 At the general annual licensing meeting for 
 a borough, a request was made by the head con- 
 stable that the renewal of the licence of a beer- 
 house which had been licensed prior to May, 
 1869, should be withheld until the adjourned 
 meeting, and the justices accordingly adjourned 
 the granting of the renewal : — 
 
 Held, that this requett ancounted to the 
 making of an objection within the meaning of 
 the proviso to s. 42, sub-s. 2, of the Licensing 
 Act, 1872, and gave the justices jurisdiction to 
 refuse the renewal at the adjourned meeting en 
 one of the four grounds specified in s. 8 of 32 & 33 
 Yict. 0. 27. Hawkiks v. Beidgwatee Justices 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 ft. B. 382 
 
 19. — Renewal — Objection in open court — 
 Postponement — Licensing Acts, 1872, 1874 (35 d" 36 
 Vict. c. 94, 8. 42 ; 31 & 38 Vict. c. 49, s. 26). 
 
 An objection to the renewal of a licence made 
 in open court at the general annual licensing 
 meeting is a good " objection made" within the 
 meaning of the proviso to s. 42 of the Licensing 
 Act, 1872, although neither the grounds nor the 
 nature of the objection are stated by tlie objector, 
 and upon such an objection being made the jus- 
 tices have power to postpone the application to 
 an adjourned meeting. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct., [1894] 2 Q. B. 273, 
 affirmed. Datkin ■». Pakkee 
 
 C, A, [1894] 2 ft. B. 556 
 
 20. — Renewal — Objection on ground of dis- 
 orderly character of house— Evidence of convic- 
 tions of previous tenants— Licensing Acts, 1872, 
 
 IICENSING ACTS (JAcencey— continued. 
 
 1874 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, .. 42 ; 37 * 38 Vict. 
 
 c. 49, s. 26). , _, ^. ^ , 
 
 An objection on the ground of the disorderly 
 character of house, as evidenced by convictions 
 of previous tenants, may be a good ground under 
 s. 8 of the Act of 1869 for refusing to renew a 
 licence of an old beerhouse, although no charge is 
 made against the character of the applicant or his 
 management of the house. Eeg. v. Miskin 
 Higher Justices Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 275 
 
 21. — Renewal —Objection on same grounds as 
 previous objection to transfer — Estoppel — Wine and 
 Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. e. 27), ss. 8, 19. 
 
 Where, upon an application for the transfer 
 "icence to sell beer by retail on or off pre- 
 mises-ikensed prior to May 1, 1869, an objection 
 is madethPSone of the four grounds enumerated 
 in s. 8 of SSWl^Lai"! Beerhouse Act, 1869, but 
 tlie justices in the' exercise of their discretion 
 grant the transfer, tlSe tame objection upon the 
 same facts may be taken at the next general 
 aimual licensing meeiing to the renewal of the 
 licence, and the renewal may be refused on that 
 ground. Smith v. Shann 
 
 , Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 347 
 
 22. — Renewal — "Real resident holder and 
 occupier"— Beer House ^ct, 1840 (3*4 Vict, 
 c. 61), s. 1. 
 
 The mere fact that the tenant in occupation 
 of a beerhouse carries on the sale of beer therein 
 as the salaried employee of his landlords, a 
 brewery company, to whom he is accountable for 
 the profits, does not involve as a conclusion of 
 law that he is not tiiC real resident holder and 
 occupier of the house within the meaning of s. 1 
 of the Beer House Act, 1840 :— 
 
 So held by the C A. 
 
 Objectors to the renewal of a licence have no 
 right to be heard on an appeal to quarter ses- 
 sions or in the High Court on a case stated by 
 the quarter sessions : — 
 
 So held by the Div. Ct. Nix v. Nottingham 
 
 Justices - C. A. [1899] W. N. 106 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 ft. B. 294 
 
 23. — Renewal — Right to apply — Application 
 by person other than licensed person. 
 
 The holder of a licence to sell by retail beer 
 and cider on the premises applied for a renewal 
 at the general annual licensing meeting, and was 
 refused. At the adjourned general annual 
 licensing meeting, S., who had in the meantime 
 become tenant and occupier, applied for a renewal 
 of the licence, which had not expired : — 
 
 Held, that S. was a person entitled to apply 
 for renewal, although he was not the licensed 
 peroon. Symons v. Wedmore 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 401 
 
 24. — Transfer — Grant of licence to " iifw 
 tenant " — Jurisdiction of justices — Alehouse A ct, 
 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. 14 — Change of occupancy 
 — Beerhouse. 
 
 In Sept., 1890, justices granted a special 
 transfer licence to a new tenant under s. 14 of the 
 Alehouse Act, 1828. The licence expired on 
 Oct. 10, 1890, and on Jan. 3, 1891, the tenant 
 made a second application under the same section 
 
( 1105 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1106 ) 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Licenoe)— continued. 
 
 for another licence to carry him on until 
 
 Oct., 1891 :— 
 
 Meld, that the justices had no jurisdiction to 
 entertain a second application under the section. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1891] 1 Q. B. 718, 
 affirmed. Eeg. v. Powell 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 693 
 
 25. — Transfer — Justices— Jurisdiction — Out- 
 lying district of county — Transfer to other county 
 —County Police Act, 1840 (3*4 Vict. c. 88), s. 2. 
 
 The transfer of an outlying district of a 
 county to another county under the County Police 
 Act, 1840, s. 2, does not effect a transfer of the 
 licensing jurisdiction in that district to the 
 justices of that other county. Reg. v. Wob- 
 
 CEBTERSHIEE JUSTICES. EeG. V. WaRWIOKSHIEE 
 
 Justices - C. A. [1898] "W. N. 160 (10) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. S9 
 
 26. — Transfer — Premises pulled down — 
 Person to apply — Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, 
 c. 01), ss. 4, 14 — Practice — Mandamus — Costs. 
 
 Where a licensed house is pulled down for 
 the purpose of public improvements, and applica- 
 tion is made under ». 14 of the Alehouse Act, 
 1828, for the grant to the person whose house has 
 been pulled down of a licence in respect of other 
 fit and convenient premises, the application must 
 be made by a licensed person who was keeping 
 the old premises as an inn at the time of their 
 demolition. 
 
 Where a person, who has successfully opposed 
 the granting of a licence, subsequently success- 
 fully shews cause against the making absolute of 
 a rule nisi for a mandamus to the licensing jus- 
 tices or to quarter sessions, the Court has a dis- 
 cretion to grant him the costs of shewing cause 
 against tlie rule, although licensing justices are 
 not a court of summary jurisdiction. 
 
 Boulter v. Kent Justices, [1897] A. 0. 556, 
 considered. Eeg. v. Yorkshire (Justices for 
 - the West Riding of). JSx parte Shaw 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 503 
 
 27. — Transfer refused — Licence " in force " — 
 Licensing Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, a. 61), «. 14— TTme 
 and Beerhouse Acts. 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 27), 
 ss. 8, 19 ; 1870 (33 & 3t Vict. c. 29), s. 7. 
 
 Justices refused to renew a licence, dating 
 from before May 1, 1869, in consequence of a 
 conviolion for permitting drunkenness on the 
 premises. Before the licence expired on Oct. 10 
 the tenant gave up his house, and the new tenant 
 applied for a transfer of the licence. Hia notice 
 of application was given on Oct. 9, and his appli- 
 cation was made on Nov. 17, under s. 14 of the 
 Alehouse Act, 1828 :— 
 
 Eeld, that the licence had not been con- 
 tinuously "in force " from before May 1, 1869, to 
 the date of the application within s. 19 of the 
 Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, and therefore a 
 refusal to transfer need not be confined to one of 
 the four grounds mentioned in that section. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1893] 1 Q. B. 635 (reversing 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 281), affirmed Freer j;. 
 Murray - - H. I. (E.) [1894] A. C. 576 
 
 Oifences. 
 
 28. — aub— Proprietary club— Selling liquors 
 to members without g. licence— Licensing Acts, Jg28 
 
 LICENSING ACTS {O&euaei)— continued. 
 (6 Geo. 4, 0. 81), s. 26 ; 1834 (4 <fc 5 Will. 4, u. 85), 
 s. 17; 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. v. 27), s. 19; 1872 
 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 91), s. 3. 
 
 A. visited a proprietary club of which he was 
 neitlier a member nor a shareholder, and asked 
 for spirits. |Ho was then and there elected an 
 honorary member pending inquiries, and supplied 
 with spirits. The club had no licence for the 
 sale of intoxicants : — 
 
 Held, that the proprietors might be convicted 
 for selling without a licence. Bowyer v. Percy 
 Supper Club - Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 154 
 
 29. — Drunlcen person — Sale to, by servant con- 
 trary to instructions — Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 
 Vict. c. 94), s. 13. 
 
 The Licensing Act, 1872, a. 13, makes it an 
 offence for any licensed person to sell any intoxi- 
 cating liquor to any drunken person. The 
 respondent, a licensed person, gave orders to his 
 servants that no drunken persons were to bo 
 served; during his absence one of his servants 
 sold intoxicating liquor to a drunken person : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent was guilty of an 
 offence under the section for he was liable for 
 the act of his servant, that act having been done 
 by the servant within the general scope of his 
 employment, although contrary to the orders of 
 his master. Commissioners of Police v. Cart- 
 man - - Div. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B. 655 
 
 30. — Drunlienness — Being found drunk on 
 licensed premises after closing hours — Licensing 
 Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 12. 
 
 A customer, not being an inmate or lodger, 
 who is found drunk in a public-house after the 
 closing hour and after the premises are in fact 
 closed, may be convicted under s. 12 of the 
 Licensing Act, 1872, of being found drunk on 
 licensed premises. Licensed premises do not 
 cease to be licensed premises for the purposes of 
 that section by reason of the fact that after the 
 hour of closing they are no longer open to the 
 public. 
 
 Lester v. Torrens, (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 403, con- 
 sidered. Reg. v. Pelly - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1897] 2 ft. B. 33 
 
 31. — Drunkenness — Permitting drunkenness 
 on premises — Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict, 
 c. 94), s. 13. 
 
 (a) a licensed person who sells intoxicating 
 liquor on his premises to a drunken person is 
 liable to be convicted under s. 13 of the Licensing 
 Act, 1872, of the offence of permitting drunken- 
 ness to take place on his premises. Edmunds v. 
 James - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 18 
 
 (b) It is not necessary to constitute the offence 
 of permitting drunkenness on licensed premises 
 within s. 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872, to shew 
 that a drunken person was served with drink on 
 the premises. Hope v. Waeburton 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 134 
 
 (o) If the licensed person was ignorant that 
 the person found on the premises was drunk, he 
 cannot be convicted of permitting drunkenness 
 under s. 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872. Somer- 
 set V, WA»i! - Piv, Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B, 674 
 
( 1107 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900 
 
 ( 1108 ) 
 
 IICENSING ACTS (OSenees}— continued. 
 
 32. — Keeping open during prohibited hours — 
 Licensing Act, 1874 (37 * 38 Vict. c. 49), s. 9. 
 
 In order to constitute the offence of opening 
 or keeping open licensed premises for the sale of 
 intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours, 
 ■within the meaning of s. 9 of the Licensing Act, 
 1874, there must be means of access to customers 
 to the interior of the premises from the outside. 
 If therefore the outer doors are closed at the 
 closing hour, so as to prevent access from the 
 outside, the offence of keeping open the pre- 
 mises during prohibited hours is not proved by 
 evidence that customers, who were on the pre- 
 mises before closing time, remained there and 
 were supplied with liquor afterwards, although 
 such evidence might justify a conviction under 
 the same section for selling intoxicating liquor 
 during prohibited hours. Jeffrey v. Weaver 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 ft. B. 449 
 
 33. — Keeping open premises during prohibited 
 lours — Tlieatres — Licensing Acts, 1872 (35 & 36 
 Vict. c. 94), s. 72; 1874 (37 & 33 Vict. c. 49), 
 ss. 3, 9. 
 
 The Licensing Act, 1874 (which is to be read 
 as one with the Licensing Act, 1872), provides 
 (ss. 3, 9) that all premises in which intoxicating 
 liquors are sold by letail shall be closed at cert.ain 
 specified times; and penalties are imposed on 
 persons keeping open such premises during the 
 prohibited times. Sect, 72 of the Licensing Act, 
 1872, provides that "nothing in this Act shall 
 affect or apply to the sale of intoxicating liquors 
 by proprietors of theatres, in pursuance of the 
 Acts in that behalf" : — 
 
 Meld, that s. 72 of the Act of 1872 did not 
 apply to exempt the propiietor of a theatre, who 
 held an excise licence to sell intoxicating liquors 
 by retail at his theatre, from (he piovisions, with 
 respect to closing, contained in the Act of 1874. 
 Gallaghek v. Ecdd - - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 153 (9); [1898] 1 Q. B. 114 
 
 34. — Place not authorized by licence — Sale at 
 — Appropriation of goods sold — Licensing Act, 
 1872 (36 & 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 3. 
 
 A brewer at Burnley, having an off-licence for 
 the sale of beer by retail, sent round a traveller 
 to obtain orders at Accrington. Tlie traveller 
 handed to the consumer at whose house he called 
 a printed and stamped post-card, addressed to 
 the brewery; the traveller wrote on the post- 
 card the quantity of ale required, and the cus- 
 tomer signed the post-card, which was then 
 posted by the traveller. The post-card contained 
 a request to the brewer to supply the quantity 
 of ale named weekly until further notice, and 
 concluded as follows : " I assent to the appro- 
 priation by you to this order at your brewery of 
 goods of the above description and in a deliver- 
 able state." The brewer's caiter selected at the 
 brewery, in accordance with such an order, six 
 bottles of ale, ono of wliioh he labelled with the 
 customer's name and address, and placed them 
 in a coop or box together with six other bottles 
 for another customer, one of which was also 
 labelled. The goods (with others) were then 
 placed on a lorry, and ultimately delivered at the 
 customer's house, whero they were paid for on 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Offences)— coniinuei. 
 
 Held, that there had been a complete sale ami 
 appropriation of the goods at the brewery at 
 Burnley, and that the brewer could not be con- 
 victed under s. 3 of the Licensing Act, 1872, of 
 selling intoxicating liquor at a place where he 
 was not authorized by his licence to sell the 
 same. 
 
 Fletts V. Campbell, [1895] 2 Q. B. 229, dis- 
 tinguished. Pletts v. Bbattie 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 519 
 
 35. — Place not authorized by licence — Sale at 
 —Licensing Act, 1872 (35 * 36 Vict. c. 94), «. 3. 
 
 A brewer, having an off-licence for the sale 
 of beer by retail, was in the habit of sending 
 round his cart containing jars of beer; the jars 
 were delivered from the cart at the customers' 
 houses in pursuance of orders given by the cus- 
 tomers at their houses to the carter in the previous 
 week, the price being paid to the carter in the 
 week succeeding delivery. There was no label 
 or mark upon the jars to shew that any particular 
 jar had been appropriated to any particular 
 customer : — 
 
 Held, that the sale of the beer must be taken 
 to have been at the house of the customer and 
 not at the licenced premises. Pletts v. Cami'- 
 BELL Div. Ct. [1895] 2 ft. B. 229 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Pletts v. Beattie, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 519. See preceding Case. 
 
 36. — Traveller — " Bond fide traveller '' — Re- 
 freshment on Sunday — Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 
 
 Vict. c. 49), (s. 9, 10. 
 
 A railway porter, who to get to his duties was 
 obliged to go more than six miles from his home, 
 was, as far as reafonable refreshment went, held 
 to be a bona fide traveller within s. 10 of the 
 Licensing Act, 1874. Cowap v. Atherton 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 49 
 
 37. — Traveller— "Bond fide trareller"~Ile- 
 fresliment on Sunday — Licensing Act, 1874 (37 <£- 38 
 
 Vict. c. 49), ss. 9, 10. 
 
 The test whether a man is a bonS, fide 
 traveller, who may be served with drink during 
 prohibited hours, is the object of his journey. If 
 the object of the journey is solely to obtain drink 
 which the man cannot obtain at home, he is not 
 a bona fide traveller, even though he journey the 
 necessary three miles ; and the publican who 
 served him, if he knew the man's object, may be 
 convicted of the offence of selling during pro- 
 hibited hours. Penn v. Alexander 
 
 Div. Ct. (Cave J. diss.) [1893] 1 ft. B. 622 
 
 38. — Traveller — "Bond fide traveller" — Sale 
 to, for consumption of licensed premises — Licmmng 
 Act, 1874 (37 * 38 Fief. c. 49), s. 10. 
 
 The iwovision in s. 10 of the Licensing Act, 
 1874, that " Nothing in this Act or in the prin- 
 cipal Act contained shall preclude a person 
 licensed to sell any intoxicating liquor to be con- 
 tumed on the premises from selling such liquor 
 at any time to bona fide travellers," does not 
 authorize the licensed person to sell for con- 
 sumption off the premises intoxicating liquor 
 duiing the time at which the premises are re- 
 quired to be closed. Mountifield v. Ward 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 326 
 
 89. — Traveller— Falsdy pretending to lie a 
 
( 1109 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1110 ) 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Offences)— eo»iM«ued. 
 traveller — Person arriving at or departing from 
 railway station — Licensing Acts, 1872 (35 & 36 
 Vict. c. 94), s. 25 ; 1874 (37 & 38 Viet. c. 49), 
 «. WSunday Closing {Wales) Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 61), 8. 4. 
 
 A person who, after taking a ticket at a rail- 
 way station, obtains intoxicating liquor at the 
 refreehmeut-room at the station during prohibited 
 hours and then leaves by train, even though he 
 took the ticket in order to obtain the intoxicating 
 liquor before starting, cannot be convicted under 
 8. 25 of the Licensing Act, 1872, of obtaining in- 
 toxicating liqnor during closing hours by falsely 
 representing himself to be a traveller, but is 
 within the exemption in ». 10 of the Licensing 
 Act, 1874, in favour of persons arriving at or 
 departing from a railway station by- railroad. 
 Williams v. Macdonald 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 308 
 
 40. — Unlicensed premises — " lUegdlhj dealing 
 in, intoxicating liquors " — Licensing Act, 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49), s. 17. 
 
 A person found on imlicensed premises is, 
 until the contrary be proved, to " be deemed 
 to be there for the purpose of illegally dealing 
 in intoxicating liquors," within s. 17 of the 
 Licensing Act, 1874, if he be there for the pur- 
 pose of buying liquors. " Illegal dealing " is not 
 confined to selling liquors. MoKbkzie v. Day 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 289 
 
 41. . — Without licence — Sale — Disqualification 
 from holding licence — Application hy owner for 
 authority to carry on business — Beerhouse licensed 
 before 1869 — Limitation of discretion of justices to 
 refuse application — Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 27), ss. 8, 19 ; Licensing Acts, 
 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. o. 94), s. 3 ; 1874 (37 & 38 Vict, 
 u. 49), s. 15. 
 
 The holder of a licence to fell beer to be 
 consumed on and off the premises, which had 
 been continuously in force from a date anterior to 
 1 869, having forfeited this licence in consequence 
 of his conviction for selling spirits without a 
 licence, the owner of the premises applied to a 
 court of summary jurisdiction, under s. 15 of the 
 Licensing Act, 1874, for authority to carry on the 
 Sime business on the same premises until the 
 next special licensing sessions : — 
 
 Held, that the court of summary jurisdiction 
 had no authority to refuse this application on 
 any ground other than those specified in s. 8 of 
 the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869. .Ba; parte 
 Flinn & Sons (No. 2). 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 607. 
 
 See next Case. 
 
 42. — Witlwut licence — Sale— Disqualification 
 from holding licence — Application by owner for 
 authority to carry on business — Jurisdiction to make 
 order- Licensing Acts, 1872 (35 * 36 Vict. e. 94), 
 «. 3 ; 1874 (87 & 38 Vict. c. 49), s. 15. 
 
 By the Licensing Act, 1872, s. 3, no person 
 shall sell by retail intoxicating liqnor without 
 being licensed, subject to penalties, for the first 
 offence of 50/. or one month's imprisonment, for 
 the second offence of 1001. or three months, and 
 in the case of a second offence, " he may, by order 
 of the Court by which he is tried, be disqualified 
 for any term not exceeding five years from hold- 
 
 HCENSING ACTS (OSences)— continued. 
 
 ing any licence for the sale of intoxicating 
 
 liquors." 
 
 By the Licensing Act, 1874, s. 15, "Where 
 any licensed person is convicted for the first time 
 of" (inter alia) "selling spirits without a spirit 
 licence .... and in consequence either becomes 
 personally disqualified or has his licence for- 
 feited," the owner of the premises may apply for 
 authority to carry on the business. 
 
 A licensed person was convicted on the same 
 day of two separate offences, for selling spirits 
 without a spirit licence on two different days, and, 
 on the second conviction, was ordered to be dis- 
 qualified from holding a licence. The owner 
 applied for authority to carry on the business. 
 The justices held that they had no jurisdiction to 
 hear and determine the application. 
 
 Held, that the words in s. 15 of the Act of 
 1874, "for the first time," govern the wor^ls 
 " becomes personally disqualified or has his 
 licence forfeited," as well as the words specifying 
 the offences, and therefore the owner was entitled 
 to apply, and the justices had jurisdiction to 
 make an order. Ex parte Flinn & Sons. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 94; [1899] 2 Q. B. 154 
 
 See also No. 9, above. 
 
 43, — Without licence — Sale — House of Com- 
 mons—Sale by servant of the House — Charge 
 against servant — Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 
 Vict. c. 94), 8. 3. 
 
 The provisions of s. 3 of the Licensing Act, 
 1872, imposing penalties for unlawful sale of 
 liquor without a licence, do not apply to a servant 
 selling liquor, the property of his master, by his 
 master's order. 
 
 The respondent, a servant of the House of 
 Commons, sold liquor, the property of the House, 
 at a bar within the precincts of the House. The 
 purchaser of the liquor was not a member of 
 either House of Parliament, and the place where 
 it was sold was not licensed for the sale of liquor. 
 
 On a case stated on an information charging 
 the respondent with unlawfully selling liquor 
 which he was not licensed to sell, contrary to s. 3 
 of the Licensing Act, 1872 : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent was not guilty of an 
 offence against the Act, and could not be con- 
 victed. Williamson v. Noeris 
 Div. Ct. [1898] W. N, 151 (8) | [1899] 1 ft. B. 7 
 
 44. — Without licence— Selling intoxicating 
 liquors — Sale by holder of licence after temporary 
 authority granted to another — Alehouse Act, 1842 
 (5*6 Vict. c. 44), 8. 1— Licensing Act, 1872 
 (35 * 36 Vict. 0. 94), s. 3. 
 
 The respondent, being the duly licensed 
 keeper of a beerhouse, remained in possession of 
 the premises and sold beer thereon after a tem- 
 porary authority to carry on the business on the 
 same premises had been granted, under 5 & 6 
 Vict. c. 44, 6. 1, to another person in contempla- 
 tion of the transfer of the licence and the posses- 
 sion of the premises to him : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent was not liable to be 
 convicted under s. 3 of the Licensing Act, 1872, 
 of the offence of selling intoxicating liquors with- 
 out a licence. Andrews v. Denton 
 
 Div, Ct. [1897] 2 ft, B. 37 
 
DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( nil ) 
 
 LICENSING ACTS—contmued. 
 Police. 
 
 48. — Power of police constable to enter on 
 licensed premises— Licensing Act, 1874 (37 * 38 
 Vict. e. 49), s. 16. 
 
 By 8. 16 of the Licensing Act, 1874, " Any 
 constable may, for the purpose of preventing or 
 detecting the violation of any of the provisions 
 of the prinoipnl Act or this Act which it is his 
 duty to enforce, at all times enter on any 
 licensed premises " : — 
 
 Held, that a constable cannot under the above 
 section demand admission to the licensed pre- 
 mises unless he has reasonable ground for sub- 
 pec'ting that some violation of the said Acts is 
 taking place or is about to take place thereon. 
 Ddncan v. Dowding Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B, 575 
 
 46. — Supplying liquor to police constable on 
 duty — Knowledge of licensed victualler — Mens rea 
 —Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. u. 94), ». 16, 
 svh-s. 2. 
 
 Sect. 16, sub-s. 2, of the Licensing Act, 1872, 
 does not apply where the licensed victualler 
 bona fide believes that the police constable is 
 off duty. Sheebab v. De Etjtzen 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 918 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Derbyshire v. 
 Howliston, [1897] 1 Q. B. 772, 777. 
 
 Referred to by P. C. Bank of New South 
 Wales V. Piper, [1897] A. C. 383, 390. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 47. — Appeal — Costs — Appeal from licensing 
 justices — Objection to licence — Party to appeal — 
 Order for costs against objector — Court of sum- 
 mary jurisdiction — Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), s. 31— Interpretation 
 Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 63), «. 13, sub-s. 11. 
 
 Justices at a licensing meeting are not a court 
 of summary jurisdiction ; a refusal of licensing 
 justices to renew a licence is not " a conviction or 
 order " ; and appeals to quarter sessions against 
 the refusal to grant a licence are not regulated 
 by s. 31 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. 
 
 At a licensing meeting a person objected to 
 the renewal of a licence, and it was refused. On 
 appeal to quarter sessions the objector did not 
 appear, and the renewal was granted : — 
 
 Held, that the court of quarter sessions had 
 no power to make an order for costs against the 
 objector. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1896] 2 Q. B. 306, 
 reversed. 
 
 Reg. V. Glamorganshire Justices, [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 621, overruled. Boultee v. Kent Justices 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 656 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. West Riding 
 of yorkshire Justices, [1898] 1 Q. B. 503 ; Reg. v. 
 Staffordshire Justices, [1898] 2 Q. B. 231, 235; 
 Reg. V. Manchester Justices, [1899] 1 Q. B. 571, 
 575. 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Tynemouth Cor- 
 poration V. Att.-Gen., [1899] A. C. 293, 301. 
 
 48. — Appeal — Costs — Appeal from refusal of 
 licence — Summary Jurisdiction Acts — Alehouse 
 Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, e. 61), s. 29. 
 
 Aa regards an appeal agaiijst a refusal to 
 
 ( 1112 ) 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Practice) — continued. 
 renew a licence, s. 29 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, 
 has not been repealed ; but it does not apply to 
 the costs of justices who make themselves 
 " parties" within the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879, s. 31, sub-s. 5, to an appeal by taking an 
 active part in opposing the appeal. 
 
 When an ajipeal is dismissed quarter sessions 
 have a discretion as to the costs of justices who 
 thus make themselves "parties" to the appeal, 
 and if they have exercised their discretion by 
 refusing to give the justices their costs, the 
 High Court caunot interfere by mandamus. 
 
 Appeals to quarter sessions from justices 
 acting in their jurisdiction under the Licensing 
 Acts are now regulated by the Summary Juris- 
 diction Acts, 1848, 1879, and 1881. But these 
 Acts do not lepeal s. 29 of the Alehouse Act, 
 1828. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1895] 1 Q. B. 214, 
 affirmed. Esa. v. London Justices (No. 4) 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 a. B. 616 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. Stafford- 
 tUre Justices, [1898] 2 Q. B. 231, 235. 
 
 49. — • Appeal — Costs — Licence — Renewal — 
 Appeal against refusal to renew licence — Costs of 
 justices — Indemnity costs, Bight to — Mandamus — • 
 Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. 29. 
 
 Where licensing justices, who had been 
 served with notice of appeal against their refusal 
 to renew a licence, had appeared at quarter ses- 
 sions and acted as respondents to the appeal : — 
 
 Held, that s. 29 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, 
 made it imperative, upon the dismissal of the 
 appeal, for the court of quarter sessions to enter- 
 tain an application by the licensing justices for 
 an order upon the appellants to pay them such 
 sum by way of costs as should in the opinion of 
 the court of quarter sessions be sufficient to 
 indemnify them from all costs and charges to 
 which they might have been put in consequence 
 of their having had notice of the appeal served 
 upon them. 
 
 Beg. V. London Justices, [1895] 1 Q. B. 616, 
 
 not followed. Reg. v. Woeoestebshiee Justices 
 
 C. A, [1900] 2 ft. B. 576 
 
 50. — Appeal — Costs — Refusal to renew licence 
 — Appearance of licensing justices in opposition to 
 appeal — Power of quarter sessions to give costs 
 against justices so opposing — Alehov^se Act, 1828 
 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), ss. 27, 29. 
 
 Where, upon an appeal to quarter sessions 
 against a refusal by licensing justices to renew a 
 licence, the licensing justices appear and oppose 
 the renewal, the quarter sessions have no power 
 under s. 27 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, to order 
 the licensing justices to pay costs to the appellant 
 in the event of the appeal being allowed. Eeg. v. 
 Stapfoedshieb Justices 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 231 
 
 51. — Appeal — Costs — Taxation — Justices — 
 Quarter sessions — Jurisdiction — Costs of appeal 
 — Costs of licensing justices on successful appeal 
 —Order to pay costs incurred by clerk to justices 
 — Taxation — Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), 
 s. 29. 
 
 By s. 29 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, power is 
 given to a, court of quarter sessions, where a 
 
( liis 3 
 
 nl(iEs1? ov dAsiig, isgi— i^do. 
 
 ( 1114 ) 
 
 tlCENSIITG ACTS (Practice)— confinaed. 
 judgment of licensing justices is reversed upon 
 appeal, to order " that the treasurer of the county 
 or place in and for which such justice- whose 
 judgment shall have been so reversed shall have 
 acted on the occasion when he shall have given 
 such judgment shall pay to such justice or to 
 whomsoever he shall appoint such sum as shall 
 in the opinion of such Court be suiBoient to 
 indemnify such justice from all costs and charges 
 whatsoever to which such justice may have been 
 put" in consequence of his having had served 
 upon him notice of the intention of tlie party to 
 appeal. 
 
 An order of quarter sessions, made upon the 
 allowance of an appeal from the licensing justices 
 of a borough, and directing the borough treasurer 
 to pay to the clerk of the borough justices a 
 certain sum of money for the re;isonable costs, 
 charges, and expenses to which lie has been put 
 ill supporting the order of the licensing justices 
 is bad, it not being an order for payment of a sum 
 which in the opinion of the Court will '' indemnify 
 the justices " from the costs to which they have 
 been put. 
 
 Where an order is made under the above 
 section, the amount of the costs, if not ascertained 
 by the Court itself, should be ascertained by the 
 taxation of the clerk of the peace, and his taxation 
 should be adopted by the Court, during the 
 currency of the sessions ; the costs can only be 
 taxed out of sessions by consent. Eeg. v. Windek 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 ft. B. 666 
 
 — Appeal — Cosis of chief constable — Payment 
 
 of — Appeal against refusal of licence — 
 
 Borough fund. 
 
 See CoKPOEATiON. 10. 
 
 — Appeal — Notice of— Service. 
 
 See No. 1 2, above. 
 
 — Appeal — Eight of — Licensing officer — Juris- 
 
 diction of Supreme Court. 
 See Natal. 5. 
 
 62. — Appeal to quarter sessions — Justices 
 equally dioided — Justice withdrawing — Adjourn- 
 mmt— Alehouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. i, c. 61), 
 ss. 9, 27. 
 
 Sect. 9 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, which 
 enacts that questions as to granting, &c., of 
 liceuees " shall be determined by the majority of 
 justices, not disqualified, who shall be present," 
 does not apply to appeals to quarter sessions. 
 On the hearing of such an appeal the justices 
 were equally divided, and the power of adjourn- 
 ment being doubted, one of the justices in favour 
 of the appeal withdrew, and the appeal was 
 dismissed : — 
 
 Beld, affirming the decision of C. A , that the 
 appeal had been heard and determined. Ex parte 
 Evans - - H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 16 
 
 53. — Appeal to quarter sessions — Onus of 
 proof — Refusal to renew without evidence — Licence 
 —Uenewal— Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict, 
 c. 94), «. i2—AUhouse Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, o. 61), 
 8 27. 
 
 On an appeal to quarter sessions against the 
 refusal of licensing justices to renew a licence, 
 the quarter sessions are not entitled to refuse to 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (Practice)— coniiii«ed. 
 renew the licence without evidence of any ground 
 of objection to its renewal : — 
 
 So held, reversing the decision of a Div. Ct., 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 5. EvAKs v. Conwat Jcstices 
 C. A, [1900] W. N. 133 ; [1900] 2 ft. B. 224 
 
 64. — Jurisdiction — Excess of — Certiorari — 
 Mandamus. 
 
 , At a general annual licensing meeting an 
 .application was made for a licence to sell in 
 toxicating liquors. The justices granted the 
 licence upon the applicant paying to them a sum 
 of money, which money they intended to apply 
 in reduction of the rates of the borough, or for 
 some other similar public purpose. Certain per- 
 sons, who had appeared before the justices in 
 opposition to the application, then obtained a 
 rule for a certiorari to bring up the liceuce to 
 be quiished, and also a rule for a mandamus to 
 hear and determine the application for a licence 
 according to law : — 
 
 SelA, that tiie rule for a mandamus must be 
 made absolute, on the ground that the objectors 
 had a, right to be heard before the licensing 
 justices according to law, that the justices in 
 annexing to the grant of the licence the con- 
 dition of the payment of money shewed that they 
 had allowed their decision to be influenced by 
 extraneous considerations, and that the hearing 
 under such circumstances was equivalent to no 
 hearing at all ; but that the rule for a certiorari 
 must, on the authority of Heg. v. Sharman, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 578 [see No. 56, helowl, be discharged on 
 the ground that the grant by licensing justices 
 of a licence to sell intoxicating liquor is not a 
 judicial order. Eeg. v. Bowman 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 663 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Meg. v. Cotham, 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 802, 806. 
 
 65. — Jurisdiction — Excess of — New licence — 
 Confirmation of — Certiorari. 
 
 The confirming authority whose confirmation 
 is, under the provisions of the Licensing Acts, 
 necessary to the validity of certain classes of new 
 licences, sit as a court, and therefore, if a licence 
 granted to a person not qualified by law to hold 
 it or in other respects granted without jurisdiction 
 is confirmed by them, a writ of certiorari will lie 
 to bring it up to be quashed. 
 
 Beg. v. Sharman, [1898] 1 Q. B. 578, distin- 
 guished. Eeg. v. Manchester Jtjstices 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 18 (6) ; 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 671 
 
 66. — Jurisdiction of justices — Application for 
 new licence — Power to require witnesses to be sworn 
 — Certiorari — Mandamus. 
 
 On the hearing, at a general annual licensing 
 meeting, of an application for a new licence for 
 a hotel, witnesses were called on behalf of persons 
 who opposed the granting of the licence, and 
 these witnesses gave evidence on oath. Another 
 person then appeared to oppose, and proposed to 
 make statements of fact. The justices required 
 that he should be sworn. He refused, and they 
 declined to hear him, and granted the licence. 
 
 On an application for a certiorari, or for a 
 mandamus to the justices to hear and deter- 
 mine : — 
 
 Seld, that the certiorari ought not to be 
 
( 1115 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 111^ ) 
 
 LICENSING ACTS (riactice)- continued. 
 granted, and semhle, that, as the justices at the 
 licensing meeting were not acting as a court of 
 summary jurisdiction, but in an administrative 
 capacity, certiorari would not lie : 
 
 Held, also, that the justices were acting within 
 
 their jurisdiction in refusing to hear statements 
 
 not made upon oath, and a mandamus must be 
 
 refused. Eeg. v. Shakman. i?x parte Dentox 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 578 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Eeg. v. Boimnan, 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 663. See No. 54, above. 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Reg. v. Cutham, 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 802, 806. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Heg. v. Man- 
 chester Justices, [1899] 1 Q. B. 571. 
 
 — Renewal of lictnco. 
 
 See Nos. 6 — 23, ahove. 
 
 — Service — Xotice of opposition — Eenewal. 
 
 See Nos. 16, 17, ahove. 
 
 — Transfer of licence. 
 
 .See Nos. 2i— 27, ahove. 
 
 LIEN — Advances on improper security — Lien on 
 company's own shares — Duty of director. 
 See Company — Directors. 120. 
 
 — Cloak-room — Lien for charges — Goods depo- 
 
 sited by bailee. 
 
 See Eailw AT— Stations. 63. 
 
 — Innkeeper — Goods of third person. 
 
 See Inskeepee. 3. 
 
 — Loss of bill of lading freight — Waiver of lieu 
 
 for chartered freight 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 53. 
 
 — Maritime lien. 
 
 See Shipping — Lien. 
 
 — Railway company — Costs— Deposit. 
 
 See Railway — Practice. 36. 
 
 — Shsres — Calls — Alteration of articles — 
 
 Retrospective operation. 
 See Company — Calls. 7. 
 
 — Shares for debt of shareholder to company. 
 
 See Company— Shares. 282, 283. 
 
 — Solicitors' costs — Charging order — " Property 
 
 recovered or preserved " in bankruptcy 
 proceedings — Jurisdiction. 
 See Bankkuptot. 67. 
 
 — Solicitor's lien. 
 
 See SoLiciTOK — Lien. 
 
 — Trustees' lien on making good breach of trust. 
 
 See Tkustee— Breach of Trust. 33. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Lien. 
 
 LIFE INSURANCE. 
 
 See Insurance — Life. 
 
 LIFEINTEHEST— Hotchpot— Valuation. 
 
 See Settlement. 27. 
 
 LIFE SALVAGE. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 241, 242. 
 
 LIFE-RENT — Minerals— Eents and profits- 
 Opened quarries. 
 See Mines. 14. 
 
 — Eents and profits—" Opened" mines, 
 
 See Mines. 14. 
 
 LIFE-RENT — continued. 
 — Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 
 
 25, 42. 
 
 LIGHT AND AIR — "Adjoining" — Conveyance-^ 
 Covenant against overlooking lights — Buildings 
 " adjoining " vendors' land. 
 
 The deft, by deed covenanted with the pits, 
 that from time to time and at all times there- 
 after, "in the erection of any buildings adjoining 
 the hereditaments of the vendors edged blue in 
 the said plan," he would not " insert or permit 
 to be inserted any lights overlooking such other 
 hereditaments of the vendors." The deft, laid 
 out the land conveyed for building purposes and 
 built houses on it, the backs of which were from 
 twenty to twenty-six feet from tlie boundary 
 fence separating the two properties, the inter- 
 vening space being used as gardens or areas 
 belonging to the houses. There were windows 
 in the backs of the houses from which a howling 
 green on the plt.'s land, let to a first-class bowling 
 club, could be seen. The pits, sought an injunc- 
 tion to restrain the alleged breaches of covenant 
 and damages. 
 
 Beld, that the deft.'s houses did not " ad- 
 join" the pits.' property in the sense of the 
 particular covenant in question, which related 
 to " buildings " — not " houses " — adjoining. For 
 the covenant to apply, there must have been 
 buildings "adjoining" in the ordinary sense of 
 the word. 
 
 Decision of Buckley J., [1900] W. Jf. 24, 
 reversed. Ind, Coope & Co. v. Hamblin 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 270 
 2. — Air — Right to access of air. 
 The grantor of laud to be used for a particular 
 purpose is under an obligation to abstain from 
 doing anything on his adjoining land which 
 would prevent the land granted from being used 
 for that particular purpose. 
 
 A grant of land in general terms and not 
 made for a specific purpose does not give the 
 grantee an easement to the access of air over 
 adjoining property, except where such a right is 
 enjoyed through a definite aperture or a definite 
 channel. Aldin v. Latimeb Clarke, Muirhead 
 & Co. - Stirling J. [1894] 2 Ch. 437 
 
 3' — Air — Right to uninterrupted current of 
 "*'■ — Stagnation of air — Nuisance — Injunction. 
 
 A right to have air come over a neighbour's 
 land in a particular channel to a particular place 
 may be established by immemorial user ; but in 
 the absence of actual contract, no one can claim 
 a right to liave the general current of air over 
 his neighbour's property kept uninterrupted : per 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 389. 
 
 Judgment of C. A. varied by consent. 
 Chastet v. Aokland H, L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 155 
 — Air— Space — Power of local authority to 
 regulate— Cowsheds. 
 See Dairy. 1, 
 
 4. — Building agreement-— Right to ligld-- 
 Eguitahle easement. 
 
 On July 25, 1883, Earl Cadogan entered into 
 a building agreement with S., by which it was 
 agreed that during the period therein mentioned 
 S. might enter upon the six plots of land men- 
 tioned in the first schedule and should build 
 
( 111'? ) 
 
 btGiJST OP CASES, 1891—1900^ 
 
 ( 1118 ) 
 
 LIGHT AND AIR— continued, 
 upon plot 1, at an expense of not lesa ttan lOOOZ, 
 each, three houaes to be fit for occupation by 
 Christmas, 1890. Plana and eleTationu were to 
 he submitted to the Earl ; separate leases fo be 
 granted of the houses when roofed in and drained. 
 Clause 25 prohibited S. from sub-letting the 
 land or any part of it except by way of agree- 
 ment to builders before the leases were granted ; 
 and clause 32 provided that the agreement was 
 intended to operate as an agreement only and 
 not as on actual demise, or to give S. any legal 
 interest in such parts of the land as for the time 
 being remained unleased. S. was not bound to 
 commence building before Sept. 29, 1887, when 
 an existing lease would expire. On March 25, 
 1889, before any house had been built pursuant 
 to the above agreement. Earl Oadogan sold and 
 conveyed to C. and others some adjoining land 
 without their having notice of the agreement. In 
 1891 a lease of a house on plot 1 was granted to 
 ihe personal representative of S., who in the same 
 year granted a long underlease of it to the pit. 
 The land sold to C. and others was now vested in 
 the defts., who were building thereon in such a 
 way as seriously to obstruct tlie access of light to 
 the plt.'s premises. 
 
 Kekewioli J. held that the building agree- 
 ment gave S. a legal right which prevented the 
 Earl from dealing with his other property in 
 derogation of that right : — ■ 
 
 Meld, on appeal, that the agreement gave S. 
 no legal easement over any other part of the 
 Esirl's property, and that the defts , being pur- 
 chasers for value without notice, were not affected 
 by any equitable right. The injunction was 
 therefore dissolved. Pkinsep v. Belgeavian 
 Estate, Ld. - - C. A. [1896] W. N. 39 (1) 
 
 — Building estate — Implied grant — Derogating 
 from grant. 
 
 See Vbneob and Pdeohaser — Convey- 
 ance. 4:0. 
 
 5. — Crown — Prescription against — Ancient 
 lights — Property vested in trustees — Sale by trus- 
 tees—Prescription Act, 1832 (2*3 Will. 4, c. 71), 
 ss. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 The Crown, not being named in s. 3 of the 
 Prescription Act, 1832, is not bound by it, and, 
 consequently, no right of light can be obtained 
 by virtue of that section over land In possession 
 of the Crown, whether held directly or through 
 trustees. The general words in s. 2, in which 
 the Crown is named, do not apply to an easement 
 of light, which is governed exclusively by a. 3 
 and subsequent ancillary sections. Perky v. 
 Eames. Salaman v. Eames. Mebceks' Co. v. 
 Eames - ■ Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 668 
 
 Approved by C. A. in next case. 
 
 8. — Crown — Prescription against — Lessee of 
 Crown — Presumption of lost grant — Prescription 
 Act, 1832 (2*3 Will, i, c. 71), ss. 2, 3. 
 
 Sect. 2 of the Prescription Act, 1832, does not 
 apply to the easement of light, s. 3 does not bind 
 the Crown, and in the case of lights dating from 
 1852 a lost grant will not be presumed against 
 the Crown acting through the Commrs. of 
 Woods : — 
 
 Held, also, that ihe pit. could not establish a 
 right against the Crown lessees for their term, 
 
 LIGHT AND Alii— ioiitinued. 
 
 inflsniitoh as an easement, if acquitted ty prescript 
 
 tioh, must be absolute and not for a term of 
 
 years. 
 
 Perry V. Mames,[189l'\ 1 Ch. 658, approved. 
 Wheaton v. Maple & Co. C. A, [1893] 3 Ch. 48 
 
 7. — Devise of house to one and of land adjoin- 
 ing to another — JRight of light to windows over the 
 land. 
 
 The owner in fee of a house and an adjoining 
 field over which the light lequired for the windows 
 of the house passed devised the house to A. and 
 the field to B. :— 
 
 Held, that the right to light over the field 
 passed to the devisee of the house, and that the 
 devisee of the land had no right to obstruct tbe 
 light. Phillips v. Low Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 47 
 
 8. — Extinguishment of easement — Eebullding. 
 In ordei' to preserve in a new building the 
 
 right to light enjoyed by the old building, it 
 must be shewn that some defined ])art of an 
 ancient window admitted access of liglit through 
 the space occupied by a defined part of an exist- 
 ing window. Pendakves v. Monro 
 
 North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 611 
 
 — • Hoarding — Obstruction to light by — Injunc- 
 tion. 
 See BuiLDiNa Estate. I. 
 
 — Gas company — Statutory powers — Ancient 
 
 liglits, interference with — Injunction. 
 See Support. 1. 
 
 9. — Greenhouse — " Building " — Ancient 
 lights — Prescription — Injunction — Prescription 
 Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71), s. 3. 
 
 A greenhouse- is a " building " within s. 3 of 
 the Prescription Act (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71), and 
 therefore, if it has ancient lights, may be pro- 
 tected by injunction against interference with the 
 access of light. 
 
 Sarris v. De Pinna, (1886) 33 Ch. D. 238, 
 considered. Clipfoed v. Holt 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] W. N. 168 (2) ; [1899] 
 
 1 Ch. 698 
 
 — Implied grant — Derogating from grant. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Convey- 
 ance. 40. 
 
 10. — Inchoate right — Commencement of right 
 of action— Prescription Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, 
 c. 71), ss. 3, 4. 
 
 An inchoate title under the Prescription Act 
 cannot be treated as complete even if effectual 
 interruption before the tiile becomes absolute is 
 impossible. 
 
 In an action to restrain interference with 
 access of light, an interlocutory injunction was 
 granted ; but so as not to prevent building up to 
 the height of houses removed more than nineteen 
 and less than twenty years before action brought. 
 Lord Battersea v. Commrs. op Sewers for the 
 City op London - North J. [1895] 2 Ch. 708 
 
 11. — Inchoate right — Light enjoyed for more 
 than nineteen hut less than twenty years — Prescrip- 
 tion Act, 1832 (2 * 3 Will. 4, o. 71), s. 3. 
 
 An injunction to protect an inchoate right 
 which in a few months would ripen under s. 3 of 
 the Prescription Act, 1832, into an absolute and 
 indefeasible right to ancient lights refused, and 
 
I 1119 ) 
 
 DlBESi* OF dASteS, 1891— lEfOO. 
 
 { ll^O ) 
 
 IKrHT AND ATR— continued. 
 the pits, left to their remedy when the twenty 
 years had expired. Bkidewell Hospital Go- 
 VEBNOKS V. Waed, Look, Bowden & Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 194 
 
 12. — Leaselwld — Iiijunction or damages — 
 Future injury — Lord Cairns' Act (21 & 22 Vict, 
 c. 27), s. 2 — Special circumstances — Jurisdiction. 
 
 As a rale, where threatened injury to light is 
 Suhstantlal and there is no imperfection in tlie 
 plt.'s title to relief (as by laches) injunction is 
 the proper remedy. Whether the Court has 
 jurisdiction to award damages by way of com- 
 pensation fur an iajury threatened and intended 
 but not yet committed, qusere. In this case 
 Kekewich J. awarded damages instead of an in- 
 junction, hut the C. A. discharged the order and 
 granted an injunction as regards the threatened 
 obstruction. Maktin v. Price 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 276 
 
 Followed by C. A. Shelfer v. City of London 
 Electric Lighting Co., [1895] 1 Cli. 287, 311, 316; 
 Jordeson v. Sutton, Soutlicoates and Drypool Gas 
 Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 217. 
 
 13. — Leaselwld — Prescription Act, 1 832 (2 <fc 3 
 Will. 4, c. 71), s. 3. A tenant who by twenty 
 years' enjoyment has obtained a right of light 
 over other property of his landlord, retains the 
 right if he conlinue in occupation of the house 
 after the expiration of his lease. Eobsos v. 
 EnwAiiDS North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 146 
 
 14. — Mortgagee — Power of sale — Injunction 
 — Implied easement — Conveyancing Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. u. 41), «. 6, sub-ss. 2, 4, 5; s. 19— 
 Third party procedure — Co-defendants — Builder 
 —Indemnity— B. S. C, 1883, Order xv/., r. 55. 
 
 Though a mortgagee when selling under the 
 statutory power of sale has not the same full 
 power over the property as an absolute owner, he 
 can convey the property to a purchaser with all 
 tlie legal incidents accompanying the grant, and, 
 on a sale of part of the property comprised in the 
 moitgage, can give to tiie purchaser thereof an 
 implied easement of light over the unsold 
 portion. 
 
 In an action for an injunction against an 
 adjoining owner and his builder to restrain an 
 interference with light and for trespass, the 
 builder severed in his defence from his employer 
 and appeared separately at the trial, when an 
 injunction was granted with costs against the 
 deft., the adjoining owner : — 
 
 Held, under the circumstances, that the 
 
 builder was entitled to complete indemnity, and 
 
 to an order for the payment of his solicitor and 
 
 client costs by his co-delt. Bokn v. Tukker 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 122 ; [1900] 2 Ch, 211 
 
 15. — Ohstructlon — Actio personalis — Con- 
 tinuance of obstruction — Civil Procedure Act, 1833 
 (3 (t- 4 Will 4, c. 42), s. 2. 
 
 The contiuunnce of an obstruction to ancient 
 lights is an "injury committed" in respect of 
 property within the meaning of 3 & 4 Will. 4, 
 c. 42, s. 2, giving rise to a cause of action de die 
 in diem, and therefore an action in respect of the 
 continuance of the obstruction in tlie lifetime of 
 the person who can'-cd it may be maintained 
 
 LIGHT AND AIE — continued. 
 against his executors or administrators notwith- 
 standiag that the obstructing building was com- 
 pleted more than six calendar months before his 
 death. 
 
 Woodhouse v. WaVcer, (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 404, 
 followed. Jenks v. Viscount Clifden 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 694 
 
 16. — Obstruction — Injunction — Declaration 
 — Rebuilding — Evidence of intention to preserve 
 ancient lights — User — • Interruption — Abandon- 
 ment—Prescription Act, 1832 (2*3 Will. 4, 
 c. 71), ss. 3, 4. 
 
 In an action to restrain the obstruction of 
 ancient lights in respect of premises which have 
 been rebuilt, evidence of the plt.'s intention to 
 preserve ancient lights upon the rebuilding is 
 unnecessary. 
 
 " Interruption " in .=. 3 of the Prescription Act 
 bears the same meaning as in s. 4, and refers to 
 an adverse obstruction, and not to a mere discon- 
 tinuance of user. 
 
 The question whether there has been an actual 
 enjoyment of the use of light under the Prescrip- 
 tion Act for tlie statutory period is a question of 
 fact to be determined according to the circum- 
 stances of each case. 
 
 The pits., who had rebuilt their premises, 
 claim; d a right to ancient lights in respect of 
 portions of three windows in the new building 
 which coincided with portions of three windows 
 in the old building. A great part of the coinci- 
 dent area had been, in the case of two of the 
 windows, boarded up, and, in the case of the third 
 window, covered with shelving, for more than a 
 year before action brought; but the shelving 
 allowed a substantial amount of light to pass 
 through into the building: — • 
 
 Held, that, as to the two first windows, there 
 had been such a discontinuance of user as to pre- 
 vent the acquisition of any right by the pits. ; 
 secus as to the third. 
 
 In the circumstances of the case the Court 
 made a declaration of the pits.' right in lieu of 
 granting an injunction, the deft, undertaking to 
 submit the plans of his proposed building to the 
 pits. Smith r. Baxter - [1900] W. N. 87 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 17. — Obstruction — Mandatory injunction — 
 Ancient lights — Pulling doicn wall. 
 
 A mandatory injunction for the pulling down 
 of an obstructing wall granted. Shiel v. God- 
 feet & Co. - Kekewich J. [1893] "W. N. 115 
 
 18. — Obstruction — Mandatory injunction — 
 Erection of buildings after notice — Attempt to 
 anticipate injunction — Pulling down. 
 
 After Service of writ the deft, hurried on with 
 his buildings in the hope that when once up the 
 Court might decline to order them to bo pulled 
 down. The Court, without entering into the 
 merits of the case, ordered the wall to he pulled 
 down, being satisfied that the pit. would have 
 been entitled to an injunction for the purpose ot 
 keeping matters in statu quo. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J. affirmed. Dakiel v. 
 Ferguson - - C. A. [1891] 8 Ch. 27 
 
 Followed by C. A. Von Joel v. Hornsey, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 774. See next Case. 
 
C 1121 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1122 ) 
 
 LIGHT AND Al^R— continued. 
 
 19; — Olstruction — Mandatory injunolion — 
 Evading serm'ce of writ — Fulling down. 
 
 The deft, was erecting a building near the 
 pit's house. The pit. warned the deft, that if 
 the building were continued he would sue to 
 restrain it as an obstruction of his ancient lights. 
 After action brought the deft, evaded service of 
 the writ for several days, and in the meantime 
 continued the building till substituted service on 
 him was effected : — 
 
 Held, that the deft.'s evasion of the writ 
 brought the case within the principle of Daniel 
 v. Ferguson, [1891] 2 Oh. 27, and that the pit. 
 was entitled to an interlocutory mandatory in- 
 junction ordering the deft, to pull down so much 
 of the building as had been erected after the pit. 
 had warned the deft, that he intended to bring 
 an action. 
 
 The decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. Von 
 Joel v. Hoensey C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 774 
 
 20. — ■ Obstruction — Reservation in lease of 
 rigid to obstruct light — " Adjoining or contiguous " 
 — Covenantee — "Assign" — Prescription Act, 1832 
 (2 <fe 3 Will, i, 0. 71), s. 3. 
 
 A reservation in a lease of the right to obstruct 
 light prevents the lessee from acquiring a right to 
 light under s. 3 of the Prescription Act, 1832. 
 Where the document of title is sufficient to pass 
 the soil ad medium filum vise, houses on opposite 
 sides of a street are adjacent or contiguous to 
 each other. Haynes v. Kino 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 439 
 
 21. — SJcyliglds — Obstruction — Injunction. 
 There is no difference as to the easement of 
 
 light between skylights and other windows. 
 Harris v. Kinlooh & Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 60 
 
 22. — Special light for extraordinary purpose 
 — PJiotography — Prescription — Injunction. 
 
 A person who is in the present enjoyment of 
 an access of light to his premises for a special or 
 extraordinary purpose, such as taking photo- 
 graphic portraits, may obtain an injunction 
 against interference with that access of light, 
 oven though he may not have been in the enjoy- 
 ment of it for that special or extraordinary pur- 
 pose for the full statutory period of twenty years. 
 
 Lanfranclii v. Mackenzie, (1867) L. K. 4 Bq. 
 421, not followed. Lazarus v. Artistic Photo- 
 GEAPHIO Co. - Kekewich J. [1897] 2 Ch. 214 
 
 23. — Special light for extraordinary purposes 
 — Wool-sorting. . 
 
 Under an implied grant of light sufficient 
 
 light for ordinary business purposes alone is 
 
 granted and not light for special purposes, e.g. 
 
 wool-sorting. Corbett v. Jonas „„, „ „^ ,„„ 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 3 Ch. 137 
 
 And see Aldin v. Latimer Clarhe, Muirhead 
 i^ Co., Stirling J. [1894] 2 Ch. 437. 
 
 24. — Special quantity of light— Use of pre- 
 rni»es for purposes requiring special quantity of 
 liqU— Measured right— Prescription. 
 
 The pits.' windows had for twenty years 
 received an extraordinary amount of light ; but 
 although during tlie whole of that period the 
 premises were suitable for the purposes of a 
 ^nsiness requiring an extraordinary amoitnt Oj. 
 
 LIGHT AND AlH— continued. 
 light, they had in fact been used for thoso 
 purposes during only a portion of the period. 
 The deft., by the erection of a building, materially 
 diminished the amount of light passing through 
 the windows, but left sufficient for all ordinary 
 purposes : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the pit had no cause of action. 
 
 Qusere, whether it would have made any 
 difference if the premises had been used during 
 the whole of the statutory period for purposes 
 requiring an extraordinary amount of light. 
 Warren v. Brown Wright J, [1900] 2 Q. B, 722 
 
 25. — Unfinished Iwuse — Light and air — 
 Prescription Act, 1832 (2 <fe 3 Will 4, e. 71), 
 ss. 3, 4. 
 
 In the case of a right to light and air arising 
 through prescription, the time from which 
 prescription is to be computed commences when 
 the exterior walls with the window spaces are 
 completed and the building roofed in, although 
 the window sashes and the glass be not put in 
 nor the interior finished till some time afterwards. 
 CoLLis V. Laugher Bomer J. [1894] 3 Ch. 659 
 
 LIGHT DUES. 
 
 See Merchant Shipping (Mercantile 
 Marine Fund) Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. 
 0. 44). 
 
 — " Port charges." 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 43. 
 
 LIGHT RAILWAYS. 
 
 See Eailway — Light Railways. 
 
 LIGHTED CANDLES— Communion Service. 
 
 See EccLESiASTiCAi, Law — Ritual. 67. 
 
 LIGHTEEMAN-^Waterman and. 
 
 See Thames. 4, 5, 12. 
 
 LIGHTHOUSE— Poor-iate—Kateability— Dues. 
 See Bates. 33. 
 
 LIGHTING. 
 
 See Eleotbio Lighting. 
 
 — Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 — Gross value 
 — Artizans' dwellings— Cost of lighting 
 and defining common stair. 
 See Rates — Rateability. 12. 
 
 LIGHTING BATES— Brickfield— Land. 
 See Bates. 35. 
 
 LIGHTING STREETS— Power of urban authority. 
 See Streets — Lighting. 
 
 LIGHTING AND WATCHING BATE. 
 
 See Streets — Lighting. 
 
 LIGHTS— Collision. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Collision. 
 
 — Thames navigation — Side-lights. 
 See Thames. 10, 11. 
 
 LIGHTSHIP — Loss of use of— Hire of substitute 
 — Collision — ^Damages. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 72. 
 
 LIMITATION — By articles of association — 
 
 Winding-up — Contributory — Eight to 
 
 petition. 
 
 See Company — Wisding-up. 38. 
 — Legal and equitable — Contingent remainders 
 
 — Infants — Intermeiiiate rents. 
 
 5eeWiLL. 74. 
 
 ' 2 
 
( 1123 ) DIGEST OF CASES, 1891 
 
 Uook — Piracy- 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 
 
 Infringement — Combining cauaea of 
 
 action. 
 
 See CoPYiiiGHT. 11. 
 
 — Nuisance order — Coals of obtaining and 
 
 enforcing. 
 
 See Nuisances. 14. 
 
 — Public authorities protection. 
 
 See Cases under Pdblic Authorities 
 Peoteotion. 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 See Shipping — Limitation of Liability. 
 LIMITATION OF TIME. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 
 
 — Fences — Liability to mate, &c. 
 
 See Kailway. 6. 
 
 — For payment of debt by guardians. 
 
 See Poor Law — Guardians. 1 — 3. 
 
 — For renewal of writ. 
 
 See Pbaotice— "Writ. 300. 
 
 — Keconstruotion of company — New shares, 
 
 claim for. 
 
 See Company — Keconstruction. 219. 
 
 — Revivor. 
 
 See Peactice— Eevivor. 17.i — 177. 
 
 — Summary proceedings, 
 
 See Justices. 20—22. 
 
 — Unclaimed funds or dividends — Liability to 
 
 account. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — Trustee. 2i3. 
 
 — Water rate — Eecovcry. 
 
 See Watek. 33. 
 LIMITATION, WOEDS OF. 
 
 — Effect in will— Life o»tatc. 
 
 See "Will — Absolute Gift. 6, 7. 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. 
 
 Public Autlwrities Protection Act, 1S93 (56 it 57 
 Vict. a. 61), provides for the limitation of actions 
 against certain authorities and persons. 
 
 In General, col. 1123. 
 
 Absence, col. 1124. 
 
 Acknowledgment, col. 1124. 
 
 Bailment, col. 1126. 
 
 Banlsruptcy, col. 1126. 
 
 Company, col. 1127. 
 
 Copyholds. See Copyhold. 
 
 Fraud, col. 1127. 
 
 Highway, col. 1130. 
 
 Interest. See Interest. 3. 
 
 Legacy, col. 1131. 
 
 Mortgages, col. 1132. 
 
 Possession, col. 1134. 
 
 Power of Appointment, col. 1136. 
 
 Practice, col. 1136. 
 
 Surety, col. 1138. 
 
 Tenancy at Will, col. 1188. 
 
 Trustees. See Tkustee— Limitations, 
 Statute of. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Bond iu husband's possession — Loan to hus- 
 
 band — Interest on bond. 
 
 .Sec Husband anp Wii'e — Bond. 27. 
 
 -1900. ( 1124 ) 
 
 STATITTE OF (In General) — 
 
 LIMITATIONS, 
 
 continued. 
 
 — Boundary— Hedge and ditch— Presumption 
 
 — Acts of joint ownership. 
 See BouNDAEY. 1. 
 
 — Interest. 
 
 See Interest. 3. 
 
 — Nuisance order, costs of obtaining and enforc- 
 
 ing. 
 
 See Nuisances. 
 
 14. 
 
 — Pauper — Maintenance. 
 
 See Lunacy — Maintenance. 22. 
 
 — Principal and agent — Fiduciary relation — 
 
 Liability. 
 
 See Paetnebship. 32. 
 
 — Public Authorities Protection Act. 
 
 See Cases under Public Authorities 
 Protection. 
 
 — Rent — Hotchpot clause — Set-off. 
 
 See "Will — Advancement. 
 
 — Eetainer— Right of— Statute-barred debt. 
 
 See Executor — Retainer. 60. 
 
 — Eetainer — Statute-barred debt. 
 
 See Tenant foe Life. 
 
 — Eights of beneficiaries whose trustees are 
 
 baiTed — Interest in land. 
 See New South "Wales. 27. 
 
 — Solicitor's bill of costs. 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 59. 
 
 — Title of heir-at-law and next of kin barred by 
 
 — Executor not express trustee for next 
 
 of kin. 
 
 See Charity. 47. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Trustee — Limitations, Statute of. 
 
 — Waste — Liability of estate of late tenant for 
 
 life. 
 
 See Waste. 6. 
 
 Absence. 
 
 1. — Absence beyond seas — Anibassador — Limi- 
 tations Acts, 1623 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16) ; 1704 (4 Anne, 
 c. 16), s. 19. 
 
 The statute does not run against the creditors 
 of a poison beyond seas, notwithstanding the 
 provisions of Order xi. as to service of writs out 
 of the jurisdiction. Nor does it run against tho 
 creditors of an ambassador during the time he is 
 accredited and for such a reasonable time after- 
 wards as will enable him to wind up his official 
 business, even if his successor is duly accredited 
 during that time. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 533, 
 affirmed. MusuEUS Bey v. G-adban 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 352 
 
 Acknowledgment. 
 
 2. — Executor — Aclinotxledgement by one of 
 two executors and trustees — Mortgage — Arrears of 
 interest — Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 it- 4 
 Will. 4, e. 27), .5. 42. 
 
 An aoknowledginont by one of two executors 
 and devisees iu trust of real estate against the 
 wishes of tho otljer that more than six yeais' 
 interest is due on a mortgage created by their 
 testator cannot be treiited as the valid act of the 
 
( 1125 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1126 ) 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Acknowledgment) 
 
 — continued. 
 two in their capacity of trustees, and is not a 
 good acknowledgment within s. 42 of the Real 
 Property Limitation Act, 1833. Astbuky v. 
 AsTBURY - Stirling J, [1898] 2 Ch. Ill 
 
 3. — Executor — Acknowledgment of debt^ 
 Promise hi/ one of several executors — Lord Tenter- 
 deu's Act (9 Geo. 4, u. 14), s. 1 
 
 An acknowledgment of a debt within Lord 
 Tenterden's Act made by one of several execu- 
 tors as executor binds the testator's estate, and 
 on the death of the executor who makes the 
 acknowledgment an order may be made in an 
 administration action for payment of the debt out 
 of assets remaining unadministered in the hands 
 or under the control of the surviving executors. 
 In re Maodonald. Dick v. Fbaser 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 3 Ch. 181 
 
 4. — Part •payment — Payment of interest — 
 Presumption of payment — Money charged on land 
 ■ — Devisee also tenant for life of money charged — 
 Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict, 
 a. 57), s. 8. 
 
 A testator, by his will dated Jan. 11, 1845, 
 devised his real estate and bequeathed his per- 
 sonal estate to trustees, upon trust for sale and io 
 hold the proceeds of sale upon trust to pay hia 
 debts, and to hold the residue on trust to pay the 
 income to his wife fur her life, with remainder in 
 trust for his children living at her death, or the 
 issue of those then dead leaving it-sue then living. 
 By a codicil dated Jan. 30, 1855, the testator 
 revoked the devise of real estate contained in his 
 will so far as regarded certain specified closes of 
 land, and he devised those closes to his wife for 
 her life, with remainder to his two sons in equal 
 shares as tenants in common in fee. The whole 
 of the real estate was subject to a charge of dOOOl. 
 created by a predecessor of the testator. In 1865 
 tlie trustees sold the greater part of the real 
 estate (other than that specifically devised by 
 the codicil), and out of the proceeds paid the 
 3000Z., and some of the testator's own debts. The 
 widow died in 1895. After the sale until her 
 death she received the income of the residue of 
 the proceeds of sale and also the rents of the 
 unsold land, including those of the specifically 
 devised land. She never gave to the tmstees 
 any acknowledgment of the liability of the speci- 
 fically devised land to bear a proportionate part 
 of the 3000Z., or paid to them any part of the 
 3000Z., or any interest thereon : — 
 
 Seld, that In re England, [1895] 2 Ch. 820, 
 applied, and that the widow being under no 
 legal obligation to pay any part of the 3000Z. or 
 any interest thereon, the right -of the persons 
 interested in the real estate (other than that 
 specifically devised) to compel contribution out 
 of the specifically devised estate to the payment 
 of the 3000Z. was barred by s. 8 of the Eeal 
 Property Limitation Act, 1874. In re Allen. 
 Bassett v. Allen - North J. [1898] 2 Ch. 499 
 
 5. — Part payment io stranger — Promissory 
 note — Part payment to payee after indorsement — 
 Limitations Act, 1623 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16). 
 
 The makcTr of a promissory note repaid the 
 same by instalments to the original holder, after 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Acknowledgment) 
 
 — continued. 
 the latter had indorsed it over to the pits., to 
 whom one payment was cominunioated : — 
 
 Held, that such payments were not aoknowr 
 lodgments of the debt so as to prevent the statute 
 ninning, as there was no authority to receive 
 payment on behalf of the pits. Stamford, 
 Spalding, and Boston Banking Co. v. Smith 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 765 
 
 6. — Payment of interest hy devisee in fee, 
 being also tenant for life of the money — Presump- 
 tion — Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37<fe38 
 Vict. c. 57), 8. 8. 
 
 A testator, having covenanted for the pay- 
 ment of a sum of money after his death, to be 
 held upon trusts under which his son was tenant 
 for life, and charged the same with interest upon 
 certain land, by his will devised the land, subject 
 to the charge, to his son in fee. The njoney was 
 never raised, nor any interest actually paid in 
 respect of it, but the son entered into possession 
 of the land, and for more than twelve years 
 received the rents and profits : — 
 
 Held, tliat the son not being liable to p.iy the 
 interest no presumption of payment by him, on 
 the ground of any duty to keep down the charge, 
 could be made ; and therefore that the claim of 
 the trustees under the covenant against the tes- 
 tator's personal estate was barred by the Real 
 Property Limitation Act, 1874, s. 8. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J.j [1895] 2 Ch. 100, 
 
 affirmed. In re England. Steward v. England 
 
 0. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 820 
 
 Followed by Xorth J. In re Allen, [1898] 
 2 Ch. 499, No. 4, above. 
 
 7. — Payment of interest by tenant for life of 
 equity of redemption — Statute of Limitations Act, 
 1833 (3 A 4 Will. 4, u. 42), s. 5. 
 
 Payment of interest by tenant for life of a 
 settled equity of redemption is sufficient to keep 
 alive the right of action on the covenant of tlie 
 settlor within 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 5. Dibb v. 
 Walker - Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 429 
 
 Referred to bv Kekewich J. Tm re England, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 100," 107. See preceding Case. 
 
 — Receiver — Part payment by — Inference of 
 
 promise to pay. 
 See Mortgage. 57. 
 
 Bailment. 
 
 8. — Money deposited for safe custody — Statute 
 of Limitations, 1623 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16), s. 3. 
 
 Time does not begin to run under 21 Jac. 1, 
 c. 16, against a person who has entrusted money 
 to another person for safe custody until demand, 
 thouah it was contemplated that the bailee might 
 use the money in business. In re Tidd. Tidd 
 V. OVEKELL - North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 154 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Eecoiving order — Annulment — Payment into 
 
 court — Payment out after six years. 
 See Bankruptcy — Receiving Order 
 196. 
 
 9. — Trustee in banhupicy. 
 
 The Statutes of Limitation run against a 
 
 2 2 
 
( 1127 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1128 ) 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Bankruptcy)— 
 
 continued. 
 trustee in bankruptcy just aa it would against 
 the baiikrupt himself. In re Mansel. Ex parte 
 Norton - - - C. A. [1892] "W. N. 32 
 
 Company. 
 
 — Directors. 
 
 See Company — Directors. 118, 119. 
 
 10. — Directors — Liability of — Stale demand 
 — Windivg-up of company — 21 jac. 1, c. 16. 
 
 The Statute of Limitations is no bar to an 
 action seeking to make directors liable fur the 
 payment of interest out of capital, for the flireo- 
 tors are in the position of trustees. Inre Shakpe. 
 In re Bennett. Masonto and General Life 
 AssUBANOE Go. V. Sharpe C. a. [1892] 1 Ch. 154 
 
 See now the Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 59), s. 8. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. in Loch v. Queens- 
 land Investment and Land Morlgage Co , [1896] 
 1 Ch. 397, 402. This case was affirmed by 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. 0. 461. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re National Banlc 
 of WaXee, [1899] 2 Cli. 629, 669. 
 
 11. — Directors — Untrue statements in pro- 
 spectus — Action by shareliolder for compensation 
 — Accruer of cause of action — Directors Liability 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 64), 8. 7i— Civil Pro- 
 cedure Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, e. 42), ». 3. 
 
 Sect. 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, which 
 provides that " all actions for penalties, damages 
 or sums of money given to the party grieved by 
 any statute " must be brought within two years 
 after the cause of action, applies only to penal 
 actions — i.e., actions for penalties, or damages or 
 sums of money in the nature of penalties, and 
 does not apply to an action by a shareholder in a 
 en., uuder s. 3 of the Directors Liability Act, 
 1890, to retovir from the directors compensation 
 for loss or damage sustained by him by reason of 
 untrue statements in the prospectus of the co. on 
 the faith of which he subscribed for his shares. 
 
 Semble, that the cause of action in such a case 
 accrues at the time when the shares are sub- 
 scribed for, and that the action must, under the 
 statute 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, be brought within six 
 years from that date. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1899] 2 Ch. 523, 
 aflSrmed. Thomson v. Lord Clanmosris 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 80 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 718 
 
 — Interest — Debenture stock. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 2G. 
 
 — Public Authorities Protection Act — Company 
 
 incorporated to manage pier and harbour 
 
 — Dividends. 
 
 See Public Authorities Protection. 2. 
 
 — Unclaimed dividends. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 396. 
 
 Copyholds. 
 
 See Copyholbb. 
 
 Fraud. 
 
 ■Agent — Fraud of — Mortgage — Sale 
 
 12. 
 
 Constructive notice — Trustee — Cause of action, 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Fraud)- co»<(!. 
 Commencement of — Statute of Limitations, 1623 
 (21 Joe. 1, c. IG)— Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 59), «. 8. 
 
 A., the first mortgagee of property, sold under 
 his power of sale in 1878. S., a solicitor, con- 
 ducted the sale for him. S. received the sale 
 money, paid A.'s debt, and retained the suiplus, 
 accounting for it by a receipt purporting to be on 
 behalf of the second mortgagee. S. applied the 
 surplus to his own use and piid interest until 
 1891 thereon to the second mortgagee, as if the 
 second mortgage was still in existence. In 1891 
 S. became bankrupt, when the second mortgagee 
 discovered the true facts and brousiht an action 
 against A. for an account of the sale money and 
 payment to him of wliat was due on the second 
 mortgage : — 
 
 Held, by Romer J. (1) that S. diil not pay the 
 interest as A.'s age nt, and therefore the payments 
 did not keep alive B.'s claim against A. ; (2) that 
 A. was not privy to S.'s fraud, though he had 
 been negligent in not seeing that S. applied the 
 surplus property; (3) therefore that B.'s claim 
 against A. was barred by the Statute of Limita- 
 tions and the Trustee Act, 1888, s. 8 : 
 
 Held, by C. A. and H. L. (E.), that B.'s cause 
 of action accrued in 1878, when A, committed an 
 innocent breach of trust; that A. was not liable 
 uuder the exception in s. 8 of the Trustee Act, 
 1888, either as having been " party or privy " to 
 the fraud, or as having "still retained" the 
 money sought to be recovered : 
 
 Held, also, that the fraud of S. was not com- 
 mitted as A.'s agent or for A.'s benefit, so as to 
 render A., although innocent, responsible for the 
 fraud. 'J he exception in s. 8 as to property 
 " still retained " by the trustee is contined to 
 cases where the trustee has actually under his 
 control the trust property or its proceeds when 
 the action is brought : 
 
 Held, by H. L. (E.), that fraud or non-discovery 
 of fraud cannot be relied on to take a case out of 
 the Statute of Limitations unless it is the fraud 
 of or in some way imputable to the person who 
 invokes the aid of the statute. 
 
 Decisions of Romer J., [1893] 3 Ch. 530, and 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 599, afiSrmed. Thobne r. 
 Heard and Marsh H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 495 
 
 Discussed by C. A. How v. Earl Winterton, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 626, 638. 
 
 13, — Concealed fraud — Fiduciary relation — 
 Partnership accounts — New partnership. 
 
 Where a father and his two sons had carried 
 on business in partnership from 1870 to 1886, 
 when the fatlier died, and the tons carried on thi' 
 business till 1893, when one of them died, and 
 the other alleged concealed fraud bv his brother 
 bef ore 1886:— 
 
 Uehl, flri-t, that although the old partnership 
 was terminated by the death of the father, the 
 Statute of Limitations was no bar to taking the 
 accounts before that date, the accounts having 
 been carried on into the new partnership without 
 interruption or settlement ; secondly, that if the 
 statute had applied, the concealed fraud would 
 have been a bar to its operation, although such 
 fraud might have been discovered at the time by 
 the use of due caution ; a partner being entitled 
 
( 1129 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1130 ) 
 
 IIMITATIONS, STATUTE OP (Tiaui)-cmtd. 
 to rely on the good faith of hia co-partners. 
 Betjemann v. Betjemann C. a. [1896] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 14. — Concealed fraud — Misrepresentation of 
 co-partner— Misappropriation of client's money — 
 Statute of Limitations (21 Jan. 1, o. 16). 
 
 The pit. deposited sums of money at various 
 times with a firm of solicitors for investment. 
 Tho moneys were embezzled by a clerk, but re- 
 presentations were made on behalf of the firm 
 that the investments had been made and interest 
 was paid r — 
 
 Held, that the Tiustee Act, 1888, did not 
 apply so as to enable the innocent partner to 
 plead the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the 
 action. Mooke v. Knight 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 1 Ch. 547 
 
 15. — "Concealed fraud" — Beal Property 
 Limitation Act, 1833 (3 li 4 WiU. 4, e. 27), s. 26 
 — Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 
 Vict. c. 57), «. 1. 
 
 In this case it was held that the conduct of 
 the mother in wilfully keeping from her daughter 
 the knowledge that the was entitled to property 
 amounted to a concealed fraud within s. 26 of 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, 0. 27, and that the statute did not 
 begin to run until after the death of the mother. 
 This case exactly fell within the definition of 
 concealed fraud given by Kindersley V.-C. in 
 Fetre v. Petre, (1852) 1 Drew. 371, at p. 397, 
 except that the Vice-Chancellor was there deal- 
 ing with a fraud committed by tho person who 
 was to benefit by it ; but if the concealment was 
 for the purpose of benefiting some other person, 
 or for the purpose of preventing the rightful 
 owner from exercising his rights, it would fall 
 within the substance of the definition. That 
 definition had been adopted by Stirling J. in 
 Lawrance v. Lord Norreys, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 213, 
 224, and the definition of Lord Herschell in the 
 same case, (1890) 15 App. Oas. 210, 214, wes 
 entirely in harmony with it. The daughter was, 
 therefore, entitled to possession. In re McOal- 
 LUM. MoOallum v. McOalltjm 
 
 Kekewich J. [1900] W. N, 36 
 The C. A. allowed the appeal (Rigby J. dis- 
 senting), being of opinion that there was a " con- 
 cealed iraud " within the meaning of s. 26. But 
 that the fraud must be that of the person who 
 was setting up tbe statute, or of some one through 
 whom he claimed title to the propei ty, and held 
 that the plaintiff's title was barred by the 
 statute. In re MoCallum. MgCai.ll'm v. 
 MoCallum - C. A. [1900] W. N. 261 
 
 Reported [1901] 1 Ch, 143 
 
 16. — Concealed fraud— Time when right of 
 action accrues — Beat Property Limitation Act, 
 1833 (3*4 Will. 4, c. 27), s. 26. 
 
 'I'o enable a pit. to take advantage of a. 26 of 
 the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1 833, he must 
 shew (1) concealed fraud; (2) that he or his pre- 
 decessors were deprived of their estate by the 
 fraud; (3) that the fraud could not have been 
 discovered by reasonable diligence within the 
 statutory period. „ ., , ^ , 
 
 Held, in this case, that the pit. faded to shew 
 any fraud, and that the act which he alleged 
 was fraudulent had been known for forty years. 
 Willis v. Eabl Howe C. A. [1893] 2 Ch, 545 
 
 IIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Fraud)— corfd. 
 
 17. — Detinue — Conversion — Demand and re- 
 fusal — Time,when beginning to run — Lease fraudu- 
 lently deposited — Statute of Limitations, 1623 (21 
 Jac. 1, c. 16). 
 
 A lease belonging to pit. was fraudulently 
 deposited with B., and, when B. became bank- 
 rupt, it was assigned to the deft. Both B. and 
 the deft, were ignorant of the fraud; — ■ 
 
 Held, that the statute began to run when the 
 pit. had a complete cause of action against the 
 deft., i.e. when he demanded the deeds and was 
 refused them, and not from the receipt of the 
 deeds by B. 
 
 Qu^re, whether, in any case, the original 
 receipt of the lease by B. was sufficient evidence 
 of conversion by him. Miller v. Dell 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 a, B, 468 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. London and Midland 
 Banlc V. Mitchell, [1899] 2 Oh. 161, 166. 
 
 — Equitable jurisdiction — Underground trespass 
 — Laches. 
 See New South Wales. 20. 
 
 ■ Express trust — ^Parol evidence. 
 See FKAtiDS, Statute of. 
 
 23. 
 
 18. — Partner — Fraud iy co-partner — Trustee 
 Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 59), s. 8. 
 
 The Trustee Act, 1888, does not entitle an 
 innocent partner in a firm of solicitors to plead 
 the Statute of Limitations against a client suing 
 the firm for misappropriation of his moneys by 
 one of his firm. Mooke v. Knight 
 
 Stirling J, [1891] 1 Ch, 547 
 
 Highway. 
 
 19. — Highway authority — Negligence — High- 
 way Act, 1835 (5*6 WiU. 4, c. 50), s. 109^ 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 ss. 144, 264, 
 
 Action against urban authority for damages 
 for negligence when acting as highway autho- 
 rity : — 
 
 Held, that such an action must be brought 
 within the three months prescribed by s. 109 of 
 Highway Act, 1835, and it was not sufficient if it 
 were brought within the six months prescribed 
 by B. 264 of the Public Health Act, 187r,. 
 Gkaham v. Newoastle-upon-Tvne Ookpobatio;? 
 (No. 2) C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B, 643 
 
 [^But see now Public Authorities Protection Act, 
 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. e. 61), repealing 5*6 Will. 4, 
 c. 50, s. 109, and 38 * 39 Vict. o. 55, s. 164.] 
 
 20. — Highway, soil of — Ownership — Vestry — 
 Presumptions of lawful origin — Presumption «/ 
 grant for purpose not requiring enrolment. 
 
 The vestry of a parish had let tho grazing on 
 a highway made under an inclosure award ever 
 since the award, viz., for 1 15 years : — 
 
 Held, (1) that a lawful oiigin must be pre- 
 sumed from the long usage ; (2) ihat the lawful 
 origin to be presumed in this case was, that the 
 soil of the highway had been granted to church- 
 wardens and overseers, as trustees, under the 
 Charitable Uses Act (9 Geo. 2, o. 36), of lands 
 belonging to the parish ; (3) with regard to enrol- 
 ment of the grant, that in the absence of proof o f 
 
( 1131 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, lg9l— 1900. 
 
 ( 1132 ) 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Highway)— confii. 
 non-enrolment an enrolment if necessary might 
 be presumed, or it might be presumed that no 
 enrolment was necessary in this particular case ; 
 and (4) that the parish had consequently gained 
 a title under the statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, to 
 the soil of the highway, subject to tlie public 
 right of way. Haigh v. West 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 19 
 
 Interest. 
 — Statutes of Limitations. 
 
 Bee Inteeest. 3. 
 
 Legacy. 
 
 21. — Action to recovei — Legacy — No express 
 trust — Seal ProperUj Limitation Act, 1874 (37 (t- 38 
 Vict. c. 57J, s. S— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 
 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Where au estate was to be held by the execu- 
 tors on certain trusts so far as trusts were declared, 
 and subject to the payment of legacies as to which 
 no trust was declared, and then on trust for the 
 residuary legatee : — 
 
 Held, that there was no express trust declared 
 of the legacies, and therefore plt.'s right was 
 barred. In re Bakkek. Buxton v. Campdell 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Lacy, [1899] 
 
 2 Ch. 149, 157. 
 
 — Husband and wife — Legacy for separate use — 
 Seizure by husband. 
 See Husband and Wife. 61. 
 
 22. — Suit to recover legacy — Express trust — 
 Implied trust — Real Property Limitation Act, 
 1874 (37 & 38 Viet. c. 57), s. 8. 
 
 A suit to recover a legacy from an executor is 
 wilhin the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, 
 s. 8, unless the legacy is vested in him on express 
 trusts. A mere constructive trust will not pre- 
 vent the s-tatute from being a bar. In re Davis. 
 Evans v. Moore C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 119 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Owen, [1894] 
 
 3 Ch. 220, 225; In re Lacy, [1899] 2 Ch. 149, 
 159. 
 
 23. — Legacy charged on contingent reversion- 
 ary interest in land — Remedy by foreclosure or 
 sale — " Present right to receive " — Beat Properly 
 Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57), ss. 1, 
 2,8. 
 
 A., who had an interest in land contingent 
 on the death of B. without issue, devised the 
 same to C, and charged it after her death with 
 pecuniary legacies. C. died in 1880; part of the 
 legacies were paid. B. died in 1893 : — 
 
 Held, that as "a present right to receive" 
 the legacies accrued in 1880, and as the unpaid 
 balance might have been raised by sale or mort- 
 gage, and not by way of foreclosure, the right to 
 recover such balance was statute-barred : — 
 
 Held, also, that although an equitable mort- 
 gage of a reversionary interest in land is not 
 barred till twelve years after the interest falls in, 
 ttiat doctrine does not apply unless the person 
 entitled to the charge had a right of foreclosure. 
 In re Oyrm - Stirling J, [1894] 3 Ch. 220 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OY—continiied. 
 Mortgages. 
 
 24. — Chargeonland— Term, of years— Express 
 trust— Two sums secured ly one term— Power of 
 trustees, entitled to raise one sum,, to raise the 
 other also— Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. V. 57), ss. 8, W— Power of appoint- 
 ment — Exercise by residuary bequest in will — 
 J_ssets — Administration — Order in which funds 
 applied in payment of debts — Wills Act, 1837 
 (7 Will. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 26), 8. 27. 
 
 A conveyance of land to trustees for a term of 
 years upon trust to raise specific sums of money 
 is an express trust within s. 10 of the Eeal 
 Property Limitation Act, 1874. 
 
 Where land is conveyed to trustees for a term 
 of years upon trust to raise two sums of money, 
 and it is held, in an action brought to recover 
 both sums, that they are entitled to enter and 
 raise one of these sums, but that the other is 
 barred by the Eeal Properly Limitation Act, 
 1874, the right to raise the second sum is not 
 preserved by the success of the action in respect 
 of the first sum. 
 
 Where a power of appointment is exercised 
 by a general bequest in a wUl the property 
 appointed is included in and passes by the 
 bequest according to the terms of the will, and 
 not as if a separate execution of the power were 
 read into the will. The property is therefore not 
 necessarily postponed, as a fund liable for pay- 
 ment of his debts, to other assets of the testa- 
 tor. Williams a. Williams. In re Haktlev. 
 Williams v. Jones - North J. [1900] 1 Ch. 152 
 
 26. — Deficiency on sale — Contract to pay 
 difference on realization — Cause of action—Time 
 of accruer of — Postponement — Statute of Limita- 
 tions, 1623 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16), s. 3. 
 
 A. borrowed money from B. to purchase cer- 
 tain scrip, and handed the scrip to B. as security 
 for the loan, which was repayable in 1883. If 
 the loan remained unpaid B. had power to sell, 
 and A. agreed to pay any deficiency. The loan 
 was not paid, and B. realized, in 1889, the pro- 
 ceeds not amounting to the whole advance. A. 
 died in 1891 without any further payment or 
 actnowledgment : — 
 
 Held, that the cause of action in respect of 
 the whole of the debt accrued in 1883 and not in 
 1889, and therefore that a claim for the difference 
 by the lender against the estate of the borrower 
 was barred by tlie Statute of Limitations. In re 
 MoHenkt. McDekmott v. Botd. Babker's 
 Claim - - 0. A, [1894] 3 Ch. 290 
 
 26. — Extinguishment of title of second mort- 
 gagee — Possession of mortgagor — Vesting of legal 
 estate— Limitation' Acts, 1833 (3 <fc 4 Will. 4, 
 c. 27), s. 34; 1874 (37 * 38 Vict. c. 57), s. 8. 
 
 Sect. 34 of the Act of 1838 applies as between 
 a mortgagee and a mortgagor in possession, and 
 in favour of the latter, although a prior mortgage 
 has been in existence during the earlier part of 
 such statutory period. The effect of barring the 
 mortgagee's title is to vest tho legal estate in the 
 mortgagor, and therefore, if ho afterwards grants 
 a mortgage to another person, that person may 
 rely on such extinguishment of title in support 
 of his own claim as first mortgagee, although tho 
 
( 1133 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1134 ) 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Mortgages)— conid 
 mortgagor does not rely on the statute and has, 
 after the expiration of the statutory period, given 
 his co-defendant a written acknowledgment. 
 Kibble v. Fairthoenb 
 
 Eomer J, [1895] 1 Ch. 219 
 
 27. — Foreclosure action after debt liarred — 
 Mortgage of personal property—Equitable mortgage 
 of shares in a limited company to secure simple 
 contract debt. 
 
 Where a bank had an equitable charge on 
 shares in a limited company to secure a simple 
 contract debt and after the debt was barred 
 brought an action to enforce their security by 
 foreclosure or sale : — 
 
 Held, that the bank were not deprived of 
 their remedy against the property by the fact 
 that the personal remedy for the debt was barred, 
 and that, there being no Statute of Limitations 
 applicable to foreclosure of a mortgage of personal 
 property, the security was enforceable. London 
 AND Midland Bank v. Mitchell 
 
 Stirling J. [1899] W. N. 92; [1899] 2 Ch. 161 
 
 — Mortgagee taking possession of real estate — 
 
 Eedemptiou action — Eight to redeem 
 
 policy separately. 
 
 See Mortgage — Sedemption. 67. 
 
 — Payments by receiver. 
 
 See Moktgaqe — Eeoeiver. 57. 
 
 28. — " Person claiming under a mortgage " — 
 Possession adverse to mortgagor — Real Property 
 Limitation Act, 1837 (7 iVill. 4 and 1 Viet. 
 0. 28). 
 
 In 1886 the owner of one undivided moiety of 
 premises, which had .been during the previous 
 eleven years in the sole possession of the owners 
 of the other moiety, mortgaged his moiety ; and 
 in 1890, the premises having in the meantime 
 continued and still continuing to be in the sole 
 possession of the owners of the other moiety, he 
 executed a conveyance of his moiety, subject to 
 the mortgage, to the pit., who subsequently paid 
 off the mortgage : — 
 
 Meld, that the pit. did not, on paying off the 
 mortgage, become a "person claiming under a 
 mortgage " within the meaning of the Eeal Pro- 
 perty Limitation Act, 1837, which, as modified 
 by the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1874, s. 9, 
 give such a person a period of twelve years from 
 the last payment of any part of the principal 
 money or interest secured by the mortgage for 
 bringing an action to recover the land : — ■ 
 
 Held, also, that the Eeal Property Limitation 
 Act, 1837, does not confer a new right of entry 
 on the mortgagee where at the date of the mort- 
 gage a person is in possession adversely to the 
 mortgagor, and the Statute of Limitations has 
 already begun to run in his favour against the 
 mortgagor. 
 
 Doe V. Massey, (1851) 17 Q. B, 373, distin- 
 guLshed and considered. Thornton v. France 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 143 
 
 29. — Mortgage — Poli^iy of Assurance — Sur- 
 render of policy — Real Property Limitation Act, 
 1874 (.37 & 38 Vict. v. 57), s. 8— Payment "in 
 the meantime" — Payment by mortgagor or his 
 agent. 
 
 In 1871 A. mortgaged a contingent rever- 
 
 LIMITATIONS,STATUTEOF(Mortgages)— co»«(?. 
 sionary interest in certain property together with 
 a policy of assurance on his own life for 2500/. 
 for securing the sum of 2500Z. The mortgage 
 contained the usual covenants for payment of the 
 principal and interest with power of sale and 
 surrender of the policy. A. never made any 
 payment in respect of the principal or interest of 
 the mortgage debt, nor paid any of the premiums 
 on the policy, which was kept up by the mort- 
 gagee. In 1893 the mortgagee surrendered the 
 policy to the ofBoe for the sum of 1468J. 14s. A. 
 had no notice of the surrender. The mortgagee 
 died in 1895 and A. died in 1899 :— 
 
 Held, in an action by the representative of 
 the mortgagee against the representatives of A., 
 claiming that the security might be enforced, 
 that the receipt by the mortgagee of the surrender 
 value of the policy was not a payment of principal 
 or interest within the meaning of s.- 8 of the Eeal 
 Property Limitation Act, 1874, so as to entitle 
 the plaintiff to recover on the covenant contained 
 in the mortgage. 
 
 In re Conlan's Estate, (1892) 29 L. E. Ir. 199, 
 discussed. 
 
 The words " in the meantime" in the section 
 include a period between the time of the com- 
 mencement of the action or suit and a time when 
 the remedy for the debt would otherwise have 
 been barred. 
 
 Harty v. Davis, (1850) 13 Ir. L. Eep. 23, 
 approved. In re Lord Clifden. Annaly v. 
 Agar-Ellis Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 93 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 774 
 
 30. — Simple contract debt charged on land — 
 Personal action — Period of Limitation — Limita- 
 tion Act, 1623 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16), s. 3— Real Pro- 
 perty Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57), 
 s. 8. 
 
 Where an action is brought to recover a 
 simple contract debt, and tlie money sought to 
 be recovered is charged on land, the period of 
 limitation is that imposed by the Limitation Act, 
 1623, and has not been enlarged to twelve years 
 by the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1874. 
 
 Judgment of Lord Eussell C.J., [1898] 
 2 Q. B. 223, reversed. 
 
 Sutton V. Sutton, (1882) 22 Ch. D. 511, 
 distinguished. Barnes v. Glenton 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B, 886 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. London and Mid- 
 land Bank V. Mitchell, [1899] 2 Ch. 161, 165. 
 See No. 27, above. 
 
 Possession. 
 
 — Adverse possession — " Person claiming under 
 
 a mortgage." 
 See No. 28, above. 
 
 — Adverse possession — Eegistered title. 
 
 See British Honduras. 1. 
 
 31. — Agreement for lease — Right of recovery 
 at Common Law defeated by Equity — Implied 
 trust — Real Property Limitation Acts, 1833 (3 & 4 
 Will. 4, o. 27), ss. 2, 7 ; 1874 (87 & 38 Vict. c. 57), 
 ss. 1, 9. 
 
 Where land was the subject of a building 
 agreement under which the builders or their 
 nominees were entitled to a lease at a peppercorn 
 
( ll85 5 
 
 CiGESt Of CASfeS, 18S1— 1900. 
 
 ( 1136 ) 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Possession) — 
 
 continued. 
 rent, and in fact no lease was ever applied for or 
 granted : — 
 
 Held, that the statute did not begin to run 
 against the landlord, since they had not an 
 effective right of entry or action for the recovery 
 of land, as any attempt to recover possession 
 "would have been immediately defeated by an 
 application to a Court of Equity to enforce the 
 performance of the agreement for a lease. 
 
 Semhle, per Kay L.J., that a person let in 
 under such an agreement is a cestui que trust 
 within the meaning of the proviso to s. 7 of the 
 Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1833, and that 
 therefore the section does not apply. Wabken b. 
 MUREAT C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 648 
 
 82. — Dispossession of land — Inference from 
 equivocal acts — ■ Real Property Limitation Act, 
 1833 (S&i Will. 4, u. 27), s. 3. 
 
 The defts. were the owners of two fields 
 between which was a strip of land separated 
 from them by hedges. This strip had been con- 
 veyed to the defts. with the fields, but the 
 pits, had a right of way over it to a field belong- 
 ing to them. The strip was originally open at 
 both ends, the end farthest from the pits.' field 
 communicating with a public road. More than 
 twelve years before the commencement of the 
 action the pits, had erected a gate at each end of 
 the strip, and had since kept these gates locked, 
 the keys being retained by themselves or their 
 tenants. The gate at the road end of the strip 
 was placed upon the strip; it was not clear 
 whether the other gate was placed on the strip 
 or on the pltffs.' own land. The action was 
 brought to restrain the defts. from trespassing 
 on the strip. There was no evidence that the 
 pits, had erected the gates with the intention of 
 excluding the defts. from the strip : — 
 
 Meld, that, as the act of the pits, in erecting 
 and locking the gates was in its nature equivocal 
 and might have been done merely with the in- 
 tention of protecting the pits.' right of way from 
 invasion by the public, the defts; had not been 
 dispossessed of the strip of land, and the pits, 
 had not acquired a title to it under the Statute 
 of Limitations. The action was accordingly dis- 
 missed. LlTTLEBALE V. LlVEKPOOL COLLEGE 
 
 0. A. [1899] W. N. 228 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 33. — Freehold lease — Secovery of possession 
 — Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 & i 
 Will. 4, c. 27), s. 29. 
 
 In 1805 A. granted a freehold lease to B. for 
 lives; the last of such lives dropped in 1874. 
 In 1807 B. granted a sub-lease to C. of part of 
 the property for ninety-nine years, determinable 
 on tlie dropping of the same lives as in the over 
 lease. The sub-lease therefore ran out in 1874. 
 In 1832 the representatives of B. surrendered the 
 1805 lease to A., who granted a new freehold 
 lease for lives ; the last of these lives dropped in 
 1891. The pits, claiming through A. had since 
 1839 received the rents under the lease of 1832; 
 defts. claiming through C. had since 1874 been 
 in actual possession without title : — 
 
 Held, that as the lease of 1832 was valid under 
 B. 6 of Geo. 2, c. 28, the pits.' right to sue did not 
 accrue till 1891, and therefore defts. were not 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Possession) — 
 
 continued. 
 entitled to the benefit of the Statute of Limita- 
 tions. EOCLESLASTIOAL COMMKS. V. TeEEHEE 
 
 CMtty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 166 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Nos. 26—28, ahore. 
 
 — Possessory title— Eights of remaindermen. 
 
 See Estoppel. 10. 
 
 Power of Appointment. 
 
 34. — Settlement — General power of appoint- 
 ment — Appointment by will — Appointees — " Bead- 
 ing in" — Real Property Limitation Acts, 1833 
 (3 <fc 4 Will. 4, c. 27), ss. 1, 2, 3, 20 ; 1874 (37 & 38 
 Vict. c. 57), ss. 1, 2. 
 
 At and prior to Lady Day, 1876, a plot of land 
 then forming part of the Devon settled estates 
 was held by S. as tenant from year to year under 
 an agreement dated in 1852. S. continued in 
 possession down to his death in 1889, and after 
 that date his representatives continued in posses- 
 sion. No rent was ever paid in respect of this 
 plot of land after Lady Day, 1876. 
 
 Under a settlement dated in 1857 the Devon 
 estates, including the reversion in the plot of 
 land expectant on the tenancy of S., stood limited 
 in the events which happened to the use of the 
 eleventh Earl of Devon for life, remainder to the 
 use of the twelfth Earl for life, remainder to 
 such uses as the eleventh Earl should by deed 
 or will appoint. This power was exercised by 
 the eleventh Earl by his will, whereby he 
 appointed the estates to H. and others as trustees. 
 The eleventh Earl died in 1888, and on his death 
 the twelfth Earl succeeded to the possession of 
 the estates, and died in 1891 without having re- 
 covered the land in question. On the death of 
 the twelfth Earl the remainder limited to H. and 
 his co-trustees fell into possession, and the ques- 
 tion was whether their estate was barred by the 
 Statutes of Limitations : — 
 
 Held, that the case fell within the latter part 
 of s. 2 of the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1874, 
 and that the twelfth Earl, being the person last 
 entitled to a particular estate, and not being in 
 possession or receipt of the profits of the land in 
 question when his interest determined by his 
 death in 1891, H. and his co-trustees had a 
 further period of six years from that time to bring 
 their action, and therefore that their estate was 
 not barred. In re Bakl of Devon's Settled 
 Estates. White v. Eael of Devon. In re 
 Steek. Steer v. Dobell 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 662 
 
 Practice. 
 
 35. — Cause of action — Instalment of interest 
 becoming due — Statute of Limitations, 1623 (21 
 Jao. 1, 0. 16). 
 
 The pit. lent money to the deft, in 1880 under 
 an agreement, which recited an agreement for a 
 loan for five years, " subject to the power to call 
 in the same at an earlier period in the events 
 hereinafter mentioned." The deft. agTced to pay 
 interest, and the pit. not to call in the money 
 for five years if the deft, should regularly pay 
 interest. It was provided that if deft, should 
 
( iisr ) 
 
 DlGESl' OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1138 ) 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Practice)— cmici. 
 make default in any quarterly payment of in- 
 terest for twenty-one days the pit. might call in 
 the principal. No Interest was ever paid. The 
 pit. commenced hia action within six years from 
 tho end of 1885 :— 
 
 Held, that the Statute of Limitations was a 
 good defence, for that the time began to run from 
 the earliest time at which the pit. could have 
 brought his action — i.e., twenty-one days after 
 the first instalment of interest became due. 
 Reeves v. Butcher - C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 609 
 
 36- — Cause of action, Accrual of — Subsidence 
 caused by excavation — Continuous subsidence — 
 Local sanitary authority— Public Health Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 264. 
 
 Objection that the right of action against a 
 local authority, arising from subsidence of sewer, 
 was lost, from the pit. not taking proceedings 
 within six months : — 
 
 Held, that a further subsidence which took 
 place within six months before action constituted 
 a distinct cause of action in respect of which pro- 
 ceedings could be taken. Crumbie v. Wallsend 
 Local Board - - C, A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 803 
 
 37. — County Court — Special defence — Notice 
 — County Court Bules, 1895, Order x.,rr. 14a, 18a. 
 • In an action in the county court, a notice of 
 the special defence of a Statute of Limitations is 
 sufficient if the statement in the notice follows, 
 without any addition, form 95a in the Appendix 
 to the County Court Rules, 1895, which is, " that 
 the claim for which the defendant -is summoned 
 is barred by a Statute of Limitation," and the 
 defendant need not specify the particular statute 
 on which he intends to rely. Eaton v. Taplet 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 60; [1899] 1 Q. B. 953 
 
 38. — Executor — Administration — Besiduary 
 legatee — Originating summons. 
 
 A residuary legatee has a right to compel 
 executors to plead the statute against an old claim 
 and may enforce the right on an originating sum- 
 mons. In re Wenham. Hunt v. Wbnham 
 
 North J. [1892] 3 Oh. 59 
 
 Referred to by Kekewieh J. Budgett v. 
 Budgett, [1895] 1 Ch. 202, 217. 
 
 39. — Judgment in personal action — " Judg- 
 ment" — Limitation Ac&, 1833 (3 <{; 4 Will. 4, 
 c. 27), s. 40 ; (3 <£; 4 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 3 ; 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57), s. 8— Judgments Act, 1864 
 (27 & 28 Viet. c. 112), s. 1. 
 
 In 1878 A. recovered judgment on a covenant 
 against B. In 1892, both A. and B. being dead, 
 and the judgment still unsatisfied, an application 
 by the legal personal representatives of A. under 
 R. S. C, Order xvii., r. 4, that proceedings might 
 1)0 carried on between them and the representa- 
 tives of B., was refused on the ground that the 
 remedy was barred. 
 
 The expression "judgment " in s. 8 of the Real 
 Property Limitation Act, 1874, refers to judg- 
 ments generally, and is not restricted to judgments 
 which operate as charges on land. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct,, [1893] 1 Q. B. 25, 
 affirmed. Jat v. Johnstone 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 189 
 
 40. — Judgment not charged on land — " Judg- 
 
 IIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF (Practice)- conM. 
 ment" — Beal Property Limitation Act, 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. a. 57), s. 8. 
 
 "Judgment," in s. 8 of the Real Property 
 Limitation Act, 1874, applies to judgments gene- 
 rally, and is not restricted to judgments which 
 operate as charges on land. Hebblethwaite v. 
 Pbever Collins J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 124 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Jay v. Johnstone, [1893] 
 1 Q. B. 25; affirm, by 0. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. ISO. 
 See preceding Case. 
 
 Surety. 
 
 41. — Collateral debt — Surety — Mortgage — 
 Statute of Limitations, 1833 (3 (fc 4 Will. 4, a'. 42), 
 S.3. 
 
 If a surety promise to pay a debt on demand 
 as collateral security, a demand is necessary 
 before action can be brought. The statTite, there- 
 fore, begins to run, not from the time when the 
 debt becomes due, but from the demand. In re 
 J. Brown's Estate. Brown v. Brown 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 300 
 
 Referred to by Kekewieh J. Edwards v. 
 Walters, [1896] 2 Ch. 157, 162. 
 
 42. • — Mortgage — Surety for payment of mort- 
 gage debt. 
 
 A mortgage deed contained a joint and several 
 covenant by the mortgagor and a surety to pay 
 the principal sum "on demand" and interest 
 from the date of the deed. The surety died in 
 1872 before demand, and no claim was made on 
 his estate in respect of the mortgage till 1889 : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the right of action against the 
 surety's estate did not accrue until the making of 
 that claim. In re Brown's Estate. Brown r. 
 Brown - Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 300 
 
 Referred to by Kekewieh J. Edwards v. 
 Walters, [1896] 2 Ch. 157, 162. 
 
 Tenancy at Will. 
 
 43. — Determination — Bealty — Mortgage — 
 Creation of fresh tenancy — Beal Property Limita- 
 tion Act, 1833 (3 4 4 Will. 4, c. 27), ss. 2, 7. 
 
 A tenancy at will is determined by a legal 
 mortgage of the premises by the owner, aud 
 knowledge of the mortgage by the tenant at will. 
 
 After the mortgage a new tenancy at will 
 may be created between the parties so as to cause 
 the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, o. 27) 
 to begin to run. Jarman v. Hale 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 994 
 
 44. — Determination of loill — Tenant at will 
 — Doing of repairs by landlord. 
 
 Where a person is in possession of premises as 
 tenant at will without payment of rent, the fact 
 that the landlord enters the premises without 
 objection on the part of the tenant for the purpose 
 of doing repairs does not amount to a determina- 
 tion of the will so as to interrupt the acquisition 
 by the tenant of a title under the Statutes of 
 Limitations. Ltnes «. Snaith 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 16 (13) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 486 
 
 Trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Trustee- 
 Statute of. 
 
 -limitations, 
 
( 1139 ) 
 
 t)lGEST 0^ CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1140 ) 
 
 LIMITED ADMINISTRATION— Grant of admi- 
 nistration. 
 See Cases under Phobate. 
 
 LIMITED OWNERS' RESIDENCES ACT, 1870— 
 
 Eent-eharge — Priority. 
 
 See MoKTGAGE — Priority. 53. 
 
 LION — Caged lions — Domestic animals. 
 
 See Ckiminal Law — Cruelty to Animals. 
 0. 
 
 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 
 
 See Cases under Damages. 
 LlftlTIDATED DEMAND. 
 
 See PnACTiCE — Writ. 279. 
 " LIQUIDATED SUM " —Future partnership — 
 
 Petitioning creditor's debt. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 •I'J. 
 
 LIQUIDATION OF COMPANY. 
 
 See Cases under Company — WiKDiNG-rp. 
 LIQUIDATOR. 
 
 &e Company— "Winding-up — Liquidator. 
 
 LIS PENDENS — Caveat proceedings — Eecciver 
 
 before probate. 
 
 See Probate. 105. 
 — Lis alibi pendens — Arrest — Action in rem — 
 
 Guarantee — Staying proceedings. 
 
 See Shipping. 57. 
 
 1. — Fcrsonal estate — Megistration — Assign- 
 ment. 
 
 The doctrine of lis pendens is confined to 
 realty and leaseholds, and does not apply lo 
 goods and chattels. Wigram v. Buckley 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 483 
 
 2. — Itegisiraiion — Order vacating — Vendur 
 and purchaser — Specific I'l rf<jrmance — Incorpo- 
 rating order in judgment — Lis Pendens Act, 1867 
 (30 * 31 Vict. c. 47), s. 2. 
 
 A specific performance action, which had 
 been registered by the pit as a lis pendens, was 
 at the trial dismissed with costs. Upon the 
 application of the deft, the Court included in the 
 judgment an order, under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 47, 
 B. 2, vacating the registration unless the pit. set 
 down an appeal from the judgment within a 
 fortnight. Baxter v. Middleton 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 313 
 
 "LITERARY AND SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION" 
 
 — Income tax. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 108, 109. 
 LITERARY INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 See Cases under Soientihc Society. 
 LITIGATION— Eescission of contract. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Rescis- 
 sion. 63, G4. 
 
 LIVERPOOL COURTS. 
 
 Liverpool Court of Passage Act, 1893 (56 * 57 
 Vict. c. 37), better defines the jurisdiction of the 
 Court and improves its procedure. 
 
 ^ Liicrpool Court of Passage Act, 180G (59 * 60 
 Vict. c. 21), amends the Procedure of the Court as 
 to (1) Appeals, (2) Costs, (3) Transfer of trial to 
 county court. 
 
 . Y'^^^l Order as to— Liverpool and Manchester 
 District Megistries. W. N. 1897 (Jan. 2), p. 1. 
 
 LIVERPOOL COV&IS— continued. 
 
 Notice to the District Registrars of the High 
 Court of Manchester and Liverpool. W. N. 190O 
 (Dec. 22), p. 337. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. xcvi 
 
 1. — Appeal — Inferior Court — Liverpool Court 
 of Passage Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 37), 8. 10. 
 
 Under s. 10 of the Liverpool Court of Passage 
 Act, 1893, an appeal from that Court lies direct 
 to the C. A. and not to a Div. Ct. Anderson v. 
 Dean - C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 223 
 
 2. — Appeal— Practice — Liverpool Court of 
 Passage Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 37), ss. 6, 
 9, 10. 
 
 Appeal from an interlocutory order made by 
 the judge of the Court of Passage, Liverpool, 
 ordering further particulars ; leave to appeal 
 bad heen granted by the judge of the Court of 
 Passage. 
 
 Upon objection taken that s. 9 of the Liver- 
 pool Court of Passage Act, 1893, by implication 
 limited the right of appeal from the judge of the 
 Court of Passage, Liverpool, to appeals from the 
 issues at the trial : — 
 
 Held, that ss. 6 and 10 of the Act taken to- 
 gether give a right of appeal in all cases, which 
 is not cut down by s. 9. Huntek v. .Jacobson 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 82 
 
 3. — Cattle marliet — Special Act — Liverpool 
 New Cattle Marhet Act — 2 Will. 4, c. viii. — Ckm- 
 struciion. 
 
 The Court held, upon the construction of the 
 above Act, (1) that no charge could be imposed 
 iu excess of the sums specified in the Act for 
 any use of the market to which the public were 
 entitled under the Act ; and (2) that the Cattle 
 Market Co. thereby incorporated could not by 
 any by-law throw upon the public using the 
 market any burden which ought by law to be 
 borne by the co. itself; but that (3) so long as 
 the public using the market were not prejudiced, 
 there was nothing to prevent the co. from agree- 
 ing to give special accommodation or facilities 
 to persons desiring to have them, upon such 
 terras as to payment as such persons might be 
 willing to accept. Att.-Gen. of Duchy op 
 Lancaster v. Liverpool New Cattle Market 
 Co. C. A. [1896] W. N. 30 (2) 
 
 — Costs — Taxation — Charges and expenses of 
 Liverpool solicitors' attendances in 
 London. 
 See Costs. 2. 
 
 4. — Jurisdiction — Invalidity of rule empouer- 
 ing registrar to give summary judgment — County 
 Cotirts Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts, 1868(31 & 32 
 Vict. c. 71), ss. lU, 13, 23, 25; 1869 (32 * 33 Vict, 
 c. 51), ss. 1, 6. 
 
 A rule made by the assessor under s. 6 of the 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869, 
 conferring jurisdiction on the registrar to give 
 summary judgment iu actions for liquidated 
 demands in Admiralty actions, held to be ultra 
 vires. Fellows v. Owners of the " LoRu 
 Stanley" - - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 98 
 
 But see now the Liverpool Court of Passage 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 37), ss. G, 7, 8. 
 
( 1141 ) 
 
 MaES* OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1142 ) 
 
 tlVEBPOOL CQVRTS— continued. 
 
 5' — Practice — Mules of Court — Judgment 
 under Order SIT. 
 
 ■ The Liverpool Court of Passage has not the 
 powers which are given to the High Court by 
 Order xiv. of the E. S. C. 1883. Ex parte Spel- 
 MAN - - - C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 174 
 
 — Hates — Exemptions — Land used aa railway 
 
 for public conveyance. 
 See Eates. 44. 
 
 LLANDUDNO IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1854 — 
 Eating — Land used as a railway. 
 See Eates. 45. 
 
 LLOYD'S — Derelict vessels, notice of, to he given to, 
 and information to he pvMished hy. See Derelict 
 Vessels Report Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 12). 
 . — Lloyd's classification — Ship surveyed while 
 
 in dock for — Apportionment of dock 
 
 expenses. 
 
 See iNsnsANOE — Marine. 47. 
 
 — Lloyd's policy — Life salvage. 
 
 See Insoeance — Marine. 76. 
 
 LOAN — In consideration of share of profits — 
 Postponement to other creditors. 
 See Paetneeship. 16. 
 
 . — Money-lender. 
 
 See MONET-LENDEK. 
 
 — Partnership or loan — Trader — Proof. 
 
 See Bankrtjptct — Proof. 180. 
 
 — Eedemption without consent of lender — 
 
 Guardians of the poor. 
 See PooE Law. 4. 
 
 — Proof — Loan to firm on terms of sharing profits 
 
 — Subsequent advances — Postponement 
 
 — Dissolution of firm. 
 
 See Bankkuptoy — Proof. 178. 
 
 — To husband — Bond, Interest on— Statute of 
 
 Limitations. 
 
 See Hdseand and Wife — Bond. 27. 
 
 — To pay deposit — Agreement by way of wager- 
 
 ing. 
 
 See Gaming. 36. 
 
 — To tenant for life — Investment clause — 
 
 Personal security — Consent of tenant 
 
 for life. 
 
 See Trustee — Investments. 67. 
 
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 In General, col. 1142. 
 
 Auditors, col. 1142. 
 
 Bridges, col. 1143. 
 
 Buildings. See Buildings. 
 
 Burial Acts. See Bukial. 
 
 Costs. See Costs. 
 
 County Council. See County Council. 
 
 Cowsheds. See Daiet. 
 
 District Council. See Distiiict Councils. 
 
 Drains. See Sewers. 
 
 Elections. See Election Law. 
 
 Highways. See Highway. 
 
 Infectious Diseases. See Infectious 
 
 Diseases. 
 Lands, col. 1143. 
 ioca^ Government Board, col. 1144. 
 
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT— eonfrauefZ. 
 
 Municipal Corporation. See Corpora- 
 tion. 
 Nuisance. See Nuisances. 
 Parish Council. See Parish Council. 
 Poor Law. See Poor Law. 
 Bates. See Eates. 
 Sewers. See Sewers. 
 Stock Transfer, col. 1144. 
 Streets. See Streets. 
 Transfer, col. 1144. 
 Unions, col. 1145. 
 Watei-. See Water. 
 Water-closets. See Water-closets. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Bicycle — Arrest of rider riding without proper 
 
 light — Justification. 
 See Bicycle. 1. 
 
 — Embezzlement — Assistant overseer — Parish 
 
 council. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Embezzlement. 11. 
 
 — Guardians of poor — Jurisdiction — Persons 
 
 entitled to relief — Powers of Local 
 Government Board. 
 See Poor Law. 1 0. 
 
 — Public authorities protection. 
 
 See Public Authorities Protection. 
 
 — Eates. 
 
 See Oases under Eates. 
 
 — Eepairable ratione tenuras — Eecovei-y of ex- 
 
 pense — Person liable — Owner not in 
 
 occupation. 
 
 See Highway. 19. 
 
 — Eevising banister — Jurisdiction — Parochial 
 
 electors' list — Ownership and occupation 
 
 claims. 
 
 See Parliament. 147. 
 
 — Sanitary convenience — Stable — Workplace — 
 
 Persons in attendance — Cabmen. 
 
 See London — Sanitary Convenience. 51. 
 
 — Sewers and drains. 
 
 See Sewers. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 Streets. 
 
 — Telephone wires — Illegal stretching of, across 
 
 public streets — Powers of local authority 
 — Kemoval of wires. 
 See Telephone. 2. 
 
 — Vaccinalion — Legal right to apply for man- 
 
 damus. 
 
 See Mandamus. 4. 
 
 — Vaccination — Power of oiHcer to take proceed- 
 
 ings without authority from guardians. 
 See Vaccination. 8. 
 
 Auditors. 
 
 1. — Audit of accounts — Extent of duly of 
 auditor — Elective auditor of corporation — Re- 
 muneration — Local authority — Municipal corpo- 
 ration — Urban authority — Public Health Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. iiQ— Municipal Corpora- 
 tions Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. e. 50), s. 25. 
 
 The duty of an auditor of an urban sanitary 
 
( 1143 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1144 ) 
 
 LOCAL GOVEENMENT (Auditors)— con^MMSfJ. 
 authority in auditing the accounts of the autho- 
 rity is not confined to ascertaining whether there 
 are vouchers for each item of the accounts sub- 
 mitted to him, but extends to investigating 
 whether tlie payments represented by the vouchers 
 are authorized, or are without authority, or other- 
 wise iUegal or improper. 
 
 Elective auditors of a municipal borough are 
 not entitled to remuneration for their services. 
 Thomas v. Devonport Coepobation 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 16 
 
 Bridges. 
 
 2. — Bridges (not leing county hridges) tdlien 
 over hy county council — Liahili/y of larger quarter 
 Hessians boroughs to contribute to cost of — Local 
 Government Act, 1888 (51 & 62 Vict. u. 41), ss. 6, 
 35, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The exercise by a county council of the powers 
 conferred on them by s. G of the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888, of purchasing or taking over 
 existing bridges not then being county bridges, or 
 erecting new bridges, or maintaining, repairing, 
 or improving any bridges so purchased, taken 
 over, or erected, is a " purpose for which the 
 quarter sessions of the county " were " authorized 
 to incur cost" within the meaning of s. 35, 
 fub-s. 2; and consequently a quarter sessions 
 borough, not being a county borough, but con- 
 taining a population of 10,000 or upwards, which, 
 by reason of its liability to repair the bridges 
 within the borough, was at the pasting of the 
 Act exempt from contributing to the coots of the 
 then existing county bridges, cannot be assessed 
 to county contributions in respect of costs in- 
 curred by the county council in tlie exercise of 
 any of the above-menlioneil powers. Buey St. 
 Edmxixd's Corporation' >: West Stpfolk Cotoitt 
 Cou.NCiL Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 246 
 
 Lands. 
 
 — Costs — Alteration of boundaries — Liability of 
 added area. 
 See CoHPOEATios. I). 
 
 3. — Powers of local authorily — Land ac- 
 quired for specific purpose — Application of part 
 not required to another permanent purpose — Local 
 Goririiment Board — Jurisdiction — Injunction — 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Tict. c. 55), 
 ss 175 295. 
 
 Sect. 175 of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 which empowers the Local Government Board 
 to direct that any lands acquired by a local autho- 
 rity in pursuance of any powers contained in the 
 Act, and not required for the purpose for which 
 they were acquired, slmll not be sold, does not 
 enable the Board to direct that those lands shall 
 bo applied permanently to any purjiose incon- 
 sistent with the original purpose. 
 
 A local authority have no power to apply 
 permanently land which they have acquired /or 
 one purpose to another purpose inconsistent with 
 the original purpose, even though the land 
 cannot possibly be required for that original 
 purpose, and they wiU be retrained from so 
 doing at the suit of the Att.-Gen. and the land- 
 
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Lanis)— continued. 
 owner from whom the land not required was 
 purchased. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1900] 1 Ch. 51, 
 
 affirmed. Att.-Gen. v. Haxwell Urban Council 
 
 C, A. [1900] W. N. 138 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 377 
 
 4. — User of lands — Interim user — Land not 
 immediately required for the purpose for which it 
 was acquired — Pvhlic Health Act, 1875 (38 & 31 1 
 Vict. c. 55), 5. 175. 
 
 Wliere land has been acquired by an urban 
 authority under the powers of the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, and only part of the land so acquired 
 is immediately required for the purposes for 
 which it was acquired, while the remaining part 
 may be ultimately required for the same pur- 
 poses, it is not incumbent on the urban authori'y 
 to sell the vacant land under s. 175 of the Act ; 
 but they may retain the same, and use it for 
 some other lawful purpose, such as a recreation 
 ground or the like, provided care is taken to 
 prevent any ris;ht3 being acquired over it by the 
 public or otherwise which would prevent or 
 interfere with its use whenever required for the 
 ultimate purpose for which it was acquired. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Southampton Corporation, (1858) 1 
 Giff. 363, and Bayley v. Great Western By. Co., 
 (1881) 26 Ch. D. 434, discussed and distinguished. 
 Att.-Gen-. v. Teddingtox Urban" Council 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Followed by Kekeivich J. Att.-Gen. y. Haii- 
 well Urban Council [1900] 1 Ch. :,! ; C. A. 
 [1900] AV. X. 138 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 377. 
 
 I Local Government Baard. 
 
 I Detekmxnatio:^ of Dlfpebences.] Local 
 i Government {Determination of Differences') Act. 
 189tj (59 <fc 60 Vict. c. 9), amends certain prori- 
 \ sions of the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 : Vict. c. 44), «. 11. 
 
 1 6. — Arbitration in differences between local 
 authorities — Procedure — Power of Court to order 
 \ statement of special case — Local Government A'^t, 
 I 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 11, sub-s. -d; .-*. <;3, 
 i 8'— Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), 
 <,. 24. 
 
 "RTiere under the Local Government .V'f, 
 I 1888, differences are to be determined by the 
 I arbitration of the Loc. Govt. Bd., the Board must 
 proceed under s. 63, and they or the arbitrator 
 appointed by them may be compelled under tlie 
 Arbitration Act, 1889, to state a case for the 
 opinion of the Court. Ln re Kent County Couni" il 
 AND Sandgate Local Board 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 ft. B. 43 
 
 Stock Transfer. 
 
 Local Government (Stock Transfer) Act, ls95 
 (58 & 59 Vict. u. 32), amend* the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 18ft4, so far as regards the transfer of 
 any stock, share, or security standing in tin name 
 of, or dividends payable to, a local autltoriiy. 
 
 Transfer. 
 
 6. — Transfer of part of one county to another 
 county — Adjustment of lialklities — Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 ViH. c. 41), «. 62. 
 
 By an order made under the Local Govern- 
 
( 1H5 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1146 ) 
 
 LOCAL GOVEKNMENT (Transiet^-continued. 
 ment Act, 1888, part of the county of B. was 
 tranaferied to the county of H. The portion so 
 transferred contained no county bridges and no 
 main roads : — 
 
 Eeld, that the arbitrator appointed by the 
 Loo. Gov. Bd. under s. 62 had power to award to 
 the county of B. a sum of money in respect of 
 the loss to that county of an area which con- 
 tributed to expenditure on bridges and main 
 roads without involving the county in any cor- 
 responding outlay on its own account. In re 
 Buckinghamshire County CorNoiL and Hebt- 
 
 FOBDSHIKB CoUNTY COUNCIL - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1899] 1 a. B. 515 
 
 See next Case. 
 
 7. — Transfer of part of one union to another 
 union — Adjustment of property and liabilities — 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. u. 73), 
 «. 68. 
 
 By an order under the Local Government 
 Acts, 1888 and 1891, part of a township within 
 the area of a union was detached from it and 
 transferred to another union. On a claim by the 
 union from which the transfer had been made for 
 an adjustment, under s. 68 of the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1894, of the property, debts, and 
 liabilities affected by the transfer : — 
 
 Held, that any such adjustment must be made 
 between the two unions, and not between the 
 union from which tlie transfer had been made 
 and the area transferred : 
 
 Meld, also, that any consideration which bore 
 on the question whether, and to what extent, the 
 union from which the area had been taken had 
 been injured financially by the change, would be 
 properly taken into consideration in making an 
 adjustment. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct, [1898] 2 Q. B. 206, 
 affirmed. In re Koohdale Union and Hasling- 
 DEN Union C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 640 
 
 See preceding Case. 
 
 See also London Governmp.nt Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 14), s. 16. 
 
 Tluions. 
 
 — Transfer of part of one union to another union 
 — Adjustment. 
 See preceding Case. 
 
 LOCAL VENUES— Abolition. 
 
 See Pkactice — Trial. 270. 
 
 LOCKE KING'S ACTS. 
 
 See Cross-references unrier Statutes 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 113; 30 & 31 Vict. 
 0. 69 ; 40 & 41 Vict. o. 3-1. 
 LOCKS— Opening looks on river— Prescription- 
 Lost grant. 
 See Easement. 4. 
 
 LOCOMOTIVES. 
 
 Locomotive Threshing Engines Act, 1SS4 
 
 (57 it 58 Vict. c. 37), removes certain restrictions 
 
 on the use of such engines- 
 Locomotives on Bighways Act, 1896 (59 * 60 
 
 Vict c. 36), amends the law with respect to their 
 
 use on highways. 
 
 Regulations under s. 5 of this Act as to petro- 
 
 LOCOIHO'nYES— continued. 
 
 leum which came into operation on May 15, 1900, 
 and repealed the regulations datrrl Nov. 3, 1896. 
 Lend. Gaz. May 8, 1900, p. 2928. 
 
 Light locomotives on Highways Order, 1890, 
 dated Nov. 9, 1896. St. E, & 0. 1896, p. 158, 
 No, 952. Price id. 
 
 Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. o. 29), 
 amends the law with respect to the use oflocomotirrx 
 on highways, and with respect to extraordinary 
 tragic. 
 
 Construction of Wheels of Locomotives 
 ON Highways.] Order dated Nov. 4, 1898. W. N. 
 1898 (Dec, 17), p. 412. See Current Index, 1898, 
 p. xovii. 
 
 Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 36), s. 5 — Regulations as to Petroleum 
 which came into operation on May 15, 1900, and 
 repealed the regulations dated Nov. 3, 1896. 
 Land. Gaz. May 8, 1900, p, 2928. 
 
 — Extraordinary traffic. 
 
 See Cases under Highways — Repairs. 
 
 1. — Licence — Passing through county — " Used 
 wiUiin the county" — Steam-roller — Highways and 
 Locomotives Act, 1878 (41 * 42 Vict. c. 77),' s. 32. 
 
 The Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878, 
 provides by s. 32 that "A county authority may 
 .... make .... by-laws for granting annual 
 liopiices to locomotives used within their county." 
 And by a by-law made by the London County 
 Council under that section it was provided that 
 " No locomotive shall be used on any highway 
 within the county of London until an annual 
 licence for tlie use of the same shall have 
 been obtained from the council by the owner 
 thereof : — 
 
 Held, that a steam-roller which was not at 
 the time being employed in road-making, but 
 was merely passing through the country to a 
 destination outside, was being " used within the 
 county " within the meaning of the section and 
 the by-law. London County Council v. Wood 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 482 
 
 — Negligence — Fire from engine. 
 
 ib'ee Eailway — Negligence. 18. 
 
 2. — Negligent management of locomotive on 
 highway hy hirei — LiaMlily of oivner of traction 
 engine — Master and servant — Locomotives Act, 
 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. S3), ss. 3, 7. 
 
 The deft,, who was tlie owner of a traction 
 engine, to which his name and address were 
 afBxed, as required by the Locomotives Art, 1865, 
 8. 7, let the same to A., through tlie negligent 
 management of whom personal injuries were occa- 
 sioned to the pit., who was being driven in a 
 carriage upon the highway : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, was not liable. Smith v. 
 Bailey - ' C. A. [1891] 3 Q, B. 403 
 
 LOCUS SOLUTIONIS — Contract — English or 
 Scotch contract. 
 See OoNrLicT of Laws. 1. 
 
 — Locus contractus — Contract to be performed in 
 
 different countries. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 2. 
 
( 1147 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1118 ) 
 
 LODSER FBANCHISE— Eegistration of voters. 
 See Cases under Parliament — Fran- 
 chise, 
 
 LODGEES — "Private resilience" — Boarding and 
 lodging scholars attending school. 
 See Covenant. 4. 
 
 LODGING— Cesser of right to— Notice to leave. 
 See Innkeepee. 5. 
 
 — Fitness for occupation^Fcirnished l.ouse. 
 See Landlokd and Tenant. 67. 
 
 lODGING-HOUSE — Common lodging-house — 
 Liability lo penalty for keeping — Charitable in- 
 stitution — Non-registration — Common Lodging 
 Mouses Acts, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 28) ; ISSiS 
 (16 <fe 17 Vict. 0. 41). 
 
 (a) Sect. 3 of the Common Lodging Houses 
 Act, 1853, provides that " a person shall not keep a 
 common lodging-house, unless his name as the 
 keeper thereof be entered in the register kept 
 under " the Common Lodging Houses Act, 1851. 
 
 The respondent kept a house or " shelter " for 
 the reception of male lodgers as part of a social 
 scheme carried on by a body called the Salva- 
 tion Army, the lodgers being admitted by the 
 officials in chai'ge under certain regulations made 
 for the carrying out of the objects of the scheme. 
 The lodgers were charged id. a night or 2s. a 
 week for a bed or bunk in an open dormitory 
 and the use in common with the other occupants 
 of a sitting or meeting room and a kitchen ; the 
 occupants provided their own food, which they 
 might cook at the kitchen fire. The officials in 
 charge had a discretionary power to admit per- 
 sons for a less payment or for no payment at all. 
 Drunken or disorderly men were not admitted, 
 or, if admitted, were turned out, the occupants 
 being of the same class as the occupants of 
 common lodging-houses, except that some of 
 those received were so dirty that tliey would not 
 be received in a common lodging-house. The 
 shelter was kept for charitable or religious 
 objects, and not for purposes of gain ; the charges 
 were the same as at common lodging-houses kept 
 for commercial profit, but no profit was in fact 
 made out of the shelters carried on under the 
 scheme. The respondent's name was not entered 
 in tlie register of common lodging-houses as the 
 keeper of the shelter : — 
 
 Held, thiit the fact that the shelter was kept 
 for charitable or religious objects and not for 
 purposes of gain did not take it out of the opera- 
 tion of the Cuuiraon Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 
 and 1 853 ; that the shelter was a common lodging- 
 house within the meaning of those Acts, and tliat 
 the respondent had been guilty of the olfcuco of 
 keeping a conjmon lodging-house without having 
 his name registered as the keeper thereof 
 
 Booth V. Ferrett, (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 87, over- 
 ruled. LoGSDON V. Booth 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. W. 6 ; [1900].l Q. B. 401 
 
 ^ (b) The respondent kept a house for the recep- 
 tion of male lodgers which was not carried on ibr 
 the sako of making a profit, but solely for the pur- 
 pose ol assisting the poorer classes. Tlie lodgers 
 loZ.?''">?,'' "''■ °^' ^'^- '' "isW, and for this c?ach 
 sittfn^ ?n. j'f °'' "^ common diuing-hall and 
 Bittmg-ioom and the right to the exclusive occu- 
 
 LOHGINO-KOVSE— continued. 
 pation of a cubicle which contained a bed, and 
 which was separated from the rest of the dor- 
 mitory by walls about 6J feet high made of tiles. 
 A certain number of the lodgers were of a better 
 class than the inhabitants of an ordinary common 
 lodging-house, but substantially the lodgers were 
 of that description. Drunken and disorderly meji, 
 and men who were suspected of being criminals 
 or verminous, were not admitted, but all other 
 men were admitted on payment. The house was 
 not registered as a common lodging-house :^ 
 
 Held, tliat since the inmates of the liouse were 
 persons of the poorer class who were likely to be 
 in a dirty and insanitary condition, and since 
 they occupied at least part of the house in 
 common, it was a common lodging-house within 
 the meaning of thfl Common jXo dging Houses 
 Acts, 1851 and 1853, and ou^Pt 
 
 ' tdi[^^'c 
 registered. Logsdon v. Trotter "^ 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q.,'B 
 
 LONDON. 
 
 been 
 617 
 
 Boundafies and Boroughs, col. j/149. 
 
 Buildings, col. 1149. 
 
 By-laws, col. 1160. 
 
 Cahs. See Hackney CARRiAfJ; 
 
 Canals, col. 1160. 
 
 Citij of LoM'eii Court, col. 11|60. 
 
 Commons. See CoJUiON. 
 
 Contracts, col. 1161. 
 
 County Council, col. 1161. 
 
 Couidy Courts, col. 1161. 
 
 Cnstum, col. IXiyi. 
 
 Drains. Sec London — Sewers. 
 
 Electors, col. 1162. 
 
 Grain Duty, col. 1162. 
 
 Hacliney Carriages. Sec Hackney 
 
 Carriage. 
 Loans, col. 1162. 
 Local Gorermnent, col. 1162. 
 Mayor's Court, col. 1162. 
 
 2Iusic and Dancing. See Music and 
 Dancing. 
 
 Xuisances. See Nuisances. 
 
 Penalties, col. 11(14. 
 
 Police. See Police. 
 
 Poor Law, col, 1164. 
 
 Pates. See Rates. 
 
 Eemoval of Refuse, col. 1164. 
 
 Sanitary Conrenience, col. 1165. 
 
 Sessions, col. 1165. 
 
 Seicers, col. 116.5. 
 
 Slaughter-houses, col. 1171. 
 
 Street Musician. See Music and 
 
 Dancing. 
 Streets, col. 1171. 
 Tithe, col. 1181. 
 
 University of London. See Univeksity 
 —University of London. 
 
 Unsound Pood. See Food. 
 Vestries, col. II SI 
 
( IH9 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1150 ) 
 
 LOSDQS—coniinued. 
 
 Water. See "VVatek. 
 Water-closets. See Wateb-olosets. 
 Other References, col. 1182. 
 
 Boundaries and Boroughs. 
 
 London Government Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict, 
 c. 14), Order dated May 15, 1900, constituting tite 
 Metropolitan Boroughs and fixing boundaries, &c., 
 Lond. 6az. June 5, 1900, p. 3567. 
 
 Buildings. 
 
 Note. — As to Cases relating to places outside 
 the County of London — 
 
 See Cases under Buildings. 
 
 By the London Building Act, ISDtt (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. ccxiii.), the Fuhlio and Local Acts affect- 
 ing iuildings'in the County of London and certain 
 of such Acts relating to mere streets were consoli- 
 dated and amended. 
 
 Regulations were made hy the London County 
 Council in Nov., 1894, as to applications for sanc- 
 tion or consent under the London Building Act, 
 1894. 
 
 Regulations as to procedure and fees were made 
 Jjy the Tribunal of Appeal constituted under s. 184 
 of the Act, and were approved by the Lord Chan- 
 cellor on March 1, 1895. 
 
 London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. 
 c. cxxxvii.\ amends the London Building Act, 1894 
 (57 <fc 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.). 
 
 1. — Building line — Architect — Certificate — 
 Corner liouse — Street in which building is situate 
 — Metropolis Management Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 102), s. 75. 
 
 When an application is made to a magistrate 
 under the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, 
 B. 75, sub-s. 1, for an order to demolish a building 
 on the ground that it is beyond the line decided 
 by the superintending architect to be the line of 
 building of the street in which the building is 
 situate, the question whether the building is in 
 that particular street of which the line has been 
 so laid down is to be decided by the superintend- 
 ing architect's certificate, and not by the magis- 
 trate to whom the application is made. Allen 
 V. London Codnty GonNCiL 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 a. B. 587 
 
 2. —Building line— Architect— Certificate. 
 
 In case of a summons for infringing on the 
 building line, the fact that the summons was 
 taken out before the date of the architect's certi- 
 ficate as to what the line of buildings was does 
 not affect the validity of an order made after the 
 issue^ofjhe certificate. I^- p895TA'r57^ 
 
 Keferred to by Div- Ct Lmdon County 
 CowncU V. Bryor, [1896] 1 Q. B. 330, 3d3. 
 
 3 — Building line—Architect-Certlficate- 
 Pulling down buOdings-Time for rnalang com- 
 
 ^r7i~n'-MX:usX'^^^^^^^ 
 
 ^'Ki*mLThf d^S'wHch the loeal autho- 
 rity cL get an order for pulling down buildings 
 erected beyond the building line begm to run 
 
 LONSOIT (Buildings) — continued. 
 from the time when the builder began to build 
 beyond the line which is afterwards certified to 
 be the building line, and not from the date on 
 which the architect makes hia certificate. London 
 County Council v. Ccoss. C. A. [1892] W. N, 80 
 See now London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. 0. ccxiii.), s. 160, and Lavy v. London 
 Counh) Council, C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 577. See 
 preceding Case. 
 
 4. — Building line — Building begun before 
 creation of — Right of owner to continue — What 
 amounts to a " Building, structure, or erection " 
 —Metropolis Management Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 0. 102), s. 75. 
 
 (a) a. deposited with the vestry plans for a shop 
 adjoining a newly laid out street, and made the 
 footings for the. external walls on two sides of 
 the shop, one of which faced the street, and 
 raised the wall to 12 ft. on that side. At that 
 date there were no other buildings on either side 
 of the street. Two years after he built a row of 
 buildings on the same side of the street 10 ft. 
 further back. He then leased the site of the 
 shop to B., who continued the erection of the shop 
 without consent of the London County Council. 
 Two months later the superintending architect 
 decided that the building line was that of the 
 row of houses. 
 
 Held, by C. A., that what B.'s lessor had put 
 up did not amount to a building, structure or 
 erection within e. 75 of the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1862, and that B.'s acts amounted to 
 the first erection of such a building, and that an 
 order that B. should demolish so much of the 
 building as he had erected in front of the 
 building line was rightly made. 
 
 Semble {per Esher M.R. and Davey L.J.), 
 that s. 75 does not prevent the subsequent 
 completion of a building existing in an unfinished 
 state when the building line is established. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 227, 
 affirmed, but on different grounds. Wendon v. 
 London County Council 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 812 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. anil C. A. Lavy v. 
 London County Council, [1895] 1 Q. B. 915, 919 ; 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 577, .581. See No. 5, belmo. 
 
 (b) The erection of a building in front of the 
 building line was begun in 1883, abandoned for a 
 while, and continued in 1885. Order of magis- 
 trate for demolition held valid. Nathan k. 
 Metbopolitan Boakd of Works 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 230, n. 
 
 5. — Building line — " Building, structure, or 
 erection " — Metropolis Management Act, 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. e. 102), s. 75. 
 
 The question whether a wall is a " building, 
 structure, or erection," within s. 75 of the 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1862, depends on 
 the height of the wall and the purpose for which 
 it is built. A forecourt of a house had been for 
 many years bounded by a dwarf wall about 3 ft. 
 high. The owner pulled this down and built a 
 wall 11 ft. high, which was to bo used for 
 exhibiting advertisements and also as boundary 
 to the forecourt : — 
 
 Jffeld, that the original dwarf wall was not a 
 
( 1151 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1152 ) 
 
 LONDON (BmliingB)—conlinued. 
 "building, structure, or erection," and that so 
 long as it exibted Ihe site on which it stood was 
 to be regarded as vacant land ; but that the 
 substituted wall was a building, structure, or 
 erection, and that the magistrate had jurisdiction 
 to order its demolition. 
 
 Decision of Biv. Ct., [1895] 1 Q. B. 915, 
 affirmed. L ivy v. London Coxintt ConNOiL 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 «. B, 577 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Lnndon Cuuntij 
 Council V. Pryor, [1896] 1 Q. B. 330, 33:^. 
 
 6. — Building line — Old huilding, Site of — 
 General line of buildings — Land occupied with 
 house — New street — Metropolis Management Act. 
 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 102}, ss. 74, 75. 
 
 A new street was formed in the metropolis, 
 opening at a right angle into an existing street 
 in whicli there was a continuous row of houses 
 with forecourts in front and gardens behind. 
 The plan for the new street submitted to the 
 London County Council contained a note stating 
 tliat two of the above-mentioned houses were 
 (among others) to he pulled down, and tlie new 
 stieet, as shewn by the plan, occupied the whole 
 site of one of them with the forecourt and garden 
 belonging thereto, and part of the site of the 
 other and of the forecourt and garden belonging 
 thereto, which were respectively 48 and 90 ft. 
 in depth. These houses having been pulled 
 down, (he owner of the last-mentioned of them 
 was erecting on so much of its site and the fore- 
 court and garden on each side of it as was not 
 thrown into the new street a block of buildinj^s 
 fronting to the new street, which projected beyond 
 the general line of buildings in that street as 
 fixed by the superintending architect of the 
 county council : — 
 
 Held, that he was not building on tlie site of 
 a previously existing building within the mean- 
 ing of s. 74 of the Metropolis Management Act, 
 1862, and therefore was infringing the provisions 
 of s. 75 of that Act, which forbids the erection of 
 buildings beyond the general line of buildings in 
 the street. 
 
 Lord Auckland v. Westminster District Board 
 of Works, (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 597, distinguished. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct, [1896] 1 Q. B. 330, 
 aJErmed. London County Council v. Peyok 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 465 
 
 7. — Building line — Projections — Pilaster 
 encroaching on public footway — General Paring 
 (.Metropolis') Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. raw.), s. 72— 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. 
 <:. 120), s. Wi— Metropolitan Building Act, 1865 
 (18 * 19 Vict. c. 122), s. 26. 
 
 P. built shops on the side of a public street 
 more than 30 ft. wide, and erected pilasters 
 projecting more than 9 inches beyond the build- 
 ing line on to the footway. For this he was 
 convicted under s. 72 of Michael Angelo Taylor's 
 Act:— 
 
 Held, that the conviction must be quashed 
 d) because Jlichael Angelo Taylor's Act, s. 72, 
 18 impliedly repealed by Metropolis Management 
 Act, 1855, e. 119 ; (2) because the projections 
 complamed of were authorized by s. 26 of the 
 
 LONDON (Btiildings) — continued. 
 
 Metropolitan Building Act, 1855. Foktescde r. 
 
 Vestry op St. Matthew, Bethnal Gbeen 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 170 
 
 Sect. 26 was repealed and further 'provision 
 made by the London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict c. ccxiii.'), ss. 73, 164. 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Kruse v. Johnson, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 91, 102. 
 
 8. — Building line — Bebuild, Intention to — 
 Open spaces — Metropolis Management Act, 1862 
 (25 & 26 Vict. V. 102), s. 75. 
 
 A new house had been built on the site of 
 some old buildings, with an open space in front. 
 This new house was pulled down, and the pit. 
 wished to build fresh houses up to the line of the 
 old building : — 
 
 ISeld, that the site of the old buildings was 
 open ground and subject to s. 75 of the Metro- 
 polis Management Act, 1862, and that pit. must 
 conform to the building line of the street. 
 WoELEY V. Vestey OP St. Maey Abbotts, Ken- 
 sington - North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 404 
 
 Note. — Sect. 75 was repealed and further pro- 
 vision made by the London Building Act, 1894 
 (67 * 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), s. 22. 
 
 9. — Building line — Stations^ — Special Act — 
 Metropolis Management Acts, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict, 
 c. 102), s. 75 ; 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. e. 14), ». 10— 
 Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. u. 41), 
 s. 40, sub-s. 8. 
 
 Held, that the provisions of the appellants' 
 special Act, relating to their powers for erecting 
 stations, were inconsistent with tho.se of s. 75 of 
 the Molropolia Management Act, 1862, and so far 
 repealed that section. The magistrate had there- 
 fore no jurisdiction to make an order on the 
 appellants to pull down so much of their station 
 as projected beyond the " general line " of build- 
 ings. City and South London Ey. Co. v. 
 London County Council 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 513 
 
 Sect. 75 was repealed and further provision 
 made by the London Building Act, 1894 (57 <fc 58 
 Vict. c. ccxiii.), ss. 22, 31. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. London County Council 
 V. London School Board, [1892] 2 Q. B. 611. 
 
 10. — Completed building — Offence — Notice — 
 Proceedings by district surveyor — Metropolitan 
 Building Act, ]855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122), ss. 45, 
 46, 105. 
 
 A building was completed without the proper 
 ni'tiees to the district surveyor : — 
 
 Held, that, as the building was completed, 
 s. 105 of the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, 
 did not enable the surveyor to take any prciceed- 
 ings under ss. 45 and 46, as these sections only 
 applied to buildings in the course of erection. 
 Smith v. Lego - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 398 
 
 Sects. 45, 46, 195 of the Metropolitan Building 
 Act, 1855, were repealed, and further provision 
 made hy the London Building Act, 1894 (57 &. 58 
 Vict. c. ccxiii.), ss. 151, 152, 153, 193. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Wallen v. Lister, [1894]- 
 1 Q. B. 812, 3.15. 
 
 11. 
 
 Dangerous structure — Erection of 
 
C iiti ) 
 
 Digest of dASfiS, i89i'=^i900i 
 
 ( 1154 ) 
 
 LONDON (Buildings)— coiUwMeA 
 shores and hoarding — Disturbance of pavement — 
 Duty to restore pavement after hoarding removed 
 —London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 Oi cexiii.'), ss. 106, 107. 
 
 Where the London County Council, acting 
 under the powers conferred on them by Part IX. 
 of the London Building Act, 1894, have, for tho 
 purpose of securing a dangerous structure, erected 
 shores and a hoarding, and have taken up portions 
 of the pavement to allow of the shores and the 
 uprights of the hoarding being fixed in the 
 ground, the duty of replacing the pavement after 
 the shores and hoarding have been removed lies 
 upon the owner of the premises and not upon the 
 county council. Ckisp v. London Cotjntt Coiw- 
 ciL - - WiUs J. [1899] 1 a. B. 720 
 
 12. — Dangerous structure — Jurisdiction of 
 magistrate — Order fur demolition — Metropolitan 
 Buildings Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122), s. 73. 
 
 A justice of the peace has jurisdiction under 
 s.,73 of the Metropolitan Buildings Act, 1855, to 
 order the owner of a dangerous structure to take 
 down or secure the same, even though such 
 structure is not adjacent to a highway and there- 
 fore not dangerous to the public. London 
 County Coonoil v. Hekbing 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 522 
 
 Sect. 73 was repealed and further provision 
 made by the London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. ccxiii.'), s. 107. 
 
 — Dangerous structures notice — Sanitary works 
 
 — Costs — Capital or income — Leasehold 
 
 house. 
 
 See Settled Land. 65. 
 
 — Exemption from Act — Gasworks. 
 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. cxxxiii.), 8. 9. 
 
 13. — Exemption from operation of Act — Con- 
 tract entered into before passing of Act — London 
 Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), 
 8. 212. 
 
 The exemption from the operation of the 
 London Building Act, 1894, contained in s. 212 
 of that Act in favour of buildings to be carried 
 out under a contract entered into before the pass- 
 ing of the Act applies not merely to buildings to 
 be erected under a contract with a builder accord- 
 ing to definite plans and specifications, but also 
 to buildings to be erected under a building agree- 
 ment for the development of a building estate, 
 the complete performance of which may extend 
 over a period of years. Tanner v. Oldman 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] W. N. 139 (7) ; 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 60 
 
 — Flats— Surveyor's fees. 
 
 See No. 29, below. 
 
 14. — Plue built against party structure,— 
 " Surrounded with new brickwork " — London 
 Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.'), s. 64, 
 sub-s. 18. T. .,j. 
 
 Sect. 64, sub-s. 18, of the London Buildmg 
 Act, 1894, provides that "A|flue shall not be 
 built in or against any party structure unless it 
 be surrounded with new brickwork at least four 
 inches in thickness, properly bonded " :— 
 
 Held, that "new brickwork" means brick- 
 work new at the time of the building of the flue, 
 
 LONDON (Buildings)— contirmed. 
 
 and does not include a party wall dividing two 
 
 houses, if previously constructed, however 
 
 recently. 
 
 In 1895 the deft, in rebuildiilg his house, 
 which adjoined the pits.' house in the City of 
 Loudon, constructed some new flues against the 
 party wall, using that wall as one side of each 
 flue, the other three sides of each flue beiilg built 
 for the first time with new bricks. The party 
 wall had been rebuilt three years previously : — 
 
 Held, that the flues were not surrounded with 
 new brickwork within the meaning of the Act. 
 Aerated Bread Co. v. Shepherd 
 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 33 (9) 
 
 — Gas company, saving for. 
 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. cxxxvii.), s. 9. 
 
 15. — Height of buildings — Continuing offence 
 — -Metropolis Management Act, 1862 (25 <fc 26 Vict 
 c. 102), ss. 85, 107. 
 
 Buildings to a prohibited height were com- 
 pleted in Feb. 1893. In Dec. 1893 the county 
 councU gave written notice to the owner that he 
 would be held liable to penalties if the building 
 were continued at the prohibited height. In 
 March, 1894, a summons for these penalties was 
 taken out : — 
 
 Held, that the continuance at a prohibited 
 height, after notice, of a building already erected 
 was a continuing offence within s. 85 of the 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1862, and that com- 
 plaint had been made within six months next 
 after the commission or discovery of the offence. 
 London County Council v. Worlet Div. Ct. 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. 826 
 
 Sect. 85 Mas repealed and further provision made 
 by the London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. ccxiii.), s. 49. 
 
 16. — Height of buildings — Corner house — 
 Building erected on the side of a new street — 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 e. 102), «. 85. 
 
 A house built at the corner of an old street 
 and of a new street is "erected on the side of 
 a new street" within s. 85 of the Metropolis 
 Management Act, 1862, although its main front- 
 age is in the old street. London County Council 
 V. Lawbance & Sons Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 228 
 
 Sect. 85 teas repealed and further provision 
 made by the London Building Act, 1894 (57 <fe 58 
 Vict. «. ccxiii.), ss. 47, 49. 
 
 — Height of working-class dwellings in certain 
 
 or napTQ 
 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. cxxxvii.), s. 4. 
 
 — Notice — ^Party structures. 
 
 See Nos. 20—22, behw. 
 
 17. — Notice — Service of — London Su/ilding 
 Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), s. 188— 
 Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 <£ 12 Vict, 
 c. 43), 5. 1. 
 
 By B. 188 of the London Building Act, 1894, 
 any notice, order, or other document required to 
 be served under that Act, the service of which is 
 not provided for by the Summary Jurisdiction 
 
 2 P 
 
( 1155 ) 
 
 DtaEST Oi? OASlSS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( use ) 
 
 LONDON' (SvLTliiags)— continued. 
 Acts, may be served, if no person be found on the 
 premises to wiiich it relates, by fixing a copy on 
 some conspicuous part of the building to which it 
 relates. By s. 1 of the Summary Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1848, a summons issued upon any informa- 
 tion or complaint shall be served by delivering it 
 to the person to whom it is directed, or by leaving 
 it with some person for him at his last or most 
 usual place of abode. A summons issued upon a 
 complaint made under the London Building Act, 
 1894, and addressed " To the owner" of a build- 
 ing alleged to be in a dangerous condition, was 
 served by fixing a copy of the summons on a con- 
 spicuous part of the building. The premises 
 were said to be unoccupied. The owner did not 
 appear on the summons : — 
 
 Held, that, in the absence of evidence that 
 reasonable inquiry had been made to find out who 
 was tine owner so that he could be served under 
 s. 1 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, the 
 provisions of s. 188 of the London Building Act, 
 1894, were not applicable, and therefore that the 
 service was bad. Eeo. v. Mead - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 163 (11); [1898] 1 Q. B. 110 
 
 JBut see now London Building Act, 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict. c. cxxxvii.), o. 5. 
 
 18. — Notice to huilder to conform to Act — 
 Order of magistrate to enforce compliance — Com- 
 pletion of huilding between notice and order — 
 Jurisdiction — Metropolitan Building Act, 1855 
 (IS & 19 Vict. 0. 122), ss. 45, 46. 
 
 A justice has no jurisdiction to make an order 
 under the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, s. 46, 
 to comply with the requisitions of a notice from 
 the district surveyor under s. 45, when the build- 
 ing has been completed and the builder has given 
 up possession before the date of such order, 
 although the notice was served on the builder 
 before completion. Wallen v. Listek 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 312 
 
 Sects. 45, 46 were repealed and further provi- 
 sion made hy the London Building Act, 1894, 
 ss. 151, 152. 
 
 19. — Notice to set hade — Forecourt or space 
 — Boundary wall — London Bpilding Act, 1894 
 (57 (fc 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), s. 14. 
 
 Sect. 14 of the London Building Act, 1894, 
 does not empower the London County Council to 
 give notice requiring the owner or occupier of 
 land, upon part of which he has erected a new 
 building, to set back an old boundary wall, form- 
 ing the boundary of a space left between the new 
 building and a street, so that the wall shall not 
 be at less than the prescribed distance from the 
 centre of the roadway of the street. London 
 County Council v. Aylesbury Dairy Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] W. N. 153 (10); 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 106 
 
 But see now London Building Act, 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict. c. cxxxvii.), s. 3. 
 
 — Notice — Wooden " structure " — Temporary 
 
 erection. 
 
 See Nos. 30, 31, heloic. 
 20. — Party structure — Notice ly huildinq 
 owner—'^ Owner " — " Adjoining owner " — " Al- 
 terations m huildings "—Injunction—Metropolitan 
 
 LONDON (Buildings) — continued. 
 
 Building Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict c. 122), ss. 3, 
 
 82, 85, suh-s. 1. 
 
 A tenant of rooms in a house under a three 
 years' agreement is an " adjoining owner " within 
 the meaning of s. 85 of the Metropolitan Building 
 Act, 1855, and as such is entitled to the three 
 months' notice before the "building owner" can 
 make any alterations which affect his premises. 
 Service of the notice on the landlord of the whole 
 house is not sufficient. Fillinsham v. Wood 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. SI 
 
 Sect. 85 of the Metropolis 3Ianagement Act, 
 
 1855, was repealed and further provision made hy 
 
 the London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 
 c. ccxiii.), e. 90. 
 
 — Party structure, Flue built against — " Sur- 
 rounded with new brickwork." 
 See No. 14, above. 
 21. — Party structure notice — Adjoining 
 " owner " — Possession of premises under building 
 agreement — London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. ccxiii.'), s. 5, sub-ss. 29, 32; s. 90. 
 
 The word " owner " in s. 5, sub-ss. 29 and 32, 
 and in s, 90 of the London Building Act, 1894, 
 as therein defined, includes a person who ha^ 
 entered upon land and erected buildings under 
 an agreement for a lease, although no lease has 
 been executed and although the agreement is 
 expressed not to operate as a demise but to give 
 only a right to enter upon the premises for the 
 purpose of performing the agreement. 
 
 A person in that position is accordingly en- 
 titled as an "adjoining owner" to receive from 
 an adjacent "building owner'' the notice and 
 particulars of proposed works required by s. 90 of 
 the Act, and it is not sufficient to give notice to 
 the intending lessor. 
 
 Injunction granted, in these circumstances, to 
 restrain a building owner from proceeding with 
 his works without the statutory notice to the 
 intending lessee of the adjoining premises. List 
 V. Tharp - - Chitty J. [1897] 1 Ch. 260 
 
 22. — Party wall — Building owner — Notice — 
 Sufficiency — London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 68 
 Vict. 0. ccxiii.), s. 90. 
 
 A party -wall notice, given by a building 
 owner to an adjoining owner under s. 90 of the 
 London Building Act, 1894, ought to be so clear 
 and intelligible as to enable the adjoining owner 
 to see what counter-notice he should give under 
 the provisions of the Act. Hobbs, Hart & Co. v. 
 Ghover - - C. A. [1898] W, N. 154 (2) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 11 
 
 23. — Parly wall — London Building Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), ss. 59, 75. 
 
 By s. 75 of the London Building Act, 1894, 
 certain buildings of the warehouse class must be 
 " divided by party walls," and party walls by 
 other provisions of the Act must be constructed 
 according to specified requirements. A building, 
 to which s. 75 would apply, was proposed to be 
 erected, some portions of it being of a much 
 grcatet height than others, and the walls which 
 divided the higher from the lower portions were 
 to be carried up above the roof of the lower so aa 
 to form the outside walls of the higher : — 
 
 Meld, that a. 75 only made a wall a party wall in 
 
( 115? ) 
 
 MGBST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1158 ) 
 
 lONDON C'Bm.limgs)— continued. 
 respect of its dividing one portion of the building 
 from another; so that the walls in question 
 •would cease to be party walls when carried up 
 above the roof of the lower portions of the proposed 
 buUdiug. Dbury v. Akmt and Navy Auxiliaet 
 Co-opEBATivE Supply, Ld. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B. 271 
 
 24. — Party wall — Terrace houses — Metropo- 
 litan Building Act, 1855 (18 (fc ]9 Vict. c. 122), 
 ss. 3, 83. 
 
 The front of the deft.'s house was set back 
 behind the line of the plt.'s front wall. On re- 
 building the deft, claimed the side wall of the 
 plt.'s house as a party wall, not only where the 
 Louses touched (which was admitted), but also 
 where the wall projected beyond the face of his 
 own house : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the projecting part of the side wall 
 was not a party wall. Johnston v. Maypaik 
 Property Co. North J. [1893] W. N. 73 
 
 Sects. 3, 83, were repealed and further provision 
 made hy the London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. 0. ccxiii.), ss. 5, 88. 
 
 See also Johnston v. Mayfair Froperty Co., 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 508. 
 
 25. — Plans — Rebuilding on old site — Certified 
 plans of old huilding — London Building .4ci,'1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), s. 43. 
 
 By s. 43 of the London Building Act, 1894, 
 a person who is desirous of building a domestic 
 building on the site of a domestic building exist- 
 ing at the passing of the Act may submit to the 
 district surveyor for certification " plans shewing 
 the extent of the previously existing domestic 
 building in its several parts," and on getting a 
 certificate of the accuracy of the plans may build 
 without regard to the restrictions imposed by the 
 Act upon the erection of new buildings, provided 
 he does not deviate in any respect from the 
 certified plans : — 
 
 Held, that the plans which he must get certified 
 under that section as a condition of the right of 
 so building are not confined to ground-plans, but 
 include plans shewing sections and elevations 
 and the areas of the several floors. Patntee v. 
 Watson - Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 31 
 
 26. — Public-house — Part of huilding used for 
 Dwelling-house — Approaches — London Building 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. e. ccxiii.), ». 74, eub-s. 2. 
 
 A fully licensed public-house is not a buUding 
 " used in part for purposes of trade or manu- 
 facture and In part as a dwelling-house " within 
 the meaning of s. 74, sub-s. 2, of the London 
 Building Act, 1894 ; so that the means of ap- 
 proach to the part used aa a dwelling-house 
 need not be constructed of fire-resisting materials 
 as required by that section. Oarbitt v. Godson 
 & Son - Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 193 
 
 — Eailway company — Saving for railway statu- 
 tory purpose. 
 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. 0. cxxxvii.), s. 3 (4). 
 
 27. — Boof — Material partly combustible and 
 pa/rtly incombustible — Metropolitan Building Act, 
 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. e. 122), 8. 19 (1). 
 
 A roof covered with materials consisting of 
 woven iron wire coated with an oleaginous com- 
 
 LONDON (Buildings) — continued. 
 pound, held not to be covered with an " incom- 
 bustible " material, although only the coating 
 would ignite and burn away, leaving the wire- 
 work uninjured. Payne v. Wriqht - Div. Ct. 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 101 ; appeal dismissed by C. A. 
 for want of jurisdiction, Feb. 1, 1892 
 Sect. 19 was repealed and further provision 
 made by the London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 68 
 Vict. o. ccxiii.), s. 61. 
 
 28. — School board — Might to build within 
 prescribed distance of centre of roadway — Elemen- 
 tary Education Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 75), 
 ss. 19, 20 ; Metropolis Management and Buildings 
 Act, 1878 (41 * 42 Vict. a. 32), ss. 4, 6. 
 
 The London School Board held to be entitled 
 to build on land they had acquired under a pro- 
 visional order (duly confirmed) within 20 ft. of 
 the centre of a roadway : ss. 4, 6 of the Metropo- 
 litan Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1878, 
 being overridden by the special Act. London 
 County Council v. London School Board 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 606 
 
 Sects. 4, 6 are repealed and further provision 
 made by the London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. u. ccxiii.), ss. 5 (3), (4), (5), 13, 16, 17, 21. 
 
 — Service of summonses and orders relating to 
 
 dangerous or neglected structures. 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Viot. c. cxxxvii.), s. 5. 
 
 — Stock Exchange buildings to be " public 
 
 building." 
 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 02 
 Vict. c. cxxxvii.), s. 8. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See Cases under London — Streets. 
 
 29. — Surveyor's fees — Flats — Metropolitan 
 Building Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122), s. 27, 
 r. 2 ; ss. 4.9-51. 
 
 JECeld, that separate sets of chambers under 
 one roof are not buildings within Sohed. II., 
 Pt. I., of the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, so 
 as to enable the district surveyor to charge a 
 separate fee for each set of chambers. MoiR v. 
 Williams C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 264 
 
 Sects. 49-51 and the Schedule are repealed and 
 further provision made by the London Building 
 Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), s. 74 (3), 
 Soiled. ILL 
 
 — Temporary structure, Court may order demo- 
 
 lition of.' 
 
 See London Building Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. 0. cxxxvii.), ss. 6, 7. 
 
 30. — ■ Wooden shed — Canal — Building "used 
 for the purposes" of the canal — Erection of new 
 buildings — Notice — Exemption — Metropolitan 
 Building Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122), ss.6, 38. 
 
 Held, that a woodshed, erected by a canal co. 
 on one of their wharves for the use of their 
 tenants was not a building "used for the pur- 
 poses " of the canal (s. 6) so as to exempt the co., 
 before building it, from the obligations, as to 
 notices to the district surveyor, imposed by s. 38 
 of the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855. Coolb 
 V. Lovegrove - Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 44 
 
 Sects. 6, 38 of the Metropolitan Building Act, 
 1855, were repealed and further provision made by 
 
 2 P 2 
 
( 1159 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1160 ) 
 
 LONDON (Buildings) — continued. 
 
 the London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 
 c. ccxiii.'), ss. 145, 201 (8). 
 
 Diatingaiahed by Div. Ct. Elliott v. London 
 County Council, [1899] 2 Q. B. 277, 281. 
 
 31. — Wooden structure — Building notice — ■ 
 Temporary erection — " Structure " — London Build- 
 ing Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), s. 145. 
 
 By 8. 145 of the London Building Act, 1894, 
 " Where a building or structure or work is about 
 to be begun . . . the builder or other person 
 causing or direotiog the work to be executed shall 
 serye on the district suryeyor a building notice 
 respecting the building or structure or work." 
 
 The owners of a certain large building situate 
 in London called the Agricultural Hall, which 
 was used for the purpose of public exhibitions or 
 shows, were possessed of certain movable seating 
 consisting of tiers of wooden platforms and capable 
 of accommodating upwards of 3000 persons, which 
 seating they from time to time erected for the 
 accommodation of the spectators at such of the 
 exhibitions as required it : — 
 
 Seld, that such seating was not a " building 
 structure or work" within the meaning of the 
 above section ; and that the owners of the hall 
 were not thereby required to serve a building 
 notice on the district surveyor upon each occasion 
 on which they re-erected the seating. Venner 
 V. M'DONELL Div. ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 421 
 
 32. — Wooden structure — Licence of County 
 Council — Exemption — Structure used in connec- 
 tion with traffic of railway company — London 
 Building Act, 1891 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), ». 86. 
 
 The appellants, coal merchants, were in the 
 habit of having coal consigned to them by 
 ly. to London, where it was delivered to them 
 at a wharf in the coal yard of the ry. co. By the 
 permission of the ry. co. the appellants erected in 
 the coal yard a small wooden structure which 
 tbey used as a coal office. The use of this coal 
 office by the appellants was a matter of con- 
 venience to the ry. co. in that it contributed to 
 the speedy clearing of the coal trucks from the 
 co.'s sidings : — 
 
 Held, that the structure in question was 
 " used in connection with the traffic of the 
 ry. CO.," within the meaning of s. 86 of the London 
 Building Act, 1894, and that its erection did 
 not require the licence of the respondents under 
 B. 84. Elliot v. London Codntt Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 277 
 
 33. — " Wooden structure or erection of a 
 movable or temporary character" — Metropolis 
 Management and Building Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 14), ». 13. 
 
 (a) a bungalow of wood and corrugated iron 
 was erected on a piece of ground for exhibition 
 and sale, but was not there used or occupied, or 
 intended to be so : — 
 
 Seld, that it was not a " wooden structure or 
 erection of a movable or temporary character " 
 within a. 13 of the Jtetropolis Management and 
 Building Acts (Amendment Act), 1882, and did 
 not require a licence from the county council. 
 LoKDON County Codnoil v. Humphkets, Ld. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 755 
 
 (b) a wooden building on wheels and roofed 
 
 LOKDON (Buildings) — continued. 
 with zinc used as a foreman's office during build* 
 ing operations, and as a pay office in the builder's 
 yard when not so used : — 
 
 Held, not to be a " wooden structure or erec- 
 tion of a movable or temporary character " within 
 s. 13 of the Act of 1882, so as to require a licence. 
 London County Council v. Peakce 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 109 
 
 Sect. 13 was repealed and further provision 
 made by the London Building Act, 1894, «. 84. 
 
 By-laws. 
 Metropolis Management Acts Amendment (By- 
 laws) Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. v. 15), amends the 
 law with respect to By-laws. ^ 
 
 Cabs. 
 
 See Hacknet Cakkiage. 
 
 Canals. 
 Canals Protection (London) Act. 1898 (61 & 22 
 Vict. c. 16), provides for the protection of dangerous 
 places on canals in the County of London. 
 — Building " used for the purposes " of a canal. 
 See London — Buildings. 30. 
 
 City of London Court, 
 
 34. — Company, winding-up — Transfer — Com- 
 panies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 <fc 5t Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 1, sub-s. 5; s. 3; Order of Ld. Chanc. 
 of Nov. 29, 1890. 
 
 A transfer of winding-up proceedings can 
 only be made to an inferior Court having juris- 
 diction under the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 
 1890, over cos. in liquidation. The City of 
 London Court is not such a Court, as it has no 
 bankruptcy jurisdiction. In re Keal Estates 
 Co. - V. Williams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 398 
 
 See now Building Societies Act, 1894 (57 &58 
 Vict. c. 47, s. 8 (1). 
 
 35. — Jurisdiction — Cause of action arising in 
 City of London — Leave to issue process — London 
 (City) Small Debts Extension Act, 1852 (15 * 16 
 Vict, c, Ixxvii.), s. 39 (Local) — County Courts Act, 
 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 48), ss. 74, 185. 
 
 Process in an action in the City of London 
 Court may be issued without leave of the judge 
 or registrar where the deft, does not dwell or 
 carry on business in the City of London, but 
 the cause of action arose wholly or in part therein. 
 In this respect s. 74 of the County Courts Act, 
 1888, does not repeal s. 39 of the London (City) 
 Small Debts Extension Act, 1852. Felton v. 
 Bower & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 26 ; [1900] 1 d. B, 598 
 
 36. — ■ Jurisdiction — Defendant employed in 
 the City — London (City) Small Debts Extension 
 Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. Ixxvii.), s. 39— County 
 Courts Act, 18S8 (51 <t- 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 74, 185. 
 
 The jurisdiction given to the City of London 
 Court by s. 39 of London (City) Small Debts 
 Extension Act, 1852, over defts. who do not 
 dwell or carry on business, but only " have em- 
 ployment" within the City, is not taken away by 
 ss. 74, 185 of the County Courts Act, 1888, which 
 assimilates the jurisdiction and procedure of the 
 
( 1161 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 X 1162 :) 
 
 LONDON (City of London Court)— continued. 
 City Court to that of a county court. The statutes 
 conferring jurisdiction on the City of London 
 Court reviewed at length. Kutnek v. Phillips 
 Div. Ct. [1891] a Q. B. 267 
 Distinguished hy Div. Ct. Felton v. Bower & 
 Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 598, 602. 
 
 — Jurisdiction and procedure. 
 
 See also London — County Courts. 
 
 37. — Fro forma judgments — New trial. 
 
 It is not competent for the judge of the City 
 of London Court, when there is a conflict of 
 evidence in a case without a jury, to give judg- 
 ment pro forma in favour of the party to whom 
 his mind inclines, and to grant a new trial hefore 
 a jury as a matter of course to the other party. 
 Marshall v. Bluman Div. Ct. [1893] W. N. 184 
 
 — Statute — Implied repeal — Exemption from 
 
 taxes and aesessments. 
 See Statote. 7. 
 
 Commons, 
 
 See Common. 
 
 Contracts. 
 
 — Contract with trading company — ^Validity — 
 
 Members of council shareholders in the 
 
 company. 
 
 See COEPOKATION. 5. 
 
 County Council, 
 
 See also Cases under London generally. 
 
 38. — Trading — Omnibus business — Publio 
 authority — Ultra vires — ■ Munieipal trading — 
 London County Tramways Act, 1S96 (59 dk 60 
 Vict. c. U.), s. 2. 
 
 Action by Att.-Gen. at relation of a number 
 of omnibus proprietors, and the omnibus pro- 
 prietors suing as ratepayers, for a declaration 
 that the London County Council had no power 
 to apply their county fund in running the 
 omnibuses : — 
 
 Seld, that the county council were carrying 
 on a business, as omnibus proprietors distinct 
 from that of working tramways, neither expressly 
 nor impliedly authorized, and made the declara- 
 tion claimed. Att.-Gen. v. London Countt 
 Council - Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 100 
 
 County Courts. 
 See also County Couht, passim. 
 County Courts (^Districts) Postponement Order 
 as to London. Reprint fromMf. N, 1900 (July 28), 
 p. 231. See Current Index, 1900, p. Ixxv. 
 
 — City of London Court. 
 
 See London — City of London Court, 
 
 39. — Jurisdiction — Winding-up Companies. 
 The effect of the order of Nov. 29, 1890, is to 
 
 deprive these county courts of any winding-up 
 jurisdiction under the Winding-up Act, 1890, 
 and to attach their districts, for the purpose of 
 winding-up, to the High Court. In re Ootjet 
 Bureau (No. 2) - Stirling J. [1891] W, N. 16 
 And see Company — Windinq-xip— Juris- 
 diction. 
 !— Sessions. 
 
 See LpNPQN- 
 
 LONDON — continued. 
 
 Custom, 
 
 40, — • Ancient KgJits — Prescription against 
 Crown. 
 
 The custom as to ancient lights (abolished 
 by the Presciiption Act, 1832), considered. Perky 
 V. Eames. Salaman v. Eames. Mercers' Co. 
 V. Eames Chitty J, [1891] 1 Ch. 668, at p. 667 
 
 Approved by C. A. Wheaton v. Maple & Co., 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 48. 
 
 41, — Market overt. 
 
 A sale in a showroom on the first floor above 
 a shop is not a sale in market overt. 
 
 Semhle, that the custom of market overt in 
 the City of London does not apply where the 
 shopkeeper is the purchaser and not the seller of 
 the goods. Haegkeave v. Spink 
 
 WOls J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 26 
 See Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (£6 & 57 
 Vict. 0. 71. 
 
 Drains. 
 See London — Sewers. 
 
 Electors. 
 
 Qdalimoation.] London County Cnincil 
 Electors Qualification Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict, 
 c. 29), assimilates the county council and borough 
 council franchise in London. 
 
 Eeoistration of Electors.] London Eegis- 
 tration {Temporary") 0. in C. 1900. Lond. Gaz. 
 march 9, 1900, p. 1612 ; St. B, & 0. 1900, No, 166, 
 I, 8. 
 
 Grain Duty. 
 
 42, — " Grain brought into the port of London 
 for sale " — Manufacture of grain into other articles 
 — Metage on Grain (Port of London) Act, 1872 
 (35 & 36 Vict. c. c), s. 4. 
 
 The Metage on Grain (Port of London) Act, 
 1 872 (o. c), s. 4, which entitles the corporation of 
 London to a duty " in respect of all grain brought 
 into the port of London for sale," applies only to 
 grain brought in for sale as grain, and not to 
 grain brought in to be ground into meal, or 
 manufactured into other articles of commerce, 
 and then sold. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 2 Q. B. 652, afBrmed. 
 Cotton v. Voqan & Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A, C. 467 
 
 Hackney Carriages. 
 See Hackney Caeriage, 
 
 Loans. 
 
 Metropolitan Consolidated 3 J per Cent. Stoclc — 
 held to be impure personalty. 
 See Charity. 
 
 Local Government. 
 
 London Government Act, 1899 (62 <fc 63 Vict. 
 0. 14), makes better provision for Local Govern- 
 ment in London. 
 
 Mayor's Court. 
 '' The Mayor's Court of London E^jes, ISpg," 
 
( 1163 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1164 ) 
 
 XONSOK (Mayor's Cowct)— continued. 
 
 dated May 27, 1892. St. E. & 0. 1893, p. 498 ; 
 
 [1892] W. N. (Appx, of 0. & E.) pp. 22-28. 
 
 0. in G. June 28, 1892, applying s. 23 of the 
 Partnership Act, 1890, to the Mayor's Court of 
 London. St. E, & 0. 1892, p. 620 ; Lond. Gaz. 
 July 1, 1892, p, 3789. 
 
 0. in 0. June 28, 1892, applying the whole of 
 the Arbitration Act, 1889, except s. 17, to the 
 Mayor's Court of London. St. E. & 0. 1892, 
 p. 518 ; Loud. Gaz. July 1, 1892, p. 3788. 
 
 43. • — ■ Appeal, Notice of — Extension of time — 
 Practice — Mayor's Court of London Procedure 
 Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict. o. clvii.y—B. 8. C, 
 Order LIX., r. 16. 
 
 Order lis., r. 16, does not give the High 
 Court power to extend the time for giving notice 
 of appeal under s. 8 of the Mayor's Court of 
 London Procedure Act, 1857. Kieby v. North 
 British and Meeoantile Insukanoe Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 a. B. 99 
 
 44. — Costs — Libel — Less than 51. recovered — 
 Practice — Mayor's Court of London Act, 1857 
 (20 & 21 Vict. c. clvii.), 8. 11— Rules of 1890 and 
 1892. 
 
 The fact that in a particular case no scale of 
 costs is provided by the Mayor's Court of London 
 Bules, 1890, is not in itself sufficient to shew that 
 that Court has no inherent jurisdiction to order 
 costs in the cases not specifically provided for. 
 
 Semhle, that in actions for libel tried in the 
 Mayor's Court of London, in which less than 51. 
 is recovered, the Court has jurisdiction to order 
 costs to be paid to the pit., beyond court fees 
 and allowances to witnesses, although no scale is 
 provided by the rules for such a case. Hall v. 
 LAimsPACH - C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 513 
 
 45. — Costs — Security for — -Practice — Appeal 
 to High Court — Mayor's Court of London Pro- 
 cedure Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. v. clvii.)— B. S. C, 
 Order LIX., rr. 10-17. 
 
 Sect. 8 of the Mayor's Court of London Pro- 
 cedure Act, 1867, is not repealed by E. S. C, 
 Order Lix., rr. 10-17, and security for costs has 
 to be given before an appeal from the Mayor's 
 Court in an action to recover more than 20J. can 
 be heard by the Div. Ct. Mokgan v. Bowles 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 236 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Kirby v. North British 
 and Mercantile Insurance Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 
 99, 101. 
 
 46. — Prohibition — Cause of action — Agreement 
 to transfer shares in company to be formed — Action 
 for specific performance — Proof of formation of 
 company — Company not registered within jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 
 The pit. brought an action on the equity 
 side of the Mayor's Court of London for specific 
 performance of an agreement to transfer to him 
 a certain number of shares in a oo. to be formed, 
 or in the alternative for damages exceeding 50^ 
 The bill of complaint alleged the formation of 
 the CO., which, as appeared by the affidavits, had 
 been registered in Scotland : — 
 
 Beld, that proof of the formation of the co. 
 being a material part of the claim both for 
 specific performauco and for damages, the whole 
 
 LONDON (Mayor's Court) — continued. 
 
 cause of action did not arise within the jurisdic- 
 tion, and the defts. were entitled to a prohibition. 
 
 BOWLEB V. BaBBEBTON DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 164 
 
 47. — Removal of action to High Court — 
 
 " Fitting case " — Certiorari — Borough and Local 
 
 Courts of Record Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 89), 
 
 Sched., cl. 12. 
 
 A deft, cannot as of right have his action 
 removed from an inferior Court merely because 
 the "case is fit to be tried in the superior 
 Courts." He must satisfy the judge of the 
 superior Court that it " ought " to be tried there, 
 or is " more fit " to be tried there than in the 
 inferior Court. Clause 12 of Sched. of Borough 
 and Local Courts of Record Act, 1872, explained. 
 Banks v. Hollingswobth 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 442 
 
 Music and Dancing. 
 
 See Music and Danoins. 
 
 Nuisances. 
 See Cases under Nuisances. 
 
 Penalties. 
 
 ■ Application of— Sale of margarine. 
 
 See Adulteration — Margarine. 
 
 16. 
 
 Police. 
 
 See Police. 
 
 Poor Law. 
 
 Election op Guardians.] Guardians {Lon- 
 don) Election Order, 1898, dated Jan. 21, 1898. 
 St. E. & 0. 1898, p. 609 (No. 15). 
 
 Eates. 
 See Cases under Bates. 
 
 Semoval of Eefuse. 
 
 48. — Refuse — " House refuse" — Clhxkers from 
 furnaces in steam laundry — Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. i, 42. 
 
 Clinkers from a steam laundry are not " house 
 refuse " within s. 42 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, and the local authority is not bound to 
 remove them. London and Provincial Laun- 
 dry Co. V. "SVillesden Local Board 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 271 
 
 49. — Refuse — Street refuse — Snow — Liabitily 
 to action for non-removal of — Scavengers — Public 
 Health (London) Act, 1S91 (54 & 65 Vict. c. 76\ 
 s. 29. 
 
 Sect. 29 does not give any right of action to a 
 person suffering special damage from a breach of 
 the duty of the sanitary authority to remove 
 street refuse. Saunders v. Holborn Distkict 
 Board op Works - Div. Ot. [1895] 1 ft. B. 64 
 
 50. — Refuse of trade, manufacture, or business 
 — Clinkers from furnaces in hotel — Scavengers- 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 ct 19 Vict. 
 0. 120), s. 128. 
 
 Clinkers from the furnaces of a hotel, used 
 for electric lighting, warming, and cooking, are 
 not "refuse of a trade, manufacture, or business" 
 
( 1165 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1166 ) 
 
 LONDON (Bemoval of Refuse) — continued. 
 ■within s. 128, and tlierefore the Boavengers are 
 bound to remove them without payment. St. 
 Maetin's-in-the Fields Vestkt v. Goedon 
 
 C. A. [1891] l.Q. B. 61 
 
 Sect. 155 of the Metropolis Management Act, 
 1855, was repealed and further provision made hy 
 the Public Eealth {London) Act, 1891, s. 33. 
 
 Sanitary Convenience. 
 
 51. — Stable — WorTcplace — Persons in attend- 
 ance — Cabmen — Local government — Public Health 
 {London) Act, 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 38. 
 
 Sect. 38 of the Public Health (London) Act, 
 1891, enacts that every factory, workshop, or 
 workplace shall be provided with sufficient and 
 suitable accommodation in the vray of sanitary 
 conveniences, regard being had to the number of 
 persons employed in or in attendance at such 
 building : — 
 
 Held, that a stable-yard and stables at which 
 a large number of cabmen were daily in attend- 
 ance for the purpose of hiring cabs was a work- 
 place within the meaning of the section, and 
 must, therefore, be provided with sufficient and 
 suitable sanitary conveniences for the cabmen. 
 Bennett v. Haeding 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 397 
 
 Sessions. 
 
 0. in C. dated April 30, 1894, uniting the 
 liberty of the Tower of London with the County 
 of London. St. R. & 0. 1894, No. 122, p. 205. 
 
 Order of the Home Secy, dated March 24, 1892, 
 approving scheme for regulating the holding of 
 Quarter Sessions for the County of London as 
 provided by s. 42, sub-s. 7, of the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888. St. B. & 0. 1862, p. 587 ; Lond. 
 Gaz. Mar. 29, 1892, p. 1851. 
 
 Note. — The publication of the London Gazette 
 of Jan. 15, 1892, was made in error and is now 
 cancelled. 
 
 Quarter Sessions {London) Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 55), malees provisions relating to tlie offices 
 of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Court 
 of Quarter Sessions for the County of London. 
 
 Sewers. 
 
 Note.— jis to cases relating to places outside 
 the County of London — 
 See Sewees. 
 
 — Cost of drainage works required by local 
 
 authority — Liability of tenant — Cove- 
 nant. 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 
 
 — Cost of sanitary works. 
 
 See Settled Land. 66. 
 
 53. — Landlord and tenant — Covenant — Hates, 
 taxes, and other charges-— Payment of^Sanitary 
 nuisance — Public Health {London) Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), ss. 4, 11. 
 
 (a) a lessee covenanted to pay all rates, 
 taxes, and other charges imposed on the lessor 
 in respect of the premises, and to repair. The 
 lessor was compelled by the local authority to 
 
 LONDON (Sewers) — continued, 
 
 put a drain in repair which, by the neglect of 
 
 the lessee, was out of order : — 
 
 Held, that his expenses in so doing were a 
 charge imposed on the lessor which he was 
 entitled to recover from the lessee. Smith v. 
 EOBINSON Div, ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 63 
 
 (b) The tenant from year to year of premises 
 was ordered by the sanitary authority under s. 4 
 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to 
 abate a nuisance due to structural defects in the 
 drains : — 
 
 Held, that he was entitled to recover the ex- 
 penses of obeying the order from his landlord 
 under s. 11, sub-s. 1, of the Act. Gebhaedt v. 
 Saundees - Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 452 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Andrew v. St. Olave's 
 Board of Works, [1898] 1 Q. B. 775. 
 
 Eeferred to by Bruce J. Cree v. St. Panoras 
 Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 698, 695. 
 
 53. — Covenant by lessee to pay " aU taxes , 
 rates, duties, assessments, and impositions " — 
 Notice by sanitary authority to lessor to abate 
 nuisance by making new drain — Expenses in- 
 curred in complying with notice — Liability of 
 lessee—Public Health {London) Act, 1891 (54 * 55 
 Vict. c. 76). 
 
 The deft., who was the lessee of the pit., 
 covenanted to " pay the land tax, sewers rate, 
 and all other taxes, rates, duties, assessments, 
 and impositions, parliamentary, parochial, or 
 otherwise, which now are or shall at any time 
 during this demise be assessed or imposed on or 
 in respect of the said demised premises." Very 
 shortly after the commencement of the lease the 
 sanitary authority served a notice on the pit., as 
 owner, under the Public Health (London) Act, 
 1891, directing him to abate a nuisance on the 
 premises, and for that purpose to take up a 
 defective drain and lay a new drain throughout 
 the premises. The pit. incurred expenses in 
 complying with the notice, and sued the deft, to 
 recover the amount : — 
 
 Held, that the obligation to lay the new drain 
 was a " duty imposed in respect of the premises," 
 and that the deft, was liable to pay to the pit. 
 the amount expended by her in complying with 
 the notice of the sanitary authority. Bhett v. 
 EoGEES - Div. ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 525 
 
 Approved of. See next Case. 
 
 54. — Covenant by tenant — Rates, taxes, &c. — 
 Drainage works required by local authority, Cost 
 of — Liability of tenant — Covenant by tenant to 
 pay and discharge " all taxes, rates, duties and 
 assessments payable in respect of the demised 
 premises" — Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), o. 85 ; 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 102), ss. 64, 96. 
 
 A tenant covenanted with his landlord that 
 he would pay and discharge "all taxes, rates, 
 duties and assessments whatsoever, which now 
 are, or hereafter shall become, payable for or in 
 respect of the premises hereby demised, or any 
 part thereof, whether parliamentary, parochial 
 or otherwise, except the landlord's property 
 tax":— 
 
 Held, that under this covenant the tenant was 
 liable to pay tho cost of drainage works, the 
 
( 1167 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1168 ) 
 
 LONDON (Sewers) — continued. 
 execution of which was required by the local 
 authority under s. 85 of the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 30 (2), 
 aflSrmed, 
 
 Brett V. Eogere, [1897] 1 Q. B. 525, approved. 
 Faklow v. Stevenson - C. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 128 
 
 55. • — Drain — Combined drainage — Drainage 
 of contiguous Jwuses hj comJiined operation — Sub- 
 sequent unauthorized connection with drain from 
 a'tjoining premises — Nuisance — Metropolis Man- 
 agement Act, 1855 (18 (fc 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 250. 
 
 Four houses in the metropolis were in 1874 
 drained by a combined operation under an order 
 of the vestry. A drain from the stable of an 
 adjoining house was afterwards, without tbe 
 knowledge of the vestry, connected with this 
 drain, and the drainage from the stable turned 
 into it. Subsequently a nuisance arose owing to 
 the defective drainage of the four houses, and 
 the then owner of the houses, who had not autho- 
 rized or known of the making of the connection 
 with the drain from the stable, was required by 
 the vestry to abate the nuisance : — 
 
 Held, that the unauthorized connection of the 
 drainage from the stable with the drain from 
 the four houses converted the latter into a sewer, 
 and that therefore the owner was not liable to 
 abate the nuisance. Gben v. Newington Vestkt 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 1 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Greater London Pro- 
 perty Co. V. Foot, [1899] 1 Q. B. 972, 975. See 
 next Case. 
 
 86. — Drain — Combined drainage — Drainage 
 of group of houses hy combined operation — Nuisance 
 — Order of local authority — Subsequent devia- 
 tion — Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855 
 (18 * 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 250. 
 
 In 1879 an order of the vestry was obtained 
 under the Metropolis Local Management Act, 
 1855, for draining a group of eleven houses by a 
 combined operation. It was eubsequently dis- 
 covered that there had been a deviation in the 
 course of the drain from the plan signed by the 
 surveyor, but there was no evidence that any 
 houses other than those on the plan were drained 
 by the combined operation : — 
 
 Held, that a mere deviation in the course of 
 the drain was not sufficient to convert it into a 
 sewer, and that the vestry was not therefore 
 liable for its repair. Geeater London PsoPEKTy 
 Co. V. Foot - - Div. Ct. [1899] 1 ft. B. 972 
 
 S7. — " Drain " — Combined drainage — Metro- 
 polis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), 
 ss. 68, 250. 
 
 A pipe carrying the sewage of two houses in 
 a metropolitan parish into the main sewer was 
 vested in and repairable by the vestry under the 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855, being a 
 "sewer" within the definition of that word in 
 s. 250. Subsequently the owner of one of the 
 houses disconnected his sewage, so that there- 
 after the pipe was " used fpr the drainage of one 
 building only" within the definition of "drain" 
 in the same section : — 
 
 pnT,5'^'+'^' *?*, *^'^ P'P^ "^'d "ot. iipon such dis- 
 connection taking place, become a drfiin repair- 
 
 LONDON (Sewers) — continued. 
 able by the owner of the house still served by it, 
 but remained a sewer vested in and repairable 
 by the vestry. St. Leonakd, Shokeditoh, Vestet 
 V. Phelan - Div. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B. 533 
 
 58. — Drain or sewer — Repair, Liability to — 
 Effect of builder's disobeying order of sanitary 
 autliority — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Viet. c. 120), s. 250. 
 
 Where a builder unlawfully, in 1887, built 
 four houses drained into one construction, and 
 subsequently sold them to different persons : — 
 
 Held, that the purchasers were not estopped 
 from setting up that the construction was a 
 "sewer" within s. 250 and not a drain, and that 
 the duty of repairing lay on the sanitary 
 authority. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct, [1895] 2 Q. B. 208, 
 afiBrmed. Kebshaw v. Tatlob 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 471 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Florence v. Padding- 
 ton Vestry, [1895] W. N. 143 (9). 
 
 Keferred to by Div. Ct. and C. A. Beg. v. 
 Bethnal Green Vestry, [1896] 2 Q. B. 95, '97, 319, 
 325; [1898] A. C. 190. 
 
 69. — Drain or sewer — Repair, Liability to — 
 "Sewer." 
 
 In 1894 the pit. had purchased two freehold 
 houses in Paddington ; shortly -afterwards he 
 received from the defts. a notice to repair a 
 defective drain ; the pit. accordingly opened up 
 his drain, when he for the first time discovered 
 that it had been connected with and received the 
 drainage from other premises at the rear, belong- 
 ing to a different owner. The pit. thereupon 
 claimed repayment by the defts. of what he had 
 expended upon the work, on the ground that the 
 drain was a "sewer" within the meaning of the 
 Local Management Act, 1855. It appeared that 
 the connection with the plt.'s drain had been 
 made some thirty years ago, without ihe autho- 
 rity of the vestry, and that the pit. when he 
 purchased had made no special inquiry as to the 
 
 Held, that the plt.'s drain was a "sewer,'' 
 and that he was entitled to be repaid the money 
 he had expended in repairing it. FtOEENCE v. 
 Paddington Vestet 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] "W. N. 143 (9) 
 
 60. — " Drain "or" sewer '' — Repair, Liability 
 to — Premises within the same curtilage — Metro- 
 polis Management Ad, 1855 (18 * 19 Vict. c. 120), 
 s. 250. 
 
 (a) p. owned two blocks of apartments divided 
 by a causeway 20 ft. wide, of which one end was 
 closed by a wall and the other opened into a 
 public thoroughfare. Access to one block was from 
 the causeway — to the other from the street; in 
 the causeway was a dustbin for the common use 
 of the apartments. The premises were drained 
 by branch drains from the several apartments 
 running into a main drain which ran into a 
 sewer : — 
 
 Hdd, that the two blocks were premises within 
 the same curtilage, and the main drain was there- 
 fore a " drain " and not a " sewer " within s. 250. 
 
 Decision of Piv. Ct., [1895] 1 Q. B. 33, affirmed 
 
( 1169 ) 
 
 maEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1170 ) 
 
 IiONSOIT (Sewers) — continued. 
 
 (Rigby L.J. dissenting). Pilbbowb. St. Leonard, 
 
 Shoebditch, Vebtkt C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 433 
 
 (b) B. owned an arcade consisting of a central 
 passage witli shops and houses on both sides. 
 There -was no right of way along the passage, 
 which was roofed and closed by gates at either 
 end. The premises were drained by a construc- 
 tion which ran down the centre and received in 
 its course the drainage of the houses. 
 
 Held, that the construction was not a drain 
 "used for the drainage of premises within the 
 same curtilage," and was therefore a "sewer" 
 within s. 250 and not a " drain," and was vested 
 in and repairable by the vestry. St. Maktin-in- 
 
 THE-FlELDS VeSTBT V. BlED 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 428 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Beg. v. Bethnal Green 
 
 Vestry, [1896] 2 Q. B. 319, 324 ; [1898] A. C. 190. 
 
 61. — Drain or sewer — Mepair, Liability to — 
 Drain — Sewer made viitliout approval of vestry or 
 Metropolitan Board of Worlcs — metropolis Manage- 
 ment Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 68, 69, 
 74,250; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), ss. 47,48, 61. 
 
 The fact that the requisite sanction and 
 approval for the making of a sewer in the metro- 
 polis was not obtained from the vestry or Metro- 
 politan Board of Works does not prevent it, 
 when made, from being a sewer within the 
 meaning of the Metropolis Management Acts, 
 and as such vested in the vestry and repairable 
 by them. 
 
 In 1866 the owner of a block of houses in the 
 metropolis laid down a pipe to carry off the 
 drainage from them, and connected the pipe 
 with a sewer belonging to the vestry in a neigh- 
 bouring street. There was no evidence of any 
 notice having been given to the vestry, or of any 
 order having been made by them, or of their 
 sanction or of the approval of the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works having been obtained, under 
 the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, or the 
 Amendment Act, 1862 : — 
 
 Held, that the probable inference of fact was 
 that the pipe was laid with the sanction of the 
 vestry and the approval of the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works required by the Acts ; but that 
 whether that was so or not the pipe was a sewer 
 within the meaning of s. 250 of the Act of 1855, 
 and was consequently vested in the vestry and 
 repairable by them. Decision of C. A., [1896] 
 2 Q. B. 319, affirmed. Bethnal Green Vestbt 
 V. London School Board 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C, 190 
 
 62. — Foreign sewage, Agreement to admit — 
 Public body — Injwnction — Ultra vires — Estoppel 
 —^Laches and acquiescence — Drainage and sew- 
 age — Metropolitan drainage system — Metropolis 
 Management Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), 
 88. 135, 138, 140, 250 ; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), 
 
 8.61. 
 
 Under s. 61 of the Metropolis Management 
 Amendment Act, 1862, the vestry of a parish 
 within the metropolitan area cannot, even with 
 the consent of the London County Council, enter 
 into a binding agreement to receive sewage from 
 a district without the metropolitan area. 
 
 The reasoning of Hall V.-O. in Metropolitan 
 
 LONDON (Sewers) — continued. 
 Board of Works v. London and North Western 
 By. Co., (1880) 14 Ch. D. 521 ; (1881) 17 Ch. D. 
 246, approved, j 
 
 Where the pits., the vestry of a parish within 
 the metropolitan area, made an arrangement with 
 certain landowners of a district without the metro- 
 politan area (now represented by the defts., the 
 urban district council) whereby the discharge of 
 some sewage from the defts.' district into a sewer 
 belonging to the pits, had been permitted for 
 many years, and this additional sewage had 
 increased so as periodically to choke up the pits.' 
 sewer : — 
 
 Held, that this arrangement operated in law 
 merely as a revocable licence, and that the pits., 
 being a public body with public duties to per- 
 form, were not estopped or precluded by laches 
 or acquiescence from bringing an action for an 
 injunction to restrain the delts. from using the 
 sewer; but 
 
 Held, that, having regard to the conduct of 
 the pits, and to the difSculty in which an injunc- 
 tion would place the defts. by compelling them 
 to close their sewers, the Court ought only to 
 make a declaration that the defts. were not 
 entitled to send sewage from their district into 
 the pits.' sewer without the consent of the pits. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J. reversed. Islington 
 Vestry v. Hornsey Urban Council 
 
 C. A. [1890] W. N. 74 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 695 
 
 63. — New sewer substituted for old — Connect- 
 ing drain — Expenses — Metropolis Management Act 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 69, 73. 
 
 Where, in consequence of the provision by a 
 vestry under the Metropolis Management Act, 
 1855, 3. 69, of a new sewer in substitution for an 
 old one into which a house was previously drained, 
 it became necessary to make a new drain con- 
 necting the house with the new sewer : — 
 
 Held, that s. 73 of the Act did not apply, and 
 the vestry could not under that section recover 
 the expense of making the new drain from the 
 owner of the house. St. Martin-in-the-Fields 
 Vestry v. Ward C. A. [1896] W. N. 161 (8) ; 
 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 40 
 
 64. — Main sewer — Nuisance — Jurisdiction of 
 justices — Public Health (^London} Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 2, s«6-8. 1 (6). 
 
 By the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, 
 s. 2, Bub-s. 1 (6), for tlie purposes of the Act, any 
 watercourse or drain, so foul, or in such a state, 
 as to be a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to 
 health, is a nuisance liable to be dealt with 
 summarily under the Act : — 
 
 Held, that this provision does not apply to 
 public sewers, and therefore justices have no 
 jurisdiction to make a summary order on the 
 London County Council in respect of a main 
 sewer, vested in the council, and forming part of 
 the main drainage system of London. Pulham 
 Vestby v. London County Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B, 76 
 
 65. — Pollution of river by sewage — Order to 
 vestry to construct sewer — Powers of County Council 
 — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict, 
 c. 120), 88. 69, 135, 138. 
 
 Certain houses being drained directly into 
 the Thames, the London County Council, in order 
 
( 1171 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1172 ) 
 
 LONDON (Sewers) — continued. 
 to prevent the continued pollution of the river, 
 purporting to act under s. 138 of the Metropolis 
 Management Act, 1855, made an order upon the 
 vestry of the parish in which the houses were 
 situate to make a new sewer according to a 
 specified plan to carry the drainage of the houses 
 into the nearest main sewer : — 
 
 Held, that the council had no power under 
 s. 138 to make the order. Eeg. v. St. Geobge, 
 Hanover Sqtiake, Vestey 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B. 275 
 
 — Public authorities protection — Act done in 
 
 pursuance of Act of Parliament — Limi- 
 tation of action. 
 See PuBiiio Authorities Pboteotiok. 3. 
 
 — Eateability of sewers — Pumping station — 
 
 Beneficial occupation — Hypothetical 
 
 tenant. 
 
 See Kates. 49. 
 
 — Bates — Incidence of sewers rate or its equiva- 
 
 lent. 
 
 See London Government Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 14), s. 12. 
 
 — Volunteer corps — Storehouse and drill-hall — 
 
 Sewerage and drainage — Exemptions. 
 See AitMY AND Navy. 7. 
 
 Slaughter-houses. 
 
 66. — Validity of bij-law — Improper slaughter- 
 ing of cattle hy servant contrary to instructions — 
 Liability of occupier. 
 
 By-laws made under the repealed Slaughter- 
 houses (Metropolis) Act, 1874, but kept in force 
 by s. 142, sub-s. 2 (6), of the Public Health 
 (London) Act, 1891, make it an offence for the 
 licensed occupier of a slaughter-house to slaughter 
 sheep in the pound of the slaughter-house or in 
 view of other sheep. During the absence of the 
 respondent, the licensed occupier of a slaughter- 
 house, Ms foreman, in direct disobedience of his 
 orders and in order to save himself trouble, 
 slaughtered a sheep in the pound in view of other 
 sheep : — 
 
 Held, that the by-law was good and that the 
 respondent was guilty of an oft'ence under it, for 
 he was liable for the act of his servant, that act 
 having been committed within the general scope 
 of his employment, although contrary to the orders 
 of his master. Collman v. Mills - Div. Ct. 
 [1896] W. N. 176 (10) ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 396 
 
 Streets. 
 
 Note. — As to cases relating to places outside 
 the County of London — 
 See Steeets. 
 
 — Betting in streets. 
 
 See Cases under Gaming. 
 
 67. — Flagging footway — Apportionment of 
 expenses — Metropolis Management Act, 1862, 
 Amendment Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. a. 54), s. 1. 
 
 The cost of fiagging a footway under s. 1 
 should be apportioned between the owners on 
 both sides of the road, or on both sides of the 
 section ot the road in which the footway is 
 situate, subject to the proviso in o. 1 as to 
 
 LONDON (Streets) — continued. 
 charging houses at a greater rate than land. 
 Paddington Vestey v. North Metropolitan 
 Railway and Canal Oo. 
 
 Div. Ot. [1894] 1 Q. B. 633 
 
 68. — Flagging footway— Apportionment of 
 expenses — Frontager —Open spaces — " Owner " — 
 Lease held by vestry — Metropolitan Open Spaces 
 Act, 1881 (44.* 45 Vict. v. 34), ss. 3, 5— Metropolis 
 Management Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), 
 s. 250; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 54), s. 1. 
 
 A vestry acquired an open space in a square, 
 the roads in which were streets within the 
 Metropolis Management Acts, by assignment of 
 a lease. The vestry were to use the space as a 
 public garden, and on failure to so use it to 
 re-assign : — 
 
 HeM, that the vestry was the " owner " of the 
 open space, and chargeable with a proportion of 
 expenses of flagging the footway of the roads. 
 St. Mabt, Islington v. Cobbett 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 369 
 — Footways. 
 
 See Highway — ^Kepairs. 20, 21. 
 
 69. — " Improvement charge " — " Improvement 
 area " — " Lands all or any part of which abut " 
 on a street — London County Council (Improve- 
 ments) Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. ccxlii.), s. 42, 
 sub-s. 1 (c). 
 
 By the London County Council (Improve- 
 ments) Act, 1897, the London County OouncU 
 were empowered (inter alia) to widen Tottenham 
 Court Eoad, and to place an "improvement 
 charge " on property included within an " im- 
 provement area," which was for this purpose 
 defined, by s. 42, sub-s. 1 (c), as meaning " tlie 
 lands all or any part of which front or abut upon 
 the west side of Tottenham Court Bead between 
 Oxford Street and Hanway Street." 
 
 A music-hall which had a frontage on Oxford 
 Street, where the principal entrance was, had also 
 an entrance from Tottenham Court Eoad to the 
 pit and gallery, the proprietors of the hall having 
 acquired a leasehold interest in a house in 
 Tottenham Court Koad for the purpose of making 
 that entrance. In order to make it they re- 
 moved the lower portion of the party wall which 
 separated the house from the hall, but they 
 entered into a covenant to replace the wall at the 
 end of the lease. They were owners in fee of 
 part of the land on which the hall stood, and 
 were leaseholders of the remainder : — 
 
 Held, that, as the whole of the property, 
 including the entrance to the pit and gallery, 
 was occupied for one purpose, it could not be 
 said that only the house in Tottenham Court 
 Bead abutted on that road, and that conse- 
 quently the power of the London County Council 
 to place an improvement charge on the music- 
 hall was not limited to the house in Tottenham 
 Court Bead. The Oxfoed, Ld. v. London 
 County Council - North J. [1898] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 70. — New street — Commencing to form or lay 
 out street without leave of county council — 
 London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 0. ccxiii.}, s. 7. 
 
 In order that a road or carriageway may be a 
 street within the meaning of s. 7 of the London 
 
( 1173 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1174 ) 
 
 LONDON (Stieets)— continued. 
 
 Building Act, 189i, it is not necessary that it 
 
 should be intended or used for public carriage 
 
 traflSo. 
 
 The owner of a building estate, of about four 
 acres in extent, commenced to lay out a road 
 which communicated at one end with a public 
 carriageway ; the other end of the road ran into 
 a square, about which it was intended to build a 
 continuous line of houses or flats; houses or 
 blocks of flats were also to be buUt along each 
 side of the road itself, the total length of the road 
 being about 600 ft. It was further intended to 
 erect gates at the point where the road ran out 
 of the pubHc carriageway, and to keep a porter 
 to open and shut the gates. The road was not 
 intended for public use, but solely for the use of 
 the occupiers of the houses in the road and 
 square, and of their visitors and tradespeople. 
 The owner had not obtained the consent of the 
 London County Council before commencing the 
 work : — 
 
 Held, that the road was a street within the 
 meaning of s. 7 of the London Building Act, 1894, 
 and that the owner was properly convicted under 
 that section of liaving commenced to form or lay 
 out a street for carriage traffic without having 
 first obtained the sanction of the London County 
 Council. 
 
 Wood V. London County Council, (1895) 64 
 L. J. (M. 0.) 276, overruled. Aemstbonq v. 
 London CotrNTT Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q. B. 416 
 
 71. — New street — Commencing to form street 
 — London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. ccxiii.'), s. 8. 
 
 A row of houses having been erected along 
 the side of a street forming part of a building 
 estate, the respondent erected a shop on land 
 purchased from the freeholder of the estate on 
 the same side of the street and fronting to it, but 
 separated from the end house of the row by 
 an intervening vacant space of the width of 
 40 ft., which is the statutory width of a street 
 intended for carriage traffic. There was a side 
 door leading from the shop into the vacant space. 
 At the back of the shop he also erected a stable, 
 the only access to which for carriages and horses 
 was along the vacant space. This space, which 
 was the property of the freeholder of the estate, 
 was marked on the estate plan as a proposed 
 street, but at the time of the erection of the shop 
 and stable it had not been in fact laid out by the 
 freeholder as a street; and, although the re- 
 spondent expected that it would be laid out as a 
 street, there was no contract by the freeholder 
 that it should be so laid out : — 
 
 Meld, that, as the respondent had no control 
 over the soil of the vacant space, he did not by 
 erecting the shop and stable commence to form a 
 street within the meaning of s. 8 of the London 
 Building Act, 1894. London Countt Oounoil 
 V. Dixon - - Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 496 
 
 72. — New street — " Direct communication " 
 —London Building Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. 
 c. ccxiii.), s. 9, sub-s. 4. 
 
 Sect. 9 of the London Building Act, 1894, 
 gives power to the county council to refuse their 
 sanction to the formation of a new street where I 
 
 LONDON (Streets) — continued. 
 such street would not afford " direct communica- 
 tion" between two existing streets : — 
 
 Held, that the question whether a proposed 
 new street did or did not afford such direct com- 
 munication was a question of fact, with the 
 decision of which the Court would not interfere. 
 WooDHAM V. London County Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 863 
 
 73. — New street — Excavation — Powers of 
 vestry or district hoard — Metropolis Management 
 Amendment Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. o. 66), s. 6. 
 
 Under s. 6, where a street has been laid out 
 or is intended to be laid out on land on which no 
 excavation has as yet taken place, the vestry or 
 district board has no power absolutely to prohibit' 
 excavation to a greater extent than that alloweif 
 by the saving clause, but can only impose con- 
 ditions as to the levelling and making a propei 
 foundation for the street. Wandsworth Distbict 
 BoAKD V. BiKD - Div. ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 481 
 
 74. — "New street"- — Paving expenses — Ap- 
 portionment — Evidence — Metropolis Management 
 Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 105 ; 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. a. 102), s. 77. 
 
 The apportionment by a district board of 
 works, under s. 77 of the Act of 1862, of their 
 expenses, under s. 105 of the Act of 1855, in 
 paving a new street is not conclusive for all 
 purposes. 
 
 On the hearing of a summons against an 
 owner to enforce payment of his apportioned 
 share of such expenses, evidence may be given 
 that the alleged amount has not been actually 
 expended, or that it includes other than paving 
 expenses. Eeg. v. Maksham 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 371 
 
 Explained by C. A. Stroud v. Wandsworth 
 Board of Worlcs, [1894] 2 Q. B. 1. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Metropolitan District 
 By. Co. V. Fulham Vestry, [1895] 2 Q. B. 443, 
 448. 
 
 75. — "New street" — Paving expenses — Ap- 
 portionment — Mode of — Frontager — Metropolis 
 Management Acts, 1855 (18 A 19 Vict. v. 120), 
 s. 105 ; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), s. 112. 
 
 A road, which was a turnpike road down to 
 1865 and previously to 1869 of a rural character, 
 subsequently became a new street in the ordinary 
 sense of the term by the erection of buildings 
 alongside it : — • 
 
 Held, that it was within the terms of s. 105 of 
 the Act of 1855, and that therefore the district 
 board might pave it under tliat section and 
 charge the expenses upon the frontagers : 
 
 Held, also, that the fact that slight temporary 
 repairs had been previously done by the district 
 board to the footway of the road by tar-painting 
 it did not prevent them from exercising the 
 powers given by the section. 
 
 The principle on which the expenses of paving 
 a new street have been apportioned by a district 
 board amongst the owners liable in respect thereof 
 cannot be questioned in any court. 
 
 Semhle, by A. L. Smith and Kigby L J J., that 
 the commra., trustees, and other authorities 
 referred to by s. 112 of the Act of 1862 are 
 authorities having control of the pavements or 
 
( 1175 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1176 ) 
 
 LONDON (Streets)— continued. 
 highways generally in the parish or place, and 
 do not include turnpike trustees. Davis v. 
 Gkeenwiou Board of AVorks 
 
 C. A. [189S] 2 Q. B. 219 
 
 76. — ■ New street — Paving expenses — Appor- 
 tionment — Mode of— Metropolis Management Act, 
 1862 (25 * 26 Tict. c. 102), s. 77. 
 
 In making, under s. 77 of the Act of 1862, an 
 apportionment of the expenses, or estimated ex- 
 penses, of paving a new street, the local authority 
 is not bound to charge Ihe owners of land bound- 
 ing on such street rateably inter se, according to 
 frontage or otherwise, and the apportionment 
 cannot, in the absence of mala fides, be questioned. 
 Metropolitan District By. Co. v. Fulham 
 Vestrt - - - C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 443 
 
 • ■ 77. — New street — Paving expenses — Cemetery 
 company — " Owners of land " — Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 105, 
 250 ; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), s. 77. 
 
 A cemetery co. were by statute prohibited 
 from selling any of their consecrated land, but 
 were empowered to make profits by selling 
 exclusive rights of burial. A new street was 
 made abutting on the consecrated part of the 
 cemetery : — . 
 
 Seld, that the co. were owners of land within 
 the definition of s. 250 of the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855, and were liable to contribute to 
 the expenses of paving the new street. St. 
 Giles, Camberwell v. London Cemetery Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 699 
 
 78. — Neio street — Paving expenses^Church 
 site — Vesting of, inincumbent— Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 105, 
 250. 
 
 Where part of the site of a church is conse- 
 crated, the whole freehold of the site vests, under 
 B. 13 of the Church Building Act, 1845, in the 
 incumbent : the Eccles. Commrs. thereupon cease 
 to be owners, and are not liable to contribute 
 towards the cost of paving a new street. Pldm- 
 STEAD Board of Works v. Eccles. Commrs. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 361 
 
 79. — New street — Paving expenses — Covenant 
 to hear charges— Charge upon landlord in respect 
 of premises — Expenses of paving new street — 
 Claim hy district board — Payment iy landlord — 
 Bight to recover from tenant — Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Acta, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. v. 120), ss. 105, 
 250 ; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), ss. 77, 96. 
 
 By a covenant in a lease of land in the metro- 
 polis the tenant was liable to bear, pay, and 
 discharge, charges, duties, assessments, and 
 impositions, charged, assessed, or imposed, upon 
 the premises, or upon the landlord in respect 
 thereof. The lease was determinable by six 
 months' notice. The landlords gave notice to 
 determine it, and contracted to sell the property. 
 The district board of works gave notice to the 
 landlords of apportionment of expenses of paving 
 a new street, under the Metropolis Management 
 Act, 1855, s. 77, fixing no date for payment. 
 The landlords paid the amount claimed. The 
 work was commenced after the notice to deter- 
 mine the lease had expired. 
 
 In an action by the landlord^ to recoyer under 
 
 LONDON (Streets) — continued. 
 
 the covenant the amount paid by them to the 
 
 district board : — 
 
 Held, that the words of the covenant included 
 the expenses of paving the new street, and that, 
 when the district board gave notice to the land- 
 lords of the apportionment and charge, the charge 
 became operative, and the landlords became liable 
 to pay the amount, and were entitled to recover 
 it from the tenant under the covenant : 
 
 Held, also, that the landlords were owners of 
 the premises, within the meaning of the Metro- 
 polis Management Act, 1855, s. 250, until the 
 date fixed by the contract of sale for completion. 
 
 Thompson v. Lapworth, (1868) L. K. 3 C. P. 
 
 149, followed. Wrx v. Eutson - Bruce J. 
 
 [1899] 1 a. B. 474 
 
 80. — " New street " — Paving expenses — Erec- 
 tion of houses — Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), 8S. 105, 250 ; 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. 0. 102), ss. 77, 112. 
 
 A road was made through agricultural land 
 in the year 1877, under statutory powers. The 
 statute provided that when the road was com- 
 pleted it should be a public highway of the 
 parish, and repairable in like manner as any 
 other highway of the parish should from time to 
 time be repairable. The road was accordingly 
 taken over and the carriage-way kept in repair 
 by the local authority. No houses were buUt 
 adjoining the road until 1890, when houses were 
 erected on one side. In 1896 houses were erected 
 on the other side of the road, and the local 
 authority declared the road to be a new street, 
 directed that it should be paved, and apportioned 
 the estimated expense between the appellants 
 and other frontagers. The appellants were sum- 
 moned for non-payment of their contributions. 
 The magistrate who heard the summonses found 
 as a fact that the road became a new street for 
 the first time after the erection of houses therein. 
 On a case stated : — 
 
 Held, that s. 105 of the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855, as amended by s. 77 of the 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1862, had not the 
 effect of making the road a new street on its 
 construction in 1877 ; that the magistrate was 
 justified in finding that it became a new street 
 for the first time after the erection of houses 
 therein ; and that the local authority had power 
 to pave it and to apportion the estimated expense 
 between the frontagers. Allen v. Fulham 
 Vestry - - - C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 681 
 
 81. — "New street" — Paving expenses — Lia- 
 hility — Adjoining mimers — Metropolis Management 
 Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 105, 250 ; 
 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 102), s. 112. 
 
 Question whether roadway and an ancient 
 footpath formed a "new street" so as to make 
 adjoining owners liable for paving expenses. 
 The maintenance of the roadway had not been 
 taken over before Jan. 1, 1856, and neither 
 roadway nor footpath had been since taken over 
 by the road authority, but the vestry had from 
 time to time temporarily repaired the footway by 
 tar-paving it : — 
 
 Held, that both roadway and footpath formed 
 a, " new street " within 9. U2 of the JJetropolia 
 
( IIW ) 
 
 OIGES* OE* CASSS, i89i— 1900. 
 
 ( 1178 ) 
 
 IiONDON CStreBtsy— continued. 
 Management Act, 1862. Wilson v. St. Giles, 
 Cambebwell Div. Ct, [1892] 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Davis v. Greenvnch Board 
 of Worlcs, [1895] 2 Q. B. 219. 
 
 82. — "New street" — Paving expenses— Lia- 
 hility of frontagers — Lapse of time since road 
 became new street — Metropolis Management Act, 
 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. u. 120), s. 105. 
 
 In 1883 a highway, the greater part of which 
 was then paved, became a " new street " within 
 the meaning of a. 105 of the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855, which enables a metropolitan 
 vestry or district board to pave any " new street " 
 not paved to their satisfaction, and to charge the 
 expense on the owners of the houses forming the 
 street. From 1883 to 1899 the district board, 
 and the vestry who suojeeded them, repaired the 
 footways and carriageway of the street as sur- 
 veyors of highways. In 1899 the vestry resolved 
 to exercise their powers under s. 105, and required 
 the owners to pay the apportioned expenses ot 
 paving the street : — 
 
 Eeld, distinguishing Bonella v. Twiclcenham 
 Local Board, (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 63, that, as 
 neither the board nor the vestry had exercised 
 their powers under s. 105 before 1899, the vestry 
 were then entitled to exercise them, notwith- 
 standing the time which had elapsed since the 
 road became a new street. 
 
 A road may become a " new street " within 
 s. 105 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, 
 although all the land on one side of it is building 
 land upon which no building has been erected. 
 
 SiMMONDS BkOTHERS, LD. V. FULHAM VeSTBT 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 188 
 
 83. — " New street " — Paving expenses — Lia- 
 hility of frontagers — Metropolis Management Acts, 
 1855 (18 & 19 'Vict. c. 120), s. 105 ; 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 102), ss. 77, 112. 
 
 A road which had been laid out since the 
 passing of the Act of 1862, and was therefore a 
 new street within the definition in s. 112 of that 
 Act, had upon one side a house and no other 
 building, and upon the other side a house at one 
 end and a chapel and hall at the other ; no new 
 buildings had been erected upon either side of 
 the road for more than twenty years, nor was 
 there any probability of the vacant plots of land 
 on either side being built upon for some years : — 
 
 Seld, that a magistrate was justified in finding 
 that the roail was not a new street for t!ie pur- 
 poses of 8. 105 of the Act of 1855 or s. 77 of the 
 Act of 1862, and that the local authority could 
 not, therefore, recover from the frontagers the 
 expenses of paving the road. St. Makt, Bat- 
 TEESEA v. Palmer - Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 220 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Allen v. Fulham Vestry, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 681, 686. 
 
 84. — "New street" — Paving expenses — Lia- 
 bility — Old highway converted into street by build- 
 ing — Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 
 Vict. 0. 120), s. 105; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), 
 «. 112. 
 
 An ancient country highway which became a 
 " new street " in the popular sense, by the erec- 
 tion of buildings fronting it about 1855, is within 
 |. 105 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, 
 
 LONDON (Streets)— co«<i)i«e(Z. 
 and the expenses of paving it may be charged on 
 the owners. St. Giles, Gamberwbll v. CbVStal 
 Palace Co. - - C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 33 
 
 Followed by C. A. Bavis v. Greenwich Board 
 of Works, [1895] 2 Q. B. 219, 226. 
 
 85. — " New street " — Paving expenses — Me- 
 tropolis Management Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict, 
 c. 120), ss. 105, 250; 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), 
 ss. 77, 112. 
 
 The mere fact that the maintenance of the 
 paving and roadway of a road within the metro- 
 polis had not previously to 1862 been taken into 
 charge by the highway authority of the parish is 
 not enough to constitute the road a " new street " 
 within the meaning of s. 105 of the Act of 1855, 
 and s. 77 of the Act of 1862. Arteb v. Hammer- 
 smith Vestry Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 646 
 
 86. — Obstruction — CoJce — Loading or unload- 
 ing coal — Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867 (30 <fc 31 
 Vict. c. 134), s. 15. 
 
 Coke is not "coal" within the meaning of 
 s. 15 of the Act of 1867, which prohibits the 
 loading or unloading of "coal " on or across the 
 footway between certain hours, and imposes a 
 penalty for so doing. Fletcher v. Fields 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 790 
 
 87. — Obstruction —Costermongers — Statute — 
 Bepeal by implication — Michael Angela Taylor's 
 Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. xxix.), s. 65 — Metropo- 
 litan Streets Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 134), s. 6 ; 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 5, s. 1. 
 
 (a) Sect. 65 of Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, 
 which empowers vestries to proceed summarily 
 against obstructions in streets by barrows, stalls, 
 &c., is impliedly repealed by the Metropolitan 
 Streets Act, 1 867. Scmmees v. Holborn Board 
 OF Works - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 612 
 
 But see next Case. 
 
 (b) Sect. 65 of Michael Angelo Taylor's Act 
 is not repealed as to costermongers by the Metro- 
 politan Streets Act, 1867, s. 6, and the Amend- 
 ment Act of 1867, s. 1 ;— 
 
 Beld, also (Kay L.J. dissentiente), that so 
 long as costermongers conform to the police regu- 
 lations, they could not be interfered with under 
 Michael Angelo Taylor's Act ; but if they violated 
 the regulations, they could be proceeded against 
 under that Act, or the Act of 1867. Keep v. St. 
 Mart's, Newingtos. Austin v. St. Mary's, 
 Newinston - - C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 524 
 
 88. — Obstruction — Sanging out articles in 
 front of house — Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, 1817 
 (57 Geo. 3, c. xxix.), s. 65 — Metropolitan Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855 (18 * 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 119. 
 
 Sect. 65 of Michael Angelo Taylor's Act is 
 not impliedly repealed by s. 119 of the Metropolis 
 Management Act, 1855, as to hanging out articles 
 in i'ront of a house. Wyatt v. Gems 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 225 
 See also preceding Case. 
 
 — Offences — Betting in street — Wagering. 
 See Cases under Gamino. 
 
 89. — Offences — Exposing goods for sale on 
 carriageway— Penalty — Metropolitan Police Act, 
 1839 (2 <fc 3 Tict. c. 47), ». 60— Metrojiolitan. 
 
( 1179 ) 
 
 DIGEST Ot CASfeS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1180 ) 
 
 LONDON (Streets)— continued. 
 
 Streets Act Amendment Act, 1867 (31 & 32 Vicl. 
 
 c. 5), 8. 1 — Police Itegulation»^ of Dec. 28, 1869. 
 
 Sect. 60, sub-s. 7, of the Metropolitan Police 
 Act, 1839, renders liable to a penalty every person 
 who exposes anything for sale upon any carriage- 
 way or footway so as to cause an annoyance or 
 obstruction in any thoroughfare within the 
 metropolitan police district. By police regula- 
 tions made under the Metropolitan Streets Act 
 Amendment Act, 1867, and issued on Decem- 
 ber 28, 1869, costermongers, street hawkers, 
 itinerant traders, and their barrows, carts, and 
 stalls, are made liable to be removed from any 
 street and public way in which they create an 
 obstruction to the traffic or are an annoyance to 
 the inhabitants : — 
 
 JSeld, that such regulations did not impliedly 
 repeal s. 60, sub-s. 7, of the Metropolitan Police 
 Act, 1 839, nor had they the effect of supersed- 
 ing the penalty imposed by that sub-section. 
 Waneswokth Boaed of Wobks v. Pkettt 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 a. B. 1 
 
 — Offences — Obstruction in streets. 
 
 See A'os. 86—88, above. 
 
 — Offences — Eemoval of refuse. 
 
 See Cases under London — Eemoval of 
 Eefuse. 
 
 80. — Private street — Repair of carriage-road 
 — " Necessary worlis of repair " — Becovery of ex- 
 penses — Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 66), s. 3. 
 
 Under s. 3 of the Act of 1890, which empowers 
 certain local authorities to execute any necessary 
 works of repair upon carriage-roads, it is for the 
 local authority and not for the magistrate before 
 whom they seek to recover the expenses to decide 
 as to the necessity of the works. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 64, affirmed. 
 Stkoud v. "Wandswobth Board of Wokks 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Metropolitan District 
 By. Co. V. Fulham Vestry, [1895] 2 Q. B. 443, 
 447. 
 
 91. — Vesting of streets — Svhsoil — Extent of 
 oumersMp — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 
 (18 * 19 Vict. c. 120), 8. 98— Illegal breaking up 
 of street — Mandatory injunction. 
 
 Meld, that the decision of the House of Lords 
 in Tunbridge Wells Corporation v. Baird, [1896] 
 
 A. 0. 434, as to the extent to which the soil of a 
 street is vested in a local authority, under s. 149 
 of the Public Health Act, 1875, applies to the 
 similar vesting in a local authority under s. 96 of 
 the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, so that 
 the soil of a street is vested in a vestry under 
 
 B. 96 only so far " as is necessary for the control, 
 protection and maintenance of the street as a 
 highway for public use." 
 
 An electric lighting co. had illegally broken 
 up the surface of a street within the district 
 of a vestry in the metropolis, and placed their 
 pipes and wires at a depth of about 2 ft. below the 
 surface : — 
 
 Held, that the vestry were not by virtue of 
 s. 96 the owners of the soil of the street at that 
 depth and that, although the co. had acted 
 lUegally in breaking up the street, the vestry 
 
 LONDON (Streets) — continued. 
 could not maintain an action for a mandatory 
 injunction to compel the co.to remove their pipes 
 and wires, there being no continuing trespass 
 upon or interference with any right of the vestry. 
 Decision of Jeune P. (to whom the above case 
 was not cited) reversed. St. Mabt, Battbrsea, 
 Vestet v. County of London and Brush Pko- 
 
 VINOIAL ElECTEIC LIGHTING Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N, 18 (11); [1899] 1 Ch. 474 
 
 92. — Widening streets — Compulsory powers — 
 Compensation — Owner's costs — Michael Angela 
 Taylor's Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, o, xxix.), s. 82 — 
 Metropolitan Streets Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict, 
 c. 102), 8. 73. 
 
 Where land has been taken compnlsorily, 
 under Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, by the vestry 
 of a metropolitan parish for the purpose of 
 widening a street, and the owner's compensation 
 has been assessed by a jury, he is not entitled to 
 be paid by the vestry his costs of the trial. Eeg. 
 V. London Justices (No. 5) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 881 
 
 93. — Widening streets — Compulsory powers — - 
 Costs of petition for payment of purchase-money — 
 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction, under s. 5 of the 
 Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1890, to make 
 a local authority pay the costs incidental to a 
 petition for payment out of court of purchase- 
 money of lands taken under 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix. 
 
 The judgment of Chitty J., [1894] 1 Ch. 53, 
 afiErmed. In re Fishek C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 450 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Wrexham, Mold 
 and Connah's Quay By. Co., 0. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 
 261, 269. 
 
 94. — Widening streets — Compulsory powers — 
 Souse — Talcing part of — Michael Angelo Taylor's 
 Act, ] 817 (57 Geo. 3, c. xxix.), s. 80, 82. 
 
 Where the authority having control of the 
 streets in a London district bon& fide adjudge that 
 part of a house obstructs the widening of a street, 
 under some circumstances they have authority to 
 take such part, and the owner cannot compel 
 them to take the whole. Per curiam, they can 
 do so when the taking will not involve a substan- 
 tial alteration of the character and condition of 
 the house, or substantially interfere with the con- 
 venience of the occupier, or render it necessary 
 to make structural alterations in order to carry 
 on a different or more limited business than 
 before. Goedon v. St. Maet Abbotts, Kensing- 
 ton - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 742 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. .4^*8 v. London 
 Corporation, [1899] 2 Ch. 169, 171. See next 
 Case. 
 
 95. — Widening streets — Compulsory powers 
 — House — Talcing whole — Part only required — 
 Michael Angelo Taylor's Act (57 Geo. 3, c. xxix.), 
 s. 80. 
 
 A local authority requiring part of a house 
 for the purpose of widening a street under 
 Michael Angelo Taylor's Act cannot give notice 
 to treat for and take the whole house against 
 the wishes of the owner, unless they prove that 
 the remainder is useless to him ; and this is so, 
 even though the removal of the part actually 
 required would destroy the identity of the houBej 
 
( 1181 ) 
 
 biafiS't 01* dASES, 1891— i906. 
 
 ( 1182 ) 
 
 tONDOir (Streets)— ooniinued. 
 as a house, to such au extent that the owner 
 might have compelled them to take the whole if 
 they had given, notice to treat for part only. 
 Albis v. London Ooeporation 
 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 76 ; 
 [1899] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 96. — Widening street — Power to taJce part of 
 house— Metropolis Management— Michael Angela 
 Taylor's Act (57 Geo. 3, a. xxix.), ss. 80, 82. 
 
 A vestry requiring part of a house for the 
 purpose of widening a street under Michael 
 Angelo Taylor's Act may be compelled by the 
 owner to take the whole as a condition of taking 
 the part, if the removal of the part will sub- 
 stantially injure the enjoyment of the house in 
 the manner in which it was formerly enjoyed. 
 
 So held on the authority of Gordon y. Vestry of 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, [1894] 2 Q. B, 742. 
 
 GrIBBON V. PaDDINGTON VeSTRT 
 
 Stirling J. [1900]. W. S. 180 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 794 
 
 Tithe. 
 
 London (.City) Tithes Act, 1881 — Inclosure 
 &o.. Expenses Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 89). 
 Reprint from W. N. 1900 (May 19), pp. 143, 144, 
 See Current Index, 1900, p. xc. 
 
 University of Loudon. 
 
 See University op London. 
 
 Unsound Food. 
 
 See Cases under Food. 
 
 Vestries. 
 
 Note. — As to Cases relating to places outside 
 the County of London — 
 See Vestey. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 V. 73), alters the qualification for election to 
 vestries and district boards. 
 
 The Vestrymen and Auditors (London) Election 
 Order, dated March 25, 1898. St. E. & 0. 1898, 
 No. 844. 
 
 97. — Misapplication of rates — Injunction. 
 
 It is illegal lor a vestry'to spend money out of 
 the rates for tlic purpose of inducing persons cot 
 to pay the charges of a water co. for a fixed bath. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Camberwell Vestry 
 
 North J. [1894] W. N. 163 
 
 But see now Metropolis Water Act, 1897 
 (60&61 Vict. c. 56), s. 2. 
 
 98. — Notice of cause of action — Mistake — 
 Sufficiency of Notice— Metropolis Management Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. v. 102), s. 106. 
 
 A notice stating a cause of action against a 
 vestry for something done or intended to be done 
 under the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, is 
 not invalid within s. 106 of the Act because by 
 mistake the place where the alleged injury 
 ooourted is incorrectly given, provided the in- 
 accurate statement is not calculated to deceive 
 the defts. Maddjsn v.. Kensington Vestey 
 
 Div, Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 614 
 
 By the Public Authorities Protectiov Act, 1893 
 (56,<S;.57 Vict. c. 61), s. im of the Metropolis 
 
 LONDON (Vestries) — continued. 
 Management Act, 1862, was repealed and other pro- 
 visions substituted. 
 
 -^ Sewer made without approval of vestry — 
 Liability to repair. 
 See London — Sawers. 61. 
 
 99. — Vestryman's qualification — Bating — 
 Occupation— Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 6; 1856 (19 * 20 Vict. 
 c. 112), s. 8. 
 
 A tenant of premises rated at \15l. wlio sub- 
 lets the greater part and retains for his personal 
 occupation a portion which is over 40Z. in rateable 
 value, but not separately assessed, is qualified as 
 a vestrymim under the Act. 
 
 Decision of Denman J., [1892] 1 Q. B. 616, 
 reversed. Gordon v. Williamson 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 459 
 
 100. — Vestryman's qualification — Bating — 
 Quo warranto — Metropolis Management Act, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 6. 
 
 A quo warranto information will lie in respect 
 of the office of vestryman created by the Act of 
 1855. A person who occupies and is rated in 
 respect of premises of insufficient value, and also 
 allows himself to be rated in respect of other 
 premises, a club, which he does not occupy, ia 
 not qualified as a vestryman under the Act. 
 Kea. v. Souttek C. a. [1891] 1 ft. B, 67 
 
 By the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 73), theprovisions of the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855, as to the qualification of vestrymen 
 were repealed and further provision made. 
 
 Water, 
 See Water — Supply under Hetropolis 
 Water Acts. 
 
 Water-closets. 
 See Water-closets. 
 
 Other Beferences. 
 
 — Commons — Effect of scheme for regulation 
 
 under Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866. 
 See Common. 7. 
 
 — Metropolitan police courts — Appeal to quarter 
 
 sessions — Order for maintenance — 
 
 Practice. 
 
 See Poor Law. 9. 
 
 — Unsound food. Destruction of— Duty of magis- 
 
 trate. 
 
 See Food. 1, 2. 
 
 LONDON AGENT — Covenant not to act for clients 
 of master's firm. 
 See Solicitor— Articled Clerk. 1. 
 
 LONDON ASSTTKANCE COMPANY. 
 
 The history of this corporation traced and 
 considered. Elve v. Boyton 
 
 C, A. [1891] 1 Ch, 501 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Smith, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 590. 
 
 LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TOWER BRIDGE 
 SOUTHERN APPROACH) ACT, 1895— 
 Valuation— Tied public-house. 
 See Bates. ,31. 
 
( 1183 ) 
 
 DIGESt OP CASES, 1§91— 1900. 
 
 ( iisi ) 
 
 lOBD MAYOR'S COUET. 
 
 See Cases under London — Mayor's 
 Court. 
 
 LOBS OF MANOR— Compensation— Allotment 
 for turbary — Legal estate in land. 
 See iNCLOStJKE. 4. 
 
 LOST WILL— Probate. 
 
 See PnoBATE — Lost Will. 
 
 LOTS — Sale by auction — Solicitors' remuneration. 
 See SoLioiTOB — Costs. 60. 
 
 LOTTERY — "Missing word" competition— Illegal 
 contract — BigM of competitors to relurn of their 
 contribution — Wager — Lottery Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3, 
 u. 119), s. 1. 
 
 A paragraph was published in a newspaper 
 with the last word omitted. Competitors were 
 invited to guess the omitted word, and send it in 
 on a coupon issued with the newspaper, with one 
 shilling. The fund so formed was divisible 
 among the successful guessers. The word chosen 
 was purely arbitrary, and the competition involved 
 no skill : — 
 
 Held, that the competition was » lottery 
 within 42 Geo. 3, c. 119, and illegal, that the 
 fund was not impressed by any trust which the 
 Court could administer, and semble that, notwitli- 
 standing the illegality of the competition, the 
 unsuccessful competitors had a right to a return 
 of their contributions, enforceable by action at 
 law. Fund paid out to the newspaper proprietor 
 on terms as to costs. Baeclat v. Pearson 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 2 Ch. 154 
 
 2. — Newspaper — Place used for betting — 
 Lottery Acts, 1802 (42 Geo. 3, u. 119), a. 2 ; 1823 
 (4 Geo. 4, c. 60), s. 41. 
 
 The defts. published a newspaper containing 
 coupons to be tilled up by purchasers of the paper 
 with the names of the horses selected by the 
 purchasers as likely to come in first, second, third, 
 and fourth in a race. For every coupon filled 
 up after the first the purchaser paid a penny, 
 and the defts. promised a prize of 1001. for naming 
 the first four horses correctly : — 
 
 Held, that the transaction was not a lottery, 
 nor betting, and the defts. were not liable to be 
 convicted either for selling chances in a lottery 
 or for keeping their ofBce as a betting-house. 
 Stoddard v. Sagar. Sagab v. Stoddart 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q, B. 474 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Hall v. Cox, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 198, 200. 
 
 3. . — Prize competition — Prediction of coming 
 event — Births and deaths in London during named 
 week. 
 
 The deft, published a newspaper containing 
 an offer of a money prize for a correct prediction 
 of the number of births and deaths in London 
 during a named week. Competitors, who were 
 not limited to one prediction, were to fill in the 
 predicted numbers on coupons which were pub- 
 lished in the issue of the paper which contained 
 the ofi'er : — 
 
 Held, that the competition, not being one the 
 result of which depended entirely on chance, 
 was not a lottery. Hall v. Cox 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B, 198 
 
 LTTGQAGE —Passengers'. 
 
 See KAiLWAT^Passeagers. 25—27. 
 — Loss of luggage — Free pass by railway and 
 
 steamer — Conditions of non-liability — 
 
 Limitation suit. 
 
 See Shippotg. 167. 
 
 LTTMF SUM — Award — Evidence taken on matters 
 not refeiTed— Jurisdiction of arbitrators. 
 See Arbitration — Award. 27. 
 
 LUMPING DEBTS AND SECURITIES— Proof- 
 Bills of exchange. 
 See Baukbdptcy — Proo£ 163. 
 
 LUNACY. 
 
 In General, col. 1185. 
 
 Actions by and against, col. 1185. 
 
 Bankruptcy, col. 1185. 
 
 Charging Order, col. 1186. 
 
 Contracts, col. 1187. 
 
 Costs, col. 1188. 
 
 Custody, col. 1188. 
 
 Divorce. See Divorce — Lunacy. 
 
 Leases, col. 1189. 
 
 Lunatic Asylums, col. 1189. 
 
 Maintenance, col. 1189. 
 
 Powers, col. 1193. 
 
 Practice, col. 1195. 
 
 Receiver, col. 1197. 
 
 Sales, col. 1198. 
 
 Scottish Law. See Scottish Law — 
 
 Lunacy. 
 Vesting Order, col. 1199. 
 
 Lunacy Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Fict. e. 65), amends 
 the Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5). 
 
 Order dated Jan. 26, 1891, made by the Ld. 
 Chan, with the consent of the Treas. prescribing 
 allowances for svhsisten/ie, &c., to Masters arid 
 Visitors in Lunacy. St. B. & 0. 1891, p. 477. 
 
 The Rules in Lunacy, 1892, dated Feb. 6, 1892. 
 These Rules came into operation on March 1, 1892. 
 St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 594; [1892] W. N. (Appx. of 
 0. & E.) p. 7 ; St. 0. P. Price id. 
 
 Order dated Aug. 11, 1892, as to the taking of 
 fees by Stamps, under s. 148 of the Lunacy Act, 
 1890. St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 628 j [1892] W. N. 
 (Appx. of 0. & E.) p. 36. 
 
 " The Rules in Lunacy, 1893," dated June 15, 
 1893, and coming into operation July 1, 1893. 
 St. E. & 0. 1893, p. 432 ; St. 0. P. [1893] W. N. 
 (Appx. of 0. & B,) p. 3. 
 
 Regulations dated April 17, 1895, as to instru- 
 ments and appliances for the mechanical restraint 
 of lunatics. St. B. tc 0. 1895, p. 417 (No. 212). 
 Price id. 
 
 Rules dated Jane 26, 1 895, made by the Commrs. 
 in Lunacy with the approval of the Ld. Clian. 
 St. B. & 0. 1895, p. 420 (No. 281). Price 2d. 
 
 County Court Rules {May), 1899, Order r., 
 r. 126 {Person of Unsound Mind Suing); 
 Order vn. a {Appointment of Guardians adlitem). 
 W. N. 1899 (AprU 29), p. 147; Current Index, 
 1899, p. xov. 
 
 Draft rule as to applications for a traverse 
 
( 1185 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1186 ) 
 
 IiUlTACY — continued. 
 
 and supersedeas and vesting orders. W. N. 1900 
 (Aug. 11), p. 298. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. xciii. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Appointment of receiver — Lunatic — Eights of 
 
 third parties. 
 
 See Vendor akd Pubohabbb — Lien. 55. 
 
 — Grant of administration. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 53, 54, 56, 65, 68. 
 
 — Justices acting under Lunacy Act — Power to 
 
 state special case. 
 See JtrsTiOES. 15. 
 
 — Partner of unsound mind — ^Interference with 
 
 business. 
 
 See Injunction. 30. 
 
 — Petition for order for reception of lunatic — 
 
 Defamatory statement in particulars — 
 
 Privilege. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 17. 
 
 — Second grant— Lunacy of single administrator. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 65. 
 
 — Sole executrix a lunatic — Grant of administra- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration, 
 
 68. 
 
 — Will — Eelevancy — Capacity — Insane delu- 
 
 sions. 
 
 See Will— Eelevancy. 171. 
 
 Actions by and against. 
 
 1. — Master in Lunacy — Jurisdiction — Leave 
 to bring action in name of lunatic — Lunacy Act, 
 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 65), s. 27. 
 
 A Master in Lunacy has jurisdiction under 
 the Lunacy Act, 1891,8. 27, suh-s. 1, to authorize 
 the committee of a lunatic to bring an action in 
 the name of the lunatic in respect of an alleged 
 breach of trust by the trustees of a will under 
 which the lunatic is a beneficiary. In re Hinch- 
 LiFFE (No. 2) C. A. [1895] W. N. 147 (6) 
 
 — Parties — Trustee in bankruptcy added as 
 
 defendant to action. 
 Bee No. 3, below. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 2. — Jurisdiction of Court — Adjudicating 
 lunatic bankrupt — Committee — Title of trustee — 
 Application of lunatic's property — Bankruptcy 
 Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52\ ». 47; 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. e. 71), s. 1— Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. V. 5), se. 117, 120. 
 
 Upon a person being found lunatic, the juris- 
 diction of the Court in Lunacy immediately 
 attaches to his properly, including the discre- 
 tionary powers vested in the Court by the Lunacy 
 Act, 1890, ss. 117, 120, of applying his property 
 for his benefit, and cannot be ousted by a subse- 
 . quent adjudication in bankruptcy made without 
 the consent of the Court, even assuming such 
 adjudication to be valid (as to which, quiere) ; 
 and therefore the trustee taking the lunatic's 
 property under such an adjudication can only do 
 
 LTJITACY (Bankruptcy)— oojiimtteii. 
 
 so subject to the jurisdiction in Lunacy. In, re 
 
 Farnham (No. 1) - C. A. [1895] 8 Ch. 799 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Farnham v. Mil- 
 ward & Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 730, 735. 
 
 Explained and referred to by 0. A. In re 
 Farnham (No. 2), [1896] 1 Oh. 836 ; In re aarlce, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 336, 340. 
 
 Eeferred to by Wright J. [1899] 2 Q. B. 57, 
 60. 
 
 3. — Parties — Trustee in bankruptcy added 
 as defendant to action — Right of trustee to have 
 action stayed as against him — B. S. C, 1883, 
 Order xvi., r. 17 ; Order xxr., t. 4 — Lunacy Act, 
 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 117, IW—Banlcruptoy 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 132. 
 
 Where an action has been brought by the 
 committee of a lunatic, and the lunatic is sub- 
 sequently adjudicated bankrupt, the right of 
 action vests in his trustee in bankruptcy ; and if 
 the trustee declines to prosecute the action he 
 cannot be added as a deft, against his will. 
 Where he has been so added, he is entitled to 
 have the action stayed as against him. Farnham 
 V. Mil ward & Co. Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 730 
 
 4. — Payment into court in the lunacy — 
 Property under control of trustee in bankruptcy — 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 102, 
 sub-s. i— Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. „. 5), 
 s. 120. 
 
 The Court in Lunacy has no jurisdiction to 
 order the trustee in the bankruptcy of a lunatic 
 to pay into court to the credit of the lunacy 
 moneys in his possession or control, for the pur- 
 pose of enabling the committee to apply the same 
 for the benefit of the lunatic. 
 
 In re Farnham, [1895] 2 Ch. 799, explained. 
 In re Farnham (No. 2) C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 836 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Clarice, [1898] 
 1 Oh. 336, 340. 
 
 Charging Order. 
 
 — Enforcing payment of costs. 
 
 See Charging Order. 4. 
 
 5. — Funds in court — Administration — 
 Praetice. 
 
 The rule of administration in Lunacy that 
 the obligations of a lunatic are postponed to the 
 needs of the lunatic does not affect funds in the 
 High Court. 
 
 A judgment creditor of a lunatic obtained a 
 charging order on funds of the lunatic in court. 
 The balance only of the funds, after satisfying 
 the charge, was transferred to Lunacy. In re 
 Beown. Llewellin v. Brown Cozens-Hardy J. 
 [1900] W. N. 37 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 489 
 
 6. — Shares — Judgment debt — Form of order 
 — Costs — Maintenance of Lunatic — Scheme. 
 
 A proper scheme for the maintenance of a 
 lunatic having been made by a, master, and it 
 being found that the shares in question were not 
 required for his maintenance, a judgment creditor 
 is entitled to enforce his charging order on the 
 shares by sale, notwithstanding that it had been 
 obtained subsequently to the exercise of the 
 jurisdioliion of the Court in Lunacy. In re Httnt 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch, 84, n. 
 
( 1187 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1188 ) 
 
 LTrNACT (Charging Order) — continued. 
 
 7, — Validity— Judgment creditors — Friority 
 — Death of lunatic — Judgments Acts, 1838 (1 <fe 2 
 Vict. c. 110), s. 14; 1840 (3 <fe 4 Vict. o. 82), «. 1. 
 
 The effect of a charging order made in favour 
 of a judgment creditor under the Judgments Act, 
 1838, does not depend upon the capacity of the 
 judgment debtor to give a valid charge, but 
 upon the validity of the judgment. Creditors of 
 a lunatic -whose debts were incurred before the 
 lunacy obtained judgments against him, and also 
 charging orders on a fund in court, hich were 
 not in terms enforceable till the death of the 
 lunatic or further order : — 
 
 Seld, that they had a valid charge on the 
 fund in priority to the claims of the lunatic's 
 administratrix. In re Lbaveslet 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Contracts. 
 
 8, — Capacity to contract — Averment of 
 Icnowledge of other contracting party — Onus of 
 proof. 
 
 Where a deft, in an action on contract, whether 
 executory or executed, sets up the defence that 
 he was insane when the contract was made, in 
 order to succeed in his defence he must shew that 
 at the time of the contract his insanity was known 
 to the pit. Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone 
 
 C. A, [1892] 1 Q. B. 599 
 
 9, — Contract by lunatic before lunacy — 
 Contract executed or executory — Vesting order — 
 Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 135. 
 
 M. by writing agreed to sell leaseholds to A. 
 & B. for a sum of which part was to be paid 
 down, and the balance at the end of five years. 
 Possession was given, and the first payment 
 made. After this M., who resided abroad, was 
 there found lunatic, and a curator appointed 
 with authority to receive the balance. Ou a 
 petition by the curator and A. & B., an order was 
 made, imder s. 135 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, 
 vesting the leaseholds in A. & B. ; such order to 
 be dated and drawn up after payment of the 
 balance with interest to the curator. In re 
 Pagani. In re Paoani'b Tkdst 
 
 C. A, [1892] 1 Oh. 236 
 
 10, — Contract hy lunatic to purchase real 
 estate — Voidable contract — Completion of purchase 
 1)y committee — Conversion. 
 
 A person of unsound mind entered into a con- 
 tract to purchase real estate : the purchaser was 
 subsequently found by inquisition to be of un- 
 sound mind, and a committee of his estate was 
 appointed. The Master in Lunacy directed the 
 committee to complete the purchase, and the 
 purchase-money was provided out of the lunatic's 
 personal estate. The lunatic having died intes- 
 tate : — 
 
 Held, that the direction to the committee to 
 complete the purchase amounted to an election 
 by the Lunacy authorities to adopt the voidable 
 contract entered iuto by the lunatic, and con- 
 sequently that a conversion had been effected 
 and the estate descended as realty. Baldwin v. 
 Smith - _ Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 68 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 688 
 
 LUNACY — continued. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 — Enforcing payment of costs. 
 
 See Charging Oedbe. 4. 
 
 11. — Inquiry — Alleged lunatic found of sound 
 mind— Wife's estate— Appeal — Charging order- 
 Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 109. 
 
 The L.JJ. have authority, under s. 109 of 
 the Lunacy Act, 1890, to direct that the costs 
 of an inquiry into the mental condition of a 
 married woman should be paid out of her separate 
 estate, including costs incurred after the finding 
 that she was of sound mind. Payment of these 
 costs may be enforced by directing a transfer of 
 Consols. Such an order is not a charging order, 
 and is not bound by the procedure laid down in 
 Order xltl, r. 1 (1). An appeal lies to the C. A. 
 from a decision of the L.JJ. as to costs of an 
 inquiry in Lunacy. 
 
 Judgment of the L.JJ. sitting as judges in 
 Lunacy, [1892] 1 Ch. 549, affirmed. In re Oath- 
 OAET (No. 1) - - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 466 
 
 On taxation of the costs, (i.) the shorthand 
 notes of the judgments and (ii.) three counsel were 
 allowed, as the case was of unusual length and 
 difficulty. In re Cathoabt (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N. 107 
 
 — Solicitor — Client alleged lunatic — Pending 
 
 petition for inquisition — Suppression — 
 
 Misconduct. 
 
 See SoLioiTOB — Misconduct. 1 17. 
 
 Custody. 
 
 12. — Discharge — Certificate of m,edical practi- 
 tioners — Discretion of commissioners — Lunacy 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 49. 
 
 The Commissioners of Lunacy have a dis- 
 cretion to refuse to order the discharge of a 
 lunatic from detention notwithstanding the pro- 
 duction to them of tlie certificates of two medical 
 practitioners certifying under s. 49 of the Lunacy 
 Act, 1890, that the lunatic may be discharged 
 without risk of injury to himself or the public. 
 Reg. v. Lcnaot Commes. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 a. B. 6S0 
 
 13. — Foreign country — Person " lawfully de- 
 tained " — Mnglish person lawfully detained abroad 
 —Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 116, 
 sub-s. 1, cl. (o). 
 
 The expression " lawfully detained as a lunatic 
 though not so found by inquisition," as used in 
 s. 116, sub-s. 1, clause (c), of the Lunacy Act, 
 1890, means "lawfully detained" under the 
 provisions of that Act, i.e., within the jurisdic- 
 tion ; and does not apply to an Englishman 
 detained in a foreign country in accordance with 
 the laws of that counti-y. In re Watkins 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 336 
 
 Note.— r/ie Act of 1890 does not extend to 
 Scotland or Ireland jave as expressly provided : 
 see s. 2 of the Act. 
 
 14. — Married woman lunatic — Bight of hus- 
 band to be appointed committee of the person. 
 
 The husband of a lunatic has no absolute 
 right to be appointed committee of her person ; 
 the Court has full jurisdiction to do as it may 
 
( 1189 ) 
 
 DTGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1190 ) 
 
 LUNACY (Custody) — ooniinned. 
 
 think best for the comfort of the lunatic. In re 
 
 Davy - - - C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 38 
 
 Divorce. 
 See Divorce — ^Lunacy. 
 
 leases. 
 
 15. — Power of leasing — Person lawfully de- 
 tained as lunatic — Person appointed to exercise 
 the powers of a committee over tlie estate — Settled 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 <fe 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 6, 62— 
 Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 (t- 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 116, 
 120. 
 
 The person appointed to act, under s. 116 
 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, as committee of the 
 estate of a person lawfully detained as a lunatic 
 though not so found by inquisition may by leave 
 of a judge exercise the power of leasing vested 
 in the lunatic as tenant for life under the Settled 
 Land Act, 1882. 
 
 In re Baggs, [1894] 2 Ch. 416, n., distin- 
 guished. In re Salt 
 
 C. A. [1895] W.N. 166(5); 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 117 
 
 Lunatic Asylums, 
 
 16. — Bates on asylum — Expenses of pauper 
 lunatics. 
 
 Parochial and other rates charged upon the 
 asylum buildings are payable out of the main- 
 tenance account under s. 283 of the Lunacy Act, 
 1890. Beg. v. Dolby (No. 1) 
 
 Div. Ot. [1892] a a. B. 301 
 
 — House tax. 
 
 See Ebventje — House Duty. 57, 58. 
 
 Maintenance, 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Lunacy — Bankruptcy. 
 
 17. — Charging order — Insufficiency of fund. 
 
 Creditors of a lunatic not so found by inqui- 
 sition obtained charging orders on a fund in 
 court. The master approved a scheme for the 
 maintenance of the lunatic which would gradually 
 exhaust the capital of the fund : — 
 
 Held, that a proper allowance should be made 
 for the maintenance of a lunatic, though the 
 effect might be to destroy the creditors' security ; 
 and that the creditors were not entitled to 
 impound so much of the capital as was sufficient 
 to satisfy their claims. In re Plenderleith 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 332 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. In re Glarlee, [1898] 
 1 Ch. 336, 340. 
 
 Keferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Brown, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 489, 490. 
 
 18. — Common order — Liability of committee of 
 person to account — Form of inquiry. 
 
 The committee of the estate of a lunatic was 
 authorized by an order of March, 1896, in the 
 common form, to pay to the committee of the 
 person 2500Z. per annum for the lunatic's main- 
 tenance ; the order also provided for the keeping 
 up of a considerable establishment, and that the 
 committee of the person should be at liberty to 
 
 LUNACY (Maintenance) — continued. 
 reside in the lunatic's own house and have the 
 use of the horses, carriages, and other effects ot 
 the lunatic. As a matter of convenience to the 
 committee of the person, the allowance was paid 
 quarterly in advance. A quarterly payment of 
 6251. was made on Oct. 29, 1896, and thirteen 
 days afterwards the lunatic died. The executors 
 of the lunatic claimed to be repaid the sum of 
 5281., being the proportionate part of the quarter's 
 allowance for the period subsequent to the death 
 of the lunatic ; or, in the alternative, an inquiry 
 what was properly payable for the maintenance 
 of the lunatic during the thirteen days, and 
 brought an action to enforce this claim : — 
 
 Held, that, as the lunatic had not been main- 
 tained for the whole year, the executors were 
 entitled to receive from the committee of the 
 person such portion of the yearly allowance as 
 had not been properly expended for the purposes 
 of the lunatic; and an inquiry was directed 
 what sum ought to be allowed to the committee 
 of the person during the time the lunatic was 
 maintained, regard being had to the order of 
 March, 1896, with liberty to apply in chambers 
 for any balance that might be found due to the 
 lunatic's estate, and as to costs. 
 
 Circumstances under which committees of 
 the per»on may be called upon to account 
 considered. 
 
 In re Ponsonby, (1842) 3 D. & "War. 27, 
 explained. Stkangwayes v. Bead 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] 2 Ch. 419 
 
 19. — Execution creditor — Prim-ity — Sale — ■ 
 Jurisdiction — Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 5), ss. 116, 117, 120. 
 
 The Court in Lunacy will not allow property 
 of a lunatic in its custody to be applied in paying 
 his creditors without first providing for his main- 
 tenance ; but it has no jurisdiction to interfere 
 with the rights of creditors to seize and sell by 
 legal process property of the lunatic which at 
 the time of seizure is not in the custody of the 
 Court. 
 
 The issuing of a summons in lunacy does not 
 withdraw the property of the lunatic from legal 
 process by a creditor until an order is made 
 shewing that the Crown has actually taken the 
 property under its protection. 
 
 A judgment creditor of a person not found 
 lunatic by inquisition, after receiving notice of 
 the pendency of a summons in lunacy for the 
 appointment of a receiver under s. 116 of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, issued a fi. fa. under which 
 the goods of the debtor were seize4 before any 
 order was made upon the summons. A receiver 
 was afterwards appointed while the goods were 
 in the possession of the sheriff: — 
 
 Held, that the Court had no jurisdiction to 
 order a sale of the goods under s. 117 of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, for the maintenance of the 
 alleged lunatic in priority to the claims of 
 the creditor. 
 
 Ire re Winkle, [1894] 2 Ch. 519, distinguished. 
 In re Clarke - - C. A, [1898] 1 Ch. 336 
 
 Beferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Brown 
 [1900] 1 Oh. 489, 491. 
 
 20. — Judgment creditor — Execution — Receiver 
 — Maintenance of lunatic — Maintenance of wife 
 
 2 Q 2 
 
( 1191 ) 
 
 DIGKST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1192 ) 
 
 LUNACY (Maintenance) — continued. 
 
 Priorities — Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), 
 
 ss. 116, 117— Form of order. 
 
 Where a creditor had ohtained judgment and 
 issued execution against a lunatic not so found, 
 and the wife of the lunatic had obtained an 
 order appointing her interim receiver pending a 
 scheme which provided for the maintenance of 
 herself and of the lunatic, and the sheriff had 
 given up possession to her : — 
 
 Held, that the maintenance of the wife of a 
 lunatic was not provided for by s. 117 of the 
 Act of 1890, and that that provision must be 
 struck out of the scheme. The rights of the 
 execution creditor were subject to the mainte- 
 nance allowed to the lunatic. But the order 
 must be without prejudice to the rights of the 
 creditor between himself and other creditors 
 notwithstanding that the sheriff had given up 
 possession. 
 
 Form of order for maintenance of a lunatic 
 where a judgment creditor has obtained execution. 
 In re Winkle 0. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 619 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Winkle v. Bailey, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 128, 127. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Clarice, [1898] 
 1 Ch. 336. 
 
 Beferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Brown, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 489, 490. 
 
 - Pauper — Expenses. 
 
 .See County Council — Expenses. 
 
 4. 
 
 21. — Pauper lunatic — Application of property 
 — Jurisdiction — Discretion — Person of unsound 
 mind not so found"— Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. c. 5), s. 299. 
 
 Sect. 299 of the Lunacy Act, 1890— which 
 enables a justice to order the application to the 
 expenses of maintenance of a lunatic chargeable 
 to any union or local authority of any property of 
 the lunatic more than sufficient to maintain his 
 family, if any — does not affect the jurisdiction of 
 the Court in Lunacy as to the application of the 
 lunatic's property. 
 
 A man who was taken in charge as a wander- 
 ing lunatic, and placed in a pauper lunatic 
 asylum, had in his possession a sum of about 
 3371. His only other property was a 101. share 
 in a co-operative society and some furniture of 
 small value. He had carried on business as a 
 market gardener. He had not been found lunatic 
 by inquisition. He was sixty-four years of age 
 and his wife was sixty. He had a daughter 
 aged twenty, who lived with her mother, and 
 seven grown-up sons, who did not contribute to 
 their mother's support : — 
 
 Held, that the discretion of the Court as to 
 the application of the lunatic's property would be 
 properly exercised by allowing out of the fund 
 (the capital being used for the purpose) the sum 
 of 26Z. a year to the guardians as the cost of his 
 maintenance in thn asylum, and the sum of 251. 
 a year to the wife, and an order was made 
 accordingly. 
 
 Per V. Williams L.J. : Semble that, after the 
 
 making of the order the lunatic would no longer 
 
 06 in tUe position of a pauper lunatic. In re Tye 
 
 C. A. [1900] -W. N. 8 ; [1900] 1 Ch, 249 
 
 LUNACY (Maintenance) — continued. 
 
 22. — Pauper — Limitation Act, 1623 (21 Jae. 1, 
 c. 16). 
 
 A lunatic not so found by inquisition was 
 maintained in a pauper lunatic asylum by the 
 guardians of the S. Union for sixteen years prior 
 to her death in 1898. In 1895, the lunatic having 
 become entitled to a fund, a receiver was ap- 
 pointed in Lunacy ; and thereupon the guardians 
 gave notice of a claim for past and future main- 
 tenance to the Master in Lunacy, who replied 
 that the claim would be borne in mind in deal- 
 ing with the fund. The fund was, however, not 
 recovered by the Lunacy authorities till after the 
 death of the lunatic, and was afterwards trans- 
 ferred to the Chancery Div. In an action by the 
 guardians against the legal personal representa- 
 tive of the lunatic for arrears of maintenance ; — 
 
 Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled only to 
 six years' arrears from the commencement of the 
 action. 
 
 In re Newlegin's Estate, (1887) 86 Ch. D. 477, 
 followed. 
 
 Btedman v. Hart, (1854) Kay, 607, distin- 
 guished. In re Watson. Stamfobd Union v. 
 Babtlett - Stirling J. [1898] W. N. 154 (5) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 72 
 
 23. — Pauper — Union in which lunatic has 
 acquired exemption from removal— Order for pay- 
 ment— Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), 
 ss. 287, 294. 
 
 An order is rightly made by justices ex parte, 
 under ss. 287, 294 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, for 
 the maintenance of a pauper lunatic in an 
 asylum by the union in which she had acquired 
 by residence a status of irremovability. Eeg. c. 
 Bruce Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 136 
 
 And see Poou Law — Settlement. 17. 
 
 24. — Pauper lunatics. Expenses of — Parochial 
 rates on asylum buildings — Lunacu Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 283. 
 
 Parochial and other rates chargeable on 
 asylum buildings are payable as part of the 
 " expenses of maintenance and other expenses of 
 each pauper lunatic in the asylum," within s. 283 
 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. Eeg. r. Dolby (No. 1) 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 301 
 
 — Pauper lunatic— Expenses of. 
 See County Council. 4. 
 
 25. — Percentage on income of property in 
 Ireland remitted to England for maintenance — 
 Lunacy Begulation (Ireland) Act, 1871 (34 * 35 
 Vict. c. 22), ss. 109, Hi— Lunacy Acts, 18110 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 148, 149 ; 1891 (54 <£; o5 
 Vict. c. 65), s. 27, sub-s. 3— Lunacy Rules, 1892, 
 r. 126. 
 
 A percentage is not payable on the remittance 
 to England of the amount allowed out of property 
 in Ireland by the Court of Lunacy in Ireland (to 
 which a percentage on the clear annual income 
 is paid) for maintenance of a lunatic resident 
 in England, and having English committees 
 In re Gbehan - - C. A. (Smith L.J. diss.) 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 12 
 
 p6. — Power of appointment — Release of fund 
 subject to — Dealings with fund inconsistent with 
 
( ii9S ) 
 
 faittES* OB* cAsi^S, I8§i-id(id. 
 
 ( ll9i ) 
 
 ITTNACT (Maintenance) — continued. 
 
 baereise of power— Lunaoy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 
 Vict. 0. 5), ss. 116 (e), 117, 120, 128. 
 
 The only property of a widow of unsound 
 mind was a life interest in a fund over which 
 she had a power of appointment to children or 
 remoter issue. The income was under that 
 specified in the Lunacy Act, 1890, s. 116 (e), 
 and insufficient for her support. Her son, the 
 only person entitled in default of appointment, 
 applied to raise money for her maintenance out 
 of capital. 
 
 The Court, though unable to release the 
 power, remitted the application to the master, 
 with an intimation that the order might be made 
 without prejudice to any question which might 
 arise if the lunatic appointed. In re Hirst 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 177 
 
 Powers. 
 
 27. — Attachment — Writ of — Compulsory order 
 for examination — Jurisdiction of master — Lunacy 
 Acts, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 5), e. 94, svh-s. 2 ; 
 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 65), s. 26, Sched. 
 
 A master who is holding an inquisition in 
 Lunacy has power to order a writ of attachment 
 to issue against an alleged lunatic for the purpose 
 of enforcing his attendance, but as a matter of 
 convenience and discretion it is more desirable 
 that he should refer such matters to the L.JJ. 
 sitting in open Court. Lunacy Act, 1891, s. 26, 
 
 sub-s. 2. In re B (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 459 
 — Curator bonis — Discretion of Court to refuse 
 
 cognition. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Lunacy. 26. 
 
 28. — Examination, Application for — Opposi- 
 tion hy alleged lunatic — Petition for inquiry — 
 Fending proceedings — Master in Lunucy. 
 
 An order] to examine an alleged lunatic 
 against his will can be made by a master, and, 
 if necessary, by the Court, but no such order 
 should be made adversely to a person, pending a 
 petition, unless the master or other person con- 
 ducting the inquiry inform the Court that such 
 an order is necessary to enable him to come to a 
 decision. Whether a master can enforce such an 
 order when made by him in a case where there 
 
 is no jury, qusere. In re B (No. 1) 
 
 C, A. [1891] 3 Ch. 274 
 
 Eefened to by C. A. In re B (No. 2), 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 459, 461. 
 
 29. — Foreign lunatic entitled to real estate in 
 England — Application for inquiry into state of 
 mind — Jurisdiction — Practice. 
 
 Princess Soltykoff was born in the United 
 States in 1860. She married a Russian prince 
 who died in 1893. After his death she bought 
 an estate at Slough. In 1896 she became lunatic 
 while residing in Paris, and was found a, lunatic 
 there, and a committee of her person and estate 
 was appointed by the proper French authority. 
 The estate at Slough was vacant, and owing to 
 the lunacy could not be let. An application was 
 now made by her brother for an inquiry into 
 her state of mind with a view to the Slough 
 estate being managed under the jurisdiction in 
 lunacy. The Trench committee approved of the 
 proceeding, but did not join in the application as 
 
 LUNACY (2owexs)— continued. 
 he Was advised in France that the heir-at-laW 
 had a better loons standi. The Court of Appeal 
 directed the applicant to apply to the French 
 committee to join in the application, which would 
 remove some of the difSoulties which their Lord- 
 ships felt, and intimated that if this amendment 
 were made they would do what they could for 
 the applicants, the case not to be restored to the. 
 paper, but to go before the judge attending to 
 lunacy. In re PfiiNOESS Soltykoff 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 77 (5) 
 
 30. — Jurisdiction — Conditional devise to 
 lunatic — Resettlement of lunatic's estate — Election 
 — Performance of condition by committee — Statute 
 De Prerogativa Regis (17 Edw. 2, c. 10) — Lunacy 
 Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. v. 5), s. 108, subs. 2 ; 
 ss. 117, 120, 124. 
 
 A lunatic can accept a devise imposing an 
 onerous condition if it be for his benefit so to do. 
 
 In considering whether or not it is for the 
 benefit of a lunatic to comply with a condition, 
 the Court should act for the lunatic as if he were 
 a person of sound mind and guided by reasonable 
 motives. 
 
 The main purpose of the Act De Prerogativa 
 Regis is to preserve the lands and tenements of 
 a lunatic, and the provision therein restricting 
 alienation ought not to be construed as prohibiting 
 the Court from giving up, on behalf of a lunatic, 
 an interest in his real estate in order thereby to 
 preserve or to acquire for him a larger and more 
 beneficial interest. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Court in Lunacy is 
 not confined to the oases enumerated in the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, and the specific provisions in 
 Part IV. of the Act are enabling and not 
 restrictive clauses. 
 
 The object of s. 124 of the Act is to remove 
 any possible doubt as to the jurisdiction of the 
 Court to order subsidiary acts to be done when 
 exercising its statutory jurisdiction. 
 
 A lunatic entitled to a base fee in estate C. 
 had other lauds of value devised to him for life 
 with remainder to his issue in tail on condition 
 that he should within a certain period resettle 
 estate C. to the uses of the devised estates. 
 
 In the opinion of the Court it was for the 
 benefit of the lunatic that the condition should 
 be performed : — 
 
 Held, that although the statutory powers 
 conferred by the Lunacy Act, 1890, did not in 
 terms authorize the Court to direct the com- 
 mittee of the lunatic's estate to elect on behalf 
 of the lunatic in such a case, the Court in Lunaoy 
 had under its general jurisdiction power to direct 
 the committee to perform the condition on his 
 behalf and to resettle estate C, and under the 
 circumstances ought to exercise such power, not- 
 withstanding that the resettlement of estate 0. 
 would cut down the interest of the lunatic 
 therein. In re Eabl of Sbpton 
 
 G. A. [1898] 2 Ch, 378 
 
 31, — Reception order — Jurisdiction of justice 
 Pauper lunatic — Worlihouse situate outside union 
 —Poor Law Amendment Act, 1844 (7 <{; 8 Vict, 
 c. 101), s. 5Q— Lunaoy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 a. 5), ss. 14, 24. 
 
 - By s. 14 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, provision 
 
( 1195 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( use ) 
 
 LUNACY (Powers) — continued. 
 ia made for bringing paupers who are lunatics 
 and proper to be sent to an asylum before " a 
 iustice haying jurisdiction in the place where the 
 pauper resides." A pauper who was chargeable 
 to a union became a lunatic while residing in the 
 workhouse infirmary, which was situate outside 
 the boundaries of the union : — 
 
 Sdd, that a justice having jurisdiction in the 
 anion to which the workhouse belonged had 
 power to deal with the case, since s. 56 of the 
 toor Law Amendment Act, 1844, applied, and 
 the workhouse must, therefore, be considered as 
 situated in the parish to which the lunatic was 
 chargeable. Eeg. v. Bell 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 391 
 
 — Partition — Lunatic out of jurisdiction — Con- 
 
 veyance. 
 
 See Partition. 9. 
 
 32. — Settlement of atoeh — Order authorizing 
 persons to exercise power of appointment of trus- 
 tees on lunatic's behalf and vesting in named 
 appointees right to call for transfer — Lunacy Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 116, 128, 129, 142— 
 Costs. 
 
 There is jurisdiction under ss. 128, 129 of 
 the Lunacy Act, 1890, to make an order autho- 
 rizing the committee of a lunatic to appoint as 
 trustees named persons, and to vest in such 
 appointees the right to call for a transfer. The 
 power of appointment is a fiduciary power. 
 "Where the settlement comprises bank annuities 
 there should be for the guidance of the Bank 
 something in the nature of a certificate by the 
 master of the exercise of the deed of appointment. 
 The Court declined to order the Bank to pay the 
 costs of the application. In re Shoktkidge 
 
 0. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 278 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re C. M. G., Spinster, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 324, 328. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 — Actions by and against lunatics. 
 
 See Lunaot — Actions by and against. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Lunacy — Costs. 
 
 — Foreign lunatic — ^English property — Curator 
 
 —Eight to sue in England — Order of 
 foreign Court — Maintenance. 
 See Conflict op Laws. 7. 
 
 33. — Inspection — Eeports of " Chancery 
 visitors " — Lunatic not so found — Evidence — 
 Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 184, 
 185, 186— Coste. 
 
 Eeports made by Chancery visitors under 
 s. 184 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, should be 
 destroyed on the death of the lunatic, and even 
 if not destroyed they cannot be used as evidence, 
 e.g., as to the testamentary capacity of the alleged 
 lunatic. EoE v. Nix 
 
 Barnes J, and l.JJ, [1893] P. 56 
 
 34. — Inspection — Beports of medical men — 
 Right of alleged lunatic to see report — Proof of 
 witness to he called— Lunacy Acts, 1890 (53 & 54 
 yict. c 5), 8. 94 ; 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 65), s. 26, 
 
 uudtr^"" 2fi' ^"<;'; «^^mi»iig the alleged lunatic, 
 uuaei s. 26 of the Lunacy Act, 1891, made a 
 
 LTTNACT (Practice) — cordinued. 
 
 report which the alleged lunatic claimed a right 
 
 to see : — 
 
 Held, that the report was in the nature of a 
 proof of the evidence which the witness was 
 prepared to give at the hearing, and was as 
 much privileged from inspection by the other 
 side as the proof of any other witness's evidence. 
 In re B (No. 3) - C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 194 
 
 35. — Inspection of documents — Privilege. 
 No one is allowed to inspect documents in 
 
 the custody of the Court in Lunacy without an 
 order of one of the masters or of a judge in 
 Lunacy. Inspection of the reports made to the 
 Court by its own medical advisers is never 
 permitted. But, with this exception, liberty to 
 inspect documents will be given to any person 
 who can satisfy the master or a judge that he 
 wants it for a reasonable and proper purpose, 
 provided that the lunatic, if living, is not injured 
 thereby. After the death of the lunatic, the 
 general rule is to allow inspection to any person 
 claiming an interest in his property who can 
 satisfy the Court as above mentioned. As a 
 matter of law, privilege is no bar to inspection in 
 Lunacy. Inspection will not be permitted to a 
 litigating party who applies for it before the 
 trial of the litigation in order to find out his 
 adversary's case. The doctrine of privilege and 
 the principles applicable to inspection discussed 
 and explained. In re Strachan 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 439 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Goldstone v. Wil- 
 liams, Deacon & Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 47, 54. 
 
 36. — Payment out of Court — Foreign subject 
 — Lunatic ward of Foreign Court entitled to fund 
 in Court in this country — Jurisdiction. 
 
 An application was made by a lady who had 
 been found a lunatic by the Eoyal Bavarian 
 Court, and had been made a ward of that Court 
 on that ground, by her next friend, who was a 
 judge of that Court, that a fund standing to her 
 credit in the Chancery Div. and representing 
 the share to which she was entitled under her 
 parents' marriage settlement might be paid out 
 to the deposit commission of the Bavarian Court. 
 The deposit commission (which consisted of the 
 above-mentioned judge and another official) was 
 attached to the Court for the purpose of taking 
 charge of the funds of its wards and of giving 
 receipts for the same. The lunatic was the 
 daughter of a German father and an English 
 mother, and she and her nearest living relatives 
 were domiciled German subjects : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to make 
 an order for payment out of the fund, and that 
 the order ought to be made. 
 
 In re Barlow's Will, (1887) 36 Ch. D. 287, 
 distinguished. In re De Linden. In re Spdk- 
 bieb's Settlement. De Hatn v. Gaeland 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 453 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Chatard^s 
 Settlement, [1S99] 1 Ch. 712, 718; TUery v. 
 Chalmers, Guthrie & Co., [1900] 1 Ch. SO. 
 
 37. — Payment to tuteur — Foreign domicil — 
 Foreign Court — Declaration of lunacy — Tuteur of 
 estate— Money in English banli. 
 
 Where there has beeu a foreign judicial de- 
 
( 1197 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1198 ) 
 
 liTWACY (Practice)— confe'nMetZ. 
 olaratlon of the statua of lunacy of a lunatic 
 resident and domiciled abroad, and the tuteur of 
 the estate appointed in pursuance of that decla- 
 ration is entitled under the foreign law to take 
 posaegsion thereof, and to give valid discharges 
 for all moneys, stocks, funds, and securities form- 
 ing part thereof, an application by the lunatic 
 and the tuteur for the transfer or payment of the 
 lunatic's English property to the tuteur may be 
 and generally ought to be granted, and that 
 whether the property is a trust fund under the 
 control of the Court or is merely a debt due to 
 the estate. 
 
 In re Brown, [1895] 2 Oh. 666, and In re De 
 Linden, [1897] 1 Oh. 453, followed. 
 
 Didisheim v. London and Westminster Banls, 
 [1899] W. N. 107 ; 43 Sol. J. 642 ; 81 L. T. 108, 
 distinguished. [This case was reversed by C. A. 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 15. See Coin?LioT of Laws. 2.] 
 
 Semble, the tuteur may apply in his own name 
 without joining the lunatic. Thieky v. Chalmers, 
 Gdthbie & Co. - Kekewich J. [1900] 1 Ch. 80 
 — Eespondent a person of unsound mind — THo 
 
 appearance to citation — Appointing 
 
 guardian ad litem. 
 
 See DivoKOB. 9. 
 
 Beceiver, 
 
 38. — Dividends — Mental infirmity — Title of 
 order— Lunaey Acts, 1890, 1891 (53 & 54 Viet. 
 0. 5, S8. 108, lie, 146, 333 ; 54 <{: 55 Vict. c. 65, 
 s. 27, sub-s. 4) — Rules in Lunacy, 1892, Sched, 
 Form 1 (e). 
 
 The judge or Master in Luiiacy has jurisdic- 
 tion under s. 46 of the Act of 1890 to make an 
 order appointing a receiver of dividends on stock 
 standing in the Bank of England in the name of 
 a person incapable "through mental infirmity 
 arising from disease or age," and the Bank may 
 safely act on such an order ; but as it is unusual 
 to appoint a receiver of dividends on bank stock, 
 the better course is to bring the stock into 
 court. Such an order should not be entitled 
 " in Lunacy." In re Browne 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 412 
 
 39. — Order appointing receiver — Person of 
 unsound mind not so found— Person "lawfully 
 detained" — Expiry of period of detention — Effect 
 of— Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. e. 5), s. 116, 
 sub-s. 1 (c). 
 
 An order made by a Master in Lunacy under 
 s. 116, sub-s. 1 (c), appointing a receiver and 
 manager of the property of a person of unsound 
 mind not so found, who at the date of the order 
 was " lawfully detained " vmder a reception order, 
 does not necessarily come to an end when the 
 reception order expires and the person to whom 
 it refers ceases to be lawfully detained; but a 
 further order of the Court is required to discharge 
 it, and the Court will not make such order unless 
 satisfied that the person in question is no longer 
 subject to the delusions which may have led to 
 the detention. In re B. A. S. 
 
 C. A. [1898] a Ch, 392 
 
 40. — Pauper lunatic — Guardians levying dis- 
 tress — Receiver in Lunacy — Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 299. 
 
 Where a receiver in Lunacy of funds of a 
 
 LUNACY (Eeoelver) — eoniinued. 
 lunatic in a pauper asylum had been appointed, 
 an injunction was granted to restrain the guar- 
 dians from levying a distress against trustees of 
 the fund to enforce a magisterial order for 
 payment of the fund to the guardians. 
 
 Sub-s. 2 of s. 299 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, 
 operates only as a discharge to trustees of a 
 lunatic's property ; and In re Newhegin's Estate, 
 (1887) 36 Oh. D. 477, is not an authority that a 
 magistrate's order under sub-s. 1 in respect of 
 property in the hands of the trustees cannot be 
 enforced. Winkle v. Bailey 
 
 North J. [1896] W. ». 175 (11); 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 123 
 
 Sales. 
 
 41. — Consideration — Perpetual rent-charge — 
 8ale of lunatic's real estate — Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. a. 5), «s. 117, 120. 
 
 Under ss. 117, 120 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, 
 the Court has power to sanction the sale of a 
 lunatic's estate in consideration of a perpetual 
 rent-charge, and will exercise such power if 
 satisfied that sale will be for the benefit of the 
 lunatic. In re Wake - C. A, [1892] 1 Ch, 344 
 
 42. — Consideration of shares in u, company. 
 Sale of property in — Jurisdiction — Person of 
 unsound mind not so found — Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. e. 5), s. 117. 
 
 There is no jurisdiction under s. 117 of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, to authorize the sale of the 
 property of a lunatic or person of unsound mind 
 in consideration of shares in a co. In re A. B. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 233 
 
 — Contract by lunatic. 
 
 See Cases under Lunacy — Contracts. 
 
 — Oo-parceners — Tracing title from "purchaser " 
 
 — ^Eeal estate — Conversion. 
 See Intestacy. 1. 
 
 43. — Covenants for title hy committee — Con- 
 veyance " as beneficial owner " — Lunatic tenant 
 for life — Sale of lunatic's estate under Settled 
 Land Acts — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 41), s. 7, sub-s. 1 (a) — Settled Land Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 3, 4, 20, 55, 62— 
 Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 120, 
 122, 124. 
 
 Sect. 124 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, enabling 
 the committee of a lunatic on his behalf to exe- 
 cute and do all such assurances and things for 
 giving effect to any order under the Act as the 
 judge directs, must be construed as giving the 
 Court jurisdiction to authorize a committee who 
 is selling the lunatic's property under an order 
 in that behalf, not only to convey the same on 
 his behalf, but also on his behalf to enter into 
 with the purchaser the covenants usual and proper 
 in such a conveyance, including the ordinary 
 covenants for title. 
 
 In re Fox, (1886) 33 Ch. D. 37, is not a 
 decision that in no case can the Court authorize 
 the committee of a lunatic to enter into any 
 covenants on his behalf. In re Eay 
 
 C, A, [1896] 1 Ch. 468 
 
 — Jurisdiction — Maintenance — Execution credi- 
 
 tor—Priority. 
 See No. 20, above. 
 
C il99 ) 
 
 falGEST 01* dASES, 1891— 190b. 
 
 ( i2do ) 
 
 Lunacy (Sales) — continued. 
 
 44. — Power of sale — Exercise — Tenant for life 
 — Lunatic not so found — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 3, 53, 62. 
 
 B., a lunatic not so found but lawfully de- 
 tained, was tenant for life with power to appoint 
 new truatees, but with no power of sale : — 
 
 Held, that there was no jurisdiction to 
 authorize a sale. In re Baggs 
 
 l.JJ. [1894] 2 Ch. 416, u. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Ire re X, [1894] 
 
 2 Ch. 415, 419; In re Salt, [1896] 1 Ch. 117. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Shortridge, [1895] 
 
 3 Ch. 278, 284. 
 
 45. — Power of sale vested hy settlement in 
 tenant for life — Order authorizing exercise of 
 power — Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, v, 5), 
 ss. 116, 120, 128. 
 
 Where a person incapable of managing his 
 affairs within s. 116, sub-s. 1 ((Z), of the Lunacy 
 Act, 1890, had a power of sale over settled estates 
 of wliich he was tenant for life : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction under 
 ss. 120, 128 to authorize a sale by a person autho- 
 rized under ss. 116, 120 to receive the rents, &o., 
 of such estates. In re X. C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 415 
 
 Scottish law. 
 See Scottish Law — lunaoy. 
 
 Vesting Order. 
 
 Vesting orders to he by summons unless the 
 judge or master directs a petition. See W. N. 
 1900 (Aug. 11), p. 229. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. zoiii, 
 
 46. — Foreign curator — Lunatic resident out of 
 jurisdiction — English stocks and shares-:— Transfer, 
 
 Order for — " Vested " — Discretion — Maintenance 
 of lunatic — Lunacy Act, 1890 (58 & 54 Vict. c. 5), 
 ss. 134, 341. 
 
 The foreign curator of the property and per- 
 son of a lunatic resident out of the jurisdiction is 
 not entitled as of right to an order under s. 134 
 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, for the transfer to him 
 of English stocks or shares standing in the name 
 of the lunatic, although " vested " in the curator 
 under that section. The Court has, under that 
 section and its general jurisdiction in Lunacy 
 over the personal property of a lunatic, a discre- 
 tion as to making or refusing the order, and, 
 therefore, as a condition for obtaining the order, 
 the curator must first satisfy the Court by evi- 
 dence that the property is required for the main- 
 tenance or other purposes of the lunatic. 
 
 In re Brown, [1895] 2 Ch. 666, considered. 
 In re Knight - - 0. A, [1898] 1 Ch. 257 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Ghatard's 
 Settlement, [1899] 1 Ch. 712, 718. 
 
 47. — Jurisdiction of master — Appointmsnt 
 of person to exercise power of appointing new 
 trustees — Lunacy Acts, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), 
 s. 116, suh-ss. 1 (e), 2 ; ss. 128, 129, 135 ; 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 65), s. 27, suh-s. 1. 
 
 By virtue of s. 27, sub-s. 1, of the Lunacy Act, 
 1891, a Master in Lunacy when, under s. 128 of 
 the Lunacy Act, 1890, appointing a person to 
 exercise a power of appointing new trustees 
 'vmcti IS vested in a person lawfully detained as a 
 
 LTTNACY (Vesting Order) — continued. 
 lunatic, has jurisdiction also, under s. 129, tb 
 make an order vesting the trust property in the 
 new trustees when appointed. In re Fulleb 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. K. 170; [1900] 2 Ch. 551 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Langddle, 
 
 [1900] W. N. 248. See [1901] 1 Ch. 3. Next Case. 
 
 48. — Jurisdiction of master — Trust property 
 —Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. v. 5), ss. 116- 
 130, 136; 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. v. 65), s. 27, 
 tvh-s. 1. 
 
 A Master in Lunacy has not jurisdiction to 
 make a vesting order as to trust property which, 
 new trustees having been already appointed, 
 remains vested in the old trustees, one of whom 
 is a lunatic. A vesting order in such a case is 
 not part of the administration or management of 
 the lunatic's estate within s. 27, sub-s. 1, of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1891, which confers jurisdiction on 
 
 In re Fuller, [1900] 2 Ch. 551, distinguished. 
 In re Lahgdale - C. A. [1900] W. N. 248 ; 
 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 8 
 — Partition — Lunatic out of jurisdiction — Con- 
 veyance. 
 See Paetition. 9. 
 
 49. — Transfer of Consols — Form of order — 
 Lunatic sole trustee — Stock — Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 136, sub-ss. 1, 4 ; ss. 137, 
 142. 
 
 A person of unsound mind not so found being 
 sole trustee of a sum of Consols, the Judge in 
 Lunacy, upon the application of A. B., made an 
 order xmder the Acts of 1890 and 1891, that the 
 right to call for a transfer of, and to transfer into 
 his own name the Consols standing in the name 
 of the lunatic, and to receive the dividends 
 thereon, should vest in A. B., and that he should 
 transfer the Consols into his own name to be 
 held by him upon the trusts applicable thereon. 
 The Bank of England refused to act upon an 
 order in this form upon the ground that under 
 s. 137 of the Lunacy Act of 1890 some proper 
 officer of the bank iiould have been appointed 
 to make the transfer : — 
 
 Held, that the order made by the Judge in 
 Lunacy was right, and that the bank must act 
 upon it, and must allow the Consols to be trans- 
 ferred accordingly. 
 
 In re Gfregson, [1893] 3 Ch. 233, approved. 
 
 Per Chitty L.J. : The 137th section of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, applies, so far as the 136th 
 is concerned, only to sub-s. 4 thereof. In re 
 C. M. G. - - C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 324 
 
 60. — Trustee — Lunatic trustee — Appointment 
 of new trustees — Jurisdiction — Practice — Lunacy 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 116-119, 133- 
 143, Si2— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. e. 53), 
 ss. 25-41. 
 
 The High Court has jurisdiction under the 
 Trustee Act, 1893, to appoint a new trustee in 
 the place of a sole surviving trustee who is a 
 lunatic not so found. 
 
 The High Court has not jurisdiction in such a 
 case to make a vesting order. 
 
 Semble, where a vesting order is required, 
 resort should be had to the Lunacy jurisdiction. 
 In re M. - Stirling J. [1899] 1 Ch. 79 
 
( 1201 ) 
 
 biGESt 01^ CAgJiiS, l86l— 1906. 
 
 C 1262 ) 
 
 litlNACY (Vesting Oiier)— continued. 
 
 51. — Trustee — Reduction of number of trus- 
 tees—Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), 
 ss. 135, 136. 
 
 Where one of four trustees Lad been found 
 lunatic by inquisition, the Court made an order 
 vesting the trust estate in the three remaining 
 trustees. In re Legit - C. A. [1892] 1 Cli. 348 
 
 — Trustees, apportionment of new — Lunatic 
 trustee. 
 See Tetjstee — Vesting Order. 107. 
 
 52. — Victm'ia, Colony of — Person resident 
 abroad — " Vested " — Transfer to Master in Lunacy 
 in Victoria— Jurisdiction — Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 134 — Victoria Lunacy Act, 
 1890 (54 Vict. No. 1113), ss. 3, 124, 130, 131, 182, 
 229. 
 
 B. resident in Victoria was declared lunatic 
 by the Supreme Court, and the Master in Lunacy 
 was appointed to manage her property, which 
 
 LUNACY (Vesting Order) — continued. 
 
 consisted of English stocks standing in liar 
 
 name : — 
 
 Held, that the Court in Lunacy in England 
 liad jurisdiction to order a transfer of the stock 
 to the Master, in Lunacy in Victoria, and being 
 satisfied that all the stock was required for B. s 
 support and maintenance made the order prefaced 
 with a statement that the stock was "vested" 
 in the master within the meaning of s. 134 of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890. "Vested" in that section 
 includes the right to obtain and deal with, with- 
 out being actual owner of the lunatic's personal 
 estate. In re Brown - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 666 
 
 Discussed by Stirling J. In re De Linden, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 453, 457. 
 
 Considered by C. A. In re Knight, [1898] 
 1 Ch. 257. 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Ghatard's 
 Settlement, [1899] 1 Ch. 712, 718; Thiery v. 
 Chalmers, Guthrie & Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 80. 
 
( 1203 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 3891—1900. 
 
 ( 1204 ) 
 
 M. 
 
 HACEINEBT — dangerous and defective — 
 Employers' liability. 
 See Cases under Master and Sebvant. 
 
 — Examination of in coal mine. 
 
 See Mines — Coal Mines. 4. 
 
 — Mortgage of. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 38 — 40. 
 
 — Trade — Mortgage — Non-registration — In- 
 
 validity. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 44. 
 MADAGASCAE— Consular Court. 
 
 See Foreign Jurisdiction. 2. 
 MAGISTEATES. 
 
 See Justices. 
 
 MAINTENANCE— Death of objects of fund— 
 
 Unapijlied surplus — Eesulting trust for 
 
 subscribers. 
 
 See Trust. 5. 
 • — Divorce — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce. 
 
 — Husband and wife. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife. 
 
 — Infant. 
 
 See Cases under Infant — Maintenance. 
 Will — Advancement. 
 Will — Children. 
 
 — Lunatic. 
 
 See Lunacy — Maintenance. 
 
 — Pauper. 
 
 See Cases under Poor Law. 
 
 — School. 
 
 See Charity — Charity Commissioners. 
 13. 
 
 — Undischarged bankrupt. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy — Undis- 
 charged Bankrupt. 
 
 — Wilful refusal or neglect of person to main- 
 
 tain himself — Incapacity resulting from 
 
 drunkenness. 
 
 See Vagrancy. 2. 
 
 MAINTENANCE OF SECTTEITT. 
 
 See Bill or Sale. 24, 26. 
 
 MAINTENANCE OF SUIT. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor — Champerty, 
 
 MAJORITY- Owners of ship. 
 
 See Shipping — Sale. 214. 
 
 — Power to bind minority of debenture-holders. 
 
 See Company — Dehentures. 66 — 68. 
 
 — Shareholdtrs. 
 
 See Company — WiNDiKG-up — Voluntary, 
 241. 
 
 MALICE — Allegation of malice. 
 
 (a) a right of action cannot be extended by 
 aUeghig malice where without malice there 
 would be no cause of action. Chaffers v. Gold- 
 
 ^'"? N t/"'' ""'"= ^- C^*9*] 1 «• B. 186 at p. 191 
 
 (n, No use of property which would be legal 
 aue to a proper motive ciin become illegal 
 
 MALICE — continued. 
 
 because it is prompted by a motive which is 
 improper or malicious. Bradford Coepobation 
 v. Pickles - - H. L. (E.) [1895] A, C. 587 
 See dictum of Lord Shand. AUen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. C. 1, 167. 
 
 — Libel. 
 
 See Cases under Defamation — LibeL 
 
 — Maliciously inducing employer to discharge 
 
 servant — intent to injure. 
 See Action. 1. 
 
 MALICIOUS ABBEST. 
 
 See Shipping — Arrest. 6. 
 MALICIOUS DAMAGE. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Malicious Bamage, 
 
 MALICIOUS PEOSECUTION — Corporation — 
 Action against — Liability. 
 
 Conceded at the bar that an action for mali- 
 cious prosecution will lie against a corporation. 
 
 Decision of Darling J., [1899] W. N. 8 (4) ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 392, affirmed. Cornford r. Carl- 
 ton Bank Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 211 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 22 
 
 2. — Criminal proceeding — Tramway Com- 
 pany — Proceedings against passenger for refusing 
 to pay fare. 
 
 Proceedings under s. 51 of the Tramways 
 Act, 1870, against a passenger for refusing to 
 pay his fare are proceedings in respect of a 
 criminal offence, so that an action for malicious 
 prosecution will lie against the person taking 
 them. Eayson v. Souj h London Tramways Co. 
 C. A, [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 
 — Mens rea — Statutory offence. 
 
 See New South Wales. 29. 
 
 3. — ■ Jieascynahle and probable cause — Honest 
 belief of prosecutor — Evidence of malice. 
 
 Held, the absence of reasonable and probable 
 cause is some evidence from which malice may 
 be inferred. But a finding by a jury that the 
 deft, in an action for malicious prosecution 
 honestly believed in the guilt charged by him 
 will negative any inference which depended 
 solely on such evidence. In the absence of any 
 other evidence of indirect motive, ;i finding of 
 the jury that the deft, was actuated by malice 
 cannot be supported. Brown v. Hawkes 
 
 C. A, [1891] 2 Q, B, 718 
 
 " MALICIOUSLY," 
 
 See Action. 1, 4. 
 
 Criminal Law^ — Practice. 61. 
 Defamation— Libel, passim. 
 MALTA. 
 
 0. in C. relatioe to validity of unmixed and 
 mixed marriages in Malta. Pari. Papers, 1896, 
 [C. 7982]. Price id. 
 
 Appeals from Malta — 0. in C. dated Bee. 18, 
 1824, for regulating appeals to Her Majesty in 
 Council from the decisions of the Supreme Council 
 of Justice at Malta. St, E, & 0. 1899, p, 1688, 
 
( 1205 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1206 ) 
 
 HALTA.— continued. 
 
 ,!• — Primogenitura — Presumption that pre- 
 scribed Order of Succession is " regular." 
 
 The presumption of Maltese law is in favour 
 of a primogenitura of lands in Malta being 
 " regular," so as in each line of descent to admit 
 female in default of male issue of the last holder 
 in that line, in preference to male collaterals 
 descended from a common ancestor : — 
 
 Held, also, the natural construction of the 
 deed of primogenitura, executed in 1702, was 
 to the same effect. Soebekbas Teigona ■». Soe- 
 BBREAS d'Amico. P. C. [1892] A. C. 69 
 
 MANAGEMENT— Of charity. 
 
 See Chaeitt — Management. 
 
 — Company. 
 
 See CoMPANr — Management. 
 
 — Eailway. 
 
 See Eailwat — Management. 
 
 MANAGES— Bank. 
 
 See Banker. 5. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankbuptot — ^Manager. 
 
 — Discharge of receiver and manager — Final 
 
 account — ^Eight to indemnity. 
 See Eeoeitee — Discharge. 26. 
 
 — Managing director — Servant — Preferential 
 
 payments in bankruptcy. 
 
 See Compabt — ^Directois. 114. 
 
 — Foreclosure. 
 
 See Eeceivbe — Mortgage, 30. 
 Moetoage — roreclosure. 
 
 — Preference — Private Manager — Pledge — 
 
 Trust for creditors — Eight in security. 
 See Banejsuptot. 158. 
 
 — Eeceiver and. 
 
 See Eeceivee — Manager. 
 
 — Eeceiver and — Borrowing powers. 
 
 See Company. 1. 
 
 — Salary — Extra work done by receiver — Allow- 
 
 ances — Guarantee society 
 See PAETlfEESHTP. 42. 
 
 — Syndicate for speculation in shares — Power of 
 
 manager. 
 
 See Natai. 3. 
 MANAGES IN TRUST— The words "manager 
 in trust " appended to the signature of a bank 
 manager primarily import that he is a trustee 
 for his employers, and not that he stands in a 
 fiduciary position to any other person. London 
 AND Canadian Loan and Asency Co. v. Duggan 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 606 
 
 MANAGING CLEEK — Audience, Eight of — 
 Solicitor. 
 See County Ooukt — Practice. 65. 
 
 — Jury — Exemption. 
 
 See CoEONBR. 3. 
 
 MANAGING OWNER— Ship. 
 
 See Shipping — Managing Owner. 
 HANCSESTER— Manchester Canonries Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. e. 28), amends s. 20 of the Parish 
 of Manchester Dinsim Act, 1850 (13 * 14 Vict, 
 c. 41) — Application of proceeds of sale of canons^ 
 houses. 
 
 Notice to the District Begistrars of the High 
 
 KASOKESTER—contimied. 
 
 Court at Liverpool and. W. N. 1900 (Dec. 22), 
 
 p. 337. See Current Index, 1900, p. xoiy. 
 
 — Manchester Ship Canal (Surplus Lands) Act, 
 1893 — Illegality of contract. 
 
 See CoNTBAOT. 24. 
 
 MANDAMUS — Alternative remedy — Legal, 
 remedy — Duty of guardians to appoint 
 vaccination officer. 
 See Vaccination. 3. 
 
 1. — Mandamus — Alternative Remedy — 
 Scheme under Endowed Schools Act, 1869 (32 & 
 33 Vict. c. 56) — Construction — Jurisdiction of 
 Charity Commissioners. 
 
 A scheme, made under the Endowed Schools 
 Act, 1869, for the management of Christ's 
 Hospital School provides that a certain number 
 of the Council of Almoners shall be appointed 
 by the governors of the school on the nomination 
 of the London School Board ; and, by clause 143, 
 that " any question affecting the regularity or 
 the validity of any proceeding under this scheme 
 shall be determined conclusively by the Charity 
 Commrs." Upon an application by the school 
 board for a mandamus to compel the Charity 
 Commrs. to decide a question which had arisen 
 between the school board and the governors — 
 namely, whether a lady could under the scheme 
 be appointed an almoner : — 
 
 Held, that the mandamus ought not to issue. 
 
 By Wright and Bruce J.J. on the ground 
 that the applicants had alternative convenient 
 and effectual remedies — namely, by proceedings 
 to have the question decided under the Charitable 
 Trusts Act, 1853, s. 28, or by action against the 
 governors in the ordinary courts : 
 
 By "Wright J., also on the ground that the 
 question which the Charity Commrs. were asked 
 to decide was not a question affecting the regu- 
 larity or the validity of any proceeding under 
 the scheme within the meaning of clause 143. 
 Eeg. v. Charity Commes. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 407 
 
 — Building plans — ^Eefusal to approve. 
 
 See Streets — Building Plans. 9. 
 
 — County Council — Troops summoned to preserve 
 
 the peace — Expenses of maintenance — 
 
 Liability. 
 
 See County Council. 9. 
 
 — Footpath — Bridge. 
 
 See Eailway. 56. 
 
 — Illegal stoppage of pension, 
 
 See Police. 3. 
 
 — Inspection of register of unclaimed stock. 
 
 See Bank of England. 1. 
 
 2. — Lands Clauses Act — Arbitration — Award. 
 A prerogative writ of mandamus will be 
 
 granted to compel a ry. co. to take up an award 
 of compensation when made under the Lands 
 Clauses Act. Eeg. v. London and Noeth- 
 Westeen Ey. Co. Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft, B, 512 
 
 — Licensing Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 3. — Licensing Acts — Justices — Hearing and 
 determination according to law — Alehouse Act, 
 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 61), s. 4. 
 
 By 9 Geo. 4, c, 61, s. 4, licensing justices at 
 
( i2ot 3 
 
 bi&ESi' OF CASUS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1208 ) 
 
 TS.AV'DAIS.VS— continued. 
 
 special transfer sesBions have power to lioeuse 
 persons, " intending to keep inns theretofore kept 
 by other persons being about to remove from 
 such inns," to sell exciseable liquors by retail. 
 Justices, acting uuder that section, granted a 
 ^licence by way of transfer from a person who 
 was not and had not been in occupation of the 
 premises in respect of which he held it, and no 
 exciseable liquors had been sold upon those 
 premises for many years : — 
 
 Held, that as the justices had disregarded the 
 provisions of the statute giving them jurisdiction, 
 and must have acted upon some considerations 
 altogether outside that statute, they had not 
 heard and determined the matter according to 
 law, and that a mandamus ought to go com- 
 manding them BO to hear and determine it. Eeg. 
 u. Gotham Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 802 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. fieg. v. Manchester 
 Justices, [1899] 1 Q. B. 571, 576; Mackrell v. 
 Brentford Justices, [1900] 2 Q. B. 387, 390. 
 
 4. — Prosecutor — Legal right to apply for 
 mandamus — Vaccination Acts, 1867 to 1874 — 
 Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (51 & 55 Vict, 
 c. 76) — General Order of Local Government Board 
 under Vaccination Acts (_Oct. 31, 1874). 
 
 A metropolitan district board of works applied 
 for a mandamus to the guardians of the poor of 
 the district, commanding them to enforce the 
 provisions of the Vaccination Acts generally in 
 their district, and particularly in certain speci- 
 fied instances. The board of works were the 
 sanitary authority of the district, and charged by 
 the Public Health (Loudon) Act, 1891, with the 
 duty of putting in force the powers vested in 
 them relating to public health and local govern- 
 ment, some of which powers relate to and include 
 the prevention of infectious diseases, including 
 small-pox : — 
 
 Held, that the board of works had no legal 
 specific right to enforce the performance by the 
 guardians of their duties under the Vaccination 
 Acts, and therefore were not entitled to a man- 
 damus. Keg. v. Lbtvisham Union 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 a. B. 498 
 
 5, — Mefusal to receive evidcTioe properly 
 tendered — Jurisdiction — -Paving expenses. 
 
 On the hearing of a summons against an 
 owner to enforce payment of his apportioned 
 share, under s. 77 of the Metropolis Management 
 Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. o. 102), of the expenses 
 of paving a new street, a magistrate declined to 
 hear that the alleged amount had not been 
 actually expended, or that it included other than 
 paving expenses: — 
 
 Held, (1) upon the construction of the statute, 
 that the evidence was legally admissible ; (2) that 
 in rejecting it the magistrate had declined juris- 
 diction over a distinct branch of the inquiry open 
 before him, and that the appropriate remedy was 
 by mandamus to hear and determine the matter 
 of the complaint. Keg. v. Maesham 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft, B, 371 
 
 Explained by 0. A. Stroud v. Wandsworth 
 Board of Worhs, [1894] 2 Q. B. 1. 
 
 Eeferred to by G. A. Metropolitan District 
 uy. 00. V. Fulham Vestry, [1895] 2 Q. B. 413,448. 
 
 MANSAMirS — continued. 
 
 6. — Soyal warrant — Secretary of State for 
 War — Fay and retiring allowances — Army Act, 
 1881 (44 & 45 Viet. c. 58), «. 136. 
 
 A mandamus will not lie against the Secretary 
 of State for War to compel him to carry out the 
 terms of a royal warrant regulating the pay and 
 retiring allowances of the officers and soldiers of 
 the army, inasmuch as no legal duty towards 
 such officers and soldiers is imposed upon the 
 Secretary of State either by statute or at common 
 law, and his position is merely that of agent to 
 the Crown, and he is only liable to answer to the 
 Grown. Keg. v. Secketaet op State for Wak 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 326 
 
 7. — Second application after discharge of 
 first — Fresh materials. 
 
 The Court will not grant a second rule for a 
 prerogative writ of mandamus where the first has 
 been discharged, even though a demand and 
 refusal have taken place since the discharge of 
 the first. Keg. v. Bodmin Justices 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B, 21 
 
 — Separation order — Maintenance — Keduction 
 
 of — Discretion of justices. 
 See Husband and Wife — Summary 
 Jurisdiction. 92a. 
 
 — Sewers — Duty of local authority to make — 
 
 Kemedy for default. 
 See Sewehs. 2. 
 
 — To enforce judgment — Delay in commence- 
 
 ment of action — Ketrospective rate, 
 gee Kates. 68. 
 
 MANDATOBY INJUNCTION. 
 
 See Cases under Injunction. 
 
 MANITOBA— Law of Manitoba. 
 See Gases under Canada. 
 
 MANOR— Common . 
 See Common. 
 
 — Customary obligation to repair — Breach of 
 
 obligation by tenant — Eemedy of lord 
 against tenant's executors. 
 See Copyhold. 3. 
 
 — Mines — Reservation of — Working powers — 
 
 Manorial rights. 
 See Inolosubb. 3. 
 
 — Eight to seize without the manor — Heriot. 
 
 See CopTHOLD. 5. 
 
 MANSION-HOUSE— Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land —Mansion-house. 
 MANSLATTGHTER. 
 
 See Cases under Cbiminal Law. 
 
 MANUSCRIPT— Inspection of original— Libel in 
 newspaper. 
 See DisoovEKY. 24. 
 
 MAORI— Will of Maori. 
 
 See New Zealand. 10. 
 
 MAP. 
 
 See Copyright — Book, 4. 
 Criminal Law — Evidence. 
 
 21. 
 
 MARGARINE. 
 
 See Adultekation — Margarine. 
 Margarine, and Margarine Cheese, Eng- 
 land.] Order of Loc. Govt. Bd., dated Fell. 26, 
 
( 1209 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1210 ) 
 
 MASGAEINE— eo«Mmue(i. 
 
 1900, as to registration of manufactories and of 
 •premises of wholesale dealers in margarine and 
 margarine cheese. St. E. & 0. 1903, Ho. 123. 
 MARINE INSURANCE. 
 
 See Inscrakce — Marine. 
 
 MARITAL COERCION— New Zealand Oriminal 
 Code. 
 See New Zealand. 4. 
 
 MARITIME LIEN. 
 
 iSiee Cases under Shipping- 
 
 -lien. 
 
 MARKETS AND FAIRS. 
 
 Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 
 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 70), amends the Markets 
 and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887 (50 & 51 
 Vict. c. 27). 
 
 The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) 
 Betums (England) Order, 1896, dated Dec. 27, 
 1895. St. R. & 0. 1896, No. 598. Price id. 
 
 — Borougli franchise — Oocnpiers of stalls. 
 
 See Paeliambnt — FranoMse. 138. 
 
 1. — By-laws — Ultra vires — Markets and 
 Fairs Clauses Act, 1847 (10 * 11 Vict. c. 14), s. 42 
 — Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 cfc 58 Viet. 
 V. 67), «. 32, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, s. 32, 
 Bub-s. 2, incorporated with the said Act the 
 Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847, and s. 42 
 of the latter Act provides that the undertakers 
 (authorized by the special Act to regulate a 
 market or fair) may, from time to time, make 
 such by-laws as they think fit (inter alia) " For 
 regulating the use of the market-place and fair, 
 and the buUdiugs, stalls, pens, and standings 
 therein ; and for preventing nuisances or obstruc- 
 tions therein, or in the immediate approaches 
 thereto." 
 
 A local authority purporting to act in the 
 exercise of the powers of the above Acts made a 
 by-law to the effect that sale-rings at a public 
 market belonging to it should not " be used for 
 private sales, or for sales to any limited number 
 of persons, or for sales in which any class of the 
 public are excluded from bidding or buying " : — 
 
 Seld, afSrming the decision of Ct. of Seas. 
 (1899) 1 P. 665 ; 36 S. L. K. 458 (Lord Shand dis- 
 senting), that the by-law was not ultra vires. 
 Scott v. Glasgow Cobpobation 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 119 1 [1899] A. C. 470 
 
 — Cattle market — Charges — Special Act. 
 
 See LivEBPOOL ConBTS. 3. 
 
 — Pedlar selling in market. 
 
 See Pedlab. 
 
 2. — Sale within prescribed limits — Licensed 
 hawlcer — Exemption — Sai!e iy licensed hawker of 
 goods for which licence unnecessary — Penalty — 
 Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 
 Vict. ti. 14), s. 13. 
 
 A licensed hawker, although he is selling 
 goods for which a hawker's licence is not re- 
 quired, is " a licensed hawker " within the mean- 
 ing of s. 13 of the Markets and Fairs Clauses 
 Act, 1847, and, therefore, is not liable to the 
 penalty imposed by the Act upon every person 
 " other than a licensed hawker " who, after the 
 market-place is open for public use, sella within 
 the prescribed limits articles in respect of which 
 
 MARKETS AND "E &.lB.%~-continued. 
 tolls are by the special Act authorized to be taken 
 in the market. Llandudno Ubban Distbiot 
 ConNOiL V. HoGHES Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 26 ; 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 472 
 
 3. — Statutory market — Disturbance — Lia- 
 bility to penalty — Sale of cattle— Derogation from 
 grant — Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847 
 (10 * 11 Vict. c. 14), «. 13— Public Bealth Act, 
 1875 (38 * 89 Vict. c. 55), s. 166. 
 
 A cattle salesman occupied premises under 
 leases granted by a municipal corporation with 
 covenants for quiet enjoyment, and used the 
 premises for the sale of cattle. The corporation, 
 after the grant of the leases, acting as urban 
 autliority, established a cattle market in the 
 borough, and published a list of tolls. The sales- 
 man was convicted of selling cattle on the said 
 premises, which were within the borough, but not 
 within the limits of the market :— 
 
 Seld, (1) that the creation of the borough 
 market was not a derogation from the grant of 
 the leases ; (2) that the leases gave no right to 
 sell cattle within s. 166 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, with which the corporation could not inter- 
 fere by establishing a market ; (3) that the sales- 
 man was liable to a penalty under s. 13 of the 
 Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847. Spoeling 
 V. Bantojt - - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 384 
 
 4. — Statutory market — Rival market — In- 
 fringement. 
 
 The pits, held a cattle market under the 
 Birmingham Corporation Consolidated Act, 1883, 
 s. 90 whereof imposed a penalty on any person 
 for selling, &c., any animal " except in some 
 market or fair lawfully authorized or in his own 
 dwelling-house, shop, or place of business," or in 
 those of the intended buyer. Six pig-dealers in 
 Birmingham formed an association, and opened 
 premises there for the sale of pigs. The pre- 
 mises consisted of a yard roofed with glass and 
 divided into pens, a caretaker's liouse, and a room 
 for the use of the public. Each of the six dealers 
 rented a portion of the pens, &c., for the use of 
 his business : — 
 
 Seld, that the premises did not come vrithin 
 the above exception, that the pits.' statutory 
 rights were being infringed, and an injunction 
 granted. Bibmingham Cobpobation v. Foster 
 
 Romer J. [1894] W. N. 43 
 And see Pedlab. 
 
 MARKET GARDEN. 
 
 By the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 
 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. o. 27), the law as to com- 
 pensation for improvements executed in or upon 
 market gardens was amended. 
 
 — Breach of covenant in agricultural lease — 
 
 Glass-houses. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Agricul- 
 tural Holdings. 10. 
 
 — Compensation — Market gardener — " Contract 
 
 of tenancy." 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Agricul- 
 tural Holdings, 5. 
 
 — Eating — " Agricultural land " — " Buildings " 
 
 — Glass-houses. 
 See Rates. 34. 
 
( 1211 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1212 ) 
 
 KASEET OYERT—Sale in show-room, above shop 
 — Custom of City of London. 
 
 Jewels were sold to a jeweller in the City of 
 London in a show-room over his shop which 
 customers were allowed to enter only hy special 
 invitation : — 
 
 Held, that the sale was not a sale in market 
 overt in accordance with the custom of the City 
 of London. 
 
 Bemhle, that that custom does not apply where 
 the shopkeeper is the purchaser and not the 
 seller. Haegbeave ». Spink. 
 
 Wills J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 25 
 
 See Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 0. 71). 
 
 MAEKETABLE SECTJEITY. 
 
 See Bevenue — Stamps. 175. 
 
 UABBIAOE. 
 
 By the Foreign Marriage Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 74), the Foreign Marriage Acts were 
 amended. [This Act was repealed hy that of 
 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 23).] 
 
 Foreign Marriage Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict, 
 c. 23), consolidates the law as to marriages of 
 British subjects ahroad. 
 
 Marriage Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict. c. 58), 
 amends the law relating to the attendance of 
 Registrars at marriages in Nonconformist places 
 of worship. 
 
 Marriages Validity Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. 
 V. 27), removes doubts as to the validity of certain 
 marriages. 
 
 Rules and Begs, under Marriage Act, 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 58), for guidance of Authorized 
 Persons and of Trustees or Governing Bodies of 
 Begistered Buildings in which Marriages may be 
 solemnized imithout the presence of a Begistrar. 
 Made by the Registrar- General, Feb. 21, 1899. 
 Apprm^ by Loc. Govt. Ed., Feb. 22, 1899. St. 
 E. & 0. 1899, pp. 885, 913, Kos. 77, 78. Price 
 2id. and Id. 
 
 — In Burma — Evidence of validity. 
 
 See DivoKOE. 82. 
 
 — Colonial marriage— Evidence of validity. 
 
 See Divorce. 80. 
 
 — Condition— Will. 
 
 See Will— Condition. 139. 
 
 — Consular marriage — Consular marriage in 
 
 France — Frenchman and Englishwoman 
 — Validity of ceremony. 
 See CoNrLiOT oe Laws. 10. 
 
 — Deceased wife's sister — Settlement — Illegality, 
 
 See Settlement. 31. 
 
 — Divorce. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce. 
 
 — Domicil — Conflict of laws. 
 
 See Cases under Domicil. 
 
 — Effect of — Joint tenancy — Severance. 
 
 See Joint Tenancy. 2. 
 
 — International law. 
 
 See Cases under Conflict oe Laws, 
 Domicil, and International Law. 
 
 — Ireland — Marriage in Protestant Episcopalian 
 
 Church— Certifioate—Proof of marriage 
 — Evidence. 
 See Ireland. 2. 
 
 IKABEIAGE — continued. 
 
 — Eemarriage — Gift to son and his wife and 
 
 children in succession — ^Eemarriage of 
 
 son after date of will. 
 
 See Will — Marriage. 141. 
 
 — Eemarriage — Guardianship — Protestant 
 
 parents — Mother surviving — Sole guar- 
 dian — Eoman Catholic husband. 
 See Infant. 14. 
 
 — Eemarriage — Widow — Gifts over accelerated. 
 
 See Will — Forfeiture. 91. 
 
 — Eestraint on marriage. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Marriage. 
 
 — Eevocation of will by — Change of domicil. 
 
 See Conelict op Laws. 16. 
 
 1. — Validity — Capacity to contract — Domi- 
 ciled British subjects — Jews — Prohibited degrees of 
 consanguinity — Solemnization according to Jewish 
 rites — Lex domicilii — Marriage Acts, 1835 (5 A 6 
 Will. 4, c. 54), s. 2 ; 1836 (6 4 7 Will. 4, c. 85), 
 s. 2 ; 1840 (3*4 Vict. c. 72), s. 5. 
 
 The capacity of persons professing the Jewish 
 religion who are also domiciled British subjects 
 to contract marriage is regulated by the law of 
 England. 
 
 Therefore, where a marriage was solemnized 
 ahroad according to Jewish rites between a niece 
 and her maternal uncle, both the contracting 
 parties being at the time of the solemnization 
 domiciled British subjects and adherents of the 
 Jewish faith, and the marriage being valid by the 
 Jewish law : — 
 
 Held, that the marriage was invalid. In re 
 De Wilton. De Wilton v. Montefiore 
 
 [1890] W. S. 163; [1900] 2 Ch. 481 
 
 2. — Validity — Solemnization by clergyman 
 of the Established Church on board a British war- 
 ship without licence or banns — Subsequent adultery 
 — Dissolution of WMrriage. 
 
 A marriage between British subjects, solemn- 
 ized on board an English man-of-war at a foreign 
 station by a clergyman of the Established Church 
 without licence or banns, is valid. 
 
 The petitioner, an ofScer in Her Majesty's 
 army, was married in 1884 to the respondent, 
 also a British subject, on board one of Her 
 Majesty's ships, then lying at Limasol, in Cyprus, 
 where the petitioner was stationed. The cere- 
 mony was performed by the chaplain of the vessel, 
 a clergyman of the Established Cliurch. There 
 had been no publication of banns, and no licence 
 had been obtained : — 
 
 Held, that there had been a valid marriage 
 according to the common law of this country, and 
 that, upon proof of the respondent's adultery, the 
 petitioner was entitled to a decree nisi for disso- 
 lution of the marriage. Culling v. Culling 
 
 [1896] P. 116 
 
 MAERIAGE CONTEACT — Promise by wife's 
 father to leave her " a share '' of his 
 estate — Specific performance. 
 See Husband and Wife. 37. 
 
 — Scottish marriage contract. 
 
 See Cases under Scottish Law — Hus- 
 band and Wife. 
 
 MABEIAGE SETTLEMENT. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement. 
 
( 1213 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 12U ) 
 
 UABKIES WOUAN. 
 
 See Husband and Wirs. 
 
 HABSH LANDS— Depreciation of— Waste by 
 tenant for life — Damages. 
 See Settled Land. 89. 
 
 MARSHALLING. 
 
 See ExEODTOB — Admimstration. 9. 
 Chabity— Gift to Charity. 24. 
 
 — Assets — Bottomry — Necessaries. 
 
 See Shippino — Necessaries. 178. 
 
 — Mortgage estate — Pecuniary legatee and 
 
 annuitants — Priorities. 
 See Will. 147. 
 
 — Eedemption of two properties. 
 
 See MoBTQAQE — ^Redemption. 65. 
 
 — Will — Debts and legacies. 
 
 SeeiWiLL — Charge of Debts, &c. 33. 
 
 UASTER — Jurisdiction of — Begulation of rail- 
 ways. 
 See Eailway. 47. 
 
 — Master in Lunacy — ^Powers and jurisdiction. 
 
 See Lunacy — Powers. 27, 28, 
 
 — Note of registrar of — Evidence — Proceedings 
 
 in chambers. 
 See DiTOSCE. 3. 
 
 MASTER AND SEAMAN. 
 
 See Cases under Shtppinq — Seamen. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 Conoiliatim Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Viet. c. 30), 
 makes hetter provision for tile prevention and settle- 
 ment of trade disputes. 
 
 Truck Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 44), amends 
 tU Truck Acts, 1831 and 1887. 
 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. u. 37), amends the law as to compensation to 
 workmen for accidental injuries. 
 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897.] Work- 
 men's Compensation Mules, 1898, dated May 27, 
 1898. W. N. 1898 (June 18), p. 213. See Correut 
 Index, 1898, p. ciz. 
 
 Appeals under. See W. N. 1898 (July 9), 
 p. 2S3; (Aug. 13), p. 279. See Current Index, 
 1898, p. CTii. 
 
 Fees under — County Courts. See W. N. 1898 
 (Deo. 17), p. 407. See Current Index, 1898, p. 
 cxxxiz. 
 
 Medical Befeeees.] Regulations, dated 
 May 2, 1898, made hy Secy, of State and the 
 Treasury as to Appointment and Payment of 
 Medidal Beferees in England and Wales. W. N. 
 1898 (June 25), p. 2S9. See Current Index, 1898, 
 p. cxxxix. 
 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. c. 37) — Costs, &c. — The Workmen's Compen- 
 sation Bides, September 1st, 1899. W. N. 1899 
 (Sept. 9), p. 271. iSee Current Index, 1899, p. 
 cxxviii. 
 
 Agbioultoeb.] Workman's Compensation Act, 
 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 22), extends the hmefits of 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 <fc 61 
 Vict. c. 37), to workmen in agriculture. 
 In General, col. 1214. 
 Compensation, col. 1214. 
 Compromise. See Compbomisb. 
 
 MASTER AND SIRVAIXI— continued. 
 Contract, col. 1233. 
 Dismissal, col. 1234. 
 Faxitory Acts, col. 1234. 
 Hiring, col. 1237. 
 Intimidation, eol. 1238. 
 Master's Liability, col. 1238, 
 Practice, col. 1244. 
 Trade Secrets, col. 1247. 
 Truck, col. 1248. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Director — Exclusive right to services. 
 
 See Company — ^Directors. 102. 
 
 — Maliciously inducing employer to discharge — 
 
 Interference with trade. 
 See Action. 1. 
 
 — Managing director of a company — Preferential 
 
 payments in bankruptcy — "Clerk or 
 
 servant." 
 
 See Company — Directors. 114. 
 
 — Policy of insurance against accident — Stamp 
 
 duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 164. 
 
 — Eailway servants. 
 
 See Eailway — Railway Servants. 
 
 — Eeoeipt — Money received by servant on 
 
 account of master and handed over to 
 fellow - servant — Acknowledgment of 
 receipt by fellow-servant. 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 178. 
 
 — Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Master and Servant. 
 
 — Seamen. 
 
 See Cases under Shippino-^ Seaman. 
 
 — Service franchise — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Paeliament — Eranchise, 121 — 
 137. 
 
 — Shops. 
 
 See Cases under Shop. 
 
 — Stamps — " Policy of insurance against acci- 
 
 dent " — ^Workmen's compensation. 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 164. 
 
 Compensation. 
 
 1. — " Accident " — Injury by accident — Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. e. 37), 
 «. 1, svh-s. 1. 
 
 The word "accident," as used in the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897, involves the idea 
 of something fortuitous and unexpected. 
 
 Where a workman suffers injury while doing 
 his ordinary work in his ordinary way, and the 
 primary and efScient cause of the injury is his 
 diseased or impaired physical condition at the 
 time, the injury is not caused by accident within 
 the meaning of the Act. Where, however, in- 
 jury is caused to a workman by some fortuitous 
 and external event, it is caused by accident 
 within the meaning of the Act, although the 
 injury may be aggravated by his physical con- 
 dition at the time of the accident. Hensey v. 
 White. Lloyd v. Sugg & Co. Walkeb «. 
 LiLLESHALL CoAL Co. C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 481 
 
( 1215 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1216 ) 
 
 MASTEK AND SERVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 continued. 
 2. — Building — Constrttetion or repair — 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. 
 V. 37), s. 7. 
 
 The House reversed the decision of the C. A., 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 1018, and restored the award of 
 the county court judge, the respondents to pay 
 the appellant her costs here and below, to be 
 taxed in the manner usual when the appellant 
 sues in forma pauperis. Lords Shand and Lindley 
 dissenting. Hoedinott v. Newton, Chambers 
 & Co. - H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 269 
 
 See also Maude v. Broolc, [1900] 1 Q. B. 575, 
 578. 
 
 — Building constructed by means of a scaffolding. 
 iSee Nos. il, 42, ielow. 
 3. — Building — Height of— Personal injury 
 to worhman — Construction or repair — Worhmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. v. 37), 8. 7, 
 svh-s. 1. 
 
 A building, which measured twenty-eight 
 feet in height from the ground to the parapet 
 and thirty-six feet to the ridge of the roof, was 
 erected as stables for an omnibus company. Six 
 months after its completion and after the com- 
 mencement of its use as stables the company em- 
 ployed a firm of ironmasters to strengthen the 
 building by introducing iron stays which were 
 fastened to the girders and the upright iron 
 columns supporting the building. A workman 
 in the employ of the ironmasters, while standing 
 inside the building at a height of eight feet from 
 the ground upon a structure composed of scaffold 
 boards resting on ledgers secured to the iron 
 columns and supported in the middle by trestles, 
 fell while lifting one of the iron stays and receiyed 
 injuries which proved fatal : — 
 
 Held, that the building was a building ex- 
 ceeding thirty feet in height within the meaning' 
 of s. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897; that for the purposes of that section 
 it was immaterial whether the scaffolding «as 
 inside or outside the building; but that the 
 building was not being " constructed or repaired," 
 and that therefore the employment was not " an 
 employment on, in or about a building which 
 exceeds thirty feet in height and is either being 
 constructed or repaired by means of a scaffold- 
 ing," within the meaning of that section. HoD- 
 dik'ott v. Newton, Chambers & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B, 1018 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Maude v. Brooh, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 575, 578. 
 
 4. — Building exceeding thirty feet inheight — 
 Ihnployment — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, sui-s. 1. _ 
 
 Internal communication between a building 
 over thirty feet high and an adjoining building 
 less than that height, coupled with the fact that 
 the same business is carried on in both buildings, 
 is not evidence to justify a finding that the lower 
 building is a part of the higher and that a work- 
 man injured while engaged in demolishing the 
 lower building is employed on the demolition of 
 a building exceeding thirty feet in height within 
 the meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897. RlxsoM v. Pritchard 
 & Benwick - C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 800 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— 
 continued. 
 
 5. — Building exceeding thirty feet in lieight 
 — Fersonal injury l)y accident — Employment — 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 37), 8. 1 ; 8. 7, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Where an accident happens to a workman 
 employed on, in, or about a building in the 
 course of construction which, although intended 
 when completed to exceed thirty feet in height, 
 does not at the time of the accident exceed that 
 height, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, 
 does not apply. Billingb v. Hollow at 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 70; [1898] W. N. 159 (8) 
 
 6. — Building not exceeding thirty feet in 
 height — Machinery— Compensation for injury by 
 accident — Employment — Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7. nub-s. 1. 
 
 The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, • 
 applies to employment on, in, or about a building 
 on which machinery driven by steam, water, or 
 other mechanical power, is being used for the 
 purpose of the construction, repair, or demolition 
 thereof, although the building does not exceed 
 thirty feet in height. Mellob v. Tomkinson & 
 Co. - - - C. A. [1899]W. N. 8(2); 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 374 
 
 7. — Building repaired by means of a " scaf- 
 folding" — " Bepairs" — Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The outside of a house, more than thirty feet 
 high, was being painted by workmen using 
 ladders for the purpose; one of the men was 
 killed by the breaking of the rung of the ladder 
 on which he was standing. There was a board, 
 one end of which was tied to a rung of one of the 
 ladders, the other end resting on the sill of a 
 window : — 
 
 Beld, that the house was not being constructed 
 or repaired by means of a scaffolding, and that 
 the Act did not apply. 
 
 Painting the outside of ahouse is not "repair," 
 nor are ladders " scaffolding " within the mean- 
 ing of the above section. Wood v. Walsh & 
 Sons - - 0. A, [1899] W. N. 35 (8) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 1009 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Maude v. Brook, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 575, 581. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. ilfason v. A. B. Dean, 
 Ld., [1900] 1 Q. B. 770, 773. 
 
 8. — Contractor — Independent contra.ctor — 
 Plumber — Negligence — Liability of employer — 
 Dangerous work on highway — Collateral negligence. 
 
 The defts., a telephone co., were lawfully 
 engaged in laying telephone wires along a street. 
 They passed the wires through tubes which they 
 laid in a trench under the level of the pavement. 
 The defts. contracted with a plumber to connect 
 these tubes at the joints with lead and solder to 
 the satisfaction of the defts.' foreman at the sum 
 of 12s. per joint. There was evidence that the 
 work was done by the plumber under the super- 
 vision of the defts'. foreman, and that one of their 
 men was assisting him in it. In order to make the 
 connections between the tubes,- it was necessary to 
 obtain a flare from a benzoline lamp, which could 
 not be done without the application of heat to 
 the lamp. The lamp used for the purpose was 
 
( 1217 ) 
 
 Did^Esl? OS" CASES, isoi— iiido. 
 
 ( l2is 5 
 
 MASTEE AND SERVANT (Compensation) — 
 
 contimied. 
 provided with a safety-valve. The plumber, for 
 the purpose of obtaining the necessary flare, 
 dipped the lamp into a caldron of melted solder, 
 which was placed over a fire on the footway for 
 the purpose of the work, and which" was un- 
 protected by any screen or tent. Dipping the 
 lamp into the solder would have been a proper 
 and usual mode of obtaining the flare provided 
 the lamp had been in good order. The safety- 
 valve of the lamp not being in working order, as 
 the plumber ought to have known, the lamp 
 exploded, with the result that the pit. who' was 
 passing on the highway was splashed by the 
 molten solder and thereby injured. In an action 
 by him against the defts. in the City of London 
 Court for damages in respect of the injuries so 
 occasioned to him, the deputy judge held that 
 the plumber was not doing the work as an 
 ind^endent contractor, but under the defts.' 
 supervision and control, and that the defts. 
 were responsible for his negligence as above 
 mentioned : — 
 
 Held (reversing the Div. Ct., [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 221), that the judgment of the deputy judge was 
 right on the grounds, first, that there was 
 evidence that the defts. and the plumber were 
 jointly engaged in the performance of the work 
 under such circumstances as to render the defts. 
 liable for ^the negligence of which the plumber 
 had been guilty ; and, secondly, that, even if 
 the plumber were an independent contractor, the 
 defts., having authorized the performance upon a 
 highway of work, which from its nature was 
 likely to involve danger to persons using the 
 highway, were bound to take care that those who 
 executed the work for them did not negligently 
 cause injury to such persons. Hollidat v. 
 National Telephone Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 119 ; [1899] 2 Q,. B. 392 
 
 9. — " Dependants " — WorTtmen't Compensa- 
 tion Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Tict. c. 37), s. 7, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Held, that, in order to bring himself within 
 the Act as a " dependant," an applicant for com- 
 pensation must shew that he was to some extent 
 dependent upon the earnings of the deceased 
 workman for the ordinary necessaries of life, 
 having regard to his class and position in life ; it 
 is insufficient that he merely derived pecuniary 
 benefit from such earnings. Whether an appli- 
 cant is in that sense a dependant is a question of 
 fact in each particular case. Simmons v. White 
 Brothebs - - C. A. [1899] W. N. 32 (2) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 1005 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (E.) Main Colliery Co. 
 v.iJacies, [1900] A. 0.358. 
 
 10. — Dependants — Evidence of dependency on 
 child's earnings — Standard of living — Worlcmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), ». 7, 
 sub-s. 2. 
 
 A father earning wages may be in part de- 
 pendent upon the earnings of his child within 
 the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897, and there is evidence upon which the 
 father may be found to be in fact so dependent 
 and to be entitled to compensation for the death 
 of the child, where it is proved that the child 
 contributed to the family wages fund, that the 
 
 MASTEB AND SERVANT (Compensation) — 
 
 continued. 
 father received the contribution and spent it iii 
 maintaining himself and hia family. 
 
 Whether there is dependency is entirely a 
 question of fact in each case, irrespective of the 
 standard of living in the neighbourhood or the 
 class to which the family belong. The Act sets 
 up no such standard ; the actual means of living 
 and expenditure need alone be regarded. (See 
 the judgments of Earl of Halsbury L.C. and 
 Lord Davey ; Lord Shand contra.) 
 
 Simmons v. White Brothers, [1899] 1 Q. Bi 
 1005, discussed. Main Colliery Co. v. Davies 
 H. I. (E.) [1900] A. C. 358 
 
 — Dependants, Investment for benefit of. 
 See No. 30, below. 
 
 11. — Dock — Loading from — Employment on, 
 in or about a factory — Machinery to which any 
 provision of the Factory Acts applies — Steam- 
 wiruih on ship in dock loading from lighter along- 
 side—Factory and Workshop Act, 1895 (58 & 59 
 Vict. 0. 37), s. 23 — Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7. 
 
 By s. 7, sub-s. 2, of tlie Workmen's Compen- 
 sation Act, 1897, " factory .... includes any 
 .... machinery or plant to which any provision 
 of the Factory Acta is applied by the Factory 
 and Workshop Act, 1895." 
 
 By s. 23, sub-s. 1, of the Factory and Work- 
 shop Act, 1895, certain provisions of the Factory 
 Acts are to have effect " as if every dock, wharf, 
 quay, and warehouse, and, so far as relates to 
 the process of loading or unloading therefrom or 
 thereto, all machinery and plant used in that 
 process .... were included in the word 
 factory. 
 
 A stevedore's labourer sustained injury by an 
 accident while employed on board a steamer 
 lying in dock in loading cargo on to the steamer 
 from a lighter lying alongide ; the cargo was 
 lifted out of the lighter and lowered into the 
 hold by means of a steam-winch on the ship's 
 deck : — 
 
 Held, that loading from the lighter into the 
 ship was not loading from the dock; that the 
 steam-winch was not a factory, it not being 
 machinery used in the process of loading from a 
 doclr, wharf, quay or warehouse witliin the mean- 
 ing of s. 23 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 
 1895, and that the workman was not entitled to 
 compensation under the Workmen's Compensa- 
 tion Act, 1897. Hennessey 17. McCabe 
 
 C. A, [1900] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Spencer v. Livetl, Frank & 
 Son, [1900] 1 Q. B. 498, 501. See next Case. 
 
 12. — Dock — Bepairs done to ship in dock— 
 " Factory " — " Shipbuilding yard " — " Premises 
 in which ships are made, finished or repaired " — 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict, 
 c. 37), 8. 7 — Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Vict. 0. 16), 8. 93, Sched. IV., Part JI 
 (24). 
 
 The fact that repairs are being done to a ship 
 in a dock does not make the dock a " shipbuild- 
 ing yard" within the meaning of the Factory 
 and Workshop Act, 1878, Sched. IV., Part II. 
 (24), and therefore a "factory " within the raean- 
 
 2 B 
 
( l2l9 ) 
 
 MCtfiS* Of CASES, 18&1— 1§00, 
 
 ( im 
 
 MASTEE AND SEEVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 continited. 
 ing of 8. 7 of the Workmen's Compenaalion Act, 
 1897. Spenoer v. Livbtt, Pbank & Son 
 
 C, A [1900] W. N. 34; [1900] 1 Q. B. 498 
 
 13. — Amount of compensation — Review of 
 weelily payment — Worlimen's Compensation Act 
 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I., dame 12. 
 
 An application under Sched. I., clause 12, of 
 ihe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, for the 
 review of a weekly payment cannot be enter- 
 tained, where there has been no change in the 
 circumstances of the ease since the weekly pay- 
 ment was awarded. 
 
 Per A. L. Smith and Eomer L.JJ. (V. Wil- 
 liams L.J. doubting). CROSsriELD & SoKS, Ld. 
 V. Tanian - C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 629 
 
 14. — Amount of compensation — Weekly earn- 
 ings — Accident causing injury — Workmen's Com- 
 pensation Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 37), Sclied. I., 
 clauses 1 (6), 2. 
 
 Sched. I., clause 2, of the Workmen's Com- 
 pensation Act, 1897, which provides that in 
 fixing the amount of a weekly payment regard is 
 to bo had to the difference between the average 
 weekly earnings of the workman before the acci- 
 dent and the average amount which he is able to 
 earn after the accident, does not operate so as 
 necessarily to cut down the maximum rate of 
 compensation allowed by clause 1 (6) of the 
 schedule. Illingworth v. Walmslet 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 142 
 
 15. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings — 
 Alteration of charaMer of em,ployment and rate of 
 pay — Accident to workman — Workmen's Com- 
 pensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), 
 Sched. I., 1 (6). 
 
 A workman was employed for a period of 
 twelve months by the same employer. During 
 that period the character of his employment was 
 altered and the amount of his wages increased. 
 At the end of the twelve niionths he met with an 
 accident which partially incapacitated him : — 
 
 Held, that the change in tbe character of tho 
 employment did not affect the compensation to 
 which he was entitled under the first schedule to 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, which 
 should be arrived at from his average weekly 
 earnings during the whole of the previous twelve 
 months. Price v. J. Mabsdbn & Sons 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 493 
 
 16. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings — 
 Break in employment — Injury to workman result- 
 ing in death — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I., clause 1 (a), (i.) 
 
 A workman met with an accident which inca- 
 pacitated him from work for eleven' months ; he 
 then went back to work with the same master, 
 being employed on a different class of work and 
 at lower wages. About eighteen months after 
 resuming work he met with a fatal accident 
 arising out of and in the course of his employ- 
 ment : — • 
 
 Held, that in ascertaining the workman's 
 average weekly earnings for the purpose of assess- 
 ing the compensation payable to his dependants 
 under Sched. I., clause 1 (a), (i.), of the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897, regard could only 
 be had to the period of employment between his 
 
 MASTEE AND SEEVANT (Compensation)^ 
 
 continued. 
 return to work and the date of the accident, and 
 that, this period being less than three years, the 
 amount of compensation was 156 times his average 
 weekly earnings during that period. Appleby 
 v. HoRSELET Co. C. A. [1899] 2 Q, B. 521 
 
 17. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings — 
 Break in employment — Strike — Personal injury 
 by accident — TFor/cmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), Sched. I., clause 1 (6). 
 
 A workman was employed by a firm of coal- 
 owners from Oct. 3, 1897, to March 31, 1898, 
 when the workman went out on strike and the 
 contract of employment was duly determined by 
 notice. He remained on strike for five months, 
 and on Sept. 12, 1898, again entered the service 
 of the same employers under a fresh contract 
 of employment containing different terms; on 
 Oct. 3, 1898, he was injured by an accident arising 
 out of and in the course of his employment : — 
 
 Held, that the period of employment contem- 
 plated by Sched. I., clause 1 (6), was a substan- 
 tially continuous employment during which the 
 relation of master and servant substantially ex- 
 isted between the employer and workman, and 
 that therefore, in ascertaining the workman's 
 average weekly earnings, regard could only be 
 had to the period of employment between the 
 end of the strike and the date of the accident, 
 the employment before the strike having been 
 duly determined by the act of the parties. Jones 
 V. Ocean Coal Co. - [1899] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 18. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings — 
 Continuous employment — Employment for tico days 
 a week — Earnings outside employment — Work for 
 same or other employers — Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), 1st Sched. (1), (6). 
 
 A workman was under an agreement to work 
 for his employers on the nights of Thursday and 
 Friday in each week, for a period extending over 
 two weeks, and at a fixed rate of wages for each 
 night. During the rest of each week he worked 
 at times for the same employers, when they had 
 work to give him, and at other times for other 
 firms carrying on a simiLir business to that of 
 the employers. The workman was injured during 
 the third week of his employment under the 
 agreement. He claimed compensation, and an 
 award was made in his favour based on the 
 weekly wages earned by him in respect of the 
 two nights a week during which he worked under 
 the agreement. On appeal : — 
 
 Held, that the employment for two nights a 
 week was a continuous one, and that the earnings 
 on those two nights were properly taken into 
 account in determining the weekly payment to 
 be made to the applicant: — 
 
 Held, also, that the amount received for casual 
 work done for the same or different employers 
 could not be taken into account in estimating the 
 average weekly earnings of the applicant. 
 Hathaway v. .^rgus Printing Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. K. 247 ; see [1901] 1 Q, B. 96 
 
 19. — Earnings^Averaye weekly earnings 
 
 Deductions from wages — Workmen's Compensation. 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), \st Sched. (1) (a) 
 
 The application was made by the widow of a 
 
( 1221 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1222 ) 
 
 MASTEE AND SERVANT (Compensation) — 
 
 continiied. 
 man who met with hia death by an accident while 
 working in a colliery. His full wages were 
 11. 10s. lid. a week, but from this sum was 
 deducted 6d. a week for lamp oil supplied by the 
 employers. The award was made on the basis of 
 the wages as they stood without the deduction : — 
 Meld, that the principle on which the award 
 was based was correct. Houghton v. Sutton 
 Heath and Lbb Green Collieries Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W, N. 266 ; see [1901] 1 ft. B. 93 
 
 20. — Earnings — Average weekly earnings 
 before accident — Average amount — ■ Review of 
 weeldy payment — Workman able to earn after 
 accident — Apprentice — Value of tuition — Worlt- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), 
 1st Sched. (2), (12). 
 
 An apprentice sustained an injury to his right 
 hand which prevented his working as a skilled 
 artisan, and the indenture of apprenticeship was 
 cancelled. On an application for compensation 
 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, 
 he obtained an award of a weekly payment 
 based on his wages for the previous year. He 
 returned to the employment of the same employ- 
 ers as a workman, at weekly wages higher than 
 his wages at the time of the accident, but less 
 than those that would be ordinarily paid to a 
 workman employed on the same class of work, 
 since the injury he had sustained affected his 
 ability to earn full wages. On an application by 
 the employers for the review and termination of 
 the weekly payment, the county court judge dis- 
 missed the application, on the ground that the 
 workman was earning less, by a sum equal to 
 Ihe amount of the weekly payment awarded 
 than if he had had the use of his right hand. 
 On appeal : — 
 
 Held, that, on a review of a weekly payment 
 made by award under the Act, the test to be 
 applied is the difference between the amount of 
 the average earnings before the accident and the 
 average amount which the workman is able to 
 earn after the accident; that in the absence of 
 evidence of advantages incidental to the employ- 
 ment, and capable of being appraised at a money 
 value, the earnings before the accident must be 
 determined by the wages received ; that the 
 decision of the covmty court judge was wrong, 
 and that the weekly payment should be reduced 
 to a nominal sum. 
 
 Semble, that the value of the tuition given to 
 an apprentice should not be taken into account 
 in amying at the amount of his average weekly 
 earnings. Pomphket v. Southwakk Press 
 
 C. A. [1900] "W. N. 266 ; see [1901] 1 ft. B. 86 
 
 21. — ^^ Earnings of Apprentice — Measure of 
 compensation^Employers' Liability Act (43 (fc 44 
 Vict. e. 42), 8. 3. 
 
 By the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, s. 3, 
 the amount of compensation recoverable under 
 the Act is limited to a sum equivalent to the 
 estimated earnings, during the three years pre? 
 ceding the injury, of a person in the same grade, 
 employed during those years in the like employ- 
 ment, and in the district in which the workman 
 is employed. 
 
 MASTEE AND SERVANT (Compensation)— 
 continued. 
 The pit. was apprenticed to the defts., and 
 received a salary of Is. a week for the first year, 
 increasing 1«. a week each year. In the fifth 
 year, when he wag earning 58. a week, he was 
 injured, and brought an action to recover com- 
 pensation under the Act. Evidence was given 
 that at the end of the fifth year, when the pit. 
 would be out of his apprenticeship, he would be 
 able to earn from 148. to 18s. a week, and the 
 compensation was assessed at 80J. : — 
 
 Held, that the amount which the pit. could 
 earn when out of his apprenticeship could not be 
 taken into consideration, but only the amount of 
 his actual earnings as an apprentice; and the 
 amount of the judgment must therefore be 
 reduced. Noel v. Eedeuth Foundry Co. 
 
 [1896] 1 ft. B. 463 
 
 22. — Emergency — Act done upon — Accident 
 arising out of or in course of employment — Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), 
 8. 1, siib-s. 1. 
 
 An accident happening to a workman who, 
 while in his master's employment and on his 
 master's work, does upon an emergency an act in 
 the interests of his master outside the scope of 
 what he was employed to do, and suffers injury 
 while doing the act, is within the purview of the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. 
 
 A fireman employed in a coal-mine was in 
 the course of his duty carrying a report of the 
 state of the mine from the pit's mouth to the 
 office ; the horse drawing the tramway truck in 
 which he was riding ran away, and in endeavour- 
 ing to stop it he fell and was killed : — 
 
 Held, that the accident arose out of or in the 
 course of the workman's employment within the 
 meaning of s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Act. Kees v. 
 Thomas - - C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 1015 
 
 23. — Employment for less than two weeks — 
 Employment to which Act applies — Workman's 
 Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), ». 1, 
 sub-s. 1 ; Soiled. I., clause 1 (V). 
 
 In order to obtain the benefit of the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897, a workman must 
 have been for at least two weeks in the employ- 
 ment of the employer, in whose service he sus- 
 tained the injury for which he seeks compensa- 
 tion. Ltsons v. Andrew Knowles & Sons, Ld. 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 86 j [190O] 1 ft. B. 780 
 
 This case was reversed by H. L. (E.). See 
 [1901] W. N. 2; [1901] A. C.J9. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Stuart v. Nixon [1900] 
 2 Q. B. 95. See next Case. 
 
 24. — Employment for less than two weeks-— 
 Death caused by accident — Workmen's Compensa- 
 tion. Aa, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. Zl), First Schedule 
 (!•),(«),»• 
 
 The dependants of a workman whose death 
 has been caused by an accident arising out of 
 and in the course of his employment are not 
 entitled to compensation under the , Workmen's 
 Compensation Act,-1897, unless the workman at 
 the' time of the accident has been for at least two 
 weeks in the employment of the employer. 
 
 Lysons y, Andrew Knowles & Sons, Ld., 
 
 2 B 2 
 
( 1^23 -) 
 
 biGES* 01* CASES, 1891— i 900, 
 
 ( Mi ) 
 
 MASTEE AND SERVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 amtinued. 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 780, followed. Stuakt v. Nixon 
 & Bruce 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 92; [1900] 2 Q. B. 95 
 This case was reversed by H. L. (E.). See 
 [1901] W. N. 2; [1901] A. C. 79. 
 
 25. — Engineering work — Employment on, in, 
 or about — W'orkmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. V. 37), 8. 7. 
 
 A harbour was being dredged by a steam 
 dredger belonging to the harbour commrs., the 
 mud being discharged from the dredger into 
 hoppers, which when full were taken by a tug 
 out to sea and there emptied, the workmen 
 employed by the commrs. on the dredger going 
 on the hoppers for that purpose. One of the 
 workmen so employed by the commrs. on the 
 dredger went in his turn on a hopper full of 
 mud to sea to help in discharging it, and was 
 drowned : — 
 
 Held, that at the time of the accident the 
 workman was not employed on, in, or about an 
 engineering work within the meaning of s. 7 of 
 the Act. Ohambbks v. Whitehaven Hakboue 
 CoMMBS. - - C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 132 
 
 26. — Factory- — Employment " about " a — 
 Accident to workman — Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), «. 7, sub-s. i. 
 
 A cart, belonging to the owners of a factory, 
 was standing in a street, close to the entrance to 
 the factory yard, in a position in which it was 
 usually loaded. A workman in the employment 
 of the factory owners was engaged in loading 
 the cart, and was injured while doing so. On a 
 claim for compensation under the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897, tho county court judge, 
 before whom the claim came, lield that the 
 employment was "about" a factory within the 
 meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 1, and awarded compensa- 
 tion. On appeal : — 
 
 Seld, that the section includes the case of 
 employment in proximity to a factory, and that 
 consequently it was a question for the arbitrator 
 to determine whether, as a matter of fact, the 
 employment was in proximity to the employers' 
 factory. Powell v. Beown 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 165 (8); [1899] 1 Q. B. 167 
 
 Keferred to by 0. A. Lowth v. Ibbotson, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 1008; Chambers v. Whitehaven Sarbour 
 Commrs., [1899] 2 Q. B. 132, 135 ; Fenn v. Miller, 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 788, 793. 
 
 27. — Factory — Employment "about" a — 
 Personal injury by accident — Workmen's Compen- 
 sation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, 
 sub-s. 1. 
 
 A carter, in the employment of the owners of 
 a factory, was injured while unloading goods 
 from a cart of his employers at a distance of a 
 mile and a half from the factory. On a claim 
 for compensation under the Workmen's Compen- 
 sation Act, 1897, the county court judge, before 
 whom the claim came, held that the employment 
 was not " about " a factory within the meaning 
 of s. 7, Bub-s. 1, of the Act :— 
 
 ffeld, that, while employment "about" a 
 factory included employment in close proximity 
 ■.to a factory, the county court judge had rightly 
 
 MASTEE AND SEEVANT (Compensfttien)^ 
 
 continued. 
 found as a fact that employment at the distance 
 of a mile and a half was not employment " about " 
 a factory within the meaning of the Act. 
 
 Powell V. Broim, [1899] 1 Q. B. 157, followed. 
 Lowth v. Ibbotson - C. A. [1899] 1 «. B. 1003 
 And see Eeferences to preceding case. 
 
 28. — Factory — Employment " about " a — Per- 
 sonal injury by accident — Workman's Compensa- 
 tion Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, subs. 1. 
 
 Employment "about" a factory means em- 
 ployment about the locality of the factory, and 
 does not include employment about the business 
 of the factory at a distance from the factory 
 itself. 
 
 A buUder was erecting houses on a. building 
 estate which was in course of development ; on 
 the estate was a barn containing a steam-engine 
 and mortar-mill, which were used for the pur- 
 poses of the building operations, and which 
 constituted a factory within the meaning of s. 7, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1897. The respondent, a labourer in the builder's 
 employment, whose duty it was to fetch water in 
 a cart from a brook at some distance along the 
 main road for the mortar-mill and buildings, was 
 injured while returning with the cart at a spot 
 about 110 to 160 yards distant from the engine 
 and mortar-mill owing to the horse running 
 away : — 
 
 Held, that there was no evidence upon which 
 the county court judge could properly find that 
 the employment of the respondent was employ- 
 ment " about " a factory within the meaning of 
 the Act. Fenn v. Millbe 
 
 C. [1900] W. N. 64; [1900] 1 Q. B. 788 
 
 29. — Factory — Third party, factory of a — 
 Employment on or in or about a factory — Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 37), s. 7. 
 
 The expression " employment by the under- 
 takers .... on or in or about a . . . . factory " 
 in B. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897, means employment by the undertakers 
 on, in, or about their own factory. A workman, 
 therefore, who is sent by his employers on their 
 business to the factory of a third party, and is 
 there injured by accident, is not entitled to com- 
 pensation under the Act. "Fkancis v. Tueneb 
 Bbothees - - C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 478 
 
 SO. • — Investment for benefit of dependants — 
 Proceedings by legal personal representative of 
 workman — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37). Sched. I., clauses i, 5, 6, 7. 
 
 Where an application for compensation under 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, is made 
 by the legal personal representative of a deceased 
 workman on behalf of himself and other depend- 
 ants of the workman, the county court judge or 
 other arbitrator has jurisdiction under Sched. I., 
 clauses 4-7, to order so much of the compensa- 
 tion as is allotted to the dependants to be paid to 
 the county court registrar for investment in his 
 name on their behalf, and is not compelled to 
 order it to be paid to the legal personal repre- 
 sentative. Daniel v. Ocean Coal Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W, N. 109; [1900] 2 ft. B, 250 
 
( 1225 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1226 ) 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT .(Compensation) — 
 
 continued. 
 81. — Machinery — Aceident to workman — 
 "Arising out of and in the course of the em- 
 ployment" — WorTimen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), ». 1. 
 
 A boy was employed iu a pottery ; his duty 
 was to make balls of clay and hand them to the 
 woman working at a machine, and ho was 
 forbidden to interfere in any way with the 
 machinery. He sustained an injury through 
 attempting to clean the machine while the 
 woman was temporarily absent : — 
 
 Seld, that the accident did not arise out of 
 or in the course of his employment, and therefore 
 he was not entitled to compensation under the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Lowe v. 
 Pearson - - C. A. [1899] W, N. 2 (3) ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 261 
 
 32. — Machinery to which any provision of 
 the Factory Acts applies — Dangerous machinery 
 in a factory — AcdderU to worlcman — Employment 
 in, on, or about a factory — Factory and Workshop 
 Act, 1895 (58 * 59 Vict. c. 37), «s. i, 23— Work- 
 man's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. 
 c. 37), s. 7. 
 
 A workman was employed in a shed to look 
 after a steam-engine connected with a mortar 
 pan for mixing mortar for use on a building near 
 at hand. While so employed he sustained per- 
 sonal injuries through an accident : — 
 
 Held, that, as the engine was being tempo- 
 rarily used for the purpose of the construction of 
 a building, the provisions mentioned iu s. 23 of 
 the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, had effect 
 as if the shed were a factory ; so that a provision 
 of the Act, namely s. 4 relating to the power to 
 make an order as to a dangerous machine used 
 in a factory, applied to the engine, which there- 
 fore came within the definition of a factory in s. 7 
 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and 
 compensation could be claimed under that section. 
 McNiCHOLAS V. Dawson & Son 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 773 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Fenn v. Miller, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 788, 790. 
 
 33. — Medical examination — Notice of accident 
 not given — Sight of employer to — Examinaiion of 
 
 workman by medical praetitionei Workmen's 
 
 Compensation Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 37), «. 2 ; 
 First Schedule, s. (3). 
 
 Where a workman, who took proceedingsunder 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, had not 
 given notice of the accident as required by s. 2 of 
 the Act, but the employers raised no objection to 
 his claim on that ground : — 
 
 Meld, that, although the workmen had not 
 given notice of the accident, the employers were 
 entitled to require him to submit himself for 
 medical examination in pursuance of s. (3) of 
 the First Schedule of the Act; and that the 
 county court judge had no jurisdiction to impose 
 any term upon them as a condition of the work- 
 man's being bound to do so. Osbobn v. Viobbes, 
 Sons & Maxim - - C. A [1900] 2 ft. B. 91 
 
 34. — Negligence — Defect in plant or machinery 
 — Knowledge of workman — Bisk voluntarily 
 incwrred — " Volenti nonjit injuria." 
 
 Wbi'e 9, wprliipan wfis ifl the course of his 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 continued. 
 employment descending from an elevated tram- 
 way belonging to his employers, his foot slipped, 
 and he fell to the ground, receiving injuries 
 which caused his death. 'The employers had 
 provided no ladder or other safe means of ascend- 
 ing to and descending from the tramway. In an 
 action brought by the widow of the deceased 
 against his employers under the Fatal Accidents 
 Act, 1846, to recover damages in respect of his 
 death, the jury found (1.) that the defts. had 
 not exercised due care to have the tramway in a 
 safe and properjcondition so as to protect their 
 servants working upon it against unnecessary 
 risks ; (2.) that it was dangerous to descend from 
 the tramway without a ladder; (3.) that the 
 deceased had the same means of knowing that 
 it was dangerous as the defts. had ; and (4.) that 
 the deceased did know that it was dangerous : — 
 Held, that, in the absence of any finding by 
 the jury that the deceased had agreed to under- 
 take the risk of descending from the tramway 
 without a ladder or other safe means of descent, 
 the pit. was entitled to judgment upon the 
 findings of the jury. 
 
 Smith V. Baker & Sons, [1891] A. C. 325, fol- 
 lowed. Williams v. Biemingham Battery and 
 Metal Co. - - C. A. [1899] W. N. 106 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 338 
 
 35. — Partial incapacity — Accident causing 
 personal injury — Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1897 (GO & 61 Vict. v. 37), Sched. I., clause 1 (6), 
 clause 2. 
 
 The sole test of the right of a workman to a 
 weekly payment under Sched. I., clause (6), of 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in 
 respect of partial incapacity for work, is his 
 wage-earning capacity after the accident which 
 caused the injury in respect of which compensa- 
 tion is sought. Where therefore a workman, 
 although put to a different class of work after the 
 accident, receives from his employers the same 
 wages that he previously received from them, he 
 is not entitled to a weekly payment in respect of 
 partial incapacity after his return to work, his 
 right to compensation being limited to a weekly 
 payment in respect of total incapacity (after the 
 second week) during his absence from work 
 occasioned by the accident. Irons v. Davis & 
 TiMMiNS, Lr. - - C. A. [1899] 2 Q, B. 330 
 
 Followed by C. A. Pomphrey v. Southwarh 
 Press, [1900] W. N. 256 ; [1901] 1 Q. B. 86. 
 
 36. — Partial incapacity — Disablement from 
 earning full wages at work at which employed — 
 Personal injury — Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. o. 37), «. 1, sub-s. 2 (a). 
 
 A workman was employed as foreman in a 
 carpet-weaving factory ; his principal . duty was 
 to supervise the hands, but he also to the know - 
 ledge of his employer used to set up and adjust 
 the machines. While adjusting a machine he 
 received an injury necessitating the amputation 
 of bis thumb; he continued however to attend 
 regularly to his work, only absenting himself 
 from the factory for a sufficient time to enable 
 him to have his hand dressed. He was incapaci- 
 tated by the accident from setting up and adjust- 
 ing the fnacbines, apd hig wgrk was afterwards 
 
( 1227 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1228 ) 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 continued. 
 confined to the Bupervision of the hands. Hia 
 employer contiaued to pay his wages at the same 
 rate after as before the accident ; but it was ad- 
 mitted that, should he leave his employer's 
 service, his wage-earning power as a foreman in 
 any other faotoi'y would be materially decreased : — 
 
 Seld, that as the workman had been prevented 
 by reason of the accident from doing a substantial 
 part of the work at which he had previously 
 earned his wages, he had been disabled for two 
 weeks from earning full wages " at the work at 
 which he was employed " within the meaning of 
 s. 1, sub-s. 2 (a), of the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897: 
 
 Seld, further, that, as the workman had 
 hitherto suffered no pecuniary loss, the proper 
 course was to make a declaration of the liability 
 of the employer, leaving the amount and duration 
 of the compensation to be fixed upon an applica- 
 tion under Sohed. I., clause 12, to vary the award, 
 should the workman at any future time be unable 
 by reason of the accident to earn the same wages. 
 Chandleb v. Smith C. A. [1899] W. N. 112 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. S06 
 
 — Quay — " Undertakers." 
 
 See Nos. 48, 49, 'below. 
 
 37. — Railway — Engine cleaner — Accident 
 arising out of and in course of employment — Worlc- 
 mem's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. 
 c. 37), s. 1, suh-s. 1. 
 
 An engine-cleaner, who had been employed 
 by a ry. co. at their station at K., was directed 
 by his employers to work in a new engine-shed 
 at H., about four miles distant. The workmau, 
 ■who lived near K., was conveyed by the ry. co. 
 free of charge in one of their trains to their 
 station at H., reaching there a short time before 
 the hour for commencing work in the shed, and 
 was taken back free of charge at the end of his 
 day's work. While crossing the line at the 
 station at H. in order to get to his work in the 
 engine-shed, and shortly before the hour at which 
 work began, he was killed by a passing train : — 
 
 Held, that the employment of the workman 
 commenced when he got into the train to be 
 conveyed to his work, and not on his arrival at 
 the engine-shed, and that the accident arose out 
 of and in the course of his employment within 
 the meaning of s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897. Holmes v. Great 
 NoBTHEBN Ey. Co. - C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 409 
 
 — Bailway— Ticket-collector. 
 
 See No. 45, helow. 
 
 38. — Railway — Workman going to work — 
 Accident arising out of and in course of em- 
 ployment — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 <fe61 Vict. 0. 37), s. 1, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A firm of contractors, under a contract with a 
 ry. CO. for the widening of their lino, were ballast- 
 ing a siding which was separated from the main 
 line by several lines of rail. The siding could 
 only bo reached by walking for a considerable 
 distance through the premises of the ry. co., and 
 the workmen were advised by the contractors, 
 with the authority of the ry. co:, to enter the 
 premises by a gate, from which a path led by the 
 Side of the ry. to the siding which was being 
 
 MASTEE AND SERVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 continued. 
 ballasted ; it was not necessary, while following 
 this route, to go upon the main Une. On a 
 foggy morning, seven minutes before the hour for 
 the commencement of the day's work, a workman 
 in the employ of the contractors, while on his 
 way to his work at the siding, was run over and 
 killed on the main line about 150 yards from the 
 locality of his work : — 
 
 Held, by A. L. Smith L.J. and V. Wil- 
 liams L.J. (Romer L.J. dissenting), that it was 
 no part of the contract of employment that the 
 employment should include the time taken in 
 getting to and from the work, that under the cir- 
 cumstances the contractors owed no duty to the 
 workman while proceeding to his work, and that 
 therefore the accident did not arise out of and in 
 the course of the employment of the workman 
 within the meaning of s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897. 
 
 Per A. L. Smith L.J. : A workman who is 
 injured in a place not under his employer's con- 
 trol while going to or returning from his work is 
 not within the provisions of the Workmen's Com- 
 pensation Act, 1897. HoLNESs v. Mackat & 
 Davis C, A. [1899] W. N. 65 ; [1899] 2 ft. B, 319 
 
 39. — Bailway refreshment room — Employment 
 to which Act applies — Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 01 Vict. c. 37), s. 7—Begulation of 
 Railways Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 48), s. 3. 
 
 Employment by a ry. co. in a ry. refreshment 
 room, to which the only entrance for the public 
 is from the station platform, is not employment on 
 or in or about a ry. within the meaning of s. 7, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1897. Milker v. Great Northern Rt. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 58 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 795 
 
 40. — Railway station. Erection of — Railway 
 company — Accident to contractor's workman — 
 Work ancillary to business of undertakers — Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), 
 ss. 4, 7. 
 
 The erection of a ry. station is work " which 
 is merely ancillary or incidental to, and is no part 
 of, or process in, the trade or business " of a ry. 
 CO. within the meaning of s. 4 of the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897 ; and therefore the ry. 
 CO. are not liable to pay compensation under that 
 Act to the workman of a contractor, who has 
 contracted with them to do such work, in respect 
 of an injury occasioned to the workman in the 
 execution of it. Pearoe v. London and South 
 Western Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 93; [1900] 2 Q. B. 100 
 
 41. — Scaffolding, Building constructed by 
 means of — Structure of trestles and boards within 
 building — IVhether scaffolding question of fact for 
 arbitrator — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 37), ». 7, sub-s. 1. 
 
 By s. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compen- 
 sation Act, 1897, the Act is to apply (inter alia) 
 to employment '■ on, in, or about any building 
 which exceeds thirty feet in height^ and is either 
 being constructed or repaired by means of a 
 scaffolding." 
 
 A new house more than thirty feet high had 
 been roofed iu and the external scaffolding 
 removed. The applicant was engaged in plaster- 
 
1229 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES,; 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 1230 ) 
 
 MASTER ANB SEBVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 continued. 
 ing the walls and ceiling in one of the rooms, 
 and in order to reach his work was standing on a 
 structure of trestles with boards on them. While 
 at work in this manner, he met with an accident, 
 for which he claimed compensation. An arbitra- 
 tor appointed by a county court judge decided 
 that the structure was not a scaffolding and 
 refused to make an award of compensation, but 
 referred the matter to the county court judge, 
 who reversed the decision of the arbitrator and 
 awarded the compensation provisionally settled 
 by the arbitrator. On appeal : — 
 
 Held, that the question whether the structure 
 was a scaffolding or not was a question of fact 
 for the arbitrator, and that Jiis finding was not 
 open to review. Pekguson v. Ghben 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 247 ; see [1901] 1 ft. B. 25 
 
 42. — Scaffolding — Building constructed hy 
 means of a — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7, sub-s. 1. 
 
 By s. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compensa- 
 tion Act, 1897, the Act is to apply (inter alia) to 
 employment " on, in, or about any building which 
 exceeds thirty feet in height, and is either being 
 constructed or repaired by means of a scaffold- 
 ing." 
 
 A new house more than thirty feet high had 
 been roofed in, and workmen employed by the 
 builder were plastering the walls and ceilings 
 inside the house, for which purpose trestles and 
 boards were being used. One of the men, while 
 standing on the floor of the top landing plastering 
 the wall, fell down the well of the staircase, there 
 being no railing, and was killed. At that time 
 other workmen were at work plastering some of 
 the rooms, and were standing on boards placed 
 across trestles four feet high in order to enable 
 them to reach the ceilings and upper part of the 
 walls. A county court judge having awarded 
 compensation to the widow of the deceased : — 
 
 Held (Collins L.J. dissenting), that there was 
 evidence to justify a fthding of the county court 
 judge that the arrangement of trestles and boards 
 was a scaffolding within the meaning of s. 7, 
 Bub-s. 1, of the Act, and that the employment of 
 the deceased was therefore one to which the Act 
 applied. Maude v. Bbook 
 
 C, A, [1900] 1 ft. B. 575 
 
 43. — Ship unloading in dock — Personal injury 
 hy accident — Employment on or about machinery 
 or plant — Workman's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 87), «.!;«. T, sub-ss. 1, 2. 
 
 Where a ship was unloading in a dock by 
 means of a crane on the quay hired by h'er 
 owners, and a workman employed by them in 
 unloading her was killed by the explosion of 
 a case of percussion-caps which he was placing 
 in a basket attached to the chain of the crane 
 for the purpose of its being hoisted out of the 
 ship on to the quay : — 
 
 Held, that the accident arose out of and in 
 the course of the workman's employment on or 
 about machinery used in the process of unload- 
 ing to a quay within the meaning of the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897, and therefore the 
 Act applied to it. . Woodham v. Atlantic 
 Tbahspobt Co. - C. A. [1899] 1 ft, B, 15 
 
 MASTER AND SEBVANT (Compensation)— 
 continued. 
 
 44. -^ Ship unloading in dock — Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. o. 37), s. 7. 
 
 A workman employed on board a ship lying 
 in dock is not employed on, in, or about a dock, 
 and is therefore not employed on or in or about 
 a factory within the meaning of b. 7, snb-s. 1, of 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, whether 
 the dock itself is a factory within the meaning 
 of sub-s. 2 of that section or not. Flowees v. 
 Chambers - - C, A. [1899] W. N. 65 ; 
 [1899] 2 ft. B. 142 
 
 Eef erred to by C. A. Hennessey v. McCabe, 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 491, 497. 
 
 — Staying proceedings — Arbitration. 
 
 See No. 95, below. 
 
 — Strike — Average weekly earnings. 
 
 See No. 17, above. 
 
 46, — Ticket-collector — Accident to workman 
 " arising out of and in the course of the employ- 
 ment" — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 
 & 61 Vict. c. 87), s. 1. 
 
 A ticket-collector got upon the footboard of a 
 train after it had started, not for any object of 
 his employment, but for his own pleasure. In 
 getting off he was injured : — 
 
 Held, that the accident was not one " arising 
 out of" his employment within s. 1, and that 
 compensation was not recoverable under the Act. 
 Smith v. Lanoashibe and Yobkshiee Eailwat 
 Co. C. A. [1899] W. N. 165.(7) ; [1899] 1 ft. B. 141 
 
 — Time for making claim for compensation. 
 
 SeeNos.S6—98,bdow. 
 
 46. — " Undertaker " — Construction of building 
 
 — Contractor for supply of laJ>our — Workmen's 
 Compensation. Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, c: 37), 
 
 8. 7, 8M&-S. 2. 
 
 An employer who, under a contract with a 
 firm engaged in building operations on their own 
 premises, supplies the; labour for the brickwork, 
 the workmen so supplied, although paid by him, 
 being under the control while at work of the 
 foreman of the building owners, is not an under- 
 taker within the meaning of the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897, Pekcival v. Gabnbb 
 C, A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 406 
 
 47. — " Undertaker" — Constnictionof building 
 
 — Employment — Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1897 (60 <{; 61 Vict. c. 37), ». 7, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Where a building over thirty feet high is 
 being constructed by means of a scaffolding, and 
 the work of construction is being carried out by 
 several per-sons not acting jointly, but each of 
 them contracting with the building owner for the 
 constructing of a separate substantial part of the 
 building, each of them is an " undertaker " within 
 the meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 2, of the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897, and is liable to com- 
 pensate the workmen employed by him for 
 personal injury sustained by them in the course 
 of their employment. Every workman employed 
 by the undertaker upon the buiding is within 
 the Act, whatever may be the nature of his own 
 particular work. Mason v. A. R. Dean, Ld. 
 
 C, A, [1900] W, N. 48 J [1900] 1 ft. B. 770 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A, Cass v, Butler, [1900] 
 J Q. B. 777, 779. 8ee No. 50, below. 
 
( 1231 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1232 ) 
 
 UASTEB Ain> SEEVAiri (Compensation)— 
 
 continued. 
 
 48. — " Undertalcers '' — " Factory " — Quay, 
 Ship alongside of — " Actual use or occupation " — 
 Worltmeu's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 37), s. 7, sub-ss. I, 2 — Factory and Workshop 
 Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 37), ». 23, suh-s. 1. 
 
 Where the owners of a ship moored alongside 
 of a quay, who acted as their own stevedores, had 
 the use of the portion of the quay, alongside of 
 which their ship lay, for the purpose of unloading 
 the ship's cargo on to the quay, and a workman 
 employed by them was killed through an accident 
 arising out of and in the course of his employment 
 on the quay : — 
 
 Held, that the shipowners, having the " actual 
 use " of a portion of the quay within the meaning 
 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, s. 23, 
 sub-s. 1, were " undertakers " in respect of a 
 factory within the meaning of the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897, s. 7, and liable to make 
 compensation to the dependants of the workman 
 under that Act. Merrill v. Wilson, Sons & Co. 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 248 ; see [1901] 1 Q. B. 38 
 
 49. — " XJndertalter " — Quay, Machinery used 
 in loading from a — Occupier — Person using 
 machinery — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7— Factory and Workshop 
 Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 37), s. 23, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A person using machinery in the process of 
 loading a ship from a quay is an occupier of a 
 factory within s. 23, sub-s. 1, of the Factory and 
 Workshop Act, 1895, and therefore an '" under- 
 taker " within the Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1897, s. 7. Carrington v. Bannister & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 247 ; see [1901] 1 ft. B. 20 
 
 50. — " Undertaker" — Sub-contractor — Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 37), ss. 4, 7. 
 
 A sub-contractor is not an undertaker within 
 the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897. Cass v. Butler 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 49 ; [1900] 1 ft. B. 777 
 
 61. — Wharf — Employment on, in, or about 
 a factory — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7. 
 
 A wharf at the side of a canal, on which no 
 machinery is used, is not a factory within the 
 meaning of s. 7 of the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897, unless it is a wharf to which some 
 provision of the Factory Acts is applied by the 
 Factory and Workshop Act, 1895. Hall u. 
 Skowden, Hubbard & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 136 
 
 52. — Wharf — Timber-yard — Employment on, 
 in, or about a factory — Factory and Workshop 
 Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 37), s. 23— Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 7. 
 
 For the purpose of unloading timber from 
 timber-ships a dock board provided quay or wharf 
 space running inland for 150 yards from the 
 water's edge ; at the further end of this space 
 was a fence with gates at intervals, behind which 
 came a series of yards leased by the dock board 
 to different timber merchants for storing their 
 timber, the whole being the property of the dock 
 board, and separated by a wall from the surround- 
 ing property. A workman employed by a firm of 
 carters was killed whjle moving a log of timber 
 
 MASTEE AND SEEVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 continued. 
 in one of the yards leased to a firm of timber 
 merchants : — 
 
 Eeld (Eigby L.J. dissenting), that the word 
 " wharf " as used in b. 23 of the Factory and 
 Workshop Act, 1895, and ». 7, sub-s. 2. of the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, must be 
 construed in its ordinary and popular significa- 
 tion of a place contiguous to water over which 
 goods pass in the process of loading and un- 
 loading, that the yard where the accident 
 happened was not a wharf within the meaning of 
 those sections, and that the employment of the 
 deceased was therefore not one to which the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, applied. 
 Haddock v. Humphrey C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 609 
 
 63. — " Woi-kman " — Person employed in coal 
 mine by contractor —Liability of mine-owner — 
 Working " under a contract with an employer " — 
 Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict, 
 c. 58) — Employers and Workmen Act, 1875 
 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 90), s. 10— Employers' Liability 
 Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 42), s. 8. 
 
 By s. 8 of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 
 the expression " workman "means any person to 
 whom the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, 
 applies ; and by s. 10 of the Act of 1S75 a '• work- 
 man" means " any person who, being a labourer, 
 . . miner, or otherwise engaged in manual 
 labour, .... has entered into or works under a 
 contract with an employer," whether the con- 
 tract be express or implied. 
 
 By the special rules of a colliery made under 
 s. 51 of the Coal Mines Eegulation Act, 1SS7, the 
 manager of the mine was made responsible for 
 the control, management, and direction of the 
 mine, and was to appoint such competent per- 
 sons as might be necessary for carrying out the 
 provisions of the Act, and all persons employed 
 in or about the miue were to obey his directions ; 
 and the chargeman in each shift was to have 
 charge of the sinking operations. 
 
 E. entered into a contract with the owners of 
 the colliery to sink a shaft in their coal mine. 
 By the contract E. (who was therein called the 
 contractor) was to provide such sinkers, &c. as 
 might be necessary for the execution of the work, 
 and was to be paid a certain sum per fathom 
 sunk. E. employed and paid the sinkers, he 
 himself acting as " chargeman " in charge of the 
 sinking operations. One of the sinkers, while 
 engaged upon the work, was killed by a block 
 of wood falling upon him, and his administratrix 
 brought an action against the colliery owners 
 under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, tu 
 recover damages for his death : — 
 
 Held, that E. was an independent contractor 
 that the deceased was not a '" workman " who 
 had entered into or worked under a contract with 
 the colliery owners as his employers within the 
 meaning of s. 10 of the Employers and Workmen 
 Act, 1875 ; and that therefore the Employers' 
 Liability Act, 1880, did not apply; 
 
 Held, also, that the control given by the Coal 
 Mines Regulation Act, 1887, aaid by the special 
 rules of the mine, to the manager over all persons 
 in the mine, did not make E. and the sinkers 
 einploj'ed by him " workmen " in the eifiplpy. 
 
( 1233 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1234 ) 
 
 MASTER AND SESVANT (Compensation)— 
 
 continue^. 
 
 ment of the colliery owners within the meaning 
 
 of s. 10 of the Act of 1875. Marrow v. Plimby 
 
 AND Bbouqhton Moob Oqal and Fire Brick Oo. 
 
 C, A, [1898] 2 Q. S. 583 
 
 Compromise. 
 
 See Oases under Comphomise. 
 
 Contract. 
 
 54. — Breach of contract — Damages — Miner — 
 Refusal to work — Trade union — Employers and 
 Workmen Ad, 1875. 
 
 The defts., who were workmen belonging to a 
 union, refused to go down a pit in cages with 
 non-union men, but offered a few minutes after- 
 wards to go down by themselves, which was 
 not permitted by the under-manager of the 
 master :— 
 
 Held, that the refusal to go down was a breach 
 of contract, and that the defts.' action, being 
 preconcerted, entitled the pit. to substantial 
 damages : — 
 
 Reld, also, that the master's refusal to let 
 them- go down when they offered to do so was 
 not a breach of contract. Bowes and Partners, 
 Ld. v. Press - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 55., — • Grocer's assistant — Leaving without 
 notice — Mnployers and Workmen Act, 1875 (38 dc 39 
 Vict. a. 90), 8. 10. 
 
 The test whether an employee is engaged in 
 manual labour within the meaning of the 
 Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, is whether 
 such labour is his real and substantial employ- 
 ment, or whether it is incidental or accessory to 
 such employment. A grocer's assistant is not a 
 person engaged in manual labour within a., 10 of 
 the Act, although in the course of his duties he 
 has incidentally to do many things involving 
 manual labour. Bolnd v. Lawrence 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 226 
 — Infant — Oontract not for benefit of — ^Appren- 
 ticeship deed. 
 See Infant — Contracts. 4, 5. 
 
 56. — Restraint of trade — Reasonableness — 
 Iiim.it of space — Limit of time — Injunction — 
 Emdenee of reasonableness inadmissMe. 
 
 An agreement made in 1894 between the 
 pit., a hardware manufacturer at Dudley, and 
 the deft., a young man of twenty-four, on the 
 deft, entering the plt.'s service, contained a re- 
 strictive clause, that the deft, would not, during 
 his service or after the determination thereof, 
 divulge to any person the secrets of the pit. or 
 the mode of conducting his business, or any part 
 thereof, or any information with regard to the 
 same, or after the determination of such service 
 work for or serve any other person or firm carry- 
 ing on the same kind of business, or any part 
 thereof, within a radius of twenty-five miles from 
 Ihe plt.'s works at Dudley, without his consent. 
 In 1897 the deft, left the plt.'s service, and in 
 1899, without his consent, entered the service of 
 a firm carrying on a business similar to that of 
 the pit. about three miles from his works : — 
 
 Held, affirming Stirling J., that the pit. was 
 pptifled tP ^1 injunction, singe the rgstfjotive 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Contract)— conid 
 clause was not void either as being unreasonable 
 for the plt.'s protection, or as being unlimited 
 in point of time and so binding the deft, during 
 his whole life. 
 
 In an action by a trader against his servant 
 for breach of a contract restricting him from 
 serving a rival trader, evidence from persons in 
 the trade giving their views as to the reasonable- 
 ness or unreasonableness of the contract is in- 
 admissible, since the reasonableness of a contract 
 depends on its true construction and legal effeet 
 and is consequentlv a question for the Court 
 alone. Haynes v. Doman C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 13 
 
 Dismissal. 
 
 — Contract for employment — Wrongful dismissal. 
 
 See Abbiteation. 6. 
 
 — Maliciously inducing employer to discharge 
 
 servant — Intent to injure. 
 See Action. 1. 
 
 — Implied obligation of servant — Improper use 
 
 of information. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant 
 — Trade Secrets. 
 
 57. — Misconduct of servant — Forgetfulness — 
 Contract. 
 
 A single instance of forgetfulness by a ser- 
 vant, by reason of which damage is caused to a 
 valuable machine of which he has the care and 
 management, may constitute such neglect of duty 
 as to justify his master in dismissing him with- 
 out notice. Babter ®. London and Oounty 
 Printinq Works - Div. Ct. [1899] W. N, 53 ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 901 
 
 58. — Wrongful dismissal — Dissolution of 
 partnership. 
 
 A partnership agreed to employ the pit. as 
 their agent for a fixed period. Before the period 
 expired two of the partners retired. The con- 
 tinuing partners offered to employ the pit. on 
 the same terms for the remainder of the period ; 
 the pit. refused : — 
 
 Held, that the dissolution operated as a 
 wrongful dismissal of the pit., but that he was 
 only entitled to nominal damages. Brace v. 
 Calder - - - C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 253 
 
 Factory Acts. 
 
 Factory and WorJcsliop Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 75), amends the law relating to Factories 
 and Workshops. 
 
 Factory and Workshop Act, 1895 (58 <t 59 
 Vict. c. 37), further amends the law relating to 
 Factories and Workshops. 
 
 Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1897 (60^ * til 
 Vict. c. 58), gives power to make regulations. 
 
 Factory Acts — Reference to the Os. of Secy, of 
 State granting special exemptions under the Acts 
 issued prior to 1891 is given in the " Index to the 
 Statutory Rules and Orders," 1893 edit. St. 0. P. 
 Tlie subseguent Orders are published in the annual 
 volumes of Statutory Rules and Orders, 1890-1900. 
 
 59. — Employment of children— Gleaning 
 machinery— Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 16), s. 9, 
 
 By S. 9 Qf the Factory aqd '^Qrk^hop Act, 
 
( 1235 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1236 ) 
 
 MASTEE AND SERVANT (Factory Acts}— contd. 
 1878, '■ a child shall not be allowed to clean any 
 part of the machinery in a factory while the 
 same is in motion by the aid of steam, water, 
 or other mechanical power " : — 
 
 Held, that " the same " meant " the machi- 
 nery " and not the " part " cleaned ; so that this 
 section prohibited allowing a child, while a 
 machine was in motion, to clean any fixed part, 
 which did not move, of the machine. Peabson 
 V. Belgian Mills Oompant 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 844 
 
 60. r- Employment of young person during 
 prohibited hours — Wm'ldng for amusement — 
 Master and servant — Factory and Workshop Act, 
 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. e. 16), ss. 17, 83, 94. 
 
 A young person in the employment of the 
 occupiers of a spinning mill during the time 
 allowed for a meal oiled part of the machinery 
 of the mill. He stated that he did so contrary to 
 orders, and for his own amusement : — ■ 
 
 Held, that he was worlcing in what he did, 
 and that, therefore, he was employed during pro- 
 hibited hours contrary to the provisions of the 
 Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, and that the 
 occupiers of the mill were liable to a fine under 
 B. 83 of that Act. Prior v. Slaithwaite Spin- 
 ning Oo. - Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 881 
 
 61. — Employment on Sunday — Jews — " Open 
 for traffic" — Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Viot. c. 16), s. 51. 
 
 By s. 21 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 
 1878, "A . . . . youngpersonor woman shall not 
 (save as is in this Act specially excepted) be 
 employed on Sunday in a ... workshop." 
 
 By s. 51, " No penalty shall be incurred by 
 any person in respect of any work done on Sunday 
 in a ... . workshop by a young person or woman 
 of the Jewish religion, subject to the following 
 conditions: — " 
 
 " (2.) The .... workshop .... shall not be 
 open for traffic ou Sunday." 
 
 The occupier of a workshop, wherein young 
 persons and women of the Jewish religion were 
 employed on Sunday, carried on there the busi- 
 ness of making button-holes for tailors on gar- 
 ments delivered to him by them for that purpose. 
 
 The workshop was open to his customers on 
 Sunday for the purpose of enabling them to send 
 or fetch away garments in pursuance of contracts 
 previously made, but not for the purpose of 
 their giving fresh orders : — 
 
 Held, that the workshop was not thereby 
 " open for trafSc on Sunday " within the meaning 
 of s. 51, so as to deprive the occupier of the 
 exemption afforded by that section. Goldstein 
 V. Vaughan - Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 649 
 
 62. — " Factory "—" Non-textile factory" — 
 "'Bleaching and dyeing worhs" — Process of 
 hooking, lapping, making up, and packing cloth 
 —41 * 42 Vict. c. 16, s. 93, Sched. IV., Part I., 
 s. 2. 
 
 Premises, in which the processes of hooking, 
 lapping, making up, and packing cloth are 
 carried on, are a " factory " witliin the meaning 
 ot the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (41 & 42 
 Vict, c 16), s. 93, and ScheJ. IV., Part I., s. 2, 
 even it none of such processes are carried on as 
 
 MASTEE AND SEEVANT (Factory Mts)—ccmtd. 
 incidental to bleaching and dyeing. Eogebs v 
 Manchestee Packing Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 a. B. 314 
 — Fines — Cotton Oloth Factories Act, 1889. 
 See Justices. 8. 
 
 63. — Machinery — Dangerous machinery — • 
 Fencing — Duty to fence — Factory and Workshops 
 ^c(s, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. e. 16), s. 5 ; 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 75), ». 6. 
 
 "All dangerous parts of the machinery" 
 in s. 6 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, 
 is not limited to such part of the machinery as 
 supplies or conveys the motive power by which 
 the industrial operations of the factory are imme- 
 diately effected, but applies to all the machinery 
 in the factory, and includes an upper die which 
 forcibly descends on a lower die for the purpose 
 of shaping tin plates. Kedgbave v. Lloyd & 
 Sons, Ld. - - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 876 
 
 64. — Machinery — Dangerous machinery — 
 Shuttle flying out of loom — Obligation to fence — 
 Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, 
 c. 16), s. 5, suh-s. 3 — Factory and Workshop Act, 
 1891 (54 & 55 Viet. c. 75), s. 6, sub-s. 2. 
 
 By s. 5, sub-s. 3, of the Factory and Workshop 
 Act, 1878, as amended by s. 6, sub-s. 2, of the 
 Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, " all dangerous 
 parts of the machinery" in a factory shall be 
 securely fenced or otherwise rendered safe. 
 
 The occupier of a cotton factory was sum- 
 moned under the above section for neglecting to 
 fence the shuttles of his looms. It appeared that 
 shuttles do occasionally in the process of weaving 
 fly out from the bed upon which they slide to and 
 fro (called the shuttle-race) under circumstances 
 which render them dangerous to any persons who 
 happen to be in the line of flight. The flying 
 out of the shuttles may be caused by the negli- 
 gence of the weaver iu charge of the machine, or 
 by reason of some foreign substance getting 
 accidentally into the shuttle-race, or by defect in 
 the yarn : — 
 
 Held, that the obligation to fence under the 
 above section was not confined to machinery 
 which was dangerous in itself in the ordinary 
 course of careful working ; and that the shuttles, 
 even though not in themselves defective, were 
 " dangerous parts of the machinery " if any of 
 the above-mentioned causes of their flying out of 
 the shuttle-race were likely to occur with any 
 degree of frequency. Hindle v. Birtwistle 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 192 
 — ■ Mitigation of statutory fine — Jurisdiction. 
 See Justices. 8. 
 
 65. — ■ Neglect to fence machinery — Compensa- 
 tion to injured person — Contributory negligence — 
 Factory and Woi-kshop Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, 
 c. 16), s. 82. 
 
 By s. 82 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 
 1878, "If any person is killed or suflfers any bodily 
 injury io consequence of the occupier of a factory 
 having neglected to fence any machinery .... 
 the occupier of the factory or workshop shall be 
 liable to a fine not exceeding lOOi., the whole or 
 any part of which may be applied for the benefit 
 of the injured person or his family or otherwise 
 as a Secretary of State determines " : — 
 
 JJeld, that, where a jiersoa has been injured 
 
( 1237 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1238 ) 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Factory Acts)— coniii. 
 by the occupier's neglect to fence, the fact that 
 the injury was proximately caused by such con- 
 tributory negligence on the part of the injured 
 person as would have debarred him from main- 
 taining a civil action is no answer to a complaint 
 under the above section. Blenkinsop v. Ogden 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 a. B. 783 
 
 66. — Neglect to fence machinery — Penally— 
 Statutory duty — Action on statute— Master and 
 servant — Common employment — Factory and 
 Worhshop Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. o. 16), «. 5, 
 suh-s.i; ss. 81,82,86, 87. 
 
 An action will lie in respect of personal injury 
 occasioned to a workman employed in a factory 
 througli a breach by his employer, the occupier 
 of the factory, of the duty to maintain fencing 
 for dangerous machinery imposed upon him by 
 s. 5, sub-s. 4, of the Factory and Workshop Act, 
 1878. 
 
 The defence of common employment is not 
 applicable in a case where injury has been caused 
 to a servant by the breach of an absolute duty 
 imposed by statute upon his master for his pro- 
 tection. Gbovbs 1). WmBOBNE (Loed) 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 402 
 
 — Quarries — Modifications of application of 
 
 Factory Acts to. 
 
 See Quarries Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 c. 42), s. 3. 
 
 — Eating of cotton mill — Stoppage during 
 
 See Bates— Eateability. 15. 
 
 — Refuse — Duty of local authority to make 
 
 sewer. 
 
 See Sewers. 
 
 67. — Underground haJiehouse — Premises 
 vacant at commencement of Act — Factory and 
 Workshop Act, 1895 (68 & 59 Vict. c. 37), s. 27, 
 suh-s. 3. 
 
 By s. 27, sub-s. 3, of the Factory and "Work- 
 shop Act, 1895, " A place underground shall not 
 be used as a bakehouse unless it is so used at the 
 commencement of this Act." Premises which 
 had long been used as an underground bakehouse 
 were vacant at the commencement of the Act, but 
 their owner was seeking a tenant for them as a 
 bakehouse : — 
 
 B.eld, that they were used as a bakehouse at 
 the commencement of the Act. Schwerzbrhop 
 V. WiLKiNS - - Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 640 
 
 Hiring. 
 
 — Contract of service -r- Agreement to devote 
 
 whole time — ^Breach of contract. 
 See CoNTEACT. 4. 
 
 68. — Contract — Custom as to hiring domestic 
 servants — Reasonableness — Notice during first 
 fortnight — Determination at end of first month. 
 
 A custom with regard to the hiring of domestic 
 servants, to the effect that, in the absence of 
 special contract, there is a right, on the part of 
 either the master or the servant, to determine 
 the service, at the end of the first calendar month, 
 by notice given at or before the expiration of the 
 first fortnight, is not a notorious custom of which 
 the Courts will take judicial notice but where 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT {-ExAas)— continued. 
 such a custom is relied on, its existence must be 
 proved by evidence in each particular case. 
 
 Such a custom is not unreasonable ; and 
 therefore, if, in any particular case, its existence 
 were sufficiently proved by evidence, the Court 
 would give effect to it. Moult v. Hallidat 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] W. N. 171(6); 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 125 
 
 — Contract of hiring — Severable covenant^ 
 
 Injunction. 
 . See Eestbaint ov Trade. 19. 
 
 Intimidation. 
 
 — Combination to induce a person not to employ 
 
 another. 
 
 See Cases under Conspiracy. 
 
 Master's Liability. 
 
 — Coat in charge of waiter. 
 
 See Bailment. 5. 
 
 69. — Contractor and suh-conlraclor — Common 
 employment — Negligence. 
 
 In an action to recover damages for injury 
 caused by the negligence of the def t.'s servant, 
 the defence of common employment is not applic- 
 able unless the injured person and the servant 
 whose negligence caused the injury were not 
 only engaged in a common employment, but were 
 in the service of a common master. 
 
 Decision of C. A., (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 508, 
 reversed. Johnson v. Lindsay & Co. (No. 1) 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 371 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.) Jledley v. Pinkney 
 & Sons Steamship Co., [1894] A. C. 222, 226. 
 
 70. — Crane — Servant lent to another firm — 
 
 The defts. lent a craiie with a man in charge 
 to another firm. While under the orders of the 
 other firm, the man in charge worked the crane 
 negligently and injured the pit. : — ■ 
 
 Meld, that, although the man remained the 
 general servant of the defts., yet as he was not 
 yet under their control, they were not responsible 
 for his negligence. Donovan v. Laing, Whar- 
 ton AND Down Construction Syndicate 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 629 
 
 Considered by Lord Eussell C.J. Jones v. 
 ScuUard, [1898J 2 Q. B. 565, 573. 
 
 71. — Criminal act done hy servant in course 
 of his employment — Conviction of servant — Release 
 from civil proceedings for the same cause — Scope 
 of servant's employment — Offences Against the 
 Person Act, 1861 (24 * 25 Vict. c. 100), s. 45. 
 
 The deft.'s servant in the course of his em- 
 ployment assaulted the pit. and was fined for the 
 assault. The pit. brought an action against the 
 deft, for the assault :— 
 
 Held, that the mere fact of the assault being 
 criminal and not merely tortious did not affect 
 the deft.'s liability for the acts of his servant, 
 and that the relief given under s. 45 of the 
 Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, from civil 
 proceedings for the assault was personal to the 
 servant and did not extend to the deft. 
 
 Per Eigby L. J. : "Scope of authority" and 
 "course of employment" are equivalent terms, 
 
( 1239 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1240 ) 
 
 MASTER AND SEBVANT (Master's Liability>- 
 
 continued. 
 and both extend the master's liability beyond 
 the actual authority given to the servant. Dtee 
 V. MuNDAT - - C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 742 
 
 72. — Criminal liability of master for act of 
 servant — Sale of goods to which false trade descrip- 
 tion is applied — Merchandise Marks Act, 18iJ7 
 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 28), s. 2,sub-s. 2. 
 
 The provisions of s. 2, sub-s. 2, of the Mer- 
 chandise Marks Act, 1887, which make it an 
 offence to sell goods to which a forged trade-mark 
 or false trade description is applied, make a 
 master criminally liable for acts done by his 
 servants in contravention of the section when 
 acting within the general scope of their employ- 
 ment, although contrary to their master's orders, 
 unless the master can shew that he has acted in 
 good faith and has done all that it was reason- 
 ably possible to do to prevent the commission 
 of offences by his servants. Coppen v. Mooue 
 (No. 2) ■ - Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q,. B. 306 
 
 Applied by Div. Ct. Christie, Manson and 
 Woods, [1900] 2 Q. B. 522, 527. 
 
 See Cases under Tbade-makk — Mer- 
 chandise Marks. 
 
 73. — Defect in condition of plant — Chiard 
 temporarily removed from circular saw — Em~ 
 players' Liability Act, 1880 (43 * 44 Vict. v. 42), 
 s. 1, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The pit. was employed at the deft.'s saw mills 
 to assist one of their sawyers who was engaged at 
 a circular saw. The deft, had provided the saw 
 with a sufficient guard or fence under the bench 
 for the prevention of accidents. The guard was 
 moveable for the purpose of removing the saw- 
 dust which collected under the bench. The 
 sawyer for his own purposes improperly removed 
 the guard, and whilst the guard was off the pit. 
 fell against the saw and was injured : — 
 
 Eeld, that the absence of the guard was a 
 defect in the condition of the machinery within 
 s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Employers' Liability Act, 
 1880. 
 
 Willetts V. Watt & Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 92, 
 distinguished. Tate v. Latham & Son 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 602 
 
 74. — Defect in condition of way — Uncovered 
 catch-pit. 
 
 In the floor of one of the defts.' workshops was 
 a catch-pit generally covered with a lid. While 
 the pit was uncovered for a temporary purpose, 
 the pit., a workman of the deft., passing over the 
 premises in the course of his business, fell into 
 the pit and was injured : — 
 
 Held, that the floor of the shop where the 
 pit. was passing was a way within s. 1, sub-s. 1, 
 of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, but that 
 the removal of the cover was not a defect in the 
 condition of the way. Willetts v. Watt & Co. 
 C. A. [1892] 2 a. B. 92 
 
 Distinguished by C A. Tate v. Latham & 
 Son, [1897] 1 Q. B. 502. 
 
 75. — " Defect in condition of works " — Dan- 
 gerous wall — Employers' Liability Act, 1880 
 (43 (fc 44 Vict. c. 42), s. 1. 
 
 1.1 V *'™^'^'^' was engaged in pulling down an 
 P)d hpuse. After removs^l of the roof and pull- 
 
 MASTEE AND SERVANT (Master's LiabUity)— 
 
 continued. 
 ing down of part of the walls, a workman received 
 injuries owing to the fall of a wall which had 
 not been properly shored up : — 
 
 Seld, that the dangerous condition of the 
 wall was " a defect in the condition of the works 
 connected with or used in the business of the 
 deft., for which the deft, was liable uuder the 
 Employers' Liability Act, 1880. Beannigan v. 
 EoBiNSON - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 344 
 
 76. — Defective gear — Personal injuries — 
 Damage— Common employment — Master and sea- 
 man. 
 
 An accident was caused to a seaman through 
 a defective rope, which was in a proper condition 
 when supplied, but had got frayed through 
 use : — 
 
 Seld, that the owners were not responsible to 
 the seaman for the captain (a fellow workman) 
 not keeping it in repair. Gobdon v. Pvpeb 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1892] W. N. 169 
 
 77. — Driver — Bailee for hire — Negligence of 
 servant. 
 
 The deft, hired a carriage and horse from the 
 pits. His coachman, instead of taking them, as 
 was his duty, to the stable, drove for his own 
 purposes in another direction. Wliile he was thus 
 engaged, the carriage and horse were injured 
 owing to his negligent driving : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, was liable under his con- 
 tract as bailee in respect of the consequences of 
 his servant's breach of duty to himself. Coupe 
 Co. )-. Maddick Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 413 
 
 78. — Driver — Negligence — Employer and 
 Workman — " Person in charge or control of loco- 
 motive engine or train upon a railway" — JUm- 
 ployers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 42), 
 8. 1, sub-s. 5. 
 
 The Employers' Liability Act, 1880, by s. 1, 
 sub-s. 5, enacts that where personal injury is 
 caused to a workman by reason of the negligence 
 of any person in the service of the employer 
 " who has the charge or control of any .... 
 locomotive engine or train upon a ry.," there 
 shall be the same right of compensation against 
 the employer as if the workman had not been in 
 his service : — 
 
 A " person who has the charge or control of a 
 train " does not necessarily cease to have charge 
 of it, within the meaning of the Act. because 
 some of the carriages are uncoupled from one 
 another and from the engine in order that they 
 may be separately dealt with. And tliose words 
 do not necessarily point only to one person who 
 is in charge of the whole train, but may include 
 persons who have duties to perform in respect of 
 parts of the train. 
 
 An engine-driver, employed with his fireman 
 in the discharge of loaded wagons on a ry., took a 
 locomotive engine and several wagons to a point 
 on an incline, and there proceeded with the engine 
 and one of the wagons to the place of discharge, 
 intending to return for the other wagons in due 
 course. The fireman uncoupled the remaining 
 wagons and scotched them to prevent them run- 
 ning down the incline. One of the wagons broke 
 away, ran down the ipolipe, and killed a worljoifni 
 
( I2il ) 
 
 BiGEsl" OI* OASJ^S, 1891— laod. 
 
 an ) 
 
 Master and servant (Master's Liability)— 
 
 continued. 
 in the service of the same employers. There was 
 evidence that the method of scotching adopted 
 Was tinsafe and was known to and approved by 
 the engine-driver. The representative of the 
 deceased having brought an action for compensa- 
 tion against the employers : — 
 
 Seld, reversing the decision of the Q. B. D. 
 and 0. A., that there was evidence for the jury 
 that the death was caused by reason of the negli- 
 gence of a person who had the charge or control 
 of a train within the meaning of the Act, since 
 either the engine-driver had the charge or 
 control, or the fireman had, and there was 
 evidence of negligence in both. McOoed v. 
 Cammell & Co. - H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 87 
 — Driver, Negligence of — Cab — Liability of 
 
 registered proprietor. 
 
 See Hackney Caekiase. 1. 
 
 79. — Driver — Negligence of servant — Liability 
 of master — Intervening act of third party — Effec- 
 tive cauae of damage. 
 
 There is no rule of law to prevent a master 
 being liable for negligence of his servant whereby 
 opportunity was given for a third person to 
 commit a wrongful or negligent act immediately 
 producing the damage complained of. Whether 
 the original negligence was an effective cause of 
 the damage is a question of fact in each case. 
 
 The deft, employed a man to drive a cart, 
 with instrnctions not to leave it, and a lad, who 
 had nothing to do with the driving, to go in the 
 cart and deliver parcels to the customers of the 
 defts. The driver left the cart, in which the lad 
 was, and went into a house. While the driver 
 was absent the lad drove on and came into colli- 
 sion with the pit's carriage. In an action to 
 recover for the damage caused by the collision :^ 
 
 Seld, that the negligence of the driver in so 
 leaving the cart was the effective cause of the 
 damage, and that the deft, was liable. Enqel- 
 HABT V. Fabrant & Co. C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 240 
 
 80. — Driver — Omnibus driven by conductor — 
 Onus of proving authority — Negligence of servant. 
 
 At the end of a journey the conductor of an 
 omnibus belonging to the deft., in the absence 
 of the driver, and apparently for the purpose of 
 turning the omnibus in the right direction for the 
 next journey, drove it through some by-streets at 
 a considerable pace, and while so doing negli- 
 gently ran into and injured the pit. At the trial 
 the pit. gave no evidence that the conductor was 
 authorized by the defts. to drive the omnibus in 
 the absence of the driver. At the close of the 
 plt.'s case judgment was entered for the defts. 
 On appeal : — 
 
 Held, by A. L. Smith and Homer L.JJ., that 
 the pit. had not discharged himself from the 
 burden cast upon him of shewing that the injury 
 was due to the negligence of a servant of the 
 defts. acting within the scope of his employment, 
 and that the defts. were entitled to judgment. 
 
 By v. Williams L.J., that in general, if, in 
 the absence of the driver of an omnibus, an acci- 
 dent occurs while the conductor is driving, it 
 would be for the proprietor to shew that the act 
 was unauthorized, but that the facts of the par- 
 ticular case negatived the giving of authority, 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Master's LiabUity)^ 
 
 continued. 
 and that the defts. were entitled to retain the 
 judgment. Beard v. London General OmnibCs 
 Co. - C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 630 
 
 81. — Driuer — ■Scope of servant's employment — 
 Extent of authority — Case of emergency. 
 
 Where the driver of deft.'s omnibus was too 
 drunk to drive, A. volunteered to do so, and, 
 with the acquiescence of the driver and of tlie 
 conductor, drove the omnibus home, and on the 
 way injured the pit. : — 
 
 Seld, that under the circumstances it was not 
 necessary for the servants in charge of the omni- 
 bus to authorize A. to drive, and therefore the 
 deft, was not liElble for A.'s negligence ; qusere, 
 if it had been necessary, whether the deft, would 
 have been liable. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1895] 1 Q. B. 557, 
 reversed. Gwilliam v. Twist 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 84 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Beard v. London 
 General Omnibus Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 530, 534. 
 
 82. — Driver — Servant of one person hired by 
 another to drive his carriage — Liability of hirer 
 for negligence of driver. 
 
 The deft, was the owner of a brougham, 
 horses, and harness which he kept at a livery- 
 stable. The keeper of the livery-stable was in 
 the habit of supplying the deft, with one of his 
 own servants to drive the brougham. One day, 
 whilst the brougham was being driven with one 
 of the deft.'s horses, the driver, owing to his 
 negligence, as the jury found, lost control of the 
 horse, which dashed through the window of the 
 plt.'s shop and did damage. The man who was 
 driving the brougham at the time of the accident 
 had continuously driven the deft, for the pre- 
 ceding six weeks, and at the time of the accident 
 was wearing a suit of livery which had been 
 supplied to him by the deft. : — 
 
 Sdd, that upon these facts there was evi- 
 dence on which a jury might find that the driver 
 at the time of the accident was acting as the 
 servant of the deft., so as to render the deft, 
 responsible for the consequences of his negligence. 
 Jones v. Sodllard Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 56S 
 
 83. — False imprisonment by manager of a 
 public-house. 
 
 The pit. by mistake tendered a foreign gold 
 coin at a public-house in payment for refresh- 
 ments. He discovered and rectified the mistake , 
 but was subsequently arrested at the instance of 
 the person managing the bar for the deft. : — 
 
 Seld, that the manager had no implied 
 authority by reason of his position to make the 
 arrest, as his employer's property was no longer 
 in danger, and the arrest was made only for the 
 purpose of vindicating the criminal law in respect 
 of an offence which the pit. was supposed to have 
 already committed. Abrahams v. Deakin 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q, B. 816 
 
 84. — Fire lighted on land and spreading to 
 other land — Scope of servant's employment — Negli- 
 gent disregard of special directions. 
 
 The C. Co. contracted with W. to fell and 
 burn bush on their land. W,, at the request of 
 
( 1213 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 12il ) 
 
 MASIEB ABS SEBVANT (Master's Liability)— 
 
 continued. 
 the CO. and on its behalf, let the felling and 
 burning of an additional piece of bush to N., who 
 negligently and improperly lighted a fire and 
 allowed it to spread to B.'s land, disregarding 
 special stipulations in the contract as to the time 
 at which such fire should be lit : — 
 
 Seld, that the C. Co. was liable for the damage, 
 and could only escape liability by shewing that 
 the act of N. was that of a trespasser and not 
 within the scope of the contract. Black v. 
 Christchdech Finahcb Co. P. C. [1894] A. C. 48 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Holliday v. National 
 Telephone Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 392, 400. 
 
 — Locomotive, Bailee of — Negligent manage- 
 
 ment by hirer. 
 
 See LooOMOTivES. 2. 
 
 85. — Ohedience to foreman's orders — Negli- 
 gence. 
 
 The pit. was a workman in the employ of 
 builders who were erecting a house. The defts. 
 contracted with the builders to construct alift in 
 the house, and the plaintiff, at their request, was 
 selected by the builder's foreman to assist D., 
 their man, in putting up the lift. In obeying 
 D.'s orders pit. received an injury : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was at the time a workman 
 of the defts. and bound to conform to D.'s orders, 
 and that the defts. were liable for his injuries. 
 Wild v. Watgood - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B, 783 
 
 — Omnibus driven by conductor — Onus of 
 
 proving authority. 
 See No. 80, above. 
 
 86. — Ship's crew and stevedores — Common 
 employment. 
 
 In an action to recover damages for injury 
 caused by the deft.'s servant, the defence of 
 common employment does not apply unless the 
 pit. was at the time of the injury in the deft.'s 
 actual employment in the relationship of master 
 and servant. Where the defts. were stevedores 
 and the pit. a servant of the shipmaster on whose 
 ship the injury was caused by the negligence of 
 a servant of the stevedores : — 
 
 Held, that the defence of common employment 
 was not available. Camebon v. Nystkom 
 
 F. C. [1893] A. C. 308 
 
 87. — Shipmoner and stevedores — Common 
 employment — Negligence. 
 
 Under a contract to discharge a ship the 
 whole work was not to be done by the stevedores, 
 but the shipowners were to control and employ 
 members of the crew to work the tackle : — 
 
 Held, that the shipowners were liable for 
 injury to a servant of the stevedores occasioned 
 by the negligence of a winchman who was a 
 member of the crew and not in the employ nor 
 under the control of the stevedores. Uhion 
 Steamship Co. v. Claijidgb 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 186 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Marrow v. Fliiriby, &c., 
 Brick Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 588, 007. 
 
 88. — Ships telonging to same oicner — Common 
 employment. 
 
 The masters and crews of two different ships 
 
 UASTEB AND SEBTANT (Master's LiabiUty)— 
 
 continued. 
 belonging to the same owners are not in common 
 employment. The " Peteel " 
 
 Jenne P. [1893] P. 320 
 
 89. — Volenti non fit injuria. 
 
 When a workman engaged in an employment 
 not in itself dangerous is exposed to danger 
 arising from an operation in another department 
 over which he has no control — the danger being 
 created or enhanced by the negligence of the 
 employer — the mere fact that he undertakes or 
 continues in such employment with full know- 
 ledge and understanding of the danger is not 
 conclusive to shew that he has undertaken the 
 risk so as to make the maxim, " Volenti non fit 
 injuria " applicable in case of injury. The ques- 
 tion whether or no he has so undertaken the risk 
 is one of fact and not of law. This is so both at 
 common law and in cases arising under the 
 Employers' I^iability Act, 1880. Smith v. Bakek 
 & Sons - - H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 325 
 
 Followed by C. A. Williams v. Birmingham 
 Battery and Metal Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 338. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 Employers' lAahiliiy Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict, 
 c. 42) — Amendment as to time of delivery of 
 summons for services. See Explanatory Memoran- 
 dum to County Court Bules (May), 1899, and 
 rule 66. W. N. 1899 (May 20), p. 173. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p. czi. 
 
 90. — Committal order. Jurisdiction to make — 
 " Enforceable as a county court judgment " — 
 Default in payment of compensation — Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), 
 Sched. II. (S)— Debtors Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict, 
 c. 62), s. 5. 
 
 The memorandum of the compensation 
 awarded by an arbitrator under the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897, when recorded in the 
 manner prescribed by Sched. II. (8) of the Act, 
 may be enforced by order of committal under the 
 Debtors Act, 1 869, c. 5. Bailey v. Plant 
 
 C. A. [1900] W N. 248; see [1901] 1 Q. B 31 
 
 — Costs — Security for — Appeal under Work- 
 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897. 
 See Costs— Security for Costs. 61. 
 
 — Joinder of several causes of action. 
 
 See Pkactioe. 95. 
 
 — Joinder of plaintiff — Several causes of action. 
 
 See Practice. 97. 
 
 91. — Justices, Jurisdiction of — Absence of 
 workman witlwut leave — Employers and Workmen 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. v. 90), ». i— Truck Act, 
 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. v. 44), ». 1. 
 
 The jurisdiction of a court of summary juris- 
 diction under the Employers and Workmen Act, 
 1875, to hear and determine a dispute under that 
 Act between an employer and a workman is not 
 ousted by reason of the agreement of service 
 being one to which the provisions of s. 1 of the 
 Truck Act, 1896, apply. Bcxton Lime Firms 
 Co, V. Howe - - - [igoo] 2 ft. B. 232 
 
 92. — New trial — Jurisdiction of county court 
 judge — Workmen's Compensation A ct, 1897 (60 4 61 
 
 Vict. c. 37), 8. 1, sub-s. 3. 
 
 A county court judge sitting to hear an 
 
( iUb ) 
 
 DMESt Of CASES, lSdi-^1960. 
 
 ( 1246 ) 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Practice)— coretmued 
 application for compensation under the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897, is acting as an 
 arbitrator only, and has no jurisdiction to grant 
 a new trial. MonNTAiN v. Parb 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 3S (7); [1899] 1 Q. B. 808 
 
 93. — Notice of claim — Indemnity as between 
 respondents — Undertakers and contractor — Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 <£ 61 Vict. e. 37), 
 ». i — Workmen's Compensation Bules, 1898, 
 rr. 19-23. 
 
 Where the undertakers and a contractor with 
 them are made respondents to an application for 
 compensation under the Act, and the undertakers 
 claim under s. 4 of ihe Act to be entitled to an 
 indemnity ao;ainst the contractor, they must, 
 under rule 23 of the Workmen's Compensation 
 Kules, 1898, file a notice of such claim five clear 
 days before the day of hearing in the same 
 manner as is prescribed by rule 19 in the case of 
 a claim for indemnity by a respondent against a 
 third party. Appleby v. Hoeseley Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 90 ; [1899] 2 Q. B. 521 
 
 94. — Second action — Remedies — Jurisdiction 
 of justices — Proceedings^ against servant — Con- 
 tinuous ireach of contract — Further proceedings — 
 Employers and Workmen Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 90), 8. i. 
 
 By the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, 
 8. 4, a dispute between an employer and a work- 
 man may be determined by a court of summary 
 jurisdiction, provided that the Court shall not 
 exercise jurisdiction where the amount claimed 
 exceeds 101. 
 
 On Oct. 22 the respondents agreed to employ 
 the appellant, and he agreed to serve them, for 
 fifty-two weeks, at specified weekly wages. On 
 Nov. 16 the appellant left his work, and did not 
 return. ' 
 
 On Dec. 16 the respondents took proceedings, 
 under the Act, in a court of summary jurisdiction, 
 against the appellant, and recovered 101. dam- 
 ' ages for his absence from Nov. 16 to 28. After- 
 wards the respondents took further proceedings 
 in the same court to recover another 101. for the 
 appellant's absence from Nov. 30 to Deo. 12. On 
 a case stated : — 
 
 Held, that the jurisdiction of the Court, being 
 limited to lOZ., was exhausted by the judgment 
 in the first case, and therefore the respondents 
 were not entitled to recover in the second case. 
 James v. Evans & Co. - - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1897] 2 Q. B, 180 
 
 — Second action for same injury — Death of work- 
 
 man after first action brought. 
 See Scottish Law — Master and Ser- 
 . vant, 28. 
 
 95. — Staying proceedings — Action for damages 
 
 — Contract for service — Arbitration clause — • 
 Wrongful dismissal — A rbitration Act, 1889 (52 <£ 53 
 Vict. c. 49), 8. 4. 
 
 A contract for the employment of the pit. by 
 the defts. as their agent for the sale of maize and 
 other products for seven years, at a remuneration 
 by commission, provided that " any dispute aris- 
 ing in connection with " the contract should be 
 referred to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration 
 clause in the by-laws of the Liverpool Corn Trade 
 Association. I'he arbitration clause in those by- 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Praotice)- 
 laws provided that " all disputes arising out of 
 transactions connected with the trade " should be 
 referred to arbitrators, and that neither contract- 
 ing party should bring any action against the 
 other in respect of any dispute until the dispute 
 had been settled by the arbitrators. Disputes as 
 to the plts.'s conduct as agent were subsequently 
 referred to arbitrators, who made an award adverse 
 to the pit. whereupon the defts. dismissed him. 
 The pit. then brought an action against the defts. 
 for damages for wrongful dismissal : — 
 
 Seld, reversing Philimore J., that the dis- 
 pute in the action was within the arbitration 
 clauses in the contract and by-laws, and that 
 the defts., having always been " ready and 
 willing" to refer the dispute to arbitration, were 
 entitled to have the action stayed under s. 4 of 
 the Arbitration Act, 1889. 
 
 Benshaw v. Queen Anne Mansions Co., [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 662, followed. 
 
 Davis V. Starr, (1889) 14 Oh. D. 242, ex- 
 plained. Eabky v. Liverpool Malt Co. 
 
 C, A. [1900] W. N, 2; [1900] 1 Q. B. 339 
 
 96. — Time for commencing proceedings — 
 Arbitration — "Claim for compensation" — Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), 
 8. 2, sub-s. 1. 
 
 By s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the Workmen's Compen- 
 sation Act, 1897, proceedings for the recovery 
 under that Act of compensation for an injury are 
 not to be maintainable unless notice of the 
 accident has been given as soon as practicable, 
 "and unless the claim for compensation with 
 respect to such accident has been made wltbin 
 six months from the occurrence of the accident 
 causing the injury " 
 
 "The claim for compensation" means, not 
 the initiation of proceedings before the tribunal 
 by which the compensation is to be assessed, but 
 a notice of a claim for compensation sent to tlie 
 workman's employer. 
 
 A workman who had been injured in the 
 course of his employment sent to his employers 
 within six months a notice of the accident, and 
 also a notice stating that he claimed compensa- 
 tion for the injury received by him. More than 
 six months after the accident he filed a request 
 for arbitration in the county court : — 
 
 Seld, that the proceedings were in time. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1900] W. N. 73; [1900] 2 
 Q. B. 145, reversed and the award of the county 
 court judge restored. Powell v. Main Colliery 
 Co. - - H. L. (E.) [190O] W. N. 114; 
 
 [1900] A. C. 366 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Wright v. John BagnaU 
 & Sons, Ld., [1900] 2 Q. B. 240, 243. See next 
 Case. 
 
 97. — Time for making claim for compensation 
 — Claim made more than six months after accident 
 — Employers debarred from raising objection — 
 Estoppel — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), ». 2, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The provision of s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1897, which^ requires 
 the claim for compensation to be made within 
 six months of the occurrence of the accident 
 causing the injury, is not necessarily an absolute 
 bar to proceedings for the assessment of oompen- 
 
( liiT ) 
 
 biGKST OP cAsHS, 1391—1900; 
 
 ( 1219 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Practice)— contmuecJ. 
 gation commenced after six months by an injured 
 workman, and the county court judge or other 
 arbitrator has jurisdiction to inquire whether 
 there are any circumstances in the caae to debar 
 the employer from raising that defence. An 
 agreement arrived at between tlie parties shortly 
 after! the accident that there is a statutory 
 liability on the employer to pay compensation, 
 the amount of compensation being left open for 
 future settlement, is evidence upon which the 
 I'udge or arbitrator may properly find that the 
 employer is estopped from setting up the defence 
 that the request for arbitration was not filed 
 within six months of the accident. Weight v 
 John Bagnall & Sons, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 92; [1900] 2 Q. B. 240 
 Distinguished by C. A. See next Case. 
 
 98. — Time for maldng claim for compensation 
 ■ — Claim made moreilian six months after accident 
 — Estoppel — Workman's Compensation Act, 1897 
 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 37), s. 2, suh-s. 1. 
 
 A workman having been injured by an acci- 
 dent, his employers paid him weekly through an 
 insurance company one-half the amount of his 
 wages, taking a receipt which expressed that the 
 money was received " on account of compensation 
 which may be or become due to me under the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 " ; the pay- 
 ments continued to be made for ten months after 
 the accident, when they ceased. The workman 
 then filed a request for arbitration in the county 
 court : — 
 
 Seld, that there being no evidence of any 
 admission on the part of the employers of their 
 liability under the Act to pay compensation, they 
 were not estopped from taking the objection that 
 tlie request for arbitration was out of time. 
 
 Wright \. John Bagnall & Sons, [1900] 
 2 Q. B. 240, distinguished. Eendall v. Hill's 
 Dky Docks and Engineebing Go. 
 
 C. A, [1900] W. N. 113 I [1900] 2 Q. B. 245 
 
 99. — Unsuccessful action against employer — 
 Accident causing personal injury — Sight to assess- 
 ment of compensation under Worltmen's Compen- 
 sation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), ». 1, sub-ss. 
 2 (6), 4. 
 
 Where a workman, who has been injured by 
 an accident arising out of and in the course of his 
 employment, brings an unsuccessful action to 
 recover damages against his employer, and is 
 desirous of having compensation for his injury 
 assessed under the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897, he must follow the procedure prescribed 
 by s. 1, sub-s. 4, of that Act, and must apply then 
 and there to the judge trying the action for an 
 assessment of compensation ; he cannot at a sub- 
 sequent date initiate independent proceedings 
 against his employer by a request for arbitration 
 under that Act. Edwakds v. Godpket 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 72; [1899] 2 Q. B. 833 
 
 Trade Secrets. 
 
 100. — Implied dbligaiion of servant — Abuse of 
 confidence — Improper use of information acquired 
 during service. 
 
 A clerk in the employment of a firm of 
 mechanical engineers two days before leaving 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Trade Secrets) -i- 
 
 continued. 
 their service compiled a table of dimensions of 
 various engines made by them. He did it for 
 his own purposes and without their knowledge 
 and consent : — 
 
 Held, that he had committed an abuse of the 
 confidence ordinarily existing between clerk and 
 employer, or the implied contract arising from 
 their confidential relations, that a servant shall 
 not use except for the purposes of service oppor- 
 tunities which the service gives him of gaining 
 information. Merktweather v. Moore 
 
 Eekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 518 
 
 101. — Implied obligation of servant — Im- 
 proper use of information — Liability. 
 
 A manager copied from the order-book a list 
 of names and addresses of his master's customers, 
 and on leaving his employment used the list to 
 solicit orders from them : — 
 
 Held, that there was an implied term of the 
 contract of service not to use to the master's 
 detriment information obtained in the course of 
 the service, and that the manager was liable to 
 his former master in damages to an iniunotion. 
 
 Decision of Hawkins J., [1895] 2 Q. B. 1, 
 alErmed. Eobb v. Green 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 315 
 
 102. — Implied obligation of servant — Tailor's 
 cutter. 
 
 An iivjunction granted restraining a tailor 
 from using paper patterns copies of those cut by 
 him when cutter under a former master. Un- 
 reported ; and referred to by Chitty J, 
 
 Canvassers were employed to obtain advertise- 
 ments for a directory from tradeis in particular 
 districts. They proposed on the expiration of 
 their agreements to assist several publications in 
 obtaining similar advertisements : — 
 
 Seld, that so to use the materials obtained 
 under the agreement would be a breach of the 
 implied terms thereof. 
 
 Decision of Chitty J., [1892] 3 Ch. 462, 
 affirmed. Lamb v. Evans 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 218 
 
 Followed by C. A. Bobb v. areen, [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 315. 
 
 103. — Information acquired during service — 
 Copies from employer's books. 
 
 A former servant is not justified in using 
 forms copied by him from those used by Ms 
 former employer, or in using copies or extracts 
 from a register of persons with whom his em- 
 ployer did business, for the purpose of canvassing 
 them, and can be restrained from doing so by 
 injunction. Louis v. Smellie 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 115 (7) 
 
 Truck. 
 
 Truck Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 44) amende 
 the Truck Acts. 
 
 Truck Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 44)— 0. by 
 Sec. of State dated March 3, 1897, exempting from 
 provisions of Act persons engaged in weaving 
 cotton in Lancashire, Cheshire Derbyshire and 
 West Riding of HorksUre. St. E. & 0, 1897, 
 p, 459, No. 299. 
 
 0. by Sec. of State, dated July 30, 1397, 
 
t 1249 ) 
 
 DiGES't OF CASES, ISdl— i£l()0. 
 
 ( libo ) 
 
 IVtiSTEE AND SERVANT (T:t\>.ok)~-contmued. 
 exempting from provisions of Act persons engaged 
 in iron ore and ironstone mines and limestone 
 quarries in districts of Lancashire, Cumberland 
 and Yorkshire. St. E. & 0. 1897, p. 460, No. 629. 
 
 104. — Payment otherwise than in current coin 
 — Deductions for sicli and accidents fund — Truck 
 Act, 1831 (1 (fc 2 Will, i a. 37), ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 24. 
 
 A payment made by a master at the instance 
 of a servant, to discharge an obligation of the 
 servant, or to place the money in the hands of 
 a person in whose hands the servant desires it 
 to b3 placed, is a payment to the servant as 
 much as if current ooia had been placed in" the 
 servant's hands. H. entered into the service of 
 A.," and signed an agreement to conform to all 
 regulations of A.'s works. One regulation was 
 that all servants were to become members of a 
 sick and accident club. By the rules of this 
 club weekly payments were made to the club, 
 and relief given to membars in case of sickness 
 or accident. H. received each week a ticket 
 shewing the wages due, and the weekly deduc- 
 tion for the club, and the balance was paid to 
 H. H. never rec[uired or received relief from 
 the club : — 
 
 Held, that within ss. 3 and 4 of the Truck 
 Act, 1831, H. had been paid the entire amount 
 of wages in current coin, and that H. was not 
 entitled to recover from A. the amount of the 
 weekly deductions : 
 
 neld, also, that even assuming (but without 
 deciding) that there was a contract avoided by 
 s. 2 of the Act, A., by making the weekly pay- 
 ments to the club with H.'s assent, had discharged 
 his obligations to H. 
 
 Decision of C. A. Hewhlt v. Allen & Sons, 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 662, affirmed sub. nom. Hewlett 
 V. Allen - H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 383 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Phillips v. London 
 School Board, [1898] 2 Q. B. 447, 450. 
 
 105. — Payment otherwise than in current coin 
 — Sick and accident fund — Porter — ■ Truck Acts, 
 1831 (1 * 2 Will, i c. 37), s. 23 ; 1887 (50 & 51 
 Vict. c. 46), s. 6. 
 
 Sect. 6 of tlie Truck Amendment Act, 1887, 
 does not apply to written contracts excepted by 
 s. 23 of the Truck Act, 1831. Therefore deduc- 
 tions made weekly in pursuance of the contract 
 of service of a porter's wages to the sick and 
 funeral allowance fund of the ry. co. are legal. 
 Lamb v. Great Northern Ky. Co. 
 
 Div. Ot. [1891] 2 Q. B. 381 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Hewlett v. Allen & 
 Sons, [1892] 2 Q. B. 662, 674. This case was 
 affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. 0. 383. See 
 preceding Case. 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Phillips v. London 
 School Board, [1898] 2 Q. B. 447, 452. 
 
 103. — Sick and accident fund — Quard of a 
 goods train — " Workman " — Employers and Work- 
 men Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 90), ». 10— Truck 
 Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 46). 
 
 The pit. was guard of a goods train. His 
 main duties were to guard and conduct the train 
 and to marshal the trucks ; but it was also his 
 duty at times to help in coupling and uncoupling 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT (Tlr\ioTi)— continued. 
 and unloading trucks. He was by the terms of 
 his employment bound to contribute to a sick 
 and accident fund by deductions made from his 
 wages and not returned if he left his service. 
 He sued to recover the sums compulsorily 
 deducted, as illegally deducted under the Truck 
 Acts : — 
 
 Held, that he was not " a workman " within 
 3. 10 of the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, 
 and was not a person to whom the provisions 
 of the Truck Acts applied. Hunt v. Great 
 NOBTHEEN Ry. Co. (No. 1) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 a. B. 601 
 
 MATERIAL FACTS— Concealment — Contracts in 
 which " uberrima fides " is required. 
 See Insurance— tjuarant33. 11. 
 
 ■ Concealment of. 
 
 See Shippino. 
 
 150. 
 
 — Non-disolosure of. 
 
 See Specific Pekpormanoe. 2. 
 
 MATBIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce. 
 
 MATJEITIUS— 4ppeaZs from Mauritius— 0. in 0. 
 dated April 13, 183i; Oct. 23, 1851, and Dec. 12, 
 1894, making hetter provision for the administra- 
 tion of justice in Mauritius. St. B. & 0. 1899, 
 pp. 1693, 1697, 1701. 
 
 MAXIMS OF LAW. 
 
 1. — '^ Actio personalis moritur cum persona." 
 
 (a) Damages for misrepresentation. In re 
 Duncan - - Eomer J. [1899] 1 Ch. 387 
 
 (b) Liahility of partners. Bltth v. Fladoate 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 1 Ch, 337 
 
 2. — " A man's house is his castle.'' 
 
 This maxim considered at length by 
 Bowen L.J. The effect of the maxim is to 
 extend the immunity to the outer door not only 
 of all dwelling-houses, but also of all buildings 
 whatsoever, and to outer gates of all inclosures 
 as regards both distress and execution. 
 
 The decision of Bowen L.J. [1893] W. N. 67, 
 affirmed. American Concentrated Meat Co. v. 
 Hendry - C. A. [1893] W. N. 82 
 
 But see Bodder v. Williams, C. A. [1895] 
 2 Q. B. 663, 668. 
 
 3. — ■ " Damnum absque injuria'' — Underselling 
 — Damage to manufacturer. Ajello v. Worslet 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 1 Ch. 274 
 
 4. — " Debitor non pnesumitur donare." John- 
 stone V. Hatiland H. L. (So.) [1896] A, C. 95 
 
 5. — Deceased person, Wrongful act done hy 
 — Claim for damages for misrepresentation. In 
 re Duncan . - - [1899] 1 Ch. 387 
 
 6. — Deceased director — Liability of legal 
 personal representatives. Frankenburq v. Great 
 Horseless Carriage Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 a. B. 504 
 
 This maxim has a very limited application 
 in Scotland. Wood v. Gray & Sons Per Lord 
 Watson H. L. (So.) [1892] A. C. 676, at p. 580 
 
 7. — " Ignorantla juris nemini excusat." See 
 Whitworth ». Whitwobth. 
 
 Q. Barnes J. [1893] F. 85 
 2 S 
 
( 1251 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1252 ) 
 
 MAXIMS OF LA.'W— continued. 
 
 8. — " Nemo debet his vexari pro una et eadem 
 causa." 
 
 This maxim applies also in Scotland. Wood 
 V. Gkat & Sons 
 
 Per Lord Field [1892] A. C. 576 at p. 583 
 
 9. — " Si sine liheris decesserit." Hdghes v. 
 Edwaeds - H. L, (So.) [1892] A. C. 583 
 
 10. — Uberrima fides — Concealment of material 
 facts. Seaton v. Bdbnand. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 135 
 11- — " Volenti nonfit injuria.^' 
 
 (a) Tile effect of this maxim considered. 
 Smith v. Baker & Sons 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1891] A. C. 325 
 
 (b) Bkabant & Co. V. Kino. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 632 
 
 (c) Williams v. Birmingham Battery Metal 
 Co. - C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 338 
 MAYOE— Election. 
 
 See Corporation. 17. 
 
 — iSalary. 
 
 See Corporation. 21. 
 
 MAYOR'S COURT (OF LONDON). 
 
 See Cases under London — Mayor's 
 Court. 
 
 MEASURE. 
 
 See Weights and JMeasukes. 
 MEAT— Unsound. 
 
 See Food. 3—6. 
 
 MEDICAL AID — Conscientious objection to — 
 Neglect to procure medical aid — Infant 
 child — Jlanslaughtcr. 
 See Criminal Law. 9. 
 
 MEDICAL PRACTITIONER— Xlen<;s«—iJ/g7i< lo 
 
 be registered — Qualification — Articled pupil at 
 parsing of Act — Dentists Act, 1S7S (41 d- 42 Vict, 
 e. 33), ss. 6 (c), 7, 37. 
 
 , A person "who was, at the time of the passing 
 of the Dentists Act, 1878, articled as a pupil 
 within the meaning of s. 37, applied to have his 
 name placed upon the Dentists' Eegister. He 
 had not made the declaration required by s. 7 : — 
 
 Seld, that the proviso in s. 7 applies to per- 
 sons whose qualification is given by s. 37, ami 
 that, therefore, the applicant, not having made 
 tliu declaration, was not entitled to be registered. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 7G4, 
 affiimed. Eeg. v. Medical Council 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 203 
 
 — Lunacy — Practice. 
 
 See Lunacy. 12, 34. 
 
 — Medical referees — Workmen's Compensation 
 
 Act, 1897. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 2. — Medical register — Erasure of name for 
 misconduct — Power of Court to review decision — 
 Merhcal Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90), ss. 28, 29. 
 
 A medical man is guilty of infamous conduct 
 In a professional respect within s. 29 of the 
 Medical Act, 1858, if in the pursuit of his pro- 
 fession he has done something with regard to it 
 ^ilf r''^'','''?'^°"='^ly t'e considered as dis- 
 giacelul or dishonourable by his professional j 
 
 MEDICAL PEACTITIONEE— coraitntietZ. 
 brethren of good repute and competency. Allin- 
 soN r. General Medical Council 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 750 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. Burton, 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 468, 473. 
 
 3. — " Physician " — False description — Medi- 
 cal Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90), s. 40 — 
 Medical Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. e. 48), s. 6. 
 
 A licentiate of the Society of the Apothecaries 
 of London under a diploma granted by that body 
 since 1886, although duly registered as a medical 
 practitioner under the Medical Acts and entitled 
 to practise medicine, surgery and midwifery, is 
 not entitled to describe himself as a physician ; 
 but such a description, though incorrect, does 
 not subject him to the penalty imposed by s. 40 
 of the Medical Act, 1858, unless it be also made 
 wilfully and falsely. Hunter v. Clare 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 ft. B. 635 
 
 4. — Practising witlwut a certificate — Wliellier 
 more tlian one penalty recoverable — Apotheca) its 
 Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3, c. 194), ». 20. 
 
 The deft, practised as an apothecary without 
 a certificate, and on one day gave advice and 
 supplied medicine to three persons. He was 
 sued for three penalties under s. 20 of the Apothe- 
 caries Act, 1815, for acting or praetisiog as an 
 apothecary without a certificate ; — 
 
 Held, that acting or practising applied to an 
 habitual or continuous course of conduct, and that 
 each a1 tendance did not constitute a separate 
 offence, and that the deft, was liable only to one 
 penalty. Apothecaries Co. v. Jones 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft B. 89 
 
 — Eight of employer to examination of work- 
 
 man by — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 See Master and Serv.ant. 33. 
 MEDICINE— Cruelty to children — Xeglect to 
 provide medical aid. 
 See Criminal Law. 9. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 16j. 
 MEDIUM FILUM VI.a;. 
 
 ,sVe Highway, .s. 
 
 Light and Air. 20. 
 Vendor and Pukcuaser — Convey- 
 ance, 43. 
 MEMBER- School board— Disqualification. 
 See Schools — School Board. 3—5. 
 MEETINGS— Company. 
 
 See CoMPANT^Meetings. 
 
 MEMBER OF SOCIETT—Ketirement— Accept- 
 ance. 
 See A'oLUNTARY Association. 1. 
 
 MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIA- 
 TION, 
 
 See Cases under Company — Memoran- 
 dum and Articles, 
 
 MEMORIAL INSCRIPTION. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 33 
 
 MEMORIALS— Evidence— Admissibility. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 21, 32. 
 
 MENS REA — Malicious prosecution — Statutory 
 offence. 
 Stc Xew Sottu Wales. 29. 
 
C 1263 ) 
 
 DtGESt Ot* CASfiS, 1^91—1900. 
 
 ( 1254 ) 
 
 llENS EEA — continued. 
 
 — Sale of food in altered state. 
 
 See AddIiTekation. 18. 
 
 MEBCHANDISE MASKS. 
 
 See Tbade-maek — Merchandise Marks. 
 
 MERCHANT SHIPPING. 
 
 See Cases under SuiPPmG. 
 
 MERGER — Agreement for lease — Life estate — 
 Intention — Benefit — Tenant for life. 
 
 The principle applicable to the merger of 
 charges in equity applies also to the merger of 
 leases. The Court is guided by the intention ; 
 and, in the absence ot express intention, either 
 in the instrument or by parol, the Court looks to 
 the benefit of the person in whom the two estates 
 become vested. 
 
 If a tenant for life in remainder takes a 
 beneficial lease or an agreement therefor, and 
 subsequently becomes tenant for life in posses- 
 sion, the presumption is against merger in equity. 
 Ingle v. Jeskins Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 140 ; 
 
 [1800] 2 Ch. 368 
 
 — Debt — Merger in judgment — Petitioning cre- 
 
 ditor's debt. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Petition. 144. 
 
 — Estate duty — Life estate — Surrender to re- 
 
 mainderman—" Interest ceasing on death 
 
 of deceased." 
 
 See Revenue— Estate Duty. 41, 42. 
 
 2. — Legal estate — Equitable interest — Inten- 
 tion — Vendor and parclmser — Estate of vendor — 
 Expressed grant of fee — Leasehold title in equity 
 — CoJireyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), 
 ». G3. 
 
 H. was entitled to certain houses for a term 
 of ninety-nine years (less one day) by way of 
 nioi tgage from W. W. was entitled to the pro- 
 perty for the original term subject to the mort- 
 gage, and H. was entitled to the reversion in fee 
 expectant on the determination of the original 
 term. Under these circumstances W. conveyed 
 the property to H. for the unexpired residue of 
 the original term, and H. covenanted to in- 
 demnify W. against the rents and covenants in 
 the lease and the principal and interest secured 
 by the mortgage. H. afterwards conveyed by 
 way of sale to W. in fee, the conveyance being 
 expressly " subject to and with benefit of the 
 lease," and W. then conveyed to the pits, in 
 fee "subject to and with benefit of the lease." 
 H. subsequently purported to convey by way of 
 mortgage in fee to the deft., who had no notice 
 of the plt.'s title : — 
 
 Held, that whether the original term had 
 merged in the reversion or not, yet, inasmuch as 
 H. and W. had dealt with one another on the 
 footing that the term was to be deemed in exist- 
 ence, it would be inequitable to allow it to be 
 treated as at an end. H. had therefore, when he 
 purported to convey the fee to the deft., an 
 equitable estate to the extent of the leasehold 
 interest, which, under s. 63 of the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881, passed to the deft., and the pits, were 
 bound to give elfect to it. 
 
 The question whether two equitable estates 
 are merged or not is one of intention. Whether 
 this rule applies where a merger of legal estate 
 
 MERGER — continued. 
 
 has actually taken place, quxre. Thellusbon v. 
 LiDDARD - StirUng J. [1900] W. N. 146 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 3. _ Life estate and estate pur autre vie— 
 Intention— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict, 
 c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. 4. 
 
 A tenant for life granted her estate to the 
 next tenant for life, subject to a rent-charge 
 payal'le to her during her life. The grantio 
 died before grantor, having devised his interest 
 to pits. A remainderman claimed that there had 
 been a merger of the life estate and the estate 
 pur autre vie, and that he took the estate dis- 
 charged of the rent-charge : — 
 
 Held, that s. 25, sub-s. 4, of the Judicature 
 Act, 1873, applied, and that having regard to the 
 intention of the parties manifest on the face of 
 the deed of grant there was no merger of the 
 estates of the first and second tenant for life. 
 Snow v. Boycott Kektwich J. [1892] 3 Ch. 110 
 
 — Life interest and reversion held in diiferent 
 
 rights. 
 
 See PowEK. 42. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgage— Merger. 
 
 — Prescriptive right — Extinguishment of old 
 
 franchise by statute. 
 See Tolls. 1. 
 
 MERSEY CHANNELS ACr, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. 
 0. 21). Power given to make rules for prerenting 
 collisions in Mersey Channels. 
 
 — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Shipping, passim. 
 
 MESNE PROFITS— Appealable amount. 
 
 See Pkivy Council — Judicial Committee, 
 2. 
 
 METAGE— Of grain. 
 
 See London— Grain Duty. 42. 
 
 METALLIFEROUS MINES. 
 
 See Cases under Mines — Metalliferous 
 Mines. 
 
 METROPOLITAN CONSOLIDATED 3J PER 
 CENT. STOCK — Held to be impure 
 personalty. 
 See Charity. 49. 
 
 METROPOLIS. 
 
 See Cases under London. 
 MIDDLESEX REGISTRY. 
 
 Middlesex Registry Act, 1891 (54 d- 55 Vict. 
 c. 10), ma /fes temporary provision for the business 
 of the Middlesex Registry of Deeds. 
 
 By the Land Registry {Middlesex Leeds) Act, 
 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 64), the Middlesex Registry 
 of Leeds ims transferred to the Land Registry, 
 and provision made for the conduct of the business 
 thereof, 
 
 EuLES.] Rules dated Feb. 8, 1892, made by the 
 Ld. Chanc. under the Land Registry (Middlesex 
 Deeds) Act, 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. a. 64). These rules 
 are in substitution for all rules subsisting before 
 Aug. 5, 1891. [1892] W. N. (Appx. of 0. & R.) 
 p. 4; St. B. & 0. 1892, p. 638. 
 
 Regs, dated Mar. 24, 1892, made by the Regis- 
 
 2 sa 
 
( 12o5 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891— ISOO. 
 
 ( 12S6 ) 
 
 MIDDLESEX n^GlSTRY— continued. 
 
 trar. [1892] W. N. (Appx. of 0. & E.) p. 15 ; St. 
 
 E. & 0. 1892, p. 645. 
 
 JReg. dated Ap. 19, 1892, amending the Note to 
 Form 1 of Land Segistry (^Middlesex Deeds) Rules, 
 1892. [1892] W. N. (Appx. of 0. & E.)p. 21 ; St. 
 E. & 0. 1892, p. 645. 
 
 Fees.] Fee 0. dated Feb. 1 1 , 1892, made under 
 the Land Segistry (Middlesex Deeds) Act, 1891. 
 St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 644. 
 
 Treas. 0. dated Ap. 27, 1892, as to fees payable 
 under the Land Segistry (Middlesex Deeds) Act, 
 1891. St. E. & 0. 1892, p. 645. 
 
 Fees payable under the Land Segistry (Middle- 
 sex Deeds) Act, 1891. W. N. 1900 (Dec. 22), 
 p. 335. See Carrent Index, 1900, p. xciv. 
 
 — " Conveyance '' — Title of oSioial receiver under 
 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — Eeoelver. 193. 
 
 — Costs — " Completion of conveyance." 
 
 See Solicitor. 61. 
 
 — Purchase of lands In Middlesex — Registration 
 
 — Costs — Taxation — "Completion of 
 
 conveyance." 
 
 See Solicitor. 61. 
 
 1. — Sectijication of the rrgisler — Land Segis- 
 try {Middlesex Deeds) Act, IS'.ll (54 & 55 Vict, 
 c. 64), s. 1—Land Transfer Acts, 1875 (38 * 39 
 Vict. c. 87), 8. 95 ; 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 65), s. 7, 
 sub-s. 2. 
 
 AVhere a Court of competent jurisdiction has 
 decided that a person is entitled to land regis- 
 tered under the Middlesex Registry Acts, and as 
 a consequence of the decision is of opinion that a 
 rectification of the register is required, the Court 
 may not only declare that the register ought, 
 but may also order it, to be rectified. Stephen- 
 son V. YoKKE Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 44 ; 
 
 [190O] 1 eh. 505 
 MIIITAEY MATTERS. 
 
 See Caacs under Army and Navy. 
 
 MILITAEY COLOTJES— Affixing to walls of 
 
 chancel — Faculty. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 34. 
 MILE. 
 
 See Dairy. 
 — Sale of milk. 
 
 See Adulteration — Milk, 
 
 MILK CHUEN— Gauge Indicating quantity con- 
 tained. 
 
 See Weights and Measures. 1. 
 MINES— MINES AND MINERALS. 
 
 Tn General, col, 1256. 
 
 Coal Mines, col. 1257. 
 
 Distress, col. 1258. 
 
 Gold Mines, col. 1259. 
 
 Infants, col. 1260. 
 
 Leases, col. 1260. 
 
 Metalliferous Mines, col. 12G3. 
 
 Sailu-ay Company. See Railway — 
 Minerals. 
 
 Settled Land. See Settled Land — 
 Mines. 
 
 M'orldng Generally, col. 1263. 
 
 MINES — continued. 
 
 In Creneral. 
 
 — Arbitration — Duty of company to take up 
 
 award — Compensation — Notice of inten- 
 tion to work. 
 See Railway — ^Minerals. 11. 
 
 — Boiler explosions in. 
 
 See Boiler — Explosions, 1. 
 
 — British Columbia Coal Mines Regulations — 
 
 Naturalization and aliens — Chinamen. 
 See Canada. 30. 
 
 — Employers' Liability Act— Liability of mine- 
 
 owner — Working " under a contract with 
 
 an employer." 
 
 See jMaster and Servant. 
 
 — Free miner's certificate — Precious metals. 
 
 See Canada. 29. 
 
 — " Flotation " — Contract — Construction — 
 
 British South Africa Company's Mining 
 
 Ordinance. 
 
 See Cape op Good Hope. 4. 
 
 1. — Mounds of refuse produced in iron 
 manufacture — Minerals — Chattels. 
 
 Pit. demised coal and iron mines to a co., 
 which, in manufacturing iron from ironstone, 
 produced large quantities of refuse (consisting 
 principally of protoxide of iron and silica) called 
 " tap-cinder " or " puddlers' taps." This refuse, 
 which was at the time unsaleable, was thrown on 
 the demised land and accumulated in large 
 mounds. On the determination of the lease pits, 
 demised the land and minerals to defts., who only 
 worked the coal, and did not add to the mounds. 
 Aftersvards defts. purchased the " stores and other 
 effects " on the land from pits. The tap cinder 
 in the meantime had acquired a commercial 
 value, and large quantities of it were sold bv 
 defts. :— 
 
 Held, that pits, were entitled to the mounds 
 and to an account of the proceeds of sale, 
 inasmuch as the mounds, although they might 
 have been removed by the company during its 
 lease, were not chattels passing under the sale 
 of the stores and effects, and were not iron, or 
 ironstone mines, seams, veins, or beds, opened or 
 unopened, or minerals within the meaning of the 
 defts.' lease. Boileau i: Heath 
 
 Bigham J. [1898] 2 Ch. 301 
 
 — Railway companies. 
 
 See Railway — Minerals. 
 
 2, — Sicer — Pollution of by mine water — 
 Sight to have purity of u-ater preserred. 
 
 A mine owner is not entitled as against lower 
 riparian owners to utilize a natural stream Hew- 
 ing on the surface of his land for the discharge 
 of the water which is pumped out of his mine 
 (1) to increase largely the volume of the stream 
 so as (2) to pollute the stream, or scmbls(S) so to 
 alter the quality or character of the water cf the 
 stream as to render it materially less serviceable 
 for the uses of the lower owners. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1892) 19 R. 2083 
 affirmed. John Young & Co. v. Bankier Dis 
 tilleky Co. - H. £. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 691 
 
( 1257 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1258 ) 
 
 MINES— (In General) — eoniinued. 
 
 — Stamp — Receipt for compensation for not 
 
 working coal adjacent to railway — Eight 
 
 of support. 
 
 See Eevenub— Stamps. 179. 
 
 — Strike clause — Oharterparty — Oolliery on 
 
 strike — Oolliery guarantee. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 20. 
 
 — Subscriptions to coal owners' association — 
 
 Deductions. 
 
 See Bevenub — Income Tax. 81. 
 
 — Water required for mining purposes — 
 
 Monopoly of supply. 
 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 2. 
 
 3. — • Wrongful talcing of minerals — Form of 
 action — Interest on compensation — Delay — Limita- 
 tion Act, 1832 (3 <fe 4 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 29— 
 Judgments Act, 1837 (1 i6 2 Vict. c. 110), 
 ss. 17, 18. 
 
 A claim was made in 1891 to add interest to 
 damages certified in an action bvouglit in 1871 
 for minerals wrongfully taken : — 
 
 Held, that, although interest at 4 per cent, 
 might have been granted at the trial, it was too 
 late to grant it after twenty years : — 
 
 Held, also, that the action was an equitable 
 action for an account of profits made out of a 
 trespass, and not an action for money had or 
 received, or one for trover or ti espass de bonis 
 asportatis, within 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 29, so 
 tliat damages could not be given in the nature 
 of interest. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., (1890) 44 Oh. D. 694, 
 aflSrmed. Phillips v. Homfeay 
 
 C, A. [1892] 1 Ch. 465 
 
 Coal nines. 
 
 Coal Mines {Chech Weighers') Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 52), amends the provisions of the Goal 
 Mines Begulation Act, 1887, mth respect to checJc 
 weighers. 
 
 Goal Mines Regulation Act, 1896 (59 * 60 
 Vict. c. 43), amends the Act of 1887 (50 & 51 
 Vict. c. 58). 
 
 4. . — Examination of machinery, guides and 
 conductors — Record of report of examination — Goal 
 Mines Regulation Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 58), 
 8. 49, r. 5. 
 
 Sect. 49, r. 5, of the Coal Mines Eegulation 
 Act, 1887, requires the report of the examination 
 made every twenty-four hours of the guides and 
 conductors to be recorded, as well as the report 
 of the examination made weekly of the shafts. 
 SooTT V. BouLD - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 9 
 
 5. — Lighting and watching rate — Land. 
 Coal mines are " property (other than land) 
 
 rateable to the relief of the poor," and therefore 
 rateable on the higher scale under s. 33 of the 
 Lighting and Watching Act, 1833. 
 
 Decisions of Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 567 ; and 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 11, affirmed. Thuksby v. 
 
 BRIEECLIITE-TVlTn-ExTWISTLE CuOEOHWAEDENS 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A, C. 32 
 
 6. — Wages — Deductions — Payment by weight 
 of mineral — Coal Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 
 
 MINES — ( Coal Mines) — continued. 
 
 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 76), s. 17 ; 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. 
 
 c. 58), 0. 12, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The pits, were employed in the defts.' 
 collieries to cut large coal at wages which 
 depended on the weight gotten. . The coal was 
 cut as large coal, but a considerable amount of 
 small coal was produced in the conveyance of the 
 coal to the pit's mouth and screening it. Thn 
 coal raised was screened at the pit's mouth, and 
 the defts. made deductions from the pits.' wages 
 in respect of the small coal found in it. The 
 pits, sued the defts. for the amounts so de- 
 ducted : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the small coal was part of " the 
 mineral contracted to be gotten" within s. 12, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Coal Mines Eegulation Act, 1887, 
 and that the deductions were illegal, and the 
 pits, were therefore entitled to recover : — 
 
 Seld, also, that the sums allowed for the 
 small coal were to be at the same rate as that 
 paid for the large coal. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 496, 
 affirmed. Beace v. Abeeoaen Collieky Co. 
 HuGGiNS V. London and Sodth Wales Colliery 
 Co. C. A. [1891] 2 Q.B. 699 
 
 7. — Wages — Illegal stipulations in contract — 
 Other stipulations, whether valid — I'ayment hy 
 weight of minerals — Coal Mines Regulation Act, 
 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. c. 58), s. 12. 
 
 A miner contracted with a colliery co. not to 
 leave his employment without giving fourteen 
 days' notice. The contract contained among 
 other things a clause allowing deductions in 
 respect of dirt sent up with the coal, and special 
 regulations as to testing the amount of coal sent 
 up which deprived tlie miner of payment for coal 
 where the tub sent up contained over a certain 
 proportion of dirt : — 
 
 Seld, (1.) that the stipulation was contrary to 
 s. 12 of the Coal Mines Eegulation Act, 1887, 
 because in certain events the miner would not 
 get any wage for the amount of minaral gotten 
 by him ; (2.) that the illegality of the stipulation 
 as to the deductions did not vitiate the whole 
 contract, nor prevent the co. from enforcing iho 
 other stipulations of the contract. Keaeney v. 
 Whitehaven Collieey Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 700 
 
 Distress. 
 
 8. — Lease — Distress — Power to distrain for 
 rent in arredr — Chattels of lessee ore adjoining mine 
 —Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 3 1 ), ss. 4, 
 6 — Registration of lease — Company — Voluntary 
 winding-up — Distress — ■ Receiver — Rights of de- 
 benture-holders^ receiver. 
 
 A mining CO. (now in liquidation) were lessees, 
 from separate lessors, at certain rents and royal- 
 ties, of two adjoining coal-mines A and B. Tliere 
 was no shaft on mine B, and the company worked 
 both mines by means of a shaft on mine A. In 
 each of the leases the lessor reserved to himself 
 express power to distrain for rent in arrear, not 
 only upon chattels belonging to the lessees on the 
 demised premises, but also upon chattels belong- 
 ing to the lessees in or about " any adjoining or 
 neighbouring collieries." In Oct., 1896, the 
 
( 1259 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1260 ) 
 
 MINES (Distress) — continued. 
 
 lessois of mine B levied a distress upon chattels 
 
 belo]iging to the lessees on mine A : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of Stirling J., 
 [1896] W. N. 166 (3), (1.) that having regard to 
 the nature of the demise and the manner in 
 which the minerals were worked, the power to 
 distrain upon chattels belonging to the lessees 
 upon adjoining or neighbouring mines did not 
 constitute the mining lease a bill of sale within 
 the meaning of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, so as 
 to require registration under the Bills of Sale 
 Acts ; and lield also (2.) that the distress, having 
 been levied before the commencement of the 
 winding-up of the company, and before a receiver 
 was effectively appointed on behalf of the deben- 
 ture-holders of the company, was valid against 
 the debenture-holders. 
 
 Per the C A. : This last decision is in accord- 
 ance with Biggerstaff v. Boicalt's Wharf Co., 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 93, and not inconsistent witli In re 
 Opera, Limited, [1891] 3 Ch. 260. 
 
 Per Stirling J. : The Court will not at the 
 instance of the liquidator restrain further pro- 
 ceeding under a distress levied by the landlord 
 of a limited company before the commencement 
 of the winding-U]i, but not complct'd by sale, 
 unless there are special reasons rendering it in- 
 equitable to allow the distress to go on ; but 
 semhle, the Court has jurisdiction rmder the Com- 
 panies Act, 1862, both in a compulsory and a 
 voluntary winding-up, to restrain by injunction 
 further proceedings under such distress. 
 
 The fact that a distress had been levied be- 
 tween the passing and confirmation of a special 
 resolution for a voluntary winding-up is not a 
 ground for such injunction. 
 
 Tlie doctrine of Tennent v. City of Glasgom 
 JDiinlc, (1879) i App. Cas. 615, does not apply to 
 a contest between different classes of creditors. 
 
 Pullbrook v. Ashley, (1887) 56 L. J. (Q.B ) 876, 
 cxplainrd anil approved by the C. A. In re 
 ROUNDWOOD Colliery Co. Lee v. Eoindwood 
 Colliery Co. C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 373 
 
 Gold Sines. 
 
 — Compensation — Arbitration — Laws of Nova 
 
 Scotia. 
 
 See Canada. 38. 
 
 — Gold lease application — Appeal from interim 
 
 injunction — Trespass. 
 
 See New South Wales. 37. 
 
 9. — Joint gold-mining lease — Notice of aban- 
 donment by a joint lessee — Law of New South 
 Wales. 
 
 Written notice by a joint holder of a gold- 
 mining lease to his co-lessees that ho is unable 
 to contribute to the joint expenses, and that they 
 may do as they like with it, is an abandonment 
 of his beneficial interest therein. The subsequent 
 working of the lease by the respondent, a co- 
 lessee, out of his own resources is an acceptance 
 of the abandonment : — 
 
 Held, that neither the retiring lessee nor, on 
 his bankruptcy, his official assignee was entitled 
 to any share of the price realized by the respond- 
 ent's sale of the lease. Palmer v. Moorb 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 293 
 
 MINES (Gold Mines) — continued. 
 
 10. — Boyal mine — Eights of Crown — " Gold 
 mine" — Gold mixedwithbase metals — Boyal Mines 
 Acts, 1688 (1 Will. & M. c. 30), ss. 1, 2, 3, i ; 1693 
 (5 Will. & M. e. 6), ss. 2, 3. 
 
 The relaxation of the prerogative right of the 
 Crown as to gold mines effected by 1 Will. & M. 
 0. 30, and 5 Will. & 31. o. 6, does not apply to a 
 mine worked simply as a gold mine even wiiere 
 the gold is mingled with other minerals, and 
 such a mine cannot be worked by a subject even 
 on his own land without a Crown licence. 
 
 Per North J. : The Crown cannot be called 
 upon to exercise its right of pre-emption until the 
 ore has been cleaned and readv for sale. Att.- 
 Gen. v. Morgan C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 432 
 
 Note. — 1 Will. & M. c. 30, repealed except as 
 tos.3. See S. L. Ti. 1867. 
 
 Infants. 
 
 Mines (Frohihition of Child Labour Vwler- 
 groimd) Act, 1900 (63 * 6i Vict. c. 21), prohibits 
 child labour underground in mine?. 
 — Adoption on full age of lease made by trustees 
 
 — Compromise — Lapse of time. 
 
 See Infant. 3. 
 
 Leases. 
 
 11. — Agreement for lease of undirided moiety 
 of mineral property — Specific performance. 
 
 The Court will decree specific performance of 
 an agreement for a lease of an undivided moiety 
 of mineral propertv. 
 
 Price v. Griffith, (1851) 1 D. M. & G. 80, 
 discussed and explained. Hexter r. Pearoe 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] 1 Ch. 341 
 
 12. — Barony title — Coal be^ow loic water- 
 marlc — Lease. 
 
 The doctrine of possession by prescriptive 
 working of minerals applicable to the foreshore 
 ex adverse of a barony, gi'anted with parts and 
 pertinents, cannot be extended to a barony granted 
 with power to work minerals infra fluxum maris, 
 because these words shew that the grant is 
 limited to the minerals, under the foreshore only. 
 Nor can such prescriptive use be extended to a 
 third barony where a barony with a bounding 
 charter lies between. 
 
 Quiere, whether the doctrine can be extended 
 to cover minerals running from the foreshore 
 under the sea-bed. 
 
 Adoption — Minor — Lease of coal. 
 The right of a proprietor of estates adjoining 
 the sea to work the coal below low-water mark 
 was challenged by the Crown during the pro- 
 prietor's miuorit)'. The estates to which the 
 minor had succeeded consisted in part of entailed 
 and iu part of unentailed lands. The administra- 
 tion of the unentailed lands was vested iu the 
 testamentary trustees of the minor's father who 
 were also curators of the minor. These trustees 
 without the concurrence of the minor entered 
 into a transaction with the Crown whereby they 
 on their part accepted a lease of the whole coal 
 below low-water mark ex adverse of both the 
 entailed and unentailed lands, and the Crown 
 agreed not to claim damages in respect of coal 
 
( 1261 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 12G2 ) 
 
 MINES (leases) — continued. 
 which had been -worked in the past. After the 
 proprietor came of age, he accepted an assign- 
 ment of the lease, and subsequently applied for 
 and obtained from the Crown a reduction of the 
 royalty payable under the lease, and a modifica- 
 tion of the whole mode of working the coal. 
 AVhen the proprietor so acted in regard to the 
 lease, he was unaware ihat he had a claim to 
 some of the coal below low-water mark. In an 
 action brought by the proprietor fourteen years 
 after he had reached majority, concluding, inter 
 alia, for a declarator that he was not bound by 
 the lease : — • 
 
 ffeld, reversing the decision of theCt. of Sess., 
 (1897), 24 E. 216, that the actings of the pro- 
 prietor after he came of age barred him from 
 challenging the lease. Lord Advocate v. 
 Wemtss - - H. I. (Sc.) [1900] A. C. 48 
 
 13, — Compensation clause — Subsidence — In- 
 jury to land and buildings — Liability of lessee 
 — Damage caused by act of lessee's predecessor in 
 title. 
 
 Mines were granted by deed, with power to 
 the grantee and his assigns to work, making 
 reasonable compensation for all damage occa- 
 sioned to the surface of the lands, or to buildings 
 thereon, by the exercise of the powers by the 
 indenture granted : — 
 
 Seld, following Davis v. Treharne, (1881) 
 6 App. Cas. 460, that damage by subsidence was 
 not covered by the compensation clause, and 
 therefore the assigns of the grantee were liable 
 to an action to recover damages for injury done 
 to the surface of the land by subsidence caused 
 by working the mines. 
 
 A lessee of underground strata is not liable 
 in damages to the owner of buildings on the 
 surface, who has acquired a right to have the 
 buildings uninjured by underground workings, 
 for injury occasioned to the buildings by reason 
 of subsidence happening during the currency of 
 the lease, caused, not by any act of commission 
 on the part of the lessee, but resulting from an 
 excavation made in the underground strata by 
 the lessee's predecessor in title prior to the date 
 of the lease. 
 
 Therefore, where the pits.' buildings, erected 
 more than twenty years before action, on land, 
 the mines under which were worked by the def ts. 
 under a lease, were injured, during the currency 
 of the lease, and within six years before action, 
 by subsidence caused, not by the acts of the defts., 
 but by the acts of their predecessor in title, done 
 prior to the date of the lease : — 
 
 Seld, that the defts. were not liable. Geeen- 
 WELL V. Low Beeohbuen Coal Co. 
 
 Bruce J. [1897] 2 Q. B. 165 
 
 — Distress. 
 
 See Mines— Distress. 8. 
 
 — Infant — ^Adoption on full age of lease made by 
 
 trustees — Compromise — Lapse of time. 
 See Infant. 3. 
 
 14. — Idfe-rent — Bent and profits — " Opened" 
 mines. 
 
 By ante-nuptial contract of marriage dated 
 1882, in English form* G., the absolute owner of 
 the estate of C, bound herself to convey, and did 
 
 MINES — (leases) — continued. 
 convey, her estate to trustees. The settlement 
 contained the usual power of sale, and in the 
 meantime the trustees were to lease the unsold 
 parts, and to hold the net proceeds of such sales, 
 as well as net rents and profits of the estate until 
 sold, upon trusts thereinafter declared, " with 
 such powers of leasing the lands and heredita- 
 ments and oth'fer powers necessary and expedient 
 in the execution of the trust." The trusts were 
 declared, and it was provided that until the 
 estate should be sold the trustees were to apply 
 the rents and profits to the persons and for the 
 purposes to which the annual income of the 
 money arising from the sale of the estate would 
 be paid under the trust. Under the trust the 
 annual income of the proceeds of the sale of the 
 estate was to be paid to G. during her life, and 
 after her death to her husband, and after their 
 deaths the trustees were to hold the trust premises 
 and the annual income thereof for the children of 
 the marriage as the parents should appoint. 
 There was one child of the marriage. Stone 
 quarries on a portion of the estate had been 
 worked at intervals for about a century; but 
 during 1882, and for four years before 1882, no 
 quarries had been worked. In 1895, the estate 
 not having been sold, the trustees leased the 
 stone in forty-five acres, including the portion 
 already worked, at a fixed rent with a royalty on 
 the amount of stone sold : — 
 
 Reld, reversing the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 (1898) 25 E. 475, that the quarries at the date of 
 the marriage settlement were "opened mines," 
 and the rent and royalty fell to be paid to 
 G. as annual income from the estate, and did 
 not fall to be accumulated for the benefit of 
 the child of the marriage. Geevillb-Nugent v. 
 Mackenzie H. L. (Sc) [1899] W. N. 226 ; 
 
 [1900] A. C. 83 
 
 15. — Open or unopened mine — Pieces of land 
 separated by narrow strip belonging to different 
 owner— Settled Estates Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict, 
 c. 18), s. 4. 
 
 An estate settled by the will of a testator 
 comprised two pieces of land separated by a 
 narrow intervening strip of land which belonged 
 to different owners. Under the whole of the 
 lands there was a valuable seam of coal. The 
 piece of land on the north side- of the strip had 
 been demised by the settlor to a colliery co., 
 who had worked the coal. The piece of land on 
 the south side of the strip had not been demised 
 by the settlor, nor had the coal thereunder been 
 worked in any way ; but it appeared that if the 
 intervening strip had belonged to the testator 
 the coal could have been worked from the pit 
 or shaft sunk by the colliery co. On a peti- 
 tion by the tenant for life under the will for the 
 sanction of the Court, under the Settled Estates 
 Act, 1877, to a proposed mining lease of a portion 
 of the land on the south side of the strip : — 
 
 Held, that, by reason of the intervention of 
 the strip of land, the mine to be leased must be 
 deemed to be a separate unopened mine, and that 
 therefore three-fourths of the rent under the 
 lease must be set apart and invested. In re 
 Matnaed's Settled Estate - Kekewich J. 
 [1899] W. N. 108 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 347 
 
( 1263 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1264 ) 
 
 MINES (Leases) — continued. 
 
 — Kents and royalties from miniiig leases — 
 
 Accumulations — Tenants for life— Ee- 
 
 mainderman. 
 
 See Accumulations. 6. 
 
 — Tenant for life. 
 
 See Settled Land — Mines. 80 — 83. 
 
 Metalliferous Mines. 
 
 16. — Inspector of mines — Agent — Informa- 
 tion, by whom it may be laid — 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, 
 s. 10 — Metalliferous Mines Begulaticn Act, 1872 
 (35 * 36 Vict. c. 77), ». 35. 
 
 An information against the owner or agent of 
 a mine for an oifence under the Metalliferous 
 Mines Eegulation.Act, 1872, which can be pro- 
 secuted before a court of summary jurisdiction 
 may, if the inspector of mines of the district has 
 determined to prosecute, be laid in his name by 
 an agent duly authorized by him in that behalf. 
 FosTEK V. Fyfe - - [1896] 2 Q. B. 104 
 
 17. — Offences — Guides — Metalliferous Mines 
 Uegulaiion Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. v. 77), s. 23, 
 sub-s. 10 — " Worlcing sliaft." 
 
 A shaft is a " working shaft " within the 
 meaning of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, so 
 as to require guides, •when it is being used by 
 workmen for the purposes of the mine, even 
 though the minerals are not yet gotten. Fostek 
 V. North Hendee Mining Co. 
 
 Div. Ct, [1891] I Q. B. 71 
 
 Eailway Company, 
 See Eailway — Minerals. 
 
 Settled Land. 
 See Settled Land — Mines. 
 
 Working Generally. 
 
 — Compensation — Lease of colliery — Eight of 
 
 working lessee to sink shaft in land of 
 lessor not included in demise. 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 18. -^- Compensation for not worlcing — Fro- 
 spectire injury — Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847. 
 
 Although mines are " lands " within s. 6 of 
 the "Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, the relations 
 of mine-owners and waterworks undertakers are 
 specially governed by ss. 18 to 27 of the Act, so 
 that a mine-owner cannot claim against a ■water- 
 works undertaking compensation for prospective 
 injury, which may be caused by his not being 
 able at some future date to work his mine to its 
 utmost. He must wait for compensation until 
 the injury arises. 
 
 Decision of C. A., 20 Q. B. D. 699, affirmed. 
 Holliday v. Wakefield Cokpokation 
 
 H, L, (E,) [1891] A, C, 81 
 
 No longer applicable in such acase. See In re 
 Oonty and Manchester, Sheffield and lAncolnsliire 
 My. Co., C, A., [1896] 2 Q. B. 439. See hire Lord 
 Oerard and L. & N. W. By. Co., C. A., [1895] 
 1 Q. B. 464. Next Case. 
 
 19. — Compensalionfor not worliing— Purchase 
 
 MINES (Working Generally) — continued. 
 
 by railway company of all subjacent strata except 
 
 coal. 
 
 Where a ry. co. purchase under their sta- 
 tutory powers the underlying minerals as well as 
 the surface of land, the- rights which arise from 
 the purchase as between co. and vendor are 
 determined by the raining clauses ss. 75-85 of 
 the Eailways Clauses Act, 1845, and not on the 
 common law; and their mutual rights are not 
 altered by the fact that the co. has taken some of 
 the underground strata as well as surface, and 
 the landowner cannot recover compensation for 
 ungotten coal until the time arrives for working 
 the pits. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 2 Q. B. 915, 
 affirmed. In re Lord Gerard and the London 
 AND North Western Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 a. B. 459 
 
 20. — Coinpensation for not working — Special 
 Act — Special remedy — Jurisdiction of Chancery 
 Division. 
 
 A special Act consolidating the provisions of 
 various Acts relative to canal navigation from 
 the Trent to tlie Mersey, directed that questions 
 relating to compensation for not working mines 
 should be tried before a justice of assize and a 
 special jury in the county where the question 
 arose : — 
 
 Seld, that the Chancery Div. had no jurisdic- 
 tion to try the action. Hanley and Bucknall 
 Coal Co. v. North Staffoedshike Ey. Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 93 
 
 — Gold lease application — Appeal from interim 
 
 injunction— Trespass — Mining on Pri- 
 vate Lands Act. 
 See New South Wales. 37. 
 
 — Glebe lands — Ecclesiastical commissioners^ 
 
 Eight to injunction against illegal 
 
 mining. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 44. 
 
 21. • — Licence to work minerals — Construction 
 of deed — Eight, whether exclusive — Setting aside 
 
 In 1783, by a deed of exchange, lands were 
 granted in fee to the plt.'s predecessor in title 
 with =i reservation of coal and minerals. The 
 minerals were not worked, but in 1865 the 
 grantor's successors in title demised the coal 
 under part of the land to A. In 1877 the tlieu 
 owner of the lands demised the coal under 
 another part to the pit., who did not then know 
 of his rights under the deed of 1783. lu an action 
 to establish plt.'s right to the rninerals : — 
 
 Held, that (1.) Lord Mountjmfs Case (Godb. 17 ; 
 Anderson 307) does not decide that a licence to 
 dig coal cannot be exclusive, and although there 
 is a prima facie presumption against such a 
 licence being exclusive, the intention to exclude 
 the grantor need not appear by express -words. 
 (2.) That the reservation was not an exception of 
 the minerals, but a grant of a right to work them 
 and was not exclusive, and that the grantor could 
 himself work minerals so long as he did not dis- 
 turb the grantee in any'working in progress. 
 
 Decision of V. Williams J. [1891] 3 Ch. 504, 
 affirmed. Ddee of Sutherland v. Heathcote 
 C, A. [1892] 1 Ch. 475 
 
( 1265 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1266 ) 
 
 MINES CWorking Generally) — oontimied. 
 
 22. — Negligently letting loose water confined in 
 mine hy cutting drifts — Damage to Iwuse over mine 
 — I/iability — Coal mine. 
 
 LiTTLEDAJLE V. Eakl OF LoNSDALE, reported 
 (1793-91) 2 H. Bl. 267, 299; 2 Anstr. 356; 5 
 Bro. P. C. 519 - - [1899] 2 Ch. 233, n. 
 
 — Notice of Intention to work minerals — Com- 
 
 pensation — Arbitration — Duty of com- 
 pany to take up award. 
 See Kail-way. 11. 
 
 — Eailway company — Eight to support of sur- 
 
 face. 
 
 See Railway — Minerals. 11. 
 
 23. — Reservation from grant — Sedroclc and 
 coal neither having any commercial value — In- 
 junction. 
 
 The defts. were the lessees of certain lands 
 under a lease dated September 30, 1860, granted 
 by the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. 
 
 The lease contained the following reservation : 
 " Except nevertheless and always reserved out of 
 this demise all mines and minerals within or 
 under the said land." 
 
 The defts. had, for the purpose of obtaining 
 water, commenced to construct a borehole eighteen 
 inches in diameter, and had already bored 
 through a stratum of redrock and a layer of 
 coal from six to eight inches in thickness : — 
 
 Meld, that although the substances in question 
 could not (as was admitted) be worked at a profit 
 at the present time, they fell within the reserva- 
 tion in the lease as being substances which had 
 " a use and a value of their own independent of 
 and separable from the rest of the soil," and that 
 the pits, were entitled to an injunction to restrain 
 the defts. from boring or removing any mines or 
 minerals in or under the land. 
 
 Eext V. Gill, (1872) L. E. 7 Ch. 699 ; Marl of 
 Jersey v. Neath Union, (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 555, 
 and Lord Provost and Magistrates of Glasgow v. 
 Farie, (1888) 13 App. Gas. 657, examined and 
 explained. Johnstone v. Ceompton & Co. 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 93 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 190 
 
 — Eeservation of mines — ■ Working powers — 
 
 Manorial rights. 
 See Inclosuke. 3. 
 
 — Eeservation of right to work mines. 
 
 See Deed. 2. 
 
 24. — Subsidence — Injury to adjoining land 
 and buildings — Lidtdlity of owner — Damage caused 
 by act of owner's predecessor in title. 
 
 The owner of minerals is not liable for damage 
 caused to neighbouring land by subsidence occa- 
 sioned by the working of the minerals by his 
 predecessor in title, although the damage did not 
 actually occur until after the owner came into 
 possession. 
 
 Greenwell v. Low Beechhurn Coal Co., [1897] 
 
 2 Q. B. 165, followed : Da/rl^ Main Colliery Co. 
 
 V. Mitchell, (1886) 11 App. Oas. 127, considered. 
 
 Hall o. Duke of Nokfolk - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 138 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 493 
 
 25. — Support — Bight of— Conveyance of mines 
 without surface — Letting down surface. j 
 
 In an action by a grantor against grantees to I 
 
 MINES (Working Generally)— eoniinued. 
 restrain them from working mines in such a 
 manner as to cause subsidence of or injury to 
 lands or buildings thereon it was held, that tlie 
 grantees were not entitled to let down the surface 
 of the lands, and that the grantor was entitled to 
 an injunction to restrain them from so doing, even 
 though the result might be to compel them to 
 close their works entirely. 
 
 Davis V. Treharne, (1881) 6 App. Cas. 460, 
 applicable. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1899] W. N. 2 (4), 
 aflirmed. Earl oe Westmokbland v. New 
 Sharlston Collieeibs Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W, N. 88 
 
 26. — Support — Bight of — Canal — Appre- 
 hended danger to canal from worldng of mine — 
 Undertaking by canal company not to s»e. 
 
 Held, on the construction of the Eochdalc 
 Canal Act, 1794, that an owner of mines adjacent 
 to but not under the canal did not come within 
 s. 39 and was under no statutory liability towards 
 the canal co. in working his mines ; consequently 
 that if the working of such mines near the canal 
 would not endanger or damage the further work- 
 ing of the mines, although it might cause some 
 damage to the canal, the owner could not under 
 s. 40 insist against the will of the co. upon 
 minerals being left for the security and preserva- 
 tion of the canal and upon receiving satisfaction 
 from the co. therefore, the co. being willing that 
 the owner should work as he pleased, and pre- 
 ferring from time to time to bear the cxpen.-ie of 
 the necessary repairs to the canal rather than com- 
 pensate the owner for his unworked minerals : — 
 
 Quxre, as to the propriety of the terms im- 
 posed by the 0. A. 
 
 Decision of C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 632 
 affirmed. Chambers Colliery Co. v. Eoohdale 
 Canal Co - H, L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 564 
 
 Followed by Byrne J. New Moss Colliery Co. 
 V. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire By. Co., 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 725. 
 
 27. — Support — Bigld to — Highway — Subsi- 
 dence caused by mining operations — Absence of 
 appreciable damage — Highways and Locomotires 
 Act, 1878 (41 (fe 42 Vict. c. 77), s. 27. 
 
 A ry. CO. constructed a ry. crossing a highway 
 on the level. Subsequently a colliery co. worked 
 mines beneath the highway, so that a gradual 
 subsidence of ten feet took place. No actual 
 damage was done to the highway, but the ry. by 
 keeping their line on its old level formed an 
 embankment obstructing the highway : 
 
 Held, by Div. Ct., that tlie colliery co. was 
 not liable in damages for the obstruction to the 
 highway : 
 
 Held, also, per Collins J., that, assuming that 
 the highway was vested in a sanitary authority, 
 the subsidence having been substantial, the 
 authority, notwithstanding that they had suffered 
 no appreciable damage, were entitled to judg- 
 ment with nominal damages for the injury to 
 their proprietary right. Att.-Gen. v. Conduit 
 Colliery Co. Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 301 
 
 — Support — Eight to — Eailway company. 
 See EAiL-ff AY— Minerals, 11, 
 
( 1267 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1268 ) 
 
 MINES— (Working Generally) — continued. 
 
 — Support— Eight to — Working — Undertaking 
 
 not to sue. 
 
 See Canal. 1. 
 
 28. — Support of Surface — Bight to — Canal 
 — Special Act — Bijht of navigation — Subjacent 
 mines. 
 
 The special Act empowering the construction 
 of a canal provided for compensation to land- 
 owners whose lands were used or damaged : — 
 
 Held, that the Act impliedly gave a right of 
 support for the canal to the same extent as if the 
 lands had been actually taken, so as to prevent 
 the landowners from working their subjacent 
 mines. An injunction granted against working 
 subjacent coal so as to let the canal down. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1892] 2 Ch. 432, 
 reversed. London and North Western Et. 
 Co. V. Evans - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 16 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Great Western By. 
 Go. V. Gefn Cribbwr Bride Co., [1894] 2 Oh. 157, 
 166. 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Bradford Corporation 
 V. Picldes, [1891] 3 Ch. 53, 67, but this case was 
 reversed on appeal, [1895] 1 Ch. 145; [1895] 
 A. C. 587 ; Jordeson v. Sutton, Soutlicoates and 
 Drypool Gas Co., [1898] 2 Ch. 614, 621: C. A. 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 218. 
 
 29. — Support of surface — BigM to — Build- 
 ings, Destruction of — Construction of deed. 
 
 A conveyance of mines with full powers of 
 working does not entitle the mineral owner to 
 let down the surface without making compensa- 
 tion, imless the right to do so is conferred upon 
 him by express words or by necessary implica- 
 tion. TwTEROuLD r. Chambers Collieby Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 27 
 
 30. — Support of surface — BigM to — Inclosure 
 Act — Manorial rights — Allotments — 33 Geo. 2, 
 c. xii. — Damage to surface — Compensation. 
 
 A common had been allotted under an in- 
 closure Act, which provided that the lord of the 
 manor should enjoy all mines without mating 
 any satisfaction. The Act further provided for 
 the payment of compensation to persons injured 
 by mining by the other holders of allotments in 
 the same township. The lessees of the lord 
 worked mines, and caused the surface to sub- 
 side : — 
 
 Held, that the lessees were entitled so to work 
 the mines as to let down the surface, and that 
 the compensation clauses must be treated as 
 indicating the measure of compensation provided 
 by the legislature. Thompson v. Mein 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 202 
 
 31. ■ — Support of surface — Bight to — Inclosure 
 Acts — General rules for construction of — Compen- 
 sation Clause, Presence or absence of. 
 
 The general canons of construction of in- 
 closure Acts as to the mutual rights of mine 
 and surface owners are as follows : (1) Where the 
 ownerships are severed, prima facie the surface 
 owner has a right to support for his tenement, and 
 tins 18 strengthened by the absence of a compen- 
 sation clause. (2) The onus of rebutting this 
 presumption lies on the mineowner, and a limited 
 
 MINES — (Working Generally) — continued. 
 compensation clause is not sufficient to effect this 
 rebuttal. Bell v. Eael of Dudley 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] 1 Ch. 182 
 
 Where great damage was expressly mentioned 
 
 in and contemplated by an inclosure Act, and 
 
 provision for relief provided, an injunction to 
 
 restrain working was refused. Ibid. 
 
 " MINISTRATION "—Preaching. 
 
 See EcoLESLiSTioAL Law. 49. 
 
 MINOEITT— Debenture-holders. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 66- 
 
 68. 
 
 • Owners of ship. 
 
 See Shipping — Sale. 
 
 214. 
 
 — Shareholders. 
 
 See Company — Winding-iip — Voluntary. 
 241. 
 
 MISAPPEOPEIATION-by executor. 
 
 See Executor — Liabilities. 42. 
 
 — Trust funds — Interest. 
 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust, 35. 
 
 MISCHIEVOUS ANIMAL— Evidence of scienter 
 — ^Negligence. 
 See Damages. 6. 
 
 MISCONDUCT— Arbitrators. 
 
 See Arbitration — Arbitrators. 16 — 19. 
 
 — Breach of trust. 
 
 See Cases under Trustee — Breach of 
 Trust. 
 
 — Mortgagor. 
 
 See Mortgage — Priority. 45. 
 
 — Salvors — Wreck and salvage. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 243, 244. 
 
 — Solicitor. 
 
 See Solicitor — Misconduct. 
 
 — Umpire— Bias. 
 
 gee Arbitration. 19. 
 
 — Widow — Grant of administration to son of 
 
 intestate. 
 
 See Probate. 39. 
 
 MISDEMEANOTJE. 
 
 See Criminal Law, passim. 
 
 MISDESCEIPTION— Conditions of sale— Clause 
 excluding compensation — Specific per- 
 formance — Possessory title. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Conditions 
 of Sale. 6. 
 
 — Parcels — Eight of way — Falsa demonstratio — 
 
 Construction of lease. 
 
 See Landlord an'd Tenant. 75. 
 
 — Specific gift. 
 
 See Will — legacy. 132. 
 
 MISDIEECTION — New trial — " Substantial 
 wrong or miscarriage." 
 See Defamation — Libel, 13. 
 
 — Withdrawal of facts from jury — Setting aside 
 
 verdict. 
 
 See Jamaica. 3. 
 
 MISFEASANCE— of directors and officers. 
 
 See Company and Company — Winding- 
 up, passim. 
 
( 1269 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1270 ) 
 
 MISJOINDER. 
 
 See Pbactice— Parties. 101—108. 
 
 MISREPBESENTATION — Claim for damages 
 for — WroDgful act done by deceased 
 person-!—" Aetio personalis moritiir cum 
 persons.." 
 See ExEcuTOB — ^Administration. 6. 
 
 — Company. 
 
 See CratPANT — Misrepresentation. 
 
 — Conveyance obtained by fraud. 
 
 See Estoppel. 7. 
 
 — Innocent — Common mistakc^Equitable right 
 
 of donor to recover. 
 
 See VOLUNTART GlET. 2. 
 
 — Innocent — Eescission of contract — Indemnity. 
 
 See CONTKAOT. 32. 
 
 — Mortgages — Merger. 
 
 See MoBTGAGE — Merger. 42. 
 
 — Profits of property sold. 
 
 See ScoOTiSH Law — Contract. 9. 
 
 — Kepresentations as to credit. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 32. 
 
 — Eight of action — Person induced by misre- 
 
 presentation to commit crime. 
 See FoKEiGN Enlistment Act. 2. 
 
 — Sale by directors in one character to themselves 
 
 in another — Voidable- contract. 
 See Company — Directors. 105. 
 — ■ by Trustee. 
 
 See Estoppel. 7. 
 
 — Underselling — Damage to manufacturer — 
 
 Damnum absque injuria. 
 See Tbade. 1. 
 
 — Ute of word " patent " — Expired patent. 
 
 See Tbade-makk. 2. 
 
 — Use of word " trade-mark " — Unregistered 
 
 trade-mark. 
 
 See Tbade-mabk. 63, 64. 
 
 — Vendor's agent— Eescission — Noise — Nuisance 
 
 — Boys' school. 
 
 jgee Vendor and Pubchasee — Eescis- 
 sion. 67. 
 
 " MISSING WORD " COMPETITION. 
 
 See Lotteey. 1. 
 
 MISTAKE — Act confirming agreement. 
 See Jamaica. 5. 
 
 — Award under Inclosure Act. 
 
 See Inclosuee. 1. 
 
 — Bill of lading — Description of goods — 
 
 " Marked and numbered as in margin." 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 32. 
 
 — Bona fide holder of bill of exchange — Eight 
 
 to recover money. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 15. 
 
 — Common mistake — Innocent misrepresentation 
 
 — Equitable right of donor to recover. 
 See VoLUNTABY Gift. 2. 
 
 — Consent order — Setting aside — Jurisdiction — 
 
 Mutual mistake. 
 
 See Pbactice — Setting Aside. 237 — 
 239. 
 ■^— Contract — Action on — Onus probandi — Cable- 
 grams. 
 See Contract. 19. 
 
 MISTAKE— coraiMme(i. 
 
 — Conveyance — Written contract — Covenant for 
 
 title — Eectiflcation — Parol evidence. 
 See Vendor and Pobchaser. 48. 
 
 — Counsel. 
 
 See Compromise. 2. 
 
 — Demand note for arrears of poor-rate. 
 
 See Eates — Recovery. 65. 
 
 — Dismissal of action — Extension of time. 
 
 See Mobtgagb. 
 
 — Executor — Assets, payment of, to oiRoial re- 
 
 ceiver without retaining debt — Eepay- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Executor — Retainer. 58. 
 
 — Lease — Parcels — Eight of way — Misdescrip- 
 
 tion — Common mistake — Eectifioation. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 75. 
 
 1. — Money paid under compulsion of law — 
 Money credited in claim^Beceipt in full given — 
 Want of hona fides — Action for recovery of money. 
 
 The pits, sued the deft, for work and labour 
 done. In the writ they by mistake credited the 
 deft, with the payment of a sum on account and 
 claimed the balance. The deft, knowing that 
 they had made a mistake paid the balance and 
 obtained from them a receipt for the whole sum 
 duo from him to them. Subsequently, having 
 discovered their mistake, the pits, brought an 
 action to recover from the deft, the sum wrong- 
 fully credited to him, as money had and received 
 to their use : — 
 
 Held, that, although the receipt had been 
 given under compulsion of legal process, the deft, 
 could not rely upon it as a defence to the action 
 since he had not acted bona fide, and that the 
 pits. T^ere therefore entitled to recover the sum 
 claimed. Ward & Co. v. Wallis 
 
 Kennedy J. [1900] 1 Q. B. 675 
 
 3. — Money paid under compulsion of law — 
 Summons — ■ Withdrawal. 
 
 The rule that money paid under compulsion 
 of legal process cannot be recovered back applies, 
 although the process never terminated in a 
 final order or judgment, and although it may 
 have been withdrawn before action brought for 
 the recovery back, and although the payment 
 was made under a mistake of fact. The defts. 
 summoned the pit. to recover his proportion of 
 paving expenses assessed on him in respect of 
 premises alleged to abut on a certain street. 
 The pit., before the hearing, paid the money 
 under the mistaken belief that his premises 
 abutted on the street in question, and the sum- 
 mons was withdrawn. On discovery of his error 
 he sued to recover the sum paid as money paid 
 under a mistake of fact : — 
 
 Beld, tliat the pit. could not recover. Mooee 
 V. Fdlham Vestry C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 399 
 
 — Omission to ask landlord's consent to assign. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 60, 66. 
 
 — Plan — Eectiflcation — Parol evidence. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdechasbe — Contract, 
 28. 
 
 — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Oases under Parliament. 
 
( 1271 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 •( 1272 ) 
 
 jmSTi-KE— continued. 
 
 — Setting aside judgment by consent. 
 
 /See Pbaotioe — Setting Aside. 237 — 
 23a. 
 
 — Settlement — Non-execution of a power — Death 
 
 of donee — Parol evidence. 
 
 See Settlement — Eectification, 30. 
 
 — Settlement — Variation — Terms. 
 
 See Di-VOHOE. 126. 
 
 — Specific performance^Condition precedent — 
 
 Eescission — " Wilful default." 
 See Vendor akd Pukohaser. 71. 
 
 — Statute. 
 
 See Statutes. 10, 11. 
 
 — Telegraphic instructions. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 47. 
 
 — Voluntary gift of property. 
 
 See Chaeity. 35. 
 
 — "Will— Probate. 
 
 See Cases under Pkobate. 
 
 MOLESTATION— Separation. 
 
 See Husband and Wife — Separation. 
 68, 69. 
 
 MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED- Conversion of 
 document — Measure of damages — Non- 
 negotiable instrument. 
 See Tbover. 6. 
 
 — Principal and agent. 
 
 See Cases under Pkinoipal and Agent. 
 
 MONEY-LENDER — Money-lenders Act, 1900 
 (63 <fc 64 Vict. c. 51), amends the law with respect 
 to persons carrying on business as money-lenders. 
 
 MONITION — Criminal suit to compel repair of 
 chancel. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 59. 
 
 — Ecclesiastical offence. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 70. 
 
 MONUMENTS — Protection of ancient monu- 
 ments. 
 jSee Ancient Monuments. 
 
 MOORINGS — Eight to fix, as incident to naviga- 
 tion — Foreshore. 
 See Thames. 9. 
 
 MOROCCO— Consular Court— Trial at Gibraltar 
 should be by jury. 
 See Gibkaltak. 1. 
 
 MORTGAGE. 
 
 In General, col. 1272. 
 Apportionment, col. 1274. 
 Attornment Clause, col. 1274. 
 
 Building Society. See Building Society 
 
 — Mortgage. 
 Consolidation, col. 1275. 
 Costs, col. 1270. 
 
 Debentures. See Company — Debentures. 
 Escrow, col. 1277. 
 Fixtures. See Fixtukes, 
 Foreclosure, col. 1279. 
 Interest, col. 1284. 
 Landlord and Tenant. See LANDLORD 
 
 AKD Tenant — Mortgages, 
 teases, col. ] 28.^. 
 
 MORTGAGE— oo»<4»t«£?. 
 
 Liability of Mortgagee, col. 1286. 
 Limitations, Statute of. See Limitations, 
 
 Statute of — Mortgages. 
 Merger, col. 1286. 
 Practice, col. 1286. 
 Priority, col. 1287. 
 Beceipt, col. 1292. 
 Beceiver, col. 1292. 
 Bedemption, col. 1293. 
 Eights of Mortgagee, col. 1298. 
 Sale, col 1300. 
 Settled Lands Acts. See Settled Land 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 Sliares, col. 1303. 
 
 Shipping. See Shipping — Mortgage. 
 Solicitor Mortgagee. See Solicitor — 
 
 Solicitor Mortgagee. 
 Tacking col. 1304. 
 Tramfer, col. 1305. 
 Validity, col. 1306. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Absence of power to mortgage — Improvements 
 
 — Eepairs. 
 See Powers. 6. 
 
 — Absolute assignment of debt with proviso for 
 
 redemption — Implication of power to 
 
 redeem. 
 
 See Assignment. 4. 
 
 — Accounts — Moiety of patent mortgaged to 
 
 owner of other moiety. 
 
 See Patent — Ownership. 17. 
 
 — Agent — Liability of mortgagor's. 
 
 See Peincipal AND Agent. 13. 
 
 — Claim by mortgagees to prove — Mode of pro- 
 
 cedure. 
 
 See Bankkuptcy — Proof. 176. 
 
 — Barratry as against mortgagee of master's 
 
 interests. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 28. 
 
 — Company — Mortgages. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Mort- 
 gages. 
 
 — Company — Mortgages and charges. 
 
 See Company — Mortgages and Charges. 
 
 — Contiibutory — Investment — Breach of trust. 
 
 See Trustee. 39. 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 — Existing at testator's death — Insufficient 
 
 security. 
 
 See Teustee. 42, 68. 
 
 — Extinguishment. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of — Mort- 
 gages. 26. 
 
 — Fixtures. 
 
 See FiXTUEEs. 5. 
 
 — Laud Transfer Acts. 
 
 See Land Transfer. 
 
 — Married woman mortgagee — Conveyance to 
 
 purchaser by mortgagor and mortgao-ee 
 . — Acknowledgment unnecessary. ° 
 See Husband and Wife. 33, 
 
( 1273 ) 
 
 LilfiBSD OF CASES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 1274 ) 
 
 MOETGAGE (In General)— coniinued 
 
 — Mortgagee in possession — Specific devise by 
 
 executor beaeflcially entitled to mort- 
 gage debt. 
 See Will — Specific Devise. 197. 
 
 — Occupation rent due from one of several co- 
 
 owners — Set-oif against mortgagee of 
 
 his share. 
 
 See Paktitiox. 15. 
 
 — Partner — By partner to secure debt of part- 
 
 nership — Devise of mortgagor's real 
 estate — Sufficiency of partnership assets. 
 See Partnership. 4. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Ownership. 17. 
 
 — Probate duty — Foreign mortgage. 
 
 See Revenue — Probate Duty. 135. 
 
 — Railway — Section of railway capable of sale. 
 
 See Canada. 33. 
 
 — Receiver. 
 
 See Distress. 11. 
 
 — Reconveyance to building society. 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 168. 
 
 — Register of mortgages — Company practice. 
 
 See Company. 254. 
 
 — Registration — Priority — Unregistered ante- 
 
 nuptial settlement. 
 See Ceylon. 6. 
 
 — Restrictive covenant — Tied public-bouss — 
 
 A ssi gns — U nd erl essee — Notice. 
 See Covenant. 7. 
 
 — Sanction of Court — Romilly's Act. 
 
 See Charity. 40. 
 
 — Settled property — Annuity. 
 
 See Revenue — Estate Daty. 38. 
 
 — Ship. 
 
 See Shlpping — Mortgage. 
 
 — Solicitor mortgagee. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor — Solicitor 
 mortgagee. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 /See Revenue— Stamps. 166 — 171. 
 
 — Surety — Discharge. 
 
 See Principal and Surety — Discharge. 
 13. 
 
 — Taxable income — Land and Income Tax 
 
 Assessment Act. 
 
 See New South Wales. 24. 
 
 — Title — Notice of trusts of mortgage money — 
 
 Mort gagee not one of the original trustees 
 
 — Objection — Sufficiency. 
 
 See Vendor and Pcbohasek — Title. 88. 
 
 — Trade machinery — Non-registration — Power 
 
 of sale — Invalidity. 
 See Bill of Sale. 40. 
 
 — Trade premises— Engine— Hiring agreement. 
 
 See Fixtdbes. 7. 
 
 Undischarged lankrupt — Surplus assets — 
 
 After-acquired property — Successive 
 bankruptcies — Rights of trustees. 
 See Bankruptcy— Undischarged Eank- 
 rnpt. 262. 
 
 — "Value of property passing on death of tenant 
 
 for life. 
 
 See Revenue— Estate Duty. 38. 
 
 MOETGAGE (In General) — continued. 
 
 — Vesting declaration — New trustees. 
 
 See Trustee— Vesting Order. 108. 
 
 — Water — Implied grant of supply of water — ■ 
 
 Equitable mortgagor. 
 See Easement. 8. 
 
 — Waterworks, Mortgage on— Pure or impure 
 
 personalty. 
 
 See Charity. 51. 
 
 Apportionment. 
 
 1. — Mortgage of share in moieties — Covenant 
 for further assurance. 
 
 A person absolutely entitled to a moiety of 
 an estate and contingently to the other moiety 
 mortgaged both moieties, and subsequently sold 
 his Contingent moiety for value. The conveyance 
 did not mention the mortgage, but contained a 
 covenant for further assurance. 
 
 In a partition action, held, that tlie absolute 
 moiety must bear the mortgage debt, as the effect 
 of the covenant for further assurance was to 
 enable the covenantee to call on the covenantor 
 to pay off the mortgage. In re Jones. Parring- 
 TON V. Forrester - North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 461 
 
 Applied by North J. In re Cook's Mortgage, 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 923, 925. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Hill v. Sichin, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 579, 581. 
 
 See also Williams v. Williams, Kekewich J. 
 [1899] W. N. 66. 
 
 2. — ■ Tenant for life and remaindermen — Ap- 
 •portionment of loss. 
 
 A settled mortgage fell into arrear during a 
 tenancy for life ; a receiver entered and applied 
 the net rent in part payment of interest. The 
 mortgage property was afterwards realized, the 
 proceeds being insufBcient : — 
 
 Held, that Ihe proceeds were apportionable 
 between the estate of the tenant for life and the 
 remaindermen, in the proportion the arrears of 
 interest during the lite tenancy bore to the 
 subsequent arrears added to the capital. 
 
 In re Foster. Lloyd v. Carr, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 
 629, not followed. Lyon v. Mitchell 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 27 (6) 
 
 — Trust estate along with trustee's own property 
 
 — Breach of trust — Apportionment. 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 36. 
 
 Attornment Clause. 
 
 3. — Death of mortgagor — Occupation and 
 payment of interest by heir — Bankruptcy of heir — 
 Distress. 
 
 A mortgage contained the usual attornment 
 clause; the mortgagor attorned tenant to the 
 mortgagees, and during his life paid the interest 
 on the mortgage; he died intestate, and his heir- 
 at-law entered into possession and for a time 
 continued to pay the interest. The mortgagees 
 subsequently distrained for arrears of interest : — 
 
 Held, that the original tenancy was deter- 
 mined by the death of the mortgagor, and no 
 new tenancy was created between the mort- 
 gagees and the heir by the mere payment of 
 interest. Scobie v. Collins 
 
 V. Williams J. [1896] 1 Q, B. 375 
 
( 1275 ) 
 
 DIGEST OV CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1276 ) 
 
 MOKTCtAGE (Attornment Clause) — continued. 
 4. — Lease — Building lease hy mortgagors in 
 
 A mortgagor in possession leased to A., the 
 lease being made pursuant to s. 18 of the Con- 
 veyancing Act, 18S1, and the mortgagees not 
 being parties : — 
 
 Held, that A.'s lease was binding on the 
 mortgagees. Wilson v. Qdeen's Cltb 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 522 
 
 5. — Lease — Notice to pay rent, 
 
 A mortgagor let the mortgaged premises sub- 
 sequently to the mortgage : — 
 
 Sekl, that the mere fact of the tenant remain- 
 ing in possession after notice to pay rent to tlie 
 mortgagees was not evidence of an agreement 
 that he should become tenant to the mortgagee. 
 TOWEKSON V. Jackson C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 484 
 
 6. — Practice — Power to enter and determine 
 the tenancy — Tenancy at will — Action hy mort- 
 gagee for possession— E. S. C, Order III., r. G {B); 
 Order XIV. 
 
 A mortgage deed contained a clause by wliicli 
 tlie mortgagor attorned tenant from year to year 
 to the mortgagee at a yearly rental payable half- 
 yearly, and a further clause by which tiie mort- 
 gagee might at any time, without giving any 
 l^revious notice of his intention so to do, enter 
 upon and take possession of the premises, and 
 determine the tenancy created by the attornment. 
 The rent was in arrear, and the mortgagee 
 brought an action to recover possession, and 
 applied for an order for recovery of the premises 
 under Order xiv. : — 
 
 Held, that the claim to recover possession was 
 founded on the determination of a tenancy at 
 will, and not on forfeiture, and that the writ 
 could be specially indorsed under Order iii., 
 r. 6 (F), and judgment signed under Order xiv. 
 Kemp v. Lester C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 162 
 
 Building Society. 
 See BniLDiNG Society — Mortgage, 
 
 Consolidation. 
 
 7. — Assignm.ent of equity of redemption hy 
 one deed to one person. 
 
 The doctrine of consolidation of mortgages 
 laid down in Vint v. Padget, (1S5S)2 D. & J. 611, 
 and other cases to the same effect has been too 
 long established to be now overthrown. 
 
 Therefore where the owner of different pro- 
 perties mortgages them to different persons and 
 the mortgagees afterwards become united in title, 
 the holder of the mortgages has a right to con- 
 solidate them, and to refuse to be redeemed as to 
 one without payment of what is due to him on 
 all, not only as against the mortgagor, but also as 
 agaiust a person to whom the mortgagor has by 
 one deed assigned the equity of redemption of all 
 the properties, although the assignment is made 
 before the mortgagees become united in title. 
 
 Decisions of Eomer J. and the C. A., Pledge v. 
 Carr, [1804] 2 Oh. 328 ; [1895] 1 Oh. 51, affirmed, 
 sub nom. Pledge v. White 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 187 
 , ^- — Assignment of one equity of redemption 
 ocjore union of both mortgages in one person. 
 
 NN Here two iirst mortgages on different proper- | 
 
 MOBTOAGrE (Consolidation) — continued. 
 ties by the same mortgagor to different mortgagees 
 become united for the first time in one person 
 after the mortgagor has (by way either of sale or 
 mortgage) assigned the equity of redemption to 
 one of the properties, the two first mortgages 
 cannot be consolidated as against the assignee of 
 that equity of redemption, although both mort- 
 gages were created before the assignment, and not 
 the less so when the equity comes into the hands 
 of puisne incumbrancers of both properties. 
 Decision of Eomer J., [1891] 2 Ch. 321, affirmed. 
 MiNTEB V. Cakb - C. A. [189i] 3 Ch. 498 
 
 — Eedemption. 
 
 See Mortgage — ^Eedemption. Gl. 
 
 Costs. 
 (Costs and Charges.) 
 
 9. — " Completed morlgage" — Scale fee. 
 
 The scale charge in Part I. of Sched. I. of Ihe 
 General Order of 1882 does not apply to a coveriog 
 deed executed by a co. to trustees for securing 
 debentures which by the non-issue of debentures 
 may never have come into actual operation, as 
 being a '■ completed mortgage." In re Bircham 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 786 
 
 10. — " Deducing " title — Mortgage of lease- 
 liolds. 
 
 Mere production of a deed is not deduction of 
 a title. 
 
 A solicitor acting for a mortgagor of lease- 
 holds who only produces the leases cannot be 
 said to " deduce " title under Sched. I., Part I., 
 of the General Order of 1882, and is not entitled 
 to the scale fee. Wellet v. Still (No. 3) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 641 
 
 11. — Investigation of title— Netc mortgage or 
 further charge. 
 
 A tenant for life owed, inter alia, 192,000i. to 
 an insurance co. By a private Act the trustees 
 were emp)owered to raise moneys to pay the debts 
 of the tenant for life. They borrowed 232,001)?. 
 of the 00. The co. retained enough to pay their 
 debt, and handed the balance to the trustees : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitors were entitled to 
 regard the transaction as a new mortgage of 
 23^,000!. requiring a fresh investigation of title, 
 and not as a further charge within rule 10 of 
 Sched. I., Part I , of the General Order of 1882, 
 of H),000l. on an old mortgage, the title to which 
 had already been investigated, and were entitled 
 to the scale fee on a mortgage for 232,000?. 
 Earl of Avlesford v. Earl Podlett 
 
 C. A. revers. Horth J. [1891] 1 Ch. 248 
 
 - - Negotiating loan — Scale fee. 
 
 See SoLiciTOK — Costs. G2. 
 
 12. — Profit costs — Foreclosure — Itcdemptivn 
 — Solicitor mortgagee — Mortgagees Legal Costs Act, 
 1895 (58 it 59 Vict. c. 25), s. 3— Retrospective 
 effect. 
 
 In April, 1893, upon a foreclosure summons 
 by a solicitor mortgagee, an order was made 
 directiog an account of what was due to the pit. 
 for principal, interest, and taxed coats of the 
 action, followed by provisions for redemption by 
 one of the defta. on payment of what should be 
 found due, and foreclosure in default of payment. 
 
C 1277 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 127s ) 
 
 MORTGAGE (Coats)— continued. 
 On February 19, 1898, on the further considera- 
 tion of the action, an order was made referring 
 it to the taxing master to tax the plt.'s oostj of 
 the action : — 
 
 Seld, that the rights of the parties were 
 ascertained by tlie first order, which must be 
 construed by the then existing law, and that tlie 
 pit. was not entitled, by reason ot the passing 
 uf the Mortgagees Legal Costs Act, 1895, to 
 charge profit costs. 
 
 Decision of Cozens-Hardy J. aJfirmed. Day 
 
 V. Kblland - - _ [1900] W. N. 334 ; 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 745 
 
 13. — Profit costs — Betrospectivitij — Mort- 
 gagees Legal Costs Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. e. 25), 
 8. d. 
 
 Though the law as to costs of solicitor mort- 
 gagees has been altered by the Mortgagees' Legal 
 Costs Act, 1895, s. 3, and though that section is 
 retrospective, it does not affect judgments of the 
 Court, which were right at the time they were 
 given. Eyke v. Wynn-Mackenzie 
 
 C. A. [189S] 1 Ch. 135 
 
 — Redemption - Sufficiency of tender. 
 
 Hee MoBTGAQE — Eedemption. 63. 
 
 Debentures. 
 See Company — Debentures. 
 
 Escrow. 
 
 14. — Priority — Mortgage hy deposit — Zegal 
 estate — Conflicting equities — Trust for sale — 
 Breach of trust — Trustee and cestui que trust— 
 Execution of deed — Seceipt in body of deed — 
 Fratid — Notice — Conveyancing and Law of Pro- 
 perty Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. u. 41), ss. 2 {cHL), 
 54 (1), 55 (1). 
 
 In 1887 freeholds were mortgaged to a build- 
 ing society by H. to secure advances. In Oct., 
 1892, H. died, having devised these freeholds to 
 N. upon trust for sale. In Dec, 1892, C, the 
 solicitor who acted for the society, and also for 
 H., and, after his death, for N., having fraudu- 
 lently represented to the society that notice 
 to pay oil' their mortgage had been given, pro- 
 cured the statutory receipt to be indorsed on the 
 mortgage of 1887, and obtained possession of the 
 title-deeds of the property : the money owing to 
 the society was never paid off, N. at this time 
 being unaware of the existence of the mortgage, 
 N. shortly afterwards agreed to sell the property 
 to C, who was at this time in good repute and 
 supposed to be well off, and by a deed of Dec. 29, 
 1892, which recited the trust for sale in H.'s 
 will, N., in consideration of 700/. paid to him 
 by C. at or before the execution of the deed the 
 receipt whereof N. thereby acknowledged, con- 
 veyed the property to C. iu fee. The purchase- 
 money was not in i'act paid. This conveyance 
 and the other title-deeds, except the mortgage of 
 1887 and the statutory receipt, were shortly after- 
 wards deposited by 0. with the plaintiffs as 
 security for an advance of 650Z. In 1893, 0. was 
 adjudicated banlsrupt, his frauds were discovered, 
 and he was convicted and sentenced. The pits. 
 now claimed to enforce their security against 
 the society, and against 0. and his cestui que 
 
 KOBTOAQE (Escrow)— cOMfewuei. 
 trust. It was admitted that the society had 
 priority over N. a,nd his cestui que trust, and 
 the main contention was between the pits, and 
 the society, and the pits, and N. and his cestui 
 que trast : — 
 
 Held, that the society were entitled under the 
 circumstances to shew that they had never been 
 paid off, tuat the statutory receipt and the mort- 
 gage of 1887 were delivered only as an escrow, 
 and the mortgage not having been paid off, and 
 the legal estate being still in the society, they 
 had priority over the pits. . 
 
 Held also, that the conveyance of Dec. 1892, 
 was not void as between the pits, and N. and his 
 cestui que trust ; that as N. had authority to deal 
 with the property, the pits., iu the absence of 
 express notice, were entitled to rely on the 
 receipt in the liody of the deed, and had priority 
 over the cestui que trust : Shropshire Union Rail- 
 ways and Canal Go. v. Ueg., L. E. 7 H. L. 496, 
 distinguished : 
 
 Held further, that for the purposes of tlie 
 present case there was no material distinction 
 between agency and trust, and that the principles 
 luid down by Perry Herriclc v. Atlwood, 2 De G. 
 & J. 21, and approved in Brocklesby v. Temper- 
 ance Permanent Siiilding Society, [1895] A. C. 173, 
 applied. Lloyd's Bank, Ld. v. Bullock 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 192 
 
 Eeferred to by Earwell J. King v. Smith, 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 425, 430. 
 
 15. — Mortgagor and mortgagee — Deed — De- 
 livery to one of several grantees — Eeidence — 
 Admissibility — Fraud — Solicitor to both parties — 
 Agency — Representation to lender by agent of bor- 
 rower. 
 
 In an action by a oo. to set aside a mortgage 
 on the grounds (1) that the mortgage was only 
 an escrow and not intended to become operative 
 as a complete deed until the money was paid to 
 the mortgagors ; and (2) that the mortgagees 
 never gave and that the co. never got the mort- 
 gage consideration : — - 
 
 ifeZd, that the mortgage was valid and binding 
 on the CO., for (1) it was sealed and delivered by 
 the CO. as a perfect deed and immediately ope- 
 rative, and was not merely an escrow ; and (2) 
 the CO. had by their conduct enabled their 
 manager and banker to represent to the mort- 
 gagees that their, the mortgagees', money was 
 invested on the security of the oo.'s jjroperty. 
 
 Wall V. Cockerell, (1863) 9 Jur. (N.S.) 447, 
 and Coupe v. Collyer, (1890) 62 L. T. (N.S.) 927, 
 distinguished. 
 
 A deed may be delivered as an escrow not- 
 withstanding that it is delivered to a person who 
 is a imrty taking under it. Where there are 
 several grantees and one of them is also solicitor 
 of the grantor and of the other grantees and the 
 deed is delivered to him, evidence is admissible 
 to shew the character iu which and the (ernn 
 upon which the deed was so delivered. See per 
 Cur. at pp. 621, 622. London Feebhold and 
 Leasehold Pboperty Co. v. Bahon Suffibld 
 
 C, A. [1897] 2 Ch. 608 
 
 t'iztures. 
 See FixTUBES. 
 
( 1279 ) 
 
 DlGESt OF CAgliS, 1891— l30o. 
 
 ( 1280 ) 
 
 TS.O'RTGAG'E— continued. 
 
 Foreclosure. 
 
 Stamps.] Foreclosure decrees — Removal of 
 doubt as to 54 cfc 55 Vict. c. 39, ss, 54. 57, so far as 
 regards. See Finance Act, 189S (61 * 62 Vict, 
 c. 10), s. 6. 
 
 16. — Account — Practice — Bankrupt mort- 
 garjor — Assessed value of security — Special cir- 
 cumstances — Chief clerh's certificate. 
 
 Any speoiil circumatanco or faok affecting the 
 amount due from the mortgagor to the mortgagee 
 in a foreclosure action — such as a valuation of the 
 security in bankruptcy — should be pleaded or 
 brouglit to the attention of the )urt before the 
 usual foreclosure judgment is made, in order that 
 a direction may be given to the chief clerk to 
 have regard, in taking the account, to such speciiil 
 circumstance or fact ; if this is not done at the 
 trial no such question can be subsequently r.xised 
 on taking the account. Sanquinette v. Stucket's 
 liANKiNQ Co. - Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 502 
 
 — Company — Equitable mortgage of shares in a 
 
 company to secure debt — Foreclosure 
 
 action after debt barred. 
 
 See Limitations, Statote of. 27. 
 
 — Conveyance on sale — Stamp. 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 158. 
 
 — Costs — Solicitor mortgagee — Profit costs. 
 
 See MOKTGAGE — Costs. 12. 
 
 17. — Deceased mortgagor — Representative for 
 the action — R. S. C. ISS'.i, Order at/., r. 46. 
 
 After order nisi for foreclosure and certificate, 
 the mortgagor died insolvent and without repre- 
 sentatives. An order was obtained appointing 
 the mortgagor's brother his representative for the 
 action, and an application was made for fore- 
 closure absolute : — 
 
 Held, that in the absence of a properly con- 
 stituted representative of tlie estate of the deceased 
 the order must be refused. Avlward v. Lewis 
 North J, [1891] 2 Ch. 81 
 
 18. ■ — Default of appearance — Filing order for 
 revivor — Dispensing with service — R. 8. C, 1883, 
 Order lxvji, r. 4. 
 
 Order Lxvii., r. 4, applies to an order of 
 revivor, and therefore, where the deft, has entered 
 no appearance, it is sufBcient to file the order 
 without serving it on the defts. Jackson v. 
 KiLHAM - Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 171 
 
 19. — Disregard of foreclosure order — Notice 
 of motion to attach. 
 
 In a foreclosure action the order absolute, as 
 drawn up by the registrar, diil not name any 
 time within which possession was to he given, 
 and consequently the memorandum required by 
 Order xli., r. 5, was not indorsed thereon. After 
 possession had been obtained under a writ ol pos- 
 MLSsion, the deft, retook possession : — 
 
 Eeld, that a writ of altaohment was the 
 proper remedy and could issue notwithstanding 
 the absence of an indorsed order. In re Higg's 
 Mortgage. Goddard t'. Higg 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] Vf. N. 73 
 
 20. — Interest — Redemption before time fixed 
 u'J foreclosure proceedings. 
 
 An order for foreclosure having been made in 
 the common form, and a certificate having also 
 
 MOETGAGE (Foreclosure) — continued. 
 been made in the common form appointiDg tho 
 last day of six calendar months from the date of 
 the certificate as the time for redemption, on 
 payment of the principal money with interest up 
 to that day and costs : — 
 
 Held (afBrming the decision of Eomer J.), 
 that the mortgagor could not claim to redeem on 
 an earlier day on payment of the principal money 
 with interest up to the time of p.\yment only and 
 the costs. H[LL V. Rowlands 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 361 
 
 See also on another point. Hill v. Rowlands, 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 124. 
 
 21. — Interest — Action for. 
 
 (a) If a mortgagee in a foreclosure action 
 obtains a personal order for payment of the prin- 
 cipal with interest down to the date of the cer- 
 tificate, a second action to recover arrears of 
 interest is unnecessary. Earl Poulett v. Vis- 
 count Hill - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 277 
 
 Explained by C. A. See next Case. 
 
 (e) Where a mortgagee appointed a receiver, 
 who received rents, and afterwards the mortgagee 
 brought an action specially indorsing the writ 
 with a claim for the mortgage debt and interest, 
 and applied for judgment under Order xrv. : — 
 
 Held, that the mere fact of a receiver having 
 been appointed did not prevent the application 
 of Order xiv., but, as there appeared to be a 
 question as to what on the true state of the 
 account as between the mortgagor and mortgagee 
 was due to the latter, leave to defend must be 
 granted. Ltnde v. Waithman 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 180 
 
 22. — Judgment, Form of — Receiver — Pmt- 
 tice. 
 
 (a) Form of judgment nisi for foreclosure and 
 appointment of a receiver with a direction to take 
 in moneys coming into the hands of the receiver 
 before foreclosure absolute, so as to prevent the 
 necessity of opening the foreclosure. Barber v. 
 Jeckells Kekewich J. [1893] W. If. 91 
 
 See Lush v. Sebrig7it, [1894] W. ^S^. 134, 
 beloio (c). 
 
 Referred to by North J. Simmons v. Blandu, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 19, below (d). 
 
 (b) On motion for judgment in default of ap- 
 pearance in a foreclosure action, in the absence 
 of tpecial circumstances, the Court will not 
 insert in the foreclosure judgment a direction 
 that any person redeeming the premises may, or 
 the pit. iu tlie event of foreclosure absolute may, 
 apply to have moneys in the hands of receiver 
 transferred to him. Cheston v. Wells 
 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 151 
 
 (c) In a foreclosure action a receiver had 
 been appointed, and the pit. submitted to be 
 charged with a sum certain in the hands of the 
 receiver. The minutes of the proposed judg- 
 ment were in the form in Barber v. JeeteS^ 
 ([1893] W. N..91 ; Seton ou .Tudgments vol iii 
 p. 2142, add. to p. 1577), but concluded (as the 
 form in Seton, vol. ii., p. 1577, No. 4) with the 
 words " Liberty to the deft, redeeming or to the 
 pit. in the event of foreclosure to apply at 
 chambers for payment of any money paid into 
 
( 1281 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1282 ) 
 
 MOETGAGE (Foreclosure)— conWmMe(J. 
 Court by the receiver or in his hands." The 
 Court approved of the following words being 
 substituted. " Liberty to any party to apply at 
 chambers for payment of any money paid into 
 Court by the receiver or in his hands." LusK u. 
 Sebright Kekewich J. [1894] W. H. 134 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. See next Case. 
 
 (d) In a foreclosure action in which a re- 
 ceiver of rents and profits had been appointed : — 
 
 Held, that the judgment ought to direct that 
 in taking the account the pit. sliould be charged 
 with the amount (if anything) paid into court by 
 the rfceiver, and such a sum as should be in the 
 receiver's hands at the date of the oertificate, 
 and with such a sum (if any) as the pit. should 
 submit to be charged with in respect of rents and 
 profits to come into the receiver's hands prior to 
 the order for foreclosure absolute. 
 
 Form in Seton's Juilgments, 5th ed. vol. iii. 
 p. 2142, varied. Simmons r. Blandt 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 171 (7) ; 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 23. — Ids pendens — Mortgage of hook debts — 
 Foreclosure action — Meceiver — Injunction — Laches 
 —Judgments Act, 1839 (2 A 3 Vict. c. 11), s. 7. 
 
 The doctrine of lis pendens is confined to 
 realty and leaseholds, and does not include goods 
 and chattels. 
 
 B. mortgaged book debts to W., who gave no 
 notice to the debtors. "W. commenced an action 
 for foreclosure which was registered as a lis 
 pendens, and obtained an order for a receiver and 
 an injunction restraining B. from dealing with 
 them. The receiver gave no notice to the debtors. 
 Subsequently B. assigned the book debts to the 
 L. Co., who gave notice to the debtors. The L. 
 Co. had no notice of the action or of the order for 
 an injunction and receiver, unless the registra- 
 tion of the lis pendens amounted to constructive 
 notice : — 
 
 Held, that the doctrine of lis pendens did not 
 apply, and that the L. Co. had priority. 
 
 Decision of Chitty J. reversed. Wigkam v. 
 Buckley - C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 483 
 
 24. — Non-payment — Affidavit of— Foreclosure 
 absolute. 
 
 Foreclosure absolute granted on production 
 to the registrar of affidavits by an agent of one 
 pit. and by the other pit. who was travelling 
 abroad that no payment had been made in 
 respect of the mortgage debt. The deft, did not 
 appear. Docksey v. Else 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 65 
 
 25. — Parties — Practice. 
 
 In a foreclosure action by fii'st mortgagee 
 against puisne mortgagees and the trustees and 
 executors of the will of the deceased mort- 
 gagor :— 
 
 Held, that the estate was sufficiently repre- 
 sented by the trustees and executors, and the 
 decree could be made, although the other defts. 
 did not appear. Jn re Mitchell. Wavbll v. 
 Mitchell Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 11 
 
 26. — Parties — Plaintiff not to be joined as co- 
 defendant. 
 
 A man cannot be both pit. and deft, in 
 
 UOBTG AGE (Foreclosure) —continued. 
 an action. Amendment of writ and pleadings 
 ordered in a foreclosure action by iirst mortgagee 
 to which he was also made a co-deft. Wavell 
 V. Mitchell - Kekewich J. [1891] W, N. 86 
 
 27. — Parties — Debenture-holders — " Floating 
 security." 
 
 The trustees of a Co., by its authority, gave 
 a legal mortgage in fee of its land to the pits. 
 Subsequently the co. issued debentures to secure 
 principal sums and interest which were thereby 
 charged on all its undertaking and present and 
 future property. It was also provided that the 
 debentures were " all to rank pari passu in point 
 of charge as a floating security on the property " 
 thereby charged. The principal moneys thus 
 charged were ooly to become payable in certain 
 events, none of which had happened. 
 
 The pits, commenced a foreclosure action to 
 which they made not only the trustees and the 
 CO., but also all the debenture-holders defts. 
 At the trial it was objected on behalf of the 
 debenture-holders that they were unnecessarily 
 joined as parties : — 
 
 Held, thatthe debenture-holders had an im- 
 mediate equitable charge ; that the working out 
 of a foreclosure decree in their absence was not 
 a dealing with its property by the co. in the 
 ordinary course of its business ; and that they 
 were properly made parties to the action. Wal- 
 lace V. EvEBSHED - - Cozens-Hardy J. 
 [1899] W. N. 58 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 891 
 
 28. — Parties— Executors — B. 8. C, 1883, 
 Order xvi., r. 8. 
 
 On a summons by vendors of real estate who 
 claimed title under a foreclosure decree, held, 
 that an executor fully represented all the bene- 
 ficiaries under a will, and that it was unuecessary 
 to join infant beneficiaries as co-defts. with such 
 executors to the foreclosure action in which the 
 decree was made. In re Booth and Kettlewell's 
 Contract - - North J. [1892] W. N. 156 
 
 29. — Parties — Bepresentatiee for purposes of 
 action — Legal personal representative — B. S. C, 
 1883, Order xvi., r. 46. 
 
 A number of debenture-holders whose deben- 
 tures gave them a charge on the property subject 
 to the plt.'s mortgage were parties to a fore- 
 closure action. One of these parties died: by 
 his will he left his wife executrix ; she had not 
 proved, and was herself a party in respect of 
 debentures in her own right : — 
 
 Held, that she should be appointed represen- 
 tative of the deceased for the purposes of the 
 action, until some other legal personal represen- 
 tative of the deceased was duly appointed. Scott 
 V. Stkeatham and General Fjstates Co. 
 
 Homer J. [1891] W. N. 153 
 
 30. — Possession — Delivery of — Ex parte order 
 — Affidavit of service of motion. 
 
 Where in the summons, by which an action 
 for foreclosure is commenced, possession is not 
 claimed, an order for delivery of possession should 
 not be made ex parte, but mder made subject to 
 production to registrar of affidavit of service of 
 notice of motion. Le Bas- v. Grant 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 28 
 2 T 
 
( 1283 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1284 ) 
 
 UOBTaACrE (Foreclosure)— coniinuefi. 
 
 31. — Foisession — Transfer of Consols — Charg- 
 ing order on stoolc — B. S. C, 1883, Order L^., 
 r. 5a. 
 
 Acting by analogy to cases where delivery of 
 possesBion of real estate had been ordered witli 
 the order for forecloeure absolute, though the 
 order nisi did not provide for such delivery, and 
 tliere had been no claim for delivery, the Court 
 ordered a transfer of Consols, although the trans- 
 fer had not been claimed or provided for by the 
 order nisi. Kicketts v. Eicketts 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 29 
 
 32. — Possession, Writ of — IdentificaUon of 
 property— Form of order— E. S. C, 1883, Order 
 XLVII., rr. 1, 2 — Appendix S, Forms 7a, 8. 
 
 For greater convenience of identification, in 
 case a writ of possession may be necessary, orders 
 nisi for delivery of possession should, after the 
 words " the said mortgaged hereditaments," con- 
 tain a description of the property contained in 
 the mortgage deed. If the description be not 
 in the order nisi, it should be added to the order 
 absolute if it proceed to order delivery of posses- 
 sion. Thynne v. Sakl North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 79 
 
 33. — Power of attorney — Foreclosure abso- 
 lute. 
 
 An order absolute for foreclosure can be 
 drawn up although the solicitor who attends at 
 the appointed time for payment has no power of 
 attorney. King v. Hough 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 60 
 
 34. — Practice — Claim for account, foreclosure, 
 or sale — Foreclosure judgment in chambers — Sum- 
 mons for directions — B. S. C, 1883, Orders XV., 
 
 The pit, a mortgagee, by his writ claimed the 
 usual accounts and inquiries, foreclosure, or sale ,■ 
 in his summons for directions under Order xxx., 
 the pit, also asked for the usual order for accounts 
 and inquiries, and for foreclosure or sale ; and 
 upon the hearing of this application the master 
 made the usual order for account and foreclosure. 
 No objection was taken by the deft, to the order 
 at the time it was made, but he subsequently 
 moved in Court to discharge it, on the ground, 
 first, that on a summons for dii'eetions the Court 
 had no power to make an order for foreclosure ; 
 and, secondly, that even under Order xv. the 
 Court had no power to make such an order, 
 except In very simple cases, and then not in 
 chambers : — 
 
 Held, by Romer J., that as the deft, had re- 
 ceived ample notice of the nature of the rilief 
 claimed, and had not questioned the jurisdiction 
 of the master to make the order for foreclosure, it 
 was not necessary for the Court now to consider 
 whether any technical objection could be success- 
 fully made to the joinder of a summons undtr 
 Order xv. to one under Order xxx. ; but the 
 practice, in simple undefended eases, was a con- 
 venient one, and a saving of expense to all 
 paities, to get the order tor foreclosure made at 
 once. In his Lordship's opinion the Court had 
 jurisdiction to make an order for foreclosure 
 under Order xv. in chambers in accordance with 
 the decision in Smith v. Vavies, (1884) 28 Ch. D 
 650. It Was too late now to raise any objection 
 
 HOBTGAQi: (Foreclosure) — continued. 
 
 to the order, and the motion would be refused 
 
 with costs. 
 
 Held, by C. A., affirming the decision of 
 Eoraer J., [1899] "W. N. 23 (8), upon the prin- 
 ciple of JDyott Y. NeviU, [1887] "W. X. 35, that 
 the deft, not having raised the objection In 
 chambers, could not raise it afterwards. Hoeton 
 V. BossoN C. A. [1899] W. N. 38 (4) 
 
 35. — Beceipt of rents after day fixed for 
 redemption — Form of affidavit — Foreclosure 
 cibsolute. 
 
 Where a mortgagee receives rents after 
 default is made in payment of the principal and 
 interest on the day fixed for redemption, but 
 before the affidavit of such default is sworn, an 
 order for final foreclosure will nevertheless be 
 granted without any further account. 
 
 Form of affidavit in support of an application 
 for foreclosure absolute discussed. National 
 Permanent Mutual Benefit Building Sooiett 
 p. Eapek Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 54 
 
 — Eeceiver and manager. 
 
 See Cases under Reoeivek — Mortgage. 
 
 36. — Bedemption — Several defendants — Form 
 of judgment. 
 
 On a motion for judgment for foreclosure 
 pits, were mortgagees by demise, and certain of 
 the defts. debenture-holders claiming a charge. 
 The Court directed the following form of judg- 
 ment, fixing one time for all the defts. to redeem, 
 and " in the event of such redemption the defts. 
 or deft, making the same are or is to be at liberty 
 to apply as they or he may be advised for the 
 addition to this judgment of any further accounts 
 and directions consequential thereon which, by 
 reason of such redemption, the Court may think 
 just," proceeding as in Selon, 5th fd. vol. ii. 
 p. 1628, but supplying "not" there accidentally 
 omitted as to giving notice to pit. Biddclph v. 
 BiLLiTER Street Offices Co. 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 98 
 
 37. — Be-opening foreclosure — Increase of value 
 of mortgaged property before foreclosure absolute. 
 
 Where the value of the mortgaged property, 
 a policy of insurance, had increased by the death 
 of person insured after the last day appointed for 
 payment, but before foreclosure absolute, the 
 Court ordered the foreclosure to be reopened with 
 subsequent accounts and a fresh period for re- 
 demption. Beaton v. Boulton 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 30 
 
 — Eevcrsion — Arrears of interest — Statute- 
 
 barred debt — Ectainer. 
 
 See Settled Land — Mortgages. 89. 
 
 — Sale or foreclosure. 
 
 See Cases under Mortgage — Sale. 
 
 — Statute-barred debt — Personal property — 
 
 Foreclosure action. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 27. 
 
 Interest. 
 
 — Action for — Foreclosure. 
 
 See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 2!. 
 
 — Arrears — 'Transfer of mortgage — Assignment 
 
 of equity of redemption — Proof. 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 176. 
 
C 1285 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1286 ) 
 
 MORTGAGE (Interest)— oonWnMetZ. 
 
 38. — Notioe — Interest in lieu of notice — Equit- 
 able mortgage. 
 
 An equitable mortgagee by a deposit of title 
 deeds of land, aooompanied by a memorandum of 
 deposit, is not entitled to six months' notice 
 before he is bound to accept a tender of the 
 amount due, nor to six months' interest iu lieu 
 of notioe, the inference from the form which the 
 transaction takes being that the loan is merely 
 temporary. Fitzgekald's Trustee v. Mellersh 
 (No. 2) - Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 385 
 
 39. — " PunoluaUy " paid — Proviso that in- 
 terest should he " punctually " paid — Mortgage deed 
 — Construction. 
 
 A mortgage deed contained an agreement 
 that the payment of the principal money thereby 
 secured should not be required by the mortgagees 
 imtil the expiration of three years from the date 
 of the deed " if in the meantime every half-yearly 
 payment of interest shall bo punctually paid " : — 
 
 Held,hj the C. A. (reversing the judgment of 
 Kekewich J.), [1897] "W. N. 175 (9), that pay- 
 ment " punctually " meant " payment on the day 
 fixed for payment," and that payment nine days 
 after such fixed day was not good payment. 
 Leeds and Hanley Theatre of Varieties v. 
 Broadbent - C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 40. — Bight to six months' interest in lieu of 
 notice. 
 
 (a) Legal mortgaye — Payment off — Seversion. 
 
 It is a settled rule that after default in pay- 
 ment of the mortgage money in accordance with 
 the terms of a deed, the mortgagor must give the 
 mortgagee six calendar months' notice of his 
 intention to pay him off, or must pay him six 
 months' interest. If the mortgagee has demanded 
 payment or taken steps to compel payment no 
 notice is required, but there Is no other exception 
 to the above rule founded on the nature of the 
 mortgaged property. Smith v. Smith 
 
 Homer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 550 
 
 (b) Equitable mortgage by deposit. 
 
 The rule above stated does not apply to an 
 equitable mortgage by deposit of - title-deeds. 
 Fitzgebaid's Trustee p, Meilersh (No. 2) 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 386 
 
 Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 Bee Landlord and Tenant — Mortgages. 
 
 Leases. 
 
 — Illegal distress — Receiver. 
 
 See Distress. 11. 
 
 — Light — Implied easement — Mortgagee — 
 
 Power of sale. 
 
 See Light and Air. 
 41. — Lease by mortgagor in possession — Occu- 
 pation lease — Inclusion of incorporeal heredita- 
 ment — Mansion-house, furniture, and sporting 
 rights — Foreclosure by mortgagee — Lease binding 
 on mortgagee — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 41), ». 18. 
 
 A mortgagor of land while in possession leased 
 for fourteen years the mortgaged house, together 
 with the furniture in it and land adjoining it, 
 and the sporting rights over the remainder of the 
 portgaged land, which had been let, before the 
 
 MOETGAGE (leases) — continued. 
 mortgage was created, to agricultural tenants, 
 with a reservation of sporting rights, the mort- 
 gagee having, foreclosed : — . 
 
 Sdd, that the lease was valid as against the 
 mortgagee under s. 18 of the Conveyancing Act, 
 1881. 
 
 Judgment of Bigham J., [1900] 1 Q. B. 346, 
 affirmed. Brown v. Peto 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 185 ; [1900] 2 ft. B. 653 
 
 Liability of Mortgagee. 
 
 — Partnership— Scope of— Liability for acts of 
 one partner — Deposit of securities pay- 
 able to bearer. 
 See Partnership — Liabilities. 39. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of Limitations. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op — Mort- 
 gages, 
 
 Merger. 
 
 42. — Two properties — Mortgagor trustee of one, 
 beneficial owner of other — Loan by third party on 
 promise to transfer mortgage — Misrepresentation — 
 Part payment to first mortgagee with money lent — 
 Second mortgage of one property only — Right of 
 second mortgagee to a charge on both properties 
 com,prised in first mortgage. 
 
 C., being entitled as a trustee for his wife to 
 property X. and benefioially to property Y., 
 mortgaged both properties, with the consent of 
 his wife, to T. to secure 20001. C. afterwards 
 requested M. to lend him 1200^. to pay off an 
 existing mortgage on X., promising to transfer 
 the mortgage to him, but without disclosing the 
 faet that X. belonged to his wife or in forming 
 him of the amount of, or that Y. formed part of 
 the security for, the first mortgage. 
 
 M. advanced the 1200Z., and C. applied 1000?. 
 of that sum in paying off part of the WOOL owing 
 to T., and afterwards executed a mortgage of X. 
 to M. to secure the 1200Z. so advanced by him : — 
 
 ITeM, that when M. advanced the 1200?. on 
 the above promise by C, and the WOOL was 
 applied In part payment to T., the charge on 
 both X. and Y. was kept alive in equity in favour 
 ofM. 
 
 Patten v. Bond, (1889) 60 L. T. 533, followed. 
 
 Held, further, that M. did not lose the benefit 
 of his charge by taking the equitable mortgage 
 executed by C. on X., the charge thereby given 
 not operating as a release or e.'i.tinguishmeut of 
 the prior charge and there being no reason fur 
 presuming a merger of the securities. 
 
 There is no merger at law even of a lower iu 
 a higher security if the remedy given by (he 
 latter is not co-extensive with that given by the 
 former: Bell v. Banks, (1841) 3 Man. & Q. 258. 
 Chetwynd v. Allen Eomer J, [1899] 1 Ch. 353 
 
 Practice. 
 
 43. — Originating summons — Application by 
 mortgagor without offering to redeem — B. S. C, 
 Order Liv. A, r. 1. 
 
 Under Order liv. A, r. 1, a mortgagor may 
 apply by originating summons for the determina- 
 tion of a question of construction arising under 
 - ■■ ■ « 2 T 2 ■ 
 
( 1287 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1288 ) 
 
 MOETQAGE (PiSLCtice)— continued. 
 the mortgage deed -withotit offering to redeem. 
 Where the mortgagor of a reversionary interest 
 applied under the rule for the determination of 
 the question whether she was entitled to redeem 
 during the period fixed by the mortgage d.ed for 
 the continuance of the loan : — 
 
 Held, thnt the Court was bound to decide Ihe 
 question, and ought not to require the mortgagor 
 to offer to redeem. In re Nobbs. Nobbs r. Law 
 Eeveesionaet Interest Society 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 830 
 
 Priority. 
 
 — Escrow. 
 
 See MoKTSAGE — Escrow. 
 
 14. 
 
 44. — Ladies — Lis pendens — Registration. 
 Book debts were assigned by way of mortgage. 
 
 The mortgagee gave no notice of assignment to 
 the debtors, but subsequently brought an action 
 to enforce the mortgage, wliioh he registered as 
 a lis pendens. The mortgagors then assigned 
 the book debts to a bank which gave notice to 
 the debtors : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that the bank was not affected by 
 notice of the lis pendens ; (2.) that even if it had 
 been the mortgagees had lost priority by their 
 laches. Wigeam v. Buckley 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 483 
 
 45. — Misconduct of mortgagor — Oo-executors 
 and legatees in trust of mortgagee — Negligence hy 
 one of them — Title to deeds. 
 
 A mortgagor, under pretence of obtaining 
 money to pay off mortgagees, obtained the deeds 
 from B., one of the executors of the mortgagee, 
 who was tenant for life under the mortgagee's 
 will. The mortgagor sent back a parcel purport- 
 in g to contain the deeds, but which, as appeared 
 on tlie death of B., did not contain certain title- 
 deeds, which the mortgagorsubsequently pledged 
 to a bank, executing as regards the property in 
 one deed a legal assignment : — 
 
 Held, that the surviving executor, who was 
 also reversioner, was entitled to priority over the 
 bank and to delivery up of the title-deeds. In re 
 Ingham. Jones v. Ingham 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 382 
 
 46. — Negligence — Duty to inquire as to title 
 of mortgagor — Uailway stock. 
 
 The pit. obtained a loan from A. on the 
 security of ry. stock. He afterwards directed his 
 broker to obtain a loan from the broker's bank to 
 pay off the fiist loan, and the stock was trans- 
 ferred by A. to the bank for a nominal considera- 
 tion. The bank only lent to their cuslomers, and 
 believed that the loan was made to the broker. 
 The broker afterwards paid off the loan, sold the 
 stock, and misappropriated the proceeds :— 
 
 Held, that the bank was not liable. Marshall 
 r. National Puovinotal Bank oe England 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 34 
 
 47. — Negligence — Getting in legal estate — 
 l^ipiitaUe mortgagees — Fraud of mmfgagor— Title- 
 deeds. 
 
 A., having purchased an estate, granted two 
 mortgages of the same— (1.) to the plU. by forged 
 deeds, and (2.) to the deft, by true deeds. A. 
 
 anZ w'i ' T?, ^.'^ '^''^^- discovered the forgery, 
 and also that the legal estate was not in A., as A 
 
 MORTGAGE (Priority) — continued. 
 believed, but was then and at the time when A. 
 purchased, in the mortgagees of A.'s vendors. 
 The deft, induced these mortgagees to eonvey 
 the legal estate to the vendors ou condition that 
 they in turn conveyed it to the deft. : — 
 
 Held, that the legal estate had not been 
 inequitably acquired, and that it gave the deft, 
 priority over the pits. Cases considered in which 
 the acquisition of the legal estate will give a 
 subsequent innocent equitable mortgagee priority 
 over a prior equitable mortgagee. 
 
 Observations by Lord Macnaghten as to the 
 extent of negligence necessary to postpone a 
 prior equitable mortgagee, and the judgment of 
 Kay J. 
 
 Decision of C. A. (reversing Kay J.), [1891] 
 1 Ch. 8, affirmed. Taylor v. Etssell 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 244 
 
 Referred to by North J. London and County 
 Banking Go. v. Goddard, [1897] 1 Ch. 642, 6.51. 
 
 48. — Notice — Equitable mortgage hy deposit 
 of deeds — Subsequent purchaser for value without 
 notice — Negligence — Omission to require produc- 
 tion of title-deeds. 
 
 In order that a purchaser for value, who has 
 acquired the legal estate without notice of a prior 
 equitable mortgage of the property, may be post- 
 poned to that mortgage, it is not necessary to 
 shew that he has been guilty of fraud, or negli- 
 gence amounting to fraud; it is sufficient that ho 
 has been guilty of negligence so gross as to 
 render it unjust to deprive the prior mortgagee of 
 his priority. 
 
 Observations upon Satcliffe v. Barnard, (1871) 
 L. E. 6 Ch. 652, 654. 
 
 A purchaser, by an agent who was not a soli- 
 citor, purchased property and obtained a convey- 
 ance of the legal estate without notice of a prior 
 equitable mortgage by deposit of the title-deeds. 
 Tiie agent inquired about the deeds, and was 
 told by the vendor that they were in his posses- 
 sion, but that they would not be delivered up 
 because they related also to other property. The 
 agent did not ask for production of the deeds, 
 and they were not produced, nor was any abstract 
 of title delivered. By the conveyance to the 
 purchaser the vendor acknowledged the right of 
 the purchaser to production of the documents of 
 title mentioned in a schedule, and to delivery of 
 copies, and undertook for the safe custody thereof. 
 The documents mentioned in the schedule were 
 the deeds which had been deposited with the 
 mortgagee. On the subsequent discovery of the 
 mortgngo : — 
 
 Held, that under the circumstances the mort- 
 gagee was entitled to priority over the purchaser. 
 
 Decision of Eoraer J., [18: i8] W. N. 172 (4), 
 affirmed. Oliver v. Hinton 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 102 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 284 
 
 49. — Notice — Further advances after notice 
 of second mortgage — Covenant to make further 
 advances — Life interest — Trrist over on alienation 
 — Words of futurity — Retrospective operation — 
 Vvlanlary settlnnent by mortgagor after mortgage 
 — Tacking. 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that the doctrine of 
 Hopkinson v. Rolt, (1861) 9 H. L. C. 514, that, 
 after notice of a subsequent incumbrance, a first 
 
( im ) 
 
 biaBSt OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 I 1290 ) 
 
 MOETGAGE (Viioiity)— continued. 
 mortgagee cannot, as against that Incumbrancer, 
 taok to Ma debt further advances made by him to 
 the mortgagor, applies to further pdvances made 
 in pursuance of an obligation or 037enant on the 
 part of the first mortgagee entered into at the 
 time of the first mortgage. 
 
 A settlement contained a trust for payment of 
 the income of the trust fund to A. for life " or 
 until he shall assign, charge or incumber, or alfect 
 to assign, charge or incumber " the same : — 
 
 Held, by the 0- A., that under the circum- 
 stances this trust had not a retrospective opera- 
 tion so as to include past acts. 
 
 The owner of a life interest in personal estate, 
 who had already mortgaged it, mortgaged it a 
 second time to two persons, his uncles, who had 
 no notice of the first mortgage. One of the con- 
 ditions of the second mortgage was, that the 
 mortgagor should make a settlement of his life 
 interest, so that that interest should be made 
 determinable on alienation by him, with a trust 
 in that event for the application of the income, 
 at the discretion of the trustees, for the mainte- 
 nance, support or benefit of the settlor, his wife (if 
 any) and children or remoter issue, and his sisters 
 and their children or remoter issue, and a settle- 
 ment to that effect was executed contempora- 
 neously with the execution of the second mort- 
 gage. At the date of the second mortgage the 
 first mortgagee had not given notice of his 
 mortgage to the trustees of the will which created 
 the life interest, and he did not give them notice 
 until nine months afterwards, before which time 
 notice of the second mortgage and of the settle- 
 ment had been given to them. Notice of the 
 first mortgage was given to the second mort- 
 gagees about five weeks after the notice to the 
 trustees : — 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that the uncles were 
 entitled, in respect of their original advance and 
 all further advances made by them to the nephew 
 before they received notice of the first mortgage, 
 to priority over the first mortgagee, but that 
 the settlement must be treated as voluntary, and 
 that the first mortgage was entitled to priority 
 over it. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J., [1898] 1 Oh. 488, 
 reversed. West v. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 169 (9) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 133 
 
 — Notice — ^Priorities of equitable interests. 
 
 See ExECTJTOE — Administration. 26. 
 
 60. — Notice of mortgage — Property held on 
 trust, 
 
 A husband and wife mortgaged property 
 left them by will without disclosing a marriage 
 settlement under which the wife's share was 
 settled. The mortgagees inquired of the trustees 
 of the will if there were any incumbrances. One 
 trustee, who was ignorant of the settlement, 
 replied he was not aware of any. The other, 
 who knew of the settlement, returned an evasive 
 answer. The mortgagees lent the money without 
 further inquiry : — 
 
 Held, that the trustees of the settlement were 
 entitled to the property in priority to the mort- 
 gagees by virtue of the knowledge of the settle- 
 ment possessed by one trustee. 
 
 Decision of 0. A. In re Wtjatt. White v. 
 
 MOBTGAGE (Priority)— co»Jm«ed. 
 
 MUs, [1892] 1 Ch. 188, affirmed. Sub nom. 
 
 Ward v. Dunoombe H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 369 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Made v. Postle, 
 [1894] 2 Oh. 449, 45.5; In re Wasdale, [1899] 
 1 Ch. 163. 
 
 Kcferred to by 0. A. Stephens v. Green, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 148, 152, 159. 
 
 61. — Receivership deed — Equitalle charge^ 
 Annuity — Notice. 
 
 A. covenanted on his daughter's marriage to 
 pay her an annuity, and to secure the same gave 
 a receivership deed over land of which he was 
 tenant for life : — 
 
 Held, that the receivership deed created an 
 equitable charge having priority over a subsequent 
 incumbrancer who took with notice. 
 
 Decision of Eomer J. [1893] W. N. 146, 
 affirmed. Ckadook v. Scottish Peovieent Insti- 
 tution - - - C, A. [1894] W. N. 88 
 
 62. — Registration — Yorkshire Registries Act, 
 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. u. 54, ss. 7, U— Deposit of 
 deeds — Solicitor and client — Notice — "Actual 
 fraud." 
 
 The Yorkshire Eegistries Act, 1884, applies 
 to a charge by deposit of deeds unaccompanied 
 by a memorandum of deposit. 
 
 The priorities given by the Act are not to be 
 altered except in cases of actual fraud, which 
 means fraud importing grave moral blame. 
 
 In 1889 certain beneficiaries under a will 
 deposited with a bank the title-deeds of an estate 
 in Yorkshire to secure an overdraft by the 
 trustees in order that the trustees might be 
 guaranteed against loss in carrying on the 
 testator's business. This was done with the 
 knowledge and approval of J., a solicitor, who 
 represented one of the trustees in this matter. 
 The charge was never registered. J. subse- 
 quently took a mortgage of the same property 
 and registered it, and he claimed priority over 
 the bank. The bank, being satisfied with the 
 personal security of the trustees, did not contest 
 the claim : — 
 
 Held, that J. was guilty of actual fraud in 
 taking advantage of a defect in the bank's 
 security to defeat the interests of his client, and 
 that he was not entitled to the protection of the 
 Act. Battison v. Hobson 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 403 
 
 53, — Rent-charge — Limited Owners' Resi- 
 dences Act, 1870 (33 & 84 Vict. c. 56), «. 9. 
 
 A testator, who died in 1870, by his will, 
 made in 1867, devised his freehold estates to 
 trustees for the term of 2000 years from his death 
 upon the trusts thereinafter declared, and subject 
 thereto to the use of his son for his life, with 
 remainder to the first and other sons of the son 
 successively in tail male, with remainders over. 
 The trusts of the term were, in case his personal 
 estate not otherwise disposed of by his will should 
 be insufficient to satisfy his debts, and funeral 
 and testamentary expenses, and the pecuniary 
 legacies bequeathed by his will, then by mort- 
 gage of the hereditaments comprised in the term, 
 or any part thereof, to raise in aid of his personal 
 estate so much money as should be sufficient to 
 
( 1291 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1292 ) 
 
 UOBIOAGE (Priority)— contmaetZ. 1 
 
 satisfy the same debts, expenses and legacies. 
 In June, 1875, the tenant for life in possession of 
 the settled estates created a rent-charge, ter- 
 minable in 1900, which was charged on the 
 settled estates under the Limited Owners' Kesi- 
 dences Act, 1870. After the date of this rent- 
 charge the trustees of the 2000 years' term 
 executed several mortgages of parts of the settled 
 estates for the purposes of their trust : — 
 
 Held, that, at the date of the creation of the 
 rent-charge, the term of 2000 years was, within 
 the meaning of s. 9 of the Limited Owners' 
 Eesidences Act, 1870, an " incijmbr->nce affecting 
 the land charged," and that the mortgages created 
 under the trusts of the term were entitled to 
 priority over the rent-charge. Pkotident Clerks' 
 Mdtual Life Asstikanoe Association v. Law 
 Life Assukanoe Sooiett 
 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 73 (6) 
 
 — Mortgage on ship. 
 
 See Cases under Shippinq — Mortgage. 
 
 54. — Sub-mortgages — Eeal estate — Equitable 
 estates — Conflicting equities — Notice. 
 
 An equitable sub-mortgagee by deposit made 
 by a legal mortgagee of land has an equitable 
 estate in land, and therefore, as between two 
 such equitable sub-mortgagees, the doctrine of 
 obtaining priority by notice does not prevail. 
 Thus the equitable sub-mortgagee who is later 
 in time does not obtain priority over the earlier 
 by being the first to give notice to the original 
 mortgagor. 
 
 In re Richards, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 589, con- 
 sidered. Hopkins v. Hemswoeth 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 2 Ch. 347 
 
 65. — Transfer of mortgage without notice to 
 mortgagor — Payment of mortgage debt by mort- 
 gagor — Fraud of mortgagor's solicitor — Priority 
 of mortgagor and subsequent transferee. 
 
 The question for decision was which of two 
 innocent parties was to suffer by reason of the 
 fraud of a solicitor named Harrison : — 
 
 Held, that, assuming the transfer to Harrison 
 to have operated as an assignment and convey- 
 ance to him io his personal capacity, and not as 
 a trustee for the deft., the result must follow that 
 the mortgage debt immediately became dis- 
 charged, and that he held the property as trustee 
 for the pit. On the evidence the Court was 
 unable to hold that at the time of the transfer 
 Harrison had constituted himself a trustee of 
 this particular security for the deft., and conse- 
 quently the deft., having taken the transfer from 
 Harrison without the privity of the mortgagor, 
 could only hold it against the mortgagor subject 
 to the state of account between Harrison and the 
 mortgagor, and as between them the debt was 
 non-existent : that the mortgagor had never lost 
 the right to redeem, and that directly the agent 
 who had received the amount to pay oif the 
 mortgage became himself the transferee, the 
 debt was extinguished, and no transferee from 
 him could treat the debt as a subsisting' charge 
 upon the property : the pit. therefore was entitled 
 to priority, and to have a reoonveyimce from the 
 dett. ToENER V. Smith 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 273 
 
 UOBTGAGE — continued. 
 
 BeSeipt. 
 
 56. — Receipt in the body thereof— Mortgagor's 
 signature induced by fraud of his solicitor — " Nan 
 est factum " — Estoppel — Title of mortgagee — 
 " Solicitm-"— Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 d- 45 
 Vict. c. 41), ss. 54, 56. 
 
 Two trustees advanced money on a mortgage 
 of realty. S., one of the trustees, paid the 
 money to E., a solicitor, who produced to him 
 the mortgage deed executed by K. as the mort- 
 gagor. The deed, which contained the usual 
 receipt for the money in the body of it, was 
 handed over by E. to S., who retained it. K. 
 who was not a man of much education, and em- 
 ployed E. from time to time in relation to his 
 property, and had implicit confidence in E., had 
 signed the deed on his advice, but did not know 
 that it was a mortgage and had not instructed E. 
 to obtain a mortgage. B. misappropriated the 
 money and absconded. On discovery of the 
 fraud K. brought an action against the trustees 
 to set aside the mortgage : — 
 
 Held, that under the circumstances K. was 
 estopped by his conduct from denying (1.) that 
 the mortgage was valid, and (2.) that E. had 
 authority to receive the mortgage money. 
 
 The expression, " a solicitor " who produces a 
 deed, in s. 56 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, 
 discussed. 
 
 Dictum of North J. in Day v. Woolwich 
 
 Equitable Building Society, (1888) 40 Ch. D. 491, 
 
 questioned. King v. Smith - Farwell J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 134 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 425 
 
 Beceiver. 
 
 57. — Debt — Simple contract — Part payment by 
 receiver — Promise to pay. Inference of — Acknow- 
 ledgment — Business — Receiver and manager — 
 Executor of mortgagor, agent for — Statute vf Li- 
 mitations (21 Jac. 1, 0. 16), s. 3 — Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 24. 
 
 H., the owner of a business, mortgaged it to 
 S. to secure an annuity, the mortgage deed pro- 
 viding that S. might exercise the power of 
 appointing a receiver under s. 24 of the Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881, and, further, that the receiver 
 might, if 80 directed in writing by S., " manage 
 and carry on the business as he might think fit." 
 H. continued to carry on the business from the 
 date of the mortgage, and in doing so became 
 indebted to the pit. for work done in connec- 
 tion with the business. The debt was unsecured, 
 but it was arranged between H. and the pit. that 
 H. should pay it off by fixed instalments. In 
 June, 1891, after having paid some of the instal- 
 ments, H. died leaving an executrix, and then, 
 S.'s annuity being in arrear, S. by writing under 
 the power conferred by the mortgage deed ap- 
 pointed B, receiver of the business " with full 
 power to manage and carry on the same as he 
 might think fit." In Aug. 1891, the receiver 
 paid the pit. a further instalment in reduction 
 of his debt. 
 
 In a creditor's administration action com- 
 menced in July, 1897, by the pit. against H.'s 
 executrix : — 
 
 Held (affirming Byrne J., [1898] W..^. loo 
 (6) ), that the balance of the plt.'s debt -vvas not 
 
( 1293 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1294 ) 
 
 MORTGAGE (S,ecevrei)— continued. 
 statute-barred, inasmuch as the receiver had, 
 under the combined powers of s. 24 of the Con- 
 veyancing Act and of the mortgage deed, and 
 also as agent for H.'s executrix, as he had been 
 for H. himself (Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 24, 
 sub-s. 2), authority to continue paying the debt 
 by instalments, and that there was, as incident 
 to his authority, an implied promise that the 
 balance should be paid out of H.'s assets : — 
 
 Whether, if the case had rested solely upon 
 the power of appointing a receiver under s. 24 of 
 the Conveyancing Act, the receiver would have 
 been justified in making a payment on account of 
 the plaintiff's unsecured debt, qusere. In re Hale. 
 LiLLEY V. FoAD - C. A. [1899] W. N. 83 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 107 
 — Building society mortgage. 
 
 See Bdilding Society — Mortgage, 
 
 Redemption. 
 
 58. — " Clog " on equity of redemption — 
 " Fetter " — Collateral advantage — Presumption of 
 pressure on mortgagor. 
 
 A mortgagee may stipulate in his mortgage 
 deed for a collateral advantage for himself beyond 
 the repayment of the sum advanced and interest, 
 and may enforce the bargain against his mort- 
 gagor, provided it is not unconscionable or oppres- 
 sive ; and there is no presumption, in the absence 
 of evidence to the contrary, that the collateral 
 advantage was given by the mortgagor under 
 pressure. A " clog " or " fetter " on a mortgagor's 
 equity of redemption, explained. 
 
 Biggs V. Hoddinott, [1898] 2 Ch. 307, followed. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J. [1899] "W. N. 19 (8); 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 747, reversed. Santlbt v. Wilde 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 132; [1899] 2 Ch. 474 
 
 Explained and distinguished by C. A. Rice 
 v. Noakes & Co , [1900] 2 Ch. 445. See No. CO, 
 helow. 
 
 59. — " Clog " on redemption — Agreement sub- 
 ject to condition to be satisfied before the period 
 fixed for redemption — Option to purchase — Con- 
 ditional sale. 
 
 In this case it was held that it was competent 
 for mortgagees and mortgagor to enter iuto an 
 arrangement with respect to the equity of redemp- 
 tion. Here there was a condition which had to 
 be satisfied, if at all, before the right of redemp- 
 tion arose at law. The effect of the satisfaction 
 of that condition was that there never was any 
 right to redeem at law ; the transaction was 
 therefore a conditional sale, and no equity of 
 redemption ever came into existence. Unless 
 there was a legal right to redeem, there was no 
 right which equity could extend. If the pits, 
 within five years elected to enter into the part- 
 nership, there never would be a mortgage for the 
 purposes of the maxim, " Once a mortgage always 
 a mortgage." The pits, by electing to enter 
 into partnership had become purchasers, and the 
 question of clogging the equity of redemption 
 did not arise ; they were entitled to repayment 
 of the purchase-money and interest, and an 
 inquiry as to damages, and the deft, was entitled 
 to an order for reconveyance. Lisle v. Eeeve 
 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. W. 264 
 
 KORTOAGE (Redemption) — continued. 
 
 60. — " Clog" on redemptionr—" Tied " public- 
 house — Mortgage of leasehold public-house — -Cove- 
 nant by mortgagor to talte beer during the term 
 from mortgagee only. 
 
 The rules " once a mortgage always a mort- 
 gage," and that the equity of redemption of a 
 mortgage must not be "clogged," are still in 
 force, and the meaning of them is that a mort- 
 giigor on payment of the debt secured by the 
 mortgage is entitled to have the mortgaged pro- 
 perty restored to him in its entirety, unfettered, 
 and undiminished in value. 
 
 In a mortgage of a leasehold public-house by 
 a licensed victualler to brewers the mortgagor 
 covenanted with the mortgagees that he and all 
 persons deriving title under him should not dur- 
 ing the continuance of the term, and whether 
 any money should or should not be owing on the 
 security of the mortgage, use or sell in the house 
 any malt liquors except such as should be pur- 
 chased of the mortgagees : — 
 
 Held, that this covenant was a " clog " on the 
 equity of redemption, and that the pit., on pay- 
 ment of all that was due upon the security, was 
 entitled to have a reconveyance of the property, 
 or at his option a transfer of the security, free in 
 either case from the " tie." 
 
 Decision of Cozens-Hardy J., [1899] W. N. 
 229 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 213, affirmed. 
 
 Saniley v. Wilde, [1899] 2 Ch. 474, explained 
 and distinguished. Kice v. Noakes & Co. 
 
 C, A. [1900] W. N. 150; [1900] 2 Ch. 445 
 
 61, — Consolidation. 
 
 By indenture of Aug. 11, 1891, T. mortgaged 
 certain freeholds to B. and H. to secure the re- 
 payment of an advance made by them out of 
 moneys belonging to them on a joint account. 
 By indenture of Dec. 6, 1892, T. mortgaged the 
 same freeholds together with some leaseholds to 
 H. alone. T. subsequently died, having appointed 
 executors to whom he devised all his real estate 
 upon certain trusts. 
 
 On June 24, 1897, the executors assigned the 
 leaseholds to E., subject to the mortgage of 
 Dec. 6, 1892. Upon a summons by K. to redeem 
 the mortgage of Dec. 6, 1892, H. claimed to be 
 entitled to consolidate with it the prior mortgage 
 to B. and himself: — 
 
 Held, that the two mortgages were not united 
 in one and the same hand within the rule as 
 established by Jennings v. Jordan, (1881) 6 App. 
 Cas. 698, and Pledge v. White, [1896] A. C. 187 ; 
 and that the docrine of consolidation did not, 
 therefore, apply. Riley v. Hall 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] W. N. 81 (9) 
 — Consolidation — Assignment of one equity of 
 redemption before union of both mort- 
 gages in one person. 
 See MoKTGAGE— Consolidation. 8. 
 
 62. — ContinuMnce of loan — Bestrictice cove- 
 nant — Mortgagor and mortgagee — Collateral ad- 
 vantage — Injunction.. 
 
 A mortgagee may stipulate for a collateral 
 advantage at the time and as a term of the 
 advance, provided the equity of redemption is 
 not thereby fettered, and the bargain is a fair 
 and reasonable one, entered into between the 
 parties while on equal terms, without any im- 
 
( 1295 ) 
 
 i3lGlCSl' 01* OASfeS, 18&1— 1900. 
 
 ( 1296 ) 
 
 MORTGAGE (Eedemption) — continued. 
 proper pressure, unfair dealing, or undue in- 
 fluence. 
 
 Jennings v. Ward, (1705) 2 Vera. 520, ex- 
 plained and distinguished. 
 
 Mainland v. Upjohn, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 126, 
 discussed and applied. 
 
 A mortgage of an hotel to a brewer contained 
 a covenant by the mortgagors that during the 
 continuance of the security they would deal 
 exclusively with the mortgagee for all beer and 
 malt liquor sold on the mortgaged premises. 
 The deed also contained the usual provisoes for 
 the continuance of the loan for five years. The 
 mortgagors having ceased to purchase beer of the 
 mortgagee, he now moved for an injunction to 
 restrain the breach of this covenant ; the moit- 
 gagors also claimed to be entitled to redeem before 
 the expiration of the five years : — 
 
 Held, by Romer J., that the provisoes for the 
 continuance of the loan were valid, and that the 
 mortgagors were not enlitled at present to re- 
 deem. This decision was not appealed from. 
 
 Held, further, by Romer J. and by the C. A., 
 that as the covenant entered into by the parties 
 for the purchase and tupply of beer during the 
 continuance of the security was a reasonable one, 
 which did not in any way clog the redemption or 
 give the mortgagee any undue advantage, it 
 ought to be enforced by injunction. Biggs v. 
 
 HODDINOTT. HODDINOTT V. BiGGS 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch, 307 
 Followed by C. A. Santley v. Wilde, [1S99] 
 
 2 Oh. 474. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Rice v. Noalies & Co., 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 445, 453. 
 
 63. — Costs — Sufficiency of tender. 
 
 A tender to mortgagees in po.-session, reserv- 
 ing the right to tax the mortgagees' costs and to 
 review their account: — 
 
 Held, not to be a conditional tender but a 
 tender under protest and good, so as to deprive 
 the morlgagees of their costs in the redemption 
 action, wliich ensued on their refusing to accept 
 the tender, supposing, on inquiry, the tender was 
 found to be sufficient in amount. Geeenwood v. 
 ScTCLiPFE C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 — Estate duty — Equity of redemption — Settled 
 property. 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 38. 
 
 64, — Fetter on redemption — Policy oj insur- 
 ance — Construction of contract — Bight to poliaj 
 money. 
 
 As pait of a loan transaction the lenders 
 insured the life of tlie borrower against his 
 father's, in a society of which they were trustees, 
 for thiee times the amount of the loan, and paid 
 the premiums till tlie borrower's death. By 
 iigreement, if the borrower paid the principal 
 premiums and compound interest before tlio death 
 of his father, the lenders were to assign the policy 
 to liim ; if, on the other hand, he predeceased his 
 father without having paid all such amounts, 
 the policy was to belong wholly to the lenders, 
 subject to their settling the debt out of the 
 policy moneys. The borrower predeceased his 
 1 Kt'^''' ""'*^™' e'f'^i' paying any part of the 
 
 debt : 
 
 Held (Lord Hanneu diss.), that the borrower's 
 
 MORTGAGE (Eedemption) — continued. 
 representative were entitled to the policy moneys 
 after deducting all sums due ; for the trans- 
 action was a mortgage, and that a clause in a 
 mortgage of a policy that on the happening of a 
 certain event the whole of the proceeds of the 
 policy shall belong to the mortgagee, is void as a 
 restriction on redemption. 
 
 Decision of C. A. (Marquess of Northampton 
 V. Pollock'), [1890] 45 Ch. D. 190, affirmed. Sub 
 nom. Salt v. Maequess op Noethajiptou 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 1 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Eyre v. Wynn- 
 Mackenzie, [1894] 1 Ch. 218, 227. 
 
 Referred to by Oozens-Hardy J. Mice v. 
 Noakes & Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 213, 218. 
 
 65. — Marshalling — Two properties — Priority 
 — Apportionment. 
 
 The deft, was first mortgagee of certain paper 
 mills and of a reversion to personalty ; the pit. 
 became second mortgagee of the paper mills and 
 the reversion, and subsequently became third 
 mortgagee of the paper mills. He then trans- 
 ferred the third mortgage to the deft, and released 
 the paper mills from the second mortgage, 
 thereby becoming second mortgagee of the rever- 
 sion only. The pit. then foreclosed on the rever- 
 sion against subsequent incumbrancers, aud 
 claimed on paying oif the deft.'s mortgage on the 
 reversion to have the first mortgage against the 
 mills conveyed to him : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. had a right on paying off 
 the first mortgage to have both properties con- 
 veyed to him, but that he could not tack his 
 charge to the first mortgage on the mills, that 
 the (payment so made must be apportioned be- 
 tween the securities according to their value, 
 aud that the deft, in turn might redeem the mills 
 on payment of so much of the first charge as was 
 properly apportioned to them. Flikt v. Howard 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 54 
 
 66. — Parties — Tenants in common. 
 
 In a redemption action by mortgagees of the 
 interests of tenants in common, whether of an 
 undivided share or of the entirety, all the tenants 
 in common or persons claiming under them are 
 necessary parties. Bolton v. Salmon 
 
 CMtty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 48 
 
 67. — Policy — Eeal estate — Life policy — Ee- 
 demption action — Mortgagee taking possession of 
 real estate — Statutory title — Lapse of time, mort- 
 gagor barred by — Bight to redeem policy separately 
 — Analogy of statute, application of — Beal Property 
 Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict c. 57), s. 7. 
 
 Where real estate and a life policy have been 
 included in one mortgage to secure one indivisible 
 sum, the mortgaged properties being subject to 
 one and the same proviso for redemption, and the 
 mortgagee has been in possession of the real 
 estate for more than twelve years without any 
 acknowledgment of the mortgagor's title, so that 
 the mortgagor's right to redeem the real estate 
 has become barred by s. 7 of the Eeal Property 
 Limitation Act, 1874, his right to redeem the 
 policy is also barred — not by analogy to the 
 statute, but because, it having become impossible 
 for the mortgagor to require a reconveyance of 
 the real estate, it has become equally impossible. 
 
( ]237 ) 
 
 WGESt Off OASES, 1861—1900. 
 
 ( 1208 ) 
 
 Mortgage (Hedemption)—co?i<wmcd. 
 according to the rules regulating the administra- 
 tion of mortgages in a court of equity, for him to 
 require a reassignment of the policy, the real 
 estate and the policy together constituting one 
 security for the debt. Chakter v. Watson 
 
 Kekewich J. [1899] 1 Ch. 176 
 
 68. — Practice — Hedemption action — Order — 
 Payment into court — Default — Dismissal of action 
 — Miftdke — Extension of time — Jurisdiction. 
 
 In a redemption action an order was made 
 giving the pit. leave to lodge the mortgage money 
 in court, and that " in default of such lodgment 
 within two months from the date of this order, 
 the action be dismissed witli costs." "Under a 
 botiS, fide mistake the pit. failed to lodge the 
 money in court until after the two montlis fixed 
 by the order : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding the expiration of 
 the two months, the action was not dead, but 
 that the Court had jurisdiction, at the instance 
 of the pit., to extend the time limited by the 
 order so as to include the actual date of lodg- 
 ment. COLLINSON V. JePFERT 
 
 Kekewich J. [189S] 1 Ch. 614 
 
 69. — Purchase of equity of redemption — Pay- 
 ment of mortgage debt hy purchaser — Presumption 
 of intention to keep alive security. 
 
 The purchaser of an equity of redemption 
 took an assignment of a charge upon the pro- 
 perty and paid off the incumbrancer. There 
 being no evidence in the deed or the circum- 
 stances of any intention to extinguish the charge 
 and it being for the purchaser's benefit to keep 
 it alive : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the C. A., 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 726, that the charge was not extin- 
 guished. Liquidation Estates Purchase Co. 
 V. WiLLOUGHBY - H. 1. (E.) [1898] A. C. 321 
 
 70. — Purchase of equity of redemption — 
 Transfer of mortgage — Intention to Iceep security 
 alive. 
 
 Where the owner of an equity of redemption 
 pays off and takes an assignment of the mort- 
 gage, and the evidence shews an intention to 
 keep alive the security, it is not extinguished, 
 but enures for the benefit of the owner of the 
 equity of redemption. Thobnb v. Cans 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 11 
 
 See Liquidation Estates Purchase Co. v. Wil- 
 loughby, [1896] 1 Ch. 726, 734; [1898] A. C. 
 321. 
 
 Referred to by Jeune P. The Bipon City, 
 [1898] P. 78, 87. 
 
 — Purchaser of legal estate — Constructive notice. 
 See Vesdok and Pl'echaseb — Convey- 
 ance. 4A. 
 
 71. — Remainderman — Consent of tenant for 
 life or for limited estate. 
 
 A testator, having mortgaged land in fee, 
 devised it (as the Court construed his will) to 
 his wife during the minority of his two sons, and 
 directed that when they were of age the property 
 should be equally divided between his wife and 
 children, whichever of them might be living at 
 that time. After the testator's death the widow 
 mortgaged her interest under the will to the 
 original mortgagee, and died while the sons were 
 
 KOETGAGE (Hedemption)— con«i«Meci. 
 still infants. The infants, by a next friend, 
 brought an action against the mortgagee to 
 redeem the testator's mortgage : — 
 
 Held, on the authority of Mavald v. Sussell, 
 (1830) Younge, 9 ; 34 E. E. 257, that, during the 
 continuance of the widow's limited estate, the 
 pits, were not entitled to redeem the testator's 
 mortgage without the consent of the morlgagee as 
 owner of the limited estate. Pbout v. Cock 
 
 North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 808 
 
 72. — Repayment — Supposed owner — Intention 
 to Iteep security alive. 
 
 Where a jjerson claiming to be owner of an 
 equity of redemption, but wliose title to a share 
 of theproperty is disputed in a pending action, 
 pays off the mortgage and lakes a reconveyance, 
 an intention will be presumed on his part to 
 k(-ep the mortgage alive against the share in 
 dispute. In re Pkide. Shaokell v. Colnett 
 Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ch. 136 
 
 73. — Tender — Principal, interest and costs — 
 Notice — Six months' interest — Enforcing security 
 — Mortgagee tahing possession. 
 
 The rule that a mortgagee who has demanded 
 payment of his mortgage debt, or hos taken steps 
 to compel payment of it cannot refuse tender of 
 his principal, interest and costs on the ground 
 that he is entitled to six months' notice or six 
 months' interest in lieu of notice, applies whether 
 the time fixed for payment by the proviso for 
 redemption in the mortgage deed has expired or 
 not ; and the rule also applies where the mort- 
 gagee has entered into possession of the mortgaged 
 property, entry into possession being, in effect, a 
 demand for payment. 
 
 Brown v. Cole, 14 Sim. 427; 14 L. J. (Ch.) 
 167, considered. Bovill v. Ekdle 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] I Ch. 648 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Ex parte Wichens, 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 543, 548. 
 
 — Tender— Sufficiency of — Costs. 
 iSee No. 63, above. 
 
 Bights of Mortgagee. 
 
 74. — General charge — "All my real and 
 personal estate " — Uncertainty — Public policy — 
 Validity. 
 
 A general charge for value on all the existing 
 property of the mortgagor is nnt void for uncer- 
 tainty if the property to which it attaches can be 
 ascertained at the time of enforcement. Such a 
 charge is not contrary to public policy. In re 
 Kbloey. Tyson v. Kelcet - Kekewich J. 
 [1899] W. N. 133; [1899] 2 Ch. 530 
 76. — Goodwill of business — Public-house — 
 Real Estate Charges Act, 1854 {Locke King's Act, 
 17 & 18 Vict. e. 113). 
 
 On Aug. 12, 1871, a public-house, of which 
 the mortgagor was the owner in fee, subject to a 
 lease for thirty-one years from Dec. 25, 1849, 
 was mortgaged by him to secure 1507Z. At this 
 time the mortgagor was, as underlessee, occupy- 
 ing the house, and carrying on there the business 
 of a licensed victualler. The goodwill of the 
 business was not expressly included in the mort- 
 gage. On Jan. 24, 1873, the original lease 
 was surrendered to the mortgagor. He continued 
 
( 1299 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1300 ) 
 
 UOBTOAOS (Bights of VLoitga.gee)— continued. 
 to carry on the busineas in the house until 
 his death on Nov. 20, 1873, and the business 
 was afterwards carried on by the tenant for life 
 under his will, until she died in 1897. The house 
 and the goodwill were then sold by the trustee 
 of the will (who had previously paid off the 
 mortgage debt) for 11,550?., of which 2617i. was 
 apportioned as the value of the goodwill: — 
 
 Held, that, having regard to the existence of 
 the lease, the goodwill did not pass to the mort- 
 gagee by the mortgage deed ; that it did not 
 accrue to him by the surrender of the lease ; and 
 that, as he liad never taken possession, he had 
 not acquired the goodwill de facto : 
 
 Held, therefore, that the mortgage debt must 
 be borne by the residue of the purchase-money, 
 after deducting the apportioned value of the 
 goodwill. 
 
 Observations upon Lewis v. Leiois, (1871) 
 L. E. 13 Eq. 218. In re Bennett. Clarke v. 
 White - North J. [1898] W. N. 173 (8) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 316 
 
 76. — Share in trust fund, Mortgage of — 
 lieceipt of whole fund iy mortgagee. 
 
 W., being entitled in reversion to one-eighth 
 of a sum of 8000(. bequeathed to trustees, assigned 
 it by way of mortgage to G., with power to give 
 receipts in the name of W. or otherwise, with a 
 proviso for redemption. On the death of the 
 tenant for life of the fund, J., to whom the mort- 
 gage had been transferred, claimed to receive 
 from the trustees lOOOZ., the whole amount of the 
 share, the sum due on the mortgage being only 
 about iOOl. The trustees of the will, who had 
 received notice of subsequent incumbrances, 
 expressed themselves willing to pay to J. what 
 was due on his mortgage, but declined to pay 
 over to him the whole share. J. took out an 
 originating summons to compel payment : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of Kekewich J.), 
 
 that Ihe trustees were not bound to pay over the 
 
 whole share to J., and that the summons must 
 
 be dismissed. In re Bell. Jeffekt v. Sayles 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 139 (8); [1896] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 Approved of by G. A. HocJcey v. Western, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 350. 
 
 — Tenant for life— Payment by — Presumption of 
 intention to keep alive charge. 
 See Settled Land— Mortgages. 88. 
 
 77. — Trust fund. Mortgage of share in — SiglU 
 of mortgagee to receive whole amount of share — 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 <0 45 Vict. c. 41), 
 s. 22, suh-s. 1. 
 
 A member of a land society mortgaged his 
 share in the society to the pit. (another member 
 of the same society) by a deed to which the 
 powers conferred by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, 
 Part IV., were incident. The mortgagor died 
 intestate, and there was no legal personal repre- 
 sentative of his estate. A sum of money having 
 become due to the mortgagor's estate from the 
 society, the pit., relying apon his power to give 
 a receipt under s. 22, sub-s. 1, of the Act, claimed 
 to have the whole amount paid to him as mort- 
 gagee. The U-ustoes, however, not being furnished 
 
 'mcstro''naWrv,°* """^ .^''^'"S reason to believe it 
 qucsLionable how much was due on the mortgage, 
 
 UOBTGAQE (Bights of Mortgagee) — continued. 
 offered to pay the pit. so much of the money as 
 upon taking an account should be found due to 
 him, but declined to pay him without such an 
 account. 
 
 In an action by the pit. to recover the money 
 from the trustees, it was held by Kekewich J., 
 upon the authority of In re Bell, [1896] 1 Ch. 1, 
 that the trustees were entitled to act as they 
 had done; and, upon their undertiking to pay 
 the money into court under the Trustee Act;, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. u. 53), the action was 
 dismissed. 
 
 Upon appeal it was held by the Court that 
 the trustees could not be said to have acted 
 unreasonably; that the decision in In re Bell (of 
 which their Lordships approved) was applicable ; 
 and that the judgment of Kekewich J. must be 
 affirmed. Hockey v. Western 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 350 
 
 Sale. 
 
 — Conditions of sale — Costs — Conveyance — 
 Mortgagees' concurrence. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 9. 
 
 78. — Conduct of sale hy mortgagor— Terms^ 
 Reserved price — Security for costs — Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881 (44 * 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 25. 
 
 Under s. 25 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, 
 the Court has jurisdiction to give leave to a mort- 
 gagor to sell the mortgaged estate out of court, 
 even where notice by the mortgagee to pay off 
 has been given and has expired, when it appears 
 that the sale will be more successfully conducted 
 by the mortgagor. But in making tlie order the 
 Court will limit the time for sale, fix a reserve 
 price suDScient to cover the sura due for principal, 
 interest, and costs, and will require the mort- 
 gagee to deposit in court a sufficient sum as 
 security for costs. Brewer v. Square 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 2 Ch. Ill 
 
 79. — Conduct of sale by fourth mortgagee — 
 Terms — Insufficient security — Convet/ancinq Act 
 1881 (44 d- 45 Hci. c. 41), s. 25. 
 
 The first mortgagees, valuing tlie security at 
 little more than their loan, claimed absolute 
 foreclosure against all subsequent mortgfigees. 
 A fourth mortgagee, valuing the property con- 
 siderably higher, demanded a sale and the con- 
 duct of the sale. The fourth mortgagee's claim 
 was allowed on condition that he paid into Court 
 10 per cent, ou his valuation, to guarantee the 
 first mortgagees against loss. Nokmax v. Beau- 
 mont - - Stirling J. [1893] W. N. 45 
 
 80. — Foreclosure or sale— Conveyancing Act, 
 1881 (44 ct 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 25. 
 
 Foreclosure decreed and order for sale refused 
 on the grounds that (1) an application for sale 
 had already been refused at chambers, and no 
 fresh evidence in favour of sale had been adduced ; 
 (2) the security was insufficient; (3) the property 
 was not suitable for sale in one lot. Provident 
 Clerks' Mutual Life Assurance Association 
 V. Lewis - North J. [1892] "W. N. 164 
 
 81. — Foreclosure action— Sale altogether out 
 of Court— Reserved biddings and remuneration of 
 
 auctioneer to he fixed by judge— Form of order 
 
 R. S. C, 1883, Order LI., r. la. 
 
 In a foreclosure action where an order was 
 
( 1301 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1302 ) 
 
 MOETGAGE (^Sale)— continued. 
 made for sale out of court, but the reserved 
 biddings and remuneration of the auctioneer to 
 be fixed by the judge, the Court treated the sale 
 as one altogether out of court, and directed the 
 insertion in the minutes of the declaratiou re- 
 quired by Order Li., r. 1a, that the Court was satis- 
 fied by the evidence that all persons interested 
 iu the estate were before the Court. Cdmbeb- 
 LAND Union Banking Co. ■». Mabtpobt Hematite 
 Ibon and Steel Co. (No. 1) 
 
 CMtty J. [1892] 1 Ch, 92 
 
 .^ 82. — Improvements — Sight of mortgagee to 
 cost of — Sale by mortgagee after previous sale to 
 himself — Eights of purchaser. 
 
 A mortgagee, his power of sale on default 
 having arisen, sold by auction ostensibly to a 
 third person, really to himself. He subsequently 
 sold the same with improvements he had made 
 to H, The mortgagor brought a suit for 
 redemption : — 
 
 Held, (1) that on the evidence the sale by 
 the mortgagee to himself was not fraudulent; 
 (2) that the sale to H. was a valid exercise of 
 the power of sale and extinguished the right to 
 redeem ; (3) though it was the mortgagee's duty 
 to account to the mortgagor until . the power of 
 sale was validly exercised and to offer to do so, 
 it was not H.'s duty to give notice to the mort- 
 gagor or to see to the application of the purchase- 
 money ; (4) that the mortgagee should be allowed 
 the cost of his improvements so far as they had 
 enhanced the value of the premises. Hendebson 
 
 V. ASTWOOD. ASTWOOD «. COBBOLD. COBBOLD V. 
 
 AsTWOOD - - p. C. [1894] A, C. 150 
 
 — Mortgagee vendor — Statutory power of sale — 
 
 Defective exercise — Title. 
 
 See Tendob and Pukohasee — Title. 83. 
 
 — Partnership — Mortgage of share — Sale of share 
 
 — Eights of mortgagee. 
 
 See Pabtnebsbip — Accounts. 8. 
 
 83. — Power of sale — Action to set aside sate — 
 — loaches. 
 
 The mortgagee of a reversionary interest sold 
 it under the power of sale in January, 1888. The 
 reversioner had notice of the sale, and he then 
 took legal advice as to his rights, but lie took no 
 steps to impeach the sale until December, 1897, 
 when he commenced an action to set it aside. 
 The reversion had fallen into possession in April, 
 1897 :— 
 
 Held, that, by reason of his laches, the plain- 
 tiff could not maintain the action. 
 
 Decision of Cozens-Hardy J., [1899] 1 Ch. 873, 
 affirmed. Nutt v. Baston 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 239; [1900] 1 Ch. 29 
 
 — Power of sale — Banker and customer — Closing 
 
 account — Mortgage to secure amount 
 owing on account current. 
 See Baneeb. 3. 
 
 84. — Power of sale — Building society — Power 
 limited to trustees for the time being of the society 
 
 ^^ Transfer without concurrence of mortgagor — 
 Exercise of power by person not a trustee of the 
 society — Invalidity. 
 
 A member of a building society mortgaged 
 property to the trustees of the society to secure 
 
 HOETGAOE (BaXo)— continued. 
 the repayment by instalments of an advance, and 
 the mortgage deed empowered "the trustees or 
 trustee for the time being of the society," in case 
 of default, to sell the mortgaged property. The 
 mortgage was afterwards, without the concnr- 
 renoe of the mortgagor, transferred to E., who 
 was not a member of the society, and he put up 
 the property for sale purporting to act under the 
 power : — 
 
 Held (assuming, but not deciding the validity 
 of the transfer), that, upon the construction of the 
 deed, the power of sale could not be exercised by 
 any person other than the trustees or trustee for 
 the time being of the society, and that the vendor 
 could not make a good title to the property. 
 In re BuMNEY AND Smith C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 351 
 
 85. — Power of sale — Chose in action — Shares 
 in company. 
 
 Where shares in a co. are mortgaged and no 
 time is fixed for payment of the mortgage debt, 
 a mortgagee who has acquired the legal title 1o 
 the shares has an implied power of sale on tlie 
 failure of the mortgagor to pay after the lapse 
 of a reasonable time. De Vbegbs v. Sandeman, 
 Clakk & Co. - Farwell J. [1900] W. H. 252 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 70 
 
 — Sale by second mortgagee— Costs of vendor's 
 
 solicitor. 
 
 See SoLioiTOB — Costs. 63. 
 
 — Salvage expenditure — Debentures subject to 
 
 prior mortgages. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 91. 
 
 86. — Tenants in common — Purchase by one 
 co-tenant — Sale to one of several mortgagoi-s — ■ 
 Mortgagee, Duties of. 
 
 The only obligation incumbent on a mort- 
 gagee selling under and in pursuance of a power 
 of sale in his mortgage is that he should act in 
 good faith. In determining wlietlier the mort- 
 gagee's conduct in that respect comes up to the 
 required standard regard must be had to the 
 circumstances of the particular case. 
 
 Mortgagees under a mortgage by two tenants 
 in common, one of whom became bankrupt, sold 
 by private contract to the other for a sum equal 
 to the exact amount due iu respect of the mort- 
 gage for principal, interest and costs, the bulk 
 of the purchase-money being left on the security 
 of the property : — 
 
 Held, under the circumstances that the trans- 
 action was a proper exercise of the power of sale, 
 and that the sale was valid for all purposes, 
 giving rise to no claim on the part of the bank- 
 rupt's estate either against the mortgagees or 
 against the purchaser. 
 
 There is no fiduciary relation between tenants 
 in common of real estate as such. Nor can one 
 tenant in common of real estate by leaving the 
 management of the property in the hands of his 
 co-tenant impose upon him an obligation of a 
 fiduciary character. 
 
 Decision of the 0. A., [1896] 1 Ch. 762, 
 affirmed. Kennedy v. De Teafpord 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1897] A. C. 180 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Nutt v. 
 Easton, [1899] 1 Ch. 873, 877; C. A. [1900] 
 1 Ch. 29. 
 
C 1303 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1S91— 1900. 
 
 ( 1304 ) 
 
 MOETGAGE (Sa.le)~conUnued. 
 
 ■ — Title — Notice of trusts of mortgage money — 
 Mortgagee not one of tlie original trus- 
 tees. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 88, 
 
 Settled Land Acts. 
 See Settled Land— Mortgages. 
 
 Shares, 
 
 87. — Profits -ill hands of receiver — Mights of 
 mortgagee as against receiver. 
 
 Money was lent in 1886 on the security of 
 a transfer of shares. The mortgagee did not 
 register the transfer until 1892. H., the mort- 
 gagor, had died in 1889, and in a creditors' 
 action instituted in that year to administer his 
 estate a receiver was appointed to whom deben- 
 tures were issued as representing arrears of 
 dividend on the shares. The mortgagee claimed 
 these debentures as being in custodiH legis, 
 having previously valued his security and proved 
 for the balance of his debt : — 
 
 Held, that the debentures were not in custodia 
 legis for the benefit of the mortgagee, but in the 
 hands of the receiver as assets, and that the re- 
 ci-iver was in the positiun of an executor. In re 
 Hoaee. Hoare ■». Owen 
 
 StirUng J. [1892] 3 Ch. 94 
 
 Shipping. 
 
 See Shipping — Mortgage. 
 
 Solicitor Mortgagee. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor — Solicitor 
 Mortgagee, 
 
 Mortgagees' Legal Costs Act, 1895 (58 * 59 
 Vict. c. 25) amends the law as to the costs of 
 solicitor mortgagees. 
 
 88. — Profit costs. 
 
 A solicitor mortgagee is not entitled to profit 
 costs whether the business is undertaken by the 
 solicitor on behalf of himself solely or on behalf 
 of himself jointly with some one else. In re 
 DooDY. Fisher v. Doody. Hibbert v. Lloyd 
 C. A, [1893] 1 Ch. 129 
 
 But his partners, if any, are entitled to a 
 share of such profit costs proportionate to their 
 interest in the partnership. 
 
 (a) In re Doody. Fisher v. Doody 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 129 
 [This point did not come before the 0. A.] 
 
 (b) "Wellby v. Still (No. 2) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 91 
 [Rendered obsolete as to costs of solicitor 
 mortgagee by 58 & 59 Vict. o. 25, s. 2.] 
 
 89. — Profit costs — Partnership. 
 
 (a) a solicitor mortgagee was a member of a 
 firm of solicitors which sent in to the mortgagor 
 a bill of costs relating to the mortgaged pro- 
 perty: — o o r 
 
 Bdd, that he was not precluded from shewing 
 mat by arrangement between himself and his 
 moS'oLj'^ ™?^ ''°* entitled to any share of the 
 Pioht costs. In re Eollit & Sons 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 195 
 
 MOETGAGE (Solicitor Mortgagee)— comftnued. 
 
 (b) a solicitor mortgagee cannot, in the 
 absence of express agreement, charge the mort- 
 gagor with any profit costs, either in respect of 
 work done in connection with the mortgaged 
 estate as solicitor to the mortgagor, or of collect- 
 ing, &c., the income for the mortgagor where the 
 mortgage is of a life interest; but semlile, a 
 partner of the solicitor mortgagee may receive 
 remuneration for his trouble. A covenant in a 
 mortgage of a life estate to a solicitor mortgagee 
 for payment " of every other sum of money which 
 may hereafter be advanced or paid by the mort- 
 gagee to or on account of or become owing to the 
 mortgagee by the mortgagor," does not include 
 profit costs either as solicitor to the mortgagor or 
 as his agent for collecting, &c., the income. For 
 such a covenant is as to profit costs void as 
 clogging the equity of redemption. The Court 
 will allow the mortgagor to surcharge and falsify 
 settled accounts so far as regards such costs, 
 unless the mortgagee can prove that the mort- 
 gagor was fully acquainted with his legal rights 
 as to such costs. Eyre v. Wynn-Mackenzie 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 1 Ch. 218 
 
 [Rendered obsolete as to costs of solicitor 
 mortgagee by 58 & 59 Vict. c. 25, s. 2.] 
 
 90. — Profit costs — Redemption. 
 
 A solicitor mortgagee who defends a redemp- 
 tion action for himself is entitled to costs out of 
 pocket, but not to remuneration for personal 
 trouble. The objection to allowance of profit 
 costs in such a case need not be taken at the 
 hearing, but may be taken before the taxing 
 master after judgment in the redemption action 
 embodying the common order to tax. Stone i\ 
 LiOKOEiSH - - Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ch. 363 
 
 tacking. 
 
 91. — Further advance — Second mortgage — 
 Trustees — Joint tenants. 
 
 hi Oct. 1 86-1, certain properly was mortgaged 
 to A., B., and C, who were trustees, as joint 
 tenants to secure 3000i. and interest. 
 
 In Feb. 1866, the same property was mort- 
 gaged to L. to^secure 3500/. and interest 
 
 In Oct. 1876, a further charge was executed 
 in favour of the first mortgagees to secure 1500J. 
 and interest. 
 
 A. died in May, 1883, and B. died in Jan. 
 1889. B., who was a solicitor, acted for all 
 parties on the occasions of the creation of all 
 three securities, and had actual notice of the 
 second mortgage and of the further advance 
 when they were created, but he failed to com- 
 municate the fact of the second advance to his 
 co-mortgagees, and they had no personal know- 
 ledge of its existence at the date of the further 
 advance : — 
 
 Held, that the pits., who were the succes- 
 sors in title as trustees of the first mortgagees, 
 were not entitled to tack the amount due in 
 respect of the further advance to the amount due 
 on the first mortgage so as to postpone the defts. 
 who represented the second mortgagee. 
 
 In the case of a mortgage of real estate to 
 joint tenants to secure a debt due to them jointly 
 it cannot be said as against strangers that any 
 
( 1305 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1306 ) 
 
 MORTGAGE (Tacking)— conimued. 
 one portion of the security or of the debt belongs 
 to any one of the mortgagees : eaoh is entitled to 
 the whole ; and if notice of a second incumbrance 
 is given to any one of them that creates an equity 
 against one in respect of the whole sufficient to 
 prevent any tacking. Fkeeman v. Laing 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] "W. N. 99 ; [1899J 2 Ch. 356 
 
 Transfer, 
 
 — Priority — Transfer of mortgage without notice 
 to mortgagor — Fraud of mortgagor's 
 solicitor. 
 See MoKTGAGE — Priority. 55. 
 
 92. — Transfer of mortgage without notice to 
 mortgagor — Sale of mortgaged property hy mort- 
 gagor and original mortgagee as unincumbered — 
 Payment of mortgage debt by mortgagor to original 
 mortgagee — Omission to call for title-deeds — Oon- 
 struciive notice of transfer. 
 
 The owner of real estate mortgaged it in fee 
 to his solicitor, who shortly afterwards transferred 
 the mortgage to a client, the title-deeds and the 
 mortgage deed, on which the transfer was in- 
 dorsed, being handed over to the transferee. The 
 transferee omitted to give notice of the transfer 
 to the mortgagor, and he was ignorant of it. 
 Afterwards the property was sold and was con- 
 veyed as free from incumbrances by the mort- 
 gagor and the original mortgagee to the purchaser 
 by a deed (prepared by the solicitor) which 
 contained false recitals, the mortgage and the 
 transfer of it being suppressed. 
 
 The purchase-money was received by the 
 solicitor, who out of it retained the mortgage 
 debt and interest, and paid over the balance to 
 his client, the mortgagor. The purcl)a3er had 
 no notice of the mortgage. The mortgagor did 
 not call for tlie title-deeds or the mortgage deed 
 when the mortgage was paid off, but left every- 
 thing to his solicitor, the original mortgagee, 
 and signed what he told him to sign. The 
 solicitor paid the interest on the mortgage debt 
 to the transferee until he absconded, when the 
 fraud was discovered. The purchaser tben 
 claimed to held the property free from tlie 
 mortgage : — 
 
 Held, by Cozens-Hardy J., tliat, as the mort- 
 gagor had beeu a party to the false recitals in 
 the conveyance to the purchaser, and had not 
 called for the title-deeds when the mortgage debt 
 was retained by the solicitor out of the purchase- 
 money, he could not claim as against the trans- 
 feree the benefit of the ordinary rule that pay- 
 ments made by a mortgagor to a mortgagee 
 without notice of a transfer are good as against 
 the transferee ; and that the purchaser had no 
 better equity against the transferee. 
 
 Semble, the negligence of a mortgagor, who is 
 entitled on payment off of the mortgage to have 
 the mortgage deed and the title-deeds delivered 
 to him and who omits to ask for them, is greater 
 than the negligence of a transferee of the mort- 
 gage who omits to give notice of the transfer to 
 the mortgagor. , ^, 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that, inasmuch as the 
 evidence shewed the mortgagor had placed him- 
 self entirely in the hands of his sohcitor, ard 
 
 MOBTGAGE (TranBtet)— continued. 
 constituted him his general agent in tlie trans- 
 actions, the knowledge of tlie solicitor must be 
 imputed to him, and he must bo treated as 
 having had notice of the transfer of the mort- 
 gage ; and consequently the payment of the 
 mortgage debt to the solicitor was not effectual 
 as against the transferee, and the mortgage must 
 be treated as still subsisting in her favour, and 
 the purchaser must hold tlie property subject to 
 it, but with a right to be indemnified against it 
 by the mortgagor. Dixosr v. VVinoh 
 
 C. A, [1900] 1 Ch. 736 
 
 Validity. ] 
 
 93. — Breach of trust — Operation. 
 
 A mortgage of a term of years by a legal 
 personal representative solely for his own benefit, 
 which is bad as a breach of trust, cannot be 
 treated as, at all events, operating on such estate 
 as he can pass in his character of legal personal 
 representative. In re Scott & Alvakez's Oon- 
 
 TKACT. SOOTT V. AlTAEEZ 
 
 Per Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 596, at p. 625 
 
 This case was partly affirmed and partly 
 reversed by C. A., [1895] 2 Ch. ti03. 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. . In re Wallis & 
 Barnard's Contract, [1839] 2 Ch. 515, 521. 
 
 — Mortgage of land together with fixed 
 
 machinery — Bills of Sale Acts — Non- 
 registration. 
 See Bill op Sale. 40. 
 
 94. — Salary of workhouse chaplain — Public 
 policy — Public officer — Bankruptcy. 
 
 A chaplain of a workhouse, wliose salary was 
 paid out of the local poor-rate, mortgaged his 
 salary and afterwards became bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the mortgage was not void as 
 against public policy, for a clergyman with a 
 cure of sonis is not a' public officer unless his 
 salary be paid out of national funds And his 
 duties of a public nature ; (2) that the salary, 
 subject to tbe charge, vested in the trustee iu 
 bankruptcy. In re Mibams 
 
 Cave J. [1891] 1 Q. B. 594 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (E.). Mogul Steamship 
 Co. V. McGregor, Goui & Co., [1892] A. C. 25, 45. 
 
 MORTMAIN. 
 
 See Charity — Mortmain. 
 
 MOTHER— Custody of isfant. 
 
 See Cases under Infant — Custody. 
 
 MOTION— Practice. 
 
 See PaAOTiOE — Motions. 
 
 MOVABLE GOODS —French law —Marriage- 
 Community of goods. 
 See CoNELiOT oe Laws. 8. 
 
 MUNICIPAL CODE OF QUEBEC — Art. 712, 
 sub-s. 3 — Corporation — Liability to 
 taxation. 
 See Canada. 53. 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. 
 
 See OOEPOEATION. 
 
( 1307 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1308 ) 
 
 MUNICIPAL ELECTION— Prosecution for cor- 
 rupt practices at — Private prosecutor 
 — Defendant's right to costs where 
 acquitted. 
 See Ckiminal Law — Costs. 4. 
 
 MUEDEE — Murder of insured by -wife in whose 
 favour insurance had been effected. 
 See Insubance — -life. 18. 
 
 MUSIC AND DANCING. 
 
 By the Music and Dancing Licences {Middlesex) 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 15), the Jliddlesex 
 County Cowncil were given certain licensing 
 powers, and the Public Entertainments Act, 1875, 
 and ss. 2, 3 of the Disorderly Souses Act, 1751, 
 uere repealed as to Middlesex. 
 
 Begs, were made hy the London County Council 
 o)j Feh. 9, 1892, under tlie Metropolis Management 
 and Building Acts Amendment Act, 1 878 (41 ifc 42 
 Vict. V. 32), ss. 11, 12, 13, with respect to the 
 requirements for the protection from fire of theatres, 
 houses, rooms, and other places of public resort 
 within the County of London. 
 
 — Copyright — Infringement of — ''Sheet of 
 music" — Perforated roll of paper for 
 use in mechanical organ. 
 See CoPTEiGHT — Music. 28. 
 
 Copyright in music — Dramatic pieoe- 
 of performance. 
 See Copyright — Music. 29. 
 
 -Eight 
 
 1. — Souse kept open for music — Certificate of 
 county council — Buildings — Metropolis Manage- 
 ment and Building Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 32), 
 6. 12. 
 
 Sect. 12, which requires, for houses, &c., kept 
 open for dancing or music, a certificate from the 
 London County Council tliat such house is in 
 accordance with the regulations as to construc- 
 tion made by the council in pursuance of the Act, 
 applies to houses not actually licensed under 
 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, or 6 & 7 Vict. c. 68. Eeg. r. 
 H.VNNAY - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 709 
 
 — How far a nuisance. 
 
 See NiTisANOE. 19. 
 
 — Injunction for nuisance caused by. 
 
 jSee Injunction. 27. 
 
 — Innkeeper providing piano — Public Htalth 
 
 Acts. 
 
 See Innkeeper. 4. 
 
 3. — Licensing committee — Judicial proceed- 
 ings. 
 
 A county council, in determining applications 
 for music and dancing licences, is acting judici- 
 ally, and is bound by the same principles as are 
 binding on justices in trying cases : — 
 
 Seld, therefore, that where members of the 
 committee appeared by counsel to oppose applica- 
 tions, although they did not vote, the proceedings 
 were void. Eeg. ■». London CotiNTY CorNoiL. 
 Ex parte Akkersdyk. Ex parte Fekmenia 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 a. B. 190 
 
 [This case was distini;uished in Boijal Aqua- 
 rium and Summer and Winter Garden 'Societii v 
 Parlinson, C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 431.] 
 
 Befeii-ed to by Stirling J. Murray v. Epsom 
 Local Board, [1807] 1 Ob. 35, 39. ^ 
 
 MUSIC AND DANCING— continued. 
 
 3. — Licensing committee — Frivilege — Defa- 
 mation — Justices Protection Act, 1848 (11 & 12 
 Vict. c. 44), ss. 8, 9 — Local Gorernment Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), ss. 3, 28,78. 
 
 The functions of a couuty council in respect 
 of granting Hcences for music and dancing are 
 not judicial, but administrative only : — 
 
 Sdd, therefore, that a councillor is not entitled 
 to absolute immunity for words spoken to the 
 committee, but only to the ordinary privilege 
 attaching to a privileged occasion : 
 
 Seld, ako, that notice of action was not 
 necessary under ss. 8, 9 of the Justices Protection 
 Act, 1848. EoYAL Aquarium and Summer and 
 Winter Garden Society r. Parkinson 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 431 
 
 EefeiTod to by C. A. Sodson v. Pare, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 455, 457. 
 
 4. — Playing music or singing after request 
 to desist — By-law — Measonableness — Power to re- 
 view where there is no appeal from the Divisional 
 Courts. 
 
 In determining the validity of by-laws made 
 by public representative bodies, such as county 
 councils, the Court ought to be slow to hold that 
 a by-law is void for unreasonableness. A by-law 
 so made ought to be supported unless it is mani- 
 festly partial and unequ il in its operation betwetn 
 different classes, or unjust, or made in bad faith, 
 or clearly involving an unjustifiable interference 
 with the liberty of those subject to it. 
 
 A county council, claiming to act under their 
 statutory powers, made a by-law prohibiting any 
 person from playing music or singing in any 
 public place or highway within fifty yards of 
 any dwelling-house after being requested by any 
 constable, or an inmate of such house, or bis or 
 her servant, to desist : — 
 
 Seld. by Lord Eussell of Killowen C.J., 
 Sir F. H. Jeune, Pres. of P. D. and A. Div., 
 Chitty L.J., Wright, Darling, and Channell JJ. 
 — Mathew J. dissenting — that the by-law was 
 valid. 
 
 Semble : In cases where there is no appeal 
 from the Divisional Courts, a specially constituted 
 Divisional Court appointed by the Chief Justice 
 of England has power to review, and if it thinks 
 fit to differ from, previous decisions of Divisional 
 Courts on the same subject. Kruse v. Johnson 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 91 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Thomas v. Sutlers. 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 10, 13. 
 
 — Royal College of Music— Kates— Exemption 
 — Scientific society. 
 See Eates— Eateability. 36. 
 
 5. — Street musician — Non-payment of fine — 
 Imprisonment— 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47. s, 77 ; 27 A 28 
 Vict. c. 55, s. 1. 
 
 A street musician was convicted under 27 &- 28 
 Vict. c. 55, s. 1, and fined 40s. for playing in a 
 public thoroughfare after being requested by a 
 householder to depart, and committed for one 
 month in default of payment of the fine ; 
 
 Seld. that the conviction and sentence were 
 good. Under s. 77 of the Metropolitan Police 
 
( 1399 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1310 ) 
 
 MUSIC AND JyASClVa— continued. 
 Act, 1839, an offender may be imprisoned for one 
 month for non-payment of a fine, although the 
 impiisonment fixed for tlie original offence be 
 only three days. Eeg. v. Hopkins 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 a. B. 621 
 
 6. — Street musician — Bight of houseliolderr to 
 
 order street musician to depart — Duly to give 
 
 rfoson-^Metropolitan Police Act, 1864 (27 & 28 
 
 Vict. c. 55), s. 1. 
 
 By s. 1, any householder within the metro- 
 politan police district may require any street 
 musician to depart from the neighbourhood of 
 his house " on account of the illness or on account 
 of the interruption of the ordinary occupations or 
 
 MUSIC AND Tik'SClSQ— continued. 
 
 pursuits of any inmate of such house, or for other 
 
 reasonable or sufficient cause " : — 
 
 Held, that the householder making the requi- 
 sition must give to the street mnsiciim bis reason 
 for doing so. Shields v. Howard 
 Div. Ct. [1896] W. N. 166 (7); [1897] 1 Q. B. 84 
 
 MUTUAI CREDIT— In bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankkuptcy — Set-off. 235. 
 
 MUTUAL DEALINGS- Set-off. 
 
 See Bankruptcy— Set-off. 235—237. 
 CoMPAny — Winding-up. 229. 
 
 MUTUAL INSURANCE. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 63, 64. 
 
( 13U ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1312 ) 
 
 N. 
 
 NAME— Bill of sale— Validity— Grantor known 
 only under assumed name— Bill regis- 
 tered imder true name. 
 See Bill of Sale. 7. 
 
 — Company — Alteration — Mistake — Eemedy. 
 
 See CoMTANY — Begistration. 261. 
 
 — Dissolution of marriage — Dignity or title of 
 
 honour — Continued use of, derived from 
 former husband — Injunction to restrain. 
 See Husband and Wife. 96. 
 
 — Dissolution of partnership — Eight to use name 
 
 of old firm — Liabilities — Solicitors. 
 See Paetnership. 24. 
 • — Firm — Eegistration as trade-mark. 
 
 See Tkaiie-mark — Begistration. 4(1. 
 
 — Firm name — Conveyance of freehold shop — 
 
 Vendor's name over door — Vendor's right 
 to erasure. 
 
 See Partnership. 29. 
 ■ — Shares applied for in fictitious name — Con- 
 tributory. 
 See Company — "\Tinding-t:p. 23. 
 
 — Similarity of — Deception — Injunction. 
 
 See Trade Name. 
 — Trade name. 
 
 See Trade Xame. 
 
 1. — Unautlwrized use of name — Untrue etale- 
 ment — Injury — Libel. 
 
 If an untrue statement he made involving on 
 unauthorized use of a man's name, and if it can 
 be proved that such user has caused him injury, 
 or is calculated to cause him injury in his pro- 
 perty, business, or profession, it can be restrained 
 even although it be neither libellous nor defama- 
 tory : Doclirell v. Dnuqal, (1899) 80 L. T. (N.S.) 
 556, and Tr7i((e v. Mellin, [1895] A. C. 154, dis- 
 cussed. Hawker r. Stourfield Park Hotel Co. 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 81 
 
 — Will — Appointment of executors — Executor 
 
 described by wrong suruame. 
 See Probate. 75. 
 
 NAME AND AEMS CLAUSE. 
 
 See Will — Name and Anns Clause. 
 
 NAEEOW CHANNEL— Collision. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Collision. 
 NATAL. 
 
 Appeals from Natal — 0. in C. dated July 19, 
 1870, reijiilatiiirj appeals from the ••Supreme 
 Court of Natal to Her Majesty in Council. 
 St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 1702. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 See Probate — Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 Laws of Natal. 
 
 ■ ~ Company — Lien on memters' shares. 
 
 its ^ih"^ ""^y validly be conferred upon a co. by 
 
 in the M^» f °'''''''™ °° "11 shares registered 
 
 "^0 name of a member for his debts to the co.. 
 
 NATAL (Laws of Natal) — continued. 
 making the member's title to transfer his shares 
 while ho remains indebted dependent on the 
 approval of the directors. Bank of Africa t. 
 Salisbury Gold Mining Co. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A C. 281 
 
 2. — Doltis malus — Priority of unregistered 
 transfer — Registered transfer set aside. 
 
 In a suit against the executor dative of a 
 deceased registered owner of lands in Natal and 
 his transferee to set aside the transfer, it appeared 
 that the pit. had taken a transfer from the 
 owner in his lifetime, paid the purchase money, 
 and received the title-deeds, but had omitted to 
 complete registration, though be had placed a 
 resident agent in possession and management. 
 It also appeared that the defendants had obtained 
 orders from the Court for delivery of certified 
 copies of such title-deeds as having been lost, and 
 for sale by the executor dative by private con- 
 tract, concealing tlie fact that the occupier of the 
 lands held under an alleged lawful possession 
 which might possibly be accompanied by posses- 
 sion of the title-deeds, and thereafter effected and 
 registered their transfer : — 
 
 Seld, that this constituted dolus mains within 
 the meaning of Eoman-Dutch law ; that the said 
 transfer must be set aside; and that tlie pit. 
 had a locus standi to maintain the suit. Chowly 
 V. Bergtheil p. C. [1899] A. C. 374 
 
 3. — Gaming — Syndicate for speculalion in 
 shares — Power of manager. 
 
 The law of Natal does not render it illegal for 
 any person or association to buy and sell shares 
 as a speculation. 
 
 A. was a member of a syndicate formed to buy 
 and sell shares as a speculation. The syndicate 
 bought aud sold from and to other associations, 
 of which A. was not a member, but some of his 
 associates were : — 
 
 Held, that such dealings were not necessarily 
 beyond the authority of the manager; which 
 authority, under the circumstances, was not 
 limited to operations in the open market. 
 Laughton !■. Griffin P. C. [1895] A. C. 104 
 
 4. — Practice — Appeal — Company — Construc- 
 tion of articles of association — Poxcer of chairman 
 to refute adjournment of a meeting — Special leaie 
 to appeal gireti at the hearing. 
 
 At the hearing of an appeal it appeared 
 doubtful whether tlie order appealed againat was 
 a final judgment or had tlie effect of a definitive 
 sentence ; but it also appeared that the questions 
 in controversy on the face of the pleadings were 
 of much importance, and that a determination of 
 them miglit put an end to further litigation. 
 Accordingly special leave to appeal was granted. 
 
 An article of association provided that " tho 
 chaiiman may with the consent of the members 
 present at any meeting adjourn the same 
 iSro." : — ' 
 
 Held, that upon the true construction thereof 
 
( 1313 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1314 ) 
 
 NATAL (laws of Natal) — continued. 
 the chairman is not bound to adjourn a meeting, 
 even tliough a majority of those present desire 
 the adjournment : and that he can, after rejecting 
 a motion for adjournment, declare a provisional 
 agreement specified in the circular convening the 
 meeting to be confirmed. 
 
 Semble, such confirmation is not affected by 
 any statement of the chairman as to its effect 
 even if incorrect. Salisbuky Gold Mining Co. 
 V. Hathoen - - P. C [1897] A. C. 268 
 
 5. — Practice — Appeal — Bight of^Licensing 
 officer — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court — Law 18 
 of 1897, «s. 5 and 6 — Construction. 
 
 Under Natal Law 18 of 1897, ss. 5 and 6, an 
 appeal lies to the town council alone from a 
 decision of its licensing officer. 
 
 No appeal lies from the decision of the town 
 council. A summons for a writ of review thereof 
 by the Supreme Court issued under Law 39 of 
 1896, s. 8, cannot in appeal bo treated as for a 
 ■writ of certiorari contrary to the plain intention 
 of the parties and of the Court below. Vauda v. 
 Newcastle Corporation P. C. [1899] A. C. 246 
 
 6. — Fraaticb — Verdict — Jurisdiction of 
 Court as to setting aside — Law of Natal. 
 
 The law of Natal does not authorize judges to 
 set aside a verdict as if they were a court of 
 appeal upon questions of fact. 
 
 Where a jury had found that a binding agree- 
 ment had been entered into between appellant 
 and respondents, and had given a verdict for 
 damages for its breach : — 
 
 Held, that by the law of Natal the verdict 
 could not be set aside unless it were one which 
 the jury could not reasonably find. Pearse v. 
 ScHWEDER & Co. p. C. [1897] A. C. 520 
 
 7. — Watercourse —BigM to construct — Bight 
 to divert streams — Grant of land — Construction of 
 reservation. 
 
 Where in a grant of land a right is reserved 
 to make watercourses over it for tlie public use 
 and benefit by order of Government : — ■ 
 
 Seld, that such reservation may include, and 
 in the circumstances of this case did include, a 
 right to divert water from streams in the land 
 and to use the water so diverted. Eempry v. 
 Sdrvetor-Gbneral of Natal 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 658 
 
 8. — Will — Contract by spouses to iring 
 themselves within the law — Begistration — Mutual 
 will— Natal luaw No. 22 o/1863, e. 7— Construc- 
 tion. 
 
 By s. 7 of Natal Law No. 22 of 1863, passed 
 to prevent community of goods attaching to 
 certain marriages, persons married in South 
 Africa can bring themselves under its provisions 
 by a registered written instrument to that 
 effect : — 
 
 Held, that, by the true construction of that 
 section, if the instrument is unregistered it is 
 inoperative for all purposes and as between the 
 parties. 
 
 Where husband and wife, not within Law 
 No. 22, by mutual will directed their exeoutoi's 
 to sell the testator's estate as soon as convenient 
 after the testator's death without specifying a 
 date for payment of legacies directed by the 
 
 NATAL (Laws of Natal) — continued. 
 testator, and so soon after the death of- the 
 testatrix as may be to pay the legacies directed 
 by her :— 
 
 Held, that by the true construction of the 
 will the testator's legacies were payable at his 
 death. The intention to dispose of everything 
 was apparent, and the words did not necessitate 
 the suspension of payment of testator's legacies 
 with consequent intestacy as to the resulting 
 income. Taylor v. B. Stdrrook. W. Sturrook 
 V. B. Stubeook - P. C. [1900] A. C. 226 
 
 NATIONAL SEVI— National debt conversion- 
 Annuity — Will- — Charge on capital — National 
 Debt Conversion Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 2), 
 s. 20 (3). 
 
 A will provided that trustees should appro- 
 priate and invest in Government stock " such a 
 sum of money as will, when invested, be sufficient 
 with the income thereof to produce two weekly 
 sums of 15s. each, and shall maintain the same as 
 a fund to answer the said two weekly sums," and 
 provided for the destination of the capital set 
 aside when it should fall in. By reason of the 
 conversion into 2| per cent. Consols, the income 
 became insufficient :— 
 
 Held, that the annuities were charged on tlie 
 capital of the fund, and ttie provisions of s. 20 (3) 
 of the Act did not override the provisions of the 
 will, and that the annuitants were entitled to be 
 paid in full. Pack «. Dakby 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 123 (6) 
 
 2. . — National Debt Conversion — Bequest of 
 3 per cent, annuities — National Debt {Conversion) 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 2), s. 25, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The first part of s. 25 (2) of the National 
 Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888, includes all dis- 
 positions of stock, whether by will or any other 
 instrument, while the second part of the sub-s. 
 deals only with specific bequests of stock. 
 
 Nortli J.'s explanation of the sub-section in 
 Dulce of Northumberland v. Percy, [1893] 
 1 Ch, 298, 303, adopted. See next Case. In re 
 Howell-Shephehd. Churchill v. St. George's 
 Hospital - Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 649 
 
 3. — National Debt conversion — • Bight to 
 substitute 2} per cent, for 3 per cent. Annuities 
 —National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 2), s. 21, sub-s. 1 ; s. 25, sub-s. 2. 
 
 A deed creating a perpetual rent-charge pro- 
 vided for the redemption thereof by the transfer 
 of a specified amount of 3 per cent. Annuities : — 
 
 Eeld', that under s. 25 (2) of the National 
 Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888, the creators of the 
 rent-charge were entitled to redeem it by trans- 
 ferring the same amount of new 2| per cent, 
 stock created under tlie Act. Duke op North- 
 umberland V. Percy Nortli J. [1893] 1 Ch. 298 
 
 Adopted by Keljewich J. In re Sowell- 
 Slieplierd, [1891] 3 Ch. 649. See preceding Case. 
 
 — Unclaimed stock. Inspection of register of. 
 
 See Bank of England. 
 
 NATIONAL SCHOOL— Dismissal of schoolmaster. 
 See Charity. 39. 
 
 — Street — " Owners " — Recovery of expenses. 
 
 See Streets — Pa'vjng, &c., Expenses. 
 31. 
 
 3 U 
 
( 1315 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1316 ) 
 
 NATIVE LAND COUETS ACTS— Laws of New 
 
 Zealand. 
 
 See New Zealand. S. 
 
 "NATUKAI," EEPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 See "B'ILL— Words. 221. 
 
 NATTTEALIZATION. 
 
 Aliens.] Regs, dated Oct. 20, 1897, made by 
 Secy, of State for Some Dcparlvtient for purpose 
 of carrying, into efect the provisions of the 
 S'alnraiization Act, 'l870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 14). 
 St. B.& 0., 1898, p. 3, IVo. 13. 
 
 Eeturx A3 TO Natuhalized Aliens.] A li4 
 nf the persons to whom certificates of naturalization 
 hare been granted hy tlte Secy, of State under the 
 Xiifiiralization Act, 1870, is published every month 
 in tlie Lond. Gaz. An annual return of the certi- 
 Hcates granted during the year is also published as 
 <( Pari. Paper. 
 
 — Chiuamen — Legislative power — Ultra vires. 
 
 See Canada. 30. 
 
 NAVIGABLE EIVER— Eiparian proprietor— Sale 
 of water power artificially created. 
 See Canada. 62. 
 
 NAVIGATION— Collision.' 
 
 See Shipping — Collision, passim. 
 
 NAVY. 
 
 See Aemy and Nayy. 
 
 NECESSARIES— Admiralty practice. 
 See Shipping — Necessaries. 
 
 — Bill of exchange — Acceptance. 
 
 See Infant — Necessaries. liS. 
 
 — Infant. 
 
 See Infant — Necessaries. 
 
 " NECESSARY OR PROPER PARTY "—Service- 
 Out of the jurisdiction. 
 See Pbactice — Service. 21(j — 220. 
 
 NECESSITY— "Way of— Defined way-Grant. | 
 See fl'AY, Eight of. 7. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— Absence of— Action for trespass j 
 to the person. i 
 
 .; See Trespass. 1 . 
 
 — Agistment — Contract of — Action founded on 
 
 tort. 
 
 See Agistment. 
 
 1. — AUen—Injury causing death — KegVgence 
 of British subject—Cause of action outside juris- 
 diction — Fatal Accidents Acts. 1846 and 1864 
 (1) * 10 Vict. c. 93 ; 27 A 28 Vict. c. 95). 
 
 The proYisiona of the Fatal Accidents Acts, 
 1846 and 1864, by which damages can be re- 
 covered for death caused by negligence, do not 
 apply for the benefit of aliens abroad, and there- 
 fore the representaliYe of an alien whose death 
 has been caused hy the negligence of a Uritish 
 subject, outside the jui'isdiction of the Court, 
 lannot maintain an action to recover damas^es in 
 VI spect of the death. Adam r. 13ritish and 
 i! OEEiGN Steamship Co. 
 
 Darling J. [1898] 2 Q, B. 430 
 
 — Bailee. 
 
 See Cases tinder Bailment 
 
 — Bill of Exchange. 
 
 ■■"^ *^'™^^ ""'J'^i- Bill op Exchange. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— conW»tte(Z. 
 
 — Breach of tmst — Immunity clause — Liability 
 
 of trustee. 
 
 See Trustee— Breach of Trust. 20. 
 
 . 2. — Charteret Liability of, for defective 
 
 condition of ship — Breach of duty. 
 
 The deft, chartered for a single yoyage a 
 vessel which was at the time at sea and in ballast. 
 The charterparty declared that she was in every 
 way fit for the service, and provided that she 
 should be so maintained by the owners. On the 
 afternoon of April 5 the vessel was put at the 
 deft.'s disposal in dock, and two hours afterwards 
 the loading began, the deft, having contracted 
 with a stevedore for the purpose who had engaged 
 the pit. amongst others to carry out the work. 
 Fifteen minutes later the pit., in the course of his 
 work, had to descend a ladder leading into the 
 bold. It came adrift, and the pit. fell, sustaining 
 injuries for which he sued the deft. : — - 
 
 Held, that the deft, was liable to the pit., 
 since it was his duty under the circumstances to 
 make some inspection of the vessel before allow- 
 ing the stevedore and his men to go on board 
 her, and since the slightest inspection would 
 have revealed the defective state of the ladder. 
 Marsey v. Soott Bigham J. [1899] 1 Q. B. 986 
 
 — Contractor — Liability of owner for negligence 
 
 of — Sunken wreck in navigable river — 
 
 Contract to raise. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 83. 
 
 — Contribution between joint delinquents. 
 
 See Scottish Law— Joint Selinqnents. 
 21. 
 
 — Contributory — Evidence as to injury by — 
 
 Spiked wall. 
 
 See Ndisanoes. 30. 
 
 — Corporation — Costs — Solicitor and client — 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 See Costs — Public Authorities Protec- 
 tion. 46. 
 
 — Death of illegitimate chUd. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Negligence. 3:1 
 
 — Employer's liability. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 — Factory Acts. 
 
 See JIaster and Servant — Factory 
 Acts. 
 
 — General average — ■ Charterpai-ty — Bill of 
 
 lading — Negligence clause. 
 See Skipping — Average. 8. 
 
 — Harbour. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Harbour. 
 
 — Infant child — Conscientious objection to medi- 
 
 cal aid — Neglect to procure medical aid 
 
 — ^Ian-laughter. 
 
 See CiimiNAL Law. 9. 
 
 — Landlord — Tenant. 
 
 See Cases imiler Landlord and Tenant 
 — Landlord's Liability. 
 
 — Law agent— Liability of, for negligence. 
 
 Sie Scottish Law. 10. 
 
 — Libel — Publication — Circulating library — 
 
 Book circulated in ignoiance of I'ibfcl 
 
 contained in it. 
 
 See Defamation — Libol. 27. 
 
( 1317 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1318 ) 
 
 TEGLIGENCE— eonimMetJ. 
 
 — Limitation of action— Fatal Aooidents Act- 
 
 Neglect in execution of Act of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 See Public Atithoetties Peoteotion. 
 3. 
 
 — " Management" of vessel — Bill of lading in- 
 
 corporating the Harter Act — Damage lo 
 
 cargo. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 28. 
 
 — Master and servant. 
 
 « See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 — Master of ship. 
 
 See Shipping — Exceptions. 135 — 137. 
 
 — Mischievous animal — Evidence of scienter. 
 
 See Damages. 6. 
 
 — Mortgagee. 
 
 See Mortgage — Priority. 45—48. 
 
 — Negotiable instrument — Transfer. 
 
 See Nerotiable Instrument. 
 
 — Partner. 
 
 See Partnership — Liabilities. 31. 
 
 — Policy — Loss by negligence of master — Master 
 
 also part owner. 
 
 &a Insurance — Marine. 65. 
 
 — Principal and agent. 
 
 See Cases under Principal and Agent. 
 
 3. — Public body — Contract to execute worke 
 —Negligence of contractor — Idability of employer 
 —Practice — Separate defence of two defendants — • 
 Vayment into court by one defendant — Verdict for 
 ess titan amount paid in — Liability of tlie other 
 Iffendant for costs. 
 
 A district council, acting under the Public 
 rlealth Act, 1875, s. 150, employed a contractor 
 « make up a highway, which was used by the 
 jublic, but had not become repairable by tho 
 nhabitants at large. In carrying out the work 
 .he contractor negligently left on tbe road a heap 
 )f soil, unlighted and unprotected. A person 
 .valking along the road after dark fell over the 
 leap and was injured. In an action against the 
 Jistrict council and the contractor to recover 
 lamages for the injuries sustained : — 
 
 .ffeM, that as, from the nature of the work, 
 langer was likely to arise to the public using the 
 cad, unless precautions were taken, the negli- 
 jence of the contractor was not casual, or colla- 
 era) to his employment, and the district council 
 vere liable. 
 
 "Where two defts. are sued, and put in separate 
 lefenoes, and one of them has paid money into 
 ;outt exceeding the amount ultimately recovered 
 n the action, the ofher deft, cannot avail himself 
 )f the payment into court by his co-deft, as a 
 latisfaction of the cause of action against him- 
 lelf, and, on the failure of his defence, the pit. is 
 •ntilled to have judgment entered against him 
 'or costs. 
 
 Judgment of Bruce J., reported [1898] 2 Q. B. 
 !12, affirmed. Penny v. Wimbledon Urban Dis- 
 trict Council - C. A. [1899] W. N. 65 ; 
 [1899] 3 Q. B. 72 
 
 Followed by C. A. The Snarh, [1900] P. 105, 
 
 — Railway companies. 
 
 Si3e Oases under EaIlwat- 
 Passengers. 
 
 igence ; 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— coniiiiwetZ. 
 
 — Belief — Underlessee. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 62. 
 
 — Servant. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 — Shipping. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping. 
 
 — Solicitor. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor. 
 
 — Surveyor. 
 
 See Surveyor. 
 
 — Third person. 
 
 See Bailment. 
 
 — Title-deeds — Omission to require production — 
 
 Purchaser for value without notice — 
 Equitable mortgage — Priority. 
 See Mortgage— Priority. 47, 48. 
 
 — Title-deeds. 
 
 See Oases under Title-deeds. 
 
 — Trustee. 
 
 See Oases under Trustee. 
 
 — Valuer. 
 
 See Valuer. 
 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. 
 
 — Bills of exchange. 
 
 See Cases under Bills op Exchange. 
 
 1. — Bond fide holder for value — Obligation of 
 transferee to inquire. 
 
 A person taking a negotiable instrument in 
 good faith and for value obtains a valid title, 
 though he takes from one who had none. 
 
 In the absence of circumstances to create 
 suspicion as to the title of a transferor of a nego- 
 tiable instrument, tho transferee is not bound to 
 make any inquiries into such title. Decision of 
 0. A. Simmons v. London Joint Stock Bank, 
 [1891] 1 Ch. 270, reversed. London Joint Stock 
 Bank v. Simmons H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 201 
 
 Followed by North J. Bentinck v. London 
 Joint Stock Bank, [1893] 2 Oh. 120. 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (Sc.) Thomson v. Clydes- 
 dale Bank, [1893] A. 0. 282, 293. 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. Manchester Trust v. 
 Furness, [1895] 2 Q. B. 539, 545. 
 
 — Cheque. 
 
 See C^ses under Banker. 
 
 2. — Debenture payable to bearer — Usage — 
 Company. 
 
 The pits., a limited co., were possessed of 
 certain debentures, issued by an English co. in 
 England and payable to bearer, which by reason 
 of the conditions indorsed thereon were not pro- 
 missory notes. These debentures were kept in a 
 safe, the key of which was entrusted to the pits.' 
 secretary. The secretary, in fraud of the pits., 
 took the debentures from the safe and pledged 
 them with .the defts. for advances made to him 
 by them. The defts. received the debentures in 
 good faith. It was proved that the usage in the 
 mercantile world and on the Stock Exchange for 
 many years had been to treat such debentures 
 as negotiable instruments transferable, by mere 
 delivery : — 
 
 Held, that, although the pits, were not es- 
 topped, by their conduct from denying the defts.' 
 title, yet the defts. were 'entitled to the deb'en- 
 
 2 U 2 
 
( 1319 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1320 ) 
 
 NEGOTIABLE ISSTUVULETUT— continued. 
 tures as against the pits, on the ground that 
 the debentures were negotiable instruments by 
 delivery. 
 
 Crouch V. Credit Fonder of England, (1873) 
 L. E. 8 Q. B. 374, has been in effect overruled 
 by Goodwin v. Boharts, (1875) L. E. 10 Ex. 337; 
 (1876) 1 App. Cas. 476. Beohuanaland Explo- 
 EATiON Co V. London Trading Bask 
 
 Kennedy J. [1898] 2 Q. B. 658 
 
 — Debtor and creditor— Equitable assignment of 
 
 debt — Notice. 
 
 iSee Assignment. 1. 
 
 — Deposit of securities by broker — Inquiry by 
 
 transferee. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 9. 
 
 3. — Negligence of transferte — Railway bond. 
 Mere negligence on the part of the transferee 
 
 of a negotiable instrument to avail himself of 
 means at his disposal to detect the bad title of 
 the transferor, cannot be pleaded as a defence to 
 an action on the instrument by the transferee. 
 
 foreign railway bonds " to beaver " dependent 
 on a deed of trust referred to in the bonds, held 
 to be negotiable instruments according to the 
 law merchant. Venables v. Baring Brothers 
 & Co. Kekewich J. [1892] 3 Ch. 527 
 
 4. — Words prohibiting transfer — 547k of 
 Exchange Act, 1882 (45 ct 46 Vict. c. 61), ss. 8, 
 73, 76. 
 
 In order to prevent a cheque, drawn payable 
 to order, being negotiable, the intention must be 
 clearly expressed. Crossing the cheque to the 
 p.iyee's account at a particular bank is not suffi- 
 cient. Conditions necessary for rendering a 
 cheque not negotiable considered. National 
 Bank v. Silke - C, A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 435 
 
 NEGOIIATING FEE— Conveyancing. 
 See Cases under yoLioiTOR. 
 
 NEGOTIATION— Bill of Exchange. 
 
 See Cases under Bill of Exchange. 
 
 — By telegram. 
 
 See Contract— Formation. IS. 
 
 NEPHEWS AND NIECES-Bequest to. 
 See Cases under Will — Class. 
 
 NERVOUS SHOCK— D.image—Eemotenesa. 
 See Action. 2. 
 
 NETS— Salmon Fishery Acts — Illegal methods. 
 See Fishery. 7, 8. 
 
 NET PROFITS- Construction of articles. 
 
 See CoMPAHY — Directors. 110; Divi- 
 dend. 149, 155. 
 
 NEW EIVER COMPANY-Eate — Trade pur- 
 poses. 
 See Water — Water Bates. 29. 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 See Probate — Colonial Probates Act. 
 
 Law of New South Wales. 
 
 — Administration suit— Separate account, Fund 
 
 carried to — Assignment — Notice — 
 Equity against assignee. 
 ■See Account. 4. 
 1. — Bankruptcy -Act of bankruptcy— Juris- 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — contimted. 
 diction of banJiruptcy jtidge — Bute of Procedure, 
 No. 51, ultra vires — Begistrar's judgment inad- 
 missible — Indirect motive of petitioner — Fraud. 
 
 Under the New South Wales Bankrnptr-y 
 Acts, 1887-8, an act of bankruptcy may be con- 
 stituted by non-compliance with a bankruptcy 
 notice under s. 4, sub-s. 2, of the principal Act. 
 Ample discretion is vested in tlie judge to grant 
 or refuse a sequestration order founded on the 
 notice, and if granted to discharge or annul it. 
 But no jurisdiction is given by the Acts to anfiul 
 an act of bankruptcy or declare that it never was 
 committed ; and cannot be given by a rule of pro- 
 cedure framed under s. 119, which on its true 
 construction does not authorize a rule purporting 
 to create a jurisdiction in excess of that conferred 
 by the Act. 
 
 The " full written judgment " of the registrar 
 whose order refused the respondent's petition of 
 sequestration against the appellant was rightly 
 held to be inadmissible in evidence in an action 
 against the respondent for having maliciously 
 presented his petition . The respondent was bound 
 by the registrar's discretion as to making or 
 refusing the order, not by liis opinion upon points 
 which he had no jurisdiction to determine. 
 
 Ex parte Vitoria, [1894] 2 Q. B. 387, 
 approved. 
 
 It is neither f rau 1 uar an abuse of process to 
 petition for a sequestration order with an indirect 
 motive, that is, for a purpose other than the 
 equal distribution of the testator's assets, as, for 
 example, to exclude the appellant from a partner- 
 ship ; secus it' such order would in the circum- 
 stances be unsuitable, and enable the petitioner 
 fraudulently to defeat the rights of others whetiier 
 legal or equitable. 
 
 Ex parte Wilbran, (1820) 5 Madd. 1, approved. 
 King i: Henderson P. C. [1898] A. C. 720 
 
 2, — Bill of sale — Delay in possession and 
 registration — Validity. 
 
 Where A. advanced money in good faith to a 
 person who appeared to he solvent, taking a bill 
 of sale which included all the debtor's stock in 
 trade, book debts, and other property, hut without 
 taliiog delivery or registering the bill of sale 
 until just in time to prevent" its being avoided 
 under the (New South Wales) Bills of Sale 
 Act : — 
 
 Held, that his title thereunder prevailed 
 against the debtor's official assignee, no intent 
 being shewn to have existed at the date thereof 
 to defeat or delay creditors. Mokkis i>. Morris 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 625 
 — Cablegrams — 31istako— Action on contract- 
 Onus probandi. 
 See Contract — Formation. 19. 
 
 8. — Civil servant— Civil Service Act, 1SS4 
 (48 Vict. \o. 24), ss. 10, i6— Abolition of ofice— 
 Compensation. 
 
 Although New South Wales '-Civil Service 
 Act, 1884," deprives the Crown of its risht to 
 dismiss its civil servants summarily without fol- 
 lowing the procedure prescribed therein, yet it 
 docs not take away the right of the Crown to 
 abolish a civil oflnce : — 
 
 Held, thatthe holder of an abolished office, 
 
C 1321 ) 
 
 MGEST OF CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 1322 ) 
 
 KEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New Sontli Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 unless entitled to a superannuation allowance 
 under the Act of 1884, is not by the true construc- 
 tion of ss. 10 and 46 entitled as for breach of con- 
 tract to any other compensation. It is at the 
 option of the Government whether he should be 
 offered an equivalent office. Yodns v. Waller 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 661 
 See also next Case. 
 
 4. — Civil servant — Dismissal of — New South 
 Wales Act (59 Vict. c. 25), s. 58 — Construction — 
 Retrospective effect. 
 
 Retrospective effect ought not to be given to 
 a statute unless an intention to that effect is 
 expressed in plain and unambiguous language. 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. Fye, (1861) 10 0. B. (N.S.) 
 191, approved : — 
 
 Seld, that the Kew South Wales Act (59 Vict, 
 c. 25), s. 58, which enacts that " Nothing in this 
 Act or in the Civil Service Act of 1884 shall be 
 construed or held to abrogate and restrict the 
 right of the Crown as it existed before the passing 
 of the said Civil Service Act to dispense with the 
 services of any person employed in the public 
 service," is not retrospective in its operation : 
 
 Seld, that the respondent, who had been dis- 
 missed from the public service before the said 
 Act came into operation, but not in manner pre- 
 scribed by the Act of 1884, was not affected by 
 the provisions of the later Act, which only apply 
 to persons actually employed in the public service 
 at and after the date thereof. Young v. Adams 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 469 
 See also preceding Case. 
 
 5. — Civil servants of the Crown — Power to 
 dismiss at pleasure — Law of New South Wales — 
 Civil Service Act, 1884 (48 Vict. No. XXIV.). 
 
 The Crown has by law, whether in England 
 or New South Wales, power to dismiss at pleasure 
 either its civil or military officer, >i condition to 
 that effect being an implied term of the contract 
 of service except where it is otherwise expressly 
 provided : — 
 
 But lield, that certain provisions of the New 
 South Wales Civil Service Act of 1884, being 
 manifestly intended for the protection and benefit 
 of the officer, are inconsistent with such a con- 
 dition, and consequently restrict the power of the 
 Crown in that respect. Gould v. Stuart 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 575 
 
 Referred to by P. C. Young v. Adams, [1898] 
 A. C. 469, 473. 
 
 6. — Company — Arbitration — Reference of 
 suit. 
 
 The arbitration provisions in tbe Companies 
 Act (37 Vict. No. 19) only apply to voluntary 
 arbitrations to which the co. has submitted under 
 its common seal, and not to references by order 
 of a judge under s. 12 of the Arbitration Act, 
 1892 (55 Vict. No. 32). 
 
 Accordingly, an arbitrator under the latter 
 Act need not make the declaration before a 
 justice prescribed by s. 113 of the former Act. 
 Zelma Gold Mining Co. v. Hoskins 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 100 
 
 7. — Company — Contract — Effect of company's 
 adoption of contract made before its formation — 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 Payment of shares in cash — Set-off — New South 
 Wales Cmnpaniea Aet, 1874 (87 Vict. No. 19), «. 57 
 — Imperial Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. 
 c. 131), s. 25. 
 
 A CO. does not by its adoption of a contract 
 of purchase made before its formation by per- 
 sons purporting to act on its behalf incur any 
 contractual relation with or obligation to tlie 
 vendor. 
 
 In re Johannesburg Hotel Co., [1891] 1 Oh. 119, 
 approved. 
 
 But where a co. on completion of convey- 
 ances to it by the vendor gave credit to him 
 for moneys placed in his hands as promoter on 
 the terms of the co.'s prospectus by intend- 
 ing shareholders and specifically appropriated by 
 them in payment pro tanto for their shares, 
 registered the shares in their names, and at the 
 bame time obtained credit in respect of the pay- 
 ment from the vendor on account of the purchase- 
 money : — 
 
 Held, that this was a payment in cash to the 
 company in respect of those shares within the 
 meaning of s. 57 of the New South Wales Com- 
 panies Act, 1874, which is substantially identical 
 with B. 25 of the Imperial Companies Act, 1867. 
 NoKTH Sydney Investment and Tramways Co. 
 V. HiGGiNS p. C. [1899] A. C. 263 
 
 8. — Company — Contract — Shares deemed to 
 be fully paid up — Liability — Law of New South 
 Wales — Companies Act, 1874, No. 19, s. 57 — 
 English Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 c. 131), s. 25. 
 
 Where the members of a syndicate resolved 
 to form a co., distributing the shares therein 
 rateably amongst themselves according to the 
 extent of their interests in the syndicate property, 
 the same to be deemed in great part paid up, and 
 a deed of sale of their property was executed by 
 their trustees to a trustee for the company, after- 
 wards filed with the registrar and adopted by the 
 directors, which embodied the above resolution : — 
 
 Held, that the deed of sale was not a contract 
 within the meaning of s. 57 of the Colonial Act 
 of 1874, corresponding with s. 25 of the English 
 Companies Act of 1867, so as to protect the shares 
 from liability to calls in respect of the amounts 
 which were to be deemed as paid up. It did not 
 effect a genuine transfer of property in respect of 
 which shares deemed to be paid up formed part 
 of the consideration; nor were any legal rights 
 or liabilities created tliereby. 
 
 Hartley's Case(Jj. R. 10 Ch. 157) distinguished. 
 Smith v. Brown - P. C. [1896] A. C. 614 
 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. In re Wragg, 
 Ld., C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 796, 804. 
 
 Refeired to by Stirling J. Jn re Ni.ton's 
 Navigation Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 872, 874. 
 
 9. — Com,pany — Debentures — First charge on 
 uncalled capital. 
 
 Under the Companies Act (37 Viet. No. 19), 
 identical for this purpose with the Englioh Act 
 of 1862, a CO. limited by shares can create a, 
 charge upon its uncalled capital so as to confer 
 priority in the winding-up. 
 
 Where the memorandum of association autho- 
 
( 1323 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1324 ) 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 lized the receipt of money on loan or deposit and 
 " npon any security of the co. or upon the security 
 of any property of the co." : — 
 
 Meld, tliat this authorized a charge upon the 
 whole uncalled capital. Newton v. Anglo- 
 AusTKALiAN Investment Co. (Debentcke- 
 HOLDEHS) - P. C. [1895] A. C. 244 
 
 Discussed and followed by Chitty J. Jackson 
 ». Mainford Coal Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 340. 
 
 Oonimented on and explained by C. A. In re 
 Mayfair Property Co., [1898] 2 Ch. 28. 
 
 — Contract — Admissibility of extrinsic evidence 
 
 — " Total cost of works." 
 
 See CoNTKAOT — Construction. II. 
 
 — Contract — llescission — Title of trustee for s-ale 
 
 who has purchased for liimself — Effect 
 of beneficiaries consenting — Interme- 
 diate tale to third party. 
 See Vekdok and Pukchaseb — Eescis- 
 sion. 60. 
 
 10. — Contract of indemnity — Estoppel — Evi- 
 dence as to ahandonment of claim. 
 
 The pit. and deft, jointly guaranteed to a 
 bank payment of a certain cash bund, the pit. 
 agreeing with the deft, to indemnify him from 
 ail liability thereunder. Seven years afterwards 
 the bank released the guarantors from liability 
 on payment by each of lOOOJ. 
 
 In a suit by the pit. to declare the agreement 
 of indemnity discharged, and to restrain the deft, 
 from continuing his action thereon : — 
 
 Held, that in the absence of a contract to dis- 
 charge it, the deft, could not be estoppc d from 
 enforcing it by any rejireseutatlon, express or 
 implied, of his intention to abandon it. To raise 
 uu equity on behalf of the pit. there must ha\e 
 been misrepresentation of existing facts. 
 
 Jordan v. Money, 5 H. L. C. 1 85, approved. 
 Chadwick v. Manning P. C. [1896] A. C. 231 
 
 11. — Cn.-is — Ci-'HSultat ions with counsel — 
 Shorthand notes of evidence — Exptnses of wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 Where a taxing master had directed (1.) that 
 fees for consultations should be ascertained by the 
 number of consultations allowed, (2.) that costs of 
 witnesses should be ascertained at a uniform rate 
 of fourteen days' subsistence when the witness 
 was examined twice, and seven days when ex- 
 amined only once: — 
 
 Seld, that the first direction was right, and 
 that the master need not inquire into the length 
 of the consultations and the importance of the 
 occasions on which they were held, but that the 
 second direction was erroneous, for that the case 
 of each witness properly called should be con- 
 sidered, and a rtasonable allowance made having 
 regard to the character of his evidence and the 
 probability of his having to be recalled. Commu. 
 FOK Eys. v. O'Eoueke 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 594 
 12. — Criminal law — Crotcn case reserved — 
 Inadmissibility of evidence — 26 Vict. No. 17, 
 s. 423. 
 
 Sect. 423 of the Criminal Law Amendment 
 Act, 1883 (46 Vict. No. 17), does not on its true 
 construction empower the Court to affirm a con- 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 viction where the evidence submitted to the jury 
 was inadmissible, and might have influenced the 
 jury. Makin u. Att.-Gen. for New South 
 Wales P. C. [1894] A. C. 57 
 
 13. — Oi-iminal law — Jurisdiction — Bigamy 
 committed without the Colony — Criminal Laic 
 Amendmeni Act, 1883 (46 Vict. No. 17), s. 54. 
 
 The words of s. 54 of the Criminal Law 
 Amendment Act, 1883 (46 Vict. No. 17), relating 
 to bigamy, must be intended to apply to persona 
 actually within the jurisdiction of the Legisla- 
 ture, and consequently there is no jurisdiction iu 
 the Colony to try a person for the offence of 
 bigamy alleged to have been committed in the 
 United States of America. MacLeod v. Att.- 
 Gen. POE New South Wales 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 455 
 
 14. — Criminal law — Prisoner competent 
 witness — Comment on prisoner refraining from 
 giving evidence — 55 Vict. No. 5. 
 
 A prisoner applied fur special leave to appeal 
 in a criminal matter on the ground mat the 
 judge misdirected the jury in commenting upon 
 the prisoner having refrained from giving evidence 
 in a case in which he was a competent but not 
 com pellable witness : — 
 
 Held, that tlie comment was according to law, 
 and not precluded by the Criminal Law Amend- 
 ment Act (55 Vict. No. 5), s. 6. Kops v. Kto. 
 Ex parte KoFS P. C. [1894] A. C. 650 
 
 See 63 & 64 Vict. u. 12, s. 9 (73). 
 
 15. — Crown lands — Alienation — Conditional 
 purchase — Construction of Act 25 Vict. No. 1. 
 
 (A) A conditional purchase of lands under 
 the Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1861 (25 Vict. 
 No. 1), made in the name of an infant by a person 
 who paid the deposit and balance of purchase- 
 money, and at his own expense maile tlic statutory 
 improvements, and continued to occupy the land 
 as part of the run of which it had before purchase 
 been part: — 
 
 Held, that neither the infant when he came of 
 age nor the person who liad advanced the mone-y 
 were statutory purchasers, as the conditions of 
 the Act had not been complied with. Tooth r. 
 PowEK - - P. C. [1891] A. C. 284 
 
 \_The condilional purchase clauses of '25 Vict. 
 No. 1, on which tliis decision rested, were in effect 
 superseded by 39 Vict. No. 13.] 
 
 (b) Where the appellant effected a conditional 
 purchase under s. 22 of the Crown Lands Aliena- 
 tion Act, 1861, of land adjoining to Crown laud 
 which had been previously granted to him in fee 
 simple uuder s. 25 : — 
 
 Held, that ho did not become thereby a holder 
 of an original conditional purchase within the 
 meaning of s. 42 of 48 Vict. No. 18, so as to 
 obtain the right to make additional conditional 
 purcliiises under that section : 
 
 Held, further, that even if s. 22 of the repeaU d 
 Act of 1861 did confer upon him as tho fee-simple 
 holder of land the right claimed, b. 2, sub-s. (6), 
 of the later Act was inoperative to preserve such 
 right. Abbott r. Ministek for Lands 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 4?5 
 
( 1325 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1326 ) 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (law of New South Wales) 
 — continued. 
 
 16. — Croim Lands Acts, 1884 (48 Vict. 
 No. 18), 8. 102; 1895 (58 & 59 Viot. No. 18), 
 ss. 10, 11, 13 — Application for_ additional con- 
 ditional purchase — Respondent barred under one 
 Act, in time under the other. 
 
 Under the Crown Lauds Act, 1884, the 
 land in suit had was reserved for a public 
 purpose by notification on July 4, 1896. 
 
 On January 9, 1897, the notification wag re- 
 voked, and it was notified in the Gazette of that 
 day that it was set apart for homestead selections 
 under sa. 10 and 18 of the Crown Lands Act of 
 1895:— 
 
 Held, that the respondent's application on 
 February 11, 1897, to tako the land as an addi- 
 tional conditional purchase, though within the 
 forty days of grace prescribed by s. 11 of the 
 later Act, was nevertheless barred as having 
 been made before the expiry of the sixty days' 
 delay prescribed by s. 102 of the Act of 1884. 
 
 Colless V. Minister for Lands, [1899] A. C. 90, 
 followed. Minister fob Lands v. Hakeington 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 408 
 
 17. — Crown Lands Acts — Beference iy Land 
 Appeal Court to Supreme Court — Effect of deci- 
 sion. 
 
 In a suit by the respondent against the appel- 
 lant to recover certain lands, it appeared that in 
 an appeal to the Land Court to which the respond- 
 ent and the Minister for Lands were parties, and 
 of which the appellanj; had notice as a party 
 interested, a reference was made to the Supreme 
 Court, which decided that at the date of the 
 appellant's application for them the lands were 
 not Crown lands, and therefore not open for 
 selection : — 
 
 Held, that this decision was conclusive and 
 could not be reopened. Gaensey v. Flood 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 687 
 
 18. — Crown Lands Acts — Resumed area — 
 Leasehold area — Crown Lands Act, 1895 (58 & 59 
 Vict. No. 18), 88. 5, 11. 
 
 Under s. 5 of the Crown Lands Act, 1895, 
 leasehold area becomes resumed area after notifi- 
 cation to tLat effect in the Gazette. A grant to 
 a tenant on the expiry of his lease of a preferen- 
 tial occupation licence in regard to his holding 
 does not under the Crown Lands Acts change its 
 character to that of a resumed area. Nor does a 
 Gazette announcement of siieh licence operate 
 as a notice that the area affected has been 
 resumed : — 
 
 Held, accordingly, that the appellant had no 
 title to apply before notification under s. 5 for a 
 conditional lease of land held under a licence; 
 and that s. 11 of the same Act (which only saves 
 existing rights) did not avail him. Colless v. 
 Minister fob Lands P. C. [1899] A. C. 90 
 
 Followed. See next Case. 
 
 19. — Crown Lands Ad, 1889 (53 Vict. No. 21), 
 s. 8, sub-s. 6 — Special case stated by Land Court — 
 Duty of Supreme Court — Law of New South 
 Wales. 
 
 Held, that under the Crown Lands Act of 
 1889, s. 8, Bub-s. 6, it is the duty of the Supreme 
 Court to hear a case stated by the Land Court in 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 • — continued. 
 pursuance of that sub-section, and to return it to 
 the Land Court with a decision on the question 
 submitted. The Land Court has jurisdiction to 
 state it ; and if stated without due precision, the 
 Supreme Court can return it for amendment. 
 Hill, Claek & Go. v. Dalqety & Co. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 343 
 
 20. — Equitable jurisdiction — Underground 
 trespass — Fraud — Statute of Limitations — Cham- 
 perty — Laches. 
 
 Although courts of equity are not within the 
 words of the Statute of Limitations, yet they are 
 within its spirit and meaning, and have uniformly 
 adopted its rules. 
 
 Where the appellants had furtively for a 
 series of years taken the respondents' coal by 
 means of a wilful and secret underground 
 trespass ; and no laches was attributable to the 
 respondents in not discovering the existence of 
 the wrongful workings by the appellants : — 
 
 Held, on a summons issued by the latter in 
 the winding-up of the appellant company, that 
 they were entitled to recover from the appellants 
 the market value of all the coal worked and 
 gotten by them from the respondents' land, no 
 allowance being made for the cost of working. 
 
 To such a claim the Statute of Limitations 
 has no application. So long as there has been no 
 laches by the party defrauded, it is immaterial 
 whether or not there have been on the part of 
 the wrongdoer active measures to prevent detec- 
 tion : — 
 
 Held, that an agreement between the respond- 
 ents and their lessees (under a lease executed 
 before discovery, of the trespass) by which the 
 former were indemnified against costs of suit on 
 terms of paying to their lessees 92 J per cent, of 
 the amount recovered was not champertous. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commissioners for .England v. 
 
 North Eastern Ry. Co., (1877) 4 Ch. D. 845, 
 
 disapproved. Bulli Coal Mining Co. v. Osboene 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 351 
 
 21. — Evidence — Admissibility — Farol eci- 
 dence — Written agreement. 
 
 Parol evidence cannot be said to be improperly 
 admitted as contradicting or varying a written 
 agreement, when it relates to the circumstances 
 under which the plt.'s name was appended to a 
 document which was no part of the agreement, 
 but which was placed before him for signature 
 by the deft, after the agreement was concluded . 
 Bank of Australasia v. Palmer 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 540 
 
 22. — Forfeiture — Crown Lands Act, 1884 
 (48 Vict. No. 18), 8. 13, sub-s. 2 ; ss. 14, 18, 19; 20, 
 39 — Power of the minister to declare a forfeiture 
 of conditional purchases — Finality of finding of 
 Land Board. 
 
 Held, that any reference to the Land Board 
 on an issue of fact which, if found againt-t the: 
 conditional purchaser, involves the forfeiture oC 
 his purchase, must, even if framed under s. 13, 
 sub-s. 2, of the Crown Lands Act of 1884, be 
 tried in manner prescribed by s. 14, and that 
 the finding thereon is final under s. 20. 
 
 If the finding is that the statutory require- 
 
( 1827 ) 
 
 DiGESt OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1328 ) 
 
 iSEW SOUTH WALES (law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 ments have not been complied -with, s. 39 gives 
 a discretionary power to the Minister to declare 
 a forfeiture. That power is not swept away by 
 the Act of 1889, which established a Land Court 
 to hear appeals from the Land Board in lieu of 
 1he Minister to whom such appeals lay under 
 S3. 18 and 19 of the Act of 1884. Att.-Gen. 
 i-OK New South Wales v. Walters 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 460 
 
 23. — Guarantee — Bond — Gonstrnction — Be- 
 cital and condition. 
 
 The respondent with others gave a joint and 
 several guarantee to the appellant bank limited 
 to 2500Z. in respect of overdrafts by a customer. 
 Subsequently he with others gave a joint and 
 several bond reciting a desire for advances to the 
 same customer over and above that amount, and 
 securing repayment of the balance of account 
 current. 
 
 In an action brought both on the guarantee 
 and bond, the former was held to be invalid ; 
 but 
 
 Held, that the condition of the bond, being 
 plainly to secure repayment of all moneys ad- 
 vanced by the bank and not merely those in 
 excess of the said 2500Z., could not be controlled 
 by any recital not plainly inconsistent therewith. 
 AusTKAiiAN Joint Stock Bank, Ld. v. Bailet 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 396 
 
 24. — Income tax — TaxaUe income — Mortgages 
 — Land and Income Tax Assessment Act, 1895 
 (59 Vict. No. 15), ss. 27, 28, subs. \— Construc- 
 tion. 
 
 Under the New South Wales Land and 
 Income Tax Assessment Act, 1895, s. 27, the 
 taxable amount of the respondent's income was 
 limited to the amount of its income derived from 
 mortgages ; under s. 28, sub-s. 1, certain expenses 
 incurred by the taxpayer " in the production of 
 his income " were to be deducted : — 
 
 Held, that by the true construction of the 
 sub-section the respondent was entitled to deduct 
 all expenses incurred in the production not merely 
 of its mortgage income, but of its income as a 
 whole. CoMMKS. OE Taxation t. Teeoe 
 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 284 
 
 25. — Insolvency — Payment of debt — Know- 
 ledge of insolvency — 25 Vict. No. 8. 
 
 Where a creditor has such a knowledge of 
 the debtor's affairs as to be aware that the debtor 
 is insolvent (within the meaning of 2."> Vict. 
 No. 8), payment by the debtor of his debt is 
 invalid against the assignee in insolvency, and 
 the payment may be recovered. National Bank 
 OF Australasia v. Mobeis P. C. [1892] A. C. 287 
 
 26. — Insurance, fire — Compliance with con- 
 dition in policy — Non-suit — Practice. 
 
 Where, in an action on a fire policy, the 
 plaintiffs' evidence shewed that they could have 
 complied with the condition as to giving within 
 fifteen days a detailed account of their loss " as 
 the nature and circumstances of the case will 
 admit" much more fully and completely than 
 they hail done :— 
 
 Seld, that they were rightly non-suited, since 
 even it the question of compliance were for the 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 jury, a verdict could not have been reasonably 
 given in their favour. Hiddle v. National Fiee 
 AND Maeinb Insueance Compant of New 
 Zealand - - - P. C. [1896] A. C. 372 
 
 27. " — Interest in land — New South Wales 
 Heal Property Act, 1862 (26 Vict. No. 9), s. 117— 
 Construction — Limitation — Sect. 122 — Eights of 
 beneficiaries whose trustees are barred — Bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 
 Where a rent-charge or annuity is held by 
 trustees to be applied by them for the maintenance 
 and education of children or the survivor : — 
 
 Held, that the children take a joint interest 
 therein, but that the shares of the minors are to 
 be applied as directed. 
 
 The interest of each child is an interest in 
 land within the meaning of the New South 
 Wales Eeal Property Act, s. 117. 
 
 Where the estate out of which the rent-charge 
 issued passed to a bankrupt's assignee under a 
 certificate of title negligently granted to the 
 bankrupt free of incumbrance : — 
 
 Held, in an action brought by the beneficiaries 
 against the Registrar-General for compensation 
 out of the assurance fund created by the said 
 Act, that their rights, being under the Act in- 
 dependent of the trustees and being saved by the 
 provisions of the Act (see o. 122) in regard to 
 persons under disability, could be enforced not- 
 withstanding that their trustees' rights were 
 barred. Williams v. Papworth 
 
 ' P. C. [1900] A. C. 563 
 
 — Joint gold-mining lease — Notice of abandon- 
 ment by a joint lessee. 
 See Mines — Gold Mines. 9. 
 
 28. — ■ Land Acts — Reserved lands — Bevocatlon 
 of reserve — Improvements. 
 
 Under the Land Acts, 1861, 1S75, ISSO, ISS-t, 
 it is not competent for the governor, with the 
 advice of his council, to sell improved land by 
 appraisement to the holder, where it had been 
 temporarily reserved from sale, and such reserva- 
 tion had not been revoked. Eioketson v. Bar- 
 bour - - P. C. [1893] A. C. 194 
 
 29. — Malicious prosecution — Mens rea — 
 11 Vict. No. i, s. 7 — Construction — Statutory 
 offence. 
 
 By s. 7 of -ict 11 Vict. No. 4, a sale of wool 
 under a lien " with a view to defraud," without 
 the written consent of the lienee is made a 
 punishable offence ; a like sale of stock is made 
 so independently of a like intent. 
 
 In an actiDn for malicious prosecution there- 
 under, it appeared that the pit. had sold stock of 
 which the deft, bank was lienee without intent 
 to defraud, and with the bank's oral consent: — 
 
 Held, that on the true construction of the 
 above section, an intent to defraud was not an 
 element of the statutory offence charged, that this 
 was matter for decision by the judge, and that a 
 verdict must be entered for the deft. 
 
 An intention to offend against the penal pro- 
 visions of an act constitutes mens rea ; and was 
 proved by the plt.'s knowledge that there was no 
 written consent. Bank of New South Wales 
 i: Piper P. C, [1897J A. C. 383 
 
( 1329 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1330 ) 
 
 NEW SOUTH WAIES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 
 30. — Marine insurance — Contract in writing 
 — Misrepresentation — Burden of proof. 
 
 Though there is no positive law in New South 
 Wales requiring contracts of marine insurance to 
 be in writing, yet the general authority given to 
 the agent of an insurance co. must be to make 
 contracts in the ordinary way, and that is by 
 writing. 
 
 Where insurers resist payment of a risk on the 
 ground of misrepresentation, the burden is on 
 them to prove very clearly the making of the 
 misrepresentation. Davies v. National Fire 
 AND Maeine Insurance Compant of New Zea- 
 land - - P. C. [1891] A. C. 485 
 
 — Marriage settlement — Volunteers. 
 
 See Settlement — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 85. 
 
 31. — Marriage settlement — Bights of volun- 
 teers. 
 
 A limitation in a marriage settlement in 
 favour of an illegitimate child of the settlor may 
 be defeated, as a limitation in favour of a volun- 
 teer, by a subsequent conveyance to a purchaser 
 for value, unless such a result would defeat other 
 limitations within the marriage settlement. De 
 Mestre v. West - - P. C. [1891] A. C. 264 
 
 Followed by 0. A. Att.-Gen. v. Jacobs-Smith, 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 341. 
 
 32. — Municipal corporation — Non-repair of 
 street — Liability — 43 Vict. No. 3, s. 67. 
 
 A municipal corporation was sued for damages 
 for the death of the pit. 'a husband, occasioned by 
 their alleged negligence in allowing a street 
 vested in them to fall into disrepair : — 
 
 Seld, (1) that the statutes creating the cor- 
 poration and the Act vesting the street in them 
 (3 Vict. No. 3), imposed no statutory obligation 
 on them to repair the street, and (2) thtit the. 
 pit. had no cause of action. Municipal Coun- 
 cil OB Sydney v. Bourke P. C. [1895] A. C. 433 
 
 Eeferred to by P. 0. Brabant & Co. v. King, 
 [1895] A. 0. 632, 638. 
 
 33. — Municipal rates — Exemptions — 31 Vict. 
 No. 12, s. 163. 
 
 Lands not the property of Her Majesty, but 
 occupied by a municipality for the purposes of 
 water supply, are within the exemption of s. 163 
 of the Municipalities Act, 1867 (31 Vict. No. 12). 
 Council of the Borough op Eandwick v. Aus- 
 tralian Cities Investment Corporation 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 322 
 
 34. — Nullum Tempus Act (9 Oeo. 3, c. 16) 
 applies to the Colony— Australian Courts Act, 1828 
 (9 Geo. 4, c. 83). 
 
 Meld, that the Imperial Nullum Tempus Act 
 (9 Geo. 3, c. 16) is in force in New South Wales ; 
 and that it applies to lands which have never 
 been dealt with by the Crown. 
 
 9 Geo. 4, 0. 83, prima, facie on its true construc- 
 tion applies that Act to the Colony. Its operation 
 to that effect cannot be restricted by ooniining 
 the laws and statutes thereby applied to those 
 relating to procedure; or by shewing that a 
 specific exception in the applied Act preserving 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 the Crown's right could not operate in the cir- 
 cumstances of the Colony. Att.-Gen. foe New 
 South Wales v. Love P. C. [1898] A. C. 679 
 
 35. — Parliamentary allowance to members — 
 Law of New South Wales— 53 Vict. No. 12, s. 2— 
 Construction. 
 
 According to the true construction of the 
 Parliamentary Eepresentatives' Allowance Act 
 (53 Viot. No. 12), s. 2, an annual grant to " every 
 member of the Legislative Assembly now serving 
 or hereafter to serve therein," applies to every 
 successive Legislative Assembly of the Colony, 
 and is not limited to the particular Assembly 
 existing at the date of the Act. Att.-Gen. for 
 New South Wales v. Kennie 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 376 
 
 36. — "Permanent common" — Common of 
 pasturage — Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1861 
 (25 Vict. No. 1), 8. 5. 
 
 Where by notice under s. 5 of the Crown 
 Lands Alienation Act, 1861, which authorizes 
 the dedication of Crown lands for any pasturage 
 common or other public purpose, the Crown 
 dedicates lands as a " permanent common " : — 
 
 Held, that this dedication meant that the 
 lands should go for ever for the common or public 
 enjoyment, so as to bring them within the Public 
 Parks Act, 1854 (18 Vict. No. 33), and did not 
 create a common of pasturage. Sydney Muni- 
 cipal Council v. Att.-Gen. for New South 
 Wales P. C. [1894] A. C. 444 
 
 37. — Practice — Appeal from interim injunc- 
 tion — Trespass — Nevi South Wales Mining on 
 Private Lands Act, 1894 (57 Vict. No. 32), ss. 8, 
 13 — Gold lease application. 
 
 Appeals from interlocutory injunctions, of an 
 essentially temporary kind, will not be en- 
 couraged. 
 
 Where an interim injunction had been granted 
 restraining the appellant from trespassing or 
 mining upon land covered by the private gold 
 lease application of the respondent, who under 
 s. 8 of the New South Wales Mining on Private 
 Lands Act, 1894, had obtained a miner's right 
 and authority, and under s. 13 had made appli- 
 cation not yet granted at date of suit for a twenty 
 years' lease : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent, having a definite 
 statutory right to apply for a lease, had a locus 
 standi to apply for an injunction which should be 
 maintained till discharged by the Court. Ceou- 
 DACE V. ZoBEL - - P. C. [1899] A. C. 258 
 
 38. — Probate duty paid under protest — Appli- 
 cation for refund — Delay — Stamp Duties Acts of 
 1880 (44 Vict. No. 3) and 1886 (50 Vict. No. 10). 
 
 Where executors paid probate duty partly 
 under mistake of law and partly with a reserva- 
 tion of their right to have the excess refunded 
 without regard to delay, and it was subsequently 
 decided in another case that no duty at all was 
 payable as claimed : — 
 
 Held, that an application made nine years 
 later for a mandamus to state a case for the Full 
 Court was not brought within a reasonable time, 
 and must be refused. Beouqhton v. Commis- 
 sioner OF Stamp Duties P. C. [1899] A. C. 251 
 
C 1331 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 1332 ) 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALE 3 (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 
 39. — Eeal Properly Acts (26 Twt. Ko. 9 ; 
 41 Vict. Xo. 18) — Caveat — Onus probandi as 
 hdtcetn applicant and caieiitor in possession. 
 
 On an applioation to bring land under the Real 
 Property Acts (26 Yict No. 9 and 41 Yict. 
 Xo. IS), when the applicant thews a complete 
 documentary title and proves that he was in pos- 
 session within twenty years bef'ie the com- 
 luenrement of ihe proceedings, the burden of 
 proof to defeat the applicant's title is on the 
 caveator iu pojsession. Sollikg r. Bkocghton 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 656 
 
 40. — Beal Property Acts — Caveat — Waii-cr 
 of lapse— 26 Vict. No. 9, s. 21. 
 
 An applicant to bring lands under the Eeal 
 Property Act (26 Vict. No. 9) filed his case 
 in Couit under s. 21 more than three months 
 after a caveat had been lodged, and thereafter 
 obtained an order, that (he caveator should file 
 her case, which she did : — 
 
 Held, that by applying for the order he had 
 waived his right to have the caveat set aside as 
 lapsed under s, 23. "WiLsox r. McIntosh 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 129 
 
 41. — Heal Property Acts — Begistered Jlvrt- 
 guije — Sale hy auction — Notice — 7 Vict. No. IG, 
 w. 11, 22— 1;2 Vict. No. 1, s. 18. 
 
 A. sold certain lots of an estate by auction to 
 B,, aud subsequently mortgaged the whole estate 
 to C, who knew that certain unspecified portions 
 of the estate had been sold : — 
 
 Held, Ihat according to the Colonial Acls 
 (7 Viet. Xo. 16, ss. 11, 22,. aud 22 Yict. Xo 1, 
 » 18) 0. gained no priority from ]egi^trafion, but 
 took subject to B.'s purchase. .Sydney and 
 
 SlBURBAN MVTUAL BuLLDING AND LaND InVEsT- 
 
 JiEXT Association v. Lyons 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 260 
 
 42. — Beal Property Acts — Succession — Wife's 
 rrnlty—Act 26 Viet. No. 20, ss. 1, 2. 
 
 By 26 Yict. Xo. 20 the wife's realty in the 
 Colony after the husband's tin.incy by the 
 curtesy has expired devolves on the wife's next 
 of Idn, and not on her heir-at-law. Plomlet v. 
 SiiEPHEED P. C. [1891] A. C. 244 
 
 43. — Herenne — Income tax — Assessmejit — 
 hicifme from ore produced in New South Wales 
 and sold outside it — New South Wulc.^ Income Tax 
 Act, 189.5 (59 Vict. No. 15), ». 15, sub-ss. 3, 4. 
 
 Where income was in part derived from the 
 extraction of ore from the soil of New South 
 Wales Colony, and from the conversion in the 
 latter Colony of the crude ore into a merchantable 
 product : — 
 
 Held, that this income was assessable under 
 the New South Wales Land and Income 'I'ax 
 Assessment Act of 1895, s. 15, sub-s. 3, 4. not- 
 withstanding that the finished products were sold 
 exclusivelv outside the Colony. 
 
 In re findal. (1897) IS N. S. W. L. E. 378, 
 overruled. CoMMiiS, OF Taxation r. Kihk 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 688 
 __,t*' ~7 '^'^"P—Aieragehond—Acerage statement 
 
 -^o rtu;^ to employ an aierage stater. 
 1 ort (T':^;' V ""^ average bond executed at the 
 ion ot discharge, consignees of cargo undertook 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 to furnish to the shipowners a correct account 
 and particulars of the value of the goods delivered, 
 in order that the amount of average contribution 
 to which they were liable might be ascertained 
 and ailjusted " in the usual manner" : — 
 
 Held, that these words did not imply as a 
 condition of the obligation that the shipowners 
 siiould employ an average stater at the port of 
 disclifi]r&r6 
 
 Si,nonds T. White, (1824) 2 B. & C. 805, 
 explained. 
 
 A shipowner may make out his own average 
 statement, and is not bound to employ an average 
 Slater either at the port of discharge or else- 
 where. Wavbetbee Sailing Ship Co. r. Love 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 373 
 
 45. — Stamp duties — Probate — Locality of 
 debt. 
 
 In order that an asset may be liable to 
 probate duty under the Stamp Duties Acts (44 
 Vict. No. 3, 50 Yict. Xo. 10) it must be such as the 
 grant of probate confers the right to administer, 
 and therefore one which exists within the local 
 area of the Colonial jurisdiction. A simple con- 
 tract debt is within the local area of the juris- 
 diction within which the debtor for the time 
 being resides ; a specialty debt is within the local 
 area in which it is found at the credilor's death. 
 CoMMES. OF Stamps r. Hope 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 476 
 
 Referred to by Cuzens-Hardy, J. In re 
 Muudslay, Sons & Field, [1900] 1 Ch. 602, 60y. 
 
 46. — Streets— Public Works Act, 1888 (51 & .i2 
 Vict. No. o7) — Sydney Corporation Act of 187:i 
 (43 l'(c(. No. 3), s. 67 — Construction — Vesting — 
 Diverting a street into a tramicay not a taking of 
 properly for public purposes. 
 
 Held, that diverting a street into a tramway 
 is not a taking of property within the meaning 
 of the Xew South Wales Public Works Act : 
 
 Held, further, that the Sydney Corporation 
 Act of 1879, which vests public ways in the 
 municipal council, does not so vest them in pro- 
 prietary right, which alone givis claim for com- 
 pensat;0D, but only for purposes incidental to the 
 exercise of municipal authority. Sy-dney JIusi- 
 CIPAL COLNCIL o. YouNG P. "c. [1898] A. C. 457 
 
 47. — Trade-mark — Fuhlici Juris — Z'ser — 
 Ladies. 
 
 The A. Co. in 1889 registered in Xew South 
 Wales the word " Maizcna" under the Colonial 
 Trade Marks Act of 1 S6o, but had allowed the 
 name to be used in the Colony for twenty-four 
 years as a term descriptive of the article aud not 
 of their own manufacture thereof: — 
 
 Held, that the word had become publici juris 
 and was no longer registerable, and that as the 
 B. Co., though they had applied the word to their 
 own manufacture, had not tried to pass it oif as 
 that of the A. Co. by the use of packets, &c., cal- 
 culated to deceive, but had stated the name of 
 the maker, iSrc, the B. Co. could not be restrained 
 from Ubing the word. National Stakch M-\nc- 
 FACTUiiiNG Co. r. Mdnn's Patent :N[aizena and 
 Staeoh Co. p. C. [1894] A. C. 275 
 
 48. — Tradename — '■ Flaked OatmeaV — Term 
 
( 1333 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1331 ) 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued, 
 of _ ordinary description — Identification of name 
 with goods by user — Injunction. 
 
 Where ihe pits, ■without relying on their 
 registered trade-mark, which consisted in part of 
 tlie term " Flaked Oatmeal," claimed that Ihey 
 had by use so intimately identified the term 
 with their goods that the use of it by the defis. 
 in tlieir trade-mark had the effect of passing off 
 their goods as the plt.'s goods : — 
 
 Meld, that the term being one of ordinary and 
 not exclusive description, and being applicable 
 to the deft.'s goods as well as the plt.'s, and the 
 deft'.s user thereof not having been proved to 
 have had or to be calculated to have the above 
 effect, the suit must be dismissed with damages 
 resulting from the grant of an interim injunc- 
 tion. 
 
 Beddaway v. Sanham, [1896] A. C. 199, ap- 
 proved. Paksons v. Gillespie 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 239 
 — ■- Trust property Act, 1862 — Purchase in Eng- 
 land of equity of redemption — Stamps. 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 169. 
 
 49. — Trustee — Appointment — Vesting order — 
 IC Vict. No. 19, ss. 80, 82. 
 
 Where an application for the appointment of 
 a new trustee in tlie place of one incapacitated is, 
 in the opinion of the Court, duly made and 
 served, the Court has power, under 16 Vict. 
 N.o. 19, ss. 80, 32, to appoint as prayed, and also 
 to make a vesting order. According to the rule 
 and practice in the Colony, it can direct the 
 master to appoint, and the vesting follows the 
 appointment without any subsequent order. 
 Plomlet v. Eiohakdson ahd Wbbnch, Ld. 
 
 P. C. [1894] i. C. 632 
 
 50. — Watei — Levying water-rate — Lands out- 
 tide rateahle limits — By-laws — Construction — Act 
 A-:?F//. 0/1892, 8. 35. 
 
 Where the appellants were authorized by 
 their incorporating Act (XXVII. of 1892), s. 33, 
 to mate by-laws levying a water-rate " in respect 
 of lands and tenements distant not more than 
 sixty yards from any main .... although such 
 lands or premises are not actually connected witlt 
 any main " : — ■ 
 
 ifeW, that they had no authority to levy a 
 rate on lands without the prescribed limit merely 
 because such lands formed one holding with other 
 lands within the prescribed limit. Hunter Dis- 
 trict Water Supply and Seweeage Bd. u. 
 Newcastle Wallsbnd Coal Co. 
 
 P. C. [1896] A, C. 82 
 
 — Will — Accumulations — Rents and royalties 
 
 from mining leases — Tenants for life — 
 * Eemaindermen. 
 See Accumulations. 6. 
 
 — Will — Alternative devise^Vested interests — 
 
 Divesting — Construction of will. 
 jSee Will — Vested Interests. 210. 
 
 51. — Will before adoption of Wills Act — 
 Words of gift without limitation — "Estate" — 
 '• Property." 
 
 By the English law of wills prior to the Wills 
 Act, 1837 (adopted in the Colony in 1840) words 
 of gift conveyed only a life estate unless the 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES (Law of New South Wales) 
 
 — continued. 
 devise contained words of limitation, and the use 
 of the words " estate " or " property " would not 
 enlarge the gift if used only by way of reference, 
 and not in the operative part of the devise. Hill 
 V. Brown - - P. C. [1894] A. C. 125 
 
 62. — Will — Besidue — Refertntial trusts do 
 not duplicate charges. 
 
 Trusts of residue created by reference to other 
 truots are not to be reail as creating a duplication 
 of charges on the estate in the absence of indica- 
 tion of (he testator's clear intention to that effect. 
 Tbew v. Perpetual Trustee Co. 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 284 
 
 Referred to by Romer J. In re Marquis 
 of Bristol, [1897] 1 Ch. 949. 
 NEW STEEET. 
 
 See Cases under London — Streets. 
 Streets. 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 See Practice — New Trial. 
 
 NEW ZEALAND. 
 
 Appeals from — 0. in 0. dated May 10, 1871, 
 regulating appeals from the Supreme Court of 
 New Zealand to Her Majesty in Council. St. E. & 
 0, 1899, p. 1706. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 See Probate— Colonial Probates Act, 
 
 Death Duties, 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty, 
 
 Law of New Zealand. 
 
 1. — Banlter and customer — Account not ear- 
 marked as trust account — Set-off. 
 
 Where a co. received from the respondents 
 trust moneys paid them to the credit of a sepa- 
 rate account between it and the appellant bank, 
 and failed: — 
 
 Held, in an action by the respondents, that, 
 as the bank was not shewn to have received the 
 moneys as trust funds, or to have received during 
 the currency of the account notice of their trust 
 character, the bank was entitled to set them off 
 against its own claim against the co. in liquida- 
 tion. Union Bank of Australia, Ld, v: Mukbay- 
 Aynsley - P. C. [1898] A. C. 693 
 
 2. — Charitable trusts — Exemption from duty 
 — Charitable Gifts Duties Exemption Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. No. 46), 88, 2, 3 — Land and Income 
 Assessment Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. No. 18), 
 8. 16, sub-s. 1 — Amendment Act, 1892 (55 & 56 
 Vict. No. 54), s. 3, sui>-s. 4 — Construction. 
 
 Held, that a gift by will, for the maintenance 
 and education of boys who are orphans or the 
 sons of parents ia straitened circumstances, is 
 "charitable" within the meaning of the New 
 Zealand Exemption Act, 1883, s. 3; notwith- 
 standing that the educational institute to be 
 formed is directed to be managed by the mem- 
 bers, and its inmates to be instructed in the 
 tenets, of a particular religious sect : — 
 
 Held, also, that the institute, being an educa- 
 tional endowment in perpetuity vested in trustees 
 without personal interest therein, the whole bene- 
 
C 1335 ) 
 
 DIGEST 01* CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1336 ) 
 
 KEW ZEALAND (Law of New Zealand) — eontd. 
 ficial interest belonging exclusively and inalien- 
 ably to the public, is a public institution within 
 the meaniug of s. 2 : 
 
 flisJd, further, that the income derivable under 
 the gift is exempt from taxation by s. 16, sub-s. 1, 
 of the Land and Income Assessment Act, 1891, 
 and by s. 3 of the amending Act of 1892 read 
 therewith. Dilwokth v. Commk. oii' Stamps. 
 DiLWOETH V. Commk. fob Land and Income Tax 
 P. C. [1899] A. C. 99 
 
 3. — Contract— Construction — Use. 
 
 The respondents contracted with the appel- 
 lants not to " erect or assist, or be in any way 
 concerned or interested in the erection of or use 
 of freezing works at Bluff," and thereafter con- 
 tracted with W. first to purchase all frozen meat 
 produced at his works at Bluff, and secondly to 
 purchase his works at the expiration of their 
 contract with the appellants, together with addi- 
 tional works to be completed by that date : — 
 
 Held, that neither of these contracts with W. 
 was a breach of the contract with the appellants, 
 by the true construction whereof use means the 
 manufacturing use, and does not include the uses 
 contemplated by the respondents in either of their 
 purchases. Southland Fkozen Meat and Peo- 
 DUCE ExroKT Co. V. Nelson Bkothees, Ld. 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 442 
 
 4. — Husband and wife — Marital coercion — 
 Leave to appeal granted under a misapprehension 
 of fact — Practice — New Zealand Criminal Code, 
 1893 (57 Vict. No. 56), s. 24. 
 
 Where the jury found that the prisoner, a 
 married woman, had acted under her husband's 
 control in the commission of an offence, for which 
 they were jointly charged but separately tried, 
 but it appeared that there was no evidence to 
 that effect, and that the question should not have 
 been left to the jury : — 
 
 Held, that whatever the true effect of s. 24 
 of the New Zealand Criminal Code as to marital 
 compulsion, leave to appeal from an order affirm- 
 ing the conviction had been granted under a 
 misapprehension of fact, and that the appeal must 
 he dismissed. Bkown v. Att.-Gen. eob New 
 Zealand - P. C. [1898] A. C. 234 
 
 5. — Judges of the Supreme Court — Statutory 
 limitation of power to appoint judges — Supreme 
 Court Judges Act, 1858, s. 2. 
 
 Under the Supreme Court Judges Act, 1858, 
 aud the Supreme Court Act, 1882, the power of 
 the governor to appoint judges is restricted to 
 judges to whom an ascertained salary is payable 
 by law at the time of their appointment. Bi'ckley 
 ■d. Edvvaeds p. C. [1892] A. C. 387 
 
 6. — Landlord and tenant — Cocenant hy 
 lessor — Construction as to whether it runs with the 
 rerersiim — Liability for breach after lessor's death 
 — Liability of lessor's general estate — Mights of 
 specific devisees of reversion. 
 
 A lease under seal contained a covenant by 
 the lessor to finish laying down 1000 acres, part 
 of the land demised, in good Buglish grass within 
 a year. The deed contained a subsequent decla- 
 ration " that there shall not be implied in this 
 
 f-.T^^F^^.r^'"""'' "^ provision whatever on the 
 part of either of the parties hereto 
 
 Held, that the 
 
 covenant must be construed as 
 
 NEW ZEALAND (Law of New Zealand)— conftJ. 
 qualified and controlled by the declaration. 
 Accordingly, it did not run with the reversion ; 
 and, not being incident to the relation of landlord 
 and tenant, liability for breach thereof properly 
 fell to be borne by the general estate of the 
 deceased lessor. 
 
 Even if, as held by the Court below, it was 
 unquahfied and ran with the reversion, it was 
 not a charge thereon. As between the specific 
 devisees of the reversion and the general estate, 
 the latter should primarily bear a liability which 
 in its nature is not incident to the relation of 
 landlord and tenant, but was incurred prepara- 
 tory thereto. Ecoles v. Mills 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 360 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Gjers, 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 54, 58. 
 
 7. — Legislative powers — Proceedings against 
 absentees without service — 15 (fe 16 Vict^ e. 72. 
 
 The Colonial legislature has power under the 
 Imperial Act (15 & 16 Vict. c. 72) to subject to 
 its tribunals persons who are neither by them- 
 selves nor their agents present in the Colony. 
 AVhether a judgment against an absentee without 
 service of the writ will be enforced by the Courts 
 of another country is a question for those Courts, 
 and does not affect the constitutional validity of 
 the Colonial law. Asheukt r. Ellis 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 339 
 
 8. — Pouiulu Jurisdiction Act, 1889 (53 Yirt. 
 No. 7) — Effect of proceedings in the Validation 
 Court — Native Land Court Act.<, 1886 and 1SS8 
 (50 Vict. No. 24), ss. 75, 73 ; (52 Vict. No. 37), 
 s. 24 — Jurisdiction to rehear — Bight of appeal. 
 
 The presumption is that a subsequent general 
 enactment is not intended to interfere with a 
 special enactment, unless the intention so to do 
 is very clearly manifested : — 
 
 Held, that current proceedings in the Native 
 Land Court under a specially enabling Act callc d 
 tlie New Zealand Poututu Jurisdiction Act, 1889, 
 were not stayed by tiie commencement of pro- 
 ceedings in the Validation Comt ; notwithstand- 
 ing the general provibiou contained in the Act 
 establishing the latter Court tol the effect that 
 commencement of proceedings therein shall ope- 
 rate as a stay of proceedings in any other Court 
 in respect of the same matters : 
 
 Held, also, that the jurisdiction 1o rehear — 
 that is to entertain an appeal — given by the 
 Native Land Courts Acts of 1886 and 1888 is not 
 confined to cases where the title to particular 
 land has been the only question decided by the 
 Court of First Instance ; but extends to cases 
 where the decision is embodied in the same 
 decree with other matters not of an appealable 
 nature. 
 
 Under the special Poututu Act orders as to 
 title to land are also appealable in the same way; 
 and held accordingly that the appellant was 
 entitled thereunder to a rehearing of judgments 
 concerning the title to Poututu lands, and that 
 the Native Land Court had jurisdiction to grant 
 such rehearing, proceedings therein not being 
 stayed by the respondents' commencement of pro- 
 ceedings in the Validation Court. Barker r 
 Edger - p, c, [1898] A. C, 748 
 
( 1337 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1338 ) 
 
 NEW ZEALAND (Law of New Zealand)— conM. 
 
 — Principal and agent — Authority of agent — 
 
 Consideration moving from the principal 
 
 — Special damage. 
 
 See Pbincipal and Agent. 4. 
 
 9. — Railway — Effect of an Order in Council 
 retaining a railway as Government property — ■ 
 
 , Rights of debenture-holders — New Zealand Rail- 
 ways Construction and Land Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. No. 37), ss. 123, 12S, 126. 
 
 Under New Zealand Eailways Construction 
 and Land Act. 1881, ss. 125 and 126, the 
 Governor of the Colony, having taken possession 
 of a railway under s. 123, is empowered on the 
 happening of events in the later section specified 
 to declare his intention to retain the ry. as 
 Government property : — ■ 
 
 Hdd, that on publishing an Order in Council 
 giving effect to such intention, his title to the 
 ry. is absolute and paramount, and t'.iat the 
 rights of debenture-holders whose debentures 
 •were authorized by a later Act in 1884 to be a 
 first charge on the ry. fall with the co.'s title. 
 CoATES V. Eeq. - -PC. [1900] A. C. 217 
 
 — Separation and annuity deed — Suit to set it 
 
 aside — Discredited fraudulent represen- 
 tations — Subsequent adultery of wife. 
 See HoSBAND and Wipe — Separation. 
 75. 
 
 — Will — Lost will — Evidence — Presumption 
 
 that it was destroyed by testi^tor — Pre- 
 sumption against fraudulent abstrac- 
 tion. 
 See Will— Lost Will, 138. 
 
 10. — Will of Maori — Probate. 
 
 Tlie rules which govern Courts of Probate 
 must not be relaxed in the case of alleged testa- 
 mentary papers executed by Maoris on their 
 death-beds. Donnelly v. BRonGHTON 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C, 435 
 See PaoBATE — Execution. 
 
 NEWFOUNDLAND —5an7i;—P/-tor«?/ of Crown 
 debts — 58 Vict. c. 3 — Vehts due to boards of edu- 
 cation — Education Acts of 1892 and 1893. 
 
 Newfoundland Act 58 Viet. o. 3, passed for 
 the winding-up and liquidation of a bank, pro- 
 vided that priority be given to all debts and 
 claims due to the Crown or to the Government 
 or revenues of the Colony :— 
 
 Held, that balances in the books of the bank 
 to the credit of the various boirds of education 
 in the Colony were not such debts and claims as 
 aforesaid. It appeared that the boards were not 
 fonstituted by the Education Acts of 1892 and 
 1893 meie agents of Ihe Government, but had a 
 discretionary power, independent of the Govern- 
 ment, in expending such balances. Fox v. 
 
 GOYEENMENT OP NbWPOUNDLAND 
 
 p. C, [1898] A. C. 687 
 2. — Banlcer and customer — Effect of drawee 
 bank certifying cheque — Usage — Eff'ect of crediting 
 customer with amount of cheque deposited. 
 
 Unless a specific usage is proved, the only 
 effect of a drawee bank initialling a cheque drawn 
 upon it is to cfertify that it has funds of the drawer 
 in its hands sufficient to meet its payment : — 
 
 Edd, that the respondent bank, by accepting 
 a deposit of a certified cheque and crediting the 
 
 NEWFOUNDLAND— coraimued 
 depositor with the amount thereof in her account, 
 must be deemed to have accepted it for the pur- 
 pose of cashing it as the depositor's agent, and 
 could not, in the absence of express agreement to 
 that effect, be deemed to have acquired title to it 
 in consideration of the credit entry, and thus to 
 have gratuitously guaranteed its payment by the 
 drawee bank. Gaden v. Newpoundlanu Savings 
 Bank P. C. [1899] A. C. 281 
 
 — Death duties. 
 
 See Revenue — ^Estate Duty. 
 
 NEWPORT HARBOUR, BY-LAWS, Art. 13. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 75. 
 
 NEWS AGENCY— Unpublished information— 
 Eiglit of property. 
 See Copyright — Periodical, 31. 
 
 NEWSPAPER— Advertisement of lottery in. 
 See Lottery. 2. 
 
 — Copyright in. 
 
 See Cases under Copyright— Periodical. 
 
 — Criminal libel in newspaper ^Appeal. 
 
 See Depamation — Libel. 4. 
 
 — Discovery — Original manuscript — Libel. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 24. 
 
 — Innocent loan of paper containing scandalous 
 
 matter respecting a Court — Committing 
 judge ordered to pay costs. 
 See Contempt op Court. 6. 
 
 — Libel — Defence of action by proprietor — Ultra 
 
 vires. 
 
 See Corporation. 26. 
 
 — Libel in— Inspection of original manuscript. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 24. 
 
 — Practice. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 4, 10, 14. 
 
 1. — '■ Publication "-" Sporting paper." 
 
 A newspaper is published when and where it 
 is offered to the public by the proprietor ; it may 
 be published in more than one place, and where 
 its proprietor has two offices in. two different 
 towns, at each of which he offers for sale or distri- 
 bution copies of his paper, the paper is published 
 at each office. 
 
 On the sale of Bell's Life in London the ven- 
 dors agreed with the purchaser not to print or 
 publish any sporting paper within ten miles of a 
 certain London street : — 
 
 Held, that the publication within this area of 
 a paper containing no racing or betting odds, but 
 merely recording such amateur sports as cricket, 
 football, cycling, and running, was not a breach 
 of the agreement. MoFarlane v. Hulton 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1899] W. N. 46; 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 884 
 
 — Publication tending to influence result of pro- 
 
 ceedings. 
 
 See Contempt of Court. 7. 
 
 — Reports of public speeches — " Author's " 
 
 report. 
 
 See CoPYRiGBT. 34. 
 
 NEXT FRIEND. 
 
 See Pkaotioe — Next Friend. 
 
( 1339 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1340 ) 
 
 5,6. 
 ■ Revocation by 
 
 NEXT OF KIN. 
 
 SnPKEME Court Funds Eules, 1894. List or 
 flatement of unclaimed money in Court. See 
 Lend. Gaz. Marcli 2, 1899, p. 1313. 
 
 — Grant of administration. 
 
 See Cases under Pkobate. 
 
 — Presumptive next of kin — Injunoiion, Eight 
 
 to — Contingent interest. 
 
 See Will— Contingent Gift. 67. 
 
 — Words as if she had died a " spinster and 
 
 intestate" — Child of former marriage. 
 See Settlement — Construction. 11. 
 
 NIECE, 
 
 fee'AViLL- Class. ^2, 53. 
 
 NOISE— Music. 
 
 See Nuisance. 19. 
 
 — Noise caused by several persons. 
 
 See Injunction. 27, 28. 
 
 • — Noise in street. 
 
 See Nuisance. 20. 
 
 — Nuisance — Boys' school — Misrepresentation 
 
 by vendor's agent — Eescission. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Eescis- 
 sion. 67. 
 
 — Nuisance — Cesser before trial — Injunction — 
 
 Practice. 
 
 See Nuisance. 5. 
 
 — Street musician. 
 
 See Music and Dancing 
 
 NOMINATION — By member 
 subsequent will. 
 See Friendly Society. 1 3. 
 
 — Disqualified person — Election — Right to peti- 
 
 tion — " Candidate." 
 See Corporation. 14. 
 
 — To living. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Advowson. 2, 
 
 NON-DIEECTION 
 
 Practice. 
 
 See County Court — Appeal. 9. 
 
 NON-JURIDICAL DAY— Expiry of prescribed 
 time. 
 See Canada. 56. 
 
 NONSUIT. . 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Discontinu- 
 ance. 
 
 NON-USEE — Registration — Expunging — Non- 
 user and no bona fide intention to sue. 
 See Trade-mark — Eegistration. 47. 
 
 NOETH-'WEST TEEEITOEIES, 
 
 See Canada — North-West Territories, 
 
 NOTES — Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) 
 Act — Appeals — Notes of proceedings i)i 
 Court below. 
 See Appeal. 36. 
 
 Husband and Wife — Summary 
 Jurisdiction. 94, 95. 
 NOTICE — Abating nuisance. 
 
 See Ca.scs under Nuisance — Water- 
 closets. 
 
 - Acceptance-Authority to apply for shares. 
 bee Company— Shares. 308, 
 
 County court — Appeal - 
 
 NOTICE — continued. 
 
 — Appeal, Notice of — Poor-rate. 
 
 See Cases under Bates. 
 
 — Arbitrator — Appointment of — Notice to 
 
 concur. 
 
 See Arbitration — Arhitrator, 8. 
 
 — Bankruptcy Jaws. 
 
 See Cases under Bankeuptot. 
 
 — Breach of covenants. 
 
 See Practice— Originating Summons. 
 67. 
 
 — Breach of covenant to repair— Bight to re- 
 
 enter. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 32. 
 
 — Breach of trust. 
 
 See Canada. 51. 
 
 — Building notice — London Building Acts. 
 
 See Gases under London — Buildings. 
 
 — Chose in action — Priority — Notice to exist- 
 
 ing trustees — Death or retirement of 
 
 trustees. 
 
 See Assignment. 5. 
 
 — Clog on equity of redemption — Notice to pay 
 
 off principal. 
 
 See Mortgage- Eedemption. 58 — 60. 
 
 — Company — Winding-up. 
 
 See Cases under Company — WmDiNG-ur 
 — Voluntary. 
 
 — Compensation for improvements. Claim for — 
 
 Agricultural Holdings Act. 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Agri- 
 cultural Holdings, 
 
 — "Constructing" waterworks — Extension of 
 
 existing waterworks. 
 See Water — Supply. 10. 
 
 — Constructive. 
 
 See Vendor and Pubcha.seb— Titl:. ^ri. 
 
 — Custom as to hiring servants — Reasonableneps. 
 
 See Master and Servant— Hiring. IIS. 
 
 — Deceased member— Registered address— For- 
 
 feiture of shares. 
 See Company. 270. 
 
 — Determining contract to supply water. 
 
 See Contract — Determination. 13. 
 
 — Determining guarantee. 
 
 See Cases under Principal and Surety 
 — Discharge, 
 
 — Determining tenancy. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Deter- 
 mination of Tenancy and Holding 
 Ovex-, 
 
 — Dishonour — Bank with several brunches — 
 
 Notice to wrong branch. 
 See Bill of Exchange. 5. 
 
 — Dormant action. 
 
 See Sequestration. 4. 
 
 Effect of on mortgagee of ship. 
 See Shipping — Mortgage. 
 
 175. 
 
 ■ Effect of recitals in deed — Estoppel. 
 
 See Eecitals. L 
 
 ■ Equitable assignment of debt — Debtor and 
 
 creditor — Negotiable instrument. 
 See Assignment. 1. 
 
( 1311 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1312 ) 
 
 NOTICE— continued. 
 
 — Filing — • Affidavit supporting winding-up 
 
 petition. 
 
 See CoMPAinr — "Winding-up. 151, 152. 
 
 — Forfeiture of lease — Breaoli of covenant. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and Tenant 
 — Forfeiture. 
 
 — Highway, diversion of. 
 
 See Highway — Diversion. 2. 
 
 — Hiringof domestic servants — Custom — Reason- 
 
 ableness. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Hiring. 68. 
 
 — Irregularity — General meeting — Director's 
 
 interest — Non-disclosure — Conditional 
 
 notice. 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 160. 
 
 — Licence— Assignment — Eegistration — Priority 
 
 — Equitable rights. 
 
 See Patent — licence. 15. 
 
 — Licensing Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — London Building Acts. 
 
 See Cases under London — Buildings. 
 
 — Meeting of debenture-holders. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 66 — 68. 
 
 — Meetings of company. 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 160 — 162. 
 
 — Mortgage — Notice to redeem. 
 
 See Mortgage — Interest. 38, 40. 
 
 — Mortgage" — Transfer of mortgage without 
 
 notice to mortgagor — Constructive notice 
 
 of transfer. 
 
 See Mortgage — Transfer. 92. 
 
 — Mortgage — Priority. 
 
 See Cases under Mortgage — Priority. 
 
 — Necessity for notice — Administration de bonis 
 
 non — Grant to attorney. 
 See Probate. 21. 
 
 — Objection — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Oases under Parliament. 
 
 — Of objection' — Valuation list. 
 
 See Rates. 71. 
 
 — Onerous covenants — Duty of vendor to dis- 
 
 close. 
 
 See Vendor and PoKOHAfER. .24. 
 
 — Option to purchase — Time for giving. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 80. 
 
 — Option of purchase — Unauthorized agent — 
 
 Ratification. 
 
 See Contract. 3o. 
 
 — Overdraft— Private account— Payment in of 
 
 trust money — Liability of bank. 
 See Banker. 21. 
 
 — Parliamentary deposits. 
 
 See Parliament— Deposits and Bonds. 
 
 — Paving. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 Streets. 
 
 — Practice— Special defence- Statutes of Limi- 
 
 tation — County court. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 37. 
 
 — Prioritv-^Mortgages. 
 
 See Cases' under Mortgage- Priority. 
 
 — Priorities of equitable interests. 
 
 See Executor. 26. 
 
 ^OTIG^— continued. 
 
 — Purchaser with notice — Contract to give " first 
 
 refusal " of land — Interest in land — 
 
 Injunction. 
 
 See Contract. 24. 
 
 — Restrictive covenant — Tied public-house — 
 
 Mortgagor and mortgagee — Assigns — 
 
 Underlessce. 
 
 See Covenant. 7. 
 
 — Retainer — Following assets — Creditor of 
 
 higher decree — Plene administravil;. 
 See Executor — Retainer. 63. 
 
 — Secret trusts — Joint tenants. 
 
 See Trust. 7. 
 
 — Service by post — Evidence — Practice. 
 
 See Practice. 22.0. 
 
 — Service of notice — Vaocinatioi, Act. 
 
 See Vaccination. 5. 
 — • Setting down for trial — Practice — Surprise. 
 See Divorce — Practice. 112. 
 
 — Sewering and draining. 
 
 See London — Sewers. 
 Sewers. 
 
 — Stop order. 
 
 See Practice — Stop Order. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 
 Streets and Buildings. 
 
 — Sufficiency of — Breach of covenant — For- 
 
 feiture. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 50 — 54, .iG. 
 
 — Sufficiency of — Meeting — Sale of undertaking 
 
 — Compensation to directors. 
 See Company — Meetings. 169. 
 
 — Third party — Surviving partners. 
 
 ' See Practice — Third Party. 253. 
 
 — Third party notice. 
 
 See Shipping. 27. 
 
 — To leave — Eight of innkeeper to give. 
 
 See Innkeeper. 5. 
 
 — To quit — Yearly tenancy — " End of the cur- 
 
 rent year." 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 43. 
 
 — Trial — Assizes — Summons for directions — 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Practice. 261. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Trustee. 
 
 — Trusts of mortgage money — Mortgagee not 
 
 one of the original trustees — Title — 
 
 Objection — Sufficiency. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 8.S. 
 
 — Validity of— Power to expel partner — Arbi- 
 
 tration. 
 
 See Partnership. 9. 
 
 — Waiver — Lease — Option of purchase — 
 
 " Assigns" — Equitable assignees — Pos- 
 session. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 80. 
 NOTICE OF MOTION. 
 
 See Practice — Motions. 
 
 NOVA SCOTIA— Laws of, 
 
 See Canada^ — ^Nov'a Scotia. 
 
( 1313 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1314 ) 
 
 NOVATION — Banker — Overdraft — Honouring 
 without knowledge of customer — Au- 
 thority. 
 See Bankeh. 23. 
 
 — Principal and surety. 
 
 See Pkincipal and Surety — Discharge. 
 17. 
 
 — Transfer from current to deposit account — 
 
 Liability of deceased partner. 
 
 See Paktnebship — Liabilities. 37. 
 
 NOXIOUS TRADE— Injunction— Eeaeonable use 
 of property. 
 See Nuisances. 21. 
 
 NUISANCES. 
 
 Public ffeaJth {London") Act, 18dl, Amendment 
 Act, 1893 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), amends and con- 
 solidates the laics relating to Public Health in 
 London. 
 
 Public Health (London) Act, 1893 (66 & 57 
 Vict. c. 47), amends the Public Health (London) 
 Act, 1891. 
 
 1. — Abatement after notice and request. 
 Refusal to grant a mandatory injunction to 
 
 remove an inhabited house which obstructs a 
 private right of way does not necessarily deprive 
 the persons entitled to the right of way of the 
 right after proper notice and request to pull the 
 house down. 
 
 Where a building alleged to be obstructive 
 was in the hands of a receiver appointed by the 
 Court, leave waa given to persons complaining 
 of the obstruction to exercise their common law 
 rights of abatement with a view to testing the 
 justice of their claim. Lane v. Gapsey 
 
 CMtty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 411 
 
 2. — Abatement notice — Service of on person 
 not liable — Work done in obedience to notice — 
 Recovery of expense from person liable — Public 
 Health (London) Act, 1891 (.il & 55 Vict. c. 76), 
 is. 4, sub-ss. 1, 4; s. II, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Tlie drainage of two adjoining houses situate 
 in the metropolis being so defective as to be a 
 nuisance, the sanitary authority served a notice 
 under s. 4, sub-s. I, of the Public Health (London) 
 Act, 1891, upon the owner of the houses requiring 
 him to abate the nuisance. The drainage of the 
 housts was carried away by means of a single 
 pipe, and the owner, being under the belief that 
 this combined system of drainage had been 
 authorized by an order of the sanitary authority, 
 and that the liability to repair the pipe conse- 
 qutntly lay upon him under the provisions of the 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855, executed the 
 works prescribed by the notice. In fact, the 
 combined plan of drainage had not been autho- 
 rized by any such order, and the liability to 
 lepair the pipe was by that Act Imposed upon 
 the sanitary authority. On discovery of tiie 
 mistake he sought to recover from the sanitary 
 authority the expense he had incurred : — 
 
 Held, (1.) tliat as non-complianoe with the 
 notice would have rendered him primS, facie liable 
 to a penalty under s. 4, sub-s. 4, of tho Act of 
 1891, he was practically compelled to do the work, 
 and that he could consequently recover the 
 expense as money paid at the sanitary authority's 
 request ; (20 that the " expenses of carrying the 
 Older into eiiect" mentioned in s. II includi the 
 
 NUISANCES— eo«fe'nu«i. 
 
 expenses of doing work in obedience to an abate- 
 ment notice, and that consequently the owner, 
 whether he was compelled to do the work or not, 
 could under that section recover the expense from 
 the sanitary authority as the persons by whose 
 default the nuisance was caused. 
 
 Gebhardt v. Saunders, [1892] 2 Q. B. 152, 
 followed. Andrew v. St. Olave's Boaud of 
 Works - Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 775 
 
 Eeferred to by Bruce J. Cree v. St. Pancras 
 Veitry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693, 695. 
 
 3. — Abatement leithout notice of overhanging 
 tree. 
 
 The owner of land which is overhung by trees 
 growing on his neighbour's land is entitled with- 
 out notice, if he does not trespass on his neigh- 
 bour's land, to cut the branches so far as they 
 overhang — and however long they have overhung 
 — his land. Lemsion v. Webb 
 
 C. A. revers. Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 1 ; 
 affirm, by H. L. (E.) [1895] A. 0. 1 
 
 Eeferred to bv Lord Eussell C.J. Reynolds 
 V. Prestcign Zhbdn Council, [1896] I Q. B. 604, 
 609. 
 
 4. — Adjoining premises — Alterations — ■ 
 Reasonable use of a buUding — Injunction. 
 
 In considering cases of nuisance between 
 owners of adjoining houses the Court will have 
 regard to the question whether the person alleged 
 to have created the nuisance is making a reason- 
 able use of his property. 
 
 Observations of Kekewich J. in Reinhardt v. 
 Mentasti, (1899) 42 Cii. D. 685. 690, questioned. 
 Sanders-Olark v. Gkosvenor BIansions Co. 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 136; [1900] 2 Ch. 373 
 
 5. — Cesser before trial — Liberty to apply — 
 Injunction— Noise — Remedies. 
 
 Action for an injunction to restrain a nuisance 
 by noise caused by the defts. in carrying on their 
 daily business and for damages. The noise waa 
 caused by the delivery of the churns, washing 
 them, sending out the milk on perambulators, 
 and in other ways : — 
 
 Held, that though there was at one time a 
 serious noise and annoyance, which was unavoid- 
 able unless the business was managed with very 
 special care, and in fact carried on in a manner 
 different to that of every other branch, yet as the 
 time of the trial approached the business had in 
 fact been cai'ried on so as no longer to cause a 
 nuisance. The pit. therefore had a good cause of 
 action when he instituted tlie proceedings ; but 
 as the nuisance had now ceased, it would be con- 
 trary to the practice of the Court to grant an 
 injunction, or even to give liberty to apply : Carr 
 & Co. V. Bath Gas Light and Coke Co. [Unie- 
 ported. See next Case.) If the nuisance rocom- 
 menced, the pit. could start a fresh action. There 
 would, therefore, be no injunction, but the pit. 
 would recover 40s. damages and costs. Dunniso 
 V. Geosvbnor Dairies, Ld. 
 
 Joyce J. [1900] W. N. 265 
 
 6. ^ Cesser before trial — Practice — Injunc- 
 tion — Pollution of river. 
 
 Action for an injunction to restrain the defts 
 from polluting the river Avon by the discharge 
 of their residual producta and for damages. The 
 
( 1345 ) 
 
 DiGESf OP CASES, ISSi— 19dd. 
 
 ( 1346 ) 
 
 NUISANCES— (-(mtinuei. 
 
 defts. denied the nuisance. Between the issue of 
 tlie writ and the trial the defts. ceased to dis- 
 charge their residual products into the river, so 
 that, unless their servants were guilty of careless- 
 ness or laziness and threw the products into the 
 river, the nuisance could not recur: — 
 
 Held, that though the pits, had a good cause 
 of action at the date of the writ, they had no 
 longer any such cause of action. They might 
 take iin inquiry as to damages at their own risk, 
 but liberty to apply would not be reserved. The 
 continuous cause of the nuisance had disappeared, 
 and, if anything was attributable to the acts of 
 the defts.' servants, those acts would be isolated 
 and contrary to the orders of the defts. An 
 iiijunction was, therefore, out of the question, 
 and it would not be in accordance with the prac- 
 tice of the Court to reserve liberty to apply. The 
 pits, would have their costs. Cark & Co. v. 
 Bath Gas Light and Coke Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1900] W. N. 265, n. 
 
 — Conditions of sale — " Outgoings " — Notice by 
 
 sanitary authority to abate nuisance. 
 See Vendor and Pohohaseb. 12, 13. 
 
 — Costs of abating, by making new drain. 
 
 See Landlosd And Tenant. 
 
 — Cowsheds. 
 
 See Dairy. 
 
 — Disorderly house — Sale of property used as a 
 
 — Specific performance. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 72. 
 
 — Drains and sewers. 
 
 See Cases under London — Sewerp. 
 Sewers. 
 
 7. — Electrieal disturbance in wires of tele- 
 phone company hy operations of electric tramway. 
 
 A tramway co. acting under a provisional 
 order of the i>d. of Trade conferred by Act of 
 Parliament, and using the best known system of 
 electrical traction, caused electrical disturbance 
 in the wires of a telephone co. acting under 
 licence from the Postmaster-General : — 
 
 Held, that the tiamway co. were not liable for 
 nuisance caused by exercise of their statutory 
 authority to use electricity. National Telb- 
 vhone Co. V. Baker Kekewioh J. [1893] 2 CSi. 186 
 
 8. — Electricity. 
 
 A person who without statutory authority 
 creates on his own land an electric current for 
 his own purposes and discharges it into the earth 
 beyond his control is responsible for damage 
 ' caused by the current to the same extent as if he 
 had so discharged a stream of water brought by 
 liim on his land. National Telephone Co. v. 
 Baker - - Kekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 186 
 
 9. —Electric lighting — Injunction — Statu- 
 tory powers — Electric lighting — Vibration — Bight 
 of reversioner to sue. 
 
 In a case of continuing actionable nuisance, 
 the jurisdiction of the Court to award damages, 
 instead of an injunction, ought only to be exer- 
 cised under very exceptional circumstances : — 
 
 Per A. L. Smith L.J., damages may be given 
 inbtead of an injunction, when the following re- 
 quirements are all found in conjunction, viz., 
 where the injury to the plt.'s rights is— (i.) 
 small ; (ii.) capable of being estimated in money ; 
 
 NtTISANCES — continued. 
 
 (iii.) capable of being adequately compensated 
 by a small sum ; (iv.) when an injunction would 
 be oppressive. Shelper v. City of London 
 Electric LianTiNO Co. Meux's Brewery Co. 
 V. The Same (No. 1) - C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287 ; 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 388 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Jordeson v. Sutton, 
 
 Southcoates and Drypool Gas Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 217. 
 
 10. — Fence adjoining highway — Defective 
 condition — Injury to child using highway — Proxi- 
 mate cause of injury — Liability of owner of fence. 
 
 The deft, was the owner of a fence abutting 
 on a highway. The pit., a child of four years of 
 age, attracted by some boys at play on the other 
 side of the fence, put his foot on it, and it fell on 
 and injured him. In an action for damages for 
 the injuries so sustained, the jury found that the 
 fence was very defective, but actually fell through 
 the pit. standing wholly or partly on it, though 
 not for the purpose of climbing over : — 
 
 Held, that the defective fence being a nui- 
 sance, and the cause of the injuries to the pit., the 
 deft, was liable. Habrold v. Watney 
 
 C. A, [1898] 2 Q, B. 320 
 
 — Gas company — Statutory powers — Excavation 
 
 Injunction. 
 
 See Support. 1. 
 
 — Highway. 
 
 See Cases under Highway. 
 
 11. — Hospital — Small-pox hospital — Injunc- 
 tion — Anticipated Nuisance — Quia timet action. 
 
 A]iy one seeking an injunction to restrain an 
 alleged future nuisance, public or private, must 
 shew a strong case of probability that the appre- 
 hended mischief will in fact arise. Application 
 for an interim injunction to restrain defts. erecting 
 a small-pox hospital, refused, on the ground that 
 there was not sufficient evidence of any proba- 
 bility of danger from the erection of the hospital. 
 
 ATT.-GbN. v. JlANOHEaTEB CORPORATION 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 87 
 
 12. — Hospital — Small-pox hospital — " Other 
 noxious or offensive business " — Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 112, 131, 285. 
 
 A local authority may, under s. 131 of the 
 Act of 1875, erect a hospital outside their district 
 without the consent of the authority of the district 
 in which the hospital is to be erected. A small- 
 pox hospital is not an " other noxious or offensive 
 business" within the meaning of s. 112, so as to 
 require such consent under s. 285 of the Act. 
 WiTHiNGTON Local Board op Health v. Man- 
 chester Corporation - C. A, [1893] 2 Ch. 19 
 
 — ,"Hoi(se refuse" — Clinkers from steam laun- 
 
 dry. 
 
 See London — Removal of Refuse. 48. 
 
 13. — Landlord and tenant — Abating nuisance 
 — Liability of ovmer to recoup occupier — Public 
 Health {London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), 
 ss. 4, 11. 
 
 A tenant from year to year/icM entitled under 
 s. 11 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to 
 Tecover from the owner the costs and expenses of 
 abating a nuisance arising from a structural 
 defect in house drain, though no notice under 
 s. 4 (3) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, 
 as to defects of a structural character had been 
 
 2 X 
 
C 1S4? ) 
 
 biGES* OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( l848 ) 
 
 ^TJISkTHCES— continued. 
 
 served on the owner and no "nuisance order" 
 had been obtained from the sanitary authority 
 under s. 5. Geehaedt v. Saundeks 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 452 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Andrews v. St. Olave's 
 Board of Works, [1898] 1 Q. B. 775. 
 
 Referred to by Bruce J. Cree v. St. Pancras 
 Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693, 69.5. 
 
 14. — lAmitation of actions — Nuisance order, 
 costs of obtaining and enforcing — Summary Juris- 
 diction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43), s. 11— 
 Public Eealth (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict, 
 c. 76), ss. 11, 117. 
 
 The limitation imposed by 11 & 12 Yiet. c. 43, 
 s. 11, of the time within which complaints or 
 informations may be made or laid before justices 
 applies to actions in the county court, brought 
 under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, 
 s. 11, to recijver costs and expenses incurred in 
 and about obtaining and carrying into effect a 
 nuisance order; so that such actions must be 
 commenced -within six months from the time 
 when the costs and expenses were incurred. 
 
 H.^MMERSMIIH VeSTBT V. LOWENFELD 
 
 Div. ct. [1896] 2 Q,. B. 278 
 
 15. — Local authority. Action by — Right to sue 
 if summary proceedings inadequate — Public Eealth 
 Act, 1875 (.38 & 39 Tict. c. 55), s. 107. 
 
 The Public Health Act, 1875, enacts in s. 107 
 that any local authority may, if in their opinion 
 summary proceedings would afford an inadequate 
 remed}', "cause any proceedings to be taken" 
 against any person in any superior court of law 
 or equity to enforce the abatement or prohibition 
 of any nuisance : — • 
 
 Held, that such proceedings must be ordinary 
 proceedings known to the law, and that, in the 
 absence of special damage, a local authority 
 cannot sue in respect of a public nuisance except 
 by action in the nature of an information with 
 Ihe sanction of the Attorney-General. 
 
 Wallasey Local Board v. Gracey (36 Ch. D. 593) 
 approved. Tottenham Ueb an Disteict Co^^'ClL 
 /•. \\'iLLiAMso!f & Sons, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 a. B. 353 
 
 Referred to by North J. Stolte Parish Council 
 V. Price, [1899] 2 Ch. 277, 281. 
 
 16. — Local authority, Powers of. 
 
 A local authority may act as relators in an 
 action brought by tlje Att.-Gen. for the purpose 
 of abating a public nuisance, and may by them- 
 selves maintain an action for damages for a 
 nuisance affecting property of which they are 
 the actual owners. Att.-Gen. v. Logan 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 100 
 
 17. — ioeaZ authority — Sanitary authority — 
 Alloioing stwage to cause nuisance in adjoininq 
 district — Injunction — Metropolis Act, 1855 (IS & 
 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 68, 69, 85, 86, 2oli— Nuisances 
 Removal Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121), ss. 8, 
 11, 12. 
 
 Where a nuisance was caused outside the 
 County of London by sewers and djains of houses 
 within the county, which were working properly 
 lor the purposes for which they were designed 
 and constructed : ^ a 
 
 Seld, that the local authority of the district 
 
 HVIS&SCES— continued. 
 
 in which the nuisance is created could not obtain 
 a ;remedy by injunction against the metropolitan 
 sanitary authority from whose district the sewage 
 flowed. Att.-Gen. v. Clerkenwell Vestbt 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 527 
 
 Referred to by Romer J. Streiton's Derby 
 Brewery Co. v. Derby Corporation, [1894] 1 Ch. 
 431, 448. 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. Eastwood Brothers, 
 Ld. V. Eonley Urban Council, [1900] 1 Ch. 781, 
 787. 
 
 18. — Milk — Non-removal of — Nuisances and 
 sanitation — "Building" — Dairies, Cowsheds, and 
 Milk Shops Order, 18«5. 
 
 No. 29 of the Regulations of the London 
 County Council as to Dairies, Cowsheds, and 
 Milk Shops provides that every purveyor of milk 
 shall, on any outbreak of infectious disease 
 within the building or upon the premises in which 
 he keeps milk coming to his knowledge, remove 
 all milk for sale from such building until it has 
 been disinfected. 
 
 The respondent, a purveyor of milk, was 
 tenant of a Ihree-storied building, each floor of 
 which was adapted for separate occupation, hut 
 with a central staircase common to each. He 
 occupied the ground-floor for the purpose of his 
 business, sub-let the first floor, and occupied the 
 second floor as a residence for himself and his 
 family. One of his children had scarlet fever in 
 a room on the second floor : — 
 
 Held, that this was an outbreak of infectious 
 disease within the building in which tbe respond- 
 ent kept milk, and, therefore, that the non- 
 removal from the ground-floor of milk for sale 
 there was an infringement by him of the above 
 regulation. London County Cou.ncil v. Edwards 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 75 
 
 19. — Music. 
 
 The giving of musical lessons by a teacher of 
 music and practising does not constitute a legal 
 nuisance to a neighbour. The making of noises 
 on musical instruments to vex or annoy a ncii-h- 
 bour is a nuisance. Christie r. Davey 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 316 
 
 — Noise— Boys' school — Misrepresentation by 
 
 vendor's agent — Rescission, 
 
 See Vendor and Pukchasek. 67. 
 
 20. — Noise in street — By-la ic — Proof. 
 
 A by-law of a borough made it an offence to 
 make any noise in any of the ttreets to the 
 annoyance of the inhiibitants : — 
 
 Meld, that on a summons lor breach of (he 
 by-law by crying newspapers in the street it was 
 not necessary to prove that more than one in- 
 habitant had in fact been annoyed. Innes v. 
 Newman - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 292 
 
 — Notice to abate— Power to require suflicient 
 
 water-closets. 
 
 See Cases under Water-closets. 
 
 21. — Noxious trade — RsasonaUe use of pro- 
 perty — Injunction. 
 
 Action by the Att.-Gen., at the relation of the 
 board of works for the Wandsworth district to 
 restrain an alleged nuisance to the inhabitants of 
 the neighbouihood. 
 
 The defta. carried on the trade of fat melters 
 
( 1349 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1350 ) 
 
 NViaATSCES— continued. 
 
 at SoutMelda, and the nuiaanoe complained of 
 was alleged to arise from noxious gases emanating 
 from the defts'. works. The Com't found that 
 the defts. were carrying on their trade in a 
 reasonable manner, and took precautions to 
 prevent it from causing a nuisance to their 
 neighbours. 
 
 Kekewich J., in granting an injunction, said 
 that his judgment in Beinliardt v. Mentasti, 
 (1889) 42 Ch. D. 685, had been much misunder- 
 stood. He thought there that when once the 
 Court was satisfied that the deft, was creating a 
 nuisance, the fact that he was doing what was 
 reasonable from his own point of view was no 
 defence. In Sanders-Clark v. Grosvenor Mansions 
 Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 373, Buckley J. appeared to 
 think that the view taken by him in Beinliardt 
 V. Mentasti differed from the view of Lord 
 Selborne L.C. in Ball v. Ray, (1873) L. K. 8 Ch. 
 467. Nothing could have been further from his 
 intention. Beinhardt v. Mentasti had also been 
 criticised in G-arratt on Nuisances as departing 
 from Bamford v. Turnley, (1860) 3 B. & S. 62; 
 but he thought that it was entirely in accordance 
 with the principles there laid down. The ques- 
 tion might be put in this way : Could a man 
 reasonably commit a nuisance ? He thought that 
 the answer to be gathered from Bamford v. 
 Turnley was that he could not. If he was com- 
 mitting a nuisance he could not be said to be 
 acting reasonably. In this case the defts. had 
 taken precautions to prevent their trade from 
 being a nuisance to their neighbours, and from 
 their own point of view they were acting reason- 
 ably ; but from the point of view above stated 
 they were not acting reasonably, since upon the 
 evidence they were committing a nuisance. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Cole 
 
 Zekewich J. [1900] W. S. 372 
 
 — Obscene language — Prohibition of use of. 
 
 See Streets. 38. 
 
 22. — Offensive trade — Notice to abate — Con- 
 dition precedent to complaint — Puhlic Healih 
 {London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. v. 76), ss. 2, 
 4,21. 
 
 Sect. 4 of the Public Health (London) Act, 
 1891, applies only to the classes of nuisances 
 enumerated in s. 2, and not to the nuisances 
 arising from offensive trades dealt with by s. 21. 
 A service of a notice requiring the abatement of 
 a nuisance is not a condition precedent to the 
 jurisdiction of a magistrate to hear a complaint 
 as to a nuisance arising from an offensive trade. 
 BiED V. St. Maet Abbotts, Kensington ( Vestbt) 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B, 912 
 
 — Overhanging trees — Kight to cut. 
 
 See No. 38, below. 
 
 23. — " Owner" — Premises not let at a rach- 
 rent — Sub-lease — FiiMic Health (London) Act, 1891 
 ^54 * 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 141. 
 
 Where the lessee of premises not let at a rack- 
 rent has sub-let them for his whole term less a 
 few days, the rent reserved and the covenants 
 being the same as in the original lease, the sub- 
 lessee and not the lessee is the " owner " of the 
 premises within s. 141 of the Public Health 
 (London) Act, 1891. Teuman, Hanbuet, Bdxton 
 !& Co. V. Keeslake - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 774 
 
 NUISANCES — continued. 
 
 24. — Owner — Procedure where owner of pre- 
 mises is not known or cannot he found — Public 
 Health {London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. u. 76), 
 s. 128. 
 
 A' summons to answer a complaint by a 
 sanitary authority to a petty sessional court under 
 s. 4 (2) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 
 alleging the existence of a nuisance on premises, 
 is good in form though it is addressed to " the 
 owner " of the premises (describing them) merely 
 without further name or description. Such a 
 summons is a document within s. 128 of the Act, 
 and may be properly served by delivering it to 
 some person on the premises. Ees. ii. Mead 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 124 
 
 — Preaching on beach between high and low 
 
 water-mark. 
 See FoEESHOEE. 
 
 — Eemoval of refuse. 
 
 See Cases under London— Eemoval of 
 Befuse. 
 
 — Eight to uninterrupted current of air — Stag- 
 
 nation of air. 
 
 See LiSHT and Air. 3. 
 
 25. — Biver — Foreshore of navigable river — 
 Liability of owner of foreshore to abate nuisance — 
 Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 c. 76), s. 4, sub-s. 1, 3 (6). 
 
 Sect. 4 (1) of the Public Health (London) 
 Act, 1891, must be read with the proviso in 
 8. 4 (3) (6). Where the person causing the 
 nuisance cannot be found, the liability of the 
 owner of the premises to abate it only arises 
 where it is shewn that it continues by his act, 
 default, or sufferance. Under their Acts the 
 Thames Conservancy are owners of the soil and 
 subsoil of the river for certain specified purposes 
 only, and are not owners for the purposes of 
 s. 4 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. 
 Thames Conseevanct v. London Port Sanitary 
 Authority - - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q, B. 647 
 
 [Tlie Tliames Conservancy Acts were repealed 
 and consolidated by the Thames Conservancy Act, 
 1894 (67 * 58 Vict, c clxxxvii.).'] 
 
 — Eivers Pollution Prevention Act. 
 
 See Water— Pollution. 
 
 26. — Biver pollution — Sewer " made for 
 profit." 
 
 By B, 13 of the Public Health Act, 1875, all 
 sewers are vested in the local authority, except 
 sewers made for profit : — 
 
 Held, that a sewer made by a landowner to 
 collect the drainage of his cottages was not 
 "made for profit" within the meaning of the 
 section, and therefore, after the local authority 
 had accepted the sewer, they and not the land- 
 owner were liable for any nuisance caused by 
 the sewer. Fereand v. Hallas Land aniS 
 Building Co. C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 135 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. Minehead Locdl 
 Board v. Luttrell, [1894] 2 Ch. 178. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Croysdale v, Sua- 
 bury-on-Thames Crban Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 515, 
 519. 
 
 Considered by 0. A. Sykes v. Sowerhy Urban 
 Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584, 590. 
 
 2X2 
 
( 1351 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OAiiES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1352 ) 
 
 NUISANCES — continued. 
 — Sewers and di-ains. 
 
 See Cases under London — Sewers. 
 Seweks — Nuisance. 
 
 27. — Smelting works — Common Ifiw rights — 
 Public Sealtli Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 s. 334. 
 
 The fact that certain husinesses are excluded 
 from summary proceedings for nuisance by s. 334 
 of the Public Health Act, 187.3, does not relieve 
 them from liabiUty for a public nuisance in a 
 suit by the Att.-Gen., nor from the ordinary 
 common law liability to an owner whose property 
 is damaged by it. Att.-Gen. r. Losan 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 100 
 
 , 28. — Smoke — Abatement notice — Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 94. 
 
 The occupier of a factory, the chimney of 
 which cau-ed a nuisance by sending forth black 
 Bmoke, was served by the local authority with a 
 notice under s. 94 of the Public Health Act, 
 1S7.5, requiring him within a specified time to 
 abate the same, and for that purpose to abstain 
 at all times from doing or sutt'ering to be done 
 anything which would cause a recurrence of the 
 nuisance : — 
 
 Held, that the notice was good, and that it 
 was unnecessary that it should go on to require 
 tlie execution of any works or the doing of any- 
 thing as a means to the abatement. Millard v. 
 Wastall - - Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 342 
 
 29. — Snow and salt — Obstruction of street — 
 Tnimwaijs — Interdict. 
 
 A tramway co. after a heavy fall of snow 
 cleared their track by means of a snow-plough 
 ;uid heapcil up the snow upon the sides of the 
 streets: they then scattered salt upon the rails 
 and in the vicinity ; the town council did not 
 take any immediate steps to remove the briny 
 slush so produced, and it was left upon the 
 streets : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 (1896) 23 E. 340, that a legal nuisance had been 
 committed which was not sanctioned by either the 
 special or the general Tramways Acts, and that 
 the default, if any, of the town council did not 
 affect the primary liability of the tramway co. 
 Ogston v. Aberdeen District Tramways Co. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 175 (14) ; H. L. (So.) 
 [1897] A. C. Ill 
 
 30. — Spiked wall — Contributory negligence. 
 
 Iq front of a window of defts.' shop, and im- 
 mediately abutting on a public highway, was a 
 low wall eighteen inches high, defts.' property, 
 (in the top of which was a row of sharp spikes. 
 Tlie pit., a child of five, was found standing by 
 the wall, bleeding from a wound such as might 
 have been caused by her falling upon the 
 spikes : — 
 
 Held, that there was evidence to go to the 
 jury that the injury was caused by the wrongful 
 act of the defrs. in maintaining the nuisance 
 while the pit. was using the highway in a proper 
 manner. Fenna v. Clare & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 199 
 
 A,, '■• ~ -^'"''''^•5 — Tramway company — Special 
 .Act — Injunction. J. j f 
 
 A tramway co. was formed under a special 
 
 NUISANCES— confinucd. 
 
 Act to work a line by horse traction. The line 
 did not expressly provide for stables and con- 
 tained no compulsory powers for taking land. 
 The CO. built stables which caused a nuisance : — 
 Held, that the co. were not justified by their 
 statutory powers in using the stables so as to 
 cause a nuisance, and that it was no defence to 
 prove that reasonable care had been taken to 
 prevent it. Eapies v. London Tramways Co. 
 ^ ■ C. A. [1893] 2 Oh. 588 
 
 32. — Statutory works — Water company. 
 Statutory authority was given to a water co. 
 
 to sink a shaft. In doing so the co. caused noise 
 by the pumps employed, but reasonable care and 
 skill and precaution were used to mitigate annoy- 
 ance to neighboursandnonegligencewasshewn : — 
 Held, that the annoyance being temporary 
 and for a lawful object did not amount to a 
 nuisance in law. Harrison v. Southwark and 
 Vauxhall "Water Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1891] 2 Cli. 409 
 
 33. — Statutory works — Tramway company. 
 Statutory authority was given to a tramway 
 
 to use electricity in traction : — 
 
 Held, that they were not liable for damages 
 for disturbance by discharge of their electricity 
 of the wires of a telephone co. National Tele- 
 phone Co. v. Baeer 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] 2 Ch. 186 
 
 See Shelf or v. City of London Electric Lighting 
 Co., C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 287; [1895] 2 Ch. 388. 
 
 34.' — Temporary annoyance in execution of 
 lawful works. 
 
 Temporary annoyance caused by the execution 
 of works in the ordinary user of land is not an 
 unlawful nuisance where all reasonable skill and 
 care is used to avoid annoyance to neighbours. 
 Harrison c. Southwark and Vauxhall Wateb 
 Co. V. WiUiams J. [1891] 2 Ch. 409 
 
 35. — Tlieatre — Crowd at — Injunction — 
 Obstruction to highway — Costs. 
 
 An action was brought for a nuisance caused 
 by the collection of crowds before the doors of a 
 theatre. Before the hearing it was abated by 
 the police. The Court refused an injunction, 
 but granted costs. Barber i\ Penley 
 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 447 
 
 36. — Theatre — Obstruction to highway. 
 
 The obstruction of access from a highway to 
 premises adjacent to a theatre by reason of the 
 assembling of a crowd in the highway previously 
 to the opening of the doors of the theatre con- 
 stitutes a private nuisance to the owner of the 
 adjacent premises. The law of nuisance from 
 obstruction of a highway discussed. Barber r. 
 Penley - North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 447 
 
 37. — Tree near boundary of field. 
 
 It is not a nuisance to allow a yew tree to 
 grow so near the boundary of a neighbour's land 
 as to be eaten by his cattle, unless they can reach 
 the tree without trespassing. 
 
 Secus, where there is a liability to fence against 
 the neighbour's cattle. Ponting v. Noak-ES 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q, B. 281 
 
 38. — Trees overhanging land. 
 
 L.'s ancient oak trees overhung W.'s land, 
 and had done so to W.'s knowledge for fifteen 
 
( 1353 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1354 ) 
 
 NVISATSCZS— continued. 
 
 years ; they were not dangerous to life or health. 
 W. cut off the overhanging branches without 
 giving notice to L. : — 
 
 Held, that the overhanging branches consti- 
 tuted a nuisance. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1894] 3 Oh. 1, affirmed. 
 Lemmon v. "Webb - H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 1 
 
 Keferred to by Div. Ct. Reynolds v. Fresteign 
 Vrhan Council, (1896) 12 E. 604, 609. 
 
 39. — Trie — Poisonous tree — Injury to eaitle — 
 Duty to fence. 
 
 Pit. and defts. occupied adjoining fields sepa- 
 rated by a fence and ditch the property of the 
 defts. : the fence was next to defts.' field : near 
 the fence there was a yew tree, the branches of 
 which projected over the ditch, but no part of 
 them extended over the plt.'s field. The defts. 
 were under no liability to fence against the plt.'s 
 cattle. -The plt.'s cattle ate of the branches 
 extending over the ditch and died ; — ' 
 
 Meld, that the defts. were not liable, because 
 there was no duty on the defts. to prevent the 
 plt.'s cattle having access to the yew branches. 
 PoNTiNS V. NoAKES Dlv. Ct. [1894] 2 Q, B. 281 
 
 40. — Vacant land in metropolis — Deposit of 
 filth hy third parties — Continuing nuisance — 
 Common law duty of landowner — Injunction — 
 Public Sealth (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 c. 76), ss. 30, 35, 138, 141. 
 
 The deft, was the owner and occupier of a 
 vacant piece of land in the metropolis. He had 
 surrounded it by a hoarding, but people threw 
 filth and refuse over, and broke up the hoarding, 
 so that the condition of the land and the use to 
 which it was put constituted a continuing public 
 nuisance. In an action by the Att.-Gen. at the 
 relation of the vestry of the parish : — 
 
 Held, that it was a common law duty of the 
 owner of the piece of land to prevent it from 
 being so used as to be a public nuisance; and 
 that the Att.-Gen. was entitled to an injunction 
 to enforce the performance of that duty. Att.- 
 Gen. V. Tod Heatley C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 860 
 
 41. — Vestry — Committee — Approval of acts of 
 by vestry — Batification — Act made criminal by 
 relation — Metropolis Management' Act, 1855 
 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 58. 
 
 A committee, appointed by a metropolitan 
 vestry under s. 58 for the purpose (inter alia) of 
 executing the Metropolis Management Acts, so 
 far as they related to the public health of the 
 parish, being informed by the sanitary inspector 
 that a nuisance existed upon certain premises 
 endangering the health of the inhabitants, 
 directed the inspector to serve notice upon the 
 
 'SVIS&'SCES— continued. 
 
 owner of the premises under the said Acts re- 
 quiring him to abate the nuisance, and in default 
 to take proceedings. The inspector, in pursuance 
 of such direction, served the required notice, 
 and, upon the owner failing to comply with it, 
 laid an information against him for penal ti,-s 
 under the said Acts, and a summons was issued. 
 After the issue of the summons and before tlie 
 hearing of the information, the vestry by resolu- 
 tion approved the acts of the committee in causing 
 the notice to be served and the information to bo 
 laid : — 
 
 Held, that the approval of the vestry, although 
 given after the service of the notice and the issue 
 of the summons, was sufficient, and that thc! 
 owner was liable to be convicted. Fikth v. 
 Staines Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 70 
 
 — Vibration — Electricity. 
 
 See Nos. 7 — 9, abore. 
 
 — Unsound food, fruit and meat. 
 
 See Cases under Food. 
 
 — Urinals — Construction of, below surface of 
 
 ground — " Publio place." 
 See Stbeets. 1. 
 
 42. — Water company — Statutory works, execu- 
 tion of — Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 <£: H 
 Vict. c. 17), s. 12. 
 
 A water co. in the exercise of their statutory 
 powers sank a shaft and thereby caused a 
 temporary annoyance to the pits, by the noise of 
 their pumps. The pumps used were of the kind 
 usual for such works, but other pumps causing 
 noise, but otherwise less convenient, could have 
 been used : — 
 
 Held, that the co. had not exceeded their 
 statutory power nor executed it negligently, and 
 were not liable for nuisance. Hakhison v. South- 
 
 WABK AND VaUXHALL WatEE Co. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1891] 2 Ch, 409 
 — Water-closets — Power to require sufficient — 
 
 Notice to abate. 
 
 See Cases under Water-olosets. 
 NULLITY OF MAEEIAGE. 
 
 See Cares under Divokob — Nullity. 
 
 NULLUM TEMPUS ACT— Law of New South 
 Wales. 
 See New South Wales. 34. 
 
 NUN — Service franchise — Separate dwellings — 
 Nuns in convent — Office, service or 
 employment. 
 See Parliament — rranohise. 134. 
 
 NUNCUPATIVE WILL— Validity. 
 
 See Donatio Mortis Causal. 3. 
 
( 1335 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1356 ) 
 
 0. 
 
 OATHS 
 
 Commrs. for Oaths Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 t . 50), amends the Commrs. for Oaths Act, 1889. 
 
 Exemption — Chairmen of District Councils Act, 
 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, c 22). 
 
 OBJECTION. 
 
 See SpEC!irio Titles. 
 
 OBLITEEATION— Words of will before alteration 
 ■whether " apparent " — Evidence of 
 experts. 
 See Frobate. 81. 
 
 OBSCENE LANGUAGE— Prohibition of use of— 
 By-law — Validity. 
 See Streets. 38. 
 
 OBSTEUCTION— Control of dock-master— West 
 India Docks. 
 See Dock. 1. 
 
 — Light. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Aih. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See London — Streets. 86 — 88. 
 
 — Way, Eight of. 
 
 See High-way — Obstruction, 
 Nuisance. 
 Way, Eight of. 29. 
 
 OBTAINING CREDIT — Offences — Intent to 
 defraud. 
 See Bankruptoy. 123. 
 
 OCCUPATION— Beneficial. 
 
 See Bates — ^Eateability. 37. 
 — ■ of Bank by manager. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 70. 
 
 — Qualification for vestryman — Bletropolis. 
 
 See London — Vestries, 99, 100. 
 
 OCCUPATION FEANCHISE— Vote. 
 
 See Parliament, Franchise, passim. 
 
 OCCUPATION KENT— Due from one of several 
 co-owners — Set-off — Sale. 
 See Partition. 15. 
 
 " OCCUPIER "—Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871. 
 s. 39. 
 See Gas. 3. 
 
 OFFENCES. 
 
 See Speciho Titles. 
 
 OFFENSIVE BUSINESS— Covenants in restraint 
 of trade. 
 See Eesthaint of Trade. 14. 
 
 OFFENSIVE TRADE. 
 
 See Nuisances. 
 
 21. 
 
 OFFICERS AND OFFICES— Appointment— Con- 
 ditions as to expenditure. 
 See Fishery. 2. 
 
 — Bankruptoy practice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy, passim. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Company and Company— Winding- 
 up, passivi. 
 
 OFFICERS AND OFFICES — continued. 
 
 — Crown servant — Tenure by — Prerogative of 
 
 the Crown. 
 
 See Ceown. 8, 9. 
 
 — Inland revenue — OflSoer of — Proof of autho- 
 
 rity. 
 
 See Justices. 7. 
 
 — Naval officer — Eight to resign commission. 
 
 See Army and Navy. 2. 
 
 — Naval officer on board his ship — Service of 
 
 writ on, out of jurisdiction. 
 See Practice — Service. 214. 
 
 — Eesignation — Office when vacant — Outgoing 
 
 alderman. 
 
 See CoKPOEATiON. 7. 
 
 — Eight to enforce terms of royal warrant. 
 
 See Mandamus. 6. 
 
 — Of State — Privileged communication. 
 
 See Defamation — libel. 15. 
 
 — Pension — ^Eetired officer. 
 
 See Bankruptcy— Appropriation. 48. 
 OFFICIAL RECEIVER. 
 See Eeoeiyer. 
 
 OFFICIAL REFEREE. 
 
 See Arbitration. 
 
 " OFF-LICENCE "—Licensing Acts. 
 See Licensing Acts. 4. 
 
 OMNIBUS — Driven by conductor — Onus of prov- 
 ing authority — Negligence of servant. 
 See Master and Servant. SO. 
 
 — Omnibus business — Municipal trading — Ultra 
 
 vires. 
 
 See London — County Council. 38. 
 
 ONTARIO- Laws of. 
 
 See Canada. 
 
 ONUS PROBANDI—Collisiou— Inevitable acci- 
 dent. 
 See Shipping— Collision. 50, 54. 
 
 — Contract— Action on — Cablegrams— Mistake. 
 
 See Contract. 19. 
 
 — Innkeepers' liability. 
 
 See Intjkeeper. 2. 
 
 — Libel — Privilege. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 23. 
 
 — Omnibus driven by conductor — Onus of prov- 
 
 ing authority — Negligence of servant. 
 See Master and Servant. 80. 
 
 — Will — Grant of probate. 
 
 See Probate. 
 
 — Will of Maori— Probate. 
 
 See New Zealand. 10. 
 
 OPEN SPACES— Commons. 
 See Common. 
 
 — Disused burial ground. 
 
 See Burial. 2, 3. 
 
( 1357 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1358 ) 
 
 OPEN SV&CIES— continued. 
 
 — Faculty for ereoling a churchyard wall with 
 
 arcade on disused burial ground. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law— Faculty. 21. 
 
 — Flagging footway — Frontager — Owner. 
 
 See LoNDOU — Streets. 68. 
 
 — Site of church. 
 
 See Buhial. G. 
 
 OPTION — Charterer's, as to iilace of disoliarge. 
 See SniprisG— Demurrage. ] Ul. 
 
 — To purchase. 
 
 See Contract — Time. 35. 
 
 Landlokd and Tenant — Option to 
 Purchase. 
 
 — To purchase, possession of goods under. 
 
 See Factor — Hire Agreement. 5. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land— Option. 
 
 OBAL A0S£EM£NT. 
 
 See Cases under Feauds, Statdte of. 
 Sale of Goods. 
 ORAL EVIDENCE, 
 
 See Cases under Evidence. 
 
 OEANGE FREE STATE. 
 
 See Extradition. 
 OBDEB. 
 
 See Specific Titles. 
 
 OBDEBS OF OOUET— See Table of liuJes and 
 Orders of Court judicially considered during the 
 yenrs 1891-1900. 
 
 OBDINABY— Discretion of— Faculty. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 18. 
 
 — Jurisdiction of — Sequestration. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Sequestra- 
 tion. 72. 
 0B6AN — Infringement of copyright — Mechani- 
 cal organ — Musical directions for per- 
 formance. 
 See CoPTEiGHT. 28. 
 
 OEIGINATING SUMMONS. 
 
 See PuAOTiCE — Originating Summons. 
 
 — Costs —Instructions for brief — Trial of issue 
 
 of fact before judge. 
 
 See Company — Winding-dp— Costs. G5. 
 
 " OUTGOINGS " — Drainage expenses — Improve- 
 ments — Capital or income. 
 See Settled Land. 62, 64. 
 
 — Private street works — ^Apportionment of ex- 
 
 penses — Vendor and purchaser — Im- 
 plied covenant against incumbrances. 
 See Streets — Private Streets. 34. 
 
 — Railway company — Judgment debt^ — Eeceiver 
 
 and manager — Frefereutial payments — 
 Priority. 
 
 See Eailway — Receiver and Manager, 
 5,5. 
 
 " OUTGOINGS "—continued. 
 
 — Eailway company — "Proper outgoings in re- 
 
 spect of the undertaking." 
 See Eailway — Costs. 38. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Vendor and PaROHASER — Charges 
 and Outgoings. 
 
 OVEBCBOWDING— of Train— Passenger. 
 See Eailway — Passengers. 29. 
 
 OVERDEAFT. 
 
 See Banker. 21 — 24. 
 
 OVERHANGING BUILDINGS— Eight of owner 
 to raise — Parcels. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Contract. 
 31. 
 
 OVERHANGING TREES. 
 
 See Nuisances. 37 — 39. 
 
 OVERLOADING— Of ship— Merchant Shipping 
 Acts. 
 See Cases under Shipping — Overloading. ' 
 
 OVERSEERS. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 73), alters the mode of appointing overseers in 
 rural parishes. 
 
 — Assistant overseer — Eight to rute-books — 
 
 Appointment. 
 
 See Parish Council. 2. 
 
 — Embezzlement — Parish council. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Embezzlement, 2. 
 
 — Preparation of registers by — Misconiluct. 
 
 See Parliament. 111. 
 
 OWNER— Buildings. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 
 
 — Nuisances. 
 
 See Nuisance. 
 
 — Paving, &c., expenses. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 
 Streets — Paving, &c,, Expenses. 
 
 — Settled land. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Shipping. 
 
 See Shipping — Managing Owner. 
 
 OWNERSHIP- Act of— Declaration of deceased 
 person against interest. 
 See Evidence. 1. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Ownership. 
 
 — Eeputed ownership. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Reputed Ownership. 
 OXFORD. 
 
 See University. 
 
 OYSTERS— Foreign oysters— Sale in close time. 
 See Fishery. 1. 
 
( 1359 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1360 ) 
 
 PACIFIC OCEAN— British jurisdiction over. 
 See FoBEiGN Jbeisdiotion. 
 
 — German protectorate. 
 
 See Extradition. 
 
 — Seal fisliery. 
 
 See FiSHEUT. 
 PALATINE COTJET OF LANCASTER. 
 
 See Cases under Lakoastek Coukt. 
 
 PAEAPHERNALIA. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 15. 
 
 PARCELS — Conveyance, Form of — General words 
 — Summons — Practice. 
 See Vendor and Pueohaseb — Convey- 
 ance. 41. 
 
 — Identity — Admissibility of parol evidence — 
 
 Stiitute of Frauds. 
 
 See Vendor and Pukohaser — Contract. 
 30. 
 
 — Overhanging building. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdechasek — Contract. 
 31. 
 
 — Eight of way — Misdescription — Common mis- 
 
 take — Rectification. 
 
 See Landlord and Ten'ant. 75. 
 
 PARDON — Prerogative — Contempt of Court. 
 
 See Contempt op Court. 8. 
 PARENT AND CHILD— Custody of children. 
 
 See Cases under Infant — Custody. 
 
 PARISH — Boundary — Alteration — Public or local 
 Act. 
 
 Lands in the parish of St. Pancras were pur- 
 chased as a burial ground for the parish of 
 Bloomsbury under 9 Anne, c. 22, and 10 Anne, 
 c. II, and on consecration became part of the 
 latter parish. By Order in Council burials were 
 discontinued in the burial ground, and the parish 
 of St. Pancras applied to the county council, 
 under s. 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, 
 for an order retransferring the burial ground to 
 St. Pancras. The council gave notice of their 
 intention to hold an inquiry. The parish of 
 Bloomsbury applied for a prohibition : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the section gives a county council 
 power to amend any part of a public and general 
 Act, wliieh is of a local and personal nature, that 
 the clauses of the statute of Anne relating to the 
 burial ground were local and personal, and that 
 the council had power to make an order. Peg. 
 I. London Codntt Council 
 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B, 164 
 
 ■ — Creation — Law of Quebec. 
 See Canada. 57. 
 
 — Ownership of soil of highway. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute or. 
 
 — Parish clerk. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Parish Clerk. 
 
 — Parish council. 
 
 See Parish Couhcil, 
 
 PARISH — continued. 
 — Parochial electors. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 102, 103. 
 
 PARISH COUNCIL. 
 
 In General, col. 1360. 
 Constitution and Election, col. 1360. 
 Custody of Documents, col. 1360. 
 Hiring and Taking Lands, col. 1361. 
 Overseers, col. 1361. 
 
 In General. 
 
 Parish Fire Engines Act, 1898 (.61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 38), enables parish councils to lorrmc fire- 
 engines. 
 
 Constitution and Election. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1891 (56 & bl Vict. 
 c. 73), establishes and regulates parish councils 
 and meetings, and makes provision as to tlie first 
 elections of parish councils and meetings. 
 
 Begistration Acceleration Act, 189i (57 <t 58 
 Vict. c. 32), accelerates the registration of parochial 
 electors in the year 1894. 
 
 Parish Councillors — Election of in 1896^ 
 Circular — County councils — Parish councils — 
 Bural district councils— Feb. 18, 1896— ioe. Gov. 
 Bd. Price Id. each. 
 
 Local Government Act, 1897 (60 Vict. c. 1), 
 amends the law as to qualifications for deetions to 
 parish councils, &c. 
 
 Parish Councillors' Election.] Order, 
 1897, No. 35,900, dated Jan. 23, 1897. St. R. & 0. 
 1897, No. 51. 
 
 Parish Councillors (Tenure of Office) jlrf,1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 10), enables them to Iwld office for 
 three years. 
 
 — "Ecclesiastical charity" — Appointment of 
 
 trustees — Churchwarden trustees. 
 See Charity. 2. 
 
 — Qualification of parochial electors. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 102, 103. 
 
 Custody of Documents. 
 
 1. — Custody of parish documents — Tithe 
 apportionment — Local Government Act. 1894 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 17, sub-s. S— Justices- 
 Jurisdiction — Order for removal of parish docu- 
 ments—Tithe Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 93), 
 s. 28. 
 
 A parish council has power, under s. 17, 
 sub-s. 8, of the Local Government Act, 1894, to 
 direct that the copy of the tithe apportionment 
 of tho parish in the custody of the incumbent of 
 the parish under 6 & 7 "Will. 4, c. 71, s. 64, shall 
 be removed from his custody and deposited with 
 the council. 
 
 Where the parish council lias given such a 
 direction, and the county council has affirmed it, 
 a court of summary jurisdiction has jurisdiotiou. 
 
( 1361 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1362 ) 
 
 PARISH COUNCH (Custody of Documents) — 
 
 continued. 
 under s. 28 of 23 & 24 Vict. o. 93, to make an 
 order enforcing the removal. Lewis v. Poole 
 
 Div. Ct, [1898] 1 ft. B. 164 
 
 Hiring and Taking Lands. 
 
 Order of the Loc. Govt. Bd. dated May 20, 189o, 
 as to compulsory hiring of land for allotments 
 under s. 10 of the Local Government Act, 1894. 
 St. B. & 0. 1895, So. 462. 
 
 Order of the Loc. Govt. Bd. dated May 21, 
 1895, as to compulsory hiring of land for allot- 
 ments under s. 10 of the Local Government Act, 
 1834, Adaptations of Lands Glauses Acts. St. E. 
 & 0. 189S, No. 464. 
 
 Order of the Loo. Govt. Bd. dated May 22, 
 1895, as to talsing of lands under s. 9 of the Local 
 Government Act, 1894, hy parish and district 
 councils. St, B. & 0, 1895, No. 466. 
 
 Open Spaces — Delegation of Powers. Sie Com- 
 mons Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 30). 
 
 Overseers. 
 
 Order of the Loc. Govt. Bd. dated Feb. 9, 
 1895, as to the appointment of overseers liy parish 
 councils. St. B. & 0. 1895, No. 447, 
 
 0. of the Loc. Govt. Bd. dated Feb. 9, 1895, 
 as to appointment of overseers hy parish meetings. 
 St. B, & 0. 1895, No. 450. 
 
 2. — Assistant overseer — Bight to rate-books — 
 Appointment — Local Government Act, 1894 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 5, sub-s. 1. 
 
 When the overseers of a parish have expressed 
 their intention of colleoting the rates them- 
 selves, but the pariah council have by resolution 
 appointed an assistant overseer, the Court will 
 grant a mandamus to the overseers to deliver to 
 the assistant overseer the rate-books and all other 
 books in their custody as overseers, for the pur- 
 pose of enabling him to perform the duties of his 
 office. 
 
 Semble, the appointment of overseers and 
 assistant overseers under s. 5, sub-s. 1, of the 
 Local Government Act, 1894, is complete by 
 election by tbe parish council, and no document 
 is required beyond a minute of the appointment. 
 Keg. u. Powell. Jir parie Williams 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 396 
 
 — Embezzlement. 
 
 See Okiminal Law. 11. 
 
 PABISH FIEE-ENGINES ACT, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 38), enables parish councils to borrow fire- 
 engines. 
 PABK— Compensation — Oompnlsorily taken by 
 
 railway company. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Aots — Compensa- 
 tion. 11. 
 
 — Eateable value — Beneficial occupation — 
 
 London County Council. 
 See Kates- Bateability. 37. 
 
 1. — Bight to sue— Parties— Local Government 
 Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 8, sub-s. 1 (e), (i). 
 
 A parish council cannot in their own name 
 without the Att.-Gep, maintain an action to 
 
 PABE — continued. 
 
 enforce a right of the inhabitants of the parish 
 to the use of a well or spring of water. Stoke 
 Parish Council v. Pbioe 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 74; [1899] 2 Ch. 277 
 
 PABLIAHENT. 
 
 Absence. See Parliament — Franchisa. 
 17—25, 
 
 Amendment. See Parliament — Fran- 
 chise. 27—36. 
 
 Appeal. See Parliament — Franchise. 
 37, 38. 
 
 Costs, col. 1362. 
 
 Deposits and Bonds, col. 1362. 
 
 Election Expenses, col. 1364. 
 
 Election Petition, col. 1365. 
 
 Franchise, col. 1366. 
 
 Joint Occupation. See Parliament — 
 Franchise. 50—57. 
 
 Lodger Franchise. See Parliament — • 
 Franchise. 58—86. 
 
 Municipal Franchise. See Corporation. 
 
 Notice of Claim. See Pabliament — 
 Franchise. 87, 88. 
 
 Objection. See Parliament — Fran- 
 chise. -89—100. 
 
 Overseers' Duties, col. 1403. 
 
 Private Bills, col. 1403. 
 
 Privilege, eol. 1403. 
 
 Megistration of electors. See Cases undt^ r 
 Parliament — Franchise. 
 
 Beturning Officer, col. 1403. 
 
 Mevising Barrister, col. 1403. 
 
 Service Franchise. See Parliament — 
 Franchise. 121—137. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 — Election expenses. 
 
 See No. 9, below. 
 
 — Parliamentary opposition — Application of 
 
 borough fund. 
 
 See Corporation. 11. 
 
 — Taxation — Parliamentary proceedings — Soli- 
 
 citors —London .ind country certificates. 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 40. 
 
 Deposits and Bonds. 
 
 Parliamentary Deposit and Bonds Act, 1892 
 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 27), mattes provision for the 
 release and cancellation of certain deposits and 
 bonds. 
 
 1. — Abortive undertalnng — Application of 
 deposit — Parliamentary Deposits and Bonds Act, 
 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 27), s. 1, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Deft. CO. was formed to otstain a provisional 
 order to enable them to construct aud work a 
 tramway. Their scheme proved abortive, and 
 resolutions were duly passed to wind up the co. 
 voluntarily, and appointing a liquidator. This 
 was an application to determine how the parlia- 
 mentary deposit should be applied. There were 
 no landowners or local authority whose rights 
 had been interfered with, or persons mentioned 
 ia s. 1, sub-s. 2, of the Parliamentary Deposits 
 
( 1363 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1364 ) 
 
 PAKLIAMENT (Deposits and IBonis)— continued. 
 and Bonds Act, 1892, as entitled to nompensa- 
 tion : — 
 
 Seld, following the principle ollnre Colchester 
 Tramways Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 309, and dissenting 
 from ISx parte Bradford Tramways Co., [1893] 
 3 Ch. 463, that the liquidator was entitled as 
 against the depositors only to his costs in relation 
 to the application of the deposit and not to his 
 general costs of liquidation, and an inquiry 
 directed as to the persons entitled to share in the 
 deposit. ToRPiN v. Someeton, &o., Tbamway 
 Co. Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 94 
 
 2. — Jurisdiction of Court to make an order 
 for repayment of deposit — Parliamentary Deposits 
 and Bonds Act, 1892 (5.5 * 56 Vict. c. 27), «. 1. 
 
 The Court has no jurisdiction under s. 1 of 
 the Parliamentary Deposits and Bonds Act, 1892, 
 to malje an order for the repayment of a deposit 
 made on behalf of a co. until the time limited for 
 the completion of the works has expired, the co.'s 
 compulsory powers for the purchase of lands have 
 expired, and the co. has acquired no lands, given 
 no notices, and raised no capital, anJ lias passed 
 a resolution to abandon the undertaking. Hx 
 parte Chaiibers North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 47 
 
 3. — Paper company — Parliamentary agent — 
 Promotion expenses — Parliamentary Deposits and 
 Bonds Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 27), s. 1. 
 
 A CO. authorized by statute had never had 
 any existence except its statutory incorporation. 
 Claims were made against the parliamentary 
 deposit by the solicitors and their parliamentary 
 agents for the co.'s bill, and by holders of Lloyd's 
 bonds, and a judgment against the co. for the 
 expenses of carrying through one of the bills : — 
 
 Held, that none of these persons was a creditor 
 of the CO. In re Manchester, Miedleton, and 
 District Tramways Co. - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 638 
 
 4. — Payment out — Notices — Creditors. 
 
 A ry. CO. had completed and opened for traiiic 
 all its undertaking, except a small part, the time 
 for completion of wiiich had expired : — 
 
 Held, that notices to landowners only were 
 sufiScient before payment out of the deposits. 
 The CO. not being insolvent or abandoned, the 
 question of the rights of the creditors of the co. 
 generally did not arise under s. 1, sub-s. 2, of the 
 Act of 1892, and the Court, in the exercise of the 
 discretion given by sub-s. 3, would dispense with 
 notices to them. In re Hull, Barnsley and 
 West Riding Junction Ey. 
 
 CMtty J. [1893] W, N. 83 
 
 6. — Payment out — Priority of claims — 
 " Creditors." 
 
 Persons who lent money to promoters of the 
 undertaking to enable them to make the deposit 
 are " creditors " entitled under s. 1 (2) of the Act 
 of 1892 to share in the deposit fund pari passu 
 with other creditors of the undertaking. " Credi- 
 tors" in the sub-section is not limited to the 
 creditors of a particular part of the undertaking, 
 which has been abandoned, but includes creditors 
 ot the CO. generally. Ex parte Buadpohd and 
 District Trams and Tramways Co. 
 
 T^. StlrHug J. [1893] 3 Oh. 463 
 
 Dissented from by Cozens-Hardy J. Tnrpin 
 
 FABLIAUENT (Deposits and Sonis)— continued. 
 
 V. Somerton, Ac, Tramway Co., [1900] W. N. 9t. 
 See No. 1, above. 
 
 6. — Payment out — Priority of claims — 
 " Creditors." 
 
 The distinction between " meritorious " and 
 "non-meritorious" creditors has since the Act of 
 1892, ceased to exist, and all creditors have a 
 claim on the deposit in priority to tlie depositors. 
 
 (a) In re Hull, Barnsley and West Ridinq 
 Junction Ey. - CMtty J. [1893] W. N. 83 
 
 (b) Ex parte Bradford and District Team- 
 ways Co. - Stirling J. [1893] 3 Ch. 463 
 
 Dissented from Cozens-Hardy J. Turpin v. 
 Somerton, &c.. Tramway Co., [1900] W. N. 94. 
 
 (o) In re Manchester, Middleton and Dis- 
 trict Tramways Co. - - Kekewioh J. 
 
 [1893] a Ch. 638 
 
 7. — Tramway company — Abandonment — Evi- 
 dence — Board of Trade notice of non-completion. 
 
 An application for the payment out of court 
 of the parliamentary deposit on the abandonment 
 of a tramway was supported by affidavit, but no 
 Bd. of Trade notice under s. 18 of the Tramway 
 Act, 1870, was produced : — 
 
 Held, that the notice was the only evidence 
 which the Court ought to receive, unless satisfied 
 beyond all dispute that it could not be produced. 
 In re Dudley and Kingswinford Tramways 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 162 
 
 8. — Tramway company — Liquidator — Board 
 of Trade, Bides, Aug., 1886, r. 22. 
 
 The parliamentary deposit required by the 
 Bd. of Trade in the case of a tramway co. is not 
 part of the general assets of the co. : it is only 
 made assets for the special purpose of paying the 
 creditors of the co. 
 
 Where a tramway co. was being wound up, 
 held that the liquidator was not a creditor 
 of the CO. nor entitled to receive out of the 
 deposit the general costs of the liquidation or 
 his own remuneration, but only his costs with 
 reference to the application of the deposit. In re 
 Colchester Tramways Co. 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 309 
 
 Election Expenses. 
 
 9. — Beturn of election expenses — " Transmit" 
 — Error in return — Penalties — Corrupt and Illegal 
 Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 51), ss. 33, 34. 
 
 In sub-?. 1 of s. 33 of the Corrupt and Illegal 
 Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (which provides 
 that, within thirty-five days after the day on 
 which the candidates returned at an election are 
 declared elected, the election agent of every can- 
 didate at that election shall " transmit " to the 
 returning officer a true return respecting his 
 election expenses), the word " transmit " means 
 '• send," and, therefore, if the return is posted to 
 the returning officer within the thirty-five days, 
 the sub-section is complied with, although the 
 return does not reach him until after the expira- 
 tion of that period. 
 
 The fact that the return of election expenses 
 transmitted to the returning officer under s. 33 
 contains an error does not make it a nullity so as 
 to render the candidate liable to the penalties 
 
( 1365 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 13G6 ) 
 
 PABLIAMENT (Election Expenses)— oonMnueiJ. 
 imposed by sub-s. 5 of that section upon a can- 
 didate for sitting or voting before the return 
 required by the Act has been transmitted. Mac- 
 Kinnon V. Clark - C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B, 251 
 
 Election Petition. 
 
 A copy of the sliorikand writers' notes of the 
 judgments in all election petitions since the general 
 election of 1892 forms the Pari. Paper, 1893 (25). 
 I'rice ll^d. 
 
 10. — Amendment — Appeal. 
 
 An order of a Div. Ct., consisting of two election 
 judges, rescinding an order amending an election 
 ])etitioD, on the ground that tbe judge who made 
 it, not being on the rota of election judges, had 
 no jurisdiction, is a decision on a point of law 
 within s. U of the Judicature Act, 1881, and no 
 iippeal lies therefore to the C. A. without the 
 leave of the Div. Ct. Shaw «. Ebokitt 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 779 ; 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 59 
 
 See now Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. o. 16). 
 
 11. — Changing place of trial — " Special cir- 
 cumstances " — Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868 
 (31 & 32 Vict. 0. 125), s. 11. sub-s. 11. 
 
 There is no jurisdiction under s. 11, sub-s. 11, 
 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, to order 
 a change in the place of trial of an election peti- 
 tion without special circumstances. The mere 
 fact that a trial could be more cheaply and con- 
 veniently held in some place other than the 
 borough or county where the election took place 
 does not amount to "special circumstances." 
 Lawson v. Chesteb Master 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 245 
 
 13. — Fartieulars — Offences subsequent to date 
 of petition. 
 
 An election petition, after alleging that the 
 respondent had been guilty of bribery, treating 
 and undue influence, further charged him with 
 the commission of "other cori-upt and illegal 
 practices before, during and after the election " : — 
 
 Held, that it was not competent to the peti- 
 tioner to include in his particulars, or to give 
 evidence of, offences alleged to have been com- 
 mitted after the date of the petition, the petition 
 not having been amended within the time limited 
 for amendment. Ceemee v. Lowles (Haggbb- 
 SToN Election Petition) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 804 
 
 13. — Fartieulars — Scrutiny — Glaim of seat 
 — Election Petition Mules, 1868, rr. 6, 7. 
 
 "Where a petitioner asks for a scrutiny of votes 
 and claims the seat if the scrutiny be in his 
 favour, r. 7 of the Election Petition Kules, 1868, 
 applies to the exclusion of r. 6, and the Court 
 has no jurisdiction to order particulars other than 
 tliose specified in r. 7, or to enlarge the time for 
 their delivery. Muneo v. Balfoub 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B, 113 
 
 Followed by 0. A. See next Case. 
 
 14. — ■ Particulars — Scrutiny — Claim of seat 
 —Election Petition Bules, 1868, rr. 6, 7. 
 
 Rule 6 of the Election Petition Eules, 1868, 
 does not apply in tiie case of a claim for the seat 
 
 PABIIAHENI (Election Petition) — continued. 
 for an unsuccessful candidate on the ground that 
 he had a majority of lawful votes. In such a 
 case rule 7 is exclusively applicable, and there- 
 fore an order for particulars cannot be made. 
 
 Munro v. Balfour, [1893] 1 Q. B. 118, followed. 
 FtTBNESs V. Beeesfokd. (The Yobk Election 
 Petition) - C. A. [1898] 1 ft, B. 495 
 
 15. — Particulars — Time for delivery — Elec- 
 tion Petition Bules, 1868, r. 6. 
 
 Although the general practice may be that 
 particulars under r. 6 of the Election Petition 
 Eules, 1868, should be delivered within seven 
 clear days before the trial of the petition, there 
 is no inflexible rule to that effect. The matter is 
 in the discretion of the Court, and must depend 
 upon the particular circumstances of each case. 
 
 EUSHMEEE V. ISAACSOif - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1893] 1 ft. B. 118 
 
 16. — ■ Bight of subject to petition Parliament. 
 
 The right of the subject to petition Parlia- 
 ment does not give him a right of action against 
 any member of the House of Commons for refusing 
 to present his petition. Chaeeees v. Goldsmid 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft, B. 186 
 
 Franchise. 
 
 Expenses.] By the " Begistration of Electors 
 Act,\8^\" (54*55 Viet. a. IS), the Parliamentary 
 Begistration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26), s. 30, 
 was applied to registration expenses in a parish 
 situate in a parliamentary and not in a municipal 
 borough. 
 
 Okdees.] The Begistration Order, 1895, dated 
 March 8, 1895. St. B;. & 0. 1895, No. 140, I. 8. 
 Price id. Lond. Gaz. March 19, 1895, pp. 1633- 
 1672. 
 
 Police Disabilities Bemoval Act, 1898 (56 & 57 
 Vict. 0. 6), extends the Police Disabilities Bemoval 
 Act, 1887, to municipal and other similar elections. 
 
 Eemoval op Disabilities.] Electoral Dis- 
 abilities Bemoval Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 11), 
 removes certain disabilities caused by absence or 
 break of residence which prevented persons being 
 registered as voters at parliamentarg and local 
 elections. 
 
 17. — Absence — Compulsory absence — Deten- 
 tion in police office — Admission to bail^Subsequent 
 fine — Household franchise. 
 
 G. was arrested, during the qualifying year 
 and lodged in the police office, on the charge of 
 being drunk and disorderly in a public street. 
 On the day of his arrest, and after a custody of 
 some hours, he was admitted to bail. He ap- 
 peared before the magistrates at the Petty 
 Sessions Court on the next day, was convicted 
 and fined 5s. and costs, which he thereupon 
 paid : — 
 
 Held, that G.'s detention in the police office 
 did not operate as a break in his inhabitant 
 occupancy of his dwelling-house, and that he 
 was entitled to the franchise. (Dbiglington v. 
 Gallaghae, (1889) 26 L. E. Ir. 134 C. A. (Ir.) 
 [1897] W. N. 106 
 
 18. — ■ Absence — Compulsory absence during 
 part of the qualifying period — Fine for drunlien- 
 
( 1367 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1368 ) 
 
 FABIIAMENT (Franchise') — continued, 
 ness not paid at rising of Court — Detention in 
 waiting room of goal for twenty minutes — Souse- 
 hold franchise. 
 
 P. M. was fined by the Mayor of Londonderry 
 for being drunk and disorderly, and in default of 
 payment be was sentenced to be imprisoned. 
 The fine was not paid at the rising of the Mayor's 
 Court, and P. M. was taken to the waiting-room 
 of the goal before being placed in a cell. After 
 being in the waiting-room twenty minutes the 
 fine was paid, and he was discharged ; — 
 
 Beld, that P. M., who was otherwise entitled 
 to the franchise, was not disqualified by such 
 detention. M'Cakkon v. Chambers, (1890) 28 
 L. E. Ir. 29i C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 107 
 
 19. — Absence — Compulsonj absence during 
 part of qualifying year — (a) Imprisonment upon 
 conviction, with option of paying a fine — (b) Me- 
 mand followed by acquittal — (o) Bemand followed 
 by conmction, or admission of guilt, and immediate 
 discharge. 
 
 1. D., who was convicted of a criminal offence, 
 and sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment, 
 with the option of paying a fine, not having 
 availed himself of the alternative, underwent his 
 term in gaol during the qualifying year : — 
 
 Held, by the C. A. (affirming the decision of 
 the revising barrister), that he was not entitled 
 to be registered as a voter in respect of the 
 inhabitant household franchise. 
 
 2. C, who was charged before justices with a 
 criminal offence, was, during the qualifying year, 
 remanded to gaol for a week in consequence of 
 his refusal to give bail for his reappearance before 
 them at the end of that period. On the expira- 
 tion of the week he was brought before them 
 again, when the charge against him was dismissed, 
 and he was discharged : — 
 
 Held, by Sir Michael Morris C.J. and Barry L.J. 
 (diss. PitzGibbon L.J.), reversing the decision of 
 the revising barrister, that having been ultimately 
 pi'oved innocent, O.'s detention in gaol did not 
 operate as a break in his inhabitant occupancy 
 of his dwelling-house, and that he was entitled 
 to be registered as a voter in respect of the 
 inhabitant household franchise. 
 
 3. M. was brought before justices on a crimi- 
 nal charge, and remanded to gaol for two days 
 during the qualifying year. Upon being brought 
 up again on the expiration of the two days he 
 cither pleaded guilty or was convicted (it did not 
 clearly appear which), but, in the exercise of the 
 bench's discretion, was discharged : — 
 
 Held (af&rming the decision of the revising 
 barrister), that, having been lawfully (as his guilt 
 proved) detained in gaol during portion of tho 
 qualifying year, there was a break in his inhabi- 
 tant occupancy of his dwelling-house, and he was 
 not entitled to be registered as a voter in respect 
 of the inhabitant household franchise. 
 
 Sex V. Mitchell, (1809) 10 East, 511, Powell v. 
 Guest, (1864:) 18 C. B. (N.S.) 72, and Ford v. Hart, 
 (1873) L. E. 9 C. P. 273, discussed. Donnelly 
 V. Geaham. Connolly v. Eiddall. Mastin v. 
 Haneahan (No. 2), (1888) 24 L. E. Ir. 127 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W, N. 103 
 
 ^**- ~ -^lisence— Compulsory absence during 
 part of the qualifying period— MiUtia sergeant— 
 
 PAELIAMENT (Siancidse)— continued. 
 Imprisonment — Confinement to cwmpfor military 
 offence — Household franchise — 54 Vict. c. 11. 
 
 A sergeant in a militia regiment, ordinarily 
 resident in Londonderry, while on training vrith 
 his regiment at Buncrana, was sentenced to be a 
 prisoner at large for forty-eight hours on a charge 
 of drunkenness. The effect of the sentence was 
 that he was not allowed outside the camp lines 
 during the period : — 
 
 Held, that he was not thereby disqualified as 
 an inhabitant occupier in respect of his residence 
 in Londonderry. O'Connell v. Holland, [1900] 
 2 Ir. E. 448 C A. (Ir.) [1900] W. K. 224 
 
 21. — Absence — Compulsory alisencefrom quali- 
 fying premises during part of each week — House- 
 hold franchise — Couniy vote. 
 
 The claimant was tenant of a house in which 
 his family resided, but by the terms of his 
 employment, as servant at a hotel, the claimant 
 was obliged to remain in the hotel for six days 
 and six nights in each week ; the remaining day 
 and night in each week being spent by him in 
 his own hotise : — 
 
 Held, that the claimant was entitled to- the 
 franchise in respect of the house. M'Kbndrick 
 V. Buchanan, (1886) 20 L. E. Ir. 206 
 
 C, A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 172 
 
 22. — Absence from house during repairs — 
 Household franchise. 
 
 A labourer worked for an employer, by whom 
 he was given, in addition to Ms wages, a house at 
 a shilling a week ; during the qualifying period 
 he lived in two houses, living in one from July 2 
 to August 22, while alterations were being made 
 in the other, but he only paid rent for one house 
 during this period, and made no succession 
 claim : — 
 
 Held (diss. Sir P. O'Brien C.J.), that he was 
 not entitled to the franchise. Toeish v. Hen- 
 derson (1894) 2 Ir. E. 155 C. A. (Ir.) 
 
 [1897] "W. If. 112 
 
 23. — Absence — Comptdsory absence — Imprison- 
 ment for part of day — Household franchise. 
 
 Imprisonment after conviction for part of a 
 day does not disqualify. Holland v. Hagan, 
 [1895] 2 Ir. E. 551 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 108 
 
 24. — Absence — Compulsory ahsence — Tempo- 
 rary detention pending trial — Household franchise. 
 
 Imprisonment for a week pending a trial on a 
 criminal charge which had not taken place at the 
 date of the Eevision Sessions does not disqualify, 
 as innocence must be presumed until conviction. 
 Chablton v. Morris, [1895] 2 Ir. E. 541 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 107 
 
 25. — Absence — Imprisonment — Constructive 
 residence — County franchise — Inhabitant occupier 
 —Election kio— 48 Vict. t,. 3, ss. 2, 7 (4) ; 31 & 32 
 Vict. c. 48, s. 3. 
 
 A man occupied a dwelling-house as tho 
 ordinary habitation of himself and his family 
 during the qualifying period, but was in prison 
 during a portion of that period : — 
 
 Held, that bis compulsory absence did not 
 interrupt the continuity of liis inhabitancy to 
 prevent his acquiring a qualification to vote as 
 an "inl^abitant occupier" in the sense of the 
 
( 13^9 ) 
 
 DlGES* OP CiASiS, l89i— IfldO. 
 
 ( 1370 ) 
 
 FABLIAMENI (TianebiBe)— continued. 
 Eepresentation of the People Acts, 1868 and 
 1884. "Watt v. McGuihe, (1888) 16 K. 263 
 
 Kegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 109 
 
 26. — Alms which ly the laic of Parliament 
 disqualify from voting — Borough vote — Reform 
 Act, 1832 (2 <S: 3 Will. 4, c. 45), s. 36. 
 
 For more than a year previous to July 15, 
 1896, the appellant was a brother of a hospital 
 at Hull and occupied a room therein, in respect 
 of which he was rated for the relief of the poor, 
 and was in receipt of a weekly allowance of 7s. 
 with medical attendance and coals. 
 
 The hospital was founded in 1384 for feeble 
 or old men and women "so long as they are 
 necessitous." The property from which the 
 revenues were derived was granted to the master, 
 brethren, and sisters and their successors for 
 over, and is still vested in them. By subsequent 
 schemes the brethren and sisters were elected by 
 the corporation of Hull and were removable at 
 their pleasure. This power of removal had, 
 however, never been exercised. The brethren 
 had hitherto voted without objection in parlia- 
 mentary elections : — 
 
 Sdd, that the appellant was not disqualified 
 from voting by the receipt of alms within the 
 meaning of s. 36 of the Eeform Act, 1832. Cowen 
 V. Town Clekk oi' Kingston-upon-Hull 
 
 Dlv. Ct. [1897] 1 a. B. 273 
 — Allowances to members — Construction of Act. 
 See New South Wales. 35. 
 
 27. — Amend, Power of revising harrister to — 
 Description of qualifying property — Franchise — 
 Registration — Borough vote — Parliamentary and 
 Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, 
 c. 26), s. 28, sub-s. 13. 
 
 The claimant for a borough vote entered by 
 mistake in the fourth column of his notice of 
 claim, as the description of qualifying property, 
 202, Gordon Eoad and 31, Monk Street. It was 
 proved that he had occupied 202, Gordon Eoad 
 and 33, Monk Street in immediate succession for 
 the qualifying period, and the revising barrister 
 altered 81 into 33, and allowed the claim :— 
 
 Beld, that the revising barrister had power 
 to make the amendment. Kitchen v. Johnson 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 95 
 
 28. — Amendment — Borough vote — Revising 
 harrister — Transfer from one list to another — 
 Parliamentary Registration Act (6 * 7 Vict. c. 18), 
 8s. 15, 38; 41 * 42 Vict. c. 36, s. 24; s. 28, sub- 
 ss. 1, 12, 13, 15. 
 
 A revising barrister cannot transfer the name 
 of a voter on Division 3 of the list (burgess qualifica- 
 tion only) to Division 1 (parliamentary and muni- 
 cipal qualification) upon a declaration by the 
 elector that he is entitled to both qualifications, 
 unless he has made a claim to be placed on 
 Division 1. Lord v. Fox - - Div. Ct. 
 [1892] 1 a. B. 199 
 
 29. — Amendment — Claim — Household fran- 
 chise—Borough vote— Claim omitting nuniber of 
 qualifying liouse — Power to amend — Exercise of, 
 how far obligatory— Mislahe— List— Representa- 
 tion of the People {Ireland) Act, 1885 (48 Viet, 
 c. 17), 8. 27 (1) and (5), and Form 21. 
 
 A person claiming the borough franchise as 
 
 FARLIAUENT (Franchise) — continued. 
 a rated occupier, or as an inhabitant house- 
 holder, must insert in his claim the number (if 
 any) of every house included in his qualifying 
 premises. 
 
 In the event of the omission of the number in 
 such a case, the revising barrister has power to 
 supply the mistake ; but it is not obligatory upon 
 him to do so where there has been no official 
 mistake ; and the Court of Appeal will not inter- 
 fere with the exercise of his discretion. 
 
 Mathews v. Magrath, (1868) Ir. E. 3 C. L. 127, 
 observed upon. Lavert v. Kingsbeeet and 
 Black, (1886) 20 L. E. Ir. 387 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 118 
 
 30. — Amendment — Claim — Household fran- 
 chise — Borough vote — Registration of voters — 
 Description of qualification — Qualifying premises 
 occupied in succession — Power of revising barrister 
 to amend claim — Representation of the People 
 (Ireland) Act, 1885 (48 Vict. o. 17), s. 4. 
 
 Where a person's right to be admitted to the 
 franchise depends upon his occupation of differen fc 
 premises in immediate succession, his claim must 
 set forth and describe tlie several qualifying 
 premises, and if it omit to do so, the revising 
 barrister has no -power, under s. 4 of the Eegis- 
 tration (Ireland) Act, 1885 (48 Vict. c. 17), 1o 
 amend or correct it. Dempsey v. Keegan (1885) 
 18 L. E. Ir. 280 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. H. 117 
 
 31. — ■ Amendment — Claim — Omission of 
 description of qualifying property — Registration 
 of Voters {Scotland) Act, 1856 (19 * 20 Viet, 
 c. 58), s. 46. 
 
 In a claim for enrolment as a voler in the 
 Eastern Division of the county of Fife, as " tenant 
 of house, Newburgh," the column headed " street, 
 lane, or other place where the property is 
 situated " was left blank : — 
 
 Held, that the Eegistration of Voters (Scot- 
 land) Act, 1856, s. 46, did not authorize the 
 sheriff to allow the claim to be amended by filling 
 up the blank. Osboene v. Melville, (1899) 
 2 F. 266 C. A. (Sc) [1900] W. N, 231 
 
 33. — Amendment — Claim — Successive claim 
 — Description of qualification — Power to amend — 
 Defective claim — Household franchise — Bor&ugh 
 vote — Representation of the People {Ireland) Act, 
 1885 (48 Vict. c. 17), ss. 4, 27 (C/. 41 & 42 Vict, 
 c. 26, s. 28 (13) {England)). 
 
 The statements on the face of a claim to be 
 admitted to the parliamentary franchise must be 
 sufficient to constitute a legal franchise of some 
 defined character, and then, if the facts proved 
 turn out to be insufiicient to establish a legal 
 franchise of that character, but one to establish a 
 legal franchise of another character, the claimant 
 may be registered. 
 
 If the legal nature of the qualification derived 
 from the jpremises mentioned in the claim is not 
 sufficiently stated, the claim can be amended ; 
 but no qualifying property which is not mentioned 
 can be added. 
 
 M. claimed to be registered as an " inhabitant 
 occupier" in respect of the premises 1, Cottage 
 Eow, in the borough of Londonderry. The claim 
 described the qualifying premises as "dwelling- 
 house, 1, Cottage Eow, in immediate succession 
 from dwelling-house, Corbett Street, London- 
 
( 1371 ) 
 
 OtGESt OF CASES, 1891—1900 
 
 ( 1372 ) 
 
 PARLIAMENT (¥ia,nciiise)— continued. 
 deny." It was proved tliat M. had gone to reside 
 at No. 1 in September, 1885, from No. 8, Cottage 
 Eow, wliicli latter premises he had occupied for 
 about three weeks immediately after the house in 
 Corbett Street, where he had resided since before 
 July 25, and that the premises so intermediately 
 occupied had been omitted from the claim, owing 
 to lhe claimant's considering it unnecessary to 
 enter them : — 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the revising 
 barrister, that the claim was defective in not 
 setting out all the qualifying premises, and that 
 the revising barrister had no power to amend it 
 in this respect. 
 
 Ford V. Hoar, (188i) 14 Q. B. D. 537, ques- 
 tioned. Melaugh v. Chambeks, (1886) 20 L. R. 
 Ir. 286 , C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 119 
 
 33. — Amendment — County rote— Ownership 
 Iht— Revising harrister— Description of qualifica- 
 tion. 
 
 A revising barrister cannot amend the third 
 column of the owners' list by substituting " lease- 
 hold" for "freehold" as the description of the 
 
 qualifying property. Plant v. Potts 
 
 J 6 i' i' •> g^ I-J891-] 1 Q B 256 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Sautter v. Roderick, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 91, 96. 
 
 33a. — Amendment — Description of qualifica- 
 tion—Elections Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26), 
 ». 28, stt6-ss. 12, 13. 
 
 A. claimed to have his name inserted in 
 Division 1 of the list of voters, the "nature of 
 the qualification" being stated as "dwelling- 
 house— successive," the " description of the quali- 
 fication" being that of two houses: it appeared 
 that A. had lived at the latter of Ihem for the 
 whole of the qualitjing period :— 
 
 Seld, that the revising barrister had no power 
 to amend the claim, as the qualification for 
 occupation of successive houses was different from 
 that for occupation of a single house; and that 
 it made no difference whether words were sought 
 to be added or struck out, or whether the list of 
 voters or the claim was sought to be amended. 
 
 (a) Mann v. Johnson - Div. Ct. [1893] 
 
 W. N. 196 
 
 Followed. 
 
 (b) Htjboum v. Hilleaky 
 
 C. A. [1894] 
 1 Q. B. 579 
 
 34. — Amendment — Description — Qualifica- 
 tion— Parliamentary and Municipal Registration 
 Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vii-t. c. 26), s. 28— Registra- 
 tion Order, 1895, Sclied. II., Part I., s. 19, i. (p.). 
 
 A person who claimed to have his name entered 
 \a the list of occupiers of a parliamentary borough 
 inserted in his claim under the head of " Nature 
 of Qualification" the word "dwelling-house," 
 nud under that of "Description of Qualifying 
 Property " the words " 69 Eichmond Eoad, 3 
 Hamilton Square." The revising barrister 
 amended the statement of the nature of qualifica- 
 tion by inserting the word "successive" after 
 (he word " dwelling-house " : — 
 
 Held, that, aa on a reasonable construction of 
 the claim the qualification stated must be taken 
 to refer to successive occupation, the revising 
 
 PAELIAMENT (Franchise) — continued. 
 barrister had power to make the amendment. 
 SouTTER V. EoDEKiCK [1895] W. N. 156 (7) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 91 
 
 35. — Amendment— Description of qualifica- 
 Uun — Power to amend — Representation of the 
 people (I.) Act, 1885 (48 Vict. c. 17), s. i— Rele- 
 vancy of evidence adduced with view of amend- 
 ment — Registration of voters. 
 
 The claimant appeared on the register as an 
 inhabitant occupier in respect of a house rated at 
 lOs. He was not entitled to have his name re- 
 tained upon the register as an inhabitant occu- 
 pier, but it was proved at the revision that he 
 was f ui ther rated at above lOZ. for land situate 
 in the fame electoral division, and was, in respect 
 thereof, qualified to be registered aa a voter for 
 the division. The revising barrister was re- 
 quired, on behalf of the claimant, to amend the 
 qualification stated, and to transfer the claimant's 
 name to the list of rated occupiers. The revising 
 barrister refused to do eo, on the ground that the 
 evidence offered at the revision was evidence of 
 a qualification different from that described in 
 the register, and that he had therefore no power 
 to make such amendment and transfer : — 
 
 Beld, by the 0. A., that the revising barrister's 
 decision was right. Wilson v. Buchanan, (1886) 
 20 L. E. Ir. 213 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 124 
 
 36. — Amendment — Lodger claim — " Mistalte " 
 — Revising barrister. 
 
 A lodger claimed as sole tenant of a bedroom 
 and as joint tenant of a sitting-room, stating liis 
 lodgings were of the yearly value of 101. and up- 
 wards. The revising barrister, being satisfied 
 that the bedroom alone was of the value of 10/.. 
 struck out the reference to the joint tenancy, and 
 allowed the vote : — 
 
 Held, that this was a " mistake " in the 
 description of the qualification, which the barrister 
 could amend. Eeg. v. MoKellak 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 a. B. 121 
 
 And see Nos. 60 — 86, helow. 
 
 37. — Appeal — Borough vote — Duplicate en- 
 tries — Elector's notice of selection — Parliamentary 
 Registration Act, 1843 (6*7 Vict. c. 18), 
 S.S. 17, 18, 39, ii— Elections Act, 1878 (41 & 42 
 Vict. c. 26), s. 28, sub-s. 14 — Registration of Elec- 
 tors Act, 1885 (48 * 49 Vict. o. 15), s. 59, Sched. 3, 
 Form (P)— Registration Order, 1889, Sched. 3, 
 Form (P). 
 
 No appeal lies from a decision of a revising 
 barrister upon the validity of a notice given by 
 an elector, under s. 28, sub-s. 14, of the Parlia- 
 mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1S7S, in 
 the case of duplicate entries in the list of voters 
 for a borough, selecting the entry to be retained 
 for voting. Eeg. v. Liverpool (Revising 
 Barrister) Div. Ct, [1895] 1 Q. B. 155 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Jones v. Munro, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 109, 115. 
 
 38. — Appeal — Competency — Question of law 
 — Registration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885 
 (48 Vict. c. 16), s. 22. 
 
 In a case stated for appeal under the Eegis.- 
 tration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885, s. 22, 
 the question of law was, " Whether in the cir- 
 
( 1373 ) 
 
 blGfiS* OF CASSS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 13?4 ) 
 
 PARLIAMENT (Franchise)— comtiniied. 
 cumstauces above detailed, I rightly refused to 
 entertain the claim?" ' 
 
 Opinion per LordKinnear, that this was not a 
 proper form of question, in respect that it did 
 not put a specific question of law. Andrews v. 
 AitMSTBONG, (1897) 25 Eettie, 95 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N . 170 
 
 39. — Bankruptcy — Borough vote — Ocoupation 
 francJiise. 
 
 A claimant in respect of the occupation of a 
 house as tenant became bankrupt during the 
 qualifjing period. The trustee did not interfere 
 with the property, and the landlord continued to 
 accept reut from the bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, that he had been in continuous ocoupa- 
 tion as a tenant within s. 3 of the Representation 
 of the Ptople Act, 1867, and that the fact that 
 s. 20 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, had vested 
 tlie property in the trustee, did not deprive the 
 bankrupt of his right to vote. Maokat v. 
 lIoGuiBE Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q, B. 250 
 
 40. — Borough franchise — Failure to pay poor- 
 rate — Partial payment of consolidated rate loitliout 
 specific appropriation to poor-rate — Representation 
 of the People {Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict, 
 c. 48), s. 3. 
 
 The claim of a person to be registered as a 
 borough voter as inhabitant occupier of a dwell- 
 ing-house was objected to on the ground that he 
 had not paid the poor-rates due by him on the 
 preceding May 15. He had been assessed for 
 2s. 8d. of consolidated parish rates, of which Is. 6d. 
 was poor-rate, and he had paid 2s. on account, 
 but this payment was not appropriate to poor- 
 rate : — 
 
 Held, that the claimant had not paid the 
 poor-rate, and was not entitled to be registered. 
 Bell v. Galt, (1897) 21 E. .376. 
 
 Eegistratiou App. Ct. (So.) [1898] W. N. Ill 
 
 41. — Canons residentiary — Borough vote — 
 Occupation franchise — Parliament Act, 1832 
 (2*3 Will. 4, c. 45), s. 27— Representation of the 
 People Act, 1885 (18 & 49 Vict. c. 3), ss. 5, 7, 
 sui-s. 7. 
 
 Canons residenliary of a cathedral who oc- 
 cupy the qualifying premises for three months 
 only in the year are not entitled to a vote. 
 Rowland v. Pbitchabd Div. Ct. [1893] W. N. 34 
 
 43. — Canons residentiary — County vote — 
 Freehold qualification — Ecclesiastical Commis- 
 sioners Act, 1810 (4 <fe 5 Vict. c. 39), s. 25. 
 
 Canons residentiary of a cathedral who are 
 entitled under 4 & 5 "Vict. c. 39, s. 25, to a fixed 
 share in the corporate revenues, have no freehold 
 qualification in respect of shares in the freehold 
 lands of the corporation. Habeis v. Phillips 
 
 Div, Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 267 
 
 43. — Clerh in hydropathic establishment — 
 Election law. 
 
 A clerk in the employment of a hydropathic 
 CO. occupied as sole occupant a room in the 
 building ibelonging to the co. No particular 
 room was expressly stipulated for him, but 
 when he entered on his employment a room was 
 given to him, which he had occupied for ten 
 years ; part of its furniture belonged to him. He 
 took no meals in this room, but either in the ser- 
 
 FABLIAMEXT (Franchise)— coniinwed. 
 vauts' hall, or in the reception-room. During 
 about four months in winter he left the room thus 
 occupied by him, and lived in a smaller and more 
 comfortable room. No one occupied the other 
 room in his absence ; he was entitled to use it, 
 and he moved from the one to the other of his 
 own choice. The house steward had a room in 
 the building set apart for him, but usually re- 
 sided in a separate house in the neighbouring 
 village : — 
 
 Held, that the clerk inhabited a "dwelling- 
 house" in the sense of the 3rd section of the 
 Reform Act of 1884, and that the " dwelling- 
 house " was not inhabited by any person under 
 whom he served, and that, therefore, he was en- 
 tilled to be registered. Ballingal r. Menzies, 
 (1886) 14 E. 127 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 95 
 
 44. — Cottar — Inhabitant occupier as tenant — • 
 Bepresentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868 
 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 48), s. 3 — Representation of the 
 People Act, 1884 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 3), ss. 2 and 7— 
 Crofters Holdings Act, 1886 (49 * 50 Vict. c. 29), 
 ss. 9 and 34. 
 
 A cottar, who had built his house himself on 
 a site pointed out by the representative of tho 
 proprietor of the ground, but who had no contract 
 with the proprietor and paid no rent, claimed to 
 bo enrolled in the roll of voters for tlie county as 
 an inhabitant occupier as tenant of the house, in 
 virtue of the Representation of the People (Scot- 
 land) Act, 1868, B. 3— extended to counties by 
 the Representation of the People Act, 1884, ss. 2 
 and 7. Under the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) 
 Act, 1886, ss. 9 and 34, the claimant had a right 
 to compensation for permanent improvementf, if 
 removed from his holding : — 
 
 Held, that he was not an inhabitant occupier 
 as tenant within the meaning of the Representa- 
 tion of the People Acts, and was not entitled to 
 be entered on the roll. Campbell v.. MacLach- 
 LAN, (1898) 1 Fraser, 212 
 
 C, A. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 176 
 
 45. — Death of tenant — Household franchise — • 
 Occupation as tenant — Tenant dying intestate — 
 Sole next of hin in occupation — Letters of ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 On the death intestate of the tenant of a 
 house who had left Ireland, his father, who was 
 his sole next of kin, and had been residing in the 
 house, continued in occupation during the quali- 
 fying year, and paid tho rent, without taking 
 out letters of administration : — 
 
 Held, that the father was entitled to be regis- 
 tered as an inhabitant householder. 
 
 After the expiration of the qualifying period 
 the father took out letters of administratiou to 
 his son : — 
 
 Held, that the letters did not relate back for 
 the purposes of the franchise. Holland v. 
 Chambeks (John Dohbbty's Case), [1894] 2 
 L. R. Ir. 285 - C, A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 117 
 
 46. — Death of tenant — Rated occupier — 
 Occupation as tenant — Father of claimant dying 
 intestate — Claimant accepted as tenant — Consent 
 of other next of hin — Joint or sole occupation. 
 
 The claimant's father had been tenant from 
 year to year of the qualifying premises. He died 
 
( 1375 ) 
 
 CiGESt OF CASteS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1376 ) 
 
 PAELIAMEXr (Franchise) — continued. 
 intestate, leaving hia ■widow and one son (the 
 claimant) sole next of kin. The widow and the 
 claimant continued to live on the farm during the 
 qualifying period. The claimant had been ac- 
 cepted by the landlord as tenant. The revising 
 barrister, on these facts being proved, nllowed the 
 case to stand for the attendance of the widow to 
 prove that she had released her claim on the 
 farm. She did not attend, and the revising 
 barrister disallowed the vote, on the ground that 
 the claimant was not in sole occupation : — 
 
 Held (diss. FitzGibbon L.J.), that there was 
 evidence to support the finding of the revising 
 barrister, and that his decision should be affirmed. 
 GoKJiLET V. Buchanan, [1894] 2 Ir. K. 299 
 
 C. A, (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 156 
 47. — Flats — JJouse let in — Landlord living 
 on premises — Inhabitant occupier or lodger — Onus 
 of proof — Household franchise — Borough vote. 
 
 Where the claimant, his landlord, and a third 
 person were each occupiers of a separate flat of 
 the house rented by the landlord, and all three 
 used the stairs, hall-door, and yard in common, 
 the revising barrister having decided that the 
 claimant was not an inhabitant occupier, but a 
 lodger : — 
 
 Held that, on the facts, the onus lay on the 
 claimant of shewing that he was an inhabitant 
 occupier and not a lodger, and that he had failed 
 to do so. 
 
 Held also, that the manner in which other 
 houses in tho street were occupied was not 
 material to the question, as each claimant's case 
 must be decided upon its own facts. 
 
 Per FitzGibbon L.J., the revising barrister is 
 bound to find the facts : and he having deter- 
 mined as a fact that the claimant occupied part 
 only of a dwelling-house, and not a separate 
 dwelling-house, and there being no conclusive 
 evidence tho other way, the Court could not 
 determine, as a matter of law, that the claimant 
 was an inhubitant occupier. Campbell v. Cham- 
 MERS. (William Campbell's Case), (18S6) 
 20 L. E. Ir. 35.5 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 86 
 
 48. — Freeman franchise - — Borough rote — 
 Divided borough — Change of place of abode — 
 Notice of claim — Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885 
 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 23), s. 14. 
 
 It is not necessary for a. freeman who, during 
 the qualifying period, has changed his place of 
 abode from a residence within one division of a 
 borough to another within the borough or the 
 seven mik-s limit to serve a fresh notice of claim. 
 
 In the case of a divided borough, if the 
 revising barrister finds that the place of abode 
 of a freeman is wrongly stated on the list, he is 
 bound, on pioof of the true place of abode and 
 that the same is within the qualifying radius, in 
 the case of a duly qualified freeman, to correct 
 the place of abode as stated in the list, and to 
 assign the freeman to the right division for the 
 purpose of voting. Nagle v. Campbell, [1896] 
 2 Ir. E. 326 - C, A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 185 
 
 49 Grazing contract — No parting with pos- 
 
 Kemon by occupier — Occupation franchise — 
 Jiorough vote. 
 
 field^' »i^f f ''^•'*"^ occupier in respect of three 
 holds, which were grazed by L. under a parol 
 
 FABLIAMENI (Franchise) — continued. 
 yearly contract. '^Slhere was a gate to each field, 
 of which tho keys were given up by L. each year. 
 The rates were paid by M., and L. paid 14Z. a 
 year for the grazing. M.'s brother, who acted as 
 his agent, kept a master key of the outer and 
 principal gate, but did not inform L. that he did 
 so. L. made no use of the fields except for 
 grazing. 
 
 A person who lets the eatage of his grass cfoes 
 not cease to occupy as tenant : — 
 
 Held, that M. was entitled to remain on the 
 list of rated occupiers. O'Sheai). Meaka, (1868) 
 Ir. Eep. Registry and Land Appeals, p. 1 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 177 
 — Joint lodger. 
 
 See Nos. 58—86, below. 
 
 SO. — Joint occupier — Description of nature 
 of qualification — "Dwelling-house joint" — County 
 vote— Reform Ad, 1832 (2*3 Will. 4, c._45). 
 ss. 20, 27 — Representation of the People Act, 1867 
 (:-!0 & 31 Vict. c. 102), ss. 3, 27; 1884 (48 & 49 
 Vict. c. 3), ss. 2, 5, 7. 
 
 The qualification of two persons on the list of 
 voters for a county was described as " dwelling- 
 house joint." Objection was taken on the gronml 
 that such a qualification was expressly forbidden 
 by law. The dwelling-house was of more than 
 sufficient value to give Wl. a year annual value 
 to each joint occupier : — 
 
 Held, that the claim, although bad as a claim 
 for the household franchise, was good as a claiiu 
 for occupation franchise. Bagley r. Butcher 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 67 
 
 61. — - Joint or sole occupation — Household 
 franchise — Inhabitant householder — Occupation as 
 tenant — Father of claimant dying intestate — Rent 
 receipts given to claimant — Consent of other next of 
 kin — Agreement. 
 
 The tenant of a farm died intestate, leaving a 
 son and two daughters his sole next of kin, who 
 resided together on the farm which they worked, 
 and were supported out of the produce. Tiie son 
 obtained in his own name receipts for the rent of 
 the farm. An agreement was given in evidence 
 on behalf of the voter, dated July 13, 1896, by 
 which, after reciting that he had been, witli the 
 consent of his sisters, accepted as tenant of the 
 farm, his sisters agreed to abandon all claims 
 they might have, or might have had, as next of 
 kin of their father, or otherwise, on the farm : — 
 
 Held, that the son was in occupation of the 
 premises as sole tenant and entitled to the fran- 
 chise. Gibson v. Eiddbll, [1899] 2 Ir. E. 354 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 173 
 
 52. — Joint or sole occupation — Household 
 franchise — Occupation as tenant — ■ Father of 
 claimant dying intestate — Purchase of a farm by 
 his widow out of his assets — Claimant accepted as 
 tenant — Consent of other next of IHn. 
 
 The tenant of a farm died intestate, leaving a 
 widow, a son, and a daughter. The widow told 
 the farm and purchased another holding, on 
 which she and her son and daughter continued 
 to reside. The widow had some years ago re- 
 turned her son's name as the tenant, and he was 
 60 accepted by the landlord, and had fixed a fair 
 rent in his own name. The mother stated that 
 
( 1377 ) 
 
 l')iaEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1378 ) 
 
 PAELIAMENT (Franchise)— ooniiniiecJ. 
 
 she had no claim on the farm, but that she was 
 
 to get her support there : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the revising 
 barrister, that the son was in occupation of the 
 premises as tenant, and entitled to the franchise. 
 M'Kbeveb v. Buchanan, [1894] 2 Ir. R. 312 
 
 C. A, (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 159 
 
 63. — Joint or sole occupation — Occupation 
 franchite — Occupation as tenant — Grandfather of 
 claimant dying intestate — Consent of other next of 
 kin — Claimant accepted as tenant. 
 
 The claimant's grandfather was tenant of the 
 qualifying premises. He died many years ago. 
 No personal representation to him was taken out, 
 but his two sons (claimant's father and uncle) 
 remained in oocupatioa of the premises, the 
 claimant's father being treated as the tenant by 
 the landlord. On his father's death the claimant 
 was accepted as tenant by the landlord. During 
 the qualifying period the claimant's uncle and 
 the next of kin of the claimant's father all 
 resided together on the premises. It was alleged 
 that the claimant's father made a will, but no 
 probate of same was obtained, nor were letters of 
 administration to his estate taken out. The 
 revising barrister, on these facts being proved, 
 allowed the case to stand for the attendance of 
 the claimant's uncle and his father's other next 
 of kin, to prove that they had released their 
 claims or had assented to any change of teuancy. 
 None of them attended, and no further evidence 
 was given. The revising barrister held that 
 the grandfather died intestate, that the uncle 
 still continued to occupy the premises as one of 
 his next of kin, without having released his 
 claim on the farm. He also held that he had not 
 sufficient legal evidence to enable him to hold 
 that the next of kin of the claimant's father 
 (other than the claimant himself) had released 
 their interest or ceased to occupy the farm as such 
 next of kin jointly with the claimant as joint 
 occupiers : — 
 
 Held, that the decision of tlie revising 
 barrister should be affirmed. Aebuoklb v. 
 Buchanan, [1894] 2 Ir. R. 339 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 180 
 
 54. — Joint or sole occupation— Onus of proof 
 — Occupation franchise — Father of voter dying 
 intestate — Voter accepted as tenant— Consent of 
 other next of Itin. 
 
 The father of the voter was the prior tenant 
 of the qualifying premises. He died intestate in 
 1881, leaving his widow and the voter (his son) 
 his only next of kin him surviving, and in occu- 
 pation of the qualifying premises. In 1882 the 
 voter fixed by agreement the fair rent of the 
 holding xmder the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 
 1881, and was thenceforth treated as tenant by 
 the landlord. The voter stated that he was 
 accepted by the landlord as tenant, with his 
 mother's consent. The mother all along lived on 
 the farm, and was maintained by its produce. 
 She was not examined to prove that she con- 
 sented to the change in the tenancy, nor was 
 any evidence given that she had surrendered her 
 rights under her husband's intestacy, nor, on the 
 other hand, was evidence produced by the objector 
 to shew that she made any claim upon the farm. 
 
 PASLIAMENT (Franchise)- eontmuM: ■' 
 The revising barrister held that the motlfer had 
 not relinquished her claim on the qualifying^ pre- 
 mises, that there was in fact a joinfbfe'iefloial 
 occupation by the voter and his mother, and 
 accordingly struck the voter's nandB' Off the 
 register: — "' ' '" 
 
 Seld (,diss. FitzSibbon L. J.), thdt the»'* Was 
 evidence on which the revising barrister 'inight 
 so find, and that his decision should be affirmed. 
 Brown v. Buchanan, [1894] 2 Ir. R. 3l8 ' 
 
 C. A, (Ir.) [1899] W. H. 160 
 
 65. — Joint or sole occupation — '(Qualifying 
 premises devised hy tenant to his soti suhjecl to 
 right of widow to reside therein — Household fran- 
 chise — County vote. 
 
 The deceased yearly tenant of a house and! 
 farm devised his tenancy to his sorij giving, by 
 his will, a right to his widow to re^idfe'in the- 
 house, so long as the son was unmarried^" The- 
 son was still unmarried, and the wiSby tvas' still 
 residing in the house. In all othe^ respects the- 
 son was qualified as an inhabitailt householder 
 in respect of the premises :— 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of the revising 
 barrister), that the son was entitled' io the- 
 franchise. '' 
 
 The mere fact that another piSry6u'has an 
 incorporeal right to reside in the ho&sef'iJoes not 
 disqualify for the franchise as inhaMtaiit house- 
 holder an otherwise qualified tenant BftHfe house. 
 ToKiSH V. Love, [1894] 2 Ir. R 372" '"' " 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] '\|r. N. 93- 
 
 56. — Joint owners of dweHling-houSeotxidpying- 
 separate apartments — Household frtlti^l»isi':' 
 
 Joint owners of a dwelling- hoiite "danndt, by 
 separate occupation of apartments thfeirein; indivi- 
 dually acquire, each in respect of hSs apartment,, 
 the parliamentary franchise as aii"?flhftbitant 
 occupier. Alexander v. Burke. Mou^t'Asgus 
 
 Case, (1887) 22 L. R. (Ir.) 458 '• "■' 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 178 
 
 57. — Joint tenancy in law — Sejc^ate occupa- 
 tion in fact — " Owner or tenanf-^County ^ote — 
 30 * 31 Fjo<. c. 102, s. 3, su6-s. 2. ,,.,.,( ,, 
 
 A claim to be placed on the register of voters 
 may be suslained by each of two persons, whO' 
 are joint tenants of an entire holdiiig,, consisting 
 of separately rated dwelling-houses ' and land, 
 pay a single rent, and accept reoBipts'in their 
 joint names, but live each in one o'f 'iihe AWelling- 
 houses separately, and work portions of the land 
 severally, and the remainder jointly.'^ lun": 
 
 Decision of the revising bariist<ii 'reversed. 
 ToRiSH V. Clakk (Stares' Case), (i'885) iS.L. R. 
 (Ir.) 289 - C. A. (Ir.) [1897^ W.'ij. 113 
 
 58. — Lodgei — Landlord living &n'pr&m4ses — 
 Dwelling-house — Household franchM ^^B&rough 
 vote. • • i">i'"ii<iiin 
 
 Where the revising barrister finds a'S'* fact 
 that a voter, during the qualifying' pfeWddj sepa- 
 rately occupied as a separate dwSllittgi-Tio'use, 
 two rooms on a flat in a tenement house,' hWiftg 
 the exclusive control of the said 'rcfyiusj' and the 
 use of the stairs, yard, &c., in comtton'With'tho 
 other inmates of the tenement house, thl6 'fAbt 
 that the landlord also resided in the hoUSo does 
 
 2 Y 
 
( 137J ) 
 
 DIGKSX OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 13i0 ) 
 
 PARLIAMENT (TTBLUebiae)— continued. 
 
 not per se as a matter of law disfranchise the 
 
 voter. 
 
 Where the inmates of such a house are other- 
 wise duly qualified, in order to deprive them of 
 the franchise as inha,bitant householders, the 
 landlord must so reside upon the premises aa to 
 retain his quality of master, reserving to himself 
 a general control and dominion over the whole 
 structure. M'Laughlin v. Chambeks, [1896] 
 ,2 Ir. E. 497 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 90 
 
 69. — Lodger francliise — Annual value — Appeal 
 — Competency — Question of law — Itepresentation 
 
 ■■of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. 
 
 ■■c. 48), ss. 4 and 22. 
 
 A sheriff having rejected a claim to be enrolled 
 
 :as a lodger voter, on the ground that the lodgings 
 
 ■ occupied by the claimant were not of the statu- 
 tory value of 101., if let unfurnished, the claimant 
 obtained a case for appeal under s. 22 of the Act. 
 The ease stated that the claimant had the ex- 
 clusive use of one room in a house of two rooms 
 and a kitchen ; that the rent of the whole house 
 was 121. 10s. ; that the claimant paid 8s. a week 
 for the room ; that in his declaration he declared 
 the annual value of the room, if let unfurnished, 
 
 ~*o be 101. 8s., this sum being half of the total sum 
 paid by him for the year ; that it was usual in 
 
 ^itegistration Courts to assume, as matter of agree- 
 •mont and for convenience, that half of the rent 
 ■paid for lodgings was for the use of the bare 
 sooms and half for attendance and use of furni- 
 ture ; but that the sheriff held as matter of fact 
 that the value of the claimant's room, if let 
 unfurnished, was less than 101. yearly. 
 
 The following question was stated in the case 
 as the question of law : " Whether, in determin- 
 ing the value of the room, if let UDfurnished, the 
 sheriff was right in taking into consideration all 
 the circumstances admitted and proved, or was 
 bound to accept the claimant's declaration in his 
 claim and oath, and the fact that 8s. per week 
 was paid for the lodging, as by themselves con- 
 clusive ? " 
 
 The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that 
 the case presented no question of law for judg- 
 ment. Hamilton v. Ferguson, (1897) 25 Eettio, 
 94 - - - C. A. (So,) [1899] W. N. 169 
 
 60. — Lodger franchise — Annual value — Proof 
 — Valuation-roll — Registration Amendment (Scot- 
 land) Act, 1885 (48 * 49 Vict. u. 16), s. 14. 
 
 The Eegistration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 
 1885, enacts, s. 14 : " In the case of a person 
 claiming to vote as a lodger, the declaration 
 annexed to his notice of claim shall, for the pur- 
 poses of revision, be primS. facie evidence of his 
 qualification." 
 
 A claimant set forth in his declaration that 
 he had been for tho statutory period tenant of a 
 room which was of the clear yearly value, if let 
 unfurnished, of 101. or upwards (the statutory 
 amount). No objection lo the claim was lodged, 
 but the sheriff ex proprio motu ascertained from 
 the valuation roll that the house of which the 
 room was a part (and which consisted of three 
 rooms in all) was entered therein at the annual 
 value of 121. 10s. He thereupon rejected the 
 
 The Court reversed the judgment of the 
 
 PARLIAMENT (Franchise) — continued. 
 sheriff, and remitted to him to add the claimant's 
 name to the roll, holding there was no evidence 
 to rebut the prima facie evidence of the declara- 
 tion. Daniel Flynn's Case 
 
 C. A. (So.) [1900] W. N, 230 
 
 61. -^ Lodger franchise — Bedroom in hotel 
 taken for the year — Permission to hotel proprietor 
 to let the room during the lodger's absence. 
 
 E. M. occupied a bedroom in an hotel by the 
 year, and had the use of a sitting-room. The 
 lodgings were of the requisite value. He gave 
 leave to the hotel proprietor to let the bedroom 
 while he was absent on vacation, and the money 
 paid by such persons was received by the pro- 
 prietor of the hotel. 
 
 Held, that E. M. was entitled to the franchise 
 
 Kelly v. Chambers (M'Connell's Case), (1890) 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 125 
 
 62. — Lodger franchise — Claim — Amendment 
 — Registration of Voters (Scotland) Act, 1856 
 (19 * 20 Vict. 0. 58), s. 46. 
 
 The Eegistration of Voters (Scotland) Act, 
 1856, s. 46, enacts : " No misnomer or inaccurate 
 or defective description of any person, place, or 
 thing named or described, in any schedule to this 
 Act annexed, or in any list or register of voters, 
 or in any notice required by this Act, shall in 
 any way prevent or abridge the operation of this 
 Act with respect to such person, place, or thing, 
 provided that such person, place, or thing shall 
 be so denominated in such schedule, list, register, 
 or notice, as to be commonly understood ; and it 
 shall be lawful to any sheriff in his Eegistration 
 Court, or to any Court of Appeal, if it shall 
 appear to him or to such Court that there has 
 been no wilful purpose to mislead or deceive, and 
 that such misnomer or inaccurate or defective 
 description was not such as to mislead or deceive, 
 to allow any verbal, clerical, or casual error in 
 any such schedule, list, register, or notice to be 
 corrected or supplied." 
 
 A claimant for enrolment as a lodger voter in 
 a burgh had, during the statutory twelve months, 
 occupied lodgings in three houses successively, 
 but in his claim the last occupied of these houses 
 only was set forth. The claim having been ob- 
 jected to, the sheriff allowed the claim to be 
 amended by adding to the description of that 
 house a description of the two other houses. The 
 sheriff having admitted the claim, the objector 
 appealed. It appeared from the case that the 
 sheriff was satisfied that the failure to mention 
 the two houses in the claim " arose from a casual 
 error " : — 
 
 Held, that the sheriff had power to allow the 
 amendment to be made. 
 
 Gray v. Craig, (1892) 20 Eettie, 81, followed. 
 
 Campbell v. Alexander, (1868) 7 Macph. 283, 
 distinguished. Boss v. Cabbeky, (1897) 25 Eettie, 
 98 - - - C. A. (So.) [1899] W. N. 171 
 
 63. — Lodger franchise — Claim — Declaration 
 — Refusal of claimant to answer citation — Regis- 
 tration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885 (48 fict 
 c. 16), s. 14. 
 
 The Eegistration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 
 1885, s. 14, enacts: — "In the case of a person 
 claiming to vote as a lodger, the declaration 
 annexed to his notice of claim shall, for the pur- 
 
( 1381 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 1332 ) 
 
 PAHLIAMENT (Franchise)— continued. 
 
 ■poses of revision, be prima facie evidence of his 
 
 qualification." 
 
 A claimant for enrolment as a lodger, who 
 had produced u, declaration in statutory form, 
 was cited by an objector to give evidence as to 
 the validity of his claim. The claimant failed to 
 appear at the Eegistration Court, but counsel for 
 him moved that his claim should be admitted on 
 the ground that his declaration was prima facie 
 evidence of his qualification. The sheriff held 
 that the claimant was bound to appear, but con- 
 tinued the case until an adjourned Court on a 
 day specified, in order to give him an opportunity 
 of appearing, and also intimated that a re-citation 
 was unnecessary, and that the claimant's failure 
 to appear at the adjourned Court, without some 
 very special reason assigned for his non-appear- 
 ance, would lead to the claim being rejected. The 
 ■claimant not having appeared at the adjourned 
 diet, and no reason having been assigned for his 
 non-appearance, the sheriff rejected the claim. 
 
 Held, that the claim had rightly been re- 
 jected. 
 
 Stirling v. Fletcher, (1895) 23 Eettie, 120, fol- 
 lowed. Andrews v. Aemstbong, (1 897) 25 Rettie, 
 95 C. A. (So.j [1899] W. N. 170 
 
 64. — Lodger francldse — Claim and declara- 
 tion — Presumption — Regittration Amendment 
 ^Scotland) Act, 1885 (48 Yict. c. 16), e. 14. 
 
 The Eegistration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 
 1885, s. 14, enacted: "In the case of a person 
 claiming to vote as a lodger the declaration 
 avmexcd to his notice of claim shall, for the pur- 
 poses of revision, be primH facie evidence of his 
 qualification." 
 
 A person claiming the lodger franchise pro- 
 duced at the Eegistration Court a claim accom- 
 panied by the statutory declaration. The claim 
 being objected to, the sheriff-substitute, after a 
 proof, rejected the claim, proceeding upon the 
 sole evidence of the assessor, who deponed that 
 he had been informed by some persons unnamed 
 that during the year preceding the qualifying 
 year the claimant had only occupied exclusively 
 one room which was not of the statutory value, 
 and that he did not know whether he had occu- 
 pied any other room during the qualifying year. 
 In an appeal held that the claim fell to be 
 allowed, in respect that the evidence upon which 
 the sheriff-substitute had proceeded was incom- 
 petent, and that the statutory presumption in 
 favour of the qualification had not been rebutted. 
 Dalgleish v. Codds, (1894) 22 Eettie, 198 
 
 C. A. (So.) [1899] W. N. 165 
 
 65. — Lodger franohise — Claim and declara- 
 tion — Presumption — Wilful refusal of claimant to 
 answer citation as witness — The Eegistration 
 Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885 (48 Vict. c. 16), 
 ». 14. 
 
 The Eegistration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 
 1885, by s. 14, enacted : " In the case of a person 
 claiming to vote as a lodger, the declaration 
 annexed to his notice of claim shall, for the pur- 
 poses of revision, be primS. facie evidence of his 
 qualification." 
 
 , A person, claiming the lodger franchise in 
 
 .; respect of a bedroom occupied by him in his 
 
 father's house, produced at the Eegistration Court 
 
 FAELIAUENT (FianDHse)— continued. 
 a notice of claim accompanied by the statutory 
 declaration. The claim was objected to upon 
 the allegation that the claimant had no contract 
 with his father. The objector proposed to prove 
 this by the evidence of the claimant himself, 
 whom he had duly cited to attend. The claimant 
 having failed to attend the diet, the sheriff con- 
 tinued the case to an adjourned diet, to which 
 the claimant was again cited. The claimant 
 again failed to attend, and the objector led no 
 evidence against the claim. The sheriff sustained 
 the claim. 
 
 In a special case obtained by the objector, the 
 sheriff stated that he considered himself bound 
 by the case of Dalgleish v. Dodds, (1894) 22 
 Eettie, 198, to admit the claim, otherwise he 
 would have held the claimant as confessed, and 
 rejected it. 
 
 The Court held that the case of Dalgleish v. 
 Dodds did not apply, and (diss. Lord Kincairney) 
 that the sheriff should have given effect to his 
 view of the evidence and refused the claim. 
 Stiklino v. Fletchek, (1895) 23 Eettie, 120 
 
 C. A, (Sc) [1899] W. N. 166 
 
 66. — Lodger franchise — Claim not signed by 
 claimant — Contemporaneous ratification of signa- 
 ture — Insufficiency — 31 & 32 Vict. c. 49, s. 4, 
 sub-s. 3 ; s. 5—48 Viet. c. 17, Sched. L, Part IIL, 
 Form No. 31. 
 
 A lodger's claim to be admitted to the fran- 
 chise must (if he can write) be signed or marked 
 by his own hand ; and in such a case his name 
 being subscribed to the claim by another person, 
 at the request and in presence of the claimant, is 
 insufficient. Hanbidge v. Bevebidge (Conlan's 
 Case), (18S9) 26 L. E. Ir. 423 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 132 
 
 67. — Lodger franchise— Claim not signed hy 
 claimant — Subsequent ratification of signature — 
 Insufficiency. 
 
 The subsequent ratification of an originally 
 unauthorized signature to a lodger's claim is an 
 insufficient signature of the claim, within s. 5 of 
 the Eepresentation of the People (Ireland) Act, 
 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 49). Jones v. BevekIdge 
 (Keakns' Case), (1886) 20 L. E. Ir. 382. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 131 
 
 68. — Lodger franchise — Claim stating rent 
 as " 10/. and upwards," and as " included in 
 salary " — Revising barrister's power to amend as 
 " mistalce"—iS Vict. c. 17, s. 27, sub-s. 2. 
 
 It is essential that every lodger claimant 
 should state in his claim whether he pays rent 
 for his lodgings or not, what is the specific amount 
 of any rent he pays, and to whom he pays it ; 
 and, in the event of his occupying lodgings with- 
 out paying rent, he must specifically shew that 
 he is exonerated by agreement from doing so 
 without their losing the essential character of 
 lodgings. 
 
 A claim by a lodger stated the " amount of 
 rent paid" as "101. and upwards, included in 
 salary," and another like claim by another lodger 
 stated such rent at " 101. and upwards " only. 
 The revising barrister was called upon by the 
 claimants to amend the claims (as having been 
 so filled by "mistake") by inserting specific 
 amounts for the rent payable; but he was of 
 
 2 Y 2 
 
( 13S3 ) 
 
 DIGEST Oh- CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1334 ) 
 
 PARLIAMENT (Franchise) — coniiiuied. 
 opinion that he had 1,0 power to do so, and 
 rejected the claims : — 
 
 Held, by the C. A. (May C.J., Porter M.E., 
 and PitzGibbon, Barry, and Naiah L.JJ.), that 
 the revising barrister had power, if nc cessary, to 
 amend the claims by inserting a specific sum for 
 the rent payable, if he had sufficient materials 
 before him for the purpose ; but, by Porter M.K., 
 that the claim required no amendment. Claeke 
 V. ToKisH (Case of Aiken and Others), (1885) 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 127 
 
 69. — Lodger franchise — Clear yearly raltie — 
 Eepresentation of the People {Ireland) Act, 1868 
 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 49), s. 4, subs. 2. 
 
 The clear yearly value or market value of 
 lodgings is to be ascertained by what they will 
 really bring — that is, as much as the lessor can 
 obtain by open competition. M'Ckeai;.Bcohanan, 
 (1889) 26 L. E. (Ir.) 129 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 112 
 
 70. — Lodger franchise — Cleric — Bedroom in 
 employer's house. 
 
 A clerk who separately occupies a furnished 
 bedroom, of sufficient value, in the house of his 
 employer, but is not bound to do so, and could 
 discharge his duties equally well if he resided 
 elsewhere, is entitled to be registered as a lodger ; 
 although, if he ceased to reside iu the house, 
 he would receive an increase of salary as an 
 equivalent for the loss of the bedroom, and would 
 be obliged to give up possession of it at once if 
 he ceased to do business for, or was dismissed by, 
 his employer. Pakbek v. Champion, (1870) 
 Ir. Eep. Regihtry and Land Appeals, p. 75 
 
 C. A. Ir. [1899] W. N. 178 
 
 71. — Lodger franchise — Column of claim for 
 " Amount of rent paid " filled in : " Estimated 
 rent. 5s. weekly " — Claimant declining to amend. 
 
 Where a claimant, in respect of furnished 
 lodgings, inserted in the column of his claim 
 headed "Amount of rent paid" the words "Es- 
 timated rent, 58. weekly," and the claim not 
 having been validly objected to, he relied upon 
 the declaration before the revising barrister, and 
 declined to amend : — 
 
 Meld (affirming the dtcision below), that the 
 claimant's name must be expunged. Bkadley r. 
 OoLQDHOUN (1886) 20 L. E. Ir. 378 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. K. 130 
 
 72. — Lodger franchise — Column of claim for 
 " Amount of rent paid " filled in " Part salary " — 
 Amendment. 
 
 Where a person claiming the lodger franchise 
 filled in the column of the claim headed " Amount 
 of rent paid " with the words " Part salary," and 
 at the hearing before the revising barrister gave 
 no evidence, but merely relied on the declaration 
 appended to his claim, and the revising barrister 
 was willing, if it was necessary and he had power 
 to do so, to amend the claim by substituting the 
 words "Estimated value, 101.," and ultimately 
 admitted the claim : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision below), that the 
 claim was defective in form, and that the pro- 
 posed amendment would not have cured it. Jones 
 V. Beveeidge (Kavakagh's Case), (1886) 20 
 L,. K. Ir. 380 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 130 
 
 PAELIAMENT (Franchise) — continued. 
 
 73. — Lodgtr franchise — Description of ob- 
 jector's " calling " — " Agent " — Poioer to amend. 
 
 Wliere the witness to a claim for the lodger 
 franchise described himself tljerein as "agent," 
 he being, in fact a registration agent, and the re- 
 vising barrister amended accordingly, although 
 holding; the original description sufficient : — 
 
 Seld (affirming the decision of the revising 
 barrister), that the description of " agent " was 
 sufficient. 
 
 Whether there was power to amend, quitre. 
 Campbell v. Chambeks (Haeeis' Case), (1887) 
 22 L. E. Ir. 460 - C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. IT. 13J 
 
 74. — Lodger franchise — Evidence of value 
 — ■ Valuation roll — Declaration as evidence of 
 qualification. 
 
 A doctor claimed as a lodger in respect of the 
 occupation of two rooms and a surgery in a house. 
 The rent paid for the furnished lodgings was 8s. 
 a week, amounting to 20Z. 16s. per annum. The 
 claimant was objected to on the ground that the 
 annual value of the whole house, as shewn by 
 the valuation roll, was 51., and that the value of 
 the lodgings, which formed only part of the house, 
 could not therefore be of the clear yearly valise, 
 if let unfurnished, of 10/. The sheriff having 
 regard to the rent actually paid, held that the 
 lodgings were of the required value, and admitted 
 the claim. 
 
 The Court affirmed the decision, holding that 
 the entry in the valuation roll was only an ele- 
 ment in the proof, and that the sheriff was not 
 precluded from forming his own judgment on the 
 value of the rooms occupied by the claimant, 
 and that there was no ground in law for inter- 
 fering with his decision on what was a questioo 
 of fact. Kellie v. Little, (1897) 24 E. 379 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 112 
 
 75. — Lodger franchise — Exclusive use of bed- 
 room — Joint use of sitting room — Alteration ef 
 claim after signature. 
 
 A lodger with iihe exclusive use of one room 
 under the annual value of 101. cannot qualify 
 himself for the franchise by adding thereto any 
 portion of the annual value of another room whieh 
 he occupies jointly with other lodgers iu the same 
 house. (Diss., FitzGibbon L.J.) 
 
 A lodger claim and declaration cannot, without 
 the knowledge of the claimant, be altered after it 
 is duly signed and attested. Hay's Case (Galla- 
 ghee v. Hat); Edmiston and Obmsby's Case 
 (Gallaghee !'. Edmiston and Obmsbt); Max- 
 well's Case (Gallagher v. Maxwell), (1892) 
 32 L. E. (Ir.) 166 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 134 
 
 76. — Lodger franchise — Hotel, Booms in — 
 Constructive occupation — Eepresentation of the 
 People Act, 1884 (48 <fc 49 Vict. c. 3), ss. 2, 7, 
 sub-s. 5 — Eepresentation of the People {Scollandy 
 Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 48), s. 4. 
 
 B., a boarder in an hotel, personally occupied 
 rooms reserved for his use under a contract with 
 the landlord from July, 1892, to July 31, 1894, 
 with the exception of July, August, and Septem- 
 ber, 1893, when he was absent on account of ill- 
 health. He did not give up the rooms, and was 
 entitled to possession of them during this period. 
 During his absence liis landlord, without his 
 
( 1385 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 133G ) 
 
 PAELIAMENTCFranohisa)— conttnitetJ. 
 
 knowledge, for thirteen days allowed other per- 
 sons to occupy the rooms, and charged them for 
 their occupancy. During this period the land- 
 lord did not charge B. for the rooms. B. claimed 
 to be registered as a county voter, in respect of 
 occupancy as a lodger during the year from 
 July 31, 1893, to July 31, 1894 :— 
 
 Held, that B.'s occupancy was not suspended 
 •during his temporary absence on account of ill- 
 health, and that his right to the franchise was 
 not affected by the landlord letting the rooms 
 without his knowledge. Malcolm v. Browne, 
 (1894) 22 E. 188 - Registration App. Ct. (So.) 
 
 [1897] W N. 124 
 
 77. — Lodger franchise — Interrupted residence 
 — Representation of the People (^Scotland) Act, 
 1868 (31 <fe 32 Vict. c. 48), ». 4. 
 
 A shipping clerk claimed to have his name 
 entered on the roll of voters of the burgh of Leith 
 as a lodger. Under contract with his father he 
 had had, during the period required by the 
 Eeprosentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 
 1868, s. 4, sub-s. 2, the exclusive right of occu- 
 pancy of a room in his father's house in Leith 
 of the value required by the Act, and he had 
 occupied this room from Friday evening until 
 Monday morning of each week. During the rest 
 of the week he generally occupied lodgings in 
 Dundee, where he was employed by Leith ship- 
 owjiers, who had an agency in Dundee, but he 
 occasionally occupied the room in Leith for a 
 night in the middle of a week. During his 
 absence this room was unoccupied. He was not 
 enrolled, and had not claimed to be enrolled, as a 
 voter in Dundee : — 
 
 Meld (diib. Lord Kincairney), that the claimant 
 had not suflSciently complied with the condition 
 as to residence contained in the Eepresentation 
 of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, s. 4, sub-s. 3. 
 Miller v. Brdce, (1899) 2 F. 265 
 
 C. A. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 230 
 
 78. — Lodger franchise — Joint lodger— Poicer 
 to amend claim — Burgli Voters' Act, 1856(19 & 20 
 Vict. c. 58), s. 46. 
 
 A person who occupied jointly with his 
 iiirother lodgings which were of the annual value 
 of 20Z. if let imfurn'shed, stated in his claim to 
 be enrolled as a burgh voter that he was a lodger 
 tenant, and that the lodgings, if let unfurnished, 
 were of the annual value of lOZ. or upwards. The 
 sheriff amended the claim by prefixing the word 
 "joLut" to the words "lodger tenant," and by 
 substituting 201. for lOZ. as the annual value. 
 
 Held, that the sheriff was entitled to make 
 
 the amendment. Gray v. Ceaig, (1892) 20 E. 81 
 
 Begistration App. Ct. (So.) [1897] W. H. 134 
 
 79. — Lodger franchise — Person rated as 
 occupier. 
 
 A person whose name is on the rate-books as 
 a rated occupier Is not entitled to be registered 
 as a lodger in the same premises, though other- 
 wise duly qualified for the lodger franchise in 
 respect of the premises. Campbell v. Chambers 
 (Siupson's Case), (1886) 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N, 121 
 
 60. — Lodger framhise— Qualified lodger only 
 claiming as iiiliahitant householder — Berising har- 
 
 PABLIAMEHT (Franchise)— coreh'nweii. 
 
 risier's power to a7nend — 31 & 32 Vict. c. 49, s. 4 — 
 
 48 Vict. c. 17, s. 4. 
 
 Where a person claims the franchise as an 
 inhabitant householder, and his name duly ap- 
 pears on the town clerk's list as a claimant in 
 respect of that qualiGcation, but on the revision 
 it turns out tliat his true qualification would be 
 that of a lodger, if he had claimed as such : — 
 
 Held, on appeal, that the revising barrister 
 had no power, under s. 4 of the Parliamentary 
 Eegistration (Ireland) Act, 1885 (48 Vict. c. 17), 
 to expunge the name from the list on which it 
 appears, and insert it with the true qualification 
 in the originally appropriate list, or on a special 
 Hot to be framed for its reception. Cullen v. 
 Patterson (1885) C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 126 
 
 81. — Lodger franchise — Residence — Absence 
 from lodgings during part of the year— Representa- 
 tion of the people (Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 & 32 
 Vict. c. iS), s. i. 
 
 A son occupied, as a lodger, rooms of the 
 statutory value in his father's house, for which he 
 paid rent to his father, residing in them during 
 nine months of the year. During the remaining 
 three months he was absent in the country, and 
 the house was shut up, but he had access to it at 
 any time he desired : — 
 
 Held, that he had been resident during the 
 
 statutory period required by the 4th section of 
 
 the Eepresentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 
 
 1868. Falooneb v. Dunlop, (1890) 18 E. 342. 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] W. S. 124 
 
 82. — Lodger franchise — " Sole tenant " — 
 Hushand and wife — Representation of the People 
 {Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 * 32 Vict. c. 48), s. 4. 
 
 A man occupied lodgings in a burgh of suffi- 
 cient value, and lor the requisite period, to entitle 
 him to be enrolled as a lodger in the roll of voters 
 for the burgli. His wife lodged with him : — 
 
 Held, that he was " sole tenant " withiu the 
 meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 
 1868, 8. 4, and was entitled to be entered in the 
 roll of voters as a lodger. Hamilton v. Paton, 
 (1898) 1 Fraser, 208 - - C. A. (So.) [1899] 
 
 W. N. 175 
 
 83. — Lodger franchise — Sons living in family 
 — Payment of rent. 
 
 Held, that sons livirg in family with their 
 parents, and occupyirig and paying rent for 
 rooms, of which they have the exclusive use, to 
 tlie requisite value, may be enrolled as lodgers, 
 imd the payments made by them may be either 
 in money or in money's worth. 
 
 Where sons living in family with their parents 
 pay for the exclusive use each of a separate bed- 
 room and jointly of a parlour, their claim to be 
 enrolled as lodgers is not defeated by the fact 
 tliat the rest of the family daily take breakfast 
 with them in the parlour. Brown v. Martin, 
 (1885) 13 E. 159 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc ) [1897] W. N. 121 
 
 84. — Lodger franchise — Sen living with father 
 — No contract. 
 
 Held, tliat a son who was allowed by his 
 father, without contract or payment of rent, the 
 sole use of two rooms in the fathers house of the 
 requisite yearly value, was not entitled to ba 
 
( 13S7 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1388 ) 
 
 FABLIAMENI (Francliise) — continued. 
 enrolled as a lodger. Macdon.\ld v. Dickson, 
 (1888) 16 E. 143 
 
 Begistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 123 
 
 85. — Lodger fTanchise — Son living with 
 mother — Separate occupation of iedroom — Joint 
 use of sitting rooms — Bedroom of insufficient value 
 —31 * 32 Vict. c. 48, s. 4. 
 
 A son, as a lodger, pa'd his mother rent for 
 the exclusive use of a bedroom, and for the joint 
 use with her of other rooms. Tlie clear annual 
 value of his rights of use or occupation was 
 sufiSoient, but tlie value of the bedroom taken 
 alone was insufficient. 
 
 Meld, that he did not occupy lodgings of the 
 statutory value, "separately and as sole tenant," 
 and was therefore not entitled to the franchise 
 under the Representation of the People (Scotland) 
 Act, 1868, B. 4. Gray v. Deuohab, (1890) 
 18 E. 341 
 
 Begistration App. Ct. (Sc ) [1897] W. N. 123 
 
 86. — Lodger, Inhabitant occupier or — Souse- 
 hold franchise —" Dwelling-house " — Sepresenta- 
 tion of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict. e. 3), s. 3 — 
 Parliamentary Megittration (^Ireland) Act, 1885 
 (48 Vict. c. 17), Sched. 1, Part 3, Form 34. 
 
 The fact that the landlord of a house let out 
 in separate tenements lives in the house is a vital 
 element to be considered in determining whetlicr 
 or not the occupiers of such tenements are lodgers, 
 or qualified as inhabitant householders under the 
 Representation of the People Act, 1881, and, ns 
 an all but universal rule, will prevent their suc- 
 cessfully claiming the franchise in respect of 
 such occupalion otherwise than as lodgers. 
 
 The decision of such c.ises depends upon the 
 effect of evidence given to establish a matter of 
 fact; but it is a question of law whether any 
 given matter of fact is conclusive upon the law, 
 or whether there is any evidence to sustain any 
 given findings of fact. 
 
 In order to constitute lodgings which will 
 qualify for the franchise, the part of the house 
 occupied by the claimant must be part of one 
 " dwelling-house " ; and in the case of an inhalii- 
 tant occupier of part of a house, claiming as such, 
 it must be shewn that the p,irt which he occujies 
 is in itself one separate " dwelling-house," and 
 not merely part of one. Hogan v. Sterrett, 
 (1886) 20 L. E. Jr. 344 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 83 
 
 — Lodger — Old lodger's list — Omission of name 
 
 of borough. 
 
 See No. 101, below. 
 
 — Municipal franchise. 
 
 See COKPORATION. 18, 19. 
 
 87. • — Notice of claim— Agent' s clerli — Signa- 
 ture. 
 
 A notice of claim was signed in the appellant's 
 name by agent's clerk instead of by the authorized 
 agent : — 
 
 Held, that the notice was good. Brows r. 
 Tombs - Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 88. — Notice of claim — Lodger claim — Signa- 
 ture — Presence of witnesses. 
 
 The claim of a lodger to be registered as a 
 parliamentary elector is invalid unless the attest- 
 
 FABLIAMENX (Sismcbise)— continued. 
 ing witness is present when it is signed Body 
 V. Halse. Hunt v. Halse. Fenning r. Halse 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 203 
 
 89. — Objection — Declaration — Eeidence in 
 absence of claimant. 
 
 A., whose vote had been objected to, made a 
 declaration stating his qualification pursuant tO' 
 s. 26 of the Parliamentary and Municipal 
 Registration Acf, 1878, but did not attend. 
 Evidence was given that the premises mentioned 
 in the declaration had not been occupied by A. 
 during the qualifying period : — 
 
 Held, that the revising barrister had power to 
 receive the evidence. Tbainor v. Staebbuck 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893) W. S. 1E6 
 
 90. — Objection— Notice of — Occupiers' list — 
 Power of amendment — Mistake — Parliamentarif 
 and Municipal Begistration Act, 1878 (41 4 42 
 Vict. c. 26), «. 28, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The mistakes in notices of objection which a. 
 revising barrister is empowered to correct under 
 B. 28 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, include mistakes of 
 law. 
 
 In a notice of objection to the retention of a 
 person's name on the occupiers' list of voters in 
 a borough the objector described himself as " on 
 the list of parliamentary electors and burgesses " 
 tor a certain parish in the borough, but incor- 
 rectly inserted as his place of abode his shop, 
 which was his qualifying property, and at which, 
 though he spent the greater part of the day there, 
 he did not reside. His reason for so doing waS' 
 that his shop was situate in the borough and hia 
 place of abode was at some distance from the 
 borough, and he thought he ought to give hia 
 address witliin the borough. No one was misled 
 by tlie misstatement : — 
 
 Held, that the misstatement of the place of 
 abode was a mistake which the revising barrister 
 had power to amend. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1898] W. N. 155 (7) ; 
 [1899J 1 Q. B. 102, affirmed. Pbesoott v. Lee 
 C. A, [1899] W. ST. 107; [1899] 2 ft. B. 27» 
 
 91. — Objection — • Notice of — Omission of 
 polling district — Date of signing notice — Onus of 
 proof — Evidence — Registration of voters. 
 
 In a borough which had been divided intO' 
 polling districts a notice of objection survcd on a 
 voter omitted to state the particular polling dis- 
 trict to which the voter objected to belonged : — 
 
 Held (afBrming the decision of the revising 
 barrister), that the notice of objection was bad. 
 
 The objector could not swear that he signed 
 several notices of objection on the days they pur- 
 ported to bear date, but the notices were duly 
 signed by him before they were served, and they 
 were duly served within the limits of time for 
 giving such notice : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of the revising: 
 barrister), that the general primS, facie presump- 
 tion that all documents are made on the day they 
 bear date applies to notices of objection. Kessy 
 V. Kenbaly, [1895] 2 I. E. 544, 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] "W. N. 11& 
 
 92. — Objection — Notice of — Omission lo state 
 place of abode — Practice — Franchise — Regis- 
 
( 13S9 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 13D0 ) 
 
 FABLIAMENT (Yvtacbise)— continued. 
 
 tration — Segistration Order, 1895, Sched. L, 
 
 Form 5 (o.) 
 
 Notice of objection to the name of the re- 
 apondent being retained on the ownership portion 
 of the register was sent by the appellant by post 
 to the respondent, and was duly received by liim. 
 The appellant omitted to insert in the body of 
 the notice the respondent's place of abode as 
 described in the register, as required by the 
 Registration Order, 1895, Sched. I., Form 5 (a), 
 but, with the intention of saving postage, placed 
 it on the back of the notice, where it served as 
 the postal address of the respondent : — 
 
 Edd, that the notice of objection was good, 
 although it did not strictly follow tlie form pre- 
 scribed by the Order. Linpobth v. Butler 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 ft. B. lie 
 
 93. — Objection — Notice of — Fersonal service 
 at 'place of ahode as described in list — Representa- 
 tion of the People {Ireland) Act, 1850 (13 * 14 
 Vict. c. 69), ss. 26, 113. 
 
 An objector purported to serve a notii'e of 
 objection to the retention of a name upon a list 
 of voters, by putting the notice under the door of 
 the house whicli was described in the list as the 
 place of abode of the voter. The objector tnew 
 that the voter did not reside there ; he knew 
 where he resided, and he knew that there was 
 no probability of the voter getting the ncitice. 
 
 Seld, that the notice of objection had not been 
 duly served. 
 
 Watson. V. Fitt, (1848) 5 C. B. 77, followed. 
 
 Gifford V. Overseers of St. Luke's, Chelsea, 
 (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 141, and Allen v. Oreensill, 
 (1847) 4 0. B. 100, considered. Mageb v. 
 MoBTiMEB, (1890) 28 L. E. Ir. 251 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 102 
 
 94. — Objection — Notice of — Qualificntion of 
 objector — Parliamentary Begistration Act, 1843 
 (6*7 Vict. c. 18), s. 17. 
 
 An objector is qualified under d. 17 of the 
 Registration Act, 1843, for the pui-poses of his 
 objection if his name be on the list of voters 
 prepared by the overseers at the time when he 
 makes the objection, notwithstanding that before 
 the objection is heard the objector's name has 
 been stmck off the list by the revising barrister. 
 Pease v. Town Clerk of Middlesbbough 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 127 
 
 95. — Objection — Notice of — Service — " Ordin- 
 ary course of post" — Parliamentary Registration 
 Act, 1843 (6*7 Via. c. 18), ss. 17, 100. 
 
 Notices of objection to soldier voters were 
 posted so as to Mve been delivered in time else- 
 where in the borough except in barracks. 
 Letters addressed to barracks were not delivered 
 by postmen, but fetched from the post office by 
 orderlies : — 
 
 Held, that as by the " ordinary course of post," 
 within s. 100 of the Parliamentary Voters' 
 Registration Act, 1843, the notices would have 
 been delivered in time, they had been served in 
 time, and that the fact that by the action of the 
 military authorities or the Post Office, or both, 
 the ordinary delivery had been displaced by an 
 extraordinary one, did not affect the objector, and 
 that due service was j^roved by production of 
 
 FABLIAMEITT (Franchise)— co?iM)iae(Z. 
 duplicate notices stamped by the Post OJiioe 
 under s. 100. 
 
 DecLsion of Div. Ot. [1894] 1 Q. B. 265, 
 reversed. Kemp v. Wanklyn 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 683 
 
 96. — Objection — Noticeof — Service of objection 
 at place of abode as described in list — Representa- 
 tion of the People {Ireland) Act, 1850 (13 & 14 
 Vict. c. 69), s. 36. 
 
 A notice of objection, if intended to be serve 1 
 by hand, must be left at the place of abode of 
 tlie person objected to, as stated in the list, as 
 provided by 13 & 14 Vict. o. 69, s 36, and sucli 
 service is not made bad because the person 
 serving the notice may know that the person 
 objected to does not live there, and may also 
 know where he lives. 
 
 Gifford V. Overseers of St. Luke's, Chelsea, 
 (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 141, not followed; Magee v. 
 Mortimer, (1890) 28 L. E. Ir. 251, distinguished. 
 Gage v. M'Daid. Dunleavt v. M'Daid. 
 MiLLiGAN V M'Daid. M'Daid v. Campbell, 
 Lawson's Notes of Decisions (1896), p. 137 
 
 C. A. Ir. [1898] "W. N. 104 
 
 97. — Objection — Notice of — Service through 
 post-ofice — No postal delivery — "The ordinary 
 course of post " — Parliamentary Voters {Ireland) 
 Act, 1850 (13 * 14 Vict. c. 69), s. 113. 
 
 Sect. 113 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ire- 
 land) Act, 1850, providing for the sending of 
 notices of objection through the post, assumes that 
 in every case the postal service is capable, "in 
 the ordinary course of post," of reaching the place 
 of abode of a voter or claimant — that is, that in 
 every ease such notice can be " sent by the post " 
 to its deotination within a time ascertainable as- 
 " in the ordinary course of post " ; and wherever 
 an objector takes advantage of the postal 
 service, he must show by evidence, probable or 
 demonstrative, that in such "ordinary course"' 
 his notice, posted when and where it was posted, 
 would reach its destination at latest on Aug. 20. 
 
 The "ordinary course," of which evidence 
 must be given by the objector, must include and 
 cover the transit from the nearest post-oifice to 
 the place of abode mentioned in the address, and 
 he must show what the time is which this transit 
 ordinarily requires. Accordingly, where the evi- 
 dence was only that the transit was casual and 
 uncertain, and the time which it, in ordinary 
 course, required had not been determined by the 
 revising barrister, the service of a notice of objec- 
 tion, which reached the local post-office, within 
 about a mile of which the voter resided, on the 
 morning of Aug. 20, but was not actually deli- 
 vered at his place of abode till the 22Dd, was 
 held insufficient within the section. Doogan v. 
 COLQUHOUN, (1886) 20 L. E. Ir. 361 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 148 
 
 98. — Objection — Notice of — Signature. 
 
 A notice of objection given to overseers is not 
 rendered invalid by the mere fact that the signa- 
 ture of the objector precedes the names of the 
 voters objected to, instead of being placed after 
 them as prescribed in the form. Sutton v. Wade. 
 Gale v. Ovebesd. Moobe v. Atkinson 
 
 Div. Ct, [1891] 1 ft, B. 269 
 
( 1391 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1392 ) 
 
 PAKLIA.MENT (Franchise) — continued. 
 
 99. — Objection — Notice of — Signature — Suf- 
 ficiency — Place of abode of objector. 
 
 Notices of objection to certain county voters 
 wore signed by " J. B., of B. Terrace, on the 
 register ol electors for the township of Bodmin 
 boroughy but omitted to state m wliat town the 
 terrnce was situated. The revising barrister 
 found as! a fact that no one had been deceived by 
 tlie omission : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the description of the objector's 
 abode was sufficient. Hicks v. Stokes 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 124 
 
 100, r-t^ Objection — Notice of — Status of objector 
 — Representation of the People {Ireland) Act, 1850 
 (13 & 14 rict. c. 69). 
 
 Notice of objection to a list of voters or 
 claimants for a city, town, or borough may be 
 effectually given by a person whoso name is 
 actually inserted in the list of persons entitled 
 to votei,! though the objector is incapable of voting 
 by reiisou of having been reported guilty of 
 corrupt : practices by judges at the trial of an 
 flection- petition. Barr v. Chambers, (189u) 
 22 L. E. Ir. 264 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 101 
 
 101. ; — Old lodgers' list — Omission of name of 
 borougltrr^Borough vote. 
 
 The omission of the name of the borough in a 
 claim to be on the old lodgers' list of voters is a 
 mistake whicli the revising barrister lias power 
 to amend and ought to amend under s. 28, sub- 
 8. 2, of the Parliamentary and Municipal Eegis- 
 tration; Act, 1878. Teeadgold v. Grantham 
 (Town Clerk) Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 163 
 
 103. — Parochial elector — Parish in parlia- 
 mentary borough — Freemen — Local Government 
 Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vid. c. 73), s. 2, sub-s. 1 ; 
 ■e. 75, subs. 2 . 
 
 The fact of a person being on the list of 
 freemen for a parliamentary borough does not 
 entitle him to have his name entered in the 
 parochial electors' list for a, parish within the 
 borough, even though he may reside witliin the 
 parish ; the list of freemen not being a " portion 
 of the pailiamentary register of electors relating 
 to the garish " within the meaning of s. 2, sub-s. 1, 
 of the Local Government Act, 1894. Hart v. 
 Beard' - Div. Ct. [1895] W. N. 156 (4) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 64 
 
 103. — Parochial elector — Ownership— Quali- 
 fication' — Woman — Local Government Act, 1894 
 (5t; <t'57 Viet. v. 73), ss. 2, 43, 44. 
 
 A' woman, whether married or single, is not 
 qualified by reason of ownership of properly to 
 be a parochial elector. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct, [1895] W. N. 147 (5); 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 1, affirmed. Dbax v. Ffooks 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 238 
 
 104. — Permissive user of room allotted to 
 claimant — Household franchise — Occupation as 
 owner or tenant — Inhabitant householder. 
 
 During the qualifying year, and for some 
 time previously, a separate room in the dwelliug- 
 liouee of the claimant's father was allotted by 
 bim io the claimant, who slept in and occupied 
 the room, separately and exclusively for his own 
 purposes, ai his own. The claimant's father was 
 
 PAELIAMENT (Franchise) — continued. 
 
 sole tenant of the premises, and had control of 
 
 the door and the rest of the house : — 
 
 Held, that the claimant was not entitled to 
 the franchise. Clarke xi. Buchanan (Dog- 
 herty's Case), (1886) 20 L. B. Ir. 201 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 113 
 
 105. — Poor-lato relief by father of claimant, 
 Heceipt of — Disqualificaiion — Representation of 
 the People {Ireland) Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Viet, 
 c. 69), 8. Ill — Costs of appeal — Form of order. 
 
 Where the father of a claimant had received 
 poor-law relief during the qualifying period, but 
 no evidence was given before the revising 
 barrister of the claimant's ability to support his 
 father during any part of the time the latter had 
 been in receipt of such relief: — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision below), that the 
 claimant was not disqualified. 
 
 Form of order as to costs of unsuccessful 
 appeal against retention of name on voters' list, 
 where town clerk sole respondent. M'Dekmott 
 v. Chambers (M'Laughlin's Case), (1887) 22 
 L. K. Ir. 432 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 100 
 
 106. — Poor-law relief by parent of claimant. 
 Receipt of — Disqualification — Poor Relief {Ire- 
 land) Act, 1837 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56), ss. 54, 57— 
 Representation of the People {Ireland) Act, 1S50 
 [l'd& 14 Vict. c. 69), «. 111. 
 
 The receipt of poor-law relief during the 
 qualifying period by the parent of a claimant is 
 not a disqualification. Doheett v. Chambers, 
 (1887) 22 L. K. Ir. 434 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 100 
 
 107. — Poor-law relief, Receipt of — Disquali- 
 fication — Representation of the People {Ireland) 
 Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 69), «. 11—29 & 30 
 Vict. V. 38. 
 
 Application for a receipt of provision, under 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. 38, for the interment of a deceased 
 member of his family during the qualifying year 
 is sufficient to disqualify the recipient, though 
 otherwise entitled to the franchise, from being 
 registered as a parliamentary voter. Kerr v. 
 Chambers, (1886) 20 L. B. Ir. 207 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 122 
 
 108. — Postman employed at a distance from 
 constituency — Inhabitant occupier — County vote — 
 Electoral Disabilities Reawval Act, 1891 (54 Vict, 
 c. 11), «. 2. 
 
 A postman employed as such in Edinburgh 
 was tenant of a house at Milnathort in Kinross- 
 shire, where his family resided. He spent his 
 annual summer holiday with his family at Milna- 
 thort, and at periods varying from one month 
 to two months he came to Milnathort on Satur- 
 day evening and remained there till the following 
 Sunday evening. At other times he lived in 
 lodgings in Edinburgh. Ho was never absent 
 from Milnathort consecutively for more than two 
 months. 
 
 Held, that he was not an inhabitant occupier 
 of the house at Blilnathort, in respect that he had 
 not the necessary residential qualification, and 
 was not entitled to be retained in the register of 
 voters for the county of Kinross. Rintoul v. 
 Falconer, (1898) 1 Eraser, 207 
 
 C. A. (So.) [1899] W. N. 174 
 
( 1393 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1334 ) 
 
 PAKLIAMENT(rraacMse)— eoniinued. 
 
 109. — Sated occupier — Oumer liable to pay 
 rates— Bates unpaid — No notice given to occupier. 
 
 A claimant is not entitled to the franchise as 
 a rated occupier where the rates, payable in 
 respect of the qualifying premises, have not been 
 paid, though the owner, and not the occupier, is 
 the person liable to pay the rates, and though no 
 notice of the rates being in arrear was given to 
 the occupier as required by the 30 & 31 Vict. 
 c. 102, s. 28. Claeke v. Buchanan. (Cablin's 
 Case), (1886) 20 L. E. Ir. 244 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 109 
 
 110. — Bates — Inhabitant occupier — Non-pay- 
 ment of old arrears of rates — Representation of 
 the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), s. 3, 
 sub-s. i — Poor Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, 
 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 104), ». 19. 
 
 . The occupier of premises is not disqualified 
 by the non-payment of arrears of rates due in 
 respect of the premises, the recovery of which 
 has become barred by statute, as against him, 
 previously to December 31 in the qualifying 
 year. M'Gkath v. Bdchanan, (1889) 26 L. E. 
 Ir. 124 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 109 
 
 111. — Bating — Sousehold franchise — Occupa- 
 tion. 
 
 A person will not be disentitled to the fran- 
 chise as an inhabitant occupier by reason of his 
 permitting, as an act of kindness, another person 
 to live on his premises, even though he and such 
 person were, to his knowledge, rated as joint 
 occupiers of the premises. Campbell v. Cham- 
 BEKS. Gallagher's Case, (1886) 20 L. E. Ir. 
 239 - C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. S. 147 
 
 118. — Bating — Inhabitant occupier. 
 
 A. was an occupier of premises B. previously 
 to July 20, 1888, and up to May 6, 1889, on 
 which date he became an occupier, in immediate 
 succession, of premises C, and so continued dur- 
 ing the remainder of the qualifying year. He 
 was rated for the premises B. in tiie rate for the 
 year 1888, the rate having been made for that 
 year in Marcli, 1888, and duly paid by him. 
 Premises C. consisted of a new house, which was 
 not included in the rate for the year 1889, made 
 on March 4 in that year, not having been then 
 valued for tlie purpose of being rated : — 
 
 Held, that A. was entitled to the franchise. 
 
 Devine's Case, Lawson's Notes of Decisions, 
 (1887) p. 12, distinguislied. Cbiglikgion v. 
 Akdebson, (1889) 26 L. E. Ir. 131. 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 94 
 
 113. — Bating — Inhabitant occupier. 
 
 The inhabitant occupier, during the whole or 
 part of the qualifying period, of a dwelling-houee 
 which was rateable, and ought to have been rated, 
 but was not rated for the relief of the poor to 
 a rate which was made during the qualifying 
 period, and during his occupation, is not entitled 
 to the franchise. 
 
 A dwelling-house which ought to have been 
 so rated was not rated, but was subsequently 
 valued, and the amount which the rate ought to 
 have been was tendered, and a claim to be rated 
 was served on the guardians uuder the provisions 
 ofl3&14Vict. c. 69, s. 110. 
 
 Mehl, that the tender and claim had no effuct. 
 
 PARLIAMENT (Fianchise)— continued. 
 
 A. was an inhabitant occupier of a rated 
 dwelling-house previously to July 20, 1889, up to 
 a date in the qualifying period, subsequent to 
 the striking of the only rate made during the 
 qualifying period, when he went into occupation 
 in immediate succession of another house in which 
 he continued to reside duiing the remainder of 
 the qualifying period. The second house had 
 formerly been rated, but having fallen into ruin 
 was omitted from the rate-book for several years 
 before and in the qualifying year. Subsequently 
 to the striking of the rate in the qualifying- 
 period, the house was repaired and became liable 
 to be rated : — 
 
 Held, that the ease was undistinguishable 
 from Criglington v. Anderson, (1889) 26 L. E. Ir. 
 lal, and that A. was entitled to the franchise. 
 
 B. was an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling- 
 house which was marked in the rate-book as 
 " exempt " under the provisions of 48 Vict. c. 3, 
 s. 9, sub-s. 9, and was not rated. The revising 
 barrister decided that the house was not, by law, 
 exempt, and should have been rated to the rute 
 made during the qualifying period, and expunged 
 B.'s name from the register of voters : — 
 
 Held, that even if the house was not, by law, 
 exempt, it was not the function of the rovisius 
 barrister to revise the rate-book or the valuation 
 roll, and that B. was entitled to the franchise. 
 
 Torish v. M'Cormaclc, Lawson's Notes of Deci- 
 sions (1890), p. 19, distinguished. M'Gafpigan 
 
 V. ElDDALL. M'CkEADY V. CHAMBERS. HiNDS 
 
 V. Chabjbeks. Eiddall v. M'Aleek. Moobehead 
 V. ToKisH. (1890) 28 L. E. Ir. 257 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1898] "W. N. 95 
 
 114. — Bating — Joint rated occupiers — Pre- 
 mites tahen solely to obtain votes — Occasionality 
 ■ — Sole occupation — Occupation of sub-tenant or 
 licensee — Occupation franchise. 
 
 Prior to March, 1892, two sons lived with 
 their father in premises of which he was tenant, 
 and which it became desirable to take down and 
 rebuild. In March, 1892, it was arranged that 
 the sons should become the joint tenants of the 
 other premises, and be jointly rated in respect of 
 the same, in order to qualify themselves for the 
 franchise. As soon as the assignment was com- 
 pleted the fatlier and the two sons moved into 
 the premises, of which the sons thus became the 
 tenants, and resided there till Aug. 1893, when 
 all three moved back into the premises of wliich 
 the father was tenant and which had been rebuilt 
 in the interval. The sons paid the rent and the 
 poor-rates of the premises of which they were 
 tenants, but the father was surety for the pay- 
 ment of the rent, and paid all the household 
 expenses of the establishment, including the 
 maintenance of his two sons. The revising 
 barrister held that the arrangement for obtaining 
 the tenancy of the house in the case of the sons 
 was not bond fide, and that the father was the 
 sole occupier of the house, and disallowed tho 
 votes. 
 
 Seld (reversing the revising barrister), that 
 the sous were entitled to the franchise as joint 
 rated occupiers of the premises of which they 
 were tenants. Mooney v. Chambbbs, [1894] 
 2 Ir. E. 374 - C. A. (Ir.) [1899] W. N. 183 
 
( ]3!t5 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1396 ) 
 
 FABLIAMENT (Franchise) —continued. 
 
 116. — Rating — "Owner or tenant" — Trustee 
 — Farochial house — Joint rated occupier — Occupa- 
 tion franchise. 
 
 The Eoman Catholic bishop of the diocese, who 
 ■was also priest of the parish of T., along with 
 his administrator and two curates, occupied the 
 parochial house for the qualifying period, each 
 having separate rooms in the house, and using 
 the rest of it in common. The premises were 
 held by trustees under a fee-farm grant in trust 
 for the parish. Among the trustees were the 
 bishop, the administrator, and the curates ; two 
 of them haying been trustees for some years, and 
 the other two having been appointed during 
 the qualifying year. The trustees who were in 
 occupation were jointly rated for the premises ; 
 the bishop had the power, but had not exercised 
 it duiing the qualifying year, of removing or pro- 
 moting his administrator and curates to another 
 parish ; but he could not in any other way deprive 
 them of their respective rooms in the premises : — 
 Held, that the bishop, the administrator, and 
 the two curates occupied as tenants, and were 
 entitled to the franchise as rated occupiers. 
 Hollands v. Chambees. O'Dohekty's Case, 
 (1892) 32 L. E. Ir. 156 - C. A. (Ir.) [1899] 
 
 ■W. N. 163 
 
 116. — Borough vote — Occupation franchise 
 — Bating of qualifying property — Parliament Act, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), s. 3, suh-ss. 2, 3, ». 26 
 —Poor Rate Assessment, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 41), 
 s. 19 — Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 50), s. 9, sub-s. 2 (d) s. 82 ; 1884 (47 & 48 
 Vict. c. 3), s. 9, sub-s. 9. 
 
 The inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house 
 which though rateable has not been rated and 
 for which no poor-rate had been paid is not 
 entitled either to the parliamentary or the 
 municipal francliise. Palmek v. Wade. Wade 
 V. Palmer Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 268 
 
 117. — Residence — Election law — Household 
 qualification — Inhabitant occupier — 31 & 32 Vict. 
 c. 48, s. 3 ; 48 Vict. c. 3, ss. 2, 7 (4). 
 
 Residence for three or four months in a coun- 
 try house by a person who resides for the rest of 
 the year in a house in town does not entitle him 
 as inhabitant occupier of a country house. 
 Stewabt v. MoFadzean, (1890) 18 B. 349 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 110 
 
 118. — Residence — Sufficiency of — Borough 
 occupation franchise — Election law — Reform Act, 
 1832 (2 A 3 WiU. 4, e. 65), s. 11. 
 
 A person, who was on the list of voters in 
 Glasgow as an inhabitant occupier, resided in a 
 villa of the annual value of 60Z. in Ayr for four 
 consecutive months of the year, and for five days 
 in each of the two preceding months, and the 
 rest of the year in Glasgow : — 
 
 Hdd, under the special circumstances of the 
 case, that he had fulfilled the conditions of 
 residence contained in s. 11 of the Reform Act of 
 1832, and was therefore entitled to the occupa- 
 tion franchise for the borough of Ayr. Sim v. 
 Galt, (1892) 20 R. 84 - Kegistration App. Ct. 
 (Sc.) [1897] W, N. Ill 
 
 ,.,„— ®" ~^*<=''<»» — -Vo^ice of— Appeal from 
 revtnng larriaer - Framhise - RegZration - 
 
 FABLIAMENI (Franchise) — continued. 
 Borough vote — Duplicate entries — Parliamentary 
 and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 <6 42 
 Vict. c. 26), e. 28, sub-s. 14. 
 
 Tlie appellant, whose name was on the list 
 of voters for a borough in respect of liis place of 
 abode, duly claimed to have it also inserted on 
 the list in respect of his place of business, and 
 gave to the revising barrister a notice of selection 
 in proper form, selecting the entiy of his place 
 of business as the one to be retained for voting. 
 The revising barrister allowed the claim, but 
 held that at the time the notice of selection was 
 given there was no duplicate entry on the list of 
 voters to which the notice could apply, and he 
 accordingly marked the entry in respect of the 
 appellant's place of abode as the entry to be 
 retained for voting : — 
 
 Held, that the revising barrister was right, 
 and that no appeal lay from his decision. Llotd 
 Jones v. Munbo Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 109 
 
 120. — Separate dwelling — Household franchise 
 — Inhabitant occupier of room let unfurnished in 
 house inhabited by landlord— Representation of 
 the People Act, 1884 (48 * 49 Viet. c. 3), s. 7, 
 sub-s. 4. 
 
 The tenant of a house consisting of three 
 rooms let one room unfurnished to a sub-tenant, 
 who furnished it and inhabited it with his family. 
 The only access to this room was through the 
 other two rooms inhabited by the principal tenant, 
 who had exclusive possession of the key of the 
 house door. 
 
 Held, that as the principal tenant had re- 
 tained the control of access and egress by the 
 house door, the sub-tenant was not entitled to 
 the franchise as an inhabitant occupier of a 
 separate dwelling. 
 
 Bradley v. Baylis, Morfe v. Novis, Kirby v. 
 Biffen, (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 195, followed. Bishop 
 V. DnFjfT, (1894) 22 R. 192 
 
 Begistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1898] W. B^. 8S 
 
 121. — Service franchise — "' Boots " in hydro- 
 pathic establishment — Manager living in house. 
 
 The " boots " in a hydropathic establishment 
 occupied a servant's bedroom, and took his meals 
 with the other servants in the servants' hall. 
 The manager, who had control of the servants 
 and the right to engage and dismiss them, occu- 
 pied rooms in the establishment, which was under 
 one roof, the entrance being by a door from the 
 main corridor of tbe building: — 
 
 Held, that the "boots" inhabited the same 
 dwelling-house as the manager, and that he 
 served under him, and that he was not entitled 
 to be registered as an inhabitant occupier. Coi.- 
 QDHOUN V. Young, (1897) 25 E. 101 
 
 Begistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 114 
 
 122. — Service franchise — Butler in draper's 
 warehouse — Bedroom on separate flat — Dwelling- 
 house. 
 
 A draper's warehouse consisted of a tenement 
 of several flats, the ground flat being devoted to 
 the business premises, while the upper flats wore 
 devoted to sitting-rooms and bedrooms for the 
 firm's servants. The manager occupied rooms on 
 the second flat, and a butler occupied, for his 
 exclusive use, a bedroom en an upper flat. The 
 Hats Were all icacUid by a common stair. There 
 
( 1397 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1398 ) 
 
 PAELIAMENT (Franchise)— cojiimaed. 
 was DO other communication between the flat 
 occupied by the manager and that occupied by 
 the butler. The manager was entrusted with a 
 general supei-visiun of the whole domestic airunge- 
 ments provided for the servants, and had power 
 to dismiss the domestic servants, including the 
 butler : — 
 
 Held, that the butler was entitled to be re- 
 garded as an " inhabitant occupier " of a dwell- 
 ing-house, in respect (1) that the premises he 
 occupied were not inhabited by the manager, and 
 (2) that he did not serve under the manager. 
 Falconek v. M'Gtjppie, (1891) 19 R. 295 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (So.) [1897] W. N. 96 
 
 123, — Service franchise — Coachman — " Dwell- 
 ing-house " — Part of a house — Occupation hy 
 virtue of service — Separate hedroom — Joint user of 
 sitting-room — General control of house — Coachman 
 living over stable — Borough vote— Representation 
 of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict. c. 3), s. 3. 
 
 H., a servant, occupied exclusively, by virtue 
 ot his service, a furnished bedroom in a dwelling- 
 house belonging to his master, and had, in 
 common with another young man, the use of a 
 sitting-room in the same house. AH the furni- 
 ture belonged to the master, who did not reside 
 in the house, but had free access at all times to 
 every portion of it except H.'s bedroom, and had 
 access to that whenever he asked H. for the key, 
 which he had a right to demand whenever he 
 chose. The bedrooms were made up by a char- 
 woman, who was paid by the master, and did not 
 reside on the premises : — 
 
 Held, by May C.J. and Barry .ind Naish L. JJ., 
 following Slribling v. Halse, (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 246, 
 and reversing the decision of the revising barrister 
 (diss. Porter M.E. and FitzGibbon L.J.), that 
 H. was entitled to the franchise. 
 
 E. was the foreman of a shop and place of 
 business in which a number of 3'oung men were 
 employed. By virtue of that emplojment he and 
 they lived in a separate house, in which lie had a 
 bedroom that he occupied exclusively. He and 
 the other employees took their meals in a common 
 sitting-room, and the only other resident in the 
 house was a servant, paid by the employer to 
 attend to the occupants. R. had a latchkey for 
 the hall dobr, and had also charge of the other 
 keys, and it was his duty to see that the doors 
 were locked and the occupants within doors every 
 night. 
 
 BM, affirming tlie decision of the revising 
 barrister (dub. FitzGibbon L.J.), that E. was 
 entitled to the franchise. 
 
 C, as his employer's coachman, occupied a 
 room over her stable, and was treated by her as a 
 domestic servant. The stable was in her yard, 
 and was portion of the curtilage of her dwelling- 
 honse, the house and yard being all included 
 under the same number in the poor-rate book. 
 There was a separate gateway and gate from the 
 yard into a back lane, and also a wicket leading 
 from the yard into the lane. The gate and wiuket 
 formed the only access to the yard, except by 
 going through the employer's house, and were 
 under her controK Another of her servants 
 cleaned out C.'s room : — 
 
 Htld, affirming the decision of the revising 
 
 FABLIAMENI (rranohise) — continued. 
 barrister, that 0. was not entitled to the franchise. 
 Hasscin v. Chambeks. Orossan v. Chambebs. 
 Lynch v. Buchanan (Re Eichby), (1885) 18 L. E. 
 Ir. 68 - - C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. H. 85. 
 
 124. — Service franchise — Coachman — Room 
 over stable — Mlection law. 
 
 A coachman had the exclusive use and control 
 of a room over the stable furnished as a bedroom, 
 in which he kept his clothes and dressed, but he 
 took his meals in the mansion-house occupied by 
 his master, and slept there as a, caretaker. He 
 claimed to be enrolled as a voter in respect that 
 he inhabited the room over the stable as a 
 dwelling-house by virtue of service : — ■ 
 
 Held, that he was not entitled to the franchitc 
 in respect that the dwelling-house which he in- 
 habited was not the room over the stable but tliu 
 mansion-house, which was inhabited by the per- 
 son under whom he served. Oampbell v. Morris, 
 (1895) 23 E. 118 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) 
 
 [1897] Vr. N. 101 
 
 126. — Service franchise — Gardener exclusivelit 
 occupying bedroom over master's coach-house, and 
 talcing his meals there — " Dwelling-house " — 
 48 Vict. V. 3, s. 3. 
 
 Where W.'s gardener, during the qualifying 
 period, exclusively occupied a bedroom over W.'s 
 coach-house, in which bedroom be took his meals, 
 which were prepared by W.'s cook, and sent to 
 him from W.'s house, the coach-house containing 
 W.'s carriages, and beiug situate in a detached 
 walled yard, separated from his house by an 
 avenue, but included in the grounds surround- 
 ing it :— 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of the revising 
 barrister), that the gardener was entitled to the 
 franchise. 
 
 ' Crossan v. Chambers, (1885) 18 L. E. Ir. 68, 
 distinguished. Holly v. Burke, (1887) 22 L. E. 
 Ir. 463 - C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 91 
 
 126. — Service franchise — Lay brother — Elec- 
 tion law. 
 
 A lay brother in a Eoman Oatholic mission 
 had exclusive use of a bedroom in the mission- 
 house. The head clergyman of the mission and 
 other persons resided in the house. The lay brother 
 performed the ordinary duties of a domestic 
 servant, prescribed by the head clergyman. He 
 WAS not subject to dismissal by any person 
 living in the house, but he held himself bound 
 to obey as a servant the orders of the head 
 clergyman : — 
 
 Held, that he was not entitled to the franchise 
 under 48 Vict. c. 3, s. 3, as the house was also 
 inhabited by a person under whom he served. 
 Cruise v. Annan, (1892) 20 E. 79 
 
 Eegistration App, Ct. (Sc.) [1897] W. N, 94 
 
 127. — Service franchise— Miner out on strike 
 — Occupation after service determined — Election 
 law. 
 
 A miner who occupied a dwelling-house, by 
 virtue of his contract of employment, having 
 gone out on strike, his employer, on Aug. 24, 
 1887, obtained decree of objection. The decree 
 had not been extracted, and he still occupied 
 the house on Oct. G, 1887, when the sheriff pro- 
 
( 1399 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1400 ) 
 
 PARLIAMENT (Franchise)— coniinued. 
 
 ceeded to consider his claim to be put on the roll 
 
 of voters : — 
 
 Held, that having left his employment and 
 
 suffered decree of objection to p;o out against him, 
 
 ' he was not in occupation by virtue of any right, 
 
 and was, therefore, not entitled to be put on the 
 
 roll. Straohau v. Binnie, (1888) 15 R. 380 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 99 
 
 128. — Service Franchise — Policeman — Cubicle 
 ■ — Borough vote. 
 
 A puliceman had exclusive occupation by 
 virtue of his service of a cubicle in a dormitory 
 at police barracks, which received light, air, and 
 ventilation in common with others from the space 
 above the top of the partitions ; he kept the key 
 of his cubicle and was entitled to lock it up at 
 any time :^ 
 
 Seld, that the cubicle was not "separately 
 occupied as a dwelling " so as to entitle the 
 policeman to the franchise. 
 
 Qumre, whether a bedroom is occupied as a 
 dwelling when the occupant dwells also partially 
 in otlier rooms. Baenett v. Hickmott 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 691 
 See next Case. 
 
 129. — Service franchise — Policeman— Cubicle 
 — " Dioelling-hotise " — " Fart of house separately 
 occupied as a dwelling " — Parliamentary and 
 Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, 
 e. 26), s. 5 — Bepresentation of the People Act, 
 1884 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 3), s. 3. 
 
 The appellant had, by virtue of his service as 
 a policeman, the exclusive occupation of a 
 cubicle in a dormitory at a police station. The 
 cubicle was separated from the rest of the dormi- 
 mitory, which contained a number of similar 
 oubicles, by wooden partitions which did not 
 reach the ceiling. The atmosphere of the 
 dormitory was common to all the cubicles, and a 
 gas-light was shared by them in common. A 
 lavatory and mess-room were provided for the 
 policemen who occupied these cubicles in another 
 part of tlie police station. The policemen oc- 
 cupying the cubicles were subject to the control 
 of a superior officer, who had power to impose 
 restrictions upon their use of the cubicles incon- 
 sistent with tlie rights which a person ordinarily 
 •exercises in respect of his own dwelling : — 
 
 Held (Eigby L.J. dissenting), that the 
 cubicle was not part of a house separately 
 occupied as a dwelling within the meaning of 
 the Parliamentary and Municipal Eegistration 
 Act, 1878, s. 5, and that the appellant was there- 
 fore not entitled to the franchise in respect of it 
 under the Eepresentatiou of the People Act, 
 1884, s. 3. Clutteredck n. Tatlok 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 395 
 
 130. — Service franchise — Policeman — Sepa- 
 rate dwelling — Constable in barraclts. 
 
 A constable residing in police barracks had 
 the exclusive use of a room, of which he kept the 
 key. He slept in the room, and when off duty 
 was entitled to use it and receive visitors iu it. 
 teeparate common rooms were provided in the 
 oarractB for meals and recreation. The right of 
 
 rom-,?n'^ '^ !? "'" ™<"^ «-^^ contingent on his 
 remamaig m tl,o f,>rce, and the barracks were 
 
 PAELIAMENT (Franchise) — continued. 
 sul ject to the control of the chief constable, who 
 might at any time remove the constable from 
 barracks, order him to change his bedroom, or 
 keep certain hours, order him to give up the key 
 of his room on ceasing to occupy it, forbid him 
 to receive visitors in his room, and order him to 
 open tlio door so as to let any person in authority 
 enter : — 
 
 i?eW, that the constable inliabited the "dwell- 
 ing-house" within the meaning of s. 3 of the 
 Eepresentatiou of the People Act, 1884, and that 
 the " dwelling-house " was not inhabited by any 
 person under whom he served, and that therefore 
 he was entitled to be registered. Wallace c. 
 BOKRIE, (1897)24 E. 376 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 113 
 
 131. — Service franchise — Beligious com- 
 munity, Member of — Election law. 
 
 M., a Eoman Catholic clergyman, a member 
 of a religious community, along with other 
 members, resided in college buildings, held in 
 trust for the community, he having the exclusive 
 use of one room. He had various religious duties 
 to perform, subject to the orders and directions of 
 the rector, who resided in the college. There 
 was no contract of employment of any kind. He 
 was maintained in the college. 
 
 M. claimed to be enrolled as a voter under 
 s. 3 of the Eepreseutation of the People Act, 
 1884 :— 
 
 Held, that assuming that M. occupied his 
 separate room in virtue of some office, service, or 
 employment, he was disqualified in respect tliat 
 the rector under whom he served resided in the 
 same house. Monyhan's Case, (1894) 22 E. 195 
 Eegistration App. Ct, (Sc.) [1897] "W. H. 100 
 
 133. — Service franchise — Beligious com, - 
 munity. Member of — Joint occupancy — Separate 
 bedroum — Election law. 
 
 A clergyman, a member of a religious com- 
 munity, inhabited a house along with two other 
 clergymen and two lay brothers. He claimed to 
 be enrolled under 48 Vict. c. 3, s. 3, as " occupant 
 in virtue of service of dwelling-house " under 
 certain trustees. Each member of the com- 
 munity had the exclusive use of a separate bed- 
 room, of which he kept the key. The public 
 rooms were open to all, and they dined together 
 in the refectory. The claim was objected to on 
 the ground that the claimant was a joint occupant 
 only : — ■ 
 
 Seld, that the claim was good. 
 
 Baltingal v. Menzies, (1886) 14 E. 127, fol- 
 lowed. Walshe v. Annan, (1892) 20 R. 83 
 
 Eegistration App. Ct. (So.) [1897] W. N. 97 
 
 133. — Service franchise — Religious educa- 
 tional community — College bedroom constituting 
 " dioelling -house" — President residing in the 
 college — Superior - general of community non- 
 resident— il & 42 Vict. c. 26, 8. 5—48 Vict. c. 3, 
 ». 3. 
 
 Each teacher in a college conducted by a 
 religious community had, as such, during the 
 qualifying period, the exclusive use of a separate 
 bedroom in the college by virtue of his office or 
 employment as a teacher in the college, which 
 was managed by a resident principal, under the 
 supreme control of the Snpcrior-G-eneral of the 
 
( 1401 ) 
 
 DIOKST 01'' CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( IIJ^ ) 
 
 PABIIAMENT (Franchise)— coniinued. 
 community, who himself lived in Paris. The 
 revising barrister having found that each bed- 
 room so occupied constituted a " dwelling-house " 
 for the purpose of the franchise, and was not 
 inhabited by the person by whom the teachers 
 were employed, or uuder whom they served : — 
 
 Seld, on appeal (affirming the decision of the 
 revising barrister), that the teachers were entitled 
 to the franchise'. 
 
 StribUing v. Salse, (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 246, and 
 Hasson v. Gharnhers, (1885) 18 L. K. Ir. 68, fol- 
 lowed. Alexandee v. Bubke (The Fbench 
 College Case). Alexandek v. Bubke (St. 
 Joseph's Colleqe Case), (1887) 22 L. R. Ir. 443 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 92 
 
 134, — Service francMie — Separate dwelUngi 
 — Nuns in convent — Office, service, or employment. 
 
 The claimants were nuns residing at a convent 
 in the town of E. Each of them occupied a 
 separate bedroom, and was subject to the control 
 of the Lady Superioress, who could at any time 
 change the occupants from one room to anotheir, 
 or arrange to have more than one occupant of a 
 single room. She could refuse to allow a nun to 
 receive a visitor to her room, demand admission 
 to the room, and require the nuns to give up the 
 
 The nuns took their meals together in the 
 refectory, and occupied in common other general 
 rooms in the convent ; they received no remune- 
 ration, and were under no contract of employment. 
 The premises were vested in the Roman Catholic 
 Bishop of Clogher, the parish priest, and the 
 senior curate of B., all for the time being, upon 
 trust for the benefit of the Roman Catholic 
 inhabitants of B. The convent was governed by 
 rules subject to the supreme authority of the 
 bishop : — 
 
 Held, that the nuns were not inhabitant occu- 
 piers of separate dwellings within the meaning 
 of s. 3 of the Representation of the People Act. 
 
 Semble, the nuns did not occupy their rooms 
 by virtue of any office, service, or employment. 
 Baiwon v. Hankahan, [1900] 2 Ir. R. 455 
 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1900] W. W. 226 
 
 135. — Service franchise — Soldier — Commis- 
 sioned officer — Election law. 
 
 A soldier, who had, in respect of his position 
 in the army, lived with his family in separate 
 apartments in barracks for the qualifying period, 
 is entitled as a servant of the Queen to be enrolled 
 on the register of voters as tenant of a " dwelling- 
 house " : — 
 
 Held., further, that commissioned officers, who 
 each had the exclusive occupation of a bedroom 
 for (he qualifying period, but took their meals in 
 a mess-room, to which they had a common right, 
 were also entitled. 
 
 Atkinson v. Collard, (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 254, 
 followed. Gat v. MoGill, (1887) 15 R. 90 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (So.) [1897] W. N. 98 
 
 136. — Service francliise — Son managing 
 mother's farm — Election law. 
 
 The manager of a farm, of which his mother 
 was tenant, had the exclusive use or occupation 
 of a bedroom in the farmhouse, by virtue of his 
 employment. His mother and sisters also resided 
 
 PARLIAMENT (Franchise)— eontiimed. 
 
 in the farmhouse, and he took his meals along 
 
 with them in another room in the house : — 
 
 Held, that the whole farmhouse was inhabited 
 by the person under whom he served, and, there- 
 fore, he was not entitled to ba registered as an 
 " inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house " iu 
 respect of his occupancy of the bedroom. Philip- 
 V. RoxBUBGH, (1888) 16 R. 261 
 
 Registration App, Ct, (Se,) [1897] W, N. 96 
 
 137. — Service franchise — Son worleing on 
 father's farm with no contract of service — Election 
 law. 
 
 A son worked as a farm servant on his father's 
 farm, but without any contract of service. He 
 took his meals in family with his father, and 
 received from him what money he required from 
 time to time. He had the exclusive use, rent- 
 free, of a room in a cottage on the farm, which 
 was occupied by his grandmother, but paid no- 
 rent for the house to his father : — 
 
 Held, that he was not entitled as an inhabitant 
 
 occupier by virtue of service, as there was no 
 
 proof that his occupancy was connected with 
 
 service. Aitchison v. Lothian, (1890) 18 R. 337 
 
 Registration App. Ct. (So.) [1897] "W. N. 98 
 
 138. — Stands in marlcet — Borough vote — Oc- 
 cupation franchise — Parliament Act, 1832 (2 <6 3 
 Will. 4, c. 45), s. 27. 
 
 The lessee of a market sublet the area to. 
 occupiers of stands for annual payments of over 
 Wl. The spaces occupied were not marked or 
 enclosed, but precise position of each was known 
 to the lessee, the occupier, and the occupiers of 
 the other stands : — 
 
 Held, that the occupiers were entitled to the- 
 borough occupation franchise. Hall v. Met- 
 calfe - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q, B. 208 
 
 139. — Successive occupation, (a) by virtue of 
 service, and as an ordinary tenant ; (b) by virtue 
 of service only — 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, ss. 3, 26 
 48 Vict. c. 3, s. 3 — Household franchise. 
 
 A claim to the household franchise may be 
 sustained by combining a series of occupations of 
 dwelling-houses during the qualifying period, 
 (a) partly by virtue of service, and partly as 
 ordinary tenant; or (6) wholly by virtue of 
 service. Tobish v. Claek. (Monaghan's Case), 
 (1885) 18 L. R. Ir. 285 
 
 C. A, (Ir,) [1897] W. N, loa 
 
 140. — Weekly tenant — Notice to quit — Sum- 
 mons for posssession — Eelation back of tenancy 
 
 Household franchise. 
 
 In order to compel payment of arrears of 
 rent, each of several weekly tenants of dwelling- 
 houses was served with a notice to quit, which 
 expired during the qualifying period. Each of 
 the tenants continued in possession of his dwell- 
 ing-house after the expiration of the notice to 
 quit for a substantial period. While so over- 
 nolding, each of the tenants was served with a 
 summtms for possession. In some of these cases 
 before, and in others after, a decree for possession 
 was obtained, a new contract of tenancy was 
 made, whereby it was arranged that the several 
 tenants should continue to hold upon the old 
 terms, and that the new tenauoy was to b& 
 deemed to have commenced in each case on the 
 
( 1403 ) 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1404 ) 
 
 PARLIAMENT (Franchise) — continued. 
 expiration of the old one. It was further agreed 
 tliat each tenant should pay off his arrears of 
 rent : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of the recorder 
 of Londonderry), that the new contract was not 
 capable of relating back for the purposes of the 
 franchise, and that therefore none of the weekly 
 tenants were entitled to the franchise. Holland 
 / . Chambers (Devine's Case), [1894] 2 Ir. E. 442 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1897] W. N. 115 
 
 Overseers' Duties. 
 
 141. — Misormduct — Indictable misdemeanour 
 — Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843 {Q & 7 
 Vict. V. 18), s. 51. 
 
 An offence by an overseer, with respect to 
 preparation of the register, within the meaning 
 of 8. 51 of the Parliamentary Kegistration Act, 
 1843 ( 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18) Is not an indictable mis- 
 <lemeanour, since the statute creates the duties of 
 the overseer and prescribes the penalties for 
 <lefault in their execution. Reg. v. Hall 
 
 Charles J. [1891] 1 ft. B. 747 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Saunders v. Solborn 
 rUstrict Board of Worlcs, [1895] 1 Q. B. 64, 69. 
 
 Private Bills. 
 
 — Payment out of capital. 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 52. 
 
 Privilege. 
 
 142. — Contempt of Court. 
 
 On a motion to commit a member of ParUa- 
 raent for refusing to submit to examination 
 touching a bankrupt's affairs : — 
 
 Held, that the member was protected by his 
 privilege, as the order for committal sought 
 would be not punitive in its nature, but a civil 
 process to enforce obedience to the order of the 
 Court In re Armstrong. Ex parte Lindsay 
 
 V. Williams J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 327 
 
 143. — Contempt of Court — Trustee. 
 
 Quxre, whether a peer of Parliament is privi- 
 leged from attachment for contempt in not 
 obliying an order to pay into Court the amount of 
 misapplied trust money. Earl of Atlesford v. 
 Earl PoiiLETT (No. 2) North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 60 
 Referred to by C. A., In re Smith, [1893] 
 2 Ch. 1. 
 
 Kegistration of Electors. 
 gee Cases under Parliament — Fran- 
 chise. 
 
 Eetuming Officer. 
 
 144. — Charges— Taxation. 
 
 A returning of&cer whose charges have been 
 taxed under s. 4 of the Parliamentary Elections 
 (Iteturning Officers) Act, 1875, must return to 
 each candidate out of his deposit, whether a party 
 to tlie taxation or not, a proportionate part of 
 the amount which has been disallowed. Martin 
 0. ToMKissoN Div. ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 121 
 
 Revising Barrister. 
 
 — Appeal from — Competency — Question of law. 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 38. 
 
 PARLIAMENT (Revising Barrister) — continued. 
 — Appeal from — -Notice of selection. 
 5ee Parliament— Franchise. 
 
 145. — Closing lists, Revising barrister — Right 
 of voter to he heard in ansicer to objection — Parlia- 
 mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 
 (41 * 42 Vict. c. 26,', s. 28, sub-ss. 9, 10. 
 
 By s. 28, sub-s. 9, of the Parliamentary and 
 Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878, "Subject as 
 herein and otherwise by law provided the revising 
 barrister shall retain tlie name .... of every 
 person objected to unless the objector appears 
 . . . . in support of his objection." By sub-s. 10, 
 " If the objector so appears the revising barrister 
 shall require him, unless he is an overseer, to 
 prove that he gave the notice of objection re- 
 quired by law to he given by him, and to give 
 prima facie proof of tlie ground of objection, 
 .... and unless such proof is given to his satis- 
 faction shall, subject as herein and otherwise by 
 law provided, retain the name of the person 
 objected to." 
 
 A notice of the revision of the lists of parlia- 
 mentary and municipal electors for a borough 
 stated that the lists for a certain parliamentary 
 division of the borough would be closed at a 
 certain sitting of the revision court. At the 
 termination of that sitting the revising barrister, 
 being satisfied that tliere were no claimants or 
 persons objected to who desired to be heard, 
 declared the lists closed. Upon the occupiers' 
 list was the name of a certain voter who was 
 objected to by an objector who was not an over- 
 seer, but at the time of the lists being declared 
 closed no person had applied to be heard either 
 in support of the voter's right to be on the list or 
 in support of the objection thereto, although both 
 the objector and the agent of the person objected 
 to had been present throughout the sittings of 
 the court. On the following day the revising 
 barrister allowed the objector to prove service of 
 notice of objection and to give prima facie proof 
 of the ground of objection ; while he at the same 
 time refused to hear evidence on behalf of the 
 voter in opposition to the objection, on the ground 
 that, the lists having been closed, his application 
 to be heard was too late ; and he expunged the 
 voter's name from the list : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding the provisions of 
 the above-mentioned sections, the revising barris- 
 ter was justified in so doing. Eeg. ». Soden 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 188 
 
 146. — Closing list. Revising barrister — Parlia- 
 mentary, &C., Registration — 6 & 7 Vict. v. 18, 
 o. 41 ; 28 * 29 Vict. u. 36, ». 15. 
 
 A notice of the revision of the lists of parlia- 
 mentary and municipal electors for a borough 
 stated that the lists for a certain parliamentary 
 division of the borough would be closed at a 
 certain sitting of the Revision Court. At the 
 termination of that sitting the revising barrister, 
 having ascertained that there were no other 
 claimants or persons objected to present who 
 desired to be heard, declared the list closed. On 
 the following day he proceeded in open court to 
 read out and initial the names which he ex- 
 punged from or insei-ted in the list. Certain 
 claimants, on their names being thus read out, 
 applied for the first time to be heard in support 
 
( 1405 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 140G ) 
 
 FABLIAUENT (Eevising ^SLViistet)— continued. 
 of their claims. The revising barrister declined 
 to hear them on the ground that they were then 
 too late and expunged their names from the 
 list :— 
 
 Held, aflSrming the judgment of the Div. Ct , 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 499, that the claimants had under 
 the circumstances no right to heard. Keg. v. 
 SODBN - - C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 634 
 
 147. — Jurisdiotion — Parochial Eleetori' Lists 
 — Ownership and occupation claims — Parliamen- 
 tary and local government registration — Local 
 Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73)— 
 Begistration order, 1895 — Form^. 
 
 The Local Government Act, 1894, imposes 
 upon a revising barrister the duty of revising, in 
 counties, lists of persons entitled, in respect of 
 their ownership of property in a parish, to vote as 
 parochial electors only ; also lists of persons 
 claiming -to have their names entered on the 
 ownership part of the separate list of parochial 
 electors of the parish, and lists of persons 
 claiming to have their names entered on the 
 separate list of parochial electors in respect of 
 their occupation of property in the parish. Keg. 
 ,;. Nash - Div. Ct. [1900] 1 ft, B. 103 
 
 — Power to amend. 
 
 See Pabliament — Franchise. 27 — 36. 
 
 PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT. 
 
 See Cases under Kates. 
 
 PAEOCHIAI ELECTOE- Lists— Revising barris- 
 ter — Jurisdiotion. 
 
 See Cases under Pabliament — Eevising 
 Barrister. 
 
 — Registration of votera. 
 
 See Pabliament — Franchise. 102, 103. 
 
 " PAEOCHIAI PUEPOSE "—Application of fees. 
 See BuEiAL. 4. 
 
 PABSONAGE HOTTSE. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Parsonage 
 Honse. 
 
 PAETICULAES— Discovery. 
 
 See Discovery — Particulars. 
 
 — Election petition. 
 
 See Parliament — Election Petition, 
 12—15. 
 
 PAETIES, 
 
 See Pbactige — Parties. 
 
 PAETITION — Conversion — Practice — Partition 
 action — Beal estate of infant — Bequest — Order for 
 sale — Carrying over infant's share — Partition Act, 
 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 17), ». 6. 
 
 The judgment in a partition action, brought 
 by an infant as sole pit. by his next friend, 
 contained a request for sale by the pit., and, other 
 persons, defts., claiming to be entitled to the 
 entirety of the property, directed a sale, if the 
 parties other than the infant pit. were found en- 
 titled to a moiety, and reserved liberty to apply 
 for a, sale if it should appear that the defts. 
 were not so entitled ; the master having certified 
 that the defts. were entitled to a moiety, the pro- 
 perty was sold under the judgment without 
 further order. The infant having died before the 
 proceeds of sale were paid out of court : — 
 
 Seld, that there had been no conversion of 
 
 PAETITION— conh'nued. 
 
 the infant's share, and that it must be dealt with 
 
 as realty. 
 
 Semhle, the law laid duwn by Foster v. Foster, 
 (1875) 1 Ch. D. 588, still holds good, notwith- 
 standing the Partition Act, 1876, s. 6, and the 
 dicta of Jessel M.R. in Wallace v. Greenwood, 
 (1880) 16 Ch. D. 362. 
 
 Where an infant by a next friend is one of 
 several pits, by counsel requesting a sale, and 
 a sale is ordered upon this request, the proceeds 
 of the infant's share ought to be earmarked 
 as real estate. 
 
 Howard v. Jalland, [1891] "W. N. 210, ex- 
 amined and approved. In re Nobton. Nobton 
 V. Nobton 
 
 Byrne J, [1899] W, N, 216; [1900] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 2. — Conversion — Beal estate — Partition action 
 — Sale — Distribution — Payment to trustees having 
 power of sale — " Persons absolutely entitled " — 
 Partition Act, 1868 (31 * 32 Vict. c. 40), s. 8— 
 Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act, 1856 
 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 120), s. 23. 
 
 Real estate was sold in a partition action, and 
 under an order, made in 1877, a share of the 
 proceeds of sale was paid to the trustees of the 
 will of a testator who died possessed of the share. 
 The will gave a power of sale to the trustees, 
 but did not authorize them to invest in the pur- 
 chase of lands. One of the beneficiaries under 
 the will died intestate : — 
 
 Held, that his share devolved on his legal 
 personal representative and not on his heir. 
 
 In re Hohson's Trusts, 7 Ch. D. 708, has not 
 been overruled by In re Smith, (1888) 40 Ch. D. 
 386. In re Morgan. Smith v. May 
 
 Stirling J. [1900] W. N. 161 ; [1900] 2 Ch, 474 
 
 3. — Costs — Incumbered shares—Incumbrancers 
 — Separate sets of costs. 
 
 In a partition action only one set of costs can 
 be allowed for each share. If some of the shares 
 are incumbered, and some not, the incumbrancers 
 cannot each have a separate set of costs out of 
 the general estate, but each share must bear the 
 costs of its own incumbrances. Cattond. Banks 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 221 
 
 Followed by Chitty J. Ancell v. Ttolfe, [18961 
 W. N. 9 (8). See next Case. 
 
 4. — • Costs — Incumbered shares— One set of 
 costs for each share— Discretion of Court— Parti- 
 tion action. 
 
 In a partition action the chief clerk had 
 certified that the property was divisible into six 
 shares, two of which only were incumbered : 
 
 Held, on further consideration, that only one 
 set of costs in respect of each share ought to be 
 allowed. Catton v. Banhs, [1893] 2 Ch. 221, 
 followed on this point. The time for ascertaining 
 th e shares of the persons interested in the property 
 is the date of the chief clerk's certificate. The 
 Court has a general discretion as to the costs, 
 and as a rule will not allow parties representing 
 an incumbered share any additional costs incurred 
 by reason of such incumbrance, whicli, unlike a 
 settlement or assignment, creates no further sub- 
 division of a share. Ancell «. Bolpe 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] W. N. 9 (8) 
 
( 1407 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1408 ) 
 
 PARTITION— coniin«e(i. 
 
 5. — Improvements — Contribution — Mortgage 
 of sliare in moieties — Covenant for further assur- 
 ance. 
 
 A tenant for life of property and owner in fee 
 of a moiety of the property borrowed money on 
 mortgage, which witli other money was expended 
 in permanent improvements : — 
 
 Held, that the present value of the improve- 
 ments (not exceeding the amount of the mortgage) 
 mubt be boine rateably by both moieties. 
 
 A person absolutely entitled to me moiety of 
 an estate and contingently to the other moiety, 
 mortgaged both moieties, and subsequently sold 
 his contingent moiety for value. The conveyance 
 dill not mention the mortgage, but contaiued a 
 covenant for further assurame. In a pariition 
 action, lield, tliat the absolute moiety must bear 
 the mortgage debt, as the effect of the covtnart 
 for further assurance was to enable the covenantee 
 to call on the covenantor to pay off the mortgage. 
 In re Jones. Faerington v. Fokeestek 
 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 461 
 
 Applied by North J. In re Cook's Mortgage, 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 923, 925. 
 
 Keferred to by Stirling J. Sill v. Eiclin, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 579, 581. 
 
 See also Williams v. Williams, Kekewich J., 
 [1899] W. N. 66. 
 
 6. — Improvements — Permanent improvements 
 — Form of judgment — Practice. 
 
 Action by the teuaut for life of one moiety of 
 land agaiufit the owner in fee of the other moiety, 
 who was in occupation of the land, claiming a 
 declaration of title as to a moiety and possession. 
 The writ was now amended by claiming partition, 
 or sale and distribution of the proceeds. It was 
 stated that the deft, had erected buildings 
 and effected permanent improvements and repairs 
 on the land. There were several other similar 
 actions relating to other properties in which im- 
 provements had been in like manner effected by 
 the defts. or their predecessors in title. 
 
 It was now proposed that, in lieu of the form 
 of inquuy given in Seton on Judgments, 5th ed. 
 vol. ii. p. 1565, Form No. 10, the judgments in 
 the several actions should respectively contain, 
 mutatis mutandis, an account and inquiry as 
 follows : '• An account of the moneys, if any, 
 expended by the deft, [or his predecessors in 
 title] in permanent improvements to the said 
 hereditaments since November 18, 1898" (the 
 date of the conveyance under which the title of 
 the parties was derived), " and an inquiry as to 
 the extent to which the present value of such 
 hereditaments has been increased by such expen- 
 diture." The words in square brackets were to 
 be inserted in cases where title was derived 
 through a person who made the expenditure. 
 
 Kekewich J., referring to In re Cook's Mort- 
 gage, Lawledge v. Tyndall, [1896] 1 Ch. 923, 
 said that he had himself made many orders 
 according to the form in Seton ; but, in view of 
 the recent authorities, the form now proposed 
 appeared to be preferable in the present case, 
 and the judgment would, accordingly, go in that 
 form. Williams v. Williams - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 66 
 
 PAETITION — continue. 
 
 — Infant — Practice — Partition action — Eeal 
 
 estate of infant — Bequest — Order for sale 
 
 — Conversion — Carrying over infant's 
 
 share. 
 
 See No. 1, above. 
 
 7. — Infant — Sale — Request iy infant — Con- 
 version — Supreme Court Fund Rules, 1886, r. 21. 
 
 The mere request by solicitors or counsel for 
 an infant does not operate as an election by the 
 infant to fake as personalty. The funds, there- 
 fore, to be carried over must be stated to be real 
 estate as required by rule 21 of the Supreme 
 Court Fund Eules, 1886. Howabd r. Jallakd 
 Kekewich 3. [1891] W. N. 210 
 
 Examined aud approved of by Byrne J. 
 In re Norton, [1900] 1 Ch. 101. See No. 1, above. 
 
 8. — Infants entitled to one undivided third — 
 Form of judgment — Partition action — Practice. 
 
 Form of judgment in action for sale in lieu 
 of partition, where infant pits, are entitled to 
 one undivided third, declaring infants, in event 
 of a sale taking place, to be trustees for the 
 purchaser, and directing conveyance by next 
 friend. Davis v. Ingbam 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 477 
 
 9. — Lunatic out of jurisdiction — Conveyance 
 —Partition Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 40), «. 7— 
 Vesting order — Trustee Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict 
 c. 60), ss. 9, 20, 30. 
 
 In a partition action one of the defts., the 
 tenant in tail of an undivided share, was a lunatic 
 out of the jurisdiction : — 
 
 Held, that the lunatic was a trustee of the 
 share, and that under s. 9 of the Trustee Act, 
 1850, there was power to make a vesting order. 
 The Court, under s. 20 of the Act, appointed the 
 chief clerk a person to convey the lunatic's- 
 undivided share, and ordered the purchase- 
 money of that share to be paid into court as- 
 money liable to be invested in. land subject to- 
 the same limitations as the lunatic's undivided 
 share. Caswblls v. Sheen 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 18T 
 
 10. — Mortgage — Equitable mortgage of share 
 -—Priority as between mortgagee not having gone 
 into possession and co owners of mortgagor. 
 
 A., who was entitled to a share of the proceeds- 
 of property which had been sold in a partition 
 action, had created an equitable charge thereon 
 in favour of B. A., who had been in possession 
 and in receipt of the rents of part of the pro- 
 perty, had retained more than his share of such 
 rents : — 
 
 Held, that the rents received by A. in excess 
 of his share must be brought into account a» 
 between him and his co-ownere, in priority to B., 
 who, not having gone into possession, as he might 
 have done, could not be in a better position than 
 A., his mortgagor. Heckles v. Heoixbs 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] W. N. 188 
 
 Commented on by Stirling J. Hill v. Hickin, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 579. 
 
 — Mortgage — Set-off of occupation rent ce 
 against mortgagee of his share. 
 
 ■J'ee No. \f>, below. 
 
( 1409 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1410 ) 
 
 P AETITION— continued. 
 
 — Mortgage of share in moieties — Covenant for 
 
 furtlier assurance. 
 
 See No. 5, above. 
 
 11. — Parties — Partition action — . 
 Dismissal as against mortgagees. 
 
 To an action for partition brought by the 
 owner of (he equity of redemption of an undivided 
 ■share of land subject to mortgages affecting the 
 ■whole, and the plt.'s mortgagee and the over- 
 riding mortgagees were made parties. On a 
 motion to dismiss the action as against the mort- 
 gagees as disclosing no reasonable cause of 
 action : — 
 
 Meld, that they had been wrongly joined, not 
 being necessary or proper parties to a partition 
 action. Sinclair v. James 
 
 North J. [1834] 3 Ch. 554 
 
 12. — Party wall — Trespass — Mandatory in- 
 junction. 
 
 Notwithstanding the abolition of the writ of 
 partition, a tenant in common is entitled as of 
 right to a partition of the common property sub- 
 ject to the provisions for sale contained in the 
 Partition Act, 1868. A party wall held in cim- 
 mon separated the gardens of the pits, and deft. 
 The pits, pulled down part of tlie wall and re- 
 built it as part of an addition to their house, with 
 conerite foundations and footings extending 
 furihcr into the property of tlie deft, than the 
 ori<;iiml foundation. At the height of the old 
 •wall they set back the new wall half the thickness 
 ■of the iifd wall : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled to a parti- 
 tion of the wall vertically and' longitudinally. 
 A mandatory injunction against permitting the 
 foundation and footings to remain on deft.'s land 
 refused. Mayfaik Pkoperty Co. v. Johnstot 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch, 608 
 
 See .Tohnston v. May fair Property Co., North J. 
 [1893] W. N. 73. 
 
 13. — ■ Sale — Power to give receipts. 
 Trustees under the Acts can give a good 
 
 receipt for purchase-money of land sold in a 
 partition action. Pyne v. Phillips 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 8 
 
 14. — Sale — Set-off — Interest — Partition Act, 
 1868 (31 & 32 Viet. e. 40), s. 6. 
 
 In a partition action real estate was sold in 
 lots with liberty to the co-owners to bid. One 
 of them bought certain lots and was allowed to 
 set off part of the purchase-money against his 
 share of the funds : — 
 
 Held, that he should neither gain nor lose by 
 the transaction. Ordered that he should pay 
 such interest as the purchase-money would have 
 earned if paid into court, i.e., 3 per cent. In re 
 Dbacdp. Field v. Deaoup 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 69 
 
 15. — Sale — Set-off as against mortgagee of 
 7ws share — Occupation rent due. from oneof several 
 co-owners. 
 
 In a partition action where it had been certi- 
 fied by the master that a certain sum was due 
 from H., a co-owner of the property forming the 
 eubjeot of the action, in resjiect of occupation 
 
 PARTITION— oOH<(HMe(f. 
 
 rent (he not having been tenant of hia co- 
 owners) ; — 
 
 Held, upon a sale of the property, that the 
 sum 60 certified could not be set off as against a 
 mortgagee of H.'s share, though it might have 
 been set off against him personally, 
 
 Hecldes v. HecMes, [1892] W. N. 188, com- 
 mented on. Hill v. Hickik 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 679 
 — Solicitors, Change of — Lieu — Partition action. 
 See Solicitor — lien. 98. 
 
 PAETNESSHIP. 
 
 Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. v. 39), 
 declares and amends the law of partnership. 
 Generullij, col. 1410. 
 Accountants, col. 1411. 
 Accounts, col. 1411. 
 Arbitration, col. 1413. 
 Bankruptcy, see BANKRUPrcT— Partnsr- 
 
 ship. 
 Contracts, col. 1414. 
 Dissolution, col. 1415. 
 Goodwill, col. 1417. 
 Infants, col. 1420. 
 Liabilities, col. 1420. 
 Mortgages, col. 1423. 
 Practice, col. 1423. 
 Seceiver, col. 1424. 
 Sale, col. 1424. 
 
 Generally, 
 
 — Allegation of partnership — Contract — ^Result- 
 
 ing trust — Part performance. 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 15. 
 
 — Bankruptcy — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy — PractioB, 
 
 — Company — Application by firm. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up— Contribu- 
 tory, 42. 
 
 1. — Fiduciary capacity — Debtors Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 4, sub-s. 3. 
 
 A partner receiving money on account of 
 himself and partner does not receive it in a 
 fiduciary capacity within s. 4, sub-s. 3, of the 
 Debtors Act, 1869. Piddooke v. Bort 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 — Lunatic partner. 
 
 See Injunction. 80. 
 
 — Proof—" Share of profits "— " Loan." 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 180. 
 
 2. — Real estate — Conversion. 
 
 Principles regulating the devolution of land 
 
 held for a partnership or other common object 
 
 discussed. In re Wilson. Wilson v. Hollow ay 
 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch, 340 
 
 — Solicitors. 
 
 See Solicitor— Partnership, 
 
 Stamps — Contract note— Penalties for insuffi- 
 cient stamping. 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 172. 
 
 — Stamps — Transfer of property. 
 
 S'e Hevenve— Etimpa. 159. 
 
 2 Z 
 
( 1«1 ) 
 
 DKiEST OF CASES, 1891— 19IJII. 
 
 ( 141-2 ) 
 
 PARTNERSHIP (Generally) — continued. 
 
 — Trade-marks — Application hy partners for 
 
 separate registration of identical marks 
 
 used by old firm. 
 
 See Trade-makk — Registration. .i3. 
 
 Accountants. 
 
 3. — Eetiring partner — Audit — Stoch-iahing 
 — "Costs, charges, and expenses" — Trustee — 
 Administration — Capital and income. 
 
 A partner, on retiring from his firm, left liis 
 capital, 15,000i., in the business under an agree- 
 ment -with the continuing partners that it shouhl 
 be a debt due from them to him and bearing 
 interest until repayment. The agreement con- 
 tained a stipulation that the outgoing partner 
 should have free access to the books at all times, 
 and various provisions intended to satisfy the 
 outgoing partner from time to time of tlie sol- 
 vency of the business ; upon breach of any one 
 of these provisions he was to be at liberty to call 
 in his capital. The outgoing partner subse- 
 quently died, having by his will bequeathed his 
 residuary estate, which included his capital in 
 the business, to a trustee upon trusts for one for 
 life and for others in remainder : — 
 
 Held, that the trustee was at liberty to employ 
 accountants and valuers for an audit and stock- 
 taking once a year if desired, or oftener if special 
 circumstances so required ; and that the expenses 
 thereof were costs, charges, and expenses pro- 
 perly incurred by the trustee in the execution of 
 the trusts of the will and for the benefit of the 
 whole estate, and were therefore payable out of 
 capital and not out of income. In re Bennett. 
 Jones v. Bennett - C. A. [1896] I Ch. 778 
 
 Accounts. 
 
 4. — Betting — Accounts — Illegal business — 
 Booltmaliing and betting — Intention of partners — 
 User of "place" for purpose of betting — Account, 
 Action for— Betting Act, 1853 (16 <t 17 Viet. e. 
 119), s. 3. 
 
 The fact that one partner has been guilty of 
 illegal acts in the conduct of the partnership 
 business is no defence to an action for account 
 by the other partner, where the objects of the 
 partnership were not illegal, and the innocent 
 partner at the time of entering iuto the partner- 
 ship intended that it should be carried on law- 
 fully. The pit. and deft, were partners in a 
 bookmaker's and betting business, which was 
 carried on by the deft. ; the pit. claimed an 
 account of the profits of the partnership, and 
 the deft, contended that, having regard to the 
 nature of the business, no such relief could be 
 obtained : — 
 
 Held, that as a, bookmaking and betting 
 business could be carried on without contravening 
 the Betting Act, 1853, and that as the pit. when 
 he entered into this partnership contemplated 
 that the business would be so carried on in the 
 usual "way, the fact that the deft, had acted 
 illegally was immaterial, and the pit. was entitled 
 to the account claimed. Thwaiteb v. Coul- 
 THWAiTE - - Chitty J. [1896] 1 Ch. 496 
 
 Referred to bv Biv. Ct. Hatvlte v. Dunn, 
 
 ri!<9T] 1 Q. B. 570, .509. 
 
 PARTNERSHIP (Accounts) — continued. 
 
 5. — Betting — Agreement to share profits in 
 betting transaction — Bight to account of winnings 
 — Principal and agent. 
 
 Where A. and B. entered into a partnership 
 to share profits of betting on races, and A. 
 advanced money for the purpose of the partner- 
 ship : — 
 
 Held, that as B. had received money on 
 account of A. and the betting part of the trans- 
 aotion was purely collateral, A. was entitled to 
 have an account. Habvet r. Habt 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 72 
 
 — Bets paid by one partner — Claim for coutribn- 
 tion — Gambling partnership. 
 
 See GA3imG. 9. 
 
 6. — Death of partner before actual tahing of 
 account. 
 
 A partner died ten days after the termination 
 of the partnership year 1890-1, and before the 
 account for that year was taken : — 
 
 Held, on the construction of the articles, that 
 the rights of the parties were governed by an 
 account to be taken for that year, and not by the 
 signed accounts for 1889-90. 
 
 Decision of Eomer J., [1893] 1 Ch. 391, 
 affirmed. Hcnteb v. Bowling ^Xo. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 212 
 
 7. — Death of partner before actual talcing or 
 signing of account — Goodwill. 
 
 A partner died after the termination of a 
 partnership year, but before the taking of the 
 account for that year. At the date of his death 
 negotiations were on foot for the sale of lease- 
 holds and plant belonging to the partnership to 
 a ry. co., which ultimately resulted in a sale. 
 The price included a sum for goodwill : — 
 
 Held, that the deceased partner's share 
 included an apportioned part of the price of the 
 leaseholds and plant, but no part of the price of 
 the goodwill. Hunter r. Bowling (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1895] 2 Ch. 223 
 
 8. — Mortgage of share — Sale of share — Bights 
 of mortgagee — Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. 0. 39), s. 31, sub-ss. 1, 2. 
 
 Action by a mortgagee of a share in a partner- 
 ship to enforce his security on dissolution. 
 
 By indenture dated Sept. 12. 1899, made be- 
 tween the partners, reciting that the accounts to 
 Juue 30, 1899, had been made up and approved 
 by the partners, the partnership was dissolved 
 as from June 30, 1899, and the mortgagor con- 
 veyed his share to D. for the sum of 500J, 
 agreed on for the purchase thereof, B. covenant- 
 ing to discharge the outstanding liabilities. 
 
 Held, that sub-s. 1 of s. 31, which bound the 
 mortgagee to accept accounts of profits agreed 
 during the continuance of the partnership, did 
 not apply to the case of a sale of the mortgagor's 
 share. To hold otherwise would he tantamount 
 to striking out sub-s. 2, as it would allow the 
 partners to say that the mortgagee was not 
 entitled to an account to ascertain the mort- 
 gagor's share on dissolution because the 
 mortgagor had agreed to take a certain sum for 
 his share. The pit. was not bound by the sale, 
 but was entitl'.-d to ;t charce on the share as 
 
( 1413 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1414 ) 
 
 PARXNEESHIP (Accounts)— co»«4»«e(Z. 
 ascertained by the account at the date of dis- 
 solution, and to an account from that date. 
 
 Decision of Farwell J., [1900J W. N. 77, 
 affirmed. Watts v. Dmsooll [1900] W. N. 261 
 
 Arbitration. 
 
 9' — Agreement to refer — Power to expel 
 partner — Validity of notice — Bona fides — Notice 
 of dissolution — Motion to stay proceedings — Arbi- 
 tration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 4. 
 
 Articles of partnership provided that a partner 
 might be expelled for breach of certain acts 
 therein specified, and that if any question should 
 arise whether a case had happened to authorize 
 the exercise of this power, such question should 
 be referred to arbitration. The defts. served a 
 notice on the pit. to determine the partnership 
 on the ground that he had committed a breach 
 within the expulsion clause, but gave no details 
 of the particular act complained of; the pit. 
 thereupon brought an action to restrain the 
 defts, from acting on this notice; the defts. 
 moved to stay proceedings and refer all matters 
 in dispute to arbitration ; — 
 
 Held, that the preliminary question whether 
 or not the notice of expulsion was valid was one 
 more suitable for decision by the Court than by 
 an arbitrator, and that as there was a suggestion 
 of a fraudulent exercise of the power of expul- 
 sion, the Conrt, in the exercise of its discretion, 
 ought not to stay proceedings and enforce a 
 reference. 
 
 A partner is not entitled to spring a notice of 
 dissolution on his co-partner without giving him 
 some preliminary warning of the cause of com- 
 plaint, and an opportunity of meeting the case 
 alleged against him. Barnes v. Youngs 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 414 
 
 10. — Arbitration clause. 
 
 The question whether there ought to be a 
 dissolution of partnership cannot be referred to 
 arbitration, although it be one of the questions 
 which were intended to come within the arbitra- 
 tion clause in the partnership articles. Tuenell 
 V. Sanderson - Kekewioh J. [1891] W, N. 71 
 
 11. — Arbitration clause — Action for dissolution 
 — Motion to stay proceedings — Form of order. 
 
 By articles of partnership between the pit. 
 and the defts. it was provided that " all matters 
 in difference in relation to the partnership 
 affairs " should be referred to arbitration. Dis- 
 putes arose between the partners of such a 
 character as to render the continuance of the 
 partnership difficult, and this action was brought 
 for the dissolution of the partnership. The defts. 
 moved for a stay of proceedings and reference to 
 arbitration, and the pit. moved for the appoint- 
 ment of a receiver : — 
 
 Held, that the Court ought to put a broad 
 construction on the terms of this arbitration 
 clause and to hold that the question whether 
 there ought to be a dissolution was covered by 
 it, as being one of the affairs of the partnership. 
 As to the form of the order, it was to be observed 
 that Chitty J. in Vawdrey v. Simpson, [1896] 
 1 Ch. 166, was reported to have said that he 
 referred the matters in dispute to arb:tr.ition in 
 accordance with the submission, but nevertheless 
 
 PARTNERSHIP (Arbitration) — continued. 
 the mandatory part of the order was in the simple 
 form. That form would therefore be followed, 
 but, inasmuch as the Court did not now think fit 
 to appoint a receiver, though it might think tit 
 to do BO at a later stage, the order would be 
 expressed to be without prejudice to the motion 
 for a receiver. Machin v. Bennett 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1900] W. N. 146 
 
 13. — Arbitration clause — Receiver. 
 
 The mere fact of dissolution of a parlnership- 
 does not give one partner an absolute right, as 
 against his co-partners, to have u receiver 
 appointed of the partnership business ; nor, on 
 the other hand, is the jurisdiction of the Court 
 to appoint a receiver ousted by an arbitration 
 clause, but where there is such a clause the 
 Court may appoint a receiver and stay all pro- 
 ceedings in an action for dissolution. PiNi v. 
 EoNOOEONi - - Stirling J. [1892] 1 Ch. 633 
 
 13. — Arbitration clause — Return of premium 
 — Motion to stay. 
 
 Articles of partnership provided for arbitra- 
 tion in case of difference between the partners. 
 In an action for dissolution, one of the partners 
 claimed the return of premium paid by him. 
 The deft, moved for stay of proceedings and 
 reference to arbitration. The pit. objected that 
 the arbitrator would be unable to determine 
 whether the premiums should be refunded : — 
 
 Held, that the arbitrator would have power 
 under a reference to award dissolution, including, ' 
 if necessary, return of premiums, and that pro- 
 ceedings should be stayed and the matters in 
 dispute referred to arbitration. Belfield v. 
 BouENE - Stirling J. [1894] 1 Ch. 521 
 
 See Machin v. Bennett, Kekewich J. [1900] 
 W. N. 146, No. 11, abooe. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 See BANKECPTOir — Partnership. 
 
 Contracts. 
 
 14. — Contract of service — Exclusive right to 
 services. 
 
 The analogy between directors and partners 
 is incomplete, and the same director may act for 
 two rival cos., though he may not disclose to one 
 information confidentially obtained from the 
 other. London and Mashonaland Exploea- 
 TioN Co. V. New Mashonaland Exploration Co. 
 Chitty J. [1891] W.N. 168 
 
 16. — Death of partner — Contract with — 
 Partnership — Contract with — Death of partner — 
 When contract terminated by. 
 
 A partnership, consisting of the defts. and 
 another person, carried on the business of music- 
 hall proprietors under the name of the A. Co. 
 The pits., a troupe of music-hall performers, 
 entered into a contract with the A. Co. to give 
 certain performances at the oo.'s music-hall. The 
 pits, had no knowledge of the persons of whom 
 the CO. consisted. After the making of the con- 
 tract and before the time for performance arrived 
 the deft.'s partner died : — 
 
 Held, that the contract was not of such a 
 personal character on the part of the partnership 
 
 2 Z 2 
 
( HI. 5 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, ISyj— 1900. 
 
 ( 1416 ) 
 
 FABTNEBSHIF (Contiacts)— continued. 
 fta to be put an end to by the death of the 
 di-ccaeed partner, and that it could be enforced 
 ftgaiiiBt tlie defts., the surviving partners. 
 Phillips v. Alhambra Palace Co. 
 Div. Ct. C190ttJ W. N. 253 ; see [1901] 1 ft. B. 59 
 
 16. — Loan in consideration of share nf profits 
 — Contract not in writing — Postponement to other 
 creditors in hankruptcy — Partnership Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), s. 2, suh-s. 3 (d), s. 3. 
 
 The rights of a person who advances money 
 by way of loan to another engaged in business, 
 oil a contract that the lender shall share in the 
 )irofits of the business, are postponed under s. 3 
 of the Partnership Act, 1890, in case the person 
 to whom the money has been advanced is adjudged 
 a bankrupt, until the claims of the other credi- 
 tors have been satisfied, whether the contract to 
 advance the money be oral or in writing. In re 
 FoKT. Ex parte Schofield 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 495 
 
 17. — Option cf purchase — Application of 
 provisions in articles to partnership at will. 
 
 Articles of partnership gave A., one of the 
 partners, an option of purchase on the determina- 
 tion of the term by effluxion of time. The term 
 luiving expired the business was continued as a 
 partnership at will : 
 
 Held, that on the dissolution of the partnership 
 tha provisions of the original articles applied and 
 (liat A. was entitled to purchase. Daw v. 
 Hereinq Stirling J. [1892] 1 Ch. 284 
 
 — Quasi-partnership — Loan — Interest varying 
 with profits — Bankruptcy. 
 See Bankruptcy — Partnership. 138. 
 
 18. — Receipt of share of profits — Implied 
 agreement for partnership — Land employed in 
 husiness — Conversion — Partnership Act, 1890 
 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 39), s 20. 
 
 Under the Partnership Act, 1890, as before 
 (lie Act, though the receipt of a share of profits 
 of, a business is prima facie evidence of partner- 
 nliip, yet all the circumstances must be regarded, 
 x^nd an inference drawn from them as a whole. 
 
 Partners borrowed money on the security of 
 freeholds of which they were tenants in common, 
 and expended the money in improving part of 
 the freehold in which the business was carried 
 on ; — 
 
 Held, that s. 20 (3) of the Act applied, and 
 that none of the freehold had become partner- 
 .f-liip property so as to descend as personalty. 
 X)AYis V. Davis - North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 393 
 
 Dissolution. 
 
 19. — Agent — Effect on contract to employ 
 <igent. 
 
 A partnership agreed to employ B. as their 
 agent for a fixed period. Before the period 
 f xpired two of the partners retired. The con- 
 tinuing partners ofiered to employ B. on the 
 fiutne terms for the remainder of the period. 
 B. refused : — 
 
 Held, that the dissolulion operated as a 
 
 v.-rongful dismissal of B., but that he was only 
 
 cijtitled to nominal damages. Brace v. Calder 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 253 
 
 FABTNEBSHIF (Dissolution) — cmtinued. 
 
 — Arbitration. 
 
 See Cases under Partnership — Arbitra- 
 tion. 
 
 20. — Assets, Application of — Costs — Partner- 
 ship action — DeJit from partnership to one of the 
 partners — Priority. 
 
 In a partnership action the partnership assets 
 consisted of a fund in court : — 
 
 Held, that the fund should be applied first in 
 paying a debt due to one partner on loan account, 
 then in placing the partuers on a footing of 
 equality as regarded capital, that the surplus 
 should be applied in payment of the costs of the 
 action, and that the rest of the costs should be 
 borne by the partners in proportion to their 
 interests. Boss v. White C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 326 
 
 — Bankruptcy of partners. 
 
 See Cases under Bankecptcy— Partner- 
 ship. 
 
 21. — Date — Partnership at will — Action for 
 dissolution — Date of issue or of service of writ. 
 
 In an action claiming a declaration of the 
 date of the dissolution of a partnership at will 
 between the pit. and the deft., and to have an 
 account taken of the partnership dealings, and 
 the affairs of the partnership wound up by the 
 Court : — 
 
 Held, that the partnership had been dissolved 
 as from October 19 (the date of the service of the 
 writ) and not from October 18 (the date of the 
 issue of the writ). Vide Shepherd v. AUen, 
 (1864) 83 Beav. 577. Unswohth v. Jordan 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 2 (5) 
 
 22. — ■ Death of partner — Bemurteration of 
 surviving partner for carrying oft business at a 
 loss. 
 
 A partner who carries on a business after 
 dissolution of the partnership by the death of a 
 partner with the concurrence of the executors of 
 the deceased partner and for the benefit of the 
 firm, is not entitled to any remuneration for his 
 services unless the business has been carried on 
 at a profit. In re Aldridge, Aldkidge v. 
 Aldridge North J. [1894] 2 Ch. 97 
 
 — Deceased partner — ^Administration of estate of 
 
 — Lex fori. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 13. 
 
 — Deceased partner's share — Option of purchase. 
 
 See Contract — Time. 35. 
 
 — Examination of witnesses abroad — Letters of 
 
 request. 
 
 See Evidence. 27. 
 
 — Goodwill. 
 
 See Partnership — Goodwill. 
 
 23. — Joint creditor — Bankruptcy of all 
 partners. 
 
 After dissolution one partner brought a 
 partnership action, and a receiver and manager 
 was appointed. A judgment creditor of the firm 
 obtained on April 4 an order for the receiver to 
 pay him his debt and costs. On April 5 all the 
 partners were adjudicated bankrupt, but there 
 was no joint adjudication against the firm. In 
 drawing up the order the registrar dated the 
 same May 16, to let in an affidavit of the latter 
 fact : — 
 
 Hdd, that the judgment creditor was not 
 
( 1«7 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( H18 ) 
 
 PARTNERSHIP (Dissolution)— conMnuccZ. 
 entitled to an order for payment of his debt and 
 costs, as the interest of each partner had vested 
 in his trustee in bankruptcy before May 16, and 
 because he had acquiesced in the post-dating of 
 the order. Mitchell v. Weise. Ex parte 
 Feiedheim - - CMtty J. [1892] W. N. 139 
 
 24. — Name — Bight to use of name of old firm 
 — Solicitor's business. 
 
 Upon the dissolution of a partnership, without 
 any sale or assignment of the goodwill of the 
 business, and without any provision as to the use 
 of the firm name, each of the partners is entitled 
 to carry on business under that name, provided 
 that he does not by so doing expose his former 
 partners to any risk of liability. 
 
 Whether there ^\ill be any such lisk is u. 
 matter to be determined having regard to the 
 circumstances of each case. 
 
 Pits, claimed the exclusive right to use the 
 name " Burchell " or " Burchells," and to restrain 
 defts. from using either of those names iu any 
 way as part of their firm name : — 
 
 Held, by Byrne J., [1900] W. N. 29, on motion 
 for an injunction, that the right to the injunction 
 depended upon pits, establishing that any use 
 of the word " Burchell " as part of the name of 
 defts.' firm would expose pits, to riok of liability, 
 and, the Court not being satisfied that either of 
 the pits, would be under any tangible risk of 
 liability if defts. .were (as they said they were 
 willing to do) to practise as " Burchell, Wilde & 
 Co.," especially if pits, were to use a style carry- 
 ing their initials, or were to take the name of 
 "Burchells & Burchell," made no order on the 
 motion : 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that, subject to the above 
 limitation, the defts. were entitled to use the 
 name "Burchell & Co.," though it would be 
 more satisfactory if they would undertake to 
 continue to use (as they had done since the 
 hearing by Byrne J.) the name "Burchell, 
 Wilde & Co." 
 
 Gray v. Smilh, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 208, dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 The case of Banlts v. Gibson, (1865) 34 Beav. 
 
 566, must be read subject to the qualification 
 
 that the use of the old name must not expose the 
 
 other partners to liability. Bukohell v. Wilde 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 63 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 561 
 
 — Partnership debt — Retirement of partner. 
 
 See Pkincipal and Surety — Discharge. 
 12. 
 
 — Proof— Loan to firm on terms of sharing profits 
 
 — Subsequent advances — Postponement 
 
 — Dissolution of firm. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy— Proof. 178. 
 
 Goodwill. 
 
 28. — Canvassing old customers — Injunction — 
 Dissolution — Action for — Compromise — Sale of 
 business to erne partner — " Assets." 
 
 A. and B. had formerly carried on business in 
 partnership, and B. had brought an action for 
 rescission of the partnership on the giound of 
 misrepresentations by A. This action was com- 
 promised on the term3 that judgment should be 
 entered for B. for 12003. the partnership to be 
 dissolved, A. retaining the " assets." 'i'he good- 
 
 FARTNERSHIF (Goodwill)— continaed. 
 
 will was not specifically mentioned in the terms 
 of the compromise. A. subsequently brought 
 another action to restrain B. from canvassing the 
 customers of the old firm. Upon motion for au 
 interlocutory injunction : — 
 
 Held, that the relationship of vendor and 
 purchaser existed between the parties, that B. 
 was subject to the ordinary obligations of a 
 vendor, and that consequently, upon the autho- 
 rity of Tngo v. Hunt, [1896] A. C. 7, A. was 
 entitled to an injunction. 
 
 Gray v. Smith, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 208, and 
 Pearson v. Pearson, (1884) 27 Oh. D. 145, 
 cousiilercd. Jennings v. Jennings 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 1 Ch, 378 
 
 Referred to by Eomer J. In re David ami 
 Mattheios, [1899] 1 Ch. 378, 381. 
 
 26. - — Canvassing old customers — Soliciting 
 customers — Sale of business. 
 
 One of two partners bought out the other 
 under their articles. The articles provided that 
 the outgoing partner might set up » similar 
 business in the neighbourhood : — 
 
 Held, that tlie proviso was merely declaratory, 
 and did not authorize solicitation of old customers. 
 Gillingham v. Beddow 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 113 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch, 243 
 
 27. — Death of one partner — -Sale of business 
 to surviving partner — " Effects and securities" 
 — Carrying on business under style of old firm — 
 Canvassing old customers — Appraiser — Partner- 
 ship articles. 
 
 The law with regard to the disposal of good- 
 will on the dissolution of a partnership, and as to 
 surviving or continuing partners' right to set up 
 a rival business, discussed and explained. 
 
 L. and D. formerly carried on business as co- 
 partners under the style of L. & D. On the 
 death of L. in 1876 D. and M. entered into 
 partnership under articles whereby it was pro- 
 vided that the style of the firm should be the 
 same as before — ^namely, L. & D. ; and (amongst 
 other things) that " in case of the death of one of 
 the partners a general account of the position 
 shall be made, including all effects and securities 
 of whatsoever nature that they possess, and the 
 value of such effects and securities be esti- 
 mated as at the date of such decease." There 
 was also a provision for the appointment of an 
 appraiser. 
 
 The partnership expired by the death of D. 
 in 1896, whereupon an appraiser was agreed 
 upon between D.'s personal representative and 
 M., who subsequently appointed the same person 
 arbitrator. 
 
 Questions arose before the arbitrator whether 
 he ought to consider the question of goodwill 
 and set a value thereon, and whether in con- 
 sidering the goodwill he should appraise the 
 value thereof on the footing that, if it were sold, 
 M. would be at liberty to carry on a rival business, 
 but without any right to solicit customers of the 
 old firm, and whether or not under the name of 
 L. & D. The arbitrator stated a special case for 
 the opinion of the Court in accordance with s. 19 
 of the Arbitration Act, 1889 : — 
 
 Held, that the arbitrator ought to oonsiiler 
 
( 1-119 ) 
 
 DKiEbT OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1120 ) 
 
 PARTNEESHIP (Goodwill)— conitHued. 
 the question of goodwill (if any), and to set such 
 a value upon it as he might consider to have 
 been attached to the business at the deatli of D., 
 and that the value (if any) of the goodwill ought 
 to be appraised on the footing that, if it were 
 sold, the surviving partner would be at liberty to 
 carry on a rival business, but would not have the 
 right to solicit any person who was a customer 
 of the old firm prior to the death of D., or the 
 riglit to carry on business under the name of 
 L. & D. In re David ajjd Matthews 
 
 Eomer J. [1899] 1 Ch. 378 
 
 28. — " Goodvnll " — Sale of — Canvassing old 
 customers. 
 
 Where the goodwill of a business is sold 
 (without further provision), the vendor may set 
 up a rival business, but he is not entitled to 
 canvass the customers of the old firm, and may be 
 restrained by injunction fiom soliciting any person 
 who was a customer of the old firm prior to the 
 sale to continue to deal witli the vendor, or not 
 to deal witli the purchaser. 
 
 The same principle is applicable to t1:e case 
 where a person has been taken into partnership 
 on the terms that on the expiration of the 
 partnership the goodwill of the business shall 
 belong solely to the other partner. 
 
 Lahmchere v. Dawson, (1872) L. E. 13 Eq. 322, 
 approved. 
 
 The reasoning in Pearson v. Pearson, (1884) 
 27 Ch. D. 145, overruled. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 1 Ch. 462, reversed, 
 and an injunction granted on the principle above 
 stated. Tkego i: Hunt 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 7 
 
 Applied by Stirling J. Jennings v. Jennings, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 378. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. West London Syndicate 
 V. Inland Revenue, [1898] 2 Q. B. 507, 523. 
 
 Referred to by Eomer J. In re David and 
 Matthews, [1899] 1 Ch. 378, 384. 
 
 Referred to by Cozens-Hardy J. Gillingliam 
 V, Beddow, [1900] 2 Ch. 242, 244. > 
 
 29. — Partner's covenant — Restriction against 
 trading — Assignment of goodwill — Benefit of cove- 
 nant — Firm name — No express assignment — 
 Vendor and purchaser — Conveyance of freehold 
 shop — Vendor's name over door — Vendor's right to 
 erasure. 
 
 The benefit of u, partner's covenant not to 
 c.irry on a similar business to that of the partner- 
 ship during a fixed period from the commence- 
 jiient thereof passes l)y an assignment of the 
 ijoodwill of the partnership. 
 
 Jacohy v. Whitmore, (1883) 49 L. T. 335, 
 applied. 
 
 Unless the right to u»e the firm name is 
 exp]-es3ly assigned, the assignee of the goodwill 
 must not use the name so as to expose any partner 
 to liability. 
 
 Senible, if the firm name merely consists of the 
 surname of a partner with the addition of the 
 words "& Co.," and the partner has not used 
 the firm name as his own except in connection 
 with the firm, there is no appreciable risk that 
 lis user will expose him to liability. 
 
 Burchell v. Wilde, [1900] 1 Ch. 551, applied. 
 
 PAETNEESHIP (Goodwill) — continued. 
 
 A purehiiser bought a freehold shop with the 
 vendor's name carved thereon, but did not use 
 the name in his business : — 
 
 Held, that the vendor could not compel him 
 
 to erase it. Townsend v. Jarman - Farwell J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 172 ; [1900] 2 Oh. 698 
 
 Infants, 
 
 30. — Infant partner — .Judgment debt. 
 
 (a) Judgment can be obtained and execution 
 against the partnership property issued in the 
 case of a firm one of the partners of which is an 
 infant. Habeis v. Beauohamp Brothers 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 534 
 
 (e) Wliere one partner in a firm is an infant, 
 judgment cannot be recovered or execution issued 
 or bankruptcy proceedings taken agaiast the 
 firm simply, but recovery, &c., may be had 
 against the firm " other than the infant partner." 
 LovELL & Christmas r. Beavchamp 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 607 
 
 Liabilities. 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Cases under Ba^"khuptot — Partner- 
 ship. 
 
 31. — Breach of trust by co-partner — A"e<7- 
 ligence. 
 
 Money was entrusted to a firm of solicitors for 
 investment : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the firm was liable for breach 
 of trust committed by a partner in lending trust 
 money of a client on improper security ; (2) that 
 the liability extended to the estate of a deceased 
 partner ; (3) that judgment recovered from one 
 partner did not discharge the liability of the 
 others. Blyth v. Eladsate. Morgan v. Blyth. 
 Smith v. Blyth Stirling J. [1891] 1 Ch. 337 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Turner, [1897] 
 1 Ch. 536, 541. 
 
 32. — Death of one partner — Transactions 
 subsequent to death — Liability of estate of deceased 
 partner — " Debts or obligations " — Contract of 
 agency — Partnership Act, 1890 (53 it- 54 Vict. c. 39), 
 s. 9 — Statute of limitations — Principal and agent 
 — Fiduciary relation — Payment on account — Ajj- 
 propriaiion by creditor to statute-barred items. 
 
 Prior to 1895, E. & Co., manufacturers, had 
 employed F. & Co. to sell goods for them on 
 commission. The course of business was for 
 E. & Co. to send goods to F. & Co., who would for- 
 ward them to the purchasers, receive the purchase- 
 money, and, alter deducting their commission, 
 account to E. & Co. for the balance. In Jan., 
 1895, one of the partners in F. & Co. died, and 
 the business was then carried on by the surviving 
 paitiier. Shortly before the death F. & Co. had 
 procured an order for goods, none of which were 
 delivered until after the death, when thev were 
 sent to the surviving partner, who forwarded 
 them to the purchaser and received the purchase- 
 money, but did not account for it. In 1896 E. & 
 Co. obtained judgment against the surviving 
 partner for the balance of the account due to 
 them from F. & Co., but nothing was recovered 
 
( 1421 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—190(1. 
 
 ( 1422 ) 
 
 PARTNERSHIP (Liabimies)— continued. 
 under tliat judgment. On a claim by E. & Co. 
 to prove against the estate of tlie deceased 
 partner ^~- 
 
 Held (1 .), as to the transactions -which took 
 place after the death, that the contract of agency 
 between F. & Co. and E. & Co. was determined 
 by the death, and consequently that no " debt or 
 obligation " within s. 9 of tbe Partnership Act, 
 1890, had been incurred while the deceased was 
 a partner, and his estate was not liable ; and (2.) 
 as to the rest of the account, that the existence 
 of the fiduciary relation of principal and agent 
 did not prevent the application of the Statute of 
 Limitations. 
 
 In 1894 B. & Co. had presented an account to 
 F. & Co. shewing a balance due to E. & Co. 
 This account included items which had accrued 
 ■due within six years, and also items under the 
 heading " Consignment Account," nearly all of 
 which were statute-barred. The figures of the 
 account were not agreed by either party ; but 
 F. & Co. paid to B. & Co. 300i. " on account," 
 which was credited in B. & Co.'s books to the 
 ■" consignment account " : — 
 
 Held, that the appropriation of the 300Z. by 
 E. & Co. to the consignment account did not take 
 the case out of the statute ; but that the payment 
 amounted to an acknowledgment by F. & Co. 
 that there was an account between them and 
 E. & Co. on which a balance of more than 300J. 
 would be payable, from which a promise to pay 
 that balance when ascertained must be in- 
 ferred : 
 
 Held further, that the sum of IGOi. paid by 
 the surviving partner to E. & Co., for which 
 oredit was given in arriving at the balance sought 
 to be proved, could not now be appropriated by 
 B. & Co. to items in respect of which the estate 
 of the deceased partner had been held not to be 
 liable. 
 
 Mills V. Fovikes, (1839) 5 Bing. N. 0. 455, and 
 Nash V. Hodgson, (1855) 6 D. M. & G. 474, dis- 
 tinguished. FeIend v. Young 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 421 
 
 33. — ■ Duty to co-partners — Use of confidential 
 information. 
 
 A partner who by iuformation acquired as a 
 partner makes profits in any kindred or competing 
 business must account for those profits to the firm. 
 &CUS, if ho use the information for purposes 
 whicli are wholly without the scope of the part- 
 nership business. 
 
 A member of a firm of shipbrokers assisted in 
 forming a joint stock co. for building ships. In 
 doing so he used information obtained as a partner 
 and occasionally the name and ofBce-paper of his 
 firm. He was paid for his services in forming 
 the CO., and made a director of it. He threatened 
 to set up as a shipbroker under the name of his 
 old firm : — 
 
 Held (1), by Kekewich J. and C. A., that he 
 must be restrained from so using his firm's name ; 
 (2) by C. A., reversing Kekewich J., that as tlie 
 business of the new co. was without the scope of 
 the partnersliip and did not compete, an account 
 of profits could not he decreed. Aas v. Benham 
 C. A, [1891] 2 Ch. 214 
 
 34. — Execution against firm — Sn?e of partner- 
 
 FARINSRSHIF (liabilities)— contmiict/. 
 
 ship property — Bankruptcy of one in^i^rtner — 
 
 Interpleader. 
 
 When execution has been levied against a 
 firm for a partnership debt, and one partner 
 presents his petition in bankruptcy within 14 days, 
 and a receiving order is made against him, s. 11, 
 sub-s. 2, of the Baukruptoy Act, 1890, does not 
 apply, and the official receiver is not entitled to 
 the net proceeds of sale in the hands of the 
 sheriff. DiBB v. Bbooke & Sons 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 338 
 
 35. — Judgment against one partner — Charge 
 upon interest — Eight to account — Partnership Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), ss. 23, 31. 
 
 Where a separate judgment creditor of a 
 partner has obtained a charging order on his 
 interest under s. 23, sub-s. 2, of the Partnership 
 Act, 1890, he only has such remedies as if the 
 charge had been made by the partner, and except 
 under special circumstances an order will not be 
 made on the other partners for an account. 
 Bbown, Jansen & Co. V. A. Hutchinson & Co. 
 (No. 2) - C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 126 
 
 36. — Misrepresentation iy co-partner — Mis- 
 appropriation of client's moneys. 
 
 The pit. deposited sums of money at various 
 times with a firm of solicitors for investment. 
 The moneys were embezzled by a clerk, but 
 representations were made on behalf of the firm 
 that the investments had been made and interest 
 was paid : — 
 
 Held (1), that an innocent partner was bound 
 by the misrepresentations of the firm which pre- 
 vented the client from discovering the misappro- 
 priation until many years after the misappropri- 
 ation occurred ; (2) that the Trustee Act, 1888, 
 did not apply so as to enable the innocent partner 
 to plead the Statute of Limitations as a bar to 
 the action ; (3) that the client could prove against 
 the separate estates of the partners in case the 
 joint estate was insufficient. Moore v. Knight 
 Stirling J, [1891] 1 Ch. 547 
 
 37. — Novation — Transfer from current to 
 deposit account — Liability of deceased partner. 
 
 Shortly after tlie deatli of G., a partner in a 
 bank, T. transferred a sum from his current 
 account to a deposit account. T. subsequently 
 paid into and drew out of his current account 
 sums exceeding that transferred. The bank 
 stopped payment : — 
 
 Held, that the transaction was the same as if 
 T. had drawn a cheque for the sum, and paid the 
 proceeds into the deposit account. It was an 
 entirely fresh contract, and G.'s estate was dis- 
 charged. In, re Head. Head v. Head (No. 2) 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 236 
 
 38. — Payment of interest by firm — Liability 
 of retired member of firm — Statute of Limitations. 
 
 A. retired from a firm. His retirement was 
 not gazetted. luterest on a loan continued to be 
 paid by the firm in the firm's name, in accordance 
 with the deed of dissolution which stipulated for 
 payment and discharge of the loan : — 
 
 Held, that the statute did not begin to run, 
 notwithstanding s. 14 of the Mercantile Law 
 Amendment Act, 1856, for under the circum- 
 stances the payment of interest icfter his retire- 
 ment by the continuing partners must be taken 
 
( H23 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1424 ) 
 
 PAETNEESHIP (Liabilities) — continued. 
 to be made by them on bis behalf and aa his 
 agents. Decision of Romer J. [1894] 1 Cli. 724, 
 affirmed. In re Tuckeb. Tucker v. Tdokek 
 (No. 2) C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 429 
 
 39. — Scope of parlnership — Deposit of securi- 
 ties to hearer — Solicitor — Liability for Acts of 
 one partner — Mortgage — Partnership Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), ss. 11, 12. 
 
 A. applied to E., a member of a firm of 
 solicitors, to obtain a loan on mortgage of land. 
 E. obtained the mortgage from clients of his firm, 
 but falsely told A. that the mortgagees required 
 collateral security, and obtained securities to 
 bearer from E. On previous occasions A. had 
 deposited security with R.'s firm to secure loans. 
 The firm was in the habit of holding securities to 
 bearer for their clients : — 
 
 Reld, that it was within the scope of R.'s 
 apparent authority to take custody of tlie securi- 
 ties, and that his partners were liable for a mis- 
 appropriation by him of the securities. Decision 
 of Kekewich J. reverseil. Rhodes v. IVTovles 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 236 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Mara v. Broione, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 69, 86 ; but this case was reversed 
 by C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 199. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Marsli v. Joseph, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 213, 232. 
 
 40. — Separate delit of partner — Judgment 
 creditor — Receiver — Foreign firm — Branch office 
 in England — Partnership Act, 1890 (53 <fc5-t Vict. 
 c. 39), s. 23. 
 
 Sect. 23 of the Partnership Act, 1890, which 
 enables a judgmc nt creditor of a partner to obtain 
 a receiver of his interest in the partneiship 
 applies to a foreign firm having a branch in 
 England. Brown, Jansen & Co. v. A. Hutchin- 
 son & Co. (No. 1) C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 737 
 See also C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 126. 
 
 — Use of name by uncertified solicitor — Ratifi- 
 
 cation — Liability — Replacement of lost 
 
 fund. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 13. 
 
 mortgages. 
 
 41. — Mortgage by partner to secure debt of 
 partnership — Devise of mortgagor^ real estate — 
 Sufficiency of partnership assets — Real Estate 
 Clmrges Act, 1854 {Locke King's Act, 17 & 18 
 Vict. c. Ho). 
 
 The Real Estate Charges Act, 1854 (Locke 
 King's Act), does not apply to the case of a charge 
 created by one partner on his separate real estate 
 to secure a debt of the partnership, whin at the 
 time of his death the partnership assets are 
 sufficient to answer all the debts of the partner- 
 ship. 
 
 Decisi. n of Romer J., [1898] 1 Ch. 667, 
 affirmed. Jn re Eitson. Eitson v. Eitson 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 166 (11) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 128 
 
 Practice. 
 
 — Action against partners in firm name — Dentil 
 
 of pavtnei- after appearance — Form of 
 ilefence of surviving partner. 
 .See Practice— Pleading. 159. 
 
 PAETNEESHIP (Practice) — continued. 
 
 — Parties. 
 
 See Cases under Pbactioe — Parties. 
 
 — Service. 
 
 See Cases under Pkactice — Service. 
 
 Eeceiver. 
 
 42. — Manager and receiver — Salary, Under- 
 talcing to act without — Allowances — Security — 
 Guarantee society — Surety — Premiums — Extra 
 ■work done by receiver. 
 
 By a judgment for dissolution of a partner- 
 ship between two agricultural implement makers, 
 the deft., one of the partners, was appointed 
 receiver and manager, and undertook to act b ith- 
 out salary. He carried on tlie business very 
 successfully for more than eighteen months, and 
 then purchased it with the sanction of the Court. 
 He was a skilled mechanic, and during his re- 
 ceivership worked in the business as a common 
 workman. In his accounts he claimed to be 
 allowed two premiums of 25Z. each paid to a 
 guarantee society which had became surety for 
 his duly accounting, and the sum of 21. per week 
 for the manual work done by him as a workman. 
 The master allowed both items : — 
 
 Hel^}, (by Kekewich J.), that a receiver and 
 manager appointed without salary or remuneia- 
 tion was entitled to be allowed in his aceounta 
 premiums paid by him to a guarantee society as 
 his surety, and that the two premiums ought 
 therefore to be allowed, but that the 21. per week 
 ought not, for that the receiver, being in a fidu- 
 ciary position, could not employ himself. The 
 decision on the first point was not appealed 
 from: 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the 21. per week oughi 
 also to be allowed, for that, although the receiver 
 had acted irregularly and run great risk in not 
 asking for wages at the time of his appointment, 
 he was entitled to be paid for services which had 
 proved beneficial to the estate, and which it was 
 no part of his duty as receiver and manager ts> 
 perform. Harris v. Sleep 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 80 
 
 Sale. 
 
 43. — • Power of attorney, Sale of business 
 under — Specific performance — Waiver by pur- 
 chaser. 
 
 Four partners traded under the firm of A. & 
 Co. One residen t abroad gave B., a co-partner, 
 power of attorney to a second to sell or concur 
 in selling any of his property. The partner in 
 England agreed to sell their business as a going 
 concern, B. concurring also as A.'s attorney. The 
 agreement contained provisions entitling the 
 purchaser to carry on business as A. & Co. and a 
 covenant by the partner not to trade within fifty 
 miles of the seat of the partnership business : — 
 
 Held, (1) that stipulations in the agreement 
 as to deferred capital did not constitute a new 
 partnership, but only a mode of paying the agreed 
 price, and w<re within the power of altomey; 
 (2) that the licence to trade as A. & Co., and the 
 agreement not to trade if not authorized by the 
 power, were stipulations in favour of the pur- 
 chaser and could be waived by him. 
 
 Semble, that the agreement not to trade was 
 
( 142o ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1426 ) 
 
 PARTNERSHIP (Sale)— continued. 
 authorized by the power of attorney, as a going 
 concern could not be sold to advautage with such 
 a stipulation. 
 
 Qusre, whether the authority to trade as 
 A. & Co. was within the power. Hawksley v. 
 Odtbam - c. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 359 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. Lloi/d v. 
 Nowell, [1895] 2 Ch. 744. 
 
 PARTY STRUCTURE— London Buildings Acts. 
 See LoKDON — Bnllding-s, 20 — 24. 
 
 PARTY WAIL — Adjoining owners— Implied con- 
 tract to pay half cost of party wall. 
 See BuiLDiNa. 2. 
 
 — London Building Acts. 
 
 See London— Buildings. 20 — 24. 
 
 — Trespass- Mandatory injunction. 
 
 See Partition. 12. 
 
 " PASSING UPON." 
 
 See Highway— Obstruction. 3. 
 
 PASSENGER — Distressed seamen — Compulsory 
 pilotage — Merchant Shipping Act. 
 See Shipping — Pilotage. 192. 
 
 — Kail way companies. 
 
 See Railway — Passengers. 
 
 — Ticket — Conditions — Evidence. 
 
 See Carkiee. 1. 
 
 — Tramway. 
 
 See Team-way. 9—11. 
 
 PASTURAGE— Surveyor of highways— Lord of 
 tl.e manor — Prescri^jtion — Profit a 
 prendre. 
 See Inci.osube. 5. 
 
 PATENT. 
 
 Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), amends and consolidates the 
 law. Amended hy Patents, Designs, and Trade 
 Marlts Acts, 1885 (48 * 49 Vict. c. 63); 1886 
 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 37) ; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50). 
 
 Application foe Patent, &o.] New rule sub- 
 stituted for rule 8 of the Patent Mules, 1890. See 
 Patent Mules, dated Sept. 15, 1898. W. N. 1898 
 (Deo. 17), p. 408. See Current Index, 1898, 
 p. zcviii. 
 
 Fees.] Notice under the Public Offices Fees 
 Act, 1879, and Patents, Designs, and Trade Maries 
 Act, 1883. W. N. 1898 (Dee. 3), p. 397. See 
 Current Index, 1898, p. zciz. 
 
 Judicial Committee oe Pkivy Council.] 
 Mules dated Nov. 26, 1897, in proceedings before 
 Judicial Committee of Privy Council under Patents, 
 Designs, and Trade Marlts Act, 1883, s. 25. Ex- 
 tension of Terms by Judicial Committee W. N. 
 1897 (Deo. 11), p, 343. See Current Index, 1897, 
 p. Ixxx. ; St. R, & 0. 1899, p. 1837. 
 
 In General, col. 1426. 
 
 What can be Subject of, col. 1426. 
 
 Amendment of Specification. See Patent 
 
 —Practice. 20—24. 
 Costs. See Patent — Practice. 2.5 — 28. 
 Disclaimer. See Patent — Practice. 
 
 20—24. 
 Discovery, col. 1426. 
 Exhibition, col. 1426. 
 
 rATETSi:— continued. 
 
 Infringement, col. 1427. 
 
 Joint Grant, col. 1430. 
 
 Letters Patent, col. 1432. 
 
 Licence, col. 1432. 
 
 Ownership, col. 1433. 
 
 Particulars of Objections. See Patent 
 
 —Practice. 30—34. 
 Patent Agents, col. 1433. 
 Patent Office, eol. 1434. 
 Practice, col. 1434. 
 Prior Publication, col. 1438. 
 Prolongation, col. 1439. 
 Registration, col. 1441. 
 Mevocation, col. 1441. 
 Threats, col. 1441. 
 Utility, eol. 1444. 
 Validity, col. 1444. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Colonial — Conveyance on sale — Stamp. 
 
 See Kevenue — Stamps, 154. 
 
 — Designs. 
 
 See Cases under Designs. 
 
 — Use of word " patent " — Expired patent. 
 
 See Tbade-maek. 2. 
 
 What oan be Subject of. 
 
 1. — New invention, what is. 
 
 An invention is diiferent from a discovery, 
 and a discovery is not tubject-matter for a patent 
 unless it is an addition not only to knowledge, 
 but to known inventions, and produces either a 
 new and useful thing or result, or a new and 
 useful mode of producing an old thing or result. 
 Per Lindley L.J. Lane Fox v. Kensington and 
 Knightsbkidqe Elegteio Lighting Co. (No. 2) 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 424, at p. 42& 
 
 2. — Pattern sleeve. 
 
 Semble, that a cardboard pattern sleeve may 
 be the subject of a patent as an instrument or 
 tool. Hollinhake v. Tkuswell 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 420' 
 
 Followed by C. A. JBoosey y. Whight, [1900} 
 1 Ch. 122, 125. 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (E.). Walter v. Lane, 
 [1900] A. C. 539, 562. 
 
 Discovery. 
 
 3. — Account of profits — Disclosure of names 
 of customers — Patent action. 
 
 In an action for the infringement of a patent 
 the defts. were ordered to account for |iroBts : — 
 
 Seld, that the defts. must disclose the names, 
 and addresses of their customers. 
 
 Powell V. Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co.y 
 (1896) 14 Eep. Pat. Cas. 1, followed. Saccharin 
 Corporation v. Chemicals and Drugs Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 185; [1900] 2 Ch. 566 
 
 Exhibition, 
 
 0. in C. dated Feb. 2, 1899, applying certain 
 provisions of the Patents, Designs, and Trade 
 Marks Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. e. 57), to tlie 
 
( ll^T ) 
 
 di(:k>t of cases, ibin— luou. 
 
 ( li-H ) 
 
 PATENT (Ezhiljition) — continued. 
 International Exliibition to he held at Paris in 
 i; 00. St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 601, No. 80. 
 
 Infringement. 
 
 4. — Colouraile use of invention as a separate 
 tool — Infringements after action. 
 
 Where A. Bent out tools (oolourably as hand- 
 tools) which when afSxed to a machine of A.'s 
 turned it into a machine having B.'s inventions 
 i.i it: — 
 
 Beld, that this was an infringement although 
 the tools were capable of being shewn detached 
 from the machine as a novel tool. Shoe Machi- 
 NEKT Co. V. CrTL.\s (No. 1) 
 
 Eomer J. [1895] W. N. 102 
 
 See also same case, [189G] 1 Ch. 108, 667, 
 Xos. 8, 12, beloiB. 
 
 — Discovery — Account of profits — ^Disclosure of 
 names of customers. 
 See Patent — Discovery. 3. 
 
 5. — Foreign-made article — Evidence — Pre- 
 sumption — Injunction — Damages — Alternative 
 relief. 
 
 in an action by patentees of an article ex- 
 clusively manufactured abroad, claiming an 
 injunction and damages for the user of the 
 patented article in England, the only evidence of 
 infringement adduced was that of an expeit, who 
 deposed that the pits.' patents related to three 
 separate and distinct modes of producing the 
 article in question ; that it was not possible to 
 tell, from an examination of any particular 
 parcel, under which process it had been produced, 
 but that it must have been produced under one 
 or other of these three processes. The deft, 
 called no evidence, and claimed a nonsuit :— 
 
 jHeM, that the pits, were not entitled to any 
 injunction, as they had not proved that any 
 particular patent had been infringed. On the 
 question of damages, the Court found as a fact 
 that the pits.' patents covered every possible 
 mode of producing the patented article, and that 
 one of these patents must therefore have been 
 infringed, and that the nature and extent of the 
 wrong done to the pits, did not depend upon the 
 particular patent infringed. An inquiry was 
 therefore directed, without mentioning any par- 
 ticular patent, whether any and what damages 
 had been sustained by the pits, by reason of the 
 user by the deft, of the patented article. 
 
 Simble : It is not always essential to establish 
 t'.ie particular alternative under which relief is 
 claimed, provided that the rights of the pit. and 
 tire obligations of the deft, are identical under 
 each of the alternatives, and that the alternatives 
 exhaust every possible contingency and are 
 mutually exclusive. Sacchakin Cokporation, 
 Ld. v. Quincet - - - Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 [1800] W. N. 116 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 246 
 
 6. — Foreign manufacturer — Sale of 2>atented 
 article aliroad and delivery in England — Post- 
 ing patented article to England — Transporting 
 nntented article xoitliin the United Kingdom- 
 User. 
 
 A trader in England ordered goods from a 
 toreign manufacturer in Switzerland to be sent 
 1 1 y post to England. The manufacturer aJdrcssed 
 
 PATENT (Infringement) — continued. 
 the goods to the trader in England and delivered 
 them to tlie Swi^s Post Office, by whom they were 
 forwarded to England. The goods were manu- 
 factured according to an invention protected by 
 an English patent : — 
 
 Held, that since the contract of sale was com- 
 pleted by delivery to the Post Office in Switzer- 
 land, and since the Post Office was the' agent of 
 the buyer and not of the vendor, tlie vendor had 
 not made, used, exercised or vended the invention 
 within the ambit of the patent, and that the 
 patentee had no right of action against the 
 vendor for an infringement of the patent. 
 
 The decision of 0. A., [1897] 2 Ch. 322, 
 affirmed. Badisohe Amlk t>rD Soda Fabkiku. 
 Basle Chemical Wobks, Bindsohedler 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] W. N. 167 (8) ; 
 [1898] A. C. 200 
 
 Fieferied to by Cozens-Hardy J. Saccharin 
 Corporation v. Beitmeyer & Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 659, 
 663. 
 
 7. — Improvements in an old machine. Patent 
 for — Extent nf protection — Appeal from Ceylon. 
 
 Where a pu tent had been granted (in Ceylon) 
 merely for improvements npou the mechanism of 
 an old and known machine : — 
 
 Held, that the patentee's exclusive right 
 thereto could not be permitted to exceed the 
 exact terms of Lis specification ; and that the 
 deit.'s improvements which had the same object, 
 but were effected in a manner not strictly corre- 
 sponding to the specification, were not an in- 
 fringement of his patent. Brown v. Jackson 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 446 
 
 8. — Judgment against defendant — Leave after 
 trial for defendant to adduce further evidence on 
 appeal — Application for to Court of Appeal — 
 Jurisdiction — Patents, d-c, Act, 1883 (46 & ■1:7 
 Vict. c. 57), s. 29— JJ. S. C, 1883, Order LYIU., 
 r.i. 
 
 Anticipation was one of the grounds of 
 defence to au action for infringement of patent, 
 and the judge held the patent to be valid and 
 granted an injunction against the deft. After 
 the trial the deft, gave notice of appeal, and 
 applied to the C. A. for leave to amend his 
 particulars of objections, and to adduce further 
 evidence of anticipations at the hearing of the 
 appeal : — 
 
 Held, tliat under the Judicature Acts, and 
 under rule 4 of Ordtr LViii., the C. A. had 
 jurisdiction to make the order, but that on the 
 merits leave ought not to be granted in the 
 present case : 
 
 With reference to the exercise by the 0. A. 
 of the powers conferred by Order LVlii., r. 4, a 
 patent action is in the sumo position as any other 
 action. 
 
 Cropper v. Smilh. (18S4) 26 Ch. D, 700; 
 (1SS5) 10 App. Cas. 249, observed upon. Shoe 
 Machinery Co. v. Cltlan (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 143 (10) ; [1896] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 See also Shoe Machinery Co. v. Cutlan, [1895] 
 W. N. 102, No. i, above, and [1896] 1 Ch. 667, 
 Xo. 12. below. 
 
 9. — Patented articles bought in England and 
 sent abroad for sale — '^ Mnling use of " the inven- 
 
( 1429 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1130 ) 
 
 PATENT (Infringement)— oonii««ei. 
 
 tion— Patents, &a., Aat, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 57), 
 
 Soiled. I., Form B—Measure of Damages. 
 
 The defts. bought in England articles which 
 infringed the pits.' patent, and sent them to their 
 branch business house in Paris, where they were 
 sold to various foreign purchasers :— 
 
 Seld, that the transport of the articles within 
 the United Kingdom under the oiicurastanees 
 was "making use" of the invention within the 
 meaning of the patent, and constituted an in- 
 fringement thereof. 
 
 The principles as to the assessment of damages 
 discussed in Pneumatio Tyre Co. v. Puncture 
 Proof Pneumatic Tyre Co., (1899) 16 Eep. Pat. 
 Cas. 209, applied. British Motor Sykdicate v. 
 Tayloe 
 
 Stirling J. [1900] W. N. 43 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 577 
 
 The C. A. afSrmed the decision of Stirling J. 
 Minter v. Williams, (1835) 4 Ad. & E. 251, con- 
 sidered. British Motob Syndicate v. Taylor 
 & Son C. A. [1900] W. N. 239 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 122 
 
 10. — Repair or reconstruction of patented 
 article — Article manufactured at request of 
 patentee's agent — Injunction. 
 
 The pits, under their patent manufactured a 
 pneumatic tyre for cycles, which consisted of a 
 rubber or elastic tyre lined in canvas in combina- 
 tion with two wires for securing the same to the 
 rims of the wheels. The deft, at the request of 
 an agent of the pit. company, who brought him 
 one of the pits.' tyres, which was old and worn 
 out, placed over the old wires a new canvas 
 cover and a new rubber tyre. The agent had 
 been sent by the pits, to find out whether the 
 deft, was infringing their patent, but there was 
 nothing to shew that the agent was authorized 
 by them to request the deft, to do what he did : — 
 
 Held, that what the deft, had done went 
 beyond fair repair of the tyre, and amounted to 
 its reconstruction, and that he had therefore 
 infringed the pits.' patent : 
 
 Held, also, tliat the pits, were not estopped 
 by the act of their agent from complaining of the 
 infringement. 
 
 Kelly V. Batclielar, (1893) 10 Eep. Pat. Cas. 
 289, distinguished, on the ground that in that 
 case the pits, had authorized their agent to 
 direct the deft, to construct an article infringing 
 their patent. 
 
 Held, further, that, though only the one act 
 of infringement by the deft, was proved, and 
 there was no evidence of any threat by him to 
 infringe again, yet, as he had accepted the order 
 from the pits.' agent in the ordinary course of 
 his business, it must be assumed that he would 
 accept similar orders again, if they were offered 
 to him, and consequently that lie must be re- 
 strained by injunction from infringing the 
 patent. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyeb Co. v. Neal 
 Worth J. [1899] W. N. 39; [1899] 1 Ch. 807 
 
 11. — Sale in England of an article made 
 ahroad iy the use of material manufactured lyy 
 the patented process — Certificate that validity of 
 patent has come in question — " SvJisequent action " 
 —Costs— Patents, &e., Act, 1883 (46 <fe 47 Vict. 
 c. 57), 8. 31. 
 
 Action for infringement of a patent for the 
 manufacture of ortho-toluene-sulplio-chloride, a 
 
 PATENT (Infringement)— continued, 
 conl-tar product used in the manufacture of sac- 
 charin. After the ortho-toluene-sulpho-chlorido 
 had been manufactured it was necessary for the 
 production of saccharin first to change the chlorine 
 for an amide group, and then to oxidize into sac- 
 charin and water. The defts. imported into and 
 sold in this country saccharin made in Switzer- 
 land by the use of ortho-toluene-sulpho-chloride 
 manufactured by a process substantially similar 
 to that protected by the pits.' patent, and they 
 contended that the nature of the ortho-toluene- 
 sulplio-chloride was so changed by the subsequent 
 operations that the importation of saccharin was 
 not an infringement of the patent : — 
 
 Held (following on one point a previous 
 decision of North J.), that the patent was valid, 
 and also that defts. were indiiectly making use 
 of the patented invention, and that the question 
 was covered by the principle of the decisions in 
 JElmslie v. Boursier, (1869) L. E. 9 Bq. 217, and 
 Von Heyden v. Neustadt, (1880) 14 Oh. D. 230. 
 If the patented process were the last stage in the 
 production of the article sold, the importation 
 and sale of the product would plainly be an in- 
 fringement, and it was not the leas so because 
 the article sold was manufactured by the use of 
 the patented process with the subsequent use 
 of certain otlier processes. Injunction therefore 
 granted, and defts. ordered to pay the costs. 
 
 Costs as between solicitor and client, in 
 accordance with s. 31 of the Patents, &c., Act, 
 1883, disallowed on the ground that a "subse- 
 quent action " meant an action commenced after 
 a certificate had been granted : Automatic Weigh- 
 ing Machine Co. v. International Hygienic Society, 
 (1889) 6 Eep. Pat. Oas. 475. Saccharin Cor- 
 poration, Ld. v. Anglo-Continental Chemical 
 Works, Ld. - Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 95 
 
 12. — Validity upheld— Bes judicata— Estoppel 
 — Second action between same parties — Validity 
 denied on different grounds. 
 
 In an action by a patentee claiming damages 
 for an infringement and an injunction, the deft, 
 denied the infringement. He also denied the 
 validity of the patent alleging, amongst other 
 things, that it had been antioipited by certain 
 specifications. 
 
 The Court upheld the validity of the patent, 
 but granted no injunction or damages on the 
 ground that the evidence as to the alleged in- 
 fringement was, under the circumstances, not 
 admissible. In a second action between the 
 same parties in respect of the same patent, the 
 deft, again denied the validity of the patent, 
 alleging that it had been anticipated by certain 
 specificatiuns which were not before the Court 
 in the first action, and which he had discovered 
 since that action : — 
 
 Held, that the validity of the patent was res 
 judicata, and that the judgment in the first action 
 estopped the deft, from again denying the validity 
 of the patent. Shoe Machinery Co. v. Outlan 
 (No. 3) - - Eomer J. [1896] 1 Ch. 667 
 
 Joint Grant. 
 
 13, — Survivorship — Sale — Agreement — As- 
 signment — Covenants for title — Construing cove- 
 nants as joint or joint and several — Deceased 
 
( 1431 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1903. 
 
 ( 1432 ) 
 
 PATENT (Joint Grant)— continued, 
 grantee — Legal pe^'sonal representative — Concur- 
 rence of, in assignment — Practice — Action — 
 Counter-claim — Separate causes of action — Appeal 
 — Cross-notice — Cross-appeal — M. S. C, 1883, 
 Order LViii., r. 6. 
 
 In 1882 letters patent were granted to L. and 
 J. in the then usual form of grant to two patentees, 
 namely, to them, " their executors, administrators, 
 and assigns," to the end tbat L. and J., " their exe- 
 cutors, administrators, and assigns, and every of 
 them" should have and enjoy the full benefit and 
 sole use and exercise of the patented invention. 
 This and other patents granted to L. and J. in 
 the same form liad been taken out with a view to 
 selling them and sharing the profits of sale. By 
 an agreement under seal made in 1883 between 
 L. and J. of the one part, and the pit. co. of the 
 other part, the former agreed to sell, assign, and 
 transfer to the latter all the patents. Clause 7 
 thereof was as follows : " The assignment and 
 transfer of the said letters patent .... shall be 
 prepared by and at the costs of the said co. and 
 shall be expressed to be made in pursuiince of 
 this agreement and in consideration of the pay- 
 ment of" the purchase-money, "and the said 
 vendors and all other necessary parties, if any, 
 shall at the cost of the said co. execute such 
 assignments to the said co. or as they shall direct, 
 and such assignments respectively shall contain 
 a covenant by the said vendors that all the letters 
 patent thereby assigned .... are valid and in 
 nowise void or voidable, and also such other cove- 
 nants and provisions as may be reasonably required 
 by the said co. for giving eifect to the sale hereby 
 agreed to be made." L. died in 1888, and after 
 his death, the patents not having yet been 
 assigned, though the purchase-money had, it 
 was alleged, been paid, the co. brought an action 
 against J. and the administratrix of L., claiming 
 (1.) an order on the defts. to assign the patents ; 
 (2.) damages for breach of the agreement and of 
 the warranty therein contained ; and (3.) repay- 
 ment of part of the purchase-money on the ground 
 that some of the patents had been declared in- 
 valid. L.'s administratrix then counter-claimed 
 for payment by the co. of a sum alleged to be due 
 to her upon the agreement imder a judgment 
 pronounced by the French Court in an action 
 brought against her in Franco by the co. in 1889, 
 the judgment being based upon the ground that 
 as L.'s administratrix she had, under the agree- 
 ment, separate rights against the co. At the 
 trial of the English action and counter-claim, 
 Cozens-Hardy J. dismissed both, [1899] 2 Ch. 289, 
 801, on the grounds (1.) that L.'s administratrix 
 had no interest in the patents inasmuch as the 
 interest created by the form of grant in each case 
 was a joint interest only, so that J. took the 
 whole by survivorship ; and (2.) that the obliga- 
 tion created by clause 7 of the agreement was 
 only a joint — not joint and several — covenant to 
 assign the patents and to covenant in the assign- 
 ment for their validity, and that therefore L.'s 
 administratrix was not bound to enter into any 
 covenant. On appeals by both the co. and L.'s 
 administratrix : — 
 
 B.eld, by C. A., reversing the decision of 
 Cozens-Hardy J., [189D] 2 Ch. 289, that the obli- 
 gation created by clause 7 was that L. and J. had 
 
 PATENT (Joint Grant) — continued. 
 jointly covenanted to assign the patents, and that 
 the assignment should contain joint and several 
 covenants by them that the patents were valid, 
 and that the co. was entitled to relief against L.'s 
 administratrix on that footing : also that L.'s 
 administratrix was entitled on her counter-claim 
 to have the amount alleged to be due to her under 
 the French judgment ascertained. 
 
 A cross-notice under E. S. C, 1883, Order 
 Lvni., r. 6, by the respondent to an appeal can 
 only be given in relation to the subject-matter of 
 the action, and cannot be extended to some other 
 matter not the subject of the action. For ex- 
 ample, where an action and counter-claim formded 
 on separate and distinct causes of action have 
 each been dismissed with costs, and tlie pit. on 
 the counter-claim appeals, it is irregular for the 
 pit. in the action, that is, the respondent to the 
 appeal, if he desires to appeal also, to give a 
 cross-notice under K. S. C, 1883, Order lviii., 
 r. 6. In such a case, the causes of action being 
 separate and distinct, his proper course is to bring 
 a cross-appeal and not to give a cross-notice. 
 National Society fok the Disteibution oi' 
 Electkioitt by Secondaky Genebatoes v. Gibb8 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 102; [1900] 2 Ch. 2&0 
 
 Letters Patent. 
 
 14. — Construction — " Exercise " — English sale 
 — Delivery abroad. 
 
 An English merchant, who in pursuance of 
 a contract made in England, delivers a patented 
 article at a foreign port to an English importer, 
 does not make, use, exercise, or vend the protected 
 invention within the realm. Sacchaein Coepo- 
 
 KATION, LD. V, EeITMEYEE & Co. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 159 ; 
 [1900] Z Ch. 659 
 
 Licence. 
 
 15. — Agreement for sale — Assignment — Regis- 
 tration — Title — Priority ■ — Notice — Equitable 
 rights— Patents, (fee. Act, 1883 (16 & 47 Vict, 
 e. 57), ss. 23, 87. 
 
 By an agreement in .writing W., the registered 
 proprietor of a patent, agreed for value to assign 
 it to the pits. Before tbat agreement had been 
 registered W. granted a licence to use the patent 
 to S., who forthwith registered the licence. S., 
 before he took his licence, was informed by W. of 
 the agreement with the pits., which W. stated to 
 be no longer in force. Subsequently the pits, 
 registered their agreement and took an a sign- 
 ment, which they duly registered : — 
 
 Eeld, affirming the decision of Kekewich J., 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 137, that under the proviso in s. 87 
 of the Patents, &o.. Act, 1883, B , having had 
 before he took his licence express notice of the 
 pits.' agreement, could not assert against tliem 
 his legal title by prior registration, and that the 
 licence was void as against the pits. New Ixion 
 Tyre and Cycle Co. v. Spilsbuky 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 484 
 
 — Burden attaching to property — Privity of con- 
 tract — New contract. 
 See Company — Contracts. 21. 
 
 16. — Exchtsioe licence — Non-payment of 
 
( 1433 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1431 ) 
 
 PATENT (Licence)— coniinued 
 
 royalty — Improvements introduced by licensee — 
 
 Eerocation. 
 
 A. granted to B. an exclusive licence to work 
 A.'s patent, B. covenanting (1) to pay the 
 royalties, (2) to push the sale, (3) to keep proper 
 books. Power was given to B. to revoke, but no 
 such power was given to A. A. purported to 
 revoke the licence, (1) for. non-payment of the 
 royalties, (2) failing to push the sale, (3) for 
 wilful deviation from the specifications, &o. B. 
 brought an action for an injunction. A. counter- 
 claimed for a declaration that the licence was 
 revoked by his notice, and for the payment of the 
 royalty : — 
 
 Held, by Eomer J., that non-payment of the 
 royalty did not entitle A. to revoke, that the 2nd 
 and 3rd grounds -were not founded on fact, and 
 that B. was entitled to the injunction, and A. to 
 judgment for the royalties due : 
 
 Held, by 0. A., tliat on the construction of 
 the licence there was an implied covenant not to 
 revoke, and that the obligations imposed by the 
 document were inconsistent with its being re- 
 vocable, and that there was no such breach of the 
 conditions as would entitle A. to revoke. Gdtot 
 V. Thomson - C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 388 
 
 Ownership. 
 
 — Co-owners — Custody of documents in title. 
 See Patent— Eegistratlon. 49. 
 
 17. — Co-owner by purchase or charge — Patent 
 viorlced by mortgagee co-owner — Profits received as 
 mortgagee. 
 
 The general rule that a co-owner of a patent is 
 entitled to work it for his own benefit applies 
 also in the case of assignees or mortgages of 
 shares in a patent: — 
 
 Held, therefore, in an action to redeem the 
 mortgaged moiety of a patent, that the mort- 
 gagee, not having received royalties, was not 
 obliged to account for the profits made while he 
 was the holder of the mortgage. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1892] 2 Ch. 13, affirmed. 
 Steebs v. Eogbbs H. L. (K.) [1893] A. C. 232 
 
 PATENT (Patent Agents)— continued. 
 
 and that it was not within the province of the 
 
 Courts to question their validity : 
 
 Held, also, thut the only remedy for breach of 
 the rules was that thereby prescribed, namely, a 
 fine on summary conviction. Institute of 
 Patent Agents v. Lockwood 
 
 H. I. (So.) [1894] A. C. 347 
 
 Eeftrred to by V. Williams J. In re London 
 and General Bank {No. 1), [1894] W. N. 155. 
 
 Principle adopted by Wright J. Baker v. 
 Williams, [1898] 1 Q. B. 23, 25. 
 
 Referred to bv Div. Ct. Starey v. Oraham, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 406, 413. 
 
 19. — Registration — Validity of Rules — Sav- 
 ing of rights acquired — Patents, &c.. Acts, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 57), s. 101, and 1888 (51 <fe 52 
 Vict. e. 50), ss. 1, 27 — Register of Patent Agents 
 Rules, 1889 and 1891— Patent Rules, 1890. 
 
 The Register of Patent Agents Rules, 1889, 
 are valid and in force; and therefore a patent 
 agent who has been bona fide in practice prior to 
 the passing of the Patents, &o.. Act, 1888, and 
 who is consequently entitled under s. 1, sub-s. 3, 
 of that Act to be registered as a patent agent, 
 must pay before registration the fee prescribed 
 by those rules. 
 
 The right which a person had prior to the 
 passing of the Patents, &c.. Act, 1 888, to practise 
 as a patent agent and describe himself as such, 
 is not a " right acquired " which is saved from 
 the operation of the Act by s. 27. Stakky v. 
 Graham - - Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 406 
 
 Patent OCSce. 
 
 Patent Office (Extension) Act. 1897 (60 cfe 61 
 Vict. c. 25), provides for acquisition of land for 
 extension of the Patent Office. 
 
 0. of Ld. Chane. dated July 18, 1871, appoint- 
 ing the fees to be taken in Oreat Seal Patent Office. 
 St. B. & 0. 1899, p. 1565. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 Patent Agents. 
 
 Register of Patent Agents Rules, 1891, dated 
 Nov. 18, 1891. St. E. & b. 1891, p. 578. 
 
 18. — Register of Patent Agents Rules, 1889 — 
 Validity — Xfltra vires — Title to sue— Patents Acts, 
 1883, 1888 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57, s. 101 ; 51 <S; 52 
 Vict. c. 50, s. 1). 
 
 The Patents, &c.. Act, 1 888, provided for the 
 making of rules, applying thereto s. 101 of the 
 Act of 1883, which enacted that general rules 
 after being laid before Parliament " shall be of 
 the same effect as if they were contained in this 
 Act." The Register of Patent Agents Rules, 
 1889, were made under this power, and duly laid 
 before Parliament. They provided for registry of 
 <;ertain persons and for an annual fee. L , a 
 person entitled to be registered, was registered, 
 but refused to pay the annual fee : — 
 
 ITeM, that the rules were intra vires : i -- ,, s , , ,,„..■ 
 
 Held also (Lord Morris dissent.), the rules, may reverse the order below and order that the 
 havin" laid before Parliament for forty days patent be revoked, unless within three months, 
 without beiu" questioned, had statutory authority, | or such further time as the Court may allow, the 
 
 20. — Amendment of specification — Disclaimer 
 — Practice — Petition for revocation pending — 
 Application for leave to amend — Discretion of 
 Court— Patents, &c.. Ad, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 57), 5. 19. 
 
 The granting or refusing leave to apply to 
 amend a specification by way of disclaimer, under 
 s: 19 of the Patents, &c.. Act, 1883, is still a 
 matter for the judicial discretion of the C (urt, 
 and this discretion has been in no way interfered 
 with by Moser v. Marsden, 13 Eep. Pat. Ous. 24, 
 and Deeley v. Perkes, [1896] A. 0. 496. In re 
 Dellwiok's Patent Chitty J. [1898] 2 Ch. 7C5 
 
 21. — Amendment of specification — Disclaimer 
 —Eevocation— Patent Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 57), 88. 19, 26. 
 
 Where on a petition for revocation of a patent 
 the judge holds that all the claims are bad and 
 orders the patent to be revolted and this order is 
 entered on the Register of Patents, the Court of 
 Appeal, if it is of opinion that one claim is valid. 
 
( 1435 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1436 ) 
 
 PATENT (Practice)— coniiHued. 
 
 patentee obtain leave to amend his specification 
 
 by disclaiming all the claims except the valid 
 
 one. 
 
 Decision of 0. A. In re Deeley's Patent, 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 687, reversed. Suh nom. Deeley v. 
 Perkes H. I. (E.) [1896] A. C. 496 
 
 Considered by C. A. Ludington Cigarette 
 Machine Co. v. Baron Cigarette Machine Co., 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 508. 
 
 22. — Amendment of specification — Disclaimer 
 — Practice — Patent Action — Petition for revoca- 
 tion — Liberty to apply for leave to amend hy dis- 
 claimer — Conditions to he imposed — Form of order 
 —Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Yict. c. 57), 
 ss. 18, 19, 20. 
 
 The owners of a patent for a machine having 
 brought an action for its infringement, the defts. 
 presented a petition for its revocation. The 
 pits, then asked for liberty to apply at the 
 Patent Office for leave to amend their specifica- 
 tion by way of disclaimer : — 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of Kekewioh J. 
 [1899] W. N. 243, that, under the special circum- 
 stances of the case, the Court, in giving the 
 liberty asked for, ought to impose the condition 
 (similar to that which was imposed by the House 
 of Lords in Deeley v. Perlces, [1896] A. C. 496, 
 500 ; 13 Eep. Pat. Cas. 581) that the pits, should 
 not bring or maintain any action for infringement 
 of the patent in respect of any machines or parts 
 of machines made prior to the date of the order. 
 
 In Deeley v. Perkes tho House of Lords did 
 not lay down any general practice as to the con- 
 ditions to be imposed in such cases, but imposed 
 that condition by reason of the peculiar circum- 
 stances of that case. Ludington Cigakette 
 Machine Co. v. Babon Cigaeette Machine Co. 
 In re Pitt's Patent, No. 9858 op 1892 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 50 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 508 
 
 23. — Amendment of specification — Pending 
 action for infringement — Patents, &c.. Acts, 1883, 
 ss. 18-21 ; 1888, s. 5. 
 
 Before the issue of a writ- in an infringement 
 action the comptroller gave leave to amend a 
 specification on certain conditions. The condi- 
 tions were accepted, and amendment was made 
 after the issue of the writ : — 
 
 Held, that as both the acceptance and actual 
 amendment related back to the time of giving 
 leave, neither constituted a proceeding the talring 
 of which was prohibited while an infringement 
 action was pending. Andrew v. Ckosslet. 
 Crossley v. Andrew - C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 492 
 
 24. — Amendment of specification — Pending 
 action or proceeding for revocation — " Disclaimer, 
 correction, or explanation " — Patents, &c.. Act, 
 1883-1888 (46 * 47 Vict. v. 57 ; 51 <£ 52 Vict, 
 c. 50), ss. 18-20. 
 
 The word " disclaimer " in s. 19 of tho Patents, 
 &c., Act, 1883, must be read strictly, and not as 
 including "correction or explanation." 
 
 Where, therefore, an action for infringement 
 or proceeding for revocation of a patent is pend- 
 ing, the Court has no power under s. 19 to order 
 that the patentee shall be at liberty to apply at 
 the Patent Office for leave to amend his specifi- 
 cation by way of correction or explanation. 
 
 Liberty to apply can only be given where Ihe 
 
 PATENT (Practice) — continued. 
 proposed amendment is by way of " disclaimer." 
 In re Owen's Patent - - Stirling J. 
 
 [1898] W. N, 151 (11) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 157 
 
 — Costs — Particulars of objections. 
 
 See Nos. 31—33, below. 
 
 25. — Costs — Shorthand notes — Practice — 
 Particulars of objections — Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. V. 57), ». 29, sub-s. 6. 
 
 Particulars of an objection to a patent for 
 want of novelty delivered by a deft, enumerated 
 specifications of prior patents. The pits.' patent 
 was held novel, but bad for disconformity. The 
 Court certified that the particulars of such of 
 the specifications as had been of assistance in 
 deciding the question of nonconformity were 
 "reasonable and proper, without regard to the 
 general costs of the case." 
 
 The cost of transcripts of shorthand notes of 
 evidence for the purpose of appeal allowed. 
 Castnee Kellnee Alkali Co. v. Commercial 
 Development Coepoeation 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 50; [1899] 1 Ch. 803 
 
 26. — Costs — Shorthand notes— Solicitor and 
 client — Patent action. 
 
 Where on the trial of a patent action it was 
 agreed in open court between counsel for the 
 parties with the sanction of the judge that a 
 shorthand writer's note of the evidence to be 
 taken on behalf of the parties jointly should be 
 used as the record of the evidence for the 
 purposes of the trial : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitor of a party to the action 
 was entitled to charge his client with money dis- 
 bursed as his share of the cost of taking the 
 shorthand note. 
 
 In re Blyth and Fanshawe, (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 
 207, distinguished. Osmond v. Mdtual Cycle 
 AND Manufacturing Supply Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 488 
 
 27. — Costs — Scientific witnesses — B. S. C, 
 1883, Order Lxr., r. 9. 
 
 In an action for infringement of an electrical 
 patent, the decision depended on questions not 
 of law but of electrical science, and most of the 
 witnesses were experts in science : — 
 
 Held, that costs should be allowed on the 
 higher scale under Order lxv., r. 9. Hopkin- 
 soN V. St. James' and Pall Mall Electric 
 Lighting Co. Eomer J. [1893] W. N. 5 
 
 28. — Costs — Scientific iiitnesses — Preparatorij 
 experiments. 
 
 Fees charged by scientific witnesses in patent 
 actions for time occupied in making experiments 
 preparatory to the trial will be allowed on 
 taxation. Lbonhardt v. Kalle 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 97 
 
 — Disclaimer. 
 
 See Patent — Praetioe, 20 — 24. 
 
 — Discovery. 
 
 See Patent — Discovery. 3. 
 
 — Evidence — Leave after trial for defendant to 
 
 adduce further evidence on appeal. 
 See Patent — Infringement. 8. 
 
 29. — Opposition to grant — Bight to he heard 
 in opposition — Interest in patent — Patents, &c.. 
 
( 1437 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1438 ) 
 
 PATENT (Viactice)— continued. 
 
 Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 7iot. c. 57), ss. 11, 95 ; 1888 
 
 (51 & 52 Viet. a. 50), 8. 4. 
 
 The Patents, &o., Act,1883, s. 11, as amended 
 by the Patents, &o., Act, 1888, b. 4, does not confer 
 the right to oppose the grant of a patent, on the 
 ground that the invention has been patented in 
 this country on an application of prior date, upon 
 a person who has no interest in the prior patent 
 or the patent applied for. "Ees. v. Comptbolleb- 
 Geneeal of Patents, Desiqns, and Tkadb 
 Marks - C, A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 909 
 
 30. — Particulars — Gosts — Certificate of 
 reasonableness — Judgment in default of appear- 
 ance—Patents, &a.. Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 57), s. 29, sub-s. 6. 
 
 In an action for infringement of a patent in 
 which judgment for the pits, was given in default 
 of appearance by the dei'ts. :— 
 
 iCeld, that, notwithstanding the default in 
 appearance, the Court ha'l jurisdiction, under 
 s. 29 of the Patents, &o., Act, 1883, to certify 
 that the pits.' particulars of breaches were reason- 
 able and proper. Pneumatic Tyre Co. ■;;. J. Pabr 
 & Co. - North J. [1896] W. N. 88 (13) 
 
 31. — Particulars of ohfections — Case not 
 brought to trial — Costs — Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. 0. 57), s. 29, svh-s. 6. 
 
 The operation of s. 29, sub-s. 6, of the Act of 
 1883 is not confined to cases where the action is 
 brought to trial. 
 
 In the absence (however arising) of a certifi- 
 cate under that sub-section, the costs of par- 
 ticulars cannot be recovered under an order for 
 payment of the costs of the action. Middlbton 
 V. Bbadlet - Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 716 
 
 Approved of by Eomer J. Wilcox & Gibbs v. 
 Janes, [1897] 2 Oh. 71, 72. 
 
 32. — Particulars of ohjections^Certificate of 
 reasonableness — Costs. 
 
 (a) Where in an action for infringement in 
 which the pits, offered no evidence, and which 
 was dismissed with costs, the defts. applied for a 
 certificate that their particulars of objections 
 were reasonable, under the circumstances the 
 Court was unable to give the required certificate 
 and the costs of the particulars. Mandleberg v. 
 MoELBT (No. 1) Stirling J. [1893] W. N. 157 
 
 (b) A. brought an action for infringement of a 
 patent against B. B. by his pleadings alleged 
 (inter alia) that the patent was invalid for the 
 reasons in the particulars of objections delivered 
 with the defence. A. submitted to have the action 
 dismissed : — 
 
 Held, that in the absence of evidence the 
 Court had no means of judging whether the 
 particulars were "reasonable and proper," and 
 could not therefore give a certificate that they 
 were so, to entitle B. to the costs of them on 
 taxation. Mandlebekq v. Moelbt (No. 2) 
 
 Stirling J, [1895] W. N. 9 
 33. — Particulars of Objections— Discontinu- 
 ance of action for infringement — Costs — Certificate 
 —Patents, <tc., Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), 
 s. 29, sub-s. 6. 
 
 ■ Where the pit. in an action for infringement 
 of a patent gives notice of discontinuance before 
 Ihe pleadings are closed and th' re is no evidence 
 
 PATENT (Practice)— coiiJinwed. 
 before the Court as to the nature of the patent, 
 the Court cannot inquire into the facts of the 
 case merely for the purpose of determining 
 whether the defendant ought to be given u 
 certificate that his particulars of objection were 
 reasonable and proper, so that he may be entitled 
 to the costs of them on taxation. Wilcox & 
 GiBBS V. Janes - Bomer J. [1897] 2 Ch, 71 
 
 34. — Particulars of directions — Sufficiency of 
 specification. 
 
 In a patent action for infringement defts. 
 denied validity of plt.'s patent. In their par- 
 ticulars of objections they said (inter alia) that 
 the plt.'s specification "does not sufficiently 
 describe and ascertain the nature of the alleged 
 invention and the manner in which the same is 
 to be performed, and does not sufficiently dis- 
 tinguish which of the matters and things therein 
 described the pit. claims to have invented, and 
 which of the same he does not claim to have 
 invented : — 
 
 Held, that the particulars were insufficient, 
 and that tjiey ought to state the grounds on 
 which the specification was alleged io be insuffi- 
 cient. Heathfibld v. Greenwat 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 170 
 
 35, — Parties — Adding defendant — S. S. C, 
 1883, Order xri., r. 11. 
 
 In an action for the infringement of a patent, 
 the foreign manufacturer of the machine which 
 was alleged to be a violation of the patent applied 
 to be added as a deft, on the ground that the 
 original deft, would not properly defend the 
 action : — 
 
 Held, that the applicant was not entitled to 
 be joined, as he was only indirectly and com- 
 mercially interested in the issues between the 
 parties. Moser ,d. Maksden 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 487 
 
 36. — Service abroad — Petition for revocation 
 of patent— B. S. C, 1883, Order xi., r. 1. ' 
 
 (a) Where one of the respondents to a petition 
 for revocation of a patent was out of the jurisdic- 
 tion, and could not be served with the petition, 
 ordered that notice of the presentation of the 
 petition should be given him, that the petition 
 should go into the witness list, but unless he 
 appeared by counsel the petition should not come 
 on for hearing without leave of the judge. In re 
 Kat's Patent - Stirling j. [1894] W, N. 68 
 
 (b) The Court cannot give leave to serve a 
 petition for revocation on a foreigner resident 
 abroad, but raay proceed if satisfied that suffi- 
 cient notice has been given. to the foreign parties 
 affected. In re Gobz and Hogh's Patent 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N, 105 
 
 Prior Publication, ', 
 
 37. — Inference of fact— Foreign publication 
 sold in this country, 
 
 A patent held invalid on the ground that it 
 was sufficiently proved that there had been prior 
 publication in a foreign magazine published in 
 the United Kingdom. Pickaed & Ccrbey v. 
 Pbescott - - H. L, (Sc.) [1892] A, C. 263 
 
 38, — Test of — Prior public ^iser. 
 The validity of a patent wis challenged on 
 
( 1433 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASKS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1440 ) 
 
 PATENT (Prior Publication) — continued. 
 the ground of prior publication founded upon a 
 description in the specification of an earlier 
 patent : — 
 
 Held, that, wliether the specification of the 
 earlier patent was suflBcient to disclose the inyen- 
 tion to the public was whether the description in 
 the specification would convey to men of science 
 and employers of labour information enabling 
 them to understand and to give specific directions 
 for making the machine, and not the sufficiency 
 or insufficiency of the specification to guide a 
 skilled workman itself. Anglo-American Brush 
 Electbio Light Corporation v. King, Bbown & 
 Co. - - H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 367 
 
 Prolongation. 
 
 39. — Inadequate remuneration — Five years' 
 prolongation. 
 
 Where an invention was of conspicuous merit, 
 and it appeared that as regards its application to 
 one of its purposes the patentee had received for 
 an exclusive licence to use it certain shares in 
 companies formed for that purpose, the value of 
 which shares was largely dependent on the pro- 
 longation of the patent, and that with respect to 
 its application to all other purposes the patentee, 
 ■who had done his best to push his invention, had 
 received nothing at all if the accounts were made 
 up on the basis of a reasonable allowance to him- 
 self for his services in working his patents : — 
 
 Held, that the patentee, who had fairly kept 
 
 and presented his accounts, should be allowed a 
 
 five years' prolongation. In re Parsons' Patent 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 673 
 
 40. — Insufficient a^xounts. 
 
 Tiie accounts filed on a petition for prolonga- 
 tion shewed, not the result of the books, but an 
 accountant's correction of them, and the books 
 themselves had been kept in such a way that 
 without a very long, minute, and laborious 
 'investigation it was impossible to say whether 
 the patentee had or had not been adequately 
 remunerated : — 
 
 Held, that the petition must be dismissed, as 
 it was not shewn that petitioner had not been 
 adequately remunerated. In re Lake's Patent 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 240 
 
 41. — Lapse of foreign patent — Extension — 
 Discretion— Patent Act,iii52 (15 * 16 Vict, c.83), 
 .5. 25— Patents, &o.. Act, 1883, s. 25, sub-s. i. 
 
 S. patented an invention in the United King- 
 dom before the passing of the Act of 1883 ; he 
 subsequently patented it in seven foreign coun- 
 tries. Two of these patents had lapsed : — 
 
 Held, that according to the rule laid down in 
 s. 25, sub-s. 4, of the Act of 1883, there was dis- 
 cretion to extend the patent whether or not it 
 was the first granted, with due regard to the 
 < ircumstances connected with the foreign patents. 
 In re Semet and Sol vat's Patent 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 78 
 
 42. — Lapse of prior foreign patent — Notice — 
 Prolongation and confirmation — Patent Act, 1852 
 (15 (£16 Vict.c. 83), s. 25. 
 
 A petition was presented for the prolongation 
 of a patent granted in 1877; a prior foreign 
 jiatent for the same invention had Inpsed in 1888. 
 
 PATENT (Prolongation)— confznued. 
 The invention was then discovered not to be 
 new, and a further petition was presented under 
 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 83, for confirmation and extension 
 of the patent :— , 
 
 Held, (1) that s. 113 of the Act of 1883 saved 
 the right to apply for confirmation of patents 
 within 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 83, but (2) that the 
 English patent ceased under s. 25 of 15 & 16 Vict, 
 u. 83, on the expiration of the prior foreign 
 patent, and could not be prolonged or confirmed 
 under the Act of 1835 or the Act of 1883. The 
 rule as to notices was relaxed in this case. In re 
 Jaelochkofp's Patent P. C. [1891] A. C. 293 
 
 Distinguished by P. C. MarshaXCs Patent, 
 [1891] A. C. 430, No. 48, lelmo. 
 
 43. — New patent — Prolongation of term for 
 fen years. 
 
 Where it appeared that an invention was of 
 considerable merit, that there were great diffi- 
 culties in introducing it, and that the petitioner 
 had incurred Joss in his endeavours so to do, 
 their Lordships recommended a new patent for 
 the term of ten years. In re Cueeie and Timmis' 
 Patent - P. C. [1898] A. C. 347 
 
 44. — Non-user of invention:— Presumption of 
 non-utility rebutted. 
 
 Where an invention has not been brought 
 into use during the term of the letters patent, 
 but such non-user is satisfactorily accounted for, 
 and the invention is one of great merit, an 
 extension may be granted. Socthbt's Patent 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 432 
 
 45. — Petition hy assignee of inventor. 
 Although the effect of the Act of 1883 (46 & 47 
 
 Vict. c. 57) is to confirm an assignee's right to 
 petition for prolongation of his patent, he cannot 
 succeed without shewing that the original in- 
 ventor has been inadequately remunerated. In 
 re HoPKiNSON's Patent P. C. [1897] A. C. 249 
 
 46. — Petition hy assignee of inventor. 
 
 An extension of a patent will not be granted 
 to the assignee of an inventor unless the inventor 
 would himself have been entitled thereto, and 
 will himself derive benefit directly or indirectly 
 therefrom. In re Bowek-Bakff Patent 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 675 
 
 47. — Petition for prolongation — Novelty con- 
 sisting in the combination — Absence of unusual 
 merit — Losses referable to want of business skill. 
 
 Where letters patent had been granted for 
 " improvements in steafc generators," and it was 
 shown that the invention consisted of the com- 
 bination of various parts all or most of which 
 were admittedly not new at the date of the letters 
 patent ; an extension was refused in the absence 
 of evidence that the invention was of unusual 
 merit. 
 
 Where patentees had incurred losses, these 
 cannot be regarded as evidence of inadequate 
 remuneration if attributable to unskilfulness in 
 conducting their business. In re Thobnyoeoft's 
 Patent - - P. C. [1899] A. C. 415 
 
 48. — Time for filing petition — Patent Act, 
 1835 (5*6 Will. 4, c. 83)— Patents Act, 1839 
 (2*3 Vict. c. 67). 
 
 Where a petition for prolongation had been 
 
( 1441 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1442 ) 
 
 PATENT (Prolongation)— eoniiTOed. 
 
 presented within six months before the patent 
 
 (granted in 1877) had expired :— 
 
 Held, that it was excluded both by 5 & 6 
 WiU. 4, 0. 83, and by 2 & 3 Viot. o. 67. Mae- 
 8hall'8 Patent - P. C. [1891] A. C. 430 
 
 Begistration, 
 
 49. — Mwitable assignment of a share — 
 Co-owners — Custody of documents of title — Patents, 
 &c.. Act, 1883, ss. 23, 85, 87, 90— Patent Rules, 
 1883, rr. 65, 68, Form 4. 
 
 An equitable assignment of u patent, or a 
 share or interest in it, may be put upon the 
 register. Sect. 85 of the Act of 1883 only 
 excludes notices of trusts. In re Casey's 
 Patents. Stewabt v. Casey 
 
 C. A, [1892] 1 Ch. 104 
 
 BeTocation, 
 
 50. — JSvidence as to prior user — Admissibility 
 of evidence — Petition. 
 
 An action for infringement of the patent the 
 subject of this petition, brought by the respond- 
 ent to the present petition, having failed, the 
 Court being satisfied that the invention had been 
 used prior to the date of the patent at one place 
 out of several referred to, this petition was 
 brought to have the patent declared void, the 
 petitioner relying solely on the instance which 
 had satisfied the Court in the prior action. 
 
 A witness on the part of the petitioner stated 
 that he had seen the invention used at the parti- 
 cular place relied on, and in cross-examination 
 he stated that he had seen it used also at other 
 places referred to prior to the date of the patent. 
 
 The respondent asked to be allowed to adduce 
 evidence as to the prior user at such other 
 places : — 
 
 Held, that the evidence was inadmissible, on 
 the ground that if admitted it would be allowing 
 the respondent to go into matters not relevant to 
 the question at issae for the sole purpose of dis- 
 crediting the witness and disproving the answers 
 to questions put to him on cross-examination. 
 In re Hagqenmaoher's Patents 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] 8 Ch. 280 
 
 Threats. 
 
 — Damages — ^Report of referee. 
 
 See Akbitbation — OfB.cial Referee, 
 
 45. 
 
 51. — Definition — Patents, &e.. Act, 1883, 
 8.32. 
 
 Threats in s. 32 of the Act of 1883 are not 
 confined to threats by circular or advertisement, 
 but include all threats of legal proceedings 
 except those excluded by the provisoes to the 
 section. Skinner & Co. v. Shew & Co. (No. 1) 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 413 
 
 52. — Equitable assignees — Injunction — 
 Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict o. 57), 
 ss. 32, 46, 87. 
 
 The registered owner of a patent commenced 
 an action against the pits, for infringement. 
 Defts., who had an agreement with the registered 
 owner that he should assign the patent to them, 
 
 PATENT {Taxe&ts)— continued. 
 threatened a customer of the pits, with proceed- 
 ings for an alleged infringement of the patent, 
 but took no steps themselves against the pits : — 
 Held, that they must be restrained, because 
 they had no legal rights in the patent, and, if 
 they had, they themselves had not taken action 
 to restrain the infringements. Kensington and 
 Kniqhtsbkidge Eleotmo Lighting Co. v. Lane 
 Fox Eleotkioal Co. Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ck. 673 
 
 53. — Oeneral circular — Due diligence — 
 Action to restrain threats — Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Viet. e. 57), s. 32. 
 
 A printed notice was sent out by the deft, to 
 the effect that his patent rights in respect of 
 certain wrappers in which his wares were made 
 up were being infringed, and warning persons 
 against such infringement. The pits., rival 
 manufacturers, sued the deft, for threats. The 
 deft, had previously sued the pits, for infringe- 
 ment and for passing off their goods as his ; but 
 his patent was revoked : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the pits, were "persons 
 aggrieved " ; (2) the circular- was not a mere 
 general warning, but a " threat " within s. 32 of 
 the Patents Act, 1883; (3) also, that the infringe- 
 ment action was not prosecuted with due 
 diligence. 
 
 Per Lindley L.J. : Sect. 32 applies to an 
 intended infringement as well as to actual 
 infringement. Johnson v. Edge 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 64. — Interim injunction — Undertaking in 
 damages — Form of order. 
 
 In an interim order restraining threats the 
 undertaking in damages usually included in an 
 interim injunction should not be inserted. 
 Fbnnbr v. Wilson 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] 2 Ch. 656 
 
 65. — Privileged communication. 
 
 In an action to restrain threats of legal pro- 
 ceedings under s. 35 of the Act of 1883, no defence 
 can be based on the ground that what the deft. 
 did was done bona fide, or that it was done on a 
 privileged occasion, e.g., in answer to a private 
 inquiry. Skinner & Co. o. Shew & Co. (No. 1) 
 C, A. [1893] 1 Ch. 413 
 
 56. — Third party, Letter directed against — 
 Injunction — Expired patent — Patents, dec. Act 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 32. 
 
 A CO. owned a patent for gas buoy lanterns 
 that had expired, and also owned patents for 
 improvements which were still running, and had 
 for some years supplied B. with gas buoy lanterns 
 made under the patents. B. having given D. an 
 order for gas buoy lanterns, which were founded 
 to some extent on the expired patent, the 
 managing director of the oo. wrote B. : " I am 
 much surprised at this. I am afraid that this 
 matter will lead to a great deal of difiSculty and 
 unpleasantness, and you must not be surprised 
 if my CO. applies for an injunction against D. 
 to restrain him from selling his gas buoy 
 lanterns " : — 
 
 Held, that under the circumstances the letter 
 was a threat within the meaning of s. 32 of the 
 Patent Act, 1883, and that D. was accordingly 
 
 3 A 
 
( 1443 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1444 ) 
 
 PATENT (Threats) — continued. 
 entitled to an injunction against the co. in the 
 terms of the section. Douglass v. Pintsoh's 
 Patent Lighting Co. 
 
 Komer J. [1896] W. N. 155 (9"); 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 176 
 
 67. — " Threats" — Continuance of action after 
 dismissal of infringement action — Patents Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), ». 32. 
 
 On Jan. 13, 1896, an action was commenced 
 by I the Howard Football Syndicate against 
 William Sykes, under s. 32 of the Patents Act, 
 1883, to restrain the deft, from threatening any 
 person with legal proceedings in respect of the 
 manufacture, 'use, sale, or purchase of footballs 
 made by the pit. co. and alleged to be an in- 
 fringement of a patent belonging to the deft. 
 The pits, also claimed damages for injury to 
 their trade and business by reason of the deft's. 
 threats. On Jan. 14, 1896, the pits, gave notice 
 of motion for an interlocutory injunction. Pending 
 the hearing of this motion the deft., on Jan. 22, 
 
 1896, commenced an action against the pits, for 
 infringement of his patent, and on Jan. 31, 1896, 
 it was ordered that the pits.' motion in the threats 
 action should stand over generally, pending the 
 action for infringement, and that no further 
 proceedings should be taken in the meantime in 
 the threats action. On March 6, 1 896, the deft, 
 delivered his statement of claim in the infringe- 
 ment action, and on May 18, 1896, the pits, 
 delivered their defence, with notice of objections. 
 The infringement action was tried on Feb. 25, 
 
 1897, when it was dismissed with costs, on the 
 ground (inter alia) that the deft.'s patent was 
 invalid by reason of prior user. On March 29, 
 1897, the pits, delivered their statement of claim 
 in the threats action, in which they alleged that 
 the deft, did not prosecute the infringement action 
 with due diligence. On April 28, 1897, the deft, 
 took out a summons asking that the threats 
 action might be dismissed, with costs as between 
 solicitor and client, on the ground that the same 
 was frivolous and vexatious, and that the state- 
 ment of claim disclosed no ground of action in 
 law. On June 19, 1897, on the petition of the 
 pits., Eomer J. made an order for the revocation 
 of the deft's. patent ; — 
 
 Seld, that no order ought to be made on tie 
 deft.'s summons, and that the costs should be 
 reserved to the trial of the threats action. 
 IIowAKD Football Syndicate, Ld. c. Stkes 
 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 81 (10) 
 
 58. — " Threats " — Damages — Evidence. 
 
 Pits, obtained an injunction restraining defts. 
 from threatening legal proceedings, and an 
 inquiry into damages was ordered. Pits, alleged 
 that they had lost the benefit of a contract with 
 the C. Co. in consequence of defts.' threats : — 
 
 Seld, that a letter from the co.'s solicitor to 
 plt.'s declining to continue negotiations in conse- 
 quence of deft's. threats was admissible in 
 evidence : — 
 
 Seld, also, that the measure of damages was 
 the profit pits, would have derived from the 
 proposed contract if it had been carried out. 
 Skinnek cSc Co . . Shew & Co. (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1894] 8 Ch, 681 
 
 PATENT — continued. 
 
 trtility. 
 
 69. — Utility. 
 
 A very small amount of utility is sufficient to 
 support a patent. Utility, in patent law, does 
 not mean abstract, or comparative, or competitive, 
 or commercial utility; but, as applied to an 
 invention, it means that the invention is better 
 than the preceding knowledge of the trade as to 
 a particular fabric, better that is in some respect 
 though not necessarily in every respect. For 
 instance, an invention is useful by which an 
 article good, though not so good as one pre- 
 viously known, can be produced more cheaply by 
 a different process. And an invention is useful 
 when the public are thereby enabled to do some- 
 thing which they could not do before, or to do in 
 a more advantageous manner something which 
 they could do before — or in other words, an in- 
 vention is patentable whiob offers the public a 
 usefal choice. Welsbach Incaotiescent Gas 
 Light Co. v. New Incandescent (Sunlight 
 Patent) Gas Lighting Co. 
 
 Buckley J. [1900] -W. N. 51 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 843 
 
 Validity. 
 
 60. — County court jurisdiction — Infringe- 
 ment of patent. 
 
 The right or privilege granted by letters 
 patent for a new invention is a "franchise" 
 within the meaning of s. 56 of the County Courts 
 Act, 1888, and, therefore, an action for infringe- 
 ment of patent in which the validity of a patent 
 comes in question, is excluded from the jurisdic- 
 tion of the County Court. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 793, 
 affirmed. Keg. v. Judge op the Halifax 
 County Coukt - C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 263 
 
 61. — Provisional and complete specification 
 — Variation — Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Yict. c. 57), s. 5, sub-s. 3, 8. 26. 
 
 In order that a patent may be valid, the 
 provisional specification must describe the true 
 nature of the invention, and the invention must 
 be the same as that claimed in the complete 
 specification. The law on this point is not 
 altered by the Patents Act, 1883 : a patentee of 
 an invention for tapping beer barrels added to 
 his complete specification a description of a part 
 of his invention not stated in the provisional 
 specification, and found to be the only novel or 
 useful part of the invention : — 
 
 Seld, that the provisional specification did 
 not comply with the rule. Nuttall v. Hab- 
 greaves - - C. A. [1892] 1 Ch, 23 
 
 62. — Provisional and complete specification — 
 Variation — Nature of invention — Patents, &o.. 
 Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 57), ss. 5, suh-ss. 3, 26. 
 
 A patent is invalid even if the invention is 
 novel: (1) where the patent claimed in the 
 complete specification is not the same as that 
 claimed in the provisional specification ; (2) where 
 the patent when first granted is not useful for 
 the main purpose for which it was designated ; 
 (3) where the specification was insufficient to 
 enable an electrician of ordinary skill to carry it 
 out at the time of fii'st granting. 
 
 Decision of A. L. Smith J., [1892] 2 Ch. 66, 
 
( 1445 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1446 ) 
 
 PATENT (Jalidlty)— continued. 
 
 affirmed. Lane - Fox v. KENSiNaTON and 
 
 KNIGHTSBMDaE EleOTEIC LIGHTING CO; (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 424 
 
 PATENT AGENTS EULES (EEGISTEE OF), 
 1889 and 1891. 
 
 See Patent. 18, 19. 
 
 PATENT MEDICINE. 
 
 See Poison. 3. 
 
 PATENT BTTLES, 1890. 
 
 ^ee Patent. 19. 
 
 PATENTS OF PBECEDENCE— Power to issue- 
 Powers of provincial legislature. 
 See Canada. 41. 
 
 PATHWAY. 
 
 See Highway. 
 PATBONAGE. 
 
 See Charity — Commissioners. 12. 
 
 PATTEEN— of Sleeve. 
 
 See CoPTKiGHT — Book. 4. 
 
 Patent — What can be Subject of. 2. 
 
 — Eegistration of design. 
 
 See Design. 6. 
 
 PAUPEE — Coats — House of Lords — Pauper 
 appellant. 
 See Appeal. 17. . 
 
 — Grant of administration to clerk of guar- 
 
 dians. 
 
 See Probate. 54. 
 
 — Lunatic pauper — Maintenance. 
 
 See Lunacy — maintenance. 22 — 24. 
 
 — Poor Law. 
 
 See Cases under Poor Law. 
 
 — Eight to sue as. 
 
 See Divorce — Costs. 52, 53. 
 
 Practice — FormS, Pauperis. 23 — 29. 
 
 PAUPEES' CONVEYANCE (EXPENSES) OEDEE, 
 1898. 
 See Poor Law — Statutes and Orders. 
 
 PAVEMENT — Disturbance of — Duty to restore 
 pavement after hoarding removed. 
 See London — Buildings. 11. 
 
 PAVING — Expenses for. 
 
 See Cases under London — Streets. 
 Streets. 
 
 TAVrSBUOKEB^-Licenoe— Magistrate's certificate 
 — Exemption from necessity of obtaining certificate 
 —Pawnbrohers Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Yict. c. 93), 
 «. 39. 
 
 The exemption in s. 39 of the Pawnbrokers 
 Act, 1872, in favour of licensed pawnbrokers at 
 the commencement of that Act, that they should 
 not require a magistrate's certificate, is personal 
 to them and their representatives, and is not con- 
 fined to the business which they were engaged 
 in at the commencement of the Act. Reg. v. 
 Inland Revenue. Ohlson's Case. Garland's 
 Case - Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 485 
 
 And see Cases under Pledge. 
 
 PAYMENT — Appropriation. 
 
 See Cases under Appropriation. 
 
 — Appropriation of payments — Banking account. 
 
 See Banker. 1. 
 
 PAYMENT— co»<i»«e(Z. 
 
 — Appropriation of payments — Partial ademp- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Will — Ademption. 18. 
 
 — Creditor — Proof — Fully-paid shares taken in 
 
 payment of debt — Failure of considera- 
 tion. 
 
 See Company — "Winding-up — Proof. 
 206. 
 
 — Interest on shares — Ultra vires — New rules — 
 
 Known insolvency at time of passing. 
 See Building Society. 12. 
 
 — Money paid by directors ultra vires to share- 
 
 holders — Indemnity. 
 
 See Company — Birectors. 108. 
 
 — Of shares in cash — Set-off — Effect of com- 
 
 pany's adoption of contract made before 
 
 its formation. 
 
 See New South Wales. 7. 
 
 — Oral contract — Part payment — Statute of 
 
 Frauds. 
 
 See Sale of Goods. 2. 
 
 — Part performance — Agreement for lease — 
 
 Increased rent. 
 
 Bee Frauds, Statute op. 13. 
 
 — Proviso that interest should be " punctually " 
 
 paid. 
 
 See MoRTGAGE^Interest. 39. 
 
 — Receipt of, for customer — Crossed cheque. 
 
 See Banker. 8. 
 
 — Receiver — Statute of Limitations. 
 
 See Mortgage — Beceiyer. 57. 
 
 — Shares. 
 
 See Company— Shares. 284, 285. 
 
 — Solicitor and client. 
 
 See Solicitor— Costs. 22. 
 PAYMENT INTO COUET. 
 
 See Practice — Payment into Court. 
 PAYMENT OUT OF COUET. 
 
 See Practice — Payment out of Court. 
 PEACE — Preservation of — Expenses of maintain- 
 ing troops — Liability — Mandamus. 
 See County Council. 9. 
 PEDIAE — Certificate — Marlcet — Using horse and 
 cart — Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847 (10 <£• 11 
 Vict. c. 14), «. 13— Pedlars Acts, 1871 (34 & 35 
 Vict. c. 96), 88. 3, 6 ; 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 45), 
 
 8.2. 
 
 A person holding a pedlar's certificate is only 
 entitled to the exemption provided by the Markets 
 and Pairs Clauses Act, s. 13, as extended by 
 the Pedlars Act, 1871, s. 6, from the penalty for 
 selling within the limits of a market tollable 
 articles whilst he is acting as a pedlar within 
 the definition of that term in s. 3 of the last- 
 mentioned Act. Therefore the holder of such a 
 certificate who uses a hoise and cart and sells 
 tollable articles in a market is liable to ft penalty. 
 Woolwich Local Bd. v. Gardiner 
 
 Div. Ct, [1896] 2 Q,. B. 497 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Llandudno Urban 
 Council V. Hughes, [1900] 1 Q. B. 472. 
 
 PENAL SEBVITUDE— % the Penal Servitude 
 Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 69), the law relating to 
 Penal Servitude and the Prevention of Crime was 
 amended. 
 
 3 A 2 
 
( 1447 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1448 ) 
 
 PENAL STATUTE— International law. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 7. 
 
 PENALTY — Common lodging-house — Liability 
 for keeping — Charitable institution — 
 Non-registration. 
 See LoDGisG-HorsE. 
 
 — Copyright — Indecency of work and infringe- 
 
 ments — Costs- 
 See COPTKIGHT. 16. 
 
 — Covenant not to carry away hay and straw. 
 
 See Landlobd axd Tenant. 16. 
 
 — Delay — Liquidated damages — Extras. 
 
 See BciLDiNG Costkaot. 3. 
 
 — False statement. 
 
 See Company — Ealse Statements. 
 
 — Fine arts — Infringement. 
 
 See CoPTEiGHT. 16, 17. 
 
 — For not substituting road for road interfered 
 
 ■with. 
 
 See Railway — Eoads. 57. 
 
 — Insufficient stamping — Contract note. 
 
 See Kevende — Stamps. 172. 
 
 — Loan to husband— Bond by husband to trustees 
 
 — ^Interest om — Statute of Limitations. 
 See Husband and "Wife. 27. 
 
 — Neglect to fence machinery — Common employ- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 — Non-completion of works. 
 
 See Damages. 7. 
 
 — Obstruction— Control of dock-master — Ee- 
 
 quisition — West India Docks. 
 See Dock. 1 . 
 
 — Probate duty. 
 
 See Eevende — Probate Duty. 134. 
 
 — Recovery. 
 
 See DisoovEKY — Interrogatories. 
 
 — Recovery of — Limitation of time — Justices — 
 
 Summary proceedings 
 See FiSHEKY. 11. 
 
 — Return of election expenses—" Transmit " — 
 
 Error in return. 
 
 See Parliament — Election Expenses. 9. 
 
 — Sale by licensed hawker of goods for which 
 
 licence unnecessary. 
 
 See Markets and Fairs. 2. 
 
 — Sheriff — Extortion by. 
 
 See Sheriff. S, 9. 
 
 — Streets — Offences — Exposing goods for sale 
 
 on carriageway. 
 
 See London — Streets. 89. 
 
 — Who may take proceedings — Metropolis AVater 
 
 Act. 
 
 See Water. 20. 
 
 PENDENTE LITE— Alimony. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce — Alimony. 
 
 — Duration of grant. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Administration. 
 61. 
 
 PENDING ACTION— Payment into court with 
 denial of liability — Bankruptcy before 
 trial. 
 See Bankruptcy — Practice. 153. 
 
 PENDING ACTION — continued. 
 
 — Eight of creditor to sue administrator. 
 
 See Probate— Grant of Administration. 
 60. 
 PENSION— Assets — Indian pension — Payment 
 to trustee — Discretion. 
 See Bankruptcy — Assets. 61. 
 
 — Cancellation — Incapacity by infirmity. 
 
 See Police. 
 
 — Retired officer — Appropriation of bankrupt's 
 
 pay. 
 
 See Ban-kruptcy — Appropriation. 48. 
 
 — Right to — Victoria Public Service Act, 1890 
 
 -"Prosecutor for the Queen"— "Pro- 
 secuting barrister." 
 See Victoria. 10. 
 
 — Special duty allowance — " Annual pay." 
 
 See Police. 4. 
 
 PERFOEMANCE— of Contract. 
 
 See Contract — Performance. 
 
 — Prevented by a misfortune beyond control of 
 
 either party — Towage. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 251. 
 
 — Specific performance. 
 
 See Specific Performance. 
 
 Vendor and Pubchaseb — Specific 
 Performance. 
 
 PEEILS OF THE SEA. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 28, 31, 44, 50. 
 Shipping. 111. 
 
 PESIODICAL — Publication in. 
 
 See Copyright — PeriodioaL 36. 
 
 PEEJUET. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 23. 
 
 PERPETUATING TESTIMONY- Deposition in 
 suit — Evidence — AdmissibiUty. 
 See Common. 1. 
 
 PEEPETUITY. 
 
 See Charity— Gift to Charity. 26, 36, 
 
 37. 
 See Will — Perpetuity. 
 
 — Personal covenant — Covenant running with 
 
 land. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 95. 
 
 — Rule against perpetuities — Power of appoint- 
 
 ment among children — Remoteness. 
 See Powers — Validity. 44 — 46. 
 
 — Eule against perpetuity — Reverter — Common 
 
 law condition — Shifting use. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 76. 
 
 — Shares — Restriction on free transfer — Com- 
 
 pulsory transfer in event of bankruptcy. 
 See Company — Shares. 302. 
 
 PERSONALTY- Pure or impure— Mortmain. 
 
 See Cases under Charity — Mortmain. 
 
 PETITION. 
 
 See Cases vmder subject-matter of Peti- 
 tion. 
 
 PETITION OF EIGHT— Appeals from judgment 
 on — Practice. 
 See Canada. 6. 
 
 — Officer — Liability to dismissal. 
 
 See Cases under Crown. 
 
( 1449 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 19C0. 
 
 ( 1450 ) 
 
 PEW. I 
 
 See EooLESiASTioAL Law — Pews. 
 
 PHAEMACY ACTS— Pharmacy Acts Amendment 
 Act, 1898 (61 <fe 62 Vict. c. 25), amende the Phar- 
 macy Acts, 1852 and 1868. 
 
 — Poison — Sale of. 
 
 See Poison. 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHY— Copyright in photographs. 
 See CoPTBiGHT — Picture. 37. 
 
 — Documents, power of Court to allow photo- 
 
 graphs to be taken of. 
 
 See DiBCOTEKT — Documents. 26. 
 
 — Light — Extraordinary purpose — Prescription. 
 
 See Light and Aik. 22. 
 
 — Eeference to character of goods. 
 
 See Tbade-mark. 24. 
 
 — Use of photographs — Identification — Evi- 
 
 dence. 
 
 See Divorce — Evidence. 77. 
 PIAWO. 
 
 See Pactob. 4, 5. 
 
 — Innkeeper providing piano — Music — ^Public 
 
 Health Acts. 
 
 See Innkeepeb. 4. 
 
 PICXUKE— Copyright in. 
 
 See CoPTEiGHT — Intemational. 
 CoPYEiGHT — Picture. 
 
 — Faculty for pictures at east end of chancel of 
 
 parish church refused. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 21. 
 
 — Pledge of picture — Foreclosure — Sale. 
 
 See Pledge. 3. 
 
 PICKETING— "Watching and besetting "—In- 
 junction. 
 See Cases under Trade Union. 
 
 PIEE-r-Collisiou of ship with pier. 
 See Shipping. 98. 
 
 1. — Iiidbility to repair — Clyde Navigation 
 Acts, 1839 (3 <fc 4 Vict. c. cxviii.), s. 11 ; 1858 
 (21 & 22 Vict. c. cxlix.), s. 76. 
 
 On the construction of the special Acts of the 
 Clyde navigation trustees : — 
 
 Held, that the Clyde trustees were under no 
 obligation to repair the damage done to a pier at 
 Erskine Ferry by a ship navigating the Clyde, 
 on the ground that the pier was no part of the 
 trustees' undertaking. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1891) 18 E. 197, 
 reversed. Trustees of Clyde Navigation ■». 
 Lord Blanttrb H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 703 
 
 PILOTAGE. 
 
 See Shipping— Pilotage. 
 
 PIBACY — Book — Infringement — Combining 
 causes of action. 
 See Copyright. 11. 
 
 PIEATES— Bill of lading. 
 
 See Shipping — ^Exceptions. 139. 
 
 PITCH — Account — Entries disallowed — Discre- 
 tion of Court. 
 See AocoDNT. 3. 
 
 — Escape of — Adjacent lands — Eight to lateral 
 
 support — Injunction — Damages. 
 See Support. 2. 
 
 PITCH — continued. 
 
 — Stratum of — Surface — Subsidence — Eight of 
 
 support. 
 
 See Support. 1. 
 
 PLACE— Used for betting. 
 
 See Cases under Gaming. 
 
 PLACABS — Libel — Injury to trade. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 31. 
 PLAN — Building plans. 
 
 See Cases under London — Buildings. 
 Streets — Building Plans. 
 
 — Copyright in. 
 
 See Copyright — Book. 4. 
 
 — Coste on higher scale allowed. 
 
 See Costs. 9. 
 
 — Mistake — Eeotification — Parol evidence. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Contract. 
 28. 
 
 PLANT — Defect in condition of — -Employers' 
 Liability Act. 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 — Specific description — Substitution — Horses. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 53. 
 
 PLAY- 
 
 -Copyright in. 
 See Copyright — Dramatic. 
 
 7. 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 See Practice — Pleading. 
 
 PLEDGE — Bill of lading — Sale of goods in trust. 
 
 The law of Scotland as well as the law of 
 England is that a pledgee may redeliver the 
 goods to the pledgor for a limited purpose without 
 thereby losing his rights under the contract of 
 pledge. 
 
 The pledgees of a bill of lading returned it to 
 the pledgors to obtain delivery and sell on behalf 
 of the pledgees, and account for the proceeds 
 towards satisfaction of the debt : — 
 
 Held, that the pledgees' security was not 
 affected, and that they were entitled to the pro- 
 ceeds of the cargo as against the diligence of 
 general creditors of the pledgors. North Western 
 Bank v. Poynter, Son, and Macdonalds 
 
 H, L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 66 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (So.) Inglis v. Robertson, 
 [1898] A. 0. 616, 626. 
 
 2. — Bill of lading — Trover— Bills of Lading 
 Act, 1855. 
 
 Pledgees of goods are entitled to maintain 
 trover in respect of a wrongful delivery of the 
 goods, even where at the date of the wrongful 
 delivery they had not acquired their title to the 
 goods. Bristol and West of England Banku. 
 Midland Ey. Co. - C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 663 
 
 — Blank transfer — Certifloate of shares. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 293. 
 
 — Deposit of principal's securities by broker. 
 
 See Bankee. 25, 26. 
 
 — Contract — Sale or return of goods. 
 
 See Sale of Goods. 4. 
 
 — Document of title — Foreign arrestment — Con- 
 
 flict of laws — Goods in Scotland. 
 See Factor. 3. 
 
 — Factor. 
 
 See Cases under Factor. 
 
( 1451 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1452 ) 
 
 VLEVGiE— continued. 
 
 — Hiring agreement — Pledge by hirer. 
 
 See Faotob. 5. 
 
 3. — Pictures — Foreclosure — Sale. 
 
 The remedy of the pledgee of a picture is by 
 order for sale, not foreclosure. Fbaseh v. Btas 
 North J. [1895] W. K. 112 <5) 
 
 — Preference — Private manager — Trust for 
 
 creditors — EigLt in security. 
 See Bankkuptot. 158. 
 
 — Shipowner's liability. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 41, 42. 
 
 4. — Tender of amount due. 
 
 Where there has been no tender by the pledgor 
 to the pledgees, a mere assertion by the pledgee 
 that the goods are liis own property does not 
 amount to a waiver of tender or determine the 
 special property in the goods. Yungmann ». 
 Bkiesmans - - C. A. [1892] W. N. 162 
 
 — To person in possession. 
 
 See Goods. 1. 
 
 PLENE ADMINISTEAVIT— Eetaiuer — Follow- 
 ing assets — Creditor of higher degree — 
 Notice. 
 
 See ExEOUTOE — Eetainer. 63. 
 POISON — Balsam of aniseed. 
 
 A preparation of balsam of aniseed containing 
 morphine as an ingredient lield to be a com- 
 pound containing a scheduled poison within the 
 Pharmacy Act, 1868. Phabmacedtical Sooiett 
 V. Abmson - - C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 720 
 
 2. — Chlorodyne. 
 
 Chlorodyne containing as an ingredient chloro- 
 form and morphine held to he a compound con- 
 taining a scheduled poison within the Pharmacy 
 Act, 1868. Phakmaceutioal Society v. Pipek 
 & Co. Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 686 
 
 3. — Patent medicine — Proprietary medicine. 
 A grocer sold in the ordinary course of his 
 
 business a bottle of proprietary medicine, not 
 protected by letters patent, and containing as 
 one of its ingredients two of the poisons scheduled 
 to the Pharmacy Act, 1868 : — 
 
 Held, that it was not a patent medicine, 
 although so called, and consequently it did not 
 come in the exception in s. 16 in favour of patent 
 medicines, i.e., medicines whicli were the subject 
 of letters patent ; that its sale must be conducted 
 in accordance with the regulations to be observed 
 on sale of poisons, under s. 17 of the Pharmacy 
 Act, 1868. 
 
 (a) Phaemaceutioal Society v. Piper & Co. 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 686 
 
 Approved in (b) Phabmaceutical Society v. 
 ASMSON C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 720 
 
 4. — Sale — Compound containing a sclieduled 
 poison, 
 
 A compound containing a poison scheduled to 
 the Pharmacy Act, 1868, is included in the pro- 
 hibition in s. 15 of the Act against the sale of 
 such poisons by other than registered chemists 
 and druggists. 
 
 (A) Phakmaceutioal Society v. Pipek & Co. 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B, 686 
 
 Approved in (b) Phabmaceutical Society v 
 At'^soN C. A. [1894] 2 a. B. 720 
 
 POISON — continued. 
 
 6. — Sale — Medicine containing poison — 
 Infinitesimal quantity. 
 
 A person not being a chemist within the 
 meaning of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, does not 
 commit an offence against s. 15 of that Act by 
 selling a medicine containing an infinitesimal 
 quantity of poison as defined by the Act. Phab- 
 maceutical Society v. Delve 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 71 
 
 6. — Sale of poisons — Order taken by agent — 
 " Seller"— Phannacy Act, 1868 (31 <fe 32 Vict, 
 c. 121), s. 15. 
 
 Sect 15 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, imposes 
 a penalty upon any person "who shall sell" 
 poisons without being duly qualified. The deft., 
 who kept a florist's shop at W. and was not duly 
 qualified to sell poisons, took from one of his 
 customers an order for a " weed-killer," manu- 
 factured by a limited co. at L. and containing 
 poison. The deft, did not keep any of the weed- 
 killer in stock ; but, in accordance with his usual 
 practice, took the order, received from the customer 
 the price of the quantity ordered, gave him a 
 receipt, and forwarded the order to the oo. at L., 
 who thereupon supplied the customer with the 
 weed-killer. The deft, received from the co. o. 
 commission of 25 per cent, in respect of all sales 
 effected on orders sent to them by him. In an 
 action for a penalty under s. 15 : — 
 
 Meld, that there was evidence to support a 
 finding that the deft, was not the person who 
 had the conduct and management of the sale, 
 and, therefore, that he was not the seller of the 
 poison within the meaning of the Act. Phabma- 
 ceutical Society «. White 
 
 DiT. Ct. [1900] W. N. 10; [1900] 1 Q. B. 454 
 
 POLICE. 
 
 Police Disabilities Removal Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 6), extends the Police Disahilities Pe- 
 moval Act, 1887, to municipal and other similar 
 elections. 
 
 Police Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 10), amends 
 the Police Acts. 
 
 Conteibutions by Towk Councils.] General 
 0. of the Secy, of State dated Dee, 19, 1893, and 
 made under s. 2 (3) of the Police Act, 1893, as to 
 contributions by town councils to the Police Pension 
 Fund. St. E. & 0, 1893, p. 461. 
 
 Pension — 2'reasurydelennination,datedJan.S0, 
 1896, declaring the Metropolitan Police Fund to 
 be a public fund within s. 4 of the Superannuation 
 Act, 1892. St. E. & 0, 1896, No. 17. Price id. 
 
 Metropolitan Police Courts (Holidays') Ad, 
 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 14), enables the Courts to be 
 closed on Special Bank Holidays. 
 
 Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. c. 20), transfers crpenses of Police Courts to 
 Metropolitan Police Fuml, &c. 
 
 Police iVroperty) Act, 1897 (60 ct 61 Vict, 
 c. 30), provides for disposal of property in posses- 
 sion of the police. 
 
 Police (Pkopeety) Act, 1897.] Begs, dated 
 Feb. 14, 1898, made by Secy, of State in pursuance 
 of s. 2 of the. Pari. Paper, 1898 (79). Price id. 
 
 Receiver, powers of, extended by Metropolitan 
 
( 1453 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1454 ) 
 
 tOLlCE— continued. 
 
 Police ^Borrowing Powers) Act, 1897 C60 & 61 
 
 Vict. o. 42). 
 
 Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 31) amends the Metropolitan Police Courts 
 Act, 1898. 
 
 Metropolitan Police Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. 
 ■c. 26), amends the law vrith respect to the salaries 
 and aUpwanaes of the Commissioner, Beceiver, and 
 Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan 
 Police. 
 
 Metbopolitan Police Disteiot. Police.] 
 Begs, dated March 5, 1900, as to payment of 
 pensions, gratuities, and allowances granted under 
 Police Act, 1890. St. B. & 0. 1900, No. 201. 
 
 — Chief constable — Payment of costs of — 
 
 Licensing appeals — Borough fund. 
 See CoRPOBATioif. 10. 
 
 1. — Detention of goods — Metropolitan Police 
 Courts Act, 1839 (2 <{; 3 Vict. c. 71), s. 40. 
 
 A magistrate's order under s. 40 of the Metro- 
 politan Police Courts Act, 1839, is no bar to an 
 action for special damage arising out of the same 
 ■detention. Midlamd Et. Co. u. Mabtin & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] a Q. B. 173 
 
 — Information — Consent in writing of chief 
 
 constable— Practice. 
 See SoKDAT. 2. 
 
 — Justices — Jurisdiction — Outlying district of 
 
 county — Transfer to other county. 
 See LicENsma Acts. 25. 
 
 • Licensing Acts. 
 
 See Licensing Aots- 
 
 -Police. 
 
 2. — Maintermnce — Cost of — JBorougli— Con- 
 stables from, other force — Contribution by county 
 <iouncil. 
 
 A borough maintaimng its own police is entitled 
 under s. 24, sub-s. 2 (j), of the Local Government 
 Act, 1888, to be paid by the county council one- 
 half of the cost of the pay and clothing of extra 
 police temporarily added from another police force 
 nnder s. 25 of the Police Act, 1890, and paid for 
 by agreement. Eeq. v. County Council of West 
 EiDme OF YoKKSHiEE C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 805 
 
 — Metropolitan police courts — Appeal to quarter 
 
 sessions — Order for maintenance. 
 See PooK Law — Belief. 9. 
 
 — Officer — Passenger — Inspector of weights and 
 
 measures — ^Conveyance at reduced rate. 
 See Railway— Passengers. 24. 
 
 3. — Cancellation — Pension — Constable — Inca- 
 pacity by infirmity — Police authority — Attendance 
 for medical examination — Collateral purpose — 
 Illegal stoppage of pension — Mandamus — Police 
 ' Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. a. 45), s. 1 (a), (6); s. 5, 
 .sm6-s«. 1, 3, 4, 7; s. 12. 
 
 The power conferred upon a police authority 
 by the Police Act, 1890, a. 5, of requiring a pen- 
 •sioner to attend to be examined by a medical 
 practitioner selected by them at a particular time 
 and place, for the purpose of satisfying them 
 that his incapacity to serve continues, cannot be 
 ■exercised by the police authority for any collateral 
 j)urpoBe, 
 
 A police authority has no power under s. 5, 
 
 POIICE — continued. 
 
 sub-s. 4, of the Act to cancel a pension without 
 
 requiring the pensioner to serve again. 
 
 A police authority has power to fix the time 
 and place for the examination of the pensioner 
 by the medical practitioner whom they may 
 select under the provisions of s. 5 of the Police 
 Act, 1890. 
 
 A police authority, on July 12, 1894, resolved 
 that their former chief constable, to whom they 
 had granted a pension on the ground of incapacity 
 by infirmity, should attend at Warwick on a 
 specified day and hour for the purpose of being 
 examined by two doctors as to his state of health, 
 and that if he failed to do so his pension should 
 be cancelled. 
 
 The pensioner had been declared bankrupt in 
 1891, and in 1892 a warrant had been issued for 
 his arrest, on the ground that he being out of 
 England had not attended his adjourned exami- 
 nation in bankruptcy. He had been residing in 
 Portugal since April, 1892 ; but in March, 1893, 
 he had come to England for a day or two, and 
 had been examined by a doctor, selected by the 
 police authority, who had certified his continuing 
 incapacity. He did not attend in compliance 
 with the resolution of July 12, 1894, and the 
 police authority cancelled his pension : — 
 
 Held, upon the evidence, that the police 
 authority had used their statutory power of 
 requiring the pensioner's attendance at Warwick, 
 not for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to 
 his continued incapacity, but for the purpose of 
 assisting the Bankruptcy Court ; and, conse- 
 quently, that they had exceeded their jurisdiction, 
 and the pensioner was entitled to a mandamus 
 calling upon the police authority to shew cause 
 why they should not pay him the arrears of his 
 pension. Ee&. v. Lokd Leigh. In re Kinohant 
 C. A. [1897] 1 a. B. 132 
 
 4. — Pension — Special-duty allowance — 
 " Annual pay " — Police Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 45), Sched. I., rr. 1, 11. 
 
 By the Police Act, 1890, a constable who has 
 completed a certain number of years approved 
 service is entitled to a pension, which is to be 
 calculated on the amount of his " annual pay " 
 at the date of his retirement. 
 
 A constable was appointed by the commis- 
 sioners of police to attend permanently on special 
 duty at the House of Lords. For that special 
 duty, which he discharged for several years up to 
 the time of his retirement, he received the sum 
 of Is. a day in addition to his ordinary pay : — 
 
 Held, by Channell J. (Buoknill J. dissenting), 
 that the extra remuneration for the special duty 
 formed no part of his " pay" for the purposes of 
 the calculation of his pension : 
 
 Held, further, by Channell and Bucknill JJ., 
 that for the purposes of calculating pension 
 " annual pay " means three hundred and sixty- 
 five times the amount of the daily pay, not fifty- 
 two times the amount of the weekly pay. 
 Uppeeton v. Eidley Div. Ct, [1900] 1 Q. B, 680 
 
 — Police districts — Authority to divide county. 
 
 See County Council — Powers. 12. 
 
 — Power of constable to stop person riding with- 
 
 out light. 
 
 Se^ BlQYOtE. 1, 
 
( 1455 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1456 ) 
 
 POLICE — continued. 
 
 — Power of, to enter on licensed premises. 
 
 See Licensing Acts — Police. 45. 
 
 — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Pabliament — FrancMse. 128 — 130. 
 
 — Eeport — Libel. 
 
 See Defamation. 
 
 — Streets — Oifences — ^Exposing goods for sale on 
 
 carriageway — Penalty. 
 See London — Streets, 89. 
 
 — Supplying drink io constable on duty. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 
 
 POEICY OF INSTTEANCE. 
 
 See Cases under Insueance. 
 
 poeitical offences. 
 
 See EXTEADITION. 
 
 POLITICAL AND EELIGIOUS PTJEPOSES— Gift 
 for. 
 See Chakitt — Gift to Charity. 27. 
 
 POLL — Mode of counting proxies where no poll 
 demanded. 
 See C03IPANY — Meetings. 163. 
 
 POLLTTTION — Rivers — Cesser before trial — 
 Injun ction — Practice. 
 See NtJiSANCEs. 25, 26. 
 
 — Elvers and water. 
 
 See Cases under Water — Follntion. 
 
 — Sewage and drainage. 
 
 See Seweks — PoUntion. 
 
 POND— Cleansing. 
 
 See Settled Land — Ponds. 91. 
 
 PONDOLAND— Cape of Good Hope— Laws of. 
 See Cape op Good Hope. 6. 
 
 POOEr—Gift to. 
 
 See Chaeitt— Gift to Charity. 28, 29. 
 POOE LAW. 
 
 Statutes and Orders, col. 1455. 
 
 In General, col. 1456. 
 
 Gnardians, col. 1456. 
 
 Relief (Maintenance and Belief), coZ. 1 457. 
 
 Settlement, col. 1459. 
 
 Statutes and Orders. 
 
 Election of Gvakdians.] By s. 20 of the 
 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Tict. c. 73), 
 tlie law relating to the election and qualification of 
 guardians was amended. 
 
 By fhe Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 
 1896 (59 & 60 Tict. c. 50), certain allowances, &c., 
 to Poor Law Officers and Servants are pro- 
 vided for. 
 
 Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896 
 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 50), amended by 60 * 61 Vict, 
 c. 28, as respects female nurses. 
 
 Poor Laio Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 29), 
 amends tJie law with respect to borrowing money 
 by guardians and managers of district schools 
 and asylums, and explains the Metropolitan Poor 
 Act, 1867. 
 
 Instruction of children in workhouses and in 
 separate and dutriet schools. General 0. of the 
 Lac. Govt. Bd. dated Jan. 30, 1897. Lond. Gaz. 
 neb. 2, 1897, p. 625; St. E. & 0. 1897, No. 59. 
 
 POOE LAW (Statutes and Orders) — continued. 
 
 Apprenticeship of pauper children — General 0. 
 of Loc. Govt. Bd. Lond. Gaz. Feh. 22, 1898, 
 p. 1126. 
 
 Metropolitan Poor Aet, 1898 (61 * 62 Viet, 
 c. 45), amends s. 69 of the Metropolitan Poor Act, 
 1867, as to the expenses payable out of the Metro- 
 politan Common Poor Fund. 
 
 Paupers? Conveyance (Expenses) Order, 1898, 
 rescinds previous Order under Paupers' Convey- 
 ance (Expenses) Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Via. c. 48). 
 Lend. Gaz. Feb. 8, 1898, p. 773. 
 
 Poor Law Unions Association (Expenses) Act 
 1898 (61 & 62 Viet. c. 19), provides for the 
 establishment of a Poor Law Union Association 
 in England and Wales, and to enable boards of 
 guardians to contribute to the expenses of the 
 association. 
 
 EtECTiON OP GHABDIANB.] The <3uardiam 
 (London) Election Order, 1898, dated Jan. 21, 
 1898. St. E & 0. 1898, No. 15, p. 609. 
 
 Poor Law Aet, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. e. 37), 
 amends s. 1 of the Poor Law Act, 1889 (52 <£ 53 
 Vict. c. 56), and s. 4 of the Paupers Inmates Dis- 
 charge and Regulation Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict, 
 e. 108). 
 
 GUAEDIANS.] Appointment of subordinate 
 officers, 0. of Loc. Gov. Bd. dated Sept. 7, 1899, as 
 to. St. S. & 0. 1899, p. 967, No. 675. 
 
 Guardians — Expenses — General 0. of Loc. Gov. 
 Bd. dated Feb. 17, 1899, under Poor Law Union 
 Association (Expenses) Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 e. 19). St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 966, No. 104. 
 
 Poor Removal Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vict. c. 23), 
 amends the law relating to fhe removal of paupers 
 from England to Ireland. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Disqualification — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Pabliament — ^Franchise. 
 
 — Poor-rates. 
 
 See Cases under Eates. 
 
 — Eeceiver in lunacy — Pauper lunatic — Guard- 
 
 ians levying distress. 
 See Lunacy — Eeceiver. 
 
 — Superannuation allowance, contribution for — 
 
 Income ta.x — Salary — Deductions. 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 111. 
 
 — Vagrancy — ^Wilful refusal or neglect of person 
 
 to maintain himself — Incapacity result- 
 ing from drunkenuesB. 
 See Vagbanot. 2. 
 
 Guardians. 
 
 1. — Limitation of time for payment of debt — 
 Jurisdiction of House of Lords over costs — Costs 
 of appeal in Mouse of Lords — Poor Law (Payment 
 of DebU) Act, 1859 (22 & 23 Vict c. 49), ss. 1, 4. 
 
 An order of tliis House for payment of th& 
 costs of an appeal without specifying the amount 
 does not constitute a "debt, claim or demand, 
 lawfully incurred or become due " within the 
 meaning of the Poor Law (Payment of Debts) 
 Act, 1859, ss. 1, 4, until the amount has been 
 certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments under 
 the Standing Orders, and the time for payment 
 
( 1457 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OABES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1158 ) 
 
 POOE LAW (QtuaxdiaTiB)— continued. 
 
 limited by that Act rune from the date of the 
 
 certificate and not from the date of the order. 
 
 This House has an inherent jurisdiction, 
 independent of statute, over costs in proceedings 
 before itself. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 1 Q. B. 662, reversed. 
 West Ham Union v. St. Matthew, Bbthnal 
 Gbeen (Chubchwabdens, &c., op) (No. 2) 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 477 
 
 2. — Limitation of time for payment of debt 
 — Oommsncement of "proceedings" — Application 
 for taxation of costs — Poor Law {Pa/yment of 
 Debts) Act, 1859 (22 * 23 Vict. c. 49), ss. 1, 4. 
 
 An application to the clerk of the peace to 
 tax costs awarded by quarter sessions is not a 
 commencement of proceedings within a. 4 of the 
 Poor Law (Payment of Debts) Act, 1859, so as 
 to take the debt out of the operation of s. 1. 
 
 Quiere, whether before taxation of the costs 
 there was any debt, claim, or demand incurred 
 or become due. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1895] 1 Q. B. 357, affirmed. 
 Midland Kx. Co. ■;;. Edmonton Union 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 485 
 
 3. — Limitation of time for payment of debt 
 — Costs — Date from which limited time runs — 
 Judgment for costs in the Supreme Court — Alloca- 
 tur of master — Poor Law {Payment of Debts) Act, 
 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. 49), «. 1. 
 
 A judgment of the 0. A. for payment by 
 guardians of the poor of the costs of an appeal 
 does not constitute a " debt, claim, or demand 
 lawfully incurred or become due" within the 
 meaning of the Poor Law (Payment of Debts) 
 Act, 1859, 8. 1, until the amount has been deter- 
 mined on taxation, and the time for payment 
 limited by that Act runs from the date of the 
 allocatur, and not from the date of the judgment. 
 Manchesteb, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Et. 
 Co. v. Donoasteb Union C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 117 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (E.). West Ham Union v. 
 Chwchwardens, &c., of St. Matthev), Bethnal Green, 
 [1896] A. C. 477, at p. 485. See No. 1, above. 
 
 4. — Loan for term of years — Redemption 
 without consent of lender — Poor Law Loans Act, 
 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 11), s. 2. 
 
 Guardians of the poor who have since April 24, 
 1871 (the date of the passing of the Poor Law 
 Loans Act, 1871) borrowed moneys, to be repaid 
 at stipulated times, cannot even with the autho- 
 rity of an order of the Loc. Govt. Bd. under s. 2 
 of the Act compel the lender to accept against 
 his will repayment otherwise than in accordance 
 with the contract. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1897] 1 Ch. 835, affirmed. 
 West Debet Union v. Mbtbopolitan Life As- 
 subance Society - H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 647 
 
 Belief. 
 (Kaintenauce and Belief.) 
 
 5. — Costs of maintenance — Payment to guard- 
 ians — Periodical payment — Pauper entitled — 
 Divided Parishes and Poor Law Act, 1876 
 (39 * 40 Vict. V. 61), «. 23. 
 
 "Where an application was made to justices by 
 guardians for an order under s. 23 of the Divided 
 Parishes, &c., Act, 1876, on a friendly society 
 
 POOE LAW (B,6&6f)— continued. 
 alleged to be bound to make periodical payments 
 to a pauper, and the right of the pauper to the 
 payments in question was disputed : — 
 
 Meld, that the magistrates had no jurisdiction, 
 as it is a condition precedent to proceeding* 
 under s. 23 that the right of the pauper to such 
 payments should be undisputed. Beg), v. 
 BlOHABDSON - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 32a 
 
 6. — Costs of maintenance — Practice — Sus- 
 pended order — Poor Law Act, 1834 (4 <fc 5 Will. 
 c. 76), s. i—Poor Law Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict, 
 0. 103), 8. 16. 
 
 An application for an order for costs of main- 
 tenance under orders of removal, which have 
 been suspended because of the ill-health of the 
 pauper, must be made by summons and not 
 ex parte. Eeo. v. Wilkinson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 a. B. 722 
 
 7. — Costs of 'maintenance — Property of de- 
 ceased pauper — Beimibursement of guardians — 
 Executor's right of retainer— Poor Law Act, 1849 
 (12 & 13 Vict. a. 103), s. 16. 
 
 Guardians are not preferential but ordinary 
 creditors against the estate of a deceased pauper 
 for the expenses of the maintenance of the pauper 
 for the last twelve months of the pauper's life, 
 and the pauper's executor can retain a debt dne 
 to himself before satisfying the claim of the 
 guardians. Laveb v. Botham & Sons. Ohesteb- 
 FiELD Union Claimants 
 
 Siv. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 69 
 
 8. — Maintenance — Sv/m due under mainte- 
 nance order — Becoverdble as a civil debt — Poor 
 Belief Act, 1601 (43 Eliz. c. 2), s. 6—8wmmary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. v. 49), 
 88. 6, 35. 
 
 Money due under an order of justices made 
 upon a person for the maintenance of his father 
 under 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 6, is recoverable before a 
 court of summary jurisdiction as a civil debt and 
 not as a penalty ; and an order of justices for the 
 payment of the money so due cannot be enforced 
 by imprisonment in default of distress, unless it 
 be proved that the person in default has since 
 the date of the latter order had the means to pay 
 the sum in respect of which he has made default. 
 In re Gamble - Div. Ct. [1898] W. N. 173 (7) ; 
 [1899] 1 a. B, 305 
 — Maintenance of pauper lunatic. 
 See Lunacy — Maintenance. 
 
 9. — Maintenance, Order fm Practice — 
 
 Appeal to quarter sessions — 43 Eliz. c. 2 — Order to 
 pay 2s. 6d. u. weeic — Swm adjudged to be paid 
 more than 31. — Metropolitan Police Court Act, 1839 
 (2 <fe 3 Vict. V. 71), s. 50. 
 
 An order of a metropolitan police magistrate 
 to pay 28. 6d. weekly towards the relief and 
 maintenance of a certain pauper for and during 
 so long a time as she shall be chargeable is not 
 an order in which the simi adjudged to be paid 
 is more than 31., so as to give a right of appeal to 
 quarter sessions under s. 50 of 2 & 3 Vict. v. 71. 
 Beg. v. London Justices, Ex parte Gbeenwiob 
 Union - Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q. B. 438 
 
 10. — Strike of workmen — Guardians of the 
 poor — Persons entitled to relief — "Sudden and 
 urgent necessity " — Able-bodied men unwilling to- 
 
( 1459 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1460 ) 
 
 POOE LAW (fielief) — amtinued. 
 work — "Idle and disorderly persons" — Prosecu- 
 tion by guardians — Powers of Local Government 
 Board — Jurisdiction of High Court — Injurtction — ■ 
 Pvhlio authority — Practice — Declaration of right 
 —Poor Relief Act, 1601 (43 Eliz. c. 2), ». 1— 
 Vagrancy Act, 1824 (5 Geo. 4, c. 83), «. 3— Poor 
 Law Amendment Act, 1834 (4 (fe 5 Will. 4, v. 76), 
 «8. 15, 52, 54 — Poor Law Audit Act, 1848 
 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 91), ». 4— iJ. S. C, 1883, 
 Order XXV., r. 5. 
 
 Tho classes of persons who are entitled to 
 poor law relief are still (notwithstanding subse- 
 quent legislation) the same as those mentioned 
 in s. 1 of the Act of 43 Eliz. o. 2. 
 
 Able-bodied men who can, if they choose, 
 obtain work which will enable them to maintain 
 themselves, their wives and families, but who, by 
 reason of a strike or otherwise, refuse to accept 
 that work, are not entitled to relief, except that, 
 if they become physically incapable of working, 
 the guardians may, to prevent their starving, 
 give them temporary relief. Bat in that case 
 the guardians ought to prosecute them under the 
 Vagrancy Act, 1824, a. 3, as " idle and disorderly 
 persons." The wives and chUdreu of such men, 
 however, are entitled to relief, though they 
 themselves are not. 
 
 Semble also, that men who are prevented from 
 accepting work by fear of physical violence are 
 entitled to relief. 
 
 A general strike of workmen does not of itself 
 create a case of " sudden and urgent necessity " 
 within the meaning of s. 54 of the Poor Law 
 Amendment Act, 1834, 
 
 The High Court has jurisdiction to restrain 
 guardians from applying the poor-rates im- 
 properly. But this jurisdiction does not interfere 
 with the power of the Loo. Gov. Bd. under s. 4 of 
 the Poor Law Audit Act, 1848, to remit im- 
 proper payments by guardians which have been 
 disallowed by the auditor. 
 
 Tlie pits, claimed an injunction to restrain 
 the defts. from applymg the rates in the relief of 
 able-bodied men who could have obtained work 
 but who refused to accept it, and also a declara- 
 tion of the illegality of such an application of 
 the rates. At the trial of the action the pits, did 
 not ask for an injunction : — 
 
 Seld, that the Court had jurisdiction, and 
 ought to make a declaration that any pavment 
 
 ° r f f l,'*i''^ *'°'" ^^*'*°S to work or fir the 
 ivUet of able-bodied men who could at the time 
 obtam and perform work at wages sufficient to 
 support themselves and their wives and famihes 
 1 ?f ^^ was unia^fjjl ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^ disallowed 
 by the auditor of the guardians' accounts. But 
 the declaration was not to include relief given to 
 •or for the wives and children of such men, and 
 was m no way to affect the power of the Loc. 
 i^ovt. Bd. to remit such disallowed payments, 
 
 enabnf «"°^^r^","y '^''^^' '^^''' any statute 
 enabling them to do so. 
 
 Decision of Eomcr J., ri8991 W N S.S rqi 
 
 ^versed. AT. G.. .mIJ!.! TvJn, U^o^k 
 
 0. A. [1900] -w. N, 86; [1900] 1 Ch. 516 
 
 jj^ Settlement. 
 
 -''irf;^„„^f;'« f «&™e^-i>.W«V,„ of parish in 
 oorn—Loss of birth settlement— 
 
 FOOB LAW (Settlement) — continued. 
 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12, «. il— Divided Parishes 
 Act, 1876 (39 * 40 Vict. c. 61), ss. 1, 3, 8— Local 
 Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Viet. c. 73), ss. 1 
 mb-s. 3, 67, 68, 75. 
 
 The decision in Iteg. v. Inhabitants of Tipton, 
 (1842) 3 Q. B. 215, as to the settlement of 
 paupers established the rule that the settlement 
 in a parish gained by birth therein is a settlement 
 in the parish as an entity, and not in any par- 
 ticular township of it, and if after a birth settle- 
 ment has been gained in it the parish is divided 
 by Act of Parliament into two or more separate 
 parishes, so that it ceases to exist as one entire 
 parish, the birth settlement gained in the old 
 parish ceases to exist also. 
 
 This rule has been so long established and so 
 frequently applied, that it cannot now be altered 
 by the Court ; and accordingly it was applied by 
 C. A., affirming the decision of Collins and 
 Ridley JJ., in the case of a parish which had 
 become two separate parishes by the operation of 
 the Local Government Act, 1894, s. 1, sub-s. 3. 
 DoKKiNG Union i\ St. Savioub's TJnion 
 
 C. A [1898] 1 a B. 594 
 
 12. — Computation of time of residence — Irre- 
 movability — Exclusions — Patient in hospital — 
 Poor Removal Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 66), g. 1 
 —Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (39 <fc40 Vict. c. 61), 
 8. 34. 
 
 The residence for a term of three years which 
 confers a settlement under the Divided Parishes 
 Act, 1876, is residence for three consecutive 
 years, under the conditions provided by the Act. 
 
 Dorcliesfer Union v. Weymouth Union, (1885) 
 16 Q. B. D. 31, approved. 
 
 The period during which a person is a patient 
 in a hospital must be excluded in computing the 
 time necessary for his acquisition of a settlement 
 under the Divided Parishes Act, 1876. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct., [1S97] 1 Q. B. 438, 
 affirmed. St. Olave's Union v. Cakterbobt 
 Union C. A. [1897] 1 «. B. 682 
 
 13. — Constructive residence — Seaman — Divi- 
 ded Parishes Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61), 
 s. 34. 
 
 Where during a seaman's absence at sea his 
 wife removed to lodgings at A., where he joined 
 her on his return : — 
 
 Held, that in the absence of any evidence of 
 the wife's having her husband's authority to 
 take the lodgings, he could not be treated as 
 having constructively resided there for the period 
 between the wife's going to A. and his joining 
 her there. West Ham Uniox v. Cardiff Union 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q,. B, 766 
 
 14' — Derivative settlement of father — ChUd 
 under sixteen— Divided Parishes Act, 1 876 (39 & 40 
 Vict. o. 61), s. 35. 
 
 A man who had acquired no settlement for 
 himself since he was sixteen years old, and 
 whose father's settlement was " derivative," left 
 ohildi-en under sixteen chargeable to the parish :— 
 fti • i*'^'^* *'^'' cl^ildren took the settlement 
 ot their father, and tliat as it could not be shewn 
 what settlement he derived from his father with- 
 out luquinng mto the derivative settlement of 
 his father, the children's settlement was the 
 
( 1461 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1462 ) 
 
 TOOE LAW (Settlement)- 
 
 pariali in which their father was born. Bath 
 
 llinoN V. Bbbwiok-on-Twbbd Union 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 731 
 
 15. — Derivative tettlement of mother — Child 
 under sixteen — Second marriage of mother — 
 Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (39 * 40 Vict. c. 61), 
 ^.35. 
 
 The children under sixteen of a first husband 
 do not take the settlement acquired by their 
 mother on her second marriage. Llanbllt 
 Ukion v. Neath Union 
 
 Blv. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 38 
 
 16. — Illegitimate pauper — Birthplace — De- 
 rivative settlement of parent — Divided Parishes 
 Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61), s. 35. 
 
 On inquiry as to the place of settlement of an 
 illegitimate pauper, it was proved that the pauper 
 was born in P. and the pauper's mother in S., 
 and that neither of them had acquired a settle- 
 ment of her own. Facts were proved upon 
 which the Court held that the father of the 
 pauper's mother had a settlement and that the 
 pauper's mother derived that settlement from 
 him, but did not make the necessary inquiries to 
 ascertain what tliat settlement was, and adjudged 
 that the pauper's settlement was in P. where she 
 was born : — 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of C. A., that the 
 adjudication was right ; that the case came within 
 the thiid paragraph of s. 35 of the Divided 
 Parishes Act, 1876, and that since it could not be 
 ahewn what settlement the pauper derived from 
 her mother without inquiring into the derivative 
 settlement of the mother, the pauper must be 
 deemed to be settled in the parish where she 
 was born. Plymouth Union v. Akminstek 
 Union - H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 586 
 
 17. — Lunatic pauper — Removahility. 
 
 The temporary absence of a pauper lunatic 
 from the union " on trial " does not constitute 
 such a breach of residence as to put an end to 
 the status of irremovability which the lunatic 
 had acquired. Keo. v. Beuoe 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 136 
 
 18. — Memoval of pauper — IrremovabiUty — 
 Break of residence — Intention of pauper to reside 
 permanently in another union. 
 
 A pauper whose original settlement was in 
 the C. Union had by residence become irremov- 
 able in the E. Union, and was sent to the E. 
 Workhouse. She desired to be sent to the 
 0. Workhouse, in which her son was, and she 
 therefore obtained her discharge from the B. 
 Workhouse and went to reside for a week with a 
 relative in another union in order to break her 
 status of irremovability in the E. Union. She 
 then returned to theE. Workhouse for the purpose 
 of being sent to the C. Union : — 
 
 HeM, that an order for her removal from the 
 E. Union to the C. Union was rightly made. 
 Oambeidge Union v. Edmonton Union 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 ft. B. Ill 
 
 19. — Bemoval of pauper before 1876 — Subse- 
 quent residence without relief^" Pauper removed " 
 —39 <!■ 40 Vict. 0. 61, s. 36. 
 
 A pauper who has been removed from the 
 place of her original settlement can, notwith- 
 
 POOR LAW (Settlement)— cojitmMed!. 
 standing s. 36 of the Divided Parishes Act, 1876, 
 acquire a fresh settlement there if she returned 
 before the passing of the Act and has resided 
 without relief. The words in s. 36, "pauper 
 removed before the passing of the Act," which 
 forbid the acquisition of a fresh settlement, are 
 to be restricted to those paupers who had been 
 removed and who still remained paupers when 
 the Act was passed. Brighton Pabish v. Strand 
 Union C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 156 
 
 20. — Besidence apart from parent while 
 under sixteen — 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 1 — 11 & 12 
 Vict. c. Ill, 8. 1—39 & 40 Vict. c. 61, 8. 34. 
 
 A pauper whose father died when she was a 
 baby resided from the age of fourteen to eighteen 
 in a certain parish ; her mother lived in another 
 union : — 
 
 Held, that although the pauper was living 
 away from her family, the proviso in 11 & 12 
 Vict. c. Ill, applied, and therefore that the time 
 before the pauper was sixteen ought not to be 
 reckoned in determining the period of three years 
 required to constitute irremovability, and, there- 
 fore, she had not acquired that status. 
 
 Decisions of Div. Ct. and C. A., [1892] 2 Q. B. 
 65, 676, reversed. West Ham Union v. St. 
 Matthew, Bethnal Green Chdbohwakdens 
 (No. 1) H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 230 
 
 As to costs (242, n.), see now Supreme Court 
 of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. 0. 16), 8. 2 (3). 
 
 POOE-SATE. 
 
 See Cases under Eates. 
 FOBT — Harbour authority — Damage — Towage 
 
 — Contract to exercise reasonable care 
 
 and skill. 
 
 See SHiPPiNGt-^Harbour. 156. 
 
 — Liability to clear a port of sunken ship. 
 
 See Victoria. 15. 
 
 — "Port." 
 
 See SmppofG — Deviation. 122. 
 
 POBTEK — Residential flats — Covenant. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 46. 
 
 PORTIONS- Double portions. 
 
 See Will — Satisfaction. 190. 
 
 — Jointure — Construction of power. 
 
 See Powers — Construction. 4. 
 
 — Eule against double portions. 
 
 See PovFEHS — Construction. 9. 
 
 — Sale of heirlooms — Land purchased with pro- 
 
 ceeds. 
 
 See Heirlooms. 5. 
 
 — Terms for raising portions — Infants — Con- 
 
 tingent interests — Maintenance. 
 See Infant. 30. 
 
 PORTRAIT — " Distinctive device " — Eegistra- 
 tion. 
 See Trade-mark — Registration. 24. 
 
 PORTUGAL— Extradition. 
 See Extradition. 
 
 POSSESSION— Adverse title by. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 80, 82. 
 
 — in Foreclosure action. 
 
 See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 30 — 32. 
 
( 1463 •) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1464 ) 
 
 POSSESSION — continued 
 
 — Goods, Under agreement for sale of. 
 
 See Factoe. 5. 
 
 — Joinder of claim for possession and claim for 
 
 rent. 
 
 See Landlord aot) Tenant. 32. 
 
 — Limitations, Statutes of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statutes oi" — ^Posses- 
 sion, 
 
 — Settled land. 
 
 See Settled Land — Possession, 
 
 — Sheriff, in notice of receiving order to. 
 
 See Shebifp. 12. 
 
 — Title by— True title shewn. 
 
 jSee Pkesobiption. 
 
 — of Title-deeds. 
 
 See Cases under Title-deeds. 
 
 — "Without lawful excuse" — Die for making 
 
 fictitious stamp. 
 See Post Oppice. 1. 
 
 POSSESSORY TITLE— Conditions of sale— Mis- 
 description — Clause excluding compen- 
 sation — Specific performance. 
 See Vendor and Pubchaseb. 6. 
 
 — Statutes of Limitations —Eights of remain- 
 
 dermen. 
 
 See Estoppel. 10. 
 POST. 
 
 See Post Oppicb. 
 
 POST-DATED CHEftUE. 
 
 See Banker. 13. 
 
 POST-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment, 269. 
 
 POST OFFICE. 
 
 Conveyance of Mails Act, 1893 (56 ifc 57 Vict, 
 c. 38), makes further provision for the conveyance 
 of S.M.'s mails. 
 
 Telegrams.] Post Office and Telegraph Act, 
 1897 (60 & 61 Viet. c. 41), makes provision as to 
 delivery of telegrams. 
 
 Postage Stamps.] Imitation of. Lond. Gaz. 
 June 4, 1897, p. 3131. 
 
 Post Office (Guarantee) Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 1 8), makes hetter provision for the guarantee 
 of postal facilities by local authorities. 
 
 Post Office Guarantee (No. 2) Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 59), extends to Borough and Urban District 
 Councils the powers to guarantee postal and tele- 
 graphic facilities already possessed by Rural 
 Councils. 
 
 — Acceptance by post— Withdrawal of offer 
 
 before acceptance — Shares. 
 See Company — Shares, 264. 
 
 — Contract by letters. 
 
 See Contbact — Formation. 17a. 
 
 — " Ordinary course of post." 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise, 95. 
 1. — Postage stamps — Die for making fictitious 
 skimp — Possession '■'■without laivful excuse" — 
 Post Office (^Protection) Act, 1884 (47* 48 Vict. 
 0. 76), s. 7 (c). 
 
 1 B«?^.c • ' ^"'^ °^ *^« Post Office (Protection) Act, 
 ie»i, a person shall not make, or, unless he 
 
 POST OFFICE — continued. 
 
 shews a lawful excuse, have in his possession, any 
 die, plate, instrument, or materials for making' 
 any fictitious stamp." 
 
 The proprietor of » newspaper circulating 
 among stamp-collectors and others caused a die 
 to be made for him abroad, from which imitation* 
 or representations of a current colonial postage- 
 stamp could be produced. The only purpose for 
 which the die was ordered by him, and was 
 subsequently kept in his possession, was for 
 making upon the pages of an illustrated stamp 
 catalogue or newspaper, called " The Philatelist's- 
 Supplement," illustrations in black and white 
 and not in colours of the colonial stamp in ques- 
 tion, this special supplement being intended for 
 sale as part of his newspaper : — 
 
 Held, that the possession of a die for making 
 a false stamp, known to be such to its possessor, 
 was, however innocent the use that he intended 
 to make of it, a possession without lawful excuse- 
 within the meaning of the above section. Dickins 
 V. Gill - - Div. Ct. [1896] 2 ft. B. 310 
 
 — Posting patented article to England — Infringe- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Patent — ^Infringement. 6. 
 
 — Postman employed at a distance from con- 
 
 stituency — Kegistration of voters. 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 108. 
 
 — Service by post — Evidence — ^Notice. 
 
 See Practice— Service, 225. 
 
 — Service through post office — ^Nd postal delivery 
 
 — Kegistration of voters. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 97. 
 
 POSTPONEMENT. 
 
 See Will. 
 
 — To other creditors — Loan in consideration of 
 
 share of profits. 
 
 See Pabtneeship. 16. 
 
 POUNDAGE— Sheriff's. 
 
 See Cases under Shebifp. 
 
 — Sheriff — Keceiving order — Execution — Sale. 
 
 See Bankbuptcy. 215. 
 
 POUTUTU JUBISDICTION ACT— Laws of New 
 Zealand — Native Land Courts Acts. 
 See New Zealand. 8. 
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY- 5^2 of sale. 
 
 A valid bill of sale may be executed by attor- 
 ney, and the grantee of the bill of sale is not 
 necessarily excluded from being the attorney. 
 FuBHrvALL V. Hudson North J, [1893] 1 Ch. 385 
 
 Referred to by North J. Dennison v. JeffSy 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 611, 616. 
 
 — Execution of — Presumption. 
 
 See PowEBS. Exercise. 13. 
 
 — Executor's attorneys, grant to. 
 
 See Pbobate. 115. 
 
 — Exercise by person not a trustee of building 
 
 society — Invalidity. 
 
 See Mortgage — Sale. 84. 
 
 — Foreign power of attorney. 
 
 See Conflict op Laws. 5. 
 
 — Principal and agent — Construction of power 
 
 of attorney. 
 
 See Canada. 60. 
 
( 1463 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1466 ) 
 
 TOWEB OP A.TTO'RS-EY— continued. 
 
 — Refusal to execute — Property abroad. 
 
 See Bankrcptot. 72. 
 
 — Sale of business under — Waiver. 
 
 See Pabtnebship — Sale. 43. 
 
 2. — Validity — Beal estate — Will^Oi/tamong 
 persons sui juris — Charge of debts and legacies — 
 Trustees — Vendor and pureliaser — Ktle. 
 
 A testator, after directing payment of his 
 debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and 
 bequeathing several legacies, gave his residuary 
 real and personal estate to trustees, as to certain 
 parts of his real estate, upon trusts by way of 
 settlement ; and as to the residue of his real and 
 personal estate, he gave the same to four persons, 
 all sui juris, absolutely. And he declared that 
 his trustees should have power to sell his real 
 estate at such times as they should deem expe- 
 dient, and should hold the proceeds upon the 
 trusts of his will. 
 
 The trustees, purporting to exercise their 
 power of sale, sold part of the real estate com- 
 prised in the latter residuary gift : — 
 
 Held, as between the vendors and the pur- 
 chaser, that the power of sale was valid, not on 
 the ground that the testator shewed any intention 
 that it should be exercised for the purpose of 
 division among the beneficiaries, but on the 
 ground that the debts and legacies were charged 
 on the real estate under the doctrine in Cfreville v. 
 Browne, (1859) 7 H. L. C. 689, and that the 
 power of sale was intended to be exercised for 
 the purpose of raising money to pay the same if 
 required. 
 
 In re Lord Sudeley and Baines & Co., [1894] 
 1 Oh. 334, and cases there cited, discussed. In 
 re Dtson and Fowkb 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 720 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Cases under Vendob and Pue- 
 CHASEE — Title, ■ 
 
 POWEE OF SALE — Appointment to trustees for 
 objects — Trust for sale — Legal estate. 
 See PowBES — Exercise. 34. 
 
 — Banker and customer — Closing account — 
 
 Mortgage to secure amount owing on 
 account current. 
 See Bankee. 3. 
 
 — Exercise. 
 
 See Lunacy — Sales. 44, 45. 
 
 Will— Perpetuity. 162, 163, 165. 
 
 — Invalidity — ^Remoteness. 
 
 See Will— Perpetuity. 162. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mobtsagb — Power of Sale. 
 
 — Partner — Power of sale of business. 
 
 See Paetneebkep — Sale. 
 
 — Real estate — Devolution. 
 
 gee CoNVEESiON. 1. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Oases under Settled Land — Sale. 
 
 — Tramway. 
 
 See Teamwat. 3. 
 
 — Trade machinery— Mortgage — Non-registra- 
 
 tion — Invalidity. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 44. 
 
 POWEE OF 8ALK— continued. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Teustee — ^Purchase 
 and Sale. 
 
 POWEES. 
 
 See Oases under Heading of Subject- 
 matter of Powers. 
 
 I. Power of Appointment, col. 1466. 
 
 II. Power of Attorney. ' See Powee of Attoe- 
 
 NBY. 
 
 III. Power of Sale. See Powee of Sale. 
 
 I. POWEE OF APPOINTMENT. 
 
 In General, col. 1466. 
 
 Construction, col. 1467. 
 
 Exercise, col. 1471. 
 
 Extinction {Beleaae and Extinguishment), 
 col. 1480. 
 
 Fraud on Power. See Powees — Exer- 
 cise. 19—21. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. See Limita- 
 tions, Statute op — Power of Appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Release. See Powers — Extinction, 
 
 ValidUy, col. 1482. 
 
 In G-eneral. 
 
 — Appointment — Administration — Order in 
 
 which funds applied in payment of 
 
 debts. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 24. 
 
 — Appointment — Trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Teustee — Appointment. 
 
 — Appointment — Trustees for purposes of Settled 
 
 Land Acts. 
 
 See Oases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Estate duty — Incidence — Will in exercise of 
 
 power of appointment — Direction to pay 
 
 testamentary expenses. 
 
 See Will — Testamentary Expenses, 206. 
 
 — Investment by trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Teustee — Investments. 
 
 — Jointuring — Divorce — Second marriage. 
 
 See Settlement — Jointures, 28. 
 
 — Leasing — Tenant for life. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Poor rates. 
 
 See Cases under Rates. 
 
 — Reversionary interest — Power of appointment 
 
 — Recital — Estoppel — Construction of 
 
 settlement. 
 
 See Settlement — Validity. 33. 
 
 — Variation of settlements — Interest of children 
 
 — Wife's power of appointment to hus- 
 band. 
 See Divokoe — Settlements. 124. 
 
 — Voluntary settlement — Setting aside — Rectifi- 
 
 cation. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement — Volun- 
 tary Settlement. 
 
 — Voters — Registration of — Disqualification — 
 
 Receipt of poor-law relief. 
 
 See Pabliament — Franchise. 105 — 107. 
 
( 1467 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1468 ) 
 
 POWEES (In General) — continued. 
 
 — Will made in execution of limited power of 
 
 appointment. 
 
 See Will — Bevocation. 188. 
 
 Construction. 
 
 1. — Condition precedent — Act of Ood. 
 
 A father appointed a fund to his daughter 
 on condition that she married with his consent. 
 The father became lunatic and was unable to 
 give his consent, and the daughter married with- 
 out it : — 
 
 Held, that the condition, which had become 
 
 incapable of fulfilment by the act of God, was a 
 
 condition precedent, and the appointment did not 
 
 take effect. In re Haekis. Fitzbot v. Habbis 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 76 
 
 2. — General or limited power of appointment 
 — Words of exception — Death of excepted object — 
 General devise — Execution of power — Wills Act, 
 1837 (7 Will. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 26), s. 27. 
 
 A settlement created a power to appoint by 
 deed or will to any persons " not being her said 
 present husband or any friend or relative of his." 
 The donee, after her husband's death, made a 
 will consisting of a general devise of all her 
 realty and personalty : — 
 
 Held, that the power was not a power "to 
 appoint in any manner " the donee might " think 
 proper" within s. 27 of the Wills Act, 1837; and 
 that the general devise was not an exercise of 
 the power : 
 
 Held, further, that a reservation in a mort- 
 gage of the subject-matter of the power by the 
 donee thereof of the equity of redemption to the 
 donee, her heirs, &o., or as she or they should 
 direct, instead of to the uses of the settlement 
 conferring the power, did not get rid of the 
 original power. 
 
 Semble, a power of appointment by deed or 
 will in favour of any person "except A.," may 
 become a general power through A. being dead 
 at the time the power is exercised, and thus be 
 exercisable by a general devise under s. 27 of 
 the Wills Act. In re Btbon's Settlement. 
 Williams v. Mitchell 
 
 Eekewich J. [1891] 3 Ch. 474 
 — - General power of appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Powebs — Exercise. 
 
 3. — Implication, Gift hy — Power coupled with 
 a trust — Gift to A. for life — Power of disposition 
 hy A. amongst a class — Gift over in default of 
 appointment. 
 
 Where there is a gift to A. for life with a 
 power to A. to appoint among a class, but no gift 
 to the class, and no gift over in default of ap- 
 pointment, the Court is not bound, without more, 
 to imply a gift to the class in default of the 
 power being exercised. 
 
 In order to imply a gift there must be a clear 
 indication in the will that the testator intended 
 the power to be regarded in the nature of a trust, 
 so that the class or some of the class should take. 
 
 A testatrix bequeathed to her husband a life 
 interest in certain real property, and gave " him 
 power to dispose of all such property by will 
 amongst oar children." The will contained no 
 gift over in default of appointment. There were 
 
 POWEES (Construction) — continued. 
 
 children, but the husband died intestate without 
 
 having exercised the power of disposition : — 
 
 Held, that the power conferred on the husband 
 was a mere power and not one coupled with a 
 trust, and that consequently there was no gift to 
 the children by implication, and that the heir-at- 
 law of the testatrix was entitled. 
 
 Brown v. Higgs, (1799) 4 Ves. 708 ; Burrough 
 V. Philcox, (1840) 5 My. & Cr. 73; Be Caplin's 
 Will, (1865) 2 Dr. & Sm. 527; Be White's Trusts, 
 (1860) Job. 656, discussed, examined, and dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 Healy v. Doniiery, (1853) 3 Ir. C. L. Eep. 213, 
 discussed and followed. In re Weekes' Settle- 
 ment - - Bomer J. [1897] 1 Ch. 289 
 
 4. — Jointure — PortioTis — Construction <^ 
 Power. 
 
 Priml. facie, a jointure is an estate to the 
 wife for life to take effect on the death of the 
 husband. 
 
 Jamieson v. Trevelyan, (1854) 10 Ex. 269, 
 explained. 
 
 A testator devised his real estates in strict 
 settlement, subject to a trust for the accumulation 
 of the rents and profits for a period of twenty-one 
 years from his death, and he empowered every 
 person becoming tenant for life under the will by 
 deed or will (1) to appoint a rent-charge for any 
 wife for her life or any less period ; (2) to charge 
 the devised estates with portions in favour of 
 younger childi-en ; (3) to charge the said estates 
 in the meantime with an annual sum not exceed- 
 ing 4 per cent, interest upon the expectant 
 portions of the children for their maintenance 
 and education, such powers to take priority over 
 the trust for accumulation. The first power was 
 referred to in the will as a power of jointuring, 
 and followed the form in Davidson's Conveyancing 
 Precedents save for the omission of the words 
 " by way of jointure." The second and third 
 powers conferred on the donee an absolute dis- 
 cretion as to the mode and time of payment : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the first power did not autho- 
 rize an appointment to a wife to take effect in 
 the lifetime of her husband; (2) that the third 
 power authorized an appointment of interest by a 
 father in favour of his infant children to be made 
 payable to himself as their guardian, and that 
 such an appointment was not invalidated by the 
 fact that the father had the means to support his 
 children. In re De Hoghton. De Hoshton v. 
 De Hoghton Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 385 
 
 5. — Leases of part of real estate after date of 
 will — Premiums on leases — Execution of power 
 of appointment over real estate. 
 
 The question was whether the hereditaments 
 and property representing premiums for granting 
 leases of certain parts of an estate and paid to 
 the trustees of the will passed under the appoint- 
 ments. 
 
 Held, that the hereditaments and property 
 went as unappointed. 
 
 GaU V. Gale, (1856) 21 Beav. 349 ; Blahe v. 
 Blake, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 481 ; In re JohmUme'8 
 Settlement, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 162; Collinson v. 
 ColUnson, (1857) 24 Beav. 269, considered. In re 
 Moses. Beddinston v. Beddington 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W, N, 182 
 
( 1469 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1470 ) 
 
 POWERS (Construction)— eomKntjeti. 
 
 6. — Mortgage — Absence of power to mortgage 
 — WiU — Beal estate — Trust for sale — Postpone- 
 ment of sale — Improvements — Repairs. 
 
 A testator gave his real and residuary personal 
 estate to trustees in trust for sale, with a power 
 of postponement in the usual form, followed by a 
 power (also in common form) during such post- 
 ponement to manage and let the real estate and 
 to make out of the income or capital of his real 
 and personal estate any outlay they might con- 
 sider necessary for renewals of leases, improve- 
 ments, repairs, premiums on policies or otherwise 
 for the benefit or in respect of his real or personal 
 estate. The will contained no express power to 
 raise money by mortgage or charge : — 
 
 Seld, that the tnistees had power to raise 
 money by mortgage or charge of the real estate 
 for the purpose of repairing houses forming part 
 of the real estate. In re Bellinger. Dukell v. 
 Bellinger - Sekewich J. [1898] % Ch. 534 
 
 7. — Payment of account duty — Speciflo ap- 
 pointees — Residuary appointee. 
 
 By a will, certain specific sums were appointed 
 to some of testator's children, and the residue of 
 the trust fund to another child. The will con- 
 tained no direction that the specifically appointed 
 sums should be paid free of duty : — 
 
 Held, that the matter was one of intention, 
 and as the appointor had shewn no intention of 
 burdening the residuary fund with the whole 
 charge, each share must bear its proportion of 
 the account stamp duty. In re Croft. Deane 
 V. Cboft - Kekewich J, [1892] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Bourne, 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 188. 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Foster, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 484, 487. 
 
 8. — Power to appoint income — Settlement. 
 Trustees were directed after the death of H. 
 
 to stand possessed of the income of a fund in 
 trust for such persons as H. by will should 
 appoint, with a gift over in default of appoint- 
 ment : — 
 
 Held, that the power to appoint income carried 
 the power to appoint the capital. In re 
 L'Hbbminieb. Mounset v. Buston 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 675 
 
 9. — Special power — Appointment to one of 
 several objects of power — Svhsequent appointment 
 among all the objects equally — Loco parentis, Per- 
 son in — Double portions. Rule against — Legacy — 
 Prepayment in testator's lifetime — Satisfaction. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., [1897] 2 Oh. 574, re- 
 versed on appeal, it appearing from the evidence 
 that the child to whom appointments of sums 
 amounting to one-third of the fund had been 
 made by deed had in the lifetime of the appointor 
 accepted these sums in prepayment or anticipa- 
 tion of the one-third appointed to her by the will 
 of the appointor. In re Ashton. Ingram v. 
 Papillon C. a. [1897] W. N. 178 (3) ; 
 
 [1898] 1 Oh. 142 
 
 10. — Successive appointments — Account duty 
 — Costs. 
 
 Where a person having a life interest and 
 
 POWEES (Construction) — continued. 
 
 power of appointment exercised it successively 
 
 by deeds and will : — 
 
 Seld, that the duty and costs of adminis- 
 tration were payable out of the several sums 
 appointed rateably. In re Shaw. Tooket v. 
 Shaw - - North J. [1895] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 11. — Succession duty, Incidence of^Stook 
 sufficient to raise a " net " sum — Special power of 
 appointment. 
 
 The donee of a special power of appointment 
 contained in a settlement appointed that so much 
 of the stocks and securities held by the trustees 
 "as shall be sufficient to raise the net sum of 
 2000Z." should, subject to the life interest therein 
 of the appointor, "henceforth belong and be 
 vested in " E., an object of the power, " and be 
 held in trust for him " : — 
 
 Held, that the appointee took the fund free 
 from succession duty. 
 
 Banks v. Btaithwaite, (1862) 32 L. J. (Ch.) 
 35, questioned. Decision of Stirling J., [1897] 
 1 Ch. 888, reversed. In re Saunders. Saunders 
 »■ Gore - c. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 17 
 
 — Validity of appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Powers — Validity, 
 
 12. — Wif^s property — Limitation to wife, 
 " her heirs and assigns, or otherwise as she shall 
 direct " — Power of appointment — Estate in fee — 
 Real estate. 
 
 The Court held upon the construction of the 
 settlement that it would be putting too great a 
 strain upon the words " or otherwise as she shall 
 direct " to say that they gave a power of disposi- 
 tion only apart from ownership. 
 
 If it had been intended to give a power of 
 appointment, the power would probably have 
 been inserted before the words of limitation. But 
 the settlement went on to use similar words in 
 the ultimate limitation to the husband, "his 
 heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for 
 his and their own use and benefit, or otherwise 
 as he or they shall direct." It; was not suggested 
 that these words gave the husband a power of 
 appointment apart from ownership, and there 
 was no sound reason for construing the words of 
 limitation to the wife differently. To hold that 
 the settlement gave her a general power of 
 appointment would practically place her in her 
 husband's power and enable him to wheedle her 
 property out of her, in which case she would 
 forfeit the protection which the settlement was 
 expressly intended to give her. Moreover, a 
 general power of disposition duriug coverture 
 would be inconsistent with the limited power of 
 leasing given to the husband and wife during 
 coverture. It was not necessary to say that the 
 words in question were mere surplusage : the 
 object of them was simply to explain how the 
 wife might exercise her ownership — to shew how 
 she might, if she chose, dispose of her property, 
 that is, by giving a direction to her trustees so 
 as, under any proposed disposition, to avoid the 
 necessity for double conveyances. The words 
 were commonly used by conveyancers, and were 
 usually to be found in the proviso for redemption 
 or reconveyance in a mortgage deed : in that case 
 n© one had ever suggested that the words gave 
 
( 1471 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1472 ) 
 
 TOWEES (Construction) — continued.. 
 the mortgagor a power of disposition apart from 
 ownership. Appeal dismissed. Foxwell v. Van 
 Orutten - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 97 
 
 Exercise. 
 
 13. ^ Attorney, Execution hy — Appointment — 
 Evidence — Presumption — Deed more than thirty 
 years old — Appointment under special power pur- 
 porting to be executed by attorney of donee — Power 
 of attorney not produced. 
 
 Where a deed, more than thirty years old, 
 purports to be an appointment vmder a special 
 power, and to be executed by the attorney of the 
 5onee of the power, although, by reason of the 
 antiquity of the deed, the execution of it by the 
 attorney as such ought to be presumed, yet there 
 is no rule of law which requires or justifies the 
 presumption by the Court that the attorney was 
 duly authorized to execute the power. 
 
 Where, therefore, in support of such a deed, 
 no power of attorney was produced, nor any evi- 
 dence forthcoming as to the purport or contents 
 of any such power, it was held that the title of 
 the appointees claiming under the deed was not 
 made out. In re Aiket. Aieet v. Stapleton 
 Keke-wich J. [1896] W. N. 174 (5) ; 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 164 
 
 14. — Covenant that wife's power should be 
 exercised only in favour of settlement trustees. 
 
 The Court will not decree speoifio perform- 
 ance of a contract to leave property by will made 
 by a mere donee of a power of testamentary ap- 
 pointment. But where a wife in breach of such 
 a covenant exercised her power in favour of her 
 husband and others : — 
 
 Held, tliat the executors of the wife's will 
 were liable in damages to the settlement trustees 
 to the extent of tlie assets come to their hands. 
 In re Pakkin. Hill v. Schwarz 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 3 Ch. 510 
 
 15. — Extent of exercise — Power to appoint 
 invested fund — Appointment of specified sums of 
 cash — Increase in value of investments. 
 
 A father by his will gave to trustees a sum of 
 30,000Z. (to be invested as he directed), upon trust 
 to pay the interest and annual proceeds thereof 
 to his daughter during her life, and after her 
 death the same sum, together with the interest 
 and annual proceeds thereof, was to be held on 
 such trusts as the daughter should appoint in 
 favour of her children or grandchildren, with a 
 trust over in default of appointment. 
 
 The daughter by her will recited verbatim 
 the gift in the father's will, and then, in exercise 
 of the power, appointed that " the said sum of 
 30,000Z., together with the interest and the 
 annual proceeds thereof, by the said will of my 
 father to be held in trust for me, my children 
 and grandchildren, and over which I have such 
 power of appointment as aforesaid," should after 
 her death be held by the trustees of her father's 
 will upon trust as to lOOOZ. " part thereof " for 
 her daughter Emmeline ; upon trust as to five 
 sums of lOOOi., 4000Z., 6000i., 6000?., and 6000Z. 
 respectively, each of which was described as 
 " other part of the said sum of 30,000j.," on trust 
 for five others of her children respectively, and 
 «pon trust as to another sum of 6000Z., which was 
 
 POWEES (Exercise) — continued. 
 described as "the residue of the said sum of 
 30,000i." for her other child. At the time of her 
 death the securities on which the 30,O00Z. had 
 been invested were worth 39,000Z. : — 
 
 Bdd, by Kekewich J., [1899] W. N. 126, that 
 only the sum of 30,0002. was effectually appointed 
 by the will, and that the excess of 9000Z. must go 
 as in default of appointment. 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that the testatrix was 
 dealing with the fund as an invested fnnd, and 
 that the whole of it was appointed in the propor- 
 tions indicated by her wUl. In re Ceuddas. 
 Obuddab v. Smith 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 81 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 730 
 
 — Foreign domicil — Will made in execution of 
 power of appointment — Administration 
 with will annexed. 
 
 ^ee Fbobate — Grant of Administration. 
 34. 
 
 16. — Foreign domicil of testatrix — Capacity 
 to dispose of property — Power of appointment — 
 Exercise by will. 
 
 A domiciled Frenchwoman having, under an 
 English settlement, a special power of appoint- 
 ment by will over funds in England, can exercise 
 the power in such a way as to dispose of the pro- 
 perty in a manner inconsistent with her position 
 under the law of Prance. The exercise of such 
 a power is not a disposition of property belonging 
 to the testatrix. Pouey v. Hoedebn 
 
 FarweU J, [1900] W. N. 37; [1900] 1 Ch. 492 
 
 17. — Foreigner — Conflict of laws — Power of 
 appointment — Personal property — Execution — 
 
 Domiciled foreignm Unattested will — Validity 
 
 — Construction — Administration with wiU annexed 
 —Wills Act, 1837 (1 F«. c. 26), ss. 9, 10, 27 — 
 Lord Kingsdown's Act (24 & 25 Vict. c. 114), g. 1. 
 
 A will of a domiciled foreigner, which is valid 
 by the law of the testator's domicil and has been 
 recognised as a valid will in this country by the 
 Probate Div., is capable of operating as an 
 execution of a power of appointment by will 
 over personal estate under an English instru- 
 ment, although the formalities required by 
 Bs. 9 and 10 of the Wills Act have not been 
 observed. 
 
 D'Huart v. Harkness, (1865) 34 Beav. 324, 
 followed and approved. 
 
 In re Eirwan's Trusts, (1883) 25 Ch. D. 873, 
 and Hummel v. Hummel, [1898] 1 Ch. 642, dis- 
 tinguished, on the ground that they apply only 
 to wills which owe their validity to Lord Kings- 
 down's Act (24 & 25 Vict. c. 114). 
 
 Although as a general rule a will is to be 
 construed according to the law of the testator's 
 domicil, this rule does not apply where there are 
 indications on the face of the will that the testa- 
 tor wrote it with reference to the law of some 
 other country. 
 
 A domiciled French subject, having a general 
 power of appointment over a fund under an 
 English instrument, left all her property to her 
 husband by a holograph will made in French 
 form and unattested. "The will was valid by the 
 law of France, and letters of administration with 
 the will annexed were granted in this country. 
 The will contained indications that it was in- 
 
( 1473 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( H74 ) 
 
 POWERS (Exexoise)— continued. 
 
 tended to take effect in England as well as in 
 
 France : — 
 
 Seld, (1.) that it was competent for the testa- 
 trix to execute the power by a will in this form, 
 notwithstanding bs. 9 and 10 of the Wills Act ; 
 (-2.) that the same rules of construction ouglit to 
 lae applied to it as would be applied to auEufjUsh 
 will in the same terms and of the same date, 
 including the rule of construction introduced by 
 fi. 27 of the Wills Act : 
 
 Held, therefore, that the general bequest 
 operated as a valid execution of the power in 
 favour of the husband. In re Pkioe. Tomlin v. 
 Latter - - Stirling J. [1800] W. N. 86 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 442 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Pouey v. Rordern, 
 4;i9O0] 1 Ch. 492, 494. See preceding Case. 
 
 Considered by Byrne J. Barrelto v. Young, 
 tlOOO] 2 Ch. 339. 
 
 — Foreigner — French will. 
 
 See Nos. 22, 23, beloin. 
 
 18. — Foreigner — General power of appoint- 
 ment — Power to he exercised },y will attested hy 
 two witnesses — Donee of the power a domiciled 
 Frenchwoman — Holograph will of donee in French 
 language unattested. 
 
 A testator by his will dated in 1822 bequeathed 
 the residue of his personal estate to trustees 
 upon trust for his children in equal shares, the 
 shares of such of them as were daughters to vest 
 in them at twenty-one, but to be retained by the 
 trustees upon trust to pay the income to such 
 daughters for their lives, and, after the decease 
 «f each daughter, to pay the principal and the 
 accumulation (if any) of the dividends " to such 
 person or persons, upon such trusts and for such 
 intents and purposes, as she by her last will and 
 testament in writing, or any writing in the 
 nature of, or purporting to be, her last will and 
 testament, or any codicil or codicils thereto to be 
 respectively executed by her in the presence of 
 and attested by two or more credible witnesses 
 shall, notwithstanding her coverture, direct, or 
 appoint, or give, or bequeath the same ; and, in 
 default of any such direction or appointment, 
 gift, or bequcst,'unto such person or persons as 
 at the time of her decease shall be her next 
 «f kin." 
 
 The testator died in 1824. The pit., who was 
 ■one of the daughters of the testator and a 
 domiciled Frenchwoman, by her will dated in 
 1894, and two codicils dated in 1899, all in the 
 Prench language and all unattested, made divers 
 bequests, and died in Nov. 1899. 
 
 The will and codicils were admitted to prO' 
 V)ate, being good in accordance with French law, 
 but invalid according to English law : — 
 
 Held, upon the petition of the surviving 
 daughter of the testatrix, who claimed to be her 
 sole next of kin, for payment out of a sum of 
 bank stock standing to the account of the pit., 
 that the will of tho testatrix did not operate as a 
 good execution of the power contained in the 
 will of her father, not having been executed in 
 accordance with the formalities required by the 
 will. 
 
 It is not enough where special formalities are 
 
 POWERS (Exercise) — continued. 
 required by the instrument creating the pownr 
 that the instrument purporting to execute the 
 piwer should be a will according to the law of 
 domioil, but in cases whore tho provisions of the 
 Wills Act do not apply the will must comply 
 with the terms of the power. 
 
 In re Price, [1900] 1 Ch. 442, and In re 
 Kirwan's Trusts, (1883) 25 Ch. D. 373, considered. 
 Bakketto v. Young 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 153 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 339 
 
 19. — Fraud on power — Appointment — Gift 
 over on changing religion — Bemoteness, 
 
 By a settlement made in 1847 on tlie marriage 
 of W. property was settled upon trust to pay the 
 income to W. for life, and after her deatli for 
 such one or more of the children of the marriage 
 in such shares and siibject to such conditions and 
 limitations and in such manner as W. should ap- 
 jjoint by deed. There were three children of the 
 marriage, T., J., and H., and in 1890 W. by deed 
 appointed that after her death one-third of the 
 property should be held in trust for T., another 
 third in trust for J., and as to the remaining third 
 upon trust to pny the income to H., if not then a 
 member of the Eoman Catholic Church or of any 
 sisterhood, or until she should become a membar 
 of either, and, subject as aforesaid, as to the capi- 
 tal and income, to T. and J. W. died in 1893, 
 and iu 1895 H. became a member of a sister- 
 hood : — 
 
 Held (1), following Hodgson v. Halford, (1870) 
 11 Ch. D. 959, that the appointment of H.'s third 
 was not a fraud on the power, and (2), in accord- 
 ance with the dicta in Boughton v. James, (1814) 
 1 Coll. C. C. 26, 46, that the appointment was 
 not open to objection on the ground of remote- 
 ness. Wainwbight v. Millek 
 
 Byrne J. [1897] 2 Ch. 255 
 
 Approved of by Kekewich J. In re Gage, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 498. 
 
 20. — Fraud on power — Condition attached — 
 Exercise — Validity. 
 
 A will empowered A. to appoint a fund 
 among her children or remoter issue. The donee 
 made an appointment to certain of the objects of 
 a power with a condition attached requiring the 
 release of a claim ag.iinst the donee : — 
 
 Held, that the appointment could not be 
 severed from the condition, and was made for 
 the purpose of increasing the estate of the donee 
 for the benefit of her residuary legatee and was 
 void in toto as a fraud on the power. In re 
 Perkins. Pekkins v. Bagot 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 283 
 
 21. — Fraud on power — Hotchpot clause in- 
 serted — Objects of power. 
 
 A settlement creating a power of appointment 
 contained no hotchpot clause. The doner, in 
 exercising the power by will, provided that, iu 
 the event of there being any lapse iu the appoint- 
 ment by reason of any of the objects of the power 
 dying in his, the donee's, lifetime, then and in 
 that case no child taking any share under the 
 appointment should be entitled to any part of the 
 lapsed share without bringing his or her appointed 
 share into hotchpot : — 
 
 Held, that the appointment was effectual and 
 
 3 B 
 
( li'o ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1476 ) 
 
 POWERS (Exercise) — continued. 
 the hotchpot clause valid, notwithstanding that 
 the effect was to benefit persons not objects of the 
 lowers. In re Buoklet's Tbtsts 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 95 
 
 22. — French will — Gift of " tons les hiens et 
 Aroits mdbiliers" — Beal estate — Sale — Conversion 
 — lie-investment in stock — WUls Act, 1837 (1 Vict. 
 <•. 26), s. ilSettled Ettates Act, 1877 (40 & 41 
 Vict. c. 18;, 5. 34. 
 
 A. had a general power of appointment over a 
 fund. B. devised a share of freehold property to 
 trustees for A. on the same trusts as the said 
 fund. The freehold property was vested by a 
 private Act in trustees for sale. It was sold and 
 the proceeds invested in the purchase of other 
 freehold land. In a partition action this land 
 was sold, and A.'s share paid info court, and in- 
 vested in Metropolitan Board of Works Stock. 
 A. married a don)iciled Frenchman, and died 
 leaving a will in French which gave to T. " all 
 the personal propel ty and rights (tons les biens 
 et droits mobiliers) which I shall leave at my 
 death, and which shall form part of my succes- 
 sion " : — 
 
 Held, that the fund was personal estate, and 
 that the will was a good exercise of the power 
 and covered all the personal estate of the donee. 
 In re Haeman. Llotd v. Taedt 
 
 Kekevrich J. [1894J 3 Ch. 607 
 
 23. — French will — Unattested tcill — General 
 power — Execution of power — Wills Act, 1837 
 (1 7ict. c. 26), ss. 9, 10, 27— Lord Eingsdown's 
 Act (24 & 25 Vict. c. 114), s. 1. 
 
 A daughter of a testator had under his will a 
 general power of appointment by will over a 
 share of his residuary estate. The daughter died 
 in Fr.mce, having while residing there made a 
 disposition of her property by a writing signed 
 by htr but not attested, the writing being in 
 form a valid will according to French law ; — 
 
 Beld, that the writing, even if admissible to 
 probale under s. 1 of Lord Kingsdown's Act 
 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 114), did not operate as an 
 execution by Ihe daughter of her general power 
 of appointment by will, since it had not been 
 attested by two or more witnesses as required by 
 ss. 9 and 10 of the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26). 
 
 In re Kirwan's Trusts, (1888) 25 Ch. D. 373, 
 followed. 
 
 B'Huart v. Earhness, (1865) 34 Beav. 324, 
 considered. Hummel r. Hummel 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 642 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Price 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 442. 
 
 24. — General bequest—Intention — Evidence 
 as to state of property admissibility — Execution of 
 poicer — Spicial power. 
 
 Where the donee of a power exercisable by 
 deed or will of appointing to children made a 
 will dividing among her children and their issue 
 " all my property of every kind," but making no 
 express reference : — 
 
 Eeld, that Ihe will did not operate as an 
 exeicito of the power, and that the gift being 
 gential, evidence to shew that the testator was 
 ,wl? i°=i *°, "^'^rose not only of her own pro- 
 Pert^, but also of that over which she had » 
 
 POWEES (Exercise) — continued. 
 
 power of appointment, was inadmissible. In re 
 
 HODDLESTON. BbUNO V. EtSTON 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 595 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Milner, 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 563, 565. 
 
 26. — General power — Ineffectual appointment 
 —Eesiduary bequest— Wills Ad, 1837 (7 Will. 4 
 and 1 Vict. c. 26), s. 27. 
 
 The donee of a general power of appointment 
 appointed the fund by will on trust to convert, 
 and after paying legacies to pay the residue to A. 
 if living at the death of the donee's wife : — 
 
 Eeld, that, if the donee had not by the exercise 
 of the power made the property his own for all 
 purposes, he had nevertheless attempted to exer- 
 cise the power, though in an ineffectual manner. 
 Consequently the property did not go as in defanlt 
 of appointment or to the testator's next of kin, 
 but to the residuary legatee under s. 27 of the 
 Wills Act. In re Elen. Thomas v. McKeckine 
 Stirling J [1893] W. N. 90 
 — General power — Infant donee. 
 
 See Infant — Settlement. 41. 
 
 26. — General power — Married woman —Exer- 
 cise by will — Appointee predeceasing appointor. 
 
 A married woman had a general power of 
 appointment over a messuage, which went in 
 default of appointment to her husband. She 
 made a will in which she made no difference in 
 property which belonged to her and property over 
 which she had a power of disposition, demising 
 the messuage to her husband. He predeceased 
 her: — 
 
 Eeld, that she had shewn an intention that 
 the messuage should be deemed hers, and that 
 therefore it went to her heir-at-law. Coxen !-. 
 Kowland [1894] 1 Ch. 406 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re Boyd, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 232. 
 
 27. — General power — Married woman — 
 Separate estate — " Eebts or other liabilities." 
 
 When the will of a married woman, made in 
 the exercise of a general power, comes into opera- 
 tion by her death, the property so appointed 
 becomes liable to her debts and liabilities as if it 
 had been separate estate at the time she entered 
 into the contracts. In re Ann. Wilson v. Ann 
 Kekewich J, [1894] 1 Ch. 549 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Hughes, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 529, 535. 
 
 28. — In trust for another. Appointment to 
 one beneficiary — Transfer. 
 
 The donee of a power of appointment over 
 certain settled funds exercisable in favour of 
 (inter alios) A. and B. appointed (inter alia) 
 one sixth share to A., and declared in the deed 
 eserciting the power that another sixth was 
 appointed to A. upon trusts for the benefit 
 of B. .— 
 
 Eeld, that the trustees of the settlement 
 ought to retain the one-sixth appointed to A. in 
 trust for B., and not to transfer it to the trustee 
 under the appointment. In re Ttssen. Knisht- 
 Bruce v. Buttekworth North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 56 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 290, 2CU. 
 
( 1477 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 1478 ) 
 
 POWERS (Exercise)— con^jniisd. 
 
 28a. — Joint appointment — Revocation. 
 
 A husbaud and wife had a joint power of 
 appointment exercisable by deed or will witli or 
 without power of revocation and new appoint- 
 ment, and in default of joint appointm3ut the 
 survivor had a similar power. They exercised 
 the power with this proviso : " The appointments 
 .... are made subject to tlie power of revoca- 
 tion and new appointment mentioned in" tlie 
 settlement. Tlie appointment recited only the 
 joint power. After the wife's death the husband 
 executed a deed revoking tlie joint appointment 
 and m ide a new appointment : — 
 
 Hdd, (1) that the donees in exercising the 
 power could reserve a power of revocation to the 
 survivor ; (2) that they had reserved such power 
 to the survivor. In re HiBDiNG. Rogees v. 
 Hakdins - C. A. affirming North J. 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 315 
 
 29. — Limited power of appointment — Will 
 giving the power dated subsequently to will pur- 
 porting to exercise the power — Wills Act, 1837 
 (1 Vict. c. 26), ss. 24, 27. 
 
 H. H. the younger, by his will dated in 1884, 
 gave all the residue of the property over which 
 at the time of his death he should have a dis- 
 posing power to trustees upon trust for sale and 
 conversion, and directed them to pay the yearly 
 income arising from his trust estate to his wife 
 for life or widowhood. 
 
 H. H. the elder, father of H. H. the younger, 
 by his will dated in 1893, empowered each child 
 of his by his or her will, or any codicil thereto, to 
 appoint to or in favour of his or her wife or 
 husband the whole or any part of the yearly 
 income of his or her share of his (the testator's) 
 residuary estate for the life of such wife or 
 husband, and directed that a sum of 4000Z. 
 thereby directed to be raised should be held 
 upon the same or the like trusts and subject to 
 the same or the like powers and provisions as 
 were thereinbe.fore declared with respect to the 
 share of H. H. the younger in the residue. H. H. 
 the elder died in 1895, and H. H. the younger in 
 1899 leaving a widow and three children. 
 H. H. the younger had no power of appointment 
 exercisable in favour of hia widow other than the 
 power contained in the will of his father : — 
 
 Held, that the will of H. H. the younger did 
 not operate as a valid appointment under the 
 power conferred upon him by the will of his 
 father. 
 
 Stillman v. Weedon, (1848) 16 Sim. 26, 
 discussed and considered. 
 
 A power of appointment is not well exercised 
 by will which, together with a codicil thereto, 
 has been executed before the will giving the 
 power. In re Hayes. Tdknbull v. Hates 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 139 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 332 
 
 30. — Limited power — Exercise hy will — 
 General words of appointment — General powers 
 — No reference to limited power — Intention. 
 
 A testatrix had two geueral powers of appoint- 
 ment in addition to a limited power to appoint 
 the income of certain properly to her husband for 
 life. By her will, which contained no reference 
 to the limited power or to the property subject 
 thereto, she gave, devised, and be^iueathed all 
 
 POWERS (Exsrclse)— continued. 
 her real and personal estate, and appointed all 
 real and personal estate over which she might 
 have a power of appointment unto her husband 
 absolutely : — 
 
 Held, that the testatrix had clearly expressed 
 her iutention of exercising every power she had 
 in favour of her husband, and that the limited 
 ]iower was therefore exercised. In re Sharland. 
 In re Eew. Eew v. Wippell 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1899] W. N. 140 ; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 536 
 
 31. — Married woman — General power of 
 appointment — Exercise of power — Liability of 
 appointed fund to debts — Married Women's Fro- 
 perty Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. <-■. 75), s. 4. 
 
 A married woman had power, in the event of 
 her husband surviving her, to appoint the income- 
 of a fund to him during his life. She had also,, 
 in the same event, a general power to appoint by 
 will the capital of the fund as she should think 
 fit. By her will she appointed out of the capital) 
 of the fund several sums, including llOOi. to D. 
 " in satisfaction of a debt to that amount due- 
 from me to her." And she further appointed' 
 that (subject as aforesaid) the trustees should paj- 
 the whole of the income of the fund to her 
 husband during his life. The husband survivedl 
 her. There was in fact no debt due from her to 
 T>., but there was a debt of llOOi. due from her 
 husband to D., and the evidence satisfied the 
 Court that, in the appointment of the llOOJ., she 
 intended to refer to that debt. 
 
 She hud at her death separate property 
 applicable to the payment of her debts, but that. 
 property was insufficient for the purpose by more- • 
 than llOOZ. Some time after her death the- 
 husband paid the debt to D. 
 
 Held, that the appointment had not failed, but- 
 was effective, and that the llOOJ. must be applied 
 in payment of the debts of the testatrix. In re 
 Hodgson. Daelet «. Hodgson 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 30 (3) r 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 66& 
 
 32. — Married woman— Eestraint on anticipa- 
 tion — General power of appointment — Power exer- 
 cised by deed. 
 
 Where a married woman is tenant for life 
 with power to appoint at her ilecease, the mere 
 fact that she is restrained from anticipating her- 
 life interest is no ground for holding that the 
 power is a power exercisable by will only. In re 
 Waddington. Bacon v. Bacon 
 
 Romer J, [1897] W. N. 6 (8) 
 
 33. — Policy of life insurance — Power of nomi- 
 nation by assured — Will not referring to policy. 
 
 A bequest of residue held not to be an exercise 
 of a power of nomination contained in an insur- 
 ance policy. In re Davies. Davies v. Davies 
 North J. [1892] 3 Ch; 63 
 
 34. — Seal estate— Devise to us's — Power of 
 sale — Appointment to trustees for objects — Trust 
 for sale — Legal estate. 
 
 A testator devised real estate to the use of 
 his daughter for life, with remuinder to the use 
 of sucli of her children, for such est-ites or 
 interests and in such manner as she should by 
 will appoint, and in default of appointment t'> 
 the usj of her children as tenants in common. 
 
 3 B 2 
 
( 1479 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1180 ) 
 
 POWEES (Exercise) — continued. 
 And he empowered the trustees of his will to sell 
 the property with the consent in wriiing of the 
 persons for the time being in possession under 
 the foregoing limitations if adult, and if not, then 
 at the discretion of the trustees. 
 
 By her will the daughter, in exercise of her 
 power, appointed the real eslate to trustees in 
 trutt for sale and to sland possessed of the pro- 
 cteds upon trusts for her children : — 
 
 Held, that the legal estate was well appointed 
 by the daughter's will to her trustees in trust for 
 sale, and that they were therefore the proper 
 persons to sell. 
 
 An appointment of real estate under a power 
 to trustets for objects of the power passes the 
 legal esitate in it as effectively as if the property 
 appointed were money instead of land. 
 
 Kemmrfhy v. Bale, (1802) 6 Ves. 793, and 
 
 Cowx V. Foster, (1860) 1 J. & H. 30, discussed. 
 
 In re Paget. In re Mellob. Mellok v. Mellor 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 290 
 
 35. — Eevocation and new appointment^Exer- 
 cise by deed with power of — Svhsequent general 
 devise— Wills Act, 1837 (7 Will, i and 1 Vict, 
 c. 26), s. 27. 
 
 When a general power of appointment of real 
 estate by deed or will has been completely exer- 
 cised by deed, a power of revocation and new 
 appointment being at the same time reserved, a 
 general devise of real estate by the subsequent 
 will of the donee of the power will not per se 
 amount, by virtue of s. 27 of the Wills Act, to an 
 exercise of the power of revocation and new 
 ^appointment. In re Brace. "Welch v. Colt 
 
 North J, [1891] 2 Ch. 671 
 
 36. — Special power of appointment — Bequest 
 . of residue to object of power — Intention to exercise 
 Construction of will. 
 
 Testatrix, who was entitled to a special power 
 -of appointment of a life interest in certain funds 
 in favour of her husband, by her will, dated in 
 1882, gave legacies to persons not objects of the 
 ipower out of her separate estate, or out of the 
 estate and effects over which she had any dis- 
 posing power, and then proceeded : " I give 
 bequeath and appoint all the residue of my estate 
 and effects whatsoever and wheresoever unto my 
 husband absolutely." Testatrix had no other 
 testamentary power of appointment. She died in 
 . 1883 leaving her husband her surviving : — 
 
 Held, that the power had been exercised. 
 
 ,/nreMiLNER. Beat u. Milner Stirling J, 
 
 [1899] W. N. 27 (7) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 563 
 
 37. — TJnappointed — Exercise of power of ap- 
 pointment — One-tliird to son of donee of poioer — 
 ■ One-sixth, to each of the two daughters — No appoint- 
 ment of the remaining two-sixtlis — Will — " Wish 
 
 ■them to pass directly to my said two daughters " — 
 JSon not to share in " unappointed parts." 
 
 A testator bequeathed 15,000J. to trustees 
 upon trust for J. B. for her life, and on her death 
 iu trust tor her three children, H. B., J. W., and 
 A. W., in such shares as J. B. should by will or 
 codicil appoint, and in default of appointment in 
 trust fur her three children equally as tenants in 
 common. 
 
 J. B., by a codicil to her will, appointed two- 
 sixths of the fund in trust to pay the income to 
 
 POWEES (Exercise) — continued. 
 her son H. B. until he should assign, charge, or 
 otherwise dispose thereof; and on such event 
 happening, then in trust during his life, and after 
 his death for his children (if any) as therein 
 mentioned, and if no children in trust to be 
 equally divided between all her children and 
 grandchildren then living per capita ; and she 
 appointed one-sixth in trust for her daughter 
 J. W. as therein mentioned, and one-sixth in 
 trust for her daughter A. W. as therein mentioned, 
 and declared as follows : " I make no appoint- 
 ment of the other two-sixth parts of the said sum 
 of 15,0002., as I wish them to pass directly to my 
 said two daughters, so as to give them an im- 
 mediate vested and disposable interest therein, 
 and I also declare that neither my son nor his 
 children (if any) shall take any share or interest 
 in the said unappointed parts of the said trust 
 funds " :— 
 
 Held, that the last mentioned two-sixth parts 
 
 of the funds went as unappointed among the 
 
 threechUdrenof J. B. !» re Jack. Jacks. Jack 
 
 Eomer J. [1899] W. N. 6 (5) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 374 
 
 38. — " Wife" — Bower to husband hy deed or 
 icill to appoint income to " his wife" — Appoint- 
 ment hy husband to his ilien wife — Subsequent 
 appointment in favour of his second wife. 
 
 By a post-nuptial settlement power was given 
 to a husband by deed or deeds to appoint a fund, 
 after the determination of his own interest there- 
 in, amongst his children, subject to a proviso 
 empowering him by deed or will to appoint one- 
 fourth of the income to " his wife " for her life. 
 The husband in exercise of these powers by deed 
 irrevocably appointed one-fourth of the income 
 iu favour of his then wife for her life, and, " sub- 
 ject and without prejudice to the trust" in her 
 favour " thereinbefore limited, if the same should 
 take effect," he appointed the fund amongst his 
 two daughters (who were adults) and his one son 
 (who was under age) in equal thirds, reserving, 
 as to his son, a power of revocation which he 
 subsequently exercised by irrevocably appointing 
 one-third of the fund to such son absolutely. The 
 then wife afterwards died; the husband married 
 again ; and on his second marriage he purported 
 by deed irrevocably to appoint one-fourth of the 
 income of the fund to his second wife during her 
 life :— 
 
 Held by C. A. (affirming the decision of 
 Kekewich J.), that the appointment of income in 
 favour of the second wife was ineffectual. In re 
 Hancock. Malcolm v. Bobford-Hanoock 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 173 
 
 Applied by Farwell J. Foakes v. Jackson, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 807. 
 
 Extinction. 
 
 (Release and Extinguishment.) 
 
 39. — Joint donees — Conveyance by one donee 
 and persons entitled in default — Concurrence of 
 other donee — Respective estates and interests — Ho 
 reference to Bower — Bower in defeasance — Implied 
 release — Appointment — Execution — Limited 
 poioer. 
 
 Any dealing with an estate by the donee of a 
 
( 1481 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1482 ) 
 
 POWERS (Z^tiaction)— continued. 
 
 power inconsistent with the exercise of that 
 
 power releases it. 
 
 A husband and wife had a joint power, and 
 subject thereto the survivor had a separate power, 
 to appoint property among certain objects. The 
 husband and wife and the persons entitled in 
 default of appointment executed a deed whereby 
 the wife (with her husband's consent) and tljose 
 persons according to their several and respective 
 estates and interests as beneficial owners assigned 
 the property to an object. The joint power was 
 not referred to. The wife died. And the husband 
 appointed the property to other objects : — 
 
 Held, that, whether or not the deed of assign- 
 ment operated as a joint appoiiitment, and 
 (semhle) it did so operate, it released the husband's 
 separate power, and his subsequent appointment 
 was inoperative. 
 
 In re Hancock, [1896] 2 Ch. 173, applied. 
 FoAKES V. Jackson 
 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 68 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 807 
 
 40. —r- Eelease — Validity — Married woman — 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), «. 52. 
 
 In Farwell on Powers, 2nd ed. p. 18, the 
 following passage occurs : " It is submitted that 
 it was alsvays-competent to a married woman to 
 release her power over personalty vested in pos- 
 session, and that slie may now by deed unacknow- 
 ledged release her power over any property 
 whether real or personal, and whether in posses- 
 sion or reversion, and whether she is restrained 
 fiom anticipation or nut, under the provisions of 
 the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 52." 
 
 Stirling J. expressed his agreement with the 
 view taken in FarweU on Powers. He held that 
 the case came witbin s. 52, and that the release 
 was valid. In re Chisholm's Settlemekt. 
 Hemphill v. Hemihill 
 
 Stirling J. [1900] W, N. 128 
 
 41. — Tenant for life — Power to appoint 
 among ckildren — Extinction of power — Cmtvey- 
 atuing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), «. 52. 
 
 The fact that a reli ase of a limited power of 
 appointment will result in a benefit to tlie donee 
 of the power is not sufficient to make the release 
 fraudulent and void. The doctrines applicable 
 to the fraudulent exercise of a power of appoint- 
 men t do not apply to the release of a power not 
 coupled with a duty. 
 
 A father, tenant for life under his marriage 
 settlement, had, in the events whicli bad hap- 
 pened, an exclusive power 1o appoint for the 
 benefit of a daughter or her issue, and in default 
 of appointment the fund went to the daughter 
 absolutely ; tlie father, being in want of money, 
 released this power, and subsequently he and 
 his daughter mortgaged their interests in the 
 fund for 10,0002., the whole of which was paid 
 to the father, and applied by him for his own 
 purposes : — 
 
 Held, that the release was valid. 
 
 Smith V. Houhlon, (1859) 26 Beav. 482, and 
 In re Radcliffe, [1892] 1 Ch. 227,- discussed and 
 applied. In re Somes. Smith v. Somes 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 1 Ch. 250 
 
 42. — Tenant for life — Right to call for _ a 
 trawfer of share of deceased child intestate-— Life 
 interest and reversion held in different rights — 
 
 FOW£BS (Extinction) — continued. 
 
 Merger — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. 
 
 c. 41), s. 52. 
 
 A tenant for life, after releasing his power of 
 appointment among his children, claimed to have 
 the share of one of his two sons, who had died 
 a bachelor after the age of twenty-one, and 
 intestate, transferred to him : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the release was a valid exercise 
 of the power, and that the father was entitled 
 as administrator of his son to his reversionary 
 interest; (2) that the father's interest and the 
 son's interest being held by the former in different 
 rights there was no merger, and that the funil 
 must remain with the trustees of the settlement 
 so long as the father's life interest continued ; 
 (3) that on executing a surrender of his life 
 interest the father was entitled to a transfer of a 
 moiety of the fund. 
 
 Order of North J., [1891] 2 Ch. 662, varied. 
 In re Kadoliffe. Eadoliffb v. Bewes 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 227 
 
 Applied by Chitty J. In re Somes, [1896] 
 1 Ch. 250. 
 
 Beferred to by 0. A. Alt-Gen. v. Beech,, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 147, 153 ; [1899] A. C. 53. 
 
 Fraud on Power. 
 SeeTovfERS — Exercise. 19 — 21. 
 
 Validity. 
 
 — Appointment, Power of. 
 
 See Powers — Construction, passim. 
 
 43. — Lapse — Appointment hy will — General 
 power — Death of appointees in lifetime of donee of 
 powei — Destination of appointed fund. 
 
 A testatrix, who had a general testamentary 
 power of appointmpnt over 5O0O/., after reciiing 
 the power, bequeathed the said sum of 50002. and 
 also all the residue of her real and personal 
 estate not otherwise disposed of by her equally 
 among her eight nephews and nieces, by name, 
 and appointed an executor ; by a codicil she gave 
 various legacies out of her '• own moneys," and 
 by another codicil she referred to the fact that 
 she had by her will given " a certain fund therein 
 named," and also the residue of her estate, to her 
 said nephews and nieces. The testatrix was pos- 
 sessed of considerable personal estate in addition 
 to the 50002. Two of the ajjpointees having died 
 in the lifetime of the testatrix :^ 
 
 Held, that she had not indicated a sufficient 
 intention to make this 50002. her own for all pur- 
 poses, and consequently that two-eighths of the 
 fund lapsed, and went as in default of appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 In re Davies' Trusts, (1871) L. E. 13 Eq. 163, 
 discussed and followed. 
 
 In re Pinede's Settlement, (1879) 12 Ch. D. 
 667, In re Iclceringill' s Estate, (1881) 17 Ch. D. 
 151, and Coxen v. Bowland, (1894) 1 Ch. 406, 
 distinguished. In re Boyd. Kelly v. Boyd 
 
 Eomer J. [1897] 2 Ch. 232 
 
 44. — Perpetuities, Mule against — Remoteness 
 — Appointment — Marriage settlement — Power of 
 appointment among children — Exercise of power — ' 
 Appointment to daughters "who shall hereafter 
 marry " — Appointment of income between daughters 
 
( 11£3 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASE^, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 118i ) 
 
 POWERS (Validity)— coHitHHcci. 
 while unmarried — Gift over on death or marriage 
 of surmving unmarried daughter to otlter children 
 and any daughters then married. 
 
 By a marriage settlement in 1793 a fund was 
 settled in trust for the husband and wife succes- 
 sively for life witli re mainder for children of the 
 marriage as the husband and wife should joiutly 
 appoint. In 1835, there being then seven 
 children of the marriage, including three un- 
 married daughters, the husband and wife ap- 
 pointed out of the fund 1500Z. to be paid to each 
 ■of the three unmarried daughters " who should 
 thereafter marry " ; and, so long as those three 
 daughters, or any or either of them, should be 
 living and unmarried, directed that the income 
 ■of the residue of the fund should be paid to them, 
 or such of them as should from time to time be 
 living and unmarried, equally ; and " in case one 
 or two only of them should marry " (which hap- 
 pened) then tliat, after the deatli or marriage of 
 such one as shonld be last living and unmarried, 
 the capital of the residue should be paid to the 
 Jour 01 her children and such of the three un- 
 jnarried daughters " as should marry as afure- 
 -Baid," equally : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the ultimate gift over of the 
 residue of the fund was void for remoteness, as 
 the class was not necessarily ascertainable within 
 ' twenty-one years after the death of the survivor 
 ■of the appointors ; (2) that the appointment of 
 the three eums of 1500Z. was also void for remote- 
 ness, as it lould not be ascertained whether a 
 daughter would marry within twenty-one years 
 after the death of the survivor of the appointors ; 
 and (8) that the appointment of the income of 
 the residue of the fund to the three unmarried 
 daughters was a valid' appointment of one-third 
 to each daughter so long as she was living and 
 unman led ; but, so far as it purported to be a gift 
 ■«ver of such one-thii'd on her marriage, was \oid 
 for remoteness. 
 
 Wainwright v. Miller, [1897] 2 Oh. 255, ap- 
 proved. In re Gage. Hill v. Gage 
 
 Kekewich J, [1898] 1 Ch, 498 
 
 45. — Perpetuities, Rule against — Remoteness. 
 Limitations depending upon a prior limitation 
 
 which is void for remoteness are themselves in- 
 valid ; but this rule does not apply to the gifts 
 over in default of appointment, unless the gifts 
 .are themselvis obnoxious to the rule against ptr- 
 jietuities. In re Abbott. Peacock v. Fkigoct 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 54 
 
 46. — Bemoteness — Contingent remainder or 
 •executory limitation — Settlement. 
 
 In exercise of a jrowir created by a marriage 
 ■settlement of real tstate (executed in 1819) the 
 husband and wife by deed (executed in Sept., 
 1848) jmntly appointed that the estate should 
 after the death of the survivor of tliem (tbey 
 behig tenants for life under the settlement) be to 
 the use of the three children then born (naming 
 them) of the only son of the marriage, and all 
 other his child and children who should be living 
 at the death of the survivor of the appointors, 
 and to the heirs and assigns of such of them as 
 should attain the age of twenty -five, equally as 
 tenants in common. But in case either of" the 
 three named children of the son and any such 
 
 POWERS (Yaiiiity)— continued. 
 oti.er child and children as aforesaid should die 
 under twenty-five, tlien immediately after his or 
 her death to the use of tlie survivors or other of 
 them, their, his, or her heirs and assigns. Pro- 
 vided that, in case the appointment intended to 
 be thereby made to the after-bom children of 
 the son should from any cause fail of effect, the 
 appointora did thereby further declare that the 
 deed should operate as an appointment of the 
 hereditaments to the three then bom children of 
 the son, or such of them as should attain twenty- 
 five, their respective heirs and assigns. The 
 husband died in 1867, and his widow died in 
 Nov. 1873. Thtre were seven children of the 
 son, all of whom were then living, but only the 
 three elder ones had attained twinty-five. The 
 other four attained twenty-five subsequently : — 
 
 .Held, that the limitations of the deed of 
 appointment took effect as legal contingent re- 
 mainders on the death of the widow ; that each 
 of the teven children of the son took one-seventh 
 of the property for life ; and that the three who 
 had attained twenty-five at the death of the widow 
 took the remainder in fee (subject to the life 
 estates) equally between them as tenants in 
 common. 
 
 In re Lechmere and Lloyd, (1881) 18 Ch. D. 
 524, distinguished. Stmes v. Stmes 
 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 272 
 
 — Remoteness — Fraud on power. 
 
 See PowEBS— Exercise. 19. 
 
 47. — Will — Power of appointment. 
 
 A will, duly executed according to English 
 law, invalid under the law of the testator's 
 domicil, operates as an exercise of a power in a 
 settlement to appoint personal property in Eng- 
 land. In re Meklin. Thueburit v. Meelin 
 
 North J. [1898] W. N. 56 (3) 
 
 PR4CTICE. 
 
 Note. — Tlie cases digested under this heading 
 affect tlie practice of the Supreme Court generally : 
 for cases as to practice and procedure of other Courts 
 see County Couet, Ecclesiastical Law, Peivt 
 Council, Justices; for rases as to procedure 
 in special matters, see Appeal, Baskeuptcy, 
 Company, Costs, Criminal Law, Divokce, 
 Evidence, Lunacy, Pkobate, Shipping. 
 
 Pules and Orders of Court judicially considered. 
 See Table of Rules and Orders of Court judicially 
 considered during the years 1891-1900. 
 
 Accounts. See Accounts. 
 
 Admiralty. See Shipping. 
 
 Amendment, col. I486. 
 
 Appeal. See Appeal. 
 
 Appearance, col. 1487. 
 
 Arbitration. See Abbitration. 
 
 Attachment. See Attachment. 
 
 Chamhers, col. 1488. 
 
 Charging Order. See Charging Order. 
 
 Commercial Causes. See Commercial 
 
 Causes. 
 Compromise. See Compromise. 
 Consent Order, col. 1 489. 
 Costs. See Costs. 
 
( 1485 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 14£6 
 
 PBACTICE— conh'nuec?. 
 
 Counter-claim. See Pkactice — Plead- 
 ings. 149— 155. 
 
 Course of Business, col. 1489. 
 
 Cromn Office. See OaowN Opwce. 
 
 Declaration. See Evidence. 
 
 Discontinuance, col. 1490. 
 
 Discovery. See Discovery. 
 
 District Registry, col. 1491. 
 
 Divorce. See Divobce. 
 
 Evidence. See Evidence. 
 
 Examines: See Evidence. 
 
 Execution. See Execution. 
 
 Forma Pauperis, col. 1492. 
 
 Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings. 
 See Practice — Pleadings. 164 — 169. 
 
 Further Consideration, col. 1494. 
 
 Garnishee. See Attachment. 
 
 Injunction. See Injunction. 
 
 Inquiry as to Damages. See Damages. 
 
 Inspection of Property. See Abbitea- 
 TION. 48. 
 
 Interpleader. See Interpleader. 
 
 Interrogatories. See Discovert- Inter- 
 logatories. 
 
 Joinder of Actions and Parties. See 
 Practice — ^Parties. 
 
 Judgment, col. 1495. 
 
 Jurisdiction, col. 1498. 
 
 Lis Pendens. See Lis Pendens. 
 
 Mandamus. See Mandamus. 
 
 Motions, col. 1498. 
 
 New Trial, col. 1499. 
 
 Next Friend, col. 1501. 
 
 Non-suit. See Practice — Discontinu- 
 ance. 
 
 Official Referee. See Arbitration — 
 Official Beferee. 
 
 Originating Summons, col. 1502. 
 
 Particulars. See Discovert — Par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 Parties, col. 1504. 
 
 Payment into Court, col. 1517. 
 
 Payment out of Court, col. 1 523. 
 
 Pleadings, col. 1525. 
 
 Prohibition. See Prohibition. 
 
 Quo Warranto. See Quo Wabbanto. 
 
 Receiver. See Receiver. 
 
 Rehearing, col. 1532. 
 
 Reply, col. 15.32. 
 
 Review, col. 1532. 
 
 Revivor, col. 1533. 
 
 Sales by the Court, col. 1534. 
 
 Security for Costs. See Costs — Security 
 for Costs. 
 
 Sequestration. See Sequestration. 
 
 Service, col. 1534. 
 
 Set-off, col. 1548. 
 
 Setting aside, col. 1549. 
 
 Special Case, col. 1552. 
 
 PB.A.CTIGE— continued. 
 
 Staying Proceedings, col. 1E53. 
 Stop Order, col. 1553. 
 Summons for Directions, col. 1551. 
 Third Parly, col. 1554. 
 Transfer. See Transfer. 
 Trial, col. 1556. 
 Undertalcings, cul. 1560. 
 Witness. See Evidence. 
 Writ, col. 1561. 
 
 Accounts. 
 
 See Cases under Account. 
 
 Admiralty. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping. 
 
 Amendment, 
 Order XSVIII. relates to amendment. 
 
 1. — Admission — Liberty to withdraw admis- 
 sion and amend pleading — B. S. C, 1883, Order 
 XXrziL, rr. 1, 6. 
 
 Leave to withdraw an admission and amend 
 pleading granted on terms of payment of money 
 into court. Hollis v. Burton 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 228 
 
 Explained by Korth J. In re Beeny, [1894] 
 1 Ch. 499, 501. 
 
 — Bankruptcy notice — Irregularity — Amend- 
 
 ment — Joint debtors. 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 14. 
 
 — Bankruptcy petition. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Petition, 139, 140. 
 
 — Claim — Voters. 
 
 See Parliament— Franchise. 27 — 36. 
 
 2. — Frauds, Statute of — Pleading — Practice 
 R. S. C, 1883, Order xix., r. 15. 
 
 Amendment refused where the deft, had 
 pleaded the wrong section of the statute. James 
 V. Smith - Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 384 
 
 The C. A., without dealing with the applica- 
 tion of the Statute, of Frauds, held that the pit. 
 had not established the fact of agency 
 
 C, A. [1891] W, N, 175 
 
 — Lords of the Admiralty — Action against. 
 
 See Trespass. 2. 
 
 3. — Marking of copy delivered to opposite 
 party— R. S. C, Order in., r. 6 (/) ; Order 
 xxvilL, rr. 9, 10. 
 
 The directions of Order xxviii., r. 9, as to 
 marking an amended indovtement or pleading 
 with the dates of the order for amendment and of 
 the amendment do not extend to the copy de- 
 livered to the opposite party under Order xxvm., 
 r. 10. Hanmeb v. Clipton 
 
 Div. J, [1894] 1 Q. B, 238 
 
 — Patent — Specification of. 
 
 See Patent — Practice. 20—24. 
 
 — Petition— Adding petitioning creditors — Time. 
 
 See Bankruptot — Petition. 139. 
 
 4. — Slip in decree — Clerical mistake in judg- 
 ment— Correction— Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877 
 
( 148' ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1488 > 
 
 PHACnCE (Amendment) — contimied. 
 
 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 57), s. 25— Jf. S. C. {Ireland), 
 
 1891, Order XXYIIL, r. 11, 
 
 (a) Under the " Slip Order " of the Irish 
 Rules (which is identical with R. S. 0., Order 
 xxviu., r. 11), held that the Court has power to 
 correct a slip in a decree made in 1853, it not 
 being shewn that any rights of other parties had 
 intervened. Hattost v. Hakeis 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1892] A. C. 547 
 Followed by P. C. Milson v. Garter, [1893] 
 
 A. 638. See next Case. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Stewart v. Bliodes, 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Oh. 386, 394. 
 
 (b) The Court has power at any time to 
 correct an eiTor in a decree or order arising from 
 a slip or accidental omission, whether there Is or 
 is not a general order to that effect. MiLSO:s r. 
 Caktek p. C. [1893] A. C. 638 
 
 5. — Specific performance. Action for — Alterna- 
 tive claim for damages — Pleadings — Leave to 
 amend. 
 
 In an action for speciiio performance of an 
 agreement to take a lease of a house, or in the 
 alternative for damages, the pit. had before the 
 trial given the deft, notice of his intention to let 
 the house to another percon, and in pursuance of 
 such notice had so done. At the heaving counsel 
 for the pit. limited his case to a claim for dam- 
 ages only, and concluded his opening without 
 asking for leave to amend his pleadings. 
 
 The deft., reiving upon Eipgrave v. Case, 
 (1885) 28 Ch. D." 356, then took the objection 
 that the plaintiff, having by his own act rendered 
 specitio performance impossible, was not entitled 
 to damages. Counsel for the plaintiff in reply 
 asked for leave to amend. The Court gave leave 
 to amtnd upon the terms that the deft, should be 
 treated as being in the same position as if the 
 action had been brought in the Q. B. Div. for 
 damages onlv. Nicholson v. Brown 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] W. N. 62 (13) 
 
 — Trade-mark. 
 
 See Trade -JIAEK. 17, 51. 
 
 — Writ. 
 
 See Shipping — Fraotice. 198. 
 
 Appeal, 
 
 See Cases under Appeal. 
 
 Appearance. 
 
 Order XII. relates to appearance. 
 
 6. — Amendment of writ — Second appearance. 
 A second appearance is not necessary to a wjit 
 
 amended and re-served after the first appearance 
 so as to become a writ specially indorsed under 
 Order in., r. 6. Paxton v. Baied 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 139 
 
 — Default of appearance — Trial without plead- 
 
 ings — Motion for judgment. 
 See Practice — Pleading. 170. 
 
 ''■ — Female guardian ad litem — Description 
 in statement of claim— R. S. C, Order XII., r. 8 
 —Practice Masters' Pules (5). 
 
 On appearance by a female as guardian ad 
 
 FBACTICE (Appearance) — continued. 
 litem it must be stated whether she is covert or 
 sole. London and Codntv Bankins Co. v. Beat 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. K. ISO 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Boberts v. Plant, 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 597, 601. 
 
 8. — Female parties. Description of. 
 
 On appearance of a female in Ch. Div. ifc 
 should be stated whether she is covert or sole. 
 
 (a) Tofield v. Eobeets Bomer J. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 74 
 
 (b) In re PoiNONS - - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1891] W. N. 13» 
 
 9. — Non-appearance — Party to action. 
 
 A deft, w ho is served is a party even if h& 
 does not appear : per Lindley L.J. In re Evans. 
 Evjins v. Noton (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 252 
 
 Referred to by Cozeus-Hardy J. D. v. A. it 
 Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484, 488. 
 
 10. — Under protest. 
 
 Appearance under protest reserving a ri^ht to 
 object to the jurisdiction is no waiver of irregu- 
 larity in service. Fieth v. De Las Bivas 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 a. B. 768 
 
 Arbitration. 
 
 See Cases under Aebiteation. 
 
 Attachment. 
 See Cases under Attachment. 
 
 Chambers. 
 
 Order Liv. relates to applications and pro- 
 ceedings in chambers. 
 
 Order LV. relates to chambers in the Chancery 
 Division. 
 
 Bale as to attendance of parties in chamibers, 
 r. 173a of the Companies {Winding-upy 
 Act,' 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 63). W. ». 1896 
 (April 11), p. 87 ; [1896] W. K. (May 30), p. 158. 
 
 — Appeal — Chancery Division. 
 
 See Appeal. 1 — 4. 
 
 11. — Application referred from chambers — 
 Judicature {Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Viet, 
 c. 16), s. 1. 
 
 Where the appeal from chambers is to the 
 0. A. under the Judicature Act, 1894, the power 
 of a judge in chambers to refer to the Div. Ct. 
 has gone, and there is no power to refer to C. A. 
 The proper course is for the judge to make an 
 < rder nnd give leave to appeal if necessary. 
 Hood Baees v. Cathcaet (No. 3) 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 3t 
 
 — Application to set aside agreement as to costs. 
 
 See Solicitor— Costs. 21. 
 
 — Judge at chambers — Jurisdiction — Costs oi 
 
 inquiry before Incorporated Law Society. 
 See Solioitok — Costs. 49. 
 
 12. — Jurisdiction — Transfer of actions — 
 County court. 
 
 Under s. 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888, a 
 
 ! judge in chambers has jurisdiction to send actions 
 
 I of contract where tlie claim does not exceed lOOJ. 
 
 for trial in the county court " in which the action 
 
 might have been commenced," whether by leav» 
 
( 1489 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( 1490 ) 
 
 PBACTICE (Chambers)— conMjiuecZ. 
 
 or as of riglit, cr "in auy court convenient 
 
 thereto" — that i8, conTfnieut to the partus. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1892] 1 Q. B. 99, 
 affirmed. Burkill v. Thomas 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 312 
 
 — Proceedings in chambers— Evidence— Note of 
 
 registrar or master. 
 
 See Divorce — Alimony. 3. 
 
 — Records of proceedings at — Discovery^Pro- 
 
 duction of documents — Privilege. 
 See DisooTEEY — Docnments. 36. 
 
 — Bestraint on anticipation, Order removing. 
 
 /See Husband AND Wife. 51. 
 
 Cliarging Order. 
 
 See Cases under Charging Order. 
 
 Commercial Causes. 
 See Cases under Commercial Causes. 
 
 Compromise. 
 See Cases under Compromise. 
 
 Consent Order. 
 
 Order XLT,, rr. 9, 10, relates to drawing up 
 orders for judgmerd hy consent. 
 
 13. — JEnlargement of time for doing act. 
 
 An order made by consent cannot be altered 
 without consent. A consent oi'der was made for 
 the transfer within a limited time of shares by 
 the deft, to the pit. co. It was passed and 
 entered but not served on the deft, nor complied 
 with. On motion by the pits, to enlarge the 
 time for compliance ; — 
 
 Seld, that this could not be done without 
 the deft.'s cousent. Australasian Automatic 
 Weighing Machine Co. v. Walter 
 
 North J. [1891] •W. N. 170 
 
 Costs. 
 jSee Cases under Costs. 
 
 Counterclaim, 
 iSee Practice— Pleadings. 149 — 155. 
 
 Course of Business, 
 
 Kekewich J. read the following announcement 
 as to the future conduct of business in the 
 Ch. Div. :— 
 
 From the commencement of Hilary Sittings, 
 1901, there will be a new distribution of work in 
 the Ch. Div. It is intended that all the six 
 judges shall be grouped in pairs, and that one of 
 eaoh pair shall in turn take witness actii ns 
 only, the otlier devoting himself to non-witness 
 business, including chamber summonses. 
 
 Joyce J. will be associated with Kekewich J., 
 the other pairs being Byrne and Buckley JJ. 
 and Cczcns-Hardy and Farwell JJ. 
 
 In Hllaiy Sittings the witness action lists 
 will be taken by Kekewich, Byrne, and Cozens- 
 Hardy JJ. to the exclusion of all other business, 
 except such motions and summonses as, being 
 pending before them at the conclusion of Ihe 
 present sittings, it is convenient that they should 
 
 FBACTICE (Course of Business) — continued. 
 dispose of, and except also applications in matters 
 with which they are familiar, and which, for 
 that reason, it is convenient that they should 
 dispose of rather than others. On the other 
 hand, the non-witucss business only, including 
 chamber summonses, will be taken during the 
 same sittings ly Farwell, Buckley and Joyce JJ. ; 
 but neveitbeless they will dispose of any witness, 
 actions pending before them which it is moro 
 convenient that they should try; and will leave 
 to the other judges those eases wiih which tueh 
 other judges are familiar above referred to. 
 
 The above redistribution of business will 
 involve some alteration of chamber arrangements. 
 One of Farwell J.'s mastois, namely. Masteir 
 Binns Smith, will be transferred to Kekewich 
 and Joyce JJ, and Master Satow to Cozens- 
 Hardy and Farwell JJ., and these masters will 
 take with them the business'to which they have 
 hitherto attended under Farwell J. The Liver- 
 pool and Manchester business (now assigned tr> 
 Farwell J.) will be assigned to Cozons-Hardy and 
 Farwell JJ. Practice Note 
 
 Kekewich J. [1800] VT. N. 262 
 
 Transfer of Actions. W. N. 1900 (Dec. 22), 
 p. 336 ; see Current Index, 19C0, p. xoiii. 
 
 Transfer of Chambers. W. N. 1900 (Dec. 22), 
 p. 337 ; see Current Index, 1900, p. xciii. 
 
 Transfer of Masters. W. N. 1900 (Dec. 22), 
 p. 337 ; see Current Index, 1900, p. xciii, 
 
 Notice to the District Registrars of the Eigh 
 Court of Justice. W. N, 1900 (Dec, 22), p. 33? ; 
 see Current Index, 1900, p. xciv. 
 
 Notice to the District Registrars of the High 
 Court at Mah Chester and Liverpool. W. N. ItCO 
 (Dec. 22), p. 337; see Current Index, 1900, p. xciv. 
 
 Crown Office, 
 
 <Sce Cases under Ceown Office. 
 
 Discontinuance. 
 
 Order xjti. relates to discontinuance. 
 
 — Costs — Particulars of objt ction. 
 
 See Patent— Practice, 33. 
 
 14. — Jurisdiction — " Court or a judge " — Cofts 
 of adjournment into Court — R. S. 0., 1883, Order 
 XXVI., r. 1. 
 
 Upon the question how the costs of an ad- 
 journment into court should be borne : — 
 
 Hdd, that the master had jurisdiction in 
 applications under Order xxvl, r. 1, to make ni> 
 order for the judge. That where- the master is 
 prepared to make for a judge a proper order, if, 
 at the instance of the party resisting the order, 
 the matter is adjourned to the judge in chnmbers, 
 or into court, the costs of the adjournment are in 
 the discretiiiu of (he judge. That special care 
 should be taken in reference to the costs of ad- 
 journment in cases where, from the nature of the 
 application, it was clear that the proper necessary 
 costs of the application must be borne by the 
 applicant. Upon the merits : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, must pay the costs of the 
 summons, but the defts. must bear the costs of 
 the adjournment, with a set-off. Lambton & Co. 
 T. Farlcinson, (1887) 35 W. B, 545, was not 
 
( 1191 ) 
 
 DIGKST or CA!-ES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1492 ) 
 
 FRACIICE (Discontinuance) — continued. 
 applicable, as the duties of masters in the Oh. 
 Div. and the Q. B. Div. were quite different. 
 In re Watts, (1882) 22 Oh. D. 1, was a case 
 between mortgagee and mortgagor, and was not 
 intended to lay down any general rule. Lloyd's 
 Bake, Ld. u. PBn.'OES.s Eoyal Colliekt Co. 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 99 
 
 15. — Jurisdiction — Unauthorized use of plain- 
 tiff's name — Discontinuance of action — Motion to 
 strike out name — Costs — Judicature Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Viet. c. 77), s. 21— JJ. S. C, 1883, Order 
 .XXT/., r. 1 ; Order LXXIL, r. 2, 
 
 A CO. named as co-pits, in an action served 
 notice of motion to strike out their name, and asked 
 that the solicitors who had issued the writ might 
 be ordered to pay the co.'s costs, on the ground 
 that their name had been used without their 
 authority. Before the motion could bo heard the 
 solicitors served a notice wholly discontinuing 
 the action : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding the discontinu- 
 ance, the Court had jurisdiction to make the 
 order asked for. Gold' Eeefs op Western Aus- 
 tralia, Ld. v. Dawson - - North J. 
 [1896] W. N. 171 (8) ; [1897] 1 Ch. 115 
 
 16. — Non-suit — B. S. C, Order XXYI., rr. 1-4. 
 A pit. cannot now elect to be nonsuited ; if 
 
 he otfers no evidence at the trial the deft, is 
 entitled to a verdict. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1898] "W. N. 26 (4); 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 636, affirmed. Fox v. Stab 
 Newspaper Co. H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 255; 
 
 [1900] A, C. 19 
 
 — Non-suit — Fire insurance — Compliance with 
 
 condition in policy. 
 
 See New South Wales. 26. 
 
 17. — Non-suit — Jurisdiction. 
 
 A judge at the trial of an action cannot, after 
 the case has been opened, non-suit the pit. with- 
 out his consent, and without hearing the evidence 
 tendered by him. Fletcher v. London and 
 North Western Ey. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 a. B. 122 
 
 — Non-suit without plt.'s consent — Non-suit 
 
 without hearing evidence. 
 See Practice — New Trial. 55. 
 
 — Stay of proceedings. 
 
 See Pbaotioe — Staying Proceedings. 
 
 18. — Trade-mark — Rectification of register — 
 Patents, &c., Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. o. 57), s. 90. 
 
 Qusere, whether Order xxvi., r. 1, applies to 
 discontinuance of an application to rectify the 
 register of trade-marks. In re Dyson's Trade- 
 marks - North J. [1891] W. N. 176 
 
 Discovery. 
 
 See Cases under Discovery. 
 
 District Begistry, 
 
 Order xxxr. relates to proceedings in District 
 Registries. 
 
 A new rale, 5a, was added hy the Rules of the 
 Supreme Court, Aug. 1891. 
 
 Directions to the District Registrars of Licer- 
 pool and Manchester ivere issued hy Kekewich J. 
 iinder Order xxxy., r. 11. 
 
 PRACTICE (District Registry) — continued. 
 
 19. — Costs — Common order to tax on origi- 
 nating petition of course — B. S. C. 1883, Order 
 xxxr., rr. 6, 6a, sub-s. 2 : Order LXII., r. 18. 
 
 A registrar of the District Eegistry of Liver- 
 pool or Manchester has no jurisdiction to make a 
 common order for taxation of a bill of costs on an 
 originating petition of course. 
 
 Per Lindley L.J. : He may make a common 
 order to tax in causes or matters properly pro- 
 ceeding in his district. In re Porbett 
 
 C. A. [1891] a Ch. 433 
 
 20. — Costs — Review of taxation — Relaxation 
 hy Master of Supreme Court — E. 8. C, Order xxxv., 
 r. 4 ; Order Lxr., r. 27, sub-r. 41. 
 
 In a case in which final judgment had been 
 entered in a district registry, and the taxation of 
 costs had commenced before, and objections had 
 been carried in and dealt with by the district 
 registrar, it was held, that under Order xxxv., 
 r. 4, and Order Lxv., r. 27, sub-r. 41, a judge had 
 jurisdiction in the exercise of his discretion to 
 order that the items referred to in the objections 
 should be referred to a taxing master of the 
 Supreme Court for retaxation. Stevens v. 
 Griffin - C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 368 
 
 21. — Interpleader — Jurisdiction — i?. S. C, 
 Order xxxr., r. 6. 
 
 A district registrar has no jurisdiction to make 
 an interpleader order. Hood & Sons v. Yates 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 240 
 
 Put see now Order xxxr., r. 5a, added hy the 
 R. S. a, Aug. 1894. 
 
 Commented on by C. A. Toumend v. Kirk- 
 ham, [1898] 1 Q. B. 51. 
 
 22. — Setting aside judgment in default of 
 appearance — Jurisdiction of registrar — B. S. C, 
 1883, Order xxxv., rr. 1—6. 
 
 A district registrar has by virtue of Order 
 xxxv., r. 6, jurisdiction concurrent with that of a 
 master under the rules to set aside or vary a tinal 
 judgment signed in default of appearance in an 
 action proceeding in the district registry. 
 
 Sood & Sons V. Tales, [1894] 1 Q. B. 210, 
 commented upon. Townend v. Kirkham 
 
 C. A. [1897] W. N. 163 (6) ; [1898] 1 Q. B. 51 
 
 Divorce. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce. 
 
 Evidence. 
 See Cases under Evidence. 
 
 Examiner. 
 See Oases under Evidence. 
 
 Execution, 
 
 See Cases under Execution. 
 
 Forma Pauperis. 
 
 Order xri. rr. 22—31 relates to proceedings hy 
 or against paupers. 
 
 By the Appeal (Forma Pauperis) Act. 1893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 22), power to refuse leave to 
 appeal in forma pauperis icas given to the Souse 
 of Lords. 
 
( i:93 ) 
 
 DIGKST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1491 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Forma Pauperis) — continued. 
 
 23. — Appeal — Orown side — Appeal from 
 County Court— B. S. C, 1883, Order at/., r. 22; 
 Order Lxviii., rr. 1, 2. 
 
 The rule of practice forbidding proceedings in 
 forma pauperis on the Crown side of the Q. B. Div. 
 only applies to litigation between the Crown and 
 a subject, and not to appeals from county courts, 
 although the latter are entered in tlie Crown 
 paper. Clements v. London and Nokth 
 Western Ry. Co. C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 482, 486 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Biggs v. Dagnall, 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 207, 208. 
 
 24. — Appeal — Special leave — Application for 
 leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 
 
 Applicaiion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis 
 to the C. A. by a party who has not sued or 
 defended in forma p.iuperis in the Court below 
 must be made ex parte to the C. A. Upon such 
 an application the provisions of Order xvi., rr 22, 
 23, 24, as to proceedings by or against paupers, 
 must be followed by analogy, as though they 
 were in terms made applicable to appeals. Ex 
 parte Goldberg - C. A. [1893J 1 Q. B. 417 
 
 25. — Appeal — Special leave — Security for 
 costs. 
 
 A party who has sued or defended in forma 
 pauperis in the Court below is entitled to appeal 
 as a pauper without either giving security for 
 costs or obtaining special leave. Bioas v. Dag- 
 nall - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 207 
 
 26. — Appeal in forma pauperis — Special leave 
 to appeal — Jurisdiction to order a stay of sale in 
 execution — Appeals from the Windward Islands 
 and the Boyal Court of St. Lucia. 
 
 Where a petitioner had obtained leave to 
 appeal in regular form, an order granting leave 
 to prosecute it in forma pauperis was made. 
 
 On petition for special leave to appeal (1) 
 from a decree in a matrimonial separation suit, 
 (2) in a mortgage suit, (3) from an order fur 
 execution of the last-mentioned decree : — 
 
 Held, that there being ground for appealing 
 from the mortgage decree, the leave should be 
 extended to loth suits, which were mixed up 
 together. 
 
 Theii' Lordships have no jurisdiction to t^rdtr 
 a stay of sale in execution. Quinlan v. Child. 
 QuiNLAN V. Q01NLAN. Ex parte Quinlan 
 
 P, C. [1900] A. C. 496 
 
 — Case laid before counsel — Inspection. 
 
 See Discovery — ^Documents. 16. 
 
 — Costs — Security for — Alleged poverty. 
 
 See Practice — New Trial. 66. 
 
 — Costs in pauper appeals — Appeal from Kew 
 
 Zealand. 
 
 See Husband and "Wife — Separation. 
 7.5. 
 
 27. — Costs of successful pauper suitor. 
 
 The costs to be allowed to a successful pauper 
 suitor considered — 
 
 (a) In the House of Lords. Johnson v. 
 Lindsay & Co. (No. 2) H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 110 ; 
 
 Ex parte Salmon, C, A. [1899] W. N. 212 
 
 (b) in Divorce cases; the ante-Judicature 
 practice at Chancery and Common Law reviewed. 
 Richardson v. Richardson - - Jeune P. 
 
 [1895] P. 276 ; 0. A. [1895] P. 346 
 
 PEACTICE (rormd Pauperis) — continued. 
 
 28. — Notice of motion — Signature of solicitor 
 — Blaintiffin default — Fower to impose terms as 
 to payment of costs— B. S. C, Order xrr., r. 29. 
 
 A person admitted to sue in forma pauperis, 
 to whom no solicitor has been assigned, may 
 move the Court without the signature of a soli- 
 citor to his notice of motion. 
 
 Where a pauper suitor is in default, and asks 
 for indulgence, he may be required as a condition 
 of the grant of such indulgence to pay the costs 
 occasioned by his default. Jacobs v. Orusha 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B, 37 
 
 Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings. 
 See Practice — Pleadings. 164 — 169. 
 
 Further Consideration. 
 
 Order xxxvi., r. 21, relates to setting down 
 causes in the Ch. Div. for further consideration. 
 
 29. — Setting down — Notice to persons served, 
 with notice of judgment, hut not liaving entered 
 appearance — B. S. C, Order xri., rr. 40, 41, 42 ; 
 Order xxxvi., r. 21. 
 
 Pit. was a residuary legatee of R., who died 
 in 1860. In 1893 an order was made for accounts 
 and inquiries in pursuance of an originating 
 summons. Notice of this order was served on 
 other residuary legatees, who did not enter an 
 appearance. A memorandum of this service was 
 duly entered, the chief clerk made his certificate, 
 and the action was set down for further con- 
 sideration : — 
 
 Held, that it was not necessary to give the 
 other residuary legatees notice of the setting 
 down. It was a matter for the discretion of the 
 judge, and in the absence of some special reason 
 such notice need not be given. In re Rolfe. 
 Fyson v. Johnson - North J. [1894] W. N. 77 
 
 Garnishee, 
 
 See Cases under Attachment. 
 
 Injunction. 
 See Cases under Injunction. 
 
 Inq,uiry as to Damages. 
 See Damages. 3 — 5. 
 
 Inspection of Property. 
 
 — Referee's power to order — Concurrent juris- 
 diction of Court. 
 See Arbitration. 48. 
 
 Inspection of Documents. 
 
 gee Cases under Discovery. 
 
 Interpleader. 
 See Cases under Interpleader. 
 
 Interrogatories. 
 
 See Cases under Discovery — Interroga- 
 tories. 
 
 Joinder of Actions. 
 See Cases under Practice — Parties. 
 
( 14-5 ) 
 
 DIGKST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1496 ) 
 
 PSACTICE — continued. 
 
 Joinder of Parties. 
 jSee Cases under Pbactice — Parties. 
 
 Judgment. 
 
 (Orders and Judgments.) 
 
 See Cases under Specific Titles. 
 
 — Absent defendants — Motion for judgment. 
 
 See No. 38, below. 
 
 — Absent parties— Accepting benefit of judg- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Estoppel. 4. 
 
 — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Cases under Shippins. 
 
 — Arrests, commitments, and execution of process. 
 
 See CojiPANT — Winding-up — Enforce- 
 ment of Orders. 
 
 30. — Assignment of judgment. 
 
 Semhle, that an application for an assignment 
 of a judgment under s. 5 of the Mercantile Law 
 Amtndmcnt Act, 185G, except in the case of an 
 administration action, should he by action and 
 not by motion. The " Englishman " and the 
 " Australia " (No. 2) - Bruce J. [189S] P. 212 
 
 — Consent judgment. 
 
 See Estoppel. 5. 
 
 County Courts — see Explanatory Memorandum, 
 to County Court Eulcs (May), 1899, and rules 26 
 to 35. W. N. 1899 (May 20), p. 171. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p. czi. 
 
 31. — Date of judgment. 
 
 Between the trial of an action and the de- 
 livery of judgment one of the defts. died : — 
 
 Beld, that the judgment must be dated as of 
 
 the last day of the trial. Per North J. Eorotd 
 
 V. Coultuahd - [1897] 2 Ch. 554 ; 
 
 C. A. [1888] 2 Ch. 358 
 
 — Death of judgment debtor — Charging order — 
 
 Leave to issue execution against exe- 
 cutor. 
 See Chaegixg Oeder. 2. 
 
 — Debt. 
 
 See Cases under Jidgment Debt. 
 
 — by Default. 
 
 See Shipping. 197. 
 
 32. — Enforcing order — Transfer of Consols- — 
 Judicature Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 61), s. 14. 
 
 A married woman deft, refused to obey an 
 order to transfer Consols, part of her separate 
 t state : — 
 
 Held, that there was jurisdiction under s. 14 
 of the Judicature Ac*-, 1884, to nominate a 
 person to execute the trans'er on behalf of the 
 deft. Jn re Lumley (No. 1) 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 13 
 
 33. — Entry — Order not entered — Nunc pro 
 tunc. 
 
 An order appointing trustees under the 
 Settled Land Act, 1882, was drawn up, but not 
 passed or entered. The order had been acted 
 upon and one of the trustees had died. The 
 Court on an ex parte application allowed the 
 order to be redrawn, passed, and entered nunc 
 pro tunc. In re Jones. Billis v. Jones 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 114 
 
 PSACTICE (Judgment)— conhnuerf. 
 
 — Estoppel. 
 
 See Estoppel. 4 — 6. 
 
 — Execution — " Action on a contract." 
 
 See EAiLWAT^Practice. 39. 
 
 — Execution— Sequestration. 
 
 See Cases under Sequestration. 
 
 — Execution — Sheriffs. 
 
 See Cases under sheriff. 
 
 — Final judgment. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 8 — 11. 
 
 — Form of, in debenture-holders' action. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 42. 
 
 — Form of, in foreclosure action. 
 
 See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 22. 
 
 34. — Form of — Parlnersliip — Infant partner. 
 Judgment cannot be recovered against a firm 
 
 simply of which one partner is an infant, but 
 may be recovered against the defts. " other tban" 
 the infant partner. In re Beauchamp BRjTHEna 
 Ex parte Beauchamp C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 varied by H. L. (E.) sub nom. Lovell & Christ- 
 mas V. Beauchamp [1894] A. C. 607 
 
 35. — Form of — Specific performance— Pur- 
 chaser's action — Form of judgment — " In case the 
 parties differ." 
 
 Where in a purchaser's action for specific 
 performance judgment is obtained in default of 
 defence, the words "in case the parties differ" 
 sliould be omitted from the direction tliat the 
 vendor should execute a proper conveyance to be 
 settled by the judge. The omission of these 
 words does not necessitate a refer-ence to tUe 
 conveyancing counsel; it was (^nly necessary 
 that the dooume nt should be initialed in chambers. 
 Baxendale v. Lccas 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1895] W. N. 39 
 
 — In rem — ^Proceedings in foreign couit — Liqui- 
 
 dator. 
 
 See Ce)MPANr — Winding-up— Practice. 
 187. 
 
 — In rem — Warrant of execution — Sale of ship 
 
 — Jurisdiction. 
 See Shipping. 202. 
 
 36. — Joint debtors — Judgment against one of 
 tico joint debtors — Effect as regards the uther^ 
 Pleading — Costs. 
 
 The rule in King v. Hoare, (1844) 13 M. & W. 
 494, that a judgment against one of two juini 
 debtors is a bar to proceedings against the other, 
 applies where both joint debtor's are originally 
 made defts. to and enter appearances in the 
 same action, and judgment by consent has beeii 
 obtained against one of them in that action. 
 
 The observations of Bowen L.J. in In re 
 Eodgson, (1885) 31 Ch. D. 177, 188, followed. 
 
 Where one joint debtor has consented to judg- 
 ment, the other, if he wishes to avail himself of 
 the judgment as a defence, should plead it. A 
 debtor not so pleading was ordered to pay costs 
 up to the time of the consent judgment. JMcLeod. 
 V. Power Byrne J. [1898] 2 Ch. 295 
 
 — " Judgment" — Statutes of Limitations. 
 
 See Limitations, Statuie or. 39. 
 
 — Lancaster Court— Transfer. 
 
 See Practice— Trial, 269. 
 
( 1497 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1498 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Judgment)— co»«Mi«ed;. 
 
 37. — Leave to sign judgment— Judgment not 
 signed, or entered — Judgment creditor — Friority — 
 R. S. C, 1883, Order xir., t. 1; Order XLi., 
 rr. 3, 4. 
 
 An order under Order xiv., r. 1, giving liberty 
 to sign final judgment for the amount claimed by 
 the -writ of summons, Is not equivalent to signing 
 or entry of judgment, so as to give a judgment 
 creditor's right of priority to a pit. who has failed 
 to follow up the order by signing judgment under 
 Order XLi. In re G uknet. Clifford v. Gueney 
 Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 863 
 — Married woman. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 52 — 54. 
 Order XL. relates to motions for judgment. 
 Order XLi. relates to entry of judgment, 
 
 38. — Motion for judgment — Absent defendants 
 — a. 8. C, Order xxvii., r. 12. 
 
 In an action against several defts. some con- 
 eented to a perpetual injunction, and the action 
 was set down as a short cause motion for judg- 
 ment with agreed minutes against the consenting 
 defts. The others were not served : — 
 
 Beld, that the motion should be treated as 
 interlocutory and proceedings in the action 
 ■stayed as against the consenting defts. except so 
 far as necessary to carry out the terms of the 
 consent. Cooke v. Gilbebt 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. Ill, and note at p. 128 
 
 39. — Motion for judgment — Application for 
 — Dismissal — Renewal of application — Ordsr xi v., 
 r. 1. 
 
 Where, on an application to enter final judg- 
 ment under Order xiv., r. 1, unconditional leave 
 to defend has been given in consequence of a 
 technical defect in the writ, the pit. may, after 
 the defect has been cured, make a second appli- 
 cation for final judgment. Dombet & Son v. 
 Playfair Brothers - C, A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 368 
 
 40. — Motion for judgment — Notice to co- 
 defendants — B. 8. O., 1883, Order XL., r. 7. 
 
 Where issues have been tried and determined 
 in favour of some of the defts., notice of motion 
 for judgment must be given to the others. 
 Boaler v. Brodhurst (No. 2) 
 
 StirUng J. [1892] W. ». 121 
 
 — Motion for judgment — Service — Several 
 
 defendants. 
 
 See Practice — Service. 226. 
 
 — Motion for judgment — Trial without pleadings 
 
 — Default of appearance. 
 
 See Practice — Pleadings. 156 — 158. 
 
 — Eeversal of — ^Repayment of costs — Solicitor. 
 
 See Solicitor- Costs. 71. 
 
 — Scottish judgment registered in England — 
 
 Bankruptcy notice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy— Act of Bankruptcy. 
 41. 
 
 — Setting aside judgment. 
 
 See Oases under Practice — Setting 
 
 Aside. 
 
 41, — Varying minutes — Appeal. 
 
 There is no appeal to the C. A. from the 
 
 TeTusal of a judge to vary minutes. The appeal 
 
 must be from the judgmeut itself. James v. 
 
 Jones (No. 1) - - C. A [1892] W, N. 104 
 
 PEACTICE — continued. 
 
 Jurisdiction, 
 
 See Specific Titles. 
 
 42. — Failure of special statutory tribunal — 
 Power to assess damages in High Court, 
 
 Where by reason of the abeyance of the 
 special statutory tribunal it is impossible to assess 
 compensation as directed by a special Act, the 
 amount of compensation can be assessed in an 
 action in the High Court. Bentley v. Man- 
 chester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ey. Co. 
 Eomer J, [1891] 3 Ch, 222 
 
 43. — Jurisdiction of judge of Court of Appeal 
 to make orders in the Chancery Division, 
 
 Sect. 51 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and the 
 letters of request of the Lord Chancellor to the 
 Lords Justices to act as additional judges of the 
 Ch. Div. gives the Lords Justices jurisdiction to 
 make orders in the Ch. Div. In re Blake 
 
 I.JJ, [1895] W. N, 51 
 
 44. — Trespass to land in foreign country — 
 
 The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to 
 entertain an action for damages in respect of 
 trespass to land situated in a foreign country. 
 Order xxxvi. (abolishing local venue) confers no 
 new jurisdiction. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1892] 2 Q. B. 358, reversed. 
 British South Africa Co. v, Companhia de 
 M09AMBIQUB H, L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 602 
 
 Referred to by Darling J. Adam v. British 
 and Foreign Steamship Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 430, 
 432. 
 
 Lis Pendens. 
 
 See Cases under Lis Pendens. 
 
 Mandamus. 
 Order Lii. relates to actions of mandamus. 
 See Cases under Mandamus. 
 
 notions. 
 
 Order Lli, relates to motions. 
 
 45, — Copy of notice for judge. 
 
 A copy of the notice of motion should be sup- 
 plied in the Ch. Div. for the use of the judge ; 
 otherwise he may refuse to hear the motion. 
 Baetlett V, West Metropolitan Tramways 
 Co. (No. 1) - Worth J. [1893] W. N, 139 ; 
 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 437 ; [1894] 2 Ch. 286 
 
 Disapproved (but not on this point) by 0. A. 
 Marshall v. South Staffordshire Tramways Co., 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 36. 
 
 — Dispense with making co-respondent. 
 
 See DivoECB. 99. 
 
 — Hearing of, by Court of Appeal. 
 
 See Appeal. 4, 56. 
 
 — Interlocutory — Information and belief — In- 
 
 sufScient affidavit. 
 See Evidence. 18. 
 
 — Judgment, Motion for. 
 
 See Practice— Judgment. 38 — 40. 
 
 — Petition or- Necessary witness in custody 
 
 See Habeas Cobpus. 2, 
 
( 1499 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1500 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (SLotioJis)— continued. 
 
 — Time —Motion to discharge order for public 
 
 examination. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 87. 
 
 — VivS. voce eyidence — Practice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Practice. 151. 
 
 New Trial. 
 
 Order Xi'XJX. relates to neio trials. 
 
 47. — Appeal — Official referee — Judicature 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 5t Vict. c. 44), s. 1. 
 
 The Judicature Act, 1890, b. 1, only applies 
 to motions for new trials iu cases tried with a 
 jury. In a case tried before an official referee, 
 the motion must be made to a Div. Ct. Gowek 
 11. ToBiTT C. A, [1891] W. N. 6 
 
 47. — Appeal — Official referee. 
 
 Where under s. 14 of the Arbitration Act, 
 1889, a question has been referred for trial to the 
 official referee, there is an appeal to the C. A. 
 without leave from an order of the Div. Ct. on an 
 application to review the decision of the official 
 referee, Mcnbay v. Nokton 
 
 0. A. [1892] 1 a. B. 403 
 
 48. — Appeal — Writ of inquiry — Assessment of 
 damages hefore under-sheriff and jury — Judica- 
 ture Act, 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 44), s. 1. 
 
 Where there lias been a trial before the 
 under-sheriff and a jury for the assessment of 
 damages in an action in the High Court, an 
 application for a new trial must be made to the 
 C. A. and not to a Div. Ct. William Eadam's 
 Microbe Killer Co. u. Leather 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 85 
 
 — Canada — Laws of — Practice — "Verdict — Judg- 
 
 ment — Damages. 
 See Canada. 14. 
 
 49. — Conflict of evidence — Order for new trial 
 recersed. 
 
 Where there is evidence both ways it cannot 
 be said that the jury might not reasonably arrive 
 at. a verdict in favour of either party. Brisbane 
 Municipal Council v. Martin 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 249 
 
 50. — Conflict of evidence — Verdict against 
 iceiglit of evidence. 
 
 The verdict of a jury should not be set aside 
 merely because the judge who tried the case is 
 of opinion that it is against tbe weight of the 
 evidence ; but his opinion is an element to be 
 considered in determining whether the verdict is 
 so contrary to the evidence as to call for a new 
 trial. In an action to revoke probate of a will a 
 jury found that the testator was of unsound 
 mind :^ 
 
 Held, that the verdict was against the weight 
 of the evidence, the medical evidence being in- 
 sufficient, and the other evidence of incapacity 
 relating to irrelevant circumstances, and beiQg 
 contradicted by deponents as to actual transac- 
 tions with the testator and to his conduct and 
 condition at the time of the execution of the will. 
 AiTKEN V. MoMeokan p. C. [1895] A. C. 310 
 
 51- — Dismiss for want of prosecution, Appli- 
 cation to. 
 
 Where a new trial has been granted, but the 
 action IS not duly set down for trial, an applica- 
 
 PEACTICE (New tiiaV)— continued. 
 tion to dismiss the action for want of prosecution 
 is not to be made to C. A., but may be made ia 
 chambers. Eobarts v. French 
 
 C. A. [1885] W. N. 22 
 
 — Enlargement of time — Imposition of terms. 
 
 (See Divorce — Practice. 111. 
 
 52. — Entering judgment — Jurisdiction — 
 Motion for new trial — Judicature Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 44), ». \—E. S. C, Order Lviii., 
 r. 4. 
 
 The C. A. has jurisdiction, on a motion for a 
 new trial under the Judicature Act, 1890, to 
 direct judgment to be entered for either party, 
 instead of ordering a new trial. Ailcock v. 
 Hall - - C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 444 
 
 — fiighway, Obstruction of. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Practice. 62. 
 
 63. — Libel — Evidence of innuehdo — Ananias. 
 
 Where the name " Ananias " had been applied 
 to plt.'s newspaper the jury found for the defts. 
 in a libel action : — 
 
 Held, that the use of the word as applied to 
 the newspaper did not necessaiily impute wilful 
 and deliberate falsehood to the pit., and that 
 whether it was used extravagantly or for the 
 purpose of conveying an imputation on the pit. 
 was for the jury. Australian Newspaper Co. 
 I. Bennett - P. C. [1894] A. 0. 284 
 
 54. — Liverpool Court of Passage — Judicature 
 Acts, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 45; IS'Jii 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 44), s. 1. 
 
 Under s. 10 of the Liverpool Court of Passage 
 Act, 1893, an appeal from that Cuurt lies direct 
 to the C. A. and not to a Div. Ct. Anderson v. 
 Dean - C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B 222 
 
 — Misdirection — "Substantial wrong or mis- 
 
 carriage." 
 
 See Defamation — libel. 13. 
 
 — Motion for — Legatee preparing will in his 
 
 own favour — Findings of jury. 
 See Probate. 111. 
 
 58. — Nonsuit without plaintiffs consent — 
 Non-suit without hearing evidence. 
 
 A judge has no power to no'i-suit a pit. with- 
 out the consent of his counsel, when lie has not 
 heard the plt.'s evidence, but has only heard his 
 counsel's statement of hia c.ise. Where a judge 
 has done so, a new trial will be granted. Fletcher 
 V. London & North Western Ry. Co. 
 
 C. A, [1892] 1 Q. B. 122 
 
 — Question of fact not submitted to jury — Issue 
 
 of fact as to variation of easement 
 
 claimed. 
 
 See Jamaica. 4. 
 
 56. — Security for costs — Alleged poverty. 
 The C. A., following the practice o"f the 
 
 Q. B. D., will not make an order for security for 
 the costs of a new trial on the ground of the 
 appellant's poverty. Heckscher v. Crosley 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 224 
 
 — Security for costs. 
 
 See Cases under Costs — Security for 
 Costs. 
 
 57. — Stay of execution. 
 
 Applications to stay execution pending a 
 
( 1501 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1502 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (New Trial)— coutjnited 
 motion for a new trial, in a case tried with a 
 jury, must be made to the judge. The C. A. 
 will not grant an application, except under 
 special circumstances. Allegations of misdirec- 
 tion, verdict against evidence, evidence insuffi- 
 cient to support verdict, are not special circum- 
 stauoes. Monk v. Babtbam 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 346 
 
 — Surprise — Notice of setting down for trial. 
 
 See Divorce — Practice. 112. 
 
 — Verdict — Judgment — Damages — Laws of 
 
 Canada. 
 
 See Canada. 14. 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act — Jurisdiction 
 
 of county court judge. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 92. 
 
 Next Priend. 
 
 Order jvj., rr. 11, 16, 20, and Order xsxi., 
 r. 29, relate to proceedings hy and against the 
 next friend of an infant. 
 
 58. — Female guardian ad litem— B. 8. C, 
 Order xil., r. 8 — Practice Masten-s' Mules (5). 
 
 Tlie memorandum of appearance ought always 
 to shew the status of a female guardian ad litem 
 of an infant defendant. A married woman is 
 ineligible as a guardian ad litem. Amendment 
 of statement of claim ordered as to description of 
 status of female guardian a1 lit«m of deft. 
 London and County Banking Co. v. Brat 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 180 
 
 59. — Married woman suing without next 
 friend — Costs. 
 
 "Where costs are ordered to be paid by a 
 married woman, suing under the Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882, without a next 
 friend, payment of them can be enforced against 
 any separate property to which she is entitled 
 free from restraint on anticipation at the time 
 when the order to pay costs is made. The re- 
 straint on anticipation ceases, as to any sums 
 forming part of the income, so soon as they come 
 into the trustees' hands : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that the trustees could pay 
 their costs out of arrears of income detained in 
 their hands by an administration order. Cox v. 
 Bennett - - - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 617 
 
 See now s. 2 of the Married Women's Property 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63). 
 
 See also Fillers v. Edwards, [1894] W. N. 212 
 
 60. — Useless litigation — Costs. 
 
 Costs of unsuccessful litigation by next friend 
 should not be ordered to be paid out of the 
 estate. 
 
 (a) Observations of Lindley L.J. In re Fish. 
 Bennett v. Bennett C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 413, 422 
 
 (b) In re Hicks. Lindon v. Hemeby 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 138 
 
 Non-suit, 
 See Practice — Discontinuance. 
 
 OfScial Referee. 
 
 See Cases under Arbitkation- 
 Beferee, 
 
 ■Official 
 
 PEACTICE— continued. 
 
 Originating Summons. 
 
 Order lit., rr. 4b — 4c, Order Liv.-S., Order LV., 
 and Order LXXI., r. lA, relate to originating sum- 
 monses (ie. S. C, Aug. 1894). 
 
 61. — History — " Originating summons." 
 The history of the introduction of originating 
 summonses traced by Lindley L.J. in In re 
 HoLLOWAY. Ex parte Pallisteb 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 a. B. 163 
 
 63. — Accounts — Trustees — Wilful default — 
 B. S. C, Order LV.,rr. 8,4. 
 
 The defts. in an administration action sought 
 by originating summons to have a judgment for 
 accounts amended, by inserting a direction that 
 the accounts and inquiries ordered to be delivered 
 by the plt.'s trustees should be taken on tho 
 footing of wilful default : — 
 
 ' Held, that such a direction could not be made 
 on origiuating summons, notwithstanding that 
 the persons charged with such default were pits, 
 submitting to account. In re Hengler. Fbowde 
 V. Henglee (No. 2) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 37 
 
 63. — Administration — Creditor's action. 
 
 An originating summons was taken out by a 
 judgment creditor for the administration of the 
 estate of an intestate married woman, 'the deft, 
 being her husband who had not yet taken out 
 administration : — 
 
 Held, that it did not fall witliiu Order lv. 
 and was entirely bad, there being no personal 
 representative of the estate before tho Court. 
 In re Leask. Richardson v. Leask 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 159 
 
 64. — Administration — Procedure. 
 
 On an originating summons for administra- 
 tion the rights of the parties are the same as if 
 an administration action had been begun and 
 decree made therein. In re Wenham. Hunt r. 
 "Wenham - North J, [1892] 3 Ch. 59 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Budgett v. Bud- 
 gett, [1895] 1 Ch. 202, 217. 
 
 65. — Construction of deed — B. S. C, Order 
 Liv. A, r. 1 — Application iy mortgagor without 
 offering to redeem. 
 
 Under Order liv. A, i-. 1, a mortgagor may 
 apply by originating summons for the determina- 
 tion of a question of construction arising under 
 the mortgage deed without offering to redeem. 
 
 Where the mortgagor of a reversionary interest 
 applied under Order liv., r. 1, for the determina- 
 tion of the question whether, according to the 
 true construction of the mortgage deed she was 
 entitled to redeem during the period fixed by the 
 deed for the continuance of the loan : — 
 
 Held, that the Court was bound to decide the 
 
 question, and ought not to put the mortgagor on 
 
 tho terms of offering to redeem. In re Nobes. 
 
 NoBBS V. Law Eeversionaet Interest Society 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 830 
 
 66. — Construction of instrument — Form of 
 summons. 
 
 An originating summons to obtain the opinion 
 of the Court on the construction of an instru- 
 ment should state the questions categorically, 
 and not in such general terms as " who are or is 
 
( 15!J3 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 150i ) 
 
 PEACriCE (Originating Snmmons)— continued. 
 entitled to" the property in question. In re 
 Hakman. Lloyd v. Tabdy 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 607 
 
 67. — Conreyaneing Act, 1881 — Notice. 
 Questions as to the validity of notices under 
 
 s. 14, sub-s. 2, of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, 
 requiring a lessee to remedy a breach of cove- 
 nant, cannot be raised by originating summons. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1892] 2 Ch. 328, 
 affirmed. Look v. Peaboe 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 271 
 
 Referred to by Buckley J. Fannell v. City of 
 London Brewery Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 496. 
 
 68. — Dehenture-liolders^ action. 
 
 Foreclosure can be ordered in a debenture- 
 holders' action commenced by originatiug sum- 
 mons. Oldeet v. Union Wobks, Ld. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 77 
 See also In re Continental Oxygen Co., [1897] 
 1 Ch. 511. 
 
 69. — Definition. 
 
 The definition of " originating summons" in 
 Order Lxxi., r. 1a, as " a summons by which pro- 
 ceedings are commenced without wiit " means a 
 summons by which proceedings which under the 
 old Chancery practice would have been com- 
 menced by writ or bill in Chancery, are now 
 commenced without writ, and is a substitute for 
 an action or suit. In re Hollowat. Ex parte 
 Pallisteb C. a. [1894] 2 Q. B. 163 
 
 70. — Description of female plaintiff — H. S. C, 
 Order r., r. 2 — Practice Masters Sides (.5). 
 
 A female pit. to an originating summons 
 bhould state whether she is a married woman or 
 spinster, or otherwise. 
 
 (a) In re Poinons. Sutton v. Martin 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 139 
 
 (b) London and County Banking Co. v. 
 Bkay Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 130 
 
 (c) ToFEELD I'. EoBERTS - Eomer J. 
 
 [1894] W. IT. 74 
 — Foreclosure — Appointment of receiver. 
 See Keceivee. 
 
 71. — Further consideration — Cliambers. 
 Wliere an order is made on an originating 
 
 summons in chambers adjourning further con- 
 sideration, the action ought to be heard on further 
 consideration in chambers and not in Court. If 
 ■a contrary course be pursued, any additional 
 costs caused by the hearing in Court costs w ill 
 be disallowed. In re GLAS^oN. Glasson v. 
 Glasson - Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 85 
 
 72. — Parties — Deceased person — Absence of 
 fepresentaliues. 
 
 In making an order on an originating sum- 
 mons which may affect the estate of a deceased 
 person, the Court must be guided by Order xvi., 
 r. 46, and to render the order binding on the 
 estate of the deceased it should appear on the 
 face thereof that the Court had its attention 
 called to the matter, either dispensed with the 
 attendance of the representative of the estate or 
 appointed someone to represent it. In re Eiohee- 
 SON. Scales v. Heyhoe (No. 2) 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 3 Ch. 146 
 
 FBACTICE (Originating Summons) — continued. 
 
 73. — Payment out of court under Lands 
 Clauses Acts. 
 
 An application for payment out under the 
 Lands Clauses Acts where title depends on con- 
 struction of a will must be by petition, and not 
 by originating summons. Order LV., r. 2 (1), is 
 not applicable to a case where there is a question 
 of construction, though that question may be an 
 easy one. 
 
 Senible, the practice on this point is not 
 uniform. In re Hicks 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. W. 55 
 
 74. — Sale of judgment debtor's interest in 
 land— Judgments Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 112) 
 —7?. S. C, 1883, Order LV., r. d£; Order Lxx., 
 r. 1. 
 
 "Where an application for the sale of a judg- 
 ment debtor's interest in land was made by 
 petition instead of by originating summons : — 
 
 Held, that this was an irregularity which 
 could be cured under Order lxx., r. 1. The peti- 
 tioners were allowed only the costs which would 
 have been properly incurred ou a summons, and 
 the sum so allowed them was reduced by the 
 amount by which the respondents' costs exceeded 
 the costs which would have been incurred by 
 them if the application had been by summons. 
 In re Mabtin and Vablow 
 
 North J. [1894] W. H. 223 
 — Service out of the jirrisdiotion. 
 
 See Pb ACTIO E — Service. 196. 
 
 75."' — Solicitor — Summons for delivery of 
 papers. 
 
 A summons entitled "in the matter of a 
 solicitor" and bearing a 3s. stamp was issued 
 for the delivery up to a former client of deeds 
 and papers : — 
 
 Held, that such a summons was not an 
 originating summons, but an ordinary summons. 
 In re Holloway. Ex parte Pallisteb 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 163 
 
 But see now Order LIT., r. 4p. jB. S. C, Aua., 
 1894, •,. 7. 
 
 76. — Statute of Limitations — Executoi — 
 Besiduary legatee — S. S. C, 1883, Order LT., 
 rr. 3, 4. 
 
 A residuary legatee may compel executors to 
 plead the statute against an old claim and may 
 enforce the right on an originating summons. 
 In re Wenham. Hunt v. Wenh.\m 
 
 North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 59 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Budgett v. 
 Budgett, [1895] 1 Oh. 202, 217. 
 
 Farticulars. 
 
 See Cases under Discotest — Par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 Parties. 
 Order X n. relates to parties. 
 Order xn., r. 1 {Parties) altered. [1896] 
 W. N. (Oct. 31), p. 291. See Current Indez, 1896, 
 p. Ivii. 
 
 By Order XXI., r. 20, pleas and defences in 
 abatement are forbidden. 
 
 By Order XVII., r. 1, no cause or matter abates 
 
( 15J5 ) 
 
 DIGEST OV OASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 15J6 ) 
 
 PEACTICE (Parties)— continued. 
 
 by death of u party where the cause of action 
 
 survives. 
 
 It. — Abatement — Discretion — Foreigner resi- 
 dent out of jurisdiction — Limitations Act, 1833 
 (3 (fc 4 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 8. 
 
 The Court has a discretion under Order xvi., 
 r. 11, as to adding necessary parties, to be exer- 
 cised on the principles on which pleas in abate- 
 ment succeeded or failed. Wilson, Sons & Co. 
 V. Balcabbes Bbooe Steamship Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 a. B. 422 
 — Absent, accepting benefit of judgment — 
 Practice. 
 See Estoppel. 4. 
 
 78. — Adding defendant — Administration 
 action — Executor — B. S. C, 1883, Order XVI., 
 r. 11 ; Order xsvill., r. 11 ; Order XLi., r. 3. 
 
 In a beneficiary's action for administration of 
 an estate, after judgment was passed and entered, 
 in the course of inquiries in chambers it was 
 found that an executor who had not proved at 
 first had come in and proved. The pit. moved to 
 amend pleadings and judgment by adding the 
 executor as deft. : — 
 
 Held, that the better course was to order that 
 the executor submitting to be bound as if 
 originally joined, further proceedings should be 
 carried on against him as if he had been an 
 original deft. In re Deacup. Field v. Dkaoup 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 43 
 
 79. — Adding defendant — Affreightment — 
 "Question involved in the cause or matter" — 
 It. 8. C, Order XVI., r. 11 — Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1891 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 493-496. 
 
 In an action by a shipowner against con- 
 signees, who had no property in the cargo, for a 
 declaration of title to money deposited by them 
 with a warehouseman under s. 496 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894 :— 
 
 Seld, that there was jurisdiction under 
 Order xvi., i. 11, to order that the shippers of 
 the cargo should be added as defts. in the action, 
 in order that they might counter-tlaim against 
 the pit. damages for short delivery and inj ury to 
 
 cargo. MONTGOMEBY II. FOY, MOBGAN & CO. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B, 321 
 
 80. — Adding defendant — Co-contractors — 
 Foreigner resident abroad — Plea in abatement — 
 B. S. C, Order xvi., r. 11 — Limitations Act, 1833 
 (3*4 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 8. 
 
 An action was brought against one only of 
 two co-contractors, the other being a foreigner 
 resident out of the jurisdiction : — 
 
 Beld, that the deft, was not entitled, as of 
 right, to an order under Order xvi., r. 11, to have 
 the foreign co-contractor added as deft. : — 
 
 Semble, that Order xvi., r. 11,- gives a dis- 
 cretion to the Court, and the discretion should 
 be exercised in accordance with the principles 
 upon which the old pleas in abatement would 
 have succeeded or failed. Wilson, Sons & Co. 
 V. Balcabbes Beook Steamship Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 a. B. 422 
 
 81. — Adding defendant — Co-contractors — 
 Service— Slay 
 
 A pit. brought an action against one of three 
 joint contractors. The deft, obtained an order 
 
 FBACTICD (BartieB)— continued. 
 that the two others should be joined. Both were 
 within the jurisdiction, but only one was served 
 with tlie writ : — 
 
 Held, that the action should not be stayed for 
 non-service, as pit. had done his best to serve the 
 third deft. Robinson v. Geisel 
 
 C. A, [1894] 2 Q. B. 683 
 
 82. — Adding defendant — Foreign firm — Firm 
 of which some members were resident abroad — 
 Amendment of writ — Fresh causes of action — 
 B. 8. C, 1883, Order xi., r. (g)— Service out of 
 the jurisdiction. 
 
 In an action against an English firm an order 
 was obtained ex parte to add as defts. a Calcutta 
 firm consisting of tbie members of the English 
 firm and one other person, and writ amended to 
 include claims against Calcutta firm for breaches 
 of agreement committed in India :^ 
 
 Held, that the original writ was. wrongly 
 issued against the Calcutta firm, some of ttie 
 partners being out of the jurisdiction, but leave 
 given to amend the original writ by adding by 
 name the members of the English firm, and 
 tliose of the Calcutta firm who were within the 
 jurisdiction, and to further amend by adding 
 claims against the Calcutta firm. Indigo Co. v. 
 Ogilvy - - - C. A, [1891] 2 Ch. 31 
 
 — Foreign firm — Service. 
 
 See Peacticb — SerTice. 181 — 191. 
 
 83. — Adding defendants — Joinder of defend- 
 ants—Alternative relief — Claim against charterer 
 for not loading cargo — Claim against agent for 
 breach of warranty of authority — Order xvi., 
 rr. 5, 7, 11. 
 
 In an action against the defts. for breach of 
 warranty of authority, it appeared that they 
 had assumed to act as agents in entering into a 
 charterparty for loading the pits.' vessel with a 
 cargo wliich was not supplied. The pits., being 
 in doubt as to whether the defts. had or had not 
 authority, applied to add alleged principals as 
 defts. : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled to do so 
 on the authority of Honduras By. Co. v. Tucker, 
 (1877) 2 Ex. D. 801, and Massey v. Heynes & Co , 
 (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 330, which are not atfeoted 
 by the decision of the H. L. in Smurthwaite v. 
 Hannay, [1894] A. C. 494. Bennetts & Co. v. 
 MoIlweaith & Co. - C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 464 
 
 Eeferied to by C. A. Thompson v. London 
 County Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 840, 843. 
 
 84. — Adding defendant — Joint promisees. 
 Action by one of two — Befusal of other to join as 
 co-plaintiff — Fower to add as co-defendant — ■ 
 Pleading. 
 
 One of two joint promisees can maintain an 
 action on the contract, making the other joint 
 promisee a co-deft, if, after tender of an in- 
 demnity against costs, he refuses to be joined 
 as a co-pit. Cullen v. Knowlbs 
 
 Bigham J. [1898] 2 Q. B, 380 
 
 — Adding defendant — Lunatic adjudicated 
 bankrupt — Trustee in bankruptcy added 
 as deft, to action — Eight of trustee to 
 have action stayed as against him. 
 See Lcnacy — Bankruptcy. 8. 
 
 3 C 
 
( 15.7 ) 
 
 DlGEbT OF OAftEiS, 1891— I'JOO. 
 
 ( 15J8 ) 
 
 FBACTICE (Parties) — continued. 
 
 85. — Adding defendant — Fatent action. 
 
 In an action for the infringement of a patent, 
 the foreign manufacturer of the machine which 
 was alleged to be a violation of the patent applied 
 to be added as a deft., on the ground Ihat the 
 original deft, would not properly defend the 
 action : — 
 
 Held, that the applicant was not entitled to 
 'be joined, as he was only indirectly and com- 
 vmeroially interested in tlie issues between tlio 
 3)nrties. Mosek v. Marsden 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 487 
 
 See Munt/orts v. Marsden, 0. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 
 11, 17. 
 
 86. — Aildinrj defendant — Bepresentative nf 
 
 ■ deceased trustee or executor — B. 8. C, Order XVI., 
 rr. 6, 11, 48. 
 
 In an action for general account against a 
 surviving executor and trustee, it is not necessary 
 that the representntive of a deceased trustee or 
 executor should be made a party by the pit. 
 There is power to add such representative under 
 Order xvi., rr. 11, 48, if the deft, requires it, aud 
 the circumstances of the case render it advisable. 
 In re HAKjiisON. Smith v. Allen (No. 1) 
 
 CMtty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 349 
 
 87. — Adding defendant — Time for application 
 —B. S. a, 1883, Order xYI., rr. 11, 12. 
 
 Pit. brought an action against a county 
 ■council, and the guardians of two unions ap- 
 pointed by the Court to represent themselves and 
 
 ■ other unions interested, for a declaration as to 
 the persons interested in and entitled to deal 
 with profits made in respect of a county lunatic 
 asylum after the delivery of statement of claim. 
 The council of a county borough claimed, to be 
 added as a p.uty on the ground that its district 
 contributed to the maintenance of the asylum. 
 Motion ordered to stand over till the trial. 
 JPkootek v. Cheshire ConNTY Council 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 24 
 
 88. ■ — Adding parties — Banliruptcy of a de- 
 fendant — Malcing trustee a party — Unliquidated 
 damages— B. S. C, 1883, Order XYII., rr. 4, 6— 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 52), s. 37, 
 sub-s. 1. 
 
 A shareholder in a co. commenced an action 
 against the co. and H., its vendor and promoter, 
 claiming, as against the CO., rescission of his con- 
 tract to fake shares with rectification of the 
 register, on the ground of misrepresentation in 
 the prospectus ; and as against H. a declaration 
 that the prospectus was fraudulent within s. 38 
 of tlie Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131), 
 damages aud an indemnity, and a declaration 
 that H. was liable, under the Directors' Liability 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 64), to pay the pit. 
 compensation, 
 
 H. having become bankrupt, the pit. obtained 
 an order, under E. S. C, Order xvii., r. 4, to 
 carry on proceedings against his trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy. On a motion by the trustee to discharge 
 this order : — 
 
 Held, that so far as the action against H. was 
 one for deceit, or based on s. 33 of the Companies 
 Act, 1867, the claims were not provable in bank- 
 ruptcy by virtue of s. 37, sub-s. 1, of the B.ink 
 
 FBACTICE (Parties) — amtinued. 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, and therefore the trustee was 
 not a necessary party ; so far as the claim against 
 H. was based on the Directors' Liability Act, 
 1890, if it was not provable in bankruptcy, then 
 the trustee was not a necessary party ; if it was 
 provable, then the proper course for the pit. to 
 pursue was to go into the Bankruptcy Court and 
 prove his claim; for these reasons the motion 
 must succeed, and the order allowing the pit. to 
 carry on proceedings against the trustee must 
 be discharged. Gbebnwood v. Humbeb & Go. 
 (Portugal), Ld. Eomer J. [1898] W. N. 162 (3) 
 
 89. — Adding parties — Pending acti n — Be- 
 ceiving order in hanlcruptey against defendant — 
 " Change or transmission of interest or liahility " — 
 Official receiver — Carrying on proceedings against 
 —B. S. C, 1883, Order xvil., r. i— Bankruptcy 
 Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52); 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict, c 71). 
 
 An official receiver in bankruptcy, having no 
 estate or interest vested in him nor any power 
 conferred on him by the Bankruptcy Acts of 
 bringing or defending actions, stands in a different 
 position from a trustee in a bankruptcy, or a trus- 
 tee of any composition or scheme in bankruptcy. 
 
 Accordingly the making, after the commence- 
 ment of an action, of a receiving order against a 
 deft, does not cause any such change or trans- 
 mission of interest or liability within the meauiug 
 of Order xvil., r. 4, as to render it necessary or 
 desirable that t:he official receiver should be made 
 a party to the action. 
 
 Such a transmission of interest or liability 
 within rule 4 of the order would, however, take 
 place when an adjudication order was made, or 
 when a composition or scheme was approved by 
 the Court. In re Bekkt. Duffield v. Williams 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 939 
 
 90. — Adding plaintiff without authority — 
 Stay of proceedings — Costs — Liahility of solicitor 
 —B. S. C. 1883, Order xvi, r. U—^Own consent 
 in writing." 
 
 Eule 11 of Order xvi. of E. S. C, 1883, pro- 
 vides that no person shall be added as a pit. or 
 as the next friend of a pit., in an action " without 
 his own consent in writing thereto " : — 
 
 Held, that the consent must be the consent of 
 the party himself in writing, and signed by him ; 
 and the consent in writing of his solicitor on his 
 behalf, signed by the solicitor, though written 
 and signed in his presence, would not be sufficient 
 to bind him. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. 
 
 Wlicre a person has been made a pit. in an 
 action without proper authority, and orders have, 
 without his knowledge, been made against him, 
 under which he ia liable to pay co=ts to the defts., 
 the practice is, in accordance with the rule laid 
 down in Reynolds v. Howell, (1873) L. K. 8 Q. B. 
 398, and followed in Nurse v. Durnford, (1879) 
 13 Ch. D. 761, and Newbiggin-hy-the-Sea Gas Co. 
 V. Armstrong, (1879) 13 Ch. D. 310, to direct a 
 stay of proceedings in the name of the person 
 named as pit., and all proceedings against him 
 in tlie action since he was added as pit., and to 
 strike out his name for the purpose of future pro- 
 ceedings. The solicitor who wrongly made him 
 a party will be ordered to pay all his costs, aud 
 
( 1530 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASKS, ISiH— 1900. 
 
 ( 1510 ) 
 
 PBACTICE (Parties)— confTOMctJ. 
 all the costs which he has heen ordered to pay, 
 and also all the defts.' costs (the costs of the 
 person named as pit. as hetween solicitor and 
 client, and the costs of the deft, as hetween party 
 and party), and such costs will include the costs 
 «f the application by the person named as pit. 
 ■to be dismissed from the proceedings. Fkickeb 
 V. Van Gbutten - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 649 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Geilinger v. Gibbs, 
 £1897] 1 Ch. 479. 
 
 Order XVII. relates to change of parties by 
 death, &c. 
 
 — Change of parties — After remittal of ease to 
 
 county court. 
 
 See County Coi'kt. 71. 
 
 91. — Cliange of parlies — Death of plaintiff — 
 Survival of cause of action — Action for mandatory 
 injunction — Statutory duty on part of defendants 
 —Public BeaUh Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 «s. 15, 299 — Sivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 
 <39 * 40 Vict. c. 75), s. 7. 
 
 An action was commenced by a manufacturer 
 for a mandamus to compel the defts., under the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, s. 15, and the Elvers 
 Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, s. 7, to make a 
 sewer to enable the pit. to dispose of the liquids 
 proceeding from liis factory. The pit. died, and 
 his executors applied to be substituted as pits. : — 
 
 Held, that as the alleged cause of action arose 
 out of a statutory duty to the deceased it survived 
 to his executors. Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle 
 Ukban Ooukoil C. a. [1896] 2 Q. B, 169 
 
 See also upon another point, [1898] A. C. 387. 
 
 93. — Change of parties — Ex parte application 
 — Irregularity. 
 
 An order obtained in an administration action 
 after judgment and ex parte, and without the 
 consent of the surviving pit., adding the executrix 
 of a deceased pit. as a co-pit., held to be irregular 
 and discharged with costs. In re Holmes. 
 Fabbae v. Eddlestone 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 117 
 
 — Change of parties — Foreclosure action — Ee- 
 
 presentativo for purposes of action — 
 Legal personal representative. 
 See MoBTSAGE — Foreclosure. 29. 
 
 93. — Change of parties — Representative of 
 daceased person — Absence. 
 
 An order construing a will was made on 
 originating summons in the absence of A., who 
 represented the next of kin of the testator. No 
 order was made dispensing with the presence of 
 A., or appointing any person to represent the 
 estate. A. had not taken out letters of adminis- 
 tration : — 
 
 Held, that A. was not bound by the order. An 
 order made under Order xvi., r. 46, to be bind- 
 ing on the estate of a deceased person should 
 state that the Court had its attention called to 
 the matter and dispensed with the presence of 
 the legal personal representative or appointed 
 someone to represent him. In re Eiohebson. 
 Scales v. Heyhoe (No. 2) 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 3 Ch. 146 
 
 94. — Change of parties — Bepresentative of 
 deceased party to appeal from county court. 
 
 Where, after entry of an appeal from a county 
 
 FBACTICE (Parties) — continued. 
 court one of the parties dies, the High Court has 
 jurisdiction to add his personal representative. 
 Blakewat v. Patteshall 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 a. B. 247 
 
 — Contract. 
 
 See CoNTEACT — Parties. 25. 
 
 — Divorce petitions — Full names and titles of 
 
 parties to be stated. 
 
 See Divorce — Practice. 113. 
 
 - Female parties. Description of. 
 See Peaotioe — Appearance. 
 
 7,8, 
 
 — Foreclosure. 
 
 See MoBTGAGE — Foreclosure. 25 — 29. 
 
 — Infants. 
 
 See Infant — Practice. 36, 37. 
 Order XVIII. relates to joinder of causes of 
 action. 
 
 Order xviii., r. 2, forbids the joinder without 
 leave with claims for the recovery of land of all 
 but certain excepted causes of action. 
 
 — Joinder of actions and parties. 
 
 See Shipping— Practice. 205—207. 
 
 95. — Joinder of actions — Recovery of land — 
 Injunction — Breach of covenant — R. S. C, Order 
 XYiiL, r. 2 ; Order XXX VT. r. 58. 
 
 The writ was indorsed for recovery of land, 
 mesne profits, and damages for breach of cove- 
 nant, and also for an injunction to restrain further 
 breach or damage. Objection was taken that 
 the claim for injunction was wrongfully joined, 
 being without leave, to the action for recovery of 
 land : — 
 
 Held, that the demanil, being only for an 
 interlocutory injunction, which is merely a sub- 
 stitute for damages between the issue of the writ 
 and trial, did not offend agaiost Order xvni., 
 r. 2. Eead v. Wotton 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 2 Ch. 171 
 
 96. — Joinder of causes of action — Consolida- 
 tion of causes — Application by plaintiff — Order 
 XLix., r. 8. 
 
 An application under Order xlix., r. 8, to 
 consolidate causes pending in the same Division 
 may be made by the pit. Maetin v. Mabtin 
 & Co. - - C. A. [1897] 1 a. B. 429 
 
 97. — Joinder of causes of action— Joinder of 
 several plaintiffs in respect of several causes of 
 action. 
 
 (a) Several shippers shipped bales of cotton 
 by a general ship on similar bills of lading. On 
 her arrival- the number of bales was short. Some 
 of the landed goods could not be identified, their 
 marks having become obliteiated. These were 
 sold and the proceeds divided rateably among the 
 consignees. Sixteen holders of bills of lading and 
 seven consignees joined in one action against the 
 shipowner for non-delivery of the bales specified 
 in their bills of lading : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that tlo causes of action of ike, 
 several pits, were separate and distjjiot, and 
 could not be joined in one actjion either under 
 Order xvi. or Order xviii. • (2!) that Order xyi. 
 
 3 C 2 
 
( i5il ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1512 ) 
 
 •PEACTICE (Farties)— continued. 
 
 deals merely •with the parties to an action, and 
 
 does not relate to the joinder of causes of action. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1893] 2 Q. B. 412, reversed. 
 Smueth-waite v. Haknat 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1894] A. C. 494 
 
 Followed by North J. Hunt v. Worsfolil, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 224. 
 
 Distinguished by G. Barnes J. The Mar^ohal 
 tSuchet, [1896] P. 233. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Carter v. Rigby & Co., 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 1 13 ; Bennetts & Co. v. M'llwraiili 
 & Co., C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 464; Thompgon v. 
 London County Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 840, 844. 
 
 (b) In a suit in Admiralty under Lord Camp- 
 bell's Act (9 & 10 Vict. u. 93) numerous pits, 
 sought to recover damages as due to each pit. or 
 group of pits, for damages caused by death of 
 Japanese sailors in a maritime collision alleged 
 to have been due to the deft.'s negligence : — 
 
 Held, the causes of action being distinct and 
 different could not be joined. Peninsulas and 
 Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Tsune 
 KiJiMA P. C, [1895] A. C. 661 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Stroud v. Lawson, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 44, 50. 
 
 98. — Joinder of causes of action — Joinder of 
 plaintiffs — Several causes of action — County Court 
 Mules, 1889, Order in., t. 1 ; Order XLir., r. 18— 
 Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. 
 c. 42), s. 6, ett6-s. 3. 
 
 Order xliv., r. 18, of the County Court Rules 
 does not enlarge the power of joinder of pits, 
 given by Order iil, r. 1, nor allow of persons 
 being joined as pits, in actions under the Em- 
 ployers' Liability Act who could not have been 
 so joined in actions of other kinds. 
 
 By the flooding of a mine of the defts. fifty 
 raiueia, who were in their employment, were 
 drowned. Thereupon fifty persons, being re- 
 latives respectively of the deceased miners, joined 
 in bringing an action in the county court against 
 the defts. under Lord Campbell's Act and the 
 Employers' Liability Act in respect of their 
 deaths, which were alleged to have been caused 
 by the negligence of the defts. or of their 
 servants : — 
 
 Held, that, as their causes of action were 
 several, they could not be joined in one action. 
 Cahtee v. Eigbt & Co. C. A, [1896] 2 Q. B. 113 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Stroud v. Lawson, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 44, 49. 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Universities of 
 Oxford and Cambridge v. George Gill & Sons, 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 55. 
 
 99. — Joinder of causes of action— Becovery of 
 land — Action for recovery of land — Joinder of 
 other causes (f action — Leave of Court — Waiver of 
 irregularity — B. S. C, Order xr///., r. 2 ; Order 
 xjx, r. 2. 
 
 'The pit. claimed a declaration that an alleged 
 mortgage of land to the deft, created no charge 
 on the laud comprised in it, and he claimed 
 posseEsion of the land. The pit. claimed alter- 
 natively an account of what was due on the mort- 
 gage, and redemption. The pit. was a judgment 
 creditor of the mortgagor; he had obtained an I 
 
 FBACTICE (PartieB)— continued. 
 order appointing him receiver of the rents of the- 
 land, and the order had been registered. On m 
 summons by the deft, to stay all proceedings i» 
 the action, on the ground that no leave of Ihe- 
 Court had been obtained to join another cause- 
 of action with the acti- n for the recoveiy of the- 
 land : — 
 
 Held, that, though the deft, had entered anr 
 appearance to the writ, it was not too late for 
 him to take the objection : but 
 
 Held, that the pit. was entitled without leave- 
 to ask for possession of the land in either alter- 
 native — ^immediate possession if the mortgage- 
 was invalid, and possession on payment of what 
 should be found due if the mortgage was valid. 
 
 Mulchern v. Doerhs, (1884) 53 L. J. (Q.B.) 526, 
 is overruled by Wilmott v. Freehold House Pro~ 
 perty Co., (1884) 51 L. T. (N.S.) 552, and Smurtli- 
 leaite v. Hannay, [1894] A. C. 494. Hunt v. 
 WoESFOLD - - North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 224. 
 
 — Joinder — Separate causes of action. 
 
 SeeNos. 119, 120, SeZow. 
 
 100. — Joinder of defendants — Separate causes 
 of action against all and against some of d'fend- 
 anU—B. S. C, 1883, Order XYi., r. 5; Order 
 XVIII., rr. I, 8. 
 
 Where several defis. are sued, a claim for 
 damages in respect of a tort alleged against some- 
 of them cannot be combined with a claim for 
 damages in respect of a separate tort alleged 
 against all. Gowek i: Could^idge 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 34K 
 
 Explained by C. A. Frankenhurg v. Great 
 Horseless Carriage Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 504. 
 
 — Joinder of pilot as defendant — Action in rem. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. 206. 
 
 — Joinder of plaintiffs — Separate causes of actiont 
 
 — Salvage actions. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. 207. 
 
 101. . — Joinder of plaintiffs — Separate causes 
 of action — Same defendants — B. S. C, Order xvi., 
 r. 1 — Company — I'rospectus — Untrue statements — 
 Bepudiation after action brought — Seasonable 
 public notice — Directors' Liability Act, 1890 
 (53 <fe 54 Vict. c. 64), s. 3, sub-s. 1 (e). 
 
 Four persons, each of whom separately took 
 debentures on the faith of the statements In a 
 prospectus and covering letter issued by tHe 
 directors of a co., joined as oo-plts. in an action 
 against the directors, claiming damages for mis- 
 representations contained in the prospectus and 
 covering letter : — 
 
 Held, that, as the several causes of action werer 
 the same and arose out of the same transaction,, 
 and were against the same defendants, the action 
 was properly constituted. 
 
 A director of a co., being aware that a pro- 
 spectus was being issued to the public inviting- 
 subscriplions for debentures, did not trouble to 
 read it, abstained from inquiry as to its contents, 
 and refrained from giving any notice under the 
 Act. On action brought against him for damages 
 for untrue statements in the prospectus : — 
 
 Held, that after action brought it was too late 
 for him to repudiate the prospectus, and that ha 
 was liable. 
 
 Semble, repudiation of a prospectus by state- 
 
( 1513 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 190f 
 
 ( 1511 ) 
 
 TBA.CTICE (jetLitiei)— continued. 
 inent of defence is not " reasonable public notice " 
 within the meaning of the Act. Dkincqbier v. 
 Wood - - Byrne J. [1898] W. N. 162 (13) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 393 
 
 102. — Joinder nf plaintiffs — Separate cawnes 
 vf acfioii — Same transaction — B. 8. 0., 1883, 
 ■Order xvi., r. 1. 
 
 A pit. in his statement of claim on his own 
 lehalf claimed damages from the defts., who 
 were directors of a co., for inducing him by 
 fraud to purchase shares in the co., and stated in 
 his particulars of the alleged fraud (among other 
 things) that tlie defts. had declared and paid a 
 Ulividend on the shares of (he co. when there 
 were no profits ; and he claimed in the same 
 .action on behalf of himself and all other the 
 :sharcholder3 of the co. a declaration that the 
 payment of the dividend as aforesaid was ultra 
 vires and illegal, and judgment against the defts. 
 for repayment of the amount of the divideni to 
 the CO. : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was not entitled under 
 Order xvi., r. 1, to join both causes of action in 
 one action, as the right to relief claimed in his 
 personal capacity and the right to relief claimed 
 by him as representing the shareholders did not 
 arise out of the same trantaction or series of 
 transactions within the meaning of the rule 
 above mentioned. Stkoci) v. LAwsojf 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 44 
 
 Followed by Stii ling J. Universities of Ox- 
 ford and Cambridge v. George Gill & Sons. [1899] 
 i Ch. 55 ; Walters v. Green, [1899] 2 Ch. 696, 
 702, 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Drincqhier v. Wood, 
 £1899] 1 Ch. 393, 396. 
 
 See No. 101, aiove. 
 
 103. — Joinder of two plaintiffs in respect nf 
 '. — Slander — Distinct causes of action — B. 8. C, 
 Order xri., r. 1. 
 
 Two pits, sued jointly for slander and delivered 
 ■■a, statement of claim alleging several slanders, 
 some of one pit., some of the other : — 
 
 Hdd, that they were improperly joined, that 
 (they must elect which would proceed, and that 
 the other must be btruck out of tlie action. 
 ,6 ANDES V. TViLDSMiTH Div. Ct. [1893] 1 a. B. 771 
 
 — Lunatic adjudicated bankrupt — Trustee in 
 
 bankruptcy added as defendant to 
 action — Right of trustee to have action 
 stayed as against him. 
 See Lunacy — Bankruptcy. 3. 
 - — Misjoinder — Fraudulent prospectus — Action 
 against company and diiectors — Causes 
 of action. 
 See CoMPAHT. 207. 
 
 — Misjoinder — Joint cause of action — Practice. 
 
 See Trade Uniox. 13. 
 
 — Misjoinder of parties — Practice. 
 
 See Canada. 17. 
 .. — Misjoinder — ^Partition action — Mortgage — Dis- 
 missal as against mortgagees. 
 See Partition. 11. 
 
 104. — Misjoinder — Plaintiff added as co- 
 defendant — Foreclosure action. 
 
 A man cannot be both pit. and deft, in fin 
 
 PEACTICE (PaTtieB)— continued. 
 action. Amendment of writ and pleadings 
 ordered in a foreclosure action by first mortgagee 
 to which he was also made a co-deft. Wavell v. 
 Mitchell - Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 86 
 
 105. — Misjoinder — Plaintiff — Affreightment. 
 Older XVI., r. 1, deals merely with the partica 
 
 to an action, and has no reference to the joinder 
 of several causes of action. Smukthwaite v. 
 Hannat H, L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 494 
 
 And see also No. 97, above. 
 
 106. — Misjoinder — Plaintiffs — Slq,nder. 
 Two pits, alleged slanders, some published ot 
 
 one pit., some of the other, and some of both : — 
 Seld, that the pits, were improperly joined, 
 but the case was not one for setting aside the 
 procccdingii. The pits, should elect which pit. 
 should proceed, and the chiim of the other pit. 
 should bo btiuck out, Sandes v. "Wildsmith 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 771 
 
 107. — Misjoinder — Plaintiff, suing as person 
 of unsound mind by next friend — Fcyrm of inquiry. 
 
 In this ease J,, one of the pits., sued as a per- 
 son of unsound mind not so found, by his next 
 fiiend, A summons was taken out on behalf of 
 J. to strike out bis name as oo-plt, on the giound 
 that he was tot of unsound mind and had not 
 authorized the action to be commenced : — 
 
 Reld, that an inq^uiry should be directed as 
 to whether J, was competent to retain a solicitor 
 on the date when the summons wns taken out. 
 Howell v. Lewis Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 181 
 
 108. — Misjoinder — Substitution of right for 
 wrong plaintiff after decree — Finality of judgment 
 —B.'S. C, Order XVI., rr. 2, 11, 12, 
 
 In iin action in personam for damage by 
 colliaion, the name of the agent instead of that 
 of the owner of the cargo on plt,'8 ship was by 
 bona fide mistake inserted in the writ as co-plr. 
 After decree fixing the liability, but leaving 
 damages to be assessed, the mistake was dit- 
 ciivered and application was made under Order 
 XVI., r. 2, to substitute the cargo owner for his 
 agent as co.-plt. : — 
 
 Meld, that the decree was not final, and that 
 there was power to make the order luider 
 Order x\i,, rr, 2, 11, subject to production of the 
 written consent of tlie cargo owner. The Dcke 
 OF BcccLEUCH (No. 2) - C. A. [1892] P, 201 
 
 109. — Non-joindei — Indirect interest in the 
 action. 
 
 The provisions of Order xvi, r, II, as to 
 adding necessary parlies, do not entitle or require 
 the Court to add persons indirectly and com- 
 mercially interested in the result of the action, 
 since the non-joinder of such a person in i:o way 
 affects the power of the Court to deal with the 
 issues involved in the action, Moser v. Marsuen 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch, 487 
 
 110. — Non-joinder — Joinder. 
 
 The practice as to joinder of parties con- 
 sidered. In re Wright. Kirke v. North 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch, 747 
 
 111. — Non joindei — Bi-fusal to be joined as 
 plaintiff — Discretion. 
 
 Order xvi,, r, 11, does not make the uon- 
 jninf^er of a party as pit, fatal to an action in » 
 
( 1515 ) 
 
 I'IGEST OF CASES, 1891— 1900^ 
 
 ( 1516 ) 
 
 f SACTICE (PsLities)— continued. 
 
 case where his consent in writing to be joined is 
 
 refused. Per Wills J. Eobekts v. Holland 
 
 [1893] 1 a. B. 66a, at p. 667 
 
 112. — Non-joinder — Tenants in common — 
 Might of one to sue witliout joining others. 
 
 The reversion of a lease was devised to 
 tenants in common. The interest of one tenant 
 became vested in the pit. ; tho lease was then 
 vesteJ in the deft. : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. could sue as pits, without 
 joining the other tenants in common, both for 
 damage to the reversion and for breach of cove- 
 nant, the covenant running with the land. 
 Roberts v. Holland Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 665 
 
 — Parish council — Right to sue. 
 See Pakish Councils. 3. 
 
 Order xvi., rr. 9, 32, relates to misrepresenta- 
 tion. 
 
 113. — Itepresentative action — Class — Action 
 on behalf of a class of the ptiblic — B. S. C, 
 Order xvi., r. 9; Order xxY.,r.5—Govent Garden 
 liegulation Act (9 Geo. 4, c. cxiii.). 
 
 The pits, (six in number) sued on behalf of 
 themselves and all other the growers of fruit, 
 ilowers, vegetables, roots and herbs, within the 
 meaning of the Act for the Regulation of Covent 
 Garden Market (9 Geo. 4, o. oxiii.), to enforce 
 certain preferential rights to stands in the market, 
 which they alleged to have been given to the 
 class of growers by the Act. The sole deft, was 
 the lord of the market : — • 
 
 Held (V. Williams L.J. dissenting), that there 
 being a bonS, fide question as to the construction 
 of the Act, the pits., as representing the class 
 of growers, who had an interest in common, could 
 maintain the action, but that the Att.-Gen. must 
 be added as a deft, to represent the rest of the 
 public who were interested in disputing the 
 alleged preference : 
 
 Held, by V. Williams L.J,, that the growers 
 had not a community of interest in the subject- 
 matter of the action, but (agreeing with the rest 
 of the Court) that, if the pits, could maintain the 
 action as representing a class, the Att.-Gen. 
 must be made a party. 
 
 Decision of Romer J., [1898] W. N. 169 (11), 
 reversed. Ellis v. Duke of Beufokd 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 19 (10); [1899] 1 Ch. 494 
 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (Earl of 
 Halsbury L.C. and Lord Brampton dissenting) 
 [1900] W. N. 268 ; [1901] A. C. 1 
 
 114. — Bepresentuiion — " Class " — Devisees. 
 Action for a declaration of plt.'s right to 
 
 property under two wills. Probate proceedings 
 were pending as to one will, and it was suggested 
 that, if the will were set aside and another 
 admitted to probate, certain persons, not then 
 before the Court, would be interested as 
 devisees : — 
 
 Held, that these devisees were a "class" 
 within Order xvi., r. 32, for whom the Court 
 could appoint a representative. In re Nash. 
 In re Splnce. Lewis v. Dabby 
 
 StirUng J. [1893] W. N. 99 
 
 \vi' ~ ^ep^'^sentation—" Class"— Next of Mn. 
 VNhere under an originating summons to 
 
 FBACTICD (Tavties)— continued. 
 determine whether residuary estate was disposed 
 of or passed to the next of kin, it is impossible 
 without an inquiry to ascertain who were the 
 next of kin, the Court can appoint the legal 
 personal representative of the executor and 
 trustee to represent the next of Mn on the 
 originating summons. In re Hake. Pownall 
 V. Pbtob - Kekewieh J. [1896] "W. K. 116 (11> 
 
 116. — Bepreseniation — Defendants — Common 
 heneficial interest — Officers of trade unions — 
 Strike — Order xvi., r. 9. 
 
 Certain ofBciale of a trade union were sued on 
 their own behalf, and as representiDg each of the 
 societies, for causing workmen to break their 
 contracts : — 
 
 Held, that they could not be sued in their 
 representative character. Order xvi., r. 9, only 
 applying to persons who have or claim to have 
 some beneficial proprietary right, which they are- 
 asserting or defending on behalf of themselvea 
 and others. Tempebton v. Russell (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. aflton. Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 435 
 
 — Kepresentation — Forfeiture of lease. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant — ^Lease. 60. 
 
 — Representation — Foreclosure of mortgage. 
 
 See Moetgage — Foreclosure. 25 — 29. 
 
 117. — Bepreseniation — Identical interests — - 
 One person defending on behalf of all. 
 
 An order may be made, under Order xvi., 
 r. 9, authorizing one or more persons to defend 
 on behalf of all persons interested, against the 
 will of the person or persons so authorized : — 
 
 Held, that the president and secretary of a 
 labour protection league could be ordered to 
 defend an action on behalf of all the other 
 members, the action being to enforce, under the 
 rules of the league, a levy on the members for 
 the benefit of a member who had become per- 
 manently disabled. Wood v. McCarthy 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 775 
 
 — Representation — Redemption action. 
 
 See Mortgage — Sedemption. 66. 
 
 — Representation — To petition under Settled 
 
 Estates Act. 
 
 See Settled Land — Practice. 101. 
 
 — Separate causes of action — Joinder, 
 
 See Nos. 95—103, above. 
 
 118. — Separate causes of action — Claim for 
 damages — Injunction — Order xri., ■;-. 4. 
 
 Claims for damages against two or more defts. 
 in respect of their several liability for separate 
 torts cannot be combined in one action. 
 
 In an action against two defts. tho statement 
 of claim alleged that each of the defts. by their 
 several acts, and that the defts. by their com- 
 bined acts, obstructed the plt.'s access to his 
 premises, and claimed damages against them and 
 each of them and an injunction : — 
 
 Held, that the action could not be maintained 
 in this form and that one of the defts. must be 
 struck out. 
 
 The decision of 0. A., [1895] 2 Q. B. 68S, 
 affirmed. 
 
 Quaere whether the action could have been 
 
( 1517 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CAUSES, 1831—1900. 
 
 ( 1518 ) 
 
 PSACTICE (Parties)— cojrfjVmed 
 
 maintained if an injunction only UaJ been 
 
 claimed. Sadler i'. Great Western Ky. Co. 
 
 H. E. (E.) [1896] A. C. 460 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Thompson v. London 
 County Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 810, 813. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Walters v. Oreen, 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 696, 701. 
 
 119. — Separate cause of action — Joinder of 
 defendants — Claim for damages — S. S. C, Order 
 XVI, rr. i, 5, 7. 
 
 The pits, brought an action against the defts. 
 for negligently exeavating near the pits', house, 
 and thereby damaging it. The defts. in their 
 defence denied liability, and attributed the 
 damage wholly or in part to the negligence of a 
 water oo. in leaving their water-main insuffi- 
 ciently stopped. On an application by the pits, 
 to add the water co. as defts. : — 
 
 Held, that the causes of action against the 
 defts. and the water co. being in respect of 
 separate torts, though the resulting damage 
 might be the same in each case, the water co. 
 could not be joined as defts. Thompson v. London 
 County Council - C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 810 
 
 Explained by C. A. Frankenburg v. Great 
 Horseless Carriage Co , [1900] 1 Q. B. 501. 
 
 120. — Separate causes of action, Joint and — 
 Joinder of plaintiff s — B. 8, C, Order SYI., r. 1, 
 
 The pits., the two Universities of Oxford and 
 Cambridge, claimed an injunction to restrain the 
 defts., who were publishers of edacational and 
 other works, from publishing and selling books 
 or publications bearing the titles " The Oxford 
 and Cambridge Publications" or "The Oxford 
 and Cambridge Edition," and from using the 
 words " Oxford and Cambridge," to as to lead to 
 the belief that the publications of the defts. were 
 publications of the Universities or of either of 
 them, or issued from the Univeroity Presses. 
 The defts. had published a series of books bearing 
 the titles complained of by the pits. : — 
 
 Held, that the action arose out of the same 
 series of transactions ; that common questions of 
 fact would arise, namely, the fact of publication 
 and the fact that a belief would be induced that 
 the publications of the defts. were those of the 
 pits ; that, therefore, the conditions mentioned 
 in Stroud v. Lawson, [1898] 2 Q. B. 44, as being 
 necessary to bring a case within Order xvi., 
 r. 1, were fulfilled; and that consequently the 
 pits, were entitled to join in one action. Uni- 
 versities OF Oxford and Cambridge v. George 
 Gill & Sons Stirling J. [1898] W. N. 15S (8) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 65 
 
 — Settled Estates Act. 
 
 &e Settled Land. 101. 
 
 — Strike — Joint cause of action. 
 
 See Trade Union. 13. 
 
 — Unnecessary or improper — Costs — Setting 
 
 aside settlement. 
 
 See SETTLBMEJiT— Costs. 12. 
 
 Payment into Court. 
 Order xxil. relates to payment into court by 
 the parties as an incident of pleading. 
 
 121. — The history of the prnclice as to 
 
 PRACTICE (Payment into Court) — continued. 
 ordering payment into Court upon iuterlooutcry 
 motions considered. 
 
 (A) Mollis v. Burton C.A. [1892] 3 Ch. 223 
 
 (b) In re Beest - [1894] 1 Ch. 499 
 
 (o) Neville v. Matthewman 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 345 
 
 (d) Crompton & Evans' Union Bank r. 
 Burton [1895] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Tender. 
 Adjiwsions.] Order xxsii. relates to admis- 
 sions. 
 
 Admissions.] Compare County Court Bales 
 (May), 1899, Order IX., r. llaa. W. N. 1899 
 (April 29), at p. 149. See Current Index, 1899 
 p. zcvii. 
 
 122. — Admission hy defendant — Proceeds of 
 sale of trust securities paid away J>y defendant — 
 Payment into court on motion. 
 
 In an answer to an interlocutory motion that 
 the deft, should pay into court money which 
 arose from the sale of shares, of wliich he had 
 been a trustee fur the pit., but which he alleged 
 (though the pit. denied it) that the pit. had 
 given to him, the deft, admitted that he had. 
 received the proceeds of sale, and had transferred 
 the shares to the purchasers. But he deposed :. 
 " Before any question was raised as to the transfers- 
 I in good faith paid away and disposed of all the- 
 purchase-money in the belief that I was entitled 
 thereto, and no part thereof is now in my hands, 
 and I have no power over the shares or any of 
 them " : — 
 
 Held, that it was not shewn that the purchase- 
 money was not under the defts.' control, and that 
 he must be ordered to pay the amount into court. 
 In re Benson. Elletson v. Fillers North J. 
 [1898] W. N. 155 (9) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 39 
 
 123. —Admission hy defendant — Money received 
 hy defendant but improperly paid away. 
 
 Upon an interlocutory motion by the pits., 
 (second mortgagees) that the defts. (the first 
 mortgagee and his solicitor) should be ordered to- 
 pay into court the balance of the proceeds of sale 
 of the mortgaged property (which the solicitor 
 admitted that he had received for his client), 
 after deducting what was due in respect of the 
 tirst mortgage, the solicitor claimed to retain also- 
 the amount of payments which he had made to- 
 the executors of the mortgagor : — 
 
 Held, that though those payments were im- 
 proper, yet, as the amount of them was not in the 
 hands of the defts., they could not be ordered to- 
 pay it into court upon an interlocutory motion ^ 
 and they were ordered to pay only the balance of 
 tlio sale moneys after deducting that amount and 
 the amount due on the first mortgage. Cromp- 
 ton & Evans' Union Bank v. Burtun 
 
 North J. [1895] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 124. — Admissions — General rule. 
 
 An orJer to pay money into court cannot be 
 made uuless the deft. (1) unequivocally admits 
 en affidavit that it is in his hands, or (2) fails to 
 answer au affidavit by tlie pit. that the money 
 id in the deft.'s hands. 
 
 The history of the ijrdbtice aj to ordering 
 
( 1510 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1520 ) 
 
 PK4CTICE (Payment into Court) — continued. 
 payment into court upon interlocutory motions 
 cousidered. 
 
 (a) HoLLia V. BuETON C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 226 
 
 (b) In re Beeny - - [189i] 1 Cli. 499 
 
 (o) Neville v. Matthewman 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 345 
 
 (d) Crompton & Evans' Union Bank v. 
 BuKTON - - - [1895] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 125. — Admissions in letters Tjefore action. 
 Where a deft, is alleged to have admitted in 
 
 letters written before action that he has a sum 
 of money bilonging to the pit. in his hands, the 
 Court must have regard to the whole of the evi- 
 dence, including any affidavit by the deft., before 
 making an order for the deft, to pay in such sum. 
 Neville v. Mai thewman C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 346 
 Considered by North J. Crompton d- Eimns' 
 Union Banlc v. BuHon, [1895] 2 Oh. 711. 
 
 126. — Admission of plaintiff's claim — Striking 
 out counter-claim — Action — Damages — Injunction 
 — Defence — Denial of liability — Satisfaction — 
 B. 8. G , iSS3, Order XJill., rr. 1, G. 
 
 A landowner brought an action claiming 
 damages for trespass, and also an injunction. 
 The deft, jmt in a defence and counter-claim 
 alleging a right by custom to go on the land, 
 and, under R. S. 0., Order xxil, r. 1, with his 
 defence, though denying liability, paid a sum 
 into court by way of satisfaction of his liability, if 
 ■any, in resjieut of the matters complained of. 
 Under rule 6 the pit. took the money out on 
 notico to the deft, that he accepted it " in 
 satisfactiun of the claim in respect of which it is 
 paid in." 
 
 On an application by the pit. to strike out 
 the counter-claim on the ground that the deft, 
 liad by his payment into court, followed by the 
 j)lt.'s acceptance, admitted the plt.'s entire cause 
 of action : — 
 
 Held, bv the C. A. (affirming the decision of 
 Stirling J.,'[1899] W. N. 57), that there had been 
 no such i.dmission by the deft, as to preclude 
 him fiom prosecuting his counter-claim setting 
 up the custom, nor (semfcJe) such acceptance in 
 satisfaction by the pit. as to preclude him from 
 prosecuting his claim for an injunction, the pay- 
 ment into court being by rule 1 confined to the 
 plt.'a claim for damages only. Coote v. Ford 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 93 
 
 127. — Admissions— Motion htj some plaintiffs 
 only. 
 
 A motion under Order xxxn., r. 6, for an order 
 against a deft, on admissions of fact must be made 
 by all the pits, in the action, and not merely by 
 some of them. Accordingly, where, in an action 
 by a tenant for life and the reversioners under a 
 settlement against the trustees to make good a 
 breach of trust, the reversioners alone mo\ed 
 under the above rule for an order on one of the 
 defts. to pay capital moneys into court on admis- 
 sions, the Court refused to entertain the motion 
 in the absence of the tenant for life. 
 
 The practice as to joinder of parties con- 
 sidered. 
 
 An order ou admission is not a matter of 
 
 FHACTICE (Payment into Court) — continued. 
 right, but is in the discretion of the Court. In re 
 Weight. Kieke v. Nobth 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 747 
 
 128. — Admissions — Verbal admission. 
 
 A verbal admission by a deft, that money is 
 in his hands or under his control, if veriiied by 
 an affidavit to which he does not reply, and to 
 which his attention is directed by notice of 
 motion, is to justify an order to pay the money 
 into couit. In re Beeny. Ffeench v. Spkoston 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 499 
 
 129. — Admissions — Withdrawal. 
 
 A deft, by his defence and answers to interro- 
 gatories, admitted receipt of money by his firm, 
 on which admission an order was made to pay 
 the money into court. The deft, afterw^arda 
 asked leave to amend his defence and withdraw 
 his admission as founded on a mistake : — 
 
 Held, that the application should be granted 
 only on terms of his paying the money into court. 
 HoLLis V. BuETON - C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 226 
 
 Explained by North J. In re Beeny, [1894] 
 1 Ch. 499, 501. 
 
 — Bankrupt lunatic. 
 
 See Lunacy — Bankruptcy. 4. 
 
 — Before defence — Order on plaintiff to pay 
 
 defendant's costs — Jurisdiction. 
 See Costs. 3. 
 
 — By one defendant — Verdict for leas than 
 
 amount paid in — Liability of other 
 defendant for costs. 
 See Negligence. 3. 
 
 — Costs — Compulsory purchase — Charitable land 
 
 — Ke-investmmt. 
 
 See Lanps Clauses Acts. 2. 
 
 130. — Counter-claim — Payment hy plaintiffs 
 in satisfaction of — B. S. C, Order ^'AII., r. 5 — 
 Supreme Court Funds Bides, 1886, t. 30; Appen- 
 dix, Form No. 10. 
 
 Under Order xxii., r. 9, a pit. is entitled to 
 make a payment into court in satisfaction of a 
 counter-claim. Hutchinson v. Baekeb 
 
 North J. [1894] W. N. 198 
 
 131. — Deceased insolvent in British India — 
 English administration not required. 
 
 A fund in court, which stood to the credit of 
 a person who had become insolvent at Bombay, 
 and had afterwards died there intestate, was 
 ordered to be paid out to the official assignee of 
 the Insolvent Court at Bombay, in whom all the 
 property of the insolvent Lad been vested by an 
 order of tliat Court, without requiring adminis- 
 tration in England to be taken out, administra- 
 tion having been granted to his estate in India-, 
 and there being evidence that the debts proved 
 in the insolvency were still unpaid, and that the 
 insolvent had not obtained his discharge. 
 
 In re Davidson's Settlement Trusts, (1873) 
 L. K. 15 Eq. 383, followed. In re Lawson's 
 Teusts - North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 176 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Hayward, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 905, 909. 
 
 132. — Executor — Betainer — Payment into 
 Court at instance of executor. 
 
 An administrator cum testamento annexo, 
 being defendant to a creditor's administration 
 
( 1521 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 152-2 ) 
 
 PBACTICE (Payment into Couit)— continued. 
 action, obtained an order that the testatrix's 
 business should be sold, and the proceeds of sale 
 puid into court to the credit of the action : — 
 
 Seld, following Richmond v. White, (1879) 
 i2 Ch. D. 361, that as the money had merely 
 been paid into court for the convenience of ad- 
 ministration, though at the instance of tlie 
 administrator, the administrator had not lost his 
 right of retainer. In re Langlet. Johnson v. 
 Lakgley - Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 23 (5) 
 
 — Interpleader — Seizure of the goods by another 
 
 execution creditor — Further payment 
 
 into court. 
 
 See Iktebplkader. 2. 
 
 Investment — B. S. C, Order SXII., r. 17 — 
 Addition to rule. W. N. 1899 (Aug. 12), p. 255. 
 See Current Index, 1899, p. cxzviii. 
 
 133. — Judgment or order — Enforcement of 
 «rder. 
 
 Where a sum of money has been ordered to 
 be paid into court a garnishee order cannot be 
 made attaching a debt to answer the sum so 
 ordered, to be paid in. In, re Greek. Napper v. 
 Fasshawe - - Chitty J. [1895] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Ire re TurribuU, 
 11899] 1 Ch. 180, 18 1. 
 
 134. — Jury, Issue tried by — Rules of procedure 
 — Ultra vires — Order XXII, r. 22 — Judicature Act, 
 1875 (38 & 89 Vict. o. IT), s. 22. 
 
 Order xxii., r. 22,proTides that, where a cause 
 or matter is tried by a judge with a jury, no com- 
 munication to the jury shall be made, until after 
 the verdict is given, either of ihe fact that money 
 has been paid into court, or of the amount paid 
 in ; and that the jury shall be required to find 
 the amount of the debt or damages, as the case 
 may be, without reference to any payment into 
 ■court : — 
 
 Beld, that the rule is not ultra vires. 
 Williams v. Goose - C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 471 
 
 — Leave to defend, payment into court for — 
 
 Bankruptcy of ilefendant before trial — 
 
 Secured creditor. 
 
 See Bankbcptoy — Practice. 153. 
 
 135. — Liability not denied by defence — -Ver- 
 dict for amount smaller than payment in — R. S. C, 
 Order JJii., r. 5. 
 
 (a) Where the deft, in an action of tlander 
 paid a sum into court, and in his defence did not 
 deny his liability, but on trial the jury found a 
 verdict for the pit. for one farthing : — 
 
 Held, that the judge had power, under 
 Order xxii., r. 5, to direct the money paid in, 
 If 83 one farthing, to be paid out to the deft. 
 Gray v. Bartholomew C. A, [1895] 1 Q. B. 209 
 
 (b) Where the action was against a newspaper 
 for libel, and payment into court and an apology 
 •were pleaded under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 75, s. 2 : — 
 
 Seld, that the pit. Wfis entitled to the whole 
 «um as paid in. DcNK v. Devoit and Exetee 
 
 OoNSTlTrTIONAL NEWSPAPER Oo. 
 
 WUls J. [1896] 1 Q. B. 211, n. 
 
 — Libel — Newspaper — Pleading. 
 
 See Defamation — libel. 14. 
 Life Assurance Companies (Payment into 
 
 FKACTICE (Payment into Court). — continued. 
 
 Court) Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 8), 
 money to be paid into court in certain cases. 
 
 Rules under Life Assurance Companies (Pay- 
 ment into Court) Act, 1836. W. N. 1896 (Oct. 31), 
 p. 291. See Current Index, 1896, p, Ixix, 
 
 LonoMENT OF Moneys.] Rule 41 A, dated 
 Auq. 10, 1896, as to lodgment schedule of moneys ' 
 paid into court. W. N, 1896 (Oct. 31), p, 291. 
 See Current Index, 1896, p. Izix. 
 
 — Married woman — Default in paying money 
 
 into court — Attachment. 
 
 See Husband AND Wife — Practice. ?><. 
 
 136. — Married woman — Widow — Bight qf suc- 
 cessful plaintiff to money brought into court under 
 Order sir. 
 
 In an action on a covenant against a married 
 woman, on an application under Order xiv., the 
 deft., a married woman, obtained leave to defend 
 on paying a sum of money into com t. Judgment 
 was given for the pit., with an order tliat the 
 money should remain in court pending an inquiry 
 whether the deft, had separate estate available in 
 execution. On an npplicati(in for payment out 
 the deft, pleaded she had no property available 
 for execution : — 
 
 Held, that the money was paid into court to 
 abide the event, and the Court could not then 
 hear argument, after the event had gone against 
 the party who paid it in, that the money ought 
 not to be paid out to the successful party. Bird 
 V. Babstow C. a. [1892] 1 Q. B. 94 
 
 Eeferred to by Wright J. In re Ford, ri900] 
 2 Q. B. 211, 213. 
 
 — Married woman administratrix — Attachment 
 
 — Form of order. 
 
 ■See Hdsband and Wife. 38. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 137. — Trustees — Money not in liands of 
 trustees— R. S. C, Order LY., r. 3 (d). 
 
 An order cannot be made under Order Lv., 
 r. 3 (d), on a trustee or executor to pay into court 
 money which he lias received and for which he 
 is responsible, unless it is actually in his hands. 
 In such a case the proper course is to proceed by 
 originating summons for administration of the 
 trust under Order lv., r. 4 (c). • Nctter v. 
 Holland ■ C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 408 
 
 Considered by North J. Crompton & Evans' 
 Union Bank v. Burton, [1895] 2 Ch. 711. 
 
 138. — Trustee — Payment in by — Notice to 
 beneficiaries — Cliancery Funds Consolidated Bules, 
 1874, )•. 31 — Chancery Funds (Amended) Orders, 
 1871, Order r. — Supreme Court Funds Bules, 
 1886, rr. 2, 41. 
 
 A trustee who pays a fund into court under 
 the Trustee Relief Act, 1847, is no longer bound 
 to give notice to the persons entitled to the fund. 
 In re Graham's Trusts 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 151 
 
 By the Trustee Act, 1893, the Trustee Belief 
 Acts were repealed and consolidated. 
 
 138 A. — Under B. S. C, Order xiv. 
 
 Observations of Kay L.J. Hollis v. Burton 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 226 
 
( \3-l-A ) 
 
 DK 
 
 EST OF LASE^, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 1524 ) 
 
 PEACTICE (Payment into Court) — continued. 
 
 — With denial of liability — Securily for costs. 
 
 See BANKErPTOY — Practice. 1 54. 
 
 Payment out of Court. 
 County Court Rules {May), 1899, Order ix. 
 W. N. 1899 (AprU 29), p. 147. See Current In- 
 dex, 1899, p. zcii. 
 
 — Bankrupt— Annulment — Payment out after 
 
 six years — Statute of Limitations. 
 
 See Bankkuptcy — Eeceiving Order. 196. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Costs— Payment out of Court. 
 
 139. — Deposit — Jurisdiction — Life Assurance 
 Companies Acts, 1870 to 1872 — Accident insurance 
 company. 
 
 Petition by the association for the payment 
 out of court of a sum of n,87il. 14s. 5d. New 
 Consols, representing the deposit of 20,000i. 
 required by the Bd. of Trade under the Life 
 Assurance Companies Acts, 1870 to 1872. 
 
 As the Bd. of Trade intimated that insur- 
 ance of the kind contemplated was life insurance 
 so far as related to fatal accidents, the 20,000i. 
 deposit was required and paid on registration. 
 After the decision of Lancashire Insurance Co. T. 
 Inland Revenue, [1899] 1 Q. B. 353, that em- 
 ployers' liability policits similar to those granted 
 by the association wire contracts of indemnity 
 and not policies of insurance against accident, 
 the directors communicated with the Bd. of 
 Trade with a view to obtaining payment out of 
 court of the 20,OOOZ. deposit, when they were 
 informed that this was a matter for the Chan- 
 cery Division, but that, if the memorandum of 
 association was amended so as to exclude life 
 insurance business, the Bd. of Trade would 
 raise no objection to repayment. 
 
 ife/d, that the Court had jurisdiction. Order 
 )nade for payment out of the Consols in court to 
 the association, as asked. In re Wool Isdustries 
 Emploteks' Insubance Assooiatios, Ld. 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 259 
 
 — Foreign subject — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Ldnaot — Practice. 36. 
 
 140. — Fund paid in on compulsory purchase 
 under special Act — Costs — Jurisdiction. 
 
 Sect. 5 of the Judicature Act, 1890, gives the 
 Court jurisdiction over the costs in a petition for 
 payment out of purchase-money of property pur- 
 chased compulsorily under a special Act (in this 
 case 57 Geo. 3, c. xxis.) which contains no pro- 
 vision as to the costs of applications for payment 
 out of purchase-money. 
 
 Judgment of Clutty J., [1894] 1 Ch. 53, 
 affirmed. In re Fisher C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 450 
 
 Referred to. In re Wrexham, Mold and Con- 
 fiah's Quay By. Co., G. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 261, 269. 
 
 141. — Infants domiciled in France — French 
 law — Right of fattier to receive children's money — ■ 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 AVhere infants who were French subjects and 
 domiciled in France had become absolutely 
 entitled to a fund in court, and it appeared that 
 hy the law of France their father as their legal 
 guardinn was entitled to receive and give legal 
 
 PEACTICE (Payment out of Court) — continued. 
 discbarges for all moneys coming to them during 
 minority : — 
 
 Bdd, that the Court was not bound to pay 
 out the fund to the father as of right, but that 
 evidence ought to be adduced shewing that the 
 fund would be applied for the beneiit of the 
 infants. In re Chatabd's Settlement. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 35 (11) ; 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 712 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewieh J. Thiery v. 
 Chalmers, Guthrie & Co., [1899] W. N. 235; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 80, 83. 
 
 142. — Liability not denied hy defence — Verdict 
 for amount smaller than payment in. 
 
 (a) Where the deft, pays a sum into court, 
 and in his defence does not deny his liability, but 
 on the trial the jury find a verdict for the pit. for 
 one farthing, the judge has power, under Order 
 xxu., r. 5, to direct the money paid in, less one 
 farthing, to be paid out to the deft. Geay v. 
 Baktholomew C. a. [1895] 1 Q. B. 209 
 
 (b) Wliere the action is against a newspaper 
 for libel and [ ayment into court and an apology 
 is pleaded under 6 & 7 Vict. o. 96 and 8 & 9 Vict, 
 c. 75, s. 2, the pit. is entitled to the whole sum 
 paid in. Dunn v. Devon and Exetee Constitu- 
 tional Newspaper Co. 
 
 Wills J. [1895] Ift. B. 211, n. 
 
 143. — Married woman — Petition — Affidavit of 
 no settlement. 
 
 Petition for payment out of court of fuud to 
 which petitioner was now absolutely entitled. 
 She was tenant for life of the fund, and had 
 taken assignments of all the reversionary interests. 
 One of the reversioners was u, married woman 
 who, before she assigned, was entitled to a share 
 of the reversion as her separate property. She 
 and her husband refused to make an affidavit of 
 no settlement. 
 
 The Court, on proof of this, and an affidavit 
 by the reversioners' brother to the effect that he 
 knew the circumstances, and that there was no 
 settlement, on the authority of Rowland v. Oahley, 
 (1850) 14 Jur. (N.S.) 845, made the order for 
 payment out. Timothy v. Cbown 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [190O] W. N. 51 
 — Parliamentary deposit. 
 
 See Cases under Pabliamext — Deposits 
 and Bonds. 
 
 144. — Petition — Bistribution of fund in court 
 — Rectification of deed — Jurisdiction — Assignment 
 — Defective title — Subsequent acquisition of good 
 title — Estoppel. 
 
 Petition for the distribution of a fuud in 
 court. 
 
 Held, upon the question of jurisdiction, that 
 though In re Bird's Trusts, (1876) 3 Ch. D. 214, 
 and Levds v. Rillman, (1852) 3 H. L. C. 607, 
 were not directly in point, being decisions under 
 the Trustee Belief Act, 1817 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 96), 
 the Court should be shrewd in overcoming all 
 objections to deciding on petition any questions 
 concerning the distribution of a fund in court 
 under whatever Act and under whatever euoum- 
 stances it was paid in ; but where a question 
 occurred which might involve recliiication or 
 rostitulio in integrum it was the duty of the 
 
( 1525 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1526 ) 
 
 PEACTICE (Payment out of Court)— continued, 
 ■petitioners to state clearly the alleged grounds 
 for the decision asked. 
 
 Upon the merits, helcl, following Noel v. 
 Sewley, (1829) 3 Sim. 103, that though the assign- 
 ment was of a defective title, yet as the assignor 
 afterwards acquired a good title to the one-sixth 
 share, the Court ought to make that good title 
 available to make the assignment eifectual. The 
 respondents were therefore entitled to the whole 
 of the one-sixth share. In re Hofpe's Estate 
 Act, 1855 - Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 114 
 
 146. — Petition dispensed with. 
 
 Where in an action the incumbrances on a 
 fund in court had been ascertained, and the fund 
 was only sufBcient to pay the firot ten of such 
 incumbrances, an order was made for payment 
 out without requiring a petition under the Trus- 
 tee Belief Act. The order was to be entitled in 
 the matter of the Trustee Relief Act, and in the 
 matter of the Trustee Act, 1893. Pullen v. 
 Isaacs - North J. [1895] W. N. 90 
 
 146. — Petition or summons — Costs — B. S. C, 
 Order LY., r. 2 (1). 
 
 An application to carry over to the credit of 
 an action money exceeding lOOOZ., representing 
 the purchase-money of land taken by a ry. under 
 the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, is " an application 
 for payment or transfer to any person" within 
 Order LV., r. 2 (1) ; although the matter be com- 
 plicated the rule applies, and the ry. must pay 
 the costs according to the Act, but not exceeding 
 such costs as would have been incurred on a 
 summons adjourned into court and attended by 
 counsel. In re Lakoashiee and Yoekshire Ey. 
 Co. Slatbb v. Slater 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 85 
 
 And see Pbaotioe — Originating Summons. 73. 
 
 147. — Sums under 101. — Administration 
 action. 
 
 Sums under lOl. payable out of court in an 
 administration action will no longer be paid over 
 to the solicitor for the pits, on his undertaking, 
 but will be transmitted direct by post or other- 
 wise. In re Bell Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 9 
 
 And see Supreme Court Funds Rules, 1894. 
 
 148. — Tenant in tail. 
 
 A small sum in court representing; land was 
 paid out to a tenant in tail without a disentailing 
 assurance. Stead v. Haepek 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 46 (12) 
 
 — Wrong person^Solicitor — Replacement. 
 
 See Pbinoipal and Agent. 13, 14. 
 
 Petition. 
 See Specific Titles. 
 
 Pleading. 
 
 — Amendment of pleadings. 
 
 See Cases under Pbacticb— Amendment. 
 
 — Claim, Statement of— Altering, modifying or 
 
 extending indorsenient of writ. 
 See Pkactice— Writ. 278. 
 ^ Claim, Statement of— Particulars— Recovery 
 of land. 
 See Discovert— Particulars. 64. 
 
 PSACTICE (Pleading)— conh'nued. 
 
 — Corontr's inquisition — SufHciency of. 
 
 See Cbiminal Law — Practice. 60. 
 
 149. — ■ Counter-claim — Cause of action against 
 plaintiff by defendant jointly with another person 
 —Joinder of parties—B. S. C, 1883, Order xri., 
 r. 11 ; Order xxi., r. 11. 
 
 The deft, in an action counter-claimed in 
 respect of a cause of action which he claimed to 
 have jointly with another person against the pits., 
 joining that other person with the pits, as a co- 
 deft, to the counter-elaim : — 
 
 Seld, that the rules did not admit of such a 
 counter-claim, and thtrefore it must be struck 
 out. Pender v. Taddei C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 798 
 
 — Counter-claim — Default in pleading. 
 
 See No. 156, helow. 
 
 150. — Counter-claim — Libel — Suit by foreign 
 State— R. 8. C, 1883, Order JXi., r. 15 ; Order 
 XIX., r. 27. 
 
 A fund arising from debentures issued by the 
 deft. CO. and guaranteed by the South African 
 Republic was by arrangement lodged with two 
 ti'uatees, one nominated by tlie Republic and the 
 other by the co., pending the completion of a ry. 
 which the co. was making under a concession by 
 the Republic. The nominee of the co. having 
 died, the Republic brought an action here, the 
 fund being in England, to have a new trustee 
 appointed and the fund paid to the two trustees. 
 The CO. put in a defence and counter-claim. By 
 their defence they alleged various grouu'ls of 
 complaint against the Republic as making it in- 
 equitable that they should have auy control over 
 the fund, and among other tilings a, letter ad- 
 dressed to the CO. by the Railway Commr. of the 
 Republic, a copy of which was forwarded by him 
 to the London Stock Exchange, making various 
 charges against the co. which the co. alleged to 
 be untrue. By counter-claim the co. repeated 
 these grounds of complaint, and alleged that 
 they had sustained heavy loss through the letter, 
 which they alleged to be libellous, and claimed 
 100,000^. damages for libel. North J. in chambers 
 ordered this allegation and the claim for damages 
 to be expunged : — 
 
 Held, that this order was right, for that if the 
 pit. had been an individual resident in this 
 country the counter-claim for libel would have 
 been struck out, and the defts. left to bring a 
 separate action, inasmuch as the claim for damages 
 for libel could not be conveniently tried iu an 
 action for appointing a new trustee and protect- 
 ing a trust fund, and that the fact that the co. 
 could not bring a separate action for libel aguinst 
 the Republic was not a suificient ground for 
 allowing the counter-claim for libel to go on. 
 Socth Afeioan Republic v. La Compagnie 
 Feanco-Belge dd Chemin de Fee du Noed 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 487 
 
 151. — Counter-claim — Power to order trial of 
 counter-claim after discontinuance of action — 
 Remitting to county court — Contract. 
 
 A pit. claiming 251. recovered 8?. under Order 
 XIV., and discontinued. A master of the High 
 Court then remitted the counter-claim of 18Z. 10s. 
 to the City of London Court : — 
 
 Held, there was no jurisdiction under s. 65 of 
 
( iJ^T ; 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1528 ) 
 
 PEACTICE (Pleading) — continued. 
 the County Courts Act, 1888, to remit the counter- 
 ■claim. Reg. v. Judge of the City of Loxdjx 
 •Court (No. 1) - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 71 
 
 162, — Counter-claim in reply — Judicature Act, 
 J 873 (36 * 37 Vict. v. 66), s. 24, sub-ss. 3, 7— 
 B. S. a, Order JIX., r. 3 ; Order x.xi., rr. 10-17. 
 
 In an action for the price of goods supplied, 
 the defts. counter-claimed for damages for breaoli 
 by the pits, of a contract. The pits, in their 
 ■reply denied that the contract was binding 
 ■on them, and further alleged that, if it was 
 binding, the defts. had committed breaches of 
 it which caused them Joss, and they counter- 
 -claimed to set off the losa so sustained against 
 the defts.' counter-claim. Upon an application 
 to strike out the counter-claim in the reply: — 
 
 Held, that as the pits, did nut rely upon 
 the counter-claim in the reply as an independent 
 claim, but merely as a protection against thedefts.' 
 counter-claim, the counter-claim was properly 
 raised in the reply and ought not to be struck out. 
 
 Tolie V. Andreim, (1882) 8 Q. B. D. 428, 
 approved. EE^TON Gibks & Co. v. Neville & 
 Co. C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 181 
 
 163. — Counter-claim — Sight to deliver — Be- 
 Jtndant to counter-claim not party to original 
 <iction— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & STVictc. 66), 
 «. 24, sttt-s. 3— B. S. C, 1883, Order XXI., rr. 11, 
 12, 13, 14. 
 
 A person not a party to an action, who is 
 brought in by the original deft, as a deft, to a 
 coxmter-claim, cannot counter-claim against the 
 original pit. and deft. 
 
 Street v. Cover, (1 877) 2 Q. B. D. 498, followed. 
 Tolie V. Jndrejfs, (1882) 8 Q. B. D. 428, distin- 
 ■puished. Alcoy and Gakdia Ey. and Habeour 
 I'o. V. Gkeeshill C. a. [1896] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 154. — Counter-claim — Itemittiny to county 
 4:oiirt — Tort. 
 
 In an action in the High Court the deft, 
 counter-claimed for damages for slandtr. The 
 ■deft, became bankrupt, and the action was stayed 
 ■except as to the counter-claim. The pit. sought 
 to have security for costs, or else to have the 
 action lemittel to the county court: — 
 
 Held, that the counter-claim fur tort was not 
 
 jjn "action" within the meaning of s. 66 of the 
 
 4Jounty Courts Act, 1888, and there was no juris- 
 
 .dietion to remit it. Delobbel-Flipo v. Vasty 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 663 
 
 — Counter-claim — Security for costs. 
 
 See Costs— Security for Costs. 54. 
 
 — Counler-claim — Striking out— Payment into 
 
 court— Satisfaction — Admission of plain- 
 tiff's claim. 
 
 See PuAoiicE — Payment into Court. 
 12(i. 
 
 — Counter-claim — Taxation of costs. 
 
 See Costs — Apportionment. 12. 
 
 155. — Counter-claim — Whether separate 
 miction. 
 
 For the purpose of determining a solicitor's 
 light to a charging order for his costs, claim 
 •and counter-claim must be treated as one action. 
 Westacott v. Bevan Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 774 
 
 Or<ter x.vm. relates to default in pleading. 
 
 PEACTICE (Pleading) — continued. 
 
 166. — Default in plead.'ng — Motion for judg- 
 ment on counter-daim —U.S. C., Order XXI., r. 16 ; 
 Order XXIII., r. 4; Order XXTII., r. 11. 
 
 (a) Where an action after the delivery of the 
 counter-claim has beeu dismissed for want of pro- 
 secution, the deft, is entitled to set down the 
 action under Order xxvii, r. 11, on motion for 
 iudgment on his counter-claim. Eobeets v. 
 Booth - - - North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 62 
 
 (b) When the pit. fails to deliver a defence 
 to a counter-claim, the deft, cannot sign judg- 
 ment on the counter-claim for default in pleading, 
 but must move for judgment under Order xxvii., 
 r. 11. Jones r. Mauaulay 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 221 
 
 167. — Default in pleading — Motion for judg- 
 ment — Order for inquiry — R. S. C, Order xxvii., 
 r. 11. 
 
 Upon motion for judgment under Order xxvii., 
 r. 11, upon default in delivery of defence the 
 Court may crder interlocutory judgment to be 
 entered, and may refer the whole claim to an 
 official referee to ascertain and report to tlie Court 
 the amount due to the pit. Charles v. Shepherd 
 C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 622 
 
 158. — Default of appearance — Summons for 
 directions — B. S. C'., 1S83, Order sin., r. 12; 
 Order XXX., r. 1. 
 
 One of the defts. in this action made default 
 in appearance. On summons for directions, the 
 master ordered the action to be set down for trial 
 without pleadings on motion for judgment. The 
 action came on as a short cause. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. The master could not 
 dispense with the filing a statement of claim 
 against the deft., who had not put in an appear- 
 ance ; no judgment can be made now. In re 
 
 NOKMAN. NOKMAN V. NoKMAN 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1903] W. S. 159 
 
 159. — Defence — Action against partners in 
 firm name — Death of partner after appearance — 
 Defence of surviving partner — -Form of defence. 
 
 An action was brought against a firm in the 
 firm name. There were two partners, one of 
 whom died after writ and appearance. The 
 surviving partner put in a defence not purporting 
 to be the defence of the firm, but as his personal 
 defence to the action : — 
 
 Held, that the form of the defence was wrong, 
 as the defendant, not being sued in his personal 
 capacity, was not entitled to put in a personal 
 defence, but only a statement of defence for and 
 in the name of the firm. Ellis v. Wadeson 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 714 
 
 160. — Defence — Confession of defence — Sign- 
 ing judgment for costs— B. S. C, Order xxir., 
 r. 3. 
 
 Defts. pleaded matter arising since the issue 
 of the writ which afforded a complete defence to 
 the claim. The pit entered a confession of this 
 defence under Order xxiv., i. 3, and signed judg- 
 ment for his costs : — 
 
 Held, that the case did not fall within 
 Order xxiv., r. 3, and the judgment for costs 
 must be set aside. Houghton i. Tottenham 
 AND Fobest Gate Et. Co. 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 88 
 
( 1529 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891— 190 \ 
 
 ( lo3U ) 
 
 FBACIIGE (Tleaiing)— continued. 
 
 161. — Defence— Leave to defend notwith- 
 standing special agreement not to put in a defence 
 — Specific performance — Title defeetioe hy reason 
 of recent decision of the Court. 
 
 Motion by deft, for leave to put in a defence 
 notwithstanding that the time for so doing had 
 expired, and that he had entered into an agree- 
 ment with the pits, not to put in any defence. 
 
 Action for specific performance of an agree- 
 ment by deft, to purchase certain leasehold 
 houses. The deft, had some difficulty in finding 
 the purchase-money, and delay took place in 
 completion. Considerable indulgence was shewn 
 by pits, to deft., who ultimately, ha\ ing accepted 
 the title, gave the agreement above mentioned. 
 He then ascertained that the lease of the premises 
 contained a reservation of minerals, and, having 
 been granted by a tenant for life whose powers were 
 similar to those of a tenant for life under the Settled 
 Land Acts, was invalid according to the recent 
 decision of Kekewich J. in In re Newell and NevilVs 
 Contract, [1900] 1 Oh. 90. [Note.— This case was 
 disapproved of by 0. A. : In re Gladstone, [1900] 
 2 Ch. 101. See Settled Land. 73.] 
 
 The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, 
 allowed the deft, to defend to the extent of plead- 
 ing that the lease was bad on the ground that, 
 being granted by a tenant for life, it contained a 
 reservation of minerals. The leave was limited 
 to that defence only, and stringent conditions as 
 to payment of costs were imposed upon deft. 
 Leave to appeal granted. Scott v. Moxon 
 
 Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 14 
 
 — Defence —Special defence — Notice — Statntes 
 
 of Limitation — County court. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 37. 
 
 162. — Defence — Striking out — Slander — Em- 
 barrassing pleading. 
 
 Where in an action for slander the statement 
 of claim set out the words complained of, and 
 the defence set out and justified different 
 words : — 
 
 Held, that the defence as pleaded was em- 
 barrassing and must be struck out. Bassam v. 
 Bodge C. A. [1893] 1 Q.. B. 671 
 
 163. — Documents — Statement of effect — Action 
 for recovery of land — Order xix., r. 21. 
 
 The pits, in an action for the recovery of land 
 having in their statement of claim briefly stated 
 the effect of certain limitations in a will, as 
 alleged by them, without setting out the precise 
 w ords of the will : — 
 
 Held, that they were entitled so to do under 
 
 Order xix., r. 21, although a question arose as to 
 
 the construction of the will. Daebtsbibb v. Leigh 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 654 
 
 — Frauds, Statute of— Wrong section. 
 
 See Peactioe— Amendment. 2. 
 
 164. — Frivolous and vexatious action — In- 
 terlocutory application in county court — Svbse- 
 quent action in High Court raising same question 
 — Staying action. 
 
 In an action in a county court judgment was 
 recovered for a sum of money and costs, but 
 before the costs were taxed the pit. agreed, on a 
 representation of the property of the deft., to 
 accept a smaller sum than that for which judg- 
 
 PBACTICE (;Ple3.iiag)— continued. 
 ment had been given, and executed a deed re- 
 leasing the deft, from the judgment debt anci 
 costs. Subsequently the pit. cariied in his bill 
 of costs, and applied to the county court judge- 
 for an order to tax, upon the ground that the 
 release had been obtained by misrepresentation,. 
 The judge, after hearing evidence, found that 
 the' execution of the deed had been obtained by 
 misrepresentation, and make an order that tho 
 costs should be taxed, and should be paid togther 
 with the balance remaining due under the judg- 
 ment. The deft, in that action thereupon brcmght 
 the present action in the High Court for a decla- 
 ration that he had been released from the judg- 
 ment debt and costs, and for au injunction tO' 
 restrain further proceedings to enforce payment, 
 thereof: — 
 
 Held, that as the question raised in this action 
 was identical with that decided by the county 
 court judge upon tho interlocutory application,, 
 and had been decided by a court of competent, 
 jurisdiction, the action ought to be stayed as- 
 frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the pro- 
 cess of the Court. Stephenson v. Gabnett 
 
 C. A, [1898] 1 ft, B. 67 r 
 
 165. — ■ Frivolous and vexatious proceedings — 
 Inherent jurisdiction to stay. 
 
 Every Court of justice has inherent jurisdic- 
 tion to stay or dismiss a frivolous or vexatious 
 action. 
 
 (a) Haggard v. Pelicier Fr{:bes 
 
 P. C, [1892] A. 0, 61, at p. Gi- 
 
 (b) Davey v. Bentinok 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 185, at p. 187 
 
 Order XXV., r. 4, empowers the Court to strike 
 out or stay frivolous and vexatious pleadings atid 
 proceedings. 
 
 166. — Frivolous and vexatious proceedings — - 
 Extrinsic evidence of frivolousness — Scope of 
 Order xxv., r. 4. 
 
 Order xxv., r. 4, is not intended to supply- 
 the place of demurrer except in frivolous cases, 
 and an application thereunder will not be enter- 
 tained where the pleading raises an important 
 point of law. 
 
 Fer A. L. Smith L.J. : An application to 
 strike out a pleading under Order xxv., r. 5, can 
 only be made where it can be shewn without, 
 extrinsic evidence that the pleading shews oa 
 the face of it no cause of action or defence. Att.- 
 Gen. op the Dooht op Lanoasteb v. London. 
 AND North Western By. Co. 
 
 C. A, [1892] 3 Ch. 274 
 
 167. — Frioolous and vexatious proceedings — 
 Inherent jurisdiction to stay — Time for exercise of 
 jurisdiction — Particulars — R.S. C, Order xix.,r. 7. 
 
 The Court, if satisfied at any stage of anv 
 action that the action or defence is frivolous or 
 vexatious, may stay the action or strike out the- 
 defence. 
 
 Fer Lord Esher M.K. : Q,usere, whether par- 
 ticulars are pleadings within Order xxv , r. 4. 
 Davbt v. Bentinck - C, A, [1893] 1 ft. B. 188> 
 
 168. — Frivolous and vexatious proceedings — 
 Reopening concluded litigation. 
 
 A sale of settled land by the tenant for life 
 was sanctioned by the House of Lords. A sub- 
 
( 1531 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— UiW. 
 
 ( ]5:;2 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Pleading)— co«///j«e(i. 
 
 sequent action was brought to restrain ihe sale 
 
 on the ground of fraud : — 
 
 Sdd, that the second action must be stayed 
 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the pro- 
 cess of the Court, as being an attempt to reopen 
 litigation finally determined by the House of 
 Lords. BnnCE v. Makquis op Atlesbubt (No. 2) 
 Stirling J. [1892] W. N. 149 
 
 169. — Frivolous and vexatious proceedings — 
 Striking out frivolous and vexatious statement of 
 defence — Abuse of process of the Court. 
 
 A deft, delivered a statement of defence in 
 wliich he either denied or refused to admit each 
 of the allegations in the statement of claim, but 
 set up no case of his own. In previous proceed- 
 ings in another action he had admitted upon 
 oath several of the material statements which he 
 mw denied, and had not denied any of the 
 others : — • 
 
 Held (by Eomer J. and by C. A.), that though 
 the Court will not on affidavit evidence order a 
 pleading to be struck out on the ground tliat the 
 statements in it are false, the circumstances in 
 the present case shewed the statement of defence 
 to he frivolous and vexatious, and one which 
 ought to be struck out as being an abuse of the 
 procedure of the Court. 
 
 Eildige v. O'Farrell, (1881) 8 L. E. Ir. 158, 
 approved. Kemmington r. Sooles 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Referred to bv C. A. Stephenson v. Garnett, 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 677, G81. 
 
 — ■ Judicial Trustees Act, 1896. 
 
 See Trustee — Judicial Trustees. 74. 
 
 — Particulars. 
 
 See Discovert — Particulars. 
 
 — Eeply. 
 
 See Practice — Reply, 
 
 — Eeply — Non-delivery of nply — Time for 
 
 giving notice of trial. 
 
 See Practice- Trial. 262. 
 
 — Striking out statement of claim — Trust 
 
 wliether express or constructive. 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 24. 
 
 170. — Witliout pleadings, trial — Default of ap- 
 pearance — Motion for judgment — B. S. C, 1883, 
 Order XIII., r. 12; Order XTIII. a, r. 6. 
 
 The pits, indorsed their writ as follows : — 
 
 " The pits.' claim is for a declaration that the 
 written agreement of ... . whereby the defts. 
 agreed to erect certain buildings on the glebe 
 land belonging to .... is determined and at an 
 end, and that the sum of 3001. therein mentioned 
 has been forfeited to the Ecclesiastical Commrs. 
 
 " If the defts. appear to this writ of summons 
 the pits, intend to proceed to trial without 
 pleadings." 
 
 The defts. did not appear. The pits., without 
 filing any statement of claim, moved for judgment 
 in default of appearance. 
 
 Held, that a statement of claim must be filed. 
 Motion refused. Greene v. St. John's Man- 
 sions, Ld. - - Div, ct. [1900] W. N, 9 
 
 Prohibition, 
 
 See Cases under Peohibitimn. 
 
 PRACTICE — contin ued. 
 
 Quo Warranto. 
 See Cases under Quo Warrant > 
 
 Receiver. 
 See Cases under Eeceiver. 
 
 Rehearing. 
 
 And see Practice — Review. 
 
 — Application for rehearing — Divorce cause- 
 
 Practice. 
 See Divorce. 
 
 171. — Order not passed nor entered — Material 
 evidence. 
 
 Judgment refusing rectification of a settle- 
 ment had been given, but the order had not been 
 drawn up. On motion to have the case reheard 
 on the ground of material facts not having been 
 brought out : — 
 
 Sdd, that there was jurisdiction to rehear, 
 and as the motion was unopposed gave leave to 
 apply to have the case restored to the paper. 
 Baden-Powell v. Wilson 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 146 
 
 172. — Ord-er passed and entered — Misrepre- 
 sentation — Jurisdiction. 
 
 When an order has been perfected and ex- 
 presses the real decision of the Court, the Court 
 has no jurisdiction to alter it. An application 
 was made that certain costs which A. had been 
 ordered to pay should be made costs in the action 
 and for a stay of proceedings on the order on the 
 ground that tlio order had been obtained by mis- 
 representation : — 
 
 Hdd, that this was in effect an application 
 for rehearing, and that the Court had no juris- 
 diction to entertain it. Pbeston Banking Co. v. 
 Allsup & Sons - C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 141 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Scowbu, [18971 
 ICh. 741, 754. 
 
 Reply. 
 
 — Xon-delivery of reply — Time for giving notice 
 
 of trial. 
 
 See Pbaotioe — Trial. 262. 
 
 — Eight of, in trials. 
 
 See Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 36), s. 3. 
 
 Review. 
 And see Practice — Rehearing. 
 
 — Arbitration — Railways. 
 
 See Canada. 18. 
 
 173. — Jurisdiction of Chancery Division. 
 The Ch. Div. can still exercise the jurisdiction 
 
 of tlie old Court of Chancery as to allowing pro- 
 ceedings by way of review in a proper case. 
 
 Semble, an action of review can now be com- 
 menced without leave. In re Scott and Al- 
 varez's Contract. Scott v. Alvarez 
 
 Per Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 596, at p. 622 
 
 This case was partly affirmed auJ partly re- 
 versed by C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 603. 
 
 — Order not passed nor entered— Material evi- 
 
 dence. 
 
 (See Practice— Rehearing. ITl. 
 
( 1533 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 153i ) 
 
 PHACTICE (B,e-new)--continued. 
 
 — Order passed and entered. 
 
 See Practice— Eeheariag. 172. 
 
 — Solicitor's bill of costs. 
 
 See Appeal. 45. 
 
 Eevivor. 
 
 Order xyii. relates to proceedings on change of 
 parties during the pendency of a suit. 
 
 Order XLII., r. 23, relat-es to proceedings on 
 death after judgment of parties. 
 
 174. — Administration suit — Death of party 
 after judgment — Procedure — B. S. C, Order xrii., 
 r. i. 
 
 The addition of the executor of a deceased co- 
 pit, after judgment shall not be made ex parte. 
 In re Holmes. Farkak v. Eddlestone 
 
 North J. [1892] W. S. 177 
 
 175. — Divorce proceedings — Death of co- 
 respondent hefore payment of costs — Beceiver — 
 B. 8. C, Order XVII., r. i ; Order XUI., r. 28. 
 
 The Court has power under OrJei- xvir., i. 4, 
 and Order XLii , r. 28, to appoint a petitioner 
 receiver of the estate of a deceased co-respondent 
 in respect of a debt for costs of a divorce petition 
 ordered to be paid by the co-respondent. Wad- 
 dell V. Waddell - Butt P. [1892] P. 226 
 
 176. — Fund in court applicable to payment of 
 debts — Dormant suit — Lapse of time. 
 
 An administration suit had been dormant 
 since 1753, but tliere was money in Court which 
 was available under a decree in the suit for the 
 payment of debts. In 1889 a petition was pre- 
 sented for inquiries as to tlie parties entitled to 
 the fund: — 
 
 Held, tliat lapse of time was no bar to revivor. 
 
 SItCKLETHWAITE V. VaVASOUE 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 61 
 
 177. — " Judgment " — Statutes of Limitations 
 —R. S. C, Order XYII., r. 4. 
 
 Tlie legal representatives of a judgment cre- 
 ditor will not be allowed to take proceedings under 
 Order xli.. r. 23, after the judgment debt is 
 statute-barred. 
 
 (a.) Hebblethwatte v. Peevek 
 
 Collins J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 124 
 (b.) Jay b. Johnstone 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B, 189 
 
 178. — Legatee^ suit commenced in 1758 — 
 Fund in court — Revivor dispensed with. 
 
 lu a legatees' suit commenced in 1758, where 
 
 (here was a fund in court, and it was impossible 
 
 to trace the representatives of the original defts., 
 
 revivor was dispensed with. Ballard v. Milner 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 14 
 
 179. — Personal action — Death of party after 
 judgment — Beceiver. 
 
 The procedure by scire facias and order of 
 revivor in the case of the death of a judgment 
 creditor after judgment is superseded by Order 
 XLII., r. 23, empowering his legal personal repre- 
 sentatives to ask leave to issue execution. But 
 that rule does not empower the appointment of a 
 receiver at the instance of the legal personal 
 representative. Norbubn v. Norborn 
 
 DiT, Ct. [1894) 1 Q. B. 448 
 
 T'R&.C'nCE— continued. 
 
 Sales by the Court. 
 Order LI. relates to sales by the Court. 
 
 — Blortgaged property. 
 
 See Mortgage — Sale. 
 
 — Shares. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 
 
 Security for Costs. 
 See Costs — Security for Costs. 
 
 Separation. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife — 
 Separation and Summary Jarisdictiou. 
 
 Sequestration. 
 See Cases under Sequestration. 
 
 Service. 
 
 Order IX. relates to service of vyrits of summons. 
 
 Order Lxril. relates to service of orders, &c. 
 
 Order XLYili. a, relates to service on firms. 
 
 Companies — Service of Summonses on, facili- 
 tated. See Explanatory Memorandum to County 
 Court Bules(May), 1899, and rules 1, 2, and!. 
 W. K. 1899 (May 20), at p. 171. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p. cxi. 
 
 — Admiralty practice — Jurisdiction — County 
 
 court — Agent. 
 
 See Shipping. 203. 
 
 180. — Agreement that writ may be served upon 
 agent in England — Defendant domiciled or ordi- 
 narily resident in Scotland — R. 8. C, 1883, Order 
 IX., rr. 1, 2. 
 
 An agreement by a person domiciled or ordi- 
 narily resident in Scotland, that a writ for breach 
 of contract may be served by leaving it with an 
 agent in_ England, appointed by him to accept 
 service, is valid, and service upon the agent is 
 good service on the defendant. 
 
 Tharsis Sulphur Co. v. So&i^€ IndustridU des 
 Melaux, (1889) 58 L. J. (Q. B.) 435 ; 60 L. T. 
 924, approved. Montgomery, Jones & Co. v. 
 Liebenthal & Co. - C. A, [1898] 1 Q. B. 487 
 
 — Appeal — Essential particulars. 
 
 See Trade-mark. 
 
 — Bankruptcy notice — Act of bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 25. 
 
 — Contract of — Agreement to devote whole time 
 
 — Negative stipulation — Breach of con- 
 tract. 
 See Contbact — Personal. 30. 
 
 — Copies of affidavit— Time— Evidence. 
 
 See Evidence. 21. 
 
 — Corporation — Order on — Disobedience. 
 
 See Attachment. 13. 
 
 — Costs of substituted service — Taxation— Fixed 
 
 costs. 
 
 See Costs — Taxation, 78. 
 
 — Divorce Bill— Substituted service — Practice. 
 
 See Appeal. 20. 
 
 181._ — Foreign company — Carrying on business 
 within jurisdiction — London agent— letting aside 
 service— B. 8. C, 1883, Order IX., r. 8. 
 
 A CO. incorporated in the state of Tennessee, 
 
( J1535 ) 
 
 DIGEST OK CAJSES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( me ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Service) — continued. 
 and haviDg offices in Tennessee and New York 
 States had also an agent and offices in London for 
 the purpose of dealing with English sharAolders, 
 and some property in that office ; — 
 
 Held, that this did not conttitute carrying on 
 hnsiness in England, and that service of a writ 
 against the co. on the London agent was bad. 
 Badoock v. Ccmbebland Gap Paek Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 362 
 
 182. — Foreign corporation — Service of writ — 
 Agent—Cleric— Admiralty— B. 8. C, 1883, Order 
 IX., r. 8. 
 
 The defts., a foreign coi-poration, had their 
 name on the door of an office of their agents in 
 London, and issued business cards and advertise- 
 ments directing the public to apply to them there 
 respecting the carriage of goods by their steamers. 
 The rent of the office was paid by the agents of 
 the defts., and the clerks, including the manager, 
 employed in the office, were the servants of the 
 agenls. 
 
 The pits., owners of cargo in a foreign ship, 
 commenced an action for damages by collision 
 against the defts., and served the writ of summons 
 on the managing clerk at the office in London. 
 On motion by the defts. to set aside the service : — 
 
 Held, that the service nf the writ was not on 
 " the . . . clerk ... of such corporation " within 
 the meaning of Order ix., r. 8, and must therefore 
 be set aside, but without costs, as the defts. had 
 held themselves out as having an office in London. 
 The Pmncesse Clementine 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1897] P. 18 
 
 183. — Foreign corporation carrying on busi- 
 ness in England — Service of writ — Agent — 
 Officer — Jurisdiction — jB. S. C, Order IX., r. 8. 
 
 A foreign corporation which does business in 
 England in such a way as to be resident here 
 may be sued here, and the writ may be served on 
 its officer here. 
 
 The decision of Jeune P., [1898] W. N. 80 
 (1) and the C. A., La Bourgogne, [1898] W. N. 
 150 (1); [1899] P. 1 affirmed. Sub nom. La 
 CoMPAGNiE Generale Tkansatlantique II. Law 
 
 & Co. La " BOTIKGOGNE " 
 
 H. 1. (E.) [1899] W. N. 90 ; [1899] A. C. 431 
 
 184. — Foreign defendant carrying on business 
 within jurisdiction in name other than his own. 
 
 Order xlvhi. a. (actions against firms and 
 others not trading under Iheir own name) does 
 not apply to a foreign subject resident out of the 
 jurisdiction, who carries on business within the 
 jurisdiction in a name or style other than his on n 
 name, and in such a case service under r. 3 on 
 the foreign manager in England is not good, nor 
 in such a case will substituted service nor leave 
 to aerve the writ as notice out of the jurisdiction 
 be allowed. 
 
 (a) St. Gobain, Cha-dny and Cieey Co. v. 
 Hoteemann's Agency C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 96 
 
 (b) De Bernales v. New York Herald 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 a, B. 97, n. 
 
 186. — Foreign firm— Action infirm name. 
 
 A firm, some members of which are resident 
 
 abroad, cannot be served as a firm under Order Jx., 
 
 r. 6, and all the partners' names must be specified 
 
 in the writ, which may then be served on any 
 
 PBACTICE (Service) — continued. 
 
 partner found within the jurisdiction, or by leave 
 
 under OrJer XI., outside the jurisdiction. 
 
 (a) Western National Bank op New York 
 V. Perez, Triana & Co. 
 C. A. (lord Esher M.E. diss.) [1891] 1 Q. B. 301 
 (e) Indigo Co. v. Ogilvy 
 
 North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 31 
 (c) Heinemanm & Co. 0. Hale & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 83 
 
 186. — Foreign firm, — " Carrying on business 
 within the jurisdiction." 
 
 Order xltiii. a, r. 1, applies to all partner- 
 ships canying on business within jurLsdiction, 
 Therefore a foreign or colonial firm to carrying 
 on business can be served under Order xltiil a, 
 r. 3, without leave, although the members ar& 
 resident out of the jurisdiction. The writ in such 
 a case cannot be served by substituted service 
 within the jurisdiction on a partner who is out 
 of the jurisdiction. Worcester City and CorNiy 
 Banking Co. t. Fiebank, Pauling & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 «. B. 784 
 
 187. — Foreign firm — Service of notice on part- 
 ner abroad — Action in name of firm — B. S. G.y 
 Order ix., r. 6 ; Order XI., r. 7. 
 
 In an action against a foreign partnership in 
 the name of the firm leave was given to serve 
 notice of the writ, and it was served abroad on 
 one partner. No appearance was entered and 
 the pits, applied for leave to sign judgment: — 
 
 Held, that Order ix., r. 6, of the Eules of 
 ] 883 did not apply to a firm not domiciled within 
 the jurisdiction, and that service on one partner 
 was not good service on the firm. Dobson v. 
 Festi, Easini & Co. C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 92 
 
 But see now Order XLTIII. A, rr. 1-11, B. S. C, 
 June, 1891. 
 
 188. — Foreign firm — Service on partner resi- 
 dent in England — B. S. C, Order /x, r. 6. 
 
 A writ isfcued against a foreign firm for 
 breach of a contract made and to be performed 
 in England. The writ was issued in the firm 
 name, and was served on a partner resident in 
 England : — 
 
 Held, tliat a writ issued against a foreign 
 firm cannot be served on the partners resident 
 abroad by serving one of them in England. 
 Heinemann & Co. V. Hale & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 8S 
 
 But see now Order XLTIII. A, r. 1. 
 
 189. — Foreign firm/ — Service on partner resi- 
 dent in England — Validity — Summary judgment 
 againstfirm — B. S. C , Order ix., r. 6 ; Order xir.,. 
 r. 1. 
 
 Where a foreign firm carries on business in 
 England with one partner living within the juris- 
 diction, service on the resident partner is sufficient, 
 in an action against the firm, to support a judg- 
 ment under Order, xiv. Lysaght, Ld. v. Clahk 
 & Co. - Div. ,Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 662: 
 
 But see now Order xltiii. A, r. 1. 
 
 190. — Foreign firm — Sernce on partner vi^if- 
 ing England — Irregularity — Appearance — Waiver 
 —B. S. a, Order IX., r. 6. 
 
 In an aclion against a foreign paitmershjip in 
 
( 1537 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1538 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Service)— coiiiiftwed. 
 
 tlie name of the firm a writ was served on a 
 
 partner wbo was vifcitiug England : — 
 
 Eeld, that the service was not good service 
 against the firm, although if the writ had been 
 against the partners nominatim, it would have 
 been good ; but that as the partner had appeared, 
 and in part waived the irregularity, leave should 
 be given to araeud the writ by specifying the 
 numes of the partners, and that on such amend- 
 ment service should stand as against the partner 
 who had appeared. Western National Bank 
 OF New Yokk v. Peeez, Tkiana & Co. 
 C. A. (Lord Esher M.K. diss.) [1891] 1 ft. B. 304 
 
 But see now Order XL TJII. A.,r. 1 . 
 
 Followed by C. A. Indigo Co. v. Ogiloy, 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 3). 
 
 191. — F(irei{in person — Name of firm — Scoltish 
 defendant — Carrtjing on business in name or style 
 olher than his own—U. S. C, Order XLTUI.A, 
 »T. 3, 11. 
 
 J. B., a domiciled Scotchman, carried on 
 business in S. as G. & J. B., and had a branch 
 in Liverpool under the same name. A partner- 
 ship action against J. B. was brought against 
 G. & J. B. :— 
 
 Seld, that Order XLViii. A, r. 11, did not 
 apply so as to enable the pit. to effect service of 
 the writ upon B. by serving it on the i^ersou 
 liaving the management and control of the busi- 
 ness at Liverpool. MacIveb v. G. & J. Bdkns 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 630 
 
 — New trustee — Vesting order — -Trustee incap- 
 
 able of acting— Physical and medical 
 incapacity — Service dispensed with. 
 Sfe Trustee — Vesting Order. 107. 
 
 — Nijtlce — Abatement of nuisance — Service on 
 
 person not liable — Recovery of expense. 
 See NriSANCES. 2. 
 
 — Notices — London Building Act. 
 
 See Cases under London — Buildings. 
 
 — Notice — Vaccination Act. 
 
 See Vaccination. 5. 
 
 — Notice of appeal to quarter sessions. 
 
 See Justices — Appeal. 43, 44. 
 
 — Notice of opposilion to renewal fif licence. 
 
 See LiCEXSi.so Acts. IG, 17. 
 
 — Notice to make sewer— S.rvite on every front- 
 
 ager. 
 
 See Setvees. 8. 
 
 192. — Out of jurisdictinn — Notice of motion 
 fm- injunction. — U. S. C, Order XI., r. 1 ; Order LJI., 
 r. 9. 
 
 Semhle, that leave to serve notice of motion 
 for an injunction with the writ outside the juris- 
 diction cannot be granted. Manitoba and 
 -Iokth-West Land Cokpoeation v. Allan 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 432 
 
 — Out of jurisdiction — Notice, of motion to 
 
 attach. 
 
 See Attachment. 20 — 24. 
 
 193. — Out of jurisdiction — Notice of motion 
 fur injunction. 
 
 Action for injunction to restrain Y. and others 
 from parting with certain securities. Y. was 
 abroad. North J. granted leave to serve writ, 
 but not notice of motion for interim injunction 
 
 FBACIICE (Sezvice)— continued. 
 
 out of jurisdiction, holding that he Lad no power 
 
 under Order xi. to give such leave. 
 
 C. A. granted leave to serve the notice of 
 
 motion without prejudice to any question which 
 
 might arise thereon. Hebsey v. Young 
 
 C. A. [1894] W. N. 18 
 
 — Out of jurisdiction — Notice of motion to ex- 
 punge proof. 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 177. 
 
 194. — Out of jurisdiction — Notice of motion to 
 expunge trade-mark — Registered proprietor out of 
 the jurisdiction — B. S. 0., 1883, Order v., r. 9 ; 
 Order XL, r. 1 ; Order LXYII., r. 5 — Patents, &c , 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 90. 
 
 A notice of motion to rectify the register by 
 striking out a trade-mark registered in the name 
 of a foreign co. not carrying on business within 
 the jurisdiction was served on the comptioUer 
 and on the co. abroad without the leave of the 
 Court : — 
 
 Held, there was no power in the parties fo 
 serve the notice abroad, and no jurisdiction in 
 the Court to give leave for service abroad, and 
 that the service was invalid. 
 
 Semble, the proper course was to proceed on 
 the notice against the comptrollei', after sending 
 a copy to the co. with an intimation that pro- 
 ceedings which might affect its interests wei-o 
 pending. In re La Compaqnie Generale d'Eaux 
 
 MiNERALES ET DE BaINS DE MeB 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 3 Ch, 451 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re Cliff, 0. A. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 21, 25. 
 
 195. — Out of jurisdiction — Notice of molinn — 
 Trade-mark— M. S. C, 1883, Order v., r. 9 (c). 
 
 There is no provision by statute or rule as to 
 the service out of the jurisdiction of notii-e of 
 motion to expunge a trade-mark, but such notice 
 must be given to interested parties outside thu 
 jurisdiction as is required by natural justice. 
 In re King & Co.'s Tbade-maek 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 462 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Kai/'s Patent, 
 [1894] W. N. 68. See No. 197, heluw. 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re Clij)', 0. A. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 21, 25. See next Case. 
 
 196. — Out of jurisdiction — Notice of onh'r n i 
 originating summons — Jurisdiction — 11. S. V, 
 1883, Order XL, r. ; Order XVI., r. 40— 7i. 6'. C, 
 Nov. 28, 1893, r. 7; Jan. 10, 1894. 
 
 Leave to serve notice of ao order made on an 
 originating summons on a person resident abroad 
 cannot be giveiL But the person having conduct 
 of the order may of his own motion give notice to 
 the person resident out of the jurisdiction, and if 
 after notice that person does not choose to come 
 in the Court will act on the order, and in the 
 case of a fund in Court will distribute it-in his 
 absence. 
 
 Decision of North J. aflSrmed. In re Cltff. 
 Edwabds v. Brown - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 21 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Deutsche National 
 Bank v. Paul, [1898] 1 Ch. 283, 288. 
 
 197. — Out of jurisdiction — Petition for revo- 
 cation of patent — B. S. C, 1883, Order XL, ■/-. 1. 
 
 Where one of the respondents to a petition 
 
 3 D 
 
( I5;!it ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 1540 ) 
 
 PEACTICE (Service) — sontinued. 
 for revocation of a patent was out of the jurisdic- 
 tion, and could not be served with the petition, 
 ordered that notice of the presentation of the 
 petition should be given him, that the petition 
 should go into the witness list, but unless he 
 appeared by counsel, the petition should not 
 come on for hearing witliout leave of the judge. 
 In re Kay's Patent Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 68 
 
 188. — Out of jurisdiction — Petition — Trustee 
 lielief Act. 
 
 There is no jurisdiction to give leave to serve 
 out of the jurisdiction a petition for payment of 
 money out of Court under the Trustee Relief Act. 
 In re Stanwat's Trusts 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 11 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Cliff, C. A. 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 21, 25. 
 
 — Out of jurisdiction — Restitution of conjugal 
 rights — Decree — Practice. 
 See DivoKOE — Practice. 117. 
 
 199. — Out of jurisdiction — Service of writ — 
 Contract " ivliicli, according to the terms thereof, 
 ought to he performed within the jurisdiction" — 
 It. S. C, 18S3, Order XL, r. 1 (e). 
 
 In order to allow service of a writ out of the 
 jurisdiction under Order xi., r. 1 (e), the contract 
 lor breach of which the action is brought must 
 be one which, according to the terms thereof, 
 must be performed within the jurisdiction. Leave 
 cannot be given in a case where tlie contract 
 may be performed either within or out of the 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Where the deft, abroad contracted to sell 
 goods sent to him and remit the proceeds to 
 England by bills, and he sold the goods and kept 
 the proceeds : — 
 
 Held, that since his contract could all be per- 
 formed abroad, no writ could be issued here for 
 service abroad, either for breach of contract or for 
 money had and received. 
 
 The decision of C. A. reversed. Comber v. 
 Leyland H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 624 
 
 200. — Out of jurisdiction. Service of lorit — 
 It. S. a, 1883, Order XL, r. 1 (e), (3). 
 
 J. & Co., who carried on business in London, 
 deposited certain policies of life assurance with 
 the pits., a German bank, as security for advances, 
 and afterwards created a second charge upon the 
 same policies in favour of E. The pits, subse- 
 quently acquired the equity of redemption in the 
 policies, and caused it to be transferred to P. 
 and F. as trustees for tho pits. P. and F. 
 resided in England ; E. resided in Germany, 
 Tl:o pits, brought an action for foreclosure against 
 1'. and F., and obtaintd leave to give nolice, in 
 lieu of service, of the writ to E. out of the 
 jurisdiction. Upon motion to discharge that 
 order : — 
 
 Meld, (1.) that the action was not founded on 
 any breach of contract, and therefore the case 
 did not come within Order xi., r, 1 (e) ; and (2.) 
 that inasmuch as no actual relief was claimed 
 a.gamst P. and P., they were not properly made 
 oetts., but should have been joined as co-pits, ; 
 ao-t-rw? was, therefore, not properly brought 
 against them within the meaning of Order ll, 
 
 PEACTICE (Service) — continued. 
 I. 1 (j), and the order for service out of the 
 jurisdiction must be discharged. Detjtschb 
 National Bank 0. Paul 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 1 Ch. 283 
 — Out of the jurisdiction — Vesting order. 
 
 See Trustee— Vesting Order. 107, 113. 
 
 201. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Absence 
 beyond seas—R. 8. C, 1883, Order XL 
 
 Order xi. does not annul the right of a pit., 
 under 4 Anne, c. 16, to bring hia action after the 
 deft.'s return from beyond the seas within the 
 time limited by the Limitation Act, 1623. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 533, 
 affirmed. MusuRUS Bet v. Gadban 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 ft. B. 352 
 
 202. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Appear- 
 ance — Unconditional appearance — Wairer of 
 irregularity. 
 
 If a deft, appears unconditionally to a writ 
 served out of the jurisdiction he submits to the 
 jurisdiction as to the whole claim, although part 
 of it is outside Order xi , r. 1. On a motion to 
 set aside an order giving leave to serve a writ out 
 of the jurisdiction (part only of the claim being 
 within Order XL, r. 1) ; — 
 
 Held, that the order should stand ; the pit. 
 
 should only be entitled to relief on so much of 
 
 his claim as came within the rule. Manitoba 
 
 AND North-West Land Corporation v. Allan 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 432 
 
 203. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Appear- 
 ance under protest. 
 
 A foreigner resident out of tlie jurisdiction, 
 on whom notice of a writ served by leave under 
 Order xi., can properly enter an appearance 
 under protest without losing his right to object 
 to the jurisdiction. Firth & Sons v. De Las 
 RiVAs - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 768 
 
 204. — Out of Jurisdiction — Writ — Set aside 
 service, Application to — Procedure — B. S. C, 
 Order XLL, r. ZO— Judicature Act, 18114 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 16), s. 1, sub-s. 4. 
 
 An application by a deft, to discharge an 
 order at chambers made ex parte, giving leave 
 to serve the writ upon him out of the jurisdiction 
 or to set the service aside, should be made by 
 summons at chambers, and not by motion in Div. 
 C^t. or C. A. Black v. Dawson 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 848 
 
 205. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Concurrent 
 Writ — Irregularity. 
 
 When leave is granted for the issue of a con- 
 current writ to be served out of the jurisdiction, 
 the copy served should be marked " concurrent." 
 On an application to serve out of the jurisdiction 
 it must be shewn that tbe deft, within tlie juris- 
 diction has previously been duly served. Col- 
 lins V. North British and Mecoantile Insur- 
 ance Co. Puatt v. Same 
 
 Kekewich J, [1894] 3 Ch. 228 
 
 20s. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Contract 
 afficting land — Assignee of lease — Action for 
 breach of covenant to repair — li. S. C, Older XL. 
 '•■ 1 (6), (<7)- 
 
 An action for breach of a covenant to repair 
 is an action brought to enforce a contract afteeting 
 land or hereditaments. Consequenlly an order 
 
( 1541 ) 
 
 DIUEST OF CASKW, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 1542 ) 
 
 PEACTICE iSeiviee)— continued. 
 for service out of the juriedictiou may be made 
 under Order xi., r. 1 (6). Each of tbe sub-section a 
 of Order xi., r. 1, is complete in itself, and is 
 to be construed independently of the others. 
 Tassbll v. Hallen Div, Ct, [1892] 1 Q. B. 321 
 
 Held not to affect Yorhihire Tannery v. Mglin- 
 ton Chemical Co., 54 L. J. (Ch.) 81, per Kekewich J. 
 Collins V. North British and Mercantile Insurance 
 Go., [1894] 3 Ch. 228. 
 
 207. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Contract 
 to be performed within the jurisdiction — Commis- 
 sion — B. 8. C, Order xi., r. 1 (e). 
 
 One of the defts. engaged the pit. to super- 
 intend certain works in Spain on a commission 
 on the outlay. The contract was ratified by the 
 deft.'s partner in Spain. Leave was giyen to 
 issue a concurrent writ against the Spanish 
 partner on application to set aside this writ and 
 service under it : — 
 
 Held, that on the true construction of the 
 contract, the intention was that the payments in 
 respect of the commission were to be made in 
 England, and therefore the case came within 
 Order xi., r. 1 (e), the contract being one "which, 
 according to the terms thereof, ought to be per- 
 formed within the jurisdiction." Thompson v. 
 Palmer - C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 80 
 
 208. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Contract 
 to he 'performed within the jurisdiction — Foreign 
 company — B. S. C, Order xi., r. 1 (e). 
 
 A contract by shipowners to pay lighterage 
 at foreign ports, with » covenant by the con- 
 signees for indemnity from such payments, is not 
 a ccntract to be performed within the jurisdiction 
 within Order xi., r. 1 (e), for which leave to serve 
 writ outside the jurisdiction will be granted. 
 Bell & Co. v. Antwerp, London and Brazil 
 Line C. A. [1891] 1 Q, B. 103 
 
 Approved by H. L. (B.) Comber v. Leyland, 
 [1898] A. C. 524, 533. 
 
 209. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Contract 
 to he rierformed within the jurisdiction — Foreign 
 salvagt contract — B. 8. C, Order XL, r. 1 (e). 
 
 A salvage contract was entered into between 
 foreigners in English waters, but no place was 
 specified in tbe contract for payment of the 
 salvage money. An action was brought in 
 England for breach of contract in not paying 
 tbe salvage money, and an ex parte order was 
 obtained, allowing service of tlie writ out of the 
 jurisdiction : — 
 
 Held, that the writ must be set aside, there 
 being no obligation on the defts. to pay the 
 money within the jurisdiction, and therefore no 
 bleach within Order xi., r. 1 (e). 
 
 Decision of Jeune P. afftrmed. The "Eider" 
 C. A, [1893] P. 119 
 
 Approved of by H. L. (E.). Comber v. Ley- 
 land, [1898] A. C. 524, 583. 
 
 210. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Contract 
 to he performed within the jurisdiction — Place of 
 payment — B. 8. C, Order xi., r. 1 (e). 
 
 The pit. consigned goods from England to the 
 deft., a German subject carrying on business in 
 Germany. The usual place of payment for 
 similar transactions between the parties was in 
 
 FBACTICE (Service)— coniMiMcd. 
 England. The pit. applied for leave to issue a 
 writ under Order xi., r. 1 (e), for service on the 
 deft, in Germany for the price of goods under 
 the contract : — 
 
 Held, that there was sufficient evidence of 
 breach of a contract to be performed in England. 
 Eein v. Stein - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 753 
 
 211. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Foreign 
 firm — No place of business — B. 8. C, Order 
 XLViii. A, rr. 1, 3. 
 
 Per Div. Ct. : Eules 1, 3, of Order xLViii. A, 
 have no application to actions against foreign 
 firms, the members of which are domiciled and 
 resident out of the jurisdiction : — 
 
 Held, also, by C. A. and Div. Ct., that u 
 Glasgow firm, which transacted their business in 
 London solely through an agent, who had his own 
 offices and who only transmitted orders to his 
 principals, were not carrying on business within 
 the jurisdiction. Grant v. Anderson & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 a. B. 108 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Orainger & Son v. 
 Gough, [1895] 1 Q. B. 71, 84. 
 
 212. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Injunction 
 — Act to he done within jurisdiction — B. 8. 0. 
 1883, Order xi., r. 1 (/). 
 
 Manufacturers in Switzerland, in reply to a 
 letter from retail dealers in England asking them 
 to send 5 lbs. of a dye which they manufactured, 
 replied by a letter in which they inclosed an 
 invoice of (he goods ordered. The invoice 
 described the goods as "bought" by the dealers 
 of the manufacturers, and stated that they were 
 sent to a specified firm in Switzerland " to be 
 held by them at your disposal." The pits, 
 alleged that the dye thus sold was an infringe- 
 ment of their patent, and commenced an action 
 against the English purchasers and the Swiss 
 manufacturers, claiming an injunction. The 
 pits., having served the purchasers, applied ex 
 parte for leave to issue a concurrent writ and to 
 serve notice thereof on the manufacturers out of 
 the jurisdiction : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of North J.), 
 that the pits, had shewn a prima facie case, 
 within Order xi., r. 1 (/), of a sale within the 
 jurisdiction, and that the leave asked should be 
 given. Badische Anilin und Soda Pabrik v. 
 Henry Johnson & Co. and Basle Chemical 
 WOKKS, BiNDSOHEDLER C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 25 
 
 213. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — 8etting 
 aside service — Irregularity — B. 8. C, 1883, Order 
 XL, rr. 1, 4; Order IL., r. 5; Order LXX., r. 1 ; 
 Appx. A, Part I, Form No. 5. 
 
 A writ was issued and served on a solo deft., 
 who applied for and obtained leave to serve a 
 third party notice on D., who was out of the 
 jurisdiction, and the pit. obtained leave to add D. 
 as a deft, and to amend the writ. No affidavit 
 was made under Order xi., r. 4, of good cause of 
 action, and the amended writ served on D. was 
 not properly indorsed accoiding to Form 5 of 
 Appx. A to E. S. C, 1883 :— 
 
 Held, that these omissions were mere irregu- 
 larities, and did not entitle D. to have the wiit 
 and the service set aside. Dickson v. Law 
 
 North J. [1895] 2 Ch. 62 
 3 D 2 
 
( 15i3 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 1541 ) 
 
 PEACTICE (Service)— co»!<(»»e(i. 
 
 214. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Naval 
 officer at sea — B. S. C, Order XI., t. 4. 
 
 An officer in Her Majesty's navy is within 
 tlie jurisdiction so long as he is on bonrd his 
 ship, and Order xi. does not apply. Evidence 
 that officer was in a Queen's ship on the Mediter- 
 ranean Station, and would ultimately put into 
 Malta :— 
 
 Jleld, not snifioient to shew in wliat "place or 
 country the deft, is or probably may be found " 
 within the meaning of Order xi., r. 4, and that 
 leave to serve a writ on him out of the jurisdic- 
 tion must he refused. Seageove v. Parks 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 651 
 
 215. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Necessary 
 or proper party — Alternative claim — Action pro- 
 perly brought — R. S. 0., Order A'L, r. 1 (g). 
 
 In order to bring a case within Order xi., 
 r. 1 {g) (relating to the power of necessary and 
 proper parties who are outside the jurisdiction), 
 the pit. must have an apparent cause of action 
 against tlie person served within the jurisdiction, 
 and must not merely have joined such person in 
 order to be able to sue, within the jurisdiction, a, 
 pers m who is out of the jurisdiction. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1893] 1 Q. B. 431, 
 reversed. Witted r. Galbkaith 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 577 
 
 Decision of C. A. applied and followed by 
 Kekewich J. in Collins v. North British arid 
 Mercantile Insurance Co., [1894] 3 Ch. 228, 237. 
 
 216. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — " Necessary 
 or proper party " — Salrage action — Order SI., 
 r. 1 (g). 
 
 The pits, brought an action against the 
 owners of a British ship for salvage services 
 performed abroad, and claimed to serve notice ot 
 the writ on the owners of the cargo who were 
 foreigneis residing out of the juri.^diction : — 
 
 Held, that the cargo owners were "proper" 
 parties within Order xi., r. 1 {g), to an action 
 jiroperly brought against persons duly terved 
 within the jurisdiction. Service allowed. The 
 '■ Elton " Jeune J. [1891] P. 265 
 
 217. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — " Necessarij 
 M- proper party" — Separate relief — Jl. S. C., 18)^3, 
 Order TV. r. 1 ; Order Ai, rr. 1 (<;), 4. 
 
 'I'o bring a ease within Order xi., r. 1 (g), the 
 lolief sought against the deft, outside the juris- 
 diction must be connected, but need not be 
 identical with that sought againat the delt. 
 within the jurisdiction. 
 
 C. was the trustee in bankruptcy of A., a 
 beneficiary under the will of a Canadian testator ; 
 tlie jiropeity was vested in B., an executor 
 domiciled in Canada. A. had previous to his 
 bankruptcy mortgaged his interest to persons in 
 England. C. brought an action against the 
 moitgagees to redeem the moitgage and for 
 accounts, and against B. that as trustee for A. 
 he should pay the sum due to the mortgagees 
 and account for the property to 0. Before the 
 wnt was served on the mortgagees, C. obtained 
 Jeave to issue a concurrent writ lor service on B 
 rpni? "Affidavit C, did not state that B. was a 
 necessary or proper party to the action, nor that 
 
 FBACIICE (Sex^iDs)— continued. 
 0. believed that he had good cause of action 
 against B. The concurrent writ was marked 
 " concurren t," but not so the copy served on B. : — 
 Eeld, that the service was irregular, and 
 further that B. was not a "necees-iry or proper 
 party to an action properly brought," for the 
 relief sought against B. was not connected with 
 that sought against the mortgagees. Collins r. 
 NosTH British akd Mekoanixle iNSUBAycE Co. 
 Pratt v. Same - Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 228 
 
 218. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — " Necessary 
 or proper party" — Tort — Defendant resident in 
 Ireland — B. S. C, Order XI., r. 1 (3). 
 
 The pit. sought to serve one deft., an Irish co. 
 out of the jurisdiction, with a writ in an action 
 for malicious prosecution. The other deft., the 
 oo.'s manager, had been served within the juris- 
 diction : — 
 
 Held, (1) that Order XI., 1. 1 (g), applied to 
 actions of tort; (2) that the Irish co. were a 
 proper party to the action. Croft v. King 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 419 
 
 Eeferred to bv C. A. Williams v. CaHuriglt, 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 142, 147. See next Case. 
 
 219. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — "Necessary 
 or proper party " — Tort— Defendant resident in 
 Scotland — " Comparative cost and convenience — 
 B. S. C, Order xi, rr. 1 (g), 2. 
 
 Service out of the jurisdiction on a person out 
 of the jurisdiction who is "a necessary or proper 
 party to an action properly brought against sonic 
 other person duly served within the jurisdiction," 
 can be had in an action of tort, but the jurisdic- 
 tion is discretionary. Where an action of deceit 
 was brought against three persons, two of wliom 
 were resident in England and one in Scotland ■ — 
 
 Held, that as under the circumstauces com- 
 parative cost and convenience were in favour of 
 proceedings in England, service out of the juris- 
 diction ought to be allowed. Comparative cost 
 and convenience in Order xi., r. 2, means not 
 that of the person sought to be served only, but 
 of the parties generally. Williams v. Cart- 
 wright - - C. A. (Lord Esher ME. diss.) 
 [1895] 1 a. B. 142 
 
 220. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — " A'l cesf:ary 
 or proper party" — Scotch e.xecutrix — B. S. C, 
 Order XI., rr. 1 (/), 2, 
 
 Pit. instituted an action in England agiiinst 
 defts. in England, and executrices dative resident 
 in Scotland and acting under a Scotch contirma- 
 tion of a deceased Scotsman, to obtain a declar.i- 
 tion that the deceased was domiciled in Bolivia, 
 and an injunction against dealing with the estate. 
 Au order for service was obtained under Order xi., 
 ''■ I (/)> on the executrices. On motion to dis- 
 charge the order : — 
 
 JJeld, (1) that an injunction against the 
 executrices to restrain them from doing any 
 act within the jurisdiction would fall within 
 Order XL, r. 1 (/); (2) that as the Scotch Courls 
 had seisin of the case, and pit. intended to proceed 
 there, the order for service should be disc harged. 
 In re De Penny, De Penny v. Christie 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 63 
 
 £21. ■ — Out nf jurisdic'm: — Writ — Properly 
 
( 1545 ) 
 
 niGEST OF OA«ES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1546 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Service)— cowMnued. 
 
 situate toithin the jurisdiction— E. S. C, Order JJ., 
 
 T. 1. 
 
 To support service out of the jui-iadiction 
 under Order xi., r. 1 (d), the property must be 
 property actually situate withiu the jurisdiction, 
 and not merely property which ought to be, or 
 if the trusts were duly executed, would be so 
 situate. 
 
 Semble, the service may be held good if pro- 
 perty has subsequently come within the jurisdic- 
 tion. Winter v. Winter 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 1 Ch. 421 
 
 222. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Scotland— ^ 
 Defendant domiciled or ordinarily resident in Scot- 
 land — Agreement that writ may he served out of 
 jurisdiction — Order XI., r. 1 (e). 
 
 An agreement by a person domiciled or ordi- 
 nnrily resident in ScotLind that a writ for breach 
 of contract arising within the jurisdiction may be 
 served on liim in Scotland does not authorize tlie 
 Court to direct service of such a writ in Scotland, 
 as to do so would be in direct contravention of 
 Order xi., r. 1 (e). British Wagon Co. v. Geay 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 35 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Montgomery v. 
 Liebentlial, [1898] 1 Q. B. 487, 493. 
 
 223. — Out of jurisdiction — Writ — Scotland — 
 Waiver — County Court Eules, 1889, Order LI., 
 r. 23— B. S. a, 1883, Order XI., rr. 1 {d), 2- 
 Couniy Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 ss. 67, 68, 16i— Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 77), s. 17. 
 
 KqIb 23 of Order li. of the County Court 
 Rules, 1889, whicli relates to service out of the 
 jurisdiction, though more extensive than any 
 existing rule applicable to the High Court, is 
 within the powers of making rules confeiTcd by 
 s. 164 of the County Courts Act, 1888. 
 
 Service having been effected in Scotland 
 under Order li., r. 23, of the County Court Eules, 
 ] 889, on a deft, in an administration action, the 
 action was transferred to the High Court on 
 the ground that the value of the eotate exceeded 
 the limit of the jurisdiction of the county court. 
 The deft, answered interrogatories in the county 
 court, but objected to the order for service both 
 in the county court and the High Court : — 
 
 Held, that, though the order for service would 
 have been valid if the action had remained in 
 the county court, after the transfer, the question 
 depended upon Order xi., rr. 1 (d) and 2, of the 
 Rules of the Supreme Court, and that the deft, 
 ought to have an opportunity of tiliug evidence as 
 to the domioil of the testator, and as to whether 
 there was an adequate concurrent jurisdiction in 
 Scotland : — 
 
 Seld, further, that there had been no waiver 
 by the deft, of the right to object to the service. 
 Wood v. Midpleton Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 151 
 
 — Partnership — Dissolution — Bankruptcy peti- 
 
 tion against one late partner — Irregu- 
 larity. 
 See Bankruptcy — Partnership. 137. 
 
 Order IX,, r. 2, relates lo personal service. 
 
 — Personal service — ^Affidavits. 
 
 See Attachment. 2 — i . 
 
 PEACTICE (Service)— ooreimaefi. 
 — Personal service — Notice of motion to attach. 
 See Attachment. 22. 
 
 224. — Fersonal service — Service in envelope — 
 Order Xl., r. 6 ; Order LXVII,, r. 5. 
 
 Handing to a deft, a writ (or if the deft, is 
 out of the jurisdiction, notice of a writ) inclosed 
 in an envelope (whether sealed up or not), the 
 deft, being uninformed as to its contents and 
 ignorant of the commencement of an action, is 
 not good personal service. Banque Eosse et 
 FRANfAisE V. Clare C. A. [1894] W. N. 203 
 
 225. — Post — Service of notice by post — Eoi- 
 dence— Public Healfh Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 55), s. 267. 
 
 Under s. 267 of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 in order to prove service of a notice by letter 
 through the post, it is necessary to shew that the 
 letter was " prepaid," and an affidavit containing 
 no statement to that effect is insufficient as 
 evidence of service. Walthamstow Urban 
 District Council v. Hbnwood 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 41 
 
 226. — Several defendants — Notice of motion 
 for judgment — Judgment against one defendant — 
 R. S. C, Order xxvii., r. 12. 
 
 Where, under Order xxvii., r. 12, an action is 
 set down on motion for judgment against one of 
 several defts., and the cause of action again.st 
 that deft, is severable from the cause of actifn 
 against the remaining defts., it is not necessary 
 to serve the notice of motion upon the remaining 
 defts. 
 
 Coolce V. Gilbert, [1892] W. N. Ill, 128, 
 followed. Macmillan v. Australasian Terri- 
 tories Stirling J. [1897] W. N. 30 (14) 
 
 — Registration of voters — No postal delivery. 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 
 
 227. — Betired partner — Execution — Liability 
 — B. S. C, Order XLVIII. A, rr. 1, 3, 8. 
 
 Where an action has been brought and judg- 
 ment recovered against co-partners in the firm 
 name, if one of the members left the firm before 
 action brought to the knowledge of the pit. and 
 does not appear, or admit that he is a partner, tlio 
 pit. must have served him with the writ under 
 Order xlviii. a, r. 3, before he can get leave 
 to issue execution, or have the question of the 
 ex-member's liability tried. Wigram v. Cox, 
 Sons, Buckley & Co. Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 792 
 
 — Sale of lands apart from minerals — Petition' — 
 
 Service on remainderman. 
 See Trustee — Practice. 89. 
 
 228, — Scotch railway company — Office in Eng- 
 land — Principal office — B. S. C, Order IX., r. 8. 
 
 A ry. CO. having its governing body resident 
 and domiciled in Glasgow, had a short line in 
 England, which was under the Companies Clauses 
 Act, 1845 :— 
 
 Meld, that the co. was a Scotch co., and that 
 fervice of a writ at tlie prhicipal office of the co. 
 on the English part of its line was not good 
 service, r. 8 being excluded by the Companies 
 Clauses Consolidotion (Scotland) Act, ISi.'i, 
 
( 1547 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1548 ) 
 
 PKACTICE (Service) — continued. 
 ■which was incorporated in the co.'s special Act, 
 and required service at the principal office of the 
 CO., i.e., in Glasgow. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1892] 1 Q. B. 607, 
 reversed. Palmer v. Caledonian Ey. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 a. B, 823 
 
 — Sequestration — Payment of costs. 
 See Sequestkatios. 5. 
 
 Order X. relates to substituted service. 
 
 229. — Substituted service — Motion to commit 
 —Order XLIT., r. 2 ; Order LXVII., r. 6. 
 
 f a) If personal service of a motion to commit 
 caunot be eifected, application must be made 
 ex parte for leave to effect substituted service. 
 In re A Solioitoe (No. 1) 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 22 
 
 (n) Notice of motion to commit a deft, must 
 be SLTved upon him personally if practicable, 
 service upon his solicitor being insufficient ; and 
 the Court will not make an order for substituted 
 service until it is satisfied that every endeavour 
 has been made to effect personal service. Mere 
 knowledge on the part of the deft, of the plt.'s 
 intenlion to move to commit does not dispense 
 with the necessity of endeavouring to effect per- 
 sonal service; and the appearance of the deft, 
 upon the motion is not a waiver of any objection 
 on his part on the ground either of want of per- 
 sonal service or of any irregularity. Makdeb v. 
 Faloke CNo. 2) - - [1891] 3 Ch. 488 
 
 230. — Substituted service — Writ — Default in 
 appearance — Delivery of amended writ — B. S. C, 
 Order -V/.v., ■; . 10 ; Order xxvui., r. 10. 
 
 An amended vrit may be delivered to a deft, 
 who has made default in appearance, by filing it 
 at the Central OfBoe, personal service being nn- 
 neccesfiry. In re Hartley. Nuttall v. "VVhit- 
 AKiiii (No. 1) North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 231. — Substituted service — Writ — Defendant 
 abroad before icrit issued — iJ. <S. C, Order IX., 
 r. 2 ; Order x. 
 
 Substituted service of an or^linary writ cannot 
 be allowed on a deft, who left England before the 
 issue of the writ and is still out of the jurisdiction, 
 where it does not appear there was any intention 
 to avoid service. Wilding v. Bean 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 100 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Cliff, [1895] 2 Ch. 
 21, 26. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A, Jay v. Budd, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 12. 
 
 232. — Substituted service — Writ of summons — 
 Defendant out of jurisdiction — B. S. G., 1883, 
 Order /.v., / . 2. 
 
 Where a writ for service within the jurisdic- 
 tion was issued against a deft, who was then 
 within the jurisdiction, but, after the writ had 
 come to his knowledge, went out of the jurisdic- 
 tion, though not for the purpose of evading 
 service : — 
 
 Seld, by C. A. (Rigby L.J. dissenting), that 
 an order for substituted service of the writ 
 raiglit be made under Order ix., r. 2, the ciroiim- 
 
 PRACTICE (Service) — continued. 
 
 stances of the case shewing that it would be just 
 
 to make such an order. 
 
 Fry V. Moore, (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 395, and 
 Wilding v. Bean, [1891] 1 Q. B. 100, distin- 
 guished. Jay v. Btidd C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 12 
 
 — Substituted — Written demand for cohabitation. 
 
 See DrvoEOE — Practice. 117. 
 
 — Summons — Putative father out of jurisdiction. 
 
 See Bastardy. 3. 
 
 — Summons under Public Health London Act, 
 
 1891. 
 
 See Nuisances. 2. 
 
 233. — Undertaking to do an act — Commiltal 
 or attachments. S. C, 1883, Order xll, r. 5. 
 
 Motion by pit. that defts. might stand com- 
 mitted to gaol, or that pit. might have leave to 
 issue a writ of attacliment against them in re- 
 spect of their breach of their undertaking by 
 refusing or neglecting " forthwith " to execute 
 an indenture. 
 
 The notice of moiion and judgment were duly 
 served on the defts., but the judgment did not 
 bear upon it any such memorandum as required 
 by Order XLi., r. 5. 
 
 Fer Kekewich J. : There was a consensus of 
 opinion among the judges of the Ch. Div. that 
 in the case of an undertaking of this kind there 
 ought either to be service in accordance with 
 Order xii., r. 5, or an order in the nature of a 
 four-day order. Admittedly, no one had ever 
 had the point before him in his experience. 
 Having regard to Tliomas v. Noises, (1868) L. B. 
 6 Eq. 521, he thought that, notwithstanding wliat 
 was said in GUbert v. Endean, (1878) 9 Ch. D. 259, 
 at p. 266, it must be held that the use of the 
 word " forthwith " dispensed with the necessity 
 for fixing a time, though but for Tliomas v. Sokes 
 he should have been disposed to hold otherwise. 
 
 Order made that defts. should on or before 
 Deo. 5, or subsequently within four days of the 
 service of the order, execute the engrossment 
 which was identified as an exhibit to a cerUiiu 
 affidavit. Halpokd v. Hardy - Kekewich J. 
 [1899] W, N. 243 
 
 Commented on by Cozens-Hardy J. D. v. A. 
 & Co., [1900] 1 Oh. 484, 487. 
 
 Set-off, 
 
 — Account not ear-marked as trust account — 
 
 Banker and customer. 
 See New Zealand. 1. 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Set-off. 
 
 — Calls. 
 
 See Company — Calls. 10, 11. 
 
 — Company — Winding-up. 
 
 See Company — Winding-vp— Set-off, 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Costs — Set-off. 
 
 — Debentures. 
 
 See Company — ^Debentures. 92. 
 
 — Defaulter — Official assignee — Assignment of 
 
 assets — Rules of Stock Exchange. 
 
 See Stock Kxchange. 0. 
 
( 1549 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1550 ) 
 
 PBACTICi; (Set-oS)— continued. 
 
 — Effect of company's adoption of contract made 
 
 before its formation — ^Payment of shares 
 
 in cash. 
 
 See New Sotjth Wales. 7. 
 
 — Hotchpot clause — Bent — Statutes of Limita- 
 
 tions. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 23. 
 
 234. — Judgments — Solicitor's lien — Charging 
 m-der— Costs— Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Yict. 
 V. 127), s. 28— ij. S. C, Order Lxr., r. 14. 
 
 An order may be made allowing a judgment 
 debtor to set off against the damages due from 
 him damages due to him from the judgment 
 creditor on a judgment in another action, not- 
 withstanding the existence of an order under 
 the Solicitors Act, 1860, s. 28, charging the 
 first-mentioned damages with a solicitor's costs : 
 So held by A. L. Smith L.J. and V. Williams 
 L. J., the latter doubting. Goodpbllow v. Gkat 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 498 
 - Loan by building society to member — Building 
 society — Winding-up. 
 See Building Society. 25. 
 
 — Occupation of rent due from one of several co- 
 
 owners — Sale. 
 
 See Pabtition. 15. 
 
 — Practice. 
 
 See Peactioe — Set-off. 
 
 — Purchase-money and share of proceeds. 
 
 See Pabtition. 14. 
 
 Setting Aside. 
 
 Order xii., r. 12, relates to setting aside appear- 
 anoe. 
 
 Order Lli., r. 2, and Order LXir., r. 14, relate 
 to setting aside a/wards, 
 
 — Award. 
 
 See Cases under Akbitbation — Award, 
 
 — Bankruptcy notice. 
 
 See Bankbuptct. 26. 
 
 235. — Bankrupt plaintiff — Discontinuance bij 
 trustee — Stay — New action hy assignee of hanlcrupt 
 — R. S. C, Order sxv., r. 4. 
 
 A pit. became bankrupt and the trustee dis- 
 claimed ; the action was then stayed. The 
 trustee sold his interest in the cause of action to 
 B,, who brought a fresh action : — 
 
 Held, that B.'s action should not be dismissed 
 as frivolous and vexatious. Bean v. Floweb 
 
 C, A. [1895] W. N. 120 (12) 
 
 236. — Bankrupt plaintiff — Unconditional stay 
 — Memoving stay. 
 
 The pit. in an action became bankrupt, and 
 the tiustee declining to proceed, the deft, ob- 
 tained an unconditional order to stay proceed- 
 ings. Subsequently the pit., on his discharge, 
 purchased the assets from the trustee, and 
 then applied to have the stay of proceedings 
 removed : — 
 
 Held, that the action of the trustee barred the 
 pit., and that there was no special circumstance 
 justifying removal of the stay. Selig v. Lion 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 ft. B. 513 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Bean v. Flomer, 
 0. A. [1895] W. N. 120 (12). See preceding Case, 
 
 PBACTICE (Setting Aside) — continued. 
 
 — Bona fide sale to solicitor — Laches. 
 
 See MoETGAQB — Sale. 83. 
 
 — Company winding-up. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Staying 
 Proceedings. 234. 
 
 237, — Consent — Judgment — Mistake — Selling 
 aside— Motion^B. S. C, Order xxviii., r. 11. 
 
 After a judgment has been passed and entered 
 — even where it has been taken by consent and 
 under a mistake — the Court cannot set it aside 
 otherwise than in a fresh action brought for the 
 purpose unless (1.) there has been a clerical mis- 
 take or an error arising from an accidental slip 
 or omission within the meaning of Order xxviii., 
 r. 11, or (2.) the judgment as drawn up does not 
 correctly state what the Court actually decided 
 and intended to decide— in either of which cases 
 the application may be made by motion in the 
 action. 
 
 Semhle, that different considerations apply to 
 interlocutory orders ; but that even if a judgment 
 has not been passed and entered the Court will 
 not always interfere ou motion, e.g., where from 
 the nature of the ground relied on conflicting 
 evidence is essential.' Ainswobth v. Wilding 
 
 Eomer J. [1896] 1 Ch. 673 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Wilding v. Sanderson, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 534, 549. 
 
 238, — Consent order — Mistake — Jurisdiction 
 — Mortgagor and mortgagee. 
 
 The Court Ijas jurisdiction to set aside a con- 
 sent order upon any ground which would invali- 
 date an agreement between the parties. 
 
 A consent order which had been completed 
 and acted upon, but without affecting interests 
 of third parties, set aside by the Court upon the 
 ground of common mistake. Hdddbespield 
 Banking Co. v. H. Listeb & Son, Ld. 
 
 C, A, [1895] 2 Ch. 273 
 
 Eeferred to by Eomer J. Ainswortli v. Wild- 
 ing, [1896] 1 Oh. 673, 679. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Eohson v. Gorringe, 
 [1897] 1 Cb. 182, 189; Wilding v. Sandersmi, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 534, 545. 
 
 239, — Consent order — Mistake — Unilateral 
 mistake induced hy the other party, 
 
 An order made in an action by consent and 
 based upon, and intended to carry out, an agree- 
 ment come to between the parties, can be set 
 aside on any ground on which an agreement in 
 the terms of the order could be set aside, and one 
 of such grounds is mistake. 
 
 A written contract cannot be set aside merely 
 because one of the parties to it put an erroneous 
 construction on the wordi in which it was ex- 
 pressed; but this principle does not apply to a 
 ease where a mistake by one of the parties as to 
 the meaning of the words used has been induced, 
 however innocently, by the other party. 
 
 If the parties are not ad idem as to the subject- 
 matter of the contract, there is no real agreement 
 between them. 
 
 A party to a contract, who had failed to obtain 
 from the Court a decision in his favour upon the 
 construction of it, is, competent to institute an 
 action to have the contract set aside. 
 
 Upon these principles, the 0, A., afBrming 
 
( J. Ml ) 
 
 DIGEST OV CASKS, Ib'.U— 19U0. 
 
 ( 1552 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Setting Aaiie)— continued. 
 tlie judgment of Byrne J., set aside a consent 
 order made upon settled minutes in an action 
 after the order had been passed, entered, partially 
 acted upon, and construed by the Court. 
 
 Powell Y.- Smith, (1872) L. E. 14 Eq. 85; 
 Stewart v. Kennedij, (1890) 15 App. Cas. 108; 
 and Bichman v. Berens, [1895] 2 Oh. 638, ex- 
 plained. WlLDINQ V. SaNDEESON 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Cli. 534 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Jenninqa v. Jenninqs, 
 [IS93] 1 Ch. 378, 390. 
 
 — Contract by company ultra vires — Consent 
 judgment — Terms on which contract 
 will be set aside. 
 See Canada. 17. 
 
 240. — Fraud — Claim to set aside judgment by 
 default on ground of^Claim for maliciously 
 presenting a bankruptcy petition without alleging 
 special damage— Striking out statement of claim 
 — B. S. C, Order xsv., r. 4; Order AXrii., r. 15. 
 
 An action will lie to set atide a judgment by 
 default on the ground of fraud ; but if recourse 
 is had to an action instead of tiie summary 
 procedure upon an afladavit of merits under 
 Order xxvn., i. 15, quxre whether the Court 
 may not in a proper case order payment into 
 court of the sum due on the judgment as a 
 condition of allowing the action to proceed. 
 
 Qumre, whether an action will lie without an 
 allegation of special damage for falsely and 
 maliciously and without reasonable or probable 
 cause presenting a bankruptcy petition, and the 
 question is not one which will be determined 
 upon an application to strike out the statement 
 of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of 
 action, Wyatt v. Palmer 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 74; [1899] 2 Q. B. 106 
 
 241. — Fraud — Setting aside judgment obtained 
 hi/ fraud — Fresh action to set aside judgment — 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 Where a judgment has been obtained by 
 fraud, the Court has jurisdiction, in a subsequent 
 actiun brought for that purpose, to set the judg- 
 ment aside. Cole v. Langfokd 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 36 
 
 242. — Judgment — Action against one of two 
 joint contractors — Bes judicata. 
 
 The pits, obtained a judgment by consent 
 against S. They afterwards discovered that 
 another person was a partner with him, and they 
 applied, with the consent of the judgment debtor, 
 to have the judgment set aside and the writ 
 amended : — 
 
 Held, that when once judgment was signed 
 against the one partner, the plt.'s remedy against 
 the other was extinguished, and could not be 
 revived by consent. Hammond v. Sohofield 
 
 Div. Ct, [1891] 1 a B 453 
 
 See McLeod v. Power, Byrne J. [18981 2 Ch. 
 295, 298. 
 
 243. — Judgment— Default in pleading— Short 
 cause. 
 
 The pit. had given notice of motion for judg- 
 ment in default of pleading, and set down the 
 case for judgment. The deft, owing to absence 
 did not receive the notice :— 
 
 Brld, that the pit. was within his rights under 
 
 PRACTICE (Setting Aside)— continued. 
 tlie regulations as to short causes; but judgment 
 set aside on terms of paying the costs of the 
 motion and subsequent to the statement of claim. 
 Geeen v. Mogee North J. [1891] W. H, 68 
 
 — Judgment in default of appearance — Jurisdic- 
 
 tion of registrar. 
 
 See Peactioe — District Registry. 22. 
 
 — Misdirection — Withdrawal of facts from jury. 
 
 See Jamaica. 3. 
 
 — Registered transfer — Dolus mains — Priority of 
 
 unregistered transfer — Law of Natal. 
 See Natal. 2. 
 
 — Sale — Laches — Power of sale. 
 
 See Moetgage — Sale. S3. 
 
 — Sale by liquidator of undertaking of compuny 
 
 — Fiduciary relation — Interest on prolita. 
 See Vendor and Puechasek. 53. 
 
 — Separation and annuity deed — Discredited 
 
 fraudulent representations — Subsequent 
 
 adultery of wife. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 75. 
 
 — Settlement — ^Unnecessary or improper parties 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Settlement. 12. 
 
 — Voluntary gift. 
 
 See Cases under Usdue IiTFLrExCE. 
 
 — ^'oluntary gift — Mistake. 
 
 See Chaeitt. 35. 
 
 — Vuluntary settlement — Eeotification. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement. — Volun- 
 tary Settlement. 
 
 — Where no cause of action disclosed — Frivolous 
 
 and vexatious proceedings. 
 
 See Practice — Pleadings. 164 — 16'J. 
 
 Special Case. 
 
 — Ajipeal by way of— Appeal to High Court. 
 
 See Cases under Justices. Appeal 
 
 — Award — Eight of appeal. 
 
 See Aebiteation — Award. 23, 24. 
 
 — Building society's arbitration. 
 
 See BniLDiNG Society — Arbitration. 2. 
 
 — Order for statement pending arbitration. 
 
 See Ajseiteation — Award. 34. 
 
 244. — Proceedings extra ciirsum curix — 
 Appeal— Jurisdiction— B. S. 0., Order .YJj/r., 
 r. 1. 
 
 Where a special case is calculated and in- 
 tended to raise for decision questions of fact only, 
 the proceedings are extra cursum curiaj, tlio 
 judgment of the Court is in the nature of i n 
 iirhitrator's award, and an appeal cannot be enter- 
 tained if its competency is objected to by the 
 party holding the judgment. If in these circum- 
 stances the C. A. reverses the judgment below, 
 this House has no jurisdiction except to rever?o 
 as incompetent the judgment of the C. A. Bur- 
 gess V. MoETON - H. I. (E.) [1896] A. C. 136 
 
 Referred to. Druce v. Young, [1899] P. St, 
 
 — Statement of, during proceedings under refer- 
 
 ence — Misconduct. 
 
 See Areitkatiok — Award, 33. 
 
( 1533 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 155-1 ) 
 
 PRACTICE— conJmuei^. 
 
 Staying Proceedings. 
 
 — in Action — Frivolous and vexatious proceed- 
 
 ings. 
 
 See Practice — Pleading. 164—169. 
 
 — Action in rem — Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Practice. 
 
 — under Arbitration clauses — Staying actions. 
 
 See Cases under Abbitbation — Staying 
 Proceedings. 
 
 — in Bankruptcy. 
 
 See BiNKKUPTOY — Stay of Proceedings. 
 
 — Bishop's discretion. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 62. 
 
 — in Company — Winding-up. 
 
 See Company — • Winding-lt — Staying 
 Proceedings. 
 
 — Arrett — Action in rem — Guarantee. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. 19'J. 
 — ■ Contract for service — Arbitration clauf o — 
 Wrongful dismissal— Action fur damages. 
 See Master and Servant. 95. 
 
 — Crown — ^Action involving rights of — Trunsfer 
 
 of action to revenue side. 
 See Crown. 8. 
 
 — of Execution — Special cirounistauces. 
 
 See Practice — New Trial. 57. 
 
 245. — Unpaid costs. 
 
 Although mere non-payment of the costs of 
 an interlocutory application wliich the pit. has 
 been ordered to pay, and his inability to pay, 
 furnish no sufficient ground for ordering proceed- 
 ings in the action to be stayed until payment, 
 tlie Court has jurisdiction to order such stay if 
 the action is vexatious, or has been vexatiously 
 conducted by him. Gbaham v. Sutton, Cakden 
 & Co. (No. 2) - " C. A. [1897] 3 Ch. 367 
 
 Stop Order. 
 Order XLYI., rr. 12, 13, relate to stop orders. 
 
 246. — Fund in eourt — Priority — Mortgagor — 
 Settlement — Stop order obtained hy mortgagees. 
 
 In ascertaining the effect of a stop order the 
 Court need not merely look at the language of 
 the order, but may have recourse to what appears 
 from any part thereof. Having regard to the 
 practice of the Paymaster-General's office as to 
 treating stop orders as not aff'ecting income except 
 where income is mentioned, care should be taken 
 in drawing up such order to express whether 
 capital or income or both are to be jestrained. 
 M., a person entitled to the income only of a fund 
 in court, assigned his interest to the trustees of 
 liis marriage settlement. The trustees did not 
 obtain a stop order. M. subsequently mortgaged 
 his interest without disclosing the settlement. 
 The mortgagees obtained a stop order expressed 
 as to M.'s share generally, with no mention of 
 the income of the fund : — 
 
 Held, that, looking at the deed recited in the 
 stop order, and the mortgages entered therein as 
 read, the stop order must be construed as affecting 
 the income, and giving the mortgagees priority 
 over the trustees of the marriage settlement. 
 Mack v. Postlb - Stirling J. [1894] 2 Ch. 449 
 
 247. — Fund in court — Priority — Equitable 
 
 PRACTICE (Stop OrAei-)—c07itinued. 
 interest in personalty — Covenant to settle after- 
 acquired property — Valuable consideration. 
 
 The persons to whom notice of a stop order 
 ought to be sent for priority purposes ore those 
 who have the control and custody of the fund. 
 
 A fund was in court in an administration 
 action, and under the custody and control of the 
 Court for the purposes of that action. A sou of 
 tbe testator was entitled to a contingent interest 
 in the fund, and died, bequeathing his interest, 
 then still contingent, to a sister, who assigned it 
 to A. and then to B., who had no notice of the 
 first assignment. B. got a slop order on tlie fund. 
 A. gave notice of his assignment to the son's 
 legal personal representatives : — 
 
 Held, that the stop order liad the same effect 
 as notice to the father's executors would have liad 
 if the fund liad not been in court, and that the 
 proper person to receive notice of the assignment 
 was the son's legal personal representative, ami 
 that A. liad priority by virtue of his notice. 
 Stephens v. Green. Green v. Knight 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 148 
 
 Summons. 
 
 See miilei Heading of Subject-matter of 
 Spmmons. 
 
 Summons for Directions. 
 
 — Foreclosure judgment in chambers. 
 
 See Mortgage — Foreclosure. 34. 
 
 — Notice of trial — ^Assizes — Jurisdiction 
 
 See Practice— Trial. 261. 
 
 248. — SJiort cause — No pleadings — Evidence 
 — R. S. C, Order xxx. 
 
 The writ in a, debenture-holder's action, 
 which was in the usual form, was issued on 
 Nov. 20, 1899. On Nov. 23 a receiver was ap- 
 pointed. On Dec. 1 the usual application for 
 directions under the K. S. C, Order xxx., was 
 heard, when the master ordered that the action 
 should be set down for hearing without pleadings 
 and as a short cause. Notice of trial was accord- 
 ingly given, and the action was set down, and 
 now came on for trial as a short cause : — 
 
 Held, that in cases of this kind the order 
 made ought to contain a direction that evidence 
 should be taken by affidavit ; if the deft, cuu- 
 sented, the action could then be tried on tlie 
 earliest short cause day on affidavit evidence : if 
 this was not done, a statement of claim should be 
 directed. The evidence filed on the appointment 
 of the receiver and additional evidence to 1 e 
 used was allowed, and the usual judgment in a 
 debenture-holder's action was made. In re Gtjtta 
 Pbocha Corporation, Ld. Thornton v. Gutta 
 Pehcha Corporation, Ld. Byrne J. [1899] 
 
 W, N. 251 
 
 Third Party, 
 
 Order xvi. rr. 48-55, relate to third party 
 procedure. 
 
 — Account of — Inspection of bankers' books. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 8 — 11. 
 
 — in Admiralty. 
 
 See Shipping— Practice. 208, 209, 2.';0. 
 
( 1555 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1556 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Third latty)— continued. 
 
 249. — Appeal — Co-defendant hrouglit in as 
 third party — Defendant claiming against co-de- 
 fendant — Setting aside service of notice — M. 8. C, 
 Order XVI., rr. 52, 55. 
 
 Where a co-deft, ia brought in as third party, 
 until an application is made under Order XTi., 
 r. 52, for directions and an order thereon, there 
 is no order which can be appealed against. 
 Baxter v. Peance (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 455 
 
 — Bill outstanding in hands of — Action on con- 
 
 sideration — Practice. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 3. 
 
 — Co-defendants — Builder — Severance of defence 
 
 — Costs — Indemnity. 
 See Li&HT AND Am. 
 
 250. — Directions, Eefusal to give — Discretion 
 of judge — Indemnity — R. S. C, Order .xvi., 
 rr. 52, 55. 
 
 The making of an order for directions under 
 Order xvi., r. 52, is discretionary. In an action 
 for recovery of land agaiost F. and other pur- 
 chasers from him, the latter served a third party 
 notice on F. Besides a claim for indemnity, 
 there -was a claim for money expended in building 
 on the land, and there was a doubtful question 
 whether any claim to indemnity arose under the 
 covenants implied under the Conveyancing Act, 
 1881:— 
 
 Held, that the judge had rightly exercised 
 his discretion in refusing to make an order for 
 directions. Baxter j'. France (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 591 
 
 — Documents in solicitor's possession before 
 
 action — Eight to production. 
 See Solicitor. 
 
 — Fire iusurance. 
 
 See Insurance — Fire. 9. 
 
 — Goods taken in execution and claimed by. 
 
 See County Court — Execution. 38. 
 
 — Interpleader. 
 
 See Cases under Interpleadek. 
 
 ■ — ■ Intervening act of — Negligence. 
 
 See Cases under BIastee and Servant. 
 
 — Letter directed against — Threat — Injunction. 
 
 See Patent — Threats. 56. 
 
 — Marshalling assets — Necessaries. 
 
 See Shipping — Necessaries. 178. 
 
 251. — Representative of deceased co-executor. 
 In an action for a general account against a 
 
 surviving executor and trustee, the representative 
 of a deceased executor, co-executor, or co-trustee 
 can, if the deft, requires and the circumstances 
 of the case render it advisable, be added under 
 Order xvi,, rr. 11, 48. In re Harrison. Smith 
 T. Allen (No. 1) 
 
 Chatty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 349, at p. 353 
 
 — Third party notice — Indemnity clause — Bill 
 
 of lading — Damnge to cargo. 
 See Shipping— Charterparty. 27. 
 
 252. — Third party notice — " Person not a 
 P"-'^ty to the action" — Premature application— 
 a. a. C, Order xvi., r. 48. 
 
 An application for leave to issue a third party 
 notice under Order xvi,. r. 48, before delivery 
 
 7BACTICE (Third Party) — continued. 
 of defence, is premature. Where defts. sought 
 indemnity from the estate of a deceased tenant 
 for life, whose executors were M., one of the 
 pits., N., one of the defts., and E., who was not a 
 party to the action, and applied to issue such 
 notice to M. and E. : — 
 
 Seld, that the case was not within the rule, 
 as M. was already a party to the action, and the 
 application was to serve only two of the three 
 executors. In re Gilson. Gllson v. Gil.son 
 
 North J. [1894] 2 Ch. 92 
 
 253. — Third party notice — Solicitors, Firm, of 
 — Surviving partners — Indemnity — Trustee — 
 Breach of trust— R. 8. C, Order XVL, r. 48. 
 
 The deft, and A. were joint trustees of a 
 settled fund, A. being a member of the firm of 
 solicitors acting in the management of the trust. 
 A. received the proceeds of sale of part of the 
 trust funds as solicitor and misapplied them, 
 and the moneys were lost. After the death of A. 
 an action was commenced against the deft, as the 
 surviving trustee claiming a declaration that he 
 was liable to pay the pit. the sum so misapplied. 
 
 The deft, obtained an order under Order xvi., 
 r. 48, for leave to serve a third party notice on 
 the surviving partners of the firm of solicitors 
 claiming to be indemnified against liability in 
 the action : — 
 
 Held, on motion to discharge the order, that 
 this was not a claim to indemnify the deft, 
 against the plt.'s claim in the action within 
 Order xvi., r. 48, the right of the deft, to recover 
 from the surviving partners a sum equal to the 
 lost trust fund being an independent right and 
 not one depending on the liability of the deft, in 
 the action. Wynne r. Tempest 
 
 • Chitty J. [1897] 1 Ch. 110 
 
 Misappropriation of trust funds — Solicitors. 
 See Wynne v. Tempest 
 
 Komer J. [1897] W. N, 43 (14) 
 
 Transfer. 
 
 See Transfer. 
 
 Trial. 
 
 Order xxxri. relates to Trial. 
 Order XLIX., rr. 1-7, relate to tran.fvrs from 
 one division of the High Court to another. 
 
 Transfer.] Actions, Cliambers, and Masters. 
 W. N. 1900 (Deo. 22), pp. 336, 337. See Current 
 Index, 1900, p. zciii. 
 — Action — Prerogative of Crown. 
 See Crown. 8, 9. 
 
 Order xjxri., rr. 2-9, relate to trial by jury. 
 
 254. — Jury — Application to enter final judg- 
 ment — Leave to defend — Condition — Trial without 
 jury — Right to trial with jury where no such con- 
 dition— R. 8. C, 1S83, Order xir., rr. 6, S; Order 
 XXX. ; Order XXXVI., r. 6. 
 
 On an application under Order xiv., r. 1, the 
 master gave unconditional leave to defend, and 
 directed that the case should go before an official 
 referee. On appeal the judge varied the master's 
 order by directing that the case should go into 
 the short cause list. An application for an order 
 for directions afterwards came before tire judge. 
 
( 1557 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1558 ) 
 
 PRACTICE CTxia,l)—eontinued. 
 
 and the defendant applied for an order for trial 
 
 with a jury, which -was refused : — 
 
 Held, that, upon the application under Order 
 XIV., 1. 1, it might have been made a condition of 
 leave to defend that the cause should be tried 
 without a jury, but that, as no condition to that 
 effect had been attached to the order giving the 
 deft, leave to defend, he had, at the time of the 
 application for an order for directions, a right 
 under Order xxxvi., r. 6, to an order for a trial 
 with a jury, which the judge had no jurisdiction 
 to refuse. Woolfe v. Db Bbaam C. A [1899] 
 
 W. N. 239 
 
 255. — Jury — Bight to a — Action on claim 
 which, prior to Judicature Act, 1 873, might have 
 been sued for either in Chancery or at Common 
 Law—B. S. C, Order XXXYI., rr. 4, 6, 7. 
 
 In an action in the Q. B. Div. which, before 
 the Judicature Actj 1873, could have been 
 brought either in Chancery or at common law : — 
 
 Held, (1) that an application by the defts. for 
 tiial by jury was rightly refused, since the action 
 could without any consent of parties have been 
 tried without a jury before the Judicature Act, 
 and the cause ought to be tried by a judge with- 
 out a jury, unless otherwise ordered, and (2) 
 that the action being in the Q. B. Div. made no 
 difference. Baking Brothees & Co. v. Nokth 
 "Western of Uruguay Et. Co. 
 
 C, A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 406 
 
 — Jury — Trial at Gibraltar should be by. 
 
 See Gibraltar. 
 
 — Jury — Trial by — Jurisdiction of Court of 
 
 Chancery of County Palatine of Lan- 
 caster. 
 See Lancaster Court. 1. 
 
 256. — Jury — Trial iy — Nuisance action — 
 Action in Cliancery Division— R. 8. C, Order xxxvi., 
 rr. 6, 7. 
 
 In an action in the Ch. Div. for nuisance. 
 North J., before whom the case had twice been 
 on motion for an injunction, made, on the plt.'s 
 application, an order directing the action to be 
 transferred for trial before a judge and jury in 
 the Q. B. Div. :— 
 
 Held, that the C. A. ought not to interfere 
 with the discretion of the judge as to the mode 
 of trial where there is no reason to expect a 
 failure of justice from the mode of trial ordered. 
 Mangan v. Metropolitan Eleotbio SnppLT Co. 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 661 
 
 257. — Jury — Trial hy — Trespass action — 
 Action in Chancery Division — B. 8. C, Order 
 XXXVI, rr. 6, 7. 
 
 Action in Ch. Div. for an injunction to restrain 
 trespass on mines and for an account of minerals 
 wrongfully gotten : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was not entitled as of right 
 to a jury ; but that as a view would be essential 
 to justice, trial by special jury should be ordered. 
 Jenkins v. Bushby - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 484 
 
 Explained by C. A. Mangan v. Metropolitan 
 Electric Supply Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 551. See pre- 
 ceding Case. 
 
 — Jury — Trial by — Unconditional leave to 
 
 defend. 
 
 See Practice. 
 
 FBAGTIC£ (Trial) — continued. 
 
 — Liverpool Court of Passage. 
 
 See Cases under Liverpool Courts. 
 
 — New trial. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — New Trial, 
 
 258. — Non-appearance at trial — Default of 
 appearance of defendant — Affidavit of service of 
 notice of trial— B. 8. C. Order xxxri., r. 31. 
 
 In an action by a mortgagee against mort- 
 gagors for accounts and foreclosure, a statement 
 of defence was delivered, on which the pit. joined 
 issue. At the trial the defts. did not appear, and 
 an order for accounts and for foreclosure nisi was 
 made : — 
 
 Held, that an affidavit of service of notice of 
 trial was unnecessary. Baibd v. East Biding 
 Club and Baoboourse Co. 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] W. N. 144 
 
 259. — Non-appearance at trial — Default of 
 appearance of plaintiff — Form of entry of judgment 
 —R. 8. C, Order xxxvi., r. 32. 
 
 If when a Irial is called on the deft, appears 
 and the pit. does not, and there is no counter- 
 claim, or a counter-claim is withdrawn, the deft, 
 is not entitled under Order xxxvi., r. 32, to have 
 judgment entered for him, but judgment should 
 be entered dismissing the action for default of 
 appearance by the pit. 
 
 Semble, that an appeal lies direct to the C. A. 
 on entry of judgment in default of appearance 
 without first applying under Order xxxvi., r. 33, 
 to the judge who tried the case. Armour v. 
 Bate - - - C. A. [1891] 2 «. B. 233 
 
 260. — Non-appearance at trial — Default of 
 appearance of defendant — Proof of claim. 
 
 Where a deft, does not appear at the trial, 
 the proof of the pit. as to value will be limited to 
 that alleged in the statement of claim. Barker 
 V. Furlong Homer J. [1891] 2 Ch, 172, at p. 179 
 
 261. — Notice of trial — Assizes — Summons for 
 directions — Jurisdiction — B. S. C, Order xxx., 
 rr. 1, 2 — Order xxxvi., rr. 14, 18, 18a. 
 
 Upon a summons for directions under Order 
 XXX., r. 1, in an action to be tried at assizes, a 
 judge has jurisdiction, although the defendant 
 has not done anything to render himself liable to 
 have terms imposed upon him as to notice of 
 trial, to order that the defendant shall take notice 
 of trial at a period less than ten days before the 
 commission day, and that the case shall not come 
 on for trial at the assizes until a day which will 
 make the notice so given a ten days' notice of 
 trial. 
 
 Lashier v. TeJeeian, (1892) 67 L. T. 121, dis- 
 tinguished. Baxter v. Holdsworth 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q, B, 266 
 
 262. — Notice of trial — " Close of pleadings " — 
 Beply — B. 8. C, Order xxiil., r. 1 ; Order xxvii., 
 r. 13 ; Order xxxvi., r. 11. 
 
 If a pit. does not deliver a reply he cannot 
 give notice of trial under Order xxxvi., r. 11, 
 until the time for reply, twenty-oae days, given 
 by Order xxvii., r. 13, has expired. Kobinson v. 
 Caldwell - - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B, 619 
 
 263. — Preliminary question of law — Post- 
 ponement of trial. 
 
 Semhle, where an order is made for trial of a 
 preliminary question of law under Order xxv.. 
 
( 1559 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1560 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Trial) — continued. 
 r. 2, the trial of the remainder of the action ■will 
 be postponed till the final decision on appeal of 
 the preliminary qnestion. Owners op Cahgo on 
 Ship "Magei King" v. Hughes 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 a. B. 550, at p. 556 
 
 — Eehearing. 
 
 See Cases under Pkaotioe — Eehearing. 
 
 — Eeview. 
 
 See Cases under Pkactioe — Eeview. 
 
 264. — Transfer of action — Fatal Accidents 
 Act, 1846 (9 * 10 Vict. c. 93), Acticm under — 
 Decree for limitation of liability in tlie Admiralty 
 Division — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vicl. c. 60), ». 503— iJ. S. C, Order XL/J., r. 3. 
 
 Where an action under the Fatal Accidents 
 Act, 1846, was brought in the Q. B. Div. by a 
 widow against shipowners for the loss of her 
 husband through the negligent management of 
 their ship by the defts'. servants, and the defts. 
 had obtained a decree in the Admiralty Div. for 
 limitation of their liability in accordance with the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 503 : — 
 
 Held, that the action in the Q. B. Div. ought 
 not to be transferred to the Admiralty Div. 
 EooHE V. London and South Western Et. Co. 
 C. A. [1899] 2 a. B. 502 
 
 265. — Transfer from Chancery Division to 
 Queen's Bench Division — Originating summons — 
 Danlruptcy of mortgagoi — bankruptcy Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 102, sui-s. 4. 
 
 A trustee in bankruptcy had been added as 
 co-deft, in a foreclosure action commenced by 
 originating summons. He applied that the action 
 .should he transferred to the Q. B. Div. to be tried 
 by tlie judge in bankruptcy, The only question 
 at issue was the validity of the mortgage, which 
 was alleged to have been obtained by pressure 
 luid undue influence: — 
 
 Held, that as the trustee had no higher and 
 better title than the bankrupt the Court would 
 not interfere. In re Champagne. Ex parte 
 Kemp - V. Williams J. [1893] W. N. 153 
 
 266, — Transfer from Queen's Bench Division 
 to Citancery Division — Action. 
 
 Form of order to transfer from Q. B. Div. to 
 Ch. Div. two actions on promissory notes and 
 consolidate them with an action in the Ch. Div. 
 for cancellation of the same notes. Jones v. 
 Merionethshiee Permanent Benefit Building 
 Society C, A, [1892] 1 Ch, 173, at p. 179 
 
 267. — Transfer to Queen's Bench Division — 
 Action in Chancery Division — E. S. C, 1883, 
 Order xxxvi., rr. 1, la, 3 ; Order XLix., r. 3— 
 Practice in chambers — Appeal. 
 
 Where either or both parties do not intend to 
 accept the decision of the judge in chambers as 
 final, the proper course to adopt is to ask at once 
 to have the summons adjourned into court for 
 argument, and thus save the time of the judge in 
 chambers, and avoid the necessity for an argu- 
 ment in chambers and n second argument in 
 court to discharge the order so made. Foekesteb 
 V. Jones - Byrne J, [1899] W. N, 78 
 
 268, — Transfer from Queen's Bench Division 
 to Chancery Division— Scotch registered judgment. 
 
 Order for transfer to Ch. Div. proceedings on 
 
 FBACTICE (Trial) — continue. 
 a Scotch judgment registered in the Q. B. Div. 
 under the Judgments Extension Act, 1868. In. re 
 Low. Blaud v. Low - - C. A, [1894] 
 
 1 Ch, 147, at p, 149 
 Discussed by C. A. In re A Bankruptcy 
 Notice, [1898] 1 Q. B. 383, 386. 
 
 269. — Transfer — Chancery of Lancaster — 
 Motion to make judgment a judgment nf High 
 Court—'' Transcript"— Costs— Court of Chancery 
 of Lancaster Act, 1850 (13 * 14 Vict. c. 43), 
 s. 15. 
 
 On an ex parte motion to make a judgment of 
 the Chancery of Lancaster a judgment of the 
 High Court when the pit. against whom judg- 
 ment had been given did not reside and had no 
 goods in the County Palatine ; — 
 
 Held, that s. 15 of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 43 must be 
 strictly complied with, and that a " transcript " 
 of the judgment mubt be produced, and not the 
 original judgment. An order for transfer under 
 s. 15 carries the costs of the notion. Duke r. 
 Clarke - North J. [1894] W. N. 100 
 
 270. — Venus — Local venues, ajbolilion of — 
 Jurisdiction as to title to land abroad — B. S. C, 
 Order XXXVI., rr. 1. 
 
 Order xxxvi., r. 1, abolishing local venues, 
 does not confer any new jurisdiction on the Court, 
 but merely deals with the place of trial of cases 
 over which the Court has jurisdiction indepen- 
 dently of the rule. British South Aehioa Co. 
 V. Comtanhia de Mooambique 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 602 
 
 Eeferred to by Darling J. Adam v. Foreiqn 
 and British Steamship Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 430, 
 432. 
 
 271. — Venue — Local venues. Abolition of — 
 Special Acts— B. S. C, Order xxxvi., r. 1. 
 
 Order xxxvi., r. 1, of the Eules of 187.5, 
 whicli were scheduled to the Judicature Act, 
 1875, absolutely abolished all local venues then 
 existing. The fact that the corresponding rule 
 of 1883 (Order xxxvi., r, 1) makes an exception 
 in favour of statutory local venues, does not 
 revive the local venues abolished in 1S75, as the 
 rule only applies to local venues created by 
 statute since the Judicature Act, 1875 : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that the local venue provided 
 by s. 109 of the Hull Docks Act, 1744(14 Geo. 8, 
 0. Ivi.), no longer existed. Bccelet r. Hull 
 Docks Co. - Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q, B. 93 
 
 See also Public Authorities Protection Act, 
 1893, (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61). 
 — Venue — Mode of trial — Prerogative of Crown 
 — Selection of Court— Transfer. 
 See Ceowx. 8, 0. 
 
 XTndertakings, 
 
 272. — Breach of undertaJiing to do an act — 
 Breach — Commiltal or attacliment — Service of order 
 containing the undertaking — Solicitor — E. S. C, 
 1883, Order XLII., r. 7 ; Order XLIV., rr. 1, 2. 
 
 On a motion for liberty to issue a writ of 
 attachment against solicitors for breach of an 
 undertaking, given by them and embodied in an 
 order of the Court, it appeared that the order had 
 not been served upon them : — 
 
 Held, that service of the order was not neces- 
 
( 1561 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1562 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Undertaking)— cowiinued 
 sary ; but that undertakings, whether poaitive or 
 negative, must be enforced by committal and not 
 by attachment. D. v. A. & Co. Gozens-Hardy J. 
 [1900] W. N. 30 ; [1900] 1 Oh. 484 
 
 — Service — Undertaking to do an act — Com- 
 
 mittal or attachment. 
 
 See Pkaotioe— Service, 233. 
 
 — Solicitor — Unstamped documents — Company 
 
 — Practice. 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 173. 
 
 — Solicitors' undertaking. 
 
 See SoLioiTOB — ITndertaking, 
 
 — Solicitors' undertaking — Arrest — damages. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage, 247. 
 
 373. — Writ — Undertaking by solicitor to enter 
 appearance — Duration — B. S. 0., 1883, Order viii., 
 r. 1 ; Order IS., r. 1. 
 
 Motion for a writ of attachment against a 
 firm of solicitors for failure, in pursuance of an 
 undertaking, to enter an appearance for the deft, 
 ill an action of Anderson v. Tarbutt. The writ in 
 that action was issued on Feb. 23, 1899, and by 
 it the pit. claimed an account of profits made by 
 the delta, in certain dealings relating to mining 
 property in South Africa. The writ was in- 
 dorsed by the defts'. solicitors as follows : " We 
 accept service for the defts., and will enter 
 appearance in due course." On Feb. 24 the defts. 
 made an offer in settlement of the action ; but 
 the negotiations which ensued were not success- 
 ful, and, owing to the absence in South Africa of 
 parties concerned, by consent, the time for 
 entering ajipearance was extended till April 30, 
 18:)9. 
 
 Nothing further was done in the action until 
 October, 1899, when the pit. refused to accept the 
 defts.' offer in settlement, and called upon the 
 Solicitors to enter an appearance pursuant to their 
 un'lei taking. The solicitors took the view thiit 
 owing to the lapse of time the action had ex- 
 pireil, and their undertaking had ceased to be 
 binding on them. 
 
 Held, that ttie undertaking was still binding 
 mi (he respondents. Order viii., r. 1, meant that 
 the writ was in force for the purpose of service 
 for twelve months, not that at tbe end of that 
 perio 1 it lost its eilicacy for all purposes. The 
 undertaking was a contract binding for six years. 
 'I'lie defts. had authorized the solicitors to give 
 tlie undertaking on their behalf, and could not 
 now withdraw their authority and thus render 
 ilieir agents liable to proceedings such as the 
 jirestnt. The undertaking must be complied 
 with. In re Keklt, Son and Verden 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] W. N, 274 
 
 Witness. 
 
 See Cases under EvI0E^fOE.. 
 
 Writ. 
 
 274. — Description of parties— Address of de- 
 fendant— R. 8. C, Order Jr., r. 3. 
 
 The deft, applied to set aside a writ of sum- 
 mons, which had been issued and served upon 
 him in England, on the ground that by the writ 
 the deft, was incorrectly described as of Lytham 
 in the county of Lancaster, whereas his only 
 
 PEACTICE (Writ) — continued. 
 
 place of business and address was at Londonderry 
 
 in Ireland : — 
 
 Held, refusing the application, that the in- 
 correct statement of the deft.'s address did not 
 vitiate the writ, and it was good. Smith v. 
 Hammond - [1896] 1 Q. B. 571 
 
 276. — Description of parties — Class — Plain- 
 tiffs suing on behalf of a class. 
 
 Plaintiffs suing on behalf of a class should 
 specify the class as accurately as possible. 
 
 Where a debenture-holder sued on behalf of 
 himself and all other debenture-holders in a co. 
 which had been dissolved and re-incorporated by 
 a special Act under the name of the deft, oo., and 
 the pit. was described as suing " on behalf of 
 himself and other the holders of the debentures 
 of the deft. co. and its predecessors in title " : — ■ 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that the description 
 was too vague and required amendment. Mah- 
 SHALL V. South Staffqedshiee Tramways Co. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 36 
 
 276. — Description of parlies — Female parties. 
 A female party should be described in the 
 
 writ of summons as a spinster, married woman, 
 or widow. Tofield v. Roberts 
 
 Romer J. [1894] W. N. 74 
 
 277. — Description of parties — Foreigner 
 resident abroad trading under another name in 
 England — Jurisdiction — R. S. C, Order SL7III. A, 
 )T.'3, 11. 
 
 A foreigner resident abroad but carrying on 
 business in England by a style or firm other 
 than his own name cannot be sued under that 
 style or firm under Order xlviii. A, r. H. St. 
 G-OBAiN, Chauny and Cieey Co. V. Hoyekmann's 
 Agency - 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 96 
 
 — Fieri facias — Collision — Action in rem — 
 
 Arrest — Bail — Release — Judgment — 
 Upaid balance of damages. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 57. 
 
 — Of fieri facias. 
 
 See Company — WiNDixG-rp. 94. 
 County Coukt — Jurisdiction, 00. 
 Shipping — Collision. 57. 
 
 Order III. relates to indorsemeids on nviti^ 
 of summons. 
 
 278. — Indorsement — " Altering, modifying, or 
 extending" — Writ — Adding claim for return of 
 premium — R. S. C, Order ax., r. 4. 
 
 In a partnership aclion the pit. indorsed the 
 writ for accounts only, but in the statement of 
 claim alleged misrepresentation and claimed a 
 return of the premium paid by him : — 
 
 Held, that this statement of claim was not an 
 " alteration, modification, or extension " of the 
 claim on the writ within Order xx., r. 4, and the 
 statement of claim must be struck out. Cave 
 V. Caebw - - Kekewich J. [1893] W. N, 42 
 
 279. — Indorsement — Liquidated demand, Writ 
 indorsed for — Reduction of amount by payment — 
 Setting aside judgment for larger amount — ■ 
 B. 8. C, Order xiii., r. 3. 
 
 Where a writ is indorsed for a liquidated 
 demand which, after issue, is reduced by payment, 
 judgment on default of appearance under Order 
 XIII., r. 3, ought to be entered only for tlio 
 
( 1563 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1564 ) 
 
 FBACTICE (Writ) — continued. 
 amount actually due at the time of entry, and if 
 it be entered for a larger amount, the deft, has a 
 right to have it set aside. Hughes v. Justin 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 a. B. 667 
 Order in., r. G,and Order XIV., relate to special 
 indorsement of writs of summons and proceedings 
 upon writs so indorsed. 
 
 280. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Affidavit verifying cause of action — Cheque — 
 Notice of dishonour. 
 
 On an application under Order xiv., r. 1, to 
 enter final judgment on a writ specially indorsed 
 with a claim for the amount of a dishonoured 
 cheque, the affidavit verifying the cause of action 
 need not contain an allegation that notice of dis- 
 honour has been given to the drawer. Mat i: 
 Chidlet - - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 451 
 
 281. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Amendment — Omission in copy served on def end- 
 tints — Marking of copy delivered to defendants. 
 
 In an action for the recovery of land against 
 tenants whose term had expired, the writ was 
 specially indorsed with a statement of the date of 
 tlie lease, the length of the term, and the mode 
 of devolution of the lessee's interest on the defts. ; 
 but in the copy served on the defts. the length of 
 the term was omitted ; — 
 
 Held, that the copy gave the defts. sufficient 
 information to satisfy Order ni., r. 6 (/) : 
 
 Held, further, that the directions of Order 
 XXVIII., r. 9, as to marking an amended indorse- 
 ment or pleading with the dates of the order for 
 amendment and of the amendment, do not 
 extend to the copy delivered to the opposite 
 jjarty. Hanmek v. Clifton 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 238 
 — Amendment of pleadings. 
 
 See Cases under Pbaotice — Amendment. 
 
 282. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Amendment of indorsement after appearance and 
 hefore summons taken out — R. S. C., Order in., 
 r. 6 ; Order Air., r. i — Striking out claim for 
 interest. 
 
 Where after appearance but before summons 
 for judgment the indorsement was amended by 
 striking out a claim for interest : — 
 
 Held, that the writ had become " specially 
 indorsed " under Order ni., r. 6, and that Order 
 xrv., r. 1, applied. Paxton ». Baikd 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 139 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Bobertsy. Plant, C. A 
 [18;)5] 1 Q. B. 597, 601. 
 
 283. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Amendment—Writ for service out of jurisdiction 
 —Statement of claim indorsed on writ — B. S. C, 
 Order XXYIII, rr. 1, 6. 
 
 Order xxvm. applies to writs issued for ser- 
 vice out of the jurisdiction, and u, statement of 
 claim indorsed on such a writ may be amended 
 without re-service. 
 
 Where leave for amendment is necessary, the 
 pit. must shew that the amended claim would 
 have entitled him in the first instance to leave to 
 issue a writ for service out of the jurisdiction. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 2 Q. B. 316, 
 affirmed. Holland v. Leslie 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 450 
 
 PRACTICE (WTity— continued. 
 
 284. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — ■ 
 Amendment after takingout summons — Application 
 for judgment under Order XIV. — B. S. C, Order III., 
 r. 6 ; Order XIV., r. 1 (a). 
 
 In order to entitle a pit. to enter final judg- 
 ment under Order xrv., r. 1, the writ of summons 
 must be a good specially indorsed writ under 
 Order ui., r. 6, at the time when the summons 
 under Order xrv. is taken out. 
 
 If, therefore, the indorsement be amended 
 after the issue of a summons under Order xrv. by 
 striking out an unliquidated demand, there is no 
 jurisdiction to make an order giving the pit. leave 
 to enter final judgment. Gubney v. Smalt. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 684 
 
 But see now Order XIV., r. 1 (6), B. S. C, Nov. 
 1893, r. 3 (1) (5). 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. See next Case. 
 
 (b) Where the special indorsement of the 
 writ in an action on a cheque did not allege that 
 due notice of dishonour had been given, but the 
 indorsement was amended without leave after 
 taking out a summons for judgment and before 
 the making of the order for judgment ; — 
 
 Held, that the amendment was rightly made, 
 and that there was power to make the order. 
 RoBEETS V. Plant - C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. 597 
 
 285. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Averment of condition precedent — Leave to sign 
 
 judgment— B. S. C, Order in., r. 6 ; Order xiv., 
 r. 1. 
 
 An agreement was made to pay money on 
 condition that certain bills were delivered up : — 
 
 Held, that an indorsement for the sum agreed 
 was a good special indorsement, under Order m., 
 r. 6, although it contained no averment that the 
 bills had been delivered up as agreed. Bradley 
 V. Chamberltn - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 439 
 
 286. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Ejectment — Defence — Order for plaintiff to sign 
 judgment reversed. 
 
 Where the pit. in ejectment claimed that the 
 deft, was estopped by payment of rent from 
 denying his title, and the deft, alleged receipt of 
 rent by pit. as collector, held, that deft, was 
 
 entitled to defend on the merits in the ordinary 
 course, and that the pit. was not entitled to judg- 
 ment under Order xiv. Jones v. Stone 
 
 P. C. [1894] E. C. 122 
 
 This case was decided on Order XIT. of B. S. C. 
 of Western Australia ivh ich is idi nfical xoilh B.S.C, 
 Order XIV. 
 
 287. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Action for arrears of iniercit 
 on mortgage— Beceiver—B. S. C., 1883, Oder in., 
 r. 6.; Order Xir. 
 
 A receiver was appointed in a foreclosure 
 action with authority to retain airears of interest 
 and current interest out of the rents. The rents 
 were insufficient to pay the current interest. 
 The receiver commenced an action for the interest 
 and indorsed his writ with a definite sum, being 
 two years' arrears of interest less the amount of 
 rents received : — 
 
 Held, that this was not a liquidated sum 
 
( 1565 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1566 ) 
 
 PEACTICE (yrn.t)—conUnmd. 
 for ■wliioh. a writ could be specially indorsed, 
 since the receiver was in receipt of the rents. 
 Eakl Poulett v. Vi?oot!ht Hn.L 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 877 
 Explained by 0. A. Lynde v. Waithman, 
 [1855] 2 Q. B. 180. See No. 289, helow. 
 
 288. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Action for ialance of pur- 
 chase-Tnojiey — Payment of deposit — Non-oompletion 
 —M. S. C, Order in., r. 6. 
 
 An agreement for sale of leaseholds was not 
 completed by the purchaser. The vendor sued 
 for the balance of purchase-money on the grounds 
 that he had shewn, or was ready to shew, a good 
 title, and was willing to convey : — • 
 
 Seld, that, as there was no averment that the 
 purchaser had accepted the title, the writ could 
 not be specially indorsed under Order in., r. 6, 
 the claim being one for unliquidated damages 
 only. Leader v. Tod-Heatlt 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 38 
 
 289. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Action for mortgage deit 
 and interest — Seoeiver — B. S. 6., Order XIV. 
 
 "Where a mortgagee appointed a receiver, who 
 received rents, and afterwards the mortgagee 
 brought an action specially indorsing the writ 
 with a claim for the mortgage debt and interest, 
 and applied for judgment under Order xiv. : — 
 
 Held, that the mere fact of a receiver having 
 been appointed did not prevent the application 
 of Order xiv., but, as there appeared to be a 
 question as to what on the ' true state of the 
 account as between the mortgagor and mort- 
 gagee was due to the latter, leave to defend 
 must be granted. Ltnde v. Waithman 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 180 
 
 290. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Bill of exchange — Expenses 
 
 of noting — " BanJc cliarges." 
 
 In an action on a bill of exchange the writ 
 was indorsed for the amount of the bill, and a 
 further sum described as " bank charges." The 
 deft, failed to appear, and judgment was entered 
 under Order xiii., r. 3: — 
 
 Held, that this was a liquidated demand 
 within Order xiii., r. 3 ; expenses of noting, here 
 sufficiently described as " bank charges," being 
 liquidated damages by s. 57 of the Bills of Ex- 
 change Act, 1882. Dando v. Boden 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft, B. 318 
 
 291. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand— Sill of exchange — Expense 
 of noting— E. S. C, Order in., r. 6 ; Order xir., 
 T. 1— Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 61), s. 57. 
 
 In an action on a dishonoured bill of exchange 
 the writ maybe specially indorsed under Order iii., 
 r. 6, with the expenses of noting which are liqui- 
 dated damages under s. 57 of the Bills of Exchange 
 Act, 1887, and judgment can be entered under 
 Order xiv. on a writ so indorsed. Laweenoe & 
 Sons v. Willoooks C. A, [1892] 1 ft. B. 696 
 
 292. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Common money hand — 
 Penalty— 8 & 9 Will. 8, u. 11, s. 8—4 & 5 ' 
 
 PEACTICE (Writ)— continued. 
 
 c. 16, ss. 12, 13— JJ. 8. 0., Order III., r. 6 ; Order 
 
 XIII., r. 14 ; Order XIV., rr. 1, 4, 6. 
 
 A writ in an action upon a common money 
 bond within 4 & 5 Anne, o. 16, s. 12, can be 
 specially indorsed under Order in., r. 6, and the 
 pit. can proceed under Order xiv. for the purpose 
 of obtaining final judgment. Gbkkaed v. Clowes 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 11 
 
 293. — ■ Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Interest from date of writ 
 till payment or judgment. Claim for. 
 
 A pit , in addition to his claim, indorsed his 
 writ with a claim for interest from the date of 
 the writ until payment or judgment, and a sum 
 for costs : — 
 
 Reld, that this was not a special indorsement 
 
 under Order in., r. 6, for which judgment could 
 
 be entered under Order xiv., r. 1. Wilks v. Wood 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 684 
 
 But see now Order xiv., r. 1 (6), B. 8. C, Nov. 
 1893, r. 3 (1) (b). 
 
 294. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Interest — Bills of Exchange 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 57. 
 
 In an action on a dishonoured bill of exchange 
 or promissory note, the writ may, under s. 57 of 
 the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, be specially 
 indorsed under Order in., r. 6, with a claim f(jr 
 interest until payment or judgment, interest 
 under that section being deemed to b3 liquidated 
 damages ; and judgment under Order xiv. may 
 be signed on a writ so indorsed. 
 
 (a) London and Universal Bank v. Eabl 
 OE Clancaety - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 689 
 
 (b) Laweenoe & Sons v. Willoooks 
 
 C, A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 698 
 
 295. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Interest, Claim for — 
 
 Where the writ does not shew that the interest 
 claimed was payable under an agreement or that 
 it is fixed by statute, the defect cannot be cured 
 by an affidavit proving an agreement to pay 
 interest. Gold Ores Eedtjction Co. v. Pare 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 14 
 
 296. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Liquidated demand — Interest, Claim for. 
 
 Where a writ was indorsed, under Order m., 
 r. 6, for a sum of money and for interest thereon 
 from the date of the writ till payment or judg- 
 ment, and it did not appear that the interest was 
 claimed by statute or under any contract between 
 the parties : — 
 
 Held, that the claim for interest must be 
 treated as part of what purported to be the special 
 indorsement, and that the writ was not " specially 
 indorsed " so as to enable the pit. to obtain final 
 judgment under Order xiv., r. 1. 
 
 Ktlet v. Mastee. Sheba Gold Mining Go. 
 V. Tkubshawe Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 674 
 
 But see now 0. xiv., r. (1) (6). B. S. C. Nov. 
 1893, r. 3 (1) (6). 
 
 297. — Indorsement — Special indorsement — 
 Becovery of land — Action for — Forfeiture — Notice 
 to quit — B. S. C, Order in., r. 6. 
 
 A landlord, in pursuance of a condition in a 
 
( 1567 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF GASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1568 ) 
 
 PRACTICE (Wiit)— continued, 
 lease, gave his tenant notice to quit for non- 
 payment of rent, and brouglit an action to recover 
 the premises : — 
 
 Held, that the action being in fact based on a 
 foifeitnre, did not come within Order iii., r. 6 (f ), 
 and that the writ could not be specially indorsed. 
 Akden v. Boyoe 0. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 796 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Kemp v. Lester 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 162, 164. 
 
 298. — Indorsement — Special indx)rsemsnf on 
 lorit — Recovery of land and mesne profits — Time 
 to which mesne profits can he given — i?. S. C, 
 Order in., r. 6 ; Order XIV., r. 1 — Common Law 
 Procedure Act, 1852 (15 * 16 Vict. c. 76), s. 214. 
 
 The pits, issued a writ indorsed with a claim 
 for possession of hereditaments at S., of which 
 particulars were given, witli a statement that the 
 deft, had been tenant to the pits., and that his 
 tenancy had expired by notice on a given day, 
 iiud the pUs. claimed "possession and 801. for 
 mesne profits." They then applied under 
 Order xiv., r. I, for liberty to sign final judgment 
 for possession and the SOI. claimed for mesne 
 profits. By affidavit in support of the application, 
 the SOL was claimed as double rent for six mouths 
 on account of the deft, having refused to deliver 
 up possession. On the hearing of the application 
 Kennedy J. gave liberty to the pits, to sign final 
 judgment for possession, "and for mesne profits' 
 to bo calculated up to the date of the pits, 
 (ibtiiining possession" : — 
 
 Held, on appeal, that this order was right, for 
 tliat, whether double rent could be recovered or 
 not, the writ was not vitiated by the pits, claiming 
 it by affidavit, and that the judge was not 
 confined to giving mesne profits up to the time 
 of the order, and was not bound to put tlie ]ilt3. 
 1o a second action to recover mesne profits 
 between the time of judgment and the time of 
 recovering possession. Southport Tkamwats 
 Uo. V. Gandy C. a. [1897] 2 Q, B. 66 
 
 — Mandamus. 
 
 See Cases under MAKDAiaus. 
 
 — or error — Dispensing with attendance of 
 
 plaintifl'. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Practice. 65. 
 
 299. — Parlnership — Foreign partnership — 
 " Cdrri/ing on business loithin Ike jurisdiction — 
 li. S. 0., Order XLViir. A, rr. 1, 3, >s. 
 
 Under Order xLViii. A, r. 1, a writ may be 
 issued against any partnership firm carrying on 
 business within the jurisdiction, wiiother English 
 or foreign. Wokoester City and Cou.vty 
 Banking Co. v. Fireank, Pauling & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] I a. B. 784 
 
 Order XLVIII. A relates to suing persons who 
 trade in ii name or style other than their own 
 name. 
 
 — Prerogiitive writ — Building plans. 
 
 See Streets— Building Plans. 9. 
 
 — Prohibition. 
 
 See Cases under Prohibition'. 
 
 . . 30O, - fe„e,ca? n/ ,»,■/( -&;,„s/„« of time- 
 
 PEACTICE (Writ)— cojiitnuetZ. 
 
 Statute of lAmitations — B. S. C. Order vill., r. 1 ; 
 
 Order LXIV., r. 7. 
 
 The rule of practice is not to extend the time 
 under Order Lxiv., r.'7, for renewing a writ of 
 summons after the expiration of the twelve 
 months from the date of writ, where the pit's, 
 claim would in the absence of such renewal be 
 barred by the Statute of Limitations. 
 
 Fer Kay L.J. Semble, that there might be a 
 discretion under exceptional circumstances. 
 Hewett !'. Baek - C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 98 
 
 — Service of writ. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Service. 
 
 — Sheriff — Elegit — Duty to file writ and 
 
 inquisition. 
 
 See Sheriff. 16. 
 
 PBATERS FOE THE DEAD. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 33. 
 
 PSEACHING — Black gown in pulpit— Legality. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 49. 
 
 — On be.ach between high and low water-mark — 
 
 Injunction. 
 See Seashore. 
 
 PRECATORY TRITST— Will. 
 
 See Will — Precatory Trusts. 
 
 PRE-EMPTION—" Actual settler for agricultural 
 purposes." 
 See Canada. 25. 
 
 — Superfluous lands. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 22. 
 
 PREFERENCE— Specialty and simple contract 
 debts. 
 See Executor — Administration. 25. 
 
 — Undue preference as to toUs. 
 
 See Railway — Railway and Canal 
 Traffic. 53— 54a. 
 
 — Undue preference of creditors. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Discharge. 90. 
 
 Cases under Bankruptcy — Prefer- 
 ence. 
 
 PREFERENCE SHARES. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Shares. 
 
 — In railway. 
 
 See Eailway — Scheme of Arrangement. 
 
 PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS— Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy— Prefjr- 
 ence. 
 
 — Company winding-up. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Windinu-ip 
 — Preference. 
 
 — Rates — Priority — Insolvent estate. 
 
 See Executor. 37. 
 
 — Receiver and manager — Working expenses — 
 
 Proper outgoings — Compensation. 
 See Railway — Receiver. 55. 
 
 PREGNANCY— Concealment by wife from in- 
 tended husband — Nullity of marriage. 
 See Divorce — Nullity. 97. 
 
 PRELIMINARY QITESTION- Trial of. 
 See Practice — Trial. 263. 
 
 PREMATURE APPLICATION— Third party. 
 See Practice — Third Party. 252. 
 
( loGO ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1000. 
 
 ( ].)70 ) 
 
 ffREMITJH— Apprenticeship. 
 
 See IsFAST— Necessaries. 3i. 
 
 — Assurance companies. 
 
 See Cases under IxsunANCE. 
 
 — Execution of power of appointment over real 
 
 estate — Premiums on leases. 
 See PowEKS — Construction, ."i. 
 
 — Guarantee society — Surety — Allowances. 
 
 See Partnership — Receiver. 4:^. 
 
 — Life policy — "Voluntary settlement by settlor — 
 
 Bankruptcy of settlor — Policy moneys. 
 See Bankeuptct — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 269. 
 
 — Principal sum repayable witli — TDebenture. 
 
 See Eevence — Stamps. 1 IS. 
 
 — Return of premium. 
 
 See Paetneeship. 4, 13. 
 
 FEEEO&ATIVE— Liability of servants of tbe 
 Crown — Agent of Executive Govern- 
 ment. 
 See Trespass. 2. 
 
 PKEEOGATIVE OF CBOWN. 
 
 See Cases under Crowx. 
 
 PREROGATIVE WRIT— Mandamus-Uefusal lo 
 approve building plans. 
 See Streets — Building Plans. 0. 
 
 SRESORIPTION- Canada, Laws of. 
 See Canada. .58, 59. 
 
 — Fishing in non-tidal water. 
 
 See Fishery. 4. 
 
 — Light and air. 
 
 See Cases under Light and Aik. 
 
 — Opening looks on river — Lost grant. 
 
 See Easement. 4. 
 
 — Pew in chancel — Eight to. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Pews, 55, 50. 
 
 1. — Possession — Defect in title. 
 
 On a claim to hold land by prcseriirtioii and 
 immemorial possession : — 
 
 Seld, that where the true root of title is dis- 
 closed, the law of prescription does not apply. 
 Labrador Co. v. Eeo. P. C. [1893J A. C. 104 
 
 — Sewers — Nuisance — Injunction — Prescriptive 
 
 right in third parties. 
 
 See Sewers and Drains. 25. 
 
 — Sewers — Prescriptive right of drainage — 
 
 Trade effluents — Polluting liquid. 
 See Sewers and Dbaixs. 27. 
 
 — Soil of highway. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 20. 
 
 — Tolls — Prescriptive right — Extinguishment of 
 
 old franchise by statute. 
 See Tolls. 1. 
 
 — "Way, Eight of—" Claiming right thereto "— 
 
 Evidence — Easement. 
 See Way, Eight of. 3. 
 PRESENTATION— Bequest of trust funds to be 
 applied for or towards purchase of advow- 
 Eons or — Failure of- gift. 
 See Charity. 10. 
 
 — To living by Roman Catholic. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Advowson. 
 2. 
 
 PRESENTATION OFFICE FEES. 
 
 See Fees — Presentation Office. 
 PRESUMPTION — Boundaries of land — Hedge 
 
 and ditch. 
 
 See Boundary. 1. 
 
 — Death— Affidavit— Practice. 
 
 See Evidence. 40. 
 
 — Deed more than thirty years old— Evidence. 
 
 See Powers— Exercise. 13. 
 
 — Intention to keep alive charge— Payment by 
 
 tenant for life. 
 
 See Settled Land. 49, 88. 
 
 — Intention to keep alive security. 
 
 See Mortgage — Redemption. GO. 
 
 — Legal origin — Immemorial user to tix moor- 
 
 ings. 
 
 See Thames. 9. 
 
 — Lost will. 
 
 See Will— Lost Will. 138. 
 
 — Of law rebutted by intention. 
 
 See Will. 31. 
 
 — Ownership of soil of highway. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 20. 
 
 — Probate. 
 
 See Probate — Presumption of Death. 
 134—140. 
 
 — Soil of highway — Street in town— Conveyance 
 
 of land adjoining street. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 43. 
 
 — Survivorship between husband and wife. 
 
 See Probate — Presumption of Death. 
 139. 
 
 — That bed of river ad medium filum passes — 
 
 Conveyance — Constiuction. 
 See Water. 41, 45. 
 PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS. 
 
 See Railway — Accidents. 
 
 PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, 
 
 See Animal. 
 
 PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN— 
 
 Conscientious objection to medical aid^ 
 Neglect to procure medical aid — Man- 
 slaughter. 
 See Criminal Law. 9. 
 
 — Examination of defendant — Previous convic- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Evidence. 18. 
 
 — Proof of age of child . 
 
 See Criminal Law. 10. 
 
 PRIMOGENITURA— Law of Malta. 
 See Malta. 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT— Agreement by vendor 
 to pay commission to purchaser's agent 
 — Non-disclosure — Eight of purchaser 
 to recover from vendor. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Commis- 
 sion. 3. 
 
 — Assessment of income tax on agent. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 
 
 1. — Auctioneer — Implied agency of — Sale by 
 auction of real estate — Memorandum of contract — 
 Signature hy auctioneer's clerk on behalf of piir- 
 cliaser — Revocation — Statute of Frauds. 
 
 The authority of an auctioneer, upon a sale 
 
 3 E 
 
( 1571 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CA.SE.S, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1572 ) 
 
 PBINCIPAL AND AG^TXT—continued. 
 by auction of real estate, to sign a memorandum 
 of the contract as agent for the purchaser does 
 not extend to the auctioneer's clerk. Such a 
 memorandum, in order to bind the purchaser, 
 must be signed by the auctioneer himself and at 
 the time of the sale, unless the purchaser has, by 
 word, sign, or otherwise, authorized the clerk 
 to sign as his agent. 
 
 Where the auctioneer had signed a memo- 
 randum as agent for the purchaser a week after 
 the sale, and the purchaser had repudiated the 
 purchase at the time : — 
 
 Held, that the auctioneer's authority had 
 ceased, and that there was no memorandum in 
 writing sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 
 the Statute of Frauds. Bell v. Balls 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 663 
 
 — Authority — Contract — Variation — Eatifica- 
 tion. 
 
 -See CoxTEAOT. 8. 
 
 2, — Autliority of agent — Borrowing — Fledg- 
 ing title-deeds — Excess of autliority. 
 
 Where a principal entrusts an agent with 
 securities and instructs him to raise a certain 
 sum upon them, and the agent borrows a larger 
 sum upon the securities and fraudulently appro- 
 priates the difference (the lender acting bona 
 fide and in ignorance of the limitation) the 
 principal cannot redeem the secimties without 
 paying the lender all he has lent, although the 
 agsnt hag obtained the loan by fraud and forgery, 
 and although the lender did not know that the 
 agent had authority to borrow at all and made 
 no inquiry. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1893] 3 Ch. 130, affirmed. 
 Bkocklesby v. Tempekan-ce Pehmane.xt Build- 
 ing Society - H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 173 
 
 Applicable. Lloyd's Banl:. Ld. v. Bullocl;, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 192. 
 
 3. — Authority of agent— Borrowing— Signing 
 bills" per pro" 
 
 An agent who is authorized by his power of 
 attorney to buy and sell goods, charter vessels, 
 and employ servants, and do things necessary 
 " for all or any of the purposes aforesaid," cannot 
 borrow money on behalf of his principal, or bind 
 him by a contract of loan, such acts not being 
 necessary for the declared purposes of his power. 
 The taker of a bill has satisfied himself by proper 
 inquiry that an agent has authority to accept or 
 indorse bills of exchange "per pro." The abuse 
 of the authority does not affect the taker of the 
 bill if he is a bonS, fide holder for value. Bryant 
 Powis AND Bryant, Ld. v. Banque du Peuple! 
 The Same v. Quebec Bank 
 
 P, C, [1893] A. C. 170 
 
 4. — Authority of agent — Consideration 
 irwving from the principal — Special damage — 
 Appeal from New Zealand. 
 
 The pit's agent obtained from the deft, bank a 
 promise to pay certain cheques drawn by the pit. 
 m consideration of his depositing with it a store 
 warrant in lieu of the cash which the pit. had 
 
 Z^unt^'^r^}" P'^y *° ^^^ "^'Ji* °f tlie plt.'s 
 t«.r*i ^^'=?toi-e -warrant belonged to the pit., 
 was under pledge to the agent, and was accepted 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND AGEST— continued. 
 by the bank with full knowledge of the circum- 
 stances : — 
 
 Meld, in an action for dishonouring the 
 cheques, that the agent iu substituting the 
 deposit for cash did not exceed his authority, 
 but that even if he had, the contract was com- 
 plete, for there was consideration for the bank's 
 promise. The deposit conferred on the bank 
 some right, interest, profit, or benefit within the 
 legal meaning of consideration; and in the cir- 
 cumstances it could not be heard to say that that 
 consideration did not move from the pit. : 
 
 Held, further, that evidence of special damage 
 — that is, of plt.'s loss of custom and credit from 
 particular individuals — was wrongly admitted ; 
 special damage not having been alleged. Flem- 
 ing V. Bank of New Zeaiand 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 577 
 5. — Autliority — Stoclibrdker ~ Holding out 
 person as having authority — Evidence for jury — 
 Course of business. 
 
 The defts., a firm of stockbrokers, had in 
 their employ a clerk, to whom they allowed com- 
 mission upon orders introduced by him to them 
 and accepted by them, but who was not autho- 
 rized himself to accept orders on their behalf. 
 On three occasions the pit. gave orders to the 
 clerk for the purchase of shares by the defts. on 
 the plt.'s behalf, which orders were transmitted 
 by the clerk to the defts., who executed them 
 and sent to the pit. bought notes in respect of 
 the shares so purchased. No intimation was 
 given by the defts. to the pit. that they accepted 
 the orders prior to their execution by the defts. 
 In payment of the price of the first two lots of 
 shares purchased the pit. drew a cheque payable 
 to defts.' order which he gave to the clerk| who 
 delivered it to the defts. The third lot of shares 
 was paid for by the pit. in a similar manner, 
 with the exception that the cheque was drawn 
 to the order of the clerk. The defts. received 
 the cheques and credited the pit. with the amount 
 of them. Orders for the purchase of other shares 
 by the defts. were subsequently given by the pit. 
 to the clerk, who did not transmit them to the 
 defts., but made out and handed to the pit. 
 bought notes purporting to shew purchases of 
 shares in pursuance ""of the orders, and to be 
 signed by the defts., which were forgeries. The 
 pit. gave him cheques for the supposed prices 
 of the shares, which he misapplied to his own 
 use : — 
 
 Held (Collins L.J. dissenting), that upon the 
 above-mentioned facts there was no evidence for 
 a jury of a holding out by the defts. to the pit. 
 of the clerk as authorized to enter into contracts 
 on their behalf, and, therefore, the defts. were 
 not liable in respect of the orders subsequent to 
 the first three. Spooner v. Browning 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 628 
 
 — Authority to apply for shares— Underwriting 
 
 letter. 
 
 See Company. 308. 
 
 — Bill of exchange. 
 
 See Bill op Exchange. 13, 16. 
 
 6. — Bribe accepted by agent — Avoidance of 
 contract — Agreement by agent xoith third party to 
 
( 1573 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1574 ) 
 
 PRINCIPAI AND AGEBT— confanuerf. 
 detriment of principal — Surreptitious dealing with 
 other princival. 
 
 Tue deft, agreed to purchase a pair of horses 
 from the pit., provided they were passed as sound 
 by a veterinary surgeon who was employed by 
 the deft, to examine them. The horses were 
 certified as sound by the veterinary surgeon, and 
 the deft, sent a cheque for the price. The horses 
 were delivered and found to be unsound, and 
 thereupon they were returned and the cheque 
 stopped. In the course of the trial of an action 
 on the cheque it was elicited that the veterinary 
 surgeon had accepted a bribe from the pit. : — 
 
 Held, that it was immaterial to inquire what 
 effect the bribe had on the mind of the deft.'s 
 agent, that the offer and acceptance invalidated 
 the certificate, and that the pltff. could not 
 recover under the contract which depended on 
 the validity of the certificate. Shipwat v. Broad- 
 wood - - - C. A. [1899] 1 a.. B. 369 
 
 7. — Bribing agent — Agreement with agent — ■ 
 Release — Bemedies of principal against agent and 
 third person. 
 
 The right of a principal to proceed against a 
 person wlio has bribed his agent to defraud him, 
 is not affected by an agreement with the agent, 
 by which the agent may benefit, provided he aid 
 the principal to recover from the briber. The 
 rights of action against the agent and the briber 
 arc distinct, and only a clear release of the agent 
 vill relieve the other tortfeasor. Salfoed Cor- 
 poration V. Lever C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 168 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Grant v. Gold Explora- 
 tion and Development Syndicate, [1900] 1 Q. B. 
 233, 244. 
 
 — Broker, default of^Liability of client to 
 
 .jobber — Privity of contract. 
 See Stock Exchange. 11. 
 
 — Broker lumping several orders in one contract 
 
 — Liability of principal to jobber on 
 
 default of broker. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 10. 
 
 8. — Cheque — Payment iy, instead of cash — 
 Authority — Payment to agent — Auctioneer. 
 
 The pit. granted a lease to C. with proviso 
 that 0. diould not assign without written consent 
 of the pit. 0. contracted to assign to A. The 
 pit. sighed a licence to assign and handed it to 
 the deft., a house agent, with instructions not to 
 part with it till a quarter's rent which was in 
 arrears was paid. 0. drew a cheque to deft.'s 
 order for the quarter's rent and deft.'s charges 
 and then received from deft, the licence. C.'s 
 cheque was dishonoured : — 
 
 Seld, that the agent had no authority to 
 accept a cheque in lieu of cash, that he had 
 exceeded his authority in parting with the 
 licence without receiving the aiTears in cash, and 
 that he was responsible to his principal for the 
 quarter's rent. Papb v. Westacott 
 
 C. A, [1894] 1 ft. B. 273 
 
 9. — Cheque signed hy procuration — Unautho- 
 rized iorrowing — Money applied for henefit of 
 principal — Bills of Mxchange Act, 1882 (45 * 46 
 Vid. c. 61), s. 25. 
 
 A., th6 defts.' manager, had power to draw on 
 defts,' account for the purposes of the business, 
 
 PEINCIPAL AND AGENT— oonMnMisi. 
 but not to overdraw or to borrow money on defts.' 
 account. He borrowed money from B., statin<r 
 he wanted it to pay the wages of defts.' men, and 
 gave B. a cheque signed by him by procuration 
 for defts. A. had overdrawn the defts.' account, 
 and wanted the money to replace what he had 
 abstracted. He paid B.'s money into defts.' 
 account and used it to pay defts.' men : — 
 
 Held, (1) that as by s. 25 of the Bills of 
 Exchange Act, 1882, B. had notice of A.'s limited 
 authority, and as defts. could only be bound if 
 A. acted within his authority, an action on the 
 cheque must fail ; (2) that as the money had 
 found its way into defts.' hands and had been 
 used for defts.' Iwneflt, it was money received for 
 the use of defts., and although defts. did not 
 know A. had borrowed it, B. was entitled to 
 recover. Keid v. Eigbt & Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft, B. 40 
 
 — Common partner — Close copies — Term fees. 
 
 See Solicitor. 17. 
 
 — Contractor — Liability — Workmen's Compensa- 
 
 tion Act. 
 
 See Cases under Master axd Servant. 
 
 10. — Contractor — Liability of principal for 
 negligence of public body — Breach of duty — Dam- 
 age — Remoteness — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 55), s. 150. 
 
 A district council, being about to construct a 
 sewer under their statutory powers, employed a 
 contractor to construct it for them. In con- 
 sequence of his negligence in carrying out the 
 work a gas-main became broken, and the gas 
 escaped from it into the house in wiiioh the 
 pits, (a husband and wife) resided, and an 
 explosion took place, by which the wife was 
 injured, and the husband's furniture was damaged. 
 In an action by the pits, against the district 
 council and the contractor :— 
 
 Held, that the district council owed a duty to 
 the public (including the pits.) so to construct 
 the sewer as not to injure the gas-main ; that 
 they had been guilty of a breach of this duty ; 
 that, notwithstanding that they had delegated 
 the performance of the duty to the contractor,, 
 they were responsible to the pits, for the breach ; 
 and that the damages were not too remote to be 
 recovered. Decision of Wright J. reversed. 
 Haedakek v. Idle District Council 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 335 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Penny v. Wimhledon 
 Urban Council, [1899] 2 Q. B. 72, 77 ; The Snarl;. 
 [1900] P. 105, 110. 
 
 — Copyright — Infringement — Penalties — Inde- 
 
 cency of work. 
 
 See Copyright. 16. 
 
 — Crown, speciality, and simple contract debts — 
 
 Insolvent estate. 
 
 See Executor — Insolvent Estate. 38. 
 
 11. — Crown — Contract made by servant of— 
 Liability of agent — Warranty of authority. 
 
 The doctrine that an agent who makes a 
 contract on behalf of his principal is liable to the 
 other contracting party for a breach of an implied 
 warranty of his authority to enter into the con- 
 
 3 E 2 
 
( i:w5 )^ 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— ItiOO. 
 
 ( 157C. ) 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND ASEST— continued. 
 
 tract, is not applicable to a contract made by a 
 
 public servant acting on behalf of the Crown. 
 
 Judgment of Charles J., [1897] 1 Q. B. 401, 
 affirmed. DoNN i'. Maodonald 
 
 [C. A. [1897] 1 a. B. 655 
 
 — Deposit— Action to recover deposit from agent 
 
 — Payment of deposit to solicitor as 
 
 agent. 
 
 See ^0. 17, helow. 
 
 — Discovery — Action brouglit in name of ao;ent. 
 
 See DiscovEKT — Interrogatories. 5. 
 
 — Duty of agent to sue — Indemnity. 
 
 See Insukance, Makixe. CO. 
 
 — Foreign corporatiou — Service of writ. 
 
 See Peactioe — Service. 183 — 191. 
 
 — Foreign principal — Income tax — Exercising 
 
 trade in United Kingdom. 
 
 See Eevexue — Income Tax. 97. 
 
 — Fraud — Fund in Court. 
 
 See Nus. 13, 14, heJoic. 
 
 12. — Frauds, Statute of — Purchase of property 
 — Parol agency. j 
 
 Where an agent, appointed by parol to pur- 
 chase, purchased in Ids own name, with his own 
 money, and took a conveyance to himself and 
 denied the agency : — 
 
 Held, that s. 7 of the Statute of Frauds was a 
 good defence. James v. Smith | 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] 1 Ch. 384 
 
 Tlie C. A., without dealing with the applica- ; 
 
 -tion of the Statute of I'rauds, held that the pit. i 
 
 had not established the fact of agency. i 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 175 i 
 
 Eeferred to bv C. A. Sochefoucauld y. I 
 Boustead, [1897] l"Ch. 196, 206. " I 
 
 — Frauds, Statute of — Vendor's name— Heference 
 
 to formal contract. 
 
 See FiiAUDS, Statute of. 2. 
 
 13. — Fund in Court — Payment out to wrong 
 'person — Fraud — Solicitor — Use of name hy un- 
 certificated solicitor — Ratification — Solicitor 
 partner — Lialnlity — Gommissioners of Treasunj — 
 Eeplacement of lost fund — Court of Cliancery 
 (Funds) Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 44), s. 5— ' 
 Partnership Act, 1890 (53 * 51 Vict. c. 39), s. 10 
 — Form of order, 
 
 AVhere negligence or other breach of duty is 
 ' committed by a solicitor in a matter of which the 
 Court has seizin, the Court can summarily order 
 the solicitor, as its officer, to make good the loss 
 actually occasioned thereby, but cannot mulct 
 iim in damages for his misconduct. 
 
 To constitute a binding adoption or ratifica- 
 tion of acts done witliout pj-evious authority, (1.) 
 the acts must have.bein done for, and in the 
 name of, the supposed principal ; and (2.) full 
 knowledge of them, and unequivocal adoption 
 after knowledge, must be proved ; or else, the 
 circumstances must warrant the clear inference 
 that the principal was adopting the acts of his 
 supposed agent whatever tlieir nature or culpa- 
 bility. 
 
 Without the knowledge or aulhoritv of X., a 
 solioilor, A. B., another solicitor, used X.'s name 
 m proceedings, wherein bv acts of fraud and 
 
 PEINCIPAL AND AGENT— continited. 
 forgery, A. B. obtained an order for the payment 
 out^of'a fund in court, and was thereby enabled 
 to get the fund paid out by a cheque from the 
 Paymaster-General, with wkich he opened a 
 fictitious account at a bank. Two days later, 
 and after the account had been partially drawn 
 upon, X. was told by A. B. that his name had 
 been made use of for a formal party. X. repri- 
 manded A. B. for this, but, without inquiring 
 into the nature of the business, accompanied 
 A. B. to the Paymaster-General's Office, and 
 received a cheque for 151. for costs ; over 101. of 
 this he paid to A. B. for out of pocket expenses, 
 and the balance of il. 5s. 6d. he handed to his 
 partner Y., who entered it to the credit of the 
 firm in their books without knowing anything of 
 the circumstances under which the money had 
 been paid. 
 
 A large portion of the fund formerly in court 
 having been lost : — 
 
 Held, (1) that, even if X. had previously 
 authorized the use of his name for a formal party, 
 he would not have been responsible for the acts 
 of fraud-and forgery committed by his supposed 
 agent for that agent's own fraudulent purposes ; 
 (2 ) that, under the circumstances, X. had not 
 condoned or ratified the use of his name by A. B., 
 and was not liable for the whole of the loss sus- 
 tained, but only for the amount of the 15Z. cheque 
 whicli he took : and (3.) that Y. was liable only 
 for the il. 5s. Gd. received by him for the partner- 
 ship. 
 
 Form of order for making good a loss occa- 
 sioned to the Consolidated Fund under the Court 
 of Chancery (Funds) Act, 1872, s. 5, through 
 payment of a fund out of court to the wrong 
 person. 
 
 The order of Kekewich J. varied. JlAKsa v. 
 Joseph C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 213 
 
 14. — Fund in Court — Payment out to wrong 
 person — Fraud — Solicitor — Eeplacement of lost 
 fund. 
 
 Slatek v. Slater Kay J. [1897] 1 Ch. 222, n. 
 
 — House agent — Action for commission — Claims 
 
 by ditferent parlies — Interpleader. 
 See CoiNTT Court. 52. 
 
 — Instructions to sell — Heal estate — Authority 
 
 to sign contract — Specific performance. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 57. 
 
 — Knowledge of agent how far knowledge of 
 
 principal. 
 
 See Discovery — Interrogatories. 4 1 . 
 
 15. — Knowledge of agent imputed to principal 
 — Misstatement in proposal. 
 
 An illiterate person, blind of one eye, signed, 
 at the request of an agent of an insurance company, 
 an application for a policy on a form which stated 
 he had no physical iuDrmity. The policy agreed 
 to pay 250Z. for, inter alia, the loss of one eye and 
 5001. for total blindness. The insured lost his 
 remaining eye by an accident ; — 
 
 Held, (1) that the knowledge of the agent 
 that the insured had lost one eye affected the 
 company ; (2) that the policy was good, and the 
 insured could recover as for total blindness. 
 Bawdex v. London, Edinburgh and Glasgow 
 Insurance Co. - C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 534 
 
( 1577 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1000. 
 
 ( 157S ) 
 
 PBINCIPAL AKD A.G'ETSlT—coni inued. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of — Fiduciary relation — 
 
 Liability of estate of deceased partner. 
 See Paktnekship — liabilities. 32. 
 
 — Mercantile agent. 
 
 See Factor — Hire Agreement. 2. 
 
 — Misappropriation by agent — Acceptances. 
 
 See CuiMiNAL Law. 3U. 
 
 — Misappropriation by agent — Money intrusted 
 
 for safe custody. 
 
 See Criuinal L.iw. 37. 
 
 — Misrepresentation — Shares. 
 
 See CoJiPANY. 210. 
 
 — Mutual insurance society — Action for contri- 
 
 butions—Insurance by agent, member 
 
 of association — Shipo wner not member — 
 
 Liability. 
 
 See Insurance, Marine. 64. 
 
 — Newspaper — Libel. 
 
 See OoRPOBATiON. 2G. 
 
 ■ — Partner — Liability of estate of deceased partner 
 — " Debts or obligations." 
 See Partnership — Liabilities. 32. 
 
 — Patent agents — Registration — Validity of 
 
 rules — Saving of rights acquired. 
 See Patent — Patent Agents. 19. 
 
 — Practice — Service of writ — Foreign corpora- 
 
 tion carrying on business in England — 
 
 Agent. 
 
 See Practice — Ssrvice. 183 — 191. 
 
 16. — Paying money to principal without notice 
 of duress — Heceiver appointed under debenture 
 trust deed. 
 
 An agent who pays to his principal's account 
 a cheque given under protest if he has no notice 
 of the duress under which the cheque was handed 
 over, is not per=onally liable to the drawer of 
 the cheque. 
 
 A trading co. executed a trust deed to secure 
 debentures. Under certain circumstances the 
 trustees had power to appoint a receiver as if 
 they were mortgagees within the Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881. Such a receiver was empoweretl to 
 enter into possession, cairy on the business, 
 appoint managers, &c., and was to he deemed the 
 agent of the co.,and to be in the same position as 
 a receiver duly appointed by a mortgagee uoder 
 the Act : — • . 
 
 Held, that a receiver so appointed and carry- 
 ing on the co.'s business was a mere agent, witu- 
 ont personal responsibility. The deft, was so 
 appointed. The manager without the deft.'s 
 knowledge compelled the pits, under " duress of 
 goods " to pay a sum for work done by tlic co. 
 which the pits, alleged to be extortionate. TJie 
 money was handed the deft., who paid it into 
 the bank without notice of the duress : — 
 
 Meld, that the payment into the bank was a 
 payment by the deft, as agent for the co., and, as 
 it was paid without notice of the duress, he was 
 not personally liable to the pits. Owen & Co. v. 
 Okonk - - - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 265 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Burt, Boulton and Hay- 
 ward V. Bull, [ISO-i] 1 Q. B. 276, 283; In re 
 Hale, [1899] 2 Uh. 107, 115. 
 
 17. — Payment of deposit to solicitor as agent 
 
 PBINCIPAL AND AGSST— continued. 
 
 — Action to recover deposit from agent— Sale of 
 
 real property. 
 
 On the sale of premises by auction the pur- 
 chaser paid a deposit to the vendor's solicitor as 
 agent for the vendor. The sale went off through 
 tlie default of the vendor, and the purchaser 
 brought an action to recover tlie deposit from the 
 solicitor: — 
 
 Held, that the payment of the deposit to the 
 solicitor was equivalent to payment to the vendor, 
 and that the action could not be maintained. 
 Ellis v. Godlton C. A. [1893] 1 d.^B. 350 
 
 — Quebec, Law of — Under Code of Civil Pro- 
 
 cedure of Quebec. 
 See Canada. 60. 
 18. — Matification by principal — Contract by 
 agent in name of principal, but for his own benefit. 
 Where an agent makes a contract purporting 
 to sell goods in the name of a principal, but with 
 the fraudulent intention of selling them on his 
 own account and for his own benefit, it is compe- 
 tent for the -principal to ratify and take the 
 benefit of the contract as against the buyers. 
 In re Tiedemann and Ledermann Fr{)KES 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 66 
 
 — Receiver and manager. 
 
 See Cases under Receiver. 
 
 — Receiver — Liability for goods ordered by — 
 
 Trustees for debenture-holders. 
 See Company. 84. 
 
 — Receiver — Ifemuneiation — Surplus assets — 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 17. 
 
 — Representation to lender by agent of borrower 
 
 — Fraud. 
 
 See Mortgage — Escrow, lo. 
 
 19. — Sale of Goods — Batification — Contract 
 
 — Undisclosed principal. 
 
 A contract made by a person intending to 
 contract on behalf of another, but without his 
 authority, may be ratified by that other, and so 
 made his own, although the person who made the 
 contract did not profess at the time of making it 
 to be acting on behalf of a principal. 
 
 So held by Collins and Romer L.JJ., A. L. 
 Smith L.J. dissenting. Ddrant & Co. v. Roberts 
 AND Keighley, Maxsted & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 84; [1900] 1 Q. B, 629 
 
 — Signature by agent — Bill of lading — Warranty. 
 
 See Shipi'ing — Charterparty, 40, 47. 
 
 — Signature hy agent— Dissolution of building 
 
 society. 
 
 See Building Society. 4. 
 
 — Signature by agent " thereunto lawfully 
 
 authorized" — Memorandum in writing. 
 See Frauds, Statute oe. 16. 
 
 20. — Sole agency for sale of goods — Purchasers 
 from principal's other agents — Bight of action 
 against. 
 
 Circumstances under which an action was 
 
 held not maintainable against a rival agent. 
 
 Herschleb v. Hertz - - - Stirling J. 
 
 [1896] W. N. 108 
 
 21. — Stock Exchange— Indemnity — Broker^ 
 Wrongful sale hy broker. 
 
 A stockbroker who on behalf of a principal 
 
( li7J ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( l.JSn ) 
 
 PEINCIPAL AND AO'EST— continued. 
 buys stock upon the Stock Exchange for the next 
 settling day, and without authority from Ijis 
 principal, and contrary to the agreement between 
 them, sells the stock before tliat day at a loss 
 cannot claim indemnity from his principal. 
 
 The pit., a &tockbroker, having prior to 
 Nov. 10 bought stock of a ry. co. for the deft, on 
 the London Stock Exchange, it was agreed be- 
 tween tliem that the pit. should take part of the 
 stock so purcliased off the market by paying for 
 it with money advanced by him for the purpose, 
 ^vhich he accordingly did, and (hat he should 
 hold that stock as security for his advance with 
 interest, and should not sell the same before the 
 account of Nov. 26. Ou Nov. 10 the pit. by the 
 deft.'s instructions carried over the residue of the 
 stock till Nov. 26, and bought a further amount 
 of stock for that day. On Nov. 19 the pit., with; 
 •out (he deft.'s authority, and con(rary to his 
 agreement, sold the whole amount of stock pur- 
 •chased at a loss in order to close the accoimt 
 between them. If the stock had been sold on 
 Nov. 26, it would have realized a price higher 
 than that at which the pit. sold, but lower than 
 that at which he had bought it for the deft. In 
 an action by the pit. against the deft, for in- 
 demnity in respect of the difference between 
 the prices at which he had bought and sold the 
 ■stock : — 
 
 Held, first, as to the plt.'s claim in respect 
 of the stock paid for and taken oif the market by 
 the pit. as before mentioned, that (he pit. was 
 entitled to recover as for mouey paid for the 
 deft, at his request, subject to the deft.'s right to 
 counter-claim damages for the loss occasioned 
 by the plt.'s wrongfully selling the stock before 
 Nov. 26 :— 
 
 Held, secondly, as to the plt.'s claim in respect 
 of the stock carried over and that which was 
 purchased on Nov. 10 as before mentioned (by 
 A. L. Smith L.J. and Collins L.J., Kigby L.J. 
 dissenting), that no action for indemnity was 
 maintainable, the loss having arisen, not through 
 any breacli of contract by tbe deft., but through 
 the wrongful sale by the pit. 
 
 By Eigby L.J., in afliimance of Maihew J., 
 that the pit. was entitled to be credited in 
 account with the price at which he purchased for 
 the deft., being charged by way of damages witli 
 the loss arising from the wrongful sale. 
 
 Duncan v. Hill, (1873) L. E. 8 Ex. 242, and 
 Lacey v. Hill, Scrimgeour's Claim, (1873) L. E. S 
 Ch. 921, discussed. Ellis v. Pond 
 
 C. A, [1898] 1 Q. B. 426 
 
 22. — Surveyor — Certificate as to progress of 
 building — Inaccuracy — Causing damage to third 
 party. 
 
 Mortgagees lent money by instalments to a 
 builder ou the faith of certificates negligently 
 granted by the deft., who was a surveyor ap- 
 pointed, not by the mortgagees, but by the 
 builder's vendor. The coitificates were inac- 
 curate and misleading, by the negligence of the 
 surveyor, and the mortgagees thereby suffered 
 loss for which they claimed compensation from 
 the deft. : — 
 
 Bdd,tha.t as thtre was no contractual relation 
 between the surveyor and the mortgagees, the 
 
 PEINCIPAl AND AG^riT— continued. 
 deft, owed no duty to them to exercise care in his 
 certificate, and the action could not be main- 
 tained. Le Lievee v. Gould 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 — Trusl:ee or agent — Book containing drawings 
 
 — Eegistration. 
 See OoPTEiGHT. 10. 
 
 — Unauthorized — Option of pm'chase — Eatifi- 
 
 cation. 
 
 See CoxTKACT. 3.5. 
 
 23. — Undisclosed principal — Employment of 
 sub-agent hy agent — Set-of against principal of 
 debt due from agent — Estoppel. 
 
 If a principal allows his agent to appear in 
 the character of principal, he must lake the con- 
 sequences. Where a principal employs an agent 
 to make a contract and the agent employs a 
 second agent to make the contract, if the first 
 agent is a person who might reasonably be sup- 
 posed to be acting as a principal the first prin- 
 cipal cannot, if the second agent had no notice 
 that the first agent was not a principal, make a 
 demand on the second agent without the latter 
 being entitled to stand in the same position as if 
 the first agent had really been the principal in 
 the transaction. Montagu t. Fobwood 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 350 
 
 84. — Undisclosed principal — Invoice sent by 
 principal to buyer. 
 
 L, sold goods to M. to be shipped at C, and 
 to be in fair merchantable condition. L. was to 
 draw bills for the price less freight, and M. was 
 to accept the same. The contract was stated to 
 be "by order and on account of L." L. was 
 acting as agent for H., who was the seller of the 
 goods : but this was unknown to M. H. wrote 
 to M. inclosing invoice of the goods and acknow- 
 ledging that he had drawn on M. for the price. 
 M. returned the invoice and accepted the bm, 
 which was paid at maturity. The goods were 
 delivered to M., who claimed damages from H., 
 alleging that the goods were not in fair merchant- 
 able condition : — 
 
 Held, that the sending of the invoice to M.. 
 the retaining of it, the acceptance and payment 
 of the bill, constituted a conti-act between H. and 
 M., and that H. having had the benefit of it 
 could not repudiate, and that, therefore, M. was 
 entitled to maintain the action. Malcolm, Funn 
 & Co. r. HoYLE - - C. A. revers. Cave J. 
 
 [1893] W, N. 167 
 
 25. — Undisclosed principal, liability of — 
 Unauthorized acts of agent. 
 
 Where a principal allows an agent to act as 
 if he were principal, the real principal will be 
 liable for (he acts of the agent if done within the 
 reasonable scope of an agent's authority in the 
 particular business, notwithstanding any limita- 
 tions which the real principal may have put on 
 his agent's authority. Watteau r. Fenwick 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 346 
 
 26. — Valuer — Liability of—Mortgage— Negli- 
 gence — Contract. 
 
 A valuer is not liable for a valuation for a 
 mortgage, &c., made without reasonable skill and 
 care (but not fraudulently) unless there is a con- 
 tract between him and the person who has made 
 
( 1581 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1582 ) 
 
 PEINCIPAL AND AGENT— coniinued. 
 an advance on the faith of the representation. 
 Damages assessed at the whole loss sustained 
 through the deficiency of the security. Cases in 
 ■which a person may be liable for representations 
 made without fraud considered by Eomer J. 
 
 Decision of Romer J., [1891] "W. N. 16, 
 affirmed. Soholes v. Beook 
 
 C. A. [1891] W, N. 101 
 
 27. — Warrant of authority — Solicitor — Autho- 
 rity to defend action in rtame of company — Revoca- 
 tion of authority — Notice of revocation — Payment 
 by defendant's solicitor of plaintiff's costs of abortive 
 action — Company — JXssolution pendente lite-^ 
 Judgment against dissolved company— Jurisdiction. 
 
 A solicitor had originally authority to defend 
 an action in the name of a co., but his authority 
 was revoked by the dissolution of the oo. shortly 
 before the trial. The trial of the action was 
 delayed owing paitly to the state of the 'business 
 of the Court and partly to the pleadings being 
 amended. The action was tried on the assump- 
 tion that the oo. was in existence, and judgment 
 was^given for the pit. Neither the solicitor nor 
 the pit. knew till after the trial that the co. had 
 been dissolved ; but on the day of the trial the 
 eolicitor was informed that the co. had held its 
 final meeting, and he took no steps to ascertain 
 whether or not it had been dissolved. Upon 
 motion by the pit. that the solicitor might be 
 ordered to pay his costs of the action as from the 
 date of the dissolution of the co. : — 
 
 Held, (1.) (distinguishing Whiteley Exerciser, 
 Ld. V. Gamage, [1898] 2 Ch. 405), that the judg- 
 ment was invalid against the co. for want of 
 jurisdiction ; (2.) that the solicitor having origi- 
 nally authority to represent the co. was not liable 
 for acting on that authority after it had been 
 revoked by the dissolution of the co. untU he knew 
 or, by the exercise of due diligence, might have 
 known of the dissolution ; (3.) that on the day of 
 the trial the solicitor did not use due diligence in 
 ascertaining whether or not the oo. had been dis- 
 solved, and that he ought to pay the plt.'s costs 
 of the action after that date as between solicitor 
 and client. 
 
 The principle of Smout v. Ilbery, (1842) 10 
 M. & W. 1, applies to a solicitor representing a 
 party in an action, and it applies to a revocation 
 of authority by the dissolution of a co. as well as 
 by the death of an individual. Salton v. Nbw 
 Bbeston Cycle Co. Stirling J. [1900] 1 Ch. 43 
 
 Per Kekewich J. Smout v. Ilhery, (1842) 10 
 TVI. & W. 1, overruled by Collen v. Wright, (1857) 
 7 E. & B. 301 ; 8 E. & B. 617. See Halbot v. 
 Lens, [1901] W. N. 6 ; [1901] 1 Oh. 344. 
 PBINCIPAL AND BEOKER. 
 
 See Cases under Gaming. 
 Stock Exchange. 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. 
 
 Contribution, col. 1581. 
 Discharge, col. 1584. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. See Limita- 
 tions,' Statute of — Surety. 
 Securities, col. 1587. 
 
 Contribution. 
 1. — Banlcrupt co-surety — Bigld to contribution 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY (Contribution) — 
 
 after judgment and before payment — Statute of 
 Limitations. 
 
 "Under s. 37 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the 
 liability of a bankrupt co-surety to contribution, 
 though unascertained at the time of the bank- 
 ruptcy proceedings, is a debt provable in the 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 The statute does not begin to run against a 
 surety suing a co-surety for contribution until the 
 liability of the surety is ascertained, i.e., until 
 the claim of the principal creditor has been 
 established against him ; although at the time of 
 the action for contribution the statute may have 
 run as between tlie principal creditor and the 
 co-surety. "Wolmeeshausen v. Gulliok 
 
 Wright J. [1893] 2 Ch. 514 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Edbinson v. Harlcin, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 415, 426. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Ellis v. Po7id, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 426, 454. 
 
 2. — Death of co-surety — Fresh bond — Contri- 
 bution between co-sureties. 
 
 F. with E., B. and H., his securities, gave a 
 bond to a society to secure an advance. It was 
 provided (inter alia) that if either surety should 
 die, and F. did not procure a new surety within a 
 month to enter into a new bond to like effect, the 
 advance should become immediately payable. E. 
 died, and a fresh bond was executed by F., B., 
 and H,, with the additional proviso that B.'s 
 estate should not be exonerated. F. became 
 bankrupt, and B. and H. repaid the advance. 
 Bacon V.-C. held that B. aud H. were creditors 
 of E.'s estate for one moiety of the sums iiaid by 
 them. No order was drawn up. In 1893 the 
 chief clerk certified B. and H. to be creditors as 
 decided by Bacon V.-C. E.'s executor took out 
 a summons to vary the certificate : — 
 
 Held, that B.'s estate was liable, but only for 
 one-third of the sums paid by H. and B. In re 
 Ennis. Coles v. Peyton C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 238 
 
 3. — Deed of arrangement — Proof — Co-surety 
 — Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (19 & 20 
 Vict. c. 97), s. 5. 
 
 Three persons were liable as co-sureties. One 
 of them executed a deed of arrangement, the 
 other two paid off the principal creditor and took 
 an assignment of the debt: — 
 
 Held, that they were entitled to prove for the 
 whole amount of the debt, but on the footing that 
 they should not actually receive more than one- 
 third thereof ; but quasre, per Davey L. J., whether 
 the result would be the same as if they had 
 claimed by way of contribution and not as 
 assignees of the creditor, hi re Paekek. Morgan 
 V. Hill - - C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 400 
 
 — Guarantee or indemnity. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute op. 34. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of — Bankrupt co-surety. 
 
 See No. 1, above. 
 
 4. — Limitations, Statute of — Collateral debt — 
 Promise to pay on demand. 
 
 If a surety promises to pay a debt for the 
 principal debtor on demand, a demand is necessary 
 before action can be brought, and the Statute 
 
(- 1" 
 
 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF C'A^ES. ISOl- 
 
 ".y.o. 
 
 ( 15^4 ) 
 
 PEINCIPAL AND SURETY (Contributicn) — 
 
 coniinucd. 
 of Limitations will begin to ran only fiom such 
 demand. In re Beown's Estate, Bbown r. 
 Beows Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 300 
 
 Eefen'ed to by Kekewicb J. Edwards v. 
 Walters, [1896] 2 Ch. 157, 162. 
 
 — Material alteration in contract. 
 
 See Cases under Principal akd Surety 
 — Discharge. 
 
 5. — Parol agreement to share commission and 
 losses in respect of Steele Exchange transactions — 
 Guarantee — Statute of Frauds. 
 
 5. entered into a verbal agreement 'with G. 
 that 6. should introduce customers to S., who was 
 a member of the Stock Exchange, that S. should 
 pay to G. half the commission received from such 
 customers, and that G. should pay to S. half of 
 any loss incurred through sucli customers : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the contract did not constitute 
 a partnership between S. and G., but tliat it was 
 not a contract to answer for the debt of another 
 within s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds ; (2) that it 
 was a contract which regulated the terms of G.'s 
 employment, and gave him an interest in the 
 transactions which were carried out for the mutual 
 benefit of S. and G., and that S. was entitled to 
 recover half the losses from G. Suttos & Co. r. 
 Geet - C. A, [1894] 1 ft. B. 285 
 
 — Eeceiver — Liability of surety for. 
 
 See Eeceivek. 47. 
 
 6. — liecognisance — Bents and profits — Extent 
 of liabiliitj. 
 
 A surety under a receiver's recognisance is 
 liable (to the extent of the amount of the penalty) 
 for all sums of money wliich the receiver himself 
 was properly liable to pay into Court or account 
 for. In re Graham. Graham i-. Nokes 
 
 Chitty J, [1895] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 7. — Might to contribution after judgment and 
 before payment. 
 
 A surety against whom judgment has been 
 obtained by the principal creditor for the full 
 amount of the guarantee, but who has paid 
 nothing in respect thereof, can maintain an 
 action against a co-furety to compel him to con- 
 tribute towards the cojumon liability ; and for 
 this purpose the allowance of a claim by the 
 principal creditor against the estate of a deceased 
 surety is equivalent to a judgment ; and wliere 
 the principal creditor is a party to the action, 
 the surety may obtain an order upon the co-surety 
 to pay his proportion to the principal creditor. 
 Where the principal creditor is not a parly, the 
 surety may obtain a prospective order directing 
 the co-surety, upon payment by the surety of his 
 own share, to indemnify him against further 
 liability. Wolmershausen v. Gulliok 
 
 "Wright J. [1893] 2 Ch. 614 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Bobinson v. Harldn, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 415, 426. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Ellis v. Fond, [18981 
 1 Q. B. 426, 4.')4. 
 
 — Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law— Guaranty. 16. 
 
 PEINCIPAL AND SVR^TY— continued. 
 Discharge. 
 
 8. — Cheque given for liability — Unsatisfied 
 judgment on cheque — Liability of jointlguarantor 
 — Bes judicata. ^ ^^a^ » , 
 
 An unsatisfied judgment against one co-surety 
 for a cheque given by him alone for the debt is 
 not a bar to au action against the other co-surety 
 on the original contract of guarantee. Decision 
 of Wills J., [1894] 2 Q. B. 101, affirmed. Wegg- 
 Prosser v. Evans - C. A. [1895] 1 ft. B. lOS^ 
 
 See McLeod v. Poioer. Byrne J. [1898] 2 Ch. 
 295, 297. 
 
 9. — Co-sureties — Material alteration of instru- 
 ment — Discharge. (»^»s*^ 
 
 Where two or more persons join as sureties, 
 for a common principal, but bind themselves in 
 different amounts, in the event of the principal 
 being in default they are liable to contribute to- 
 the eatisfaction of the creditor's claim in propor- 
 tion to the limits of their respective liabilities, 
 and not in equal amounts. 
 
 Four persons, as sureties for a principal,, 
 executed a joint and several bond of suretyship, 
 by the terms of which the liability of two of them 
 was limited to 50^ each, and that of the other 
 two to '251. each. One of those whose liability 
 was limited to oOZ., after the other three had 
 executed the bond, executed it himself, but added 
 to his signature the words " 25/. only." The 
 obligee accepted the bond so executed without 
 objection, and subsequently the principal became 
 in default : — 
 
 Held, that the effect of the added words was. 
 to make a material alteration in the bond, so that 
 the three first signatories were thereby dis- 
 charged from their obligation; and that as the 
 last signatory only executed the bond as a joint 
 and several bond, he also was not bound by it. 
 Ellesmere Beeweky Co. v. Cooper 
 
 [1896] 1 ft. B. 7& 
 
 — Deposit with bank — Insurance. 
 
 See Insdeaxce — Guarantee. 13. 
 
 — Effect of guarantee on proof in bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankrtjptcy — Proof. 172, 173. 
 
 10. — E.vpress poicer to give notice determinincf 
 liability of guarantor. 
 
 A joint and several continuing guaranty bond 
 provided that the obligors, or their respective 
 '■ representatives," might determine their or his 
 liability by a month's notice in writing to the 
 obligees. One of the obligors having died, his 
 executor, who was unaware of the bond, gave th& 
 obligees notice only of his death : — 
 
 Held, that " representatives " included execu- 
 tors, and that the estate of the deceased obligor 
 was liable for indebtedness incurred after his 
 death. In re Silvester. Midland Ey. Co. v. 
 Silvester Eomer J. [1895] 1 Ch. 57S. 
 
 — Foreign sureties — Administration bond. 
 
 See Probate — Administration Bond. 
 6,7, 
 
 11. — Giving time to debtor — Contribution — 
 Co-sureties. 
 
 The pits, and the deft., who were director* 
 of a CO., gave their joint and several bond for 
 the purpose of guaranteeing repayment of a loao 
 
( 1585 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASESriSOl— 1900. 
 
 ( 15S6 ) 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY (Discharge)— conM. 
 ■which the co. raised upon mortgage of its pre- 
 mises, and it was provided by the bond that, 
 although as between the co. and the obligors, 
 the latter were only sureties for the co., never- 
 theless, as between the obligors and the obligees 
 '(the lenders of the money), the former should 
 be taken to be principal debtors, so that they 
 should not nor should either of them be released 
 from their or his liability by reason of time being 
 given to the co. or their assigns, or by any other 
 forbearance, act, or omission of the obligees or 
 their assigns, or by any other matter or thing 
 ■whereby the obligors, or either of them, would be 
 so released but for this provision. The pits, 
 having had to pay the amount secured by the 
 bond, the mortgage was transferred and the bond 
 assigned to them : and they brought an action 
 against the deft, for contribution and as as- 
 signees of the bond to recover a third part of 
 the amount which they had paid. The pits, 
 having, without the deft.'s assent, entered info 
 an agreement with a new co., who became the 
 purehasei's of the goodwill, premises, and stock- 
 in-trade of the first-mentioned co., that they 
 would not for a certain period of time enforce 
 the mortgage against the new co. : — 
 
 Held, that, having regard to the provisions of 
 the bond, this agreement did not afford a defence 
 to the action brought by the pita, against the 
 deft. 
 
 Query, wliether an agreement by a surety to 
 give time to the principal debtor discharges a 
 co-surety. Gbeen\yood v. Fkanois 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 312 
 
 12. — Giving time to new firm — Liability of 
 retired 'partner. 
 
 If of two principal debtors one is notified to 
 the creditor as a surety, from that time tliat 
 debtor has all the rights of a surety against the 
 creditor, and the creditor must not give time to 
 the other principal debtor, or prejudice the 
 surety's interests. Therefore, where a bank 
 allowed a firm to overdraw, and A. retired from 
 the firm in 188i, and the overdraft was carried to 
 the debit of the new firm, and the bank in 1889 
 passed a resolution continuing the overdraft for 
 a limited time, and in 1890 agreed with the new 
 firm and a surety, B., for guaranteeing payment 
 to the bank of any balance on the overdraft 
 exceeding a certain sum :— 
 
 Held, that there was no agreement to give 
 time to the new firm, or to alter the relation 
 between the parties, and that the retired partner 
 was not released ; but quiere whether a proviso 
 in the deed of dissolution of 1884 which gave 
 time to make arrangements with creditors pre- 
 vented A. from being discharged. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1894] 2 Ch. 32, affirmed. 
 
 EOUSE V. BKADrOED B AN KINS Oo. 
 
 H. I,. (E.) [1894] A. C. 586 
 
 13, — Giving time to principal — Mortgage, 
 (a) The deft, covenanted as surety for the 
 repayment by B. of a mortgage debt. B. after- 
 wards, by a deed to which the surety was not a 
 party, consolidated this mortgage with others, 
 and assigned the benefit of all covenants to 
 the pit. : — 
 
 Held, that, as by the terms of the cousolidated 
 
 PRINCIPAI AND SURETY (Discharge) -conJd'. 
 mortgage, the debt was not to be repaid until sis 
 months after date, time had been given to the 
 principal debtor and the surety was discharged. 
 Bolton v. Buokenham C. A, [1891] 1 Q. B, 278 
 
 (b) The deft, covenanted, as surety, for re- 
 payment of a mortgage debt, and assigned pro- 
 perty as collateral security. The mortgage was 
 afterwards consolidated, and the covenant in the 
 consolidated mortgage was for repayment of the 
 debt at a later date : — ■ 
 
 Held, that both the property and the personal 
 liability of the surety was thereby discharged. 
 Bolton v. Salmon ■ Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 4» 
 
 14, — Laches of employer. 
 
 A surety for a contractor for engineering 
 works is not discharged from liability, although 
 his position has been altered by the conduct of 
 the employer, where that conduct has been caused 
 by a fraudulent act or omission of the contractor 
 against which the surety has, by the contract of 
 suretyship, guaranteed the employer. Kingston- 
 
 UPON-HULL COEPOEATION V. HaEDING 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 494 
 
 15, — Material alteration in contract — Con- 
 tribution. 
 
 C. being appointed agent and traveller to the 
 pits., procured four persons to execute as sureties 
 a joint and several bond conditioned for the due 
 accounting by him for all moneys received by 
 him on the pits.' account. The bond limited the 
 liability of N. and E., two of the sureties, to 501: 
 each, and that of P. and B., the other two, to 251. 
 each. After the three last-named sureties had 
 executed the bond N. executed it, adding to his 
 signature the words " 25Z. only " : — 
 
 Held, that the effect of that addition being 
 to alter the rights of the sureties inter se, it 
 discharged all of them, including N., from their 
 liability upon the bond. Ellesmeee Bkeweky 
 
 Co. V. OOOPEE AND OtHEES 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] W. N. 157 (8) 
 
 — Eeconstruction of principal debtor company. 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Scheme of Arrangement, 
 
 16, — Release of co-surety — Evidence of collat- 
 eral agreement to reserve rights against co-surety. 
 
 In a suit against one of five joint and several 
 sureties, it appeared that the creditor had, with- 
 out the deft.'s knowledge and consent, released 
 another of the sureties "from all debts due by 
 him to (the creditor) at this date" : — 
 
 Held, that the creditor could not recover, and 
 that the legal effect of the release could not be 
 modified by evidence of verbal negotiations prior 
 to the release for the purpose of shewing an 
 agreement superseded by the release to reserve 
 rights against the sureties. Meeoantilb Bank 
 OF Sydney v. Taylok - P. C, [1893] A. C, 317 
 
 17, — Belease of principal debtor — Novation. 
 A creditor released his principal debtor, and 
 
 accepted B. as full debtor in his stead. The 
 surety for the original debtor agreed to give a 
 guarantee for C. and to continue his former 
 guarantee until he did so, but died before doing 
 so. In an action by the creditor against the 
 surety's executors, held, that as the former debt 
 
( 1587 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( loss ) 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY (Discharge)— conftZ. 
 had been extinguished by the release, the remedy 
 against the surety was gone. Commercial Baxk 
 OF Tasmania v. Jones - P. C. [1893] A. C. 313 
 
 — Scottish?law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Guaranty. 16. 
 
 — Surety — " Creditor." 
 
 See Banebdptot — Fraudulent Prefer- 
 ence. 115. 
 
 Limitations, Statute of. 
 See Limitations, Statute of- 
 
 Securities, 
 
 -Surety. 
 
 18. — Counter security. 
 
 The principal creditor is not entitled to the 
 benefit of all counter bonds or collateral secmi- 
 ties given by the principal debtor to the surety. 
 Testator guaranteed the current account of S. 
 & Go. with the pits., who were bankers, and 
 S. & Co. gave a counter security to the testator. 
 S. & Co. failed, and the pits, claimed the exclusive 
 right to the proceeds of the counter security : — 
 
 Held, that the claim could not be sustained. 
 In re Walker. Sheffield Banking Co. v. 
 Clayton - Stirling J. [1892] 1 Ch. 621 
 
 PRIOR PUBLICATION— Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Prior Publication. 3 < , 38. 
 
 PRIORITY— Banki-uptcy. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy. 
 — _Bills of sale. 
 
 See Cases under Bill of Sale. 
 
 — Building society members. 
 
 See Buildino Society — Dissolution. 5, 
 6. 
 
 — Ceylon Land Registration Ordinance. 
 
 See Ceylon. 6. 
 
 — Charging order for solicitor's costs. 
 
 See Solicitor — Lien. 105. 
 
 — Chose in action — Eeversionary trust fund — 
 
 Notice to existing trustees — Death or 
 retirement of trustees. 
 See Assignment. 5. 
 • — Company winding-up. 
 
 See Cosipany — Wlnding-cp — Assets. 5. 
 Company — Winding-up — Costs. 70. 
 
 — Crown debts — Debts due to Boards of Educa- 
 
 cation — Law of Newfoundland. 
 See Newfoundland. 1. 
 
 — Crown debt — Legacy duty — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Eevenue — Legacy Duty. 124. 
 
 — Crown over simple contract creditor. 
 
 See Canada. 36. 
 
 — Crown, specialty, and simple contract debts — 
 
 Insolvent estate. 
 
 See Executor — Administration. 38. 
 • — Debentures. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 71 — 74. 
 Conflict of La-n\s. 3. 
 
 — Dolus mains — Unregistered transfer — Eegis- 
 
 tered transfer set aside. 
 See Natal. 2. 
 
 — Equitable interests — Notice. 
 
 See Executor. 2G. 
 
 PRIORITY— con<4«t4ed. 
 
 — Execution creditor. 
 
 See Sheriff. 14. 
 
 — Executor carrying ou testatoi-'s busiuess. 
 
 See ExECUTOE — Powers. 49. 
 
 — Investment advised by solicitor to tnistees — 
 
 Contributory mortgage. 
 See Trustee. 39. 
 
 — Insolvent estate — Voluntary debt. 
 
 See Executor. 35. 
 
 — Judgment not signed or entered — Judgment 
 
 creditor. 
 
 See Practice — Judgment. 36. 
 
 — Legacies. 
 
 See Will — Legacy. 
 
 — Liquidator's solicitor — Eemuneration — Costs 
 
 — ^Petitioning creditor. 
 See Company — Winding-up — Liqui- 
 dator. 123. 
 
 — Lunatic — Maintenance — Scheme. 
 
 See Lunacy. 20. 
 
 — Lunatic — Maintenance — Scheme — Creditors 
 
 — Form of judgment. 
 
 See Conflict op Laws. 7. 
 
 — Maintenance of lunatic. 
 
 See LuxAC-y — Maintenance. 20. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgage — Priority. 
 
 — Blortgage estate devised free from incumbrances 
 
 — Pecuniary legatee and annuitants — 
 
 Marshalling. 
 
 See Will. 147. 
 
 — in action for Necessaries. 
 
 See Shipping — Necessaries. ISl. 
 
 — Parliamenlary deposits claims on. 
 
 See I'arliambnt — Deposits and Bonds. 
 5, 6. 
 
 — Patent — Licence — Assignment — ^Registration 
 
 — Notice — Equitable rights. 
 See Patent. 15. 
 
 — Preferential payments — Working expenses- 
 
 Proper outgoings — Compensation. 
 See Railway. 88. 
 
 — Bates — Preferential payments in bankruptcy 
 
 — Administration. 
 See Executor. 37. 
 
 — Eeceiver — Appoiutment of, by way of equit- 
 
 able execution. 
 
 See Company — Winding-dp. 93. 
 
 — Shares. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 295, 296. 
 
 — Unauthorized borrowing — Secured creditors 
 
 — Subrogation. 
 See Railway. 30. 
 
 — Widow's charge — Dower. 
 
 See DowER. 1. 
 
 VRISOTS— Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 63), prohibits their importation. 
 
 Prison Act, 1898 (61 t(- 62 Vict <.-. 41), amends 
 the Prison Acts. 
 
 Prison Eules dated April 21, 1899, under the 
 Prison Act, 1898 (61 dt- 62 Vict. c. 41). St. E. & 0. 
 1899, p. 1084, No. 322. 
 
 SwiMARY Proceedings.] Eule dated April 6, 
 
( 1589 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1590 ) 
 
 VRISO^— continued. 
 
 1899, under s. 29 of the Summary Juriediction Act, 
 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), as to the application 
 of sums paid under s. 9 of the Prison Act, 1898 
 (61 * 62 Vict. c. 41). St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 1242, 
 No. 2044-6. 
 
 PRIVATE INTEENATIONAl LAW. 
 
 See Cases under Conflict of Laws, 
 DoMioiL, and Inteenational Law. 
 
 PRIVATE RESIDENCE — Covenant — Boarding 
 of scholars attending school. 
 See Covenant. 4. 
 
 — Eestrictive covenant — User — Residential flats. 
 
 See Covenant. 5. 
 
 PRIVATE ViO&J)— Definition. 
 
 A private road is a " street" within ss. 16, 54 
 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Hill v. Wal- 
 lasey Local Board C. A. [1894] 1 Ch.' 133 
 
 PRIVATE STREET. 
 
 See Cases under LoNDON^Streets. 
 
 Streets — ■ Private 
 Streets. 
 
 " PRIVIES IN ESTATE " — Assistance by in prior 
 action by person under indemnity to 
 defendant. 
 See Estoppel. 1. 
 
 PRIVILEGE— Ambassador. 
 
 See Inteenational Law. 2. 
 
 — Builder's' hypothecary privilege — Law of 
 
 Quebec. 
 
 See Canada. 5. 
 ' — Conversation between one party and the 
 solicitor of the other. 
 See Evidence. 41 . 
 
 — Councillor — Music and dancing — Licensing 
 
 committee — Defamation. 
 See Music and Dancing. 3. 
 
 — Coroner's jury — Exemption. 
 
 &eJnBT. 1. 
 
 — Discovery — Production of documents. 
 
 See Cases under Disooveby. 
 
 — Distress — Bedstead — " Bedding." 
 
 See Distress. 12. 
 
 — Libel, 
 
 See Cases under Defamation — Libel. 
 
 — Member of Parliament. 
 
 See Contempt of Court. 9. 
 
 Parliament — Privilege. 142, 143. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Threats. 55. 
 
 — Production of documents. 
 
 See Cases under Discovert. 
 Lunacy — Practice. 35. 
 
 — Slander. 
 
 See Cases under Defamation — Slander. 
 
 — Solicitors. 
 
 See Cases under Solioitok— Privilege. 
 
 PRIVITY OF CONTRACT— Contract on behalf of 
 intended company — New contract — 
 Patent — Licence — Burden attaching to 
 property. 
 See CoMP.^NY — Contracts. 21. 
 
 PRIVY. 
 
 See Cases under Water-closets. 
 
 PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 Privy Council Appeals, col. 1590. 
 Judicial Committee, col. 1590. 
 
 Privy Council Appeals. 
 
 See Australia. 
 Bermuda. 
 
 British Columbia. See Canada. 
 British Guiana. 
 British Honduras. 
 British North America. See 
 
 Canada. 
 Canada. 
 Cape of Good Hope. 
 
 CEYLOy. 
 
 China. 
 
 FiJL 
 
 Gibraltar. 
 
 Gold Coast. 
 
 Guernsey. 
 
 Hong Kong. 
 
 Jamaica. 
 
 Japan. 
 
 Jersey. 
 
 Leeward Islands. 
 
 Malta. 
 
 Manitoba. See Canada. 
 
 Mauritius. 
 
 Natal. 
 
 Newfoundland. 
 
 New Brunswick. See Canada. 
 
 New South Wales. 
 
 New Zealand. 
 
 North-West Territories. See 
 
 Canada. 
 Nova Scotia. See Canada. 
 Ontario. See Canada. 
 Quebec. See Canada. 
 Queensland. 
 Seyxhelles. 
 Sierra Leone. 
 Tasmania. 
 
 Trinidad (Trinidad and Tobaoo). 
 Victoria. 
 
 Judicial Committee. 
 
 Constitution, col. 1590. 
 Practice, col. 1590. 
 
 (Constitution.) 
 
 By the Judicial Committee {Amendment) Act 
 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. o. 44), it was provided that 
 certain Colonial Judges should he members of the 
 Committee. 
 
 (Practice.) 
 
 0. in O. dated 1900, referring to the Judicial 
 Committee all appeals on which petitions may he 
 presented to H. M. in Council during the ensuing 
 twelve months. St. R. & 0. 1893, No. S76, L, 32. 
 
 [A similar Order is issued annually.^} 
 
( 1091 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1592 ) 
 
 PRIVY COUNCIL (Judicial Committee (Practice) ) 
 
 — continued. 
 As to appeals from 2}laces under the Foreign 
 Jurisdiction Act, 
 
 See Foreign Jukisdiction. 
 
 1. — Ajipeal — Divorce suit. 
 
 Special leave granted to appeal from a decree 
 of the Supreme Court of Ceylon in a divorce suit. 
 Le Mesueier v. Le Mesuriek 
 
 P, C. [1891] A. C. 283 
 
 2. — Appealahte amount — Mesne profits. 
 
 The measure of value lor determining a plt.'s 
 right of appeal is the amount for which the deft, 
 has successfully resisted a decree. Mesne profits, 
 if demanded in the plaint, must enter into the 
 calculation of the appealable value. Mohideen 
 Hadjiak v. Pitchey - P. C. [1893] A. C. 193 
 
 3. — Costs — Special leave to appeal. 
 
 Costs of both parties of the appeal to P. 0. 
 directed to be paid by the successful appellant, 
 special leave having been given to him under 
 special circumstances notwithstanding the small 
 amount at stake. Fokget v. Ostigny 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 318 
 
 4. — Crim Inal cases. 
 
 (a) The granting of leave to appeal will not 
 be advised in criminul cases where it is not even 
 suggested or surmised that substantial injustice 
 has been done citlier through a disregard of forms 
 of legal process or by some violation of natural 
 justice. 
 
 (a) E.r parte Deeming. P. C. [1892] A. C. 422 
 (6) Kops I'. Reg. & parte Kovs 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. 0. 660 
 
 (b) Although in very special and exceptional 
 ciicumstances leave to appeal in criminal cases 
 may be granted, misdirection by a judge either 
 
 ^ in leaving a case to a jury where there is no evi- 
 dence, or founded on misconstruction of a statute, 
 is insufficient to ground an appeal, especially 
 where no miscarriage of justice has resulted. 
 Ex parte Macbea P, C. [1893] A. C. 346 
 
 5' — Documents not hefore the Court below. 
 
 In a Jersey appeal an order was made that 
 certain documents not before the Court below 
 should be received by the i cgistrar and produced 
 at the hearing, subject to objections as to admis- 
 sibility. Att.-Gen. and Eeceiveb-Genehal eok 
 Jersey v. Le Moignan P. C. [1892] A. C. 402 
 
 6. — Evidence — Witnesses in London. 
 ^ Where in an appeal from a Colonial Court 
 witnesses to facts requisite for the purpose of the 
 judgment were in London, instead of remitting 
 the cose an order was made for the evidence to be 
 taken on commission iu London. Bank of China, 
 Japan, and the Straits r. American Trading 
 Co- P. C. [1894] A. C. 266 
 
 ''• — Finality of judgments. 
 
 The rule of finality applicable to decisions in 
 relation to rights of property is not equally bind- 
 ing as regards those which relate to ritual and 
 ecclesiastical practice and depend partly upon 
 BishopTT °^ l"^t»i<=al investigation. Eead v. 
 Bishop op Lincoln p. c. [1892] A. C. 644 
 
 — iatonts-As to prolongation of. 
 
 'Ve Cases under PATENT-Prolongation. 
 
 PEIVT COUNCIL (Judicial Committee (Practice) ) 
 
 — continued. 
 
 — Eailway Committee of Privy Council — Canada 
 
 Eailway Act — Construction. 
 See Canada. 16. 
 
 8. — Eaising new question of fact. 
 
 (a) The P. C. will not permit questions of 
 fact to be raised which were abandoned or not 
 taken in the Courts appealed from. Council op 
 
 THE BOKODGH op EaNDWICK V. AtrSTEALIAN C'lTIES 
 
 Investment Corporation 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C, 322, at p. 325 
 
 (b) Where charges of fraud and deceit have 
 failed, the person making them will not be 
 allowed to raise new issues as to negligence on 
 appeal. Consecticet Fibe Insubanoe Co. r. 
 Kavanagh - p. C. [1892] A. C. 473 
 
 — Eitual, As to. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law — 
 Bitual. 
 
 9. — Security for Vice-Admiralty appeal. 
 Eule Xo. 15 of the Privy Council Eules of 
 
 1865 (Published in W. N., Jan. 27, 1866) may be 
 dispensed with in a proper ease. Hunter r. SS. 
 " Hesketh " - P. C. [1891] A. C. 628 
 
 10. — Security for costs — Appeal dismissed for 
 tcant of prosecution. 
 
 Where a colonial Supreme Court directed that 
 costs secured should be dealt with as the P. C. 
 should think fit, and the appeal was dismissed 
 for want of prosecution : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent should apply to the 
 Supreme Court to correct its order by directing 
 that costs should abide the event of the appeal ; 
 and if the application were refused, should apply 
 for special leave to appeal from such refusal. 
 MiLSON V. Carter - P. C. [1893] A. C. 638 
 
 PRIZE— £)/ the Prize Courts Act, 1894 (57 * 58 
 Vict. c. 39), provision was made as to Prize Courts 
 in British Possessions. 
 
 PRIZE COMPETITION— Prediction of coming 
 event — Births and deaths in London 
 during named week. 
 See Lotteby. 3. 
 
 PROBATE. 
 
 AdMtional Eules and Orders, Dec. 7, 1892^ 
 Non-contentious business. St. R. & 0. 1892, p. 908 ; 
 [1893] W. N. (Appx. of 0. & E.), p. 1. 
 
 Order dated Dec. 12, 1892, as to Supreme Court 
 Fees. St. R. & 0. 1892, p. 912; [1893] W, N. 
 (Appx, of 0. & R), p. 1. 
 
 Letters of administration, Pou-er to gratit, in 
 respect of real estate only. See Land Transfer Act, 
 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 65), s. 1. 
 
 NON - contentious Business.] Additional 
 
 Eules and Orders with regard to. W. N. 1897 
 
 (Jan. 9), p. 9; (Deo. 25), p. 351. See Current 
 Index, 1897, p. Ixxxi. 
 
 Costs— Eule as to. W. N. 1898, (July 9), 
 p. 253; (Aug. 18), p. 279. 
 
 Probate and letters of administ ration — County 
 Court Eules (iVbr.) 1900, Ord. xux. a. "W. B. 
 1900 (Dec. 8), p. 326. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. Ixxxiii, 
 
( 1593 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 1591 )_■ 
 
 T^OBATE-— continued. 
 
 Probate Registry — Paper grants and engross- 
 ments. W. N. 1900 (Deo. 8), p. 329. See Current 
 Index, 1900, p. xciv. 
 
 Administration Bond, col. 1593. 
 
 Citation. See Gbant of Administka- 
 TioN. 24—29; Grant of Pbobate. 
 82, 83. 
 
 Colonial Probates Act, 1892, col. 159.5. 
 
 Costs. See Geant of Probate. 87 — 92. 
 
 Execution, col. 1505. 
 
 Grant of Administration, col. 1597. 
 
 Grant of Probate, col. 160[i. 
 
 Lost Will, col. 1622. 
 
 Practice Note, col. 1623. 
 
 Presumption of Death, col. 1623. 
 
 Eemmdation, col. 1624. 
 
 Revocation of Administration, col. 16'25. 
 
 Revocation of Probate, col. 1626. 
 
 Revocation of Will. See "Wjll — Revo- 
 cation. 
 
 Soldier's Will, col. 1627. 
 
 Testamentary Capacity, col. 1627. 
 
 Administration Bond. 
 
 1. — Amount — Lunatic executor. 
 
 An executor who wag sole legatee, having 
 been found lunatic by inquisition, his committee 
 took out letters of administration for his use and 
 benefit. The estate was found larger than the 
 original estimate. The administrator had paid 
 into court part of the estate : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the sureties might be allowed to 
 give a bond to double the amount actually in the 
 hands of the administrator. In the Goods op 
 COEMAGK - - Butt J. [1891] P. 151 
 
 2. — Amount — Reduction of grant. 
 
 An administrator pendente lite, who was also 
 •executor of the will in dispute, and had taken out 
 a general grant, owing to the value of the estate, 
 found it difficult to obtain sureties : — 
 
 Held, that the grant might be limited to two 
 sums payable to the estate, and the sureties 
 allowed to justify for double the reduced amount. 
 Askew v. Askew Jeune J. [1891] P. 174 
 
 3. — Assignment of administration bond — 
 Practice— Court of Probate Act, 1857 (c. 77), s. 83. 
 
 An application for the assignment of an 
 administration bond should be made to a regis- 
 trar. In the Goods of Eees 
 
 G. Barnes J. [189B] W. N. 57 (12) 
 
 4. — Breach of condition — Infants legacy — 
 Liability of sureties — Probate Act, 1857 (20 * 21 
 Viet. c. 77), s. 81. 
 
 A condition in an administration bond to 
 administer well and truly the estate and pay the 
 legacies thereout, is broken if through any default 
 ■of the administrators a legacy cannot be paid out 
 of the estate. An undertaking to pay the legacy 
 out of other funds when the time of payment 
 •comes will not cure the breach. An adminis- 
 tratrix got in the estate and paid all debts and 
 legacies except one to a minor, the amount 
 whereof she handed over to A., who did not pay 
 it over to tlie minor, but absconded : — 
 
 Held, that the sureties of the administratrix 
 
 PBOBATE (Administration Bond) — continued. 
 were liable for the amount of the legacy. Dobbs 
 V. Bkain - C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B, 207 
 
 5. — ■ Estate partly administered — Amount of 
 bond. 
 
 Where, after an estate had been partly ad- 
 ministered, application was made for a grant of 
 administration, the Court allowed a bond to be 
 given in double the amount of the unadminis- 
 tered estate. In the Goods of Oakey 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1898] P. 7 
 
 6. — Foreign sureties — Application at cham- 
 bers. 
 
 An application to allow an administration 
 bond to be given with foreign sureties should be 
 made to a judge in chambers. In the Goods of 
 Scott ■ - - Jeune P. [1896] P, 342 
 
 7. — Foreign sureties. 
 
 On application for administration with will 
 annexed of the property in England of a French 
 subject resident in France, grant made on a bond 
 with two foreign sureties. In the Goods of De 
 Beaufort - G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 231 
 
 See Li the Goods of Scott, [1895] P. 342. 
 
 8. — Form of administration pond — Adminis- 
 tration to creditor —Right of retainer to be abolished 
 — Note of Probate practice. Peaotice Note 
 
 Jeune P. [1899] W. N. 262 
 
 9. — Inability to find security. 
 
 Where next of kin were unable to find secu- 
 rity, administration granted to a receiver in a 
 Chancery adminiotration action. In the GoODi 
 OF MooEE (No. 1) - Jeune J, [1892] P. 145 
 
 10. — Re-execution. 
 
 (a) An administration bond had been exe- 
 cuted in New South Wales to Sir J. Hannen, 
 who when it was brought into the principal 
 registry had ceased to be President : — 
 
 Held, that the Court could not substitute in 
 
 the bond the name of the present President for 
 
 that of the late President, and that the bond 
 
 must be re-executed. In the Goods of Reeves 
 
 Jeune J. [1881] W. N. 124 
 
 (b) Where an administration bond had been 
 sent back to New South Wales to be re-exe- 
 cuted : — • 
 
 Held, that it could be received, although the 
 re-execution and the original oath had not been 
 sworn before the ?ame commissioner. Ix the 
 Goods of Sdtton ■ Jeune J. [1891] W. N. 184 
 
 11. — Surety — Limited company accepted as 
 sole surety — Administration loith will annexed. 
 
 Where a limited co. were appointed executors 
 and trustees under a will, the Court granted 
 administration witli the will annexed to the 
 general manager of the co. as their nominee, and 
 accepted the oo. themselves as sole surety under 
 the administration bond. In the Goods of 
 Hunt - G. Barnes J. [1896]P. 288 
 
 12. — Widow — Missing will — Personal bond 
 only required. 
 
 A testator having mislaid a will appointiun- 
 his wife executrix, made another in the same 
 terms, "but omitted to appoint, executors. The 
 missing will was found after his death. Admi- 
 nistration with the second will annexed granted 
 tothe widow on her personal bond only. In the 
 Goods of Allen Jeune P. [1893] P. 184 
 
( 1595 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CllSES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 1596 ) 
 
 PROBATE — contin ued. 
 
 Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 The Colonial Probates Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. 
 0. 6), provides for the admission to probate in the 
 United Kingdom of Wills made in any colony or 
 dependency which has been brought by 0. in C. 
 within the Act. 
 
 Orders in Council have been issued of the 
 undermentioned dates, applying the provisions 
 of the Act to the following British Possessions. 
 Beferences are appended to the volumes of Statu- 
 tory Rules and Orders, in which these O. in C. 
 have been printed at length : — 
 
 Bahamas, Nov. 23, 1893. 1893, p, 4. 
 
 Barbados, Jan. 29, 1894. 1894, p. 1, No. 73. 
 
 British Columbia, Oct. 26, 1896. 1896, p. 2, 
 No. 960. 
 
 British Guiana, May 16, 1S93. 1893, p. 3. 
 
 British Honduras, Jan. 30, 1893. 1893, p. 1. 
 
 Canada. The North- West Territories being 
 part of the Dominion of Canada. St. E. & 0. 
 1897, p. 1, No. 6S6. 
 
 Cape of Good Hope, Jan. 30, 1893. 1893, p. 1, 
 
 FaVcland Islands, Oct. 3, 1895. 1805, No. 405. 
 
 Fiji, April 30, 1894. 1894, p. 2, No. 117. 
 
 Gibraltar, Jan. 30, 1893. 1893, p. 1. 
 
 GoU Coast, May 16, 1893. 1893, p. 3. 
 
 Grenada, Feb. 3, 1898. 1898, p, 1, No. 124. 
 
 Hong Kong, March 15, 1893. 1893, p. 2. 
 
 Jamaica, July IS, 1894. 18S|4, p. 4, No. 178. 
 
 Leeward Islands, March 6, 1996. 1896, p. 1, 
 No. 194. ' 
 
 Lagos, Jan. 29, 1894, 1894, p. 1, No. 73, 
 
 Manitoba, Nov. 27, lS9(j. 1896, p, 4, No, 
 1083. 
 
 Natal, Feb. 2. isoj^.y MS, No, 56, 
 
 New South, f °" ^lIsooJg!^ iggg. iggs, p. 1. 
 
 " " -*° «™^"^ 181.3. 1893, p. 1. 
 
 _. . Ku ground 
 New ^eaftgcarriage o" 
 
 #_, 1896. 
 
 llREA 
 
 1896, p. 3, No, 
 !™e»!fal5,lfe,3. 1893, p, 2. 
 
 imeut' ^\^°- 18^3' P' ^*^^' ^°- **®' 
 '• 2y\, 1900. St, K, & 0, 1900, 
 
 ■T..(^ai/ 19, J:- 898. 1898, p. 2, No. 
 
 p. 27 
 
 g, ill ^us— (m, May 16, 1893. iggs^ p, 3, 
 
 raits SettWments, May 16, 1893\ 1893 p. 3. 
 
 , fasmania, Jan. 29, 1894. 1894, p.. 1 jjq^ 73^ 
 
 Trinidad ahd Tobago, June 27, 1894. . 4894 
 
 3, No. 160, --' 
 
 Victoria, Jan. 30, 1893. 1893, p. 1. 
 
 Australia, March 15, 1893. 1893, 
 
 Execution. 
 
 13. — Attestation — Insufficient attestation 
 clause — Refusal of witness to make affidavit — 
 20 & 21 Vict. 0. 77, s. 24 — Non-contentious Mules 
 of 1862, rr. 4, 7. 
 
 "Where all the three attesting witnesses to 
 a will, of which the attestation clause was de- 
 tective, refused to make an afBdavit under rule 4 
 
 PROBATE (Execution)— co»iin«ed. 
 of the Non-contentious Probate Eules of 1862 as 
 to the execution, but the executor made an affi- 
 davit under rule 7, stating that the signatures of 
 the testator and attesting witnesses were in their 
 handwriting, and that no other persons were 
 present at the execution : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the evidence was insufficient 
 for grant of probate under rule 7 ; (2) that an 
 order might be made under s. 24 of the Court of 
 Probate Act, 1857, requiring the attesting wit- 
 nesses to attend for examination as to the execu- 
 tion of the will. In the Goods op Sweet 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P, 400 
 
 14. — Attestation — Signatures of witnesses in 
 the margin of mil — Subscription — Wills Act 
 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 9. 
 
 The attesting witnesses to a will signed their 
 names in the margin of the first and second sheets 
 opposite to certain amendments, intending, as it 
 was proved, to attest Ihe testator's signature : — 
 
 Held, that this was a valid subscription within 
 s. 9 of the Wills Act, 1837. In the Goods of 
 Steeatlet - - [1891] P. 172 
 
 15. — Married icoman — Be-execution on death 
 of husbandr-Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 24. 
 
 Sect. 3 of the Married Women's Property Act, 
 1893, dispensing with the necessity of re-execu- 
 tion or republication of a will made during cover- 
 ture on the death of a husband, applies to every 
 will of a married woman who dies after passing 
 of the Act. In re "WruE. Wtlie v. Moffat 
 
 Romer J. [1895] 2 Ch. 116 
 
 16. — Onus probandi — Informal jcill. 
 Strict proof must be given of a will wliieh is 
 
 informal signed by mark instead of the usual 
 subscription in full of the testator, and has been 
 obtained from him by one of the propounders 
 having a substantial interest in its provisions and 
 witnessed by two of her relations. Such a will 
 is not invalid ; but the onus probandi may be 
 increased by circumstances, and the presumption 
 may even be conclusive against the validity of 
 the instrument. Donnelly v. Bkoughton 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 435 
 
 17. — Position of signature of testator — "At 
 the foot or end thereof " — Wills Act Amendment 
 Act, 1852 (15 * 16 Vict. c. 24), s. 1. 
 
 A testamentary document consisted of a sheet 
 of paper containing on the first page a lithographed 
 form of will. The form in the first page was 
 filled in by the testatrix and contained bequests 
 to " my sisters and friends." Her signature and 
 those of the attesting witnesses were at the 
 bottom of the first page. The second and third 
 pages contained a list of bequests to persons, 
 spme of whom were the sisters" and other friends 
 °' the testatrix. There was no direct evidence 
 that luig second and third pages had been written 
 betore ti!,g execution of the will :— 
 
 -Hefci, ly^at assuming the second and third 
 PfS^^ ,,, i:* t>eeu written before the execution 
 ot the will, tliVj signature of the testatrix was not 
 so placed ' opit,ogite to" the writing contained in 
 these pages as y^ bring the case within s. 1 of 
 f ^^^^T'^Jra^nt Act, 1852, and that there- 
 fore the first pa^e alone would be admitted to 
 probate. Eotle i Habkis 
 
 ^ Jeune P. [1895] P. 163 
 
( 1597 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1598 ) 
 
 FBOBATE (Bxeoution) — continued. 
 
 18. — PoBition of signature of testator — First 
 sheet only — Probate of part orUij. 
 
 The testator and witnesses signed at the 
 bottom of the first page of a will after an un- 
 finished sentence which went on overleaf; — 
 
 Held, that probate could be granted of the 
 first page of the will only. In the Goods oi? 
 Anstee - - - Jeune P. [1893] P. 283 
 
 19. — Position of signature of testator — -Foot 
 or end — Lord St. Leonard's Act, 1852 (15 & 16 
 Vict. c. 24), s. 1. 
 
 The whole of the disposing portion of a will 
 was written on the first side of a double sheet 
 of foolscap; the second and third sides were 
 blank ; the signatures and attestation clause were 
 on the fourth side : — 
 
 Seld, that the will was duly executed. In 
 THE Goods oi? Fuller - Jeune P. [1892] P. 377 
 
 20. — Presence of witness — Wills Act, 1837 
 (7 Will, i and I Vict. c. 26), s. 9. 
 
 A testator acknowledged his will in the 
 presence of two witnesses, but only one witness 
 was present when the will was signed : — 
 
 Seld, that the will was not duly executed in 
 accordance with s. 9 of the Wills Act, 1837. 
 Wyatt v. Bbebt - G. Barnes J, [1893] P. 5 
 
 — Will of Maori. 
 
 See New Zealand. 10. 
 
 Grant of Administration. 
 
 21. — Attorney, Grant to — Necessity for notice 
 — Administration de honis non. 
 
 Where administration had been granted to 
 the attorney of one of two next of kin, both of 
 whom resided out of the jurisdiction, and the 
 administrator died leaving the estate partly un- 
 admlnistered, the Court, upon proof of notice to 
 the next of kin for whose benefit the administra- 
 tion had been granted, granted administration 
 de bonis non to the attorney of the other next of 
 kin. In the Goods op Barton 
 
 Jeune P. [1897] W. N, 188 (1) ; [1898] P. U 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptot — Insolvent Estates. 
 117. 
 
 22. — Bastardy — Escheated Land — Land 
 Transfer Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. e. 65), «. 1. 
 
 The Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. 
 
 c. 65), does not bind the Crown, and therefore, 
 
 the legal estate in escheated land does not, under 
 
 s. 1, vest in the Solicitor to the Treasury as the 
 
 ' Crown's nominee. 
 
 Where a widow died, after the commence- 
 ment of the Act, without issue, a bastard and 
 intestate, entitled to both real and personal estate, 
 a grant was made by the Court to the Solicitor 
 to the Treasury of administration of her personal 
 estate only, as before the Act, In the Goods op 
 Hartley - Jeune P. [1898] W. H. 165 (10) ; 
 
 [1899] P. 4 
 
 23. — Bodilyinaapaaityof executor— Adminis- 
 tration with will annexed. -i. i. j i. 
 
 Where an executor was incapacitated by 
 illness, a grant of letters of administration with 
 will annexed was made to a residuary legatee 
 
 FBOBAT£ (Grant of Administration) — continued. 
 for life for the use of the executor until his 
 recovery. In the Goods of Ponsoney 
 
 Jeune P. [1895] P. 287 
 
 24, — Citation — Executor — • Absence from 
 Englind — No citation — Grant to nominee of as- 
 signees of residuary legatee — Will — Practice. 
 
 A testator died iu 1890, leaving a will and 
 codicil appointing executors, who duly proved. 
 One of the executors died shortly afterwards, and 
 in 1891 the other went abroad and had intimated 
 that he had no present intention of returning to 
 England, or of acting further as executor. | 
 
 The Court, without requiring citation or any 
 formal notice to be served upon the executor, 
 granted administration de bonis non, with the 
 will and codicil annexed, in favour of the nominee 
 of the assignees of the residuary legatee. In the 
 Goods of Campion - - - G. Barnes J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 218 ; [1900] P. 13 
 
 26. — Citation and non-appearance of alleged 
 legatees — Practice — Will. 
 
 In an action brought to set aside an alleged 
 will, the Court, on proof of the citation and non- 
 appearance of the alleged legatees, made a grant 
 of administration to the next of kin of the 
 
 Morton v. Thorpe, (1863) 3 Sw. & Tr. 179, 
 followed. In the Goods op QnioK. QriOK v. 
 Quick - - G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 187 
 
 26. — Citation dispensed with — Sureties — Justi- 
 fication — Practice — Intestacy — Oath of adminis- 
 trator—Next of Un— Probate Act, 1857 (20 * 21 
 Vid. c. 77), s. 73. 
 
 The intestate died in 1898. His son, who, if 
 alive, would be entitled to administration as sole 
 next of kin, had married and left this country in 
 1872, and had not been heard of since. The 
 intestate's estate amounted to about 200i!. The 
 Court allowed a grandson of the intestate (the 
 issue of a deceased daughter) to take a grant of 
 administration under s. 73, without requiring the 
 missing next of kin to be cited by advertisements ; 
 the applicant to swear that he believed himself 
 to be the sole next of kin, and the sureties to his 
 bond to justify. 
 
 In the Goods of Seed, (1874) 29 L. T (N.S.) 
 932, followed. 
 
 In the Goods of Shoosmith, [1894] P. 23' dis- 
 tinguished. In the Goods op Oallicott 
 
 Jeune P. [1899J P. 189 
 
 Considered by Jeune P. In the Goods of 
 Loveday, [1900] P. 154, 155. 
 
 — Citation — Graat of probate. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Probate. 87 — 92 . 
 
 27. — Citation — Grant to creditor — Notice to 
 next of hin in lieu of citation- — Cowt of Probate 
 Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 73. 
 
 In granting administration of a small estate 
 to a creditor, the Court dispensed with the cita- 
 tion of the next of kin, on proof that they had 
 received notice of the application. In the Goods 
 OF Tbece G. Barnes J. [1895] W, N, 143 (12) ; 
 
 [1896] P. 6 
 
 28. — Citation — Necessity for — Disappearance 
 of person entitled. 
 
 Where upon an application by the one sur- 
 viving brother of an intestate, who died in 1895, 
 
( 1599 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1600 ) 
 
 FEOBATI! (Grant of Administration) — continued. 
 for administration of Ms estate, it appeared that 
 the intestate's father, who, if alive, was entitled 
 to administration, had deserted his wife in 1866 
 and had not since been heard of, the Court 
 directed that the father should be cited. In the 
 Goods of Harpek G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 69 
 
 29. — Citation — Bepresentative of next of Idn 
 — Citation of person entitled in distribution — 
 Probate Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 73. 
 
 Under s. 73 of the Probate Act, 1857, a grant 
 of administration may be made to the representa- 
 tive of the next of kin of an intestate without 
 citing a person entitled in distribution. In the 
 Goods of Kinohella Jeune P. [1894] P. 364 
 
 30. Conxent — Legacy to a Roman Catholic 
 Convent — Administration with the will annexed. 
 
 A testatrix left her residue to B. " to be dis- 
 posed of as she shall think fit at her discretion 
 for the benefit of" a convent. B. and the exe- 
 cutor died during the lifetime of the testatrix. 
 Letters of administration with will annexed were 
 granted to the Eeverend Mother of the convent as 
 residuary legatee on proof of the permanence of 
 the institution and the fitness of the Eeverend 
 Mother, having regard to her powers, to receive 
 and apply the legacy. In the Goods of M'Adliffe 
 Jeune P. [1895] P. 290 
 
 31. — Executor — Disappearance of person 
 named as — Will — Court of Probate Act, 1857 
 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. TH— Substantial estate— 
 Gi'ant to one of the residuary legatees. 
 
 The executor named in a will took some steps 
 towards obtaining probate, but, after drawing a 
 sum of 25i. from the estate on account of costs, 
 appeared to have departed from the country in 
 embarrassed circumstances, leaving no address, 
 and apparently with no intention of returning : — 
 
 Held (all parties interested under the will 
 consenting), that, although the estate was of 
 substantial value, administration with the will 
 annexed might be granted, upon motion, under 
 s. 73, to one of the persons named as residuary 
 legatees without notice to the executor. In the 
 Goods of Massey G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 270 
 
 32. — Executors — Powers and duties — Law of 
 Chili — Evidence — Grant of administration with 
 will annexed to the widow. 
 
 A testator died domiciled in Chili, leaving a 
 will, appointing two executors, one of whom died 
 without taking probate. The other was believed 
 to be in Bolivia, but no response had been ob- 
 tained to repeated applications made to him. 
 The only property in this country of any value 
 consisted of a debt which it was desired to 
 •collect. 
 
 The Court accepted the affidavit of a notary, 
 who was not a qualified Cbilian lawyer, as evi- 
 dence of the law of Chili ; and, upon his evidence 
 that the powers and duties of an executor in that 
 country would only extend to seeing that the 
 estate was duly administered by the acting 
 heiress, who in this case was the testator's widow, 
 the Court made to her a grant of administration, 
 with the will annexed. In the Goods of 
 WuiTELEGG - Jeune P. [1899] P. 867 
 
 •;«rfsL'Mof'"''T '^°'^i<=i^~Next of kin out of the 
 jnusaiction ~ Assets and some beneficiaries in 
 
 PROBATE (Grant of Administration) — continued. 
 England — No executor — Grant to stranger without 
 citing next of kin — Practice — Administration with 
 will annexed— Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict, 
 c. 77), g. 73. 
 
 The testatrix, who died domiciled in the 
 Kepublio of Hayti, left a will which was valid by 
 the law of her domicil, but not executed with the 
 formalities prescribed in the Wills Act. Tliere 
 was no appointment of executors, but the will 
 contained the words : " M. E. Bordu of Port-au- 
 Prince and Mr. J. B. Wallace of Liverpool shall 
 carry out my last wishes." The only estate in 
 England consisted of a sum of 1260Z. Is, \ld. in 
 the hands of Mr. Wallace's firm. 
 
 The sole next of kiu, who was entitled in dis- 
 tribution to half the fund, was in Hayti and had 
 not been cited; but the persons entitled to the 
 other half were in England, and assented to Mr. 
 Wallace being appointed administrator with the 
 will annexed. 
 
 The Court appointed Mr. Wallace adminis- 
 trator (with the will annexed) under s. 73 
 without requiring the next of kin to be cited. 
 In the Goods of Moffatt Jenne P. [1900] P. 152 
 
 34. — Foreign domicil of testatrix — Will made 
 in execution of power of appointment — Grant of 
 administration with will annexed. 
 
 A testatrix who at the time of her death had 
 a Erencli domicil, executed, in pursuance of a 
 power of appointment, a will in the English form, 
 invalid according to French law. 
 
 The Court, on the authority of the decision of 
 Sir C. Cresswell in In the Goods of Alexander 
 (29 L. J. (P. & M.) 93), which is held to be 
 binding, though erroneous, following in this 
 respect the decision of Sir J. P. Wilde in In the 
 Goods of Eallyburton (L. R. 1 P. & D. 90) 
 granted administration with the will annexed. 
 In the Goods of Hubek Jenne P. [1896] P. 209 
 
 EefeiTed to by Jeune P. In the Goods of 
 Trefond, [1899] P. 247, 250. 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Price, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 442, 452. 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Pouey v. Hordern, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 492, 494. 
 
 35. — Foreign railways, Sliares in — Adminis- 
 tration de bonis non — Intestacy — Ligal estate out- 
 standing in the intestate — Beneficial owner a bank- 
 rupt — Limited grant to trustee in bankruptcy. 
 
 A. being the owner of certain shares in 
 two foreign ry. cos. handed the certificates to 
 C, who received the dividends as beneficial 
 owner until he became bankrupt, after which 
 the trustee in C.'s bankruptcy received such 
 dividends as became payable. A. died, never 
 having divested himself of the legal estate in the 
 shares ; and administration to his estate was 
 granted to B., who died leaving part of the estate 
 unadministered. Upon the application of the 
 trustee in C.'s bankruptcy, 
 
 The Court granted administration to him, in 
 respect of the unadministered estate of A., limited 
 to the shares in the two foreign ry. cos. In 
 the Goods of Asnese Jenne P. [1900] P. 60 
 
 36. — Foreign will disposing of property abroad 
 — Intestacy as to English estate — Grant. 
 
 A testatrix left a will expressly limited to 
 
( 1601 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1G02 ) 
 
 FBOBAXE (Grant 6f Administration) — continued. 
 her property abroad which was proved in the 
 foreign Court. She died intestate as to her 
 English property : — 
 
 Held, that administration of English property 
 might be granted to her sole next of kin. In 
 THE Goods of Mann Jeune P. [1891] P, 293 
 
 Eeferred to by G. Barnes J. In the Goods of 
 Murray, [1896] P. 65, 71. 
 
 37. — Foreign will — Persons appointed to 
 realize property in England. 
 
 A person domiciled in Germany made a will 
 appointing persons to realize his property in 
 England, and to pay the proceeds to his executors 
 in Germany. A grant of probate was made to 
 these persons of admtaistration to the use and 
 benefit of the executors, on the ground that this 
 grant would enable them to perform in England 
 the duties imposed on them according to German 
 law by the will. In the Goods of Bbiesemann 
 (Xo. i) - Jeiine P. [1894] P. 260 
 
 See In the Goods of Bbiesemann (Ko. 2) 
 
 [1895] W. N. 32 
 
 38. — Foreign will — Foreign sureties to 
 administration hond — Practice. 
 
 The testator, a French subject resident in 
 France, made a will there by which he con- 
 stituted a domiciled French subject his universal 
 and residuary legatee. Part of the estate was in 
 the English Funds, and there were no debts in 
 this country : — 
 
 Seld, on application for administration with 
 will annexed, that the administratrix might give 
 an administration bond with two foreign sureties. 
 In the Goods op De Beaufort 
 
 G, Barnes J. [1893] P, 231 
 
 See In tlie Goods of Scott, [1895] P. 342. 
 
 — Heir-at-law — Application by — Practice — Eeal 
 estate. 
 See No. 62, helow. 
 
 39. — Heir-at-law of intestate wife passing 
 over husband, Grant to — Land Transfer Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 65), Part I, s. 2, su6-s. i— Court 
 of Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), 8. 73. 
 
 By the Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 65), Part I., s. 2, sub-s. 4, " Where a person 
 dies possessed of real estate, the Court shall, in 
 granting letters of administration, have regard to 
 the rights and interests of persons interested in 
 his real estate, and his heir-at-law, if not one of 
 the next of kin, shall be equally entitled to the 
 grant with the next of kin, and provision shall 
 be made by rules of Court for adapting the pro- 
 cedure and praolioe in the grant of letters of 
 administration to the case of real estate." 
 
 A wife died intestate. Her husband survived 
 her, and she left a son by a former marriage, a 
 minor, who was her heir-at-law. 
 
 On it appearing that the husband wos a dis- 
 sipated man, -who was mismanaging a public- 
 house which was part of the estate, and of which 
 he refused to give up possession, the Court, 
 acting under the sub-section nnd s. 73 of the 
 Court of Probate Act, 1857, granted administra- 
 tion of the estate to the guardian ad litem of the 
 infant heir-at-law. In the Goods of Akdekn 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1898] P. 147 
 
 FBOBATE (Grant of Administration) — continued. 
 
 40. — Heir-at-law — Necessity for citation of — 
 Grant of administration with the will annexed — 
 Grant ad colligendum — Land Transfer Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. 0. 65), Part I., s. 2, sub-s. 4. 
 
 By the Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. 0. 65), Part I., e. 2, sub-s. 4, "Where a 
 person dies possessed of real estate, the Court 
 shall, in granting letters of administration, have 
 regard to the rights and interests of persons 
 interested in his real estate, and his heir-at-law, 
 if not one of the next of kin, shall be equally 
 entitled to the grant with the next of kin, and 
 provision shall be made by rules of Court for 
 adapting the procedure and practice in the grant 
 of letters of administration to the case of real 
 estate : — 
 
 By an additional rule and order, dated 
 Nov. 20, 1897, for the registrars of the principal 
 and district registries : " All rules orders and 
 instructions and the existing practice of the 
 Court with respect to non-contentious business 
 shall, so far as the circumstances of each case 
 will allow, be applicable to grants of probate and 
 administration made under the authority of the 
 Land Transfer Act, 1897." 
 
 A married woman who owned certain farms 
 made a will, by which she left her real estate to 
 her husband for life, with remainder to her 
 natural daughter absolutely, and all her personal 
 estate to her husband, whom she appointed 
 executor. 
 
 Her natural daughter died in her lifetime. 
 Her husband died without proving the will, and 
 administration of his personal estate was granted 
 to liis sister as next of kin. It was not known 
 who was the heir-at-law of the testatrix. The 
 value of the real estate was 7688?., that of the 
 personal estate iSl. : — 
 
 Held, on an application by the administratrix 
 of the husband, for a grant of administration of 
 the real and personal estate of the testatrix, that, 
 having regard to the provisions of the sub-section,, 
 the heir-at-law not having been cited, a general 
 grant ought not to be made, but that the appli- 
 cant might take a grant ad colligendum, which 
 would enable her to let and mnnage the farms^, 
 till the heir-at-law could be cited. In the 
 Goods op Roberts Jeune P, [1898] P. 149- 
 
 — Husband jure mariti, Property coming to. 
 See Husband and Wife. 14. 
 
 41. — Husband missing —No executor or resi- 
 duary legatee — " Special circumstances " — Grant 
 to son without citing husband — Court of Probate 
 Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. a. 77), s. 73. 
 
 Where no executor or residuary legatee was 
 named in the will, and the testator's husband had 
 deserted her fifteen years before her death and 
 had not been heard of since, the Court granted 
 letters of administration with will annexed to a 
 trustee for beneficiaries under tl.e will and dis- 
 pensed with citation of the husband, under the 
 "special circumstances" of the case, under s. 73 
 of the Court of Probate Act, 1857. In the 
 Goods op Shoosmith G. Barnes J. [1894] P. 23 
 
 42. — Informalities — Practice — Will and 
 codicils — Infants interested — Probate granted on 
 motion. 
 
 Where a testatrix left three testamentary 
 
( icoa ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1604 ) 
 
 PBOBATE (Grant of Administration)— confo'niieii. I 
 
 papers, two of which contained certain informali- 1 
 tics and affected tlie interests of infants, the 
 Court, being of opinion that, if the usual prac- 
 tice were insisted upon and the documents pro- 
 pounded in solemn form, the result would be to 
 establisli all three documents, granted probate 
 thereof, on motion, to the executors. In the 
 Goods of O'Bkien - Jeune P. [1900] P. 208 
 
 43. — Intestacy — Father and son — Doubt as to 
 wlio died fint -Frohate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. 
 G. 77) — Grant under s. 73. 
 
 Where a person who left no will was pre- 
 sumed to have died "in or since 1863," and his 
 father died in 1866, also intestate, the Court 
 made a grant under s. 73 to a brother of the pre- 
 sumed deceased, no representative of the father's 
 estate having been appointed. In the Goods of 
 Harling - Jenne P. [1900] P. 59 
 
 44. — Intestate's estate of value under 500Z. — 
 Grant to executor of widoto who had not tahen 
 administration — Intestates' Estates Act, 1890 
 <53 <£: 54 Vict. c. 29), s. \— Court of Frohate Act, 
 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 73. 
 
 A widow died without taking administration 
 to her husband's estate, which was of the net 
 value of under 500?., and, as he died without 
 issue, belonged exclusively to her, under h. 1 of 
 tlie Intestates' Estates Act, 1890. The CoMt 
 granted administration to her executor, under 
 B. 73 of the Court of Probate Act, 1857. In the 
 Goods of Beyant G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 159 
 
 45. — Joint grant to next of kin and another 
 person entitled in distribution — 20 & 21 Vict, 
 c. 77, s. 73. 
 
 A widow died intestate leading a brother and 
 nine nephews and nieces. Three of her nephews 
 and nieces were in Australia, but, the other six 
 consenting, the Court, under s. 73 of the Court of 
 Probate Act, 1857, made a grant of administra- 
 tion to the brother and one of the nephews. Ix 
 THE Goods of Walsh Jenne P. [1898] P. 230 
 
 46. — Joint grant — Widow and two elder sons 
 — Consent of minor. 
 
 Joint grant of administration of estate of an 
 intestate made to his widow and her two sons 
 by consent of all parties, where all five children 
 were of age except one who was six months 
 under age. In the Goods of Dickinson 
 
 Jeune P. [1891] P. 292 
 
 47. — Limited administration. — Grant ad 
 colligendum — Next of kin abroad — Necessity for 
 the immediate sale of a business. 
 
 Where tlie keeper of a small shop in London 
 died apparently a bachelor and intestate, and his 
 next of kin who lived in South America had been 
 communicated with but had not yet answered, 
 and it was necessary to sell the goodwill at 
 once, the Court made a grant ad colligendum 
 to a friend, whom the deceased had shortly before 
 his death asked to manage his affairs, in the form 
 adopted in In the Goods of Schwerdtfeger, (1876) 
 1 P. D. 424. In the Goods of Bolton 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 186 
 
 48. Limited administration — Necessity for 
 "nuexatwn of will. '' '' 
 
 In granting, for the purpose of a conveyance. 
 
 PBOBATE (Grant of Administration) — continued. 
 adminijitration limited to certain leasehold pro- 
 perty of a testator, the Court held that the will 
 should be annexed to the grant. In the Goods 
 OF BuTLEE - Jenne P. [1897] W. K. 153 (12) ; 
 
 [1898] P. 9 
 
 49. — Limited administration — Ferson entitled 
 to grant abroad — Immediate grant necessary — 
 Grant to stranger — Court of Probate Act, 1857 
 (20 * 21 Viet. c. 77), s. 73. 
 
 At the time of the death of an intestate his 
 next of kin were in the interior of Bolivia, where 
 it took six weeks to communicate with them by 
 telegram, and four months by letter. The Court, 
 being satisfied that an immediate representation 
 was necessary for the preservation of the personal 
 estate, made a general grant to a member of a 
 firm of accountants in London in whose hands 
 the books of the intestate's firm had been placed, 
 limited until such time as the next of kin should 
 apply to take a full grant, and ordered the ad- 
 ministrator to give justifying security. Ix the 
 Goods of Suaeez - G. Barnes J, [1897] P. 82 
 
 50. — Limited administration — Trust fund. 
 The Court will grant letters of administration 
 
 to the cestui que trust of a trust fund, limited to 
 that fund, after the death of the trustee, on the 
 consent of his personal representatives. 
 
 Fegg v. Qiamberlain, (I860) 1 Sw. & Tr. 527, 
 followed. In the Goods of Ratclifpe 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 110 
 
 61. — Limited administration — Will of mar- 
 ried looman — Married Women's Froperty Act, 
 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. e. 75)— Probate Bules of 
 April, 1887. 
 
 Where, upon the death of a woman who had 
 married before the commencement of the Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), 
 it appeared that, before her marriage, she had 
 acquired a mortgage debt, which her husband 
 had not reduced into possession, and had since 
 her marriage made a will purporting to dispose 
 of all her real and personal property, the Court 
 made a grant to her husband of administration to 
 such of her property as she had no power to dis- 
 pose of by will. In the Goods of Leman 
 
 Jeune P. [1898] P. 215 
 
 52. — Limited grant to husband — Practice — 
 Will of married woman — Consent of husband. 
 
 Motion by the husband of the deceased, Eliza- 
 beth Davis, for a grant to him of letters of 
 administration in respect of her estate : — 
 
 Meld, that under the circumstances letters of 
 administration in respect of all the estate which 
 by law devolved on or vested in the representative 
 of Elizabeth Davis, save and except such estate 
 as she had a right to dispose of, and had actually 
 disposed of, by will, be decreed to the lawful 
 husband of the deceased. 
 
 Form of limited grant in In the Goods of 
 Honor Leman, [1898] P. 215, adopted; In the 
 Goods of Donovan, (1898) 78 L. T. (N.S.) 567, 
 referred to. In the Goods of Davis 
 
 Jeune P. [1899] W. N. 61 
 
 53. — Lunatic — Form of oath by adminis- 
 trator. 
 
 A testator while of unsound mind and being 
 dependent on his relatives, and wholly without 
 
( 1600 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1006 ) 
 
 PBOBAIE (Grant of Administration)— conW/raed. 
 property, made a will disposing of large suras of 
 money, which was not propounded : — 
 
 Held, that admiuistratiou, as in case of in- 
 testacy, might be granted to his sister as attorney 
 for his widow, who was in Australia, and that 
 the oath of the administratrix should be that 
 as far as she knew and believed the deceased left 
 no will. In the Goods of Riou 
 
 Butt P [1892] P. 143 
 
 54. — Lunatic — Pauper lunatic — Small intes- 
 tacy — " Widow, but no issue" — Grant to clerk of 
 guardians under 20 & 21 Fict. c. 77, s. 73 — Next 
 of kin not cited — 53 & 54 Vict. c. 29, s. 1. 
 
 The value of the property of an intestate who 
 •died leaving a widow, but no issue, did not 
 exceed 500!. The widow was a pauper lunatic, 
 and her father renounced his right to take the 
 grant on her behalf : — 
 
 Meld, that a grant of administration might 
 be made under s. 73 of the Court of Probate Act, 
 1857, to a nominee of the guardians, to whom the 
 pauper lunatic was indebted for maintenance, 
 without citing the next of kin otthe intestate or 
 of the lunatic. In the Goods of Evebley 
 
 [1892] P. 50 
 
 55. — Married woman — Foreign domicil — 
 Power of appointment — Will made in execution of 
 power — Administration with will annexed — Grant 
 to appointee — Limited or general gfant. 
 
 Upon an application for administration with 
 the will annexed it appeared that the deceased 
 was domiciled in France, her husband, who sur- 
 vived her, being a domiciled Frenchman. The 
 applicant was the appointee in trust under the 
 marriage settlement of the deceased, which, on 
 the face of it, appeared to include a>l her property, 
 and the ground of the application was that the 
 will had not been executed in accordance with 
 the law of the domicil of the deceased : — 
 
 Held, that unless the husband of the deceased 
 were to consent, a full grant ought not to be 
 made ; and that, in accordance with the practice, 
 failing the husband's consent, the grant to the 
 applicant, as appointee, should be limited to such 
 property as the deceased had power to dispose of, 
 and did dispose of, by the instrument executing 
 the appointment. In the Goods op Teefond 
 
 Jenne P. [1899] P. 247 
 
 56. — Mental infirmity — Person "through 
 mental infirmity arising from age incapable of 
 managing his affairs" — Person appointed to act 
 with powers of a committee — Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 Vict. c. 5), s. 116— CoMJ-i of Probate Act, 1857 
 (20 & 21 Vict e. 77), s. 73. 
 
 The sole next of kin of a deceased intestate 
 was a person " not lawfully detained as a lunatic, 
 ■ and not found a lunatic by inquisition, but 
 through mental infirmity arising from age in- 
 capable of managing her affairs " within s. 116, 
 sub-s. 1 (d), of the Lunacy Act, 1890. Her 
 estate was administered by a person appointed to 
 act with a power of committee under sub-s. 2 of 
 the section. The Court made a general grant 
 under s. 73 of the Probate Act, 1857, to the 
 person so appointed, for the use and benefit of 
 the next of kin. In the Goods of Leese 
 
 Jenne P, [1894] P. 160 
 
 PROBATE (Orant of Administration)— coirf»»MecZ. 
 
 67, — Misconduct of widow— Grant to son of 
 intestate. 
 
 Where the widow of an intestate, whose estate 
 was small, was shewn to have been a woman of 
 dissipated habits, who had eloped with another 
 man sixteen years before the application, and had 
 not since been heard of, the Court made a grant 
 of administration to the only son of the intestate, 
 without the citation of the widow. 
 
 In the Goods of Anderson, (1864) 3 Sw. & Tr. 
 489, followed. In the Goods of Stevens 
 
 Jeune P. [1898] P. 126 
 
 68, — Next of kin — Grant to representative of 
 — Executrix and sole legatee not to be found. 
 
 Where an executrix and sole legatee—being 
 the illegitiraato daughter of the testatrix — had 
 not been heard of forty years, the Court, the 
 Crown waiving its rights, granted administration 
 with the will annexed to the representative of 
 the testatrix's next of kin, on proof of citation of 
 the executrix by advertisement, and of the 
 waiver by the Crown, and subject to administra- 
 tion to the next of kin being taken out. In the 
 Goods of Ley - - [1892] P. 6 
 
 69, — Next of kin as upon intestacy. Grant to 
 — Practice — Document executed as a will — Sole 
 executrix and beneficiary cited — Non-appearance. 
 
 The deceased died leaving a document, which 
 he had duly executed as a will, giving all his 
 property to a certain person and appointing her 
 sole executrix. 
 
 Upon proof of personal service upon that 
 person of a citation, calling upon her to bring in 
 the will or to shew cause why administration, as 
 upon intestacy, should not be granted to the 
 applicant as next of kin, and upon an affidavit of 
 non-appearance to the citation : — 
 
 The Court, upon the authority of Crosby v. 
 Noton, (1867) 36 L. J. (P. & M.) 55, and although 
 there was no evidence before it as to the invalidity 
 of the will, made a grant to the applicant, as 
 upon an intestacy, conditionally upon the appli- 
 cant swearing, when taking the grant, that he 
 was the next of kin of the deceased. In the 
 Goods of Dennis - Jenne P, [1899] P, 191 
 
 60. — Pendente lite— Practice— Might of credi- 
 tor to sue administrator— Will— Action tomhing 
 i:aliditv— Appointment of administrator pendente 
 lite-Court of Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict 
 c. 11), s. 70. 
 
 An administrator pendente lite of the per- 
 sonal estate of a deceased person, appointed by 
 the Probate Div., under s. 70 of the Com't of 
 Probate Act of 1857, pending an action touching 
 the validity of the will of the deceased, may, 
 without any leave of the Court, be sued in the 
 Oh. Div. by a creditor of the deceased in the 
 sarne way as a general administrator. In re 
 
 TOLEMAN. WeSTWOOD V. BoOKEK 
 
 Korth J. [1897] 1 Ch, 866 
 
 61, — Pendente lite— Duration of grant. 
 
 The functions of an administrator pendentQ 
 lite determine on a decree in favour of a will 
 with executors. 
 
 Semble, that the case is the same if there bo 
 no executors. Wielakd v. Bird 
 
 Jeune P. [1894] P, 262 
 3 F 2 
 
( IGUT ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( IGOS ) 
 
 PEOBATE (Brant of Administration) — continued. 
 
 62. — Practice — Heal estate— Application hy 
 heir-at-law— Land Transfer Act, 1S97 (60 & 61 
 Vict. c. 65), Part I., s. 2, subs. i. 
 
 By the Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 k 61 
 Vict. c. 65), Part I., s. 2, siib-s. 4, •' Wliere a 
 person dies possessed of real estate, the Court 
 shall, in granting letters of administration, have 
 regard to the rights and interests of persons 
 interested in his real estate, and his heir-at-law, 
 if not one of the next of kin, shall be equally 
 entitled to the grant with tie next of kin, and 
 provision shall be made by rules of Court for 
 adapting the procedure and practice in the grant 
 of letters of administration to the case of real 
 estate." 
 
 Per 6. Barnes J. : Where the title of the 
 person applying under the sub-section for ad- 
 ministration as heir-at-law is clear, and there is 
 no personalty, a grant may be made to the appli- 
 cant without notice to the next of kin ; but where 
 the title of the applicant is doubtful, or the 
 amount of the personalty large compared with 
 the realty, notice should be given to the next of 
 kin. In the Goods op Barxett 
 
 G, Barnes J. [1898] P, 145 
 
 — Presumption of death — ^Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Pkobate — Presumption 
 of Death. 
 
 63. — Me-sealing — Intestacy — Colonial grant. 
 "Where the executors of a will, under wMch a 
 
 legacy of 2501. was payable to the " personal 
 representatives" of the testator's brother, who 
 died intestate domiciled in one of the Australian 
 Colonies leaving no estate in this country, insisted 
 on the re-sealing here of a grant of letters of 
 administration which the brother's widow had 
 obtained in the Colony, 
 
 The Court allowed the grant to be re-sealed. 
 Ix THE Goods of Sanders 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1900] P. 292 
 
 64. — Besiduanj bequest— Will — "All other 
 ejects." 
 
 A bequest of furniture, &c., and " all other 
 effects," to the wife in a will which contains no 
 bequests to any other person, constitutes the wife 
 residuary legatee, and a grant of administration 
 with the will annexed will be made to her 
 accordingly. Is the Goods of Jopp 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 300 
 
 — Pievocalion of administration. 
 
 See Cases under Probate — Sevocation 
 of Administration. 
 
 65. — Second grant — Lunacy of single adminis- 
 trator — Appointment of jierson under s. 116 of 
 Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 T7ci. c. 5), with only 
 specified powers. 
 
 AVhore a single administrator becomes insane, 
 and a person is appointed under s. 116 of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, with only specified powers, 
 the Court will make a grant to another of the 
 next of kin for the use of such administrator 
 during his lunacy, impounding the original 
 grant. In the Goods of Oooke 
 
 Jenne P. [1895] P. 68 
 
 PKOBATE (Grant of Administration) — continued. 
 
 Where the next of kin of a lunatic was unabls 
 to find the justifying security : — - 
 
 /TcW, that administration could not be granted 
 to him, but that a grant might be made to a 
 receiver already appoinfed by the Cli. Div. in ai» 
 administration action. In the Goods op Moore 
 (No. 1) Jeune J. [1892] P. 14r5 
 
 67. — Sole executor missing. 
 
 Where the sole executor had completely dis- 
 appeared : — 
 
 Held, that the Court could grant administrai:- 
 tion with the will annexed to the testator's 
 widow, the sole beneficiary, without citing the 
 executor. In the Goods op Ceawshay 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 108 
 
 68. — Sole executrix a lunatic — Personal ser~ 
 rice of citation dispensed loith — Grant to creditor 
 under s. 73 of 20 & 21 Viet. c. 77. 
 
 Where the sole executrix was a lunatic : — 
 Held, that a grant of administration with the 
 will annexed might be made under s. 73 of the 
 Court of Probate Act, 1857, to a creditor, and 
 personal service of the citation on the lunatic 
 dispensed with. In the Goods of Atherton 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 104 
 
 69. — Son, passing over the liusband, Grant to. 
 Where the husband of an intestate had been 
 
 cited to take out letters of administration to the 
 personalty and had entered no appearance, the 
 Court passed him over and made a grant to the 
 only son of the intestate. Ix the Goods of 
 Sarah Moore - [1891] P. 299 
 
 — Subsequent discovery of will. 
 
 See Teusteb— -Practice. 88. 
 
 70. — Stranger, Grant to — Grant of adminis- 
 tration de bonis non with will annexed — Probate 
 Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 73. 
 
 All parties interested in the estate of the 
 deceased entered into a compromise, with a view 
 to putting an end to further disputes and litiga- 
 tion, and, being unable to agree amongst them- 
 selves that any one or more of their number 
 should take a grant, it was arranged that B., 
 chartered accountant, who had audited the books 
 of the deceased's businesses for some years, 
 should apply for letters of administration witli 
 the will and codicils of the deceased annexed ; 
 and the Court made an order in terms of this 
 arrangement (see [1899] P. 265). In accordance 
 with this order, B. entered upon his duties as 
 administrator, and, after selling certain lease- 
 holds and shares belonging to the testator's 
 estate, died on Deo. 18, 1899, leaving part of the 
 estate still unadministered. 
 
 On Dec. 20, administration de bonis non was 
 granted, under s. 78, to Barnes, a partner of the 
 said B., limited to collecting and preserving the 
 estate and completing the sale of the leaseholds 
 and continuing the business of the deceased until 
 Jan. 29, 1900, or until a fresh permanent grant 
 should be made. 
 
 With the consent of all parties interested, who 
 wore still unable to agree among themselves to a 
 grant going to any one or more of their number, 
 
 The Court now made, on the application of 
 Barnes, a grant de bonis non to him, with the 
 will and codicils of the deceased annexed, subject 
 
( 1609 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( IGIO )• 
 
 PEOBATE (Grant of Administration)— conhnuefi. 
 to formal consents by all parties being filed, and 
 subject also to an affidavit of the fitness of the 
 applicant. In the Goods of Potter. Pottek 
 V. Potter - - Jeune P. [1900] W. N. 31 
 _ 71' — Stranger — Grant of administration with 
 will annexed to stranger — " Special circumstances " 
 —Probate Act, 1857 (20 * 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 73. 
 
 Where all parties interested in the estate of 
 the deceased had entered into a compromise, with 
 a view to putting an end to all further disputes 
 and litigation, upon the basis that B., a stranger 
 in blood, who had been employed by the deceased 
 in auditing his accounts, should apply for and 
 obtain a grant of letters of administration with 
 the will and codioUs annexed, the Court, upon 
 his application, and subject to the consents of all 
 the persona interested in the estate, and subject 
 to an affidavit of the fitness of the proposed 
 administrator being filed, made the grant to him 
 under s. 73. In the Goods op Potter. Potter 
 V. Potter G. Barnes J. [1899] P. 266 
 
 See In the Goods of Potter, [1900^ W. N. 31. 
 
 72. — Stranger — Grant to — No known relatives 
 of testator, and no residuary legatee appointed. 
 
 Where there were no known relatives of the 
 testator and no residuary legatee had been 
 appointed:— 
 
 Held, that a grant of administration with the 
 will annexed might be made to a stranger. In 
 the Goods of Jackson ■ Jeune P. [1892] P. 257 
 
 73. — Urgency — Both executors abroad. 
 
 A testator appointed two executors,, both of 
 whom were at the time of his death resident out 
 of the United Kingdom. The will contained a 
 clause requesting A., the partner of one of the 
 executors, to act for him in the event of his 
 absence. There being urgent necessity for the 
 appointment of an administrator : — 
 
 Seld, that a grant could be made to A . with 
 the will annexed, under s. 73 of the Court of 
 Probate Act, 1857, until such time as one or 
 other of the executors should prove the will. In 
 the Goods of Taylor - Jeune J. [1892] P. 90 
 
 74. — Widow appointed executor by missing 
 will — Two wills. 
 
 A testator made a will leaving everything to 
 his wife and appointing her his sole executrix. 
 The testator subsequently, not being able to find 
 this will, made another in the same terms, but 
 omitted to appoint executors : — 
 
 Seld, on a motion for probate of both wills, 
 that administration ought to be granted to the 
 widow with the last will annexed, but that she 
 might give her personal bond without being 
 required to find securities. The missing will was 
 found after the testator's death. Administration 
 granted to the widow on her personal bond only. 
 In the Goods of Allen Jeune P. [1893] P. 184 
 
 Grant of Probate. 
 (Jurisdiction and Practice.) 
 
 — Acceptance of letters of request granted in 
 aid of probate action — jurisdiction. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 29._ 
 
 75. — Alteration in grant — Omission of .one of 
 the christian names of an executor. 
 
 The christian names of an executor called in 
 
 PEOBATE (Grant of V ca\s&ie)— continued. 
 a will and grant of probate "Frederick"' were 
 " Frederick John." The Court, on proof that 
 the Bank of England had objected to transferring 
 stock into the names of tho executors, in conse- 
 quence of this executor having signed tho 
 memorandum for the transfer with the initials 
 " F. J.," allowed the description in the grant. to 
 be altered into " Frederick John M . . . ., called 
 in the will Frederick M . . . ." In the Goods 
 OF HoNYWOOD Jeune P. [1895] P. 341 
 
 76. — Alteration in will — Erasure after execu- 
 tion — Substituted executor and attesting witness. 
 
 After the execution of his will, the testator 
 added the names of two persons as executors, and 
 erased the name of C. S., one of the witnesses, 
 being one of the persons named as executor, and 
 substituted another name : — 
 
 Held, that the nomination of executors might 
 
 be included in the probate, but that the name of 
 
 C. S. must be restored both as executor and 
 
 attesting witness. In the Goods of Greenwood 
 
 Jeune J, [1892] P. 7 
 
 77. — Arnbiguily — Extrinsic evidence admitted 
 to identify executor — "My nepliew G. A." 
 
 A testator in his will applied the terms 
 nephew and niece to legitimate and illegitimate 
 relatives indiscriminately. He appointed as one 
 of his executors " my nephew G. A." having an 
 illegitimate and u, legitimate nephew of that 
 name : — 
 
 Seld, that extrinsic evidence was admissible 
 to shew that the illegitimate nephew was meant 
 by the will. In the Goods op Ashton 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 83 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Parker, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 213. 
 
 78. — Ambiguity — Extrinsic evidence — Identity 
 of executor — Declaration of testator. 
 
 Where there is ambiguity as to the identity of 
 an executor, evidence of surrounding circum- 
 stances is admissible to clear up that am- 
 biguity : — 
 
 Semble, that evidence of declarations by the 
 testator is not admissible in such a case. In the 
 Goods or Chappell - Jeune J. [1894] P. 98 
 
 79. — Ambiguity — Unexecuted testamentary 
 document — Debt. 
 
 A testator left in a box belonging to him a 
 letter written by him to his executor, which had 
 not been communicated to the executor, in which 
 was said " the 100/. I lent you does not form part 
 of the money left you ; it is cancelled " : — 
 
 Seld, that the letter was a testamentary 
 document not duly executed, and was inadmis- 
 sible in evidence of the cancellation of the debt. 
 In re Hyslop. Hyslop v. Chameeklain 
 
 North J. [1894] 3 Ch, 522 
 
 80. — Ambiguity —Extrinsic evidence — Words 
 of reference. 
 
 Only where the terms of a will or the circum- 
 stances considered in connection with llie will 
 shew an ambiguity to exist are declarations of 
 the testator admissible in evidence. Paton v. 
 Ormebod - Jeune J. [1892] P. 247 
 
 81. — " Apparent " — Paper pasted over words 
 
C 1611 ) 
 
 DIGEST (IF CAM-^S. 1801—19011. 
 
 ( 1612 ) 
 
 PROBATE (Grant of VTobate)—cnntinued. 
 
 in will — Nature of expert evidence admissible — 
 
 Wills Act, 1837 (7 Will, i, and 1 Vict. c. 26), s. 21. 
 
 la deciding wliether words obliterated, ire, in 
 a will are apparent within s. 21 of the Wills Act, 
 1837, it is allowable to use magnifying glasses or 
 artificial arrangement of light, but not to resort 
 to any physical interference with the document. 
 Paper l]ad been pasted by a testator over words 
 in a will. Tliese words could be read by experts 
 if the will was placed against a window pane, and 
 the light was concentrated on the part to be 
 read : — 
 
 Held, that the words deciphered should be 
 admitted to probate. Ffistoh r. Combe 
 
 Jeune P. [1894] P. 191 
 
 82. — Citation hy advertisement — Chain of 
 executorship — Executor of executor — Disappear- 
 ance of executor to ichom power to prove reserved. 
 
 Probate of a will was granted to one of two 
 executors, power being reserved to make the like 
 grant to the other oxecirtor. The acting executor 
 died, not having fully administered ; at the date 
 of his death the other executor had not been 
 heard of for fourteen years. The daughter aud 
 sole next of kin of the testator, with the assent of 
 the executors of the acting executor, moyed for 
 a grant to herself of letters of administration de 
 bonis noil : — • 
 
 Held, that the gi'ant could not be made, (is, 
 upon the non-appearance to a citation of the 
 executor to whom power to prove had been 
 reserved, the chain of executorship would be 
 continued in the executors of the acting executor 
 without any fresh grant from the Court. Leave 
 given to effect service of the citation on the 
 absent executor by advertisement. 
 
 In the Goods of Noddings, (1860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 15, 
 as amended by the corrigenda in that volume, 
 followed. In the Goods op Heid 
 
 e. Barnes J. [18S6] P. 129 
 
 83. — Citation — Compromise — Charitahle 
 bequest — Attorney-General. 
 
 A testator by his will bequeathed the rrsidue of 
 his real and personal estate for the establishment 
 of an agricultural college. The will was disputed 
 by one of his next of kin who was also heiress at 
 law ; but a compromise was agreed to by which 
 the will was to be proved in solemn form without 
 opposition. The Att.-Gcn., as interested in the 
 disposal of the residue, was ciled and appeared to 
 sanction the compromise. Boughet r. Minor 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 181 
 — Citation — Grant of administration. 
 
 See Pkobate— Grant of Administration. 
 24—29. 
 
 84. — Conditional will. 
 
 A testator, a Scotsman, by his will gave the 
 residue of his estate to his wife for life during 
 widowhood, and in case of her re-marriage gave 
 liei- one-third for life, tlie remainder to various 
 legatees. There was no disposition of the residue 
 after the wife's death iu the event of her remain- 
 ing a widow. 
 
 The testator, being about to sail with his wife 
 rom Calcutta to England, wrote a letter to his 
 brother in England, which was in form a good 
 testamentary document at Scots law, and con- 
 
 PEOBATE (Grant of 'Sxoba.tei)— continued. 
 taincd the following: "If anything happens to 
 us on the way my will has been accidentally 
 jjacked away in a tin box to which I cannot now 
 get access, as I forget which box it has been put 
 into. However, if we both come to grief, I 
 appoint you my executor ; if I only, then in con- 
 junction with Xan." The letter then proceeded 
 to deal with the disposition of his estate after his 
 wife's dcati), in the event of her surviving him. 
 jSTeither the testator nor his wife died during the 
 voyage:— 
 
 Held, that the letter was not conditional, but 
 was a valid testamentary document, and must be 
 admitted to probate. Halfobd i. Halfoed. 
 (BnvoE, Ixtehvenek) Jeune P. [1897] P. 36 
 
 85. — Conditional ivill. 
 
 The deceased, a military ofBcer on active 
 service, wrote to his sister a letter in which ho 
 made use of the following language : " If we 
 remain here taking pahs for some time to como 
 the chances are in favour of more of us beings 
 killed, and as I may not have another opportunity 
 of saying what I wish to be done with any little 
 money I may possess in case of an accident, I 
 wish to make everything I possess over to you. 
 In the first place there is money at ... . Keep 
 this until I ask you for it." 
 
 Held, that the disposition of the deceased's 
 property was not dependent on his death while 
 on active service ; that the document was not 
 therefore a conditional will ; and that, being: 
 good as a military will, it was entitled to 
 probate. 
 
 In the Goods of Itobinson, (1870) L. K. 2 
 P. & M. 171, considered. In the Goods of 
 Spkatt - - Jeune P. [1897] P. 2» 
 
 86. — Conduct money — Practice — Examination 
 —Court of Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Hcf. c. 77), 
 s. 26. 
 
 Semblc, that conduct money caijuot be claimed 
 iu the first instance by a pei-son who is directed 
 to attend for the purpose of being examined pur- 
 suant to s. 26 of the Court of Probate Act, 1857, 
 (20 & 21 "N'ict. c. 77). In the Goods op "Wtatt 
 Jeune P. [1898] P. 1& 
 
 87. — Coats — Liability of defendant giving: 
 notice under r. 18 of Order .M'l. — S. S. C, Order 
 XXI., r. 18 ; Order Lxr., r. 1. 
 
 The general rule, that in cases tried with a 
 jury costs follow the event, as, also, the exception 
 engrafted on this rule by the Probate rule pro- 
 tecting a defendant from being ordered to pay 
 costs where he has duly delivered a notice of hi& 
 intention to call no witnesses, and merely re- 
 quiring the will to be proved iu solemn form, 
 have been superseded by Order xxi., r. 18, as 
 now amended. 
 
 The elfect of that rule as amended is that, 
 whether he has asked for a jury or not, a defend- 
 ant who duly gives notice under the rule is not to 
 be liable to pay the costs of the other side, unless- 
 the judge shall be of opinion tliat there was no 
 reasonable ground for opposing the will. Davies- 
 V. Jones - - . Jeune P. [1899] P. 161 
 
 88. — Costs — Marriedicoman, proceeding insti- 
 tuted by—Costs of litigation — Entry of Caveat— 
 Property subject to restraint on anticipation — 
 
( 1613 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OA,SES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( leii ) 
 
 PROBATE (Grant of FvoTaate)— continued. 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 63), o. 2~Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict, 
 c. 66), s. 100— iJ. 8. a, 1883, Order I., r. 1 ; 
 Order //., r. 1. 
 
 An executor's probate action, brought iu con- 
 sequence of a caveat entered by a married woman 
 who was made a deft, to the action, resulted iu a 
 verdict for the pit. with costs against the deft. 
 Upon an application by the pit. under the Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1893, s. 2, for an order 
 for payment of the costs out of property to which 
 the deft, was entitled subject to a restraint on 
 anticipation : — 
 
 Held, that the proceedings in the probate 
 action wore " instituted " within the meaning of 
 the Act of 1893 by the issue of the writ by the 
 pit., and not by the entry of the caveat, or the 
 appearance of the caveator in answer to the 
 warning; and accordingly that the order applied 
 for could not be made. Moran v. Place 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 214 
 
 89. — Costs of unsuccessfully opposing probate 
 — Testamentary expenses. 
 
 The plt.'s costs of an unsuccessful action 
 impeaching the validity of a will, though ordered 
 by the judge of the Probate Div. to be paid out 
 of the testator's estate, are not testamentary 
 expenses. In re Pkince. Godwin v. Pkincb 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 225 
 
 90. — Costs " out of the estate ' — Real estate, 
 Liability of. 
 
 In a probate action judgment was given for 
 the pit. establishing the will (which contained 
 specific devises of real estate, but no residuary 
 devise), and the deft.'s costs were ordered to be 
 paid out of the estate, but no order was made as 
 to the costs of the pits, propounding the will. 
 The deceased's estate consisted of real estate, 
 part only of which was devised, and personal 
 estate not sufficient to pay the costs of the action. 
 In an administration action : — 
 
 Held, that the order of the Probate Div. could 
 only refer to the estate over which it had juris- 
 diction (namel)', personalty), and that the Ch. 
 Div. had no jurisdiction except under special 
 circumstances to order the costs in the Probate 
 Div. to be paid out of the real estate. In re 
 Shaw. Bkidqes v. Shaw 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1894] 3 Ch. 615 
 
 91. — Costs — Proof in solemn form — Notice- 
 by defendant to cross-examine only — Practice — 
 Order sji., r. 18— B. S. C, July, 1898. 
 
 By Order xxi., r. 18, as amended by the Rules 
 of the Supreme Court, July, 1898, ''In probate 
 actions the party opposing a will may, with his 
 defence, give notice to the party setting up the 
 will that he merely insists on the wUl being 
 proved in solemn form of law, and only intends 
 to cross-examine the witnesses produced in sup- 
 port of the will, and he shall thereupon be at 
 liberty to do so, and shall not, in any event, be 
 liable to pay the costs of the other side, unless 
 the judge shall be of opinion that there was no 
 reasonable ground for opposing the will." 
 
 The judge, being of opinion that the defend- 
 ants in a probate action had opposed the will 
 
 PROBATE (Grant of Hiohate)— continued. 
 without reasonable ground, ordered them to pay 
 the costs of the other side, under the amended 
 rale. Spiobb v. Spioee 
 
 Jenne P. [1898] TV. N. 156 (11) ; [1899] P. 38 
 
 92. — Costs — Severance of defences — Practice 
 — Good cause — Probate action — Action tried with 
 a jury — Separate sets of costs — if. S. C, Order 
 L.w., r. 1. 
 
 An action to establish the third, and, alterna- 
 tively, the second, will of a testator, was separately 
 defended by the executors of the first will and 
 two legatees thereunder. The legatees were in- 
 terested in upsetting both the eecond and third 
 wills, but the executors were only substantially 
 interested in upsetting the third. The jury 
 found that the execution of the last two wills 
 was obtained by undue influence, and the judge 
 pronounced against them and for the firot will : — 
 
 Held, that there was a sufficient divergence 
 of interest between the defts. to justify the 
 legatees in appearing by separate counsel, and 
 that, consequently, there was no good cause for 
 depriving them of the costs of their separate' 
 appearance. 
 
 Decision of G. Barnes J. reversed. Bagshaw 
 V. Pimm - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 64 ;. 
 
 [1900] P. 148 
 — County court jurisdiction. 
 
 See Probate — Revocation of Adminis- 
 tration. 143. 
 
 93. — Discovery and inspection of documents- 
 Disputed will. 
 
 In an action to propound a will the defts. 
 applied for inspection of documents. It appeared 
 that the plt.'s solicitor had for many years acted 
 for the testatrix, and had in Ms possession diaries, 
 &c., relating to the affairs which were his owa 
 private property : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the pit. could not be compelled 
 to produce these documents for inspection; (2J 
 that the solicitor could not be compelled under 
 Order xxxvii., r. 7, to produce the documents for 
 discovery, nor called for examination under 
 Order xxxvi., r. 5, at that stage of the action ; 
 (3) that an aifidavit of documents claiming privi- 
 lege for documents as communications between 
 the party and his solicitor is insufficient, it being 
 also necessary to shew that the letters were 
 professional communications of a confidential 
 character for the purpose of getting legal advice. 
 Decision of Jeune P., [18911 P. 237, partly 
 affirmed. O'Shea r. AVood - C' A. [1891] P. 286 
 
 Eofcrred to by C. A . Beg. v. Bullivant, [1900] 
 2 Q. B. 1G3, 168. 
 
 94. — Executor according to the tenor. 
 
 (a) Trustees nominated by a testator (A.) " to 
 carry out this will," and (B.) " for the dno 
 execution of this my will": — 
 
 Held, entitled to probate as being executors 
 according to the tenor. 
 
 (A) In the Goods of Eussell 
 
 Jeune P. [1892] P. 380 
 
 (e) In the Goods op Laihd 
 
 Jeune P. [1892] P. 380 
 
 (b) a testatrix appointed two persons Iriistccs 
 
( IGlo ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, ly;)l— lOOu. 
 
 ( IGIG ) 
 
 PSOBATE (Grant of 2ioba.ta)— continued. 
 
 of her will and expressed a wieh that they should 
 
 pay her funeral and other debts : — ■ 
 
 Held, that they were thereby constituted 
 executors according to the tenor of the will, and 
 were entitled to probate. In the Goods op 
 Wilkinson - Jeune J. [1892] P. 227 
 
 — Foreign assets, Debts chargeable on — State- 
 
 ment by executors. 
 See Victoria. 11. 
 
 95. — Foreign u-ill — German law — Frdbate of 
 copy. 
 
 The will of a German subject domiciled in 
 the Idngdom of Wurtemburg at his death had 
 been proved in AVurtemburg in accordance with 
 the requirements of local law and deposited with 
 a notary, who by the law of the country was 
 forbidden to allow it to leave his custody. It 
 contained a direction that during her lifetime the 
 widow should have the unrestricted right of 
 administration and usufruct of the testator's 
 estate without giving security, which according 
 to the local law was equivalent to appointing her 
 executrix, and entitled her to collect the personal 
 estate as though she were the owner thereof. 
 Part of the personal estate was in England : — 
 
 Seld, that probate might be granted to the 
 widow of a copy of the original will properly 
 proved, limited to such time as might elapse 
 before the original will itself should be brought 
 in. In the Goods or Von Linden 
 
 Jenne P. [1896] P. 148 
 
 96. — Foreign will — Grant of probate to foreign 
 executors. 
 
 A person domiciled in England by his will 
 appointed persons in England to realize property 
 there and pay the proceeds to his executors 
 abroad. Letters of administration were granted 
 to those persons to the use of the executors. The 
 adminibtrators renounced. Probate granted to 
 the executors in Germany. In the Goods of 
 Bkiesemann (No. 2) Jeune P. [1895] W. N. 32 
 
 — General and special grant — Personal represen- 
 
 tative. 
 
 See Tku.stei; — Appointment. 12. 
 
 97. — Guardian ad litem — Official receiver ap- 
 pointed — Contention — Rules of Probate Court, 1862, 
 r. 7i— R. S. C, 188S, Order xin., r. 1. 
 
 Where the deft, to a probate action was a 
 minor and resident abroad, and no appearance 
 was made to the cilation : — 
 
 Eeld, that Order xjii., r. 1, applied, and that 
 the official solicitor should be made guardian ad 
 litem, and his costs provided for as part of the 
 costs of the pit., who was the executor propounding 
 the will. White r. Duvebnay 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 290 
 
 98. — Incorporated document — Will — Library 
 catalogue — Custody. 
 
 A testator made a bequest to a college of his 
 books as enumerated in his library catalogue, a 
 voluminous document, a copy of which would 
 entail considerable expense. Probate was granted 
 ot the will without requiring the catalogue to be 
 iq°^r?l'"i°f'"' Probate Eeglstrv under rules 12, 
 iJ 01 the Rules of 1862, the college undertaking 
 
 PEOBATE (Grant of Probate)— con<(HMe(/. 
 to hold the catalogue for the registry, and a note 
 to that effect being made upon the probate. In 
 THE Goods op Baljie Jeune P. [1897] P. 261 
 
 99. — Incorporation — Words of reference — 
 Latent ambiguity — Farol evidence. 
 
 A testatrix by a will executed in 1873 be- 
 queathed a moiety of a fund, over which she had 
 a power of appointment, to P. In 1881 she made 
 auother will revoking all former wills, but con- 
 taining a recital apparently referring to the 1873 
 bequest : — 
 
 Held, on the facts, that there was no incor- 
 poration by reference. Paton ?; Oksiekod 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 247 
 
 100. — Incorporation by codicil — Unattested — 
 Interlineations. 
 
 By an unattested interlineation made after 
 the execution of a will 1000?. was given to each 
 of the executors. In the body of the will 10,000Z. 
 was given to A., one of the executors, and a 
 codicil contained a recital that 11,000/. had been 
 given to A. : — 
 
 Held, that this reference shewed that the 
 interlineation had been made previously to the 
 codicil, and was, therefore, incorporated by it. 
 In the Goods or Heath - Jeune P. [1892] P. 253 
 
 101. — Incorporation — Document not referred 
 to as existing — Codicil. 
 
 A testator devised property to trustees to 
 provide an annuity for his wife, setting apart 
 certain funds which they would find noted ; he 
 confirmed his will by two codicils. A document 
 certainly later than the will and possibly before 
 the codicils was found which sot apart funds for 
 this purpose : — 
 
 Held, that as the Avill did not refir to the 
 document as existing, the codicils had not the 
 effect of incorporating it with the documents of 
 which probate was to be granted. Durham v. 
 NoHTHEN - - Jeune P. [1895] P. 66 
 
 And see next Case. 
 
 102. — Incorporation — Testamentary papers — 
 Validity — ■Inadmissibility — Sefusal of probate. 
 
 A testator executed a document in the presence 
 of two witnesses who duly attested it. The 
 document appointed no executors and contained 
 no bequest, but referred to "the enclosed papers 
 numbered " 1-6, as containing his testamentary 
 wishes, and recited that such papers had been 
 signed by him in the presence of the witnesses. 
 This the witnesses denied, s.iying that when they 
 witnessed the testator's signature, he said, " The 
 will is in this drawer." Papers 1-6 bore dates 
 autecedeut to the witnessed document. In the 
 attestation clause the deceased was referred to as 
 the testator : — 
 
 Held, that, as the papers 1-6 were not clearly 
 identified, they could not be taken as incorporated 
 with the attested document, and as the attested 
 paper alone would be inoperative, probate of all 
 the documents must bo refused. Ix the Goods 
 OP Gakxett G. Barnes J. [1894] P. 90 
 
 20 <t 
 6. 23. 
 
 103. — Inspection of testamentary papers • — 
 <t 21 T7cf. c. 77, s. 26—21 & 22 Vict. c. 95. 
 
 Where the executors and solicitors of a testa- 
 
( 1617 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OA«ES, 18U1— 1900. 
 
 ( 1618 ) 
 
 PEOBATE (Grant of Sioha,te)—conHmced. 
 trix refused to give any information as to previous 
 alleged wills, the Court, under the 26tli section 
 of the Court of Probate Act, 1857, oidered them 
 to bring into the registry all wUls and testamen- 
 tary papers of the deceased in their possession, 
 and to allow certain persons who believed them- 
 selves to have been benefited by such wills to 
 take copies subject to payment of deposit for 
 inspection. In the Goods of Shepherd 
 
 Jeiine J. [1891] P. 323 
 
 — Invalid bequest — Grant of general probate to 
 
 husband — Implied assent to will. 
 iSee Husband AND Wife. 41. 
 
 104. — Joint will — Husband and wife. 
 Where a husband and wife made a joint will, 
 
 the Court, upon the death of the wife, granted 
 probate of so much of the instrument as became 
 operative upon her death. In the Goods of 
 Piazzi-Smyth Jeune P. [1897] W.N. 150 (8) ; 
 
 [1898] P. 7 
 
 105. — Lis pendens — Seceiver ief ore probate — 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 A. entered a caveat against probate of a will. 
 B., the executor named in the will, warned it, 
 and A. appeared. Before anything further had 
 been done A. moved for an order for a receiver 
 and administrator pendente lite : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of the President), 
 that there was no jurisdiction to make the order, 
 for the caveat proceedings did not constitute a 
 lis pendens, and, as no writ had been issued, 
 there was no application to the Court on which 
 the Court could act. 
 
 In re Parlter, (1885) 5-1: L. J. (Ch.) 694, 
 explained. Salter v. Salter 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 291 
 
 — Married woman — Invalid bequest — Grant of 
 
 general probate to husband — Implied 
 
 assent to will. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 41. 
 
 106. — Misrepresentation — Notice to husband 
 —20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, s. 21— VeseHion. 
 
 A woman married in 1863, who had separated 
 from her husband by mutual consent, made a 
 will on the strength of a protection order under 
 8. 21 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857. This 
 order had been obtained (after the husband's 
 return to co-habitatiou) by the suppression of 
 material facts and without giving notice to the 
 husband. The husband did not know of the 
 order imtil after the wife's death : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the protection order must be set 
 aside as obtained by false statements and con- 
 cealment of material facts and without notice to 
 the husband, and the will pronounced against. 
 Mahonby v. M'Carthy Jeune P. [1892] P. 21 
 
 107. — Mistalce in date of reference — Codicil. 
 A testatrix executed a will in 1887, and 
 
 another in 1899 by which she revoked all previous 
 wills, and in 1891 a codicil which by mistake was 
 described as a codicil to the will of 1887 : — 
 
 Held, that probate might be granted of the 
 codicil, together witli the will of 1889, with 
 the reference ,to the will of 1887 omitted. In 
 THE Goods of Gordon Jeune P. [1892] P. 228 , 
 
 PROBATE (Grant of Vvoibate)— continued. 
 
 108. — ■ Mistake in will — Correcting in grant. 
 Where, by a mistake in the engrossment of a 
 
 draft will, a house No. lOo was described as 
 No. 103, so that one house was bequeathed twice 
 over and another house was left undisposed of : — 
 Held, that the Court could strike out the 
 wrong description, but must leave the Court of 
 construction to fill up the blank. In the Goods 
 OF VValkley - Jeune P. [1893] W. N, 62 
 
 109. — Mistake in will — Correcting in grant 
 — Cfra7it of probate with name omitted. 
 
 Wliere in a will the name of one sister was 
 inserted by a mistake of the conveyancer for that 
 of another sister : — 
 
 Held, that probate might be granted to the 
 executors with the repeated name omitted. In 
 the Goods of Boehm - Jeune J. [1891] P. 247 
 
 110. — Mistake in will — Omission of loords of 
 revocation included in will without testatrix's 
 knowledge. 
 
 -After the execution of her will by which she 
 left her whole property to her illegitimate son, a, 
 testatrix wrote out and duly executed on a, 
 printed form of will a bequest of certain furniture 
 to her sister. The form commenced with a clause 
 revoking all previous wills, but the testatrix did 
 not fill up the blanks in this clause, which was 
 not read over to her (as the rest of the form was) 
 at the time of execution, and of which there was 
 no evidence she had ever heard :— 
 
 Held, that probate might be granted of the 
 paper, omitting the revocation clause, as a codicil 
 to the original will. In the Goods of Moore 
 (No. 2) - Jenne P, [1892] P. 378 
 
 — Neglect to take out probate — Wilful default — 
 Breach of duty. 
 /See Executor— liabilities. 41. 
 
 111. — New trial — Motion for — Findings of 
 jury — Legatee preparing will in his own favour. 
 
 On a motion for a new trial made by the exe- 
 cutors after the Court had excluded from probate 
 a pecuniary legacy exhausting nearly the whole 
 of the testator's estate to his confidential agent 
 who had drawn the will, it appeared that the 
 jury had properly found that the testator knew 
 and approved its contents except as regards the 
 above bequest, which he did not know and ap- 
 prove of, but had in a rider expressed its belief 
 that the testator intended to give to said legatee 
 half his property : — 
 
 Held, that the motion was properly refused. 
 The rider did not neutralise but rather supported 
 the verdict, for, if correct, it shewed that the will 
 did not truly express the testator's intention. 
 Fakrflly v. Cobkisan - P. C. [1899] A. C. 563 
 
 112. — Obliteration — -Will — Practice — Words 
 of will before alteration whether " apparent " — , 
 L'vidence of experts in writing — Wills Act (1 Vict, 
 c. 26), s. 21. 
 
 Tlie Court, on motion, allowed words beneath 
 alterations in a will to be substituted, as " ap- 
 parent " within the meaning of s. 21 of the Wills 
 Act (1 Vict. c. 26), upon proof that they could 
 be deciphered by an expert in handwriting using 
 a magnifying glass. In the Goods op Brazier 
 0. Barnes J. [1899] P. 36 
 
( IGllt ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, ISul— I1X)0. 
 
 ( 1620 ) 
 
 PROBATE (Grant of VroTaate)— continued. 
 
 113. — Onus ptdbandi — Informal will — Wills 
 of Maoris— Law of New Zealand. 
 
 Strict proof must be given of a will whicli is 
 informal signed by mark instead of the usual 
 subscription in full of the testator, and has been 
 obtained from him by one of the propounders 
 having a substantial interest in its provisions and 
 ■witnessed by two of her relations. Such a will 
 is not invalid; but the onus proband! may be 
 increased by circumstances, and the presumption 
 may even be conclusive against the validity of 
 the instrument. Donnelly r. BsoTiGnToif 
 
 P. C. [1891] A, C. 435 
 
 114. — Onus prdbandi — ^Vill prepared under 
 suspicious circuTnsfances. 
 
 Where a will is prepared and executed under 
 suspicious circumstances, it is for the party pro- 
 pounding it to adduce evidence to remove such 
 suspicion and to satisfy the Court that the testator 
 knew and approved of the contents of the -will. 
 The testatrix in 1880 and 1884 made wills in 
 favour of the deft., but afterwards became die- 
 satisfied -with him, and from 1888 to 1892 wrote 
 to her solicitor complaining of the deft. On 
 Nov. 7, 1892, she made a will leaving her pro- 
 perty to the pit. On Nov. 9 the deft.'s son 
 brought to her a will prepared by himself leaving 
 the property to the deft. The deft.'s son and a 
 friend of his were the only persons present when 
 this will was executed. The attesting witnesses 
 swore that the testatrix understood and approved 
 of the will : — 
 
 Held, that the onus was on the deft, to 
 remove the suspicion arising from the circum- 
 stances, and that tbe evidence was not sufficient. 
 Tyrebll v. Painton (No. 1) C. A. [1894] P. 161 
 
 116. — Tower of attorney — Grant of probate 
 to attorneys — Executor absent from the country. 
 
 Ad executor on going abroad had executed a 
 power of attorney, enabling the persons named 
 in it to act in business of every kind whatsoever 
 as fully and effectually as he himself could do : — 
 
 Held, that the power was wide enougli to ; 
 enable the Court to make a grant with the will , 
 annexed to the attorneys for the use and benefit j 
 of the executor. Ix thk Groobs ov Babker 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 251 
 
 — Presumption of death. 
 
 See Cases under Probate —Presumption 
 of Death, 
 
 116. — Froof in solemn form — Costs — Discre- 
 tion — Contentious Sides of 1862, r. 41. 
 
 Where the party opposing a will has given 
 notice under r. 41 of the Contentious Business 
 Bulea of 1862 that he merely insists on the will 
 being proved in solid form and on cross-examining 
 the witnesses, but does not seek to call in the 
 jirobate, he cannot be condemned in costs. Leigh 
 c. Green - - Div. Ct. [1892] P. 17 
 
 — Bes judicata — Will — Validity — Probate action 
 
 — Citation of parties. 
 See Estoppel, 'j. 
 
 117. — Bevival hy reference. 
 
 A testator made a will, in 1867 and two 
 oodicila thereto in 1869 and 1874, and in 1875 
 another will expressly revoking all former wills 
 
 PEOBATE (Grant of TvobaXe)— continued. 
 and testamentary papers. Two persons who were 
 benefited by the codicil of 1874 and the will of 
 1875 havinji died, he in 1881 made another codicil 
 disposing of the property which had been left to 
 them, and commencing, " Whereas my two sisters 
 named in my codicil dated May 12, 1874 . . . ." : — 
 Held, tliat this reference to the codicil of 1874 
 did not revive it, and it must be excluded from 
 probate. Ix the Goods oe Dexnis 
 
 Jeune J, [1891] P. 326 
 
 118. — Torn u-ill — Incomplete restoration — 
 Cojjy. 
 
 After a testator's death and while one of the 
 executors was making a copy of the will, one of 
 the testator's sons snatched the will and tore it in 
 pieces. The executor collected the pieces and 
 gummed them together, but some of them were 
 missing :— 
 
 Held, that probate might be granted of the 
 incomplete will, together with the copy, which 
 the executor had subsequently completed. Ix 
 THE Goods of Leigh Jeune J. [1892] P. 82 
 
 119. — Torn mil — Security for share of ab- 
 sentee. 
 
 A testator suffering from softening of the 
 brain tore his will into piece.^. The pieces were 
 pasted together, and probate applied for by the- 
 widow. The will left all the testator's estate to 
 his wife for life, with remainder to his two sons 
 in equal shares, and appointed the widow and 
 the sons trustees and executors. The oldest son 
 was willing that probate should be granted. The 
 younger had not been communicated with : — 
 
 Held, that probate might be granted to the 
 widow on her giving security for one-third of the 
 personal estate, being the younger son's share in 
 case of intestacy. Ix the Goods op Hixe 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 282 
 
 120. — Tu-o teftamenfary documents — Only one 
 executed. 
 
 A testatrix left two testamentary documents ; 
 
 the first, which was unexecuted, made various 
 
 , specific bequests; the second, which was duly 
 
 j executed, left everything to A. "for the purposcf- 
 
 I require him to do absolutely " : — 
 
 Held, that the two documents could not be 
 admitted to probate together as constituting the 
 will of the deceased, but that probate might bo 
 : granted of the second paper with directions to 
 administer the estate in conformity with the 
 trusts of the first, Ix the Goods of Marohant 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 254 
 
 121. — Two wills, one dealing with English, the 
 other with foreign property — Independent E7iglish 
 and foreign wilts — Incorpuration of foreign with 
 English will. 
 
 A testator made two wills with codicils, the 
 earlier relating to property in the United States, 
 the later to property in England, and appointed 
 executors in the two countries, his intention being: 
 Ihat the American executors, after realizing so 
 much of his property in America as they required 
 for the purpose of paying his debts there and 
 the legacies given by his American will and 
 codicils, should realize the residue under the 
 direction uf his English representatives and hand 
 
( 1621 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CA8ES, 1891—1000, 
 
 ( 1622 ) 
 
 PSOBATE (Grant of Probate)— coH^iimecJ. 
 
 the proceeds over to them, to be dealt with as 
 
 directed by tlie English will and codicils : — 
 
 Held, that the American and English wills 
 were independent documents, and the English 
 will did not incorporate the American will, and 
 that, therefore, the American will and codicils 
 ought not to be included in the probate to be 
 granted of the English will and oodioils. In the 
 Goods of Muebat G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 65 
 
 122. — Ttm wilk — Property in England and 
 Canada — Inde2]endent grant — Affidavit as to 
 movables. 
 
 A testator having properly in England and 
 Canada made two wills, each purporting to be 
 independent of the other and disposing only of 
 the property situate in the country to which it 
 referred : — 
 
 Held, that probate might be granted of the 
 English will without requiring the executors to 
 bring in the Canadian will, ou affidavits being 
 filed shewing that the movables mentioned in 
 the two wills were in England and Canada re- 
 spectively at the time of the testator's death. 
 In the Goods op Seaman Jenne J. [1891] P. 253 
 
 123. — Two wills — Froperty in England and 
 Italy — Incorporation. 
 
 An Italian lady, widow of an Englishman 
 and domiciled in England, made a will for her 
 English property, and afterwards in Italy made 
 another will, confined to her Italian property, 
 except that it expressly confirmed her English 
 will: — 
 
 Held, that, as the Italian will confirmed the 
 English will, it must be incorporated in the 
 probate. In the Goods of Lockhart 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] W. N. 80 
 
 124. — Two wills — Property in England and 
 Scotland — Debts charged on one estate only. 
 
 A testator executed two wills, one dealing 
 with property in England, the other only with 
 property in Scotland. By the Scottish will all 
 the testator's debts were charged on the Scottish 
 property : — • 
 
 Held, that probate might be granted of the 
 English will alone without requiring the Scottish 
 will to be incorporated, on condition that a certi- 
 fied copy was filed and a note to that effect made 
 on the probate. In the Goods of Fkasbe 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 285 
 
 125. — Will and two codicils — Second codicil 
 revoking " all previous codicils." 
 
 A testator left a will and two codicils, the 
 second of which revoked " all previous codicils 
 made in favour of" a legatee. A difliculty was 
 raised in the registry by reason of the reference 
 in the second codicil to previous " codicils " in 
 the plural : — 
 
 Held, that it was clear that all three docu- 
 ments must be admitted to probate. In the 
 Goods of Jenkins Jenne P. [1894] W. N. 16 
 
 126. — Will dealing with immovalle property 
 in foreign country. 
 
 A testator domiciled in England left a will 
 and codicils dealing with property in England 
 and personal property in Kii3sia;and also left 
 two other documents, one of which was a will 
 
 PROBATE (Grant of Probate) — continued. 
 duly executed according to English law, both 
 referring only to immovable property in Kussia, 
 and appointing separate executors for such pro- 
 perty. All the executors applied for probate of 
 all five documents. Probate refused of the two 
 documents, referring only to the immovable pro- 
 perty in Russia. In the Goods of Tamplin 
 
 G, Barnes J. [1894] P. 39 
 
 127. — Will proved ahroad — French km- — 
 Prohate of copy. 
 
 The will of a British subject domiciled abroad 
 at the time of his icath had been proved in the 
 French Courts and deposited with a notary, who 
 by the law of France was forbidden to allow it to- 
 be removed from his custody : — 
 
 Held, that probate might be granted of a 
 
 properly proved copy of the original will limited 
 
 to such time as might elapse before the will itself 
 
 should be brought in. In the Goods of Lemme 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 8» 
 
 128. — Wrong surname — Executor described by 
 — Will — Appointment of executors. 
 
 The deceased, by his will, appointed certain 
 executors, of whom one was described as " the 
 said Thomas Cooper." The deceased had no 
 friend, child, or relative named Thomas Cooper, 
 but he had a friend named Thomas Stevenson, 
 who was named in the will as a, trustee along 
 with the other two persons properly named as 
 executors. 
 
 The Court ordered the surname " Cooper " to 
 be struck out of the engrossment of the will to be 
 made for the purposes of probate, and granted 
 probate to Thomas Stevenson and the other two 
 executors. In the Goods of Coopek 
 
 Jeune P. [1899] P. 19» 
 
 Lost WiU, 
 
 129. — Lost will — Codicil admitted to probate 
 where will not forthcoming. 
 
 Where testator executed a codicil which was 
 described as " a codicil to my will executed some 
 years ago," and no trace of a will could bo 
 found : — 
 
 Held, that probate of the codicil might be 
 granted. In the Goods op Clements 
 
 Jeune P. [1892] P. 254 
 
 130. — Lost loill— Grant of administration 
 until will found. 
 
 On an application for a grant of adminis- 
 tration until a lost will could be found, there was 
 evidence that the testator had duly executed a 
 will, but that it could not be found after his 
 death, and his widow, who refused to attend, 
 and, being examined as to its contents, having 
 stated that it had been accidentally destroyed, 
 there was no evidence of its contents ; — 
 
 Held, that a grant of letters of ndministratioQ 
 miglit be made to the only son, with the consent 
 of the other next of kin, limited to dealing with 
 certain specified property, until the lost will 
 should be found. In the Goods of Weight 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] P, 21 
 
 131. ■ — Lost will — Proof an motion — Necessity 
 for consent of next of Idn — Practice. 
 
 The contents of a lost, will cannot be proved 
 
( 1623 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASE!^, ISni— 1000. 
 
 ( 1624 ) 
 
 PROBATE (lost "Will)— continued. 
 
 on motion without the consent of the next of kin. 
 
 In the Goods of Peaeson 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 289 
 Qualified by G. Barnes J. In the Goods of 
 Apted, [1899] P. 272. 
 
 132. — Lost will — Small estate — Froof on 
 motion — Consent of next of Inn dispensed with. 
 
 The Court will now, in the case of a small 
 estate, entertain an application to prove, upon 
 motion, the contents of a lost will, without re- 
 ■quiring, as an absolute condition, the consent of 
 all persons interested in the estate. 
 
 In the Goods of Pearson, [1896] P. 289, quali- 
 fied. In the Goods of Apted 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] W. N. 128 ; [1899] P. 272 
 
 Practice Note. 
 
 133. — Non-contentious husincss — Prolute 
 pieces and engrossments. 
 
 Sir F. H. Jeune P., referring to an intimation 
 which had been conveyed to practitioners towards 
 the end of the last Trinity Sittings, said that 
 after a considerable amount of correspondence to 
 ascertain the views of solicitors and with a wish 
 to consult the interests of all persons concerned, 
 he Lad now directed the Senior Registrar to issue 
 the following regulations, to take effect on and 
 after January 1, 1901 : — 
 
 Paper Grants and Engrossments. 
 
 1. By direction of the President, special paper 
 will be used instead of parchment for grants and 
 •engrossments on and after January 1, 1901. 
 
 2. A grant of probate or administration with 
 will annexed will be written on the front of a 
 whole sheet of paper, which will enclose the 
 engrossment book-fashion. 
 
 3. Official engrossment sheets of the special 
 paper will be obtainable of Messrs. Eyre & 
 Spottiswoode or of any bookseller, price one penny 
 per sheet. 
 
 No other paper engrossments will be accepted. 
 
 4. For the present, a parchment engrossment 
 will not be refused if it is desired for any special 
 reason, but it is particularly requested that in 
 such a case the sheets may be of uniform size 
 with the official paper engrossment sheet. Peao- 
 TiCE Note - Jeune P. [1900] W. N. 265 
 
 Presumption of Death. 
 
 134. — Advertisements — Necessity for — 
 Practice. 
 
 On an application for leave to swear an 
 affidavit of the death of a person who had dis- 
 uppcared, the Court, tl.ough the estate was 
 small, and the person had not been heard of for 
 twenty-five years, ordered that advertisements 
 requesting information concerning him should be 
 published in newspapers. In the Goods op 
 EoBEETEON - G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 8 
 
 135. — Affidavit as to date of death — Filing 
 letter from life assurance company. 
 
 On a motion for a grant of probate and for 
 leave to depose as to the death of the testator, 
 iilthougli tlie only proof of his death was by 
 pieBumpUon from his disappearance, it appeared 
 that notice ot the motion had been given to a 
 
 PROBATE (Presumption oi TiiMi)— continued. 
 company with whom the testator had insured his 
 life, and that a letter had been written in reply 
 stating that the company did not intend to inter- 
 fere ill the proceedings. 
 
 The Court granted the application subject to 
 the letter being filed. Is the Goods op Saul 
 
 G, Barnes J. [1896] P. 151 
 
 186. — Affidavit of applicant — Practice. 
 
 On an application for leave to presume the 
 death of a person who has disappeared, the affi- 
 davit of the applicant should contain a statement 
 of belief that the death occurred at the alleged 
 date. In the Goods of Hublston 
 
 G. Bames J. [1898] P. 27 
 
 137. — Foreign grant followed. 
 
 Where a foreign Court of competent jurisdic- 
 tion had made a grant of administration on the 
 presumption of the death of the intestate : — 
 
 Meld, that the grant might be accepted as 
 sufficient proof of the death without requiring 
 it to be proved by independent evidence. In 
 THE Goods op Spenoelet Jeune P. [1892] P. 255 
 
 138. — Practice — Presumption of death from 
 disappearance for seven years — Practice — Grant 
 of administration. 
 
 On an application, made in 1898, for leave to 
 presume the death of a person who had not been 
 heard of since 1891, of whose death no evidence 
 was offered beyond the fact of his disappearance, 
 and who liad been cited in a suit which was 
 pending in the Ch. Div., the Court, in giving 
 leave to depose to the death, directed that the 
 grant of administration should, except in so far 
 as it might be required in the Ch. Div., remain 
 in the registry till the expiration of seven years 
 from the date of the disappearance. In the 
 Goods of Winstone G, Barnes J. [1898] P. 143 
 
 139. — Survivorship — Husband and loife. 
 
 A husband and wife made identical wills, 
 each appointing the other universal legatee and 
 sole executor. Both left England in a ship 
 which was lost at sea with all hands : — 
 
 Held, that a grant of letters of administration 
 with the will aiiucxed might be granted to the 
 next of kin of each. In the Go^ds op Alston 
 Butt P. [1892] P. 142 
 
 140. — Time of application. 
 
 The Court, on proof of sufficient inqxiiries, 
 allowed the death of a testator to be sworn three 
 years after his disappearance. In the Goods op 
 Matthews Jeune P. [1897] W. N. 163 (8) ; 
 
 [1898] P. 17 
 
 Benunciation. 
 
 141. — Executor — Retractation of renunciation 
 —Court of Probate Act, 1S57 (20 *'21 Vict.c.Ti), 
 s. 79. 
 
 The old practice which, in a proper case, 
 allowed a co-executor who had renounced probate 
 to retract his renunciation, is not abrogated by 
 s. 79 of the Court of Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 77). 
 
 Where one of two executors absconded after 
 taking probate, the Court allowed his co-executor, 
 who had renounced, to retract his renunciation 
 and take probate. In the Goods op Stiles 
 
 Jeune P. [1898] P. 12 
 
( 1C25 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF GASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1626 ) 
 
 FBOBATE (RermnciatiOTi)— continued. 
 — Joint grant to three persons. 
 
 iSee Probate — Revocation of Adminis- 
 tration. 144. 
 
 Revocation of Administration. 
 
 142. — Disappearance — Practice — Adminis- 
 tration de honis nan — Former administratrix — 
 Disappearance — Revocation of grant — Fresh grant 
 to one of the next of kin. 
 
 The practice by which a grant of administra- 
 tion may be revoked and a fresh grant made in 
 the absence of the holder of the outstanding 
 grant, is not confined to oases where administra- 
 tion has been taken by creditors. 
 
 Where an intestate died leaving a widow and 
 six children by a former marriage, and the widow, 
 who obtained administration, could not be found, 
 the Court, upon the application of the children, 
 revoked the grant and directed administration 
 de bonis non in favour of one of their number. 
 In the Goods op Lovedat 
 
 Jeune P. [1900] P. 154 
 
 143. — Husband passed over — Fraud — Appeal 
 —"Point of law"— Probate Acts (20 & 21 Vict, 
 c. 77), ss. 54, 58 ; (21 & 22 Vict. c. 95), s. 11— 
 County Courts Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Viet. c. 43), 
 s. 120. 
 
 A wife long separated from her husband died 
 intestate, and letters of administration were taken 
 out as if she had been a spinster. The husband, 
 some years later, discovering what had been done, 
 applied after some delay in the county court to 
 have the letters set aside and a grant made to 
 him. The county court judge, holding that there 
 had been no fraud, refused the application. On 
 appeal, held (1) that the decision was on a " point 
 of law " within s. 58 of the Court of Probate Act, 
 1857, and that the point of law was sufficiently 
 raised at the hearing under s. 120 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, and that an appeal lay; 
 (2) that the decision that the grant could not 
 be revoked in the absence of fraud was wrong. 
 COPELAND V. SiMISTEB ^ Div. Ct. [1893] P. 16 
 
 144. — Joint grant to three persons — Practice — 
 Grant of adminislratiorir—Benunciation — Setrac- 
 tation — Administration de bonis non. 
 
 In 1896 A. H. T. died bankrupt and intestate, 
 leaving a widow, who was his second wife, and 
 six children surviving. His estate was in the 
 hands of an official receiver in bankruptcy. The 
 widow and children duly renounced all rights to 
 administration, and the official receiver took the 
 grant to A. H. T.'s estate, and also a grant de 
 bonis non to the estate of A. H. T.'s first wife. 
 
 In 1899 the administrator, having paid all the 
 debts, desired to be relieved of his office, and, 
 with his concurrence, the Court (G. Barnes J.) 
 permitted the widow and children to retract their 
 renunciations ; revoked the letters of administra- 
 tion ; and made a joint grant to the widow and 
 two of the children, in respect of that portion of 
 A. H. T.'s estate remaining unadministered, thus 
 giving them the right, as of course, to take 
 administration de bonis non in the estate of 
 A. H. T.'s first wife. In the Goons op Thaoker 
 G. Barnes J. [1899] W, ». 218 j [190O] P. 15 
 
 148, — Laches — Acquiescence — Claim as next of 
 
 PROBATE (Revocation of Administration) — 
 
 continued. 
 Itin after distribution of intestate's estate — Action 
 for revocation of letters of administration. 
 
 The pit., who claimed to be entitled as next 
 of kin of an intestate, three years after the dis- 
 tribution of the estate, sought to impeach the 
 title of the persons amongst whom the estate had 
 been distributed, on the ground of the illegitimacy 
 of one of their ancestors, and for this purpose 
 commenced an action for revocation of letters of 
 administration which had been granted to one of 
 the persons who had received a share of the estate 
 under the distribution. The pit. was aware at 
 the date of the distribution of the alleged illegi- 
 timacy, but pleaded want of means in justification 
 of the delay in bringing the action : — 
 
 Held, that the action was not maintainable, 
 because (1) the plt.'s object might be obtained, 
 without revoking the letters of administration, by 
 commencing an action in the Ch. Div. for the 
 purpose of following the assets into the hands 
 of the persons who had wrongly received them ; 
 (2) the pit. was debarred by laches and acqui- 
 escence from prosecuting her claim. 
 
 Decision of G. Barnes J., [1899] P. 211, 
 affirmed. Mohan v. BaouaHTON 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 20; [1900] P. 56 
 
 146. — Practice — Motion — Grant of probate 
 refused on — Dependent relative revocation. 
 
 Where infants are interested the Court will 
 not on motion revoke letters of administration 
 (granted in error) and to grant probate of the 
 will, but will require the later will to be pro- 
 pounded. In the Goods of Andrews 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 14 
 — Subsequent discovery of will — Grant of ad- 
 ministration. 
 See Trustee — Practice. 88. 
 
 Revocation of Probate. 
 
 147. — Former action — Cognizance — Power of 
 intervention. 
 
 A person who had cognizance of and assisted 
 in a previous action to revoke a probate, but 
 who had no right to intervene in it, is not pre- 
 cluded from bringing a subsequent action to 
 revoke the same probate, when he has since the 
 first trial discovered that he had an interest 
 under a prior will. Younq v. Hollowat 
 
 , Jeune P. [1895] P. 87 
 
 Referred to by Chitty J. In re Lart, [1896] 
 2 Ch. 788, 794. 
 
 148. — Necessity for lodging documents in 
 registry — Practice. 
 
 The Court refused to hear a motion for the 
 revocation of a grant of probate, and a declara- 
 tion of the validity of a draft will, where the 
 probate and draft had not been lodged in the 
 registry. In the Goods op Eilet 
 
 0. Barnes J. [1895] W. N. 160; [1896] P. 9 
 
 149. — Testamentary incapacity. 
 Evidence necessary to justify revocation of 
 
 probate for testamentary incapacity considered. 
 AiTKEN 1-. McMeckan - P, C. [1895] A. C. 310 
 
 Revocation of Will. 
 Bee Oases under Will — Revocation. 
 
( 1627 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CA.'^ES, 1891— ll'iOo. 
 
 ( 102S ) 
 
 paOBATE — continued. 
 
 Soldier's Will 
 
 150. — Minor— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 2C), 
 s. 11 — "Actual military service" — Wliat amounts 
 to — True test — Probate granted. 
 
 Where there is at the date of the will a state 
 of war with which the soldier is or may be 
 connected, the true test ot the validity of the 
 document is whether the testator has taken some 
 step — has done some act — to bring himself, in 
 the words of the section, upon actual military 
 service, which amounts very nearly if not quite 
 to the same thing as was understood by the 
 Eomau law as being in expeditione. 
 
 Applying this test to the present case, lield, 
 that the will in question was entitled to probate. 
 In the Goods of Hisoock 
 
 Jeune P. [1900] "W. N. 266 
 
 Testamentary Capacity, 
 
 181. — Evidence — Beports of Chancery visitors 
 — Lunacy. 
 
 The reports of " Chancery Visitors " as to the 
 state of mind of an alleged lunatic cannot bo 
 put in evidence, with a view of testing her 
 testamentary capacity, at the time of the execu- 
 tion of a will, since all such reports ought to be 
 destroyed on the death of the lunatic under b. 186 
 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. Eoe v. Nix 
 
 Or. Barnes 3, and L.JJ. in Lunacy [1893] F. 55 
 
 152. — Weight of evidence — Verdict against 
 — New trial ordered. 
 
 Verdict revoking grant of probate for want of 
 testamentary capacity set aside as against weight 
 of evidence, the medical evidence being insufB- 
 cient to support while the other evidence of 
 incapacity related to irrelevant circumstances, 
 and was contradicted by witnesses who deposed 
 to actual transactions with the testator and to 
 his conduct and condition at the time of his 
 executing the wilL Aitken v. MoMeokan 
 
 P. C. [1895] A, C. 310 
 
 " PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED." 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 44, 55. 
 
 PROCESS — Arrests, commitments, and execution 
 of. 
 
 See Company — Winding-dp — Enforce- 
 ment of Orders. 
 
 — Attachment — Married woman administratrix 
 
 — Payment into court — Form of order. 
 See Husband and Wife. 38. 
 
 — Case stated by Commissioners of Income Tax 
 
 — Amendment. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 107. 
 
 — Leave to issue — City of London Court — Juris- 
 
 diction. 
 
 See London — City of London Court. 35. 
 
 PKOCXOR — Compensation annuity to. 
 See Annuity. 3. 
 
 — Intervention of Queen's Proctor. 
 
 See Cases under Divoece. 
 
 PBOCTIRATION— Bills of exchange signed by. 
 See Bill of Exchange. 17. 
 
 — Cheque signed by-Liability of principal. 
 
 *'ee Peincipal and Agent: 9. 
 
 " PROCURATION GENERALE ET SPECIALE." 
 See Canada — Quebec. 60. 
 
 PRODUCTION— of Work of Art. 
 
 See CoPYKiGHT — International. 24. 
 
 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. 
 
 See Cases under Discovery. 
 
 PROPANE OR OBSCENE LANGUAGE— Prohibi- 
 tion of use of — By-laws — Validity. 
 
 See Streets. 38. 
 
 PROFIT A PRENDRE— Licence to fish and carry 
 away fish caught — Incorporeal heredita- 
 ment. 
 See Fishery. Id. 
 
 PROFIT COSTS— Mortgagees Legal Costs Act— 
 Eetrospeetive effect. 
 See Mortgage — Costs. 12, 13. 
 
 — Solicitor — Gift to attesting witness — Codicil 
 
 . — Republication . 
 
 See Will — Attestation. 30. 
 
 — Solicitor-executor — Power to charge — Insol- 
 
 vent estate. 
 
 See Solicitor. 134. 
 
 — Solicitor mortgagee. 
 
 See Mortgage — Solicitor Mortgagee. 
 88—90. 
 
 — Solicitor trustee. 
 
 See Trustee — Remuneration. 95. 
 
 PROFITS— Account of— Patent action. 
 See Patent — Discovery. 3. 
 
 — Company — Assets. 
 
 See Cases vmder Cojipany — ^^' inding-up 
 — Assets. 
 
 — Industrial society. 
 
 See Industrial, and Provident Society. 
 1. 
 
 — Interest on — Setting aside sale — Sale by 
 
 liquidator of undertaking of company — 
 
 Fiduciary relation. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdkchasee. 53. 
 
 — Secret profit by promoters — Duty of disclosure. 
 
 See Company — ^Promoter. 204. 
 
 — Waiving tort and claiming — Damages — 
 
 Wrong to public. 
 See Tort. 2. 
 
 'B'&OiBl'&VnQiS'— Company— Winding-up— Stan- 
 naries Court — County Court — Jurisdiction — 
 Committal for contempt — Companies (JWinding- 
 up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 63), s. 1, suh-s. 6 
 — Stannaries Court (Abolition) Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 45), s. 1 — County Court Mules, 1889, 
 Order xxr., r. 40 Q>). 
 
 By the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, 
 s. 1, sub-s. 6, it is provided that every Court 
 having jurisdiction under that Act to wind up a 
 CO. shall, for the purposes of that jurisdiction, 
 have all the power's of the High Court. The 
 judge of a county court, to which the above- 
 mentioned provision applied, having made an 
 order of committal for disobedience of an order 
 made by him in the course of the winding-up of 
 a CO., an application was made for a prohibition 
 to him on the ground that the provisions of 
 Order xxv., r. 40 (6), of the County Court Eules, 
 1889, with regard to service of the order sought 
 to be enforced, had not been complied with, and 
 
( 1629 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( I6;i0 ) 
 
 VROSimiOS— continued. 
 
 he therefore had not jurisdiction to make au order 
 
 for committal : — 
 
 Held, that, iuasmuoh as the oounty court 
 judge was invested for the purposes of the 
 winding-up jurisdiction with the powers of the 
 High Court, a prohibition to him could not be 
 granted. In re The Xbw Pab Consols, Ld. 
 (No. 2) - - C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 669 
 
 Followed by C. A. Skinner v. Counitj Court 
 Judge of Northallerton, [1898] 2 Q. B. 680, 685. 
 This case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1899] 
 A. C. 439. 
 
 2. — County co^mcil — Alteration of parish 
 boundaries — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 41), s. 57. sub-ss. 1, 6 ; s. 59, subs. G, 
 
 Qurnre, whether prohibition is the proper 
 remedy where a county council makes or is about 
 1o make au order which they have no power to 
 make under s. 57 of tlie Looj.1 Government Act, 
 1888, since it is doubtful whether such an order 
 is the exercise of a judicial function. Keq. r, 
 London County Council 
 
 C. A. [1893] a ft. B. 454 
 
 3. — County court — Jurisdiction of registrar. 
 Prohibition does not lie where a county court 
 
 registrar strikes out a coimter-claim to a default 
 summons. Hooper v. Hill 
 
 ' C, A. [1894] 1 ft. B, 659 
 
 4. — County court — Waiit of jurisdiction — 
 Acquieseence^Agricultural Holdings {England) 
 Act, a883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 24. 
 
 If total want of jurisdiction appears on the 
 face of the proceedings in an inferior court, the 
 Court is bound to grant prohibition, although the 
 applicant may have acquiesced. " In a lease by 
 A. to B. it was provided that at tlie end of the 
 tenancy compensation should be allowed for 
 matters outside the Agricultural Holdings Act, 
 1883, and the procedure of the Act should apply 
 to any claim for such compensation. At the end 
 of the tenancy, cross-claims were referred to arbi- 
 tration, and an award was made by an umpu'e, 
 on the face of which it appeared that he had 
 given B. compensation for matters both within 
 and outside the Act. A county court judge made 
 an order under a. 24 of the Act to enforce the 
 award by execution. 
 
 On an application by A. for prohibition, held, 
 that as it was apparent on the face of the pro- 
 ceedings that the county couit judge had no 
 jurisdiction to make an order under s. 24 of the 
 Act to enforce payment of so much of the award 
 as related to matters outside the Act, the writ 
 must issue notwithstanding (1) the agreement in 
 the lease, and (2) that the lessor had by his con- 
 duct acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction by 
 the county court. Faequharson v. Morgan 
 
 C. A, [1894] 1 ft. B. 553 
 
 5. — Oounty court — Jurisdiction — Appeal — 
 Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. e. 66), 
 ss. 16, 34. 
 
 Under the Judicature Act, 1873, a judge of 
 the Admiralty Div. has all the powers as to pro- 
 hibition of a judge of the High Court. An appeal 
 from the refusal of prohibition lies direct to the 
 0. A. if the judge requires no further argument. 
 Sect. 132 of the Oounty Courts Act, 1888, merely 
 
 rB,OKISTnOS— continued. 
 prevents repeated applications to judges of co- 
 ordinate jurisdiction for a writ of prohibition 
 after refusal by one judge. The " Keoepta " 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 256 
 — County court judge — Appeal — Practice and 
 
 procedure. 
 
 See Appeal. 2. 
 
 6. — Inferior court — Jurisdiction — Salford 
 Hundred Court of Record Act, 1868 (31 & 32 
 Vict. c. cxxx."), ss. 6, 7. 
 
 " The cause of action " in the Salford Hundred 
 Court of Record Act, 1868, s. 6, means the whole 
 cause of action, and not merely the act or default 
 which gives the pit. his cause of complaint. 
 
 Sect. 7 of the Salford Hundred Court of 
 Eecord Act, 1868, enacts that " No deft, shall be 
 permitted to object to the jurisdiction of the 
 Court otherwise than by special plea, and, if the 
 want of jurisdiction be not so pleaded, the Court 
 shall have jurisdiction for all purposes" : — 
 
 Held (by the C. A., reversing the decision of 
 a Div. Ct.), that, the effect of the section being 
 to give jurisdiction to the Salford Hundred Court 
 in cases vfhere the want of jurisdiction is not 
 pleaded, a deft., against whom judgment had 
 been recovered in that court in default of appear- 
 ance, and who had consequently not pleaded to 
 the jurisdiction, was not entitled to a vfrit of 
 prohibition on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 
 Payne v. Hogg - C. A. [1900] W. N. 86 j 
 
 [1900] 2 ft. B. 43 
 
 — Jm-isdiotion — Wages — Action in rem — Ship's 
 husband. 
 See Shipping — Seamen, 
 
 — Power of — Liquor laws — Distribution of legis- 
 lative powers. 
 See Canada. 13. 
 
 7. — Practice— Bule absolute without plead - 
 ings — Costs — Judicature Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 44), ss. 4, 5. 
 
 The granting of prohibition not being exclu- 
 sively in the jurisdiction of the Crown side of 
 the Q. B. Div., the High Court, in making a rule 
 absolute without pleadings, has power to make 
 an order as to costs. Keg. v. London County 
 Justices (No. 3) - C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 453 
 
 — Proof of formation of company. 
 See London — Mayor's Court. 
 
 — Eent-charge — Ai'rears of — Jurisdiction. 
 See County Coukt. 44. 
 
 FBOJECTING SIGN, 
 
 See Streets — Projecting Signs. 
 
 PEOJECTING STRUCTURE. 
 
 See London — Buildings, 
 
 PEOIONGATIOlf— Of patent. 
 
 See Cases under Patent — Prolongation, 
 
 PBOHISE — To leave property to intended wife. 
 See Settlement — Construction. 4. 
 
 PROMISSORY NOTE— Bill of exchange. 
 
 See Cases under Bill of Exchange. 
 
 — Executor — Debt secured by promissory note. 
 See Trustee. 27. ' 
 
 — Part payment to stranger. 
 See Limitations, Statutes of. 5. 
 
( 1631 ) 
 
 IJXGEST OV CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1632 ) 
 
 PEOMISSOSY HOTE—contmued. 
 ■ — Stamp insufficient. 
 
 See EviDEXCE. 42. 
 
 PROMOTEE— Company. 
 
 See Company — Promoters. 
 
 PHOMOTION— Company. 
 
 See Company — Promoters. 
 
 PBOOr — Age of child— Prevention of cruelty to 
 children. 
 See Cbimisal Law. 10. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — Proof. 
 
 — Burden of proof— Contract of towage — Duty 
 
 of harbour authority. 
 
 /See Shipping — Harbour. ]5ii. 
 
 — Burden of proof — Carriage of goods— Short 
 
 deliyery. 
 
 See Shipping. 153. 
 
 — Company in liquidation. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Proof. 
 
 — " Cover " — " Money deposited to abide the 
 
 event " — Bankruptcy. 
 See Gaming. 28. 
 
 — Desertion. 
 
 See Cases under Divorce— Desertion. 
 
 — Formation of company — Prohibition. 
 
 See London — Mayor's Court. 4G. 
 
 — In solemn form — Notice by defendant to cross- 
 
 examine only. 
 See Pbobate. 110. 
 
 — Marriage — Evidence — Certificate — Ireland — 
 
 Marriage in Protestant Episcopalian 
 
 Church. 
 
 See Ireland. 2. 
 
 — Marriage between Christians in British India 
 
 — Evidence. 
 
 See Divorce. 81. 
 
 — Onus of — CoUi.sion at anchor. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 50. 
 
 — Onus of — Correctness of returning officer's 
 
 figures. 
 
 See Schools — School Board. 7. 
 
 — Onus of — Heirlooms — Sale — Extravagance of 
 
 tenant for life— Discretion of Court. 
 See Heirlooms. 4. 
 . — Onus of— Rates — Quinquennial valuation — 
 Alteration in value of hereditament — 
 Cause of alteration. 
 See Rates — Eateability. 43. 
 
 . — Onus of— Rates for merchandise — Rebate — 
 Siding not belonging to railway com- 
 pany — Station accommodation. 
 See Railway. 40. 
 
 — Status and boundaries of foreign State— Judi- 
 
 cial cognizance. 
 See Evidence. 38. 
 
 — "Winding-up of company. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up— Proof. 
 PEOPEE NAME— Registration of as trade-mark. 
 
 See Trade-mark — Registration. 29. 
 "PEOPEETT." 
 
 See Company — Debentures. T."!. 
 Landlord and Tenant. 1 1 . 
 
 PEOPERTY AND INCOME TAX. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Income Tax, 
 
 PEOPERTY, RIGHTS OF— No use of property 
 which would be legal if due to a proper motive 
 can become illegal because it is prompted by a 
 motive which is improper or even malicious. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 1 Ch. 145, affirmed. 
 Bradford Corporation v. Pickles 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 587 
 See dictum of Lord Shand in Allen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. C. 1, 167. 
 PEOPEIETAEY MEDICINE. 
 
 See Cases under Poison. 
 PROPRIETOR— Registered, of hackney carriage. 
 See Hackney Carriage. 1. 
 
 PROSECUTION — Application to dismiss for 
 want of. 
 See Practice — New Trial. 51. 
 
 — !\Ialicious prosecution. 
 
 See Cases under :>Ialicious Prosecu- 
 tion. 
 
 — Stifling. 
 
 See Contract — Illegality. 21. 
 
 PEOSPECTUS OF COMPANY. 
 
 See Company — Prospectus. 
 
 PEOTECTED TRANSACTION- Charging order. 
 See Bankruptcy — Charging Order. 
 
 PEOTECTION OEDEE— Fraud and concealment 
 in obtaining. 
 See Probate — Grant of Probate. 106, 
 
 — ^Married woman. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife— 
 Summary Jurisdiction. 
 
 PEOTEST — Appearance of foreigner under — 
 Right afterwards to object to jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 See Practice — Appearance. 10. 
 
 — Probate duty paid under protest — Application 
 
 for refund — Delay. 
 
 See New South Wales. 38. 
 
 — Tender under protest. 
 
 See Tender. 2. 
 
 PEOVIDENT SOCIETY. 
 
 See Industrial and Provident Society. 
 
 PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATOE—Appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Liquidator. 
 
 PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION— Patent— Suf- 
 ficiency. 
 See Patent — Validity, 01, 62. 
 
 PROXY— in Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Proxy. 190. 
 
 — Company — Mode of counting poll. 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 103. 
 
 — Electing of shareholders — Special resolution — 
 
 Blanks in proxies. 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 164. 
 
 — Thames Conservancy. 
 
 See Thames. 3. 
 
 PUBLIC— Action on behalf of a class of tlio 
 public — Representative action — Parties. 
 See Practice — Parties. 113. 
 
( 1633 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1634 ) 
 
 PUBLIC ATJTHOKITIES PROTECTION— 5i/ the 
 
 Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 61), tlie statutory provisions relating to 
 the protection of persons acting in the execution of 
 statutory and other public duties were generalized 
 and amended and portions of over one hundred 
 Acts were repealed. 
 
 1. — Act done in pursuance of Act of Parlia- 
 Tnent — Limitation of action — Public Authorities 
 Protection Act, 189S (56 & 57 Viet. c. 61), 8. 1— 
 Public Sealth {London') Act, 1891 (5i & 55 Vict. 
 c. 76), .. 4. 
 
 A sanitary authority served notices, under the 
 Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict, 
 o. 76), B. 4, on the ovraer of premises, requiring 
 him to do certain specified works in respect of 
 what was supposed to be a drain. He complied 
 with the notices, and incurred expense in doing 
 the works. It was discovered that the supposed 
 drain was a sewer, which the sanitary authority 
 was liable to repair, and the executors of the 
 owner brought an action against the sanitary 
 authority, to recover the amount of the expenses 
 incurred, as money paid to the use, and at the 
 request, of the defts. The action was not com- 
 menced within six months after the expenses had 
 been paid : — 
 
 Seld, that the action was brought for an act 
 done in pursuance, or execution, or intended exe- 
 cution, of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, 
 within the meaning of the Public Authorities 
 Protection Act, 1893, s. l.and ought to have been 
 brought within six months, and therefore the 
 defendants were not liable. 
 
 Waterlwuse v. Keen, (1825) 4 B. & C. 200, and 
 Midland By. Co. v. Withington Local Board, 
 (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 788, followed. Obee v. St. 
 Pangeas Vbstkt - Bruce J. [1899] 1 ft. B. 693 
 
 Disapproved of byj C. A. Bostock v. Bamsey 
 Urban Council, [1900] 2 Q. B. 616, 623. 
 
 2. — Company incorporated by Act of Parlia- 
 ment with statutory duties — Company dividing 
 profits —Limitation — " Persons acting in execution 
 of any public duty or authority" — Public Autlio- 
 rities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), 
 8. 1 (a). 
 
 A 00. incorporated by Act of Parliament, 
 not only for the performaace of duties of public 
 utility, but also for the purpose of earning profits, 
 is not entitled to the benefit of the Public Autho- 
 rities Protection Act, 1893. 
 
 Dictum of Jeune P. in The Tdwn, [1899] 
 P. 236, 239, followed. Att.-Gen. v. Company of 
 Propkietobs op Margate Pieb and Habbocb 
 Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 66 ; [1900] 1 Oh. 749 
 
 — Coats. 
 
 See Costs— Public Authorities Protec- 
 tion. 
 
 — Harbour board — Limit of time for commence- 
 
 ment of action against a — Costs. 
 Bee Shipping— Harbour. 155. 
 
 3. — Limitation of action — Fatal accidents — 
 Neglect in execution of Act of Parliament— Fatal 
 Accidents Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93), «s. 1, 3— 
 Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 * 57 
 Tic*, c. 61), s. 1. , ,„^„ 
 
 By s. 3 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, an 
 action for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, 
 
 PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION— conW. 
 
 or child of a person whose death has been caused 
 by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another 
 must be commenced withia twelve cal endar months 
 of the death of the deceased. 
 
 By s. 1 of the Public Authorities Protection 
 Act, 1893, an action against any person for any 
 act done iii pursuance, or execution, or intended 
 execution of any Act of Parliament, or in respect 
 of any alleged neglect or default in the execution 
 of any Act, must be commenced within six month s 
 next after the act, neglect, or default oomplaiued 
 of, or, in case of continuing injury or damage, 
 withia six months next after the ceasing thereof. 
 
 An action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 
 1846, was brought against the defts., a statutory 
 body formed to provide, maintain, and manage 
 a, hospital, to recover damages for the death of a 
 patient in the hospital caused by the negligent 
 act of a nurse in the defts.' employment; 
 the writ was issued move than six months, but 
 less than twelve months, after the death of the 
 deceased : — 
 
 Held, that the pits.' cause of action arose 
 upon the death of the deceased, and that, the 
 action not having been l)rought within six months 
 after his death, the defts. were entitled to the 
 protection of the Public Authorities Protection 
 Act, 1893, and the action was not maintainable. 
 Maekey v. Tol worth Joint Isolation Hospital 
 DiSTBiOT Board - Div. Ct. [1900] 2 ft. B. 454 
 
 PUBLIC BODY — Contract to execute works — 
 Negligence of contractor — Liability of 
 employer. 
 See Negligence. 3. 
 
 — Infringement of statute — Information by 
 
 Attorney-General — Injunction — Evi- 
 dence of injury. 
 See Eailway — Level Crossings. 10. 
 
 1, — Non-feasance — Contract. 
 
 Decisions that public bodies are not liable to 
 individuals for non-feasance do not apply where 
 the public body is under contract with the indi- 
 vidual for remuneration. Bbabant & Co. v. King 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 632 
 
 — Statutory powers. 
 
 See Schools- School Board. 8. 
 
 PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS. 
 
 See under Heading of Subject-matter of 
 Public Health. 
 
 PUBLIC HOUSE. 
 See Inn. 
 
 PUBLIC LIBRARY. 
 
 See Library. 
 
 PUBLIC OFFICE — Words importing misconduct 
 in. 
 See Defamation — Slander. 36. 
 
 PUBLIC OFFICES FEES ACTS, Wid— Order as 
 
 to payment of certain Fees payable in Admiralty 
 Division. W. N. 1897 (Jan. 2), p. 1. See 
 Current Index, 1897, p. Ixxxv. 
 
 PUBLIC OFFICES FEES ACT, 1879 (42 & 43 
 Vict. 0. 68). Fees under Land Begistry, Land 
 Transfer and Land Begistry (^Middlesex Deeds) 
 Acts. Beprintfrom W. N, 1900 (Dec. 22), p. 338. 
 See Ci;in'ent Index, 1900, p. xciy. 
 
 ■' '- - - ■ ■ 3 G 
 
( 1635 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1636 ) 
 
 PUBLIC PAEK— Land let for— Compensation. 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 — Rateable value — Beneficial occupation. 
 
 See Eates — Eateatility. 37. 
 
 PUBLIC POLICY — Murder of insured by wife 
 in whiose favour insurance had been 
 effected. 
 See Insurajtce — Life. 18. 
 
 — Eestraint of trade. 
 
 See Oases under Eestbaint op Tbabe. 
 
 — Validity of mortgage. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Assets. 65. 
 
 PUBLIC EECOED OFFICE, ENGLAND— inspec- 
 tion of documents — Rules and regs. dated March 14, 
 1893, made hy the Master of the Soils respecting 
 the public use of the records and documents in his 
 custody. St. E. & 0. 1896, p. 800. 
 
 Bule dated Dec. 9, 1898, for disposal of docu- 
 ments which are not considered of sufficient piiblie 
 value to justify their preservation in the Publio 
 Becord Office. W. N. 1899 (June 3), p. 183. See 
 Current Index, 1899, p. cxxvii. 
 
 PUBLIC EIGHTS— Fishing in non-tidal waters. 
 See Cases under Fishery. 
 
 PUBLIC SCHOOL. 
 
 See Chaeitt — Commissioners. 10 — 15. 
 Cases under Chakitt — Manage- 
 ment. 
 
 PUBLIC SEEVICE ACT (VICTOEIA)— Pension, 
 
 Eight to — " Prosecutor for the Queen." 
 See ViOTOElA. 10. 
 
 PUBLIC WOBKS LOANS ACT, 1896 (59 & 60 
 
 Vict. c. 42), provides for granting moneys for local 
 
 loans. 
 
 PUBLIC WOESHIP EEGULATION ACT. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law — 
 Eitnal. 
 
 PUBLICATION— Contempt of Court. 
 
 See Contempt of CotrRT. 7, 10. 
 
 — In foreign country — Libel — Action for dam- 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 29. 
 
 — Libel — Book — Circulating library — Negli- 
 
 gence. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 27. 
 
 — Libel — Copying letter. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 28. 
 
 — Eates. 
 
 See Highway — Eepairs, 25. 
 
 — " Sporting paper." 
 
 See Newspaper. 1. 
 PUBLICI JUEIS. 
 
 See Trade-maek — ^Eeg^stration. 45, 
 
 "PUBLISHED." 
 
 See CoPYEiSHT — International. 25. 
 
 PUBLISHEB — Author — ^Publishing agreement — 
 AssignabEity. 
 See CoPYBiGHT — ^Formation. 10. 
 
 — Publishing agreement — Assignability — 
 
 Author's consent. 
 See Contract. 16. 
 
 PUMPING STATION. 
 
 See Eates — Eateability. 
 
 PUNISHMENT — Illegal proclamation of arbitrary 
 — Legislative power. 
 iSee Cape of Good Hope. 6. 
 
 PUBCHASE — ^Addition to burial ground — Ap 
 proval of by Secretary of State. 
 See Burial. 5. 
 
 — Option to purchase. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Option to 
 Purchase. 
 
 — Shares. 
 
 See Company — Eednction of CapitaL 
 244—246. 
 PUECHASE (COMPULSOEY) — Land — Lauds 
 Clauses Acts. 
 See Cases under Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 — Meaning of word in s. 7 of the Trade Unions 
 
 Act, 1871. 
 
 See Trade Union. 2. 
 
 — Money — Application — College lauds. 
 
 See University. 4. 
 
 ■ of Tramway. 
 
 See Tramway Company. 
 
 1,2. 
 
 PUECHiSE AND HIEE A6EEEMENT, 
 
 See Cases under Factor. 
 Fixtures. 5 — 7. 
 
 PUECHASEB. 
 
 See Cases under Vendor and Pur- 
 chaser. 
 
 — for Value — Ademption of legacy. 
 
 See Will — Ademption. 
 
 — for Value — Void settlement. 
 
 See Fraudulent Conveyance. 2. 
 
 — for Value — ^Voluntary settlement — Father and 
 
 son — " Settlement of property." 
 See Bankruptcy. 266. 
 
 PUECHASEE FOE VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE 
 — Omission to require production of 
 title-deeds — Equitable mortgage — 
 Priority. 
 See Mortqage — Priority. 47, 48. 
 
 PYEOTECHNIC LIGHTS. 
 
 See Shippinq — Collision. 70. 
 
( 1637 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 1638 ) 
 
 Q. 
 
 (ITJALIFICATION— Dentist— Eight to be regis- 
 tered. 
 See Medioal Pbaotitionbr. 1. 
 
 — Director — Qualifying shares. 
 
 See OoMPANY — Directors. 124 — 135. 
 
 — London county electors. 
 
 See London— Electors. 
 
 — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 — Vestryman. 
 
 See London — ^Vestries. 
 
 "QUALIFIED PILOT"— Membership of inter- 
 ested class — Disqualification. 
 See Justices — ^Disq^ualification. 51. 
 
 — Unexempted ship. 
 
 See Shipping — Pilotage. 195. 
 
 QTTALIFTIITG SHARES- Directors. 
 
 See Oompany — ^Directors. 124 — 135. 
 
 ftUANTUM MERUIT— Right to sue on- Aban- 
 donment of contract — Evidence of new 
 contract. 
 See CONTBAUT. 1. 
 
 QUARANXIITE — Acts relating to, repealed by 
 Public Health Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Yict. c. 19) ; 
 hut this Act is repealed in so far as it relates to 
 Scotland. See Public Health (^Scotland) Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. V. 38), 8. 196. 
 
 QUARE IMPEDIT — Advowson — Usurpation — 
 Exchange. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 3. 
 
 QVAXRY— By the Quarries AcUMSdi (57 & 58 
 Vict. 0. 42), certain 'provisions of the Acts relating 
 to metalliferous mines were applied to quarries; 
 modification of application of Factory Acts to 
 quarries. 
 
 — Eoyalty — Life-rent — Opened quarries. 
 
 See Mines. 14. 
 
 QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 See Justices. 
 
 flUARTERLY TENANT — Eecovery of rates- 
 Written or verbal demand. 
 See Eates — Recovery. 66. 
 
 QUAY — Eateable occupation — Harbour dues. 
 See Bates — ^Rateability. 42. 
 
 QUEBEC— Laws of. 
 
 See Canada — Quebec. 
 QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY — Power of governors 
 of, to extend time for repayment of loans. See 
 Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension Act, 
 1896 (59 & 60 Yict. c. 13). 
 QUEENSLAND. 
 
 Laws of Queensland. 
 
 See Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 
 Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 12), is. 3, 6. 
 
 Appeals in Admiralty matters. 0. in C. 
 dated Nov. 24, 1891, regulating, to the Supreme 
 
 QUEENSLAND (Laws of Queensland)— conid 
 Court of Queensland at Brisbane from, the Colonial 
 Court of Admiralty in British New Guinea. St. 
 R. & 0. 1891, p. 23. 
 
 1. — Charity — Validity of charitable gift — 
 Effect of incorporation — Religious, Educational, 
 and Charitable Institutions Act of 1861 (25 Yict. 
 No. 19), s. 3. 
 
 The EeligiouB, Educational, and Charitable 
 Institutions Act of 1861, h. 3, applies to every 
 gift which increases the resources of a body in- 
 corporated under the Act, although not iu terms 
 in its favour, and though different trustees are 
 appointed. Therefore, where a bequest was made 
 to a church and congregation, which had volun- 
 tarily joined an ecclesiastical body which had 
 been incorporated through its officers under the 
 Act:— 
 
 Held, that the congregation having become 
 constituent members of the ecclesiastical body, a 
 bequest in their favour was in reality a bequest 
 to that body, and was invalid for want of 
 registration and attestation as prescribed by the 
 Act. McSwAiNB V. Lascelles 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 618 
 
 2. — Dividend Duty Paying Act, 1890 
 (54 Yict. No, 10), s. 9 — Foreign debts — Con- 
 structive assets. 
 
 Where debts due to a co. by debtors out of 
 Queensland are payable out of Queensland, but 
 are charged on realty and personalty in the 
 colony : — 
 
 Held, that they are an asset of the co. within 
 B. 9 of the Act, to the extent at all events of the 
 value of the incumbrance, and taking into 
 account collateral securities held elsewhere than 
 in Queensland for the same debts. Walsh v. 
 Eeo. - - - P. C. [1894] A. C. 144 
 
 Eeferred to by P. C. Henty v. Beg., [1896] 
 A. 0. 567, 574. 
 
 8. — Insurance — Eemedies of insurers — Effect 
 of payment under policy — Siibrogation — Chose in 
 action — Assignment — Queensland Judicature Act 
 (40 Yict. c. 84), «. 5, sub-s. 6. 
 
 Payment honestly made by insurers in satis- 
 faction of a claim by the insured entitles the 
 insurers to the remedies available to the insured ; 
 and such remedies cannot be resisted on the 
 ground that the payment was not within the 
 terms of the policy : — 
 
 Held, that although the insurers could not by 
 mere force of subrogation sue in their own name, 
 yet that in this case the right to do so was con- 
 ferred by assignment from the insured aided by 
 s. 5, sub-s. 6, of the Judicature Act (40 Vict, 
 c. 84), corresponding with the English Judicature 
 Act of 1873. King v. Victoria Insurance Co. 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 260 
 
 4. — Negligence of bailee — Liability of Govern- 
 ment as compulsory bailees for hire — Volenti non 
 fit injuria — Queensland Navigation Act, 1876 (41 
 
 3 G 2 
 
( 1639' ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1640 ) 
 
 ftUEENSlAND (laws of Queensland)— coniii. 
 Vict. No. 3) — Queensland Customs Act, 1873 (37 
 Vict. No. 1), s. 103. 
 
 Where a Government, being bailees for hire, 
 stored B.'s explosive goods in sheds near to the 
 water edge : — • 
 
 Held, that the selection of suoli 'a site ren- 
 dered it incumbent upon them to place the goods 
 at such a level as would in all probability ensure 
 their absolute immunity from the incursion of 
 flood water ; that B. was entitled to rely on the 
 care and skill of his bailees, and could not be 
 said to have accepted any risks of defective 
 storage with which he had made himself ac- 
 quainted. 
 
 Case remanded for a new trial, to ascertain 
 whether the Government negligently stored the 
 goods at too low a level, or whether, on the 
 advent of the floods, they failed to take reason- 
 able and proper measures for saving the goods, 
 or part thereof. Bkabant & Co. v. King 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 632 
 And see Public Body. 
 
 5. — New trial, order for, reversed — Verdict 
 — Conflict of evidence. 
 
 In an action for damages due to the negligent 
 construction of a drain by a municipal council a 
 jury found that there was no negligence, but the 
 Full Court set aside the verdict and ordered a 
 new trial : — 
 
 Held, that there being evidence both ways 
 the verdict was one which the jury could reason- 
 ably find and ought not to have been set aside. 
 Bbisbane Municipal Codnoil v. Mabtln 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 249 
 
 — Probate-r-Legatee preparing will in his own 
 
 favour— Findings of jury — Motion for 
 
 new trial. 
 
 S'ee Pbobatb. 111. 
 
 6. — Succession and Probate Duties Act, 1892 
 (56 Vict. No. 13), s. 4 — Succession defined — • 
 MovaMes locally situated in the colony — Domicil of 
 the testator. 
 
 Held, that e. 4 of the Queensland Succession 
 and Probate Duties Act, 1892, defining a "suc- 
 cession " being the same as s. 2 of the English 
 Succession Duty Act of 1853, must be read in the 
 sense affixed to the English Act by the English 
 tribunals ; and that it does not include movables 
 locally situated in Queensland which belonged 
 to a testator whose domicil was in Victoria : — 
 
 Held, further, that the amendment Act of 
 1895, s. 2, is not retrospective in its operation. 
 Hakding v. Commks. of Stamps for Queens- 
 land - - - P. C. [1898] A. C. 769 
 
 QTJEEN'S PEOCTOK— Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Divoboe. 
 
 "QTIIA TIMET" ACTION— Anticipated nuis- 
 ance — Injunction. 
 See Injunction. 26. 
 
 — Slaughter-hoube— Partial restraint. 
 
 See Besteaint of Tbade. 14, 
 
 QUICKSAND— Surface — Subsidence — Bight of 
 support — Working stratum of pilch. 
 See Suppoet. 1. 
 
 QUIET ENJOYMENT— Covenant running with 
 land — Injunction — Damages — Com- 
 pensation. 
 See Bail WAT. 3. 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 Bee Landloed aud Tenant. 19 — 23, 73. 
 
 QUINQUENNIAL VALUATION- Alteration in 
 value of hereditament — Cause of altera- 
 tion — Onus of proof. 
 See Bates — ^Bateability. 43. 
 
 QUIT, NOTICE TO— Yearly tenancy— "End of 
 the current year." 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 39, 43. 
 
 QUIT-RENT— Extinction by non-payment. 
 See Copyhold. 8. 
 
 QUO WAEBANTO— ^;derTOam. 
 
 Quo warranto will not lie to question the elec- 
 tion of an alderman in any case where an election 
 petition can be brought under s. 87 of the Muni- 
 cipal Corporations Act, 1882. Beg. v. Moeton 
 Div. Ct. [1892J 1 Q. B. 39 
 
 2. — Incompatible offices — Vestry clerk and 
 churchwardens. 
 
 The remedy by quo warranto does not apply 
 to a non-corporate oflice unless there is both 
 acceptance and user. The deft., while church- 
 warden, was proposed and elected as vestry 
 clerk. He wrote a letter of thanks to the electors, 
 but did not act as vestry clerk : — 
 
 Held, that what he had done was not such an 
 exercise of the office of vestry clerk as to render 
 the remedy by quo warranto applicable. Beg. ■». 
 Tidy Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 179 
 
 3. — School board. 
 
 Semhle, that the legality of an election of 
 members of a school board may be questioned by 
 quo warranto. Eichardson v. Methley School 
 Boaed - Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 510 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Turnbull v. West 
 Riding Athletic Club {Leeds), Ld., [1894] W. N. 4. 
 
 4. — Vestry cleric — Election. 
 
 Quo warranto will lie to inquire into the 
 
 validity of the election of a clerk to a vestry 
 
 under the Vestries Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 67), 
 
 ss. 6, 7. Beg. v. Bueeows - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 899 
 
 5. — Vestryman. 
 
 Quo warranto will lie in respect of usurpation 
 of the office of vestryman created by the Metro- 
 polis Management Act, 1 855. Eeg. i>. Souttee 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 67 
 [Note. — By the Local Government Act, 1894 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), the provisions of the Metro- 
 polis Management Act, 1855, as to the qualification 
 of vestrymen were repealed and furtlter provision 
 made.] 
 
 QUORUM — Diffijrent classes of shareholders — 
 Separate general meetings of each class. 
 See Company. — Meetings. 165. 
 
 — Directors. 
 
 See Company — Directors. 136, 137. 
 
( 1641 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891-^1900. 
 
 ( 1612 ) 
 
 E. 
 
 EABBITS— Alienation of right to kill— Occupier 
 of land. 
 See Cases under Game. 
 
 — Kabbit coursing — " Domestic animals." 
 
 See Criminal Law — Cruelty to Ani- 
 mals. 8. 
 
 — " Vermin " — Gun licence. 
 
 See Eetende — Gun Licence. 50. 
 
 EACEOOTJBSE— Inolosure on—" Place " used for 
 betting. 
 
 See GAMlNa. 15. 
 RAILWAY. 
 
 In General, col. 1641. 
 
 Abandonment, col. 1642. 
 
 Accidents, col. 1642. 
 
 Accommodation Worlts. See Cases under 
 E AiLWAT — Works . 
 
 Arches, col. 1643. 
 
 Compensation, col. 1643. 
 
 Contract 'of Carriage, col. 1644. 
 
 Costs. See Railway — Practice. 
 
 Drainage. See Scottish Law — Eailway. 
 
 Fences, col. 1644. 
 
 Lands Clauses Acts. See Lauds Clauses 
 Acts. 
 
 Level Crossings, col. 1645. 
 
 Light Railways, col. 1647. 
 
 Management, col. 1648. 
 
 Minerals, col. 1648. 
 
 Negligence, col. 1649. 
 
 Parliamentary Deposit. See Pabliament 
 — ^Deposits and Bonds, 
 
 Passengers, col. 1651. 
 
 Powers, col. 1653. 
 
 Practice Generally, col. 1655. 
 
 Bailway and Canal Traffic, col. 1657. 
 
 Railway Servants, col. 1662. 
 
 Rates and Taxes, col. 1662 
 
 Receiver and Manager, col. 1662. 
 
 Regulation, col. 1662. 
 
 Roads and Streets, col. 1663. 
 
 Scheme of Arrangement, col. 1663. 
 
 Scottish Law. See Scottish Law — Bail- 
 ways. 
 
 Sewers, col. 1664. 
 
 Sidings, col. 1664. 
 
 Stations, col. 1666. 
 
 Truck Acts, col. 1667. 
 
 Ventilating Shafts, col. 1667. 
 
 Water. See Wateb. 
 
 Way-leave, col. 1667, 
 
 Wmhs, col. 1667. 
 
 In General. 
 — Arbitration — Eeyiew. 
 
 See Canada. 18. 
 
 RAILWAY (In QeH-etiX)— continued. 
 
 — Canada Eailway Act — Construction — Eailway 
 
 Committee of Privy Council. 
 See Canada. 16. 
 
 — Compensation — Lease of colliery — ^Eight of 
 
 lessee to sink shaft in land of lessor not 
 
 included in demise. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 — Contract — Breach by one party — Eight of 
 
 other party to repudiate. 
 See CONTEAOT. 7. 
 
 — Demurrage — Discharge into railway wagons 
 
 — Deficiency of wagons — Liability of 
 
 charterer. 
 
 See Shipping — Demurrage. 108. 
 
 — Imported steel rails — Duty payable. 
 
 See Canada. 20. 
 
 — Lateral deviation — Meaning of. 
 
 See Statutes — Generally, 15, 
 
 — Municipal legislation affecting Dominion rail- 
 
 way — Municipal Code of Quebec. 
 See Canada. 61. 
 
 — New Zealand Railways Construction and 
 
 Land Act — Eights of debenture-holders. 
 See New Zealand. 9. 
 
 — Eates — Exemptions — Land used as railway for 
 
 public conveyance — Liverpool Corpora- 
 tion Act. 
 See Eates. 44. 
 
 — Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Eailways, 33 — 36. 
 
 — Section of railway capable of sale — Jurisdiction 
 
 of Court. 
 
 See Canada. 33. 
 
 — Stamp — Eeceipt for compensation for not 
 
 working coal adjacent to railway — Eight 
 
 of support. 
 
 See Eetenue — Stamps. 179. 
 
 — Stamp duty — Increase of nominal capital. 
 
 See Ebvenue — Stamps. 177. 
 
 — 'Way-leave — Construction — Ancient document 
 
 — Contemporaneous usage or interpreta- 
 tion. 
 See Way-leave. 1. 
 
 — Wooden structure used in connection with 
 
 trafiSo — Licence of county council — 
 
 Exemption. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 
 
 Abandonment, 
 
 — Eeleaae of Parliamentary deposit. 
 
 See Pabliambnt — Deposits and Bonds, 
 
 Accidents, 
 
 Peevention of Accidents.] Railway Em- 
 ployment {Prevention of Accidents') Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 27), provides for the better 
 prevention of accidents on railways. 
 
( 1643 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1644 ) 
 
 EAIIWAT (Accidents) — continued. 
 
 — Accident to railway — Charterparty — Excep- 
 
 tions. 
 
 See Shipping — ^Exceptions. 131. 
 
 1. — Compensation — Finality of document 
 discharging all claims — Verbal reservation. 
 
 A document signed by the injured passenger 
 held to be a final discharge of his claims on the 
 CO., notwithstanding an alleged yerbal reserva- 
 tion by him. 
 
 Decision of the Second Division of the Court 
 of Session, (1890) 28 Sco. L. K. 130, reversed. 
 NoBTH British Et. Co. v. Wood 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 130 
 
 Arches. 
 
 2. — Temporary letting of arches for purposes 
 of profit — Implied powers. 
 
 A ry. CO. authorized by its special Act to 
 acquire land for the purposes of the ry. and 
 works has also the implied power of using land 
 so acquired in any manner which is not an 
 infringement of the legal rights of others, and 
 which is not inconsistent with the purposes for 
 which the co. was constituted. Therefore a ry. 
 CO. can let the interiors of arches on which its 
 line is built for profit if they retain the right to 
 resume possession. Foster v. London, Chatham 
 AND Dover Ey. Co. C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 711 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. In re Gonty and Man- 
 chester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire By. Co., [18961 
 2 Q. B. 439, 448. 
 
 Compensation. 
 
 — Accident. 
 
 See Eailwat — ^Accidenta. 
 
 — Accommodation works. 
 
 See Nos. 67 — 70, helow. 
 
 — Land — Acquisition under Lands Clauses Act. 
 
 See Cases under Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 — Minerals. 
 
 See Cases under Eailwat — Minerals. 
 
 3. — Purchase hy railway company of rever- 
 sion on lease — Covenant running with land — 
 Covenant for quiet enjoyment — Injunction— Dama- 
 ges—Bailways Clausen Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict, 
 c. 20), s. 6. 
 
 In 1893 an Act was passed enabling the pit. 
 00. to take compulsorily (inter alia) the property 
 to which this action related. In 1894 the owner 
 of the property let it to the deft, for a term of 
 years by a lease containing the usual covenant 
 for quiet enjoyment. In 1895 the co. purchased 
 the reversion of the property, subject to the 
 lease. After this the co. proceeded with their 
 works, and in so doing caused structural injury 
 to the deft.'s house; they also for some time 
 rendered the access to his premises less conve- 
 nient by erecting hoardings which blocked up 
 nalt the thoroughfare along the street in which 
 his house stood, and by taking a great number of 
 carts along that street. They also for three or 
 had nT„if ''i"^^"^^'^ ^ P'^'^^S^ "long wliicli l»e 
 
 theSstata n^l "^"^ ^^"^ ^'^^ "O- ^""^ exceeded 
 gentlv Tr^ P°'^^''^ ""^ exercised them ncgli- 
 S ntly. The CO. sued the deft, for rent, fnd 
 
 EAILWAY (Compensation)— (!oniin«e(Z. 
 
 he counter-claimed for damages for breach of the 
 
 covenant for quiet enjoyment : — 
 
 Held, that the covenant for quiet enjoyment 
 was in force and was binding on the co., and 
 that they were liable to make compensation for 
 any breach of it, but that no action would lie 
 against them for any breach of it committed in 
 the reasonable and careful exercise of their 
 statutory powers, the only remedy of the tenant 
 for such breaches being under the compensation 
 clauses of the Bail ways Clauses Act, 1845, and 
 the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, and that the counter- 
 claim, therefore, had been properly dismissed. 
 
 Though structural injury to a house by the 
 lessor is a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoy- 
 ment, no temporary inconvenience caused by the 
 lessor, but not affecting the title or possession of 
 the tenant, is a breach of the covenant. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J., [1898] W. K. 35 (10), 
 affirmed. Manchester, Sheffield and Lin- 
 colnshire Et. Co. ■». Anderson 
 
 C. A. [1898] 3 Ch. 394 
 
 Eeferred to by Buckley J. Tebb v. Cave, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 642, 649. 
 
 Contract of Carriage. 
 
 4. — Delay — Owner's risk note — Construction. 
 
 The pit. delivered to the defts., a ry. co., 
 goods to be carried to their destination via a 
 particular route, upon the terms that the pit., in 
 consideration of his being charged a reduced rate 
 below the defts.' ordinary rate, relieved the defts. 
 "from all liability for (inter alia) delay .... 
 except upon proof that such .... delay .... 
 arose from wilful misconduct on the part of the 
 servants of the co." Tlie defts. by mistake for- 
 warded the goods by a different route from that 
 contracted for, in consequence whereof the arrival 
 at their destination was delayed and the pit. 
 suffered damage. 
 
 Sdd, that as the delay of the goods was not 
 a delay in the performance by the defts. of their 
 contract, they were not relieved from responsi- 
 bility. Mallet v. Great Eastern Et. Co. 
 
 Diy. Ct. [1899] 1 «. B. 309 
 
 Drainage. 
 See Scottish Law — ^Eailway. 
 
 Fences. 
 
 34. 
 
 6. — Liability to fence — Owner and occupier 
 of adjoining land — Adjoining highway — Licensee 
 of owner of soil — Railways Clauses Act, 1845 
 (8 <fc 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 68. 
 
 A ry. CO., whose premises adjoin a public 
 highway, is not bound to fence against cattle 
 straying upon the highway, and not merely 
 passing and repassing along it, although they are 
 upon the highway by permission of the owner of 
 the soil. 
 
 Cattle belonging to a farmer were allowed to 
 graze in a wood adjoining his farm ; through tlie 
 wood ran a highway, the property in the soil of 
 which was in the owner of the wood. The cattle 
 got upon the highway, and left it at a point 
 where it was adjacent to the land of a rv co 
 and, getting on to the line along an imfenced 
 
( 1645 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1646 ) 
 
 RAILWAY (Venees)— continued. 
 
 approach road belonging to the ry. CO., were killed 
 
 by a passing train : — ■ 
 
 Seld, that the ry. co. were not liable. Lus- 
 COMBE ■». Great Western Et. Co. 
 
 SiT. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 313 
 
 6. — lAabUity to malce and maintain fences — 
 Limitation of time as to further accommodation 
 works — Fence not made within five years of open- 
 ing railway — Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <fc 9 
 Vict c. 20), ss. 68, 73. 
 
 By B. 68 of the EaUways Glauses Act, 1845, 
 " The CO. shall make and at all times thereafter 
 maintain the following works for the accommo- 
 dation of the owners and occupiers of lands 
 adjoining the ry. ; (inter alia) sufScient fences 
 for separating the land taken for the use of the 
 ry. from the adjoining lands not taken, and 
 protecting the cattle of the owners or occupiers 
 thereof from straying thereout." By s. 73, " the 
 "CO. shall not be compelled to make any further 
 or additional accommodation works .... after 
 five years from .... the opening of the ry. for 
 public use." 
 
 The obligation on a ry. co., under s. 68 of the 
 Railways Clauses Act, 1845, to make and main- 
 tain fences is absolute, and is not affected by the 
 limitation of time with regard to further accom- 
 modation works contained in s. 73, and a ry. co. 
 are responsible to the occupier of adjoining land 
 for injury to his cattle arising from neglect of 
 the duty thrown on them by s. 68, although no 
 fences were made within five years of the opening 
 of the ry. for public use. 
 
 Judgment of Lord Eussell of Killowen C.J., 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 333, affirmed. Dixon v. Great 
 Western Et. Co. - C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 300 
 
 Lands Clauses Aots. 
 
 — Acquisition of land under. 
 
 jSee Cases under Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 Level Crossings. 
 
 7. — Negligence — Contributory negligence — 
 Onus of proof with regard to contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 
 A ry. line crossed a public footpath on the 
 level, the approaches to the crossing being 
 guarded by hand gates. A watchman who was 
 employed by the ry. co. to take charge of the 
 gates and crossing during the day was withdrawn 
 at niglit. 
 
 The dead body of a man was found on the 
 line near the level crossing at night, the man 
 having been killed by a train which carried the 
 usual head lights but did not whistle or other- 
 wise give warning of its approach. No evidence 
 was given of the circumstances under which the 
 deceased got on to the line. _ 
 
 An action on the ground of negligence having 
 been brought by the administratrix of the 
 deceased, the jury found a verdict for the pit. :— 
 
 EeU, (1886) 12 App. Cas. 41, affirming the 
 decision of the 0. A., that even assuming (but 
 without deciding) that there was evidence of 
 negligence on the part of the co., yet there was 
 no evidence to connect such negligence with the 
 
 RAILWAY (Level Crossings) — continued. 
 accident : that there was therefore no case to go 
 to the jury and that the ry. co. were not liable. 
 
 Observations as to the onus of proof with 
 regard to contributory negligence. Wakeltn v. 
 London and South Western Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. and H. L. (E.) [1896] 1 Q. B. 189, n. 
 
 8. — Negligence — Oatekeeper's duty — Gontri- 
 hutory negligence. 
 
 The pit's husband was run over and killed 
 by a, train of the defts. under the following 
 circumstances. The defts.' line crossed a public 
 highway on the level. There was a gatekeeper's 
 lodge near the crossing, where a servant of the 
 defts. was stationed, whose duty under the co.'a 
 regulations was to attend to the carriage gates at 
 the crossing, and, whenever a train was approach- 
 ing, to stand by the rails and, if the line wag 
 clear, exhibit as a signal a white flag by day or a 
 white light by night. There were lamps on the 
 carriage gates which shewed, when they were 
 closed across the highway, a white light, and, 
 when they were closed across the line, a red 
 light. The deceased, who lived near the cross- 
 ing on the other side of the line, called at the 
 gatekeeper's lodge between 8 and 9 o'clock on a 
 December night to inquire whether his wife was 
 there, and found the gatekeeper sitting in his 
 lodge reading. Being told that his wife was not 
 there, he left the lodge. Though a train had 
 been signalled, the gatekeeper gave him no warn- 
 ing and did not go out to signal the train. The 
 deceased attempted to cross at the level crossing, 
 and was caught by the train and killed. The 
 train carried lights which were visible by any 
 one about to cross at the level crossing for a 
 distance of more than 600 yards. The engine- 
 driver whistled ten seconds before the train 
 passed over the crossing, which it did at the rate 
 of from thirty-five to forty miles an hour. The 
 engine-driver stated in evidence that, when 
 approaching the crossing, he saw the white light 
 on the carriage gate.', but did not receive any 
 hand-signal from the gatekeeper : — 
 
 Held, in an action by the pit. under Lord 
 Campbell's Act to recover damages in respect of 
 her husband's death, that there was upon the 
 above facts evidence to go to the jury of negli- 
 gence on the part of the defts. by which, and not 
 by any negligence on his own part, the death of 
 the plt.'s husband was caused, and therefore the 
 judge at the trial was right in not withdrawing 
 the case from the jury. Smith v. South-Easteen 
 Ey. Co. - - C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 178 
 
 9. — Severed land — Level crossing^Severance 
 —Easement — Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 (fe 9 
 Vict. 0. 20), s. 68. 
 
 A ry. was made through the land of E., and 
 pursuant to an award a level crossing was pro- 
 vided under the, Railways Clauses Act, 1845, 
 s. 68, as an accommodation work, and by the 
 conveyance to the co. a right of way over it was 
 reserved to E. and his successors in title, and the 
 CO. covenanted to maintain it. Afterwards E. 
 sold and conveyed his land on one side of the 
 ry. to P., not mentioning the crossing, and not 
 giving P. any right of way over the land retained, 
 nor reserving any right of way over the land 
 sold. Afterwards the land retained by E. was 
 
( 16i7 
 
 Dt&ES* OP CASES, l89i— ISOO; 
 
 ( 1648 ) 
 
 KAIIWAY (Level Crossings) — continued. 
 
 sold lo G., who inaisted on his right to use the 
 
 crossing : — 
 
 Bild, that after the conveyance to P. there 
 was no rigljt to use thj crossing, and that the oo. 
 were at hberly to btop it : 
 
 Seld, further, that the right to the crossing 
 was finally abandoned by the conveyance to P., 
 and would not be revived if the lands on the two 
 sides of the ry. should again become vested in 
 the same person. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1895] 2 Ch. 129, 
 afBrmed with a variation in the order. Midland 
 Et. Co. 1). Geebble - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 827 
 
 10. — Speed of trains — Sailways dames Act, 
 1845 (8*9 Vict. e. 20), s. ii— Infringement of 
 statute hy public hody — Information hy Attorney- 
 General — Injunction — Injury to public, evidence 
 of not necessary. 
 
 Upon an information filed by the Att.-Gen. 
 to restrain a public body with statutory powers 
 from infringing a term introduced into their Act 
 in the interests of the public, as a condition of 
 the exercise of their powers, it is not necessary 
 to prove that injury to the public results from 
 that infringement. 
 
 A ry. CO. was by a special Act, which incorpo- 
 rated the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, empowered 
 to carry their ry. across a turnpike road on the 
 level. They constantly drove their trains over 
 the level crossing, which adjoined a station, at a 
 speed exceeding four miles an hour, in contra- 
 vention of the provisions of a. 48 of the EaUways 
 Clauses Act, 1845. 
 
 On an information filed by the Att.-Gen. to 
 restrain them from so doing, they set up by way 
 of defence that there was no proof of any injury 
 occasioned to the public by their contravention 
 of the section, and that the inconvenience caused 
 to the public by reason of the existence of the 
 crossing would be increased if they complied 
 with it : — 
 
 Held (afSrming the judgment of Bruce J., 
 [1898] W. N. 160 (12) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 72), that, as 
 the information was filed by the Att.-Gen. to 
 enforce the express terms of an enactment made 
 by the Legislature in the interests of the public, 
 the Court could not entertain the question whether 
 injury to the public was in fact occasioned by the 
 contravention of the Act, but were bound to grant 
 the injunction. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Great Western Ry. Co., (1872) 
 L. E. 7 Ch. 767, Alt.-Gen. v. Cookermouth Local 
 Board, (1874) L. E. 18 Eq. 172, and Att.-Gen. 
 V. Shrewsbury (Kingsland) Bridge Co., (1882) 21 
 Ch. D. 752, followed. Att.-Gen. v. London and 
 NoBTH Western Et. Co. C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 78 
 
 Light Bailways. 
 
 Zight EaihoaysAci, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 48), 
 facilitates the construction of light railways in 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Rules dated Sept., 1896, made by the Board of 
 Trade with respect to applications to the Light 
 Railway Commissioners for Orders authorizing 
 Light Railways. St. E. & 0. 1896, No. 787. 
 Price Jd. 
 
 Rules made hy Board of Trade in Sept., 1896, 
 
 BAIL WAY (Light Uailwaji)— continued, 
 and modified in Oct., 1898, with respect to appli- 
 cations to the Light Railway Commissioners under 
 this Act. W. N. 1898 (Deo. 17), p. 408 ; Current 
 Index, 1898, p. ci. 
 
 Costs.] RuUs dated May 27, 1898, made hy 
 the Board of Trade, pursuant to s. 13 of the Light 
 Railways Act, 1896. W. N. 1898 (Aug. 13) 
 p. 279 ; Current Index, 1898, p. xciz. 
 
 management. 
 
 — Circular to servants — Libel — Privileged occa- 
 
 sion. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 22. 
 
 — Eates and charges. 
 
 See Nos. 42 — 48, below. 
 
 minerals. 
 
 11. — Notice of intention to work minerals — 
 Compensation — Arbitration — Duty of company to 
 take up award — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <£ 9 ■ 
 Viet. c. 18), 0. 35. 
 
 A ry. CO., having (though under protest) 
 appointed an arbitrator and joined in the arbi- 
 tration under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, 
 in respect of a claim for the purchase of 
 minerals, must take up the award and furnish a 
 copy to the claimants in accordance with s. 35 
 of the Act ; and a mandamus may be granted to 
 compel them. The validity of the award may 
 be contested later. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1899] 1 Q. B. 921, affirmed 
 on this ground. London and North Western 
 Ey. Co. V. Walker H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 34 ; 
 
 [1900] A. C. 109 
 
 12. — Open workings — Clay — Right to support 
 —Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <fc 9 Vict. c. 20), 
 S8. 77, 78, 79. 
 
 The pits, sold land to the defts., reserving 
 the minerala. They subsequently gave notice 
 to the defts. of their intention to work the 
 minerals, but the defts. did not purchase : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled under the 
 Eailways Clauses Act, 1845, ss. 77, 79, to enter 
 the land sold to the defts. and to work their 
 minerals, clay, in the ordinary manner, i.e., by 
 open workings, and for this purpose to remove 
 the ballast, rails, and surface soil lying above 
 the clay. Euabon Brick and Terra Cotta Co 
 V. Great Western Ey. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 427 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Lord Gerard and 
 London and North Western By. Co., [1895] 
 1 Q. B. 466. See next Case. 
 
 13. — Purchase by railway company of aU suh- 
 jacent strata except coal — Right of coal-owner to 
 
 compensation before commencing working — Rail- 
 ways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 4 9 Vict. c. 20), 
 ss. 77-85. 
 
 The mutual rights are not altered by the fact 
 that the co. haa taken some of the underground 
 strata as well as surface, and the landowner 
 cannot recover compensation for ungotten coal 
 until the time arrives for working the pits. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct., [1894] 2 Q. B. 915, 
 affirmed. In re Lord Gerard and London and 
 North Western Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B, 459 
 
( 1649 ) 
 
 mgest Of CASES, i§gi-i9oo, 
 
 ( leso ) 
 
 RAILWAY (Minerals)— continued. 
 
 14. — Support — Compensation for minerals 
 unworked— Arbitration— Lands Clauses Act, 1845 
 (8 (fc 9 Vict. e. 18), s. 35— Railways Clauses Act, 
 1845 (8&9 Vict. c. 20), se. 6, 78, 81. 
 
 The provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, 
 1845, relating to the assessment of compensation, 
 apply to compensation under s. 78 of the Eail- 
 ways Clauses Act, 1845. The owner of mines 
 under a ry. gave notice of intention to work 
 them. Tlie ry. required a certain amount of 
 support to be left. Arbitrators were appointed 
 to settle the amount of compensation : — 
 
 B.eld, that the owner's claim was made under 
 s. 78 of the Railways Clauses Act, and therefore 
 the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act as to the 
 assessment of compensation applied, and therefore 
 the ry. was bound to take up the award. Reg. 
 ■V. London and North Western Ry. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 612 
 
 15. — Support — Subjacent and adjacent support 
 
 A horse tramway was originally authorized 
 by an Act of 1825, which excepted mines which 
 might be worked so as not to injure the co.'s 
 tram-road authorized by that Act. In 1830 the 
 surface lands were conveyed to the co. By an 
 Act of 1855 the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, was 
 incorporated, and provision was made for altering 
 the line so as to be suitable to locomotive engines ; 
 acts previously done, and all rights and lia- 
 bilities consequent thereon, were saved. The 
 defts., owners of the subjacent mines, gave notice 
 under s. 78 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, 
 of intention to work the mines, and on refusal 
 by the ry. co. to pay compensation commenced 
 working, and thereby caused subsidence of the 
 surface and ry. : — 
 
 Held, that the ry. co. were entitled under the 
 conveyance to a right of support without com- 
 pensation which had not been lost by the con- 
 version of the tramway into a ry., nor by the Act 
 of 1855 ; and that the defts. must be restrained 
 by injimotion from letting down the surface or 
 the ry. Great Western Rt. Co. v. Obpn 
 Cribbwb Brioe Co. 
 
 Eekewich 3. [1894] 2 Ch. 157 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Reg. v. London and 
 North Western Ry. Co., [1899] 1 Q. B. 944. 
 
 Ifegligence. 
 
 16. — Common carrier — Liability — Loss by theft 
 of compam/'s servants — Special contract — Carriers 
 Act, 1830 (11 Geo. 4 and 1 Will. 4, c. 68), es. 1, 6, 
 S— Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 <fe 18 
 Vict. c. 31), 8. 7. 
 
 Sect. 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1854, enacts that a ry. co. shall be liable in the 
 absence of a signed or reasonable contract for loss 
 " occasioned by the neglect or default of such co. 
 or its servants " : — 
 
 Held, that a loss by theft of a co.'s servant 
 without negligence on the part of the co. was not 
 within the section, and, therefore, that the co. 
 could at common law protect themselves by a 
 special contract, although such contract was not 
 reasonable within the meaning of the Act. Shatt 
 V. Great Western Rt. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 373 
 
 EAILWAY (Negligence)— continued. 
 
 17. — Defective railway wagons — Breach of 
 duty — Liability of railway company for their own 
 defective wagons while in use by another railway 
 company — Relevancy. 
 
 Wagons belonging to the Caledonian Ry. Co. 
 were filled with coal from pits on that ry. co.'s 
 system, and delivered to the Glasgow and South 
 Western Ry. Co. at Dumfries Station, who had 
 an agreement with the Gas Commrs. of Dumfries 
 to haul the coal from the station to the gasworks. 
 The station and the gasworks were connected by 
 the Gas Commrs.' tramway line running along 
 a public street. The Glasgow and South Western 
 supplied the men and horses to haul the wagons, 
 and once the wagons left the Caledonian Co.'s 
 system they were not under their control. In 
 conducting the wagons into the gasworks, two 
 wagons at a time were taken along the tramway ; 
 but owing to a descent and ascent, one of the 
 wagons was as usual uncoupled at the top of the 
 descent, and the other taken on at a sharp trot 
 to rush the ascent. While this was being done 
 an obstruction got in the way, and the first wagon 
 had to be pulled up ; but the brake of the second 
 wagon refused to act, and the husband of the 
 respondent, who was in the employ of the Glas- 
 gow and South Western Ry. Co., was caught 
 between the two wagons and killed. The respond- 
 ent raised this action against both ry. cos., and the 
 question was whether there was a relevant case 
 made against the Caledonian Ry. Co. There was 
 no averment as to the state of the wagons before 
 they left the Caledonian Ry. Co.'s system : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the Second 
 Division of the Court of Session, [1897] 24 E. 
 429; 34 Sco. L. R. 317, that the respondent's 
 averments did not shew that there was any duty 
 cast on the Caledonian Ry. Co. in respect to any 
 one using the wagons on behalf of the Glasgow 
 and South Western Ry. Co. to take care that the 
 wagons were in proper order after the coal had 
 been delivered at Dumfries Station ; and there- 
 fore the Caledonian Ry. Co. must be dismissed 
 from the action. 
 
 Heaven v. Pender, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503, 
 distinguished. Caledonian Rt. Co. v. Mul- 
 HOLLAND - H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 216 
 
 Distinguished by Bigham J. Mamey v. Scott, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 986, 991. 
 
 — Employer and workman — ^Person in charge of 
 
 train — Negligence. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 78. 
 
 18. — Fire caused by sparh from engine — 
 Negligence not proved — Question of fa/A, 
 
 A fire was caused by a spark from a loco- 
 motive which was of the best form, and though 
 without a spark arrester had no unusual tendency 
 to throw out sparks : — 
 
 Hdd, that the onus was on the appellants to 
 shew that the ry. co. were guilty of negligence. 
 
 The decision of Court of Session, 19 E. 608, 
 affirmed. Port Glasoow and Newark Sail- 
 cloth Co. i;. Caledonian Ry. Co. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] W. N. 29 
 
 — Level crossings. 
 
 See Railway — Level Crossings. 
 
( 1651 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF GA&ES, lf91— 1900. 
 
 ( 1652 ) 
 
 EAILWAT — continued. 
 
 Parliamentary Deposit. 
 See Parliament — Deposits and Bonds. 
 
 Passengers. 
 
 19. — Assault by fdlow-passenger — Neglect — 
 LiaMlity of company. 
 
 The neglect of a ry. co. to stipply reasonable 
 accommodation ■will not enable the passenger to 
 recover in an action for damages for assaults com- 
 mitted on him by fellow-passengers. Potjndek v. 
 NoBTH Eabteen Et. Co. - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 385 
 
 But see hereon observations of Earl of Selborne 
 on Cobb V. Cheat Western Ry. Co., H. L. (E.) 
 [1894] A. 0.419, at p. 423. 
 
 20. — By-law — Validity — Penalty — TicJcetnot 
 available — Absence of fraud — Railways Clauses 
 Act, 1845 (8 & Vict. c. 20), ss. 103, 104, 108, 109 
 —Itegulation of Railimys Act, 1889 (52 453 Vict, 
 c. 57), s. 5, sub-s. 3 (a) — Statute Law Revision 
 Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. v. 19). 
 
 A by-law of a ry. imposed a penalty on nsing 
 a ticket on a day on which it was not available : — 
 
 Held, that a person who was not guilty of 
 fraud or intent to defraud was not liable to be 
 convicted, and tliat the by-law was invalid. 
 
 HUFFAM V. NOKTH StAFFOEDSHIRE Ey. Oo. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 821 
 
 — Contract thnt railway shall not be liable for 
 
 negligence. 
 
 See Infant — Contracts. 7. 
 
 21. — Didy — Passenger duty — Exemption — 
 Third-class passengers — Extra charge for reserved 
 carriage — Itaihoay Passenger Duty Act, 1842 
 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 79;, s. 2, Schedule — Cheap Trains 
 Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 34), s. 2, suh-s. 1. 
 
 By 5 & 6 Vict. c. 79, s. 2, and the schedule to 
 that Act, a duty at the rate of 5 per cent, is made 
 payable upon all sums received or charged for the 
 iiire, fare, or conveyance of passengers conveyed 
 for hire upon any ry. By 46 & 47 Vict. c. 34, 
 s. 2, sub-s. 1, fares not exceeding the rate of one 
 penny a mile are exempt from duty. 
 
 A ry. CO., whoso third-class fares did not 
 exceed a penny a mile, abolished all its second- 
 c'ass carriages and fares, and in lieu of them 
 introduced a system by which third-class passen- 
 geis, after taking and paying for their tickets, 
 could for an extra charge procure " supplement 
 tary reserve tickets," entitling them to travel in 
 reserved third-class compartments not available 
 for the ordinary third-class passengers who had 
 not paid the extra charge : — 
 
 Held, that the extra sums were paid in respect 
 of extra accommodation incidental to the convey- 
 ance of the passengers, and that the Crown was 
 entitled to duty upon the sums received by the 
 ry. CO. in all cases where the sum paid for the 
 supplementary ticket when added to that paid 
 for the ordinary third-class ticket exceeded a 
 penny a mile. Att.-Gen. v. Eubness Ey. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 267 
 
 — Falsely pietending to be a traveller — 
 
 Offences. 
 
 See Licensing Acts, 39, 
 
 RAILWAY (Passengers) — continued. 
 
 22. — Fare — Condition on ticket — Ticket used 
 for station beyond that to which available. 
 
 The deft, took a special excursion ticket from 
 P. to W. and back at a rMuced fare. The ticket 
 contained a condition that if used for any other 
 station it would be forfeited and the full fare 
 charged. The deft, travelled to and returned 
 from H., a station beyond W., paying the ordi- 
 nary fare for the journeys between H. and W. : — 
 
 Held, that the condition was applicable to 
 stations beyond that named on the ticket as well 
 as to intermediate stations ; that the deft, had 
 used the ticket for a journey to a station other 
 than that named on it, and that the ry. co. were 
 entitled to treat the ticket as forfeited. Great 
 Northern Et. Co. v. Palmer - - Div. Ct. 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 862 
 
 23. — Fare — Tichet used for station other than 
 that for which it is available — Penalty. 
 
 The deft, took a tourist ticket to X. costing 
 8s.: he alighted at Y-, a, station short of X., 
 and to which the fare was 9s. ; his ticket con- 
 tained a condition that if used for any other 
 station it would be forfeited and the full fare 
 charged. He did not give up his ticket at Y., 
 but took another ticket to his destination on a 
 branch line : — 
 
 Held, that an action in the county court to 
 
 recover the fare was maintainable, as it was ono 
 
 of contract and not for a penalty. Great 
 
 Northern Ey. Co. v. Windee - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 595 
 
 24. — Inspector of weights and measures — 
 Police officer — Conveyance at reduced rate — Cheap 
 Trains Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 34), s. 6. 
 
 A police officer, appointed by the county 
 council an inspector of weights and measures, is 
 not entitled, when travelling as such inspector, 
 to conveyance at the reduced rate provided by 
 s. 6 of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, for the con- 
 veyance of the police on occasions of the public 
 service. Spencer v. Lancashire and Yoekshibe 
 Ey. Co. - Div. Ct, [1898] 1 Q. B. 643 
 
 25. — Luggage— Bicycle — " Ordinary luggage." 
 A bicycle is not "ordinary luggage," within 
 
 the meaning of a Eailway Act, by which every 
 passenger travelling in a cai-riage of a certain 
 class may take with him his ordinary luggage, 
 not exceeding a certain weight, free of cliarge; 
 and therefore a passenger by train, without lug- 
 gage, is not entitled to take with him, free of 
 charge, a bicycle, not packed up, and of less 
 weight tlian tlie weight of luggage allowed to be 
 carried free of charge by the class in which he is 
 travelling. Britten v. Great Northern Ey. Co. 
 Channell J. [1899] 1 a. B, 243 
 
 26. — Luggage — Cloahroom — Bailment — 
 Ticket — Condition exempting from responsibility 
 for articles dbore a certain value — Damage to 
 article deposited. 
 
 A condition upon a cloak-room ticket issued 
 by a ry. co. that they " will not be responsible 
 for any package exceeding the value of 101." 
 protects the cu. from liability, not only for the 
 loss of an article deposited in the cloak-room, but 
 also for damage or injury thereto while in their 
 oustodv. Prait v. South Eastern Ev. Co. 
 
 Div, Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 718 
 
( 1653 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891— 1900. 
 
 ( 1654 ) 
 
 HAILWAT (Passengers) — continued. 
 
 27. — Luggage — Injury to — Personal luggage 
 of servant — Property of employer— Injury by mis- 
 feasance of defendants— rBight of owner to s«e. 
 
 A servant of the pit. took a ticket for a 
 journey on deft.'s ry., and a portmanteau of his 
 was accepted by the defts. as his personal luggage. 
 The portmanteau contained his livery, which was 
 the property of the pit. Through an act of mis- 
 feasance of a porter in the employment of the 
 defts. the livery was destroyed. In an action 
 to recover the value of the goods destroyed : — 
 
 Held, that the defts. were liable to the pit. for 
 
 the tortious act of their servant in injuring the 
 
 plt.'s property. Meux v. Great Eastern Ey. Oo. 
 
 C. A. [1896] a Q. B. 387 
 
 28. — Personal injury — Contract — Tort. 
 
 An action by a passenger against a, ry. for 
 personal injuries caused by the negligence of the 
 co.'s servants is founded on tort and not on 
 contract — 
 
 (a) even though the passenger has taken a 
 ticket. Taylor v. Manchester, [Sheffield and 
 Lincolnshire Ky. Oo. C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 134 
 
 Keferred to. See preceding Case. 
 
 (b) or though the negligence charged is an 
 act of omission and not of misfeasance. Kelly 
 V. Metropolitan Ry. Co. - - - C. A. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 944 
 
 29. — Bdbhery in train — Overcrowding — 
 Sefusal to detain train. 
 
 A passenger claimed damages for loss by 
 robbery in the defts.' train on the grounds (1) 
 that the station-master at the station where the 
 robbery occurred refused to detain the train to 
 enable him to recover the money and arrest the 
 thieves, and (2) that the robbery was directly due 
 to overcrowding: — 
 
 Seld, (1) that, under the circumstances, there 
 was DO duty cast on the station-master to detain 
 the train, and therefore no cause of action was 
 shewn ; (2) that the damage was too remote. . 
 
 Decision of the 0. A., [1893] 1 Q. B. 459, 
 aiBrmed. Cobb v. Great Western Ey. Oo. 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 419 
 
 Powers. 
 
 30. — Borrowing powers — Unauthorized har- 
 rowing — Money applied in payment of debts of 
 company — Subrogation of lender to rights of credi- 
 tors — Secured creditors — Priority. 
 
 A ry. CO. had power to borrow money by 
 the creation of three classes of debenture stock, 
 A, B, and 0, A having priority over B and 0, 
 and B over 0. They had issued the whole of 
 these stocks, and had no other borrowing power. 
 Not having the funds to pay a half-year's interest 
 on the debenture stocks, they borrowed money 
 from their bankers for the purpose, the bankers 
 paying the interest warrants of the stockholders 
 when presented to them. Soon after this had 
 been done a judgment creditor of the oo. pre- 
 sented a petition under the EaUway Oompanies 
 Act, 1867, and a receiver was appointed under 
 the petition. The receiver had in his hands 
 moneys sufficient to pay the next half-year's 
 interest due to the A stockholders and to pay 
 
 EAILWAY (Powers)— co»i<i»tte(J. 
 
 in part the interest for the same half-year due 
 
 to the B stockholders : — 
 
 Held, that the bankers were not entitled, in 
 respect of the moneys advanced by them and 
 applied in paying the interest due to the deben- 
 ture stockholders, to the benefit of the securities 
 and priorities of those stockholders or any of 
 them, but that they were only entitled, so far as 
 the moneys advanced had been applied in dis- 
 charging legal debts or liabilities of the co., to 
 stand in the same position as if the advance had 
 been a valid one. 
 
 Where a co. borrows money ultra vires, the 
 lender, so far as the money is applied in the 
 discharge of legal debts and liabilities of the 
 CO., is entitled to have the loan treated as valid, 
 but he is not subrogated to any securities or 
 priorities of the creditors who are paid by means 
 of his money. 
 
 Decisions of Eomer J., [1898] 2 Oh. 663; 
 [1899] W. N. 2 (5) ; [1899] 1 Oh. 205, affirmed. 
 In re Wrexham, Mold akd Connah's Quay 
 Ey. Oo. C. A. [1899] W. N. 22 (4) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 440 
 
 — Contract by company — Effi^ct of consent judg- 
 ment — Terms on which contract will be 
 set aside. 
 See Canada. 17. 
 
 31, — Debentures — Issue at discount — Com- 
 panies Clauses Acts, 1845, 1863 (8 (fe 9 Vict. a. 16 ; 
 26 * 27 Vict. c. 118, s. 21 ; 1869 (32 * 33 Vict, 
 c. 48), s. 5 — Bailway Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. c. 127), s. 27. 
 
 An agreement by a ry. co. to issue fully paid- 
 up original stock and debentures at a discount 
 are legal, subject to the liability of the directors 
 for issuing the stock below its value without 
 necessity : — 
 
 Quiere, if the shares were liable to calls 
 whether the agreement would be legal. Webb 
 V. Shropshire Eys. Co. Whadooat v. Same. 
 London Financial Association v. Whadcoat 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 307 
 
 32, — Deposited plans — " Delineated " — Land 
 not inclosed on every side by lines. 
 
 When a co. seek to obtain power to acquire a 
 limited portion only of a piece of land of great 
 extent which is not broken up into closes, they 
 must frame their deposited plans in such a way 
 as to shew how much of it they mean to acquire 
 power to lake. Pkothebob v. Tottenham and 
 Forest Gate Ey. Oo. - C. A, [1891] 3 Ch, 278 
 
 33, — Temporary possession — Power to take — 
 Necessary purpose — " Boad " — Bailroad ■ — Rail- 
 ways Glauses Act, 1815 (8*9 Vict. c. 20). s. 32. 
 
 A ry. CO. gave notice that they intended to 
 take a piece of land in order to build a temporary 
 ry., which ry. was to save the trouble and expense 
 of carting materials from a highway : — 
 
 Held, that the authority given by s. 32 of the 
 Eailways Clauses Act, 1845, to take temporary 
 possession of land for the purpose of forming 
 roads does not include taking for the purpose of 
 forming a ;raiIroad, and can only be so taken 
 when the taking is necessary for making the line 
 authorized by the co.'s special Act, and mere 
 saving of expense in construction does not con- 
 
( 1655 ) 
 
 WGESt OP CASES, 1891—1900; 
 
 ( 1656 ) 
 
 RAILWAY (Powers) — continued. 
 stitute such necessity. Mobkis v. Tottenham 
 AND Forest Gate Rt. Co. - - Nortli J. 
 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 47 
 
 34. — Time for construeting works — Statutory 
 powers — Expiration of period for completion of 
 works — Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 (fc 9 Yict. 
 V. 20), s. 16. 
 
 Sect. 16 of the Eailways Clauses Act, 1845, 
 empowers a ry. CO., subject to tlie provisions of 
 the special Act, to execute various -works and 
 " from time to time " to alter, repair, or discon- 
 tinue the befove-meutioned works and substitute 
 others in their stead : — 
 
 Held (by Lindley and A. L. Smith L.JJ., 
 affirming North J., Kay L.J. deciding upon 
 otlier grounds), that the powers of this last clause 
 ■were not subject to a restriction in the special 
 Act as to tlie time for the completion of the ry. 
 Bmsley v. Nobth Eastern Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 418 
 
 Referred to. Kirby v. Harrogate School 
 Board, C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 437, 452. 
 
 Practice Generally. 
 
 35. — Costs — Appeal. 
 
 Sect. 2 of the Eiiilway and Canal TrafBo Act, 
 1894, applies only to costs before the Railway and 
 Canal Commission, and does not apply to the 
 costs of an appeal from that tribunal to the C. A. 
 Mansion House Assooiation on Ey. and Canal 
 Traffic fob the United Kingdom (Incorpo- 
 rated) V. Great Western Ry. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 ft, B. 141, 148 
 
 36. — Costs — Counsel's fees — Tliree counsel. 
 Where costs are awarded on an application to 
 
 the Railway and Canal Commissioners, the costs 
 of more than two counsel will not be allowed ns 
 between party and party, unless the ca.se is one 
 in which a reasonable man acting with ordinary 
 prudence would not go into court without three 
 counsel.- The chance of counsel being absent is 
 not to be taken into consider.ition. Glamorgan 
 County Council v. Great Western Kt. Co. 
 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 21 
 See now 57 & 58 Vict. c. 54, s. 2. 
 
 37. — Costs and expenses of obtaining special 
 Act — Parliamentary deposit — Lien — Companies 
 Clauses Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict. u. 16), s. 65. 
 
 A peroou wlio had lent the money for the Pari. 
 deposit moved to restrain the directors of the co., 
 until the deposit was repaid, from applying to 
 Pari, for fresh powers, contrary to an agreement 
 made by them as promoters of the ry. 
 
 Held, that the motion must be refused 
 because (1) the agreement was not binding on 
 the CO., as it could not be shewn that the co. had 
 benefited by it ; (2) that assuming the pit. to be 
 a creditor of the co., he had no right to interfere 
 with the application of the co.'s funds ; (3) that 
 s. 65 of the Companies Clauses Act, 1845, 
 which directs a co. to pay promotion expenses, 
 only gives a right of action against the co. and 
 not a lien on its funds. Cutbill v. Shropshire 
 Eys. Co. - Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 65 
 
 38. — Costs — Receivership crder — " Proper 
 outgoings in respect of the undertaking"— Costs 
 
 RAILWAY (Practice Generally)— continued. 
 of defending an action in respect of the under- 
 taking — Costs of proceedings undsr Act of Parlia- 
 ment containing no provision for costs — Juris- 
 diction — Priority — Railway Companies Act, 1867 
 (30 * 31 Vict. <i. 127), 8. i— Judicature Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. V. 44), s. 5. 
 
 An order was made under s. 4 of the Railway 
 Companies Act, 1867, upon the application of 
 a judgment creditor, appointing a receiver and 
 manager of the undertaking of a ry. co., and 
 directing the usual inquiries as to the debts of 
 the 00. and the riglits and priorities of the cre- 
 ditors. At the date of this order there was 
 pending an action by the contractor of the line 
 against the co. for his remuneration. Subse- 
 quently an order was obtained by the contractor 
 giving him liberty, notwithstanding the receiver- 
 ship order, to proceed with the action, and giving 
 the 00. liberty (according to the construction 
 placed by the Court upon the order) to defend 
 the action on behalf of all persons interested in 
 the assets of the co. The action resulted in a 
 substantial reduction of the contractor's claim, 
 and each party was ordered to pay his own 
 
 Held, (1) that the costs of defending the 
 action were not " proper outgoings in respect of 
 the undertaking" within s. 4 of the Railway 
 Companies Act, 1867; (2) that, notwithstanding 
 the absence of any mention of costs in the Act, 
 the Court hadjurisdiction to order payment of the 
 costs of proceedings thereunder ; (3) that the costs 
 of defending the action incurred since the date 
 of the receivership order ought to be treated aa 
 incurred in prosecuting the inquiries directed by 
 that order, and were incurred for the benefit of 
 the debenture-holders and other creditors of the 
 CO., and ought to be paid out of the moneys in 
 the hands of the receiver and manager in priority 
 to their claims. 
 
 Order of Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 66, varied. 
 In re Wrexham, Mold and Connah's Quay Et. 
 Co. C. A. [1900] W. N. 21 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 261 
 
 Followed by Farwell J. In re Wrexham, 
 Mold and Connah's Quay Ry. Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 
 436. No. 5, below. 
 
 39. — Judgment against railway company — 
 Execution — " Action on a contract " — Railway 
 Companies Act, 1867 (30 <$; 31 Vict. c. 127), e. 4. 
 
 The M.-W. Ry. Co. and tlie M. Ry. Co. were 
 each of them authorized to make a separate line 
 in a certain district to a point of junction with an 
 existing ry. belonging to the L. Co. In order 
 to save expense the three cos. in 1861 entered 
 into an agreement whereby the L. Co. was to 
 make a joint line to be used by the other two, 
 and a joint station to be used by the three cos. 
 This arrangement was embodied and carried into 
 effect by an Act of Parliament passed in 1862, 
 which contained provisions for the payment of 
 certain sums to the L. Co. by the two other cos., 
 and for the recovery of those sums by action in 
 case of default. The works were duly executed 
 by the L. Co. The M. Co. from time to time 
 made default in their payments ; and the L. Co, 
 in 1883 and at subsequent dates obtained various 
 judgments against them, which were unsatisfied. 
 
 Upon an application by the L. Co. for leave to 
 
( 1657 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1658 ) 
 
 RAILWAY (Practice Generally) — eontinued. 
 issue execution upon the roUinff-stock of the 
 M. Co. :— 
 
 Held,i'hsA the actions in which the judgments 
 had been recovered were not " actions on a con- 
 tract" -within the meaning of s. 4 of the Railway 
 Companies Act, 1867, and that consequently the 
 applicants were not entitled to issue execution. 
 
 The observations of Lord Watson in Countess 
 of Rothes V. Kirkcaldy and Dysart Waterworks 
 Commissioners, (1882) 7 App. Cas. 694, at p. 707, 
 commented on and explained. In re Manohesteb 
 
 AND MlLTfOKD Ry. CO. 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch, 276 
 
 40. — Particulars — Complaint hy association. 
 An association certified under s. 7 of the 
 
 Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, complained 
 of an increase of rates on certain classes of goods 
 made since 1892 as unreasonable : — 
 
 Held, that the association could not be called 
 on to give particulars of traders represented by 
 them or in respect of whose trafSc the complaint 
 was made. Mansion House Association on Ey. 
 AND Canal TKAFric foe the United Kingdom 
 (Inoobporatbd) v. Geeat Western Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 141 
 
 41. — Service of writ— Scottish railway having 
 short line in England — Companies Clauses Act, 
 1845 (8*9 Viet. c. 16), s. 135. 
 
 A ry. CO. having its governing body resident 
 and domiciled in Glasgow had a short line in 
 England which was under the Companies Clauses 
 Act, 1845 :— 
 
 Held, that the co. was a Scottish co., and that 
 service of a writ under s. 135 of the Act at the 
 principal office of the co. on the English part of 
 the line was not good service. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1892] 1 Q. B. 607, 
 reversed. Palmer v. Caledonian Kt. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 823 
 
 Bailway and Canal Traffic. 
 
 By the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 
 (.57 & 58 Vict. c. 54), the Railway and Canal 
 Traffic Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 25), was 
 amended, and provision was made as to complaints 
 as to rates and charges raised since 1892,ihe power 
 of the Commrs. to award costs was restricted, and 
 the allowance of a rebate on siding rates was 
 provided for. 
 
 — Metropolis Water Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Water. 
 
 Provisional Orders.] By the Railway and 
 Canal Traffic (Provisional Orders) Amendment 
 Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 12), provision was 
 made as to the powers of governing bodies and 
 county councils with reference to hills for confirming 
 provisional orders under 51 <fe 52 Vict. e. 25, «. 24. 
 
 Pbovisional Obdeb — Time for application 
 FOB.] By the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 44), the Act of 1888 was 
 amended. 
 
 42. — Charges — Application for disintegration 
 of charge — Charge lelow statutory maximum — 
 Sufficiency of answer — Railway and Canal Traffic 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 25), o. 33, sub-s. 3. 
 
 Where an application is made under s. 33, 
 
 RAILWAY (Railway and Canal Traffic)— con/cZ. 
 sub-s. 3, of the Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1888, to the secretary of a ry. co. by a person 
 interested in a conveyance of merchandise over 
 the ry. for an account dividing the charge made 
 for carriage and distinguishing the charge made 
 for conveyance on the ry. from the terminal 
 charges (if any) and from the dock charges (if 
 any), it is sufficient, if the total charge made is 
 below the co.'s. statutory maximum charge for 
 conveyance, for the ry. co. to make a formal 
 answer that the whole charge is in respect of 
 conveyance, and that no charge is made in 
 respect of terminals or of dock charges. New 
 Union Mills Co. v. Great Western Et. Co. 
 
 Ry. and Canal Commrs. [1896] 2 Q,. B. 290 
 
 — Charge for use of sidings. 
 
 See Cases under Railway — Sidings. 
 
 43. — Charges — Increase of rate — Class of 
 goods — Complaint by association — Jurisdiction — 
 Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 25), es. 7, 31 ; 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. o. 54), 
 ss. 1, 2. 
 
 On a complaint as to an unreasonable increase 
 of rate in a class of goods a ry. co. may justify 
 generally the rate for the whole class, and a 
 demand for particulars to identify specific goods 
 as to which the increase of rate might be alleged 
 to be unreasonable, is premature until the general 
 justification has been dealt with. Mansion Hoose 
 AssooIATIO^r os Ey. and Uanal Traffic fob the 
 United Kingdom (Inooepoeatbd) v. Great 
 Western Ey. Co. - C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 141 
 
 Eeferred to by Collins J. Rickett, Smith & Co. 
 V. Midland Ry. Co., [1896] 1 Q. B. 260, 264. 
 
 44. — Charges — Increase of rate — Railway 
 Commissioners — Jurisdiction — Cartage charges — - 
 Complaint of unreasonableness — Railway Rates 
 Confirmation Acts, 1891, 1892 — Railway and 
 Canal Traffic Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 54), 
 s. 1, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Where a ry. co. have, since the last day of 
 Dec, 1892, increased a rate or charge for cartage, 
 and complaint is 'made that the rate or charge is 
 unreasonable, exclusive juiisdiction is not vested 
 in an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade 
 under the Railway Rates Confirmation Acts, 
 1891, 1892, but the Eailway Commrs. have juris- 
 diction to hear and determine the complaint. 
 Mansion House Association on Ky. Traffic v. 
 London and North Western Ry. Co. 
 
 Ry. and Canal Commrs, [1896] 1 Q. B. 273 
 
 46. — Charges — Increase of rates — Standard of 
 reasonableness — Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1894 (57 <fe 58 Vict. c. 54), s. 1, sub-s. 1. 
 
 By s, 1, sub-s. 1, " Where a ry. co. have, .... 
 since the last day of Dec, 1892, directly or in- 
 directly increased .... any rate or charge, then 
 if any complaint is made that the rate or charge 
 is unreasonable, it shall lie on the co. to 
 prove that the increase of the rate or charge is 
 reasonable, and for that purpose it shall not be 
 sufficient to shew that the rate or charge is within 
 any limit fixed by an Act of Parliament or by any 
 Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parlia- 
 ment." 
 
 In a case where rates for the carriage of 
 
( 1659 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900- 
 
 ( 1660 ) 
 
 EAIITVAY (Eailway and Canal Traffic)— comtc!. 
 coal had been indirectly increased on Jan. 1, 
 1893:— 
 
 Held, by Collins J., that the effect of the Act 
 was not necessarily in all cases to declare the 
 increased rates void, but that all future increases 
 of rates must be tried by the standard of reason- 
 ableness, depending on circumstances existing or 
 apprehended before the increase was made, and 
 therefore, in the case then before the Court, before 
 the Act came into operation. Eiokett, Smith & 
 Co. V. Midland Et. Co. Derbyshire Silkstone 
 Coal Co. v. The Same. Geassmoor Go. v. The 
 Same Sy. and Canal Commrs. [1896] 1 Q. B. 360 
 
 46. — Charges— Bates for merchandise — Siding 
 not belonging to railway company — Station accom- 
 modation and terminal services — Allowance or 
 rebate in respect thereof — Evidence — Onus of proof 
 — Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894: (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 54), s. 4. 
 
 By s. 4 of the Bailway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1894, whenever merchandise is received or de- 
 livered by a ry. co. at a siding not belonging to 
 the CO., and a dispute arises as to any allowance 
 or rebate to be made from the rates charged in 
 respect that the ry. co. does not provide station 
 accommodation or perform terminal services, the 
 Eailway Commrs. shall have jurisdiction to hear 
 and determine such dispute, and to determine 
 what, if any, is a reasonable and just allowance 
 or rebate. 
 
 At the hearing of an application for an allow- 
 ance or rebate under this section on the ground 
 that the rates charged by the ry. co., in respect of 
 goods sent from the applicants' siding, included 
 a charge for station accommodation at the 
 siding : — 
 
 Held, by A. L. Smith and Eigby L.JJ., 
 V. Williams L.J. not assenting, that the applic- 
 ants, by merely proving that they were charged 
 the rates, and that the siding did not belong to 
 the ry. co., had not made out a prima facie case 
 that " the rates included a charge for station 
 accommodation at the siding so as to throw upon 
 the ry. co. the onus of proving that the rates did 
 not include a charge for station accommodation. 
 Salt Union, Ld. v. North Staffordshire Et. Co. 
 C. A, [1898] 2 Q. B. 435 
 
 47. — Jurisdiction — Compensation — Land 
 taken compulsorily or injuriously affected — Trial 
 in superior court — Power of Sigh Court to make 
 order — Jurisdiction of master — Time from which 
 order of Judge on appeal from master takes effect 
 — E. S. C., Order LIV., r. 12 — Eegulation of Eail- 
 ways Act, 1868 (31 * 32 Vict. c. 119), s. 41. 
 
 A question of compensation having arisen, 
 under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, between 
 a claimant and a ry. CO., the CO., before issuing 
 their warrant to the sheriff to summon a jury, 
 applied under s. 41 of the Eegulation of Rail- 
 ways Act, 1868, to a master for an order for 
 the trial of the question in the High Court. The 
 master refused the application, and the co. 
 appealed to a judge who made the order. In the 
 meantime, and before the judge made the order, 
 the CO. issued their warrant to the sheriff. On 
 the^^ud^^^^ tbe claimant against the order of 
 
 BeU, that the jurisdiction conferred by s. 4] 
 
 EAILWAY (Eailway and Canal Traffic) — oorM. 
 of the Eegulation of Eailways Act, 1868, is now 
 vested in the judges of the High Court, and may, 
 except as to the settling ;of an issue in case of 
 difference, be exercised by a master under 
 Order liv., r. 12. 
 
 Held also, that the judge's order being that 
 which the master should have made, the time 
 when the master's order was made must be taken 
 as the date of the judge's order, and as no war- 
 rant had then been issued the judge's order was 
 in time. In re Donisthorpe and MANoaESTEH, 
 Sheffield and Lincolnshire Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 671 
 
 48. — Jurisdiction, whether exclusive. 
 
 Sect. 6 of the Eailway TraflSc Act, 1854, and 
 s. 9 of the Eailway and Canal TrafBo Act, 1888, 
 do not confer upon the Eailway and Canal 
 Commrs. exclusive jurisdiction to determine 
 whether reasonable facilities for traffic have been 
 given, or excessive rates charged under special 
 Acts prior to the passing of these general Acts. 
 Baert Et. Co. v. Tafp Vale Et. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch. 128 
 
 See Davis & Sons v. Taff Vale Ey. Co., [1895] 
 A. C. 554. 
 
 — " Eeasonahle facilities " — Closing of station 
 
 for passenger traffic. 
 See No. 64, below. 
 
 49. — Seasonable facilities — Jurisdiction, 
 whether exclusive — Bailway and Canal Traffic 
 Acts, 1854, 1888 (17 <£ 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 6 ; 51 (fc 52 
 Vict. c. 25, ss. 9, 10). 
 
 The Act of the pit. ry. provided that the deft, 
 ry. should afford them reasonable facilities, at 
 rates per mile not greater than the lowest rate 
 charged by the deft. ry. for similar traffic, and 
 also that if on application to the Eailway Commrs. 
 as arbitrators, they should decide that the deft. 
 ry. had failed to give any of such facilities, the 
 pit. ry. should be entitled to certain relief : — 
 
 Held, that even if the latter provision applied 
 to a, complaint that the deft. ry. had been 
 charging the pit. ry . rates higher than they were 
 entitled to charge, it did not confer on the 
 commrs. an exclusive jurisdiction, nor oust the 
 ordinary jurisdiction of the Court : — 
 
 Hdd, also, tliat s. 9 of the EaUway and Canal 
 Traffic Act, 1888, and s. 6 of the Act of 1854, did 
 not in such a case confer exclusive jurisdiction 
 on the commrs. Baeey Et. Co. v. Taff Vale 
 Et. Co. - - - C. A. [1895] 1 Oh. 128 
 
 See Davis & Sons v. Taff Vale By. Co., [1895] 
 A. C. 554. 
 
 — Sidings, Charge for use of — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Nos. 60—62, below. 
 
 60. — Through boohing — Seasonable facilities 
 — Bailway and Canal Commissioners — Jurisdic- 
 tion — Bailway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854, 1888 
 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 2 ; 51 * 52 Vict. c. 25, 
 s. 25). 
 
 An application for through booking over a 
 route passing along several lines of ry. is not a 
 matter of right, but the granting of it is governed 
 by the considerations that affect an application 
 for a through rate under s, 25 of the Eailway 
 
( 1661 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1662 ) 
 
 EAILWAY (Railway and Canal Traffic)— conW. 
 and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. Didcot, Neweuby 
 AND Southampton Et. Co. v. Gbeat "Western 
 Et. Co. and London aInd Sotjth Western ISt. 
 Co. - - - C. A. [1897] 1 Q, B. 33 
 
 51. — Through traffic — Speoial services. 
 Where a ry. in conaideration of an annual 
 payment were allowed to run their trains along 
 a pier on a ry. belonging to the Admiralty :— 
 
 3eld, that the ry. were not entitled, in the 
 absence of any statutory power or express con- 
 tract, to make a charge, in excess of the maxi- 
 mum charges authorized by their statutes, for 
 the special service of carrying passengers and 
 their luggage over the line belonging to the 
 Admii-alty. Nicholson v. London, Chatham 
 AND DovEB Et. Co. Mathew J. [1895] W. N, 91 
 62. — Through traffic— Statutory obligation 
 enforceable iy public — Group rates — Railway and 
 Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. a. 25), 8. 29. 
 A clause in a ry. oo.'s special Act limiting 
 the rates for certain traffic — the result of a Par- 
 liamentary contest between two ry. cos. — ^has the 
 effect, not merely of a contract between the two 
 COS., but of a statutory obligation which may be 
 enforced by any person chargeable with the rates 
 for such traffic. 
 
 Fer Lord Watson : The power conferred by 
 the Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, s. 29, 
 to fix group rates, "notwithstanding any provision 
 in any general or special Act," cannot affect the 
 rate chargeable, under express statutory provi- 
 sions, for the conveyance of traffic te any tor- 
 minus which is not included in the group. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [189i] 1 Q. B. 43, reversed. 
 Davis & Sons, Ld. v. Tapp Vale Et. Co. 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 542 
 
 53. Vndiie preference — Effect of competition — 
 
 Bailway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 (17 * 18 
 
 Vict. c. 31), s. 2 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 25), ss. 7, 
 
 27. 
 
 Senible, that the effect of s. 27 of the Eail- 
 ways, &c., Act, 1888, is not to limit the Court in 
 dealing with questions of alleged' undue pre- 
 ference to the consideration whether the lower 
 charge is necessary for the interests of the public. 
 An association of traders in grain and flour at 
 L. complained against the deft. co. for undue 
 preference by charging lower rates from C. to B. 
 in comparison with those charged from L. to B., a 
 shorter distance. The lower rates had been 
 fixed with reference to competition with other 
 lines for traffic from C. to B. : — 
 
 Held, on the facts of tlie traffic, that there 
 was undue preference. Liveepool Coen Trade 
 Association, Ld. v. London and.Noeth Westben 
 Et. Co. 
 
 Ey, and Canal Commrs. [1891] 1 ft. B. 120 
 64. — Undue preference — Lower tolls or rates 
 ^Mival traders — Access to competing lines — Mail- 
 way and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 (17 * 18 Vict, 
 c. 31), 8. 2 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict: c. 25), ss. 17, 27, 
 29-55. 
 
 The fact that a trader has access to a com- 
 peting route for the carriage of his goods may be 
 taken into consideration by the Eailway Commrs. 
 or the Court in deciding whether lower tolls or 
 rates charged to such trader by a ry. co. oonsti- 
 tjfte ap undue preference within the meaning of 
 
 RAILWAY (Railway and Canal Traffic)— conW. 
 the Eailway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 and 
 1888. Phipps v. London and Noeth Western 
 Et. Co. - - C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 229 
 
 64a. — Undue preference — Some and foreign 
 merchandise — Bailway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 25), s. 27. 
 
 All inequalities in rates as between home and 
 foreign merchandise are not prohibited ; but if 
 the ry. co. can justify the admitted differences, 
 had the goods in both cases been home goods, the 
 CO. are not debarred from relying on those facts 
 as an answer merely because the goods in ques- 
 tion are of foreign origin. Mansion House Asso- 
 ciation ON Et. Teafpio v. London and South 
 Western Et. Co. - - [1895] 1 ft. B. 927 
 
 Railway Servants. 
 
 HouES op Labour of Eailwat Servants.] 
 Bailway Begulation Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 29), atnends the law. 
 
 — Circular to servants — ^Libel — Privileged occa- 
 
 sion. 
 
 See Defamation — libel. 22. 
 
 Rates and Taxes, 
 
 See Cases under Eatbs. 
 
 — Land tax on railway tunnel under street. 
 
 See Eevenub— Land Tax. 118. 
 
 Receiver and Manager. 
 
 — Costs— Eeceivership order— Costs of defending 
 
 action in respect of the undertaking. 
 See Eailwat — Costs. 
 
 66. — Preferential payments — Priority — Work- 
 ing expenses — Proper outgoings — Damage caused 
 by defective plant — Compensation— Costs— Judg-. 
 ment debt — Bailway Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. c. 127), 8. 4. 
 
 A judgment debt for damages caused to the 
 property of a person using a ry. by the neglect of 
 the ry. co. to keep its plant in proper repair is 
 not a working expense or other proper outgoing 
 of the ry. within the meaning of s. 4 of the 
 Eailway Companies Act, 1867, so as to be entitled 
 to priority over other debts payable by a receiver 
 and manager appointed under that section. 
 
 The costs carried by the judgment stand on 
 the same footing as the damages in this respect. 
 
 The priority given by the section is confined 
 to working expenses and other proper outgoings 
 without which it would be impossible to carry on 
 the ry. It does not extend to claims for compen- 
 sation or other claims, the non-payment of which, 
 though probably leading to a decline in traffic, 
 would not absolutely paralyze the undertaking. 
 
 In re'Easlern and JUidlands By. Co., (1890), 
 45 Oh. D. 367, In re Wrexham, Mold and Connah's 
 Quay By. Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 261, and In re Navan 
 and Kingscourt By. Co., (1885) 17 L. E. Jr. 398, 
 followed. In re Wbexham, Mold and Connah's 
 QuAT Et. Co. 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 147; [1900] 2 Ch, 436 
 
 Regnlation, 
 — Agreement to stop trains. 
 
 £^66 Scottish iLAw-^Eailways. 33. 
 
( 1663 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1664 ) 
 
 BAIL WAY (Eegulation) — continued. 
 
 — Amalgamation — Stamps — " Conveyance on 
 
 sale." 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 153. 
 
 — Traffic. 
 
 See Nos. 42 — 48, above. 
 
 Boads and Streets. 
 
 ■ Closing lane. 
 
 See Canada. 
 
 19, 55. 
 
 66. — Footpath — Bridge — Mandamus — Rail- 
 ways Clauses Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 20), «s. 46, 
 49, 50, 61. 
 
 Sect. 46 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, 
 does not impose upon a ry. Co., whose line crosses 
 a public footpath, the obligation of carrying the 
 footpath over tlie ry. or the ry. over the footpath 
 by means of a bridge. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1896] 2 Q. B. 74, affirmed. 
 Daktford Bubal Disteiot Council v. Bbxley 
 Heath Et. Co. - H. I. (E.) [1898] A. C. 210 
 
 67. — Interference with road — Penalty for not 
 substituting suficient road — Road belonging to 
 different owners — Right of otoner of part to sue for 
 penally — Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 (t 9 Vict, 
 c. 20), 88. 53, 54. 
 
 By 8. 53 of the Bail ways Clauses Act, 1845, if 
 a ry. CO , in the exercise of their powers, find it 
 necessary to cut through, raise, sink, or use any 
 part of any road, either public or private, so ns 1o 
 render it impassable or dangerous, they shall, 
 before commencing such operations, cause a suffi- 
 cient road to be made instead of the road to be 
 interfered with ; and by s. 54 they are, in default 
 of so doing, liable to a penalty which, in the case 
 of a private road, shall be paid " to the owner 
 thereof": — 
 
 Held, that the owner of the soil of any part of 
 that portion of a private road which has been 
 interfered with may sue to recover the penalty, 
 but that only one such penalty is recoverable 
 from the ry. co. 
 
 Decision of Wright J., [1897] 2 Q. B. 239, 
 affirmed. Llewellyn v. Vale op Glamorgan 
 Et. Co. - - C. A. [1898] 1 a. B. 478 
 
 — Street railway — Grant — Coastruction. 
 See Canada. 47. 
 
 Scheme of Arrangement. 
 
 68. — Confirmation by Court — Scheme depend- 
 ing on sanction of Parliament — Railway Companies 
 Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 127), s. 18. 
 
 Where a scheme required the sanction of an 
 Act of Parliament, ordered, that the petition for 
 confirmation should stand over generally, the 
 parties to apply to restore it if at any time during 
 the following year they could shew there was a 
 good prospect of the bill becoming law. In re 
 Eastern and Midland Et. Co. - Zekewich J. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 173 
 
 69. — Preference shareholders — Non-assent of 
 Zn',f n^ '^'.'*^ "prejudicially affected "—Rail- 
 « llorfaTl?, 1^6*17^®^ ^^^ * ^^ ^''''*- " ^^^^' 
 
 altered''tLTrlcrhL''TJl^^™®"* ^"^ settled whicli 
 
 but as a whfii ° u® preference shareholders, 
 
 wiole was beneiioiQl to them. On a 
 
 BAIL WAT (Scheme of Axraugemeat')— continued. 
 petition to the Court to confirm the scheme, not- 
 withstanding that the statutory two-thirds of the 
 preference shareholders had not assented : — 
 
 Held, that the assent of the statutory majority 
 of a class to a scheme of arrangement under the 
 Bail way Companies Act, 1867, cannot be dispensed 
 with under s. 15 if any existing right of that 
 class is prejudicially affected, it being for them 
 and not for the Court to consider whether the 
 scheme gives such benefits that their rights on 
 the whole are not prejudicially afiected. In re 
 Neath and Brecon Et. Co. C. A. affirm. North J. 
 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 349 
 Scotland. 
 See Scottish Law — Bailways. 33 — 36. 
 
 Sewers. 
 
 — Sewer made under local or private Act — ^Vest- 
 ing in local authority. 
 See Sewers. 11. 
 
 Sidings. 
 
 60. — Charge for use of sidings — Arbitration — 
 Jurisdiction — Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 25)~Promsional Order. 
 
 By a Provisional Order, made by the Board of 
 Trade under the Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1888, and confirmed by statute, a ry. co. were 
 empowered to charge, iu addition to the tonnage 
 rate, a reasonable sum for the service, if rendered 
 to a trader at his request or for his convenience, 
 of allowing him " the use or occupation of any 
 accommodation before or after conveyance, beyond 
 such period as shall be reasonably necessary for 
 enabling the co. to deal with the merchandise as 
 carriers thereof, or the consignor or consignee to 
 give 1 r take delivery thereof, and services ren- 
 dered in connection with such use and occupation," 
 and " any difference arising under this section 
 shall be determined by an arbitrator to be ap- 
 pointed by the Board of Trade at the instance of 
 either party." 
 
 The CO. gave notice to the deft., a trader, that 
 they would allow him four days, free of charge, 
 within which to unload goods consigned to him 
 arriving at their station, and that after the 
 expiration of the four days they would charge 
 him 6d. per day siding rent for each wagon 
 allowed to remain unloaded. In an action by the 
 CO. to recover from the deft, siding rent at the 
 rate of 6d. per day in respect of wagons which, 
 after receiving that notice, ho had allowed to 
 remain unloaded after the four days, the deft, dis- 
 puted his liability to pay the amount charged : — 
 
 Seld, that the jurisdiction of the Court was 
 ousted, because under s. 5 of the statute an arbi- 
 trator appointed by the Board of Trade is the 
 only tribunal for the settlement of any differences 
 arising under that section. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1898] 1 Q. B. 748, re- 
 versed. London and North Western Et. Co. 
 V. Donellan. London and North Western 
 Et. Co. V. BiLLiNGTON, Ld. - C. A. [1898] 
 2 Q. B. 7 ; reversed by H. Z. (E.) [18981 
 W. W. 174(11); [1899JA.C. 79 
 London and North Western By. Co v Sil 
 lingion, Ld., [1898] 2 Q, B. 7, was reversed by 
 
{ IBBo ) 
 
 CrGlBST OF CASES, ISSl— ISOO. 
 
 ( lees ) 
 
 RAILWAY (Sid^s)— continued. 
 H. L. (E.) sub nom. London and North Western 
 and Great Western Joint Ry. Cos. v. /. S. Bil- 
 lington, Ld., [1899] A. C. 79. See next Case. 
 
 London and North Western By. Co. v. Donellan, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 7, was approved of by H. L. (B.) 
 MidlandBy. Co. v. Loseby & Camley, [1899] A. 0. 
 133. See No. 62, belote. 
 
 61. — Charge for use of sidings — Arbitration 
 — Jurisdiction — Condition precedent — Difference 
 before action brought. 
 
 A Bail way Act confirming a Provisional Order, 
 after empowering the ry. oo. to charge a reason- 
 able sum for certain services rendered to a 
 trader, by way of addition to the tonnage rate, 
 enacted that " any difference arising under this 
 section shall be determined by an arbitrator to 
 be appointed by the Board of Trade at the 
 instance of either party." The co. having sued 
 the respondents for services under this section, 
 the respondents objected to the jurisdiction of 
 the Court on the ground that the matter vras one 
 for the arbitrator to determine : — 
 
 Held, that as there had been no difference 
 existing between the parties before action brought 
 the arbitrator had not and the Court had juris- 
 diction. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1898] 2 Q. B. 7, reversed 
 and the decision of Div. Ct. restored upon the 
 above ground. 
 
 Qv^ry whether the arbitrator can determine 
 any matter except the reasonableness of the 
 charges. London and North Western and 
 Great Western Joint Et. Cos. v. 3. H. Bil- 
 LiNGTON, Ld. - H. L. (E.) [1899] A. C. 79 
 
 62. — Cliarge for use of sidings — Beasonable- 
 riess of charges — Time allowed for talcing delivery 
 ■^—Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Provisional Order. 
 
 A Railway Act confirming a Provisional 
 Order, after empowering the ry. co. to charge for 
 certain services rendered to a trader a reasonable 
 sum by way of addition to the tonnage rate, 
 enacted that "any difference arising under this 
 section shall be determined by an arbitrator 
 to be appointed by the Board of Trade at the 
 instance of either party." The services included 
 " The detention of trucks, or the use or occu- 
 pation of any accommodation, before or after 
 conveyance, beyond such period as shall be 
 reasonably necessary for enabling the co. to deal 
 with the merchandise as carriers thereof, or the 
 consignor or consignee to give or take delivery 
 thereof .... And services rendered in connection 
 with such use and occupation " : — 
 
 Held, that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to 
 determine not only the reasonableness of the 
 sums charged for the accommodation, but all 
 questions necessarily incidental thereto, and 
 among them the reasonableness of the time 
 allowed to the consignee for taking delivery of 
 the merchandise. 
 
 London arid North Western By. Co. v. Donellan, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 7, approved. Midland By. Co. 
 V. Loseby & Carnley 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 23 (9) ; [1899] A. C. 133 
 
 — Rebate on sidings rates. 
 
 See Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Viot. c. 54), s. i. . 
 
 BAILWAY — continued. 
 
 Stations. 
 
 63. — Cloak-room — Lien for charges — Goods 
 deposited by bailee. 
 
 Where a bailee deposited an article at a ry. 
 station cloak-room, as he was entitled to do by 
 the contract of bailment, and after the deter- 
 mination of the contract the owners seek to 
 recover it : — 
 
 Held, that the ry. co. had a lien on it against 
 the owners for the cloak-room charges. Singer 
 
 M.\NUrA0TDRINO Co. V. LONDON AND SOBTH 
 
 Western By. Co. - Div, Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 833 
 
 64. — Closing of station for passenger traffic — 
 " Beasonable facilities " — Jurisdiction — Bailway 
 and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 31), 
 ss. 1, 2. 
 
 Held, by the Railway and Canal Commu., 
 that where a ry. co. close a station for passenger 
 traffic, at which there is a substantial amount of 
 such traifio, without providing an equivalent, 
 they commit a breach of their obligation "to 
 afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving 
 and forwarding and delivering of traffic," pursuant 
 to s. 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1854, and the Commn. ordered the co. " to afford 
 reasonable facilities for receiving and forwarding 
 and delivering of passenger traffic upon and 
 from the said ry." 
 
 Reversed by C. A., on the ground that the 
 Oommn. had no jurisdiction to make the order : 
 by Esher M.R. and Smith L.J., on the ground 
 that the Act does not compel a ry. co. to maintain 
 and use its ry. and stations ; by Kay L. J., on the 
 ground that an order to keep a station open if it 
 would compel the ry. co. to carry on business at 
 a loss was not an order on them to give reason- 
 able facilities. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1894] 2 Q. B. 45, reversed. 
 Darlaston Local Board v. London and North 
 Western Ry. Co. C. A. [1894] 8 Q. B. 694 
 
 66. — Exclusion of hotel servant wearing hotel 
 badge — Trespass — Bight of railway company to 
 exclude from the station persons other than travellers 
 — Bailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 31) — Begulation of Bailways Act, 1873 
 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 48). 
 
 Apart from any facilities granted by the Rail- 
 way Commrs., a ry. co. have the right of excluding 
 from their stations all persons except those using 
 or desirous of using the ry. ; and may impose 
 upon the rest of the public any terms they think 
 proper as the condition of admittance. And it 
 follows that a ry. oo. who have an hotel of their 
 own within the limits of the station may qualify 
 their permission to other hotel proprietors and 
 their servants to have free access to the platform 
 with the condition that on those occasions no 
 hotel servant shall wear a distinctive badge or 
 livery. 
 
 So held (Lord Morris dissenting), reversing 
 the decision of the Second Division of the Court 
 of Session, (1896) 23 R. 88a. 
 
 The jurisdiction to determine whether there 
 is a statutory right to demand from a ry. co. a 
 facility or privilege belongs exclusively to the 
 Railway Commrs. Perth General Station 
 Committj;b v. Boss H, L. (So,) [1897] A. C, 479 
 
 3 H 
 
( ige? ) 
 
 .fitGES* OV CASES, 1891—1966. 
 
 ( im ) 
 
 EAILWAT (Stations)— continued. 
 
 — Hackney carriage — Refusal to drive hirer into 
 
 station. 
 
 See Hackney Caemage. 2, 
 
 — Station works — Special Act. 
 
 See No. 70, Mow. 
 
 — Stopping all ordinary trains. 
 
 See Scottish Law — ^Railway. 33. 
 
 — Use of joint station by third party. 
 
 iSee Scottish Law — Bailway. 36. 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act — Erection of 
 
 station — Accident to contractor's work- 
 man. 
 See Master and Servant. 40. 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act — Kefreshment 
 
 room. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 39. 
 
 Traffic. 
 
 See No8. 42 — 54a, above. 
 
 Truck Acts. 
 
 — Sick and accident fund — Porter — Railway 
 
 guard. 
 
 See Master and Servant— Truck Acts. 
 105. 
 
 Ventilating Shafts. 
 
 66. — Damage from working — Damage from 
 construction — Bailway s Clauses Act, 1845 (8 (fe 9 
 Vict. c. 20), ». 16. 
 
 A ry. CO. were by their special Act authorized 
 to construct an underground ry. A ventilating 
 shaft was made near the back of a dwelling- 
 house, of which H. subsequently became lessee. 
 The CO. then enlarged the opening and greatly 
 increased the quantity of smoke, steam, and foul 
 air coming to H.'s house : — 
 
 Seld, that whether the alteration was made 
 by the co. in the exercise of their rights as 
 owners of the laud, or under the powers given 
 by s. 16 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1815, H. 
 had no right to compensation, since, as the 
 alteration would cause no damage to him if the 
 line were not used, the damage arose from the 
 working of the line and not from the construction. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 384 
 
 Water. 
 See Cases under Water. 
 
 Way-leave. 
 
 — Construction — Ancient document — Contem- 
 
 poraneous usage or interpretation. 
 See Wat-leave. 
 
 Works. 
 
 67. — Accommodation works — Compensation — 
 Power of statutory officer to bind the company. 
 
 Where by a special Act the promoters of a 
 ry- were authorized to take lands, through a 
 ir„''!£™S'*'°' "*'""■' compensation being payable 
 by the Government, and the owners of the Iftnd 
 
 EAILWAT (Works)— confin'M€(Z. 
 were entitled to such accommodation works as 
 may be fixed by agreement when the amount of 
 the compensation is being settled : — 
 
 Held, that as the statutory power of assessing 
 compensation was entrusted to the officer, the 
 making of agreements for accommodation works 
 was within the scope of his authority, and he 
 could within reasonable limits bind the co., 
 although the statutory duty of paying for such 
 works was on the co. West India Impbovement 
 Co. V. Att.-Gen. of Jamaica 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 243 
 
 — Accommodation works — Fence — Obligation of 
 company to maintain. 
 See No. 6, a6oi;e. 
 
 68. — Accommodation loorJis — Injunction to 
 restrain building of bridge — Railways Clauses 
 Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 <fe 9 Vict. c. 20), 8. 21. 
 
 A landowner conveyed land to a ry. co. by a 
 deed containing a recital to the effect that the 
 rent-charge for which the property was sold 
 should include compensation for severance and 
 damage of all kinds to other lands of the land- 
 owner, and should also be "in full satisfaction 
 for all accommodation and other works and 
 things which might otherwise be required to be 
 made or done under the said Acts, or any of them, 
 or any other Act, for the benefit or accommoda- 
 tion of the adjoining property " of the landowner, 
 " except as hereinafter mentioned." The excep- 
 tion consisted of the reservation to the landowner 
 of liberty to make certain specified crossings at 
 his own expense. About twelve years afterwards 
 the landowner proposed to build at his own ex- 
 pense a bridge standing upon his own ground 
 carrying two lines of rails, and crossing the ry. 
 by a single span. The co. refusing to assent, the 
 landowner applied to justices for their sanction 
 under s. 71 of the Railways Clauses Consolida- 
 tion Act, 1845. The co. brought an action for 
 an injunction to restrain the building of the 
 bridge and the application to the justices. 
 Kekewich J. having refused an injunction, the 
 justices sanctioned the proposed, work: — 
 
 Held, on appeal, that according to the better 
 construction the recital amounted to a bargiiiu 
 that no accommodation works should be made by 
 either party, except those specifically mentioned 
 in the conveyance, and that the landowner had 
 contracted himself out of s. 71 : 
 
 Held, further, that if the narrower construc- 
 tion were adopted, that " required to be done " 
 meant " required to be done by the co.," and that 
 the landowner was left at liberty to proceed under 
 s. 71, he could only proceed under it if accom- 
 modation works made by the co. or directed by 
 justices to be made by the co. were found after- 
 wards to be insufficient according to the state of 
 things at the time of the construction of the 
 works, and that he could not under that section 
 execute accommodation works which, though 
 convenient in consequence of the altered state of 
 the property, would not have been considered 
 necessary or convenient in the state of things 
 which existed when the works were executed : 
 
 Held, therefore, that the ry. co. were entitled 
 to an injunction. 
 
 Beg. V. Fieher, (1862) 3 B. & S. 191, and Beg. 
 
( 1669 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1670 ) 
 
 RAILWAY (Woii.s)~eonHnued. 
 
 V. Brmen, (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 630, approyed. 
 
 Ehondda and Swausba Et. Co. v. Talbot 
 
 C. A, [1897] 2 Ch. 131 
 
 — Accommodation works—" Sewer " or " drain " 
 
 — Vesting in local authority. 
 See Sbw1bk8. 11. 
 
 69. — Accommodation works — Transfer to new 
 company — Specific performance of covenants— 
 Form, ofjv^dgment. 
 
 Where a ry. has, as part of the consideration 
 for land purchased under its special Act, entered 
 into covenants to provide accommodation works 
 and to perform personal services, and by a sub- 
 sequent Act the ry. is dissolved and its under- 
 taking transferred to another ry. " subject to the 
 obligations and liabilities" of the old ry., the 
 landowner can maintain an action against the new 
 ry. for specific performance of all the covenants, 
 including that for personal services. 
 
 Form of judgment against ry. for speoiflo 
 performance of all the covenants considered. 
 
 (a) Fobtescue v. Lostwithiel and Fowbt 
 Et. Co. - - Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 621 
 
 (b) Jebsbt (Eabl op) v. Great Western 
 Et. Co. - - C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 625, n. 
 
 70. — Station worTcs — Special Act. 
 
 The provisions of a ry. co.'s special Act as to 
 stations hdd to override the general provisions of 
 the Metropolitan Building Acts. City and South 
 London Et. Co. v. London Countt Ootincil 
 
 C, A. [1891] 2 a. B. 513 
 
 Followed bv Div. Ct. London County Council 
 V. London School Board, [1892] 2 Q. B. 606, 611. 
 
 See now London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. i;. ccxiii.), ss. 22, 31. 
 
 BAT£ 07 IKTEBEST. 
 
 See Interest. 
 
 RATEABLE OCCUPATION. 
 
 See Bates — Assessment and Bateability. 
 RATEABLE VALTTE. 
 
 See Bates — ^Assessment and Bateability. 
 
 BATE-BOOK — Conclusiveness — Summons for 
 non-payment of poor-rate. 
 See Bates, 67. 
 
 -7- Eight to — ^Assistant overseer — ^Appointment. 
 See Parish Cooncils. 2. 
 
 BATES, 
 
 In General, col. 1669.' 
 
 Appeal, col. 1670. 
 
 Assessment. See Bates — Bateability. 
 
 London Equalization of Sates, col, 1673. 
 
 Bateability, col. 1673. 
 
 Becovery, col. 1688. 
 
 Valuation, col. 1691. 
 
 WaUr Bates. See WaTeb— Water Rates. 
 
 In General. 
 
 ■— City of London— Statute-^Implied repeal — 
 Exemption from taxes and assessments. 
 See StAtii*es. 7. 
 
 — Costs of opposing bill in Parliament — tJltra 
 
 vires— ^Burgh. 
 
 See Scottish Law— Burgh, 3. 
 
 BATES (In General) — continv^ed.- 
 
 — Overseers and audit. 
 
 See London Government Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 14), ss. 10-14. 
 
 — Eailway rates and charges. 
 
 See Cases under Eailway — Bailway and 
 Canal Traffic. 
 
 — Eate-books — ^Eight to — ^Assistant overseer. 
 
 iSfee Parish Councils. 2. 
 
 — Sheriff— Duty of sheriff to pay rates — Goods 
 
 " taken in execution." 
 See Sherifp. 11. 
 
 — Tramway — Landlord's rates and taxes. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 24. 
 
 — Water rates. 
 
 See Cases under Water. 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 1. — Agent, Bight to appear hy — Valuation 
 list. 
 
 There is nothing in the Valuation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869, to prevent a ratepayer being 
 heard by his agent on an appeal against an 
 assessment. Eeo. v. St. Mart Abbotts, Ken- 
 SIN6T0N; Assessment Committee 
 
 C, A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 378 
 
 2. — Alteration of totals of gross and rateable 
 values — Valuaticm (Metropolis') Act, 1869 (32 & 33 
 Vict: a. 67), ss. 32, 34, 41. 
 
 After the valuation lists in four parishes 
 comprising a union had been duly made and 
 approved, quarter sessions, on the appeal of 
 certain ratepayers, reduced some of the values of 
 specific hereditaments. No appeal was brought 
 against the totals of the lists, and no alteration in 
 those totals was made by quarter sessions : — 
 
 Held, that the reduction on appeal of tho 
 values of the specific hereditament comprised 
 in the valuation lists of the parishes did not 
 alter the total gross and rateable values appearing 
 in such lists, which total values could only ba 
 altered by appealing against them. Beo. v. 
 Woolwich Union - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 712 
 
 3. — Cleric of assessment committee — Bight of 
 audience — Valuation List — Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67), «. 62. 
 
 The provision in s. 62 of the Valuation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869, that on an appeal against a, 
 valuation list " an assessment committee .... 
 may appear .... by their clerk " does not give 
 the clerk a right to be heard on their behalf for 
 the purpose of consenting to an alteration in the 
 list. Beg. v. London Justices 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 ft, B. 659 
 
 4. — Consent of guardians — Assessment com- 
 mittee as respondents — Costs — TJrdon Assessment 
 Committee Amendment Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. 
 c. 39), S.-2. 
 
 Where the assessment committee of a union 
 receive notice of a poor-rate appeal under s. 1 of 
 the Union Assessment Committee Amendment 
 Act, 1864, they have no authority to appear as 
 respondents to the appeal unless they obtain tho 
 cbrisent of the guardians after -sending- notice to 
 every guardian, as required by s. 2. If they do 
 appear without such consent and the appeal is 
 dismiBBed " with costs to the respondents" they 
 
 3 P 2 
 
( 1671 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— IddO. 
 
 ( 1C72 ) 
 
 SATES (Appeal) — continued. 
 
 are not entitled to costs, although throughout 
 
 the proceedings they receive notices to attend 
 
 from the appeUants and are treated by them as 
 
 respondents. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 1 Q. B. 38, affirmed. 
 West Ham TJnion v. Essex Justices asb 
 London Coiintt Counoil 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1896] A. C. 443 
 
 — Criminal cause or matter — Jurisdiction — 
 
 Application to enforce general district 
 
 rate. 
 
 See Appbai. 11. 
 
 — Distress warrant — Jurisdiction of Justices. 
 
 See Kates — Secovery. 64. 
 
 6. — Distress warrant — -Poor law. 
 An appeal will not lie against the issue of a 
 distress warrant for poor-rate before the distress 
 has been levied. Eeg. v. London Justices 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 20 (11) ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 632 
 
 6. — Evidence — Admissibility — Procedure — 
 Net annual value — Gross estimated rental — Poor 
 Bate Act, 1801 (41 Geo. 3, c. 23), «. 1— Parochial 
 Assessments Act, 1836 (6 <fe 7 Will. 4, e. 96), s. 1. 
 
 Where, on objection being made to a poor- 
 rate, the rating authority has fixed the amount 
 of the gross estimated rental of the premises 
 rated appearing in the rate-book, and the rate- 
 payer appeals to quarter sessions against the 
 rate, the rating authority is bound by the amount 
 of the gross estimated rental so fixed, and is not 
 entitled to call evidence before the Court of 
 Quarter Sessions to shew that the gross estimated 
 rental has been fixed too low. Hoeton & Son, 
 Ld. v. Walsall Assessment Committee 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 237 
 
 — Justices — Disqualification by interest. 
 
 See Cases under Justices — Disqualifica- 
 tion, 
 
 — London county. 
 
 See Kates, passim, 
 
 London County — ^Valuation.] Begulations 
 were made as to appeals under the Valuation 
 {Metropolis) Act, 1869, hy order of the Some 
 Secretary, dated Mar. 24, 1892, under s. 42 (7) 
 of the Local Government Act, 1888. St. E. & 0. 
 1892, p. 687. 
 
 7. — London county — Appeal against indi- 
 vidual assessments — Effect on totals. 
 
 Under s. 32 of the Metropolis Valuation and 
 Assessment Act, 1869, c. 67, appeals were brought 
 by ratepayers against the valuation lists of four- 
 parishes in a union on the ground that the gross 
 and rateable values of specific hereditaments 
 comprised in the lists as made and approved 
 were too high. No appeal was brought against 
 the totals. Some of the values were reduced, 
 but the totals were not altered by the quarter 
 sessions : — 
 
 Seld, that the reduction did not alter the 
 total gross and rateable values for each parish 
 appearing in the valuation lists, and that the 
 lists remained conclusive on each parish notwith- 
 standing alteration in the individual assessments. 
 Keo. v. Woolwich Union 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 712 
 
 BATES (Appeal) — continued. 
 
 8. — London county — Appeal against totals- 
 Effect as to individual assessments — Time — Valua- 
 tion (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67), 
 ». 32. 
 
 Under a. 32 of the Metropolis Valuation and 
 Assessment Act, 1869, there is no right of appeal 
 against totals on the ground tliat individual 
 assessments are too low. 
 
 Quxre, whether the London County Council 
 is a party aggrieved with the section so as to be 
 entitled to appeal against totals. 
 
 The London County Council appealed to the 
 London Quarter Sessions, exercising the former 
 jurisdiction of the assessment sessions, from the 
 valuation of the parish of A. as approved by the 
 assessment committee of A., on the ground that 
 the totals were too low, alleging that some 3000 
 hereditaments in A. were under-valued. The 
 appeal was entered in due course, but owing to 
 the glut of business could not be heard before 
 Mar. 31. The assessment committee of A. then 
 applied for prohibition to the justices against 
 hearing the appeal : — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (reversing Div. Ct.), (1.) that 
 the justices had authority to hear appeals entered 
 in due time, after the time prescribed by the 
 section has expired ; (2.) but (affirm. Div. Ct.) 
 that prohibition should go; (3.) the C. A. 
 holding that this was an appeal from the valua- 
 tion of hereditaments and not against totals, and 
 lay to special sessions and not to quarter sessions 
 direct. 
 
 Qusere, whether the county council had any 
 right of appeal. Affirm, by H. L. (E.), on the 
 ground that it was not intended that any rate- 
 payer, or even the county council, should main- 
 tain such an appeal. Keg. v. London County 
 Justices (No. 2) Div. Ct, and C. A. [1893] 
 
 2 Q. B. 476 ; H, L. (E.) sub nom. London 
 County Council v. St. Gbokge's Union 
 Assessment Committee [1894] A. C. 600 
 
 See also upon another point, C. A. [1894] 
 1 Q. B. 453. 
 
 9. — Notice of appeal — Qtuirter sessions — 
 Jurisdiction — Poor-rate — Procedure — Poor Belief 
 Act, 1743 (17 Geo. 2, c. 38), «. 4 — Local Governmerd 
 Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 33. 
 
 By the Poor Relief Act, 1743, s. 4, any person 
 aggrieved by any poor-rate may appeal to quarter 
 sessions, " giving reasonable notice to the church- 
 wardens or overseers." 
 
 By the Local Government Act, 1894, s. 33, 
 sub-s. 1, "The Loc. Gov. Bd. may, on the appli- 
 cation of the council of any municipal bbrough 
 . . . . make an order conferring on that council 
 .... any powers, duties, or liabilities of over- 
 seers." 
 
 An order was made under this section trans- 
 ferring to the council of a borough the powers, 
 duties, and liabilities of the overseers With respect 
 to appeals in respect of the poor-rate. 
 
 The recorder of the borough decided that he 
 had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal to quarter 
 sessions against a poor-rate^ on the ground that 
 notice of appeal had not been given to the town 
 council : — 
 
 Held, that notice to the town council was not 
 a condition precedent to hearing the appeal, that 
 
( 1673 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1674 ) 
 
 SAXES (Appeal) — continued. 
 
 the recorder had jurisdiction, and a mandamus 
 
 commanding him to hear the appeal granted. 
 
 lieg. V. jE^ent Justices, (1899) 80 L. T. (N.S.) 
 
 622, disapproyed and not followed. Eeg. v. De 
 
 Gket - - - Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 38 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 521 
 
 London Equalization of Bates, 
 
 By the London Equalization of Bates Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 53), a general rate for all London 
 was imposed for the purpose of, to some extent, 
 equalizing the rates of sanitary authorities. 
 
 Order of Loc. Gov. Bd. dated Oct. 19, 1894, 
 prescribing form of precept under s. 2 of the Act. 
 St. B. & 0. 1894, p. 228, No. 737. 
 
 Order of Loc. Gov. Bd. dated Sept. 5, 1895, 
 prescribing forms of contribution orders, demand 
 notes, and receipts under s. 2 oftlie Act. St. E. & 0. 
 1895, p. 414, Ho. 478. 
 
 Order of Loc. Gov. Bd. dated Feb. 22, 1896, 
 modifying the Census (^England and Wales} Act, 
 1890 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 53), for the purposes of 
 the London Eqvalimtion of Bates Act, 1894, 
 St. E. & 0. 1896, p. 176, No. 66. 
 
 Batealiility. 
 
 10. — Advertising contractor — Hoardings — 
 Permitting land to be used for the exhibition of 
 advertisements — Advertising Stations (Bating) Act, 
 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 27), «. 3. 
 
 The appellant, an advertising contractor, under 
 an agreement with the builders of certain build- 
 ings then in course of erection, used the hoardings 
 erected by them for the exhibition of advertise- 
 ments. The appellant's name liaving been in- 
 serted in a valuation list as being the rateable 
 occnpier of the hoardings under s. 3 of Adver- 
 tising Stations (Rating) Act, 1889 :— 
 
 Edd, that he did not "permit" the "land" 
 on which the hoardings were erected to be " used 
 for the exhibition of advertisements " within the 
 meaning of that section, and was not liable to be 
 rated in respect thereof. Burton v. St. Giles' 
 AND St. George's Assessment Oommittee 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 9; [1900] 1 «, B. 889 
 
 11, — Advertising station — Boardings — Bene- 
 ficial occupation. 
 
 A builder let a hoarding erected by him round 
 land on which he was building under contract 
 and not otherwise occupied within s. 3 of the 
 Advertising Stations Eating Act, 1889, for adver- 
 tisements : — 
 
 Meld, that he was in beneficial occupation, 
 and therefore rateable under s. 3. Ohappbll v. 
 St. Botolph Ovbeseeks 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 661 
 
 Ageiculttjbal Bates.] Bating of occupiers 
 of agricultural land amended by Agricultural Bates 
 Act, 1896 (59 & CO Vict. c. 16). 
 
 Agricultural Bates Order Amendment Order, 
 1898, dated Jan. 20, 1898. St. B. & 0. 1898, 
 No. 146, p, 870. 
 
 As to Scotland, see Agricultwral Bates (Scot- 
 land) Act, 1896 (59 <fc eo Vicf. c. 37), 
 
 BATES (Eateahility) — continued. 
 
 — Agricultural rates — Oontribution for special 
 
 purpose — Apportionment. 
 See No. 16, below. 
 
 — Agricultural rates — Market-garden — Glass- 
 
 houses — " Buildings." 
 
 See No. 34, below. 
 Allotments Bating Exemption Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 33), amends the laws relating to the rating 
 of allotments for sanitary purposes. 
 
 12. — Artizans' dwellings — Charge to tenants 
 for cost of lighting and cleaning common stair 
 — Gross value — Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 
 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 67), s. 4. 
 
 The owner of a block of artizans' dwellings, 
 consisting of separate tenements, the access to 
 which was by means of a common stair, let the 
 tenements upon the terms of the tenants paying 
 a certain weekly sum by way of rent, and also a 
 further sum for the lighting and cleaning of the 
 common stair : — ■ 
 
 JSeld, that, for the purpose of arriving at the 
 gross value of the tenements under the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the sum paid for lighting 
 and cleaning the stair must be added to the rent 
 reserved. Pullen v. St. SAvtouR's Union 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 246; [1900] 1 ft, B, 138 
 
 13. — Assessment committee. Functions of. 
 An assessment committee is not a court or 
 
 tribunal exercising judicial functions in the legal 
 acceptation of the term. Eeg. v. St. Maby 
 Abbott's, Kensington, Assessment Committee 
 C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 378, at p, 382 
 
 — Borough rate. 
 
 See Oases under Cokpokation. 
 
 — Oanal — Towing-path — Easement. 
 
 See No. 57, below. 
 
 — Ohurch rate. 
 
 See Eoolesiastical Law — Church Bates. 
 
 14. — Company in liquidation — Liability for 
 rates — Jjiquidator's possession. 
 
 The test as to whether a co. in liquidation is 
 liable to payment of rates in full is whether 
 there has been a " beneficial occupation " of the 
 premises within the meaning of ordinary rating 
 cases. Therefore, where a liquidator places a 
 caretaker in possession of leaseholds on whicli 
 are plant, intending to sell the premises and 
 plant, but not to sell the business ,as a going 
 concern, he must pay in full rates made after 
 the commencement of the winding-up. In re 
 Blazer Pibb Lighter, Ld. 
 
 V. WiUiams J. [1895] 1 Ch. 402 
 
 16, — Cotton mills — Stoppage during strike — 
 Occupation during stoppage. 
 
 Two days before making the assessment on 
 cotton mills a strike occurred. During the 
 strike the mills were occupied for the purpose 
 of keeping the machinery in order. The valua- 
 tion list was objected to. When the objection 
 was heard the strike had ceased. The assess- 
 ment committee declined to amend the list : — 
 
 Seld, that the assessment was valid, as the 
 committee were not bound to take into conside- 
 ration this particular strike, and it did not 
 appear that they had disregarded the general 
 consideration of strikes : 
 
 Held, also, that the assessiftept, having been 
 
( 1675 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1676 ) 
 
 BATES (Eateability) — continued. 
 properly made, could not be reduced by treating 
 the mills as warehouses for storing machinery 
 only during the strike. Hotle & Jackson v. 
 Oldham Assessment Committee 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 372 
 
 16. — County — County ioroughs — Contribution 
 for special purpose — County rate basis — Apportion- 
 ment — Local Act — Local Qovernrmni Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Viet. c. 41), s. 33 — Agricultural Bates 
 Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 16), ss. 1, 2, 3, 9— 
 Agricultural Bates Act, 1896, Orders, Art. xvii. 
 
 By a local Act, passed in 1891, the lunatic 
 asylums bd. of a oouaty containing county 
 boroughs were directed to raise in every year, by 
 contributions from the county and the county 
 boroughs, part of the expenses incurred by the 
 bd. in the execution of their duties, and to 
 divide the estimated amount to be raised for each 
 year between the county and the county boroughs 
 in proportion to their respective rateable values 
 as ascertained under s. 33 of the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888 :— 
 
 Held, that the provisions of the local Act 
 ■were not affected by the Agricultural Bates Act, 
 1896, so tbat the bd. must still divide the 
 estimated amount between the county and the 
 county boroughs in proportion to their respective 
 lateable values, and not according to their 
 lespective assessable values as ascertained under 
 the Agricultural Bates Act, 1896, and the regula- 
 tions of the Loe. Gov. Bd. made in pursuance 
 of it. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1899] 1 Q. B. 759, re- 
 versed. Lancashibe Asylums Board v. Man- 
 chester Corporation C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 458 
 
 17. — County Bates — Parish situate in two 
 counties — County Bates Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. 
 V. 81), ss. 21, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34. 
 
 An extra-parochial place situate partly in 
 the parts of Holland and partly in the parts of 
 Kesteven (each of which is a separate admin- 
 istrative county under the Local Government 
 Act, 1888) was by a local Act constituted a 
 parish : — 
 
 Held, that the county rate should be raised 
 by separate rates in the two parts of the parish. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Deepins St. Nicholas Overseers 
 Stirling J. [1892] W. N. 183 
 
 18. — Crown property — Police officer's residence 
 — Property used for public purposes. 
 
 The exemption from rateability of property 
 occupied for the purposes of the government of 
 the country does not apply to tenements occupied 
 as residences by constables of a county police 
 force in a county building at a rack-rent deducted 
 from their pay where such tenements are not an 
 integral part of the county building, and the 
 fact that the constables are bound by the terms 
 of their service to reside there does not alter the 
 case. Showers v. Chelmsford Union Assess- 
 ment Committee - C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 839 
 
 19. — Crown property — Volunteer corps — 
 Storehouse for arms —Exemption. 
 
 Premises occupied by, and used solely for the 
 purposes ot the service of, a volunteer corps are 
 exempt from poor-rate, although parts, such as 
 tne mess-rooms, &o., and quarters of the resident 
 
 BATES (Ra.tes.'bility)— continued. 
 non-commissioned olficers, are not storehouses 
 within s. 26 of the Volunteer Act, 1863. Pear- 
 son 1). HoLBORN Union Assessment Committee 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 389 
 Distinguished. Westminster Vestry v. Hos- 
 kins, Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 477. 
 
 20. — Crown purposes — Exemption — County 
 council — Joint occupation hy quarter sessions and 
 county council — BateahUity. 
 
 Premises used by a county council for the 
 purposes of the administrative business of the 
 county are not exempt from rating. 
 
 Where premises were jointly occupied by the 
 quarter sessions of a county and by the county 
 council for administrative purposes : — 
 
 Held, that the county council were rateable 
 in respect of their occupation of the premises. 
 Middlesex Codntt Council v. St. George's 
 ""Assessment Committee C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 64 
 
 21. — Crovm purposes — Exemption — Exclusive 
 user for service of Crown — Joint occupation by 
 quarter sessions and county council. 
 
 The exemptin from rateability to the relief 
 of the poor of property in the occupation of 
 persons using it for the service of the Crown 
 applies only where the property is exclusively 
 used for such service. 
 
 Nicholson v. Solbom Union, (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 
 161, discussed. Worcestershire County Coun- 
 cil V. Worcester Union C. A, [1897] 1 Q. B. 480 
 
 22. — Doclc railways — Incapacity to charge 
 tolls. 
 
 Where a dock oo. were prohibited by statute 
 from taking tolls for the use of the dock rys. : — ■ 
 
 Seld, since no rent could be earned by the 
 CO. because of the statutory prohibition, the 
 rent which could have been earned but for that 
 prohibition ought not to be taken into considera- 
 tion tu determtoing the rateable value of the 
 co.'s property. 
 
 Judgment of C. A , [1894] 2 Q. B. 69, reversed 
 on this point. Hull Docks Co. v. Soulooates 
 Union - - H. I. (E.) [1895] A. C. 136 
 
 23. — DocJcs — Canal company — Exclusive 
 occupation. 
 
 On the construction of an agreement entered 
 into by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bd. (in 
 whom the Liverpool Docks are vested) under 
 their special Act, by which the bd. agreed to 
 set apart and appropriate to a canal co. a berth 
 in the docks : — 
 
 Held, that by the intention of the parties as 
 expressed in the agreement, the dock co. had not 
 parted with the exclusive possession of the pre- 
 mises, and that the canal co. were therefore not 
 rateable in respect of their occupation. EoCH- 
 DALE Canal Co. v. Brewster 
 
 C. A. a£&rm. Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 862 
 
 Beferred to. Holywell Union and Halkyn 
 Parish v. Halkyn Drainage Co., [1895] A. 0. 
 134. 
 
 24. — Doclcs in several parishes — Apportion- 
 ment — Parochial or proportional — Parochial 
 Assessment Act, 1836 (6 4 7 Will. 4, c. 96), s. 1. 
 
 In assessing to the poor-rate docks which 
 extend over more than one paiish the rateable 
 value should, if possible, be ascertained by 
 
( 1677 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1678 ) 
 
 BATES (Rateability) — continued. 
 attributing to each parish the receipts earned 
 and the expenses incurred therein, and not by 
 obtaining a rateable value for the whole of the 
 docks, and then allocating this value to each 
 parish in proportion to the water area of the 
 docks in that parish. 
 
 Judgment of C. A., [1891] 2 Q. B. 69, affirmed 
 on this point. Hull Docks Co. v. Scdlooates 
 Union - - H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 136 
 
 29, — Fine arts — Exemption — Society insti- 
 tuted for purposes of the fine arts exclusively — 
 " Voluntary contributions " — Scientific Societies 
 Act, 1843 (6 (fe 7 Vict. c. 36), s. 1. 
 
 A society is not " supported by voluntary con- 
 tributions " within the meaning of 5 & 6 Vict. 
 0. 36, s. 1, when it returns to every contributor 
 the equivalent of his contributions in money's 
 worth. "Voluntary" as there used does not 
 mean not compulsory ; it means gratuitous, with- 
 out any money or other merely material con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1891] 2 Q. B. 609, reversed 
 and the decision of Wright and Collins JJ. 
 restored. Savoy Oversbees v. Art Unioji of 
 London - - H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C, 296 
 
 26. — Gas mains — Easement — Occupation — 
 Exclusive use. 
 
 By a local Act the B. local bd. had the 
 exclusive right of laying down gas-pipes in B., 
 were obliged to keep all present and future gas 
 mains and lamps in repair, and to afford to the 
 corporation of S., who were the owners of gas- 
 works in, and empowered to supply gas in B., 
 the use of the mains for the supply of gas for 
 public and private purposes in consideration of 
 certain payments. The local bd. laid down 
 mains and kept them in repair. The corporation 
 laid down service pipes at the expense of the 
 private consumers, kept them in order, and 
 collected the gas rates : — 
 
 Held, that the corporation had not an " occu- 
 pation" of the mains and pipes, but only an 
 easement to use them, and were not liable to be 
 rated in respect of them. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1893] 2 Q. B. 468, 
 affirmed. Southpobt Cohporation v. Obmskirk 
 Union Assessment Committee 
 
 C. A, [1894] 1 ft. B. 196 
 
 — Gas rate — ^Refusal to supply receiver until 
 
 arrears due from company paid. 
 See Gas. 1. 
 
 — Goods "taken in execution" — Duty of sheriff 
 
 to pay rates. 
 See Sheeiff. 11. 
 
 — Highway rates. 
 
 See Cases under Highwat— Repairs. 
 
 — Hoardings — ^Advertising contractor. 
 
 See No. 10, above. 
 
 — Increase of rates — Standard of reasonableness. 
 
 See Cases under Railway — Bailway 
 and Canal Traffic. 
 
 27, — Industrial solwol — County Council — 
 Liability to be rated — Industrial Schools Acts, 
 1866, 1872 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 118; 35 & 36 Vict, 
 c. 21)— Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 41). 
 
 A county council is rateable to the poor-rate 
 
 BATES (Eateability) — continued. 
 in respect of their occupation of a certified Indus • 
 trial school established by justices under the 
 Industrial Schools Acta, 1866 and 1872, and 
 vested in the council under the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888. Durham County Council v. 
 Chester-le-Street Assessment Committee and 
 
 WiTTON GiLBEET OhUKOHWARDENS 
 
 Div. ct, [1891] 1 ft. B. 330 
 
 28. — Inn— Public-house — Evidence of trade 
 and profits — Poor-rate — Parochial Assessment Act, 
 1836 (6 4 7 WiU. i, c. 96), s. 1. 
 
 In assessing the value of a licensed public- 
 house for the poor-rate the existence of the 
 licence and the amount of the trade which can 
 be and has actually been carried on there are 
 elements to be considered in order to arrive a 
 the rent at which the house may reasonably be 
 expected to let. Evidence of these facts is 
 always admissible, and may be necessary where 
 the ordinary evidence of market value by com- 
 parison with other public-houses is not to be had. 
 Evidence of profits made is also admissible, but 
 an inquiry into profits should be avoided where 
 possible, because it is regarded as inquisitorial 
 and oppressive. These are matters not of law 
 but of fact, practice and common sense, and it 
 is very undesiiable to multiply decisions about 
 them. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1899] 1 Q. B. 667, 
 affirmed. 
 
 Dodds V. South Shields Union, [1895] 2 Q. B. 
 133, commented on. Caetwriqht v. Soulcoates 
 Union - - H, 1, (E,) [1900] A, C. 160 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Mersey Docks and 
 Harbour Board v. Birkenhead Assessment Com- 
 mittee, [1900] 1 Q. B. 143, 150. See No. 32, 
 below. 
 
 29. — Inn — Public-house — Evidence of weekly 
 takings — Parochial Assessments Act, 1836 (6 & 7 
 WiU. 4, c. 96), «. 1. 
 
 In assessing a public-house evidence of the 
 weekly takings is not admissible in evidence in 
 ordinary cases, and the ordinary test is to inquire 
 what rent would be given for the house, and not 
 what would be given for the business carried on 
 there. Dodds v. South Shields Union. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 ft, B, 133 
 
 Applicable. In re London County Council 
 and City of London • Brewery Co., Div. Ct. [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 387, 391. 
 
 Referred to. Bradford-on-Avon Assessment 
 Committee v. WhiU, Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 630, 
 637. See next Case. 
 
 Distinguished. Cartwright v. Sculcoates Union, 
 C, A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 667. See preceding Case 
 
 30. — Inn — " Tied " houses — Batedble value — 
 Licensed house — Competition of brewers — Parochial 
 Assessments Act, 1836 (6 <fe 7 Will. 4, o. 96), 6. 1. 
 
 In assessing a licensed public-house to the 
 poor-rate, the fact that there is a great competi- 
 tion amongst brewers in the district to obtain the 
 tenancy of such houses in order to sub-let them 
 as "tied" houses ought not to be excluded from 
 consideration so far as it shews the existence of 
 such a demand as would necessarily increase the 
 rent at which the premises might reasonably be 
 
( 1679 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1680 ) 
 
 E4TES (Ratealjility) — continued. 
 expected to let, whettier to brewers or othera, on 
 a tenancy from year to year ; bnt the gross esti- 
 mated rental ouo;ht not to'be fixed at the special 
 sum, in excess of the annual value obtainable in 
 the market, which a brewer might be willing to 
 give on the consideration, personal to himself, 
 that he could make large profits by sab-letting 
 the house as a "tied" house. Beadford-on- 
 AvoN Ukion Assessment Committee v. White 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 630 
 
 31. — Inn — Tied public-house — London County 
 Council — " Betterment " — Initial valuation — 
 Trade interest — ■ Local Government — London 
 County Council (Tower Bridge Southern Approach) 
 Act, 1895 (58 * 59 Vict. c. cxxx.). 
 
 By the London County Council (Towet Bridge 
 Southern Approach) Act, 1895, provision was 
 made for a charge to be made on lands which 
 would be increased lu value by the proposed im- 
 provement, and for an initial valuation of such 
 lands. By s. 36, " In making such valuation the 
 valuer shall separately distinguish and assess in 
 each case the value of the land apart from that 
 of any existing buildings thereon, and shall also 
 value the land and buildings as a whole, and shall 
 not take into consideration any increased value 
 accruing or supposed to accrue to such land or 
 buildings from or in consequence of the improve- 
 ment, but shall only take into consideration the 
 value Independently of the improvement, and as 
 if the improvement had not been contemplated. 
 The valuer shall also separately value the interest 
 of the owner of any such lands, and the interest of 
 every lessee of any such lands, for a term having 
 not less than twenty-one years unexpired at the 
 date of the valuation (excluding from each such 
 valuation any trade interest)." 
 
 In making an initial valuation of a " tied " 
 public-house : — 
 
 Held, (1.) That, in valuing the land apart 
 from the buildings thereon, the valuer might not 
 take into consideration either the takings and 
 payments of the public-house, nor the fact that it. 
 was " tied." 
 
 (2.) That, in valuing the land and buildings 
 as a whole, evidence of the takings and payments 
 should not be admitted even for the purpose of 
 testing the evidence of witnesses, and that on this 
 head the fact that the house was "tied" was 
 immaterial. 
 
 (3.) That, in valuing the interests of the 
 owners and lessees, the " tying " covenant must be 
 taken into consideration. In re London County 
 Council and City of London Brewery Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 387 
 
 — Insolvent estate — Priority. 
 
 See Insolvent Estates. 37. 
 
 — Investment — Judicial factor — Curator bonis — 
 
 Liability. 
 
 See Trustee — Investments. 65. 
 
 — Landlord's rates and taxes — Tramway — Cove- 
 
 nant by tenant to keep free from all 
 
 expenses whatever. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 24. 
 
 r/7?.f»^' ~D f ™™0«— -^^cepfionaZ case— Structural 
 value— Rateable value— l^rofit-eaming capacity— 
 
 BATES (Bateability) — continued. 
 Evidence of receipts and expenditure — Admissi- 
 bility of evidence. 
 
 The appellants, who were owners of lairages 
 for the reception and slaughter of foreign cattle, 
 appealed to quarter sessions against a poor-rate. 
 The recorder found that there were no similar 
 tenements in the neighbourhood with which a 
 comparison could be made. He had evidence 
 before him of structural value, and he admitted 
 in evidence accounts shewing the receipts and 
 3xpenditure of the defendants : — 
 
 Held,tha.t as the ordinary test of the rental of 
 similar properties could not be applied, and as 
 the structural value alone would not embrace the 
 profit-earning capacity of the premises, the evi- 
 dence of receipts and expenditure was admissible 
 and might be considered in conjunction with the 
 structural value, and other circumstunces of the 
 case, in the determination of the gross estimated 
 rental at which the premises should be assessed. 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Birken- 
 head Assessment Committee 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 143 
 
 33. — Lighthouse — Mateability — Dues. 
 
 In assessing the rateable value of a lighthouse 
 the dues received in respect of it cannot he taken 
 into consideration. Port op Lancaster Commrs. 
 V. Bahhow-in-Furness Overseers 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 166 
 
 ■ Lighting and watching rates. 
 See Streets — Lighting. 
 
 12—14. 
 
 — London equalization of rates. 
 
 See Rates — London Equalization of 
 Bates. 
 
 — Lun rfio asylums — Parochial rates on — Ex- 
 
 penses of pauper lunatics. 
 
 See Lunacy — Lunatic Asylums. 16. 
 
 34. — Market garden — Glass-houses — " Agri- 
 cultural land " — "Buildings " — Agricultural 
 Mates Act, 1896 (59 <fc 60 Vict. u. 16), «s. 1, 5, 
 6,9. 
 
 Glass-houses in or on a market garden, if 
 buildings, must under the Agricultural Bates 
 Act, 1896, be rated as buildings and not as agri- 
 cultural land. 
 
 The decision of C. A., [1898] 1 Q. B. 683, 
 
 afiBrmed. Smith v. Eichmond - H. L. (E.) 
 
 [1899] W. N. 130; [1899] A. C. 448 
 
 36. — Mines — Coal mine — Lighting and 
 watching rate — Poor Melief Act, 1601 (43 Eliz. 
 c. 2), s. i. 
 
 Coal mines are "property (other than land) 
 rateable to the relief of the poor," and are there- 
 fore, under s. 33 of the Lighting and Watching 
 Act, 1833, rateable on the higher scale although 
 the mines cannot derive any benefit from the 
 rate. - 
 
 The decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 567, 
 
 and C. A., [1894] 2 Q. B. U, affirmed. Thursby 
 
 V. Briercliffe-with-Extwistle Churohwaedens 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 32 
 
 86. — Music — Exemption — Society instituted 
 for purposes of tlie Jim arts— Royal College of 
 Music — Society not making "any dividend, gift, 
 division, or bonus in money unto or between any 
 
( 1681 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1682 ) 
 
 BATES (Kateability)— continued. 
 
 of its members " — Scwntific Societies Act, 1843 
 
 (6*7 Vict. 0. 36\ s. 1. 
 
 TheEoyal College of Music was a society created 
 and incorporated by royal charter, for the advance- 
 men t of the art of music by means of a teaching 
 and examining body, charged with the duty of 
 providing musical instruction of the higliest class, 
 and of rewarding witli academical degrees and 
 certificates of proficiency, and otherwise, persons, 
 whether educated or not at the college, who on 
 examination might prove themselves worthy of 
 such distinctions, for the promotion and supervision 
 of musical instruction in schools and elsewhere 
 conducive to tkie cultivation and dissemincition 
 of the art of music, and for the encouragement 
 and promotion of the cultivation of music as an 
 art. The college erected a building on land de- 
 mised to them by a lease containing a stipulation 
 that the building should be used for the purposes 
 of their charter only, and it wag so occupied and 
 used by them. The charter prohibited any " di- 
 vidend, gift, division, or bonus in money," to the 
 members. The college paid out of its funds 
 remuneration to certain members of its teaching 
 staff who were also members of the society : — 
 
 Held (affirming Div. Ct., [1897] W. N. 175 (8) ; 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 30i), that the college was a society 
 instituted for purposes of the fine arts exclusively, 
 within the meaning of the Scientific Societies 
 Act, 1843, s. 1, and did not, in making the above- 
 mentioned payments to members of the teaching 
 Btaff, " make any dividend, gift, division, or bonus 
 in money " to its members within the meaning of 
 the section ; and therefore that the society was 
 entitled to exemption from parochial rates in 
 respect of the building occupied by them as 
 aforesaid. Boyal College of Musio v. West- 
 MiNSTEB Vestry - C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 809 
 
 37. — ■ Park — Fuhlia parJe — Rateable value — 
 Beneficial occupation— London County Council — 
 London Council {General Powers) Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. ccxliii.), ss. 4, 5. 
 
 A county council, not charged with the duty 
 of providing a park, were empowered by statute 
 to purchase and accordingly purchased premises 
 which by the statute were to be maintained by 
 the county council as a park for the perpetual 
 use thereof by the public tor exercise and recrea- 
 tion. The necessary expenses of maintaining 
 the park exceeded any sums wliich the council 
 could derive from licences for the supply of 
 refreshments therein or for grazing rights or 
 otherwise : — 
 
 Beld, that the county council were not rate- 
 able to the poor-rate in respect of the park, both 
 because the park thus dedicated by statute to the 
 use of the public had no rateable value, and also 
 because the county council were not occupiers of 
 the park for rating purposes. 
 
 The decision of 0. A., [1896] 2 Q. B. 25, 
 affirmed. Lambeth Oyeeseees v. London 
 CoDNTY COTJKOIL H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C, 625 
 
 38, — Part of a liouse — Occupation of— Rateable 
 hereditament— Representation of the P ople Act, 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), s. 7, sub-s. 2— Parlia- 
 mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 
 (41 * 42 Vict. c. 26), s. 5. 
 
 ^ bo«S<J not structurally Beyered was let 
 
 BATES (Eateability) — continued. 
 partly to one tenant and partly to another, and 
 each had the exclusive occupation of the part let 
 to him. There was a staircase leading from the 
 front door to the upper rooms, and a joint user of 
 the front garden and the back yard, in which was 
 a closet : — ■ 
 
 Seld, that the tenants could not be rated as 
 joint occupiers, but that eacli was the occupier of 
 a separate tenement capable of being rated, and 
 each should be rated separately. Allohuech v. 
 Hendon Union Assessment Committee 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B, 436 
 
 89. — Police — Residence of chief constable. 
 
 The rule exempting from rateability property 
 occupied for the purposes of the govt, of the 
 country : — 
 
 Seld, not to apply to the residences beneficially 
 occupied by the chief constable and chiet police 
 otBcers within the precincts of the barracks of the 
 county constabulary. Showers v. Chelmsford 
 Union Assessment Committee 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 339 
 
 40. — Promoters of undertaJnng — Deficiency in 
 rates caused by taking lands — Land vacant when 
 taken — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 (fe 9 Vict, c. 18), 
 s. 133. 
 
 Where a ry. had purchased houses outside the 
 limits of deviation to avoid opposition : — 
 
 Seld, that the houses were "taken for the 
 purposes of the works," and the ry. was liable 
 under s. 133 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, for 
 a consequent deficiency of the assessment, and 
 that the deficiency must be computed on the 
 rental of the houses when taken, and that the 
 fact that some were then unoccupied was im- 
 material to the computation. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1891] 1 Q. B. 182, 
 affirmed. Pdtney Overseers v. London and 
 South Western Ky. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 ft. B. 440 
 
 Applied by Div. Ct. See next Case. 
 
 41. — Promoters of undertaking — Deficiency in 
 rates caused by taking lands — Liability where rates 
 compounded for — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 <{; 9 
 Vict. c. 18), s. 133 — Poor Rate Assessment Act, 
 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 41), s. 3. 
 
 Where promoters of an undertaking take land, 
 the owners of houses on which had agreed with 
 the local authority under s. 3 of the Poor Rate 
 Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, to pay the 
 rates instead of the occupiers in consideratiorj of 
 a reduction of 25 per cent. : — 
 
 Seld, that the deficiency which the promoters 
 are liable to make good must be computed having 
 regard to- the rateable value at the time the 
 special Act was passed, and that they are not 
 entitled to claim the reduction. St. Leonard, 
 Shoreditoh, Vestry v. London County Council 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 ft. B. 104 
 
 — Public-house. 
 
 See Nos. 28 — 31, above. 
 
 — Pumping station —Sewage works — Outfall 
 
 works. 
 
 See No. 49, below. 
 
 42, -^ C^uays— Occupation a/, adjoining harbour 
 
( 1683 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1684 ) 
 
 BATES (ZateaiJlity)— continued. 
 
 — Harbour dues payable by statute to occupiers of 
 
 quays. 
 
 Harbour commrs. were empowered by special 
 Acts to levy certain dues on vessels entering, &o., 
 and on all goods sbipped or unshipped in the 
 harbour. They occupied certain quays adjoining 
 the harbour, the facilities afforded by which 
 largely contributed to the amount of dues; but 
 the soil of the harbour was not vested in them, 
 and there were other places in the harbour 
 where vessels might be moored and goods 
 shipped : — 
 
 Seld, that no part of the dues received by the 
 commrs. was sufficiently connected with their 
 occupation of the quays to be taken into account 
 as enhancing their rateable value. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1894] 2 Q. B. 293, 
 afiSrmed. Bltth Hakbour Commks. v. Newsham 
 AND South Bltth Chceoh wardens and Tyne- 
 MOUTH Union Assessment Committee 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q,. B. 675 
 
 43. — Quinquennial valuation — Supplemental 
 valuation list — Provisional valuation list — Al- 
 teration in value of hereditament — Cause of action 
 — Onus of proof — Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869 
 (32 & 33 Vict. a. 67), ss. 43, 46, 47. 
 
 To justify an alteration of the quinquennial 
 valuation of a hereditament by a supplemental or 
 provisional valuation list under the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 46, 47, those who seek 
 to alter the assessment must not only prove that 
 there has been an alteration in the annual value 
 of the hereditament, but must also prove the 
 nature and cause of that alteration and that the 
 cause is one which directly affects the assessable 
 value of that particular hereditament. It is not 
 enough, for instance, to shew merely that since 
 the quinquennial valuation there has been 
 throughout tlie metropolis a general rise in the 
 annual value of the class of property to which 
 the hereditament in question belongs, and that 
 the annual value of that hereditament has 
 increased accordingly. 
 
 Decision of C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 68, affirmed. 
 Cambebwell Assessment Committee v. Ellis 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 166; [1900] A. C. 510 
 
 44. — Bailway — Exemptions — Land used as 
 railway for public conveyance — Liverpool Cor- 
 poration Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. clxxxi.) 
 s. 36 (il). 
 
 The Liverpool Corporation Act, 1893, s. 36, 
 provides that no person occupying "land used 
 as a ry. made under the powers of any Act of 
 Parliament for public conveyance" shall be 
 rated in respect of the same to the general rate 
 leviable by the corporation in any greater pro- 
 portion than one-fourth part of the net annual 
 value. A ry. co. occupied land in Liverpool for 
 a goods station. The premises consisted of a 
 large covered shed, open on one side ; and, on the 
 other, with openings in the walls to admit trucks. 
 Inside the shed were a number of ry. lines, 
 comprising sidings, and running alongside plat- 
 forms, for the purpose of loading and unloading 
 ry. trucks with goods. All these lines were used 
 for the conveyance of any goods sent by the 
 public to or from the premises. The premises 
 were some distance from the co.'s main line, 
 
 BATES (Eateability) — continued. 
 and were connected therewith by a dock line 
 belonging to the Mersey Docks and Harbour 
 Bd., who under statutory powers permitted the 
 company to use such line, and by a tramway 
 laid across a street by the co. under a licence 
 granted by the corporation under statutory 
 powers. The co.'s premises were acquired and 
 laid out under powers conferred upon them by a 
 private Act : — 
 
 Held, that the land used for the lines, sidings, 
 and platforms inside the co.'s premises was not 
 land "used as a ry. made under the powers of 
 an Act of Parliament for public conveyance" 
 within the meaning of s. 36 of the Liverpool 
 Corporation Act, 1893, and that the co. were not 
 entitled, with regard to those premises, to the 
 partial exemption in respect of rating contained 
 in that section. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct., [1899] 2 Q. B. 197, 
 
 reversed. Williams v. London and North 
 
 Western Ey. Co. - C. A [1900] "W. N. 75 ; 
 
 tl900] 1 Q. B. 760 
 
 '45. — Railway — Land used as a — Rating — 
 Llandudno Improvement Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. cii.), s. 68. 
 
 By the Llandudno Improvement Act, 1854, 
 which authorized commrs. to make annually a 
 general improvement rate upon all property for 
 the time being liable to be rated to the relief of 
 the poor, it was provided that " the occupier of 
 any land used only .... as a ry." should be 
 assessed in the proportion of one-fourth part only 
 of its net annual value : — • 
 ' Held, that the platforms at a ry. station and 
 the roof covering the ry., the platforms, and the 
 sidings might be rated as land used only as a 
 ry. under this provision. London and North 
 Western Ky. Co. v. Llandudno Improvement 
 Commrs. - - Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 287 
 
 Eeferred to. Smith v. Richmond, C. A. [1898] 
 1 Q. B.^ 683, 694. This case was affirmed by 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] A. C. 448. 
 
 — Railway and Canal Traffic Act. 
 
 See Railway — Bailway and Canal Com- 
 mission. 
 
 — Railway company — Siding not belonging to 
 
 — Station accommodation — Rebate in 
 respect thereof. 
 See Railway. 46. 
 
 — Reservoir — " Land covered with water " — 
 
 Artificial reservoir. 
 
 See Water — Water Bates. 35. 
 
 46. — River bed. 
 
 A ry. CO. held not to be rateable in respect of 
 the natural bed of a river forming part of a 
 canal navigation vested in them under special 
 Acts on the ground that they were not occupiers, 
 but had only an easement therein. Donoaster 
 Union v. Manchester, Sheffield and Linooln- 
 shibe Ry. Co. - H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 133, n. 
 
 47. — River bed — Foreshore, moorings, and 
 pontoon — Rateable occupation. 
 
 A ry. CO. was rated to poor-rate in respect of 
 property described as " foreshore and moorings, 
 to which pontoon and apparatus are attached." 
 For the purposes of a steam-ferry across ft tidal 
 
( 1683 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1686 ) 
 
 BATES (Rateability)— coreejjiued. 
 navigable river, the ry. oo. provided a, pontoon, 
 which was used as a landing stage, and floated 
 at high water, and settled on the mud at 
 low water in front of a pier, which projected 
 into the river, and was built upou piles driven 
 into the foreshore or bed of the river, and was 
 the property of the corporation of the borough. 
 The pontoon was fastened by chains or moorings 
 to the pier, and to protect the piles of the pier 
 the ry. co. had driven a pile into tbe bed of the 
 river. This pile was bolted to the pier, but was 
 the property of the ry. co. The chain from the 
 pontoon passed round this pile to reach the pile 
 of the pier. On a case stated on appeal from 
 the rate : — 
 
 Held, that the ry. co. was not in occupation 
 of the property charged, and therefore was not 
 liable to be rated. Manohbsteb, Sheffield and 
 Lincolnshire Ey. Co. v. Kingston-upon-Holl 
 Guardians - Div. Ct. [1896] W. N, 71 (9) 
 
 — Schools — Industrial school — County council. 
 
 See No. 27, above. 
 
 — Schools — ^Voluntary school — ^Exemption from 
 
 See Voluntary Schools Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. c. 5), s. 3. 
 
 48. — Separate assessment of different portions 
 of same Jiereditament — Poor-rate. 
 
 The mere fact that the different portions of 
 one undivided hereditament are capable of com- 
 manding rents if let to different occupiers does 
 not impose any obligation upon the rating 
 authority to assess and rate the different portions 
 separately. 
 
 Whether for rating purposes a particular area 
 of land is to be treated as one hereditament or as 
 more than one is a question of fact. North 
 Eastern Ey. Co. v. York Union 
 
 Div. Ct, [1900] 1 Q. B. 733 
 
 — Sewers rate or its equivalent. Incidence of. 
 
 See London Government Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict, c. 14), s. 12. 
 
 49. — Sewage works — Pv/mping-station — Out- 
 fall works — Beneficial occupation — Hypothetical 
 tenant — ParocMal Assessment Act, 183t) (6 (£ 7 
 Will. 4, c. 96), s. 1 — Valuation Metropolis Act, 
 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. a. 67), s. 4. 
 
 Sewage works, including a pumpiug-statiou 
 and works and outfall sewers, were erected by a 
 county council, were owned and occupied as a 
 necessary part of a sewage system, and while 
 so used were incapable of returning a profit ; but 
 the council would have been willing to pay a 
 rent for them as part of the sewage system equal 
 to that at which they were rated : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the council were possible hypo- 
 thetical tenants ; (2) that the true test of beneficial 
 ownership was not whether a profit could or 
 could not be made, but whether the occupation 
 was of value ; (3) that the pumping-station and 
 works and outfall sewers were assessed on the 
 true principle. 
 
 (a) London Cotjnty Council v. Woolwich 
 Union Assessment Committee. London County 
 Council v. St. George's Union Assessment Com- 
 mittee - - H. L, (E.) [1893] A. C. 662 
 revers, C, A. !"1893] 1 Q, B, 210 
 
 BATES (Eateability) — continued. 
 
 (b) London County Council v. Erith Over- 
 seers - - H. L. (E,) [1893] A, C. 662 
 
 (c) West Ham Churchwardens v. London 
 County Council - - H. L. (E.) [1893] 
 
 A. C. 662 ; revers. C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 44 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.). Sculcoates 
 Union v. Kingston-upon-Hull Dock Go., [1895] 
 A. C. 136. 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Port of Lancaster 
 Commissioners v. Barrow-in-Furness Overseers, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 173. 
 
 Distinguished by H. L. (E.). Lamheth Over- 
 seers V, London County Council, [1897] A. C. 631. 
 
 60. — Sewers — Underground sewers — Diminu- 
 tion of value of surface. 
 
 Where the surface of the soil through which 
 an underground sewer runs was rateable before 
 the sewer was constructed, the sewer is exempt 
 from rating only if the surface is not diminished 
 in value by reason of the construction. If the 
 presence of the sewer restricts the uses to which 
 the occupier of the surface can apply it, and 
 thereby renders the surface of less value, the 
 sewer, although underground, is rateable. Ystka- 
 dypodwg and pontypridd main sewerage 
 Board v. Newport Assessment Committee 
 
 Div, Ct, [1900] 1 ft, B. 365 
 
 This Case was affirmed by C. A. See [1901] 
 1 E. B. 406. 
 
 51. — Sewers, Commissioners of — Damages 
 for negligence — Levy of rate. 
 
 Where a local Act incorporates drainage 
 oommrs. and gives them rating powers, unless 
 the contrary clearly appears, the powers extend 
 to levying rates to compensate for damage sus- 
 tained by the negligence in the exercise of the 
 statutory powers, and the limitation of their 
 rating powers for purposes of the expenditure on 
 the works will not apply to liabilities for damages. 
 Gallswoethy v. Selby Dam Drainage Commrs. 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 348 
 
 52. — Sewers, Commissioners of— Jurisdiction 
 — Evidence — New Somney Level. 
 
 The Guildhall and Assembly Eooms in the 
 town of New Eomney are not within the area of 
 the jurisdiction of the Commrs. of Sewers of New 
 Eomney. New Eomnet Corporation v. New 
 Eomney Commrs. of Sewers 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 840 
 
 53. — Sewers, Commissioners of— -Sewers rate 
 — Principle of assessment. 
 
 A sewers rate ought to be assessed equally, 
 according to their value, on all lauds and tene- 
 ments within the drainage district which derive 
 any benefit from the drainage works, and not 
 differentially in proportion to the amount of the 
 benefit which they respectively derive. 
 
 Opinion expressed to the contrary in Metro- 
 politan Board of Works v. Vauxhall Bridge Co., 
 (1857) 7 E. & B. 964, overruled. Knight v. 
 Langtort District Drainage Board 
 
 Div. Ct, [1898] 1 ft. B. 588 
 
 54. -^ Tenements of limited value— Bating of 
 owners instead of occupiers — Parochial Assessment 
 Acts, 1836, 1862 (6 4 7 WUl. 4, c. 96 ; 25 * 26 
 
( 1687 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1G88 ) 
 
 BATES (Bateability)-comfMmed. 
 
 Vict. c. 103)— Poor Bate Assessment Act, 1869 
 
 (32 * 33 Vict. c. il). 
 
 Owners of small tenementa can be rated to 
 the relief of the poor instead of the occupiers 
 only under the provisions of the Poor Bate 
 Assessment and Collection Act, 1869. Sect. 19 
 of Sturges Bourne's Act (59 Geo. 3, c. 12) is 
 rei^ealed by implication by virtue of the provi- 
 sions of the subsequent Assessment Acts. West 
 Ham Chokohwaedens v. Foueth City Mutual 
 Building Sooiett Div. Ct. [1892J 1 Q. B. 684 
 
 55. — Tenements of limited valvs — JRise of 
 value above statutory limit. 
 
 The vestry of a parish are only entitled, under 
 B. 4 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection 
 Act, 1869, to order the owner of a hereditament 
 to be rated to the poor-rate instead of the occu- 
 pier so long as the rateable value of such here- 
 ditament does not exceed the limits specified by 
 B. 3 of that Act. NoawooD Oveeseehs v. Salter 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 a. B. 118 
 
 56. — Tithe rent-cliarge—Foor-rate — Deduc- 
 tions — Bateahle value — Tenants' profits — Liability 
 to repair chancel of parish church. 
 
 In an assessment to the poor-rate of the 
 owners of a rectorial tithe rent-charge no deduc- 
 tion is permissible in respect of tenants' profits, 
 unless it is established as a fact that such 
 deduction would be required to induce a tenant 
 to take a demise of the rent-charge from year to 
 year ; and no deduction is permissible in respect 
 of the liability of the owners of the rent-charge 
 to repair the chancel of the parish church. St. 
 Asaph (Dean and Chaptee) v. Llanehaiade- 
 yn-mochnant (ovebseees) 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 511 
 — Tithe Eent-charge (Kates) Act, 1899 (62 & 63 
 Vict. c. 17). 
 
 See Tithe. 
 
 67. — Towing-path — Canal — Easement. 
 
 A ry. CO. held uot to be rateable in respect of 
 a towing-path, as not being occupiers of the soil, 
 but only owners of an easement therein. DoN- 
 CASTEE Union v. Manchbstek, Sheffield and 
 
 LiNCOLNSHIKE Ey. Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 133, n. 
 
 58. — Tramway — " Land used only as a rail- 
 way " — General district rate — Fvblic Sealth Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ». 211, sub-s. 1 (6). 
 
 A ry. CO. constructed a tramway communi- 
 cating by points and switches with a ry. in their 
 possession, which was worked by them in con- 
 junction with the tramway : — 
 
 Seld, that the land occupied by the tramway 
 was not used only as a ry. within s. 211, sub- 
 s. 1 (6), of the Public Health Act, 1875, and could 
 not be rated in the proportion of one-fourth of its 
 net annual value, but must be rated on its full 
 value. Swansea Impkovements and Teamway 
 Co. V. Swansea TJeban Sakitaey Authoeity 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 357 
 
 B9. — Tunnel — Easement — Occupation not 
 exclusive, but paramount. 
 
 Land may be occupied in the enjoyment of an 
 ^nnt™^?* ^°, '^^ *° ™'^'^e the occupier Uable to 
 on^v'fn;*;' 't *°"Sh the occupation is exclusive 
 omy tor certain purposes, and although the owner 
 
 BATES (Eateability) — continued. 
 of the soil may have reserved rights of possession 
 subordinate to the paramount rights he has 
 granted. The test of rateability is not whether 
 the rights granted are corporeal or incorporeal, 
 but whether there is occupation — which is a 
 question of fact. Pursuant to statute, a laud- 
 owner granted to a drainage co. the exclusive 
 right to drain through a tunnel and a watercourse 
 on his land, with a right to place works in the 
 timnel and watercourse, and of making other 
 tunnels in connection with it, but reserving to 
 himself mineral and other rights : — 
 
 Meld, that the statute and grant gave the co. 
 not merely an easement but possession of the 
 tunnels and watercourse ; that the rights reserved 
 by the owner were subordinate to the rights 
 granted to the co., and that the co. were cle facto 
 in occupation of tunnels and watercoui'se, and 
 rateable in respect thereof. Holywell Union 
 AND Halkyn Paeibh V. Halkyn Disteict Mines 
 Dbainage Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) revers. C. A. [1895] A. 0, 117 
 
 — Underground sewers — Diminution of value of 
 
 surface. 
 
 See No. 50, above. 
 
 — Valuation list. 
 
 See Bates — ^Valuation. 
 
 — Water rates. 
 
 See Wateb — Water Sates. 
 
 Keoovery. 
 
 — Appeals. 
 
 See Cases under Bates — Appeal. 
 
 60. — ■ Arrears due before Tithe Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 8) — Deductions. 
 
 The occupiers of land, out of which a tithe 
 rent-charge issued, paid on demand of the over- 
 seers arrears of rates due before the Tithe Act, 
 1891. The landowner allowed the amounts so 
 paid to be deducted from the rent, and he now 
 sought to deduct the amount so allowed from the 
 next payment of tithe : — 
 
 Held, that he could not maie any deduction 
 because s. 6 of the Tithe Act, 1891, had taken 
 from the occupiers all liability for rates on tithes 
 and had put it on the tithe-owner. The pay- 
 ments of the occupiers were therefore voluntary 
 payments which they were not entitled to deduct 
 from their rent, and consequently the allowances 
 by the landowner were also voluntary, and he 
 could not deduct them from the tithe. In re 
 Tithe Act, 1891. 
 
 (a) Eobeets v. Potts C. A. (Kay L.J. diss.) 
 
 [1894] 1 ft. B. 213 
 
 (b) Jones v. Cooke C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 213 
 
 61. — Bill of sale — Priority. 
 
 Where proceedings for recovery of rates in 
 default had been taken in the county court under 
 s. 261 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and uot by 
 distress warrant under s. 256 : — 
 
 Seld, that a bill of sale protected the chattels 
 and that the local authority was not entitled to 
 the benefit of s. 14 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882. 
 Wimbledon Local Boaed v. Undeewood 
 
 Div. Ct [1892] 1 ft. B. 836 
 
 — Distress warrant — ^Appeal. 
 
 See Bates— Appeal. 5, 
 
( 1680 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 1690 ) 
 
 BAI£S (Eeeovery) — continued. 
 
 62. — Distress and imprisonment — Imprison- 
 inent in default of distress — Married woman — 
 Owner — Procedure for recovery of rates — Poor 
 Bate Assessment Acts, 1849, 1869 (12 & 13 Vict, 
 c. 14, s. 2 ; 32 <fe 33 Viet. c. 41, ss. 3, i)— Summary 
 Jurisdiction Acts, 1879, 1844 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, 
 ss. 6, 35 ; 47 <fe 48 Vict. c. 43, ss. 7, 10)— Married 
 Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 75), 
 «. h— Interpretation AcU 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), 
 B. 13, suh-s. 11. 
 
 A married woman who as owner of small 
 tenements lias at her own request been rated in 
 respect of them under s. 4 of the Poor Kate 
 Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, is liable to 
 the ordinary remedies by distress and imprison- 
 ment in default of distress for recovery of rates 
 made on her as owner, and is not protected by 
 s. 1 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. 
 In re Allen - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 924 
 
 63. — Distress and imprisonment — Procedure 
 for recovery of rates — Married Woman — Owner — 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict, 
 c. 120), s. 161. 
 
 The Summary Jurisdiction Acts, 1879 and 
 1884, and the Interpretation Act, 1889, have not 
 had the effect of superseding the remedy — 
 namely, by distress and imprisonment in default 
 of a sufficient distress — for the recovery of local 
 rates recoverable, under s. 161 of tiie Metropolis 
 Management Act, 1855, in the same manner as 
 poor-rates. In re Allen 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 924 
 
 64. — Distress warrant — Jurisdiction of 
 justices. 
 
 Justices sitting to liear an application to 
 issue a distress warrant for the non-payment of 
 poor rates, are a court of summary jurisdiction 
 within 8. 13, sub-s. 11, of the Interpretation Act, 
 1889, and are not necessarily exercising a merely 
 ministerial duty, but are authorized to inquire 
 into the validity of the objections taken by the 
 party summoned, and to state a special case for 
 the opinion of the High Court. Foubth City 
 Mutual Building Society v. East Ham Obtoboh- 
 WABDENS - - Div. ct [1892] 1 ft. B. 661 
 
 — London government — Kates, overseers and 
 
 audit. 
 
 See London Government Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. o. 14), ss. 10-14. 
 
 65. — Mistake — Incorrect demand notes — Poor 
 Act, 1744 (17 Geo. 2, c. 38), s. 11. 
 
 In levying a public library rate under the 
 Public Libraries Act, 1855, the overseers, believ- 
 ing that ry. property came within the one-third 
 exemption, only demanded of a ry. co. one-third 
 of the proper amount. Subsequent overseers, 
 discovering the mistake, claimed the balance as 
 " arrears " : — 
 
 Beld, that the moneys sought to be recovered 
 wfere arrears within s. 11 of 17 Geo. 2, c. 38, and 
 that the overseers were not estopped by the 
 delivery by their predecessors of incorrect demand 
 notes. Reo. v. Blenkinsop 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft. B. 43 
 
 66.- — Quarterly teriant — Written or verbal 
 demand — Poor Rate Assessment Act, 1869 (32 & 33 
 Viet. c. 41), s. 2. 
 
 A written demand for a year's poor-rate was 
 
 BATES (Recovery) — continued. 
 served on a tenant occupying for three months. 
 The tenant paid one quarter, being all he was 
 then liable for under s. 2 of the Poor Kate Assess- 
 ment and Collection Act, 1869. The tenant 
 stayed on for another quarter, and the collector 
 verbally demanded another quarter of the rate : — 
 Held, that, a written demand having been 
 made in the first instance for the full amount of 
 the rate, a verbal demand for the second quarter 
 
 was sufficient. 'WALTO^f-ON-THE-HILL OVEKSEEHS 
 
 V. Jones - - Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 175 
 
 67. Rate-booTe, Conclusiveness of — Summom for 
 non-payment of poor-rates. 
 
 Overseers summoned A. for non-payment of 
 rates. A. was on the rate-book, but at the 
 hearing of the summons he tendered evidence to 
 shew he was only a caretaker. The justices 
 declined to hear the case, considering the rate- 
 book conclusive, and made an order for pay- 
 ment :^ 
 
 Held, that the rate-book was not conclusive, 
 and the justices were bound to hear the case. 
 Keg. v. London Justices (No. 1) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] W. N. 86 
 — Rate-books — Right to — Assistant overseer. 
 See Paeish Councils. 2. 
 68. — Rural district council — Special expenses 
 — Retrospective rate — Delay in commencement of 
 action — Mandamus to enforce judgment — Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 210, 
 229, 230. -, 
 
 The defts., a rural district council, in 1895 
 incurred a debt to an urban district council in 
 respect of water supply for a contributory place 
 within their district. ■ The defts. refused to pay 
 the debt, setting up a cross-claim against the 
 urban district council for damages for breach of 
 agreement to a greater amount. In respect of 
 these conflicting claims a prolonged correspond- 
 ence and negotiation took place betweeu the 
 two councils ; but, ultimately, the urban district 
 council brought an action for their debt in Mar., 
 1897, and on May 15, 1897, the amount actually 
 payable to them was ascertained by judgment 
 being recovered by them for a balance of their 
 debt above the sum recovered by the defts. on 
 their counter-claim. On Oct. 25 in the same 
 year the urban district council applied for a 
 mandamus commanding the defts. to issue their 
 precept to the overseers of the contributory 
 place for payment of the amount recovered : — ■ 
 
 Held, that, the delay in the commencement of 
 the action being under the circumstances excus- 
 able, the mandamus ought to issue and that the 
 rate which would thereupon have to be made 
 would not be illegal as being retrospective. 
 
 Waddington v. City of London Union, (1858) 
 E. B. &E. 370, and Worthington v. Hulton,ll865) 
 L. K. 1 Q. B. 63, discussed. Keg. v. Leigh Kubal 
 District Council C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 836 
 
 69. — Small tenement — Occupier or owner — 
 Poor Rate Assessment Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, 
 c. 41), 88. 3, 4. 
 
 A distress warrant may issue for the recovery 
 of rates from the occupier of a tenement in respect 
 of which the owner had been rated under s. 4 of 
 the Poor Law Assessment and Collection Act, 
 1869, where the rateable value of the premises ia 
 
( 1691 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891— 1§00. 
 
 ( 1692 ) 
 
 KATES (Eecovery) — contirmed. 
 increased on a subsequent valuation list, since 
 sucli increase of the valuation ousts the jurisdic- 
 tion to rate the owner under the Act of 1869, 
 and restores them to their rights against the 
 occupier. Norwood Ovekseebs v. Salter 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q, B. 118 
 
 — Tithe — Arrears due before Tithe Act, 1891. 
 
 See No. 60, above. 
 
 Valuation. 
 See Bates, passim. 
 London County.] Forms prescribed hy the 
 Treasury under the Valuation (Metropolis') Act, 
 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67). Occupiers, St. E, & 0. 
 1896, p. 717 ; Owners, p. 719. 
 
 — Valuation list — Appeals. 
 
 See Cases under Eatbs — Appeal. 
 
 70. — ValiMtion list — Approval hy committee 
 hefore expiration of statutory period — Union Assess- 
 ment Committee Acts, 1862, 1864 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 108, s. 18 ; 27 <fc 28 Viet. c. 39, s. 1). 
 
 If an assessment committee approve a valua- 
 tion list before the expiration of twenty-eight 
 days after public notice of the deposit of such 
 list hy the overseers, the valuation list and any 
 rate made thereunder are void by s. 18 of the 
 Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. The 
 effect of the s. is not taken away by s. 1 of the 
 Act of 1864. Eeigatb Union Assessment Com- 
 mittee V. South Eastern Et. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 411 
 
 71. — Valuation list — Notice of objection — 
 Jurisdiction of assessment committee — Union 
 Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 103), ss. 18, 19. 
 
 The effect of s. 19 of the Union Assessment 
 Committee Act, 1862, is that, upon the hearing 
 by an assessment committee of an objection to a 
 valuation list, the scope of the inquiry is, in the 
 absence of the consent of the parties supporting 
 the valuation list, limited to the grounds of 
 objection specified in the notice of objection. 
 
 Eatepayers, who objected to the amount at 
 which their hereditaments were assessed in a 
 valuation list, gave notice of objection to the 
 rateable value thereof appearing in the list, but 
 they did not give any notice of objection to the 
 gross value appearing therein : — 
 
 Held, that, in the absence of the consent of 
 the overseers, the assessment committee had no 
 jurisdiction to entertain any objection to the 
 gross value. Eeg. a. London Justices 
 
 Div. Ct, [1897] 1 ft. B. 433 
 
 72. — Valuation list — Objector's right to appear 
 hy agent — Parochial Assessment Act, 1862 (25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 103), ss. 18, 19— Valuation {Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67), ss. 1, 11, 19. 
 
 Under the Union Assessment Committee 
 Act, 1862, a person- aggrieved by a valuation list 
 is entitled to be represented before the assess- 
 ment committee on objections under s. 18 by an 
 agent who is neither a member of the legal pro- 
 fession nor a member of the objector's family or 
 household, and such agent is also entitled to be 
 heard as a skilled witness. Eeg. v. St. Mary 
 Abbotts, Kensington, Assessment Committee 
 C. A. [1891] I ft. B, 378 
 
 BATES — contintied. 
 
 Water Bates. 
 
 See Water — Water Bates. 
 
 EATIFICATION — By principal — Contract by 
 agent in name of principal, but for hia 
 own benefit. 
 See PHnfoiPAL and Agent. 18. 
 
 — Contract — Authority of agent — ^Lump sum — 
 
 Variation. 
 
 See Contbaot. 8. 
 
 — Contract — Company — Eatification and pay- 
 
 ment in cash. 
 
 See Company — ^Directors. 
 
 — Fiduciary relation — Ultra vires. 
 
 See Company. 202. 
 
 — Improvident bargain — Agreement with heir. 
 
 See Solicitor — Champerty. 6. 
 
 — Infant^Settlement — Eepudiation — Marriage 
 
 with foreigner — Change of domicil by 
 
 marriage. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 6. 
 
 — Sale of goods — Undisclosed principal. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 19. 
 
 — Unauthorized agent — Option of purchase. 
 
 See Contract. 35. 
 
 EATIONE TENUBa— Liability to repair high- 
 way. 
 See Highway — Bepairs. 11. 
 
 EEADING-EOOMS— Offences in. 
 
 See Libraries Offences Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 53). 
 
 BEAL estate — Conversion into personalty. 
 See Conversion. 5. 
 
 1. — Devise in trust — Failure of beneficiaries. 
 
 Trustees under two different wills claimed to 
 have become absolutely entitled to devised pro- 
 perty on failure of the beneficiaries : — 
 
 Held, that the acting trustee of the original 
 will who had the legal estate was entitled to 
 hold the property against the trustee of the will 
 of a beneficiary, on the groimd that the latter 
 trustee was a bare trustee with no duties to 
 perforin, and accordingly had no right to call 
 for the conveyance of the legal estate. In re 
 Lashmar. Moody v. Pentold 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 258 
 
 — Exoneration — ^Looke King's Act — Contrary 
 
 intention. 
 
 See Will — Exoneration, 85 — 87. 
 
 — Partnership. 
 
 See Partnership — Property. 
 
 — Whether included in bequest of " effects." 
 
 See Will. 213. 
 
 BEAL OE HEEITABLE SECTJEITY— Invest- 
 ments — Judicial factor — Curator bonis 
 — Liability. 
 See Trustee. 65. 
 
 BEAL PEOPEETY LIMITATION, 
 
 See Cases under Limitations, StatutB 
 op. 
 
 BEAL EEPEESENTATIVE— Established. 
 See Lakd Tkansfjbb. 
 
( id93 ) 
 
 MGfiS'i; OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1694 ) 
 
 •' EJEALIZATION "— Costsof-Debenture-liolder'a 
 action — " Raising " of money. 
 See Company — Sebentures, 38. 
 
 "REASONABLE AND PEOPEK "—Particulars 
 of objection to patent. 
 See Patent — Practice. 32. 
 
 "BEASONABLE EACIIITIES." 
 
 See Eailwat — Bailway and Canal 
 Traffic. 49. 
 
 BEASONABLE USE— Adjoining premises— Al- 
 terations — Injunction. 
 See Nuisances. 4. 
 
 BEASONABLENESS— Charge for use of sidings. 
 See Bail WAT — Sidings. 62. 
 
 BEBTriLDIN&. 
 
 See Cases under London — Bnildings. 
 Streets. 
 
 — Expenditure of money in rebuilding — Juris- 
 
 diction. 
 
 See Settled Land. 41. 
 
 BECEIPT — Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 55. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Lease. 76. 
 
 — Evidence — Promissory note insufficiently 
 
 stamped — Practice. 
 iSee Evidence. 12. 
 
 — Last receipt for rent — Eeasonable excuse for 
 
 non-production . 
 
 iSee Bill of Sale. 46. 
 
 — Money paid under compulsion of law — ^Want 
 
 of bona fides. 
 See Mistake. 1. 
 
 — Money received by servant on account of 
 
 master and handed over to fellow-servant 
 — Acknowledgmeut of receipt by fellow- 
 servant. 
 See Eevbnue — Stamps. 178. 
 
 -T- Mortgagor's signature induced by fraud of his 
 solicitor — Misappropriation — Estoppel. 
 See Mobtgage. 56. 
 
 — Payment for customer — Crossed cheque. 
 
 See Bahkbb. 8. 
 
 — Power of trustees to give. 
 
 See Settled Land — Trustees. 136. 
 
 — Rent — Covenant to produce. 
 
 See Bill oe Sale. 25. 
 
 1. — Sale of goods — Husband and wife — 
 Separate estate of wife. 
 
 A receipt for purchase-money of furniture 
 paid by a wife to her husband out of her separate 
 estate, and given subsequent to the payment of 
 the money : — 
 
 Held, not to be a bill of sale though it con- 
 tained words acknowledging her title. Eamsat 
 -V. Maegbett - - C. A. [1894] 2 a. B. 18 
 
 — Stamp — Compensation for not working coal 
 
 adjacent to railway. 
 
 jSee Eevbnue— Stamps. 179. 
 
 — Stamp — Scrip certificate — ^Payment by instal- 
 
 ments — Receipts for future payments 
 
 indorsed on certificate. 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 180. 
 
 RECEIPTS- Of theatre- Earnings of business. 
 See Ebobiteb. 4. 
 
 EECEIVEB. 
 
 [Order L., rr. 15a-22, relates to receivers.] 
 In General, col. 1694. 
 Accounts, col. 1694. 
 Administration, col. 1694. 
 Appointment, col. 1694. 
 Bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy — Official 
 
 Receiver ; Bankruptcy — Beoeiver. 
 Charge, col. 1699. 
 Company. See Company — ^Debentures. 
 
 76 — 88 ; Company — Winding-up — 
 
 Official Receiver. 
 Continuance, col. 1700, 
 Costs, col. 1700. 
 Debeniure - holders. See Company — 
 
 Debentures, 76—88. 
 Discharge, col. 1700. 
 Indemnity, col. 1700. 
 Insurance, col. 1700. 
 Jurisdiction, col. 1701. 
 Lunacy. See Lunacy — Receiver. 
 Manager, col. 1701. 
 Mistake, col. 1701. 
 Mortgage, col. 1702. 
 Partnership, col. 1705. 
 Bates and Taxes, col. 1705. 
 Bemuneration, col. 1705. 
 Bepairs, col. 1705. 
 Security, col. 1705. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Landlord — Distress — Bill of exchange for 
 
 rent — ^Debentures. 
 See Distress. 4. 
 
 — Official — Appointment of liquidator after 
 
 winding-up order. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Liqui- 
 dator. 110. 
 
 Accounts. 
 
 — Discharge — Receipt of rents by receiver. 
 
 See Eeoeivee — Mortgage. 30. 
 
 — Security — Form of order. 
 
 See Eeceivbe — Security. 46. 
 
 Administration. 
 
 1, — Creditor's rights — Action against debtor's 
 representative — Priority. 
 
 Semble, equitable execution against the estate 
 of a deceased judgment debtor cannot be obtained 
 by one judgment creditor in the absence of the 
 others. Judgment for limited administration 
 ordered by consent. In re Cave. Mainland v. 
 Cave - - C. A. [1892] W. N. 142 
 
 — Pending action in another Division — Juris- 
 
 diction. 
 
 See Receiver — Continuance.] 24. 
 
 Appointment, 
 
 [Order L., rr. 15a-22, relates to the appointment 
 of receiver by way of equitable execution.] 
 
 — Debenture-holders' powers. 
 
 See Cases under CoMPANY^Debentures. 
 
( 1605 ) 
 
 btGBSl" OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1^98 ] 
 
 RECEIVEE (Appointment)— co«iJnjie(J. 
 
 8. — Discretion — Legal estate — Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, subs. 8. 
 
 The Court has now a discretionary power to 
 appoint a receiver whenever it appears to the 
 Court to be just and convenient, and this power 
 may be exercised where the pit. is seeking to 
 recover land by a legal title. The discretion 
 must be exercised with a view to all the circum- 
 stances of the case. Among other things, it is 
 important to bear in mind the position of the 
 tenants, who, if the deft, is not a person of un- 
 doubted solvency and remains in receipt of the 
 rents, may be called upon to pay twice over if 
 the pit. succeeds. The Court has also to con- 
 sider the probability of the plt.'s succeeding, and 
 the length of the deft's possession, and whether 
 he has any prima facie title ; and the Legislature 
 must be taken to have contemplated the result 
 that an application for a receiver may practically 
 compel the deft, in an action of ejectment to 
 disclose his title. 
 
 Where therefore the pit. sought to recover 
 land by a legal title, and the title of the deft., 
 who was a person of small means, appeared to be 
 shadowy, and the plt.'s title appeared to be satis- 
 factorily made out, subject to a point on the 
 construction of a will which the Court considered 
 very unlikely to be decided against him : — 
 
 Held, by North J. and the C. A., that a 
 receiver ought to be appointed. 
 
 Foxwell V. Van Grutten, [1897] 1 Ch. 64, con- 
 sidered. John v. John C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 578 
 
 3. — Earnings — Future earnings of judgment 
 debtor— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), 
 s. 25, sub-s. 8. 
 
 (a) The Court has not jurisdiction to enforce 
 satisfaction of a judgment debt by appointing a 
 receiver of the future earnings of the judgment 
 debtor. Holmes v. Millaqe - C. A. revers. 
 
 Div, Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 551 
 
 Considered by C. A. Cadogan v. Lyric 
 Theatre, [1894] 3 Oh. 338. See No. 4, below. 
 
 (b) Order for receiver of unearned fees of a 
 director of a eo. refused. Hamilton v. Bkogden 
 (No. 2) - North J. [1891] W. N. 36 
 
 4. — Earnings of business — Receipts ■ of 
 theatre — Elegit — Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 
 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. 8. 
 
 C. was a judgment creditor of a co. who were 
 theatrical proprietors and held a lease of a theatre 
 and had mortgaged the lease. A judgment for 
 deft, was recovered against a theatre co. The 
 theatre was subject to mortgage and the co. had 
 no land except the theatre of which they were 
 lessees, and they were using the theatre for their 
 business : — 
 
 Held, (1) that a receiver by way of equitable 
 execution could not be appointed of the earnings 
 of a business, and that the receipts at the door of 
 a theatre did not differ from the earnings of any 
 other business, but (2), that as, if the co.'s in- 
 terest in the theatre had been legal instead of 
 equitable the judgment creditor could have taken 
 it under an elegit, he was entitled to a receiver 
 by way of equitable execution of the co.'s equit- 
 able interest ; (3) the receiver would be entitled 
 to possession of the theatre and to levy an occu- 
 
 EECEIVEE (Appointment) — continue. 
 pation rent on the CO., and thus obtain satisfaction 
 of the judgment. Cadoqan v. Ltbio Theatre, 
 Ld. - - C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 338 
 
 6, — Effect of order. 
 
 An order for the appointment of a receiver by 
 way of equitable execution does not operate as a 
 charge, but as an injunction to restrain the judg- 
 ment debtor ftom himself receiving the interest 
 subject to the order. Fer Lindley L. J. Tyrrell 
 V. Painton (No. 2) - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 6. — Effect of order — Appointment of re- 
 ceiver for judgment creditor — Cesser of life 
 interest. 
 
 The appointment of a receiver of rents of 
 land under a judgment for debt is " execution by 
 process of law " within the meaning of a cesser 
 clause in a will. Per Kekewich J. Blackman 
 V. Ftsh - C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 209 
 
 — Effect of order — Distress. 
 See Distress. 13. 
 
 7. — Effect of order — Foreign liquidation — 
 Late from which receivership order takes effect. 
 
 Judgment creditors of a foreign firm obtained 
 ex parte an order for a receiver of property 
 belonging to the firm which they could not take 
 in execution, because third parties had a lien on 
 it. Before the lien was paid off and the receiver 
 obtained the balance, the firm was declared in 
 liquidation by a foreign tribunal : — 
 
 Held, that the judgment creditors, and not 
 the liquidators, were entitled to the balance in 
 the receiver's hands. Levasseub v. Mason & 
 Bakrt, Ld. - C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 73 
 
 8. — Effect of order — Property subject to lien. 
 Where an order for a receiver was obtained 
 
 by judgment creditors on property of the debtor 
 in the hands and subject to a lien in favour of 
 third parties : — 
 
 Held, that the creditor's right to the property 
 or its proceeds became complete at the date of the 
 order, subject to the legal impediment of the lien, 
 and that they were entitled in equity as against 
 the liquidator of the judgment debtor to the pro- 
 ceeds of the sale of the property after satisfying 
 the lien. 
 
 (a) Levasseuk v. Mason & Barry, Ld. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B, 73 
 
 (b) Jn re Potts. Ex parte Taylor. 
 
 V. Williams J. [1893] 1 Q. B. 648, at page 653 
 
 9. — Effect of order — "Secured creditor" — 
 Banlcruptcy. 
 
 Judgment creditors failing to realize their 
 judgment obtained ex parte an order for a re- 
 ceiver to receive a share of a residuary estate 
 which had come to the debtor under a will after 
 the judgment and gave notice of it to the execu- 
 tors of the will. The debtor became bankrupt, 
 and the exectors retained the money : — 
 
 Held, that the order did not make the creditors 
 secured creditor's, being merely a process not yet 
 completed for obtaining money, and not having 
 the nature or effect of a charging order. In re 
 Potts. Ex parte Taylor 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 648 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Crowshaio y. 
 Lyndkurst Ship Co., [1897] 2 Ch. 159. 
 
C 1C97 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1698 ) 
 
 feECEIVEE (Appointment)— co»<imi(erf. 
 
 10. — Ejectment action — Disputed title — De- 
 fendant in possession — Jurisdiction—Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. 8. 
 
 In a pending action to recover possession of 
 land the Court has jurisdiction, under o. 25, 
 sub-s. 8, of the Judicature Act, 1873, to appoint 
 a receiver, altljough the title is legal and the 
 deft, is in j ossession : — 
 
 Seld, that a case must be made to justify such 
 appoinfmtnt, and an order for a receiver made by 
 Kekewich J., [1896] W. N. 158 (6), was discharged 
 as inade on insufficient grounds. Foxwell v. 
 Van Gbutten 
 
 C. A. [1896] W. N. lei (11); [1897] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 Considered by 0. A. John v. John, [1898] 
 2 Ch. 573. 
 
 11. — Equitable reversionary interest in pro- 
 ceeds of sale of land — Judicature Act, 1873 
 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-s. 8. 
 
 Tliere is jurisdiction to appoint by -way of 
 equitable execution a receiver of an equitable 
 reveisionary interest in personal estate, including 
 the sale of the proceeds of land, since sucli an 
 interest cannot be taken under an elegit. 
 Tykrell v. Painton (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 202 
 
 Eollowed by Chitty J. In re Jones and 
 Judgments Act, 1864, [1895] W. N. 123 (10). See 
 next Case. 
 
 12. — Equitable reversionary interest — Sale — 
 Judgments Act, 1864 (27 * 28 Vict. c. 112), 
 ss. 1, 4. 
 
 AVhere a receiver is appointed of the rents, 
 profits, and moneys receivable in respect of a 
 , judgment debtor's reversionary interest in land, 
 tliis amounts to a delivery in execution within 
 the Judgments Act, 18C4, and gives the Court 
 jurisdiction to make an order for inquiries and a 
 sale. In re Jones and Jcdgments Act, 1864. 
 
 Chitty J. [189S] W. N, 123 (10) 
 Doubted by C. A. In re Harrison and Bot- 
 tomley, [1899] 1 Ch. 465, 472. 
 
 13. — General appointment — M. S. C, 
 Order xui., r. 32 ; Order L., r. 15a. 
 
 It is not the practice of the Court under 
 Order L., i. 1 5a, to appoint a receiver of the 
 judgment debtor's property generally by way of 
 equitable execution. Order made for examina- 
 tion of the debtor under Order xm., r. 32, as to 
 liis property. HAMfLTON v. Bkogden (No. 1) 
 
 North J, [1891] W. N. 14 
 
 14. — Jurisdiction — Appointment of receiver — 
 Equitable execution. 
 
 Sect. 25 (8) of the Judicature Act, 1873, and 
 Order lt., r. 15a, do not give jurisdiction to 
 appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution 
 where prior to the Act no Court had such juris- 
 diction. A receiver can only be appointed at the 
 instance of a judgment creditor under circum- 
 stances in which prior to the Act the Court of 
 Chancery could have made such an order. The 
 Court therefore has no jurisdiction to appoint a 
 receiver, because it would be more convenient 
 than the usual modes of execution. 
 
 (a) Harris v. Beaichamp Brothers (No. 2) 
 C, A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 80^ 
 
 EECEIVEE (Appointment) — continued. 
 (b) Lovell & Christmas v. Beacchamp 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 607 
 (o) Holmes v. Millage 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 651 
 (d) Cadogan v. Lyric Theatre, Ld. 
 
 C. A, [1894] 3 Ch. 343 
 
 15. — Jurisdiction — Land in Ireland. 
 Where a receiver is sought to be appointed of 
 
 the rents of estates in Ireland, the jurisdiction of 
 the Court is not ousted. Bolton v. Cubre 
 (No. 1) - Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 122 
 
 16. — Jurisdiction — Stock standing in hooks 
 of hank — Dividends — Mental infirmity — Title of 
 order. 
 
 The judge or Master in Lunacy has jurisdic- 
 tion to make an order appointing a receiver of 
 dividends on stock standing in the Bank of Eng- 
 land in the name of a person incapable " through 
 mental infirmity arising from disease or age," 
 and the Bank may safely act on such an order ; 
 but as it is unusual to appoint a receiver of divi- 
 dends on bank stock, the better course is to bring 
 the stock into court. Such an order should not 
 be entitled " in Lunacy." In re Browne 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 412 
 
 17. — Legal remedy. 
 
 A receiver will not be appointed by way of 
 
 equitable execution of fees earned by a director 
 
 of a CO., since there is a legal mode of execution 
 
 by attachment. Hamilton v. Brogden (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1891] W. N. 36 
 
 18. — Married woman — Jurisdiction— Judg- 
 ment for costs " to be payable out of her separate 
 property and not otherwise " — Judicature Act, 1873 
 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), 8. 25. 
 
 An action by a married woman " suing in re- 
 spect of her separate estate " was at the trial 
 dismissed with costs, to be taxed and " payable 
 out of her separate property, but not other- 
 wise." The only separate property of the pit. 
 consisted of a share coming to her under a will. 
 Before the taxation of the defts.' costs had been 
 completed by certificate, the trustees of the will 
 being about to distribute their estate and pay the 
 pit. her share, the defts. applied for the appoint- 
 ment of a receiver to receive the share and hold 
 it as security for the costs when taxed : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., that on the principle of Keams 
 V. Leaf, (1864) 1 H. & M. 681, independently of 
 s. 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873, there was 
 jurisdiction to protect by injunction or the appoint- 
 ment of a receiver the tund out of which the costs 
 were payable, and that a receiver ought to be 
 appointed. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. Cummins 
 B.Perkins - C. A. [1898] W. N. 166 (12); 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 16 
 
 19. — Married woman — Protection order — 
 Mortgage — Restraint on anticipation. 
 
 A married woman, deserted by her husband, 
 obtained a protection order under s. 21 of the 
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857. She afterwards 
 mortgaged property which by her father's will 
 she was restrained from anticipating, and judg- 
 ment was obtained against her as a feme sole in 
 an action on the covenant : — 
 
 Eeld, that, although the Act allowed a 
 
 3 I 
 
( 1699 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1700 ) 
 
 EECEIVER (Appointment)— coniinueif. ' 
 married woman with a protection order to sue 
 and be sued as a feme sole, it did not apply to 
 property to whicli she was entitled before the 
 protection order; consequently the restraint on 
 anticipation prevailed, and no receiver of the 
 property could be appointed by way of equitable 
 execution. Hill v. Cooper 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q,. B. 85 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Hughes, 
 0. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 529, 535. 
 
 — Mortgage — Appointment of receiver. 
 
 See Eeobiver — Mortgage. 20. 
 
 20. — Notice of application — Defendant not 
 appearing — B. S. G., Order Lxvii., •#-. 4. 
 
 Where a deft, has not appeared, and an appli- 
 cation is made for the appointment of a re- 
 ceiver, it is not sufficient to file the summons 
 at the central office, but it must be served on the 
 deft., or leave must be obtained for substituted 
 service. Tilling, Ld. ■». Bltthb 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 567 
 
 21. — " Parties entitled to execution " — E. S. C, 
 Order XLii., rr. 8, 23. 
 
 The appointment of a receiver of the property 
 or interest of a judgment debtor is not " execu- 
 tion " within Order xlii., rr. 8, 23. The executors 
 of a deceased judgment creditor are not entitled 
 to obtain an order for a receiver of the judgment 
 debtor's property or an injunction against his 
 dealing with it. Nobbdkn v. Noebtjen 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 448 
 
 — Probate — Eeceiver before — Lis pendens — 
 
 Caveat. 
 
 See Probate. 105. 
 
 22. — Procedure — Summons or motion — 
 B. S. C, Order xlii., r. 28; Order L., r. 15a. 
 
 Two of the defts. were ordered to pay costs to 
 the pits. The pits, moved for appointment of a 
 receiver by way of equitable execution over an 
 equity of redemption belonging to the defts. : — 
 
 Held, that such applications should be made 
 
 by summons in chambers and not by motion. 
 
 In re Hartley. Ndttall v. Whitakeb (No. 2) 
 
 Horth J. [1892] W. N. 49 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser — Kescission of agree- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Vendob and Purchaser. 62. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Oifidal Beoeiver 
 and Bankruptcy — Eeceiver. 
 
 Charge. 
 
 •^ Charge on land— Legal remainder — " Actual 
 delivery in execution." 
 See Judgment Debt. 1. 
 
 Company, 
 »^ Company. 
 
 See Company ^- WiNDiNG-tip ^ Official 
 Beceiver. 
 
 — Debenture-holders. 
 
 See CoMPANY^Debentwes. Ve-^-SH, 
 
 EECEIVEE — continued. 
 
 Continnanoe. 
 
 23. — Form of judgment — Beceiver and 
 manager. 
 
 Where a receiver and manager is appointed 
 in a debenture-holders' action with a limitation 
 of time on his acting as manager, the proper 
 form is to extend the time during which he may 
 act as manager. Davies v. Vale op Evesham 
 Preserves, Ld. Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. IDS 
 
 24. — Pending action in other Division — 
 Administration actions — Jurisdiction — Judicature 
 Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, svh-s. 8. 
 
 Where an interim receiver has been appointed 
 of a testator's estate, and subsequently proceed- 
 ings have been taken in the P. Div., an applica- 
 tion to continue the receiver should be made in 
 the P. Div. and not in the Ch. Div. In re Geben. 
 Geeen v. Knight Kekewich J. [1896] W. K. 69 
 
 25. — Security — Short cause — Minutes of 
 judgment — Declaration of charge. 
 
 Where a receiver has been appointed until 
 judgment or further order in a debenture-holders' 
 action, and is continued by the judgment, this is 
 practically a new appointment, and security must 
 be given. Bsinsley v. Lynton and Lynmouth 
 Hotel and Peopeety Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [18951 W. S. 53 
 
 See Marwick v. Lord Thurlow, [1895] 1 Ch. 
 776. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 — Kailway company — Eeceivership order — 
 "Proper outgoings in respect of the 
 undertaking." 
 See Railway — ^Eeceiver and Manager. 
 
 Debenture-holders. 
 See Company — Debentures. 76- 
 
 -88. 
 
 Discharge. 
 
 — Account and discharge — Eeoeipt of rents by 
 receiver. 
 See Eeceiveb — Mortgage. 30. 
 
 Indemnity. 
 
 26. — Bight to indemnity — Practice — Beceiver 
 and manager — Final account — Discharge of 
 receiver. 
 
 A receiver and manager of a business who 
 has passed his final account and been discharged, 
 is nevertheless still entitled to be indemnified 
 out of the testator's assets against trade debts 
 and liabilities incurred by him while carrying on 
 the business. 
 
 Even after a final account, a receiver ought 
 to be allowed to apply, before the assets are 
 distributed, for a full indemnity against liabili- 
 ties incurred by him while acting as receiver and 
 manager. Levy v. Davis 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. K. 174 
 
 Insurance. 
 
 27. — Insurance — Bepairs — Practice. 
 
 It is the usual practice for a receiver appointed 
 by the Court of rents and profits of real estate to 
 
( 1701 ) 
 
 DIGEST 05* CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 1702 ) 
 
 fiECEIVEB (Insurance)— continwd. 
 insure the property or keep up existing insur- 
 ances. 
 
 Proper repaira of real estate fall within the 
 duties and powers of a receiver of the rents and 
 profits thereof. In re Gkaham. G-raham v. 
 NoAKES - _ Chitty J, [1896] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 — Appointment of receiver. 
 
 See Oases under Eeoeiveb — ^Appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 28. — Breach of trust at instigation of iene- 
 Aciary — -Trustees' lien — Assignee of beneficiary . 
 
 Trustees committed a breach of trust at the 
 instance of a tenant for life, who assigned his 
 life interest in part of the trust estate to A. The 
 trustees made good the loss caused by the breach 
 as claimed, a lieu on the tenant for life's interest, 
 and a receiver against A. of the life interest 
 assigned to him :— 
 
 Held, that A. took the assignment subject to 
 an equitable interest by the cestui que trust in 
 remainder which had vested in the trustees on 
 their making good the loss and that they were 
 entitled to the receiver. Bolton v. Cubke (No. 1) 
 Stirling J. [1894] ^fr. K. 122 
 
 — Wreck — Salvage — Jurisdiction — Detention 
 
 of property. 
 
 See Shippino. 240. 
 
 lunacy. 
 See Cases under Lunaot — Beceiver. 
 
 manager. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankbuptot — Manager. 
 
 — Continuance — Form of judgment. 
 
 See Eeoeiveb — Continuance. 23. 
 
 29. — Liability for goods supplied — Beceiver 
 and manager. 
 
 A receiver and manager of a business ap- 
 pointed by the Court is primS, facie personally 
 liable for goods ordered in the course of such 
 business :— 
 
 Seld, that there was nothing in a written 
 order given "For A. & Co., Ld." and signed 
 " B.C. — D.E., Eeceivers and Managers," to rebut 
 this presumption. Burt, Boulton & Havward 
 V. Bull - - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 276 
 
 Eeferred to. In re Flowers & Co., C. A. [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 15. 
 
 — Mortgagee's rights — Manager of business. 
 
 See Eeoeiveb — Mortgage. 37. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Eeoeiveb — Mortgage. 
 
 — Salary — ^Undertaking to act without — Allow* 
 
 ances. 
 
 See Pabtnebship — Beceiver. 42. 
 
 Mistake. 
 
 — Executor-^Payment of assets to oflBcial receiver 
 
 without retaining debt— Mistake. 
 See BxECTJTOE. 68. 
 
 ^EOEIVETl— continued. 
 
 Mortgage, 
 
 30. — Account and discharge, Beceiver'e — 
 Receipt of rents by receiver. 
 
 Where a receiver had received rents of mort- 
 gaged property, between the date of the certifi- 
 cate under a foreclosure judgment and the day 
 fixed for redemption, and after that date, but 
 the amount of such rents was stated not to be 
 sufiScient to cover the receiver's out-of-pocket 
 expenses and remuneration, so that nothing 
 available for redemption had in fact been 
 received ; the Court, in order to save expense and 
 further delay, upon the submission of the pit. to 
 have his order for foreclosure absolute discharged 
 if the Court should thereafter so direct, in con- 
 sequence of its appearing that there were any 
 surplus moneys, allowed the receiver's account to 
 be taken at once, leaving tlie question of his dis- 
 charge to stand over until after such account. 
 Ellenor v. Uglb Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 161 (8) 
 
 31. — Appointment of receiver — Ex parte ap- 
 plication — Service — Notice of motion — B. S. C., 
 Order lit., rr. 5, 9 ; Order LV., r. 5a. 
 
 Pit., who had taken out an originating 
 summons for a foreclosure, applied ex parte for 
 leave to serve with the summons short notice of 
 motion for the appointment of a receiver. Leave 
 granted subject to any objection which might 
 be taken by deft. Eobson v. Horneb 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] W, W, 100 
 
 32. — Appointment of -receiver — Mortgagor in 
 occupation — Delivery of possession to receiver. 
 
 Where the mortgagor was in occupation a 
 receiver was appointed and delivery to him 
 ordered. Edgell v. Wilson 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 145 
 
 83. — Attornment to receiver — Occupation rent 
 — Commencement, 
 
 Where a devisee of mortgaged property was 
 in possession, the Court directed a reference to 
 chambers to appoint a receiver and fix an occu- 
 pation rent, and ordered the devisee to attorn 
 tenant to the receiver as from date of order, or to 
 deliver up possession to the receiver. In re 
 Bdrchnall. Walker v. Bukchnall 
 
 StirUttg J. [1893] W. N. 171 
 
 34. — Colliery, Mortgage of — Receiver and 
 manager — Mortgagee in possession. 
 
 A colliery co. mortgaged to a bank by way of 
 sub-demise all the lands, beds of coal, and pre- 
 mises, of which they were lessees, and also all 
 buildings, motive power, machinery, &c., except 
 such as were personal chattels within the Bills 
 of Sale Act : — 
 
 Held, that the mortgage included not only 
 the mines but the right to work them, and that 
 the bank was entitled to have a receiver and 
 manager appointed. 
 
 Decision of North J. reversed. Cototy op 
 Glouoesteb Bank v. Eudbt Mebthtb Steam 
 and House Coal Colliebt Co. 
 
 C, A. [1895] 1 Ch. 629 
 
 Eeferred to by Wright J. In re Bmlt of 
 Syria, [1900] 2 Ch. 272. ' 
 
 — Debenture-holders'. 
 
 See Cases under OoMPAlfi— Debentttrei. 
 
t Hoi ) 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1T04 ) 
 
 EECEIVEB (Mortgage)— continwecJ. 
 
 35. — Debentures — Creditor's claims hy mort- 
 gagee — In custodid legis — -Bights vf mortgagee as 
 against receiver. 
 
 A receiver was appointed in a creditor'a 
 administration action. Among the assets were 
 debentures given him by a co. in respect of 
 arrears of dividends payable on certain shares. 
 The mortgagee of the shares, who had proved 
 for his debt, claimed the debenturei on the 
 ground that all moneys in the hands of a receiver 
 were in custodia. legis : — • 
 
 Held, that the debentures were in the hands 
 of the receiver as assets of the estate, who stood 
 for Ihis purpose in the position of an executor, 
 and not for the benefit of the mortgage. 
 
 Where money is in the hands of a receiver 
 appointed by the Court, it is not in custodia legis 
 in the same way as if it were in the hands of a 
 sequestrator ; in each case all the circumstances 
 must be considered, and in particular the nature 
 of the action and the object of the appointment. 
 In re HoA.BE. HoABE v. Owen 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 3 Ch. 94 
 
 — Distress — Illegal distress. 
 
 See DisTBESs. 11. 
 
 36. — Sotel-Jieeper, Mortgage of hotel hy the — 
 Receiver and manager. 
 
 Where a mortgage of premises does not in 
 express terms or by necessary implication in- 
 clude the business there carried on, a receiver 
 appointed at the instance of the mortgagee can- 
 not be directed to manage the business. On the 
 construction of a mortgage of an hotel : — 
 
 Held, tliat tlie security did not include the 
 business or goodwill, and that the Court could 
 not appoint a manager of the hotel. Whitley v. 
 CiiALLis - C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 61 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. County of Glouceder 
 Hank v. Budry Merthyr Colliery Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 
 629. 
 
 — Foreclosure. 
 
 See MoRTQAGE — ForecloSTire. 21, 22. 
 
 — Illegal distress — Mortgage. 
 
 See Distress. 11. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of — Part payment by — 
 
 Debt — Inference of promise to pay. 
 See Mortgage. 57. 
 
 — Liquidated demand — Action for arreai'S of 
 
 interest on mortgage. 
 See Praotioe. 287. 
 
 37. — Manager of business — Mortgagee's rights. 
 Where a receiver is appointed at the instance 
 
 of a mortgagee over property on which the mort- 
 gagor carries on business, the receiver cannot be 
 appointed manager of the business unless 
 
 (a) It is in express terms or impliedly iueluded 
 in the security. Whitley v. Challis 
 
 C, A. [1892] 1 Ch. 64 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. County of Gloucester 
 Bank v. Budry Merthyr Colliery Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 
 
 (b) It is necessary to protect the property 
 comprised in the security by carrying on the 
 
 EECEIVEB (Mortgage) — contimied. 
 
 business. Campbell v. Lloyd's, Baenetts' an!) 
 
 Bosanqdet's Bank, Ld. 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 136, n. 
 
 Explained by C. A. Whitley v. Challis, 
 [1892] 1 Ch. 64. 
 
 Eeferred to bv C. A. County of Gloucester 
 Bank v. Budry Merthyr Colliery Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 
 638. 
 
 (o) It is necessary to protect the security by 
 selling the business as a going concern. Makins 
 V. Percy Ibotson & Sons Kay J. [1891] 1 Ch. 133. 
 
 — Priority — Receivership deed. 
 
 See Mortgage — Priority. 
 
 38. — Procedure — Ex parte application — Ir- 
 regularity. 
 
 An application to have a receiver appointed 
 
 by way of equitable execution should not be 
 
 made ex parte. In re Potts. JSx parte Taylor 
 
 Per Lindley J., C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 648 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Crowshaw v. 
 Lyndhurst Ship Co., [1897] 2 Ch. 159. 
 
 39. — Procedure — Ex parte application — Ser- 
 vice of notice. 
 
 Pit., who had taken out an originating sum- 
 mons for foreclosure, applied ex parte for leave 
 to serve with the summons short notice of motion 
 for the appointment of a receiver. Leave granted 
 subject to any objections which might be taken 
 by the deft. Eobson v. Horner 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] "W. N. 100 
 
 40. — Procedure — Interhcutory application 
 for receiver and manager. 
 
 An order giving possession to a receiver and 
 manager can be made on an interlocutory appli- 
 cation. Ind, Coope & Co. r. Mee 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 8 
 
 — Procedure — \\'rit specially indorsed — Liqui- 
 
 dated demand. 
 
 See Practice. 279. 
 
 41. — Bight claimed against receiver — Course 
 of the Court. 
 
 It is not the course of the Com-t to refuse 
 liberty to try a right claimed against its receiver 
 appointed in a foreclosure actiou, unless it is 
 perfectly clear that there is no foundation for 
 the claim. Lane v. C.vpsey 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 411 
 
 42. — ■ Steamship. 
 
 A receiver with power to manage can be 
 appointed of a steamship. Fairfield Ship- 
 bdilding and EsGiNEERmG Co. V. London and 
 East Coast Express Steamship Co. 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1895] W. N. 64 
 
 See In re Continental Oxygen Co., [1897] 
 1 Ch. 511, 513. 
 
 43. — Winding-up of company — Mortgagee's 
 rights — Appointme/it of receiver for debenture- 
 holders. 
 
 The right of a mortgagee to a receiver when 
 his security is valid and his interest is in arrear 
 is not afiected by the fact that the mortgagor is 
 a CO. and is being wound up. A petition for 
 winding-up a co. was pending when a receiver 
 was appointed in an action by debenture-holders 
 to enforce their security extending over all the 
 
( 1705 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1706 ) 
 
 RECEIVEE (THortgage)— continued. 
 
 property of the co., where the assets of the co. 
 
 were not sufBcient to pay the debentures : — 
 
 Seld, that the liquidator had no claim to 
 have tlie receiver for the debenture-holders dis- 
 charged, since their rights were not taken away 
 by the winding-up. Steong v. Oarltle Peess 
 (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. revers. V. Williams J. [1893] 1 Ch. 268 
 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. British Linen 
 Co. V. South American and Mexican Co., [1894] 
 1 Oh. 108, 111. 
 
 Partnership. 
 
 44. — Foreign firm — Separate debt of partner. 
 
 Sect. 23 of the Partnership Act, 189,0, which 
 enables a judgment creditor of a partner to obtain 
 a receiver of his interest in the partnership 
 applies to a foreign firm having a branch house 
 in England. Brown, Janson & Co. v. Hutchin- 
 son & Co. (No. 1) - C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 737 
 
 See also C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 126. 
 
 — Guarantee society — Premiums — Extra work 
 
 done by receiver. 
 
 See Partnership. 42. 
 
 — Partnership action — Arbitration clause — Ap- 
 
 pointment of receiver — Dissolution of 
 
 partnership. 
 
 See Partnebship. 12. 
 
 Bates and Taxes, 
 
 — Gas rate — Eefusal to supply until arrears due 
 
 from company paid. 
 See Gas. 1. 
 
 — Income tax — Assessment in name of receiver. 
 
 See Bevende — Income Tax. 96. 
 
 Bemnneration. 
 
 CouNTT Courts.] See Explanatory Memoran- 
 dum to County Court Rules (May), 1899, and 
 rules 18 to 23. "W. N, 1899 (May 20), p. 171. 
 See Current Index, 1899, p. cxi. 
 
 — Guarantee society — Premiums — Extra work 
 
 done by receiver. 
 
 See Partnership. 42. 
 
 46. — Remuneration when trustee — Practice. 
 
 There is no inflexible rule that a trustee can 
 only be appointed receiver of the trust estate on 
 the terms of his having no remuneration, though 
 the insertion of such a term is usual. In this 
 case, the Court allowed a sum as remuneration, 
 although no mention of remuneration was made 
 in the administration order appointing the re- 
 ceiver. In re Bignell. Bignell v. Chapman. 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 89 
 
 Bepairs. 
 See Eecbivee — Insurance. 27. 
 
 Security. 
 
 — On continuance of receiver. 
 
 See above, Continuance. 
 
 46. — Form of order — Accownts. 
 
 An order appointing a manager and receiver 
 should contain an undertaking by the person 
 applying for hjs p-ppoijjtmeiit to be answerable 
 
 BECEIVEE (Security) — continued. 
 
 for all amounts received until the receiver gives 
 
 security. 
 
 (a) Makins v. Perot Ibotson & Sons 
 
 Kay J. [1891] 1 Ch. 133 
 
 (b) Campbell v. Lloyd's, Baenett's and 
 Bosanqubt's Bank, Ld. 
 
 ChittyJ. [1891] ICh. 136, n. 
 
 47. — Becognizance — Surety — Bents and profits 
 — Extent of lidbility, 
 
 A surety under a receiver's recognizance is 
 liable (to the extent of the amount of the penalty) 
 for all sums of money which the receiver himself 
 was properly liable to pay into court or account 
 for. 
 
 Where a receiver appointed in an administra- 
 tion action of the rents and profits of real estate 
 had received (i.) fire insurance moneys and mis- 
 applied them ; (ii.) interest on Consols in court 
 derived from the sale of real estate by A., and had 
 not accounted for it ; (iii.) balance of money paid 
 to be expended on repairs, and not so expended 
 it:— 
 
 Held, that the sureties had been properly 
 charged in respect of these three items. 
 
 Practice and duties of receivers of rents and 
 profits as to insurance and repairs discussed. 
 In re Graham. Geaham v. Noakes 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] 1 Ch. 66 
 
 BECEIVEB AND MANAGEB. 
 
 See Eeoeiveb, passim. 
 
 BECEIVEE or WBECK— Salvage— Jurisdiction 
 — Detention of property. 
 See Shtpping — Salvage. 240. 
 
 BECEIVING. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Larceny. 39, 40. 
 
 BECEIVING OEDEB— Bankruptcy practice. 
 See Bankruptcy — Beceiving Order. 
 
 EECITAIS-Conditionand-Guarantee— Bond- 
 Construction. 
 See New South Wales. 23. 
 
 — Construction of settlement — Appointment — 
 
 Estoppel. 
 
 See Settlement — ^Validity. 33. 
 
 1. — Effect of recitals in deed — Vendor and 
 purchaser — Furcliaser for value with notice — 
 Notice — Estoppel. 
 
 Eecitals m a deed are not representations of 
 fact on the faith of which a stranger to the deed 
 is entitled to act without inquiry. 
 
 Where the pit., a purchaser of a legal estate, 
 had express notice that the defts. obtained pos- 
 session of the land bought under a deed which 
 purported to convey to them an equitable title 
 thereto: — 
 
 Held, that he must convey the legal estate to 
 the defts. Erroneous recitals in the deed as 
 to the derivation of the equitable title actually 
 transferred did not estop the defts. or vitiate the 
 notice. Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. Coryat 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 687 
 
 — Of agreement — Implied covenant. 
 
 See Ineant — Settlement. 42. 
 
 ■ Will — Erroneous recital. 
 See Will— Jtistaie, 
 
 U8, 
 
( 1707 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1708 ) 
 
 SECITAL — continued. 
 
 — Will — Guarantee — Indemnity. 
 
 See Fbatjds, Statute op. 3, 4. 
 
 EECOGNIZANCE — Forfeited — Amercement — 
 Construction of charter to corporation. 
 See Eevettoe. 48. 
 
 — On appeal to quarter sessions. 
 
 See Justices. 40, 41. 
 
 — Eeoeiver — Surety — Bents and profits — Extent 
 
 of liability. 
 
 See Kbceiver. 47. 
 
 EECONSTRTTCTION— Company. 
 
 See Company — Eeconstrnction. 
 
 SECONVETANCE— To building society— Stamp 
 — Mortgage. 
 See Eevenue. 168. 
 
 EECOED OFFICE. 
 
 See Public Eecobd Ofpioe. 
 
 EECORDEE — Salary of— Liability — Separate 
 court of quarter sessions. 
 See County Councils. 3. 
 
 EECOTTNT — Votes — Correctness of returning 
 officer's figures — Onus of proof. 
 See Schools — School Board. 7. 
 
 EECOVEEY OF EATES. 
 
 See Bates — Eecovery. 
 
 EECEEATION GEOTTNDS. 
 
 See Commons Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. 
 c. 30). 
 
 — Eight of recreation by inhabitants of several 
 
 parishes. 
 
 See Custom, 2. 
 
 EECTIFICATION -Assignment— Defective title 
 — Subsequent acquisition of good title. 
 See Peactice — Payment out of Court. 
 144. 
 
 — Company — Eegister — Underwriting. 
 
 See Company — ^Eegister. 256. 
 
 — Conveyance — Plan — Mistake — Parol evidence. 
 
 See Vendok and Pubchaseb — Contract. 
 28. 
 
 — Deed — Oral evidence. 
 
 See Settlement — ^Eectifioation. 29. 
 
 — Lease — Parcels — Eight of way — Misdescrip- 
 
 tion — Common mistake. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 75. 
 
 — Eegister — Middlesex Deeds. 
 
 See Middlesex Eesistky. 
 
 — Settlement. 
 
 See Settlement — Eectifloation. 
 
 — Trade-mark register. 
 
 See Cases under Tkade-maek. 
 
 EECIOE — Criminal suit against rector for non- 
 repair of chancel — Appeal — Jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 57. 
 
 — Lay rector — Eight to chief seat in a chancel — 
 Prescription. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 56. 
 
 EEDEMPTION— Absolute assignment of debt 
 with proviso for — Implication of power 
 to redeem. 
 See Assignment. 4, 
 
 EEDEMPTION— oonWnu«i. 
 
 — Annuity. 
 
 See Annuity — Bedemption. 
 
 — Debenture — Sinking fund — Prospectus. 
 
 See Company. 90. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgage — Bedemption. 
 
 — Bent-charge — Eepayment to tenant for life — 
 
 Improvement — Evidence. 
 See Settled Land. 102. 
 
 — Stamp duty — Debenture — Bedemption on 
 
 contingency — " Marketable security." 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 
 
 BEDEMPTION MONET— For tithes. 
 See Tithe. 7. 
 
 BEDBOCE — Beservation from grant — Bedrock 
 and coal neither having any commercial 
 value — Injunction. 
 See Mines. 23. 
 
 EEDTTCTION OF CAPITAL— Company. 
 
 See Company — Eeduction of Capital. 
 
 EE-ENTEY— Distress. 
 
 See Distress. 6. 
 
 — Lease — Forfeiture. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 EE-EXECTJTION— Will— Married woman. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. 23. 
 BEFEBEE, 
 
 See Cases under Arbitration. 
 BEFEEENCE. 
 
 See Cases under Arbitration. 
 
 BEFEEENTIAL TEUSTS — Hotchpot — Two 
 
 funds. 
 
 See Settlement. 26. 
 EEFOEM ACT. 
 
 iSee Cases nnder Parliament (Fran- 
 chise). 
 EEFOEMATOEY. 
 
 See Drunkenness. 
 
 Schools — Eeformatory Schools. 
 BEFEESHERS— Counsel. 
 
 See Costs — Counsel's Fees. 17. 
 
 EEFBIGEEATING MACHINEEY— Bill of lading 
 —Exceptions. 
 See Shipping. 143. 
 
 BEFUND — Application for — Delay— Probate 
 duty paid under protest. 
 See New South Wales. 38. 
 
 BEFTJSAI— Contract to give " first refusal " of 
 land — Interest in land — Purchaser with 
 notice — Injunction. 
 See Contract. 24. 
 
 BEFTTSE- Chattels— Mounds of refuse produced 
 in iron manufacture. 
 See Mines. 1. 
 
 — Eemoval of — Metropolis. 
 
 See Cases under London — ^Bemoval of 
 Befase. 
 
 "EEFUSE OE NEGIECT "—Condition— Eesi- 
 
 dence — Infant. 
 
 See Will — Condition. 62. 
 EEGIMENTAL DEBTS. 
 
 See Abmy and Navt— Army, 
 
( 1709 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 C 1710 ) 
 
 B£6ISTEB. 
 
 See Besistbatiok. 
 
 — Unclaimed stock. 
 
 See Bank of England. 
 
 EEGISTEAB— Bankruptcy practice. 
 iSiee Bankruptcy. 68. 
 
 — County court — Jurisdiction — ^Power to Btrike 
 
 out counter-claim — ^Protibition. 
 See CoTJNTT CouET— Practice. 62. 
 
 — Discretion of — Costs— Insolvency of estate. 
 
 See County Court. 22. 
 
 — District registrar. 
 
 See Pbaotice — District Registry. 
 
 — Jurisdiction of — Setting aside judgment in 
 
 default of appearance. 
 See Peactioe. 22. 
 
 — Note of master or registrar — Evidence — Pro- 
 
 ceedings in chambers. 
 See DrvoEOB. 3. 
 
 EEGISTKATIOIT— Bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill op Sale — Begistration. 
 
 — Ceylou Land Begistration Act — Priority. 
 
 See Ceylon. 6. 
 
 — Common lodging-house — Liability to penalty 
 
 — Charitable institution — Non-registra- 
 tion. 
 See Lodging-house. 1, 2, 
 
 — Company. 
 
 See Company — Begistration. 
 • — Copyright. 
 
 See Cases under Copyright. 
 
 — Dentist — Qualification. 
 
 See Medical Peaotitioneb. 1. 
 
 — Designs. 
 
 See Designs — Begistration. 7. 
 
 — Dolus malus — Priority of unregistered transfer 
 
 — ^Eegistered transfer set aside — Law of 
 
 Natal. 
 
 See Natal. 2. 
 
 — Land charges. 
 
 See Land Charges, 
 
 — Lis pendens. 
 
 See Lis Pendens. 
 
 — Money-lenders. 
 
 See Money-lender. 
 
 — Mortgages and charges of company. 
 
 See Company — Mortgages and Charges. 
 199. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Begistration. 
 
 — Shares and shareholders. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Title to land. 
 
 See Land — ^Begistration. 
 Middlesex. 
 Yorkshire. 
 
 — Trade-mark. 
 
 See Tbade-mabe — Begistration. 
 
 — Transfer of ship — Pees. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. 210. 
 
 — Voters. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 BEGISTRY— Exemption from—" Tons burden." 
 iSee Shipping— limitation of liability.' 
 165. 
 
 BEGISTBT (DISTEICT). 
 
 See Peactioe — District Begistry, 
 
 BEGISTBT (LAND BEGISTBT), 
 
 See Land Begistry. 
 BEQULATION OE EAILWATS. 
 
 See Cases under Railway. 
 
 BE-HEABING. 
 
 See Practice — Be-hearing, 
 
 BEIMBTIBSEMENT— Of tenant for life for im- 
 provements. 
 Bee Settled Land. 43, 
 
 BE-INSUBANCE— Marine insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insurance, Marine. 
 
 EE-INVESTMENT—Ofpurchase-raoney— Costs. 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 2. 
 
 " EEIATIVES "—Of Ulegitimate persons. 
 
 See Will— Illegitimacy. 102—106. 
 BELEASE — Common, Eights of— -Bxtinotion on 
 
 release of seignorial rights. 
 
 See Common. 6. 
 — r Guarantee, Eelease of — ^Benewal of bills of 
 
 exchange — Variation. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 9. 
 
 1. — Joint tortfeasors — Agreement with one. 
 The agent of a municipal corporation accepted 
 
 bribes from L. to procure contracts between L. 
 and thg corporation. The corporation on dis- 
 covering the fraud agreed to help in an action 
 for damages against L., and that the amount 
 should be credited in satisfaction of the agent's 
 liability for bribes : — 
 
 Seld, that the agreement was not a release. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., (1890) 25 Q. B, D, 363, 
 affirmed. Salford Coepobation v. Leveb 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 168 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. Grant v. Gold Explo- 
 ration and Development Syndicate, [1900] 1 Q. B.' 
 233, 244, 246. 
 
 2. — Joint tortfeasors — Discharge of one — 
 Belease of one — Beservation of claim against the 
 other — Covenant not to sue. 
 
 A covenant not to sue one of two joint tort- 
 feasors does not operate as a release of the other 
 from liability. In this case a letter to one tort- 
 feasor giving a receipt in full discharge of, but 
 reserving rights against, the other, held to be a 
 covenant not to sue and not to be a release. 
 Duck v. Mayeu - C. A, [1892] 2 Q. B. 811 
 
 See Bice v. Seed, 0. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 54, 67. 
 
 — Power of appointment — Eelease. 
 
 See Cases under Powers — Extinction. 
 
 — Stamp — Receipt for compensation for not 
 
 working coal adjacent to railway. 
 See Revenue— Stamps, 179, 
 
 — Surety. 
 
 See Oases under Principal and Surety 
 — Discharge. 
 T- Trustee in bankruptcy- Error in administra- 
 tion — Eevooatiou by Board of Trad3. 
 See Bankbdptoy — Trustee in Bank- 
 ruptcy. 247, 
 
( 1711 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1712 ) 
 
 S.^LEkS'E— continued. 
 
 — Tnistee in bankruptcy — Subsequent assets — 
 
 JBigbt of creditors to appoint new 
 
 trustee. 
 
 See Bankktjptct — Tnistee in Bank- 
 ruptcy. 248. 
 
 BELEVAIfCT — Defective wagons while in use by 
 another railway company — Liability. 
 See Eailwat. 17. 
 
 • Interrogatories. 
 
 See DisoovEKT. 
 
 55. 
 
 — Will — Insane delusions — Direct communica- 
 
 tions from the Deity. 
 See 'WiM, — Selevanoy. 
 
 BELICS. 
 
 See FuBOTTUEE. 
 
 EELIET — Against forfeiture of lease. 
 
 See Cases under Landiokd and Tenant. 
 
 — Misrepresentation as a bar to relief— Passing 
 
 off action — Practice. 
 See Tkade-mabk. 64, 
 
 — Trustees' liability. 
 
 See Cases under Tkustee. 
 
 EELIEr(OrPAUPEE). 
 
 Cases under Poob Law. 
 
 BELIGION — Gift over on changing — Remote- 
 ness. 
 See PowEE. 19. 
 
 — Undue influence — Setting aside gift inter 
 
 vivos. 
 
 See Undue Influence. 1. 
 
 BELIGIOTTS EDUCATION — Guardianship of 
 infant. 
 See Infant — Custody. 15. 
 
 EEIIGIOTJS PXTEPOSES— Gifts foi^Charity. 
 See Charity. 18, 21. 
 
 EELIGIOTTS WOESHIP — CharitabU Trusts 
 (Places of Worship) Amendment Act, 1894 (57 ifc 58 
 Vict. V. 35), amends the Charitable Trusts Acts. 
 
 EEM, ACTION IN— Admiralty practice. 
 See Cases under Shipping. 
 
 EEMAINDEE— Contingent. 
 
 See Will — Contingent Eemainder. 
 
 — Legal— Charge on land — Eeceiver — Equitable 
 
 execution — " Actual delivery in execu- 
 tion." 
 See Judgment Debt. 1. 
 
 BEUAINSEEUAN. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 EE-IIAEEIA6E. 
 
 See Will — Marriage. 141. 
 
 EEMITTED ACTION— County court— Practice. 
 See Oases under County Court. 
 
 EEMOTENESS— Agistment— Negligence— Inter- 
 vening act of third person. 
 See Agistment. 
 
 — Collision — Loss by detention during repairs — 
 
 Damages — Policy. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 34. 
 
 — Collision— Loss of use of dredger— Damages. 
 
 See Smpi'iNG— Collision, 61. 
 
 EEMOTENESS — continued. 
 
 — Contract — Illegality — Uncertainty — Statutory 
 
 confirmation. 
 
 See CoNTEACT. 24. 
 
 — Contractor — Damages. 
 
 See Peinoipal and Agent. 10. 
 
 — Damage — Collision — Loss of use of lightship. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 72. 
 
 — Depreciation of cargo — General average. 
 
 See Shipping — Average. 10. 
 
 — Maintenance — Will — Construction. 
 
 See Infant. 24. 
 • — Nervous shock — Damages. 
 See Action. 2. 
 
 — Power of appointment — Fraud on. 
 
 See Powers — Exercise. 19. 
 
 — Power of appointment — Validity. 
 
 See Powers — Validity. 44, 46. 
 
 — wm. 
 
 See Will — Perpetuity. 157 — 167. 
 
 EEMOVAL — Human remains. 
 
 See Cases uuder Ecclesiastical Law — 
 Faculty. 
 
 — Lessee — Permanent buildings. 
 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 5. 
 
 — Licence. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — Order of — Infectious disorder — Public healtli. 
 
 See Justices. 10, 11. 
 
 — Pauper. 
 
 See Cases under PooE Law. 
 
 — Eefuse. 
 
 See Cases under London — Eemoval of 
 Eefuse. 
 
 — Wreck. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 254. 
 
 EEMTTNEEATION- Directors. 
 
 See Company — Directors. 138 — 142. 
 
 — Elective auditor of corporation. 
 
 See Local Government. 1. 
 
 — Liquidator. 
 
 See Company • — Winding-up — Liqui- 
 dator. 
 
 — Manager and receiver — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Manager. 120. 
 
 — Partner. 
 
 See Cases under Partnership. 
 
 — Eeceiver. 
 
 See Eeceiver — Eemuneration. 
 
 — Eeceiver — Surplus assets — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 
 
 — Solicitor. 
 
 See Cases under Solioitob. 
 
 — Trustee. 
 
 See Trustee— Eemuneration. 
 
 — Trustee iu bankruptcy. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy — Trustee 
 in Bankruptcy. 
 
 EENEWAL— Bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill of Sale — Eegistration, 
 
 — Fines on renewal of leases for lives Copy- 
 
 holds — Income or capital. 
 See SettIiED Lai{d. 50, 
 
( 1713 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1714 ). 
 
 EENEWAI.— coniintted. 
 
 — LeaBe — Settled Land Acta. 
 
 See Settled LaJ^d. 
 
 — Licence. 
 
 See Licensing Acts— Licence. 
 
 — Writ. 
 
 iSee Pbactice — Writ. 
 BENT — Agreement for lease — Increased rent — 
 Part performance. 
 See Fkauds, Statute of. 13. 
 
 — Anticipation of — ^Chnrohwardens— Income of 
 
 charity estates — Banking account — 
 Ctiarge on charitable property. 
 See Chahity. 1. 
 
 — Assignment of leaseholds — Consideration — 
 
 Stamp duty. 
 
 See Kevbnue — Stamps. 160. 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — -Bent. 
 
 — " Best rent." 
 
 See Settled Land. 67, 69. 
 
 — Distress for rent. 
 
 See Cases under Distkess. 
 
 — Ground-rent — Cost of sanitary -works — Capital 
 
 or income — Leasehold houses — Tenant 
 
 for life. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 — Hotchpot clause — Set-off — Statutes of Limita- 
 
 tions. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 23. 
 
 — Intermediate — Infants — Legal and equitable 
 
 limitations. 
 
 See Will— Contingent Eemainders. 74. 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Landlokd and Tenant — Bent. 
 
 — Last receipt for — Eeasonable excuse for non- 
 
 production. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 46. 
 
 — Leaseholds — Tenant for life — Eemaindennan 
 
 — Liability. 
 See Will. 119. 
 
 — Mines — Apportionment. 
 
 See Settled Land. 79. 
 
 — Non-payment of rent — Hotchpot clause — 
 
 Absolute title of tenant — Keal property 
 
 limitation. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 23. 
 
 — Occupation rent due from one of several co- 
 
 owners — Set-off — Sale. 
 See Partition. 16. 
 
 — Payable in advance — Apportionment on 
 
 eviction. 
 
 See Apportionment. 1. 
 
 — Eeceived after day fixed for redemption. 
 
 See Mortgage — roreclosure. 35. 
 
 — Royalty — Minerals — Life-rent — " Opened " 
 
 quarries. 
 
 See Mines. 14. 
 
 — Set-off — Will — Construction. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 23. 
 
 — Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 See Oases under Settled Land. 
 T- Way-leave. 
 
 See M' AY-LEAVE. 1. 
 
 BENT-CHAB6E — Apportionment — Acreage or 
 valve — Grant of land siibject to a rent-charge — 
 Grant or reservation — Eviction of grantee from 
 part of land. 
 
 In 1840 A. by deed granted to B. certain land 
 to the use that A, and his heirs should for ever 
 receive thereout a certain rent-charge, " and sub- 
 ject and charged as aforesaid " to dower uses in 
 favour of B. ; and by the same deed B. granted 
 to A. in fee the same rent-charge out of the land 
 thereby granted. In 1898 B.'s successors in title 
 were evicted from part of the land by title paia- 
 mount, and thereupon claimed an apportionment 
 of the rent-charge; but A.'s successor in title 
 contended that tbe rent-charge was payable in 
 full out of tlie remainder of the land : — 
 
 Held, that the deed operated as a reservation 
 of the rent-charge in the first instance to A. iu 
 fee ; that the subsequent grant by B. to A. in fee 
 of the same rent-charge was inoperative ; and 
 that the rent-charge must be apportioned accorri- 
 ing to the value of the land. Hartley v. Mad- 
 DOOKS - Cozens-Hardy J, [1899] W. N. 83 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 199 
 
 — Arrears — Annuity. 
 
 See Annuity — Arrears. 1, 2. 
 
 2. — Arrears — Jurisdiction to sell. 
 
 There is equitable jurisdiction to order a sa'e 
 or mortgage of land to raise arrears of a jointure 
 rent-charge issuing out of the rents and profits 
 of the land, though there is no express charge on 
 the land. The exercise of such jurisdiction is 
 discretionary. Hambro v. Hambro 
 
 North 3. [1894] 2 Ch, 564 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Herhage 
 Rents, Greenwich, [1896] 2 Oh. 811, 816. See 
 No. 6, hehw. 
 
 — Arrears of — Action by trustees of charity — 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 See County Court. 44. 
 
 3, — Aitgmentation of benefice — Charge upon 
 land — Release of part of land — Liability of 
 tenant of residue — 29 Car. 2, c. 8. 
 
 An augmentation had been granted under 
 29 Oar. 2, c. 8, " An Act for confirming and per- 
 petuating Augmentations made by Ecclesiastical 
 Persons to small Vicarages and Curacies," and 
 charged upon land, and a portion of such land 
 was held by the deft, as tenant for life in pos- 
 session, having been acquired by the deft.'s 
 predecessors under a contract, whereby they 
 released the residue of the land from the burden 
 of the charge, and indemnified the owners 
 against it. 
 
 In an action to recover from the deft, the 
 whole amount of the arrears of the charge : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, was liable for tbe whole 
 amount, notwithstanding that the annual profits 
 of his land fell short of the amount of the charge. 
 Pertwbe v. Townsend 
 
 Collins J. [1896] 2 Q. B. 129 
 
 Approved of by Stirling J. In re Herbage 
 Rents, Greenmch, [1896] 2 Oh. 811. See No. 6, 
 below. 
 
 — Payment of past instalments. 
 .^ „.. See SETTtBD JjAnp— E^nt-charges. 102, 
 
( 1715 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 171C ) 
 
 BENT-CHAEGE— conKnued. 
 
 — Priority — Mortgage — ^Limited Owners' Resi- 
 
 dences Act. 
 
 See MoETGAGE — Priority, 53. 
 
 — Purchase or redemption. 
 
 See Settled Land — Eeut-charges. 103. 
 ^ Eateable value — Deductions — Tenants' profits. 
 Bee Bates. 66. 
 
 — Eecovery — Charitable Truets (Mecovery) Act, 
 
 1891 (54 Vict. 0. 17), facilitates the re- 
 covery of rent-charges and other payments 
 owing to charities, 
 
 — Eecoyery of rent-charge — Improvement of 
 
 land. 
 
 See Improvement of Land Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Viot. c. 46). 
 
 — Eedemption — Eepayment to tenant for life — 
 
 Improvement— Evidence. 
 
 See Settled Land — ^Rent-charges. 104. 
 
 4. — " Sent-charge " — Ferpetual rent for ease- 
 ment — Charge on rates — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 
 (8 <fe 9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 10, 11. 
 
 A perpetual rent reserved as the considera- 
 tion upon the sale of land, even though no power 
 of distress is contained in the conveyance, is not 
 improperly described as a rent-charge, as a power 
 of distress is conferred by 4 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 5. 
 The Liverpool Corporation Waterworks Act, 
 1855, which incorporated the Lands Clauses Act, 
 1845, provided that the persons empowered by 
 the latter Act to convey lands should have fuU 
 power to convey at an annual rent any easement 
 over certain lands : — 
 
 Held, that such a rent was properly described 
 as a yearly " rent-charge payable in perpetuity 
 by the corporation of L. in respect of a water- 
 pipe rent created under the authority of the" 
 Act of 1855, and secured by covenants of the cor- 
 poration and by a statutory charge on the rates 
 leviable by the corporation, and was charged on 
 the rates by the operation of s. 11 of the Lands 
 Clauses Act, 1845. In re Lobd Geeabd and 
 Beecham's Contbaot - 0. A. [1894] 3 Ch, 296 
 
 5. — SaXe — Bent-charge — Charge on corpus — 
 Application to raise by sale — Eg^ect of creating 
 term. 
 
 A rent-charge, under a marriage settlement 
 payable to the widow having fallen into arrear, 
 and the rents being insufficient and not likely to 
 be sufficient to pay the rent-charge, an action 
 was brought by the assignee of the rent-charge 
 against the surviving trustee of the term, and all 
 persons who under the will had any interest in 
 the property, for payment of the arrears, and an 
 order for sale of the lands charged or a com- 
 petent part thereof to raise the arrears. 
 
 Seld, that the question was whether the 
 charge on the inheritance was one which was 
 intended to be enforced by sale. There were 
 cases in which when a rent-charge was created, 
 although there was no express power of sale, the 
 Court gave its assistance by ordering a sale, e.g., 
 Cupit V. Jachson, (1824) 13 Price, 721 ; 28 E. E. 
 735. The result of the oases was that, subject 
 to the discretion of the Court, the owner of the 
 rent-charge was entitled to an order for sale of 
 tne inheritance ; but the Court would refuse to 
 order a sale in certain cases— for instance, where 
 
 ^'EST-CSAS.GE— continued. 
 it was advisable to wait for a time: Graves v. 
 Sicks, (1841) 11 Sim. 651; or in the case in- 
 stanced by North J. in In re Tudcer, [1893] 
 2 Ch. 323, of the amount of arrears being small. 
 That shewed the sort of discretion which the 
 Court exercised where there was no term. But 
 what was the effect of vesting a term as in the 
 present case ? In Sail v. Surt, (1861) 2 J. & H. 
 76, where a term was vested in trustees. Wood 
 V.-C. said : " Looking at the whole contents and 
 scope of the will, my impression is that the free- 
 hold was not intended to be sold to raise the 
 charge of 5000Z., but that the term was created 
 for that purpose with the view of avoiding a sale 
 of the fee." Although that was a decision on 
 the construction of a will, it was a guide in the 
 present ease, and shewed that the Court ought to 
 see whether the existence of the term was con- 
 sistent with the right to have a sale ordered by 
 a court of equity. Having regard to the term 
 and to Sail v. Surt, an order for sale must be 
 refused. Blackbukne v. Hope-Edwabdes 
 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 175 
 Eeported -. - - [1901] ICh. 419 
 
 — Tenant for life — Exoneration of land. 
 
 See Settled Land — Eent-charges. 
 
 6. — Tenant for years — Fersonal liability — 
 Charitable Trusts (Eecovery) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Yict. c. 17), s. 3. 
 
 A tenant for years is not liable in an action 
 of debt for non-payment of rent-charge issuing 
 out of the land of which he is in occupation, nor 
 in the case of a rent-charge created for charitable 
 purposes is he liable in an action in the Chancery 
 Division at the instance of the Att.-Gen. or the 
 Charity Commrs. In re Heebagb Eents, Gkebn- 
 wiCH. Charitt Commes. v. Gbeen 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 811 
 
 — Tithe rent-charge. 
 
 See Tithe. 1, 2. 
 
 EENTS AND PEOriTS — Life-rent—" Opened" 
 mines. 
 See Mines. 14. 
 
 — Will — Construction. 
 
 See Will. 198. 
 
 EENTJNCIATIOK— Probate. 
 
 See Peobatb — ^Eemmciation. 
 
 • Promissory note. 
 
 See Bill op Exchange. 
 
 20. 
 
 BEFAIES — Artificial watercourse — Sluice-gate 
 — Obligation of owner to repair — ^Ease- 
 ment. 
 See Water. 37. 
 
 — Brewery business — Eepairs to tied houses — ■ 
 
 Income tax — Deductions. 
 
 See Ebvenue — Income Tax, 73. 
 
 — Building repaired by means of a soaffolding 
 
 — Compensation. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Compensa- 
 tion, 7. 
 
 — Copyholds — Customary obligation to repair — 
 
 Eemedy of lord against tenant's exe- 
 cutors. 
 See Copyhold. 3, 
 
( 1717 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1718 ) 
 
 KEFAIBS — continued. 
 
 — Cost of — Sale of sMp — Pre-existing maritime 
 
 liens — Division of purchase-money. 
 See Shipping. 215. 
 
 — Covenant to repair — Service out of j urisdiotion. 
 
 See Peaotice — Service. 206, 
 ^ Criminal suit against rector for non-repair of 
 chancel — Appeal — Jurisdiction. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 57, 59. 
 
 — Fence — Obligation of company to maintain. 
 
 See Eailwat — Fences. 6. 
 
 — Guardbox of stopcock — Supply under Water- 
 
 vrorks Clauses Act. 
 See Water. 16. 
 
 — Highway. 
 
 See Highway — ^Bepairti. 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Cases under Landloed and Tenant. 
 
 — Eeal estate — Trust for sale — ^Postponement of 
 
 sale — Absence of power to mortgage. 
 See Power. 6. 
 ^ Eeceiver, Property In hands of a — ^Duties. 
 See Keceiter — Insurance. 26, 27.- 
 
 — Boad taken over by local authority — Deter- 
 
 mination of trust. 
 See Charity. 23. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Sewer— Liability. 
 
 See Cases under LoNDO^^ — Sewers. 
 Sewers. 
 
 — Ship — Powers of managing owner. 
 
 See Shipping — Managingf Ovrner. 173. 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 Steeets. 
 
 — Tenant at will — Doing of repairs by landlord 
 
 — Determination of will. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 44. 
 
 — Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Tomb. 
 
 See Charity. 31, 32.. 
 
 EEPATMENT— Costs— Eeversal of judgment. 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 71. 
 
 — Fully paid-up shares — Alteration of rules — 
 
 Ultra vires. 
 
 See Building Society. 9. 
 
 — Mistake — Executor — Assets paid to oflScial 
 
 receiver without retaining debt. 
 See Executor — Betainer. 58. 
 
 — to Shareholders — Company practice. 
 
 See Company — Beduction of Capital. 
 247, 248. 
 EEPEAL— Statute. 
 
 See Statutes — ^Bepeals. 
 S,E¥LEVXS— Measure of damages— County Cmirts 
 Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), a. 120. 
 
 In the case of illegal and not merely irregular 
 distress, damages for illegal distress and for 
 annoyance and injury to credit are recoverable in 
 an action of replevin. Smith v. Bnright 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] W. N. 173 
 REPLY. 
 
 See Pbactioe— Beply. 
 
 BEPOBT— Judicial proceedings— Libel — Privi- 
 lege, 
 See Defamation. 17, 
 
 — Official receiver — Examination — Fraud. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Examina- 
 tion. 81. 
 
 — Official referee — Eeferenoe. 
 
 See Arbitration— Beferee. 45, 46. 
 
 — Speeches — Newspaper — ^Author. 
 
 See Copyright. 35. 
 
 — State of mind of alleged lunatic. 
 
 See Lunacy. 34. 
 
 — Survey as to manor made under statute — 
 
 Evidence — Admissibility. 
 See Common. 1. 
 BEPOBT OF CABOO. 
 
 See Shipping — Report of Cargo. 
 
 BEFBESENIATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 BEFRESENTATION OBSEB. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Parties, 
 
 BEPBESENTATIONS— Liability for, in absence 
 of fraud. 
 See Surveyor. 
 Valuer. 1. 
 
 — To lender by agent or borrower — Fraud — 
 
 Solicitor to both parties. 
 See Mortgage. 15. 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES— Action. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Parties. 
 " REPRESENTATIVES." 
 
 See Will— Words, 221. 
 
 REPUBLICATION— Codicil— Gift to attesting 
 
 witness — Solicitor — Profit costs. 
 
 See Will. 30. 
 REPUDIATION— Assurer's liability- Action for 
 
 declaration of liability before death of 
 
 assured. 
 
 See Insurance, Life. 20. 
 
 — By purchaser — Purchase-money payable by 
 
 instalments — Eight of vendor to retain 
 
 instalments paid. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 35. 
 
 — Concealment of identity of lender — Fraud — 
 
 Eight of borrower to repudiate. 
 See Contract. 20. 
 
 — Contract — Breach by one party — Eight of 
 
 other party to repudiate. 
 See Contract. 7. 
 
 — Contract — Condition precedent — Exchange 
 
 contracts. 
 
 See Contract — Construction. 9. 
 
 — Contract — Eepudiation — Purchase-money pay- 
 
 able by instalments — Omission to pay 
 last instalment — Specific performance — 
 
 See Vendob and Pueohaseb — Contract. 
 35. 
 
 — Forfeiture of shares — ^Prospectus — Fraudulent 
 
 misrepresentation. 
 
 See Company— Prospectus. 206. 
 
 — Infant — Settlement — Eatiflcation — Marriage 
 
 with foreigner — Change of domicil by 
 
 marriage. 
 
 See CoNPwcT OF Laws, 6. 
 
( 1719 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1720 ) 
 
 EEPTJDIATION— conimuei. 
 
 — Infant — Settlement by — Subsequent repudia- 
 
 tion — Married woman — Separate estate. 
 See Infant — Settlements. 42 — i5. 
 
 — Infant — Shares — Eight to recover. 
 
 See Infant — Contracts. 8. 
 
 — Infant borrowing member — Mortgage for 
 
 advances. 
 
 See BtnLDiNG Society. 7. 
 
 — Unauthorized action. 
 
 See Action. 5. 
 
 EEPir&NANCT— Absolute gift— Subsequent con- 
 dition. 
 See Will — Condition. 59. 
 
 — By-law — Betting in streets —Statutory enact- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Gamins. 11. 
 
 — Successive absolute limitations of personal 
 
 estate — Lapse. 
 See Will. 
 
 EEPUTATION—Bvidence— Admissibility. 
 See Common. 1. 
 
 EEPUTED OWNERSHIP— Bankruptcy practice. 
 See Cases under Bankkuptot — Order 
 and Disposition. 
 
 EEQUISITIONS ON TITLE. 
 
 See Cases under Vendok and Puechasbb. 
 
 EESEDOS — Communion table — Chancel plat- 
 form. 
 See KooLESiASTiCAL Law — Faculty. 36. 
 
 — Triptych — Painted panels — Sculptured 
 
 figures. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 39. 
 EES JUDICATA. 
 
 See Estoppel. 8, 9. 
 
 SESALE — Taking land for the purpose of local 
 authority — Statutory powers. 
 See Streets — New Streets. 15. 
 
 EESCISSION— Company— Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Contract. 
 
 See Contract — ^Bescission. 
 
 — Contract for sale. 
 
 See Vendor and Puechasee — Eescis- 
 sion. 60. 
 
 — Eeceiving order. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Eeceiving Order. 
 195. 
 
 — Separation order — " Fresh evidence " — Defini- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Husband and Wife — Summary 
 JTuriedictiou, 90. 
 
 EE-SEALINQ- — Administration — Intestacy — 
 
 Colonial grant. 
 
 See Probate. 63. 
 EESEEVATION— From grant— Bedrock and coal 
 
 neither having any commercial value — 
 
 Injunction. 
 
 See Mines. 23. 
 
 — Grant or — Eviction of grantee from part of 
 
 land— Apportionment of rent-charge — 
 Acreage or value. 
 
 See I{BNT-CHABQa). 1. 
 
 EESERVATION— coreMmted. 
 
 — Mines — Working power — Manorial rights. 
 
 See Inclosuke. 3. 
 
 EESEEVE FOECES. 
 
 See under Army and Navy. 
 
 EESEEVOIR. 
 
 See Water — Supply. 9. 
 
 — Tributary of river — Fishery distriot-;-Limits. 
 
 See Fishery. 6. 
 
 EESETTLEMENT — Compound settlement — 
 Title. 
 See Settled Land — Trustees. 132. 
 
 RESIDENCE — Bank manager at bank. 
 
 See Eevenue — Income Tax. 70. 
 
 — Foreigner — Security for costs. 
 
 See Costs — Security for Costs. 58. 
 
 — Poor — Settlement. 
 
 See Cases under Poor Law — Settlement. 
 
 — Will— Condition. 
 
 See Will— Condition. 61, 62. 
 
 EESIDENTIAL FLATS. 
 
 See under Flats. 
 
 EESIDENTIAEY CANON— Eight to vote. 
 See Parliament — Franchise. 42. 
 
 EESIDUAEY GIFTS. 
 
 See Cases under Will — ^Residue. 
 
 RESIDUE. 
 
 See Will — Residue. 
 
 RESIGNATION- Outgoing alderman — Eesigua- 
 tion of office — Office when vacant. 
 See Corporation. 7. 
 
 EESOLTJTION- Company— Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Meetings. 
 
 EE8TAUEANT KEEPEE. 
 
 See under Inn and Innkeeper. 
 
 EESTITTTTIO IN INTEGEXTM- Collision— Total 
 loss — Vessel in ballast under charter — 
 Measure of damage. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 56. 
 
 EESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL EIGHTS. 
 
 See Divorce — Restitution of Conjugal 
 Rights. 
 
 RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY— Current coin of 
 the realm — Larceny. 
 See Criminal Law — larceny. 41. 
 
 EESTEAINT— Action of— Co-ownership— Bond 
 for safe return — ^Forfeiture — Jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 See Shipping — Eestraint. 218. 
 
 EESTEAINT OF MAEEIAGE. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Marriage. 
 
 EESTRAINT OF PRINCES- Bill of lading — 
 
 Excepted perils. 
 
 See Shipping. 140, 141. 
 
 EESTEAINT OF TEADE— Jgreemenfsinresfo-atnt 
 • — Principles of construction. 
 
 Principles of construction of agreements in 
 restraint of trade considered. 
 
 (a) Mills v. Dunhak C. A. [1891] 1 Ch, 57Q 
 
( 1721 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1722 ^,) 
 
 Restraint op tr&.'D'e— continued. 
 
 (b) NoRDESrPELT V. Maxim Noedenfelt 
 Guns and Ammunition Co. (No. 1) 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 635 
 
 (c) Hatnbs v. Doman 
 
 C. A, [1899] 2 Ch. 13, 31 
 
 (r) In re Hollis' Hospital and Hague's 
 
 CoNTKAOT, Inre - - [1899] 2 Ch. 540, 553 
 
 2. — Agreement not to " carry on or he in 
 anywise interested in" business — Business carried 
 on by vendor's wife trading separately. 
 
 To constitute a breach of an agreement not 
 " to carry on or be in anywise interested in " a 
 business, the vendor must have an interest in 
 sucli business, not necessarily in the profits, but 
 fcuoh as touches him directly, and gives him some 
 right to interfere in, or some means of gaining an 
 advantage from, the business. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1891] 1 Ch. 209, 
 aflSrmed. Smith v. Hancock 
 
 C. A. (Kay L.J. dissent.) [1894] 2 Ch. 377 
 
 3. — General or partial restraint — Public 
 policy. 
 
 The nature and difference of covenants in 
 general and partial restraint of trade and the 
 rules of public policy with respect thereto con- 
 sidered. Nokdenfelt v. Maxim Nordenpelt 
 Guns and Ammunition Co. (No. 1) 
 
 H. E. (E.) [1894] A. C. 535 
 
 4. — General or partial restraint — Time or 
 space. Limitation as to — Public policy. 
 
 Where the covenant is general, i.e. without 
 qualification, it is bad, as being unreasonable aud 
 contrary to public policy. Where the covenant is 
 partial — that is, qualified either as to time or 
 space — then the question arises whether it is 
 reasonable or not. Whether the covenant is 
 unreasonable depends on whetlier the restraint 
 is or Ls not greater than can possibly be required 
 .for the protection of the covenantee. Where the 
 covenant is limited as to time, tlie burden lies on 
 the covenantor of shewing that the restraint is 
 tmi'easonable. B adische Anilin und Soda Fabrik 
 
 V. SCHOTT, SeQNEK & Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 3 Oh. 447 
 
 5. — General restraint — Covenant not to exer- 
 cise any business ,vjitliout consent of employer. 
 
 An employer cannot make his cousent a con- 
 dition precedent to liberty to enter upon other 
 employment of any sort. Therefore, a covenant 
 not to exercise any business without the consent 
 of the employer, even if coupled with a proviso 
 that it is not to be withheld except on engaging 
 in a rival business, though reasonable in respect 
 of distance and time, is void. Perls v. Saalpeld 
 C, A. [1892] 2 Ch. 149 
 Keferred to by C. A. Haynes v. Doman, 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 13, 25. 
 
 — Illegal objects — Expulsion of member — Juris- 
 diction— Injunction. 
 See Tbadb Union. 10. 
 
 6. — Measurement of distance — Agreement in 
 restraint of business — Solicitors — Within ten miles 
 — Points of measurement. 
 
 By articles of clerkship of Aug., 1895, the 
 .deft, agreed not to practise as a solicitor at I. or 
 •' any place within ten miles thereof," for a period 
 
 EESTBAINT OF 'SRA'D'E— continued. 
 of five years from the termination of the articles, 
 without the consent in writing of the pits. The 
 deft, had recently opened an office at N. where 
 he practised as a solicitor. N. being, as the pits, 
 alleged, within the prescribed radius of ten 
 miles, the pits, now moved for an injunction to 
 restrain the deft, from practising as a solicitor 
 contrary to the terms of his agreement. The 
 evidence as to the exact distance of N. from I. 
 was conflicting, but the case was argued on the 
 assumption that if the measurements were taken 
 from the deft.'s office to the pits.' office or to the 
 centre of the town of I., the deft, was outside the 
 prescribed radius, if from the deft.'a office to the 
 edge of the borough of I., within the radius : — • 
 
 Held, that within ten miles from I. meant 
 within ten miles from the borough boundary of I., 
 and that the deft, was therefore within the pre- 
 scribed radius, and the pits, were entitled to an 
 interim injunction. Cattle v. Thorpe 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 83 
 
 7. — Partial restraint — Coffee-house, Covenant 
 not to Tceep—Sale of refreshments by grocer — An- 
 cillary business. 
 
 A grocer covenanted in his lease not to use 
 the demised premises as a coffee-house : — 
 
 Held, that by selling tea, coffee, and other 
 light refreshments to his customers, he committed 
 a breach of the covenant. Fitz v. Iles 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Oh. 77 
 
 Commented on by Kekewich J. Ashby v. 
 Wilson, [1900] 1 Ch. 66. 
 
 8. — Partial restraint — Foreign carrier and 
 express agent — Covenant severable — Covenant not 
 to carry on similar business. 
 
 The deft., on entering the pU.'s service, wlio 
 were foreiga carriers and express agents at L., 
 covenanted not to carry on any similar business 
 within fifty miles of the pits.' places of business 
 for twelve months after leaving their service :— 
 
 Seld, (1) that the covenant was divisible; 
 (2) that the covenant was reasonable so far as it 
 related to the business actually carried on by the 
 pits, during the employment of the deft., but 
 unreasonable so far as it related to business 
 carried on after the service ended. 
 
 The principles on which the Court decides 
 whether a covenant in restraint of trade be reason- 
 able, considered. In this case the Court granted 
 an injunction to restrain the deft, from infringing 
 so much of the covenant as the pits, miglit reason- 
 ably require for the protection of their business. 
 Da vies v. Lowen Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 86 
 
 9. — Partial restraint — Guns and ammuni- 
 tion — Covenant not restricted in space — Transfer 
 of business — Public policy. 
 
 On the transfer of patents and business of the 
 manufacture of guns and ammunition it was 
 covenanted that the vendor should not for twenty- 
 five years act directly or indirectly in the business 
 of making guns and ammunition : — 
 
 Held, that the covenant, .though restricted as 
 to space, was valid, not being wider than was 
 necessary for the purchasers, having regard to 
 the nature of the business, nor injurious to public 
 interesls. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1893] 1 Ch. 630, affirmed. 
 
( 1723 3 
 
 btGflSt 01* CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1?M ) 
 
 BESTSAINT OF T'R&B'E— continued. 
 
 NOHDENFELT V. MaxIM NORDENFELT GuNS AND 
 
 AMMtiniTioN Co. - H. I. (E.) [1894] A. C. 635 
 Referred to by C. A. Buhowsid & Sons v. 
 
 Goldstein, [1896] 1 Q. B. 484. 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Bollis' Hospital 
 
 and Hague's Contract, [1899] 2 Ch. 540, 553. 
 
 10. — Partial restraint — Hotel— Mestaurant — 
 Covenant not to carry on " limilar Jmsiness." 
 
 The pits, granted a lease to the A. Co., who 
 covenanted not to carry on a business similar to 
 that carried on by E., another tenant of the 
 pits. E. was a hotel-keeper who carried on a 
 restaurant on his licensed premises. The A. Co. 
 had a restaurant where they sold tea, coifee, cold 
 meat, &c., but no hot meat except meat pies, and 
 this was not objected to. The A. Co. assigned 
 their lease to G., who proceeded to sell hot meat 
 and other things not sold by the A. Co. G. had 
 no licence for sale of intoxicants, nor a victualler's 
 licence; his establishment was of an inferior 
 class to E.'s, and bis prices much lower : — 
 
 Held, that the test of similarity was whether 
 G.'s business was sufficiently like E.'s to compete 
 with it, and that, although the business differed 
 considerably, G.'s business was similar to E.'s, 
 and that the pit. was entitled to an injunction 
 with a proviso that it was not to prevent G. 
 selling any articles sold by the A. Co. Dkew v. 
 Gut . _ - C, A. [1894] 3 Ch. 25 
 
 11. — Partial restraint — Infant — Milk carrier 
 — Covenant limited in space and time. 
 
 An agreement not to sell milk within a certain 
 
 area and period entered into by an infant is valid 
 
 and enforceable by injunction. Evans v. Ware 
 
 North 3. [1892] 3 Ch. 502 
 
 12. — Partial restraint — Malt liquors or 
 aerated waters — Covenant not to he concerned 
 in selling, within a certain district — Covenant 
 severable. 
 
 The deft., a traveller, employed by the pit., a 
 brewer, agreed not to be concerned in selling 
 malt liquors or aerated waters within a certain 
 district for two years after the determination of 
 his employment. The pit. never dealt in aerated 
 waters, or required the deft to obtain orders for 
 them : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the stipulation as to aerated 
 waters was severable ; (2) that the deft, must be 
 restrained fiom selling malt liquors wholesale 
 or retail, but not from selling aerated waters. 
 EOGERS V. Haddocks - C. A, [1892] 3 Ch. 346 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Underwood & Son, Ld. 
 V. Barlcer, [1899] 1 Ch. 300, 305. 
 
 13. — Partial restraint — Sale of business under 
 power of attorney — Covenant not to trade on sale of 
 
 Semble, an agreement not to trade is autho- 
 rized by a power of attorney to sell a business, 
 for a going concern cannot be sold to advantage 
 without such a stipulation. Hawkslby v. Outbam 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 359 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewioh J. Lloyd v. 
 NoweU, [1895] 2 Ch. 744. 
 
 14. — Partial restraint — Slaughter-house — 
 
 BESTBAINI OF TEADE — continued. 
 
 Covenant not to carry on offensive business — Quia 
 
 timet action. 
 
 The deft, was under covenant not to carry on 
 certain specified businesses (which did not in- 
 clude a slaughter-house) " or any other noxious, 
 noisome, or offensive trade or business." On an 
 application to restrain him from using the pre- 
 mises as a slaughter-house : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the trade in question was not 
 per se an oifensive one ; (2) the action was purely 
 a quia timet one, and it could not be inferred 
 that deft.'s business would necessarily be so 
 carried on as to be offensive. Eaplet v. Smart 
 Chitty J. [1894] W. N. 2 
 
 15. — Partial restraint — Soliciting customers- 
 Agreement not to deal with old customers — Beason- 
 ableness — Intention of parties. 
 
 An agreement for the employment of a tra- 
 veller provided that in the event of its termina- 
 tion he was not to " call upon or directly or in- 
 directly solicit orders from, or in any way deal or 
 transact business" with anyone who was a cus- 
 tomer of the pit. while the agreement was in 
 force :— 
 
 Held, that the agreement intended a restric- 
 tion on transacting business with such customers 
 of a kind similar to that carried on by the pit. ; 
 that this was not a greater restraint than was 
 necessary for the protection of the employers, and 
 therefore that the agreement was valid. Mills 
 V. DmsHAM - Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 576 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Haynes v. Boman 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 13, 31. 
 
 16. — Partial, restraint — Soliciting customers — 
 Covenant not to solicit customers — Assignment. 
 
 The pit. covenanted with the deft., an assist- 
 ant, that the assistant shoidd not solicit the deft.'s 
 customers. The pit. subsequently sold his busi- 
 ness and handed the deed to the purchaser, but 
 did not specifically assign the benefit of the 
 covenant : — 
 
 Held, that the benefit of the covenant was 
 assigned with the business. Batho v. Tunks 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 191 
 
 — Public policy. 
 
 See Nos. 4, 9, 17. 
 
 — Eeasonableness. 
 
 SeeaUoNos. 15, 17, 18. 
 
 — Eeasonableness — Conti act— Evidence of rea- 
 
 sonableness inadmissible. 
 
 See Master amd Sbrvast. 56. 
 
 17. — Eeasonableness — Pvhlic policy — Hay 
 and straw merchants — Covenant — Validity — Sea- 
 sonable protection of covenantee. 
 
 Pits., hay and straw merchants, at Brent- 
 ford, who carried on an extensive wholesale and 
 retail trade, in the United Kingdom, France, 
 Belgium, and Canada, and had permanent places 
 of business in the United Kingdom and France, 
 in October, 1897, agreed to employ the deft, as 
 their clerk and foreman, in Calais or elsewhere, 
 at a weekly wage of 35s. Deft, entered into 
 a covenant that he would not, for the space 
 of twelve months next after his leaving or being 
 dismissed, carry on the business of a hay and 
 straw merchant, or enter into the service of, or 
 act as agent for, any person or persons carrying 
 
( 172S ) 
 
 blGfiS* OF OAsfiS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1726 ) 
 
 SESTEAINT or TRADS— continued. 
 on the business of a hay and straw merchant, in 
 the United Kingdom, or in France, or in the 
 kingdom of Belgium, or Holland, or in the 
 Dominion of Canada. The defendant continued 
 in the pits.' employment until Nov., 1898, when 
 he voluntarily left them, and entered into the 
 employment of a rival hay and straw merchant 
 in London : — 
 
 Beld by C. A. (V. Williams L.J. dissenting), 
 that the restraint imposed on the deft, was not 
 unreasonable, at any rate so far as the United 
 Kingdom was concerned ; that the covenant was 
 not void on any ground of public policy ; and 
 that the deft, must be restrained from violating 
 his covenant : 
 
 Held, by V. Williams L. J., that the covenant 
 was unreasonable and invalid, and ought not to 
 be enforced by injunction. 
 Decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. 
 Per Lindley M.B. and Bigby L.J. : A covenant 
 in restraint of trade, which is not wider than is 
 reasonably required for the protection of the 
 covenantee, will not be held void on any ground 
 of public policy, unless some specific ground for 
 so holding it void can be clearly established. 
 But such cases are exceptional. 
 
 Per V. Williams L.J. : The old rule of law 
 that all covenants in restraint of trade are primS. 
 facie contrary to public policy, and therefore 
 void, has not been rescinded by recent decisions. 
 Undeewood & Son, Ld. v. Bakker 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 11 (7) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 300 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. Haynes v. Boman, 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 13, 24. 
 
 18. — Severable — Agreement whether — Validity 
 — Beasonableness. 
 
 By an agreement for the employment of the 
 deft, by the pits, in their business of dairymen, 
 the deft, agreed that he would not, during the 
 continuance of his service, or at any time there- 
 after, serve or solicit, or in any way interfere 
 with, any of the customers who should at any 
 time be served by or then belonging to the pits, 
 in the said business : — 
 
 Held, that the deft.'s agreement must be con- 
 strued as referring only to the business of dairy- 
 men as then carried on by the pits, in a particular 
 locality, and not to any other such business started 
 by them elsewhere; and, by Lord Esher M.K. 
 and Lopes L.J., tliat the agreement was severable 
 and was good with regard to customers of the 
 pits, who were such while the deft, was in their 
 service : 
 
 By Bigby L.J., and semble, by Lord 
 Esher M.B., the agreement was good, both with 
 regard to the above-mentioned customers and 
 with regard to customers who became such after 
 the termination of the deft.'s service with the 
 pits. DraowsKi & Sons v. Goldstein 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 478 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Underwood & Son, Ld. 
 V. Barker, [1899] 1 Ch. 300, 305. 
 
 19. — Severahle covenant — Contract of hiring 
 and service — Injunction. 
 
 By an agreement in writing H. agreed to 
 serve the William Kobinson Co. as confidential 
 clerk for five years from Jan. 1, 1895, the co. 
 
 EESTEAINT OF T'&A'DIi— continued. 
 having tlie option to renew the engagement for 
 five years more. The co. could dismiss H. at any 
 time by three months' notice. H. agreed that 
 during the term he would devote his whole time 
 and attention to the business of the co., and that 
 he would not during the engagement, without 
 the consent of the co., engage as principal or 
 servant in any business relating to goods of any 
 description made or sold by the co., or in any 
 other business whatever, upon pain of instant 
 dismissal. H. covenanted that if he should be 
 so dismissed he would not at any time within 
 tliree years from his dismissal be engaged directly 
 or indirectly as principal, agent, or servant in the 
 business of dealer in wares of the description 
 made by the co., within 150 miles of W. In 
 1898 H. left the service of tlie co. without leave 
 and became traveller to another firm carrying on 
 the same business. The co. applied for an in- 
 junction to restrain H. during the term of service 
 from carrying on as principal, agent, servant, or 
 otherwise, any business relating to goods of the 
 description made by the co., and from soliciting 
 orders for other firms. 
 
 North J. refused an injunction on the autho- 
 rity of Ehrman v. Bartholomew, [1898] 1 Ch. 
 671 :— 
 
 Held, on appeal, that, during the continuance 
 of the engagement, the agreement made by H. 
 with the CO. that he would not engage in any 
 business relating to goods sold by the co. was 
 valid though not restricted in point of space, and 
 that it was severable from the agreement not to 
 engage in any other business, and ought to be 
 enforced by injunction. An injunction was there- 
 fore granted as asked, but limited to the first 
 term of five years, the co. waiving their option to 
 retain H. in their service for another five years, 
 and the Court doubting whether the agreement 
 ought to be enforced for that further term. 
 William Kobinson & Co. v. Heueb 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 451 
 EESTEAINT ON ALIENATION, 
 
 See Will— Forfeiture. 92, 95. 
 
 EESTEAINT ON ANTICIPATION — Married 
 woman — Separate property. 
 See Husband and Wife — Eestraint on 
 Anticipation. 
 
 EESTEICTIVE COVENANT. 
 
 See Oases under Covenant. 
 
 " EESULT "—Costs to abide "result" of new 
 trial — Discretion of Court. 
 See Costs, 211. 
 
 BESULTING TBUST. 
 
 See Trust. 4, 5. 
 EETAINEB— Executor's right of. 
 See Executor — Betainer, 
 
 — Right of — Administration to creditor. 
 
 See Probate. 8. 
 
 — Bight of, to be abolished — Form of adminis- 
 
 tration bond — Practice. 
 See Probate. 8. 
 
 — Solicitor's right of. 
 
 See SoLiciTOK — Betainer. 
 
 — Statute-barred debt. 
 
 See Executor— Betainer, 60. 
 
C 172^ ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CJASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 C i72S ) 
 
 EETAINEB— contm«e(J. 
 
 — Trust property to satisfy annuity — Husband 
 
 and wife — Separation deed. 
 See Tbustee — Retainer. 99. 
 
 — Unauthorized investment — Conversion — Kate 
 
 of interest. 
 
 See Settled Land. 57. 
 
 EETAIHEKS OF COUNSEL. 
 
 See Bakristek. 
 
 EETIEEMENT— Membc r— Aoceplanee. 
 See VoLUNTAEY Association. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Coses under Trustee. 
 
 EETRACTATION — Eenunciation — Executor. 
 See Probate. 141. 
 
 — Eenunciation — Joint grant to three persons. 
 
 See Pkobate. 144. 
 
 EETEOSPECTIVE ACTS. 
 
 See Statutes — Eetrospectivity. 
 
 EETUENING OFFICEE— Conservancy election. 
 See Thames. 3. 
 
 — Parliament. 
 
 See PakliasIent — Eetuming Officer. 
 144. 
 
 EEVENUE. 
 
 Finance Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 7), amends 
 tlie law. 
 
 And see also ike references to Statutes, <£'o., 
 under the various Sub-headings of Revenue. 
 
 In General, col. 1727. 
 
 Account Duty, col. 1728. 
 
 Armorial Bearing', col. 1731. 
 
 Collection of Taxes, col. 1731. 
 
 Dog Licence, col. 1731. 
 
 Estate Duty, col. 1731. 
 
 Forfeited Recognizances, col. 1751. 
 
 Game Licence, col. 1751. 
 
 Government Annuities, col. 1751. 
 
 Gun Licence, col. 1751. 
 
 House Duly, col. 1751. 
 
 Income Tax, col. 1758. 
 
 Inhahited House Duty. See Ebvenue — • 
 House Duty. 
 
 Ijiventory Duty, col. 1778. 
 
 Land Revenue. See Land Eevence. 
 
 Land Tax, col. 1779. 
 
 Legacy Duty, col. 1780. 
 
 Licence Dttty, col. 1782. 
 
 Plate, col. 1783. 
 
 Practice, col. 1783. 
 
 Probate Duty, col. 1784. 
 
 Property and Income Tax. See Revenue 
 — Income Tax. 
 
 Stamps, col. 1787. 
 
 Succession Duty, col. 1806. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Grain duty. 
 
 See London — Grain Duty. 
 
 — Imported steel rails — Street railways. 
 
 See Canada. 20. 
 
 EEVENITE (In General) — continued. 
 
 Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896 (59 <fc 60 
 Vict. c. 36), s. S, fixed additional duty on certain 
 locomotives. 
 
 — Railways — Duty — Exemption — Third-class 
 
 passengers — Extra cljarge for reserved 
 
 carriage. 
 
 See Eailwat — Passengers. 21. 
 
 — Rates 
 
 See Cases under Rates. 
 
 Taxes Management.] Power to barristers 
 and solicitors to plead before the General Com- 
 missioners. See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 10), s. 16. 
 
 Tobacco.] Oil in Tobacco Act, 1900 (G3 & 64 
 Vict. c. 35), restricts the amount of oil in manu- 
 factured tobacco. 
 
 Tobacco ] Sale of, in omnibuses or tramway 
 cars. See Finance Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. v. 24), 
 .■!. 6. 
 
 Account Duty. 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 1. — Incidence — Gift withi7i twelve months 
 before death of donor — Residuary estate anil 
 donee — Account stamp duty — Succession duty — 
 Customs and Inland Revenue Acts, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. „. 12), ss. 38, 39 ; 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 7), 
 s. 11, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Under the Customs and Inland Revenue Acts, 
 1881 and 1889, account stamp duty in respect of 
 property given by a deceased person, within 
 twelve months before his death, to another, is 
 payable by the donee personally and not out of 
 the estate of the deceased. In re Fosteb. 
 Thomas v. Foster Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 48i 
 
 2. — Incidence of duty — Payment of account 
 duly — Specific appointees — Residuary appointee — 
 Customs and Inland Revenue Acts, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 12), s. 38, svh-s. 2 (c); 1889 (52 & 53 
 Vict. c. 7), s. 11. 
 
 By a will, certain specific sums were ap- 
 pointed to some of testator's children, and the 
 residue of the trust fund to another child. The 
 will contained no direction that the specificidly 
 appointed sums should be paid free of duty : — 
 
 Held, that the matter was one of intention, 
 and as the appointor had shewn no intention of 
 burdening the residuary fund with the whole 
 charge, each share must bear its proportion of 
 the account stamp duty. In re Croft. Deane 
 V. Croft Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 652 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Bourne, 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 188. 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Foster, 
 [1897] I Ch. 484, 487. 
 
 — Inventory duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevence — Inventory 
 Duty. 
 
 — Marriage settlement — Children of former 
 
 marriage— Volunteers. 
 See No. 9, beloio. 
 
 8. — Mortgage debt— Gift of personalty— 
 Benefit to " the donor " by contract or otherwise- 
 Account stamp duty — Customs and Inland Revenue 
 
( 1729 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1730 ) 
 
 EEVEN0E (Account Duty) — continued. 
 
 Acts, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. o. 12), ». 38, subs. 2 (a); 
 
 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 7), s. 11, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A mortgagee, B. his son, and 0. the mort- 
 gagors, made the following arrangement. B. 
 paid 0. a sum down and covenanted to pay A. an 
 annuity, and A. and 0. conveyed the mortgaged 
 hereditaments to B. freed from the mortgagp : — 
 
 Held, that under B. 38 (2) (a) of the Act of 
 1881, as extended by s. 11 (1) of the Act of 1889, 
 account stamp duty was, on the death of A., 
 payable by B. on the amount of the mortgage 
 debt. Att.-Gbn. v. Wobball 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 99 
 
 — Policy of insurance. 
 
 See Beventie — Succession Duty. 185. 
 
 4. — Power of appointment — Successive ap- 
 pointments — Account stamp duty — Administration 
 — Costs — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 12), s. 38, subs. 2 (o). 
 
 Where a person having a life interest and 
 power of appointment exercised it successively 
 by deeds and will : — 
 
 Seld, that the account stamp duty under the 
 Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, was 
 payable out of the several sums appointed 
 rateably. In re Shaw. Tucket v. Shaw 
 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 343 
 
 — Probate duty. 
 
 See Eevbnub — Probate Duty. 
 
 — Succession duty. 
 
 See Ebventib — Succession Duty. 
 
 5. — Voluntary settlement — Conversion of 
 realty into personalty — Customs and Inland 
 Revenue Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 12), «. 38, 
 sub-s. 2 (c). 
 
 In 1885, by a voluntary settlement, A. gave 
 real estate to trustees upon trust, at the request 
 of A. or his wife or the survivor of them, or after 
 the death of the survivor, at their own discretion, 
 to sell the same, and hold the proceeds on certain 
 (rusts. A. died in 1887 :— 
 
 Held, that the realty must be treated as con- 
 verted into personalty by the settlement of 
 1885, and inust therefore be included in an 
 account and charged with duty under s. 38 of 
 the Customs and Inland Bevenue Act, 1881. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Dodd Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. ISO 
 
 6. — Voluntary settlement — Instrument not 
 ffeet as a will —Customs and Inland 
 
 Revenue Acts, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. v. 12), ». 38 ; 
 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 7), s. 11. 
 
 By a marriage settlement H. transferred 
 personal property to trustees upon trusts, the ulti- 
 mate trust being for such persons as she might 
 appoint. The earlier trusts having failed, she by 
 deed appointed the property to her niece : — 
 
 Sdd, that the property so appointed was pro- 
 perty " passing under " the marriage settlement, 
 that the settlement and deed of appointment 
 constituted a voluntary settlement whereby a life 
 interest was reserved to the vendor within s. 38 
 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1881, 
 a,s amended by s. 11 of the Act of 1889, and that 
 duty was therefore payable. Att.-Gbn. v. Chap- 
 man _ _ _ Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 826 
 
 Referred to by Div, Ct, Att.-Gen. T. Bod: 
 
 EEVENTTE (Account Duty) — continued. 
 
 ington, [1897] 1 Q. B. 722, 732. This Case was 
 
 affirmed by 0. A., [1897] 2 Q. B. 373. 
 
 7. — Voluntary settlement — Partnership deed 
 
 — Customs and Inland Revenue Acts, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 12), ss. 38, 39; 1889 (52 * 53 
 Vict. c. 7), s. 11. 
 
 By a deed between G. and his partners, G. 
 was empowered to dispose of his share in the 
 business to any one of a limited class, such person 
 to be certified by the senior partners as quali- 
 fied. G. left his shares to his son who was duly 
 certified : — 
 
 Held, that the deed was a voluntary settle- 
 ment whereby a life interest was reserved in G., 
 within s. 38 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue 
 Act, 1881, and s. 11 of the Act of 1889, and that 
 duty was payable. Att.-Gbn. v. Goslinq 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 546 
 
 Eef erred to by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. v. Ellis, 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 466, 470. 
 
 — Voluntary settlement — ^Eeservation of interest 
 
 in property settled — Stamp duty on 
 
 accounts. 
 
 See Ebvenub — Inventory Duty, 117. 
 
 8. — " Voluntary transfer " — Joint purcliasers 
 of stoclc — Survivorship — Probate duty — Customs 
 and Inland Revenue Acts, 1881 (44 & 45 Viet, 
 c. 12), 8. 38, sub-s. 2 (6); 1889 (52 & 53 Vict, 
 c. 7), s. 11, svh-s. 1. 
 
 A. and B. bought stock, paying for it in equal 
 shares, and agreed that the survivor should take 
 the whole. B. died : — 
 
 Held, that the purchase of the stock was a 
 voluntary transfer of the stock by each to him- 
 self and his co-purchaser, and that account stamp 
 duty was payable under s. 38, sub-s. 1, of the 
 Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1881, on so 
 much of the stock as was purchased with B.'s 
 money. Att.-Gen. v. Ellis 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 ft. B. 466 
 
 9. — Volunteers — Marriage settlement — Chil- 
 dren of former marriage — Customs and Inland 
 Revenue Acts, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 12), «. 38 ; 
 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 7), s. 11. 
 
 A widow, who was intending to sell a busi- 
 ness to a CO. for shares, married again, and by 
 her marriage settlement it was agreed that of 
 these shares a certain number should be allotted 
 to her children by her former marriage, and the 
 remainder to trustees to pay the income to her 
 for life, and after her death to such of the 
 children of her former marriage as she should 
 appoint. The co. was duly registered and the 
 shares allotted in accordance with the settlement. 
 She died five months after the execution of the 
 settlement :' — 
 
 Held, that account duty was payable, since 
 the children of the first marriage were without 
 the consideration of the marriage, that the allot- 
 ment to the children was a " voluntary dis- 
 position," and since as to the other shares the 
 children took under a trust "in favour of a 
 volunteer." 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1895] 1 Q. B. 472, 
 reversed. 
 
 Newstead v. Searles, 1 Atk. 265, explained by 
 MqpJcie V. Eerbertson, (1884) 9 App. Cas. 303, 
 
 3 K 
 
( 1731 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1732 ) 
 
 EEVENUE (Account Duty) — continued. 
 and De Mestre v. West, [1891] A. 0. 264 ; Gale 
 V. GcOe, (1877) 6 Oh. D. 144, not followed. 
 Att.-GtEK. v. Jacobs-Smith 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 341 
 
 Armorial Bearings. 
 
 10. — Licence to carry armorial bearings — 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 14), 
 8. 19. aub-i. 18. 
 
 Seld, that a device upon a ring oonsisting of a 
 shield charged with a crowned lion rampant was 
 an armorial bearing in the sense of sub-s. 13 of 
 8. 19 of the Inland Eevenue Act, 1869. Milligan 
 V. OowAiT, (1896) 23 K. 731, 732 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W, N. 137 
 
 Collection, of Taxes. 
 
 — Estate duty — Collection and recovery of. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 30), SB. 6 et seq. 
 
 11. — Income tax and inhabited house duty — 
 Distress — Powers of collectors — Expiration of 
 collector's year — Taxes Management Act, 1880 
 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 19). 
 
 The collectors appointed in each year under 
 the Taxes Management Act, 18S0, to collect the 
 duties payable for the year have authority to 
 distrain for those duties if unpaid, although the 
 year has expired ; at any rate until they have 
 accounted for the duties given them in charge to 
 collect under Part YII. of the Act. Elliott v. 
 Yates - - C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 370 
 
 Dog Licence. 
 
 12. — Certificate of exemption — Duty of justices 
 — Offence not of trifling nature —Customs and 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 15), 
 «. 22— Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 
 Viet. a. 49), s. 16. 
 
 The respondent, the owner of a dog, having 
 applied to the Oommrs. of Inland Eevenue for a 
 certificate of exemption and been refused, de- 
 clined to take out a licence, and was summoned 
 before justices. The justices held that the 
 commrs. ought to have granted a certificate of 
 exemption, and that if the respondent had com- 
 mitted an offence it was in their opinion of so 
 trifling a nature that they would exercise the 
 powers given to them by s. 16 of the Summary 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1879, and dismiss the informa- 
 tion : — 
 
 Held, that the justices had no jurisdiction to 
 review the decision of tlie commrs. as to granting 
 or withholding a certificate of exemption, and 
 that the offence of refusing to take out a dog 
 licence was not an offence of a trifling nature to 
 which s. 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 
 1879, would apply. Phillips v. Evans 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 305 
 
 Estate Duty. 
 
 Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. e. 30), imposes 
 a new estate duty. 
 
 The following is a list of the Orders in Council 
 which have been issued, extending s. 20 of the 
 Finance Act, 1894-, to certain British possessions, 
 
 BEVENTTE (Estate Duty)— continued. 
 
 with the date of the Order and a reference to the 
 
 publication in which the Order is to be found. 
 
 Australia (South), May 11. St. E. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 243, p. 125. 
 
 Australia (Western). St. B. & 0. 1895, Ho. 368, 
 p. 126 ; 1896, No. 672, p. 89. 
 
 Bahamas, May 11. St. B. & 0. 1895, No. 244, 
 p. 125. 
 
 Barbados, June 29. St. E. & 0. 1896, No. 574, 
 p. 89. 
 
 Bermudas, May 11. St. E. & 0. 1895, No. 242, 
 p 124. 
 
 British Columbia. St. B. & 0. 1896, No. 958, 
 p. 90. 
 
 British Guiana, Feb. 22. St. E. & 0. 1896, 
 No. 55, p. 88. 
 
 British India, Feb. 2. St. B. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 60, p. 123. 
 
 Cape of Good Hope, Aug. 13. St. E. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 369, p. 127. 
 
 Ceylon, May 11. St. B. & 0. 1895, No. 244, 
 p. 125. 
 
 Falkland Islands, Oct. 3. St. B. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 372, p. 128. 
 
 Fiji, Aug. 24. St. B. & 0. 1895, No. 371, 
 p. 128. 
 
 Gambia, May 11. St. E. & 0. 1895, No. 242, 
 p. 124. 
 
 Gibraltar, July 16. St. E. & 0. 1895, No. 368, 
 p. 126. 
 
 Gold Coast, July 16. St. E. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 368, p. 126. 
 
 Hong Kong, May 11. St. E. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 244, p. 12S. 
 
 Jamaica, Aug. 3. St. B, & 0. 1897, No. 616, 
 p. 78. 
 
 Labuan, May 18. St. E. & 0. 1897, No. 657, 
 p. 78. 
 
 Lagos, July 16. St. B. & 0. 1895, No. 368, 
 p. 126. 
 
 Leeward Islands, July 16. St. E. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 368, p, 126. 
 
 Manitoba. St, B, & 0. 1896, No, 958, p. 90. 
 
 Natal, July 16. St. E. & 0. 1895,' No. 368, 
 p, 126. 
 
 New Brumwick, Feb. 26. St, E. & 0. 1897, 
 No. 177, p. 77. 
 
 New Zealand, Feb. 2. St. E, & 0, 1895, No, 59, 
 p. 122. 
 
 Newfoundland, March 8. St, E. & 0. 1895, 
 No. 137, p, 124. 
 
 Nova Scotia, Oct. 20. St. E. & 0. 1898, 
 No. 1064, p. 263. 
 
 Ontario. St. B. & 0. 1896, No. 969, p. 91. 
 
 Quebec, Jan. 15, 1897. St, B. & 0. 1897, 
 No. 84, p, 76, 
 
 Sierra Leone, Feb. 8. St. E. & 0. 1896, No. 30, 
 p. 87. 
 
 Straits Settlements, May 11. St. E. & 0. 1895, 
 No, 244, p. 125. 
 
 Tasmania, Oct. 13, St. B. ft 0, 1897, No. 772, 
 p. 79. 
 
( 1733 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1731 ) 
 
 EEVENUE (Estate JiVLtj)— continued. 
 
 Trinidad and Tobago, Aug. 13. St. B. & 0. 
 1895, No. 370, p. 127. 
 
 Vietoria, Feb. 8. St. R. & 0. 1896, No, 29, 
 p. 87. 
 
 Finance Act, 1894.] Bevemie— Rules dated 
 Nov. 26, 1895 (iJ. S. 0., Finance Act, 1894). 
 W. N. 1896 (Jan. 18), p. 35. 
 
 Begidations dated April 1, 1896, amending the 
 principal Regulations of 1893 in relation to tlieir 
 application to Scotland, the Isle of Man, and the 
 Channel Islands, in order to bring them into con- 
 formity with the Finance Act, 1894. Lond. 6az. 
 April 24, 1896, p. 2459. 
 
 Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 28), ss. 14- 
 24, amends the law respecting estate duty payable 
 on deaths. 
 
 Persons not sui juris not to be deemed competent 
 to dispose for the purpose of breaking settlements. 
 
 Settlement estate duty repayment. See Finance 
 Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 10), ss. 13, 14. 
 
 Finance Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 7), amends 
 the law. 
 
 Estate Duty.] Affidavits for death duty, 
 corrective statements need not be on oath. See 
 Finance Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Viat. c. 7), .. 13. 
 
 — Account stamp duty. 
 
 See Cases under Ebvenub — Account 
 Duty. 
 
 — Aggregation of property — Amendment of 
 
 Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Viot. o. 30), 
 s. 4, as to. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1900 (63 Vict. o. 7), 
 s. 12. 
 
 — Annuities, Estate duty on. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. 
 c. 28), s. 16. 
 
 13. — Annuity — Change of security — Finance 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (6) ; 
 s. 3, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The deft, was the owner of freehold estates in 
 the county of L., and he was also the tenant for 
 life of freehold estates in the county of D. The 
 L. estates were charged with the payment of an 
 annual jointure rent-charge. The person entitled 
 to this rent-charge, by agreement with the deft. 
 in 1883, released the L. estates, and the deft, in 
 consideration granted to her an annuity charged 
 cu his life interest in the B. estates, and secured 
 by policies of assurance on his life. On the 
 death of the annuitant the Crown claimed estate 
 duty from the deft, under s. 2 of the Finance 
 Act, 1894 :— 
 
 Beld, that the Crown was entitled to the duty, 
 since the transaction in 1883 was not the grant 
 of an annuity for full consideration in money or 
 money's worth paid to the grantor for Ms own use 
 or benefit within the meaning of s. 3 of the 
 Finance Act, 1894, but merely a transfer of the 
 security for the jointure rent-charge from the L. 
 estates to the D. estates. Att.-Gen. v. Smith- 
 Mabeiott Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 698 
 
 14. — Atmuity, Request of — Direction to raise 
 portions for grandeliildren — Limitation to persons 
 hy way of [succession — Settlement estate duty — 
 
 EEVENTTE (Estate Ji\jA,y)~continued. 
 Settled Land Ad, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. e. 38), 8. 2, 
 sub-s. I— Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), 
 8. 5, 8»5-8. 1 ; 8. 22, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A testatrix by her will bequeathed an annuity 
 to A., and directed that a portion of her estate 
 should be set apart to provide for the payment of 
 the annuity, and subject thereto she bequeathed 
 the said portion of her estate to B. : — 
 
 Held, that the property so set apart to provide 
 for the payment of the annuity was property 
 "standing limited fo or in trust for persons by 
 way of succession " within the meaning of s. 2, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Settled Land Act, 1882, and that 
 settlement estate duty was consequently payable 
 in respect of it. 
 
 A testator bequeathed his residuary estate to 
 trustees on trust to pay the income to his wife 
 for life, and after her death to pay an annuity to 
 each of his four daughters for life, and after the 
 death of each of his daughters to raise certain 
 named sums in trust for the children of such 
 daughter who should attain the age of twenty- 
 one years, or being females, should marry under 
 that age : — 
 
 HM, that the direction to raise the portions 
 amounted to a limitation in favour of the testator's 
 grandchildren to take effect upon the death of 
 his daughters, that there was therefore a succes- 
 sion in respect of such portions, and that settle- 
 ment estate duty was payable upon them; 
 Att.-Gen. v. Owen. Att.-Gen. v. Ooclson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899]2Q,B.253 
 
 Appeals.] Proceeding in appeals under the 
 Finance Act, 1894 (57 <fe 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 10. 
 County CouH Rules (Nov.) 1900. W. N. 1900 
 (Dec. 8), p. 325. See Current Index, 1900, 
 p. Izzviii. 
 — Apportionment of duty. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 0. 30), s. 14. 
 
 15. — Apportionment — Debt due on covenant in 
 settlement— Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. o. 30), 
 ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 14. 
 
 A father upon the marriage of his son cove- 
 nanted with the trustees of the son's settlement 
 that his executors or administrators should, 
 within six months after his death, pay to the 
 trustees the sum of 25,0002., to be held by them 
 upon the trusts of the settlement. The father 
 by his will devised and bequeathed to his trustees 
 (who were also his executors) the residue of his 
 real and personal estate, in trust for sale and 
 conversion, and out of the proceeds to pay his 
 funeral and testamentary expenses, debts and 
 legacies, and to hold the- residue upon- certain 
 trusts. After the father's death his executors 
 paid the estate duty upon the value of his estate 
 after deducting his funeral and testamentary 
 expenses and his debts, other than the debt of 
 25,000Z. :— 
 
 Held, that the estate duty in respect of the 
 25,0002. must, as between the executors and the 
 trustees of the settlement, be borne by the former. 
 In re Geat. Gbat v. Geay 
 
 North J, [1896] 1 Ch. 620 
 
 16. — Apportionment — Settled estate duty — In- 
 cidence — Apportionment between settled property 
 
 3 K 2 
 
( 1735 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 173G ) 
 
 EEVENUE (Estate Duty) — continued. 
 
 and residue — Finance Act, 1891 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 
 c. 30), ss. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 22. 
 
 When pecuniary legacies or shares of the 
 residue of a testator's personal estate are settled 
 by his will, no part of either the estate duty or 
 the settlement estate duty imposed by the 
 Finance Act, 1894, is to be borne by the settled 
 legacies or shares, but the whole of those duties 
 must be borne by the general residue. In re 
 "Webbek. Gbibble v. M'ebbeb 
 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 914 
 
 See now Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, 
 c. 28), s. 19. 
 
 See aUo In re Gibhs. Stirling J. [1898] 1 Ch. 
 625. 
 
 Disapproved of by C. A. In re Maryon- 
 Wilson, [1900] 1 Ch. 565. 
 
 17. — Apportionment — Settlement — Power of 
 appointment — Residue — Administration — Finance 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 14, mb-a. 1. 
 
 A donee of a power over settled property 
 appointed 35,000?. to one and the residue other- 
 wise : — 
 
 Held, that the 35,O0OZ was charged on the 
 property within the meaning of s. 14, sub-s. 1, of 
 the Finance Act, 1894, and that estate duty was 
 to be borne pari passu by the specific and re- 
 siduary appointees. In re Countess op Oreord. 
 Cartwright v. Due del Balzo 
 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 257 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. as to costs. In re 
 Hill's Settlement Trusts, [1896] W. N. 177 (1). 
 
 18. — Apportionment between settled property 
 and residue — Settlement estate duty — Meal estate^ 
 " Pass to the executor " — Finance Acts, 1894 
 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 5, svh-s. 1 ; ». 9, suh-s. 1 ; 
 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 28), 8. 19, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The testatrix gave real and personal property 
 to trustees upon trust to pay the income tbere- 
 from to her sister during her life, and subject 
 thereto upon such trusts and for such persons as 
 she (the sister) should by will appoint; and she 
 gave the residue of her real and personal estate 
 to trustees upon trust, subject to payment of an 
 annuity, for her sister. 
 
 All the death duties had been paid out of the 
 general residue, and the question was now raised 
 by originating summons whether the property 
 included in the first gift ought not to contribute 
 a rateable proportion of these duties : — 
 
 flcM, that the language of s. 9, subs. 1, of 
 tbe Finance Act, 1894, must be construed with 
 reference to the law as it stood at that time, and 
 not in accordance with the provisions of the 
 Land Transfer Act, 1897. Therefore, the real 
 estate did not " pass to the executor," and it was 
 charged with a rateable part of the estate duty. 
 The personal property did pass to the executor, 
 and the estate duty on it must, in accordance 
 with the decision in In re Webber, Grihble v. 
 Webber, [1896] 1 Ch. 914, be paid out of the 
 general residue. That case was still an authority 
 in respect of estate duty, although the law as to 
 settlement estate duty had been altered by the 
 Finance Act, 189G, s. 19, subs. 1, which provided 
 that settlement estate duty must be paid out of 
 the settled property. In this case the property 
 
 EEVENUE (Estate Duty)— co»itin«ed. 
 Included in the first gift was settled property 
 within B. 5, sub-s. 1^ of the Act of 1894. No 
 doubt the sister was not a " person not competent 
 to dispose of the property " ; but those words did 
 not apply to property " settled by the will of the 
 deceased." This was property settled by the 
 will of the deceased, and it must bear the settle- 
 ment estate duty. In re Palmer. Palmer ■c. 
 EosE INNES - - Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 9 
 
 But see In re Maryon-Wilson, [1900] 1 Cli- 
 565, No. 32, below, in which In re Webber, [1896] 
 1 Ch. 914, was disapproved of by C. A. 
 
 19. — Appropriated funds-r-Besidue — Bd>t on 
 incumbrance — Settlement — Finance Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), «. 2, sub-s. 1 (a); s. 6, 
 siA-s. 2 ; s. 7, sub-s. 1 ; e. 8, sub-ss. 3, 4 ; s. 9, 
 sub-ss. 1, 4, 5 ; s. 14. svh-s. 1. 
 
 By a post-nuptial settlement personal properlr 
 was settled in the events that happened upon 
 trust for the settlor for life, and after his death 
 upon trust that the trustees should appropriate 
 funds of a specified value to be held upon the 
 trusts thereinafter declared for the benefit of two 
 of the settlor's daughters and their issue, and 
 should stand possessed of the residue of the trust 
 premises in trust for the settlor, his executors, 
 administrators, and assigns ; — 
 
 Held, that the appropriated funds were not 
 voluntary incumbrances within s. 7, sub-s. 1, of 
 the Finance Act, 1894, upon property passing to 
 the executor as such of the deceased (in which 
 case the estate duty on the entire funds would 
 have had to be borne exclusively by the settlor's 
 residuary legatee), but that the provisions con- 
 tained in the settlement with regard to those 
 funds amounted to substantive settlements thereof, 
 and that the estate duty was payable rateably 
 out of the appropriated funds and the residue 
 according to tlieir respective values. Jn re Met- 
 BIOK. Meyrick v. Hargreaves 
 
 CMtty J. [1897] 1 Ch. 99 
 
 — British possession — Exception as to pro- 
 
 perty in. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 u. 30), s. 20. 
 
 — Collection and recovery of duty and value of 
 
 property. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 30), ss. 6 et seq. 
 
 20. — Contingent legacy — Contingent annuity 
 
 — Incidence — Settlement estate duty — Finance 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), ss. 5, 7, 9, 14, 22— 
 Finance Actf, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 28), s. 19 ; 
 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 10), s. 14. 
 
 The testator by his will gave certain legacies 
 and annuities, some of which were contingent 
 upon the legatees and annuitants attaining the 
 age of twenty-one. He directed that every 
 legacy and annuity should be primarily payable 
 out of his personalty, and charged his real estate 
 in aid, but not in exoneration, of his personalty 
 with the same, if the personalty should be in- 
 sufficient. He devised his real estate to the use 
 of his eldest son for life with remainders over. 
 He declared that if his residuary personalty 
 should be insufficient for payment of his funeral 
 an4 testaiflentary expenses, debts, legacies, and 
 
t l7S7 ) 
 
 Digest 01* cases, i89i— isoo. 
 
 ( 1738 ) 
 
 REV£lnjE (Estate Hnty)— continued. 
 annuities, the trustees might raise the deficiency 
 by mortgage of the real estate, but so that the 
 annuities should be paid out of rents and profits, 
 and not by raising a capital sum to provide for 
 the same ; and he charged the residuary person- 
 alty with the payment of the legacies and 
 annuities, and directed that the ultimate residue 
 of the personalty should be invested and should 
 follow the limitations of the real estate. After 
 the testator's death the executors had paid settle- 
 ment estate duty in respect of the contingent 
 legacies and annuities. There was a probability 
 that the personal estate would be insufficient to 
 pay the funeral and testamentary expenses, 
 legacies, and annuities. The question having 
 arisen as to how the settlement estate duty ought 
 to be borne as between the residuary estate and 
 the legatees and annuitants : — 
 
 Sdd, (1) that the contingent legacies must be 
 treated as settled, and, having regard to the 
 decision in In re Maryon- Wilson, [1900] 1 Ch. 565, 
 the duty must be borne by the legatees ; and (2.) 
 as regarded the annuities, that the decision in 
 Attorney-General v. Owen, [1899] 2 Q. B. 253, 
 applied to the personalty, and consequently the 
 anauitants must bear their proper proportion of 
 the settlement estate duty in accordance with 
 the rule laid down in In re Parher-Jervis, [1898] 
 2 Ch. 6i3. In re Duke of St. Albans. Lodbb 
 V. DnKE OF St. Albans 
 
 Stirling J, [1900] 2 Ch. 873 
 
 21. — Contingent settlement — Settlement estate 
 duty— Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. o. 30), s. 5, 
 suh-s. 1 (a)— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Viet, 
 c. 38), s. 2, svb-s. 1. 
 
 Property which is contingently settled is not 
 the less liable to settlement estate duty under 
 B. 5 of the Finance Act, 1894, because the con- 
 tingency may never arise. 
 
 A testator left his residuary estate in trust 
 for all his children who should attain the age of 
 twenty-one years, or being daughters should 
 marry under ttiat age, in equal shares, and 
 directed the trustees to retain the share of each 
 daughter and pay the income thereof to such 
 daughter for her life, and after her death to hold 
 it in trust for her children. The testator died 
 leaving two sons and one daughter surviving 
 liim, all being under the age of twenty-one years 
 and unmarried : — 
 
 Held, that as there was a chance of the sons 
 dying under the age of twenty-one, and of their 
 shares becoming subject to the trusts of the 
 daughter's settlement, settlement estate duty was 
 payable on the whole of the testator's residuary 
 estate. Att.-Gen-i;. Faielet 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 698 
 
 Adopted by Finance Act, 1898. See Att.-Gen. 
 V. Clarlcson, C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 156. 
 
 22. — Contingent settlement — " Settlement 
 estate duty"— Finance Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict, 
 c. 30), 8. 5. sub-s. 1 (a); s. 22, sub-s. 1 (h), («)— 
 SetUed Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, 
 stib-ss. 1, i— Finance Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict, 
 e. 10), «. 14. 
 
 Settled estate duty is, under s. 5, sub-s. 1 (a), 
 of the Finance Act, 1894, payable in respect of 
 property only contingently settled, though, under 
 
 EEVENTTE (Estate Duty) — continued. 
 
 s. 14 of the Finance Act, 1898, the duty will, if 
 
 the contingency does not and cannot arise, be 
 
 repaid. 
 
 Sect. 14 of the Finance Act, 1898, amounts to 
 an adoption by the Legislature of the construction 
 which was put upon s. 5, sub-s. 1 (o), of the 
 Finance Act, 1894, in Att.-Gen. v. Fairley, [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 698. Att.-Gen. v. Claskson 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 156 
 
 23. — "Disposition" — Exemption — Settle- 
 ment of personal property — Finance Act, 1894 
 (57 * 58 Viet. c. 30), «s. 1, 2, 21, sub-s. 1. 
 
 By the Finance Act, 1894, s. 21, sub-s. 1, 
 " estate duty shall not be payable on tte death 
 of a deceased person in respect of personal pro- 
 perty settled by a will or disposition made by a 
 person dying before the commencement of this 
 part of this Act, in respect of which property " 
 probate duty (amongst other specified duties) 
 "has been paid or is payable, unless in either 
 case the deceased was at the time of his death, or 
 at any time since the will or disposition took effect 
 had been, competent to dispose of the property." 
 Under a marriage settlement personal property 
 belonging to the wife became vested in trustees 
 upon trust for the wife for life, and after her 
 death, if her husband should survive her, upon 
 trust for the husband for life, and, after the death 
 of the survivor of them, upon trust for such 
 person or persons as the wife should by deed or 
 will appoint. The wife died in the lifetime of 
 her husband, before the commencement of the 
 Finance Act, 1894, having by her will appointed 
 the property in favour of certain beneficiaries, 
 and probate duty was thereupon paid by her 
 executors in respect of the value of the property 
 so appointed after deducting the value of the 
 husband's life interest. The husband died after 
 the commencement of the Act : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of Div. Ct., [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 722), that the settlement and will together 
 constituted a "disposition" by which the pro- 
 perty was settled within the meaning of s. 21, 
 sub-s. 1, and, therefore, that estate duty was not 
 payable on the husband's death in respect of the 
 value upon which probate duty had been paid. 
 
 By Eigby L.J. : Semble, estate duty was not 
 payable on the amount of the value of the 
 husband's life interest, probate duty having been 
 paid on the whole of the property. Att.-Gen. 
 V. DoDiNGTON - C. A. [1897] 2 Q,. B. 373 
 
 — Double or single duty — ^Legatees identified by 
 
 reference to will of another testator. 
 See EEVENnE-^Probate Duty. 
 
 — Enlargement of interest of settlor, Exception 
 
 to passing of property on. 
 See Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Yict. 
 0. 28), s. 14. 
 
 24. — Entail — Debt chargeable on fee of estate 
 — Bfynd and disposition in security — Expenses — 
 Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Fiet. c. 30), «. 9, 
 sub-B. e— Entail Amendment Act, 1868 (31 * 82 
 Vict. c. 84), 8. 11. 
 
 Under the Finance Act, 1894, the Commrs. of 
 Inland Eevenue are required to give a certificate 
 of the estate duty paid on property, and the 
 certiScate so granted is declared to be conclusive 
 evidence that the amount of the estate duty named 
 
( 1739 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1740 ) 
 
 REVENUE (Estate Duty)— continued. 
 therein is a first charge on the lands after any 
 debts that may have been allowed by the commis. 
 in assessing the value of the property. 
 
 Sect. 9, sub-s. 6, enacts, — " A person having a 
 limited interest in any property who pays the 
 estate duty in respect of that property shall be 
 entitled to the like chirge as if the estate duty 
 in respect of that property had been raised by 
 means of a mortgage to him." 
 
 Sect. 11 of the Entail Amendment Act, 1868, 
 gives power to an heir of entail in possession to 
 grant, with the authority of the Court, bonds and 
 dispositions in security for the amount of any 
 debts " which might lawfully be made chargeable 
 by adjudication or otherwise upon the fee of the 
 estate." 
 
 An heir of entail who had obtained certificates 
 of payment of estate duty and of settlement 
 estate duty presented a petition for authority 
 under s. 11 of the Entail Amendment Act, 1868, 
 to grant a bond and disposition in security over 
 the entailed estate for the amount so paid : — 
 
 Seld, that he was entitled to authority to 
 charge the fee of the estate by way of bond and 
 disposition in security for the duty paid, but not 
 for expenses incurred in settling the amount, nor 
 for the expenses of the petition. J. C. Laukie, 
 (1898) 25 Bettie, 636. 
 
 Ct, of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. N. 136 
 
 — Fee and life-rent — Succession duties. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Succession, 42. 
 
 25, — Foreign mortgages — Property situate out 
 of tlie United Kingdom — Legacy Duty Acts, Con- 
 struction of— Implied repeal of earlier liy later 
 statute— 5Q Qeo. 3, c. 56, s. 115 ; 5*6 Vict. c. 82, 
 «. 2— Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. v. 30), 
 «. 2. 
 
 A testatrix domiciled in Ireland died pos- 
 sessed of mortgages on freehold property situate 
 in the Colony of Victoria and in Switzerland. 
 
 The Finance Act, 1891, s. 1, imposes on the 
 property, real or personal, which passes on the 
 death of a person dying after the commence- 
 ment of the Act, a duty called " Estate Duty." 
 Sect. 2 (2) enacts that " property passing on the 
 death of the deceased, when situate out of the 
 United Kingdom, shall be included only if, under 
 the law in force before the passing of this Act, 
 legacy or succession duty is payable in respect 
 thereof, or would be so payable but for the 
 relationship of the person to whom it passes." 
 
 The Commrs. of Inland Eevenue having de- 
 cided that estate duty was payable in respect 
 of these mortgages, the executors presented a 
 petition under the Finance Act, 1894, to have the 
 question determined by the Court. It was con- 
 tended on behalf of the executors that estate 
 duty was not payable on two grounds : first, that 
 the mortgages were immovable property, situate 
 out of the United Kingdom, and therefore not 
 liable to legacy duty before the passing of the 
 Finance Act, 1894 ; and, secondly, that the mort- 
 gages were " estates and effects " out of Ireland, 
 and therefore exempt from duty under 56 Geo. 3, 
 c. 56, B. 115, which was still in force. 
 
 It was contended on behalf of the commrs., 
 first, that the mortgages were personal or mov- 
 able property, and therefore liable to legacy duty ; 
 
 EEVENtTE (Estate Dnty) — continued. 
 
 and, secondly, that 56 Geo. 3, c. 56, s. 115, was 
 
 impliedly repealed by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 82 : — 
 
 Seld, that the contention of the commrs. on 
 both points was correct, and that estate duty was 
 payable. Lawson v. Inland Eevenue Commrs., 
 [1896] 2 Ir. 418 Ex. Div. (Ir.) [1896] W. N. 145 
 26. — Foreigner — Succession duty — Disposi- 
 tion hy foreigner domiciled abroad — Property 
 situate ahroad- — Disposition to English company 
 on trusts enforceable hy English law — Finance Act, 
 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 30), «. i— Succession Duty 
 Ad, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 51), ss. 2, 7, 8, 16. 
 
 In 1892 a foreigner domiciled in Austria gave, 
 by a deed in the English language and form 
 to an English co., constituted under the Com- 
 panies Acts, and having its registered olEoe in 
 London, certain stocks, shares, and securities to 
 a large amount upon the terms and conditions 
 that the co. would permit the donor to receive 
 the income thereof during his life, and, after his 
 death, would apply the same, and any investment 
 substituted for them under the powers of the 
 deed, for the benefit of Russian Jews generally, 
 and principally for the promotion of the emigra- 
 tion of Eussiau Jews from Europe, and of their 
 settlement in various countries outside Europe. 
 The CO. had been formed to carry out the same 
 objects, and at the time of the execution of the 
 deed the various securities comprised therein were 
 transferred to the co. by the donor. The whole 
 of the oo.'s business was, under the articles 
 of association, transacted by a council which sat 
 at the principal ofiice of the co. in Paris. The 
 ordinary and extraordinary general meetings of 
 the CO. were held at their registered office in 
 London, but formal business only was transacted 
 there. In 1896 the donor, who was still domiciled 
 in Austria, died. At that time the principal part 
 of the securities subject to the deed were foreign 
 securities situate abroad, and the documents of 
 title thereto were abroad, a small proportion only 
 of the property subject to the deed being in 
 England. 
 
 Held (affirming the judgment of a Div. Ct. 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 556), that there was on the death 
 of the donor a succession by the co. within the 
 meaning of s. 2 of the Succession Duty Act, 1853, 
 and that therefore succession duty imder that 
 Act, and, consequently, estate duty under the 
 Finance Act, 1894, were payable upon the 
 principal value of all the property which was 
 subject to tlie trusts of the deed of 1892 at 
 the donor's death. Att.-Gen. ■». Jewish Colo- 
 nization Association C. A. [1900] "W. N. 269 
 — Fractions — ^Exclusion of, from value — Amend- 
 ment of Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 28), s. 27, as to. 
 See Finance Act, 1900 (63 Vict, c. 7), 
 8. 13, 
 Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict, 
 e. 25), f. 59. Estate duty to he paid when the 
 whole estate exceeds lOOi. 
 
 27. — Crift — Exclusion of henefit to donor — 
 Settlement— Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 30), s. 2, suh-s. 1 (c). 
 
 By deed in 1885 real and personal estate was 
 given^by the owner to the appellant subject to 
 an annual rent-charge issuing out of the realty, 
 
( 1741 )■ 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1742 ) 
 
 REVENUE (Estate J)Tity)— continued. 
 tlie appellant covenanting to pay the rent-cliarge 
 and all the funeral and testamentary expenses 
 and all the donor's debts at his death to the full 
 exhaustion of all his property. In the event of 
 the appellant's death in the donor's lifetime or 
 of any breach of covenant by the appellant the 
 donor had power to revoke the deed wholly or in 
 part : any revocation to be without prejudice to 
 any purchase or mortgage made before the revo- 
 cation. The donor released the rent-charge and 
 power of revocation by deed in Sept. 1894 and 
 died in Oct. 1894 :— 
 
 Held, that benefits having been reserved to 
 the donor, estate duty was payable upon all the 
 properly comprised in the deed of 1885 as pro- 
 perty passing upon the death of the donor within 
 the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894, ss. 1, 2, 
 sub-s. 1 (c). 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1898] 2 Q. B. 534, affirmed. 
 
 Babl Gket v. Att.-Gen. - ' H. L, (E.) [1900] 
 
 "W. N. 40 ; [1900] A. C. 124 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Ait.-Gen. v. De Pr^mlle, 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 223, 228. 
 
 See No. 42, helow. 
 
 — Gift within twelve months of death — Ademp- 
 tion — Advancement — ^Account. 
 See Will — Advancement. 21. 
 
 28, — Husband or wife. Property settled hy — 
 Exenvption ~ Postponement — Finance Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Viet. c. 30), 8. 21, sub-s. 5. 
 
 Property belonging to a wife was settled upon 
 trust to pay the income to the husband for life, 
 and after his death to the wife for life, and after 
 the decease of the survivor of them upon the 
 following trusts : if the wife should survive the 
 husband, then after his decease upon trust for her 
 absolutely ; but if she should die in his lifetime, 
 then after his decease upon such trusts as the 
 wife should by will appoint, and in default of 
 appointment for her statutory next of kin. The 
 husband died after the Finance Act, 1 894, came 
 into operation, leaving his wife surviving : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of Div. Ct.), that 
 s. 21, sub-s. 5, of the Act did not apply to a case 
 where the survivor of the husband and wife 
 became on the death of the other entitled, not to 
 the income only, but to the corpus of the property 
 settled, and that upon the death of the husband 
 estate duty became payable by the wife upon the 
 principal value of the property settled. Att.- 
 Gbn. v. Stbangb - C, A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 39 
 
 29, — Incidence — Express provision to the con- 
 trary — " All duties payable by law out of my 
 estate" — Settlement estate duly — Finance Acts, 
 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. a. 30), s. 5, sub-s. 1 (a); 1896 
 (59 & 60 Vict. V. 28), 8. 19, ««6-8. 1. 
 
 A testatrix who died in 1899, after giving a 
 specific legacy on trust by way of settlement, 
 directed that her debts, funeral and testamentary 
 expenses, "including all duties payable by law " 
 out of her estate, and including the duties on 
 certain annuities given by her will, and on all 
 legacies bequeathed by her duty free, should be 
 paid out of funds which she designated. She 
 then directed certain legacies to be paid out of 
 these funds free of duty : — 
 
 Held, that the special direction in the will for 
 
 BEVENUE (Estate Tiuiy')— continued. 
 payment of duties payable by law out of the tes- 
 tatrix's estate referred to duties which by law 
 were payable out of the general residuary estate 
 of the testatrix, and not to duties which by law 
 were made payable out of specific property, and 
 that therefore the direction did not amount to 
 such an express provision as was required by 
 s. 19 of the Finance Act, 1896, in order to make 
 the settlement estate duty payable otherwise than 
 out of the settled legacy : — 
 
 Held, accordingly, that the settlement estate 
 duty payable in respect of the settled legacy 
 must be paid thereout. In re Lewis. Lewis v. 
 Smith - - Kekewich J, [1900] W, K. 82 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Oh, 176 
 
 30. — Incidence — Legacy — Settlement estate 
 duty— Finance Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 30), 
 88. 5, 22 ; 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 28), ss. 19, 24, 39. 
 
 Sect. 19 of tbe Finance Act, 1896, is not 
 retrospective ; consequently the settlement estate 
 duty leviable in respect of a legacy settled by the 
 will of a person dying after the commencement, 
 of the Finance Act, 1894, but before the com- 
 mencement of the Finance Act, 1896, is still 
 payable out of residue in accordance with In re 
 Webber, [1896] 1 Oh. 914. In re Gibbs. Thobne 
 V. Gibbs - - Stirling J. [1898] 1 Ch, 625 
 
 Note.— Jn re Webber, [1896] 1 Ch. 914, was 
 disapproved of by C. A. In re Maryon-Wilson, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 565, See No. 32, beloio. 
 
 — Incidence — Settled estate duty — Direction to 
 pay testamentary expenses. 
 See Will — Testamentary Expenses, 
 205, 206. 
 
 31. — Incidence — Settlement not made by will 
 but by antecedent instrument — Settlement estate 
 duty— Finance AcU, 1894, 1896 (57 * 58 Vict, 
 c. 30, s. 5 ; 59 4 60 Vict. c. 28, s. 19). 
 
 By the marriage settlement of his daughter 
 in 1895 a testator covenanted for the payment of 
 25,000J. to the trustees thereof within six calendar 
 months after his decease "without any deduc- 
 tion." By his will he directed his trustees and 
 executors to pay the 25,000i. to the trustees of 
 tlje settlement : — 
 
 Held, that the obligation imposed upon the 
 testator's estate by the covenant was fully per- 
 formed when the sum of 25,000Z. was paid to the 
 trustees of the settlement without any deduction 
 in respect of estate duty, and that the settlement 
 estate duty was payable out of the 25,000?., and 
 not out of the testator's general residuary estate. 
 In re Mabyon- Wilson. Wilson v. Mabton- 
 WiLSON - - Kekewich J, [1899] W, N, 97 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch, 489 
 
 Eeversed on one point by 0. A, [1900] 1 Oh. 
 565. See next Case. 
 
 32. — Incidence — Settlement estate duty — Settle- 
 ment by deed inter vivos — Covenant by testator for 
 payment of a specified sum to trustees of settle- 
 ment after his death " without any deduction " — 
 Finance Acts, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), ss. 1, 2, 5, 6 
 sub-s. 2 ; e. 8, sub-ss. 3, 4 ; ss. 9, 14 8«&-s. 1 ; 
 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 28), s. 19. 
 
 A father on the marriage of his daughter 
 covenanted with the trustees of her marriage 
 settlement that his executors should within sis 
 
( 1?43 ) 
 
 DiGESt OFi CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( lIU ) 
 
 ftEVEHTIE (Estate DVity)— continued. 
 months after his death pay to them the snm of 
 2S,000J. " without any deduction," to he held by 
 them upon the trusts of the settlement. 
 
 By his will the father devised lands to trustees 
 for the term of 2000 years, upon trust to raise 
 thereout and fo pay to the trustees of the settle- 
 ment the 25,0002., with interest from his death. 
 
 On the death of the testator the Crown 
 claimed, under s. 5 of the Finance Act, 1894, the 
 payment of settlement estate duty in respect of 
 the25,O0OZ.:— 
 
 Held, that, independently of the words " with- 
 out any deduction" in the covenant, the settle- 
 ment estate duty must have been paid out of the 
 25,OO0Z. and not out of the testator's residuary 
 estate. 
 
 But, held, that, by reason of those words, the 
 settlement estate duty must be paid out of the 
 residuary estate, or that if the 25,0002. was raised 
 by the trustees of the term they must raise also 
 the settlement estate duty in respect of the 
 25,0002. 
 
 Decision of Kokewich J., [1899] W. N. 97 ; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 489, on the latter point reversed. 
 
 In re Webber, [1896] 1 Ch. 914, disapproved of. 
 In re Mabton- Wilson. Wilson v. Mabvon- 
 WiLSON - C. A. [1900] W. N. 57 ; 
 
 [190O] 1 Ch. 565 
 
 33. — Incidence — Specific and general legatees 
 — Customs and Inland Revenue Acts, 1881, 1889 
 (44 & 45 Vict. V. 12, «s. 27, 41; 52 <fe 53 Vict, 
 c. 7, s. 5). 
 
 The Customs and Inland Kevenue Act, 1889, 
 has made no difference in the payment of estate 
 duty as between specific and general legatees. 
 The principle is the same as with the old probate 
 duty, viz., that the duty (under s. 5) is not pay- 
 able by specific legatees so long as there is any 
 general residue out of which it can be paid. 
 In re Bourne. Martin v. Maetin 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 188 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. In re Countess of 
 Orford, [1896] 1 Ch. 257, 263. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Foster, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 484, 487. 
 
 34, — Incidence — Specific sum payable out of 
 policy moneys — Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 30),'s. 14, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Sect. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Finance Act, 1894, 
 has no reference to the incidence of the estate 
 duty, but is intended for the protection of the 
 executor or other person who is called upon to 
 pay the duty, by giving him a right to recoup- 
 ment. 
 
 The holder of a policy of assurance on his own 
 life for 5000Z. by his marriage settlement assigned 
 the policy to trustees upon trust to raise at hia 
 death 4000/. to be held on certain trusts, and as 
 to the remaining part of the policy moneys in 
 trust to pay the same to his executors : — 
 
 Held, that s. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Finance Act, 
 1894, was not applicable, and that the estate duty 
 on the fund must be borne by the part remaining 
 after payment of the 40002. Wade v. Wade 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 2 Ch. 276 
 35. — Insurance— Policy of life insurance— 
 
 EEVENTJE (Estate Tintj)— continued. 
 
 Settled property — Finance Act, 1894 (57 <fe 58 
 
 Vict. c. 30), S3. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 By s. 1 of the Finance Act, 1894, estate duty 
 is granted upon all property which " passes on 
 the death " of a person dying after the com- 
 mencement of the Act. By s. 2, " property pass- 
 ing on the death" shall be deemed to include 
 (sub-s. 1 ((2)) any annuity or other interest pur- 
 chased or provided by the deceased to the extent 
 of the beneficial interest accruing or arising by 
 survivorship or otherwise on the death. Sect. 3 
 exempts fiom estate duty property passing on the 
 death of the deceased by reason only of a boui 
 fide purchase from the person under whose dis- 
 position the property passes, where such purchase 
 was made for full consideration in money or 
 money's worth paid to the vendor for hia own use 
 or benefit. 
 
 A., shortly before his marriage, effected a 
 policy of insurance on his own life for a sum pay- 
 able on his own death to his intended wife, and 
 assigned the policy to the trustees of a settlement 
 made in consideration of the marriage. By that 
 settlement the principal moneys to be received 
 under the policy were to be held by the trustees 
 in trust for the wife for life and upon other trusts, 
 and A. covenanted to keep up the policy and pay 
 the premiums thereon daring his life. He duly 
 performed his covenant, and died after the 
 commencement of the Act, leaving his wife 
 surviving : — 
 
 ffeld, that the sum payable under the policy 
 on A.'s death was an " interest purchased or 
 provided by the deceased " within the meaning of 
 s. 2, sub-s. 1 (d) ; that the exemption from duty 
 contained in s. 3 did not apply ; and, therefore, 
 that on A.'s death estate duty was payable in 
 respect of that sum. Att.-Gen. v. Dobbee 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q. B. 442 
 
 — Interest upon estate duty. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, 
 c. 28), s. 18. 
 
 36. — Jointure — " Witliout any deduction what- 
 soever " — Settlement — Assessment of duty — Limited 
 owner— Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), 
 s. 2, sub-s. 1(b); «. 4 ; s. 7, sub-s. 7 ; «. 8, sui-s. 4 ; 
 8. 9, S116-SS. 1, 5, 6, 7 ; 8. 14, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Under a settlement made by a father and son 
 on the marriage of the latter, an estate was 
 limited to certain uses in strict settlement, in- 
 cluding a limitation of a jointure of 10002. a year 
 to the wife. A., in case she survived both father 
 and son, which event happened, such jointure to 
 be paid to her " without any deduction whatso- 
 ever except in respect of income tax." The 
 father, by a subsequent settlement made on hia 
 second marriage, appointed, under a power in 
 the former settlement, a jointure of 5002. a year 
 to his wife, B., if she survived him, which event 
 liappened, and charged the same upon the settled 
 estate, but there were no words of exemption as 
 in the case of the 10002. jointure. 
 
 Upon the father's death both jointures became 
 payable. 
 
 Held, as to A.'s jointure, that she was not 
 herself liable to pay the estate duty upon it, or 
 any interest on such duty, since the words " with- 
 out any deduction, &o.," constituted a contract of 
 
t 1745 ) 
 
 BIGEST OF CASES, 1891=-1900. 
 
 ( 1746 ) 
 
 REVENUE (Estate Hxity)— continued. 
 exemption and also amounted to an " express 
 provision to the contrary " within s. 14, aub-s. 1, 
 of the Finance Act, 1894 : 
 
 Seld, as to B.'s jointure, that she must be 
 treated as tenant for life of a sum equivalent to 
 the capitalized value of the jointure, to be ascer- 
 tained at the same number of ytais' purchase as 
 the estate as a whole was capitalized for the pur- 
 pose of duty ; and that she must be charged with 
 estate duty on that sum, but was entitled to throw 
 the duty charged against her upon the corpus of 
 the estate, on the terms of her paying interest 
 to the tenant for life or in tail or in fee in posses- 
 sion at the rate actually paid to the Commrs. of 
 Inland Revenue until payment of the duty, and 
 tliereafter at the rate' at which the dilty could be 
 raised by mortgage of the estate. 
 
 Under the Finance Act, 1894, the estate duty 
 on the estate passing on a debt is chargeable on 
 the estate as a whole, without regard to tenancies 
 lor life or other particular interests, tlie scheme 
 of the Act being that the duty shall be levied on 
 the inheritance and that the inheritance shall 
 bear it. In re Pahkek-Jebvis. Salt v. Lookek 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 2 Ch. 643 
 
 37. — Leaseholds — Will — Specific legates — 
 Primary charge — General personal estate — Title — • 
 Executor — Assent — Assignment — Finance Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 9, suh-s. 1. 
 
 As leaseholds specifically bequeathed are pro- 
 perty which by law passes to the executor as 
 such, the estate duty upon them under the 
 Finance Act, 1894, is payable out of the testator's 
 general personal estate, and is not primarily 
 charged upon them under s. 9, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The title to leaseholds specifically bequeathed 
 vests, upon the assent of the executor, absolutely 
 in the legatee, without any deed of assignment. 
 In re Culverhouse. Cook v Culveehouse 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 251 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J, In re Treasure, 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 648, 652. 
 
 — Legacy duty. 
 
 See Revenue — legacy Duty, 
 
 38. — Mortgage of settled property — Equity of 
 redemption — Annuity — Value of property passing 
 on death of tenant for life — Tenant for life and 
 tenant in tail — Finance Act, 1894 (57 <fe 58 Vict. 
 o. 30), s. 1 ; ». 2, sub-s. 1 (6) ; e. 7, sub-s. 5. 
 
 Father and son, tenant for life and tenant in 
 tail respectively, executed a disentailing deed by 
 which they granted the estates to a trustee to 
 hold freed from the estate tail to such uses as 
 they should jointly appoint. In exercise of that 
 power father and son mortgaged the estates in 
 fee simple to a co. as security for a loan, part 
 of which was advanced for the benefit of the 
 father and part for the benefit of the son. With 
 part of the loan prior incumbrances on the father's 
 life estate were paid ofi', and the co. took an 
 assignment of the debts and all the assignors' 
 rights and powers of recovery as further security 
 for the loan. Father and son then executed a 
 deed of resettlement by which the estates were 
 (Charged with an annuity to the son payable 
 during the father's life, and subject thereto were 
 declared to be held in trust for the father for 
 
 EEVENTJE (Estate Dnty)— continued. 
 life and after his death for the son for life with 
 remainders over. Upon the father's death in 
 1895 the Crown claimed from the son under the 
 Finance Act, 1894, estate duty upon the gross 
 value of the estates without allowing any deduc- 
 tion in respect either of the mortgage to the 
 CO. or of the annuity which ceased with the 
 father's life : — 
 
 Held, reversing on this point the decision of 
 the C. A. (in re Earl Cowley's Estate, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 355), that the case fell under s. 1 of the 
 Finance Act, 1894, that the settled property 
 which passed to the son on the father's death was 
 only the equity of redemption, and that estate 
 duty was therefore payable only on the equity of 
 redemption. 
 
 Held also, affirming the decision of the C. A. 
 on this point, that no deduction was allowable 
 in respect of the annuity. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1897] 2 Q. B. 47, 
 restored. Eael Cowley v. Inland Eevenub 
 OoMMRS. . H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 32 (5); 
 
 [1899] A. C. 198 
 
 Inapplicable. Alt.-Oen. v. De Fr^ville, C. A 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 223, 229. 
 
 EefeiTcd to by Div. Ot. Att.-Gen. v. Dobree, 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 442, 450. 
 
 — Non sui juris (persons) not to be deemed com- 
 
 petent to dispose for the purpose of 
 breaking settlements. 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. 
 c. 10), B. 13. 
 
 — Probate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Probate 
 Duty. 
 
 — Property passing on death — Amendment of 
 
 Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. o. 30), 
 as to. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1900 (63 Vict. c. 7), 
 s. 1] et seq. 
 
 39. — Property passing on death — Cesser of 
 annuity — Valv^ of benefit accruing — Finance Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), ss. 1, 2 (1) (6), and 
 7 (7). 
 
 The Finance Act, 1824, enacts, s. 1, that in 
 the case of every person dying after the com- 
 mencement of the Act, estate duty shall be levied 
 upon the principal value of all property which 
 passes on bis death. 
 
 Sect. 2 : "(1.) Property passing on the death 
 of the deceased shall be deemed to include .... 
 (6) property in which the deceased or any other 
 person had an interest ceasing on the death of 
 the deceased to the extent to which a benefit 
 accrues or arises by the cesser of such interest." 
 
 Sect. 7: "(7.) The value of the benefit 
 accruing or arising from the cesser of an interest 
 ceasing on the death of the deceased shall .... 
 (6) if the interest extended to less than the whole 
 income of the property be the principal value of 
 an addition to the property equal to the income 
 to which the interest extended." 
 
 The proprietor of an estate burdened it with 
 an annuity of 8001. in favour of his widow. The 
 succeeding proprietor burdened the estate with a 
 further annuity of 800Z. in favour of his widow, 
 restricted during the life of the first annuitant 
 
( 1747 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF CASES, 1§91— 1900. 
 
 ( 1748 ) 
 
 EEVEiraE (Estate Duty)— continued. 
 to 400Z., the balance of iOOl. being secured to tbe 
 second annuitant from movable estate left by 
 him. The second proprietor was survived by 
 both annuitants. 
 
 On the death of the first annuitant, held 
 (reversing judgment of Lord Stormonth-Darling), 
 that, in a question between the Crown and the 
 then proprietor, the duty payable by him was on 
 the capital value of an annuity of 800Z., although 
 he was actually benefited to the extent only of 
 an annuity of iOOl. Lord Advocate v. Mao- 
 LACHLAN, (1899) 1 Fraser, 917 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1900] "W. N. 204 
 
 See Finance Act, 1900 (63 & 64 "Vict, 
 c. 7), s. 11. 
 
 40. — Property passing on death — Devise to 
 issue of testator — Death of devisee in lifetime of 
 testator — Jsswe of devisee living at d^ath of testator 
 — Devise taking effect as if devisee had survived 
 testator— Wills Act, 1837 (7 Will. 4 and 1 Vict. 
 c. 26), s. 33— Finance Act, 1894 (57 '& 58 Tict. 
 e. 30), s. 1 ; s. 2, sub-s. 1 (a) ; s. 22, sub-s. 1 (l), 
 sub-s. 2 (a). 
 
 By the WUIs Act, 1837, s. 33, " Where any 
 person, being a child .... of the testator, to 
 whom any real .... estate shall be devised 
 .... for any estate or interest not determinable 
 at or before the death of such person, shall die in 
 the lifetime of the testator, leaving issue, and any 
 such issue of such person shall be living at the 
 time of the death of tbe testator, such devise .... 
 shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if the 
 death of such person had happened immediately 
 after the death of the testator, unless a contrary 
 intention shall appear by the will." 
 
 A father devised real property to his son, who 
 died in the lifetime of the father, leaving a 
 daughter, who was living at the death of the 
 father. The son devised his residuary estate to 
 trustees. This devise included the property 
 devised by the father's will, and took eifect by 
 virtue of the Wills Act, s. 33. On the death of 
 the father estate duty was paid on all the pro- 
 perty which passed on his death, including that 
 devised to his son. The Commrs. of Inland 
 Eevenue claimed estate duty on the property 
 devised by the son to the trustees. 
 
 On appeal by the trustees, under the Finance 
 Act, 1894, s. 10, to determine the duty pay- 
 able : — 
 
 Held, by Darling J., that the property was 
 property of which the son was, at the time of his 
 death, competent to dispose, and therefore was 
 property passing on the death of the son, within 
 the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894, s. 2, 
 sub-s. 1 (a) : 
 
 Held, by Channell J., that, as the Wills Act 
 gave the property to the devisees of the son as if 
 the son had survived the father, it gave it subject 
 to the same duties aa if the son had survived the 
 father : 
 
 Held, by the Court, that estate duty wag pay- 
 able by the trustees. In re Scott 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q. B. 372 ; affirmed by C. A. 
 [1900] W. N. 271 ; [1901] 1 Q. B. 228 
 
 *^- — Property passing on death — Interest 
 ceasmq on death— Surrender of life interest to 
 
 EEVENTTE (Estate Duty) — continued, 
 remainderman — Settled property — Finance Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), 8. 1 ; «. 2, sub-s. 1 (6). 
 
 The tenant for life of settled property with a 
 power of appointment appointed the property to 
 her son subject to her own life interest; by a 
 subsequent deed she surrendered her life interest 
 to the trustees of the settlement " to the end and 
 intent that such life interest may merge in the 
 interest in remainder of " her son ; and died more 
 than twelve months after : — 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the C. A., 
 [1898] 2 Q. B, 147, that the property did not 
 pass on the death of the tenant for life to the 
 remainderman within the meaning of the Finance 
 Act, 1894, s. 1, or s. 2, sub-s. 1 (6), and that estate 
 duty was not payable by the remainderman under 
 that Act. Att.-Gen. v. Beech 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1899] A. C. 53 
 
 Principle affirmed by Finance Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Viet. v;. 7). 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (E.) Earl Cowley v. 
 Ldand Eevenue Commrs., [1899] A. C. 198, 206. 
 
 Inapplicable. Att.-Gen. v. De Preville, C. A. 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 223, 229. 
 
 42. — Property passing <m death — Interest 
 ceasing on death— Surrender of life interest to 
 remainderman — Death of life tenant within twelve 
 months — Settled property — Finance Act, 1894 
 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 2, sul-s. 1 (c); ». 7, 
 sub-s. 7. 
 
 Where the tenant for life of settled property 
 has released the life interest in favour of the 
 remainderman and dies within twelve months of 
 such release, estate duty is not payable by the 
 remainderman on the principal value of the pro- 
 perty under s. 2, sub-s. 1 (c), and s. 7, sub-s. 7, of 
 the Finance Act, 1894. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct., [1899] 2 Q. B. 238, 
 reversed. Att.-Gen. v. De Pbeville 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 223 
 But see Finance Act, 1900 (03 & 64 Yict. 
 
 u. 7), a. 11. 
 
 43. — Property passing on death — Settlement — 
 Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 5S Vict, c 30), ss. 1, 2, 5. 
 
 By ss. 1 and 2 of the Finance Act, 1894, 
 estate duty is imposed upon property, real or 
 personal, settled or not settled, " wliich passes on 
 the death" of every person dying after the 
 commencement of the Act. By s. 5, sub-s. 3, 
 where the interest of any person under a settle- 
 ment fails before it becomes an estate in posses- 
 sion, "and subsequent limitations under the 
 settlement continue to subsist," the property 
 shall not be deemed to pass on his death. 
 
 By a marriage settlement personal property 
 belonging to the wife was settled upon trusts to 
 pay the income to her during the joint lives of 
 her husband and herself, and after the death of 
 such one of them as should first die, to pay the 
 income to the survivor during his or her life, and 
 if the wife should survive her husband, and there 
 should be no children of the marriage, then in 
 trust for her absolutely. There were no children 
 of the marriage. The wife survived her hus- 
 band, who died after the commencement of the 
 Act:— 
 
 Held, that on his death "subsequent limita- 
 
( 1749 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1750 ) 
 
 REVENUE (Estate Tiuty)— continued. 
 tions under the Bettlement continued to subsist " 
 ■within the meaning of s. 5, sub-s. 3, so that estate 
 duty -was not payable. Att.-Gen. v. Wood 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 102 
 
 — Eemission of death duties in case of persons 
 
 killed in war. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1900 (63 Vict. u. 7), 
 
 8. U. 
 
 — Eepayment of settlement estate duty. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 e. 10), s. 14. 
 
 44. — Reversionary interest — Settlement of — 
 Competency to dispose of property during continu- 
 ance of settlement — Settled property — Finance Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), «. 2, sub-s. 1 (6) ; 8. 5, 
 svh-s. 2. 
 
 The owner of an absolute reversionary interest 
 in settled personal property, who during the life- 
 time of the tenant for life makes a settlement of 
 his reversionary interest, reserving a life interest 
 to himself, is a person who was " during the con- 
 tinuance of the settlement competent to dispose 
 of" the property vrithin the meaning of s. 5, 
 sub-s. 2, of the Finance Act, 1894, and therefore 
 upoa his death estate duty is payable upon the 
 value of his interest, notwithstanding that estate 
 duty has previously been paid upon it at the 
 death of the original tenant for life. Att.-Gbn. 
 r. Hay - - Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 245 
 
 — Reverter of property to disponer. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. 
 c. 28), s. 15. 
 
 45. —"Settled Property"— Finance Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. 0. 30), e. 5, sub-s. 2. 
 
 By marriage settlement dated Oct. 7, 1861, 
 certain tmst funds were settled upon trust 
 for A., the husband, for life, with remainder to 
 B., the wife, for life, and after the death of the 
 survivor, then, in the event, which happened, of 
 there being no children of the marriage, upon 
 trust as to the capital of the funds for such 
 person or persons as the wife should appoint. 
 The wife died on March 14, 1897, and on 
 her death the Inland Kevenue claimed, and were 
 paid, estate duty on the value of her reversionary 
 interest in the capital of the trust funds. The 
 husband died on April 14, 1897, and the Inland 
 Revenue claimed duty on the entire funds com- 
 prised in the settlement : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of the Q. B. D.), 
 that the duty paid on the death of the wife was 
 in respect of " settled property " within the 
 meaning of s. 5, sub-s. 2, of the Finance Act, 
 1894, and that credit for it should be given as 
 regards the duty, which would otherwise have 
 been payable on the death of the husband. 
 
 Held, also, by FitzGibbon, Walker, and 
 Holmes L.J J., that the principle, which should 
 govern this case, having been already decided by 
 the English 0. A. in Att.-Gen. v. Dodington, 
 [1897] 2 Q. B. 373, the 0. A. in Ireland ought 
 not to differ from that Court on the construction 
 of a statute imposing taxation. In re Sttjddbet 
 AND THE Finance Act, 1894, [1900] 2 Ir. K. 400 
 C. A. (Ir.) [1900] W. N. 220 
 
 46. — "Settled property "—Life-rent— Dying 
 
 EEVENUE (Estate Duty) — continued, 
 without issue— Settlement estate duty— Finance 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 68 Vict. v. 30), ss. 5 (1) and 
 22 (1) (h) (i). 
 
 By his trust disposition and settlement a 
 testator directed his trustees to hold and apply 
 certain bequests for behoof of his three daughters 
 in life-rent, and for their alimentary uses alle- 
 nariy and their respective issue in fee, said fee to 
 be payable to such issue in such shares, at such 
 times, and subject to such conditions as to life- 
 rent and otherwise as the daughters should 
 appoint, and failing appointment equally. In 
 the event of any daughter dying without issue it 
 was provided that the share life-rented by her 
 should accresce to the surviving daughters and 
 their issue, and the issue of any predeceasing 
 daughter equally, but that, notwithstanding this 
 provision, any daughter dying without issue 
 should have power to test upon the share life- 
 rented by her for such purposes as she should 
 think fit. 
 
 In an action by the Crown againat the trustees 
 for an account of the property settled by the 
 deed, and for payment of settlement estate duty, 
 the defenders contended that the share of each 
 daughter was only settled in the event of her 
 leaving issue, as otherwise she had an absolute 
 power of disposing of the fee by will, and her 
 share would at her death be liable to estate 
 duty: — . 
 
 Held (affirming judgment of Lord Stormonth- 
 Darling), that the bequests in favour of the 
 daughters were " settled property " in the sense 
 of the Finance Act, 1894, and as such liable to 
 settlement estate duty under s. 5 of that Act. 
 Inland Revenue v. Stewart's Trustees, (1899) 
 1 Fraser, 416 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 198 
 
 — Small estates. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 30), s. 16. 
 
 — Succession duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Succession 
 Duty. 
 
 47. — "Succession" of a value exceeding 10,0002. 
 — Succession duty — Legacy Duty Act (36 Geo. 3, 
 c. 52), s. I'ir— Succession Vuty Act, 1853 (16 & 17 
 Vict. c. 51), 68. 1, 2, 10, 32 — Customs and Inland 
 Revenue Act, 1889 (52, d; 53 Yid,. c. 7), s. 5, 
 sub-ss. 1, 4, 5 ; s. 6, svh-ss. 1, 2, 4. 
 
 Estate duty under s. 6, sub-s. 1, of the Customs 
 and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, held to bo pay- 
 able on a fund of more than 10,000i!., vested in 
 the trustees of a marriage settlement in trust for 
 the wife for life, with remainder to the younger 
 children of the marriage. Att.-Gen. v. Lobd 
 Abbbdaee - Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 684 
 
 — " Testamentary expenses"— Direction to pay. 
 
 See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 
 205, 206. 
 
 — Value of property. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 30), S3. 6 et seq. ■ 
 
 — Will— Gift within twelve months of death — 
 
 Ademption — Advancement — Account. 
 See Will — Advancement. 21. 
 
C 17§1 ) 
 
 'kEY'E'SVE— continued. 
 
 Forfeited Becognizances. 
 
 48. — Fines and Amercements — Construction of 
 charter to corporation. 
 
 By a charter of Henry IV. the Crown granted 
 to the corporation of Nottingham " all fines for 
 trespasses and other offences whatsoever, and 
 also fines for licence to agree, and all amerce- 
 ments, ransoms and forfeited issues, forfeitures 
 year day waste and estrepement." 
 
 By a charter of Henry VI. the Crown granted 
 1o the corporation " all issues fines and amerce- 
 ments from whatsoever pledges and mainpernors " 
 of persons dwelling in the borough : — 
 
 Held, that under neither of these charters did 
 •i forfeited recognizance to appear to answer a 
 charge of felony or misdemeanour pass to the 
 corporation. In re Nottingham Cobpokation 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 Q. B. 603 
 
 Game Licence. 
 
 49. — Game dealer's licence — Foreign game. 
 An excise licence to deal in game under 
 
 23 & 24 Viet. c. 90, s. 14, is not required to 
 enable a person to deal in game which has been 
 killed abroad. Pudnet v. Eooles 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 52 
 IBut see now s. 2 of tlie Customs and Inland 
 Eevenue Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. c. 7).] 
 
 Oovernment Annuities. 
 Treas. Warrant, dated Jan. 5, 1899, under 
 s. 18 (1) of Revenue Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 46). St. E. & 0. 1899, Ko. 6. 
 
 Gnn Licence. 
 
 60. — " Vermin " — Babbits — Gun Licence Act, 
 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. u. 57), s. 7. 
 
 The Gun Licence Act, 1870, imposes a penalty 
 on any person using or carrying a gun without 
 having a licence, but excepts, inter alios, " the 
 occupier of any lands using or carrying a gun 
 for the purpose only of scaring birds or of killing 
 vermin on such lands " . — ■ 
 
 Held, that rabbits were not " vermin" within 
 the meaning of the foregoing exceptions. 
 
 Opinions of Lord Justice-Clerk Moncrieff and 
 Lord Gifford in Gosling v. Brown, (1878) 5 E. 755, 
 disapproved. Loed Advocate v. Young, (1898) 
 25 E. 778 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1899] W. N. 190 
 
 House Duty. 
 
 51. — Annual value — Full and just yearly rent 
 —House Tax Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. v. 36); 
 48 Geo. 3, v. 55, Sched. B. 
 
 The commissioners for inhabited house duty, 
 when assessing for tlie purposes of that duty a 
 house situate outside the metropolis, are not 
 bound by the assessment appearing in the poor- 
 rate book, but ought to receive independent 
 evidence to enable them to arrive at the annual 
 value. 
 
 Where a house is let to a brewer at one rent 
 and sub-let by him to a licensed victualler at a 
 lower rent upon the terms of the latter buying 
 all his beer from him, the full and just yearly 
 rent for the purposes of inhabited house duty is 
 
 DIGEST 01" CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1752 ) 
 
 EEVENTTE (House Duty) — continued. 
 not the lower rent paid by the sub-tenant io the 
 brewer, nor is it necessarily the higher rent paid 
 by the brewer to his lessor, but the commissioners 
 ought to receive evidence of the sum which the 
 house is worth let by the year as a free house. 
 Walkee v. Belsley. Geintee v. Fleming 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 a. B. 735 
 
 52. — Business premises — Messengers — Inha- 
 bited house duty— Exemption — Customs and Inland 
 Revenue Acts, 1878, 1881 (41 Vict. c. 15, s. 13, 
 suh-s. 2 ; 44 Vict. c. 12, s. 24). 
 
 An insurance co. who had been assessed to 
 inhabited house duty in respect of their offices 
 appealed on the ground that they were within 
 the exemption mentioned in s. 13 of the Customs 
 and Inland Revenue Act, 1878. The case upon 
 appeal set forth that the only persons who 
 occupied the premises at night were two messen- 
 gers whose duties were to lock up the premises 
 at night and open them in the morning, and in 
 the daytime to go on errands, attend in the lobby, 
 and perform various miscellaneous duties of a 
 similar nature. The case further stated that the 
 CO. "rested their appeal on the fact that the 
 messengers were servants absolutely necessary 
 for their business, not merely for the protection of 
 their premises." 
 
 Held, (1) that the words " for the protection 
 thereof" in s. 13, sub-s. 2, of the Act of 1878 
 applied to "servant" as well as to "other 
 person " ; (2) that this construction was not 
 modified by s. 24 of the Act of 1881 ; and (3) 
 that the co. were not within the exemption in 
 respect that the messengers did not reside in the 
 premises solely for the protection thereof. 
 
 Question, whether the exemption would apply 
 to the case of premises in which more than one 
 person resided, such persons being necessary for 
 the protection of the premises, and residing in 
 the premises solely for the protection thereof. 
 Foebes v. Standaed Life Assueasce Society, 
 (1894) 21 Eettie, 820 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. K. 117 
 
 — Collection of taxes— Inhabited house duty- 
 
 Powers of collectors. 
 
 See Eevenue- Collection of Taxes. 11. 
 
 — College — Hall or office. 
 
 See No. 56, below. 
 
 53. — College partly self -supporting — " Charity 
 school " — Exemptions — Hov.se Tax Act, 1808 (48 
 Geo. 3, c. 55), Sched. B., Exemptions, case 4 — 
 Inhabited House Duty Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict, 
 c. 36), s. 2. 
 
 A college, the endowment of which provided 
 for scholarships, prizes, and payment of salaries 
 of teachers, &o., and which charged fees from 
 the students, claimed to be exempt from the 
 duty :— 
 
 Held, that the liability to pay inhabited house 
 duty depended upon the character of the institu- 
 tion ; and that as the college was not primarily 
 intended for the supply of gratuitous education, 
 it did not come within the exemption in favour 
 of " charity schools " in 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, Sched. B. 
 Southwell v. Eoyal Hollow ay College, Egham 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B. 487 
 
 64. — " Different tenements " — House " let in 
 
( 1753 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1754 ) 
 
 REVENUE (House J)-aty)— continued, 
 different tenements " — Exemption — Customs and 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. e. 15), 
 s. 13. 
 
 By s. 13 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue 
 Act, 1878, where any house, being one property, 
 " shall be divided into, and let in, different tene- 
 ments," and any of such tenements are occupied 
 solely for the purposes of any trade or business, 
 or are unoccupied, the person chargeable as 
 occupier of the house shall be entitled to exemp- 
 tion from inhabited house duty in respect of any 
 tenements so occupied for purposes of trade or 
 business, or unoccupied. The respondents, being 
 lessees of a house, divided it into two tenements, 
 one of wliieh they occupied solely for the purposes 
 of their trade, and the other they sub-let to a 
 person who used it as his residence. Having 
 teen assessed to inhabited house duty for the 
 whole house, they claimed exemption in respect 
 of the tenement occupied by themselves : — 
 
 Beld, that s. 13 did not apply to exempt 
 them: — By Div. Ct., because the enactment 
 required that the tenement in respect of which 
 exemption was claimed should be let as a different 
 tenement, and the tenement occupied by the 
 respondents was not so let : — Also, by Kennedy J., 
 because the enactment only applied where the 
 whole house was let in different tenements, and 
 did not apply where a landlord let part of it in 
 different tenements and retained the other part 
 himself. HorDiNOT v. Home and Colonial 
 Stores - - Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 169 
 
 S6. — Hall — College — Inhabited house duty — 
 Exemptions — House Tax Act, 1808 (48 Geo. 3, 
 c. 55), Sehed. B., Rule V. — Inhabited House Duty 
 Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. Sa)— Customs and 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 15), 
 s. 13, suh-s. 2. 
 
 Held, (I ) that the Free Church Assembly Hall 
 and Free Church College were " halls or ofEces " 
 withia the meaning of Bule V. of Sched. B of 
 the Act 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, and, being charged for 
 poor and school rates, were liable to inhabited 
 house duty under the House Tax Act, 1851 ; and 
 (2) that the hall and college were not entitled to 
 the exemption conferred by the Customs and 
 Inland Eevenue Act, 1878, in respect that they 
 were not occupied for tlie purposes of a business 
 or calling, by which the occupier — the General 
 Trustees of the Free Church— sought " a liveli- 
 hood or profit." General Trustees of Free 
 Church op Scotland v. Bain, (1897) 24 E. 492 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 138 
 
 — Hall — College partly self-supporting. 
 See No. 53, above. 
 
 66. — Hall or office— Library. 
 
 By 48 Geo. 3, o. 55, Sched. B, r. 5, " Every 
 hall or office whatever belonging to any person 
 or persons, or to any body or bodies politic or 
 corporate, or to any company, thnt are or law- 
 fully may be charged with the payment of any 
 other taxes or parish rates, shall be subject to 
 the duties hereby made payable as inhabited 
 houses." That Act is repealed, but in the House 
 Tax Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 36), which 
 imposes a duty on inhabited dwelling-houses, 
 Sched. B is incorporated " so far as applicable 
 
 EEVENUE (House Huty)— continued. 
 and consistent with the express provisions of that 
 Act." On an appeal by the Society of the Middle 
 Temple against assessments of their hall and 
 library to inhabited house duty under the Act of 
 1851, 'it was admitted that neither the hall nor 
 the library have any internal communication 
 with any premises used as a dwelling-ljouse in 
 which any person resides or sleeps. Both hall 
 and library are chargeable to the poor-rate : — 
 
 Held, that the hall was a hall within the 
 meaning of Sched. B, and was assessable to in- 
 habited house duty, but tl]at the library was not 
 a hall or office within that sched. and was not 
 assessable. Styles v. Society op the Middle 
 Temple Div. Ct. [1898] W. K. 173 (5) 
 
 67. — Lunatic asylum — Charily — Self-support- 
 ing "hospital" — Exemptions — House Tax Act, 
 1808 (48 Geo. 3, a. 55), Sched. B, case 4 — Income 
 Tax, 1842 (5 <fc 6 Vict. e. 35), s. G[, r. 6. 
 
 A lunatic asylum supported chiefly by charit- 
 able endowments and subscriptions was managed 
 so tliat in one particular year the payments by 
 private patients and the sale of farm produce 
 paid all the expenditure : — 
 
 Held, that the asylum was a hospital main- 
 tained by charity within 48 Geo. 8, c. 55, Sched. B, 
 and was not to be considered as wholly self- 
 supporting because in one year it paid its way 
 without having recourse to charity. Cawsb v. 
 Nottingham Lunatic Hospital 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 585. 
 
 Approved of by Div. Ct. Southwell v. Royal 
 Holloway College, Mgham, [1895] 2 Q. B. 487, 
 493. See No. 53, above. 
 
 88. — Lunatic asylum — Self-supporting in- 
 stitution — Inhabited house duty — Exemption — ■ 
 48 Geo. 3, o. 55, case 4. 
 
 Case 4 of 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, exempts from 
 payment of inhabited house duty " any hospital, 
 charity school, or house provided for the recep- 
 tion or relief of poor persons." 
 
 A lunatic asylum, oiiginally founded by 
 charitable subscription, and which was governed 
 gratuitously, claimed exemption from payment 
 of inhabited house duty under the above rule. 
 The asylum was possessed of two mortifications, 
 out of which was paid in part the maintenance 
 of two indigent lunatics. The remaining inmates 
 were private patients who paid for their own 
 maintenance, and pauper lunatics, in respect of 
 whom payment was made by the District Lunacy 
 Board of a sum estimated to cover the cost of 
 their maintenance and clothing. The accounts 
 of the asylum shewed that for some years it had 
 maintained itself, and that a profit had been 
 made out of the board paid by both classes of 
 inmates : — 
 
 Held, that, as an institution, which was not to 
 any substantial extent maintained by charity, or 
 out of charitable endowments, the asylum was 
 not entitled to the benefit of the exempting rule. 
 MusGRAVB V. Dundee Eotal Lunatic Asylum 
 (1895) 22 Kettie, 784 - Ct. of Sess. (So.) 
 
 [1896] W. N. 138 
 
 59. — Fart as a dwelling-house and in part as 
 business premises, Entire house occupied by owner 
 in — Exemption — 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, Sched. B, r. 3 
 
( 1755 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1756 ) 
 
 EEVENUE (House Duty}— continued. 
 
 —57 Geo. 3, c. 25, 8. 1—5 Geo. i, c. 41, ». 4— 
 
 41 Vict. c. 15, 8. 3 (2). 
 
 Beld, following Scottish Widows' Fund Society 
 V. Solicitor of Inland Revenue, (1880) 7 E. 491, 
 and Glasgow and South Western By. Co. v. 
 Banks, (1880) 7 E. 1161, that the clauses in the 
 above statutes exempting from payment of in- 
 habited house duty a house or part of a house 
 assessed therefor, on proof that it is occupied as 
 trade or business premises, do not apply to an 
 entire house occupied by the owner in part as a 
 dwelling-house and in part as business premises. 
 
 Question, whether these cases were rightly 
 decided. Inland Eevenue v. Geant, (1898) 
 25 E. 1040 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1899] W. N. 195 
 
 This decision was reversed by H. L. (Sc.) 
 [1900] A. 0. 383. See next Case. 
 
 60, — Pvhlic-'house — Exemption in favour of 
 buildings occupied for trade only — 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, 
 Sched. B, r. 3,-57 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 1—5 Geo. 4, 
 c. 44, s. 4 — Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 
 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 15), s. 13, sub-s. 2. 
 
 By sub-s. 2 of s. 13 of the Customs and Inland 
 Eevenue Act, 1878, "Every house or tenement 
 which is occupied solely for the purposes of any 
 trade or business or of any profession or calling 
 by which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit 
 shall be exempted from the duties (on inhabited 
 houses) by the said commrs. upon proof of the 
 facts to their satisfaction." 
 
 The appellant was the owner of a building of 
 two storeys under one roof situate in Portobello, 
 Edinburgh. The ground-floor was occupied by 
 the appellant to carry on the trade of a licensed 
 retailer of spirits, and was numbered 49, Bath 
 Street. The upper storey was occupied by the 
 appellant as his dwelling-house, and was num- 
 bered 47,. Bath Street. Access to the dwelling- 
 house was by a door opening from the public 
 street and by a staircase from tkat door which 
 led up to the upper storey. Access to fco public- 
 house was by a different door also opening from 
 the street. There was no internal communica- 
 tion between the dwelling-house upon the upper 
 storey and the public-house on the ground 
 floor : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the Ct. of 
 Sess., Langston v. Grant, (1898) 25 E. 1040, that 
 the public-house was exempt from inhabited 
 house duty, and that the duty ought to be con- 
 fined to the value of that portion of the building 
 used as a dwelling-house. Grant v. Langston 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 126 ; [1900] A. C. 383 
 
 61. — Fuhlic-house — Hotel — Club — House let 
 in pari to a person holding a licence — 48 Geo. 3, 
 c. 55, Sched. B, r. 6 — Inhabited House Duty Act, 
 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. e. 36), Sched. — Customs and 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1871 (34 * 35 Vict. v. 103), 
 s. 31. 
 
 Eule 6 of Sched. B of the Act 48 Geo. 3, 
 c. 55, enacts, with regard to the duties on in- 
 habited dwelling-houses, that when a house is 
 let in parts to two or more persons, the house 
 shall be subject to the same duty as if let to 
 one person, and the owner shall be deemed the 
 occupier, and shall be charged with the duty. 
 
 The schedule of the Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 36, 
 enacts,— "For every inhabited dwelling-house, 
 
 EEVENUE (House Duty) — continued. 
 which, with" ofSces and gardens, "is or shall be 
 worth the rent of Wl.* or upwards, by the year 
 .... When any such dwelling-house shall be 
 occupied by any person duly licensed by the 
 laws in force to sell therein by retail, beer, ale, 
 wine, or other liquors .... there shall be 
 charged for every 208. of such annual value of 
 any such dwelling-house, the sum of Qd. ; and 
 where any such dwelling-house shall not be 
 occupied and used for any such purxrose, and in 
 manner aforesaid, there shall be charged for 
 every 208. of such annual value thereof the sum 
 of 9d!." 
 
 Sect. 31 of the Act 34 & 35 Viet. c. 103, enacts 
 that duty at the lower rate shall be charged for 
 every inhabited dwelling-house " which shall be 
 occupied by any person who shall carry on in 
 the said dwelling-house the business of a hotel- 
 keeper, although not licensed to sell therein by 
 retail " exciseable liquors. 
 
 The owner of a house let part of it to a hotel- 
 keeper, who was licensed to retail liquors therein, 
 and the remainder to a club, which had no licence. 
 The rent was above 60Z. 
 
 Held, that duty at the rate of 9(J. per \l. was 
 chargeable on the owner of the house, in respect 
 that he was to be deemed the occupier in the 
 sense of the statutes, and was not licensed to sell 
 liquors therein. M'DotiGALL v. Campbell, (1899) 
 2 Eraser, 244 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1900] W. K. 217 
 
 - — Public-house — Office occupied with certificated 
 house — Stables — ^Licence duty. 
 See Eevenue — licence Duty. 128. 
 
 62. — School buildings — Head and assistant 
 master^ houses — Occupier — -48 Geo. 3, c. 55, 
 Sched. B— House Duty Act, 1851 (14 * 15 Vict. 
 c. 36). 
 
 The governing body of a public school was 
 assessed to inhabited house duty, as occupier, in 
 respect of the houses of the head master and 
 assistant masters, and the chapel and other 
 school buildings, which were built for the use of 
 the school, and were used by all the boys at the 
 school, whether boarders in the masters' houses 
 or not. The head master paid no rent, but was 
 bound by the terms of his appointment to reside 
 in his house, and took in boarders. The assistant 
 masters paid rents less than the full annual 
 value of their houses, and took in boarders, and 
 resided in their houses as house masters. 
 
 On a, case stated under the Taxes Manage- 
 ment Act, 1880 :— 
 
 Held, that the head and assistant masters did 
 not occupy their houses as servants or agents of 
 the governing body, so as to make their occupa- 
 tion the occupation of the governing body, but 
 were themselves the occupiers of their respective 
 houses, and that the other school buildings were 
 not inhabited dwelling-houses, and therefore the 
 assessment was wrong. Chaetebhouse School 
 V. Gatleb - Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q, B. 437 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Clifton College v. 
 Tompson, [1896] 1 Q. B. 436. See next Case. 
 
 63. — Scliool buildings — Head master's house 
 
 * Note.- Increased to 60Z. by the Act 53 Vict, 
 c. 8, 
 
( 1737 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1758 ) 
 
 REVENUE (House Tiuij)— continued. 
 —Occupier— iS Geo. 3, c. 55, Sohed. B—U & 15 
 Vict. u. 36. 
 
 A CO. owning a public school, founded by 
 cbarter, was assessed to inhabited house duty in 
 respect of land and school buildings, and a head 
 piaster's house, garden, and stables, after allow- 
 ing for the value of ten out of eleven acres, 
 which were occupied as a garden and playground. 
 The premises were used for the purposes of the 
 school. The head master's house was held by 
 him under a lease, which would determine if he 
 ceased to hold his office. He resided in the 
 house and kept boarders there for profit, but was 
 not bound to reside in it. 
 
 On a ca,se stated under the Taxes Manage- 
 ment Act, 1880 :— 
 
 Held, that the head master, and not the co., 
 was the occupier of the head master's house, and 
 that the rest of the school buildings could not be 
 treated as inhabited dwelling-houses, and there- 
 fore the assessment was wrong. Olifton College 
 V. ToMPSON - - Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 432 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Charterhouse School 
 V. Gayler, [1896] 1 Q. B. 437. See preceding 
 Case. 
 
 Small Dwellings.] By the Customs and 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Viet. c. 25), 
 s. 4, tlie law as to liouse tax was amended in respect 
 of dwellings of small annual value. 
 
 — Stables — Licence duty — Public-house — Offices 
 occupied with certificated house. 
 See Kevbnue — Licence Duty. 128. 
 
 64. — Stables — Training stables — "Dwelling- 
 house" — Exemption — Souse Tax Act, 1808 (48 
 Geo. 3, c. 55), Sched. B, r. 2 — Inhabited House 
 Duty Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. e. SG)— Customs 
 and Inland Bevenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. 
 c. 15), 8. 13, suh-s. 1. 
 
 A trainer of raoe-horees occupied stables 
 which he used for the accommodation of horses 
 trained by him ; in one wing of the stables were 
 four rooms in which some of the stable-lads 
 employed by him slept. Close to the stables, but 
 outside the stable-yard, was a ten-roomed house 
 with domestic offices and garden, which was 
 occupied by the trainer's " head-lad." The stables 
 were included with the dwelling-house in an 
 (issessment to the inhabited house duty : — 
 
 Held, that the stables belonged to and were 
 occupied with a dwelling-house within the mean- 
 ing of 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, Sched. B, r. 2; that they 
 did not come within the exemption in s. 13, sub- 
 s. 1, of the Customs and Inland Kevenue Act, 
 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 15), in favour of premises 
 occupied solely for the purpose of a trade or 
 business ; and that the assessment was therefore 
 right. Lambton v. Kekb - - Div. Ct. 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 233 
 
 66. — Stables {Hotel) and coach-house — In- 
 habited house duties — House Tax Act, 1808 (48 
 Geo. 3, 0. 55), Sched. B, r. 2 — Inhabited House 
 Duty Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Viot. c. 36), Sched.— 
 Customs and Inland Bevenue Act, 1878 (41 Vict, 
 c. 15), 8. 13, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Held, that stables and a coach-house, which 
 were occupied in connection with the business 
 of a hotel by the hotel-keeper, but which were 
 
 BEVENUE (House Duty) — continued. 
 separated from it by a passage over which the 
 public had a right of way and three adjoining 
 feuars a servitude of passage, were not exempt 
 from inhabited house duty, but fell to be assessed 
 along with the hotel. 
 
 Douglas v. Young, (1879) 7 Eettie, 229, followed. 
 Smith v. Pbtkie, (1892) 19 Kottie, 405 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 95 
 
 Income Tax. 
 
 Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), 
 Part IV., makes alterations as to the assessment of 
 income tax and as to exemptions. 
 
 Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. o. 28), ss. 23- 
 30, makes alterations as to the assesstuent of income 
 tax, as to exemptions dnd as to appeals. 
 
 Finance Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 24), ss. 4, 
 5, amends the law as to exemption of income of 
 married woman. 
 
 Belief from income tax where income does not 
 exceed 7001. ; annual value of deduction in certain 
 cases ; power to landlords to pay income tax under 
 Sched. A. See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. 
 c. 10), ss. 7-11. 
 
 Taxes Management — Power to barristers and 
 solicitors to plead before the General Commissioners. 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 10), s. 16. 
 
 66. — Allotments — Common Allotment — Cor- 
 poration duty — Exemptions — "Charitable pur- 
 pose" — Inland Bevenue Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. 
 c. 51), B. 11, sub-ss. 2, 3. 
 
 Tlie profits of an allotment applied for 
 the freemen of a borough under a private in- 
 closure Act are exempt from duty under s. 11, 
 sub-s. 2, of the Inland Kevenue Act, 1885, but 
 the profits of an allotment so applied under an 
 agreement are not. 
 
 Income Tax Commrs. v. Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 
 531, followed. Inland Ebvenue Commes. v. 
 Scott. In re Bootham Ward Stkays, York 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 152 
 
 67. — Annuities — " Profits and gains " — Assess- 
 ment of — Life assurance — Income Tax Act, 1842 
 (5*6 Viot. c. 35), s. 100, Sched. D, case 1, r. 4; , 
 s. 102. 
 
 Where payments were made by a life in- 
 surance CO. in respect of annuities granted in 
 consideration of a single sum paid at the time of 
 granting the annuities, held that the annuities 
 were not paid out of " profits or gains," and were 
 not liable to income tax. 
 
 Decisions of Div. Ct., 24 Q. B. D. 360, and 
 C. A., 25 Q. B. D. 351, reversed. Gkesham Life 
 Assurance Co. v. Styles 
 
 H. L, (E.) [1892] A. C, 309 
 
 — Annuity — ^Whether a " deduction." 
 See Will — Annuity. 27. 
 
 68. — Annuity by way of alimony. 
 
 Where on dissolution of marriage an annuity 
 by way of alimony is ordered to be paid to the 
 wife, and such annuity is secured by deed, in the 
 absence of express provision in the deed the tax 
 must be paid by the annuitant, if not so secured, 
 quiere, by whom payable. If the trustee of such 
 a deed has paid the annuity free of income tax, 
 
( 1759 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1760 ) 
 
 EEVENUE (Income Tax.)— continued. 
 he is not entitled to deduct the past payments, 
 but only future payments of income tax. Waseen 
 V. Wabken - Kekewicli J. [1895] W. N. 72 
 
 — Balauce-sheets furnished for income tax assess- 
 ment — Production of documents. 
 See DisoovEET — Documents. 14. 
 
 69. — Banlcruptcy — Trustee in hanlcruptcy — 
 Assignment for ienefit of creditors — Profits made 
 hj trustee in carrying on part of insolvent debtor's 
 husiness — Income Tax Acts, Sclied, D. 
 
 A firm of worsted spinners, having a lease for 
 years of their business premises, generated steam 
 IMwer on part of those premises for the purpose 
 of driving tlieir spinning machines, and sub-let 
 another part, and supplied their surplus steam 
 power to the sub-lessees, and to others, at agreed 
 prices. The firm subsequently became insolvent, 
 and executed a deed of assignment of all their 
 real and personal estate, other than leasehold 
 property, to a trustee for the benefit of creditors. 
 The trustee thereupon occupied the part of the 
 premises wliich had been retained by the firm, 
 and, under the powers of the deed of assignment, 
 continued to supply the sub-lessees and the others 
 with steam power upon the same terms for the 
 purpose of realizing the firm's assets to the best 
 advantage. He did not otherwise carry on the 
 business of the firm. On the expiration of the 
 sub-lease the firm, by the direction of the trustee, 
 granted to the same underlessees a further under- 
 lease of the same part of the premises, and the 
 trustee continued to supply the steam power on 
 the same terms as before. The sums received by 
 the trustee for the steam power supplied exceeded 
 the cost of supplying it, though the whole 
 business carried on by the firm had been carried 
 on at a loss, and the assets realized by the 
 trustee had only produced a dividend of 88. in 
 the pound : — 
 
 Held, that income tax under Sched. D. was 
 
 payable by the trustee in respect of the profit 
 
 made by him in supplying the steam power. 
 
 Aemitage v. Mooke Div, Ct. [lEOO] W. N. 123 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 363 
 
 70. — Bank manager, Residence of — Abatement 
 under 400Z. per annum — Income Tax Acts, 1842 
 (5 (fe 6 Vict. c. 35), ss. 100, 146, Sclied. D, case 2, 
 r. 2, and case 6, Sched. E, r. 6; 1853 (16 & 17 
 Vict. c. 31), B. 2-^ Inland Bevenue Act, 1876 
 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 16), ». 8. 
 
 The value to a bank manager of his right or 
 duty to reside on the bank premises is not to be 
 considered as part of his " total income from all 
 sources " which may be assessed for income tax. 
 
 Decision of Ci. of Sess., Tennant v. Inland 
 Bevenue, (1891) 18 R 428; 28 Sco. Law Kep. 
 307, reversed. Tennant «. Smith 
 
 H. L. (8c.) [1892] A. C. 160 
 
 Followed by Ct. of Sess. M'Bougal v. Suther- 
 land, 21 E. 753. See [1896] W. N. 113. 
 
 Distinguished bv Ct. of Sess. Corlie v. Fry. 
 22 E. 422. See [1896] W. N. 128. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Att.-Oen. v. jBeec7i, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 147, 150. This case was affirmed 
 by H. L. (E.) [1899] A. C. 53. 
 
 71. — Benefit building society — Money lent to 
 borrowing member—" Interest of money " so lent— 
 
 EEVEHTJE (Income Taz) — continued. 
 
 Income Tax Act, 1858 (16 & 17 Vict. v. 34), s. 2, 
 
 Sched. D. 
 
 A benefit building society lent money to 
 borrowing members at a fixed rate of interest, 
 and took from them a security on their property. 
 The repayment of the loans was by weekly pay- 
 ments of a fixed sum, in respect of principal and 
 interest, the proportion of interest to principal in 
 each payment decreasing as time went on, and 
 the principal remaining due decreased. No 
 deduction was allowed to be made by the bor- 
 rower in respect of income tax. The society were 
 assessed to income tax under Sched. D. on the 
 interest they received, as being interest of money 
 within s. 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1853. On a 
 case stated : — 
 
 Held, that the expression " interest of money " 
 in s. 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, is not re- 
 stricted to annual interest, and that the interest 
 received by the society was not in respect of a 
 loan on land, but of a contract relating to interest 
 of money lent, and was therefore assessable in 
 their hands to the income tax. Leeds Pek- 
 MANENT Benefit BmLBiNG Societt ■». Mallan- 
 DAiNE C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 402 
 
 72. — Brewery — Deduction from profits of 
 brewery — Profits of trade — Brewers carrying on 
 business of bankers and money-lenders — Bad debts 
 on loans — Income Tax Acts, 1842 (5 <fe 6 Vict, 
 c. 35), s. 100, Schsd. D; 1853 (16 & 17 Vict, 
 c. 34). 
 
 The appellants carried on the business of 
 brewers, and also, as a branch or adjunct of their 
 brewery business, the business of bankers and 
 money-lenders, and in the course of such business 
 lent money to their customers on security, and 
 received money on deposit from their customers, 
 who were allowed to draw bankers' cheques or 
 orders on the appellants. In no case was any 
 loan or advance made by way of permanent in- 
 vestment, but the same was taken only in 
 connection with the current dealings and trans- 
 actions of the customer with the appellants, and, 
 in the event of such current dealings or trans- 
 actions terminating, the loan or advance was 
 required to be paid off, and the account closed. 
 The profits of the brewery were largely increased 
 by the addition of the banking and money- 
 lending business, and the loans were necessary 
 to enable the appellants to realize profits. They 
 claimed to deduct from an assessment to the 
 income tax on profits from trade, bad debts in 
 respect of loans to customers : — 
 
 Held (distinguishing Watney v. Musgrave, 
 (1880) 5 Ex. D. 241) that, on the facts above 
 stated, the appellants must be taken to have 
 carried on one business only, that the money 
 advanced to customers was used in the business, 
 and not capital invested, and that the appellants 
 were entitled to the deduction claimed. Eeid's 
 Brewebt Co. v. Male Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 1 
 
 73, — Brewery business-^Bepairs to tied houses 
 — Deductions — Balance of profits and gains — 
 Income Tax Acts, 1842 (5*6 Vict. o. 35), s 100 
 Sched. D ; 1853 (16 <fe 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 2, Sched. D. 
 
 The provision of s. 100, case 1, r. 3, of 5 & 6 
 Vict. c. 35, wliich authorizes a deduction in 
 estimating the balance of profits and gains of a 
 
( 1761 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 17G2 ) 
 
 EEVEinJE (Income ^a■x.)— continued. 
 trade, in respect of the expenditure on repairs 
 of "premises occupied for the purpose of such 
 trade," applies only to premises occupied by the 
 person assessed for the purpose of his trade. 
 
 The appellants, a firm of brewers, in order to 
 increase their trade, purchased licensed houses 
 ■which they let to tenants who contracted to buy 
 from them all the beer, wines, and spirits to be 
 sold therein. By reason thereof the appellants' 
 profits had been materially increased. The 
 repairs to these houses were executed and paid 
 for by the appellants, and they claimed in arriving, 
 for the purpose of the income tax, at the balance 
 of the profits and gains of their trade, to be en- 
 titled to a deduction in respect of the sum 
 expended on those repairs : — 
 
 Seld, that the appellants were not entitled to 
 any deduction in respect thereof. Bkickwood & 
 Co. V. Eetnolds - C. A, [1898] 1 Q. B. 95 
 
 74, — Cemetery— Income Tar, Act, 1842 (5*6 
 Viet. c. 35), «. 60, Sched. A, No. 3, BuU III. 
 
 A cemetery co. received from purchasers of 
 lairs, in lieu of annual payment, a lump sum for 
 keeping the lairs in order, the receipts bearing, — 
 " Received .... being the amount agreed to be 
 accepted by the directors .... for keeping in 
 order and dressing lair No in said ceme- 
 tery, from time to time, during each year in all 
 time coming." The co. having been assessed for 
 income tax on these sums as part of the annual 
 profits of the co., in an appeal the co. maintained 
 that they were not entitled to divide these sums 
 as profits, but were bound to retain them to meet 
 the obligations undertaken by them for all time 
 coming : — 
 
 Hdd, that the sums so received were assess- 
 able for income tax under Sched. A, No. 3, 
 Eule III., of the Income Tax Act, 1842. Paisley 
 Cemetery Co. v. Inland Bevenue, (1898) 25 E. 
 1080 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1899] W. N, 196 
 
 76. — Chaplain's salary — To he paid "without 
 any deduction or abatement for taxes" — Charitable 
 institution — Special Act (10 Geo. 4, c. xv.X ss. 22, 
 26— Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 A 6 Vict. c. 35), 
 s. 102, and Sched. E, rr. 1, 8, 6. 
 
 The Special Act passed in 1829 incorporating 
 a charitable institution provided that the salary 
 of the chaplain should not be less than 300Z. nor 
 more than 5001. per annum, and that the wardens 
 should pay it to him " without any deduction or 
 abatement for taxes or otherwise howsoever " ; — 
 
 Held, that the wardens were nevertheless 
 bound under the provisions of the Income Tax 
 Act, 1842 (5 & 6 "Vict. o. 35), to deduct income 
 tax from the chaplain's salary. In re The School 
 roE THE Indigent Blind at Livekpool 
 
 Byrne J. [1898] 2 Ch. 669 
 
 76. — " Charitable purposes " — Allowances — 
 Procedure — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 ife 6 Vict, 
 c. 35), Sched. A, s. 61, No. 6 ; ». 62. 
 
 In a case where an allowance which ought to 
 be granted is refused, mandamus lies to the 
 commrs. commanding them to grant the allow- 
 ance and to give a certificate of the allowance 
 with an order for the payment thereof : — 
 
 Eeld by the H. L. (Lord Halsbury L.C. and 
 Lord Bramwell dissenting), that the words 
 
 REVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. 
 " charitable purposes " in the Income Tax Act, 
 1842, Sched. A, s. 61, r. No. 6, were not restricted 
 to the meaniug of relief from poverty, but must 
 be construed according to the legal and technical 
 meaning given to thom by English law and by 
 legislation applicable to Scotland and Ireland as 
 well as England. Therefore the allowance ought 
 to be granted as to so much of a trust as applied 
 to missionary establishments. 
 
 Decision of C. A., 22 Q. B. D. 296, affirmed. 
 Commrs. fob Special Purposes op Income Tax 
 ... Pemsel H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 531 
 
 Followed by 0. A., [1892] 2 Q. B. 152. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Macduff, [1896] 
 2 Ch. 466. 
 
 Distinguished by 0. A. Cunnack v. Edwards, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 685. 
 
 Followed by Kokewioh J. In re Buclc, [1896] 
 2 Ch. 727. 
 
 77. — Charitable purposes — Assembly hall used 
 for church purposes — Exemption — Income Tax Act, 
 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. 35), s. 61, Sched. A, r. 6. 
 
 The Income Tax Act, 1842, Sched. A, r. 6, 
 provides for certain allowances to be made from 
 income tax, and, inter alia, on " the rents and 
 profits of lands, tenement?, . . . vested in the 
 trustees for charitable purposes," on proof before 
 the Commrs. for Special Purposes of the applica- 
 tion of the said rents and profits to charitable 
 purposes only. 
 
 The General Trustees of the Free Church of 
 Scotland having been assessed for income tax on 
 the annual value of their assembly hall under the 
 general rule of Sched. A, claimed exemption in 
 respect of the branch of rule 6 above quoted. It 
 appeared that the assembly hall was used for 
 church purposes, and was unlet and yielded no 
 rents or profits : — 
 
 Held, that the part of rule 6 founded on had 
 no application to the case, as the assembly hall 
 yielded no rent or profits. Maughan v. General 
 Trustees op the Free Church op Scotland, 
 (1893) 20 Eettie, 759. 
 
 Ct. of Ssss. (So.) [1896] W. N. 105 
 
 — Charitable trust — Exemption from duty — 
 Laws of New Zealand. 
 See New Zealand. 2. 
 
 78. — Church manse — Abatement — " Income " — 
 Established Church — Manse — Income Tax .4ci, 1842 
 (5*6 Vict. o. 85), e. 167, Scheds. A and E— Cus- 
 toms and Inland Bevenue Act, 1876 (89 & 40 Vict 
 c. 16), ». 8. 
 
 In a question between a parish minister and a 
 surveyor of taxes, held that the minister of a 
 parish is entitled to let his manse. 
 
 The Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1876, 
 s. 8, allows an abatement from income tax to a 
 person assessed when " his total income from all 
 sources " is less than 400Z. : — 
 
 Seld, that the annual value of a manse occu- 
 pied by a parish minister fell to be reckoned as 
 "income" of the minister in the sense of the 
 above section, in respect that he was entitled to 
 make it a source of revenue by letting itl 
 
 Tennant v. Smith, [1892] A. 0. 15&r-ftod 
 
 3 L 
 
( 1763 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1761 ) 
 
 EEVENTJE (Income T:a,x)—coidiiiuecl. 
 M-Dougal y. Sidlierland, (1894) 21 Eettie, 753; 
 [1896] W. N. p. 113), distinguished. Cokke c. 
 JTey, (1895) 22 Eettie, 422 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 128 
 
 79.' — ■Ghuroli manse — Abatement —^' Income" — 
 Official residence — Free Cliurch manse — Income 
 tax Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c.i35), s. 1C7, Seheds. A 
 and E — Customs and Inland L'erenue Act, 1876 
 (39 <fc 40 Vict. c. 16), s. 8. 
 
 The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1876, 
 s. 8, allows an abatement from income tax to a 
 person assessed when " his total income from all 
 sources " is less than iOOl. 
 
 Held, that the annual value of a manse occu- 
 pied rent free by the minister of a congregation 
 of the Free Church of Scotland, the feudal title 
 to which was in trustees for behoof of the con- 
 gregation, did not fall to be reckoned as " in- 
 come " of the minister in the sense of the above 
 section. 
 
 Tennant v. Smith, [1892] A. C. 1.50, followed. 
 
 3I'DouGAL V. Sutherland, (1894) 21 Eettie, 753 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 113 
 
 This case was distinguished in Corlce v. Fry. 
 See preceding Case. 
 
 — Collection of taxes. 
 
 See EEVENrE— Collection of Taxes. 
 
 80. — College — Bursar — Office or employment of 
 jirofit — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5*6 Virt. c. 35), 
 s. 146, Sched. E. 
 
 The bursar of a college, not being a member 
 of the corporate body, althcugh a necessary officer 
 of the college, is liable to duect assessment to 
 income tax. Langstos v. Glasson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 567 
 
 81. — Colliery — Deductions — Suhscriptions to 
 coal owners' association — Money wholly laid out 
 for purposes of trade — Income Tax Act, 1842 
 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, Sched. D, Hides applying 
 to First and Second Coses, rule 1. 
 
 The owners of a colliery were subscribers to a 
 coal owners' association, which indemnified its 
 subscribers against losses occasioned by strikes. 
 In returning the profits of the colliery for income 
 tax purposes they claimed to deduct the yearly 
 average excess of their contributions over tlie 
 amounts received by them as indemnities : — 
 
 Held, that the money sought to be deducted 
 was not money wholly and exclusively laid out 
 for the purposes of trade, and therefore the 
 deduction could not be allowed. Ehvjiney Iron 
 Co. V. FowLEK - Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B. 79 
 
 82. — Colonicd investments, Interest on — Income 
 Tax Act, 1842 (5 * 6 Vict. c. 35), Sched. D, 
 case 4, s. 102 — Customs and Inland lierenue Act, 
 1893 (56 * 57 Tict. c. 7), s. 5. 
 
 The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1893, 
 imposed income tax for the ye.ir 1893-94 upon 
 income chargeable under Sclieds. A, B, C, D, 
 and B of the Income Tax Act, 1853, and enacted 
 that provisions in any Income Tax Act in force 
 in the previous year should have full force and 
 effect " with respect to the duties of income tax 
 hereby granted." 
 
 An insurance society was assessed for income 
 tax for the year 1893-94 on the interest of colo- 
 nial investments not received in Great Britain, 
 
 REVENUE (Income Tslx)— continued. 
 but received and re-invested in the colonies, on 
 the ground that it was subject to assessment 
 under s. 102 of the Income Tax Act, 1842 :— 
 
 Held, (1) that if and in so far as s. 102 of the 
 Act of 1842 subjected to assessment income not 
 covered by the lettered schedules, it was not in 
 force for the year 1893-94 ; and (2.) that s. 102 
 did not impose duties, but merely contained 
 provisions as to the duties granted in the 
 schedules. 
 
 "Where interest derived from the colonial in- 
 vestments of a society for mutual insurance was 
 not remitted home, but was re-invested abroad, 
 held that, by being entered in the society's 
 accounts, it was not constr actively remitted to 
 this country so as to be chargeable with duty 
 under case i of Sched. T> of the Income Tax Act, 
 1842. FoEBEs V. Scottish Pkovident Institu- 
 tion, (1895) 23 Eettie, 323 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 122 
 
 — Company — Director — Damages for mis- 
 feasance — Interest. 
 See COMPANT — Director. 120. 
 
 83. — Company — "Foreign possessions" — 
 Profits earned abroad and not remitted. — Income 
 Tax Acts, 1842, 1853 (5 (fe 6 Vict. c. 35, s. 100; 
 16 * 17 Vict. c. 34, s. 2, Sched. D). 
 
 Where the head office of a co. was in London, 
 and part of the business was carried on in this 
 country, the fact that a portion of the profits 
 earned abroad was not remitted : — 
 
 Held, not to exempt the co. from liability to 
 pay income tax on such portion. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1891] 1 Q. B. 383, 
 affirmed. London Bank of JMexico and South 
 America v. Apthoepe C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 378 
 
 Followed by 0. A. San Paulo (^Brazilian) 
 My. Co. V. Carter, [1895] 1 Q. B. 580. This Case 
 was affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 31. See 
 next Case. 
 
 84. — Company — " Foreign possessions " — 
 Trade carried on partly in United Kingdom, 
 partly abroad — Company resident in United- 
 Kingdom — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 tt 6 Vict, 
 c. 35), s. 100, Sched. D, \st and oth cases. 
 
 Where a trade is carried on either wholly in 
 the United Kingdom or partly within and partly 
 outside it, and profits accrue therefrom to a 
 person or a corporation residing in the United 
 Kingdom, the assessment for income tax falls 
 under the 1st ease of Sched. D of 5 & 6 Vict. 
 c. 35, s. 100, and does not fall under the 5th case, 
 and the duty is to be computed upon the full 
 amount of the balance of the profits or gains of 
 the trade, and not only upon the actual sums 
 annually received in the United Kingdom. A 
 CO. registered under the Companies Acts, whose 
 registered office was in England, were the pro- 
 prietors of a ry. in Brazil. The working of the 
 ry. was under the control and direction of, and 
 the business of the co. was managed by, the 
 directors in England. The directors purchased 
 in England and sent out to Brazil the materials 
 and plant necessary for the purposes of the ry. 
 The accounts were kept and the balance-sheet 
 and reports were made out in London, where also 
 the meetings were held, and all dividends were 
 
( 1765 ) 
 
 DIGEST 0? CASES, 1891—1900 
 
 ( 1766 ) 
 
 IREVBNTTE (lucome Tax)— oojiimuer?. 
 declared and paid. "With the exception of certain 
 small amounts for transfer fees and annual 
 interest on money, the whole revenue of the co. 
 arose from moneys paid to them ia Brazil for the 
 ■carriage of passengers and goods on the ry. and 
 for other matters connected with the ry. : — 
 
 Held, that it was not necessary to decide the 
 question whether the business of the oo. was 
 carried on wholly in the United Kingdom, since 
 it was clearly carried on partly in England and 
 not (as in Golqylioun v. Broolts, (3889) 14 
 App. Gas. 493) wholly outside the United King- 
 dom ; and tiiat the co. were therefore assessable 
 to income tax, under the 1st case of Sohed. D of 
 5 & 6 Vict. 0. 35, s. 100, upon the full amount 
 of the balance of the profits or gains of their 
 '■business, and not, under the 5th case, only upon 
 "the actual sums annually received in the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 1 Q. B. 580, affirmed. 
 San Paulo (Beazilian) Et. Co. v. Carter 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 31 
 
 85. — Company — Investment trust company — ■ 
 Profits or gains — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 ifc 6 
 Tict. c. 35), Sched. D, First Case. 
 
 The memorandum of association of a co. 
 ■stated that its objects were to raise money by 
 •share capital and invest the same in stocts and 
 shares, to vary " the investments of the co., and 
 generally to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose 
 ■of, deal with, or turn to account any of the assets 
 ■of the 00." : — 
 
 Held, that gains made by the co. by realizing 
 investments at larger prices than those paid for 
 them were to be reckoned as " profits and gains " 
 •of the CO., in the sense of the Income Tax Act, 
 1842, Sched. D. Scottish Investment Trust 
 ■Co. V. Inland Revenue, (1893) 21 Eettie, 202 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 108 
 
 86. — Company — Manager, Payment to retir- 
 ing — Deductions — Assessment of profits or gains — ■ 
 "Sum employed as capital" — Income Tax Act, 
 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. 35), ». 100, Sclied. D, Cases 1 
 
 ■and 2,r. 1. 
 
 Upon the transfer of an insurance business the 
 -transferees agreed to take into their service the 
 i^ransferors' manager at a fixed salary, with liberty 
 ■to commute the same by payment to him of a 
 ^oss sum to be calculated upon life tables. The 
 transferees retained the manager's services for a 
 short time and then paid him a gross sum in 
 commutation of his salary. They claimed to 
 deduct that sum in estimating their profits for 
 income tax : — 
 
 Held, that the agreement to pay the commuta- 
 ■tion money was in fact part of the consideration 
 for the transfer of the business, that the payment 
 was therefore a " sum employed as capital " and 
 ■could not be deducted. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1896] 1 Q. B. 41, affirmed 
 upon the above ground. Kotal Insueanoe Co. 
 .0. Watson H. L. (E.) [1896] W. N. 161 (13) ; 
 
 [1897] A. C. 1 
 
 ■87, — Company — Profits — Bonus — Deductions 
 — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 dfc 6 Vict. a. 35), 
 .Sched. D, First Case, rr. 3, 4, s. 159. 
 
 A CO. borrowed a large ■ sum of money and 
 'imdertook, along with repayment of the capital 
 
 EEVENTTE (Income l&Ti)— continued. 
 
 sum borrowed, to pay the lenders a bonus of 
 
 10 per cent, thereon. 
 
 Held, that, in estimating the balance of profits 
 and gains chargeable under Sched. D, the com- 
 pany were not entitled to deduct the amount of 
 the bonus from the profit of the year in which 
 it was paid. Arizona Copper Co. v. Inland 
 Revenue, (1891) 19 Eettie, 150 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 93 
 
 — Company — Profits — Company dividing profits 
 — Limitation of action — Public Autho- 
 rities Protection Act. 
 See PuBLio Authorities Protection. 2. 
 
 88. — ■ Company — Profits or gains — Income 
 Tax Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, Sclied. D, 
 First Case — City of Glasgow Bank (Liquidation) 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. clii.), s. 17, and First 
 Sched. (Memorandum of Association of the Com- 
 pany'), s. Hi., suh-ss (a), (6), (e), (d) and Qi). 
 
 In order to enable the liquidation of the City 
 of Glasgow Bank to be finally closed the Assets 
 Co. was formed in 1882, and acquired from the 
 liquidators the whole assets of the hank in return 
 for a payment sufficient to discharge the out- 
 standing liabilities of the bank, with the expenses 
 of the liquidation, and a general undertaking to 
 pay all debts of the bank which might afterwards 
 emerge. These assets consisted of real and other 
 properties and securities, and of sums which the 
 liquidators expected to recover from the estates 
 of contributories. At the date of the transference 
 the assets stood in the books of the liquidators 
 estimated at certain values, but these values 
 did not represent the amount paid by the co., 
 which would have been the same if the book 
 values had been increased or diminished to any 
 extent. 
 
 The income of the co., as stated in the 
 revenue accounts, consisted of the returns from 
 these assets and investments. From time to time 
 the CO. sold portions of the assets at prjces 
 exceeding the book values. The surpluses 
 arising from such sales were not entered as 
 income in the revenue accounts, but were credited 
 to capital under the head of " suspense account 
 for surplus assets." Large sums resulting from 
 such sales and recoveries from debtors were carried 
 to the credit of this account during each year 
 subsequent to 1882, and in 1893 the directors, in 
 terms of an interlocutor of the Court, distributed 
 to the shareholders, from the sum standing in the 
 suspense account, a sum of 15,000!. as "repay- 
 ment of surplus capital." 
 
 The Inland Revenue claimed that the oo. 
 were liable to income tax for the year 1894-95 on 
 the full amount of the sums carried to the credit 
 of suspense account, and assessed the liability on 
 an average of three years preceding 1894. 
 
 In a case for appeal against the assessment, in 
 which the foregoing facts were stated, held, that 
 as there was no statement of the price paid for 
 each of the assets at the date of the transference, 
 it was not possible to determine whether the 
 realization of the assets had resulted in a profit 
 to the CO. 
 
 Opinions (per Lord Young and Lord Trayner), 
 that when a person buys a doubtful debt and 
 recovers a larger sum than he paid for it the gain 
 
 3 L 2 
 
( 1767 -) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 17GS ) 
 
 EEVENTTE (Income Tax)— continued. 
 is not profit in the sense of tlie Income Tax Acts 
 unless the purchaser is making a trade of l)uyiug 
 such debts. Assets Co. ■». Inlani) Kevende, 
 (1897) 24 K. 578 - - Ct. of Sess. (So.) 
 
 [1897] W. N. 144 
 
 89. — Company domiciled in United Kingdom 
 — Business carried on abroad — Profits earned not 
 remitted to England — Income Tax Acts, 1842 
 (.5 & 6 Vict. c. 85), s. 100, Sched. B, Fourth and 
 Fifth Cases; 1853 (16 * 17 Yict. c. 34), ». 2, 
 Sched. D. 
 
 (a) The B. Co., an English co., which 
 carried on no business of its own, owned all the 
 sliares but seven in a foreign co. carrying on 
 business in A., a foreign country. The foreigu 
 CO., on a dividend being declared by the B. Co., 
 remitted to England the amount required for 
 distribution among the shareholders, less the 
 amount required for distribution among share- 
 holders in the B. Co. resident in A. : — 
 
 Eeld, that the profits of the B. Co. arose from 
 foreign possessions, and came within the Income 
 Tax Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, 
 Sphed. D, fifth case ; that the money retained for 
 distribution among the shareholders resident in 
 A. was not received by the B. Co. in England 
 within the meaning of the fifth case, and that 
 the B. Co. were not liable to pay income tax on the 
 amount retained in A. Baetholomay Bkewikg 
 Co. (of Koohestee) v. Wyatt 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 499 
 
 (b) The N. Co., an English co., which carried 
 on no business of jls own, owned shares in various 
 English and foreign cos. The dividends due to 
 the N. Co. from the foreiga cos. was insufficient 
 to pay the dividends due from the N. Co. to such 
 of its shareholders as were resident abroad. The 
 N. Co. directed the dividends accruing to it from 
 the foreign cos. to be paid to bankers abroad for 
 distribution among its foreign shareholders : — 
 
 Eeld, that the profits of the N. Co. came 
 within 5 & 6 Vict. o. 35, s. 100, Sched. D, fifth 
 case, that the money retained abroad for distribu- 
 tion among shareholders resident abroad was not 
 received by the N. Co. in England within the 
 meaning of the fifth case, and that the N. Co. 
 was not liable to pay income tax on the amount 
 retained abroad. Nobel Dynamite Trust Co. 
 V. AVyatt - Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 499, 
 
 at pp. 508, 617 
 
 90. — Company resident abroad trading in 
 Scotland — Agent for foreign company assessed in 
 /ii's own name — Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 * 17 
 Vict. c. 34), Sched. B—Income Tax Act, 1842 
 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 41. 
 
 _ The shipping co. " Chauaral " (owners of the 
 ship Chanaral) was incorporated under Norwegian 
 law in Norway, and had its registered office in 
 Christiania, where the books were kept, and the 
 two managers resided. The managers held two 
 of the ninety-five shares of the co., the remainder 
 being held by shareholders in Scotland. J. W. 
 & Co., Glasgow, eff'ected the whole of the charter- 
 ing, kept the whole accounts, received the whole 
 tunds, and paid on behalf of the management 
 trom the profits of the first voyage a dividend 
 oirect to the shareholders. Prior to April, 1896, 
 tue ship had made one voyage from Rotterdam to 
 
 EEVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. 
 various ports, ending at Livejpool. Income ta:i 
 assessment under Sched. D having been imposed 
 upon "J. W. & Co. for the ship Cliaruiral " for 
 the year ending April 5, 1896, J. W. & Ca 
 appealed : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that the co. was resident abroad; 
 (2.) that the profits were derived from trade in 
 this country, and were liable to assessment ; and 
 (3.) that the assessment was right in point of 
 form, it being unnecessary to designate .J. W. 
 & Co. expressly as agents for the co. Wingate 
 & Co. V. Inland Eevenue, (1897) 24 Eettie, 939 
 Ct. of sess. (So.) [1898] W. N. 129 
 
 — Company — Winding-np — Production of docu- 
 
 ments — Income tax returns. 
 
 See Discovery — ^Documents. 14. 
 
 — Deduction — "Whether a "deduction" — ^An- 
 
 nuity. 
 
 See Will — Annuity. 27. 
 
 — Deductions from income tax. 
 
 See Cases under Eevexue — Income Tax.. 
 
 91. — Depreciation of machinery or plant. 
 Deduction for — Profits of trade — Customs and In- 
 land Mevenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 15), 
 s. 12. 
 
 The Commrs. of Income Tax, when estimat- 
 ing the deductions to be allowed from the profits 
 of 11 trade under s. 12 of the Customs and 
 Inland Eevenue Act, 1878, " as representing the 
 diminished value by reason of wear and tear 
 during the year of any machinery or plant used 
 for the purposes of the concern," are not bound 
 to take an average of the depreciation during the 
 three preceding years, but may adopt as their 
 estimate the amount of the depreciation during 
 the year immediately preceding that of assess- 
 ment. CuNAED Steam Ship Co. v. Coulson 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 865 
 
 92. — Dividends — Deduction of income tax 
 from interest or annuities — Income Tax Acts, 1842 
 (5 <£ 6 Vict. c. 35), ss. 60, 102; 1853 (16 * 17 
 Vict. c. 31), s. 2, Scheds. A, D — Customs and 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 8}, 
 o. 24, siib-s. 3. 
 
 The London County Council had deducted 
 income tax under a. 24, sub-s. 3, of the Customs 
 and Inland Eevenue Act, 1888, from dividends 
 paid by them on their consolidated stock. These 
 dividends were paid out of the council's Consoli- 
 dated Loans Fund, which was by statute made 
 applicable in the first place to their payment. 
 That fund consisted of (among other things) 
 interest which had been received by the counoiil 
 on loans made by them to other local authorities, 
 and from which, in accordance with the sub- 
 section, income tax under Sched. D had been 
 deducted before payment of the rents and profits 
 of land on which income tax under Sched. A had 
 been paid, of the proceeds of sales of property, 
 and of money raised by rates : — 
 
 Held, that the county council were entitled 
 to retain a proportion of the income tax which 
 they had deducted corresponding to the propor- 
 tion in which the dividends on the consolidated 
 stock had been paid out of moneys on which 
 income tax under Sched. D had been already 
 paid ; but that they were not entitled to retain 
 
( 1769 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1770 ) 
 
 REVENUE (Income Tax.)— continued, 
 ■s. proportion of the deducted income tax eorre- 
 ■sponding to the proportion in whiohthe dividends 
 had been paid out of moneys charged with income 
 tax tinder Sohed. A. 
 
 Question as to the proportion in which the 
 ■dividends on the council's consolidated stock 
 ^honld be deemed to have been paid out of the 
 interest received by the council on loans dis- 
 ■oussed. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1899] 2 Q. B. 226, 
 
 .affirmed. Att.-Gen. v. London County Council 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 3 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 192 
 
 The House reversed the decision of the 0. A., 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 192, so far as it was against the 
 appellants, and dismissed the information with 
 •costs - - H. I,. (E.) [1900] W.N. 268; 
 
 [1901] A. C. 26 
 — Divorce — Annuity by way of alimony. 
 See No. 68, above. 
 
 93. — Failure to deliver true and correct state- 
 ments of property and income — Prosecution in 
 -"Eigh Court" — Property and Income Tax Act, 
 
 18i2 (5 (fc 6 Vict. c. 35), ss. 52 and 55. 
 
 Held, (1) that the words " any statement as 
 aforesaid " in o. 55 of the Property and Income 
 Tax Act, 1842, mean the "true and correct" state- 
 anent mentioned in s. 52, and that a penalty is 
 incurred, and may be recovered under s. 55, not 
 only for failure to deliver any statement at all, 
 hut even when a statement has been delivered, 
 if it is not a true and correct statement; and 
 (2) that it is not a condition precedent to a prose- 
 -cution in the High Court under s. 55 that pro- 
 ceedings have first been taken before thecommrs. 
 LoBD Advocate v. S a wees, (1897) 25 Bettie, 
 242 - Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1898] W. H. 131 
 
 94. — Failure to make return of property and 
 .incoms — Prosecution for penalty in "High, Court" 
 — Time within which information must he laid — 
 Taxes Management Act, 1880 (43 * 44 Vict. 
 
 ■e. 19), s. 21 (4) — Inland Bevenue Regulation Act, 
 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 21), s. il—Statute— Implied 
 
 Tbe Taxes Management Act, 1880, s. 21, 
 enacts, eub-s. 3, that all penalties exceeding Wl. 
 shall be recoverable in the High Court ; sub-s. 4, 
 ihat " in default of prosecution within the space 
 of twelve months from the time of any penalty 
 ■being incurred .... no penalty or forfeiture shall 
 .afterwards be recoverable in any other manner" ; 
 :sub-s. 5, that subject to the above restriction as 
 ito time all pecuniary penalties not exceeding 20Z. 
 shall be recoverable before the Commrs. 
 
 In a prosecution for a penalty of 50Z. raised in 
 the High Court eighteen months after the penalty 
 was incurred, the defender founded on s. 21, 
 svSa-s. 4, of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, 
 and pleaded that the action was barred in respect 
 that it had not been raised within twelve 
 months : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the words "in any other 
 manner " in sub-s. 4 did not mean in any manner 
 of way, but in any manner other than that men- 
 tioned in sub-s. 3, namely, by an action in the 
 High Court, and that the time limitation did not 
 affect actions in the High Court ; (2) that even 
 assuming that it did, sub-s. 4 had been super- 
 aeded by s. 22 of the Inland Kevenue Kegula- 
 
 EEVENUE (Income tsa.')— continued. 
 tion Act, 1890, which enacts that proceedings 
 shall be commenced within two years after the 
 penalty is incurred ; and therefore (3) that the 
 action had been raised in good time. Lokd 
 Advocate v. Sawebs, (1897) 25 Eettie, 242 
 
 Ct. of Sesa. (So.) [1898] W. N. 131 
 
 95. — Fines on renewal of leases — Direction in 
 will to invest ■ — • Temporary deposit in hank at 
 interest — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 <fc 6 Vict. c. 35), 
 8. 6, Sehed. A, No. II., r. 5. 
 
 Money received as fines on renewal of leases 
 and placed (pending permanent investment in 
 land under a settlement) on deposit at a bank 
 has not been "applied as productive capital," 
 and therefore is not exempt from income tax 
 under the proviso in s. 60, Sched. A, No. II., 
 of the Income Tax Act, 1842. Lobd Mostyn v. 
 London - - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 170 
 
 96. — Foreign merchant — Trade exercised 
 within United Kingdom — Assessment in name of 
 agent — " Factor, agent, or receiver having the 
 receipt of profits or gains " — Income Tax Acts, 
 1842 (5 <£ 6 Vict. c. 35), ss. 41-44 ; 1853 (16 & 17 
 Vict. c. 34), Sched. D. 
 
 A foreign merchant, who canvasses through 
 agents in the United Kingdom for orders for the 
 sale of his merchandise to customers in the United 
 Kingdom, does not exercise a trade in the United 
 Kingdom within the meaning of the Income Tax 
 Acts so long as all contracts for the sale and all 
 deliveries of the merchandise to customers are 
 made in a foreign country. 
 
 This principle applied to the business of 
 Eoederer of Reims, wine merchant, and the deci- 
 sions of Q. B. D. and C. A., [1895] 1 Q. B, 71, 
 reversed (Lord Morris dissenting). 
 
 Semhle : the words in the Income Tax Act, 
 1842, s. 41, " having the receipt of any profits or 
 gains," apply to "factor" and " agent " as well 
 as to " receiver." Geaingeb & Son v. Gough 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 325 
 
 97. — Foreign principal — Exercising trade 
 in United Kingdom — Consignment of goods from 
 abroad to agent here for sale — Income Tax Acts, 
 1853 (16 & 17 Viet. c. 34) ; 1842 (5 <£: 6 Vict, 
 c. 35). 
 
 Foreign principals were in the habit of con- 
 signing goods to agents in this country for sale. 
 The agents, who invoiced the goods to their pur- 
 chasers in their own names and guaranteed 
 payment by tlie purchasers, remitted to their 
 principals the proceeds of the sales less their 
 charges and commission. On a claim by the 
 Crown against the foreign principals for income 
 tax: — 
 
 Held, that though there might be a presump- 
 tion as between the agents and their purchasers 
 that the agents and not the foreign priacipals 
 were the vendors, there was no corresponding 
 presumption as between the foreign principals 
 and tlie agonts that the property in the goods 
 had passed from the principals to the agents ; 
 that the sales by the agents in this country were 
 as between them and theii' principals made on 
 behalf of the principals, and that the principals 
 were consequently liable to income lax as exer- 
 cising a trade within the United Kingdom within 
 
( 1771 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1990. 
 
 ( 1772 ) 
 
 EEVENUE (Income 1s,x)— continued. 
 
 the meaning of s. 2, Sched. D, of the Income Tax 
 
 Act, 1853. Watson v. Sandie cSs Hull 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 326 
 
 98. — Foreign trade — Deductions — Expense of 
 distributing profits under trust deed — Income Tax 
 Act, 18i2 (5 (fc 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, Selird. D, 
 case 5. 
 
 Testamentary trustees were assessed for in- 
 come tax under case 5, Sched. D, of the Income 
 Tax Act, 1842, on the full amount received by 
 them in Great Britain of trade profits made in 
 India. 
 
 The trustees claimed deduction of the expense 
 of the trust administration in Great Britain on 
 the ground that the beneficiaries on ■whom the 
 income tax fell could only receive the profits 
 subject to this deduction : — 
 
 Held, that the deduction could not be allowed, 
 as the trust administration was not an expen- 
 diture for trade purposes. Aiken r. Tkustees j 
 OF Maodonald, (1894) 22 Eettie, 88 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 120 
 
 99. — Grazing and sliootings over farm — 
 Separate leases — Assessment — Fropertij and In- 
 come Tax Act, 1842 (5 (t 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 63, 
 Sched. B, r. 7. 
 
 Held, that the lessee of a farm for grazing 
 under one lease and of the shootings over the 
 farm under another was liable to be assessed 
 under Sched. B, r. 7, of the Income Tax Act, 
 1842, in respect of occupancy to the extent of 
 the rent for the combined occupation. 
 
 Middleton v. Lord Advocate, (1876) 3 Eettie, 
 599, followed. Keyell r. Scott, (1S95) 22 Eettie, 
 772 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 137 
 
 100. — Husband and wife — Deductions — .Joint 
 income — Assessment of husband on U'ife's profits — 
 Costs of Crown—Income Tax Acts. 1842 (5 cO 6 
 Vict. c. 35), s. 45 ; 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 2, 
 Sched. E, s. 51. 
 
 Where a husband and wife were master and 
 mistress of a National School at a joint salary : — 
 
 Held, thnt the husband's income tax was 
 properly assessed on the whole salary : 
 
 Held, also, that a deduction for the wages of 
 a servant, who had been engaged to enable the 
 wife to teach, could not be allowed. 
 
 Costs in cases where Commrs. have allowed a 
 deduction against which the Crown successfully 
 appeals, considered. Boweks v. Habdins 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 560 
 
 Heseakd and Wipe — Mabkied Woman.] 
 ExempAion of income arising from business of u-ifc 
 and repeal of sub-s. 2 of s. 34 of the Finance Act, 
 1894 (57 ct 58 Vict. c. 30). See Finance Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. e. 24), s. 5. 
 
 — Insurance company (life) — " Profits and 
 gains." 
 See No. Sii, abore. 
 
 101. — Insurance — Life insurance company — 
 Farticipating policy-holders — Return of premium 
 by way of bonus — Annualprofits or gains — Income 
 Tax Act, 1853 (16 * 17 Vict. c. 34), Sched. D. 
 
 A life insurance co. had a capital divided into 
 shares, the dividends on which were limited by 
 the articles of association to 7 per cent. The 
 
 EEVEHTJE (Income Tax) — continued. 
 powers of the co.' were vested in a board of 
 directors elected by the shareholders ; the board 
 appointed the ofScers of the co., and by the 
 ofBcers determined the rates of premium and the 
 terms of insurance, and generally managed the 
 affairs of the co. The co. issued participating 
 policies, and by the articles the insurance business 
 was to be conducted on the mutual plan. The 
 earnings and receipts over and above the divi- 
 dends, losses, and expenses were accumulated 
 from year to year, and every five years a balance 
 was struck and the net surplus in the hands of 
 the CO., after deducting an amount sufficient to 
 cover all outstanding risks and obligations, was, 
 in compliance with the articles of association, 
 divided among the holders of participating 
 policies, each policy-holder being credited with 
 an equitable share of such surplus : — 
 
 Held, that the surplus returned or credited to 
 the policy-holders was " annual profits or gains," 
 and was assessable to income tax. 
 
 Last V. London Assurance Corporation, (1885) 
 10 App. Cas. 438, and New York Life Insurance 
 Co. V. Styles, (1889) 14 App. Cas. 381, considered. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1899] 2 Q. B. 439, 
 afiirmed. Equitable Life Assukanob Sooiets 
 OF THE United States v. Bishop 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 177 
 
 102. — Interest — Decree for repayment of price, 
 with interest — Liability of interest to incometax — 
 Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 &■ 17 Vict. c. 34), s.s. 1 
 and 40. 
 
 In an action at the instance of a ward for 
 reduction of the sale of a part of her estate, 
 which consisted of shares in a public co., the 
 Court found that on repayment by the pursuer 
 of the price received for the shares, with interest 
 at 5 per cent., the pursuer would be entitled to 
 restitution of the shares, with the dividends 
 accruing thereon. | 
 
 The pursuer tendered payment of the price 
 with 5 per cent, interest, under deduction of 
 income tax on the interest : — 
 
 Held, that as between the pursuer and defender 
 income tax did not fail to be deducted by the 
 pursuer under s. 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, 
 from the interest payable by her. Duiw r. 
 Chameees, (1898) 25 Eettie, 688 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W. K. 139 
 
 103. — Interest — Payment of interest without 
 deduction of income fax — Income Tax Act, 1853 
 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 40. 
 
 By s. 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, it is 
 provided that every person who shall be liable 
 to the payment of any yearly interest of money 
 shall be entitled, " on making such payment,' to 
 deduct income tax therefrom : — 
 
 Held (dub. Lord Kiunear) that if the debtor 
 makes payment of interest without deducting the 
 income tax, he loses the right to the deduction 
 in respect of such interest. Galashiels Pko- 
 vident Building Society r. Newlands, (1893> 
 20 Eettie, 821 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N, lOT 
 
 — Lease — Annual value of property. 
 
 See No. 114, belou\ 
 
 — Leases. 
 
 See Nos. 95, 99, abore. 
 
( 1"3 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1S91— 1900. 
 
 ( 1774 ) 
 
 REVENUE (Income Tax) — continued. 
 
 — Librarj' — Public library. 
 
 -See Nos. 108, 109, heloiu. 
 
 104. — Literary or scientifio institution— Ex- 
 emption— Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 it 6 Vict. c. 35), 
 Sched. A, r. 6. 
 
 The Income Tax Act, 1842, Sched. A, r. 6, 
 exempts from income tax "any building the 
 property of any literary or scientific institution, 
 used solely for the purposes of such institution, 
 and in which no payment is demanded for any 
 instruction there afforded by lectures or other- 
 wise " ; — 
 
 Held, that the hall, library, and museum of 
 the Eoyal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 
 were not exempt under the above provision, in 
 respect that the college was not a literary or 
 scientific institution but an institution whose 
 main objects were professional. Sulley v. Eoyal 
 College of Sukqeons or Edinbdegh, (1892) 
 19 Bettie, 751 Ct of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 98 
 
 105. — Literary or scientific institution — Ex- 
 emption — Property of bodies corporate or unincor- 
 porate — Property legally appropriated for the pro- 
 motion of science — Customs and Inland Revenue 
 Act, 1885 (48 * 49 Vict. c. 51), «. 11, sul-i. 3. 
 
 The Eoyal College of Surgeons of England, 
 incorporated by charter, had two main objects : 
 the promotion of the science of surgery, and the 
 promotion and encouragement of the practice of 
 surgery, including the promotion of the interests 
 of those practising surgery as a profession, and 
 the examination of students and others to qualify 
 for practice or honours in surgery and kindred 
 subjects. On an appeal against an assessment 
 to duty under the Customs and Inland Eevenue 
 Act, 1885 :— 
 
 Held, that, as the promotion of the interests 
 of those practising surgery as a profession was in 
 itself a main object, and one in respect of which 
 no exemption could be claimed, the only exemp- 
 tion that could be claimed under s. 11 of the Act 
 was in respect of property or income so appro- 
 priated as to create a legal obligation to apply it 
 to the promotion of the science of surgery. In re 
 EoTAL College oe Sukgeons of England 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 a. B. 871 
 
 106. — Lighting — Surplus gas — Deductions — 
 Trade purposes — Municipal corporation — Duty to 
 light town — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 it 6 Vict. 
 c. 35), s. 60, Sched. A, s. 100, Sched-. D. 
 
 A municipal corporation claimed to deduct 
 expenses of lighting their town from profits 
 made by sale of surplus gas to private customers 
 as being money expended for the purposes of a 
 trade : — 
 
 Held, that the two transactions were distinct, 
 and that there were no " trade " expenses until 
 they began to supply private customers. Claim 
 disallowed. Dillon v. Havebfobdwest Cobpoka- 
 TiON - - Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 575 
 
 — Married woman — Exemption. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. 
 c. 24), s. 5. 
 
 — Mine — Assessment — Income from ore produced 
 
 in New South Wales and sold outside it. 
 See New South Wales. 43. 
 
 BEVENUE (Income t&Ti)— continued. 
 
 — Mortgages — Taxable income — Land and In- 
 
 come Tax Assessment Act. 
 See New Soi'th Wales. 24. 
 
 107. — Process — Case stated hy Commissioners 
 of Income Tax — Amendment — Taxes Management 
 Act, 1880 (43 * 44 Vict. c. 19), s. ,19. 
 
 In the course of the hearing of a case stated 
 by the Commrs. of Income Tax, the Court, with- 
 out ijronouncing any formal order, allowed a 
 note to be put in by the parties setting forth 
 additional facts. Paisley Cemeteky Co. v. 
 Inland Revenue, (1898) 25 E. 1080 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 196 
 
 — Proof for assessed taxes — Power of Court 
 
 to go behind assessment — Scheme of 
 
 arrangement. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Proof. 185. 
 
 — Property and income tax. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Income Tax, 
 
 108. — Fullic library — Exemption — Urhan 
 authority — " Building the property of a literary or 
 scientific institution " — Puhlic Libraries Act, 1892 
 (65 & 56 Vict. c. 53), ss. 4, 11, 12, 14— Income 
 Tax Act, 1842 (5 it Vict. c. 35), s. 61, No. VI . ._ 
 
 The exemption from income tax granted by 
 the Income Tax Act, 1842 (Sched. A, s. 61, 
 No. YI.), to any building " the property of any 
 literary institution " includes buildings appro- 
 priated to free public libraries and used solely 
 for the purposes of the libraries, whoever may 
 be the owners of the buildings, and whether 
 they are or are not supported by rates. 
 
 So held with regard to the Manchester free 
 public libraries, and the decision of C. A., [1895] 
 1 Q. B. 673, reversed, Lord Halsbury L.C. dis- 
 senting. Manohestee Coepoeation v. MoAdaii 
 H. 1. (E.) [1896] A. C. 500 
 
 109. — Puhlic free library — " Buildings used 
 solely for the purposes " of institution — Subscrip- 
 tion library — Exemption — Income Tax Act, 1842 
 (5 * 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 61, No. 6. 
 
 Sect. 61 , Eule 6, of the Income Tax Act, 1842, 
 exempts from duties under Sched. A, " any 
 building the property of any literary or scientific 
 institution, used solely fur the purposes of such 
 institution." 
 
 In the buildings of the Dundee Free Library 
 accommodation was given to books belonging to 
 the Dundee Subscription Library, and the ex- 
 penses attending their safe keeping and circula- 
 tion among the subscribers were defrayed out of 
 the revenues of the Free Library. In considera- 
 tion of the accommodation and services so given, 
 each book, after being in circulation for a year, 
 became the property of the Free Library : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the buildings in question did not 
 fall within the above exemption, inasmuch as 
 they were not used " solely " for the purposes of 
 the Free Library. Inland Revenue v. Dundee 
 Magistbates, (1897) 24 Eettie, 930. 
 
 Ct, of Sess, (Sc) [1898] W. N. 127 
 — . " Pviblic school " — Theological college. 
 See No. 113, below. 
 
 110. — Ileligiuus society, Trade carried on by — 
 Deductions — Profits arising from trade — Losses 
 not connected icith trade— Income Tux Acts, 1853 
 
( 1775 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 190J. 
 
 ( 1776 ) 
 
 EEVENTJE (Income Tax) — continued. 
 
 (16 * 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 2, Sched. D; 1842 (5 <fe 6 
 
 Vict. c. 35), 8. 100, Sched. D, case 1, r. 3. 
 
 A socitty -whose object v/a.a to promote reli- 
 gion by the circulation of tracts and books, 
 carried on the business of bookBellers in a shop, 
 and earned profits therefrom. The society also 
 sold books by colporteurs, but the colportage 
 ■work could not by itself be carried on at a profit 
 as a commercial undertaking, and the society was 
 able to continue it only by means of the profits 
 earned in the shop and of voluntary subscrip- 
 tions : — 
 
 Held, that the profits earned in carrying on 
 the business of booksellers were trade profits and 
 fell to be assessed for income tax, and that the 
 losses arising from the colportage agencies did 
 not fall to be deducted therefrom, the colportage 
 being essentially distinct from the bookselling 
 business, and not being of the nature of trade. 
 Ebligiocs Tkagt and Book Society of Scotland 
 V. FOKBES, (1896) 23 Kettie, 390. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 126 
 
 — Kesidence — Abatement — Allowances. 
 
 See No. 79, above. 
 
 — Salary, Chaplain's. 
 
 See No. 75, above. 
 
 111. ■ — Salary — Deductions — Contribution for 
 superannuation allowance — Sum payable or charge- 
 able bij virtue of Act of Parliament — Income Tax 
 Act, 1842 (5*6 Vict. c. 35), «. 146— Poor Law 
 Officers Superannuation Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, 
 c. 50), s. 12. 
 
 The appellant, -who was clerk to the guardians 
 of a union, and to the assessment and school 
 attendance committees, was assessed in respect 
 of his salary, under Sched. E, on a net amount of 
 2891. He contributed annually under s. 12 of the 
 Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, 
 for the purposes of that Act, a sum of 15Z. 10s., 
 which was deducted from his salary under that 
 section. He claimed to deduct this sum from the 
 amount on which lie was assessed, by virtue of 
 the Income Tax Act, 1842, s. 146, Sched. E, First 
 Eule, by which duty is payable on salaries, &c,, 
 " after deducting the amount of duties or other 
 sums payable or chargeable on the same by 
 virtue of any Act of I'arliaraent" : — 
 
 Held, that the amount contributed by the 
 appellant, under the Poor Law Officers Supei'- 
 annuation Act, cjme within the words " duties or 
 other sums payable or chargeable by virtue of 
 any Act of Parliament," in the Income Tax Act, 
 1842, s. 146, and therefore he was entitled to the 
 deduction cluimed. Beaumont v. Bowehs 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 117 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 204 
 
 — Scientific Institutions — Exemption. 
 
 See Nos. 104, 105, above. 
 
 112. — Shi]) — Deductions for u'car and tear — 
 Obsolete tijpe of ship — Income Tax Act, 1842 
 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, Sched. D, case ], r. Hi. 
 — Customs and Inland Sevenue Act, 1878 (41 Vict. 
 V. 15), 8. 12. 
 
 Sect. 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue 
 Act, 1878, provided that the commrs. should in 
 assessing the profits or gains of any trade or 
 adventure chargeable under Sched. D of the 
 Income Tax Acts, or the profits of any concern 
 
 BEVENTTE (Income Tax) — continvM. 
 chargeable by reference to the rules of that 
 schedule, "allow such deduction as they may 
 think just and reasonable, as representing the 
 diminished value by reason of wear and tear 
 during the year of any machinery or pVnt used 
 for the purposes of the concern " : — 
 
 Held, that the owners of a ship engaged in 
 trade were not entitled under this section to a 
 deduction for depreciation in the value of their 
 ship caused by ships of a better construction 
 being built. Burnley Steamship Co. v. Aiken, 
 (1894) 21 Eettie, 965 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 115 
 
 — Surgeons, Eoyal College of — Exemption. 
 See Nos. 104, 105, above. 
 
 113. — Theological college — " Public sclwol " — 
 Exemption — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 <fc 6 Vict, 
 c. 35), s. 61, Sched. A, r. 6. 
 
 Held, that a theological college which was 
 intended primarily for the training of candidates 
 for the ministry of the Free Church of Scotland 
 and the regular students of which required either 
 to be graduates or to have passed through a 
 University course of Arts before they were 
 admitted to the college, was not a " public 
 school" in the sense of the Income Tax Act, 
 1842, s. 61, Sched. A, r. 6. Inland Eetenue v. 
 General Trustees of Free Church of Scotland, 
 (1897) 24 E. 496-499 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1897] W. N. 140 
 
 114. — . Value — Annual value of property — 
 Leases — Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 ife 6 Vict. c. 35), 
 s. 60, Sched. [A), No. I. — Taxes Matmgement Act, 
 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 19). 
 
 The occupant of premises, which had been 
 assessed to income tax for the year ending 
 April 5, 1899, at the annual value of 40l. 
 appealed against the assessment to the Commrs., 
 and produced two leases, one dated May 2, 1898, 
 for seven years from AVhitsunday, 1898, and the 
 other dated in July, 1888, for ten years from 
 Whitsunday, 1888. The rent stipulated in both 
 cases was 19?. 10s., and the appellant maintained 
 that the assessment should be reduced to that 
 amount. It was admitted that the leases con- 
 tained the whole contract between the owner and 
 occupant. The appellant led no other evidence, 
 and did not require the Commrs. to appoint a 
 valuator. 
 
 The Commrs. refused the appeal, being of 
 opinion (1) that they were not bound to accept 
 the leases as conclusive evidence of the value of 
 the premises, and (2) that, from their own local 
 knowledge, and according to the best of their 
 judgment, 40/. was a fair valuation. 
 
 Oil appeal the Court affirmed the determina- 
 tion of the Commrs., holding that the Commrs. 
 were not bound or entitled to regard the leases as 
 conclusive evidence of tho value of the premises, 
 although they were admissible as evidence 
 quantum valerent, and that the Commrs. were 
 entitled, in considering the evidence, to have 
 regard to their own local knowledge. Stocks v. 
 Inland Eevenue, (1899) 1 Eraser, 1020 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc) [1900] W. N. 207 
 
 — Victorian Income Tax Act, 1895 — " Trusts." 
 See Victoria. 5. 
 
( 1777 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1778 ) 
 
 HEVENTTE (Income Tax) — continued. 
 
 115. — Wear and tear, Deduction for — Process 
 ^Stated case — Amendment — Question of law — 
 Expenses — Customs and Inland lievenue Act, 3 878 
 (41 Vict. c. 15), s. 12 — Taxes Management Act, 
 1880 (43* 44 Vict. c. 19), s. 50. 
 
 A shipping co. having claimed a deduction 
 under the above section in respect of the depre- 
 ciation of their fleet of steamships, the Commvs. 
 allowed a deduction at the rate of 5J per cent, 
 on the value of the fleet as at the beginning of 
 the year. The shipping co., who claimed a 
 deduction at the rate of 9J per cent., appealed. 
 The case for appeal did not state the method by 
 which the Commrs. reached the rate of 5J per 
 ecnt., and merely put the question whether the 
 deduction of 5J per cent was a just and reason- 
 able exercise of the powers of the Commrs. under 
 the statute ; but the case stated that " the opinion 
 of Sheriff Rutherfurd, who delivered the deciaion 
 of the Commrs., and a statement shewing the 
 effect of depreciation on the diminishing value 
 «f a steamer costing originally 20,000Z. at various 
 rates per cent., and on which the decision pro- 
 ceeded, are subjoined as an appendix to this 
 case." In the opinion of Sherili' Eutherfurd it 
 was stated that a deduction at the rate of 5J per 
 cent, on the annually diminishing value of a 
 steamer would, at the end of twenty-two years 
 (which, it was stated, was the assumed average 
 life of such vessels), amount to the original cost 
 of the vessel, provided that the sums annually 
 deducted were put out at interest ; but that if 
 the sums deducted were not put out at interest, 
 the sums deducted would amount only to about 
 two-thirds of the original cost of the vessel. This, 
 the opinion stated, " is put merely as an illubtra- 
 tion with the view of shewing that 5J per cent, 
 on the diminishing value during each of the 
 twenty-two years is a fair allowance." 
 
 At the hearing on the appeal the appellants 
 maintained that the Commrs. had erred in law 
 in taking account of interest in the manner ex- 
 plained in the sheriff's opinion ; the Inland 
 Bevenue maintained that the opinion formed no 
 part of the case, and that in any view uo question 
 of law was raised. 
 
 The Court remitted the case to the Commrs. 
 for amendment with the view of embodying in 
 the case the statements in the opiuiou — diss. 
 Lord Young, who was of opinion that, assuming 
 the opinion to form part of the case, the question 
 what was a just and reasonable deduction under 
 the statute was a question of fact and not a 
 question of law. 
 
 In the case as amended the Commrs. stated, 
 iTiter alia, — "in fixing the deduction to be 
 allowed for diminished value thiough wear and 
 tear, we took into account that the sum annually 
 allowed might be so invested as to produce a 
 return of 3 per cent, per annum." 
 
 The Court (diss. Lord Young) reversed the 
 determination of the Commrs., and remitted to 
 them with an instruction to the effect that in 
 estimating the deduction to be allowed under 
 the statute they were not entitled to make any 
 deduction upon the sum representing the wear 
 and tear during the year in question on account 
 of any interest which might be earned on the 
 sums allowed. 
 
 REVENUE (Income Tax) — contin'md. 
 
 Expenses — Stated case. — The expense of a 
 print containing a correspondence between the 
 parties regarding the form of a stated case dis- 
 allowed, although the Court ultimately ordered 
 the case to be amended so as in substance to put 
 it into the form proposed by the successful party, 
 who had prepared the print. Leith, Hdll and 
 Hambdkg Steam Packet Co. v. Inland Revenue, 
 (1899) 1 Praser, 1117 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1900]W. N. 210 
 
 — Wear and tear — Deductions for — Ship. 
 
 See No. 112, above. 
 
 Inhabited House Duty, 
 See Cases under Revenue — House Duty. 
 
 Inventory Duty. 
 
 — Account stamp duty. 
 
 See Oases under Revenue — Account 
 . Duty. 
 
 116. — Donation — Delivery — Donatio mortis 
 causa — Customs and Inland Sevenue Acts, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. a. 12), o. 38; 1889 (52 & 53 Victt. 
 c. 7), s. 11. 
 
 In 1886, A., one of two brothers who were in 
 partnership, when ill of the disease of which he 
 died three and a half months afterwards, granted 
 a receipt in favour of B., his partner, by which 
 he acknowledged that he had received the sum 
 of 1001. for his interest in the business from B. 
 That sum was a totally inadequate consideration 
 for A.'s interest. In an action against A.'s repre- 
 sentatives by the Crown for payment of inventory 
 duty, evidence upon which it was held that 
 whetlier the transaction between A. and B. was 
 of the nature of a donation or of a sale, it was a 
 transaction by which A.'s interest in the business 
 was transferred to B. absolutely, and that the 
 claim of the Crown in consequence fell to be 
 repelled. Lord Advocate v. Pinnigan or 
 M'CouKT, (1893) 20 Eettie, 488. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 101 
 
 — Double duties — Legatees identified by re- 
 
 ference to will of another testator — 
 
 Power of disposal. 
 
 See Revenue — Probate Duty. 131, 132. 
 
 — Legacy duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Legacy 
 Duty. 
 
 — Life-rent— Trust deed. 
 
 See Revenue — Legacy Duty. 127. 
 
 — Succession duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Succession 
 Duty. 
 
 117. — Voluntary settlement — Reservation of 
 interest in property settled — Stamp duty on accounts 
 — Customs and Inland Revenue Acts, 1881 (44 * 45 
 Vict. c. 12), s. 38, sub-s. 2 (e) ; 1889 (52 Vict. a. 7), 
 8. 11, sub-s. 1. 
 
 In 1887 W. transferred to three of his son?, 
 who formed a copartnery, the whole stock in 
 trade and goodwill of his business. No cash was 
 paid down by his sons, but they undertook, both 
 as individuals and as a firm, to grant a bond of 
 annuity in favour of their father, and after his 
 death to tbeir mother, equivalent to 5 per cent, on 
 the \ aluc of the stock in trade. The bond was 
 
( l™ ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 17S0 ) 
 
 KEVENITE (Inventory Duty) — continued. 
 in no way secured on the business. The sons 
 farther, in consideration of their father entering 
 into the arrangement, discharged all claims com- 
 petent to them on his death to any share of Ms 
 estate. "W. died in 1893. 
 
 In an action at the instance of the Inland 
 Revenue to recover duty on the property so 
 acquired by his sons, lield (following Grossman v. 
 Beg., (1886) 18 Q. B, D. 256) that the transfer 
 of the business was a voluntary settlement within 
 the meaning of the Customs and Inland Eevenue 
 Act, 1881, s. 38, sub-s. 2, and that the annuity 
 was an interest in the business reserved by imj)li- 
 cation to the settlor, and therefore that duty was 
 payable. Lobd Advocate r. Wilson, (1894) 
 21 Eettie, 997. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 118 
 
 Land Eevenue. 
 See Lasi) Ketexue. 
 
 Land Tax. 
 
 Taxes {Regulation of Be nm aeration) Assess- 
 ment Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Tkt. c. 25), alters the 
 mode of payment of collectors of land tax. 
 
 Land Tax Commissioners Names Act, 1893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 27), malces 2>''''"-''^'°" for 
 appointing additional Land Tax Commissioners. 
 
 Partial remission, and redemption of Land 
 Tax. See Finance Act, 1896 (59 ct- 60 Vict. c. 28), 
 Part VI. 
 
 Scotland.] See Agricultural Bates, Congested 
 Districts, and JBurgh Land Tax Belief {Scotland) 
 Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 37). 
 
 Exemption from land tax in certain cases. 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 (t 62 Vict. c. 10) s. 12. 
 
 Land Tax Commissioners Xumes Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 25), appoints additional com- 
 missioners for executing the Acts for granting a 
 land tax and other rates and taxes. 
 
 118. — Bailwaij tnnnel under street — " Here- 
 ditament" — Liahilitij to assessment — Land Tax 
 Act, 1797 (38 Geo. 3, c. 5), s. i. 
 
 A ry. CO. under a special Act were entitled to 
 use the subsoil and undersm'face of lands with- 
 out being required wholly to take the lands, and 
 constructed a tunnel under a highway : — ■ 
 
 Held on the construction of the special Act 
 that the right and interest of the ry. co. in the 
 particular tunnel was an "hereditament" and 
 not merely an easement, and they were liable for 
 land tax in respect of the same under s. 4 of the 
 Land Tax Act, 1797. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1892] 1 Q. B. 165, affirmed. 
 
 ilETEOPOLITAN Et. Co. r. FOWLEK 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 416 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. Farmer \. 
 
 Waterloo and City By. Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 527, 632. 
 
 119. — Tithe rent-cliarge — Exemption from land 
 tax — Hop-grounds or market-gardens. 
 
 The annual rent-charge payable under the 
 ExtvaoTdinary Tithe Redemption Act, 18S6 
 (49 & 50 Vict. 0. 54), in lieu of the extraordiuarv 
 charge previously leviable on hop-gardens. 
 
 EEVENUE (Land Tax) — continued. 
 
 orchards, &c., is not liable to land tax. Caeb v. 
 
 FowLE - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 861 
 
 — Victoria, Laws of. 
 
 See ViOTOKiA. 6, 7. 
 
 Legacy Duty. 
 
 180. — Annuity iy way of salary — Stamp 
 Duties Act, 1845 (8 (fc 9 Vict. c. 76), s. 4. 
 
 Annuities granted to trustees to be enjoyed 
 by them while carrying on the testator's business 
 are liable to legacy duty. In re Thoblbt. 
 Thoelet r. Massam C. A. [1891] 8 Ch. 61S 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re White, 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 297, 299. This case was affirmed 
 by C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 217. 
 
 181. — Annuity out of rents of realty — Trust 
 for accumulation of surplus rents — Annuitant 
 tenant for life subject thereto — Legacy Duty Act. 
 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 76), s. 4. 
 
 A testator who died in 1876 devised real 
 estate to trustees for a term of 500 years, and 
 subject thereto on limitations under which A. 
 became tenant for life. The trusts of the term 
 were to raise and pay out of the rents and profits 
 of the estate an annuity to the person who 
 should, subject to the term, be entitled to the 
 rents and profits ; and the testator declared that,, 
 subject thereto, the trustees should, during 
 twenty-one years from the testator's death, accu- 
 mulate the rents and profits and invest them in 
 land to be settled to the same uses; and after 
 the determination of the twenty-one years should 
 pay the rents and profits to the person for the 
 time being entitled to the hereditaments com- 
 prised in the term : — 
 
 Held (Eigby L.J. dissenting), affirming the 
 decision of Stirling J., [1895] 2 Ch. 517, that as- 
 
 A. during the period of twenty-one years had in 
 effect a mere charge upon the estate of another 
 person, legacy duty and not succession duty was 
 jmyable on the annuity. 
 
 Shirley v. Earl Ferrers, (1S42) 1 Ph. 167, 
 distinguished In re De Hoqhton. De Hoghton 
 !■. De Hoqhton - C. A, [1896] 1 Ch. 855- 
 
 122. — '^ Began to enjoy henefit" — Personal 
 estate directed to he laid out in land — Life in- 
 terest — Absolute estate in remainder — Legacy Duty 
 Act, 1796 (36 Geo. 3, c. 52), ss. 12, W— Customs 
 and Inland Bevemte Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 12), 
 s. 41. 
 
 T. bequeathed money directed to be laid out 
 in land to be settled to B. for life, with re- 
 mainders in tail male to B.'s sons, remainder to 
 
 B. in fee. B. died without male issue in 1893, 
 and directed the money to be part of his personal 
 estate : — 
 
 Held, that at the moment of his death with- 
 out male issue, B. began to enjoy the benefit of 
 the settled money, within a. 12 of 36 Geo. 3, 
 c. ."i2, and that therefore duty at the rate of 1 per 
 cent, became payable on the bequest by T., 
 although the affidavit duty had been paid on B.'s 
 estate. 
 
 In re Haygarth's Trusts, (1883) 22 Ch. D. 
 545, distinguished. Loed Kenhs v. Hodgson 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 458 
 
 123. — Compounding— Legacy compounded foi- 
 
( 1781 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1782 ) 
 
 EEVENUE (Legacy 1i\s.ty')— continued. 
 
 less than the amount thereof — Legacy Duty Act, 
 
 1796 (36 Geo. 3, e. 52), ss. 23, 37. 
 
 36 Geo. 3, c. 52, s. 23, enacts tbat where a 
 legacy shall be released for a consideration or 
 compounded for less than the value thereof, 
 legacy duty shall he paid in respect of such 
 legacy according to the amount taken in satisfac- 
 , tion thereof. 
 
 A competition between a- person claiming a 
 bequest on behalf of a class of beneficiaries under 
 a will and the next of kin (a niece) of the testator, 
 who maintained that the bequest was void from 
 uncertainty, was terminated by joint minute 
 under which each party received one-half of the 
 subject of the bequest. The Court interponed 
 authority to the minute, and in terms thereof 
 ranked and preferred each claimant to one-half 
 of the fund. 
 
 The Crown then claimed legacy duty at the 
 rate of 10 per cent, on the whole fund, on the 
 ground that as the bequest had not been set aside 
 the rate of duty for the whole was that payable 
 by strangers in blood to tlie testator. The tes- 
 tator's next of kin maintained that the rate of 
 duty on the half payable to her under the 
 arrangement ought to be 3 per cent, only : — 
 
 Held that, under s. 23 of the Act, the bequest 
 having been released for payment of one-half of 
 its amount, duty at the rate of 10 per cent, was 
 payable on that half only, and that the half pay- 
 able to the next of kin was liable to 3 per cent, 
 duty. LoBD Advocate v. Mubkat (Febckle- 
 ton's Judicial Factob), (1894) 21 Eettie, 743 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. HO 
 
 124. — Orown'deht — Priority — Banlcruptcy — 
 Costs against the Crown — 18 & 19 Vict. c. 90, s. 2. 
 
 A., who was executor of a deceased person, 
 received and applied for his own use assets of the 
 deceased without paying to the Crown legacy 
 duty payable in respect of certain legacies which 
 there had been assets sufficient to meet. A. was 
 subsequently adjudicated a bankrupt, and his 
 assignees in bankruptcy realized his estate : — 
 
 Seld, that the Crown debt for legacy duty 
 was entitled to priority over the general creditors 
 of the bankrupt ; and (reversing the decision of 
 Boyd J.) that such priority could be asserted by 
 motion in the bankruptcy matter, and existed 
 notwithstanding the vesting of the bankrupt's 
 estate in his assignees : 
 
 Held, by Boyd J., that costs cannot be given 
 against the Crown where the Att.-Gen. is not a 
 party eo nomine. 
 
 Beg. V. Beadle, (1857) 7 E. & B. 492, followed 
 in preference to Ex parte Jordan, (1892) 31 L. E. 
 Ir. 1. In re Galvin, [1897] 1 Ir. E. (Ch.) 520 
 
 Ch. Div. (Ir.) [1898] W. N. 140 
 ^ Double duties— Legatees identified by refer- 
 ence to will of another testator — Power 
 of disposal. 
 See Eevenue- Probate. 131, 132. 
 
 125. — Lands purchased hefore vested right ac- 
 guired by heneficiary. 
 
 Trustees having, pursuant to directions of a 
 will, laid out money out of the personal estate in 
 the purchase of land before the time when any 
 beneficial interest became vested under the will, 
 held that legacy duty was not payable upon the 
 
 BEVENTTE (legacy Duty) — continued. 
 sum so laid out. Lord Advocate v. Maofab- 
 LANE (DuNLOP's Tbustebs), (1894) 21 Eettie, 348- 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N.:9& 
 See next Case. 
 
 126. — Lands — Personalty directed to he in- 
 vested in the purchase of land to he. entailed — 
 Legacy Duty Acts, 1796 (36 Geo. 3, u. 52), ss. 12,, 
 19 ; 1815 (55 Geo. 3, c. 184), s. 2. 
 
 Where movable estate was left in tmst to 
 accumulate for six years, and to be invested in 
 the purchase of land to be entailed on D. and his 
 heirs male, and D. having by private arrange- 
 ment obtained the consent of the next heirs, 
 obtained an order for the trustees to convey the 
 land and money held by them to D. in fee 
 simple, and the trustees had invested a certain 
 sum in lands and another sum in building a. 
 mansion-house : — 
 
 Held, affirming deeision of Ct. of Sess., Lord 
 Advocate v. Dunlop's Trustees, (1892) 19 Eettie, 
 461, that legacy duty was payable on the residue, 
 less the amount laid out on lands, and that D. 
 could not deduct the amount laid out on building 
 the mansion-house or the compensation he had 
 paid to the next heirs. Maceaelane v. Loed 
 Advocate - - H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 291 
 
 See preceding Case. 
 
 127. — Life-rent — Trust deed — Legacy and 
 inventory duty — Legacy Duty Act, 1796 (36 Geo. 3, 
 c. 52), s. 14. 
 
 By a trust deed the trustees were directed to 
 make an inventory of a library and art collection 
 which were to be vested in and held by them as 
 part of the trust estate with life-rent use thereof 
 to D. his eldest son, and substitute heirs of 
 entail. The deed also provided for the convey- 
 ance of the movable estate of the settlor to D. 
 on the liquidation of certain debts and obliga- 
 tions during D.'s lifetime. D. liijuidated the 
 debts, but the library and art collection remained 
 vested in the trustees during his life. On D.'s 
 death : — 
 
 Held, affirming decision of Ct. of Sess., Lord 
 Advocate v. Duke of Hamilton, (1891) 29 Sco. 
 Law Eep. 213, that the library and art collection 
 were part of D.'s estate, and legacy and inventory- 
 duty were payable thereon by his executors. 
 Duke of Hamilton v. Loed Advocate 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 160 
 
 Licence Duty. 
 
 128. — Public-house — Offices occupied with 
 certificated house — Stables — Inland Mevenue Act, 
 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 20), s. 43. 
 
 The Inland Eevenue Act, 1880, s. 43, imposes 
 duties payable on licences taken out by retailers 
 of spirits, according to a graduated scale which 
 depends on " the annual value of the dwelling— 
 house in which the retailer shall reside or retail 
 spirits, together with the offices, courts, yards, 
 and gardens therewith occupied." 
 
 The holder of a public-house certificate was 
 tenant of the house, and of a stable and stable- 
 yard adjoining, at a lump rent for the whole. 
 The entrance to the public-house was from A 
 street, and to the stable and stable-yard from B- 
 street, at right angles to the former. At the^ 
 
( 1783 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 178-i ) 
 
 BEVENUE (Licence Duty) — continued. 
 back, the stable and stable-yard were Beparated 
 from the house by a fence eight feet high, the 
 magistrates having made the erection of such a 
 fence a condition of granting the certificate, and 
 there was no access from the house to the stable 
 and stable-yard except by the public street, or 
 through a small door from the house used only 
 by the publican and his servants. The stables 
 were used chiefly for the accommodation of 
 farmers and others visiting the town, and the 
 jniblican generally made a charge for stabling at 
 ordinary rates. Some of the persona using the 
 stable sought refreshment at the public-house; 
 others did not. 
 
 In a question between the Board of Inland 
 Kevenue and the publican as to the amount of 
 licence duty payable by the publican under the 
 above Act, held (by Lord Stormonth-Darling, 
 Ordinary in Exchequer) that the stable and 
 stable-yard were occupied along with the public- 
 liouse in the sense of the Act, and that the 
 annual value of the stable and stable-yard fell to 
 be included in computing the amount of the 
 duty. Phillips i. Lord Advocate, (1899) 1 
 Fraser, 828. Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 204 
 
 Plate. 
 
 129. — Licence to deal in plate — Secretary of 
 watch club^Inland Bevenue Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. 0. 90), ss. 1, 3, 17. 
 
 By s. 17 of the Inland Revenue Act, 1867, a 
 penalty is imposed upon persons soliciting, taking, 
 or receiving orders for articles, for the dealing in, 
 retailing or selling which an excise licence is 
 required, without having in force a proper excise 
 licence, with a proviso that the section is not to 
 be deemed to impose a penalty upon a bona fide 
 traveller taking orders for goods which his em- 
 jjloyer is duly licensed to deal in or sell. 
 
 A watchmaker in Loudon, holding an excise 
 licence to deal in plate at his place of business 
 in London, was the proprietor of a " watch club " 
 in a provincial town. The secretary of the club, 
 a clerk in the town, obtained members from 
 among his fellow employees, receiving from each 
 member a weekly subscription, which he for- 
 warded to the watchmaker. A ballot was held 
 at intervals among the members : the member 
 who was successful at the ballot chose a watch 
 from a catalogue of the watchmaker's goods ; the 
 ■secretary communicated his choice to the watch- 
 maker and received from him a watch, which he 
 ianded over to the member. The secretary, who 
 liad no excise licence to deal in plate, was paid 
 by the watchmaker a commission upon the amount 
 collected by him : — 
 
 Eeld, that the secretary of the club was a 
 person soliciting, taking, or receiving orders for 
 an excisable article without having in force a 
 proper excise licence within the meaning of the 
 above section, and that he did not come within 
 the proviso in favour of bona fi.le travellers 
 therein contained. Killiok r. Graham. Lin- 
 TEKN V. BuKCHELL - Dlv. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B. 196 
 
 Practice. 
 
 — Collection of taxes— Expiration of collector's 
 year. 
 
 -See Kevenue— Colleotion of Taxes. 11. 
 
 EEVENTJE (Practice) — continued. 
 
 — Estate duty — Appeal from Commissioners. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 0. 30), s. 10. 
 
 — Penalties — Information to recover — Proof of 
 
 authority to take proceedings. 
 See Justices. 7. 
 
 — Penalties — Trial by jury — Exchequer prose- 
 
 cutions. 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 172. 
 
 — Process — Stated case — Amendment. 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 107. 
 
 — Stamping documents. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Stamps. 
 
 Probate Duty. 
 
 — Account stamp duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Account 
 Duty. 
 
 130. — Company — Foreign company. Shares in 
 
 — Certificates transferable in this country by 
 delivery. 
 
 Certificates of shares in a foreign co. on 
 which a form of transfer and power of attorney 
 has been indorsed and executed in blank may be 
 liable to probate duty, if they are marketable in 
 this country and are operative by delivery. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Bouwens, (1838) 4 M. & W. 171, 
 followed. Stekn v. Beg. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 a. B. 811 
 
 See In the Goods of Agense, Jeune P., [1900] 
 P. 60. 
 
 131. — Double or single duty — Legatees identi- 
 fied by reference to will of another testator — Whether 
 duties under both wills must be paid — Stamp Acts, 
 1808 (48 Geo. 3, c. 149), s. 38 ; 1815 (55 Geo. 3, 
 c. 184), s. 37; 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 76), s. 4; 
 1860 (23 Vict. c. 15), s. 4^Gmtmns and Inland 
 Bevenue Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 12), s. 32. 
 
 A. bequeathed part of her residual estate to 
 B., and failing him to his executors and repre- 
 sentatives. B. died before A,, leaving a will 
 which appointed executors. The Crown claimed 
 inventory and legacy duty from B.'s executors 
 in addition to that paid by A.'s executors : — 
 
 Meld, that B.'s executors were not liable for 
 such duty, as B. had no power to dispose of and 
 had not disposed of any part ^5 '^.'s estate 
 within the Stamp Duties Actsr- ^>^«^fe^ 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1893) ZO K^29, 
 aflSrmed. Lord Advocate v. Bogie (Methven's 
 Executors) - - H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 83 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. v. Loyd, 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 496. 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. In re ScoU, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 372, 387. 
 
 132. — Double or single duty — Legatees idemti- 
 fied by reference to will of another testator — Whether 
 
 duties under both wills mv^t be paid — Customs 
 and Inland Revenue Acts, 1881 (44 & 45Ftet. c. 12) ; 
 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 7), s. 5. 
 
 L. left his personalty to B., and In case of B. 
 predeceasing him directed that it should go to 
 B.'s administrators aa part of his personal estate 
 as if B. had survived him and died immediately 
 
( 1785 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1786 ) 
 
 KEVENUE (Probate Tixitj)— continued. 
 
 after him. B. predeceased L., leaving a will by 
 
 Vhioli he appointed executors :— 
 
 Held, that B.'b executors were not charge- 
 able with probate and estate duty in addition to 
 those paid on A.'s estate. Att.-Gen. v. Lotd 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q,. B. 496 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. In re. Scott, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 372, 387. 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenve — Estate Duty. 
 
 133. — Executor — Liability of executor after 
 close of administration — Customs and Inland 
 Revenue Act, 1881 (4i & 45 Vict. c. 12), s. 32. 
 
 After the administiation of an estate has 
 been closed the executors are not "persons 
 acting in the administration of the estate " 
 within s. 32 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue 
 Act, 1881, and are therefore not liable to deliver 
 a further aflSdavit and account in the case of a 
 bona fide mistake in valuation. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [18921 2 Q. B. 289, 
 afSrmed. Att.-Gen. v. Smith 
 
 C, A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 339 
 
 134. — Executor de son tort — Testator foreign 
 subject domiciled abroad — Company — Inter- 
 meddling with estate — Liability to pay probate 
 duty — Penalties — 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, s. 37 — Croton 
 Suits Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 104), «. 37— 
 Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. e. 12), 8. 40. 
 
 Upon the death of a testator, a foreign sub- 
 ject domiciled in America, shares and debentures 
 in an English co., of which he was the regis- 
 tered holder in the books of the co. in London, 
 passed by his will to his executors in America, 
 according to the law of his domioil. At their 
 request the co. paid to them the dividends and 
 interest payable upon the testator's shares and 
 debentures and transferred into their names in 
 the co.'s books in London two shares and a deben- 
 ture. The executors to the knowledge of the co. 
 had not obtained and did not intend to obtain 
 probate in England : — 
 
 Held, that the co. had made themselves 
 executors de son tort ; that they had " taken 
 possession of and administered " part of the tes- 
 tator's estate (see 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, s. 37 ; 28 & 29 
 Vict. 0. 104, s. 57), and were liable to penalties, 
 and to deliver an account and pay such duty as 
 would have been payable if probate had been 
 obtained in England. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1898] 1 Q. B. 205, afBrmed. 
 
 SemUe, by Lord Davey, that the co. were 
 persons who " ought to obtain probate or letters 
 of administration " in England within the 
 meaning of the Customs Act, 1881 (44 Vict. c. 12), 
 s. 40 (although they were not entitled to do so), 
 because under the Probate Act, 1857, s. 73, the 
 Court had power in its discretion to appoint 
 them administrators. New York Bbeweeies 
 Co. V. Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1899] A, C. 62 
 
 — Incidence — Specific and general legatees. 
 
 See Eevenue — Estate Duty. 33. 
 
 — Legacy duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Legacy 
 Duty. 
 
 EEVENUE (Probate D-aty)— continued. 
 
 135. — Local situation of asset — Foreign mort- 
 
 A testator, who died domiciled in England, 
 by his will after bequeathing legacies gave the 
 residue of his real and personal estate to his 
 executors in trust for his wife for life, and by a 
 codicil gave one-fourth of his "said residuary 
 real and personal estate " to his wife absolutely. 
 His will was proved in England by his executors 
 domiciled in England. His estate included 
 mortgages on real property in New Zealand. 
 His wife afterwards died and her will was proved 
 in England. At her death her husband's estate 
 had not beon fully administered; the clear residue 
 had not been ascertained, and no appropriatioir 
 had been made of the New Zealand mortgages 
 or of any securities to particular shares of the 
 ultimate residue : — 
 
 Held, that the right of the wife's executors 
 was, not to one-fourth or any part of the mort- 
 gages in specie, but to require her husband's 
 executors to administer his personal estate and to 
 receive from them one-fourth part of the clear 
 residue, that this was an English asset of tho 
 wife's estate, and that probate duty was therefore 
 payable under her will upon one-fourth part of 
 the value of the New Zealand mortgages. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1896] 1 Q. B. 354, afarmed. 
 
 LOBD SUDELEY V. AtT.-GeN. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 11 
 Followed by Rojier J. In re Smyth, [1898] 
 1 Ch. 89. 
 
 136. — Local situation of asset— Property in 
 Jamaica — English will — Trust for sale. 
 
 A testator, who at the date of his will and 
 death was living and domiciled in England, made 
 an English will whereby in effect he devised and 
 bequeathed a plantation in Jamaica to trustees 
 upon trusts for the benefit of certain persons for 
 life and their issue, and upon the deaths of those 
 persons and failure of issue upon trust to sell the 
 plantation and divide the proceeds amongst 
 several persons therein named. The trustees 
 were at the above dates all domiciled in the 
 United Kingdom ; and one of them after tho 
 testator's death proved the will in England and 
 acted as trustee, and lield as trustee in this 
 country the plantation upon the trusts of the 
 will. 
 
 The trust for sale ultimately took effect, audi 
 the proceeds of sale of the plantation became 
 divisible amongst the several persons named in 
 that behalf in the will, or their legal personal 
 representatives. 
 
 One of those persons, who was at the time of 
 his death living and domiciled in England, died 
 while the persons entitled for life were in exist- 
 ence, and the question was whether probate duty 
 was or was not payable here on his death in 
 respect of his interest under the will : — 
 
 Held, that the interest of the legatee under 
 the will was an English equitable chose in action, 
 recoverable in England, and an English and not 
 a foreign asset, and as such was subject to probate 
 duty here. 
 
 Lord Sudeley v. Att.-Gen., [1897] A. 0. II, 
 followed. In re Smyth. Leach v. Leaoh 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 89 
 
( l'S7 ) 
 
 J3IGEST OF CASE^, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1" 
 
 ) 
 
 EEVENTIE (Probate Duty) — continued. 
 
 — Local situation of testator's assets — Partner- 
 
 ship business in Colony. 
 See No. 138, heloio. 
 
 137. — Option to purchase real estate — Customs 
 and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 (4i & 45 Vict. 
 
 ■c. 12), s. 27. 
 
 The price of real estate purchased under a 
 contractual option extended by the will of a 
 testator who died in 1893 (the option not being 
 exercised within the period limited by contract) 
 is not liable to probate duty. In re Goodall. 
 •{JooDALL V. Goodall 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 136 (7) 
 
 — Paid under protest — Application for refund — 
 
 Delay. 
 
 See New South Wales. 3S. 
 
 138. — Partnership husiness in the Colony dis- 
 tinct from the general business of the firm — Local 
 situation of testator's assets — Administration cmd 
 Probate Act, 1890 (54 Vict. No. 1060). 
 
 Where a firm carried on businesses in different 
 places, which were severally treated as distinct 
 in the partnership agreement, and in the accounts 
 and conduct of the same : — 
 
 Held, that the interest of a deceased partner 
 in the business carried on at Melbourne was 
 locally situate in Victoria so as to be liable to 
 duty in that Colony. Beaveb r. Master in 
 Equity op the Supreme Couet of Victoria 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 251 
 
 139. — Eecovery of duty — ilistalie- — Estate 
 fully administered. 
 
 After an estate had been fully wound up, and 
 the executors had ceased to act as such, a bona 
 fide mistake was discovered in the valuation for 
 probate duty. The Crown sought to recover 
 from the persons who had been the executors 
 under s. 32 of the Customs and Inland Eevenue 
 Act, 1881 :— 
 
 JeZci, that as there was no longer any "person 
 acting in the administi'ation of tlie estate," the 
 Crown was without remedy and could not re- 
 cover. Att.-Gen. (. Smith 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 ft, B. 239 
 — Succession duty. 
 
 See Cases imder Eevenue — Succession 
 Duty. 
 
 Property and Income Tax. 
 
 'ee Cases imder Revenue - 
 lax, 
 
 Stamns. 
 
 - Income 
 
 Stamp Act, 1891 (54 * 5.5 Vict. c. 39), consoli- 
 dates certain enactments relating to stamp duties. 
 
 Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. 0. 38), consolidates the law relating to the 
 management of stamp) duties. 
 
 Customs and Iidand Revenue Act, 1893 (56 1(- .57 
 Vict. c. 7), alters the law as to certain stamp 
 duties. 
 
 Finance Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Viet. c. 30), Ft. V., 
 alters the law as to certain stamp duties. 
 
 «7/£*''T''-^'''' ^^'^^' (58 <t 59 Vict. c. 16), Ft. II., 
 alters certam stamp duties. 
 
 EEVENUE (Stamps) — continued. 
 
 Finance Act, 1896(50 AGO Vict. e.2S), Ft. III. , 
 cdters the law as to certain stamp duties. 
 
 Truclc Act, Fxemption of contracts under. Ser 
 Truck Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 44), ». 7. 
 
 Finance Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. e. 24), g. 8, 
 alters the law as to certain stamp duties. 
 
 Adjudication Stamps.] Instructions from 
 solicitor of Inland Revenue as to. See Cnrrent 
 Index, 1897, p. Ixxxiii. 
 
 Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 10), Ft. II. 
 amends the law. 
 
 Eevenue Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 46), Ft. 11. 
 amends the law. 
 
 . — Accident — Policy of insurance against — Em- 
 ployer's liability. 
 See No. 104, below. 
 
 — Account stamp duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Account 
 Duty. 
 Adjudication stampis — Instructions from solici- 
 tor of Inland Revenue as to. See Current Index, 
 1897, p. Ixxxiii. 
 
 140. — Agreement in consideration of fixed 
 annual payment — Duty on — Lease or tach — Stamp 
 Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), Sched. 
 
 (a) Where a telephone co. contracted to supply 
 telephonic communication between certain places 
 and to erect and maintain in order lines and 
 apparatus for a fixed annual sum per line,' the 
 agreement to continue ten years and thence from 
 year to year, determinable at three months' notice 
 by either party, with power to the co. to determine 
 in certain circumstances. Jones v. Inland 
 Revenue Commes. Div, Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 484 
 
 (e) Where a ry. agreed to permit an auto- 
 matic machine co. to place machines on their 
 platforms, in places chosen by the ry. The oo. 
 to pay a yearly rent to the ry. Power to either 
 party to determine by three months' notice. 
 Sweetmeat Automatic Delivery Co. v. Commrs. 
 OF Inland Revenue Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B, 484 
 
 Held, by Div. Ct. in each case that the agree- 
 ment was not a "lease" or "tack" within the 
 sched. of the Stamp Act, 1S91, but was charge- 
 able with an ad valorem duty under the head 
 " bond, covenant, or instrument of any kind what- 
 soever," as being the only principal or primary 
 security for an annuity or for a sum of money at 
 stated periods for an indefinite period. 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Clifford v. Inland 
 Revenue Commrs., [1896] 2 Q. B. 187, 194. 
 
 Followed by C. A. National Telephone Co. v. 
 Inland Revenue Commrs., [1899] 1 Q. B. 250. 
 This Case was affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1900] 
 A. C. 1. 
 
 — Annuitj' — " Bond, covenant, or instrument." 
 
 See No. 144, below. 
 
 141, — Annuity, Security for payment of — 
 Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 '^Vict. c. 39), ss. "54, 
 60, 87, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Sect, 87, sub-s. 2, of the Stamp Act, 1891, 
 which provides that a security for the payment 
 of any annuity by way of repayment, or in satis- 
 faction or discharge of any loan, advance, or pay- 
 ment intended to be so repaid, satisfied, or dis- 
 charged, is to be charged with the same dutv as 
 
( 1789 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1790 ) 
 
 BEVENUE (Stamps)— contmued. 
 
 «. similar security for the payment of tlio sum of 
 
 money so lent, advanced, or paid, does not apply 
 
 "to the case of a grant of a perpetual annuity in 
 
 consideration of a sum of money paid by way of 
 
 purchase. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1897] 1 Q. B. 780, 
 Affirmed. Mebsey DooKs and Habboub Boakd 
 V. Inland Kevbnue Commbs. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 316 
 
 — Appeal — Stamp objection — Practice. 
 
 See County Coubt — Appeal. 15. 
 
 142. — Sill of exchange — Coupon for interest of 
 Ijerpetual 'bond— -Reissue of coupons — Stamp Act, 
 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97), s. 18, Sclied.—Bevenue 
 Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. i2), s. 16. 
 
 A perpetual bond of a foreign government 
 -contained a statement that a new talon with 
 coupons for ten years payable to bearer would be 
 issued in 1891. The talou of 1891 was in the 
 same form, mutatis mutandis, as that of 1881, 
 with new coupons attached, and a statement as 
 to the issue of the succeeding talon : — 
 
 Meld, that the new coupons were bills of 
 exchange payable on demand, and that since 
 they were not attached to and issued with the 
 security or with any agreement or memorandum 
 for the renewal or extension of time for payment 
 thereof they did not fall within the exemptions 
 of the Stamp Act, 1870, or s. 16 of the Eevenue 
 Act, 1889, and that they were liable to stamp 
 ■duty. EOTHSOHILD & Sons v. Inland Eevenue 
 ■Commbs. - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 142 
 
 [^But see now s. iO of the Finance Act, 189i 
 ■(57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), exempting coupons from 
 istamp duty.'] 
 
 — Bill of exchange — Negligence — Stamp of 
 
 larger amount than necessary. 
 See Bill of Exchange. 2. 
 
 143. — BiU of exchange — Order on ianlcer to 
 transfer in account — Exemption — Bill draion for 
 the sole purpose of remitting money to he placed to 
 any account of public revenue — Strnnp Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. e. 39), s. 32 ; 1st Sched. tit. " BiU 
 -of Exchange," exemption 10. 
 
 A firm of bankers in London, having an ac- 
 count at the Bank of England, for the purpose 
 of enabling a customer to pay customs duties on 
 goods otherwise than in cash, issued a document 
 :addressed to the cashiers of the Bank of Eng- 
 land and directing them to transfer from tho 
 account of the bankers to the account of the 
 ■Commrs. of Customs a sum named therein. This 
 ■document was dealt with in one of two ways : 
 (1.) It was handed by the bankers to their 
 customer in exchange for his cheque for the 
 same amount, and given by him to the Commrs. 
 of Customs, who handed it to the Bank of Eng- 
 land ; or (2.) it was handed direct by the bankers 
 to a customs ofBcer in exchange for their 
 customer's cheque, and subsequently handed 
 by the Commrs. of Customs to the Bank of 
 England : — 
 
 Seld (affirming the decision of Div. Ct. [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 222), that the document was a bill of 
 •exchange payable on demaud within the mean- 
 
 EEVENTTE (Stamps) — continued. 
 ing of s. 32 of the Stamp Act, 1891, and that it 
 was not exempt from duty as being a " bUl drawn 
 in the United Kingdom for the sole purpose of 
 remitting money to be placed to any account of 
 public revenue " within the meaning of the 10th 
 exemption under the head " Bill of Exchange " 
 in the Ist ached, to the Act. 
 
 Sect. 32 is not to be construed as if the first 
 part contained a definition of bills of exchange 
 other than those payable on demand, and the 
 second a definition of bills of exchange payable 
 on demaud ; but the first part applies to bills of 
 exchange generally, and any document mentioned 
 in it must, if payable on demand, be treated as 
 coming within the second part. 
 
 The primary object of the documents in 
 question was to enable the merchant to obtain 
 the release of his goods from the custom house, 
 and they were therefore not drawn " for the sole 
 purpose" of remitting money to an account of 
 public revenue, and, moreover, having regard to 
 the history of tho exemption clause, the word 
 " remit " only applied to the placing to its proper 
 account money which was already public money. 
 Committee oi? London Cleabing Bankebs v. 
 Inland Eevenue Commbs. 
 
 C. A, [1896] 1 «. B. 542 
 
 — Bill of exchange — Stamp duty — Eeduotion of 
 
 duty on certain bills of exchange. 
 See Bill of Exchange. 19 — 20. 
 
 — Bills charged on local rates — Explanation 
 
 as to. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 24), s. 8. 
 
 144. — " Bond, covenant, or instrument " — 
 Agreement in consideration of fixed quarterly 
 payments — Annuity — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 39), Sched. 
 
 By the 1st sched. to the Stamp Act, 1891, a 
 bond, covenant, or instrument of any kind what- 
 soever, being the only, or principal, or primary 
 security for any annuity (except upon the original 
 creation thereof by way of sale or security, and 
 except a superannuation annuity), or for any sum 
 or sums of money at stated periods, not being 
 interest for any principal sum secured by a duly 
 stamped instrument, nor rent reserved by a lease 
 or tack, is chargeable, if for a definite and certain 
 period, so that the total amount to be ultimately 
 payable can be ascertained,' with the same ad 
 valorem duty as a bond or covenant for such 
 total amount ; if for the term of life or any other 
 indefinite period with a duty of 2s. 6d. for every 
 51., and also for any fractional part of 51. of the 
 annuity or sum periodically payable. 
 
 By a separation deed between a husband and 
 wife the husband covenanted to pay the wife for 
 her separate use without power of anticipation 
 " the sum of 625Z. every three months by quarterly 
 payments on the 29th day of September, the 25th 
 day of December, the 25th day of March, and the 
 24th day of June in every year : — 
 
 Held, that the deed was a security for an 
 annuity or yearly sum payable by quarterly 
 instalments, and not for a sum of money payable 
 at quarterly periods, and that it was therefore 
 liable to. ad valorem duty upon the amount of 
 
( 1791 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1792 ) 
 
 EEVENTJE (Stamps) — continued. 
 
 the annuity and not upon the sum payable 
 
 quarterly. 
 
 Clifford V. Inland Bereniie Commrs., [1896] 
 2 Q. B. 187, distinguished. Lewis and Lewis v. 
 Inland Eevenue Commks. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 290 
 
 145. — " Sond, eorenenf, or instrument" — 
 Agreement in consideration of fixed weelcly pay- 
 ments — Hotel proprietor — Stam2>Act, 1891 (54tfc55 
 Vict. c. 39), Soiled. 
 
 By an agreement under seal between the 
 owner and the manager of a hotel, the manager 
 was until determination of the agreement to 
 carry on the business of hotel proprietor, and to 
 have entire control of the business without inter- 
 ference by the owner; he was to receive the 
 whole of the receipts and profits, and pay all 
 necessary outgoings, and to pay to the owner a 
 fixed sum per week. No period was fixed for 
 the duration of the agreement, which contained 
 2:)owers for its determination by either party in 
 certain events ; it was ipso facto to determine on 
 the death of the manager. The agreement was 
 not to operate as a demise to the manager, nor to 
 constitute a partnership between the parties : — 
 h . Held, that the agreement was a. security for 
 an indefinite period for a sum of money at weekly 
 periods, and not for an annuity or yearly sum 
 payable by weekly instalments, and was therefore 
 liable to an ad valorem duty upon the sum 
 agreed to be paid weekly, and not upon the 
 total amount of such weekly payments for a 
 year. Cufeokd v. Inland Eevenue Commks. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 ft. B. 18,7 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Lewis v. Inland 
 Mevenue Commrs., [1898] 2 Q. B. 290. See pre- 
 ceding Case. 
 
 146. — " Bond, covenant, or instrument of any 
 Jdnd wliatsoeter " — Agreement for hire of chattel 
 in consideration of yearly payment — Stamp Act, 
 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), Sehed. I. 
 
 The words " bond, covenant, or instrument 
 of any kind whatsoever " in the 1st schedule to 
 the Stamp Act, 1891, include an agreement not 
 under seal. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1899] 1 Q. B. 250, affirmed. 
 National Telephone Co. v. Inland Kevence 
 Commks. H. 1. (E.) [1900] A. C, 1 
 
 — Building society — Eeconveyance to — Mort- 
 
 gage. 
 
 ISee No. 168, hekno. 
 Colonial Stocks — Tkansfeks of.] Buty 
 chargeahle on, shall extend to stoclt of any British 
 protectorate. See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 10), s. 5. 
 
 Company — Finance Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 
 Vict. 0. 28), s. 12, extends s. 113 of Stamp Act, 1891 
 
 (.54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), to certain other corporations 
 
 -"Wit? ./•^Ftprinies Amended by Finance Act, 1899 
 
 (62&63S5sc«. c. 9), s. 5. 
 
 — Company^ipportionment of value — Issue of 
 
 shares at a discount. 
 See Company — Winding-dp— Contribu- 
 tory. 45. 
 
 — Company — Blanks in proxies — Meeting of 
 
 shareholders. 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 164. -- 
 
 EEVENTJE (Stamps) — continued. 
 
 147. — Company — Debentures — Eguilabli!- 
 charge upon debentures not under seal — "MarJcet- 
 able security " — Mortgage — Stamp Act, 1870' 
 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 97), s. 2, sub-s. 10 ; ss. 105, 107 
 — Customs and Inland Mevenue Act, 1888 (51 Vict, 
 c. 8), s. 14, iub-ss. 1, 5. 
 
 By the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 
 
 1888, s. 14, sub-s. 1, the stamp duty then payable- 
 upon a mortgage of any stock or " marketable 
 security " was repealed ; and by sub-s. 5 " any 
 deed operating as a mortgage " of any " market- 
 able security " was made chargeable with the ad 
 valorem duty on a mortgage under the Stamp 
 Act, 1 870. An equitable charge upon the deben- 
 tures of a limited co. is a " marketable security " 
 within the definition given in s. 2, sub-s. 10, of 
 the Stamp Act, 1870. The Act of 1888 contains 
 no provision as to the duty upon equitable mort- 
 gages, not under seal, of marketable securities. 
 
 In the case of such a document dated March 5^ 
 
 1889, held, that it was sufliciently stamped with a 
 6d. agreement stamp. Kead v. Eley 
 
 StirUng J. [1900] W. N. 57 
 
 148. — Company — Debentures — Principal sum 
 repayable with premium — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55- 
 Vict. c. 39), s. 86, Sched. I. 
 
 A CO. issued a series of debentures of lOOZ. 
 each, each debenture containing an undertaking 
 by the co. to pay to the registered holder upon & 
 specified date " the sum of 1002. together with a 
 premium thereon at 11. 10s." The debentures 
 were marketable securities not transferable by 
 delivery within the meaning of Sched. I. of the 
 Stamp Act, 1891 :— 
 
 Held, that each debenture was a security for 
 the payment by the co. of 107/. 10s., the amount- 
 of the principal and the premium, and was there- 
 fore liable to ad valorem stamp duty upon that 
 amount. Eowell v. Inland Eevenue Commes. 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 ft. B. 194 
 
 Dicta in, at p. 198. Commented on by 
 Div. Ct. Knights Deep Ld. v. Inland Revenue 
 Commrs., [1899] 1 Q. B , 345, 351 ; but this Case , 
 was reversed by C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 217. 
 
 149. — Company — Debentures — Bedemptionon 
 contingency — " Marketable security " — Stamp Act, 
 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 39), Sched. I. 
 
 A limited co. issued a series of debentures for 
 1001. each, redeemable at par by annual drawings 
 on and after July 1, 1902. Each debenture con- 
 tained a stipulation that the co. might, at any 
 time after July 1, 1900, on giving six months' 
 previous notice in writing to the registered holder, 
 redeem the debenture at 103J., which sum, at the 
 expiration of the six months, should become 
 payable as if the same were the amount of the 
 principal moneys thereby secured : — 
 
 Held, that ad valorem stamp duty was charge- 
 able on each debenture under the head of 
 " Marketable Security " in the 1st sched. to the 
 Stamp Act, 1891, upon lOOZ. only, as being the 
 "money secured" by the debenture within the 
 meaning of the sched. 
 
 Decision of the Div. Ci, [1899] 1 Q. B. 345^ 
 reversed. Knights Deep, Ld. v. Inland Eevenue 
 Commrs. - - C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 217 
 
 Company — Fxtension of stamp duty on share 
 warrants and stocJc certificates to bearer — Increase 
 
( 1793 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1791 ) 
 
 SEVENUE (Stamps)— oo»«j»ue(i. 
 ■of company's capital duty — Duty on loan capital — 
 And as to other matter. See Finance Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. V. 9), ss. 4—8. 
 
 Composition for certain stamp duties — Exten- 
 sion of 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, s. 114. See Finance 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 30), ». 39. 
 
 Contract notes. See Finance Act, 1899 (62 <6 63 
 Vict. c. 9), t. 13. 
 
 180. — Contract note — Failure hy hrdker to 
 transmit stamped contract to principal — Sale or 
 purchase of stock — Commission — Customs and 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Viet. c. 8), 
 «. 17, suh-s. 1. 
 
 The penalty imposed by s. 17, sub-s. 1, of tbe 
 Oistoms and Inland Eevenue Act, 1888 (now 
 «s. 52, 53 of the Stamp Act, 1891), does not affect 
 sthe contract between the principal and the broker, 
 but only creates an obligation affecting the 
 broker. Leabotd v. Bbacken 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 a. B. 114 
 
 See now the Stamp Act 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 «. 39), ss. 52, 53, which consolidates the previous 
 .statutes; and the Revenue Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 ■c. 46), 8. 7. 
 
 151. — Conveyance on sale — Ad valorem duty 
 —Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), ss. 54, 57— 
 Heritable Securities {Scotland) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 44), ss. 8, 9. 
 
 A bond and disposition in eeeurity contained 
 a power of sale. The creditor exposed for sale 
 the property held in security at a price less than 
 the amount due under his security, and failed to 
 ifind a purchaser. The creditor then applied to 
 the sheriff under s. 8 of the Heritable Securities 
 (Scotland) Act, 1894, and the sheriff issued a 
 decree that the debtors had forfeited their rights 
 of redemption, and that the creditor was vested 
 absolutely in the subjects at the price named : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the First 
 Division of the Ot. of Sess., (1897) 24 E. 934, 
 that the transaction constituted a sale to the 
 creditor, and was chargeable, by virtue of ss. 54 
 and 57 of the Stamp Act, 1891, and the 1st sched. 
 thereto, with ad valorem duty. Inland Ebvendb 
 CoMMKS. V. Tod H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 399 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Yict. 
 c. 10), s. 6. 
 
 152. — Conveyance on sale — Agreement for sale 
 — Ad valorem duty — Leasehold interest in licensed 
 house — Goodwill — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 <fc 55 Vict, 
 c. 39), s. 59, svh-s. 1. 
 
 By an agreement under seal the vendor 
 agreed to sell the goodwill of the business of an 
 hotel proprietor and licensed victualler, and the 
 lease of the hotel in which the business was 
 carried on, together with the household furniture, 
 stock-in-trade, cash, and book debts ; of the total 
 .consideration, 4085Z. was apportioned to "lease 
 :and goodwill," 1462Z. to furniture, stock-in-trade, 
 and cash, and 372. to book debts. The vendor 
 was to shew a good title to the lease and to 
 assiip. the lease and goodwill to the purchasers ; 
 in tlie event of the consent of the landlords to the 
 assignment of the lease not being obtained, it 
 was provided that the vendor should, at the 
 option of the purchasers, execute a declaration of 
 Uust of the leasehold premises in their favour. 
 
 EEVENTJE (Stamps) — continued. 
 The consent of the landlords not having been 
 obtained, a declaration of trust was executed in 
 favour of the purchasers, which was stamped 
 with the fixed duty of 10«. : — 
 
 Held, (1.) by A. L. Smith and V. Williams 
 L.JJ., affirming the judgment of Div. Ot., [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 226, that the agreement was not an 
 agreement for the sale of an equitable interest in 
 property within the meaning of s. 59, sub-s. 1, of 
 the Stamp Act, 1891 ; by Eigby L.J., that though 
 the agreement was not on the face of it an agree- 
 ment for the sale of an equitable interest, the 
 proper inference to be drawn from the facts was 
 that the bargain was for the sale of an equitable 
 interest only ; (2.) by A. L. Smith and Eigby L.JJ., 
 reversing the decision of the Div. Ot., that the 
 goodwill was not merely an enhancement of the 
 value of the leasehold premises, but was capable 
 of being sold independently thereof, and as it was 
 property other than lands, the agreement was 
 liable to ad valorem duty in respect of the value 
 of the goodwill ; by V. Williams L.J., that the 
 goodwill was inseparable from the leasehold 
 premises which were the subject of the sale, and 
 that the instrument was not liable to ad valorem 
 duty upon that portion of the consideration attri- 
 buted to "lease and goodwill." West London 
 SiNDiOATB, Ld. v. Inland Eeventje Oommks. 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q, B. 507 
 
 Distinguished by 0, A. Muller & Co.'s 
 Margarine, Ld. v. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 310, 320. See No. 154, helow. 
 
 153. — " Conveyance on sale " — Amalgamation 
 of railioay companies — Special Act — Stamp Act, 
 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), s. Si, and Sched.— 
 Great Western Railway Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict, 
 c. ccxxxiii. 
 
 A special Act amalgamating certain ry. under- 
 takings lield to operate as a "conveyance or 
 transference on sale " within s. 54 and the sched. 
 to the Stamp Act, 1891, and therefore chargeable 
 with ad valorem stamp duty. GtBEAT Western 
 Ey. Co. 0. Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 607 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. J. & P. Coats v. Inland 
 Revenue Commrs., [1897] 2 Q. B. 423, 427. 
 
 164. — Conveyance on sah — Colonial patent — 
 Licence to use patent — " Property locally situate 
 out of the United Kingdom" — Stamp Act, 1891 
 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 59, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A share in a patent granted in New South 
 Wales, and a sole licence to use in a district of 
 that Colony the invention protected by the patent, 
 are "property" within the meaning of s. 59, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Stamp Act, 1891, aild. do not 
 come within the exception in that sub-seclion of 
 " property locally situate out of the United King- 
 dom." An agreement mide in England for the 
 sale of such a share or licence is, therefore ''pole 
 to ad valorem stamp duty under^at f:"''''"^^Jlion 
 as though it were an actual qofwe^'- %s^3rtale. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct., [189BJ2' Q. IB. 179, 
 affirmed. Smelting Co. of Australia v. Inland 
 Eevenue Commes. - C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 176 
 
 Discussed and explained by 0. A. Muller & 
 Co.'s Margarine, Ld. v. Inland Revenue Commrs., 
 [1900] 1 y. B. 310, 318, 320, 322. 
 
 3 M 
 
( 170.5 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1796 ) 
 
 EEVENTJE (Stamps)— continued. 
 
 155. — Conveyance on sale — Declaration of trust 
 — Agreement for sale of equitable interest — Stamp 
 Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. o. 39), as. 54, 59. 
 
 The shareholders of the A. co., which was 
 then in course of being voluntarily wound up, 
 entered into an agreement in writing with the 
 B. CO. whereby it was agreed that the share- 
 holders of the A. CO. should respectively exchange 
 their shares in the A. co. for shares in the B. co., 
 and that upon the B. co. allotting to them the 
 shares to which they were respectively entitled 
 they should thenceforth hold their respective 
 shares in the A. co. in trust for the B. co. : — 
 
 Seld, by Wills and Bruce JJ., that the agree- 
 ment amounted to a declaration of trust, and as 
 such to a " conveyance on sale " to the B. co. of 
 an equitable interest in the shares of the A. co. 
 withm the meaning of s. 54 of the Stamp Act, 
 1891, and was chargeable with an ad valorem 
 duty accordingly : 
 
 Held, also, by Wills J., that it was an agree- 
 ment for the sale of an equitable interest in 
 property within the meaning of a. 59. Chesteh- 
 
 FIELD BeEWBRT CO. T. InLAKB REVENUE COMMES. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 7 
 
 — Conveyance on sale — Duty in respect of 
 
 fm-ther consideration. 
 See Finance Act, 1900 (68 Vict. c. 7), 
 s. 10. 
 
 X56. — Conveyance on sale — Exchange of shares 
 — Ad valorem stamp — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 it 55 
 Viet. c. 39), ss. 54, 55, 73. 
 
 By an instrument, entered into in pm-suanee 
 of an agreement, a shareholder in one co. trans- 
 ferred his shares to another co. in exchange for 
 certain shares in the latter co. : — 
 
 Seld, that the transaction was a conveyance 
 on sale of the shares within ss. 54 and 55 of the 
 Stamp Act, 1891, and that the insti-ument was 
 therefore chargeable with an ad valorem stamp. 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct., [1897] 1 Q. B. 778, 
 affirmed. J. & P. Coats v. Inland Eevente 
 CoMMBS. - C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 423 
 
 — Conveyance on sale — Furtlier consideration. 
 
 Duty in respect of. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1900 (63 Vict. c. 7), 
 s. 10. 
 
 157. — Conveyance on saU — Goodwill — Con- 
 tract "made" in the United Kingdom— '■ Equitable 
 interest in property " — "Property locally situate 
 out of the United Kingdom" — Stamp Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 59, suh-s. 1. 
 
 By s. 59, sub-s. 1, of the Stamp Act, 1891, 
 "Any contract or agreement made in England 
 or Ireland under seal or under hand only .... 
 for the sale of any equitable estate or interest in 
 any property whatsoever, or for the sale of any 
 ests*§ or interest in any property except .... 
 (intfejmjJaa) property locally situate out of the 
 Unit53-J^''-,domJ' is chargeable with the same 
 ad vaIorMS*a4pas if it were a conyejance on 
 sale. 
 
 A contract is " made," within the meaning of 
 that section, in that country in which the signa- 
 ture of the last necessary party to it is afSxed. 
 
 A contract for the sale of an option to purchase 
 property at a particular price is not a contract 
 
 BEVENUE (Sta.mps)~continued. 
 
 for the sale of an "equitable estate or interest iit 
 
 any property " within the section. 
 
 Where the goodwill of a business is sold 
 together with the premises where the business is- 
 carried on for a lump sum the goodwill is prima, 
 facie annexed to the premises, and, therefore, if 
 the business premises so sold are situate abroad, 
 and there are no circumstances to rebut the 
 presumption of annexation, the goodwUl also will 
 be treated as " property locally situate out of the 
 United Kingdom " within the meaning of that 
 section. 
 
 West London Syndicate v. Inland Bevenue 
 Commrs., [1898] 2 Q. B. 507, distinguished. 
 MuLLEK & Co.'s MLabgaeise, Lr. v. Inlaxd 
 Revenue Commbs. - C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 310 
 
 168. — Conveyance on sale — Mortgage — Edit- 
 able mortgage — Foreclosure — Conveyance by mort- 
 gagor under foreclosure order — Ad valorem duty 
 —Stamp Act, 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 39), ss. 54, 57. 
 
 Where an equitable mortgagee obtains an 
 order absolute for foreclosure under which the 
 mortgagor is directed to execute, and does execute, 
 a conveyance of all his estate and interest in the 
 property to the mortgagee, the conveyance is a 
 "conveyance on sale" within the meaning of 
 s. 54 of the Stamp Act, 1891, and is chargeable 
 with ad valorem duty under the head " Convey- 
 ance or transfer on sale " in the 1st sched. to 
 that Act. Huntington v. Island Revenue 
 Commbs. - - Div. Ct. [1896] 1 ft. B. 422 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict. c. 10), 
 s. 6. 
 
 And see Inland Sevenu^e Commrs. y. Tod, 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 399. 
 
 159. — Conveyance on sale — Partners — Convey- 
 ance by partners to a company consisting of them- 
 selves — Consideration — Stamp Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Vict. c. 97), ss. 70, 71. 
 
 Where eight partners turned their business 
 into a CO., consisting solely of themselves, trans- 
 ferred by deed the whole of the partnership pro- 
 perty to the CO., which was a party to the deed, 
 and divided the whole of the shares in proportion 
 to their respective interests in the partnership 
 estate : — 
 
 Held, that the deed was a "conveyance or 
 ti'ansfer on sale " within s. 71 of the Stamp Act, 
 1870 (now s. 55 of the Stamp Act, 1891), for the 
 consideration of shares and stock, and was liable- 
 to ad valorem stamp duty. Fostee (John) & 
 Sons, Ld. v. Inland Revenue Commes. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 51& 
 
 Followed by C. A. J. & P. Coats v. Inland 
 Bevenue Commrs., [1897] 2 Q. B. 423, 425. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Great Northei-n By. 
 Co. v. Inland Bevenue Commrs., [1899] 2 Q. B. 
 652, 659. 
 
 160. — " Conveyance or transfer on sale " — As- 
 signment of leaseholds — Consideration — Bent — 
 Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Tict. c. 39), s. 57, 
 Sched. I. 
 
 The lessee, for a term of ninety-nine years at 
 a yearly rent, of a piece of land with three houses 
 thereon, assigned and conveyed two of the houses, 
 in consideration of 50SI., for the residue of tha 
 
( 1797 ) 
 
 DIGKST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1798 ) 
 
 REVEinTE (Stamps)— conKnued. 
 term subject to an apportioned rent representing 
 two-thirds of the rent reserved by the lease. By 
 the deed of aseignment the assignee covenanted 
 to pay such apportioned rent, and to keep the 
 assignor indemnified in respect of it, and the 
 assignor covenanted to pay the remaining one- 
 third of the rent reserved by the lease, and to 
 keep the assignee indemnified in respect of it. 
 The three houses were of the same annual 
 value : — 
 
 Held, that, for the purpose of fixing the ad 
 valorem duty chargeable under the heading 
 "Conveyance or Transfer on Sale of any Pro- 
 perty " in Sched. I. of the Stamp Act, 1891, the 
 payment of rent by the assignee was not part of 
 the consideration for the assignment, and that 
 duty was chargeable upon the 5031. only. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct. [1899] "W. N. 3 (6) ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 335, affirmed. Swayne «. Inland 
 Revenue Commes. - C, A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 172 
 
 — Corporation, &c. — Bills treated as promissory 
 notes with respect to stamp duty. 
 See Finance Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 2i), ri. 8. 
 
 — ' Coupons — Stamp duty. 
 See No. 142, aiove. 
 
 — • Die for making fictitious stamp — Possession 
 " without lawful excuse." 
 See Post Office. 1. 
 
 161. — Foreign firm — English trade-marJc and 
 goodwill — " Property " — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 39), s. 59, subs. 1. 
 
 By an agreement made in England the 
 appellants, a limited co., bought from a firm of 
 soap manufacturers in the United States their 
 freehold works, book and other debts, together 
 with the goodwill of the business and the trade- 
 marks used in connection therewith. The vendors 
 were the owners of a trade-mark, registered in 
 England, relating to their soap, which trade- 
 mark was extensively circulated throughout 
 England in newspapers and pictorial advertise- 
 ments at the expense of the vendors, who had an 
 office in London for that purpose, and by this 
 means a large demand for the soap had been 
 created in the United Kingdom. The vendors 
 did not sell direct to the retail dealers in the 
 United Kingdom, but to a syndicate of three 
 firms, who gave orders for soap which was des- 
 patclicd to them in England and paid for by 
 them by remittances sent to the vendors; the 
 syndicate then resold it to retail dealers and 
 others at such prices as they thought fit ; about 
 two-thirds of the total sales of the vendors were 
 made to the English syndicate : — 
 
 Held, that the English trade-mark and good- 
 will were "property" within the meaning of 
 s. 59, sub-s. 1, of the Stamp Act, 1891, and that 
 the agreement was liable in respect of them to 
 ad valorem stamp duty. Benjamin Bbooke & 
 Co. 1). Inland Revenue Commes. 
 
 [1896] 2 ft. B. 356 
 
 Foreign or Colonial instruments on which duty 
 is not now payable. Stamp duty on. See Finance 
 Ad, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 9), ss. 4, 12. 
 
 162. — Foreign security made or issued in 
 
 EEVENTJE (Stamps) — continued. ' "^ 
 
 United Kingdom— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 V. 39), ». 82, sub-s. 1 (6) (i.). 
 
 Bonds of a foreign co. payable to bearer were 
 executed by the co. abroad and delivered abroad 
 to a foreign trustee for the bondholders. The 
 bonds were expressed not to be valid for any 
 purpose unless authenticated by the certificate 
 of the trustee. Some of the bonds were sent to 
 England and the trustee having come to England 
 there certified them and delivered them to the 
 persons entitled to them : — 
 
 Held, that since the bonds were not market- 
 able till they were certified, the bonds certified 
 in England were "marketable securities by a 
 foreign co. which were made and issued in the 
 United Kingdom" within the meaning of the 
 Stamp Act 1891, s. 82, sub-s. 1 (6) (i.), and liable 
 to the stamp duty imposed by that Act upon 
 such securities. 
 
 Decision of C. A., Baring v. Inland Bevenue 
 Cmnmrs., [1898] 1 Q. B. 78, affirmed. Loed 
 Eeyelstoke v. Inland Revenue Commes. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 565 
 
 Imitation of Postage Stamps. See Iiond, Gaz. 
 June 4, 1897, p. 3131. 
 
 Insurance — Policies, Composition on — Finance 
 Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Viet. c. 28), ss. 12, 13, extends 
 s. 116 of the Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), 
 as to. 
 
 163. — Insurance — Policy — Stamp duty — Sea 
 insurance — Time policy, including a number of 
 ships — Customs and Inland Bevenue Act, 1867 
 (30 Vict. c. 23), s. 1, Sched. B, and s. 4 — Interpre- 
 tation Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 1 (6). 
 
 The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1867, 
 s. 1, enacts that there shall be charged the 
 several duties respectively specified in Scheds. A, 
 B, and C to the Act. 
 
 Sched. B, — " . , . For every policy of sea 
 insurance for time, in respect of every full sum 
 of 1002., and in respect of any fractional part of 
 lOOZ. thereby insured, where the insurance shall 
 be made for any time not exceeding six months, 
 3d." 
 
 Sect. 4 defines sea insurance as meaning, 
 inter alia, "any insurance . . . made upon any 
 ship or vessel." 
 
 Sect. 1 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, pro- 
 vides — (1) that in any Act passed after 1850, 
 unless the contrary shall appear (6) words in the 
 singular shall include the plural, and words in 
 the plural shall include the singular. 
 
 Held, that a time policy of insurance em- 
 bracing a number of vessels with separate sums 
 insured on each was properly stamped at the 
 duty corresponding to the aggregate sum insured. 
 Geeat Beitain Steamship Peemium Associa- 
 tion V. Whvte, (1891) 19 Eettle, 109 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 91 
 
 Insueance.] "Policy of insurance against 
 accident " in s. 98 of 51 & 55 Vict. c. 39, includes 
 policies of insurance or indemnity against liability 
 incurred by employers, &c., when the annual 
 premium does not exceed one pound. See Finance 
 Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 39), s. 11. 
 
 164. — Insurance^Policy of insurance against 
 accident — Employer'^ liability — Stamp Act, 1891 
 
 3 M 2 
 
( 1799 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1800 ) 
 
 KEVENITE (Stamps) — continued. 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), «. 98, Sched. I.— Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37). 
 S'lAn insurance co. by a policy granted to 
 employers of labour agreed to pay, for and on 
 behalf of the employers, such sums as they sbould 
 become liable to pay under the Employers' Lia- 
 bility Act, 1880, the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897, or by the common law, in respect of 
 personal injury to any workmen in their employ : — 
 
 Held, that this instrument was not " a policy 
 of insurance against accident " within the mean- 
 ing of B. 98 and Sched. I. of the Stamp Act, 1891, 
 and therefore was not chargeable with the duty 
 imposed by the Act in respect of such policies. 
 Lancashire Insurance Co. v. Inland Eevencb 
 CoMMRS, Vdlcan Boiler and General In- 
 surance Co. V. Inland Eevenub Commrs. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 ft. B. 353 
 
 See Finance Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 9), 
 s. 11. 
 
 See -In re Wool Industries Employers' Insur- 
 ance Association, Ld., Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 
 259. 
 
 165. ■ — Medicine — " Seld out or recommended 
 to the public" — "Public notice or advertisement" 
 —Stamp Act, 1804 (44 Geo. 3, c. 98), Sched. B— 
 Medicines Stamp Act, 1812 (52 Geo. 3, c. 150), 
 ss 1, 2, and Sched. 
 
 Where druggists issued a price list, which was 
 distributed gratis, in which two medicines were 
 described as being beneficial for certain ailments, 
 and one of the medicines was sold in a wrappe 
 which described it in similar terms to those in 
 the price list : — 
 
 Held, (1) that by distributing the price lists 
 the defls. had held out or recommended the 
 medicines to Ihe public, by public notice or 
 advertisement, as beneficial for the cure of dis- 
 orders; (2) that it was not necessary that the 
 notice or advertisement should be affixed to or 
 delivered with the medicine ; (3) that the case 
 did not come within the exemptions in the sched. 
 to the Medicines Stamp Act, 1812, and (4) that 
 defts. were liable under s. 2 of that Act for selling 
 the medicines without a paper cover duly stamped 
 for denoting the duty. Smith i: Mason & Co. 
 
 Siv. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 363 
 
 166. — Mortgage — Bond and disposition in 
 security in ordinary Scotch form — Stamp Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. t. 39), Sched. I., race " Mortgage," 
 sub-s. 5. 
 
 A bond and disposition in security, in the 
 ordinary Scotch form, for the principal sum of 
 5000i., was made in 1877. In 1887, the principal 
 sum to the extent of 2000J. was paid oif, and a 
 discharge for that sum executed and stamped 
 with 10s. duty. In May, 1895, the parties liable 
 on the bond repaid the balance of 3000Z., and 
 executed a discharge expressed to be in con- 
 sideration of the 8000!. then repaid, and to be a 
 discliarge for that sum, and declaring (in the 
 usual form of a Scotch instrument putting an end 
 to the burden upon the land) the premises to be 
 redeemed and disburdened of the debt. The 
 Commrs. of Inland Revenue assessed the duty 
 upon this inatiument at 11. 5s., hAng the ad 
 valorem duty of Gd. per cent, upon tlae whole 
 
 EEVENTIE (Stamps) — continued. 
 (original) principal debt. The trustees who were 
 debtors upon the bond appealed against this 
 assessment, and maintained tliat the discharge 
 being only a partial one, to the extent of 3000i., 
 it was liable to the duty (of 158. only) on that 
 amount ; the lOs. duty already paid being imput- 
 able to the ad valorem duty of 6d. per cent, upon 
 the 2000i. :— 
 
 Beld, that the 5th sub-section of the sched. 
 (voce" Mortgage") applied only to such dis- 
 charges as have the effect of wholly freeing the 
 subjects of the security from that security ; and 
 that the duty was to be calculated by the maxi- 
 mum burden which has ever been incumbent by 
 virtue of the security. The whole ad valorem 
 duty was therefore payable on a discharge of the 
 balance equally with a discharge of the whole 
 money. It follows, also, that a discharge which 
 lifts off part of the burden but leaves the security 
 in part still incumbent, is not within the section ; 
 and that such discharges are liable to an ordinary 
 deed stamp. Munro c. Inland Kevence, (1895) 
 33 Scottish Law Eeporter, 152 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1896] W. N. 149 
 
 167. — Mortgage — Covenant — Agreement to exe- 
 cute mxn-tgage— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict, 
 c. 39), 8. 86, Sclied. I. 
 
 A limited co., by deed, in consideration of 
 373,000!.. then advanced to them by a building 
 society, agreed to execute, whenever called upon 
 by the society, a mortgage or charge, in such 
 form as the society should request, of all the co.'s 
 interest in certain hereditaments to secure the 
 repayment of the sum advanced, with interest. 
 A receiver was appointed by the deed to receive 
 the rents and profits so long as any money re- 
 mained due to the society ; but there was a pro- 
 vision that he was not to enter into possession 
 of such rents and profits until default should 
 be made in payment of the principal and 
 interest : — 
 
 Seld, that this instrument was chargeable 
 with ad valorem stamp duty under the head 
 " Mortgage, Bond, Debenture, Covenant," in the 
 Ist sched. to the Stamp Act, 1891. United 
 Eealization Co. v. Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 ft. B. 361 
 
 Mortgage — Foreclosure Decbees.] Re- 
 moval of doubt as to 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, ss. 54, 57, 
 so far as regards. See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. o. 10), s. 6. 
 
 — Mortgage — Foreclosure order, Conveyance by 
 mortgagor under. 
 See No. 158, above. 
 
 168. — Mortgage — Beconveyance to building 
 society — Building Societies Act, 1874 (37 <fc 38 
 Vict. c. 42), ss. 41, i2— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 cfc 55 
 Vict. c. 39), Sclied. I. 
 
 A reconveyance by a building society incor- 
 porated under the Building Societies Act, 1874, 
 to the mortgagor is exempt from stamp duty by 
 virtue of s. 41 of that Act ; nor is the right to 
 exemption lost by reason of the trustees for the 
 purpose of the dissolution of the society being 
 joined as parties to the reconveyance. Old 
 Batteksea and Disteict Building Societt v. 
 Inland Eevenue Commrs. 
 
 Div. Ct, [1898] a ft, B, 294 
 
( 1801 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 18}I— 1900. 
 
 ( 18)2 ) 
 
 KEVENTTE (Stamps)— confinMed!. 
 
 169. — Mm-tgage — Redemption, Equity of— 
 Agreement for sale — Equitable estate — Property 
 locally situate out of the United Kingdom — Pur- 
 chase in England of equity of redemption~Ad 
 valorem [duty— Stamp Act, 1891 (51 * 55 Vict, 
 c. 39), 8. 59, sub-s. 1— Trust Property Act of 1862, 
 New South Wales (26 Vict. No. 12), s. 25. 
 
 By the Stamp Act, 1891, s. 59, sub-a. 1, "Any 
 contract or agreement made in England under 
 seal, or under hand only, for the sale of any 
 equitable estate or interest in any property what- 
 soever, or for the sale of any estate or interest in 
 any property except property locally situate out 
 of the United Kingdom," is charged with ad 
 valorem duty. 
 
 By the New South Wales Trust Property Act 
 of 1862, s. 25, " All mortgages of real or personal 
 estate shall hereafter be deemed at law, as now 
 in equity, pledges only of the property thereby 
 mortgaged; and nothing in any such mortgage 
 shall prevent the title of any mortgagor, or 
 person claiming and being in possession, from 
 being deemed a good title at law, subject to such 
 pledge, as againist all persons other than the 
 mortgagee and those claiming under him." 
 
 The appellants entered into a -written agree- 
 ment in England to purchase property in New 
 South Wales, subject to a mortgage. 
 
 On a case stated by the Commrs. of Inland 
 Revenue, pursuant to s. 13 of the Stamp Act, 
 1891 :— 
 
 Seld, that the words of exception in the 
 Stamp Act, 1891, s. .59, sub-s. 1, do not apply to 
 an equitable estate or interest in property locally 
 situate out of the United Kingdom, and therefore 
 the general words, "any equitable estate or 
 interest in any property whatsoever," apply, and 
 ad valorem duty is payable on an agreement 
 made in England for tJie purchase of such an 
 estate : 
 
 Held, also, that the New South Wales Tiust 
 Property Act does not confer the legal estate in 
 mortaaged property on the mortgagor : 
 
 Held, therefore, that ad valoieni duty was 
 payable on the purchase by the appellants of the 
 equity of redemption. Pakmek & Co. v. Inland 
 Eevenub Commks. Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 141 
 
 170. — Mortgage — Trust deed for securing de- 
 benture stoclc — Transfer of mortgage — Additional 
 or substituted security — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 39), s. 86, suh-». 1 ; s. 87, svib-s. 3 ; 8. 88, 
 sub-s. 1 ; Sched. J. 
 
 A limited co. issued in 1892 500,0002. 4 per 
 cent, debenture stock, secured by a trust deed 
 duly stamped, by which freehold and leasehold 
 property of the co. were conveyed to trustees to 
 secure payment of the amount of the stock and 
 interest as provided for by the deed. By » 
 subsequent trust deed for securing debenture 
 stock made in 1897, the trustees of which were 
 the same as those of the deed of 1892, after recit- 
 ing that the 500,0002. debenture stock was still 
 outstanding and that the co. were intending to 
 issue further irredeemable 3| per cent, deben- 
 ture stock, it was provided (inter alia) that the 
 amount of stock to be issued was limited in the 
 first instance to 300,0002., the co. acknowledg- 
 ing in the deed tliat they were indebted to the 
 
 REVENUE (Stamps)— eo)i«//««et2. 
 trnstees in that sum carrying interest at 3J per 
 cent, per annum ; that the co. should be at liberty 
 to issue further irredeemable 3J per cent, de- 
 benture stock not exceeding 540,0002., makino; 
 a total of 8t0,0002., but only for the purpose of 
 redeeming or paying oif the 500,0002. 4 per cent, 
 stock at the rate of not more than 1082. of the 
 new stock for every 1 002. of the stock redeemed 
 or paid oflf. 
 
 Held, that in respect of the 540,0002., as well 
 as the 300,0002., the deed of 1897 was chargeable 
 with the ad valorem duty specified in the 
 1st sched. to the Stamp Act, 1891, under the 
 heading "Mortgage, Bond, Debenture, Cove- 
 nant," and, not being an " additional " or " sub- 
 stituted " security within the meaning of those 
 words in the sched., it was chargeable with the 
 full duty of 28. 6c2. per cent. 
 
 By A. L. Smith L.J. : The deed of 1897 was 
 a "mortgage" within the definition contained 
 in B. 86. snb-s. 1, of the Stamp Act, 1891: 
 
 By Eigby L.J. : SeriMe, the deed was not a 
 " mortgage " within that definition, but it was 
 chargeable as a security for the payment of 
 money in the nature of a debenture under s. 88, 
 sub-s. 1, of the Act. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1898] 1 Q. B. 408, 
 reversed. City op London Bbeweky Co. o. 
 Inland Eevence Commhs. 
 
 C. A. [1899] 1 ft. B. 121 
 
 171. — Mortgage to secure further advances — 
 Stamp Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Viet. v. 97), ss. 15, 
 107. 
 
 Where a mortgage to secure further advances 
 is stamped with an ad valorem stamp up to a 
 certain amount, it is competent for the Commrs. 
 of Inland Eevenue, under s. 15 of the Stamp 
 Act, 1870 (now s. 15 of the Stamp Act, 1891), to 
 stamp the deed for the proper amount for whicli 
 it is sought to render the security available even 
 after the execution of the deed. Fitzgerald's 
 Tbustee v. Mellersh (No. 1) 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 4 
 
 — Negligence — Stamp of larger amount than 
 
 necessary. 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 2. 
 
 — Partners — Conveyance by, to a company con- 
 
 sisting of themselves. 
 See No. 159, above. 
 
 172. — Penalties for insufficient stamping — 
 Contract-note — Action for penalties against in- 
 dividual partners affirm — 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, ss. 1, 
 53, su6-s. 2 — 56 * 57 Vict. u. 7, s. 3 — Exchequer 
 prosecutions — Trial by jury — Court of Exchequer 
 {Scotland) Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 56), s. 6. 
 
 The Loid Advocate laid an information 
 again&t A. and B., stockbrokers, carrying on busi- 
 ness under the firm name of A. B. & Co., charg- 
 ing "both and each or one or other of them" 
 with having on occasions specified issued con- 
 tract-notes in tlie said firm name which were not 
 duly stamped, contrary to the Statutes 54 & 55 
 Vict. u. 89, ss. 1, 53, sub-s. 2, and 56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 7, s. 3, whereby the said A. and B. had " both 
 and each or one or other of them " incurred fines 
 to amounts stated. 
 
 The defenders objected that the information 
 
( 1803 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF C^ SES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 1801 ) 
 
 EEVENTTE (Stamps) — continued. 
 
 was incompetent as laid, in respect that there 
 
 was no conclusion against the firm. 
 
 Seld, that the information was well laid. 
 
 Question, whether an exchequer prosecution 
 must be tried by a jury. Lord Advocate r. 
 Thomson. Lokd Advocate v. Hutcheson, (1897) 
 24: B. 543. - Ct. of Sess. (So.) [1897] W. N. 141 
 — Policy of insurance. 
 
 See Nos. 163, 164, above. 
 
 173. — Practice — Solicitor — Underfalting — 
 Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Viet. c. 39), s. 14. 
 
 On motions, which were acceded to by the 
 Court, an undertaking was given at the bar by 
 counsel for the respondents, a company, on the 
 instructions of their solicitors, that unstamped 
 documents tendered in evidence on behalf of the 
 respondents should be duly stamped, which 
 undertaking was not fulfilled. 
 
 The Court directed the order made on the 
 motions to be drawn up without entering the 
 unstamped documents, and made a four-day order 
 on the solicitors to produce the documents to the 
 registrar duly stamped. In re Coolgakdie Gold- 
 fields, Ld. In re Cannon, Son & Mokten 
 (Solicitors) Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 23 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 475 
 
 174. — Practice — Sufficiency — Ruling of judge 
 —Finality. 
 
 Where a judge trying an action without a 
 jury decides that a document is suflSciently 
 stamped or does not require a stamp, his decision 
 is final as between the parties to the action. 
 Blewitt v. Tritton - C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 327 
 
 175. — Promissory note — Debenture — Marltet- 
 able security — Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 V. 39), «. 82, sub-s. 1 (6); s. 122. 
 
 An American ry. co., as security for a tem- 
 porary loan, handed through their agents in 
 England to the lender an instrument whicli 
 stated that for value received they promised to pay 
 twelve months after date to the order of them- 
 selves the amount named in it. It also contained 
 a statement that it was one of a series, and was 
 secured by a deposit of gold bonds which (or a 
 sufficient amount of their proceeds) were to be 
 held in trust for the benefit of the holders of the 
 instruments. The instruments were dealt in 
 upon the Stock Exchange, but were not officially 
 quoted there : — 
 
 Held, that the instrument was not a mere 
 promissory note, but that as it contained a con- 
 tract that the holder should be entitled to the 
 benefit of the security it was a marketable 
 security within the meaning of s. 82, sub-s. 1 (6), 
 of the Stamp Act, 1891, and was chargeable witli 
 stamp duty as such. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1895] 2 Q. B. 240, re- 
 versed. Brown, Shipley & Co. v. Inland 
 Eevende Commes. - C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 698 
 
 176. — Promissory note insufficiently stamped 
 — Evidence — Admissibility — Stamp Act, 1870 
 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97), s. 54. 
 
 A promissory note insufficiently stamped is 
 not admissible in evidence to prove the receipt of 
 the money for which the note was given. 
 
 Green v. Daries, (1825) 4 B. & C. 235; 28 
 K. B. 230, followed; Evans v. Pruthero, (1852) 
 
 BEVEITUE (Stamps) — continued. 
 1 D, M. & G. 572, distinguished. Ashling v. 
 Boon - - Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 568 
 See BirclmU v. BuOough. Div. Ct., [1896] 1 
 Q. B. 325, 326. 
 
 177. — Railway company — Increase of nominal 
 capital— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. v. 39), 
 s. 113. 
 
 A special Act authorized the Midland Ey. Co. 
 to reanange and consolidate the several classes 
 and denominations of the shares and stocks in 
 the capital of the co., and of their loans and 
 debenture stocks. Under the authority of that 
 Act the following changes (inter alia) were 
 effected by the co. : 3,899,121i. 4 per cent, con- 
 solidated perpetual rent-charge stock was con- 
 solidated so as to amount to 6,238,594?. guaranteed 
 stock bearing interest at the rate of 21. 10s. per 
 cent, per annum. 29,048,191?. 4 per cent, per- 
 petual preference stock was extinguished, and in 
 lieu thereof 46,477,1062. 2J per cent, perpetual 
 preference stock was created. Ordinary stock to 
 the amount of 35,000,000Z. was extinguished, and 
 in lieu thereof there was created 35,000,000?. 
 preferred converted ordinary stock, entitled to a 
 dividend at the rate of 21. 10s. per cent, per 
 annum, and 35,000,000?. deferred converted 
 ordinary stock : — 
 
 Held, that the increase authorized by the Act 
 of the nominal amount of the share capital of the 
 CO. was an " increase of the amount of nominal 
 share capital " within the meaning of s. 113 of 
 the Stamp Act, 1891, so that the stamp duty 
 imposed by that section was payable in respect 
 of it. Att.-Gen. !■. Midland Et. Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 353 ; afSrmed by C, A, 
 [1900] W. N. 271 ; [1901] 1 Q, B. 220 
 
 178. — "Receipt" — Money received by servant 
 on account of master and handed over to fellow 
 servant — Aclmowledgment of receipt by fellow ser- 
 vant—Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. u. 39), 
 «. 101. 
 
 A solicitor was employed by a bank under an 
 agreement whereby he was appointed an officer 
 of the bank upon the terms that he was to be 
 paid a salary, and to be provided with an office, 
 stationery, and staff of clerks, and was to devote 
 his whole time to the conduct of the legal business 
 of the bank. The solicitor from time to time 
 sued for and recovered sums of money due to the 
 bank. As each sum was recovered he entered 
 the amount in an account book, and then in 
 accordance with his duty handed over the money 
 to the secretary or cashier of the bank, who 
 wrote against the entry in the account book his 
 initials and the date on which the money was 
 handed over to him, in some instances adding 
 the word " received." The account book was the 
 property of the solicitor and remained in his 
 possession : — 
 
 Held, that as the initialling of the entries in 
 the account book, whether with the addition of 
 the word " received " or not, was intended as an 
 acquittance of the solicitor in respect of the 
 money handed over by him, the entries so 
 initialled constituted " receipts " within s. 101 of 
 the Stamp Act, 1891, and required to be stamped, 
 none the less because the solicitor was a servant 
 of the bank on whose behalf he had received the 
 
( 1835 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1800 ) 
 
 .llEVENXrE (Stamps)— continued. 
 'money, and the acknowledgment of the receipt 
 •of the money from him was given by a fellow 
 servant. Att.-Gen. v. CABLTOif Bank 
 lord Eussell of Killowen C.J. [1899] 2 Q. B. 158 
 — " Eeceipt " — Scrip certificate. 
 See No. 180, below. 
 
 179. — " ReleUse or renunciation of property 
 upon a sale " — Receipt for compensation for not 
 ■worldng coal adjacent to railway — BigJit of sup- 
 ,port— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), 
 Sched. I. — Bailways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 cC; 9 Vict. 
 c 20), «. 78. 
 
 A ry. CO. having given notice under s. 78 of 
 the Bailways Clauses Act, 1845, to a colliery co. 
 not to work certain coal under and adjacent to 
 'their ry., compensation therefor was assessed. 
 The colliery co. gave the ry. co. a receipt under 
 seal for the amount of the compensation, in 
 which they undertook to leave the coal in ques- 
 tion unworked, and further undertook to do and 
 ■execute all deeds, matters, or things necessary 
 for vesting the same in the ry. co. whenever 
 required, and the document continued : " We 
 farther acknowledge and declare that the said 
 sum includes satisfaction and compensation for 
 all claims which but for these presents we might 
 have maintained, either under the provisions of 
 -any statute, or at law or in equity, against the 
 ly. CO. in respect of the said coal " : — 
 
 Seld, that the document was not a release or 
 renunsiation of property, or of any right or 
 interest in property, upon a sale, and was, there- 
 fore, not chargeable with ad valorem duty, but 
 :that it was a release of an interest in property, 
 .«nd should, therefore, bear a 10s. stamp. Geeat 
 KoBTHEEN By. Co. «. Inland Eevenue Commes. 
 DiT. Ct. [1899] 2 Q. B. 652 
 
 This case was affirmed by 0. A. [1901] 
 1 K. B. 416. 
 
 — Eenunciation — Increase of duty on letters of 
 allotment and. 
 
 See Finance Act, 1899 (02 & 63 Vict. 
 c. 9), s. 9. 
 
 180. — • Scrip certificate — Payment hy instal- 
 ments — Receipts for future payments indorsed on 
 
 ■certificate— Stamp Act, 1891 (54 <fe 55 Vict. c. 39), 
 
 Sched., " Receipt," exemption 11. 
 
 A scrip certificate duly stamped stated that 
 
 the bearer was entitled to 1001. stock of the Cape 
 
 of Good Hope after payment of two several sums 
 ■of iOl. at specified dates. Beceipts were indorsed 
 ■on the certificate applicable to the payment of 
 
 the two instalments at the specified dates: — 
 Seld, affirming the judgment of a Div. Ct., 
 
 that the receipts acknowledged the receipt of the 
 
 consideration money expressed in the certificate 
 ■on which they were indorsed, and were exempt 
 from duty under title " Beceipts," exemption 11, 
 
 in the sched. to the Stamp Act, 1891. London 
 
 AND WeSTMINSTEB BaNK V. INLAND EbVENUB 
 
 OoMMBS. - C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 166 
 
 181. — "Settlement" — Contingent reversionary 
 interest — Stock vested in trustees — Power to vary 
 investments — Stamp Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict, 
 •c. 97), s. 3. 
 
 A settlement of contingent reversionary in- 
 terests in specified amounts of stock vested in 
 
 REVENUE (Stamps) — continued. 
 trustees with power to vary the securities, held 
 to be liable to an ad valorem stamp duty under 
 sched. of the Stamp Act, 1870 (now sched. of the 
 Stamp Act, 1891). 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., 24 Q. B. D. 584, affirmed. 
 Onslow v. Inland Eevenue Commbs. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 239 
 
 — Ships — Sea insurance — Time policy including 
 a number of ships. 
 See No. 163, above. 
 
 Tecck Act.] Exemption of contract from 
 Stamp Duty. See Truck Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Viet, 
 c. 44), e. 7. 
 
 — Unbtamped document — Promissory note — 
 Cross-examination. 
 See Evidence. 43. 
 
 Succession Duty. 
 
 182. — Acceleration of succession — Interests for 
 life and in remainder — Succession Duty Act, 1853 
 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 51), ss. 1, 15, 20, 28. 
 
 Under a marriage settlement the trusts were 
 for the wife for life, remainder to the husband 
 for life, remainder in default of issue to the wife 
 absolutely. On the death of the husband, there 
 being no issue, the trustee transferred the fund 
 to the wife : — 
 
 Seld, that succession duty was payable, but 
 that the value of the wife's life interest was to 
 be deducted in calculating the amount of duty. - 
 
 Judgment of Div. Ct., [1892] 2 Q. B. 694, 
 affirmed. Att.-Gen. c. Bobeetson 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 293 
 
 Distinguished. Att.-Gen. v. Wood, [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 102, 110. 
 
 — Account stamp duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Account 
 Duty. 
 
 183. — " Alienation" — New succession — 
 Annuity — Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 & 17 
 Vict. e. 51), 88. 2, 15, 17, 18. 
 
 A peer bequeathed his residuary personal 
 estate in trust for his wife for life and after her 
 death in trust for the person who should then be 
 his right heir absolutely. After his death five 
 nieces became his co-heiresses, and the appellant, 
 a nephew, succeeded to the title. In order to 
 make provision for the title a deed of family 
 arrangement was executed whereby the testator's 
 widow assigned her interest in bank shares (part 
 of the testator's residuary estate), and the co- 
 heiresses and the appellant respectively assigned 
 their contingent reversionary interests in the 
 residue, to trustees in trust by clause 1 during 
 the widow's life to pay out of the income of the 
 bank shares an annuity of 15,0002. to the appel- 
 lant and other annuities to the co-heiresses ; and 
 by clause 2 after the widow's death to pay out of 
 the income of the whole residue an annuity of 
 15,0002. to the person for the time being holding 
 the title, with other payments to the co-heiresses 
 and provisions for keeping up the title. The 
 widow died and the co-heiresses paid legacy duty 
 at 3 per cent, on the whole residue. The Crowii 
 having claimed succession duty at 6J per cent. 
 
( 180.' ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 180S ) 
 
 BEVENTJE (Succession Duty) — continued. 
 from the appellant in respect of his annuity 
 under clause 2 of the deed : — 
 
 Hetd, that the C. A. was right in holding 
 that the annuity was not payable under " a con- 
 tract made for valuable consideration in money 
 or money's worth" within o. 17 of the Succes- 
 sion Duty Act, 1853; and wrong in holding that 
 the deed created a new succession ; that the case 
 fell under s. 15 nnd was one of "alienation" of 
 part of the succession created by the testator's 
 will, whereby the duty payable in respect of the 
 annuity was at the same rate and time as would 
 have been payable if the annuity had not been 
 created; but that as legacy duty had been paid 
 upon the whole residue out of which the annuity 
 was carved, s. 18 applied and no succession duty 
 would have been payable by the co-heiresses if 
 the annuity had not been created, and therefore 
 that the effect of ss. 15 and 18 together was that 
 no succession duty was payable by the appellant 
 in respect of the annuitv. 
 
 Decision of C. A.,' [1897] 1 Q. B. 231, 
 reversed. 
 
 In re Cooper and Allen's Contract, (1876) 4 
 Ch. D. 802, commented on. Babon Wolvebtos 
 V. Att.-Gen. H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 535 
 
 184. — Assignation — Legatee's right to lieritage 
 challenged in action of reduction, and action com- 
 promised — Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 & 17 
 Vict. c. 51), ss. 2, 42. 
 
 By his trust disposition and settlement J. 
 Dalrymple directed his trustees to hold one-half 
 of the residue of his estate, including the property 
 of W. L., for his daughter in liferent and her 
 issue in fee, with power to his daughter, in the 
 event of her having no issue, to dispose of the 
 estate so held for her by mortis causS, deed. 
 Failing her doing so the trustees were directed 
 to hold the estate for behoof of the truster's 
 grandson, G., in liferent Miss Dalrymple, who 
 did not marry, exercised the power conferred 
 upon her, and by her settlement directed her 
 trustees to convey W. L. to Mrs. Durrant (a 
 stranger in blood) in liferent, and her son C. in 
 fee, and to hold the residue of her estate for Mrs. 
 Durrant in liferent and her whole children in 
 fee. 
 
 G. having raised an action of reduction of Miss 
 Dalrymple's settlement, it was ultimately agreed 
 that G. should consent to decree of absolvitor, 
 and that Mrs. Durrant and her children should 
 convey to him their rights to W. L. Decree of 
 absolvitor was thereafter pronounced, and Mrs. 
 Durrant and her children having assigned their 
 rights to W. L., Mr. Dalrymple's trustees, who 
 had the feudal title, executed a disposition of 
 W. L. to Gordon. 
 
 The Crown thereafter raised an action against 
 G. for succession duty at the rate of 10 per cent, 
 "in respect of the succession of Mrs. Durrant 
 ... to the liferent of ... W. L." The defender 
 tendered duty at the rate of 3 per cent, on the 
 ground that Mrs. Durrant had not taken any right 
 to W. L. under Miss Dalrymple's settlement, and 
 that his right to the property was acquired from 
 Miss Dalrymple's trustee : — 
 
 Held, that Mrs. Durrant had acquired a right 
 of succession under Miss Dalrymple's settlement, 
 
 BEVENTJE (Succession Jiuiy)— continued. 
 that the defender had acquired that right in 
 virtue of the assignation in his favour, and that 
 therefore he was liable in succession duty at the- 
 rate of 10 per cent. Lord Advocate v. Goedon, 
 (1895) 22 Kettie, 639. 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W. N. 13t 
 
 — ■ Estate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eeventje — Estate Duty. 
 
 — Fee and liferent — Estate duty. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Succession. 42. 
 
 — Foreigner domiciled abroad. Disposition by — 
 
 Property situate abroad — Disposition Ixy 
 
 English company. 
 
 See Kevence — Estate Duty. 
 
 185. — Insurance — Policy of insurance — 
 Account duty — Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 & 17 
 Viet. c. 51), 8. 2 — Customs and Inland Revenue 
 Acts, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 12), s. 38 ; 1889 (52 & 53 
 Vi.ct. u. 7), 6. 11. 
 
 By gratuitous assignation dated 1883 a father 
 assigned to his daughter policies of insurance on 
 his own life on whii-h for many years he had paid 
 the premiums. From 1883 the premiums on the 
 policies were paid solely by the daughter. Th& 
 father died in 1890, and the daughter thereupon 
 received the money due under the policies : — 
 
 Seld, affirming the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 (1,S95) 22 K. 568; [1896] W. N. 132, that neither 
 succession duty nor account duty was payable by 
 the daughter. Loed Advocate v. Fleming 
 
 H. I. (Sc.) [1897] A. C. 145 
 
 186. — Predecessor — Contract for money or 
 money's worth — Personal property — Trust in favour 
 of volunteer — Exemption — 16 & 17 Viet. c. 51, 
 ss. 2, 17; 44 Vict. c. 12, s. 38; 52 Vict. c. 7, s. 11. 
 
 By settlement, made on the marriage of A. 
 and B., a sum of 5000Z., the fortune of A. (the 
 wife) was assigned to trustees, upon trust to pay 
 the interest thereof to her during the joint lives 
 of herself and B., and upon trust, after the 
 decease of the survivor, and in the events which 
 happened, to apply same in payment and dis- 
 charge (so far as same would extend) of incum- 
 brances affecting lauds brought into settlement 
 by B. and his father C, and over which a join- 
 turing power was reserved to them in fevour of 
 A, which they exercised to its full extent; and 
 by the said settlement A. was given a life interest, 
 after B.'s death, in a sum of 4000i., brought into 
 settlement by C. In the event (which happened)i 
 of there being no issue of the marriage, D., who' 
 was a grandson of C, but a stranger in blood to 
 A., became tenant in tail of the settled lands ; and 
 barred the entail and resettled them. 
 
 A. survived B., and on her death the 5000Z. 
 was applied towards discharging incumbrances 
 upon the settled lands : — 
 
 Held, that A. was predecessor of D. within 
 the meaning of the Succession Duty Act, 1853y 
 and that duty at 10 per cent, was payable by D. 
 in respect of his succession to this sum. 
 
 A settlement in consideration of marriage and 
 money or money's worth is not within the exemp- 
 tion in a. 17 of the Act. 
 
 Held, also, that, assuming the lands to be of 
 greater value than the incumbrances, the trust 
 of the 5000J. was a trust of personal property in 
 
( 1809 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1810 ) 
 
 REVENTJE (Succession Jiutyj— continued. 
 favour (so far as applied in discharge of inoum- 
 branees) of D. as a volvinteer within the Acts 
 44 Vict. c. 12, s. 38, and 52 Vict. c. 7, s. 11. 
 Att.-Gen. foe Ireland v. Bakon Eathdonnell, 
 (1893) 32 L. Eep. Ir. 574 - [1896] W. N. 141 
 
 187. — Predecessor — Entail — " Disposition " — 
 Devolution by law — Succession Duty Act, 1853 
 (16 & 17 Viet. c. 51), ss. 2, 10. 
 
 An entailer destined an estate to himself, and 
 to D., his ODly son, " and the heirs-male of his 
 body, and the heirs-male of their bodies, which 
 failing, to the heirs-female of his (U.'s) body . . . 
 the eldest heir-female always succeeding without 
 division." W., the last surviving heir-male who 
 was called, having died without issue, the succes- 
 sion opened to 0., who was the great-grand- 
 daughter of D., and the nearest heir-female of 
 his body. C. was also a niece of W. 
 
 In a question between the Crown, claiming 
 succession duty, and C. held (affirming judgment 
 of Lord Wellwood) that when the destination to 
 the heirs-male of the body of D. was exhausted 
 on the death of W. the estate passed, not by 
 devolution of law, but under the entailer's dis- 
 position, to a new stirps, the heirs-female of D.'s 
 body, of which C. was the head, and that C. suc- 
 ceeded by "disposition" to the entailer as her 
 " predecessor," and not by devolution by law to 
 her uncle W. 
 
 Lord Advocate v. Lord Saltoun, (1858) 21 
 Dunlop; 124, 3 Macq. 659, commented on. Lord 
 Advocate v. M'Ctjlloch, (1895) 22 Eettie, 356 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1896] W, N. 124 
 
 — South Australia, Laws of — Covenant to pay 
 
 — " With intent to evade payment of 
 
 duty." 
 
 /&« Australia. 1. 
 
 — Succession defined — Laws of Queensland — 
 
 Succession and Probate Duties Act, 1892. 
 See Queensland. 6. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser — ^Liability for unpaid 
 
 duty. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdbchaser. 2. 
 
 EEVEESAL OF JUDGMENT — Cosis — Eepay- 
 ment of — Solicitor. 
 See SoLicrroB — Costs. 71. 
 
 EEVEESIOK AND BEVEESIONABY INTEE- 
 
 ESTS— Absolute gift— "Any money 
 
 that may be in my possession " — Eever- 
 sionary interest — Construction of will. 
 See Will — Absolute Gift. 1. 
 
 — • Absolute gift subject to executory limitation 
 — Conversion — Enjoyment in specie. 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 10. 
 
 — Construction as to whether covenant by lessor 
 
 runs with the reversion — Liability. 
 See New-Zealand. G. 
 
 — Damage to reversion — Parties to action — Sevc r- 
 
 ance of reversion. 
 
 See Tenancy in Common. 1. 
 
 — Lease — Underlease — Grant or assignment of 
 
 title — "Leasehold reversion." 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 94, 95. 
 - — Married woman — Assignment of reversionary 
 interest. 
 See Husband and Wife. 34 — 36. 
 
 EEVEESION AND EETEBSIONAEY INTEE- 
 ESTS — continued. 
 
 — Omission to convert reversionary interest — ■ 
 
 Tenant for life and remainderman — 
 
 Eate of interest. 
 
 See Settled Land. 58. 
 
 — Power of appointment — Eecital — Estoppel. 
 
 See Settlement — Validity. 33. 
 
 — Eeceiver — Equitable reversionary interests. 
 
 See Eeceiver. 11, 12. 
 
 — Reversioner — Eight of — Eent — Way-leave 
 
 over land. 
 
 See Way-leave. 1. 
 
 — Eeversioner — Eight of, to sue for injunction. 
 
 See Injunction. 33. 
 
 — Sale of reversion — Equitable interest — Delay, 
 
 See Specific Performance. 4. 
 
 1. — Sale of reversion — Inadequate price — 
 '■^Unfair dealing" — Expectant heir — Sales of 
 Reversions Act, 1867 (31 * 32 Vict. c. 4), s. 1. 
 
 The Court, without deciding whether, not- 
 withstanding the Act, a sale of a reversion could 
 be set aside merely on the ground of gross under- 
 value as being evidence of fraud or unfair dealing, 
 held that the circumstances of the present case 
 shewed that there had been unfair dealing by 
 the defendant, and tlierefore he was not entitled 
 to the protection of the Act, and the old doctrine 
 of the Court as to dealing with expectant heirs 
 applied, as was shewn by Earl of Aylesford v. 
 Morris, (1873) L. E. 8 Ch. 484. Brenchley v. 
 HiGGiNS - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 243 
 
 — Settlement estate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Estate Duty, 
 
 EEVEETEE— Common law condition— Shifting 
 use — Rule against perpetuities. 
 See Vendor and Pdkohaseb. 76. 
 
 — Fee simple conditional — Wills Act — Devise. 
 
 See Will — Eeverter. 178. 
 
 EEVIEW (OF BOOK)— Libel. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 11. 
 
 EEVIEW (OF PEOCEEDINGS). 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Eeyiew. 
 EEVIEW (OF TAXATION) — Costs — County 
 court — Power of Board of Trade. 
 See Bankruptcy— Costs. 79. 
 
 — Solicitor's bill of costs — " Practice and appeaL" 
 
 See Appeal. 45. 
 
 EEVISINO B&EBISTEB. 
 
 See Election Law — Eevising Barrister. 
 
 EEVIVAl— Will— Revocation. 
 See Probate. 117. 
 
 EEVIVOE. 
 
 See Practice — Eevivor. 
 
 — By repeal of statute — Temporary Acts. 
 
 See Statutes — Eepeals. 
 
 EEVOCATION — Authority to defend action in 
 name of company — Dissolution pendente 
 lite — Solicitor — Costs. 
 See Principal and Agent. 27. 
 
 — By Board of Trade — Release of trustee — Error 
 
 in administration. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Trustee. 247. 
 
( 1811 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1831—1900. 
 
 ( 1812 ) 
 
 EEVOCATION — continued. 
 ■ — Letters of administration. 
 
 See Probate — Revocation of Adminis- 
 tration. 
 • — Licence — Breach of contract by licensor — 
 
 Licensee's right of action. 
 
 See Licence. 1. 
 
 — Nomination by member — Revocation by sub- 
 
 sequent will. 
 
 See Fkiendlt Society. 13. 
 
 — Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Eevocation, 
 
 — Power of appointment. 
 
 See Power — Revocation. 
 - — Probate. 
 
 See Peobate — Revocation of Probate. 
 
 — Retainer to solicitor. 
 
 See Solicitor — Retainer. 
 - — Settlement. 
 
 See Settlement — Revocation. 
 
 — Signature of auctioneer's clerk — Statute of 
 
 Frauds. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 1. 
 
 — Voluntary settlement — Undue influence — 
 
 Independent advice — ^Duty of solicitor 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Settlement. 31. 
 
 — Will. 
 
 See Will — Revocation. 
 
 IRHOSESIA. 
 
 See Africa. 
 
 HIBBLE NAVIGATION ACT, 1883 — Harbour 
 authority — Duty of — Stranding. 
 See Shipping — Harbour. 15(3. 
 
 SIGHT ACCRUED. 
 
 See Cases under Statutes — Repeals. 
 
 JIIGHT 01" WAT. 
 
 See Cases under Way, Eight of. 
 
 atioT. 
 
 Begs, of the Sec. of State dated June 30, 1894, 
 .as to claims for compensation for damages tm riot. 
 St. R. & 0. 1894, No. 636, p. 396. 
 
 JIIPARIAN OWNER. 
 
 See Cases under Water. 
 
 RITTIAI. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Ritual, 
 3IVER. 
 
 See Cascs under Water. 
 
 ROADS. 
 
 See Cases under Highway. 
 
 London — Streets. 
 Streets. 
 ROCHDALE. 
 
 See Salfobd Hundred Court. 
 
 ROHAN CATHOLIC — Nomination to living by. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Advowson, 2. 
 
 ROMILLT'S ACT (52 Geo. 3, c. 101)— Mortgage- 
 Sanction of Court. 
 See Charity — Management 40. 
 
 ROOD-LOFT. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Facility. 40. 
 
 ROOF — Incombustible materials. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 27. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts — ^Application of capital 
 
 money. 
 
 See Settled Land. 40. 
 
 ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE VOLUNTEERS. 
 
 See Army and Navy— Volunteers. 
 
 ROYAL NIGER COMPANY. 
 
 See Africa. 
 
 ROYAL WARRANT — Enforcing terms of— 
 Officer's right. 
 See Mandamus. 6. 
 
 ROYALTIES- Mines. 
 
 See under Mines. 
 
 — Personal earnings of bankrupt — Letters 
 
 patent. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 257. 
 
 ROUMANIA— Extradition. 
 See Extradition. 
 
 RUBBISH — Obstruction to navigation. 
 See Shipping — Harbour. 154. 
 
 — Removal of refuse. 
 
 See London — Removal of Refuse. 
 
 — Sub-demise for purpose of rubbish shoot — 
 
 Alteration of nature of demised premises 
 — Injunction. 
 See Waste. 2. 
 
 RULES AND ORDERS OF COURT. 
 
 Rules and Orders of Court judicially con- 
 sidered during the years 1891-1900. See Table 
 of Rules judicially considered. 
 
 Rules Publication Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 c. tj6), is an Act for the publication of StahUory 
 Rules. 
 
( 1813 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1814 ) 
 
 s. 
 
 SAILING STTLES. 
 
 See Cases under SBippnia. 
 
 SAILOK AND SEAMAN. 
 
 .See Cases under Shipping — Seamen. 
 
 ST. HELENA— 0. in C. dated Jan. 29, 1900, 
 ■applying the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to the 
 island of. Lend. Gaz. Feb. 7, 1900, p. 787; 
 St. B. & 0. 1900, No. 88. 
 
 ST. LTTCIA — ^Practice — Special leave to appeal — 
 Appeal in formS. pauperis. 
 See Pbaoticb — I'onn& Fanperis. 26. 
 
 ST. VINCENT (ISLAND OF)— Colonial Probates 
 Act, 1892. 
 
 See Pbobate— Colonial Probates Act, 
 1892. 
 
 SALAKY — After-acquired property — Salary or 
 income. 
 gee Bankbuptoy — Assets. 53, 54. 
 
 — Canon's stipend — Minister's stipend. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Church. 5. 
 
 — Chaplain's — ^Income tax — Charitable institu- 
 
 tion. 
 
 See Kbvbnub — Income Tax. 75. 
 
 — Extra work done by receiver — ^Allowances — 
 
 Guarantee society. 
 See Paetnbkship. 42. 
 
 — Income tax — Deductions — Contribution for 
 
 superannuation allowance. 
 
 See Eevenub — Income Tax. 111. 
 
 — Indian judge. 
 
 See Ikdia. 
 
 — Eetired officer — Application. 
 
 See Bankeuptcy. 48. 
 
 — Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Chnrch. 5, 6. 
 
 — Stipend of workhouse chaplain — Validity of 
 
 mortgage. 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Assets. 65. 
 SALE — ^Auction. 
 
 See Auctioneeb. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Cases under Baxkbuptcy. 
 
 — Bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 
 
 — Bread — Sale otherwise than by weight. 
 
 See Bbbad. 
 
 — Charity lands — Consent. 
 
 See Charity. 5--9. 
 
 — Company — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — ^Winding-up. 
 
 — Contract. 
 
 See CONTBACT. 
 
 — Food and drugs — Adulteration. 
 
 See Adulteration. 
 -^ Food, Unsound. 
 See Food. 
 
 SALE — continued. 
 
 — Goods. 
 
 See Sale oe Goods. 
 
 — Heirlooms. 
 
 See Cases under Heiblooms. 
 
 — Land. 
 
 See Vendor and Puechaseb. 
 
 — Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 — Legal remainder — Charge on land — Receiver 
 
 — " Actual delivery in execution." 
 See Judgment Debt. 1. 
 
 — Lunacy. 
 
 See Lunacy — Sales. 
 
 — Markets and fairs. 
 
 See Market. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgages — Sale. 
 
 — Partition actions. 
 
 See Oases under Partition. 
 
 — Partnership. 
 
 See Partnership — Sale. 
 
 — Poisons. 
 
 See Oases under Poison. 
 
 — Power of sale. 
 
 See Powers. 
 
 — Principal and agent. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 
 
 — Rent-charge. 
 
 See Rent-charge. 
 
 — Resale — Taking land for the purpose of — 
 
 Local authority — Statutory powers. 
 See Streets — New Streets. 15. 
 
 — Reversion — Inadequate price — " Unfair deal- 
 
 ing " — Expectant heir. 
 See Reversion. 
 
 — Sale out of court. 
 
 See Practice — Sales by the Court. 
 
 — Settled estates. 
 
 See Settled Land — Sale. 
 
 — Sheriff, Sale by. 
 
 See Sheriff. 
 
 — Ship. 
 
 See Shipping — Sale. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Stamps. 
 
 — Trust for. 
 
 See ExECUTOB — Administration. 10. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Trustee — Sale. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Oases under Vbndob and Pcb- 
 crabeb. 
 
 SALE BY COUBT. 
 
 See Practice— Sales by the Court. 
 
( 1815 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 181G ) 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 Sale of Goods AH, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. c. 71), 
 codifies the law relating to the sale of goods. 
 
 1. — Acceptance — Sale of Goods Act, 1 893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 4, sui-ss. 1, 3 — Act which 
 recognises a pre-existing contract of sale. 
 
 Where goods sold under an oral contract were 
 delivered to the buyer, vrlio took a sample from 
 them, and, after examining it, said tliat the 
 goods were not equal to his sample, and that he 
 ■would not have them : — 
 
 Held, that there was evidence of an act done 
 by him in relation to the goods which recognised 
 a pre-existing contract of sale, and tlierefore 
 evidence of an acceptance within the meaning of 
 s. 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. Abbott & 
 Co. V. WoLSEY - C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 97 
 
 — " Acceptance " — Statute of Frauds — " Memo- 
 
 randum " — Connecting documents. 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 25. 
 
 — Claimed by third parly — Title of purchaser. 
 
 See County Coubt — ^Execution. 38. 
 
 2. — Contract — Oral contract — Part payment 
 — Statute of Frauds (29 Oar. 2, c. 3), «. IT— Sale 
 of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), ». 4, 
 sxib-s. 1. 
 
 Where, upon an oral contract for the supply 
 of goods, it was a term of the contract that a sum 
 of money which had been overpaid to the vendor 
 upon a previous sale of goods by him to the 
 purchaser should be retained by the vendor on 
 account of the price of the goods contracted to 
 be supplied : — 
 
 Held, that there was not a part payment 
 which would satisfy the provisions of s. 4, sub-s. 1, 
 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. 
 
 Walker v. Nussey, (1847) 16 M. & W. 302, 
 
 followed. Norton v. Davison - - C. A. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 12 (12) ; [1899] 1 ft. B. 401 
 
 3. — Contract — Sale hy description — Implied 
 Condition — Acceptance — Passing of property — 
 Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), 
 88. 13, 17, 35. 
 
 The expression " contract for the sale of goods 
 by description," in the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, 
 s. 13, applies to all cases wliere the buyer has not 
 seen the goods, but relies solely on the description 
 given by the seller. 
 
 The pit. agreed to sell and the deft, to buy a 
 reaping machine, which the deft, had never seen, 
 and which the pit. stated to have been new the 
 previous year, and to have been used to cut only 
 fifty or sixty acres. The machine was delivered, 
 and shortly afterwards the deft, wrote complain- 
 ing that it did not correspond with the plt.'s 
 statements. After some further correspondence 
 the deft, returned the machine. 
 
 In an action to recover the price : — 
 
 Held, that there was a contract for the sale of 
 goods by description, within the meaning of the 
 Bale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 13, and therefore, by 
 that section, there was an implied condition that 
 the goods should correspond with the description, 
 that there had been no acceptance of the machine 
 by the deft., within the meaning of s. 35, that 
 the property had not passed to the deft., within 
 
 SALE or GOODS — continued. 
 
 the meaning of s. 17, and the pit. was not entitlecP 
 
 to recover. Vabley v. Whipp 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 38 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 513 
 
 4. — Contract — Sale or return — Transfer of 
 property as between seller and huyer — Fledge of 
 goods — '-Act adopting the transaction" — Sale 
 of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), ». 18, 
 r. 4 (a). 
 
 Where a person who has received goods on 
 sale or return pledges them he thereby does an 
 act adopting the transaction within the meaning 
 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 18, r. 4 (a), so 
 that the property in the goods passes to him, and 
 the original vendor cannot recover them from the 
 person with whom they have been pledged. 
 
 KiKKHAM V. AtTENBOROUGH. KiEKHAM V. GiLL 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 201 
 
 5. — Contract — Shipment to he made hy salt- 
 ing ship between specified dates — Condition pre- 
 cedent — Implied condition — -Measure of damages. 
 
 By agreement in writing the defls. sold to the 
 pits. 250 bales of Manila hemp, shipment to be 
 made from a port or ports in the Philippine 
 Islands by sailer or sailers between May 1 and 
 July 31, 189S ; the agreement contained a clause 
 that if the goods did not arrive from loss of 
 vessel or other unavoidable cause the contract 
 was to be void. In consequence of the Spanish- 
 American war it was in a business sense impos- 
 sible for the defts. to ship hemp by sailer between 
 the specified dates, but in Sept. they shipped 
 hemp (which would otherwise have satisfied the 
 contract) by steamer, and on Oct. 27 declared it 
 against the contract ; the pits, refused to accept 
 this declaration, and returned it to the defts., 
 who, on Nov. 4, wrote that it was the only 
 declaration that they were in a position to 
 make : — 
 
 Held, that the stipulations as to shipment by 
 sailer or sailers between the specified dates were 
 conditions precedent and the declaration was 
 bad ; that it was not an implied condition of the 
 contract that it should be possible to ship by 
 sailer between those dates ; that the defts. 
 were not protected by the express condition as 
 to non-arrival of the goods, the non-arrival not 
 having been occasioned by any unavoidable cause 
 within the meaning of the contract ; and that 
 the damages were to be ascertained by reference 
 to the market price on Nov. 4, the day on which 
 the defts. finally notified their inability to 
 make a declaration in accordance with the con- 
 tract. AsHMOKE & Son v. C. S. Cox & Co. 
 
 Lord Bussell of Eillowen C.J. 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 436 
 
 Eeferred to by Mathew J. Nickoll & Knight 
 V. AsMoH, Edndge & Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 298,303. 
 
 6. — Contract — Warranty — Implied condi- 
 tion as to fitness of goods — Evidence — Sale of 
 Goods Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 14. 
 
 Coals wtre supplied under a written contract 
 of sale containing no mention of the particular 
 purpose for which they were required, though 
 prior to the making of such contract the buyers 
 made known that purpose to the sellers, who 
 were coal agents, and relied on their skill and 
 
( 1817 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1818 ) 
 
 SAIE OF GOODS— continued. 
 
 judgment. Iii an action for damages for breach 
 
 ■of warranty by tbe sellers : — 
 
 -HisM, that evidence of what took place 
 between the parties prior to the making of the 
 ■contract was admissible to raise the implication 
 of the condition specified in a. 14 of the Sale of 
 •Goods Act, 1893, and, therefore, by virtue of that 
 section a warranty or condition by the sellers 
 that the coals were reasonably fit for the purpose 
 for whicli they were required must be implied : 
 
 Seld, also, that a contract for the sale of coals 
 under a particular description known in the coal 
 trade was not " a contract for the sale of a speci- 
 fied article under its patent or other trade name " 
 within the meaning of the proviso to s. 14. 
 Gillespie Bbotbeks & Co. v. Chestey, Eggar 
 & Co. - Lord Bussell of Eillowen C.J. 
 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 59 
 
 — Costs of reasonable defence by purchaser of 
 
 action against him by sub-vendee. 
 See Damages. 2. 
 
 7. — Docutnent of title. Possession of — Consent 
 of seller — Draft, Failure to accept — Transfer of 
 hill of lading to sub-vendee — Stoppage in 
 transitu— Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. 0. 71), «. 25, sub-s. 2 ; s. 47 — Factors Act, 
 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 45), s. 2, subs. 1 ; ss. 9, 10. 
 
 In fulfilment of a contract for the sale of a 
 certain quantity of copper the sellers forwarded 
 to the buyer a bill of lading indorsed in blank 
 for copper shipped on the deft 's ship, together 
 with a draft for the price of the copper for 
 acceptance. The buyer, who was insolvent, did 
 not accept the draft, and delivered the bill of 
 lading to the pits, in fulfilment of a contract 
 which he had, previously to obtaining possession 
 of the bill of lading, made for tho sale to them of 
 copper, and they thereupon paid him the price of 
 the copper. The pits, took the bill of lading in 
 good faith, and without notice of the rights of 
 the original sellers in respect of the copper. The 
 sellers stopped the copper in transitu. In an 
 action by the pits, against the defs., non-delivery 
 •of the copper : — 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Mathew J„ 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 61, that, the buyer having 
 obtained possession of the bill of lading with the 
 consent of the sellers, the transfer of it by him to 
 the pits, gave them a good title to the copper 
 under s. 25, sub-s. 2, of the Sale of Goods Act, 
 1893, and that the sellers had no right to stop it 
 in transitu. Cahn ahd Mateb v. Pookett's 
 Bristol Channel Steam Packet Co. 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 32 (6); [1899] 1 ft. B. 643 
 • — Factor. 
 
 See Cases under Factob. 
 
 — Goods claimed by third party — Execution — 
 
 Title of purchase. 
 
 See County Court — Execution. 38. 
 
 — Goods seized in execution — Interpleader. 
 
 See Cases under Inteepleadee. 
 
 8. — Marliet overt — Custom of City of L( ndon. 
 Jewels were sold to a jeweller in the Ciiy of 
 
 liOndon in a private showroom over his snop : — 
 Held, that the sale was not a sale in market 
 
 overt. 
 
 Senible, that the custom of market overt i.i the 
 
 SALE or GOODS— continued. 
 City of London does not apply where the shop- 
 keeper is the purchaser, not the seller, of the 
 goods. Haegreave v. Spink 
 
 WUls J. [1892] 1 a. B. 25 
 See Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 c. 71). 
 
 — Merchandise marks. 
 
 See Cases under Tkade-Maek — Mer- 
 chandise Marks. 
 
 — Pledge. 
 
 See Cases under Pledge. 
 
 — Practice — Notice of statutory defence — Statute 
 
 of Frauds. 
 
 See County Court. 63. 
 
 — Batification — Undisclosed principal. 
 
 See Pbincipal and Agent. 19. 
 
 9. — Sample, Sale by — Inspection at place of 
 delivery — Bight of purchaser to reject. 
 
 A dealer bought grain which he inspected at 
 the place named for delivery and sent on to a, 
 sub-purchaser, who rejected it as not being up to 
 sample : — 
 
 Held, that the dealer had accepted the grain 
 and could not afterwards reject it. Perkins v. 
 Bell - - C. A. [1893] 1 ft. B. 193 
 
 — Streets — Offences — Exposing goods for sale 
 
 on carriageway — Penalty. 
 
 See London — Streets. 89. 
 SALFORD HTTNDEED CGTIBT. 
 
 Heywood.] 0. in. C. dated Mar. 15, 1893, 
 excluding the jurisdiction of the Court within the 
 borough of Heywood in causes not exceeding £5. 
 St. B. & 0. 1893, p. 417. Lond. Gaz. Mar. 17, 
 1893, p. 1682. 
 
 — Prohibition — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Peohibition. (J. 
 
 Eoohdale.] 0. in C. dated Mar. 15, 1893, 
 excluding tlie jurisdiction of (he Court within the 
 borough of Bochdale in causes not exceeding £.5. 
 St. B. & 0. 1893, p, 419. Loud. Gaz. April 14, 
 1893, p. 2232. 
 
 ■ — Bochdale — Canal — Eight to support. 
 See Mine?. 26. 
 
 SALMON EISHEBV. 
 
 See Fisiieby. 
 SALVAGE. 
 
 Sec Insueanoe — Marine. 
 
 Settled Land. 46. 
 
 Shipping — Salvage. 
 
 SALVAGE EXPENDITURE— Debenture subject 
 to mortgages — Discretion of Court to 
 allow expenditure. 
 See Company — Debentures. 91. 
 
 — Preservation of estate. 
 
 See Settled Land — Infants. 55. 
 
 SAMOA — Suit for recovery of land in, 
 
 See Foreign Jurisdiction. 
 SAMPLE — For analysis. 
 
 See Adulteration — Analysis, 11 — 13. 
 
 — Sale by — Acceptance. 
 
 See Sale of Goods. 9. 
 
 — Tampering with. 
 
 See Ceiminal Law— Evidence. 19, 
 
( i8iy ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1820 ) 
 
 SAND — Eight to take — Eight of owner of shore 
 ■ — " Bed of river." 
 See Thames. S. 
 
 SANITATION. 
 
 See DisTEioT Councils. 
 
 London — Removal of Eefnse. 
 
 London — Sanitary Convenience. 
 
 London — Sewers. 
 
 Nuisances. 
 
 Public Health. 
 
 Sewers. 
 
 SAN MARINO— Eepublie of. 
 
 See EXTKADITION. 
 
 SATISFACTION— Bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill or Sale — Satisfaction. 
 
 — Breach of trust — ^Following trust funds. 
 
 See Tkustee — Breach of Trust. 28. 
 
 — Creditor — proof — Fully paid sliares taken in 
 
 payment of debt — Failure of considera- 
 tion. 
 See Company — Windinq-up. 20G. 
 
 — Debt — Satisfaction of by gift. 
 
 See Debt. 3. 
 
 — Payment into court — Denial of liability — 
 
 Admission of plaintiff's claim — Striking 
 
 out counter-claim. 
 
 See Pkactioe — Payment into Conrt. 1 2G. 
 
 — Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Satisfaction. 
 
 — Will — Legacy. 
 
 See Will — Satisfaction. 
 
 189. 
 
 SAVINGS BANK. 
 
 Statutes, col. 1819. 
 
 Trustee Savings Baiiks, col. 1819. 
 
 Statutes. 
 
 Savings Bank Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Viet. v. 21), 
 amends the law as to sartngs hanJcs. 
 
 Trustee Sayings Banks. 
 
 The Sa vings Bank Investment Begulations, 1894, 
 dated May 21, 1894. St. R. & 0. 1894, No. 60, 
 p. 403. 
 
 Tlie Trustee Savings Banks Begulations, 1895, 
 dated June 14, 1895. St. R. & 0. 1895, No. 309. 
 
 1. — Trustees and managers — Non-compliance 
 with rules — Non-attendance at meetings — Omission 
 or neglect — Companies Act, 1862 (25 it 26 Viet. c. 
 89), ss. 165, 200 — Trustee Savings Banks Acts, 
 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. u. 87), ss. 6, 11 ; 1887 (50 * 51 
 Vict. c. 47). 
 
 The president of a savings bank within the 
 Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1863, who had 
 attended only one meeting and had taken no 
 active part in the management of the bant, had 
 received reports, &o., which entitled him to 
 conclude that the duties undertaken by his 
 co-trustees and ce-managers were being duly 
 performed : — 
 
 Seld, that he was not personally liable, under 
 s. 11 of the Savings Banks Act, 1863, for neglect 
 in not complying with the rules as to examina- 
 tion of accounts, &-c. Makquis op Bute's Case 
 Stirling J. [1892] 2 CIl 100 
 
 SCAFFOLDING — Buildings — Workmen's Com- 
 pensation Act, 1897. 
 See Mastek and Sekvant. 41, 42. 
 
 SCALE FEE — Conveyancing — Solicitors' re-^ 
 muneration. 
 See Cases under Solicitoe — Costs. 
 
 — On mortgages. 
 
 iSee Cases under Mortgage— Costs. 
 
 SCALE, HIGHER OR LOWER— Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Costs. 
 
 SCANDALOUS CONDUCT— By clergyman. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Clergfy. 50. 
 
 SCAVENGING— Metropolis. 
 
 See Cases under London — Removal of 
 Eefnse. 49, 50. 
 
 Nuisances. 
 
 SCHEME— Charity. 
 
 See Cases under Chabitt. 
 
 — For improvements on settled estate. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Lahd. 
 
 SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT— Bankruptcy 
 practice. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Scheme of Arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Eailway company's affairs. 
 
 See Eailway — Scheme of Arrangement. 
 
 SCHOLARSHIP— Action for. 
 
 See Charity — Commissioners. 6. 
 SCHOOL BOARD. 
 
 See Schools — School Board. 
 
 SCHOOL BUILDINGS— House duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — House Duty. 62, 63. 
 SCHOOLMASTER. 
 
 See Schools — Schoolmaster. 
 
 SCHOOLS. 
 
 Elementary Education Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict^ 
 c. 56), makes further provision for assisting edw- 
 cation in Public Elementary Schools in EnglancC 
 and Wales. 
 
 Elementary Education Act, 1897 (60 & 61 T7cf. 
 c. 16), amends s. 97 of the Elementary Education 
 Act, 1870 (33 ct 34 Vict. c. 75). 
 
 Elementarii Education Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vicf. 
 c. 53), amends tlie Elementary Education Acts, 
 1870 to 1893. 
 
 In General, col. 1821. 
 
 Attendance of Children, col. 1821. 
 
 Board of Education, col. 1821. 
 
 Defective and Epileptic Cliildren, col. 1S21, 
 
 Endoiced Schools. See Charity — Com- 
 missioners. 
 
 Industrial and Reformatory Schools^ 
 col. 1822. 
 
 Bates, col. 1822. 
 
 Beformatory Schools, col. 1822. 
 
 School Board, col. 1822. 
 
 Schoolmaster, col. 1824. 
 
 Teachers, col. 1825, 
 
( 1821 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1822 ) 
 
 G2, (53. 
 Misrepresentation by 
 
 -Bescis- 
 
 SCHOOLS— co»fe»«e* 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Boarding and lodo;ing soliolais attending — 
 
 " Private residence." 
 
 See COTENANT. 4. 
 
 — Educational charity — Oy-pr^. 
 
 See Chabitt. 20. 
 
 — Inhabited house duty. 
 
 See Eevenub — ^House Duty. 
 
 — Noise — Nuisance 
 
 vendor's agent — Eesciesion. 
 See Vendok and Pdrchasee 
 sion. 67. 
 
 — Piiority of Crown debts — Debts due to Boards 
 
 of Education — Law of Newfoundland. 
 See Newtoundland. 1. 
 
 — Scheme — Endowed school. 
 
 See Charity — Commissioners. 11. 
 
 — School Sites Act, 1841~" Owners "—Street— 
 
 Keoovery of expenses. 
 See Streets. 29. 
 
 Attendance of Children, 
 
 Elementary Education (_School Attendance") Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Viet. c. 51), amends the previous Acts 
 with respect to the age for attendance at school. 
 
 Elementary Education {School Attendance") Act 
 (1893) Amendment Act, 1899, amends the law re- 
 specting the employment and education of young 
 children. 
 
 1. — Employment of child hij parent "f(yr pur- 
 poses of gain" — Elementary Education Act, 1876 
 (39 (fe 40 Viet. e. 79), «. 47. 
 
 By s. 6 of the Elementary Education Act, 
 1876, a person who takes into his employment a 
 child, between the ages of ten and fourteen, who 
 is not exempted from school attendance, is liable 
 to a penalty. 
 
 By B.47, "a parent of a child who employs 
 such child in any labour exercised by way of 
 trade or for the purposes of gain shall be deemed 
 for the purposes of this Act to take such child 
 into his employment." 
 
 The respondent, in order to enable his wife to 
 go out and eara money, kept his daughter, a 
 child of the age of thirteen who was not exempted 
 from school attendance, at home to do the house- 
 work : — 
 
 SM, that he did not thereby employ the 
 
 child for the purposes of gain so as to render 
 
 himself liable to the penalty imposed by s. 6. 
 
 Mather v. Lawrence Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 67 ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 1000 
 
 Board of Education. 
 
 Board of Education Act, 1899 (62 A 63 Vict, 
 e. 33), provides for the Edablishment of a Board 
 of Education for England and Wales and for 
 matters connected therewith. 
 
 Defective and Epileptic Children. 
 Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic 
 Children) Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Viet. c. 32), maltes 
 better provision. 
 
 SCHOOLS — continued. 
 
 Endowed Schools. 
 
 See Cases under Charity - 
 sioners. 
 
 - Commis- 
 
 Indnstrial and Beformatory Schools. 
 
 Heformatoi-y and Industrial Schools Act, 1891 
 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 28), assists Managers of Reforma- 
 tory and Industrial Scliools in advantageously 
 launching into useful careers the children under 
 their charge. 
 
 Beformatory Schools Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 48), amends the laiv as to the commitment of 
 young offenders. Mule and Schedule of forms 
 dated Nov. 5, 1895, issued hy the Lord Chancellor 
 for the purposes of the Beformatory Schools Acts. 
 St. B. & 0. 1895, Ko. 423, I. 24. 
 
 Industrial Schools Acts Amendment Act, 1894 
 (57 <t- 58 Vict. c. 33), amends the law relating to 
 Industrial Schools. 
 
 See also s. 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Children Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 41). 
 
 Beformatory and Industrial Schools (Channel! 
 Islands Children) Act, 1895 (58 Vict. c. 17), makes 
 provision for sending children from the ChanneT. 
 Islands to Industrial Schools in Great Britain. 
 
 Bute and schedule of forms for sending ohildren- 
 to Industrial Schools dated Nov. 5, 1895. St. B.. 
 & 0. 1895, No. 423, L. 24. 
 
 Beformatory Schools Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict., 
 c. 12), amends the Beformatory Schools Act, 1893- 
 (56 * 57 Viet. c. 48). 
 
 2. — Justices — Jurisdiction — Industrial Schools ■ 
 Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 118), s. 14. 
 
 The Industrial Schools Act, 1866, does not. 
 contain a code of criminal procedure and is not 
 punitive in its character, but is intended for the 
 protection of children coming within its opera- 
 tion. Where, therefore, a child apparently under 
 fourteen years of age is charged before a court. 
 of summary jurisdiction with larceny, and the 
 charge is dismissed, but evidence is given that 
 he frequents the company of reputed thieves, he 
 may be sent to an industrial school under s. 14 
 of the Act, upon an application under that sec- 
 tion, without being brought afresh before the- 
 Court by summons or otherwise. Ees. v. 
 Jennings. Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 64 
 
 Bates. 
 
 — Eating of schools. 
 
 See Bates. 27. 
 
 Voluntary Schools Act, 1897 (60 Vict. c. 5), 
 exempts schools from rates and repeals part of' 
 s. 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876 
 (39 * 40 Vict. c. 79). 
 
 Beformatory Schools. 
 
 See Schools — Industrial and Beforma- 
 tory Schools. 
 
 School Board. 
 
 School Board Conference Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. e. 32), provides for expenses incurred in- 
 relation to such conferences. 
 
( 1823 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1824 ) 
 
 SCHOOLS (School Board) — continued. 
 
 3. — Duqualification hy absence — School hoard 
 member — Elementary Educatimi Act, 1870(33 <fc31 
 Vict. c. 75), Sehed. 11., Part I., r. 14. 
 
 Eule 14 of Sched. II., Part I., of the Educa- 
 tion Act, 1870, does not entitle a school board to 
 elect a new member in place of a member who has 
 absented himself on account of ill-health, without 
 £rst giving him an opportunity of explaining or 
 excusing his absence. Bichakdson v. Methley 
 School Boaed - Xekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 510 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Turnbull v. West 
 Hiding Athletic Club {Leeds), Ld., [1894] W. N. 4. 
 
 — Disqualification by bankruptcy— School board 
 
 member. 
 
 See Bankeuptot — Bis^ualification. 95_ 
 
 4. — Disqualification by crime — Sclwol board 
 member — Elementary Education Act, 1870 (33 & 34 
 Vict. c. 75), Sched. II., Part I, r. 14. 
 
 A member of a school board in England con- 
 victed of " conspiracy " under the Criminal Law 
 and Procedure (Ireland) Act, J 887, and im- 
 prisoned : — 
 
 Held, to have been " punished with imprison- 
 ment for crime " within the meaning of rule 14, 
 Sched. II., Part I., to the Education Act, 1870, 
 and so to have vacated his seat on the board. 
 
 CONYBEAEE V. LONDON SOHOOL BoAED 
 
 Day J. [1891] 1 «. B. 118 
 
 6. — Disqualification of member — " Concerned 
 in work done under authority of board " — Sale of 
 ^materials to contractor with board — Elementary 
 Education Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 75), «. 34. 
 
 By J3. 34 of the Elementary Education Act, 
 1870, a member of a school board who (inter alia) 
 " shall in any way share or be concerned ia the 
 profits of any bargain or contract with or any 
 ■work done under the authority of such school 
 looard " is liable to » penalty, and his office 
 Toecomes vacant. 
 
 The respondent, a member of a school board, 
 eold sand and gravel to a builder who had eutered 
 into a contract with the board for the building of 
 a school ; at the time of the sale the respondent 
 was aware that the sand and gravel were intended 
 to be used (as they were in fact, used) in the 
 building of the school : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent had been concerned 
 ;in work done under the authority of the board, 
 and had therefore been guilty of an offence under 
 the section. Baenacle v. Clakk 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 Q. B. 279 
 
 — Election — Petition — Interlocutory order — 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 See Appeal. 43. 
 
 6. — Election of school hoard — Voting — Ballot- 
 papers — Crosses, how to he counted — Ballot Act, 
 1872 (35 * 86 Viet. c. 33), s. i—Elementary Edu- 
 cation Act, 1873 (36 it 87 Vict. c. 86), Sched. II.— 
 General Order of the Committee of the Priey Council 
 on Education of Aug. 1, 1895. 
 
 At electioDs of school boards in boroughs a 
 voter has the option of placuig on the ballot-paper 
 supplied to him, opposite the name of any candi- 
 date for whom he intends to vote, either crosses or 
 figures to signify the number of votes he intends 
 to give to such candidate. Where a ballot-paper 
 IS marked with crosses instead of figures the re- 
 
 SCHOOLS (School Board) — continued. 
 turning officer ought to count every cross as one 
 vote for the candidate opposite whose name it is 
 placed. If any ballot-paper be marked with a 
 less number of crosses than the voter has votes 
 at that election, the returning officer, in perform- 
 ing his duty of counting the votes, ought not to act 
 upon any presumption or inference that the voter 
 intended to exhaust his whole voting power. If, 
 therefore, there are fifteen candidates for election, 
 and a ballot-paper be marked with a single cross 
 placed opposite the name of one only of those 
 candidate:?, it ought to be counted as one vote, 
 and not as fifteen votes, for that candidate. So, 
 if a single cross be placed opposite the names of 
 three or five of the fifteen candidates, it ought to 
 be counted as one vote, and not as five or three 
 votes, for the candidate opposite whose name it is 
 placed. MoKEis v. Beves 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 449 
 
 7. — Election petition — Becount of votes — Cor- 
 rectness of Returning officer's figures — Onus of 
 proof. 
 
 At an election for a school board there were 
 eight candidates for five seats. The five highest 
 on the poll, of whom the respondent was fifth, 
 were declared by the returning officer to be 
 elected. A petition was presented by the candi- 
 date who was sixth on the poll against the elec- 
 tion of the respondent, on the ground that certain 
 votes given for the petitioner had been wrongly 
 counted for the respondent or for some other 
 candidate, and the petitioner claimed the seat. 
 A recount having been had of the votes given for 
 the respondent and the petitioner, it appeared 
 that the petitioner had a majority over the 
 respondent. The votes of the other candidates 
 were not recounted : — 
 
 Held, that the petitioner was entitled to the 
 seat, for that it was enough for him to establish 
 that he had more votes than the respondent, and 
 that it was unnecessary for him to recount the 
 votes given for the first four candidates. Loed 
 MONKSWELL V. THOMPSON - - Div. Ct. [1898] 
 
 1 Q. B. 479 
 
 8. — Statutory powers — School hoard — Pur- 
 cliase of land by agreement — Bestriciive covenant — 
 Person injuriously affected — Elementary Educa- 
 tion Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 75), ss. 19, 20— 
 Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), s. 68. 
 
 When a school board acquire land, whether 
 by agreement or compulsion, for the purposes of 
 the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and pur- 
 chase with notice of a restrictive covenant to 
 which the land was subject in the hands of tlie 
 vendor, the covenantee cannot maintain an 
 action against the school board for breach of 
 covenant ; his only remedy is compensation 
 under s. 68 of the Lands Consolidation Act, 
 1845. KiKBY V. Haseogatb School Boaed 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 437 
 
 Schoolmaster. 
 
 9. — Authority of head master — Punishment 
 of pupil for acts done on way to school. 
 
 The authority delegated by the parent of a 
 pupil to a schoolmaster to punish a pupil is not 
 limited to offences committed by the pupil on 
 the premises of a school, but extends to acts 
 
( 1825 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1826 ) 
 
 SCHOOLS (Schoolma.siev')— continued. 
 
 done by such pupil while on his way to and from 
 
 Bchool. Cleabt v. Booth 
 
 Siv. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 465 
 And see Prevention of Cruelty to Children 
 Act, 1891 (57 & 58 Vict. u. 41). 
 
 — Dismissal — Endowed school. 
 
 See Chabitt — Commissioners. 10. 
 
 — Dismissal — Injunction — National School. 
 
 See Chakitt — Management. 39. 
 
 Teachers. 
 
 Elementary School Teachers (Superanmiationy 
 Act, 1898 (61 <fc 62 Vict. c. 57), proeidesfor super- 
 annuation and other annuities and allowances to 
 elementary school teachers certificated by the Educa- 
 ■tion Department. 
 
 Teacheks' Supekannuatio!!.] Elementary 
 .School Teachers' Superannuation Rules, 1899, 
 ■dated April 1, 1899, made for carrying into effect 
 41ie Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) 
 Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 57). St. E. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 590, Wo. 174. 
 
 10, — Teacher's remuneration — Superannua- 
 /lion fund — Management Jry hoard — Elementary 
 Education Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 75), 8. 35. 
 
 A school hoard established and managed a 
 superannuation fund for the payment of allow- 
 ances to their officers and teachers upon their 
 .-superannuation. This fund was provided by 
 rtinnual deductions from the salaries of the officers 
 and teachers, made in pursuance of contracts 
 between tliem and the board : — 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of a Divisional 
 'Court, [1898] 1 Q. B. 4, that the officers and 
 iteachors could not recover back the amount of 
 ithe deductions from their salaries, for (1) even if 
 it was ultra vires for the board to pay the ex- 
 penses of managing the fund out of the school 
 irates, it was no part of the contract between the 
 board and the officers and teachers that this 
 ;should be done, and the making of the contract 
 was therefore not ultra vires ; (2) assuming that 
 the board could not undertake the management 
 of the fund, in the absence of power under the 
 Elementary Education Acts to do so, the money 
 ihaving been applied to the purposes for which it 
 ■was sabsoribed, and the subscribers having had 
 ■the right to participate in the benefits of the 
 fund, there had been no failure of consideration. 
 Fhillips v. London School Boabd. Cookebton 
 V. Same - - C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 447 
 
 9CIENTES — Evidence of — Mischievous animal 
 — Negligence. 
 See Damages. 6. 
 
 — Giving false warranty to purchaser. 
 
 See Adultebation. 24. 
 
 .SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE— Costs on higher scale 
 allowed. 
 
 See Costs — Higher and Loirer Scale. 
 33, 34. 
 Patent — Practice. 27, 28. 
 Shippino— Costs. 95. 
 
 iSOIENTIFIC INSTITTTTION— Income tax. 
 
 See Revende — Income Tax. 104, 105, 
 108, 109. 
 
 SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY. 
 
 County Couri Rules (Nov.), 1900, Ord. XLi. A. 
 W. N. 1900 (Dec. 8), p. 325. See Current Index, 
 1900, p. Ixxxii. 
 
 1. — Company —Statute — Construction — "In 
 the nature of a joint stock company " — Literary 
 and Scientific Institutions Act, 1854. (17 & 18 
 Vict. 0. 112), «. 30 (1). 
 
 A literary and scientific institution, in the 
 property of which proprietors were interested in 
 proportion to the number of their shares, which 
 shares were transferable and transmissible : — 
 
 Held, to be in the nature of a joint stock co. 
 within the meaning of the Literary and Scientific 
 Institutions Act, 1854, s. 30. 
 
 In re Tlie Bristol Athensium, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 
 236, discussed. In re Kussell Institution. 
 FiGGiNS V. Baghino - North J. [1898] 2 Ch. 72 
 
 2. — Dissolution — Distribution of assets — 
 Literary and Scientific Institutions Act, 1854 
 (17 * 18 Vict. c. 112), 88. 30, 33. 
 
 A society falling within the general scope of 
 the Literary and Ssientificlnstitutions Act, 1854, 
 may be an institution in the nature of a joint 
 stock CO. within the exception in a. 30, although 
 not formed for purposes of profit, if it has the 
 other usual indicia of a joint stock co. — as, for 
 example, if it has common property derived from 
 the contributions of its members, and held by 
 them in transferable shares. 
 
 In re The Bristol Athenieum, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 
 236, considered. 
 
 A horticultural society was constituted in 
 1844 under a deed which provided that any 
 person who paid a certain fixed sum to the funds 
 of the society should be a member and entitled 
 to one share in the society, which was to be trans- 
 ferable by him or his legal personal representa- 
 tives, and that each member should pay a fixed 
 annual subscription, and should be entitled to 
 admission for himself and family to the gardens 
 of the society, but should not be entitled to any 
 dividend or bonus, nor to any interest in the 
 property of the society except the right to 
 participate in the profits on a dissolution : — 
 
 Held, that the society came within the excep- 
 tion in s. 30 of the Literary and Scientific 
 Institutions Act, 1854, and that upon dissolution 
 the property of the society became distributable 
 among the members. In re Jones. Clegg v. 
 Ellison - - Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 83 
 
 — Exemption from duty — Property legally ap- 
 
 propriated for the promotion of science. 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 104, 105. 
 
 — Library. 
 
 See LiBBABY. 
 
 — Kates — Exemption. 
 
 See Kates. 25. 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW, 
 
 In General, col. 1827. 
 BanJcruptaj, col. 1829. 
 Burgh, col. 1829. 
 Church, col. 1830. 
 Company, col. 1830. 
 Gmitract, col. 1831. 
 Conveyance, col. 1831. 
 
 3 N 
 
( J«27 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW — continued. 
 
 Death Duties. See Eeventje. 
 Divorce, col. 1832. 
 Drainage, col. 1832. 
 Entail, col 1833. 
 Guaranty, col. 1833. 
 Heritable Securities, col. 1 833. 
 Husband and Wife, col. 1883. 
 Insurance, Marine. See INSURANCE — 
 
 Uarine. 
 Joint Delinquents, col. 1834. 
 Landlord and Tenant, col. 1835. 
 Lunacy, col. 1836. 
 blaster and Servant, col. 1 836. 
 Negligence, col. 1837. 
 Pledge, col. 1837. 
 Practice, eol. 1837. 
 Baihoays, eol. 1S3N. 
 Piver. See Water. 
 Satisfaction, col. 1839. 
 Sequestration, col. ISiO. 
 Servitude, col. 1840. 
 Sewers, col. 1840. 
 Sliips. See SHiPPiifS. 
 Succession, col. 1841. 
 Superior and Vassal, col. 1843. 
 University. See TJnitersitt. 
 Walk, col. 1844. 
 Water. See Water. 
 Will, col. 184.1. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Agreement — Finality of audit — Charge of 
 
 fraud — Cost. 
 See AocotiNT. 2. 
 
 — Appeal to House of Lords — All material facts 
 
 to be found. 
 See Appeal. 21. 
 
 — Arbitration. 
 
 See Cases under Arbitration. 
 
 — Buildings — Height of. 
 
 See Building. 1. 
 
 — Easement — Tramway agreement — ^Personal or 
 
 real right — Kemoyal of tramway. 
 
 See Easement. 5. 
 
 — Election law. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Kevenue — Estate 
 Duty. 
 
 — False pretences made in Scotland — Goods 
 
 obtained in England — ^Debtors Act — 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Criminal Law — False Pretences. 
 32. 
 
 — Income tax. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenub — Income Tax. 
 
 — Infant — Adoption on full age of lease made 
 
 by trustees. 
 See Infant. 3. 
 
 ( 1S28 ) 
 -continued. 
 
 SCOTTISH lAW (In General)- 
 
 — Inhabited house duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — House Duty.. 
 
 — Judicial factor — Investments — Breach of 
 
 trust. 
 
 See Trustee — Investments. 65. 
 
 — Legacy duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eeyenue — Legacy- 
 Duty. 
 
 — Maintenance and establishment of pupil heir.. 
 
 See Infant — Uaintenance. 22. 
 
 — Maritime lien. 
 
 See Shipping— Lien. 162. 
 
 — Markets and fairs — Diseases of animals — By- 
 
 laws — Ultra vires. 
 See Market. 1. 
 
 — Minerals — Coal below low water-mark — 
 
 Barony title — ^Lease of coal — ^Minor — 
 
 Adoption. 
 
 See Mines — Leases. 12. 
 
 — Minerals — ^Life-rent — Eents and profits — 
 
 " Opened" quarries. 
 See Mines — Leases. 14. 
 
 — Pledge — Document of title — ^Foreign arrest- 
 
 ment — Conflict of laws — Goods in Scot- 
 land. 
 See Factor. 3. 
 
 — Eegistration of voters. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 — Eevenue. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue. 
 
 — Scottish judgment — Certificate of debts. 
 
 See Executor. 7. 
 
 — Service out of the jurisdiction. 
 
 See Practice — Service. 220, 222. 
 
 — Service out of jurisdiction — ^Waiver. 
 
 jSee Practice — Service. 223. 
 
 — Ships. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Stamps. 
 
 — Street— Line of. 
 
 See Streets. 5. 
 
 — Street — Obstruction — Snow — Tramways. 
 
 See Nuisances. 29. 
 
 — Succession duty. 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Succession.:. 
 Duty. 
 
 — Superfluous lands — Land adjoining terminus • 
 
 — Lease of portion. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 24. 
 
 — Trust for creditors — Eight in security — Pledge j 
 
 — Preference — Private manager. 
 See Bankruptcy. 158. 
 
 — Trustee — Breach of trust. 
 
 See Cases under Trustee — Breach of 
 Trust. 
 
 — Way-leave — Assessment of — " Heritor " — - 
 
 Church and manse. 
 See Water. 80. 
 
 — Will — Construction of Will. 
 
 See Cases under Will. 
 
( 1S29 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1830 ) 
 
 SCOTTISH lA-W— continued. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Bankruptcy notice — Scottiah judgment regis- 
 tered in England. 
 
 See Bankbuptct — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 24. 
 
 1. — Beappointment of trustee — Discharge of 
 both trustee and hanltrupt — Sequestration — Banh- 
 ruptoy (Scotland) Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Viet. c. 79), 
 ^s. 102, 103, 132, 152, 155. 
 
 The Ct. i)f Sess. has power to revive a seque.s- 
 tration after both the bankrupt and trustee have 
 been discharged, where the bankrupt has been dis- 
 charged without composition, and there are funds 
 not belonging to the sequestrated estate still 
 unrecovered, and the creditors have not been paid 
 in full. The discharge of a tnisteo in ignorance 
 or inadvertence that the funds vested in him by 
 the sequestration have not been fully recovered 
 does not revest such funds in the bankrupt. 
 The appointment of a new trustee in such a case 
 is mere machinery for carrying out the Bank- 
 ruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1856. An application for 
 this purpose is to be made to the Inner House. 
 
 Decision of Ot. of Sess., Northern Heritable 
 Securities Investment Co. v. Whyte, (1888) 16 B. 
 100, affirmed. Whtte v. Northern Heritable 
 Seoukities Investment Co. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 608 
 
 2. — Vesting of heritable estate in hanhrupt's 
 trustee — Latent trust in hanhrupt — Bankruptcy 
 (Scotland) Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 79), ». 102. 
 
 A sequestration in Scotland does not vest in 
 the trustee for the benefit of creditors heritage 
 which the bankrupt holds on an unqualified ex 
 facie absolute disposition registered in his own 
 name, if it can be proved that the bankrupt only 
 holds it on trust for another. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Seritdble Eeversionary 
 Co. V. Millar (M'Kaifs Trustee), (1891) 18 R. 1166, 
 reversed. Heritable KEVERSinNABY Co. v. 
 MiLLAB - H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A, C. 678 
 
 Burgh. 
 
 3. — Costs of opposing hill in Parliament — 
 —Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867 (80 & 31 
 Vict. c. 101), 8. 95 — Bates — Ultra vires. 
 
 The magistrates and council of Leith, who 
 were also the local authority for public health, 
 incurred costs in opposing in Parliament a bill 
 for amalgamating the burghal territory of Leith 
 and Portobello with an enlarged district subject 
 to the government of the new and extended cor- 
 poration of the city of Edinburgh, and they suc- 
 ceeded in having the bill thrown out as regards 
 Leith : — 
 
 Seld, affirming the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 Leith Doele Commrs. v. Leith (Magistrates of), 
 (1897) 25 R. 126, that it was ultra vires of the 
 magistrates to include the expenses of the opposi- 
 tion in tbe public health assessment as expenses 
 " incurred in executing " that act. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Brecon, (1878) 10 Ch. D. 
 204, distinguished. Leith Codncil ■». Leith 
 Habeoub AND Docks Commks. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1899] W. N. 118 ; [1899] A. C. 508 
 
 SCOTTISH Li.'W— continued. 
 Church. 
 
 4. — Glebe, Boundary of — CImrch of Scotland. 
 
 Held, that the decree of tbe Presbytery drawn 
 up for the purpose of fixing the boundary of the 
 glebe being unambiguous as to the extent of the 
 glebe boundary, its limits could not be extended 
 by evidence of possession of a larger boundary. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Bobinson (Dalhousie's 
 Tutors) V. Stewart, (1890) 27 Sco. L. E. 819, 
 affirmed. Stewabt r. Eobinson 
 
 H. I. (Sc.) [1891] W. N. 122 
 
 6. — Stipend, Canon's — Scottish Episcopal 
 Church — Construction of code of cathedral statutes. 
 
 A canon of a catliedral belonging to the Scot- 
 tish Episcopal Church, on the board of manage- 
 ment of which rests tbe providing fitting support 
 "for the provost and canons of the cathedral," 
 has no right either under contract or as bene- 
 ficiary of a trust to claim any share of the funds. 
 The discretion of the boaid to distribute the funds 
 cannot be questioned so long as the funds are 
 administered in good faith and applied only to 
 cathedral purposes. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1893) 20 E. 470, 
 affirmed. Beook v. Kelly 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 721 
 
 6. — Stipend, Minister's — Church of Scotland 
 — Contract to provide a legal and competent stipend 
 — Extent of obligation. 
 
 Where a decree of the Teind Court made in 
 1741 ordained that a burgh should provide the 
 minister of a new church with a legal and com- 
 petent stipend not under a certain sum : — 
 
 Held, that the decree imposed a direct liability 
 on the burgh to pay a competent and legal stipend 
 according to the varying circumstances from time 
 to time, and that the liability was not impaired 
 by any loss of funds or deficiency in expected 
 contributions. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Peters v. Oreenock 
 (Magistrates of), (1892) 19 E. 643, affirmed. 
 Pbovost, &c., op Gkeenook v. Petebs 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A, C. 258 
 
 Company. 
 
 7. — Deceased shareholder — Sequestration — 
 Title to shares. 
 
 A domiciled Scotsman, who held shares in the 
 T. Co., died, and his estate was sequestered ; M. 
 was appointed the trustee in the sequestration. 
 The T. Co. was wound up and the liquidator held 
 money payable to the shnreholders. In an action 
 of multiplepoinding the claims of M. and of one 
 B. were allowed : — 
 
 Held, that the liquidator should pay the 
 amount on the shares to M. on the receipt of 
 M. & B. In re TrTicoBiN Cotton Pbess Co. 
 
 V. ■Williams J. [1894] W. N. 181 
 
 — Jurisdiction — Company registered in Scotland. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Jurisdic- 
 tion. 102. 
 
 — Validity of decree — Eight of English Court to 
 
 question. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Staying 
 Proceedings. 233, 235. 
 
 — Winding-up— Landlords' rights. 
 
 See below, Landlord and Tenant. 
 3 N 2 
 
( 18J1 ) 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW — continued. 
 Contract. 
 
 8. — Family arnrngement — Representations 
 inducing consent tu — Seduction — Ignorance of 
 legal rights and powers. 
 
 A family arrangement resettling entailed 
 estates was pet aside on the ground that the 
 appellant had been induced to give his consent 
 by erroneous statements. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1892) 29 Sco. Law 
 Rep. 677, reversed. Menzies r. Menzies 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. ». 48 
 
 9. — 8al-e of business — Be-sale for enhanced 
 price — Misrepresentation — Seduction — Bestilutio 
 in integrum. 
 
 By a clause in an agreement for the sale by 
 M. of property to B., it was provided that the 
 arrangement proceeded upon the basis that the 
 
 net profits of the property amounted to 
 
 pounds on the aveiuge. A day was named for 
 completion; if the facts were not ns stated, tlie 
 arrangement was to be at an end ; B. was to be 
 .nt liberty to examine the books. 
 
 B. agreed to sell the property to C. at an 
 enhanced price by a conveyance ; M., at the in- 
 stance of B., conveyed the property to C. 
 
 More than a year after the conveynnce to C. it 
 was discovered that the books had beeu improperly 
 dealt with by a clerk of M. without M.'s know- 
 ledge, so as to make the profits appear greater. 
 An action was begun by C, with the concurrence 
 of B., for reduction of the sale : — 
 
 Seld, that C. and B. had no title to maintain 
 the action, for the contract did not provide for 
 the insertion in the disposition of a clause making 
 that disposition void if the profits were less than 
 stated, the parties contemplating that the time 
 given for completion was sufficient for ascertain- 
 ing what profits had been made. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Edinburgh United 
 Breweries, Ld. v. Molleson (Niclwlson's Trustee), 
 (1893) 20 E. 581, affirmed. Edinbukgh United 
 Breweries, Ld. c. Molleson 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 96 
 
 10. — Testing clause in marriage contract — 
 Liability of law agent for carelessness. 
 
 A declaration inserted in the testing clause 
 of a deed, which purports to affect or qualify any 
 of the provisions in the body of the deed, has no 
 legal effect. 
 
 Smith V. Chambers' Trustees, (1877) 5 E. 97 ; 
 3 App. Cas. 795, followed. Blaib v. Assets Co. 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 409 
 
 Conyeyance. 
 
 11. — Sale of superiority — Construction of dis- 
 positive clause — Subsidiary clauses — Bight to 
 coals. 
 
 By the law of Scotland, the dispositive clause 
 of a deed in implement of a sale of laud rights is 
 the governing clause, and if its terms are express 
 and unambiguous they cannot be contradicted or 
 cut down by inference drawn from other parts of 
 the deed; but if the dispositive clause contain 
 general words of description susceptible of more 
 than one meaning, other clauses of the deed may 
 b3 referred to as shewing the sense in which these 
 general words are used. 
 
 Deoisinn of Ct. of Sess., Orr v. Mitchell {Moir's 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801— lUOO. 
 
 ( 1£32 ) 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Conveyance) — continued. 
 Trustees), (1892) 19 E. 700, reversed. Lee v. 
 Alexander, (1883) 8 App. Cas. 853, distinguished. 
 Fleeming v. Howden, (1868) 6 Macpherson, 782, 
 approved. Orb v. Mitchell 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 238 
 
 Death Duties, 
 See Cases under Eevenue. 
 
 Divorce. 
 
 12. — Desertion — " Beasonable cause." 
 
 In an action by a husband against his wife for 
 divorce on the ground cf desertion for the statu- 
 tory period, under the Scots Act, 1573, c. 5.5, it 
 appeared that she had left him because of conduct 
 on his part causing her mental distress sufficient 
 to interfere with her restoration to health, and 
 because of menaces by him sufficient to create in 
 her a well-founded apprehension of physical 
 restraint, and culminating in an act of violence 
 against her person : — 
 
 Held, that she had reasonable cause for leaving 
 her husband's house, and for declining to return 
 to it, and that there was a good defence to the 
 action. Whether in an action for adherence by 
 a husband, misconduct on his part short of cruelty 
 or other matrimonial offence may be a ground for 
 refusing relief, qusere. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1893) 20 E. 636, 
 affirmed. Mackenzie v. Mackenzie 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 384 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Bussell v. Bussell, [1895] 
 P. 315, 332. This Case was affirmed by H. L. 
 (D.) [1897] A. C. 395. 
 
 Eeferred to by G. Barnes J. Oldroyd v. Old- 
 royd, [1896] P. 175, 179. 
 — Nullity of marriage. 
 
 See Divorce— Kullity. 98. 
 
 Drainage. 
 
 13. — Drainage of adjoining lands — Baihcays 
 Clauses {Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 33), 
 8. 65. 
 
 More than forty years ago lands were conveyed 
 to a ry. co. " in implement of the said decree 
 arbitral." The disposition declared that, " The 
 said ry. co. shall be bound and obliged to pre- 
 serve the effective drainage of the lands in so 
 far as the same may be interfered with by the 
 ry. works, and to keep up the works, fences, 
 watercourses, and others falling upon them under 
 the Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, and 
 protect and keep in repair the bottoms and sides 
 of the streams deepened below the natural level 
 by the ry. co., and also to keep the same clear iu 
 so far as affected by the ry. works." In 1897 
 the First Div. of the Ct. of Sess., reversing 
 the decision of the Lord Ordinary, ordered tho 
 appellants to make further and better accommo- 
 dation : — 
 
 Held, that the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, 
 s. 65, expressly and in terms protects ry. oos., 
 after five years, from the burden the respondent 
 attempted to throw on the appellants, and there 
 was nothing in the decree arbitral — the governing 
 instrument —or the evidence to shew that the 
 appellants had ever dreamed of waiving the bene- 
 
( 18i53 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CA^ES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( ISJi ) 
 
 SCOXnSH LAW CDrsLinage)— continued. | 
 
 fit of 8. 65, or were ever asked to make so foolish 
 a sacrifice. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Dulce of Fife v. Great 
 North of Scotland By. Co., (1897) 8S Soo. L. K. 78, 
 reversed. Gkeat North of Scotland Ry. Co. v. 
 Duke of Fife H. I. (Sc.) [1900] W. If. 62 
 
 Entail, 
 
 14. — Disentail — Valtie of expectancies — Proof 
 — Remit. 
 
 The House aiBrmed the interlocutor of the 
 
 Ot. of Sess., (1899) 1 F. 1194. Bankes v. Bankes 
 
 H. L, (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 246 
 
 15. — Lands entailed on heirs of another en- 
 tailed estate — Disentail of that estate. 
 
 Where an estate was entailed failing a series 
 of heirs on the heirs in possession of H., and the 
 other heirs substitute in the entail of H., and H. 
 had been disentailed : — 
 
 Held, that there was a right in the heirs sub- 
 stitute in the entail of H., notwithstanding the 
 disentail of H. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sees., (1895) 22 K. 266, 
 aflSrmed. Inglis v. Gillanders 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 507 
 — Disentail. 
 
 See Eevenue — Legacy Duty. 126. 
 
 Guaranty. 
 
 16. — " Cautionary obligation " — Principal 
 and surety — Mercantile Law (^Scotland) Amendment 
 Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 60), s. 6. 
 
 An undertaking by the defenders to give, 
 when required, a guaranty for the repayment of 
 money to be lent by the pursuer is a good '* caution- 
 ary obligation " within the meaning of s. 6 of the 
 Mercantile Law (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1 856, 
 and is as binding on the defenders as a direct 
 obligation. Wallace v. Gibson 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1895] A. C. 354 
 
 Heritable Securities. 
 
 Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act, 1894 (57 & 
 58 Vict. c. 44), amends the law relating to heritable 
 securities. 
 
 Husband and Wife. 
 
 17. — Ante-nuptial contract — Provision to issue 
 of children — Whether contractual or testamentary. 
 
 A conveyance in an ante-nuptial contract of 
 marriage in favour of the cliildren of the marriuge 
 and the issue of such children is fractional and is 
 not gratuitous nor testamentary, but onerous and 
 obligatory, and is not revocable by the spouses as 
 regards the issue of the children. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Hall's Trustees v. Mao- 
 donald, (1892) 19 K. 567, reversed. Maodonald 
 V. Scott - H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 642 
 
 18. — Ante-nuptial contract — Bights of hus- 
 band's creditors. 
 
 By ante-nuptial contract of marriage the hus- 
 band bound himself, his heirs, executors, and 
 representatives whomsoever, to pay to the wife 
 an annuity "to be applied by her towards the 
 expenses of my household and establishment, and 
 that during all the days of my life." He 
 secured the annuity on heritable property, and 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Husband and Wife)— conicf. 
 declared it to be his wifu's separate estate free of 
 the jus mariti : — 
 
 Held, that the application of the annuity was 
 for the husband's own benefit, and that the wife 
 had no title to it as against his creditors. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Eliott v. Eliott's Trustees, 
 (1894) 21 E. 955, afiirmed. Biekett v. Purdom 
 H. L. (So.) [1895] A. C. 371 
 
 19. — Ante-nuptial contract — Succession — 
 Vesting — Conditio si sine liberis decesserit. 
 
 The rule si sine liberis dece.-serit applies to 
 ante-nuptial marriage contrac'ts On the con- 
 struction of an ante-nuptial marriage contract : — 
 
 Held, that it made provision for possible 
 grandchildren, and that the husband and son of 
 a deceased woman were not absolutely entitled to 
 the trust funds. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Eduiardes v. Hughes, 
 
 (1890) 18 E. 319, reversed. Hughes v. Edwarpes 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 583 
 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (Sc). MacDonald v. 
 Scott, [1893] A. C. 642, 663. 
 
 20. — English heritage of wife — Sale of — 
 Surrogatum — Donation inter virum et uxorem — 
 Finies and Becoveries Act, 1833 (3 <fc 4 Will. 4, 
 c. 74), ss. 77, 78, 80, 84. 
 
 The wife of a domiciled Scotsman owned at 
 her marriage land in England, which she sold 
 with her husband's concurrence, and convoyed by 
 deed acknowledged under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, 
 declaring at the same time that she intended to 
 give up her interest without provision in lieu 
 thereof. The husband received the purchase- 
 money. There was no marriage contract. The 
 spouses separated by consent, and the wife 
 executed a deed of revocation of all donations 
 and provisions in her husband's favour. On an 
 action brought for a declaration that the price of 
 the estates in the husband's hands was either 
 surrogatum for her heritage not subject to jus 
 mariti or a donation validly revoked : — 
 
 Held, that as by the English law both spouses 
 possessed undetermined interests in the English 
 land, the price was not surrogatum for heritage 
 belonging solely to the wife, and that her assent 
 to the husband's receiving it was not donation 
 inter virum et uxorem. 
 
 Decision of Ot. of Sess., Tennent v. Welch 
 (Tennent's Executor), (1889) 16 It. 876, reversed. 
 Welch p. Tennent H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 639 
 
 — Jus mariti — Marriage of Scotchman with 
 
 Englishwoman. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 14. 
 
 — Testing clause in marriage' contract. 
 
 See No. 10, above. 
 
 Insurance, Uarine. 
 See Cases under Insurance — -Marine, 
 
 Joint Delinquents. 
 
 21. — Negligence — Damages — Contribution. 
 Where a person had . been injured by the 
 
 negligence of A. & B., and had recovered 
 damages against them jointly with costs, and 
 extracted both decrees and gave a charge to A., 
 
( 1S35 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASHES, 1891— I'JUO. 
 
 ( 183G ) 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Joint Delinquents) — contiiined. 
 who paid the whole sum and took an assignation 
 to the decrees : — 
 
 Held, that A. had a claim of relief against B. 
 for the moiety of the sum paid by A., and that B. 
 could not successfully defend on the ground of 
 A. & B. being joint delinquents, as the founda- 
 tion of A.'s claim rested on a civil debt. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Wick and Pultetieytoun 
 Steam Shipping Co. t. Palmer, (1893) 20 R. 275, 
 affirmed. Palmer v. Wick and Poi.teneytown 
 Steaji Shipping Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 318 
 
 Referred to by Bruce J. The Englishman and 
 Tlie Australian, [1895] P. 212, 218. 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Burrows v. Shades, 
 ['1899] 1 Q. B. 816, 825. 
 
 Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 22. — Agricultural lease — Compensation — 
 " Determination of tenancy " — " Separation of the 
 crop " — Agricultural Holdings {Scotland) Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 62), ss. 2, 7, 28. 
 
 "Determination of tenancy" in s. 7 of the 
 Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883, 
 refers to the time when the tenant finally gives 
 up possession of his "holding." The expression 
 " separation of the crop " is in popular language 
 and legal eifect equivalent to the term of 
 Martinmas. 
 
 Per Lord Watson, the terms of o. 35 give rise 
 to serious doubts whether the bare possession of 
 a barn, barnyard and cot-houses unconnected 
 Avilh any land pastoral or agricultural, is posses- 
 sion of a " holding." 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1893) 21 R. 41, 
 affirmed. Black v. Clay 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 368 
 
 See Morley v. Carter, [1898] 1 Q. B. 8, 11. 
 
 23. — Hypothec — Sequestration — Company — 
 Winding-up. 
 
 The term sequestration in s. 163 of the 
 Companies Act, 1862, includes a sequestration by 
 an urban landlord for reut under his right of 
 hypothec. But a Scottish landlord is a secured 
 creditor under s. 87 of the Act by virtue of his 
 right of hypothec. In re Wanzee, Ld. 
 
 North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 305 
 
 24. • — Rates andtaxes. Landlord's — Tramway — 
 Covenant hy tenant to heep free from all expenses 
 whatever — Valuation of Lands {Scotland) Act, 
 1854 (17 <t 18 Vict. c. 91), s. 6. 
 
 The corporation of (Glasgow agreed to borrow 
 money and to construct certain tramways in 
 Glasgow and lease the undertaking to the 
 Glasgow Tramway Co. for twenty-three years. 
 The 00. agreed to make various payments to the 
 corporation, and then agreed as follows : " And 
 the CO. shall also pay to the corporation the 
 expenses of borrowing, management, &c., and 
 this provision shall be so construed as to keep the 
 corporation free from all expenses whatever in 
 connection with the said tramways." The lease 
 exceeding twenty-one years, the co. nnder the 
 Valuation of Lunds (Scotland) Act, 1854, e. 6, 
 became primarily liable to pay and did pay during 
 the whole term of the lease, " owner's assessments, 
 rates, and taxes," amounting in the agi^regate to 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Landlord and Tenant)— <!on<<J. 
 over 14,00OZ. Duiing the currency of the lease 
 the CO. intimated to the corpoi ation that they had 
 a claim in this respect, but did not make any 
 deduction from the rent when paid. The co. 
 contended that the corporation ought to reimbursp 
 them these outgoings, or such other sum as might 
 be ascertained to be the amount of owner's assess- 
 ments, rates, and taxes paid by the co. during the 
 lease : — 
 
 Meld, reversing the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 Glasgow Tramway and Omnibus Go. v. Glasgow 
 Corporation, (1897) 24 R. 628, that the assess- 
 ments, rates, and taxes, whether imperial or local, 
 levied on the owner in respect of a tramway oi 
 other erection in solo, were an expense connected 
 with the tramway or erection, and that the cc. 
 were bound by their lease to relieve the corpora- 
 tion from these expenses, and were not entitled to 
 claim reimbursement. Glasgow Cobpoeation v. 
 Glasgow Tbamway and Omnibus Co. 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 631 
 
 25. — Fee and life-rent — Agricultural leases — 
 Poicers of life-renter to grant. 
 
 A testator bequeathed to his widow a life-rent 
 of certain lands directing that she should have 
 the " absolute control and management " thereof 
 " without any iuterference from the heir who is 
 appointed to succeed after her death " : — 
 
 Held, that this did not give her power to let 
 agricultural leases of nineteen years, but that 
 she had onlv the ordinary powers of a life-renter. 
 Keaser v. Croft, (1898) 25 Rettie, 496 
 
 Ct. of Bess. (So.) [1898] W. N. 134 
 
 Lunacy. 
 
 26. — Curator bonis — Discretion of Court to 
 refuse cognition — Lunacy {Scotland) Act, 1857 
 (20 <{; 21 Vict. c. 71)— Court of Session {ScoUand) 
 Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 100), s. 101. 
 
 There is no absolute right for the issue of a 
 cognition to have the finding of a jury as to the 
 state of mind of an alleged lunatic. 
 
 The Ct. of Sess. has a discretion as to its issue, 
 and may, if it think proper, appoint a curator 
 bonis to a. person of unsound mind without 
 judicial inquiry and ou being satisfied by medical 
 certificates of his insanity, and may for the pur- 
 pose of deciding the best course to take make or 
 remit to medical men of skill for a report as to the 
 
 condition of mind of the alleged lunatic. A 
 
 B i: C D 
 
 H. L. (Be.) [1891] A. C. 616 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 27. — Defective gear — Personal injuries — 
 Damage. 
 
 An accident was ciused to a seaman through 
 a defective rope, which was in a proper condition 
 when supplied, but had got frayed through 
 use : — 
 
 Held, that the owners were not responsible to 
 the seaman for the captain (a fellow workman) 
 not keeping it in repair. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1891) 29 Sco. Law 
 Eep. 178, affirmed. Gordon v. Pyper 
 
 H. I. (Sc.) [1892] W. N. 169 
 And see also under Shipping — Seamen. 
 
( 18:!7 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASE.S, 1891— 19J0. 
 
 ( 1838 ) 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Master and Servant)— conid. 
 
 28. — Second action for solatiam — Competency. 
 A workmau raised an action for injury, alleged 
 
 to have been caused by tlie negligence of his 
 ■employers. Pending the action he died intestate 
 ;and unmarried. His mother was appointed his 
 executrix dative ; she also brought a second and 
 ■concurrent action foi- solatium for loss of her son, 
 and sought to have it referred to the same 
 .jury :— 
 
 Held, that the second action was not competent. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Barling v. . Gray & 
 £ons, (1891) 18 K. 1164, aflBrmed. "Wood v. Gkat 
 A Sons - - H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. S76 
 See next Case. 
 
 Ifegligence. 
 
 29. — Reparaiion — Death of injured party 
 ■pending action — Survival of cause of action — 
 
 Title of rdatives to solatium. 
 
 Where a person who is claiming damages for 
 injury by negligence dies pending the action, it 
 may be continued by his executor, and a second 
 concurrent action by his relatives for solatium, in 
 respect of such injury is incompetent. 
 
 Decision of Gt. of Sess., Darling v. Gray & 
 Sons, (1891) 18 E. 1164, affirmed. "Wood v. 
 Gray & Sous H. I. (Sc.) [1892] A. C. 676 
 
 See preceding Case. 
 
 30. — Separation — Parent and child — Title to 
 ^ue for death of illegitimate child — Bastard — 
 Employers Liability Act; 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 42). 
 
 The parent of an illegitimate child has, by the 
 law of Scotland, no right of action against a 
 person whose negligence has caused its death. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Weir v. Coltness Iron 
 
 Co., (1889) 16 E. 614, affirmed. Clarke v. Carfin 
 
 •Coal Co. - - H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 412 
 
 — Liability of law agent for carelessness — Testing 
 
 clause in marriage contract. 
 
 See No. 10, above. 
 
 Pledge. 
 
 31. . — Sale of goods in trust — Eedelivery of 
 ^oods to pledgor in trust for sale — Transaction in 
 England— Conflict of laws. 
 
 In the law of Scotland a pledgee may redeliver 
 the goods to the pledgor for a limited purpose 
 •without thereby losing his rights under the con- 
 tract of pledge. The pledgors of a bill of lading 
 lepresenting a specific cargo obtained tlie bill 
 from the pledgees for the purpose of getting 
 <lelivery of the goods and selling them on the 
 pledgees' behalf, and account for the proceeds on 
 >satisfaction of the debt : — 
 
 Held, tl^at the security of the pledgees was 
 mot affected, and that they were entitled to the 
 •cargo covered by the bill as against the diligence 
 •of general creditors of the pledgors. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1894) 21 E. 513, 
 rreversed. See (1891) 22 E. 1. North "Western 
 Bane v. Potnteb, Son & Macdonalds , 
 
 H. L. (Sc^.) [1896] A. C. 56 
 . Discussed by H. L. (Sc.) Inglis v. Ilobertson, 
 ![1898] A. C. 616, 626. 
 
 Practice. 
 .32. — Misrepresentation — Bepresentations as 
 
 SCOTTISH lA'W (Practice)— confo'uMed. 
 
 to credit — Pleading — Mercantile Law ^Scotland) 
 
 Amendment Act, 1856 (19 * 20 Vict. c. 60), s. 6. 
 
 By s. 6 of the Meicantile Law (Scotland) 
 Amendment Act, 1856, it is provided inter alia 
 that "All representations and assurances as to 
 the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade, or 
 dealings of any person, made oi' granted to the 
 effect or for the purpose of enabling such person 
 to obtain credit, money, goods," &c., -"shall be in 
 writing and shall be subscribed by the person 
 . . . . making sucli representations and assur- 
 ances, or by some persons duly authorized by him 
 or them, otherwise the same shall have no 
 effect." 
 
 The pursuers alleged tliat the defenders' agent, 
 knowing that D., E. & Co., customers of the 
 defenders, were largely indebted to the defenders' 
 bank and were insolvent, conceived a fraudulent 
 design of obtaining the pursuers' acceptances In 
 favour of D., E. & Co., in order to apply them 
 pro tauto in reducing D., E. & Co.'s debt to the 
 defenders' bank. That in pursuance of this 
 fraudulent scheme, D., E. & Co. applied to the 
 pursuers for accommodation, and referred them 
 to the defenders' agent, who falsely assured the 
 pursuers, first, that D., E. & Co. were in a 
 thoroughly sound condition financially and only 
 required temporary accommodation ; secondly, 
 that the sum due to the defenders' bank was very 
 trifling ; thirdly, that D., E. & Co. had made up 
 the losses which they had sustained through 
 another co. ; and fourthly, that no portion of 
 the proceeds of any acceptances by the pursuers 
 would be applied in extinction of the bank's 
 debt or of any obligation to them. That in reli- 
 ance on these assurances the pursuers granted 
 acceptances to D., K. & Co., which were applied 
 to the credit of D., E. & Co.'s banking account 
 with the defenders. D., E. & Co. were seques- 
 trated, and the pursuers, as the bills fell due, 
 were compelled to pay them. All the represen- 
 tations relied on were made orally: — 
 
 Held, that there was no cause of action, for 
 as to the three first allegations, which un- 
 doubtedly came within the Act, the terms of s. 6 
 were comprehensive and imperative that no oral 
 representations made with the intent specified in 
 the section should be of any leg3,l effect, however 
 false and fraudulent; and secondly, assuming 
 that the fourth representation was independent 
 of the statute, there was no relevant allegation 
 that the bank did not give full effect to the 
 alleged representation of their officer. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Paton v. Clydesdale 
 Panic, (1895) 23 E. 38, reversed. Clydesdale 
 Bank v. Paton - H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C, 381 
 
 Railways. 
 
 33. — Agreement to stop all ordinary trains at 
 temporary station — Suhsequejit agreement to make ■ 
 station permanent — Eight to have trains stopped. 
 
 Held, on the construction of a special Act and 
 agreement, that all ordinary trains must stop at 
 a certain station. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1893) 20 E. 409, 
 
 reversed. Gilmour v. North British Ey. Co 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 281 
 
 34. — Drainage of adjoining lands— Railways 
 
( 1839 ) 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 1840 ) 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Bailways) — continued. 
 aauses ^Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 * 9 ¥ict. c. 33), 
 ». 65. 
 
 More than forty years ago lands were conYeyed 
 to a ry. co. "in implement of the said decree 
 arbitral." The disposition declared that, "The 
 said ry. co. shall be bound and obliged to pre- 
 serve the effective drainage of the lands in so far 
 as the same may be interfered with by the rail- 
 way works, and to keep up the works, fences, 
 watercourses, and others falling upon them under 
 the Eailways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) 
 Act, 1845, and protect and keep in repair the 
 bottoms and sides of the streams deepened below 
 the natural level by the ry. co., and also to keep 
 the same clear in so far as affected by the rail- 
 way works." In 1897 the First Division of the 
 Court of Session, reversing the decision of the 
 Lord Ordinary, ordered the appellants to make 
 further and better accommodation : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the First Divi- 
 sion of the Court of Session, (1897) 35 Sco. L. K. 
 78, that the Eailways Clauses Act, 1845, s. U5, 
 expressly and in terms protects railway com- 
 panies, after five years, from the burden the 
 respondent attempted to throw on the appellants, 
 and there was nothing in the decree arbitral — 
 the governing instrument — or the evidence to 
 shew that tbe appellants had ever dreamed of 
 waiving the benefit of s. 65, or were ever asked 
 to make so foolish a sacrifice. Great North op 
 Scotland By. Co. v. Duke op Fipe 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. K. 62 
 
 35. — Office in England — Service of process — 
 Principal office. 
 
 A ry. CO. having its governing body resident 
 and domiciled in Glasgow, had a thort line in 
 England, which was under the Companies Clauses 
 Act, 1845:— 
 
 Held, that the co. was a Scotch co., and thnt 
 service of a writ at the principal office of the co. 
 on the English part of its line was not good 
 service, r. 8 being excluded by the Companies 
 Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, which 
 was incorporated in the co.'s special Act, and 
 required service at the principal office of the co., 
 i.e., in Glasgow. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1892] 1 Q. B. 607, 
 reversed. Palmer v. Caledonian Ky. Co. 
 
 C. A., [1892] 1 a. B. 823 
 
 36. — Use of joint station by third party — 
 Construction of Private Bailmay Acts (27 if- 28 
 Vict. c. CXI.; 29 it' 30 Vict. c. cccxi.). 
 
 Held, that respondents were not entitled to 
 use the joint station at Aberdeen without pay- 
 ment. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Aberdeen Station 
 Committee v. North British Ily. Co., (1891) 18 K. 
 855, reversed. Ferguson v. North British ]iy. 
 Co. H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 166 
 
 Biyer, 
 
 See Cases under Water. 
 
 Satisfaction. 
 
 37. — Covenant to pay sum of money— Legacy 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Satisfaction)— eontraued. 
 
 of same amount — Portions to children — Maxim, 
 
 " Debitor non prsesumitur donare." 
 
 The English rule against double portions to- 
 children does not obtain in Scotland. 
 
 In an ante-nuptial marriage settlement made 
 on the marriage of his adopted daughter the. 
 testator covenanted that his executors should 
 within six months after his death pay the mar- 
 riage contract trustees 4000Z. with interest at the: 
 rate of 4 per cent, from his death, to be held on 
 trusts declared by reference to the trusts of the 
 adopted daughter's property ; with the exception, 
 that on the failure of children of the marriage^ 
 before the period of vesting, the 4000?. should be 
 held on trust for the testator absolutely. By the 
 marriage contract the adopted daughter assigned 
 to her trustees all after-acquired property. Sub- 
 sequently the testator, by his trust disposition 
 and settlement, among other "legacies and an- 
 nuities " directed his trustees to pay " a legacy 
 of 4000Z." to his said adopted daughter, "who 
 shall be allowed interest at 5 per cent, on that ' 
 sum so long as slie shall prefer to allow it to- 
 remain as part of the share in the indigo 
 concern " : — 
 
 Held, that by Scottish law there was no pre- 
 sumption that the 4000?. given by the will was 
 intended by the testator to be in satisfaction of 
 the 4000?. covenanted to be paid by the marriage 
 settlement, and that the proper inference was that 
 the legacy was given by him as an additional 
 benefit. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Haviland v. Johnstone, 
 (1895) 22 E. 396, affirmed. Johnstone r. Havi- 
 land - H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 9& 
 
 Sequestration. 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See No. 1, above. 
 
 — Landlord's right. 
 
 See No. 23, above. 
 
 Servitude. 
 
 38. — Might of imy for shooting — Constitution, 
 of right. 
 
 In 01 der to found a prescriptive right of way 
 according to Scotch law the acts of possessioa 
 relied on must be of such a character, or done iu. 
 such circumstances, as to indicate unequivocally 
 to tlie proprietor of the servient tenement th& 
 fact that a light is asserted and the nature of th& 
 right. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Dulce of Athole v- 
 M'lnroy's Trustees, (1890) 17 E. 456, reversed. 
 M'Inroy r. Ddke op Athole 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1891] A. C. 62a 
 
 Sewers. 
 
 39. — Repair of drain — Svhstituting new 
 drain — Glasgow Police Act, 1866 (29 <fe 30 Vict. 
 c. cclxxiii.), ss. Z52, 335— Glasgow Police {Amend- 
 ment) Act, 1890(53 * 54 Vict. c. ccxxi.), s. 16— 
 Judicature {Scotland) Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 120), 
 s. 40. 
 
 In oases arising in the Sheriff Court and ap- 
 pealed to the Ct. of Sess., the interlocutor of the 
 Ct. of Sess. must contain all the findings of fact ; 
 
( 1841 ) 
 
 DIGEST OV CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 1812 ) 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Sewers)— continued, 
 for, if a fact U not found by the interlocutor ap- 
 pealed against, the House of Lords must, unless 
 the parties agree to the fact not found, remit 
 Ihe cause to the Ct. of Sess. to find the fact in 
 question. 
 
 Sect. 16 of the Glasgow Police (Amendment) 
 Act, 1890, enacts that if the drains of any 
 house, &c., are found to be defective, the owner 
 of the premises shall be bound, immediately on 
 an "order to that effect being given by the 
 Police Commrs., to carry out all necessary opera- 
 tions for removing; defects of structure, or doing 
 such acts as may be requisite to prevent risk to 
 health, and, failing compliance with such order, 
 the Police Commrs. may execute the work and 
 recover the expense thereof as damages from the 
 owner." 
 
 The Commrs. having found that the drains of 
 a block of houses were defective issued an order 
 to the owners to repair the same, and, they having 
 failed, the Commrs. proceeded to execute the 
 work themselves ; but, instead of repairing the 
 old drain, they constructed a new drain on a 
 different site and outfall into the main sewer. 
 In an action for the expenses, the Ct. of Sess. 
 assoilzied the owners upon the ground that s. 16 
 of the Act of 1890 did not warrant the forma- 
 tion of a new system of drainage. This House 
 having remitted the case to the Ct. of Sess. to 
 find whether the Commrs. had considered that 
 the new drainage was necessary, that Court 
 found that part of the drainage had been con- 
 sidered necessary, but the rest had not : — 
 
 Seld, varying the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 Glasgow Police Commrs. v. M'OmUh, (1896) 23 K. 
 896, that the part considered necessary must be 
 paid for by the owners, but not the rest. 
 Glasgow Corporation v. M'Omisb 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1898] A. C. 432 
 
 Ships. 
 Bee Cases under Shipping. 
 
 Succession, 
 
 40, — " Sdrt female " — Trust disposition. 
 
 A truster in the narrative of his trust disposi- 
 tion stated that, "in order to make and secure 
 additional provisions " for )iis second son " and 
 the other heirs of entail succeeding to him in " 
 the lands and estate of C, to " enable them to 
 support tlie dignity and title of Earl of C." lie 
 thereupon conveyed to trustees certain securities. 
 In the dispositive portion of the deed it was 
 declared, " that these preeents in favour of my 
 said trustees are granted in trust for the uses 
 ends and purposes .... and under the condi- 
 tions provisions and declarations after written." 
 Then, fourthly, he directed his trustees after his 
 death to pay the free proceed-) of the trust funds 
 10 his second son and the heirs male of his body ; 
 whom failing, to certain substitutes ; whom 
 failing, to the heirs female of the body of his 
 second son. The second son succeeded to the 
 estate, and died, leaving issue only two daughters, 
 of whom the eldest succeeded to the estate, and 
 was declared by Eoyal Letters Patent to succeed 
 her fatlier in the title and estate of C. : — 
 
 Held, that the daughtera divided the income. 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Succession) — continued. 
 because "lieirs female " meant in Scottish) 
 law heirs portioners who took as a class ; and 
 that the narrative could not control the directions 
 of the deed. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Buhe of Sutherland's 
 Trustees v. Countess of Cromartie, (1895) 22 R. 
 839, reversed. Mackenzie v. Dcke of Devos- 
 stHRE - - H. L. (So.) [1896] A, C. 400i 
 
 41. — Legacy — Plate deposited in bank — Fur- 
 nishings and plenishings in mansion-house. 
 
 A testator lett to his wife a life-rent of two 
 estates and of the " whole plenishings, furnish- 
 ings, and articles " in the mansion-houses thereof. 
 He also constituted her his sole residuary legntee.. 
 At the time of his death there was lying deposited. 
 iu the bank for safe keeping certain plate which 
 was not in ordinary use in his house : — 
 
 Held, that it did not fall within the. legacy 
 of a life-rent of the " plenisliing, furnishing, and 
 articles in the house," but was part of the ordi- 
 nary movable estate, and therefore that his. 
 widow was fiar of it under the residuary clause. 
 Fraseb v. Cros't, (1898) 25 Kettle, 496 
 
 Ct. of Sess. (Sc.) [1898] W, N. 134 
 
 42. — Succession duties — Estate duty — Fee andl 
 life-rent. 
 
 A testator gave his wife a life-rent of his lands, 
 and the fee of the residue of his movable estate,. 
 and conferred upon her full power to " raise such 
 sums as may be required to pay all debts and 
 succession duties which may fall upon her after 
 my decease as well as all my debts and funeral 
 expenses " : — 
 
 Held, that this power did not authorize her to 
 charge the heritage with his debts and funeral 
 expenses, or with the whole estate duty, but- 
 only to cliarge it with the rateable part of estate 
 duty effeiring to the heritage itself. Phaser v. 
 Ckoet, (1898) 25 Eettie, 496 
 
 Ct, of Sess, (Sc) [1898] W. N, 134 
 
 43. — Vesting — No gift till a certain event — 
 Direct disposition of heritage. 
 
 A testator left to his wife who survived him 
 " for her sole use and enjoyment during the term 
 of her natural life " certain lands, "and after the- 
 death of my said wife, I hereby dispone, convey, 
 and make over my said lands .... to C, and 
 the heirs whatsoever of his body ; whom failing,"' 
 to the brothers and sisters of C. in their order ; 
 whom failing, to a certain series of heirs. C^ 
 survived him: — 
 
 Held, that a right had vested in 0. a mortis 
 
 testatoris. Pbasek t'. Croft, (1898) 25 Eettie, 496. 
 
 Ct, of Sess, (Sc.) [1898] W, N. 134. 
 
 44. — Vesting — Postponed period of distribu- 
 tion — Conditional imtitution. 
 
 A testator directed his trustees to allow his. 
 widow the life-rent use of his house and sucli. 
 allowance as they thought necessary, and "oa. 
 the dissolution and winding-up of the firm o£ 
 B. & Co." (of which he was a partner), *' in the- 
 event of tho predecease of my said wife, and if 
 she then survives, on her death, to realize iriy 
 whole means and estate and to divide the same.- 
 into four equal shares, and pay one share to each 
 of my children" A., B., C, and D., "or to their 
 respective heirs." The widow survived the tes- 
 
( i^iy ) 
 
 DIGEST OF C'A'-ES, U91— 19J0. 
 
 ( 1S44 ) 
 
 ; SCOTTISH LAW (Succession) — continued. 
 tator, and the firm had not been wound up. C. 
 -and i). survived the testator, but were dead : — 
 Held, afSrming the decision of the Ct. of 
 
 ■ Sess., JBowman'e Trustees \. Bowman's Trustees, 
 (1898) 25 E. 811, but not on the same reasoning, 
 
 " that the interests of all the children were not in 
 suspense, but had vested a morte lestatoris. 
 Bowman v. Bowman H. L. (Sc.) [1899] A. C. 518 
 
 45. — Vesting — Substitution — General disposi- 
 
 ■ tion. 
 
 A. died leaving a holograph settlement^, by 
 which he gave his widow a life interest in all his 
 property. He gave to B. his estate of S., but 
 wished it to be expressly understood that in the 
 
 ■ event of B. dying without heirs male then S. was 
 to revert to C. B. survived A., but died before 
 teslator's widow, unmarried, leaving a general 
 
 ■ disposition of all his estate : — 
 
 Held, that the fee of S. vested in B. after A.'b 
 
 - death, and that tlie clause of return to C. was not 
 higher than simple substitution, and had been 
 
 ■ evacuated by B.'s trust disposition. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Sitcliie, &c. (^Watson's 
 Trustees) v. Hamilton, (1891) 21 R. 451, affirmed. 
 .Hamilton v. Ritchie 
 
 H. 1. (Sc.) [1894] A. C. 310 
 
 46. — Will — Frovision for widow — Partial 
 -intestacy^ Terce,jus relictss, and legitim. 
 
 A testator by his will made a provision for 
 
 I his wife declaring it to be in full of all claims by 
 
 her offeree and jus relictss or otherwise. Through 
 
 ■ the death of certain devisees before vesting took 
 place, the residue fell inio intestacy : — • 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 Hamilton's Trustees v. Boyes, (1898) 25 K. 899, 
 that tlie declaration was to be construed as 
 ■excluding the widow's claim in so far only as 
 conflicting with the will, and, an event happen- 
 ing which the testator never contemplated, the 
 widow was entitled both to ber provision and to 
 terce and jus relictse out of such heiitables and 
 movables as had fallen into intestacy. Naismiih 
 V. Botes - - H. L. (Sc.) [1899] "W. N. 124 ; 
 
 [1899] A. C. 495 
 
 - •— Succession duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Succession 
 Duty. 
 
 Superior and Vassal. 
 
 47. — Entry — Casualty— Composition — Belief 
 -—Trust. 
 
 J.'s ancestor acquired three parcels of laud 
 by purchase, in all of which his authors were 
 infeft and entered with the superior. He took 
 base infeftment with one parcel; but none of 
 the series of his heirs on whom his succession de- 
 
 ■ volved expede a feudal title or were entered with 
 the superior. A trust over the lands was created 
 by the appellant's grandfather, and the trustees 
 after his death were entered with the superior. 
 Ultimately the lands were reconveyed by the 
 surviving trustee to the appellant, who was infeft, 
 and under the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 
 
 ri-TP ^^"^^y entered with the superior :— 
 m.-r.'T- '■^'^''^ ^'^'' appellant was liable to the 
 '■ superior m a composition. 
 
 iiccision of Ci,. of Sess., DuU of Buccleuch v. 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Superior and Vassal)— contd. 
 Johnstone, (1891) 18 R. 587, affirmed. John- 
 stone r. DrKE OF Buccleuch 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1892] A. 0. 625 
 
 48. — Obligation in feu cliarter to rebuild — 
 Disposition of feu after obligation lias become 
 enforceable — Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 94), s. 4, sub-s. 2. 
 
 A proprietor by feu-contract disponed certain 
 subjects to a co. " and its successors and assignees 
 whomsoever" under the condition (inter alia), 
 " That the co. and its foresaids" should be bound 
 to erect buildings suitable for a hydropathic 
 establishment of not less value than 15,000i. and 
 to uphold buildings of that value in all time 
 coming, and to keep the same insured against 
 fire to the extent of not less than that sum, and 
 in ease the said buildings should be destroyed by 
 fire, to rebuild the same so as to maintain the 
 total value of ]5,000i. Buildings were erected of 
 the stipulated value, and insured. Tlie co. sold 
 the subjects to the first-named appellants. On 
 Nov. 7, 1893, the buildings were destroyed by 
 fire, and on the 27th of the same month the 
 superior, the respondent, raised an action against 
 the first appellants for performance of the obliga- 
 tion to rebuild. Before defences were lodged the 
 first appellants, by a duly recorded disposition, 
 conveyed the subjects to the second appellants, 
 who subsequently conveyed them to one John 
 Wilson. All these were thereafter made parties 
 to the action. 
 
 The first appellants then pleaded that, as they 
 were no longer vassals in the feu, they were not 
 liable in the performance of the obligation. 
 
 The Ct. of Sess. decided that the obligation, 
 having become prestable during the iirst appel- 
 lant's tenure, continued to be binding upon them ; 
 and (2.) that all the defenders were jointly and 
 severally liable to rebuild in respect that the 
 obligation was a condition of the grant remaining 
 unfulfilled during the respective periods of their 
 tenure of the subjects. 
 
 Marshall v. Callander and Trossaclis Hydro- 
 pathic Co., (1895) 22 Eettie, 954. 
 
 Upon appeal to the House of Lords the appel- 
 lants, after argument, consented that the appeal 
 should be dismissed. Callandek and Tkossachs 
 Hydkopathic Co. and the Eagle Pkopertt Co. 
 II. Marshall - H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 223 
 
 University. 
 See Cases under University. 
 
 Walls. 
 
 49. — Boundary icall — Mutual gable — Half cost 
 of erection. 
 
 The proprietor of two adjoining building 
 plots erected a house upon one of them, building 
 the whole gable half upon one plot and half upon 
 the other plot. He afterwards conveyed the 
 plot with the house upon it to A. The mutual 
 gable, resting partly on the two plots, was 
 described in the conveyance as a mutual gable. 
 He subsequently sold the other plot, and the 
 purchaser proceeded to erect a house ujMn it, 
 making use of the mutual gable. In the letters 
 of sale to A. the vendor said : " The unused half 
 
( ISio ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1816 ) 
 
 SCOTTISH LAW (Walls)— continued. 
 of the gable and boundary walls is not included 
 in the offer." In an action by A.'s successor 
 against the purchaser of the second plot for half 
 the cost of the mutual gable wall, the deft, relied 
 5upon the words of the letters as shewing that 
 A. had not acquired the claim for recompense for 
 the unused half of the gable : — 
 
 Held, aflSrming the decision of the Ct. of 
 «ess., Berkeley v. Baird, (1895) 22 K. 372, that 
 A.'s successor was entitled to claim from the 
 purchaser of the second plot one-half of the value 
 ■o f the mutual gable, and that there was no incon- 
 .■sistenoy between the letters of sale and the words 
 •of the conyeyance. Baikd v. Bell 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1898] A. C. 420 
 
 Water. 
 See Cases under Wateb. 
 
 Will. 
 
 50. — Heritage — Seal or personal hurden — 
 Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1868 
 <31 * 32 Vict. c. 101), 8. 19, sub-s. i. 
 
 A., by a mortis causa settlement, convDj-ed to 
 B., his son, his whole estate, heritable and 
 movable, subject to a free annuity to C, his 
 •daughter, which was "hereby declared to be a 
 real burden on the estates and effects hereby 
 -conveyed." After A.'s death B. completed his 
 title to the heritable subjects by recording nota- 
 rial instruments in accordance with the Titles to 
 Lands Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1868, in all 
 which notarial instruments the annuity was 
 declared to be a real burden on the land. B.'s 
 ■estate was sequestrated, and his trustee claimed 
 ■that C.'s annuity had not been validly couititu ted 
 a real burden on the lands : — 
 
 Held, that the annuity had been constituted 
 ^ real burden on the lands. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Muirden (Cowies 
 Trustee) v. Cowie, (1891) 18 E. 706, reversed. 
 •CowiE ». MuiBDEN H. L, (So.) [1893] A. C. 674 
 
 — Scottish testator — lAdministration by the 
 Chancery Division. 
 See ExECUTOK. 27. 
 
 •SCBEEN— To chancel, &o. 
 
 See Cases under Ecclesiastical Law — 
 Faculty, 
 
 .SCRIP CEETIFICATE— Stamp— Payment by in- 
 stalments — Receipts for future payments 
 indorsed on certificate. 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 180. 
 
 •SCKUTINY- Of Votes at parliamentary election. 
 ■ See Parliament. 13, 14. 
 
 SCULPTXrEE— Casts of fruit and leaves. 
 See CoPTBiGHT — Sculpture. 41. 
 
 SE^FISHEBY. 
 
 See FisHEBY. 
 
 ' SEAGOING SHIP." 
 
 See Shippinci — Offences. 
 
 183. 
 
 SEAGULIi— " Domestic animal." 
 
 See Chimin AL Law — Cruelty to Animals. 
 
 7. 
 
 SEAL- 
 
 -of company affixed to deed. 
 See Company — Directors. 137. 
 
 SEAL FISHERY- Sea. 
 
 See Fishery. 
 
 SEALING — Administration — Intestacy — Colo- 
 nial grant — Eo-sealing. 
 See Probate. 63. 
 
 — Company — Sealing of deed by secretary. 
 
 See Company — Directors. 137. 
 
 — Irrelevant entries — Sealing up — Production 
 
 of books — Discovery. 
 
 See DiscovEBY — Documents. 10, 11, 40. 
 
 — Seal of the Court— Companies winding-up. 
 
 See Company— Winding-up— Practice. 
 149. 
 SEAUAN. 
 
 See Shipping— Seamen. 
 
 SE ASCH-WARRANT — Legality of— Allegation 
 of reasonable suspicion of larceny. 
 See Justices. 12. 
 
 SEARCHES — Land charges. 
 See Land Chaeges. 
 SEASHORE — Foreshore— Crown lease— Preaching 
 — Injunction — Limits of public user. 
 
 The pits, were the local authority of L., and 
 the seashore at L. between high and low water- 
 mark was vested in tliem under a lease from the 
 Crown. W., a clergyman of the Church of Eng- 
 land, held services and delivered addresses on 
 the seashore without the consent of the pits., 
 and asserted that the seashore was a highway 
 and that he had a right to do so. The pits, 
 brought an action against W., claiming a, declara- 
 tion that he was not entitled to hold services, 
 &c., on the seashore without their consent, and 
 an injunction to restrain him from so doing. 
 There was no evidence that tlie acts of "W. caused 
 an obstruction or led to a breach of the peace ; 
 nor did W. adduce any evidence of a prescriptive 
 right or custom in support of his contention : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled to the 
 declaration for which they asked ; but that the 
 matter was too trivial for an injunction, which 
 must be refused. 
 
 Blundell v. Catterall, (1821) 5 B. & Aid. 268; 
 24 E. E. 353, followed. Llandudno Ubban 
 Council v. Woods 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1899] W. N. 135 ; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 705 
 
 — Foreshore — Immemorial user in Eiver Thames. 
 
 See Thames. 9. 
 S'EATS— Seats for Shop Assistants Act, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 21), prooides for seats heing sup- 
 
 SEAWORTHINESS. 
 
 See Shipping. 48, 143, 144. 
 — Implied warranty of. 
 
 See Insurance, Marine. 77. 
 
 SECOND COMMUNION TABLE. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 36. 
 
 SECONDARY EVIDENCE-rPrivilege. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 30. 
 
 SECRET PREPARATION— Name not registered 
 as trade-mark — Injunction. 
 
 ,See Trade Name. 11. 
 
( 1847 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1848 ) 
 
 S£CB£T PROCESS — Invention — Co-owners — 
 Bight to use invention — Disclosure — Injunction. 
 
 One of several co-owners can make use of his 
 knowledge of a secret process. 
 
 Mathers v. Green, (1865) L. E. 1 Oh. 29; 
 3teers v. Rogers, [1893] A. C. 232, referred to. 
 Heyl-Dia v. Edmunds 
 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 222 
 
 SECEET PBOFIT— By promoters— Duty of dis- 
 closure. 
 See Company— Promoter. 203, 204. 
 
 — Managing owner. 
 
 See Shipping. 172. 
 SPCEET TEITST. 
 
 See Trust 7. 
 
 SECSETABY— Of cost-book mine. 
 See Cost-book Mine. 
 
 SECTJBED CBEDIIOB. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 
 
 Bankruptcy — SeCTired Creditor. 
 Company — Winding-up — Proof. 
 
 — Omission to enable secured creditor to realize 
 
 his interest — Wilful default. 
 See Executor. 41. 
 
 — Unauthorized borrowing — Subrogation. 
 
 See Railway. 30. 
 
 SECUEITIES— Lumping debts and— Proof— BUls 
 of Exchange. 
 (See Bankruptcy — Proof. 163. 
 
 — Negotiable instruments — Liability of banker. 
 
 See Cases under Banker — Liability. 
 
 — Payment of money— Acceptances. 
 
 See Criminal Law — larceny. 3C. 
 
 SEC1TBITIES TO BEABEB. 
 
 See Negotiable Instrument. 2. 
 Partnership — Liabilities. 39. 
 Trustee — Custody of Title-deeds, &o. 
 47. 
 SECUEITT— Annuity. 
 
 See Cases under Annuity. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Costs — Security for 
 Costs. 
 Solicitor — lien. 
 
 — Debentures. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Debentures. 
 
 — Debt — Power to assignee to sue in name of 
 
 assignor — Absolute assignment. 
 See Assignment. 2. 
 
 — Liquidator. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Liquidator. 
 
 — Mayor's Court — Appeals. 
 
 See London — Mayor's Court. 45. 
 • — Omission to value — Inadvertence. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Secured Creditor. 
 230. 
 
 — Eeceiver. 
 
 See Receiver — Security. 
 
 — Eight in — Trust for creditors — Pledge — Pre- 
 
 ference — Private manager. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Preference. 158. 
 
 SEIGKEUEIAL BIGHTS-Law of Jersey. 
 iiee Jersey. 1. 
 
 SEIONOBIAL BIGHTS — Extinction on release- 
 See Common. 6. 
 
 SEIZTIBE- Of goods under bill of sale. 
 See Bill of Sale. 46. 
 
 — Eisk of seizure — Bill of lading — ExceptecJ 
 
 perils. 
 
 See Shipping. 140. 
 
 — Ship — ^Existing state of war. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 30. 
 
 SEIZTTBE QUOUSaUE— Limitations, Statute of. 
 See Copyhold. 1. 
 
 SELECTION— Legatee's right of— Ambiguity — 
 Direct evidence of intention — ^Admis- 
 sibility. 
 See Will — Evidence. 83. 
 
 SEP ABATE ACCOUNT — Fund carried to — 
 Assignment — Notice — Equity against 
 assignee. 
 See Account. 4. 
 
 SEPARATE DEBT— Of partner. 
 
 See Cases under Partnership. 
 
 SEPARATE ESTATE— Married woman. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife. 
 
 SEPAEATE EXAMINATION— Married woman. 
 See Cases under Husband and Wipe. 
 
 SEPAEATE USE — Married woman. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife. 
 SEPARATION AND SEPARATION DEEDS. 
 See Cases under 
 
 Husband and Wife — Separation. 
 Husband and Wife — Summary 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 — Between persons not married. 
 
 See Deed. 5. 
 
 SECITIESTRATION. 
 
 B. S. C, Ord. XLUi., rr. 3 — 7, relate to seques- 
 tration. 
 
 1. — Application of proceeds in satisfying 
 claims of creditor in action generally. 
 
 Where a writ of sequestration was issued 
 against a deft, for disobedience to an order 
 directing him to transfer certain shares, and 
 there was a fund in Court representing the pro- 
 ceeds of the sequestration, the Court held that it 
 had jurisdiction to order payment out of the fun() 
 to the pit. of costs which the deft, had been 
 ordered to pay to him, and that it was not 
 necessary to resort to the circuitous process of 
 compelling the pit. to issue a second writ of 
 sequestration. Ethehington v. Big Blow Gold 
 Mines, Ld. Kekewich J. [1897] W. N. 21 (9) 
 
 2. — Costs — Enforcing payment of — M. S. C, 
 Order XLil., r. 6 ; Order XLlii., rr. 7, 8 — Married 
 woman. 
 
 The old practice as to sequestration for non- 
 payment of costs is supei-seded by Order xt.tit., 
 r. 7. Where an order has been made directing a 
 party to pay costs without limiting any time for 
 payment and the costs have been taxed, an im- 
 mediate sequestration to enforce payment can be 
 issued without any previous four day order. An 
 order to pay costs within four days and in case of 
 non-payment for sequestration is wrong in form, 
 as it is not competent to make an order for the 
 issue of writs of attachment or sequestration on a 
 
( 1849 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, IS'JI— lOW. 
 
 ( 1850 ) 
 
 SECITTESTEATION— conMiMted. 
 future uncertain event. In re Lumley. Ex parte 
 <Cathcakt - - C. A, [1894] 2 Ch. 271 
 
 Followed by C. A. In re Deakin, Ex parte 
 CathcaH, [1900] 2 Q. B. 478. 
 
 — Disobedience of order of Court — Commitment. 
 
 See Contempt of Coubt. 11. 
 
 3. — Discretion — Non-payment of costs — Pro- 
 •cedure—R. 8. C, 1883, Order xliit., r. 7. 
 
 When application is made for leave to issue a 
 •sequestration for non-payment of costs the Court 
 or judge should be satisfied (hat the application 
 is reasonable, but it is not uecetsary to point to 
 any particular property which may be made 
 available for the payment of the costs by seques- 
 tration. 
 
 When the Court or judge to whom the appli- 
 x;ation is made has exercised a discretion and 
 made an order, that order ought not to bo inter- 
 fered with by a superior Coui t unless it is shewn 
 .that there has been an improper exercise of the 
 ■discretion or some miscarriage of justice. Hdl- 
 jiEBT V. Cathcart - H. 1. (E.) [1896] A. C. 470 
 
 4. — Dormant action — Notice — Leave of Court 
 —li. S. C, 1883, Order xlit., rr. '2i, 23; 
 Order XLIII., rr. 6, 7 ; Order XLIY., r. 13. 
 
 The month's notice required by Order lxiv., 
 J. 13, where there have been no proceedings for 
 a year, applies to pleadings, &c., in the action, 
 and not to motions for execution of judgment, 
 ■whether by sequestration or otherwise. Leave 
 .granted for sequestration to issue for balance of 
 costs which should- be found due from deft., 
 although the time allowed by Order xlil, r. 22, 
 Jiad elapsed. Tatloe v. Koe (No. 2) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 26 
 — ■ Ecclesiastical law. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Seqnestra- 
 tion. 
 
 — Hypothec — Company — Winding-up. 
 
 See Scottish Law — landlord and 
 Tenant, 23. 
 
 — Married woman — Separate property. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 20. 
 
 — Money held by third person not party to the 
 
 action. 
 
 See DivoBCE. 116. 
 6. — Payment of costs — Sercice — Practice — 
 iK. S. 0; Order XLI., r. 5 ; Order xliit., rr. 6, 7. 
 
 In the case of a writ of sequestration issued 
 by leave of a judge to enforce payment of costs 
 iunder Order xLiii., r. 7, the provisions of 
 Order XLi., r. 5, and Order xliil, r. 6, are 
 inapplicable. Therefore in such a case it is not 
 jaeccssary that the order for payment of costs 
 should limit a time for payment, or should bear 
 the indorsement mentioned in Order xll, r. 5, 
 nor is personal service of it essential. In re 
 Immley, Ex parte Cathcart, [1894] 2 Ch. 271, 
 ibllowed. In re Deakin. Ex parte Cathcart 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 478 
 
 6. — Secovery of judgment — Order for pay- 
 ■ment vjithin limited time — Jurisdiction — li. S. C, 
 Order XLL, r. 5 ; Order xlil, rr. 3, 6 ; 
 Order xliil, r. 6. 
 
 There is no jurisdiction to make an order 
 directing a judgment debtor to pay the amount 
 
 SEQI7ESTSATI0K — continued. 
 recovered iu the action within a limited time, 
 and in default giving the judgment creditor 
 leave to issue a writ of sequestration. Hulbebt 
 & Cbowe v. Cathcaet 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 244 
 
 — Vesting of heritable estate in bankrupt's trus- 
 
 tee — Latent trust in bankrupt. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Bankruptcy. 1, 2. 
 
 SERIAL. 
 
 See Copyright. 32, 3G. 
 
 SERJEAKT-AT-AEMS. Historical note by 
 Master Jenkins as to the oiBce of Serjeant-at- 
 arms. G V. L [1891] 3 Ch. 127, n. 
 
 SERVANT. 
 
 See Cases under Mastee and Seevant. 
 
 — " Clerk or servant " — Managing director — 
 
 Preferential payments in bankruptcy. 
 See Company — Director. 114. 
 
 SERVANT OF THE CROWN— Tenure of office. 
 See Ceown. 4 — G. 
 
 SERVICE— Practice. 
 
 See Pbactice — Service. 
 
 SERVICE (CONTRACT OF). 
 
 See Cases under Mastee and Seevant. 
 Shipping — Seamen. 
 
 — Personal. 
 
 See Contbact. 29, 30. 
 
 SERVICE FRANCHISE— Registration of voters. 
 See Cases under Parliament. 
 
 SERVITUDE. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Servitude. 
 
 SESSIONS— Quarter sessions. 
 
 See Cases under Jdstices. 
 
 SET-OFF. 
 
 See Pbactice — Set-off. 
 SETTING ASIDE. 
 
 See Pbactice — Setting aside. 
 
 SETTLED ESTATES. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 SETTLED LAND. 
 
 Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 65). See Land Tbansfeb. 
 
 Note. — Settled Estates' Cases and Tenant for 
 Life and Bemaindermen Cases are included under 
 this heading. 
 
 Generally, col. 1851. 
 
 Accumulations. See Accumulations. 
 
 Apportionment, col. 1851. 
 
 Base Fee, col. 1857. 
 
 Capital Money (Application, of Capital 
 
 Money), col. 1857. 
 Charges, col. 1865. 
 Copyholds, col. 186G. 
 Costs, col. 1866. 
 Estate Duly. See Eevenue — Estate 
 
 Duty. 
 Fixtures. See Fixtures. 
 Heirlooms. See Heielooms. 
 Improvements. See Cases under Settled 
 Land —Capital Honey. 
 
( 1S51 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1852 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND — continued. 
 Infants, col. 1807. 
 Interest, col. 18(JS. 
 Investments, col. IHlls. 
 Leaseholds, cnl. isn'.i. 
 Leases, col. 1871. 
 Lunatic. See Lunacy. 
 Mansion-house, col. 1874. 
 Mines, col. 1874. 
 Mortgages, col. 1870. 
 Option, col. 1878. 
 Fonds, col. lS7:i. 
 Possession, col. 1879. 
 Powers, col. 1 S^si ). 
 Practice, col. 1881. 
 Rent-charges, col. 1881. 
 Eepairs, col. 1883. 
 Sale, col. 1884. 
 " Settlement," col. 1888. 
 Title-deeds, col. 1890. 
 Trustees, col. 189(1. 
 Tfas<e. See Waste. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Bona vacantia — Eight of Crown 
 
 of sale of land under 
 
 Act, 1882. 
 
 See Ckown. 2. 
 
 — Forfeiture — Foreign bankruptcy — Englisli 
 
 domicil. 
 
 See AViLi^— Forfeiture, 98. 
 
 — Infants— Maintenance— Contingent interesls 
 
 — Term for raising portions. 
 See Infant. iiO. 
 
 — Transfer of land. 
 
 See Land Tkansfek. 
 
 — Trustee's right of indemnity — Purchase of land 
 
 by trustee of settled estates — Entry by 
 tenant for life — Non-payment of princi- 
 pal. 
 See Venbok and Purchaser 
 
 — Waste. 
 
 See Cases under Waste. 
 
 -Proceeds 
 Settled Land 
 
 -Lien. 56. 
 
 Accumulations. 
 See Cases under Accumulations. 
 
 Apportionment. 
 • Business carried on at a hss- 
 
 ■Capital or 
 
 1. - 
 
 income. 
 
 Apportionment between capital and income of 
 yearly loss or profit in the case of a circus which 
 had been talien on lease by a testator, and proving 
 unsaleable was carried on by executors at a loss. 
 In re Hengler. Frcwde v. Hengler (No. 1) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 1 Ch. 586 
 
 Referred to by Kckewieh J. In re Morley, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 738, 741. 
 
 2. Capital or income — Money paid wider erro- 
 neous order of Court. 
 
 Where money had been paid under an order of 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Apportionment) — continued. 
 Court which was reversed on appeal, and the- 
 money had been repaid without interest which 
 was irrecoverable : — 
 
 Held, that the tenant for life was entitled to- 
 a fair propoi-tion thereof as income. In re Dcke 
 OF Cleveland's Estate. Hat v. Wolmek 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 542 
 
 3. — Change of investments — Capital or in- 
 come. 
 
 A tenant for life sold freehold ground rents,, 
 and invested the proceeds in long leaseholds, 
 whereby the present income was increased at the- 
 expense of the reversion : — 
 
 Seld, that the income in excess of that received 
 from the freehold ground-rents must be treated 
 as capital. In re Bowteb's Settled Estates 
 CMtty J. [1892] W. N. 48 
 
 4. — Company — Bonus dividend — Shares — 
 Capital or income. 
 
 A bonus dividend was returned to the share- 
 holders of a CO. in the form of seventy-five fully 
 paid new shares of Wl. each. These new shares 
 were sold for 1363!. : — 
 
 Held, that 1501. was income and the remainder 
 of the 1363Z. capital. In re Nobthage. Ellis 
 V. Bakfield - North J. [1891] W. N. 84 
 
 6. — Company — Profits not divided — Tenant 
 for life and reversioner — Capital or income. 
 
 A testator gave his estate on trust for conver- 
 sion, with power to postpone conversion, audi 
 directed that interest produced in the interim 
 should be treated as interest. He bequeathed, 
 iuter alia, certain 101. shares with SI. paid up to B. 
 for life, -witli remainder to C. The co. was -wound 
 up and reconstructed, and paid 9?. 5s. for each 
 share. The excess arose from profits retained to 
 meet contingencies, and from profits in excess of 
 101. per cent, retained to make up dividends if 
 they should fall below 5 per cent : — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (reversing Chanc. of Lancaster), 
 that a tenant for life of shares has only a right to- 
 dividends and bonuses declared during his life, 
 and that the excess price of 11. 5s. per share was- 
 not income but capital. In re Armitage. Ae- 
 MiTAGE V. Garnett - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 337 
 
 6. — Company — Sale of company's under- 
 taking. 
 
 A CO. sold its undertaking for a sum which, 
 after deducting an amount equivalent to its paid- 
 up capital, left a large surplus : — 
 
 Held, that tliis surplus was income and not am 
 accretion to capital. Lubbock v. British B.vnk 
 OF South Africa - Chitty J. [1892] 2 Ch. 19* 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Verner v. General and' 
 Commercial Investment Tmtt, [1894] 2 Ch. 239, 
 266. 
 
 7. — Company — Shares issued as dividend — 
 Capital or income. 
 
 Part of property in which A. had a life interest 
 consisted of shares in a co. ; the co. declared a. 
 dividend half of which could be taken in shares.. 
 The trustees exercised this option : — 
 
 Held, that so much of the value of these latter 
 shares as was deducted from the dividend oii 
 account of them was income and belonged to A., 
 and that any balance of the proceeds of sale- 
 
( 1853 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1854 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Apportionment)— conimueti. 
 belonged to A.'s testator's estate as capital. 
 In re Malam. Malam v. Hitohens 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch. 578 
 
 8. — Company — Stock in public company — 
 Miglit of estate of deceased tenant for life to 
 apportionment of dividend partly earned before 
 but declared after death — Apportionment Act, 1870 
 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 35), ss. 2, 3, 4, 5. 
 
 Stock Ib a public co. forming part of a 
 testator's residuary estate was settled upon trust 
 for A. for life, and after her death " to pay trans- 
 fer and assign my residuary estate and the stocks 
 fuuds and securities upon which the same shall 
 be invested unto and amongst " certain benefici- 
 aries. After the death of the tenant for life the 
 stock was sold " cum dividend " under an order 
 of the Court for the purpose of distribution. This 
 order was made in the absence of the legal 
 personal representatives of the tenant for life. 
 After the sale a dividend was declared and 
 received by the purchaser in respect of profits, a 
 portion of which had been earned prior to the 
 death of the tenant for life : — 
 
 Seld, that the estate of the tenant for life was 
 not entitled under the Apportionment Act, 1 870, 
 to be paid out of the purchase-money of the stock 
 anything in respect of the dividend ; but, inas- 
 much as if the trust liad been strictly carried out 
 in accordance with the terms of the will, by 
 transfeiTiug the investments t > the beneficiaries, 
 the representatives of the tenant for life would 
 have been in a position, either directly, or through 
 the trustees, to obtain i^ayment of an apportioned 
 part of the dividend, their claim ought under the 
 special circumstances of the case to be acceded to. 
 BuLKELEY V. Stephens - [1896] 2 Ch. 241 
 
 9. — Conversion, Trust for — Tenant for life 
 and remainderman — Discretionary power of post- 
 ponement — Annual produce until conversion to he 
 deemed annual income of converted fund — Rever- 
 sionary interest — Omission to convert — Non-exercise 
 of discretion by trustees — Bight of tenant for life 
 — Bate of interest. 
 
 When property is given by will on trusts for 
 conversion and investment, and to hold the in- 
 vestments on trust for a tenant for life and 
 remaindermen, with a discretionary power to the 
 trustees to postpone the conversion, and a pro- 
 vision that the income until conversion is to go 
 to the tenant for life, that provisions extends to 
 property (such as a reversionary interest) which 
 is not producing income as well as to property of 
 a wasting character. 
 
 Machi&y. MacUe,{l%i5)5 Hare, 70, followed. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J. affirmed. 
 
 In adjusting the rights as between tenant for 
 life and remaindermen in respect of a rever- 
 sionary interest which ought to have been but 
 was not converted by trustees : — 
 
 Held, that interest should be calculated at 
 the rate of 3 per cent. 
 
 In re Goodenough, [1895] 2 Ch. 537, followed. 
 
 A testator bequeathed his personal estate to 
 two trustees, upon trust for conversion and invest- 
 ment of the proceeds, and to pay the income of 
 the investments to his sister during her life, and 
 after her death to hold the capital on trusts for 
 her children. But, if no child of the sister should 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Apportionment) — continued . 
 attain a vested interest, the trust fund was to- 
 go to the two trustees beneficially, in equal? 
 moieties. The testator gave the trustees a dis- 
 cretionary power to postpone for such period as ■ 
 to them should seem expedient the conversion 
 of any part of his personal estate, but the out- 
 standing personal estate was to be subject to the - 
 trusts thereinbefore declared, and the yearly 
 produce thereof was to be deemed annual income 
 for tlio purpose of the trusts. At the time of ' 
 the testator's death he had no property of a 
 wasting character (except some leaseholds, as to 
 which a special provision was made by his will), - 
 but he was entitled to a reversionary interest in 
 a sum of Consols, subject to the life interest 
 therein of his sister. When he died she was a . 
 spinster aged thirty-five. Ten years afterwards 
 she was found a lunatic, and less than two years 
 after that she died intestate. She had never 
 married. 
 
 The trustees did not during her life sell the 
 reversionary interest, and it fell in upon her 
 death : — 
 
 Held, by C. A. (upon evidence which was not 
 before Stirling J.), that the trustees had never ■ 
 exercised their discretion as to the conversion of 
 the reversionary interest, and that under the 
 circumstances it ought to have been sold and the 
 proceeds invested so as to produce income for 
 the tenant for life : 
 
 Held, therefore, that the fund must be appor- 
 tioned between the representative of the tenant 
 for life and the remaindermen on the principle 
 laid down in In re Earl of Chesterfield's Trusts,^ 
 (1883) 24 Ch. D. 643, interest being calculated . 
 at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum. Kowlls v. . 
 Bebb. In re Eowlls. Walters v. Solicitor ■ 
 FOE THE Tbeasdbt - C. A, [1900] W. N. 108 ; 
 " [1900] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 10. — Conversion — Trust for immediate con- 
 version — Interim rents — Investment. 
 
 Trust after the death of A. for immediate 
 conversion of realty vrith no power to postpone 
 sale. Income of property when sold and invested ) 
 to go to B. for life. B. died before the property 
 was sold. The property was sold without undue 
 delay. Question to whom belonged the rents • 
 received between the death of A. and the sale :— 
 
 Held, that notwithstanding the absence of any 
 power to postpone the sale or any direction as to 
 the interim rents, the whole rents between the 
 deaths of A. and B. belonged to B.'s personal i 
 estate. Hope v, D'Hedouville 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 361 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Searle,. 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 829. 
 
 11. — Enjoyment of income in specie — Invest- - 
 ments retained by trustees under discretionary ■ 
 powers — Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 A testator gave his residuary estate to trustees ■ 
 upon trusts for sale and conversion, and empowered 
 them in their absolute discretion to retain securi- 
 ties in their existing state of investment. The - 
 trustees retained certain bonds which were liable 
 to be paid off at par at a future date, but of which 
 the present value was considerably above par : — 
 
 Held, there was a gift of the full income to- 
 
( 1855 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1856 ) 
 
 SETTLED lAin) (Apportionment) — continued. 
 the tenants for life. In re Thomas. Wood v. 
 Thomas - Kekewich J. [1891] 3 Ch. 482 
 
 12. — ■ Insurance, Life — Premiums — Mortgage 
 debt — Adjustment of liability for premiume and 
 interest — Tertantfor life and remainderman. 
 
 Where trustees paid premiums on a mortgaged 
 policy on a life, and interest on the mortgage out 
 of income, and the life fell in : — 
 
 Held, that the tenant for life was entitled to 
 be recouped the amount of income so expended 
 ■with interest at 4 per cent, out of the property 
 preserved by the expenditure — that is the surplus 
 policy money — after deducting the mortgage, and 
 that the balance must be apportioned between 
 capital and income according to the rule in 
 Chesterfield's Case, 24 Ch. D. 643. In re Morlet. 
 MoBLET V. Haig - Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 738 
 
 13. — Interest, Arrears of — Charge of settled 
 legacy on residuary estate — Insufficiency of security 
 —Tenant for life\and remainderman. 
 
 Where a testator charged his residuary estate 
 with a principal sum and interest to be settled 
 upon a tenant for life and remaindermen (the 
 interest to be paid to the tenant for life and the 
 capital to the remaindermen) and the interest 
 fell into arrear and the residuary estate realized 
 iess than the principal sum : — 
 
 Held, following In re Moore, (1885) 54 L. J. 
 (Oh.) 432, that the realized sum ought to be 
 apportioned between the tenant for life and the 
 remaindermen in the proportions which the 
 arrears of interest and the principal sum bore to 
 each other, the Court intimating an opinion that 
 the apportionment in In re Foster, (1890) 45 
 Ch. D. 629, was intended to be confined to the 
 case of a mortgagee in possession. In re Barker. 
 Baekeb v. Barker 
 
 Stirfing J. [1897] W. N. 164 (14) 
 
 — Interest, Eate of. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — 
 
 Interest. 
 - — Leaseholds — Repairs, &c. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — 
 
 Leaseholds. 
 
 — Mines — Eents and royalties — Tenant for life 
 
 and remainderman. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — 
 mines. 
 
 14. — Power to postpone sale and conversion 
 ■of estate — Property "not actually producing in- 
 come " — Tenant far life and remainderman — 
 Will — Conversion. 
 
 The will of a testator contained the ordinary 
 ■clause empowering his trustees to postpone the 
 sale and conversion of his estate, and declaring 
 that the income thereof, previous to the conver- 
 tsion, should be applied as if it were income arising 
 lunder investments authorized by the will. Then 
 followed this proviso : " But no property not 
 actually producing income which shall form part 
 'of my estate shall be treated as producing income 
 or as entitling any party to the receipt of 
 income." 
 
 There was a debt, due to the testator at the 
 time of his death, which could not be got in, and 
 the trustees took from the debtor as security for 
 it a third mortgage upon certain policies of 
 
 SETTLED LAin) (Apportionment)— c<»»«Mi««(i. 
 insurance on his life. The debtor died in the 
 lifetime of a lady who was tenant for life under 
 the will, and the trustees, who had received 
 neither principal nor interest in respect of the 
 debt, realized their security, with the result that, 
 after payment of the prior charges, they received 
 a sum which was less than the amount due by all 
 the interest and some of the capital : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of Stirling J.), 
 (1) that according to the rule of the Court, this 
 sum reprrsented the arrears of interest as well as 
 the capital, and (2) that it must be treated as 
 property actually producing income within the 
 meaning of the proviso, and must be apportioned 
 between the tenant for life and the remain- 
 derman in the proportion that the interest due 
 from the date of the mortgage bore to the capital 
 thereby secured. In re HcBBrcK. Hart v. Stone 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 754 
 
 15. — Profits of business pending sale under 
 trust for sale — Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 A business was bequeathed to trustees on 
 trust for sale, with power in their absolute dis- 
 cretion to postpone sale, and directions pending 
 sale to pay the profits to the same persons and in 
 the same manner as income for the trust estate : — 
 
 Held, that the whole income arising from the 
 business was payable to the tenant for life. In 
 re Ckowther. Midgley v. Crowtheb 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] 2 Ch. 56 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Smith, [1896] 
 1 Ch. 171. 
 
 16. — Sever sionary property — Conversion — 
 Apportionment between capital and income — Dis- 
 cretionary power of sale in trustees — BuJe in Howe 
 v. Earl of DaHmouth, (1802) 7 Ves. 137 o ; B. M. 
 96 — Will — Construction. 
 
 A testator devised and bequeathed his pro- 
 perty to trustees, upon trust for his mother for 
 her life, with remainder to other persons. And 
 he gave to his trustees, if and when they should 
 consider it expedient, full power to sell and 
 dispose of all or any part of his estate. Part of 
 the testator's property consisted of the reversion, 
 expectant on the death of his mother, of funds 
 settled on her marriage of which she was tenant 
 for life. The trustees did not convert this rever- 
 sionary interest during the mother's life : — 
 
 Held, that the discretionary power of sale 
 given by the will to the trustees excluded the 
 application of the rule in Hotoe v. Earl of Dart- 
 mouth, and that the personal representative of 
 the mother was not, after her death, entitled to 
 any part of the proceeds of the sale of the rever- 
 sion. In re Pitcairn. Bbandbeth v. CoLvm 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 139 (11) ; 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 199 
 
 17. — Sale — Apportionment of proceeds — 
 Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 ss. 21, 34. 
 
 Where the tenant for life sold freehold ground 
 rents and the proceeds were invested in long 
 leaseholds, thereby doubling the income : — 
 
 Held, that the income of the leaseholds should 
 be in accordance with the provisions of s. 34 of 
 the Settled Land Act, 1882, by giving the tenant 
 for life a sum equal to the sold ground rents and 
 
( 1857 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1858 ) 
 
 SETTLED LANS (Apportionment) — continued. 
 accumulating the balance as capital. In re 
 Bowter's Settled Estates 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. ». 48 
 
 — Tenant for life and — Apportionment for loss. 
 See Mortgage — Apportionment. 2. 
 
 18. — Wasting teeurities — Gift in specie — 
 Sale — Bute in Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth (7 
 Ves. 137 a). 
 
 A testator gave his residuary estate^ to his 
 •wife for life, with a gift over. Part of the residue 
 consisted of consolidated aud preference stock of 
 a gas CO. which stood at 100 per cent, premium ; 
 testator had made the investment himself : — 
 
 Held, (1) that to entitle the wife to the 
 income of the fund as it stood something equi- 
 valent to a specific gift was required ; (2) that 
 the trustees must put a value on the stock and 
 pay the wife 4 per cent, on it, invest the surplus 
 income and pay the interest thereon to the wife, 
 the corpus to belong to the remainderman. In 
 re Eaton. Daines v. Eaton 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. K. 95 
 
 19. — Wasting securities — Unauthorized secu- 
 rities — Sate of interest. 
 
 Notwithstanding the current rate, 4 per cent, 
 is payable to a tenant for life in respect of 
 unauthorized or wasting securities. Nicholson 
 V. Nicholson - Kekewich J. [1896] W. K. 106 
 
 Base Fee. 
 
 20. — Tenant for life — Title to fee simple — 
 Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 58, 
 sub-s. 1, cl. Hi. 
 
 A tenant for life of a base fee is a " person 
 entitled to a base fee " within s. 58 of the Settled 
 Land Act, 1882, and he can make a good title 
 under the Act to the fee simple in the settled 
 land. In re Mokshbad's Settled Estate 
 
 North J. [1893] W. H. 180 
 
 Capital Honey. 
 (Application of Capital Honey.) 
 
 21. — Agenffs house — Mansion-house — Chapel 
 —StaUes— Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 4 46 Vict, 
 c. 38), s. 21, sub-s. mi. ; 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 69), 
 e. 13, svb-ss. a., iv. 
 
 Capital money cannot be expended in building 
 a residence for the estate agent. In re Lord 
 Gerard's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 22. — Alterations with a viem to letting. 
 Alterations in mansion-house under s. 13 (ii.) 
 
 of the Act of 1890 must be confined to cases 
 where an actual immediate letting is contem- 
 plated. 
 
 (a) In re Db Teissier's Settled Estates 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 (b) In re Lord Gerard's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 252 
 (o) In re Gaskell's Settled Estates 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 485 
 
 23. — " Annual rental." 
 
 Mode, in which annual rental is calculated, 
 considered. 
 
 (a) Income derived from capital money in- 
 
 SEITLED LAND (Capital Money) — continued. 
 vested is to be included. In re De Teissier's 
 Settled Estates - Chitty J, [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 See also In re Lord De Tabley, [1896] W. N. 
 162 (16); In re Montagu, [1897] 2 Oh. 8. 
 
 (b) Where more than one estate is within the 
 settlement the annual rent of both is to be in- 
 cluded. In re Lord Gerard's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 262, at p. 268 
 
 (c) Annual rental does not include anything 
 for the mansion-house or any farm occupied 
 therewith, but includes the rent of any farm 
 usually let but temporarily unlet. In re Walker's 
 Settled Estate - North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 189 
 
 24. — Architectural improvements. 
 
 The Settled Land Acts do not authorize the 
 application of capital money in beautifying an 
 ugly house or the stables attached to it. In re 
 Lord Gerard's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Cb. 252 
 
 25. — Building a private chapel. 
 
 Capital money cannot bo applied in building 
 a private ch;ipel. In re Lord Gerard's Settled 
 Estates - - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 26. — Building estate — Waterworlts — Im- 
 provements — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 38), ss. 25 (xiii.), 27. 
 
 An agreement by a limited owner to sell 
 land to a waterworks oo. in consideration of 
 fully paid-up shares in the same, for the purposes 
 of developing a building estatCj and to provide 
 part of the working capital, held to fall within. 
 ss. 25 (xiii.), 27, of the Settled Land Act, 1882. 
 In re Orwell Park Estate 
 
 Kekewich J, [1894] W. N. 135 
 
 27. — " Building purposes " — Definition — 
 Public-house — Improvements — Settled Land Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, sub-s. 10 (m.). 
 
 A grant of a public-house in consideration of 
 a perpetual yearly chief rent of iOl. and a sum 
 of 8700Z. cash, and covenants by the grantees 
 within two years to expend 400J. in substantial 
 improvements, and to maintain upon the land 
 buildings of the clear yearly value of at least 
 double the rent reserved : — 
 
 Held, to be made for " building purposes " 
 within the definition in s. 2, sub-s. 10 (iii.), of the 
 Settled Land Act, 1882. In re Earl of Elles- 
 MERE - - Kekewich J. [1898] W. N. 18 (6) 
 
 28. — Drainage expenses — Owner — " Be- 
 pairs"— Public Health Act, 1848 (11 4 12 Vict, 
 c. 63), ss. 2, 49, 90. 
 
 A testator devised houses to trustees on cer- 
 tain trusts, and declared that " the persons bene- 
 ficially entitled should keep the same in good 
 and absolute repair." The trustees paid capital 
 money of the testator's estate, held on similar 
 trusts, for drainage expenses under the Public! 
 Health Act, 1848 :— 
 
 Held, (1) that as the trustees were the 
 persons entitled to receive the rack-rents they 
 were "owners " within s. 2 of the Act from whom 
 the expense of the work could have been re- 
 covered if they had not done it, but (2) that as 
 the works were not " repairs " within the will, the 
 sums, though properly expended by the trustees 
 as between the tenant for life and remaindermen, 
 
 3 O 
 
( 1859 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( I860 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Capital Money) — continued. 
 
 must be treated as a charge on the property. In 
 
 r.e Barney. Harbison v. Baknet 
 
 StirUng J. [1894] 3 Ch. 562 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. In re Tlmnas, 
 
 III 900] 1 Ch. 319, 324. 
 
 — Glebe land— Lands allotted to vicar " and liis 
 BuccesBors" — Settlement — Improve- 
 ments — Capital money. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law— Glebe. 43. 
 
 29. — Improvements — Alterations and addi- 
 tions with view to letting — Settled Land Acts, 1882 
 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 25 ; 1890 (53 & 54 Jict. 
 e. G9), s. 13, svb-s. it. 
 
 Kestoring the roof of a mansion-house, which 
 was in a very dilapidated condition, and altering 
 the main entrance so as to provide a billiard- room, 
 and to render the house less cold and draughty, 
 are " alterations " within s. 13 (ii.) of the Act of 
 1890, but fitting up warming apparatus and 
 pipes is not such an " alteration," nor is it either 
 directly or by analogy an " improvement" within 
 g. 25 of the Act of 1882. In re Gaskell's 
 Settled Estates - CMtty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 485 
 
 30. — Improvements — Capital money — Fro- 
 spective order— Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 38), ss. 21, 25 : 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 30), 
 ,. 1 ; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 09), s. 15. 
 
 Capital money in s. 15 of the Act of 1890 
 means capital money already in hand and capable 
 of application. The Court will not make a pro- 
 spective order fettering its discretion in the 
 application of capital aris'ng from time to time. 
 In re Makquis op Bristol's Settled Estate 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 161 
 
 Discussed by Byrne J. Duke of Norfolk v. 
 Lord Berries, [1900] 1 Ch. 461, 465. 
 
 31. — " Improvements " — Expense of improve- 
 ments executed before 1890 — Costs of parliamentary 
 opposition — Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 & 4U 
 Vict. c. 38), ss. 26, 36 ; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 69), 
 s. 15. 
 
 Sect. 15 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, is 
 retrospective as to the cost of improvements 
 executed since the commencement of the Act of 
 1882, and the Court can direct payment of such 
 cost out of the capital money. 
 
 Qu^re, whether s. 15 of the Act of 1890 is 
 retrospective as to improvements effected before 
 the commencement of the Act of 1882. In the 
 case of such improvements the Court has a dis- 
 cretion : — • 
 
 Held, that where such expenditure was 
 deliberately incurred, the Court in its discretion 
 would not allow it to be paid out of capital. 
 In re Okmeod's Settled Estates 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 318 
 
 — " Improvements " — Maintaining houses in 
 good liabitable repair — Building houses 
 — Accumulations. 
 See Accumulations. 2. 
 
 32. — Improvements — Personalty held on trust 
 to invest on land — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 38), ss. 2, 21, 25, sub-ss. (raa;.), (xx.), 33. 
 
 Capital moneys, arising from a bequest of 
 personnlty on trust to purchase land and settle it 
 to the uses of a settlement of land, can be used 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Capital T/Lonej)— continued. 
 for improvements on the settled land, ■^1*1^°"* 
 first investing the moneys in land and then 
 selling it again; the will and the settlement 
 forming one "settlement" within the meaning 
 of the Settled Land Act, 1882. In re Mundys 
 Settled Estates - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 399 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Byng'e Settled 
 Estates, [1892] 2 Ch. 219; Coote v. Cadogan, 
 [1899] W. N. 222. 
 
 Discussed by Eomer J. In re Lord Momcm's 
 Settled Estates, [1898] 1 Ch. 427. 
 
 33. — Improvements — Prospective order — 
 Tenant for life— Capital money— Settled Land 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 21 (m.); s. 22, 
 sub-ss. 1, 2, 7 ; .?s. 25, 26, 53. 
 
 Trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land 
 Acts may approve a scheme for improvements 
 submitted to them by a tenant for life, before 
 they have capital money in hand and available 
 for the proposed expenditure ; when a scheme has 
 been approved under these circumstances, and 
 the improvements have been executed and paid 
 for by the tenant for life, bona fide, with the 
 knowledge of the trustees for the purpose of, and 
 in accordance T\ith, the approved scheme, early 
 expenditure being for the benefit of all parties 
 interested, in anticipation of moneys becoming 
 afterwards available for the purposes of the ap- 
 proved scheme, the trustees are entitled, either 
 with or without the approval of the Court, to 
 reimburse the tenant for life the money so 
 expended. 
 
 In re Millard's Settled Estates, [1893] 3 Ch. 
 116, distinguished. In re Dcke of Norfolk's 
 Paeliamentart Estates. Duke of Norfolk v. 
 Lord Heeries Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 15 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 461 
 
 34. — Improvements — Two estates comprised 
 in one settlement — Proceeds of sale of estate in 
 Ireland applied in payment for improvement 
 of estate in England — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 <fe 46 Vict c. 38), s. 21, sub-s. 3. 
 
 Summons by the tenant for life of settled 
 estates in England and Ireland for an order that 
 capital moneys arising from the sale of part of 
 the Irisli property might be applied in repayment 
 to him of certain sums which he had spent on 
 improvements already executed on the English 
 property in accordance with a scheme which had 
 been prepared for that purpose, and also in 
 completing the works contemplated by the 
 scheme. 
 
 North J. said, ou the question whether 
 money derived from tlie Irish property ought to 
 be given for the benefit of land in England, that 
 he did not see any reason why the principle of 
 In re Mundy's SeiUed Estates, [1891] 1 Oh. 399, 
 and other cases should not apply. It was one 
 settlement, the trusts of the two estates were the 
 same, and the circumstance that one property 
 was in Ireland and the other in England ought 
 not to make any difference. The details of the 
 scheme to be settled in chambers. In re Eyee 
 Coote. Coote v. Cadogan. 
 
 North J. [1899] W. K. 222 
 
 36. — Interpretation. 
 
 Judicial interpretations as to the application 
 
( 18G1 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1862 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Capital JHoney)— continued. 
 of purchase-money under the Lands Clauses Act 
 are not of any authority as to the application of 
 capital moneys under the Settled Land Acts. 
 In re Lobd Gbkard's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 252 
 — Investment of. 
 
 See Settled Land — Investments. 
 
 36. — ■ " Liable " to be laid out in the purchase 
 •of land — Statute — Construction — Settled Land 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Viet. e. 38), «s. 32, 33. 
 
 Personal property held by trustees with power 
 rto invest in land' is liable to be laid out in the 
 purchase of land within the meaning of s. 32 and 
 •33 of the Settled Land Act, 1882. In re Soltau's 
 Trusts - - North J. [1898] 2 Ch. 629 
 
 37. — Person, having powers of tenant for life 
 — Tenant for life stibject to term for securing in- 
 ■cumbrances — Possession — Title-deeds — Custody — 
 Sale — Application of capital moneys — Discliarge 
 ■of incumbrances — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. V. 38), 88. 21, 22, 53. 
 
 Land which was subject to mortgages was 
 ■settled, subject to a term for securing incum- 
 brances, to the use, in the events which happened, 
 ■of A. for life, with remainders over. The trusts 
 •of the term provided that so long as the mort- 
 gages remained unpaid the trustees should 
 ireceiye the rents and profits and manage the 
 ^premises and keep down the interest of the 
 mortgage debts and certain rent-charges created 
 by the settlement, that they should then pay to 
 the tenant for life for the time being subject to 
 the term an annuity of 6001. a year, and should 
 .■apply the residue of the rents and profits towards 
 :the payment of the principal moneys charged by 
 ithe mortgages, and there was a proviso for the 
 ■cesser of the term upon the discharge of the 
 mortgage debts. The settlement conferred on 
 'the trustees an immediate power of sale and 
 ■exchange, but no power of leasing : — 
 
 The Court, having held that A. was a person 
 ihaving the powers of a tenant for life under the 
 Settled Land Act, 1882, ordered him to be let 
 into possession upon his undertaking to perform 
 the trusts of the term, and gave him the custody 
 • of the title-deeds. 
 
 The Court would have made the order apart 
 'from the annuity to A. - 
 
 A. subsequently contracted to sell, under the 
 
 powers of the Settled Land Acts, certain portions 
 
 of the settled lands, including parts of all the 
 
 mortgaged lands and a portion which was un- 
 
 I incumbered, and in order to complete the sale it 
 
 was necessary that the mortgages should be paid 
 
 . off. A. therefore directed that the trustees should 
 
 . apply' the proceeds of the sale in paying off the 
 
 mortgages. He deposed that he considered that 
 
 this would be for the benefit of all the parties 
 
 . entitled under the settlement, seeing that the 
 
 .mortgages bore interest at 4 per cent., whereas 
 
 rthe purcha.se-money could not be invested in 
 
 ; trustee securities to yield more than 3 per cent. 
 
 Upon a summons to determine whether the mort- 
 
 - gages ought not to be kept on foot for the benefit 
 
 ■ of the ultimate remainderman : — 
 
 Seld, that the beneficiaries under the settle- 
 ment took subject to the power of sale conferred 
 I on the trustees, and that inasmuch as the trustees 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Capital Money)— corti»i«e(?. 
 in the exercise of that power might properly, for 
 the purpose of carryiiig into effect a beneficial 
 sale, pay off the existing incumbrances out of the 
 purchase-money, a tenant for life doing the same 
 thing under the powers of the Settled Land Acts 
 ought not to be held to be acting unjustly towards 
 the remaindermen; that consequently the mort.^ 
 gages ought not to be kept on foot, and that upon 
 the payment off out of the capital moneys of all 
 the mortgages the term would cease. 
 
 Semble, the Court would have arrived at the 
 same conclusion if the settlement had conferred 
 no power of sale upon the trustees. In re 
 
 RiOHAKDSOlf. KlCHAEDSON V. ElCHAEDSON. In re 
 
 Richardson. Eichabdson v. Kichabdson 
 
 StirUng J. [1900] W. N. 3; [1900] 2 Ch. 778 
 Followed by Cozeus-Hardy J. In re Money 
 Kyrle's Settlement, [1900] 2 Ch. 839, 843. 
 
 — Prospective order — Improvements. 
 
 See No. 33, above. 
 
 38. — Prospective order — Improvements — ■ 
 Capital money — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. V. 38), 8. 26, sub-s. 2 (Hi.). 
 
 A prospective order to apply capital moneys 
 for the construction of roads, &c., to develop a 
 building estate cannot be made under the Act of 
 1882, for the payment by the trustees can only be 
 sanctioned on proof that the work had been pro- 
 perly done. In re Millard's Settled Estates 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 116 
 
 Distinguished by Byrne J. Lulte of NorfolJc 
 V. Lord Berries, [1900] 1 Ch. 461. 
 
 — Pumps, Erection of new. 
 
 See Settled Land — Mines. 82. 
 
 39. — " Bebuilding " — " Annual rental " — ■ 
 Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. e. 69), s. 13, 
 sub-s. iv. 
 
 A tenant for life reconstructed the mansion- 
 house, rebuilding reception rooms with rooms 
 over them, converting the kitchens, pulling down 
 servants' rooms and offices, and building a bUliard- 
 room, smoking-room, &c., on their site, and re- 
 building servants' rooms, &c., on a different 
 site : — 
 
 Held, that there had been a rebuilding within 
 the meaning of s. 13 (iv.) of the Act of 1890, and 
 that the application of capital moneys was autho- 
 rized to the extent of half the annual value of the 
 estate. In re Walker's Settled Estate 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 189 
 
 40. — " Rebuilding '' — Lry-rot — Alterations 
 with a view to letting — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 22, sub-s. 5 ; s. 25 ; 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 13, sub-ss. ii., iv. ; s. 15. 
 
 A new roof, alterations consequent upon dry- 
 rot, rearrangement of drainage, &c., do not amount 
 to "rebuilding" within s. 13 (iv.) of the Act of 
 1890. In re De Teissier's Settled Estates 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 183 
 
 See also In re Lord de Tabley, [1896] W. N. 
 162 (16) ; In re Montagu, C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 8. 
 
 41. — Bebnilding — Expenditure of money in — ■ 
 Jurisdiction — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 41). 
 
 The Court has no jurisdiction in oases not 
 amounting to salvage to raise money out of a 
 
 3 2 
 
( l8G:i ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASEIN, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( ISGi ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Capital Money) — continued. 
 settled estate, ond apply llie money in pulling 
 down and rebuilding houses on the estate. 
 
 Settled land was vested in trustees upon 
 trust for P. for life, and aftir his death upon 
 trust for his children. He had two children, both 
 infants. Four of the houses on the land were 
 old and in bad repair, and it appeared that if 
 they were pulled down and rebuilt at an expense 
 of about 80002. the value of the settled property 
 would probably be iucrensed to 13,000Z., and its 
 income more than doubled. There were no 
 powers in the settlement by which this could be 
 done, and it did not appear that it was necessary 
 by way of salvage. An application by the 
 trustees to raise money by mortgage to be applied 
 for the above purpose was refused for want of 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1897] 1 Ch. 685, 
 affirmed. 
 
 Conway v. Fentm, (1888) 40 Ch. D. 512, dis- 
 tinguished. In re Montago. Dereishire v. 
 Montagu - - C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 8 
 
 See Earl Waldegrave v. Earl of Selbome, 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 210. 
 
 42. — Recouping expenditure — Improvements — 
 Tenant for life — Purchase of adjoining land under 
 right of pre-emption — Addition to settled estate — 
 Expenditure by tenant for life — Permanent im- 
 provements — Trustee and cestui que trust — CJon- 
 structive trust — Remaindermen. 
 
 Where a constructive trustee of property has 
 expended money thereon in permanent improve- 
 ments, be is prima facie entitled to be recouped 
 his expenditure to the extent of the improved 
 value ; and the fact that he is beneficially entitled 
 as tenant for life under the constructive trust does 
 cot displace his right to rtcoupment. 
 
 H., tenant for life of a public-house settled by 
 the will of B. W., purchased with his own moneys 
 and had conveyed to him in fee an adjoining 
 piece of land, over which he had, under the 
 Turnpike Acts, a right of pre-emption by virtue 
 of the ownership of the public-house. He then at 
 his own expense enlarged and permanently im- 
 proved the public-house by new and additional 
 buildings extending over the land purchased by 
 him. He afterwards died having devised all his 
 real estate to the defts., one of whom he appointed 
 his executor. 
 
 It being admitted that H. must be regarded 
 as having held the land purchased and the build- 
 ings upon it as a constructive trustee for the 
 several persons entitled under the will of E. W., 
 and therefore as having been tenant for life only 
 of the property : — 
 
 Held, in an action by the remaindermen 
 under the will of E. W. against the executor and 
 devisees of H. to ascertain the rights of the 
 parties, that H.'s executor was entitled to a 
 charge on the land purchased and the buildings 
 upon it, for (1.) the amount of the purchase- 
 money paid by H., and of the costs of conveyance 
 to him, with interest at 4 per cent, from his 
 death ; (2.) the amount by which, at H.'s death, 
 the value of the land bought by him had been 
 increased by his expendituie in permanent im- 
 provements, together with like interest ; and that 
 the persons entitled under E. "W.'s will could only 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Capital Money)— conHniififJ. 
 claim the land and buildings subject to sucl» 
 charge and to the payment of the costs of all 
 parties of the action as between solicitor and. 
 client. KowLET v. GimiBVEB 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 2 Ch. 503 
 
 43. — Re-imhursement,out of capital moneys — 
 Repairs—Sanitary arrangements — Improvements 
 executed without scheme — Re-imbursement — Set- 
 tled Land AcU, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38),. 
 s«. 21, 25, 26; 1890 (.53 & 54 Vict. c. 69), 
 «8. 13, 15. 
 
 TJie submission of a scheme before the execu- 
 tion of improvements is no longer necessary since 
 the Act of 1890, and the Court has jurisdiction to- 
 sanction tho re-imbursement of a tenant for life. 
 But when a tenant for life who has not prepared 
 a scheme asked for re-imbursement the Court 
 should be vigilant and careful to see that no- 
 expenses were thrown on capital which from a 
 business point of view might fairly come out of 
 income. 
 
 Kepairs incidental to the ordinary enjoyment 
 of the property should not be allowed, nor the 
 expense of adcUtious and alterations to the sani- 
 tary arrangements of a mansion. In re Tucker's 
 Settled Estates C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 468- 
 
 Keferred to by Stirling J. In re Lever, [18971 
 1 Ch. 32, 34. 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Thomas, [1900J 
 1 Ch. 319, 324; Dulte of Nmfolk v. Lord Merries,. 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 461, 406. 
 
 — Eepairs. 
 
 See Cases under Settled 'La.txd — 
 Bepairs. 
 
 44. — Repayment of money raised for improve- 
 ments — Inconsistency with powers of Settled Land 
 Act, 1882— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 38), s. 51. 
 
 Under the powers in a settlement made im 
 1877, the trustees raised money for the tenant 
 for life to improve the estate. The settlementi 
 required that the money so raised should be- 
 repaid by instalments. The improvements- 
 authorized were similar to those authorized by: 
 s. 25 ol the Settled Land Act, 1882 :— 
 
 Held, (1) that the sinking fund formed by the- 
 repayments was capital within the meaning o£ 
 the Act, and could be employed on further im- 
 provements ; (2) that the tenant for life having 
 taken the money for improvements under the- 
 settlement instead of applying under the Act,. 
 must continue to pay the instalments ; (3) that 
 having acted under the settlement did not pre- 
 clude the tenant for life from exercising tha 
 powers given him by the Act. In re Sudbury 
 AND Poynton Settled Estates. Vernon r. 
 Vernon - - Stirling J. [1893] 3 Ch. 74 
 
 45. — Sale by tenant for life — Valuation of 
 fixtures, crops, &c. — Capital moneys — Tenant for 
 life and remainderman — Landlord and tenant — 
 Outgoing tenant. 
 
 A tenant for life of settled land, on taking 
 possession of one of the farms from an outgoing: 
 tenant in 1896, personally paid for straw, hay, 
 crops, underwood, tenant's fixtures in the house 
 and stables, and fallow dressings, and half 
 manures, at a valuation, according to the cu8tom> 
 
C 1805 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 18G6 ) 
 
 SETTLES LAND (C&pital VLonej)— continued. 
 -of the county. In 1897 the tenant for life, in 
 ■exercise of the statutory power, contraoted to sell 
 this farm for 55002. plus a further sum to be paid 
 ■by the purchaser, after a valuation, for the straw, 
 bay, crops, underwood, tenant's fixtures, fallow 
 ■dresBiogs, and half manures; the purchaser on 
 paying a small deposit was allowed to go into 
 ■immediate possession to cultivate the farm. 
 
 On completion of the purchase, the tenant for 
 life claimed to be entitled to the whole of the sum 
 ~paid by thie purchaser under the valuation : — 
 
 Seld, that the tenant for life was not entitled 
 40 any part of the valuation money paid by the 
 purchaser or incoming tenant which represented 
 the price of underwood, fallow dressings, or half 
 manures, or fixtures permanently annexed to the 
 -buildings or land, which must be treated as capi- 
 ■tal moneys, and paid to the trustees. Jn re 
 BosBEB. Bbiamt v. Bosueb - - Byrne J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 134 
 
 46. — Salvage. 
 
 Applications under the general jurisdiction of 
 the Court to apply capital moneys for the pre- 
 iservation or salvage of propejty will be refused. 
 In re De Teissieb's Settled Estates 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 47. — Separate deed or will. Moneys under — 
 Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 ^i. 2, 21, 25, 26; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 69), 
 •«. 13 — Improvements. 
 
 Declarations by Court that a will and deed, 
 with limitations almost identical but separately 
 ftated, constituted one compound settlement. 
 
 (a) Moneys under the deed applied to im- 
 prove lands held under the will. In re Byng's 
 Settled Estates - North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 219 
 
 (b) Moneys under the will applied to im- 
 prove lands settled under the deed. In re 
 MvmvY's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 399 
 
 48. — Stables. 
 
 Whether stables are part of the principal 
 jmansion-house, and can therefore be rebuilt out 
 •of capital, depends upon the facts of each case, 
 and may be so connected not merely physically 
 but by occupation and enjoyment and propinquity 
 as to be part of the mansion-house. In re Lobd 
 <3!brard's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 Charges. 
 
 See also Cases under Settled Land — 
 Mortgages. 
 
 49. — Payment Ity tenant for life of charge 
 on inheritance — Seconveyance of mortgaged pro- 
 perty — Presumption of intention to Iceep alive 
 charger^Tena/nt for life and remainderman. 
 
 . ; A reversionary interest in trust funds was 
 mortgaged by the reversioner. He afterwards 
 on Ms marriage assigned the same interest 
 (subject to the mortgage) to trustees, on trust 
 for his wife for her life, with remainder to him- 
 eelf for his life, with remainders over. After 
 the marriage he paid off the mortgage debt out 
 of his own moneys, and the mortgagee executed 
 a deed which purported to reconvey the mort- 
 gaged property to him "absolutely discharged 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Cbaigee)— continued. 
 from " the mortgage debt and all claims under 
 the mortgage deed. The solicitors who prepared 
 the reconveyance were ignorant of the existence 
 of the settlement. 
 
 In an action by the reversioner, claiming to 
 have the reconveyance set aside or rectified, he 
 gave evidence that he did not intend to pay oflf 
 the mortgage debt for the benefit of the settle- 
 ment, but that he intended to keep the charge 
 alive for his own benefit : — 
 
 Seld, that, notwithstanding the form of the 
 reconveyance, the pit. was entitled to have the 
 charge kept alive for his own benefit, and that 
 the sum secured by the mortgage constituted 
 a charge on the property having priority over 
 the settlement, and a declaration was made to 
 that effect. Lord Gipfoed v. Lobd Fitzhab- 
 DraGE - - North J. [1899] W. N. 78 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 32 
 
 — Investment clause — Consent — Personal 
 security — Loan to tenant for life. 
 See Trustee — Investments. 67. 
 
 Copyholds. 
 
 50. — Tenant for life and remainderman — Fines 
 on renewal of leases for lives — Tenants not entitled 
 to renewal — Income or capital — Copyhold custom. 
 
 By the custom of a manor copyholds were 
 granted on leases for lives at small quit rents and 
 subject to heriots, on payment of arbitrary fines 
 to the lord. There was no obligation on the lord 
 to renew the leases. A tenant for life, unimpeach- 
 able for waste and having only an ordinary power 
 of leasing for twenty-one years, as lord of the 
 manor granted leases for lives and received 
 fines : — 
 
 Held, that the fines, being received in the 
 customary mode of enjoyment of the manor by 
 tbe lord, were income and belonged wholly to 
 him. In re Medows. Norie v. Bennett 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1898] 1 Ch. 300 
 
 Costs. 
 
 51. — Attempted sale. Costs of — Paj/7nent out of 
 capital money — Charge on land — Settled Larid 
 Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 4, 21, Clause x., 
 46, sub-s. 6 ; ««. 47, 55, sub-s. 3. 
 
 Where a tenant for life acting honestly and 
 with due diligence in the exercise of his powers 
 under the Settled Land Act, 1882, makes an un- 
 successful attempt to sell the land, the costs and 
 expenses incurred by him over the attempted 
 sale are payable out of capital under s. 21 (x.). 
 The Court can, under ss. 46, sub-s. 6, 47, and 55 
 sub-s. 3, order the costs to be paid out of the 
 settled property, and raised by a charge on the 
 settled land. In re Smith's Settled Estates 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] 3 Ch. 66 
 
 62. — Opposition to hill in Parliament — Costs. 
 
 Independently of s. 36 of tbe Settled Land 
 Act, 1882, the Court under its general jurisdic- 
 tion has power to direct payment out of capital 
 moneys arising under the Act and subject to a 
 settlejuent of the costs of parliamentary opposition 
 to bills containing provisions injurious to the 
 settled estates. In re Oemeod's Settled Estate 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 318 
 
( 1SC7 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ■( 1868 ) 
 
 SETTLED IiAND (Costs) — continued. 
 
 63. — Sale, 'Costs of — Separate solicitors — 
 Several persons constitvting tenant for life — Settled 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), e. 2, sub-s. 6 ; 
 e. 21, svh-s. X. ; 8. 56. 
 
 Twenty five persons had been declared by an 
 order of the Court to have the powers of a tenant 
 for life. On a sale of the settled property the 
 vendors employed one solicitor to conduct the 
 sale, but in carrying out the sale, four of them, or 
 their incumbrancers, employed other solicitors to 
 peruse and complete : — 
 
 Meld, that there was nothing to disentitle the 
 fourjpersons from employing separate solicitors, 
 and that their costs should be allowed out of the 
 proceeds of the sale. Smith «. Lancaster 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 439 
 
 — Separate solicitors— Tenants for life — Costs of 
 
 sale — Sets of costs. 
 
 See Costs — Sets of costs. 65. 
 
 Estate Duty. 
 See EEVEinrE — Estate Duty. 
 
 Eixtures. 
 
 See FixTUEES. 
 
 Heirlooms. 
 See Heiblooms. 
 
 Improyements. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — Capital 
 Money. 
 
 Infants. 
 
 — Appointment of colonial trustees — Form of 
 
 order. 
 
 See Settled Land — Trustees. 129. 
 
 54. — Dispensing with conctirrence of unborn 
 child— Settled Estates Act, 1877 (40 * 41 Vict, 
 c. 18), ss. 26, 27, 28. 
 
 Testator s widow was enciente ; should a male 
 child be born he would be one of testator's heirs 
 in gavelkind, and as such would have an interest 
 in freehold property in Kent as to which it was 
 doubtful whether or not the testator had died 
 intestate. It being desired to lease the property, 
 the Court dispensed with notice to the unborn 
 •child. In re Rayneb's Settled Estates 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 152 
 
 — Maintenance — Contingent interests — Term for 
 
 rnising portions. 
 
 See Infant — Maintenance. 30. 
 
 55. — Hemnainderman — Salvage. 
 
 There is no general jurisdiction to charge the 
 interest of an infant tenant for life in remainder 
 with expenditure on structural alterations and 
 repairs on the mansion-house necessary for the 
 preservation of the house. Such expense does 
 not fall under the head of salvage. The Settled 
 Land Acts, whether they do or do not exclude 
 the general jurisdiction of the Court, afford 
 a guide to 1he Court. In re De Teissier's 
 Settled Estates Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 See also In re Lord de Tahley, [1896] W. N. 
 162 (16) ; Jn re Montagu, C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 8. 
 
 SETTLED LAin) (Infants) — continued. 
 
 56. — Trust to accumulate — Contract for sale- 
 Sanction of Court — " Settled estate " — Settled 
 Estates Act, 1877 (40 <t 41 Vict. c. 18), s. 16. 
 
 A testator devised real estate on a trust to 
 accumulate the rents during minority of a son 
 followed by a trust for the son absolutely on his 
 attaining twenty-four : — 
 
 Seld, that by virtue of s. 41 of the Con- 
 veyancing Act, 1881, the estate was a " settled 
 estate" within the Settled Estates Act, 1877, 
 and the Court could sanction a sale of it. In re 
 Spabeow's Settled Estate 
 
 North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 412 
 
 Interest. 
 
 57. — Bate of interest — Capital or iruxnne — 
 Will — Retainer of unauthorized investment — Con- 
 version. 
 
 A testator who died in 1890 gave his residuary 
 real and personal estate to trustees upon trust to- 
 con vert the same and invest at such time as in 
 their discretion they should think fit, and to pay 
 the income to one for life, with remainders ovej. 
 Power was given in the will to postpone conver- 
 sion, and to retain any investments of the testa- 
 tor at the time of his death. There was no- 
 direction as to payment of the income of the re- 
 tained funds. The trustees paid to the tenant 
 for life the whole income, including that of 
 certain investments which they had retained a& 
 held by the testator at his death, but which did 
 not fall within the description of securities 
 allowed by the investment clause contained in 
 the will. 
 
 Seld, that the tenant for life was not entitled 
 to receive the income of the retained investments, 
 and that such investments must be valued as at 
 the end of a year from the testator's death, and 
 that, as to the past, interest at the rate of 4 per 
 cent, on that value ought to be allowed to th& 
 tenant for life, but as to the future at the rate of 
 3 per cent. In re Ltnch-Blosse. Bickabds v. 
 Lynch- Blosse _ _ . Stirling J.. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 27 (8> 
 
 — Rate of interest — Conversion. 
 See No. 9, ahove. 
 
 58. — Rate of interest — Reversion — Capital 
 and income — Apportionment between tenant for lif& 
 and remainderman. 
 
 In calculating between tenant for life and 
 remainderman the apportionment of an uncon- 
 verted reversionary interest which has fallen in,, 
 the time has arrived to take interest at 3 per 
 cent, instead of 4 per cent, as formerly. 
 
 (a) In re Goodenocgh. Marland v. Wil- 
 liams - - Eekewich J, [1896] 2 Ch. 53T 
 
 (b) In re Ddke op Cleveland's Estate. 
 Hay v. Wolmer Eekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 542. 
 
 (o) Kowlls v. Bebb C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. lOT 
 
 Investments. 
 
 59. — Direction as to investment by tenant for 
 life of capital money in hands of trustees — Seftledl 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 it 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 21, 22, 
 sub-s. 2 ; s. 53. 
 
 The exercise in good faith of the power of 
 
( ims ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1870 
 
 SETTLED lAND (Investments)— con«inMe*. 
 direction as to the iaveatment or other applica- 
 tion of capital moneys in the liands of the trustees 
 given to the tenant for life by the Settled Land 
 Act, 1882, s. 22 (2), cannot be controlled by the 
 trustees or by the Court. In re Lokd Coleridqe's 
 Settlement - Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 704 
 
 60. — " Money liable to be laid out in the 
 purchase of land" — Power to trustees to invest 
 upon request in pwrchase of particular land — 
 Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 33. 
 
 Money which the trustees of a settlement are 
 empowered to invest, at the request of the tenant 
 for life, in the purchase of particular land is 
 money which is " liable to be laid out in the pur- 
 chase of land " within the meaning of s. 33 of 
 the Settled Land Act, 1882. 
 
 Where by a settlement, which comprised a 
 moiety of certain freeholds, the trustees were 
 empowered, at the request of the tenant for life, 
 to invest money comprised in the settlement in 
 the purchase of the other or unsettled moiety of 
 the freeholds : — 
 
 Seld, that the case came within s. 33 of the 
 Settled Land Act, 1882, and that money in the 
 hands of the trustees might be invested, as 
 capital money, in the purchase by them, jointly 
 with the owner of the unsettled moiety, of land 
 convenient to be held together with the freeholds. 
 In re Hill. Hill v. Piloher 
 
 Eekewich J. [1896] 1 Ch, 962 
 
 61. — Mortgage — Equity of redemption — 
 Capital money — Land in fee simple — Settled Land 
 Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. e. 38), s. 21, sub-s. 7. 
 
 Sect. 21, sub-s. 7, of the Settled Land Act, 
 1882, giving power to invest capital money in the 
 purchase of land in fee simple, does not authorize 
 the investment of capital moneys in the purchase 
 of an equity of redemption. In re Eabl Eadnor's 
 Settled Estates Eomer J. [1898] W. K. 174 (14) 
 
 — Unauthorised investment — Kate of interest. 
 
 See No. 57, above. 
 
 Leaseholds. 
 
 — Covenants — Rent— Eepairs — Liabil ity. 
 
 See Will — Leaseholds. 119. 
 
 62. — Ground rents — Bepairs and outgoings — 
 Corpus or income — Tenant for life and remainder- 
 man — (Jonstruclion of will. 
 
 Testator directed his executors and trustees 
 to arrange his affairs and mauage his estate, and 
 to retain certain leaseholds and let them on lease 
 at fair rentals, and pay the income derived there- 
 from to his wife for life for the benefit of herself 
 and her children, and after her deceasp to divide 
 the whole of his estate equally between his 
 children : — 
 
 Held, on the construction of the will, that the 
 " income derived " from the leaseholds meant the 
 net income, i.e., the amount of the rents after 
 deducting all proper outgoings, and that conse- 
 quently ground-rents, current repairs, and other 
 outgoings iu respect of the leaseholds must be 
 borne by the tenant for life. 
 
 The view taken in In re Baring, [1893] 1 Oh. 
 61, of the decision in In re Courtier, (1886) 34 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Leaseholds) — continued. 
 
 Ch. D. 136, dissented from. In re BEDDi.vn. 
 
 Thompso.v v. Bedding Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 87o 
 
 Discussed by Kekewioh J. In re Tomlinson, 
 [1898] I Ch. 282 ; In re Gjers, [1899] 2 Ch. 54, 
 58. 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Betty, [18991 
 1 Ch. 821, 826. 
 
 63. — Liability — Bent, repairs, and renewal 
 fines — Leaseliold house. 
 
 Where a testator gave certain life interests im 
 a leasehold house, anl bequeathed hi.s residuary 
 personalty upon trust to pay out of income the 
 expenses, &c., of carrying out the trusts of the 
 will:— 
 
 Held, that the rent and expenses of repairs 
 and insurance were payable out of the income of 
 the residue, and that fines and expenses of re- 
 newal were payable out of the corpus and must 
 be distributed amongst tlie beneficiaries of the 
 house according to their enjoyment, to be ascer- 
 tained on an actuarial calculation. In re Baktng. 
 Jeune v. Barino Eekewich J. [1893] 1 Ch. 61 
 
 See Trustee Act, 1898 (.% & 57 Viet, c.53), 
 s. 19. 
 
 Dissented from by Stirling J. In re Bedding, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 876. 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Tomlinson, 
 [1898] 1 Oh. 232; In re Ojers, [1899] 2 Oh. 
 51, .58. 
 
 Discussed by North J. In re Betty, [1899] 
 1 Ch. 821, 825. 
 
 64, — Oidgoings — • Drainage expenses — Im- 
 provements — Capital or income — Leasehold houses 
 — Capital money — Conflict between settlement and 
 Act— Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict, 
 c. 38), 8s. 25, 51, 56; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 69), 
 ss. 13, 15. 
 
 The cost of reconstructing the drainage of 
 leasehold liouses, forming part of a residuary 
 estate bequeathed to trustees upon trust for 
 tenant for life and remaindermen : — • 
 
 Held, to be payable out of capital money, aa 
 an improvement within the meaning of the Settled 
 Land Acts, notwithstanding a direction in the 
 will that pending a sale the rents, after payment 
 of "all incidental expenses and outgoings," were 
 to be paid to the tenant for life. In re Thomas. 
 Weatherall v. Tbomas - Byrne J. 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 319 
 
 65. — Bepairs — Ground rent — Cost of sanitary 
 works — Capital or income — Leasehold houses — 
 Equitable tenant for life — Public Health {London') 
 Act, 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 76) — Dangerous struc- 
 tures notice — London Building Act, 1894 (.57 & 58 
 Vict. 0. ccxiii.y 
 
 There is no distinction in the position of am 
 equitable tenant for life of leaseholds where the 
 property is sub-lot at a rack-rent, and where it is 
 sub-let at an improved ground-rent ; as between 
 tenant for life and remainderman the cost of 
 complying with a, sanitary notice under the 
 Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and a danger^- 
 ous structures notice under the London Building 
 Act, 1891, is chargeable against income. In re 
 Copland's Settlement. Johns v. Oabden 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N, 14; [1900] 1 Ch, 328 
 
( 1871 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1872 ) 
 
 SETTLED LANS (Leaseholds) — continued. 
 
 — Bepaire — Tenant for life — Eemainderman — 
 
 Liability. 
 
 See Will— Leaseholds. 119. 
 
 Jgfee. —Sanitary work. Cost of — Capital or 
 income — Leasehold Imuse — Vutjlic Health {London) 
 Act, 1891 (51 (fe 55 Vict. c. 76), »s. 4, 121, 141. 
 
 The cost of sanitBrv works executed under 
 the Pnblie Health (London) Act, 1891, upon 
 leasehold houses forming part of a residuary 
 bequest to trustees upon trust for tenant for life 
 and remaindermen : — 
 
 Held, payable out of the capital of the re- 
 siduary estate. In re Lever. Cokdwell v. 
 Levek - - StirUng J. [1897] 1 Ch. 32 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Thomas, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 319, 324. 
 
 Leases. 
 
 — "Best rent" — Building lease — "Money laid 
 
 out." 
 
 See No. 69, helow. 
 
 67. — " Beet rent " — Lease for term of years — 
 — Seceipt of hribe from lessee — Invalidity of lease 
 —Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 ss. 7, svh-s. 2 ; 86. 22, 45, evh-s. 3 ; ts. 53, 54 ; 1884 
 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 18), 8. 4; 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. 
 c. 69), 86. 3, 7. 
 
 C, tenant for life of a freehold house, who 
 Viad mortgaged liis life interest, in 1892 granted 
 to tlie deft, a lease of the premises for seven 
 years in consideration of a yearly rent of 25/. and 
 covenants by the lessee to execute certain repairs 
 and improvements. As an inducement to exe- 
 cute the deed the deft, had paid to C the 
 sum of 211., which he applied to his own use. 
 There was no evidence that a higher rent could 
 have been obtained. The lease purpoi ted to be 
 granted by the mortgagees at the request of C. 
 and by C , as tenant for life, by virtue of the 
 Settled Land Act, 1882. C. died in 1895. In 
 an action to set aside the lease : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the Court, in giving relief to 
 the beneficiaries, would not consi<ler the question 
 whether they had been damnified or not; (2) 
 that on the evidence the payment lo C. could not 
 be regarded as a fine, and the liability of the 
 <left. was not therefore limited to paying the 
 sum over again to trusttes appointed for the pur- 
 poses of tlie Settled Land Acts; and (:i) that, 
 having legard to the improper payment to C., 
 the " best rent " required by s. 7, sub-s. 2, of the 
 Settled Land Act, 1882, hud not been obtained, 
 and consequently the lease was void. Chakdler 
 ■0. Bradley Stirling J. [1896] W. N. 176 (18) ; 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 315 
 
 68. — Building lease — Agreement to lay out 
 specific sum in repairs — Settled Land Acts, 1882 
 (45 (t- 46 Viet. c. 38), s. 8, suh-s. 1; e. 63; 1884 
 (47 it- 48 Vict. c. 78), «. 7. 
 
 A lease made partly in consideration of the 
 lessee agreeing to expend a specific sum of money 
 in doing the improvements and repairs specified 
 in a schedule is a building lease within the 
 meaning of s. 8, sub-s. 1, of the Settled Land 
 Act, 1882. 
 
 But the Court, in the exercise of its discretion 
 under s. 7 of tl.c Settled LaTid Act, 1884, -vill 
 
 SETTLES LANS (Leases) — continued. 
 not sanction a building lease in which the repairs 
 or improvements agreed to he done by the lessee 
 are such as an ordinary landlord is expected to 
 do. In re Daniell'b Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 503 
 
 69. Building lea»e — "Bett rent" — "Money 
 laid out" — Leasing powers — Settled Land Acts, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 6, 7, suh-s. 2 ; «. 8, 
 8u6-s. 1 ; «. 13, sub-ss. 1, 5 ; 8. 53. 
 
 Part voluntary expenditure by lessee on 
 buildings comprised in his lease is not considera- 
 tion in law which will justify a tenant for life in 
 granting a building lease under s. 8, sub-s. 1, of 
 the Settled Land Act, 1882, at less than the best 
 rent that can be reasonably obtained as required 
 by s. 7, sub-s. 2. Nor is such expenditure 
 " money laid out " within tf. 7, sub-s. 2 ; those 
 words apply only to money laid out with direct 
 reference to the grant of the lease. In re Ghaw- 
 ner's Settled Estates 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 2 Ch. 192 
 
 70. — Building leases — General powers of 
 leasing — Vesting in trustees — Settled Estates Act, 
 1877 (40 <fc 41 Vict. c. 18), 8«. 4, 13. 
 
 A testator by his will devited land to the use 
 of certain persons and the survivors of them, 
 with remainders over, and conferred certain 
 powers additional to, or larger than, those under 
 the Settled Estates Act, 1877, on the tenants for 
 life and the trustees of the settlement, inter alia, 
 a power to grant building leases for any term 
 not exceeding 999 years. Some of the tenants 
 for life being permanently resident abroad, an 
 order was made (on a petition by all the tenants 
 tor life), vesting in the trustees general powers of 
 granting building leases for such terms. In re 
 Ugcohton's Estates - - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1894] W. N. 20 
 
 — Conversion — Real estate — Partition action- 
 
 Sale — " Persons absolutely entitled." 
 See Partition. 2. 
 
 — Lunatic — Committee — Power of leasing. 
 
 See Lunacy — Leases. 15. 
 
 — Merger — Lease, Agreement for — Life estate — 
 
 Intention — Benefit. 
 See Merger. 1. 
 
 71. — Minerals — Lease of — Surface reserving 
 minerals — Invalidity — Tenant for life. 
 
 Scott v. Moxon Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 14 
 
 72. — Minerals — Lease of — Surface reserving 
 minerals — Tenant for life — Power of leasing. 
 
 Where under a settlement » tenant for life 
 has power to lease all or any part of the settled 
 lands for building purposes, and also power to 
 lease mines of coal, iron, or other material, either 
 with or without the surface lands, those powers 
 enable him to lease the settled lands for build- 
 ing purposes, reserving the minerals under the 
 hinds so leased. 
 
 Cockerell v. Cholmeiey, (1830) 10 B. & C. 564, 
 distinguished. In re Duke of Rutland's Settled 
 Estates. Duke op Rutland v. Marquis of 
 Bristol - - Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 122 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch, 206 
 
 73. — Minerals — Lease of — Surface reserving 
 minerals — Tenant for life— Power of leasing 
 
( 1873 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1874 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Leases)— continued. 
 
 Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. e. 38), 
 
 «s. 6, 13, 17. 
 
 Under the power to lease settled land con- 
 ferred on a tenant for life by s. 6 of the Settled 
 Xiand Act, 1882, a lease may be made of the 
 hurfaoe of land reserving the mines and minerals 
 beneath it. 
 
 Decision of Kekewicli J. in In re Newell and 
 JSTevtll's Contract, [1900] 1 Ch. 90, disapproved. 
 In re Gladstone. Gladstone v. Gladstone 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 108; [1900] 2 Ch. 101 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. In re Duke of Sut- 
 iand's Settled Estates, [1900] 2 Ch. 206, 209. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Brown v. Peto, [1900] 
 ^ Q. B. 653, 659. 
 
 74. — Minerals — Lease of — Surface reserving 
 Minerals — Tenant for life — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 <45 <£• 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 6-13, 17, 20. 
 
 The Settled Land Act, 1882, does not enable 
 •a tenant for life to lease the surface, reserving 
 the minerals. In re Newkll and Nevill's Con- 
 tract - - Eekewich J. [1900] 1 Ch. 90 
 
 Disapproved of by C. A. In re Gladstone, 
 1:1900] 2 Ch. 101. 
 
 See In re Dulte of Rutland's Settled Estates, 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 206. 
 
 — Mining leases. 
 
 See Settled Land — Mines. 
 
 75. — Notice, Absence of — Constructive notice — 
 Dealing in good faith — Leasing potcers — Settled 
 Zand Acts, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 6, 20, 
 45, 53, 58, sub-s. 1 (viii.); 1884 (47 <t- 48 Vict. 
 V. 18), 8. 8. 
 
 A tenant by the curtesy purported to grant a 
 fcuilding lease as absolute owner without any 
 reference to the Settled Land Acts. There were 
 BO trustees for the purposes of the Acts, and 
 consequently no notices were given as required 
 by s. 45 of the Act of 1882 :— 
 
 Seld, (1) that the lease could and did operate 
 under the Settled Land Act, 1882, to convey the 
 iand within the meaning of s. 20, sub-s. 2, and 
 was valid ; (2) thiit the lessee having dealt with 
 the lessor in good faith was protected by s. 45, 
 sub-B. 2, as to the absence of trustees and want 
 of notices. 
 
 The doctrine of constructive notice ought not 
 to be applied so as to invalidate the titles of 
 Tjersons dealing bona fide with tenants for life 
 when exercising their powers under the Settled 
 Land Acts. Mogbidge v. Clapf 
 
 C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 382 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Chandler v. Bradley, 
 11897] 1 Oh. 315, 322. 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re Fisher and 
 Grazebrooh's Contract, [1898] 2 Ch. 660, 662. 
 
 76. — Powers of leasing — Tenant for life — 
 Heir-at-law entitled for life under lapsed devise — 
 Consent of tenant for life — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 <fe 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, suh-s. 5; s. 56, sub-s. 2; 
 «. 58, sub-s. 1. 
 
 The period for accumulations allowed by 
 Thellusson's Act having expired, the heir-at-law 
 became entitled to the rents for the remainder of 
 iis life. The heir was a lunatic not so found, 
 and the truttees applied to the Court to decide 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Leases) — continued. 
 whether his consent was necessary before they 
 could exercise the power given them by the will 
 of granting building leases : — 
 
 Held, that the heir was tenant for life, or had 
 
 the powers of a tenant for life under s. 58, sub- 
 
 s. 1, of the Act of 1882, and that his consent was 
 
 necessary under s. 56, sub-s. 2. In re Athebton 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 85 
 
 77. — Bents — Tenant for life and remainder- 
 man — Settlement by way of trust for sale — 
 Conversion — Beal estate — Postponement of sale — 
 Interim rents — Enjoyment in specie — Settled Land 
 Act, 1882 (45 <t 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 63. 
 
 Where by a will or settlement property is 
 directed to be sold and converted and the pro- 
 ceeds held in trust for one for life and then for 
 others, and, either in exercise of a power of post- 
 ponement or without any impropriety, the sale is 
 postponed, the person entitled to the life interest 
 ia tlie proceeds is, as regards real estate, entitled 
 to the rents and profits thereof until sale, and ia 
 consequently to be deemed to be the tenant for 
 life thereof within s. 63 of the Settled Land Act, 
 1882. 
 
 - Yat^ V. Yates, (1860) 28 Beav. 637, consi- 
 dered. In re Seable. Seable v. Baker 
 Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 186; [1900] 2 Ch. 829 
 
 — Surface reserving minerals. Lease of. 
 
 See Nos. 71 — 74, above. 
 
 78. — Wife of tenant for life. Lease to — Leasing 
 powers — Bights of way over park usually occupied 
 with principal mansion-house — Leases Act, 1849 
 (12 (t 13 Viet. c. 2Q)— Settled Land Acts, 1882 
 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), si. 6, 53, 54 ; 1890 (53 * 64 
 Vict. e. 69), s. 10. 
 
 A tenant for life cannot, under the Settled 
 Land Acts, grant leases for the purpose of giving 
 his wife a jointure house and a right of way over 
 the park attached to the mansion-house. The 
 leasing power must be exercised bona fide for the 
 benefit of the settled estate and not of the lessee 
 to the detriment of the remainderman : — 
 
 Semble, that a tenant for life may grant a 
 lease to a married woman although she is his 
 own wife. Dowageb Duchess of Sdthebland v. 
 Duke op Sctherland Homer J. [1893] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 Distinguished by Bigham J. Brown v. Peto, 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 346, 355; C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 653. 
 
 Lunatic. 
 See Cases under Lunacy. 
 
 Hansion-house. 
 
 — Eepairs of. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — 
 Bepaiis. 
 
 — Trust to allow A. to occupy a mansion-house 
 
 and land so long as she might wish to 
 
 do so. 
 
 See Settled Land— Trustees. 135. 
 
 Mines. 
 
 — Accumulations — Eents and loyalties from 
 
 mining leases — Eeraaindernjen. 
 See Accumulations. 6. 
 
( 1875 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1S76 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Mines) — continued. 
 
 79. — Capital or income — Compensation 
 moneys — Sale of minerals — Apportionment. 
 
 Minerals were bought by a ry., and tlie pro- 
 ceeds of sale were paid into Court. The tenant 
 for life claimed the whole sum, or at least an 
 apportioned part, on the ground that, being un- 
 impeachable for waste, he might have gotten all 
 the minerals in his lifetime : — 
 
 Held, that as the case was governed by s. 69 
 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, there could be 
 310 apportionment of capital, and he was only 
 entitled to the income. In re Robinson's Settle- 
 ment Trusts - Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 129 
 — Lease of surface reserving minerals. 
 
 See Settled Land — Leases. 71 — 74. 
 
 80. — Open mines — Mining lease — Tenant for 
 life impeachable for waste — Proportion of rent to 
 he capitalised — Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 38), 8. 11. 
 
 A tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, 
 1882, of mineral land, though not declared unim- 
 peachable for waste by the setllement, is not as 
 regards open mines " impeachable for waste in 
 respect of minerals " within s. 11, and may 
 therefore grant a lease of such mines upon flie 
 terms of setting aside one-fourth only of the rent 
 as capital money arising under the Act. In re 
 Chastoe - Stirling J. [1900] W. N. 181 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 804 
 
 81. — Powers of leasing — Mining leases — 
 Tenant for life — Alienatipn of life estate — Lease of 
 minerals — Bents varying with selling price of 
 minerals gotten — Statutory powers — Validity of 
 leases—Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 38), ss. 2, 9, 11, 56SettUd Land Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 8. 
 
 When a person has under several instruments 
 a power of appointment over the same subject- 
 matter, and makes an appointment in exercise of 
 " every power " enabling him in that behalf, the 
 power first in point of time is exercised ; and if 
 effectually exercised there remains no subject- 
 matter on which the other powers can operate. 
 The Court may also consider which .power is 
 most beneficial to the donee of the power. 
 
 By a settlement made in 1876 estates were 
 limited, in the events which happened, to A. for 
 life, remainder to B. for life, with remainders 
 over. The settlement contained a power for every 
 person " as and when he should be entitled to 
 the possession or the receipt of the rents and 
 profits " of the settled estates, to grant mining 
 leases reserving the best rents or royalties "by 
 the acre, ton, or otherwise " witliout taking any 
 fine or premium. During A.'s life B. absolutely 
 aliened his reversionary life interest for value. 
 
 A. died in 1882. Between the coming into 
 operation of the Settled Land Act, 1882, and of 
 the Settled Laud Act, 1890, after the later Act, 
 
 B. granted mining leases reserving rents varying 
 with the selling price of the minerals gotten, which 
 was in accordance witli the custom of the county. 
 All the leases were granted in erercise of " every 
 power" enabling B. in that behalf. Questions 
 having arisen as to the validity of the leases, and 
 whether they were granted uuder tlie power in 
 the settlement or under the power in the Settled 
 Land Acts ; — 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Mines) — continued. 
 
 Held, (1.) that it was competent for B. to 
 exercise the power ol leasing in the settlement 
 notwithstanding thst the has aliened his life 
 estate; and (2.) that the reservation of rents 
 varying with the selling price of the minerals- 
 was within the power and valid : 
 
 Held, also, that the leases were granted under 
 the power in the settlement, which was first in 
 point of date, and not under the power in the 
 Settled Land Acts : 
 
 Held, further, that, assuming the leases were- 
 granted tmder the Settled Land Acts, the " con- 
 flict " referred to in s. 56 of the Act of 1882 means 
 a conflict between provisions connected with the 
 execution of the power — e.g., the consent of a. 
 third party — and not with the result or subject- 
 matter of the power. Eabl of Lonsdale ;;. 
 LowTBEB - Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 165 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 687 
 
 82. — Pumps — Erection of new pumps — 
 Improvem,ents. 
 
 The erection of a new pumping-engine and 
 pumps for draining mines included in a settlement 
 is an improvement authorized by s. 25 (xx.) of 
 the Settled Land Act, 1882. In re Mijndt's- 
 Settled Estates C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 399 
 
 And see Settled Land — ImproTements. 
 26. 
 
 83. — Rents and royalties — Tenant for life 
 impeachable for waste — Mining lease — Settled 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 11, 12. 
 
 A testator had agreed to grant mining leases. 
 Dead rents had been paid and approaches made, 
 but the leased coal was not actually reached until 
 after the testator's death : — 
 
 Held, that though the tenant for life was 
 impeachable for waste, the dead rents payable 
 and the royalties to be paid belonged to him as 
 income. Sect. 11 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, 
 does not apply to a mining lease granted by a 
 tenant for life for giving effect to a contract 
 entered into by a predecessor who was absolute 
 owner. In re Kemets-Ttnte. Kemeys-Ttkte 
 V. Kemets-Tynte - North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 211 
 
 Mortgages. 
 
 84. — Colliery in possession — Tenant for life — 
 Income. 
 
 Interest on a mortgage of a colliery being in 
 arrear, testator (the mortgagee) went into posses- 
 sion prior to the date of his will. His executors 
 commenced proceedings for foreclosure; a re- 
 ceiver was appointed who worked the colliery, 
 and profits were made and paid into Court. A 
 foreclosure decree was made, and the fund in Court 
 transferred to the credit of the administration 
 action, and apportioned as between capital and 
 income, as follows: The amount which, with 
 interest at 4 per cent, from testator's death to date 
 of transfer to credit of this action, equalled the 
 fund transferred to be deemed capital, the re- 
 mainder of the fund to go to the tenants for life. 
 In re Godden. Teague v. Fox - North J. 
 
 [1893] 1 Ch. 292 
 
 88. — Compound settlement — Settlement — 
 Subsequent settlement of other land subject to 
 mortqaqes upon identical trusts — Payment off of 
 
( 1877 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1878 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Mortgages)— conhnued. 
 mortgages hy mdrtgage of lands comprised in hotli 
 settlements— Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 38), s. 2, sub-s. 1 ; 1890 (53 <£ 54 Vict. c. 69), 
 s. 11. 
 
 Where an estate A has been settled, and 
 afterwards by a separate instrument the equity 
 of redemption in an estate B is settled on like 
 .trusts, the two settlements form one compound 
 settlement within s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the Settled 
 Xand Act, 1882 ; and when the mortgage on 
 estate B has to be paid off, the moneys required 
 for that purpose may be raised by a mortgage 
 upon both estates A and B by the tenant for life 
 under s. 11 of the Settled Land Act, 1890. 
 
 In re Mundi/s Settled Estates, [1891] 1 Ch. 
 399, and Jn re Byng'sSetUed Estates, [1892] 2 Ch. 
 219, discussed. In re Lord Monson's Settled 
 Estates - - Bomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 427 
 
 Se, — Interest — Will—Demse of onerous and 
 henejicial property. 
 
 A tenant for life of estates settled by will : — 
 
 JBeld, bound to keep down interest in respect 
 
 of charges on the several parts of the estates out 
 
 of the income of the whole. Fkewen v. Law 
 
 Life Assueance Society - - North J. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 511 
 — Investment on. 
 
 See Settled Land — Investments. 01. 
 
 87. — Power of mortgaging to pay off incum- 
 brances — Discretion — Settled Land Acts, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), «. 53; 1890 (53 * 54 Vict, 
 c. 69), s. 11. 
 
 Under s. 11 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, a 
 tenant for life has power to mortgage the unmort- 
 gaged part of settled land in Order to pay off the 
 incumbrances on the other part, but Tie is not 
 justified in trying to preseiTe a heavily incum- 
 bered estate by mortgaging it if he thereby 
 sacrifices the interest of existing incumbrancers. 
 A tenant for life proposed to mortgage unincum- 
 bered lands to pay off incumbrances on other 
 properties. Certain annuitants applied for an 
 injunction on the ground that the effect of the 
 mortgage would be injurious to their security, 
 since sa. 20, 21 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, 
 gave such a mortgage priority over all annuities 
 and charges created by the settlement ; — 
 
 Held, that having regard to s. 53 of the Act 
 of 1882 and the circumstances, the Court could 
 and should interfere to restrain the tenant for 
 life from efi'ecting the proposed mortgage. 
 Hampden v. Eakl ov BucKmaHAMSanjE 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 531 
 
 Referred to by Bomer J. Inre Lord Monson's 
 Settled Estates, [1898] 1 Ch. 427, 432. 
 
 — Bedemption — Consent of mortgagee as owner 
 of limited estate. 
 See Mortgage — Bedemption. 71. 
 
 88. -^ Presumption of intention to lieep alive 
 charge — Payment of charge on inheritance — Bela- 
 lion of parent and child — Tenant for life and 
 remainderman. 
 
 The presumption that a tenant for life who 
 pays off a charge upon the inheritance intends to 
 keep the charge alive for his own benefit is not 
 rebutted by the mere fact that the relation of 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Mortgages)— con«mM«J. 
 parent and child subsists between the tenant for- 
 life and the remainderman. In re Harvey. 
 Harvey v. Hobday C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 137 
 
 89. — Reversion, Mortgage of — Arrears of inter- 
 rest — ForecHosuTe and redemption — Beal Property • 
 Limitation Acts, 1833 (3 A 4 Will. 4, c. 27), ss. 2, 
 42; 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57), ss. 1, 2— Waste- 
 hy tenant for life — Dilapidation of buildings — 
 Depreciation of marsh lands — Damages — Statute- 
 barred debt^Limitation Act, 1623 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16) ■ 
 — Retainer, 
 
 A testator, who died in 1878, devised some 
 cottages and marsh lands upon trust for his wife 
 for life, she out of the rents and profits keeping 
 " the premises in good tenantable repair and.^ 
 condition," and after her death upon trust for 0. . 
 in fee. In 1882 0. mortgaged his reversion in 
 fee to the widow, who was in receipt of the rents 
 and profits of the property as tenant for life.. 
 She died in 1897, and iier executors brought an 
 action cf foreclosure against C, who had made no • 
 payment either of principal or interest since the 
 date of the mortgage, and who set up the Statutes 
 of Limitations. The cottages were out of repair- 
 and the marsh lands had been depreciated to- 
 some extent by mowing : — 
 
 Held, that C. was entitled to damages for- 
 non-repair of the cottages, but not for deprecia- 
 tion of the marsh lands, the tenant for life in her 
 dealings with the latter having followed the- 
 course that had been adopted by the testator : 
 
 Held, also, that C. on redeeming was not. 
 limited to six years' arrears of interest prior to 
 the date of the writ, but must pay all arrears of " 
 interest with principal and costs from the date of ' 
 the mortgage. 
 
 Du Vigier v. Lee, (1843) 2 Hare, 326, and^ 
 Mason v. Broadbent, (1863) 33 Beav. 296, dis- 
 cussed; and Edmunds v. Waugh, (1866) L. E.. 
 1 Eq. 418, and In re Marskfidd, (1887) 34 Ch. D. 
 721, followed on this point. 
 
 The tenant for life had lent C. sums of 
 money by way of loan without security, which 
 loans were statute-barred at the date of her- 
 death : — 
 
 Held, that her executors were not entitled to- 
 retain the damages assessed for non-repair of 
 the cottages in discharge of the statute-barred i 
 loans. 
 
 Courtenay v. Williams, (1844) 3 Hare, 539,. 
 discussed on this point. Dingle v. Coppen. 
 COPPBN V. Dingle - Byrne J. [1899J 1 Ch. 726 ■ 
 
 And see Addendum to that vol. 
 
 Option. 
 
 90. — Money in hands of trustees liable to ■ 
 be laid out in land — Option — Settled Land Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), g. 33. 
 
 Under s. 33 of the Act of 1882, a tenant for 
 life has the same power over capital money in, 
 the hands of trustees liable to be laid out in land, 
 as he has over settled land. He has an option to. 
 direct how the money shall be invested or applied. 
 In re Gee. Pbaeson-Gee v. Pearson 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] W. N. 9a.. 
 — Purchase-money. 
 
 See Settled Land— Sale. 119, 120. 
 
( 1879 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 1!»00. 
 
 ( 1880 
 
 SETTLED LAND — continued. 
 Fonds. 
 
 91. — Fonda — Liability — Repairs — Cleansing 
 ■ornamenial Idlte. 
 
 Cleansing an ornamental lake or pond is not 
 
 -a duty imposed on a tenant for life by the ordi- 
 
 mary repairing clause in a settlement by will. 
 
 Dashwood d. Magniac (No. 1) - - C. A. 
 
 (Kay L.J. diss.) [1891] 3 Ch. 306 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Chaytor, 
 £1900] W. N. 181 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 804. 
 
 Possession. 
 
 93. — Assignee of equitable life estate — Letting 
 into 'possession — Bankruptcy of tenant for life. 
 
 Summons by the assignee of an equitable 
 life interest in a, freehold farm, asking to be 
 let into possession and receipt of the rents and 
 ■profits : — 
 
 Held, that the applicant was not entitled as of 
 Tight to possession, but it was a matter for tl.e 
 •discretion of the Court : Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 
 L. E. 20 Eq. 297, 303 ; In re Bagot, [1894] 1 Ch. 
 177. _ The Court has jurisdiction, upon taking 
 ■sufficient security, to allow a person in the posi- 
 tion of a tenant for life to enter into possession. 
 Applicant ordered to pay the costs of remainder- 
 men, who had been served by direction of the 
 ■master, and had given the Court valuable assist- 
 ance. 
 
 In re Newen, [1894] 2 Ch. 297, 309, not fol- 
 lowed upon this point. 
 
 The costs of the bankrupt, who had no interest 
 in the matter, disallowed. In re Hunt. Pollabd 
 V. Geake - Stirling J. [1900] W. N. 65 
 
 93. — Conditional limitation — Person having 
 the powers of a tenant for life — " In possession " — 
 Jieltled Land Act, 1882 (45 <t- 46 Vict, c 38), ss. 51, 
 58, sub-s. 1 (ui.). 
 
 By a settlement dated in 1872 a freehold 
 house was limited to trustees for a term of ninety- 
 Tiine years upon trust to permit the premises to 
 .1)6 personally occupied by C. during her life and 
 so long as she should remain a widow and be 
 desirous of personally occupying the same, and 
 after her death or second marriage then over. 
 The trust in C.'s favour came into operation in 
 1894, but she never occupied or expressed any 
 wish to occupy, and in 1896 joined with other 
 persons interested in the premises in granting a 
 lease of them for the term of five years : — 
 
 Held, that, during the continuance of the 
 lease, C. could not be regarded as tenant for life 
 in possession for the purposes of the Settled Land 
 Act. 
 
 Semble, that, upon the determination of the 
 lease, if slje exercised her right of personal 
 occupation, the would have the powers of a tenant 
 for life under s. 58 of the Settled Land Act, 1882. 
 Jn re Edwards' Settlement 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 412 
 
 94. — Equitable tenant for life — Right to pos- 
 session — Discretion of Court — Costs— Form of order 
 — SeUled Land Acts, 1882 (45 it- 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 s. 03 ; 1S84 (47 * 48 Vict. c. 18), s, 7, sub-s. ii. 
 
 Trustees held freehold land on trust for sale, 
 with power to postpone sale, and with extensive 
 Jjowers of management : 
 
 Held, that the Court had a judicial discretion, 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Fossession) — continued. 
 which was not abrogated by the Settled Land 
 Acts, which it could exercise by letting the 
 tenant for life into possession, and to exercise 
 all the powers conferred by the Acts except the 
 power of sale and exchauge, with power for the 
 trustees to apply to resume possession in case they 
 should decide to sell. In re Bagot's Settle- 
 ment. Bagot r. Kittoe 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 177 
 
 Referred to bv Kekewich J. In re Newen, 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 297, 302. 
 
 Referred to bv Stirling J. In re Hunt, [1900] 
 W.N. 65. 
 
 95. — Equitahle Tenant for life — Bight to pos- 
 session — Estate and Title deeds. 
 
 An equitable tenant for life, whose estate is 
 determinable on alienation or bankruptcy, is 
 entitled, if the estate and the 'trustees can be 
 adequately protected, to be let into possession of 
 the estate, and consequently, as a general rule, 
 to the custody of the title deeds. Form of order. 
 In re Wythes. West v. Wythes 
 
 Eekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 369 
 
 Form of minutes in, followed by Chitty J. 
 In re Bagot's Settlement, [1894] 1 Ch. 177, 184. 
 
 96. — Equitable tenant for life — Bight to pos- 
 session — Female tenant. 
 
 An equitable tenant for life of a settled estate 
 is entitled to be let into possession on a proper 
 case being made, but the order must contain 
 terms protecting the trustees, especially where 
 the property is subject, as in the case of lease- 
 holds, to onerous covenants. The application 
 must be by originating summons, and served on 
 the trustees, and any mortgagees of the tenant 
 for life's interest, but not uuder ordinary cir- 
 cumstances on the reversioner. But where the 
 tenant for life has mortgaged his interest the 
 morigagee can insist on the title detds being 
 retained by the trnstees. A female tenant for life 
 is not necessarily disqualified from being let into 
 possession. In re Ne'Wen. Newen v. Basnes 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 297 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re Hunt, [1900] 
 W. N. 65. 
 
 — Possessory title — Rights of remaindermen — 
 
 Statutes of Limitations. 
 See Estoppel. 10. 
 
 98. — Term — Trust for management and 
 accumulation — Tenant for life — Settled Land Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), e. 2, suhs-s. 5, 7 ; s. 53 ; 
 s. 58, sub-s. 1, ds. (««.) iix ). 
 
 A portion of family estates was subject to a 
 term, created in 1868, in trustees to manage and 
 apply the net income in paying off mortgages, 
 oil which large sums were still due. The Court 
 put the tenant for life into possession of the land 
 subject to the term, he giving security to pay the 
 net income over to the truhtees. In re Monev 
 Kykle's Settlement. Money Ktklk r. Money 
 Kyrlb - Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] 2 Ch. 839 
 
 Fowers. 
 
 — Powers under Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land, passim. 
 
( 1881 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1882 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Towers')— continued. 
 
 99- — Settled land — Annuity to vtidow during 
 residence — Eedtiction of annuity on ceasing to 
 reside — Will — Gift of leasehold jwuse to widmo — 
 SetOed Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 38), 
 s«. 51, 58. 
 
 A testator gave his property to trustees upon 
 trust, as to his leasehold house, to permit his 
 widow to occupy the same, and out of his residuary 
 estate to pay her durin" widowhood the sum of 
 850Z. (afterwards hy codicil increaseii to 10002.) 
 so long as she continued to reside in the house. 
 The will contained a proviso that if the widow 
 removed from the house before the expiration of 
 the lease the annuity should be reduced to 600{. 
 On a summons taken out under the Settled Land 
 Acts: — 
 
 Seld, that the widow was tenant for life of 
 the house within the meaniug of the Acts, and 
 that the proviso as to the reduction of the annuity 
 was void undtr s. 51 of the Act of 1882. 
 
 In re Paget's Settled Estates, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 
 161, and In re Ames, [1893] 2 Ch. 479, discussed. 
 In re Eastman's Settled Estates 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] W. W. 170 (15) 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Camels Settled 
 Estates. [1899] 1 Ch. 324. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 100. — Married woman — Separate examina- 
 tion — Title of petition — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 21 (9), 32. 
 
 A petition for payment out of Court of the 
 proceeds of sale of a testator's real estate to the 
 trustees of his will should be entitled under the 
 Settled Land Acts as well as the Settled Estates 
 Act, 1877. 
 
 A petition for the payment out of Court of 
 proceeds of real estate settled by the testator, to 
 the trustees of his wife, some of the beneficiaries 
 being married women, can be granted with dis- 
 pensation from separate examination of the married 
 women. In re Wabd's Settled Estates 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 41 
 
 — Married woman — Separate examination — 
 Practice. 
 See Husband AND Wipe— Practice. 1. 
 
 101. — Parties — Petition — Settled Estates Act, 
 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 18), ». 24. 
 
 To a petition under the Settled Estates Act, 
 1877, where there are subsidiary or derivative 
 settlements by way of trust for sale executed by 
 beneficiaries of the original settlement, the bene- 
 ficiaries of such subsidiary settlements are not 
 necessarily parties to the petition. In re Hodge's 
 Settled Estates Zekewich J. [1895] W. N. 69 
 
 Kent-charges. 
 
 102. — Payment of past instalments — Repay- 
 ment to tenant for life — Settled Land Acts, 1882 
 (45 -fe 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 21 (ii.), (iw.); 1887 
 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 30), ss. 1, 2, 3; 1890 (53 & 54 
 Vict. c. 69), ». 15. 
 
 Where improvements authorized by the Settled 
 Land Acts have been effected upon settled land 
 and paid for with money borrowed and repayable 
 by a rent-charge under the Improvement of 
 Land Act, 1864, the Court cannot under s. 15 
 
 SETTLED LAND (^ent-eh&rgen)— continued. 
 of the Act of 1890 direct the trustees to apply 
 capital moneys in their hands in repaying to the- 
 tenant for life any instalments of such rent- 
 charge paid by him before the date at which he- 
 has required provision to be made for payment 
 or redemption under the Act of 1887. In re-- 
 Dalisons' Settled Estates 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 3 Ch. 522 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Marquis- 
 
 of Bristol's Settled Estates, [1893] 3 Ch. 161 ; In- 
 
 re Vemey's Settled Estates, [1898] 1 Ch. 508, 513_ 
 
 103. — Purchase or redemption — Improvement 
 of Land Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 114), g. 60 — 
 Settled Land Acts, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 8. 21, 8tt6-88. 2, 3; 8S. 25, 26 ; 1887 (50 & 51 Vict, 
 c. 30), 88. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 A tenant for life borrowed, between 1881 and 
 1885, under the Land Improvement Act, 1864,. 
 money for " improvements " and the repayment- 
 was secured by rent-charges. Between 1883 and 
 1885 some of these rent-charges were bought up- 
 by the trustee under s. 60 of the Act of 1864.. 
 In 1888 the portion of the estate on which th& 
 improvements were effected was sold, and the^ 
 rent-charges shifted to the unsold portions : — 
 
 Held, inter alia, that the instalments of rent- 
 charges falling due after the passing of the 
 Settled Land Act, 1887, and . after the question 
 had been raised by the tenant ^r life, should be 
 provided for out of capital moneys. In re 
 Howabd's Settled Estates 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 233 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Earl 
 Strafford and Maples, [1895] W. N. 147 (10). 
 This case reversed by C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 235. 
 
 104. — Sedemption — Bepayment to tenant for 
 life — Improvement — Evidence — Settled Land Acts, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict c. 38), s. 25; 1887 (50 & 51 
 Viet c. 30), 8. 1. 
 
 The tenant for life of settled estates, in order 
 to obtain a reduction of the rate of interest pay- 
 able on money borrowed for improvements and 
 secured by rent-charges under the Improvement 
 of Land Act, 1864, caused the rent-charges to be- 
 transferred to an insurance society on payment 
 to the original holders of a lump sum in conside- 
 ration of their consenting to the transfer : — 
 
 Held, that the repayment of this sum to the 
 tenant for life would not be an expenditure " irr 
 redeeming " the rent-charges, " or otherwise pro- 
 viding for the repayment thereof,'' within s. 1 of 
 the Settled Land Act, 1887, and therefore ought 
 not to be made out of capital money in the hands 
 of the trustees of the settlement. 
 
 The fact that the Commrs. under the Act of 
 1864 sanctioned an improvement, in respect of 
 wliich a rent-charge was created, as coming withiD> 
 a provision in that Act substantially identical 
 with a provision in the Settled Land Act, 1882, 
 was treated by the Court as evidence that such- 
 improvement was within the last-mentioned pro- 
 vision. In re Vebney's Settled Estates 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 508. 
 
 105. — Tenant for life — Improvement — '^Incum- 
 brance" — Sale of part of land — Exoneration — 
 Contribution — Board of Agriculture— Sanction by 
 —Tithe Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict c. 54), 8. 16— Jm- 
 
( 1883 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1884 ) 
 
 ■SETTLED LAND (Rent- charges) — continued. 
 
 j>rovement of Land Act, 186t (27*28 Vict. c. 114), 
 .88. 15, 63, 68, 69Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 
 Vict, c. 38), ss. 5, 30 — Furcliase-mmiey — Interest 
 
 — Conditions of gale — " Wilful default." 
 
 " Incumbrance " in s. 5 of the Settled Land 
 
 .Act, 1882, includes a rent-charge created under 
 the improvement of Land Act, 1864 ; and there- 
 fore where settled land is subject to such a rent- 
 
 ■oharge, the tenant for life can, on a sale of part 
 
 -of the land, effectually exonerate the part sold 
 by obtaining the consent of the owner of the 
 rent-charge to charging the whole of it upon the 
 unsold land under s. 5 of the Act of 1882, and 
 the intervention of the Board of Agriculture 
 under ss. 68 and 69 of the Act of 1864 is un- 
 necessary. 
 
 Decision of Kebewich J. reversed. 
 
 As the exoneration operates as an effectual 
 
 ■discharge of the land sold, the purchaser is not 
 liable, undei s. 63 of the Act of 1864 and s. 16 of 
 
 "the Tithe Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 54), to con- 
 tribution at the instance of owners of unsold land 
 
 ■ subject to the rent-charge. 
 
 Per Kekewioh J. : Where a purchase cannot 
 
 'be completed by the appointed day through the 
 failure of the vendor to obtain the concxirrence of 
 necessary parties, he cannot claim interest from 
 
 "the purchaser under the usual condition requiring 
 the purchaser to pay interest on the purchase- 
 moneyV" if from any cause whatever, other than 
 the wilful default of the vendor," the purchase is 
 not completed by the appointed day, the delay 
 being attributable to the vendor's " wilful de- 
 fault." 
 
 ire re Selling and Merton's Contract, [1893] 
 
 "3 Ch. 269, followed. In re Eahl op Steaffokd 
 AND Maples - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 235 
 
 Bepairs. 
 
 106. — Chargeable to Capital — Settlement. 
 
 Necessary repairs on real estate purchased in 
 accordance with a power in a testamentary settle- 
 ment of personalty, by the direction or with the 
 consent of the tenant for life, to invest in (inter 
 alia) land to be held as personal estate: — 
 
 Seld, chargeable to capital. In re Fkbeman'. 
 .DiMOND V. Newbukn North J. [1898] 1 Ch. 28 
 
 107. — Covenants— Leaseholds — Specific bequest 
 • — Liability to pay rent and perform covenants. 
 
 A tenant for lite of leaseholds, specifically 
 bequeathed by the will of a testator who was 
 ■assignee of the lease under which the property is 
 held, is bound, during the continuance of her 
 ■interest, as between herself and the testator's 
 ■estate, to pay the rent reserved by the lease, and 
 perform the covenants and conditions contained 
 in it. 
 
 In re Betty, [1899] 1 Ch. 821, followed. In re 
 Tomlinson, [1898] 1 Ch. 232, not followed. In 
 te Gjees. Cooper v. Gjers 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1899] W. N. 77 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 54 
 
 108. — Covenants — Liability — Insurance — 
 JfJquitaile tenant for life. 
 
 An equitable tenant for life of leaseholds 
 'Under a will is bound, during the continuance of 
 ■his interest, as between himself and his testator's 
 •estate, to perform the tenant's continuing obliga- 
 
 SETTLED LAND ('Repairs')— continued. 
 tions under the lease ; but he is not liable for 
 repairs necessary at the commencement of his 
 interest, or in respect of breaches of covenant 
 which had arisen before the testator's death. 
 
 In re CouHier, (1886) 34 Ch. D. 136, con- 
 sidered. In re Tomlinson, [1898] 1 Ch. 232, 
 differed from. In re Betty. Betty v. Attok- 
 net-Genebal - North J. [1899] W. N. 57 ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 821 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Gjers, [1899] 
 2 Ch. 54. See preceding Case. 
 
 — Leaseholds. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — Lease- 
 holds. 
 
 109. — Mansion-house, Bepairs of — Payment of 
 costs out of capital — Jurisdiction of Court — Settled 
 estate. 
 
 In this case it was held that the evidence did 
 not shew that the proposed repairs were in the 
 nature of salvage the cost of which it was im- 
 possible to pay otherwise than out of capital, 
 and that therefore the Court had (independently 
 of the special provisions of the will) no power 
 under its general jurisdiction to direct the pay- 
 ment of the costs out of capital : — 
 
 Held, also, that the power given by the will to 
 the trustees, to make out of the income or capital 
 of the personal estate any outlay for the benefit 
 of the estate, did not authorize the trustees to 
 make out of capital any payment which would 
 otherwise have been properly payable only out of 
 incomes or vise versa. 
 
 In re De Teissier, [1893] 1 Ch. 153, followed. 
 In re Jaclcson, (1882) 21 Ch. D. 786 ; In re House- 
 hold, (1884) 27 Ch. D. 553; and Conway v. 
 Fenton, (1888) 43 Ch. D. 512, distinguished. 
 In re LoBD db Tablet. Lbighton v. Lbighton 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 162 (16) 
 
 In re Montagu, 
 This case was 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 685 at p. 691. 
 affirmed [1897] 2 Oh. 8. 
 
 Sale. 
 
 — Apportionment of proceeds of sale — Sale. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — Ap- 
 portionment. 
 
 — Attempted sale, Costs of. 
 
 See Settled Land — Costs. 51. 
 
 — Conversion — Eeal estate — Partition Action — 
 
 Sale — " Persons absolutely entitled." 
 See Partition. 3. 
 
 110. — Conversion — Real estate — Postponement 
 of sale — Interim rents — Enjoyment in specie — 
 Tenant for life and remainderman — Settlement by 
 way of trust for sale — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 <fc 46 Vict. c. 38), ». 63. 
 
 Where by a will or settlement property Is 
 directed to be sold and converted and the pro- 
 ceeds held in trust for one for life and then for 
 others, and, either in exercise of a power of post- 
 ponement or without any impropriety, the sale is 
 postponed, the person entitled to the life interest 
 in the proceeds is, as regards real estate, entitled 
 to the rents and profits thereof until sale, and is 
 consequently to be deemed to be the tenant for 
 
( 1885 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1886 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Sale)— confinMed. 
 
 life thereof within s. 63 of the Settled Land Act, 
 
 1882. 
 
 Yates V. Taies, (1860) 28 Beav. 637, con- 
 sidered. In re Seaele. Sbable v. Bakeb 
 
 Kekewich J. [1900] 2 Ch. 829 
 ■ — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — Costs. 
 
 111. — Discliarge of incumbrances — Sale of 
 settled land^SeUled Land Act, 1882(45 & 46 Vict. 
 •c. 38), s. 21, svb-s. it.; s. 22, sith-ss. 2, 5; s. 53. 
 
 A testator devised two estates, W. and S., to 
 ihis son J. for life, remainder to such of J.'s chil- 
 dren as should attain twenty-one, and his 
 residuary estate to J. absolutely. W. was subject 
 ■to a mortgage in fee. S. was unincumbered. J. 
 sold part of S. under the Settled Land Act, and 
 the money was applied in part-payment of the 
 mortgage on W. J. died leaving only infant 
 ■children. The contingent remainders failed as to 
 S., but not as to W. The heir-at-law claimed to 
 have a charge on W. for the money applied in 
 reducing the mortgage :■ — 
 
 Seld, by North J., that J.'s heir could not 
 complain of the application of money applied by 
 the direction of J., who ultimately became abso- 
 lutely entitled to it : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., that there was only one settle- 
 ment and one settled estate, and that the applica- 
 tion of the money was within the powers of the 
 Act of 1882. In re Kkeme. Fkeme v. Logan 
 <No. 2) - - C, A. [1894] 1 Ch. 1 
 
 112. — Discretion of Court to allow sale — Teii- 
 ■ants on estate — Mansion-house — Tenant for life in, 
 ■enibarrassed circumstances — Appeal — Remainder- 
 men opposing sale — Discretion of Court — Settled 
 Land Acts, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 3, 15, 50, 
 51, 53; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 10, sub-s. 2. 
 
 An estate including an old family mansion- 
 house became vested under a settlement in a 
 tenant for life, who was a young man in em- 
 barrassed circumstances, and too poor to reside on 
 it. He contracted under the Settled Land Acts 
 -to sell it for a good price to a wealthy purchaser. 
 A petition under s. 10 of the Act of 1890 for leave 
 ■*o sell the mansion-house was opposed by the 
 remaindermen, who wished the mansion-house 
 •jind demesne lands to remain in the family : — 
 
 Beld, that the paramount object of the Settled 
 Land Acts was the well-being of settled land, 
 •and that the Court must have regard to the 
 interests of the persona from whose industrial 
 occupation the rents and profits were derived as 
 well as the interests of those entitled under the 
 :flettlement, and that to refuse the sanction of the 
 Court to the petition would be to defeat the 
 -object of the Legislature. 
 
 Decision of 0. A. In re Marquis of Ailesbury's 
 Settled Estates, [1892] 1 Ch. 506, afSrmed. 
 ■Sub nom. Beuce v. Mabquis of Ailesbukt 
 
 No. 1 H. I. (E.) [1892] A. C. 366 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. In re Mundy and 
 Eoper's Contract, [1899] 1 Ch. 275, 288. 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Bishop of Bath 
 ■and Wells, [1899] 2 Ch. 138, 146. 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. Att.-Gen. v. Coulson, 
 C1899] 2 Q. B. 253, 263. 
 
 113. — Consent of assignee for value — Doubtful 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Saleiy—continned. 
 
 title— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45*46 Vict.c. 38), 
 
 s. SI, sub-s. 3 ; 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 69), s. 4. 
 
 Where by a post-nuptial settlement the vendor 
 had charged his life interest with an annuity in 
 favour of his wife : — 
 
 Seld, that without the wife's consent the title 
 was too doubtful to be forced upon the purchaser. 
 In re MakqciS of Ailesbtjry's Settled Estates 
 (No. 2) Stirling J. [1893] W. N. 140 
 
 114. — Exclusion of statutory power of sale — 
 "Express declaration" — Trust for sale — Settled 
 Estates Act, 1877 (40 <fc 41 Vict. c. 18), s. 38. 
 
 A testator expressed his will to be that a trust 
 for sale created by him should not be exercised 
 so far as it related to his mineral lands during 
 the lives of certain persons : — 
 
 Seld, that this direction was such " an express 
 declaration " of intention within s. 38 of the 
 Settled Estates Act, 1877, as to prevent the Court 
 from exercising its statutory powers. In re 
 Peake's Settled Estates (No. 1) 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 430 
 
 Further heard by North J., [1894] 3 Ch. 520. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Newen, 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 297. 
 
 115. — Fetter on power of sale — Settled Land 
 Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 51. 
 
 A testator settled real estate. His widow 
 died in 1869, having bequeathed personal estate 
 to be held on trust for the person entitled to the 
 enjoyment of the settled real estate, with a pro- 
 viso that in ease of sale of the real estate, either 
 during the life of a person then in being, or 
 within twenty-one years from her death, her 
 trust property should go over : — 
 
 Seld, that in case of sale of the real estate 
 under the Settled Land Acts the gift over was 
 ineffectual. In re Smith. Geose-Smith v. 
 Bbidgbk - North J. [1899] W. N. 12 (13) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 331 
 
 116. — Frioolous proceedings to prevent sale — 
 Jurisdiction to dismiss before hearing — Settled 
 Land ^c<, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 15, 53. 
 
 Where a sale by the tenant for life had 
 been sanctioned by the H. L. the Court dis- 
 missed a subsequent action to restrain the sale on 
 the ground of fraud, as an abuse of the process of 
 the Court, there being no reasonable ground for 
 such action. BbucB v. Marquis of Ailesbuey 
 (No. 2) - Stirling J. [1892] W. N. 149 
 
 — Heirlooms. 
 
 See Heielooms. 
 
 — Infant — Trust to accumulate. 
 
 See Settled Land — Infants. 56. 
 
 117. — Married woman — Bestraint on antici- 
 pation — Win — Settlement — Fee simple — Separate 
 use — Tenant [ by the curtesy — Tenant for life — 
 Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 <fc 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 2, 
 suJ)-s. 1; 8. 58, suJi-s. 1 (viii.) ; s. 61, sub-s. 6 — 
 Settled Land Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 18), s. 8 
 — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 A 45 Vict. c. 41), 
 s. 39. 
 
 Under a will certain real estate waa vested in 
 trustees in trust for A. for life, and on her death 
 in trust for her children equally as tenants in 
 common ; the shares of daughters to be for their 
 
( 1887 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 1888 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Sale) — continued. 
 separate use without power of anticipation. On 
 a sale of the real estate upon A.'s death, two of 
 the vendors who were married women claimed to 
 convey as tenants for life within the meaning of 
 the Settled Land Act, ]cS82. The purchaser 
 contended that they must convey as absolute 
 owners and obtain an order under s. 39 of the 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 : — 
 
 Held, in an action for specific performance, 
 that the husbands, if tliey eurvived, taking an 
 estate by the curtesy by virtue of the general law 
 and not under the will, and the estate given to 
 the married women being one and entire with no 
 limitation to the husbands, the effect of the 
 restraint on anticipation was not to bring the 
 case within s. 2 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, 
 as creating a settlement whereby the estate was 
 limited to persons by way of succession; and, 
 therefore, that the married women were not 
 tenants for life within the meaning of the Act. 
 Bates v. Kbstbetos - - - Chitty J. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 1S9 
 
 — Minerals, Sale of lands apart from — Service on 
 
 remainderman. 
 
 See Trustee — Practice, 89. 
 
 — Mortgages — Tenant for life — Person having 
 
 powers of tenant for life — Tenant for 
 life subject to term for securing incum- 
 brances — - Possession — Title-deeds — 
 Custody — Sale — Application of capital 
 moneys — Discharge of incumbrances. 
 See Settled Land — Capital Honey. 37. 
 
 119. — No tenan tfor life — Option — Application 
 of purchase-money — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), 8. 33. 
 
 Although there was no tenant for life, within 
 the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1882, to 
 exercise the option given by s. 33, the Court 
 directed payment of purchase-money of land, 
 sold under the Settled Estates Act, 1877, to be 
 applied as capital money arising under the 
 Settled Land Act, 1882. In re Tessetman's 
 Settled Estate North J. [1897] W. N. 168 (11) 
 
 120. — " Option" — Payment of money into court 
 — Tenant for life — Sale hy — Trustees for the pur- 
 poses of the Act — Vendor and purchaser — Settled 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. c. 38), s. 22. 
 
 Sect. 22 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, which 
 confers on a tenant for life the option of capital 
 money arising under the Act being paid either 
 to the trustees of the settlement or into court, 
 presupposes that there are trustees for the pur- 
 poses of the Act in existence. 
 
 Therefore, where a vendor selling as tenant 
 for life enters into a contract for the sale of 
 settled land, he cannot, under s. 22, require the 
 purchaser to pay the purchase-money into court 
 where no trustees for the purposes of the Act are 
 in existence when the time comes for the com- 
 pletion of the contract, and the contract will not 
 be enforced. 
 
 Where, however, a purchaser pays his pur- 
 chase-money into court in ignorance of the fact 
 that there are no ti'ustees in existence, he will 
 get a good title. In re Fisher and Grazebrook's 
 Contract - - Eomer J. [1898] 2 Ch, 660 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Sale)— continued. 
 
 121. — Restraint of sale of land, Settlement of 
 personalty in — Validity. 
 
 A testator, after settling real estate, gave the 
 trustees a sum of money with directions to spend 
 the income in keeping up a sea wall and orna- 
 mental grounds for the benefit of the settlei 
 realty. The will, however, provided that if any 
 of the realty were sold, the settled personalty 
 should sink into the residue : — 
 
 Held, that this provision against alienation, 
 was void under s. 51 of the Settled Land Act, 
 1882, and that the tenant for life who had soli 
 the real estate was still entitled to the income of 
 the personal estate. Jn re Ames. Ames v. Ames- 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 47» 
 
 122. — Trust for sale. 
 
 Leave given under s. 7 of the Act of 1884 tO' 
 tenants for life to sell land held in trust for sale, 
 where there were no interests prior to th& 
 interests of the tenants for life of the income. 
 In re Harding's Estate 
 
 North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 6& 
 
 — Trust to pay or permit tenant for life to- 
 
 receive rents and profits. 
 
 See Will— Charge of Debts, &c. 33. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Settled Land — Trustees. 
 
 123. — Undivided share in land — Power to sell 
 — Tenant for life — Vendor and purchaser — Settled) 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. «. 38), g. 2, 
 sub-ss. 6-10 ; s. 19. 
 
 Where under a will land is devised in moieties 
 and each moiety is separately settled by the wiir 
 itself the tenant for liJFe of one imdivided moiety 
 can sell his moiety under the powers of the 
 Settled Land Act, 1882, without the concurrence 
 of the person or persons entitled to or haying the 
 power or right of disposition over the othei 
 undivided moiety. 
 
 In re Collinge's SetOed Estates, (1887) 36 
 Ch. D. 516, overruled. 
 
 Appeal from Eomer J. dismissed. Cooper v. 
 Belsey - - C. A. [1899] "W. N. 20 (12) ;. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 639 
 
 " Settlement." 
 
 124. — "Act of Parliament"— •' Settlement" 
 — Will — -Next ofJtin — Executor of deceased next of 
 Mn— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 <t 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 s. 2, s«5-ss. 1,5; s. 58, sub-s. I. cl. r. — Thellusson 
 Act (39 * 40 Geo. 3, c. 98), s. 1. 
 
 The words "Act of Parliament" in the 
 definition clause, h. 2, sub-s. 1, of the Settled 
 Land Act, 1882, are not confined to private Acta 
 of Parliament, but include general Acts, such as 
 the Thellusson Act. 
 
 So where under a will a direction to accumu- 
 late was void under the Thellusson Act, and 
 the accumulations went to the testator's next of 
 kin : — 
 
 Held, that the will and the Act together 
 constituted a settlement within the meaning of 
 the Settled Land Act, 1882. 
 
 The executrixes of a deceased next of kin 
 and the surviving next of kin were under ther 
 joint operation of the will and the Thellussoa 
 
( 1889 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1890 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (" Ssttlement "^—continued. 
 Act eatitleJ for the life of another to receive the 
 rents directed to be accumulated : — 
 
 Held, that they had jointly the powers of a 
 tenant for life -within the meaning of the Settled 
 Land Act, 1882. Vine v. Ealeigh 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 1 Ch. 37 
 
 — Compound settlement—- Appointment of trus- 
 tees. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land — 
 Trustees. 
 
 125. — Compound " settlement " — Bestraint on 
 anticipation — Conveyance — Parties — Jointures — 
 Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. v. 38), ss. 2, 
 3, 20, 21, 22, 31, 44. 
 
 Where land was settled by a series of instru- 
 ments, the tenant for life under the latest settle- 
 ment contracted to sell discharged from prior 
 incumbrances, including jointure rent-charges, 
 one of which the jointress was restrained from 
 anticipating : — 
 
 Held, that he could, the various instruments 
 constituting a " settlement" within s. 2, sub-s. 1, 
 of the Act of 1882 : 
 
 Held, also, that the purchaser could not 
 require the concurrence in the conveyance either 
 of the jointress or of the trustees of the terms 
 securing the jointure. The Court directed pay- 
 ment of the purchase-money to trustees of the 
 compound settlement, who were to be appointed 
 for the purposes of the Act, and directed release 
 of the restraint on anticipation to enable the 
 jointress to consent to the payment of incum- 
 brances over which her jointure had priority. 
 The rent-charges were to be paid out of the 
 income of the purchase-money. In re Makqcis 
 
 OF AlLESBUEY AND LoED IVEAGH 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 3 Ch. 345 
 Observed upon by Stirling J. In re Earl of 
 
 Stamford, [1896] 1 Ch. 288. 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Du Cane 
 
 and Nettlefold's Contract, [1898] 2 Ch. 96. 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re Mundy and Roper's 
 
 Contract, [1899] 1 Ch. 275. 
 
 126. — Ecclesiastical land — " Settlemertt " — 
 " Succession " — Land granted by bisliop to grantee 
 for life, hut during his tenure of an ecclesiastical 
 office— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict, 
 c. 38), 8. 2, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Some houses in a cathedral city had from time 
 immemorial been granted by the bishop of the 
 diocese for the time being to one of the ecclesias- 
 tical dignitaries, for his life. The deed of grant 
 was called a " collation," and the grantee was 
 " inducted " by the registrar of the diocese into 
 possession of the property. 
 
 By the last deed of collation the bishop 
 granted the houses to the then archdeacon of the 
 city for his life, but so long only as he should 
 continue to be archdeacon. On the deed was 
 indorsed a certificate signed by the registrar that 
 five days after the date of the deed the grantee 
 was duly inducted by him into the actual corporal 
 possession of the property. Upon a summons by 
 the archdeacon, with the approval of the bishop, 
 asking that trustees might be appointed for the 
 purposes of the Settled Land Act of the settle- 
 ment created by the deed, the object being that 
 
 SETTLED LAND (" Settlement")— continued. 
 the archdeacon, as tenant for life, or having the 
 powers of a tenant for life under the Act, might 
 sell the houses, and that the proceeds of sale 
 might be invested in the names of trustees, and 
 the income thereof paid to the persons who 
 would have been from time to time entitled to 
 the rents of the houses if unsold : — 
 
 Held, that this being ecclesiastical property, 
 the Settled Land Act did not apply to it. 
 
 The application was accordingly refused. 
 
 Observations of Stirling J. in Ex parte Vicar 
 of Castle Sytham, [1895] 1 Ch. 348, approved 
 and adopted. In re Bishop of Bath and 
 Wells - - North J. [1899] W. N. 91 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 138 
 
 127. — Tenant for life — Title — Vendor and 
 purchaser — Limitation of various interests to same 
 person by way of succession — Person entitled to 
 income — "Settlement" — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 88), s. 2, sub-s. 1 ; s. 58, sub-ss. 1 
 (ix.) 2. 
 
 Keal estate stood limited to trustees upon 
 trust for a married woman for her life for her 
 separate use without power of anticipation, and 
 after her death to such uses as she should by 
 will appoint, and in default to the use of herself 
 in fee ; and she contracted to sell the property to 
 a purchaser. The Court was not satisfied that 
 these limitations created a " settlement " within 
 s. 2 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, but held, that 
 the married woman had the powers of a tenant 
 for life within s. 58, sub-s. 1 (ix.), of the same 
 Act, and could make a title as such to the pur- 
 chaser. In re PocooK and Pbankeed's Cojt- 
 TEAOT - Stirling J. [1896] 1 Ch. 302 
 
 Title-deeds. 
 
 — Custody of — Vendor and Purchaser. 
 
 See Cases under Vendor and Pdechasbr. 
 —Title-deeds. 
 
 — Delivery of — Right to possession. 
 
 See Settled Land— Possession. 95 — 
 97. 
 
 Trustees. 
 
 128. — Appointment of trustees — Undivided 
 moiety— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. 
 c. 38), s. 38. 
 
 Where the Court is satisfied that a sale is 
 impossible, the Court is not bound to appoint 
 trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land 
 Acts. 
 
 Where W., the tenant for life of an undividecE 
 moiety of settled lands, desired to sell the tame, 
 the Court, although of opinion that a sale was^ 
 not probable, appointed trustees, and ordered the 
 costs of the application to be charged on the 
 settled land subject to existing mortgages. 
 Williams v. Jenkins (No. 2) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N, 176 
 
 129. — Colonial trustees. Appointment of — 
 Infant beneficiary — Sale of settled land — Form of 
 order— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 * 46 Viet. c. 38), 
 s. 2, svh-ss. 1,8; ss. 38, 59, 60 — Rules under the 
 Settled Land Ad,, 1882, Appendix, Form xix. 
 
 Where an infant domiciled in Australia was 
 
 3 P 
 
( 1891 ) 
 
 DiaSST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1892 ) 
 
 SETTLED LA.MD (Trustees)— conirawed. 
 entitled under a ■will to a small share of real 
 property in this country which the co-owners 
 proposed to sell, and in order to effectuate the 
 sale of the infant's interest it was necessary to 
 npply to the Court for the appointment of trustees 
 under the Settled Land Act, 1882, the Court, 
 upon proof that the sale was for the benefit of 
 the infant, appointed two persons domiciled in 
 Australia trustees of the settlement effected by 
 the will for the purposes of the Act. 
 
 The form of order in In re Wright's Trusts, 
 r(1883) 24 Oh. D. 662, followed. In re Simpson. 
 In re Whitohdkoh C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 256 
 
 130. — Compound settlement — Appointment of 
 trustees for purposes of Settled Land Aet — Settled 
 Land Acts, 1882 (45 * 46 Vict. o-. 38), s. 2, 
 sub-s. 1; s. 50, sub-s. 3; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. 
 u. 69), s. 4, auh-s. 1. 
 
 A testator by his will, made in 1828, gave his 
 real estate to his granddaughter for her life, 
 with remainder to her first and other sons 
 successively in tail male. And he empowered 
 lier, either before or after her marriage with any 
 husband, by deed or will to appoint to such 
 liusband for his life, to take effect immediately 
 after her decease, a yearly rent-charge not 
 exceeding 600?., to be charged on the devised 
 property, with power to limit a term for securing 
 the same. And also by deed or will to charge 
 the property with portions for the younger 
 ■children of the granddaughter to the extent of 
 10,000?., with power fo limit a term for the 
 raising and securing of the portions. After the 
 <Ieath of the testator the granddauefhter married 
 three times. 
 
 In 1866, the entail created by the will was 
 barred, and the property was resettled to such 
 uses as the third husband, the wife, and her son 
 by her first husband should appoint, and in 
 ■default of appointment to the uses of the tes- 
 tator's will. By a settlement made in 1871, on 
 the marriage of the daughter of the grand- 
 daughter by her second husband, the third 
 husband and his wife demised part of the settled 
 property to trustees for 100 years from the date 
 of the daughter's marriage (if her mother should 
 so long live) upon trust to raise out of the iucome 
 two annual sums, to be held respectively on the 
 trusts of a settlement of even date. 
 
 In 1894, the Court appointed two trustees for 
 the purposes of the Settled Land Act of the will 
 of the testator and the resettlement of 1866. 
 
 The granddaughter and her third husband, 
 as tenants for life, desired to sell part of the 
 settled estates. The married daughter was still 
 living : — 
 
 Held, that the wUl of the original testator, the 
 three settlements made by the granddaughter, 
 the deed of resettlemtnt and the settlement made 
 on the marriage of the daughter, together con- 
 stituted the settlement of the estates, and that, 
 in order that the tenants for life might be able 
 to exercise the powers conferred by the Settled 
 Laud Act, trustees for the purposes of the Act 
 must be appointed of that compound settlement. 
 
 The trustees appointed in 1894 were accord- 
 ingly so appointed. 
 
 In re Meade's Settled Estates, [1897] 1 I. E. 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Tmsties)— continued. 
 
 121, approved and followed. In re Tibbits' 
 
 Settled Estates - North J. [1897] 2 Ch. 149 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Kech and 
 Barfs Gmtract, [1898] 1 Ch. 617; In re Du Cane 
 and NettUfold's Contract, [1898] 2 Ch. 96. 
 
 131. — Compound settlement — Sale hy tenant 
 for life — Instrument affecting interests created hy 
 original settlement — Appointment of trustees of 
 compound settlement — Settled Land Act, 1882 
 (45 & 46 Viet. c. 38), ss. 2, 3, 20, 22, 38, 45, 50— 
 Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 & 34 Vict. c. 69), s. i. 
 
 As a general rule it is not necessary, when- 
 ever a deed has been executed affecting the 
 interests created by an original settlement, so 
 that that settlement is no longer the only instru- 
 ment " under or by virtue of which the land 
 stands limited for the time being to or in trust 
 for persons by way of succession," to appoint 
 trustees of a compound settlement constituted 
 by the original settlement and the subsequent 
 deed. Sect. 4 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, is 
 not to be read as providing that an assignment 
 made by a tenant for life of settled land, in con- 
 sideration of marriage or by way of famUy 
 arrangement, is to be deemed one of the instru- 
 ments creating the settlement for all the purposes 
 of the Act. It is limited to the purpose of exclud- 
 ing the operation of s. 50 of the Settled Land Act, 
 1882, altogether. Upon a sale, therefore, under 
 the powers of the Settled Land Acts, by a tenant 
 for life who has made such an assignment, it is 
 not necessary to appoint trustees of the settle- 
 ment constituted by the original deed and the 
 instrument effecting the assignment ; but the 
 trustees of the original settlement, having powers 
 of sale, or appointed for the purposes of the 
 Settled Land Acts, are competent to receive and 
 give receipts for the purchase-money. 
 
 In re Tibbits' Settled J?s<ates, [1897] 2 Ch. 149; 
 In re Meade's Settled Estates, [1897] 1 I. E. 121; 
 and In re Marquis of Ailesbury and Lord Iveagh, 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 345, distinguished. In re Du Cane 
 
 AND NeTTLEFOLD's CONTRACT 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 96 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Mundy and 
 Roper's Contract, [1899] 1 Ch. 275, 296. 
 
 132, — Compound settlement — Settlement — 
 Creation of jointure and portions charges — SesettU- 
 ment — Limitation of new life estate witliout in 
 terms restoring former life estate — Title — Settled 
 Land Act, 1882 (45 ife 46 Vict. c. 38), 8. 2, sub-s. 1 ; 
 «. 20, sub-ss. 1, 2 ; s. 50 ; «. 58, sub-s. 1 (tu.). 
 
 By a deed dated in 1861, lands were settled 
 to the use of A. for life with remainder to his 
 first and other sons successively in tail male. In 
 exercise of a power reserved to him by this deed, 
 A., upon his marriage in 1865, by deed charged 
 the lands with a jointure rent-charge for his 
 wife, and with portions for his younger children, 
 both charges being secured by terms of years in 
 the usual way. In 1889, in order to carry out a 
 family arrangement, A. and B. (his eldest son) 
 by deed No. 1 disentailed the lands, and by deed 
 No. 2, in exercise of a power contained in deed 
 No. 1, appcanted them to the use of A. for life 
 with remainders over, without, however, in terms 
 expressing that this life estate was limited to A. 
 
( 1893 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1894 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (TiViStees}— continued. 
 
 in restoration or continuation of Iiis former life 
 
 estate : — 
 
 Seld, that deed No. 2 of 1889 should not 
 under the oircumstanoes be treated as the only 
 settlement of the property, but should be treated 
 as constituting, together with the previous deeds 
 of 1861, 1865, and 1889, a "settlement" within 
 the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1882, ss. 2 
 and 20 ; and held accordingly that it was com- 
 petent for A. to sell and ma^e a good title to the 
 lands discharged from the jointure nnd portions, 
 upon trustees of the settlement being appointed 
 to receive the purchase-money. 
 
 The words in sub-s. 1 of s. 2 of the Act of 
 1882, " stands for the time being limited to or in 
 trust for any persons by way of succession," have 
 no technical force, and, according to their natural 
 meaning, include the case of a jointure and 
 portions for younger children limited to arise on 
 or after the death of a tenant for life and the 
 terms of years limited to trustees to secure them. 
 
 There may be at the same time a more com- 
 prehensive settlement consisting of several deeds, 
 and a less comprehensive settlement constituted 
 by one only of the deeds. The decision of 
 Stirling J. on this poiat in In re Bu Cane and 
 Netllefold'e Contract, [1898] 2 Ch. 96, approved. 
 
 The effect of s. 50 of the Act of 1882 is that 
 the statutory power of sale given to a tenant for 
 life by the Act of 1882 is not annexed to his 
 estate as in ordinary conveyancing, but is vested 
 in him once for all by the Act, is incapable of 
 being assigned or released, and continues exer- 
 cisable by him notwithstanding assignment by 
 him of his estate; so that, although the life 
 estate of A. must be treated as a new life estate 
 arising under the resettlement, the statutory 
 power of sale vested in A. before the resettlement 
 was not affected by it. 
 
 Per V. Williams L.J. : Where an estate in 
 fee simple is settled in the ordinary way with 
 the usual limitations and powers, it is doubtful 
 whether the terms to secure jointure or portions, 
 or the interests thereby secured, are limitations 
 by way of succession within the meaning of s. 2 
 of the Settled Land Act of 1882, for such terms 
 are mere charges overriding the successive limi- 
 tations which exhaust the fee and come into 
 operation contemporaneously with them. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J., [1898] W. N. 49 (12), 
 
 reversed. Decision of Stirling J. in In re Marquii 
 
 of AUesbury and Lord Iveagh, [1893] 2 Oh. 345, 
 
 approved. In re Mundt and Roper's Oontbact 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 8 (8) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 275 
 
 133, — Compound settlement - 
 created by mil— Jointure deeds executed by succes- 
 sive tenants for life under powers conferred by the 
 uill — Sale by tenant for life under Settled Land 
 Acts — Appointment of trustees of compound settle- 
 ment consisting of will and jointure deeds — Settled 
 Land Acts, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), ss. 2, 20 ; 
 1890 (53 & 54 Viet. c. 69), s. 4. , 
 
 By a will real estate was devised to A. for 
 life with remainder to his first and other sons 
 Bucoet sively in tail male, with like remainders to 
 B. and C. and then over. A. and 0. were dead, 
 and B. was tenant for life in possession. A., B. 
 and 0. had all executed jointure deeds under a 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Trustees) — continued. 
 power conferred by the settlement ; that executed 
 by A. was in operation and constituted an exist- 
 ing charge on the settled property. Trustees of 
 the will had been appointed for the purposes of 
 the Settled Land Acts. B. having contracted, 
 under the powers conferred upon him by those 
 Acts, to sell a portion of the estate, the purchaser 
 insisted that trustees should be appointed of the 
 compound settlement created by the will and the 
 several jointure deeds : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the jointures were not charges 
 upon the estate of the tenant for life within the 
 meaning of s. 4 of the Settled Land Act, 1890 ; 
 (2) that the will by itself constituted a settlement 
 within the meaning of s. 2 of the Settled Land 
 Act, 1882 ; (3) that uuder s. 20 of the same Act 
 B. could convey the land discharged from the 
 jointures, they being " estates, interests, or 
 charges subsisting under the settlement " within 
 that section; and consequently that B. could 
 make a good title to the property, and the trustees 
 of the will could give a good discharge for the 
 purchase-money. 
 
 In re Tibbits' Settled Estates, [1897] 2 Oh. 149, 
 and In re Meade's Settled Estates, [1897] 1 I. E. 
 121, distinguished. In re Keck and Hart's 
 Contract - Stirling J. [1898] 1 Ch. 617 
 
 Followed by Stbling J. In re Bu Cane and 
 NettUfold's Contract, [1898] 2 Ch. 96, 108. 
 
 134. — Female trustees — Statutory power of 
 sale. 
 
 In a case where two ladies were trustees of 
 settled land — 
 
 (a) The Court refused at first to authorize 
 them to exercise the statutory powers of sale. 
 In re Peake's Settled Estates (No. 1) 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 430 
 See next Case. 
 
 (b) When no other persons could be found 
 willing to become trustees, the Court authorized 
 them to exercise the statutory power of sale, 
 "subject to the approval of the Court in each 
 case," but such power was not given to " or other 
 the trustees for the time being." In re Peake's 
 Settled Estates (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 620 
 Considered by Kekewioh J. In re Newen, 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 297. 
 
 135. — Mansion-liouse — Trust to allow A. to 
 occupy a mansion-house and land so long as she 
 might wish to do so — Tenant for life— Trustees 
 for purposes of Settled Land Act — Trustees of term 
 with power to raise money by mortgage or other- 
 wise—Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 «. 2, sub-ss. 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 (i.); s. 38, sub-s. 1; 
 I. 58, sub-s. 1 (ot.)- 
 
 By a settlement a mansion-house and lands 
 were (subject to a rent-charge) vested in trustees 
 for a term of 1000 years, upon trust in the first 
 place to allow the pit. to occupy the mansion- 
 house and certain specified lands, rent free, for 
 so long as she might wish to continue to do so^ 
 And upon further trust, by mortgage thereof, or 
 by or out of the rents and profits thereof, or by 
 any other reasonable ways or means, to raise 
 some specified sums of money, and, subject to 
 the term, to the use of one of the defts. in fee : — 
 
 3 P 2 
 
( 1895 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1896 ) 
 
 SETTLED LAND (Trustees)— continued. 
 
 Held, on the authority of In re Eastman') 
 Settled Estates, [1898] W. N. 170 (15), that the 
 pit. was tenant for life, within the meaning 
 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, of the mansion- 
 house and lands which she was to be allowed to 
 occupy, and could in respect of them exercise 
 the powers conferred by the Act upon a tenant 
 for life : 
 
 Seld, also, that the trustees of the term were 
 not trustees for the purposes of the Act, but that 
 trustees for those purposes must be appointed. 
 In re Oaeke's Settled Estates 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 3 (7) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 136. — Seceipts, Poioer to give — Settled Land 
 Act, 1882 (45 (t- 46 Vict. a. 38), ss. 38, 40. 
 
 Trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land 
 Acts can, under s. 40 of the Act of 1882, give a 
 good receipt for purchase-money of land sold in 
 a partition action. Pine v. Phillips 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N, 8 
 
 137. — Separate settlements — Order of Court — 
 Construction — Settled Land Act, 1882(45 & 46 
 Vict. c. 38) s. 2, sub-ss. 1, 8 ; s. 38. 
 
 An order dated June 2, 1897, was made on an 
 originating summons headed " In the Matter of 
 the Freehold Estates situate in the County of 
 London, settled by the will of M. D. Skerritt, 
 deceased, dated Sept. 18, 1895, and in the 
 Matter of the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890," 
 appointing two persons "trustees of the settle- 
 ment created by the said will so far as relates to 
 the above-mentioned estates for the purposes of 
 the above-mentioned Acts. 
 
 Doubts were raised whether the above order 
 appointed the two trustees named as separate 
 trustees of the three several settlements created 
 by the will ; and this summons, with sepaiate 
 titles for each settlement, was taken out for the 
 purpose of having separate trustees for the 
 purposes of the Settled Land Acts appointed of 
 the three several settlements. The judge in 
 chambers dismissed the summons. A motion 
 was now made to vary the order made in 
 chambers by appointing separate trustees. 
 
 Held, that the effect of the order of Juno, 
 
 1897, was to appoint the trustees named separate 
 
 trustees of the several settlement?, and the 
 
 motion was refused. In re Skebmtt's Estate. 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 240 
 
 138. — Trustees for purposes of the Act. 
 
 (a) The Court, if satisfied that a sale is 
 impossible, is not bound to appoint trustees for 
 the purposes of these Acts. Williamb v. 
 Jenkins (No. 2) Kekewich J. [1894] W, N. 176 
 (e) Trustees of will not appointed. There 
 is no rule of practice that the trustees of a will 
 ought to be appointed by the Court trustees 
 for the purposes of these Acts ; the tenant for 
 life may propose other persons if he thinks fit. 
 In re Nicholas and Settled Land Act, 1882 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1894] W. N. 165 
 — Trustees for purposes of Act — Payment of 
 money into court — " Option." 
 See Settled Land. 120. 
 
 Waste. 
 Sei: Ctises under Waste, 
 
 SETTLEMENT. 
 
 In General, col. 1896. 
 
 Bankruptci/. See Bankruptcy — Volun^ 
 
 tary Settlement. 
 Charges, col. 1897. 
 Construction, col. 1898. 
 Costs, col. 1900. 
 Covenants (to Settle), col. 1901. 
 Divorce. See Divorce — Settlement. 
 Equity to Settlement, col. 1903. 
 Estate Duty. See Ebvenue — Estate 
 
 Duty. 
 Forfeiture, col. 1904. 
 Heirlooms. See Heirlooms. 
 Hotchpot, col. 1905. 
 Infants. See Infant — Settlement. 
 Jointures, col. 1906. 
 Power of Appointment. See PowEB. 
 Eectljication, col. 1907. 
 Berocation, col. 1907. 
 Stamp Duty. See Revenue — Stamps. 
 Validity, col. 1908. 
 Voluntary Settlement, col. 1908. 
 
 In Creneral. 
 
 — Appointees — Statutes of Limitations. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 34. 
 
 — Bill of sale — Agreement for marriage settle- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 37. 
 
 — By grantor having no title — Possessory title — 
 
 Rights of remaindermen. 
 See Estoppel. 10. 
 
 — Compound settlement. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 1. — Distribution, Period of — Marriage settle- 
 ment — Uliimale trust in default of cliildren of the 
 marriage "for all and every the child and children 
 or grandchild " of A. living at the death of tlie 
 survivor of the husband and wife — Cliildren 
 and grandchildren of A. living at the period of 
 distribution. 
 
 A trust in a marriage settlement of certain 
 stocks and securities for the benefit of the husband 
 and wife and the children of the marriage,' and 
 in default of children (which event happened) 
 then, upon the death of the survivor of the 
 husband and wife, " for all and ev^y the child 
 and children or grandchild of A." living at the 
 death of the survivor of the husband and wife. 
 
 Tlie husband survived the wife, and died in 
 Jan. 1900. A. had thirteen children, of whom 
 eight survived the husband and five died in his 
 lifetime, four unmarried, and one leaving an only 
 child:— 
 
 Held, that "or" was not to be re ad "and," 
 
 and, there being children of A. living at the 
 
 period of distribution, no grandchild took a share. 
 
 In re Colby. Gibson v. Gibson 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 272 ; see [1801] 1 Ch. 40 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 — Foreigner, marriage with. 
 
 See Conflict of Laws. 6. 
 
( 1897 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 1930. 
 
 ( ISOS ) 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Generally)— continued. 
 
 — Intestacy — Eeference to — " Next of kin in 
 
 blood." 
 
 See DisTuiBUTiONS, Statute of. 
 
 — Investment — Power of trustees to vary. 
 
 See Tbustee — Investments. 67, 70. 
 
 — Jersey, Laws of — Deed of settlement by wife's 
 
 father — Rights of bnsband and wife in 
 settled estate — Claim of husband's heir. 
 See Jeksey. 3. 
 
 — Loan to husband — Bond by husband to trustees 
 
 Interest on — Statute of Limitations. 
 See HnsEAND and Wiee. 27. 
 • — Post-nuptial settlement — Consideration. 
 See Fbaudulekt Conveyakcb. 1. 
 
 — Power of appointment. 
 
 See Cases under Power. 
 
 — Scottish settlements. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Husband and Wife. 
 
 — Settled land. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Shares — Lapse — Construction of will. 
 
 See Will— Lapse. 117. 
 
 — Stamp duty — " Settlement." 
 
 See Kevenub — Stamps. 181. 
 
 — Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Unregistered ante-nuptial — Mortgage bonds — 
 
 Priority. 
 
 See Ceylon. 6. 
 
 — Voluntary gift — Mistake — Equitable right of 
 
 donor to recover. 
 
 See VoLUNTAKY Gift. 2. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Void settlements and voluntary settlements. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy — Volun- 
 tary Settlement. 
 
 Charges. 
 
 2. — Jointure and portions — Effect of charges 
 •upon devised estate. 
 
 A., one of several successive tenants for life 
 under a settlement, had power to charge jointures 
 and portions to a specified amount. On his 
 marriage in 1867 he exercised this power. B., 
 the first tenant for life, by his will dated 1877 
 devised certain realty, and bequeathed his resi- 
 duary personalty on the trusts of the settlement, 
 Ijut not so as to increase or multiply any charges 
 or powers of charging. In 1886 A. became tenant 
 for life, and in 1892 he and his eldest son dis- 
 entailed the estate : — 
 
 Held, on the construction of B.'s will, that the 
 property passing thereunder was not subject to 
 -the charges created by A. in 1867, and that the 
 trustees were bound to transfer the residuary 
 personalty to A. and his son ; and that a release 
 of the power ought to be executed. In re 
 Berners. Beenebs v. Calvert - North J. 
 
 [1892] W. N. 171 
 
 3. — Trust for payment of debts — " Family 
 ■arrangement " — Unnamed creditors — Agency — 
 Revocable trust — Death of settlor — Liability of 
 
 ■estate. 
 
 By a deed of " family arrangement " executed 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Chargss) — continued. 
 in 1867 on the resettlement of an estate by father 
 and son, tlie estate was limited to the use of the 
 father for life, with remainder to the use of 
 trustees, upon trust, with the consent of the 
 father and son during their joint lives, or of the 
 survivor during his life, and after the death of 
 the survivor at the discretion of the trustees, to 
 sell the same and apply the proceeds, and also 
 the rents and profits until sale, in payment, in 
 such order and in such manner as the trustees 
 should, with Ihe concurrence of the father during 
 his lifetime, determine, of all debts owing by the 
 father; and subject thereto to hold any unsold 
 hereditaments to the uses of an indenture of 
 even date under which the father and son were 
 successive tenants for life with remainder to an 
 infiint son of the son in tail. The father's 
 creditors were neither parties to nor named in the 
 deed, nor was it ever communicated to them. 
 After the father's death the trustees sold part of 
 the settled estate with the consent of the son, and 
 applied the proceeds in payment of all the father's 
 debts, except one due to a sister, of which the 
 trustees were unaware. In 1889 the trustees, 
 ■with the concurrence of the son, who was his 
 father's legal personal representative, conveyed 
 the unsold hereditaments to the uses of the second 
 indenture of 1867. The sou died in 1890. In 
 1896 the executors of the sister, who had died, 
 having become aware of the deeds of 1867 and 
 1889, brought an action seeking to charge the 
 hereditaments in the possession of the infant 
 tenant in tail with the debt due to the sister's 
 estate : — 
 
 Held, that the case fell within the principle of 
 Synnot v. Simpson, (1854) 5 H. L. C. 121, and 
 not within that of Garrard v. Lord Lauderdale, 
 (1831) 2 Buss. & My. 451, and that the infant 
 tenant in tail took the estate subject to the 
 liability for the debt. Priestley v. Ellis 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 489 
 
 Construction. 
 
 4. — Contract in consideration of marriage — 
 Promise to leave house to wife for life — Promiser 
 parting with house— Eight of action — Declaration 
 of right — Power to decree conveyance after death 
 of promiser. 
 
 A., as inducement to B. to marry him, 
 promised in writing to leave a house to her for 
 life. B. consented and married A. A. conveyed 
 the house by deed to a third party : — 
 
 Held, that as A. had put it out of his power 
 to perform the contract, an immediate right of 
 action accrued to B., and that the measure of 
 damages was the value of the possible life estate 
 to which B. would be entitled if she survived 
 A.:— 
 
 Held, also, that where a proposal in writing 
 to leave a definite piece of real property by will 
 made to induce a marriage is accepted, and the 
 marriage takes place, the Court has power to 
 decree a conveyance thereof after the death of 
 the promiser against all volunteers claiming 
 under him. Synge v. Syngb 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 466 
 
 5. — "Eldest son" — Portions — Mortgage by 
 
( )SU9 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1900 ) 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Construction) — continued, 
 tenant for life and eldest son — Anticipation of 
 interest. 
 
 The question in this case was which of two 
 sons, G. or 0., was to be considered as an " eldest 
 son," and as such excluded from a share in 
 a portions fund under a marriage settlement. G., 
 the elder by birth, having in concurrence with 
 the tenant for life, whom he predeceased, raised 
 a sum by mortgage ; or C, who ultimately suc- 
 ceeded to the estates : — 
 
 Held, that G. had, in virtue of his ownership, 
 anticipated the whole of his rights under the 
 settlement, and had his portion of the estute, and 
 that the clause of exclusion applied to him and 
 his personal refresentatlves, and not to C. In re 
 Fitzgeeald's Settled Estates. Saunders v. 
 BoTD CMtty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 394 
 
 6. — Equitable estate in fee — Limitations — AV 
 words of inheritance — Construction. 
 
 Where under a settlement the equity of 
 redemption in certain freeholds was granted to 
 trustees, after certain life estates " then as to and 
 concerning the hereditaments and the rents 
 and profits thereof," in trust for such child or 
 children of the settlor as being the son or sons 
 shall attain the age of twenty-one years, &c. : — 
 
 Held, that the children took a life interest 
 only. An equitable limitation, by way of trust 
 executed, now has the same construction as a 
 legal limitation. Meyler v. Meyler, 11 L. E. Ir. 
 622, approved. In re Whiston's Settlement. 
 LovATT V. WiLLLiMSON CMtty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 661 
 
 — Expectancy — Cestui que trust dead — Failure 
 of gift — Eesulting trust. 
 See Teust. 4. 
 
 7. — Illegitimate child en ventre sa mere. 
 
 A. and B., who weie within the prohibited 
 degrees, went through the ctremony of marriage ; 
 a settlement was afterwards made providing fur 
 the children of B. by A. A month afterwards a 
 child was bom of B. by A. : — 
 
 Held, that the child took no benefit. Though 
 an illegitimate child en ventre ta mere can be 
 provided for by apt words, there was not sufficient 
 in this settlement to indicate any provision for 
 the child otherwise than as a member of a class 
 for vAnm provision could not be made, and an 
 unborn illegitimate child cannot have the reputa- 
 tion of being the lawful child of any particular 
 person. In re Shaw. Robinson v. Shaw 
 
 North J. [1894] 2 Ch. 573 
 
 8. — "Income" — Construction of settlement. 
 The Court came to the same conclusion as the 
 
 learned judge below as to the construction of the 
 deed in question. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1S99] W. N. 241, 
 affirmed. Lady Bateman v. Fabee 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 157 
 
 9. — Insufficient security — Money recovered 
 from solicitor, 
 
 A. on her marriage settled a sum secured on 
 mortgage; the deed contained no covenant to 
 settle after-acquired property. The security 
 turned out to be iusufBcient, and in an action 
 against the solicitor for negligence, &c., A. 
 recovered damages : — 
 
 Held, that the damages belonged to A. abso- 
 
 SETTLEMEHT (Construction) — continued. 
 lutely and were not bound by the settlement. 
 In re Macleod. Mills v. Maoleod 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N, 97 
 
 10. — Ultimate trust for next of kin — Die 
 " without having been married " — Child. 
 
 An ultimate trust in a marriage settlement 
 for the benefit of the person who would be ent tied 
 if the wife had died iutestate, and " without 
 having been married," does not exclude issue of 
 the wife. Stoddaet v. Saville 
 
 CMtty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 Followed by Eomer J. In re Forbes, [1899) 
 "W. :N'. 6 (4). 
 
 11. — Ultimate trust for next ofMn — Words 
 as if she had died " a spinster and intestate " — 
 Child of former marriage — Wife's property. 
 
 By a settlement made on the second marriage 
 of a lady who had one child by her first marriage, 
 the trust fund was assigned to trustees upon 
 trust to pay the income thereof to the w ife for 
 life, then to her husband for life, and upon the 
 death of the survivor upon trust to hold the fund 
 for the children of the said intended marriage, 
 and in default of children, and in the event of 
 the husband being the survivor (which happened) 
 in trust for such persons and purposes as the wife 
 should by will or codicil appoint, and in default 
 of such appointment, in trust for such person or 
 persons as under the Statutes for the Distribution 
 of the Estates of Intestates would at the time of 
 the wife's decease have been entitled thereto if 
 she had then died possessed thereof " a spinster 
 and intestate." The settlement contained no- 
 reference to the child of the first marriage. The 
 wife died without having had any child by her 
 second marriage, and without having appointed 
 the fund, but leaving her chUd by her first 
 marriage surviving : — 
 
 Held, following Stoddart v. Saville, [1894] 1 
 Ch. 480 ; In re Ball's Trust, (1879) 11 Ch. D. 270 ; 
 Upton V. Brmon, (1879) 12 Ch. D. 872; and In re 
 Arden's Settlement, W. N. (1890) p. 204, that the 
 child of the first marriage was entitled, as sole 
 next of kin of her mother, to the trust fund. 
 In re Foebes. Eeeington v. Sempell 
 
 Eomer J. [1899] W. N. 6 (4) 
 
 Costs. 
 
 12. — Setting aside settlement. Action for — 
 Costs — Settlor's oum property — Incovne — Life 
 interest — Bankruptcy, Trust determinable on — 
 Creditors — Void limitations — Parties — Trustees — 
 Beneficiaries — Unnecessary or improper parties. 
 
 The trustees of a settlement who are defeud- 
 ants to an action successfully brought against 
 them to set aside the settlement are entitled, if 
 they have acted propeily in the discharge of their 
 duties as trustees and not put the plaintiff to 
 unnecessary expense, ti, retain their costs of the 
 action, as between solicitor and client, out of 
 the trust fund before handing it over under the 
 judgment. 
 
 An action having been brought by a settlor's 
 tiustee in bankruptcy against the trustees of the 
 settlement of the settlor's own property to set 
 aside limitations cutting down his life interest in 
 the event of his bankruptcy, the beneficiaries 
 
( 1901 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1902 ) 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Costs.)— continued. 
 taking under the limitations over were subse- 
 quently added by the pit. as defts. at the 
 suggestion of the defts. the trustees, and at 
 the trial appeared to defend separately from 
 their eo-defts. the trustees. The action being 
 successful, the trustees were allowed to retain 
 their costs as between solicitor and client out of 
 income In their hands, but the benefioiaiies, 
 having chosen to defend, although they had been 
 unnecessarily, but not improperly, made parties, 
 were not allowed anv costs. Mebkt v. Pownall 
 Kekewioh J. [1898] 1 Ch. 306 
 
 Covenant (to Settle.) 
 
 13. — Accumulation — Covenant to settle wife's 
 other and after-acquired property — Income — 
 Accumul-ations — Investment hy wife of accumula- 
 tions — Marriage settlement. 
 
 If income not originally included in a cove- 
 nantiu a marriage settlement to settle other and 
 after-acquired property is invested by the wife 
 duiing the coverture, the investments so made do 
 not become subject to the covenant. 
 
 Leiois V. Madocks, (1803) 8 Ves. 150, (1810) 
 
 17 Ves. 48 ; 7 R. E. 10, considered. Inre Bendy, 
 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 109, discussed and not followed. 
 
 FniLAY V. Daklinq - Eomer J. [1897] 1 Ch. 719, 
 
 and Addendum to the Volume. 
 
 14. — Accumulations — Covenant to settle wife's 
 property — Purchase hy wife during coverture. 
 
 If income not originally included in a covenant 
 in a marriage settlement to settle other and after- 
 acquired property is so invested as to indicate a 
 permanent intention on the part of the owner to 
 turn it into capital, sucli investment becomes 
 subject to the covenant, provided the terms are 
 sufficiently large to include it as capital. The 
 same result follows in Ihe case of a sale of capital 
 property not originally included in the covenant, 
 where the proceeds are laid out in the purchase 
 of other property coming within the terms of the 
 covenant. 
 
 A wife during coverture purchased property 
 partly out of the proceeds of property subject to a 
 covenant to settle, partly out of accumulations of 
 her income under the settlement, and partly out 
 of a loan subsequently repaid by herself and her 
 husband : — 
 
 Beld, that the property so purchased belonged 
 to her absolutely, but subject to a charge in favour 
 of the settlement trustees for the amount (a) of 
 the income accumulations, (6) of her contribution 
 towards repaying the loan, /m re Bendy. Wallis 
 V. Bendy - Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 109 
 
 Not followed by Eomer J. Finlay v. Darling, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 719. See preceding Case. 
 
 15. — After-acquired property — Covenant by 
 husband that he " and all other necessary parties " 
 would assure. 
 
 By a settlement, the intended husband 
 covenanted with the trustees "that if at any 
 time after the solemnization of the said intended 
 marriage and during his life the said Alice 
 Eobson or the said E. A. de Mancha in her 
 right shall become seised or possessed of or 
 entitled to any real or personal property for any 
 estate or interest whatsoever in possession, rever- 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Covenant (to Settle))— co»W. 
 sion, remainder or expectancy, then and in every 
 such case the said E. A. de Mancha and all 
 other necessary parties shall at the cost of the 
 fund so to be dealt with, as soon as circumstances 
 will admit and to the satisfaction of the trustees, 
 convey, assign, or assure the said real or personal 
 property to, or otherwise cause the same to be 
 vested in, the said trustees upon the trusts" 
 thereinafter declared. 
 
 Byrne J. held that the property in question 
 was not bound by the covenant, and that the 
 case was not distinguishable from an uureporl;ed 
 case decided by liimself on Dec. 8, 1899, of In re 
 Cray, Palcenham v. Maclean, the only distinc- 
 tion between the two cases being that in that 
 case there were recitals relating to the matter, 
 but there he had held that the addition of the 
 words "and all other necessary parties" did rot 
 render the covenant so ambiguous as to permit 
 recitals to be referred to for tlie purpose of assist- 
 ing the construction, and that the words "all 
 other necessary parties " do not import the same 
 meaning, so far as regarded the wife being 
 bound, as they bear in those cases where the 
 wife is specifically named, and that the intro- 
 duction of those words only meant that all other 
 persons over whom the husband may be expected, 
 to have a right to call on would join. He con- 
 sidered that In re Gray would not be differen- 
 tiated from Mamsden v. Smith, (1854) 2 Drew. 
 298, and Dawes v. Tredwell, (1881) 18 Ch. D. 354, 
 and that the reasoning in those cases applied tO' 
 the present one, but lie would observe that there 
 was a clear distinction between the effect of a 
 covenant drawn as in the present case and where 
 it was in the form that the property shall be 
 settled. In re Smith. Robson v. Tjdt 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 75 
 — After-acquired property — Infant, Settlement 
 
 by. 
 
 See Infant — Settlement. 42. 
 
 16. — After-acquired property — Life interest 
 subject io forfeiture on alienation — Property- 
 included. 
 
 By an ante-nuptial agreement, followed by a 
 covenant in a post-nuptial settlement, C. agreed 
 to settle all after-acquired property coming to 
 him under his mother's will . "Under the trusts 
 of the settlement the wife was to have the first 
 life interest in the settled funds. O.'s mother 
 under a power appointed to him a life interest 
 determinable on alienation in a certain fund: — 
 
 Seld, that the ante-nuptial agreement did 
 not extend to this life Jnterest, and that there 
 had therefore been no forfeiture. In re Crawshay. 
 Walkbb v. Obawshay North J. [1891] 3 Ch, 176 
 
 17. — After acquired property — Severance of 
 joint tenancy. 
 
 M. and her intended husband covenanted to 
 settle after-acquired property. P. executed a 
 voluntary settlement with an ultimate trust in 
 favour of his next of kin, of whom M. was one : — 
 
 Held, that on the death of P. the joint interest 
 of M. was severed by the operation of the covenant 
 to settle after-acquired property. In re Hewett. 
 Hewett v. Hallett North J, [1894] 1 Ch. 362 
 
 18. — After-acquired property — Supplying 
 
( 1903 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1904 ) 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Covenant (to Settle) )—contd. 
 words " during coverture " — Ambiguity — EecitaU 
 — " During lier life." 
 
 By iin ante-nuptial settlement a wife cove- 
 nanted to bring after-acquired property devolving 
 on her "during lier life" into the settlement. 
 After . the husband's death property devolved on 
 her ns next of kiu of an intestate : — 
 
 Held, that in the absence of words shewing 
 that a more extended operation was intended, the 
 covenant operated, only during coverture, and 
 that this construction was assisted by a recital 
 that the parties agreed to covenant as to any 
 personal property which should accrue during 
 the joint lives of the husband and wife, which 
 recital might be referred to in order to explain 
 the ambiguity. In re Cogblan. Bbocghton v. 
 Beocqhton - Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 76 
 
 19. — After-acquired property — Two ante- 
 nuptial settlements upon different trusts —Evidence 
 — Revocation. 
 
 Two ante-nuptial settlements were executed, 
 each containing a covenant to settle after-acquired 
 property of the intended wife, but upon difi'erent 
 trusts. In the absence of evidence of reasons for 
 making the second settlement, the Court, with- 
 out deciding whether the first settlement in point 
 of time could have been superseded as to after- 
 acquired property, refused to hold that the first 
 settlement was superseded by the second. In re 
 -GuNDRT. Mills t;. Mills 
 
 North J. [1898] 2 Ch. 604 
 
 Sivoroe. 
 
 See DiTOKOE — Settlements (Variation 
 of). 
 
 Equity to Settlement. 
 
 20. — Amount to he settled — Two funds — 
 -Assignment — Conduct of wife — Aclinowledgment 
 hy wife — Married Woman's Property Act, 1857 
 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 57). 
 
 Husband and wife assigned two reversionary 
 interests to a purchaser, and received the pur- 
 chase-money. The deed was acknowledged by 
 the wife under 20 & 21 Vict. o. 57, but was 
 inoperative to bind her, as the reversionary in- 
 terests were derived under wills made before 
 December 31, 1857. The interests both fell in 
 simultaneously during the life of both husband 
 and wife. One fund was received and expended 
 by them. The wife claimed that the second 
 reversionary interest should be settled on her 
 and her children : — 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that as the husband 
 had received half the wife's fortune, and the 
 amount, 500^, was small, the whole must be 
 settled : 
 
 Held, by C. A., that although the assignment 
 was nugatory, the Court should take into con- 
 sideration the conduct of the wife. On appeal, 
 the order was varied by consent, and only half 
 the amount settled. Eobebts v. Cooper 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 336 
 
 21. — Banltruptcy of husband — Settlement of 
 whole fund — Form, of— Ultimate limitation to 
 wife. 
 
 A woman who married in 1863 was entitled 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Equity to Settlement)— contd. 
 to a reversion. In 18C9 her husband became 
 bankrupt, and a sum remained due to his credi- 
 tors; he obtained his discharge in 1871, and 
 was engaged in business. The reversion fell in 
 in 1894. No settlement was made on the 
 marriage : — 
 
 Held, that the whole fund ought to be settled, 
 
 and that it should in default of children be 
 
 limited to the wife absolutely, and not to the 
 
 husband. In re Howabd. Howabd v. Howaed 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 4 
 
 Estate Duty. 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 Forfeiture. 
 
 — Alienation, Trust over on — Eetrospective 
 operation — Past alienation. 
 See MuBTGAGB. 49. 
 
 22. — Barikruptcy, Acoidance on — Post-nuptial 
 settlement — Separate property of wife settled — 
 Cesser of husband's interest on bankruptcy. 
 
 In order to constitute a "purchaser in good 
 faith" within s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, 
 it is sufficient if there be good faith on the part 
 of the purchaser; it is not necessary that both 
 parties should act in good faith. A wife (married 
 in 1883) after marriage allowed her separate 
 property to pass into her husband's hands, but 
 not as a gift nor as a loan for the purposes of his 
 trade. He, having applied part of the property 
 to his own use, settled the residue, together with 
 property of his own, upon trusts under which he 
 took a life interest, with a proviso for cesser in 
 the event of his bankruptcy; the wife had no 
 notice of any fraudulent intention on his part : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the settlement was not void 
 under s. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 ; (2) 
 that to the extent of the wife's property received 
 by the husband the proviso for the cesser of his 
 life interest was good ; and (3) that a. 3 of the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882, did not 
 apply. Mackintosh v. Pogose 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] 1 Ch. 605 
 
 23. — Bankruptcy, Gift over on — Validity of 
 clause — Bankruptcy of settlor — Trust to pay d^ts 
 — Bevocable mandate. 
 
 Under a settlement real estate was limited to 
 such uses and on such trusts as A. and B. should 
 jointly appoint, with a life estate to B. in 
 default of appointment. The trust funds were 
 appointed, inter alia, as to part to pay certain 
 of B.'s debts and as to another part to himself 
 for life with a gift over on alienation. B. became 
 bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, (1) that this was not a settlement by a 
 bankrupt of his own property, and therefore the 
 discretionary trust over was valid, and the trustee 
 in bankruptcy was not entitled to the life estate ; 
 (2) that the trust to pay debts was a revocable 
 trust, which must be considered as revoked by 
 the bankruptoj', and therefore the trustee was 
 entitled to such funds as were in the hands 'of 
 the settlement trustees for that purpose. 
 
 Semhlt; that if the trustees under their dis- 
 cretionary power paid B. more than enough for 
 his necessary maintenance he could be made to 
 
( 1905 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 190G ) 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Forfeiture)— comfmuetJ. 
 account for the access to bis trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy. In re Ashby. Ex parte Wrefoed 
 
 V. Williams J. [1892] 1 ft. B. 873 
 
 24. — Sankruptcy or death. Trust for husband 
 till — Limitation over on death of husband — Impli- 
 cation — Interim income. 
 
 On a marriage funds belonging to the wife 
 ■were settred upon trust to pay income to wife for 
 her life, and after her death to husband till 
 bankruptcy or alienation, and after the death of 
 the survivor in trust for the children. The 
 husband became a liquidating debtor, and after- 
 wards the wife died : — 
 
 Held, that the children were entitled to the 
 income from the death of the wife, as the inten- 
 tion was that the fund should go over immediately 
 on the determination of the previous interests. 
 
 In re Tredwell, [1891] 2 Oh. 6i0, distin- 
 guished. Jm re Akeroyd's Settlement. Roberts 
 V. Akebotd - - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 363 
 
 — Covenant to settle after-acquired property — 
 Property included. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement — Covenant 
 to Settle. 
 
 25. — Settlor's own property. Settlement of — 
 Forfeiture clause — Determinable life interest — 
 Forfeiture — Breach of trust — Bankruptcy — " Cease 
 to be payable." 
 
 By a settlement of 1878, property of the 
 settlor was assigned by him to trustees upon 
 trust to pay the income to him until his death or 
 bankruptcy, or until he should " assign charge or 
 incumber the said income or do or suffer any- 
 thing whereby the same or some part thereof 
 would through his act or default become payable 
 to or vested in some other person or persons" 
 with remainder in favour of the children of the 
 marriage. In 1887 the settlor induced the sur- 
 viving trustee to lend him the greater part of the 
 trust fund, and the money thus obtained was 
 spent by him for his own purposes. In 1891 the 
 settlor became bankrupt. Proceedings were siib- 
 sequently taken on behalf of the children of the 
 marriage with the result that the funds lost by 
 the breach of trust were replaced, and the ques- 
 tion now raised was, whether the settlor's interest 
 had been forfeited prior to the bankruptcy by 
 the dissipation of the trust fund : — 
 
 Held, that the settlor's interest had not been 
 determined prior to the bankruptcy; and that, 
 as the limitation until bankruptcy was void as 
 against his creditors, his life interest passed to 
 the trustee in bankruptcy, and that the income 
 of the trust fund was now payable to a purchaser 
 from the trustee during the life of the settlor. 
 
 Seirible: Had the settlement contained a limi- 
 tation over if the income should " cease to be 
 payable" to the settlor, the dissipation of the 
 trust fund would have worked a forfeiture. In re 
 Brewer's Settlement. Morton v. Blaokmoke 
 Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 503 
 
 Heirlooms, 
 See Cases under Heirlooms. 
 
 Hotchpot. 
 
 26. — Two funds — Beferential trusts. 
 
 A marriage settlement dealt with two funds: 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Hotchpot) — continued. 
 13,000^. Consols belonging to the wife, and a policy 
 for 5000Z. on the life of the husband. The capital 
 of the wife's fund was to go to such children of 
 the marriage as the husband and wife by deed, 
 or the survivor by deed or will, should appoint, 
 and in default of appointment to the children 
 equally, iubject to a hotchpot clause in the form 
 usually adopted in the case of one fund : the 
 5000Z. policy moneys were to go to such children 
 of the marriage as the wife should by deed or 
 will appoint, and in default of appointment 
 " upon the same or the like trusts," and subject 
 to "the same or the like ".powers and provisoes 
 as were expressed in the said settlement concern- 
 ing the wife's fund after the death of the husband 
 and wife and in default of appointment. The 
 whole of the 13,0002. had been appointed un- 
 equally among the three children of the marriage, 
 the 5000Z. was unappointed and the question 
 now raised was ^whether the two sums were to 
 be aggregated for the purposes of hotchpot, or 
 whether the 5000Z. was divisible into three equal 
 shares : — 
 
 Meld, that the two funds were distinct, and 
 that the three children were entitled to the 5000Z. 
 in equal shares, without having to accoimt for 
 or bring into hotchpot any sums appointed to 
 them out of the 13,0002. In re Marquis of 
 Bristol. Earl Grey v. Grey 
 
 Bomer J. [1897] 1 Ch. 946 
 
 27. — Valuation of life interest brought into 
 hotchpot. 
 
 Funds were settled in trust for the children of 
 the settlor as he sliovQd appoint, and in default 
 of appointment equally, with a hotchpot clause. 
 The settlor by his will appointed to two daughters 
 in moieties for life with remainders over ultimately 
 held to be void. On a summons to determine 
 whether, the interests of the daughters ought to 
 be immediately valued and brought into hotch- 
 pot : — 
 
 Seld, (1) that the life interests must be 
 brought into hotchpot and valued ; (2) the value 
 must be calculated, not by reference to the dura- 
 tion of the interests, but by an actuarial valua- 
 tion of them at the time when they first took 
 effect — i.e., at the death of the settlor. In re 
 Heathootb. Trench v. Heathoote 
 
 Kekewich J. [1891] W. N. 10 
 
 Infant. 
 See Infant — Settlement. 
 
 Jointures. 
 — Effect of charges upon devised estates— Join- 
 ture and portions. 
 See Settlement — Charges. 
 
 28, — Power of jointuring — Power to appoint 
 " to any woman whom he may marry " — Appoint- 
 ment of jointure on first marriage — Dissolution of 
 first marriage onpetition of wife — Second marriage 
 ^-Appointment ^jointure on second marriage. 
 
 In this case it was held that, by the terms of 
 the settlement, the eighth Duke was entitled to 
 exercise his powers of jointuring as often as he 
 should marry, and that there were no words 
 negativing his right to appoint on a second legal 
 
( 1907 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1908 ) 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Jomtxaes)— continued. 
 marriage although the first wife was living. 
 
 DOWAGEE DUCBBSS OF MaELBOBOUGH V. DuKE OF 
 
 Maelboeough - Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 88 ; 
 affirmed by C. A. [1900] W. N. 270 
 
 Power of Appointment. 
 
 See Oases under Powbe. 
 
 Eectification. 
 
 29. — Evidence — Intention — Voluntary settle- 
 ment. 
 
 The Court is reluctant to try actions for recti- 
 ficatioD of deeJs except on oral eyidence, except 
 under special circumstances as when final written 
 instructions are proved from which the deed 
 departs. The Court has jurisdiction, in a proper 
 case, to rectify a voluntary settlement as well as 
 one for value, but will hesitate to do so on the 
 unsupported evidence of the settlor as to his 
 intention, although the rectification would make 
 the deed more in harmony with precedents and 
 with what the settlor might reasonably have 
 intended. Bonhote v. Hendeeson 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 742 ; 
 
 This case vas affirmed on the evidence by C. A, 
 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 202 
 
 30. — Mistake — Non-execution of a power — 
 Death of donee — Parol evidence ■ — ■ Statute of 
 Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4. 
 
 In an action to rectify a settlement after the 
 death of the husband, on the ground that it did 
 not exercise a certain power of appointment in 
 favour of the wife, in accordance with the arrange- 
 ment alleged to have been entered into prior to 
 the marriage, the defts. pleaded the 4th section 
 of the Statute of Frauds; they also contended 
 that relief could not be given against a non- 
 execution, as distinct from an imperfect execu- 
 tion, of a power, and particularly after the death 
 of the donee thereof : — 
 
 Seld, that parol eyidence was admissible in 
 an action to rectify a mistake in a settlement, 
 notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, an action 
 of that kind not being one seeking " to charge 
 any person upon any agreement made upon con- 
 sideration of marriage" within the meaning of 
 s. 4 ; that relief could be given, and that rectifi- 
 cation in the present case did not amount to 
 aiding the non-execution or defective execution 
 of a power; when once the settlement wus made 
 to accord with what the Court found to have 
 been the real bargain and intention of the parties 
 to it, no further deed or relief was necessary. 
 Johnson v. Beagge - - Cozens-Hardy J. 
 [1900] W. N. 250; Reported [1901] 1 Ch. 28 
 
 Bevocation. 
 
 — After-acquired property — Two ante-nuptial 
 
 settlements upon different trusts — Evi- 
 dence. 
 See Settlement — Covenant. 19. 
 
 — "Voluntary settlement — Fiduciary relationsljip 
 
 — Power of revocation — Duty of solicitor 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Settlement— Voluntary Settlement, 
 31. 
 
 SETTL^TO.'ETSfT— continued. 
 Validity. 
 
 31. — Illegal consideration — Marriage with 
 sister of deceased wife. 
 
 On April 30, 1873, a widower executed a 
 deed, by which, in contemplation of a marriage 
 which " had been agreed upon and was intended 
 shortly to be solemnized" between himself and 
 C. P., he conveyed real estate to trustees in fee, 
 to the use of himself and his assigns during his 
 life, with remainder to the use of 0. P. during 
 her life, " provided she shall remain a widow and 
 unmarried ; and from and immediately after her 
 decease or marriage, whichever event shall first 
 happen," to such uses as the settlor should by 
 deed or will appoint, and, in default of appoint- 
 ment, to the use of such person or persons as 
 would be entitled thereto if the deed had not 
 been executed. C. P. was in fact a sister of the 
 settlor's deceased wife, though this was not 
 stated in the deed. On March 5, 1877, he went 
 through the ceremony of marriage with her, and 
 she afterwards lived with him as his wife. He 
 died in Nov., 1891, intestate. He had not exer- 
 cised the power of appointment by deed reserved 
 to him by the settlement. During the life of his 
 son and heir-at-law C. P. received the rents of 
 the property without objection on his part : — 
 
 Held, that the trust for C. P. was illegal 
 and invalid, and that the property was held on 
 trust for the son's administratrix, she being, 
 under the Land Transfer Act, 1897 (60 & 61 
 Vict. c. 65), his real representative. 
 
 Ayerst v. Jenkins, (1873) L. K. 16 Eq. 275, 
 distinguished. Phillips v. Peobtn 
 
 North J. [1899] ^W. N, 51 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 811 
 
 Voluntary Settlement. 
 
 — Account stamp duty. 
 
 See Eevence — ^Account Duty, j — 9. 
 
 — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Cases under Bankbuptcy — Volun- 
 tary Settlement. 
 
 32. — Complete or incomplete assignment of 
 debts — Debts got in by settlor — Liability of setUoi-'s 
 estate. 
 
 The settlor assigned certain debts secured on 
 bills of sale (but not the bills of sale or the goods 
 secured) to trustees, with power to sue, and upon 
 trust to sell and convert the trust property, &c., 
 lor the benefit of third parties. Afterwards the 
 settlor received payment of the assigned debts, 
 and died intestate : — 
 
 Seld, that the assignment of the debts was 
 complete, and the trustees were entitled to prove 
 against the estate of the settlor for the moneys 
 received by him. Whether the trustees might 
 have sued tlie intestate at law for the amount 
 received by him, qusere. In re Patkiok. Bills 
 V. Tatham - - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 82 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Griffin, [18991 
 ICh. 408, 411. 
 
 33. — Estoppel — Eecital — Seversionary in- 
 terest — Fower of appointment — Construction of 
 voluntary settlement. 
 
 The pit., born in 1875, was an only child. 
 Her father died in 1S86. She married in Januaiy, 
 
( 1909 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 1910 ) 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Voluntary Settlement)— conid. 
 1892, being then entitled under the settlement 
 made on the marriage of her father and mother, 
 dated April 15, 1874, subject to the exercise by 
 her mother of the power of appointment contained 
 in that settlement in favour of the issue of the 
 marriage, and to her mother's life interest to the 
 property comprised in the settlement. 
 
 By a voluntary settlement dated July 27, 
 1892, after reciting that the property comprised 
 in the settlement of April 15, 1874, was vested in 
 trustees upon trust to pay,tbe income to the plt.'s 
 mother for life, and upon her death upon trust for 
 the pit., her heirs, executors, administrators, and 
 assigns, the pit. conveyed all her reversionary 
 property under the settlement of April 15, 1874, 
 to trustees upon ti'ust for conversion and to pay 
 the income to herself for life, then to her husband 
 for life, and on the death of the survivor, on the 
 usual trusts for the benefit of their issue, with a 
 trust in default of issue in favour of the pit. The 
 settlement contained no covenant to settle after- 
 acquired property, and no power of revocation. 
 
 In August, 1897, the plt.'s mother, in exercise 
 of the power contained in the settlement of 
 April 15, 1874, irrevocably appointed that the 
 trustees of that settlement should stand possessed 
 of the propei'ty therein comprised in trust for the 
 pit., her executors, administrators, and assigns 
 absolutely. There was no issue of the marriage 
 between the pit. and her husband : — 
 
 Seld, that the deed of July 27, 1892, only 
 passed the interest which the pit. had under 
 the deed of April 15, 1874, and did not comprise 
 the interest taken by her under the appointment. 
 
 The recital, though inaccuratp, was true ae 
 far as it went, and worked no estoppel either 
 legal or equitable. 
 
 Equitable estoppel is not applied in favour of 
 a volunteer. 
 
 Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. First National 
 
 Bank of New Orleans, (1873) L. K. 6. H. L. 352, 
 
 discussed. Lovett v. Lovett - Bomer J. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 163 (11) ; [1898] 1 Ch, 82 
 
 34. — Fiduciary relationship — Independent 
 advice — Power of revocation — Duty of solicitor — 
 Goats — Voluntary settlement by young lady only just 
 of age — Rescission — Undue influence. 
 
 Where a young person is minded to make a 
 voluntary settlement in favour of a parent, it is 
 not enough that he should have independent 
 advice unless he acts on that advice: it is the 
 duty of a solicitor independently advising an 
 intending settlor to protect him against himself, 
 and not merely against the personal influence of 
 the donee in the particular transaction; and if 
 his advice is not accepted he should decline to 
 act further for the intending settlor. 
 
 In every voluntary settlement of this kind a, 
 power of revocation should be inserted. 
 
 Voluntary settlement by a young lady just of 
 age set aside with costs against the relation in 
 whose favour -it was made and by whose undue 
 influence it had been executed : trustee, being 
 the solicitor who had drawn the settlement, dis- 
 allowed his costs of the action in which the 
 settlement was set aside. Powell v. Powell 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] 1 Ch. 243 
 
 36. — Illegitimate beneficiaries — Marriage 
 
 SETTLEMENT (Voluntary Settlement) — contd. 
 settlement — Yolunteer — Subsequent conveyance — ■ 
 Appeal from New South Wales. 
 
 A limitation in a marriage settlement in favour 
 of the settlor's illegitimate child maybe defeated, 
 as a limitation in favour of a volunteer, by a 
 subsequent conveyance by the settlor to a pur- 
 chaser for value, unless such a result would 
 defeat other limitations within the marriage 
 consideration. De Mestee v. West 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 264 
 
 Followed by C. A. Att.-Gen. v. Jacobs Smith, 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 341. 
 
 — Mortgage, Voluntary — Settlement by mort- 
 
 gagor after mortgage — Notice — Priority. 
 See MoETSAGE — Priority. 49. 
 
 — Eeotiflcation. 
 
 See Settlement — Eectification. 29, 3> 
 
 ■ Stamp duty. 
 
 See Eevenue- 
 
 -Stamps. 181. 
 
 36. — Time of ascertaining members of class. 
 
 The rule in Andreios v. Partington, 3 Bro. 0. C. 
 401, is not confined to wills, but applies to 
 voluntary settlements (and semible to settlements 
 for value). A fund was settled by a voluntary 
 deed upon such trusts as the settlor should 
 appoint, and in default of appointment for such 
 of the younger children of a third person as 
 should attain the age of twenty-one, or being 
 females should marry : — 
 
 Beld, that when one younger child attained a 
 vested interest in possession the class was closed, 
 and such child was entitled to be then paid a 
 share. In re Knapp's Settlement. Knapp v. 
 Vassall - - North J. [1895] 1 Ch. 91 
 
 — Voluntary gift — Mistake — Equitable right of 
 
 donor to recover. 
 
 See Voldntakt Gift.'3_2. 
 
 SETTLEMENT OF PAUPEBS. 
 
 See Cases under Poor Law. 
 
 SEVEEABILITY— Of statement in admission. 
 See Evidence. 13. 
 
 — Of subject-matter of bill of sale. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 51. 
 
 SEVERABLE COVENANT— Ee.straint of trade. 
 See Eestbaint op Tkade. 19. 
 
 SEVEBANCE— Costs — Administration action- 
 Eight of Appeal. 
 See Costs. 66. 
 
 — Defences— Separate sets of costs — Probate 
 
 action. 
 
 See Phobate. 92. 
 
 — Joint tenancy. 
 
 See Joint Tenancy. 
 
 — Third party procedure — Co-defendants — 
 
 Builder — Costs —Indemnity. 
 See Light and Aib. 
 
 — Trustees — Costs— Allowance of two counsel — 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 See Tecstee — Costs. 45. 
 
 SEVEBED LAND— Level crossing— Easement. 
 See Eailway— Level Crossings. 9. 
 
( 1911 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1912 ) 
 
 iSEWEES. 
 
 In General, col. 1911. 
 
 Cesspools, col. 1916. 
 
 Cleansing, col. 1917. 
 
 Commifsioners of Sewers. See Eatis. 
 
 51—53. 
 Costs, col. 1917. 
 Nuisance, col. 1918. 
 Pollution, col. 1920. 
 Repairs, col. 1920. 
 Surface Sewers, col. 1922. 
 
 In General. 
 
 1. — Definition of " sewer " — Fuhlic Health 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 4, 13. 
 
 A sewer, in the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 means something which carries sewage away, 
 and a set of pipes leading from houses and 
 ending in a cesspit is not a sewer nor a work 
 belonging to a sewer within that Act. Meadek 
 IV. Wist Cowes Local Board 
 
 C, A. [1892] 3 Ch. 18 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Kinson Pottery Co. v. 
 Poole Corporation, [1899] 2 Q. B. 41, 48. 
 
 2. — Duty of local authority to maJte sewers — 
 Bemedy for default — Action for damages — Com- 
 plaint to Local Government Board — Public Health 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 55), ss. 15, 19, 299. 
 
 The duty of a local authority, under s. 15 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, to make such 
 aewers as may be necessary for effectually drain- 
 ing their district for the purposes of the Act, 
 <;an only be enibrced by complaint to the Loc. 
 Gov. Bd. under s. 299 of the Act, and neglect of 
 the duty does not give a right of action to an 
 individual whose property has been injured by 
 ■such neglect. Robinson v. Workington Cor- 
 poration - - C. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 619 
 
 3. — Duty to provide for sewerage — Nuisance 
 — Discharging sewage into sewer of local autho- 
 rity— Public Health Act, 1 875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 .ss. 13, 15, 94, 95, 96. 
 
 P. and others twenty years ago connected their 
 water-closets with a drain belonging to the 
 sanitary authority without its knowledge. A 
 nuisance was caused thereby. No other drain 
 was available for the purpose. The authority 
 had not carried out any system of drainage in its 
 ■district: — 
 
 Held, that as s. 15 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, imposed upon the sanitary authority the 
 obligation to provide the sewers necessary to 
 drain their district, they could not evade that 
 obligation by taking proceedings against P. 
 FoHDOM V. Parsons Div. Cfc. [1894] 2 ft. B. 780 
 
 4. — Factory refuse — Duty of local authm-ity 
 to make sewer — Bemedy for default — Mandamus 
 — Complaint to Local Government Board — Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 15, 299 
 — Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 
 Vict. 0. 75), s. 7. 
 
 The duty of a local authority, under u. 15 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, to make such 
 sewers as may be necessary for effectually drain- 
 ing their district for the purposes of that Act, 
 ■cannot be enforced by an action for mandamus 
 fcrought by a private person : the only remedy 
 
 SEWEES (In General) — continued. 
 
 for neglect of the duty is that given by s. 299 of 
 
 the Act, a complaint to the Loc. Gov. bd. 
 
 Decision of C. A. in Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle 
 Urban District Council, [1897] 1 Q. B. 625, 
 affirmed. Paskobe v. Oswaldtwistle TJbban 
 DiSTBiOT COTOCIL - H. L. (E.) [1898] A, C. 387 
 
 See Eastwood Brothers, Ld. v. Honley District 
 Council, [1900] 1 Ch. 781. This Case was 
 aflBrmed by C. A. [1901] W. N. 38. 
 
 6. — Incomplete sewer — Acceptance — Vesting 
 — Private street — Frontager's liability — Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 13, 15, 
 150. 
 
 Where a local authority had duly accepted a 
 sewer made in a private road, although it had no 
 outfall, and was at the time of acceptance 
 incapable of being used as a sewer : — 
 
 Held, that the road having once been sewered 
 to the satisfacliun of the local authority, the 
 expenses of constructing a new and more efficient 
 sewer were not chargeable on the frontagers. 
 HoRNSET Local Board v. Davis 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 7S6 
 
 6. — Insufficient sewer — Nuisance — lAability 
 — Damage by flooding — Public Health Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 15, 19, 21, 299. 
 
 In consequence of increase of buildings in D. 
 a sewer which had been sufficient became in- 
 sufficient to carry off the water, when storms 
 occurred. The cellars of the S. Co. became 
 flooded in consequence of the insufficiency. The 
 only mode of preventing the flooding was to 
 construct a new drainage system or a new sewer, 
 which would be an expensive and difficult 
 operation, and would require the advice of 
 experts before a scheme could be commenced. 
 After complaints by the S. Co. the corporation of 
 D. consulted experts, but their report had not 
 been received : — 
 
 Held, (] ) that the rights and liabilities of the 
 parties must be ascertained not as between 
 strangers, but under the statutes regulating the 
 tewers ; (2) that the liability imposed by s. 19 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, is limited to oases 
 where the public body has been guilty of negli- 
 gence. Stretton's Derby Brewery Co. v. 
 Derby Corporation Eomer J. [1894] 1 Ch. 431 
 
 — London sewere and drains. 
 
 See Cases under London — Se'wers. 
 
 — Matter of record — Order to execute sewage 
 
 works. 
 
 See Estoppel. 11. 
 
 — Notice by vestry to reconstruct — Covenant to . 
 
 pay all " rates, duties and assessments " 
 
 — Liability of lessee. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 — Notice to abate nuisance — Public Health 
 
 (London) Act — Liability of lesiee. 
 See Ndisanoe. 2. 
 
 7. — Private profit, sewer made for — Eight of 
 adjoining owner to use — Public Health Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. 0. 55), s. 13. 
 
 Y., a landowner, made a sewer in the moiety 
 of a road adjoining his land, which he disposed 
 of in building lots, charging the purchasers for 
 connecting the drainage of their premises with 
 his sewer. C, who had a house on the other 
 
( 1913 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1914 ) 
 
 SEWERS (In General)— conimued. 
 
 side of the road, connected his drain with V.'s 
 
 sewer : — 
 
 Seld, that V. was not entitled to an injunc- 
 tion to restrain C. from connecting with the 
 sewer. Vowles v. Colmbr 
 
 Eomer J. [1895] W. N. 42 
 
 8. — Private sewers — " Satisfaction " of local 
 authority — Frontagers — Notice to make sewer — 
 Service on every frontager — Expenses — Apportion- 
 ment — Charge on, premises — Arbitration — Objec- 
 tions to proceedings of local authority — Award, 
 Finality of —Public Sealth Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. u. 55), ss. 13, 15, 18, 150, 180, 257, 268. 
 
 A private street, or part -thereof, is not 
 " sewered " within s. 150 of the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, when the houses in it are served 
 either singly or in groups by private drains or 
 sewers constructed by the several owners of the 
 houses, but not forming one system of sewering. 
 Accordingly, the local authority may, although 
 these private sewers are vested in them under 
 s. 13, require the frontagers, under b. 150, to 
 sewer the street, unless the local authority have, 
 either expressly or by inference from circum- 
 stances, determined that it is already sewered to 
 their satisfaction within that section ; in which 
 case their powers under that section are no longer 
 exercisable, and auy required new sewers must 
 be provided at their own expense under ss. 15 
 and 18. 
 
 The notice under s. 150 to frontagers to sewer 
 a street must be served upon every frontager. 
 
 If the proportion of sewering expenses pay- 
 able by any frontager under s. 150 is referred to 
 arbitration under s. 180, all objections to the 
 validity of the proceedings of the local authority 
 on the ground of insufficient notice, such as 
 neglecting to serve every frontager, or otherwise, 
 must be raised^if at all, before the arbitrators; 
 and it is too late to raise them by action or other 
 proceeding after the award, which is by sub-s. 15 
 of that section made "fiaal and binding" on 
 the parties. Handswokth Distbiot Council v. 
 Dehrington - Kekewich J. [1897] 2 Ch. 438 
 
 9. — Private sewers — Sewering — Satisfaction 
 of local authority — Frontager — Expenses — Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 i^ict. c. 55), ss. 18, l."0. 
 HANrswoRTH Local Board v. Taylor 
 
 Eomer J. [1897] 2 Ch. 442, u. 
 
 Commented on by Div. Ct. Bishton v. Has- 
 lingden Corporation, [1898] 1 Q. B. 294, 302. 
 
 — Eailway — Diainage of adjoining lands. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Eailway. 
 
 — Eailway — Drainage of adjoining lands — 
 
 Scottish law. 
 
 See Eailway — ^Drainage. 
 
 — Eateability — Underground sewers — Diminu- 
 
 tion of value of surface. 
 
 See Bates — Eateability. 50. 
 
 10. — " Sewer " or " drain " — Drain passing 
 through private ground — Public Sealth Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 4. 
 
 A drain passing through private ground but 
 receiving the drainage of more than one building 
 
 SEWEES (In Qenaial)— continued. 
 
 is a " sewer " within the meaning of s. 4 of the- 
 
 Public Health Act, 1875. Travis v. UtTley 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 23» 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Self v. Bove^ 
 Commrs., [1895] 1 Q. B. 685, 689. 
 
 Approved of by Div. Ct. Bradford v. East- 
 bourne Corporation, [1896] 2 Q. B. 205, 208. 
 
 11. — "Seiver" or "drain" — Railway com- 
 pany^ — Sewer made under local or private Act — 
 Vesting in local authority — Railways Clauses Con- 
 solidation Act, 1845 (8 (fc 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 68 — 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) 
 ss. 4, 13, 327. 
 
 A ry. CO., wliose special Act expressly incor- 
 porated the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act,. 
 1845, constructed land drains for the purpose of 
 conveying surface water from lands adjoining the 
 ry., and these land drains were, without the 
 knowledge or consent of the co., used by a rural 
 sanitary authority to convey sewage from certain 
 houses within the district of such authority : — 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Stirling J.,. 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 31, that these drains were " sewers " 
 withing the meaning of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, but that they were sewers made and used 
 for tlie purpose of draining land under a local 
 or private Act of Parliament within the second 
 exception in s. 13 of that Act, and did not vest 
 in the local authority; and consequently that the 
 CO. were entitled to an injunction to restrain the 
 sanitary authority from so using them. London- 
 AND North Western Ry. Co. and Great 
 Western Ey. Co. I;., Runcorn Rural District 
 Council - - C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 561 
 
 12. — Sewer, or drain — Single drain draining/ 
 several houses — Liability to repair — Fvhlio Health 
 Act, 1875 (38 Ss 39 Vict. o. 55), ss. 4, 13, 41— 
 Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890 (58 & 54r 
 Vict. c. 59), s. 19. 
 
 A drain-pipe passing through private property 
 had, from a date prior to 1890, received the 
 drainage of several houses belonging to different 
 owners before it joined the public sewer. The 
 pipe having become a nuisance, the local autho- 
 rity of the district, who had adopted the Public 
 Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, gave the 
 owners of the said houses notice under s. 41 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, to repair it, and,, 
 on failure of the owners to comply with the 
 notice, executed the necessary work themselves,, 
 and claimed to recover from the owners the 
 expenses incurred by them in so doing : — 
 
 Held, that the pipe in question was a " single 
 private drain " within the meaning of s. 19 of the- 
 fii-st-mentioncd Act, and that the local authority 
 were entitled to recover. 
 
 Self v. Hove Commrs., [1895] 1 Q. B. 685 
 followed. Hill v. Hare, [1895] 1 Q. B. 906^ 
 disapproved. Bradford v. Eastbouene Cor- 
 poration - [1896] 2 Q. B, 205 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. Reg. v. Hastim » 
 Corporation, [1897] 1 Q. B. 46, 48. 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Seal v. Merthvr TvdM 
 Urban Council, [1897] 2 Q. B. 543. 
 
 13. — " Sewer " or " drain "—" Single private 
 
( 1915 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1916 ) 
 
 SEWEES (In General) — continued, 
 drain"— Public Health Acts, 1848 (11 * 12 Vict, 
 c. 63) ; 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 4, 13, 15, 
 41 ; 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 59), s. 19. 
 
 Where adjoining houses were, preyious to 
 1848, drained by a brick construction on A.'s 
 land which conveyed the drainage into an adjoin- 
 ing ditch, in 1853 a public sewer was laid down 
 in place of the ditch, and the brick construction 
 was connected with it: — 
 
 Seld, that the brick construction was not 
 " a single private drain," but had become a sewer 
 vested in the local authority and repairable by 
 them on the passing of the Public Health Act, 
 1848. Hill v. Hair Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 906 
 
 Disapproved by Div. Ct. Bradford v. East- 
 bourne Corporation, [1896] 2 Q. B. 205 ; Seal v. 
 Merthyr Tydfil Urban Council, [1897] 2 Q. B. 543. 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Beg. v. Hastings 
 Corporation, [18971 1 Q. B. 46, 50. 
 
 Substituting new drain — Glasgow Police 
 Acts. 
 See Scottish Law— Sewers. 39. 
 
 14. ■ — Vesting in local authority — " Sewers 
 made by any person for his own profit — Local 
 government — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 55), s. 13, sub-8. 1. 
 
 A drain was made by the owner of a quarry 
 for the purpose of collecting and carrying off sur- 
 face water coming on to his land and preventing 
 it from running over the quarry. By means of 
 the drain the quarry could be more economically 
 and conveniently worked than if the water were 
 allowed to spread over it :^ 
 
 Held, that the drain was a sewer made by a 
 person for his own profit within the meaning of 
 s. 13, sub-s. 1, of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 and did not vest in the local authority of the 
 district. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1899] 1 Q. B. 979, 
 reversed. Oroysdale v. Sunbury-on-Thames Urban 
 Council, [1898] 2 Oh. 515, approved. Stkes v. 
 SOWBEBT Ueban Disteiot Cocncil 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 49; [1900] 1 Q. B. 684 
 
 15. — Vesting in local authority — Sewer made 
 by landowner "for his own profit" — Public Health 
 Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 13, sub-ss. 1, 15, 
 1 6, 17, U4r— Highway Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, 
 c. 50), ss. 67, 68. 
 
 The word "profit" in s. 18, sub-s. 1, of the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, is not to be restricted 
 to a direct money payment. Accordingly a sewer 
 which is not made for ordinary drainage pur- 
 poses, but to enable the land on which it is 
 made to be occupied more profitably, or to avoid 
 an expenditure which would otherwise have to 
 be incurred in order that the occupation might 
 be equally beneficial, is made for the " profit " of 
 the owner within the meaning of the section, and 
 does not vest in the local authority : — 
 
 So held, in the case of a line of pipes laid down 
 by the owner of a field adjoining a highway 
 from a ditch bordering the highway to a disused 
 gravel pit in the field for the purpose of sup- 
 plying water to the cattle fed in the field. 
 
 Minehead Local Board v. Luttrell, [1894] 2 
 Cli. 178, and Ferrand v. Hollas Land and 
 
 SEWEES (In General) — continued. 
 
 Building Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 135, followed and 
 
 applied. 
 
 Bdd, also, that as on the authority of Croft v. 
 Bichmansworth Highway Bowrd, [1888] 39 Ch. D. 
 272, the pit did not form part of the drainage 
 system vested in the local authority, they had no 
 power under a. 67 of the Highway Act, 1835, to 
 discharge surface water from the road into the 
 pit, and were not entitled to enter upon the field 
 in order to keep open the existing drain, or to 
 make any other for the Si^me purpose. Ceotsdale 
 V. Sunbuey-os- Thames Dibteict Oodncil 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 515 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Syhes v. Sowerby 
 Urban Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584. 
 
 16. — Vesting of sewers in local authority — 
 Sewer made for private profit — Drainage of town 
 —Public Health Act, 1875 '(38 & 39 Vict. o. 55), 
 8. 13, sub-s. 1. 
 
 L., who was the owner of nearly all the land 
 in the town of M., constructed at his own expense 
 a system of sewerage for the town, and extended 
 the same as the town increased. He imposed a 
 voluntary sewerage rate on the owners and occu- 
 piers of houses in the town. In 1891 an urban 
 sanitary authority was constituted for the town, 
 which claimed that the sewers vested in them : — 
 
 Held, that L. had laid down the sewers for 
 his own profit within the meaning of s. 13 of the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, and that they did not 
 vest in the sanitary authority. Minehe.4D Local 
 BoAED V. LuTTEELL Bomer J. [1894] 2 Ch. 178 
 
 Considered by C. A. Sykes v. Sowerby Urban 
 Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584, 590. 
 
 17. — Vesting in local authority — Sewer made 
 for private profit — Nuisance — Liability. 
 
 A sower made by a landowner solely to 
 collect the drainage of houses on his land is not 
 a sewer "made for profit" within the meaning of 
 s. 13 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Therefore 
 such a sewer is vested in the local authority, and 
 they and not the landowner are liable for any 
 nuisance caused thereby. Meaning of sewers 
 " made for profit " considered. . Feerand t. 
 Hallas Lakd and Building Co. 
 
 C. A, [1893] 2 Q. B. 135 
 
 Discussed by Eomer J. Minehead Local 
 Board v. Luttrell, [1894] 2 Ch. 178, 181; Vowles 
 V. Colmer, [1895] W. N. 42. 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Bradford v. East- 
 bourne Corporation, [1896] 2 Q. B. 205, 217. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. Oroysdale v. Sunbury- 
 on-Thames Urban Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 515. 
 
 Considered by C. A. Syhes v. Sowerby Urban 
 Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584, 590. 
 
 Cesspools. 
 
 18. — Cesspools in connection with bulldinjs — ■ 
 Bylaws — Local authority — Powers — Bural sani- 
 tary authority — Application of by-law to old 
 buildings— Public Health Acts, 1875 (38 A- 39 
 Vict. c. 55), ». 157; 1890(53 * 54 Vict. c. 59), 
 8.28. 
 
 The power of a rural sanitary authority under 
 s. 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875, aa amended 
 and extended to rural sanitary authorities by 
 
( 1917 ) 
 
 DIGEST^OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1918 ) 
 
 SEWERS (CessTfoolB)— continued, 
 s. 23 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 
 1890, to make by-laws with respect to (inter 
 alia) cesspools in connection with buildings 
 extends to old buildings in existence before the 
 making of the by-law as well as to new buildings. 
 A by-law of a rural sanitary authority pro- 
 viding that " every person who shall construct a 
 cesspool in connection with a building sliall con- 
 struct such cesspool at a distance of fifty feet at 
 least from a dwelling-house " is not unreasonable 
 merely by reason of the fact that in a particular 
 case it is not possible to construct a cesspool at 
 the prescribed distance. Simmons v. Malling 
 
 KUKAL DiSTBICT COUNCIL 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 ft. B. 433 
 
 Cleansing. 
 
 19. — Sewers — Duty of local authority to 
 cleanse sewers — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 55, ss. 15, 19, 299. 
 
 Sect. 299 of the Public Health Act, 1875, in 
 providing for complaint to the Loc. Govt. Bd. 
 where a local authority has made default in the 
 maintenance of existing sewers, does not apply to 
 s. 19 of the Act, which imposes on local authori- 
 ties the duty to cleanse sewers vested in them, 
 and consequently does not affect the right of 
 action of a person who has sustained damage 
 through the negligence of a local authority in 
 not cleansing a sewer vested in them. Baeon v. 
 
 PORTSLADB IJbBAN COUNCIL 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 ft. B. 588 
 
 Commissioners of Sewers. 
 See Bates. 51 — 53. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 20. — Apportionment — Appeal — Charges for 
 sewering, (fee, roads — Public Bealth Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 150, 257, 268. 
 
 Where a local authority include in their 
 " charge " for expenses under s. 150 of the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, legal and other ex- 
 penses and costs of collection, as well as the 
 actual cost of sewering and paving, the only 
 remedy in case of complaint is by appeal to the 
 Loo. Govt. Bd. under s. 268 of the Act. Wal- 
 THAMSTOw Local Boakd v. Staines 
 
 B. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 606 
 
 21. — Apportionment of expenses — Sewering, 
 paving, &c. — streets — Pvhlic Health Acts — Dispute 
 as to apportionment — Arbitration — Award — En- 
 forcing award under Arbitration Act, 1889 — 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 ss. 150, 180— Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict, 
 c. 49), ss. 12, 24. 
 
 An award under s. 150 of the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, as to the proportion of the expenses, 
 incurred by an urban authority in sewering and 
 otherwise making good a street, to be borne by 
 a person to whom notice has been given requiring 
 him to sewer and otherwise make good a portion 
 of the street, cannot be enforced under s. 12 of 
 the Arbitration Act, 1889. In re Willesdbn 
 Local Board and Wbight 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2. ft. B, 412 
 
 SEWEKS (Costs) — continued. 
 — Drainage expenses — Capital or income. 
 See Settled Land. 28. 
 
 22. — Expenses of construction — Payment of 
 debts — General expenses — Liability of contribu- 
 tory place —Elegit. 
 
 The pit. in 1885 recovered judgment with 
 costs against the defts. for fouling a stream. To 
 recover the costs he sued out a writ of elegit. 
 
 (a) The defts. moved to set aside the writ. 
 Motion refused until after the sheriff had made 
 his return, the Court holding that although 
 neither present nor future rates were available 
 for the payment of a past debt, the defts. might 
 have property which would be available for the 
 purpose. Jersey (Eael) v. Uxbbidge Union 
 Rural Sanitabt Authobitt (No. 1) 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. S. 31 
 
 See next Case. 
 
 23. — " Special expenses " — Public Health 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 175, 176, 229- 
 235, 242, 270-275 —PatZic Worhs Loans Acts, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 89), ss. 28, 36 ; 1878 (41 & 42 
 Vict. c. 18), s. 4. 
 
 (b) The sheriff found that the only lands 
 which the deft, possessed were some sewage 
 works which had been bought for a contributory 
 place : — 
 
 Held, that all .proceedings must be stayed, 
 for the sewage works could only be taken for 
 judgment debts exclusively chargeable against 
 the contributory place, and not for " general 
 expenses " of the sanitary district such as the 
 costs iu question. Jebset (Eabl) v. Uxbridge 
 Union Royal Sanitary Authority (No. 2) 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 113 ; [1891] 3 Ch, 183 
 
 24. — Street sewers — New street— Main outfall 
 sewer — Expense of constructing — Building plans 
 — Refusal of local authority to approve — Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 15, 150, 
 157,277. ' ' ; 
 
 An owner of land in a rural sanitary district, 
 who proposed to lay it out as a building estate 
 and to erect on it blocks of houses arranged in 
 streets, deposited with the local authority plans 
 of the proposed buildings, from which it appeared 
 that each of the houses was to be drained with a 
 separate drain ending in the middle of one of 
 the proposed new streets. The local authority 
 refused to approve the plans unless the owner 
 would undertake to construct at his own expense 
 the sewers with which the drains were intended 
 to communicate, and also the necessary main 
 outfall sewer : — 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of Div. Ct., [1896] 
 2 Q. B. 219, that the local authority were not 
 entitled to attach such a condition to their 
 approval. Reg. v. Tynejuouth Rural District 
 Council - - C, A. [1896] 2 ft. B. 451 
 
 Noisauce. 
 
 25. — Discharge of sewage on to private lands 
 — Claim of right for inhabitants of a parish — In- 
 junction — Prescriptive right in third parties to 
 drain into sewers — Power of sanitary autliority to 
 stop existing and future connection with sewers 
 
( 1919 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1920 ) 
 
 SEWEES (Nuisance) — continued. 
 
 —Pvblie Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 
 «8. 21, 299. 
 
 In an action by a landowner against a cor- 
 poration (the urban sanitary authority for the 
 borough of D.) for an injunction to restrain them 
 from discharging or allowing fo be discharged 
 sewage upon his lands from the sewers vested in 
 them so as to cause a nuisance, the ■ defts. set up 
 a prescriptive right based on the presumption of 
 a lost grant by the plt.'s predecessors in title to 
 trustees for the benefit of the inhabitants of the 
 borough to drain all sewage from any tenemeuts 
 built or to be buUt within the borough, and to. 
 discharge the same on the plt.'s lands. This claim 
 of right failed. It was proved, however, that 
 there were a number of houses in the borough 
 in respect of which prescriptive rights had been 
 acquired to pass sewage into and along the sewers, 
 and that there were other houses the connections 
 of which with the sewers had been made with 
 the consent or by the acquiescence of the 
 defts. :— 
 
 Held, that an injunction could not be granted 
 so as to interfere with the prescriptive rights 
 that had been acquired, nor to oblige the defts. 
 to stop up the connections of the other houses 
 which tLey had sanctioned ; but that an injunc- 
 tion must be granted to restrain the defts. from 
 authorizing or directing any sewage to flow or be 
 discharged on to the plt.'s lands from sewers 
 vested in them as the sanitary authority. 
 
 Att.-Gen. v. Acton Local Board, (1882) 22 
 Ch. D. 221, and Att.-Gm. v. Clerkenwell Vestry, 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 527, followed. 
 
 Held, also, following Ainley v. Kirhlieaton 
 Local Board, (1891) 60 L. J. (Ch.) 734, that a 
 householder has an absolute right under s. 21 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, to connect his 
 drains with a sewer, subject only to the regula- 
 tions prescribed by the local authority in whom 
 the sewer is vested as to the manner in which the 
 connections are to be made, and therefore that 
 an injunction could not be granted to restrain 
 the dtfts. from allowing any future connections to 
 be made with their sewers. 
 
 Charles v. Finohley Local Board, (1883) 23 
 Ch. D. 767, dissented from on this point. 
 
 Held, further, that the pit. ought to have 
 applied to the Loc. Govt. Bd. under s. 299 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, to make an order 
 on the defts. to adopt a proper system of sewage 
 for their district. Bbown v. Dunstable Cobpo- 
 KATION - - Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 83; [1899] 2 Ch. 378 
 
 Eeferred to by Byrne J. Eastwood Brothers, 
 Ld. V. Honley District Council, (1900] 1 Ch. 781, 
 786; C. A. [1901] W. N. 38. 
 
 26. — Want of structural convenience — Drain- 
 age of houses — Liahility of owners — " Drain " — 
 " Sewer"— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. 
 u. 55), 88. 4, 13, 15, 21, 94, 95. 
 
 The appellants were summoned by the sani- 
 tary authority of a borough for non-compliance 
 with a notice to abate a nuisance caused by 
 turning slop and scullery water from twelve 
 houses, owned by the appellants, into a drain 
 constructed beside a highway to receive the sur- 
 face water of the highway, which emptied into an 
 
 SEWEES (Nuisance) — continued. 
 open ditch. According to the plan, deposited with 
 the sanitary authority when the houses were built 
 by the appellants' predecessor in title, the houses 
 should have been drained into cesspools, but cess- 
 pools to receive the slop and scullery water had 
 not been constructed. No sewer had been con- 
 structed by the sanitary authority, by means of 
 which the houses could be drained. The houses 
 were separately occupied, and were not within 
 the same curtilage. The justices made an order to 
 abate the nuisance, by disconnecting the drains of 
 the houses from the surface-water drain, and mat- 
 ing cesspools for the houses. On a case stated :^ 
 Held, that the sanitary authority were not 
 bound, under the Public Health Act, 1875, o. 15, 
 to provide a sewer to drain the appellants' houses, 
 that the surface-water drain, though for some 
 purposes a " sewer," within the meaning of s. 4, 
 was not a sewer into which the appellants were 
 entitled to empty their drains, that the nuisance 
 was caused by the want of a structural conve- 
 nience, within the meaning of s. 94, and therefore 
 the defts., as owners, were liable. Kinson 
 PoTTEET Co. V. Poole Cobpokatioit - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1899] 2 ft. B. 41 
 
 Pollution. 
 
 — Pollution of natural stream— Drain connecting 
 premises with district sewer. 
 See Watee— PoUntion. 2. 
 
 27. — Prescriptive right of drainage — Trade 
 effluents — Polluting liquid — Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 17, 21; 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. e. 59) . s. 17, suh-s. 1 — Bivers Pollu- 
 tion Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 75), 
 88. 4, 7, 16 — West Biding of Yorkshire Biters Act^ 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. clxii.), ss. 9; 10. 
 
 Where the owners of buildings have acquired 
 a right to discharge drainage into a public sewer 
 through a connection lawfully made, that right 
 extends to the discharge of trade and manufac- 
 turing effluents, and the provisions of s. 7 of the 
 Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, do not 
 justify a local sanitary authority in cutting off 
 the connection with their sewer, even although it 
 is shewn that the disci large of the trade effluent 
 prejudicially affects the disposal of the sewage 
 matter conveyed through the sewer. 
 
 Decision of Charles J. in Peebles v. Osioald- 
 iwistle Urban Council, [1897] 1 Q. B. 384, on this 
 point followed. Eastwood Bbothees, Ld. v. 
 HoOT-ET Ubban CorNOIL 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 94; [1900] 1 Ch. 781 ; 
 
 This Case was affirmed by C. A. Sea 
 
 [1901] 1 Ch. 645 
 
 Bepairs. 
 
 28. — Liahility to repair — Effect of noticf by 
 local authority to owner to repair — Sewer or drain 
 connecting different houses with public sewer — 
 Public Health Acts, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 e. 41 ; 1890 (53 * 54 Vict. c. 59), s. 19. 
 
 Two houses, owned by different persons, were 
 connected with a sewer by a single private drain ; 
 the local authority, which had adopted s. 19 of 
 the Act of 1890, served on one owner a notice 
 addressed to both, under the Public Health Act, 
 1875, requiring them to abate a nuisance by 
 
( 1921 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASKS, 1831— lyoo. 
 
 ( 1922 ) 
 
 SEWEES (RepaiiB)— continued. 
 doing certain works ; the owner served dM the 
 work, and bued for the cost as money paid at tlie 
 request of the authority ; — 
 
 Seld, that the notice was not merely a request 
 
 to do tlie work, since the owners were compellable 
 
 to do tlie work under s. 19 of the Act of 1890 and 
 
 8. 41 of the Act of 1875. Self v. Hove Commbs. 
 
 Sir. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 68S 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. Bradford v. Eastbourne 
 Corporation, [1896] 2 Q. B. 205. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Seg. v. Hastings Corpo- 
 ration, [1897] 1 Q. B. 46, 50. 
 
 29. — Joint notice to several owners to repair 
 Srain — Nuisance — Publie health — Several houses 
 •drained by single private drain — Public Health 
 Acts, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 41 ; 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. u. 59), «. 19. 
 
 Five houses, of wliich three belonged to one 
 ■owner and two to another, were connected with 
 the public sewer by a single private drain. The 
 drain being a nuisance and injurious to health, 
 the local authority served on each of the two 
 owners a notice, under s. 41 of the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, and s. 19 of the Public Health Act, 
 1 890, addressed to them jointly, requiring them 
 to relay the whole of the drain : — 
 
 Meld, that the fact that neither of the owners 
 could relay the part of thn drain situate in the 
 (ither's premises without committing ft trespass 
 was no objection to the validity of the notice, and 
 that on non-compliance with the notice the local 
 authority might execute the work and recover 
 ^he expenses from the owners under the last- 
 mentioned section. Lancaster v. Barnes Dis- 
 trict Council - Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 8S5 
 
 80. — Single drain draining several houses — 
 IJability to repair — Drain or sewer — Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 41—Pub- 
 Uc Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890 (53 d- 54 
 Vict. 0. 59), 8. 19. 
 
 A drain-pipe passing through private property 
 received the drainage of several bouses belonging 
 to different owners before it joined the public 
 sewer. The pipe having become a nuisance, the 
 Jooal authority, who had adopted the Public 
 Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, took pro- 
 ceedings against the owners of the said houses 
 under s. 41 of the Public Health Act, 1875 :— 
 
 Held, following Bradford v. Eastbourne Cor- 
 poration, [189B] 2 Q. B. 205, and disapproving 
 Hill V. Hair, [1895] 1 Q. B. 906, that the pipe in 
 question was a single private drain within the 
 sneaning of s. 19 of the Act of 1890. Seal v. 
 Meethyr Tydfil Urban District Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 a. B. 543 
 
 31. — Single drain draining several houses 
 — Liability to repair — Public Health Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Viet. c. 55), s. 41 — Hastings Improve- 
 ment Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. cxcvi.), s. 148. 
 
 Sect. 41 of the Public Health Act, 1875, em- 
 powers a local authority, on written application 
 made to them stating that a drain is a nuisance or 
 injurious to health, to enter the premises, and, if 
 the drain appears to be in bad condition, or to 
 require alteration or amendment, to give notice 
 to the owner or occupier to do the necessary 
 worksi 
 
 SEWEES (Eepairs) — continued. 
 
 S. ct. 118 of the Hastings Iraproveraont Act, 
 1885, in cates whi ru two or more houses are 
 connected with a single private drain which con- 
 veys their drainage into a public sewer, gives the 
 corporation all the powers conferred by s. 41 of 
 the Act of 1875. 
 
 The owner of several houses connected with 
 a single drain conveying their drainage into a 
 public sewer applied tor a mandamus to the cor- 
 poration to repair and maintain the drain. No 
 application had been made under s. 41 of the 
 Public Health Act, 1875 :— 
 
 Held, that the Hastings Improvement Act, 
 1885, did not empower the corporation to require 
 the owner to repair and maintain the drain, and 
 the corporation were liable to repair and maintain 
 it. Keg. v. Hastings CoRroRATioN 
 Div. Ct. [1896] W, N. 160 (7); [1897] 1 Q. B. 46 
 
 Surface Sewers. 
 
 32, — Watercourse — Roads — Surface-water 
 sewers — " Sewage or filthy water " — Public Health 
 Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. £5), ss. 15, 16, 17. 
 
 Under ss. 15, 16, and 17 of the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, a local autliority has power to make 
 its sewers discharge into any natural stream or 
 watercourse, or into any oinal, pond, or lake, 
 within its district, subject to the restrictions in 
 s. 17 being observed. The surface water con- 
 veyed by surface sewers may be to discharged 
 though it carries down sand and silt, such water 
 not being " sewage or filthy water " within the 
 meaning of s. 17. 
 
 Decision of North J. affirmed. Ddheant v. 
 Bhanksome Urban District ConNCiL 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 291 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Croysdale v. Sun- 
 bury-on-Thames Urban Council, [1898] 2 Oh. 515, 
 519. 
 
 SEYCHELLES— TAe Seychelles Judicature 0. in C. 
 dated Nov. 28, 1899. St. B. & 0, 1899, p. 1661._ 
 
 SHAFT — Meaning of " working shaft." 
 
 See Mines — Metalliferous Mines. 17. 
 
 SHAEESFEABE. 
 
 See Trade-mark — Eegistration. 33. 
 
 SHELLEY'S CASE, (1581) 1 Eep. 93b— Eule in. 
 See Deed. 4. 
 
 Will— Estate Tail. 81. 
 
 SHANGHAI — Land taken for public purposes — ■ 
 
 " Extension " of roads. 
 
 See China. 1. 
 SHAEEHOLDEBS. 
 
 See Cases under Company and CoMrAKT 
 — Winding-up. 
 SHABES. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 SHABPNESS— Within the Port of Gloucester. 
 
 See Shipping — Demurrage. 117. 
 
 SHEEP — Sheep-scab.] 0. of Bd. of Agriculture 
 dated Sept. 3, 1898, as to. Lond. Gaz. Sept. 13, 
 1898, p. 5436. 
 
 SHEBIFF. 
 
 Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. c. 55), con- 
 solidates the law. 
 
 3 Q 
 
( 1923 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1924 ) 
 
 BSERIFT— continued. 
 
 Fees.] Lands Glauses Act, 1845 (8 <£ 9 Vict, 
 c. 18), Scale of sheriff's fees for inquiries under — ■ 
 Sheriffs Act 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. c. 55). W. N. 
 1900 (Sept. 8), p. 245; Current Index, 1900, 
 p. zcviii, 
 
 High Sheriffs (Expenses of Office) — Circular 
 addressed hy Her Majesty's Treasury to High 
 Sheriffs with regard to the expenses of their office. 
 1898 (H. I. 198). 
 
 — Bills of sale. 
 
 See Cases under Bill of Sale. 
 
 — Execution — Notice of bankruptcy petition — 
 
 Service. 
 
 See Bankrcptot. 106. 
 
 1. — Execution — Outer door. 
 
 (a) The effect of the maxim, " A man's house 
 is his castle," is to extend the imniunity to the 
 outer door, not only of all dwelling-houses, but 
 also of all buildings whatsoever, and to outer 
 gates of all inclosurcs as regards both distress 
 and execution. 
 
 Decision of Bowen L.J., [1893] W. N. 67, 
 afBrmed. American Concentkated Meat Co. v. 
 Hendet - - - C. A. [1893] W. N. 82 
 
 But see the next Case (b). 
 
 2. — Execution — Outer door — Building not 
 dwelling-house. 
 
 (b) But the sheriff may, for the purpose of 
 executing a writ of fieri facias, break open the 
 outer door of a workshop or other building of the 
 judgment debtor, not being his dwelling-house or 
 connected tlierewith. Hodder v. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 668 
 
 — Execution — Seizure of goods and possession 
 
 for twenty-one days — Sheriff's fees. 
 See Bankkuptot. 107. 
 
 3. — Execution — Seizure of goods — Going out 
 of possession — Abandonment. 
 
 Where a sheriff, who has seized goods under 
 
 a writ of execution, goes out of possession, the 
 
 question whether he has abandoned possession is 
 
 a question of fact. Bagshawes, Ld. v. Deacon 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 173 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Lumsden v. Burnett, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 177, 182. 
 
 4. — Execution for more than 201. — Sale by 
 private contract — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 
 Vict. c. 52), s. 145. 
 
 Where a sheriff under an execution for more 
 than 20Z. sells by private contract, with the con- 
 sent of the debtor, but without leave of the Court, 
 such sale, although against s. 145 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883, is, until set aside by the Court, 
 valid against a subsequent execution creditor. 
 Obawshaw t>. Harbison 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 79 
 
 5. — Garnishee. 
 
 Apart from the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 11, 
 Bub-s. 2, money in the hands of the sheriff is 
 liable to attachment by a garnishee order. In re 
 Greer. Nappbr v. Fanshawe 
 
 CMtty 3. [1896] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re TumbulL 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 180, 184. 
 
 SHERIFF — continued. 
 
 — Holding by sheriff of debtor's goods — Act of 
 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankbdptct — ^Act of Bankruptcy. 
 36. 
 
 — Interpleader. 
 
 See Cases under Interpleader. 
 
 — Levy by — Tools of Trade — Execution creditor 
 
 —Small Debts Act. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Execution. 102. 
 
 6. — Misconduct — Overcharge by mistake — 
 Penalty under Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict, 
 c. 55), s. 29. 
 
 (a) The penalty under s. 29 of the Sheriffs 
 Act, 1887, is inflicted for the doing of an act in 
 the nature of a criminal offence; to constitute 
 such an offence there must be a mens rea ; there- 
 fore a sheriff's officer is not liable to the penalty 
 if he makes au overcharge by mistake. In order 
 to constitute an offence under that Act, it is not 
 necessary that tlie improper demand or taking of 
 money should be made a condition precedent to 
 the officer's doing his duty. 
 
 Decision of Deuman J., [1892] 1 Q. B. 231, 
 affirmed. Lee v. Danqae, Grant & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 337 
 
 7. — ■ Overcharge, Unintentional — Liability to 
 penalty— 29 Eliz. c. 4—3 Geo. 1, c. 15—7 Will. 4 
 and 1 Vict. c. 55— Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 & 51 
 Vict. 0. 55), s. 29, sub-s. 2 (6), (d). 
 
 . (b) An unintentional overcharge for poundage 
 due to a clerical error made by a clerk to a firm 
 of sheriff's officers is not an extortion for which 
 a penalty may be recovered under s. 29 of the 
 Sheriffs Act, 1887. Shoppee v. Nathan & Co. 
 
 CoUins J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 245 
 
 8. — Penalty — Demand of excessive fees by 
 sheriff— Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. c. 55), 
 s. 29, sub-s. 2 (fc). 
 
 (o) Sending in an account containing items 
 which were greatly reduced on taxation is not a 
 " taking or demand of money above the legal 
 fees " within s. 29 of the Sheriffs Act, 1887, the 
 account being subject to and rendered in contem- 
 plation of taxation. Trcstee op Woolfoud's 
 Estate v. Levy C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 772 
 
 The opinion of Cave J., at p. 776, was dis- 
 sented from by C. A. Lee v. Dangar, Grant & 
 Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 337. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Thomas, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 460, 463. 
 
 9. — Penalty — Wrongful act of bailiff — 
 Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 55), s. 29, 
 sub-s. 2. 
 
 (d) The liability is imposed by s. 29 of the 
 Sheriffs Act, 1887, only upon the person actually 
 guilty of the wrongful Act. Therefore, where 
 the sheriff's bailiff iu executing a writ of fi. fa. 
 has not excepted from seizure wearing apparel, 
 bedding, tools, and implements of trade tcj the 
 value of 51. as required by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 127), s 8, 
 the sheriff is not liable. Bagge v. Whiteh4ad 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q./b, 865 
 
 10. — Money paid to avoid sale. 
 
 The provision in s. 11, sub-s. 2, of thfi Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1890, by which the trustee is Pipntitled, 
 as against the execution creditor, to mon^y paid 
 
( 1925 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1926 ) 
 
 SSERlTi— continued. 
 
 under an execution in order to avoid sale, does 
 not apply to money paid after execution issued iu 
 order to prevent seizure, and the execution 
 creditor is entitled to such money as against 
 tlie trustee. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1895] 2 Q. B. 51, 
 affirmed. Bower v. Hett 
 
 C. A, [1896] 2 Q, B. 337 
 
 — Poundage — Receiving order — Execution. 
 
 i8ee Bankkdptcy — Beoeiving Order. 215. 
 
 11. — Bates — Seizure of goods of person liable 
 to pay rates — Goods " taJien in execution " — Duty 
 of sheriff to pay rates — 35 Geo. 3, c, 73 (Local) — 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict, 
 c. 120), ss. 161, 250. 
 
 By a local Act, where in a certain metro- 
 politan parish the goods of any person liable to 
 pay a rate by virtue of the Act sliall have been 
 " taken in execution " by a sheriff before the rate 
 shall have been paid, tiie sheriff upon demand 
 by the rate-flpllector is " directed and required in 
 the first place " to pay the rate to the collector ; 
 and by the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, 
 the vestry of the parish are to have, for the pur- 
 pose of levying the rates therein mentioned, the 
 same powers, remedies, and privileges as for 
 levying money for the relief of the poor. 
 
 A sheriff seized under a fi. fa. the goods of a 
 judgment debtor who was at the time liable to pay 
 to the vestry as the rating authority of the parish 
 a certain rate made up of a poor-rate by virtue 
 of the local Act and a general rate under the 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855. A demand 
 was made on the sheriff by the rate-collector for 
 the amount of the rate; but the sheriff, having 
 subsequently received from the debtor the amount 
 of the judgment debt, withdrew from possession 
 without having paid the rate : — 
 
 Seld, that the goods had been taken in exe- 
 cution within the meaning of the local Act, and 
 that the sheriff was liable to the vestry for the 
 amount of rate. 
 
 Judgment of Bigham J., [1900] 1 Q. B. Ill, 
 afSrmed. Mabtlbbonb Vestry v. Sheriff of 
 London - - C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 591 
 
 12. — Beceiving order, Notice of — Costs. 
 Although interpleader proceedings may be 
 
 pending, a sheriff in possession must deliver the 
 goods seized or the proceeds to the official receiver 
 on being served with notice of a receiving order 
 under s. 11, sub-s. 1, of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1890. He is only entitled to his costs up to the 
 date at which he received notice of the receiving 
 order. In re Harbison. Ex parte Sheriff of 
 Essex - Div. Ot. [1893] 2 a. B. Ill 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Thomas, [1899] 1 
 Q. B. 460, 462. 
 
 18. — Beceiving order — Notice of — Sale. 
 
 A sheriff is justified in selling seized goods 
 after notice of a receiving order if so requested by 
 the official receiver, and the trustee has no ground 
 of action because the goods were not delivered up 
 to him in accordance vrith s. 46 of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1883. Trustee of Woolfohd's 
 Estate v. Levy - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 772 
 
 Opinion of Cave J., at p. 776, dissented from 
 
 SB.'E&IFB— continued/ 
 
 by 0. A. Lee v. Dangar, Grant & Co., [1892] 2 
 
 Q. B. 337. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Thomas, [1899] 
 1 Q. B. 460, 463. 
 
 14. — Becovery of expenses — Bight to sue execu- 
 tion creditor— Slieriffs Act, 1887 (50 <fe 51 Fiofe 
 c. 55), e. 20, sub-s, 2— Order as to Fees, Aug. 31, 
 1888. 
 
 A sheriff's officer cannot maintain an action 
 against an execution creditor for expenses 
 incurred by him under a writ of fi. fa. issued by 
 the creditor, in making inquiries as to the goods 
 of an execution deWlor. Smith v. Broadbent & 
 Co. - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 861 
 
 — Remaining in possession more than twenty- 
 
 one days. 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 107. 
 
 — Sale by — Notice of bankruptcy petition — 
 
 Death of judgment debtor. 
 See Bankruptcy. 106. 
 
 — Sale by sheriff — Rent in arrear —Lien — 
 
 Priority — Payment by sheriff— Indem- 
 nity. 
 See Bankruptcy. 101. 
 
 — Sale of goods by — Execution. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 48. 
 
 — Seizure of goods by — Priority — Maintenance. 
 
 See Lunacy. 19, 20. 
 
 15. — " Sheriff" — Definition — Bankruptcy 
 petition — Notice of — Bailiff. 
 
 A man in possession who sells the goods of a 
 judgment debtor by direction of the sheriff is not 
 a " sheriff " within s. 168 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, and notice to him of a bankruptcy petition 
 presented against the debtor is not notice to the 
 sheriff within s. 11, sub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy 
 Act, 1890. Bbllyse v. M'Ginn 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 2 ft. B. 227 
 
 — Trial before under-sheriff and jury — New 
 
 trial. 
 
 See Practice — New Trial. 48. 
 
 16. — • Writ of elegit — Practice — Duty of sheriff 
 to file writ and inquisition. 
 
 It is the duty of the sheriff, after executing a 
 writ of elegit, to have the writ and inquisition 
 filed in the central office. It is not sufficient, 
 though it has been common, to deliver such docu- 
 ments to the plt.'s solicitor. Johns v. Pink 
 
 StirUng 7. [1900] 1 Ch, 296 
 
 17. — Writ of fieri facias — Company — Wind- 
 ing-up. 
 
 Although B. 1, sub-s. 6, of the Companies 
 (Winding-up) Act, 1890, gives to the county 
 court winding up a co. "all the powers of the 
 High Court," the county court has no jurisdic- 
 tion to issue a writ of fi. fa. to the sheriff to 
 enforce by execution an order of that Court 
 directing a person to pay moneys received by 
 him on behalf of the co. to the liquidator. In re 
 Bassett's Plaster Co. Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 96 
 
 SHEBIFF'S FEES AND F01TKDAOE OBDEB, 
 1888. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Beceiving Order. 
 215. 
 SHIFTING CIATJSE— Will. 
 
 See Will— Shifting Clause, 191. 
 3 Q 2 
 
( 1927 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891— 19U0. 
 
 ( 1928 ) 
 
 SHIFTING USE— Keverter— Common law condi- 
 tion — Eule against perpetuitica. 
 See Vendor and Pukcuaseb — Title. 7<J. 
 
 3HIPPIKG, 
 
 In General, col. 1928. 
 
 Anchor, col. 1928. 
 
 Appeal, col. 1929. 
 
 Arrest, col. 1929. 
 
 Average, col. 1930. 
 
 Sill of Lading. See Cases under Shipping 
 
 — 'Charterparty. 
 Bottomry, col. 1932. 
 Carriage of Grain, col. 1933. 
 Charterparty, col. 1933. 
 Collision, col. 1945. 
 Costs, col. 1957. 
 Demurrage, col. 1960. 
 Derelict Vessels, col. 1966. 
 Deviation, col. 1966. 
 Docks. See Dock. 
 Evidence, col. 1968. 
 Exceptions, col. 1968. 
 Fees and Stam2)s, col. 197-t. 
 Fishing Boats, col. 1974. 
 Freight, col. 1974. 
 
 General Average. See Shipping — Aver- 
 age. 
 Harbour, col. 1978. 
 Insurance, Marine. See Iksukakce, 
 
 Marine. 
 Intel est, col. 1979. 
 Jettison, col. 1980. 
 Jurisdiction. See Oases under Shipping 
 
 — Practice. 
 Liability, Limitation of. See Shipping 
 
 — Limitation of liability. 
 Lien, col. 1980. 
 
 Life-saving Appliances, col. 1981. 
 Limitation of LiaMlity, col. 1981. 
 Managing Otimer, col. 1985. - 
 Maritime lien. See Shipping — Lien. 
 Master and Seaman. See Shipping — 
 
 Seamen. 
 Merchant Shipping Acts. See Shipping, 
 
 passim. 
 Mortgage, col. 1986. 
 Necessaries, col. 1986. 
 ..Offences, col. ISSS. 
 Overloading, col. 1989. 
 Ownership, col. 1989. 
 pilotage, col. 1990. 
 Practice, col. 1993. 
 Prevention of Accidents, col. 1999. 
 Quarantine, col. 1999. 
 Uegistry, col. 1999. 
 Report of Cargo, col. 2000. 
 Bestruint, col. 2000. 
 Sale, col. 2000. 
 Sali-age, col. 2001. 
 Seamen, col. 201 Li. 
 
 SHIPPING — continued. 
 
 Smuggling, col. 2015. 
 
 Tender, col. 2016. 
 
 Tonnage, col. 2017. 
 
 Undermanning, col. 2017. 
 
 Wages. See Cases under Shipping — 
 
 Seamen. 
 Wharf, col. 2017. 
 Wreck. See Cases under Shipping — 
 
 Salvage. 
 
 In General. 
 
 Execution against vessel — Eemuneration of 
 appraiser — County Court Bules {Nov.) 1900, 
 Ord. XXXIX. B. W. N. 1900 (Dec. 8), p. 323. See 
 Current Index, 1900, p, Izzviii. 
 
 — Insurance, Marine. 
 
 See Cases under Insurance — Uarine. 
 
 — Obsolete type — Deductions for wear and tear. 
 
 See Eevende — Income Tax. 112. 
 
 — Stoppage in transitu — Transfer to sub-vendee 
 
 — Possession of document of title — Con- 
 sent of seller. 
 See Sale or Goods. 7. 
 
 — Time policy — Bepairs to ship — Assured not 
 
 liable for cost of repairs — Non-liability 
 
 of underwriters. 
 
 See Insurance — Uarine. 79. 
 
 1. — Unseaworthiness — Detention of ship by 
 Board of Trade — Damage to reputation of ship- 
 owner — Merchant Shipping Act, 1876 (39 it 40 
 Vict. c. 80), s. 6, su6-ss. 1, 10. 
 
 Under s. 10 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1876 (now 3. 460 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894), the Bd. of Trade are liable to pay the 
 direct damages caused by the detention of a ship 
 the condition of which does not give reasonable 
 cause for such detention, but they are not liable 
 to pay damas;es for injury to tlie shipowner's 
 reputation. Dixon v. Calcraft 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 468 
 
 2, — " Vessel used in navigation " — " Ship " — 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), 
 ss. 2, 303, 318. 
 
 A small electric launch on an artificial lake 
 fitted to carry passengers : — 
 
 Seld, not to be a vessel used in navigation 
 within s. 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 
 (now s. 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), 
 and therefore not to be a passenger steamer 
 within s. 318 of that Act (now s. 281 of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), so as to require a 
 duplicate of her Bd. of Trade certificate " to be 
 put up in some conspicuous part of the ship." 
 SouTHPORT Corporation v. Morriss 
 
 Biv. Ct, [1893] 1 Q. B. 369 
 
 Referred to by Div. Ct. The Gas Float 
 Whitton {No. 2), [1895] P. 301, at p. S07; but 
 this case was reversed by C. A. [1896] P. 42; 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. 0. 337. 
 
 Anchor. 
 
 Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1899 (02 it 63 
 Vict. c. 23), simplifies and amends the law relating 
 to the tenting and sale of anchors and chain cables. 
 
( 1929 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( i9;jo ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Anchor) — continued. 
 — Collision of vessels. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 50- 
 
 ■54. 
 
 • — Costs 
 
 Appeal. 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 222. 
 
 3. — County court — Appeal from — Amount 
 decreed due under 50J. — County Courts Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), S8. 26, 
 31— County Courts Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 43), 
 s. 120. 
 
 Sect. 120 of the County Courts Act, 1888, 
 impliedly repeals sa. 26 and 31 of the County 
 Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, to the 
 extent of allowing the party aggrieved hy the 
 decision of a county court judge on a point of 
 law to appeal, although the amount is under 
 501., and although no security for costs has heen 
 first given ; but in respect of a question of fact 
 the special provisions of the Act of 1868 are 
 unaffected. 
 
 (A) The " Eden" Div. Ct. [1892] P. 67 
 
 (b) Neptune Steam Navigation Co. v. 
 ScL ATEB. The " Delano " 
 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1895] P. 40 
 
 See aUo The Tynwall, [1895] P. 142, 147; 
 The Theodore, [1897] P. 279, 284. 
 
 4. — County court — Appeal from — Cross- 
 appeal — Amount. 
 
 In an action for over five days' demurrage, 
 the county court allowed a sum under 50Z. lor 
 one day's demurrage. The pits, appealed, and 
 the delta, applied for leave to cross-appeal against 
 the judgment giving one day's demurrage : — 
 
 Held, that notwithstanding that the pits, had 
 appealed, the defts. had no riglit to cross-appeal, 
 for they could not originate an appeal questioning 
 a judgment for an amount under 501. depending 
 as tliis did upon an issue of fact. The " Alne 
 Holme" - - Div. Ct. [1893] P. 173 
 
 5. — Divisional Court to Court of Appeal, 
 Appeal from— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict, 
 c. 66), 6. i5— County Courts Acts, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 50), 8. 10 ; 1888 (51 <fe 52 Vict. c. 43), o. 188, 
 stib-s. 5— ij. S. C. Order Lix., r. 4. 
 
 Where a Div. Ct. alters the judgment of the 
 county court an appeal lies as of right to the 
 C. A. ; for a. 10 of the County Courts Act, 1875, 
 impliedly repeals so mucli of s. 45 of the Judica- 
 ture Act, 1873, as is inconsistent with it. And 
 although s. 188 of the County Courts Act, 1888, 
 repealed the whole of the Act of 1875, this repeal 
 (sub-s. 5) does not revive any enactment not in 
 force on Jan. 1, 1889. The " Dart " 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 33 
 
 Arrest. 
 
 6. — Malicious arrest of ship — Action for— 
 Proof of damages — Crassa negligentia — Mala 
 jiclfis. 
 
 Proof of actual damage is not necessary to 
 sustain an action iu a Court of Admiralty for 
 wrongful arrest if the seizure of the ship was the 
 result of mala fides or crassa negligentia implying 
 malice. 
 
 Semhle, an action lies at common law for 
 
 SHIPPING (A.iieBt)— continued. 
 
 malicious arrest of a ship by Admiralty process. 
 
 The " Walter D. Wallet " 
 
 Jeune Pres. [1893] P. 203 
 
 Average. 
 
 — Average bond — No duty to employ an average 
 stater. 
 See New South Wales. 4 1 . 
 
 7. — Cteneral average — Adjustment — Construc- 
 tive total loss. 
 
 Where, a ship having sustained damage iu a 
 storm, it then became necessary, for the purpose 
 of saving the ship and cargo, to make a general 
 average sacrifice, the result of which was that 
 the ship became a constructive total loss and was 
 sold as such : — 
 
 Held, that the proper mode of ascertaining 
 the amount of the shipowners' loss by the general 
 average sacrifice was by taking the difference 
 between the value of the ship undamaged and 
 the estimated cost of repairing the particular 
 average damage and deducting therefrom the 
 proceeds of the sale of the ship ; and that no 
 deduction of one-third new for old was to be 
 made from the estimated cost of tlie repairs'. 
 Henderson Brothers v. Shankland & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 626 
 
 8. — General average — Charterpariy — Bill of 
 lading — Negligence clause. 
 
 Where a contract for carriage of goods by sea 
 contains an exception of negligence of the master 
 and crew, the shipowner is entitled to a contribu- 
 tion from the owner of the goods to general 
 average expenses, though the necessity for the 
 same has been occasioned by the negligence of 
 the master : — 
 
 So held by A. L. Smith L.J , and Eomer L.J., 
 V. Williams L.J. dissenting. 
 
 A charterparty, which contained an exception 
 of the negligence of the master and crew, pro- 
 vided that the captain should sign bills of lading 
 at any rate of freight the charterers or their 
 agents might choose without prejudice to the 
 stipulations of the charterparty, and that the 
 charterers should indemnify the shipowners -from, 
 any consequences which might arise from the 
 captain following the charterers' instructions and 
 signing bills of lading. 
 
 The captain, upon the instructions of the 
 charterers, signed hills of lading for goods 
 shipped by a third person, which did not contain 
 u negligence clause. The ship coming into colli- 
 sion with another ship through the negligence of 
 the captain, general average expenses were in- 
 curred in putting back for repairs : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the charterers were liable to in- 
 demnify the shipowners against the loss bus- 
 t lined by them through their not being able to 
 obtain a general average contribution from the 
 owner of the goods by reason of the bills of lading 
 not containing a negligence clause. 
 
 The Carron Parle, (1890) 15 P. D. 203, approved 
 of. Milbubn & Co. V. Jamaica Fruit iMPOBTiNii 
 AND Trading Co. op Losdon 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 169; [1900] 2 Q. B. 540 
 
 9. — General average — Claim for collision — 
 Jettison of cargo. 
 
 Ill a collision between a Dutch and an 
 
( 1931 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1932 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Average) — continued. 
 English steamer, the former was sunk, and the 
 latter so injured that she had to jettison cargo to 
 keep the part of the ship damaged out of the 
 water whilst making for a port of refuge. In an 
 action in rem for damage by collision brought by 
 the owners of the Dutch steamer against the 
 English steamer, to which the owners of the latter 
 appeared and counter-claimed, the Dutch steamer 
 was found alone to blame. On the reference as 
 to damages, the owners of the English steamer 
 claimed, inter alia, to recover against the owners 
 of the Dutch steamer the balance due in general 
 average contribution from ship to cargo in respect 
 of the jettison, after deducting the amount due 
 from cargo to ship in respect of the damage to 
 the ship : — 
 
 Hdd, that the claim must be disallowed, as 
 the loss sustained by the ship in having to make 
 the general average contribution was not directly 
 due to the collision, but arose from the obligation 
 to contribute, resulting from the relation between 
 ship and cargo. The " Makpessa " 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 403 
 
 10. — Creneral average — Depreciation of cargo 
 — Remoteness. 
 
 The plaintiffs shipped a deck cargo of cattle 
 and sheep on board the defendants' ship for car- 
 riage from Buenos Ayres to Deptford under a 
 contract which provided that the ship should on 
 •no account call at a Brazilian port before landing 
 ier live stock. The reason for this provision 
 was that by an order of the Bd. of Agriculture 
 ^'oreigu animals could not be landed in the 
 United Kingdom if the ship conveying them had 
 touched at a Brazilian port in the course of her 
 voyage. During the voyage the ship sprung a 
 leak, and the master, for the safety of all con- 
 cerned, put into a Biazilian port for repairs. The 
 plaintiffs thereby suffered loss in consequence of 
 the live stock being unable to be landtd in the 
 United Kingdom, and having to be sold elsewhere 
 at lower prices than would have been realized in 
 the English market. The master at the time 
 when he resolved to put into the Brazilian poi t 
 knew that this would be the result of his so 
 •doing : — 
 
 Reld, that the depreciation of the live stock 
 was a loss which the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 have made good in general average. Anglo- 
 Argentine Live Stock and Pboduce Agency v. 
 Temperlet Shipping Co. - - Bigham J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 110; [1899] 8 Q. B. 403 
 
 11. — General average — Freight — Cargo in 
 peril — Expenses of landing and transporting to 
 place of safely — Extraoi dinary expenses for 
 general benefit. 
 
 Where after a disaster at sea the shipowner, 
 not merely with a view to freight, but in the 
 interests of the whole adventure or of the cargo 
 owners, and before electing to abandon the ship 
 and carry on the cargo in another ship, incurs 
 necessary expenses on landing a perishable cargo 
 and carrying it to a place of safety, the expenses 
 are not to be charged to freight alone, but are 
 either a general average charge or a charge 
 against cargo or a charge against cargo and 
 freight. In the event of such a disaster there is 
 no rigid rule of law that tlie shipowner may not 
 
 SHIPPING (Average) — continued. 
 employ experienced persons to act in his place 
 for the benefit of all concerned. Whether he is 
 entitled to do so and make the extraordinary 
 expenditure a general average charge depends 
 on the circumstances of the case and whether he 
 acts reasonably and properly. EosE v. Bank of 
 AusTEALASiA - H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 687 
 
 12. — General average — Sacrifice of freight. 
 Shippers chartered a ship to carry a cargo of 
 
 coals from Cardiff to Esquimault. In the course 
 of the voyage the coal heated to such an extent 
 that if the ship had continued her voyage the 
 ship and cargo would have been totally lost. 
 The master, for the safety of all concerned, put 
 into a port of refuge and landed the coal, which 
 was subsequently surveyed and found to be in 
 such a condition as to be incapable of being 
 carried with safety to its destination. The master 
 accordingly abandoned the voyage, and the 
 chartered freight was lost : — 
 
 Held, that the freight had not been sacrificed 
 under such circumstances as to make the loss the 
 subject of general average contribution. 
 
 Judgment of Bigham J., [1899] 2 Q. B. 356, 
 aSirmed. Ikedale v. China Traders Insurance 
 Co. C. A. [1900] W. N. 157 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 515 
 
 — General average — Ship in ballast — " Foreign 
 
 statement " clause. 
 
 See Instibancb — Marine. 56. 
 
 — General average loss — Ship valued for policy 
 
 at less than real value — Salvage — ^Lia- 
 bility of underwriter. 
 See Insurance — Marine. 27. 
 
 — General average payable per foreign statement 
 
 — Adjustment — Dutch law. 
 See Insurance — Marine. 57. 
 
 — Particular average loss — Time policy — Kepairs 
 
 to ship. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 79. 
 
 13. — Stranded steamer — Damage to engines — 
 Cost of coal for uorliing engines. 
 
 If in endeavouring to refloat a stranded steam- 
 ship which is in a position of peril, the engines 
 are intentionally worked, at the risk of damage, 
 for the common safety, damage to the engines 
 caused thereby and value of the coals consumed 
 are the subject of a general average contribution. 
 The " Bona " - C. A. [1895] P. 125 
 
 BiU of Lading. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping - 
 party. 
 
 -Charter- 
 
 Bottomry. 
 
 14. — Maritime rislc — Maritime interest — Per- 
 sonal credit — Eight to payment at intermediate 
 port — Insurance. 
 
 The master of a Norwegian barque at Bar- 
 bados, being in need of necessaries, obtained a 
 cash advance on the security of an instrument 
 by which he promised to repay the amount 
 " within ten days after arrival at port of discharge 
 in Europe, or at any other place at which the 
 voyage may terminate .... in an approved 
 baukei's sight draft or cheque on Lundoa to the 
 order of (the agents of the lender) . . and for 
 
( 1933 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1934 ) 
 
 SHIFPIKO (Bottomry) — continued. 
 which I hereby pledge the said vessel, her freight 
 and her owners. The claim to have priority 
 over all others that (nay be presented against the 
 said freight and vessel, with the express agree- 
 ment, however, that it shall not invalidate or 
 affect the lien upon, or right of process against, 
 the said vessel and freight and owners for the 
 amount of this bill .... in case of its not being 
 duly accepted and paid. Provided always .... 
 that if tbe said vessel shall, in the course of the 
 voyage on which she is now being despatched, go 
 into any port of refuge to repair there, all the 
 moneys for the payment of which the said vessel, 
 her freight, and owners, are hereby pledged, 
 ehall forthwith become due and payable, and it 
 shall be lawful for the said (agents) to proceed 
 at once against the said veesel, freight and 
 •owners, or any or either of the same, separately, 
 to recover the amount of this bill. . . , ." , In 
 the margin was a note as to insurance by the 
 lender : — 
 
 Meld, that the instrument was a valid bot- 
 tomry bond, for the lender of the money ran the 
 risk of the vessel not reaching her port of dis- 
 charge, and, therefore, it was immaterial that 
 there was no stipulation as to maritime interest, 
 nor was the bond invalidated by the bill transac- 
 tion contained in it, or by the loan becoming 
 immediately payable on the vessel putting into 
 a port of refuge, or by the memorandum as to 
 insurance. The " Haabet " 
 
 BuokniU J. [1899] P. 295 
 — Marshalling assets. 
 
 See Shipping — Necessaries. 178. 
 
 Carriage of Grain, 
 
 Grain Cakgoes.] Carriage of. Official Notices 
 with regard to Rules and Regulations conditionally 
 approved under s. 453 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60). Price 2d. Bd. 
 of Trade Notices, 1900. 
 
 Charterparty. 
 (Bill of Lading and Charterparty.) 
 
 16. — Ambiguity — Extrinsic evidence — Vessel 
 ■" always afloat " in doclt though unable to cross 
 «ill. 
 
 A charterparty was conditioned to the effect 
 that the ship should load in a certain dock 
 ■" always afloat." The shipowneis, finding, that 
 owing to neap tides, the ship, althougli she could 
 load afloat, would soon not be able to pats out of 
 dock and so be delayed, removed her to another 
 dock, causing the charterers extra expenses : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the clause as to lighterage was 
 ambiguous, and extrinsic evidence was admissible 
 to explain the intention of the parties ; (2) that 
 the shipowners were liable for the extra expenses, 
 as the ship could have been loaded always afloat 
 in the original berth, and the fear of detention 
 did not iustify the jemoval. The " Odhfew " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] P. 131 
 
 16. — Ambiguity — Printed and written clauses 
 — Exclusion of evidence of custom throwing expense 
 on shipovmer. 
 
 By a printed clause the cargo was to be 
 "taken from alongside the ship at merchant's 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. 
 risk and expense." By a written clause the 
 cargo was to be discharged " according to the 
 custom " of the port : — 
 
 Seld, (1) that the first clause referred to the 
 cost, and the second to the. time and mode of dis- 
 charge ; (2) that the clauses were not incon- 
 sistent nor ambiguous, and therefore evidence as 
 to the custom of the port and the correspondence 
 of the parties were inadmissible. The " Nifa " 
 Div. Ct. [1892] P. 411 
 
 17. — ■ Ballast — Obligation of shipowner to sup- 
 ply — Responsibility for navigation — Construction 
 of charterparty. 
 
 By a charterparty the ship was let to the 
 charterers for their sole use and benefit for the 
 conveyance of merchandise -^ passengers with 
 liberty to sublet (subject to owner's approval of 
 trade) for two or three round voyages at char- 
 terer's option, to be placed by a certain day 
 " with clear holds " at the disposal of the char- 
 terers, tliey " having the whole reach or burthen 
 of the vessel," proper and suflBcient room being 
 reserved to the owners for the officers, crew, 
 tackle, &o. ; the owners undertaking to maintain 
 her in a thoroughly efficient state during the 
 currency of the charter ; the captain to use every 
 reasonable despatch in prosecuting the voyages, 
 and (though appointed by the owners) to be 
 under the orders and directions of the oharcerers 
 as regards employment, agency and other arrange- 
 ments ; the freight for the hire of tbe ship to be 
 paid monthly until she was returned by the 
 charterers to the owners : — 
 
 Held, that upon tlie true construction of the 
 whole of the charterparty (without deciding 
 whether the contract more nearly resembled one 
 of demise than of carriage) the responsibility for 
 the navigation of the ship was imposed upon the 
 owners, and tliat the owners were therefore liable 
 to provide any ballast that might be necessary 
 for tafe navigation. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1900] 1 Q. B. 28, afBrmed. 
 
 Weik v. Union Steamship Co. H. L. (E.) [1900] 
 
 ■W. N. 168 ; [1900] A. C. 625 
 
 — Bill of lading — ^Exception — Conflict of laws. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Pledge. 31. 
 
 — Bleach of duty — Liability of charterer for 
 
 defective condition of ship. 
 See Negligence. 2. 
 
 18. — Cargo in frozen condition — Full and 
 complete cargo. 
 
 By a charterparty made in contemplation of 
 a mid-winter loading the charterers agreed to 
 load at a port in the United States " a full and 
 complete cargo of wet wood pulp which contains 
 about 50 per cunt, of water." The charterers 
 loaded pulp of that description which was frozen. 
 Frozen pulp is not compressible, and occupies 
 more space than when unfrozen ; consequently 
 tho cargo was less in quantity than it would 
 have been in summer. The shipowners having 
 brouglit an action against the charterers for the 
 losi of freight tliua caused, evidence was iiiven 
 that in winter wet pulp was usually loaded in a 
 frozen condition: — 
 
 Held, that the obligation to load a full and 
 complete cai-go had been performed by loading 
 
( 1935 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1936 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. 
 
 as much pulp ia a frozen condition as the ship 
 
 ■nould carry. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1899] 2 Q. B. 364, affirmed. 
 Steamship Ibis Co. )'. Bahe 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 112 ; 
 [1900] A. C. 310 
 
 19. — " Cargo of say about 2800 tons," Con- 
 tract to load a — Construction of charterparty. 
 
 By a contract of charterparty the charterer 
 undertook to load " a cargo of ore, say about 
 2800 tons." The actual capacity of the ship was 
 2880 tons. The charterer ]oaded 2840 tons :— 
 
 ITeld, that he had satisfied his contract. 
 
 Morris v. Levison, (1876) 1 C. P. D. 155, dis- 
 tinguished. MiLLEB !). BOKNER & CO. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 ft. B. 691 
 
 20. — " Cargo of steam coal as ordered by char - 
 terers " — Colliery guarantee — Strike clause — Col- 
 liery on strike. 
 
 It was agreed by a charterparty that the ship 
 should sail to Cardiff, and proceed to such loading 
 berth as the freighters might name, and should 
 there load " a cargo of steam coal as ordered by 
 the charterers," which they bound themselves to 
 ship, except in the event of (inter alia) strike of 
 shippers' pitmen ; the vessel to be loaded as cus- 
 tomary, " but subject in all respects to the colliery 
 
 guarantee, in colliery working days as 
 
 may be arranged, any claim for demurrage in 
 loading to be settled with colliery direct." The 
 charterers, for the purpose of fulfilling their 
 obligation under the charterparty, contracted with 
 a colliery for a cargo of steam coal, subject to the 
 usual exception as to strikes. Subsequently a 
 strike of pitmen took place, which extended to 85 
 per cent, of tbe South Wales collieries, including 
 the before-mentioned colliery. The charterers, in 
 performance of their obligation under the charter- 
 [larty, tendered to the shipowners the guarantee 
 of that colliery, by which the colliery proprittors 
 undertook to load the ship in twenty days after 
 she should be ready to receive cargo, subject io 
 the usual exception as to strikes. The shipowners 
 objected to the colliery guarantee, as not being in 
 accordance with the charter, on the ground that 
 (he colliery was then on strike. The strike sull 
 continuing for three montlis after the arrival of 
 the ship at Cardiff, her loading was in conse- 
 quence delayed for that period. Steam coal 
 might have been obtained from other collieries in 
 the district which remained working during the 
 strike, although at a very high price. 
 
 In an action by the shipowners against the 
 charterers for damages for the detention of the 
 ship : — 
 
 Held, that the shipowners were not entitled 
 to object to the colliery guarantee as not being in 
 accordance with the charterparty, and that the 
 action was not maintainable. Dobell & Co. v. 
 Green & Co. C. A, [1900] W. N. 41 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 526 
 
 21. — " Cargo to be taken from, alongside at 
 charterern'' risk and expense" — ^^ Any custom of 
 the port notwithstanding " — Extent of exclusion of 
 custom — Construction of charterparty. 
 
 By a charterparty a cargo of timber was to be 
 shippe,! at a baltic. port Kn<l delivered at the 
 Sui ruy Comme' eial Ducks, London. The charter- 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. 
 party contained a clause, "The cargo to ber 
 brought to and taken from alongside the steamer 
 at charterers' risk and expense, any custom of 
 the port notwithstanding " : — 
 
 Held, that the exclusion of the custom of the 
 port related to the whole clause, and that tht> 
 shipowners were therefore only bound to deliver 
 over the ship's raU, and were not bound by any 
 custom of the port of London requiring a ship- 
 owner to do work outside the ship. Beenba 
 Steamship Co. v. Geeen 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 49 ; [1900] 1 Q, B. 618 
 
 22. — Carriage of goods and non-delivery — 
 Sale at port of distress — Law of the flag — Duty of 
 master by German law. 
 
 A German vessel loading at Singapore took 
 aboard pepper shipped by British subjects under 
 English bills of lading in the usual form. During 
 the voyage the ship put into a port of distress, 
 with part of the cargo damaged. The master 
 telegraphed to this effect to Singapore, and the 
 telegram was communicated to the shippers, but 
 no instructions were received. The master then,, 
 acting on the best advice available and in good 
 faith, sold the bulk of the pepper, though mucb 
 was sound and fit for reshipment : — 
 
 Held, that the law of the flag governed the- 
 acts of the master, and that they were justified! 
 by that law, and the shippers could not sue foi 
 conversion of the pepper. The " August " 
 
 Hansen Pres. [1891] P. 32S 
 
 Discussed by G. Barnes J. and by C. A. The 
 Industrie, [1894] V. 58, 61, 71. 
 
 23. — Cesser clause — Bill of lading freight les» 
 than chartered freight. 
 
 A cesser clause relieves the charterers from 
 liability only to the extent to which the ship- 
 owner has obtained a lien lor the freight on the 
 cargo. Hansen v. Habbold Beothees 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 612. 
 
 24. — Cesser clause —Delay at port of loading. 
 The word " demurrage " in a lien clause does 
 
 not cover damages for undue detention at the 
 port of loading, and the cesser clause does not 
 exempt Ihe charterer from liability for the delay. 
 
 (a) Clink v. Eadfoed & Co. - - C. A. 
 
 [1891] 1 ft. B. 62i 
 
 (b) Ddnlop & Sons r. Balpobb, Williams jn 
 & Co. C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 60? 
 
 (c) Beankelow Steamship Co. v. Canton 
 Insdbance Office C. A. [1899] 2 ft. B. 178, 184 
 
 25. — Condition precedent or warranty — 
 Breach — Waiver. 
 
 The description of a ship in a charterparty as 
 " now sailed or about to sail " held to be of the 
 substance of the coutract a condition precedent, 
 and not a mere warranty, and where tuch condi- 
 tion is not fulfilled the charterers are justified in 
 refusing to load the ship. But, held, on the con- 
 struction of the correspondence, that the charterers 
 had waived their right, but were entitled to 
 damages :— 
 
 Held, also, that the construction of the charter- 
 party and of the correspondence was a question 
 for the judge and not for the jury. Bentsen ». 
 Taylor, Sons & Co. (^fo. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 2T4 
 
( 1937 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1938 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty)— con* mued. 
 
 26. — Consignee — Deposit with warehouse 
 ovmer — Action for freight — " Legal proceedings " 
 — " Owner of goods " — Merchant flipping Act, 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63), ss. 66, 72. 
 
 Where cargo is deposited by a shipowner with 
 a warehouseman under ss. 66-72 of tlie Act of 
 1862 (now S3. 492^96 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894), subject to a stop for freight, and the 
 consignee deposits the freight with the ware- 
 houseman and takes delivery of the goods from 
 him, no contract by the consignee to be personally 
 liiible for the freight is to bo inferred from liis 
 acceptance of the goods, and the Act creates no 
 Bucli personal liability. In these circumstances 
 a consignee, who is so named in the bills of 
 lading, but who has no property in the goods and 
 takes delivery only as agent for the owner, cannot 
 be sued for the freight. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1894] 1 Q. B. 483, reversed. 
 White & Co. v. Fdbness, Withy & Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 40 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Montgomery v. Foy, 
 Morgan & Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 321, 323, 327. 
 
 27. — Damage to cargo — Sill of lading — In- 
 demnity clause — Third party notice. 
 
 Under a bill of lading dated Juno 18, 1899, 
 not protecting the deft, shipowners from the con- 
 sequences of negligence due to improper stowage, 
 a parcel of grain was shipped at Montreal for 
 Liverpool by the steamship Arroyo, owned by 
 the defts., and chartered for a term by I;. & Co., 
 under a cbarterparty dated April 19, 1899, not 
 referred to by the bill of lading, but protecting 
 the deft, shipowners from sea damage, and pro- 
 viding that " Bills of lading are to be signed at 
 any rate of freight the charterers or their agents 
 may direct, without prejudice to this charter .... 
 the charterers hereby indemnify the owners from 
 all consequences or liabilities that may arise from 
 the captain's doing so." 
 
 On the arrival of the vessel at Liverpool, the 
 grain was found to be damaged from, it was 
 alleged, negligence in the storage of a deck cargo, 
 and the pits., indorsees of the bill of lading and 
 owners of the grain, commenced an action in rem 
 against the defts., as owners of the Arroyo, in the 
 Liverpool County Court in the sum of 140/. 19s. 6d. 
 for breach of duty in and about the carriage and 
 delivery of the goods. The defts. served a third 
 party notice on L. & Co , which the county court 
 judge set aside on the ground that the contract 
 of indemnity was " confined to any consequences 
 or liabilities that might arise from the captain's 
 signing bills of lading at a rate of freight difi'ei- 
 ing from that in thecliarterparty, and had notliing 
 to do with the damages for breach of duty about 
 the carriage and delivery of goods to which the 
 claim related " : — 
 
 Seld, reversing the decision of the county 
 court judge, that the meaning of the indemnity 
 clause was not so limited. The " Akbotu " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. K. 60 
 
 28. — Damage to cargo — Bill of lading incorpo- 
 rating the Barter Act {Act of Congress of U.S.A., 
 Feb. 13, 1893) — Negligence in "management" of 
 the vessel. 
 
 Cargo was shipped at a port in the United 
 States under a bill of lading incorporating the 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty)—co)itJn«c(J. 
 Act of Congress known as " the Barter Act," by 
 which the owner of the vessel is not to be " heldi 
 responsible for damage or loss resulting from 
 faults or errors in navigation or in the manage- 
 ment of the vessel." 
 
 During the voyage the vessel met with heavy 
 weather, and, the forecastle becoming flooded, 
 the boatswain, whilst endeavouring, with the aid 
 of a poker, to clear a pipe used to carry off the 
 drainage, drove a hole through it, thereby ad- 
 mitting water into the forehold, and damaging a 
 portion of the cargo. The owner of the cargo 
 souglit to render the shipowner liable : — 
 
 Held, by the Div. Ct. (Sir F. H. Jeune, Pres., 
 and Gorell Barnes J.), reversing the decision of 
 a county court judge, that the shipowner was 
 exempt from liability, as the damage resulted from 
 a fault in the "management" of the vessel, the 
 act having been done for the purpose of rendering 
 the forecastle habitable, that is, with the object 
 of rendering the ship proper for the purpose for 
 which she was intended. 
 
 The Glenochil, [1896] P. 10, followed. The 
 " EoDNEY " - - Div. ct. [1900] W. N. 46 ; 
 
 [1900] P. 112 
 
 29. — Damage to cargo— Bill of lading incor- 
 porating the Barter Aot (Act of Congress, Feb. 13, 
 1893) — Negligence in " management " of the vessel 
 in port of discharge. 
 
 Goods were shipped under a bill of lading 
 Incorporating the Act of Congress known as " the 
 Harter Act," by which the owner of the vessel is 
 not to be " held responsible for damage or loss 
 resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in 
 the management of" the vessel. 
 
 After the arrival of the vessel at her port of 
 destination, and during the discharge of the 
 cargo, it became necessary to stiffen the ship. 
 For this purpose the engineer ran water into a 
 ballast tank, but negligently omitted first t» 
 ascertain the condition of the sounding-pipe and 
 casing, which had, owing to heavy weather 
 during the voyage, become broken. The owner 
 of the goods damaged by the water getting tO' 
 the cargo, sought to render the shipowner 
 liable : — 
 
 Jlcld, that the shipowner was exempt from 
 liability, as the damage resulted from a fault in 
 the " management " of the vessel, and the opera- 
 tion of the exception as to "management" was 
 not limited to the period during which the vessel 
 was at sea, but extended to the period during 
 wliich the cargo was being discharged. Thk 
 "Glenochil" - Div. Ct. [1896] P. la 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. The Bodney, [1900] 
 P. 112. 
 
 80. — Damage to cargo — Excepted perils — 
 Discharge in port of refuge — Refusal of ship- 
 owner to reload — Abandonment of voyage — Duty, 
 of master. 
 
 Owing to stress of weather, a vessel, after 
 sailing under charter from Cardiff for Cape Town 
 with coals, put into a port of refuge. The coal 
 was discharged partly to effect the necessary 
 repairs to the ship, and partly for the benefit of" 
 the cargo, portions of which had become heated 
 from wetting by excepted perils of the sea. 
 After the repairs to the ship were completed, the- 
 
( 1939 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1940 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty)— coniimtteii. 
 cargo owner required the sliipowner to reload the 
 ooal ; the shipowner refused on the ground that 
 in the opinion of the surveyors on both sides the 
 coal was not then in a fit state for reshipment, 
 though, subsequent to the commencement of an 
 action for breach of contract, the coal had dried 
 sofficiently to be carried on if the small coal 
 were eliminated from the bulk : — 
 
 Seld, that the charterer was not entitled to 
 recover, as, at the date of the issue of the writ, 
 there was no breach of contract by the ship- 
 owner. Up to that time, on the evidence before 
 him, the master, acting on behalf of the ship- 
 owner, was justified in refusing to carry on the 
 cargo, and was not bound to wait an indefinite 
 period until experts should be agreed that, the 
 coal being dry, there would be no further risk of 
 spontaneous combustion on a voyage through the 
 tropics, provided the excessive amount of small 
 coal, due to repeated handlings, were removed, 
 for which no facilities existed at the port of 
 refuge, except at an expense out of proportion to 
 the value of the cargo. 
 
 Observatinns of WiUes J. in Notara v. 
 
 Henderson, (1872) L. E. 7 Q. B. 225, at p. 237, 
 
 applied. The " Savona " - G. Barnes J. 
 
 [1900] W. K. 124; [1900] P. 252 
 
 31. — " Damaged " cargo — Inherent vice. 
 
 The master of the pits.' vessel signed bills of 
 lading for caigo as " in good order and well con- 
 ditioned .... to be delivered in the like good 
 order and condition," subject to the usual excep- 
 tion as to perils of the seas, and (by incorporation 
 of tlie charterparty) with the further condition 
 that the balance of freight was payable " on 
 right delivery of cargo less value of cargo .... 
 damaged .... not covered " byjthe exception. 
 
 The cargo consisted of fresh cut deals, shi pped, 
 as usual at the port of loading, without regard to 
 the weather, which at the time was wet. During 
 the voyage part of the cargo became tainted, 
 discoloured, and out of condition. In an action 
 for balance of freight : — 
 
 Ueld, that the defts., the holders of the bills 
 of lading, were not entitled to deduct the amount 
 of the deterioj atlon of the cargo from the balance 
 of freight, as the word "damaged" referred to 
 damage due to breach of contract by the ship- 
 owner, and did not include damage arising from 
 want of power in the cargo to bear the ordinary 
 transit in a ship. The " Baboore " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 294 
 — Demurrage. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping— Demurrage. 
 
 32. — Description of goods — " Marlced and 
 numbered as in the margin " — Bill of lading — 
 Mistake— Bills of Lading Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. 
 u. Ill), 8. 3. 
 
 By the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, s. 3, " Every 
 bill of lading, in the hands of a consignee or 
 indorsee for valuable consideration, representing 
 goods to have betn shipped on board a vessel, 
 shall be conclusive evidence of such shipment 
 as against the master or other person signing 
 the same, nutwithstanding that such goods, 
 or some part thereof, may not have been so 
 shipped " 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty)— continued. 
 
 A bill of lading described goods as " marked 
 and numbered as in the margin." Some of the 
 goods shipped were marked and numbered 
 differently from the description in the margin, 
 but this marking and numbering did not affect 
 or denote the substance, quality, or commercial 
 value of the goods. 
 
 In an action for damages for short delivery, 
 brought by the consignee against the shipowners' 
 agents, who had signed the bill of lading : — 
 
 Seld, that the defts. were not jjrevented, by 
 the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, s. 3, from shewing 
 that there was a mistake in the marginal descrip- 
 tion, and that these goods formed part of the 
 quantity set forth in the bill of lading, and were 
 shipped as part of the plt.'s consignment. 
 
 Bradley v. Dunipace, (1862) 1 H. & 0. 521, 
 
 distinguished. Paesons v. New Zealand Ship- 
 
 vma Co. - Kennedy J. [1900] 1 Q. B. 714; 
 
 this Case was aflBimed by C. A. [1901] 1 K. B. 548 
 
 33. — Despatch money — Time for discharge of 
 cargo — " Sundays and fete days " excepted. 
 
 Pits.' ship was chartered by defts. to carry a 
 cargo " to be discharged at the rate of 200 tons 
 per day weather permitting (Sundays and fete 
 days excepted) according to the custom of the 
 port of discharge, and if sooner discharged to 
 pay at tlie rate of 8s. id. per hour for every hour 
 saved " : — 
 
 Held, that despatch money was payable on 
 the difference between the number of hours 
 actually occupied in the discharge (omitting 
 Sundays and fete days) and the total number of 
 hours allowed by the charterparty. The " Glbn- 
 DBVON " - - Div. Ct. [1893] P. 269 
 
 — Deviation. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Deviation. 
 
 34. . — Discharge of timber cargo— Custom — 
 Inconsistency with contract — " To 6e taken from 
 alongside at merchants' expense." 
 
 A custom that, in discharging long lengths 
 of timber from a ship, the shipowner is bound to 
 put the timber into lightens brought alongside 
 by the consignees is not inconsistent with a 
 charterparty wliich provides that the timber shall 
 be taken from alongside at merchants' expense. 
 Aktieselkab Helios v. Ekmak & Co. 
 
 C, A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 83 
 
 — Exceptions. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Exceptions. 
 
 — Freight. 
 
 See Cases under Shippixg — Freight. 
 
 — General average. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Average. 
 
 35. — Hire — Cesser of hire during inefficiency 
 of ship — Payment during discharge of cargo — 
 
 A charterparty contained a condition in case 
 of breakdown that payment of liire should cease 
 " until the vessel was in an efficient slate to resume 
 service." The thip's machinery broke down on 
 her homeward voyage, and she was towed to a 
 port of discharge, the expense being treated as a 
 general average : — 
 
 Held, tliat wliilo being towed the ship was not 
 
( 1941 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1942 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Chaiteipartj)— continued. 
 
 efficient, but that she became efficient when able 
 
 to discharge. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1889) 16 E. 599, 
 affirmed. Hogakth v. Milleb Bbotheb & Co. 
 H, E. (Sc.) (Lord Bramwell dissent.) 
 [1891] A. C. 48 
 
 36. — Incorporation of conditions of charter- 
 party—" Freight and all other conditions as per 
 eharterparty " — Limitation to conditions to be per- 
 formed, by consignee. 
 
 By a charterparty a vessel was to load a full 
 cargo of timber, including a deck cargo at mer- 
 chant's risk. Timber was loaded under a, bill 
 of lading which coutained no reference to deck 
 cargo, but in which there was a clause "freight 
 and all other conditions as per oliarterparty." 
 In an action for freight by the shipowner against 
 the consignees of a part of the cargo which had 
 been carried on deck, the defts. counter-claimed 
 for damage to their cargo :— 
 
 Seld (Bigby L.J. dissenting), that the condi- 
 tions of the charterparty incorporated Into the 
 bUl of lading were limited to such as were to be 
 performed by the consignee, and did not include 
 the exemption of the shipowner from liability in 
 respect of deck cargo. Diedeeichsen v. Pab- 
 QUHABSON Beothebs - C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 150 
 
 ' — Indorsement by buyer — Possession of goods — ■ 
 Consent of seller. 
 See Sale of Goods. 7. 
 
 37. 
 
 usage. 
 
 'Lawful merchandise" — Evidence of 
 
 By usage " lawful merchandise" is confined 
 to^ goods ordinarily shipped from the port of 
 loading : — 
 
 Held, that as it appeared that ordnance stores 
 were not usually shipped from Ceylon, loading 
 such stores at a port in that Colony was a breach 
 of a charterparty providing for shipment of lawful 
 merchandise. Vandespab & Co. v. Ddncan & Co. 
 Charles J. [1891] W. W. 178 
 
 38. — Loading^Ship to load "always afloat 
 as and where ordered by charterers " — Insufficient 
 depth of water in dock — Detention of ship. 
 
 A charterparty provided tliat a ship should 
 proceed to a named dock and "there load in the 
 customary manner (Sundays and holidays ex- 
 cepted) always afloat as and wbere ordered by the 
 charterers, a cargo of rails." The depth of water 
 in the dock varied with the tides and was suffi- 
 cient at spring tides, but not at neap tides, for a 
 ship of the size of the chartered vessel to load 
 there always afloat, and this was within the know- 
 ledge of the owners and of the cliarterers. The 
 ehip having arrived in the dock the charterers 
 ordered her to a berth where the loading began 
 and continued for several days ; then the water 
 began to fall, and to avoid taking the ground the 
 ship was compelled to leave the dock. After 
 several days she returned with the spring tides 
 and completed her loading. The shipowners 
 having sued the charterers for demurrage or 
 damages : — 
 
 Beld, affirming the decision of C. A., [1897] 
 2 Q. B. 485, that the charterers were not bound 
 to do that which (as was known to the ship^ 
 owners) might be physically impossible, namely. 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. 
 order the ship when she arrived to a berth 
 where she could then load continuously always 
 afloat, and that they were not responsible for 
 delay occasioned by natural and physical causes 
 beyond their control. Cablton Steamship Co. 
 V. Castle Mail Packets Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 486 
 
 — Loss of bill of lading freight— Waiver of lien 
 for cliartered freight. 
 See Insueanob — Marine. 53. 
 
 39. — Penalty or liquidated damages — Ee- 
 fusal to sign bills of lading. 
 
 A charterparty contained the clause, '' The 
 captain shall sign charterer's bills of lading as 
 presented without qualification .... or pay 101. 
 for every day's delay as and for liquidated 
 damages tmtil the ship is totally lost or the 
 cargo delivered." The captain wrongfully refused 
 to sign the bills of lading as presented ; but the 
 charterers were unable to shew that they had 
 sustained any damage by his conduct : — 
 
 Seld. that the clause Imposed a penalty and 
 not liquidated damages, arid that the pits, were 
 only entitled to nominal damages. Bayneb u. 
 Redebiaktiebolaget Condob 
 
 Mathew J. [1896] 2 Q. B. 289 
 
 40. — Pledge — Master and servant — Ship- 
 owner's liability — Owner's subsequent liability on 
 bills of lading signed by master. 
 
 The intention and efieot of a charterparty is 
 that the owner parts with the possession and 
 control of the vessel to the charterer, and provi- 
 sions which are not consistent with this in- 
 tention should be disregarded. Consequently 
 neither the captain nor shipping agent is servant 
 or agent of the owner so as to render him liable 
 either under biils of lading or for negligence, or 
 by reason of his being registered as managing 
 owner. Bacmvoll Mandpactdb von Sohbibleb 
 V. Giloheest & Co. 
 
 Charles 3. [1891] 2 Q. B. 810; revers. by C. A. 
 [1892] 1 ft. B. 263 ; C. A. affirm, sub nom. 
 
 BaUMVOLL MANtTFACTUE VON SOHEIBLEB V. 
 
 FuENESS, H, L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 8 
 Distinguished by C. A. Manchester Trust v. 
 Furness & Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 539. 
 
 41. — Pledge— Trover— Bills ef Lading Act, 
 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. o. HI), s. 1. 
 
 Pledgees of goods are entitled to maintain 
 trovei' in respect of a wrongful delivery of the 
 goods, even where at the date of the wrongful 
 delivery they had not acquired their title to the 
 goods. Beistol and West of England Bank 
 V. Midland Et. Co. - C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 663 
 
 42. — Pledge of goods to bank. 
 
 The security of the pledgees of a bill of lading 
 is not affected by their return of the bill to the 
 pledgors to enable them to obtain delivery of the 
 merchandise and sell on the pledgee's account, 
 and account for the proceeds- towards satisfaction 
 of the debt. Nobth Westebn Bank v. John 
 Poynteb, Son & Macdonalds 
 
 H. I. (Sc.) [1895] A. c. 66 
 
 Discussed by H. L, (Sc). Inglis v. Robertson, 
 
 [1898] A. C. 616, 626. " ' 
 
( 1943 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1944 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. 
 
 43. — " Port charges " — Light dues. 
 
 In a oharterparty providing for tlie payment 
 of port charges, the expression " port charges " 
 must be taken to mean all charges which a vessel 
 has to pay before she gets her clearance from a 
 port, and tlierefore to include whatever light 
 dues she may be required to pay at such port. 
 Newman & Dale v. Lamport & Holt 
 
 Mathew J. [1896] 1 «. B. 20 
 
 44. — Port — " Safe port " — Ship unable to 
 reach port without being lightened — Evidence of 
 cmtom of port. 
 
 A ship was chartered to proceed with a cargo 
 of grain to a port of call " for orders to discharge 
 at a safe port .... Discharge to be given with 
 dispatch, according to the customs of the port of 
 ilischarge, and to be all at one port . . . Char- 
 terers to have the privilege of naming the dis- 
 charging dock .... the dock to be one into 
 which the vessel can at once eafely enter and lie 
 f'float at all times." She was ordered to dis- 
 charge at Gloucester. The basin at Gloucester 
 is approached by a canal seventeen miles long. 
 On arrival of the ship at Sharpness, which is at 
 the entrance to the canal, she was found to be of 
 too great a draught to proceed up the canal. 
 The charterers requested the master to discharge 
 a sufficient part of the cargo at Sliarpness to 
 allow of her navigating the canal, and to proceed 
 to Gloucester with the remainder. The master 
 refused to do eg, and discharged the whole at 
 Sharpness. Gloucester and Sharpness are for 
 commercial purposes diiferent ports. In an ac- 
 tion by the charterers for breach of the charter- 
 party :— 
 
 Mdd, that the port of Gloucester, being one 
 which tlie vessel could not safely reaoli with a 
 lull cargo, was not a safe port within the meaniug 
 of the oharterparty ; and that evidence of a 
 custom of the port for vessels carrying grain to 
 be lightened at Sharpness to allow of their pro- 
 ceeding up the canal to Glouaester was inadmis- 
 sible, as being inconsistent with the terms of the 
 oharterparty by which the discharge was to be 
 " at a safe port." 
 
 Neilsen v. Wait, (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 67, dis- 
 tinguished. KbYHOLDS & Co. V. TOMLINSON 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 686 
 
 48. — ■ Rescission of charterparty — Damages — 
 Hire of ship — Eight of shipowner to rescind con- 
 tract. 
 
 Where a shipowner rescinded a oharterparty 
 under the erroneous belief that the charterer had 
 mnde default and relet the ship, tlie charterer 
 was awarded damages for loss of profit. Dtoisiou 
 of Ct. of Sees., (1892) 19 E. 987, affirmed. 
 Caeswell v. Collaed 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] W. N. 106; [1893] A. C. 635 
 
 46. — Warranty, Implied — Bullion-room — 
 Fitness to resist thieves. 
 
 Boxes of gold, sliippcd abroad, under a bill of 
 lading, for delivery in London, were placed in 
 the bullion-room of the ship, from which one of 
 the boxes was efolen during the voyage. The 
 bill of lading did not contain any mention of a 
 bullion-room, but it was known to the pits, that 
 the defts.' vessels were provided with such rooms, 
 and it was in the contemplation of both parties to 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty) — continued. 
 
 the contract that the gold was to be carried in a 
 
 bullion-room : — 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Mathew J., 
 that there was an implied warranty that the 
 bullion-room in which the gold was stowed was 
 so constructed as to be reasonably fit to resist 
 thieves. Qdbensland National Bank, Ld. v. 
 Peninsulas and Oriental Steam Navigation 
 Co. - - - C. A. [1898] 1 a. B. 66T 
 
 47. — Warranty of authority — Authority to 
 effect charter — Shipbroker — Telegraphic instruc- 
 tions — Mistake. 
 
 A firm of shipbrokers signed a charterparty 
 in the form " by telegraphic authority " of the 
 charterer " as agent " : — 
 
 Held, that such a form of signature was ir>- 
 tended to protect, and by custom did protect, the 
 shipbrokers from any mistake in the telegram. 
 Evidence to explain the meaning of this form of 
 signature admitted. Lilly, Wilson & Co. r. 
 S MALES, Eeles & Co. 
 
 Denman J. [1892] 1 Q. B. 486 
 
 48. — Warranty of eeavsorthiness — Voyage of 
 steam-vessel in stages — Insufficiency of coal — Cargo 
 burned as fuel. 
 
 The pits.' steam-vessel left Cebu in the 
 Philippine Islands, for Liverpool, with cargo be- 
 longing to the defts., shipped under a charter- 
 party and bill of lading giving liberty to coal 
 at ports on the way, and excepting the negligence 
 of the master and engineer. The vessel called 
 at Colombo, but did not take in a reasonably 
 sufficient quantity of coal for the next stage to 
 Suez, and when passing Perim (a coaling station), 
 the master did not call there owing to the negli- 
 gence of the engineer in not informing him that 
 the coal was running short. In consequence, 
 whilst proceeding up the Bed Sea, 50 tons of 
 cargo were burnt as fuel in order to carry the 
 vessel on to Suez, where she again coaled, and so 
 was enabled to perform the chartered voyage to 
 Liverpool : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of G. Barnes J.), 
 that the defts. were entitled to set oflf by 
 wiiy of counter-claim the value of the cargo- 
 burned against tho freight, on the ground that, 
 if the pit. shipowners, owing to the necessity 
 for coaling, availed themselves of the liberty to. 
 call at ports on the way, they must make tueir 
 vessel seaworthy at the commencement of eacli 
 stage for the voyage or stage of the voyage she 
 then enters upon, and, in the circumstances of 
 this case, the second stage was from Colombo to 
 Suez. The pits., therefore, could not rely on tho 
 exception covering negligence of the engineer 
 when oif Perim, as by the insufficiency of coal 
 when the vessel left Colombo the impUed war- 
 ranty of seaworthiness had been broken. 
 
 Quebec Marine Insurance Co. v. Commerciai 
 Bank of Canada, (1870) L. E. 3 P. C. 234, and 
 Thin V. Bichards & Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 141, fol- 
 lowed. The " VORTIGEBN " 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 34 (2); [1899] P. 140 
 
 49. — Warranty of seaicorihiness — Voyage in 
 stagis. 
 
 A steamer was chartered to proceed to 0. 
 and there load a part cargo of esparto for de- 
 livery at G., witli liberty to fill up with dead 
 
( 1915 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, IStU— IIWIJ. 
 
 ( 194C ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Charterparty)— conJjnttecZ. 
 weight cargo for owners' benefit, and to call at 
 any porta in any order. She called at H. and 
 filled up with ore, but took in no more coal. By 
 reason of insufficient supply of coal she ran ashore 
 and the cargo was lost. On an action for non- 
 delivery of the esparto :— 
 
 Held, that, even if the voyage could be treated 
 as one divided into stages, the warrant of sea- 
 worthiness which attaches at each stage was 
 broken at H., and the pits, were entitled lo 
 recover. Thin v. Kiohabds & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 141 
 
 Followed by C. A. The Vorligern, [1899] P. 
 140. 
 
 Collision. 
 
 Collisions at sea — Regulations for preventing — 
 Tn farce on and after July 1, 1897 — -O. in G. dated 
 Nov. 27, 1896. [1896] P. 307 ; St. E. & 0. 1896, 
 No. 1082. 
 
 50. — Anclior — Collision at — Duty of colliding 
 vessel — Duty at anclim — Onus probandi. 
 
 When a vessel under way comes into collision 
 with a vessel at anchor exhibiting a proper light, 
 the onus is on her to justify her conduct. She 
 cannot be excused when it is shewn that she had 
 not a, sufficient look-out. The vessel at anchor 
 is also bound to keep a competent person on watch, 
 whose duty it is to see that the anchor light or 
 lights are properly exhibited, and to do every- 
 thing in his power to avert or minimise a colli- 
 sion. If that person acts in error of judgment, 
 when placed by the colliding vessel in a position 
 of difficulty calling for instant decision, he is 
 entitled to favourable consideration, and it must 
 be shewn that any alternative course would have 
 prevented or mitigated the collision. " Maky " 
 TtJG Co. V. British India Steam Navigation Co. 
 The " Meanatohy " P. C. [1897] A. C. 351 
 
 51. — Anchor light — " Forward part of the 
 vessel" — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at 
 Sea, 1897, art. H. 
 
 By art. 11 of the Eegulations for Preventing 
 Collisions at Sea "a vessel of 150 feet or upwards 
 in length, when at anchor, shall carry " two 
 anchor lights, one " in tlie forward part of the 
 vessel " : — 
 
 Held, that a vessel 313 feet in length, at 
 anchor, with the forward light hanging from the 
 foreshroud of the starboard forerigging, 72 feet 
 abaft the stem, was, on the true construction oi' 
 the wording of the article, carrying it " in the 
 forwai d part of the vessel." 
 
 " Decision of BucknillJ., [1900] W. N. 5 ; [1900] 
 P. 13, reversed. The " Philadelphian " 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 120 ; [1900] P. 262 
 
 62. — Anchor light — Second anchor light — "At 
 •or near the stern " — Regulations for Preventing 
 ■Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 11. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., The Gannet, [1899] P. 230, 
 ie"versed on the facts so far as the Gannet was held 
 to be in fault ; and the decision of Buoknill J. 
 that the Algoa was alone in fault restored. 
 Ownees of Steamship " Gannet " v. Owneks of 
 Steamship " Alqoa." The " Gannet " 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. N. 86; [1900] A. C. 234 
 
 53, — Anchor light — Towing lights—" Under 
 
 SHIPPING (Collision)— co»WnMe(i. 
 way" — Saloage — Regulations for Preventing Colli- 
 sions at Sea, 1897, preliminary article, and arts. 
 3,11. 
 
 A steam-tug is " under way " within the 
 meaning of the preliminary article of the Eegu- 
 lations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, 
 when she is fast alongside a vessel which she is 
 moving up to her anchor preparatory to towing 
 her away ; and tlie tug should, therefore, exhibit 
 the towing lights and side lights required by 
 art. 3 of the same regulations, though, semhle, 
 the vessel herself, whilst her anchor is still in 
 the ground, should exhibit the anchor light 
 required by art. 11 of the same regulations. The 
 " EOMANOE " G. Barnes J. [1900] W. N. 254 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 16 
 
 61, — Anchor, vessel at — Burden of proof- 
 Inevitable accident. 
 
 The defts.' steamer, owing, as they alleged, to 
 a latent defect in the steering gear which could 
 not have been ascertained or prevented by any 
 reasonable care or skill, ran down another vessel 
 at anchor : — 
 
 Held, that the onus of disproving negligence 
 lay on them, and, on the facts, that they had not 
 disproved negligence and were liable. Evidence 
 necessary to prove inevitable accident considered. 
 
 Decision of Butt P., [1892] P. 9, reversed. 
 The " Merchant Prince " C. A, [1892] P. 179 
 
 56, — Crossing bows of ship— Duties of either 
 vessel. 
 
 Where two steamships entered the Bosphorua 
 from the Black Sea at the same time, both 
 making at about equal speed for a point on the 
 Asiatic side, and on reaching that point the iS , 
 being on the European side, crossed the bows 
 of the N., notwithstanding the proximity of the 
 land, the set of the current, and the fact that 
 neither vessel had on it at the time much steer- 
 age way : — 
 
 Held, that the Court below was wrong in pro- 
 nouncing the N. solely to blame for the collision. 
 The 8. was to blame in the firot instance, but the 
 N. was also in fault for not having reversed at 
 once when the S.'s object was or ought to have 
 been apparent. SS. ■' Nokd Kap " v. SS. " Sand- 
 hill." The " Sandhill " J. C. [1894] A, C. 646 
 
 — Crossing vessels in rivers — Eegulations for 
 preventing collisions. 
 See China. 2. 
 
 66, — Damages — Measure of — Prqfitice — Total 
 loss — Vessel in ballast under charter — Restitutio in 
 integrum. 
 
 The pits.' barque, whilst proceeding in ballast 
 from London to a North American port under 
 charter to load a cargo for the Continent, oaniu 
 into collision with the defts.' steamer and was 
 totally lost. 
 
 The defts. admitted liability, and, on the 
 reference to assess the damages, the registrai', 
 assisted by merchants, allowed a sum represent- 
 ing the value of the pits.' barque at the date 
 when she would have accomplished the homeward 
 voyage, together with a sum for the loss of the 
 profit which would have been realized under the 
 charter. . 
 
 On motion in objection to the report on the 
 
( 1947 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1948 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Collision) — continued. 
 ground that, in the case of the total, as distin- 
 guished from the partial, loss of a vessel without 
 cargo, the pits, were only entitled to the market 
 value of the vessel at the time of her loss : — 
 
 Held, confirming the report of the registrar, 
 that the proper Ineasure of damage was the value 
 of the vessel at the end of the voyage, plus the 
 profits lost under the charterparty. 
 
 The Columbus, (1849) 3 Wm. Eob. 158, and 
 The Clyde, (1856) Sw. 23, considered. The 
 "Kate" - - Jeune P. [1899] W. N. 42 ; 
 
 [1899] P. 165 
 
 67. — Damages — Unpaid balance of — Action in 
 -rem — Arrest — Bail — Helease — Judgment — Prac- 
 tice— AdmiraUy Court Act, 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), 
 8. 15 — Writ of fieri facias. 
 
 A collision occurred in the river Thames 
 between a British and a foreign vessel. The 
 owners of the British vessel commenced an action 
 in rem and arrested the foreign vessel, the owners 
 of which, domiciled abroad, appeared, and, having 
 put in bail for the full value of the vessel and 
 her freight, she was released. The foreign vessel 
 was subsequently found alone to blame, and the 
 decree in the usual form, in the case of owners 
 who have appeared, condemned the defts. and 
 their bail in damages and costs. The damages 
 proved to be in excess of the amount of the bail, 
 and the pits., in respect of this balance, sued 
 out a writ of fieri facias under which the foreign 
 vessel was seizecl. On application to the Court 
 the sheriff was ordered to withdraw : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A,, reversing the decision of 
 Bucknill J. [1899] W. N. 116, that the owners 
 of the foreign vessel had, by appearing, rendered 
 themselves personally liable, and, therefore, pay- 
 ment of the balance could be enforced under 
 s. 15 of 24 Vict. 0. 10, by a writ of fieri facias 
 against any of their goods and chattels, including 
 the released vessel, within the jurisdiction. 
 
 The Dictator, [1892] P. 304, held applicable, 
 approved, and followed. The " Gemma " 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 186 ; [1899] P. 285 
 
 68. — Danube — Regulations as to navigaiion of 
 Lower Danube — Duties of ascending and descend- 
 ing ships — Regulations as to navigation of Lower 
 Danube, art. 32 — Appeal from Constantinople. 
 
 Where a ship ascending the Danube finds 
 herself exposed to the risk of meeting a descend- 
 ing ship at or near a point which does not afford 
 sufiScient breadth for passing, art. 32 of the regu- 
 lations applicable to the Lower Danube is im- 
 perative, and the ascending ship is bound to stop 
 and wait. If, however, such an ascending ship 
 force her way contrary to art. 32, and her inten- 
 tion so to do is reasonably apparent, a descending 
 ship commits contributory fault by insisting on 
 her right of precedence. SS. "Diana" v. SS. 
 " Olieveden." The " Clieveden " 
 
 P. C. [1894] A. C. 626 
 
 59. — Delay — Slackening speed, &c. — Reason- 
 able delay — Art. 18 of the Regulations for Prevent- 
 ing Collisions at Sea. 
 
 Art. 18 of the 1884 Kegulations under the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, which says, " Every 
 steamship when approaching another ship so as 
 to involve risk of collision shall slacken her speed 
 or stop and reverse if necessary," is sufficiently 
 
 SHIPPING (Collision) — continued. 
 
 complied with though a delay of a few seconds 
 
 has occurred. 
 
 The Court is not bound to hold that com- 
 pliance must be made the very moment whcD 
 danger becomes apparent. 
 
 The Emmy Haase, (1884) 9 P. D. 81, approved. 
 
 OWNEE OF SS. "KWANG TONO" V. OwifERS OP 
 
 SS. " Ngapoota." The " Ngapoota " 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 391 
 
 60. — DocTt — Barge sunlc whilst moored in a 
 dock — Absence of man in. charge. 
 
 A barge was sunk whilst moored in a dock 
 during the absence of the man in charge. The 
 dock was lighted, and it would have been im- 
 possible to beach the barge, and there being no 
 tide the ropes did not require tending : — 
 
 Held, that the absence of the person in charge 
 had nothing to do with the collision. The 
 " Hornet " - - Div. Ct. [1892] P. 861 
 
 61. — Dredger, Loss of use of — Damage by 
 collision — Remoteness of damage — Mersey harbour 
 trustees. 
 
 Owing to a collision with a ship (the ship 
 being in fault) a steam dredger was injured and 
 the owners were deprived of the use of it for some 
 weeks and the dredging works were delayed. 
 The dredger belonged to trustees charged with 
 the duty of maintaining a harbour and waterway, 
 deriving their funds from rates and not entitled to 
 distribute profits. The trustees having brought 
 a collision suit in the Admiralty against the 
 shipowners : — 
 
 Held (Lord Morris dissenting), reversing the 
 decision on this point of the C. A., The Emerald — 
 The Greta Holme, [1896] P. 192, that though the 
 trustees were not out of pocket in any definite 
 sum they were entitled to recover damages for 
 the loss of the use of the dredger. Ownees op 
 No. 7 Steam Sand Pump Dredger v. Ownebs op 
 SS. " Gbeta Holme." The " Greta Holme " 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 596 
 
 Applicable. The Mediana, H. L. (E.) [1900] 
 A. 0. 113. 
 
 62. — Fleet of warships. Single ship and — 
 Crossing rules — Special circumstances — Regula- 
 tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea, arts, 19, 21, 
 27~Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict, 
 c. 60), s. 741. 
 
 On a fine clear night in the English channel 
 those in charge of a tug and tow saw, about six 
 miles off and about five points on their port bow, 
 the electric lights of a fleet which proved to 
 consist of thirty warships steaming in company, 
 and. proceeding at a speed of ten knots an hour 
 on a course S. 72° E. 
 
 The tug and tow were making about six knots 
 an hour on a course N. 9° E., and, acting under 
 art. 21 of the Begulations for Preventing Colli- 
 sions at Sea, kept their course and speed. They 
 passed across and ahead of the first of the four 
 lines of the fleet, and were crossing ahead of the 
 second line, when the deft., the navigating officer 
 in charge of the leading vessel of that line — 
 acting under the Queen's Kegulations corre- 
 sponding with art. 19 of the Kegulations for Pre- 
 venting Collisions at Sea — kept out of the way 
 of the tug by porting, but negligently omitted 
 
( 1949 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1950 ) 
 
 SHIFFINO (Collision)— continued 
 to notice the lights indicating the tow, and, 
 starboarding back again, struck the tow and 
 sank her. 
 
 In an action by the owner of the tow it 
 was admitted that the deft, was to blame, and 
 G. Barnes J. held that he was solely to blame, 
 as he could, by the exercise of reasonable care, 
 have avoided the collision, the position and move- 
 ments of the fleet, in the opinion of the Elder 
 Brethren, not constituting such a danger of 
 nayigation or collision, or such circumstances, as 
 to render it necessary for the tug and tow to 
 depart from art. 21, and, under art. 27, avoid 
 immediate danger by keeping out of the way of 
 the fleet. The del't. appealed on the ground 
 that the tug and tow were also to blame for not 
 complying with art. 27 : — 
 
 Held, on the advice of the nautical assessors, 
 that it was improper navigation, as a matter of 
 seamanship, for the tug and tow to attempt, in 
 the circumstances, to pass across and ahead of 
 the fleet ; but the Court dismissed the appeal, on 
 the ground that — rmder the conimon law doctrine 
 of contributory negligence, as applied in The 
 Margaret (_Cayzer v. Carron Co.), (1884) 9 App. 
 Gas. 873 — though the tug and tow had been 
 guilty of negligence in keeping on, yet the deft, 
 was not hampered by the other vessels of the 
 fleet, and might, by the exercise of ordinary care 
 and diligence, have avoided the collision. 
 
 The construction to be placed on arts. 27 and 
 29 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions 
 at Sea considered. 
 
 The efifect of s. 741 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, in exempting Her Majesty's ships 
 from the provisions of the Act, discussed. 
 
 Decision of G. Barnes J., [1900] W. N. 60, 
 affirmed. H.M.S. " Sans Paeeil " 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. ». 127 ; [1900] P. 267 
 
 63. — Fog — Alteration of helm. 
 
 There is no absolute rule that when a ship in 
 a fog finds another ship approaching she is not 
 to alter her course until the direction of approach- 
 ing ship is discovered. Each case must depend 
 on its own circumstances. 
 
 The Vindomora, (1889) 14 P. D. 172. 
 affirmed. The "Vindomora." Owners of the 
 " Vindomora " v. Owners op the " Haswbll " 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 1 
 
 64. — Fog — Duty of steamer before entering fog 
 — Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 
 arts. 12 (o), 13. 
 
 The duty of a steamer to whistle on approach- 
 ing a fog, and the speed of vessels when in or 
 before entering a fqg, under arts. 12 (a), 13 of 
 the Sailing Rules, considered. The "N.Steong." 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 108 
 
 65. — Fog — " Fairway " of river— Duty to ring 
 hell when at anchor — By-laws for Navigation of 
 Thames, 1880, aH. 13. 
 
 "Fairway" means a "clear passage way by 
 water," "an open navigable passage used by 
 vessels proceeding up or down a river or channel." 
 The « BiTiE Bell " - Biv, Ct. [1898] P. 242 
 
 — Fog — " Not under command." 
 Bee No. 76, below. 
 
 SHIPPING (Collision)— co)rfTOMe(J. 
 
 66. — Fog — Begulations for Preventing Colli- 
 sions at Sea, 1884, art. 18. 
 
 Held, by C. A., that where two ships are 
 approaching in a fog, they ought to stop, and if 
 necessary to reverse, unless there are distinct and 
 unequivocal indications from the fog signals that 
 if the ships continue their course they will pass 
 clear without risk of collision. 
 
 Judgment of 0. A., The Lancashire, [1893] P. 
 47, affirmed by H. L.(B.) on the facts and not on 
 point of law. Sub nom. Bibby Brothers & Co., 
 Owners op SS. "Lancashire" v. Lebtham, 
 Owner op SS. " Ariel." The " Lancashire " 
 H. 1. (E.) [1894] A. C. 1 
 
 Discussed by Jeune P. The Lord Bangor, 
 [1896] P. 28, 32. 
 
 — General average. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Average. 
 
 67. — Joint tortfeasors — Assignment of judg- 
 ment — Damages — Collision -^ Mercantile Law 
 Amendment Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 97), e. 5. 
 
 A barque and a tug towing her were found to 
 blame, as was also a steamship with whom they 
 came into collision, and damages were given 
 against the barque and tug, and also to the tug 
 against the steamship. The owners of the barque 
 applied for an order that on payment to the 
 owners of the steamship of the balance due to 
 them, the owners of the steamship should execute 
 an assignment of the judgment to them : — 
 
 Held, that the application must be refused, 
 since the owners of the barque and tug were 
 joint tortfeasors, and not co-debtors liable for » 
 debt or duty within s. 5 of the Mercantile Law 
 Amendment Act, 1856. The "Englishman" 
 AND THE "Australia" (No. 2) 
 
 Bruce J. [1898] P. 812 
 
 68. — Joint tortfeasors — Form of judgment — 
 Damages — Collision. 
 
 In an action to recover damages for collision 
 against tug and tow, each vessel was found to 
 blame. On motion on behalf of the tug that the 
 judgment should be amended by declaring each 
 vessel severally liable only for half the damage : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was entitled to have the 
 judgment drawn up as a joint judgment enforce- 
 able against the wrongdoer. The " Avon " and 
 the " Thomas Jolippe." - Butt J. [1891] P. 7 
 
 — Lights — Anchor light. 
 
 See Nos. 50 — 53, above. 
 
 69. — Lights — Misleading lights — Steamer 
 riding by her chains with anchors unshackled. 
 
 A steamer near the Goodwin Sands unshackled 
 her anchors, banked her fires, shut off' steam, and 
 rode head to vrind by her chains. She exhibited 
 an anchor light forward and a globular white 
 light aft. A sailing vessel bound down channel 
 mistook the lights for the masthead and green 
 lights of a steamer in motion : — 
 
 Held, that the steamer was alone to blame for 
 a collision which occurred, as the lights were 
 calculated to mislead, so that the mistake of the 
 sailing vessel was excusable. The steamer having 
 rendered herself unmanageable should have ex- 
 hibited three red lights, and should have kept 
 steam readily available, so as to bring herself 
 
( 1951 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1952 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Collision) — continued. 
 
 promptly under command if necessary. The 
 
 •' Faedkelanbet " - - C. A. [1896] P. 206 
 
 70. — Lights — Trawler — Pyrotechnic light — 
 Eegulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1884, 
 art. 10, Sched. Part II. — Order in Council, 
 June 24, 1885. 
 
 Ihe provision tliat a red pyrotechnic light 
 thall be sheivn by a trawler to an approaching 
 vessel as required by the regulations for prevent- 
 ing collisions as modified by Order in Council 
 <if June 24, 1885, only applies when a vessel is 
 approaching the trawler under such circumttances 
 as to create a risk of collision. The " Obion " 
 
 Jenne J. [1891] P. 307 
 
 71. — Lights — Vessel carrying misleading light 
 — Mtreey river rules, art. 4 — Infringement by 
 possibility contributing to collision — Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1873 (36 <t 37 Vict. c. 85), s. 17. 
 
 The T., a steamship on the Mersey, came into 
 collision with another while carrying in addition 
 to the usuul lights an additional white light 
 Alleged to be a customs signal light, as to which 
 no regulation or practice was proved. It was 
 ■doubtful, on the evidence, whether the lights 
 first seen by the injured ship might not have 
 misled those in charge of her into the belief that 
 the T. was at anchor : — 
 
 Held, that under s. 17 of the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1873 (now s. 419, sub-s. 4, of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), the T. must be 
 deemed at fault. The " Talbot " 
 
 Butt Pres. [1891] P. 184 
 
 72. — Lightship— Loss of nse of lightship — 
 Damages — Bemoteness of damage. 
 
 A lightship, belonging to a harbour board 
 and used for lighting approaches, was damaged 
 in a collision caused by the negligence of the 
 appellants. The place of the damaged lightship 
 was during her repair taken by another light- 
 ship belonging to the board and maintained at 
 an annual expense for the purpose of such an 
 emergency : — 
 
 Meld, that the board was entitled to recover 
 from the appellants not only the out of pocket 
 expenses caused by the colUsion, but also sub- 
 stantial damages for the loss of the services of 
 the damaged lightship during the time her place 
 was taken by the substituted lightship. 
 
 The Greta Holme, [1897] A. C. 596, held 
 applicable. 
 
 Decision of C. A., Tlie Mediana, [1899] P. 127, 
 .affirmed. Owners of Steamship "Mediana " v. 
 ■Owners, &o., op Lightship " Comet." The 
 ■'■' Mediana " 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1900] W. S. 34; [1900] A. C. 113 
 
 — Limitation of liability. 
 
 See Shippinq — Limitation of Liability. 
 163. 
 
 — Maritime lien — Scottish law. 
 
 See Shipping — Lien. 160. 
 
 73. — Narrow channel— Starboard side rule — 
 Regulations for Preventiwj Collisions at Sea, 1884, 
 art. 21. 
 
 The Swin (between the Middle lightship and 
 the Middle sands) is a narrow channel within 
 ait. 21 of the Sailing Rules, 1884, and a steam- 
 ship must, while safe and practicable, keep to 
 
 SHIPPIHG (Collision) — continued. 
 
 that side of the fairway which is ou her starboard 
 
 side. The "Minnie" - C. A, [1894] P. 336 
 
 Commented on. The Oporto, C. A. [1897] P. 
 219. 
 
 74. — Narrow channel — Swin Middle Light- 
 ship — Bisk of collision — Arts. 18 & 21 of the Re- 
 gulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1884. 
 
 A collision occurred at night, between the 
 pits.' steamship, inward bound, and the defts.' 
 steamship, outward bound, in the Swin Channel 
 at the entrance to the river Thames, about half- 
 way between the Swin Middle Lightship and the 
 North-East Maplin Buoy. Both vessels were 
 found to blame for not reducing speed under 
 art. 18 of the Eegulations of 1884 for Preventing 
 Collisions at Sea. 
 
 The plaintiffs appealed on the ground that, 
 by reversing at a quarter of a mile, their vessel 
 had complied with art. 18 : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., affirming the decision of G. 
 Barnes J., [1896] W. N. 170 (1) and on the 
 authority of The Beryl, (1884) 9 P. D. 137, that 
 the officer in charge of the pits.' vessel having 
 the green light of the defts.' vessel at a distance 
 of half a mile on his port bow crossing to the 
 wrong side of the channel, was not justified, 
 before he stopped and reversed, in waiting to see 
 if there would be a change of light until the 
 vessels were only a quarter of a mile apart. 
 
 The pits.' vessel, just prior to the collision, 
 had passed to the southward and eastward of the 
 Swin Middle Lightship, in accordance with the 
 practice sanctioned by the cases of The Minnie 
 and The Corennie, [1894] P. 336, and 338, n. :— 
 
 Held, by G. Barnes J., that as any difficulty 
 in the navigation at this part of the river has 
 now been removed by making the North-East 
 Maplin Buoy an occulting gas-light buoy, reliance 
 cau no longer be placed on those two cases, and 
 inward-bound steamships must treat the Swin 
 Middle Lightship as midway in a narrow channel, 
 and, when safe and practicable, pass it on their 
 port hand, in order to comply with art. 21 of the 
 Eegulations of 1884 (now art. 25 of the Regula- 
 tions of 1897). The " Oporto " 
 
 C. A. [1897] P. 249 
 
 78. — Nevjport Harbour By-laws, art. 13. 
 
 By ait. 13 of the Newport Harbour By-Laws, 
 1894 : Every vessel shall, unless prevented by 
 stress of weather, be brought into and be taken 
 out of the harbour to the right of mid-channel : — 
 
 Held, that, in order to comply with this by- 
 law, every vessel proceeding inward from sea 
 must keep outside the southernmost of the buoys, 
 marking the channel at the entrance to the river 
 Usk, until she can round in on to her proper side 
 between the buoys. The Winstanley 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 297 
 
 76. ■ — " Not under command " — Fog — Begula- 
 tionsfor Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1884, art. 5. 
 
 " Not under command " in art 5, sub-ss. (a), 
 (c), (d), of the Collision Eegulations, 1884, 
 applies only to a ship which is altogether unable 
 " to get out of the way." A vessel which has not 
 lost her power of turning by means of her helm, 
 but is somewhat disabled from reversing, is there- 
 fore not within the definition "not under com- 
 
( 1953 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1954 ) 
 
 SHIPPING QComsioD.')— continued. 
 mand " ; and for her to hoist the three red lights 
 required by the article is misleadinff. Decisions 
 of Jeune J., [1891] P. 213, and 0. A., [1892] 
 P. 191, affirmed. Owneks of the " P. Caland " v. 
 Glamoegan Steamship Co. The " P. Calakd " 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 207 
 Eeferred to by H. L. (So.) Mclntyre Brothers 
 V. McGavin, [1893] A. C. 268, 272. 
 
 77. — Overtaking ship — Segulations for Pre- 
 venting Collisions at Sea, 1884, art. 20. 
 
 The obligation imposed by art. 20 on the 
 " overtaking ship " to keep out of the way con- 
 tinues, although she has ceased to be within the 
 area lighted by the stem-light and has advanced 
 into a position in which she can see the side-light 
 of the " overtaken " ship. The " MoLii)KE " 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 217 
 
 78. — 'Pilot for negligence, Action against — 
 County court — Jurisdiction — " Admiralty cav^e " 
 — County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts, 1868 
 (31 (fc 32 Vict. c. 71), 8s. 2, 36 ; 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, 
 c. 51), ss. 1-4. 
 
 A county court haa no jurisdiction to entertain 
 an action in personam against a pilot in respect 
 of a collision between two ships on the high seas 
 caused by his negligence. Ke(}. v. Judge op the 
 CiTT OF London Court (Ho. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 273 
 
 Approved of by H. L. (E.) The Zeta, [1893] 
 A. C. 468, 477. 
 
 79. — Practice — Issue as to contributory fault 
 must he first raised in the lower court. 
 
 An issue that the other vessel was to blame 
 in a collision, because of contributory negligence 
 by violation of the Collision Eegulationa, cannot 
 be raised for the first time in the final Court of 
 Appeal. Owneks of SS. " Pleiades " v. Page 
 AKD Owners of SS. " Jane " 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 259 
 
 80. — Presumption ofhlame — Lights obscured — 
 Megulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1 884 
 —Merchant Shipping Act, 173 (36 & 37 Vict, 
 c. 85), s. 17. 
 
 By s. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, 
 (now s. 419, Bub-s. 4, of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894), a ship proved to have infringed the 
 rules is to be deemed to be in fault. Per Lords 
 Bramwell, Herschell, Macnaghten, and Hannen, 
 the infringement must be one having some 
 possible connection with the collision. Decision 
 of 0. A. The Bulce of Succleuch, (1889) 15 P. D. 
 86, affirmed by H. L. (E.) (the votes for and 
 against being equal). Eastern Steamship Co. v. 
 Smith. The " Duke of Buccleuch," 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 310 
 
 81. — Stopping and reversing — Begulations for 
 Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1884, arts. 15, 18, 19, 
 and 21. 
 
 Held, on the facts in a case where the damaged 
 vessel was admittedly in fault, that no fault was 
 attributable to the colliding vessel for not stopping 
 and reversing at an earlier period. Wilson, 
 Sons & Co., Owners op the " Otto " v. Currie, 
 Owner of the " Thoesa." The " Otto " 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1894] A. 0. 116 
 
 82. — Sunlan wrecit in harbour — Transfer of 
 
 SHIPPING (Collision)— coirfinueiJ. 
 
 control to port authority — Liability — Maritime 
 
 lien — Appeal from Gibraltar. 
 
 The osraejs of a wreck remained in possession, 
 but the port authority undertook and neglected 
 the. duty of indicating its position : — 
 
 Seld, that neither the owners nor the wreck 
 were liable fur a collision which ensued, and that 
 no maritime lien arose in the absence of negli- 
 gence by the owners. The colliding ship having 
 been navigated in circumstances of instant peril 
 with reasonable care and skill : 
 
 Held, that it was not answerable. Owners op 
 SS. "Utopia" v. Owners of SS. "Primula." 
 The " Utopia " - P. C. [1893] A. C. 492 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (B.) The Crystal, [1894] 
 A. C oU8, 52o. 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. 
 P. 105, 111. 
 
 The Snarh, [1900] 
 
 83. — Sunken wreclc in navigable river — Con- 
 tract to raise — Liability of owner for negligence of 
 contractor. 
 
 A barge belonging to the defts., without 
 negligence on their part, was sunk in the fairway 
 of the river Thames. They employed an under- 
 waterman to conduct the salvage operations 
 necessary to raise her and, for that purpose, put 
 him in possession and control : but, owing to the 
 guard-vessel placed by him, with lights upon it, 
 to mark the submerged barge, having been negli- 
 gently allowed to get out of position, the plt.'s. 
 steamship coming up the river, without negli- 
 gence, ran upon the wreck and sustained 
 damage : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A., affirming the decision of G. 
 Barnes J., [1899] W. N. 14 (3); [1899] P. 74, 
 that the defts. were personally responsible, as (fol- 
 lowing Penny v. Wimbledon Urban Council, [1899] 
 2 Q. B 72), they were bound to see that the 
 necessary precautions were taken to prevent 
 danger to tbe public, and could not escape from 
 this liability by throwing the blame on the 
 contractor employed by ttiem to do the work. 
 Secondly, because, following The Utopia, [1893] 
 A. C. 492, they were under an obligation to pro- 
 tect other vessels from receiving injury from the 
 sunken barge, as tlie employment of the con- 
 tractor did not amount to an abandonment or 
 transfer of the possession, management, and con- 
 trol of the wreck. The " Snaek" 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 21 ; [1900] P. 105 
 
 84. — Thames By-laws, 1898, Art. iO— Vessel 
 aground in Thames in daytime — Regulations for 
 Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, art. 4 (a). 
 
 The pits.' steamship, whilst proceeding up 
 the Thames in the daytime, took the ground 
 in Limehouse Eeach and remained fast. In 
 accordance with art. 40 of the Thames By-laws, 
 those in charge of her gave " four blasts of the 
 steam whistle in rapid succession" to indicate 
 that the vessel was " not under command." The 
 defts., the owners of a steamship which was 
 following her, and ran into her, alleged that 
 those in charge of the pits.' steamship ought to 
 have hoisted two black balls in accordance 
 with art. 4 (a) of the Eegulations for Preventing 
 Collisions at Sea : — 
 
 Held, that — assuming, without deciding, that 
 
 3 R 
 
( 1950 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF t'ASES. IS'il— I'J.iO. 
 
 ( I'J.-, 
 
 SHIPPING (ColRsion)— continued. 
 the EegulatioDS for Preventing Collisions at Sea 
 apply in the Thames, as being tidal waters, con- 
 nected with the high seas, navigable by sea-going 
 vessels — art. 4 (a) of those regnlationa was not 
 applicable, because that article only provides for 
 the exhibition of black balls by vessels not under 
 command whilst afloat; and, secondly, because, 
 if that article did apply to a vessel fast aground, 
 the case was provided for by art. 40 of the Thames 
 rules, and the sea regulations only come in where 
 they are not excluded by express provision in, 
 or the general scope of, the river rules. The 
 " Cablotta " G. Barnes J. [1899] "W. N. 80 ; 
 
 [1899] P. 223 
 
 — Thames navigation. 
 
 See Cases under Thames. 
 
 85. — Tow and tug — Action against — Decree 
 by default against tow — Decree that plaintiff's ship 
 •and tug were both to hlame — Division of loss. 
 
 A Norwegian barque, whilst in- tow of a tug 
 •in the Bristol Channel, came into collision with, 
 'and sank, a third vessel. The pits., owners 
 -of the third vessel, brought an action in rem 
 against the owners of the barque and the owners 
 of the tug. The owners of the barque liaving 
 allowed judgment to go by default, the barque 
 was sold by the marshal imder a decree con- 
 demning that vessel in the amount of the pits.' 
 damage. 
 
 Tlie action proceeded against the tug, and 
 resulted in a decree pronouncing both the pits.' 
 vessel and the tug to blame, and condemning the 
 owners of the tug in a moiety of the pits.' 
 damage. On the question of the division of 
 loss : — 
 
 Held, by the C. A., affirming the decision of 
 iBucknill J., that the pits, were entitled to the 
 proceeds in court of the barque, in part satis- 
 faction of the whole of their damage under the 
 decree by default against that vessel, and that 
 they were also entitled to a moiety of their 
 ■damage from the owners of the tug, under the 
 ■decree of both to blame, the proceeds of the 
 barque, and tlie moiety due from the owners of 
 the tug, taken together, not exceeding the whole 
 ■of the pits.' 1 iss. 
 
 The Englishman and the Australia, [1894] 
 P. 239, distinguished. The " Mokgengky " and 
 THE " Blaokcook " - C, A. [1899] W. N. 211 ; 
 
 [1900] P. 1 
 
 — Trawler — Pyrotechnic liglit. 
 
 See No. 70, above. 
 
 86. — Tug — Contributory negligence — Joint 
 tortfeasors — Liability of tout — Measure of damages. 
 
 A tug towing a vessel collided with and sunk 
 a third vessel. The tug and the third vessel were 
 found to blame for excessive speed in a fog. The 
 tow was found to blame for not controlling the 
 speed of the tug : — 
 
 Held, that although the tow had not herself 
 been in collibion, and therefore her liability de- 
 pended on the relation of master and servant 
 between lierself and the tug, still the Admiralty 
 rule in case of collision between ships applied, 
 and the tug and the tow were liable to half the 
 damages to the third vessel, after deducting half 
 the damage to the tow to which the third vctscl 
 
 SHIPPING (CoMieion)— continued. 
 
 was liable. The " Englishman " and the " Au»- 
 
 teaua"(No. 1) - Jeune P. [1891] P- 239 
 
 See also [1895] P. 212. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. The Morgengry and 
 the Blacltcock, [1900] P. 1. 
 
 87. — Tug and tow— Fqg— Stopping— Regu- 
 lations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1884, 
 art. 18. 
 
 By art. 18 of the Eegulations for Preventing 
 Collisions at Sea, "Every steamship,! when ap- 
 proaching another ship, so as to involve risk of 
 collision, shall slacken her speed, or stop and 
 reverse, if necessary." 
 
 A four-masted barque, in tow of a tug, in a 
 dense fog at night iu the St.- George's Channel, 
 was going at the rale of IJ knots an hour, and 
 did not stop, thougli she heard the whistle of a 
 steamer on her port side gradually nearing and 
 indicating danger. The steamer was proceeding 
 at about 2J knots an hour, and heard the whistle 
 of the tug crossing lier bows from starboard to 
 port. She ported and reversed her engines on 
 seeing the barque, but struck her at right angles 
 on her port quarter, and was held to blame under 
 art. 18 for not stopping sooner : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the barque was not also to blame 
 for not stopping, as a tug incumbered with a tow 
 is not to be deemed a steamship for all purposes 
 under the rules, and the speed was as slow as 
 was possible consistently with keeping the tow- 
 rope sufficiently taut to prevent the risk of the 
 two vessels being drawn together, and the pro- 
 peller of the tug being fouled. The "Lobd 
 Bangok " - - - Jenne P, [1896] P. 28 
 
 88. — Tyne river — Compulsory pilotage — Tyne 
 Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1865 (28 <t 29 
 Vict. c. 44), Sched., ss. 16, 22 — Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (57 (£- 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 604, suh-s. 1. 
 
 A British steamship, belonging to the defts., 
 with passengers for Newcastle, from a place iu 
 the British Islands, came into collision with the 
 plt.'s vessel in the Tyne. Neither the master nor 
 the mate of the deft.'s steamship held a pilotage 
 certificate for the Tyne district, within which the 
 collision occurred, and the vessel was at the time 
 in chiirge of a pilot duly licensed by the Tyne 
 Pilotage Commrs. The pilot was found alone to 
 blame : — 
 
 Held, that the defts. were not liable for the 
 damage sustained by the pit., as, under a; 604, 
 bub-s. 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, 
 pilotage was compulsory, notwithstanding the 
 provisions of s. 16 of the schedule to the Tyne 
 Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1865, as inter- 
 preted in The Johann Sverdrup, (1886) 12 P. D. 
 43. The " Waesaw " G. Barnes J. [1898] P. 127 
 
 89. — ■ Tyne river — Bad look-out — By-law 20 
 of the Regulations of the River Tyne, 1884. 
 
 A collision occurred, iu the daytime, about on 
 the line of lights a quarter of a mile outside the 
 pierheads at the entrance to the river Tyne, 
 between the pits.' steamship going out and the 
 defts.' steamship coming in. G. Barnes J. held 
 the pits.' steamship alone to blauie for bad look- 
 out, but that, having regard to the place of colli- 
 sion, the defts.' steamship bad, by coming up 
 
( 1957 ) 
 
 UIGKST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1958 ) 
 
 SHIFFIXG (CoTiisiojL}— continued. 
 from the Bouthward too close to tlie pierheads 
 infringed by-law 20 of the Eegulations of the 
 Elver Tyne, 1884, as construed by the C. A. in 
 TJie Harvest, (1886) 11 P. D. 90 :— 
 
 Held, that the defts.' steamship had not 
 broken the rule, as it was not a question of actual 
 (listanee, but whether the incoming vessel gave 
 the other room to pass out in such a way as not 
 to cause danger, and the defts.' steamship had 
 left the pits.' steamship sufficient room to go out 
 and pass to the southward, provided the outgoing 
 vessel had seen the incoming vessel over the pier, 
 and acted as soon as possible. The " John 
 O'Scott" - - C. A. [1897] P. 64 
 
 90. — Vessel turning round — Thames By-laws, 
 1898, art. 48. 
 
 Art. 48 of the Thames By-laws, 1898, by 
 ■which steam vessels " crossing from one side of 
 the river towards the other side shall keep out of 
 the way of vessels navigating up and down," 
 does not apply to a steam vessel turning round 
 on the same side of the river as that on which 
 she is being navigated, although, when athwart 
 the river, in the process of turning, part of her 
 may, owing to her length, be across the line of 
 mid-strenm. 
 
 The Mver Derwent, (1891) 7 Asp. M. L. C. 37, 
 distinguished. The " John Hollwat " 
 
 BucknUl J. [1899] W. K. 246 ; [1900] P. 37 
 
 Costs. 
 
 91. — Action in High Court — Cause of action 
 within, county court jurisdiction — County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 <fe 32 Vict. 
 «. 71), s. 3, «uJ-s. 3; s. 9. 
 
 The pits, claimed over 3001. for damages by 
 collision, but agreed to take as damages less than 
 that amount : — • 
 
 Held, that they were entitled to costs, the case 
 being a proper one for trial in the Court. The 
 ** SAiTBDEN " G. Barnes J, [1892] P. 333 
 
 92. — Action in High Court — County court — 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 
 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), 88. 3, 9— B. S. C, 1883, 
 Ord. Lxv., r. 1. 
 
 An action was brought in the High Court for 
 180Z., damages for collision. The pit. recovered 
 lOOZ., including 50Z. paid into court. The official 
 referee refused costs, considering that the action 
 should have been brought in a coimty court : — 
 
 Held, that the official referee was wrong, on 
 the ground that s. 9 of the County Courts Admi- 
 ralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, on which he relied, 
 had been repealed by implication by Order Lxv., 
 
 r. 1. EOCKETT V. CUPPINGDALE 
 
 C. A, [1891] 2 Q. B. 293 
 
 93. — Action in the High Court proper to be 
 tried in county court — County Courts Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 3, 
 sub-s. 3, and s. 9. 
 
 A pit., except under special circumstances, 
 will not be allowed costs, when, in an action of 
 damage by collision, although he claim more, he 
 does not recover an amount exceeding SOOl., that 
 being the limit of the county court jurisdiction. 
 
 SHIPPING (Costa)— continued. 
 under s. 3, sub-s. 8, of the County Courts Admi- 
 ralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868. The " Asia " 
 
 Hannen P. [1891] P. 121 
 
 Commented on by C. A. Boelcett v. Chippin- 
 dale, [1891] 2 Q. B. 293, 300. 
 
 — Counsel's fees. 
 
 And see Costs — Counsel's Fees. 
 
 94. — Country solicitor — Attendance of, at trial 
 in London — Costs. 
 
 The allowance as between party and party 
 of the costs of the attendance of a country 
 solicitor at a trial in London is a matter for the 
 discretion of the taxing master. In Admiralty 
 actions where the statements of the witnesses 
 have been taken by the country solicitor and the 
 evidence has been collected by him, his presence 
 may be necessary for the proper conduct of the 
 client's case, and if so the costs of his attendance 
 should be allowed, although the case is conducted 
 by the London agent; but in such event the 
 costs of the attendance of the London agent must 
 be reduced. The " Soto " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 73 
 
 Discussed by Byrne J. In re Dixon, [1898] 
 2 Oh. 443, 447. 
 
 95. — Higher scale — Scientific witnesses. 
 
 . The higher scale under Order lxv., r. 9, was 
 allowed in a case which involved the calling of a 
 number of scientific witnesses and the preparation 
 of plans, and had been so presented as to greatly 
 facilitate the trial. The " Eobin " 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 96 
 
 96. — Limitation of liability — Defendant's 
 costs — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 60), s. 503. 
 
 In an action for limitation of liability by ship- 
 owners, under the provisions of s. 503 of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, when no objection 
 is raised to the decree being pronounced in the 
 terms of the declaration claimed, it is unnecessary 
 for the defta. to be represented by counsel, and 
 their costs will, in future, in such cases not be 
 allowed. The " Knisht of St. Geokge " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1898] W. N. 22 (3) 
 
 97. — lAmitation of liability — Beference — Costs 
 — Practice. 
 
 On May 21, 1898, a collision occurred in the 
 river Humber between the steamships Eijnstroom 
 and Achilles. The owners of the Eijnstroom 
 admitted liability, and, as pits., obtained a 
 decree, under the provisions of the Merchant 
 Shipping Acts, limiting their liability, with 
 iilterest, to 62211. 10s. 5d. 
 
 At the reference the registrar, assisted by 
 merchants, found that there was due to the 
 several claimants 5818i. Os. 9d., and the registrar 
 in his report stated that he was of opinion that 
 " each party ought to pay his own costs of the 
 reference and a moiety of the reference fees." 
 
 On motion in objection to the report, by the 
 owners of cargo on board the Achilles (whose 
 claim of 47831 Is. lid. had been reduced to 
 2600Z.), for a declaration that the whole of the 
 damage caused to the cargo was attributable to 
 the collision, and that the practice in limitation 
 
 3 E 2 
 
( 1959 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1960 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Costs) — continued. 
 
 actions was for the plaintiffs to pay the costs of 
 
 the several claimants : — 
 
 Held — whilst dismissing the motion with 
 costs on the ground that the registrar had taken 
 the right view of the facts — that no such practice 
 existed, as alleged, for where an exorbitant 
 claim was put forward, which the plaintiffs 
 succeeded in largely reducing, they were prac- 
 tically the successful party, and, therefore, the 
 Court would act upon the suggestion of the 
 registrar, and direct that each party should pay 
 Ills own costs of the reference and a moiety of the 
 reference fees. The " Eijnstkoom " 
 
 Bucknill J. [1899] W. N. 33 (1) 
 
 98. — Pierhead— Damage to ship — Negligence 
 of dock official — County court — Jurisdiction — 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts, 1868 
 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 3 ; 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, 
 c. 51), ». i. 
 
 A ship was damaged by collision with a dock 
 wall, and its owners claimed and recovered in 
 the High Court 22H. from the dock corporation 
 for negligence : — 
 
 Held, that s. 4 of tlie County Courts Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1869, includes damage to a 
 ship by collision with an object which is not a 
 ship, that tlie county court had jurisdiction, and 
 that Butt P. had a discretion to refuse to certify 
 for costs. 
 
 Decision of C. A. Turner v. Mersey Docks 
 and Harbour Board. The Zeta, [1892] P. 285, 
 reversed, and decision of Butt P., [1891] P. 216, 
 restored. Mersey Docks and Haebouk Boakd v. 
 TnKNEB. The "Zeta" H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 468 
 
 Eeferred to by Bruce J. The Theta, [1894] 
 P. 280, 283. 
 
 Eefei-red to by C. A. The Mecca, [1895] 
 P. 95, 107. 
 
 99. — Practice — Action in rem — Defence of 
 pilotage — Costs. 
 
 The Court found that the collision was due to 
 the negligent navigation of the Burma, but that 
 the fault was solely that of the pilot compulsorily 
 in charge. On the question of costs : — 
 
 Held, that the defendants were entitled to 
 have the plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs. 
 
 The Courier (reported on another point), 
 [1891] P. 355, and The Nellie, (1896, not reported) 
 followed. Ti)e"Bukma" - - BackmllJ. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 64 
 
 100. — Refreshers. 
 
 A collision case extended over two hours and 
 a quarter on the first day, and five hours and a 
 half on the second day. On taxation of costs, 
 betwten party and party, lefresher fees wei» 
 allowed to the counsel of the successful party in 
 respect of the last two and three-quarter hours on 
 the second day : — 
 
 Held, that the taxing ofScer had a discretion 
 to allow some refresher fee for any time during 
 which the trial was substantially prolonged 
 beyond five hours. The"Coukieb" 
 
 Butt J. [1891] P. 865 
 
 Followed by Div. Ct. O'Bara, Matthews & 
 Co. V. Elliott & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 362. 
 
 Applied by Bruce J. The Hesiin (No. 2), 
 [1895] W. N. 100. 
 
 SHIPPING (CosUy— continued. 
 — Salvage actions. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Salvage. 
 
 101. — Security — Cause of damage — Principal 
 and cross cause — Admiralty Court Act, 1861' 
 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 10), s. 34. 
 
 Pits, issued a writ in personam against defts;- 
 for damage by collision. Defts. issued a writ in 
 rem and bail was given by pita. The two actions-- 
 were consolidated and defts. made counter-claims. 
 Pits, applied for security to be given by 
 defts. : — 
 
 Hdd, that s. 34 of the Admiralty Court Act, 
 1861, gave no power to order security to be- 
 given. The " Eottgemont " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 27& 
 
 Semunage. 
 
 102. — Colliery guarantee — Incorporation iit 
 charterparty — Commencemeni of lay-days. 
 
 A charterparty provided that the ship should 
 receive " a full and complete cargo " to be loaded 
 as customary at G., as per colliery guarantee, ii> 
 fifteen colliery working days : — 
 
 Held, that the provisions of the colliery 
 guarantee as to loading were incorporated into 
 the charterparty, and that the fifteen lay days, 
 commenced to run from the day after that oq 
 which notice was given that the ship was ready 
 in tlie dock to receive the cargo. Monsen v- 
 Maofaelase & Co. 
 
 C. A. (Kay L.J. dissent.) [1898] 2 ft. B. 56» 
 
 103. — Custom for dock company to discltarge 
 cargo. 
 
 A charterparty provided the " steamer to be- 
 discharged as fast as she can deliver," and owing 
 to the quay being crowded the discharge occupied 
 ten days instead of two as in the ordinary course- 
 By the cuslom of the dock the whole operation ot 
 discharge was conducted by the dock oo. : — - 
 
 Held, that the charterers were not liable for 
 demurrage. The " Jaederen " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1892] P. 351 
 
 104. — Delay in loading — " Weather-working 
 dags " — Mode of computation. 
 
 A charterparty provided that cargo should be- 
 loaded at a certain rate per weather- working day. 
 On certain days owing to bad weather cargo- 
 could only be loaded for a few hours : — 
 
 Held, that the time so occupied in loading 
 cargo was not to be reckoned against the char- 
 terers as a whole, but as a part only, of a weather- 
 working day. 
 
 Where work is stopped by bad weather, but a 
 substantial quantity of work is done, though not 
 amounting to half a day, it is to be reckoned as 
 half a day : where substantially more than half 
 a day's work is done, though not amounting to a 
 whole day, it is to be counted as a whole day ; 
 no smaller fraction than half a day should be 
 taken into the calculation. Bbanckelow Steam- 
 ship Co. V. Lamport & Holt 
 lord EusBell of KiUowen C.J. [1897] 1 ft, B. 570 
 
 105. — Delay at loading port — Continuance of 
 demurrage obligation. 
 
 Where demurrage commences to be payable 
 under a cliarterparty owing to the default of the 
 
< 1961 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801— 19Q0. 
 
 ( 1962 ) 
 
 SHEPPING (Demurrage) — continued. 
 cliarterers in failing to provide a quay berth at 
 the port of loading, the obligation to pay demur- 
 rage continues, in the absence of any default of 
 the -shipowner, until the completion of the 
 ioading. 
 
 A ship was chartered to go to a foreign port 
 for a cargo, the charterers guaranteeing a cnrgo 
 and quay berth ready at the port of shipment ; 
 owing to their inability to provide a quay berth 
 the ship went on demurrage and, while lying at 
 anchor waiting for a quay berth, was run into by 
 another vessel. The ship was properly taken by 
 her captain to another port for repair, and during 
 ler absence for that purpose a quay berth fell 
 vacant which would otherwise have been given 
 to her. After her return to the port of loading 
 she was kept waitirig a furtlier six weeks for a 
 quay berth. TliC shipowners claimed demurrage 
 for the six weeks, but not for the period during 
 which she was absent for repairs : — 
 
 Held, that upon the return of the ship to the 
 port of loading the demurrage period was resumed 
 without any break in the continuity of the 
 demurrage obligation, and that the charterers 
 were liable to pay demurrage from that date 
 vintil the loading was completed. Tyne and 
 Blyth Shipping Co. v. Leech, Hakkisos & 
 FOBWOOD Kennedy J. [1900] 2 Q. B. 12 
 
 106. — Discharge — Delivery nf spars 
 Hon of consignees. 
 
 A eharterparty for the carriage of spars 
 provided that the cargo should be taken from 
 alongside at merchants' expense, the ship "to 
 -discharge over side into lighters or otherwise if 
 required " : — 
 
 Held, that the eharterparty did not impose 
 ■upon the ship the obligation to get the spars into 
 the lighters, and for that purpose to put men on 
 board the lighters : but that when it had brought 
 the spars within reach of the consignee's men in 
 "the lighters, it was the duty of the latter to take 
 their part in the joint operation of delivering 
 •and receiving the goods, and that the consignees 
 were liable to pay demurrage for delay caused 
 by reason of their men being too few to enable 
 the discharge to be completed within the lay 
 "days. Petersen v. Feeebody & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 294 
 
 Differentiated from by C. A. AMieselhab 
 Helios, V. Eliman & Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 83, 91. 
 
 107. — Discharge, Place of — Delivery at usual 
 fruit 'berth — Obligation to unload. 
 
 A ship carrying under eharterparty a cargo 
 of fruit " to be discharged at usual fruit berth 
 as fast as steamer can deliver as customary and 
 where ordered by the charterers," was, on arrival 
 .at her destination, unable to discharge immedi- 
 ately, as the harbour authorities, oning to the 
 crowded state of the port, refused to allow her to 
 moor at the usual berths for unloading fruit, 
 Tvhich were full ; five days later she began dis- 
 charging, and was unloaded as fast as she could 
 ■deliver : — 
 
 Held, that, under the terms of her charter- 
 party, the obligation to unload did not begin 
 Bntil the ship was berthed in a usual fruit berth 
 with the assent of the harbour authorities, the 
 
 SHIPPIKG (Demurrage)^-cojii!'nMei. 
 shipowners could not claim demurrage for the 
 delay. Good & Co. v. Isaacs 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 535 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Lyle Shipping Co. r. 
 Cardiff Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 638, 645. 
 
 108. — Discharge into railway loagons — De- 
 ficiency of wagons— Liahiliiy of charterer—" Ship 
 to be discharged with all reasonable despatch as 
 customary." 
 
 A ship was chartered to load a cargo of wood, 
 to be carried to the port of Cardiif, and then to 
 be " discharged with all reasonable despatch as 
 customary." The custom at the port of Cardiff 
 was to discharge such a cargo into the wagons of 
 certain rys. that had access to the quay. The 
 charterers arranged with one of these rys. for the 
 supply of wagons to take the cargo. Without 
 any negligence on their part, but owing to stress 
 of work at the port, by reason of which there 
 was a deficiency in the number of wagons avail- 
 able, the discharge of the ship was delayc d. In 
 an action against the charterers for the aetention 
 of the ship :— 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Bigham J., 
 that the charterers having done their best to 
 procure the appliances that were customarily 
 used at the port for discharging such a ship, and 
 having used them with proper despatch, were not 
 liable for the delay. Lyle Shipping Co. v. 
 Cahdief Corpobation C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 638 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Monsen v. MacFarlane 
 & Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 562, 570, 576 ; Lyle Shipping 
 Go. V. Cardiff Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 638, 
 645. 
 
 109. — Lay days. 
 
 Where charterers were asked to commence 
 discharging at 10 a.m. and declined, but ulti- 
 mately agreed and began to discharge on tliat 
 day:— 
 
 Held, (1.) that the charterers were entilled to 
 a whole lay day, and were therefore not bound to 
 take delivery on the day in question, but (2.) that 
 by agreeing to commence the discharge impliedly 
 agreed to count that day as a lay day, and 
 therefore the lay days began on that day. The 
 " Katy " C. A. (revers. Jeune P.) [1895] P. 56 
 
 110. — Lay days — Damages hy way of demur- 
 rage — Judicature (Scutland) Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 120), s. 40. 
 
 By eharterparty it was provided that tho 
 River Ettrick should proceed to Bo'ness and re- 
 ceive a cargo of coal, to be supplied by the char- 
 terers, and brought alongside within sixty running 
 hours, demurrage to be paid at a specified rate, 
 " lay days to count from the time the master has 
 got ship reported berthed and ready to receive 
 cargo, and given notice of the same in writing t'l 
 the charterers." On Oct. 27 the shipowner in- 
 formed the charterers that the Biver Ettrick had 
 left Harwich for Bo'ness, and asked them to 
 supply cargo for Oct. 19. On Oct. 19, at 8.30 a.m., 
 the ship arrived in the roads of Bo'ness, but in 
 consequence of the crowded state of the docks 
 she was not allowed to enter. Her arrival was 
 wired to the charterers. On Oct. 21 a loading 
 berth became vacant owing to the cargo of an 
 earlier arrived vetsel not being forward. If a 
 
( 1963 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1S91— 1900. 
 
 ( 1964 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Denmrrage) — continued. 
 cargo had teen then ready for the Biver Mtriek 
 she would have been allowed to enter the dock, 
 but her cargo was not ready. Eventually, she 
 was docked on the 26th, berthed for loading on 
 the 27th, and saUed on Oct. 28. 
 
 The shipowner recovered from the charterers, 
 in an action raised in the Sheriff Court, Scotland, 
 damages by way of demnrrage for the detention 
 of the ship from Oct. 21 until the time when 
 the cargo was ready. Upon appeal to the Court 
 of Session the judgment was reversed. The fact 
 that there was a berth vacant on the 2l8t was 
 not set out in the interlocutor of the Court of 
 Session in accordance with the Scottish Judica- 
 ture Act, 1825, but this fact was to be found in 
 the opinion of the judge delivering judgment :— 
 
 Seld, by the House of Lords, that to carry 
 out the spirit of the Scottish Judicature Act all 
 the facts ought to be found by the interlocutor ap- 
 pealed from ; but, secondly, it made no difference 
 in the result, for assuming the facts to be as found, 
 the shipowner had no cause of action, for there 
 was no obligation on the part of the charterers 
 to have a cargo on the quay, ready for loading, 
 on the off chance of a berth becoming vacant. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sees., (1895) 22 R. 796, 
 affirmed. Little v. Stevenson & Co. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 108 
 — Lay days fixed — Strike. 
 See No. 118, helow. 
 
 111. — Loading — Obligation of charterers to 
 oad — Suocessive ships — Approximate dates of 
 arrival at loading port — Damages for detention of 
 ship — Perils of the sea clause — Towage clause — 
 Belay — Salvage service — Allowable deviation. 
 
 By a charterparty shipowners agreed with 
 charterers to provide for the successive arrival at 
 a foreign loadiug port of five steamers between 
 Aug. and Dec. inclusive, " as nearly as possible a 
 steamer a month," at approximate dates after- 
 wards agreed upon; and the charterers agreed 
 to present cargo within twenty-four hours after 
 notice of each ship's readiness to receive it. 
 The charterparty contained a clause excepting 
 perils of the sea, and also a clause giving each 
 steamer liberty to tow and be towed and assist 
 vessels in all situations, and providing that 
 salvages should be for the benefit of owners. 
 Owing to perils of the sea, ship No. 2 arrived 
 about a fortnight late ; and while she was loading 
 ship No. 3 arrived punctually. There was not 
 sufficient labour to load the two ships at once, 
 and ship No. 3 had to wait for her cargo till the 
 loading of ship No. 2 was completed : — 
 
 Held, upon the construction of the charter- 
 party, that the shipowners were entitled to 
 damages for the detention of ship No. 3. 
 
 Ship No. 4 arrived three weeks late at her 
 Australian port owing to her having while on her 
 voyage to that port fallen in with a disabled ship 
 and towed her to Mauritius as a salvage service ; 
 suoh towage was out of the course of the voyage, 
 and took three weeks to effect. The arbitrator 
 having found that the delay caused by this tow- 
 ing was not so great as to frustrate the object of 
 the adventure : — 
 
 Seld, that the salvage service was an allow- 
 able deviation within the contract between the 
 
 8 HIPPIMG (Pe mnxiage) — con tinued. _ 
 
 shipowners and the charterers ; and that notwith- 
 standing the delay in the arrival of the ship, the 
 charterers were bound to present cargo withiD 
 twenty-four hours after notice, and not having 
 done so were liable to pay demurrage to the 
 shipowners. John Pottek & Co. v. Bubeell & 
 Son - C. A. [1897] 1 ft. B. 97 
 
 112. —Place of discharge— " Meady to dis- 
 charge." 
 
 By a charterparty a steamer when loaded 
 with coal was to proceed to a certain port, " and 
 as usual and customary deliver the same always 
 afloat to the order " of the charterers " alongside 
 any store craft steamer depot ship wharf or 
 arsenal .... Time for delivery to count wben 
 steamer is ready to discharge." There was only- 
 one customary place of discharge at the port in 
 question, and when the steamer arrived at the 
 port that place was occupied. In an action for 
 demurrage : — 
 
 Held, that the steamer was not "ready to 
 discharge," and that the time for delivery did 
 not therefore commence until she was at the 
 customary place of discharge in the port. San- 
 ders V. Jenkins Collins J. [1897] 1 Q. B. 9a 
 
 113. — Practice — Jurisdiction — District where 
 "property to which the cause relates" is lying — 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869, 
 s. 2, sub.-s. 1— County Courts Admiralty Acts, 1868 
 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), ss. 3, 21, mb-ss. 1, 2; 1869 
 (32 & 38 Vict. c. 51), ss. 1, 2, sub-s. 1— County 
 Court Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 56, 74. 
 
 The pits., living at N., brought an action in 
 the N. County Court against defts., living at W., 
 in another district, for demurrage for detention 
 of ship at W. At the commencement of the 
 action the ship was at sea, and the former cargo 
 was not within the N. district : — 
 
 Held, that as the claim arose out of an agree- 
 ment made in relation to the use and hire of a 
 ship, the action was rightly brought in the N. 
 County Court. Pcgsley & Co. r. Hopkins & Co. 
 C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 184 
 
 114. — Running days. 
 
 In a charterparty running days mean calen- 
 dar days from midnight to midnight and not 
 periods of twenty-four hours. The " Katt " 
 
 C. A. (affirm. Jeune P.) [1895] P. 56 
 
 118. — Strike — Charterer's liability. 
 
 A charterparty provided that the cargo 
 should " be discharged with all dispatch as cus- 
 tomary," and the ship was detained owing to a 
 strike of dock labourers. By the custom of the 
 port a dock co. undertook the work of discharging 
 cargo : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the charter did not fix any 
 definite time for discharge, but only required all 
 reasonable dispatch having regard to the circum- 
 stances and customary mode of discharge ; (2) that 
 the charterers were not liable for the effect of tbe 
 strike, nor for delay caused by the dock co. 
 
 Decision of "Wright J., [1892] 1 Q. B. 54, 
 
 reversed. Castleqate Steamship Co. v. Dbmpset 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 854 
 
 Eeferred to by 0. A. Lyle Shipping Co. v. 
 Cardiff Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 638, 645. 
 
( 1965 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 18'J1— 1900. 
 
 ( 1966 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Demurrage)— CO )i(tnue(Z. 
 
 116. • — Strike — Consignee's liability. 
 Where no time for unloading is fixed by the 
 
 contract, the consignee's obligation is to use all 
 reasonable diligence under the circumstances 
 which exist at the time of unloading, unless, 
 indeed, those circumstances are attributable to 
 his own conduct ; — 
 
 Held, that as the strike, which caused the 
 delay, was beyond the control of the consignees, 
 they were not liable to the shipowner for delay. 
 Hick v. Kodooanaohi C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 626 ; 
 
 affirm, by H. L. (E.) as regards the consignees, 
 
 sub nam. Kick v. Batmond andKeid 
 
 [1893] A. C, 22 
 
 Discussed by H. L. (E.). Carlton Steamship 
 Co. V. Castle Mail Paclcets Co., [1898] A. C. 486, 
 490. 
 
 Keferred to by C. A. Lyle Shipping Co. v. 
 Cardiff Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 638, 643. 
 
 117. — Strike — Customary mode of discharge 
 
 "Where the customary mode of discharge in a 
 port was by lighters, and the discharge in this 
 way was delayed by a strike among the lighter- 
 men : — 
 
 Held, that the charterers were not liable for 
 demurrage under the strike clause, for not dis- 
 charging in some other way. Sharpness treated 
 as within the port of Gloucester. The "Ai.ne 
 Home" - Div. Ct. [1893] P. 173 
 
 118. — Strike — Lay days fixed. 
 
 Under bills of lading incorporating a charter- 
 party fixing the number of lay days and contain- 
 ing no exception as to strikes, the consignees are 
 liable to pay demurrage notwithstanding the 
 inability of the shipowners, owing to a strike, to 
 do their part in the unloading. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1890] 25 Q. B. D. 320, 
 afSrmed. Btjegett & Co. v. Binnington & Co. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 35 
 
 119. — StriJce — Option of charterer as to port 
 
 A charterparty, which contained a strike 
 clause, provided that the vessel when loaded 
 should proceed to one of several named places on 
 the Thames. The charterers ordered her to pro- 
 ceed to E., one of those places. During the 
 voyage the charterers heard of a strike at K. 
 which did not extend to the other places named 
 in the charterparty. The unloading was delayed 
 by the strike beyond the time fixed in the charter- 
 paity :— 
 
 Held, that the charterers were not obliged 
 to change the destination from B. to one of the 
 other places on learning of the strike, and that 
 as the delay was covered by the strike clause no 
 demurrage was payable. Bulman & Dickson" v. 
 Eenwick & Co. - C, A. [1894] 1 ft. B, 179 
 
 120. — Strike — Shipowner's liahility — Dis- 
 charging cargo — Demurrage. 
 
 A charterparty provided that a cargo of timber 
 should be delivered afloat at L. No fixed date 
 for delivery was given, but clause 13 provided 
 " cargo .... to be received from alongside ship 
 at port of discharge as customary as fast as 
 steamer can deliver, &c., not less than 100 
 standards a day." By the custom of the port of 
 
 SHIPPING (Demurrage)— -coiiimMeii. 
 L. the ship had to put the timber into barges 
 alongside. The stevedores employed struck 
 during the discharge : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the provision as to the daily de- 
 livery was in favour of the cargo owner, but had 
 not been satisfied, and that demurrnge paid under 
 protest in respect of the delay by the strike must 
 be returned, less demurrage for one day on which 
 barges were not ready. Dobell & Co. v. Watts, 
 Ward & Co. C. A. [1891] W. N. 131 
 
 121. — Termination of voyage — Delivery at safe 
 berth as ordered. 
 
 By a charterparty the vessel was to proceeil 
 to the Mersey and deliver her cargo at any safe 
 berth as ordered on arrival in the dock at Garston. 
 On arrival a berth was ordered, but, owing to the 
 crowded state of the dock, delay occurred which 
 prevented the vessel being berthed for some time 
 after arrival. On a claim by the shipowners for 
 demurrage arising from the delay : — 
 
 Held, that the obligation of the charterers to 
 unload did not commence till the vessel was 
 berthed. 
 
 The Carisbtook, (1890) 15 P. D. 98, overruled. 
 Davies v. MoYeagh, (1879) 4 Ex. D. 265, com- 
 mented on. Thaksis Sulphuk and Copper Co. 
 V. MOKEL Beothebs & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 ft. B. 647 
 
 Eeferred fo by C. A. Good & Co. y. Isaacs, 
 [1892] 2 Q. B. 555; Dobell & Co. v. Green & Co., 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 526, 532; Monsen v. Maafarlane 
 & Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 562, 570. 
 
 Effect of case stated by Collins J. Sanders 
 V. Jenkins, [1897] 1 Q. B. 93, 96. 
 
 See also Carlton Steamship Co. v. Castle Mail 
 Packets Co., [1897] 2 Q. b. 485, 491; [18981 
 A. C. 486. 
 
 Derelict VeGsels. 
 
 Act of 1896 for the better reporting of Derelict 
 Vessels (59 & 60 Vict. c. 12). 
 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.] Alterations 
 in Forms in Schedule to this Act. Loud, Gaz. 
 May 12, 1896, p. 2800. 
 — Salvage actions. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Salvage. 
 
 Deviation. 
 
 - Allowable deviation. 
 See Shipping. 
 
 111. 
 
 122. — " Cargo " — Hiring of entire capacity of 
 ship—"Pm-t." 
 
 A charterparty (which was on a printed form 
 filled in with writing, and which commenced 
 with a statement that the ship was of a dead 
 weight capacity of 125 tons) ijrovided that a ship 
 should load "a cargo or estimated quantity of 
 470 quarters (i.e., 102 tons) of wheat at R. (in the 
 port of L.), and proceed to G." (in the port of P). 
 Also it excepted sea perils and allowed the ship 
 to call at any ports in any order. The words 
 "full and complete" which preceded the word 
 " cargo " in the printed form had been struck out. 
 Having loaded the wheat the ship went to M. 
 (also in the poit of L.), and loaded from another 
 shipper (en tons of wire netting for P. (in the 
 port of P.), where the netting was discha;rged, 
 
( 1967 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1930. 
 
 ( 19G:< ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Deviation) — continued. 
 lietween P. and G. the ship came into collision 
 and the wheat was damaged. The pit. claimed 
 to recover damages for the injury to the wheat 
 on the ground that the ship had deviated in not 
 proceeiiing direct to G. : — 
 
 Held, that the liberty " to call at any ports " 
 included liberty to call for the purpose of loading 
 or discliarging other cargo there, for that the 
 charterparty, notwithstanding the use of tlje 
 term " cargo," did not amount to a hiring of 
 the full carrying capacity of the ship, and tbat 
 there had consequently been no deviation, and 
 the pit. could not recover. 
 
 Semhle, in a charterparty " ports " is not to be 
 understood in a strict technicd sense, but includes 
 loading places, though within the same port. 
 
 Decision of Lord Kussell of Killowen C.J., 
 riS95] 2 Q. B. 366, affirmed. Caffik r. 
 ALDKiDGE C. A. [1835] 2 Q. B. 648 
 
 123. — Damage to cargo — LTjerty to fill up for 
 steamer's benefit. 
 
 By cliarterparty the deft.'s vessel was to load 
 a cargo of wheat at Marianople for Gibraltar for 
 orders for a port in tbe United Kingdom or on 
 the continent between Havre and Hamburg, the 
 master of the vessel, to avoid being frozen in at 
 the port of loading, to be " at liberty to leave .... 
 with part cargo, and to fill up for steamer's benefit 
 at any opm Black Sea, Azoff or Mediterranean 
 port for United Kingdom, Continent or Mediter- 
 ranean ; but in case of leaving with part cargo 
 the steamer shall complete the voyage as if a full 
 cargo had been loaded . . . ." 
 
 The master, under this liberty, left Marian- 
 ople with part of the cargo of wheat, and pro- 
 ceeded to Novorossisk, where he filled up for 
 steamer's benefit with linseed. At Gibraltar he 
 was ordered to deliver the wheat at Cardiff; but 
 he first proceeded to King's Lynn, and there dis- 
 charged, the linseed. On the way between King's 
 Lynn and Cardiff the wheat was damaged by 
 fire. The pits., who were holders of the bill 
 of lading incorporating the conditions of the 
 charterparty, sued the defts. for the damage: — 
 
 Held, that tbe defts. were liable as, between 
 King's Lynn and Cardiff', they had become 
 insurers of the consignees of the wheat, for, 
 though the usual exceptions in the bill of lading 
 and charterparty would have covered the loss if 
 it had occurred i\i the ordinary course of the 
 voyage, the defts. were not entitled to deviate by 
 talcing the wheat round by King's Lynn, and 
 could only discharge tlie linteed at a port on the 
 way. The '• Dusbeth" 
 
 G. Barnes, J. [1897] P. 133 
 
 124. — Limitation of general uords. 
 General words in the printed part of a bill of 
 
 lading, giving the ship liberty to call at several 
 ports, must be limited to such ports as are fairly 
 within the specified voyage which is written into 
 and is the object of the particular contract under 
 which the goods are shipped. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1892] 1 Q. B. 337, affirmed. 
 Glynn v. Margetson & Go. 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1893] A. C. 351 
 
 125. — " Necessity " — Shipmcner's liahility. 
 The master of a ship may deviate where bis 
 
 ship is damaged by tempestuous weather, but is 
 
 SHIPPINQ (Deviation) — continued. 
 not obliged to put into the nearest port for 
 repairs if, in the exercise of his bona fide discre- 
 tion, he thinks a more remote port better suited 
 for his purpose. A master need not consult the 
 cargo owners on the subject of ships' repairs. 
 Phelps, James & Co. o. Hill 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Q. B. 605 
 
 — Ambiguity. 
 
 See Shipping— Charterparty. 
 
 15, IG. 
 
 Socks. 
 
 See Dock. 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 126. — Burden of proof— Bill of lading- 
 Exceptions — Negligence. 
 
 In an action for non-delivery under a bUl of 
 lading, excepting perils of the sea, &c., but not 
 excepting negligence, the defts. pleaded that the 
 loss was caused by perils of the sea : — 
 
 Held, that as the loss apparently fell under 
 the exception the burden of shewing that the 
 defts. were not entitled to the benefit of the ex- 
 ception by reason of negligence fell on the pltffs. 
 The " Glendabbooh " - C. A. [1894] P. 226 
 
 127. — Examination of loitnesses hefore ex- 
 aminer — Correction of transcript of shorthand 
 notes — Costs. 
 
 Per Butt P. : If after filing in the registry the 
 transcript of the shorthand notes of the evidence 
 of a witness taken before an examiner of the 
 Court, a mistake is discovered in the transcript, 
 application should be made to the Court for an 
 order to take the transcript off the file and 
 return it to the examiner for amendment. Costs 
 reserved. 
 
 Per Jeune J. : The costs of the amendment 
 not being due to the fault of either party should 
 be costs in the cause. The " Knutsfobd " 
 
 [1891] P. 219 
 
 Exceptions. 
 
 128. — "Accident of navigation" — Negligence 
 clause — Damage to cargo — Excepted perils. 
 
 By a charterparty and bill of lading the 
 shipowner was exempted from liability to the 
 charterer for damage to cargo arising from 
 " perils, &c., of the sea or other waters . . . 
 strandings .... and all other accidents of navi- 
 gation and all losses, &c., caused thereby .... 
 even when occasioned by negligence, &o., of the 
 pilot, master, mariners or other servants" of the 
 shipowner, "but unless stranded, sunk or burnt, 
 nothing herein contained shall exempt" the 
 shipowner "from liability to pay for damage to 
 cargo occasioned by improper opening of valves, 
 sluices and ports, or by causes other than those 
 above excepted. . . ." While the ship was load- 
 ing at her moorings, a valve in the side of the 
 ship was properly opened, but negligently left 
 open. A quantity of water came in and damaged 
 the cargo. To prevent the ship sinking in deep 
 water the master had her towed into shallow 
 water, where she settled on the ground : — 
 
 Held, that the shipowner was not liable, 
 because the clause as to negligence applied to 
 "perils, &c., of the sea and other waters," and 
 
( 1969 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1970 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Exceptions)— coHtjHiMrf. 
 
 the exemption of improper use of valves was 
 
 governed by " unless stranded, &c.'* 
 
 SenMe, that though the ship was moored, yet 
 as she had cargo on board the accident was " an 
 accident of navigation." The " Southgate " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 329 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Tlie GlenocM, [1896] 
 P. 10, 16. 
 
 129. — "Accidents of the seas" — Carriage by 
 steamship — Damage to cargo by heat — Froximate 
 cause. 
 
 A cargo of oats and maize was shipped on 
 <he defts.' steamship under a bill of lading ex- 
 cepting "accidents of the seas." During the 
 voyage, owing to exceptionally heavy weather, 
 and for the safety of the ship, the "ventilators 
 were closed for about a week, with the result 
 that the air in the holds nearest the engine-room 
 space became heated and, not being able to 
 escape, a portion of the cargo was damaged : — 
 
 Sfdd, that the shipowner was not liable, for 
 the contract was for the carriage of goods by a 
 steamship, and the damage was due to the air, 
 heated in the usual course of the voyage of a 
 steamship, being unable to escape from tlie holils 
 owing to the ventilators being necessarily closed, 
 and, therefore, the severity of the weather was 
 ihe proximate cause, and the damage covered by 
 the exception. The " THKtTNScoE " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] P. 301 
 
 130. — " Defects latent on beginning voyage or 
 otherwise " — Exemption of shipowner from lia- 
 bility. 
 
 A bill of lading contained, among other ex- 
 ceptions, one by which the shipowner was not to 
 be liable for loss or damage arising from " defects 
 latent on beginning voyage or otherwise " in hull, 
 tackle, boilers, or machinery, or their appur- 
 tenances : — 
 
 Seld, affirming the judgment of Bigham J., 
 £1898] 1 Q. B. 645, that the exception did not 
 cover a defect which was obvious at the com- 
 mencement of the voyage. Owneks of Cakgo on 
 BoAKD SS. Waikato v. New Zealand Shipping 
 Co. C. A. [1898] W. N. 152; [1899] 1 ft. B. 86 
 
 131. — Delay — Loch-out — Accident to railway 
 — Other clauses beyond charterer's control — Causes 
 ejusdem generis with antecedent exceptions. 
 
 A ship was chartered to proceed to Batoum, 
 and there load with oil from a named factory, 
 and at a specified rate per day. The charter- 
 party excepted, among other things, " strikes 
 lock-outs accidents to railway," and also "other 
 causes beyond charterer's control." Oil is brought 
 ■to Batoum by a ry., which was injured by floods 
 so that no oil could be sent down, and the work- 
 men of the factory were discharged, there being 
 no employment for them. Subsequently to the 
 arrival of the ship in port the ry. was repaired, 
 and oil arrived in sufficient quantity to load her ; 
 but there was delay in doing bo, because the 
 workmen who had been discharged could not 
 be got together in sufficient numbers, and such 
 men as were there were employed in loading 
 other vessels according to the order of their 
 arrival, as was the practice of shippers at that 
 
 SHIPPING (Exceptions) — continued. 
 
 port. On a claim for damages for detention of 
 
 the ship: — 
 
 Beld, that the general clause excepting " other 
 causes beyond charterer's control " referred to 
 matters ejusdem generis with the antecedent 
 exceptions, and that the delay in loading the 
 ship after the arrival of the oil could not be 
 attributed to accident to the ry., or to anything 
 ejusdem generis with a lock-out, which was con- 
 fined to the dismissal of workmen arising out of 
 a trade dispute. In re Eiohakdsons and M. 
 Samuel & Co. - C. A. [1898] 1 ft. B. 261 
 
 132. — Disabled ship — Aband/ynment of voyage 
 — Duty of shipowner to repair ship and complete 
 voyage — Constructive loss. 
 
 Where a charterparty provided that the ship 
 shall proceed to a port of discharge and there 
 deliver the cargo, unless prevented by the ex- 
 cepted perils, and tlie ship has to put into a port 
 of refuge for repairs, the shipowner is liable in 
 damages for abandoning the voyage at tliat port 
 without the consent of the charterers, unless the 
 effect of the excepted perils proves to have been 
 such as to make it either physically impossible 
 to complete the voyage, or so clearly unreason- 
 able as to be impossible from a business point of 
 view. 
 
 Decision of Collins J., [1892] 1 Q. B. 571, 
 affirmed. Assicubazioni Genebali v. SS. Bissie 
 MoBKis Co. - - C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 652 
 
 133. — Due diligenee — Negligence of agents — 
 The Barter Act, 1893 (52 Congress, Sess. 2, c. 105). 
 
 Goods were shipped imder a hill of lading 
 which incorporated by reference an Act of 
 Congress by which, if the owner of a ship shall 
 exercise due diligence to make the vessel iu 
 all respects seaworthy, and properly manned, 
 equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, her 
 owner, agent nor charterers shall become liable 
 or be held responsible for damage or loss result- 
 ing from faults or errors in navigation or in the 
 management of the vessel. The owner of a 
 vessel supplied proper equipment and appointed 
 a competent ship's carpenter, but by the negli- 
 gence of the carpenter the ship was allowed to 
 go to sea in an unseaworthy condition, by reason 
 whereof a part of the cargo was damaged during 
 the voyage. In an action by the owner of the 
 damaged goods against the shipowner : — 
 
 Held, that to exempt the shipowner from 
 liability it was not sufficient merely to shew that 
 he had personally exercised due diligence to 
 make the vessel seaworthy, but that it must bo 
 shewn that those persons whom he employed to 
 act for him in this respect had exerciicd due 
 diligence ; and that, therefore, the negligence of 
 the ship's carpenter prevented the exejiiption 
 from applying, and the shipowner was liable. 
 DoBELL & Co. V. Steamship Eossmore Co. 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B. 408 
 
 134. — "Management" of ship — Improper 
 stowage. 
 
 A clause excepting, inter alia, "damnge from 
 any act, neglect, or default of the pilot, master 
 or mariners in navigation or in management of 
 the ship " does not except the acts of a stevedore. 
 
( :97i ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— lyO J. 
 
 ( u'-i ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Exceptions) — contimied. 
 
 nor does " management of the sbip " include 
 
 improper stowage. The " Fekro " 
 
 Div. Ct, [1893] P. 38 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. The Glenochil, [1896] 
 P. 10, 16, 18. 
 
 135. — Negligence of master — Incorporation of 
 cliarlerparty conditions into bill of lading. 
 
 Goods were shipped under a charterparty, 
 ■ind a bill of lading contained the words " all 
 other conditions as per charter " : — 
 
 lieid, that these words did not incorporate into 
 the bill of lading the negligence clause in the 
 charterparty, so as to extend the excepted perils 
 to "stranding occasioned by the negligence of 
 the master." The words ought to be construed 
 as meaning only such conditions of the charter- 
 party as are to be performed by the consignees of 
 the goods. 
 
 Decision of Huddleston B., (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 
 .501, affirmed. Sbebaino & Sons v. Campbell 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 a. B. 283 
 
 See also Manchester Trust v. Furness, 0. A. 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 539, 545 ; Diederichsen v. Farqtt- 
 harson Brothers, G. A. 150, 153, 156, 162. 
 
 136. . — Negligence of master — Leal: — Condition 
 as to dunnage — Certificate — Conclusiveness. 
 
 Wheat was shipped under a charterparty and 
 bill of lading, both excepting " perils of the sea 
 and other accidents of navigation even when 
 occasioned by the negligence of the master " : — 
 
 Held, that damage to cargo arising from (1) 
 leakage, (2) neglect of master to stop leak, were 
 within the excepted perils. The charterparty 
 was conditioned that there should be good dun- 
 nage, and that a surveyor should certify accord- 
 ingly. A surveyor did certify that the ship was 
 entitled to full confidence and a good risk for 
 imderwriters, but did not mention dunnage : 
 
 Held, that the certificate was not conclusive, 
 and the shipowner was liable for damage caused 
 by imperfect dunnage. The " Cressington " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] P. 162 
 
 137. — Negligence of master — Master also part 
 owner — Applicability of exception — Bill of lading. 
 
 A bill of lading was signed by the deft., who 
 was master and part owner of the ship, on behalf 
 of himself and his co-owners. It contained an 
 exception in respect of " the neglect and default 
 of master in navigating the ship." The cargo 
 was lost by the stranding of the ship thiougli 
 the negligence, but not the wilful negligence, of 
 the deft. In an action by the owners and shippers 
 of the cargo : — 
 
 Held, that the negligence which caused the 
 loss was that of the deft, exclusively as master 
 and not as part owner, and was within the ex- 
 ception. Westport Coal Co. v. MoPhail 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 130 
 
 138 — Negligence of servants " in navigating 
 the ship or oVtericise." 
 
 Under a bill of lading the shipowner was not 
 to be liable for " any act, negligence, default, or 
 error m judgment of the pilot, master, mariners, 
 or other servants of the shipowner in navigating 
 the ship, or otherwise." A part of the cargo was 
 
 SHIPPING (Exceptions) — continued. 
 damaged by being negligently stowed by a steve- 
 dore employed by the shipowner; — 
 
 Held, that the words " or otherwise " in the 
 bill of lading were general, and did not limit the 
 exemption to loss or damage arising from negli- 
 gence in matters akin to navigation, or to loss or 
 damage arising from negligence in relation to 
 the other excelled perils of the bill of lading. 
 Baerselman r. Bailey C. A. [1895] 2 Q B. 301 
 
 139. — " Pirates, robbers, and thieves " — Theft 
 by persons in service of ship. 
 
 An exception of loss by "pirates, robbers or 
 thieves of whatever kind, whether on board or 
 not or by land or sea " : — ■ 
 
 Held, not to apply to thefts committed by 
 persons, such as stevedores, in the service of the 
 ship. Stedjman & Co. v. Angiek Line 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 a. B. 619 
 — Eestraint — Bond for safe return. 
 
 See SnippiNG^Eestraint. 213. 
 
 140. — Beslraint of princes — Contraband of 
 tvar — Bisk of seizure — Contract of carriage partly 
 performed — Justification of refusal to complete. 
 
 The pits, shipped goods which were contra- 
 band of war on the defts.' ship for carriage from 
 London to Yokohama under a bill of lading con- 
 taining the exception of " restraint of princes," 
 and also a special clause that " if the entering of 
 or discharging in the port (of discharge) shall be 
 considered by the master imsafe by reason of 
 war .... the master may land the goods at the 
 nearest safe and convenient port." The ship also 
 carried goods belonging to other shippers. In 
 the course of her voyage the ship arrived at 
 Hong Kong, and on the day of her arrival there 
 war was declared between China and Japan. 
 There were at that time several Chinese war- 
 vessels in and round the port of Hong Kong, and 
 if the master had attempted to sail thence with 
 the pits.' goods on board there would have been a 
 serious danger of their being seized and confis- 
 cated. The master accordingly landed them 
 there. In an action for breacli of contract to 
 carry the goods to Yokohama : — 
 
 Held, (1.) tliat the risk of the goods being 
 seized, if attempted to bo carried further, amounted 
 to a " restraint of princes " within the exception ; 
 (2.) that such risk of seizure on the voyage be- 
 tween Hong Kong and Yokohama, rendered the 
 " entering of or discharging in the port " of 
 Yokohama imsafe within the meaning of the 
 special clause; and (3.) that the master's duty 
 to take care of the cargo justified him, apart from 
 any exceptions in the bill of lading, in landing 
 the pits.' goods where he did. Nobel Explo- 
 sives Co. V. Jenkins & Co. - Mathew J. 
 [1896] 2 Q. B. 326 
 
 141. — Restraint of princes and rulers — De- 
 murrage — Customary mode of loading. 
 
 Defts. chartered pits.' ship to load 3000 tons 
 of nitrate at I. in C. at the rate of 200 tons per 
 working lay day, to be reckoned from the day 
 when the vessel was leady to receive cargo to the 
 day of her despatch, " restraints of princes and 
 rulers, political disturbances, or impediments 
 during the said voyage alwaysmutuallyexcepted." 
 The customary mode of loading at I. was to send 
 the nitrate bv rail direct to the ship's tide as 
 
( 1973 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1974 . ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Exceptions) — continued. 
 required. A civil war was going on, and I. was 
 blockaded. After the blockade was raised, tlie 
 ry. was in the hands of troops, and no nitrate 
 could reach I. When the ship was loaded, she 
 put into another port of C. to obtain coal (which 
 was very dear at I.) and was detained by the 
 Government in power there for refusing to pay to 
 it export duties she had already paid to that in 
 power at I. : — 
 
 Held, that the delay in both cases fell within 
 the exception. Smith & Sekvice v. Kosakio 
 
 I^ITBATB Co. 
 
 Decision of Pollock B. [1893] 2 Q. B. 323, 
 affirmed - - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 174 
 
 142. — Shii/mKner from liahility, Exemption of 
 — Clause of exemption in charterparty but not in 
 Ml. 
 
 A charterparty contained the following special 
 clause : " Tlie captain and crew, although paid 
 by the owners .... shall be the agents and 
 servants of the charterers for all purposes .... 
 In signing bills of lading it is expressly agreed 
 that the captain shall only do so as the agent for 
 the charterers ; and the charterers hereby agree 
 to indemnify the owners from all consequences or 
 liabilities (if any) tliat may arise from the captain 
 signing bUls of lading, or in otherwise complying 
 with the same " : — 
 
 Beld, (1.) that the clause in the charterparty 
 was binding only between the owners and the 
 charterers, and did not affect the liability of the 
 owners to the holders of the bills of lading, wlio 
 were entitled to consider the captain as the agent 
 of the owners; (2.) that the reference to the 
 charterparty in the bills of lading did not give 
 the holders constructive notice of the contents of 
 the charterparty, the equitable doctrine of con- 
 structive notice of contents of documents not 
 being applicable to mercantile transactions. 
 
 Manchester Trust v. Furness, Withy & Co., 
 [1895] 2 Q. B. 282, affirmed. Sub nom. Man- 
 
 CHESTBK TbUST V. FUBNESS 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q,. B. 639 
 Referred to by C. A. JDiederichsen v. Far- 
 quliarson Brothers, [1898] 1 Q. B. 150, 154, 164. 
 
 143. — Warranty — " Seaworthiness " — Fitness 
 (if refrigerating machinery. 
 
 Where a bill of lading of frozen meat, shipped 
 in a ship fitted with refrigerating machinery, 
 contained a clause, "Steamer shall not be ac- 
 countable for the condition of goods shipped 
 under this bill of lading, nor for any loss or 
 damage arising from failure or breakdown of 
 machinery, insulation. &c. " : — 
 
 Eeld, that the bill of lading contained an 
 implied warranty that the refrigerating machi- 
 nery was at the time of shipment fit to carry the 
 frozen meat in condition, and that the exceptions 
 applied only to what might happen during the 
 voyage, and not to the original fitness of the 
 machinery. Ownebs of Oaego on Smp " Maoei 
 King " v. Hughes - C. A. [1895] 2 ft. B, 560 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. Queensland National 
 Sank V. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Naviga- 
 tion Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 567, 570, 571. 
 
 144. Warranty — Seaworthiness^-Uncovered 
 
 pipe and damage to cargo thereby— Ambigimis 
 
 SHIPPING (Exceptions) — continued. 
 
 finding — Eemit — Judicature (Scotland) Act, 1825 
 
 (6 Geo. 4, c. 120), s. 40. 
 
 A claim for damages for injury caused to jute 
 by sea-water coming through an uncased pipe 
 broken by the pressure of the cargo was remitted 
 to the Court of Session to return answers to cer- 
 tain questions on the evidence already taken. 
 The returned answers were (1) that the practice 
 was to case such a pipe before loading ; (2) that 
 after loading, the pipe was not accessible without 
 removing part of the cargo :— 
 
 Held, on these answers that the ship was uii- 
 seaworthy when the cargo was taken on board, 
 that the peril was not therefore an excepted cms 
 and the shipowners were liable. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1891) 18 E. 569, 
 reversed. Gilrot, Sons &s Co. v. Pkioe & Co. 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 56 
 
 Tees and Stamps. 
 
 Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, No. 145 
 — Order abolishing fees on sums paid out of the 
 Admiralty Registry. W. N. 1897 (Feb. 6), p. 67. 
 See Current Index, 1897, p. Ixxxv. 
 
 Order dated Dec. 19, 1896, as to payment of 
 fees, &c., payable in Admiralty Division by means 
 of a transfer in paymaster's books in lieu of 
 stamps. W. N. 1897 (Jan. 2), p. 1 ; St. E. & 0. 
 1896, No. 1109. See Current Index, 1897, 
 p. Ixxxv. 
 
 Fishing Boats. 
 
 Os. of Bd. of Trade dated Noi\ 2, 1899, ex- 
 empting certain classes of sea fishing boats from 
 ss. 399 to 408 and 414 (2) of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60). St. E. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 927, Nos. 805, 806. 
 
 Freight. 
 
 148. — Advance freight — Loss of cargo — Lia- 
 bility of charterer. 
 
 A charterparty contained the following clause, 
 "the freight to be paid as follows : one-third on 
 signing bills of lading .... and the remainder 
 on unloading in cash." Bills of lading were to 
 be signed within twenty-four hours after the 
 cargo was on board. After the commencement of 
 the voyage and before bills of lading were signed 
 the ship sank and the cargo was lost. The 
 charterers then refused to present the bills of 
 lading for signature : — 
 
 Held, that the loss of the cargo did not relieve 
 the charterers from their obligation to present 
 bills of lading, and that the shipowner was 
 entitled to damages equal to the amount of the 
 advance freight. Obiental Steamship Co. v. 
 TvLOB - * C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 518 
 
 Test in this case, at p. 527, applied by 
 Stirling J. Holford v. Acton Urban Council, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 240. 
 
 146. — Advance freight — Lots of ship. 
 
 A clause in a charterparty stipulating for 
 advance freight, if required, can only bo enforced 
 if the requirement be made at a time when the 
 charterers are in a position to insure the advance 
 freight. If the ship be lost before the time of 
 making the requirement, the requirement will be 
 
( 1075 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASE^, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1076 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Tieightl-^continued. 
 too late, as all insurable interest will be gone- 
 Purposes of "advance freight" considered. 
 
 Decision of Cliarles J., [1891] 1 Q. B. 42, re- 
 versed. Smith, Hill & Co. v. Ptman, Bell & Co. 
 C. A. [1891] 1 «. B. 742 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Oriental Steamship 
 Co. V. Tylor, 0. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 518, 528. 
 
 147. — Advance freight — Payment three days 
 •after sailing — Destruction of part of cargo hefui'e 
 sailing hy excepted peril. 
 
 By a contract of cbarterpai ty the defts. con- 
 itracted to load on board the pits.' ship a full and 
 complete cargo at a certain rate of freight per ton 
 •" on the quantity to be delivered to the con- 
 signees." " Tlie freight to be due and paid as 
 follows : Two-thirds in cash three days after sail- 
 ing, siiip lost or not lost, the balance on unloading 
 and right deliveiy of flie cargo." After the defts. 
 had loaded a part of the cargo a fire broke out on 
 board and destroyed the goods so loaded. Fire 
 was one of the perils mutually excepted by the 
 «harterpai ty. The defts. subsequently loaded 
 the balance of the cargo, and the ship sailed. 
 Three days after sailing the pits, claimed pay- 
 ment of advance freight on two-tljirds of the full 
 cargo shipped : — 
 
 Beld, tliat the pits, were not entitled to pay- 
 ment of advance freight on the part of the cargo 
 destroyed. 
 
 Judgjnent of Lord Russell of Killowen C.J., 
 [1898] W. N. 164 (4); [1899] 1 Q. B. 193, 
 affirmed. Weie & Co. !'. Gikvin & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 46 
 
 148. — Advance on'account affreight — Charter- 
 party — Dishursements at port of loading. 
 
 A cbarterparty contained a clause, " Cash for 
 steamer's ordinary disbursements at port or ports 
 of loading, not exceeding i50Z. in all, to he ad- 
 vanced at exchange of 50rf. to tlie dollar on 
 account of freight, suliject to 3 per cent, to cover 
 cott of insurance, &c." The master, having other 
 cash in hand, paid part of the disbursements out 
 of it, and only obtained an advance of part from 
 the charterers. The charterers claimed the profit 
 tliey would have made by the difference of ex- 
 change if the whole amount had been advanced : — 
 
 Seld, that the clause was optional and not 
 obligatory on the shipowner, and that the 
 charterers were not entitled to recover. The 
 -" Primula " - G. Barnes J. [1894] P. 128 
 
 — Average — General average. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Average. 
 
 149. — Cat of Discharge — Bill of Lading. 
 By a clause in a cbarterparty it was agreed 
 
 that freight on a cargo of coals shipped by the 
 defts. on the j)lts.' steamship from Sunder- 
 land to Port de Bono should be paid " at the 
 
 irate of 9s. per ton of 20 owts delivered, 
 
 or on bill of lading quantity, less 2 per cent., at 
 receiver's option, to be declared in writing before 
 bulk is broken " ; and by another clause the 
 consignees were "to effect the discharge of the 
 cargo, steamer paying 1 fr. per ton of 20 cwts." 
 The bill of lading stated that the quantity of 
 coal shipped was 1184 tons. On arrival at Port 
 ■do Bouc the consignees exercised their option by 
 acceplirg the cargo at the bill of lading quantity, 
 
 SHIPPING (Freight) — continued. 
 less 2 per cent., but charged the ship with 1 fr. 
 per ton on the bill of lading quantity without 
 deducting the 2 per cent. : — 
 
 Sdd, that the clauses of the cbarterparty 
 must be read together, and, as the consignees 
 had elected to pay freight on the bill of lading 
 quantity, less 2 per cent., the same deduction of 
 2 per cent, must be allowed by the defts. in 
 respect of the payment of 1 fr. per ton by the 
 shipowner for the discharge. The " Hollinside " 
 Div. Ct. [1898] P. 131 
 
 150. — Damage to goods — Loss of merchantable 
 character — LiaMlity to pay freight — Marine in- 
 surance — Insurance of profit — Warranty against 
 average — Concealment of material fact. 
 
 A vessel, on board which dates liad been 
 shipped under bills of lading making the freight 
 payable on right delivery, was sunk during the 
 course of the voyage, and subsequently raised. 
 On arrival at the port of discharge it was found 
 that although the dates still retained the appear- 
 ance of dates, and although they were of con- 
 siderable value for the purpose of distillation 
 into spirit, they were so impregnated with sewage 
 and in such a condition of fennentation as to be 
 no longer merchantable as dates : — 
 
 Seld, that freight was not payable in respect 
 of them. 
 
 A ship having been chartered for a lump sum, 
 the charterers put her up as a general ship, and 
 goods were shipped on board under bills of lading 
 at freights which in the aggregate exceeded the 
 charter freight. The charterere insured their 
 " profit on charter " by a policy whii.-h contained 
 a warranty against average. On arrival of the 
 ship part of the cargo was delivered, and freight 
 was payable under the bills of lading for that 
 portion ; but owing to sea damage the remainder 
 of the cargo had lost its merchantable character, 
 and freight was not payable in respect of it ; the 
 result being that the total amount of the freights 
 payable under the bills of lading was less than 
 the charter freight, and the charterers' profit was 
 consequently lost: — 
 
 Held, that there had been a total loss of the 
 subject-matter of the insurance within the mean- 
 ing of the warranty : 
 
 Bdd, also, that the fact that the charter 
 freight was a lump sum and not a tonnage rate, 
 although material, had been sufficiently disclosed 
 by a reference to the cbarterparty, a clause for 
 payment of a lump sum for freight being a usual 
 clause in charterparties, and the obligation to 
 specifically disclose the contents of a charter 
 extending only to unusual clauses, the insertion 
 of which the underwriters could not reasonably 
 have anticipated. 
 
 Decision of Mathew J., [1895] 2 Q. B. 196, 
 affirmed. Aspab & Co. v. Blundell 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 ft. B. 133 
 
 Eeferred to by Bigham J. Field Steamship 
 Co. V. Burr, [1898] 1 Q. B. 821, 823. This case 
 was affirmed by 0. A. [1899] 1 Q. B. 579. 
 
 151. — Default in loading full cargo — Damages 
 — Freight earned hy shipowntr. 
 
 E. chartered A.'s ship for carriage of a full 
 cargo at 11. 17s. Gd. per ton. The cbarterparty 
 excepted " fire " and stipulated that the master 
 
( 1977 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1978 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Fzeig-ht)— continued. 
 should sign bills of lading at any rate, provided 
 that the bill of lading freight should cover the 
 charterparty freight (5600J.). E. shipped 1519 
 tons at 11. 5s. A fire broke out which destroyed 
 1000 tons of this cargo and delayed the ship. E. 
 refilsed to load more goods, and A. filled np the 
 ship with other cargo : — 
 
 Meld, tliat the space occupied by the burnt 
 goods was taken out of the charterparty al- 
 together, and that the freight received by A. for 
 goods carried therein belonged to A. and ought 
 not to be taken into account in reduction of 
 damages : — 
 
 Seld, further, that the file only absolved E. 
 from payment of the oill of lading freight on the 
 goods burnt, and that after the fire E. was liable 
 for 56007. less 11. 58. per ton on the goods burnt, 
 and not 5600J. less 11. 17s. 6d. per ton on the 
 goods burnt. Aitkbn, Lilbubn & Co. v. Ebnst- 
 HAUSEN & Co. - C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B. 773 
 
 Applied by C. A. Weir & Go. v. Vnion Steam- 
 ship Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 28, 49. This case was 
 affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 525. 
 
 — General average. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — ^Average. 
 
 — Marine insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insijeance, Maeine. 
 
 152. — Sale at port of distress — Construction 
 of written document — Carriage of goods — German 
 law. 
 
 A charterparty in tlie ordinary English form 
 was negotiated and made in London between A., 
 a merchant iu London, and the London broker of 
 B., a German shipowner, domiciled in Germany, 
 for the chartering of the X, a German ship witli 
 a German master, ,then in a French port, " freight 
 being payable at the rate of 35«. per ton of 20 cwt. 
 
 net delivered The freight to be paid on 
 
 right delivery of cargo, if discharged in the 
 U. K. ; in cash as customary . . . and if on 
 the Continent in cash at the exchange of the 
 
 day " The I. put into a port of distress, 
 
 where a portion of the cargo was found to be so 
 much damaged that on survey it was condemned 
 as unfit fur reshipment and sold by the master : — 
 
 Held, that the intention of the parties was to 
 make an English contract, and the payment of. 
 freight being expressly dealt with in the charter- 
 party, no freight was payable on the poition sold. 
 THE"lNDrSTEIE" - C. A. [1894] P. 58 
 
 153. — Carriage of goods — Sliort delivery — 
 Burden of proof. 
 
 A shipowner is bound to deliver the full 
 amount of goods signed for by the master in a 
 bill of lading, unless he can prove that the whole 
 or some part of it was in fact not shipped. 
 
 In an action for freight for the conveyance of 
 1000 bales of jute against the appellants, onerous 
 indorsees of the bills of lading, the appellants 
 claimed to retain the value of twelve bales short 
 delivered of the 1000 shewn by the bills of lading 
 signed by the master to have been shipped at the 
 port of loading. There was no clear evidence as 
 to how or where the missing bales had dis- 
 appeared : — 
 
 Held, that there was nothing to displace the 
 evidence supplied by the bills of lading that the 
 
 SHIPPING (Tveight}— continued. 
 missing bales had baen received on board the 
 vessel, and that the appellants were entitled tO' 
 the deduction claimed by them. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of SeiS., (1895) 22 B. 350',. 
 reversed. Smith & Co. v. Bedodin Steam Navi- 
 gation Co. H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 7ft 
 
 General Average. 
 See Cases under Shipping — Average. 
 
 Harbour. 
 
 Limitation of liability of liarhour conservancip 
 authority. See Merchant Shipping (Liabiliti/ of 
 Shipowners and Others) Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict, 
 c. 32), s. 2. 
 
 POBTS.] Th£ Public Health (Ports) Act, 1895 
 (59 & 60 Vict. 0. 20), assigns powers under Infec- 
 tious Disease (Prevention) Act, 1890, to port 
 Sanitary Authority. 
 
 154. — Discharge of solid matter in suspension 
 — Obstru/ition to navigation — Harbour Acts, 1813 
 -14(54 Geo. 3, o. 159), «. 11. 
 
 An alkali co. discharged u large quantity of 
 water containing solid matter in suspension int(> 
 a tidal brook which flowed into a navigable river. 
 The solid matter was carried down and deposited 
 in the river, but it was not alleged to tend to 
 the obstruction of the navigation of the river ; — 
 
 Held, that the co. were rightly convicted of 
 casting, &o., rubbish, &c., " in any place or situa- 
 tion on shore where the same shall be liable (o 
 be washed into the sea, &o.," and that the worda 
 " so as to tend to the injury or obstruction of the 
 navigation thereof" did not apply to this provi- 
 sion, but only to the earlier part of s. 11 of the 
 Harbours Act, 1814 (54 Geo. 3, c. 159). United 
 Alkali Co. u. Simpson - - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1894] 2 Q. B. lie 
 
 158. — Harbour authority — Damages — Practice. 
 — Action against a harbour board — Limit of tim& 
 for commencement of — Public duty — Costs — Public- 
 Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 61), s. 1. 
 
 The pits., owners of a barque, issued a writ, 
 on Nov. 14, 1898, in an Admiralty action, against 
 the defts. for damages sustained by the ground- 
 ing of their vessel on Sept. 13, 1893, in the river 
 Eibble witliin the port and harbour of Preston, 
 through the alleged negligence of the defts. in 
 inviting the vessel to come up when there wa* 
 not suflScient water in the channel leading to the 
 docks. Jeune P. dismissed 'the action with costs 
 to be taxed as between solicitor and client : — 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the President,, 
 that the defts. were acting in pursuance of 
 tbeir public duties, so that s. 1 of the Public 
 Authorities Protection Act, 1893, applied, and 
 as that statute, dealing with procedure only, 
 was retrospective the action was barred after 
 the expiration of six months from the default 
 complained of. The " Yddn " 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 72; [1899] P. 23& 
 
 Dictum of Jeune P. followed by Kekewioh J. 
 Att.-Gen. v. Company of Proprietors of Margate 
 Pier and Harbour, [1900] 1 Oh. 749. 
 
 186. — Harbour authority— Towage— Damage 
 
( 1979 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1980 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Harbour) — continued. 
 
 — Contract in exercise reasonahle care and skill — 
 
 Port and harhour authority. 
 
 The appellants vmdertook for payment to tow 
 the respondents' vessel with others by hired tugs 
 up a tidal river, to lighten the respondents' vessel 
 if necessary, and to conduct the -wliole operation 
 of the towage upon a certain tide, including the 
 arrangement of the time and order of procession, 
 the river being too narrow for two vessels to go 
 abreast or pass one another. The tug towing the 
 leading vessel was so slow and ineiBcient that 
 the respondents' vessel, which was the last in 
 the line, w;is stranded on the ebb tide and 
 damaged : — 
 
 Held, that the appellants were bound to exer- 
 cise reasonable care and skDl in the conduct of 
 the towage, and that, there being evidence of 
 failure in that respect, the respondents were en- 
 titled to sue the appellants for damages. 
 
 Decision of C. A., The Batata, [1897] P. 118, 
 affirmed. Peeston Cobpokation r. Bioenstad. 
 The '• Ratata " H. 1. E. [1898] A. C. 513 
 
 157. — Marhour-master — Authority of harlxmr- 
 master to bind owners — Permissive use of loch for 
 grounding — Negligence. 
 
 A ship entered a dock to load. 'WTiile cross- 
 ing the dock she was disabled, and there being 
 no diy dock, with the permission of the harbour- 
 master put into a lock to ground. On grounding 
 she sustained damage owing to the existence of a 
 sill at the lock's bottom, which the harbour- master 
 had represented was level : — 
 
 Held (Lords Br.imwell and Morris diss.), that 
 the harbour-master was guilty of a breach of duty 
 by giving the permisbion and making the repre- 
 sentations, and that the dock owners were liable. 
 Owners op " Apollo " v. Post Talbot Co. The 
 " Apollo " - H. I. (E.) [1891] A. C. 499 
 
 — Harbour rates. 
 
 See TatsTEE— Investments. O.'i. 
 
 — Liability to clear a port of sunken ship. 
 
 See ViCTOKiA. 15. 
 
 158. — Negligence — Beparation — Alleged ron- 
 iribulory negligence of those on hoard. 
 
 When a vessel is within the jurisdiction of a 
 harbour-master by law empowered to give com- 
 pulsory orders, his orders as to the place of 
 anchorage, &c., may only be disregarded in cases 
 of obvious danger. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1891) 18 K. 294, re- 
 versed. Beney v. Kirkoudbkisht Maoistrates 
 H. 1. (So.) [1892] A. C. 264 
 
 — " Port charges.'' 
 
 See Shipping. 43. 
 
 — Wreck — Eemoval — Owner. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 254. 
 
 Insurance. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine, 
 
 Interest, 
 
 159, — Delay in instituting action in rem — 
 Interest on damages — Statutes of limitation. 
 
 After a delay of eleven years, the pits, in- 
 stituted an action in rem for damages arising 
 from a collision : — 
 
 Held, (1) that they were entitled to proceed, 
 
 SHIPPING (Interest)— conMnjted. 
 although there had been changes in the owner- 
 ship of the ship, the rights of third parties had 
 intervened, and many of the witnesses were not 
 available; (2) that interest should be granted 
 on the damages for the whole eleven years, ac- 
 cording to the Admiralty practice. The " KoNa 
 Magnus " - - Hannen P. [1891] P. 223 
 
 Jettison. 
 
 — Cargo — Collision — General average. Claim for. 
 
 See Shipping — Average. 9. 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 See Cases under Shipping — Practice. 
 
 Liability, Limitation of. 
 
 See Cases under Limitation of Liability, 
 helow. 
 
 Lien. 
 
 — Change of ownership. 
 
 See Shipping — Necessaries. 179. 
 
 160. — Disbursement hy master — Dien on shij> 
 and freight — Master's authority to pledge credit of 
 owner — Maritime lien — Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 46), s. 1. 
 
 Sect. 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1889 
 — now s. 167 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1891, 
 (57 & 58 Vict. u. 60) — does not give the master of 
 a ship a lien on the sbip for disbursements (e.g.. 
 to procure coal for which the charterers were 
 liable on the charterparty) if he has no authority 
 to pledge the shipowners' credit. If there is no 
 lien on the ship there can be none on the freight 
 in respect of the same debt. 
 
 Decision of C. A. (Ir.), (1891) 29 L. R. Jr. 55, 
 nffirmed. Morgan v. " Castlegate " SS. Co. 
 TuE " Castlegate " H. L. (L) [1893] A. C. 38 
 
 Referred to. The Utopia, [1893] A. C. 492, 
 499. 
 
 161, — Liability incurred by master — Bill of 
 exchange for coal at home port — Priority — Mort- 
 gagees — Merchant Sliipying Act, 1889 (52 rf- 53 
 Vict. c. 46), s. 1 {now Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894 (57 * 58 Vicl. c. 60), s. 1G7). 
 
 P. sold coal for the steamer 0. then lying in 
 the port of London, and contracted to be paid by 
 bill drawn by tlie master on the shipowners in 
 London. The bill was dishonoured. The master 
 i-sued an action in rem against the shipowners, 
 who did not appear, but pn intervention by mort- 
 gagees, held, by Jeune P., that the Act of 1889 
 only gave a maritime lien in cases where it was 
 supposed to have been created by the Admiralty 
 Court Act of 1861 ; and (1) Held by C. A. and 
 Jeune P. a lien is given by the Act of 1889 only 
 for those disbursements by the master for which 
 without express authority ho could pledge the 
 owner's credit; (2) that there was no lien to the 
 prejudice of the mortgag. es. The terms " dis- 
 bursements" and "neiessaries" considered. 
 
 Decision of Jeune P. [1894] P. 271. The 
 " Oeienta " - - C. A. [1895] P. 49 
 
 — Maritime — Jurisdiction — Wages — Action in 
 
 rem — Ship's husband. 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 267. 
 
( 1981 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 1982 ). 
 
 SHIPPING (Lien)—coalinued. 
 
 — Maritime— Sale of ship — Division of puiohase- 
 
 money. 
 
 See Shippins— Sale. 21 rt. 
 
 — Maritime lien — Salvage 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 2^0. 
 
 — Necessaries. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Neces- 
 saries. 
 
 — Sale — Pre-existing maritime lien — Division of 
 
 purchase-money. 
 
 See SHippnfQ — Sale. 21."). 
 
 162. — Scottish law — Damage hy collision- 
 Mortgagee — Maritime lien. 
 
 The maritime law of SeollanJ being the same 
 as that of England, the law of Scotland recognises 
 a maritime lien in cases of collision. 
 
 In order to render a ship liable to a maritime 
 lien for injury caused the ship itself must be the 
 instrument which causes the damage. 
 
 The Sold Buccleugh, (1851) 7 Moo. P. C. 267, 
 approved. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1895) 22 E. 607, 
 affirmed. Cuebib v. M'Knight 
 
 H. L. (So.) [1897] A. C. 9T 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (Sc.) Sailing Ship 
 Blairmore Co. v. Macredie, [1898] A. C. 593, 605. 
 
 — Wreck — Collision with sunken wreck in har- 
 
 bour — Transfer of control to port autho- 
 rity — Liability. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 82. 
 
 Life-saving Appliances. 
 
 Mules dated March 9, 1894, made hy the Board 
 of Trade as to life-saving appliances. St. R, & 0. 
 1894 (No. 303), p. 290. 
 
 Limitation of Liability. 
 
 Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners 
 and Oihers) Act, 1899 (63 & 6i Vict. c. 32), 
 amends the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 60), with respect to the liahility of ship- 
 owners and others. 
 
 163. — Contract overriding limitation of Ua- 
 hility — Collision — Damages — Merchant Shipping 
 Act Amendment Act, 1862 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 63), 
 «. 54. 
 
 Two yachts were entered by their respective 
 owners for a club race, each owner undertaking 
 with the club to be bound by the club sailing 
 rules. By the rules the owner of any yacht dis- 
 obeying any of the rules was to be liable for " all 
 damages arising therefrom." One of the yachts 
 iu breach of a sailing rule, through improper 
 navigation without tlie actual fault or privity of 
 the owner, ran into and sank the other yacht : — 
 
 Held, that there was a contract between the 
 •owners upon which the owner of the damaged 
 yacht could sue the owner of the other, and that 
 upon the true construction of the rules the words 
 " all damages " excluded the operation of s. 54 of 
 the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 
 1862, which limited the liability to 81. per ton. 
 
 Decision of C. A., TheSatanita, [1895] P. 248, 
 affirmed. Clabke v. Earl of Dunkaven. The 
 " Satastta ■' - H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 89 
 
 SHIPPING (Limitation of Liability) — continued. 
 
 164. — Crew space — Cross tonnage — Merchant 
 Slapping Act, 1867 (30 * 31 Vict. c. 124). ». 9. 
 
 When s. 9 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1867 (now s. 79 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894), has been complied with, the spaoa employed 
 in berthing the crew may be deducted from the 
 gross tonnage williout deduction of engine room, 
 for the purpose of calculating the liability of the 
 owners of a ship for a collision. The " Petrel " 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 320 
 — Defendant's costs. 
 
 See Shipping — Costs. 96, 97. 
 
 166. — Exemption from registry — " Tons bur- 
 den " — " Eegifter tonnage " — Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 3, stib-s. 1 ; 
 s. 503, sub-s. 2 (a). 
 
 By s. 3, sub-s. 1, of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, ships not exceeding 15 "tons burden" 
 employed solely iu navigation on the riveis or 
 coasts of the United Kingdom are exempted from 
 registry. By s. 503, sub-s. 2 (a), the owners of a 
 steamship shall not, where, without their actual 
 fault or privity, any loss or damage is caused to 
 any other vessel, by reason of the improper 
 navigation of tiieir steamship, be liable to 
 damages beyond 81. for each ton of the " gross 
 tonnage " of the steamship ; — 
 
 Seld, by the C. A., affirming the decision of 
 G. Barnes J., [1898] W. N. 164 (1); [1899] 
 P. 45, that, under s. 3, a small tug — solely em- 
 ployed in the manner mentioned in the section — 
 of the " gross tonnage," if measured in accord- 
 ance with the Act, of 35-99 tons, was exempted 
 from registry as the words " tons burden " re- 
 ferred to the net tonnage, and, therefore, under 
 the rules laid down in the Act, involved the 
 deduction from her "gross tonnage" of the 
 allowances for engine-room and crew space, 
 which reduced her tonnage to less than 15 " tons 
 burden." 
 
 Secondly, that, as the vessel was properly 
 exempted from registry, her owners were en- 
 titled, under s. 503,. to limit their liability to 8Z. 
 for each ton of her gross tonnage ascertained by 
 measuring her iu accordance with the Act. The 
 " Beunbl " - - C. A. [1899] W. N. 227 ; 
 
 [1900] P. 24 
 
 166. — Foreign Court, Sale of ship in — 
 Damages — Limitation of liability — Distribution 
 of proceeds — Bight of claimants in foreign court 
 to participate — Interest on life claims — Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 .Vict. c. 60), s. 503. 
 
 After a collision between a British and a 
 German steamship, in the North Sea, the German 
 vessel sank with her cargo, and a large number 
 of her crew and passengers were drowned. The 
 British vessel put into Eotterdam, and was there 
 proceeded against by the owners of the German 
 vessel and by two claimants interested in cargo. 
 The British vessel having been found alone to 
 blame, she was sold by order of the Court, and 
 the net proceeds paid out rateably to the three 
 claimants. 
 
 The owners of the British vessel, as pits., 
 having obtained a decree in a limitation action 
 in this country, under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 503, paid intS 
 court an amount e(iual to 81. per ton of tlieir 
 
( 1083 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 1984 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Limitation of liability) — continued. 
 statutory liability with interest to date, and in 
 respect of the life claims gave bail to pay the 
 balance of 71. per ton when required. On the 
 question as to the right of those who had sued iu 
 Holland to participate in the distribution of this 
 sum, and as to the allowance of interest on the 
 71. per ton : — • 
 
 Hdd, that the owners of the German vessel, 
 and the claimant in respect of cargo (the other 
 claimant not taking part in the proceedings), 
 were not debarred from proving against the fund 
 in court to the full extent of their loss, but, in 
 ascertaining (he proportion receivable by them, 
 credit must be given for the sums they had re- 
 spectively beeu paid out of the proceeds of the 
 sale of the ship, and the pits, were entitled to 
 take out of the fund a sum equal to the amounts 
 received by the three claimants abroad. Also 
 that, as part of the damages, i per cent, interest 
 was payable on the sum representing 71. per ton 
 from the date of the collision until payment into 
 court. The " Ckathie " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1897] P. 178 
 
 167. — Free pass hy railway and steamer — Con- 
 ditions of non-liability — Claim against fund — 
 Loss of life —Loss of luggage— Limitation suit — 
 Lord Campbell's Act (9 * 10 Vict. c. 93)— -¥er- 
 uhant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), 
 s. 503. 
 
 A free pass, obtained by an oflSoial of another 
 ry. CO., for himself and wife, from the London 
 and South Western Ky. Co., fnr the journey from 
 London to Jersey, referred, on the face of it, to 
 llie following condition printed on the back: 
 " That it shall be taken as evidence of an agree- 
 ment that the co. are relieved from all responsi- 
 bility for any injury, delay, loss, or damage, 
 however caused, that may be sustained by the 
 person or persons using this pass." Through 
 the negligence of the servants of the ry. co., and 
 during the transit from Southampton to the 
 Channel Islands, the steamer stranded, and the 
 official was drowned. His own, and hia wife'.«, 
 luggage were also lost. 
 
 The widow on behalf of herself and infant 
 children claimed, against the fund paid by the 
 ry. CO. into court in a limitation suit, for the loss 
 of her husband and father of the children. The 
 registrar disallowed the claim : — 
 
 Held, by G. Barnes J., affirming the decision 
 of the registrur, that, in respect of the loss of life, 
 as the widow and children could only claim 
 under Lord Campbell's A ct, where, if death had 
 not ensued, the party injured would have been 
 entitled to maintain an action for damages, the 
 conditions on which the free pass was granted, 
 and which the deceased must, from his official 
 position, be taken to have known, included the 
 sea passage as well as the land transit and 
 barred the claim : 
 
 Held, also, that in respect of the claim by the 
 widow, as administratrix of hor husband, for the 
 loss of his personal effects, and in her own right, 
 for the loss of her luggage, the condition attach- 
 ing to the pass equally precluded any claim, for 
 the London and South Western Eailway special 
 Act of 1848— under ss. 47, 4S, 49 of which (made 
 perpetual by an Act of 1S60) the ci. is empowered 
 
 SHIPPING (Limitation of LiahUity) — continued. 
 to maintain steamers — ^is not controlled by s. 31 
 of the subsequent Eailway Clauses Act, 1863, 
 extending to steamers the provisions of s. 7 of the 
 Kailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. 
 
 The words "or other things whatsoever on 
 hoard the ship" in s. 503, sub-s. 1 (6), of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, include passengers' 
 "" ~ - G. Barnes J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 96; [1900] P. 161 
 
 168. — Gross tonnage — Dovhle bottom for water 
 ballast — Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104), s. 21, stt6-«. 2 — Merchant Shipyivg 
 {Tonnage) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 43), ». 5. 
 
 In calculating the gross tonnage upon whicb 
 the statutory liability in datuages is based the 
 owner of a ship with a double bottom for water 
 ballast may, under s. 5 of the Merchant Shipping- 
 (Tonnage) Act, 1889 (now s. 81 of the Act of 
 1894), exclude the space between the inner and 
 outer plating. The " Zakzibab " 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 233 
 
 169. — Navigation spaces — Sailing ship — Begis- 
 iered tonnage — Merchant Shipping Acts. 1862 
 (25 * 26 Vict. c. 63), s. 54; 1889 (52 & 53 Vict, 
 c. 43), s. 3, sub-s. (1) a, (b), («.), (ii.); 1894 
 (57 <fe 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 79, 503. 
 
 In a sailing ship the navigation spaces men- 
 tioned in s. 3 (1), (a), (b), (i.), (ii.) of the Merchant 
 Shipping (Tonnage) Act, 1889 (now s. 79 i;i),(a), 
 (i.), (ii.),(6) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), 
 can be deducted in estimating the tonnage fur the 
 purpose of the limitation of the owners' liability. 
 The " PiLGKiM " - Bruce J. [1895] P. IIT 
 
 170. — Navigation spaces — Steamship — Gross 
 tonnage — Merchant Shipping Acts, 1862 (25 it 26 
 Vict. c. 63), s. 54 ; 1889 (52 it 53 Vict. c. 43), s . S. 
 sub-ss. (!»), (j.), {ii.). 
 
 In a steamship the navigation spaces men- 
 tioned in 8. 3, sub-ss. b (i.), (ii.) of the Merchant 
 Shipping (Tonnage) Act, 1889 (now s. 79 of th& 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), cannot be de- 
 ducted iu estimating the tonnage for the purpose 
 of the limitation of the owners' liability. The 
 " Umbilo " - Hannen P. [1891] P. 118. 
 
 Distinguished by Jeune J. Tlw Zanzibar,. 
 []892]P. 233, 238. 
 
 Distinguished by Brace J. Tlte Pilgrim,. 
 [1895J P. 117. 
 
 171. — Separate losses — "Distinct occasions " — 
 Wrong manoeuvre not corrected — Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. u. 104), s. 506; 
 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63), s. 54. 
 
 By reason of the S. improperly starbMrding- 
 across the hows of the A. the A. was damaged by- 
 colliding with the M. at anchor, and the iT. con- 
 tinuing under a starboard helm sank the D. at 
 anchor : — 
 
 Seld, (1.) that the onus was on the -Sf. to shew 
 that it was the same act of improper uavigatiom 
 which caused the damage to the A. and the D. ; 
 (2.) that as on the facts the wrongful starboarding 
 might have beeu corrected in time the occasiona 
 were "distinct" within o. 506 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854 (now s. 503 (3) of the Mer- 
 chant Shipping Act, 1894) ; (3.) that the onus 
 was on the S. to shew the fault was that of the 
 pilot alone; (4.) that as there was no efficient 
 
( 1985 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1000. 
 
 ( 198G ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Limitation of Liability)— continued, 
 look-out the pilot was not warned in time to cor- 
 rect the wrongful starboarding, and the 8. was 
 liable to the A., notwithstanding they had ob- 
 jtained a decree limiting their liability in an 
 action by the J). The " Sohwan." The " Al- 
 iBANo" - C. A. [1892] P. 419 
 
 — Transfer of action — Fatal accidents— Decree 
 
 for limitation of liability in the Admi- 
 ralty Division. 
 J^ee Pbactioe, — Trial. 264. 
 
 Managing Owner. 
 
 172. — Charges against sliip — Secret profit — 
 Commission — Brokerage — Custom. 
 
 In the absence of special bargain the manag- 
 'ing owner of a ship, even if he is a shipbroker, is 
 "not entitled to charge against the ship or retain 
 any profit by way of commission or otherwise for 
 procuring charters or freights. Wilhamson v. 
 HiNB - - Kekewich J. [1891] 1 Ch. 390 
 
 — Necessaries. 
 
 See No. 179, helow. 
 
 173. — Powers of managing owner — Liahility 
 of co-owners — Repairs. 
 
 The authority of a managing owner extends to 
 the conduct on shore of all that concerns the 
 •employment of the ship, including power to 
 pledge the co-owners' credit for what ia necessary 
 •to repair her for her employment in the ordinary 
 course of trade : and it makes no difference that 
 the managing owner has instruction to insure, 
 and has in fact collected from the underwriters 
 the money to discharge a claim for repairs. The 
 •" Huntsman" G, Barnes J, [1891] P. 214 
 
 Maritime Lien. 
 
 See Cases under SaifPiNG— Hen. 
 
 Master and Seaman. 
 •See Oases under Shipping— Seamen. 
 
 Merchant Shipping Acts. 
 See Shippins, passim. 
 These Acts were consolidated hy the MercJucnt 
 Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60). 
 
 The Rules of the Supreme Court {Merchant 
 Shipping), 1894, dated Dec. 10th, 1894, made under 
 ihe Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. St. R. & 0. 
 1894 (»o. 656), p. 423 ; [1894] W. N. (Appx. of 
 O. & E.), p. 5 J St. 0. P. 
 
 — Measurement of ships. 
 
 See Shipping — Eegistry. 
 
 Passengbbs Acts.] Notice dated June 19, 
 1891, under the Passengers Act, 1855, varying the 
 declared length of voyages to certain places. 
 St. K. & 0. 1891, p. 564; Lend. Gaz. June 23, 
 1891, p. 3300. 
 
 [The Passengers Acts were repealed hy and 
 consolidated in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.] 
 
 Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) 
 Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict. c. 44), s. 3. 0. of Bd. of 
 Trade, dated Feb. 20, 1899, as to Registration, 
 Transfer, and Mortgage Fees. Lond. Gaz. Feb. 21, 
 1899, p. 1116. 
 
 SHIPPING — continued. 
 
 Mortgage. 
 
 174. — Certificate of registry— Order for de- 
 livery — Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104), a. 50. 
 
 A shipowner while a ship was being built for 
 him contracted to fit her for a particular trade, 
 and run her for five years as one of the defts.' 
 line. After completion and registry she was 
 mortgaged by the owner. Pit. became second 
 mortgagee with notice of the contract. The first 
 moitgagees, who had no notice of the contract, 
 took possession of the ship and sold her to the 
 pit. He resold to third parties and claimed de- 
 livery up of the certificate of registry under s. 50 
 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (now s. 15 of 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894) : — 
 
 Held, that pit. was entitled to have the certi- 
 ficate delivered up to Mm. The " Celtio King " 
 G. Barnes J. [1894] P. 175 
 
 — Insurance, Marine — Barratry. 
 
 See Insukanoe — Marine. 28. 
 
 — Maritime lien. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Lien. 
 
 176. — Priority — Equitable charge — Debenture 
 — Registration — Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 
 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), ss. 43, 69; 1862^25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 63), s. 3 ; 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 33, 
 56, 57. 
 
 Mortgages in the statutory form take priority 
 in the strict order in which they are registered 
 over equitable charges. Therefore where under a 
 debenture trust deed legal mortgages of all ships 
 acquired or to be acquired by a eo. were to be 
 registered and the co. gave legal mortgages of 
 certain ships to a corporatiou, and these mort- 
 gages were registered before those under the trust 
 deed, the corporation's mortgages had priority, 
 although they had notice of the debentures. 
 Black v. Williams 
 
 V, WiUiams J. [1895] 1 Ch. 408 
 
 176. — Receiver and manager — Steamship. 
 
 A receiver with power to manage appointed of 
 a steamship under a registered statutory mort- 
 gage. Faikfield Shipbuilding and Engineer- 
 ing Co. V. London akd Bast Coast Express 
 Steamship Co. Kekewich J, [1895] W. N. 64 
 
 Referred to. In re Continental Oxygen Co,, 
 [1897] 1 Oh. 511, at p. 513. 
 
 — Sale— Costs of repairs. 
 
 See No. 215, below, 
 
 Necessaries. 
 
 177. — Action in rem against foreign ship for 
 broherage — Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 (fc 4 Vict, 
 e. 65), s. 6. 
 
 An action in rem does not lie against a foreign 
 ship for brokerage on a charterparty, such a claim 
 not falling within the word " necessaries " in s. 6 
 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1840. The " Ma- 
 eianne" - - Butt J, [1891] P. 180 
 
 178. — Bottomry — Marshalling assets. 
 Although the proceeds of ship and freight 
 
 would be exhausted by the holders of a bottomry 
 bond on ship, freight, and cargo, the Court 
 refused to marshal the assets in favour of a claim 
 for necessaries against ship and freight, on the 
 
( 1987 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 198S ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Necessaries) — continued. 
 f;round that, the ovmera of ship and freight being 
 different persons from the owners of cargo, third 
 parties, namely, the cargo owners, would be pre- 
 judiced by being, in effect, made to pay the claim 
 of the necessaries men with which they had no 
 concern. 
 
 The Edward Oliver, (1867) L. K. 1 A. & E. 
 379, distinguished. The Chioggia 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1897] W. N. 186 (2) ; 
 [1898] P. 1 
 
 179. — Buriker coal — Action in rem — Master's 
 lien — Maritime lien — Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 167— Change of 
 ownership — Liability of res — Settlement of action. 
 
 The defts., owners of a steamship, transferred 
 the possession of it to a Glasgow firm subject to 
 conditions in a contract for sale, by which the 
 defts. were to remain registered owners, and in 
 effect to become mortgagees until payment of the 
 purchase-money. The Glasgow firm appointed 
 the plf. master, and he, whilst on a Toyage to the 
 Eiver Plate on account of that firm, and not 
 having notice of the contract of sale, drew two 
 hills of exchange on the Glasgow firm for bunker 
 coal supplied to the vessel at the time the bills 
 were drawn, but in pursuance of a coaling con- 
 tract previously made iu this country between 
 the Glasgow firm and the coal merchants. The 
 bills were dishonoured at maturity, and, the 
 Glasgow firm having suspended payment, the 
 defts., as unpaid vendors, retook possession of 
 the vessel. They then settled with the pit. an 
 action in rem brought, in the name of the pit., by 
 the coal merchants, under an irrevocable man- 
 date, executed by the pit., authorizing them to 
 exercise, in his name, the right of lien, which he 
 claimed under s. 167 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, against the vessel in respect of his 
 liability as drawer of the two bills of which the 
 coal merchants were the holders : — 
 
 Held, by G. Barnes J., that the settlement of 
 the action was void as against the coal merchants 
 to whom the pit. was liable on the bills, and this 
 liability having been incurred by the pit. as 
 master in the ordinary course of his employment 
 on account of the ship, within the meaning of the 
 statute, he had a valid maritime lien, which could 
 be enforced against the vessel, though the coals 
 were supplied on the credit of the Glasgow firm, 
 and not of the defts., whose property the ship was. 
 The " RiPON City" G. Barnes J. [1897] P. 226 
 
 Eeferred to by Jeune P. The Eipon City, 
 [1898] P. 78. 
 
 Eeferred to by G. Barnes J. Tlie Snarls, 
 [1899] P. 74, 82, 
 
 180. — Foreign ship — Foreign port — Action in 
 rem — "High seas" — Admiralty Court Acts, 1840 
 (3 * i Viet. c. 65) s. 6 ; 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 10), 
 f. 5. 
 
 A. supplied coals at Alexandria, Algiers, and 
 Port Said to the M., a foreign ship, and at Port 
 Said advanced her canal dues. A. commenced 
 an action in rem agaiust the M. and arrested 
 her ; — 
 
 EeJd, that under the words in s. 5 of the 
 Admiralty Court Act, 1861, "any claim for neces- 
 saries supplied to any ship elsewhere than in the 
 
 SHIPPING (Necessaries) — contimted. 
 
 port to which the ship belongs," the Court had 
 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Semhle, that Alexandria and Algiers are 
 " upon the high seas " within s. 6 of the Admi- 
 ralty Court Act, 1840. The « Mecca " 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 96 
 
 See afeo Appbopbiation. 1. 
 
 181. — Priorities — Insufficient proceeds — 
 Foreign ship — Practice. 
 
 On Aug. 10, 1893, F. brought an action in 
 rem in the High Court for necessaries against 
 the ship A. (which was arrested on the same day) 
 and obtained judgment on Oct. 30. On Aug. 1 0, 
 an action for wages was commenced in the L. 
 district registry. On Oct. 4 the ship was sold by 
 order of the Vacation Judge and the proceeds 
 paid into court. On Aug. 11 an action for 
 necessaries was commenced in the L. county court 
 and the vessel araested. On Oct. 19 judgment 
 was obtained. On Aug. 12 an action for neces- 
 saries was commenced in the L. county court and 
 judgment was obtained on Aug. 24. On Aug. 17 
 an action for necessaries was commenced in the 
 L. district registry in which judgment had not 
 yet been given. On Sept. 16 another action for 
 necessaries was commenced, judgment in which 
 Wiis obtained on Sept. 29 : — 
 
 Held, confirming the registrar's report, that 
 the claims ranked as follows : (1) F.'s costs up 
 to arrest of the vessel ; (2) costs and claim in 
 wages action; (3) remainder of F.'s cotts and 
 the costs in the other necessaries actions except 
 that of Aug. 17, pari passu ; (4) i-laims in the 
 necessaries actions pro rata, except that of Aug. 17, 
 on the ground that the Court held the property 
 not only for the first claimant but at least for aU 
 creditors of the same class who assented their 
 claims before unconditional decree. 
 
 Semhle, a decree in unconditional terms would, 
 so long as the funds remained in court, be modi- 
 fied so as to let in others who, without laches,- 
 put forward claims of a like character. The 
 " Afhicano " Jeune P. [1894] P. 141 
 
 Offences. 
 — Overloading. 
 
 See Smppina — Overloading. 
 
 182. — "Passagebroker ' — Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 320, 341. 342. 
 
 By s. 341 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894, a "passage broker" is defined as "any 
 person who sells or lets, or agrees to sell or let, 
 or is anywise concerned iu the siJe or letting of 
 steerage passages in any ship proceeding from 
 the British Islands to any place out of Europe 
 not within the Mediterranean Sea"; and by 
 s. 342, "a person shall not act directly or in- 
 directly as a passage broker " unless he holds the 
 prescribed licence : — 
 
 Held, that the selling or letting intended by 
 s. 341 was a selling or letting in a named ship of 
 a passage to commence at a definite time for a 
 specified voyage, and, theref ire, that v, person 
 who agreed to procure a pas.-age tor another, no 
 ship or time of sailing being named or specified, 
 had not " acted as a passage broker " within the 
 meaning of s. 342. 
 
 The respondent, in consideration of 22f. paid 
 
( 1989 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— 19J0. 
 
 ( 1900 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Offences)— coniMMeA 
 by him to C, agreed to place O.'s son as a farm 
 pupil in Canada, and out of the 221. to procure 
 him a steamship passage from Liverpool to 
 Quebec. Subsequently the respondent obtained 
 for about dl. from shipowners a contract ticket for 
 a voyage from Liverpool to Quebec, and sent it 
 to the son. The respondent made no profit or 
 commission out of the latter transaction : — 
 
 Held, that he had not been " concerned in 
 the sale or letting of a passage '' witliin the 
 meaning of s. 341. 
 
 By 8. 320, " if any person, except the Board 
 of Trade and persons acting for them and under 
 their direct authority, receives money from any 
 person for or in respect of " a passage by ship of 
 one of the specified kinds, "he shall give to the 
 person paying the same a contract ticket signed 
 by or on behalf of the owner, master, or charterer 
 of the ship " : — 
 
 Held, that in order to bring a case within this 
 section there must be a receipt of money paid for 
 a specified passage, commencing at a fixed time 
 in a named ship. Mokkis v. Howden 
 
 Div, Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 378 
 
 183. — " Seagoing ship " — Offences — Summary 
 proceedings — Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 
 
 Vict. c. 104), ss. 109, 243. 
 
 A steamer carrying salt in the Mersey, but not 
 going further out to sea than the limits of the 
 port of Liverpool : — 
 
 Held, not to be a " seagoing ship " within 
 a. 109 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (now 
 s. 260 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), so as 
 to make the summary proceedings allowed by 
 a. 243 of the Act of 1854 (now s. 225 of the Mer- 
 chant Shipping Act, 1894), for certain offences, 
 applicable to its crew. Salt Union v. Wood 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 370 
 
 Overloading. 
 
 184. — Foreign ship — Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1876 (39 <6 40 Vict. c. 80), ss. 13, 34, 37. 
 
 The provisions of s. 34 of the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1876 (now s. 692 of the Merchaut 
 Shipping Act, 1894), against overloading apply 
 to foreign ships, although there has been no 
 Order in Council under s. 87 (now s. 696 (1) (2) 
 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894) specifically 
 applying such provisions to the ships of the 
 particular foreign state. Chalmers v. Scopenioh 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 735 
 
 186. — LiaMlity of owner for act of master — 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 80), 
 «. 28. 
 
 The master of a British ship took cargo on 
 board at a foreign port and loaded the ship so as 
 to BubmerKe the centre of the Board of Trade disc 
 in salt water. The owner of the ship was not 
 aware of the overloading : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the owner was not liable to con- 
 viction under s. 28 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1876 (s. 442 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894), for allowing the ship " to be so loaded as 
 to submerge in salt water the centre of the disc." 
 Massex v. Mobeiss - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 412 
 
 Ownership. 
 
 — Change of. 
 
 See Shipping. 179. 
 
 SHIPPING (Ownership) — continued. 
 
 — Co-ownership. 
 
 See Shipping. 213, 214. 
 
 — Managing owner. 
 
 See Shipping— Managing Owner. 172, 
 173. 
 
 Pilotage. 
 
 Merchant Shipping (Exemption from Pilotage") 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Viet. c. 61), removes certain 
 exemptions from compulsory pilotage. 
 
 Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Act, 1S89 
 (52 & 53 Vict. 0. eS,)— References in B. S. G., 
 Ord. XXXIX. A, how construed. See W. N. 1900 
 (Dec. 8), p. 322 ; Current Index, 1900, p. Ixxviii. 
 
 Signals.] 0. in G. approving signals fur pilots 
 under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. St. E. & 
 0. 1894 (No, 569), p. 305; Loud. Gaz. Dec. 14, 
 1894, p. 7348. 
 
 Steam Pilot Vessel.] 0. in C. dated July 7,. 
 1897, as to lights. Lend. Gaz. July 9, 1897,. 
 p. 3797. 
 
 186. — Goasting trade — Compulsori/ pilotage — 
 Trinity House outport district — Coasting trade — 
 Trading from port in Great Britain to port north 
 and east of Brest — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Viet. c. 60), s. 622, suh-s. 1; s. 625,. 
 tub-si. 1, 3. 
 
 A British ship, without passengers, left Gaza 
 in Asiatic Turkey with a cargo of barley, part of 
 which was to be delivered at the port of Ipswich 
 (a Trinity House outport district), and the re- 
 mainder at the port of Leith in Scotland. She 
 discharged at Ipswich the portion of cargo to be 
 there delivered, and was proceeding down the 
 river Orwell, within the limits of the port of 
 Ipswich, on her voyage to Leith, when a collision 
 occurred, for which her owners would be respon- 
 sible if she was not compulsorily in charge of 
 the Trinity House pilot on board : — 
 
 Held, that pilotage was compulsory, as the- 
 vessel was not at the time either employed in the 
 coasting trade within the meaning of sub-s. 1, or 
 trading from a port in Great Britain to a port 
 in Europe north and east of Brest within the- 
 meaning of aub-s. 3 of s. 625 of the Merchant. 
 Shipping Act, 1894. 
 
 The Winestead, [1895] P. 170, followed. The 
 "Glantstwyth" Jeune P. [1899] W, N. 22 (2); 
 
 [1899] P. 118- 
 
 187. — (hasting trade — Foreign-going ship — 
 Compulsory pilotage — Merchant Shipping Ads, 
 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. u. 104), ss. 376, 379; 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. u. 60), e. 625— Customs Acts, 187C 
 (39 * 4:0 Vict. c. 36), ss. 129, 144, 145; 1879 
 (42 & 43 Vict. e. 21), s. 9. 
 
 A steamship made regular voyages from 
 London with part of her cargo to Cardiff, wheio 
 she took in the remainder of her cargo an'l pro- 
 ceeded to Venice, and returned to London :— 
 
 Held, that she was a, foreign-going ship, not 
 within the exceptions in the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854, and, therefore, that in the Thames 
 within the London district tlie employment of a 
 pilot was compulsory. The " Winestead" 
 
 Bruce J. [1895] P. 170 
 
 Followed by Jeune P. The Glanysiimjtli, 
 [_io9yj IT. iio. 
 
 3 s •) 
 
( 1991 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— lOUO. 
 
 ( 1992 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Pilotage) — continued. 
 
 — Collision. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — CoUiaion. 
 
 — Defence of pilotage — Collision — Practice — 
 
 Action in rem — Costs. 
 See Shipping — Costs. 99. 
 
 188. — Draught of water — London district — 
 " Under hoolc " pilot in charge — Compulsory pilot- 
 age—Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 <£: 18 Vict, 
 c. 104), ss. 2, 388— Order in Council, May 1, 1855, 
 Begulaiion 4. 
 
 A collision took place in the London district 
 where pilotage is compulsory under an Order in 
 Council of May 1, 1855. The Court found that 
 the collision was caused by the negligence of the 
 pilot of the deft.'s vessel. The vessel was a 
 foreign ship of 16 ft. drauglit, and the pilot, an 
 " under book " pilot, not qualified to pilot a vessel 
 of 60 great draught uuder ordinary circum- 
 stances : — 
 
 Held, that the plea of compulsory pilotage 
 must be sustained, for on the construction of the 
 Order in Council regulating pilotage in the 
 district, the employment of an "under book'' 
 pilot was compulsory where no "upper book" 
 pilot was available. 
 
 Semble, that an " upper book " pilot where 
 available would have a right to supersede an 
 " under book '' pilot on a vessel of such draught, 
 but the latter would be entitled to a fair pro- 
 portion of the pilotage fees. Decision of Butt P., 
 [1892] P. 132, affirmed. The " Carl XV." 
 
 C. A. [1892] P. 324 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Stafford v. Dyer, [1895] 
 P. 566, 569, 570. 
 
 189. — Dutch law — Collision in the river 
 Scheldt — Compulsory pilotage — Liability of owner. 
 
 A collision occurred oflf Flushing at the mouth 
 of the river Scheldt, between a British and a 
 Dutch steamship. In an action by the owners of 
 the former, the owners of the latter pleaded, inter 
 .alia, that their vessel was at the time in charge 
 of a Dutch pilot by compulsion of law, and that 
 the negligence, if any, was solely that of the 
 .pilot. 
 
 The Court found that the collision was due 
 
 to the negligent navigation of the Dutch vessel, 
 
 ..and, after evidence had been given as to the 
 
 Dutch law on the question of compulsory pilot- 
 
 -age:— 
 
 Held, that, though the employment of the 
 pilot was compulsory, the pilot acted as the ad- 
 viser of the master who remained in charge, and, 
 therefore, the owners of the Dutch vessel were 
 .liable for the damages sustained by the owners of 
 ithe British vessel. The " Prins Hendrik " 
 
 Q. Barnes J. [1899] W. H. 54; [1899] P. 177 
 
 190. — Foreign vessel — Cmnpulsory pilotage 
 
 — Fort of Blyth — Newcastle Pilot Act, 1801 
 (41 Geo. 3, 0. Ixxxvi.), s. 6. 
 
 Pilotage is compulsory on a foreign vessel 
 resorting to, or coming into, or departing from, 
 ttie port of Blyth, for that port is one of the 
 creeks or members of the port of Newcastle-ou- 
 Tyne unaffected by legislation subsequent to the 
 Newcastle Pilot Act, 1801 (41 Geo. 3, c. Ixxxvi.), 
 B. 6. The"Holab" - G. Barnes J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 240 ; see [1901] P. 7 
 
 SHIPPING (Pilotage) — continued. 
 
 191. — Lortdon district — Foreign vessel from 
 Norway to London without passengers — Pilotage 
 Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 125), s. 5d— Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 603, 625, 
 eub-s. i — Merclmnt Shipping (^Exemption from 
 PiUtage) Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 61), «. 1. 
 
 Pilotage is not compulsory in the London 
 district on a Norwegian vessel, from Chrisliania 
 to London, without passengers, as s. 1 of the Act 
 of 1897 did not repeal the exemption contained in 
 sub-B. 4 of s. 625 of the Act of 1891 in respect of 
 vessels on voyages between Norway and London, 
 for a vessel, without a British register, was not 
 exempted under the Pilotage Act, 1825. The 
 " Columbus " - Jenne P. [1899] W. N. 22 (1) 
 
 192. — Passengers — Distressed seamen — Lia- 
 bility of ownet — Compulsory pilotage — Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 191, 
 192, 625. 
 
 A collision occurred, in Galleons Eeach of the 
 river Thames, between the pits.' barge and the 
 defts.' steamship, for which the pilot in charge of 
 the steamship was found solely to blame. The 
 steamship belonged to the port of London, and 
 was, at the time, carrying five distressed British 
 seamen under a conveyance order of a British 
 consular oflScer at a foreign port pursuant to 
 ss. 191, 192 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, 
 for whom the sum of 3s. each per day was paid 
 by the Board of Trade. By s. 625 of the same 
 Act a ship navigating within the limits of the 
 port to which she belongs is exempt from com- 
 pulsory pilotage in the London district " when 
 not carrying passengers " : — 
 
 Held, that the distressed seamen were not 
 passengers, within the meaning of the section of 
 the statute, so as to make pilotage compulsory, 
 and, therefore, the owners of the steamer were 
 liable for the damage done to the barge. The 
 " Cltmene " G, Barnes J. [1897] P. 295 
 
 193. — " Proceeding " to sea — Proceeding to 
 doch — Piloting to landing-stage — " Extra " 
 services — • Mersey Dock Acts Consolidation Act, 
 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. xcii.), s. 221. 
 
 The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, as the 
 pilotage authority for the port of Liverpool, has, 
 under s. 221 of the Mersey Dock Acts Consolida- 
 tion Act, 1858, power to fix, in addition to the 
 ordinary compulsory pilotage rates, u. reasonable 
 charge by way of " extra " remuneration for a 
 pilot, licensed by the Board, taking an outward- 
 bound vessel from a dock alongside a landing- 
 stage to complete her loading, as in the case of 
 embarking passengers, their baggage, and the 
 mails. 
 
 The Board has also power to fix an additional 
 reasonable charge as " extra " remuneration 
 (besides the charge per day for attendance whilst 
 a vetsel is necessarily lying in the river in the 
 couree of her navigation inward or outward) in 
 the case of an inward-bound vessel taken by a 
 pilot to a landing-stage to land passengers, bag- 
 gage, and mails, before discharging the rest of 
 her cargo in dock, including the case of vessels 
 disembarking cattle and sheep at certain landing- 
 stages in pursuance of the orders made uuder the 
 provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. 
 
 Semble, that, in the case of an outward-bound 
 
( 1993 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1994 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (VUot»ge)— continued. 
 vessel, compulsory pilotage will not commence 
 until the vessel proceeds from the stage to sea, 
 and that, in the case of an inward-bound vessel, 
 the employment of the pilot by compulsion of 
 law will cease, or be suspended, as soon as the 
 vessel deviates to the stage from the route which 
 she would otherwise follow to the dock. The 
 Sebvia — The Caeinthia 
 
 0. Barnes J. [1898] P. 36 
 
 194. — " Ships trading from any port in Great 
 Britain " to port north and east of Brest — Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, c. 60, s. 625, suli-s. 3. 
 
 By the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 625, 
 sub-s. 3, " Ships trading Irom any port in Great 
 BritaiQ within the London district to any port in 
 Europe north and east of Brest," are when not 
 carrying passengers exempted from compulsory 
 pilotage in the London district. 
 
 A British ship, laden with a cargo from tlie 
 river Plate to Rotterdam and with cattle for 
 London, discharged the cattle in London and 
 proceeded with the cargo to Eotterdam : — 
 
 Held, that whilst the ship was proceeding 
 from London to Eotterdam she was (though she 
 took in no cargo in London) "trading" from 
 London to Rotterdam within the meaning of the 
 statute, and was therefore exempt from compul- 
 sory pilotage in the London district. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1896] P. 281, affirmed. 
 Owner of Steamship " Edeneridgb " v. Green 
 AND Owners of Steamship " Rutland." The 
 " Rutland " H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 333 
 
 Referred to by Jeune P. The Glanystwyth, 
 [1899] P. 118, 124. 
 
 195. — Uriexempted ship — Qualified pilot — 
 Pilot for exempted ships — Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1854 (17 <fc 18 Vict. c. 104), 88. 2, S53— Order in 
 Council, Feb. 5, 1873. 
 
 The term "qualified pilot" in o. 353 of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (now s. 603, sub- 
 s. 2, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), must 
 be understood with reference to the class of ship 
 of which the j)ilot offers to take charge. A pilot 
 licensed for exempted ships only is not such a 
 qualified pilot as to render liable to a penalty a 
 master of an unexempted ship who, after the 
 said pilot has offered to take charge of her, con- 
 tinues to employ an unqualified pilot. Stafford 
 V. Dyer - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 666 
 
 Practice. 
 
 County Courts — See Explanatory Memorandum 
 to County Court Rules (May), 1899, and rules 42 
 to 65. W. N. 1899 (May 20), p. 172. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p, czi. 
 
 196. — Action in rem — County court — Freight 
 ■ — Counter-claim for wrongful arrest — Trial by 
 jury — " Actions " — County Courts Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, 
 c. 51), s. 2, «m6-s. 1 — County Courts Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Viet. c. 43), s. 101. 
 
 In a proceeding in rem in a county court, 
 under s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the County Courts Admi- 
 ralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869, by a 
 shipowner against cargo owners, for balance of 
 freight, the defts. counter-claimed, under the 
 same sub-section, for 1002. damages for wrongful 
 
 SHIPPING (Praotice) — continued. 
 arrest of the cargo, and, under s. 101 of the 
 County Courts Act, 1888, required a jury to be 
 summoned for the trial of the action. The judge 
 refused to allow the jury to be sworn. On 
 appeal : — 
 
 Seld, affirming the decision of the county 
 court judge, that, this being an Admiralty cause, 
 the defendants were not entitled as of right to a 
 jury, for the word "actions" in s. 101 of the 
 County Courts Act, 1888, did not include Admi- 
 ralty actions. The " Theodora " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] P. 279 
 
 197. — Action in rem — Jurisdiction — Damage 
 to cargo — Writ served, but warrant not served — 
 Judgment by default. 
 
 Where the writ in an action in rem had been 
 served, and a warrant issued, but before service 
 of the latter the master had clandestinely put to 
 sea : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to 
 pronounce judgment by default, for though, 
 according to the ordinary practice, the property 
 proceeded against must be under the arrest of 
 the Court, still the writ was notice to all persons 
 interested, and has the same effect so far as 
 notice is concerned as service of the warrant 
 under the former jiraetice. The "Nactik" 
 
 'Bruce J. [1895] P. 121 
 And see Nos. 177, 179 above, and No. 201 
 bdow. 
 
 198. — ■ Amendment of indorsement of writ — 
 Salvage — Action in rem — Costs. 
 
 (a) In a salvage action the Court have power 
 to amend the indorsement on the writ after 
 judgment has been given and before the decree 
 is drawn up. Pits, ordered to pay costs of the 
 application by altering the amount of salvage 
 claimed. The "Dictator" (No. 1) 
 
 Butt P. [1892] P. 64 
 
 (b) Subsequently the pits, obtained leave to 
 proceed personally for the whole amount of 
 salvage claimed. The " Dictator " (No. 2) 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 304 
 Approved of by C. A. The Oemma, [1900] P. 
 285. 
 
 — Appeals. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Appeal. 
 
 199. — Arrest — Action in rem — Guarantee — 
 Lis alibi pendens — Bail. 
 
 A British and a German ship came into 
 collision near Rotterdam. The agents at Eotter- 
 dam of the owners of the two vessels exchanged 
 written agreements on behalf of the respective 
 captains to give bail to the extent of 50,000 
 guilders to answer the damages, interest, and 
 expenses to which the captains might be con- 
 demned in virtue of the sentence of a competent 
 Court, and for the purpose of serving the writ 
 the domicil of the captains was stated to be at 
 the offices of the respective agents. The agents 
 also procured from Lloyd's surveyor at Rotterdam 
 an estimate of the amount of damages sustained 
 by each vessel, but owing, it was alleged, to tho 
 owners of the German ship insisting on this 
 estimate being conclusive, further negotiations 
 between the parties fell through ; and on the 
 arrival of the German. ship in this country she 
 
( 1995 ) 
 
 DIGEST 01'" CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 199C ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Practice) — continued. 
 
 was arrested in an actioa in rem at the suit of 
 
 the owners of the British ship. 
 
 The owners of the German ship moved the 
 ( 'oTirt for an order for her release and a stay of 
 all proceedings :-~ 
 
 Held, hy G. Barnes J., that the guarantee 
 was no har to the action in this country, the vessel 
 not having been arrested in Holland, and there 
 being no legal proceedings pending there. 
 
 The Christianshorg, (1885) 10 P. D. lil, dis- 
 tinguished. The "Mannheim" 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1897] P. 13 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Costs. 
 
 — Costs — Salvage actions. 
 
 See Shippinq— Salvage. 231—233. 
 
 — Foreign corporation — Service of writ. 
 
 See Pkaotice — Service. 182, 183. 
 
 200. — Injunction — Agreement affecting em- 
 ployment of ship — Order for delivery of certificate 
 of registry — Injunction. 
 
 When a controversy arises as to the enforce- 
 ment of an agreement affecting the employment 
 of a ship, the proper course is not to detain the 
 certificate of registry, but to apply for an injunc- 
 tion against acting in derogation of the agree- 
 ment. The " Celtic King " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1894] P. 175 
 
 — Issue as to contributory fault must be first 
 
 raised in the Lower Court. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 79. 
 
 201. — Jurisdiction — Action in rem — " Dam- 
 
 age done hy any ship" — Personal injuries - 
 Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 * 25 Vict. c. 10), 
 s. 7. 
 
 In s. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, the 
 words " damage done by any ship " include 
 personal injuries, but to give the Probate Div. 
 jurisdiction sucli damage must be done by those 
 in charge of the ship with the ship as instrument. 
 
 Therefore, where Y. sustained injuries by 
 falling into the hold of the T. (owing to the 
 hatchway being only covered by a tarpaulin) 
 when he was crossing to his own ship which was 
 moored outside the T. : — 
 
 Held, that there was no jurisdiction in an 
 action in rem as the damage was not " done by 
 any ship." The " Theta " 
 
 Bruce J. [1894] P, 280 
 
 202. — Jurisdiction — County court — Judgment 
 ■in rem — Warrant of execution — Sale of ship — 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 
 (31 * 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 3, suh-s. 3; ss. 12, 23— 
 County Court Rules, 1892, Order .\jjix. B., r. 42 
 — County Court {Admiralty') Forms, No. 331. 
 
 After judgment in favour of the pit., in an 
 action in rem for damage by collision on the 
 Admiralty side of a county court, a warrant of 
 execution issued directing the high bailiff to 
 "levy by distress and sale of the goods and 
 chattels, including the steamship or yeasel Ruby, 
 of the defendant." Under this warrant the 
 vessel was appraised and sold, but the registrar 
 of shipping refused to register the bill of sale 
 signed by the high bailiff except subject to an 
 outstanding mortgage : — 
 
 Held, that the power given to a county court 
 
 SHIPPING (Practice) — continued. 
 by sub-s. 3 of s. 3 and a. 12 of the County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, " to try and 
 determine " an Admiralty cause of damage by 
 collision and enforce the decree " against the 
 person or persons summoned," carried with it 
 the power of rendering the plt.'fi maritime lien 
 effectual against all persons having an interest 
 in the res, and therefore, in order to obtain pay- 
 ment of the debt out of the proceeds, the high 
 bailiff could sell the ship free from incumbrance. 
 The " KuBY " (No. 1) - Jeune P. [1898] P. 52 
 
 203. — Jurisdiction — County court — Service of 
 summons — Agent — County Courts Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), «. 21, 
 suh-s. 2. 
 
 By the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction 
 Act, 1868, s. 21, " Proceedings in an Admiralty 
 cause shall be commenced — (2.) in the county 
 court having Admiralty jurisdiction in the district 
 of which the owner of the vessel or property to 
 whicli the cause relates, or his agent in England, 
 resides " 
 
 In an action in personam instituted in the 
 City of London Court by the pits., the owners 
 of a barge damaged by collision with the deft.'s 
 steamship within the jurisdiction, the summons 
 described the deft, as " George Smith, of 75, 
 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, the owner of the 
 steamsliip or vessel City of Agra, whose agents 
 in England are Messrs. Montgomerie & Work- 
 man, of 36, Graceohurch Street, E.G., within the 
 jurisdiction of this Court." The summons was 
 served on a member of the firm of Montgomerie 
 & Workman ; but the City of Agra had been lost 
 before the commencement of the action : — 
 
 Held, that the service of the summons must 
 be set aside, as "agent in England" means a 
 person acting for another person in relation to 
 the vessel or property proceeded against at the 
 time the service of the process is effected, and, 
 at that time, the agency had ceased. 
 
 The cases of The County of Durham, [1891] 
 P. 1, and Pugsley v. Ropkins, [1892] 2 Q. B. 184, 
 explained. The " City of Agea " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1898] P. 198 
 
 204. — Jurisdiction — Prohibition — Alteration 
 of judgment as to costs — County Courts Act, 18SS 
 (nl * 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 132 
 
 Where a county court judge includes an order 
 as to costs in his judgment determining the 
 liability of the parties, he has no power to rescind 
 that portion of it, and may be prohibited from 
 so doing. 
 
 Under the Judicature Act, 1873, a judge of 
 the Admiralty Div. has all the powers as to pro- 
 hibition of a judge of the High Court. An 
 appeal from the refusal of prohibition lies direct 
 to the C. A. if the judge requires no further 
 argument. Sect. 132 of the County Courts Act, 
 1888, merely prevents repeated applications 
 to judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction for a writ 
 of prohibition after refusal by one judge. The 
 " Eecepta " . - C. A. [1898] P. 255 
 
 — Legal proceedings as to — Joinder of several 
 plaintiffs in respect of several causes of 
 action. 
 k?r-f Ciiscs under Practice — ^Parties. 
 
( 1997 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 1998 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Practice)— cojrfmued. 
 
 205. — Parties— 4dding plaintiff after judg- 
 ment. 
 
 k? A decree in an Admiralty action fixing the 
 liatility, but leaving the damages to be assessed, 
 is not final, and there is power under Order xvi,, 
 rr. 2, 11, to add the proper person as pit., where 
 by mistake the agent was made co-pit. instead of 
 the principal. The " Duke of Bucoletjch " 
 (No. 2) _ - c. A. [1892] P. 201 
 
 And see Pbaotioe — Parties. 
 
 206. — Parties — Joinder of pilot as defendant 
 — Action in rem. 
 
 The pits., the owners of a steamship, issued a 
 writ in rem against the owners and parties 
 interested in another steamship for damage by 
 collision. The owners of the other steamship 
 appeared, and statements of claim, defence and 
 counter-claim were respectively delivered, the 
 defence including an allegation of compulsory 
 pilotage. The pits, then applied to the district 
 registrar for liberty to add, as a deft., the pilot 
 who was compulsorily in charge of the other 
 steamship at the time of the collision. The 
 registrar refused the application ; but on appeal 
 to the President of the Probate, Divorce, and 
 Admiralty Div. the pits, obtained the order on 
 the ground that no difficulty would result from 
 engrafting a claim in personam on an action in 
 rem : — 
 
 Seld, reversing the decision of the President, 
 that, assuming there was jurisdiction, the order 
 ought not, as a matter of discretion, to be made, 
 as the trial of the action might thereby be 
 embarrassed. The " Gekmanio " 
 
 C. A. [1896] P. 84 
 
 207. — Parties — Joinder of plaintiffs — 
 Separate causes of action — Salvage actions — 
 B. S. a, 1883, Order xvi., r. 1 ; Order xviii., r. 1. 
 
 The pits., the owners, masters, and crews of 
 four steam-tugs, issued a writ of summons in rem 
 in the Admiralty Div. claiming reward for alleged 
 salvage services rendered to a ship, her cargo 
 and freight. 
 
 The owners of the ship, and of her cargo, 
 appeared as defts., under protest, and moved 
 to set aside the writ, or, in the alternative, to 
 strike out all the pits., except one, on the 
 ground that their causes of action were separate 
 and distinct : — 
 
 Held, that the motion must be dismissed, the 
 practice in Admiralty as to parties to the suit, 
 and joinder of causes of action, not being affected 
 by the provisions of Order xvi., r. 1, and 
 Order xviii., r. 1 of the R. S. C., 1883, as inter- 
 preted by Smurtliwaite v. Hannay, [1894] A. C. 
 494. The " Mabechal Suohet " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 233 
 See also Peaotice — Parties. 
 
 — Practice generally. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping. 
 
 — Proceedings in foreign court — Bight to retain 
 
 proceeds against liquidator. 
 See CoMPAHY — Winding-up — Practice. 
 187. 
 
 — Tender. 
 
 Bee Cases under Siiippixc — Tender. 
 
 SHIPPING (Practice)— coBeinued. 
 
 208. — Third party — Oollision — Practice — hu 
 %nity—B. S. C, 1883, Order xvi., ». 48. 
 Defts. in an action in rem served a third 
 
 party notice on A., who was a ship repairer, 
 under whose control it was alleged the ship was, 
 and who moved the ship to other moorings, 
 during whicli moving a collision, the subject of 
 the action, occurred : — 
 
 Seld, that the third party notice must be set 
 aside, as there was no contract, express or 
 implied, with A. involving an indemnity within 
 K. S. C, 1883, Order xvi., r. 48. The " Jacob 
 Ohbistensen " - - Brnce J. [1895] P. 281 
 
 209. — Third party procedure — Claim for con- 
 tribution or indemnity — Order xvj., r. 48. 
 
 Terms of a oharterparty by which thf 
 charterers were bound stipulated that the ship 
 should be discharged at port of delivery as 
 customary. On the day after the execution of 
 the oharterparty the charterers contracted to sell 
 a cargo of bones to bo shipped in one or two 
 vessels at the sellers' option to discharge at thr 
 port therein named as per oharterparty, and the 
 purchasers agreed to take the bones over the 
 ship's side as fast as the captain could deliver, 
 failing which to be resold at the sellers' discre- 
 tion, the purchasers being liable for any loss, 
 demurrage, or expenses, arising therefrom. The 
 bones were carried in the shipowners' ship, and 
 delivery was taken by the purchasers :— 
 
 Seld, that the stipulation in the contract for 
 sale as to the purchasers' liability for demurrage 
 did not amount to a contract by the purchasers 
 to indemnify the charterers against their liability 
 to the shipowners under the oharterparty, and 
 that leave to issue a third party notice against 
 the purchasers under Order xvi., r. 48, ouglit not 
 to be granted. CoNSTANirNE & Co. v. Waeden & 
 Sons - - C. A. [1895] W. N. 143 (H) 
 
 210. — Transfer — Eegistration — General light- 
 house fund — Fees — Merchant Shipping (Mercan- 
 tile Marine Fund) Act, 1898 (61 * 02 7ict. c. 44), 
 s. 3, Sched. I. 
 
 The Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine 
 Fund) Act, 1898, Sched. I., gives a scale of the 
 fees which are to be paid on the transfer of 
 British ships " according to the gross tonnage 
 represented by the ships or shares of ships trans- 
 ferred." Fifty-eight shares in a ship, each share 
 being one-sixty-fourth, were transferred to a firm 
 by twenty different bills of sale : — 
 
 Seld, that the firm was liable to pay a sepa- 
 rate fee, according to the scale, on the tonnage 
 represented by the shares comprised in each bill 
 of sale, and not merely to pay one fee upon the 
 total.'of the tonnage represented by all the shares 
 transferred. Haebowinq Steamship Co. v. 
 Toohet Kennedy J. [1900] 2 ft, B. 28 
 
 211. — Trial hy judge with assessors or jury 
 — County Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 
 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), 88. 10, U— County Courts 
 Act, 1888 (51 * 52 7iet. c. 43), 8. 101. 
 
 The general provisions' of s. 101 of the County 
 Courts Act, 1888, are limited by s. 10 of the Act 
 of 1868 as to the trial of, causes of salvage, tow- 
 age, and collision, so that if one party asks for a 
 
( 1999 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2000 > 
 
 SHIPPING (Practice) — continued. 
 
 jury and the other for assessors, the trinl must be 
 
 by iudere and assessors. The " Tynwald " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] P. 142 
 Commented on by DIv. Ct. The Theodora, 
 Div. Ct. [1897] P. 279, 282, 288. 
 
 212. — Vemis— County Court Admiralty Acts, 
 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), «s. 5, 21 ; 1869 (32 & 33 
 Yictc. 51), ?s. 1,2, 4. 
 
 (a) Action in N. Court for damage to ship at 
 P. within the P. County Court district : — 
 
 Beld, that as the pits.' ship was at N. -when 
 the action commenced, the judge of the N. County 
 Court J.ad jurisdiction. The County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts, 1868, 1869, are to 
 he read as one Act. The " Codntt of Durham " 
 Div. Ct. [1891] P. 1 
 
 Explained by G. Barnes J. The " City of 
 Agra," [1898] P. 198. 
 
 (b) Under s. 74 of the County Courts Act, 
 1888, an Admiralty action can be commenced in 
 the county court district in which the defta. 
 dwell or cjrry on their business. The "Hero" 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] P. 294 
 Followed by Div. Ct.. The " Eden," [1892] P. 
 
 67, 69. 
 
 Eeferred to by G. Barnes J. The " City of 
 
 Agra," [1898] P. 198, 204. 
 
 (c) The pits., living at N., brought an action 
 in the N. County Court against the defts. living 
 at W. (iu another county court district) for 
 demurrage for detention of ship at W. The ship 
 ■was again at sea, and its former cargo was not 
 within the N. district : — 
 
 Held, (1) that as the claim arose out of an 
 agreement made in relation to the use and hire fif 
 ii ship, it fell within s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the County 
 ( 'ourts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869, and (2) 
 that as the ship was at sea, sub s. 2 and not 
 sub-s. 1 of s. 21 of the Act of 1868 applied, and 
 the action was rightly brought in the N. County 
 Court ; (3) that the Acta of 1868 and 1869 were 
 not affected by s. 56 of the County Courts Act, 
 1888, which brought the action within the com- 
 mon law jurisdiction of the Court. Pugsley & 
 Co. i: EoPKiNS & Co. C. A. [1892] 2 ft. B. 184 
 
 Explained by G. Barnes J. The " City of 
 Agra," [1898] P. 198, 203. 
 
 Prevention of Accidents. 
 
 Load-line.] Segi. dated Jan. 12, 1899, made 
 hy the JBd. of Trade, under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (67 & 58 Vict. l-. 60). St. R. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 928, No. 8. 
 
 ^Vith respect to ships registered in Victoria 
 — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Lend. Gaz. 
 March 10, 1899, p. 1664. 
 
 ftuarautine. 
 
 Public Health Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. u. 19), 
 repeals in part the Acts relating to. 
 
 Eegistry. 
 
 Measukesiekt of Ships.] General 0. of Bd. 
 of Customs as to measurement of docli cargo spac(s 
 
 SHIPPING (Registry) — continued. 
 
 occupied by cattle and otlier animals. St. B. & 0- 
 
 1897, p. 461, No. 50. 
 
 Begiste ATION OF SHIPS.] O.ofBd.of Customs- 
 dated May 5, 1896, as to revised registry forms^ 
 St. B. & 0. 1896, p. 182, No. 350. 
 
 Report of Cargo. 
 Regs, dated Sept. 10, 1898, made by the 
 Commrs. of Customs under s. 2 (1) of the Revenue 
 Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict. c. 46). St. B. & 0. 1899, 
 p. 1576. 
 
 Restraint. 
 
 213. — Bond for safe rtturn — Forfeiture — 
 Jurisdiction — Discretion of Court — Co-oicnersMp 
 — Action of restraint. 
 
 By a bail bond, in an action of restraint, the 
 sureties submitted themselves to the jurisdiction 
 of the Court, and consented " that if the (named 
 vessel) shall not safely return to the port of 
 Liverpool, and the defta. (the owners of the- 
 vessel other than the pit.) thall not, in such case„ 
 pay to the pit. (the appraised value of his shares), 
 execution may issue " against them. 
 
 The vessel which, at the time the bond was 
 given, had been despatched by the defts. on a. 
 voyage from Hartlepool to Calcutta arrived at 
 Dundee in Scotland, and left again on a voyaget 
 to New Yoik there to load for Australian ports. 
 
 On motion by the pit., G. Barnes J. pro- 
 nounced the bond forfeited, and ordered the 
 amount to be paid into court with liberty to the: 
 sureties to shew cause. 
 
 Held, by C. A., that there was jurisdiction to 
 make the order, and, assuming a discretion in 
 the Court in respect of the enforcement of iv 
 security given to the Court, that discretion has 
 been rightly exercised, as the condition of th& 
 bond for safe return was not limited to the cas& 
 of the vessel being lost, but was broken by the 
 ship, instead of returning to Liverpool, being- 
 taken to a port out of the jurisdiction of th& 
 English Admiralty Court, and then sent on 
 another voyage. The " Cawdor " 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 8 ; [1900] P. 47 
 — Eestraint of princes and rulers. 
 
 See Shipping — Exceptions. 140, 141. 
 
 Sale. 
 
 214. — Co-ownership — Sale of ship against will 
 of majority — Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 & 25 
 Vict. c. 10), s. 8. 
 
 The majority of the co-owners of a ship formed 
 a limited co. to which they transferred their shares. 
 The minority of the co-owners moved, in ari 
 action of restraint, for the sale of the ship ; — 
 
 Held, that the majority had no right to 
 change the character of the ownership without 
 the consent of all parties, and therefore, in the 
 exercise of the discretion of the Court under 
 s. 8 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, and in 
 the interests of all concerned, the sale of the whole; 
 ship would be decreed. The "Here-wabd " 
 
 Bruce J. [1895] P. 2844 
 
 215. — Pre-existing maritime liens — Division 
 of purchase-money — Mortgagees of shares — Costs of 
 repairs. 
 
 The managing and majority owneis of a 
 
( 2001 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2002 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (,Sa,ley— continued. 
 vessel, as vendors, handed over the possession of 
 her to a Scottish firm under a contract of sale by 
 which the firm were to become owners of the 
 shares iu the vessel in proportion to the instal- 
 ments of the purchase-money paid. The firm 
 paid a sum on account of the purchase-money 
 against which eight shares in the vessel were 
 transferred to them. These shares the firm 
 mortgaged. In working the vessel the firm in- 
 curred liabililies which, in on action in rem by 
 the master, were hold to have created maritime 
 liens on her (27te Sipon City, [1897] P. 226), 
 and, after entering into an onerous charter for 
 the vessel, the firm became bankrupt. The 
 vendors resumed possession of the vessel, gave 
 bail in the above-mentioned action, paid the 
 amount subsequently adjudged to be due, paid a 
 sum ito cancel the charter, repaired the vessel, 
 settled with the minority owners, and, with the 
 .ncquiescence of the mortgagees of the eight 
 shares, sold her to a foreign purchaser. In an 
 action by the mortgagees against the vendors in 
 respect of the distribution of the proceeds of the 
 sale : — 
 
 Held, that as against the mortgagees the 
 vendors could not, beiore dividing the purchase- 
 money, deduct a proportion of (1) the sum paid 
 to clear off the maritime liens, as there had been 
 no request from the mortgagees and they were 
 not at the time of the payment in possession ; 
 (2) the sum paid to cancel the charter, as the 
 mortgagees, not being in possession, were not 
 liable for expenses connected with the working 
 of the ship ; (3) the cost of repairs, as it was not 
 proved that they had been executed in pursuance 
 of the agreement for the sale of the vessel to the 
 foreign purchaser. 
 
 Johnson v. Boyal Mail Steam Packet Co., 
 
 (1867) L. E. 3 0. P. 38, and The Orchis, (1889) 
 
 15 P. D. 38, distinguished. The " Eipon City " 
 
 Jeune P. [1898] P. 78 
 
 216. — Share — Transmission of share to alien 
 — Forfeiture to Crown — Practice — Sale of sliare 
 without appraisement — Costs — Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 101), ss. 62, 63, 6+, 
 103 (3). 
 
 A share which had become transmitted to an 
 alien held forfeited to the Crown, and ordered 
 that such share should be sold by the marshal 
 by private contract without appraisement, but 
 not under a stated sum. The owners of the 
 remaining shares were allowed their costs out of 
 the net proceeds. The " Mh-lioent " 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] W. N. 162 
 
 — Wan-ant of execution. 
 See No. 202, ahove. 
 
 Salvage, 
 
 217. — Agent — Principles upon which the re- 
 muneration of an agent rendering salvage service 
 is to be based. 
 
 An agent is not precluded from claiming 
 salvage. If requested by the owner of the 
 vessel to render assistance he will have a right to 
 some remuneration, even though the operations 
 prove unsuccessful, but should the operations 
 prove successful, the award will be on a different 
 
 SHIPPING (Salvage) — continued. 
 basis than if he had risked the loss of his entire 
 expenditure as an independent salvor. The 
 " Kate B. Jones " - Q. Barnes J. [1892] P. 366- 
 
 218. — Agreement for services — Extra premium- 
 An agreement was made between the masters 
 
 of the salving and salved ships, by which tho- 
 salvors should receive remuneration for their 
 services, even if unsuccessful : — 
 
 Held, that it must be treated as an element 
 for I he reduction of the salvage award. An 
 extra premium paid by tlie salving vessel for 
 deviation, held to bo an element for increasing 
 the anaid. The " Edenmorb " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 79 
 
 219. — Agreement to tow to a place of safett/ 
 — Right to salvage. 
 
 Salvage claims rest, not upon contract, but 
 upon the right to be paid out of the property 
 Siilved, and therefore a salvor who has con- 
 tributed, though to a small extent, to the ultimate- 
 safety of the disabled vessel, is not wholly 
 disentitled to remuneration because he acted 
 under an express agreement which he has failed 
 to perform. The " Hestia" (No. 1) 
 
 Bruce J. [1895] P, 193 
 
 8J0. — Amendment of writ after judgment. 
 
 In a salvage aciion the Court allowed the 
 indorsement on tlie wril^ to be amended aiter 
 judgment, but before decree drawn up, by 
 altering the amount of salvage claimed. The: 
 •' Dictator " (No. 1) Butt P. [1892] P. 64 
 
 Subsequently the pits, obtained leave to pro- 
 ceed personally for the whole amount of salvage 
 claimed. The " Diotatok " (No. 2) 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 304 
 
 Approved and followed by C. A. The Gemma, 
 [1899] P. 285. 
 
 221. ■ — Amount — Salving vessels tpeoially 
 equipped — Principles of assessment of award. 
 
 In reviewing an award for salvage made by 
 the judge of the Admiralty Div. and affirmed by 
 the C. A., this House will not interfere with the 
 amount awarded unless it appears that the 
 cstiiblished principles have not been satisfactorily 
 applied. 
 
 Decision of C. A., The Glengyle, [1898] 
 P. 97, affirmed. Owners op " Glengyle," heb 
 Cargo and Freight v. Neptdne Salvage Co. 
 The " Glengyle" H. L. rE.) [1898] A. C. 519 
 
 222. — Appeal — Costs — Amount of award 
 reduced. 
 
 On appeals in salvage cases it is a general 
 though not hard and fast rule of practice of the 
 Court that costs will not be given to an iippellant 
 who succeeds in reducing the amount of the 
 award. There is no fixed rule for apportioning 
 the award. The " Gipsy Queen " 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 17S 
 
 223. — Apportionment — Agreement to accept 
 percentage of salvage — Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1854 (17 * 18 Vict. c. 104), ». 182 ; 1862 (25 <ls 26 
 Vict c. 63), s. 18 — Merchant Shipping (Fishing 
 Boats) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 41), s. 13. 
 
 Sect. 182 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1854 (now s. 156 of the Act of 1894), does not 
 prevent seamen from entering into an equitable 
 arrangement for the apportionment of salvage. 
 
( iuOJ ) 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2004 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Salva.se)— continued. 
 Tlierefore, though a vessel be Bot within the 
 exception of s. 18 of the Act of 1862 (now s. 156 
 of the Act of 189i), an agreement under s. 13 of 
 tlie Act of 1883 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 41) to accept a 
 percentage of the Balvage earned is binding if in 
 tlie opinion of the Court equitable. 
 
 Where certain ofiBcers are paid by a share of 
 fishing profits, costs of repairs necessitated by the 
 salvage operations cannot be deducted from the 
 salvage percentage payable to them : — 
 
 SemUe, the above sections of the Acts of 1854 
 and 1862 do not apply to a master. The 
 " WiLHELM Tell " - G. Barnes J. [1892] P. 337 
 
 224. — ApportionTuent — Non-navigating mem- 
 bers of creio — Surgeon, steioards, &c. 
 
 The Don-navigating members'of a crew of a 
 large steamer (the surgeon, stewards, &c.), who 
 had taken no active part in salving the salved 
 ship, lield to be only entitled to a half share 
 according to their rating. The " Spkeb " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 147 
 
 225. — Apportionment of costs. 
 
 In apportioning the costs of the salvor, pay- 
 able by the owners of the salved ship and cargo 
 respectively : — 
 
 Hdd, that the general costs should be appor- 
 tioned between the owners of the salved ship and 
 of her cargo in accordance with the rules laid 
 down in the The Peace, (1856) Swa. 115, but 
 without prejudice to the salvors' right to recover 
 the whole from either. The " Elton " 
 
 Jenne J. [1891] P. 266 
 
 226. —Appraisement — Awards to salvors ab- 
 sorbing whole proceeds — Application to vary decree. 
 
 In a salvage action if the defts. do not object 
 at the time to the appraisemeut, the fact of the 
 sum realized by the sale being much less than 
 the appraised value is not in itself sufficient 
 indication that the appraised value did not fairly 
 represent the value at the time and place where 
 the property is brought into safety to cause the 
 Court to vary the decree. The " Geokg" 
 
 Bmce J. [1894] P. 330 
 
 [The C. A , [1894] P. 336,. n., refused leave to 
 appeal from the original award, substantially on 
 the grounds assigned by Bruce J.] 
 
 227. — Attempt to tow — Derelict — Costs. 
 
 A tug under an agreement endeavoured to 
 tow a disabled barque into port but failed, 
 leaving the ship in a more dangerous position 
 than before, but in such a position that a second 
 set of salvors were able to save her. The second 
 set of salvors claimed salvage on the higher scale 
 as for a derelict sliip : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that the tug was entitled to pay- 
 ment for work done, but not for salvage ; (2.) 
 that, as the crew wei e ou board when these last 
 salvage services commenced and remained by her 
 while the salvage operations continued, the ship 
 was not derelict. The " Lepanto " 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 122 
 
 228. — Award — Grounds for an Appeal Court 
 altering the amount. 
 
 There is no rule binding the 0. A, not to 
 mttrfere with a salvage award unless the amount 
 IS so large or so small that no reasonable man 
 could fairly arrive at the sum awarded. Tlic 
 
 SHIPPING (Salvage) — cmtinued. 
 amount awarded will be increased or diminished 
 if, after carefully considering the facts and giving 
 every possible weight to the view of the previous 
 judge, the amount appears to the C. A. so large 
 as to be unjust to the owners of the salved ship 
 or BO small as to be unjust to the salvors. The 
 "AcoOMAo"- - - C. A. [1891] P. 349 
 
 229. — Consolidation — Conduct of cause. 
 Where separate salvage actions relate to 
 
 services rendered to the same ship about the same 
 time, the actions can be consolidated, on grounds 
 of convenience and economy, without regard to 
 the consent of the parties. When actions are 
 consolidated the pits, can appear by separate 
 counsel. Conduct of the consolidated actions was 
 given to the principal salvor. The " Stbath- 
 GABET " - Bruce J. [1895] P. 264 
 
 Eeferred to by G. Barnes J. The AUair, 
 [1897] P. 105, 108. 
 
 230. — Contract not to be performed in England. 
 A salvage contract was made in English 
 
 waters between foreigners, but there was no 
 obligation to pay the salvage money within the 
 jurisdiction : — 
 
 Held, that service of writ out of jurisdiction 
 could not be allowed under Order xi., r. 1 (e), in 
 an action for breach of the contract in not paying 
 the salvage money. The " Elder" 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 119 
 
 Approved of by H. L. (E.). Comber v. Ley- 
 land, [1898] A. C. 524, 533. 
 
 231. — Costs — Refusal to consolidate actions. 
 Second salvors who finally rescued a disabled 
 
 vessel, and to whom substantial remuneration 
 was awarded, had refused to consolidate their 
 action with that of the first salvors : — 
 
 Held, that the extra expense thereby caused 
 must be deducted from their costs. The " Hes- 
 TIA " (No. 1) Bruoa J. [1895] P. 193 
 
 232. — Costs — Taxation — Practice — Consoli- 
 dated actions — Attendance of country solicitor at 
 trial in London. 
 
 In April, 1899, the barque Metropolis, belong- 
 ing to the defts., whilst lying at anchor in the 
 river Mersey, commenced to drag, and was 
 rescued frojn a position of some peril by the 
 steam tugs Knight of the Cross, Sea King, and 
 Gipsy King. The owners, &c., of the first named 
 tug issued a writ out of the Liverpool District 
 Registry in a salvage action, and the owners, 
 &c., of the two other tugs issued a writ in another 
 action. These two actions were consolidated by 
 order of the Liverpool District Registrar, and the 
 general conduct given to the pits, in the first 
 mentioned action, with liberty to the pits, in 
 the action secondly mentioned to appear by one 
 counsel at the trial. In May, at the hearing 
 before G. Barnes J. assisted by two of the Elder 
 Brethren of the Trinity House, the Knight of the 
 Gross was awarded I200i., the Sea King 8002., and 
 the Gipsy King 400Z.,and, on the ground that there 
 was a possibility of some conflict between the 
 two sets of salvors as to the value of their respec- 
 tive services, an order was made that the costs of 
 two counsel for each set of salvors should be 
 allowed. Ou taxation of the costs of the pits, 
 in the second action, and on the ground that 
 
( 2000 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2006 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Salvage)— coJiWimed. 
 the attendance of the solicitor, to whom the 
 conduct of the consolidated action had been 
 given, was sufficient, the following items were 
 disallowed by the Liverpool District Registrar, 
 viz. : (1) Journey from Liverpool to London of 
 the solicitor, (2) his expenses, (3) his railvtay 
 fare, and (4) cabs and telegrams. 
 
 On appeal, by way of objection to the taxation, 
 adjourned into court for the delivery of judg- 
 ment : — 
 
 Held, on the authority of Bell v. Aitkin, (1868) 
 L. E. 3 C. P. 320 ; In re Storer, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 
 189, and The Soto, [1893] P. 73, that, though the 
 allowance, as betweeu parly and party, of the 
 costs of the attendance of the country solicitor at 
 the trial in London, was h matter for the discre- 
 tion of the taxing master, that discretion had 
 been, in this case, wrongly exercised, for it was 
 reasonably necessary for counsel in the second 
 action to be instructed during the hearing, by 
 the solicitor of the Iplts. in that action, as the 
 solicitor who had the conduct of the consolidated 
 action was not in a position to do full justice 
 to both sets of pits. Appeal allowed. The 
 " Metkopolis" - BucknUl J. [1899] W. N. 100 
 
 233. — Costs — Tioo causes tried together — 
 Refreshers to counsel^B. 8. C, Order Lxr., 
 r. 27 (48). 
 
 Where two salvage actions were tried together, 
 and the evidence in the first action was, so far as 
 applicable, to be used in evidence in the second 
 action : — 
 
 Held, that the attendance of counrel was 
 necessary during the hearing of both actions, and 
 that refreshers should be allowed. The " Hkstia" 
 (No. 2) - - Bruce J. [1895] W. N. 100 
 
 234. — Derelict — Principles of assessment of 
 award. 
 
 Although there is no rule entitling the salvors 
 of a derelict vessel, as of right, to a moiety, or 
 other specific proportion, of the value of the pro- 
 perty salved, and the award is to be assessed 
 upon the same principles as in other cases of 
 salvage, still there are usually present, in the 
 case of a derelict, at least three special elements 
 which tend to enhance the award, namely, the 
 high degree of danger to which th» property to 
 be salved is exposed, the difficulty of approaching 
 the derelict vessel without any aid in boarding 
 her, and the necessity, when taking her in tow, 
 of supplying men to steer her, thereby exposing 
 some of the salvors to additional risk, and render- 
 ing the salving vessel short-handed. The " Janet 
 OoDET " - - Jeune P. [1897] P. 69 
 
 235. — Derelict boiler —Amount of award- 
 Costs. 
 
 The Court, under special circumstances, 
 awarded 501. and costs on the High Court scale 
 to salvors who had landed a derelict boiler, 
 although the boiler when sold fetched under 591. 
 The Boileb ex " Elephant " 
 
 Butt P. [1891] W. N. 52 
 
 236. — Discontinuous services — Agreement — 
 Tender — Authority of master of salving vessel. 
 
 Where the services of a salvor were discon- 
 tinuous, and an amount was tendered and paid 
 into court representing the sums acrced uoon. 
 
 SHIPPING (Salvage) — cmtinued. 
 by the master of the salving vessel, with the 
 master of the salved vessel, as the reward to 
 cover valuable services rendered prior to the 
 agreement, as well as the successful services 
 subsequently rendered : — 
 
 Held, that the tender must be rejected, and 
 a salvage award made in respect of the services 
 prior to the agreement, as the owner and crew 
 of the salving vessel had acquired vested rights 
 which the master of the salving vessel had no 
 authority to bargain away, but that the amount 
 fixed by the agreement must stand in respect of 
 the subsequent services. The " Inchmaree " 
 
 PhiUimore J. [1899] W. N. 22 (3); 
 [1899] P. Ill 
 
 237. — Division of sum awarded for salvage 
 services — Construction of clMrterparty. 
 
 A charterparty provided (clause 2) that the 
 shipowner should maintain the chartered vessel 
 (the steamship Pocldington) in a thoroughly 
 efficient state for and during the service. 
 Clause 6 provided that if any damage prevented 
 the working of the vessel for more than twenty- 
 four hours the hire should cease. By clau?e 13 
 the vessel had liberty to tow and assist vessels in 
 distress, and to deviate for the purpose of saving 
 life or property. By clause 20 all derelicts and 
 salvage were to be " for owners' and charterers' 
 equal benefit." The shipowners obtained an 
 award in the Admiralty Court for a large sum 
 for salvage services rendered by the Focklington 
 in towing another vessel in distress. Through 
 performing those services the hull, engines, and 
 towing gear of the Focklington were strained and 
 damaged, and she incurred expenses and losses 
 attributable to the salvage services in respect of 
 repairs, the costs of gear used in towage, loss of 
 hire for several days whilst she was under repair, 
 and other matters. In an action by the char- 
 terers against the shipowners to recover a moiety 
 of the salvage earned by the Pocldington : — 
 
 Held, that the defts. were entitled to deduct 
 from the amount awarded by the Admiralty Court 
 all such losses and expenses incurred by them 
 (including loss of hire) as were attributable to 
 the salvage services, and that the balance only 
 ought to be divided between themselves and the 
 pits. Booker & Co. v. Pocklingtos Steamship 
 Co. - Bigham J. [1899] 2 ft. B. 690 
 
 — Estoppel — Judgment. 
 See Estoppel. 6. 
 
 238. — Inequitahle agreement — Grounds fcyr 
 setting aside. 
 
 The fact that parties to a salvage agreement 
 have not contracted on equal terms will not per 
 se invalidate the agreement ; but if the sum 
 insisted on by the intending salvor is exorbitant, 
 and the master of the ship to be salved is at a 
 disadvantage, the Court will sot the agreement 
 aside as inequitable. The"Rialto" 
 
 Butt J. [1891] P. 175 
 
 239. — Jurisdiction — County court — Oas float 
 — Beacon or buoy — Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 
 (17* 18 Vict. 0. 104), ss. 458, 4,76— County Courte 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict, 
 c. 7n, s. 3. 
 
 The juris Jiction of the Admiralty over salvage 
 
( 20(17 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891^1900. 
 
 ( 2008 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Salvage)— continued 
 
 does not extend to all property exposed to perils 
 
 of the sea and used to assist navigation. 
 
 A gas float, sliaped like a boat, but neither 
 intended nor fitted to be navigated, was moored 
 in tidal waters to give light to vessels and went 
 adrift in a storm : — 
 
 Heldj that not being a ship or part of a ship 
 or of her apparel or cargo the structure was not 
 the subject of a claim for salvage wilhin the 
 Admiralty jurisdiction. 
 
 Decision of C. A., The Oas Float WMtton 
 iNo. 2), [lfr96] P. 42, affirmed. Wells v. Ownees 
 OF Gas Float " Whitton" (No. 2) 
 
 H. I. (E.) [1897] A, C. 337 
 — Definition of ship. 
 
 See Wells v. Owners of Gas Float Whitlon 
 (Xo. 2), [1897] A. 0. 337. 
 
 240. — Jurisdiction- — Receiver of wreck — De- 
 tention of property — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 546, 552. 
 
 A British steamship, belonging to the pits., 
 with cargo from and to a Continental port, was 
 in tlie English Channel, in distress, for want 
 of fuel, twenty miles off the coast. A British 
 steam-tug towed her into Plymouth, and, at the 
 request of the master of the tug, the deft., 
 receiver of wreck at that port, detained the pits.' 
 vessel two days pending the production of 
 satisfactory bail to answer a claim for salvage. 
 
 In an action for damages for the illegal arrest 
 of the vessel : — 
 
 Held, aflSrming the decision of 6. Barnes J., 
 [1898] P. 206, that the deft, was entitled to 
 judgment in his favour, for the words in u. 552, 
 "salvage .... due under this Act," mean " sal- 
 vage recoverable under this Act," and are not 
 limited by s. 546 in respect of the place where the 
 vessel was in distress; so that a dispute as to 
 salvage having aiisen, to be determined by a 
 court recognised by the Act, the deft., as re- 
 ceiver, had jurisdiction to detain the property 
 which was in his district, and liable for salvage". 
 
 Per G. Barnes J. : Semble, that' the words 
 "near the coasts of the United Kingdom" in 
 s. 546 are restricted to the territorial limit. The 
 " FcLHAM " - C. A. [1899] W. N. 88 ; 
 
 [1899] P. 251 
 
 241. — Life Salvage — Authority of master — 
 Contract with passengers — Tender. 
 
 The defts.' steatuship, three days out from 
 JNIontreal for Liverpool, stranded on the coast of 
 Labrador. The master landed his passengers 
 and crew, provided them with food and accom- 
 modation, and the same day intercepted a passing 
 steamer, which, at the request of the master, 
 conveyed the passengers to theii- destination. 
 
 The following day a steamer passing in the 
 opposite direction, at the like request, took off 
 the greater part of the ciew, convej cd them to 
 Quebec, and, on the way, telegraphed for assist- 
 ance to he sent. 
 
 By the contract with the passengers the 
 defts. were " not liable for loss or delay from the 
 iict of (^od . . . perils of the seas, rivers, or 
 navigation .... or the wrongful act or default " 
 of their servants. The defts.' vessel became a 
 total loss, materials to the value of 336?. only 
 being saved. 
 
 SHIPPING (Salvage)— coniinuei. 
 
 In an action in personam by the owners of 
 the passing steamers for salvage, or, in the alter- 
 native, for remuneration for services rendered at 
 request, the defts. tendered 200Z. : — 
 
 Held, that the tender must be upheld, as the 
 passengers and crew were not in any danger, so 
 that no life salvage was claimable ; and, as the- 
 defts. were under no obligation to forward the 
 passengers to their destination, the master, in 
 transhipping them, acted as the agent of the 
 passengers, and not of the defts. The " Mabi- 
 posa" - G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 27S 
 
 242. — Life salvage — Foreign vessel — Juris- 
 diction — Seroices " wlwlly or in part within 
 British loaters" — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 
 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 60), «. 544, sub-s. 1. 
 
 By s. 544, sub-s. 1, of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, " Where services are rendered wholly 
 or in part within British waters in saving life; 
 from any .... foreign vessel .... there shall 
 be payable to the salvor by the owner of the 
 vessel, cargo, or apparel saved, a reasonable 
 amount of salvage. . . ." 
 
 A British steam-trawler whilst on a fish'ng- 
 voyage in the North Sea, and about ninety miles 
 north-east of the Spurn, fell in with a water- 
 logged Norwegian barque. After some difficulty 
 the trawler rescued the crew of the barque, and 
 tlie next day landed them at Hull. The barque 
 was subsequently saved by other salvors, and 
 brought into Grimsby. In an action for life 
 salvage by the owners, master, and crew of the 
 trawler, it was contended by the defts., the owners 
 of the barque and of her cargo, that there 
 was no jurisdiction under the statute to make 
 an award : — 
 
 Held, that the pits, were entitled to life salvage, 
 as the salving vessel, in the course of effecting 
 the salvage service, was within British waters, 
 and, therefore, the services were rendered "in 
 part within British waters" within the meaning 
 of the statute. The " Pacific " 
 
 Jeune P. [1898] P. 17ft 
 
 — Life salvage — Lloyd's policy. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 76. 
 
 243. — Misconduct (alleged) ofsahors — Refusal 
 to put crew haclc on hoard salved vessel — Award. 
 
 In an action of salvage the owners of th& 
 Elise submitted that the misconduct of the pits. 
 disentitled them to any award : — 
 
 Held, that, though the master and crew of the 
 Elise had a legal right to return to their vessel, 
 the Court will not lay down any general rule, but 
 will be guided by the circumstiinces of each case, 
 and here the master of the Northumhria wa» 
 justified in refusing to put them on board : 
 
 Held, also, that, as the salvage services were 
 very meritorious, the award to the Northumhria 
 would be 6000Z., apportioned as follows : to the 
 owners 2500^, to the master 1000?., and to th& 
 crew 2500?. according to their rating, with double 
 shares to those who went on board the Elise. 
 The " Elise " - G. Barnes J. [1899] W. N. 64 
 
 244. — Misconduct of saliors — Forfeiture of 
 reward- 
 In this case the President held that the mis- 
 
( 2009 ) 
 
 ■ DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2010 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Salvage)— eontmued. 
 conduct of tho salvors, a lifeboat crew, was such 
 as to work a total forfeiture of salvage re"ward. 
 The " Oapella " - - Butt P. [1892] P, 70 
 
 245, — Negligence of salvors — Counter-claim 
 for — Diminution of award — Costs. 
 
 On a claim for salvage tlie salved vessel 
 counter-claimed for iajuries sustained by bad 
 and negligent navigation of the salving vessel, 
 and asked not for forfeiture of tbe award, but for 
 allowance on account of the damage sustained : — 
 
 Beld, that such want of skill in manoeuvring 
 the salving vessel as had been proved went to 
 diminish tne award of salvage, and the award 
 must be reduced by one-half. An apportion- 
 ment of the actual damage was refused. The 
 "DwiNA" - Butt P. [1892] P. 68 
 
 346. — Negligence — Towage — Stranding — Con- 
 trol of tug hy tow — Contributory negligence — ■ 
 Inequitable agreement. 
 
 A barque, with a cargo of wheat from San 
 Francisco, put into Falmouth for orders and left 
 that port for Hull in tow under a contract to pay 
 the tug a fixed sum. The tug set the oouises 
 without interference from the tow, but the latter 
 regularly took soundings. When nearing the 
 entrance to the Humber the weather became 
 thick and, a sounding indicating shallower water, 
 the master of the barque was about to signal to 
 the tug, when his vessel took the ground, the 
 wind at the time being light and the sea smooth. 
 A second tug then came up, and, as her master 
 would not take less, the master of the barque 
 agreed to pay 5002. if she would assist the first 
 tug in an endeavour to tow the vessel off that 
 tide. The efforts of the two tugs proved unsuc- 
 cessful, and the second tug, having been sent to 
 ■Grimsby for more tugs, returned with two others, 
 whilst men from the shore assisted the crew in 
 jettisoning some of the cargo. The four tugs 
 then took hold of the vessel and she came off, 
 and was subsequently safely docked at Hull. 
 The owners, masters, and crews of all four tugs 
 claimed salvage. The defts., the owners of ship, 
 oargo, and freight, alleged that the stranding 
 was due to the negligence of the first tug, and 
 counter-claimed against her for the loss of cargo 
 aind for any salvage they might have to pay the 
 other salvors. They further submitted that the 
 agreement with the second tug should be set 
 .aside as unreasonable and made under duress : — 
 
 Rdd, that the first tug was responsible for 
 Ihe direction of the course, and, having been 
 negligent in respect of it and in not taking 
 .soundings, her claim for salvage must be dis- 
 missed, but that, on the authority of Smith v. St. 
 Xawrence Tow Soat Co., (1873) L. K. 5 P. C. 308, 
 the counter-claim of the defts. must also be dis- 
 jnissed, as their master was guilty of contributory 
 ^legligenoe in allowing the tug to run on instead 
 of ordering her to haul off when approaching a 
 difficult port in foggy weather. As the second 
 tug incurred no risk, the agreement with her 
 jnust be set aside as unfair, and a reasonable 
 isum for the whole of her salvage services awarded. 
 As the two other tugs rendered their services at 
 jrequest, they were entitled to salvage, though 
 the vessel could have been got off without their 
 assistance. The three last-mentioned tugs were 
 
 SHIPPIN3 (Salvage) — continued. 
 
 also entitled to a small sum for docking, payable, 
 
 as towage, by the ship only. The " Altair " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1896] P. 105 
 
 247. — Practice — Solicitors' undertaldng — 
 Arreit — " Good and sufficient reason " — Damages — ■ 
 S. S. C, 1883, Order xsix., rr. 12, 18. 
 
 Defts.' s ilioitors signed, without qualification , 
 a notice, under Order xxix., r. 12, of the E. S. 0., 
 1883, by which they undertook to enter an 
 appearance and give bail in a sum not exceeding 
 the value of ship, cargo, and freight ; but the 
 pits. — notwithstanding the caveat which on the 
 filing of the above notice in the registry had 
 been thereupon entered — took out, under rule 18 
 of the same order, a warrant for the arrest of the 
 defts.' vessel in a salvage action : — 
 
 Held, that the defts.' solicitors, by signing 
 the undertaking without qualification, rendered 
 themselves personally responsible, and the pits, 
 might have taken a reasonable time to make 
 inquiry whether the undertaking was satis- 
 factory; but as, instead of doing so, they had 
 insisted upon the security of the ship, the pits, 
 had failed to shew " good and sufficient reason " 
 within the meaning of rule 18 of the same order, 
 for arresting the vessel, and must, therefore, 
 be condemned in damages and costs. The 
 " Cbimdon " G. Barnes J. [1900] W. N. 130 ; 
 
 [1900] P. 171 
 
 248. — • Salvage — Ecidince of value — County 
 Court Rules, 1892, Order xxsix. B, rr. 30, 31, 
 and 32. 
 
 In an action for salvage if the pit. is dis- 
 satisfied with the value given in the deft.'s 
 affidavit of value, under the County Court Rules, 
 1892, Order xxxix. B, rr. 30, 31, 32, he has a 
 right to have the ship appraised, and if he does 
 not exercise this right evidence of the value is 
 inadmissible at the trial and the affidavit of 
 value conclusive. The " Akso " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] P. 33 
 
 — Salvage contract — Service. 
 
 See Pkaotioe— Service. 209, 21G. 
 
 — Salvage, Judgment for — ^Action against undfr- 
 
 writer. 
 
 See Estoppel. 6. 
 
 249. — Service out of the jurisdiction — Cargo 
 owners —Salvage action. 
 
 The pits, brought an action against the owners 
 of an English ship for salvage services performed 
 abroad, and leave was given to serve notice of 
 the writ on the owners of the cargo, who were 
 foreigners residing out of the jurisdiction. On 
 application to set aside the service : — 
 
 Beld, that, under Order xi., r. 1 (g), the cargo 
 owners were "proper" parties to the action. 
 The " Elton " Jeune J. [1891] P. 265 
 
 250. — Service rendered under a contract for 
 work and labour with third parties — Maritime 
 lien. 
 
 The pits., with the knowledge and assent of 
 her owners, undertook to lift a sunken vesiel, 
 under a contract with the insurers, who advanced 
 to the pits, before the work commenced 40 per 
 cent, of the amount for which the vessel was 
 insured. The vessel was successfully raised, but 
 the operation of lifting proved more costly than 
 
( 2011 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CA!-E-, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2012 ) 
 
 SHIFFIHO (Salvage)— conimufd. 
 was anticipated, and some of the underwriters in 
 the meantime became Insolvent. In an action 
 of salvage brought by the pits, against the defts. 
 as owners of the vessel : — 
 
 Held, that the contract with the underwriters, 
 ■which was not dependent on success, precluded 
 the pits, from asserting a maritime lien on the 
 vessel, and claiming salvage remuneration from 
 her owners. The " Solway Peincb" 
 
 Jeune P. [1896] P. 120 
 
 251. — Towage — Constriiction of co7itract — 
 Complete performance prevented by a misfortune 
 beyond the control of either party — Stibieguent 
 salvage. 
 
 The pits., tug-owners, contracted to tow the 
 deft.'s vessel from Kingroad in the river Severn 
 to Sharpness Dock for a fixed sum, but when near 
 their destination, owing to a fog and without 
 anybody being- in fault, the vessel stranded on a 
 roclr, and could not be got off : — 
 
 Held, that the contract was indivisible, and, 
 not having been fulfilled, the pits, were not 
 entitled to recover on a quantum meruit for any 
 portion of the towage. 
 
 Appleby v. Myers, (1867) L. E. 2 C. P. G.^il, 
 followed. 
 
 After the stranding and failure of the attempt 
 to fret the vessel off, the tugs were ordered by the 
 mabter of the vessel to keep her where she was so 
 as to prevent her drifting up the river and sinking 
 in deep water or doing damage. These orders the 
 tugs obeyed ; and in the result the vessel was 
 sold wliere she lay, but the greater part of the 
 cargo of timber being taken off in lighters, tliu 
 freight was earned by the shipowner : — 
 
 Held, that this was a salvage service, and on 
 a total value of 27242. the owners, masters, and 
 crews of the three tutrs engaged were awarded 
 370/. The " Madras " Jeune P. [1898] P. 90 
 
 252. — Tug, Claim of — Conditions required 
 before salvage engrafted on towage. 
 
 A lug, under a contract to tow a vessel into 
 port, was able to Have the ship from a ilanger 
 resulting from a mishap to another tug : — 
 
 Held, that as there was no immediate dannrv 
 to the sljip or risk to the tug in performing; the 
 service, the tug had no claim for salvage. Con- | 
 ditions required to engraft salvage on to towage 
 considered. The " Liveepool " 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1898] P, 164 
 
 263. — " Wreck," Definition of. 
 See Wells v. Gas Float Whitton (No. 2), [1895] 
 P. 301 ; [1897] A. C. 337. 
 
 254. — Wreclc — Bemoval — Owner — Harbours, 
 Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1S47 (10 *• 11 Virt. 
 0. 27), 8. 56— Removal of Wrecks Act, 1877 (40 * 41 
 Vict. c. 16), ss. 4, 68. 
 
 In s. 66 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers 
 Clauses Act, 1847, " owner " does not moan a 
 person who was owner of the ship at the time it 
 became an obstruction, but who abandoned her 
 before the expenses of removal were incurred. 
 The G. came into collision and sank near u, 
 harbour, where she became an obstruction to the 
 navigation. Her owners gave the underwriters 
 notice of abandonment as a total loss, and also 
 gave the harbour authority notice of abandon- 
 
 SHIPPIN& (Salvage) — continued. 
 ment. The harbour authority took possession of 
 the -sreck, raised part of the cargo, sold it, and 
 dispersed the wreck by explosives : — 
 
 Held, that the owners were not personally 
 liable for the repayment, not being the owners 
 within the section. 
 
 Per Lord Macnaghteu also, because the 
 expenses could not be recovered from the owner 
 where the vessel is destroyed. 
 
 Held, also (Lord Ashbourne dissenting), that 
 the section makes theownerof the wreck personally 
 liable for the expenses of removal. Aebow Ship- 
 pins Go. V. Ttne Impeovement Commbs. The 
 " Crystal " 
 
 H. L. (E.) revers. C. A. [1894] A. C. 508 
 Distinguished by P. C. Smith v. WiUon, [1896] 
 A. C. 579. 
 I Construction of a. 56 adopted in The Crystal 
 I applied by H. L. (E.). Barradough v. liroim, 
 I [1897] A. C. 615. 
 J 
 I Seamen. 
 
 j " Boy Sailors."] Scale and regs. for grant of 
 motley allowances to shipowners in respect of '''Soy 
 Sailors." Lond. Gaz. Hatch 17, 1899, p. 1829. 
 
 Deserters.] Apprehension of seamen who 
 desert from British merchant ships in Japan. 
 I St, B. & 0. 1898, No. 419; Lond. Gaz. Feb. 4, 
 j 1898, pp. 646, 668 ; May 20, p. 3132. 
 
 266. — Agreement for service — Advance note- 
 Payment conditional on going to sea — Amount ex- 
 ceeding one month's wages — Engagement abroad — 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict, c 60), 
 S8. 124, 140. 
 
 A seaman was engaged at a foreign port, in 
 which there was a British Consul, and was paid 
 a sum exceeding one month's wages, under an 
 advance note, conditionally on his going to 
 sea. In proceedings to recover wages the master 
 claimed to deduct the whole amount paid under 
 the advance note. 
 
 Held, that. s. 124 does not extend s. 140 to 
 engagemtnts of seamen abroad, and therefore 
 s. 140 applies only to engagements to sail from 
 the United Kingdom, and the master was entitled 
 to deduct the whole amount. Ritchie v. Laesen 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 12 (14) ; 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 727 
 
 266. — Conspiracy and Protection of Property 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 86), s. 16— ^c< not to 
 apply to seamen — Offence agairist seaman by person 
 not a seaman. 
 
 Sect. 16 of the Conspiracy and Protection of 
 Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 86), means 
 only that the punishments prescribed by the Act 
 are. not to fall on seamen. The case of an 
 offence against a seaman by a person who is not 
 a seaman is therefore not excluded from the Act 
 by this section. Kennedy v. Cowie 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 771 
 
 267. — Disrating. 
 
 Semble, the master has the power, and if the 
 circumstances require it, is the proper person to 
 disrate a seaman. The " Highland Chief " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] P. 76 
 
 268. — Foreign ship, Engaging seamen for— 
 
( 2013 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2014 ) 
 
 SHIPPING (Seamen)— contm««(J. 
 
 Fine — Civil debt— Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; 
 
 (57 & 58 Vict. 0. 60), .. 111. 
 
 The prohibition contained in s. Ill of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, against unautho- 
 rized persons engaging seamen to be entered on 
 board any ship in the United Kingdom, applies 
 where the ship for which the seamen are engaged 
 is a foreign ship. 
 
 The fine imposed by that section for its con- 
 travention is a punishment for an offence, and is 
 not recoverable as a civil debt. Eeg. v. Stewart 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B, 964 
 
 259. — LiaMlity of owner — Negligence — 
 Common employment. 
 
 The masters and crews of two different ships 
 belonging to the same owners are not in common 
 employment in such a sense as to be deprived of 
 a remedy against the employer where the master 
 or crew of one ship is injured by the negligence 
 of those of the other. The " Petrel " 
 
 Jeune P. [1893] P. 320 
 
 260. — LiaMlity of owner — Negligeruie of 
 master — Gomrrum employment — " Seaworthiness " 
 —Merchant Shipping Act, 1876 (39 * 40 
 Viet. c. 80), s. 5. 
 
 The master and seamen of a ship, being 
 servants in a common employment, the owners 
 are not liable for loss occasioned to a seaman 
 through the negligence of a master. A ship 
 does not become " unseaworthy " within s. 5 of 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876 (now s. 458 of 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), because the 
 master neglects to use a part of her equipment 
 whereby the safety of the crew is endangered, 
 but not that of the ship. 
 
 Decision of 0. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 58, affirmed. 
 Hedlbt v. Pinknet <fe Sons Steamship Co. 
 
 H. L. E. [1894] A. C. 222 
 
 Referred to by 0. A. Dohell & Co. v. Steam- 
 ship Sossmore Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 408, 416. 
 
 Passengers — Distressed seamen^Compulsory 
 pilotage. 
 See Shipping— Pilotage, 192. 
 
 Personal injuries — Defective gear. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Master and Servant. 
 27. 
 
 261. — Termination of Service abroad — Main- 
 tenance and " passage home"— Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Fici. o. 60), s. 186. 
 
 By s. 186 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894, where the service of any seaman belonging 
 to any British ship terminates at any port out 
 of Her Majesty's dominions, the master shall, 
 among other alternatives, either (c) provide him 
 with a passage home, or (d) deposit with the 
 consular officer such a sum of money as is by the 
 officer deemed sufficient to defray the expenses 
 of his maintenance and passage home. 
 
 Upon the discharge abroad of a British sea- 
 man, the consul, acttag under clause (d), fixed a 
 Bum which he deemed sufficient to defray the 
 expenses of the seaman's passage home, and the 
 master deposited this sum with the consul, who 
 provided the seaman with a voucher for a passage. 
 The voucher for the passage did not include 
 maintenance. In an action by the seaman against 
 
 SHIPPING (Seamen) — continued. 
 
 the shipowners to recover the expenses of his 
 
 maintenance on the passage : — • 
 
 Held, that the mfister, by depositing the sum 
 fixed by the consul, had complied with the 
 requirements of clause (d), and the shipowners 
 were not liable : 
 
 Semble, a " passage home " in clause (c) means 
 a passage to the port at which the seamen was 
 shipped, or to some port in tl]e United Kingdom 
 agreed to by him. 
 
 Decision of Collins J., [1897] 1 Q. B. 712, 
 affirmed. Edwards v. Stbel, Young & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 327 
 
 Followed by C. A. Purves v. Straits of Dover 
 Steamship Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 217. 
 
 262. — Termination of service abroad — " Pas- 
 sage Some " — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Viet. c. 60), «. 186. 
 
 When the service of a seaman belonging to a 
 British ship terminates at a foreign port, and the 
 master elects to " provide him with a passage 
 home," under s. 186, sub-s. 2 (c), of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, the master is bouod to pro- 
 vide him with u passage to the port in Her 
 Majesty's dominions at which he was originally 
 shipped, or to a port in the United Kingdom 
 agreed to by him. 
 
 Dicta in Edwards v. Sted, [1897] 2 Q. B. 327, 
 
 followed. Decision of Mathew J., [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 
 38, affirmed. Pubves v. Straits of Dover 
 
 Steamship Co. - C. A. [1899] W. N. 102 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 217 
 
 263. — Wages — Contract of Service — Increased 
 danger — Uncompleted voyage. 
 
 The J. Government bought a warship in E. 
 which they placed in charge of a master to navi- 
 gate to J. O. contracted with the master to serve 
 as one of the crew for the voyage for a fixed 
 sum. During the voyage the J. Government 
 declared war against 0., and O. then refused to 
 continue to serve, and left the ship : — 
 
 Held, that the master was responsible for the 
 act of his principals in declaring war, and that as 
 the risks of O. were increased, 0. was justified in 
 abandoning the voyage, and was entitled to the 
 stipulated sum notwithstanding that the voyage 
 was not completed. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct, [1895] 2 Q. B. 70, 
 affirmed. O'Neil v. Armstrong, Mitchell Sc 
 Co. - - C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 418 
 
 264. — Wages — Disrating by master — Dediic- 
 tions — Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104), 8. 171. 
 
 A reduction in the amount of wages conse- 
 quent on disrating is not a " deduction " requiring 
 to be entered under the " deductions " column in 
 the Board of Trade form of account prescribed 
 by s. 171 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 
 (now s. 132 of the Act of 1894). The "High- 
 land Chiee " Div. Ct. [1892] P. 76 
 
 265. — " Wa^es forfeited for desertion '' — 
 Deductions — Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 <fe 58 
 Vict. c. 60), 8. 232 — Gratuities to master. 
 
 In taking the accounts in an action in rem, in 
 a county court, for wages and disbursements, the 
 master was allowed to deduct, as against the 
 Exchequer, from wages forfeited by desertion, 
 
( 2015 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2010 ) 
 
 SHIPPINB (Seamen) — continued. 
 the sum of llijZ. for clothing supplied to the 
 seamen, prior to their desertion, out of the slop 
 chest kept by the master with the knowledge of 
 the owners. He was also allowed to retain a sum 
 of 45Z., being the total of three gratuities paid 
 "by consignees of cargo to him, and not credited 
 to the ship. On appeal by the owners : — 
 
 Held, first, that the " Wages forfeited for 
 nlesertiou," which are to be paid into the Ex- 
 chequer under s. 232 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1891: (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), are the wages 
 due after all proper deductions have been made, 
 in which deductious may be included the price 
 of stores supplied by the master to the seamen 
 by way of advance of wages, with the know- 
 ledge of the owners ; and, secondly, that the 
 master was entitled to retain sums given to him 
 t>y consignees by way of gratuity for the elBcient 
 manner in which he had superintended the dis- 
 •charge of cargoes. The " Pakkdale " 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] P. 63 
 
 266. — Wages — ■ Advances — Assignment — 
 8 Geo. 1, c. 2t, «. 7— Merchant Sldpping Act, 1891 
 <57 * 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 163. 
 
 Held, that s. 7 of 8 Geo. 1, c. 24, did not apply 
 to the terms upon which a seaman was engaged 
 where his engagement took place in a foreign 
 port, nor prevent a master from engaging a sea- 
 man in a foreign port on the terms that he should 
 be paid a sum down on joining the ship and the 
 remainder of his wages at the end of the voyage : 
 
 Also, that if the enactment did apply, the sea- 
 man could not recover again as unpaid wages the 
 fium adv meed to him in excess of the moiety 
 allowed by the statute. 
 
 Upon engaging a seaman in a foreign port 
 the master agreed to advance to him a sum on 
 account of wages ; the seaman signed a documeut 
 giving a third person authority to receive that 
 sum, and the master paid it to the third person 
 with the authority of the seaman to make such 
 payment : 
 
 Held, that o. 163 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, did not apply to make this transaction 
 void, and that the seaman was not entitled to 
 recover from the master the sum so advanced and 
 paid. EowLANDS v. Miller - - Div. Ct. 
 
 [1899] 1 ft. B. 735 
 
 267. — Wages — Practice — Jurisdiction ■ — 
 Action in rem — Ship's husband— " Seaman " — 
 Maritime Lien— Prohibition — Admiralty Court 
 Act, 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), s. W— County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict, 
 c. 71), s. 3, suh-s. 2. 
 
 A ship's liusbaad, not being a " seaman " 
 claiming " wages earned by him on board the 
 ship " within the meaning of s. 10 of the Admiralty 
 Court Act, 1861, has no maritime lien upon 
 which he can found an action in rem for " wages " 
 ander s. 3, sub-s. 2, of the County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868. The " Kui'Y " 
 (No. 2) - Jeune P. [1898] P. 59 
 
 Sidelights.] 0. in 0. dated Feb. 8, 1896, 
 under Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 1892, 
 as to side lights. Lond. Gaz, Feb, 11, 1896. 
 
 Smuggling. 
 
 General liegs. of M. of Customs d<d,d Aug. 31, 
 
 SHIPPING (Sm-aggUng)— continued. 
 1893, prescribing the limits within which boats 
 and vessels not exceeding 1 00 tons burden may be 
 employed, and the mode of navigation, manner 
 of employment, and other conditions applicable 
 thereto. St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 1578. 
 
 Tender, 
 
 Admiralty rules as to tender and payment into 
 Court revised. See Explanatory Memorandum to 
 County Court Rules, (.May) 1899, and rules 58 to 
 65 W. TSt. 1899 (May 20), p. 173. See p. cxi., 
 
 ante. 
 
 268, — Amount paid into Court exceeding 
 amount found due — B. S. C. Order XXii., rr. 1-5. 
 
 In an action for damage by collision the 
 defts. admitted liability and agreed to pay a 
 certain percentage on the pits.' proved or agreed 
 damages and taxed costs. The damages were 
 referred. Before the hearing on the reference the 
 defts. tendered and paid into Court 750?. which 
 was not accepted. At the reference 713?. and 
 interest was found to be due from the defts. The 
 pits, applied to have the 750Z. paid out to 
 them :— 
 
 Held, that the pits, were only entitled to the 
 amount found to be due to them, on the ground 
 that, except the rules expressly dealing with 
 Admiralty actions, the provisions of Order xxn. 
 do not affect the Admiralty practice as to tender. 
 The " MoNA " - Bruce J. [1894] P. 265 
 
 Eeferred to by Jeune P. Ihe Vulcan, [1898] 
 P. 222, 226. 
 
 269. — Costs— County court — "Tender" — 
 Final order — Appeal — County Courts Admiralty 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 2ti 
 — County Court Rules (Admiralty), 1892, Order 
 sxxi.x: B., rr. 48, 50. 
 
 The pits, instituted an Admiralty action in a 
 county court for damages for breach of contract 
 in relation to the use or hire of a ship " in the 
 sum of 30?. and costs." The deft?, paid into 
 court 17?. 10s. "in satisfaction of the whole of 
 the pits.' claim herein " together with a denial 
 of liability. The pits, accepted the 17?. 10s. in _ 
 satisfaction of the claim in respect of which it 
 was paid in, but their application for taxation, 
 and payment by the defts., of the costs of the 
 action was refused without leave to appeal: — 
 
 Held, first, that the order refusing the pits, 
 their costs was a final order within the meaning 
 of 8. 26 of the County Courts Admiralty Juris- 
 diction Act, 1868, and, therefore, no leave to 
 appeal was required; secondly, that this being 
 an Admiralty action the speoial Admiralty rules 
 of the county court, and not the general common 
 law rules, applied, so that the sum paid into court 
 by the defts. was to be treated as by way of 
 " tender" under rule 48 of Order xxxix. B. of 
 the County Court Eules, 1892, and, on accept- 
 ance of the tender, the pits, were entitled, 
 under rule 50, to taxation and payment of their 
 costs. The " Voloan " Div. Ct. [1898] P. 222 
 
 — Life salvage. 
 
 See SHippiNa — Salvage. 241. 
 
 — Blaster of sailing vessel. Authority of. 
 
 See Shippinq — Salvage. 236. 
 
( 2017 ) 
 
 DIGEST OV CASES, 18S1— 1900. 
 
 ( 2018 ) 
 
 SHIPPING— oonttnuctf. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 0. in C. dated Feh. 22, 1896, under Merchant 
 Sliipping Act (Amendment) Act. 1862, as to tonnage 
 of ships belmiging to German Empire. Lond. Gaz. 
 Feb. 25, 1896, p. 1121; St. E. & 0. 1896, p. 184, 
 No. 56. 
 
 270. — Measurement of tonnage — Deck cargo — 
 Horses and cattle— Light dues — Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1876 (39 it 40 Vict. a. 80), s. 23. 
 
 Horses and cattle are "goods" within the 
 meaning of s. 23 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1 876, which provides that, where timber, stores, 
 or other goods are carried as deck cargo all dues 
 payable on the ship's tonnage shall be payable 
 as if there were added to the ship's registered 
 tonnage the tonnage of the space occupied by 
 such goods. 
 
 For the purposes of the computation of such 
 tonnage, the measurement ought to include only 
 the space occupied by the animals themselves, 
 f;iir allowance being made for their free bodily 
 movements, and ought not to include the shed or 
 jieiis belonging to the sliip in which the animals 
 are confined. 
 
 Decision of Lord Eussell of Killowen C.J., 
 [18h6] 1 Q. B. 493, affirmed. Eichmond Hill 
 SiEAMSHip Co. 1'. Tbinitt House Cdbpobation 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 134 
 
 ITndermanning. 
 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict, 
 c. 59), amends the Merchant Shipping Act, 1 894, 
 icith respect to power of detention for tinder- 
 manning. 
 
 Wages. 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 
 
 Wharf. 
 
 271. — Wharfingers' liability — Ohstruciion in 
 led of rirer — Riparian owner — Negligence. 
 
 In this case the H. L. held that on the facts 
 there was no evidence of any breach of duty on the 
 part of the wharfingers, and that the injury to 
 the ship was caused by the captain and pilot 
 attempting to berth her alongside the wharf at a 
 time of the tide when it was not safe for a vessel 
 of her draught. 
 
 Decision of C. A. The Calliope, (1889) 14 
 P. D. 138, reversed. Teedegab Ikon and Coal 
 
 (!o. V. OWNEKS OP THE " CALLIOPE." THE 
 
 " Calliope " - H. I. (E.) [1891] A. C. 11 
 
 Wreck. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping— Salvage. 
 
 SHIPWRECK- Removal. 
 
 See Shipping— Salvage. 254. 
 
 SHOOTING — Accident at shooting party. 
 See Trespass. 1. 
 
 — Right of way for purposes of sporting. 
 
 See Scottish Law— Servitude. 38. 
 
 — Teaching shooting. 
 
 See Charity. 30. 
 
 SHOP. 
 
 Shop Hours Act, 1892 (55 * 56 Viol. o. 62), 
 amends the law as to employment of young persons 
 in gliops. 
 
 Shop Hours Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 5), im- 
 poses a penalty for non-compliance with s. 4 of the 
 Act of 1892. 
 
 Seats for Shop Assistants Act, 1899 (62 & G3 
 Vict. c. 21), provides for seats being supplied. 
 
 1. — Non-exhibition of statutory notice as in 
 employment of young person in shop. 
 
 The penalty provided by s. 5 of the Shoji 
 Hours Act, 1892, does not extend to the neglect 
 of compliance with s. 4 as to the exhibition of a 
 notice stating the working hours. Hammonh v. 
 PuLSFOBD - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 223 
 
 Rendered obsolete by 58 & 59 Vict. c. 5. 
 
 2. — Public-house — Hotel — Domestic servant — 
 Shop Hours Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 62). 
 
 By the Shop Hours Act, 1892, provision i-s 
 made as to the number of hours in any one wi ek 
 during which young persons under eighti en 
 years of age maybe employed in or about a shoip, 
 and' by s. 9 " ' shop' means retail and wholesale 
 shops, markets, stalls, and warehouses in whicli 
 assistants are employed for hire, and incliidr.s 
 licensed public-houses and refreshment houses of 
 any kind." 
 
 A building which is used solely as n hotel 
 and restaurant for the accommodation of guest.s, 
 and which has no bar or counter for the sale of 
 intoxicating liquors, and is not in the ordinary 
 sense of the term a public-house, but which is 
 licensed as an inn under 9 Geo. 4, c. 64, for the 
 sale of intoxicating liquors by retail, is a "shop " 
 within the meaning of the above Act. 
 
 A page-boy in a hotel, who sleeps on the pro- 
 mises, and who is principally employed as a 
 messenger, but partly also in assisting to dust the 
 reception-rooms, is not within the exemption in 
 s. 10 in favour of "any person wholly employed 
 as a domestic servant." Savoy Hotel Co. i . 
 London County Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 25 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 665 
 
 3. — Worh partly away from the premises — 
 Shop Hours Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 62), s. 3— 
 Employment " in or about a shop." 
 
 By the Shop Hours Act, 1892, s. 3, " No young 
 person shall be employed in or about a shop for a 
 longer period than seventy-four hours, iiuludiiig 
 meal times, in any one week." A newsagent, 
 occupying a shop for the purposes of his business, 
 employed a boy whose work was done parlly 
 insiile the shop, and partly away from tlie shop 
 in fetching newspapers and delivering them to 
 the customers : — ; 
 
 Held, that the whole employment was " in or 
 about " the shop within the meaning of the Act. 
 Collman v. Eobeets Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 457 
 
 SHORE — Eights of owners — Thames Conservancy 
 Act. 
 See Cases under Thames. 
 
 SHORTHAND NOTES— Costs. 
 
 See Costs — Shorthand Notes. 
 County Court — Appeal, 1. 
 Patent— Practice. 25, 26. 
 3 T 
 
( 2019 ) 
 
 DIGEST OV CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2020 ) 
 
 SHORT CAUSE— No pleadings— Evidence— Sum- 
 mons for directions. 
 See Pkactice. 248. 
 
 SHORT TITLES. 
 
 Short Titles Act, 1896 (59 <t GO Vict. c. 14), 
 facilitates the citation of sundry Acts of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 SIDE CHAPEL, 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law— Facility. 41. 
 
 SIDINGS. 
 
 See Kailway— Sidings. 
 
 SIERRA LEONE — Appeals from—0. in C. dated 
 Feb. 26, 1867, regulating appeals from the Supreme 
 Court of the Settlement of Sierra Leone to Her 
 Majesty in Council. St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 1711. 
 
 0. in C. dated Nov. 24, 1891, regulating appeals 
 from the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone on appeals 
 from the Gambia. St. E. & 0. 1891, p. 24. 
 
 — Death duties. 
 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 — Territories adjacent to. 
 
 See FoKEiQN Jurisdiction. 
 
 SIGN OF THE CROSS— Illegality. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — ^Ritual. 68. 
 
 SIGNATURE- Agreement as to costs. 
 
 See SoLiciTOB — Costs. 18 — 23. 
 
 — Auctioneer's clerk — Statute of frauds. 
 
 See Pkincipal and Agent. 1, 
 
 — Memorandum of company. 
 
 See Company — Memorandum and 
 Articles. 192. 
 
 — Notice of claim or objection — Eeglstratiou of 
 
 voters. 
 
 gee Cases under Pakliament. 
 
 — PoBition of in will. 
 
 See Pkobatb — Execution. 17 — 19. 
 
 — Rpceipt— Mortgagor's signature induced by 
 
 fraud of his solicitor — " Non est factum " 
 — Estoppel — Title of mortgagee. 
 See Mortgage. 56. 
 
 — Solicitor's clerk signing particulars. 
 
 See County Court — Costs. 35. 
 
 — Statute of frauds — Sufficiency. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute op. 20. 
 
 — Witness to will, will signed in absence of. 
 
 See Probate— Execution. 14, 
 
 SILENCE — As to material fact. 
 
 See SPEOirio Performance. 2. 
 
 — How far evidence of an admission. 
 
 See Evidence. 31. 
 
 " SIMILAE BUSINESS." 
 
 See Restraint of Trade. 10. 
 
 SIMONY — False declaration against — Immo- 
 rality. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Simony. 74. 
 
 " SILT "— Surface— Subsidence— Right of sup- 
 port. 
 See Support. 1. ed ii\ 
 
 SINKING FUND — Deben'^/l^»»enedemption — 
 Prospectus. 'vjt'''^''' 
 
 See Company— Debei.% , 90. 
 
 SITE— Of church. t ^ 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law— ^Church. 5, 
 
 SKYLIGHT— Easement. 
 
 See Light and Aib. 21. 
 
 SLANDES AND 8LANDEB OF GOODS. 
 
 See Cases under Defamation. 
 
 — InteiTOgatories. 
 
 See Discovery. 58. 
 
 SLAUGHTER-HOUSE — Covenant not lo carry on 
 offensive business. 
 See Restraint of Trade. 14. 
 
 — Metropolis. 
 
 See London— Slaughter-houses. 66. 
 
 SLEEPING PAETNEE — ^Address and description. 
 See Bill op Sale. 5. 
 
 SLEEVE— Pattern of. 
 
 See Copyright — Book. 4. 
 
 SLUICE-GATE — Obligation of owner to repair — 
 Artificial watercourse — Easement. 
 See Water. 37. 
 
 SMALL DEBTS ACT — Execution creditor- Levy 
 by sheriflf — Tools of trade. 
 See Bankruptcy — Execution. 102. 
 
 — Winding-up petition. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 175, 176. 
 
 SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899 
 (62 & 63 Tict, c. 44), empowers Local Authorities 
 to advance money for enabling persotis to acquire 
 the ownership of small houses in which they reside. 
 
 SMALL HOLDINGS. 
 
 SmaU Moldings Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 31), 
 facilitates the acquisition of small holdings. This 
 Act was amended by Local Oovernment Act, 1894 
 (56 * 57 Vict. B. 73), s. 6. 
 
 Rules dated Aug. 9, 1892. " The LandBegislry 
 (Small Holdings) Rules, 1892." St. E. & 0. 1892, 
 p. 640. W. N. 1892 (Appx. of 0. & E,), p, 29. 
 St, 0, P, Frice 2d. 
 
 Suggestions as to registration under the Art, 
 dated 'Aug. 1892. W. N. 1892 (Appx. of 0. 
 & R.) 33. 
 
 SMALL-POX HOSPITAL. 
 
 See Nuisances. 11, 12. 
 
 SMOKE — Covenant for quiet enjoyment — Bleach 
 by erection of buildings causing lessee's 
 chimneys to smoke. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 19. 
 
 — Nuisance — ^Abatement notice. 
 
 See Nuisances. 28. 
 
 SMUGGLING. 
 
 See Shipping — Smuggling? 
 
 SNOW— Non-removal of— Street— Obstruction- 
 Tramways. 
 See Nuisances. 29. 
 
 SOCIETIES' BOEBOWING POWEES ACT, 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict. 0. 16), empouiers certain societies 
 to borrow money from persons and corporations 
 other than members. 
 
 SOLDIER. 
 
 See Army and Navy. 
 SOUCITOR, 
 
 Solicitors Act, 1894 (57 Vict. c. 9) omends the 
 wovisions of the Solicitors Act, 1877 (40 <£ 41 
 Vict. c. 25), relating to the examination of persons 
 
( 2021 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2022 ) 
 
 SOLICITOR— continued. 
 
 applying to he admitted solicitors of the Supreme 
 
 Court in England. 
 
 Solicitors Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 4), amends 
 the Solicitors Acts. 
 
 In General, col. 2021. 
 
 Appearance, col. 2022. 
 
 Articled Clerks, col. 2022. 
 
 Authority, col. 2022. 
 
 Bankruptcy, col. 2022. 
 
 Champerty, col. 2022. 
 
 Charging Order, col. 2024. 
 
 Colonial Solicitors, col. 2027. 
 
 Costs, col. 2027. 
 
 Discharge, col. 2045. 
 
 Fiduciary Relation, col. 2045. 
 
 Liability, col. 2046. 
 
 Lien, col. 2049. 
 
 Misconduct, col. 2052. 
 
 Partnership, col. 2056. 
 
 Privilege, col. 2056. 
 
 Retainer, col. 2057. 
 
 Solicitor Executor. See Solicitob — 
 Solicitoi-Trnstee. 
 
 Solicitor-Mortgagee, col. 2058. 
 
 Solicitor-Trustee, col. 2059. 
 
 Striking off the Rolls. See Soucitoe — 
 Iliscondiict. 
 
 Undertakings, col. 2060. 
 
 Unqualified Person, col. 2060. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — AfBJavit sworn before solicitor of grantee — 
 
 Validity of bill of sale. 
 See Bill op Sale. 9. 
 
 — Appointment of solicitor as trustee for tenant 
 
 for life. 
 
 See Tetjstbb — Appointment. 15. 
 
 — Bias — Disqualification — Adjudication by 
 
 ordinary member of Incorporated Law 
 
 Society. 
 
 See Justices. 49. 
 
 — Cbeque — Tender — Validity. 
 
 See Tbndeb. 1. 
 
 — Discovery — Production of documents — Privi- 
 
 lege — Bills of costs — Oorrespondence. 
 See DiscovEBT — Socuments. 3G. 
 
 — Investment advised by solicitor to trustees — 
 
 Oontributory mortgage — Priority. 
 See Tkustke— Breach of Trust. 39. 
 
 — Leaving trust money in hands of solicitor — 
 
 Breach of trust — Immunity clause. 
 See Tbustee— Breach of Trust. 29. 
 
 — Receipt — Mortgagor's signature induced by 
 
 fraud of his solicitor — " Non est factum " 
 — Estoppel — Title of mortgagee. 
 ^See MoETGAGE — ^Beoeipt. 56. 
 
 — Restraint of business, Agreement in— Within 
 
 ten miles — Points of measurement. 
 See Kesteaint op Tkade. 
 Bulb Committeb of the Supeemb Coubt.] 
 By s i of the Supreme Court of Judicature 
 {Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 16), the 
 
 SOLICITOB (In General) — continued. 
 President of the Incorporated Law Society was 
 made a member of the Rule Committee of the 
 Supreme Court. 
 
 — Solicitor to both parties — Fraud — Representa- 
 
 tion to lender by agent of borrower. 
 
 See MOETGAGB. 15. 
 Taxes management — Power to barristers and 
 solicitors to plead before the Oeneral Commrs. 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Vict. c. 10), s. 16. 
 
 — Trustee in bankruptcy — Oommittee of inspec- 
 
 tion — Employment of solicitor — Oosts — 
 
 Taxation. 
 
 See BANKBCPTcy. 70. 
 
 Appearance, 
 
 County Oouet.] Appearance of solicitor in 
 county court in proceedings relating to Inland 
 Revenue. See Finance Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict, 
 c. 28), s. 38. 
 
 — Eight of audience. 
 
 See County Couet — Practice. 65. 
 
 Articled Clerks. 
 
 By the Solidtms Act, 1894 (.57 * 58 Vict. c. 9), 
 power of exempting from the intermediate exami- 
 nation persons who have taken degrees in law was 
 conferred on the society. 
 
 1. — Covenant not to act for clients of master's 
 firm — London agent. 
 
 A covenant by an articled clerk not to act, 
 for a certain time after the expiration of his 
 articles, on behalf of any person who was a client 
 of the firm during his articles, is broken by tlie 
 clerk acting as agent for country solicitors for 
 whom the firm had acted as agents during the 
 prescribed period. Eeid v. Bueeows 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 413 
 
 Authority. 
 
 — Authority of solicitor — Cheque — Tender — 
 
 Validity. 
 
 See Tendee. 1. 
 
 2. — Compromise of client's claim by solicitor 
 — No implied authority before action. 
 
 A solicitor employed to act for a client in 
 regard to his claim against a third person has, 
 before action brought, no implied authority to 
 effect a compromise. 
 
 Duffy V. Hanson, (1867) 16 L. T. 332, approved. 
 Maoaclay v. Pollby C. A. [1897] 2 Q, B. 122 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Oosts— Bankruptcy of client. 
 
 See Solicitob— Costs. 25—29. 
 
 — Profit derived from transaction arising out of 
 
 the bankruptcy. 
 
 See Bankkuptcy 70. 
 
 — Submission to pay costs— Form of order. 
 
 See SoLTOiTOE — Costs. 26. 
 
 Champerty. 
 
 3. — CJiamperty and maintenance — Taxation 
 — Right of client to tax. 
 
 Money was subscribed by strangers for main- 
 tenance of litigation to be repaid out of the 
 
 3 T 2 
 
2023 ) 
 
 DlGES't OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2024 ) 
 
 SOLICITOR (Champerty)— contintteti. 
 
 property if recovered ; large sums were paid to 
 
 the solicitor. The litigation was unsuccessful. 
 
 Beld, that the solicitor could not resist taxa- 
 tion of his costs, and an account of money 
 received, on the ground that the employment for 
 which he was retained and for which the money 
 was paid, was illegal. In re Thomas. Jaqdesb v. 
 Thomas - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 747 
 
 — Equitable jurisdiction — Underground trespass 
 — Fraud — Statute of Limitations. 
 See New South Wales. 20. 
 
 4. — Libel action — Might of third party whose 
 rliaracter is reflected on to maintain action. 
 
 In order to justify maintenance by one person 
 of the suit of another, there must either be a 
 common interest recognised by the law in a matter 
 at issue in the suit, or the case must fall within 
 one of the specific exceptions from the law against 
 maintenance established by the authorities. 
 
 Decision of Hawkins J. [189i] 2 Q. B. 897, 
 affirmed. Alabaster v. Hakness 
 
 C, A. [1895] 1 Q, B. 339 
 
 6. 
 
 to tax. 
 
 ■ Solicitor's hill of costs — Bight of client 
 
 Money was subscribed by strangers for main- 
 tenance of litigation, to be repaid out of the 
 property if recovered; large sums were paid to 
 the solicitor. The litigation was unsuccessful :— 
 
 Eeld, that the solicitor could not resist taxa- 
 tion of his costs, and an account of the money 
 paid to him, on the ground that the employment 
 for which he was retained and for which the 
 money was paid, was illegal. In re Thomas. 
 Jaqcess v. Thomas C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 747 
 
 6. — Unclaimed property — Secret information 
 — Agreement with heir — Improvident bargain — 
 Ratification — Rescission. 
 
 A contract by a person to communicate infor- 
 mation on terms of getting a share of any pro- 
 perty that may thereby be recovered by the 
 person to whom the information is to be given, 
 and nothing more, is not void for champeity. 
 But if the contract be not merely that informa- 
 tion shall be given, but also that the person who 
 gives it and who is to share in what may be 
 recovered shall himself recover the property, or 
 actively assist in the recovery of it, then the 
 contract is against the policy of the law and void, 
 even if the property is in the hands of trustees, 
 or in court, and no hostile action may be necessary 
 to recover it. 
 
 A. died intestate having considerable real 
 estate and leaving B. and 0. his co-heircsses- 
 at-law, both of whom were advanced in yiars, 
 illiterate, and of a very humble ranli in life. D., 
 having ascertained the heirship of B. and 0., 
 induced them to sign an agreement whereby, in 
 consideration of his revealing to them the exist- 
 ence of the property and their title to it (of both 
 which circumstances they were wholly unaware), 
 tlicy agreed to give him one-half of the net 
 amount of the property. 
 
 Held, that the agreement was in the nature 
 cf champerty and void ; that the agreement miist 
 be set aside as an improvident bargain which D. 
 liail obtained by taking an unfair advantage of 
 his position ; and that there had been no ratiflga- 
 
 80LICIT0B (Champerty) — continued. 
 tion of the contract by B. and C, as they never 
 knew of their right to rescind it. Bees v. Db 
 Bebnaedy - - Homer J. [1896] 2 Ch. 4L i 
 
 Charging Order. 
 
 7. — Assignee of solicitor — Solicitors Ad. 
 1860 (23 * 24 Vict. c. 127), «. 28. 
 
 The assignee of a solicitor is entitled, ini.h r 
 f. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, to a char^ii ^ 
 order for costs on property recovered by tl.i! 
 solicitor. Beiscoe v. Beiscoe 
 
 Kekewich X [1892] 3 Ch. £43 
 
 8. — Assignment of judgment debt — " Purchaser 
 for value without notice" — Solicitors Act, 1860 
 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127). «. 28. 
 
 The provision in s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 
 1860, avoiding conveyances made to defeat a 
 charging order, "unless made to a bona fide 
 purchaser for value without notice," means witli- 
 out notice of the solicitor's right to a lien, and 
 not without notice of the existence of a charging 
 order. B. was solicitor to 0., the pit. in an action 
 which was compromised on terms as to payment 
 by instalments, judgment being given for C. C. 
 assigned the money so payable to K. (a witness 
 in the action). It was not proved that E. had 
 express notice of B.'a claim : — 
 
 Held, that E., knowing of the action and of 
 B.'s employment as solicitor, must be taken to 
 have had notice of B.'s right to a lien, and there- 
 fore was not a "purchaser for value without 
 notice" within the section, and B. was entitle.! 
 to a charging order. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 180. 
 affirmed. Cole v. Elet 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 a. B. 350 
 
 9. — Assigmne^it of sum recovered — Notice — 
 Suhcltors Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127) ». 28. 
 
 An action of damage by collision was com- 
 promised on the terms that the defts., the owners 
 of the steamship Paris, should pay to the pit. 
 50 per cent, of the damages sustained by the pit's, 
 vessel, each party to bear their own costs of the 
 action, and the amount of the damages to he 
 ascertained by an arbitrator. Prior to the com- 
 mencement of the action the defts.' solicitors hail 
 been pressing the pit. for a settlement of claims 
 of clients of theirs against him, and for tlieir own 
 costs when acting for him ; and the pit., after the 
 compromise of the action but before the arbitrator 
 made his award, wrote to the defts.' solicitors 
 that he agreed to their settling the amount due 
 to themselves and to certain named clients of 
 theirs " out of the money coming in from 
 Pans s.s." 
 
 By his award the arbitrator fixed the sum 
 due from the defts. to the pit., which, with the 
 agreed costs of the reference, made a total of 
 i05l. lis. Sd., and the defts.' solicitors forwarded 
 to the plt.'s solicitors a cheque for a small amount 
 as being the balance out of the above total sum 
 after paying the named clients and themselves. 
 The pit's, solicitors took out a summons under 
 s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, for a charging 
 order. It was admitted that there was no collu- 
 sion, and it was agreed that the award should be 
 tr»tej BS a decree : — 
 
 ffeld, by Sir F, H. Jeune P., that the plt.'s 
 
( 2025 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2026 ) 
 
 SOLICITOB (Charging Orier)— continued. 
 solicitors ia the action were entitled to an order 
 charging the sum recovered with tlie plt.'s costs 
 to be taxed as between solicitor and client, on the 
 ground that the fund recovered by the exertions 
 of the plt.'s solicitors was fixed, though not 
 worked out, at the date of the compromise, and 
 that the subsequent assignment of the fund was 
 void under the statute as being an act done 
 operating to defeat tlie right of the solicitors to a 
 lion for costs — of which right, by reason of the 
 fund being a sum recovered in the action, the 
 deft.'s solicitors, and their clients through them, 
 were affected with notice. The " Paris " 
 
 Jeune P. [1896] P. 77 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy — Charging 
 Order. 
 
 10. — Fund in court — Property recovered for 
 company — Application after winding-up — Delay — 
 Discretion — Lien — Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 & 24 
 Vict. c. 127), 8. 28. 
 
 Delay by a solicitor in applying under s. 28 
 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, for an order charging 
 Ills costs on property recovered by him is no 
 ground for refusing the order unless other rights 
 in respect of the property liavo arisen in the 
 meantime. 
 
 Solicitors employed by a limited co. recovered 
 a claim against an estate in course of administra- 
 tion by the Court. The co. was subsequently 
 wound up by the Court. Shortly after the wind- 
 ing-up order was made, the solicitors applied for 
 an order charging their costs on the company's 
 sliare of the fund in court to the credit of the 
 administration action : — 
 
 Held, that, as the charging order in this case 
 conferred no new right, but was only a cheap and 
 speedy mode of enforcing the common law lien on 
 the 00. 's share of the fund in court, wliioh lien 
 existed prior to the winding-up, the Court, in the 
 exercise of its discretion under the statute, would 
 make the order. In re Bobn. Cuenook v. Boen 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 148 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 433 
 
 11. — Property recovered or preserved — Bank- 
 ruptcy — Jurisdiction — Discretion — Solicitors Act, 
 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. v. 127), ». 28— Bankruptcy 
 Rules, 1886, r. 125. 
 
 To bring a case within s. 28 of the Solicitors 
 Act, 1860, property must be recovered or j^re- 
 served in a proceeding in a court of justice. 
 
 The appellants were the solicitors to the 
 trustee of a bankrupt's estate. The bankrupt 
 had sold bis stock-in-trade, and gone with the 
 proceeds of the sale to Australia. He was 
 arrested there, and brought back to this country 
 on a charge of offences against the Debtors Ac h, 
 1869, preferred by order of a Court of bank- 
 ruptcy made under s. 16 of that Act upon the 
 application of the appellants on behalf of the 
 trustee. On the bankrupt's arrest a sum of 
 money, the proceeds of the before-mentioned 
 sale, was found upon him and taken possession 
 of by the Australian police. Under a power of 
 tittorney pr paired by the appellants, a* solicitois 
 to the trustee, this m>ney was handed ovtr by 
 the police and remitted to the Appellants in this 
 country : — 
 
 Held, that this money was not property re- 
 
 SOLICITOB (Charging Order) — cmtinued. 
 covered or preserved in the bankruptcy proceed- 
 ings, or any other legal proceeding within the 
 meaning of s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, and 
 therefore that an order could not be made 
 under that section charging the appellants' costs 
 upon it. 
 
 The power given by the section is discretion- 
 ary ; and, semhle, the cases in which it ought to 
 be exercised by a Court of bankruptcy must be 
 rare. In re Humphreys. Ex parte Llovd- 
 George & George C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B, 620 
 
 12. — Property recovered or preserved — Pro- 
 perty of persons not employing solicitor^Cliarge 
 for costs — Probate action — Practice — Solicitors 
 Act, 1860 (23 <fe 24 Vict. c. 127), s. 28. 
 
 A testator by his will, after bequeathing his 
 household furniture and effects to his wife, devised 
 and bequeathed the residue of his real and per- 
 sonal estate to his wife for life, and, after her 
 decease, to his two daughters, of whom one was 
 his legitimate daughter by a former wife and the 
 other was illegitimate, in equal shares. Probate 
 of the will being opposed by the testator's 
 daughters, the executor brought a probate action 
 against them to establish its validity, with the 
 result that probate of the will was decreed. The 
 bulk of the estate was realty : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitor who acted for the exe- 
 cutor was entitled under the Solicitors Act, 1860, 
 8. 28, to a charge for his costs in the action upon 
 the property devised and bequeathed by the will 
 as property preserved through his instrumen- 
 tality. M parU Tweed C. A. [1899] 2 Q. B. 167 
 
 13. — Property recovered or preserved — Costs of 
 appeal— Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. v. 127), 
 8.28. 
 
 Kekewich J. having refused an application 
 by a solicitor, under s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 
 1860, for a charging order in respect of his costs, 
 charges, and expenses upon property recovered 
 or preserved in an action through his instru- 
 mentality, the solicitor appealed : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitor was entitled to a 
 charge for his costs, &c,, properly incurred, and 
 that the charge must include the solicitor's costs 
 as between solicitor and client of his applicatidn 
 to the Court below and of the appeal. Wateb- 
 LAND V. Serlb C. A. [1897] W. N. 163 (9) 
 
 14. — "Property recovered or preserved" — 
 Priority over mortgage — Solicitors Act, 1 800 
 (23*24 Vict.v. 127), s. 28. 
 
 A. mortgaged his interest in certain property 
 to C. Subsequently he brought an action neces- 
 sary to maintain his title to the property, and 
 succeeded, the mortgagee not aiding him in any 
 way. A.'s solicitors now applied for a charging 
 order for their costs of the action as for " pro- 
 perty recovered or preserved." The Court made 
 the charging order, and gave it priority over the 
 mortgage. Scholey v. Peck 
 
 Eomer J. [1893] 1 Ch. 709 
 — " Property recovered or preserved " in bank- 
 ruptcy proceedinss — Jurisdiction — Lien. 
 See Cases under Bankeui'TCY — Charging 
 Order. 
 
 15. ■ — Property recovered — Bankrupt oy of judg- 
 ment debtor — Charging order on dividend. 
 
 Whorp a ijolicitor cmplnyp^ tg prosecute an 
 
( 2027 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2028 ) 
 
 SOLICITOB (Charging Order) — continued. 
 action for the recovery of a debt obtains judgment 
 on behalf of hia client, and the judgment debtor 
 becomes bankrupt, the Bankruptcy Court has no 
 jurisdiction to order the trustee of the bankrupt's 
 estate to pay to the solicitor, on account of his 
 costs incurred in recovering the judgment, the 
 amount payable to the judgment creditor by way 
 of dividend. In re Cook, ilx parte Ceipps 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 863 
 
 16. — " Property recovered " — Claim and 
 counter-claim. 
 
 Where a deft, pays money into court with a 
 denial of liability, and the pit. elects to continue 
 the action and does not take the money out : — 
 
 Meld, that the money paid into court is not 
 " property recovered or preserved " within s. 28 
 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, on which the solicitor's 
 lien for costs attaches : 
 
 Held, also, that claim and counter-claim must 
 be treated as one action for the purpose of deter- 
 mining the solicitor's right to a charging order 
 for his costs, and the sum " recovered " to the 
 balance due to the client on the two accounts. 
 Westacott v. Bevan Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 774 
 
 — Set-off of judgments — Lien. 
 
 See Costs — Set-off. 64. 
 
 Colonial Solicitors. 
 
 Colonial Attorneys Relief Act, 0. in C. extend- 
 ing to barhadoes. St. E. & 0. 1899, p. 1240, 
 No. 573. 
 
 Colonial Solicitors Act, 1900 (63 * 64 Vid. 
 c. li), provides for ilie admission of solicitws of 
 Gotirts of British possessions to the Supreme Courts 
 in tin: United Kingdom. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 — Adding plaintiff without authority — Liability. 
 
 See Pbactioe — Parties. 90. 
 
 17. — Agency — Common partner — Term fees — 
 B. S. C, 1883, Order Lxv. ; App. N, ''Close 
 copies." 
 
 Where a London firm of solicitors act as 
 agents for a country firm and there is a partner 
 common to both firms, it is the settled practice 
 not to allow agency fees on taxation. In such a 
 case, close copies and term fees cannot be allowed, 
 and as regards close copies the rule in Sohed. N 
 to Order lxv. of the E. S. C, 1883, does not give 
 the taxing master a discretion to allow them, for 
 the rule only applies in cases of agency. In re 
 
 BOEODGH COMMBECIAL AND BulLDING SOCIETY 
 
 (No. 2) - - C, A. 1894 1 Ch. 289 
 
 18. — Agreement — Sale of land hy — Purcliase 
 under Public Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. 
 e. 55), ss. 175, 176. 
 
 Where a purchase of land was made under 
 the Public Health Act, 1875 (wliich incorporates 
 the Lands Clauses Acis as to voluntary taking 
 of lands), and was entjely voluntary, and where 
 there was no notice to treat, and all costs were to 
 be paid by the purchasers : — 
 
 I-Ield, that rule U of Sched. I,, Pt. I., of the 
 General Order of 1882 applied, and that the 
 fecnle was exoludi'd. In re Bukdekin 
 
 C A. [1895] 2 Ch. 136 
 
 SOLICITOB (Coats)— continued. 
 
 19. — Agreement as to costs — Jurisdiction to set 
 aside — Business in police court and at quarter 
 sessions — Solicitor and client — Taxation — Attor- 
 neys and Solicitors Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. v. 28), 
 ss. 4, 8, 10, 15. 
 
 The jurisdiction under s. 8 of the Attorneys 
 and Solicitors Act, 1870, to set aside an agree- 
 ment between a solicitor and his client as to 
 costs relating to business done by the solicitor in 
 a police court or at quarter sessions is in the 
 High Court. 
 
 Neither a police court nor quarter sessions 
 is a " Court " within the meaning of s. 8. In re 
 Jones - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 222 
 
 20. — Agreement as to costs — Reasonableness of 
 amount payable under agreement — Solicitors Act, 
 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 28), ss. 8, 9. 
 
 An agreement fixing the amount to be paid 
 as costs must not only be fair (i.e., understood by 
 the client) but also reasonable, i.e., in amount, 
 having regard to the work done, or it may be set 
 aside under s. 9 of the Solicitors Act, 1870. In re 
 Stuart. Ex parte Cathoakt 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 201 
 
 21. — Agreement as to costs — Setting aside — 
 Procedure— Solicitors Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict, 
 c. 28), s. S— Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 
 66), s. 39. 
 
 An applicatiou under s. 8 of the Solicitors 
 Act, 1870, that an agreement as to costs may be 
 set aside, may be made at chambers upon a 
 summons. In re Howell Thomas 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 670 
 
 22. — Agreement as to costs — Signature, suji- 
 oiency of — Payment in account — Solicitors Act, 
 1813 (6 <fc 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 41 — Solicitors' Bemuner- 
 ation Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 44), s. 8, sub- 
 ss. 2, 4. 
 
 An agreement allowing a fixed sum for costs 
 is a good agreement under s. 8 of the Solicitors' 
 Remuneration Act, 1881, if it be signed by the 
 client only. To impeach such an agreement as 
 unfair or unreasonable it is not necessary to 
 bring an action to set it aside, nor to have 
 obtained a previous order for taxation, but on a 
 summons for taxation such an agreement may be 
 referred to the taxing master to certify whether 
 it be fair and reasonable. 
 
 Per North J., (1) a payment on settlement of 
 a genera) account is not such a payment of par- 
 ticular bills of costs as to avoid subsequent taxa- 
 tion ; (2) the written name of a solicitor in the 
 heading of an account made out by his clerk 
 does not amount to signature by the solicitor. 
 In re Frape. Ex parte Pereett (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 284 
 
 Distiugiushed by C. A. In re Baiilis, [1S961 
 2 Ch. 107. 
 
 23. — Agreement in writing — Signature— Pay- 
 ment — Taxation — Solicitors Jets, 1843 (6*7 Vict, 
 c. 73), s. 41 ; 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 28), s. 4. 
 
 B. obtained judgment in an action, the defts. 
 appealed. T., B.'s solicitor, settled the action on 
 the terms that defts. should pay 2101. damages, 
 and 1201. for costs. T. explained this to B. and 
 paid B. the 2101. B. then signed this document, 
 " Received from T. the sum of 2101. being the 
 
C 2029 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2030 ) 
 
 SOLICITOB {CoBtB)— continued. 
 amount of damages Tecfiived, &c. .... I hereby 
 agree to allow the sum paid by me on account of 
 costs as an equivalent to the abatement he has 
 made to the defts." This sum was 552. IBs. T. 
 delivered to B. a cash account crediting 330J., 
 and 551. 16s., and debiting 210J. and 1752. 16s. 
 agreed costs : — 
 
 Sdd, that this document was an agreement 
 in writing within s. 4 of the Attorneys and 
 Solicitors Act, 1870, and that the transaction 
 amounted to payment between solicitor and client 
 within 6 & 7 Vict. u. 73, s. 41. In re Thompson. 
 Ex parte Baxlis - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 
 
 Report of case corrected. In re Baylis, [1896] 
 2 Oh. 107, at p. 114. 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Jones, [1895] 
 2 Oh. 719. This case was affirmed bv 0. A., 
 [1896] 1 Oh. 222. 
 
 24. — " Attendance " — " Extraordinary case " 
 — Seducing fees — "Document" — Discretion of 
 taxing master. 
 
 Under Sched. II. of the Solicitors Remunera- 
 tion Act, 1881, the taxing master has discretion 
 in a case which is not an " ordinary " one, i.e., 
 which is more or less difficult than an average 
 case, to increase or diminish the fee for attend- 
 ance. The discretion must be exercised for 
 " special reasons," but the taxing master need not 
 state them till his decision is impeached. 
 
 Per North J., an attendance by a solicitor or 
 liis clerk for a merely formal purpose, such as 
 delivering briefs or papers at counsel's chambers, 
 is not an attendance within Sched. II., and^the 
 practice of the taxing master to allow only 3s. id. 
 is correct. 
 
 Per North J., a case for opinion of counsel is 
 
 a " document " within Sched. II. In re Mahon 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 507 
 
 — Bankruptcy — Circular notice to creditors — 
 Solicitor's and accountant's charges. 
 See Bankbuptoy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 30. 
 
 25. — Bankruptcy of client — Accountant's 
 charges for statement of affairs — Trustee's title. 
 
 On Aug. 15, 1892, a firm- sent out a circular 
 stating " circumstances have placed us in finan- 
 cial difficulties, which makes it desirable for us 
 to consult with our creditors." " We are having 
 our boo^s examined, and a statement prepared 
 by Messrs. F., chartered accountants, and as soon 
 as this is complete, we propose writing you to a 
 meeting of our creditors." On Sept. 7 the firm 
 admittedly committed an act of bankruptcy. On 
 Sept. 17 a receiving order was made against the 
 firm. Between Aug. 15 and Sept. 14, Messrs. F. 
 collected money for the bankrupts, out of which 
 they made payments to themselves for preparing 
 the statement and to the solicitors for costs : — 
 
 Held, that the circular of Aug. 15 was an act 
 of bankruptcy, and that if an allowance was 
 made to Messrs. F. and the solicitors, it must be 
 only for services wbich had clearly benefited the 
 creditors. In re Simonson. Ex parte Ball 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] 1 Q,. B. 433 
 
 26. — Baithuptcy of client— Client and as- 
 
 SOLICITOR (Costs)— confa'jMfei. , 
 
 signee, application by — Sjibmission to pay— Form 
 of ordier — CQsta— Taxation. 
 
 The usual submission in an order for taxation 
 of a solicitor's bill of costs to pay the solicitor 
 what shall appear to be due to him on the taxa- 
 tion, must be made by the person or all the 
 persons oh whose' application the order is made, 
 whether the application is by the client alone or 
 in conjunction with an assignee of all his interest 
 under the taxation ; the -assignee being bound, 
 as a condition of obtaining the order, to join in 
 the submission even though the client is a bank- 
 rupt. In re Battams Sc Hutchinson 
 
 Kekewioh J, [1897] 1 Ch, 699 
 
 27. — Bankruptcy of dient — Defence on crimi- 
 jwrf charge— Bight to retain for services rendered. 
 
 Solicitors orderisd to pay over to the trustee 
 in bankruptcy a sum handed to them before the 
 bankiTiptcy of the debtors for defending them on 
 a criminal charge. In re Bbvts and Okatg. Ex 
 parte Cooper V. Williams J. [1894] W. K. 66 
 
 28. — Bankruptcy of client — Defence on crimi- 
 nal charge — Jtight to retain for services rendered. 
 
 A solicitor, held to be entitled as against the 
 trustee to retain a sum whioli he had received 
 under an agreement to defend a person on a 
 criminal charge, the agreement and the receipt 
 of the money being before, but the services ren- 
 dered after, his knowledge of an act of bankruptcy 
 by that person. In re Chaklwood. Ex parte 
 Masters - - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 ft. B. 643 
 
 29. — Bankruptcy of client — Mutual dealings 
 — Claim to set-off debt for past services against 
 claim of trustee. 
 
 A client who owed money to his solicitor 
 deposited a sum of money with him to meet 
 future costs. Before this sum was spent the 
 client committed an act of bankruptcy, and was 
 afterwards made bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, that the trustee's title related back to 
 the act of bankruptcy, and he was entitled to all 
 the unspent deposit : that the unspent money 
 could not be set off against the client's debt, as 
 the money was deposited for « specific purpose ; 
 and that there had not been mutual credits 
 within s. 38 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, since 
 one sum was due by the solicitor to the trustee, 
 and the other was due to the solicitor from the 
 bankrupt. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ot., [1893] 1 Q. B. 175, 
 affirmed. In re Pollitt. Ex parte Minob 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B, 455 
 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. In re Charlwood, 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 643. 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. In re Daintrey, 
 C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B. 546, 562. 
 
 — Bankruptcy, Trustee in— Committee of inspec- 
 tion — Employment of solicitor — Costs — 
 Taxation. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Trustee in Bank- 
 ruptcy. 245. 
 80. — C<mimon order — Solicitor and client — ■ 
 Moneys received by solicitor for client — Counsel's 
 fees — Taxation. 
 
 The provision in the common order to tax a 
 solicitor's bill, that the solicitor "do give credit 
 for all sums of money by him received of or on 
 
(' 2031 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2032 )', 
 
 SOLICITOR (Costs) — continued. 
 account of " the client, includes and is confined 
 lo all moneys which the solicitor, in his character 
 of solicitor or agent of the client, has received, or 
 is legally or equitahly liahle to pay over to the 
 client, and against which (if sued for by tlie 
 client) the solicitor could set oif his costs when 
 taxed. 
 
 Consequently the solicitor is not bound to give 
 credit for moneys received by him and applicable 
 to the payment of fees due by him to the client 
 as counsel in matters not connected Tvith the bill 
 of costs. 
 
 Observations on the honorary character of 
 counsel's fees. In re Le Bbasseck and Oakley 
 C. A.. [1896] 2 Ch. 487 
 
 31. — Common order — Suppression of material 
 facts — Second order — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 <fc 7 
 
 nn. V. 73), 8. 37. 
 
 A client having obtained one common order (o 
 tax, which lapsed, afterwards obtained a second 
 order, without mentioning the first order, or the 
 fact that he was bringing an action against the 
 solicitor to recover moneys received by the soli- 
 citor for the client's use : — 
 
 Held, that the order was irregular. Order 
 
 varied instead of being set aside. In re Webster 
 
 North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 102 
 
 32. — Common order — Taxation — Summons — 
 I'etitimi of course — Special circumttaruies. 
 
 As regards the jurisdiction of the Court an 
 Older for taxation can be made on summons or 
 motion or petition. The question is what is the 
 fnirest way aa between the parties. F., a solicitor, 
 .ipplied by summons for taxation. The client 
 objected that it should have been by petition of 
 course; the solicitor offered to bear all extra costs 
 occasioned by the summons. The client denied 
 retainer as to some matters in the bill, and alleging 
 a counter-claim for negligence and mala fides : — ■ 
 The Court, on the solicitor undertaking not to 
 issue execution without leave of the Court, ordered 
 tlic taxation to proceed with liberty to tiie client 
 to question tlie retainer on any items. In re 
 Fenton Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 128 
 
 33. — Common order for delivery and taxation 
 of hill of costs — No costs claimed by solicitor — 
 Liability to render cash account — Solicitor and 
 client. 
 
 Under the common order for the delivery and 
 taxation of a solicitor's bill of costs, if the solici- 
 tor makes no claim for costs, and swears that he 
 has not retained any costs out of moneys of his 
 client in his hands, he is not liable to deliver a 
 cash account to his client. 
 
 Semhle, that under such circumstances the 
 solicitor would still be liable to account to tlie 
 client upon a proper application under the sum- 
 mary jurisdiction over solicitors. In re Landor 
 (A Solicitor) North J. [1899] W. N. 52 ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 818 
 
 34. — Common [order to tax — Abortive order 
 of course — Right to obtain second order of course. 
 
 A client obtained as of course an order to tax 
 two bills of costs. The taxing master Ibund tliut 
 one of these was not a bill of costs, and that ho 
 could not tax one bill on an order to tax two, 
 aiirl further, that the time for liim lo malio iiis 
 
 80LICIT0B (Costs) — continued. 
 certificate having elapsed without his having 
 enlarged it the order had become inoperative, 
 and that he had no jurisdiction to order the 
 client to pay the costs of the proceedings. The 
 client obtained a second order as of course to tax 
 the remaining bill without mentioning the first 
 order : — 
 
 Held, that the order had been irregularly 
 obtained, that a special application should have 
 been made in the second instance, which would 
 have been granted on terms of the client paying 
 tlie costs of the first order. To avoid expense 
 the taxing master was directed to proceed on tlio 
 existing order, and to tax the costs of the firet 
 order and of the motion, and lo bring these costs 
 into account. In re Tatloe, Sons, & Taebuck 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 603 
 
 35. — Common order to tax — Items barred by 
 Statute of Limitations — Submission to pay what is 
 " due " — Solicitor and client — Purchase of several 
 lots at one time — Separate title — Scale clmrge — 
 General order under Solicitors' Remuneration Act. 
 1881, Schtd. I., Fart I, Rule 8. 
 
 Statute-barred costs are, under the common 
 order to tax, subject to taxation, since the Statute 
 of Limitations does not bar the debt but only 
 the remedy; and such costs are recoverable from 
 the client by reason of his usual submission to 
 pay what shall appear to be " due " on the taxa- 
 tion. If the client desires to raise the questiou 
 whether certain items are statute-barred, lie 
 should do so by applying for a special order lo 
 tax. 
 
 A solicitor acted for the purchaser of several 
 small lots of land all purchased at the same time, 
 though not from the same vendor, at prices var\ - 
 ing from lOOi. to lOi. The lots were comprised 
 in one mortgage, but each had a separate and 
 distinct title, a separate abstract for each beirj; 
 delivered : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitor was entitled, un^hr 
 rule 8 in Sched. I., Part I., of the rules under 
 the Solicitors' Eemuneration Act, 1881, to the 
 minimum charge of 51. or 3t for each lot, and 
 was not restricted to one charge for the businc ss 
 as a whole. In re Maegetts 
 
 Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 263 
 — Company — ^Authority to defend action in 
 name of — Dissolution ]jendente lite. 
 See Principal and Agent. 27. 
 
 36. — Conducting sale. Scale fee for — Costs— 
 Taxation — General Order under Solicitors' Bemu- 
 neration Act, 1881, Sched. I., Fart 1., /. 11. 
 
 If the purchaser, in pui-suance of a condition 
 of sale, pays a fee to the auctioneer, the solicitor 
 is not entitled to the scale fee for conducting u 
 sale by auction. 
 
 If the solicitor himself pays the auctioneer, 
 the solicitor i.s entitled to the scale fee. Chol- 
 DiTOH V. .Tones - North J. [1895] W. N. 147 (5); 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 42 
 
 37. — Conducting sale by auction. 
 
 The vendor's solicitor will be allowed under 
 Sched. I. of the General Order of 1882 for con- 
 ducting a sale by auction only the scale fee on 
 the aggregate realized, even where the property 
 is sold in lots, thonn-h the lols he held undir 
 
(.- 2033 )' 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2034 > 
 
 SOLICITOR (Costs)— continued. 
 
 ilifferent titles and sold to different purchasers. 
 
 In re Onward Building Society (No. 2) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 16 
 Referred to by North J. Cholditcli v. Jmet, 
 [1896] 1 Oh. 42, 44. 
 
 38. — Conducting sale hy auction — Auctioneer's 
 commission. 
 
 Solicitors conducted all the business of a sale 
 by auction except taking the bids. As they had 
 not a licence, an auctioneer presided at the sale 
 ami took the biddings, for which he was paid a 
 fee of 21. per lot sold and 11. per lot unsold : — 
 
 Held, that this was a commission within 
 rule 11 of Sched. I., Part I., of the General Order 
 of 1882, and that the solicitors were not entitled 
 to charge the scale fee, but only a quantum 
 meruit. Dkielsma v. Manifold 
 
 C..A. [1894] 3 Ch. 100 
 
 39. — " Conveyance of property " — Grant of 
 new easement — Costs — Taxation — Scale fee — 
 Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881 (44 <{: 45 Vict, 
 c. 44), «. 2 — General Order under Ait, r. 2; 
 Sched. I., Part I. 
 
 A grant of a new easement is not a " convey- 
 ance of property" within the meaning of Sched. I., 
 Parti., to the General Order under the Solicitors' 
 Remuneration Act, 1881, and consequently the 
 scale fee prescribed by Part I. of that schedule 
 does not govern the remuneration of a solicitor 
 in relation to such a transaction. Sched. I., 
 Part I., applies to cases in which an exi&ting 
 property or right is transferred, not to cases in 
 whicl) a new right or easement is created for the 
 first time. 
 
 Decisions of Kay J. in In re Stewart, (1889) 
 41 Ch. D. 494, and of Ohitty J. in In re Earnsliaw- 
 Wull, [1894] 3 Oh. 156, approved. In re Sanders' 
 Settlement - - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 480 
 
 — Corporation — Negligence — ^Appeal — Solicitor 
 
 and client. 
 See Costs. 46. 
 
 — Costs — Taxation — Charges and expenses of 
 
 Liverpool solicitors' attendances in 
 
 London. 
 
 See Costs. 2. 
 
 40. — Country solicitors — Parliamentary pro- 
 ceedings — Costs — Taxation — Local solicitor — 
 London and country certificates — Practice. 
 
 A firm of solicitors had offices in Birmingham 
 and offices in London : some of the partners re- 
 sided in Birmingham and some in London : all 
 the partners took out London certificates. The 
 firm was employed by certain American promo- 
 ters of a CO., and afterwards by the co. 
 
 The taxing master in taxing the firm's bill of 
 costs against the co. taxed the bills in reference 
 to certain parliamentary proceedings upon the 
 footing that the firm were London solicitors, 
 whereas the firm contended that they ought to 
 have been allowed for journeys and suchlike 
 matters as though they were country solicitors, 
 and took out a summons to revitw taxation on 
 this ground. 
 
 Byrne J. said that he had consulted the tax- 
 ing master, who had communicated with the 
 taxing officer of the House of Lords, with the re- 
 salt that it appeared that the well-eslablished 
 
 SOLICITOB (Costs)— continued. 
 practice upon taxation of costs of Chancery pro- 
 ceedings, in accordance with which the taxing 
 master had acted, did not prevail in reference to 
 parliamentary proceedings, and consequently the 
 matter would go back for review upon the footing 
 that the parliamentary practice should be fol- 
 lowed. In re Milwabd & Co., Solioitohs 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 281 
 
 41. — Country solicitor and London agent — 
 London agent, Charges of — Solicitor and client — 
 Taxation of costs — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6*7 Vict. 
 0. 73), s. 37. 
 
 Where a country solicitor employs a London 
 agent he ought to incorporate in his bill of costs 
 the details of the charges of the London agent, 
 and until the details of such charges are stated, 
 either in the priginal or a supplemental bill, 
 there is no complete bill capable of taxation so 
 as to entitle the solicitor to rely upon its delivery 
 for twelve montt'S as a ground for refusing tnxa- 
 tiou. In re Pombboy & Tanner 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch 284 
 
 — Country solicitor, attendance of, at trial in 
 
 London — Salvage action. 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 232. 
 
 — County court — Taxation. 
 
 See Cases under County Cocrt — Costs. 
 
 42. — County court actions — Signature of par- 
 ticulars — Subscription by clerJe. 
 
 The provision of County Court Rules, 188t), 
 Order xxvii., j . 4, Sched. " Costs," requiring par- 
 ticulars and copies to be signed by the solicitor 
 in order that he may claim costs, is satisfied if 
 the particulars be signed by the solicitor's clerk. 
 Pbanoe v. Dutton Dir. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 208 
 
 43. — Debenture trust deed — Non-issue of 
 debentures — " Completed mortgage." 
 
 A trust or covering deed was executed by .i 
 limited co. to trustees in the usual form !■ r 
 securing debentures intended to be issued In 
 a certain amount; but the debentures were 
 never issued, and the deed therefore became 
 inoperative : — 
 
 Held, that the covering dted so executed wrs 
 not a completed mortgage within rule 2 (a) and 
 Part I. of Sched. I. to the General Order under 
 the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, and 
 therefore that the solicitor to the trustees was 
 not entitled to charge a scale fee for "preparing 
 and completing mortgage " under that rule. 
 
 Whether, if the deed had become operative by 
 the issue of the debentures, it would have been a 
 " mortgage " within the rule, qusere. 
 
 Whether a mortgage for future advances is a 
 completed mortgage within the rule, qusere. In 
 re BiBOHAM - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 766 
 
 44. — ■ " Deducing title " — Mortgage of lease- 
 holds. 
 
 Mere production of a deed is not deduction of 
 a title. 
 
 A solicitor acting for a mortgagor of lease- 
 holds who only produces the leases cannot be said 
 to "deduce" title under Sched. I., Part. I. of tlie 
 General Order of 1882, and is not entitled to the 
 scale fee. Wellby v. Still (No. 3) 
 
 K?kewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 641 
 
C 2035 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2036 ) 
 
 SOLICITOB (Costs)— continued. 
 
 46. — District registrar's powers. 
 
 A registrar of the District Registry of Liver- 
 pool or Manchester has no jurisdiction to make a 
 common order for taxation of a bill of costs on an 
 originating petition of course. In re Pobeett 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 433 
 
 See also Pbaotice — District Eegistry. 
 
 — Employment of — Liquidator — Costs. 
 
 See Company — WiNDUfG-up. 116. 
 
 46. — Enforcing payment — Mode of. 
 
 A common order to tax not containing any 
 direction for payment of the amount found due 
 fioni the client on taxation was obtained by a 
 solicitor : — 
 
 Held, that payment could not be enforced by 
 summons, but that an action must be brought. 
 In re Debenham & Walker 
 
 North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 430 
 
 47. Foreign documents — Translations — Ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 Charges for translations of foreign docimients 
 made in a solicitor's oflBce allowed in taxing 
 costs relating to administration. In re Bowes. 
 Earij op Stkathmoke v. Vane 
 
 Cciens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 117 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 251 
 
 48. — Hasty litigation — Personal order against 
 solicitor — Order Lxr., r. 11. 
 
 Where there was unreasonable haste in com- 
 mencing litigation against trustees who refused 
 information as to the investments of a trust fund, 
 un order was made under Order Lxv., r. 11, that 
 the solicitor should be disallowed his costs as 
 against his client. In re Daetnall. Sawyer v. 
 GoDDAED .. C. A. [1898] 1 Ch, 474 
 
 — House of Lords — Liability of pauper appellant 
 
 — Solicitor and client. 
 See Costs. 63. 
 
 — Improperly incurred — Payment by solicitor. 
 
 See Annuity. 11. 
 
 — Independent proceedings — Lien. 
 
 See Costs. 6i. 
 
 49. — Inquiry hefore Incorporated Law Society 
 — Costs of — Jurisdiction — Judge at ctiawbers — 
 Solieilors Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. e. 65), s. 13. 
 
 Where a solicitor has been exonerated from 
 charges brought against him on an inquiry before 
 the Committee of the Incorporated Law Society, 
 under s. 13 of the Solicitors Act, 1888, an appli- 
 cation by him for the costs of the inquiry must 
 be made to the Div. Ct., and not to a judge at 
 chambers. In re Davidson. Ex parte Davidson 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N, 68; [1899] 2 Q. B. 103 
 
 60. — Interest — Administration action — " Per- 
 son liable " — Practice — Taxation of costs — General 
 Order under Solicitws' Remuneration Act, 1881 
 (44 * 45 Vict. c. 44), r. 7. 
 
 The legal personal representative of a deceased 
 client is the proper person from whom to deiiiaud 
 payment of a bill of costs as the person liable, so 
 as to make the costs carry interest. 
 
 In the administration by the Court of an in- 
 solvent estate, a bill of costs "due from the deceased 
 
 SOLICITOB (Costs) — continued. 
 had been delivered, by diiection of the chief clerk, 
 to the solicitor of a creditor having the conduct 
 of the cause : — 
 
 Held, that there had been no demand for 
 payment on the person liable, and that the costs 
 did not carry interest. In re McMuedo. Pek- 
 piELD V. MoMuBDO - North J. [1897] 1 Ch. 119 
 
 81, — Investigation of title — New mortgage or 
 furtlier charge — Taxation of costs. 
 
 A tenant for life owed, inter alia, 192,OO0Z. to 
 an insurance co. By a private Act the trustees 
 were empowered to raise moneys to pay the 
 debts of the tenant for life. They borrowed 
 232,000i. of the co. The co. retained enough to 
 pay their debt, and handed the balance to the 
 trustees : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitors were entitled to 
 regard the transaation as a new mortgage of 
 232,0002. requiring a fresh investigation of title, 
 and not as a further charge, within rule 10 of 
 Sched. I., Part I., of the General Order of 1882, 
 of 40,000i. on an old mortgage, the title to which 
 had already been investigated, and were entitled 
 to the scale fee on a mortgage for 232,0002. 
 Eael of Atlbsfobd v. Eabl Poclett (No. 1) 
 
 C, A. [1891] 1 Ch. 248 
 
 — Land Transfer Acts. 
 
 See Land Teansfee Acts. 
 
 82. — iease — Agreement for lease — " Business 
 connected with lease." 
 
 The scale fee to be paid under Sched. I., 
 Part II., of the General Order of 1882 to a 
 lessor's solicitor for " preparing, settling, and 
 completing lease and counterpart," includes the 
 solicitor's remuneration in respect of negotiations 
 which lead up to, and the preparation of the 
 agreement which precedes, the lease, and the 
 solicitor cannot make a further charge for those 
 negotiations or for preparing the agreement. 
 Saveey v. Enfield Local Boaed 
 
 H. L. E. [1893] A. C, 218 
 
 Discussed by Chitty J. In re Horn and 
 Francis, [1896] 2 Ch. 797, 800. 
 
 63. — Lease — Lessor and lessee — Cost of lease 
 — Preliminary negotiation — Third party order to 
 tax. 
 
 Application to review a taxation of the 
 lessor's solicitor's bill of costs, which raised the 
 question of as to the extent of the liability of 
 the lessee for the costs of the lease, for the costs 
 of preliminary negotiations, and whether this 
 liability was in any way increased by reason of 
 the lessee having obtained a third party order for 
 taxation : — 
 
 Held, that it was necessary to consider what 
 was the position of a lessee at common law with 
 reference to the costs of a lease, and then how 
 far, if at all, that position was altered by reason 
 of a third party order to tax having been obtained, 
 and upon the first point, having considered the 
 authorities, the Court held that if the lessor in 
 this case had paid his solicitor's bill and then 
 sued the lessee, he could not have recovered any- 
 thing antecedent to the instructions for the lease, 
 and in particular could not have recovered the 
 fees paid to the mining engineer. With refer- 
 
( 2037 )■ 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2038 ) 
 
 SOLICITOR (Costa)— cmtinued. 
 ence to the Beoond point, the true view appeared 
 to be that the third party order did not alter the 
 nature or enlarge the scope of the liability upon 
 the existence of which the order was based : this 
 view was supported by In re Negus, [1895] 1 Oh. 
 73, the governing idea of which appeared to be 
 that even on a third party taxation the Oourt 
 was bound to look at the nature of the items, and 
 to consider whether, apart from the order, the 
 applicant was under any liability to pay them. 
 Although the solicitor might put in one bill as 
 against his own client a series of items, some of 
 which might go beyond the liabUily of the third 
 pajty, the third party did not, by obtaining an 
 order to tax, render himself liable to the whole 
 bill. Bill referred back to the taxing master to 
 revise his taxation in accordance with this inti- 
 mation from the Court. In re Geat 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 274 
 
 64. — Lease — Printed form. 
 
 Leases following a general printed form and 
 requiring in each case only to be filled in with 
 tlie names of the parties, the parcels, a plan, the 
 rent, and so forth, are not subject to the scale 
 charges in Part II. of Sched. I. of the General 
 Order of 1882. Wbllbt v. Still (No. 4) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 524 
 
 55. — Lease — Costs — Taxation — Solicitors' Re- 
 muneration Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 44) — 
 General Order thereunder, Sched. I., Part II., 
 Scale of Charges. 
 
 In the case of leases at a rack-rent to which 
 the scale of charges in Sched. I., Part II. of the 
 General Order under the Solicitors' Eemuneration 
 Act, 1881, is applicable, the solicitor of the lessor 
 is not entitled, where the annual rent exceeds 
 1002., to charge any percentage on fractional 
 amounts of 1001. in the rental. In re MoGaeel 
 (a Lonatic) - - C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 400 
 
 56. — Lease at rent and premium — Minimum 
 scale charge — Costs of taxation — General order 
 under Solicitors' Eemuneration Act, 1881, Sched. I., 
 PaH I., rr. 7, 8 ; Part II., t. 5. 
 
 A lease for ninety-nine years, determinable 
 on three lives, was granted at an annual rent of 
 12s. \d. and a premium or fiue of Vll. Is. 8d. : — 
 
 Held, that the lessor's solicitors weio entitled 
 to a fee of 51. in respect of the rent under Sched. I., 
 Port II. (second scale), to the General Order 
 under the Solicitors' Eemuneration Act, 1881, 
 and to an additional fee of 31. in respect of the 
 premium by virtue of rule 5 in Part II. and rule 8 
 in Part I. of Sched. I. 
 
 The lessor's solicitors wrote on Dec. 24 to the 
 lessee's solicitors that their charges in relation 
 to the lease amounted to 11. lis. On Jan. 1 the 
 lessee's solicitors wrote asking for particulars of 
 the charges. In reply the lessor's solicitors on 
 Jan. 2 sent a bill with detailed items, amounting 
 to lOi. lOs. 8d., adding at the foot, " Say 71. lis." 
 The lessee obtained an order to tax the bill, and 
 on the t.ixation the whole of the 71. lis. was 
 allowed : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of the taxing 
 master), that tlje bill was delivered on Dec. 24; 
 that the bill sent on Jan. 1 was merely explana- 
 tory ; and that, the bill not having been reduced 
 
 SOLICITOB (Costs)— continued. 
 on taxation, the solicitors were entitled to the 
 costs of the taxation. In re Hbllaed & Bbwes 
 North J, [1896] 2 Ch. 229 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In reWebb, [1897] 
 1 Oh. 144, 149. 
 
 57. — Lease in consideration of rent and pre- 
 mium — Fee for negotiating — Scale fee — General 
 order under Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 44), Sched. I., Part II., rule 5. 
 
 Where a lease is granted in consideration of a 
 fine or premium as well as of a rent, the lessor's 
 solicitor is not entitled to charge a further fee 
 for negotiating in addition to the scale fee in 
 respect of rent chargeable under Part II. of 
 Sched. I. to the Seneral Order under the Solici- 
 tors' Eemuneration Act, 1881, and the deducing 
 fee chargeable on the premium under rule 5 of 
 the rules to Part II., Sched. I. The negotiation 
 fee is included in the scale fee chargeable in 
 respect of rent. 
 
 In re Field, (1885) 29 Ch. D. 608, and In re 
 Rohson, (1890) 45 Ch. D. 71, discussed and 
 followed. In re Hoen & Fbancis 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 797 
 
 58. — "Lease" or agreement for lease — Tenancy 
 agreement for not more than three years — Counter- 
 part. 
 
 In the absence of a prior written agreement, 
 costs must be taxed according to scale where the 
 scale applies, notwithstanding that an item bill 
 has been delivered. The delivery of an item bill 
 does not preclude a solicitor from consenting to 
 have his bill taxed according to scale. An agree- 
 ment for three years under hand which operates 
 as a present demise is a "lease " within Sched. I., 
 Part II., of the General Order of 1882, and the 
 scale fee applies, although an item bill had been 
 previously delivered. The scale fee also applies 
 to a document on which the parties intend to 
 rely, without having a formal lease executed. 
 In estimating costs payable by the lessee to the 
 lessor's solicitor, the cost of the counterpart must 
 be deducted from the scale fee. In re Nbgus 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 — Lien for costs. 
 
 See Cases under Solioitob — Lien. 
 
 59. — Limitations, Statute of — Solicitor s Mil 
 of costs — Period of limitation — Cause of action. 
 Accrual of — Absence beyond seas — Limitation Act 
 1623 (21 Jac. 1, c. 16), s. 3—4 & 5 Ann^, v. 16, 
 s. 19— Solicitors Act, 1843 (6*7 Vict. c. 73), 
 s. 37. 
 
 In the case of a solicitor's costs the cause of 
 action arises when the work is completed, and 
 therefore the Statute of Limitations begins to 
 run from that time, and not from the expiration 
 of a month trom the delivery of the bill of costs. 
 COBCEN V. COLLBDGB C. A. [1897] 1 Q, B. 702 
 
 — Liquidator — Eemuneration — Liquidator's 
 
 solicitor — Costs — Priorities. 
 See Company — WiNDniG-Tip — Liqui- 
 dator. 123. 
 
 60. — Lots — Sale by auction in lots — Freehold 
 property held under one title — Separate purchasers 
 — Deducing title — Scale charge — " Transactions " 
 under 1001. — Minimum fee — Solicitors' Bemunera- 
 
( 2039 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2040 ) 
 
 SOIICITOB (^CoBts)— continued. 
 
 lion Act, 1881 (44 * 45 Vict. c. ii)— General 
 
 Order, Sched. I., Part I., rr. 1, 7, 8. 
 
 On a sale by auction in lota of property held 
 under one title, eacli sale of one or more lots to a 
 different purchaser forms a separate transaction 
 within the meaning of rule 8 of the rules annexed 
 to Sched. I., Part I., of the General Order under 
 the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881 ; so that 
 where the scale charge for deducing title on auy 
 of the lots sold to different purchasers does not 
 amount to 51., the solicitor is entitled to charge 
 the minimum fee prescribed by rule 8 in respect 
 of each separate sale. In re Thomas. Evans v. 
 Griitfiths Stirling J. [1900] W. N. 36 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 464 
 — Lunatic, Client alleged — Order obtained ex 
 
 parte — Suppression by solicitor. 
 
 See Solicitor — Misconduct. 117. 
 
 61. — Middlesex — Purchase of lands in — 
 Taxation — Scale fees — Registration — " Completion 
 of conveyance" — Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 
 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 44); General Order 
 tliereunder, rr. 2, 4, Sched. I., Part 1. 
 
 On a purchase of lands, the scale fee allowed 
 to the purchaser's solicitor by Sched. I., Part I., 
 to the General Order under the Solicitors' 
 Kemuneration Act, 1881, for "preparing and 
 completing conveyance," covers and includes his 
 costs (other than money out of pocket) in respect 
 of the registration of a memorial of the con- 
 veyance in cases where the land purchased is 
 situated within a register county. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. Grey v. 
 CuRTiOE - - C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 121 
 
 62. — Mortgage — Negotiating loan — Scale fee 
 — Conveyancing — Solicitors' Bemuneration Act, 
 1 881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 44) — General Order under 
 Act, Soiled. I. 
 
 The scale fee to " mortgagee's solicitor for 
 negotiating loan" provided for by Sched. I. to the 
 General Order under the Solicitors' Kemunera- 
 tion Act, 1881, is applicable to all cases of loaus 
 ou mortgage, and is not confined to loans upon 
 mortgage of freehold, copyliold, or leasehold pro- 
 perty exclusively. In re FcRBER. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 2 Ch. 538 
 
 Appejil dismissed on the ground that notice 
 of appeal was served too late. The Court refused 
 to extend the time for appealing. 
 
 C. A. [1898] W. N. 160 (13) 
 
 63. — Mortgage — Sale of property subject to 
 incumbrances — Sale by second mortgagee with 
 power of sale — Costs of vendor's solicitor — Taxa- 
 tion of costs — Solicitors' Bemuneration Act, 1881 
 (41 * 45 Vict. c. ii)— General Order, Sched. I, 
 r. 9. 
 
 Rule 9 of Sched. I. of the General Order to 
 the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, which 
 provides that " where a property is sold subject 
 to incumbrances, the amount of the incumbrances 
 is to be deemed a part of the purchase-money," 
 applies to the case of a sale by a second mort- 
 gagee under his power of sale. Fortesoub v. 
 Mercantile Bank of London 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 a. B. 236 
 
 64. — Negotiation fee. 
 
 A surveyor was employed ivs a general agent 
 
 SOLICITOB (Costs) — continued. 
 in developing a building estate, his remuneration 
 being a percentage on all sales, &o., effected 
 during his agency. The surveyor being ill, the 
 owner's solicitor conducted the negotiations for a 
 purchase, the suiTeyor assisting : — 
 
 Held, that as the surveyor had received a 
 commission in respect of his part in the negotia- 
 tions within rule 11 in Sched. L, Part L, of the 
 General Order of 1882, the solicitor was not 
 entitled to the scale fee for negotiation. In re 
 WiTHALL C. A [1891] 3 Ch. 8 
 
 65. — Negotiation fee — Sale under direction of 
 Court. 
 
 A solicitor negotiated a sale by private con- 
 tract, subject, as was necessary, to the sanction 
 of the Court. Before applying to the Court the 
 solicitor obtained sworn valuations from two 
 valuers. The Court sanctioned the arransement 
 without alteration. The solicitor claimed both 
 the " negotiating " scale fee and return of the 
 fees paid to valuers : — 
 
 Beld, that he had negotiated the sale within 
 rule 11 in Sched. L, Part I., of the Geneial Order 
 of 1882, and that the sworn valuations were not 
 part of thenegotiations,but necessary for obtaining 
 the approval of the Court to tiie sale, and that 
 he was entitled both to the scale fee and to return 
 of the fees paid to the valuers. In re Macgowan. 
 Macgowan v. Murray - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 105 
 
 Referred to bv C. A. Vrielsma v. Manifold, 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 100, "lOo. 
 
 — Non-payment of balance to client — Remedy. 
 See Solicitor — Misconduct. 112, 113. 
 
 66. — One of several bills. Taxation of — Order 
 of course. 
 
 A solicitor delivered to his clients seven bills 
 of costs, relating to seven different matters in 
 which he had acted for them, together with a 
 cash account which shewed that the seven billi- 
 amounted to 26U. 15s., and that the solicitor had 
 received IGOl. on account, leaving a balance of 
 101?. 15s. due to him. 'fhe clients then paid 
 him a further sum of 501. on account of the 
 balance, he giving a written undertaking "to 
 return to you any sum that may be found due 
 from me on taxation of my bills delivered.' 
 The next day the solicitor wrote to the cliiiits 
 that he accepted the 501. in full disoliarge of all 
 claims by him against them, and asked them lo 
 treat the 50Z. as the balance due on the casli 
 account, and not the 101!. 15s. 
 
 The clients were dissatisfied with one of the 
 bills, which was for 1722. 18s. Wd., and obtained 
 an order of course for the taxation of that bill 
 alone. After this the clients' new solicitor wrote 
 to the solicitor saying tliat all the other bOlswern 
 agreed to and paid, so that this was the only bill 
 outstanding. On a motion by the solicitor to 
 discharge the order for irregularity : — ■ 
 
 Held, by North J., that inasmuch as the 
 solicitor had admitted that nothing was due to 
 him, and lie could therefore have no lien on the 
 clients' documents, the only question being 
 whcti or he had been overpaid, the order was rot 
 irregular. 
 
 In re Byrch (1844) 8 Beav. 124; In re Lata 
 and Gould (IS-'ti) 8t Beav. 481 ; Be WareHQf^^ti) 
 
( 2041 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891— ]900> 
 
 ( 2042 ) 
 
 SOLICITOR (Costs)— contmued. 
 
 22 Ileav. 634 ; and Ee Yetts, (1864) 33 Beav. 412, 
 
 <listin;5uishcd. 
 
 An appeal from thia decision was dismissed. 
 //( re Wabd - - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 31 
 
 t7. — Payment, Taxation after — Special eir- 
 c.iimitances—Solicitora Act, 1843 (6 4 7 Vict, 
 c. 73), s. 41. 
 
 Solicitors kept a running account with a 
 client crediting him with moneys received and 
 debiting Mm with disbursements and costs for 
 professional business. No bills were delivered, 
 but the accounts were periodically balanced and 
 siKiiod by the client as settled and approved. 
 The last was in 1886. In 1890 the client sued 
 for an account and the solicitors then delivered a 
 bill of costs. There was no evidence of fraud or 
 pressure and no gross overcharge. At the trial 
 the client dropped his claim for an account, but 
 claimed as of right an order for taxation : — 
 
 Seld, that the payments made on account 
 were referable to the bill delivered, and that 
 there were no special circumstances entitling to 
 an order to tax. Hitchcock v. Stretton 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 343 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Baylis, [1896] 
 2 Ch. 107. 
 
 68. — Payment, Taxation after — Special cir- 
 cumstances — Holicitors Act, 1843 (6 <fc 7 Vict, 
 c. 73), s. 38. 
 
 There is no rigid rule as to what kind of 
 special ciicumstances will justify the taxation of 
 a solicitor's bill of costs after payment. The 
 matter in every case is in the discretion of the 
 judge; with this discretion the 0. A. will not 
 readily interfere. In re Cheesman 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 289 
 
 69. — Payment by giving negotiahle security — 
 Taxation. 
 
 If a client hands his solicitor a negotiable 
 security for the amount of the bill of costs and 
 the solicitor gives a receipt "in settlement," it 
 does not amount to payment, if the security be 
 dishonoured, unle.-s the solicitor proves that such 
 was the intention of the parties and that the 
 client was aware of the effect on his right to 
 taxutiou. In re Bomer & Haslaic 
 
 C. A, [1893] 2 Q. B. 286 
 
 70. — Plan, Charge for preparation of — Pur- 
 chase and suh-sale — Completing conveyance. 
 
 The purchasers' solicitor, in the case of a sale 
 of land and sub-sale of part being carried out by 
 means of two conveyances, and conveying directly 
 to tlie sub-purchasor, is entitled to the scale fee 
 for pni chase on the whole, and for sale on the 
 ])Mrt sub-sold. A charge for a copy of an existing 
 jiliui is covered by the scale fee. In re Bead 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 238 
 — Public Authorities Protection Act — Costs as 
 
 between solicitor and client. 
 
 See Costs. 
 
 71. — Bepayment of Costs — Seversal of judg- 
 ment. 
 
 A solicitor who has demanded and received 
 payment of costs payable to his client under an 
 order of Court, with knowledge that an appeal 
 against that order was pending, cannot on its 
 reversal be ordered person»lly to repay the costs 
 
 SOLICITOS (Costs)— contmuetJ. 
 so paid to him where there has been no mis- 
 conduct and no undertaking to repay. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [1896] 1 Q. B. 610, affirmed. 
 Hood Barrs r. CRossMA^f & Priohabd 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 172 
 
 72. — Retainer — Delivery of hill — Payment. 
 A client employed a solicitor to transact certain 
 
 contentious and non-contentious business, and 
 deposited with him a sum to cover the costs. 
 After the business was done and before a hill 
 was delivered, the solicitor and client veibally 
 agreed the costs at a lump sum, and they were 
 retained out of tlie deposited money. The client 
 became bankrupt, and his trustee applied for 
 delivery of a bill of costs. 
 
 Held, that the retainer by the solicitors of the 
 agreed sum out of moneys recovered did not 
 amount to payment of costs so as to preclude the 
 necessity for delivering a bill of costs. la re 
 West, King & Adams. Ex parte Clocgh 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 102 
 
 73. — Eetainer — Delivery of hill — Payment — 
 Solicitors Act, 1843 (6*7 Vict. c. 73), se. 37, 41 
 — Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881 (44 A- 45 Vict. 
 c. 44), 8. 8. 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of Chitty J., 
 that retainer by a solicitor of a sum for costs is 
 not payment of his bill within the meaning of 
 the Solicitors Act, 1843, and does not affect 
 the right to taxation, although the sums from 
 time to time retained for costs have been en- 
 tered in accounts settled and approved by the 
 clients : — 
 
 Held, further, that where a verbal agreement 
 had been made that the solicitor should be paid 
 for his costs in obtaining loans a certain percent- 
 age on the amounts borrowed, such expressions 
 as " costs as agreed," designating the sums 
 charged in the accounts for costs, which accounts 
 were settled and signed by the client, were refer- 
 able tothe verbal agreement, and could not, as in 
 In re Frape, [1893J 2 Cli. 284, be construed as 
 meaning " costs which are hereby agreed at the 
 amount of," and that there was, therefore, no 
 written agreement signed by the client entitling 
 the solicitor to those sums as his remuneration : — 
 
 Held, further, that the delivery of the bills of 
 costs imiler the order of the Court would not 
 make the retainer amount to payment within the 
 principle of Ex parte Hemming, (1856) 28 L. T. 
 rO.S.) 144 ; In re Thompson, [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 ; 
 63 L. J. (Q.B.), 187, and Hitchcock v. StretUm, 
 [1892] 2 Ch. 343. In re Baths 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 107 
 
 74. — Betainer — Bight of client to dispute — 
 Taxation. 
 
 Where a client obtained an order to tax ten 
 bills of costs without any reservation of a right to 
 question the retainer as to the whole of any one 
 bill :— 
 
 Held, that the client thereby admitted that 
 something was due on each bill, and could not 
 dispute the retainer as to the whole of any bill, 
 though he could do so as to particular items. 
 In re Frape. Ex parte Pbrrett (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1894] 2 Ch. 290 
 
 75. — Beiainers, Separate — Taxation. 
 Where there are a large number of separate 
 
( 2043 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2044 ) 
 
 SOLICITOB (Costs) — continued. 
 retainers to the same solicitor on an application 
 by some of the clients for taxation, an endeavour 
 should be made to secure a taxation at which all 
 parties are present, but if it is found impractic- 
 able to communicate with all the parties, the 
 summons should not be dismissed. For the 
 applicants are strictly entitled to taxation without 
 serving anybody except the solicitor. In re 
 Salaman C. a. [1894] 2 Ch. 201 
 
 — Reversal of judgment — ^Bepayment of costs. 
 See Costs. 35. 
 
 76. — Review — Appeal — Taxation. 
 
 A summons for a review of a solicitor's bill of 
 costs is a " matter of practice and procedure " 
 within B. 1, sub-s. 4, of the Judicature (Procedure) 
 Act, 1894, and an appeal from the judge in 
 chambers lies to C. A., and not to Div. Ct. In re 
 Oddy - C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 392 
 
 77. — 8al€ of adrowson in gross — Freehold 
 property. 
 
 An advowson in gross, although an incor- 
 poreal hereditament, is freehold property within 
 Sched. I., Part I., of the General Order under the 
 Solicitors' Eemuneration Act, 1881, and on a sale 
 the scale fee applies. In re Babnshaw-Wall 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 3 Ch. 156 
 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Sander's Setlle- 
 ment, [1896] 1 Cb. 480. 
 
 78. — • Salary — Solicitor employed at fixed 
 anmial salary — Taxation of costs — Solicitors Act, 
 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 28), ss. 4, 5. 
 
 A public body employed a solicitor as their 
 clerk at a fixed annual salary, for which (inter 
 alia) he was to prosecute and defend all legal 
 proceedings taken by or against them. Out of 
 pocket expenses were to be paid for by them. In 
 an action brought against them, judgment was 
 entered for them with costs, to be taxed as 
 between solicitor and client. On taxation the 
 registrar struck out all items, except out of pocket 
 expenses paid by the solicitor, on the ground that 
 all work done by him in the conduct of the action 
 was covered by his salary : — 
 
 Held, that the taxation was wrong and ought 
 to be reviewed. Hendekson v. Mebthtk Ttdwl 
 Ubban District Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 1 ft. B. 434 
 
 79. — Series of bills treated as one — Taxation. 
 
 Where a solicitor is retained to conduct litiga- 
 tion other than an ordinary action at common 
 law, such as a protracted arbitration which may 
 extend over a considerable time, and in which 
 breaks may occur of such a kind as to be equiva- 
 lent to the conclusion of a definite and distinct 
 part of the proceedings, the solicitor may send in 
 a bill of costs for business up to the occurrence of 
 such breaks and demand payment. Where in 
 such a litigation a series of bills are sent in it 
 is always a question of fact whether they are 
 separate bills or merely statements of account of 
 portions of one entire bill. In re Eomek & 
 Haslam - C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 286 
 
 — Set-ofi' — Costs — Solicitor's lien — Independent 
 
 proceedings. 
 .See Costs. 64. 
 
 — Shorthand notes — Patent action. 
 
 See Patent — ^Practice. 5, 6. 
 
 SOLICITOB. (Costs)— continued. 
 
 — Solicitor-mortgagee — Profit costs. _ _ 
 
 See Cases under Solicitob — Solicitor- 
 Mortgagee. 
 
 — Solicitor-trustee. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitob — Solicitor- 
 Trustee. 
 
 80. — Submission to pay — Exclusion of statute- 
 barred items — Taxation — Special order — Juris- 
 diction. 
 
 Application for taxation of respondent's bills 
 of costs, the applicants submitting to pay what 
 should appear to be due on taxation, not includ- 
 ing in such submission any charges or items 
 barred by the Statutes of Limitation : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had no right to make 
 the order. The solicitor was entitled to an un- 
 conditional submission to pay what should appear 
 to be due on taxation without any exception of 
 charges or items barred by the Statutes of Limi- 
 tation. In re Hughes - Eekewlch J. (in 
 Chambers) [1899] W. N. 125 
 
 81. — Trustees and cestui que trust — Taxation 
 at instance of cestui que trust — BiU paid by trustees 
 more tlum twelce months previously — Solidims 
 Act, 1843 (6*7 Via. e. 73), ss. 37-41. 
 
 Sect. 39 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, ought to 
 be read and construed, as a separate and paren- 
 thetical enactment, independently of s. 41 of that 
 Act ; and, accordingly, taxation upon the appli- 
 cation of a cestui que trust of a bill of costs paid 
 by the trustees'may be ordered under s. 39, not- 
 withstanding that the application is not made 
 within twelve calendar mouths after payment, as 
 provided for by s. 41. In re "Wellboene 
 Kekewioh J. [1900] W. N. 82 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 857 
 
 — Unauthorized use of plaintiff's name. 
 
 See Costs — Shorthand Notes. 70. 
 
 82. — Underlease — Costs — Taxation — Sale by 
 auction of leaseholds — Scale charge — General 
 Order under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 
 1881 (44 ,(■ 45 Vict. c. 44), Sched. I., Part I., r. 8 ; 
 Part II., r. 5. 
 
 Leasehold property held with other property 
 under one lease was sold by auction subject to a 
 condition that the purchaser should accept an 
 underlease for the whole of the unexpired term 
 less three days at an apportioned ground-rent. 
 The vendors' solicitors, by virtue of rule 5 of 
 Part II. of Sched. I. to the General Order under 
 the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, claimed 
 to be entitled to a scale charge in respect of the 
 price and to a further scale charge in respect of 
 the rent : — 
 
 Held, that the transaction though carried out 
 by an underlease was in fact a sale, and that the 
 solicitors were not entitled to a charge in respect 
 of the rent; but qusere, whether this was not 
 business not provided for by Sched. I., and there- 
 fore to be charged for according to the old system 
 as modified by Sched. II. In re Webb. Still 
 V. "Webb - - Stirling J. [1897] 1 Ch. 144 
 
 — Undischarged bankrupt — After-acquired pro- 
 perty — Solicitor's bill of costs — ^Assignee 
 for value — Notice by trustee — Priority. 
 See Bankkuptot — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 261. 
 
( 2045 ) 
 
 DIGEST or OASES,. 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2046 ) 
 
 SOLICITOB (Costs)— contimied. 
 
 83, — Withdrawal of first hill. 
 
 A solicitor cannot withdraw a bill which he 
 has delivered, and, on his being warned of an 
 intention to tax, substitute a bill which he thinks 
 he can maintain with a better chance of success, 
 and the first bill is the one which should be taxed. 
 
 Semble, that in such a case a special and not 
 a common order for taxation ought to be ob- 
 tained. In re Wood 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] W. N. 203 
 
 Discharge. 
 
 84. — Practice — Solicitor discliarging hirttself 
 — Motion hy client for delivery up of papers — Title 
 of notice of motion. 
 
 A shareholder in a co. employed a solicitor 
 to take proceedings for the rectification of the 
 register of shareholders by omitting his name 
 therefrom, and notice of motion for this purpose 
 was given by the solicitor under s. 35 of the 
 Companies Act, 1862. Before the motion had 
 been heard the shareholder gave a notice of 
 motion, entitled only in the matter of the com- 
 pany and in the matter of the Companies Acts, 
 that the solicitor might be ordered forthwith to 
 deliver up to the client, or his present solicitor, 
 all briefs, papers, &c., in or connected with the 
 matter which were in Ihe first solicitor's hands 
 as the applicant's solicitor, the present solicitor 
 giving the ordinary undertaking to prosecute the 
 matter on behalf of the applicant with all due 
 diligence, &o. It was alleged that the first 
 solicitor had discharged himself. On tlie hearing 
 of this motion the preliminary objection was 
 taken by the respondent that the notice of motion 
 ought to have been entitled "In the matter of 
 the first solicitor," naming him : — 
 
 Held, that it was not necessary to entitle the 
 nolice of motion in the matter of the solicitor. 
 
 On the evidence the Court held that the 
 solicitor had discharged himself, and an order 
 was made as asked. 
 
 Heslop V. Metcalfe, (1837) 3 M. & C. 183, and 
 
 IloUna V. Goldingham, (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 440, 
 
 were cited. In re EosE Maeib Gold Mining Co. 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 76 (5) 
 
 Fiduciary Belation, 
 
 85. — Benefit conferred hy client on solicitor or 
 his near relation—Ihity of solicitor — Independent 
 advice — Solicitor and client. 
 
 The pit. claimed to have a deed of 1891 set 
 aside by which she, in exercising with her hus- 
 band (since deceased) a joint power of appoint- 
 ment, had conferred a benefit on the son of a 
 solicitor who was acting for her husband in the 
 transaction, but who had not been retained by 
 her. The solicitor was also a trustee under a 
 deed of 1890 by which the power had been created. 
 He explained the effect of the deed of 1891 to the 
 pit., and also suggested that she should consult 
 an independent solicitor ; but he did not infoi-m 
 her that shia was under no obligation to execute 
 the deed, and that it was so adverse to her interest 
 that she ought not to execute it without having 
 independent advice, and she executed, the deed 
 without having that advice : — 
 
 Held (differing from Cozeng-Hardy J., [1899] 
 
 SOLICITOB (Fiduciary Belation)— eoniimMei. 
 2 Ch. 578, on a conclusion of fact), that a con- 
 fidential relation existed between the pit. and the 
 solicitor, and that therefore it was his duty not 
 only to explain the deed to her, but also to take 
 care that she did not execute it without having 
 independent advice as to her position and her 
 rights : 
 
 Held, therefore (reversing the decision of 
 Cozens-Hardy J.), that the pit. was not bound by 
 the deed of 1891, and that it must be set aside. 
 Barron «. Willis - C. A. [1900] W. N. 113 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 — BonS, fide sale to solicitor — Action to set aside 
 
 — Laches. 
 
 See Mortgage — Sale. 83. 
 
 — Voluntary settlement — Revocation — Undue 
 
 influence — ^Independent advice — Duty of 
 
 solicitor. 
 
 See Settlement. 34, 
 
 Liability. 
 
 86. — Attachment — Default in payment of 
 money in character of officer of Court— Costs — • 
 Debtors Act, 1869 (32 * 33 Vict. c. 62), ». 4, 
 eui-s. 4. 
 
 An order for the taxation of a solicitor's bill 
 directed that, in case it should appear that the 
 bill was overpaid, the solicitor should, within four 
 days after service of the order and of the taxing 
 master's certificate, repay to tlie client the 
 amount certified to be overpaid. The taxing 
 master found that the bill had been overpaid. 
 By a subsequent order it was directed^that the 
 solicitor should pay the taxed costs of the taxation 
 of the bill :— 
 
 Held, that the costs of the taxation, as well as 
 the amount found due from the solicitor upon 
 the taxation, were within the exception of sub-s. 4 
 of B. 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869, as being due 
 from him " in his character of an officer of the 
 Court," and that he could be attached for his 
 default in payment of both. In re A Solicitor 
 (No. 3) - - North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 66 
 
 87. — Attachment — Non-payment of money — 
 Time given by client — Waiver of right to enforce 
 attachment. 
 
 After a writ of attachment had been issued 
 at the instance of clients ^.gainst a solicitor, 
 for his non-payment of a sum of 781. which he 
 had been ordered to pay, the clients, at the 
 request of the solicitor, agreed to suspend pro- 
 ceedings upon the writ for fourteen days, upon 
 the solicitor paying 25?. on account. This was 
 done, but the solicitor did not make any further 
 payment within the extended time, and he was 
 arrested. Upon a motion by the solicitor for his 
 discharge from custody : — 
 
 Held, that, by giving time and accepting part 
 
 payment, the clients had not waived their right 
 
 to enforce the writ of attachment. In re Pbreday 
 
 North J, [1895] 2 Ch, 437 
 
 88. — Attachment — Practice — Order for pay- 
 ment of costs, action upon — Application to strike 
 off Boils— Order XLII., r. 24. 
 
 An action will lie upon an order of the Court 
 by which a solicitor is ordered to pay the costs of 
 an application to strike him off the rolls, notwith- 
 
( 2017 ) 
 
 MGESl' Of OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 20i8 ) 
 
 SOLICITOE (Liability)— coBimuecJ. 
 standing the fact that an unsuccessful application 
 <o attach him for disobedience to llie order has 
 been made by the person to whom he was ordered 
 t(j pay the costs. Godfrey v. Geokge 
 
 C. A. [1895] W. N. 152 (6); [1896] 1 Q. B. 48 
 
 Referred to hy C. A. Pritchett v. English and 
 Colonial Syndicate, [1899] 2 Q. B. 428, 434. 
 
 89. — Company — Authority to defend action 
 in name of company — Bei'ocaiion of authority — 
 Notice of revocation — Payment hy solicitor of 
 plaintiffs costs of abortive action — Dissolution 
 pendente lite — Judgment against dissolved company 
 — Jurisdiction — Principal and agent — Warrant of 
 authority. 
 
 A solicitor had originally authority to defend 
 an action in the name of a co., but his authority 
 was revoked by the dissolution of the co. shortly 
 before the trial. The trial of the action was de- 
 layed owing partly to the state of the business 
 of the Court and partly to the pleadings being 
 amended. The action was tried on the assump- 
 tion that the co. was in existence, and judgmeut 
 was given for the pit. Neither the solicitor nor 
 the pit. knew till after the trial that the co. had 
 been dissolved ; but on the day of the trial the 
 solicitor was informed that the co. had held its 
 final meeting, and he took no steps to ascertain 
 whether or not it had been dissolved. Upon 
 motion by the pit. that the solicitor might be 
 ordered to pay his costs of the action as from the 
 date of the dissolution of the co. : 
 
 Held, (1.) that the judgment was not valid 
 against the co. ; (2.) that the solicitor having ori- 
 ginally authority to represent the co. was not 
 liable for acting on that authority after it had 
 been revoked by the dissolution of the co. until 
 he knew or, by the exercise of due diligence, 
 might have known of the dissolution ; (3.) that 
 on the day of the trial the solicitor did not use 
 flue diligence in ascertaining whether or not the 
 CO. had been dissolved, and that he ought to pny 
 the plt.'s costs of the action after that date as 
 between solicitor and client. 
 
 The reasoning of Wliiteley Exerciser, Ld. v. 
 Gamage, [1898] 2 Ch. 405, which proceeded on 
 principle " Actus curiae nemini facit injuriam," 
 does not apply to a case where the delay in the 
 trial of the action is partly attributable to the 
 conduct of the parties. 
 
 .The principle of Smout v. Ilhery (1842) 10 
 
 li W. 1, applies to a solicitor representing a 
 
 la 
 
 in an action, and it applies to a revocation 
 
 t hority by the dissolution of a co. as well as 
 i._i death of an individual, Salton v. New 
 )s Cycle Co. - Stirling J. 
 
 [1899] W. N. 213 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 43 
 
 par 
 a bi 
 
 such-uiHi 
 such a 1 
 i>-^s alwi 
 
 — Dormm 
 
 - Under- 
 
 Unstamped documents 
 by solicitor to stamp. 
 MPANY. 200. 
 
 of action — Partnership, retainer In/ 
 rtners — Liability — Costs incurred 
 after dissolution of partnership — Partnership Act, 
 ]890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), s. 17, suh-s. 2; s. 36, 
 suh-s. S. 
 
 The active partner in a firm consisting of 
 himself and two dormant partners retained a 
 solicitor to conduct an action for the recovery of 
 
 80LICII0B (Liability)— continued, 
 a debt due to the firm. "While the action was 
 pending, the partnership was dissolved, and the 
 dormant partners retired from the business. No 
 notice of the dissolution was given to the solicitor, 
 who did not know of the existence of the dormant 
 partners, nor did the dormant partners do any- 
 thing by way of withdrawing the retainer : — 
 
 Held, that the dormant partners were liable 
 to the solicitor in respect of costs in the action 
 incurred subsequently to the dissolution of part- 
 nership. CoDKT V. Bbblin 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 a. B. 396 
 
 — Indemnify co-trustee, Liability to — Breach of 
 
 trust. 
 
 See Tkusteb— Breach of Trust. 32, 38, 
 39. 
 
 — Investment — Contributory mortgage — Breach 
 
 of trust. 
 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 39. 
 
 91. — Omission to give notice — Absence of 
 material witness. 
 
 Where solicitors omit to give notice that the 
 deft, who was a material witness, and who had 
 for some time been seriously ill, would not be able 
 to attend, held, that they could l)e ordered per- 
 sonally to pay the cobts of the day either under 
 Order Lxv., r. 11, or under the general jurisdic- 
 tion of the Court over solicitors. Shortek r. 
 Tod-Heatlt Kekewioh J. [1894] W. N. 21 
 
 — Partners, For acts of. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor — Partnership. 
 
 -^ Replacement — Fund in court — ^Payment out to 
 wrong person. 
 See Principal and Agent. 13, 14. 
 
 92. — Statute-barred debt. Payment of. 
 
 In an administration action a claim against 
 the estate was adjudged to be stat.ute-barreil. 
 Subsequently an executor, without the consent of 
 his co-executor, paid it on the advice and through 
 the hands of a solicitor : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitor was liable to repay tlie 
 amount to the estate. Midgley v. Midgley 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 282 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. Biidgelt v. Biul- 
 gett, [1895] 1 Oil. 202, 215. 
 
 93. — Suppression of material facts — Ex parte 
 injunction. 
 
 A solicitor obtained an ex parte injunction 
 giving the usual undertaking in damages. Tlie 
 undertaking was valueless, there being a recei v- 
 ing order against the client at the instance of tin- 
 solicitor himself, but the Court was not informed 
 of the fact : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitor had committed ;t 
 serious error of judgment for which he was per- 
 sonally liable botli in damages and costs. Schmit- 
 TEN V. Faulks - CMtty J. [1893] W. N. 64 
 
 94. . — Trustee — Solicitor not mi record. 
 
 A solicitor tmsteo introduced some trust busi- 
 ness to a London firm on the terms that he should 
 receive a commission. The London firm acted as 
 solicitors for the trust in certain actions, and 
 paid the solicitor trustee his commission on the 
 profit costs : — 
 
 Held, that as the solicitor trustee was not the 
 solicitor on the record, this commission was profit 
 
( 2040 ) 
 
 DIOEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2050 ) 
 
 SOIICITOR (.1ia.})ility)— continued. 
 made directly or indirectly through his office of 
 trustee for which he was accountable to the trust 
 . estate. Vipont v. Bctler 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 64 
 
 95. — Trustee de son tort— Mortgage — Insuffi- 
 cient security. 
 
 Trust money was advanced on security of a 
 mortgage which turned out to be insufficient, and 
 the same solicitor acted for both parties, the facts 
 of his having been employed to carry out the 
 transaction, and of the money having passed 
 through his bank : — 
 
 Bdd, not to make him liable for the insuffi- 
 ciency of the security. Bkiksden v. Williams 
 North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 185 
 
 96. — Undertaking — Enforcement — Terms of 
 stay of execution. 
 
 Where an order is made for stay of execution 
 pendiug appeal, the applicant to pay the taxed 
 costs of the successful party to his solicitor on his 
 personal undertaking to repay them should the 
 appeal be successful, the undertaking may be 
 enforced by the Court in a summary manner, 
 although the Court to which the appeal was 
 had stayed execution pending a further appeal. 
 SwTNT V. Habland - C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B, 707 
 
 Lien. 
 
 97. — Administration action — Documents in 
 solicitor's possession before action — Third parties 
 — Sight to production. 
 
 A solicitor having a lien on documents in his 
 possession belonging to his client, party to an 
 action, may not embarrass proceedings taken in 
 the action by a third party by refusing to pro- 
 duce the documents if wanted by that third party 
 for the purpose of his proceedings, even though 
 the documents may have come into the solicitor's 
 possession before the oommencementof the action. 
 
 At the time of the death of a testator his 
 solicitor, C, had in his possession certain docu- 
 ments belonging to the deceased and on which 
 he, 0., had the ordinary solicitor's lien. Subse- 
 quently the executors of the deceased employed 
 0. to institute an action for the administration of 
 the estate, and the usual administration judg- 
 ment was pronounced. The action after judgment 
 not being prosecuted with due diligence, conduct 
 of the proceedings was, by order, given to a. 
 creditor, the estate being insolvent. The execu- 
 tors however remained parties and C. continued 
 to act for them : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding his lien, C. was 
 bound to produce to the creditor the documents 
 in his, C.'s, possession, to enable the creditor to 
 take steps for getting in a mortgage debt due to 
 the estate. 
 
 The principles and extent of a solicitor's lien 
 discussed. In re Hawkbs. Ackeeman v. Look- 
 HAKT - - C. A. [1898] 2 C!h. 1 
 
 98. — Change of solicitors — Partition action. 
 On change of solicitors in a partition action, 
 
 the Court followed the rule applicable to admin- 
 istration actions, and ordered transfer to the new 
 solicitors of all documents come to the old solici- 
 tors' hands since the commencement, and for the 
 purposes of the action the transfer to be subject 
 
 SOLICITOE (Lien)— continued. 
 to the lien of any of the old solicitors. Bodbn v. 
 Hensby - - North J. [1892] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 Commented upon by C. A. In re Hawlces, 
 [1898] 2 Ch.], U. 
 
 — Charging order. 
 
 See Cases under Solioitob — Charging- 
 Order. 
 
 99. — • Compromise — Action — Infants — Judg- 
 ment — Lien. 
 
 At the hearing of the appeal in this case the 
 solicitor withdrew his claim to a charijing order 
 under the Solicitors Act, and relied only on his- 
 common law lien upon the interests of his clients, 
 the infant pits., in the trust funds. The question 
 thus raised \\ as whether a solicitor in assenting 
 to a judgment compromise on behalf of infanta 
 thereby lost his right to the ordinary lien he 
 would have had for his costs if the parties to the- 
 compromise had been sui juris : — 
 
 Held, that there was nothing in the judgment 
 to deprive the solicitor of his ordinary common 
 law lien for costs. The result of the compromise 
 being sanctioned by the Court on behalf of the- 
 infants was to place them in the same position,, 
 as regarded their solicitor's lien for his costs, as. 
 if the compromise had been entered into by 
 persons who were sui juris. It was unnecessary 
 to insert in the judgment any express reservation! 
 to the solicitor of ttie lien to which he was by law 
 entitled ; he could not be deprived of that lien 
 without his express consent. There must be a, 
 declaration that the solicitor had a lien upon the 
 shares and interests of the pits, in the trust 
 funds. The solicitor's costs on appeal and below 
 would be added to his lien. Appeal allowed. 
 In re Wbight's Settlesient. Wbight v. San- 
 derson. 7« re Sandekson's Settlement. Wbight" 
 V. Sanderson - C. A, [1900] W. N. 261 
 
 100. — Compromise by party without Imowledge- 
 of solicitor — Costs — Taxation — Practice — Affida- 
 vits — Applicant reading respondents affidavits 
 before his own. 
 
 Parties to litigation are at liberty to com- 
 promise without the intervention of their solici- 
 tors, provided they do so honestly and without 
 any intention to cheat the solicitors of their- 
 
 P. having retained M. as his solicitor for the- 
 taxation of his bill of costs delivered by J., P.'s 
 former solicitor, obtained the common order for- 
 taxation. Before the taxation was completed, J.,. 
 withovit M.'s knowledge, and with the intention 
 of stopping the taxation and so defeating M.'s 
 lien for his costs, paid P., who was in distressedi 
 circumstances, a small sum in settlement of the- 
 taxation, which consequently dropped : — 
 
 Held, that M. was entitled to an order against. 
 J. for taxation and payment of the costs incurred 
 by P. to him, M., up to the time when the taxa- 
 tion against J. dropped. 
 
 Price V. Crouch, (1891) 60 L. J. (Q.B.) 767' 
 followed. 
 
 An applicant is at liberty to read the respon- 
 dent's affidavits notwithstanding the objection, 
 that on his own affidavits no case is made requir- 
 ing an answer. In re Maegetson and Jones 
 
 Kekewioh J, [1897] 2 Ch. 314 
 3 U 
 
( 2051 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2052 ) 
 
 SOLICITOR (Lien) — continued. 
 
 101. — Delicery of papers pending taxation, 
 Order for — Right of solicitor to undertaking hy 
 client to return — Costs — Taxation. 
 
 Where a client had obtained a common order 
 to tax Mb solicitor's bill, and, having tendered the 
 full amount, claimed delivery of his papers free 
 from the solicitor's lien : — 
 
 Eeld, that the solicitor was entitled to an 
 undertaking by the client to return the papers in 
 the event of a further sum being found due upon 
 taxation and remaining unpaid. In re Hanbcht, 
 Whittins & Nicholson 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] W. N. 172 (10) 
 
 102. — Extent of lien — Waiver — Talcing 
 security. 
 
 A solicitor's lien only extends to disburse- 
 ments such as taxable costs, charges, and expenses 
 which the taxing master can moderate, but does 
 not include ordinary advances on account of 
 income which the solicitor is receiving for the 
 client. The question whether a solicitor waives 
 his lien by taking a security depends on the 
 intention of the parties to be gathered from the 
 circumstances of the case. But prima facie 
 where a solicitor takes from his client security 
 for costs without explaining that he intended to 
 reserve his lien the lieu is waived. 
 
 (a) In re Taylor, Stileman & TJnderwood 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 590 
 
 (b) Bissill v. Bkadfokd and District Tram- 
 ways Company (No. 2) C. A. [1893] W. N. 44 
 
 (o) Gkoom v. Chebsewright 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 730 
 
 (d) In re Douglas Norman & Co. 
 
 North J. [1898] 1 Ch. 199 
 
 103. — Marriage settlement — Costs — Trustee. 
 A marriage settlement was prepared by the 
 
 husband's solicitors, a member of whose firm was 
 cue of the trustees. The settlement was kept at 
 the solicitor's ofSce. The husband became bank- 
 rupt, being indebted to the solicitors for costs, 
 stamps, &c., incurred in relation to the settle- 
 ment : — 
 
 Beld, that the solicitors could not claim a lien 
 on the deed of settlement. In re Lawranoe. 
 BowKER V. Austin Kekewich J. [1894] 1 Ch. 666 
 
 104. — Partnership. 
 
 A farm was conveyed to C, a member of a 
 firm of solicitors, as trustee for G. The convey- 
 ance did not disclose the trust. 0. retired from 
 the firm in 1883, but retained the deed and other 
 documents of G. in his possession. C. gave the 
 other documents to a mortgagee of 6. G. died, 
 and C. claimed a sum for costs. 1001. was allowed, 
 the rest was held to be statute-barred. C. claimed 
 a lien on the deed for the balance. The costs in 
 respect of the purchase of the farm were included 
 in the 1001. C. had received : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent had no lien on G.'s 
 deeds in his possession in respect of work done by 
 him as a member of his late firm. In re Gough. 
 Lloyd v. Gough North J. [1894] W. N. 76 
 
 — Patent — Costs^Taking out letters patent. 
 
 Si'e Bankruptcy — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 257. 
 
 SOLICITOB (Lien) — continued. 
 
 105. — Priority as between successive solicitors 
 Solicitors Act. 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127), s. 28. 
 
 The principle that the solicitor last employed 
 in an action is entitled to a chage for costs under 
 s. 28 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, in priority to his 
 predecessor, is unaffected by North v. Stewart 
 (15 App. Cas. 452). 
 
 Semble, where a receiver of rents has been 
 appointeJ in an action and a new receiver is 
 afterwards appointed in his place, the solicitor 
 by whom such last-mentioned appointment was 
 obtained is entitled to priority of lien against 
 any rents subsequently received. In re Knisht. 
 Knight v. Gardner 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 2 Ch. 368 
 
 106. — Priority over debentures. 
 
 A solicitor's lieu prevails over the rights of 
 debenture-holders and their receiver, so long as 
 the debentures continue to be a " floating security " 
 even where the debentures stipulate that the co. 
 should not be at liberty to create any mortgage 
 or charge in priority to the debentures, for such 
 lien is not a charge or not a charge created by 
 the CO. but by the general law. Brunton v. 
 Electrical Engineering Corporation 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 1 Ch. 434 
 
 Referred to by Eomer J. Edbson v. Smith, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 118, 126. 
 
 — Production of documents — Solicitor's lien. 
 
 See Discovery. 41. 
 
 — Set-off — Solicitor's lien — Independent pro- 
 
 ceedings. 
 
 See Costs— Set-off. 64. 
 
 — Solicitor's lien for costs^Taking out letters 
 
 patent. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — ^Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 257. 
 
 107. — Title-deeds held for mortgagee. 
 
 Where the mortgagor has paid to the mort- 
 gagee all that is due to him for principal, interest 
 and costs, and the mortgagee has given the mort- 
 gagor a release, the mortgagee's solicitor has no 
 right to retain the deeds as against the mortgagor 
 under his lien, for costs for work done relating to 
 the mortgaged property during the mortgage. 
 In re Llewellin - Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 145 
 
 108. — Waiver — Lien for costs — Security given 
 by client. 
 
 A client, on retaining a solicitor to negotiate 
 for her a loan, upon the security of a reversionary 
 interest to which she was entitled, signed a docu- 
 ment by which she charged that interest with 
 the payment of the solicitor's costs : — 
 
 Held, on the authority of In re Taylor Stile- 
 man, and Underwood, [1891] 1 Ch. 590, that by 
 taking this security the solicitor had waived his 
 right to a lieu in respect of his costs upon the 
 documents belonging to the client which were in 
 his possession. In re Douglas Nobman & Co. 
 
 North J. [1898] I Ch. 199 
 
 — Waiver of lien. 
 
 See No. 102, above. 
 
 Striking off 
 
 FROM PBAOTIOE.] 
 
 misconduct. 
 
 the Bolij and Suspension 
 Power to restore solicitor who 
 
( 2053 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 2054 ) 
 
 SOLICITOB (Misconduct)— confmttei. 
 ^as been struclc off the roll or suspended from 
 practice. See Solicitors Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. 
 «. 4). 
 
 Motions and other applications — New rule as 
 to application to strike name of solicitor off the 
 roll. W. N. 1899 (Aug. 12), p. 255. See Current 
 Index, 1899, p. czzviii. 
 
 109. — Borrowing from client loithout indepen- 
 dent advice. 
 
 The committee of the Incorporated Law 
 Society reported a solicitor to have been guilty 
 of professional misconduct in having borrowed 
 large sums of money from a client, who had just 
 come of age : — 
 
 Held, that it was a case for the exercise of 
 the disciplinary powers of the Court. In re A 
 SoLiciTOE. ExparteIscos.FOB.A.TKD Law Society 
 (No. 4) - Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q, B. 254 
 
 110. — Certificate — Suspension from practice — 
 Segistrar of solicitors — Application for certificate 
 — Discretion of registrar to refuse — Solicitors Act, 
 1843 (6 <fe 7 Vict. c. 73), ss. 21, 23, 24. 
 
 Application under s. 24 of the Solicitors Act, 
 1843, for an order directing the Incorporated Law 
 Society as registrar of solicitors to grant a certi- 
 Scate to the applicant authorizing him to practise 
 as a solicitor. On Aug. 3, 1896, the applicant 
 was suspended from practice for two years as from 
 Nov. 3, 1896. After his suspension he became 
 bankrupt, and when he applied for a certi- 
 ficate he was still undischarged. After the period 
 •of suspension had expired, he applied to the 
 Incorporated Law Society for a certificate, which 
 was refused on the ground of his position as an 
 undischarged bankrupt : — 
 
 JSeld, that the Incorporated Law Society was 
 not bound to grant a certificate, but had a dis- 
 cretion to refuse ; and that, as they had refused 
 on the ground that the applicant was an undis- 
 charged bankrupt, the Court ought not to make 
 the order applied for under s. 24 of the Solicitors 
 Act, 1843, which authorizes the Court " to make 
 •such order in the matter as shall be just." In re 
 ■SoLiciTOBS Act, 1843 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 46 
 
 111. — Colonial Court, Order of — Application 
 to strike off the rolls — Jurisdiction. 
 
 On the hearing of an application to strike the 
 name of a solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors of 
 •the Supreme Court, it was proved that an order 
 had been made by the Supreme Court of a colony 
 -to strike the name of the solicitor off the roll of 
 solicitors of that Court for misconduct, but no 
 ■direct evidence of the facts constituting the 
 alleged misconduct was produced before the 
 Div. Ct. :— 
 
 Beld, that in the absence of legal evidence of 
 the alleged misconduct, the Court could not act 
 -on the order of the Colonial Court alone, and the 
 application must be refused. In re A Somcitob. 
 Jlx pwrte Inooepobatbd Law Society 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 a. B. 331 
 
 Costs of solicitor not found guilty of profes- 
 sional misconduct. New ride. R. S. C, Order Ln., 
 r. 24. W. N. 1899 (Aug. 12), p. 255. See Current 
 Judex, 1899, p. cxzviii. 
 
 113. — Default in payment of money — Attach- 
 
 S OLICITOB (VHsconiuet)— continued. 
 ment—DeUors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 7ict. c. 62), s. 4, 
 suh-f. i—Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), ss. 9, 10. 
 
 Notwithstanding s. 9 of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1883, a writ of attachment will issue against a 
 solicitor for default in payment of a sum of 
 money, although the solicitor has become bank- 
 rupt since the date of the order for payment. 
 In re Edye (a Solioitob) 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 1 
 
 113. — Default in payment of money — Sum- 
 mary order. 
 
 Where a solicitor has committed a breach of 
 professional duty in failing to pay over money 
 received by him for his client, the Court has 
 disciplinary jurisdiction to make an order for 
 summary payment notwithstanding that the client 
 has already brought an action for the money and 
 recovered judgment. In re H. A. G-eet 
 
 C. A. varying Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 440 
 
 114. — Inquiry — Incorporated Law Society — 
 Discretion. 
 
 Where the Incorporated Society on a com- 
 plaint against a solicitor under s. 13 of the 
 Solicitors Act, 1888, holds that there is no ease 
 for him to answer, the Court has discretion not to 
 compel the society to proceed further, (1) as the 
 society has a discretion; (2) as the complainant 
 has an alternative remedy directly before the 
 Court. Beq. v. Inooepoeated Law Society 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 Q. B. 456 
 
 See also same Case, 0. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 372. 
 
 116. — Inquiry — Incorporated Law Society — 
 IUxoneration — Costs — Solicitors Act, 1888 (51 <fe 52 
 Vict. c. 65), s. 13. 
 
 On an application against a solicitor under 
 s. 13 of the Solicitors Act, 1888, founded on 
 charges of misconduct, the Incorporated Law 
 Society, after hearing the case, made a report 
 exonerating the solicitor : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to order 
 the applicant against the solicitor to pay his costs 
 of the inquiry before the statutory committee. 
 In re Lilley - C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 7S9 
 
 116. — Jurisdiction of committee of Incorpo- 
 rated Law Society — Affidavit disclosing no prima 
 facie case — Bight of committee to decline to take 
 fwrfher proceedings — Solicitors Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 
 Vict. c. 65), ss. 13 and 19. 
 
 Upon an application made under s. 13 of the 
 Solicitors Act, 1888, to the Incorporated Law 
 Society, requiring them to call upon a solicitor 
 to answer allegations of misconduct made in the 
 applicant's affidavit, the committee have a discre- 
 tion not to proceed further in the matter of the 
 application, if they come to the conclusion that 
 the affidavit discloses no case which the solicitor 
 ought to be called upon to answer. Ees. v. In- 
 coepoeatbd Law SooiETy 
 
 C A. [1896] 1 Q, B. 327 
 
 117. — Lunatic, Client alleged — Order obtained 
 ex parte — Pending petition for inquisition — Sup- 
 pression by solicitor — Misconduct. 
 
 The decisions in Hartley v. Gilbert, (1843) 13 
 Sim. 596, and Beall v. Smith, (1874) L. E. 9 Ch. 
 85, do not amount to a holding that a solicitor, 
 
 3 U 2 
 
( 2050 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2056 ) 
 
 SOLICITOE (Misconduct) — continued. 
 who believes his client to be sane, cannot take 
 proceedings in the name of the client if he knows 
 that Lunacy proceedings are pending, but only 
 that in a proper case the Court will, when 
 informed of such proceedings, direct a stay 
 pending the completion of the Lunacy inquiry. 
 A solicitor believing his client to be of sound 
 mind, obtained an order for her on an ex parte 
 application without disclosing the fact that a 
 petition in Lunacy was pending against her. 
 She was subsequently found to be of unsound 
 mind. Upon an application to discharge the 
 order : — 
 
 Held, that the solicitor had not been guilty of 
 Buoh professional misconduct as to make him 
 liable for the costs. In re Geoksb Aemsteong 
 & Sons - - Stirling 3. [1896] 1 Ch. S36 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Didisheim v. London 
 and Westminster Bank, [1900] 2 Ch. 15, 44. 
 
 — Misappropriation of trust funds — Interest. 
 
 See Trustee. 35. 
 
 118. — Offence not in character of solicitor — 
 Solicitors Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Tict. c. 13). 
 
 A solicitor was summarily convicted of allow- 
 ing houses belonging to him to be used by his 
 tenants as brothels. The Incorporated Law 
 Society applied to strike his name off the roll : — 
 
 Held,, that a solicitor may be struck off the 
 roll for an offence not in his character of soli- 
 citor. Conviction for a criminal offence is prima 
 facie ground for striking off, but the Court will 
 exercise a discretion according to the nature of 
 the offence. In re Weare 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 439 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. Beq. v. Incorporated 
 Law Society, [1895] 2 Q. B. 456, 462 ; C. A. 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 327. 
 
 — Order striking off the roll reversed — Practice. 
 
 See Gold Coast Colony. 2. 
 
 119. — Permitting unqualified person to use 
 solicitor's name — Striking off roll. 
 
 Sect. 32 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, is impera- 
 tive and does not give the Court a discretion to 
 inflict on an offending solicitor any leas punish- 
 ment than that of striking him off tne roll for the 
 offences in respect of which the Court " shall and 
 may " strike him off, In re Kelly 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 180 
 
 See Solicitors Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. 
 ... 4). 
 
 120. — Restoring name to roll. 
 
 Order made for restoration to the roll of soli- 
 citors of a person struck off on conviction for ob- 
 taining money by false pretences on proof of good 
 character for twelve years, and that he had been 
 put under serious disadvantage at his trial, two 
 previous applications had been refused. In re 
 Bkandeeth Div, Ct. [1891] W. N. 86 
 
 , 121. — Striking off' the roll— Condition vrece- 
 dcnt. 
 
 A preliminary inquiry by the Incorpoi-ated Law 
 booiety under s. 13 of the Solicitors Act, 188S, is 
 not a condition precedent to an application to 
 strike a sohoitor off tlie roll, as s. 19 preserves 
 
 SOLICITOB (TSisconiucf)— continued. 
 
 the jurisdiction of the Court to act on its owi> 
 
 motion. 
 
 (A) In re Weake C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 43» 
 (b) Res. v. Incokpokated Law Society 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 ft. B. 456 ; C. A. 
 [1896] 1 ft. B. 32T 
 
 Partnership. 
 
 — Breach of trust — ^Liability of partner. 
 
 See Teustee — Breach of Trust. 35. 
 
 — Dissolution of partnership — Right to use of 
 
 name of old firm — Liabilities. 
 See Paetnership. 24. 
 
 — Misrepresentation of oo-partner — Misappro- 
 
 priation of client's moneys. 
 See Paetneeship. 36. 
 
 122. — Partner — LiaMlity of — Agent — SdU- 
 citor iecoming constructive trustee. 
 
 It is not within the scope of the implied au- 
 thority of a solicitor carrying on business in 
 partnership to constitute himself a constructive 
 trustee, and thereby to subject his partner to 
 liability in that character, the partmer being 
 ignorant of the dealings by which the construc- 
 tive trust is established. It having been held by 
 North J. that a solicitor had constituted himseliF 
 a constructive trustee, and that both he and his 
 partner in business were liable to make good a 
 loss which had resulted from improper invest- 
 ments of the trust funds : — 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of North J., 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 69), upon the evidence, that in the 
 matters in question the solicitor had acted only 
 in the character of solicitor to the trustees, and 
 that consequently neither he nor his partner were 
 liable as constructive trustees. Maba v. Beowkb 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 199 
 
 See also Wynne v. Tempest, [1S97] 1 Ch. 110, 
 112. 
 
 123. — Scope of partnership — Negligent invest- 
 ment — Implied retainer. 
 
 Funds subject to the trusts of a settlement 
 were invested on inadequate security by one of a 
 firm of solicitors and a trustee who received pay- 
 ment of costs for the transaction. The trustees 
 were held jointly and severally liable for the loss 
 sustained. The iirm was then sued for negli- 
 gence : — 
 
 Held, (1) that S. had acted within the scope 
 of his authority as partner and therefore was 
 liable ; (2) that the judgment against S. as 
 trustee did not discharge the firm from liability ; 
 (3) that an implied retainer of the firm by the 
 trustees was proved ; (4) that the liability of the 
 firm extended to the estate of a deceased partner. 
 Blyth c. Fladgate. MoKGAjf V. Blyth. Smith 
 V. Blyth - Stirling J. [1891] 1 Ch. 337 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Turner, [1897] 
 1 Ch. 536, 541. 
 
 — Scope of partnership — Solicitor — Liability for 
 
 acts of one partner — Deposit of securi- 
 ties to bearer. 
 See Paktnehship — liabilities. 39. 
 
 Privilege. 
 
 — Audience, Eight of. 
 
 See County Coubt — Practice. Go. 
 
( 2057 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2058 ) 
 
 130LICIT0B (Privilege)— co»tf»u«(J. 
 
 — Discovery — Bills of costs — Correspondence. 
 
 iSee DisoovEBY. 36. 
 
 — Discovery — Charge of fraud. 
 
 See Discovery. 31. 
 
 — Communications between solicitor and client 
 
 — Evasion of statute. 
 See DiscovEEY. 37. 
 
 — Libel. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 24, 25. 
 
 — Managing clerk, exemption from jury service. 
 
 See JuBY. 
 
 — Transcript of shorthand notes of examination 
 
 under Bankruptcy Acts. 
 See Discovery. 38. 
 
 Retainer. 
 
 124. — Agreement to allow third person to con- 
 ■dtict defence — Injunction to enforce — Bevocation 
 ■of retainer. 
 
 A. and B. agreed that A. should have sole 
 ■conduct of an action against B., and that A. 
 should indemnify B. against all <X)st3 and da- 
 mages, and B. retained A.'s solicitor to act for 
 him " in the defence of the action and any appeals 
 itherefrom." On an appeal to H. L. being pre- 
 •fiented in B.'s name, B. wishing to stop the 
 proceedings, withdrew his retainer from A.'s soli- 
 citor and took steps to withdraw the appeal :— 
 
 Held, that A. was entitled to an injunction 
 lestraining B. from breaking his agreement to 
 allow A. to conduct the defence and withdrawing 
 the retainer. But under the circumstances the 
 •Court took an undertaking from A. to give some 
 further indemnity against extra costs in H. L. 
 MoNTPORTS V. Mabsden C. A [1895] 2 Ch. 11 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 72 — 75. 
 
 126. — Partnership, Betainer hy — Dormant 
 ■partners — Costs incurred after dissolution of part- 
 nership — Common law action — Entire contra^. 
 
 The contract of a solicitor upon a retainer in 
 A common law action is an entire contract to act 
 for his client till the end of tlie action. There- 
 fore, although there may be reasons which will 
 entitle him to throw up his retainer during the 
 pendency of the action, and nevertheless recover 
 ■costs in respect of his services, yet he cannot do 
 so at his mere will and pleasure without reason. 
 Underwood, Son, & Pipes v. Lewis 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 a. E. 306 
 
 126. — Trust — Administration action. 
 
 An appearance entered on behalf of a sole 
 isurviving trustee to an action for the administra- 
 -tion of a trust and subsequent proceedings were 
 set aside, on the ground that the action taken by 
 the solicitor who had previously acted in the 
 trust was conducted without the knowledge and 
 authority of the surviving trustee. In re Grey. 
 •<Jbey v. Coles - North J. [1891] W. ». 201 
 
 — Undue influence. 
 
 See Undue Influence. 2, 3. 
 
 Solicitor-Szecntor. 
 
 >See Cases under Solicitor — Solicitor- 
 Trustee. 
 
 SOLICITOE— coiJiiKued;. 
 
 Solicitor-Mortgagee. 
 See also under MoKTOAGE— Solicitor 
 Kortgagee. 
 
 127. — Profit costs. 
 
 Though the law as to costs of solicitor mort- 
 gagees has been altered by the Mortgagees Legal 
 Costs Act, 1895, s. 3, and though that s. is retro- 
 spective, it does not affect judgments of the 
 Court, which were right at the time tliey were 
 given. Eybe v. Wynn-Mackenzie (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 135 
 
 But see now Mortgagees Legal Costs Act, 1895 
 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 25), s. 2. 
 
 128. — Profit costs. 
 
 A solicitor mortgagee is not entitled to profit 
 costs whether the business is undertaken by the 
 solicitor on behalf of himself solely or on behalf 
 of himself jointly with some one else. In re 
 Doody. Fisher v. Doody. Hibbeet v. Lloyd 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 129 
 
 See Eyre v. Wynn-Maclcenzie. Kekewich J- 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 218. 
 
 But his partners, if any, are entitled to a 
 share of such profit costs proportionate to their 
 interest in the partnership. 
 
 (a) In re Doody. Fisher v. Doody 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 129 
 This point did not come before the C.A. 
 
 (b) Wbllby v. Still (No. 2) Eekewich J 
 
 [1893] W. S. 91 
 Rendered obsolete as to costs of solicitor mort- 
 gagee by Mortgagees Legal Costs Act, 1895 
 (58 & 59 Vict. .;. 25), s. 2. 
 
 — Solicitor-mortgagee — Profit costs— Mortgagees 
 Legal Costs Act — Retrospective effect. 
 See Statutes — Eetrospectively. 34. 
 
 129. — Profit costs — Partnership. 
 
 Where a bill for costs of a mortgagee is sent 
 in by a firm of which the mortgagee is a member 
 he may shew that by arrangement between him- 
 self and his partners he is not to be entitled to any 
 share of profit costs. In re Eollit & Sons 
 
 Kekewieh J. [1893] W. N. 195 
 
 130. — Profit costs — Partnership. 
 
 A solicitor mortgagee cannot, in the absence 
 of express agreement, charge the mortgagor with 
 any profit costs, either in respect of work done in 
 connection with the mortgaged estate as solicitor 
 to the mortgagor, or of collecting, &c., the income 
 for the mortgagor where the mortgage is of a life 
 interest; but semhle, a partner of the solicitor 
 mortgagee may receive remuneration for his 
 trouble. A covenant in a mortgage of a life 
 estate to a solicitor mortgagee for jmyment " of 
 every other sum of money which may hereafter 
 be advanced or paid by the mortgagee to or on 
 account of or become owing to the mortgagee by 
 the mortgagor," does not include profit costs 
 either as solicitor to the mortgagor or as his 
 agent for collecting, &c., the income. For such a 
 covenant is as to profit costs void as clogging the 
 equity of redemption. The Court will allow the 
 mortgagor to surchargeand falsify settled accounts 
 so far as regards such costs, unless the mortgagee 
 can prove that the mortgagor was fully acquainted 
 
( 2059 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2060 ) 
 
 SOIICITOE (Solicitor-Mortgagee) — continued. 
 ■with his legal rights as to such ccsts. Etke v. 
 Wtttn-Maokenzie - - - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 218 
 
 Eendered obsolete as to costs of solicitor mort- 
 gagee by Mortgagees Legal Costs Act, 1895 
 (58 & 59 Yict. . 25), s. 2. 
 
 131. — Frofit costs — Redemption action. ? 
 
 A solicitor mortgagee -sho defends a redemp- 
 tion action for himself is only entitled to costs 
 out of pocket. The objection to the allowance to 
 him of profit costs need not be taken at the hear- 
 ing, but may be made before the taxing master 
 after judgment in the usual form containing the 
 common order to tax. Stone v. Liokokish 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ch. 363 
 
 Keferred to by Stirling; J. In re Doody, [1893] 
 1 Ch. 129, 139. 
 
 Solicitor-Trastee. 
 
 — Breach of trust— New trustees — Liability of 
 retiring trustees — Indemnity. 
 See Tbustee — Breach of Trust. 32. 
 
 132. — Charge for yrofessional services and 
 trouble, Power to. 
 
 A clause held to entitle a solicitor trustee to 
 charge for his trouble as well as for solicitor's 
 business. In the absence of special powers in 
 the will trustees cannot settle the amount pay- 
 able out of the estate to one of themselves, so as 
 to bind the cestuis que trust and preclude them 
 from investigating the accounts. In re Fish. 
 Bennett v. Bennett - C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 413 
 
 133. — Professional charges — Opening settled 
 account. 
 
 S. & S., a firm of solicitors, were trustees and 
 executors of a will, under which they were 
 authorized to charge for professional services. 
 They sent an account to the five residuary 
 legatees, and stated that if the legatees would 
 call at their office they would give any explana- 
 tion they might require. Two items of the 
 account were "to S. & Co. for costs relating to 
 obtaining probate," and " paid S. & S. costs 
 relating to executorship and counsels' fees and 
 payments made by them." S. & S. did not 
 inform the legatees that they were entitled to 
 have a bill of costs delivered, and to have it 
 taxed. The legatees signed a memorandum at 
 the foot of the account, " we have examined and 
 approve of the foregoing account," and executed 
 a release discharging the executors. Nine years 
 after, three of the residuary legatees brought an 
 action to declare the release not binding, and to 
 have a bill of costs delivered and taxed : — 
 
 Held, that, although it was the duty of S. 
 & S. to have informed the legatees that they had 
 a right to have a bill of eo^ts, and to have it 
 taxed, the omission to do so was not a sufficient 
 ground to open a setlled account; in order to do 
 so it was necessary to shew that injustice would 
 be done by allowing the account to stand ; that 
 excessive charges would be a ground for re- 
 opening ; but that no error either of omission or 
 charge having been shewn the action had been 
 rightly dismissed. In re Webb. Lambert v. 
 Still - c. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 SOLICITOE (Solicitor-Trustee) — continued. 
 
 — Profit costs— Gift to attesting witness- Codicil 
 
 — Republication. 
 
 See Will— Attestation. 30. 
 
 134. — Profit costs— Power to charge— Will — 
 Solicitor-executor— Trustee— "Legacy"— Insolvent 
 
 Gsttttc 
 
 A solicitor who is the sole executor and 
 trustee of a will is not entitled to his profit costs 
 of acting as solicitor to the estate if it turns out 
 to be insolvent, even though the will contains a 
 clause declaring that he should be the solicitor 
 to the estate, and should be allowed to charge 
 for work done as such solicitor; for the clause is 
 in efi'ect a legacy of profit costs to the solicitor, 
 and being bounty he cannot claim it as against 
 creditors. 
 
 The rule applies to all professional trustees. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1898] 1 Ch. 297, 
 
 affirmed. In re "White. Pennell v. Fbanelin 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 136. — Bendering account of profit costs on 
 summons — Jurisdiction. 
 
 Under an order made on further considera- 
 tion in an administration action costs were paid 
 to solicitors in the action. They paid over half 
 the profit costs to a solicitor trustee, one of the 
 defts. in the action : — 
 
 Held, that there was no jurisdiction on sum- 
 mons in the action to order the deft, trustee to 
 pay into court the amount of profit costs paid 
 him. In re Thorpe. Vipont v. Eadclikfe 
 
 North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 360 
 
 — Trustee solicitor not on record. 
 See SoLioiTOE — Liability. 94. 
 
 Undertakings. 
 
 ■ Breach of undertaking — Committal or attach- 
 ment — Service of order containing the 
 undertaking. 
 See Pkactice — Undertakiiigs. 272. 
 
 ■ Salvage — Arrest — Damages — Undertaking by 
 solicitor — Practice. 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 247. 
 
 -Practice. 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 173. 
 
 — "Writ — Undertaking by solicitor to enter 
 
 appearance — Duration. 
 
 See Peactioe — Undertaking. 273. 
 
 Unqualified Person. 
 
 136. — Costs — Business done while uncertifi- 
 cated— Taxation— Solicitors Act, 1874 (37 & 3S 
 Vict. c. 68), s. 12, sub-s. 1. 
 
 In taxing a solicitor's bill of costs, items 
 relating to business done while the solicitor had 
 not'a certificate must be disallowed. 
 
 In re Jones, (1869) L. R. 9 Eq. 63, is super- 
 seded. In re Sweetojo 
 
 North J. [1898] 1 Ch. 268 
 
 137. — County court — Jurisdiction over — Soli- 
 citors Acts, 1843 (6*7 Vict. c. 73), ss. 2, 35, 36 ; 
 1860 (23 * 24 Vict. c. 127), s. 2Q— County Courts 
 Acts, 1846 (9 * 10 Vict. c. 95), s. 113; 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 162. 
 
 A county court judge has no jurisdiction 
 
( 2061 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2062 ) 
 
 SOLICITOR (TJnquaUfied Person)— contmMei. 
 under s. 26 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, to commit 
 for contempt an nnqualified person who has 
 acted as solicitor in a county court action. Eeg. 
 V. Judge of Brompton County Coubt 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 196 
 
 138. — Disobedience to order to deliver up money 
 and documents — Attachment. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction to order an un- 
 qualified person to deliver up money and docu- 
 ments, -which he has obtained by pretending to 
 be a solicitor, and should he disobey can attach 
 him. In re Hulm & Lewis 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 Q. B. 261 
 
 139. — Settling affidavits— Solicitors Acts, 1843 
 (6 <£ 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 2 ; 1860 (23 & 24 Vict, 
 c. 127), =. 26. 
 
 A person employed by a solicitor as a process 
 server does not " act as a solicitor " within s. 2 
 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, so as to be liable to 
 attachment for contempt under s. 26 of the 
 Solicitors Act, 1860, by merely settling affidavits 
 for persons in his employment relating to service 
 of process. In re Louis. Ex parte Incokpokated 
 Law Society - Div, Ct. [1891] 1 Q,. B. 649 
 
 SOUTH AFRICA. 
 
 See Afkica. 
 
 SOUTH AUSTRALIA. 
 
 See Australia. 
 
 SOVEREIGN— Foreign, immunities of. 
 See International Law. 2. 
 
 SPARS— Delivery of into lighters— Bill of lading. 
 See Shipping — Demurrage. 106. 
 
 SPECIAL CASE. 
 
 See Practice — Special Case. 
 
 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES— Change of venue 
 of election petition. 
 See Parliament. 11. 
 
 — New trial. 
 
 See Pbactioe — New Trial. 57. 
 
 SPECIAL DAMAGE— Libel. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 3. 
 
 — Slander. 
 
 See Defamation— Slander. 36. 
 
 SPECIAL OCCUPANT— Devolution of estate- 
 Intestacy. 
 See Estate pub Autbb Vie. 1, 2. 
 
 — Forfeiture. 
 
 See Will — Name and Arms Clause. 149. 
 
 SPECIALTY DEBT— Priority— Crown debt — 
 Simple contract debt. 
 See ExECUTOE. 38. 
 
 ■ Retainer — Right of. 
 See Executor. 
 
 36. 
 
 SPECIFIC DEVISE. 
 
 See Will — Specific Devise. 
 
 SPECIFIC LEGACY. 
 
 See Will— Legacy. 136. 
 
 SPECiriC PERFORMANCE. 
 
 See also Cases under Vendor and Pur- 
 chaser — Specific Performance. 
 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE— oonMmMei. 
 
 1. — Agreement by infant and adult — Repudia- 
 tion. 
 
 An infant and adult who were joint tenants 
 entered into an agreement to grant a lease : — 
 
 Held, that specific performance by the infant 
 was out of the question, and on the evidence 
 could not be had against the adult ; therefore it 
 would be wrong to grant an injunction. Lumlby 
 V. Ravensoroft 
 
 C. A. revers. Day J. [1895] 1 Q, B. 683 
 
 — Agreement for further lease — Memorandum 
 — Lessee not named. 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 9. 
 
 2. — Compromise — Material fact not disclosed 
 — Silence. 
 
 Mere silence as regards a material fact, which 
 the one party is not bound to disclose to the 
 other, is not a ground for rescission, or a defence 
 to specific performance. 
 
 Where plt.'s solicitor knew the result of pro- 
 ceedings before the chief clerk and arranged a 
 compromise with deft, who was ignorant there- 
 of: — 
 
 Seld, that there was no obligation binding on 
 plt.'s solicitor to disclose what he knew of the 
 result of tlie proceedings before the chief clerk, 
 and that pit. was entitled to specific performance 
 of the compromise. Turner v. Green 
 
 Chitty J. [189S] 2 Ch. 205 
 
 3. — Contract for personal service. 
 
 The Court will not grant an injunction which 
 in effect would amount to decreeing specific 
 performance of a contract of personal service. 
 Whitwood Chemical Co, c Hardman 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 416 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. Ehrman v. 
 Bartholomer, [1898] 1 Ch. 671, 673. 
 
 4. — Delay — Sale of reversion — Equitable 
 interest — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 S., in April, 1886, contracted to sell to K. the 
 equitable reversion in a sum of Consols vested in 
 trustees, the purchase to be completed on June 25, 
 when an assignment was to be executed contain- 
 ing a covenant by the purchaser to pay succession 
 duty and indemnify the vendor and his estate 
 against it. Tlie purchaser was to pay a deposit ; 
 and if the purchase was not completed on June 25, 
 he was to pay interest on the balance of his- 
 purchase-money. The deposit was paid and the 
 title investigated; when it appeared that the 
 reversion was subject, along with other property, 
 to heavy incumbrances which the vendor could 
 not discharge, and from which the incumbrancers 
 declined to release the reversion. In Jan. 1888. 
 S. became bankrupt, and his property was 
 sold, under which sale R. claimed title to the 
 reversion. K.'s interest under the contract for 
 sale became vested in B. In ] 890 S. died. In 
 1895 the reversion fell into possession. No 
 active step to enforce the contract for sale was 
 taken till March 5, 1896, when B. obtained leave 
 to attend proceedings in an action in which the 
 estate of S. was being administered. He then 
 took out a summons claiming the Consols, upon 
 which summons an order of May 11, 1896, was 
 made directing an inquiry who was entitled to 
 them, with a provision that the applicant's claim 
 
( 2063 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2064 ) 
 
 SPECIFIC PEEFOEMANCE—conHjtued. 
 was to be treated as if he had commenced an 
 action for specific performance on March 5, 1896. 
 The master found that E. was entitled, and 
 Stirling J. affirmed his decision : — 
 
 BeSi, that, although the interest to which tlie 
 contract related was purely equitable, so that the 
 complete property in it could pass without a 
 formal conveyance, B. could only obtain relief on 
 the ground of specific performance ; that the 
 proviso in the order of May 11, 1896, was there- 
 fore right ; that he was barred from relief by 
 delay ; and that the appeal ought to be dismissed. 
 
 Decision of Stirling .J.. [1898] 1 Ch. 478, 
 affirmed. Levy v. Stogdon C. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 6 
 
 5. — Fraud — Condition against particular 
 user — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 Negotiations for sale of a freehold building 
 "went off Because the vendors required a condition 
 against a particular user. Another person bought 
 free from conditions, being under contract with 
 the first negotiators to resell to them for the 
 jpurpose objected to. Specific performance at the 
 instance of the purchaser was decreed. Nash v. 
 Dix - North J. [1898] W. N. 32 (7) 
 
 6. — Judgment, form of — PurcJiaser'e action — 
 " III case the parties differ." 
 
 Where in a purchaser's action for specific 
 performance judgment is obtained in default of 
 <lefenoe, tiie words " in case the parties differ " 
 should be omitted from the direction thut the 
 vendor should execute a proper conveyance to be 
 settled by the judge. The omission of these 
 words does not necessitate a reference to the con- 
 veyancing counsel ; it was only necessary that 
 the document should be initialed in chambers. 
 Baxendalb v. Lucas 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 30 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Specific 
 Ferformance, 
 
 7. — Landlord and tenant — Flats — Corenant 
 to appoint porter. 
 
 Specific performance refused of a covenant by 
 landlord to appoint a resident porter to a building 
 let in flats, on the ground that the execution of 
 the contract would involve constant superintend- 
 ence by the Court. 
 
 The decision of A. L. Smith J., [1892] 1 Ch. 
 427, reversed. Eyan v. Mutual Tontine West- 
 jiiNSTEB Chambers Association 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 116 
 
 Referred to. Bads v. Foreman, [1894] 3 Ch. 
 €54, 658. 
 
 — Lease, agreement for — Merger — Life estate — 
 
 Intention — Benefit. 
 See Merger. 1. 
 
 — Marriage contract — Promise by wife's father 
 
 to leave her " a share " of his estate. 
 See Husband and Wife. 37. 
 
 — Mineral property — Agreement for lease of 
 
 undivided moiety. 
 
 See Mines — Leases. 11. 
 
 8. — Railway — Accommodation works — Trans- 
 fer to new company — Covenants — Form of judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Where a ry. bus, as part of the consideration 
 
 SPECIFIC PEEFORMANCE— coKfintted. 
 for land purchased under their Act, entered into 
 covenants to provide accommodation works and 
 to perform personal services, and by a subsequent 
 Act the ry. is dissolved and its undertaking 
 transferred to another ry. " subject to the obliga- 
 tions and liabilities " of the old ry., the land- 
 owner can maintain an action against the new ry. 
 for specific performance of all the covenants, 
 including that for personal services. Form of 
 judgment against a ry. for specific performance 
 of covenants considered. 
 
 (a) FOHTESCUE V LOSTWITHIEL AND FOWBT 
 
 Et. Co. Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 821 
 
 (b) Jersey (Earl of) v. Great Western 
 By. Co. - C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 625, n. 
 
 9. — Sale of partnership business under power 
 of attorney. 
 
 Specific performance of agreement for sale of 
 a partnership business granted by the C A. An 
 objection that certain stipulations in the agree- 
 ment for sale were in excess of the power of 
 attorney given by the vendor to one of his 
 partners, and under which the agreement was 
 entered into, oveiTuled, the purchaser having 
 waived the stipulations in question. Hawkslby 
 r. OiTEAM C. A. revers. Somer J. [1892] 3 Ch. 369 
 
 Distinguished. Lloyd v. Nowell, [1895] 2 Ch. 
 744. 
 
 10. — Sliares, Sale of — Voluntary transfer by 
 vendor to third pernon. 
 
 The rule that a person taking property under 
 a voluntary conveyance cannot hold that pro- 
 perty as against a previous purchaser for value 
 from the person by whom the property has been 
 conveyed applies to shares in a co. Graham v. 
 O'Connor Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 157 (10) 
 
 — Title defective by reason of recent decision of 
 
 the Court — Leave to defend notwith- 
 standing special agreement. 
 See Practice — Pleading. 161. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Cases under "Vendor and Purchaser 
 — Specific Ferformance. 
 
 II- — Vendor and purchaser — No title sliewn 
 — Damages— Costs of investigating title. 
 
 In a purchaser's action specific performance 
 with an inquiry as to title was decreed ; the writ 
 and statement of claim did not ask for damages 
 or "further or other relief." On it appearing 
 that the deft, had no title, the Court, by way of 
 damages, directed the return of the deposit with 
 interest, and gave the purchaser his costs of the 
 action and of the agreement and investigation of 
 title. Pearl Life Assurance Co. v. Butten- 
 SHAW - - CMtty J. [1893] W. N. 123 
 
 12. — Waiver — Condition precedent. 
 
 A stipulation in a memorandum that the 
 agreement was "subject to the preparation by 
 the vendor's solicitor and completion of a formal 
 contract" cannot be waived by the vendor as 
 being intended for his benefit alone, so as to 
 constitute the rest of the memorandum a final 
 contract enforceable against the purchaser. Lloyd 
 V. Nowell Kekewich J. [1895] 2 Ch. 744 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. North v. rercival, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 132. 
 
( 2065 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2066 ) 
 
 SPECIFIC m-RFQ-R-aAVC'E— continued. 
 
 — Letters signed by agent's clerk. 
 
 See Fbauds, Statute op. 10. 
 
 — Proof of formation of company — Prohibition. 
 
 See LoHDON— Mayor's Court. 46. 
 
 SPEECHES— Eeports of public speeches— News- 
 paper— " Author." 
 See CoPYKiQHT. 34. 
 
 SPIKES — Spiked wall abutting on highway — 
 Contributory negligence. 
 See Nuisances. 30. 
 
 SPIBITS— Admixture of water. 
 
 See Adcltebation — ^Analysis. 6. 
 SPOIL — Trespass by tipping — Way-leave — 
 
 Measure of damages. 
 
 See Tbespass. 3. 
 
 fiPOETING— Right of way for purposes of. 
 
 See Scottish Law— Serntude. 38. 
 
 — Sporting rights — Lease. 
 
 See Cases under Game. 
 SFBINO ASSIZES. 
 
 The annual 0$. in G. as to the holding of 
 Spring Assizes are published as Statutory Orders 
 <ind in the Land. Gaz. 
 
 SQ1TASE — Paving expenses — Open spaces. 
 See London— Streets. 68. 
 
 STABLE— Inhabited house duty. 
 
 See Kevende — House Duty. 64, 65. 
 
 — Nuisance — Tramway company — Statutory 
 
 powers. 
 
 See Tkamway. 13. 
 
 — Public health — Sanitary convenience — Work- 
 
 place — Persons in attendance — Cabmen. 
 iSee London — Sanitary ConTenience. 51. 
 
 — Public-house — Licence duty. 
 
 See Eevenue — Licence Duty. 128. 
 - — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land. 21. 
 
 STAGE LICENCE— Grant of— Condition. 
 
 See Theatre. 1. 
 STAINED GLASS WINDOW. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 42. 
 
 STAIECASE— Plats — Liability of landlord to 
 
 persons using. 
 
 See Landlobd and Tenant. 68. 
 STAKEHOLDEE AND STAKES. 
 
 See Cases under Gaming. 
 
 STALE DEMAND — Company — Winding-up — 
 
 Liability of directors. 
 
 See CoMPANT — Directors. 118. 
 STALLS— Choir stalls. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 40. 
 STAMPS. 
 
 See Eevbnce — Stamps. 
 
 STANNARIES COITET. 
 
 See under County Court. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM. 
 
 See Cases under Practice. 
 
 STATION. 
 
 See Eailway — Stations. 
 
 STATUTE OF FEADDS. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute of. 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 Generally, col. 2066. 
 Repeals, col. 2069. 
 Setrospectivity, col. 2071. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 See "Table of Statutes judicially considered," 
 during the years 1891-1900 inclusive. 
 
 Short Titles Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 14), 
 facilitates the citation of sundry Acts of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 1. — Breach of statutory duly — Oivil remedies. 
 The breach of a statutory duty by a municipal 
 
 corporation considered. 
 
 (a) Cowley v. Newmarket Local Boabd 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 346 
 
 (b) Municipality of Pictou v. Geldert 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 524 
 
 (c) Municipal Council of Sydney d. Boubke 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 433 
 
 (d) Brabant & Co. v. Kino 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 632, 638 
 
 (e) Oliver v. Horsham Local Board 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 CI. B. 332 
 
 (f) Saunders v. Holeorn District Board op 
 
 Works Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 64 
 
 2. — Breach of statutory duty — Criminal 
 
 An indictment does not lie for breach of a 
 statutory duty where the duty is first created 
 by the statute, and a, particular remedy is pre- 
 scribed in such terms as expressly or impliedly 
 to exclude the remedy by indictment. Eeg. v. 
 Hall - - Charles J. [1891] 1 ft. B. 747 
 
 Followed. Saunders v. Solhorn District Board 
 of Works, [1895] 1 Q. B. 64, 69. 
 
 3. — Codifying statutes. 
 
 In interpreting a statutory code (e.g. the Bills 
 of Exchange Act, 1882, or the Code of Lower 
 Canada), reference to earlier law and cases can 
 only be justified where the provisions of the code 
 are of doubtful import or are couched in lan- 
 guage which has previously acquired a technical 
 meaning. 
 
 (a) Bank of England v. Vagliano Bbothers 
 
 Fer Lord Herschell, H. L. (E.) [1891] 
 A. C. 107, at p. 146 
 
 (b) Eobinson v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 481 
 
 (c) In re English Bank of the Eivek Plate. 
 
 Ex parte Bank of Brazil 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 438, at p. 444 
 
 4. — Conflict of Statutes — ''Annuity" — Con' 
 struction of Statute. 
 
 A Provisional Order authorizing an electric 
 lighting undertaking came into operation on 
 June 27, 1892. It gave a municipal corporation 
 power to purchase the undertaking compulsorily 
 on terms of issuing or tiansferriug to the under- 
 takers such an amount of the corporation stock 
 "as will produce by the interest thereon an 
 
( 2067 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2068 ) 
 
 STATUTES (Generally) — continued. 
 annuity of 5 per cent." on capital properly ex- 
 pended. Another Provisional Order, coming into 
 operation on June 28, 1892, took away a power 
 the corporation had, but had not exercised, to 
 iBsue irredeemable stock. Tbe statutes confirm- 
 ing the two orders received the Royal assent on 
 June 27, 1892 :— 
 
 Held, (1) that the statutory price for the 
 undertaking was an amount of irredeemable 
 stock ; (2) that the corporation were not by 
 implication authorized to issue irredeemable 
 stock for the purpose of purohasiug the under- 
 taking ; (3) that, therefore, the power to purchase 
 compulsorily was in abeyance so long as the 
 corporation had no power to issue irredeemable 
 stock. Sheffield Coepokation v. Sheffield 
 Elbotrio LiSHT Co. North J. [1897] W. N, 171; 
 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 203 
 
 5. — Exception — Act not to apply to seamen 
 — Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 
 1875. 
 
 Sect. 16 of the Conspiracy and Protection of 
 Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 86), means 
 only that the punishment prescribed by the Act 
 are not to fall on seamen. The case of an ofience 
 against a seaman by a person who is not a sea- 
 man is therefore not excluded from the Act by 
 this section. Kennedy v. Cowie 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 a. B. 771 
 
 — Foreign penal statute — Interpretation of 
 law — Foreign judgment — Distinction 
 between public and private penalties. 
 
 See IXTEKNATIONAL Law. 7. 
 
 6. — General or local Act. 
 
 Lands in the parish of St. Pancrns were pur- 
 chased as a burial ground for the parish of 
 Bloomsbury under 9 Anne, c. 22, and 10 Anne, 
 0. 11, and on consecration became part of the 
 latter parish. By Order in Council burials were 
 discontinued in the burial ground, and the parish 
 of St, Pancras applied to the county council, 
 under s. 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, 
 for an order retransferring the burial ground to 
 St. Pancras. The council gave notice of their 
 intention to hold an inquiry. The parish of 
 Bloomsbury applied for a prohibition : — 
 
 Seld, that the section gives a county council 
 power to amend any part of a public and general 
 Act, which is of a local and personal nature, that 
 the clauses of the statute of Anne relating to 
 the burial ground were local and personal, and 
 that the council had power to make an order. 
 Eeg. v. London County Council 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 454 
 
 7. — Implied repeal — Exemption from taxes 
 and assessments — Sates — City of London— 7 Geo. 3, 
 0. 37, s. 51 {Local)— 11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii., s. 169 
 (Local). 
 
 Sect. 51 of 7 Geo. 3, c. 37, provided that 
 certain lands in the City of London, reclaimed 
 from the Thames, should vest in the adjoining 
 owners "free from all taxes and assessments 
 whatsoever." 
 
 Sect. 169 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii., provides 
 that a rate for tlie purposes of tlie Act shall be 
 made upon every occupier of houses or buildings 
 in the City, " whether such person shall be now 
 
 STATUTES (Generally) — continued. 
 liable in respect of such house or building to be- 
 assessed to the relief of the poor or be not liable 
 to be assessed to the relief of the poor in respect 
 thereof by reason of such house or building being 
 situate in any precinct or extra-parochial place- 
 or otherwise " : — 
 
 Held, that the provisions of the later Act 
 repealed by implication the exemption from rates- 
 given by the earlier Act. Sign College v. 
 London Coepokation Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 581 
 
 8. — Inclosure Acts. 
 
 The general canons of construction of Inclosure- 
 Acts stated. Bell v. Babl of Dudley 
 
 CMtty J. [1895] 1 Ch. 182- 
 
 9. — Interpretation Act, 1889. 
 
 Quxre, whether the general provisions of the- 
 Interpretation Act, 1889, can be read as over- 
 riding the special provisions of other subsequent 
 Acts. In re Tithe Act, 1891. Eobebts d. 
 Potts. Jones v. Cooke - [1893] 2 ft. B, 33 ; 
 C, A, (Kay L.J. diss.) affirm. Div. Ct> 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 213- 
 
 10. — Mistake. 
 
 Even where it can be proved that the Legisla- 
 ture Wiis deceived as to the existence of a right, 
 and legislated under the effect of the error, the 
 Legislature only and not the Courts can correct 
 the error. Labkadok Co. v. Ees. 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 104 
 
 11. — MistaTie — Agreement loith government — 
 Error in confirming law — Mistake rectified. 
 
 Where by an error in a law, confirming an 
 agreement between a ry. co. and a colonial govern- 
 ment that certain mortgage bonds should bear 
 interest depending on yearly piofits, the bonds 
 were declared to bear interest depending on half- 
 yearly profits, but the bonds were issued in. 
 accordance with the agreement, and erroneously 
 certified by the government to be in accordance 
 with the law : — 
 
 Held, that reading the agreement and the law 
 together, the bonds should be treated as depending' 
 on yearly profits and not on half-yearly profits. 
 Jamaica Ky. Co. v. Att.-Gen. of Jamaica 
 
 P, C. [1893] A. C, 127 
 
 12. — Statutory power — Laying before Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 Where one section of a statute provides that 
 " all ordinances made by the commrs," shall be 
 laid before both Houses of Parliament, a power 
 given to the Commrs. to do an act affecting both 
 public and private interests by another section 
 which is silent as to the sanction of Parliament 
 does not give an absolute power, unless the 
 section plainly states that the exercise of the 
 power shall not be subject to review. Medcalpe 
 V. Cox - H. 1. (Se,) [1896] A. C. 328. 
 
 Note. — For second Appeal, see Medcalfe k- 
 Cox, H. L. (Sc.) [1896] A. C. 647. 
 
 13. — Statutory power — Laying iefore Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 Where rules were made by the Board of Trade 
 under a statute which provided that they should 
 be laid for forty days before Parliament : — 
 
 Held, that after the lapse of that period the 
 
( 2069 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2070 ) 
 
 STATUTES (,Otenera.ny)— continued. 
 rules took effect aB part of the statute and could 
 not be treated as ultra vires. Institute of 
 Patent Agents v. Lockwood 
 
 H. 1. (So.) [1894] A. C. 347 
 
 Referred to. In re London and General Bank 
 (iVo. 1), [1894] W. N. 155. 
 
 Principle adopted. Baker v. Williams, [1898] 
 1 Q. B. 23, 25. 
 
 14. — Statutory poioer — Mode of exercise — • 
 Construction of works unauthorized by statute — ■ 
 Injunction. 
 
 Where the promoters of a public undertaking 
 liave statutory authority to interfere with private 
 property on certain terms, any person whose pro- 
 perty is interfered with has a riglit to require 
 that the promote]S shall comply with the letter 
 of the enactment in his behalf. No Court can 
 remodel arrangements sanctioned, or relax con- 
 ditions imposed by Act of Parliament. Where a 
 local Act prescribes certain detailed works, the 
 execution of other works, which are "sub- 
 stantially equivalent," ia not a compliance with 
 the Act. Hebkon v. Rathmines and Eathgar 
 Improvement Commbs. 
 
 H. I. (I.) [1892] A. C. 498 
 
 15. — Statutory works — Lateral deviation. 
 Deviation in its ordinary and natural sense 
 
 and as used in statutes, means shifting the work 
 in its integrity from one site to another wliioh 
 may be deemed more suitable. It does not imply 
 a right not only to alter the situation of the work, 
 but in doing so to dispense with half or two- 
 thirds of it. Hebron v. Rathmines and Kath- 
 GAB Improvement Commks. 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1892] A. C. 498 
 
 16. — Surplusage. 
 
 Under s. 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888, a 
 judge in chambers has power to transfer certain 
 actions for trial in the county court " in which 
 the action might have been commenced or in any 
 court convenient thereto " : — 
 
 Held, that the word "thereto" was meaning- 
 less and should be rejected, and the phrase read 
 as " convenient to the parties." 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1892] 1 Q. B. 99, 
 afBrmed. Burkill v. Thomas 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 a. B. 312 
 
 17. — Time — Computation. 
 
 Where a criminal statute enacts that pro- 
 ceedings are to be taken within a limited time 
 after the commission of an offence : — 
 
 Meld, that the day on which the offence was 
 committed was not to be reckoned in computing 
 the time. Eadolifee v. Babtholombw 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 161 
 
 18. — Title of an Act of Parliament is to be 
 read as part of the enactments: per C. A. 
 
 FlELDBN V. MOBLEY OOEPOBATION 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 1 ; H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 133 
 
 Bepeals. 
 
 19. — Implied repeal — County Courts Acts. 
 
 Sect. 120 of the County Courts Act, 1888, im- 
 pliedly repeals ss. 26 and 31 of the County Courts 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868. 
 
 (a) The "Eden" ■ - [1892] P. 67 
 
 STATUTES (B,eT^ea,ls)— continued. 
 
 (b) Neptune Steam Navigation Co. v^ 
 
 Solateb. The " Delano " 
 
 C. A. [1895] P. 40 
 
 (c) The " Tynwall " - [1895] P. 142, 147 
 (D) The " Theodoea" [1897] P. 279, 284' 
 
 20. — Implied repeal — Judicature Acts. 
 
 The Judicature Act and Rules do not over-- 
 rule the provisions of special statutes granting 
 special costs in particular cases. Reeve v.- 
 Gibson - - - C. A. [1891] 1 Q. B. 662- 
 
 21. — Implied repeal — Excise Management Act, 
 1827. 
 
 The provisions of s. 71 of 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 53, 
 are not impliedly repealed by ss. 21, 24 of the 
 Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890. Dyee v.. 
 TuLLEY - - [1894] 2 Q. B. 794 
 
 22. — Implied repeal — Bevivor of prior enact' 
 ments. 
 
 Sect. 10 of the County Courts Act, 1875, 
 impliedly repeals eo much of s. 45 of the Judioa- 
 tm'e Act, 1 873, as is inconsistent with it ; and' 
 although 3. 188 of the County Courts Act, 1888,. 
 repeals the whole of the Act of 1875, this repeat 
 (sub-s. 5) does not revive any enactment not in. 
 force on Jan. 1, 1889. The " Dabt " 
 
 C. A. [1893] P. 33- 
 
 23. — Implied repeal — Michael Angela Taylor's^ 
 Act. 
 
 (a) Sect. 65 of 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix. (Michael 
 Angelo Taylor's Act), is impliedly repealed by 
 the Metropolitan Streets Acts, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. c. 134, s. 6, and 31 & 32 Vict. c. 5, s. 1) as- 
 to costermongers. Summebs ■». Holboen Board- 
 of Wobks - Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 612 
 
 (b) Contra. Keep v. St. Maby's, Newinston.- 
 AusTiN V. St. Maby's, Newington 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 524 
 
 (o) That section is not impliedly repealed. 
 
 by 18 & 19 Vict. o. 120 (Metropolis Management), 
 
 s. 119, as to hanging out articles in front of a. 
 
 house. Wyatt v. Gems 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 225. 
 
 24. — Implied repeal — Sturges Bourne's Act 
 (59 Geo. 3, c. 12), s. 19. 
 
 SemUe, that s. 19 of Sturges Bourne's Act, by- 
 virtue of which owners of small tenements could 
 be made to pay the poor-rate instead of the occu- 
 piers, is repealed by implication by the subsequent- 
 Assessment Acts. West Ham Chubchwabdbns- 
 V FouKTH City Mutual Building Society 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 a. B. 651 
 
 25. — Implied repeal — Trade Union Act, 1871 
 — Nominee of members — Right to sue. 
 
 Sect. 4 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, which- 
 provides (sub-s. 3) against legal proceedings 
 being taken to enforce " any agreement for the 
 application of the funds of the trade union (a) to- 
 provide benefits for members," is not repealed by 
 39 & 40 Vict. 0. 22, and consequently the nominee 
 of a deceased member cannot bring an action to- 
 recover moneys due to the deceased under the 
 rules of the trade union. Crockeb v. Knight 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 ft. B. 702:. 
 
 27. — Saving of exisiinq rights and liabilities — 
 
( 2071 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2072 ) 
 
 .STATUTES (Eepeals) — continued. 
 Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Viet. c. 63), 
 _«. 38. 
 
 The effect of the general saving clause (s. 38) 
 • of the Interpretation Act, 1889, as to saving of 
 existing rights and liabilities, considered in 
 relation to the effect of the particular saving 
 clause (s. 6) of the Tithe Act, 1891, on former 
 Tithe Acts:— 
 
 Held, that on the construction of the Act of 
 ,1891, and the facts, there was no existing right 
 ■which fell within s. 38 of the Act of 1889. 
 
 (a) In re Tithe Act, 1891. Eobeets v. Potts 
 
 SiT. Ct. [1893] 2 a. B. 33 ; C. A. 
 
 (Say L. J. diss.) afSrm. Div. Ct. 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 213 
 
 (b) Jones v. Cooke C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 213 
 
 27. — Saving — BigM accrued. 
 
 The mere right existing at the date of a 
 irepealing statute, to take advantage of provisions 
 ■ of the statute repealed is not a " right accrued " 
 within the meaning of the usual saving clause. 
 Abbott v. Minister fob Lands 
 
 P. C, [1898] A. C. 425 
 
 28. — Statute Law Bevision Acts. 
 
 Effect of repeals by Statute Law Eevision 
 Acts considered. Hdffam v. Noeth Staffokd- 
 rSHiEE By. Co. - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 821 
 
 29. — Temporary Acts. 
 
 A Turnpike Act, which was to continue for 
 ;the term of twenty-one years, stopped up certain 
 roads and vested them in A. The Act was con- 
 tinued from time to time, and finally repealed : — 
 
 Held, that the repeal did not revive the old 
 roads, but that they were discontinued for ever 
 :as highways by the Turnpike Act and vested in 
 A., free from any public way whatever. Gwynne 
 3). Debwitt - Bomer J. [1894] 2 Oh. 616 
 
 Betrospectivity. 
 
 30. — Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 32. 
 
 Sect. 32 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, is not 
 
 .retrospective. In re School Boabd Election 
 
 foe the Paeish of Pulbokotjgh. Bocbke v. 
 
 JsfuTT C. A. (Esher M.E. diss.) revers. Div. Ct. 
 
 [1894] 1 «. B. 725 
 
 31. — Bankruptcy Act, 1890. 
 
 (a) Sect. 25 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, is 
 ijiot retrospective as to transmission of accounts ; 
 
 whether at all, (j'uaij-e. J» re Noeman. Ex parte 
 Boaed of Teade - C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 369 
 
 (b) Sect. 26 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, is 
 •not retrospective. Keg. v. Geiffiths 
 
 C. C. E. [1891] 2 Q. B. 148 
 
 32. — Gaming Act, 1892. 
 
 The Gaming Act, 1892, is not retrospective. 
 Xnight v. Lee Div. Ct. [1893] 1 4. B. 41 
 
 33. — Judicature Act, 1873 (36 * 37 Vict. c. 66), 
 .«. 25, subs. G. 
 
 Sub-B. 6 of s. 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873 
 ■(as to assifi-nnient of choses in action), is retro- 
 .spective. Dibb i: Walkee 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 429 
 
 34. — Mortgagees Legal Costs Act, 1895. 
 
 (A) Though a. 3 is retrospective in its action, it 
 •does uot affect judgments which were right at the 
 
 STATUTES (Betrospectivity)— cowtinued!. 
 time when they were given. Eyke v. Wynn- 
 Mackenzib (No. 2) - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 13S 
 (b) Day v. Nelland 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 745, 748 
 
 35. — Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) 
 Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39). 
 
 Sect. 4 is retrospective. Lane v. Lane 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] P. 133 
 
 36. — Trustee Act, 1893, Amendment Act, 1894. 
 Sect. 4 has no retrospective operation so as to 
 
 exempt trustees from liability for a breach of 
 trust, committed before the psissing of the Act, 
 in retaining an investment authorized neither by 
 the instrument of trust nor by the general law. 
 In re Chapman. Cooks v. Chapman 
 
 Eekewich J. [1896] 1 Ch. 323. This case 
 was reversed by C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 763 
 See Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 35), s. 3. 
 
 STATUTES 0? LIUITATIONS. 
 
 See Limitations, Statutes of. 
 
 STATUTOBY BTJLES AND OBDEES— FaZidfiy. 
 
 If a statute gives power to make rules and 
 orders, and enacts that such rules and orders 
 shall have effect as if enacted in the Act, and 
 provides that they shall be laid before Parliament, 
 and that if either house resolves within forty days 
 that any of such rules should be annulled, they 
 shall be anuUed, no Court is competent to con- 
 sider whether rules so made and laid before 
 Parliament and not objected to are intra vires or 
 not. 
 
 (a) Institute of Patent Agents u. Lock- 
 
 wood H. L. (Sc.) (Lord Uorris diss.) 
 [1894] A. C. 347 
 
 (b) In re London and Geneeal Bank (No. 1) 
 
 V. Williams J. [1894] W. H. 185 
 
 (c) Bakee v. Williams 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 ft. B. 23, 25 
 
 (d) Starey v. Geaham 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 406 
 
 STAY OF INaUIBIES— Practice— Appeal. 
 See Appeal. 47. 
 
 STAYING PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 See Peaotioe — Staying Proceedings. 
 
 STEAMSHIP — Receiver with power to manage 
 — Mortgagee's remedies. 
 See Receivee — Mortgage. -12. 
 
 STEAM-EOIiEB— Licence— " Used" within the 
 county. 
 See Locomotive. 1. 
 
 STEAM-WINCH— Loading from dock. 
 
 See Mastee and Servant — Compensa- 
 tion. U. 
 
 STEP-CHILDEEN. 
 
 See Will— Children. 46. 
 
 STEWASDS— Salvage moneys. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 224. 
 
 STIEPES — Per capita or per stirpes. 
 See Will — Children. 45. 
 
 STOCK — Charging order — Foreclosure — Transfer 
 of Consols. 
 See MiiKTGAGE — Foreclosure. 31. 
 
( 2073 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2074 ) 
 
 STOCK— continued. 
 
 — Legacy of stock charged by testator in his 
 
 lifetime. 
 
 See Will — Charge of Debts, &e. 32. 
 
 — Register of unclaimed stock — Right of un- 
 
 interested person to inspect. 
 See Bauk op England. 
 
 — Transfer of stock by local authorities. 
 
 See Local Government (Stock Transfer) 
 Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 32). 
 
 — Trustee Acts — Form of vesting order. 
 
 See Cases under Tktjstee — Vesting 
 Order. 
 
 STOCEBSOEEB. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 
 
 — Commission for placing shares — Sale of assets. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 269. 
 
 STOCK EXCHAIT&E — Agreement to share commis- 
 sion and losses in respect of StoeJe Exchange 
 transactions — Guarantee — Oral agreement — 
 Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, v. 3), ». 4. 
 
 S. entered into a verbal agreement with G. 
 that G. should introduce customers to S., who 
 was a member of the Stock Exchange, that S. 
 should pay to G. half the commission received 
 from such customers, and that G. should pay to 
 S. half of any loss incurred through such 
 customers : — 
 
 Seld, that the contract did not constitute a 
 partnership between S. and G., but that it was 
 not a contract to answer for the debt of another 
 within s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds. It was a 
 contract which regulated the terms of G.'s 
 employment, and gave him an interest in the 
 transactions which were carried out for the 
 mutual benefit of S. and G., and that S. was 
 entitled to recover half the losses from G. 
 Sutton & Co. v. Gket C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 285 
 
 — Authority to stockbrokers is on Stock Exchange 
 
 terms — Notice to produce. 
 See Canada. 23. 
 
 — Bankruptcy, Title of trustee in, as against 
 
 official assignee of Stock Exchange — 
 Defaulting broker. 
 
 See Bankkuptcy — Trustee in Bank- 
 ruptcy. 252. 
 
 — Clients' securities deposited to secure broker's 
 
 indebtedness — Appropriation of pay- 
 ments — Rights of owner of deposited 
 securities. 
 See Bankek. 25. 
 
 3, — Continuation account — Death of principal 
 — Contracts for sale and repurchase after death — 
 Liability of stockbroJcer for loss. 
 
 Where a stockbroker having a continuation 
 account with a client, on the death of the client, 
 instead of closing the account immediately, upon 
 his own authority enters into a fresh continuation 
 and ultimately effects a sale of the securities 
 at a loss, he is liable for the loss so incurred. 
 In re Ovekweg. Haas v. Dukant 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 245 ; [1900] 1 Oh. 209 
 
 3. — Contract — " Differences " — " Cover " 
 system — Delivery — Acceptance — " If demanded " 
 — Option — Oambling tramsaotion — " Gaming or 
 
 STOCK ZXCKA'SQ-'E— continued. 
 
 wagering" — Nullity — Gaming Act, 1845 (8*9' 
 
 Vict. c. 109), s. 18. 
 
 A contract on the " cover " system betweeir 
 two stock and share dealers for " differences " is- 
 a contract "by way of gaming or wagering "^ 
 and therefore void under s. 18 of the Gaming 
 Act, 1845 : and it is none the less so where the 
 contract gives the buyer or seller an option to- 
 demand delivery or acceptance (as the case may 
 be) of the stocks or shares the subject-matter of 
 the contract. 
 
 Universal Stock Exchange v. Strachan, [1896]i 
 
 A. C. 166, considered. In re Gieve 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 32 (4); [1899] 1 Q. B. 794 
 
 4. — Contract note — Omission to send — Bight 
 of hroleer to recover commission. 
 
 A broker who sells or buys stock, on the 
 Stock Exchange, and does not transmit to his 
 principal any stamped contract as provided by 
 
 B. 17, sub-3. 1, of the Customs and Inlana 
 Revenue Act, 1888 (now ss. 52, 53 of the Stamp- 
 Act, 1891), can recover commission from his 
 principal on such transactions. Lbaeoyd v.- 
 Bracken C. A, [1894] 1 Q. B. 114 
 
 See now the Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. c. 39), ss. 52, 53, which consolidates the 
 previous Statutes; and the Revenue Act, 1898' 
 (61 & 62 Vict. 0. 46), s. 7. 
 
 5. — Defaulter — Official assignee— Assignment 
 of assets — Set-off — Bules and regulations of Stock 
 Exchange. 
 
 It is provided by the rules and regulations- 
 of the Stock Exchange that two or more mem- 
 bers shall be appointed annually by the committee- 
 to act as official assignees, whose duty it shall be- 
 to obtain from a defaulter on the Stock Exohange- 
 his books of account and a statement of the sums- 
 owing to and by him and to manage the estate in 
 conformity with the rules, regulations, and usages 
 of the Stock Exchange; and by rule 176 "the- 
 assignees shall collect and pay the assets to the 
 credit of their joint account at a banker's, and 
 shall distribute the same as soon as possible " : — 
 
 Held, that the term " the assets " in the 
 above-mentioned rule means all the assets of the- 
 defaulter ; and that, when the rule is brought- 
 into operation, the effect is to create an assign- 
 ment of the assets of the defaulter to the official 
 assignee. 
 
 A member of the Stock Exchange was in-- 
 debted to the defts. He became a defaulter on 
 the Stock Exchange, and the liquidation of his- 
 affairs was undertaken by the pit., as official 
 assignee, under the above-mentioned rules. For 
 the purposes of the liquidation he was authorized 
 by the pit. to sell, and accordingly sold, certain 
 shares standing in his name to the defts., who- 
 were not members of the Stock Exchange, but 
 who knew his position and that of the pit. as 
 official assignee. The pit. having sued the defts, 
 for the price of the shares : — 
 
 Held, that the action was maintainable, and 
 that the defts. were not entitled to a set off iit 
 respect of their debt. Richardson v. Stoemont, 
 Todd & Co. C. A. [1900] 1 Q. B, 701 
 
 merit 
 
 6. — Gaming and wagering contract — Pay- 
 it of " differences " — Securities deposited at 
 
( 2075 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2076 ) 
 
 STOCK EXCHANGE— confanwed. 
 ■'^ cover" — "To abide the event" — Action to 
 recover deposited securities — Gaming Act, 1845 
 <8 (fe 9 Vict. c. 109), 8. 18. 
 
 Where both parties to contracts for the sale 
 ;and purchase of stocks intend that no stocks 
 shall be delivered and that "differences" only 
 £hall be accounted for, the mere fact that the 
 contracts provide that either party may require 
 completion of the purchase and delivery or receipt 
 ,(as the case may be) of the stocks, does not pre- 
 vent them from being contracts by way of gaming 
 and wagering within the Gaming Act, 1845, 
 <:. 109, 8. 18, and therefore void. 
 
 In such transactions securities deposited by 
 one of the parties with the other to secure the 
 payment of " differences " are not deposited " to 
 .abide the event " within the meaning of s. 18, 
 flnd are recoverable by action. 
 
 The decision of C. A., [1895] 2 Q. B. 329, 
 affirmed. Universal Stock Exchange v. 
 Steachan - H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 166 
 
 See alio Strachan v. Universal Stock Exchange 
 iNo. 2), C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 697. 
 
 Referred to. In re Cronmire, C. A. [1898] 
 2 Q. B. 383, 395. 
 
 In re Gieve, C. A. [1899] 
 
 Considered. 
 1 Q. B. 794. 
 
 7. — Liability of London stocltbroTter to country 
 customer — Foreign principal. 
 
 A London stockbroker, on the instruction of 
 ft country broker, obtained from the Bank of 
 England a power of attorney to sell stock 
 belonging to X. This power was executed by 
 X., and on the instructions of the country broker, 
 the London broker sold the stock for 970J., and 
 credited the country broker with the proceeds in 
 his account. The balance to the country broker's 
 credit in this account was afterwards paid to 
 answer bills drawn by him on the London 
 broker : — 
 
 Held, that X. was entitled to recover from 
 the London broker the 9701. less brokerage. 
 Ckossley v. Magniao Eomer J. [1893] 1 Oh. 694 
 
 8. — Pledge of clients s securities by broker — 
 Authority — Liability of bank — " Negotiable secu- 
 rities." 
 
 Principals left bonds transferable by delivery 
 with their broker, who, in fraud of them, pledged 
 the bonds with others belonging to himself and 
 other principals to secure an advance. The 
 broker became insolvent, and the bank sold the 
 bonds to repay the advance : — 
 
 Held, that the bank was entitled to retain 
 and realize the bonds, as the bonds were nego- 
 tiable instruments, and there was nothing to 
 shew the bank that the broker was not dealing 
 with his own securities. London Joint Stock 
 Bank v. Simmons H. I. (E.) [1892] A. C. 201 ; 
 revers. C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 270 
 
 Followed by North J. See next Chse. 
 
 Eeferred to. Thomson v. Clydesdale Bank, 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1893] A. 0. 282, 285, 293. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Manchester Trust v. 
 Furness, [1895] 2 Q. B. 539, 545. 
 
 ^- — Pledge of client's securities by broker — 
 
 STOCK 'EXCSAUGE— continued. 
 Negotiable securities — Might of redemption — " Con- 
 tango" transactions. 
 
 The pit. bought stocks, shares, and bonds 
 through a broker, the broker lending the pit. 
 money to " carry over " when necessary. The 
 broker borrowed money of a bank to pay for the 
 stocks, shares, and bonds, depositing them vrith 
 the bank as security. Such stocks as required 
 registration were transferred to and registered in 
 the name of trustees for the bank, sometimes by 
 the vendors and sometimes by the pit. himself, 
 for a nominal consideration : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. could not redeem because 
 (1) the pit. in view of the " contango " system, 
 which was common on the Stock Exchange, had 
 not discharged the onus of shewing that the 
 broker had exceeded his authority; (2) that as 
 to certain "bonds payable to bearer," which were 
 negotiable securities, there was nothing to put 
 the bank on inquiry; (3) that as to the stocks 
 transferred by the vendors the bank had the 
 legal estate and could not be deprived of it ; and 
 (4) as to the stock transferred by the pit. he was 
 estopped from denying the bank's title. Bbn- 
 TiNCK V. London Joint Stock Bank 
 
 North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 120 
 
 10. — Principal and agent — Broker lumping 
 several orders in one contract — Liability of prin- 
 cipal to jobber on default of broker — Stock Exchange 
 Rules, r. 177. 
 
 Deft, employed a firm of brokers on the Stock 
 Exchange to purchase for him shares in a certain 
 undertaking, and instructed them to "carry 
 over" 210 of these shares to the next account. 
 The brokers, having orders from other clients for 
 shares in the same undertaking, purchased by a 
 single contract in their own name 360 of these 
 shares for the next account from the pits., who 
 were jobbers on the Stock Exchange, and they 
 apportioned in their books 210 of these shares to 
 the deft. Before the next settling day the 
 brokers were declared defaulters on the Stock 
 Exchange, and, in accordance with the rules of 
 that body, their transaction with the pits, was 
 closed by the oiJicial assignee, the price of the 
 shares being fixed at the price then current. 
 Pits., having ascertained that the brokers were 
 acting for deft, as regarded the 210 shares, 
 tendered those shares to him, and, on his refusal 
 to take them, sold them on the settling day and 
 claimed from deft, the difference between the 
 contract price and the selling price : — 
 
 Held, that, since the brokers had lumped 
 deft.'s order with the orders of other clients, and 
 had contracted in a single transaction with pits, 
 for the purchase of a larger number of shares than 
 they were authorized to purchase for deft., no 
 such contractual relation existed between pits, 
 and deft, as would support the action. 
 
 Effect of rule 177 of the Stock Exchange 
 
 rules discussed. Beckhcson & Gibbs v. Hamblet 
 
 Kennedy J. [1900] 2 Q. B. 18 
 
 Dictum in, followed and approved by 
 Mathew J. Anderson & Co. v. Beard, [1900] 
 2 Q. B. 260. 
 
 11. — Principal and agent— Default of broker 
 — Liability of dient to jobber — Privity of contract. 
 
 The deft, employed a broker to purchase for 
 
( 2077 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2078 ) 
 
 STOCK EXCHANGE— continued, 
 him certain shares on the Stock Exchange, and 
 afterwards directed him to " carry over " the 
 :shares to the next account. The broker, in 
 accordance with the regulations of the Stock 
 Exchange, purchased the shares in his own 
 name from the pits., wlio were jobbers on the 
 'Stock Exchange, and afterwards carried over 
 with them the same shares. The deft.'s name 
 was not disclosed. Before the next settling day 
 "the broker was declared a defaulter on the Stock 
 Exobauge, and in accordance with the rules of 
 'that body his contract with the pits, was closed, 
 and the pits, took back the shares at a price 
 fixed by the official assignee of the Stock Ex- 
 •change and known as the " hammer price." The 
 ■pits, haying ascertained that the broker was 
 acting fur the deft, in this transaction called 
 ■upon him to take up the shares. He declined to 
 accept any responsibility for theui; and the 
 •.pits, thereupon at once sold the shares for the 
 best price then obtainable, and sued the deft, for 
 4he difference between the price at which the 
 .shares had been carried over and that at which 
 they had sold them : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, was liable for this amount, 
 .and not merely for the diiference between the 
 price at which the shares were carried over and 
 ihe " hammer price." 
 
 Dictum of Kennedy J. in Beelchuson and Qibhs 
 V. Hamhlet, [1900] 2 Q. B. 18, followed and 
 .approved. Andbeson & Co. v. Bebad 
 
 Mathew J. [1900] 2 ft. B. 260 
 — Principal and brokers-Gaming. 
 See Canada. 51. 
 
 12. — Stochhrdker paying client's money into 
 Tiis own account. 
 
 When a broker or other agent entrusted with 
 •the possession and apparent ownership of money 
 pays it away in the ordinary course of business 
 for onerous consideration, a transaction which is 
 fraudulent as between the agent and his em- 
 ployer will bind the latter unless he can shew 
 (that the recipient of the money did not act in 
 good faith. Trustees of bank shares instructed a 
 stockbroker to sell them and deposit the proceeds 
 in certain colonial banks. He sold the shares to 
 .another stockbroker, and received in the ordinary 
 course a cheque for the price drawn in his own 
 favour. This cheque he paid into his own bank 
 .account, then overdrawn. The bank knew the 
 cheque to be proceeds of a sale of shares, but did 
 not know nor inquire in what capacity the broker 
 received it : — 
 
 Meld, affirming the decision of Ct. of Sess., 
 (1891), 18 K. 751, that the bank were entitled 
 to retain the proceeds of the cheque as against 
 ■the debt due to them by the broker. Thomson 
 V. Olydesdalb Bank H. L. (So.) [1893] A. C. 282 
 
 13. — Syndicate — Speculative transactions in 
 -shares — Authority of manager. 
 
 A. was a member of a syndicate formed to 
 buy and sell shares as a speculation. The syndi- 
 •cate bought from and sold to other associations 
 •of which A. was not a member, but some of his 
 .associates were : — 
 
 Held, that such dealings were not necessarily 
 Tjeyond the authority of the manager; which 
 authority, under the circumstances, was not 
 
 STOCK EXCHANCtE- conitiiued. 
 
 limited to operations in the open market. 
 
 Laughton v. Gkipfin P. C. [1898] A. C. 104 
 
 14. — Transactions whether gaming. 
 
 Art. 1927 of the Quebec Civil Code does not 
 differ substantially from the Gaming Act, 1815 
 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 109), 3. 18, and renders null and 
 void all contracts by way of gaming and wagering. 
 Contracts made by a broker employed to make 
 actual contracts of purchase and sale, in each 
 case completed by delivery and payment, on 
 behalf of a principal whose object was not in- 
 vestment but speculation, are not gaming con- 
 tracts within the meaning of the Code. Foeget 
 V. OsTiGNY P. C. [1895] A. C. 318 
 
 STOP-COCK. 
 
 See Watbh — Supply. 16. 
 
 STOP ORDEE. 
 
 See Peaoticb — Stop Order. 
 
 — After-acquired property of bankrupt — Priority 
 
 — Assignment by bankrupt. 
 See Bankeuptot. 256. 
 STRAITS SETTLEMENTS. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 See Peobate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1892. 
 
 Death Duties, 
 
 See Cases under Eevenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 Extradition. 
 
 See ESTBADITION. 
 
 STRANDING — Marine insurance. 
 
 See Instjeance — Marine. 58, 66. 
 
 — Stranded steamer — Damage to engines — 
 
 General average. 
 
 See Shipping — Average. 13. 
 
 — Subsequent destruction by fire. 
 
 See Insueanoe — Marine. 48. 
 
 — Towage — Duty of harbour authority. 
 
 See Shipping — Harbour. 156. 
 
 — Towage — Salvage — Contributory negligence. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 246. 
 
 STREAM. 
 
 See Cases under Water. 
 
 STREET MUSICIAN — Non-payment of fine— Im- 
 prisonment for longer time than fixed 
 for original offence. 
 See Music and Dancing. 5. 
 
 — Eight of householder to order street musician 
 
 to depart. 
 
 See Mrsic and Dancing. 6. 
 
 STREET REFUSE— Removal of— Scavenging- 
 Snow — Liability to action. 
 See London — Removal of Refuse. 
 
 STREETS— STREETS AND BUILDINGS. 
 
 Note. — The cases under this heading relate 
 only to places outside the County of London. As to 
 London — 
 
 See London — Buildings. 
 London — Streets. 
 
 In General, col. 2079. 
 Buildings Generally, col. 2080. 
 
( 2079 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2080 ) 
 
 STEEETS— STEBETS AND BTTILDINGS— cojrfd 
 
 Building Plans, col. 2081. 
 
 Footways, col. 2082. 
 
 Lighting, col. 2082. 
 
 New Streets, col. 2083. 
 
 Paving, &c.. Expenses, col. 2085. 
 
 Private Streets, col. 2089. 
 
 Profane or Obscene Language, col. 2091. 
 
 Projecting Signs, col. 2091. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Faculty — Grant of, for use as public street 
 
 of portion of consecrated cemetery or 
 churchyard closed for burials. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Facnlty. 31 . 
 ' — Highways. 
 
 See Highway. 
 
 — New street. 
 
 See Streets — New Street. 
 
 — Obstructed road — Penalty — Owner. 
 
 See Railway — Eoads and Streets. 57. 
 
 — Obstructing street. 
 
 See Cases under HiGHWAT^Obstrnction, 
 London — Streets. 86 — 89. 
 
 — Obstruction — Tramways — Snow and Salt. 
 
 See Nuisances. 29. 
 
 — Paving, &c., expenses. 
 
 See Stkbets — Paving, &c., Expenses. 
 
 — Private streets. 
 
 See Streets — Private Streets. 
 
 — Projecting signs. 
 
 See Streets — Projecting Signs. 
 
 — Eailway companies. 
 
 See Railway — Eoads and Streets. 
 
 ■ Sewering streets. 
 See London- 
 Seweks. 
 
 -Sewers. 
 
 1. — Subsoil — " Street " — Urban authority — ■ 
 Vesting of " street " in urban authority — Subsoil — ■ 
 Publii; Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. v. 55), 
 ss. 39 149. 
 
 The Public Health Act, 1875, which by s. 149 
 vests certain streets in the urban authority, does 
 not vest the subsoil. 
 
 Therefore where a local Act authorized the 
 urban authority to erect and maintain "in any 
 street or public place, or on land belonging to 
 them or under their control," lavatories for the 
 use of the public : — 
 
 Held, that the urban authority had no power 
 to excavate the soil and erect lavatories below 
 the surface of a street which had vested in them 
 within the meaning of the Public Health Act, 
 1875. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1894] 2 Q. B. 867, afSrmed. 
 Tunbridge Wells Corporation v. Baird 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 434 
 
 Referred to by C. A. Battersea Vestry v. 
 County of London and Brush Provincial Electric 
 Lighting Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 474, 482. 
 
 — Telephone wires — Illegal stretching of, across 
 public streets — Powers of local autho- 
 rity — Removal of wires. 
 See Telephone. 2. 
 
 STEEETS — STEEETS AND BUIIDINGS (la 
 
 QeneiaX)— continued. 
 
 — Water supply. 
 
 Set Wateb — Snpply. 17 — 19. 
 
 — Way, Eight of. 
 
 See Wat, Eight of. 
 
 — Wires — Eight to excavate — Power to lay wires 
 
 underground. 
 See Canada. 63. 
 
 Bnildings Generally. 
 
 — Ancient lights — ^Prescription — Greenhouse — 
 
 Injunction. 
 
 See Light and Air. 9. 
 
 2. — Building line — " Front main wall " — 
 " In the same street " — Public Health Act, 1875 
 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 35), s. 156— PM6Ztc Health 
 {Buildings in Streets) Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 52), s. 3. 
 
 In laying down what is the " front main 
 wall " of a house or building with a view of fixing 
 the building line, under s. 3 of the Public Health 
 (Buildings in Streets) Act, 1888, the building 
 must be looked at as a whole — its character, ita 
 position, its distance from any house which is 
 being erected or brought forward in alleged con- 
 travention of the Act, and a particular wing or 
 projection must not be selected as the front main 
 wall. Two buildings are not necessarily in the 
 same street within s. 3, because one faces the 
 same road or street, or a continuation thereof as 
 the other. Att.-Gen. v. Edwards 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] 1 Ch. 194 
 
 3. — Building line — Taking down house — 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 s. 155. 
 
 The owner of a house took out the front wall 
 of the ground and first floor in order to turn 
 the two lower floors into one shop. The second 
 floor was undisturbed, but was shored up; the- 
 shoring was replaced by girders and brick piers. 
 After the piers and girders had been erected, the 
 urban authority prescribed a building line, under 
 s. 155 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and 
 brought an actien to restrain the owner from 
 building in front of it : — 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that the house had 
 been substantially taken down, but that the fixing 
 of the building line was too late : 
 
 Held, by the C. A., that neither the house nor 
 its front had been taken down within the section, 
 and that the power to fix a building line had not 
 arisen. Att.-Gen. v. Hatch C. A. [1893] 3 Ch, 36 
 
 — In Scotland. 
 
 See Building. 1. 
 
 4. — Pulling down buildings — Mandatory- 
 injunction, form of — Practice. 
 
 An injunction the eflect of which is to require- 
 the performance of a certain act, such as the 
 pulling down and removal of buildings, should, 
 now be made in a direct mandatory form, and not 
 in the indirect form hitherto in use. Jackson v.. 
 NoEMANBT Brick Co. C. A. [1899] W. N. 61 ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 488. 
 
 8. — Eegular line of street — Police and Im- 
 provement (_Scotland) Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict 
 c. 101), s. 162. 
 
 " Eegular line of street " in the Police and. 
 
( 2081 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2082 ) 
 
 STREETS— STBEETS AND BUILDINGS (Build- 
 ings Generally) — continued. 
 Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, s. 162, means 
 the line of the buildings forming the street, and 
 not a line indicating that part of the street 
 which is dedicated to the public as highway. 
 ScHULZE V. Galasheils Cobpobation 
 
 H. L, (Sc.) [1895] A. C, 666 
 
 Building Plans. 
 
 6. — Alleration of deposited plain — By-laws — 
 New huildlng. 
 
 A by-law of a sanitary authority, made under 
 s. 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875, requiring 
 persons intending to build to deposit plans of the 
 intended building, is broken if any substantial 
 alteration is made in the plans. The fact that 
 the alterations themselves break no by-law, and 
 that there is no by-law forbidding alterations in 
 deposited plans, is immaterial. James «. Masters 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 Q. B. 365 
 
 7. — "Approved" plan — Local authority — 
 Tower to dispense with ohservance of hy-laws. 
 
 A local authority, empowered to make by- 
 laws for the regulation of buildings within its 
 jurisdiction, has no power to sanction plans in 
 contravention of by-laws properly made. 
 
 An "approved" plan is a plan which has 
 been lawfully approved, by a local authority, and 
 not one which has merely received their approval 
 in fact. Yabbicom v. King 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 444 
 
 8. — New buildings — M-eetion of — By-laws — 
 Validity — Local authority. 
 
 The appellant was convicted under a by-law, 
 made under the Leeds Improvement Acts by the 
 council of the city of Leeds, by which any person 
 erecting any new building without giving twenty- 
 one days' notice in writing of his intention to 
 the corporation, or without having the plans 
 approved of by the corporation, or in anywise 
 contrary to plans and sections which had been 
 approved by the corporation, was made liable to 
 a penalty. It was not shewn whether or not the 
 buildings erected by the appellant complied with 
 the Leeds Improvement Acts. These Acts gave 
 a right of appeal to quarter sessions from any 
 determination of the corporation under the 
 Acts : — 
 
 Held, that, having regard to the special pro- 
 visions of the Acts, the by-law was reasonable and 
 valid, and the appellant was rightly convicted. 
 Cook v. Hainswobth - [1896] 2 ft. B. 85 
 
 Eeferred to. Smith v. Charley District 
 Council, [1897] 1 Q. B. 532, 535; C. A. [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 678. 
 
 9. — Refusal to approve 
 Action of numdamus — Prerogative writ. 
 
 Where a local authority have, in good faith, 
 refused to pass building plana, on the ground 
 that the erection of the proposed houses .would 
 amoimt to the laying out a new street of a width 
 which is insufficient under their by-laws, no 
 action will lie for a mandamus to compel them to 
 approve the plans. 
 
 Judgment of Kennedy J., [1897] 1 Q. B. 532, 
 afSrnjed. Smith r. Choeley Eueal Cotjnoil 
 
 9. 4. [1897] 1 Q. B. 678 
 
 STREETS— STREETS AND BUILDINGS— conic?. 
 Footways. 
 
 10. — Main road — Countyhorough — Frontagers 
 — Local Act — Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 41), 6. 11. 
 
 A local Act passed in 1871 gave power to the 
 corporation of a municipal borough to order that 
 in any street (whether or not a highway repair- 
 able by the inhabitants at large) footways should 
 be made by the frontagers of such form, size, and 
 materials as the corporation should direct, and 
 provided that if the frontagers made default in 
 the execution of the work the corporation might 
 cause the work to be executed aad recover the 
 expense incurred in respect thereof from the 
 frontagers : — 
 
 Held, that where the municipal borough had, 
 by virtue of the Local Government Act, 1888, 
 become a county borough, the provisions of s. 1 1 
 of that Act had not the effect of repealing the 
 provisions of the local Act as regards streets 
 which were main roads within the meaning of the 
 Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 
 1878. Lodge v. Huddersmeld Cobporation 
 
 Div. Ct, [1898] 1 Q, B. 847 
 — Paving — Apportionment. 
 
 See Streets — Private Streets. 35. 
 
 Lighting. 
 
 11. — Electric lighting — Urban authority, 
 powers of — Street — "Area of user" — Trespass — ■ 
 Injunction— Fublia Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 55), ss. 149, 161. 
 
 An action was brought to restrain the deft,, 
 who claimed as owner of the subsoil of half the 
 roadway of a street vested in the pits., from 
 interfering with his poles and electric wires : — 
 
 Held, that assuming the deft, was owner of 
 half the soil, yet the road being a " street " 
 within s. 141 of the Public Health Act, 1875, the 
 local board were entitled to more than the sur- 
 face, and had further an " area of user " necessary 
 for the exercise of their statutory powers, e.g., of 
 lighting their district. The restrictions in the 
 sections subsequent to s. 161 as to lighting by 
 other means than gas are only intended to pre- 
 vent an urban authority from invading the 
 regulated monopoly of any gas co. in its district. 
 Farbham Local Boabd and Fareham Electric 
 Light Co. v. Smith Chitty J. [1891] W. N. 76 
 
 12. — Lighting and watching rate — Coal mine 
 — Assessment — "Land" — Lighting and Watching 
 Act, 1833 (3 (fe 4 Will. 4, c. 90), s. 33. 
 
 Coal mines are "property (other than land) 
 rateable to the relief of the poor," and are there- 
 fore, under s. 33 of the Lighting and Watching 
 Act, 1833, to be rated at a rate three times greater 
 than land. 
 
 Decisions of Div. Ct., [1894] 1 Q. B. 567, and 
 C. A., [1894] 2 Q. B. 11, affirmed. Thuesby v. 
 Beiekclifpe-with-Extwistle Chueohwabdens 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 32 
 
 13. — Lighting and watching rate — Recovery 
 — Froof of adoption of Lighting and Watching 
 Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 90), ss. 5-15. 
 
 On a summons for non-payment of rates under 
 the Lighting and Watching Act, 1833, the over- 
 seers are not oWiged to prove that the formalities 
 • 3X 
 
( 2083 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 2084 ) 
 
 STREETS— STEEETS AMD BUILDINGS (Light- 
 ing) — coniirmed. 
 prescribed by the Act for its due adoption have 
 been complied with. Eeg. v. Reynolds 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 Q. B. 78 
 
 14. — lAghting rates — Briclcfield — " Land " — 
 " Buildings and property other than land " — 
 Ughting and Watching Act, 1833 (3 <fc 4 Will. 4, 
 c. 90), s. 33. 
 
 By 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 90, B. 33, " owners and 
 occupiers of houses, buildings, and property 
 (other than laud) rateable to the relief of the 
 poor in any such parish shall be rated at and pay 
 a rate in the pound three times greater than that 
 at which the owners and occupiers of land shall 
 be rated at and pay for the purposes of this Act " 
 (lighting and watching). 
 
 The respondents occupied land, with engine- 
 houses and other buildings upon it, for the pur- 
 poses of a brickfield, the brick earth being dug 
 from a portion of the land and manufactured 
 into bricks on other portions. All the land and 
 buildings were used exclusively for the business 
 of briokmaking : — 
 
 Held, that — assuming that the buildings or 
 any of them could not be rated apart from the 
 land as being capable of being put to some other 
 than their present use — the whole property was 
 properly rated as " land " at the lower rate speci- 
 fied in the Act, and not at the higher rate as 
 "buildings" or "property other than land." 
 Cbatpokd Ovbrsbeks v. Butter 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 650 
 
 New Streets. 
 
 15. — Compulsory taking of land — Local autho- 
 rity — Street worhs — Taking land for the purpose 
 of resale — Statutory powers — Construction. 
 
 Under their Act, a corporation were em- 
 powered to make certain street works, and had 
 power to take compulsorily " for the purpose of 
 the street works, the lands shewn on the deposited 
 plans in connection therewith and which they 
 may require for the purposes thereof respec- 
 tively " : — 
 
 Held, upon the construction of the Act, that 
 certain lands fronting the new line of street 
 which the corporation desired to take being re- 
 quired, not for the construction of the street 
 works, but merely for the purpose of resale at a 
 profit so as to reduce the cost of the street works, 
 could not be taken compulsorily by the corpora- 
 tion under their statutory powers. 
 
 Galloway v. Mayor, &c., of London, (1866) 
 L. E. 1 H. L. 34, distinguished. 
 
 The decision of North J., [1898] W. N. 170 
 (13), affirmed. Donaldson v. South Shields 
 CoRroBATioN - - C. A, [1899] W, N. 6 (2) 
 
 16. — Laying out— Width— By-laws —Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. a. 55), s. 157. 
 
 G. was lessee of a piece of ground witli right 
 of way over an udjoining roid fifteeu feet wide. 
 G. began to build two houses on Ms ground. 
 The urban sanitary authority summoned him for 
 laying out a new street less wide than required 
 by their by-laws, made under s. 157 of the Public 
 Health Act, 1875 :— 
 
 Held, that what G. had done did pot amount 
 
 STEEETS— STEEETS AND BTTILDINGS (New 
 
 ij Streets) — continued. 
 
 to laying out the road as a new street. Gozzbtt 
 
 V. Maldon Ukban Sanitary Authobitt 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 327 
 
 17. — Laying out — Width — By-laws — BMic 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 157. 
 
 Where the owner of a strip of land by the side 
 of a lane which ran into a road began to build a 
 house fronting to the road, the side of which 
 abutted on the lane, and there was nothing to 
 shew any intention on his part of building other 
 houses along the lane : — 
 
 Held, that he was not laying out a new street 
 along the lane within the meaning of by-laws 
 with respect to the construction of new streets 
 made under s. 157 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875. St. Geoege's Local Boaed v. Ballaed 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 702 
 
 Eeferred to. Smith v. Cliorley District Council, 
 [1897] 1 Q. B. 532, 537; 0. A. [1897] 1 Q. B. 
 678. 
 
 18. — Laying out — Width, — "Passage" — By- 
 laws— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict 
 c. 55), ss. 4, 157, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Ways communicating with the backs of 
 houses, and used for obtaining access to privies 
 and ash-pits, are passages within s. 4 of the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, and are therefore 
 streets, and an urban authority has power to 
 make by-laws with respect to the width and 
 construction of such ways. Eeg. v. Goole Local 
 BoABD - - Div. ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 212 
 
 — Paving new street — Expenses of — Covenant to 
 bear charges. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 24. 
 
 19. — Width of street — Local authority — "New 
 street" — Tojims Improvement Clauses Act, 1847 
 (10 & 11 Vict c. 34), s. 63. 
 
 Held, that the decision of the House of Lords 
 in Bobinson v. Barton-Eceles Local Board, (1883) 
 8 App. Cas. 798, as to the meaning of the term 
 "new streets" in s. 157 of the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, governs the construction of the same 
 term in s. 63 of the Towns Improvement Clauses 
 Act, 1847. 
 
 A country lane in the neighbourhood of a 
 town, and situate within the district of the urban 
 district council of that town, was defined for the 
 greater part of its length (581 yards) by hedges. 
 On one side of it were buildings, extending for 
 485 feet along the lane, belonging to brickmakers, 
 who were proposing to erect on the other side of 
 the lane, opposite to their existing buildings, new 
 buUdings, which would extend for 233 feet along 
 the lane : — 
 
 Held, that by the erection of these new buUd- 
 ings the lane between them and the old buildings 
 opposite would become a "new street" within 
 the meaning of s. 63 of the Towns Improvement 
 Clauses Act, 1847, and subject to the provisions 
 of that section as to width. 
 
 An interlocutory injunction was accordingly 
 granted to restrain the defendants (the brick- 
 makers) from building so as to make or lay out 
 the lane as a new street less than thirty feet 
 wide. Att.-Gen. v. Euffoed & Co. 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N, 8 (S)j [1899] 1 Ch. 537 
 
( 2085 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891— 1900, 
 
 ( 2086 ) 
 
 STREETS— STBEETS AND BUILDINGS— couW. 
 Faviiig, &c., Expenses. 
 
 20. — Alteration of width of carriageway and 
 footway — Power of urban authority — Public Health 
 Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. e. 55), s. 150. 
 
 An urban authority, when paving and making 
 good a street, not being a highway repairable by 
 the inhabitants at large, under s. 150 of the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, has no power to alter 
 the respective widths of the carriageway and 
 footway of the street. Eobeetson v. Bbistol 
 OoBPORATioN - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 102 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 198 
 
 21. — Apportionment — Dispute — Arbitration. 
 Where an urban authority has done the 
 
 paving, sewering, &c., of a street, the person 
 chargeable having neglected to do so, and the 
 apportioned expense is disputed, either as to 
 amount or otherwise, the dispute must be settled 
 by arbitration, as provided by s. 150 of the Public 
 Health Act, 1875, before the urban authority can 
 bring an action to recover it. Sandgatb Local 
 BoABD V. Eeene - C. A. [1892] 1 Q,. B. 831 
 
 Distinguished by "Wright J. Folkestone Cor- 
 poration V. Brooks, [1893] 8 Ch. 22, 28. 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Willesden Local 
 Board and Wright, [1896] 2 Q. B. 412, 416. 
 
 22. — Apportionment — Frontaget — Objection 
 — Alteration of scheme — Notice — Justices — Juris- 
 diction — Discretion — Private Street Works Act, 
 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. o. 57), ss. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13. 
 
 Where a resolution has been passed Ijy an 
 urban authority under s. 6, sub-s. 1, of the Private 
 Street Works Act, 1892, approving the plans, 
 sections, estimates, and provisional apportion- 
 ments for making up the whole of a street, and 
 the resolution has been published and copies 
 thereof have been served on the frontagers under 
 Bub-s. 3, the justices have, on the hearing of an ob- 
 jection by a frontager under s. 7 that part of the 
 street is repairable by the inhabitants at large, 
 jurisdiction under s. 8, sub-s. 1, to amend the 
 resolution, plans, &c., by limiting the scheme to 
 the remaining portion of the street; and the 
 urban authority can then carry out the amended 
 scheme without it being necessary for them to 
 begin their proceedings de novo or to pass a 
 resolution approving the amended scheme. 
 
 Where, on the hearing of an objection to the 
 original scheme, the justices have decided upon 
 amending the scheme, the question whether or 
 not, under s. 8, sub-s. 1, they shall adjourn the 
 hearing and direct any further notices to be given, 
 is a matter entirely within their discretion ; but 
 where the amendment is of a material character, 
 it is desirable, tliough not obligatory upon them, 
 that they should adjourn the hearing and direct 
 further notices to be given in order that persons 
 affected by the amended scheme may have an 
 opportunity of being heard. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., [1899] l.Ch. 168, 
 affirmed. Twickenham Ueban Council v. 
 MnNTON - - C. A. [1899]W. N. 103; 
 
 [1899] 2 Oh. 603 
 
 23. — Apportionment — Frontagers/' liability. 
 tJnder s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 
 an urban sanitary authority has power to require 
 the owner of premises fronting on a street, not 
 
 STEEETS— STEEETS AND BUILDINGS (Pav- 
 ing, &c.. Expenses) — continued. 
 being a highway repairable by the inhabitants 
 at large, to pave and channel such street, not- 
 withstanding that it has already been paved and 
 channelled to the satisfaction of such authority. 
 Babrt and Cadoxton Local Board v. Parry 
 
 Div, Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 110 
 
 24. — Apportionment — Frontagers' liability — 
 Notice of objection — Arbitration — Public Health 
 Act, 1875, 8. 150. 
 
 Two frontagers gave notice of their objection 
 to the claim of a local authority for apportioned 
 expenses of paving, under s. 150 of the Public 
 Health Act, 1875. 
 
 (a) One raised the question of the cost, and 
 the objection appeared to be based on that rather 
 than the apportionment : — 
 
 Held, that arbitration was necessary before 
 the expenses became a debt due to the local 
 authority, as the corporation, whatever may have 
 been their rights, had in fact treated the notice 
 as a notice of objection to the apportionment, and 
 not merely as an objection to the costs of the 
 works. Folkestone Oobpoeation v. Brooks 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Oh. 22 
 
 (b) The other disputed the claim of the local 
 authority in general terms : — 
 
 Held, that this was a dispute as to the 
 apportionment, and that no debt arose until 
 arbitration had been resorted to. Folkestone 
 Corporation v. Ladd 
 
 Wright J. [1893] 3 Ch. 22, at p. 36 
 
 25. — Charge upon premises — ■" Owner " — Sale 
 of premises free from restrictive covenant— Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 150, 257. 
 
 The owner of land having neglected to comply 
 with a levelling and paving notice, the sanitary 
 authority did the work themselves, and claimed 
 a charge on the land therefor, and that the land 
 should be sold to defray such charge freed from 
 a restrictive covenant to which it was subject, 
 restraining the owners thereof from erecting 
 buildings thereon so as to obstrnot the view from 
 adjoining houses : — 
 
 Held, that there was nothing in the Public 
 Health Act, 1875, which enabled the land to be 
 freed from the covenant. Tendring Union v. 
 DowTON C. A. 45 Oh. D. 683 ; [1891] 3 Ch. 265 
 
 Discussed. Hornsey District Council v. Smith, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 843, 851. 
 
 26. — Frontager's liability — Order of Local 
 Government Board declaring road a street. 
 
 An Order of the Loc. Govt. Bd., under s. 276 
 of the Public Health Act, 1875, declaring a road 
 to be a street is not conclusive that such road is 
 a street. A road not formally dedicated to the 
 public, but which had become a public highway 
 since 1835, held to be a street within ss.- 4, 150 
 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Fenwick v. 
 Bubal Sanitary Authority of the Crovdon 
 Union - - Div. Ct. [1891] 2 Q. B. 216 
 
 27. — Frontager's liability — Bight to dispute 
 
 The owner of premises fronting on a street 
 failed to comply with a notice under s. 150 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, to sewer, &o., the 
 street according to his frontage. The urban 
 
 3X2 
 
( 2087 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2088 
 
 STREETS— STREETS AND BUIIDINGS (Pav- 
 ing, &c.. Expenses) — continued. 
 authority did the work, and a sum was appor- 
 tioned on the owner by their surveyor. He gave 
 no notice under s. 257 of the Act to dispute the 
 apportionment. On a complaint before justices 
 it appeared that the carriageway of the road was 
 repairable by the inhabitants at large, but that 
 the footpath was not : — 
 
 Seld, that the urban authority had jurisdic- 
 tion to give the notice and make the apportion- 
 ment as to the footpath, and as the owner had 
 not disputed the apportionment, he could not at 
 the hearing before the justices set ujp that he 
 was not bound to pay part of the appointed sum. 
 Dekbt Oorporation v. Gbudgings 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 496 
 
 28. — Highway repairable btj inhabitants at 
 large — Frontagers — Local Act — Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 149, 340. 
 
 Where a local Act, passed in 1849, gave power 
 to a municipal corporation to order that any 
 street, whether a public highway or not, should 
 be sufBciently sewered, drained, levelled, flagged, 
 paved, and otherwise completed by the frontagers, 
 and provided that, if they made default in the 
 execution of the work, the corporation might 
 cause the work to be executed and recover the 
 expense incurred in respect thereof from the 
 frontagers : — 
 
 Held, that the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 149, 
 bad not the effect of repealing the provision of 
 the local Act as regards streets which were high- 
 ways repairable by the inhabitants at large. 
 AsHTON-UNDEK-LyNE COEPORA-TION v. Puqh 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 46 
 
 Oonsidered by 0. A. Lodge v. Huddersfield 
 Corporation, [1898] 1 Q. B. 847, 853. 
 
 29, — Malting up street — " Owners" — National 
 school — Trustees — Statutory conveyance — Local 
 authority — Recovery of expenses — "Charge" — 
 Enforcing charge — Sale — School Sites Act, 1841 
 (4 & 5 Vict. c. 38), ss. 6, 10— Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. e. 55), ss. 4, 150, 257. 
 
 Under s. 6 of the School Sites Act, 1841, a 
 piece of land was conveyed, in the form given in 
 B. 10, to trustees for ever for the pm'poses of the 
 Act, as a site for a national school, " and for no 
 other purpose whatever " ; and a national school 
 was afterwards erected upon it. The local au- 
 thority, under s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, made up a street on part of which the 
 school premises abutted, and served the trustees 
 with notice under that Act to pay the apportioned 
 expenses : — 
 
 Held (afSrming Kekewich J.), that the trustees 
 were liable for those expenses as " owners " within 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, and that therefore 
 the expenses were, until recovery thereof, a 
 " charge " upon the premises under s. 257 ; Isut 
 (reversing Kekewich J.) that the local authority 
 could not enforce the charge by an order for sale 
 of the school premises, since such an order would 
 be in contravention of the School Sites Act, 1841. 
 
 Bowditch V. Wakefield Local Board, (1871) 
 L. E. 6 Q. B. 567, followed. Hoknset District 
 CouNoiL V. Smith C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 843 
 
 — New street. 
 
 iSee Streets — New Street. 
 
 STREETS- STREETS AND BUILDINGS (Pav- 
 ing, &c., Ejqpenses) — continued. 
 
 30. — Owner of adjoining lands not owner of 
 soil of street — Order by local authority upon owner 
 to execute works — Public Health — Trespass. 
 
 Where an Act of Parliament has imposed upon 
 persons, whose lands abut on a street, duties for 
 the discharge of which it is necessary that they 
 should enter on the street, those duties are im- 
 posed irrespective of the circumstance whether 
 those persons are the owners of the eoU of the 
 street or not ; and acts done in the due discharge 
 of those duties cannot constitute a trespass. 
 
 So lield in a case where the owner of land 
 abutting on a street had been ordered by the local 
 authority, under a section of the Local Improve- 
 ment Act similar in terms to s. 150 of the Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), to execute 
 paving works upon the street no portion of the 
 soil of which was vest«d in him. Mayor, &o., op 
 West Hartlepool v. Robinson 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] W. N. 12 (7) 
 
 31. — " Owners" — National school — Trustees — 
 Statutory conveyance — Local authority — Making 
 up road — Recovery of expenses — "Charge" — 
 School Sites Act. 1841 (4 * 5 Vict. c. 38), s. 6— 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 ss. 4. 257. 
 
 tinder s. 6 of the School Sites Act, 1841, a 
 piece of land was conveyed to trustees for ever 
 for tlio purposes of the Act as a site for a national 
 school, " and for no other purpose whatever" : — 
 
 Held, that the trustees were "owners" of the 
 school premises within the definition in s. 4 of 
 the Public Health Act, 1875, and as such liable, 
 under s. 257, for the apportioned expenses in- 
 curred by tlie local authority for making up an 
 adjoining road : also that, until payment, such 
 expenses were, under the same section, a " charge " 
 upon the premises, though, as to the mode of 
 enfoi'cing the charge, quaere. 
 
 Boioditch V. Wakefield Local Board of Health, 
 (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 567, and Wright v. Ingle, 
 (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 379, discussed. Hornsey 
 District Oouncil v. Smith - Kekewich J, 
 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 254 
 
 See also Hornsey District Council v. Smith, 
 0. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 843, No. 29, above. 
 
 32. — " Owner " — Trustee for charitable pur- 
 poses—Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 a. 55), ss. 4, 150,151,257. 
 
 (a) a claim by a local authority for expenses 
 for the sewering, levelling, metalling, &c., of 
 roads can be sustained in respect of property 
 vested, under the authority of Parliament, in a 
 trustee for charitable purposes, even though the 
 property cannot be let by reason of a special 
 condition imposed by Pai-liament. Such a trustee 
 is the " owner " within s. 4 of the Public Health 
 Act, 1875. 7m re Christchcrch Inclostjre Act. 
 Meyriok v. Att.-Gen. 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch. 209 
 Referred to by 0. A. Hoi-nsey District Council 
 V. Smith, [1897] 1 Ch. 843, 860, A^o. 29, above. 
 
 (b) "Owner" in s. 4 of the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, does not include a person who has the 
 benefit of a covenant restricting the use of pro- 
 mises in respect of which street improvement 
 
C 20^9 ) 
 
 Dtttfig'r OF CASSS, 189i— 1900. 
 
 ( 2090 ) 
 
 STREETS— STREETS AND BUILDINGS (Pav- 
 ing, &e., Expenses) — continued. 
 expenses have been incurred. Tendring Union 
 ■V. DowTON - C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 265 
 
 Discussed. Hornsey District Gouncil v. Smith, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 843, 851, No. 29, above. 
 
 — Private street. 
 
 See Streets — Private Streets. 
 
 33. — Sewering— Notice to sewer and make 
 up — Expenses — " Liability incurred " — Statute — 
 Repeal— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. 
 c. 55), ss. 150, 151, 152— Interpretation Act, 1889 
 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 88, sub-s. 2 (c)— Private 
 Street Works Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 57), 
 es. 24, 25. 
 
 An urban local authority served notice under 
 s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to sewer 
 and make up a private street. Under this notice, 
 if the frontagers did not do the work within a 
 limited time, the local aiithority had a right to do 
 it themselves, and charge the frontagers with the 
 expense, to be apportioned as provided by the 
 above section. The frontagers having made 
 default, the local authority took steps towards 
 doing tlie work; but before it had been com- 
 menced they adopted the Private Street Works 
 Act, 1892, which by s. 25 provides that from its 
 adoption in any district, s. 150 of the Public 
 Health Act, 1875, shall not apply to that district. 
 The work was subsequently done by the local 
 authority, and the expense apportioned according 
 tothe Aotof 1875: — 
 
 Beld, that s. 25 of the Act of 1892 did not 
 affect the validity or effect of the notice given 
 while s. 150 was in force in the district, though 
 after the adoption of the Act of 1892 no fresh 
 notice could be given under s. 150, and that if 
 there would otherwise have been any doubt on 
 the point, it was removed by s. 38, sub-s. 2, of 
 the Interpretation Act, 1889, which saves every- 
 thing duly done under a repealed enactment 
 before its repeal, and every right, obligation, or 
 liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under it 
 before the repeal, and that the subsequent pro- 
 ceedings of the local authority under the notice 
 were effectual. 
 
 Decision of North J. affirmed. Heston and 
 
 ISLEWOETH UbBAN DISTRICT CODNCIL V. GkOCT 
 
 C. A, [1897] % Ch. 306 
 
 Private Streets. 
 
 34. — Charge of expertises cm frontager' s premises 
 — Date from which diarge takes effect — " Comple- 
 tion of works" or "final apportionment" — Vendor 
 and purchaser — ■" Outgoings " — Implied covenant 
 against incumbrances — Private Street Works Act, 
 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. a. 57), ss. 1, 12, 13. 
 
 The amount of the apportioned expense's of 
 private street works executed under the Private 
 Street Works Act, 1892, become a charge on the 
 premises in respect of which they are apportioned 
 as from the date of the completion of the works, 
 and not merely as from the date of the final 
 apportionment. 
 
 If, therefore, the premises are sold free from 
 incumbrances after the completion of the works, 
 but before the date of the final apportionment, 
 the vendor must indemnify the purchaser against 
 
 STREETS- STBEETS AND BUILDINGS (Private 
 
 Streets) — continued. 
 the sum iinally apportioned in respect of the 
 premises. 
 
 Decision of Ketewich J., [1899] W. N. 108; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 496, affirmed. Stock v. Meakin 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 73 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 683 
 
 35. — Paving — Footway — Frontage — Appor- 
 tionment — Private Street Works Act, 1892 (55 & 56 
 Vict. c. 57), «. 10. 
 
 A local board acting as an urban sanitary 
 authority, resolved, under the Private Street 
 Works Act, 1892, to execute works in a private 
 street having houses only on the north side ; part 
 of the laud on the south side was owned by the 
 local board. The work partly consisted of flagging 
 a footway on the north side. There was no foot- 
 way on the south side : — 
 
 Held, that the expenses of the footpath were 
 properly apportionable among the owners of 
 premises fronting, adjoining, or abutting on both 
 sides of the street. Clacton Local Board v. 
 YoDNG & Sons Div. Ct, [1895] 1 Q. B. 395 
 
 36. — Proposed works — Objections — " Insuffi- 
 cient or unreasonable" construction of — Private 
 Street Works Act, 1892 (55 * 56 Vict. o. 57), 
 ss. 7, 8. 
 
 An objection was taken to works of paving, 
 levelling, sewering, and lighting a street proposed 
 by an urban authority to be done under the 
 Private Street Works Act, 1892, the ground of 
 objection being that the proposed works were 
 " insufficient " and " unreasonable " within the 
 meaning of s. 7 (d). On the hearing of the 
 objection before a court of summary jurisdiction 
 it was proved that the woiks were necessary and 
 proper in order that the street might be safely 
 and conveniently used as a. street ; but the jus- 
 tices allowed the- objections, holding that the 
 works were ■ insutBoient, and therefore unreason- 
 able, because the street at one point was too 
 narrow, and the urban authority did not propose 
 to take any steps to have it widened : — 
 
 Held, that the expression " insufficient " in 
 s. 7 (d) limited the jurisdiction of the court of 
 summary jurisdiction to determining whether or 
 not the works were insufficient to effect the pur- 
 pose proposed to be effected by them, and there- 
 fore that the justices' decision, being founded 
 upon considerations which they ought not to 
 have entertained, was wrong. Mansfield Coe- 
 
 POEATION V. BuTTEBWOBTH 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 3 ft. B. 274 
 
 37. — " Street " — Sewering — Local authority — 
 Powers — "■Highway repairable by the inhabitants 
 at large "—Private Street Works Act, 1892 (55 & 
 56 Vict. c. 57), ss. 5, 6. 
 
 The definition of " street " in the Private 
 Street Works Act, 1892, s. 5, excludes " a high- 
 way repairable by the inhabitants at large." 
 
 By s. 6 an urban authority is empowered, 
 with respect to streets, to do certain sewering 
 works. 
 
 An urban authority proposed to do sewering, 
 works in a certain place in their borough. The 
 place in question (wliich was called a street) was 
 formed before 1816, and had always been open 
 at both ends into highways, and the place and 
 buildings had existed in the same condition for 
 
( 2091 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2092 ) 
 
 BTEEETS— STREETS AND BUILDINGS (Private 
 
 Streets) — continued. 
 seventy years, and since its formation the way 
 had been used by foot-passengers without inter- 
 ruption. Neither public nor private repairs 
 were proved. 
 
 On a case stated on the hearing and deter- 
 mination by justices of objections to the proposed 
 worlts : — 
 
 Held, that the place in question was not a 
 "street" within the meaning of the Act, being 
 a footway repairable by the inhabitants at large, 
 and therefore the urban authority had no power 
 to execute the proposed works. Rishton v. 
 Haslinsden Cokpobation 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 1 Q. B. 294 
 
 Profane or Obscene Language. 
 
 38. — Use of profane or obscene language — 
 County council — By-law — Seasonableness— Annoy- 
 ance. 
 
 A by-law made by a county council under 
 s. 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888, was in 
 the following terms : " No person shall in any 
 street or public place, or on land adjacent thereto, 
 sing or recite any profane or obscene song or 
 ballad, or use any profane or obscene language " : 
 
 Held, that the by-law was invalid, since even 
 if the words "or on land adjacent thereto," which 
 were clearly too wide, were struck out, it was still 
 unreasonable, because it did not contain any words 
 importing that the acts must be done so as to 
 cause annoyance. Steioklanb v. Hayes 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 
 
 Considered by Div. Ct. Burnett v. Berry, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 641, 614. 
 
 Projecting Signs. 
 
 39. — Frojecting signs affixed to Twitses — 
 Statutory power to order removal — 6 Will. 4, 
 c. XXV., s. 82. 
 
 Under a local Act (6 Will. 4, c. xxv.) s. 82, 
 relating to Credition, improvement commrs. were 
 empowered to order the removal of projecting 
 signs affixed to houses : — 
 
 Meld, that the commrs. were not bound to 
 give the owner of a projecting sign an opportunity 
 of being heard, but only to give him the pre- 
 scribed notice to remove the sign. 
 
 Whether, if deft, had asked to be heard, the 
 commrs. could refuse to hear him, quiere. 
 
 Injunction granted restraining the owner of 
 the sign from obstnicting the commra. in removing 
 the sign. Att.-Gen, v. Hoopek 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 3 Ch. 483 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Robinson v. Sunder- 
 land Corporation, [1899] 1 Q. B. 751, 758. 
 
 STRIKE — Application of profits of industrial 
 society to subscription to strike fund. 
 See Industrial and Provident Society. 
 1. 
 
 — Charterparty — Colliery guarantee — Strike 
 
 clause — Colliery on strike. 
 
 See Shipping— Charterparty. 20. 
 
 — Cotton mills — Stoppage during strike— OccUt 
 
 pation during stoppage. 
 
 See Kates— Kateability, 15. 
 
 STRIK'E— continued. 
 
 — Shipping — Liability. 
 
 See Shipping — Demurrage. 115 — 120. 
 
 — Trade union. 
 
 See Cases under Tbade Union. 
 
 — Workmen — Guardians of the poor — Jurisdic- 
 
 tion — Persons entitled to relief. 
 See PooK Law. 10. 
 
 STRIKING OFF ROLL— Misconduct. 
 
 /Sec SoLiciTOB — Uiscondnct. 119 — 121. 
 
 STRIKING OUT— Pleadings. 
 
 See Cases under Pbaotice— Pleadings, 
 
 STRUCTURE— Buildings. 
 
 See Building. 
 
 — London buildings. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 
 
 — Street buildings. 
 
 ^ee Streets — Buildings generally. 
 
 STUFFED-BIRD COLLECTION— Movable chattels 
 — Annexation to freehold. 
 See FixTUKES. 1 . 
 SUB - CONTRACTOR — Property in incomplete 
 article. 
 
 Contractors for tlie erection of tanks sub- 
 contracted for the work. Before completion the 
 contractors failed : — 
 
 Held, that the property in the tanks remained 
 in the sub-contractor, they not being fixed to 
 the soil, and that he had a lien on them for the 
 price payable to him by the original contractor. 
 Bellamy v. Davet Romer J. [1891] 3 Ch, 540 ; 
 C. A. [1891] "W. N. 192 
 
 — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 See Cases under Masteb and Servant 
 — Compensation. 
 
 SUB-LEASE. 
 
 See Cases under Lanbloed and Tenant 
 ^Underlease. 
 
 " SUBMISSION "-Arbitration. 
 See Arbitration. 60. 
 
 SUBPCENA DUCES TECUM— Motion to set aside 
 — Costs. 
 See Discovery — Documents. 42. 
 
 SUBEOGATION—Indemnity— Contract of. 
 See Insceance — Fire. 9. 
 
 — Eemedies of insurers. 
 
 See Queensland. 3. 
 
 — Trustee carrying on business — Tort — Damages 
 
 against trustee — Right to indemnity. 
 See Trustee — Indemnity. 53. 
 
 — Trustee's right of indemnity — Purchase of 
 
 land by trustee of settled estates — Entry 
 
 by tenant for life. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Lien. 56. 
 
 SUBSIDENCE— Mines and minerals. 
 See Cases under Mines. 
 
 — Railway — Support. 
 
 See Railway — Minerals. 15. 
 
 SUBSOIL — Vesting " of street " in urban autho- 
 rity. 
 See Streets — In General. 1. 
 
 SUBSTITUTED SERVICE. 
 
 See Practice— Service, 229—232. 
 
( 2S93 ) 
 
 DIGEST 01* CASfiS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2094 ) 
 
 SUBSTITUTED SEEVICE—eonirajjed. 
 
 — Written demand for cohabitation. 
 
 See DiTOBCB. 117. 
 
 SUBSTITUTION— Bill of sale. 
 See Bill op Sale. 53. 
 
 — Will, Oonstruction of. 
 
 See Will — Substitution. 
 
 SUCCESSION— Scottish law. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Succession. 
 
 SUCCESSION DUTY. 
 
 See Eetenue — Succession Duty. 
 
 " SUCCESSORS "—Land allotted to vicar and his 
 — Vicar. 
 See Settled Land. 126. 
 
 SUFFICIENCY — Answers to interrogatories. 
 
 See Cases under Discovert — Interro- 
 gatories. 
 
 " SUFFICIENT CAUSE "—Not to make receiving 
 order. 
 See Bankeuptot — Eeoeiving Order. 211. 
 
 SUMMARY JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 See Husband and Wiee — Summary 
 Jurisdiction, 
 
 Justices. 
 
 SUMMONS. 
 
 See Cases and Cross-references under 
 Pbaotioe. 
 
 SUMMONS FOR DIRECTIONS. 
 
 See Pkaotice — Summons for Directions. 
 
 SUNDAY — Employment on — ^Jews. 
 
 See Masteb and Servant — Factory 
 Acts. 61. 
 
 1. — Observance — Exercising " worldly labour, 
 business, or work " on Sunday — Barber — 29 Car. 2, 
 e. 7, s. 1. 
 
 A barber who shaves customers on Sunday is 
 not a " tradesman, artificer, workman, or labourer, 
 or other person whatsoever " within the meaning 
 of 29 Car. 2, c. 7, s. 1, which prohibits those 
 persons from exercising any worldly labour, 
 business, or work of their ordinary calling upon 
 the Lord's Day (works of necessity and charity 
 only excepted). Palmer v. Snow 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 25 ; [1900] 1 Q. B. 725 
 
 3. — Observance — ■ Justices — Practice — • In- 
 formation — Institution of prosecution — Consent in 
 writing of chief constable — Sunday Observance Act, 
 1676 (29 Gar. 2, c. 7), «. 1 — Sunday Observance 
 Prosecution Act. 1871 (34 & 35 Vict c. 87), s. 1. 
 
 By the Sunday Observance Prosecution Act, 
 1871, "No prosecution .... shall be instituted 
 .... for any offence .... under" the Sunday 
 Observance Act, 1676 . . . . " except by or with 
 the consent in writing of the chief officer of police 
 of the police district in which the oifence is 
 committed. . . ." 
 
 The appellant was convicted under the Sunday 
 Observance Act. The chief constable gave a 
 verbal consent before the information was laid, 
 and gave consent in writing after the information 
 was laid and the summons issued : — 
 
 Meld, that the prosecution was instituted 
 when the information was laid, and therefore 
 
 SUNDAY--coji<mMe(?. 
 
 was not instituted with the consent in writing of 
 the chief constable, and the conviction was bad. 
 Thorpe v. Pbiestnall 
 
 Div. Ct, [1896] W, N, 171 (6) ; 
 [1897] 1 Q, B. 169 
 
 3. — • Observance — Soom used for " public 
 entertainment on Sunday " — " Keeper " of room — 
 Person managing or conducting " entertainment." 
 
 The public were admitted on payment to a 
 lecture given by a Sunday evening lecture society 
 in a hall hired from a co. in liquidation. The 
 jury found that the hall was "opened or used " 
 within a. 1 of the Sunday Observance Act, 1780 
 (21 Geo. 3. c. 49) :— 
 
 Held, that the liquidator's solicitor who had 
 arranged for letting the hall was not the " keeper," 
 and that the chairman who introduced the 
 lecturer, but "took no other part, was not the 
 person " managing or conducting " within the 
 Act. Eeid v. Wilson & Ktno. Same v. Wilson 
 & Ward - - C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 316 
 
 SUPERANNUATION— Teachers'. 
 
 See Schools — Teachers. 
 
 SUPERFLUOUS LANDS. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts — Superfluous 
 Lands. 
 
 SUPERIOR AND VASSAL. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Superior and 
 Vassal. 
 
 SUPERSTITIOUS USES — Gift to be spent in 
 masses for the dead. 
 See Will — Superstitious Uses. 202.. 
 
 SUPERVISION ORDER —Winding-up of com- 
 pany. 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up. 
 
 " SUPPLYING WATER." 
 
 See Cases under Water — Supply. 
 
 SUPPORT— Mines and minerals. 
 See Oases under Mines. 
 
 — Bight to — Minerals. 
 
 See Kailwat — Minerals. 14, 15. 
 
 — Eight to — Subadjacent and adjacent minerals. 
 
 See Canal. 1. 
 
 1. — Bight to support — Statutory powers -r- 
 Nuisance — Excavation — Landowner — Drainage — ^ 
 Surface, letting down — Subsidence — Underground 
 water — Water-logged land — Quiclesand — " Sun- 
 ning silt " — Pitch, stratum of — Ancient lights, in- 
 terference with — Damages — Injunction — Gas- 
 works Clauses Acts, 1847, 1871 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 15, 
 s. 29 ; 34 <fe 35 Vict. c. 11, «. Hy-Lord Cairns' 
 Act (21 <6 22 Vict. c. 27), 
 
 The pit. was the owner of land with houses 
 on it. The adjoining land belonged to the def ts., 
 a gas CO. incorporated by specittl Act, with power 
 to purchase land by agreement only, and subject 
 to the provisions of the Ga» (forks Clauses Acts, 
 1847 and 1871. Under tneir statutory powers 
 the defts. proceeded to excavate their land for 
 the purpose of erecting a gasometer. In so doing 
 they penetrated an underground stratum of quick- 
 sand, or sand loaded with stagnant water, geologi- 
 cally known as "running silt," which extended 
 under the plt.'s land as well as their own, the 
 
( 2095 ) 
 
 blGESl? OF CASES, I891^l9()0. 
 
 ( 2098 ) 
 
 STTPI OET — con tinued. 
 
 silt or Band largely preponderating over the 
 ■water. In draining their excavation the defte. 
 withdrew a large quantity of the running Bilt 
 from under the pit's land and thus caused a 
 subsidence of the surface with consequent struc- 
 tural injury to hia houses. The liability of the 
 defts. to proceedings for any " nuisance " caused 
 by them in the execution of their works was 
 preserved by s. 9 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 
 1871 :— 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the defts. had no statu- 
 tory authority so to construct their works as to 
 occasion a nuisance, the fact that s. 9 of the Gas- 
 works Clauses Act, 1871, expressly preserved 
 their liability for any nuisance distinguishing 
 the case from London, Brighton and South Coast 
 By. Co. V. Truman, (1885) 11 App. Cas. 45: 
 
 Held, also, by Lindley M.R. and Eigby L. J., 
 that, on their view of the facts, the plt.'s land 
 was supported, not by a stratum of water, but 
 by a bed of wet sand or running silt ; and that, 
 as the defts. had caused the subsidence of the 
 plt-'s land by withdrawing this support they had 
 couunitted an actionable nuisance at common law 
 entitling the plaintiff to damages : the decision 
 in Popplewell v. HodMnson, (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 
 248, being inapplicable as dealing only with 
 support by water : 
 
 But held, by V. Williams L.J., that no nuis- 
 ance giving a right of action had been proved, 
 because, upon his view of the facts, the subsi- 
 dence had been caused merely by the withdrawal, 
 through the defts.' draining operations on their 
 own land, of subterranean water-support of the 
 plt.'s land; and that, on principle as well as 
 on the authority of Fopplewell v. HodMnson, the 
 withdrawal of subterranean water-support from a 
 neighbour's land in the course of draining one's 
 own land, even though it damages the neighbour's 
 land, gives him no cause of action. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1898] 2 Ch. 614, 
 affirmed. 
 
 The right of support for the surface of land 
 by subterranean water, quicksand, or water-logged 
 soil, discussed. 
 
 It being proved that the proposed gasometer 
 would obstruct ancient lights in the plt.'s 
 houses : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A., that the pit. was entitled 
 to an injunction to restrain the threatened in- 
 fringement of his legal right, since it would 
 not be adequately protected or vindicated by 
 damages: Martin v. Price, [1894] 1 Ch. 276; 
 Shelfer v. City of London Electric Liqhtinq Co., 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 287. 
 
 Popplewell V. Hodkinson held not applicable 
 to a case in which subsidence of A.'s land had 
 been caused by the working by B. on his own 
 land of an underground stratum of natural pitch 
 common to both lands. (See [1899] 2 Ch. 260, n.) 
 
 JORDESON V. SnTTON, SOUTHOOATES AND DuTPOOL 
 
 Gas Co. - C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 217 
 
 2. — Right to lateral support — Adjacent lands 
 — Escape of pitch — Injunction — Damages. 
 
 Where the defts. by removing the lateral 
 support of their land caused the asphalt or pitch 
 which formed the main ingredient of the pits.' 
 land to melt and ooze forth into their own land 
 
 STIFPffRT— continued. 
 
 and thereupon appropriated it to their owil 
 
 use: — 
 
 Held, that an injunction was rightly granted 
 by the first Court to restrain them, and that 
 damages were recoverable both for injury caused 
 by subsidence of the pits.' surface and for loss 
 of the pitch. Teinidad Asphalt Co. ■». Ambabd 
 P. e. [1899] 2 Ch. 260, n. ; [1899] A. C. 594 
 
 STJBETT. 
 
 See PniNcrPAL asd Soeett. 
 
 SUSFACE — Diminution of value of— Eateability 
 — Underground sewers. 
 See Bates — ^Eateability. 50. 
 
 — Letting down. 
 
 See Cases under Soppobt. 
 
 — Tenant for life — Lease of surface reserving 
 
 minerals. 
 
 See Settled Land — Lease. 71, 74. 
 
 STJEFACE SEWEES. 
 
 See Sewebs — Surface Sewers. 32. 
 
 SUEGEONS— Eoyal College of— Income tax- 
 Exemption. 
 See Revente — Income Tax. 105. 
 
 — Salvage — Apportionment — Non-navigating 
 
 members of crew. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 224. 
 
 — Veterinary surgeon. 
 
 See Veteeinaey Suegeon. 
 
 STTENAME— Use of. 
 
 See Will — Name and Arms Clause. 150. 
 
 SUEPLTTS— Gift in trust— Beneficial gift or re- 
 sulting trust. 
 See Trust. 6. 
 
 — Maintenance of individuals — Death of objects 
 
 of fund — Unapplied surplus — Resulting 
 trust for subscribers. 
 See Tetjst. 5. 
 
 SUEPLUS ASSETS. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Surplus 
 Assets. 6 — 19. 
 
 — Mortgage by undischarged bankrupt — After- 
 
 acquired property — Successive bank- 
 ruptcies — Eights of trustees. 
 See Bankruptcy — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 262. 
 
 SUEPEISE- New trial— Notice of setting down 
 for trial. 
 See Divorce. 112. 
 
 STTEEENDEE— British subject— Extradition. 
 See Extradition. 
 
 — Landlord and tenant. 
 
 See Landlord abd Tenant — Surrender. 
 
 — Of life interest in favour of remainderman — 
 
 Estate duty. 
 
 See Cases under Revenue —Estate Duty. 
 
 — Policy — Payment "in the meantime" — Pay- 
 
 ment by mortgagor or his agent. 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 29. 
 
 — Shares — Issue of new shares in exchange. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 290. 
 
 SUREOGATE— Repairs. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Practice. 57 . 
 
( 2097 ) 
 
 MGES* of dASES, 18^1— idoo. 
 
 ( 2098 ) 
 
 STIRVEYOB— Pees— Flats. 
 
 See London— Buildings. 29. 
 
 — Highways — ^Liability of surveyor. 
 See Highway. 4, 30. 
 
 1. — Liability — Inuccurcicy — Causing damage 
 to third party. 
 
 Mortgagees lent money by instalments to a 
 builder on the faith of certificates negligently 
 granted by the deft., who was a surveyor appointed; 
 not by the mortgagees, but by the builder's 
 vendor. The certificates were inaccurate and 
 misleading, by the negligence of the surveyor, 
 and the mortgagees thereby suffered loss for which 
 they claimed compensation from the deft. : — 
 
 Seld, that as there was no contractual relation 
 between the surveyor and the mortgagees, the 
 deft, owed no duty to them to exercise care in his 
 certificate, and the action could not be main- 
 tained. Le Lievbb v. Gould 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 
 
 2. — Quantity surveyor — Charges — Usage. 
 The usage is reasonable and valid by which a 
 
 quantity surveyor is entitled to be paid by the 
 builder whose tender is accepted, out of the first 
 
 SVRVEYOB,— continued. 
 
 certificate, for his fees for taking out quantities 
 at the instance of the building owner or architect. 
 North v. Bassbtt Div, Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 333 
 SURVIVOR— Will— Construction of. 
 
 See Win — Survivor. 
 SURVIVORSHIP— Presumption of— Husband and 
 
 wife. 
 
 See Pbobatb. 139. 
 
 StrSPENSION — Discharge of bankrupt. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Discharge. 90. 
 
 ■ Injunction. 
 
 See Injunction. 
 
 34. 
 
 SWIN MIDDLE LIGHTSHIP— Collision— Narrow 
 channel. 
 See Shipping— Collision. 73, 74. 
 
 SYNDICATE — For speculation in shares — ^Powor 
 of manager. 
 See Natal. 3. 
 
 — Subscription by — Contract whether joint or 
 several. 
 See Insurance — Marine. 69. 
 
( 2090 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2100 ) 
 
 T. 
 
 TABEBKACLE — For reception of reserved sacra- 
 ment. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 28. 
 
 TABIEATT VIVANTS. 
 
 See COPTBIGHT — Picture, 39, 40. 
 
 " TACK " — Lease — Agreement in consideration 
 of fixed annual payment. 
 See Ebvbntie — Stamps. 140. 
 
 TACKING. 
 
 See MoETGAGE — Tacking. 
 
 TALFOUBD'S ACT— Effect of this Act considered 
 with reference to an Ontario statute framed on 
 the lines thereof. Smart v. Smart 
 
 P. C. [1892] A. C. 426 
 
 TAPESTRY— Heirlooms— Executor and heir. 
 See Fixtures. 4. 
 
 TARIFF— Customs Tariff Act, 1894— Laws of 
 Canada. 
 See Canada. 8. 
 
 TASMANIA. 
 
 Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 jSee Probate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1892. 
 
 Law of Tasmania. 
 
 See Commonwealth of Australia Consti- 
 tution Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), 
 ss. 3, 6. 
 Constitution — 0. in C. assenting to Bill amend- 
 ing the Constitution Act. St. B. & 0. 1896, 
 No. 975. 
 
 1. — Practice — Special leave to appeal — 
 Tasmanian Act, No. 10 of 1858 (21 * 22 Vict.), 
 ss. 5, 8. 
 
 By Tasmanian Act No. 10 of 1858, s. 5, dis- 
 putes concerning lands yet ungranted by the 
 Crown are referred to the Supreme Court, whose 
 decision is to be final ; and by s. 8 the Court is 
 directed to be guided by equity and good con- 
 science only, and by the best evidence procurable, 
 even if not required or admissible in ordinary 
 cases, and not to be bound by strict rules of law 
 or equity or by any legal forms : — 
 
 Seld, that tlie Crown's prerogative to grant 
 special leave to appeal is inapplicable to a decision 
 so authorized. 
 
 Theberge v. Laudry, (1876) 2 App; Cas. 102, 
 followed. Moses alias Moss v. Parker. Ex 
 parte MosES P. C. [1896] A. C. 245 
 
 2. — Principal and surety — Novation — Melease 
 of principal debtor — Discharge of surety. 
 
 Where a creditor released his principal debtor 
 and accepted a third party as full debtor in his 
 stead, and the surety for the former agreed to 
 give a guarantee for the latter, and to continue 
 his former guarantee till he did so, and then 
 died without having given it : — 
 
 Held, in an action by the creditor against his 
 executors tliat the debt having been extinguished 
 
 TASMANIA (Law of Tasmania) — continued. 
 by the release, the remedy against the deceased 
 was gone. Novation of debt operates as a com- 
 plete release of the original debtor, and cannot 
 be considered as a mere covenant not to sue him. 
 Commercial Bank op Tasmania v. Jones 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 313 
 TAXATION OF COSTS. 
 
 See Cases under Costs. 
 
 Solicitor. 
 TAXES, 
 
 See Eevenue. 
 
 TEACHERS. 
 
 iSee Schools — Teachers. 
 
 TELEGRAPH. 
 
 Telephone.] See Telephone. 
 
 " The Foreign Telegram Regulations, 1892," 
 dated May 11, 1892. St, E. & 0. 1892, p, 918. 
 
 — Bill of lading — Telegraphic instructions — 
 
 Mistake. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 47. 
 
 — Contract — ^Action on — Onus probandi — Cable- 
 
 grams—Mistake. 
 
 See Contract — Formation. 19. 
 
 1. — Mistake — Telegraphic instructions — 
 Charterparty. 
 
 A firm of shipbrokers signed a charterparty 
 in the form " by telegraphic authority " of the 
 charterer " as agent " : — 
 
 Held, that such a form of signature was 
 intended to protect, and by custom did protect, 
 the shipbrokers from any mistake in the telegram. 
 Evidence to explain the meaning of this form 
 of signature admitted. Lilly, Wilson & Co. v. 
 Smales, Eeles & Co. 
 
 Senman J, [1892] 1 Q. E. 456 
 
 2. — Negotiation by telegram — Acceptance of 
 offer not -proved. 
 
 A. telegraphed to B., " Will you sell ns 
 B. H. P.? Telegraph lowest cash price." B. 
 telegraphed in reply, " Lowest price for B. H. P. 
 £900." A. telegraphed, " We agree to buy 
 B. H. P. for £900 asked by you." B. did not 
 reply : — 
 
 Held, that there was no contract. The final 
 telegram was not the acceptance of an offer to 
 sell, as there was no offer to sell, only an offer to 
 buy, the acceptance to which must be express. 
 Harvey v. Faoey - P. C. [1893] A. C. 652 
 
 — Obtaining money by forged instrument. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Forgery. 84. 
 
 TELEPHONE. 
 
 Telegraph Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 59), 
 provides for the development of the telephonic 
 
 1. — Electrical disturbance in wires of telephone 
 company by operations of electric tramway. 
 
 A tramway co. acting under a provisional 
 order of the Bd. of Trade contirmed by Act of 
 
C 2101 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891-1900. 
 
 TELEPHONE— conMnMeci. 
 
 Parliament, and using the best known system of 
 electrical traction, caused electrical disturbance 
 in the wires of a telephone co. acting under 
 licence from the Postmaster-General :— - 
 
 Seld, that the tramway co. were not liable 
 for nuisance caused by exercise of their statutory 
 authority to use electricity. National Tele- 
 phone Co. V. Bakeb 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 186 
 
 2. — Illegal stretching of telephone wires across 
 public streets— Powers of local authority— Removal 
 of wires — Law of Guerrisey. 
 
 In a suit by a telephone co. against the local 
 authority to recover damages for cutting down 
 and removing telephone wires stretched across a 
 public street, it appeared that the co. was not 
 authorized by statute so to place their wires : — 
 
 Held, that the action failed. The removal 
 was within the legal powers of the defts., and 
 there was no allegation of any unnecessary 
 damage having been caused by the cutting. 
 National Telephone Co. v. Constables op St. 
 Peteb Poet - - P. C, [1900] A. C. 317 
 
 3. — Notice determining tenancy of wire — 
 Acceptance of rent — Waiver of notice. 
 
 In 1889 the N. Co. supplied a telephone wire 
 and apparatus to K. for three years at a rent 
 payable quarterly; upon the expiration of the 
 term the parties continued the agreement by 
 mutual consent. On Dec. 30, 1893, the last day 
 of a quarter, the N. Co. gave notice terminating 
 the agreement forthwith, and demanded rent up 
 to Dec. 31, being one day beyond the quarter. 
 The rent was paid and accepted by the N. Co. 
 On motion to restrain the N. :Oo. from cutting 
 the wire : — 
 
 Beld, that the agreement created the relation 
 of landlord and tenant between the N. Co. and 
 K., and therefore the acceptance of rent for a day 
 beyond the notice determining tho tenancy acted 
 as a waiver of that notice. An injunction granted 
 restraining the N. Co. from interfering with the 
 wire and apparatus. 
 
 Eules as to injunction ordering specific per- 
 formance considered. Keith, Peowsb & Co. v. 
 National Telephone Co. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 147 
 
 — Vibration — Eight of reversioner to sue — 
 Powers of local authority. 
 See Nuisances. 9. 
 
 4. — Wires — Public street — Licence from 
 Postmaster- General — Right to lay wires^Power 
 to open street — Consent — Personliablefor repair — 
 Tramway company— Telegraph .4c<.1863(26 & 27 
 Vict. c. 112), ss. 10, 12, 1»— Tramways Act, 1870 
 (33 & 34 Vict. 0. 78), ss. 28, 32. 
 
 A telephone co., acting under a licence from 
 the Postmaster-General pursuant to the Tele- 
 graph Acta. 1863, 1878, and 1892, need not 
 obtain the previous consent of a tramway co. 
 before proceeding to break open a street or public 
 road on which tramway lines are laid for the 
 purpose of laying telephone wires, even though 
 the tramway co. is liable for the repair of that 
 street or public road. Bristol Teamways and 
 Cabriage Co. v. National Telephone Co. 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 91 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 282 
 
 C 2102 ) 
 
 TEMPORARY EBEdJION— "Structure"— Bnild 
 ing notice. 
 See London — Buildings. 31. 
 
 TENANCY IN COMMON— Improvements— Ex- 
 penditure. 
 See Impeovbments. 
 
 — Mortgage— Parties. 
 
 See Moetqage— Redemption. 66. 
 
 !• — Parties to action — Damage to reversion — 
 Breach of covenant — Severance of reversion — 
 Covenant running with land. 
 
 A reversion of a lease was devised to tenants 
 in common. The interest of one tenant was 
 vested in the pit.; the lease was vested in 
 deft. :- 
 
 Held, that the pit. could sue both for damage 
 to the reversion and for breach of covenant 
 without joining the other tenants in common. 
 EoBEKTS V. Holland Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 666 
 
 — Partition. 
 
 See Cases under Partition. 
 
 — Partners — Property held in common by. 
 
 See Cases under Paetnership. 
 
 — Purchase by one co-tenant — Mortgagee, 
 
 Duties of. 
 
 See Moetqage — Sale, 86. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser tenants in common— 
 
 Eents and profits In lieu of interest. 
 See Vendoe and Pceohasee — Contract. 
 34. 
 
 — Will, Construction of. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Joint Tenancy. 
 TENANT. 
 
 See Cases under Landlord and 
 Tenant. 
 
 — Joint tenants. 
 
 See Joint Tenancy. 
 Will — Joint Tenancy. 
 
 TENANT AT WILL 
 
 See Cases under Limitations, Statute 
 OF— Tenancy at Will. 
 
 TENANT BY THE CURTESY— Mamed Women's 
 Property Act, 1882 — Real estate of wife — Devolu- 
 tion. 
 
 This Act does not deprive a husband of his 
 rights as tenant by the curtesy in the wife's real 
 estate not disposed of. Hope v. Hope 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 336 
 
 — Married woman — Eestraint on anticipation. 
 
 See Settled Land. 117. 
 
 2. — Validity of lease by — Absence of notice. 
 
 A tenant by the curtesy purported to grant 
 a building lease as absolute owner without any 
 reference to the Settled Land Acts. There were 
 no trustees for the purposes of the Acts, and con- 
 sequently no notices were given as required by 
 s. 45 of the Act of 1882 :— 
 
 Held, (1.) that the lease could and did operate 
 under the Settled Land Act, 1882, to convey the 
 land within the meaning of s. 20, sub-s. 2, and 
 was valid ; (2.) that the lessee having dealt with 
 the lessor in good faith was protected by s. 45, 
 
( ii63 ) 
 
 DtOfeSt or GASES, 1891— lEiOO, 
 
 ( 2104 ) 
 
 TENANT BY THE CUB.TESY — continued. 
 
 subs. 2, as to the absence of trustees and want of 
 
 notices. Mogeidge v. Clapp 
 
 Kekewioh J. afSjin. by C. A. [1892] 3 Cb. 382 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Chandler v. 
 Bradley, [1897] 1 Ch. 315, 322. 
 
 Distinguished by Eomer J. In re Fisher and 
 GrazebrooTi's Contract, [1898] 2 Cb. 660, G62. 
 
 TENANT FOE LIFE. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 TENANT FOR YEARS— Eenf^charge— Personal 
 liability. 
 See Rent-chakge. 6. 
 
 TENANT IN TAIL— Will. 
 
 See TViLL— Estate Tail. 86. 
 
 TENANT PTIK AUTRE VIE. 
 
 See Estate pdb Autre Vie. 
 
 — Forfeiture. 
 
 See Will — Forfeiture. 
 
 TENDER — Admiralty practice. 
 See Shipping — Tender, 
 
 — Bill of sale— Property in goods— Trespass— 
 
 Eedemption. 
 
 See Bill oe Sale. 54. 
 
 1. — Cheque — Validity — Autlwrity of solicitor. 
 Appeal of pits, from Kekewich J., [1897] 
 
 1 Ch. 171, disiuissed with costs, on the facts. 
 Blbmeerg v. Liee Interests and Eeversionakt 
 Securities Coepokation C. A. [1898] I Ch. 27 
 
 2. — Conditional tender — Tender under pro- 
 test. 
 
 Although a conditional tender is not good, a 
 tender under i^rotest, reserving the right of the 
 debtor to dispute the amount due, is a good 
 tender, if it does not impose any conditions on 
 the creditor : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that a tender to mortgagees 
 in possession, reserving the right to tax ttieir 
 costs and to review their account was a good 
 tender. Greenwood v. Sutoliefe 
 
 C. A, [1892] 1 Oh, I 
 
 3, — "Highest net money tender" — Contract 
 for sale — Practice — Striking out statement of claim 
 —B. S. a, 1883, Order XXV., r. 4. 
 
 The owner of certain coal mines proposed to 
 receive sealed tenders from two parties who were 
 competing for the purchase of them, and under- 
 toolc to accept the highest net money tender. 
 One of the competitors offered such a sum as 
 would exceed by 2001. the amount offered by the 
 other : — 
 
 Held, that a tender in this form did not 
 answer the description of the highest net money 
 tender, and an order was made striking out the 
 statement of claim in an action for specific 
 performance of an alleged contract founded on 
 such tender as disclosing no reasonable cause of 
 action. South Hetton Coal Co. v. Haswell, 
 Shotton and Basington Coal and Coke Co. 
 
 C, A. [1898] 1 Ch, 466 
 
 — " Tender " — County court — Practice — Costs — 
 
 Pinal order — Appeal, 
 See Shipping. 269. 
 TENTTRE OF OFFICE. 
 
 See Grown 4, 5. 
 
 TERCE, JUS EELICT.a;, AND LEGITIM -» 
 Partial intestacy— Will— Provision for 
 widow. 
 See Scottish Law— Succession. 46. 
 
 TEEM — ^Eent-charge, 
 
 See Cases under Eent-chaege. 
 
 — Trust for management and accumulation. 
 
 See Settled Land. 98. 
 
 TERM FEES — Agency — Common partner. 
 See Solicitor— Costs. 17. 
 
 TERMINUS — Land adjoining — Lease of portion 
 — Superfluous lands. 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 24. 
 
 TEBRITORIAL COURTS — Jurisdiction of, under 
 International treaties. 
 See PoREiGN Jurisdiction. 
 
 TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. 
 
 See Probate — Testamentary Capacity. 
 — -Will — Evidence of execution — Denial by 
 
 attesting witness. 
 
 See Bermuda. 
 
 " TESTAMENTARY EXPENSES." 
 
 See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 
 205, 206. 
 TESTAMENTARY PAPERS — Construction of 
 will. 
 See Cases under Will. 
 
 Probate — Grant of 
 Probate. 
 
 TESTIMONIALS — Improper use of — Trade 
 rivalry — Fraud — Interlocutory injunc- 
 tion. 
 See False Eepeesentation. 1. 
 
 TESTING CLAUSE — Marriage contract — Lia- 
 bility of law agent for carelessness. 
 See Scottish Law — Contract. 10. 
 
 THAMES. 
 
 Conservancy and Navigation, 
 
 By the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. clxxxvii.\ the whole of the public and local 
 Acts relating to conservancy and navigation were 
 consolidated, and the constitution and powers of 
 the Conservators were amended. 
 
 0. in C. dated Aug. 5, 1892, approvitig By- 
 laws made hy the Thames Conservanei/. St. R. & 0, 
 1892, p. 934. 
 
 The Tliames Fishery By-laws, 1893, dated 
 Aug. 26, 1893. St. K. & 0. 1893, p. 686. 
 
 — Anchor hanging stock awash. 
 
 See No. 12, helow. 
 
 1, — Collision — Anchor not stocli awash by 
 order of compulsory pilot — Contributory negligence 
 — Thames Navigation By-lau-s, 187:2, r. 20. 
 
 A tug negligently managed came into collision 
 with a ship and was damaged by her anchor, 
 which, by the order of a compulsory pilot, was in 
 a position contrary to Thames by-law No. 20. 
 Those on the tug knew of the anchor's position, 
 but there was no time for those in the ship, when 
 the collision appeared imminent, to remove the 
 anchor : — ■ 
 
 Held, (1) that the owners of the ship were not 
 responsible for the breach of the by-law by the 
 pilot's orders ; (2) that the tug by ordinary care 
 
( 2105 ) 
 
 'DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2106 ) 
 
 THAMES (Conservancy and Navigation)— conid 
 
 might liave avoided tlie collision. The Thames 
 By-laws differ from the Collision Eegs. in that 
 breach of the latter involves liability when the 
 contravening vessel can prove that the breach 
 could not possibly have caused the collision, 
 ■whereas under the former it must be shewn that 
 the breach contributed to the collision. The 
 " Monte Rosa " - G. Barnes J. [1893] P. 23 
 
 3. — Collision — Barges in tow — TJiames hy- 
 laws, 1898, r. 11 — Anchor ring awash. 
 
 The pits.' and the defts.' barges, in tow of a 
 tug in the river Thames, came into collision, 
 owing to the defts.' barge being aflfected by the 
 ■wind and tide -wliilst the tug -was temporarily 
 brought -up, and the anchor hanging, ring awash, 
 from the bows of the defts.' barge pierced the 
 quarter of the pits.' barge doing damage : — 
 
 Seld, that the pits, were entitled to recover, 
 for though, by rule 11 of the Thames By-laws, 
 the anchor must be as low as ring awash, it may 
 — according to the interpretation put upon the 
 rule in The J. B. Einde, [1892] P. 231— be as 
 much lower as is thought proper, and those in 
 charge of the defts.' barge ■were negligent in not 
 having it suflSoiently low in the water to avoid 
 danger to other barges in case of contact in the 
 course of the ordinary incidents of navigation in 
 the river. The Six Sisters 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1800] P. 302 
 
 — Collision — Vessel aground in Thames in day- 
 
 time. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 84. 
 
 — Collision — Vessel turning round — Thames 
 
 By-laws, 1898, art. 48. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 90. 
 
 3. — Election — Returning officer — Proxy — 
 Judicial act — Thames Conservancy Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. clxxxviL), ss. 22, 23, 25. 
 
 At an election of conservators by shipowners, 
 the returning officer received and counted proxies 
 given by bodies corporate to electors not being 
 their shareholders or officers : — 
 
 Held, that the only way in which a corpora- 
 tion could vote by proxy ■was by a shareholder or 
 officer, and therefore tl"ie proxies were ■\vrongly 
 received, but that under s. 23 of tlie Thames 
 Conservancy Act, 1894, the returm'ng officer had 
 acted judicially and the return ■was conclusive : — 
 
 Held, also, tliat the wrong reception of the 
 proxies was an "error or irregularity" ■within 
 s. 25, and tlierefore could not invalidate the 
 election. Keg. v. SAMUEr, 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B, 815 
 
 4. — Lighterman — Qualified lighterman — 
 Apprentice — Watermen's and Lightermen's Act, 
 1859 (22 <fc 23 Vict. e. exxxiii.)—TIiames Con- 
 servancy By-laws, 1872, No. 16. 
 
 A person duly bound apprentice to a freeman 
 of the watermen's co. or to a registered barge- 
 owner in pursuance of the Watermen's and 
 Lightermen's Act, 1859, is fiom and after the 
 commencement of his apprenticeship a qualified 
 apprentice and entitled to act as a lighterman, 
 and is also a sufficient second hand to assist in the 
 navigation of a craft of 50 tons burden to satisfy 
 by-law 16 of the Thames Conservancy By-laws, 
 1872. Gosling p. Newton. Gosling v. Eagees 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B. 793 
 
 THAMES (Conservancy and Navigation) — contd. 
 
 5. — Navigation — Looh-out on hoard steam 
 vessel — By-laws — Inconsistency — Watermen's and 
 Lightermen's Act, 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. cxxxiii.'), 
 hy-law 99 — By-laws — Look-out. 
 
 By-law 99, ■which requires that a proper look- 
 out should be kept from the bow of any steamer 
 navigating the Thames, is not repealed by 
 by-law 36 made under tlie Thames Conservancy 
 Act, 1864, which merely requires tliat a "proper 
 look-out " should be kept. Gosling v. Geeen 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1. Q. B. 109 
 
 Tlie TJiames Conservancy Act, 1864, was re- 
 pealed, and other provision made by the Thames 
 Conservancy Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. clxxxvii.) 
 
 6. — Nuisance on foreshore of Thames — 
 Liability to abate. 
 
 Under tlieir Acts the Thames Conservancy are 
 owners of the soil and sub-soil of ttie river for 
 certain specified purposes only, and are not 
 owners for the purposes of s. 4 of the Public 
 Health (London) Act, 1891. Thames Consek- 
 VAKOT V. London Poet Sanitary A^othoeity 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 647 
 
 7. — Sand — Bight to take — Conservators — 
 Rights of owner of shore— " Bed"— " Shore"— 
 Thames Conservancy Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. 
 c. clxxxvii.), ss. 3, 87. 
 
 Sect. 87 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, 
 makes it unlawful for any person other than the 
 Conservators, theii' agents, &c., to dredge or raise 
 sand from the bed of the Thames, except 'with the 
 licence of the Conservators. The appellant raised 
 sand, witliout such licence, from a place between 
 high and low ■water-mark of the Thames, ■within 
 the district of the Conservatois. He claimed to 
 take the sand under a licence from a lessee, hold- 
 ing under a lease, which demised the right to 
 take sand from the place in question : — 
 
 Held, that the place was part of the " shore " 
 of the river, within the meaning of s. 3, not of 
 the " bed," within the meaning of s. 87, that the 
 Act did not interfere with the right of the lessee 
 to license the appellant to take sand, and therefore 
 the appellant could not be convicted of an offence 
 agiiinsfc the Act. Peakoe v. Bunting. Keg. v. 
 Wedd. Ex parte Peaece 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 Q. B. 360 
 
 Disapproved of by C. A. Thames Conservators 
 V. Smeed, Dean & Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 334. See 
 next Case. 
 
 8. -^ Sand — Bight to take — Rights of owner 
 of shore — " Bed of the Thames " — " Bed of river " 
 — Conservators — Thames Conservancy Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. clxxxvii.), ss. 87, 238. 
 
 Sect. 87 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 
 1894, makes it unlawful for any person other 
 than the conservators, their agents, &c., to dredge 
 or raise any gravel, sand, ballast, or other sub- 
 stance from ''the bed of the Thames" except 
 with the licence of the conservators : — 
 
 Held, that the expression " bed of the Thames " 
 in the section, as applied to the tidal portion of 
 the river, means the soil between the ordinary 
 high water-mark on one side and the ordinary 
 high water-mark on the other side ; and that the 
 right of the owner of the aojl to take gravel, &c., 
 
( 2107 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2108 ) 
 
 THAMES (Conseryancy and Navigation) — contd. 
 between high and low water-mark is not pre- 
 served by s. 238 of the Act. 
 
 Serrible, the conservators can only exercise 
 their powers of dredging and granting licences 
 for dredging for the purposes of the. Act, i.e., 
 for the maintenance and improvement of the 
 navigation. 
 
 Ordinary meaning of " bed of river " defined. 
 
 Fearce v. Bunting, [1896] 2 Q. B. 360, dis- 
 approved of. Thames Conservatoks v. Smeed, 
 Dean & Co. - - C. A. [1897] 2 Q. B. 334 
 
 9. ■ — Sea-shore — Foreshore — Tidal and navi- 
 gable waters — Bight to fix moorings as incident to 
 navigation — Immemorial user to fix moorings in 
 foreshore — Presumption of legal origin — Immemo- 
 rial user in river Thames. 
 
 An immemorial nser of the foreshore in tidal 
 and navigable waters, by the owners of fishing- 
 boats and other craft, by fixing moorings in the 
 soil, for the purpose of attaching their boats to 
 ihem, may be supported either as an ordinary 
 incident of the navigation of such w aters, or on a 
 presumption of a legal origin by grant from the 
 Crown of the foreshore subject to such user, or by 
 concession by a former owner ot the foreshore to 
 all persons navigating the waters to use it for 
 fixing moorings. 
 
 Such an immemorial user in the river Thames 
 may be supported on the presumption of regula- 
 tions prescribed by the port authority of the port 
 of London (per Kigby L.J.). Attorney-General 
 V. Wright - - C. A. [1897] 2 ft. B. 318 
 
 10. — Side lights — Tliames Navigation Bij- 
 ,aws, 1887, art. 18, and 1892, art. 7 (c). 
 
 A steam-vessel which throws herself athwart 
 the navigable channel and stops her way is " not 
 under command" within art. 18 of the Thames 
 By-laws, 1887, and must sound her whistle as 
 prescribed by that article. A steam-vessel must 
 lake in her side light as soon as she rides to 
 her anchor, and if over 150 ft. long must, under 
 art. 7 (o) of the By-laws of 1892, exhibit a second 
 riding light. The " Wega " 
 
 Bruce J. [1895] P. 156 
 
 11. — Stock awash — Tliames Naiigation By- 
 laics, 1872, r. 20. 
 
 (a) An anchor hanging from the hawse 
 shackle or ring awash, held not to be hanging 
 stock awash within r. 20. Tde " J. K. Hinde " 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 231 
 Followed by G. Barnes J. Tlie Six Sisters, 
 [1900] P. 302. See No. 2, aiove. 
 
 (b) An anchor hanging from the hawse pipe 
 held not to be hanging stock awash within r. 20. 
 The " DUNSTANBOROUGU " 
 
 Jeune J. [1892] P. 363, n. 
 Distinguished by Div. Ct. The Hornet, [1802] 
 P. 361. 
 
 12. — Tug towing harges — Waterman on tug 
 to assist in management and naiigation — Ultra 
 rires — By-law of Watermen's Company — Thames 
 navigation — Watei'men's and Lightermen's Amend- 
 ment Act, 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. v. cxxxiii.), 
 88. 66, 80. 
 
 By s. 80 of the Watermen's and Lightermen's 
 Amendment Act, 1859, power is given to the 
 Couit of tlie Watermen's Co. to make by-laws for 
 
 THAMES (Conservancy and Navigation) — a»M. 
 the government of the co., for the government 
 and regulation of lightermen and watermen, and 
 for carrying into effWst the purposes of the Act 
 and the several powers and authorities thereby 
 vested in the co. 
 
 By 8. 66 of the Act, no barge, lighter, boat, or 
 other like craft for the carrying of goods, wares, 
 or merchandise is to be worked or navigated 
 within the limits of the Act, unless there be in 
 charge of such craft a licensed lighterman or 
 qualified apprentice, under a penalty not exceed- 
 ing 51. 
 
 By by-law 60 of the Watermen's Co., made 
 under the above Act, " Every steamboat navi- 
 gated on the river within the limits of this Act 
 in the towing of barges, lighters, vessels, or 
 craft shall have one licensed waterman on board 
 such steamboat for the purpose of assisting in the 
 management and navigation thereof, and if any 
 such steamboat shall be navigated in contraven- 
 tion of this section (sic') the owner thereof, or the 
 master in charge of the same, shall incur a 
 penalty not exceeding 40s." : — 
 
 Held, that the by-law was not a by-law made 
 for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act, 
 and was not authorized by the provisions of s. 66 
 of the Act, and that it was therefore ultra vires 
 and bad. Kennaikd v. Cory & Son 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 ft. B. 578 
 
 13. — Turning ship — Thames Navigation By- 
 laivs, 1887, arts. 17 (c), 18. 
 
 A ship in the Thames when turning round 
 and also reversing her engines must give the four 
 blasts of the steam whistle required by art. 18 
 for vessels turning round. It it not sufficient to 
 give the three blasts ordered by art. 17 (c) for 
 vessels reversing. The " New Pelton " 
 
 Jeune J. [1891] P. 258 
 
 — Watermen — ^Apphcations for licences. 
 
 See Certioraki. 1. 
 
 THEATEE— Crowd before— Obstructiou to high- 
 way. 
 See Nuisances. 36. 
 
 — Construction of. 
 
 See Cases under Music and Dancing. 
 
 — Infant performing at music halls — Theatrical 
 
 agen t — Necessaries. 
 See Infant. 35. 
 
 — Keeping open premises during prohibited 
 
 hours — Offences. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 33. 
 
 1. — licence — Grant of — Biscrirtkin to 
 attach condition to grant — " Discretion " — 6 & 7 
 Vict. c. 68. 
 
 A county council acting as the licensing 
 authority for the performance of stage plays may, 
 in the exercise of their discri-tion, attach to the 
 grant of a licence for such performances a con- 
 dition that the grantee shall undertake not to 
 apply to the excise authorities under 5 & 6 
 Will. 4, 0. 39, s. 7, for an excise licence to sell 
 intoxicating liquors in his tlieatre. Reg. v. 
 County Council of West Eiding of Yorkshire 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 2 ft. B. 386 
 
 — Bents and profits. 
 
 See Keceiver. 4. 
 
( 2109 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASBS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2110 ) 
 
 THEATRICAL ENGAGEMENT— Breach of con- 
 tract. 
 See Injunction. 4. 
 
 THEFT. 
 
 See Cases under Ckiminal Law. 
 
 THELLTTSSON ACT. 
 
 See Cases under Accumulations. 
 Settled Land. 
 
 THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE — Income tax— Ex- 
 emption. 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 113. 
 
 THIKD PARTY. 
 
 See Peactioe — Third Party. 
 
 THREATS — Demanding money with menaces. 
 See Ckiminal Law. 55. 
 
 — Of proceedings — Offer of terms. 
 
 See Injunction. 35. 
 
 — Patent — Infringement. 
 
 See Patent — ^BeTocation. 57. 
 
 THREE COUNSEL— Costs— Counsel's fees. 
 See Costs — Counsel's Tees. 18. 
 
 THROTCH TRAFFIC. 
 
 See Railway — Railway and Canal 
 Traffic, 
 
 TICKET— Coal— " Correct weight." 
 
 See Weights and Measubes. 6. 
 
 — Passenger — Condition's — Evidence. 
 
 See Oabriek. 1. 
 
 — Passenger's ticket. 
 
 See Railway — Passenger. 
 
 — Requirement to shew ticket. 
 
 See Tbamway. 10, 11. 
 
 TIMBER — Sight of tenant as to felling timber. 
 
 A tenant for life of " a timber estate," i.e., an 
 estate in which income has been regularly derived 
 by the periodical felling of timber trees, is not 
 impeachable for waste for selling the timber, 
 notwithstanding that the trees felled, in this 
 case beech trees, are " timber " by the custom of 
 the county. The meaning of "timber estate," 
 " timber," " seasonable wood," " silva csedua," 
 and " coppice " discussed. Dashwood v. Magniac 
 (No. 1) C. A. (Kay L.J. diss.) [1891] 3 Ch. 306 
 
 TIMBER-YARD— Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 See Masteb and Servant. 52. 
 
 TIME — ^Action against a harbour board — Public 
 authorities protection — Costs. 
 See Shipping — ^Harbour. 155. 
 
 — Allowed for taking delivery — Charge for use 
 
 of sidings — Juiisdiction of arbitrator. 
 See Railway — Sidings. 62. 
 
 — Appeal — Time for. 
 
 See Cases under Appeal. 
 
 — Appeal from county court. 
 
 See County Couet — Appeal, 5. 
 
 — Appeal to House of Lords. 
 
 See Appeal. 22, 23. 
 
 — Arbitration proceedings. 
 
 See Cases under Abbitbation. 
 
 — Bankruptcy proceedings. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 46, 67. 
 ;— Bills of sale — " Stipulated time of payment." 
 See Bill of Sale. 41. 
 
 TI ME — continued. 
 
 — Commencing prosecution — Misdemeanour. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 64. 
 
 — Computation "from" Nov. 24, 1887 — Day 
 
 excluded. 
 
 See Insurance — Accident. 2. 
 
 — Computation of, of residence— Settlement of 
 
 poor. 
 
 See PooB Law. 12. 
 
 — Contract. 
 
 See Contract — Time. 35. 
 
 — Contract for sale — Time during which con- 
 
 dition may be performed — Absence of 
 
 express stipulation. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 22. 
 
 — Co-sureties — Giving time to debtor — Contri- 
 
 bution. 
 
 See Principal and Surety. 11. 
 
 — Covenant to pay — Time certain. 
 
 See Interest. 1, 2. 
 
 — " Engagement " clause — Commencement of 
 
 risk. 
 
 See Insdbanob — Marine. 49. 
 
 — Enlargement of — Imposition of terms. 
 
 See DivoKOE. 111. 
 
 — Examination — Application to discharge order 
 
 — Delay. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 87. 
 
 — Expiry of prescribed time. 
 
 See Canada. 56. 
 
 — Extension of. 
 
 See Company — Memorandum and Ar- 
 ticles. 193. 
 
 — Extension of — Dismissal of action — Mistake. 
 
 See Mortgage — Redemption. 68. 
 
 — Fine on admittance — Limitation of action — 
 
 Point from which time begins to run. 
 See Copyhold. 4. 
 
 — Lapse of — Infant-^Adoption on fall age of 
 
 lease made by trustees. 
 See Infant. 3. 
 
 — Limitation of — Liability to make, &c., fences. 
 
 See Railway — Fences. 6. 
 
 — Limitation of time — Actions. 
 
 See Cases under Limitations, Statute 
 
 OF. 
 
 — Loss of time arising from peril of the sea — 
 
 Freight. 
 
 See Insurance — ^Marine. 31. 
 
 — Marine insurance. 
 
 See Cases under Insdbance — Marine. 
 
 — Master and servant. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 — Principal, giving time to. 
 
 See Principal and Surety — Discharge. 
 13. 
 
 — Redemption — Lapse of time. 
 
 See Moetgage— Redemption. 67. 
 
 — Restraint of trade — Contract— Evidence of 
 
 reasonableness inadmissible. 
 See Master and Sebvant, 56. 
 
 — Revivor of action. 
 
 See Cases under Peactioe — ^Revivor. 
 
( 2111 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2112 ) 
 
 TIME — continued. 
 
 — Time policy, including a number of aliips— 
 
 Stamp duty. 
 
 See Keventie— Stamps. 163. 
 
 — WitneBS — Subpoena. 
 
 See Evidence. 47. 
 
 Workmen's CompenBation Act — Time for 
 
 commencing proceedings. 
 
 See Master and Sekvant. 96—98. 
 
 TIME-TABLES. 
 
 See Copyright — Book. 6. 
 
 TIME POLICY. 
 
 See INSUEANOE— Marine. 50, 79, 80. 
 
 TIPPING SPOIL — Trespass by — Measure of 
 
 damages. 
 
 See Trespass. 3. 
 TIPSTAFF — Historical note by Master Jenkins 
 as to tbe o£6oe of tipstaff. G. v. L. 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 128, n. 
 
 TITHE. 
 
 Tithes Act, 1891 (54 <& 55 Vict. c. 8), maltes 
 better provision for the recovery of tithe rent-charge 
 in England and Wales. 
 
 Tithe Bent-charge Recovery Rules, 1891, made 
 under the Tithes Act. St. B. & 0. 1891, p. 1194. 
 
 Re-poH dated Feb. 18, 1892, of the Royal Com- 
 mission on the redemption of tithe rent-charge. 
 Pari. Paper, 1893 [C. 6606.] Price Ud. 
 
 Extraordinary Tithe Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 23), removes doubts arising under the Extraor- 
 dinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1SS6 (49 * 50 Vict. 
 c. 54). 
 
 Kates,] Exemption of owner of tithe rent- 
 charge attached to a benefice from one-half of rates 
 to which Act applies. See Tithe Rent-charge 
 (Rates) Act, 1899 (62 * 63 Vict. c. 17). 
 
 Tithe Bent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899— Cinyular 
 dated Aug. 25, 1899, from Loc. Govt. Bd. to 
 Overseers of the Poor with reference to this Act. 
 
 Inclosure, &c., Expenses Act, 1868 (31 & 32 
 Vict. c. 89) — Fees to be talten in respect of transac- 
 tions under the Tithe and other Acts, in accordance 
 with its provisions. W. N. 1900 (May 19), 
 p. 143. See Current Index, 1900, p. xc. 
 
 Apportionment — Order for removal of parish 
 
 documents — Justices — Jurisdiction. 
 See Parish Councils. 1. 
 
 — Charge on great tithes — Inclosure Act — Allot- 
 ment of lands in lieu of tithes — Transfer 
 of liability to custom. 
 See Odstom. 1. 
 1. — Deduction by tenant of tithe rent-charge 
 from rent— Tithe Act, 1836 (6 li: 7 WiXl. 4, c. 71), 
 s. 80. 
 
 Each deduction in respect of a payment of 
 tithe rent-charge under s. 80 of the Tithe Act, 
 1836, should be made from the next payment of 
 rent, and cannot be brought into account in the 
 payment of any subsequent rent. Dawes v. 
 Thomas - C. A. [1892] 1 Q. B. 414 
 
 3. — Extraordinary tithe rent-charge. Charge 
 in lieu of — Hop-ground part of farm — Sale in 
 portions — Bop-ground only chargeable — Extra- 
 
 TITHE — continued. 
 
 ordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886 (49 * 50 
 
 Vict. c. 54), ss. 1-4. 
 
 After the passing of the Extraordinary Tithe 
 Eedeniption Act, 1886, but before the Land 
 Commrs. made their certificate, A. sold a part of 
 a farm including fifteen acres of hop-ground to 
 B., and the rest of the farm, no part of which 
 was hop-ground, to others. After the value of 
 the charge was ascertained, B. sought to recover 
 a proportionate part of the same from one of the 
 other purchasers : — 
 
 Held, that the hop-ground only was charge- 
 able under the Act of 1886, and that the deft, 
 was consequently not liable to pay any portion of 
 the charge. Simmonds v. Heath 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1. Q. B. 29 
 
 3. — Income tax — Assessment for occupation 
 of lands — Bight of appeal — Income Tax Act, 1853 
 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), Sched. B— Tithe Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 8), s. 8. 
 
 Sect. 8, sub-s. 3, of the Tithe Act, 1891, gives 
 a right of appeal to the owner of tithe rent-charge 
 (where the assessment on land made by the sur- 
 veyor for Sched. B of the Income Tax Act, 1853, 
 has been reduced by the Commrs. on appeal by 
 the occupier) to such an extent that the tithe 
 rent-charge exceeds two-thirds of the aimual 
 value of the land and becomes liable to reduction 
 under s. 8, sub-s 1. Eeq. v. Commes. of Taxes 
 FOB Barstaple Division of Essex 
 
 Div. Ct. [1895] 2 a. B. 123 
 
 4. — Land tax — Exemption from — Extra- 
 ordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886 (49 ct 50 
 Vict. c. 54), ss. 3, i, sub-s. 5. 
 
 The annual rent-charge, payable under the 
 Extraordinary Tithe Eedemption Act, 1886, in 
 lieu of the extraordinary charge previously 
 leviable on hop-grounds, orchards, &c., is not 
 liable to land tax. Carr v. Fowle 
 
 Div. Ct, [1893] 1 a. B. 851 
 
 6. — Occupier's liability notice — Tithe Act, 
 1891 (54 * 55 Vict. c. 8), s. 2, sub-s. 6. 
 
 On an application by a landowner for a cer- 
 tificate under s. 2, sub-s. 6, of the Tithe Act, 1891, 
 excusing him from not having served on the 
 titheowner an occupier's liability notice, it is not 
 necessary to shew the liability of the occupier to 
 pay tithe under a contract made before the Act. 
 In re Tithe Act, 1891. Hughes v. Eimmbb 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 2 ft. B. 314 
 
 — Eateable value— Deduction — Tenants' profits. 
 See Eatbs. 56. 
 
 6. — Rates — Arrears due before Tithe Act, 
 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 8), s, 6— Deductions. 
 
 The occupiers of land, out of which a tithe 
 rent-charge issued, paid on demand of the over- 
 seers arrears of rates due before the Tithe Act, 
 1891. The landowner allowed the amounts so 
 paid to be deducted from the rent, and he now 
 sought to deduct the amount so allowed from the 
 next payment of tithe : — 
 
 Held, that he could not mate any deduction, 
 because s. 6 of the Tithe Act, 1891, had taken 
 from the occupiers all liability for rates on tithes 
 and had put it on the titheowner. The payments 
 of the occupiers were therefore voluntary pay- 
 ments wliich they weye not entitled to deduct 
 
( 2il3 ) 
 
 DtGESl? OF CASiiS, isSl— iSOO. 
 
 ( 2iH 5 
 
 iUKE— continued. 
 
 from their rent, and coneequently the allowances 
 by the landowner were also voluntary, and he 
 could not deduct them from the tithe. In re 
 Tithe Act, 1891. 
 
 (a) Roberts v. Pott8 - * Div. Ct. 
 
 [1893] 2 Q. B. 33 ; C. A. affirm. 
 
 Div. Ct. (Kay I.J. diss.) 
 
 [1894] 1 Q. B. 213 
 
 (b) Jones v. Cooke C. A. [1894] 1 Q. B. 213 
 
 7. — Redemption money — Order for 'recovery 
 — Jurisdiction — Tithe Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. 
 V. 8), s. 10, svh-s. 4. 
 
 A county court has jurisdiction under s. 10, 
 siib-s. 4, of the Tithe Act, 1891, to make an order 
 for recovery of redemption money and expenses. 
 Eeg. v. Patebson - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 Q. B, 31 
 
 — Eent-charge. 
 
 See Settled Land. 105. 
 
 TITLE — ^Admission by tenant as to — Ancient 
 document in support of ancient posses- 
 sion. 
 See EviDBNCB. 1. 
 
 — No inquiry as to vendor's title — Equitable 
 
 mortgage — Priority. 
 
 iSee MoBTQASE — Priority. 48. 
 
 — Operation of — Act of Parliament. 
 
 See Statcte^. 18. 
 
 — Petition for appointment of trustees — Policy 
 
 effected by husband for benefit of wife. 
 See Husband and Wife — Practice. 40. 
 
 — Possessory — Eightsof remaindermen — Statutes 
 of Limitntioiis. 
 iSee Estoppel. 10. 
 
 — Purchaser — Sale of goods claimed by third 
 
 party. 
 
 See County Court. 38. 
 
 — Question of — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See County Court — Jurisdiction, 55. 
 
 — Eegistered title — Adverse possession. 
 
 See British Honduras. 1. 
 
 — Eegistration of. 
 
 See Land Tbansfeb. 
 
 — Sale of lands. 
 
 See Cases under Vendor and Pub- 
 ohaber — Title. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Shares. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Shares. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title, 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser — Partial disclaimer of 
 
 trusts. 
 
 See Trustee — Sisclaimer. 49. 
 
 TITLE-DEEDS— Custody of. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title- 
 deeds. 
 
 — Middlesex deeds — Eectification of register. 
 
 /See Middlesex Eegistrt. 1. 
 
 — Omission to call for title-deeds— Mortgage- 
 
 Constructive notice of transfer. 
 See Mortgage— Transfer. 92. 
 
 TITLE-DEEDS— con<OTMe(i. 
 
 — Omission to require production of — Negligence 
 
 —Equitable mortgage — Purchaser fof 
 value without notice — Priority. 
 See Mortgage — Priority. 48. 
 
 — Pledging by agent. 
 
 See Principal and Agent. 2. 
 
 — Possession of — Priority — Negligence. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 52. 
 
 — Eight to possession — Tenant for life. 
 
 See Settled Land — Possessidil. 9i— 
 97. 
 
 — Trustees — Custody of title-deeds. 
 
 See Trustee — Custody of Title-deeds, &c. 
 47, 48. 
 
 — Vendor and purchaser. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title- 
 deeds. 
 
 TITLE OF HONOTIE— Dissolution of marriage— 
 Eemarriage — Continued use of title 
 derived from former husband — Injunc- 
 tion to restrain. 
 See Husband and Wife. 97. 
 
 TOBACCO— Oil in. 
 
 See under Ebvbnue — In General. 
 
 TOBAGO— Laws of 
 
 See Trinidad. 
 
 TOLLS —Bicycle— Liability— " Carriage." 
 See Bicycle. 2. 
 
 — Dock railways — Incapacity to charge tolls. 
 
 See Eates — Eateability. 22. 
 • — Exemption — Carriages employed in military 
 service of Crown — Turnpike Acts. 
 See Highway— Tolls. 31. 
 
 1. — Freecriptive right — Extinguishment of 
 old franchise by statute. 
 
 A municipal corporation having a prescriptive 
 right to take certain customary tolls for the 
 passage of carriages, cattle, &c.,over a bridge be- 
 longing to them, obtained in 1734 a local Act 
 which, after reciting their right to take the cus- 
 tomary tolls, enacted that the said customary 
 tolls should be and remain vested in them, and 
 empowered them to take the said tolls, with a 
 variation as to the exemption of freemen of the 
 borough. In 1819 the corporation obtained an- 
 other local Act which repealed the former Act 
 and empowered them to take down the old bridge 
 and build a new one and to take tolls which 
 varied from the old tolls in amount and subject- 
 matter. This Act was temporary and had ex- 
 pired : — 
 
 Held, that the prescriptive right to take tolls 
 had been merged in and extinguished by the 
 statutory right given in 1734, and neither had 
 nor could have been revived by the later Act, and 
 that the right to take tolls expired with the later 
 Act. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1898] 1 Q. B. 186, afBrmed. 
 New Windsor Corporation ■«. Taylor 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] W. N. 162 (6) ; [1899] A. C. 41 
 
 — Railway companies. 
 
 See Cases under Railway — Railway and 
 Canal Traffic. 
 
 3 y 
 
( 2115 ) 
 
 WfiJilSt Ot* OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2116 ) 
 
 tOMB — Bequest to maintain, so long as the law 
 permits — Validity. 
 See Chabitt— Gift to Charity. 31. 
 
 — Eepair of — Conditional gift. 
 
 Bee Ohamtt— Gift to Charity. 32. 
 
 TONKAGE. 
 
 See under Shipeino — Tonnage. 
 
 — Measurement of — Limitation of liability. 
 
 See Shippinq. 165. 
 
 TOOLS or TEADE— Execution creditor— Levy 
 by sheriff— Small Debts Acts. 
 See Bankruptot — Execution. 102. 
 
 TOET — Accident at shooting party — Trespass 
 •without intention or negligence. 
 See Tbespass. 
 
 1. — Action founded on tort — Personal injury 
 Negligence — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 cfc 52 Vict, 
 c. 43), 8. 116. 
 
 An action against a ry. for personal injuries 
 caused by the negligence of the co.'s servants 
 brought by a passenger is founded on tort and 
 not on contract, 
 
 (a.) even though the passenger has taken a 
 ticket. Taylor v. Manchester, Sheffield and 
 LiNOOLNSHiKE Kt. Co. C. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 134 
 
 (b.) whether the negligence is an act of omis- 
 sion or an act of commission amounting to mis- 
 feasance. Kelly v. Metkopolitan Elwy. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Q. B. 944 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Meux v. Great Eastern 
 Ry. Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 392, 394. 
 
 — Action founded on — Contract of agistment — 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 See Agistment. 4. 
 
 — Counter-claim for slander. 
 
 See County Coubt. 70. 
 
 2. — Damages for tort — Waiving tort and 
 claiming profits — Wrong to public — Canal. 
 
 The defts. were the owners of a canal, but not 
 of the water therein, and were bound by their 
 statutes to apply all water that might be 
 required for the purposes of navigation, to allow 
 BO much as was wanted for the particular use of 
 certain mill-owners, and to discharge the waste 
 water into the B. Canal. By virtue of an Act 
 passed in 1885, the pits., having acquired the 
 B. Canal, were under a statutory obligation to 
 maintain and keep the same and the approaches 
 thereto in good condition and preserve the supplies 
 of water thereto so that the same might at all 
 times be kept open and navigable for the use of 
 all persons desirous to navigate and use the same 
 without any unnecessary hindrance. The defts. 
 had for many years unlawfully abstracted from 
 their own canal large quantities of water which 
 they sold to persons who were not mUl-owners 
 entitled to the use of the same. The pits, 
 brought an action for an injunction restraining 
 the illegal abstraction of water (which was 
 granted), and an account of profits or damages, 
 and claimed the right to waive the tort, and elect 
 to affirm what had been done, and take the profits 
 made by the defts. in lieu of damages : — 
 
 -Held, that, the defts.' canal being a public 
 highway and the abstraction of water being a 
 wrong against the public and against - other 
 carriers besides the pits., and the pits, being 
 
 TORT— continued. 
 
 under statutory obligations in respect of the 
 B. Canal, thci pits, could not afBrm the wrongful 
 act and take profits in lieu of damages. Man- 
 chestee Ship Canal Co. v. Eochdale Canal 
 Peopeietobs Byrne J. [1899] W. K. 24 (11) 
 
 — Husband and wife. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 6, 30. 
 
 — Joint contribution. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Joint Delinquents. 
 21. 
 
 — Joint tortfeasor — ^Admiralty practice. 
 
 See Shippino. 67, 68, 86. 
 
 — Joint tortfeasors — Eelcase. 
 
 See Eelease. 1, 2. 
 
 — Service out of jurisdiction. 
 
 See Practice — Service. 218. 
 
 — Trustee carrying on business — Damages 
 
 against trustee — Eight to indemnity — 
 
 Subrogation. 
 
 See Teustbe — Indemnity. 53. 
 
 — Turnpike Acts — Exemption — Carriages em- 
 
 ployed in military service of Crown. 
 See Highway. 31. 
 
 — Waiver of — Joint tortfeasors — Compromise by 
 
 accepting proceeds of sale — Action of 
 trover against the other— Election. 
 See Teoteb. 9. 
 
 — Wife's tort — Contract — Liability of husband. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 30. 
 
 TOTAL LOSS— Mariae lasuianoe. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 29, 79. 
 
 — Constructive total loss. 
 
 See Shippino. 7. 
 
 TOW — Collision — Action against tow and tug — 
 Decree by default against tow — Division 
 of loss. 
 See Shipping — Collision. 85 — 87. 
 
 — Strauding. 
 
 See Shipping. 246. 
 
 TOWAGE. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping — Salvage. 
 
 TOWN COUNCILLOB— Imputation of unfitness 
 for office. 
 See Defamation — Slander. 35. 
 
 TOWNS IMPEOVEMENT— Lowering surface of 
 street — Pipes of water company there- 
 under — Duties of highway authority. 
 See Highway. 1. 
 
 — " New street "—Width of street. 
 
 See Streets — New Street. 19. 
 
 TEACTION ENGINE. 
 
 See Highway — Eepairs. 
 
 Locomotive. 
 
 TEASE. 
 
 Conciliation Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vicf. c. 30), 
 makes better provision for the prevention and 
 settlement of trade disputes. 
 
 — Act of bankruptcy — Married woman — " Carry- 
 
 ing on trade." 
 
 See Bankeuptot — Act of Baskraptoy, 
 oo» 
 
( 2117 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2118 ) 
 
 IRADE— continued. 
 
 — Assignment by partners for benefit of trade 
 
 creditors only. 
 
 See Bakkeuptct — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 
 — Assessing profits of trade. 
 
 See Eeyenue — Income Tax. 72. 
 
 — Board of Trade. 
 
 See Board of Trade. 
 
 1. — Competition — Underselling — Manufac- 
 turer and retail dealer — Retailing goods at wliole- 
 aale price—Damage lo manufacturer — Rigid to 
 issue advertisement — Misrepresentation — Damnum 
 absque injuria. 
 
 As a general rule a trader may sell at any 
 price wbatsoever any goods, including goods of 
 another's manufacture, which he cither has in 
 stock or expects to acquire, and may offer the 
 same for sale by advertisement, although he 
 thereby damages the trade of the manufacturer ; 
 and his motives for so doing cannot be inquired 
 into. 
 
 The deft., a retail dealer, advertised for sale 
 in a newspaper a new piano of the pits.' manu- 
 facture of a specified character at the price at 
 which the pits, supplied the same to the trade, 
 and thereby caused other dealers to give up deal- 
 ing with the pits. ; and he continued the adver- 
 tisement after he ceased to have in stock any 
 pianos of the pits.' manufacture, and after the 
 pits, had refused to supply him, in the expecta- 
 tion of being able to acquire pianos of the pits, 
 from other dealers :^ 
 
 Held, (1.) that, apart from any question of 
 misrepresentation, the deft, had a legal right to 
 issue the advertisemi'nt ; (2.) that, though the 
 advertisement amounted to an implied represen- 
 tation that the deft, had in his poasessiou a piano 
 of the advertised description, such misrepresen- 
 tation was not the cause of the damage to the 
 pits.' trade, and consequently gave no right of 
 action. Ajbllo v. "Wohsley 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 1 Ch. 274 
 
 — Conspiracy — Trade combination. 
 
 See Cases nnder Conspiracy. 
 
 ■ Covenants against trading. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 35, 36. 
 
 — Custom of — ^Reputed ownership— Assignment 
 of debt — Bill of exchange. 
 See Bahkbuptot. 127. 
 
 2, — Deht — Conditional payment — Effect of 
 giving cheque or hill of exchange — Sale of debts 
 and securities — Company — Assignment of debts. 
 
 A cheque or bill of exchange given in respect 
 of a pre-existing debt operates as conditional 
 payment thereof, and on the condition being per- 
 formed by actual payment, the payment relates 
 back to the time when the cheque or bill was 
 given. 
 
 Deft, sold to the pit. co. his business as exist- 
 ing on Dec. 31, 1887, with the goodwill, stock-in- 
 trade, and "all book and other dehts due to the 
 vendor in connection with the said husiness, and 
 the full benefit of all securities for such debts." 
 On Jan. 1, 1888, deft, had in his possession 
 cheques and bills of exchange, given for trade 
 
 TSASI! — continued. 
 
 debts, which had been received by him before 
 
 that date and were subsequently honoured : — 
 
 Held, tliat the trade debts, having been paid, 
 did not pass to the co., and that the cheques and 
 bills were not securities within the meaning of 
 the agreement. Felix Hadlet & Co. v. Had- 
 LET - - Byrne J. [1898] 2 Ch. 680 
 
 — False trade description. 
 
 See Cases under Trade-mark — Merchan- 
 dise Marks. 
 
 — Fixtures. 
 
 See FrxTUEES. 2, 5 — 7. 
 
 — Fixtures — Mortgage — Non - registration — 
 
 Power of sale — Invalidity. 
 See Bill of Sale. 44. 
 
 — Inhabited house duties — Exemption in favour 
 
 of buildings occupied for trade only. 
 See Revenue — House Duty. 60. 
 
 — Interference with — Maliciously inducing em- 
 
 ployer to discharge servant. 
 /See Action. 1. 
 
 — Libel. 
 
 See Defamation — Libel. 30 — 83. 
 Injunction. 36. 
 
 — Machinery — Mortgage — Non-registration — 
 
 Invalidity. 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 44. 
 
 — Married woman, Bankruptcy of — Separate 
 
 estate — Restraint on anticipation — 
 
 Death of husband — Title of trustee in 
 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 See Husband and Wife, 26. 
 
 — Municipal trading — Omnibus business — Ultra 
 
 vires. 
 
 See London — County Council. 38. 
 
 — Noxious trade — Injunction — Beasonable use 
 
 of property. 
 
 See Nuisances. 21, 22. 
 
 — Order and disposition — Reputed ownership — 
 
 Stands used to shew off goods in shop. 
 See Bankruptct. 128. 
 
 — Partnership. 
 
 See Oases under Partnership. 
 
 — Power to regulate does not include power to 
 
 prohibit. 
 
 See Canada. 48. 
 
 — Refuse. 
 
 See London — Bemoval of Befuse. 
 
 — Restraint of trade. 
 
 See Restraint of Trade. 
 
 — • Restraint of — Contract — Evidence of reason- 
 ableness inadmissible. 
 See Master and Servant. 56. 
 
 — Restrictive covenants — Trivial breaches — ■ 
 
 Acquiescence. 
 
 See Building Estate. 2. 
 
 — Rival traders. 
 
 See Discovery. 44. 
 
 — Rivalry — Fraud — Improper use of testimonials 
 
 — Interlocutory injunction. 
 See False Representation. 
 
 — Secret. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Trade 
 Secrets, 
 
 3 Y 2 
 
( 2119 ) 
 
 !rBADE — continued. 
 — Trade-mark. 
 
 See Tkade-makk. 
 
 TRADE SECEET. 
 
 See Master and Servant — Trade 
 Secrets. 
 
 TRADERS. 
 
 See Trace. 
 
 TRADE-MARE 
 
 Fatent Office (Extension) Act, 1897 (611 * 61 
 Vict. c. 25), is an Act for the acquisition of land 
 for the extension of the Fatent Office, and for 
 purposes connected therewith. 
 
 Fees;] Treas. 0. dated Sec. 14, 1892, under 
 s. 3 of the Fublic Offices Fees Act, 1879, as to the 
 taking of fees by stamps. [1892] W. N. (Appz. of 
 0. & R.) p. 36 ; St. R. & 0. 1892, p. 651. 
 
 Fees.] Notice under the Fublic Offices Fees 
 Act, 1879, and Fatents, Designs, and Trade Marhs 
 Act, 1883. W. N. 1898 (Dec. 3), p. 397. See 
 Cnrrent Index, 1898, p. zciz. 
 
 Rules inproceedings hefore Judicial Committee 
 of Frivy Council under Patents, Designs, and 
 Trade Maries Act, 1883, s. 25. W. N. 1897 
 (Dec. 11), p. 343. See Current Index, 1897, 
 p. Ixxx. 
 
 Protection of patents, trade-marhs, &c., ex- 
 tended to British subjects. Lend. 6az. Jan. 1, 
 
 1897, p. 3, 
 
 Eegistration — Application foe.] New rule 
 substituted for rule 9 of Trade Marks Rules, 1890. 
 See Trade Mark Rules dated Sept. 15, 1898. 
 W. N. 1898 (Dec. 17), p. 408. See Current Index, 
 
 1898, p. cvii. 
 
 Eegistration or Tbade-maek.] Words in a 
 language other than English, &e., as to. See Trade 
 Mark Rules dated Dec. 31, 1897. W. N. 1898 
 (Dec. 17), p. 407. See Current Index, 1898, 
 p. cviii. 
 
 International Exhibition at Paris.] 0. in 
 C. dated Feb. 2, 1899. Lond. Gaz. Feb. 3, 1899, 
 p. 682. 
 
 In Oeneral, col. 2119. 
 Disclaimer. See Trade-mark — Eegis- 
 tration. 
 Infringement, See Trade-mark, passim. 
 Merchandise Marks, col. 2120. 
 Practice, col. 2123. 
 Registration, col. 2123. 
 
 In General. 
 
 1. — Costs — Innocent dealer — Infringement 
 of trade-mark 
 
 Where a retail trader innocently buys and 
 sells a small quantity of goods which turn out to 
 he an infringement of a trade-mark he will not 
 be liable, as a matter of course, for the costs of an 
 action for infringement. 
 
 Vpmann v. Forester, 24 Ch. D. 231, distin- 
 guished. The American Tobacco Co. v. Guest 
 StirUng J. [1892] 1 Ch. 630 
 — Discovery. 
 
 See DisooTERY. 43. 
 
 btGESt^iOF CASES, 1891—1900; 
 
 ( 2120 ) 
 
 TRADE-MARK (In General) — continued. 
 
 — Bnglifih goodwill and— Foreign firm — " Pro- 
 
 perty." 
 
 See Ebvbndb — Stamps. 161. 
 
 2. — Expired patent — Infringement — Injunc- 
 tion — Misrepresentation — Use of word "patent " — 
 Expired patent. 
 
 Action for an injunction to restrain the defts. 
 from infringing the pits.' registered trade-mark, 
 and from passing off their goods as those of the 
 pits. : — 
 
 Seld, on the facts, that there had been no 
 infringement or passing off, so that it was un- 
 necessary to go into the question of law. The 
 judgment concluded as follows : — 
 
 The circumstances under which the word 
 "patent" was used here were certainly peculiar; 
 but if the question bad really called for decision, 
 I do not think that it would have been possible 
 to avoid an examination of the authorities cited, 
 which cannot, it seems to me, be easily reconciled 
 under one general rule. As I do not propose 
 carefully to examine them, it is better not to 
 notice them at aU; but I desire to take the 
 opportunity of making one remark on my own 
 decision in JLeviis v. Geodbody, (1892) 67 L. T. 
 194. It had occurred to me, before the argument 
 of the case in hand, to doubt whether my state- 
 ment respecting the use of the words " trade 
 mark " was not too general, and reflection for the 
 purposes of this case has converted that doubt 
 into certainty. I cannot recall the facts suffi- 
 ciently to say whether the explanation suggested 
 by Stirling J. in Sen Sen Co. v. Bntten, [1899] 
 1 Ch. 696, is correct ; but, be that as it may, I 
 adopt his view of the law. Hcbbuck & Son, Ld. 
 V. Browx Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 250 
 
 — Infringement. 
 
 See Teadb-makk, passim. 
 
 — User — Publioi juris — Laches. 
 
 See New South Wales. 47. 
 
 — Words. 
 
 See under Words. 
 
 3. — Wrappers — Purchase of same article from 
 same manufacturer and resale in special wrapper. 
 
 If A. and B. purchase the same article in 
 bulk from the same manufacturer, and A. places 
 it on the market in a special wrapper which has 
 become well known in the trade, B. will be re- 
 strained from using a similar wrapper. B[nott 
 V. Marshall - Chitty J. [1894] W. N. 214 
 
 Merchandise Marks, 
 
 Merchandise Marks Act, 1891 (54 <t 55 Vict 
 c. 15), amends the Act of 1887 as to customs entry, 
 and as to official prosecutions. 
 
 Regs, of the Bd. of Agric, dated Oct. 27, 1894, 
 as to prosecutions under the Act. St. E. & 0. 1894, 
 p, 276. 
 
 4. — False trade description — Application to 
 goods — Absence of intent to deceive — Liability — 
 Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 28), 
 ss. 2, 3. 
 
 By the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, s. 2, 
 sub-s. 2, a person who sells goods, to which a 
 false trade dcscriptirn is applied, is guilty of an 
 
( 2121 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2122 ) 
 
 TRADE-MAEK (Merchandise Marks)— oonid 
 offence, unless he proves certain facts, " or that 
 otherwise he acted innocently." 
 
 By s. 3, sub-s. 1, "'False tra.de description' 
 means a trade description which is false in a 
 material respect as regards the goods to which it 
 is applied." 
 
 The respondents were charged with selling 
 cigarettes, to which a false trade description, 
 namely, "guaranteed hand-made," was applied. 
 The cigarettes were in fact machine-made, but 
 were' of equally good quality with hand-made 
 cigarettes. 
 
 The magistrate held that there was no inten- 
 tion to deceive the buyer, but only to save ex- 
 pense by using up a stock of old labels, and that 
 the description, though untrue in fact, was not a 
 false trade description in any material respect, as 
 regarded the cigarettes sold, within the meaning 
 of s. 3, and dismissed the information. 
 
 On a case stated : — 
 
 Held, that the fact that the cigarettes sold as 
 hand-made were of as good quality as hand-made 
 cigarettes afforded no defence ; that the descrip- 
 tion \^as false in a material respect, and that the 
 respondents, having knowingly applied the false 
 description, had not acted innocently, and were 
 guilty of an offence against the Act. Kikshen- 
 BoiM V. Salmon & Gluoksteis 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 19 
 
 5. — False trade desvription — " Applied to 
 goods " — Representation implied from conduct — 
 Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 <fe 51 Vict. c. 28). 
 
 The appellant went into the respondents' 
 shop and asked for two half-pounds of tea. The 
 respondents' salesman handed him two packets 
 of tea for which he paid. The packets respec- 
 tively contained less than half-a-pound weight 
 of tea : — 
 
 Held, that the mere handing of the packets to 
 the appellant in response to his demand did not 
 constitute an " application " to the goods of » 
 false trade description of their weight witbin the 
 meaning of s. 2, sub-s. 2, of the Merchandise 
 Marks Act, 1887. Langley v Bombay Tea Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 141 ; [1900] 2 Q. B. 460 
 
 6. — False trade description. Application of 
 — Oral statement — Description in invoice written 
 at purchaser's request — Merchandise Marks Act, 
 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. c. 28), s. 2, suh-s. 2. 
 
 The provisions of s. 2, sub-s. 2, of the Mer- 
 chandise Marks Act, 1887, which make it an 
 offence to sell goods to which a false trade de- 
 scription is applied, do not apply where the 
 description is entirely oral. 
 
 The respondent asked a salesman in the ap- 
 pellant's shop for a small English ham; the 
 salesman pointed to some American hams on a 
 shelf, and said, "These are Scotch hams"; the 
 respondent chose one, whicli was weighed, and an 
 invoice which did not contain the word " Scotch " 
 was handed to the respondent by another assis- 
 tant. The respondent told the assisstant to put 
 the word "Scotch" on the invoice, as he had 
 bought the ham as such ; the assistant did so, and 
 handed the invoice to the respondent, who then 
 paid the amount : — 
 
 SeU, that the description in the invoice vras 
 
 TRADE-MARK (Merchandise Marks)— coniii. 
 a false trade description sufficient to satisfy the 
 statute. CopPEN v. Mooke (No. 1) 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B, 300 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Langley v. Bombay 
 Tea Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 460, 463. See preceding 
 Case. 
 
 t. — False trade description — Description in 
 invoice delivered with goods — Merchandise Marks 
 Act, 1887 (50 * 51 Viot. e. 28), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (d), 
 8. 5, sub-s. 1 (cJ). 
 
 In an invoice delivered with beer the casks 
 were described as " barrels." One cask contained 
 less than a "barrel" of beer should contain, 
 namely, thirty-four instead of thirty-six gallons. 
 The justices dismissed the case on the ground 
 that the mere delivery of an invoice was not an 
 application of a falee trade description to the 
 cask : — 
 
 Held, that the description of the cask in the 
 invoice was not the less applied to the cask witbin 
 the meaning of s. 2, sub-s. 1 (d) of the Merchan- 
 dise Marks Act, 1887, because the invoice was 
 not physically attached to the cask. Case re- 
 mitted. BUDD V. LUOAS 
 
 Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B. 408 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Coppen v. Moore 
 (2Vo. 1), [1898] 2 Q. B. 300, at p. 305. 
 
 — Falle trade description — Sale of goods to 
 
 which, is applied — Criminal liability of 
 
 master for act of servant. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 72. 
 
 8. — False trade-mark — Offence of selling 
 goods to which false trade-mark is applied — Acting 
 innocently — Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 
 Vict. 0. 28), s. 2, svb-s. 2. 
 
 Sect. 2, sub-s. 2, of the Merchandise Marks 
 Act, 1887, provides that a person selling goods to 
 which a forged trade-mark is applied is guilty of 
 an offence against the Act unless he proves that, 
 having taken all reasonable precautions, he had 
 no reason to suspect the genuineness of the 
 trade-mark " or that otherwise he had acted 
 innocently " : — 
 
 Held, that a person who had reason to sus- 
 pect the genuineness of the trade-mark might 
 nevertlieless have acted innocently in selling 
 goods to which tlie trade-mark was applied, and 
 might, therefore, be exonerated under this sub- 
 section. Christie, Manson & Woods v. Cooper 
 Div. Ct. [1900] 2 Q. B. 622 
 
 — Intent to deceive. Evidence of — Admissibility. 
 
 See Trade Name. 7. 
 
 9. — " Trade description " — 
 writing explained hy oral statement — Merchandise 
 Marks Act, 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. c. 28), s. 3. 
 
 Although upon a sale of goods a purely oral 
 indication of the country of their production will 
 not amount to a trade description within the 
 meaning of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, 
 any writing or mark, however unintelligible with- 
 out explanation, will, if orally explained by tho 
 vendor at the time of sale to be intended to 
 indicate a particular country as the country in 
 which the goods were produced, constitute a 
 euflSoient trade description for the purposes of 
 the Act. 
 
 Tfee appellant went intp the sjiop of the 
 
C 2123 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2124 ) 
 
 TEADE-MAEK (Merchandise Marts) — contd. 
 respondent, a dealer in foreign meat, and asked 
 for a leg of New Zealand mutton. The respond- 
 ent handed him a leg of mutton, at the same 
 time stating that it was New Zealand meat, The 
 respondent also handed him an invoice in which 
 the meat was described simply as a leg of mutton. 
 Tiie appellant then asked the respondent to mark 
 on the invoice that it was New Zealand meat ; 
 whereupon the respondent wrote on it the letters 
 " N. M.," intending thereby to represent that the 
 mutton was New Zealand mutton. No evidence 
 was given that those letters bore that meaning 
 according to any custom of the trade : — 
 
 Hdd, that under the circumstances the letters 
 "N. M." amounted to a trade description of the 
 meat within s. 3 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 
 1887, notwithstanding the absence of any trade 
 custom as to their meaning. Cameeon v. WiGBDja 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 263 ; see [1901] 1 Q. B. 1 
 
 Practice. 
 
 10. — Appeal — Service — Essential partieiUars 
 —Trade Marks Rules, 1890, r. 23. 
 
 The applicants sought to register, as a trade- 
 mark for extract of meat, a label which had on it 
 a photograph of Baron Liebig and printed words. 
 The application stated the essential particulars 
 to be " the name and signature of • Extract of 
 Meat (Baron Liebig) Photograph Brand, Ld.' in 
 conjunction with the photogrnph as reproduced 
 on the above label." The comptroller refused to 
 register on the ground that the trade-mark pro- 
 posed for registration did not consist of any of 
 the essential particulars required as a condition 
 of the registration of a new trade-mark. The 
 applicants appealed to the Bd. of Trade. The 
 Bd. of Trade referred the appeal to the Chancery 
 Div. of the High Court, and directed the appli- 
 cants to serve the Comptroller-General and a co. 
 called Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. The ap- 
 plicants applied by summons for the determina- 
 tion of the question rnised by tlie appeal without 
 serving Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. Tlje judge 
 in chambers directed the applicants to bring the 
 matter on by way of motion, and serve the 
 parties directed by the Bd. of Trade, leaving it 
 to the judge to deal with any question of costs 
 should he be of opinion that the parties served 
 ought not to have appeared in the proceedings. 
 
 The applicants now moved that their appeal 
 should be heard and determined by the Court, 
 " and that the order (if any) made by the judge 
 in chambers on Nov. 13, 1899, directing notice of 
 this application to be served on Liebig's Extract 
 of Meat Co. may be discharged." The motion 
 was argued on the preliminary objection that the 
 applicants had not followed the direction to serve 
 Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. allowed the preliminary ob- 
 jection. Ex parte Extract of Meat (Baeon 
 (Liebig) Photoseaphic Brand, Ld. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 30 
 
 Segistration. 
 
 — Alleged misrepresentation of goods- 
 soda." 
 See Jaii.vtca. U. 
 
 'Club 
 
 TBADE-MABK (RegistvaXian.)— continued. 
 
 11. — Alteration — Misnomei " Patent " — 
 
 Patents, Designs, and Trade Maries Act, 1883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 57), ss. 92, W5— Merchandise 
 Maries Act, 1887 (50 * 51 Vict. v. 28), s«. 2, 3, 
 sub-s. 1 (e). 
 
 An application under b. 92 of the Patents, Ac, 
 Act, 1883, to alter a registered mark by striking 
 out the word "patent" (no patent existing for 
 the article sought to be protected) refused. 
 
 Whether s. 92 includes an old mark, qusere. 
 In re Adams' Teade-maek 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1892] W, N. 40 
 
 See In re Phillip's Trade-'mark, [1891] 3 Ch. 
 139, lelow. No. 14. 
 
 12. . — Alteration — Non-essential particular — 
 Old marlc— Patents, &c., Acts, 1883-88, s. 92. 
 
 A CO. had carried on business at M. and B., 
 but were about to give up their works at B. ; both 
 M. and B. appciired upon the marks, which were 
 old marks. They were allowed to omit the refer- 
 ence to B. In re Bueham Beick, Lime, and 
 Cement Co.'s Teade-maeks 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] W. N. 134 
 
 13. — Alteration — Old marles — Patents, &c.. 
 Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 92. 
 
 An old mark ought to be kept registered just 
 as it was used, in the a'osence of special circum- 
 stances necessitating an alteration, as, for ex- 
 ample, where the proprietors are converted into a 
 limited co , and would be obliged to give up the 
 mark altogether unless they were permitted to 
 add the word '■ Limited " to their names. Mere 
 transmission of title does not render an alteration 
 (e.g. of the initials forming part of the mark) in 
 any way necessary. In re Henry Clay and Book 
 & Co. Per Kekewioh J. [18&2] 3 Ch. 649 
 
 14. — Alteration — Old marlc — Patents, &e., 
 Trade Maries Act, 1883, Act (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), 
 s. 92. 
 
 The Court refused to allow registered marks 
 to be altered by striking out the words " trade 
 mark," (1) because the marks being old marks 
 ought to be registered just as they were used, 
 prior to Aug., 1875, and (2) because in the old 
 marks as registered there had been an indication 
 of claiming only the device on the label rather 
 than the label as a whole. In re Phillip's Trade- 
 marks - - Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 139 
 
 Followed by Kekewioh J. In re Adams' 
 Trade-mark, [1892] W. N. 40. See No. 11, ahore. 
 
 See also In re Henry Clay and Bock & Co., 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 549. 
 
 15. ■ — Alteration — Proprietor's name — Patents, 
 dc, Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 92. 
 
 Firm becoming a limited co. Leave given to 
 alter the register by adding the word " Limited" 
 to the firm's trade-marks. In re Burke's Tbabe- 
 maeks - - _ North J. [1891] W. N. 2 
 
 16. — Alteration — Terms on which leave 
 granted— Poients, &c.. Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 57), ss. 64, 74, 92 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50), 
 s. 10. 
 
 The Court allowed a registered mark to he 
 altered by expunging the words "trade-mark" 
 ou condition that it was made quite clear, on 
 registering the alteration, what part of the mark 
 was essential, and disclaiming exclusive right to 
 
( 2125 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2126 ) 
 
 TBADE-M ARK (Eegistration) —contimted. 
 the added matter if any. In re Colman's Tbade- 
 MABES (No. 1) - Kekewich J. [1891] 2 Ch. 402 
 Distinguished by Ohitty J. In re Phillip's 
 Trade-marks, [1891] 3 Oh. 139, No. 14, above. 
 
 17. — Amendment of applioaiion — Old mark — 
 Visolmmer— User— Patents, &c., Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 57), ss. 69, 71, 72, 74, suh-s. 2. 
 
 The Oourt cannot amend an application under 
 8. 69 of the Act of 1888, by directing the comp- 
 troller to proceed with the registration of the 
 essential part of a proposed trade-mark. An 
 " old mark " to be registered must be the whole 
 mark used prior to Aug. 13, 1875. An originally 
 defective or wrongful application cannot be cor- 
 rected by subsequent disclaimer. 
 
 Semble, a title by user cannot be acquired in a 
 mark used for transhipment only. In re Meeds' 
 Application - - CMtty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 41 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re Wright, Crossley 
 & Co.'s Application and Royal Baking Powder Go. 
 of New York, [1900] 2 Oh. 218, 229. 
 
 18. — Oiange of name of proprietor — Begister 
 of Trade-marks— Patents, &c., Act, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 57), s. 87. 
 
 Where a limited co. being the registered 
 owner of a trade-mark changes its name, it is the 
 duty of the compti-oller on request to substitute 
 the new name for the old name on the register. 
 JJb parte New Obmonde Cycle Co. - North J. 
 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 520 
 
 19. — Class — Registration for entire class — 
 User for pari of class. 
 
 Eegistration of a trade-mark for an entire class 
 does not give an exclusive riaht to usa it for 
 every article in that class if it has been only used 
 for one article in the class. Hakgeeave v. Fbee- 
 MAN - - - CMtty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 39 
 
 20. — Disclaimer — " Addition " — Lahel — 
 Distinctive words common to the trade — Patents, 
 (fee, Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), ss. 64, 74. 
 
 On the registration, under the Patents, &c., 
 Act, 1883, of a trade-mark consisting of a label, 
 which contains as an essential part of it, not as 
 an " addition " to it, words which are primS, facie 
 distinctive, but are common to the trade, s. 74 
 does not apply, and the right to the exclusive use 
 of those words need not be disclaimed by the 
 owner of the mark. In re Clement & Oie.'s 
 Tbade-mabk - C. A. [1899JW. N. 220; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 114 
 
 31. — Disclaimer — Label — Distinctive label — ■ 
 Part of label— Patents, &c.. Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 
 Vict. c. 57), ss. 64, 73 74 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 50), s. 10, sub-s. 3 (j), 
 
 A label was registered, having on it the words 
 " Smokeless Powder Oo., Ld.," and an application 
 was miide to compel disclaimer of the words 
 " Smokeless Powder " : — 
 
 Eeld, that the words in question not being 
 distinctive words, nor " calculated to deceive " 
 within s. 73 of the Patents Act, 1883, and further 
 being contained in a distinctive label registered 
 as a whole, need not be disclaimed. In re 
 Smokeless Powdeb Co.'s Tbade-mabk 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch, 590 
 
 28, -~ Disclaimer — [Old andjnew marks — 
 
 TRADE-MABE (Registration)— coreWnwed. 
 Patents, &c., Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), 
 s. 62, sub-s. 2: s. 61, sub-s. 2; «.. 74; 1888 
 (51 <fe52 Vict. e. 60), ss. 10-16. 
 
 If application for registration of an old trade- 
 mark has to be made under sub-s. 2 of s. 64 of 
 the Patents, &o.. Act, 1883, as amended by the 
 Act of 1888, there is no distinction in refereneo 
 to disclaimer between new marks and old marks. 
 
 Where, under s. 62, sub-s. 2, application is 
 made to register a trade-mark which was used 
 by the applicant or his predecessors in business 
 before August 13, 1875, it is not necessary in the 
 application to state the names of the members of 
 the firm for the time being since the alleged first 
 user, nor even to insert the words " and their 
 predecessors in business, members of the firm for 
 the time being." In re Wbight, Obosslet & Co.'s 
 Application and Kotal Baking Powdee Com- 
 pany OF New York Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 129 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 218 
 
 23. — Disclaimer — Letters — Injunction — Pa- 
 tents, &c., Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 64, 
 sub-s. 2; s. 74, sub-s. 2; s. 77; 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 50), ss. 10, 16. 
 
 A trader registered a trade-mark consisting 
 in part of his initials, but disclaimed the exclu- 
 sive use of the letters : — 
 
 Held, that the diKclaimer alone was sufficient 
 ground for the Court to refuse an interim injunc- 
 tion to restrain another trader from using the 
 letters on the same class of goods. Rosenthal 
 V. Reynolds - North J, [1892] 2 Ch. 301 
 
 24. — " Distinctive device " — Removal from 
 register — Proper svhjecl-matter — Portrait of ma- 
 nufacturer — Patents, (fee. Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. 
 0. 60), 8. 10, sub-s. 1 (fl). 
 
 The portrait of the manufacturer of goods is a 
 " distinctive device " within tlie meaning of B. 10, 
 sub-s. 1 (c), of the Patents, &Q,., Act, 1888, and 
 may properly be registered as a trade-mark to be 
 used by him in connection with his goods. 
 
 In re Anderson's Trade-mark, (ISSi) 26 Oh, D. 
 409, explained. 
 
 Decision of Romer J., [1896] W. N. 74, 
 affirmed. Rowland v. Mitchell. In re Row- 
 land's Teade-maek C. a, [1896] W. N, 167 (10) ; 
 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 71 
 
 25. — Distinctive words — Passing off goods as 
 those of another trader — Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict, c. 57), s. 90, 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that a trade-mark con- 
 sisting of the words " John Bull Brand " should 
 not have been registered ; — 
 
 Held, by 0. A. (reversing Kekewich J.), that 
 prior use of distinctive words forming part of a 
 trade-mark by a third party, whicli use had 
 ceased before action brought, (loes not bind the 
 Court to expunge the distinctive words on the 
 application of an immeritorious ai^plicant; and 
 that the registered owner was entitled to an in- 
 jimoti(m against infringement. 
 
 Principles on which the Court esercisss the 
 
 discretion conferred by the Patents Act, 1883, 
 
 considered. Paine & Co. v. Daniells & Sons' 
 
 Beeweeies. In re Paine <fe Co.'s Teade-maeks 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch, 567 
 
 Referred to by Buckley J. 0. & J. Field & 
 
( 2127 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2128 ) 
 
 TEADE-MAEK (Registration) — continued. 
 Co., Ld. V. Wagel Syndicate, Ld., In re Trade- 
 marl: 96,997, [1900] 1 Oh. 651, 65i. 
 
 26. — Distinctive words — Besemblance to mark 
 already registered — Trade-mark accepted for re- 
 gistration but not actually registered — Patents, &c., 
 Acts, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 57), ss. 72, 73 ; 1888 
 (51 * 52 Vict. e. 50), ss. 14, 15. 
 
 L. ajiplied in 1H87 for the registration of a 
 trade-mark. The application was accepted ; but 
 L.'s agent omitting to pay the fee, the mark was 
 not registered. In 1889 H. registerfd a mark 
 which like L.'s mark contained the words " Unco 
 guid." In 1893 L. discovered that his mark was 
 nnregisfered, and applied to liave it registered. 
 The Comptroller refused the application on the 
 ground that L.'s mark was too like H.'s : — • 
 
 Held, that L.'s mark ought to be registered; 
 L.'s bona fides being apparent, and the only re- 
 semblance between the marks being the use of 
 the words " Unco guiil," while both L. and 
 H. had disclaimed the exclusive use of these 
 words : — ■ 
 
 Held, also, that the non-completion of the 
 registration under the first application was not a 
 bar to the making of a second. In re Loftus' 
 Teade-maek - North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 193 
 
 27. — Distinctive words — " Stone Ale " — Recti- 
 fication — Injunction. 
 
 Action by a brewer at Stone, Staff., to restrain 
 the defts., who had also built a brewery at Stone, 
 from selling their beer as " Stone Ale," and from 
 infringing their trade-mark. The C. A., holding 
 tliat the words " Stone Ale " were not distinctive 
 words, ordered the trade-mark to be removed 
 from the register, but granted an injunction to 
 restrain the deft, from using the words " Stone 
 Ale " so as to represent his ale to be that of the 
 pit. 
 
 Decision of C. A., (1889) 41 Ch. D. 35, affirmed. 
 In re Jodle's Teade-makk. Thompson i\ Mont- 
 OOMEEY H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 217 
 
 Observations of Lord Watson followed by 
 Chitty J. Wolmersliausen v. Wolmershausen & 
 Co., [1892] W. N. 87. 
 
 See also In re Paine & Co.'s Trade-marks, 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 5G7, No. 25, ahore; Birmingham 
 Vinegar Brewery Co. v. Powell, [1897] A. C. 710. 
 
 28. — Double registration. 
 
 Appeal to the Board of Trade from a refusal 
 by the Comptroller of Trade Marks to register a 
 mark brought in by John Player & Son, Limited, 
 in Class 45 for manufucturi d tobacco. The 
 trade-mark consi^ted of a sailor's head, with the 
 sea and a full-rigged ship and turret ship in 
 the background, surrounded by a life-belt. On 
 the life-belt was the legend " Player's Navy 
 Mixture." The application was accompanied by 
 a disclaimer of the right to the exclusive use of 
 the words " Navy Mixture." The applicants had 
 already registered a trade-mark in the same 
 class for manufactured tobacco similur to the 
 mark biought in, except that the words of the 
 scroll were "Player's Navy Cut" instead of 
 " Player's Navy Mixture." The exclusive use 
 of the words " Navy Cut " was also disclaimed. 
 The applicants had evidence to shew that it 
 ■would be useful fof ^he purpose of yegistrajiion 
 
 TRADE-MARK — (Registration) — continued. 
 abroad to have the trade-mark, in the form now 
 applied for, registered. 
 
 The Court dismissed the appeal. In re 
 Plateb's Teade-maek Cozens-Hardy J. 
 
 [1800] W. N. 273 
 
 29. — Essential particulars — Disclaimer of 
 added matter — Own name — Patents, i-c.. Acts, 1 883 
 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 64; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 50). 
 
 In order to escape the necessity of disclaiming 
 the right to the exclusive use of the firm's own 
 name, it is not necessary to put the whole of the 
 firm's name on tlie mark. 
 
 Therefore, applicants consisting of five persons 
 named Colmau and trading as J. & J. Colman 
 were entitled to register an American flag and 
 bull's head coupled, with the words " Bull's 
 Head," and " Coliiian's Mustard " without dis- 
 claiming " Colman's." 
 
 Qusere, whether any disclaimer can be required 
 of words appearing on a label which is as a 
 whole a distinctive label, and therefore an essen- 
 tial particular within s. 64 (1), (c) of the Patents, 
 &o., Act, 1883, as amended by the Act of 1888. 
 In re Colman's Tbade-maek Application (No. 2) 
 Stirling J. [1894] 2 Ch. 115 
 
 30. — Eridence on appeal from the Comptroller 
 referred to the Court — Trade Marks Pules, 1S90, 
 r. 23. 
 
 On an appeal from the decision of the oomp- 
 troUer to register a trade-mark, the Bd. of Trade 
 referred the appeal to the Court, on motion for 
 directions as to evidence. An order was made 
 for the motion to be set down in the witness 
 list, afiidavits to be filed by the parties, and the 
 motion to be heard on the statutory declarations 
 used before the comptroller, and the above- 
 mentioned affidavits and the crciss-examination 
 in court of any deponent as to whom notice to 
 cross-exKudne should be given by the other side. 
 In re Boseb's Teade-maek 
 
 North J, [1894] W. N. 173 
 
 31. — Expunging marks " calculated to de- 
 ceioe'' — Colour — Patents, itc.. Acts, JS^3 (46 <t 47 
 Vict. n. .57), ss. 67, 72, sub-ss. 2, 90 ; 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 50), ss. 10, 14. 
 
 "Where one ti'ader has registered a device, an- 
 other trader cannot register adescription in words 
 of that device even though he adds a specific 
 colour : — 
 
 Held, on the facts that the entry on the 
 reaister of i espondent's mark was made " without 
 sufficient cause," and that the applicants being 
 "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of s. 90 
 of the Patents, &c.. Act, 1883, were entitled to 
 have it expunged from the register : — 
 
 jEfeW, also, on the facts, that an injunction 
 limited to user in the Colonies would not afford 
 sufficient protection to the applicants. Decision 
 of Stirling J. [1894] 1 Ch. 61, affirmed. In ro 
 Teade-maek of La Societe Anonymb des Vee- 
 EEEiES DE l'Etoile (No. 2) C. A. [1894] a Ch. 26 
 
 Referred to by C. A. In re Trade-mark of 
 lohnDewhurst & Sons, Ld., [1896] 2 Ch. 137,146. 
 
 32. — Fancy word — Combination — Brand — ■ 
 Water-mark — Rectification. 
 
 AppUoation to reipove frpia regjste^ " Plrie'g 
 
( 2129 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2130 ) 
 
 TEADE-MARK (Registration)— contfeaeiJ. 
 Parchment Bank," which had been registered 
 with a disclaimer of the right to use the two 
 words " Parchment " and " Bank " separately : — 
 
 Held, (1) that words which simply wei-e in 
 common use in a trade could not become a trade- 
 mark by being combined ; (2) that the particular 
 words whether used singly or in combination were 
 not fancy words; (3) that they were not a dis- 
 tinctive brand. 
 
 Setnble, (per V. Williams J.) the word "brand" 
 is wide enough to include a " water-mark." 
 Alexander Pirie & Sons v. Good all 
 
 V. Williams J. affirm, by C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 35 
 
 Explained by Stirling J. In re dolman's 
 Trade mark (,No. 2), [1894] 2 Ch. 115, 126. See 
 No. 29, above. 
 
 33. — Fancy imrd — " Shakespeare " — Patents, 
 &a.. Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 64, suh-s. 
 1 (c). 
 
 Shakespeare as applied to cigars is not a 
 
 " fancy word " not in common use. In re Banks 
 
 AND James' Tkadb-makk - Chitty J. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 116 (14) 
 
 34. — Fancy word — Invented word — "Bri- 
 tannia "—Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 V. 57), «. 04, subs. 1 (c). 
 
 Tlie word " Britannia " is not a " fancy word " 
 within s. 64 of the- Patents, &c., Act, 1883, and is 
 therefore incapable of being registered as a new 
 trade-mark. Hodgson v. Sinclair. In, re Hodg- 
 son & Simpson's Tkade-mark 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] W. If. 176 
 
 35. — Fancy word — Invented word — " John 
 Bull Brand." 
 
 The phrase " John Bull Brand " is a " fancy 
 word not in common use" applicable to beer 
 and registerable as a trade-mark under s. 64, 
 sub-s. 1 (c) of the Patents, &c., Act, 1883. In re 
 Paine & Co.'s Tkadb-maeks. Paine & Co. v. 
 Daniells & Sons' Breweries 
 
 C. A. revers. Kekewich J. [1893] 2 Ch. 567 
 
 36. — Fancy word — Invented word — Descrip- 
 tive word — " Mazawattee " — Patents, &c,. Ads, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 64 ; 1888 (51 & 52 
 Vict. c. 50), «. 10. 
 
 A word partly compounded of a Hindu word 
 anil partly of a Cingalese word ineaning an e.~tate, 
 is not a desciiptive or geographical, but an in- 
 vented word, and capable of registjation. In re 
 Densham's Tkade-mark 
 
 Somer J. affirm, by C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 176 
 
 37. — " Fancy word not in common use " — 
 Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 64. 
 
 In 1886 J. registered as a trade-mark for sub- 
 stances used ad food or as ingredients in food the 
 word " Bovril," whicli he had invented, and which 
 up to tlie time of registration lie had never used. 
 He made over his business and trade-mark to a 
 limited company. The best known of the articles 
 sold under this mark was a iiuid extract of beef 
 which was issued under the name of " Fluid Beef, 
 Brand Bovril," but the article being extensively 
 sold, and called hy the public " Bovril," the com- 
 pany adopted this name and described it as 
 " Bovril " in their advertisements. In 1896 a 
 rival trader applied to expunge the word from 
 the I^egistpr of frade Ms/c^ o? the groun4 that 
 
 TaADE-MABK(Segistration)— cofiiinued. 
 it was not a "fancy word," but as applied to 
 articles derived from beef it was detoriptivc, and 
 as to articles not so derived was deceptive : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of Kekewich J.), 
 that at the time when the mark was registered 
 "Bovril" was a "fancy word not in common 
 use," and therefore might properly be regibtered 
 as a trade-mark under the Patents, &c., Act, 1883, 
 and that it was not a descriptive word, for although 
 " Bov." might suggest the idea of an ox, the word 
 as a whole would not at that time convey any 
 meaning. In re Trade -mark No. 58,405, 
 " Bovril " - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch, 600 
 
 38. — Foreign trade-mark — Descriptive words 
 —Patents, &c.. Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57) ; 
 1888 (51 cSi 52 Viet. c. 50), ss. 64, 103. 
 
 Sect. 103 of the Patents, &c„ Act, 1883, as 
 amended by the Patents, &c., Act, 18^5, autho- 
 rizes the registration of a trade-mark, application 
 for registration of which has been made in a 
 foreign country, only in cases where the trade- 
 mark is within the definition of a trade-mark in 
 s. 64. In re Carter Medicine Co.'s Trade- 
 mark - - North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 472 
 
 39. — Fraudulent user — Old mark — Patents, 
 &c.. Act. 1883 (46 * 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 74, sub-s. 1. 
 
 Marks were used previously to 1887 with a 
 fraudulent addition implying that the goods were 
 made at H., when they were in fact made in 
 M.:— 
 
 Held, that such user disentitled the applicant 
 for registration to have them registered as new 
 marks, minus the fraudulent addition. In re 
 Fuente's Trade-marks Eomer J. [1891] 2 Ch. 166 
 
 4.0. — Geographical name — Word — Pictorial 
 representation — Descriptive name — " Character or 
 quality of the goods" — Goodwill — Assignment — 
 Patents, do.. Acts, 1883 (40 & 47 Vict. c. 57) 
 ss. 64,05,70; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50), s. 10, 
 sub-s. 1 (e). 
 
 An American co. registered three trade- 
 marks : (1.) a magnolia flower without words; 
 (2.) the llower with the words " Magnolia anti- 
 friction metal " ; the exclusive right to the words 
 " antifriction metal " being disclaimed ; (3.) the 
 word "Magnolia" alone. Marks (1.) anil (2.) 
 were registered in class (6) for "Antifriction 
 metal bearings," Mark (3.) was registered iu 
 class (5) for " unwrought and partly wrought 
 metals used in manufacture." The " Magnolia " 
 metal was a compound metal originally made 
 under a secret process, but for which afterwards 
 a patent was taken out : — 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that marks (2.) and 
 (3.) must be expunged, because the word " Mag- 
 nolia " referred to the character or quality of the 
 goods : 
 
 Held, by 0. A., that they must be expunged, 
 because as a general rule, where an article is 
 made under a secret process or under a patent, 
 the manufacturer cannot, after the secret process 
 has been discovered or tlie piitent has expired, 
 claim a monopoly in name which does not dis- 
 tinguish the article as being of his manufacture : 
 
 Held, further, by C. A., that mark (2.) had 
 reference to the character and quality of the 
 goods, and might have been expunged on that 
 ground, b)it that mp,rk (3.) had no auoh referenpg 
 
( 2131 
 
 DIGEST OF CASHES, 18^1—1900. 
 
 2132 ) 
 
 TEADE-MABK (Registration) — continued. 
 
 and was not liable to be expunged on that 
 
 ground : 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J. and by 0. A., that 
 "Magnolia" was not "a geographical name" 
 within the meaning of the Act, for that a word 
 whose primary signification is not geographical 
 does not become such because some obscure place 
 has been called by it, unless the name be given 
 to the manufactured articles with reference to 
 the locality ; and that marks (2.) and (3.) were 
 not liable to be expunged on that ground : 
 
 Beld, by Kekewich J. and C. A., that it was 
 no objection to the registration of mark (1.) that 
 the flower was the equivalent of a word which 
 was not a good trade-mark : 
 
 Held, therefore, that mark (1.) was u good 
 trade-mark. 
 
 In 1896 the American co. transferred its 
 goodwill and assets to the appellant co. The 
 American co. had sold a large amount of the 
 metal in England under an agreement between 
 them and an English firm, styled their agents, 
 by which they agreed to supply the agents with 
 the metal, to be paid for by the agents, who 
 were to resell it for their own profit. The agents 
 were to be at liberty to trade under the name of 
 " The Magnolia Antifriction Metal Co. of Great 
 Britain " during the existence of the agreement, 
 but not afterwards, and the co. reserved a right 
 in the nature of a reversion in the business 
 carried on by the agents under the agreement. 
 The firm caused bearings to be marfe and sold 
 them on their own account, but it did not appear 
 that the American co. had sold any bearings in 
 England. The metal sent to England was 
 stamped with trade-mark No. 1, but it did not 
 appear that the bearings were so stamped: 
 
 Held, by Kekewicli J., that, though at the 
 date of the assignment the American co. had a 
 goodwill in a business in England concerned with 
 the metal, they had no goodwill in a business in 
 England concerned with metal bearings; that 
 the assignment was therefore invnlid under s. 70 
 of the Patents, &c., Act, 1883, and that mark (1.) 
 must lie expunged : 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the American co. had a 
 goodwill in a business in Englund concerned 
 with metil biarings, and that the assignment 
 was valid, and mark (1.) must remain on the 
 register. In re Magnolia Metal Co.'s Trade- 
 makes - C. A, [1897] 2 Ch. 371 
 — International copyright. 
 
 See Gases under Coptriqht — Inter- 
 national. 
 
 41. — Invented word — Descriptive word — 
 " Somatose" —Patents, &c.. Acts, 1883 (46 * 47 
 Vict. u. 57), s. 64, suh-s. 1 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Viet, 
 c. 50), s. 10, suh-s. 1. 
 
 " Somatose " lield not to be an " invented 
 word," but descriptive and therefore not capable 
 of registration. In re Fakbenfabeiken Applica- 
 tion - ■ C. A. (Lindley L.J. dissent.) 
 afarm. North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 645 
 
 Overruled. Eastman Photographio Materials 
 Go.y. Comptroller- General of Patents, Designs, and 
 Trade Marks, H. L. (B.) [1898] A. 0. 571. 
 
 42. — Invented word — Geographical name — ■ 
 "Eboline" — Patents, *c., Acts, 1883 (46 * 47 
 
 TRADE- MABE (Begistration) — continued. 
 Vict. a. 57), s. 64 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50), 
 s. 10, svh-s. {d) (e). 
 
 A word already in existence cannot properly 
 be said to be an " invented word " because the 
 person claiming to have invented it was not 
 aware of its existence. The prohibition in 
 s. 10 (e) of the Patents, &o.. Act, 1888, is not 
 confined to the noun substantive, but extends to 
 adjectives formed therefrom, eboline being com- 
 pounded of the geographical name " Eboli," and 
 the suffix " ne " is not an invented word but a 
 geographical name. In re SiE Titus Salt, Baet., 
 Son's & Co.'s Application 
 
 CMtty J. [1894] 3 Ch. 166 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. In re Densliam's 
 Trade-mark, [1895] 2 Ch. 176, 188. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. In re Magnolia Metal 
 Co.'s Trade-marks, [1897] 2 Ch. 371. See No. 40, 
 aiiove. 
 
 43. • — Invented word— Patents, &c.. Acts, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Viet. v. 57), s. 64 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 50), s. 10 {d). 
 
 To be registered as a trade-mark, an " invented 
 word " need not be absolutely new, or invented 
 for the purpose. 
 
 The word " Tachytype " had been used as 
 part of the name of a foreign co. who had adver- 
 tised and made communications of patented 
 inventions in their own name in England. An 
 English 00. were allowed to register the word 
 " Tachytype ' as a trade-mark. In re Linottpb 
 Co.'s Tkade-maek 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 106; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 238 
 
 44. — " Invented word " — Reference to the 
 character or quality of the goods" — Costs of regis- 
 tration and appeal — Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 
 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 64, sub-s. 1, as amended hy 
 Patents, &c.. Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50), s. 10, 
 siib-s. 1. 
 
 A word which is " an invented word " within 
 the meaning of clause (d) of s. 64, sub-s. 1, of the 
 Patents, &c,, Act, 1883, as amended by the 
 Patents, &c.. Act, 1888, s. 10, sub-s. i, may be 
 registered as a trade-mark, although it "has 
 reference to the character or quality of the goods " 
 within clause (e). Clauses (d) and (e) are inde- 
 pendent of each other. 
 
 The word " Solio " held to be capable of regis- 
 tration as a trade-mark under class 39 in respect 
 of photographic paper, and the decision of C. A. 
 reversed, [1897] W. N. 48 (6) (affirming Keke- 
 wich J., [1896] W. N. 158 (8)). 
 
 The term " invented word " discussed. 
 
 In re Farhenfabriken Application, [1894] 1 
 Oh. 645, overruled. Eastman Photogeaphic 
 Mateeials Co. v. Compteollee-Geneeal op 
 Patents, Designs, and Teade-maeks 
 
 H. I, (E.) [1898] A. C. 571 
 
 Eeferred to by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Lino- 
 type Co.'s Trade-mark, No. 220, 858; [1900] 2 Ch. 
 238, 240; In re " Uneeda" Trade-mark, [1901] 
 1 Ch. 550. 
 
 45. — Laches — Puhlici juHs — User of trade- 
 mark. 
 
 The A. Co. in 1889 registered in New South 
 Wales the worij " Mai^ena " under the Colonial 
 
( 2133 ) 
 
 DICxEST or CA>SES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2134 ) 
 
 TRADE-MARK (Registration)— conKnaecJ. ^ 
 Trade Marks Act of 1865, but had allowed the 
 name to be used in the colony for twenty-four 
 years as a term descriptive of the article and not 
 of their own manufacture thereof: — 
 
 Meld, that the word had become publici juris 
 and was no longer registerable, and that as the 
 B. Co., though they had applied the word to their 
 own manufacture, had not tried to pass it off aa 
 that of the A. Co. by the use of packets, &o., 
 calculated to deceive, but had stated the name of 
 the maker, &o., the B. Co. could not be restrained 
 from using the word. National Stakch Manu- 
 
 PACTUEING Co. V. MuNN's PaTEKT MaiZBNA AND 
 
 Staech Co. - - p. C. [1894] A. C. 275 
 
 46. — Name — Fictitious person — " Word " — 
 Patents, &a.. Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. a. 57), 
 s. 64; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50), s. 10. 
 
 A fictitious name, such as the name of a 
 character in fiction, is a " word " capable of being 
 registered alone as a trade-mark under sub-s. (e) 
 of a. 10 of the Patents, &o.. Act, 1888 : Per 0. A. 
 (Kay L.J. dissenting), reversing decision of 
 North J. In re Holt & Co.'s Tkade-maek 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 711 
 
 47. — Non-user and no hand fide intention to 
 use — Expunging. 
 
 A trader is not entitled to register a trade- 
 mark for goods in which he does not deal and in 
 which he has no bonS, fide intention of dealing. 
 ' Kegistration under such circumstances may be 
 expunged. 
 
 Deciaion of C. A., In re John Batt & Co.'s 
 Begistered Trade-marks, [1898] 2 Ch. 482, affirmed. 
 John Batt & Co. v. Ddnnett 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1899] W. N. 90 ; [1899] A. C. 428 
 
 — Notice of motion to expunge trade-mark — 
 
 Begistered proprietor out of jurisdiction. 
 See Pbaotioe — Ssrvice. 194. 
 
 — Old mark. Alteration of. 
 
 See above, Nos. 12—17. 
 
 48. — Old mark — Name affirm — " Special and 
 distinctive words " — Trade Marks Registration Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 91), s. 10— Patents, &c., Acts, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. o. 57) ; 1888 (51 * 52 Vict, 
 c. 50), s. 64. 
 
 The name of a firm held to have been properly 
 registered under the Acts of 1883 and 1888 as 
 special and distinctive words used as a trade- 
 mark which had been used by the firm for forty 
 years prior to the Act of 1875. In re Hopkinsoh's 
 Teade-mabks - Kekewich J. [1892] 2 Ch. 116 
 
 49. — Old mark— User before Aug. 13, 1875— 
 Bectifijiation— Trade Marks Registration, Act, 1875 
 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 91), 8. IQ— Patents, &c.. Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50), s. 10. 
 
 User as a trade-mark in s. 10 of the Trade 
 Marks Eegistration Act, 1875, means user alone, 
 not user in combination with other words. In 
 the present case the words "Monopole" and 
 " Dry Monopole " had only been used as part of a 
 trade-mark, and therefore should not have been 
 registered. The trade-marks were therefore 
 ordered to be expunged from the register. 
 nicHAKDS V. Butohbb Kay J. affirm, by C. A. 
 
 [1891] a Ch. 522 
 
 TRADE-MARK (Registration)— coniinueiZ. 
 
 fiO. — Old Mark — " Yorkshire Relish " — 
 Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 * 47 Vict c. 57), s. 90. 
 
 The use of the words " Yorkshire Eelish " on 
 bottles in conjunction with another trade-mark, 
 and on the packing-cases without the other 
 mark : — 
 
 Held, not to be suflSoient user as a trade-mark 
 
 to authorize registration as an " old mark." In re 
 
 Powell's Teade-mabk. Chitty J, affirm, by C. A. 
 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 388 ; suh-nom. Powell 
 
 V. Birmingham Vinegae Beewebt Co. 
 
 affirm, by H. L. (E.) [1894] A. C. 8 
 
 Pollowed by Stirling J. Inre Talbot's Trade- 
 mark, [1894] W. N. \2. See also Powell v. 
 Birmingham Brewery Co., [1897] A. C. 710. 
 
 51. — Opposition — Amendment of notice — 
 Patents, &c., Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. v. 57); 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50), s. 69- Trade Marks 
 Rules, 1890, 22, 31, 54, 55— iJ. S. C, 1883, 
 Order xxriii., r. 12. 
 
 Opponents to the registration of a trade-mark 
 applied, after giving notice of appeal, for leave to 
 amend their notice of opposition : — 
 
 Held, that, aa no leave to amend had been 
 asked from the registrar, the Court had no juris- 
 diction on appeal to give leave to amend. In re 
 Eobeetson, Sanderson & Co.'s Ai-plication 
 
 Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 245 
 — Opposition — Discovery — Production of docu- 
 ments — Motion to remove trade-mark 
 from register. 
 See Discovery. 43. 
 
 52. — Oriental characters — Words " calculated 
 to deceive " — Condition — • Local limitation — 
 Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), as 
 amended by 51 & 52 Vict. c. 50, ss. 62, 64, 73 (1). 
 
 Held (reversing the decision of the Vice- 
 Chanci'llor of the County Palatine), that the 
 Comptroller-General of Patents, Deaigns, and 
 Trade Marks was justified in refusing to register 
 a trade-mark containing as an essential part of it 
 words amounting to a verbal description of a 
 mark already on the register, on the ground that 
 their use would be calculated to deceive, tijough 
 the words were in the Burmese language and 
 character, which are little known out of Burma. 
 
 Held, by the Vice-Chance llor of the County 
 Palatine, that the comptroller was not justified in 
 refusing to register words in an oriental character 
 as part of a trade-mark for cotton goods. On 
 appeal thia point was left open. 
 
 The holder of the trade-mark containing a 
 picture of the object referred to by the words in 
 question consented to the application for regis- 
 tration : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A., that this was important only 
 as evidence that the use of the words was not 
 calculated to deceive, and did not preclude the 
 comptroller fi om deciding otherwise. 
 
 Under a. 62, sub-as. 4 and 5 of the Act of 1883, 
 the Court can order the registration of a trade- 
 mark subject to any conditions. The applicants 
 were willing to accept a registration subject to a 
 condition that the mark should only be put ou 
 goods sent to Burma, there being evidence that 
 in Burma the use of the words would not be 
 calculated to deceive : — 
 
 Held, that the Court ought not to direct 
 
( 2135 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2136 ) 
 
 TE ADE-MAEK (Eegistration) — continued. 
 registration of a trade-mark subject to a condition 
 that it shall be used only in a particular country, 
 such a condition not being coutemplated by the 
 Act, and being incapable of being enforced. 
 In re Tbade-mabk of John Dewhubst & Sons, 
 Ld. - - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 137 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Ehrmann's 
 Application, [1897] 2 Ch. 495, 500. 
 
 53. — Partnership — Dissolution — Application 
 hy partners for separate registration of identical 
 marks used hy old firm — Restrictions on registra- 
 tion—Patents, &c., Acts, 1883-8 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 57 : 51 * 52 Vict, c 50), ss. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 
 76, 77, 87, 91. 
 
 A firm consisting of five partners was dissolved 
 by a deed which provided that the business should 
 in future be carried on by two separate firms 
 comprised of various members of the old firm ; 
 that all the partners should be entitled to use 
 the trade-marks formerly used by the old firm ; 
 and that neither of the new firms should be 
 exclusively entitled to the Koodwill of the old 
 business. The new firms applied simultaneously 
 for the registration in their respective names of 
 the marks which had been used by the old firm, 
 some of which were registered in the name of the 
 old firm and one of which was not registered in 
 this country. The new firms mutually consented 
 to each other's application : — 
 
 Held, that the registrations asked for ought 
 not to be allowed. In re Ehrmann's Applica- 
 tions - Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 495 
 
 84. — " Person aggrieved " — " Common to the 
 trade " — Disclaimer — Geographical words — Trade 
 Maries Registration Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 91), 
 ss. 5, W— Patents, &c., Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. 
 V. 57), s. 90. 
 
 Ill this case the following points were con- 
 sidered : the meaning of " person aggrieved," 
 " common to the trade," and " place of business." 
 The necessity for disclaiming words forming part 
 of label and the proper lime for disclaimer. The 
 right of a purchaser to register as his own the 
 trade-mark of a foreign producer. The right to 
 register geographical words like " Apolliuaris." 
 The right to have a trade-mark wrongfully regis- 
 tered struck off, although it may be immediately 
 reinstated. The right to choose which Act to 
 proceed under, where the proceedings cover both. 
 In re Apollinaeis Co.'s Tkade-marks (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 186 
 
 Distinguished bv Chitty J. In re Phillip's 
 Trade-marks, [1891]"3 Ch. 139, No. 14, above ; and 
 see Smokeless Powder Co.'s Trade-mark, [1892] 
 1 Ch. 590, No. 21, above; In re Magnolia Metal 
 Co.'s Trade-marks, [1897] 2 Ch. 371, No. 40, above. 
 
 85. — '^Person aggrieved" — Patents,&c., Act, 
 1883 (46 <£ 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 90. 
 
 A " person aggrieved " within the section in- 
 cludes a person in the same trade as the person 
 who has registered the trade-mark, and who would 
 or might have his legal rights limited by the 
 existence of the entry, although he has no inten- 
 tion of trading in the article in question. 
 
 (a) Powell v. Birmingham Vinegar Brewery 
 Co. (.No. 1) H. L. (E.) affirm. C. A. and CHtty J. 
 
 ri894T A. C. 8 
 
 TEADE-MAEK (Eegistration) — continued. 
 
 (b) Apollinaris Co.'s Trade-mark (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. affirm. Kekewich J. [1891] 2 Oh. 186 
 
 (c) In re Taieot's Tbade-maek 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 12 
 
 (d) In re The Trade-mark of La Societe 
 Anonyme des Vebberies de L'Etoile (No. 2) 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 1 Ch. 61 affirm, by 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 26 
 
 66. — Practice — Appeal — Evidence — Patents, 
 &c., Acts, 1883 and 1888 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57, and 
 51 & 62 Vict. c. 50), «. 69, sub-ss. 3, i — Trade 
 Marks Rules, 1890, jr. 23, 26. 
 
 On reference of an appeal by an opponent to 
 registration of a trade-mark to the Chancery Div. 
 of the High Court, it was directed by the Bd. of 
 Trade that the appellant, the applicant, and the 
 comptroller should be " at liberty to adduce such 
 evidence by affidavit, examination, or cross- 
 examination of witnesses aLd otherwise as the 
 Couit may see fit to direct or permit, in addition 
 to the statutory declarations used at the hearing 
 before the comptroller, which for this purpose 
 are, if necessary, to be verified by affidavit : — 
 
 Held, that the declai-ations were to be verified 
 on oath by the several persons who made them. 
 In re Kingsfoed's Trade-mark. Ex parte Na- 
 tional Starch Manufactdbing Co. - North J. 
 [1898] W. H. 37 (2) 
 
 87. — Rectification — Company — '" Limited " — 
 Abbreviation — Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, 
 c. 89), ss. 8, 41 ; Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 & 
 47 Vict. c. 57), s. 92. 
 
 On motion to alter a trade-mark by adding 
 " Ltd." to the name of a co. owning it, leave was 
 given on terms that the word " Limited " should 
 appear in full on the altered trade-mark. In re 
 Egbert Porter & Co. 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] W. N. 102 
 
 58. — Rectification — Descriptive word — Patents, 
 &c.. Ads, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. e. 57), s. 64, sub-s. 1 
 (c), s. 90 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Viet. c. 50), s. 10, sub-s. 1 
 (d),{e). 
 
 The word " emolliolorum conveys the im- 
 pression that it acts by softening substances to 
 which it is applied. It is therefore a " descrip- 
 tive word" not capable of being registered either 
 as a. " fancy word " under s. 64 of the Patents, 
 &o.. Act, 1883, nor as an invented word under 
 s. 10 (1) (d), (e) of the Act of 1888, nor as a word 
 having reference to the character and quality of 
 the goods. In re Talbot's Trade-mark 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 12 
 
 89. — Rectification — Notice — Patents, dc. Act, 
 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), ss. 62, sub-s. 6, 90, 
 107, 111, 117. 
 
 No special procedure is prescribed by the Acts 
 or rules as to the service on parties of notice of 
 a|iplicatiou to expunge a trade-mark. It is 
 enough to give such notice as is required by 
 natural justice. Motion to expunge a trade-mark 
 registered by an Irish oo. with a branch office in 
 London. Notice of the motion had been served 
 on the Comptroller-General, and a copy sent to 
 the CO. in Ireland. The co. did not appear. The 
 motion was granted, and subsequently the Court 
 refused an application by the co. to set aside the 
 order, tluiisdiction of the English and Irish 
 
( 2i§7 ) 
 
 DIgES'T of CAsSs, 1891—1900: 
 
 ( 2138 5 
 
 TRADE-MABK(Eegistration)— conWjiiMfZ. 
 Courts considered by 0. A. In re King & Co.'s 
 Tbade-makK - - C. A. [1892] 2 Ch. 462 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Kay's Patent, 
 [1894] W. N. 68. 
 
 Referred to by North J. In re Cliff, [1895] 
 2 Ch. 21,25. M,L J 
 
 60. — Eectify, Motion to — Infringement — 
 Action for — Trade-mark registered more than five 
 years — Certificate of right to exclusive use — 
 "Action "—Patents, dc, Acts, 1883 (46 * 47 Vicl. 
 c. 57), ss. 76, 77a, 90 ; 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 50), 
 s. 18. 
 
 The proprietors of a trade-mark, which had 
 been registered for more than five years, brought 
 an action for infringement, and the defts. moved 
 to rectify the register by removing the pits.' 
 mark therefrom. The action and motion were 
 tried together and on the same evidence; an 
 injunction was granted, and the motion was 
 refused : — 
 
 Held, that, although after the expiration of 
 five years from the date of registration the 
 validity of the trade-mark could only be im- 
 peached on motion under o. 90 of the Patents, 
 &c.. Act, 1883, the right to the exclusive use of 
 the trade-mark had come in question in the 
 action within the meaning of s. 77a, and that the 
 pits, were entitled to a certificate to that effect. 
 J. 0. & J. Field & Co. v. Wagel Syndicate, Ld. 
 In re Tkade-makk 96,997 
 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 67; [1900] 1 Ch. 651 
 
 61. — Restrictions upon registration — " Repre- 
 sentations of the Royal Crown " — Instructions 
 issued by Comptroller to persons wishing to register 
 trade-marhs. 
 
 There is no positive rule binding upon the 
 Court or the Bd. of Trade prohibiting the regis- 
 tration of a trade-mark containing the representa- 
 tion of a Crown. The instructions issued by the 
 Comptroller-General of Trade Marks to applicants 
 for registration, containing a regulation that 
 " representations of the Eoyal Crown " will not 
 be registered as trade-marks or as prominent parts 
 of trade-marks unless the marks have been used 
 before Aug. 13, 1875, do not prohibit every form 
 of crown, but only representations of the Crown 
 as it appears on the Eoyal Arms, namely, a circlet 
 surmounted by two arches. 
 
 Whether these instructions are binding upon 
 the Court or not, the practice in the Trade Mark 
 Office, which has been based upon tliem since 
 1875, ought not now to be- departed from. In re 
 KoNiG & Ebhakdt's Application- 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 236 
 
 63. — Similarity — Misleading use of words 
 " Trade-mark." 
 
 Right of one firm to exclusive use of a common 
 emblem like a star considered. 
 
 Trade-mark partly expunged by reason of 
 position of the words "trade-mark." In re 
 Dextbe's Application. In re Wills' Teade- 
 maeks - - "Wright J. [1893] 3 Ch. 262 
 
 63. — Unregistered trade-mark. 
 
 E. made and sold belting called E.'s " Camel- 
 hair Belting," but had not registered a trade- 
 mark : B. sold similar belting called " B.'s Oamel- 
 
 TBASE-MABK (Registration) — continued. 
 hair Belting." In action by E. for infringement, 
 E. gave evidence that their belting was alone 
 known to the trade as " Camel-hair," but none 
 that B. had sold their belting as E.'s. E. was 
 non-suited : — 
 
 Meld, that the proper questions for the jury 
 were (1) whether "camel-hair belting" had 
 acquired in the trade the meaning of belling 
 made by E. ; (2) whether B.'s description of their 
 belting would induce purchasers to believe it was 
 made by E. Reddaway v. Bentham Hemp- 
 Spinning Co. - C. A. (A, L. Smith diss.) 
 [1893] 2 a. B. 639 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Powell v. Birming- 
 ham Vinegar Brewery Co., 0. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 449, 
 455. 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. Reddaway v. Banliam, 
 [1895] 1 Q. B. 286, 291. This case was reversed 
 by H. L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 199. 
 
 64. — Unregistered trade-mark — Common Law 
 right — Parsing off — Imitation of get-up — Mis- 
 representation from use of the words " trade mark " 
 —Patents, &c.. Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), 
 8. 105. 
 
 The use by a trader on his goods of the words 
 " trade mark " in connection with a particular 
 mark which he has used as a trade-mark but for 
 which he has not obtained registration, does not 
 necessarily imply that the trade-mark is regis- 
 tered so as to constitute an offence under s. 105 
 of the Patents, &c.. Act, 1883, and apart from 
 s. 105 is not of itself such a misrepresentation as 
 to disentitle him to relief in an action to restrain 
 the imitation of the get-up of his goods. 
 
 Leiois's V. Goodbody, (1892) 67 L. T. (N.S.) 
 194, discussed and explained. Sen Sen Co. v. 
 Beitten - Stirling J. [1899] "W. If. 27 (9) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 692 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. Bubhuck &, Son, 
 Ld. V. Brown, [1899] W. N. 250. No. 2, above. 
 
 TRADE NAME — Assignment in gross — Infringe- 
 ment — Injunction. 
 
 J. F., a watchmaker in London, used to put 
 his name on the watches he made. After his 
 death C. & Co., of London, bought the business 
 and put J. F. on some of the watches they made, 
 but never traded as J. P. Subsequently 0. & Co., 
 by deed, granted to S. & Co., of Liverpool, the 
 sole right to make watches marked J. F. for 
 seven years. After the expiration of the term 
 C. & Co. put J. F. on very few if any of the 
 watches they made. Later on C. & Co. executed 
 a deed of assignment to E. for the benefit of their 
 creditors. E. sold and conveyed to T., watch- 
 maker of Coventry, " the name, title, and good- 
 will of J. P. of London " :— 
 
 Held, (1) that T. was not the successor in 
 business of J. P. ; (2) that if the assignment to 
 T. passed anything it merely passed the right to 
 use the name of J. P. unconnected with any 
 business, and was merely an assignment in gross 
 and could not be supported ; (3) that S. & Co. 
 during their licence were not J. P. or his suc- 
 cessors in business in London ; (4) that after that 
 licence C. & Co. could not set up that J. P. on 
 their watches meant that they were made by 
 J. P. or his suc/cesBors in business, and had no 
 
( 2139 ) 
 
 DIGEST 01' CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2140 ) 
 
 TBADE NAME — c&ntirmed. 
 
 right to reatrain others from using the name of 
 
 J. F. Thobneloe v. Hill 
 
 Homer J. [1894] 1 Ch. 669 
 
 2. — Company — Similarity of nam£ — Vecep- 
 ti<m — Injunction. 
 
 The Manchester Brewery Co., Ld., had 
 carried on business under that name for years. 
 Tlie appellants bought an old business called 
 " The North Cheshire Brewery Co., Ld.," and 
 then (without intending to deceive) got them- 
 selves incorporated and registered under the 
 name, "The North Cheshire and Manchester 
 Brewery Co., Ld." : — 
 
 Held, upon the evidence that as a matter 
 of fact the name of the appellant co. was 
 calculated to deceive and that the appellants 
 must therefore be restrained by injunction in the 
 usual way. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1898] 1 Ch. 539, affirmed. 
 North Cheshike and Manchesteb Beewekt Co. 
 V. Manchester Brevteky Co. 
 H. L. (E.) [1898] W. N. 168 (5) ; [1899] A. C. 83 
 
 3. — Descriptive name — Interdict. 
 
 The appellants, an English co., claimed to 
 have invented, or at least to have put upon 
 the market, a fabric suitable for shirtings and 
 underwear woven in a particular manner; and 
 alleged that they had for the last ten years 
 described this fabric in their advertisements 
 as made in a certain way; and that they had 
 marked it and invoiced it under the name of 
 " cellular cloth " largely in England and, to some 
 extent, in Scotland. The name had not been 
 registered. The respondents were a wholesale 
 firm in Edinburgh who sold cotton and woollen 
 goods which they had recently described as 
 ■'cellular." 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the First Div. 
 of Ct. of Sess., (1898) 25 R. 1098, that the appel- 
 lants were not entitled to relief on the grounds — 
 (1.) that the word "cellular" was an ordinary 
 English word which appropriately and con- 
 veniently described the cloth of which the goods 
 sold by the respondents were manufactured ; and 
 (2.) that the term had not been proved to have 
 acquired a secondary or special meaning so as to 
 denote only the goods of the appellants. 
 
 Beddaway v. Banham, [1896] A. C. 199, dis- 
 tinguished. Cellular Clothino Co. v. Maxton 
 & Murray - H. L. (So.) [1899] W. N. 56 ; 
 
 [1899] A. C. 326 
 — False representation — What constitutes — 
 Colourable imitation of name — Eight to 
 injunction. 
 See Canada. 24. 
 
 4. — Former concurrent user hy two firms — 
 Discontinuance of user hy one for several years. 
 
 Where there has been a concurrent user of a 
 trade name by A. and B., but the user thereof by 
 B. has practically ceased for some years, and A. 
 has in the meantime acquired a large sale for his 
 goods and a reputation in the market under the 
 trade name, so that the name has become asso- 
 ciated solely with the goods of A., B. may not 
 afterwards revive the use of the name in his 
 business in such a way as to pass off his goods as 
 those of A. Daniel & Aeter v. Wbitehouse 
 
 G, Barnes 3. [1898] 1 Ch. 686 
 
 TRADE SATHE— continued. 
 
 — Identification of name with goods by user — 
 
 Injunction. 
 
 See New South Wales. 48. 
 
 5. — Imitation of rival trader^ s goods — Common 
 law right — Name indicating manufacturer — In- 
 junction — Fraud. 
 
 The respondent had for years manufactured 
 and sold under the name " Yorkshire Eelish " a 
 sauce made according to a secret recipe, and the 
 term " Yorkshire Eelish " had come to mean that 
 particular manufacture. The appellants began 
 to make a sauce, nearly resembling the respon- 
 dent's sauce, which they sold as Yorkshire Eelish 
 so as to induce purchasers to believe that it was 
 the respondent's " Yorkshire Eelish," although 
 the purchasers did not in fact know the name of 
 the respondent in connection with the sauce : — 
 
 Held, that the respondent was entitled to an 
 injunction restraining the appellants from using 
 the words " Yorkshire Relish " in lonnection with 
 their sauce without clearly distinguishing it 
 from the respondent's sauce. 
 
 Decision of 0. A., [l.->96] 2 Ch. 54, affirmed. 
 Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co. v. Powell 
 H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 710 
 
 6. — Injunction — Form of order. 
 
 Where a person had taken a name as his own 
 name for the purpose of u»ing the name m trade 
 to pass off his boots and shoes as the manufac- 
 ture of another whose real name it was, he was 
 restrained absolutely from using the name in 
 connection with the sale or manufacture of boots 
 or shoes. F. Pdjet & CiB. v. Maison Louis 
 Pinet, Ld. - - North J. [1898] 1 Ch. 179 
 
 7. — Injunction — Trade-marli — Rival traders 
 — Passing off — Deception — Intent to deceive — Evi- 
 dence of intent — Admissihility — Account of profits, 
 form of. 
 
 The principle that " nobody has any right to 
 represent his goods as the goods of somebody 
 else," Reddaway v. Sanham, [1-896] A. C. 199, 
 204, has no limit as regards name, origin, honesty 
 of manufacture or sale, or otherwise. Thus, a 
 trader whose goods have acijuired » reputation 
 under a particular name can restrain the user of 
 that name in any way whatever by a rival trader 
 in connection with the latter'a own goods, even 
 though that reputation has been acquired by the 
 exertions or enterprise of the rival trader as an 
 importer and vendor on behalf of the pit. 
 
 In aa action lor an injunction to restrain the 
 use of a trade name; if the deft.'s goods, on the 
 face of them and having regard to surrounding 
 circumstances, are calculated to deceive, evidence 
 to prove the intention to deceive is inadmissible 
 as being unnecessary, the rule being that a man 
 must be taken to have intended the reasonable 
 and natural consequences of his own acts ; but if, 
 on the other hand, a mere comparison of the 
 goods, having regard to surrounding circum- 
 stances, is not sufficient, then evidence of inten- 
 tion to deceive is admissible, and this evidence 
 may be supplied by admissions, oral or in writing, 
 or by inference from conduct. 
 
 Reddaway v. Banham, [1896] A. 0. 199, dis- 
 cussed. 
 
 ^liere an injunction was granted restrainino- 
 the defts. from passing off their goods under the ' 
 
( 2141 ) 
 
 biGfigf OP OASiSS, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 2142 ) 
 
 Trade NATHE— continued. 
 plt.'s trade name, an acootint of profits was 
 directed, as a necessary consequence, in the form 
 allowed in Lever v. Goodwin, (1887) 36 Oh. D. 1 ; 
 4 Rep. Pat. Gas. 492, although there was no 
 evidence that the defts.' goods had been actually 
 mistaken for the plt.'s. Saxlehneb v. Apolu- 
 NAWS Co. - Kekewieh J. [1897] 1 Ch. 893 
 
 8. — Misleading advertisements — Form of 
 order. 
 
 The defts. issued advertisements, cards, and 
 circulars calculated to lead to the belief that tho 
 defts.' business was the same as or a branch of 
 the plt.'s business : — 
 
 Seld, that it was a case for granting perpetual 
 injunction to prevent the defts. advertising or 
 carrying on their business without clearly dis- 
 tinguishing their business from that of the pit. 
 
 WOLMEESHAUSEN V. WOLMEBSHAUSEN & Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] W. K. 87 
 
 9. — Name affirm. 
 
 The name of a firm held to have been pro- 
 perly registered under the Acts of 1883 and 1888 
 as an old mark which had been used by the firm 
 for forty years prior to the Act of 1875. In re 
 Hopkinson's Teade-makks 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 2 Ch. 116 
 
 10. — Naine indicating manufacturer — Com- 
 mon law right — True description of article sold — 
 Imitation — Tendency to deceive — Fraud. 
 
 A trader is not entitled to pass off his goods 
 as the goods of another trader by selling them 
 under a name which is likely to deceive pur- 
 chasers (whether immediate or ultimate) into 
 the belief that they are buying the goods of that 
 other trader, although in its primary meaning 
 the name is merely a true description of the 
 goods. 
 
 The pit. had for some years made belting and 
 sold it as " Camel Hair Belting," a name wliich 
 had come to mean in the trade the plt.'s belting 
 and nothing else. The defts. began to sell 
 belting made of the yarn of camel's hair, and 
 stamped it "Camel Hair Belting" so as to be 
 likely to mislead purchasers into the belief that 
 it was the plt.'s belting, endeavouring thus to 
 pass ofi^ his goods as the plt.'s : — 
 
 Seld, that the pit. was entitled to an injunc- 
 tion restraining the deft, from using the words 
 " camel hair " as descriptive of or in connection 
 with belting made or sold or offered for sale by 
 him and not manufactured by the pit. without 
 clearly distinguishing such belting from the 
 plt.'s belting. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1895] 1 Q. B. 286, reversed. 
 Eeddawat V, Banham 
 
 H, L. (E.) [1896] A. C. 199 
 
 Applied by Kekewich J. Saxlehner v. Apolli- 
 naris Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 893, 899. See No. 7, 
 aiove. 
 
 Approved by P. 0. in Parsons v. 
 [1898] A. C. 239. 
 
 11. — Secret preparation — Name not registered 
 as trade-mark — Injunction. 
 
 P. and his predecessor in title had for more 
 than thirty years manufactured and sold a sauce 
 called "Yorkshire Eelish." Down to 1893 no 
 Other sauce was on the market under that name. 
 
 TRADE SAJliE— continued. 
 In 1884 the name was registered as a trade-mark ; 
 in 1893 the B. Co. succeeded in getting the 
 trade-mark removed from the register. The B. 
 Co. then manufactured and sold a sauce different 
 from P.'s, and with a label different from P.'s 
 but with the words "Yorkshire Eelish" on it, 
 the B. Co.'s name appearing conspicuously as 
 manufacturers on both the bottle-labels and the 
 wrappers : — 
 
 Held, that P. was entitled to an injunction 
 restraining the B. Co. from using the words 
 "Yorkshire Eelish" in connection with any 
 saure manufactured by them without clearly 
 distinguisliing their mark from P.'s. Form of 
 injunctioQ considered. Powell v. Bibminqham 
 ViNE'aAK Bbeweby Co. (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. affirm. Stirling J. [1894J 3 Ch. 449 
 
 See also Powell v. Birmingham Vinegar 
 Brewery Go., [1894] A. C. 8 ; [1897] A. C. 710. 
 
 Referred to by G. Barnes J. Daniel & Arler 
 V. Whitehouse, [1898] 1 Ch. 685, 690. 
 
 — ■ Similarity of name — Deception — Injunction. 
 See No. 2, above. 
 
 12. — Similarity of name — Foreign company 
 — Bight of foreign company to trade in England 
 under its foreign name. 
 
 A CO. was incorporated in Canada under 
 the title of the Sun Life Assurance Co. of 
 Canada : — 
 
 Held, that in the absence of fraud and dis- 
 honesty the CO. were entitled to curry on business 
 under their corporate name (provided it were 
 without abreviation, aHdition or other modifica- 
 tion) in Englnnd, notwithstanding the existence 
 of the Sun Life Assurance Co. Undertaking by 
 the Canadian co. not to use any abbreviation of 
 their corporate name witiiout the addition of the 
 words "of Canada." Saundeks v. Son Life 
 
 ASSUEANOE Co. OF CANADA 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 1 Ch. 537 
 
 TRADE IINION — Conspiracy — Maliciously pro- 
 curing breach of contract. 
 
 Collins J. directed the jury that if the defts., 
 members of a trade union, had induced persons 
 to break contracts made with the pit., and not to 
 enter into further contracts with him, although 
 only with the object of. oompelling the pit. to 
 adhere to the rules of the trade union, there 
 would be malice in point of law, and the defts. 
 would be liable in damages : — 
 
 Held, that the direction was right. The right 
 of action for maliciously procuring a breach of 
 contract is not confined to contracts in the nature 
 of contracts of personal service. Tempeeton v. 
 EusSELL (No. 2) - C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 715 
 
 Discussed. Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. 0. 1, 94 
 
 2. — Devise or bequests of land — Validity — • 
 •< Purchase"— Trades Union Act, 1871 (34 <fe 85 
 Vict. c. 31), 8. 7. 
 
 The word " purchase " in s. 7 of the Trades 
 Union Act, 1871, which enables a trade union to 
 purchase land not exceeding one acre, is used in 
 the ordinary sense of the word " buy " and not 
 the technical sense of " acquire otherwise than by 
 descent or escheat " : — 
 
 Held, therefoi'e, that a devise of land to a 
 
( 2113 ) 
 
 moESl' OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2114 3 
 
 TEASE VSIOIf— continued. 
 
 trades union was invalid. In re Amos. Cakrier 
 
 V, Price North J. [1891] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 3. — Dissolution — Unexpended funds — 
 Besulting trust. 
 
 A .society was registered under the Trade 
 Union Acts, 1871 and 1876, to raise funds, by 
 means of weekly contributions to defend and sup- 
 port its members in obtaining and maintaining 
 reasonable remuneration for their labour. There 
 were two classes of members — printers and trans- 
 ferrers — and by the rules of the society the printers 
 subscribed twice as much as the transferrers, and 
 were entitled to receive twice as much strike or 
 lock-out pay ; the scale of payments also varied 
 with the length of time a member had belonged to 
 the society. No provision was made by the rules 
 for the distribution of the funds of the society on 
 a dissolution. At the time of its dissolution the 
 society consisted of 201 members, and its unex- 
 pended funds amounted to lOOOZ., and the ques- 
 tion now arose how this sum was to be distributed. 
 The Att.-Gen. having been served, and making 
 no claim to the fund as bona vacantia: — 
 
 Seld, distinguishing Cunnack v. Edwards, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 679, on this point, that there was a 
 resulting trust in favour of those who had sub- 
 scribed to the fund, and that the money was now 
 divisible amongst the existing members at the 
 time of the dissolution, in proportion to the 
 amount contributed by each member to the funds 
 of the society, irrespective of fines or payments 
 made to members in accordance with the rules. 
 In re Printers aud Teausfekkers' Amalqa- 
 MATED Trades Protection Sooiett 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 86; [1899] 2 Ch. 184 
 
 4. — Intimidating circular — "Black list" — 
 Malicious injury. 
 
 Where a trade union published a, poster 
 headed " T.'s Black List," giving the names of 
 T.'s non-union workmen :— 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that as on the evidence 
 the principal motive was to injure T. and the 
 non-union men, and as the injury was being 
 inilicted from day to day, T. and the non-union 
 men were entitled to an injunction against the 
 trade union and their servants, &c., and against 
 the secretary and other officers, who were delta, 
 by name without addition. 
 
 Affirmed by C. A, on the ground that a prima 
 facie case had been established thiit the defts. 
 liad gone beyond what they were entitled to do, 
 and had refused to give an undertaking to desist 
 pending the action. Trollope v. London Bdild- 
 iNS Trades Federation - Kekewich J. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 29 ; C. A. [1895] W. N. 46 
 
 5. — Intimidation. 
 
 A threat to strike unless the employer ceases 
 to employ non-union men is not intimidation 
 within s. 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of 
 Property Act, 1875. Connor v. Kekt. Girson 
 V. IjAwson. Curran v. Treleaven 
 lord Coleridge C.J., Mathew, Cave, A, 1. Smith 
 and Charles JJ. [1891] 2 Q. B. 646 
 
 [A report of ilie judgment of the Recorder of 
 NewcaMe-on-Tijne in Kent v. Connor forms the 
 Pari. Paper, 18al, 141. Price IJd.] 
 
 See J. Lyons & Sons v. Willnns, 0. A. [1896] 
 
 TRADE VSlOyi— continued. 
 
 1 Ch. 811, 824, No. 11, below ; Allen v. flood, [1898] 
 A. 0. 1, at p. 17. 
 
 — • Blaliciously inducing employer to discharge 
 servant — Interference with trade. 
 See Action, 1 . 
 
 6. — Nominee of member — Bight to sue — 
 Trade Union Acts, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict, c. 31), «. 4, 
 suh-s. 3 (a) ; 1876 (39 * 40 Vict. c. 22), ss. 1, 10. 
 
 Sect. 4 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, which 
 provides (sub-s. 3) against legal proceedings 
 being taken to enforce " any agreement for the 
 application of the funds of the trade union (o) to 
 provide benefits for members," is not repealed by 
 39 & 40 Vict. o. 22, and consequently the nominee 
 of a deceased member cannot bring an action to 
 recover moneys due to the deceased under the 
 rules of the trade union. Crocker v. Knight 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 a. B. 702 
 
 7. — 0_fficers representing members — Common 
 beneficial interest. 
 
 ■ Certain officials of a trade union were sued on 
 their own behalf, and as representing each of the 
 societies, for causing workmen to break their 
 contracts : — 
 
 Seld, that (hey could not be sued in their 
 representative character. Order xvi., r. 9, only 
 applying to persons who have or claim to have 
 some beneficial proprietary right, which they are 
 asserting or defending on bthalf of themselves 
 and others. Tesiperton v. Ktosell (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. affirm. Div. Ct. [1893] 1 ft. B. 435 
 
 8. — Picketing — " Watching and besetting " 
 — " Wrongfully and vjithout legal authority" — In- 
 junction — Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871 
 (31 & 35 Vict. c. 32), s. 1 — Conspiracy and Protec- 
 tion of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 86), 
 ss. 3, 7. 
 
 Per Lindley M.R. and Chitty L. J. : To 
 watch or beset a man's house, with a view to 
 compel him to do or not to do that which it is 
 lawful for him not to do or to do, is, unless some 
 reasonable justification for it is consistent with 
 the evidence, a wrongful act : (1.) because it is 
 an offence within s. 7 of the Conspiracy and Pro- 
 tection of Property Act, 1875 ; and (2.) because 
 it is a nuisance at common law for which an 
 action on the case would lie ; for such conduct 
 seriously interferes with the ordinary comfort of 
 human existence and the ordinary enjoyment of 
 the house beset: Bamford v. Tundey, (1860) 
 3 B. & S. 62 ; Broder v. SaiUard, (1876) 2 Ch. D. 
 692, 701 ; Walter v. Selfe, (1851) 4 De G. & Sm. 
 315 ; Crump v. Lambert, (1867) L. E. 3 Eq. 409. 
 
 Proof that the nuisance was caused by an 
 attempt " peaceably to persuade other people " 
 would afford no defence to such an action; 
 though persons may be peaceably persuaded 
 provided the method employed is not a nuisance. 
 
 In the expression at the beginning of B. 7 
 " with a view to compel," the word " view " does 
 not import motive — it imports purpose. 
 
 Per V. Williams L.J. ; the words " wrongfully 
 and without legal authority " in s. 7 of the Act of 
 1875 mean unwarranted by law. 
 
 According to the true meaning of s. 7 all 
 watching and besetting is unlawful except such 
 as is merely for the purpose of obtaining or com- 
 municating information ; but the fact that a 
 
giiS ) 
 
 biGllS* OF CASSS, 18Sl-=ld0d. 
 
 ( ^i4(i ) 
 
 TRADE VNIOS— continued. 
 communication invites workmen to discontinue 
 •working as soon aa they lawfully may does not 
 take such communication out of the proviso in 
 
 8.7. 
 
 By the Court : "Watching and besetting a 
 person's house with a view to compel some one 
 else is within s. 7, sub-s. 4, for the expression 
 "such other" in the sub-section means "any 
 other." 
 
 Sect. 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of 
 Property Act, 1875, discussed and explained. 
 
 The decision of C. A. in /. Lyons & Sons v. 
 Wilhins, [1896] 1 Ch. 811, approved, and held to 
 be in no way overruled by Allen v. Flood, [1898] 
 A. 0. 1, or by any principle laid down therein. 
 
 Appeal from decision of Byrne J., holding the 
 pits, entitled to a perpetual injunction to restrain 
 the defts. from watching or besetting either the 
 pits.' works or the works of a sub-manufacturer 
 for them for any purpose except merely to obtain 
 or communieate information, dismissed. J. Lyons 
 & Sons v. Wilkins C. A. [1899] W. N. 3 (9) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 258 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. Walters v. Green, 
 [1899] 2 Oh. 696, 702. 
 
 9. — Registration — Liahility to he sued in 
 registered name — Trade Union Act, 1871 (34: & 35 
 Vict. c. 31). 
 
 A trade union cannot sue or be sued in its 
 registered name. Tapp Vale Et. Oo. v. Amalqa- 
 MATED Society op Kailway Servants 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 256 
 
 10. — Restraint of trade — Illegal objects — 
 Expulsion of member — Jurisdiction of Court — 
 Injunction — Trade Union Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict, 
 c. 31), ss. 2, 3, 4 — Trade Union Act Amendment 
 Act, 1876 (39 * 40 Vict. c. 22), s. 16. 
 
 The rules of an association, called the Tea 
 Clearing House, the members of which were dock 
 cos. and tea warehouse keepers carrying on the 
 business of warehousing tea in bond, provided 
 (rule 11) that every member should charge on 
 teas the respective rates and adhere to the terms 
 and conditions specified in a schedule to the 
 rules, and should not be at liberty to depart from 
 them iu any way, except that a discount not 
 exceeding 10 per cent, might be allowed on the 
 said rates. No other discount, no money gratui- 
 ties, and no advantages, direct or indirect, should 
 be offered or allowed by any member to any mer- 
 chant, broker, or other person in connection with 
 any matter or thing in anywise relating to the 
 Tea Clearing House agreement. 
 
 By rule 14, No subscriber should be entitled 
 to warehouse or deposit tea with, or employ in 
 connection with tea, any dock oo. or tea ware- 
 house keeper who was not » member of the 
 Clearing House, or to purchase or sample any 
 tea from the warehouse of any non-member. 
 
 By mle 15, Any member breaking or failing 
 to observe any of the rules was to be liable to 
 expulsion by resolution of the committee. 
 
 The committee passed a resolution expelling 
 the pits, for an alleged breach of the rules, and 
 they brought an action against the members of 
 the committee to restrain them from acting on 
 the resolution, on the ground (inter alia) that the 
 pits, had not had an opportunity of being heard 
 
 TRADE VSIQTH—ccmtinued. 
 
 in their defence. Kekewich J. granted ail 
 
 interlocutory injunction : — 
 
 Held, on appeal, that the association was a 
 " trade union" within the meaning of s. 16 of the 
 Trade Union Act Amendment Act, 1876 ; that 
 its objects were illegal independently of the 
 Trade Union Act, 1871, and that s. 4 of that Act 
 prevented the Court from directly enforcing the 
 agreement between the members : 
 
 Held, also, that by granting the injunction 
 the Court would be directly enforcing the agree- 
 ment. The injunction was accordingly dissolved. 
 
 Bigby v. Connol, (1880) 14 Oh. D. 482, 
 followed. 
 
 That case is not inconsistent with and has 
 not been impeached by Swaine v. Wilson, (1889) 
 24 Q. B. D. 252. Chamberlain's Whahp, Ld. v. 
 Smith C, A. [1900] W. N. 163 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 605 
 
 11. — Strike — Picketing — Inducing persons 
 not to contract with plaintiffs — Intent to injure — 
 Malice — " Watching or besetting" — Interlocutory 
 injunction — Trade Union Act, 1871 (34 <fe 35 Vict, 
 c. 31) — Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 
 1875 (38 & 89 Vict. o. 86), ss. 3, 7. 
 
 The picketing of the works or plarie of business 
 of an employer, for the purpose of > persuading 
 people, whether masters or men, not to work for 
 him, is a "watching or besetting" with a view 
 wrongfully and illegally to compel persons to 
 abstain from doing a lawful act, within the 
 meaning of s. 7, sub-s. 4, of the Conspiracy and 
 Protection 'of Property Act, 1875. 
 
 The defts., officers of a trade union, ordered a 
 strike against the pit. manufacturers, and also 
 against S., a person who made goods for the pits, 
 only ; and their pickets by their direction watched 
 and beset the works of the pits, and of S., for the 
 purpose of persuading workpeople to abstain from 
 working for the pits. 
 
 The 0. A. (affirming the decision of North J.) 
 held, that this kind of picketing and the strike 
 against S. for the indirect purpose of injuring the 
 pits, were illegal acts, and they granted an 
 interlocutory injunction to restrain the defts. and 
 their agents from watching or besetting the pits.' 
 works for the purpose of persuading or otherwise 
 preventing persons from working for him, or for 
 any purpose except merely to obtain or com- 
 municate information; and also to restrain the 
 defts. from preventing S. or any other persons 
 from working for tlie pits, by withdrawing his or 
 their workmen from their employment. 
 
 The Conspiracy and Protection of Property 
 Act, 1875, discussed and explained. J. Lyons & 
 Sons v. Wilkins - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 811 
 
 13, — St/rilie — " Watching or besetting" — Inter- 
 locutory injunotion — Conspiracy, and Protection of 
 Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. e. 86), s. 7. 
 
 Watching or besetting a place where a person 
 "resides, or works, or carries on business, or 
 happens to be," under sub-s. 4 of s. 7 of the Con- 
 spiracy, and Protection of Property Act, 1875, 
 does not necessarily imply any lengthened watch- 
 ing, and is not limited to places which he habitu- 
 ally frequents. 
 
 During the pendency of a strike two agents 
 of a trade union attended at a landing-stage to 
 await the arrival of a steamer containing work- 
 
 3 Z 
 
( 2147 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2148 ) 
 
 IBADE Vino's— continued. 
 men imported by the masters from Ireland to 
 replace the men on strike, and, on the arrival of 
 the steamer, they informed the Irish workmen of 
 the strike, and offered to pay their expenses if 
 they would go elsewhere to work : — 
 
 Seld, (1.) that the attendance at the landing- 
 stage was with a view to compel the masters to 
 conduct their business in accordance with the 
 requirements of the men, and was not in order 
 merely to communicate information ; and (2.) that 
 it was a watching or besetting within sub-s. 4 of 
 B. 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property 
 Act, 1875; and an interlocutory injunction was 
 granted against the officers of the union. Chak- 
 NOCK V. CouKT - Stirling J. [1899] W. N, 44 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch, 36 
 Followed. See next Case. 
 13, — Strike — " Watching or hesetting " — Inter- 
 locutory injunction — Conspiracy, and Protection 
 of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 86), 8. 7— 
 Practice— Parties — Misjoinder — Joint cause of 
 action— JR. S. C, 1883, Order xyi., r. 1. 
 
 In an action under s. 7 of the Conspiracy, and 
 Protection of Property Act, 1875, brought by 
 several members of an association of master 
 builders at H., where there was a strike, against 
 the officials of various trade unions there, the 
 pits., by their statement of claim alleged that 
 the defts., with the intention of compelling the 
 pits, and other members of the association to 
 accept the terms of the unions, combined and 
 conspired together to watch railway stations and 
 other places where workmen imported by the 
 association to replace the men on strike might 
 happen to be, for the purpose of persuading those 
 workmen not to work for the pits, or any of 
 them, or any other member of the association, 
 and in furtherance of the said combination and 
 conspiracy wrongfully did a series of overt acts 
 therein specified for the purpose of persuading 
 the workmen as aforesaid, by reason whereof the 
 pits. Buffered damage : — 
 
 Meld, (l.)that the allegations in the statement 
 of claim disclosed a joint cause of action, and 
 that, even if it were not established that all the 
 defendants had committed the acts complained 
 of, judgment might be recovered against some or 
 one of them ; (2.) that the pita, could properly 
 combine in bringing the action, inasmuch as the 
 right to the relief claimed arose out of the same 
 series of transactions, and there was a common 
 question of fact as well as law whether all the 
 acts complained of were done in pursuance of a 
 combination so as to render the defts. jointly 
 liable in respect of them. 
 
 Interlocutory injunction granted against two 
 of the defts. Walters v. Gkeen 
 
 Stirling J. [1899] W. N. 138 ; [1899] 3 Oh. 696 
 TBADEES— Oons^jjrao?/. 
 
 It is not unlawful for traders to combine for 
 the purpose of keeping trade in their own hands, 
 so long as they are not actuated by personal 
 malice or by an intention to ruin their rivals. 
 
 Decision of C. A., 23 Q. B. D. 598, affirmed. 
 
 Mogul Steamship Co. v. MgGkegok, Gow & Co. 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1892] A. C. 26 
 
 See Huttley v. Simmons, [1898] 1 Q. B. 181, 
 
 184; Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. 0. 1, 23. 
 
 IBABEBS — continued. 
 
 Z. — Discovery as hetween rival traders — ■ 
 Interrogatories. 
 
 Discovery of the documents refused in an 
 action to restrain the defts. from manufacturing 
 and supplying rolling-stock to other tramway 
 companies by means of capital not authorized to 
 be so applied. Interrogatories allowed as to 
 the capital so employed. Att.-Gen. v. Nobth 
 Metkopolitan Tbamwats Go. [1892] 3 Ch. 70 
 
 — Disparagement of goods^^Comparison of plain- 
 
 tiff's goods with those of defendant — 
 Cause of action — Libel. 
 See Defamation. 33. 
 
 — Married woman trading separately from her 
 
 husband in firm name — Act of bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 See Bankktiptct. 21. 
 
 — One-man company — Liability to indemnify 
 
 company in respect of debts. 
 See Company. 69. 
 
 3. — Trade Protection Association — Dock 
 company — Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses 
 Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 27), ss. 23, 33, 83, 84, 
 85— iJ. S. a, 1883, Order XX r., r. 5. 
 
 A trade protection association held (1) to 
 have no locus standi, to obtain a declaration that 
 regulations made by a dock co. were ultra vires, 
 not being themselves traders, and not being 
 entitled to sue as agent for their members : 
 (2) not to be entitled to sue unless they had 
 suffered special damage by the regulations. 
 London Association op Shipownees and 
 Beckers v. London and India Docks Joint 
 Committee - C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 242 
 
 Eef erred to. Barraclough v. Brown, [1897] 
 A. C. 615, 624. 
 
 TEAFHC— Highway. 
 
 See Highway, passim. 
 
 — Locomotive. 
 
 See Locomotive. 
 
 — London streets. 
 
 See London — Streets. 
 Streets, 
 
 — Railway. 
 
 See Cases under Eailway — Bailway 
 and Canal Traffic, 
 
 TEAININa STABLES, 
 
 See Eevenoe — House Duty. G4. 
 
 TBAUWAYS — Compuhory purchase — Terms of 
 purchase under Companies Acts — Valuation — 
 Tramways Acts, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 78), s. 43— 
 London Street Tramways Act, 1870 (33 A- 34 Vict, 
 c. clxxi.), e. 44. 
 
 Tlio proper construction of s. 43 of the Tram- 
 ways Act, 1870, is that the valuation should be 
 made on the principle of assessing what it would 
 cost to lay down the tramways, with an allow- 
 ance for depreciation, and that past profits or 
 rental value must not be taken into considera- 
 tion. Tramway lield for this purpose to mean 
 the line of rails, and not the power of making 
 rails or the co.'s undertaking or business. 
 
( 2149 ) 
 
 DtafiST OP CASES, 1891— isod. 
 
 ( 2lM ) 
 
 1:nA.TILWAYB— continued. 
 
 (a) In re London Codnty Council and 
 London Stkeet Tbamways Co. 
 
 C, A. revers. Div. Ct. [1894] 2 Q. B. 189 ; 
 
 E. L. (E.) Lord Ashboume diss., affirm. C. A. 
 
 (sub nom. London Street Tramways Co. v. 
 
 London County Council) [1894] A. C. 489 
 
 (b) Tramways Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 78), 
 8. 43 — Edinburgh Tramway Act (34 & 35 Vict. 
 0. Ixxxix.). Bdinbubgh Street Tramways Co. 
 V. Edinburgh Corporation - H. L. (So.) 
 
 lord Ashbonrue diss., affirm. First Div. of Ct. 
 of Session [1894] A. C. 456 
 
 2. — Compulsory purchase — ■ Undertaking — 
 Tramways Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Viet. c. 78), s. 43. 
 
 In s. 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870, the word 
 " undertaking " means the special tramway which 
 the promoters are empowered to construct by any 
 special Act or proTisional order; therefore where 
 a tramway oo. had constructed a number of lines 
 under special Acts passed in different years, a 
 local authority may (subject to the leave of the 
 Bd. of Trade) purchase so much of any one line 
 as is in its district at tlje expiration of twenty- 
 one years from the time when the promoters were 
 authorized to construct it ; notwithstanding that 
 each special Act subsequent to the first defines 
 " undertaking" as the undertaking authorized by 
 tliat and the preceding special Acts. North 
 Metropolitan Tramways Co. v. London County 
 Council - - Eomer J, [1895] W. N. 91 
 
 . — Compulsory purchase of — House of Lords' 
 decision — Res judicata — Practice. 
 See House op Lords. 2. 
 
 3. — Debenture-holder — Power of sale — Ap- 
 pointment of manager — Sale of undertaldng — 
 Tramways Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 78), s. 44, 
 
 Holders of debentures issued by a tramway 
 CO., governed by the Tramways Act, 1870 (whether 
 the CO. be incorporated under the Companies Act, 
 1862, or by a special Act), by which debentures 
 the undertaking of the oo., and all its property 
 present and future, including uncalled capital, are 
 charged are, in the event of default by the co., 
 entitled only to the appointment of a receiver of 
 tlie undertaking of the co. and the net earnings 
 thereof; they are not entitled to an order for the 
 sale of the undertaking nor to the appointment 
 of a manager. The promoters cannot give the 
 debenture-holders a right to exercise the power 
 of sale under s. 44, nor a right to a judicial sale 
 under the order of the Court in an action to 
 enforce the security. Marshall v. South Staf- 
 fordshire Tramways Co. C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 36 
 
 Keferred to by North J. Pegge v. Neath 
 District Tramways Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 508, 511 ; 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 684. 
 
 4. — Debenture-holder's action — Manager — 
 
 Eeceiver and manager appointed in a deben- 
 ture-holder's action. Bartlett v. "West Metro- 
 politan Tramways Co. (No. 1) 
 
 North J. [1893] 3 Ch. 437 
 
 Disapproved by C. A. Marshall v. South 
 Staffordshire Tramways Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 36. See 
 preceding Case. 
 
 6, — Debenture-holder's action — Order for 
 
 TBAMWAYS— co««Jm«ed!. 
 
 sale— Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 78), 
 
 s. 44. 
 
 Holders of debentures issued by a tramway 
 CO. sued to enforce their security. The chief 
 clerk certified that the property charged by the 
 debentures consisted of tlie undertaking and all 
 tolls arising therefrom. The oo.'s Act incor- 
 porated s. 44 of the Tramways Act, 1870: — 
 
 Held, that an order for sale of the under- 
 taking as a going concern could be made, aa tlie 
 section gave the co. power to sell. Bartlett v. 
 West Metropolitan Tramways Co. (No. 2). 
 
 North J, [1894] 2 Ch. 286 
 
 Disapproved by C. A. Marshall v. South 
 Staffordshire Tramways Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 36. 
 See No. 3, above. 
 
 — Diverting a street into a tramway not a taking 
 
 of property for public purposes. 
 See New South Wales. 46. 
 
 — Easement — Tramway agreement — Personal or 
 
 real right — Removal of tramway. 
 See Easement. 5, 
 
 — Imported steel rails — Duty payable; 
 
 See Canada. 20. 
 
 — Landlord's rates and taxes — Covenant by 
 
 tenant to keep free from all expenses 
 
 whatever. 
 
 See Scottish J/AW. 24. 
 
 6. — Liability of company for damage from 
 non-repair of road— Tramways Act, 1870 (33 <fc 34 
 Vict. e. 78), 88. 28, 29, 55. 
 
 Where a tramway co. has entered into a 
 contract with the road authority under s. 29 of 
 the Tramways Act, 1870, whereby such authority 
 has undertaken the repair of the portion of the 
 road which, under s. 28, the tramway co. had to 
 repair, the tramway co. is not liable for injuries 
 occasioned through non-repair of such portion of 
 the road to a person using the same. Alldred 
 V. West Metropolitan Tramways Co. 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 398 
 
 — Municipal trading — Omnibus business — Ultra 
 
 vires. 
 
 See LoNDON^County Council. 38. 
 
 — Naval purposes. 
 
 See Army and Navy — Navy. 
 
 7. — Parliamentary deposit — Abandonment — 
 Evidence — Board of Trade notice of non-completion 
 —Tramways Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 78), s. 18 
 — Parliamentary Deposits and Bonds Act, 1892 
 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 27). 
 
 An application for the payment out of court 
 of the parliamentary deposit on the abandon- 
 ment of a tramway was supported by aflBdavit, 
 but no Board of Trade notice under s. 18 of the 
 Tramways Act, 1870, was produced : — 
 
 Held, that the notice was the only evidence 
 
 which the Court ought to receive, unless satisfied 
 
 beyond all dispute that it could not be produced. 
 
 In re Dudley and Kingswinford Tramways 
 
 * Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 162 
 
 — Parliamentary deposit — Abortive undertaking 
 
 — Application of deposit, 
 See Parliament — ^Deposits and Bonds, 
 I-, 
 
 3Z 2 
 
( 2151 3 
 
 bit3K^*t 05* GASES, 1^^1—1900! 
 
 i §152 > 
 
 TEAMWATS — continued. 
 
 8. — Parliamentary deposit — Liquidator — 
 Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Viet. c. 78), ss. 12, 
 64 — Parliamentary Deposits and Bonds Act, 1892 
 (55 * 56 Vict. c. 27), s. 1— Board of Trade Rules, 
 August, 1886, r. 22. 
 
 The parliamentary deposit required by the 
 Bd. of Trade in the case of a tramway oo. is not 
 part of the general assets of the co. : it is only 
 made assets for the special purpose of paying the 
 creditors of the co. 
 
 Where a tramway co. was being wound up, 
 held that the liquidator was not a creditor of the 
 CO. nor entitled to receive out of the deposit the 
 general costs of the liquidation or his own re- 
 muneration, but only his costs with reference to 
 the application of the deposit. In re Colchesteb 
 Tbamways Co. North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 309 
 
 9. — Passenger re/using to pay fare — Malicious 
 prosecution — • Criminal proceedings — Tramways 
 Act, 1870 (33 * 34 Vict. c. 78), ss. 51, 52, 56. 
 
 An action for malicious prosecution will lie 
 against a tramway co. in respect of proceedings 
 under s. 51 of the Tramways Act, 1870. Rayson 
 V. South London Tbamwats Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 
 
 10. — Passenger— Ticket — Requirement to 
 deliver up, or pay fare — By-law — Reasonableness. 
 
 By a by-law made by a tramway co. and 
 enforceable by a penalty, " Each passenger shall 
 .... when required so to do either deliver up 
 his ticket or pay the fare legally demandable for 
 the distance ti-avelled over by such passenger." 
 A passenger, having paid the fare and received a 
 ticket, inadvertently lost it, and was thus unable 
 to deliver it up when required. He declined to 
 pay the fare over again, and was summoned by 
 the CO. for breach of the by-law : — 
 
 Held, that the by-law was not unreasonable, 
 and that the passenger ought to have been 
 convicted. Hanks v. Bkidgman 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 253 
 
 Referred to by Lindley L.J. Lowe v. Volp, 
 [1896] 1 Q. B. 256, 258. 
 See next Case. 
 
 11. — Passenger — Ticket — Requirement to shew 
 — By-law — Reasonableness. 
 
 By a by-law made by a tramway co. and 
 enforceable by a penalty, " Each passenger 
 shall shew his ticket (if any) when required so to 
 do to the conductor or any duly authorized 
 servant of the co." A passenger, having paid 
 the fare and received a ticket, refused to shew it 
 to an inspector of the co., and was summoned for 
 breach of the by-law : — 
 
 Held, that the by-law was not unreasonable, 
 and that the ; passenger ought to have been 
 convicted. Lowe v. Volp 
 
 Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 256 
 
 12. — Penalty — Distress — Public undertaking 
 —Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 78), 
 ss. 28, 56. 
 
 Penalties, imposed on a tramways co. for 
 non-repair of a tramway, can be recovered by 
 distress on the rolling stock and chattels. Leave 
 to distrain for such penalties was given in a 
 debenture-holders' action in which a receiver 
 
 TRkWWAYS— continued. 
 
 had been appointed. Pegqb ». NeAtM and 
 
 DisTEiOT Teamwats Co. 
 
 Korth J. [1895] g Ck 508 
 
 Arrangement made on appeal 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Cli. 684 
 
 13. — Stables — Nuisance — Statutory powers. 
 
 A tramway co.'s Act allowed the tramway to 
 be worked by horses, but did not expressly 
 authorize the co. to build stables : — 
 
 Held, that though horses were necessary for 
 the working of the tramways the co. were not 
 justified by their statutory powers in using the 
 stables so as to be a nuisance to their neighbours, 
 and that it was no defence to prove that they 
 had taken all reasonable care to prevent a 
 nuisance. Kapier v. London Tbamwats Co. 
 
 0. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 588 
 
 — Rating — " Railway ." 
 
 See Rates — Bateability. 45. 
 
 — Street — Obstruction — Snow and salt. 
 
 See Nxjisanoes. 29. 
 
 — Telephone company — Wires — Power to open 
 
 street — Consent. 
 See Telephone. 4. 
 
 TBANSFEB — Bill of lading to sub-vendee^ 
 Possession of document of title — Consent 
 of seller — Stoppage in transitu. 
 See Sale oe Goods. 7. 
 
 — Business. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding-up 
 — Scheme of Arrangement. 
 Restbaint op Tbade. 
 
 — Commercial causes — Transfer — Powers of 
 
 judge. 
 
 iSee Commeecial Causes. 2. 
 
 — Company practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company and Company 
 — Winding-up. 
 
 — Dolus mains — Priority of unregistered transfer 
 
 — Registered transfer to set aside — ^Law 
 
 of Natal. 
 
 See Natal. 2., 
 
 — Land transfer. 
 
 See Land Teansfer. 
 
 — Licence. 
 
 See Cases under Licensing Acts. 
 
 — Licence — Agreement for sale of public-house. 
 
 See Vendok and Pdeohaser — Contract. 
 32. 
 
 — Lunacy practice. 
 
 See Cases under LuifAOT. 
 
 — Mortgage. 
 
 See MoKTQAGE — Redemption, 70. 
 
 — Mortgages. 
 
 See Mortgage — Transfer. 
 
 — Part of one county to another county — Adjust- 
 
 ment of liabilities. 
 
 See Local Government. 6. 
 
 — Part of one nnion to another union — Adjust- 
 
 ment of property and liabilities. 
 See Local Government. 7. 
 
 — Prerogative of Crown — Transfer to revenue 
 
 side— Information by Attorney-General 
 ■ — Stay of proceedings. 
 See Cbown, 8. 
 
( 21i33 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2154 ) 
 
 IRkSSVYR— continued. 
 
 — Ship. 
 
 See Shipping. 210. 
 
 — Stamp duty. 
 
 Bee Oasea under Ebvbnce — Stamps. 
 
 — Stamp duty chargeable on transfers of certain 
 
 colonial stocks extended to stock of any 
 British Protectorate. 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. 
 u. 10), s. 5. 
 
 — Stock by local authorities. 
 
 See Local Government (Stock Transfer) 
 Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. o. 32). 
 
 — Stock under Order in Lunacy. 
 
 See Will — Ademption. 17. 
 
 TRANSLATIONS— Foreign documents— Solicitor 
 — Costs — Administration. 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 47. 
 
 — Play in foreign language. 
 
 See CoPYBiGHT — International. 27. 
 
 — • Will in foreign language. 
 
 See Will— Foreign Will. 90. 
 
 " TBANSMIT "—Case stated by justices to High 
 Court. 
 See Justices. 35. 
 
 TEAWIEB- Pyrotechnic lights. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 70. 
 
 TEAVELLEB— Falsely pretending to be a— 
 KaUway station — Offences. 
 See Licensing Acts. 39. 
 
 — Eight of innkeeper to give notice to leave. 
 
 gee Innkeepeb. 5. 
 
 • — Sale to " bona fide traveller." 
 
 See Licensing AoTS—Offenoes. 36—38. 
 
 TBEASTTBE TB.OVE— Jurisdiction of Coroner- 
 Prerogative of Crown. 
 
 The jurisdiction of a coroner is limited by 
 8. 36 of the Coroners Act, 1887, to the determina- 
 tion of "who was the finder, and who was 
 suspected thereof." He has no jurisdiction to 
 inquire into a question of title between the 
 Crown and a subject, the title of the Crown to 
 all treasure trove being independent of any 
 finding of the coroner's jury. Att.-Gen. v. 
 MoOKE - - Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 676 
 
 Keferred to by North J. Att.-Gen. v. Albany 
 Hotel Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 696, 701. 
 
 TBEATY — Commercial Treaties (Hbrtslet's). 
 A complete collection of Treaties and Conven- 
 tions, and Eeciprooal Eegulations, at present 
 subsisting between Great Britain and Foreign 
 Powers, and of Laws, Decrees, and Orders in 
 Council concerning tbe same; so far as they 
 relate to Commerce and Navigation ; to Eepres- 
 sion and Abolition of the Slave Trade; and to 
 Privileges and Interests of Subjects of the High 
 Contracting Parties. Compiled by Lewis Herts- 
 let, Esq., Librarian, Foreign Office. Vols. IV., 
 v., and VI. (Beprinted.) Price 158. each. 
 
 — Extradition. 
 
 See Extradition. 
 
 TRELLIS SCBEEN— Erection of. 
 
 See I^ANpjjORp ANp Tenant. 12. 
 
 TRESPASS — Accident at shooting party — Trespass 
 without intention or negligence. 
 
 Action for damages by a person who was 
 wounded by a shot which glanced off a tree, 
 while he was engaged in carrying cartridges for a 
 shooting party : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, was not liable, for a 
 trespass to the person is not actionable, if, as 
 found in this case, it be neither intentional nor 
 the result of negligence. Stanley v. Powell 
 
 Denmau J. [1891] 1 ft. B. 86 
 
 2. — Action against public officers in tlieir 
 ofieial capacity — Agent of executive government — 
 Liability of servants of the Crown — Prerogative — 
 Jurisdiction — Amendment. 
 
 Alleged authority of an executive department 
 is no justification for a trespass, but only those 
 who commit or iu fact authorize the trespass are 
 liable. 
 
 The head of a Government Deportment is not 
 liable for wrongful acts of officials in the Depart- 
 ment, unless it can be shewn that the act com- 
 plained of was substantially the act of the head 
 of the Department himself. 
 
 The pits, commenced an action against the 
 Lords of the Admiralty with the object of 
 establishing as against them that they were not 
 entitled to enter upon, or acquire by way of com- 
 pulsory purchase, certain land, the property of 
 the pits, for the purpose of erecting thereoa 
 a training college for naval cadets, and claiming 
 damages for alleged trespass and an injunction to 
 restrain further trespass : — 
 
 Held, that though the pits, could sue any of 
 the defts. individually for trespasses committed, 
 or threatened by them, they could not sue them 
 as an official body, and that as the action was a 
 claim against the defts. in their official capacity, 
 it was misconceived and would not lie ; leave to 
 amend, by suing the defts. in their individual 
 capacity, and by adding as defts. the persons 
 who had actually trespassed on the land, was 
 also refused, and the action was dismissed with 
 costs. Ealeigh v. Goschen 
 Eomer J. [1897] W. N. 160 (10) ; [1898] 1 Ch. 73 
 
 — Action of — Costs — Public authorities protec- 
 
 tion — Highwaj-. 
 See Costs. 46. 
 
 — Appeal from interim injunction — New South 
 
 Wales Mining on Private Lands Act. 
 See New South Wales. 37. 
 
 3. — Damages — Trespass by tipping spoil — 
 Injury to land — Measure of damages. 
 
 The defts. having trespassed on the pits.' land 
 by tipping spoil thereon trom their colliery: — 
 
 Held (decision of Chitty J., [1896] I Oh. 894, 
 affirmed), that the amount of damages was not to 
 be assessed by ascertaining merely the diminution 
 in value of the pits.' land, but that the principle 
 of the way-leave cases, (IS.'ig) Martin v. Porter, 
 
 5 M. & W. 351 ; Jegon v. Vivian, (1871) L. E. 
 
 6 Ch. 742 ; and Phillips v. Homfray, (1871) L. E. 
 6 Ch. 770, applied : namely, that if one person 
 without leave of another uses the other's land 
 for his own purposes he ought to pay for such 
 user; and that therefore, as to so much of the 
 land as was covered with spoil, the value of the 
 land for the purpose for which it was used by 
 the Wfongdoerp ought to be takeu i^to account, 
 
( 2155 ) 
 
 PIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2156 ) 
 
 TRESPASS — cmUnued. 
 
 and that as to the rest of the land the measure of 
 damages was the diminution of the value thereof 
 to the pits, by reason of the wrongful acts of the 
 (lefts. Whitwham v. Westminster Brtmbo 
 Coal and Coke Co. C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. S38 
 
 4. — Forcible entry — Landlord and tenant — 
 Removing roof of house. 
 
 On a tenant refusing to quit after due notice, 
 the justices issued a warrant ordering him to 
 give up possession within twenty-one days. On 
 the same day a builder began to remove the tiles 
 of the house, preparatory to rebuilding, and in to 
 doing damaged the tenant's furniture. The 
 tenant sued for trespass and damage : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that the landlord's common law 
 right of entry was not suspended by the issuing 
 of the possession warrant ; (2.) that the removal 
 of the tiles did not amount to a forcible entry, 
 and the tenant had no cause of action. Jones v. 
 Foley - Div. Ct. [1891] 1 Q. B, 730 
 
 — Grass field — ^Actual damage — Malicious injury 
 
 to property. * 
 
 See Criminal Law. 44. 
 
 — Measure of damages for. 
 
 See Partition. 13. 
 
 — Owner of adjoining lands not owner of soil of 
 
 street. 
 
 See Streets — Lighting. 11. 
 
 — Right of railway company to exclude from 
 
 station pereons other than travellers. 
 See Railway — Stations. 65. 
 
 — Use of highway otherwise than as such. 
 
 See Highway — Trespass. 32. 
 
 TRESPASS TO GOODS -Bill of sale. 
 See Bill of Sale. 35. 
 
 TREES— Legacy to plant. 
 
 See Will — legacy. 137. 
 
 — Lopping trees beside highway. 
 
 See Highway — Obstruction. 7. 
 
 — Overhanging laud. 
 
 See Nuisance. 37—39. 
 And see Timber. 
 
 TRIAL— PRACTICE. 
 
 See Pbactioe — Trial. 
 
 TRIBUTARY— of River. 
 See Fishery. 6. 
 
 TRINIDAD— TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO. 
 
 , Application of Colonial Probates Act, 1893. 
 
 See Probate — Grant of Probate ; 
 Colonial Probates Act, 1892. 
 
 Death Duties. 
 See Revenue — Estate Duty. 
 
 Law of Trinidad and Tobago. 
 
 — Account — Entries disallowed- Digging pitch 
 
 — Discretion of Court. 
 See Account. 3. 
 1. — Crown — Ejectment — Equitable defence — 
 Ordinance No. 8 of 1889. 
 
 In an action of ejectment by the Crown from 
 lands in the Colony a deft, may set up any 
 equitable defence which would be good against 
 
 TRINIDAD— TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (Law of 
 
 Trinidad and Tobago) — continued. 
 a private deft. Proof of a concluded contract 
 with the Crown entitles the deft, to issue d a 
 grant of the land in suit under the Real Property 
 Ordinance No. 8 of 1889 :— 
 
 Held, to justify entry of judgment for the deft. 
 
 AlT.-GBIf. FOR TbINIDAD AND TOBAGO V. BoURNE 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 83 
 
 2. — Judge of the Supreme Court — Act done in 
 exercise of judicial office — Malicious motive — 
 Immunity from action. 
 
 No action lies against a judge of the Supreme 
 Court of the Colony in respect of any act done 
 by him in his judicial capacity, even though he 
 acted oppressively and maliciously to the preju- 
 dice of the pit. and the perversion of justice. 
 Anderson v. Goreie C. A. [1894] 1 ft. B, 668 
 
 3. — Ordinances No. 4 of 1889 and No. 11 of 
 1891 — Jurisdiction of magistrate — Title to lands. 
 
 These Ordinances have not the effect of erect- 
 ing the stipendiary magistrate into a Court com- 
 petent to decide a question of title : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that an order of the Supreme 
 Court quashing such a magistrate's conviction 
 under them could not sustain a plea of res 
 judicata in an action to try the question of title. 
 For the Supreme Court, sitting in appeal from a 
 manistrate, cannot exercise a jurisdiction the 
 magistrate does not possess. Att.-Gen. for 
 Trinidad and Tobago r. Eriche 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 518 
 
 4. — Practice of the Supreme Court. 
 
 Order xxviii., r. 12 ; Order xxxvi., r. 18, and 
 Order Lvn., r. 6 of the rules in the Sched. to the 
 Ordinance for the Constitution of the Supreme 
 Court of Trinidad and Tobago, considered and 
 interpreted. Pollard v. Harragin 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 450 
 
 — Purchaser for value with notice — Effect of 
 
 recitals in deed — Estoppel. 
 See Recitals. 1. 
 
 — Support — Right to lateral — Adjacent lands^ 
 
 Escape of pitch — Injunction — Damages. 
 See Support. 2. 
 
 TRINITY HOUSE— Outport district— Coasting 
 trade — Compulsory pilotage. 
 See Shipping — Pilotage. 186. 
 
 TRIPTYCH. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Faculty. 39. 
 
 TROUT STREAM — Erection of weirs or dam — 
 Injunction. 
 See Fishery. 13. 
 
 TROVER — Book — Piracy — Infringement — De- 
 tinue — Combining causes of action. 
 See Copyright. 11. 
 
 1. — Conversion — Auctioneer, lAdbility of — 
 Title of plaintiffs. 
 
 Possession of chattels by cestui que trust, if 
 in accordance with the trust deed, is possession 
 of the trustees for the purpose of enabling them 
 to maintain an action against a wrongdoer for 
 conversion of chattels. Liability of auctioneer 
 considered, (1.) when he acts nr.erely as sales- 
 man, (2.) when he receives the goods and hands 
 them over to a purchaser with a view of passing 
 
( 2157 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2158 ) 
 
 TROYER—contimied. 
 
 the property in them. His position in the latter 
 case contrasted with that of a packing agent or 
 carrier. Barker v. Furlong 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] 2 Ch. 172 
 
 2. — Conversion — Sill of sale — Sale hy auction 
 on private premises — Liability of auctioneer. 
 
 The owner of household furniture assigned it 
 by bill of sale to the pit. Subsequently he 
 employed the defts., auctioneers, to sell it by 
 auction at his private house. The defts. sold 
 without notice of the bill of sale and delivered it 
 to the purchasers : — 
 
 Seld, that they were liable to the pit. in 
 trover. Consolidated Co. v. Cdetis & Son 
 
 Collins J, [1892] 1 Q. B. 495 
 
 3. — Conversion — Crossed cheque — Banker col- 
 lecting and handing over proceeds. 
 
 The payee of a crossed cheque specially 
 indorsed it to pits, and posted it to them. S., 
 having obtained possession of the cheque in 
 transmission, altered the indorsement, presented 
 it at the defts.' bank, and requested them to 
 collect it. They did so, and handed the proceeds 
 to him in France : — 
 
 Seld, that the defts.' bank were liable in an 
 action for conversion by the pits. Kleinwort, 
 Sons & Co. v. Oomptoir National d'Escompte 
 DE Paris - - Cave J, [1894] 2 ft. B. 157 
 
 Followed by Collins J. Lacave & Co. v. Credit 
 Lyonnais, [1897] 1 Q. B. 148. 
 
 — Conversion — Evidences of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 17. 
 
 4. — Conversion — Estoppel — Proximate cause 
 of loss — Liability of warehouseman. 
 
 N. pledged with the pits, as security for an 
 advance eighteen hogsheads of tobacco which 
 were in the custody of the defts. as warehousemen. 
 He subsequently repaid the advance on one of 
 the hogsheads, and presented to the pits, for 
 their signature a delivery order on the defts. 
 On the order the place for the quantity was left 
 blank. The pits, signed the order, and N., 
 having filled in the blank space with the words 
 " eighteen hogsheads," obtained delivery of them 
 all from the defts., and then disposed of them. 
 In an action against the defts. for the conversion 
 of the seventeen hogsheads : — 
 
 Seld, that the pits, could not succeed, since 
 they had impliedly given N. authority to fill up 
 the blank in the delivery order, and were now 
 estopped from shewing that that authority was 
 limited. 
 
 In the second action it appeared that N. had 
 pledged with the pits, two separate consign- 
 ments of tobacco. He paid off the advance on 
 one consignment, and presented to the pits, a 
 properly drawn delivery order in respect of it. 
 They signed it, and N. subsequently added above 
 their signature the description and distinguish- 
 ing marks of the other consignment, and thus 
 obtained from the defts. delivery of both con- 
 signments : — 
 
 Seld, that an action for conversion would lie 
 against the defts., since the pits, had not been 
 guilty of any negligence which was the proximate 
 cause of the wrongful delivery. 
 
 TROVER— continu,ed. 
 
 ' In the third action it appeared that N., afteij 
 fraudulently obtaining the tobacco as above 
 stated, had pledged it with the deft, bank as 
 security for an advance, and before the fraud 
 was discovered had repaid the advance and 
 recovered possession of the tobacco : — 
 
 Sdd, that no action for conversion would lie 
 against the deft, bank, since N.'s dealing with 
 it had been concluded before the pits, discovered 
 the fraud. Union Credit Bank v. Mersey Docks 
 AND Harbour Board. Same v. Same. Same v. 
 Same and North and South Wales Bank 
 
 Bigham J. [1899] 2 ft. B. 205 
 
 — Conversion — Lease fraudulently deposited— 
 Demand and refusal. 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 17. 
 
 5. — Conversion — Auctioneer, Liability of. 
 
 A. employed auctioneers to sell her furniture 
 by auction at her house ; she had previously 
 granted a bill of sale to B., of which the auction- 
 eers had no notice. The auctioneers sold the 
 furniture and delivered it to the purchaser. B. 
 brought trover against the auctioneers : — ■ 
 
 Seld, ttiat they were liable for conversion. 
 Consolidated Co. ■;;. Curtis & Son 
 
 Collins J. [1892] 1 ft.B. 495 
 
 6. — Conversion of document — Damages — 
 Measure of — Non-negotiable instrument — Money 
 had and received. 
 
 The pits, received from a co., which was 
 indebted to them, an order addressed to the 
 co.'s bankers for the payment of the amount of 
 their debt. The order was not a cheque within 
 the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, 
 because the payment was made conditional upon 
 signature of a receipt appended to the order. 
 The order was stolen from the pits,, the receipt 
 being then unsigned. It was subsequently nanded 
 to the defts., a banking oo.,with a forged indorse- 
 ment and receipt thereon, for collection on behalf 
 of a customer of theirs whom they credited with 
 the amount of it. It did not appear that the 
 customer knew that the order had been stolen. 
 The order was presented by the defts. to the bank 
 to which it was addressed, and the amount speci- 
 fied therein was thereupon paid by that bank to 
 them. Subsequently, the pits, gave notice to the 
 defts. that the order was stolen from them, and 
 claimed the amount received by the defts. upon 
 it. Nothing had in the meantime taken place to 
 debar the defts. from cancelling the credit given 
 to their customer as before mentioned : — ■ > 
 
 Seld, that the pits, were entitled to recover 
 the amount received by the defts. upon the- order 
 as money received for the plt.'s use. 
 
 Query, whether they were entitled to recover 
 that amount as damages for the conversion of the 
 document. Bavins, Junr. & Sims v. London 
 AND South Western Bank 
 
 C. A. [1899] W. N. 248 ; [1900] 1 ft, B. 270 
 
 — Detinue — Combining causes for action — 
 
 Piracy. 
 
 See Copyright, 11. 
 
 — Detinue — Conversion — Demand and refusal — 
 
 Time, when beginning to run. 
 §eg LiifiTATfONg, Statute pp. 17, 
 
( 215'J ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2160 ) 
 
 TBOVEB — continued. 
 
 7. — Measure of Damages. 
 
 The measure of damages is the market value 
 of the goods at the date of conversion. 
 (a) Hbndekson and Co. v. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 a. B. 521 
 (e) Ehodes v. Moules 
 
 C. A. [1895] 1 Ch, 236, at p. 254 
 
 8. — Might of action — Special properly — 
 Sight to possession in one co-owner — Conversion liy 
 the other co-owner. 
 
 A., the owner of a personal chattel, sold a half 
 share to B. on a special agreement that A. should 
 retain possession until the chattel was sold. A. 
 handed the chattel to B. to take to an auction 
 room, and B. pledged it to defts. to secure a 
 debt :— 
 
 Held, that A. had a special property in the 
 chattel sufficient to maintain an action for trover 
 and detinue. Nybekg v. Handelaar 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 202 
 — Ring found iu pool of water. 
 
 See Detinue. 3. 
 ■ — Underground — Statute of Limitations — 
 Equitable jurisdiction — Fraud — Laches. 
 
 See New South Wales. 20. 
 
 9. — Waiver of tort — Wrongful sale of goods — 
 Jiint tortfeasors — Action against one in trover and 
 for money had and received — Compromise hy 
 accepting proceeds of sale — Action of trover against 
 the t ther — Election. 
 
 The pit 's servant wrongfully sold goods of 
 his master to the deft., who knew that the 
 servant was improperly dealing with them, and 
 the servant paid the proceeds of the sale into his 
 account at his bank. The pit. brought an action 
 against the servant aod the bank, claiming as 
 against the servant damages for conversion of 
 the goods, and in the alternative for money had 
 and received, and as against the servant and the 
 bank'an injunction to restrain them respectively 
 until the trial of the action from drawing out or 
 parting with the sum of 1500Z. then standing to 
 the servant's credit at the bank. The pit applied 
 for an interim injunction as above upon an 
 affidavit that 15002. at the least could be speci- 
 fically traced to the servant's account as being 
 moneys paid by the deft, for the goods wrongfully 
 sold. An interim injunction was granted, but no 
 further steps in the action were taken, an agree- 
 ment being arrived at between the pit. and the 
 servant that 11252. out of the 1500Z. then at the 
 bank should be paid to the pit. in full settlement 
 of all claims against the servant, without preju- 
 dice to the plt.'s claim against the deft. This 
 agreement was embodied in a judge's order, but 
 no judgment was signed. Before the agreement 
 was made the pit. had brought an action against 
 the deft, claiming damages for the conversion of 
 the goods : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. had not, by his proceedings 
 in the former action and by his dealings with the 
 servant therein, elected to affirm the sale and to 
 waive the tort, and the action against the deft, 
 was maintainable. Eioe v. Beed. 
 
 C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 64 
 "TEUE OWNER." 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — Assets. 
 
 Bill of Sale — True Oymer, 
 
 TRUCKS — Defective — Negligence — Breach of 
 duty. 
 See Railway. 17. 
 
 TaUCK ACTS. 
 
 See Master and Seuvant. 
 
 TEUST. 
 
 See Tbcstee, passim. 
 
 1. — Accumulations for improving lands — 
 Thellusson's Act — Annuitant — Tenant for life — 
 Surplus income. 
 
 A trust to accumulate income in order to 
 improve lands, so long as the improvements come 
 under the words " maintain in good habitable 
 repair houses and tenements on property," is 
 outside the TheUusson Act. Money laid out in 
 building houses would be within the Act. 
 
 Difference between trusts for improving and 
 trusts for purchasing lands considered. VmE u. 
 Kaleigh No. 1. 
 
 C, A. afarm. Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 13 
 
 Followed by Stirling J. In re Mason [1891] 
 3 Ch. 467. See Next Case. 
 
 2. — Accumulations for rebuilding and repair 
 of buildings. 
 
 A will contained a trust for the investment of 
 the clear surplus of the income of the residue in 
 augmentation of the general trust fund, subject 
 to a proviso as to any insufficiency in the insurance 
 moneys received on the destruction by fire of any 
 building and rebuilding or substantially repairing 
 any building. 
 
 Held, (1) that the will amounted to an express 
 direction for the accumulation of income ; and (2) 
 that, upon the principle of Vine v. Baleigh, 
 [1891] 2 Ch. 13, see preceding Case above, the 
 trust for accumulation was valid, so far as it was 
 a bona fide provision for the performance of the 
 trusts for rebuilding, repairing, and reinstating 
 the buildings ; but that, subject to the due per- 
 formance of such trusts, the trust for investment 
 of the surplus income, after answering the pur- 
 poses specified in the will, was invalid as from 
 the expiration of twenty-one years from the 
 testator's death. In re Mason. Mason v. Mason. 
 Stirling J. [1891] 3 Ch. 467 
 — Banker and customer — Account not ear- 
 marked as trust account — Set-off. 
 See New Zealand. 1. 
 
 3. — Constructive Trust — Gale — Forest of Dean 
 —Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2 o. 3), ss. 7, 8. 
 
 A gale in the Forest of Dean was held in 
 trust for A.'s children, of whom B. was one. 
 Neither the trustees, the cestuis que trust, nor 
 A. were free miners. If the gale became for- 
 feited, only a free miner could apply for a grant 
 of the gale. A. and B. arranged for a free miner 
 to obtain a grant and transfer it to them : — 
 
 Held, that A. and B. were not constructive 
 trustees of the gale, and that the Statute of 
 Frauds conld bo pleaded in an action to enforce 
 the alleged trust : 
 
 Held, also, tliat an arrangement between A. 
 and B., after obtaining the gale, to hold it on 
 trust for persons, some of whom, but not all, were 
 the original cestuis que trust, did not constitute 
 a trust enforceable after the gale had been sold 
 by the gurviyor of A. and B. Holmes v. Williams 
 Popier J. [1895] W, N. U6 (15) 
 
( 2161 ) 
 
 DIGEST or OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2162 ) 
 
 TBUST — continued. 
 
 — Declaration of— Copyholds— Married women. 
 
 fe'ee Copyhold. 6. 
 
 — Express or oonstractivo. 
 
 See Limitations, Statutes of. 24. 
 
 — Express trust. 
 
 See HusBAKD and Wife — Bond. 27. 
 
 — Failure of trust— Eepair of road— Koad trans- 
 
 ferred to local authority. 
 See Chaeity. 23. 
 
 — Following — Trust money. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Assets. 58. 
 
 — Income tax. 
 
 See ViOTOBiA. 
 
 — Precatory trust. 
 
 See WiLL^Precatory Trust. 
 
 — Mortgage of share in trust fund — Right of 
 
 mortgagee to receive whole amount of 
 
 share. 
 
 See Mobtgage. 77. 
 
 — Eesulting trust — Contract — Allegation of 
 
 partnership — ^Part performance. 
 See Pbauds, Statute of. 15. 
 
 — Eesulting trust — ^Dissolution of trade union — 
 
 Unexpended funds. 
 See Tkadb Union. 3. 
 4. — Eesulting trust — Expectancy — Cestui que 
 trust dead — Failure of gift. 
 
 By a voluntary settlement in 1880, E., who 
 
 .was contingently entitled in expectancy as one 
 of the next of kin of a lunatic, assigned her 
 possible share in his personal estate to trustees, 
 
 - upon trust to pay certain capital sums to certain 
 named persons, amongst them being 500/. to K., 
 and then to hold the residue for the plaintiff. 
 K. predeceassd the lunatic, who died in 1894 
 
 'intestate and a bachelor. In April, 1895, E. 
 wrote to the administrator of the lunatic request- 
 ing him to pay and transfer her share to the 
 trustees of the'settlement, and the question now 
 raised was, who was entitled to the 5001. settled 
 on K. It was admitted that the assignment of 
 a mere expectancy in 1880 was inoperative, and 
 that there was no effectual assignment till the 
 letter of confirmation in April 1895 : — • 
 
 Held, that the settlement could not operate 
 in favour of K., who was dead at the time of 
 its confirmation in 1895, which had no retro- 
 spective effect ; that the 5001. did not fall into 
 
 "residue, but that there was a resulting trust in 
 favour of E,, the settlor. In re Tilt. Lampbt 
 V. Kennedy Chitty J. [1896] W. IT. 9 (10) 
 
 — Eesulting trust — Friendly society. 
 
 See Fbiendly Society. 7. 
 
 8. — Eesulting trust — Fund raised by subscrip- 
 tions for maintenance of individuals — Death of 
 . objects of the fund — Unapplied surplus — Eesulting 
 trust for subscribers. 
 
 Where a, fund was raised by subscription for 
 the maintenance and support of two distressed 
 ladies, and, at the death of the survivor of them, 
 a portion of the fund remained unapplied ; — 
 
 Held, that there was a resulting trust of the 
 balance of the fund for the subscribers thereto. 
 In re The Trusts op the Abbott Fund. Smith 
 ■V. Abbott 
 
 StirUng J. [1900] W. N, 121; ^900] 2 Clj. 326 
 
 XWJWS— continued. 
 
 — Eesulting trust — Marriage — Will in French 
 
 form — Movable property in England — • 
 French subjects — Husband and wife — • 
 English marriage — Eevocation of ante- 
 nuptial will — Change of domioil. 
 See Conflict of Laws. 16. 
 
 6. — Eesulting trust — Surplus — Beneficial gift 
 or resulting trust — Qift in trust — Construction of 
 will. 
 
 A gift by will, for a particular purpose only, 
 gives rise to a resulting trust of any surplus not 
 required for that purpose, but a gift, subject to 
 the performance of a particular purpose gives 
 the donee a beneficial interest subject to that 
 purpose. 
 
 Gift by will to donees upon tnist for sale and 
 upon trust out of the moneys to arise from such 
 sale to pay funeral and testamentary expenses, 
 debts, and legacies, with clauses for indemnity 
 and reimbursement of the " said trustees." No 
 other trusts were declared, and there was no 
 residuary gift. The property not being exhausted 
 by the above trusts : — 
 
 Hdd, that the donees did not take the surplus 
 beneficially, but that there was a resulting trust. 
 
 The principles stated in Oroome v. Croome, 
 [1888] W. K. 37, 152; [1889] W. N. 156; 
 59 L. T. 582 ; 61 L. T. 814, and Williams v. 
 Eoberts, (1857) 27 L. J. (Ch.) 177; 4 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 18, discussed and applied. In re West. 
 Geoege v. Gkosb Kekewich J. [1900] 1 Ch. 84 
 
 — Eesulting trust — Trade union, Dissolution of 
 
 — Unexpended funds. 
 See Teade Union. 3. 
 
 — Sale of goods in trust. 
 
 See Pledge. 1. 
 
 7. — Secret trust — Notice — Joint tenants — 
 Absolute gift. 
 
 Where a gift is made to A. and C. as joint 
 tenants upon an alleged secret trust, the autho- 
 rities have established a distinction between 
 those cases in which the will is made on the faith 
 of an antecedent promise by A. that he will carry 
 out the testator's wishes, and those cases in which 
 the will is left unrevoked on the faith of a sub- 
 sequent promise by A. In the former case the 
 trust binds both A. and C. : Eussell v. Jaclison, 
 (1852) 10 Hare, 204; Jones v. Badley, (1868) 
 L. E. 3 Ch. 362. In the latter case A., and not 
 C, is bound: Burney v. Macdonald, (1845) 
 15 Sim, 6 : Moss v. Cooper, (1861) IJ. & H. 352. 
 In re Stead. Witham v. Andrew 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] 1 Ch. 237 
 
 — Stamp — Declaration of trust—" Conveyance 
 
 of sale " — Agreement for sale of equit- 
 able interest. 
 See Eevbnue— Stamps. 155. 
 
 — Stamp — Trust deed for securing debenture- 
 
 stock. 
 
 See Eevenue— Stamps. 170. 
 
 — Transfer of shares subject to a trust — Con- 
 
 structive notice — Signature of bank 
 manager as " manager in trust." 
 See Bankee. 5. 
 
 ■ Trust disposition. 
 
 Sfe SgoTTjsH Law— Smoes?;on, 
 
 40. 
 
( 2163 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2164 ) 
 
 TBTTSTEE. 
 
 Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 58), como- 
 Kdates the enactments relating to trustees. 
 
 Trustee Act, 1893 {Amendment) Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 10), amends the Act of 1893. 
 
 Eules under the Supreme Court {Trustee Act), 
 1893. See Weekly Notes, 1893 (Dec. 9), App. 
 0. & B., p. 10. 
 
 Judicial Trustees Act, 1896. See Tbtjsteb — 
 Judicial Trustees. 
 
 Public Trustee (Colonies).] Return of any 
 State Regs, in force in Canada, New Zealand, 
 Victoria, New South Wales, or Cape Colony, to 
 secure the honest Administration of Trusts, and as 
 to the offkial remuneration of a Public Trustee. 
 Pari. Paper, 1896 (26). Price i^d. 
 
 Generally, col. 2163. 
 
 Accounts, col. 2164. 
 
 Appointment, col. 2166. 
 
 Appropriation, col. 2169. 
 
 Authority, col. 2170. 
 
 Breach of Trust, col. 2170. 
 
 Contribution. See Teustee— Breach of 
 
 Trust. 
 Costs, col. 2181. 
 
 Custody of Title-deeds, (fee, col. 2182. 
 Disclaimer, col. 2182. 
 Discretion, col. 2182. 
 Indemnity, col. 2183. 
 Information as to Trust Funds,col. 2183. 
 Interest, col. 2184. 
 Investments, col. 2185. 
 Judicial Trustees, col. 2189. 
 Legal Estate, col. 2191. 
 Limitations, Statutes of, col. 2191. 
 Negligence, col. 2193. 
 Notice, col. 2193. 
 Practice, col. 2194. 
 Purchase and Sale, col. 2195. 
 Receipts, col. 2196. 
 Remuneration, col. 2196. 
 Renewal of Leaseholds, col. 2197. 
 Resulting Trust. See Tkust. 
 Retainer, col. 2197. 
 Sale. See Tkustee — Purchase and 
 
 Sale, 
 Trustee de son Tort, col. 2198. 
 Vesting Order, col. 2198. 
 
 Generally, 
 
 — Agent or trustee — Book containing drawings 
 
 — Eegistration. 
 See COPYKIGHT. 24. 
 
 — Assignment — Priority — Trust fund — Notice to 
 
 existing trustees — Death or retirement 
 
 of trustee. 
 
 See Assignment. 5. 
 
 — Charity lands — Sale — Consent of Charity 
 
 Commissioners. 
 See Chakitt. 5. 
 
 — Churchwardens — "Ecclesiastical charity." 
 
 See Chakitt. 2. 
 
 TEUSTEE (Generally) — continv.ed. 
 
 — Executor not express trustee for next of kin 
 
 — Title of heir-at-law and next of kin 
 barred by Statute of Limitations. 
 See Charity. 47. 
 
 — Express trustee — ^Loan to husband — Bond, 
 
 Interest on — Statute of Limitations. 
 See Husband and Wife. 27. 
 
 — Fiduciary power — Power to debenture-holder 
 
 to appoint receiver. 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 83. 
 
 — Fiduciary relation — Setting aside sale — 
 
 Interest on profits. 
 
 See Vendor and Puechaseb. 53. 
 
 — Heirlooms — Tenant for life — Making good 
 
 loss — ^Recouping trust estate. 
 See Heielooms. 6. 
 
 — Improvements — Repairs — Real estate — Trust 
 
 for sale — Absence of power to mortgage. 
 See PoWEE. 6. 
 
 — Lancaster Court of Chancery. 
 
 See Lanoasteb. 3. 
 
 — Lease to trustee — Covenant by lessee to 
 
 repair — ^Liability of cestui que trust for 
 breach of trustee's covenant. 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 31. 
 
 — Liability of cestui que trust for breach of 
 
 trustee's covenant — Covenant to repair 
 — Occupation by cestui que trust. 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 31. 
 
 — Mortgage of share in trust fund — Mortgagee's 
 
 rights. 
 
 See Mortgase. 76. 
 
 — Overdraft — Private account — ^Payment in of 
 
 trust money — ^Liability of bank. 
 See Bankbb. 21. 
 
 — Priority — Reversionary trust fund — Notice to 
 
 existing trustees — ^Death or retirement 
 
 of trustee. 
 
 See Assignment. 5. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Settled Land — Trustees. 
 
 — Solicitor trustee. 
 
 See Solicitor — Solicitor Trustee. 
 
 — Tacking — Further advance — Second Mortgage 
 
 -—Joint tenants. 
 See Mortgage. 91. 
 
 — Title — Notice of trusts of mortgage money — 
 
 Mortgagee not one of the original trus- 
 tees — Objection — Sufficiency. 
 See Vendor and Puechaseb. 88. 
 
 — Title of petition — Policy by husband for bene- 
 
 fit of wife. 
 
 See Husband and Wipe — Practice. 40. 
 
 — Trustee de son tort. 
 
 See Solicitor — Misconduct. 
 
 Trustee Eeliep Acts.] Tlie Ti-ustee Relief 
 Acts were repealed and further provision made by 
 the Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53). 
 
 Accounts. 
 
 1. — Annuity — Omission to form fund for— 
 Breach of duty — Action by annuitant against trus- 
 tee for account — Right of action — Trustee Act, 1888 
 (51 (f; 52 Vict. a. 59), i-', 8, suh-s, 1, clauses (a) and 
 
( 2165 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2166 )' 
 
 TETTSTEE (Accounts)— oonWnuetZ. 
 (b)— Carrying hack account — Statutes of Limita- 
 tions. 
 
 The effect of s. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888, is 
 that except in the three following cases, fraud by 
 the trustee, retention of trust property by him, or 
 receipt by him and conversion of it to his own 
 use, a trustee who has committed a breach of 
 trust is entitled to the protection of the several 
 Statutes of Limitation as if actions or proceed- 
 ings for breaches of trust were enumerated in 
 them. 
 
 Under a will, the pit., on the expiration of a 
 term of fourteen years from the death of the tes- 
 tatrix (who died on May 20, 1875), became en- 
 titled to an annuity for her life. During the 
 term it was the duty of the deft., as trustee under 
 the will, to receive the rents of certain devised 
 estates, and after payment of some immediate 
 annuities, to accumulate the surplus rents and 
 invest the accumulations in the purchase of lands. 
 The pit's annuity was charged upon the ac- 
 cumulations and the lauds to be purcliased there- 
 with, as well as upon the devised estates. With- 
 out any fraudulent intent the deft., instead of 
 accumulating the surplus rents, applied them in 
 keeping down interest on incumbrances and in 
 necessary repairs. 
 
 The term expired on May 20, 1889, the plt.'s 
 annuity fell into arrear in Nov. 189t, and on 
 Aug. 9, 1895, she brought this action for an 
 account. 
 
 The deft, had no trust moneys in his hands 
 at the issue of the writ, and had never converted 
 any trust moneys to his own use ; and he relied 
 on s. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888, but admitted 
 that within six years before the issue of the writ 
 he had rents in his hands which he ought to 
 have accumulated and invested : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the pit. was entitled to an 
 account of the moneys in the hands of the deft, 
 six years before the issue of the writ and liable 
 to the trust for accumulation, and also to an 
 account of the rents which ought afterwards to 
 have been accumulated, but not to an account 
 from the death of the testatrix ; and (2) tliat the 
 case fell either within clause (a) or clause (6) of 
 s. 8 of the Act of 1888, but {per Eigby L.J.) pre- 
 ferably within clause (a); and that whichever 
 clause was applicable, the deft, was protected 
 from demands more than six years before the 
 issue of the writ. 
 
 Sect. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888, explained. 
 
 In re Bowden, (1890) 45 Oh. D. 444, observed 
 upon. How V. Eakl Winteeton 
 
 G. A. [1896] 2 Ch, 626 
 
 2. — Carrying bach account — Administration 
 action — Statute of lAmitatiom — Order, Form of — 
 TrusUe Act, 1888 (51 * 52 Vict. a. 59), «. 8. 
 
 Form of order for account by trustees entitled 
 to the protection given by s. 8 of the Trustee 
 Act, 1888, against liability to render accounts 
 extending beyond six years from the commence- 
 ment of the action. In re Davies. Ellis v. 
 .Egberts - - Kekewioh J. [1898] 2 Ch. 142 
 
 3. — Investigation of accounts — Settlement of 
 accounts between trustees. 
 
 Oestuis que trust have an absolute right to 
 investigate the accounts of their trustees, Trus- 
 
 TRTTSTEE {koaoTmts)— continued. 
 tees cannot settle an account due to one of them- 
 selves so as to preclude such an investigation : 
 per Kay L.J. In re Fish. Bennett v. Bennett 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 413, 426 
 
 — Misconduct of trustee — Common accounts 
 
 refused at the trial. 
 See Aooount. 6. 
 
 4. — Right to an account — Limitation of 
 actions— Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 59), 
 s. 8. 
 
 Where a trustee, deft, to an administration 
 summons (1892), alleged he had expended in 
 educating and maintaining A., the residuary 
 legatee, during his minority which expired in 
 1880 the whole of the residue, and A. alleged no 
 fraud : — 
 
 Held, that A.'s right to an account was 
 barred by s. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888. In re 
 PxHE. Jones v. Mokgan 
 
 North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 304 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. In re Somerset, 
 [1894] 1 Oh. 231, 256. 
 
 Appointment. 
 
 By the Conveyancing. Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict, 
 c. 13), s. 6, provision was made for the appointment 
 of separate trustees for separate property. 
 
 This section was repealed by the Trustee A of, 
 1893 (56 * 57 Viet. v. 53), and s. 10 o/ that Act 
 takes its place. 
 
 Appointment of mew trustees and vesting orders. 
 See Trustee Act, 1893, s. 25 et seq. 
 
 5. — Absence from the jurisdiction — Trustee 
 Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53) 8. 10, sub-s. I. 
 
 Originating summons to determine who were 
 the present trustees of the will of J. Walker. 
 
 Prior to June, 1900, the existing trustees of 
 the will were the pit. and the deft. Mrs. Walker. 
 
 On June 1, 1900, Mrs. Walker purported, in 
 exercise of the power of appointing new trustees 
 conferred by s. 10 of the Trustee Act 1893, to 
 appoint the deft. Barrow to be a trustee of the 
 will in the place of the pit., on the ground that 
 the pit. had remained out of the jurisdiction for 
 more than twelve months. It appeared that the 
 pit. went to reside abroad in the spring of 1899, 
 and that he had remained abroad for upwards of 
 a year prior to June 1, 1900, except for a week in 
 Nov. 1899, when he came to London and did 
 some business in connection with the trust. 
 
 The Court held that it was unable to find as a 
 fact that the pit. remained out of the jurisdiction for 
 twelve months before June 1, 1900. The pit. and 
 Mrs. Walker were, therefore, the present trustees 
 of the will. In re Walker. Scmmers v. Barrow 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 276 
 
 6. — Donee of power appointing himself. 
 
 The donee of a power of appointing new trus- 
 tees cannot appoint himself either solely or jointly 
 with others. In re Newen. Newen v. Barnes 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 2 Ch. 297 
 
 — " Ecclesiastical charity " — Parish council. 
 
 See Charity. 2. 
 
 7. — JSxecutor — Appointment to perform 
 duties inndent to office of — Trnstee Acts, 1850 
 (13 & 14 Vict. 0. 60), e. 2 ; 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 
( 2167 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900 
 
 ( 2168 ) 
 
 TEUSTEE (Appointment) — continued. 
 
 c. 53), s. 50 — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 
 Vict. c. 41), s. 31. 
 
 The Trustee Acts do not authorise the ap- 
 poiutment of a trustee to discharge duties ■which 
 belong not to the office of a trustee but only to 
 that of an executor. The executor, as legal per- 
 sonal representative, has certain duties to perform 
 which cannot be talien out of his hands, but 
 when the estate is cleared by payment of debts, 
 &c., the Court will appoint trustees. Eaton v. 
 Daines - - Kekewioh J. [1894] W.N. 32 
 
 8. — Felony — New trustee — Trustee convicted 
 of felony — Summons — Petition — Trustee Act, 1893 
 (56 & 57 7ict. c. 53), s. 25. 
 
 The Court has, under s. 25 of the Trustee 
 Act, 1893, jurisdiction either upon summons or 
 petition to appoint a new trustee in substitution 
 for a trustee who has been convicted of felony or 
 is a bankrupt, but it depends on the circumstances 
 of each particular case whether or not the Court 
 will exercise the jurisdiction. In re Dawson's 
 Tbusts - - Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 134 
 
 — Infant taking by descent — Management of 
 
 land during minority. 
 See Infant. 2. 
 
 — Judicial trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Teustee — Judicial 
 Trustees. 
 
 9. — Jurisdiction of Court to override statu- 
 tory power — Existing trustee — Wishes of benefi- 
 ciaries — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. 
 V. 41), 8. 31. 
 
 Where a trubtee has, under s. 31 of the Con- 
 veyancing Act, 1881, a power of appointing new 
 trustees of a will, and is desirous of exercising 
 his power, the Court has no jurisdiction to inter- 
 fere with his exercise of the power by itself 
 appointing new trustees under the Trustee 
 Acts, even though the application is made by a 
 majority of the beneficiaries. In re Higgin- 
 BOTTOM Kekewioh J. [1892] 3 Ch. 132 
 
 — Lunacy practice. 
 
 See Cases under Lunacy. 
 
 — New South Wales, Practice in — Vesting order. 
 
 See New South Wales. 49. 
 
 10. — Nominors — Appointment of new trustees 
 —Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), s. 10, 
 sub-ss. 1, 5. 
 
 Where by an old deed four persons were 
 appointed to nominate new trustees of a trust : — 
 
 Held, that as there was no person able and 
 willing to act as noniinor of trustees, and as 
 there was no contrary intention within the 
 meaning of s. 10 (5) of the Act of 1893, that tlie 
 surviving trustee had power to appoint under 
 s. 10 (1) of the Act. 
 
 Semble, that as there had been two previous 
 , appointments by the Court in the absence of a 
 nominor, the power given to nominors was gone. 
 Ckadook v. Wituam North J. [1895] W. ». 76 
 
 11. — Person to exercise power of appointing 
 new trustees — Event not specified in trust instru- 
 ment—Trustee Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. c. 53") 
 8. 10. ^ 
 
 In s. 10 of the Trustee Act, 1893, the words 
 " person or persons nominated for the purpose 
 Cf i^ppoiRting pew ^rusteps by tfee instrument 
 
 TEUSTEE (Appointment) — continued. 
 creating the trust," refer to the person or persons 
 nominated for the purpose of appointing new 
 trustees in the particular event which has 
 happened. Where, therefore, by a marriage 
 settlement the husband and "wife, or the survivor 
 of them, were empowered to appoint new trustees 
 in certain specified events, including the event of 
 a trustee becoming incapable, but not the event 
 of a trustee becoming unfit, and one of the trustees 
 became unfit but not incapable : — 
 
 Held, that the appointment of a new trustee 
 ought to be made not by the surviving husband 
 as the person nominated in the settlement, but by 
 the continuing trustees under the provisions of 
 the Act. In re Wheeler and De Eoohow 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1895] W. N. 154 (16) ; 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 315 
 
 12 — " Personal representatives " of surviving 
 trustee — Appointment of special and general execu- 
 tors by will of surviving trustee — Conveyancing^ 
 Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), «. 31. 
 
 Sect. 31 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, does 
 not authorize an appointment of trustees in con- 
 tinuation to himself by a sole surviving trustee 
 by his will. The persons in possession of a 
 general grant of probate of the wUl of a sur- 
 viving trustee are his " personal representatives " 
 within s. 31 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, and 
 their deed of appointment of new trustees is valid, 
 notwithstanding the appointment of special exe- 
 cutors in that behalf and their subsequently 
 obtaining a limited grant of probate. In re 
 Pabkek's Trusts Kekewioh J. [1894] 1 Ch. 707 
 
 13. — Power to appoint new trustees — " Bare 
 trustees " — " Acting trustees " — Land Transfer Act, 
 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 87), s. 48. 
 
 The surviving trustee of a trust for sale died 
 intestate leaving co-heiresses. The co-heiresses 
 did not receive the rents of the estate ; but, ou 
 being called upon to do so, executed a deed 
 purporting to appoint new trustees and to vest 
 the trust estate in them : — 
 
 Held, that the appointment was good, for 
 they were trustees because they could have exer- 
 cised the power of sale, and they were " acting 
 trustees" because they had acted in making the 
 appointment : — 
 
 Held, also, that the intestate was not a "bare 
 trustee " within a. 48 of the Land Transfer Act, 
 1875, and that the trust estate did not vest in his 
 personal representative. In re Cdnsingham and 
 Ji"KATLiNO - - Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ch. 667 
 
 14. — Power to appoint new trustees — Trustee 
 predeceasing testator — Conveyancing Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41) s. 31. 
 
 Where trustees of a will die in the lifetime of 
 the testator, the personal representative of the 
 survivor lias no power under s. 31 of the Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881, to appoint new trustees. 
 Nicholson v. Field Kekewioh J. [1893] 2 Ch. 511 
 
 16. — Power to appoint new trustees of will — 
 Tenant for life donee of powe> — Trustee " abroad " 
 — Old trustee executor — New trustee solicitor for 
 tenant for life. 
 
 Under a will containing a settlement of real 
 and personal estate the power to appoint new 
 trustees became exercisable in case (inter alia) 
 either of the trustees sljonld " \:ie abroad." fhsio 
 
( 2169 ) 
 
 blGBST OlP CASES, 189l— 1900. 
 
 ( 21?0 5 
 
 SeUSTEE (Appointment)— coniinued. 
 were thl'fee trustees, and they were ako the 
 executors of the will. P., one of them, after 
 acting with his co-trustees for ten] years, in 1893 
 went to reside in Normandy, taking a five years' 
 lease of a house there, and coming occasionally 
 to England upon the trust business. In 1895 
 the tenant for life, who was the donee of the 
 power, appointed T. W., her own solicitor, to 
 he a new trustee in the place of P. Upon a sum- 
 mons taken out by P. and the other two original 
 trustees, asking the opinion of the Court whether 
 the appointment was valid : — 
 
 Held, (1) that P. was " abroad " within the 
 meaning of the power; (2) that as, upon the 
 facts, no part of the testator's estate remained 
 vested in P. as executor virtute ofiScii, his position 
 was merely that of a trustee ; and (3) that 
 although the appointment of the solicitor of the 
 tenant for life as trustee of the settlement was 
 not one which the Court itself would have either 
 made or sanctioned, yet, as T. W. was in otlier 
 respects a fit and proper person, as none of the 
 beneficiaries objected, and as the tenant for life 
 did not appear to have acted capriciously, the 
 Court could not treat the appointment as invalid, 
 though it would give P. liberty to apply, so that 
 his right of indemnity as legal personal repre- 
 sentative should not be prejudiced in case it 
 should turn out that any- liability on his part 
 
 In re Kemp's Seitled Estates, (1883) 24 Oh. D. 
 485, and In re Marquis of Ailesbury, [1893] 
 2 Oh. 345, observed upon. In re Eabl op 
 Stamford. Payne v. Stamfokd 
 
 Stirling J. [1896] 1 Ch. 288 
 
 — Appointment — Policy — Trust for wife and 
 
 children. 
 
 See Insdbanob — Life. 16. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Oases uuder Settled Land. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts — Application to trustees 
 
 under Settled Land Acts of provisions 
 as to appointment of trustees. 
 See Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 0. 53), s. 47. 
 16. — Settled Land Acts, Trustees for purposes 
 of— Settled Land Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38), 
 8.38. 
 
 ' (a) The Court, if satisfied tliat a sale is im- 
 possible, is not bound to appoint trustees for the 
 purposes of these Acts. Williams v. Jenkins 
 (No. 23) - Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 176 
 
 (b) Tliere is no rule of practice that the 
 trustees of a will ought to be appointed by the 
 : Court trustees for the purposes of these Acts; 
 the tenant for life may propose other persons if 
 he thinks fit. In re Nicholas and Settled 
 Land Act, 1882 Kekewich J. [1894] W. N. 165 
 
 — Title of petition. 
 
 See Husband and Wiee. 40. 
 
 — Vesting orders. 
 
 See Tedstbe — Vesting Orders. 
 
 Appropriation. 
 
 lY, Appropriation of assets — Hesidue — 
 
 Settled shares. , „ , . .x, . . 
 
 Where a residuary trugt fund is settled by 
 
 TRUSTEE (Appropriation) — continued. 
 will upon trust for several jjersori^ and theii: 
 families, the trustees have power viftute officii 
 to appropriate specific investments to any of the 
 settled shares before the period of final division 
 without making any corresponding appropriation 
 to the other shares. 
 
 A testator gave the proceeds of his residuary 
 estate upon trust as to one undivided sixth to 
 pay the income to his eldest son for life, and 
 after his death to pay the capital to his children, 
 and as to the remaining five-sixths upon similar 
 trusts for the testator's four other sons and his 
 daughter and their children, and he empowered 
 his trustees to pay over a portion of the capital 
 of the settled sliares to any of his six children 
 absolutely, notwithstanding the previous trusts. 
 In 1881 the then trustees paid to each of the five 
 sons one-half of his share, and to the daughter 
 one-sixth of her share absolutely ; and they also 
 set aside for the daughter and her children a 
 sum of stock sufficient at its then value to make 
 up with the sum advanced to her one-half of her 
 share. The income of the stock was paid to the 
 daughter till her death in 1896 : — 
 
 Seld, that there was a valid appropriation of 
 the stock to the daughter's share, and that the 
 distribution to her children ought to proceed 
 on that footing. In re Nickels. Nickels v. 
 Nickels Stirling J. [1898] 1 Ch. 630 
 
 Authority. 
 
 18. — Carrying on business — Trust for sale — 
 Power to postpone sale — Power to carry on business. 
 
 A power to postpone the sale of all or any 
 part of a residue devised and bequeathed on trust 
 to sell, and particularly to sell his business of a 
 pawnbroker with all convenient speed, held not 
 to give power to carry on the business for an 
 indefinite time. 
 
 The Court, under the circumstances, autho- 
 rized the trustees to carry on one of the testator's 
 two businesses (of a pawnbroker) for two years. 
 
 In re Crowther, [1895] 2 Ch. 56, considered. 
 
 In re Smith. Arnold v. Smith - North J. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 154 (16); [1896] 1 Ch. 171 
 
 — Postponement of sale. 
 
 See Tetjstee — Purchase and Sale. 91. 
 
 Breach of Trust. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Court to relieve in cases of breach 
 of Trust. See Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 35), s. 3. -For List of Rules under this Act, 
 see 'Tbustee — Judicial Trustees. 
 
 — Account. 
 
 See Oases under Teustbe— Accounts. 
 
 19, — Accumulation clause — Wilful default — 
 Compound interest — Rate of interest — Trustee and 
 cestui que trust. 
 
 A testator bequeathed the proceeds of his 
 residuary estate upon trust for his children, and 
 directed the trustees to apply towards the main- 
 tenance of the infant children the whole or part 
 of the income of their expectant shares, and to 
 accumulate the residue of the income and the 
 income thereof at compound interest : — 
 
 Seld, (1.) that in a proper case it was com- 
 petent for the Court, upon the furj;her considera- 
 
( 2171 ) 
 
 blGEST 01* CASfiS, 1891—1900. 
 
 I 21?2 ) 
 
 TfiUSTKE (Breach of Trust)— continued. 
 tion of an action, to charge trustees witt interest, 
 whether simple or compound, on balances retained 
 in their hands, although no case of wilful default 
 had been raised by the pleadings, and the question 
 of interest was not referred to in the judgment : 
 (2.) that as the trustees had neglected to comply 
 with the express trust for accumulation they 
 were chargeable with compound interest upon 
 the balances in their hands, but at the rate of 
 3 per cent, only, and that in ascertaining such 
 balances trust funds improperly invested were to 
 be treated as remaining in their hands. 
 
 Knott V. Cottee, (1852) 16 Beav. 77, followed, 
 except as to the rate of interest. In re Babolat. 
 Barclay v. Andrew Stirling J. [1899] 1 Ch. 674 
 
 — Advancement. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 26. 
 
 20. — Att-achment. 
 
 (a) Writ of attachment against a trustee 
 refused by the Court in exercise of its discretion 
 under the Debtors Act, 1878, where the trustee 
 had no means and had received no personal 
 benefit from the breach of trust. Eabl of 
 Atlesfobd v. Earl Podlett (No. 2) 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 60 
 Eererred to by C. A. See next Case. 
 
 (b) Sect. 9 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, does 
 not tsike away the jurisdiction of the Court under 
 s. 4 (3) of the Debtors Act, 1869, to order the 
 committal or attachment of a defaulting trustee 
 against whom a receiving order in bankruptcy 
 has been made. In re Smith. Hands v. Andrews 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 — Cestui que trust, liability of, for breach of 
 
 trustee's covenant — Covenant to repair 
 — Occupation by cestui que trust. 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 81. 
 
 21. — Contribution — Co-trustees — Liability — 
 night to contribution or indemnity as between co- 
 trustees — Statute of Limitations — Trustee Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 59), s. 8, sub-s. 1 (a), (6). 
 
 The principle established in Wolmershausen 
 V. Gullick, [1893] 2 Ch. 514, that the Statute of 
 limitations does not begin to run against a 
 surety suing a co-surety for contribution until 
 the liability of the surety is established, applies 
 equally to the case of a trustee claiming contri- 
 bution against Ms co-trustee in respect of a 
 liability incurred from loss occasioned to the 
 trust estate by their joint default. In such » 
 case, therefore, time does not begin to run as 
 between the co-trustees until the claim of the 
 cestui que trust has been established against one 
 of them. 
 
 The pit., who was trustee of a marriage 
 settlement, allowed the trust-fund to be in the 
 hands of the deft., his co-trustee, for investment. 
 The deft, entrusted the whole fund to an " out- 
 side " stockbroker, who applied a portion of it to 
 his own uses. In an action by the pit. and infant 
 cestui que trust under the settlement, the deft, 
 denied his liability and claimed contribution 
 against the pit. trustee : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that the deft., not having exercised 
 proper care in the selection of a broker, and 
 having improperly left the whole amount of the 
 trust fund in the broker's hands, was liable for 
 
 TETJSTEE (Breach of Irast)— continued. 
 the loss which had occurred ; (2.) that the plfr. 
 was in pari delicto with the deft.,, and that the 
 deft, was therefore entitled to contribution from 
 the pit.; and (3.) that as between the two 
 trustees time did not begin to run under the 
 Statutes of Limitation until the date of the judg- 
 ment in the action. Kobinson v. Habkin 
 
 StirUng J. [1896] 2 Ch. 415 
 
 22. — Contribution — Co-trustees — Trustee Bene- 
 ficiary — Loss to trust estate, Liability for — Contri- 
 bution between co-trustees — Advance of trust-money 
 — Bepayment of private debt of trtutee out of 
 advance — Following trust funds. 
 
 The rule as to the right of a trustee to con- 
 tribution from hig co-trustee for loss occasioned 
 to the trust estate by a breach of trust for which 
 both are equally to blame does not apply where 
 one of the trustees is also a cestui que trust and 
 has received, as between himself and his co- 
 trustee, an exclusive benefit by the breach of 
 trust : in that case the rule to be applied is that 
 under which the share or interest of a cestui que 
 trust who has assented to and profited by a 
 breach of trust has to bear the whole loss^ and 
 the trustee who is a cestui que trust must 
 therefore indemnify his co-trustee to the extent 
 of his share or interest in the tru&t estate, and 
 not merely to the extent of the benefit he has 
 received. 
 
 The pit. and deft., the trustees of a will, 
 invested certain trust funds, part of the trust 
 estate, in securities of a description authorized 
 by the will. The pit., while a trustee, became 
 also entitled as a beneficiary to a share of the 
 trust estate. The investments, some of which 
 were made before and others after the pit. 
 became a beneficiary, turned out insuflicient, 
 and the pit. and deft, were declared jointly and 
 severally liable to make good the loss to the 
 trust estate. The whole of the loss was made 
 good out of the plt.'s share of the trust estate, 
 which share exceeded the amount of the loss : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., affirming North J., [1895] 
 W. N. 132 (17), that the pit. had no right of con- 
 tribution from the deft, in respect of any part of 
 the loss. 
 
 The extent of the liability of a trustee bene- 
 ficiary for a breach of trust In which he is 
 implicated, discussed. 
 
 The fact of a borrower of trust-money from 
 trustees repaying out of the money so borrowed 
 a debt due from him to one of the trustees, is not, 
 of itself, sufficient to render the trustee so accept- 
 ing repayment liable for breach of trust, the 
 borrower of the trust-money being under no 
 restriction as to its application. Ghillixgwoeth 
 v. Chambers - - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 685 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Robinson v. 
 Harkin, [1896] 2 Ch. 415, 425. See preceding 
 Case 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Moxham v. Grant, 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 88, 92. 
 
 23. — Culpa Lata — Annual accounts — Personal 
 liability of trustees — .Fa«7«)-e to fulfil trust direc- 
 tions — Respondents not appearing, costs on reversal 
 — Appellant suing in forma pauperis. 
 
 Where a testator gives power to his trustees 
 
( 2173 ) 
 
 DIGEST or CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2174- ) 
 
 TSTJSTEE (Breach of Txast)—contimied. 
 to appoint a factor to the estate who may be one 
 of themselves, but divects them to require annual 
 accounts, the trustees are guilty of culpa lata if 
 they faU to call for annual accounts. CABKOTHEaiS 
 ■o. Cabbtjtheks - H. L. (So.) [1896] A. C. 659 
 
 24. — Declaration that trustees are not liable — 
 Costs— B. 8. C, 1883, Order LT., r. 3— Originating 
 summons. 
 
 Where under a marriage settlement whioh 
 gave the trustees power to retain investments, 
 there had been a loss in 1873, and in 1894 new 
 trustees were appointed, who declined to act till 
 it was decided whether the old trustees were 
 liable for the loss : — 
 
 Seld, that the old trustees were entitled to a 
 declaration that they were not liable, and that, 
 under the circumstances, the trustees should be 
 allowed their costs out of their estate. In re 
 Ikwin. Barton v. Ibwin 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] W. ». 23 
 — Determinable life interest. 
 
 See Settlement — Forfeiture. 25. 
 
 25. — Devastavit — Executor — Beliance on solici- 
 tor — Belief frmn liability — Judicial Trustees Act, 
 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 35), s. 3, siib-s. 1. 
 
 During the five years' administration of a 
 testator's estate by the Court, the executors, who 
 knew that large sums were necessary for the pay- 
 ment of debts, disbursements, and other adminis- 
 tration purposes, paid various sums from time to 
 time to their solicitors in reliance on their state- 
 ments that these sums were in each case required 
 for those purposes, to which they were in fact in 
 great part applied. Shortly before the close of 
 the administration the solicitors becama bank- 
 rupt, and, the total amount paid to them being 
 substantially in excess of the amount required 
 and applied for administration pmposes, the 
 balance was lost to the estate : — 
 
 Held, under the special circumstances, that 
 the executors had acted honestly and reasonably, 
 and ought fairly to be excused for making the 
 payments in reliance on their solicitors' state- 
 ments, and ought to be relieved from personal 
 liability in respect of the balance lost. 
 
 Bacon v. Bacon, (1800) 5 Ves. 381 ; 5 E. K. 
 52, followed. 
 
 Observations on s. 3, sub-s. 1, of the Judicial 
 Trustees Act, 1896. In re Lobd De Clibtoed's 
 Estate. Lord De Oliffobd v. Quiltbr. Lord 
 De CtnTOBD v. Marquis of Lansdowne 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] 2 Ch. 707 
 
 26. — Devastavit, Executor guilty of ^Court's 
 power to excuse — Judicial Trustee Act, 1896 
 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 35), s. 3. 
 
 Sect. 3 of the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, 
 applies to the case of an executor who has com- 
 mitted a devastavit, but in construing that sec- 
 tion the Court is bound to remember the provi- 
 sions of 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 29, and to see that 
 there has been no undue delay in advertising for 
 claims. 
 
 A testator, who died in June, 1894, leaving 
 assets amounting to 22,00OZ., and debts, as then 
 ascertained, of about lOOZ., gave an immediate 
 legacy of 300Z. to his widow ; the executor paid 
 this legacy and allowed the widow to receive the 
 income arising from the estate for the support of 
 
 TRUSTEE (Breach of Trust) — continued. 
 herself and family. In Aug. following a claim 
 for rents received by the testator as an agent, 
 and not accounted for, was sent in ; in Nov. the 
 usual advertisements for creditors were issued ; 
 in Dec. an action claiming an account on the 
 footing of wilful default by the testator was 
 commenced. The executor, without going to the 
 Court for directions, defended the action, and 
 continued to allow the widow to receive the in- 
 come till judgment in April 1896, which resulted 
 in some 26,000J. being found due from the testa- 
 tors' estate to the pits. 
 
 Seld, that though there had been undue delay 
 in issuing the advertisements for claims, the exe- 
 cutor had acted reasonably under all the circum- 
 stances in paying the SOOl. legacy and such 
 further sums on account of income as were neces- 
 sary to maintain the widow and family up to 
 the issue of the writ, but not after, and to this 
 extent he might be relieved from personal lia- 
 bility. In re Kat. Mosley v. Kat 
 
 Bomer J. [1897] 2 Ch. 518 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. In re Lord 
 De aifford's Estate, [1900] 2 Ch. 707, 716. See 
 preceding Case. 
 
 27. — Executor '■ — Outstanding estate — Debt 
 secured hy promissory note — Loss to estate — ■ 
 Liability — Belief — Acting "honestly and reason- 
 ably "—Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, 
 c. 35), 8. 3, evh-s. 1. 
 
 A testator by his will gave his real and per- 
 sonal estate to his executors and trustees upon 
 trust to maintain the same in the like mode of 
 investment as at his death until one of his sons 
 should attain the age of twenty-four. The estate 
 comprised a debt of 166Z. due upon a promissory 
 note payable upon demand; the executors, be- 
 lieving the debtor to be a man of good credit, 
 neither called in, nor applied to the Court for 
 directions as to this debt ; the debtor died in- 
 solvent eighteen months after the testator ; and 
 the estate suffered a loss :-^ 
 
 Beld, that, having regard to the terms of the 
 will and the amount of the debt, the executors 
 might reasonably have thought they were not 
 bound either to call in the debt or to apply for 
 directions, and that, under the circumstances, 
 having acted honestly and reasonably, they ought 
 to be relieved, under s. 3 of the Judicial Trustees 
 Act, 1896, from their breach of trust and from 
 personal liability for the same. 
 
 The decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. In re 
 Gbindet. Clews v. Geindet 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 693 
 
 28. — Following trust funds — Satisfaction. 
 
 C, tenant for life under his marriage settle- 
 ment of 1832, got possession of the trust funds 
 and invested part of them in unauthorized 
 securities, among which was 4000J. dock stock, 
 in the joint names of himself and his sou A. On 
 the mariiage of A., C. out of his own moneys 
 settled on A. sums exceeding A.'s share in the 
 funds of the settlement of 1832. In A.'s settle- 
 ment was included the above sum of dock stock 
 which A. joined in transferring to the trustees ; 
 but in the opinion of the Court it appeared from 
 the evidence that A, did not know the origin of 
 the dock stock, nor that it was a fund in which 
 
( 2175 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2176 ) 
 
 TRUSTEE (Breach of Trust) — conlimied. 
 ■he had an interest ; and it appeared that all the 
 negotiations for A.'s settlement had gone on the 
 footing that C. was settling money of his 
 own : — 
 
 Held, (reversing the decision of North J., 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 853), that in a suit by the repre- 
 sentatives of C.'s children to have the funds of 
 the settlement of 1832 replaced, A. was not to be 
 treated as having received the dock stock so as 
 pro tanto to reduce the claim of C.'s children to 
 have the trust funds replaced. Ckichton v. 
 Crichton - - C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 870 
 
 — Breach — Fraudulent preference — Conveyance 
 to make good breaches of trust. 
 See BANKBUPTCfT — Fraudulent Prefer- 
 ence. 111. 
 
 29. — Immunity clause — Liabilily of trustee — 
 Negligence— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 53), n. 17, svh-s. 3. 
 
 Three persons were trustees of a fund set 
 apart to answer a life annuity, and divisible on 
 the decease of the annuitant among the persons 
 entitled in remainder. I'he sum of 3,7002., part 
 of this fund, was invested on a heritable bond. 
 On July 15, 1887, the bond was paid off. The 
 trustees allowed their law agent to receive the 
 money and to retain it in his hands uninvested 
 for rather over six months. At the end of that 
 time the law agent became bankrupt, and the 
 greater part of the fund was lost : — 
 
 Held, reversing decision of Ct. of Sess. (Lord 
 Morris dissenting), (1898) 25 R. 697, that the 
 trustees were guilty of a plain and positive 
 breach of trust, and were liable to replace the 
 money lost. Wyman v. Patekson 
 
 H. L. (Sc.) [1900] W. N. 63 ; [1900] A. C. 271 
 
 30. — Indemnity — Instigation of tenant for life. 
 Breach of trust at — Married woman restrained 
 from anticipation — Practice — Administration — 
 Trustee Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. c. 53), s. 45— 
 Trustee's equity raised hy defence — Procedure — 
 B. S. 0., 1883, Order XYi., r. 55 — Inquiry or 
 liberty to apply. 
 
 In an action by beneficiaries of a settlement 
 against the tenant for life and (he executors of 
 the deceased trustees of the settlement, the plain- 
 tiffs by their statement of claim alleged that the 
 deceased trustees had in breach of trust advanced 
 the trust funds for the tenant for life and her 
 husband. The executors by their defences ad- 
 mitted the breach of trust, but alleged that it was 
 committed at the instigation and request and 
 consent in writing of the tenant for life, and 
 claimed that her life interest ought to be im- 
 pounded under B. 45 of the Trustees Act, 1893, by 
 way of indemnity to the estates of the deceased 
 trustee. No notice was given by the executors 
 to the tenant for life under Order xvi., r. 55, that 
 they claimed contribution or indemnity against 
 her. At the trial of the action leave was given 
 to the executors, without going into evidence, to 
 apply in chambers with reference to enforcing 
 their rights (if any) to indemnity against the 
 tenant for life. In re Holt. In re Eollason. 
 Holt v. Holt Byrne J. [1897] 2 Ch. 525 
 
 Referred to by Kennedy J. Molyneiix v. 
 Fletcher, [1898] 1 Q. B. 648, 656. 
 
 TRUSTEE (Breach of Trust) — continued. 
 
 31. — Indemnity — " Instigation or request of A 
 leneficiary "^Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 59), s. 6. 
 
 A trustee, at the verbal request of a married 
 woman restrained from anticipating her income, 
 advanced her 801. to prevent her home from being 
 sold up : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the trustee was entitled to 
 indemnity out of her income ; (2) that the 
 "instigation or request of a beneficiary" need 
 not be in writing. Griffith v. Hughes 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1892] 3 Ch. 105 
 
 Approved of by 0. A. In re Somerset, [1894] 
 1 Ch. 231, 265. 
 
 Referred to by North J. Mara v. Browne, 
 [1885] 2 Ch. 69, 92 ; but this case was reversed 
 by C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 199. 
 
 — Indemnity — Power to make beneficiary in- 
 
 demnify for breach of trust. 
 See Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 53), s. 45. 
 
 32. — Indemnity — Solicitor-trustee — Court's 
 power to excuse — Liability to indemnify co- trustee 
 —Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Viet. v. 
 35), s. 3. 
 
 The power to relieve a trustee from personal 
 liability for a breach of trust given by s. 3 of the 
 Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, is meant to be acted 
 on freely and fairly in the exercise of judicial 
 discretion, but the Court must, before exercising 
 the power, be satisfied by sufiicient evidence 
 that the trustee acted reasonably as well as 
 honestly. 
 
 No general rules or principles can be laid 
 down as those to be acted upon in carrying out 
 the section ; each case depends on its own cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 Where two trustees appointed by a testatrix, 
 one being a solicitor and the other a linendraper, 
 invested trust money on a mortgage which was 
 an improper investment both as to its nature and 
 as to its value, the Court refused to excuse the 
 linendraper when it was not satisfied that he had 
 acted with the care which he would probably 
 have taken if the money had been his own, but 
 found that he had relied on the solicitor. The 
 Court, however, followed Lockliart v. Beilly, 
 (1856) 25 L. J. (Ch.) 697, ordered the solicitor to 
 indemnify his co-trustee from the loss resulting 
 from his negligence. In re Tornee. Barker v. 
 IviMET - Byrne J. [1897] 1 Ch. 586 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. Head v. Gould, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 250, 264. 
 
 — Interest — Rate of, to be charged. 
 
 See Trustee — Interest. 57. 
 
 — Investments. 
 
 See Cases under Trustee — Investments. 
 
 33. — Lien — Trustees' lien on making good 
 breach of trust—Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 53), s. 45. 
 
 On the marriage of A. and B., A. brought 
 into settlement a sum secured by mortgage on his 
 estates, B. a sum invested in Railway Rentcharge 
 Stock. A. and B. each took the first life interest 
 in their respective funds. At the instigation of 
 A. and B., the trustees committed a breach of 
 trust by selling out B.'s stock, and advapoiug the 
 
( 2177 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2178 ) 
 
 TETJSTEE (Breach of Trust) — continued. 
 proceeds to A. secured by an equitable mortgage 
 of A.'s estates. A. then assigned his life interest 
 in his fund to S. The trustees proposed to make 
 good their breach of trust, and claimed a lien 
 on A.'s life interest. On an application by the 
 trustees for a receiver of the rents of A.'s Irish 
 estates : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that at the date of the assignment 
 to S. there was an existing equity in the cestui 
 que trust in remainder which became vested in 
 the trustees on their making good their breach, 
 and (2.) that in the absence of special circum- 
 stances, S. took the assignment subject to that 
 equity ; (3.) that the remainderman was a neces- 
 sary party. Bolton v. Coere (No. 1) 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 122 
 
 See next Case. 
 
 — Limitations, Statute of. 
 
 See Cases under Trustee — Limitations, 
 Statute of. 
 
 — Maintenance — Education — ^Bringing up — Im- 
 
 moral home — Control of Court. 
 See Infant — Maintenance. 32. 
 
 34. — Married woman — Bestraint on antici- 
 pation — Trustees' right to he recouped out of bene- 
 ficiary's interest— Trustee Acts, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 59), ». 6 ; 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), s. 45. 
 
 The equity of a trustee who commits a breach 
 at the request and for the benefit of a beneficiary 
 (and consequently thus affecting an assignee of 
 the interest of a beneficiary) is not merely statu- 
 tory since the passing of the Trustee Acts, 1888 
 and 1893, but is the same now as it was before 
 those Acts, which enlarge the judicial discretion 
 of the Court in such cases. Such equity is not 
 waived where the trustee at the time of the 
 breach declines to take a mortgage of the bene- 
 ficiary's interest by way of security for the breach. 
 It is the duty of a trustee to protect a married 
 woman, restrained from anticipation against her- 
 self, when she asks him to commit a breach of 
 trust. On failure of such duty the Court will be 
 slow to exercise its discretion under s. 45 of the 
 Act of 1893 in order to remove the restraint on 
 anticipation in order that her life interest may be 
 impounded to recoup him. Bolton v. Cukrb 
 (No. 2) - - Bomer J. [189S] 1 Ch. 644 
 
 36. — Misappropriation of trust funds — Solici- 
 tor— Interest— Judicial Trustee Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 35), «. 3, 81(6-8. 1. 
 
 In July, 1892, the deft, and T., a solicitor 
 and a member of the firm of solicitors acting tor 
 the trust, were trustees of a settled fund ; and in 
 that month certain of the securities representing 
 the trust funds were sold and the proceeds, 
 amounting to 1730Z., received by T., and, pending 
 the settlement of certain questions with regard to 
 the division of such proceeds, were paid by him 
 into the office account at his own bank. The 
 deft., trusting to the integrity of T., took no 
 steps to ascertain whether the moneys had been 
 paid into the trust account at their bank. 1. 
 died in July, 1893, largely indebted to his bankers 
 on his private account, and they claimed and 
 succeeded in establishing their claim to set off 
 the moneys standing to the office account, in- 
 cjudiflg the I730i., the subject of this action, 
 
 TRUSTEE (Breach of Tmst}— continued. 
 against his indebtedness on his private account, 
 whereby the said trust fund was wholly lost : — 
 
 Held, that the deft, had not acted " reason- 
 ably " within the meaning of sub-s. 1, s. 3, of the 
 Judicial Trustee Act, 1896; and he was there- 
 fore ordered to repay the sum so lost, but without 
 interest by reason of the questions that had 
 arisen with regard to the moneys which had 
 necessitated the same being paid into the bank 
 instead of being distributed immediately on the 
 sale. Wtnne v. Tempest 
 
 Eomer J. [1897] W. N. 43 (14) 
 
 [Note. — Upon a point of practice — Third party 
 notice. See Chitty J., [1897] 1 Ch. 110.] 
 
 36. — Mortgage of trust estate along with 
 trustee's own property— Apportionment. 
 
 The C. A. in 1896 declared B. to have pur- 
 chased certain Ceylon estates as a trustee for K., 
 subject to B.'s lien for the purchase-money and 
 other advances for the purposes of the estates, 
 and an account was directed of all sums of money 
 received by B. in respect of any sale, mortgage, 
 or other disposition of the estates or any of them. 
 In July, 1876, B., who had previously obtained 
 from 0. & Co. two advances of 20,000Z. and 
 25,0002. on the security of his own estates in 
 Cumberland, had obtained from them 20,0002. 
 more, and signed this memorandum : " Messrs. 
 C. & Co. — You have now advanced to me 20,OC02., 
 25,0002., and 20,0002. on security of my Cumber- 
 land estates. If required by you at any time, I 
 undertake by way of further security to execute 
 to you a, valid charge on my Ceylon estates." 
 In July, 1879, by a memorandum indorsed on 
 this memorandum, B. stated to C. & Co. that he 
 had directed his agent to execute to them, in 
 pursuance of the former memorandum, a formal 
 charge on the D. and D. estates (two of the 
 estates to which R. afterwards established his 
 title) for 35,0002., the balance then due from 
 him to 0. & Co. A mortgage in Ceylon was 
 executed accordingly. C. & Co. never resorted 
 to the D. and X>. estates. The official referee in 
 taking the accounts charged B. with 20,0002. as 
 money received by him in respect of a mortgage 
 on part of the trust estate. Kekewich J. struck 
 out tins sum altogether : — 
 
 Held, on appeal, that as B. had received 
 20,0002. on a charge on the Cumberland estates, 
 and a promise to give a charge on the D. and D. 
 estates, which promise was afterwards followed 
 by an actual charge, he must be treated as having 
 raised that sum rateably out of the Cumberland 
 estates and the D. and D. estates according to 
 their respective values after deducting the prior 
 incumbrances upon them, and must be debited 
 with the share attributable to the D. and D. 
 estates. Kooheeouoauld v.' Boustead 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 860 
 
 — Mortgage, where bad as breach of trust. 
 See Mortgage— Validity, 93. 
 
 37. — Belief of trustees from personal liability 
 —Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict, 
 c. 35), 8. 3. 
 
 Trustees of a settlement, erroneously assuming 
 that they had a power of sale, sold the lease- 
 holds comprised in the settlement, and thereby 
 
 4 A 
 
( 2179 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2180 ) 
 
 TRUSTEE (Breach of Trust) — continued. 
 diminished the income of the plaintiff, who, as 
 tenant for life of a moiety, was entitled to the 
 rents and profits in specie, though the sale would 
 have been a proper one had the trustees in fact 
 possessed a power of sale : — 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Kekewioh J., 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 521, that as, on the evidence, the 
 trustees had acted honestly and reasonably, they 
 were entitled under s. 3 of the Judicial Trustees 
 Act, 1896, to be relieved from personal liability 
 in respect of the breach of trust. Perrins v. 
 Beilamt - - C. A. [1899J-W. N. 50; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 797 
 
 38. — Betiring trustees, LidbiUtyof,forhreach 
 of trust — Unauthorized investments — Order against 
 trustees — Trustees talcing over securities — New 
 trustees — Cestui que trust — Infant — Claim against 
 co-trustee — Indemnity — Solicitor — Third 'party 
 
 To make a retiring trustee liable for a breach 
 of trust committed by his successor, it must be 
 proved that the very breach of trust which was 
 in fact committed was not merely the outcome of 
 or rendered easy by the retu'ement and new 
 appointment, but was contemplated by the former 
 trustee when the retirement and appointment 
 took place. 
 
 Where one of two trustees by whom a breach 
 of trust is committed is a solicitor, he cannot, 
 merely because he is a solicitor, be required to 
 indemnify his co-trustee where that co-trustee 
 has himself been an active participator in the 
 breach of trust and has not participated in it 
 merely in consequence of the advice and control 
 of the solicitor. 
 
 The rule of equity that trustees who have 
 caused a loss by investing trust funds on an 
 unauthorized security cannot be required by the 
 cestui que trust to make good the loss without 
 having the security transferred to themselves, 
 does not apply where the cestui que trust is an 
 infant ; he being entitled to have the trust fund 
 made good by the tmstees notwithstanding the 
 security cannot be transferred to them. 
 
 In re Salmon, (1889) 42 Oh. D. 351, considered. 
 Head v. Gould - Kekewioh J. [1898] 2 Ch. 250 
 
 39. — Solioitor and client — Investment advised 
 hy solioitor to trustees — Contributory mortgage — 
 Priority. 
 
 Trustees acting under the advice of their 
 solicitors invested 3000i., part of the trust fund, 
 upon the security of a contributory mortgage for 
 6000Z., the remaining SOOOi. being advanced by 
 the solicitors themselves. Tlie legal estate in the 
 mortgaged property was not vested in the trustees, 
 the mortgage being taken in the names of one of 
 them and of a stranger to the trust. The mort- 
 gagees executad a contemporaneous declaration 
 of trust declaring that their names should stand 
 in the mortgage as to the sum of 3000Z., part of 
 the said sum of 6000/!. and the interest thereof in 
 trust for the trustees, and as to the fui'ther sum 
 of 30001. " residue of the said sum of 6000Z. and 
 the residue of the interest to become due and 
 payable" under the mortgage, in trust for the 
 solicitors. By another contemporaneous docu- 
 ment the solicitors guaranteed to the trustees 
 the sufficiency of the secxu'ity for the sum of 
 
 TETTSTEE (Breach of Trust) — continued. 
 3000Z. and interest, and further guaranteed to the 
 trustees the repayment of the 3000Z. and interest. 
 The solicitors assigned their portion of the secu- 
 rity to other persons, and were afterwards adju- 
 dicated banki-upts. The mortgaged property 
 having failed to realize the whole of the 60001. : — 
 Held, that the trustees were not entitled to 
 priority for tlieir 3000Z. as against the assignees 
 of the solicitors. Stokes v. Prance 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] W. S. 163 (10) ; 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 212 
 
 — Solicitor becoming constructive trustee — Lia- 
 
 bility of partner. 
 
 See SoLiciTOE — Partnership. 122. j 
 
 — Surviving partners — Third party notice. 
 
 See Peaotioe. 253. 
 
 40. — Tenant for life — Liahility — Valuation 
 for mortgage — Report of valuer — Limitation of 
 action— Trustee Act, 1888 (51 <fc 52 Vict. v. 59), 
 ss. 4, 5, 6, 8. 
 
 A tenant for life consented in writing to an 
 investment by trustees of the trust fund on a 
 mortgage. The security was insufficient, and 
 some of the tmst fund was lost : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A. (1) (reversing Kekewioh J.) 
 that the trustees were not entitled under s. 6 of 
 the Trustee Act, 1888, to have the life interest in 
 the whole trust fund impounded by way of indem- 
 nity to them against their liability to the infant 
 remaindermen, as the evidence did not shew that 
 the tenant for life instigated, requested, or agreed 
 in writing to a breach of ti-ust ; (2) affirming 
 Kekewioh J. that, as between the tenant for life 
 and the trustees, the breach of trust was com- 
 mitted in 1878, when the investment was made, 
 and not in 1890, when the interest on the mort- 
 gage ceased to be paid, and therefore the tenant 
 for life's remedy against the trustees was barred 
 by the statute ; (3) that payment of interest on 
 the mortgage was not an acknowledgment wliich 
 would take the case out of the Statute of Limita- 
 tions. Duty of trustees with regard to report of 
 valuer considered. In re Somerset. Somerset 
 V. Eabl Poulett - C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 231 
 
 41. — I Trustee de son tort — -Constructive trust. 
 Two persons, strangers to the wUl, assisted 
 
 the executrix in carrying on the business of the 
 testator. These persons were aware that the 
 executrix in so doing was committing a breach 
 of trust, but otherwise they acted iu good faith. 
 They had no control of the trust funds and did 
 not derive any benefit from the breach of trust, 
 except that they had sold goods to the executrix 
 in the ordinary course of business : — 
 
 Held, that they were not liable as trustees de 
 son tort or constructive trustees. In re Barney. 
 Barney v. Barney Kekewioh J. [1892] 2 Ch. 266 
 
 42. — Trustee de son tort — Mortgage — Insuffi- 
 cient security — Solicitor. 
 
 Trust money was advanced on security of a 
 mortgage which turned out to be insufficient, and 
 the same solicitor acted for both parties, the facts 
 of his having been employed to carry out the 
 transaction, and of the money having passed 
 through his bank : — 
 
 Held, not to make him liable for the insuffi- 
 ciency of the security. Brinsden v. Williams 
 
 North J, [1894] 8 Ch, 185 
 
( 2181 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2182 ) 
 
 TRUSTEE (Breach of Trust)— confoVaed. 
 
 — Voluntary conveyance to make good breaches 
 
 of trust. 
 
 See Bankbuptqt. 111. 
 
 Contribntiou. 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 — Accountants — Audit — Stock-taking — Costs, 
 
 charges, and expenses. 
 See Partnership. 3. 
 
 — Appeal as to costs — " Costs, charges and ex- 
 
 penses" — Discretion of judge. 
 See Costs. 10. 
 
 — Disallowance of costs — ^Extravagant litigation. 
 
 See Costs. 5. 
 
 43. — MUconduct — Costs suheequent to judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Where an action has been occasioned by the 
 misconduct of a trustee the costs incurred ia the 
 action subsequent to the judgment are in the dis- 
 cretion of the Court. In this case the trustee 
 was held not entitled to costs. Easton v. Landok 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 176 
 
 — Eemuneration of trustee. 
 
 See Trustee — ^Remuneration. 
 
 44. — Setaining out of estate — Judge making 
 no order as to costs. 
 
 "Where, on an originating summons calling on 
 a trustee for his accounts, the judge does " not 
 think fit to make an order as to the costs of the 
 action," it operates as a judicial decision that 
 the trustee is not entitled to his costs of the 
 action, and is inconsistent with his retaining 
 them out of the estate. In re HoDGKDfsosr. 
 
 HODGKINSON V. HoDGKESrSOST 
 
 C. A. [189S] 3 Ch. 190 
 
 — Setting aside settlement. Action for — Parties. 
 
 See Settlement. 12. 
 
 — Severance in defence. 
 
 See Costs. 66. 
 
 45. — Severance on further consideration — 
 Costs of — Administration — Defendant trustees — 
 Taxation — Allowance of two counsel. 
 
 On further consideration in an administration 
 action a hostile order was sought against one of 
 the deft. -trustees. Thereupon the defts. severed, 
 the trustee attacked appearing by two counsel 
 and his co-trustee by one counsel. The attack 
 failed, and the trustees were given tbeir costs 
 of the action as between solicitor and client, 
 and also their costs of appearing separately. In 
 taxing their costs the taxing master disallowed 
 the costs of a leading counsel to the trustee 
 attacked, being of opinion that one counsel for 
 each trustee was sufficient. On summons to 
 review : — 
 
 Held, that the trustee attacked was entitled 
 to the costs of appearing by two counsel. In re 
 Maddook. Butt v. Weight 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J, [1899] W. N. 122; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 688 
 
 — Solicitor-trustee — ^Profit costs. 
 
 See SoiiioiTOB — Solicitor-Trustee. 134. 
 
 46. — Statute-barred items. 
 
 ■^Viiere there is a direction to ascertain the 
 
 TRUSTEE (Costs)— oowiMmed!. » 
 
 costs, charges, and expenses of trustees, statute- 
 barred costs should be included, for the Statutes 
 of Limitation bar the remedy, not the debt, and 
 the object of the order is to give effect to the 
 trustee's right of indemnity which extends to 
 fair claims of every kind, and not merely to tbose 
 enforceable by action. Budgett v. Budgett 
 (No. 2) - - KekewiohJ. [189S] 1 Ch. 202 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Margetts, 
 [1896] 5 Oh. 268, at p. 265. 
 
 Custody of Title-deeds, &c. 
 
 47. — Bonds to hearer — Mortgage — Building 
 estate — Title-deeds — Custody. 
 
 Although as a general principle trustees must 
 have their title-deeds as well as their spcurities 
 under their own control, yet where title-deeds 
 relate to a building estate in course of develop- 
 ment it is not improper to leave them in the 
 hands of a solicitor. 
 
 Serrible, that certificates and bonds payable to 
 bearer ought not to be under the control of a 
 solicitor or any other agent. Trustees must keep 
 them not necessarily in their own custody, but in 
 some place where they cannot be got at without 
 the consent of the whole body. Field v. Field 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 1 Ch. 42S 
 
 48. — Dishonesty of servant — Liability when 
 remunerated. 
 
 The paid trustee under a creditors' deed is 
 not liable either as trustee or as bailee for reward 
 for articles stolen by a servant employed by him 
 in carrying on the debtor's business. Jobson v. 
 Palmer - - Homer J. [1893] 1 Ch. 71 
 
 Disclaimer. 
 
 49. — Partial disclaimer — Property in England 
 and abroad — Vendor and purchaser — Title. 
 
 A testator having real and personal property 
 in England and abroad left his residuary estate 
 to trustees upon trust for sale. One of the 
 trustees disclaimed the trusts of the will except 
 as to the property abroad. The remaining trustees 
 sold land of the testator in England : — 
 
 Held, that the disclaimer had no effect, and 
 that the disclaiming trustee was a necessary 
 party to the conveyance. In re Lord and Ful- 
 lbhton's Contbaot 
 
 0. A. [1896] W. N. 167 (11) | [1896] 1 Oh. 228 
 — " Eetum to England "—Condition. 
 See Will— Condition. 63. 
 
 Discretion. 
 
 60. — Advancement of legatee — Legatee o5«o- 
 lutely entitled. 
 
 A testator by his will directed sums to be 
 invested for the benefit and advancement of his , 
 sons, such sums to be applied as the trustees 
 might think fit, and further directed that such 
 sums should be judicially invested, as they were 
 intended specially for the advancement in life of 
 his sons : — 
 
 Held, that on attaining twenty-one the sons 
 were absolutely entitled to the legacies, freed 
 from the exercise of any discretion on the part of 
 the trustees. In re Johnston. Mills v. John- 
 ston - - StirUng J. [1894] 3 Ch, 304 
 
 4 A 2 
 
( 2183 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2184 ) 
 
 TKTTSTEE (Discretion)— continued. 
 
 61. — Allowance towards infant's maintenance 
 — Contingent interest — Jurisdiction of Court to 
 interfere. 
 
 A testator declared that after the decease or 
 marriage again of his wife, his trustees should 
 apply the whole or such part of the iaoome of 
 the expectant share of any child for or towards 
 the maintenance, &c., of such child. The widow 
 married again, and the trustees declined to 
 make her an allowance towards the infant's 
 maintenance : — 
 
 Held, that there was no absolute trust to 
 apply the income for the maintenance, but a dis- 
 cretionary trust, equivalent to a power, and that 
 the Court would not interfere with the bona fide 
 exercise of the trustees' discretion. In re Bbtakt. 
 BBYAifT ». HioKLBT - Chltty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 324 
 
 52. — Exercise of discretion — Bankruptcy of 
 settlor. 
 
 Under a settlement real estate was limited to 
 such uses and on such trusts as A. and B. should 
 jointly appoint, with a life estate to B. in default 
 of appointment. The trust funds were appointed, 
 inter alia, as to part to pay certain of B.'s debts 
 and as to another part to himself for life with a 
 gift over on alienation. B. became bankrupt :— 
 
 Semble, tliat if the trustees under their dis- 
 cretionary power paid B. more than enough for 
 bis necessary maintenance he could be made to 
 account for the excess to his trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy. In re Ashby. Ex parte Wkepoed 
 
 V. ■Williams J. [1892] 1 ft. B. 872 
 
 Indemnity. 
 
 • — Breach of trust. 
 
 See Tetotbe— Breach of Trust. 30—32. 
 
 63. — Business, Trustee carrying on — Tort — • 
 Damages against trustee — Bight of trustee to 
 indemnity — Subrogation — Administration. 
 
 A trustee carried on his testator's colliery 
 business, and in so doing let down the surface of 
 the land and injured the buildings of an adjoin- 
 ing owner, who recovered damages against the 
 trustee personally for 1092Z. and costs. The 
 adjoining owner then claimed to be entitled to be 
 paid direct out of the testator's estate the amount 
 BO recovered : — 
 
 Held, following Benett v. Wyndham (1862) 
 4 D. F. & J. 259, that, as the injury had been 
 occasioned by the trustee in the reasonable 
 management and working of his testator's estate, 
 he was entitled to be indemnified out of the 
 assets, and, consequently, that the adjoining 
 owner was entitled to stand in the place of tlie 
 trustee and to claim the benefit of this right to 
 indemnity so as to obtain payment of the damages 
 and coats ro recovered direct out of the testator's 
 estate. In re Ratbould. Eatbould v. Turner 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] "W. N. 244 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 199 
 
 — Eight of indemnity — Purchase of land by 
 trustee of settled estates — Entry by 
 tenant for life — Non-payment of prin- 
 cipal — Vendor's lien. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Lien. 55. 
 
 Information as to Trust Funds. 
 54, — Informaticn as to funds and incum- 
 
 TETISTEE (Information as to Trust Funds) — 
 
 continued, 
 brances — Persons not cestuis que trust — Misrepre- 
 sentation. 
 
 (a) Where a trustee, on being applied to by 
 an intending purchaser as to whether his cestui 
 que trust was absolutely entitled to a fund, said 
 he " is entitled to his share, which he can dispose 
 of to any one," although there was an incum- 
 brance, of which the trustee had notice : — 
 
 Held, that the trustee was liable to reimburse 
 the purchaser. Bureowes v. Lock 
 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 94, n. 
 
 This case is incompletely reported in 10 Ves. 
 470, and is here made complete. 
 
 Considered by C. A. Low v. Bouverie, [1891] 
 3 Ch. 82. See next Case. 
 
 (b) A trustee is under no obligation to assist 
 a cestui que trust in incumbering his beneficial 
 interest nor to answer the inquiries of a stranger 
 about to deal with the cestui que trust. If he 
 answers such inquiries he is only bound to answer 
 honestly to the best of his actual knowledge and 
 belief, and need not himself make any inquiries. 
 He is not liable for such honest answers unless 
 they amount to a warranty or an estoppel. A 
 person proposing to lend money on a life interest 
 inquired of the trustee whether there were any 
 prior charges. The trustee, forgetting that 
 several prior charges were recited in the deed 
 appointing him, replied in the negative. The 
 security proved worthless and the mortgagee 
 claimed indemnity from the trustee : — 
 
 Held, that he was not liable. Low v. Bouverie 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 82 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Wyatt. 
 Wliite V. Ellis, C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 188 ; afBrm. by 
 H. L. (E.) sub nmti. Ward v. Buncombe, [1893] 
 A. C. 369. 
 
 55. — Information as to incumbrances on the 
 fund. 
 
 A cestui que trust who is contingently entitled 
 in remainder to a share of Consols standing in 
 the name of a trustee, is entitled to obtain from 
 such trustee an authority to the Bank of England, 
 enabling him to ascertain whether there is any 
 charging order, stop order, or distringas upon the 
 trust fund. In re Tillott. Lee v. Wilson 
 
 Chitty J. [1892] 1 Ch. 86 
 
 56. — Information as to investment of trust 
 estate. 
 
 A person having a reversionary interest in a 
 
 trust fund is entitled to information from the 
 
 trustees as to the investments forming the trust 
 
 estate. In re Dartnall. Sawyer v. Goddard 
 
 0. A. [1895] 1 Ch, 474 
 
 Interest. 
 
 — Misappropriation of trust funds. 
 
 See Tbustee — Breach of Trust. 19, 35. 
 
 67. — Bate of interest to be charged. 
 
 Trustees guilty of a breach of trust are still 
 chargeable with interest at the rate of 4 per cent, 
 according to the old rule, 
 
 Semble, that the rule should be revised under 
 the altered circumstances of the times. Owen v, 
 EiOHMOND - Kekewioh J. [1896] W. N. 29 
 
( 2183 ) 
 
 InVSTE'E— continued. 
 
 Investments. 
 
 The law as to trustees' investments was consoli- 
 dated and amended by ss. 1-9 of the Trustee Act 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53). The Act of 1893 was 
 amended by the Trustee Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict 
 V. 10). 
 
 Colonial Stock.] Power to invest in. Colo- 
 nial Stock Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 62), amends 
 the Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 and 1892, and the 
 Trustee Act, 1893. 
 
 58. — Appropriation to answer annuity — Trust 
 Investment Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. c. 32), ss. 3, 6. 
 
 The power given to trustees by s. 3 of the 
 Trust Investment Act, 1889, to invest trust funds 
 in any of the stocks therein mentioned, does not 
 extend to authorizing them to set apart any of 
 Buoh stocks to answer a panieular purpose. 
 
 Qusere, whether such an object can be effected 
 under the power of varying investments given at 
 the end of s. 3. In re Owthwaitb. Uwthwaite 
 ■V. Taylor - Kekewioh J. [1891] 3 Ch. 494 
 
 59. — Change infirm to which loan was author- 
 ized — ContinvMtion of loan — Breach of trust — 
 Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (19 & 20 
 Vict. e. 97), 8. 14:— Trustee Act, 1888 (51 <{; 52 Vict, 
 c. 59), «. 8. 
 
 A. by his will authorized trustees to place 
 a sum " in the hands of B. & Co. should they be 
 willing to receive it at interest " : — 
 
 Held, by Romer J., that it was a breach of 
 trust to continue the loan after a change took 
 place in the members of B. & Co. 
 
 In C. A., appeal ordered to stand over till it 
 
 was ascertained whether any loss had accrued 
 
 through the alleged breach of trust. In re 
 
 Tdckee. TnCKEE V. TucKEB (No. 2) - Eomer J. 
 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 724 ; C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 429 
 
 60. — " Company incorporated hy Act of 
 Parliament." 
 
 Where by a will made in 1895 trustees were 
 empowered to invest in the bonds, debentures, or 
 debenture stock of any " company incorpoiated 
 by Act of Parliament " — 
 
 Held, that the trustees were not authorized 
 to invest in securities of cos. incorpoiated by 
 registration under the Companies Act, 1862. 
 
 Mlve V. Boytan, [1891] 1 Ch. 501, distinguished. 
 In re Smith. Davidson v. Myktle 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1896] 2 Ch. 590 
 
 61. — Company incorporated by charter — "Act 
 of Parliament." 
 
 An insurance co. incorporated by a charter 
 which the Crown was by statute specially author- 
 ized to grant held to be " a co. incorporated by 
 Act of Parliament" within the meaning of an 
 investment clause. Elve v. Boyton 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 501 
 
 Distinguished by Kekewich J. In re Smith, 
 [1896] 2 Ch. 590. See preceding Case. 
 
 62. — Convertible securities — Bearer bonds — 
 Custody — Bankers. 
 
 Where trustees are expressly authorized to 
 retain or invest in convertible securities, such as 
 bonds transferable by delivery with coupons 
 attached, tliey may deal with them in the way 
 usual with prudent men of business, and may 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891— ISdO. 
 
 ( ^186 ) 
 
 TRUSTEE (Investments) — continued. 
 deposit them in their joint names with the 
 bankers to the trust upon a simple acknowledg- 
 ment by the bankers of the receipt thereof. 
 
 Field V. Field, [1894] 1 Ch. 425, distinguished. 
 In re De Pothonieb. Dent v. De Pothoniek 
 
 [1900] W. N. 165 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 629 
 
 63. — Deceased trustee — Liability of estate of 
 deceased trustee for breach committed after his 
 death. 
 
 Tlie eitate of a deceased trustee is not liable 
 for trust funds which he left in a proper state of 
 investment at the time of his death. In re Palk. 
 In re Drake. Chamberlain v. Drake 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 112 
 
 64. — Improper investment — Belief from 
 liability — Judicld Trustees Act, 1896 (59 & 60 
 Vict. c. 35), s. S— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 0. 53), ». 8. 
 
 A summons for admiiiistratiou having been 
 taken out by beneficiaries under a will against 
 tlie trustees, in anawer to an inquiry the master 
 had certified tliat the truot estate had suffered 
 a loss owing to improper investments for wliioh 
 the trustees were liable. No application was 
 made to vary the certificate, buf, upon the case 
 coming on on further consider.ition, tlie trustees 
 claimed relief under s. 3 of the Judicial Trustee a 
 Act, 1896. The inquiry was directed and the 
 certificate made before the passing of the Act : — . 
 
 Held, that under the circumstances the ap- 
 plication for relief was not too late, and that the 
 Court would hear evidence as to whether the 
 trustees had " acted honestly and reasonably, and 
 ought to be excused." 
 
 The onus is oi l a trustee who applies under s. 3 
 of the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, to be relieved 
 from the consequences of a breach of trust, to 
 prove that he acted honestly and reasonably ; 
 and where the breach of trust consists in invest- 
 ing the trust funds upon sufficient securities, 
 prima facie the requirements of s. 4 of the Trustee 
 Act, 18«8, and s. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1893, 
 constitute a standard by which reasouable con- 
 duct is to be judged, although non-cnmpliance 
 wiih those requirements is not necessarily a fatal 
 obstacle to an application for relief ; it is also a 
 matter for consideration whether the trustee would 
 have acted in the same way if he had been lending 
 money of his own. 
 
 A trustee (1.) acted on a valuation which 
 stated merely the amount for which the property 
 was a good security without stating the value of 
 the property, and (2.) advanced more than two- 
 thirds of the value stated in the valuation. In 
 each case the valuer was employed by a solicitor 
 who acted for the mortgagor also, and the trustee 
 did not allege that he reasonably believed the 
 valuer to be employed independently of any owner 
 of the property : — 
 
 Held, that he was not entitled to relief. In re 
 Stuart. Smith v. Stuart 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 683 
 — Information as to investment of trust fund. 
 
 See Trustee — Information as to Trust 
 Funds. 
 
 65. Judicial factor — Curator bonis — Liability 
 — Seal or heritable security — Debenture — Muni- 
 cipal Corporation Bates — Harbour Mates — Trusts 
 
( 2187 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2188 ) 
 
 TBtrSTEE (Investments) — continued. 
 {Scotland) Amendment Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict, 
 c. 63), s. 3, s»6-S8. 10, 12 — Judicial Factors Act, 
 1849 (12 (t 13 Vict. c. 51), «s. 4, 13. 
 
 The accountant of court, Scotland, who as to 
 this matter, fills a similar position to that of a 
 Master in Chancery under the Judicial Trustee 
 Eules, 1897, has no power to approve of an im- 
 proper investment. 
 
 By s. 8, sub-s. 10, of the Trusts (Scotland) 
 Amendment Act, 1884, trustees, including judicial 
 factors and curators bonis, are authorized to lend 
 trust money in loans on real or heritable security ; 
 and by sub-s. 12, in loans on debentures secured 
 on rates or taxes levied under statutory power by 
 municipal corporations. 
 
 A curator bonis invested his ward's money on 
 a bond of the Greenock Harbour Trustees, a cor- 
 poration consisting of the magistrates, the counoU, 
 and elected trustees. As security the trustees 
 assigned to the curator bonis the "rates and 
 duties and other revenues of the harbour," but no 
 right of obtaining possession of the works on de- 
 fault of payment was given. The accounts of the 
 curator bonis was audited by the accountant of 
 court and passed without comment. The harbour 
 trustees made default in payment of interest : — 
 
 Seld, (1) that the investment was not a real 
 or heritable security ; (2) that it was not a de- 
 benture created by a municipal corporation ; (3) 
 that, looking to the previous statement of accounts 
 of the harbour trust, it was not a security a 
 prudent trustee ought to have invested his ward's 
 money in ; and (4) that the annual audit of the 
 accountant of court did not exonerate the curator 
 bonis from liability. Hutton v. Annan 
 
 H, L, (Sc.) [1898] A. C, 289 
 
 66. — Land, Investment in — Option. 
 
 Under s. 83 of the Act of 1882 a tenant for 
 life has the same power over capital money in 
 the hands of trustees liable to be laid out in land 
 as he has over settled land. He has an option to 
 direct how the money shall be invested or applied. 
 In re Gee. Peabson-Gee v. Pearson 
 
 Chitty J. [1895J W. N. 90 
 
 67. — Personal security — Investment clause — 
 Power of investment — Power to vary — Consent of 
 tenant for life — Loan to tenant for life. 
 
 Trustees having a power with the consent of 
 the tenant for life to lend the trust funds on per- 
 sonal security may, if satisfied that there is a 
 reasonable prospect of repayment, lend them on 
 personal security to the tenant for life. 
 
 The proposition to the contrary in Lewin on 
 Trusts, 10th ed. p. 335, purporting to be founded 
 on Keays v. Lane, (1869) Ir. B. 3 Eq. 1, is not 
 borne out by that authority. In re Laing's 
 Settlement. Laing v. Eaboijite 
 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 23 (10) ; 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 593 
 
 68. — Power to invest on real securities — Will 
 — Executor — Trustee — Mortgages existing at tes- 
 tator's death — Hetaining investments — Deprecia- 
 tio n — Insufficient security — Breach of trust — 
 Wilful default. 
 
 Where a will authorizes investments on mort- 
 gage of real estate, and part of the testator's 
 estate at his death consists of mortgages of free- 
 bold farms, there is no rule that his executors 
 
 TRUSTEE (Investments) — continued. 
 and trustees are under an absolute duty, without 
 exercising any judgment of their own in the 
 matter, to call in the securities within twelve 
 months from the death (unless realization is 
 required for payment of debts, funeral and tes- 
 tamentary expenses, and legacies), even though 
 some of the securities may be of a risky nature, 
 as where, owing to agricultural depression, they 
 apparently become insufficient to satisfy the mort- 
 gage debts : — 
 
 Nor is there any rule that tmstees retaining 
 a security authorized by their trust are liable to 
 make good a loss sustained through the fall in 
 value of the security, provided that in so doing 
 they have acted honestly and prudently in the 
 belief that they have taken the best course for 
 all parties interested in the trust estate. 
 
 To render trustees liable in such a case, wilful 
 default, including want of ordinary prudence, 
 must be proved. 
 
 The duties of executors and trustees, as re- 
 gards calling in mortgage debts of their testator, 
 discussed. 
 
 Ames V. Parhinson, 7 Beav. 379, distinguished. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1896] 1 Ch. 323, 
 reversed. In re Chapman. Cooks v. Chapman 
 C. A. [1896] a Ch. 763 
 
 See Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. 
 0. 35), a. 3. 
 
 69. — Power to invest in such securities as 
 trustee " shall think fit " — Commission or bribe — 
 Liability of trustee to refund — Breach of trust. 
 
 A testator gave his residuary estate to trustees 
 upon trust to invest " in such stocks, funds, and 
 securities as they should think fit." "rhe trustees 
 invested a portion of the trust estate in SOOOi. 
 debentures, constituting a floating security on 
 the undertaking and assets of a limited co. One 
 of the trustees received a commission or bribe of 
 300Z. for making this investment. The other 
 trustee, since deceased, who was tenant for life of 
 two-thirds of the residue, made the investment 
 in the bonS, fide belief that it was a good one, 
 and with the desire of increasing his income. In 
 an action by beneficiaries seeking to make the 
 surviving trustee and the estate of the deceased 
 trustee jointly and severally liable to make good 
 any loss to the trust estate occasioned by the 
 investment : — 
 
 Held, that the words " shall think fit" must 
 be read as meaning " shall honestly think fit " ; 
 that in the absence of evidence that the deceased 
 trustee did not act honestly in making the in- 
 vestment his estate could not be made liable ; but 
 that the other trustee, having received a bribe, 
 could not have honestly thought fit to make the 
 investment, and was therefore liable to make 
 good the loss : — 
 
 Seld further, that, in addition to making 
 good the loss, the sm'viving trustee was liable to 
 refund the SOOi. as being money received by him, 
 at the time when the investment was made, on 
 behalf of tlie trust estate, and that his position 
 was not altered by the fact that he was subse- 
 quently held liable to make good the loss occa- 
 sioned by the investment. In re Smith. Smith 
 V. Thompson Kekewich J. [1895] W. N. 144 (15) ; 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 71 
 
( 2189 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2190 ) 
 
 TRUSTEE (Investments)— conKnae^. 
 
 70. — Power to vary investments — Instrument 
 giving no power — Trustee Investment Act, 1889 
 (52 * 53 Viet. e. 32), ss. 3, 6. 
 
 The Trust Investment Act, 1889, s. 8, gives 
 trustees po'wer to vary investments, not only of 
 moneys invested by them under the section, but 
 also of moneys invested in any description of 
 fund mentioned in the section. The fact that the 
 deed or will creating the trust gives no express 
 power to vary the investments is not material. 
 In re Dick. Lopes v. Hume-Diok 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 423 
 
 affirm. Iby H, L, (E,) sub nam. Hume v. Lopes 
 
 [1892] A. C. 113 
 
 See also In re Owtliwaite. Owthwaite v. Taylor, 
 
 [1891] 3 Oh. 494. 
 
 71. — Securities to hearer— Investment clause 
 — Trust for sale — Power to postpone sale. 
 
 A direction to invest in the names of trustees 
 does not authorize investment in securities to 
 bearer, of a class otherwise authorized. A power 
 in a will to postpone the conversion of securities 
 directed to be sold : — 
 
 Seld, _ not to authorize postponement for a 
 
 definite time, and not to be vested in a majority 
 
 of trustees. In re Both. Goldbekgee v. Koth 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 16 (15) 
 
 — Solicitor and client — ^Investment advised by 
 
 solicitor to trustee. 
 
 See Teusteb— Breach of Trust. 38, 39. 
 
 — Trustees' power of investment — Deposits with 
 
 banks. 
 
 See ViOTOBiA. 3. 
 
 Judicial Trustees, 
 
 Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Viet, 
 e. 35), provides for the appointment of judicial 
 trustees and amends the law as to trusts and liability 
 of trustees. 
 
 Bules under the Aet. See Current Index, 1897, 
 p. Izxiii. et seq. 
 
 Mule under. W. TS. 1899, (March 18), p. 79. 
 See Current Index, 1899, p. czxiii. 
 
 Sole judicial trustee — Mule {April) 1900 as to. 
 W. N. 1900, (April 21), p. 93. See Current Index, 
 1900, p. xcii, 
 
 72. — _ 
 
 ciary — Sole executor — " Trustee " — Administration 
 ■ — " Trust" — Beversioner — Memuneration of trustee 
 — Discretion of Court — Judicial Trustees Act, 
 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 35), s. 1, sub-ss. 1, 2, 4. 
 
 A person interested in an estate is not entitled 
 as of right to the appointment of a judicial 
 trustee under the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, 
 but the appointment is, under s. 1, sub-s. 1, a 
 matter entirely within the discretion of the 
 Court. 
 
 Thus where the reversioner under a will 
 applied under the Act for the appointment of a 
 judicial trustee to act either alone or jointly with 
 the testator's widow, who was sole executrix and 
 also tenant for life (there being no trustee ap- 
 pointed by the will), the Court refused the appli- 
 cation, as it was opposed to her wish and to the 
 testator's manifest intention, which was that she 
 should have the sole control of his estate, there 
 
 TRUSTEE (Judicial Trustees)— co»fo'ji«crf. 
 being, moreover, no ground of complaint against 
 her ; nor was the fact that the applicant offered 
 that the remuneration of the judicial trustee, 
 when appointed, should come out of capital and 
 not out of income held to justify the application. 
 Under s. 1, sub-s. 2, of the Act the adminis- 
 tration of the property of a deceased person is 
 a " trust " and the executor is a " trustee " : so 
 that, under sub-s. 1, the Court can, in a proper 
 case, remove the executor and appoint a judicial 
 trustee in his place, to whom, under sub-s. 4, it 
 can give directions as to the administration of 
 the trust. In re Eatoliffe 
 
 Eekewioh J. [1898] 2 Ch. 352 
 
 73. — Appointment — Jurisdiction of Court — 
 cial triistee — Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 
 
 (59 & 60 Vict. 0. 35), s. 1, sub-ss. 1, 3— Judicial 
 Trustee Bules, 1897, r. 23 (1). 
 
 Upon an application for the appointment of a 
 judicial trustee in place of a retiring judicial 
 trustee, if the Court is not satisfied of the fitness 
 of the person nominated by the applicant, there 
 is jurisdiction to appoint a person suggested by 
 the retiring trustee as his successor, and the 
 Court is not in such a case bound by sub-s. 3 of 
 s. 1 of the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, to appoint 
 only an ofScial trustee. Decision of Kekewich J. 
 aflBrmed. Douglas v. Bolam 
 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 749 
 
 74. — Practice — Pleading — Judicial Trustees 
 Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. v. 35), ». 3. 
 
 In this case the 0. A., reversing a decision of 
 the Vioe-Chancellor of the County Palatine of 
 Lahoaster, held that the defts., who were trustees 
 against whom the pit. sought relief for alleged 
 breaches of trust, had, upon the evidence, not 
 been guilty of any breach of trust, but that, if 
 they had been, they had "acted honestly and 
 reasonably and ought fairly to be excused for 
 the breach of trust," within s. 3 of the Judicial 
 Trustees Act, 1896, and were, therefore, entitled 
 to be relieved from liability. 
 
 Lindley M.E. and Bomer L.J. were of opinion 
 that trustees seeking the relief of the Act were 
 not boimd specially to plead it, for, the Act being 
 a general one, there was no reason why, in a 
 proper case, a trustee should not avail himself of 
 its provisions when the action came on for trial. 
 
 Sir F. H. Jeune P. also held, though with 
 some hesitation, that it was not necessary for 
 trustees to plead the Act specially. He thought 
 it better that they should do so in order that the 
 parties might come prepared with evidence at 
 the trial. Singlehuest v. Tapsoott Steamship 
 Co. - - - C. A. [1899] W. IT. 133 
 
 — Belief under Judicial Trustees Act — Breach 
 of trust. 
 
 See Cases under Teustee — Breach of 
 Trust. 
 78. — Sole trustee of will — Small estate — 
 Opposition of majority of beneficiaries — New 
 private trustee — Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 
 (59 <& 60 Viet. e. 35), s. 1 — Judicial Trustee Mules, 
 1897, r. 27. 
 
 In this case one of the remaindermen took 
 out a summons in a district registry under the 
 Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, asking that the 
 chief clerk to the registrar might be appointed 
 
( 2191 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2192 ) 
 
 TRirSTEE (Judicial Trustees)— coniinued. 
 the judicial trustee of the will of the testator to 
 act jointly with the existing trustee. All the 
 beneficiaries other than the applicant were 
 opposed to the appointment of a j udicial trustee, 
 and wished that no change should be made in 
 the appointment of trustee. The registrar made 
 an order appointing his chief clerk judicial 
 trustee jointly with the existing trustee. This 
 order had not been drawn up. The existing 
 trustee appealed to the judge. There was no 
 charge against the character of the trustee, and 
 he made no objection to another private trustee 
 being associated with him : — 
 
 JSeld, that the union of a judicial trustee and 
 a private or gratuitous trustee is not desirable, 
 and, having regard to the opposition of the 
 majority of the benetioiaries to the appointment 
 of a judicial trustee and the cost to which the 
 estate would be put by his appointment, the 
 Court would not sanction it. The Court was 
 always averse to a sole trustee, and if the sum- 
 mons had been referred to it by the registrar 
 an additional private trustee might have been 
 appointed. As no order had been drawn up, the 
 summons could still be referred to the judge as 
 an original matter. The better course would be 
 for it to stand over, and the parties to attend 
 before the registrar, and ask him to refer it to 
 the judge. In re Martin - Kekewioh J. 
 
 [1900] "W. N 129 
 
 legal Estate. 
 
 76. Devise in trust — Failure of heneficiaries. 
 Trustees under two ditferent wills claimed to 
 
 have become absolutely entitled to devise pro- 
 perty on failure of the beneficiaries :^ 
 
 Seld, that the acting trustee of the original 
 will who had the legal estate was entitled to 
 hold the property against the trustee of the will 
 of a beneficiary, on the ground tbat the latter 
 trustee was a bare trustee with no duties to 
 perform, and accordingly had no right to call 
 for the conveyance of the legal estate. In re 
 Lashmaab. Moody v. Penfold 
 
 C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 268 
 
 limitations, Statutes of. 
 
 77. — Aceount — Breach of trust. 
 
 In the absence of fraud the right of bene- 
 ficiaries to an account from their trustees is sub- 
 ject to 8. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888. In re Page 
 Jones v. Mokcjan North J. [1893] 1 Ch. 304 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Somerset, 
 [1894] 1 Ch. 231, at p. 256. 
 
 78. — Account, Action jor — Trustee Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 59), s. 8, suh-ss. 2, 3. 
 
 Sect. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888, does not 
 apply against persons who have been served with 
 a decree for general administration pronounced 
 after Jan. 1, 1890, if the action was commenced 
 before that date. In re Harrison. Allen v. 
 CoRT (No. 2) - Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 — Accounts. 
 
 See Trustee — Accounts. 1 — 4. 
 
 — Acknowledgment by one of two executors and 
 
 trustees — Arrears of interest — Mortgage. 
 See Limitations Statdte of. 2. 
 
 TET7STEE (Limitations, Statutes of) — continued. 
 79, — Fraud — Sale — Agent — Constructive 
 
 The Trustee Act, 1888, has in no way altered 
 the principles which determine the time at which 
 a cause of action for breach of trust or concealed 
 fraud accrues. 
 
 The exception in s, 8 of the Act as to property 
 "still retained" by the trustee applies, and is 
 confined to cases in which at the date of the writ 
 the trustee still retains — that is has actually in 
 his hands or under his control — the trust property 
 or the proceeds thereof. 
 
 Decisions of Komer J. [1893] 3 Ch. 530, and 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 593, affirmed. Thobne r. 
 
 Heard H. L, (E.) [1895] A. C. 495 
 
 Discussed by C. A. - How v. Earl Winterion, 
 
 [189B] 2 Ch. 626, 638. 
 
 80. — Partnership — Misrepresentation hy a 
 co-partner — Concealed Fraud. 
 
 The Trustee Act, 1888, does not entitle an 
 innocent partner in a firm of solicitors to plead 
 the Statute of Limitations against a client suing 
 the firm for misappropriation of his moneys by 
 one of his firm. Moore v. Knight 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 1 Ch. 547 
 
 81. — Heceipt and conversion of trust money 
 to use of trustee — Trustee Act, 1888 (52 & 53 Vict, 
 c. 59), s. 8. 
 
 Where trust funds advanced on mortgage are 
 with the concurrence of the mortgagor applied in 
 payment of a debt previously charged on the 
 mortgaged property in favour of a bank in which 
 the trustee is a partner, the trustee, in the absence 
 of fraud, can set up the Statute of Limitations 
 (21 Jac. 1, 0. IC), s. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888, 
 not applving to such a case. In re Gurnet. 
 Mason »."Mebgeb - Somer J. [1893] 1 Ch. 590 
 
 82. — Residuary personalty held in trust — Ex- 
 ecutor — Legacy — Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, 
 c. 59), s. 8 — Ueal Property Limitation Act, 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57), s. 8. 
 
 Trustees and executors instead of selling resi- 
 duary personalty as directed by their testator, 
 who died in 1872, allowed bis widow and children 
 to occupy the testator's farm, and carried such 
 farm on for the benefit of the family until 1882, 
 when X., one of the testator's sons, attained 
 twenty-one, and certain portions of the property 
 became divisible among him and his brothers. 
 In 1890 X. and one of his brothers sued T., the 
 surviving exor. and trustee, for not sooner selling 
 the residuary personalty, and for carrying on the 
 farm with the testator's assets : — 
 
 Held, that the action was brought not to 
 recover a legacy to which 37 & 38 Vict. o. 57, s. 8, 
 could be pleaded, but against a trustee to recover 
 money in respect of a breach of trust, and was 
 " one to which no existing statute of limitations 
 applied " when the Trustee Act, 1888, was passed, 
 and that more than six years having elapsed, the 
 action failed under s. 8 of that Act. In re Swain. 
 Swain v. Brinqeman Eomer J. [1891] 3 Ch. 233 
 
 — Eight to contribution as between co-trustees. 
 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 21, 22. 
 
 — Eights of beneficiaries whose trustees are 
 
 barred — Interest in land. 
 See New South Wales. 27. 
 
( 2193 ) 
 
 DiaEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2194 ) 
 
 TRUSTEE (Limitations, Statutes of)— continued. 
 
 I ^i, '7 ^*'<'**'"' to trust, Receipt of trust fund 
 by — Failure to account. 
 
 A trustee's solicitor to -whom money was 
 entrusted with notice of the trust to invest on 
 mortgage, so invested it. The mortgage was paid 
 off, and the solicitor distributed one moiety to 
 persons absolutely entitled thereto, but did not 
 account for the other moiety. The solicitor died 
 in 1879 :— 
 
 Held, that he was in the same position as an 
 express trustee, and therefore an action against 
 his executrix was not barred by lapse of time, 
 SOAU V. AsHWELL - C. A. [1893] 2 ft. B. 390 
 
 See JRochefoucauld v. Soustead, C. A. [18971 
 1 Oh. 196 ; [1898] 1 Ch. 550. 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Friend v. Younq, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 421, 432. ^ 
 
 Referred to by V. Williams J. In re Gallard, 
 tl897] 2 Q. B. 8, 14. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Dixon, [1900] 2 Ch. 
 561. 
 
 84. — Trust— Breach of trust— Trust whether 
 express or constructive — Striking out statement of 
 claim — Frivolous and vexatious action — Real 
 Property LimitaticmAct, 1833 (3 <fe 4 Will. 4, c. 27), 
 ..25. 
 
 To save the right, under s. 25 of the Beal 
 Property Limitation Act, 1833, of the cestuis quo 
 trust to bring an action to recover possession, the 
 land must he vested in the trustee upon an ex- 
 press trust, i.e , a trust which arises upon the 
 construction of a written instrument, and not by 
 inference of law. 
 
 An action to recover possession was dismissed 
 as frivolous and vexatious, on the ground that 
 the appointment by will of trustees and guardians 
 of the estate and person of A. B. was not an 
 express trust. Pbioe v. Phillips 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] W. N. 213 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 85. — Dishonesty— Fraiid. 
 
 A trustee is not dishonest and fraudulent 
 merely because he neglects his trust, and thereby 
 wrongs those whom it is his duty to protect. 
 In re Smith. Hjluds v. Anbbbws 
 
 C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Notice. 
 
 86. — Notice to one of several trustees — Inquiry 
 of trustees — Death of only trustee who has notice. 
 
 Mortgagees of the settled share of a wife in a 
 personal fund held under a will before advancing 
 money inquired of E. and S., the trustees of the 
 will, as to the existence of incumbrances, but 
 received an evasive answer from S. and a reply 
 from E. that he was not aware of any dealings. 
 There was in fact a settlement of which S. had 
 notice, but not E. S. afterwards died, and a new 
 trustee was appointed in his place : — 
 
 Held, that as the mortgagees took their 
 security without obtaining an answer from S. as 
 to the existence of prior incumbrances, they 
 took subject to the settlement of which he had 
 notice : — ■ 
 
 Held, also, that the subsequent death of S. 
 
 TRUSTEE (^Sotice)— continued. 
 
 before the period of distribution did not affect 
 
 the priority of the settlement. 
 
 Decision of C. A. (In re Wyatt. Wliite v. 
 Ellis), [1892] 1 Ch. 188, affirmed. Sub nom. 
 Waku v. Dcnoombe [1893] A. C. 369 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. Made v. Postle. 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 449, 455; In re Wasdale, [1899] 
 1 Ch. 163. 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. Stepliens v. Green, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 148, 152, 159. 
 
 87. — Payment into court by trustee — Notice 
 to beneficiaries. 
 
 A trustee who pays a fund into court under 
 the Trustee Relief Act, 1847, is no longer bound 
 to give notice to the perscjns entitled to the fund. 
 Order v. of the Chancery Funds (Amended) 
 Orders, 1874, being now obsolete since the repeal 
 of the Chancery Funds Consolidated Rules. 
 In re Graham's Teusts 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 151 
 
 Kow obsolete law. See R. S. C, Order liv . 6. 
 r. 4. 
 
 Practice. 
 
 88. — Payment into court by administrator of 
 supposed intestate — Subsequent discovery of will — 
 Revocation of administration — Trustee Relief Act 
 — Order for payment out to executor. 
 
 The administrator of a supposed intestate 
 paid into court, under the Trustee Relief Act, 
 several sums of money, part of her estate, to the 
 credit respectively of several infants who were 
 some of her next of kin. A will having been 
 afterwards discovered, the grant of administra- 
 tion was revoked, and probate of the will was 
 granted. Upon a petition by the executor and 
 the ex-administrator, to which the infants were 
 made respondents : — 
 
 Held, that there was jurisdiction to order the 
 funds in court to be paid out to the executor, and 
 an order was made accordingly. — But the Court 
 required an affidavit thatsome legacies bequeathed 
 by the will to the infants had been paid. In re 
 Hood's Trusts North J. [1896] 1 Ch. 270 
 
 — Payment into court. 
 
 See PuAOTiOE — Payment into Court. 
 
 89. — Petition — Service — Sale of lands apart 
 from minerals — Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. 
 0. 53), s. 44 — Service on remainderman. 
 
 A testator devised all his real estate to a 
 trustee upon trust to sell and hold the proceeds, 
 as to one-third upon trust for Ms sister A. for 
 life, and after her death upon trust for her 
 children absolutely ; and as to the two remaining 
 thirds, upon similar trusts for the benefit of his 
 sisters B. and C. and their children. 
 
 The testator's real estate included certain 
 lands which could be most advantageously sold 
 apart from the minerals; and accordingly the 
 trustee petitioned the Court under s. 44 of the 
 Trustee Act, 1893, to sanction a sale in this 
 form. 
 
 At the death of the testator, A. was dead 
 leaving children surviving ; B. was alive but had 
 no children ; C. was alive and had children 
 living. 
 
 The petition was served upon B. and C. and 
 
C 2195 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2196 ) 
 
 TETJSIEE (Practice) — continued. 
 
 the children of A., but was not served upon O.'s 
 
 children. 
 
 Held, having regard to the state of the autho- 
 rities, that the petition should he served upon 
 the children entitled in remainder, and a consent 
 brief produced to the registrar on their behalf. 
 In re Haedstafi' Stirling J. [1899] W. H. 256 
 
 — Title of petition for appointment of trustees 
 — ^Policy effected by husband for benefit 
 of wife. 
 See Husband and Wepb — ^Practice. 40. 
 
 Precatory Trust. 
 See Will — Precatory Trust. 
 
 Purchase and Sale. 
 
 Trustee's powers. See Trustee Act, 1893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. 0. 53), ss. 13—16, 44. 
 
 90. — Power of sale — Exercise hy executors of 
 surviving trustee — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. e. 41), s. 30. 
 
 "W. H., who died in 1851, by his will devised 
 his real estate " unto and to the use of my said 
 wife," A. H., "daughter M., and sons W., E., J., 
 and D., their heirs and assigns," in trust for his 
 wife and children and the issue of the latter as 
 therein mentioned. The will also declared that 
 " the trustees for the time being under this my 
 will shall have power to sell" the real estate. 
 All the original trustees having died, the execu- 
 tors of the one who was the last survivor con- 
 tracted to sell part of the real estate ; but the 
 purchaser raised the objection that the executors 
 could not exercise the power on the ground that 
 the heir of the survivor could not have exercised 
 the power, and that if that was so, In re Ingleby 
 and Boak and Norwich Union Insurance Co.,(18S3) 
 L. B. I., 13 Oh. D. 326, was an authority that 
 s. 30 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, did not 
 enable the executors to exercise the power : — - 
 
 Held, however, that the case cited was dis- 
 tinguishable, as the word ''heirs" was not in the 
 devise in that case, and that the executors of the 
 last surviving trustee could make a good title. 
 In re Pixton and Tongs Conteaot 
 
 Byrne J. [1897] W. N, 178 (5) 
 — Power to postpone sale— Carrying on business. 
 See Tkustee— Authority, 18. 
 
 91. — Power to postpone sale — Profits of 
 iusiness pending sale. 
 
 A. bequeathed a business to trustees upon 
 trust for sale, with power to postpone the sale, 
 and directed that, pending sale, the income 
 should be paid to the same persons and in the 
 same manner as an income from the trust 
 estate : — 
 
 Held, that the absolute discretion given to 
 the trustees to postpone the sale involved a power 
 to carry on the business, and that the whole 
 income arising therefrom was properly paid to 
 the tenant for life. In re Chowther. Midsley 
 V. Ceowther - - Chitty J, [1895] 2 Ch, 56 
 
 Considered by North J. In re Smith, [1896] 
 ICh. 171. 'L J 
 
 92. — Sale of surface and minerals apart — 
 
 TRUSTEE (Purchase and Sale) — continued. 
 Service of petition — Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 53), «. 44. 
 
 An order was made authorizing the separate 
 sale of the copyhold interest in surface and 
 minerals under settled copyhold land, following 
 the order made in Be Willway's Trusts, Seton on 
 Decrees, 5th ed. 1470, service on a beneficiary 
 in remainder out of the jurisdiction known to 
 object to a sale being dispensed with. In re 
 Skinnbk - - North J. [1896] W. K. 68 (7) 
 
 — Purchase as — Parol evidence. 
 
 See Frauds, Statute op. 13. 
 
 Beceipts, 
 
 — Power to give. 
 
 See Settled Land. 
 
 Bemuneration. 
 Judicial Trustees.] Bemuneration and 
 allowances — Bules 17 to 19 — Fees. Bule 32 of 
 the Bules made under the Judicial Trustees Act, 
 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 35). See Current Index, 
 1897, pp. Izzvi,, Izzviii. 
 
 93. — Annuity hy way of salary. 
 Annuities granted to trustees to be enjoyed 
 
 by them while carrying on the testator's business 
 are liable to legacy duty. In re Thorlet. 
 Thorley v. Massam 
 
 C. A. affirm, North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 613 
 Eeferred to. In re White. Kekewich J. 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 299. This case was aflBrmed by 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 217. 
 
 — Costs. 
 
 See Cases under Trustee — Costs. 
 
 94. — Dishonesty of servant — lAability when 
 remunerated. 
 
 A trustee, although remunerated for his ser- 
 vices, is not liable for loss occasioned by the 
 felonious acts of his servant, if the servant be 
 properly selected and employed, and. there is no 
 negligence. 
 
 Semble, that the liability of a trustee is not 
 increased by the fact tiiat he is remunerated for 
 his services. Jobson v. Palmer 
 
 Bomer J. [1893] 1 Ch, 71 
 
 95, Profit out of the estate — Solicitor trustee — 
 Commissions. 
 
 The deft., a solicitor trustee, gave some trust 
 business to a London firm on condition that he 
 should receive a commission. The London Urm 
 acted as solicitors for the trust in certain actions, 
 and paid the commission on the profit costs : — 
 
 Held, that the deft., not being the solicitor on 
 the record, must account to the trust estate for 
 the commissions as profits made directly or in- 
 directly through his office of trustee. Vipont r. 
 Butler - - Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 64 
 
 96, — " Professional or other charges " — Non- 
 professional services — Witt — Power to charge for 
 professional services. 
 
 The testator directed that " any trustee or 
 executor hereunder being a solicitor or other 
 person engaged in any profession or business 
 shall be entitled to charge and be paid all usual 
 professional or other charges for any business 
 
( 2197 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2198 ) 
 
 TRVST:EE{'Remxmera,tiQn)— continued. 
 done by him or his firm in relation to the 
 management and administration of my estate, 
 and carrying out the trusts, powers, and pro- 
 visions of this my will, whether in the ordinary 
 course of his profession or business or not, and 
 although not of a nature strictly requiring the 
 employment of a solicitor or other professional 
 person " : — 
 
 Held, that this clause enabled a trustee to 
 charge for any work done for the estate in the 
 course of his profession or business, whether 
 done in the ordinary course or not in the 
 ordinary course thereof, but did not authorize 
 him to charge for work done outside his pro- 
 fession or business. Claekson v. Kobinson 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 188 ; [1900] 2 Ch, 722 
 
 97. — Receiver — Practice — Remuneration. 
 There is no inflexible rule that a trustee can 
 
 only be appointed receiver of the trust property 
 on the terms of his having no remuneration. 
 Eemuneration allowed although no mention of 
 remuneration was made in the administration 
 order appointing the receiver. In re Bionhll. 
 BiSNELL V. Chapman - C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 69 
 
 Kenewal of Iieaseholds, 
 
 98. — Fines ore renewal — Trustee Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. 0. 59), se. 10, 11. 
 
 The object of s. 10 of this Act was to remove 
 
 the then existing liability of trustees, and not 
 
 to alter the law as between tenant for life and 
 
 remaindermen. In re BAEiua, Jeune v. Basing 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] 1 Ch. 61 
 
 See Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. o. 53), 
 s. 19, and Settled Lahd — Leaseholds. 
 
 Besnlting Trust. 
 See Teust. 4—6. 
 
 Setainer, 
 
 99. — Separation deed — Trust of leasehold pro- 
 perty in favour of husband — Covenant hy hvshand 
 to pay annuity to wife — Default in payment — 
 Retainer of trust property to satisfy annuity — 
 Deed— Construction — Becital — Implied covenant. 
 
 By a separation deed, after reciting that the 
 husband and wife had agreed to Uve apart, the 
 husband assigned certain leaseholds to trustees 
 in trust to pay the rents to the wife for life, and 
 then to sell and hold the proceeds, in the events 
 which happened, in trust for himself, and he 
 covenanted to make up the wife's income to 3002. 
 a year. The deed contained a proviso for deter- 
 mination in the event of the wife seeking to 
 resume cohabitation, but it contained no cove- 
 nant by the wife to live apart. The husband 
 paid nothing under the covenant, and in 1868 
 he was adjudicated a bankrupt. The trustees 
 proved for arrears due down to the date of the 
 bankruptcy, but there were further arrears due 
 to them since that date. On the death of the 
 wife the husband's assignee in bankruptcy 
 claimed the leaseholds : — 
 
 Held, that a covenant by the wife to live 
 apart ought to be implied from the recital ; that 
 consequently there was valuable consideration 
 
 TRUSTEE (B,eia.inei)~ continued. 
 for the husband's covenant ; and that the trustees 
 were entitled to retain the leaseholds until the 
 arrears were satisfied. 
 
 Semble, the right of trustees to retain trust 
 property as against a beneficiary who owes money 
 to them as trustees under the instrument creating 
 the trust exists in favour of trustees of a voluntary 
 settlement which lias been so completed as to 
 be enforceable by the Court. In re Weston. 
 Davies v. Taqaet - - _ Stirling J. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 104; [1900] 2 Ch. 164 
 
 Sale. 
 
 See Cases under Tbustee — Purchase 
 and Sale. 
 
 Trustee de son Tort. 
 See Trustee — Breach of Trust. 41, 42. 
 
 Vesting Order. 
 
 Appointment of new trustees and vesting orders. 
 See Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), e. 25 
 et seq. 
 
 100. — Absconding trustee not to be found — 
 Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. o. 53), ss. 26, 35. 
 
 One of the four trustees of a settlement ab- 
 sconded, was adjudicated a bankrupt, and could 
 not be found. On the petition of the other three 
 trustees, to which all the beneficiaries were 
 respondents, for an order vesting in the peti- 
 tioners the right to transfer or call for a transfer 
 of a sum of India Stock (which was subject to 
 the trusts), and to receive the dividends thereof; 
 the right to sue for and recover certain specified 
 mortgage debts and any other chose in action 
 subject to the trusts and certain specified real 
 estates, which were security for the mortgage 
 debt, for all the estate and interest which was 
 vested in the petitioners and the bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, that the Court under the above sections 
 had power to make the vesting order. Dugmoke 
 V. Sdpfield - North J. [1896] W. N. 60 (13) 
 
 101. — Affidavit of fitness. 
 
 A statement that proposed trustees are " per- 
 sons in good credit in the neighbourhood in 
 which they respectively carried on business " : — 
 
 Held, to be a sufficient statement of their 
 pecuniary means. In re Smith's Poliot Tbusts. 
 Smith v. Smith Kekewioh J. [1894] W. N. 68 
 
 102. — Copyholds — Vendor and purchaser — 
 Death of vendor before completion — Form of 
 order— Trustee Act, 1898 (56 & 57 Vict. o. 58), 
 ss. 26, 34. 
 
 Petition by a purchaser and the trustees and 
 executors of the will of a deceased vendor and 
 his infant heir-at-law for an order that, on pay- 
 ment of the unpaid balance (a deposit having 
 been paid) of the purchase-money to the trustees 
 and executors, the copyhold lands which the 
 testator had agreed, a few days before his death, 
 to sell to the purchaser might vest in the pur- 
 chaser, the vendor having died before the title 
 had been accepted, and before payment of the 
 balance of the purchase-money. 
 
 The vendor, the tenant on the Court Eolls of 
 the manor of the lands the subject of the agree- 
 
( 2199 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2200 ) 
 
 TEtrSTEE (Vesting Oiiex)— continued. 
 ment for sale, died in April, 1J^98, having by his 
 will devised the same to liis son L. B. absolutely, 
 ■whom he appointed, with his wife and another, 
 trustees and executors of his will, and he directed 
 that the residue of his estate should be held upon 
 certain trusts. Upon the assumption that the 
 testator Jiad been trustee of the copyholds by 
 virtue of the contract, E. B., his customary heir- 
 at-law, was admitted tenant on the EoUs, but by 
 reason of his infancy he was unable to surrender 
 to the purchaser. 
 
 It was ordered that the lands should vest in 
 the purchaser for all the estate of the infant 
 heir-at-law and of the testator at the time of his 
 death, the order to be dated and drawn up after 
 payment of the balance of the purchase-money. 
 
 In re Pagani, [1892] 1 Ch. 236, referred to. 
 In re Beaufort's Will 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] W. S. 148 (5) 
 
 103. — • Death of sole trustee — Trustee Act, 
 1850 (13 & U Vict. c. 60), ss. 24, 25. 
 
 A sole trustee, domiciled in Scotland, ap- 
 pointed by deed two trustees in lieu of himself, 
 and a deceased co-trustee, but omitted to transfer 
 certain debentures into their name. On his 
 death his personal representatives, who proved 
 the will in Scotland only, neglected to take any 
 steps to complete the transfer : — 
 
 Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to make 
 a vesting order under s. 25 of the Trustee Act, 
 1850. In re Tkubee's Tkusts 
 
 North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 55 
 
 [Note.— Sec*. 25 of the Trustee Act, 1850, is 
 repealed by the Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 53), and other provision made.^ 
 
 104. — Deceased mortgagee — Uncertainty as to 
 personal representative — Disputed will — Mortgage 
 debt paid— Trustee Act, 1893 (56 * 57 Vict. c. 53), 
 .. 29 (e). 
 
 A mortgagee of freehold land died, having 
 made a will by which he appointed executors. 
 The validity of the will was disputed, and an 
 action to establish the will liad been commenced 
 in the P. Div. but had not yet been tried. The 
 mortgage debt had been paid : — 
 
 Held, that it was, within the meaning of 
 s. 29 (e) of the Trustee Act, 1893, uncertain who 
 was the personal representative of the deceased 
 mortgagee, and that the Court had jurisdiction 
 to make an order vesting the mortgaged land in 
 the mortgagor on being satisfied that the mort- 
 gage debt was paid. In re Cook's Moktgage 
 
 North J. [1895] 1 Ch. 700 
 
 — Decreasing number of trustees. 
 See Nos. 109—111, below. 
 
 105. — Disappearance of trustee — Right to call 
 for transfer of stock— Tru^e Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 
 Vict. c. 53), s. 35. 
 
 Where of three trustees, A., B., and C, one A. 
 had disappeared : — 
 
 Held, that the proper form of order would be 
 that the right to call for transfer, &o., do vest in 
 B. and C, and that they do transfer the sums of 
 stock into their own names, to hold them to the 
 trusts of the settlement. In re Peioe 
 
 North J. [1894] W, N. 169 
 
 TEUSTEE (Vesting Order) — continued. 
 
 106. — Infant tenant in tail in possession-^ 
 Form and effect of resting order — Trustee Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), ss. 31, 32, 50. 
 
 Wliere under the Trustee Act, 1 893, an order 
 is made vesting, or appointing a person to convey, 
 the estate of an infant tenant in tail in posses- 
 sion, the effect is to bar the estate tail and 
 remainders over. 
 
 Powell V. Matthews, 1 Jur. (N.S.) 973, followed. 
 
 The order in such a case should not (as in 
 Seton on Judgments, 5th ed. vol. ii. p. 1067, 
 Form No. 21) contain a reference to the mode of 
 conveyance under the Fines and Recoveries Act, 
 but should simply vest the land for such estate 
 as the infant, if of full age, could convey. I/i re 
 MoNTAGn. Fabeb v. Montagu [1896] 1 Ch. 549 
 
 Judicial Tkustees.] Appointment of — Bule 6 
 of Rules under Judicial Trustees Act, 1896. See 
 Current Index, 1897, p. Ixxiv. 
 
 — Lunatic having power of appointment — Settle- 
 
 ment of stock — Order authorizing 
 persons to exercise power of appoint- 
 ment of trustees on lunatic's behalf and 
 vesting in named appointees right to 
 call for transfer. 
 See Lunacy — Powers. 32. 
 
 — Lunatic sole trustee — Vesting order — Transfer 
 
 of Consols — Form of order. 
 See Lunacy. 49. 
 
 107. — New trustee — Trustee incapable of 
 acting — Physical and mental incapacity — Juris- 
 diction — Service dixperDsed with — Trustee Act, 1893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), ss. 25, 35. 
 
 A petition was presented under the Trustee 
 Act, 1893, by all the beneficiaries under a settle- 
 ment for the appointment of a new trustee iii 
 substitution for an existing trustee who had 
 become incapable of acting, and for a vesting 
 order. The medical evidence was to the effect 
 that the trustee was suffering from heart disease, 
 old age (eighty), and consequent impairment of 
 mental faculties, and that it would endanger his 
 life to mention any matter of bitsinesa to him. 
 
 Held, (1.) following In re Green, (1875) L. E. 
 10 Ch. 272, that service on the trustee might be 
 dispensed with ; (2.) following In re Barber, (1888) 
 39 Ch. D. 187, and distinguishing In re Martin, 
 (1886) 34 Ch. D. 618, that, as the incapacity 
 arose from physical and not from mental infirmity, 
 the matter was within the jurisdiction of the 
 Chancery Division, and not of the Lunacy 
 authorities, and the Court made the order. In 
 re Weston's Teusts 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] W. N. 151 (10) 
 
 108. — New trustees — Vesting declaration — 
 " Trustees for performing the trust " — Trustee Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), s. 12, sm6-s. 1. 
 
 A mortgagor of land by deposit of deeds 
 declared himself trustee of the legal estate for 
 the mortgagee : — 
 
 Held, that new trustees appointed in lieu of 
 the mortgagor by the mortgagee were " trustees 
 for performing the trust " within the meaning of 
 s. 12, sub-s. 1, of the Trustee Act, 1893. 
 
 The mortgagor conveyed the fee to a subae- 
 
( 2201 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2202 ) 
 
 TRUSTEE (Vesting OiAei^—oontinued. 
 
 quent incumbrancer with notice of the prior 
 
 mortgage : — 
 
 Sdd, that a vesting declaration in the deed 
 appointing new trustees operated to vest the 
 legal estate in them. London and County 
 Banking Go. v. Goddard 
 
 North J. [1897] 1 Ch. 642 
 
 109. — Reduction of number of trustees — 
 Absconding bankrupt — Practice — Trustee Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), ss. 26, 35. 
 
 One of three trustees being an absconding 
 bankrupt and out of the jurisdiction, the Court, 
 under ss. 26 and 35 of the Trustee Act, 1893, 
 made an order vesting the trust estate in the 
 other two trustees. 
 
 In re Lees' Settlement Trusts, [1896] 2 Ch. 508, 
 followed. In re Fitzhbebert's Settlement 
 Trusts - North J. [1898] W. N. 58 (8) 
 
 110. — Bedtiction of number of trustees- 
 Absconding bankrupt — Practice — Trustee Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), ss. 26, 35. 
 
 Where one of four trustees was an absconding 
 bankrupt the Court made an order vesting the 
 trust estate in the other three trustees, although 
 the number of trustees was thereby diminished. 
 In re Lees' Settlement Trusts 
 
 CMtty J. [1898] 2 Ch. 508 
 
 Followed by North J. In re Fitzherbert's 
 Settlement Trusts, [1898] W. N. 58 (8). See 
 preceding Case. 
 
 111. — Beduction of number of trustees — 
 Lunatic — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict, 
 c. 41), s. 32. 
 
 Where one of four trustees had been found 
 lunatic by inquisition, the Court made an order 
 vesting the trust estate in the three remaining 
 trustees, although the number of trustees was 
 thereby diminished. In re Leon 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 348 
 
 112. — Refusal by trustee to transfer stocle for 
 twenty-eight days — Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 53), ss. 35, sub-s. 1 («.), (d), 38. 
 
 A petition founded on the refusal for twenty- 
 eight days to transfer stock under s. 35 (ii.) (d) of 
 the Trustee Act, 1893, must not be presented or 
 served before the expiration of the twenty-eight 
 days. On petition for such an order there is 
 jurisdiction to order the recusant trustee to pay 
 the costs. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1895] 1 Ch. 538, 
 affirmed. In re Knox's Trusts 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 483 
 
 113. — Service — Vesting order — Trustee Act, 
 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 60), s. 9. 
 
 The heir of a trustee who had died intestate 
 as to his trust estates went abroad some twenty 
 years ago, and when last heard of was in 
 Australia: — 
 
 Held, on an application for a vesting order of 
 part of the trust estates, that service on the heir 
 might be dispensed with. In re Stanley's 
 Trusts - - North J. [1893] W. N. 30 
 
 114 "Slock" — New trustees — Form of order 
 
 —Trustee Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Viet, c, 60), ss. 2, 31, 
 
 TETJSTEE (Vesting Otiei)— continued. 
 
 35— Trustee Extension Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. 
 
 c. 55), s. 6. 
 
 A vesting order of stock or shares under s. 35 
 of the Trustee Aof, 1850, should vest in the 
 trustees simply " a right to call ibr a transfer and 
 to transfer the stock or shares," and to receive 
 the dividends. "Stock," in the Trustee Acts, 
 1850, 1852, includes shares in a limited co., 
 whether fully paid-up or not. In re New 
 Zealand Trcst and Loan Co. 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 403 
 
 Dictum of C. A. as to form of vesting order 
 disapproved by Kekewich J. In re Joliffe's 
 Trusts, [1893] W. N. 84. 
 
 Explained by L.JJ. See next Case. 
 
 See now s. 50 of the Trustee Act, 1893, which 
 embodies this decision. 
 
 In the above case the trustees might have 
 become liable for calls, and hence the usual form 
 of order was departed from. 
 
 Per C. A, in In re Geegson 
 
 C, A. [1893] 3 Gh. 233 
 
 Approved by C. A. In re C. M. G., Spinster, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 324. 
 
 115. — " Stock " — Form of order. 
 
 On an appointment of new trustees the Court, 
 follovring the practice of the Bank of England, 
 should direct the trustees to transfer the stock 
 into their own names. 
 
 (a) In re Joliffe's Trusts 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 84 
 
 (b) In re Gregson C. A, [1893] 3 Ch. 233 
 
 116. — Stocks standing in name of deceased 
 trnstee having no legal personal representative — • 
 Trustee Act, iSSO (13 * 14 Vict. c. 60), ss. 25, 35. 
 
 Where the sole survivor of original trustees 
 died and left no legal personal representative and 
 new trustees were appointed out of Court, an 
 order was made under s. 25 of the Trustee Act, 
 1850, til at on one of such new trustees retiring 
 another new trustee should be appointed in his 
 place and the stock vested accordingly. In re 
 Stooken's Settlement Trusts 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 203 
 
 TEUSTEE IN BANKETTPTCY. ' 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Trustee in Bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 
 TETJSTEE BELIEF ACT. 
 
 See Trustee. 
 
 TtJG — Negligence. 
 
 See Shipping. 246. 
 
 — Wreck and salvage. 
 
 Seel Shipping — Collision, 85 — 87. 
 
 TUNBEIDBE WEILS— History of the disputes 
 concerning the Pantiles. Baikd v. Tunbeidgb 
 Wells Corporation [1894] 2 Q. B. pp. 868-871 
 
 Affirmed by H. L. (B.) [1896] A. C. 434. 
 
 Discussed by C. A. Battersea Vestry v. County 
 of London and Brush Provincial Electric Lighting 
 Co., [1899] 1 Oh. 474, 482. 
 
 TUNNEL. 
 
 See Eailway — Ventilating Shaft. 66. 
 Kates — Eateability. 59. 
 Be venue — Land Tax, 118. 
 
( 2203 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2204 ) 
 
 TUNNEI — continued. 
 
 A tunnel under a highway lield to be a 
 corporeal hereditament and not an easement, and 
 therefore def ts. who had been in exclusive posses- 
 eion for more than twelve though less than 
 twenty years had to acquire a statutory title as 
 against the owner of the subsoil of the highway. 
 Bevau v. London Poetlaud Obmbnt Go. 
 
 Eomer J. [1892] W. N, 151 
 
 TUEBABT— Bights of. 
 
 See Cases under Common and Inolosube. 
 
 TtTEKET — Ottoman dominion. 
 
 See FoEEiGN Jubisdiotion. 
 
 TTIENPIKE, 
 
 See Highway. 
 
 TUTEUE— Payment to — Money in English bank 
 — Foreign domicU — Foreign Court — 
 Declaration of lunacy. 
 See Lunacy — Practice. 37. 
 
 TYNE EIVEE. 
 
 See Shipping — Collision, 88, 89. 
 
( 220S ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2206 ) 
 
 u. 
 
 UBEEEIMA FIDES — Guarantee— Concealment 
 of material facts. 
 See Insurance — Guarantee. 11. 
 
 ULTKA VIRES— Building society. 
 
 See BtnLDiNe Society — Ultra Vires. 
 
 — Directors — Indemnity. 
 
 See Company — Directors. 108, 113. 
 
 — Directors — Issue of shares at a discount — 
 
 Extent of liability. 
 See Company. 111. 
 
 — Legislative power — Law of Canada. 
 
 See Canada. 17, 26. 
 
 — Markets and fail's —By-laws — Diseases of 
 
 animals. 
 
 See Market. 1. 
 
 — Municipal trading — Omnibus business. 
 
 See London — County Council. 38. 
 
 — Newspaper — Libel — ^Defence of action. 
 
 See CoEPOBATiON. 26. 
 
 — Payment into court — ^Issue tried by jury. 
 
 See Pkaotiob. 134:. 
 
 — Power of provincial legislature — British 
 
 Columbian Cattle Protection Acts. 
 See Cajtada. 26. 
 
 — Quarter sessions — Eule of practice. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 1. 
 — lEailway — Powers. 
 
 See Kailway — Powers. 
 
 — Bates — Costs of opposing bill in Parliament — 
 
 Burgh. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Burgh. 3. 
 
 — Reconstruction — Scheme — ^Appropriation by 
 
 new company of unclaimed shares. 
 See Company. 219. 
 
 — Beconstruction — Shares in purchasing company 
 
 — ^Rights of dissentient members. 
 See Company — ^Beconstruction. 214. 
 
 — Sewers — Injunction — Public body — Estoppel 
 
 — ^Laches. 
 
 See London — Sewers. 62. 
 
 — Shares — Issue at a discount. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 273 — 279. 
 
 — Thames navigation — By-law — Waterman on 
 
 tug to assist in navigation. 
 See Thames. 12. 
 
 — Trustee's remuneration — Resolution of credi- 
 
 tors — " Amount realised." 
 See Bankbuptcy. 250. 
 
 — Winding-up of company— Grounds for—" Just 
 
 and equitable." 
 
 See Company— WiNDiNS-Tjp. 168. 
 
 irMPIBE— Notice to appoint— Arbitrators " called 
 on to act " — Time for making award. 
 See Company— Winding-up. 1. 
 
 UNCALLED CAPITAL. 
 
 See Company— Debentures. 
 
 ITNOEETAINTY. 
 
 Bee Will— Und'ertainty. 
 
 95. 
 
 UNCERTAINTY- coBfenaed;. 
 
 — Charge—" All my real and personal estate " 
 — Public policy — Validity. 
 See MoKTGAGE. 74. 
 
 — Contract — Illegality — Remoteness — Statutory 
 confirmation. 
 See CoNTBACT. 24. 
 
 UNCLAIMED FUND — Trustee — Liability to 
 account. 
 See Bankeuptoy. 243. 
 
 UNDERGROUND BAKEHOUSE-Premises vacant 
 at commencement of Act, 
 See Mastbb and Seevant — Factory 
 Acts. 67. 
 
 UNDERGROUND SEWERS — Eateability — 
 Diminution of value of surface. 
 See Rates. 50. 
 
 UNDERGROUm) TRESPASS— Statute of Limita- 
 tions — Equitable jurisdiction — Fraud. 
 See New South Wales. 20. 
 
 UNDERGROUND WIRES— Power to lay— Right 
 to excavate streets. 
 See Canada. 68. 
 
 UNDERLEASE. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant — Under- 
 lease. 
 
 UNDERMANNING. 
 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 59), amends the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, 
 with respect to the power of detention for under- 
 manning. 
 
 UNDERTAKER— Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 See Master and Servant. 46 — 50. 
 
 UNDERTAKING— Abortive undertakings. 
 
 See Cases under Parliament — Deposits 
 and Bonds. 
 
 — Not to sue — Mine — Right to support. 
 See Canal. 1. 
 
 — Offer of, by a defendant — Costs. 
 See Injunction. 29. 
 
 — Practice. 
 See Pbaotice — Undertaking. 
 
 — Solicitor. 
 See Solicitor — Undertakings. 
 
 — To do an act — Committal or attachment — ■ 
 Service. 
 See Practice. 233. 
 
 " UNDERTAKING"— Of tramway promoters. 
 See Tramway. 2. 
 
 UNDERVALUE— Sale at an— Relief- Laches. 
 See Bankeuptcy. 71. 
 
 UNDERWRITER. 
 
 See Cases under Insubanob — Marine. 
 
 — Brokers — Eight to set off unpaid losses. 
 See Bankruptcy. 238. 
 
( 2207 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2208 ) 
 
 V'S'D'E'R'WBJT'ER— continued. 
 
 — Contributory — Underwriting agreement. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 54, 55. 
 
 — Shares — Agreement to take. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 307. 
 
 — Underwriting contract — ^Authority to apply 
 
 for shares — Kemoval of name from 
 
 register. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 308. 
 
 — Underwriting letter — Rectification of register 
 
 — Authority to apply for shares. 
 See Company. 256. 
 
 TTNDISCHAEGED BANKRITPT. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — TlndiBoharged Bank- 
 rupt. 
 
 — Appointment — ^Director. 
 
 See Company — Directors. 
 
 100. 
 
 UNDISCLOSED PKINCIPAL—Liability of prin- 
 cipal. 
 See Peinodpal and Agent. 19. 
 
 UNDIVIDED MOIETY— Agreement for lease of— 
 Mineral property — Specific performance. 
 See Mines. 1. 
 
 UNDIVIDED SHARE— Land— Tenant for life- 
 Power to sell. 
 See Settled Land. 123, 128. 
 
 UNDUE INFIUENCE— Fiduciary relationship- 
 Voluntary settlement — Eevocation — 
 Independent advice — Duty of solicitor — 
 Costs. 
 See Settlement. 34. 
 
 1. — Beligion — Confidential relationship. 
 Gift inter vivos set aside on the ground that 
 
 it had been obtained by the exercise of undue 
 influence under the guise of religion : — 
 
 Sembh, that in this case it might have been 
 set aside on the ground of confidential relation- 
 ship. MoiiLEY V. Loughnan 
 
 Wright J. [1893] 1 Ch. 736 
 
 2. — Solicitor and client — Executor and hene- 
 ficiary. 
 
 A voluntary gift by beneficiaries to a solicitor 
 exor. set aside, on the ground of pressure and 
 absence of independent advice. Wheelek v. 
 Sahgeant Eomer J. [1893] W. N. 128 
 
 3. — Solicitor and client — Gift hy client — - 
 Ahseiwe of indepeiident advice. 
 
 The client of a solicitor, without independent 
 advice, made a voluntary conveyance to him of 
 leasehold premises ld trust for herself for life, 
 and after her death in trust for his wife, who 
 was her niece, for her separate use absolutely : — 
 
 Held, that the well-settled rule of equity 
 being that such a gift could not be supported, 
 unless the donor had competent and independent 
 advice in making it, the conveyance must be 
 declared void. Liles r. Tekby 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Q. B. 679 
 
 This rule considered by Cozens-Hardy J. 
 Baekon v. Willis [1899] 2 Ch. 678, 587 
 
 UNDUE PEEFERENCE— Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Cases under Bankeuptoy — ^Fraudu- 
 lent Preference; and Bankeuptct — 
 Preference. 
 
 UNDUE PREFERENCE — cemtlnued. 
 
 — Of creditors — Bankrupt — Discharge — Suspen- 
 
 sion. 
 
 See Bankeuptoy. 90. 
 
 — Kailway and Canal Commission — Jurisdiction 
 
 and practice. 
 
 See Eailway — Railway and Canal 
 Traffic. 
 
 UNEXEMPTED SHIP— Compulsory pilotage — 
 Qualified pUot. 
 See Shipping. 195. 
 
 UNFAIR COMPETITION— Damage to manufac- 
 turer — Misrepresentation — Damnum 
 
 I injuria. 
 See Tbade. 1. 
 
 UNIFORMS- .By the Uniforms Act, 1894 (57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 45), (he unauthorized use of military and 
 naval uniforms was restricted. 
 
 UNION— Trade union. 
 
 See Teade Union. 
 
 — Transfer of part of one union to another union 
 
 — Adjustment of property and liabilities. 
 See Local Government. 7. 
 
 UNION ASSESSMENT. 
 See Eates. 
 
 UNITY OF PERSON. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 30. 
 
 UNIVERSITY. 
 
 Universities and College Estates Act, 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 55), amends the Universities and 
 College Estates Acts, 1858 to 1880. 
 
 Univeesity, Scotland.] Committee of Privy 
 Council. 0. in C. dated May 9, 1892, malting 
 Eules as to its procedure. St. R. & 0. 1892, 
 p. 940. 
 
 Univeesity Commissionees.] 0. in C. dated 
 May 18, 1897, continuing the powers of the Scottish 
 University Commissioners until Jan. 1, 1898. 
 St. E. & 0. 1897, p. 647. 
 
 Generally, col. 2208. 
 Affiliation of Colleges, col. 2208. 
 Ordinance, col. 2209. 
 Presentations, col. 2210. 
 Sale and Investment, col. 2210. 
 University of London, col. 2210. 
 Vice-Chancellor's Court, col. 2210. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Bursar of college — Assessment to income tax. 
 
 See Eevenue. 80. 
 
 Affiliation of Colleges. 
 
 1. — Affiliation and incorporation of colleges 
 — Consent, condition attached thereto— Ultra vires 
 — Reduction — Jurisdiction — Universities (Scot- 
 land) Act, 1889 (52 * 53 Vict. e. 55), ss. 15, 16, 21. 
 
 The University (Scotland) Act, 1889, s. 16, 
 provides: "Without prejudice to any of the 
 powers hereinbefore conferred, the commrs." 
 charged with the administration of the Scottish 
 universities "shall with respect to the Univer- 
 sity of St. Andrews and the University College 
 of Dundee have power to affiliate the said 
 University College to and make it form part of 
 
( : 2209 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2210 )' 
 
 UNIVERSITY (AfaUation of Colleges)— cojii^. 
 the said university, with the consent of the 
 University Court of St. Andrews, and also of the 
 said college, with the object, inter alia, of estab- 
 lishing a fully equipped conjoint University 
 School of Medicine. . . ." By s. 15, sub-s. 3, 
 "The University Court, or any college which 
 under this Act shall have been aflSliated to the 
 university, may respectively at any time there- 
 after resolve that such college shall cease to be 
 afBliated to such university. . . ." By s. 21, 
 "After the expiration of the powers of the 
 commrs., the University Court of each university 
 shall have power to make such ordinances as 
 they think fit with the approval of .Her Majesty 
 in Council. . . ." (2.) with respect to "Alter- 
 ing or revoking any of the oidinances affecting 
 such university which have been or may be 
 framed and passed under the Universities (Scot- 
 land) Act, 1858, or this Act, and making new 
 ordinances." 
 
 An agreement purporting to be the consent 
 required by s. 16 of the Act of 1889 contampd, 
 inter alia, astipulation that the said union should, 
 as regards duration, be permanent, and dissoluble 
 only by Act of Parliament : — 
 
 Held, that the stipulation was not ultra vires, 
 for ss. 15 and 21 give no power to revoke an 
 affiliation of the nature of an incorporation which 
 had the effect of merging the college into the 
 university with a joint object : 
 
 Held, also, differing from the decision of the 
 Seeond Division of the Court of Session, (1896) 
 23 E. 5S9, that that Court had jurisdiction to 
 decide the legal question notwithstanding the 
 fact that the consent sought to be set aside was 
 before the Universities Committee of the Privy 
 Council in respect to a pending ordinance. 
 Second appeal. Mbdcalfe v. Cox 
 
 H. I. (Se.) [1896] A. C. 647 
 
 Note. — For First Appeal, see No. 3, below. 
 
 Ordinance. 
 
 2. — College — Privy Council — Ordinance — 
 Procedure — University Court — Bes judicata — 
 Universities {Scotland) Act, 1889 (52 d: 53 Vict. 
 c. 55). 
 
 The House affirmed the interlocutor of the 
 
 Ot. of Sess. (1898) 25 K. 12] 6. MoGeegob v. Cox 
 
 H. L, iSo). [1900] W. N. 247 
 
 3. — Statutory power — Laying before Parlia- 
 menir— Universities {Smtland) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 
 net. n. 5.5), s>. 15, 16, 19, 20. 
 
 Where one section of a statute provided that 
 "all oidinances made by the commrs." shall be 
 laid before both Houfcs of Pari. : — 
 
 Held, that a power given to the commrs. to 
 dp an act effecting both puhlio and private 
 interests by another section which is silent as to 
 the sanction of Pari, does net give an absolute 
 power, unless the section plainly states that the 
 exercise of the power shall not be subject to 
 review. 
 
 Decision of Court of Session, Scotland, (1895) 
 22 E. 210), reversed. Metcalfe v. Cox 
 '^ ^ H. L. (So.) [1895] Ai C. 328 
 
 Note. — For Second AppeaJ., sie No. 1, above. 
 
 VSlVE&iVSY— continued. 
 
 Presentations. 
 
 As to presentations by Universities of Oxford 
 and Cambridge, see Benefices Act, 1898 (61 & 62 
 Vict. c. 48), s. 7. 
 
 Sale and Investment. 
 4. — Proceeds of sale of college property, appli- 
 cation of — Erection of new buildings— Repayment 
 by instalments — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 (fc 9 
 Vict. 0. 18), s. 69 — Universities and College Estates 
 Acts, 1858, 1880 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 44, ss. 27, 28 ; 
 43 & 44 Vict. u. 46, ss. 2, 4). 
 
 (a) In consequence of s. 4 of the Universities 
 and College Estates Amendment Act, 1880, 
 moneys arising from the sale of college property, 
 and paid into court by the ry. co. cannot be 
 applied under s. 2 of the Act in the purchase of 
 land without the consent of the Bd. of Agric. • 
 Ex parte King's College, Cambridge (No. 1) 
 
 North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 333 
 
 (b) The effect of the Universities and College 
 Estates Acts, 1858 and 1880, is to add another 
 moile of investment of purchase-money of coll'ge 
 lands to those mentioned in s. 69 nf the Lands 
 Clauses Act. The Court, with the consent of the 
 Bd. of Agric, sanctioned the application of pur- 
 chase-money of land, paid into Court under the 
 Lands Clauses Act, in the ereotion of new build- 
 ings, on the college undertaking to repay the 
 same in thirty annual instalments. Form in 
 which the consent of the Bd. of Agric. should be 
 evidenced. Ex parte King's College, Cambridge 
 (No. 2) - North J. [1891] 1 Ch. 677 
 
 As to extension of powers of sale, dtc, and of 
 investment exercisable by Universities and Colleges, 
 see 61 & 62 Vict. c. 55. 
 
 University of London. 
 
 University of London Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 62), makes further provision with respect to the 
 University of London. 
 
 University of London Aet, 1899,(62 & 63 Vict, 
 c. 24), amends the University of London Act, 1898 
 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 62), with respect to SoUouay 
 College. 
 
 Vice-Chancellor's Court. 
 
 Oxford.] Jiulei of the Vice- Chancellor's Court, 
 dated Mar. 21, 1892, made by the Vice CItancellor 
 with the approval of the Bale Committee of the 
 Supreme Court St. B. & 0. 1892, p. 621 1 Printed 
 at the Clarendon Press, Price Is. 
 
 By an 0. in C. dated Aug. 23, 1894, the enact- 
 ments and Rules of the Supreme Court relating to 
 appeals from County Courts were applied to this 
 Court. St. R. & 0. 1894, p. 189 (No. al2) ; [1894] 
 W. N. (Appx. of 0. & R.) p. 5. 
 
 UNLAWFUL GAMES. 
 
 See Gaming. 34. 
 
 UNLICENSED PREMISES— Offences. 
 See Licensing Acts. 40. 
 
 UNLIMITED COMPANY. 
 
 See Company and Companx — Wisding 
 
 UP. 
 
 4 B 
 
C 2211 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2212 ) 
 
 UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES— Counter-claim for 
 — Jurisdiction. 
 See CocifTT ConBT. 2. 
 
 — Misrepresentation — Wrongful act done by 
 
 deceased person — " Actio personalis 
 moritur cum persona." 
 See BxECUTOH. 6. 
 
 • — Proof — Costs — Provable debt. 
 
 See CoMPAUY — Winding-up. 204. 
 
 UNftUAIIFIED PERSON. 
 
 See SoLioiTOB — Unqualified Person. 
 
 UNEEfilSTEEED COMPANY— Embezzlement- 
 Illegal association — Beneficial owners of 
 property. 
 See Company. 309. 
 
 ■ — Winding-up — " More than seven members " — 
 Kes judicata. 
 See CoiiPANY— Winding-up. 238, 239. 
 
 UNSEAWOBTHINESS OF SHIP— Detention of 
 ship by Board of Trade. 
 See Shipping. 1. 
 
 — Liability of owner — ^Negligence of master — 
 
 Common employment. 
 See Shipping. 260. 
 
 — Warranty — Fitness of refrigerating maoMnery. 
 
 See Shipping. 143. 
 
 . — Warranty — ^Uncovered pipe and damage to 
 cargo thereby. 
 See Shipping. 144. 
 
 UNSOUND rOOD. 
 
 See Food. 
 
 URBAN AUTHOEITy. 
 
 See District Councils. 
 
 URINAL — Construction of, below surface of 
 ground — " Public place." 
 See Streets. I. 
 
 • — Covenant to keep a garden " open and unbuilt 
 upon." 
 See Garden. 1. 
 
 UEUGU AT— E xtradition. 
 See Extbadition. . 
 
 USAGE — Debenture payable to bearer. 
 See Negotuble Insteument. 
 
 2. 
 
 ■ Effect of drawee bank certifying cheque — 
 Effect of crediting customer with amount 
 of cheque deposited. 
 See Newfoundland. 2. 
 
 • " Lawful merchandize." 
 See Shipping. 37. 
 
 USES — ^Ancient lights — ^Evidence of intention to 
 preserve — Interruption — Abandonment. 
 See Light and Am. 16. 
 
 — Covenant against trading — Lessee not entitled 
 
 to enforce covenant as to user between 
 lessee of adjoining land and lessor. 
 iSee Landloed and Tenant. 35. 
 
 — Evidence as to prior — Admissibility — Petition 
 
 for revocation. 
 See Patent. 50. 
 
 — Foreshore — Crown lease — Injunction — Limits 
 
 of public user. 
 See Seashoke. 
 
 — Former concurrent user by two firms — Dis- 
 
 continuance of user by one for several 
 
 years. 
 
 See Teade Name. 4. 
 
 — Fraudulent user. 
 
 See Tbadb-maee. 39. 
 
 — Identification of trade name with goods by — 
 
 Injunction. 
 
 See New South Wales. 48. 
 
 — Immemorial, to fix moorings in foreshore — 
 
 Presumption of legal origin. 
 See Thames. 9. 
 • — Interim — Land not immediately required for 
 purpose for which it was acquired. 
 See Local Govbknment. 4. 
 
 — Land acquired for particular purpose — ^Part 
 
 not required — ^Powers. 
 
 See Local Goyebnment. 3. 
 
 — Non-user and no bon& fide intention to use — 
 
 Eegistration — ^Expunging. 
 See Teade-mabk. 47. 
 
 — Non-user of invention — Prolongation of patent. 
 
 See Patent. 44. 
 
 — Private residence — Kestrictive covenant — 
 
 Kesidential flats. 
 See Covenant. 5. 
 
 — Eegistration — Identical marks — Non-user — 
 
 Eectification of register. 
 See Tkade-maek. 47. 
 
 — Title by user. 
 
 See Teade-mabk. 45. 
 " USUAL COVENANTS "-Public-house— Agree- 
 ment for lease. 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 37. 
 
 — Purchase of leaseholds. 
 
 See Vendoe and Puechasee. 25. 
 
 USURPATION— Quaere impedit— Exchange. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 3. 
 
 UTILITY— Patent. 
 
 See Patent — Utility, 
 
( 2213 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 22U ) 
 
 V. 
 
 VACANT LAND— Deposit of filth -Duty of land- 
 owner. 
 See NoiSANOEs. 40. 
 
 VACATING OFFICE— Director— Absence through 
 
 illneas. 
 
 See Co.\iPANY — Directors. 143. 
 — Trustee in bankruptcy — Rescission of receiving 
 
 order— Kestoration. 
 
 See Baxkruptcy — Trustee. 247, 248. 
 
 VACATING EEGISTEATION— Lis pendens— in- 
 corpoiating order in judgment. 
 See Lis Pendens. 2. 
 
 VACCINATION. 
 
 VacainaUon Act, 1898 (61 * 62 Viet. u. 49), 
 ameiidi the law with respect to vaccination. 
 
 Vaccinators.] Order of Lnc. Goot. Bd. dated, 
 Jan. 7, 1897, amending instructions to public 
 vaccinators. St. B. & 0. 1897, No. 34, p. 647 ; 
 Lond. Gaz. Jan. 12, 1897, p. 190. 
 
 Vaccination Order of Loc. Govt. Bd. dated 
 Oct. 18, lh98. 
 
 Vaccination Order, June 19, 1899. St. E. & 0. 
 1899, No. 529, p. 1393. Price id. 
 
 1. — Conscientious objeclion — Requirement 
 of production of birth certiftcate- — Vaccination 
 Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 49), ». 2. 
 
 Upon au application by the parent of an un- 
 vaccinated child, whose birth has been r. gistered, 
 for a certificate of conscientious objection uuder 
 8. 2 of the Vaccination Act, 1898, tlie justices are 
 untitled to refuse to give such uertifirate unless 
 and until the applicant produces to them a cer- 
 tificate of the registration of the child's birth. 
 Beg. v. Lowndes 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 20 (13) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 577 
 
 2. — Jurisdiction — Previous conviction — 
 Penalty for disobedience — Vaticination Acts, 1867 
 (30 * 31 Vict. c. 84), ss. 29, 31 ; 1871 (34 & 35 
 Vict. c. 98), s. 11. 
 
 If a person has been fined under s. 31 of the 
 Vaceiiiatiou Act, 1867, for disobedience to an 
 order for the vaccination of a cliild, he cannot be 
 fined a secoud time for disobedience to tiie tame 
 order. Eeg. v. Portsmodth Justices. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 1 a. B. 491 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 19, ss. 2-4, and Sched. 
 
 3. — Mandamus — Alternative remedy — Legal 
 remedy— Duty of guardians to appoint vaccination 
 officer— Vaccination Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. 
 e. 98), «. 5. 
 
 Tlie duty imposed upon guardians by s. 5 o( 
 the Vacoindtion Act, 1871, to appoint a vaccina- 
 tion officer may be enforced by a writ of manda- 
 mus upjn the applicition of the Loc. Govt. Bd. 
 Eeg. v. Leicester Union 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] 3 a. B. 632 
 See Vaccination Order of Loo. Govt, Bd. 
 (}5,ted Oct. 18, 1898. 
 . , 4, -™ Neglect to proem^ vacei^ixtm — ifuriS' 
 
 VACCINATION— co?ih'»Med. 
 
 diction of justices — Vaccination Act, 18G7 
 
 (30*31 Victc. 84), s. 31. 
 
 The JMgtiees who, upon information that a 
 child under fourteen has not been successl'ully 
 vaccinated and that notice to procure its being 
 vaccinated has been disregarded, signs a snmmons 
 under s, 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, to the 
 parent to appear with the child before him, nei d 
 not be one of the justices hearing the summons, 
 nor need he sign the order made at the hearing. 
 Such an objection is an objection to the vaccina- 
 tion order itself; it is not a ground of objection 
 to a .'-ubsequeut proceeding for the recovery of a 
 penalty from the parent fur non-compliance with 
 the order. Soutuoombe v. Yeovil Union 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 Q. B. 318 
 
 See 61 & 62 Vict. c. 49, ss. 2-4. 
 
 5. — NegUct to procure vaccination — Service 
 of notice — Vaccination Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict, 
 c. 84), s. 31. 
 
 The notice given under s. 31 of the Vaccina- 
 tion Act, 1867, to the parent of a child under 
 fourteen to procure Us vaccination need not be 
 served personally upon the parent, nor, if peisonal 
 service be not efftcted, need it be proved affirma- 
 tively that it reached him. It is a quest on for 
 the justices to determine upon the evidence in 
 oacli particular case whether they are satisfied 
 that the notice reached the person to be notified. 
 HoLLOWAY v. CostBk Div. CI;. [1897] 1 ft. B. 346 
 
 6. — Non-compliance with vaccination order — 
 Burden of proof — Vaccination Act, 1867 (30 & 31 
 Vict. c. 84), s. 31. 
 
 Upon the hearing of a summons under s. 31 of 
 the ^ accinatiou Act, 1867, against ihe ))arent of 
 a child fur non-compliance with an order of 
 justices directing him to have his cliild \ac- 
 cinated, the burden of proving non-compliance is 
 upou the prosecution. Evidence that the terlifi- 
 c.ite of vaccination required by the Act has not 
 been received by the proper officer is prinjS. facie 
 evidence from which uon-ooiupliancu with the 
 vaccination order may properly be presumed. 
 Over v. Harwood Div. Ct. [1900] 1 ft. B. 833 
 
 7. — Non-compliance with vaccination order 
 — Further proceedings — Vaccination Act, 1867 
 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 84), 8. 31 — Local Government 
 Board General Order, 1874, ai t. 16. 
 
 Wlieie an order, under s. 31 of the Vaccina- 
 tion Act, 1867, has been made for the vaccination 
 of a child, summ.iry proceedings for the enforce- 
 ment of the order may be taken by the vaccina- 
 tion officer without obtaining special directions 
 from tiie guardians of the union or parish iii 
 which the child was at the date of the order. 
 The proviso in art. 16 of the General Ord>,T of 
 the Loc. Govt. Bd., 1874, as to further proceed- 
 ings applies mt to the entbrcement by supamary 
 proceedings of a vaccination order already oh. 
 tained, b«t to procepdiBg? foy obtaining ordeia 
 
 r8 3 
 
( 2215 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2216 ) 
 
 VACCINATION— confa'niied. 
 against a person who has already been fined 
 <mder s. 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867. Keg. v. 
 Beocklehukst Div. Ct. [1892] 1 ft, B. 566 
 
 See 61 & 62 Viet. c. 49, as. 2-4. 
 
 8. — Power of vaccination officer to talce 
 proceedings for vaccination order without autho- 
 rity from quardians — Yaccination Act, 1867 
 (30 & 31 Vict. e. 84), 8. 31— General Order of 
 Local Government Board, Oct. 31, 1874, art. 16. 
 
 A vaccination officer is, without any special 
 authority in that behalf frona the guardians of 
 the union for which he acts, empowered to take 
 proceedings undtr s. 31 of the Yaccination Act. 
 1867, for an order directing an unvaccinated 
 child to be vaccinated, notwithstanding tho 
 provisions of art. 16 of the General Order of the 
 Loc. Govt, Bd. 
 
 Eegulations under Vaccination Acts, Oct. 31, 
 1874. Bkamble v. Lowe. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 1 ft. B. 283 
 
 See Vaccination Order of Loc. Govt. Bd. dated 
 Oct. 18, 1898. 
 
 As to proceedings under s. 31, see 61 & 62 Vict. 
 c. 49, S3. 2-4. 
 
 — Prosecutor — Legal right to apply for man- 
 
 damus. 
 
 See Mandamus. 4. 
 
 VA6EANCY. 
 
 Yaijrancy Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 39), 
 amends the Vagrancy Act, 1824. 
 
 — Cost of appeal to quarter sessions — Payment 
 
 by treasurer of county or borough. 
 See Justices. 4. 
 
 1. — Pretending to tell fortunes — Intent to 
 deceive — Bogue arid vagabond — Vagrancy Act, 
 1824 (5 Geo. 4, c. 83), ». 4. 
 
 By the Vagrancy Act, 1824, s. 4, " Every 
 person pretending or professing to tell fortunes, 
 or using any subtle craft, means, or device, by 
 ]mlmistry or otherwise, to deceive and impose on 
 any of His Majesty's subjects," shall be deemed 
 to be a rogue and vagabond, and be liable to 
 penalties. 
 
 A person was convicted of being a rogue and 
 vagabond, for that she did unlawfully pretend to 
 tell fortunes. The information alleged that the 
 deft, did pretend or profess to tell fortunes. The 
 justices were satisfied on the evidence that the 
 deft, had unlawfully pretended to tell fortunes 
 to deceive and impose upon certain of Her 
 Majesty's subjects. 
 
 On the argument of an order nisi for a certio- 
 rari tn remove and quash the conviction : — 
 
 Held, t))at, in order to justify a conviction 
 under ttie statute, there must be an intent to 
 deceive, but that the intent was implied in the 
 words " pretending or professing," and thirefoie 
 it was unnece.-sary that the intent should be 
 specifically alleged, and tlie conviction was good. 
 Eeg. v. Lstwistle. Ex parte Jokes 
 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 47 ; [1899] 1 ft. B. 846 
 — Strike of workmen — Persons entitled to relief 
 — Guardians of the poor. 
 See PooK Law. 10. 
 
 2. — Wilful refusal or neglect of person to 
 maintain himself — Incapacity resulting from 
 
 VA-GnA^OY— continued. 
 
 drunkenness — Vagrant Act, 1824 (5 Geo. 4, c. 83), 
 
 s. 3. 
 
 Where a person at the time of his becoming 
 chargeable to a union is owing to Olness unable 
 to maintain himself, the fact that that illness 
 was the result of drunkenness does not cause his 
 inability to amount to a wilful refusal or neglect 
 to maintain himself within the meaning of s. 3 of 
 the Vagrancy Act, 1824. St. Savioue's Union 
 V. Bdebeidge Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 184 ; 
 
 [190O] 2 ft. B. 695 
 VALUATION — Compulsory sale of waterworks — 
 
 " Price." 
 
 See Wateb— Supply. 8. 
 
 — Fixtures, crops, &c. — Sale by tenant for life. 
 
 See Settled Land. 45. 
 
 — Life interests — Hotchpot clause. 
 
 See Settlement — Hotchpot. 27. 
 
 — Metropolis. 
 
 See Cases under Rates. 
 
 — Mortgage — Duties and liabilities of trustees. 
 
 See Teustee — Breach of Tmst. 40. 
 
 — Tramways for purchase by local authority. 
 
 See Teamwats. 1. 
 
 — Valuer — Liability of. 
 
 See Valube. 1. 
 
 VALUATION LIST— Hates. 
 
 See Cases under Kates. 
 
 VALUATION (METBOFOLIS) ACT, 1869— Gross 
 value — ^Artizans' dwellings — Cost of 
 lighting and cleaning common stair. 
 See Kates — Eateability. 12. 
 
 VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND)— Covenant 
 by tenant to keep free from all expenses 
 whatever — Tramway. 
 See Scottish Law — Landlord and 
 Tenant. 24. 
 
 VALUES — Inaccuracy — Causing damage to third 
 party. 
 See Sdrvetoe. 1. 
 
 1. — Liability of — Mortgage — Xegligc'n<:e — 
 Contract, 
 
 A valuer is not liable for a valuation for a 
 mortgage, &c., made without reasonable skill 
 and care (but not fraudulently) unless there is a 
 contract between him and the person who has 
 made an advance on the faith of the representa- 
 tion. Damages assessed at the whole loss sus- 
 tained through the deficiency of the security. 
 Cases in which a person may be liable for repre- 
 sentations made without fraud considered by 
 Eomer J. 
 
 Decision of Eomer J., [1891] W. N. 16, 
 affirmed. Scholes v. Bhook 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 101 
 
 — Report of valuer — Duties and liabilities of 
 trustees. 
 See Teustee — Breach of Trust. 40. 
 
 VAEIATION— Contract— Authority of agent- 
 Lump sum — Ratification. 
 See Contract. 8. 
 
 VARIATION OF SETTLEMENTS. 
 
 See Divorce— Ssttlements, Variation of. 
 
( 221? ) 
 
 Dl&EST Ol* CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2218 ) 
 
 VASSAL — Superior and vassal. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Superior and 
 Vassal. 47, 48. 
 
 VAULTS — Disused churchyard used as public 
 garden. 
 See EooLEaiASTicAL Law — Taoulty. 23. 
 
 VEHICLE— Bicycle— Liability to toll— "Car- 
 riage." 
 See Bicycle. 2. 
 
 VENDOR AND PUECHASEE. 
 In General, col. 2217. 
 Ahstraet, col. 2217. 
 Charges and Outgoings, col. 2218. 
 Commission, col. 2218. 
 Conditions of Sale, col. 2219. 
 Contract, col. 2223. 
 Conveyance, col. 2231. 
 Costs, col. 2236. 
 Deposit, col. 2236. 
 Interest, col. 2237. 
 Lien, col. 2238. 
 
 Lunacy. See Lunacy — Sales. 
 Outgoings. See Vendor andPuechasee 
 
 — Charges and Outgoings. 
 Parcels, col. 2240. 
 Principal and Agent, col. 2241. 
 Recitals, col. 2241. 
 Rescission, col. 2241. 
 Specific Performance, col. 2245. 
 Title, col. 2247. 
 Title Deeds col. 2254. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Death of vendor before completion — Copy- 
 
 holds — Vesting order — Form of order. 
 See Trustee — Vesting Order. 102. 
 
 — Expressed grant of fee — Leasehold title in 
 
 equity. 
 
 See Merger. 2. 
 
 — Firm name — Conveyance of freehold shop — 
 
 Vendor's name over door — Vendor's 
 
 right to erasure. 
 
 See Partnership. 29. 
 
 — Lease — " Assigns " — Option to purchase — 
 
 Equitable assign. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 80. 
 
 — Settled Lands Acts. 
 
 Bee Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Unpaid succession duty — Liability for. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Charges 
 and Outgoings. 2. 
 
 Abstract, 
 
 1. — Expenses of production — Leaselwlds — 
 Assignment — Conveyancing Act, 18S1 (44 & 45 
 Viet. c. 41), 8. 3, sub-s. 6. 
 
 Every document that forms a link in the 
 Tender's title ought to be abstracted in chief. 
 
 Sect. 3, sub-s. 6, of the Conveyancing Act, 
 1881, presupposes a proper abstract, and does not 
 apply to a document in the chain of title. 
 
 In an abstract of title to leaseholds, an assign- 
 
 VENDOE AND PUECHASEE (Abstract)— 
 
 continued. 
 ment appeared only by way of recital in another 
 document : — 
 
 Held, that an abstract of the recited assign- 
 ment must be delivered at the vendor's expense. 
 
 In re Ebsworth and Tidy's Contract, (1889) 
 42 Ch. D. 23, considered. In re Stameohd, 
 Spaldinq and Boston Banking Company and 
 Knight's Contract 
 
 North J. [1899] W. N. 255 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 287 
 
 — Eeasonable time for delivery. 
 
 See Vendor and Pdrchaser — Eescis- 
 sion. 58. 
 
 — Verification of abstract — Lost deeds — 
 
 Secondary evidence. 
 See Vendor and Pdbohaser — Title- 
 deeds, 101. 
 
 Charges and Outgoings. 
 
 — Lis pendens — Vacating registration — Incor- 
 
 porating order in judgment. 
 See Lis Pendens. 2. 
 
 — Outgoings — Dangerous structures — Expenses 
 
 of demolition. 
 
 See Vendor and Pckohaseb — Conditions 
 of Sale. 12. 
 
 — " Outgoings " — Implied covenant against in- 
 
 cumbrances — Private street works. 
 See Streets — Private Streets. 34. 
 
 — " Outgoings " — Notice by sanitary authority 
 
 to abate nuisance. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser- Conditions 
 of Sale. 13. 
 
 3. — Succession duty — Unpaid succession duty 
 — Liability for — Sale free from incumbrances but 
 subject to leases — Succession Duty Act (16 & 17 
 Vict. c. 51), ss. 2, 20. 
 
 Freeholds were sold which were still subject 
 to succession duty in respect of the improved 
 value which would accrue when certain leasehold 
 interests determined. The freeholds wfere sold 
 free from incumbrances, and there was no men- 
 tion of succession duty in the contract for sale : — 
 
 Held, that the vendois were liable for the 
 unpaid duty. In re Kidd and Gibbon's Con- 
 tract - Kekewich J, [1893] 1 Ch. 695 
 
 Commission. 
 
 3, — Agreement by vendor to pay commission 
 to purchaser's agent — Non-disclosure of agreement 
 by vendor — Right of purchaser to recooer com- 
 mission from vendor. 
 
 The pit., who was the owner of a mine, agreed 
 with a person who was in fact, though the pit. 
 did not then know it, a director of and agent for 
 the defts., a oo., that the director should have an 
 option of finding a purchaser for the property, 
 and should, if successful, be paid as commission 
 10 per cent, of the price obtained. The director 
 arranged a sale to the defts., but before the con- 
 tract was entered into, or the commission had 
 become payable, the pit. became aware of the 
 director's position with regard to the defts. :— 
 
 Held, that, the pit. having completed the con- 
 tract without disclosing to -the defts., as pur- 
 chasers, the agreement to pay commission to 
 their agent, any part of the agreed commission 
 
( 2219 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2220 ) 
 
 VEITDOR AND FTTRCHASSS (Commission) — 
 
 continued. 
 remaining in the pit's hands could be recovered 
 from him by the defendants. 
 
 Per Collins L.J. : The money could be 
 recovered from the pit. as money had and received 
 to the defts.' use. 
 
 By a second agreement between the pit. and 
 the director, made before the commission became 
 due, an immediate payment of a sum less than 
 that originally agreed on was substituted. The 
 I lefts, subsequently discovered the existence of 
 the two agreements as to commission, and the 
 payment to the director, and they demanded of 
 and received from him, in satisfaction of all 
 claims against him, the amount he had received 
 from the plaintiff: — 
 
 Held, that the defts. were not bound by tlie 
 agreement as to the reduction of the amount 
 of commission, aud that, notwithstanding that 
 agreement and their receipt from the director of 
 the reduced amount of the commission, they were 
 entitled to recover the balance from the pit. 
 Grant v. Gold Explokatiov and .Development 
 Syndicate, Ld. C. A. [1900] 1 ft. B. 233 
 
 Conditions of Sale. 
 
 4. — Annulling sale. Vendor's power of — Title 
 — Conveyance — heqnisitions — Outstanding estate. 
 Getting in — Contract — Rescission — Defective title 
 — No title. 
 
 A condition of sale empowering the vendor to 
 annul the sale if the purchaser makes any objec- 
 tion or requisition " as to the title, particulars, 
 conditions, or any other matter or thing relating 
 or incidental to the sale," which the vendor is 
 unable or unwilling to comply with, extends to a 
 matter of conveyance as well as of title. 
 
 Thus, where a vendor-mortgagee of leaseholds 
 who, having contracted to sell the entire term, 
 turned out, on the investigation of the title by 
 the purchaser, to hold by a sub-demise the bare 
 legal estate in which was outstanding, and 
 expressed himself as unable or unwilling to 
 comply with a requisition by the purchaser that 
 the person having the legal estate should join in 
 the conveyance; it was held by tlie C. A. that 
 the vendor was entitled, under a condition in the 
 above form, to annul the sale. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. 
 
 The ordinary ciindition of sale giving the 
 vendor a power of rescission applies only where 
 he has some title, not where he has none. 
 
 Bowman y. Hyland, (1878) 8 Ch. D. 588, 
 explained. In re Deighton and Harris's Cov- 
 TRAOT C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 458 
 
 6. — Assumption of fact on which the root of 
 the title depends — Misleading conditions of sale. 
 
 A condition requiring the purchaser to assume 
 a certain fact, e.g., the oeath of A., intestate and 
 without heirs, is not misleading if the vendor 
 really believes the fact, although the fact to be 
 assumed is absolutely necessary to the vendor's 
 title. Nor is it necessary to explain in the con- 
 dition the particular defect which the condition 
 is intended to cover. In re yANDBACH and 
 Edmondson's Contract C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 99 
 See also In re Scott and Alvarez's Contract. 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 603. No. 8, below. 
 
 VENDOR AND PUECHASEE (Conditions of Sale) 
 
 — continued. 
 
 6. — Compensation conditiom — Clause ex- 
 duding compensation — Misdescription — Specific 
 performance — Possessory title. 
 
 The defts. sold by auction to the pit. a free- 
 hold property described in the particulars of sale 
 as containing 5a. Oe. 26p., and as bordering on a 
 lake on S. Common, the sale being subject to 
 conditions of sale, one of which was as follows : 
 " The property is believed and shall be taken to 
 be correctly described in the particulars as to 
 quantity and otherwise . . . and if any error, 
 misstatement, or omission in the particulars be 
 discovered, the same shall not annul the sale, nor 
 shall any compensation be allowed by the vendors 
 to the purchaser in respect thereof" 
 
 The only part of the property to which a 
 good title was shewn contained 4a. 3e. Another 
 part of the property offered for sale bordered on 
 the lake, and as to this the only title offered was 
 what purported to be a title by possession for less 
 than tOrty years. 
 
 The pit. claimed rescission of the contract 
 and a return of the deposit paid by him, and the 
 defts. counter-claimed for specific performance:— 
 
 Held, that even if the defts. had established a 
 possessory title to the border land for twelve 
 years, that would not have been snfBcient, as the 
 contract, so far as it related to that land, was an 
 open one, in which case a forty years' title by 
 possession was required ; that the defts. were not 
 entitled to specific performance in respect of the 
 part of the property to which a good title had 
 been shewn ; and that the pit. was entitled to 
 rescission of the contract and the return of his 
 deposit. 
 
 The authorities as to compensation conditions 
 reviewed. Jacobs v. Revell 
 
 Buckley J. [1900] 2 Ch. 858 
 
 — Condition precedent — Mistake in acreage. 
 See No. 71, ieloio. 
 
 7. — Condition precedent — Waiver. 
 
 A stipulation in a memorandum of agreement 
 that the agreement was subject to the preparation 
 of a formal contract cannot be waived by the 
 vendor as against the purchaser so as to enable 
 the vendor to maintain an action for specific per- 
 formance upon the rest of the memorandum. 
 I.LOYD V. NowELL - Kekewich J. [1896] 2 Ch. 744 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. North v. Percival, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 132. 
 
 8. — Condition restricting objections to title — 
 Sad title shewn aliunde — Seturn of deposit refused, 
 but specific performance aho refused. 
 
 A purchaser bought property under a strict 
 condition of sale that be should not make any 
 objection as to the intermediate title between a 
 certain lease end the assignment of it, but should 
 assume that the assignment vested a good title in 
 the assignees. It was afterwards discovered by 
 the purchaser that there was a vital defect in the 
 intermediate title, and that the assignees had no 
 title to the property : — 
 
 Held, (1.) (reversing the decision of Keke- 
 wich J., [1S95] 1 Ch. 596) that the purchaser was 
 bound at law by the condition, and therefore could 
 not recover his deposit; but (2.), afSrraing the 
 
( 2221 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2222 ) 
 
 VENSOB AND FUBCHASEB (Conditions of Sale) 
 
 — continued. 
 deciaion of Kekewioh J. (dubitante Lopes L.J.)) 
 that as the vendor could not give a holding title 
 to the purchaser, the Court would, in the exercise 
 of its discretion, refuse to decree specific perform- 
 ance of the contract, and would leave the parties 
 to their remedies at law. In re Soott and 
 Alvarez's Contkaot. Scott v. Alvarez 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Wallis and 
 Barnard's Contract, [1899] 2 Ch. 515, 520. 
 
 Discussed by 0. A. In re Hughes and Ashley's 
 Contract, [1900] 2 Ch. 595, 602. 
 
 9. — Costs — Conveyance — Mortgagees' concur- 
 rence. 
 
 The conditions of sale of freehold property 
 appointed a time and place for completion, and 
 provided (condition 10) that^ 
 
 " On payment by the purchaser of the balance 
 of his purchase-money at the time and place 
 aforesaid, he shall be entitled to a proper assur- 
 ance of the property purchased by him from the 
 vendor and all other necessary parties (if any), 
 such assurance and every other instrument 
 required for getting in or releasing any oui:- 
 etandiog estate, right, or interest, or for com- 
 pleting or perfecting the vendor's title, or for 
 any other purpose, to be prepared by and at the 
 expense of the purchaser." 
 
 It appeared on the examination of the title 
 that the property was subject to a mortgage — a 
 fact which was not disclosed by the particulars 
 or conditions. The mortgagees joined in the 
 conveyance, the vendor paying their costs without 
 prejudice to the question how they should be 
 borne as between vendor and purchaser. 
 
 Farwell J.: In In re Willett and Argenti, 
 [1889] W. N. 66 ; 60 L. T. 735, the contract 
 provided that the vendor and all other necessary 
 parties (if any) should make and execute to the 
 purchaser a proper assurance of the premises, 
 such assurance and every other assurance, act, 
 and thing required by the purchaser for perfect- 
 ing or completing the vendor's title or otherwise 
 to be prepared, obtained, made and done by and 
 at the expense of the purchaser. That provision 
 was held to throw the expense of procuring the 
 concurrence of the mortgagees on the purchaser. 
 
 The present condition merely requires the 
 assurance or other instrument to be prepared by 
 and at the expense of the purchaser. The 
 expense of procuring the concurrence of the 
 mortgagees is not provided for, and, according to 
 the ordinary rule as stated in Dart on Vendors 
 and Purchasers, 6th ed. pp. 176, 798, it falls on 
 the vendor. In re Sander and Walford's Con- 
 TEAOT rarweU J. [1900] W. N. 183 
 
 10. — "Solding title"— Purchaser's right to 
 rescind and recover deposit. 
 
 A mortgagee sellmg under a power of sale 
 furnished an abstract of title which shewed a 
 defect in the mortgagor's title. After the time 
 limited by the conditions of sale the purchaser 
 refused to complete the sale, and claimed the 
 return of the deposit. The mortgagee then shewed 
 he was at the time of the mortgage ignorant of 
 the defect, and had a good holding title :— 
 
 Eeld by Komer J., that, as he had not dis- 
 
 VENDOE AND PTJECHASEE (Conditions of Sale) 
 
 — continued. 
 closed his holding title until the pit. was in a 
 position to rescind and claim the return of the 
 deposit, he was too late. But, held by 0. A., 
 that there was no defect in the title, and so the 
 purchaser could not rescind. Decision of Komer J., 
 [1891] W. N. 4, reversed. Saxbt v. Thomas 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 28 
 — Interest—" Wilful default." 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Interest, 
 54. 
 
 11. — Misleading particulars — Statement by 
 auctioneer — Compensation — Specific performance. 
 
 A clear and distinct statement by an auctioneer 
 at the time of sale verbally correcting a material 
 misdescription in the particulars disentitles the 
 purchaser to specific performance with compensa- 
 tion for that misdescription, even if he does not 
 hear the statement. 
 
 Manser v. Back, (1848) 6 Hare 443, followed. 
 In re Hare and O'Moee's Contkact 
 
 Joyce J. [1900]"W. N. 253; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 93 
 
 12. — " Outgoings " — Agreement by vendor to 
 discharge outgoings up to completion — Order to take 
 down dangerous structures — Expenses of demolition 
 — Liability of vendor. 
 
 By conditions of sale of land within tlie 
 metropolis the date fixed for completion was 
 May 8, all outgoings up to that day being cleared 
 by the vendor. Before May 8 a magistrate mad 
 an order to take down dangerous structures on 
 the land. This order was not complied with, and 
 after May 8 the county council took down the 
 structures, and demanded and received from the 
 purchaser the expenses of so doing : — 
 
 Held, that, the liability having been incurred 
 before May 8, the expenses were "outgoings," 
 within the meaning of the conditions, which 
 the purchaser was entitled to recover from the 
 vendor. 
 
 Midgley v. Coppoch, (1879) 4 Ex. D. 309, 
 followed. In re Boor, Boor v. HopTcins. (1889) 
 40 Ch. D. 572, distinguished. Tubes v. Wynne 
 Collins J. [1897] 1 «. B. 74 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. Barsht v. 
 Tagg, [1900] 1 Ch. 231. 
 
 13. — " Outgoings " — Notice by sanitary 
 authority to abate nuisance. 
 
 Conditions of sale of leasehold houses pro- 
 vided that the purchase should be completed on 
 Aug. 11, 1898, and that " a purchaser paying his 
 purchase-money is, as from that day, to be let 
 into possession or receipt of rents and profits, 
 and up to that date all rents, rates, taxes, and 
 outgoings are (if necessary) to be apportioned, 
 and each apportioned rent shall be paid on com- 
 pletion by each purchaser to the vendor. If, 
 from any cause whatever, other than wilful 
 default on the part of the vendor, the completion 
 of the purchase is delajred beyond the before- 
 mentioned day, the remainder of the purchase- 
 money is to bear interest at the rate of SI. per 
 cent, per annum from that day to the day of 
 actual payment thereof, or, at the option of the 
 vendor, he may receive the rents and profits up 
 to the day of the actual completion of the pur- 
 chase. The property shall, as from the day of 
 
( 2223 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2224 ) 
 
 VEHDOR AND PUECHASEE (Conditions of Sale) 
 
 — continued. 
 sale, be at the sole risk "of the purchaser, and 
 the vendor shall not incur any liability by reason 
 of its then or bubsequently becoming or remain- 
 ing untenanted, uninsured, or deteriorated." 
 Through default of tlie pit., who had pur- 
 chased one of the lots, his purchase was not 
 completed on Aug. 11, although the title had 
 then been accepted, and the deft., the vendor, 
 remained in possession. In Nov., 1898, notices 
 were served on the deft, as " owner " by the vestry 
 under the PubUo Health (London) Act, 1891 
 (51 & 55 Vict. 0. 76), to abate nuisances on the 
 property, and the cost of making the abatement, 
 about 2il., was paid by the deft. In Feb., 1899, 
 the pit. was ready to complete, and offered to pay 
 interest at 6 per cent, on the balance of the pur- 
 cbase-mouey from Aug. 11 on receiving the rents 
 and profits from that date, and in that case to 
 repay the 21Z., but he insisted that if the deft, 
 retained the rents and profits he ought to bear 
 the cost of the abatement : — ■ 
 
 Held, that, the 24Z. being an outgoing (Tvhhs 
 V. Wynne, [1897J 1 Q. B. 74) which from the 
 time when a good title was shewn must clearly 
 be borne by the purchaser in the absence of 
 express stipulation, the pit. would as from Aug. 1 1 
 have been entitled to the rents and profits and 
 liable to pay the 24!., if the conditions had not 
 given the vendor the option to keep the rents 
 and profits in lieu of iuterest, but that there 
 was uotliing to relieve the plaintiff from the 
 obligation to pay the outgoings, and that he 
 could only obtain specific performance on paying 
 the 24^ and the balance of hia purchase-money. 
 Baksht v. Tagg 
 
 Cozens-Havdy J. [1899] W. N. 260 ; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 231 
 
 — Title, as to. 
 
 See Cases under A^endob and Pnn- 
 OHASER — Title. 
 
 Contract, 
 
 — Acceptance, Offer and — Want ot title — Res- 
 
 cission. 
 
 See No. 29, helow. 
 
 14. — Acceptance of offer — Statute of Frauds 
 (29 Car. 2, e. 3), s. 4. 
 
 In Aug., 1895, pit. offered deft. H. 1500Z. for 
 a freehold house called The Wray, The offer 
 was refused ; but on Nov. 7, 1895, deft, in writing 
 told pit. that he would take 2000Z. On the follow- 
 ing day pit. replied in writing : " I have decided 
 to accept Mr. H.'s offer, and will give the 2000Z. 
 he asks for the freehold of the Wray property. I 
 should like to know from what time Mr. H. 
 wishes the purchase to date " :^ 
 
 Held, thut the last sentence did not impose a 
 fresh term, but was merely a courteous way of 
 asking the vendor when he desired completion of 
 the sale to take place ; that there was therefore 
 on unconditional acceptance of the deft.'s offer, 
 and a binding contract of sale. Simpson v. 
 Hdghes - Eomer J, [1896] W, N, 179 (6); 
 
 Affirmed by 0. A., [1897] W. N. 26 (11). 
 
 16. — "Adverse claim" — Misleading particu- 
 lars. 
 
 It is the duty of vendors to give notice of 
 
 VENDOE AND PTTECHASEE (Contract)— conid. 
 adverse claims which are not idle and frivolous. 
 A. sold a warehouse to B., who signed the con- 
 tract without notice that there was a claim to the 
 sole ownership of one wall thereof. A. claimed 
 a declaration that B. was not entitled to insist on 
 a release of the adverse claim : — 
 
 Held, that as A. had not made out that the 
 claim was clearly unfounded, he ought to have 
 given notice of it, and the purchaser was entitled 
 to insist on the release. In re Hakkib and 
 Kawlings' Conteaot Chitty J, [1894] W. N, 19 
 
 — Agent — ^Vendor's name — ^Eeference to formal 
 
 contract. 
 
 See Pkauds, Statute of. 21. 
 
 16. — Authority to agent to find a purcluiser 
 — Contract by agent. 
 
 Instructions given to estate agents to find a 
 purchaser and negotiate a sale held not to amount 
 to an authority to bind the vendor by a contract. 
 To bind the vendor there must be an express 
 authority to the agent to enter into a contract 
 on behalf of the vendor. Gbadbdbn v. Moore 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 126 
 
 17. — Brewery — "Fixed plant and macM- 
 nery." 
 
 Upon the sale of a brewery the purchaser was 
 to pay for all "fixed plant and machinery" at a 
 valuation, notwithstanding any description thereof 
 in the sale particulars : — 
 
 Held, that "machinery" included everything 
 which by its action produces or assists in pro- 
 duction, and" plant" that without which produc- 
 tion could not go on ; it was dead stock, it did 
 not itself act, but was that by means of which 
 such action took place, as brewers' pipes, vats, 
 and the like, and did not include (1) a chimney- 
 shaft disconnected from the boiler-house ; (2) a 
 partition which prevented the dust from the malt 
 mills getting into the brewing vessels ; (3) staging 
 shaped to the brewing vessels which gave access 
 to them. In re Nutley akd Finn 
 
 KekewichJ, [1894] W. N. 64 
 
 — Building estate — Conveyance. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchases — Convey- 
 ance. 40. 
 
 18. — Building estate — Sestrictice covenaiiis 
 — Form of conveyance to purchaser. 
 
 Where vendors sold one lot, part of a building 
 estate subject to certain restrictive covenants, the 
 purchaser was held entitled to a declaration that 
 the vendors would, as to the unsold lots, observe 
 the same restrictive covenants, and to have the 
 same expressed in his conveyance. Liability of 
 vendors to observe restrictive covenants in such 
 cases considered. In re Birmingham and Dis- 
 trict Land Co. and Alldat 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch, 342 
 
 Eeferred to by North J. Davis v. Leicester 
 Corporation, C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 220. 
 
 19. — Building estate — Restrictive covenants 
 — General scheme — Injunction. 
 
 An owner of part of a building estate is en- 
 titled to have the benefit of all matters provided 
 by the general scheme of the estate, and may 
 enforce by injunction not only the covenants im- 
 posed at the time of his purchase on the other 
 owners, but also further covenants imposed on 
 
( 222S ) 
 
 WGES* OE* OASSS, 18S1— 1900. 
 
 ( S226 ) 
 
 VENDOE AND PUECHASEE (Contract)— conid. 
 subsequent purchasers by the soheme as improved 
 or enlarged. Ttndall v. Castle 
 
 North J. [1893] W. N. 40 
 
 20. — Building estate — Restrictive covenants 
 — Hepresentations hy vendor — Plan. 
 
 Where a vendor prepares, and shews to a 
 purchaser of one or more plots, a plan of a build- 
 ing estate in plots, with houses upon them, and 
 also an agreement in a printed form, the purchaser 
 is not in every case entitled to assume that the 
 whole estate is governed by a soheme in strict 
 accordance with the plan, and that each plot is 
 to be bound by clauses similar to the printed 
 clauses of the agreement. Tucker v. Vowles 
 
 Eomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 195 
 
 31. — Completion of purchase — " Wilful de- 
 fault" — Trustee's agent — Absent trustee — Attoimey 
 — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), 
 s. 5e— Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. u. 59), 
 8. 2, sub-s. 1. 
 
 An attorney appointed by a trustee under a 
 power of attorney to sign a conveyance during 
 tlie trustee's absence has not the powers of a 
 Bolicitor-agent appointed under s. 2 of the Trustee 
 Act, 1888, and cannot receive the purchase-money 
 or give a receipt. If, therefore, a purchaser 
 refuse to pay the purchase-money at the proper 
 time because of the attorney's inability to give a 
 proper discharge, he is not guilty of "wilful 
 default " under the conditions of sale. In re 
 Hetling and Mbbton's Contkact 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch, 269 
 
 Note. — Wliat is " wilful default." See 
 Interest, No. 54, helow. 
 
 22. — Condition to he performed by vendor — 
 Time during which condition muy be performed — 
 Absence of express stipulation — Date of completion 
 — Deposit — Contract for sale — Lease of public- 
 
 The pit. agreed to purchase from the deft, the 
 lease of a public-house on which there was a 
 subsisting mortgage, on condition that the con- 
 sent of the mortgagee should be obtained to the 
 same amount of money remaining on mortgage as 
 was then due. A date was fixed for completion 
 and a deposit paid, which was to be forfeited if 
 the sale went off through the default of the pit. 
 At an interview between the pit, the deft., and 
 the mortgagee, the latter would only agree to a 
 lesser amount remaining on mortgage. The pU. 
 thereupon treated the contract as at an end. 
 Subsequently, and before the date fixed for 
 completion, the deft, obtained the consent of the 
 mortgagee to the full amount of the mortgage 
 debt remaining on mortgage, but the pit. refused 
 to proceed with the purchase. In an action to 
 recover the deposit : — 
 
 Seld, that, in the absence of circumstances 
 which would justify the pit. in treating the 
 refusal of the mortgagee as final, or of an agree- 
 ment express or implied that it should be so 
 treated, the deft, had until the date fixed for the 
 completion of the contract in which to perform 
 the condition by obtaining the consent of the 
 mortgagee ; that the contract had therefore gone 
 off through the default of the pit. ; and that he 
 could not recover the deposit. Smith v. Butleb 
 0. A, [1900] 1 a. B, 694 
 
 VENDOE AND PUECHASEE (Contract)— eBn<(t 
 
 — Oorrespondence^Letter signed by purchaser 
 
 on paper on which vendor's name and 
 
 address were printed. 
 
 See Feauds, Statute op. 7. 
 
 23. — Correspondence referring to a contract 
 — Statute of Frauds — Specific performance. 
 
 Where a vendor writes to an intending pur- 
 chaser accepting his offer, and incloses a contract 
 which he requests the purchaser to sign, if the 
 contract contains stipulations not contained in 
 the previous correspondence, e.g., restriction of 
 commencement of title, limitation of date for 
 completion, and requirement of a deposit, the 
 letters cannot be treated as a concluded agree- 
 ment of sale, and an action for specific performance 
 will be dismissed. Jones v. Daniel 
 
 Eomer J. [1891] 2 Ch. 332 
 
 24. — Covenants — Leaseholds — Sale by auc- 
 tion — Onerous covenants — Duty of vendor to 
 disclose — Constructive notice to purchaser. 
 
 The rule laid down by the C. A. in Eeeve v. 
 Berridge, (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 523, that it is prima 
 facie the duty of a vendor to disclose all that is 
 necessary to protect himself, and not the duty of 
 a purchaser to demand inspection of the vendor's 
 title-deed before entering into a contract, is not 
 confined to sales by private contract, but is 
 equally applicable to sales by auction. Where, 
 therefore, on a sale of leaseholds by auction the 
 particulars and conditions of sale contained no 
 statement as to the nature of the covenants in 
 the lease (which were in fact onerous), nor any 
 notice that the lease might be inspected at ttie 
 office of the vendor's solicitors or elsewhere : — 
 
 Held, that the purchaser was not affected 
 with constructive notice of the covenants ; that 
 he had not had a fair opportunity of inspecting 
 the lease, and was therefore not bound to complete 
 the contract. In re White and Smith's Contkact 
 Stirling J. [1896] 1 Ch. 637 
 
 — Covenants — " Usual covenants '' — Public- 
 
 house — Agreement for lease. 
 See Landlobd and Tenant — Covenant. 
 37. 
 
 25. — Covenants — " Usual covenants '' — Pur- 
 chase of leaseholds — Specific performance. 
 
 Lessee's covenants in a lease of a house, (1.) 
 prohibiting other erections; (2.) prohibiting use 
 otherwise than as a private house ; (3.) for regis- 
 tering assignments with the lessor and payinga 
 fee ; (4.) for rebuilding in case of fire to satis- 
 faction of lessor's architect : — 
 
 Eeld, to be unusual, and an action by the 
 vendor for specific performance of a contract for 
 sale against a purchaser who had had no fair 
 opportunity of seeing the covenants dismissed. 
 MiDGLEY V. Smith Komeir J. [1893] W. K. 120 
 
 — Frauds, Statute of. 
 
 See Cases under Feauds, Statute or. 
 
 26. — Leaseholds— Contract for sale— Assign- 
 ment — Lessor's consent — Duty of vendor— Default 
 of vendor in obtaining consent — Loss of bargain — 
 Deposit — Costs — Liability of vendor— Damages. 
 
 A purchaser of leasehold property, which the 
 vendor cannot assign without a licence from his 
 lessor, is entitled to damages (beyond return of 
 
( 2227 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2228 ) 
 
 VENDOE AHB PUECHASES (Contract)— conii. 
 the deposit, with interest and expenses) for loss 
 of his bargain by reason of the vendor's omission 
 to do his best to procure such licence. 
 
 A vendor agreed with a purchaser for the 
 sale of a leasehold hotel, subject to the consent 
 of the lessor being obtained to the assignment of 
 tlie lease, and the purchaser paid a deposit on 
 his purchase-money. The vendor died without 
 having completed his contract, and the purchaser 
 then brought an action against his legal personal 
 representative for specific performance. The 
 deft., being desirous of freeing the vendor's 
 estate from the action, induced the lessor to 
 refuse his consent to the assignment, which the 
 lessor accordingly did, and the purchaser thus 
 lost his bargain. Thereupon the purchaser 
 amended his action by claiming damages and 
 return of the deposit : — 
 
 Held, that the pit. was entitled, not only 
 to the return of his deposit, with interest and 
 costs of investigating title, but also to the 
 damages he had sustained by the loss of his 
 bargain, through the omission of the deft, to 
 oblain the lessor's consent. 
 
 Bain v. Folhergill, (1874) L. E. 7 H. L. 158, 
 considered. Decision of Eomer J. reversed. Day 
 V. Singleton C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 320 
 
 — Leaseholds — Onerous covenants. 
 
 See No. 24, above. 
 
 — Letters — Correspondence. 
 
 See No. 23, above. 
 
 — Lunatic. 
 
 See Cases under Lxinact — Contracts. 
 
 27. — Memorandum — Purcliaser's name filled 
 in by auctioneer's clerk — Statute of Frauds. 
 
 At a sale L,, the highest bidder for a lot, gave 
 his name and address to the auctioneer's clerk 
 and followed him to the table where the clerk 
 tilled in the blanks in a printed memorandum 
 with L.'s name and address, but L. refused to 
 sign the memorandum, and ultimately refused 
 to complete : — 
 
 Held, that there was a sufficient signature on 
 behalf of L., and that there must be judgment for 
 specific performance. Sims v. Landuay 
 
 Eomer J. [1894] 8 Ch. 318 
 
 — Name — Vendor's name — Reference to formal 
 
 contract. 
 
 See Fbauds, Statute or. 2. 
 
 28. — • Mistalse — Hectification — Parol evidence 
 — Covenant for title — Prior document witli plan — ■ 
 Conveyance of estate term and interest — Written 
 contract — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict, 
 c. 41), s. 7, sub-s. 1 (a). 
 
 By a conveynuce expressed to be supplemental 
 to a " principal agreement," under which the 
 vendor was entitled to a lense of certain land 
 coloured red in the plan annexed to that agree- 
 ment, the vendor (in pursuance of a written con- 
 tract in that behalf) as beneficial owner conveyed 
 to the purchasers " all his estate term and 
 interest under and by virtue of the principal 
 figreement in the piece of land coloured red in 
 the plan annexed to the principal agree- 
 ment": — 
 
 Held, that the words " if any " could not be 
 
 VENDOE AND PTJECHASEE (Contract)— contd. 
 implied after the word " interest," but that the 
 statutory covenant for title extended quoad the 
 estate to that limited by the principal agree- 
 ment, and quoad the parcels to the entirety 
 shewn in the plan. 
 
 Delmer v. M'Gabe, (1863) 14 Ir. 0. L. Eep. 
 377, explained. 
 
 The parcels being deficient, the purchasers 
 sued on the covenant. The vendor alleged 
 mutual mistake, and alternatively unilateral 
 mistake on his own part, and counter-claimed for 
 rectification of the conveyance : — 
 
 Held, that, the written contract and convey- 
 ance being unambiguous, parol evidence of 
 mistake was inadmissible after completion either 
 as a defence to the action, to which it afforded 
 no answer: Cato v. Thompson, (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 
 616 ; Page v. Midland By. Co., [1894] 1 Ch. 11 ; 
 or to support the counter-claim, which amounted 
 to claiming specific performance of a written 
 contract with a parol variation : Davies v. Fitton, 
 (1842) 2 D. & War. 225. 
 
 Semble, Harris v. Pepperell, (1867) L. E. 5 
 Eq. ], Garrard v. Frankel, (1862) 30 Beav. 445, 
 and Paget v. Marshall, (1884) 28 Ch. D. 255, can 
 only be supported on the ground of fraud ; in 
 the absence of fraud vendors or purchasers of 
 land cannot be put to their election to rescind or 
 accept rectification, on the ground of unilateral 
 mistake. Mat v. Platt 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 69 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 616 
 
 29. — Offer and acceptance — Want of title — 
 Bescission of contract — Damages. 
 
 Correspondence passed between the agents of 
 the deft, and the pit. as to the sale of a house on 
 enfranchised copyhold land. A contract was 
 prepared upon which differences arose between 
 the solicitors, and an abstract of title was 
 delivered which shewed that the pit. had not 
 the mines under the land, whereupon the deft, 
 refused to proceed. In an action for specific 
 performance or damages : — 
 
 Held, without deciding whether there was a 
 completed contract or not, that if there were a 
 contract, as the vendor could not make or compel 
 a conveyance of the mines, the purchaser was 
 entitled to lescind : — 
 
 Held, also, that the pit. was not entitled to 
 damages, as he was not at end of the time allowed 
 for completion in a position to give a proper 
 conveyance. 
 
 Appeal from North J., (1890) 45 Ch. D. 481, 
 dismissed. Bellamy v. Debenhasi 
 
 0. A, [1891] 1 Ch. 412 
 
 30. — Parcels — Identity of — Admissibility of 
 parol evidence — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, 
 c. 3), ». 4. 
 
 By contract in writing A. agreed to sell and 
 B. to buy " twenty-four acres of land, freehold, 
 at T., in the parish of D. . . . , possession to be 
 had on March 25 next. The vendor guaranteeing 
 possession accordingly." 
 
 In an action by A. against B. for specific 
 performance : — 
 
 Held, applying the principle of Ogilvie v. 
 Foljambe, (1817) 3 Mer. 53, and Sliardhw v. Cot' 
 terell, (1881) 20 Ch. D. 90, that parol evidence 
 
( 2229 ) 
 
 OtGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2230 ) 
 
 VENDOR AND PTJBCHASEE (Contract)— conM. 
 
 was admissible to shew what was the suhjeot- 
 matter of the contract. 
 
 The decision of Byrne J., [1897] W. N. 
 40 (14), reversed. Plant v. Bourne 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 281 
 
 Referred to by Wright J. Marlcham and 
 Darter's Case, [1899] 1 Ch. iU, 429 ; 0. A. [1899] 
 2 Ch. 480. 
 
 Eeferred to by Farwell J. Carr v. Lynch, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 613, 615. 
 
 31. — Parcels — Orerlmnging building. 
 Where the owner of two premises, one of 
 
 which partly overhung the other, conveyed the 
 overhung premises by reference to the ground 
 plan ; — 
 
 Held, that the overhanging part of the adjoin- 
 ing premises passed by the conveyance. The 
 ownership of a building partly overhanging other 
 premises does not give the owner a right to raise 
 the overhanging part of his building. Latbourn 
 V. Gbidley - North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 53 
 
 32. — Publie-hou?e — Agreetnent for sale — 
 Transfer of licence — Interim protection — Licence 
 "indorsed or otliervnse affected" — Specific per- 
 formance — Licensing Acts, 1828, 1842 (9 Geo. 4, 
 e. 61, ss. 4, 11, 14; 5 <fc 6 Vict. c. 44, «. 1), 
 
 A contract for the sale and purchase of a 
 licensed public-house, not containing any special 
 undertaking by the vendor that the licence shall 
 be renewed at the Brewster Sessions, or that he 
 will obtain from the magistrates a transfer of 
 the licence to the purchaser's nominee at the 
 next special sessions, or interim authority for 
 that nominee to use the licence between the 
 date fixed for completion and the ne.xt special 
 sessions, does not bind the vendor to free tiie 
 purchaser from risks in respect of any of the 
 aliove-mentioned matters. The vendor is bound 
 only to have a valid and effectual licence existing 
 at the date fixed for completion which he can 
 indorse iji the usual way, and upon or in respect 
 of which the purchaser can apply at once for 
 interim protection under s. 1 of 5 & 6 Vict, c. 44, 
 at the next special sessions. 
 
 The statement in Dart's Vendors and Pur- 
 chusers, 6th ed. vol. i. p. 483, that "if the vendor 
 cannot, by the day appointed for the completion 
 of the purchase, procure a transfer of the licence 
 under tlie Licensing Act, the purchaser may 
 repudiate the contract," is too wide. 
 
 Dayv. Luhke, (1868) L. E. 5 Eq. 336; Clay- 
 don V. Green, (1868) L. K. 3 G. P. 511 ; and 
 Cowles V. Gale, (1871) L. E. 7 Ch. 12, observed 
 upon. Tadcasteb Toweb Brewery Co. v. 
 Wilson Homer J. [1897] 1 Ch. 705 
 
 33. — Purchaser in possession — Specific per- 
 formance — Interct. 
 
 Where a purchaser has entered into possession 
 and has not paid the price or interest, and has 
 done notliing to interfere with the value of the 
 property, he will not be ordered to pay the 
 balance of the purchase-money without being 
 given an option within a month to pay it or give 
 up possession. In the latter case he must pay 
 interest at 4 per cent, from date for completion. 
 Gbebnwood v. Turner 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] 2 Ch. 144 
 
 VENDOR AND PUEOHASEB (Contract)— coJiM. 
 — Eefusal — Purchaser with notice — Contract to 
 
 give " first refusal " of land — Interest in 
 
 laud — Injunction . 
 
 See Contract. 24. 
 
 34. — ijcnis and profits in lieu of interest — 
 Stone quarry subject to lease — Vendor and pur- 
 chaser tenants in common. 
 
 A contract by one of two tenants in common 
 of a stone quarry for the sale to tlie other of her 
 interest, contained a provision that if the purchase 
 were not completed by a certain day the vendor 
 should receive the " rents and- profits " of the 
 premises until completion in lieu of interest. 
 The quarry was subject to a lease, and the pay- 
 ments made by the lessees had been divided 
 between the vendor and purchnser according to 
 their respective interests, and such division was 
 continued subsequently to the contract : — 
 
 Held, that the vendor was entitled to the rents 
 and royalties received since the date of the 
 contract. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J,, [1891] W. N. 159, 
 affirmed. Leppington v. If reeman 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 198 
 
 35. — Repudiation of contract by purchaser — 
 Purchase-money payable by instalments — Omission 
 to pay last instalment — Sight of vendor to re- 
 tain instalments paid — Specific performance — 
 Damages. 
 
 Tlie deft, in Aug., 1892, agreed to sell some 
 land to the pit. for 150Z., of which 40Z. was paid 
 at the time, and the balance was to be paid by 
 twelve equal quarterly instalments of 9i. 3s. id. 
 each. In case of default for thirty days in the 
 payment of any instalment, the wliole of the 
 unpaid instalments were to become immediately 
 due and payable, and, in the event of default for 
 thirty days in payment, the vendor was to be at 
 liberty to rpsell the land, and to retain out of the 
 proceeds of sale the unpaid instalments with 
 interest, and was to pay the balance to the 
 purchaser. 
 
 The purchaser went into possession under the 
 contract, and retained possession for a consider- 
 able time, and, though generally in arrear with 
 the instalments, he had by Aug., 1895, paid 
 them all except the last. The last instalment 
 becime due on Sept. 29, 1895, but it was never 
 paid. Correspondence took place, in which the 
 vendor called on the purchaser to pay, but he 
 never gave liim notice that, if payment was not 
 made within a specified time, he should treat tlie 
 contract as abandoned. In Oct., 1896, the pur- 
 chaser went away, and the vendor was unable to 
 find him. The vendor resumed possession of the 
 land and endeavoured to sell it, but without 
 success, and in March, 1898, he, agreed to let it 
 for three years to a tenant, who took possession. 
 In June, 1898, the purchaser reappeared, and 
 wrote to the vendor that he was prepared to pay 
 the final instalment. In July, 1898, the pur- 
 chaser commenced an action agninst the vendor, 
 claiming specific performance of the agreement 
 of Aug., 1892, and damages in lieu of or in 
 addition to specific performance : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the pit.'s conduct did not amount 
 to a repudiation of his contract, and that the 
 vendor was not justified in treating the contract 
 
( 2231 ) 
 
 DiafiST OF OASfiS, 1891— i900. 
 
 ( 2232 ) 
 
 VENDOE AND PURCHASES (Contract)— conid. 
 as abandoned, and that, though the purchaser 
 was not entitled to specific performance of his 
 contract, he was entitled to damages, which the 
 Court assessed at 125Z. 
 
 Decision of Cozena-Hardy J., [1899] 2 Ch. 
 710, reversed. Cornwall v. Henson 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 128 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 298 
 
 — Eescission of contract. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Bescis- 
 sion. 
 
 — Restrictive covenants. 
 
 See Nos. 18—20, 2i, 25, above ; Convey- 
 ance. 47, 48 ; Title. 93, lelow. 
 
 — Specific performance. 
 
 See Cases under Vendor and Purchaser 
 — Specific Performance. 
 
 — Validity of contract — Question arising out of 
 
 contract. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser— Convey- 
 ance. 41. 
 
 36. — Vendor in possession trustee for pur- 
 chaser — Duty to preserve land — Removal of soil 
 by trespasser — Negligence — Claim after comple- 
 tion. 
 
 Where a vendor teeps possession until comple- 
 tion aud payment of the purchase-money, he is 
 in the position of a trustee for the purchaser, 
 and bound as such to take reasonable care to pre- 
 serve the property. Therefore after conveyance 
 the purchaser can maintain an action for breach 
 of trust against the vendor, if between contract 
 aud completion a trespasser has removed large 
 quantities of surface soil from the properly. 
 Clarke v. Eamuz C. A. [1891] 2 Q. B. 466 
 
 37. — " Wilful default " — Compensation — 
 Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict, 
 c. 78), 6. 9. 
 
 Delay in completing a sale occasioned by the 
 vendors having omitted to talje steps to procure 
 certain admissions to copyholds, held to arise from 
 the wilful default of the vendors. 
 
 Damages to the purchaser by reason of such 
 delay, held not recoverable as compensation under 
 the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, s. 9. In re 
 Wilsons and Stevens' Contract 
 
 North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 546 
 And see Vendor and Purchaser — 
 Interest. 54. 
 
 Conveyance. 
 
 38. — " Beneficial owner " — Covenants for title 
 — Surrender of lease — Effect on underleesees — 
 Secret incumbrances. 
 
 S., the deft., conveyed as " beneficial owner " 
 lands to B., who sold ttiem to the pit. S. had 
 previously granted a lease to B. which B. had 
 surrendered, but without informing S. that he 
 had, when lessee, granted sub-leases by way of 
 mortgage. After B. had bought the land the 
 sub-leases were discovered, and B. claimed 
 damages from S. for breach of covenant against 
 incumbrances implied in his conveyance as bene- 
 ficial owner : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the sub-lessees claimed 
 through S. ; that the term had not been merged 
 by the surrender so as to exclude the sub-leases. 
 
 VENDOE AND PTTECHASEE (Conveyance) — 
 
 continued. 
 and consequently, as S.'s covenant ran with the 
 land, and B.'s fraud did not, S. was liable to the 
 pit. for damages. 
 
 Decision of Komer J., [1892] W. K. 115, re- 
 David v. Sabin C. a. [1893] 1 Ch. 623 
 
 39. — "Beneficial owner" — Implied general 
 words — Bight to limit — Secret incumbrances 
 created by person from whom vendor purchased — 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 6, 
 sub-ss. 1, 2, 4. 
 
 A vendor selling compulsorily and required 
 to convey ss "beneficial owner" land and its 
 " appurtenances " : — 
 
 Held, to have a right to insert words limiting 
 the implied general words in s. 6 of the Convey- 
 ancing, &c., Act, 1881, where the implied words 
 would convey more than he intended or was 
 required to sell : 
 
 Held, also, that a notice to sell land and its 
 " appurtenances " did not include a right of way 
 over adjoining land of the vendor. 
 
 Form of conveyance. In re Peck and London 
 School Board - Chitty J. [1893] 2 Ch. 315 
 
 40. — Building estate — Owner of two tene- 
 ments — Purchase of one tenement — Conveyance — 
 General words — Light — Implied grant — Derogat- 
 ing from grant — " Building land " — " Contrary 
 intention" — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 41), s. 6, sub-ss. 2, 4. 
 
 In 1896 the deft., the owner of building land, 
 sold and conveyed part of it, as " beneficial 
 owner," without any express general words, to 
 the pit. The conveyance included a house on 
 the land conveyed which had been built by the 
 deft, with windows overlooking the land retained 
 by him and referred to in the conveyance aud the 
 plan thereon as " building land," but the con- 
 veyance contained no express reservation to the 
 deft, of any right to build on that land. The 
 defendant subsequently built on that land a house 
 so close to the plt.'s as to interfere with the access 
 of light to his windows : — 
 
 Hdd, that by s. 6, sub-s. 2, of the Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881, the conveyance included all 
 lights enjoyed with the house, and that the refer- 
 ence in the conveyance and plan to the adjoining 
 land as " building land " was insufScient to shew 
 a "contrary intention" within aub-s. 4; and 
 that, on the principle that a grantor cannot 
 derogate from his own grant, the pit. had prima 
 facie an unrestricted right to light as against the 
 deft., and the burden of setting limits to that 
 right lay on the deft. And on proof by the 
 deft, that this prima facie right was restricted by 
 tlie plt.'s own admission that he would have 
 been satisfied if the deft.'s house had been set 
 back to a certain distance, an inquiry was directed 
 what damages the pit. had sustained by reason 
 of the obstruction of light to his windows occa- 
 sioned by the deft.'s house not being so set 
 back. 
 
 Swansborough v. Coventry, (1832) 2 Moo. & Sc. 
 362 ; 9 Bing. 305, approved of. Birmingham, 
 Dudley and District Banking Co. v. -Boss, (1888) 
 38 Ch. D. 295, and Myers v. Catterson, (1889) 43 
 Ch. D. 470, discussed and explained. Broom- 
 riELD V. Williams - 0. A. [1897] 1 Ch, 602 
 
( 2233 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2234 
 
 VENDOR AND PUBCHASEE (Conveyance) — 
 eontinued. 
 
 — Building estate. 
 
 See Vendor and PuROHASEB—Contract. 
 18—20. 
 
 — Executors— Concurrence of— Land Transfer 
 
 Act. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title. 79. 
 
 — Costs — Mortgagees' concurrence. 
 
 See Vendor and Pohohaser— Conditions 
 of Sale. 9. 
 
 41. — Form of conveyance — General words — 
 Validity of contract— Question arising out of con- 
 tract— Parcels — Summons — Specific performance 
 —Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (87 & 38 Vict. 
 c. 78), s. 9— Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. 
 0. 41), 8. 6, svb-s. 2. 
 
 Although upon a summons under s. 9 of tlie 
 Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, evidence is 
 adduced tending to throw a doubt upon the 
 existence or validity of the contract itself, tliat 
 does not preclude the Court from deciding on the 
 summons a specific question arising out of or 
 connected -with the contract as it stands, such as 
 a question with regard to the vendor's right to 
 limit, in the conveyance, the operation of the 
 general words in s. 6, sub-s. 2, of the Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881. It is the duty of the Court to 
 deal with such a question on the summons, 
 irrespective of the question whether the contract 
 is one that can be enforced or not. In re Hughes 
 AND Ashley - - C. A. [1900] W. N. 168 ; 
 
 [1900] 3 Oh. 595 
 
 42. — Form of conveyance — ■ Sale by Court — 
 Sale vnth concurrence of first mortgagee — Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881 (44 * 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 70. 
 
 An order for sale of an estate binds puisne 
 incumbrancers, and, if the purchase-money be 
 insufficient to discharge the first mortgage, the 
 estate should, if the first mortgagees release their 
 mortgage, be sold free from incumbrances. Where 
 the first mortgagees, while releasing their mort- 
 gage, reserved the rights of the puisne incum- 
 brancers : — 
 
 Seld, that the purchaser was not bound to 
 complete unless he was tendered an absolute 
 conveyance in fee simple without any qualifying 
 words and was entitled to a declaration that the 
 subsequent incumbrancers were bound by the 
 order of the Court. Mostt.v v. Mostyn 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 376 
 
 Distinguished by Romer J. Jones v. Barnett, 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 611 ; 0. A. [1900] 1 Ch. 370. 
 
 43. — Highway — Soil of — Street in town — 
 Bight of adjoining owner ad medium filiim vias — 
 Conveyance of land adjoining street — Presump- 
 tion. 
 
 The presumption that half the soil of the road 
 is intended to pass to a pur''haser under a con- 
 veyance of land described as bounded by a public 
 thoroughfare is equally applicable to streets in a 
 town as to higliways in the country ; and this 
 presumption is not rebutted by the fact that the 
 vendor is the owner of the soil beyond the 
 medium filum vise ; in such a case the presump- 
 tion is that the conveyance passes the soil of 
 
 VENDOR AND PITRCHASES (Conveyauoe) — 
 
 continued. 
 the highway so far as it is vested in the vendor. 
 In re White's Charitles. Charity Commrs, 
 V. London Corporation 
 
 Romer J. [1898] 1 Oh, 659 
 
 — Mortgagees' concurrence — Costs. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Conditions 
 of Sale. 9. 
 
 44. — Notice — Purchaser of legal estate — Con- 
 structive notice— Conveyancing Acts, 1881, 1882 
 (44 & in Vict. c. 41, s. 21, sub-s. 2 ; 45 cfc 46 Vict, 
 e. 39, s. 3, suh-s. 1). 
 
 B. had an equitable charge on the equity of 
 redemption of J. in certain land subject to a 
 legal mortgage. On Dec. 21, 1889, the mort- 
 gagees transferred their mortgage to A., who two 
 days afterwards purported to convey under the 
 power of sale to H. for the exact sum which 
 he had paid to the mortgagees. In March, 1890, 
 H. mortgaged the land for 6000Z., and on Aug. 13, 
 1890, E., H.'fl executor, sold the equity of redemp- 
 tion to L. for 25001. On Aug. 15, 1890, B. 
 brought an action against J., A., and E., to have 
 it declared tljat he was entitled to redeem the 
 land as equitable incumbrancer of J. In Nov. 
 1892, the C. A. declared that B. was so entitled. 
 L. was not a party to the action, but on receiving 
 notice of it he paid off the mortgage for 6000Z., 
 and took a reconveyance of the legal title from 
 the mortgagees :— 
 
 Held, that L. had not constructive notice of 
 the invalidity of the sale to H., and that he was 
 entitled to rely on his acquisition of the legal 
 estate : — 
 
 Hdd, also, that the fact that the legal estate 
 was got in pendente lite was immaterial. Bailey 
 v: Barnes - - - C. A, [1894] 1 Ch. 25 
 
 Referred to by Stirling J. In re White and 
 Smith's Contract, [1896] 1 Oh. 642 ; Life Interest 
 Corporation v. Band-in-Hand Insurance Society, 
 [1898] 2 Ch. 238. 
 
 — Recitals in deed, Ejfect of — Notice — Estoppel. 
 See Recitals. 1. 
 
 45. — Parties — Power of sale — Consent of 
 tenant for life — Incumbrances — Concurrence of 
 trustee in bankruptcy. 
 
 Trustees, having power of saje with the consent 
 of the tenant for life, sold land. The tenant for 
 life had created incumbrances on his life estate, 
 and was bankrupt : — 
 
 Held, that the tenant for life could still give 
 his consent, but that the concurrence of the in- 
 cumbiancers and of the trustee in bankruptcy 
 were also necessary to enable the trustees to give 
 a good title. In re Bedinhfeld and Herring's 
 Contract North J. [1893] 2 Ch. 332 
 
 46. — Parties — Settled Land Acts — Jointures 
 — Series of deeds creating a " settlement." 
 
 Where land was settled by a series of instru- 
 ments, the tenant for life under the latest settle- 
 ment contracted to sell discharged from prior 
 incumbrances, including jointure rent-charges, 
 one of which the jointress was restrained from 
 anticipating : — 
 
 Held, that he could, the Various instruments 
 
( 2235 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2236 ) 
 
 VENDOR AND PTJECHASEE (Conveyance) — 
 
 continued, 
 constituting a " settlement " within s. 2, eub-s. 1, 
 of the Act of 1882 : 
 
 Held, also, that the purchaser could not 
 require the concurrence in the conveyance either 
 of the jointress or of the trustees of the terms 
 Becuiing the jointure. The Court diiected pay- 
 ment of the purchase-money to trustees of the 
 compound settlement, who were to be appointed 
 for the purposes of the Act, and directed release 
 of the restraint on anticipation to enable the 
 jointress to consent to the payment of incum- 
 brances over which her jointure had priority. 
 The rent-charges were to be paid out of the 
 income of the purchase-money. In re Mabquis 
 OP AlLESBUBT AND LOED IvEAGH. 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 2 Ch. 345 
 Observed upon by Stirling J. I)i re Earl of 
 Stamford, [1896] 1 Ch. 288. 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Du, Cane 
 and NetUefold's Contract, [1898] 2 Ch. 96. 
 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Mundy and 
 Soper's Contract, [1899] 1 Ch. 275. 
 
 47. — Seslrictive covenants — Building land. 
 Where vendors sold one lot, part of a building 
 
 estate subject to certain restrictive covenants, the 
 purchaser was held entitled to a declaration that 
 the vendors would, as to the unsold lots, observe 
 the same restrictive covenants, and to have the 
 s.ime expressed in his conveyance. In re 
 
 BiKMINGHAM AND DlSTWOT LaND Co. AND AlLDAY 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 1 CH. 342 
 
 Referred to by North J. Daris v. Leicester 
 Corporation, C. A. [189i] 2 Ch. 220. 
 
 And see Contract, Nos. 18—20, 24, 25, 
 above ; Title, No. 93, below. 
 
 48. — Title — Fractice — Summons — Jurisdic- 
 tion — Contract — -Validity — Mistake — Resoission — 
 Miglit to obtain— Undisclosed restrictive covenants 
 ■ — Form of conveyance — Vendor and Purchaser 
 Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 78), s. 9. 
 
 A general declaration as to title ought rarely 
 to be made on a vendor and purchaser summons, 
 that procedure being only intended for the 
 decision of isolated points arising out of or 
 connected with the contract 
 
 Criticism of the existing practice in this 
 respect. 
 
 An isolated point on the form of the convey- 
 ance may be dealt with on a vendor and pur- 
 chaser summons, although the respondent may 
 have a right to obtain rescission of the contract on 
 the ground of mistake. Such a right to obtain 
 rescission does not give ri^e to " a question 
 affecting the existence or validity of the con- 
 tract" within the meaning of the Tendor and 
 Purchaser Act, 1874, s. 9. 
 
 A purchaser is entitled to a conveyance sub- 
 ject only to the restrictive covenants mentioned 
 in the contract, although he has notice of others. 
 In re Wallis and Barnard's Contract 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W, N. 139 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 615 
 
 Discussed by C. A. In re Eunhes (tnd AsMey's 
 (7o7»fr«<;{, [1900] 2 C}J: 59S, 69Q, '■ • 
 
 VENDOE AND _ PTJECHASEE (Conveyance) — 
 
 continued. 
 
 49. — Voluntary conveyance — Sale for value — ■ 
 Specific performance — 13 Miz. c. 5, s. 5 ; 27 Eliz. 
 c. i, s. 3. 
 
 A purchaser is not entitled to repudiate his 
 coutract because one link in the vendor's title is 
 a voluntary conveyance to a person under whom 
 the vendor claims by purchase for value. Notes 
 V. Paterson - Eomer J. [1894] 3 Ch. 267 
 
 Costs. 
 
 — Mortgagee's concurrence. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Conditions 
 of Sale. 9. 
 
 — Solicitors' costs. 
 
 See Cases under Solicitor — Costs. 
 
 Deposit. 
 
 50, — Cheque for deposit — Sale of land by 
 auction — Refusal to accept highest bidder — Cheque 
 for deposit — Custom — Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, 
 e. 3), s. 4. 
 
 In an action for damages for breach of contract 
 that the higl]est bidder should be the purchaser, 
 and for refusing to allow the auctioneer to accept 
 a cheque for the deposit, or to allow the Itusband 
 of the pit. to sign the contract. The Court 
 found that if the cheque had been accepted the 
 pit. would have provided funds to meet it. 
 
 Held, that a vendor who offered property for 
 sale by auction, on the terms of printed condi- 
 tions, could be made liable in damages to a 
 person who accepted the offer and complied with 
 the conditions if those conditions were violated 
 by the vendor, and that the Statute of Fr<iuds 
 would be no defence : see Warlow v. Harrison, 
 (1858) 1 E. & E. 295, 317; Carlill y. Carbolic 
 Smohe Ball Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 256. 
 
 But held, that no custom had been proved 
 obliging a vendor to accept, in payment of a 
 deposit, the cheque even of a person in credit, 
 although such a course was usual; and that no 
 such custom could bind a vendor to accept a 
 cheque from a pauper; that the conditions meant 
 that the deposit was to be paid in cash, and the 
 vendors were not bound to wait till the next day 
 for it or to sign the contract until this conditioii 
 precedent has been performed. Johnston v. 
 BoYES - Cozens-Hardy J. [1899] W. N. 59; 
 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 73 
 
 — Loss of bargain — Costs — Damages. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchasek — Contract. 
 26. 
 
 51. — Payment of deposit to solicitor as agent — 
 Action to recover deposit from agent — Sale of real 
 property. 
 
 On the sale of premises by auction the pur- 
 chaser paid a deposit to the vendor's solicitor as 
 agent for the vendor. The sale went oft' through 
 the default of the vendor, and the purchaser 
 brought an action to recover the deposit from the 
 solicitor : — 
 
 Held, that the payment of the deposit to the . 
 solicitor was equivalent to paymnt to the vendor, 
 and that the action could not be maintained.' 
 'Ems V, Gocf-Tojj f. g, A. [1893] I Q,, B. 5§Q 
 
( 2237 ) 
 
 DIGEST or OASES, 1891-1900. 
 
 ( 2238 ) 
 
 VENDOR AND PUHCHASEK (DepoBit)-tmW. 
 
 — Eeoover deposit, Action to— Contract for sale 
 
 of lease— Act of bankruptcy by vendor 
 before completion. 
 See Bankdptoy. 188. 
 
 — Eeturn of deposit refused— Condition restrict- 
 
 ing objections to title— Bad title shewn 
 aliunde. 
 
 See Venddb and PnROHASEB— Conditions 
 of Sale. 8. 
 
 Interest. 
 
 52. — Contract for sale of lands — Delay in 
 completion — Defect in title unkrmwn to vendor — 
 " Default " — Interest. 
 
 A clause in a contract for the sale of lands 
 provided that, if from any cause whatever otlier 
 than the " default of the vendor," the purchase 
 should not be completed by the day fixed, the 
 purchaser should pay interest until completion. 
 Upon investigation of the title a defect in it was 
 discovered by the vigilance of the puicliasei's 
 advisers, which was not known to or suspected 
 by the vendor when he entered into the contract, 
 and the time occupied in remedying the defi ct 
 delayed the completion of the purchase for nearly 
 three mouths after the day fixed. The purchaser 
 did not have, and keep, his money ready at the 
 proper time, making no interest of it : — 
 
 Held, aflSrming the decision of Eomer J., 
 [1898] 1 Ch. 483, that, there being no want of 
 reasonable care on the part of the vendor and. no 
 abstention from doing anything that he ought 
 to have done, the delay was not attributable to 
 his " default,' ' and that the purchaser must pay 
 interest until completion. 
 
 In re Young and Harston's Contract, C1885) 
 
 31 Ch. D. 168, 174, and Williams v. Glentoii, 
 
 (1866) L. E. 1 Oh. 200, observed upon by 
 
 Collins L.J. In re Woods and Lewis' Contbaot 
 
 C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 211 
 
 — Purchaser in possession — Specific performance 
 
 — Interest. 
 
 Bee Vendor and Pubchasbe — Contract. 
 33. 
 
 — Bents and profits in lieu of interest. 
 
 See Vendob and Pdeobasbb — Contract. 
 
 34. 
 
 ; 63. — Setting aside sale — Sale hy liquidator of 
 
 undertaking of company — Fiduciary relation — 
 
 Concealment — Liability of liquidator — Account of 
 
 profits — Interest on profits. 
 
 Upon the setting aside of a sale by a trustee 
 of trust property to himself, and the reconvey- 
 ance of the property to the beneficiaries, it is 
 not t the "'practice of the Court to charge the 
 trustee with interest on the rents and profits 
 received by him since the date of the sale. 
 
 The practice is correctly stated in Lewin on 
 Trusts, 10th ed. p, 558. 
 
 Where a liquidator sold the undertaking of 
 the CO. nominally to a new co., but really to 
 himself, and the sale was set aside on the ground 
 of concealment, and the property ordered to be 
 recoiiveyed to the old co. : — 
 
 Held, that the liquidator and the new co. 
 yf^xefio^ pharge^,ble wit.ll iftte^esj; oft Jiroflfis 
 
 VENDOR AND PTTKCHASEE (Interest)— conid 
 received by them from the business of the new 
 CO. and withdrawn by them from the business. 
 
 SiLKSTONE AND HaiQH MoOE CgAI, (Do. V. EdEY 
 
 Stirling J. [1900] 1 Ch. 167 
 
 64. — " Wilful default." 
 
 AVhere the conditions of sale provided that 
 "if from any cause whatsoever other than the 
 wilful default of the vendor," purchase-money 
 was not paid on a certain date, the purchaser was 
 to pay interest, and stated that the property was 
 purchased under a local Act of 1824, but, as a 
 matter of fact, a material portion of the property 
 was acquired under a later Act, held by Ohitty j. 
 that the vendor's omission in not discovering that 
 the whole was included in the 1824 Act was not 
 " wilful default " within the condition : — 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the delay was really 
 occasioned by voluntary delay of the purchaser 
 in sending in requisitions and in examining the 
 deposited plan referred to in the Act of 1824, 
 and to his inability to find the purchase-mnnev, 
 and that he was liable to interest from the fixed 
 date : — 
 
 Held, also (Kay L.J. diss.), that there had not 
 been wilful default. What is "wilful default," 
 discussed. In re London (Ma yob of) and Tueb's 
 Contbaot - - C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 624 
 
 Note.— What is " wilful default." See also 
 
 (a) In re Hetling and Merlon's Contract, C. A. 
 [1893] 3 Ch. 269; 
 
 (b) In re Wilson's and Stevens' Contract, 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 546,550; 
 
 (c) In re Earl of Strafford and Maples, 0. A. 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 235 ; 
 
 (d) North V. Percival, [1898] 2 Ch. 128; 
 
 (e) In re Woods and Lewis' Contract, [18981 
 2Ch. 211. -' 
 
 Lieu. 
 
 — Glebe — Purchase by, trustee — Non-payment 
 
 of purchase-money ■ — Kemedy against 
 owners of settled estates. 
 See Nos. 56, 56a, helow. 
 
 — Eesclssion after order for specific performance 
 
 — Lien — Purchaser's power to rescind. 
 See Vendor and Puechasee — Bescissibn. 
 59. 
 
 65. — Unpaid purchase-mnney — Vendor's lien 
 ■ — Personalty — Share of proceeds of sale — Lunacy 
 — Lunatic not so found — Appointment of receiver 
 
 — Mights of third parties — Lunacy Act, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 116. 
 
 A vendor of personal estate is entitled to a 
 lien for unpaid purchase-money on the property 
 sold, ,e.g., when that property is a share of the 
 proceeds of sale of leasehold property hejd by 
 the trustees of a will upon trust for sale and 
 division of the proceeds among speoiflcd persons. 
 
 An order in Lunacy under s. 116 of the 
 Lunacy Act, 1890, authorizing a person therein 
 speoified in the name and on the behalf of th.ei 
 lunatic to receive and give a discljar^e for all 
 Burns of money due to him, does not aifect rights 
 enforceable against the lunatic's property at la\v 
 ov ii) ecjuity (si^oh as ^vefl4or's Jie?) fo]? unpaid 
 
( 2239 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2240 ) 
 
 VENDOE AND PTTKCHASES (IAen)—oonUnued. 
 purohase-mooey), previously acquired by third 
 persons. 
 
 Such an order deals only with the lunatic's 
 equitable interest in his property. 
 
 In re Winkle, [1894] 2 Ch. 519, explained and 
 distinguished. Davtes v. Thomas 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 151 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 462 
 
 56. — Unpaid purchase-money — Vendor's lien 
 — Specific performance — Purchase of land by 
 trustee of settled estates — Gleie — Entry hy tenant 
 for life — Payment of interest on purchase-money — 
 Non-payment of principal — Remedy against owners 
 of estates — Trustee's right of indemnity — Subroga- 
 tion. 
 
 In 1873 the vicar of a parish, with the consent 
 of the patron of the living and the approval of 
 the Eccles. Commrs., contracted, under the 
 powers of the Ecclesiastical Leasiog Acts, 1842 
 and 1858, to sell the glebe land of the vicarage 
 for 24,9632. to the trustee of a will by which 
 estates were devised in strict settlement. The 
 then tenant for life and the Commrs. were parties 
 to the contract. Under the will the trustee held 
 the testator's personal estate upon trust for 
 investment in the purchase of land to be settled 
 to the same uses as the settled estates. The title 
 was accepted, and the tenant for life, with the 
 approval of the trustee, entered into possession of 
 the glebe land and paid the vicar interest on the 
 purchase-money, and this payment was continued 
 by successive tenants for life to the vicar and his 
 successor until 1896, the purchase-money not 
 having been paid. At the date of the contract 
 the trustee had no trust funds under his control 
 available for the payment of the purchase-money, 
 the whole or nearly the whole of the testator's 
 personal estate remaining after investments in 
 land having been advanced upon the security of 
 policies of insurance upon the life of the third 
 tenant for life of the estates, who did not die till 
 many years afterwards. In 1896, the purchase- 
 money not having been paid, the Commrs. brought 
 an action, against the then tenant for life, the 
 personal representatives of the trustee who had 
 entered into the contract, and the then trustees 
 of the settled estates, for the specific performance 
 of the contract, or for an account and a declara- 
 tion that the pits, were entitled to a vendor's lien 
 on the land sold and the enforcement of the lien. 
 The then vicar was made a deft., and the then 
 tenant in tail was afterwards added as a deft. 
 The glebe land had become of much less value 
 than the price agreed to be given for it The 
 estate of tlje trustee who had entered into the 
 contract had been distributed after proper 
 statutory advertisements. Tiie estates had been 
 disentailed and resettled, and tire money secured 
 by the policies had been also disentailed, and had 
 been distributed by the trustees of the resettle- 
 ment anions the persons entitled thereto: — 
 
 Held, that, the contract for the purchase of 
 the glebe laml having been made at a time when 
 the trustee had no funds under his control avail- 
 able for the payment of the price, and it being 
 uncertain what the value of the land might be at 
 the time when he would be in a position to pay 
 for it, the contract was a speculative one not 
 authorized by the trxxst for investment in land; 
 
 VENDOE AND PTTECHASEE (Lieii)— continued. 
 that consequently the trustee had no right to an 
 ■indemnity out of the settled estates, and that the 
 pits, had therefore no right by subrogation ; that 
 the pits, had no remedy against the owners of the 
 settled estates; and that their only remedy was 
 by a lien for the unpaid purchase-money upon 
 the land sold. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J., [1899] W. N. 140; 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 729, affirmed. Ecclesiastical 
 
 COMMKS. V. PlNNEY. 
 
 [1900] W. N. 179; C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 736 
 
 66a. — Unpaid purchase-money — Vendor's 
 lien — Glebe — Contract for sale by vicar — Entry 
 by purchaser — Payment of interest on purchase- 
 money — Non-payment of principal — Ecclesiastical 
 Commissioners — Action by — Specific performance 
 — Ecclesiastical Licensing Acts, 1842 (5 4 6 Vict, 
 c, 108) and 1858 (21 * 22 Vict. v. 57). 
 
 In 1873 a vicar, with the approval of the 
 Eccles. Commrs. and with the consent of the 
 patron of his living, agreed to sell the glebe 
 lands of the vicarage under the powers of the 
 Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts, 1842 and 1858, for 
 24,963i. to the trustee of a settled estate who 
 had power to invest trust funds in the purchase 
 of land. 
 
 The contract was entered into with the con- 
 sent of the then tenant for life of the settled 
 estate, and the Eccles. Commrs. were parties to 
 and executed it. 
 
 The title was accepted, and the then tenant 
 for life entered into possession, and paid the vicar 
 interest on the purchase-money. The vicar died, 
 the estate devolved, and payment of the interest 
 (which was more than an investment of the. 
 purchase-money would have produced) was con- 
 tinued by the tenant for life for the time being 
 to the vicar for the time being until 1896, when, 
 the purchase-money being still unpaid, the 
 Eccles. Commrs. brought an action against the 
 present vicar, the tenant for life, and the legal 
 personal representatives of the trustee, for 
 specific performance of the contract and damages, 
 or an account and a declaration that they were 
 entitled to a. lien on the lands and to enforce- 
 ment thereof : — 
 
 Held, that it was the duty of the pits, to see 
 that the powers given by the Ecclesiastical 
 Leasing Acts were properly applied, and that 
 they had good ground of action. Action remitted 
 for trial. 
 
 The judgment of Bigham J., sitting for 
 Byrne J., reversed. Ecclesiastical Commks. v. 
 PiNNET - - C. A. [1898] W. N. 150 (6); 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 99 
 Lunacy. 
 See Cases under Lunacy — Sales. 
 
 " Outgoings." 
 See Cases under Vendoe and Pdkchaseb 
 — Charges and Outgoings. 
 
 Parcels. 
 
 — Identity of parcels — Admissibility of parol 
 evidence. 
 
 See Vendoe asd Pokchasee — Contract. 
 30. 
 
( 224i ) 
 
 iJiGBST Ol' OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( i2ii ) 
 
 Vendor and PUECHASEB (Parcels)— contd. 
 — Oyerhatigiag building. 
 
 See Vbkdob and Puechaseb— Contract. 
 31. 
 
 Principal and Agent. 
 
 57. — ; Instructions to sell — Seal estate — Autho- 
 rity to sign ooviract — Specific performance. 
 
 Instructions given by an owner of real estate 
 to an agent to sell the property for him, and an 
 agreement to pay a commission on the purchase 
 price accepted, are an authority to the agent to 
 make a binding contract, including an authority 
 to sign an agreement for sale. Kosenbaum v. 
 Belson - - Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 123 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 267 
 Beoitals. 
 
 Effect of recitals in deed — Notice — Estoppel. 
 See Eeoitals. 1. 
 
 Bescissiott. 
 
 58. — Abstract — Reasonable time for delivery 
 — Notice fixing time. 
 
 In a case where the vendor failed to deliver 
 an abstract within a reasonable time, he was 
 ordered to repay the deposit with interest at 
 i percent., and by way of damages the purchaser's 
 costs of investigating the title. In this case 
 fourteen days was considered a reasonable time 
 within which to require delivery of an abstract. 
 CoMPTON V. Baglet Bomer J. [1892] 1 Ch. 313 
 
 69. — After order for specific performance — 
 Purchaser's power to rescind — Lien. 
 
 A vendor having made default in obeying 
 an order for specific performance of a contract 
 for sale of houses : — 
 
 Beld, that the purchaser, notwithstanding the 
 lien on the houses given him by the Court, had 
 a right to rescind the contract. Baker ». 
 Williams - - North J. [1893] W. N. 14 
 
 — Condition precedent — Specific performance — 
 
 Mistake—" Wilful default." 
 See Vendob and Pdrchasek — Specific 
 Performance. 71. 
 
 — Contract — Conditions of sale — Defective title 
 
 —No title. 
 
 See Vendob and Puechaseb — Conditions 
 of Sale. 4. 
 
 GO. — Contract — Title of trustee for sale who 
 has purchased for himself— Effect of beneficiaries 
 consenting — Effect of intermediate sale to a third 
 party — Appeal from New South Wales. 
 
 In an action by a purchaser of land against a 
 vendor for rescission of contract : — 
 
 Held, that the title disclosed being that of a 
 purchaser from himself as trustee lor sale, it was 
 inequitable to force it upon the pit. 
 
 A defence that, notwithstanding the form of 
 the transaction, the deft, really derived title from 
 the beneficiaries who assented to the transaction 
 with full knowledge of all the circumstances 
 must be proved by clear afSrmative evidence to 
 that effect. 
 
 A further defence that there had been an 
 intermediate sale to a third person and a pur- 
 chase by the trustee from him will not avail 
 unless that sale were a completed one. 
 
 VENDOB AND PTTECHASER (EesoiBsion3^i!o»<(i. 
 A trustee cannot adopt for his own benefit an 
 executory contract to purchase to which he is a 
 party as vendor: Farlcer v. McKenna, (1871) 
 L. R. 10 Ch. 96. Williams v. Scott 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 499 
 
 — Disorderly house — Property used aa a. 
 
 See Vendob and Pdbchaseb — Speciflo 
 Performance. 72. 
 
 61. — Error — Latent defect in title — Vendor's 
 power to rescind — Right of way. 
 
 An agreement provided (clause 6) that if any 
 error should be found in the description of the 
 property in the sched., the same should not annul 
 the sale, but that compensation should be allowed 
 therefor, and (clause 8) that if there should be 
 any objection as to title, the vendor should be 
 entitled to rescind. Subsequently a right of way, 
 of which neither party was aware, was discovered 
 over a portion of the property : — 
 
 Beld, that the existence of the right of way 
 was a latent defect in the title within clause 6, 
 but that the error was also an objection to title 
 within clause 8, and that the vendor was entitled 
 to rescind. Ashbubner v. Sewell 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 405 
 
 — Error — Mistake in acreage — Specific perform- 
 
 ance. 
 
 See No. 71, below. 
 
 62. — Failure to pay moneys due under agree- 
 ment — Purchaser let into possession before comple- 
 tion — Action by vendor for rescission of agreement 
 — Motion that purchaser give up possession in 
 default of making payments due under agreement 
 — Appointment of receiver. 
 
 An agreement for the sale of a leasehold in- 
 terest in land provided that possession should be 
 given to the purchaser on payment of a specified 
 part of the purchase-money, he undertaking to 
 pay the rent and other outgoings, and also, on 
 taking possession, paying to the vendor the cost 
 of a new fence. The specified part of the pur- 
 chase-money having been paid, the purchaser 
 was let into possession, but he failed to pay the 
 cost of the fence and did not pay the rent and 
 taxes, so that the vendor had to pay them in 
 order to prevent the forfeiture of the lease. The 
 vendor commenced an action for rescission of the 
 agreement on the ground that he had been 
 induced to enter into it by misrepresentation, and 
 moved in the action for an order on the deft, 
 to deliver up possession of the land in default of 
 his making the payments due under the agree- 
 ment : — 
 
 Held, that the motion, seeking in effect the 
 specific performance of some of the terms of tho 
 agreement, was inconsistent with tlie claim for 
 rescission made by the writ, and must therefore 
 be refused. 
 
 But a receiver was appointed for the purpose 
 of securing the payments in question. Cook v. 
 Andbews - - North J. [1897] 1 Ch. 266 
 
 63. — Litigation — Effect of commencing — 
 Power to rescind — Costs. 
 
 Property was sold under conditions of sale 
 empowering the vendor by notice to rescind the 
 sale if any objection should be insisted on which 
 
 4 C 
 
( 224S ) 
 
 DlGfiSt OF CASEiS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2244 ) 
 
 VHNSDR AND FVBCHASEB (Besoissiou) — 
 
 continued. 
 Ihe vendor should he unable to remove, " not- 
 withstanding any intermediate negotiation," and 
 that on rescission the purchaser should be entitled 
 to receive back his deposit without interest or 
 costs. The condition was silent as to intermediate 
 litigation. The purchaser Insisted on an objection 
 that the particulars misrepresented that the 
 property was freehold, and that the title shewn 
 was only to a term under an underlease ; and on 
 this ground he commenced an action on Nov. 30, 
 1896, for rescission of the contract, return of his 
 deposit, and payment of the expenses of investigat- 
 ing the title. 
 
 Before further proceedings were taken the 
 vendor, on Dec. 4, 1896, gave the purchaser 
 notice of tbe rescission of the contract, and offered 
 to repay the deposit. On the efidence it was 
 held that the misrepresentation was not made 
 out: — 
 
 Held, that the notice was in time, and that 
 the purchaser was only entitled to a return of his 
 deposit without interest, and to the costs of the 
 iiction lip to the time of the receipt of the notice 
 to rescind, and that he must pay the deft.'s costs 
 as from that date. Isaacs v. Toweli, 
 
 Byrne J. [1898] 2 Ch. 285 
 
 64. — Litigation — Final, judgment given 
 adverse to the title — Power to rescind. 
 
 Conditions of sale gave power fur the vendors 
 to annul the sale and return the deposit without 
 compensation, if unable or unwilling to meet any 
 raquisition or objection, "notwithstanding any 
 previous negotiation or litigation" : — • 
 
 Held, that the condition could not be construed 
 to include a final judgment given adverse to the 
 title, and therefore the vendors on rescinding 
 were bound to pay the intending purchaser the 
 cost of investigating the title. In re Arbib and 
 Class' Contkact - C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 601 
 
 65. — Non-disclosure to 'purchaser — Absence 
 of fraudulent intent — Refcission of contract — Town 
 property^-Local autliority — Notices to pare, &c. — 
 Service of notices on vendor before sale — Execution 
 of works by local authority — Expenses — Charge on 
 premises — Outgoings — Particulars of sale — Con- 
 ditions of sale — "Omission in particulars" — 
 Compensation — Misleading condition — Caveat 
 emptor — Specific performance — Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 150, 257. 
 
 The omission by a vendor, witliout fraudulent 
 intent, to disclose, before sale, to the purchaser of 
 town leasehold property the fact that he, the 
 vendor, had been served by the local authority 
 with the usual notices under the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, to pave, &c., the street fronting the 
 ])remises, is not such an " omission in the par- 
 ticulars" tending to depreciate the value of the 
 jiroperty as to entitle the purchaser, if he com- 
 pletes his purchase, to compensation under the 
 usual general condition, where the works are not 
 executed by the local authority, and the expenses 
 thereof do not therefore become a charge on the 
 premises, until after the completion of the 
 purchase. 
 
 But whether such an omission on the part 
 of the vendor, even though without fraudulent 
 intent, would have afforded the purchaser sufiBcient 
 
 VENDOB Am) FUBCHASEB (Bescission) ^ 
 
 amtinued, 
 ground for resisting specific performance of his 
 contract, or for an action for rescission, qucere. 
 
 A condition of sale indemnifying the vendor 
 against expenses " in complying with any require- 
 ment enforceable against him and made after the 
 sale by the local authority in respect of paving 
 &c., the streets " is not such an implied state- 
 ment that no requirement has been made by the 
 local authority before the sale as to entitle the 
 purchaser to relief on the ground of deception on 
 discovering that notices under the Public Health 
 Act, 1875, had been served on the vendor before 
 the sale. In re Letland and Taylor's Contract 
 C. A. [1900] 2 Ch. 625 
 66. — Restrictive covenant — Forfeiture clause 
 of premises used as an inn, aleliouse, or spirit shop 
 — Premises uninterruptedly used as a public-house 
 for upwards of thirty years — Waiver — Leasehold 
 premises. 
 
 Summons by a purchaser of certain leasehold 
 premises which had been sold under an Order of 
 the Court, asking that she might be discharged 
 from her purchase. 
 
 The premises, together with other premises, 
 were held under a lease from the corporation of 
 Newcastle, which contained a clause of forfeiture 
 if the premises should at any time be used as an 
 inn, alehouse, or spirit shop. 
 
 It appeared from the evidence that the pre- 
 mises had, with the knowledge of the corporation, 
 been uninterruptedly used as a public-house for 
 upwards of thirty years, and were so used at the 
 time of the sale :— 
 
 HeJd, that the purchaser got a good title. 
 In re Sumjierson. Downie v. Summerson 
 
 Bomer J. [1900] 1 Ch. 112, n. 
 67. — Restrictive covenant — Noise — Nuisance 
 — Boys' school — Misrepresentation by vendor's 
 agent. 
 
 A deed of covenant of 1851, relating to a 
 building estate, after forbidding certain offensive 
 and noisy trades and businesses, provided that 
 there should not be carried on " any trade or busi- 
 ness or occupation whatsoever whereby any in- 
 jurious offensireor disagreeable noise or nuisance 
 shall or may be occasioned caused or made." 
 The pit. entered into a contract for the purchase 
 from the deft, of a house on this estate for the 
 purpose of a boys' school, on the representation of 
 the deft.'s agent that there was nothing in this 
 deed wliich would prevent him from carrying on 
 such a school on this property. On an action for 
 rescission of the contract : — 
 
 Held, that the carrying on of the plt.'s school 
 in an ordinary and reasonable way would be 
 within the wording of the restrictive covenant, 
 which could not be limited to trades or busi- 
 nesses ejusdem generis with those specifically 
 mentioned ; and that the pit., having been 
 induced by a misrepresentation of fact made 
 by the deft.'s agent to enter into this contract, 
 was entitled in equity to rescission, even though 
 the representation had not been made fraudu- 
 lently. WadTON II. COPPARD 
 
 Bomer J. [1899] 1 Ch. 92 
 
 68. — Restrictive covenant prohibiting sale of 
 
 leer and spirits — Continuing covenant hroJien for 
 
( 22i5 ) 
 
 DlGESl 0¥ OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2246 ) 
 
 VENDOR AND PITRCHASEB (Eeseission) — 
 continued. 
 
 am, uninterrupted period of twenty-four yean— 
 Wat Iter — Freehold premises. 
 
 By a conveyance dated in 1874, a certain 
 plot of land was conveyed subject to a covenant 
 that no dwelling-house, shop, or other building 
 to be erected on the land should at any time 
 thereafter be used as an inn, tavern, or beer- 
 house. 
 
 Shortly after the date of the conveyance beer 
 and spirits Were sold in one of the houses erected 
 on the land, and continued to be openly sold for 
 upwards of twenty-four years : — 
 
 Seld, in an action by a purchaser to rescind 
 a contract for sale of that house on the ground 
 of the existence of this restrictive covenant, that 
 it must be presumed from the uninterrupted user 
 of the premises as a beerhouse for twenty-four 
 years, that there had been a waiver or release of 
 the covenant. 
 
 Gibson v. Boeg, (1857) 2 H. & N. 615, dis- 
 cussed and followed. Hepworth v. Pickles 
 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 216; [1900] 1 Ch. 108 
 
 — Eight to obtain— Undisclosed restrictive cove- 
 nants — Form of conveyance. 
 See Vendor and Pdkohaser — Convey- 
 ance. 48. 
 
 69. — Vendor's power to rescind on persistence 
 in requisitions — Wilful delay — Negotiations with 
 third party. 
 
 Where the vendor may rescind on requisitions 
 which he is not prepared to comply with being 
 persisted in, he must exercise that right in good 
 faith. If he does not let the purchaser tnow 
 whether the contract is to go on or no, and still 
 further if he meanwhile negotiates with third 
 parties, the purcuaser will be entitled to the 
 return of the deposit with interest and costs. 
 Smith v. Wallace Bomer J. [1895] 1 Ch, 385 
 
 Specific Performance. 
 
 See also under Specific Perpohmanoe 
 and Vendor and Purchaser, passim. 
 
 70. — Compensation — Open contract — Eestric- 
 tive covenants. 
 
 The jurisdiction to enforce specific perform- 
 ance with compensation for defects on a vendor, 
 in cases where the contract is silent as to com- 
 pensation, rests on the equitable estoppel referred 
 to in Mortlock v. Buller, (1804) 10 Ves. 292, 315 ; 
 7 E. E. 417, and Casfle v. Wilkinson, (1870) L. E. 
 5 Ch. 534, 537, namely, that where a vendor has 
 represented and contracted to sell an estate as 
 his own, and the purchaser has relied on the 
 representation, the vendor cannot afterwards be 
 heard to say he has not the entirety. 
 
 Compensation for restrictive covenants being 
 incapable of assessment, the relief is inapplicable. 
 
 Dictum of Jessel M.E. in Cato v. Thompson, 
 (13*82) 9 Q. B. r>. 616, ^18, approved and 
 followed. 
 
 Serrible, to avoid hardship the relief should be 
 confined to cases where the actual subject-matter 
 is substantially the same as that, stated in the 
 contract. Ebdd v. Lascellbs 
 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 78; [1900] 1 Ch. 815 
 
 71. — Condition precedent — Mistake in acreage 
 
 VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Specific Perform- 
 ance) — ccmtinued. 
 — Memorandum of agreement — "Subject to ap- 
 proval of form of agreement" — Sesoission — Statute 
 of Frauds (29 Gar. 2, c. 3)— Form of order— In- 
 terest — " Wilful default." 
 
 By "heads of agreement" between a vendor 
 and purchaser it was agreed that the purchaser 
 should purchase " 36 acres of land," the bound- 
 aries of which were thereby accurately defined 
 on three sides but not on the fourth, for 3600Z., 
 "subject to approval of conditions and form of 
 agreement by purchaser's solicitor." The vendor 
 afterwards discovered that the land which he 
 supposed formed the subject-matter of the con- 
 tract measured out at 42 acres, and required the 
 purchaser to take the whole 42 acres at 4200Z., 
 being 1001. per acre. The purchaser, however, 
 insisted that the contract should stand for the 
 sale of 36 acres only, and brought an action for 
 specific performance on that footing : — 
 
 Held, that the purchaser was entitled to 
 specific performance on three grounds : (1.) that 
 the fourth boundary could be readily fixed so as 
 to include 36 acres; (2.) that the "heads of 
 agreement " constituted a complete contract, and 
 that the clause "subject to approval, &c.," was 
 not a condition precedent to a complete contract ; 
 and (3.) that there was no such mistake as 
 entitled the vendor to rescission. 
 
 Form op Order. — The contract contained a 
 stipulation that if the purchase was not com- 
 pleted by the day named, the purchase-money 
 should bear interest at 4 per cent, from that day 
 until actual completion : — 
 
 Held, that the vendor's repudiation of the 
 contract by resisting the purchaser's claim to 
 specific performance did not constitute such 
 " wilful defavdt" as to disentitle him to interest. 
 North v. Peroival Kekewich J. [1898] 2 Ch. 128 
 — Delay— Sale of reversion— Equitable interest. 
 See Speoipio Perpormanoe. 4. 
 72. — Disorderly house, Property used as a 
 — Rescission of contract. 
 
 Property sold by auction under the descrip- 
 tion of an eligible freehold property for invest- 
 ment, comprising a house and shop let on a 
 quarterly tenancy, was discovered before comple- 
 tion to be used by the tenant as a disorderly 
 house. Neither the vendors nor the purchaser 
 knew previously that the house was being im- 
 properly used. The agreement of tenancy con- 
 tained a covenant by the tenant not to use the 
 house as a disorderly house, and a proviso for 
 re-entry in case of breach of covenant : — 
 
 Held, (1.) (reversing Cozens-Hardy J., [1899] 
 W. N. 36 (12) ; [1899] 1 Oh. 879) that specific 
 performance ought not to be granted, inasmuch 
 as the purchaser, unless he took steps to prevent 
 the improper use of the property by the tenant, 
 would become liable as lessor to criminal pro- 
 ceedings under the Orii'iii'^l ^^^ Amendment 
 Act 1885, by reason of the state of the property 
 at the time of the sale ; (2.) (affirming Oozens- 
 Hardy J.) that this was not a ground for rescis- 
 sion of the contract. 
 
 Lucas V. James, (1849) 7 Hare, 410, distin- 
 euished. Hope v. Walter 
 
 C, A, [1900] W, N, SO ; [1900] 1 Ch, 367 
 4 2 
 
( U247 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 22i8 ) 
 
 VENDOR AND PUBCHASES (Specific Perform- 
 ance) — continued. 
 
 73. — Public-house — Contract — Memorandum 
 in writing — Reference to formal contract — Utual 
 public-house contract — Uncertainty. 
 
 Vendor's action for specific performance of an 
 alleged agreement to buy a leasehold public- 
 house. The alleged agreement signed by both 
 parties stated (inter aUa) .... "The usual 
 pubUo-house contract to be entered into within 
 the nest four days. The completion to be on or 
 before one month from this date." Before any 
 "usual public-house contract " was entered into, 
 the deft., treating the matter as stUl in negotia- 
 tion, withdrew from the proposed purchase, the 
 cheque given for lOOi. in part payment being 
 stopped. 
 
 It appeared from the evidence that the usual 
 public-house contract would contain a covenant 
 by the vendor not to carry on a similar business 
 ■within a distance varying from one-third of a 
 mile to a mile in different cases, a sum being fixed 
 as liquidated damages for breach of such covenant. 
 Neither the distance nor the amount of liquidated 
 damages had been settled in the present case : — 
 
 Held, that the Court would have no difBoulty 
 i n determining on proper evidence what would be 
 the usual and reasonable protected distance, and 
 liquidated damages in the particular case : — 
 
 Held also, that the contract was complete on 
 February 1, and must be specifically performed. 
 LuoAs V. Hall - Kekewioh J. [1899] W. N. 92 
 
 — Eepudintion of contract by purchaser — Pur- 
 
 chase-money payable by instalments- 
 Bight of vendor to retain instalments 
 paid. 
 
 See Vendob and Puechaseb — Contracts. 
 35. 
 
 — Specific performance. 
 
 See also Cases under Speoifio Per- 
 
 EORMANCE. 
 
 Title. 
 
 74. — Adoption of sale — Mistake as to title. 
 A., as heir-at-law, mortgaged land to B. 
 
 Both A. and B. knew that the former owner had 
 Itft a will, but believed that there was an 
 intestacy as to the land mortgaged. B. subse- 
 quently sold the land under the power of sale. 
 Subsequently the beneficiaries under the will 
 discovered the mistake, and claimed the purchase- 
 money from B. : — 
 
 Held, that the mortgage deed was worthless 
 and that the beneficiaries were entitled to adopt 
 B.'s sale, and follow the purchase-money, subject 
 to B.'s charges, and if the money lent were for 
 1 ho benefit of the estate, subject to the repayment 
 o the money. In re Champion. Dudley v. 
 Champion - - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 76. — Adverse rights — Notice of tenancy. 
 
 A tenant's occupation of land affects a pur- 
 chaser with notice of all tliat tenant's rights, but 
 not of his lessor's title or rights. Actual know- 
 ledge that the rents are paid by the tenants to 
 some person whose receipt is inconsistent with the 
 title of the vendor is notice of that person's 
 riglits ; but the mere fact that the rents are 
 known to bo paid to an estate agent, according 
 
 VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Title)— oontjni^. 
 to the usual practice, affects the purchaser with 
 no notice at aU. 
 
 BarnluxH v. Greenshields, (1853) 9 Moo. P. C. 
 18, and Krdght v. Boioyer, (1858) 23 Beav. 609; 
 2 D. & J. 421, followed. 
 
 Mumford v. Stohwatser, (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 
 556, not followed. Hunt v. Luck 
 
 Farwell J. [1900] W. N. 250 ; 
 see [1901] 1 Ch. 45 
 
 76. — Condition— Reverter— Commonlaw con- 
 dition— Shifting use— Ride against perpetuities. 
 
 In 1898 a contract was entered into on behalf 
 of the present trustees of HoIUs' Hospital for the 
 sale of certain freehold property belonging to the 
 hospital. 
 
 The property contracted to be sold formed 
 part of certain property which had been conveyed 
 by H. to trustees upon trusts for the hospital by 
 deeds of lease and release dated May 17 and 18, 
 1726. The release contained a proviso that if at 
 any time thereafter the premises thereby conveyed 
 or any part thereof, or the rents, issues, and 
 profits of the same or of any part thereof, should 
 be employed or converted to or for any other 
 uses, intents, or purposes than there therein- 
 before mentioned, then and from thenceforth all 
 and every the premises thereinbefore conveyed 
 should revert to the right heirs of H. party 
 thereto. 
 
 The title had been accepted and the draft 
 conveyance approved when » letter was received 
 by the purchaser's solicitors from A., one of the 
 trustees of the hospital, intimating that as the 
 heir-at-law of H. he had not concurred in the sale, 
 and calling their attention to the clause in the 
 release under which if the sale was carried out 
 the property would revert to him. 
 
 A summons was thereupon taken out by the 
 purchaser for a declaration that a good title to 
 the hereditaments contracted to be sold had not 
 been made : — 
 
 Held, that the condition was in terms and 
 form a true common law condition, and was void 
 as being obnoxious to the rule against per- 
 petuities. 
 
 The dictum of Jessel M.E. in In re MacHeay, 
 (1875) L. E. 20 Eq. 186, and of North J. in 
 Bunn V. Flood, (1883) 25 Ch. D. 629, affirmed by 
 C. A. (1885) 28 Ch. X>. 586, followed. 
 
 The remarks in Challis on the Law of Real 
 Property, 2nd ed. pp. 174-177, upon the question 
 whether the rule against perpetuitieB applies to 
 common law conditions in defeasance of a free- 
 hold discussed at length and dissented from. 
 
 HOd, further, that in view of the notice 
 received from A. claiming as heir-at-law of _H., 
 and who declined to be bound by the decision, 
 the title was not one which could be forced upon 
 an unwilling purchaser. 
 
 In re Thackwray and Young's CoTttract, (1888) 
 40 Ch. D. 34, followed. In re Trustees of 
 HoLLis' Hospital and Hague's Conteact 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] W, N. 109; [1899] 2 Ch. 540 
 
 77. — Condition limiting commencement of title 
 — Prior title not io he objected to— Right to object 
 to prior title as slieu'ii aliunde. 
 
 A. sold to B. what purported to be an estate 
 in fee simple, subject to tlio condition " that the 
 
( 2249 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2250 ) , 
 
 VENDOR AND PUBCHASEB (TitU)— continued. 
 title shall oommeuoe with a conveyanoe on sale 
 dated ' 1869,' and the prior title, -whether appear- 
 ing in any abstracted document or not, shall not 
 be required, investigated or objected to." B. 
 objected that by reason of a will prior to 1869, 
 which he had discovered aliunde, the vendors 
 only had a title to a life estate : — 
 
 Seld, that the purchaser was bound by the 
 condition and was not entitled to a declaration 
 that the vendors had not shewn a good title and 
 to the return of his deposit, but quiere whether 
 A. could enforce specific performance. In re 
 Nationai Pbovinoial Bank op England and 
 Mabsh - - North J. [1895] 1 Oh. 190 
 
 78. — Condition precedent — Waiver. 
 
 A stipulation in a memorandum that the 
 agreement was " subject to the preparation by 
 the vendor's solicitor and completion of a formal 
 contract" cannot be waived by the vendor as 
 being intended for his benefit alone, so as to 
 constitute the rest of the memorandum a final 
 contract enforceable against the purchaser. Lloyd 
 V. NowELL - Kekewioh J. [1895] 2 Ch. 744 
 
 — Condition restricting objections to title — Bad 
 
 title shewn aliunde— Deposit, 
 See Vendor and Pubohasbb — Con- 
 ditions of Sale. 8. 
 
 79. — Conveyance — Concurrence of all execu- 
 tors — Seal estate — Land Transfer Act, 1897 
 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 65), s. 1; s. 2, sub-s. 2 ; s. 24, 
 suh-8. 2. 
 
 Where a testator dies subsequently to the 
 Land Transfer Act, 1897, having appointed 
 executors, his real estate vests in all the execu- 
 tors, and not only in those who prove the will 
 or act in the administration of the estate; and 
 the executors who have proved the will cannot 
 convey the legal fee simple without the con- 
 currence of their co-executor who has not proved. 
 In re Pawlet and London and Pbovinoial Bank 
 Kekewioh J. [1899] W. N, 214; [1900] 1 Ch. 58 
 
 — Conveyance, Form of— Practice — Summons. 
 
 See Vbndoe and Purchabeb — Con- 
 veyance. 41. 
 
 80. — Copylwlds — Devise to trustees — legal 
 istate — Estate commensurate with purposes of 
 trust. 
 
 X. devised copyholds to trustees, their heirs 
 and assigns, upon trust, to pay the rents thereof 
 to A. for life, and after the death of A. to stand 
 seised of them in trust for such persons as A. 
 should appoint. A.'s will appointed trustees and 
 directed them to sell the copyholds and assure 
 them for purchaser, &o. X.'s trustees were 
 ■ admitted to the copyholds : — 
 
 Held, that (1) under X.'s will his trustees 
 took an estate of inheritance in quasi fee simple ; 
 (2) that A.'s will operated as an exercise of the 
 power of appointment ; (3) that the legal estate 
 in the copyholds remained vested in the sur- 
 viving trustee of X.'s wiU, and that a title thereto 
 must be deduced accordingly. In re Townsend's 
 Contract - Stirling J. [1896] 1 Oh. 716 
 
 Discussed by Kekewioh J. 
 [1898] ? Oh. J33. 
 
 North V. Pereival, 
 
 VENDOR AND PUECHASEE Clitle)— continued. 
 
 — County courts — Action involving question of 
 
 title to hereditament. 
 
 See County Court — Costs. 17. 
 
 81. — Covenants for title — Conveyance as 
 "beneficial owner" — Secret inoumbrances — Con- 
 veyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 7, 
 sub-s. 1 {a). 
 
 A. granted a lease and afterwards took a 
 release (both for value) of lands to B. Between 
 the lease and release, B. granted sub-leases by 
 way of mortgage which he did not disclose to A. 
 Subsequently A. conveyed to O.'s predecessor in 
 title : — 
 
 Held, that A. was liable to 0. for breach of 
 the covenants of title for quiet enjoyment and 
 freedom from incumbrances implied under the 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 7 (1) (a). David v. 
 Sarin - - - C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 523 
 
 82. — Defect of title appearing on conveyance — 
 Incumbrance — Covenants for title. 
 
 The M. Co. purchased from X. land to which 
 she derived title under the will of Y., the goodness 
 of the title depending on the construction of the 
 will, which was recited in full in the conveyanoe 
 to the CO. X. conveyed as an owner in fee, and 
 covenanted for title, with indemnity against any 
 person legally or equitably claiming under X. or 
 Y. After X.'s death the title was decided to be 
 defective, and the oo. had to pay the purchase- 
 money over again : — 
 
 Held, that covenants for title apply to all 
 defects within their terms, whether such defects 
 are known to the purchaser or not, and that the 
 CO. were entitled to be indemnified by the execu- 
 tors of X. Page v. Midland Ky. Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 11 
 
 83. — Defective exercise of statutory power of 
 sale — Specific performance — Mortgagee vendor — 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 19, 
 sub-s. 1 (i) ; ss. 20, 21, svh-s. 2. 
 
 The provision in sub-s. 2 of s. 21 of the Con- 
 veyancing Act, 1881, that where a conveyanoe is 
 made in professed exercise of the power of sale 
 conferred on mortgagees by the Act, the title of 
 the purchaser shall not be impeached on the 
 ground that the power was improperly exercised, 
 does not apply until the conveyanoe has been 
 obtained; consequently, it does not preclude a 
 person who has contracted to purchase from a 
 mortgagee purporting to sell under his s.tatutory 
 power of sale from inquiring whether the vendor 
 was in a position to exercise the power, nor from 
 proving aliunde, in answer to an action for specific 
 performance, that the power was improperly exer- 
 
 Dicker v. Angerstein, (1876) 3 Ch. D. 600, 
 explained and distinguished. Life Ikteebst and 
 Eevbbbionabt Securities Corpoeation v. Hand- 
 in-Hand Fire and Life Insurance Society 
 
 Stirling J. [1898] 2 Ch. 230 
 
 — Defect in title unknown to vendor—" Default." 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Interest. 
 54. 
 
 — Defective title by reason of recent decision of 
 
 the Court — Specific performance — Leave 
 
 to defend. 
 
 See Practice— Pleadings. 161, 
 
( 2251 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2252 ) 
 
 VENDOR AND PUECHASEB (Titley-continued. 
 — Disclaimer — ^Partial disclaimer of trusts. 
 See Teustee — ^Disclaimer. 49. 
 
 84. — Executor — Sale of leaseholds hy executor 
 — Lapse of twenty years from testator's death, — 
 Mxecutor's power to sell. 
 
 The rule that after twenty years from the 
 death of a testator the purchaser of real estate is 
 put upon his inquiry as to the executor's right to 
 sell, does not apply to the case of a sale of lease- 
 holds. A contract for sale of leaseholds provided 
 that the title should commence with a lease to T. 
 dated 1852, and that the purchasers should not 
 require an abstract of an earlier title. The 
 abstract disclosed that the lease was granted to 
 T. as executor of P. in consideration (inter alia) 
 of a surrendered term. Nothing was shewn as to 
 the date of P.' death. The next abstracted deed 
 was an assignment in 1878 by T. as beneficial 
 owner to the vendor : — 
 
 Held, that in the absence of evidence to the 
 contrary T. must be presumed to have acted in 
 the discharge of his duty as executor, and that 
 neither the lapse of time nor the fact that he did 
 not execute the deed of 1878 as executor were 
 suflScient to raise the presumption that he acted 
 otherwise : — 
 
 Held, therefore, that the abstract shewed a 
 good title. In re Veiw and Fukze's Contbaot 
 Stirling J. [1894] 2 Ch. 101 
 
 85. — Oavelkind lands — Enfeoffment — Insuffi- 
 cient consideration — Infant customary heir. 
 
 A vendor furnished to the purchaser as part 
 of his title to gavelkind lands certain customary 
 feoffments with livery of seisin made to him when 
 he purchased the property by infant co-heirs in 
 gavelkind at the age of fifteen. It appeared on 
 the face of the title that the purchase-money 
 paid by him to the infants was not the full value 
 of their shares, and that they were still under 
 twenty-one : — 
 
 Held, that the title could not be forced upon 
 the purchaser. In re Maskell and Goldfinch's 
 CoNTKAOT - Stirling J. [1896] 2 Ch. 525 
 
 86. — Leaseholds — Deeds recited hut not ab- 
 stracted in chief — Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 78), ss. 1, 2 — Conveyancing Act, 
 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), «. 3, svb-s. 3. 
 
 On a sale of leaseholds the vendor abstracted 
 and produced the deed creating the term, the 
 deed (1844) of assignment to him and subsequent 
 deeds, but not a deed of 1840 assigning the legal 
 estate to trustees, which was recited in the deed 
 of 1844:— 
 
 Held, that, as forty years' good title was 
 shewn, the deed of 1840 need not be abstracted in 
 chief Although it is necessary to abstract and 
 produce the deed creating a term, it is not neces- 
 sary to abstract or produce deeds dealing with the 
 term prior to the necessary commencement of the 
 title, unless for some good reason arising from 
 the special circumstances of the case. Williams 
 V. Spabgo - Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 100 
 
 87. ■ — No title shewn — Damages — Costs of in- 
 vestigating tale. 
 
 In a purchaser's action specific performance 
 with an inquiry as to title was decreed. The 
 writ and statement of claim did not ask for 
 damages or "further or other relief." On it 
 
 VENDOE AND PTJECHASEE (^itley— continued. 
 appearing that the defendant had no title, the 
 Court, by way of damages, directed the retiuTi of 
 the deposit with iaterest, and gave the purchaser 
 his costs of the action and of the agreement and 
 investigation of title. Peabl Life Assubanoe 
 Co. V. BUTTENSHAW CMtty J. [1893] W. N. 123 
 
 88. — Notice of trusts of mortga.ge money — 
 Mortgagee not one of the original trustees — Joint 
 account clause — Objection — Sufficiency. 
 
 A contract was entered into for the sale of 
 property which was subject to a mortgage to two 
 persons. The mortgage deed contained the usual 
 statement that the money belonged to the mort- 
 gagees on a joint account. By inadvertence it 
 was disclosed to the purchasers that the mort- 
 gage money was held on the trusts of a settle- 
 ment of which the mortgagees were not the 
 original trustees : — 
 
 Held, that the purchasers were entitled to 
 require that it should be shewn that the mort- 
 gagees were the duly appointed trustees of the 
 settlement. 
 
 In re Harman and Tfxbridge and Sichmans- 
 taorth By. Co., (1883) 24 Ch. D. 720, distinguished. 
 In re Blaibeeq and Abrahams 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 98 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 340 
 
 89. — Objections to title — Delay of Sale — Con- 
 structive notice. 
 
 Conditions fixed the commencement of title in 
 1852, and limited the time for requisitions. ' The 
 purchaser, before completion, discovered a restric- 
 tive covenant created in 1847 : — 
 
 Held, that the existence of the restrictive 
 covenant was fatal, because the purchaser, by 
 taking less than a forty years' title, would have 
 had constructive notice of it, and would have been 
 bound by it : — 
 
 Held, also, on the facts, that there was no 
 delay in giving the vendor notice of the defect. 
 In re Cox and Neve's Contkaot 
 
 North J. [1891] 2 Ch. 109 
 
 90. — Objections to title — Voluntary convey- 
 ance — Possible bankruptcy of settlor — Avoidance of 
 settlement — Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, 
 c. 52), s. 47 — Fraudulent Conveyances Act (27 Bliz. 
 c. 4). 
 
 Trustees for sale under a voluntary settlement 
 contracted to sell and agreed that the settlor 
 should concur. The purchasers objected to the 
 title :— 
 
 Held, that a sale by the trustees with the 
 concurrence of the settlor would not avoid the 
 dangers of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 47, and 
 the title was not good. The Court suggested that 
 the settlor should avoid the settlement (27 Eliz. 
 c. 4) by selUng directly to the purchasers and 
 resettling the proceeds by directing payment to 
 the trustees. In re Bkiggs & Spider 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] 2 Ch. 127 
 
 See ?iow the Voluntary Conveyances Act, 1893 
 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 21). 
 
 Overruled by C. A. In re Carter and Eender- 
 dine's Contract, [1897] 1 Ch. 776. 
 
 91. — Objectionsto title — Voluntary settlement 
 — Title derived under. 
 
 Whether A., in consideration of B.'s paying 
 his debt and taking on himself a liability, con- 
 
( 2253 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF GASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 22S4 ) 
 
 VENDOR AND PURCHASER (Title)— oontinued. 
 vejed his property in trust for C; and B., in 
 consideratibn of A. so conveying the property, 
 agreed to pay A.'s debt and to tuke on Miuself a 
 liability': — • 
 
 Seld, that there was a consideration moving 
 from A. to B. and from B. to A., and that, there- 
 fore, the transaction did not amount to a voluntary 
 settlement either by A. or B. within s. 47 of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and that C. could make 
 a good title to the property. Tn re Dai-e and 
 Elsden - - Stirling J. [1892] W. N, 56 
 
 92. — Order of Court, Sale under — I'rotection 
 of purohaser — Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 ViQt. c. 41), s. 70, mb-s. 1. 
 
 Sect. 70, snb-s. 1 of the Conveyancing Act, 
 1881, which provides that " an order of the Court 
 under any statutory or other jurisdiction shall 
 not as against a purchaser be invalidated on the 
 ground of (inter alia) want of jurisdiction," does 
 not operate to give a good title to a purchaser 
 at a sale under an order of the Court when the 
 Court in making the order supposed that it was 
 dealing with an interest belonging to a judgment 
 debtor, though it in fact belonged to a person 
 not a party to the proceedings and not bound by 
 them. 
 
 Under such circumstances, notwithstanding 
 the order of the Court and the provisions of 
 8. 70, that person has a good title as against the 
 purchaser. 
 
 In re Ball Dare's Contraot, (1882) 21 Ch. D. 
 41, and Moslyn v. Mostyn, [1893] 3 Ch. 376, 
 distinguished. 
 
 Decision of Eomer J., [1899] "W. N. 26 (4) ; 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 611, affirmed. Jones v. Babnett 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 29; [1900] 1 Ch. 370 
 
 — Possessory title. 
 
 See Vbndob and Pcbohasbb— Conditions 
 of Sale, 6. 
 
 — Power of sale. 
 
 See PowEBS. 34. 
 
 — Practice — ^Vendor and purchaser summons — 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Vendoe and Pubohasee — Convey- 
 ance. 48. 
 ^- " Eent-charge " — Conveyance of land and 
 easement to corporation reserving per- 
 petual rent — Charge on rates and tolls. 
 See Kent-chaegb. 4. 
 
 93. — Eestrictive covenant — Enforcement — 
 " Assigns " — Meaning of. The owner of a build- 
 ing estate inserted in his conveyances a covenant 
 restricting the right of altering, &c., buildings 
 withoutlthe consent of him, the grantor, his heirs 
 or assigns : — 
 
 Seld, that the word " assigns " did not include 
 the purchaser of a small portion of the estate, and 
 that such a purchaser could not enforce the cove- 
 nant. Evebett v. Remington - Romer J. 
 
 [1892] 3 Ch. 148 
 
 94. — Jleversion — Meversioner unknown — 
 Biqht to value of reversion after expiration of term 
 —Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 18), 
 
 0.79. 
 
 Certain land was purchased compulsorily as 
 freehold. On examination of the title the land 
 ^^,8 ^i^cpvprpdto be heldo^ ^ long term of wbjch 
 
 VENDOR AND PURCHASER (T!itle)—contiriued. 
 a few years were still to run. The owner re- 
 ceived compensation as leaseholder and the 
 purchasers went into possession, paying into court 
 the value of the reversion. Twelve years after 
 the term had expired, the representative of the 
 leaseholder, there being no other claimant, applied 
 to have the reversion money paid out to him. 
 
 The Court refused the application, holding 
 that the leaseholder was not in possession when 
 the term expired and never had any inolioate 
 possession of or title to the reversion. Gedte v. 
 COMMBS. OP WoEKS - C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 630 
 
 — Review of order of Court of Appeal — Order 
 
 declaring good title — Counter-claim. 
 See Peaotice — Review. 179. 
 
 — Settlement. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land and 
 - Settlement. 
 
 95. — Unwilling purchaser — Qualified covenant 
 against assignment — Lessor's consent — Unreason- 
 able refusal. 
 
 The vendor was the lessee of a public-house. 
 The lease under which the property was held 
 contained a covenant against assigning without 
 the consent of the lessor, with the usual qualifi- 
 cation as to refusal in tlie case of a respectable 
 and responsible tenant. 
 
 The vendor agreed to sell the property to the 
 purchasers, who were brewers, under an open 
 contract. The lessor refused to give his consent 
 to the assignment, stating that the main ground 
 of his objection was that he desired the house to 
 remain a free house : — 
 
 Held, upon summons taken out by the pur- 
 chasers asking for a declaration that a good title 
 had not been shewn, that the title was not one 
 which could be forced upon an unwilling pur- 
 chaser. In re Marshall and Salt's Contraot 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 105 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 202 
 
 96. — Wife turning base fee into fee simple — 
 Absolute acltnowledgment. 
 
 A base fee in remainder created by vendors 
 when spinsters can be turned in'.o a fee simple 
 absolute by the vendors, if married after the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882, without 
 acknowledgment or the concurrence of the hus- 
 bands. In re Dedmmokd and Davie's Contbaot 
 CMtty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 524 
 
 Title Deeds. 
 
 97. — Covenant to produce deeds — Contract for 
 lease — Lessor's title — Bight of lessee to acknow- 
 ledgment or covenant for production — Vend-or and 
 Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 * 38 Vict. c. l>i), s. 2. 
 
 An agreement for a lease contained provisions 
 that the lessor should deliver an abstract of title, 
 and that the lease should contain the covenants 
 and be in the form of the draft scheduled to the 
 aTeement. From the abstract it appeared that 
 the property was mortgaged, but that the mortga- 
 gee had agreed to dispense with his concurrenoo 
 in granting leases. The draft lease contained no 
 acknowledgment for the production of the agree- 
 ment as to leasing, and no covenant for produc- 
 tion of deeds :— 
 
 Held, that the wording of the agreement ex- 
 cluded s. % oi the Vendor and Purchaser- Act, 
 
( 2255 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2256 ) 
 
 VENDOE AND PTTECHASEB (Title Deeds)— 
 
 continued. 
 1874, and that the lessee was entitled to the 
 acknowledgment and covenant for production. 
 In re Purbell and Deabin's Contract 
 
 Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 152 
 
 98. — Custody of title deeds — Betention of part 
 of estate hy vendor — Contract for sale of land — 
 Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict, 
 c. 78), s. 2, r. 5. 
 
 A mortgagee, in exercise of the power of sale 
 contained in hia mortgage, which comprised free- 
 hold land and also some policies of insurance on 
 the life oE the mortgagor, sold the laud and 
 retained the policies : — 
 
 Held, that, notwithstanding rule 5 in s. 2 of 
 the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, the pur- 
 chaser of the land was entitled to have the 
 mortgage deed delivered over to him on comple- 
 tion. In re Fulier and Leathley's Contract 
 North J. [1897] W. N. 54 (6) 
 
 99. — Custody of title deeds — Sale of land — 
 Retention of part of estate hy vendor — Retention of 
 personal estate — Insurance policies — Vendor and 
 Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 78), s. 2, 
 
 r.5. 
 
 Eule 5 in 8. 2 of the Vendor and Purchaser 
 Act, 1874, that " where the vendor retains any 
 part of an estate to which any documents of title 
 relate he shall be entitled to retain such docu- 
 ments " : — • 
 
 Held, to apply only to land, including lease- 
 holds. 
 
 Consequently, when a mortgage comprised 
 land and policies of insurance on the life of the 
 mortgagor :— 
 
 Held, that on a sale of the land by the mort- 
 gagee, he retaining the policies, the purchaser 
 wuB entitled to have the mortgage deed delivered 
 to him. In re "Williams akd Duchess of New- 
 castle's Contract North J. [1897] 2 Ch. 144 
 
 — Custody of title deeds of trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Tetotee — Custody of 
 Title Deeds, &c. 
 
 100. — Expense of obtaining — Completion — 
 Documents not in possession of vendor — Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881 (44 A 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 3, suh-s. 6. 
 
 Sub-s. 6, s. 3, of the Conveyancing and Law of 
 Property Act, 1881, does not affect the ordinary 
 right of a purchaser to have the title deeds 
 handed over to him on completion, and the mere 
 fact that obtaining the deeds for this purpose 
 may cause the vendor trouble and expense is no 
 answer to the purchaser's demand. 
 
 On an open contract the vendor must bear the 
 expense of obtaining title deeds required hy the 
 purchaser to bo handed over on completion, 
 although such title deeds are not in the vendor's 
 possession, and are not referred to in the abstract. 
 In re Duthy and Jesson's Contract 
 
 Bomer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 419 
 
 101. — Lost deeds — Secondary evidence — Veri- 
 fication of abstract. 
 
 A contract was entered into for the sale of 
 lands in Yorkshire, and after an abstract of title 
 had been prepared and examined with the original 
 deeds, those deeds were lost by the vendor's soli- 
 eitor, TJjere wsis no condition providing for t};e 
 
 VENDOE AND PTJEOHASEE (Title Deeds)— 
 
 continued. 
 non-production of lost deeds, and the vendor in 
 verification of the abstract produced, as secondary 
 evidence, copies of the memorials of the several 
 deeds in the Yorkshire Eegistry, and certain 
 documents which purported to be copies of the 
 completed drafts of the original deeds, but which 
 were not proved to have been compared with 
 them. The vendors also produced statutory 
 declarations verifying a printed abstract of the 
 missing deeds which shewed all the recitals, and 
 contained the words " duly executed and attested " 
 as to the principal deed. And they also offered 
 statutory declarations by some of the parties to 
 the deed that they had respectively executed 
 them ; but they were unable to prove the execu- 
 tion by one material party of the conveyance 
 which was the root of title : — 
 
 Held, that the evidence adduced by the 
 vendors was not such as a purchaser could be 
 compelled to treat as satisfactory, that they had 
 not shewn a good title within a reasonable time, 
 and that the purchaser was accordingly entitled 
 to he discharged from the contract and to have 
 his deposit returned. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., [1898] "W. N. 62 (14), 
 affirmed. In re Halifax Commercial Bank, 
 Ld., and Wood C. A, [1898] W. N. 174 (16) 
 
 102. — Missing document of title — Expense of 
 searching for documents not in vendor's possession — 
 Production of documents. — Conveyancing Act, 1881 
 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 8, sub-s. 6. 
 
 Unless the contract for sale contains pro- 
 visions inconsistent with s. 3, sub-s. 6, of the 
 Conveyancing Act of 1881, the expense of search- 
 ing for all documents not in the vendor's posses- 
 sion and required by the purchaser for the purpose 
 of verifying the abstract,^ not excepting even the 
 deed (e.g. an underlease), which is the root of the 
 vendor's title, must be borne by the purchaser. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J. affirmed. In re 
 Stoaht and Olivant and Seadon's Contract 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 328 
 
 VENTILATING SHAFT— Damage from working 
 — Damage from construction. 
 See Kailway — Ventilating Shafts. 66, 
 
 VENUE — Abolition — Practice. 
 
 See Practice- Trial. 270, 271. 
 
 — Trespass to land in foreign country. 
 
 See Practice— Trial. 270. 
 
 VEEBAL ADMISSION. 
 
 See Practice — Payment into Court. 
 
 128. 
 
 VEEDICT — Setting aside — Jurisdiction of CJourt 
 
 as to. 
 
 See Natal. 6. 
 
 TEEIFICATION — Abstract — Lost deeds — 
 Secondary evidence. 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser — Title 
 Deeds. 101. 
 
 — Exhumation for purposes of. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 26. 
 
 VEEUIN — Local authorities permitted to provide 
 cleansing and disinfection for persons infested 
 ydtji verfnin. See 60 & 61 Vict. p. 3}, 
 
( 2257 ) 
 
 DIGBST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2258 ) 
 
 VEEMIN — continued. 
 
 — Babbits — Gun licence. 
 
 See Ebvenue— Gun Licence. 50. 
 
 — Vermin-proof swing gates— Vermin Destruc- 
 
 tion Act, 1890— Law of 'Victoria. 
 See Victoria. 18. 
 
 VESSELS. 
 
 See Cases under Shipping. 
 
 VESTED INTERESTS— Divesting— Construction 
 of will — Alternative devise. 
 See Will — Vested Interests. 210. 
 
 VESTING— Streets— Subsoil— Extent of owner- 
 ship. 
 iSee liONDON^Streets. 91. 
 
 — - Succession. 
 
 See Cases under Scottish Law^Suoobs. 
 sion. 
 
 — Will — Construction of. 
 
 See Cases under Will. 
 
 VESTING DECLAEATION — New trustees — 
 "Trustees for performing the trust" — 
 Mortgage. 
 See Tkustee— Vesting Order. 108. 
 
 VESTING OSDEE— Lunatic's property. 
 See Lunacy — Vesting Order. 
 
 — Trustee Acts. 
 
 See TfiTJSTEB — Vesting Order.- 
 
 — Underlessee, Protection of — Forfeiture — 
 
 Variation in amount of rent — Discretion 
 
 of Court. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 63, 64. 
 
 VESTRY. 
 
 Tlie civil powers of vestries in rural parishes 
 were transferred to the parish councils and parish 
 meetings by the Local Government Act, 1894 
 (56 & 57 Viet. c. 73). 
 
 Metropolitan Vestries, Abolition of.] See 
 London Government Act, 1899 (62 <£ 63 Vict. c. 14), 
 «. 4. 
 
 1. — Election — Vestry cleric— Quo warranto — 
 Vestries Act, 1850 (13 <£ 14 Vict. c. 57), ss. 6, 7. 
 
 A writ of qno warranto will lie to inquire into 
 
 the validity of the election of a clerk to a vestry 
 
 under the Vestries Act, 1850. Keg. v. Burrows 
 
 Div, Ct. [1892] 1 Q. B. 399 
 
 VESTETMAN. 
 
 See Vestrt. 
 
 VETERINARY SURGEON. 
 
 Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Act, 1900 
 (63 & 64 Vict. a. 24), amends the law. 
 
 1. — Qualified person—" Veterinary forge "— 
 Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 62), 
 «. 17, sub-s. 1. 
 
 A shoeing-smith not qualified as a veterinary 
 surgeon who describes his place of business as a 
 " veterinary forge " is liable to a penalty under 
 B. 17, sub-s. 1, of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 
 1881. Botal College of Veterinary Surgeons 
 V. EoBiNSON - Div. Ct. [1892] 1 «. B. 657 
 
 VEXATIOUS ACTIONS ACT, 1896 (69 & 60 Vict. 
 0. 81), prevents abuse of the process of the High 
 Court or other Courts by the institVitior^ ofvfjtaiious 
 Iggal proceedings. 
 
 VIBRATION — ^Damage by vibration caused by 
 
 lessor — Implied grant. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 70. 
 — Injunction — Electric lighting — Eight of 
 
 reversioner to sue. 
 
 See Injunction. 33. 
 
 VICAR. 
 
 ! Cases under Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 VICARAGE HOUSE— Application of purchase- 
 money. 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law — Parsonage 
 House. 53. 
 
 VICTORIA. 
 
 Law of Victoria, 
 
 See Commonwealth of Australia Consti- 
 tution Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), 
 8S. 3, 6. 
 — ■ Award — Lump sum — Evidence taken on mat- 
 ters not referred — Jurisdiction of Arbi- 
 trators. 
 
 See Arbitration — Award. 27. 
 — Bankruptcy — Undischarged bankrupt — ^After- 
 acquired property — Assignment of in- 
 terest under will — Bonfi. fides. 
 See Bankruptcy — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 255. 
 
 1. — Chinese immigration — Alien's rights 
 — Collector of customs — Victorian Chinese Act,lH81, 
 
 8.3. 
 
 Where a master of a ship had offended against 
 the Chinese Act, 1881, s. 3, by bringing more 
 than the specified number of immigrants : — 
 
 Held, that the collector of customs was justi- 
 fied in refusing to allow any immigrants to 
 land : — 
 
 Held, also, apart from the Act, that no alien 
 has a legal right enforceable by action to enter 
 British territory. Musgrote v. Chun Teeong 
 Toy - - P. C. [1891] A. C. 272 
 
 2. — Company — Scheme of arrangement — 
 Effect of — ImperialJoint Steele Companies Arrange- 
 ment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Viet. c. 104), inapplicable 
 to the Colonies — Non-assenting Victorian creditor. 
 
 Held, that the Joint Stock Companies 
 Arrangement Act, 1870, does not apply to the 
 Colonies. 
 
 Accordingly a scheme of arrangement there- 
 under sanctioned by an English Court is quoad 
 the Colonies a proceeding in a foreign court, and 
 cannot be pleaded by the company in a Victorian 
 Court as a defence to an action by a non-assent- 
 ing Victorian creditor for the full amount of her 
 claim. 
 
 Giibs V. Societe des Metaux,(lS90) 25 Q. B. D. 
 399, approved. New Zealand Loan and Mer- 
 cantile Agency Co. v. Morrison 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 349 
 
 3. — Company — Trustees' power of investment 
 — Deposits with banks — Companies Act, 1890 
 (54 Vict. No. 1074), s. 384. 
 
 Sect. 384 of the Victoria Companies Act, 1890, 
 while authorizing the employment of bankers, 
 does not on its true construction enlarge the 
 powers of investment possessed by trustee com- 
 panies in common with other trustees. 
 
 Held, that the appellant oo. was not authorized 
 thereunder, or Tinder its special Act, to invest 
 
( 2259 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF GASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2260 ) 
 
 VICTORIA (Law of Victoria) — oontinued. 
 
 Irust moneys on deposit at interest with banks. 
 
 PSBPETnAL EXECUTOBS AND TeUSTEES ASSOCIA- 
 TION OF AnSTBALIA V. SwAN 
 
 P. C. [1898] A. C. 763 
 
 4. — Compensation for damage past and future 
 —Local Government Act, 1874 (38 Vict. No. 506), 
 ». 384. 
 
 Where a ditch or drain has been made under 
 the powers of the section, an owner or occupier 
 injuriously afl'ected is entitled to have the com- 
 pensation for present and prospective damages to 
 his land assessed once for all, and the assessment 
 is to be made irrespectiye of whether the powers 
 have been negligently or properly exercised. 
 Pbesident, &o., of Colac v. Sujimekfield 
 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 187 
 
 — Contract — Authority of agent — Lump sum — 
 
 Variation — Eatifioation. 
 See Contbaot. 8. 
 
 — Death duties — Estate duty. 
 
 See KEVENDE^Estate Duty. 
 
 5. — JmflOTne Tax — Trusts — Victorian Income 
 Tax Act, 1895 (58 Vict. No. 1374), S8. 5, 7, suh-s. 3 
 — Construction — " Trusts." 
 
 Held, that the appellant co., which carried on 
 insurauce business with strangers for gain to the 
 CO. as a whole, but had not its principal office in 
 Victoria, was by s. 5 of the Victorian Income Tax 
 Act, 1895, liable to income tax on the proceeds 
 from money Itnt on the security of land in 
 Victoria. 
 
 It could not claim exemption under s. 7 (e), 
 which exempts fruits and ail associations not 
 carrying on trade for purposes of gain to be 
 divided amongst ttie members ; for besides grant- 
 ing assurances to persons not its members, it 
 trafficked in reversions, while "trusts" on its 
 true construction means associations acting in or 
 for Victoria. Englaud v. Webb 
 
 P. C, [1898] A. C. 758 
 
 6. — Land Tax Act, 1877, «. 4, sub-s. 3 — £ond 
 fide transfer for valuabU consideration. 
 
 Under s. 4, sub-s. 3, of the Land Tax Act, 1877, 
 in order to exempt an owner of land from pay- 
 ment of tax, the land must have passed from 
 him, and the consideration passed from the trans- 
 feree without any secret understanding or trust. 
 Haeding v. Commes. op Land Tax 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 446 
 
 Note. — The Land Tax Act, 1877, is now re- 
 placed by the Land Tax Act, 1890. 
 
 7. — Land Tax Act, 1877 — Purchaser of less 
 than 640 acres — Vendors claim to proportionate 
 land tax. 
 
 A. purchased from B. land less than 640 acres 
 (the minimum quantity liable to land tax) : — 
 
 Held, that B. was not entitled on completion 
 to charge A. with the land tax from the date of 
 A.'s possession, either as his proportion of the tax 
 paid by them, or as an outgoing contracted to 
 be paid for in respect of his puiohase. Countby 
 Estates Co. v. Geaves - P. C. [1895] A. C. 113 
 
 See Note to preceding Case. 
 
 8. — Lane on private land — Rights of adjoining 
 owners and occupiers — Melbourne Corporation Act, 
 1850 (14 Vict. No. 20). 
 
 When a lane set out on private land has bees 
 
 TICIOBIA (Law of Victoria)— con<jn«e^. 
 brought under the provisions of the Melbourne 
 Corporation Act, the Act does not confer on the 
 adjoining owners and occupiers such a right of 
 passage over it as precludes the owner in fee from 
 ever resuming the control or exclusive possession 
 of such lane. Moubbat Bowan & HiCES v. Dbew 
 P. C. [1893] A. C. 293 
 
 — Lunacy — "Vested" — Transfer to Master in 
 
 Lunacy in Victoria — Jurisdiction. 
 See LuNAOT — ^Vesting Order. 52. 
 
 9. — Mortmain — Land in England. 
 
 The Mortmain and ObaritableUses Act, 1888, 
 does not apply to Colonial wills. 
 
 ^Vhere A., domiciled in Victoria, by his will 
 gave money to an English corporation for the 
 purchase of land in England for a charitable 
 purpose : — • 
 
 Held, that the gift was governed by the law 
 of Victoria, and, being valid by that law, bound 
 the executors. Canteebdet Coepobation v. 
 Wtbuen - - P. C. [1895] A. C. 89 
 
 10. - Pension — Bight to — Victoria PvMie 
 Service Act, 1890 (54 Vict. iVo. 1133), «s. 3, 107— 
 "Prosecutor for the Queen" — "Prosecuting bar- 
 rister" — Construction. 
 
 Held, that tlie appellant was entitled under 
 s. 107 of the Public Service Act, 1890, to super- 
 annuation allowance by virtue of having held the 
 office of '■ Prosecutor fur the Queen " notwith- 
 standing that he held during pleasure : 
 
 Held, further, that he was not excluded 
 therefrom as a " prosecuting barrister " within 
 the meaning of the excluding clause (s. 3). 
 
 It appearing that the two classes of func- 
 tionaries were totally distinct, there is no rule of 
 construction to the effect that when one only is 
 named the other is meant or included. Sityth 
 V. Eeq. - - - P. C. [1898] A. C. 782 
 
 11. — Probate— Statement by executors — Debts 
 chargeable on foreign assets — Law of Victoria — 
 Administration and Probate Act, 1890, No. 1060, 
 s. 97, sub-s. 2. 
 
 Held, that, under s. 97, suh-s. 2, of the Ad- 
 ministration and Probate Act of 1890, the state- 
 ment which an executor is required to furnish 
 relates to all assets within the Colony of Victoria, 
 and to such debts as are properly chargeable on 
 these Colonial as.'<ets in assessing them for duty 
 so as to shew the assessable balance in the 
 Colony. 
 
 Consequently, where the testator was domi- 
 ciled in Victoria but had foreign assets, these 
 latter, to which Victorian probate gives no title, 
 need not be stated, nor any debts chargeable 
 thereon except so far as they are in excess of the 
 security, and to the extent of that excess are 
 chargeable on the Victorinn assets. 
 
 Blackwood v. Beg. (1882) 8 App. Cas. 82, 
 followed. Hentt v. Keg. - P. C. [1896] A C. 567 
 
 — Probate — ^Application of Colonial Probates 
 
 Act, 1892. 
 
 See Peobate — Colonial Probates Act, 
 1892. 
 
 12. — Probate — Testamentary capacity — Ver- 
 dict against weight of evidence — New trial — Issue 
 as to testator's testam,entary capacity. 
 
 Verdict revoking grant of probate for want 9f 
 
C 2261 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2262 ) 
 
 VICTORIA (Law of Victoria)-co«<m«ei. 
 testamentary capacity set aside as against weigtt 
 of evidence, the medical evidence being insufficient 
 to support while the other evidence of incapacity 
 related to irrelevant circumstances, and was con- 
 tradicted by witnesses who deposed to actual 
 transaotions with the testator and to his conduct 
 and condition at the time of his executing tlie 
 will, AiTKBN V. MoMeckan 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 310 
 
 13. — Probate— Valtmtion of Testator's Estate 
 — Bank deposit receipts — Liability on bank shares 
 — Administration and Probate Aotj 1890 (54 Viot 
 No. 1060), s. 97; 
 
 Held, that in a statement of a testator's estate 
 under s. 97 of the Administration and Probate 
 Act, 1890, bank deposit receipts should be valued 
 at the price which they would fetch in the 
 market, and not according to the amounts 
 appearing on the face of them to be payable ; 
 also, that sums payable in respect of bank shaies 
 at the times mentioned in various schemes for the 
 reconstruction of those banks are debts of the 
 deceased, and may be deducted from the sum 
 total of the assets in order to ascertain the balance 
 liable to probate duty. Master in Equity of 
 
 SnPEEMB COUBT OP VICTORIA V. PeABSON 
 
 P. C. [1897] A. C. 214 
 
 14. — Bevenue — Death duties— Local situation 
 of testator's assets — Partnership business in the 
 Colony distinct from the general business of the 
 firm — Administration and Probate Duty Act, 1890 
 (84 Vict. No. 1060). 
 
 Where a firm carried on businesses in Mel- 
 bourne and elsewhere, which were severally 
 treated as distinct in the partnership agreement, 
 and also in the accounts and conduct of the 
 same : — ■ 
 
 Meld, that the interest of a deceased partner 
 in the business carried on at Melbourne was 
 locally situate in Victoria bo as to be liable to 
 probate duty under 54 Vict. No. 1060 in respect 
 of his will. Beaveb v. Master in Equity of 
 
 THE SUPBEME OOUET OF ViCTOBIA 
 
 P. C. [1895] A. C. 251 
 
 15. — .Ship — Liability to dear aportof sunJcen 
 ship — -Registered owners — Law of Victoria — 
 Marine Act, 1890, No. 1565, 8. 13. 
 
 Sect. 13 of the Victorian Marine Act, 1890, 
 differing in that respect from s. 56 of the English 
 Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, 
 imposes, according to its true construction, upon 
 the owner or master of any ship sunken within a 
 port, the duty of clearing the port thereof, or of 
 reimbursing the statutory officer the expenses 
 incurred by him for that purpose : — 
 
 Held, that the registered owner of the ship at 
 the date of the occurrence cannot escape liability 
 by abandoning the wreck to tUe underwriters, 
 who, although they become at common law owners 
 of the wreck, are not within the terms of the 
 section. 
 
 The Crystal, [1894] A. C. 508, distinguished. 
 Howard Smith & Sons v. Wilson 
 
 P. C. [1896] A. C. 579 
 
 18. — Transfer of land — Masement — Abandon- 
 ment — E!rror in certificate. 
 
 On a claim to assert a right of way granted in 
 
 VICTORIA (law of Victoria,)— continued. 
 
 1839, to which it was pleaded that the right had 
 
 been abandoned : — 
 
 Seld, that the bmissibn in the certificates of 
 title to the respective tenements to record an 
 easement did not bar the claim to the easement 
 or relieve the servient tenement of its liability. 
 Whether an easement has been abandoned is a 
 question of intention to he determined on the facts 
 of each case. 
 
 Provisions of the transfer of laud statutes as 
 to easements considered. James v. Stevenson 
 
 P. C, [1893] A, C, 162 
 
 17. — Transfer of land — Forged transfer — 
 Bights of purchasers and mortgagees — Transfer of 
 Land Statute, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. No. 301), s. 144. 
 
 The Transfer of Land Statute, No. 301, pro- 
 tects tliose who derive a registered title boni, fide 
 and for value from a registered owner. Accord- 
 ingly they need not investigate the title of such 
 owner, for they are not aifected by its infirmities. 
 But they must ascertain at their own peril his 
 existence and identity, the authority of any agent 
 to act for him, and the validity of the deed under 
 which ihey claim. A registered owner's name 
 was removed from the register in favour of a 
 fictitious and non-existing transferee by means 
 of a forged transfer, and a mortgage purporting 
 to have been executed by the fictitious transferee 
 was subsequently registered by bonS, fide mort- 
 
 Seld, that the mortgage was invalid and did 
 not operate as an incumbrance on the title of the 
 true owner in favour of the mortgagee, and that 
 the true owner was entitled to be restored to the 
 register. Gibbs v. Messee P. C. [1891] A. C. 248 
 
 18. — Vermin Destruction Act, 1890. (54 Vict. 
 No. 1153) — Loeal Government Act, 1890 (54 Vict. 
 (No. 1112), 8. 428 — Vermin-proof swing gates-^ 
 Law of Victoria. 
 
 Under the provisions of the Victoria Vermin 
 Destruction Act, 1890, vermin-proof swing gates 
 can be lawfully put across roads other than main 
 roads by owners of lands, whether adjoining 
 owners or single owners, with the consent of the 
 shire council, whether such lands are in special 
 areas as defined by the Act or not. 
 
 Sect. 428 of the Local Government Act, 1890, 
 does not, having regard to the exception therein 
 contained, interfere with landowners' rights in 
 this respect. King v. Cheyne 
 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 622 
 
 VIRILITY — Medical evidence — Admissibility. 
 See Evidence. 10. 
 
 VOID SETTLEMENT. 
 
 See Oases under Bankbuptoy — Volun- 
 tary Settlement. 
 
 " VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA." 
 See Maxms of Law. 11. 
 
 VOLUNTARY ALLOWANCE— Permanent main- 
 tenance — Income of respondent — ^Prac- 
 tice. 
 See DivoECB. 15. 
 
 VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION— Inn of Chancery 
 — Failure of objects. 
 toCaARiTY. 33, 
 
t 2263 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2264 ) 
 
 TOLTINTAEY ASSOCIATION— couMnae^. 
 
 1. — Member — Retirement — Acceptance. 
 
 The members of a voluntary traae protection 
 society became such by election, and paid an 
 annual sutscription, in return for which they 
 were entitled to legal assistance for the purposes 
 of their trade and to some other benefits. By the 
 rules the members incurred no obligation beyond 
 the payment of their subscriptions. The rules 
 contained no provision as to the retirement or 
 expulsion of members : — 
 
 Held, that a member was entitled to retire 
 at any time without any consent of the other 
 members ; that on the receipt by the society of a 
 letter from a member stating his wish to retire 
 he at once ceased to be a member, without the 
 necessity of the acceptance by the society of his 
 resignation ; that he could not before acceptance 
 withdraw his resignation ; and that he could not 
 become a member again without re-election. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. Finch v. 
 Oake - - - C. A [1896] 1 Oh. 409 
 
 " VOLITNTAEY CONTEIBUTION "—Kates— Ex- 
 emption — Art union. 
 Sec Kates — Eateability. 25. 
 
 VOLUNTAEY CONVEYANCES. 
 
 See Cases under Fkaudulbnt Contet- 
 
 ANOES. 
 
 Avoidance op Voluntary Conveyances.] 
 56 & 57 Vict, c. 21, amends the law. Voluntary 
 conveyances if bond fide not to he avoided under 
 27 Eliz. V. 4. 
 
 — Bankruptcy — Fraudulent preference. 
 
 See Cases under Bankhuptoy — Fraudu- 
 lent Preference. 
 
 — Bankruptcy — Voluntary settlements. 
 
 See Cases under Bakkbuptoy — Volim- 
 tary Settlements. 
 VOLTJNTAEY CEEDITOE— Insolvent estate. 
 See ExBonTOB. 35. 
 
 VOLTTNTAEY GIFT— Action to set aside— Mis- 
 take. 
 
 See Chaeity. 35. 
 1. — Equitable assignment — Banker's deposit 
 receipt — Indorsement and delivery — Donee ap- 
 pointed executor. 
 
 The indorsement and delivery of a banker's 
 deposit receipt, with the intention to make a gift, 
 operate as a good equitable assignment of the 
 amount on deposit at the bank ; but, if anything 
 be required to complete the gift, the appointment 
 of the donee as executor of the donor perfects 
 the gift. In re GRnrm. Griefin v. Griffin 
 Byrne J. [1898] W. N, 174 (16); [1899] 1 Oh. 408 
 
 VOLTJNTAEY G:IFT— continued. 
 
 2, — Innocent misrepresentation of fact — 
 Common mistake — Equitable right of donor to 
 recover. 
 
 Where a voluntary gift is obtained by means 
 of an innocent misrepresentation of fact by the 
 donee, the donor, on the discovery of the mistake, 
 has a right in equity (though he may have none 
 at law) to recover his gift. 
 
 Wilson V. Thorribury, (1875) 10 Ch. 239, 249, 
 not followed in this respect. In re Glubb. 
 Bamfibld v. Rogers - C. A, [1900] I Ch. 354 
 
 — Setting aside. 
 
 See Undue Influence. 2. 
 
 VOLTTNTAEY SCHOOLS. 
 
 See Schools. 
 
 VOLTJNTAEY SETTLEMENT. 
 
 See Settlement — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 
 
 — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 Bee Bankruptcy — Voluntary Settle- 
 ments. 
 
 — Kevenue. 
 
 See Cases under Ketenue. 
 
 — Sale by trustees — Objections to title, 
 
 See Vendor and Pdechasbh — Title. 
 89—91. 
 
 VOLTJNTAEY WINDING-TTP OF COMPANY. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Winding- 
 up. 
 
 VOLTJNTEEES. 
 
 See Army and Navy — Volnnteers, 
 
 VOTEES — ^Registration of. 
 
 See Cases under Pakliajient. 
 
 VOTING — By ci osses — School board election. 
 See Schools — School Board. 6. 
 
 — Company — Practice. 
 
 See Cases under Company — Meetings, 
 
 — Recount — Correctness of returning officer's 
 
 figures — Onus of proof. 
 
 See ScHOOLe — School Board. 7. 
 
 VOUCHING— Of accounts— Practice. 
 
 See Accounts. 7. 
 
 VOYAGE— Shipping practice. 
 
 See Cases under Shifpino. 
 
 VYENWY EESEEVOIE— Whether within Severn 
 fishery district. 
 See Fishery. 6. 
 
( 2265 ) 
 
 biGfiS't OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2266 ) 
 
 w. 
 
 VAd£B ANfi WAGSBINQ. 
 See Gamino. 
 
 LOTTEBT. 
 
 — Undischarged bankrupt — After-acquired pro- 
 
 perty — ^Personal eaminga — ^Interpleader 
 — ^Wagering contract. 
 See Bankruptcy — Undischarged Bank- 
 rupt. 257. 
 
 WAGERING POLICY— Insurable interest. 
 See Insubancb— Marine. 82. 
 
 WAGES— Ooal-miuer's. 
 
 See Mines— Coal Mines. 6, 7. 
 —Seamen. 
 
 See Cases under Shipptnq — Seamen, 
 
 WAGON — Liability for defective wagons ■while 
 in use by another raUway company. 
 See Eailwat — ^Negligence. 17. 
 
 WAITEB — Ooat left in charge of — Restaurant 
 keeper. 
 See Bailment. 5. 
 
 WAIVES — Agreement to give debenture 'when 
 called upon — Equitable security. 
 See OoMPANT — Debentures. 27. 
 
 — Conditions of sale — Condition precedent. 
 
 See Vendob and Ptjbchasbb — Conditions 
 of Sale, 7. 
 
 — Covenant to build — ^Repairs— Notice of breach 
 
 — Sufficiency — Belief against forfeiture. 
 iSee Landlobd and Tenant. 50. 
 
 — Informality — Case stated — Service of notice. 
 
 See Justices. 32. 
 
 — Irregular service — Foreign firm — Service on 
 
 partner visiting England. 
 See Pbactice — Service. 190. 
 
 — Irregularity — Non-payment — Time given. 
 
 See Attachment. 27. 
 
 — Irregularity — Non-service of copy of afSdavit. 
 
 See Attachment. 2. 
 
 — Lien for costs. 
 
 See SoLicrroK— Lien. 102, 108. 
 
 — Lien lost or waived. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 283. 
 
 — Notice — ^Lease — Option to purchase— " As- 
 
 signs " — E quitable assignees — Posses- 
 sion. 
 See Landlobd and Tenant. 80. 
 
 — Notice determining tenancy-^Acoeptance of 
 
 rent. 
 
 See Landlobd and Tenant— Determina- 
 tion of Tenancy, fto, 42. 
 
 — Prepayment of premium — Policy. 
 
 See iNsnEANCE— Burglary. 6. 
 
 Prospectus or application form — Waiver clause 
 
 in — Catching conditions. 
 
 See Company— Prospectus. 209. 
 
 — Be-entry— Waiver of right of. 
 
 See DisTBESS. 16. 
 
 VfAlVER—conUmied. 
 
 — Bestrictive covenant— Prohibiting sale of beer 
 
 and spirits — Continuing covenant broken 
 for an uninterrupted period of twenty- 
 four years. 
 See Vendob and Pubchaseb. 68. 
 
 — Restrictive covenant prohibiting sale of beer 
 
 and spirits. 
 
 See Vendob and PtrBCHASEE. 68. 
 
 — Taxation — Agreed Costs — Consent order — 
 
 Payment out. 
 See Costs. 45. 
 
 — Tort — Joint tortfeasors — Compromise by ac- 
 
 cepting proceeds of sale — Action of 
 trover against the other — Election. 
 See Teovee. 9. 
 WALL— Boundary wall— Mutual gable — Half 
 cost of erection. 
 See Scottish Law— Walls, 49. 
 
 — Boundary wall— Notice to set back— Fore- 
 
 court or space. 
 
 See London- Buildings, 19. 
 
 — Building owner— Party wall— Notice— Suffi- 
 
 ciency. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 22, 
 
 — Party wall — Implied contract to pay half cost 
 
 of — ^Adjoining owners. 
 See Bdildinqs. 2. 
 
 — Party Wall— London Building Acts. 
 
 See London — Buildings. 22, 23. 
 
 — Spiked wall — Contributory negligence. 
 
 See Nuisances. 30. 
 
 WALNUTS— Unsound food. 
 See Food. 2. 
 
 WAE— Capture— Seizure by belligerent Govern- 
 ment of property of its own subjects — 
 Contract of indemnity — Validity. 
 See Insubanoe — Marine. 30. 
 
 — When foreign States begin to be " at war." 
 
 See Foreign Enlistment Act. 3. 
 
 WABD — Amendment of law as to dividing 
 boroughs into wards. 
 See Cases under Cobpoeation. 
 
 WAEDS OF COUET. 
 
 See Oases under Intant. 
 
 WAEEH0U8E RECEIPTS —Negotiability of— 
 Bank. 
 See Canada. 3. 
 
 WABEHOUSEMAN— Deposit with— Action for 
 freight—" Legal proceedings" — " Owner 
 of goods." 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 26. 
 
 — Liability of — Conversion — Estoppel — 
 
 Proximate cause of loss. 
 See Teovbb. 4. 
 
 WAEEANDICE CLAUSE — Lease— Covenant — 
 " Stream." 
 See Watee— Water Elghti, 88. 
 
( 2267 ) 
 
 ClGEST OF OABES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2268 ) 
 
 WAEBANT — Legality of — Search- warran t — 
 Allegation of reasonable suspicion of 
 larceny. 
 See JtJSTicES. 12. 
 
 — Of execution — Judgment in rem — Sale of ship 
 
 — Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Shipmno — Practice. 202. 
 
 — Poor-rate — Distress warrant — Appeal. 
 
 See Bates— Appeal. 5.' 
 
 — Service of — Writ served — Warrant not served 
 
 — Judgment by default. 
 
 See Shipping — Practice. .197. 
 
 WABEANTY — Breach — Remoteness — Contract — 
 Damages. 
 
 The pits., a firm of stevedores, contracted to 
 discharge a cargo from the deft.'s ship, the deft, 
 agreeing to supply all necessary cranes, chains, 
 and other gearing reasonably fit for that purpose. 
 The deft, in breach of his agreement supplied a 
 defective chain, which broke while being used, 
 and in consequence one of the pits.' workmen 
 was injured. The pits, might have discovered 
 the defect in the chain by the exercise of reason- 
 able care. The pits, settled an action by the 
 ■workman by paying the workman 125Z., which 
 sum they sought to recover from the deft, as 
 damages for breach of his contract. It was not 
 disputed that the settlement of the action brought 
 by the workman was a proper one ; — 
 
 Held, that the pits.' liability to pay compensa- 
 tion to their workman was the natural conse- 
 quence of the del't.'s breach of contract, and such 
 as might reasonably be supposed to have been 
 within the contemplation of the parties when the 
 cuntract was entered into ; and therefore the 
 damages claimed were not too remote. 
 
 Decision of Charles J., [1895] 1 Q. B. 857, 
 affirmed. Mowbray v. Mebktweather 
 
 C. A, [1896] 2 a. B. 640 
 
 — Fire insurance 
 
 See Insurance— Fire. 8, 10. 
 
 — Implied — Bullion-rooih — Fitness to resist 
 
 thieves. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 46. 
 
 — Implied condition as to fitness of goods. 
 
 See Sale of Goods. 6. 
 
 — Liability of agent — Contract made by public 
 
 seiTant of Crown. 
 See Principal and Agent. 11. 
 ■ — Policy — Amount insured. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 80. 
 
 — Sale of food and drugs. 
 
 See Cases imder Adulteration — War- 
 ranty. 
 
 — Seaworthiness. 
 
 See Shipping — Exceptions. 143, 144. 
 
 — Seaworthiness, Implied warranty of. 
 
 See Insurance, Marine. 77. 
 ■ — Seaworthiness — InsuflBciency of coal — Cargo 
 burned as fuel. 
 See Shipping. — Charterparty. 48. 
 
 — Truth of statements in proposal — Condition. 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 83. 
 
 WAESHIPS— Fleet of— Collision— Single ship- 
 Crossing rules — Special circumstances. 
 See Shipping- Collision. 62, 
 
 WASHHOrSES. 
 
 See Baths and Washhouses. 
 
 WASTE — Ameliorative waste — Evidence — Farm 
 ■ — Conversion into marlcet garden. 
 
 To obtain an injunction on the ground of 
 " waste," the pit. must prove that what the deft, 
 is doing is prejudicial to the inheritance; if it 
 improves the value of the land it is not waste. 
 Meux v. Cobley Kekewich J. [1892] 2 Ch. 253 
 
 — By tenant for life — Dilapidation of buildings 
 — Depreciation of marsh lands — 
 Damages. 
 See Settled Land. 89. 
 
 2. — Landlord and tenant — Sub-d,emise for 
 purpose of riibbish shoot — Alteration of nature of 
 demised premises— Public Health Acts Amendment 
 Act, 1890 (53 & 54" Vict. c. 59), s. 25. 
 
 By a lease dated Sept. 29, 1830, the pits.' 
 predecessors in title granted to the deft. co. 
 twelve acres of meadow land forming part of 
 maishy land at West Ham, for ninety-nine years, 
 at a certain rent, for the purpose pf constructing 
 a reservoir. The co. did not construct a reservoir 
 but used the land for grazing purposes down to 
 1896, when they sub-demised it to B. for the rest 
 of the terra less the last three days thereof at an 
 increased rent, for tlie purpose of its being used 
 by him as a rubbish shoot. B. took possession 
 and shot quantities of hard and soft rubbish of 
 all kinds on the land, thereby raising its surface 
 about ten feet. The pits, brought an action 
 against the co. and B., alleging that the acts of 
 B. constituted waste and had been done with 
 the authority of the co.. and claiming an in- 
 junction restraining the bringing or permitting 
 to be brought upon the demised land any rubbish, 
 earth, or material, or otherwise committing waste 
 thereon, and damages. The only value of the 
 lands at the end of the term would be for build- 
 ing factories, to obtain a proper foundation for 
 which it would be necessary to dig down to the 
 original level of the land: — ■ 
 
 Seld, applying the test as to what is waste 
 laid down in Lord Darcy v. Askwith, (1616) Hob. 
 234, that there had been such an alteration of 
 the thing demised — irrespective of the question 
 whether the added material was offensive or 
 inoffensive — as to constitute waste ; that it was 
 no answer that the expense of digging down to 
 obtain a proper foundation would be more than 
 compensated for by the increased rent which the 
 reversioners would be able to obtain for the land 
 in its heightened condition ; that bothdefts. were 
 liable in damages for the past acts of waste ; 
 and that they must be restrained from com- 
 mitting waste in the future. 
 
 Queen's College, Oxford v. Hallctt, (1811) 
 14 East, 489; 18 E. E. 293, observed upon. 
 West Ham Central Charity Board v. East 
 London Waterworks Co. 
 
 Buckley J. [1900] W. N, 87 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 624 
 
 3. — Leaseholds — Sepairs — Tenant for life 
 and remainderman. 
 
 A tenant for lite of leaseholds is not liable to 
 the remainderman for permissive waste. 
 
 The. estate of a tenant for life of leaseholds 
 held not liable to the remainderman for repairs 
 made necessary by the non-fulfilment, during 
 
( ^2^9 ) 
 WASTE — continued. 
 
 blGEST OF CASES,. 1891.— 1990 
 
 ( ,2270 > 
 
 the life tenancy, of covenants to repair. In re 
 Pabbt and Hopkin North J. [1900] 1 Ch. 160 
 
 4. — Mines in glebe lands— Powers of incum- 
 bent— Control by Ecclesiastical Commissioners — 
 Injunction. 
 
 After the passing of the. restraining statutes of 
 Elizabeth, the opening of mines in glebe lands, 
 and the letting of the mines by the incumbent, 
 even with the consent of the patron and ordinary, 
 were waste and illegal until the passing of 5 & 6 
 \fict. c. 108, which enabled the mines to be leased 
 with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commrs. 
 The Ecclesiastical Commrs. can maintain an 
 action to restrain the working of mines in glebe 
 lands otherwise than under a lease sanctioned by 
 them. An incumbent cannot lawfully continue, 
 or authorize a tenant, to work mines in glebe 
 land which have been unlawfully opened. If he 
 does so, it is waste. Ecclesiastical Commbs. v. 
 WoDEHOUSE Eomer J. [1895] 1 Ch, 652 
 
 — Mining lease — Tenant for life impeachable for 
 
 waste — Proportion of rent to be set aside 
 
 as capital money. 
 
 See Settled Land — Mines. 83. 
 
 — " Person supplied with water " — Suffering 
 
 waste — Owner of house not exceeding 
 
 101. rent. 
 
 See Water — Sapply. 22. 
 
 6. — Ponds and lalces — Cleansing. 
 
 Cleansing a lake or pond is not a duty imposed 
 
 on a. tenant for life by the ordinary repairing 
 
 clause in a will. Dashwood v. Magnlac (No. 1.) 
 
 C. A,, Kay I,J. diss. [1891] 3 Ch. 306 
 
 6. — Timber estate— Custom — Statute of Limi- 
 tations (21 Jac. 1, c. 16), s. 7. 
 
 A tenant for life of " a timber estate," i.e., an 
 estate in which income has been regularly derived 
 by the periodical felling of timber trees, is not 
 impeachable for waste for selling the timber, not- 
 withstanding that the trees felled (in this case 
 beech tyres) are " timber " by the custom of the 
 county. Dashwood ■;;. Magiac (No. 1.) 
 
 C. A., Kay L.J. diss. [1891] 3 Ch. 306 
 
 Eeferred to by Stirling J. In re Chaytor, 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 804. 
 
 WASTE LANDS— Inclosure Act— Bed of river— 
 Eeservation to lord of manor — Territorial 
 rights. 
 See Water. 45. 
 
 — Selection of — Contract — Construction. 
 
 See Australia. 3. 
 
 — Statutory reservation of common rights. 
 
 See Copyhold. 10. 
 
 WASTING SECTTKITIES— Gift in specie— Sale- 
 Apportionment. 
 
 See Settled Land — Apportionment. 18, 
 19. 
 
 WATCHING — Besetting — Picketing — Injunction. 
 See Trade Union. 8, 11—13. 
 
 — Lighting and watching rate. 
 
 See Cases under Stbeets-— Lighting. 
 
 WATER, 
 
 Note. — Tfnder this liecfding ateinduded Casep 
 relating to EiyBRS, Strba'ms, and EesbrVOIBS. 
 in General, col. 2270. 
 Pollution, col. 2270. 
 Supply, col. 2273. 
 Water Bates, col. 2278. 
 Water Eights, col. 2281'. 
 
 In General. 
 
 — Fishing rights. 
 
 See Cases under Fishery. 
 
 — Mortgage on waterworks — Pure or impure 
 
 personalty — Mortmain. 
 
 See Charity — Mortmain. 51. 
 
 — Pier. 
 
 See Pier. 
 
 — Thames. 
 
 See Cases under Thames. 
 
 — Water tower— Effect of Public Health Acts 
 
 on subsequent special water company's 
 Act — By-laws — Buildings. 
 See Bdilding. 3. 
 
 — Watercourse. 
 
 See Sewers — Surface Sewers. 32, 
 
 — Weir or dam. Erection of — Injunction — Trout 
 
 stream. 
 
 See Fishery. 13. 
 
 — Wharfinger's liability. 
 
 See Shipping— Wharf. 271. 
 
 Pollution. 
 
 Drainage into Streams.] By 56 & 57 Vict, 
 c. 31, 8. 3 of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 
 1876, was explained and amended with respect to 
 the liability of local authorities for pollution of 
 streams. 
 
 Eivers Pollution Prevention (Border Councils') 
 Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. 0. 34), enables the county 
 councils on either side of the border to act together 
 for the prevention of the pollution of rivers.. 
 
 Costs under Eivers Pollution Prevention Acts 
 — See Explanatory Memorandum to County Court 
 Bules (May\ 1899, and rule 68. W. N. 1899 
 (May 20), p, 173. See Current Index, 1899, 
 p. cxi. 
 
 — Discovery — Bight of complainant to interro 
 
 gate. 
 
 See Discovery — Documents. 39. 
 
 — Factory refuse — Duty of local authority to 
 
 make' sewers — Eemedy for default — 
 
 Mandamus, 
 
 See Sewers. 4. 
 1. — Liability — Conjoint default of owner of 
 premised and local authority — Kivers Pollution 
 Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 75), sS. 3, 
 10, n— Public Health Act, 1875, «s. 13, 15, 17, 
 19,27. 
 
 The local board sued the millowners in a 
 county court, under s. 10 of the Eivers Pollution 
 Prevention Act, 1876, and obtained an order to 
 restrain the millowners from causing sewage to 
 flow into the natural stream : — ■ 
 
 Held, (1.) that the millowners had offended 
 against the Act of 1876; (2.) that the water- 
 course being vested in the local board and being 
 
< 2271 ) 
 
 biGBS'r OP CAfeES, 1891— iodd. 
 
 ( 2272 5 
 
 WATEE (Pollution)— <!on«i»Mei. 
 a eeWer they had not discharged their duties 
 under the Public Health Act, 1875, nor shewn 
 any reasonable excuse of preyention, and had also 
 offended against the Act of 1876 ; (3.) that in 
 the discretion of the Court an order ought not 
 under the circumstances to be made against the 
 millowners at the instance of the local board. 
 
 KlBKHEATON LoCAL BOARD V. AiNLEY, SONS & Co. 
 
 C. A. [1892] 2 Q. B. 274 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. and C. A. In re 
 
 County Council of Derbyshire and Mayor, &c., of 
 Derby, [1896] 2 Q. B. 58, 299. This Case was 
 affirmed by H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 550. 
 
 2. — Liability — Drain connecting premises 
 with district sewer — Default of local authority — 
 Absence of notice— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 55), 86. 15, 17, 21, 257. 
 
 Millowners constructed on their premises two 
 water-closets, which they connected in 1883 by a 
 drain with a sewer under the control of a local 
 board, which had originally been an open water- 
 course, and discharged into a large natural 
 stream. The millowners had not given any 
 notice of intention to drain into the watercourse, 
 nor received any express sanction to do so. 
 
 Proceedings were commenced against the mill- 
 owners and the local board to make them keep 
 the sewage out of the natural stream. The local 
 board gave the millowners notice to disconnect 
 the drain from the watercourse, on the ground 
 that it had been connected without notice : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that in the absence of a by-law 
 requiring notice none was necessary ; (2.) that 
 the millowners were entitled, under ss. 15, 17, 21 
 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to drain into the 
 watercourse, and that it was the duty of the 
 local board to see that their sewers did not convey 
 sewage into any river. Ainlet, Sons & Co. v. 
 
 KiKKHEATON LOOAL BOABD 
 
 Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 60 
 
 3. — Mine — Eight to pump water into river — 
 Bight to have purity of water preserved. 
 
 A mine owner is not, apart from contract or 
 prescriptive right, entitled to pump water into a 
 stream, though the water may not make the 
 stream unfit frtr ordinary purposes but ouly for 
 some special purpose, e.g., distilling whiskey. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., Banhier Distillery Co. 
 V. Young & Co., (1892) 19 E. 1083, affirmed. 
 YonNG & Co. u. Bankiek Distilleky Co. 
 
 H. 1. (So.) [1893] A. C. 691 
 
 4. — Nuisance — Pollution of river — " Putrid 
 solid matter " — Lawful exercise of right to im- 
 pound or divert water — Bivers Pollution Prevention 
 Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 75), ss. 2, 17, 20. 
 
 Sect. 2 of the Elvers Pollution Prevention 
 Act, 1876, prohibits the putting, or causing or 
 knowingly permitting to be put, or to fall into 
 any stream, so as to pollute its waters, "any 
 putrid solid matter," and by s. 20 of the Act 
 "solid matter" shall not include particles of 
 matter in suspension in water. By s. 17 the Act 
 " shall not apply to or affect the lawful exercise 
 of any rights of impounding or diverting water." 
 
 The deft, owned weaving sheds, worked by 
 steam-power, on the bank of a river, and he 
 had, for the purposes of his business, for many 
 years prior to the passing of the Act lawfully 
 
 WAXES (Foliation)— continued. 
 exercised the right of diverting water from the 
 river by means of a goit and dealing with the 
 same in the following manner. The water so 
 diverted being full of substances discharged into 
 the stream from paper manufactories, not belong- 
 ing to the deft., higher up the stream it haid, 
 before it could be used by the deft, for the 
 purposes of liis business, to be impounded in 
 a reservoir and allowed to settle. WhUflt it was 
 so impounded, the substances contained therein 
 sank to the bottom, and, after about three days, 
 became putrescent in the form of sludge. The 
 water at the top when thus cleared was taken 
 from the reservoir and used for condensing and 
 boiler purposes. Once a week the reservoir was 
 cleaned by opening the sluice-gates into the river, 
 and allowing the water to flow through the reser- 
 voir and out into the stream, carrying with it the 
 sludge deposited in the reservoir. The effluent 
 water as it went into the stream through the 
 sluice-gates contained 97 '6 per cent, of water 
 and 2-4 per cent, of solid matter : — 
 
 Seld, by A. L. Smith L.J. and Eighy L.J. 
 raffirming the decision of Div. Ct. [1899] 1 Q. B. 
 27), that the solid matter when it entered the 
 stream from the reservoir was " in suspension in 
 water " within the meaning of s. 20 and therefore 
 not " solid matter " within s. 2 of the Act : 
 
 Held, also (by A. L. Smith L.J., Eigby L.J., 
 and V. Williams L.J.), that, assuming that what 
 was put into the stream was "solid matter" 
 within the meaning of s. 2, the deft, was pro- 
 tected by c. 17 and therefore not liable to be 
 proceeded against under the Act. Eiveb Eibble 
 Joint Committee v. Halliwell. The Same v. 
 Shoebook - - C. A. [1899] "W. N. 103 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 a. B. 385 
 — Nuisance — Pollution of river — Sewer "made 
 for profit." 
 See Nuisance. 
 
 6. — Nuisance on foreshore of navigable river. 
 
 Under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 
 (54 & 55 Vict. V. 76), where the person causing 
 a nuisance cannot be found, the liability of the 
 owner of the premises to abate it only arises 
 when it is shewn that it continues by his act, 
 default or sufferance. Thames Conseevanot v. 
 London Pout Sanitaet Authority 
 
 Div. Ct. [1894] 1 Q. B. 647 
 
 6. — Old sewers — Liability of local avihority 
 — Powers of county council — Bivers Pollution Pre- 
 vention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 75), ss. 3, 10. 
 
 Tlie H. urban sanitary authority allowed 
 sewage to flow into a stream through sewers 
 constructed and used before the passing of the 
 Eivffirs Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and before 
 the constitution of the H. authority. The H. 
 authority had made certain alterations in tlie 
 sewers, but had done nothing to increase the 
 pollution : — 
 
 Held, that the H. authority had "wilfully 
 permitted " sewage to flow into the stream, and 
 that the mere fact that they had not materially 
 altered the sewers, and had done nothing to 
 increase the pollution, was not a sufficient answer 
 to proceedings under the Act. Yoekshiee West 
 EiDiNG Council v. Holmfieth Ueban Sanitaet 
 Authority - C, A. [1894] 8 Q, B, 842 
 
( 22t3 j 
 
 biofeSt OP CASES, I89i^ld00. 
 
 ( 2274 ) 
 
 WATER (PoUution)— conWnuea. 
 -^ Old sewers in London. 
 
 See LoNtON — Sewers. 63. 
 
 — Prescriptive right of drainage— Trade effluents 
 
 — ^Polluting liquid. 
 See Setters. 27. 
 
 — Order to execute sewage works. 
 
 See Estoppel. 11. 
 
 — Remedy for default — Mandamus. 
 
 See Sewbes. 4. 
 
 . 7. — Seturn of water in polluted condition— 
 Eiver — Riparian owner. 
 
 A riparian proprietor who has a prescriptive 
 right to take, in a particular way and at a parti- 
 cular place, water from a river and to return such 
 water to the river in a polluted condition, is not 
 entitled to take the water iu any other way or 
 place, nor use even his common law right of 
 taking it in such a way as to add to the pollution 
 of the stream. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., McGavin v. Mclntyre 
 Brothers, (1890) 17 R. 818, varied. MoIntyee 
 Beothees v. MoGavin 
 
 H. 1. (Sc.) [1893] A. C. 268 
 
 Beservoir. 
 
 — Additional reservoir. 
 
 See Watee — Supply. 15. 
 
 — " Deviation" — Construction of reservoir. 
 
 See Watee — Supply, 9. 
 
 — " Land covered with water " — Proportionate 
 
 rating. 
 
 See Watee— Water Rates. 35. 
 
 Biparian Owner. 
 See Cases under Water. 
 
 Supply. 
 
 District Councils (Water Supply Facilities') 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Viet. c. 44), gives faailities for 
 pure water supply in rural districts. 
 
 Metropolis Water Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict, 
 c. 56), amends the law respecting the Metropolitan 
 Water Companies. 
 
 Metropolis Watee Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. 
 e. 56)] Bailway and Canal Commission Eules, 
 1889, to apply, with the necessary modifications, to 
 all applications to the Railway and Canal Com- 
 missioners under the. W. IT. 1898 (Jan. 32), p. 46. 
 See Current Indesc, 1898, p. xcviii. 
 
 Emergency.] Metropolis Water Act, 1899 
 (62 Vict. c. 7), enables and requires the Metro- 
 politan Water Com,panies to supply each other 
 with water in cases of emergency. 
 
 8. — Compulsory sale — Award— Valuation — 
 " Price " — Stockton and Middlesbrough Corpora- 
 tions Waterworks Act, 1876 (39 <fc 40 Vict. c. ccxxx.), 
 
 8.4. 
 
 Basis of calculation where a joint water board 
 sell part of their undertaking to a local authority 
 of an outlying district. 
 
 A water board was constituted by a special Act 
 with the right to supply within two boroughs and 
 certain other districts, subject to a proviso that 
 the sanitary authority of any such other district 
 might require the board to sell the pipes, mains. 
 
 WATEB (Supply) — continued. 
 and fittings of the board within such distrioi, 
 " at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by 
 an arbitrator " : — 
 
 Held, that " price " meant price and not com- 
 pensation, and that in fixing the price the basis 
 of calculation should be merely the value of the 
 main pipes and fittings regarded as plant in situ 
 capable of earning a profit, but without any 
 compensation for the loss of profit which they 
 had made, or migiit make, by supplying water 
 within the district. 
 
 Decision of C. A., In re Kirkleatham Local 
 Board and Stocldon and Middleshorough Water 
 Board, [1893] 1 Q. B. 375, affirmed. Stib nom. 
 Stookton' and Middlesborough Water Board 
 V. Kirkleatham Looal Boaed 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1893] A. C. 444 
 
 Referred to by H. L. (So.) Edinburgh Street 
 Tramways Co. v. Edinburgh Corporation, [1894] 
 A. C. 456, 483. 
 
 9. — " Deviation " — Construction of reservoir — 
 Lateral deviation — Injunction. 
 
 Deviation implies a right to alter the situa- 
 tion of works as a whole, but not in so doing to 
 dispense with a considerable portion of them. 
 Where a special Act empowers the construction 
 of a reservoir and the interference with private 
 property, the exact terms of the statutory autho- 
 rity must be observed. 
 
 Decision of Irish C. A., 27 L. R. Ir. 179, 
 reversed. Hbeeon v. Rathmines and Rathqar 
 Improvement Commes. 
 
 H. L, (I.) [1892] A. C. 498 
 
 10. — Enlargement of district — Extension of 
 existing waterworks — " Constructing " waterworks 
 — Notice to established water companies — Public 
 Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), 8. 52— 
 Local Government Acts, 1888 (51 <fc 52 Vict. a. 41), 
 ss. 57, 59; 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 36. 
 
 A looal authority with an existing system of 
 waterworks having had an area added to their 
 district by order of a county council, proceeded 
 to lay pipes for the supply of the addedTarea : — 
 
 Meld, that this was a "constr acting" of 
 waterworks within jthe meaning of s. 52 of the 
 Public Health Act, 1 875, so that previous notice 
 thereof should have been given to an established 
 water co. whose limits of supply included the 
 added area ; and that such water co. was entitled 
 to an injunction. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1897] 1 Ch. 652, 
 reversed; and that of Chitty J. in Cleveland 
 Water Co. v. Bedoar Local Board, [1895] 1 Ch. 
 168, approved but held inapplicable. Hcdders- 
 riELD Corporation v. Ravensthoepe TJeban 
 Disteiot Council - C, A, [1897] 2 Ch. 121 
 
 11. — Expenses — Owner — Supply of water to 
 house— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 55), 8. 62— Public Health (Water) Act, 1878 
 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 25), s. 3. 
 
 By the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 62, a local 
 authority may, under certain conditions, require 
 the owner of a house within their district to 
 obtain a supply of water to his house, and in 
 default of his compliance may themselves do the 
 necessary work and recover the expenses from 
 him. By the Public Health (Water) Act, 1878, 
 
 4 D 
 
( 2275 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2276 ) 
 
 ■WATER (Sxipiilj')— continued. 
 B. 3, a rural sanitary authority may, where a 
 house within their district has not within a 
 reaaonahle distance from it a supply of water, 
 and they think that such supply can be brought 
 within a reasonable distance at a cost not ex- 
 ceeding certain specified limits of amount, require 
 the owner to provide such supply within a 
 reasonable distance of his house, and in default 
 of his compliance may themselves execute the 
 necessary works, and recover the cost from 
 him: — 
 
 Seld, that s. 3 of the later Act did not apply 
 to limit the amount of the expenses which the 
 local authority might recover against the owner 
 in proceedings under s. 62 of the earlier Act. 
 "West Lanoashiee Eukal District CouNOrL v. 
 Ogilvy - - Biv. Ct. [1899] W. N. 6 (3) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 377 
 
 12. — Fire hydrants — Bight of company to use 
 — Tlser for purposes other than extinguishing fires 
 — User mthout consent of London County Council 
 —Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. 
 0. 17), ss. 3, ST -i3— Metropolitan Fire Brigade 
 Act, 1865 (28 * 29 Vict. o. 90), s. 22— Metropolis 
 Water Act, 1871 (Si * 35 Vict. a. 113), s. Si- 
 London County Council (General Powers) Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxii.), s. 4. 
 
 Hydrants, fire-plugs, and other apparatus, 
 provided by a metropolitan waterworks company, 
 pursuant to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act, 
 1865, 8. 32, and the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, 
 s. 34, for supply of water in case of fire, may be 
 used by the waterworks co., for purposes other 
 than the supply of water for extinguishing fires, 
 cleansing sewers and di'ains, cleansing and water- 
 ing streets, or supplying public pumps, baths, 
 and washhouses, without the consent of the 
 London County Council, and may, by permission 
 of the CO., be used by persons other than the co. 
 London County Council v. East London 
 Wateeworks Co. 
 
 Div. Ct. [1900] W. N. 17; [1900] 1 Q. B. 330 
 
 13. — Fire-plugs — Fixing and maintaining — 
 Liability of local hoard — Waterworks Clauses Act, 
 1847 (10 (fc 11 Vict. c. 17), ss. SS-il— Public HeaUh 
 Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 66. 
 
 The Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, and the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, impose no obligation on 
 iin urban local authority to bear the expense of 
 maintaining in repair the fire-plugs in their dis- 
 trict, unless such fire-plugs have been fixed by 
 them, or by some water co. or person at their 
 request. The mere user of fire-plugs by the 
 local authority is not sufBcient to imply a request 
 by it to the water co. or an agreement under s. 66 
 of the Act of 1875 to fix fire-plugs. Grand 
 Junction Waterworks Co. v. Brentford Local 
 Board - - - C. A. [1894] 2 Q, B. 735 
 
 14. — Mines — Preventing Working — Compen- 
 sation — Prospective injury — Waterworks Clauses 
 Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. 0. 17), ss. 6, 22, 25, 27. 
 
 Although mines are "ilands " within s. 6 of 
 the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, the relations 
 of mine-owners and waterworks undertakers are 
 specially governed by s. 18 and the following 
 sections, so that a mine-owner cannot claim 
 against a waterworks undertaking compensation 
 
 WATEE (iw^^ly)— continued. 
 for prospective injury, which may be caused by 
 his not being able at some future date to work 
 his mine to its utmost. He must wait for com- 
 pensation until the injury arises. 
 
 Decision of C. A., (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 699, 
 
 affirmed. Holliday v. Wakefield Corporatio!* 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 81 
 
 No longer applicable in such a case. In re 
 Gonty and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire 
 By. Co., 0. A. [1896] 2 Q. B. 439. 
 
 See also In re Lord Gerard and L. and N. W. 
 By. Co., G. A. [1895] 1 Q. B. 459, 464. 
 
 — Mining purposes — Water required for — Mono- 
 
 poly of supply. 
 
 See Cape of Good Hope. 2. 
 
 — Rates. 
 
 See Water rates, below. 
 
 15. — Beservoir — Additional reservoir — Re- 
 striction on construction of " waterworks " — Public 
 Sealtb Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 4, 51, 
 52, 55. 
 
 Waterworks in s. 52 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875, means new waterworks. Where a local 
 authority had, previous to the passing of a water 
 co.'s special Act, provided substantial water- 
 works : — ■ 
 
 Eeld, that s. 52 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875 (with which s. 51 must be read), did not 
 restrain the local authority from adding to or 
 improving them. Cleveland Water Co. v. 
 Eedcar Local Board CMtty J. [1895] 1 Ch. 168 
 
 Approved by C. A., but held inapplicable. 
 Huddersfield Corporation v. Ravensthorpe Urban 
 District Council, [1897] 2 Ch. 121. 
 
 — Sale of land to company by limited owner — 
 
 Improvements — Building estate. 
 See Settled Land. 2G. 
 
 16. — Stop-cock in service pipe — Guard-box — 
 Repair — Bight to break up street — Negligence — 
 Waterworks Clauses Acts, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict, 
 c. 17), ss. 28, 48, 51, 52 ; 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 93), 
 ss. 17, 19. 
 
 A water co. bad power to lay down, maintain, 
 and repair pipes, &c. At the request and ex- 
 pense of a householder the co. laid down a service 
 pipe (leading from the main imder the street 
 into the house), in which was a stop-cook to 
 regulate the supply of water. The stop-cock 
 was provided with a guard-box let into the pave- 
 ment, the lid of which, being out of repair, 
 occasioned injury to the pit. : — 
 
 Held, that the co. who alone had power to 
 break up the street for the purpose of repairing 
 the guard-box were responsible for its repair. 
 Chapman v. Ftlde Waterworks Co. 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Q. B. 599 
 
 17. — Streets,Breaking np — Land not dedicated 
 to public use — Compulsory powers — Waterworks 
 Clauses Act, 1847 (10 * 11 Vict. c. 17), ss. 28, 29. 
 
 A water co. in laying its water-pipes is not 
 entitled under s. 28 of the Waterworks Clauses 
 Act, 1847, to cut through plates lying on the top 
 of a girder ry. bridge carrying a road over a ry. 
 for the purpose of suspending from the girders or 
 
( ^277 ) 
 
 biGES* 01* ClsMs, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 22f^ 3 
 
 WATER (Supply) — continued. 
 
 the bridge watemiama -without coming to an 
 
 agreement with the owner of the bridge. 
 
 Decision of Ct. of Sess., (1894) 21 R. 1033, 
 affirmed. Glassow Corpobation h. Glasgow 
 AND South "Western Et. Co. 
 
 H. 1. (So.) [1895] A. C. 376 
 
 18. — Streets, Brealting up—" Plan "— " Dif- 
 ference to he determined by two justices " — Water- 
 works Clauses Act, 18i7 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17), 
 S3. 28, 30, 31. 
 
 Tlie plan to be furnished under s. 31 of the 
 Waterworks Glauses Act, 1847, by a water oo. to 
 the road authority must sliew the mode in wliich 
 the underground worli is intended to be executed. 
 Unless the authority, in case of disapproval, make 
 some counter proposal by plan or otherwise as to 
 the mode of carrying out the work so as to create 
 a " difi'erence " within s. 31 , the co. can proceed 
 with their works independently of the road au- 
 tliority. East Molesey Local Board v. Lam- 
 beth Waterworks Co. C. A. [1892] 3 Ch. 289 
 
 19. — " Street " — Private road — Entry and 
 digging up without consent of owner — Waterworks 
 Clauses Act, 1847 (10 * 11 Vict. o. 17), ss. 28, 29 
 —Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) 
 ss. 4, 16, 54, 57, 308. 
 
 I A private road is a " street" withiu ss. 16, 54 
 of the Public Health Act, 1875. An urban 
 authority which has the general control of the 
 streets and power to supply water may break up 
 the soil of such a road without the owner's con- 
 sent for the purpose of supplying the inhabitunts 
 with water, making him compensation under 
 B. 308 of the Act of 1875. Sect. 57 of that Act 
 applies only in the case of local authorities who 
 have not control generally of the streets in their 
 district. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J., [1892] 3 Ch. 117, 
 reversed. Hill v. Wallasey Local Board 
 
 C. A. (A. E, Smith L J. diss.) [1894] 1 Ch. 133 
 
 20. — Supply — Constant supply — Default ly 
 company — Penalties — Who may take proceedings — 
 Metropolis Water Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 113), 
 ss. 7, 16, 44, 45. 
 
 When a metropolitan water co. has provided a 
 supply of water for a district, under s. 7, a private 
 individual cannot take proceedings against the 
 CO. for the penalties, imposed by s. 16, for relusiug 
 or neglecting " to provide and keep ... a con- 
 stant supply of pure and wholesome water suffi- 
 cient for the domestic purposes of the inhabitants." 
 Such proceedings can only be taken by the metro- 
 politan authority within the jurisdiction of which 
 the penalty has been incurred. Kyepin v. East 
 Lo.NDON Water Co. Div. Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B, 446 
 
 21. — " Supply water " — Exercise of powers — 
 Works outside district— Public Bealth Act, 1875 
 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 16, K2, 33, 34, 54, 285. 
 
 A local authority that has power to and is 
 taking steps to supply water does " supply water " 
 within s. 54 of the Public Health Act, 1875. 
 Jones v Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water 
 Supply Board - . - C. A. [1893] 2 Ch, 603 
 
 '23_ Waste-j-" Person supplied with water" 
 
 —Suffering waste — Liability to penalty— Owner of 
 house not exceeding 101. rent— Water leorks Clauses 
 Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17), «. 72. 
 
 By the prdviBions of a water co. s special Act, 
 
 WAIEB (Supply) — continued. 
 if " any person supplied with water " by the co. 
 negligently suffered the water so supplied to 
 him to be wasted he was liable to a penalty : — 
 
 Held, that where a house was let to a tenant 
 at a rent not exceeding 102., so that the owner 
 was liable under s. 72 of the Waterworks Clauses 
 Act, 1847, to pay the water rates instead of the 
 occupier, the owner was a " person supplied with 
 water " within the meaning of the special Act, 
 and was under a duty to take care that the water 
 supplied was not wasted. Bkook v, Harriso:* 
 Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 67; [1899] 1 «. B. 958 
 
 23. — "Water company" — Water supply — 
 " Own profit " — Independent supply by local au ■ 
 thority— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 55), ss. 4, 51, 52. 
 
 (a) The defts. were restrained from setting up 
 independent waterworks for their district (1; he- 
 cause of a statutory agreement with the pits., 
 and, per North J., (2) because Ihe pits., who had 
 taken over the undertaking of the local water co., 
 and who could use the surplus profits in reduc- 
 tions of rates, were a " water en. within the delts.' 
 district desirous and able to afford the necessary 
 supply," within s. 52 of the Public Health Act, 
 1875. 
 
 Decision of North J„ [1891] 1 Ch. 315, 
 affirmed (Kay L.J. diss.). Wolverhamvton 
 Corporation v. Bilson Commrs. 
 
 0. A. [1891] W. N. 56 
 
 (b) Sect. 52 of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 does not prohibit a local authority from con- 
 structing works to obtain water for their own 
 purposes, such as flushing sewers and treating 
 sewage, hxA only from doing so for the supply of 
 the public. West Surrey Water Co. v. Chert- 
 SEY Union North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 513 
 
 Water Supply.] Power of Jlailway and 
 Canal Commission to hear complaints as to. See 
 Metropolis Water Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. c. 56). 
 
 24, — World outside district — Water supply. 
 A local authority which has tlie consent of 
 
 the local authority of an adjoining district tci lay 
 down water-mains in such district can only do so 
 after complying with the provisions of ss. 32-34 
 of the Public Health Act, 1875, as to notices on 
 owners, &c. Jones v. Conway and Colwyn Bay 
 Joint Water Supply Bd. C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 603 
 
 Water Bates. 
 
 25. — Arrears of water rate — Waterworks 
 Glauxes Act, 1847 (10 * 11 Vict. c. 17), ss. 43, 53, 
 70-7i:— Metropolis Water Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict, 
 c. 113), 8. 48 — "Incoming tenant" — Trustee in 
 bankruptcy — Payment of arrears under protest — 
 Truitee's right to recover same from water com- 
 pany. 
 
 A debtor having been adjudicated a bankrupt, 
 his trustee in bankruptcy took possession of his 
 business premises and' found that the water rate 
 was in arrear. The trustee offered to pay in 
 advance from the date of the adjudieatibu for a 
 supply of water, but the water co. declined to 
 supply it uulciss the arrears were paid, and cut 
 off the water. Thereupon the trustee paid tha 
 arrears under protest: — 
 
 Meld, that under s, 48 of the Metropolis Watfer 
 
 1 D 2 
 
( 2279 ) 
 
 Dl&ESt OF CASES, 1891— IBOO 
 
 ( 22^0 ) 
 
 WATEE (Water Kates) — continued. 
 Act, 1871, the trustee, being in the position of an 
 " incoming tenant," was not liable for the arrears, 
 and was entitled to recover from the water co. 
 tlie amount paid under protest. In re Flack. 
 Ex parte Bekky "Wright J. [1900] W. N. 83 ; 
 
 [1900] 2 Q. B. 32 
 — Artificial reservoir — '• Land covered with 
 
 water " — Proportionate rating. 
 
 See No. 35, below. 
 
 26. — Assessment — Annual value — " Tenement 
 supplied with water" — Waterworks Clauses Act, 
 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17), s. 68. 
 
 On an application, under s. 68, to determine a 
 dispute as to the value of a tenement supplied 
 with water, consisting of a dwelling-house and 
 garden with out-houses, occupied as a residence, 
 and comprising about half an acre, the justices 
 found as a fact that a portion of the garden might 
 be separately let, and being of opinion that, in 
 iirriving at the annual value of the tenement 
 supplied with water, they had to determine what 
 quantity of garden should reasonably go with the 
 house, they held that the annual value was tlie 
 value of the premises exclusive of such portion 
 as might be separutely let :— 
 
 Beld, that the justices had no jurisdiction to 
 exclude that portion of the garden, and the assess- 
 ment must be raised to the annual value of the 
 whole of the premises as occupied. Grand 
 Junction Waterworks Co. r. Davies 
 
 Div. Ct. [1897] 2 ft. B. 209 
 
 27. — Assessment — WoterworJcs — Money ad- 
 xanced out of district — Repayment — Statutory 
 restrictions — 21 & 22 Vict. c. xii. 
 
 A local board were authorized by a special 
 Act to acquire waterworks : — 
 
 Held, not liable to be assessed in respect of 
 assistance moneys paid to them out of the guneral 
 distiict rate, when, on the terms of their Act, they 
 were bound to return the assistance moneys if 
 they made a profit. Merthtr Tydfil Local 
 EoAKD V. Merthyr Tydfil Union 
 
 Div. Ct, [1891] 1 ft. B. 186 
 
 28. — Assessriient — Waterworlte not directly 
 earning profit in parish — Capital value, interest 
 on — Cost of construction. 
 
 The corporation of Liverpool were empowered 
 by Act of Parliament to construct a reservoir and 
 other worlts in a parish in Wales for the purposes 
 of the supply of water to Liverpool. The con- 
 struction of the reservoir and works involved tlie 
 submersion of the sites of the parish church, 
 vicarage, and schools, and likewise the stopping 
 up and diversion of certain roads. The Act re- 
 quired the corporation to provide sites for and 
 erect a new church, vicarage, and schools in sub- 
 stitution for those which would be submerged, 
 and to make certain new roads and bridges which 
 were necessary for the purposes of the before- 
 mentioned diversion. The corporation carried 
 out the works in conformity with the Act, pro- 
 vided the requisite new church, vicarage, and 
 schools, and made the necessary new roads and 
 bridges. The corporation, having been rated to 
 a poor-rate in respect of the reservoir and works, 
 appealed to the quarter sessions against the rate. 
 The sessions decided that, in estimating the 
 capital value of the reservoir and works for the 
 
 WATEB (Water Bates) — continued. 
 purpose of arriving at the rateable value, the 
 amounts expended by the corporation in providing 
 the new church, vicarage, and schools, and 
 making the new roads and bridges, ought to be 
 included as being part of the capital cost of the 
 works : — 
 
 Held (reversing the judgment of a Div. Ct.), 
 that there was nothing wrong in point of law in 
 the decision of the sessions, which must therefore 
 be aifirmed. Liverpool Corporation v. Llan' 
 ftllin Union - - C. A. [1899] W. K. 71 ; 
 
 [ 1899] 2 ft. B. 14 
 
 29. — Covenant hy les.sor for payment of all 
 water rate imposed or assessed upon the premises 
 — Water supplied for domestic purposes — Water 
 supplied for trade purposes — Waterworks Clauses 
 Act, 1847 (10 * 11 Vict. c. 17)— New River Com- 
 pany's Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. clx.), ss. 36, 
 38, 40. 
 
 Under a covenant by the lessor, in a lease, to 
 pay " all water rate imposed or assessed upon the 
 premises or on the lessor or lessees in respect 
 thereof," the lessor is not bound to pay for water 
 supplied by the water co. to the lessees for trade 
 purposes. In re Floyd. Floyd v. J. Lyons 
 & Co. - 0. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 633 
 
 30. — " Heritor " — Church and manse — 
 Assessment of way-leave — Waterworks — Scottl<h 
 Act. 1663 (c. 21 or e. 31). 
 
 The Scottish Act, 1663 (c. 21 or c. 31) : " Wher 
 competent manses are alreadie built, ordaines the 
 heritors of the paroche to releive the minister and 
 his executoi-3 of all costs charges and expenses 
 for repairing of the forsaids manses." A conduit 
 of the Glasgow Waterworks Commrs. was carried 
 underground through lands in a parish in virtue 
 of grants of way-leave in perpetuity, obtained 
 from the proprietors of the land : — 
 
 Held, afiirming the decision of the Ct. of Sess , 
 [1899] 1 F. 523, that the Commrs. were liable 
 under the Act of 1663 to assessment in respect of 
 their conduit as " heritors " of the parish for the 
 repair of the manse. Glasgow Corporation v. 
 M'EwAN - - H. I. (So.) [1900] A. C. 91 
 
 — Levying water rate — Lands outside rateable 
 limits — By-laws — Construction. 
 See New South Wales. 50. 
 
 31. — Recovery — Arrears due before sale of 
 freehold — Liability of purchaser — Water Com- 
 panies {Regulation of Powers) Act, 1887 (50 & 51 
 Vict. c. 21), s. 4. 
 
 Under s. 4, the purchaser of a dwelling-house 
 is liable to a personal action at the suit of the 
 waterworks co. to recover arrears of water rate 
 which accrued due before the date of the purchase. 
 East Londos Waterworks Co. v. Keli.erman 
 
 Div. Ct. [1892] 2 ft. B. 72 
 
 82. — Recovery — House unoccupied for part of 
 quarter — Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 <t 11 
 Vict. c. 17), ss. 70, 71. 
 
 Under ss. 70, 71, when a house is unoccupied 
 at the beginning of a quarter, and becomes occu- 
 pied in the course of that quarter, water rate is 
 only payable for the portion of the quarter during 
 which the house is occupied, although the co. had 
 no notice of the non-occupation, and continued to 
 supply water. East London Waterworks Co. 
 V. FouLKES - WiUs J. [1894] 1 ft. B, 819 
 
( 2281 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2282 ) 
 
 WATEE (Water Ra.tes)— continued. 
 
 83. — Hecovery— Limitation of time— Bail- 
 ways Clauses Act, 1845 (8*9 Vict. c. 20), s. 140 
 —Waterworlts Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict 
 c. 17), ss. 74, 85. 
 
 Sect. 11 of tlie Summary Juriadiobion Act, 
 1848, applies to the hearing of a summons befure 
 justices for arrears of water rate, and where the 
 sum accrued due more than six months before 
 the date of the summons the justices have no 
 jurisdiction. East London Watebwobks Co. v. 
 Chaklbs - Div. Ct. [1894] 2 ft. B. 730 
 
 34. — Recovery — Summons for non-payment — 
 Demand — Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 cfc 9 Vict, 
 a. 20), «. UO — Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 
 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17), ss. 70, li—East London 
 Waterworhs Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. clxvi.). 
 
 Where a summons has been taken out for 
 arrears of water rate under s. 85 of the Water- 
 worlts Clauses Act, 1847, and s. 140 of the 
 Railway Clauses Act, 1845, it is not a condition 
 precedent to the jurisdiction of the justices that 
 a demand should have been made before issue of 
 the summons. East London Waterworks Co. 
 0. Kyffin - Div. Ct. [1895] 1 ft. B. 65 
 
 35. — Reservoir — Artificial reservoir — " Land 
 covered with water " — Proportionate rating — Dis- 
 trict rate— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict. 
 0. 55), 8. 211, svb-s. 1 (6). 
 
 An artificial reservoir is " land covered with 
 water " for the purpose of assessment in the pro- 
 portion of one-fourth part only of its annual 
 value under the Public Health Act, 1875, o. 211, 
 sub-s. 1 (6). 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1898] W. N. 168 (3); 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 273, afBrmed on this point. 
 Hampton Urban Council v. Southwark and 
 Vauxhail Water Co. H. L. (E.) [1900] A. C. 3 
 
 36. — Water supply — Contributory place — 
 " Special expenses " — Water rates and rents — 
 Liability of contributory place for expense of water 
 supply to part of such place — Public Health Act, 
 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 51, 229, 2S0— Public 
 Health {Water) Act, 1878 (41 * 42 Vict. c. 25), 
 8. 10. 
 
 Where a rural sanitary authority has, under 
 the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 supplied water to part of a contributory place, 
 the expenses both of supply and of maintenance 
 must, so far as they cannot be defrayed by a 
 reasonable water rate or water rent to be paid by 
 the consumers, be raised as special expenses by a 
 rate on the whole contributory place. Horn v. 
 Sleafobd Eural District Council 
 
 Div. Ct. [1898] 2 Q. B. 358 
 
 Water Eights. 
 
 37. — Artificial watercourse — Alteration of 
 natural state of things— Sluice-gate—Obligation 
 of owner to repair — Easement — Bight to take 
 water granted to owner of adjoining land- 
 Damage by flood. „ , , ix. I. ^ c 
 
 Where the owner of land on tne banK or a 
 river, for the purpose of bringing water from the 
 river' to a mill which he erected, made a water- 
 course with a shuttle at the head of it to control 
 the flow of the water from the river into the 
 yfatejcovise, and afterwards ponve^ed away ^ 
 
 WATEE (Water ^igiits)— continued. 
 portion of his land adjoining, and his successor 
 in title subsequently granted to the owner of the 
 adjoining land so conveyed a right to use the 
 water for the purposes of a mill belonging to 
 him: — 
 
 Held, that the existence of that right did not 
 affect the obligation of the owner of the water- 
 course towards the owner of the adjoining land 
 to keep the shuttle in repair so as to prevent 
 flood water from the river getting into the water- 
 course and overflowing on to his land. 
 
 Pomfret v. Ricroft, (1669) 1 Wms. Saund. 
 321, discussed. E. H. Buckley & Sons, Ld. v. 
 K. Buckley & Sons - C. A. [1898] 2 Q. B. 608 
 
 — Compensation — Past and future profits. 
 
 See Barbados. 
 
 38. — Diversion of spring — " Stream " — Lease 
 — Covenant — Warrandice clause. 
 
 Water percolating discontinuously through or 
 along strata cannot be described as a " stream." 
 
 A lessor demised by lease a distillery, cot- 
 tages, thirteen and a half acres of land, with two 
 ponds, "together with right to the water in the 
 said ponds and in the streams leading thereto." 
 The lease also contained the usual warrandice 
 clause. The lessor sunk a tank on ground out- 
 side but adjoining the demised subjects, and 
 drew off from marshy ground percolating water 
 which would have found its way eventually into 
 one of the ponds : — 
 
 Held (Lord Halsbury L.C. dissenting), afBrm- 
 ing the decision of the Ct. of Sess. ((1896) 33 
 S. L. E. 497), that water percolating through the 
 ground -towards the pond was not water in any 
 stream leading to the pond : 
 
 Held, secondly, by the whole House, that, 
 assuming an implied obligation on the part of 
 the lessor not to diminish the water supply to the 
 ponds, there had been no breach. M'Nab v. 
 Eobertson - H. L. (Sc.) [1897] A. C. 129 
 
 — Diversion of streams — Grant of land — Con- 
 
 struction of reservation. 
 See Natal. 7. 
 
 — Implied grant of supply of water — Equitable 
 
 mortgagor. 
 
 See Easement. 8. 
 
 39. — Literferenae with flow of water — Tunnel 
 for draining mine — Mala fides — Bradford Water- 
 works Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. v. cxxiv.), s. 44. 
 
 Pits, were the owners of waterworks which 
 they had purchased from a co. which had con- 
 structed them under a special Act which provided 
 that it should not be lawful for any person other 
 tlian the co. to divert in any other manner than 
 by law they might be legally entitled waters 
 flowing from certain springs, or to sink any well 
 or pit, or do anything whereby such waters might 
 be drawn off or diminished. There was no clause 
 in the Act giving compensation to landowners 
 affected by this provision. The deft, owned land 
 near, and began to sink shafts for the alleged 
 purpose of draining certain beds of stone. The 
 corporation alleged that the deft, was not acting 
 bona fide, but to compel them to purchase his 
 land : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the special Act did not interfere 
 with the legal rights of the dpft. ; (2) th^t a lftn4- 
 
( 2283 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2284 ) 
 
 WATER (Water 'Rights)— continued. 
 owner is entitled to intercept water percolating 
 underground through his own land; (3) that as 
 the deft, was legally entitled to sink the shafts, 
 his motive and object in so doing was immaterial. 
 Decision of North J., [1894] 3 Ch. 53, reversed, 
 and decision of 0. A., [1895] 1 Ch. 145, affirmed. 
 Beadfobd Cokpoeation v. Pickles 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 587 
 
 See dictum of Lord Shand in Allen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. 0. 1, 167. 
 
 — Irrigation — Land slides — Injunction — Lia- 
 
 bility for damages. 
 See Canada. 22. 
 
 — Moorings in foreshore — Immemorial user. 
 
 See Thames. 9. 
 
 — Opening locks on river — Prescription — ^Lost 
 
 grant. 
 
 See Easement. 4. 
 
 — Ownership of foreshore and bed of — Discovery 
 
 — Eight of the Crown. 
 See DisoovEKT. 15. 
 
 40. ■ — Percolation — Interference with flow. 
 Observation of Lord Watson as to statement 
 
 of law of Scotland by Lord Wensleydale in 
 Chasemore v. Bichards, 7 H. L. C. 349. Bkad- 
 
 FOKD COEPOEATION V. PlOKLES 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1895] A. C. 587 
 See dictum of Lord Shand in Allen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. 0. 1, 167. 
 
 — Eights of owner of shore — Thames Conser- 
 
 vancy Act. 
 
 See Thames. 9. 
 
 41. — Biparian owner — Accretions — Oiange oj 
 hed — Several fishery. 
 
 The pits., under an incloaure award made in 
 1803, were entitled to a piece of land at Wrays- 
 bury bounded on one side by the Thames, which 
 is there navigable but not tidal. The land ended 
 in an almost perpendicular bank 5 or 6 ft. high, 
 and the bed of the river readied to its foot, the 
 water often reaching some height above tlic font. 
 The deft, was entitled to a several fishery in the 
 river and to the bed of the river. The water of 
 the river, owing to the removal of a weir, sank, 
 and at the foot of the bank a deposit took place 
 forming a strip on which some large trees grew, 
 and which during some ))art of the year was left 
 dry, but it was overflowed during a considerable 
 pnrt of the year. At the foot of the bank the 
 deft, dug a ditch which he regularly cleaned out 
 lor more than twelve years, and afterwards filled 
 it up with concrete so as to make a footpath. 
 The pits, brought an action for an injunction to 
 restrain him from trespassing : — 
 
 Held, by Eomer J., [1896] 1 Ch. 78, that 
 whether the strip had ceased to be part of the 
 bed of the river was a question to be determined, 
 not by any hard and fast rule, but by regarding 
 all the material circumstances of the case, in- 
 cluding the fluctuations of the river, the nature 
 of the land, audits growth and user, and that, in 
 the present case, the strip bad ceased to be part 
 of the bed and belonged to the pits, as having 
 been formed by gradual accretion to their land : — 
 
 Jfeld, on appeal, that (;he principle on which 
 
 WATER (Water Bights)— contimied. 
 Eomer J. had proceeded in determining whether 
 the strip was part of the bed of the river was 
 sound, but that on the facts the strip had not 
 ceased to form part of the bed, and therefore 
 belonged to the deft. ; but that when it was dry 
 the rights of the pits, as riparian proprietors 
 were not aftected, and they had risht of access 
 over it to the water, and could use it to the tame 
 extent as they could use the bed of the river in 
 its old state. 
 
 Whether the accretions, if they had ceased to 
 form part of the bed of the river, would have been 
 the property of the pits, as owners of the adjoin- 
 ing land, qusere. 
 
 Whether the doctrine of accretion could apply 
 in a case where the steep 6 ft. bank which foimed 
 the original boundary between the lands of the 
 pits, and deft, ttill remain clearly defined, quasre. 
 HiNDSON V. AsHBT C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 1 
 
 Discussed by North J. Ecroyd v. Coultliard, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 554, 569 ; C. A. [1898] 2 Ch. 359. 
 
 42. — Biparian owner — Spring — Flowing 
 water — Defined cliannel — Artificial channel — 
 Alteration of natural flow — Injunction — PvMic 
 well — Urban district council — Licence to take 
 water— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 * 39 Vict, 
 c. 55). 
 
 In an action by a riparian owner and his 
 tenant, the occupier of a mill on the banks of a 
 stream, against a licensee from an urban district 
 council, who were in possession of the land upon 
 which the spring rose, to restrain the deft, from 
 taking water from the spring and from inter- 
 fering with the accustomed flow of water in the 
 said stream, the deft, contended that he was 
 entitled to abstract the water before it had risen 
 to the surface, or flowed in a defined channel : — 
 
 Held, following Dudden v. Glutton Union, 
 (1857) 1 H. & N. 627, that the deft, was not 
 entitled to diminish or interfere with the natural 
 flow of the water at its source, and that the 
 principle of that decision was not affected by 
 the fact that at some remote period the source of 
 the spring bad been built round, and formed 
 into a polygonal well in order to improve its 
 mode of issuing from the earth, thus making an 
 artificial channel for a short distance. 
 
 A local authority has no power under the 
 Public Health Act, 1875, to license a stranger to 
 take water from a public well for commercial 
 purposes. Mostyn v. Athekton 
 
 Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 103; [1899] 2 Ch. 360 
 
 43. — Biparian owner — Stream — Alteration of 
 flow —Local authority — " Injuriously affecting " 
 — Injunction — Consent of Biparian Owner — 
 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 
 ss. 57, 332. 
 
 Under s, 51 of the Public Health Act, 1875, a 
 local authority have nn power, for the purpose of 
 supplying water to their district, to alter the 
 flow of water in a stream without the consent in 
 writing of the riparian proprietors lower down 
 the stream, as required by s. 332 of the Act. 
 
 By so altering the flow of water the local 
 authority are, within the meaning of s. 332, " in- 
 juriously affecting " the common law right of 
 such a riparian proprietpr, ajid tbey will be re? 
 
( 2285 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2286 ) 
 
 WATER (Water Rights)—, 
 
 Btvained from so doing without any proof of 
 
 eensible damage caused to him. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 16(11), 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 583, affirmed. Egberts v. Gwtrfai 
 DiSTEiOT CotwoiL C. A. [1899] W. N. 203 ; 
 
 [1899] 8 Ch. 608 
 
 44' — Miparian proprietor — Navigable river — 
 Sale of artificial water-power — Appeal from 
 Quebec. 
 
 A riparian proprietor can acquire an interest 
 in the water-power of a navigable river, as derived 
 from a reservoir artificially formed by a dam 
 across its channel, and sell the same as appur- 
 tenant to his land. Even if such sale should not 
 be effectual against the public, the vendor cannot 
 himself impeach it on that ground : — ■ 
 
 Held, in this case, that as the vendor of a 
 specified amount of water-power had not reserved 
 to himself a right to a supply either pari passu 
 with or preferably to the purchaser, tlie latter 
 was entitled to damages in respect of any loss 
 incurred by the vendor's user of the water in 
 diminution of the amount sold. Hamehn v. 
 Banneeman - - P. C. [1895] A. C. 237 
 
 — Eiver— Crossing vessels in — Regulations for 
 
 preventing collisions. 
 See China. 2. 
 
 — Underground water — Quiet enjoyment. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 22. 
 
 — Underground water — Surface — Subsidence — 
 
 Eight of support — -Water-logged land. 
 See Support. 1. 
 
 45. — Waste land — Bed of river — Reservation 
 to lord of manor — Territorial rights — Fishing 
 rights — Inclosure Act, 1796 (36 Geo. 3, c. xxxix.) 
 By a private Inclosure Act, passed in 1796, an 
 allotment was directed of certain waste lands in 
 a manor, the mines, &o., being reserved to the 
 lord, and the allotments were declared freehold of 
 the allottees to all intents and purposes. There 
 was a saving clause providing that nothing in 
 the Act should affect the title of the lord to the 
 mines or to the seignories and royalties, franchises 
 and liberties incident to the manors, but that the 
 lord, his heirs and assigns, should enjoy (inter 
 alia) all piscaries, fishing, &c., wliich could or 
 might be claimed by him or them as owner or 
 owners of the soil of the moors, commons, and 
 waste grounds, in as full, ample, and beneficial a 
 manner to all intents and purposes as if the Act 
 had not been passed. The waste lands were 
 bounded on one side by the river E., and the soil 
 of half the bed belonged to the lord. There was 
 no evidence that any of the tenants had ever 
 enjoyed any rights of fishing, or any other com- 
 monable rights, over any other part of the bed of 
 the river ; but there was evidence that at the 
 time of the passing of the Act the lord exercised 
 and let to tenants the right of fishing over half 
 the bed. The commrs. allotted to Leach a palt of 
 the waste called Edenbanks, deecribed as a 
 bounded on the west by the river, and gave an 
 acreage which was correct for the land if the half 
 bed was not included. In 1890 the successor of 
 the lord granted to the pit. the right of fishing 
 in half the river between two points lying above 
 and below E. The pit. brought hia action to 
 
 WATER (Water ^igUs)— continued. 
 establish his right of fishing in front of E., and a 
 right of landing on E. for fishing purposes. The 
 Leach family insisted that the allotment to Leach 
 passed the soil of the bed ad medium filum, aud 
 that they had the exclusive right of fishing over 
 so much as adjoined E , and by counter-claim 
 asked an injunction to restrain the pit. from 
 fishing opposite E., and from landing on E. for 
 fishing purposes: — 
 
 Beld, that as the half bed of the river had 
 been enjoyed and let by the lord as a separata 
 tenement up to the passing of the Act, and the 
 commoners had never exercised any rights of 
 common over it, it did not form part of the waste 
 lands which the commrs. were authorized to allot, 
 and that even if they had expressly included half 
 the bed in the allotment to Leach, he would 
 have taken no interest in the bed, and that he had 
 no right of fishing. 
 
 Held, that, according to JDulce of Devonshire v. 
 O'Connor, (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 468, the saving 
 clause in the Act did not reserve to the lord any 
 merely territorial rights ; and that as it did not 
 appear that he had any franchise of fishing, his 
 right to land upon E. for fishing purposes was a 
 merely territorial right incident to his ownership 
 of the soil, and was extinguished by the allot- 
 ment. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1897] 2 Ch. 554, 
 affirmed. Eoeovd v. Coulthard 
 
 C. A, [1898] 2 Ch. 358 
 
 — Watercourse— Eoads — Surface-water sewers — 
 " Sewage or filthy water." 
 See Sewers. 32. 
 
 WATEE-CLOSETS — Defective water-elotets — 
 Notice requiring owner to amend — Validity of 
 —Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 
 Vict. e. 76), i. 39, sub-s. 3 ; s. 41, mh-s. 2. 
 
 The county council made by-laws under s. 39 
 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, with 
 respect to future water-closets, prescribing the 
 mode of their construction, but made none with 
 respect to structural alterations of existing water- 
 closets. 
 
 The respondent was the owner of a water- 
 closet which had been constructed before the 
 making of the by-laws. The appellants as the 
 sanitary authority, purporting to act under s. 41, 
 sub-s. 2, served a notice on the respondent 
 requiring him to make certain structural altera- 
 tions in the water-closet : — 
 
 Held, (1.) that upon a summons for non- 
 compliance with the notice the magistrate had 
 jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the 
 notice notwithstanding the provisions as to an 
 appeal to the county council. (2.) That the 
 notice was void under s. 39, sub-s. 3, tliere being 
 no by-laws for it to be in accordance with : 
 
 Held, also, by Kennedy J., that the " altera- 
 tion or amendment " which the sanitary authority 
 are empowered to require under s. 41, sub-s. 2, 
 does not comprise structural alteration. Fulham 
 Vestkx v. Solomon Div, Ct. [1896] 1 Q. B. 198 
 
 2. — Entry on premises — Order for — Local 
 Authority — Justices — Jurisdiction — Public Health 
 Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 36, 305. 
 
 Where an application is made under s. 305 of 
 
C 2287 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2288 ) 
 
 ■WATEB-CLOSETS — continued. 
 the Public Healtli Act, 1875, to a court of sum- 
 mary jurisdiction for an order authorizing » 
 local authority to enter upon premises for the 
 purpose of making a sufficient water-closet there 
 in pursuance of the powers given by s. 36, the 
 Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an objection 
 by the owner of the premises that such entry is 
 unnecessary because they are already provided 
 with sufficient sanitary appliances. Eobinson v. 
 Sdndekland Cobpobation 
 Div, Ct. [1899] W. N. 19 (7) ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 751 
 
 3. — Insufficient water-closet accommodation. 
 Order of sanitary authority as to — Appeal — Juris- 
 diction of magistrate — Pviblie Health ^London) 
 Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Viet. c. 76), 8. 37, sub-s. 3, 5. 
 
 The decision of the sanitary authority acting 
 under s. 37, sub-s. 8, of the Public Health (London) 
 Act, 1891, that a house is not furnished with 
 proper and sufficient water-closet accommodation, 
 is final, subject only to an appeal under sub-s. 5 
 to the county council. Where, therefore, the 
 owner or occupier of a house is summoned for 
 non-compliance with a notice of the sanitary 
 authority to provide such accommodation, a magis- 
 trate has no jurisdiction to reverse the decision 
 of the sanitary authority and to hold that the 
 accommodation is not required. St. John's, 
 Haoknet, Vebtby v. Hutton 
 Div. Ct. [1896] W, N. 158.(6); [1897] 1 Q. B. 210 
 
 4. — Local Authority — Powers — Power to 
 require sufficient water-closet to he provided — 
 Resolution requiring adoption of particular system 
 — Notice in accordance with general resolution — 
 Invalidity— Fuhlic Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 55), s. 36. 
 
 Sect. 36 of the Public Health Act, 1875, 
 which empowers a local authority to give notice 
 requiring the owner of a house to provide a suffi- 
 cient water-closet, earth-closet, or privy, and in 
 case of non-compliance empowers the local 
 authority to do the necessary works and recover 
 the expenses, does not empower such authority 
 to enforce a general resolution that in all such 
 cases within their jurisdiction a particular system 
 shall be adopted ; but they are bound to exercise 
 their discretion in each particular case, and conse- 
 quently a notice in accordance with the general 
 resolution and requiring compliance with its 
 provisions is invalid. 
 
 Decision of Div. Ct., [1897] 2 Q. B. 357, 
 affirmed. Wood v. Widnes Oobfoeation 
 
 C. A. [1898] 1 Q. B. 463 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. Nicholl v. 
 Epping Urban Council, [1899] 1 Oh. 844, 848. 
 
 5. — Local authority — Powers — Privies and 
 water-closets — Substitution of water-closet for 
 privy— Publio Health Act, 1875 (38 <fc 39 Vict. 
 0. 55), s. 36. 
 
 By s. 36 of the Public Health Act, 1875, if a 
 house within the district of a local authority 
 appears to such authority, by the report of their 
 inspector of nuisances, " to be without a sufficient 
 water-closet, earth-closet or privy, and an ash- 
 pit furnished with proper doors and coverings," 
 the local authority are directed to give Botice to 
 the owner or occupier of the house requiring him 
 " to provide a sufficient water-clopet, eftf th-oloset 
 
 WATEE-CLOSETS— contiJiuei. 
 
 or privy, and an ashpit furnished as aforesaid, or 
 
 either of them, as the ease may require " : — 
 
 Held, that a local authority had power under 
 this section, upon being satisfied that a house 
 within their district was without a sufficient 
 privy, to require the owner (subject to his right 
 to appeal to the Local Government Board under 
 B. 268) to provide a sufficient water-closet in the 
 place of the existing privy. Nioholl v. Eppiho 
 Ueban Council 
 
 Stirling J. [1899] W. N. 68 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 841 
 
 — Urinal — " PubUo place." 
 
 See Stebets. 1. 
 
 WATEE BATES. 
 
 See Watbb— Water Bates. 
 
 WATEECOUBSE. 
 
 See Oases under Watbb. 
 
 WATEB-UABE — Minerals — Coal below low 
 water-mark — Barony title — Lease of 
 coals — Minor — Adoption. 
 See Mines — Leases. 12. 
 
 — Use as a " brand." 
 
 See Teade-mabk — Begistration. 32. 
 
 WATEEMAN — Applications for licences — Judi- 
 cial order. 
 See Cebtioeabi. 1. 
 
 WATEBMEN'S AND EIGHTEBMEN'S COM- 
 PANY. 
 
 See Cases under Thames. 
 
 WATEE POWEE — Sale of artificial— Eiparian 
 proprietor. 
 See Wateb — Water Eights. 44. 
 
 WATEBWOBES. 
 
 See Oases under Wateb. 
 
 WATEBWOEKS COMPANIES. 
 
 See Cases under Wateb — Supply. 
 
 WAX-WOEKS— Exhibition of effigy— Injunction 
 — Libel — Discretion. 
 See Injunction. 15. 
 
 WAT, BIGHT 0¥— Adjoining }u>uses— Simulta- 
 neous conveyance of houses to different persons — 
 General words — Formed road over one tenement 
 for apparent use of adjoining tenement — Continu- 
 ous and apparent easement — Agreement — Question 
 of constru:ction involving question of fact — B. S. C, 
 1883, Order Liv. a. — Jurisdiction. 
 
 A testator having left his residuary estate, 
 which included two immediately adjoining house?, 
 in thirds to his three children, the pit., the deft, 
 and another, they entered into an agreement for 
 the distribution of the estate, whereby it was 
 agreed (inter alia) that one of the houses, therein 
 described as "a freehold house and premises 
 known as B., let to A. F.," should be forthwith 
 conveyed to the pit., and that the other house, 
 therein described " as a freehold house and 
 premises known as S., let to J. H., should be 
 forthwith conveyed to the deft. The two houses 
 fronted a public road. From this road there 
 started a private road which ran along the side of 
 S. to the back, and then turned at right angles 
 and ran at the back of the two houses, affording 
 a b^ok entrance to each of the houses. This side 
 and back road was a g^velled roa4 betwpe^j 
 
( 2289 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2290 ) 
 
 WAY, EIGHT OJ— continued. 
 fences, made, when the houses were built, for the 
 use ot both houses, and it had been de facto used 
 by the tenants of both houses : 
 
 Seld, that under the agreement the pit. was 
 entitled to a conveyance of B. containing the 
 ordinary general words " together with the ways, 
 easements, rights, and advantages to the pre- 
 mises appertaining," and imder a conveyance in 
 that form a formed road over a portion of S. to 
 and for the apparent use of B. would pass to the 
 pit. upon the principle stated by Erie C.J. in 
 Polden v. Bastard, (1865) L. K. 1 Q. B. 156 ; see 
 Pearson v. Spencer, (1863) 3 B. & S. 761 ; Brown 
 V. Alabaster, (1887) 37 Ch. D. 490; Thomas v. 
 Owen, (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 225. The Court has 
 jurisdiction under Order liv. a to determine ques- 
 tions of fact, and, being satisfied upon the evidence 
 that this road was made and intended for the use 
 of the two houses : — 
 
 Seld, that the descriptions of the two houses 
 contained in the agreement included rights for 
 the owners, tenants, and occupiers of the two 
 houses respectively to use the side and back road 
 for all purposes. Nicholls v. Nicholls 
 
 Stirling J. [1900] W. N. 4 
 
 2. — Closing roads — Bevival of Public rights 
 by repeal of Turnpike Act. 
 
 A public bridle-path was stopped up by a 
 Turnpike Act : — 
 
 Held, that the repeal of the Act did not 
 
 revive the old right of way. Gwtnne v. Dbewitt 
 
 Komer J. [1894] 2 Ch. 616 
 
 3. — Evidence — Bight of way — Easement — 
 " Claiming right thereto " — Prescription Act, 1832 
 (2*3 Will. 4, ^. 71), s. 2. 
 
 From the fact that « way to a messuage had 
 been enjoyed for more than sixty years, and a 
 small annual payment was made for at least the 
 last forty-four years for it, the judge inferred that 
 the way was enjoyed under a parol liceooe given 
 more than forty years ago in consideration of an 
 annual payment : — 
 
 Seld, that tbe owner of the messuage was for 
 the full period " claiming right " to the way for 
 the forty yeats, within the meaning of s. 2 of the 
 Prescription Act ; and that in the absence of 
 proof of enjoyment by consent or agreement in 
 writing, an absolute right to the use of the way 
 had been acquired. Gaednbe v. Hodgson's 
 Kingston Bbuweby Co. 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J, [1900] W. N. 67 ; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 592 
 
 4. — Cfrant — Easement — Mortgage of servient 
 tenement without reservation of right of way. 
 
 A. owned two houses, and B, which were 
 situated back to back, and from one of which, C, 
 there was a paved and walled passage along the 
 side of and through the other, B, to B street. 
 A. occupied the house C and let B. The passage 
 was not a way of necessity, and was only used 
 occasionally by A. In 1882 A. mortgaged the 
 hoiise B without reserving any right over the 
 passage, and in 1886 she died, having by her will 
 of the same year devised the two houses to 
 different persons, the will containing no words 
 appropriate to any right of way. The ullimate 
 devisee of C. conveyed that house to the pit., 
 purporting to irjclude in suph ponveyanoe tlje 
 
 WAY, BIGHT OH— continued. 
 right of way. The deft., who was the devisee of 
 B, paid off the mortgage thereon, and that house 
 was reconveyed to him : — • 
 
 Seld, (1) by Div. Ct. and 0. A., that as the 
 mortgage deed did not reserve the right of way, 
 and it was not a way of necessity, it was extin- 
 guished by the mortgage : 
 
 Seld, (2) by Div. Ct., that no right of way 
 passed to the plt.'s predecessor in title under the 
 will. The C. A. did not decide whether or not 
 any right of way passed under the will to the 
 plt.'s predecessor. Taws v. Knowles 
 
 G. A. [1891] 2 Q, B. 664 
 
 — Grant — Power of company to. 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 9. 
 
 6. — Grant — Powers of tenant for life — Bight 
 of way over a parle. 
 
 The leasing power of a tenant for life, under 
 s. 6 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, does not 
 extend to granting a right of way over the park 
 attached to the principal mansion-house. DowA- 
 GEB Duchess of Suthebland ■». Duke of 
 SuTHEELAND - Eomer J. [1893] 3 Ch. 169 
 
 Keferred to by Bigham J. Brown v. Peto, 
 [1900] 1 Q. B. 346, 355 ; C. A. [1900] 2 Q. B. 
 653. 
 
 6. — Grant in Gross — Easement — Covenant 
 with yearly tenant and his " heirs and assigns " — 
 Effect of acquiring fee simple. 
 
 A., the owner in fee^of Three-acre, conveyed 
 it to B. by a deed dated March 12, 1869, which 
 recited that it had been agreed that on com- 
 pletion of the purchase B. should grant to A., 
 his " heirs and assigns," a right of way over a 
 defined footway leading from a public road across 
 Three-acre to Blackacre. The deed also referred 
 to another deed as then prepared, which when 
 executed was dated March 13, 1869, whereby B., 
 in pursuance of this agreement and in considera- 
 tion of the conveyance of Three-acre, covenanted 
 and granted with and to A., his "heirs and 
 assigns," that it should be lawful for them and 
 the tenants and occupiers for the time being of 
 Blackacre to use the footway. A. was then and 
 until 1870, when he purchased the fee simple, 
 only tenant from year to year of Blackacre: — 
 
 Seld, that, notwithstanding the limited in- 
 terest of A. when the easement was granted, and 
 the cesser of that interest by merger in 1870, a 
 lessee of Blackacre claiming under the freehold 
 title of A. was entitled to use the footway. Etmeb 
 i). MoIleoy - - Byrne J. [1897] 1 Ch. 628 
 
 — Lease — Parcels — Misdescription — Common 
 
 mistake — Eeotification. 
 
 See Landlobd and Tenant — lease. 75. 
 
 7. — Necessity, Way of — Defined way — 
 Grant. 
 
 Action for an injunction to restrain the defts. 
 from trespassing on a roadway. 
 
 Psr Kekewich J. :— The peculiar circumstances 
 in this case were that the land in question was 
 not blocked on all sides, though it was blocked 
 on three sides by land of the ve»dor. The 
 question was whether the doctrine which calls 
 into existence a way of necessity was applicable 
 to such a case. Referring to the authorities, and 
 in particular tp a passage in Gale on Easements, 
 
C 2291 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2292 ) 
 
 WAY, EIGHT OY— continued. 
 5th ed. p. 133, he said that there was no autho- 
 rity for extending the doctrine referred to to 
 Buch a case aa this, where the granted premises 
 were not surrounded by the land of the vendor, 
 but abutted on one side on land ctf a stranger. 
 He held, therefore, that the claim to the road- 
 way as a way of necessity failed. 
 
 Dicta in Browny. Alabaster, (1887) 37 Ch. D. 
 490, doubted. Titohmarsh v. Eotston Watek 
 Co. - Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 256 
 
 8. — Ohstruction — Abatement of obstruction to 
 riijht of way. 
 
 Where a right of way is obstructed by an in- 
 habited house, the owners of the right may, after 
 notice and request to remove the obstructing 
 house, pull it down even if it is inhabited. 
 
 Where the obstructive property is in the hands 
 of a receiver of the Court, it is necessary to obtain 
 the leave of tlie Court to pui sue any remedies and 
 do any acts which miglit lawfully be taken or 
 done to abate the obstruction, and the Court will 
 grant such leave unless it is perfectly clear that 
 the right claimed does not exist. Lane v. Catsey 
 CMtty J. [1891] 3 Ch, 411 
 
 9. — Ohstruction — Public obstruction — Inclo- 
 sure award — Footway and bridle-path — Eighway 
 Act, 183.5 (5 (fc 6 Will. 4, c. 150), s. 109. 
 
 An inolosure award made in 1800 had allotted 
 a road 15 ft. wide as a footway and bridle- 
 path : — 
 
 Held, that the public were entitled to use the 
 ^hole width of the road, and not merely a part, 
 sufficient (e.g., 3^ ft.) for the purposes of a foot- 
 way and bridle-path. Obstruction for a long 
 period is no answer to public lights. Deft, was 
 refused costs aa between solicitor and client, the 
 case not coming witliin s. 109 of the Highways 
 Act, 1835. PcLLiN «. Eeffell 
 
 Komer J. [1891] W. N. 39 
 \_Sect. 109 was repealed by 66 d- 57 Vict. c. 61.] 
 
 10. — Obstruction, Removal of — Eight of way 
 — Highway authority — Footpath — Local board. — 
 Interested member — Local Government Act, 1894 
 (56 * 57 Vict. u. 73), ss. 26, iG—Fractice~Plead- 
 ing — Striking out — Irrelevancy. 
 
 A local board discharging duties in relation 
 to the protection of ijublio rights of way under 
 s. 26, sub-s. 1, of the Local Government Act, 
 1894, is in the same position aa a private indi- 
 vidual protecting his own property, ami is not 
 acting judicially. Consequently, where an action 
 was brought against a local board to restrain the 
 removal of posts erected on a public footpath by 
 the owners of the adjoining property for the pur- 
 pose of preventing the footpath from being used 
 for vehicular traffic, and the statement of claim 
 alleged that a member of the board had used his 
 influence with the board for his own private in- 
 terest, and that in consequence thereof the pits, 
 had failed to induce the board to take steps 
 to prevent the user of the footpath for vehicular 
 traffic : — 
 
 Held, thai the real issue was whether or not 
 the posts constituted an obstruction to the public 
 right of way, and that the allegations in tho 
 statement of claim were irrelevant, and ought to 
 be struck out. Mtjukat v. Epsom Local Board 
 Etjrjing J. [1896] W. N, 176 (9)| [1897] 1 Ch. 35 
 
 WAY, EIGHT OF— continued. 
 
 — Power of company to grant — Access over land 
 
 taken — Compensation. 
 See Lands Clauses Acts— Compensation. 
 9. 
 ' — Shooting — Eight of way for — Servitude. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Servitude. 38.' 
 
 — Streets. 
 
 See LoNDOK— Streets. 
 Steeets. 
 
 11. — Trespass to land — Highway — Use of 
 highway otherioise than as such — Practice — Decla- 
 ratory judgment. 
 
 The pit. lingered on a highway which passed 
 over the deft.'s grouse moor for the sole and 
 express purpose of interfering with the deft.'s 
 right of shooting over the moor : — 
 
 Held, tliat the pit., being upon the highway 
 for purposes other than its use as a highway, 
 was a trespasser, and (Esher M.E. diss.) the Com t 
 should make a declaration to that effect. IIae- 
 
 EISON V. DUEE or EUTLAKD 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Q. B. 142 
 Considered by H. L. (E.). Allen v. Flood, 
 [1898] A. C. 1, 20. 
 
 Eeferred to by Div. Ct. Lusconihe v. Great 
 Western Ry. Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 313, 317. 
 
 Followed by C. A. Hickman v. Maisey, [1900] 
 1 Q. B. 752. 
 
 12. Vendor and purchaser — Latent defect — ■ 
 
 A right of way, unknown to either party until 
 the investigation of the title, is a latent defect in 
 the title as well as an error in the description of 
 property. Ashbubnek u. Sewell 
 
 CMtty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 405 
 — Way -leave. 
 
 See Way-leave. 
 
 WAY-LEAVE — Assessment of — " Heritor " — 
 Church and manse. 
 See Water — Water Bates. 30. 
 
 1. — Landowner — Railway company — Agree- 
 ment for lease — Construction of way-leace — Ancient 
 document — Contemporaneous usage or interpreta- 
 tion. 
 
 By deed in 1854 H. agreed to grant to a ry. 
 CO. a way-leave and right to make rys. through 
 his land for the term of 1000 years, the co. paying 
 H. a specified rent on coal carried over " any part 
 of the rys. comprehended in " a bill which after- 
 wards became the co.'s special Act of 1854 and 
 which should be shipped at Port B. The rys. 
 were constructed and for more than forty years 
 rent was paid by the co. for coal carried over tho 
 r^-s. and shipped at Port B., when the coal 
 passed over H.'s land, no rent being paid or 
 claimed for coal carried over the rys. and shipped 
 at Port B. but not passing over PL's laud. In an 
 action brought by H.'s successor against tho co. ; — 
 
 Held, that the words in the deed were plain 
 and unambjguous ; that the fact that the parties 
 had interpreted the words in a sense different 
 from that which the words themselves plainly 
 bore could not affect the construction ; that the 
 CO. were liable to pay the rent upon coal conveyed 
 over any part of the rys. comprehended in the 
 special Act and shipped at Port B., although it 
 
( 2293 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900, 
 
 ( 2294 > 
 
 WAY-LEAVE— cojiJMiueti. 
 
 il'lr.'-if^'ll"''^' H-'^ I'^'xJ. ai"i «iat the pit. 
 ^ as entitled to an aeoouut for the six years prior 
 to the issue of the writ. 
 
 Decisions of Byrne J., [1898] 2 Oh. 674 and 
 of 0. A. [1899] 1 Ch. 656, affirmed. North 
 Eastern Ry. Co. v. Loed Hastinqs 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1800] W. N. 92 ; [1900] A. C. 260 
 
 — Trespass by tipping spoil— Measure of da- 
 
 mages. 
 
 See Teespass. 3. 
 WEEKLY NOTES. 
 
 Observations on the practice of relying on deci- 
 sions briefly reported in the " Weekly Notes." In re 
 WooDiN. WooniN V. Glass 
 
 Kay L,J. [1895] 2 Ch. 309 at p. 318 
 As to authority of cases not reported in the 
 Law Eeports. See Owen v. Richmond 
 
 [1895] W. N. 29 
 
 WEEKLY TENANCY — Determination — Land- 
 lord's liability. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant — Deter- 
 mination of Tenancy. H. 
 
 WEIGHT — Sale otherwise than by weight. 
 See Bread. 
 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES — Jlfe(Wo system 
 legalized by Weights and Measures (Metric System) 
 Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Viet. c. 46). 
 
 0. in C. dated March 15, 1893, as to amount of 
 error in local standards. St. E. & 0. 1893, p. 7C0. 
 
 in 0. dated Aug. 23, 1894, legalizing new 
 denominations of standards for the measurementof 
 eUctricity. St. B. & 0. 1894 (No. 211), p. 614. 
 
 Fees.] List of fees to be taken at the Stan- 
 dards Office OH and after Jan. 1, 1892. St. B. & 0. 
 1896, p. 810. 
 
 0. in G. dated May 19, 1898, as to denomina- 
 tion of standards and metric equivalents. Lond. 
 Oaz. May 20, 1898, pp. 3135, 3136 ; St. B, & 0. 
 1898, Nos. 410, 411. 
 
 Generally, col. 2293. 
 Goals, col. 2294. 
 
 Generally. 
 
 — Inspector — Passenger — Police officer — Con- 
 
 veyance at reduced rate. 
 
 See Railway — Passengers. 24. 
 
 1. — Millc churn — Gauge indicating quantity 
 contained — False or unjust measure — Weights and 
 Measures Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 49), «. 25. 
 A. sold milk to B. and sent it by train in his own 
 churns, which were fitted with gauges indicating 
 the quantity contained in accordance with a con- 
 tract with the railway. B., by his contract with 
 A., was entitled to have the churns regauged :— 
 
 Held, that the gauged churns were measures 
 which A. had in his possession for use for trade 
 witliin the meaning of s. 25 of the Act of 1878. 
 Haeeis v. London County Council 
 
 ilAEEIS V. u ^.^ p^ |.^^gg^ ^ ^ ^ 2^^ 
 
 3 Weighing machine — Weight indicated 
 
 exceeding weight of article sold--- False or un- 
 jugf— Weights and Measures Act, 1878 (41 & 42 
 
 Vict. e. 49), «. 25. , , - „- - 
 
 T}ie respondent wm ohar|;ed Uftder ?. ?5 of 
 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (GeneraUy)— conitJ. 
 the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, with 
 having in his possession for use for trade a 
 weighing machine which was fulse or unjust. 
 The machine, which was used for weighing tea, 
 had on it, under the scoop in which the tea was 
 placed, a piece of paper, the effect of which was 
 to make the machine indicate a weight exceeding, 
 by the weight of the paper, the weight of the tea 
 in the scoop. The paper was placed where it 
 was for the purpose of convenience and expedi- 
 tion in weighing, because it would take longer 
 to weigh the tea if it were placed in the bag in 
 which it was to be sold before being put into the 
 scoop. The paper weighed less than the bag in 
 which the tea was sold. 
 
 Seld, that, as the machine, when used with 
 the paper, indicated a weight in excess of (he 
 true weight of the tea sold, it was "false or 
 unjust," within the meaning of s. 25, and the 
 respondent ought to be convicted. Lane v. 
 Eendall - Div. Ct. [1899] W. N. 208 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 673 
 
 Coals. 
 
 3. — Delivery from vehicle — By-law — County 
 Council — Sale of coal — Validity — Weights ami 
 Measures Act, 1889(52 & 58 Vict. c. 21), s. 28. 
 
 A provision in a by-law under s. 28 of the Act 
 of 1889 requiring a weighing machine to be pro- 
 vided and carried when coal is sold out of a 
 vehicle, held, to bo valid. Kent County Council 
 V. HuMPHEET Div. Ct, [1896] 1 Q. B. 903 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Alty v. Farrell, [1896] 
 1 Q. B. 636, 640. 
 
 4. — Delivery from vehicle — By-law — Validity 
 — Sale of coal — liequisition to weigh — Weights and 
 Measures Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 21), s. 28. 
 
 By a by-law made by a local authority under 
 s. 28 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, 
 which enables local authorities to make by-laws 
 regulating the sale of coal in small quantities, 
 " Every person in charge of any vehicle carrying 
 coal for sale . . . , in quantities not exceeding 
 two hundredweight . . . shall re-weigh the 
 coal upon bting requested to do so by any pur- 
 chaser, or by any one on behalf of the purchaser, 
 or by an inspector of weights and measures, or 
 by any constable " : — 
 
 Held, by Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. 
 (Wright J. doubting), that the section authorized 
 the making of a by-law requiring the coal fo be 
 weighed by the person in charge of the vehicle, 
 but held by the Court that the by-law was 
 unreasonable, and therefore bad. Alty v. 
 Eaerell - [1896] 1 Q. B. 636 
 
 Discussed by Div. Ct. Kruse v. Johnson, 
 [1898] 2 Q. B. 91, 106, 113. 
 
 6. — Delivery of ticket — Sale of coal — Inser- 
 tion of seller's name — Name under which seller 
 trades — Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (52 & 53 
 Vict. c. 21), ». 21, Sched. III. 
 
 The appellant was convicted for default in 
 compliance with the provisions of the Weights 
 and Measures Act, 1889, s. 21, with respect to the 
 delivery of a ticket with a ton of coal delivered 
 by him, by means of a vehicle, to a purchaser. 
 IJe had de}ivere4 ^ ticjiet ip tjie form iji the 
 
( 2295 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2296 ) 
 
 WEIGHTS AND BEEAStTRES CCoals}— continued. 
 3rd eched. to the Act ; in the place for the 
 name of the seller were inserted the words, 
 " Sellers the Co-operative Coal Company." This 
 was the name under which the appellant traded, 
 but there was no real company. There was no 
 intent to defraud : — 
 
 Held, that the provision in the Act, requiring 
 the insertion in the ticket of the seller's name, 
 was sufficiently complied with by the- insertion 
 of the name under which the appellant carried 
 on his business, and the conviction was wrong. 
 Camekon v. Ttlee Div. Ct. [1899] W. V. 80 ; 
 
 [1899] 2 Q. B. 91 
 
 6. — Tielcet — "Correct weight" — Weightf and 
 Measures Act, 1889 (52 & 5.S Vict. c. 21), «. 22. 
 
 Wben coal is conveyed for delivery on sale in 
 bulk, in a vehicle not belonging to the purchaser, 
 the " correct weight," which is required by s. 22 
 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, to be 
 inserted in the ticket which is to be given to the 
 purchaser, is the weight as ascertained at the 
 place from which the coal is brought, and not 
 the weight at the time of delivery. Knowles & 
 Sons, Ld. v. Sinclaib Div, Ct. [1898] 1 Q,. B. 170 
 
 Explained by Div. Ct. Edwards v. Purnell, 
 [1899] 1 Q. B. 449, 454. 
 
 7. — Ticltet in form in schedule — Weights 
 and Measures Act, 1889 (52*53 Victe. 21), a. 21. 
 
 By an agreement between a firm of coal mer- 
 chants and the committee of an asylum all coal 
 supplied to the asylum was to be weighed on the 
 asylum weighbridge, and the weight there ascer- 
 tained before delivery was accepted by the com- 
 mittee. At the time of weighing a cartload of 
 coal in course of delivery at the asylum, the 
 carter had in his possession a book of forms con- 
 taining tickets in the form in the sched., but 
 in which the weights which were required to be 
 entered were left in blank ; at the conclusion of 
 the weighing, and before any part of the coal was 
 unloaded, the purchasers' storekeeper, iu pur- 
 suance of the arrangement between the parties, 
 tilled in upon the ticket the weight of the coal 
 and vehicle, the tare weight of the vehicle and 
 the net weight of coal delivered ; the ticket was 
 then detached from the book, and handed by the 
 carter to the storekeeper, and the coal was un- 
 loaded : — 
 
 Held, that the provisions of s. 21 had been 
 complied with by the sellers, and that they could 
 not be convicted under that section for not deli- 
 vering to the purchaser before any part of the 
 coal was unloaded a ticket in the form in the 
 3rd schedule to the Act. Edwards v. Puknell 
 Div, Ct. [1899] 1 Q, B. 449 
 
 WEIB — Erection of weir or dam — Injunction — 
 Fresh-water fishery. 
 See FiSHEKY. 13. 
 
 WELSH INTEEMEDIATE ACT. 
 
 See Chaeity— Commissioners. 12. 
 
 WESLEY AN CHAPEL— Endowments — Charity 
 Commrs. — Accounts of charity. 
 See Chabity. 3. 
 
 WEST INDIA DOCKS— Control of dock-master- 
 Obstruction. 
 j>'ee DooE. 1. 
 
 WEST BIDIN& OF TOBKSHIBE BIVEBS ACT. 
 
 See YoBKSHiBE. 
 
 WESTERN ATJSTEALIA. 
 
 See AnsTBALiA— Western Australia. 
 
 WESTERN PACIFIC— British jurisdiction. 
 See FoEEiGN Jubisdiction. 4. 
 
 WHARF — Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 See Mastbe and Seetant. 51, 52. 
 
 WHARFINGER— Liability— Obstruction in bed 
 
 of river. 
 
 See Shipping — Wharf. 271. 
 WIDENING STEEETS. 
 
 See Cases under London — Streets. 
 Stbeets. 
 WIDOW. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife. 
 WIFE. 
 
 See Cases under Husband and Wife. 
 
 " WIFE'S RELATIONS "—Illegitimate relatives. 
 See Will — Illegitimacy. 104. 
 
 WILD ANIMALS— Prevention of cruelty to. 
 
 See Animal. 
 WILD BIRDS. 
 
 By tlie Wild Birds Protection Act, 1894 (57 <t 58 
 Vict. c. 24), the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, 
 was amended. 
 
 Wild Birds Protection Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict, 
 c. 56), amends and explains the Wild Birds Pro- 
 tection Acts. 
 WILFUL DEFATILT- Breach of Trust— Accumu 
 
 lation clause — Compound interest— Eate 
 
 of interest. 
 
 See Teustee — Breach of Trust. 19. 
 
 — Executor — Breach of duty — Loss of interest. 
 
 See ExEODTOE. 41. 
 
 — Ketaining investments — Depreciation. 
 
 See Tbustee — Investments. 68. 
 
 — What is " wilful default" discussed. 
 
 See Vendoe and Poeohasee — Interest. 
 54. 
 
 WILFUL DELAY— Eescission—Negotiatioui with 
 
 third party. 
 
 See Vendoe and Pubchaser — Rescis- 
 sion. 69. 
 WILL. 
 
 In General, col. 2298. 
 
 Absolute Gift, col. 2298. 
 
 Acceleration, col. 2302. 
 
 Accumulations. See Accumilatioss. 
 
 Ademption, col. 2303. 
 
 Advancement, col. 2304. 
 
 Annuity, col. 2308. 
 
 Attestation, col. 2309. 
 
 Charge of Debts, &c., col. 2310. 
 
 Children, col. 2311. 
 
 Class, col. 2315. 
 
 Codicil, col. 2317. 
 
 Condition, col. 2318. 
 
 Construction, col. 2319. 
 
 Contingent Gift, ccl. 2320. 
 
 Contingent Bemainder, col. 2330. 
 
 Conversion. 'See CQNVEEs;oif. 
 
t 
 
 ) 
 
 DtGES* OP CASES, 1891— IdOO. 
 
 ( 
 
 ) 
 
 ™ ^I'l — con tinned. 
 
 Dividends, col. 2322. 
 
 Dmatis Mortis Causd. See Donatio 
 
 MoBTis CausS, 
 Eldest Son, col. 2323. 
 Estate Tail, col. 2323. 
 Evidence, col. 2325. 
 
 Execution of Will. See Peobate — 
 Execution of Will. 
 
 Executory Devise. See Will— Contingent 
 Bemainder. 
 
 Exoneration, col. 2327. 
 
 Falsa Demonstratio, col. 2328. 
 
 Foreign Will, col. 2328. 
 
 Forfeiture, col. 2329. 
 
 Hotchpot Clause. See WiLt— Advance- 
 ment. 
 
 lllegitimaey, col. 2332. 
 
 Income, col. 2333. 
 
 Interest. See 'WiLl,— Advancements. 
 
 Investments. See Trustee — Invest- 
 ments. 
 
 Joint Tenancy, col. 2334. 
 
 Lapse, col. 2335. 
 
 Leaseholds, col. 2337. 
 
 Legacy, col. 2337. 
 
 Lost Will, col. 2342. 
 
 Marriage, col. 2342. 
 
 Married Woman, col. 2344. 
 
 Marshalling, col. 2345. 
 
 Mistake, col. 2345. 
 
 Mortmain. See Charity — Mortmain. 
 
 Name and Arm Clause, col. 2346. 
 
 Navy and Marines, col. 2346. 
 
 Perpetuity, col. 2346. 
 
 Power of Appointment. See Power. 
 
 Precatory Trust, col. 2351. 
 
 Probate. See Probate. 
 
 Belevancy, col. 2352. 
 
 Remoteness. See Will — Perpetuity. 
 
 Residue, col. 2353. 
 
 Eesulting Trust. See Trust. 4 — 6. 
 
 Reverter, col. 2355. 
 
 Revival of Will. See Will — Eevoca- 
 tion. 
 
 Revocation, col. 2355. 
 
 Satisfaction, col. 2358. 
 
 Scottish Law. See Scottish Law — 
 Will. 
 
 Secret Trust. See Trust. 7. 
 
 Shifting Clause, col. 2359. 
 
 Soldier's Will. See Probate— Soldier's 
 
 wm. 
 
 Specific Devise, col. 2359. 
 Substitution, col. 2361. 
 Superstitious Uses, col. 2361. 
 Survivor, col. 2361. 
 Tenant for Life. See Settled Lakd. 
 Tenants in Common. See Will— Joint 
 Tenancy. 
 
 WILL — continued. 
 
 Testamentary Expenses, col. 2362. 
 Uncertainty, col. 2363. 
 Vested Interests, col. 2364. 
 Vesting, col. 2364. 
 Words, col. 2365. 
 
 Is General. 
 
 — Adminiatration. 
 
 See Cases under Executor. 
 
 — Charitable gifts. 
 
 See Cases under Charity. 
 
 — Contract to build on land — Non-completion 
 
 before death of landowner — Costs. 
 See Building Contract. 4. 
 
 — Co-paroenerg or joint tenants. 
 
 See Will— Joint Tenancy. 112. 
 
 — Estate duty. 
 
 See Cases under KbvEnde — Estate Duty. 
 
 — Eslate duty— Settled estate duty. 
 
 See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 
 205—206. 
 
 — Estate pur autre vie. 
 
 See Cases under Estate pub Autre Vie. 
 
 — Eidei commissum — Jus aoeresoendi. 
 
 See Ceylon. 1. 
 
 — Grant of administration. 
 
 See Cases under Probate. 
 
 — Grant of probate. 
 
 See Cases under Probate. 
 
 — Holograph will. 
 
 See Powers — Exercise. 18. 
 
 — Insolvent testator — Debt due to executor — 
 
 Retainer in specie. 
 See Bankruptcy. 219. 
 
 — Lost wUl — Presumption that it was destroyc d 
 
 by testator. 
 
 See Will— Lost Will. 138. 
 
 — Natal law — Mutual will. 
 
 See Natal. 8. 
 
 — Nuncupative will. 
 
 See Donatio Mortis CausI. 3. 
 
 — Powers. 
 
 See Cases under Power. 
 
 — Probate of will. 
 
 See Cases under Probate. 
 
 — Settled Land Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Special occupant — Devolution of estate. 
 
 See Estate pur Autre Vie. 2. 
 
 — Subsequent discovery of will after grant of 
 
 administration. 
 
 See Trustee — Practice. 88. 
 
 — Tenant for life and remainderman. 
 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 — Trustees. 
 
 See Cases under Tbustee. 
 
 Absolute Gift. 
 
 — Annuities. 
 
 See Cases under Will — ^Annuity. 
 1. — " Any money .... that may be in my 
 
( 2299 ) 
 
 DiaEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2300 ) 
 
 WILL (Absolute Gift) — continued. 
 
 possession" — Reversionary interest in personally — 
 
 Construction of will. 
 
 Testatrix, who died in 1892, by her will dated 
 in 1891, after making certain bequests of stock, 
 declared as follows : " Any money not mentioned 
 in the aforesaid bequests that may be in my 
 possession at my death after the payment of 
 my debts funeral and testamentary expenses I 
 give absolutely" to P. She then made certain 
 apecifio gifts of chattels. At her death she was 
 entitled to a reversionary interest in personalty 
 which fell into possession in 1897 : — 
 
 Held, that the reversionary interest passed 
 under the bequest to P. In re Egan. Mills v. 
 Pentou - Stirling J. [1899] W. N. 27 (10) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 688 
 
 2. — Codicil — Absolute gift of personalty — 
 Gift of same personalty for life with remainder to 
 children — " Instead of such bequests in the manner 
 expressed in " the will — Absolute gift in the will 
 not revolted by the codicil. 
 
 A testator by his will bequeathed his personal 
 estate to his two daughters A. and B. equally. 
 
 By a codicil he directed that " instead of such 
 bequests in the manner expressed in my said 
 will to such daughters absolutely " his executors 
 should stand possessed of his personal estate 
 upon trust for sale and conversion, and to pay 
 tlie income in moieties to his two daughters lor 
 life and on tlio death of either of them to pay the 
 moiety of the trust moneys to their children as 
 tliey should by deed or will appoint. The codicil 
 contained no gift over in the event of a daughter 
 dying without issue. 
 
 B. died without ever havinp; had any issue, 
 having by her will devised and bequeathed all 
 her real and personal estate to her executors, 
 upon the (rusts therein mentioned : — 
 
 Held, that there was no intestacy as to the 
 nioiety of the personal estate given to B., there 
 being no revocation under the codicil of the 
 absolute gift given to her by the will. 
 
 Doe V. Marchant, (1813) 6 Man. & G. 813, 
 followed. In re Wilcock. Kay v. Dewhikst 
 
 Homer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 95 
 
 3. — Codicil — Inconsistent codicil. 
 
 A testator devised real estate at W. in settle- 
 ment. By a codicil he directed the estate at W. 
 to be sold : — 
 
 Held, that the devisees were not deprived of 
 the beneficial interest given them by the will. 
 In re Chiffeeibl. Chifferiel v. Watson 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N, 106 
 
 — Condition — Construction of will. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Conditions. 
 
 — Cutting down— Absolute gift — Remoteness—^- 
 
 Splitting gift over. 
 
 See Will — Perpetuity. IGG. 
 
 4. — Heirlooms — Trust for person entitled to 
 " actual " possession of realty. 
 
 Cliattels bequeathed as heirlooms upon trust 
 to go along with, and be enjoyed by the person 
 for the time being entitled under a settlement to 
 the " actual " possession of, settled real estate do 
 not vest absolutely in a tenant in tail of the real 
 estate who dies in the lifetime of the tenant for 
 life. Anqegstein v. Angerstein 
 
 Eekewich 3. [1896] 2 Ch, 883 
 
 WILL (Absolute Gift) — continued. 
 
 5. — House and furniture to A., Gift of — 
 Power to B, to take from furniture everything he 
 might desire — Equitahle interestinland — Jiquitable 
 charge — Locke King's Act Amendment Act, 1877 
 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 34). 
 
 A povrer given by will to A. B. to take every- 
 thing that he may desire from the furniture 
 (quHl choisera tout ce qu'il voudra des meubles), 
 except certain articles, at a house bequeathed 
 with the furniture therein to X. T., entitles 
 A. B. to take if he likes the whole of such furni- 
 ture other than the excepted articles. The 
 decision of North J. aflSrmed. 
 . If land is made a security for a debt by any 
 instrument which gives the person entitled to 
 the charge an equitable interest in the Ian 1, the 
 instrument is an equitable charge within the 
 meaning of Locke King's Act, 1 877. The decision 
 of North J. reversed. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 10 
 Hare, 438, distinguished; Arthur v. Mackinnon, 
 II Ch. D. 385, approved. In re Sharlajjd. 
 Kemp v. Eozey - C. A. [1896] W. N. 62 (19) ; 
 see also [1896] 1 Ch. 517 
 
 6. — Law of wills prior to Wills Act — Words 
 of gift without limitation — " Estate " — " Property " 
 — Appeal from New South Wales. 
 
 Bel'ore the Wills Act, 1837, came into force 
 words of gilt of realty without words of limitation 
 only conveyed a life estate. The words "estate" 
 or " property " or their equivalent, if used in the 
 operative part of the devise, would enlarge the 
 estate to fee simple; not so if used in another, 
 part of the will as words of reference only. Hill 
 V. Brown - P. C. [1894] A. C. 125 
 
 7. — Limitation, Words of — " Heirs, executors, 
 or administrators" — Life estate. 
 
 Gift to wife aid daughter and the survivor 
 for life, with power of appointment by will ; gift 
 over in default to the "heirs, executors, and 
 administrators " of the survivor ; " such heirs, 
 executors, and administrators " to be ascertained 
 as if the survivor had died unmarried and intes- 
 tate : — 
 
 Held, that the ascertaining clause shewed 
 that the testator did not use the words " heirs, 
 executors, and administrators" as words of limi- 
 tation, as they would have been without the 
 clause, whatever might have been the testator's 
 intention, and that the survivor only took a life 
 estate with a power of appointment by will. 
 In re Hall. Hall v. Hall 
 
 C. A. [1893] W. N, 24 
 
 8. — " Married woman " — Construction of 
 will. 
 
 Testator by his will directed his trustees to 
 divide trust funds among such of his seven 
 children as should be alive at the period of dis- 
 tribution, and the issue of such of them us should 
 then be dead. He directed '■ tliat the share of 
 each of my said daughters, who at the time of 
 such division shall be a married woman, shall be 
 held by my trustees upon trust to pay the annual 
 income thereof into her hands for her separate use 
 on her sole receipt and so that she may never 
 anticipate tlie same, and after her decease the 
 said share shall be held in trust for her children 
 as she shall by deed or will appoint, and, in de- 
 fault of appointment, for all her diildren who 
 
( 2301 ) 
 
 CiGfiS'r OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2302 ) 
 
 WILL (Absolute CtiO,)— continued. 
 Bhall attain twenty-one years, in equal sliareB, 
 and if there shall not be any suoh child, then in 
 trust for such person or persons as she shall by 
 deed or will appoint." 
 
 The period of distribution had now arrived. 
 Two of the testator's children were now alive, 
 C. A. Cox, a married woman with children, and 
 E. M. Dyer, a widow who had children ; all the 
 other children of the testator mentioned in his 
 will were dead without issue. The question was 
 whether Mrs. Dyer was absolutely entitled to 
 half the fund, or whether she was only entitled 
 to a life interest : — 
 
 Seld, that Mrs. Dyer took her half of the fund 
 absolutely. Eudall v. Nichols 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 133 
 
 9. — " Or" read "and" — Oifc of realty and 
 personalty. 
 
 Gift of real and personal estate to trustees 
 upon trust for testator's wife for life, and upon 
 her decease " for the sole use and beneiit of my 
 sou A. upon his attaining the age of twenty-one 
 and to his trustees, executors, administrators, and 
 assigns for ever, but if my said son shall not live 
 -to attain that age or die without leaving lawful 
 issue then upon trust " for the pit. A. attained 
 twenty-one in 1863, and died in 1893, without 
 ever having had any issue. Tlie testator's widow 
 had died in 1884 :— 
 
 Held, that A., on his attaining twenty-one, 
 became absolutely entitled to the real and per- 
 sonal estate devised and bequeathed by the will. 
 
 The rule in Fairfield v. Morgan, (1805) 2 
 
 Bos. & P. (N.E.) 38 ; 9 K. B. 609, is applicable to 
 
 personalty as well as realty. Weight v. Maksom 
 
 Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 148 (11) 
 
 — Precatory trust. 
 
 See Cases under Will— Precatory Trust. 
 
 10, — Meversionary interest — Conversiorir— En- 
 joyment in specie — Executor — Administration ■ — 
 General bequest to persons in succession — Absolute 
 gift subject to executory limitation. 
 
 The reason of the rule in Howe v. Earl of 
 Dartmouth, (1802) 1 W. & T. 7th ed. p. 68, is not 
 generally applicable to an absolute gift subject 
 to an executory limitation. 
 
 By his will a testator gave all his property to 
 his wife, and by a codicil to his will, after recit- 
 ing that G. M. was the adopted daughter ot 
 himself and his wife and that he was desirous 
 of providing for her in the event of his wite 
 dying without issue leaving her surviving, ne 
 directed that in such event the ^ft m his will 
 in favour of his wife should take effect as it the 
 name of G. M. had been substituted therem for 
 ?haTof his wife. Part of the testator's estate 
 consisted of a reversionary interest in a trust 
 
 ^™i7eM having regard to the form of *« gift in 
 the codicil, t 'at the testator intended that the 
 tne coaicu, enioved in specie, and that 
 
 _- Bevocation or not. 
 
 See Cases under Will- 
 
 _ Secret trust. 
 
 See Teust. 7i 
 
 -Bevocation. 
 
 WILL (Absolute Gift) — eontinued. 
 
 11. — Subsequent gift over of portion undisposed 
 of in legatee's lifetime. 
 
 By his will, subject to payment of his debts 
 and funeral and testamentary expenses, a testa- 
 tor gave all his property to his wife " for her 
 absolute use and benefit, so that during her life- 
 time for the purpose of her maintenance and 
 support she shall have the fullest power to sell 
 and dispose of my said estate absolutely. After 
 her death, as to suoh parts of my .... estate as 
 she shall not have sold or disposed of a-i aforesaid, 
 subject to payment of my wife's funeral expenses, 
 I give .... the same" in trust for sale for the 
 benefit of other persons. The wife was also 
 appointed sole executrix. On the testator's death 
 his widow took possession of his estate, and his 
 debts and funeral and testamentary expenses 
 were paid during her lifetime. At her death a 
 considerable part of the estate remained unsold 
 and undisposed of : — 
 
 Held, that the widow took an absolute inte- 
 rest, and that the part undisposed of passed by 
 her will. 
 
 In re Pounder, (1886) 56 L. J. (Oh) 113, 
 
 distinguished. In re Jones. Eiohards v. Jones. 
 
 Byrne J. [1898] 1 Ch. 438 
 
 12. — Wasting securities — Life estate — Rule 
 in Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth, (1802) 7 Fes. 
 137 a; 6 R. B. 96. 
 
 To entitle the donee of a life interest in 
 wasting securities to the whole income of the 
 investment as it stands something equivalent to a 
 specific gilt is required. In re Eaton. Daines 
 V. Eaton - Kekewioh J. [1894] W. H. 95 
 
 13. — Wasting or unauthorized securities — Life 
 estate — Bate of interest payable to tenant for life — 
 Eule in Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth, (1802) 7 Ves. 
 137 a ; 6 B. R. 96. 
 
 Notwithstanding the current rate, 4 per 
 cent, is payable to a tenant for life in respect 
 of unauthorized or wasting securities. In re 
 Nicholson. Nicholson v. Nicholson 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1895] W. N. 106 
 
 Acceleration. 
 
 — Forfeiture of interest. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Forfeiture. 
 
 14. — Successive absolute limitations of personal 
 estate — Repugnancy — Lapse. 
 
 Where in a will there are successive limita- 
 tions of personal estate in favour of several 
 persons absolutely, the first of these who survive 
 the testator takes absolutely, although he would 
 have taken nothing if any prior legatee had sur- 
 vived and taken. Tlie effect of the failure of an 
 earlier gift is to accelerate, not to destroy, the 
 later gift. The doctrine of repu2;nancy has no 
 application to gifts which fail. In re LowiiAN. 
 Devenish v. Pester C. A. [1895] 2 Ch, 348 
 
 Explained and distinguished by 0. A. In re 
 Hocking, [1898] 2 Ch. 567, 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Carter, 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 801, 802. 
 
 Accumulations. 
 (See Oases under AoctMULATiONS. 
 
( 2303 ) 
 
 DtGESl OF OASfiS, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2304 ) 
 
 WILL — continued. 
 
 Ademption. 
 
 — Advances. 
 
 See Oases under Will — Advancement. 
 
 15. — Contribution by real estate — Payment of 
 debts — Deficiency of personal estate. 
 
 A will, after specific devises and bequests, 
 contained a gift of pecuniary legacies, followed 
 by a gift of residuary real and personal estate. 
 The personalty was insufficient to discharge the 
 debts : — 
 
 Reld, that the pecuniary legacies were not 
 liable to contribute to the debis, but were a 
 charge on the residuary real estate, and that the 
 residuary realty must contribute to the debts 
 rateably with the specific devises and legacies, 
 according to its full value, without deducting the 
 pecuniary legacies. In re Bawden. National 
 Peovincial Bank of Englakd v. Cresswell. 
 Bawden v. Obesswell 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 1 Ch. 693 
 
 16. — Devised estate sold and mortgaged to 
 secure purchase-money — Wills Act, 18.S7 (1 Vict, 
 c. 2G), 88. 23, 24:— Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 41), 8. 30. 
 
 After specifically devising freehold estate to 
 which he was absolutely entitled, the testator 
 sold it, and it was on the following day recon- 
 veved to him by way of mortgage to secure part 
 of purchase-money : — 
 
 neld, that the sum secured by the mortgage 
 
 did not pass to the specific devisee. In re Clowes 
 
 C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 214 
 
 Distinguished by Cozens-Hardy J. In re 
 Carter, [1900] 1 Ch. 801, 803. 
 
 17. — Lunacy, Order in — Transfer of stock — 
 Ademption of legacy. 
 
 The transfer under an Order in Lunacy of 
 stock into the name of the Paymaster-General out 
 of the name of a testatrix who had become of un- 
 sound mind : — 
 
 Held, not to redeem a bequest of all stock 
 " standing in my name and belonging to me at 
 the time of my decease." 
 
 The investment under the same order of 
 money belonging to the testatrix in like stock in 
 the name of the Paymaster-General : — 
 
 Held, not to increase the legacy. 
 
 Part of the stock was subsequently sold to 
 provide for costs. The Court directed that the 
 sale should be taken in reduction of the amount 
 invested, and not of the amount transferred, so 
 as to preserve the rights of the legatees. In re 
 Wood. Andeeson v. London City Mission 
 
 North J. [1894] 2 Ch. 677 
 
 18. — Specific legacy — Share of trust fund — 
 Transfer to beneficiary — Separate account — 
 Drawings — Appropriation of payments — Partial 
 ademption. 
 
 By her will, dated Ptb. 11, 1897, a testatrix, 
 being entitled to one moiety of a trust fund on 
 deposit with V. & Co., subject to a prior life 
 interest, bequeathed that moiety to her nephews 
 and nieces. She bequeathed her residue, in- 
 cluding money at her bankers or on deposit with 
 v. & Co., to S. M. M. The prior life interest 
 determined in March, 1897, and on Dec. 14, 
 1897, one moiety of the trust fund was transferred, 
 
 WILL (Ademption) — continued. 
 to the testatrix's deposit account with V. & Co. 
 This transfer was made by the trustee without 
 instructions from the testatrix ; but she continued 
 to draw on the account, statements of which were 
 sent her from time to time, without distinguish- 
 ing the moiety transferred. Owing, however, to 
 other credit payments, the balance never fell 
 below 4000Z. The testatrix died on Sept. 27, 
 1898. 
 
 The question was whether the bequest of the 
 above-mentioned moiety was adeemed by the 
 transfer to the testatrix's private account. 
 
 Held, that, according to the rule in Stanley v. 
 Potter, (1789) 2 Cox, 180, he had merely to 
 inquire whether the specific legacy remained at 
 the testator's death. Being originally a moiety 
 of a trust fund of 8000Z. in the name of a trustee, 
 it had become a fund of 4000J. in the testatrix's 
 own name. Before the transfer she could only 
 have sued V. & Co. through or in the name of 
 her trustee. After the transfer she could sue in 
 her own name. In either case, however, she 
 would liave recovered the same thing, namely, 
 4000Z. In substance she had disposed of her 
 4000i. trust fund, and it was no less her trust 
 fund because, having fallen in, it was carried to 
 her separate account. The difference was not 
 substantial, being merely one of language, and 
 there was no total ademption. As to partial 
 ademption, the doctrine of appropriation of pay- 
 ments would have applied if the testatrix had 
 been suing V. & Co., but it could not without in- 
 consistency be applied to the present case, as the 
 decision on the first point turned on the view 
 that the specific fund was still intact. In re 
 Vickees. Vickers v. Mellor 
 
 Kekewich J. [1899] W. N. 242 
 
 Advancement. 
 
 19. — Abatement of legacies — Adoances — In- 
 sufficient estate — Hotchpot. 
 
 In setting off advances against legacies, any 
 necessary abatement must bo calculated on the 
 whole legacy, and not on the difference between 
 the legacy and the advance. If the advance 
 exceed the amount of the abated legacy, the 
 difference must be refunded by the legatee as a 
 debt to the estate. In re Schweder. Oppenheim 
 v. Schweder (No. 2) Chitty J. [1893] W. N. 12 
 
 — Abatement — Legacy to wife — Insufficient 
 
 estate — Priority. 
 
 See In re Schweder' s Estate (A'o. 1), 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 44. 
 
 — Ademption. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Ademption. 
 
 20. — " Expectant or presumptive share " — Im- 
 possibility of issue— Woman past child-bearing- 
 Advancement clause — Construction of will. 
 
 Where property is given to B. in the event of 
 A. having a child, the Court will not enter into 
 the question of A. being past child-bearing for 
 the purpose of depriving B. of the chance of 
 becoming entitled to the property. 
 ^ A testator directed that, in the event of his 
 sister A. marrying and having children, his pro- 
 perty should be divided among the children of 
 his sisters A. and B. upon the youngest child 
 attaining twenty-one, but did not provide for the 
 
C 2305 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 < 2306 ) 
 
 ■WILL (Advancsment)— continued. 
 
 event of A. marrying and having no children ; 
 
 ana he empowered his trustees to raise a portion 
 
 tiie expectant, presumptive, or vested share of 
 any child of B. for his or her advancement. 
 
 Upon a summons by the trustees to determine 
 yhetlier the power of advancement was exercisable 
 'r If '■^^"^ '^^ ^^°^ "^at A. was then a widow 
 of fifty-four years of age, and had never had a 
 child : — 
 
 Held (reversing Kekewich J.), that the power 
 continued in operation during the liretime of A. 
 
 Jee V. Audley, (1787) 1 Cox, 324, and I» re 
 Dawson, (1888) 39 Ch. D. 155, followed. 
 
 In' re Lowman, [1895] 2 Oh. 348, explained 
 and distinguished. In re Hooking. Miohell v. 
 LoE - - - C. A. [1898] a Ch. 567 
 
 21. — Gift within twelve months of death — 
 Ademption— Estate duty — Account — Finance Act, 
 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (c) ; s. 9, 
 sub-s. 1. 
 
 A testator within one year of his death spent 
 40002. on the purchase of a house, which he 
 settled on one of hia daughters, and contributed 
 43002. towards the purchase of another house for 
 another daughter ; the Court having decided 
 that these gilts must be considered as an ademp- 
 tion pro tanto of the daughters' shaves in the 
 testator's residuary estate, which must be brought 
 into account : — 
 
 Held, that the amount for which the daughters 
 were accountable was the sums so advanced less 
 the amount they were liable to pay for estate 
 duty by reason of the death of the testator 
 within one year of the gift. In re Bbdeington. 
 MicHOLLS V. Samuel 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 76; [1900] 1 Ch. 771 
 
 22. — Hotchpot clause — Construction of will. 
 A father having one son and one daughter 
 
 covenanted with the trustees of his son's marriage 
 settlement that his executors would pay them 
 10,0002. to be held on trust for the son for life, 
 with remainder for the son's wife for life, with 
 remainder as to the capital for the issue of the 
 marriage ; in the event (which happened) of there 
 being no child the capital to be held in trust for 
 the father absolutely. The father died having 
 by his will given the residue of his estate in trutt 
 for his son and daughter in equal shares. The 
 will provided that all sums which the testator 
 had covenanted to give to or with any child on 
 his or her marriage should, in default of any 
 direction to the contrary, be taken in or towards 
 satisfaction of the respective sliare of such child, 
 and should be brought into hotchpot and accounted 
 for accordingly. After the father's death his 
 executors paid 10,0002. out of his estate to the 
 trustees of the son's settlement, appropriated a. 
 like sum to the daughter, and divided the residue 
 equally between the son and the daughter. The 
 son having afterwards died leaving a wife and 
 without issue, the daughter claimed a moiety of 
 the 10,0002. fund:— a t ,^ 
 
 Held (1.) t'la' t'l^ benefits secured for the 
 testator's son, his wife and children, under the 
 testator's covenant in the son's marriage settle- 
 ment were sums which the testator had covenanted 
 to give to his son on his marriage, within the 
 
 WILL (Advancement) — continued. 
 meaning of that expression in the hotchpot 
 clause ; (2.) that the whole beneficial interest in 
 the 10,0002. fund must be treated as appropriated 
 to the son's share at the date of the division of 
 the estate, the ultimate interest being appro- 
 priated and allotted to the son under the direction 
 for the equal division of the testator's estate 
 between his two children, and the prior interests 
 being brought into account as part of the son's 
 share under the hotchpot clause; and that the 
 son's executors were therefore entitled to the 
 whole of the 10,0002. fund, subject to the life 
 interest of the son's widow. 
 
 Decision of C. A., In re Cosier, Humphreys v. 
 Gadsden, [1897] 1 Ch. 323, affirmed. Wheelek 
 V. HuMPHKEYS - H. L. (E.) [1898] A. C. 506 
 
 23. — Hotchpot clause — Bent— Set-off ^Money 
 owing for rent — Landlord and tenant — Non-pay- 
 ment of rent — Adverse possession — Absolute title of 
 tenant — Extinguishment of landlord's title — Con- 
 struction of will — Real property Limitation Acts, 
 1833 (3 (J: 4 Will. 4, c. 27), ss. 34, 42 ; 1874 
 (37 & 38 Vict. 0. 57), s. 1. 
 
 A testatrix gave her property among her four 
 children, and directed that all moneys owing to 
 her at her death by any child for rent or other- 
 wise should be brought into hotchpot in ascer- 
 taiaing the share of such child. One son had, in 
 the lifetime of the testatrix, acquired an absolute 
 title, under s. 1 of the Real Property Limitation 
 Act, 1874, to a freehold farm which had been let 
 to him by tier, through non-payment of rent by 
 him to her for more than twelve years. Upon the 
 question whether the unpaid rent for the twelve 
 years prior to the extinguishment of the estate of 
 the testatrix in the farm ought to be deducted 
 from the son's share : — 
 
 Held, that, under the Eeal Property Limita- 
 tion Acts, 1833 and 1874, all the rights of the 
 reversioner in the farm had become extinguished, 
 and that therefore the unpaid rent was no longer 
 owing to her estate, and should not be deducted 
 from the son's share. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1900] 1 Ch. 292, re- 
 versed. In re Jollt. GtAtheecole v. Nokfolk 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 170; [1900] 3 Ch. 616 
 
 — Hotchpot clause — Settlement. 
 
 See Cases under Settlement — Hotchpot. 
 
 24. — Interest — Period of distribution, — Hotch-- 
 pot clause — Advancement of part of residuary 
 share — Legacy for life and then to fall into residue 
 — Equality. 
 
 A testator who died in 1878 bequeathed 
 30,0002. with interest at 4 per cent, on trust for 
 his widow for life, and alter her death for divi- 
 sion into four equal parts and payment of one 
 part to his son, the remaining three-fourths to 
 fall into residue. He declared that any sum 
 which he should advance or covenant to advance 
 to any of his children should be taken in satis- 
 faction pro tanto of the advanced child's provision, 
 and this provision was to apply expressly to a 
 sum of 60002. which he had covenanted to advance 
 to the trustees of one of hia daughters' marriage 
 settlements. He gave his real estate and his 
 residuary personal estate to his trustees on trust 
 to sell and convert and out of the proceeds to 
 
 4 E 
 
( 2307 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2308 ) 
 
 WILL (Advancement) — continued. 
 pay his debts and legacies, and to divide the 
 reBidue into three equal shares, one of such 
 shares for each of his three daughters for life, 
 and after her death for her issue. His estate 
 conaiated chiefly of land, of which the trustees in 
 exercise of their discretion under the will post- 
 poned the sale. They raised upon mortgage a 
 sum aufBoient to pay the debts, including the 
 600011. which they paid to the daughter's truatees ; 
 but the 3O,0O0Z. was not so raised. The rents of 
 the real estate after providing for the interest on 
 the 30,OOOZ. and on the mortgage produced a 
 surplus income of about 200Z. a year, which was 
 paid in equal shares to the two unadvanoed 
 daughters. The widow died in 1895 : — 
 
 Seld, upon the division of the residue, that 
 the period of distribution was the death of the 
 testator ; that the advanced daughter, besides 
 bringing into hotchpot the 6000Z., must be charged 
 with interest thereon as from the date of the 
 advance ; but that the rate of interest ought to 
 be 3 and not 4 per cent. 
 
 In re Bees, (1881) 17 Ch. D. 701, and Jn re 
 Dallmeyer, [1896] 1 Ch. 372, applied. In re 
 Lambert. Middleton v. Moobe 
 
 Stirling J. [1897] 2 Ch. 169 
 
 25. — Interest on advancements — Option f(yr 
 sons successively to take testator's business — Son 
 takiuff to he debited with value — Accumulation of 
 income— Division of residue and accumulations — 
 Equality — Advancement of part of residuary 
 share. 
 
 A teatatcr by his will gave each of his sons 
 in BUccessiiiu, according to seniority, the option 
 of succeeding to his business, and declared that 
 the son electmg to do so should be debited with 
 the value thereof in the division of his residuary 
 estate, and if the value should exceed the amount 
 of such son's expectant share therein at the time 
 the option was declared, he should refund the 
 excess to the testator's residuary estate. Then, 
 after giving certain legacies to his other children, 
 sons ut twenty-five, and daughters at twenty-one 
 or marriage, which were to carry interest from 
 his death applicable for maintenance, the testator 
 gave his residuary estate upon trusts for sale, 
 conversion, and investment and payment of certain 
 annuities, ami directed the trustees to accumulate 
 the surplus income at compound interest for 
 twenty-one years from his death, if any child of 
 Ilia should so long live and be under twenty-one, 
 and on tlie attainment of twenty-one by his 
 youngest living child (which was to be the period 
 of diatributionj to hold the trust fund in trust for 
 his children then living as tenants in common. 
 The will also empowered the trustees, at any 
 time before the period of distribution, to make 
 advances out of the capital of the trust premises 
 in favour of any of liis sons, tlie sums so advanced 
 to be taken in part satisfaction of the shares in 
 the trust premises to which the sons advanced 
 should become entitled. — The testator died in 
 1883, leaving three eons and two daughters. 
 The eldest son in 1884 elected to succeed to the 
 business, the value of which (15,000(.) did not at 
 the time exceed the amount of his expectant 
 share Thejoungest oiiild attained twenty -one 
 in 1894; and meanwhile' the second son had, 
 
 WILL (Advancement) — continued. 
 
 under the powers of advancement, received sums 
 
 amounting to 8200Z. : — 
 
 Held, by the Court, that in debiting the eldest 
 son with the value of the business taken by him, 
 he ought not to be debited with interest thereon 
 from the time he took it, but only from the period 
 of distribution : — 
 
 Held, also, by Lord Herschell and A. L. 
 Smith L.J. (Kigby L.J. dissentiente), that as to 
 the sums advanced to the second son no interest 
 ought to be charged thereon prior to period of 
 distribution. 
 
 The principles applicable with reference to 
 advancement commented on and explained. 
 
 The decision of Kekewich J. affirmed. In re 
 Dallmeyei). Dailmetek v. Dallmeyek 
 
 C. A. [1896] 1 Ch. 372 
 
 Applied by Stirling. J. In re Lambert, [1897] 
 2 Ch. 169. 
 
 26. — Power to apply part of presumptive 
 share towards advancement in life of child — Go7i- 
 struction of will — Breach of trust. 
 
 A testator bequeathed his estate to trustees 
 on trust to pay the income lo his children in equal 
 shares, and gave power to the trustees to apply 
 " in or towards the advancement in life of each 
 child a sum not exceeding 500Z. of his or her pre- 
 sumptive share." The trustees were to be the 
 sole judges of the advisibility of such payment 
 and of the signification of the term " advance- 
 ment in life." After the share of a married 
 daughter had become vested, the trus ees at her 
 request advanced 250Z. to her under this power 
 with knowledge tliat the sum so advanced would 
 be used to pay a debt due from her husband to 
 one of the trustees : — 
 
 Seld, that this was not a bona fide exercise of 
 the power, and was therefore a breach of trust. 
 
 Semble, that there was no power to make any 
 
 aHvance after the share had become vested. 
 
 Molyneox v. Fletohek - Kennedy J. 
 
 [1898] 1 Q. B. 648 
 
 — Settled estate duty. 
 
 See Will — Testamentary Expenses. 
 205, 206. 
 
 Annuity. 
 
 See also Cases under Annuity. 
 
 — Annuity — Reduction of, on ceasing to reside 
 
 — Validity — Gift of leasehold house to 
 
 widow. 
 
 See Settled Land. 99. 
 
 27. — " Deductions " — Income tax. — Absolute 
 gift. 
 
 In his will, B. gave certain annuities " clear 
 of all deductions whatsoever, except income tax." 
 In a subsequent codicil which, inter alia, increased 
 one of the annuities, he said, " And I expressly' 
 direct that every legacy and other interest as well 
 deiivable under my will as any codicil thereto 
 shall bo free of legacy duty anil every other de- 
 duction : — 
 
 Held, that B. must be taken to have had his 
 will in his miud when ihe made the codicil, and 
 as the will shewed he intended " deductions " to 
 include income tax, tlierefore the annuities must 
 be paid free of income tax. In re Bickle. 
 Williams v. Makson C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 286 
 
( 2309 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2310 ) 
 
 Will- (&mmi.ty')— continued. 
 
 88 -_ Duration— For life or perpetual. 
 v,= ^■*'-' j^^'j"^ ""'' annuity of 150Z. a year to 
 be secured to X." is merely an annuity to X. for 
 me. m re Lord Stbathbdbn and Campbell. 
 
 1.0WPEB V. StBATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] W. N. 90 
 (b) a gift of 250Z. per annum " to X. or his 
 descendants " is merely an annuity to X. for life 
 with a substitutionary gift for life to X-'s descen- 
 dants living at testator's death, if X. did not 
 survive testator. In re Moegan. Moegan v. 
 MoBSAN - - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 222 
 
 — luterest — Gift of money for purchase of 
 
 annuity. 
 
 See Inteeest. 2. 
 
 29. — Seversion, Annuity charged on — Direc- 
 tion that first payment ie made half-a-year after 
 testator's death — Immediate annuity. 
 
 A. gave his personalty and a life estate in his 
 realty to B., and charged the reversion or one 
 portion of such realty with an annuity to C, and 
 directed that the first payment of the annuity 
 was to be made half-a-year after A.'s death : — 
 
 Held, that 0. was entitled to an annuity 
 commencing on A.'s death. In re Williams. 
 Williams v. Williams - - Stirling J. 
 
 [1895] W. N. 36 
 
 Attestation. 
 
 30. — Attesting witness. Gift to — Solicitor — 
 Profit costs — Oodiail — Bepublication — Wills Act, 
 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 15. 
 
 Though a gift by will to an attesting witness 
 is utterly null and void, it may be rendered 
 effectual, if the will is republished by a codicil 
 referring to the will but not attested by the 
 legatee, and (applying the principles of Chirney 
 V. Gumey, (1885) 3 Drew. 208, and Be Marcus, 
 (1887) 57 L. T. 399) this benefit will not be lost 
 to the legatee by his subsequent attestation of a 
 second codioU. In re Teottbe. Teottee v. 
 Teotteb - Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 36 (13) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 764 
 • — Denial by attesting witness — Will — Evidence 
 
 of execution. 
 
 See Bebmuda. 
 
 — Donee of power a domiciled Frenchwoman — 
 
 Holograph will of donee in French 
 
 language unattested. 
 
 See PuwEB — Exercise. 18. 
 
 — General power — French will — Unattested 
 
 will — Execution of power. 
 See Power — Exercise. 23. 
 
 — Insufficient attestation clause — Refusal of 
 
 attesting witnesses to make affidavit. 
 
 See Pbobate— Execution. 13. 
 Margin of will, Signatures of \\itnesses in — 
 
 Subscription. 
 
 See Peobate — Execution. 14. 
 MaiTied woman — Re-execution ou death of 
 
 husband. 
 
 See Peobate — Execution. 15. 
 ^- Unattested will — Leaseholds — Domiciled 
 
 foreigner — Immovables — Administra- 
 tion with will annexed. 
 
 See CosFLiCT OF Laws. 17. 
 
 WILL — continued. 
 
 Charge of Debts, &c. 
 
 31. — General charge of legacies on real estate 
 if personal estate insufficient — Subsequent specific 
 devise — Presumption o/ law rebutted by intention. 
 
 A testator bequeathed pecuniary legacies to 
 be charged in the first place upon his personalty, 
 and if the same should be insuificient to be 
 charged upon his real and personal estates. He 
 then specifically devised lands at A. to G. and 
 other lands at other places (naming them) to F. 
 There was no residuary devise. The lands at A. 
 and the lauds specifically devised to F. formed 
 the whole of the testator's realty. The personalty 
 being insufficient the pecuniary legatees claimed 
 a charge upon the lands at A. : — 
 
 Held, that upon the true construction of the 
 will the testator's intention was that the lands at 
 A. should be charged with the legacies, and that 
 the presumption of law contra was therefore 
 rebutted. 
 
 Decision of 0. A. in Ireland, [1897] 1 I. E. 
 86, affirmed. Bank 01" Ieeland v. MoCabthy 
 
 H. L. (I.) [1898] A. C. 181 
 
 32. — Marshalling — Direction far payment of 
 debts — Stock specifically bequeathed charged in 
 testator's lifetime. 
 
 Where the general personal estate of a tes- 
 tator not specifically bequeathed is insufficient 
 for payment of his debts, a specific legatee of 
 property charged by the testator in his lifetime 
 with the payment of a sum of money must, as 
 between such specific legatee and other specific 
 legatees or devisees, bear the burden of the in- 
 cumbrance ; and a general direction in the will 
 that the testator's debts shall be paid after his 
 decease is not sufficient to throw any part of such 
 burden on the specific devisees of real estate. 
 In re Butleb. Le Bas v. Heebeet 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch, 250 
 
 33. — Power of sale — Cliarge of real estate 
 with debts and legacies — Devisees in trust — Vesting 
 of legal estate — Trust to pay or permit tenant for 
 life to receive rents and profits — Implied power of 
 sale — Law of Property Amendment Act, 1859 (Lord 
 St. Leonards' Act, 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35), s. 14. 
 
 A testator by his will dated in 1868 appointed 
 his wife executrix thereof, and directed payment 
 of his debts without saying by whom, and, after 
 bequeathing certain pecuniary legacies, he gave 
 the residue of his real and personal estate to two 
 other persons upon trust as to his real estate to 
 pay to or permit and suffer his wife to receive 
 the rents and profits for her life, and after her 
 death upon trust to pay to or permit and suffer 
 his niece to receive the rents and profits for her 
 life for her separate use ; and after declaring 
 certain trusts with regard to his personal estate, 
 he directed his trustees after the death of the 
 survivor of his wife and niece to pay two pecuni- 
 ary legacies, and after payment thereof to stand 
 possessed of his real estate and the residue of his 
 personal estate upon certain other trusts : — 
 
 Held, (1.) upon the principle of Greville v. 
 Browne, (1859) 7 H. L. 0. 689, that there was a 
 charge upon the real estate of the debts and 
 immediate legacies, and also of the two future 
 legacies; (2.) that the charge of the debts and 
 
 4 E 2 
 
( 2311 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2312 ) 
 
 WILL (Charge of Debts, &e.) — continued. 
 immediate legacies being unaccompanied by any 
 express direction to tbe trustees to pay, did not 
 vest the legal estate in them ; (3.) that the form 
 of the gift to the widow, in the absence of any 
 trust for her separate use, vested the legal estate 
 in her for her life, the purposes of the will not 
 requiring that the legal estate should vest in the 
 trustees during her lifetime ; (4.) that, the testa- 
 tor not having devised the real estate to the 
 trustees for his whole interest therein, the trustees 
 had no power to sell under s. 14 of Lord St. 
 Leonards' Act. 
 
 Doe V. Biggs, (1809) 2 Taunt. 109, and Doe v. 
 Solton, (1839) 11 Ad. & B. 188, followed. 
 
 Harton v. Barton, (1798) 7 T. R. 652, and 
 Van Grutten v. Foxwell, [1897] A. 0. 658, dis- 
 tinguished. In re Adams and Pebby's Conteact 
 StirUng J. [1899] W. N. 24 (12) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 5B4 
 
 Children. 
 
 — " Ohild " — Implication of words. 
 
 See Will — Construction. 66. 
 
 — Ohildren or their natural representatives if 
 
 dead according to the statute rule of 
 distribution — Widow of child. 
 See Will— Words. 221. 
 
 34. — " Children then living " — Grandchildren. 
 Gift in trust for five chililren, with gift over, 
 
 on death of any one without issue, to the " other 
 children then living " : — 
 
 Held, that this gift was modified by a subse- 
 quent proviso that grandchildren should take the 
 share " the parent would have taken if living." 
 Jn re Blantbbn. Lowe o. Cooke 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 64 
 
 — Class — Gift to. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Class. 
 
 35. — "Die tcithout child or children" — 
 Without leaving children — Ileal estate — Executory 
 gi/tover — Construclion of icill — Conveyancing Act, 
 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. o. 39), s. 10. 
 
 A testator gave one-half of his estate, which 
 was principally freehold, to the pit. for her 
 absolute use and benefit, " but should she die 
 without ohild or ohildren," then over among the 
 defts. The pit. had an infant ohild : — 
 
 Seld, that " die without child or ohildren " 
 meant " die without leaving a child or children," 
 and that the pit. was now absolutely entitled to 
 one-half of the estate, subject to an executory 
 gift over in favour of the defts., in the event of 
 her not having any child who should survive her, 
 or attain twenty-one in her lifetime. In re 
 Booth. Piokabd v. Booth 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 76 ; [1900] 1 Ch. 768 
 
 — Illegitimacy. 
 
 See Will — Illegitimacy. 
 
 36. — Illegitimate children — Gift to " children " 
 of person described as "wife." 
 
 A testator gave property in trust for his 
 children, including " B. the wife of 0." with life 
 estates to them and remainders to their " cliildren 
 or child." B. and 0. were not legally married ; 
 they had one child born before the date of the 
 will, and two born after the testatator's death : — 
 
 Held, that the ohild born before the date of 
 the will fell within the description in the will, 
 
 WILL (^CkiXireny— continued. 
 but that the others did not. 
 Haeeison v. Hiqbon, 
 
 In re Habeison. 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 1 Ch. 661 
 37 _ Illegitimate children^" IsBue"-Con- 
 
 '"■tTstftrTx gave the income of her residuary 
 estate in moieties between her brother and sister, 
 and on the death of either of them the moiety 
 previously payable to such one equally between 
 her nephews and nieces, naming them, of whom 
 M. A. was one, during the life of the auiyivor of 
 her brother and sister, with a provia) that, if 
 any of the nephews and nieces should die during 
 the life of the brother or sister leaving issue him 
 or her surviving, such issue should take the share 
 of income which his, her, or their parent would 
 have taken if living at the time of the decease of 
 the brother or sister. M. A. was described else- 
 where in the will as " my niece M., the wife of 
 F. H. A.," and her illegitimate daughter was 
 described as " her daughter G. S. A.," and also 
 as the testatrix's " great-niece." 
 
 On the death of the testatrix's brother his 
 moiety became distributable in the manner men- 
 tioned in the will, and M. A. received her share 
 of the income and died in the lifetime of the 
 testatrix's sister without having had any legiti- 
 mate children : — 
 
 Beld, that G. S. A. was included in the word 
 " issue," and was entitled for the remainder of the 
 life of the testatrix's sister to the share of income 
 to which her mother had been entitled. In re 
 Walker. Walkeb v. Luttens 
 
 Bonier J. [1897] 2 Ch. 238 
 
 33. — Illegitimate children — Legiiimatim ly 
 svhsequent marriage of parents — Domicil — Devise 
 of realty. 
 
 The rule that children bom out of wedlock 
 and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of 
 their parents cannot inherit English land as heir, 
 relates only to a case of descent upon an intestacy, 
 and not to a case of devise by will to " children." 
 
 A testator devised realty to the children of B. 
 B. had, among other children, a son born before 
 wedlock. This son had been legitimated accord- 
 ing to the law of the father's domicile, viz., the 
 Cape Colony, by the subsequent marriage of his 
 parents : — 
 
 Held, that he was entitled to his share of the 
 devised realty. In re Gbey's Trusts. Geet v. 
 Eael of Stamfoed Stirling J. [1892] 3 Ch. 88 
 
 — Illegitimate relatives. 
 
 See Will— Illegitimacy. 102—106. 
 
 39. — Implied gift to children — Life estate — 
 Gift over — Death ^'without leaving children" — 
 Residuary gift. 
 
 A testator gave houses in trust for A. for life 
 with a gift over on the death of A. without 
 leaving children : — 
 
 Held, per C. A. that A. took a life interest 
 only, that her ohildren had no interest, and on 
 A.'s death, an hltiuiate residuary gift took effect. 
 
 Decision of 0. A. In re llawlings' Trusts, 
 (1890) 45 Ch. D. 299, affirmed. Scale v. 
 Eawlins - H. L. E. [1898] A, C. 84? 
 
 — Implication of words — " Child." 
 
 See Will— Construction. 66. 
 
( 2313 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2314 ) 
 
 Will (Children)— contrauetZ. 
 
 .,?0. — " Issue"—" Children "—Construction of 
 will. 
 
 Where in a deed, will, or other document a 
 word has a clear and definite meaning when 
 used in one part, but has not when used in 
 another, the presumption is that the word is 
 intended to bear the same meaning in the latter 
 case as in the former. 
 
 Twelve distinct legacies contained gifts over 
 to the " issue " of legatees dying in the testator's 
 lifetime. Except in the case of the eleventh 
 legacy, the gift over in each contained words 
 clearly restricting " issue " to " children." In 
 the eleventh case the gift over to " issue " con- 
 tained no words of restriction whatever : — 
 
 Held, reversing Kokewioh J., [1899] W. N. 
 24 (13) ; [1899] 1 Oh. 703, that the restriction of 
 " issue " to " children " applied to the gift over in 
 the eleventh legacy as well as to the gifts over 
 in the other legacies. Jn re Bieks. Kenyon v. 
 BiEKS C. A, [1900] 1 Ch. 417 
 
 41. — Issue — Succession — Vesting. 
 
 A testator bequeathed to his three daughters, 
 in equal shares, the life-rent of a sum of 36,0002., 
 to be invested within five years after his decease. 
 Until the investment was made,he bequeathed 
 to each daughter an annuity of 200Z. In the 
 event of a daughter dying, without leaving issue, 
 her life-rent interest was to aocresce to her sur- 
 viving sister or sisters, whilst the capital of the 
 share life-rented by her lapsed into residue. In 
 the event of her leaving issue, the trustees were 
 directed " to divide equally amongst the issue of 
 each of my said daughters " one-third of the sum 
 directed to be invested. Mrs. M., one of the 
 daughters, died in March, 1895, leaving sur- 
 viving two daughters. Mrs. M. had had also a 
 son and a daughter, Mrs. H., who predeceased 
 her childless, but died after the testator. The 
 question was whether the representatives of the 
 predeceasing issue were entitled to a share of 
 the capital appointed to be divided amongst 
 Mrs. M.'s issue : — 
 
 Meld, reversing the decision of the Ct. of Sess., 
 (1896) 23 K. 598 (Lords Watson and Herschell 
 dissenting), that all the children of Mrs. M. were 
 entitled to share equally in the division of the 
 fund in which their mother had a life interest. 
 HiCKLns-G «. Faib H. t. (Sc.) [1899] A. C. 16 
 
 42. — "Issue living'' — Children ventre sa 
 mere. 
 
 A. gave property at the death of B. to 0. " in 
 case she has issue living at the death of" B. 0. 
 was confined of a living child one day after B.'s 
 death : — 
 
 Meld, that the gift to 0. took effect. In re 
 BOBKOWS. Olbghokn v. Burkows 
 
 ChittyJ. [1895]2Cli. 497 
 
 — Joint tenancy. 
 
 See Cases under Will— Joint Tenancy, 
 
 43. — Maintenance — Right of adult children to 
 maintenance during life of uiidow. 
 
 A testator gave residue on trust to pay to 
 his wife or permit her to receive the annual 
 income thereof during her life for her use and 
 benefit, and for the maintenance and education of 
 
 WILL (Children) — continued. 
 
 his " children," with a provision for division on 
 
 her death, and a power of advancement : — 
 
 Seld, that the widow took the income subject 
 to a trust for the maintenance of the children, 
 not limited to those who were under twenty-one 
 or unmarried. An inquiry directed as to which, 
 if any, of the children required maintenance. 
 In re Booth. Booth v. Booth 
 
 North J. [1894] 2 Ch. 282 
 
 Referred to by Kekewioh J. In re Q. 
 (Infants), [1899] 1 Oh. 719, 722, 724. 
 
 44. — " Offspring." 
 
 A testator by his wUl, dated 1896, gave and 
 bequeathed to the " offspring of my late brother 
 Augustus the sum of 15002." 
 
 The brother had two daughters only, A. and 
 B. ; A. was married, and had two children who 
 were infants. 
 
 The question was whether the legacy was 
 divisible in fourths amongst A. and B. and the 
 children of A., or in moieties between A. and B. 
 
 Held, that as the expression " offspring " was 
 used without the addition of other words, it 
 must be taken to mean " children " only. 
 Taeuleau v. Nixon Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 116 
 
 45. — Per capita or per stirpes — " Share and 
 share alike." 
 
 A testator gave the income of his property to 
 his wife for life, after her death to his brother 
 and sisters, and on the death of any of them the 
 income of his or her share to his or her children. 
 The will contained these words, " and after the 
 decease of all I desire the whole of my property 
 to be sold," &c., and the proceeds to be equally 
 divided between the children of the aforesaid 
 share and share alike : — ■ 
 
 Held, that the children of the brother and 
 sisters took per capita and not per stirpes. In re 
 S*ONE, Baker v. Stone 0. A. [1895] 8 Ch. 196 
 
 46. — Step-children — Gift to " children " — 
 Testator having only step-children. 
 
 A testator by his will, made when he was 
 fifty-nine and his wife sixty, gave his property 
 for sale and conversion, and directed the proceeds 
 to be divided equally among his children. He 
 had no children, but his wife had had children 
 by a former husband, who were treated by testa- 
 tor as his children, and had adopted his name : — 
 
 Held (1), that the Court could look at circum- 
 stances outside the will to determine whom 
 testator meant by. " children," and (2) that he 
 intended his step-children to take. In re Jeans. 
 Upton v. Jeans - North J, [1896] W. N. 98 . 
 
 47. — " Surviving children," Gift to — One 
 survivor only. 
 
 A testator, who died in 1844, made five 
 specific devises of his copyhold property to his 
 five children, subject to tha life interest therein 
 of their mother, and continued : " And if any or 
 either of my said children should happen to die 
 without having lawful issue their share or shares 
 of such property to go and be equally divided 
 among the surviving children share and share 
 alike." 
 
 One of the daughters died a spinster in 1895 ; 
 at her death her brother Joseph was the testator's 
 only surviving child; and the question was 
 
( 2315 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2316 ) 
 
 WILL (Children) — continued. 
 whether the daughter's share passed on her 
 dealh without issue to her brother Joseph, as 
 the surviving child of the testator, or to her 
 customary heir. 
 
 Held, following Seam v. Balcer, 2 K. & J. 
 383, that "surviving children" included a sole 
 surviving child, and consequently that the 
 daughter's share passed to lier brother Joseph. 
 In re Brown. Brown v. Aoomb 
 
 Chitty J. [1896] W. N. 164 (7) 
 
 Class. 
 
 — Absent parties accepting benefit of judgment 
 
 . — Practice. 
 
 See Estoppel. 4. 
 
 — Ascertainment of members of class — In settle- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Settlement — Voluntary Settlement. 
 36. 
 
 48. — Intermarriage of two meniberi of class — 
 Double shares — Uesiduary gift. 
 
 A gift to a class, two members of which inter- 
 married : — 
 
 Held, that the children of such marriage were 
 entitled to two shares, one in respect of each 
 parent. In re Smith. Dew v. Kennedy 
 
 Kekewich J, [1892] "W. N. 106 
 
 49. — Lapse — Gift to " A. and the children 
 of B." — Death of A. in testator's lifetime — 
 Lapse — Survivorship — Period of distribution. 
 
 A testator gave property in trust for his wife 
 (who survived him) for life, and after her death 
 for his niece A. and the children of his sister B. 
 who should attain twenty-one equally. At the 
 date of the will there were living A. and five 
 children of B., but A. died in the testator's life- 
 time. At the death of the tenant for life B.'s 
 five children were stUl living and had all 
 attained twenty-one : — 
 
 Meld (reversing North J.), that the gift was a 
 gift to a class, and that consequently A.'s death 
 in the testator's lifetime had not caused a lapse 
 of her share, but the whole gift passed to the 
 iive children as the members of the class surviving 
 at the period of distribution. 
 
 Per Eomer L.J. : A gift by will to a class, 
 properly so called, and A. equally, so that the 
 testator contemplates A. taking the same share 
 that each member of the class will take, is prima 
 facie a gift to a class. In re Moss. Kingsbokt v. 
 Waltek C. a. [1899] "W. N. 112 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 314 
 
 50. — Mistalce as to number — Gift to children 
 — Practice — Costs — Ascertainment of persons en- 
 titled to legacy — Costs out of residue — E. S. C, 
 Order LXV., r. 14 E. 
 
 A testator bequeathed the residue of his estate 
 to his trustees, and directed that out of the pro- 
 ceeds they should pay his funeral and testamen- 
 tary expenses, debts, and legacies. By a codicil 
 lie bequeathed 4000?. to his trustees, on trust to 
 pay the annual income thereof to his son E., 
 who was in his uncontrolled discretion to apply 
 the same for the benefit of the testator's son W. 
 and his two children by his late wife. And, after 
 the death of W., the trustees were to stand 
 possessed of the capital and income of the 4000i. 
 in trust for " the said two children of W. in equal 
 
 WILL (Class) — continued. 
 
 shares as tenants in common, to be paid to them 
 on their respectively attaining the age of twenty- 
 one years or marrying under that age." At the 
 date of the codicil there were living four children 
 of W. by his late wife. In an action by the 
 trustees after W.'s death to determine which of 
 his four children were entitled to the 4000Z. :— 
 
 Held, that the four children were entitled to 
 the 4000Z. in equal shares : 
 
 Held, also, that the costs of the action ought 
 to be paid out of the residue of the estate, and 
 not out of the 4000i., and that, if rule 14 B of 
 Order Lxv. applied, a direction should be given 
 for the payment of the costs out of the residue. 
 In re Geoom. Booty v. Gkoom 
 
 North J. [1897] 2 Ch. 407 
 
 51. — Mistake in number — " Unmarried 
 daughter " — Gift to children. 
 
 Gift to five unmarried daughters of A. At 
 the date of the will A. had three sons and three 
 daughters, two daughters beiug unmarried :— 
 
 Held, that the words " unmarried daughters " 
 were the material words, and the gift went to 
 the two unmarried daughters. In re Ddtton. 
 Plunkett v. Simeon North J. [1893] W. N. 65 
 
 62. — '■ " Nephews and nieces " — Children en 
 ventre sa mere. 
 
 Bequest of residue to nephews and nieces for 
 their respective lives, on their deaths their shares 
 to go to their children ; shares of nephews, &o., 
 dying without having any child surviving to go 
 to children of other nephews, &c. : — 
 
 Held, that a child en ventre sa mere took 
 under this last provision. In re Hallett. 
 Hallbtt v. Hallett Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 148 
 
 53. — "Nephews and nieces" — Husband and 
 wife. 
 
 Gift of residue in trust " for all my nephews 
 and nieces living at my decease who shall live to 
 attain the age of twenty-one years." The testator 
 had given legacies to a number of named persons, 
 including nephews and nieces of his wife : — 
 
 Held, that the residue was divisible among all 
 the testator's nephews and nieces, whether they 
 were nephews and nieces of the testator or of the 
 testator's wife, and further, that the wife of a 
 nephew, although not related to either the 
 testator or his wife, was to be treated as a 
 niece. 
 
 Per curiam ; — Where there is a gift to a class 
 which includes a husband and wife, the husband 
 and wife take separate shares. 
 
 Decision of North J., [1892] W. N. 88, afBrmed. 
 In re Gue. Smith v. Gue 
 
 C. A. [1892] W. N. 132 
 
 64. — Period of ascertaining class — Gift of 
 income to children of A. — Perpetuity — Construc- 
 tion of will. 
 
 A testator directed his trustees to pay the 
 interest, dividends, and annual profits of a share 
 of bis personal estate unto the children of his 
 sister, and to divide the same equally among 
 them during their lives, and after their deaths 
 to divide the share equally between their children. 
 The testator's sister survived him : — 
 
 Held, that the gift of income to the children 
 of the sister was confined to children born at the 
 date of the testator's death, and that the gift 
 
( 2317 ) 
 
 DIGEST Ot CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2318 ) 
 
 Win (Class)— comMjiaei. 
 
 "^v'j *° *^® children's children was therefore 
 
 valid, and not Void for remoteness. 
 
 In re Wenmoth'a Estate, (1887) 37 Ch. D. 266, 
 distinguished. In re Powell. Ckosland v. 
 HoLLiDAT - Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 227 
 
 — Power of disposition amongst — ^Power coupled 
 
 with a trust. 
 See PowEHs. 3. 
 
 65. — Substitution. — Construction of will. 
 
 A gift in a will to take effect after a life 
 estate to a class ascertainable at the death of the 
 testator, with a substitutional gift to the oliildren 
 of deceased members of the class instead of their 
 parents, does not let in the children of persons 
 wlio died in the testator's lifetime, but would 
 have been members of the class if they had 
 survived. 
 
 Thornliill v. TJiomhill (1819) 4 Madd. 377, 
 approved. In re Hannam. Haddesley v. Han- 
 nah - - North J. [1897] 2 Ch. 39 
 
 56. — Siib'titution — Issue taking hy — Gift to 
 children as a class— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), 
 ». 33. 
 
 The rule that s. 33 of the Wills Act, 1837, 
 does not apply to gifts to children or grand- 
 children of the testator as a class is not affected 
 by the fact that the class happens to consist of 
 but one person. In re Sir E. Harvey's Estate. 
 Haevey v. Gillow Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 867 
 
 — Uncertainty — Several deceased sons named B. 
 
 See Will — Uncertainty. 208. 
 
 67. — Vested or contingent interests — Period 
 of ascertainment of class — Remoteness. 
 
 In re Mervin, Mercin v. Oto^sman, [1891] 
 3 Ch. 197, followed, his Lordship observing that 
 tlie decision in Elliott v. Elliott, (1841) 12 Sim. 
 276, depended upon the language of the will 
 there under consideration, and that in In re 
 Coppard's Estate (35 Cli. D. 350) he had perhaps 
 attached greater weight to Elliott v. Elliott than 
 lie was now prepared to do. He did not intend 
 in In re Coppard's Estate to go beyond Elliott v. 
 Elliott, and so far as In re Coppard's Estate did 
 go beyond that case it ought not to be followed. 
 In re Stevens. Cleek v. Stevens Stirling J. 
 [1896] W. N. 24 (12) 
 
 58. — Vesting — Gift to a class at twenty-one — 
 Maintenance — Construction of will. 
 
 A power given by will to trustees to apply 
 " the whole or such part as they shall think fit " 
 of the income of the respective shares of members 
 of a class entitled to shares of property on attain- 
 ing twenty-one : — 
 
 Eeld, not to vest the shares of members under 
 twenty-one. 
 
 Eox V. Fox, (1876) L. E. 19 Eq. 286) dissented 
 from. In re Wintle. Tucker v. Wintle 
 
 North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 711 
 
 Hut see In re Turner. C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 739. 
 
 Codicil. 
 
 — Absolute gift. 
 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 
 
 — Attesting witness. Gift to— Solicitor— Profit 
 
 costs — Codicil— Kepublication. 
 See Will— Attestation. 30. 
 
 WILL (Codioil) — continued. 
 
 — Inconsistent codicil. 
 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 3. 
 
 — Incorporation by codicil — Interlineations. 
 
 See Probate. 100. 
 
 — Lost will — Codicil admitted to probate where 
 
 will not forthcoming. 
 /See Probate. 129. 
 
 — ■ Second codioil revoking •' all previous 
 codicils." 
 See Probate. 125. 
 
 Condition. 
 
 69. — Absolute gift — ■ Subsequent condition — 
 Repugnancy — Restraint on alienation — Legacies 
 out of proceeds of sale. 
 
 A testator gave his plantations in Assam and 
 all other his estate to the pit. absolutely subject 
 to the payment of liis debts, and, after appoint- 
 ing her executrix, continued, " on any sale by the 
 pit. of the said plantations I will and direct Ler 
 to pay my brother the sum of lOOOi. out of the 
 proceeds of such snle, also the further sum of 500/. 
 out of the proceeds of such sale to " the testator's 
 sister : — 
 
 Held, that the direction to pay these legacies 
 imposed no obligation on the pit. to sell; and 
 further, that this direction was repugnant and 
 void, and that the property, therefore, belonged to 
 the pit. absolutely. In re Elliot. Kelly v. 
 Elliot - - Chitty J. [1896] 2 Ch. 383 
 
 — Gift on condition — Precatory trust. 
 
 See Will— Precatory Trust. 168. 
 
 — Marriage — Condition in restraint of. 
 
 See Will — Marriage. 
 
 60. — Repair of tomb — Family vault — Oift 
 over to another charity — Perpetuities. 
 
 The rule against perpetuities does not apply 
 to a transfer in a certain event from one charity 
 to another. A condition that a, family vault 
 shall be kept in repair, atl^ached to a gift of stock 
 to charity A., with a gift over on non-compliance 
 to charity B., held to be valid. In re Tyler. 
 Tyler v. Tyler - C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 282 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Bower, 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 491. 
 
 61. — Residence — Assignment of share — De- 
 feasible interest. 
 
 Testator gave his son a- life interest, subject to 
 a condition that the trustees should pay A. 50/. 
 per annum so long as the son resided with her. 
 When not residing with A., the son assigned his 
 life estate as " beneficial owner " thereof. He 
 afterwards went to reside with A. :— 
 
 Held, notwitlistanding tlie assignment, that 
 the trustees could pay the 50Z. per annum to A. 
 In re Greenwood. Priestley v. Griffiths 
 
 C. A. (Kay L.J. diss.) [1892] W. N. 20 
 
 62. — Residence — "Refuse or neglect" — Infant. 
 
 Where real estate is devised in strict settle- 
 ment with a direction that the person becoming 
 entitled shall reside in and occupy the mansion- 
 house, with a gift over in case he shall " refuse 
 or neglect " to do so, and the person in possession 
 is an infant ; the gift over cannot operate during 
 infancy, for the condition is a condition subsequent 
 
( 2319 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2320 ) 
 
 AVILI (Condition.) — continued. 
 to divest an already vested estate, and an infant 
 must reside where his guardian prescribes, and 
 therefore in case of non-residenoe he did not 
 "refuse or neglect" to reside in the mansion- 
 house. Paktbidge v. Paktridge 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 351 
 
 63. — " Return to England." 
 
 A condition of trusteeship that the trustee 
 should return to England is satisfied by the 
 person nominated coming to England on a visit 
 and remaining there six montlis : — 
 
 Held, therefore, in the absence of evidence 
 fliat such trustee had dissented from or disclaimed 
 his trusteeship before his return, tiie trusteeship 
 and estates vested in Mm on his return, and that 
 he was a necessary party to a conveyance of the 
 trust property. Jmre Abbib and Class' Contract 
 C. A, [1891J 1 Ch. 601 
 
 Construction. 
 — General principles of construction of wills. 
 See Cases under Will, passim. 
 
 64. — Citation of decided cases. 
 
 (a) It is a misuse of cases on construction to 
 depart from a plain instrument and to import 
 i'rom the authorities something not in the instru- 
 ment itself, which raises a doubt not created by 
 the instrument itself. Fer Lindley L.J. In re 
 Teedwell. Jeffrat v. Tkedwell (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 640, at p. 653 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Ackeroyd's 
 Settlement, [1893] 3 Ch. 363. 
 
 (b) In construing one will too much attention 
 is not to be paid to decisions on other wills, 
 Kules of law must be attended to; but if in any 
 case the intention of a testator is expressed with 
 sufficient clearness, the Court should give effect 
 to it. The fact tliat in other wills more or less 
 like that under consideration other judges have 
 not been satisfied as to the intention expressed is 
 not a sufficient ground for defeating the intention 
 appearing on the will under construction. In re 
 Palmer. Palmer v. Answoeth 
 Per Lindley L.J. C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 369, at p. 373 
 
 (c) The proper rule for construing a will is to 
 form an opinion apart from the cases, and then to 
 see whether the cases required a modification of 
 that opinion; not to begin by considering how 
 far the will resembled wills on which decisions 
 had been given. In re Blantern. Lowe v. 
 Cooke C. A. revers. Stirling J. [1891] W. N. 54 
 (p) Per Halsbury L.C. in C. A. : "I repudiate 
 entirely the notion of laying down any canon of 
 construction which is to extend beyond the par- 
 ticular instrument that I am called upon to give 
 an interpretation to." 
 
 Decision of C. A., In re Jodrell. Jodretl v. 
 Scale, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 590, affirmed. Seale- 
 Hatne v. Jodkell H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 304 
 
 Followed by Jeune J. In the Goods of Asliton, 
 [1892] P. 83, 88. 
 
 Referred to by Sth-liiig J. In re Dealdn, 
 [1891] 3 Ch. 565, 569. 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Parker, 
 [1897) 2 Ch. 208, 211. 
 
 (e) Per Kekewich J. : In dealing with ques- 
 tions of construction affecting title, the Court 
 
 WILL (Construction) — continued. 
 considers itself unfettered by any decision or 
 even by the practice of conveyancers. In re 
 Edwards. Edwards v. Edwards 
 
 [1894] 3 Ch. 644, at p. 648 
 
 65. — Holograph will by lay testator. 
 
 Where in a layman's holograph will words 
 occur which have an intelligible conventional 
 meaning, that meaning is to be ascribed unless 
 the context otherwise requires. Hamilton v. 
 KiTOHiB H. L. (So.) [1894] A. C. 310 
 
 68. — Implication of words — " Child." 
 
 A testator devised the residue of the proceeds 
 of his real and personal estate to trustees, upon 
 trust to pay and divide the same "equally 
 amongst the children of my deceased father's 
 brothers and sisters. And I desire that the 
 child or children of any one of such brothers and 
 sisters as may be dead shall take his, her, or their 
 deceased parent's share :— 
 
 Held, that the word " child " must be implied 
 after the words " any one," and that the children 
 of a deceased child of a brother and the chUdreu 
 of a deceased child of a sister of the testator's 
 father were respectively entitled to their deceased 
 parent's share of the residue. In re Weoe 
 
 North J. [1896] W. N. 38 (19) 
 
 Contingent Gift. 
 
 67. — Contingent interests — Spes euccessionis 
 — Presumptive next of kin — Bequest to next of kin 
 according to the statute — Right to injunction — 
 Jud^iments Act, 1840 (3*4 Vict. c. 82), s. 1. 
 
 It being necessary for trustees, who had in- 
 vested part of the residuary estate in Consols, to 
 realize a portion of the Consols, on applying to 
 the Bank of England they found that certain 
 distringases had been placed on the stock, in- 
 cluding one by B. The trustees thereupon took 
 the necessary steps for having the distringas 
 orders duly warned. 
 
 The only tenant for life now alive was one 
 of the testatrix's sisters, who was ninety years 
 of age. 
 
 On April 7 B. obtained an order ex parte 
 restraining the bank until after April 11 from 
 permitting the transfer of the Consols on an 
 undertaking to accept from either the Bank of 
 England or from the trustees three hours' notice 
 to discharge the injunction, and he now moved 
 on notice to the bank and to the trustees for an 
 injunction to restrain the bank from permitting 
 the transfer of the Consols, and tho question was 
 whether B., claiming through C. A. W., who 
 would be one of the next of kin of the testatrix if 
 he survived the sole surviving tenant for life, had 
 such an interest in the testatrix's estate as to 
 entitle him to the injunction : — 
 
 Held, that the applicant had not an " interest " 
 sufficient to bring him within 3 & 4 Vict. c. 82, 
 s. 1 , and to entitle him to the injunction asked 
 for. No order made on the motion except that 
 the applicant should pay the costs. In re Ashton 
 Byrne J. [1900] W, N. 109 
 
 Contingent Remainder. 
 
 (Contingent remainder and executory devise,) 
 
 68. — Contingent remainder — Oift to devisees 
 as joint tenants and to the survivor of them, hia 
 
( 2321 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASfiS, 1891—1990. 
 
 t 2322 ) 
 
 wIlL (Contingent Eemainder)— con«m«e<Z. 
 heirs and assigns for ever —Wills Act, 1837 
 (1 Vzct. c. 26), s. 28. 
 
 A testator by will made in 1840 deviaed lands 
 to seven persons "as joint tenants and not as 
 tenants in common, and to the survivor or longest 
 liver of them, his or her heirs and assigns for 
 ever " : — ° 
 
 Meld, that the effect of the limitations was to 
 constitute the seven devisees joint tenants for life 
 with a contingent remainder over in fee simple to 
 the ultimate survivor. Quakm v. Quabm 
 
 Div. Ct. [1893] 1 a. B. 184 
 
 69. — Devise to trustees — Discretion to 'pay debts 
 — Contingent remainder —Failure of particular 
 estate. 
 
 The testatrix by her will directed her debts, 
 &c., to be paid, and devised a freehold messuage 
 on trust for H. for life with power of appointment, 
 and in default for each of the children of H. who 
 being sons should attain tlie age of twenty-one, 
 or, being daughters, should attain that age or 
 marry. H. died without exercising the power of 
 appointment leaving only infant children : — 
 
 Held, that the legal estate passed to the 
 trustees, and that the estates limited to the chil- 
 dren of H. were equitable, and therefore did not 
 fail. In re Brooke. Bbooke v. Brooke (No. 1) 
 CMtty J. [1894J 1 Ch. 43 
 
 70. — "Die without leaving male issue" — Estate 
 tail or fee simple — Indefinite failwre of issue — 
 Executory devise— Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), 
 8. 29. 
 
 Sect. 29 of the Wills Act applies to the case 
 of a gift over on death without " male " issue. 
 
 Under a devise of realty to A., with a gift 
 over if A. should die without leaving " male " 
 issue : — 
 
 Held, that A. took an estate in fee simple, 
 subject to an executory devise over. In re 
 Edwards. Edwards v. Edwards 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 644 
 
 71. — Equitable estate — Intestacy — Incomes — 
 Contingent Remainder, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 33). 
 
 An equitable contingent remainder created 
 before 40 & 41 Vict. c. 33, which becomes clothed 
 with the legal estate after the passing of the Act, 
 is not defeated by the failure of the prior life in- 
 terest; nor would it have been defeated by 
 becoming clothed with the legal estate if the Act 
 iiad not been passed. In re Freme. Fremb v. 
 LoQAN (No. 1) - North J. [1891] 3 Ch. 167 
 
 Upon another point, see 0. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 
 1,3. 
 
 72. — Executory devise or contingent remainder. 
 A gift to A. for life, and from and after the 
 
 decease of A. unto and to the use of such child 
 or children of A. living at his decease, and such 
 issue then living of the child or children of A. 
 then deceased, as either before or after the death 
 of A. should attain the age of twenty-one years 
 or die under that age leaving issue, is an execu- 
 tory devise, and not a contingent remainder. 
 Dean v. Dean - Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 150 
 Beferred to by North J. Sym^s v. Byrnes, 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 272, 277. 
 
 73. — Executory devise or contingent remainder 
 
 WILL (Contingent Eemainder) — continvM. 
 
 — Beceiver — Appointment of, for judgment creditor 
 
 — Cesser of life estate. 
 
 A devise of a freehold estate contained a pro- 
 viso that the legal life estate should cease on 
 being taken in execution by any process of law 
 and the estates given to the children of the tenant 
 for life should thereupon absolutely vest in the 
 persons next entitled : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the appointment of a receiver 
 
 was a " taking in execution," and the life estate 
 
 of the son in possession thereupon determined; 
 
 (2) that the devise over was executory, and the 
 
 persons entitled were all the children of the 
 
 tenant for life who should attain twenty-one, &c., 
 
 and not merely the children born before the 
 
 receivership order, nor the one child who attained 
 
 twenty-one before that date. Blaokman v. Ptsh 
 
 Eekewich J. ; affirm, by C. A. 
 
 as to (2), decision as to (1) not being 
 
 appealed against - [1892] 3 Ch. 209 
 
 — Executory limitation or — Appointment. 
 See Powers — Validity. 46. 
 
 74. — Infants — Intermediate rents — Legal and 
 equitdble limitations. 
 
 A testator by his will dated in 1878 devised 
 certain real property to the use of trustees in fee 
 simple upon trust for A. for life, and after her 
 death, for her children who being sons should 
 attain twenty-one, or being daughters should 
 attain that age or marry, as tenants in common. 
 The testator died in 1881; A. died in 1885, 
 leaving six ohildi'en, all infants and unmarried. 
 The eldest child attained twenty-one in March, 
 1897 :— 
 
 Held, that the eldest child 'was entitled on 
 attaining twenty-one to the entirety of the rents 
 until the next child attained a vested interest, 
 and so on, as if the limitations had been legal. 
 
 In re Holford, [1894] 3 Ch. 30, held not to 
 apply. In re Averill. Salisbury v. Buckle 
 
 Komer J. [1898] 1 Ch. 623 
 
 75. — Joint tenants — Gift to devisees as joint 
 tenants with remainder to the survivor of them his 
 heirs and assigns for ever. 
 
 A devise to seven persona "as joint tenants 
 and not as tenants in common and to the survivor 
 or longest liver of them, his or her heirs and 
 assigns for ever," constitutes the seven devisees 
 joint tenants for life with a contingent remainder 
 over in fee to the ultimate survivor. Quarm v. 
 Qdarm Div. Ct. [1892] 1 Q, B, 184 
 
 Conversion, 
 
 See Cases under Conversion. 
 
 Dividends, 
 
 76. — Appm'tionment — Income or capital — 
 Public company — Construction of Will — • Ap- 
 portionment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 35), 
 88. 5, 7. 
 
 Every co. registered under the Companies 
 Act, 1862, is a public co. within the meaning of 
 the term in the Apportionment Act, 1870. 
 
 A bequest of shares in a limited co., coupled 
 with a declaration that the shares so bequeathed 
 shall carry the dividend accruing thereon at the 
 
( 2323 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2324 ) 
 
 Will (Dividends) — cmttinued. 
 
 testator's death, operates as an exclusion of the 
 
 Apportionment Act. 
 
 A testator bequeathed certain shares in a 
 limited co. to trustees upon trust to sell, with a 
 power of postponement, and stand possessed of 
 the proceeds and the shares remaining unsold 
 upon trust to receive the annual produce thei'eof 
 and hold the same in trust for the testator's 
 children and remoter issue in succession, and 
 declared that every share bequeathed by his 
 will should carry the dividend accruing thereon 
 at his death. The dividends were payable 
 annually : — 
 
 Held, that the trustees took the whole of tlie 
 dividend for the year in which the testator died 
 without apportionment, and that such dividend 
 was payable as income to the tenants for life 
 under the will. In re Ltsaght. Ltsaght v. 
 Lysaght, - - C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 115 
 
 Donatio Mortis Causa. 
 See Donatio Moetis CausI. 
 
 Eldest Son. 
 
 77. — " Eldest son " entitled to possession — 
 Construction of will. 
 
 A will limited successive life estates in Black- 
 ncre to members of a class, other than and except 
 an eldest or only son for the time being entitled 
 to the possession or receipt of the rents of White- 
 acre as tenant for life or a greater estate. A 
 tenant in tail in remainder of Whiteacre joined 
 with his father, the tenant for life, in a sale of 
 which he had the benefit : — 
 
 Held, that on the death of his father he 
 became an eldest sou within the exception, and 
 incapable of succeeding to a life ettate in Black- 
 acre under the limitations of the will. Shuttle- 
 
 ■WOBTH V. MUKKAY 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N, 89 ; 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 796 
 Estate Tail, 
 
 78. — Base fee — Fee simple absolute — Aclmow- 
 ledgment by married women. 
 
 A base fee in remainder created by vendors 
 when spinsters can be turned into a fee simple 
 absolute by the vendors, if married after the 
 Married Women's Property Act, 1882, without 
 acknowledgment or the concurrence of the hus- 
 bands. In re Dbummond and Davie's Contkaot 
 Chitty J. [1891] 1 Ch. 624 
 
 79. — Intention — Revocation — Construction of 
 will— Wills Act (1 Yict. c. 26), s. 28. 
 
 A testator by his will devised his fee simple 
 estates to trustees to give the rents to S. M. ; but 
 ill case S. M. encumbered the lands or rents at 
 any time the testator revoked the gifts of the 
 rents " from S. M. and from his heirs male," or 
 should S. M. not forfeit the same and should " die 
 without male issue him surviving," he bequeathed 
 the rents and estates to E. M. and his issue male 
 in tail male : — 
 
 Held, that upon the true construction of the 
 whole will the testator's intention was clear that 
 S, M. should take an estate tail. 
 
 Decision of Irish C. A., [1899] 1 I. K. 359 
 affirmed, Cktmpb v. Cbumpe 
 
 H, L, (I,) [1900] W, W, 40; [1900] A, 0. 127 
 
 WILL (Estate Tail) — continued. 
 
 — Personalty — Gift in default of issue — ^Per- 
 petuity. 
 See Will — Perpetuity. 155. 
 
 80. — Postponement clause — Limitations of 
 real estate—Estate "in defeasance of" estate tail 
 — Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833 (3 <£ 4 WUl. 4, 
 c. 74), s, 15. 
 
 Lands were devised in trust for A. for life, 
 remainder, to his first and other sons in tail male, 
 similar remainder to B. and C. and their sons 
 successively, witli a proviso that upon the hap- 
 pening of a certain event the trusts in favour of 
 B. and his sons " should thereafter be postponed to 
 and take effect in remainder immediately after" 
 the trust in favour of C. and his sons. With the 
 consent of A. (the tenant for life in possession) 
 B. and his eldest son executed a disentailing deed, 
 conveying the lands in fee simple. Subsequently 
 duringthe life of A., the certain event occurred: — 
 
 Held, that the estate limited to C. and his 
 sons on the occurrence of the certain event was 
 an estote " in defeasance of" and not " prior to " 
 that of B. and his sons, and therefore that the 
 estate of C.'s eldest son was barred under the 
 statute by the disentailing deed. Milbank v. 
 Vane - C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 79 
 
 81, — Shelley's Case, Rule in — Issiie — Heirs 
 — Gift^ over — Descent — Purchase — Construction of 
 will. 
 
 A testator devised lands to trustees in trust to 
 receive the rents and profits for the use and 
 benefit of such of his child or children as should 
 be living at his death, and to apply such rents 
 and profits or so much thereof as the trustees 
 should deem right and proper in the maintenance 
 and education of such child or children until 
 majority or marriage, and from and after majority 
 or marriage in trust to permit and suffer such 
 child or children, as they should severally attain 
 the age of twenty-one or be married, to take the 
 rents and profits, if more than one, in equal 
 shares for her, his, and their own use and benefit 
 for her, his, or their lives ; and if he left only one 
 child then to permit and suffer such one child to 
 take the rents and profits for her or his sole use 
 and benefit for her life ; and he declared that 
 from and after the death of such child or children, 
 the trustees should stand seised of the lands in 
 trust unto and to the use of the heirs of the body 
 and bodies of such ohUd or children, if more than 
 one to be equally divided between them, such 
 lands to be legally conveyed to such heirs of 
 any child or children in equal shares as they 
 should respectively attain the age of twenty-one 
 or be married, and to their respective heirs and 
 assigns for ever, with power in the meantime to 
 apply the rents and profits in the maintenance 
 and education of such heirs of his child or 
 children. And if he should die leaving no child 
 or children, or issue of any child or children, or 
 if such child or children as he should leave and 
 the issue of such child or children should die 
 before he or they should attain the age of twenty- 
 one or be married — then a gift over. 
 
 1'he testator died leaving only one child sur- 
 viving him; that child married and left a son 
 who reached twenty-one : — 
 
 Held, that the legal estate vested in the trns- 
 
( 2325 ) 
 
 DIGEST or OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2326 ) 
 
 Will (Estate Tail)— coidinued. 
 teea throughout ; that the estates both of the 
 child or children and of the heirs of their body 
 7,^/o ^q^'tal^'e; that the rule in Shelley's Case, 
 (1581) 1 Eep. 93 b, applied, and that the testator's 
 child took an estate tail. 
 
 A will devised lands to W. in fee simple. By 
 a codicil the testator devised the lands upon the 
 same trusts as were set forth in the will, but 
 nevertheless upon the special trust, and bis will 
 was, that it should not be lawful for W. at any 
 time during his life to suffer any recovery or enter 
 into any deed, matter, or thing whereby to cut off, 
 dock, or destroy the entail of his said freehold 
 lands : — 
 
 ETeld, that the codicil did not cut down the fee 
 simple estate given by the will to an estate tail. 
 Van Grutten v. Foxwell. Foxwell v. Van 
 GKtTTEN - - H. L. (E.) [1897] A. C. 658 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Adams 
 and Perry's Contract, [1899J 1 Oh. 554. 
 
 82. — Special tail — " Isstie " — Devise to 
 " Charles if he marries a fit and worthy gentle- 
 woman and has issue male to such issue" — 
 Construction of will. 
 
 In this case it was held that the estates or 
 their proceeds were to go on the limitations 
 which were expressed with regard to the pro- 
 ceeds ; and that the limitations must be read as 
 meaning the same as if the testator had said, 
 " to my son Charles and such issue male as he 
 may have by marriage with a fit and proper 
 gentlewoman and their male descendants, in 
 failure of which " then over. The rule in Shelley's 
 Case, (1581) 1 Co. Kep. 93 B, did not apply, and 
 the codicil created a valid estate in special tail. 
 The word " issue " was a word of limitation 
 equivalent to heirs of the body, and not a word 
 of purchase. The addition of the words "and 
 their male descendants" did not prevent Lord 
 Charles taking an estate tail. 
 
 On the other hand, if the rule in Bielley's 
 Case applied, there was no gift in express terms 
 to Lord Charles of a life estate ; the first gift 
 without more would give him the fee simple. 
 But the testalor intended the estate to travel 
 through the class of issue male, and effect could 
 only be given to that intention by holding that 
 Lord Charles took an estate in tail. If it were 
 held that there was not an estate in special tail 
 male in Charles, but that the first taker in the 
 series of issue took by purchase, it would follow 
 that only the descendants of that particular head 
 of the issue would take, and the words "in 
 failure of which" would not be satisfied. The 
 rule in Slielley's Case ought, therefore, to be 
 applied, so that the whole class of issue male by 
 a fit and worthy gentlewoman should be exhausted 
 before the gift over should take effect. Lord 
 Charles took an estate in special tail male, and 
 the plt.'s case failed. Pelham Clinton v. Duke 
 OF Newcastle - Buckley J. [1900] W. N. 183 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 83. — Ambiguity. 
 
 (a) Extrinsic evidence admitted to determine 
 what a childless testator having adopted step- 
 children meant by a gift to " children." In re 
 Jeans. Upton «. Jeans North J. [1898] W. N. 98 
 
 WILL (Evidence) — continued. 
 
 (b) Extrinsic evidence admitted to identify 
 the particular nephew named as executor, the tes- 
 tator having two nephews of the same name, one 
 legitimate, the other illegitimate. In the Goods 
 or AsHTON - - Jeune J. [1893] P. 83 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewich J. In re Parlcer, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 213. 
 
 (c) Extrinsic evidence not admitted to deter- 
 mine to which of two nieces of the same name 
 the testator meant to make a gift, one being 
 legitimate, the other illegitimate. In re Fish. 
 Ingbam v. Eatnek C. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 83 
 
 83a. — Ambiguity — Equivocation - 
 right of selection — Admissibility of evidence — • 
 Direct evidence of intention — Construction of will. 
 
 A testatrix by her will gave "my 140 shares 
 in the Crown Brewery Co." to trustees, upon 
 trust to pay the income thereof to the pit. for her 
 life, with remainder in trust for her children, 
 and, if she should die without leaving issue, in 
 trust to divide the same equally between the sii 
 defts., as tenants in common. Two of the deft! 
 were residuary legatees under the will. At thi 
 date of the will and at the date of the death ol 
 the testatrix she had 280 51. shares in the co., 
 of which 40 were paid up in full, and the other 
 210 were paid up to the extent of 21. 10s. per 
 share. An affidavit by the solicitor who had pre- 
 pared the will was tendered, to shew that the 
 testatrix intended to bequeath 140 of her partly 
 paid-up shares on the above trusts. 
 
 Seld, by Kekewich J. and by the 0. A., that 
 this evidence was not admissible : 
 
 Held, by the 0. A., reversing the decision of 
 Kekewich J., that the tenant for life was not 
 entitled to select which of the 280 shares she 
 would take : 
 
 But held, on the construction of the will, and 
 having regard to the circumstances, that the 
 bequest must be satisfied out of the 240 partly 
 paid shares. 
 
 Tapley v. Eagleton, (1879) 12 Oh. D. 683, and 
 Asten V. Asten, [1894] 3 Ch. 260, cbnsidered. 
 In re Oheadle. Bishop v. Holt 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 174; [1900] 2 Ch. 620 
 
 83b. — Ambiguity — Extrinsic evidence, admis- 
 sibility of— Construction of will. 
 
 In this case, which was as Jo the grammatical 
 meaning of an ambiguous sentence in a will : — 
 
 Seld, that, in order to assist in clearing up 
 the ambiguity evidence dehors the -nill was ad- 
 missible, on the authority of Sir J. Wigram, who 
 says (Wigram on Discovery, p. 196) that " Every 
 claimant under a will has a right to require that 
 a court of construction, in the execution of its 
 office, shall by means of extrinsic evidence place 
 itself in the situation of the testator the meaning 
 of whose language it is called upon to declare " : 
 Doe V. Martin and Richards, (1833) 1 Nev. & ST. 
 512 524 ; 4 B. & Ad. 771 ; Smith v. Doe d. Jersey, 
 (1821) 2 B. & B. 473, 553 ; 22 E. E. 19 ; Colpoys 
 V Colpoys, (1822) Jao. 451, 465. In re Gbaingek. 
 Dawson v. Higgins - C, A. [1900] 2 Ch. 756 
 
 Beneficiary convicted of wilful murder of 
 
 testatrix — ^Certificate of conviction not 
 admissible. ) 
 
 See Lancaster. 1, 
 
( 2327 ) 
 
 DiGESTrOI' CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2328 ) 
 
 WILL (Evidence) — continued. 
 
 — Execution. 
 
 See Cases under Pbobate — Ezecution of 
 Will. 
 
 — Executory devise. 
 
 See Cases- under Will — Contingent 
 Semainder. 
 
 — Illegitimate relatives. 
 
 See Will— Illegitimacy. 102—106. 
 
 — Legacy — Admissibility of evidence. 
 
 See Will — Legacy. 123, 125. 
 
 Execution of Will. 
 
 See Cases under Pbobate — Execution of 
 Will. 
 
 Executory Devise. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Contingent 
 Bemainder. 
 
 Exoneration, 
 
 84. — Building agreement — Vendor^s lien — 
 Loclce King's Amendment Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Tict. 
 c. 34). 
 
 A building agreement provided for leases 
 with ground-rents up to 1801. a year ; and, at the 
 option of the lessor, for further leases on pay- 
 ment by her of twenty-two years' purchase of 
 the further ground-rents. She executed the 
 option, and died before completion : — 
 
 Seld, th&t her devisees took the land included 
 in the agreement subject to discharging the 
 amount payable in respect of the further leases. 
 In re Kidd. Beooman v. AVithall 
 
 North J. [1894] 3 Ch. 658 
 
 85. — " Contrary intention " — Intention evi- 
 denced hy will and subsequent deeds — LocTte King's 
 Act (17 <t 18 Vict. c. 113). 
 
 A testator who had mortgaged his realty in 
 order to secure Consols which had been trans- 
 ferred to him by the trustees of a settlement : — 
 
 Held, to have shewn an intention in his will 
 
 and subsequent deeds that his realty should be 
 
 exonerated from payment of the mortgage debt. 
 
 In re Campbell. Campbell v. Campbell (No. 1) 
 
 Eeke-wich J. [1893] 2 Ch. S06 
 
 86. — Personal estate — Judgment debt — Land 
 helopging to tenant in tail delivered to execution — • 
 Judgments Act, 1838 (1*2 Vict. c. 110), ss. 11, 13 
 —Locke King's Acts, 1854 (17 (fc 18 Vict. v. 113) ; 
 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 69). 
 
 Land belonging to a tenant in tail in posses- 
 sion was delivered in execution to judgment cre- 
 ditors of his under a writ of elegit. He died 
 ■without giving any direction exonerating his 
 personal estate from payment of the debt : — 
 
 Meld, that as Locke King's Acts did not 
 apply, the judgment debt was not chargeable on 
 the land in exoneration of the personalty. In re 
 Anthont. Anthony v. Anthony (No. 2) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Oh. 498 
 
 87. — Beal estate — Judgment debt — Judgments 
 Acts, 1838 (1 <fe 2 Vict. c. 110), «. 13; I860 
 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 38), s. 1 ; 1864 (27 & 28 Vict, 
 c. 112), 8. 1— Loclce King's Act, 1854 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 118); 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 34). 
 
 Land whioh had been delivered in execution 
 
 WILL (Exoneration) — continued. 
 under a writ of elegit to judgment creditors of a 
 testator was specifically devised by his subse- 
 quent will : — 
 
 Held, that Locke King's Acts applied, and 
 the devised estate must bear its own burden, and 
 ■was not entitled to be exonerated. In re Anthony. 
 Anthony v. Anthony (No. 1) 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] 1 Ch. 450 
 
 Falsa Semonstratio. 
 
 88. — Debenture stocTc — Construction of will. 
 A testatrix bequeathed all her shares in two 
 
 specified ry. cos. She never had any shares in 
 either co., but at the date of her will she held 
 debenture stock of each co., ■which she continued 
 to hold at the time of her death : — 
 
 Held, that the debenture stock passed under 
 the bequest. In re Weeding, Akmsteonq v. 
 Wilkin - - North J. [1896] 2 Ch. 364 
 
 89. — Debt — Legacy — Becital — Krroneous 
 statement of indebtedness — Intention to confer 
 bounty— Construction of will. 
 
 A testatrix bequeathed to her grandniece 
 " the sum of 3001. in addition to the sums owing 
 to her from my late husband's estate." The will 
 contained no direction to pay debts. There were 
 no sums legally owing to the grandniece from 
 the'.husband's estate, but there were two sums of 
 5001. for which the husband (as the testatrix 
 knew) had given her an I TJ and promissory 
 note, which, however, were not enforceable for 
 want of consideration. The testatrix was uni- 
 versal devisee and legatee under her husband's 
 will :— 
 
 Held, having regard to the surrounding cir- 
 cumstances, that the intention of the testatrix 
 ■was to include the two sums in question in the 
 bequest. 
 
 Per V. Williams L J. : An erroneous recital 
 in a will of indebtedness on the part of a tes- 
 tator to a legatee, even though accompanied by 
 a direction to pay, will not amount to a gift of 
 the supposed debt, in the absence of any indica- 
 tion in the will of an intention of bounty in respect 
 thereof ; but such intention may be implied from 
 the general scope of the will. 
 
 Adams v. Adam-^, (1842) 1 Hare, 537, Wldt- 
 field V. Clement, (1816) 1 Mer. 402, and Wilson 
 V. Moi-ley, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 776, discussed. In re 
 KowE. Pike v. Hamlyn C. A. [1898] 1 Ch. 153 
 
 Foreign Will, 
 
 — Marriage — Will in French form — Movable 
 
 property in England — French subjects 
 — Husband and wife — English marriage 
 — Eevocation of ante-nuptial will -^ 
 Change of domioil. 
 See CoNrLiOT of Laws. 16. 
 
 — Probate. 
 
 See Cases under Probate. 
 
 90. — Will in foreign language — English tranir 
 lation admitted to probate — Translation alleged to 
 be inaccurate — Bight of Court to look at original 
 will. 
 
 Probate had been granted of a certified 
 English translation of a copy of a French will. 
 A question arose on the construction of the will, 
 
( 2329 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1'891— 1900. 
 
 ( 2330 ) 
 
 WILL (Foreign 'Will) — continued. 
 and it was alleged that the tianBlation was in- 
 correct : — 
 
 Held, none of the parties insisting on an 
 application to the Probate Div. to correct the 
 translation, that the Court might look at the 
 original French, as well as at the English trans- 
 lation, but that the Oourt could not construe the 
 will without the assistance of French lawyers 
 nor until the testator's domicile had been ascer- 
 tained. 
 
 The report of VFit v. L'Blatt (1718) 1 P. 
 Wms. 526, corrected. In re Cliff's Tkusts 
 
 North J. [1892] 2 Ch. 229 
 
 rorfeiture. 
 
 91. — Acceleration of interest — Bemarriage. 
 
 Testator directed his trustees to pay the 
 income of a trust fund to his wife for life or 
 during widowhood, with gifts over on wife's death. 
 The wife remarried : — 
 
 Held, that the gifts over did not take effect 
 until the wife's death, although her life estate 
 determined on her second marriage. In re 
 Tbedwell. jEFPRAr V. Tredwell (No. 1) 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 640 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. In re Alceroyd'i 
 SettUment, [1893] 3 Ch. 363. 
 
 — Alienation — Bankruptcy. 
 
 See Nos. 94, 95, below. 
 
 92. — Alienation — Discretionary trust to apply 
 income "fur benefit of A." — Assignable interest. 
 
 Appointment under a power on trust to pay 
 income to A. for life or until he should become a 
 bankrupt or liquidating debtor, or cease to be 
 entitled to receive the income in his own right. 
 A. assigned his interest for value : — 
 
 Held, that the assignment operated as a cesser 
 of the assignor's title to receive the income. Duty 
 of trustees in applying whole or part of the 
 income of the gift for the benefit of assignor, 
 according to the terms of the will. Eight to 
 overplus. Discretion of trustees in such cases 
 considered. Ira re Bollock. Goodeu. Liokobish 
 Kekewioh J. [1891] W. N. 62 
 
 93. — Alienation — Provision against — Trust — 
 Life interest— Attachment of income by judgment 
 ■creditor of tenant for life— Garnishee order. 
 
 A testator gave his real and personal estate to 
 trustees upon trust to pay to his son so much of 
 the income accruing due during his lifetime " as 
 would not, although the same was payable to lim, 
 be by his act or default or by operation or process 
 of law so disposed of as to prevent his persdnal 
 enioyment thereof, and to apply so much of the 
 same income as would, if the same were payable 
 to my said son, be disposed of as last aforesaid 
 for the benefit of his son's wife and children at 
 the discretion of the trustees. On April 16, 1895, 
 the trustees hart in their hands a sum representing 
 income due and payable to the son. On April 17 
 thev were served by creditors of the son with a 
 earnishee order attaching the money in their 
 hands, and in pursuance thereof they paid over 
 the money to the creditors. On an applica- 
 tion by the son's wife to recover it from the 
 
 "^^Held, that the trusts of the income during the 
 
 Win (Forfeiture)— continuecJ. 
 son's life were valid in law; that the time at 
 which the destination of any instalment of income 
 was to be determined was the moment at which 
 that instalment either became due or was in the 
 hands of the trustees ready for application under 
 the trusts of the will; that the son's title to the 
 money accrued on April 16, 1895, and that the 
 pit. consequently never became entitled to the 
 benefit of the discretionary trust in her favour. 
 In re Sampson. Sampson v. Sampson 
 
 StirUng J. [1898] 1 Ch. 630 
 
 9i. — Alienation or banlrruptoy — Forfeitwre 
 
 A testator gave his estate on trust, after the 
 death of the last of certain annuitants, to divide 
 the same among a certain class. There was a 
 substitutionary clause in favour of children of 
 members of the class, and a forfeiture clause on 
 alienation or bankruptcy : — 
 
 Held, (1) that children of deceased members 
 of the class took whether their parents died in 
 the lifetime of the testator or afterwards ; (2) that 
 the shares were payable on the death of the last 
 annuitant, but vested on the death of the testator ; 
 (3) that the share of X., one of the class, was 
 forfeited on his bankruptcy and undisposed of. 
 In re Jennings. Burnley v. Hakland 
 
 North J. [1892] W. N. 156 
 
 95. — Alienation or banlcruptcy — Time of 
 annulment. 
 
 A testator by his will gave real and personal 
 estate in trust for children with gifts over on 
 alienation or bankruptcy. A child became bank- 
 rupt before the testator's death, and continued 
 undischarged for some years after :— 
 
 Held, that she had incurred a forfeiture of her 
 original life interest, and also of an accrued share 
 which fell in before her discharge. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., (1889) 43 Ch. D. 633, 
 affirmed. Metcalfe v. Metcalfe 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 1 
 
 Distinguished by C. A. West v. Williams, 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 132, 148. 
 
 96. — Assignment inoperative independently of 
 forfeiture clause. 
 
 A will contained a proviso for forfeiture on 
 assignment or attempted assignment of the interest 
 of a beneficiary during a prior tenancy for life : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the forfeiture clause was valid 
 notwithstanding that the reversionary interests 
 were originally vested but liable to be divested ; 
 (2) that a post-nuptial marriage settlement exe- 
 cuted by a niece, one of the reversioners, during 
 the prior tenancy caused a forfeiture, though by 
 the lex loci (South Australia) tlie settlement was 
 inoperative as regarded the niece. In re Porter. 
 CouLSON V. Capper North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 481 
 
 97. — Assignment or attempted assignment- 
 Literal meaning of document nut in conformily 
 with real intention of parties. 
 
 A tenant for life under a will, subject to a gift 
 over on assignment or attempted assignment, on 
 the occasion of a loan to him signed a document 
 which in terms amounted to an equitable assign- 
 ment of his interest in the income. Ko notice of 
 the document was given to the trustees ; it was 
 
( 2331 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2332 ) 
 
 WILL (Forfeiture) — continued. 
 subsequently destroyed by tbe lender, and evi- 
 dence was given that as between borrower and 
 lender it was not intended as a cliarge, and that 
 to have so used it would have been a fraud on the 
 bargain : — 
 
 Eeld, that the document could have been set 
 aside for fraud or mistake, and that the Court 
 could therefore go behind the literal meaning of 
 the document, and that there had been no for- 
 feitm'e. In re Sheward. Sheward v. Brown 
 Kekewioh J. [1893] 3 Ch. 602 
 
 — Banliruptoy — Alienation or. 
 
 See Nos. 94, 95, above. 
 
 98. — " Banlcruptcy" — Foreign lankruptcij — 
 English domicil — Tenant for life. 
 
 The life interest of a domiciled Englishman 
 under a trust by will determinable on bankruptcy 
 or alienation : — 
 
 Held, not to be forfeited by an adjudication 
 in bankruptcy made by the Supreme Court of 
 New Zealand after the death of the testatrix, but 
 subsequently annulled. 
 
 In re Blithman, (1866) L. E. 2 Eq. 23, fol- 
 lowed. In re Haywaed. Haywaed v. Haywaed 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 1 Ch. 905 
 
 99. — Banlcruptcy, Commission of act of — 
 Dismissal of bankruptcy petition — Life interest — 
 Forfeiture — " Liable to be deprived." 
 
 A. was entitled under his mother's will, 
 subject to a prior life interest, to tlie income 
 during his life of a fund, subject to gift over if he 
 should do anything wliereby he was "liable to 
 be deprived " of tlie beneficial enjoyment thereof 
 Before his interest fell into possession he com- 
 mitted an act of bankruptcy. A petition was 
 presented. His interest tlien fell in, and the 
 petition was dismissed; but before the dismissal 
 an instalment of the income became payable to 
 A.:— 
 
 Held, that the forfeiture clause had come into 
 operation and that the gift over took effect. In 
 re Loftus-Otwat. Otway v. Otway 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 2 Ch. 235 
 
 100. — Interference with trustees — Annuity — 
 Frivolous action against trustees. 
 
 Testator gave annuities to his son on con- 
 dition tiiat he did not interfere with the manage- 
 ment of the trust estate. The son brougiit an 
 action agiiiust tlie trustees, which was dicmissed 
 as groundless and frivolous : — 
 
 Held, that he had incurred a forfeiture of his 
 annuities. 
 
 Decision of Fry L.J., (1890) 45 Ch. D. 426, 
 afBrmed. Adams v. Adams 
 
 C. A. [1892] 1 Ch. 369 
 
 — Name and arms clause. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Name and 
 Arms Clause. 
 
 101. — Seceiving order — Determinable life 
 interest — " Become payable to some other perton." 
 
 A will contained a condition determining a 
 life interest on it '■ vesting in or becoming pay- 
 able to some other person " : — 
 
 Held, that the life interest was forfeited on a 
 receiving order being made against the life 
 
 WILL (Forfeiture) — continued. 
 tenant, for, by the force of that order, the life 
 interest became payable to, although it did not 
 vest in, the oflicial receiver. In re Sahtoeis's 
 Estate. Saetobis v. Saetoris 
 
 C. A, [1892] 1 Ch. 11 
 
 Hotchpot Clause. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Advancement. 
 
 Illegitimacy. 
 
 — Illegitimate children. 
 
 jSee Children, JVos. 36—38, above. 
 
 102. — Illegitimate relatives — " My nephew G. 
 A." — Legitimate and illegitimate nephews of same 
 name — Extrinsic evidence. 
 
 A testator appointed as one of his executors 
 " my nephew G. A." He had legitimate and 
 illegitimate nephews of that name. In his will 
 he applied the terms nephew and niece to legiti- 
 mate and illegitimate relativesindiscriminately : — 
 
 Held, that extrinsic evidence was admissible 
 to identify the particular nephew intended. In 
 THE Goods of Ashton Jeune J. [1892] P. 83 
 
 Referred to by Kekewich J. In re Farlser, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 208, 213. 
 
 103. — Illegitimate relatives — " My niece " — 
 Wife's illegitimate grand-niece — Extrinsic evi- 
 dence. 
 
 A testator gave bis residuary estate to his 
 " niece B. C," neither he nor his wife having any 
 niece named B. C, but his wife had two grand- 
 nieces, one legitimate aud the other illegitimate, 
 both named B. C. : — 
 
 Held, that the legitimate grand-niece took, she 
 answering the description sufficiently to exclude 
 evidence in competition with her by the illegiti- 
 mate grand-niece, and that ns there was no latent 
 ambiguity no extrinsic evidence could be ad- 
 mitted. In re PisH. Ingham v. Kaynek 
 
 0. A. [1894] 2 Ch. 83 
 
 104. — Illegitimate relatives — " My wife's rela- 
 tions " — Lord Selborne's Act (37 & oS Vict. c. 37). 
 
 The testator by his will gave all his property 
 to his wile for life, and gave one moiety of the 
 reversion " to my wife's relations as she may 
 direct." The wife was illegitimate, but her 
 parents, who married after her birth, had always 
 treated her as their child, and made no diffevenco 
 between Irt and their children born alter the 
 marriage : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the word "relations" must be 
 read as meaning those persona who would have 
 been her relations had she been legitimate, 
 and that au appointment made by the wife 
 among persons she described as uhiklreu of her 
 brothers aud sisters was valid : not so one in 
 favour of " the natural son of my sister" ; (2) that 
 the power was a power of distribution, not of selec- 
 tion, and therefore, under the rule established by 
 the cases before Lord Selborne's Act (37 & 38 
 Vict. c. 37), only exercisable in favour of those 
 persons who, if .she had been legitimate, would 
 have been her next of kin living at the time of 
 her death, and that tho above rule of construction 
 
( 2333 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2334 ) 
 
 WILL (Illegitimacy)— co»<4ji«e(Z. 
 
 has not been altered by Lord Selbome's Act. 
 
 In re Deakin. Starket v. Eyres 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch. 665 
 
 Followed by North J.'' In re Jeans, [1895] 
 W. N. 98. ' L J 
 
 DisouBsed by Kekewich J. In re Parker, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 208, 212. 
 
 105. — Illegitimate " nephew " — " Nephews and 
 nieces," Gift to—Bisfrihution. 
 
 A testator, tifter giving a legacy to his wife's 
 " nephew " E., gave his residuary estate in 
 trust, as to one moiety, for his wifu's " nephews 
 smd nieces" equally. E. was an illegitimate 
 nephew of the testator's widow: she had also 
 several legitimate nephews and nieces : — 
 
 Held, that E. was entitled to share in the 
 moiety of residue equally with the legitimate 
 nephews and nieces : — 
 
 Seale-Sayne v. Jodrell, [1891] A. C. 304, con- 
 sidered. In re Paekee. Parker v. Osboknb 
 
 Kekewich J. [1897] 2 Ch. 208 
 
 106. — - Illegitimate relatives — " Relatives 
 named." 
 
 A residuary gift to relatives named held 
 to include relatives by affinity as well as consan- 
 guinity, and illegitimate as well as legitimate 
 relatives ; and also persons described as children 
 of legatees named in the will, although not 
 themselves specifically named. 
 
 Decision of C. A., [1891] 44 Ch. D. 304, 
 affirmed. Seale-Hatne v. Jodeell 
 
 H. L. (E.) [1891] A. C. 304 
 
 Eeferred to bv Jeune J. In the Goods of 
 Ashton, [1892] P. 82, 88. 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re ParTier, 
 [1897] 2 Ch. 208. 
 
 Income. 
 
 — Accumulations — Capital or income. 
 
 Bee Cases under Acoumulations. 
 
 — Contingent interest — Intermediate income — 
 
 Maintenance. 
 
 See Infant — ^Maintenance. 28. 
 
 107. — Fund in reversion directed to fall into 
 residue — Residue given in trust for persons in 
 succession. 
 
 A testator directed that a fund should in 
 certain events fall into residue, aud gave suc- 
 cessive life estates in tlie residue. The first 
 tenant for life of the residue died in 1858; the 
 lund fell into the residue in 1892 : — 
 
 Edd, tbat the present tenant for life was 
 entitled to the inteie»t of the entire fund, and 
 that tlie estate of tlie deceased tenant for life Lad 
 no claim thereon. Pigutt v. Pjgott 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 115 
 
 108. — Interim income— Contingent annuity— 
 Capital or income. 
 
 B., in exercise of a power under A.'s will, gave 
 to L. for life witli remainder to L.'s children (i.) a 
 fund set apart to answer legacies under A.'s will 
 which had vested but were not yet payable ; 
 (ii.) Consols set apart to answer a eondiiioual 
 annuity payable at discretion of trustees : — 
 
 Seld, (i.) that B.'s interest in the interim 
 income of the vested legacies was in the nature 
 
 WILL (Income) — continued. 
 of a terminable annuity, and that such income aa 
 between L. and L.'s children must, until the 
 legatees attained twenty-one, be treated as capital 
 and invested, and the dividends only on such 
 investment paid to L. ; (ii.) that any surplus 
 dividends of the Consols set apart for the con- 
 ditional annuity must be paid to L. as income. 
 In re Whitehead. Peacock v. Lucas 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 1 Ch. 678 
 
 109. — Interim income — Contingent gift of 
 leaseholds — Share vesting at twenty-one — Separa- 
 tion from general estate of testator. 
 
 A testator gave leasehold property upon trust 
 to pay the income to his daughter during her life, 
 and after her death to transfer the same to all 
 her children in equal shares, the tbares to vest at 
 twenty-one, and in the case of daughters at 
 twenty-one or marriage. Tbe testator gave his 
 residuary estate upon certain trusts. The daugh- 
 ter died leaving several infant children ; — 
 
 Held, that the effect of the bequest being to 
 separate the leaseholds from the general estate of 
 the testator, the intermediate income until one of 
 the children attained a vested interest was appli- 
 cable to the maintenance of the infants. In re 
 WooDiN. WooDiN V. Glass 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 309 
 
 Interest. 
 
 — Advancements. 
 
 See Will — Advancement. 24, 25. 
 
 Investments. 
 See Cases under Trustee — Investments. 
 
 Joint Tenancy. 
 
 — Absolute gift — Secret trust — Joint tenants — 
 
 Notice. 
 See Teust. 
 
 110. — Children — Gift to A. and to any lawful 
 issue she may have — Eule in Wild's Case, 6 Bep. 
 16 6. 
 
 Testator after bequeathing a legacy gave the 
 residue of his real and personal property to 
 various persons for life, and after the decease of 
 the survivor of them to E., " and to any lawful 
 issue she may have, such issue to tiike a vested 
 interest in my said property upon attaining the 
 age of twenty-one years." The testator died in 
 1889, leaving both real and personal estate. E. 
 died in 1893 without having been married : — 
 
 Held, that the direction that the issue should 
 take vested interests at twenty-one whs inconsis- 
 tent with the use of the word as a term of limita- 
 tion; that B.'s issue took as purchasers, and 
 consequently that her heir-at-law was entitled to 
 the real estate : 
 
 Held, also, as to the personalty, that there was 
 nothing to take the case out of the ordinary rule 
 that under a gift to one and his children the 
 parent and children take conourreutlv as joint 
 tenants ; and, consequently, that E.'s legal per- 
 sonal representative was entitled. In re Wilmot. 
 WiLMOT V. Betteeton - Stirling J. 
 
 [1897] W. N. 44 (15) 
 
 111. — Children — Joint tenancy, or tenancy in 
 common — "Share and share alike." 
 
 A testator devised realty on trusts, inter alia, 
 
{ 2335 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2336 ) 
 
 WILL (Joint Tenancy) — continued. 
 for children and the issue of any then dead (sucli 
 issue standing in loco parentis) share and share 
 alike :— 
 
 Held, (1.) that the sons and daughters, and 
 the issue of a deceased son or daughter as repre- 
 senting their parents, took as tenants in common ; 
 (2.) that there being no words to create a sever- 
 ance as between the issue of deceased children 
 they took inter se as joint tenants. In re Yates. 
 BosTooK V. D'Eynooubt 
 
 North J. [1891] 3 Ch. 83 
 
 — Contingent remainder. 
 
 See Will — Contingent Remainder. 75. 
 
 112. — Co-parceners or joint tenants — Devise 
 to testator's " right Tieirs " — Female heirs — Inherit- 
 ance Act, 1833 (3 <£ 4 Will, i, a. 106), s. 3. 
 
 Testator gave real estate upon trust fon his 
 niece S. for life, and after her death without 
 leaving issue (which event happened) to his 
 " right heirs " for ever. Testator had two sisters 
 M. and A , who predeceased him. M. had two 
 daughters, one of whom was living at testator's 
 death, and the other predeceased him leaving 
 two daughters. A.'s only child was S., the tenant 
 for life. The testator's right heirs, therefore, 
 were his two nieces and his two great-nieces. 
 The question was whether the four ladies took 
 as co-parceners or as joint tenants : — 
 
 Held, that by virtue of s. 3 of the Inheritance 
 Act, 1833, they took as devisees, and not by 
 descent; that co- parcenary was an incident of 
 descent at common law, and could not attach to 
 an estate otherwise acquired; that there was 
 nothing in the A.at to shew an intention that the 
 incident of co-parcenary should attach to such a 
 devise as was mentioned in s. 3 ; and consequently 
 that the four took as joint tenants, and not as 
 co-parceners. In re Bakee. Pubsset v. Hollo- 
 way Stirling J. [1898] W. N. 156 (12) 
 
 — Legacy — Tenancy in common or — Lapse. 
 
 See Will— Lapse. 115. 
 
 Lapse. 
 
 113. — Charitable legacy — Failure of object — 
 Cy-pres. 
 
 (a) a charitable bequest to an institution 
 which comes to an end after the death of the 
 testator, but before the legacy is paid, does not 
 fall into residue, but falls to be administered by 
 the Crown, and will ordinarily be applied for 
 charitable purposes. 
 
 Among testator's " charitable " legacies was a 
 gift to a private orphanage. Before the assets 
 could be distributed the orphanage had ceased to 
 exist : — 
 
 Held, that the property in the legacy became 
 applicrtble by the Crown for charitable purposes. 
 The doctrine of lapse as applicable to a legacy 
 to a charitable objtct in existence at the death of 
 the testator, but subsequently failing, discutserl. 
 
 Decision of Stirling J., [1891] 1 Oh. 373, 
 reversed. In re Sllyin. Sllvin v. HErBURU 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 Ch. 236 
 
 Discussed by Chitty J. In re Eymer, C. A. 
 [1895] 1 Ch. 19, 24. See next Case. 
 
 (b) a testator by his will bequeathed a legacy 
 " to the rector for the time being " of a certain 
 
 WILL (Lapse) — continued. 
 Roman Catholic seminary. He died in 1893. 
 Between the date of the will and his death the 
 seminary had ceased to exist : — 
 
 Held, that the beifaest was for the benefit of 
 the particular seminary ; that institution having 
 ceased in testator's lifetime, the legacy could not 
 be applied cy-prfes, but lapsed. In re Etmeb. 
 Eyjuee v. Stanfield C, A. [1895] 1 Ch. 19 
 
 Eeferred to by C. A. as (o costs. In re 
 Macduff, [1896] 2 Ch. 451, 475. 
 
 114. — Class, Gift to children as a — Issue 
 talcing hy substitution. 
 
 The rule that s. 33 of the Wills Act, 1837. 
 does not apply to gifts to children or grand- 
 children of the testator as a class is not affected 
 by the fact that the class happens to consist of 
 but one person. In re Sib E. Harvey's Estate. 
 Haevey v. Gillow - Chitty J. [1893] 1 Ch. 567 
 — Class, Gift to — Survivorship — Period of dis- 
 tribution. 
 See Will— Class. 49. 
 
 115. — Joint tenancy — Tenancy in common — 
 Lapse. 
 
 A testator gave his residue in trust for A., 
 B., C, and their executors and assigns. A. died 
 before the testator, B. died after him an infant 
 and unmarried : — 
 
 Held, that A., B. and C. were joint feuants 
 for the lives of them and the survivor of them, 
 with several remainders to them as tenants in 
 common ; that C. was entitled to the income of 
 the whole for his life ; and that the share in 
 remainder of A. lapsed and devolved as on an 
 intestacy. In re Atkinson. Wilson v. Atkinson 
 North J. [1892] 3 Ch. 52 
 
 116. — Settlement of shares — Death of legatee 
 in testator's lifetime — Lapse. 
 
 A testator gave his real aud personal estate 
 to trustees upon trust for sale and to hold the 
 proceeds in trust for his four sisters, " provided 
 that my trustees shall retain the share of each of 
 my sisters .... upon the trusts following," i.e., 
 in trust for the sister for life, with power to give 
 a life interest to a husband, and after her death 
 to her children at twenty-one or marriage, 
 and in default to her next of kin. One of the 
 sisters predeceased the testator, leaving infant 
 children : — 
 
 Held, that her share did not lapse, but that 
 her children were entitled to it contingently on 
 attaining twenty-one or marriage. In re PiN- 
 
 HOKNE. MOEETON V. HuGHES 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 2 Ch. 276 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Powell, 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 525. 
 
 117. — Settlement of shares — Husband and 
 wife — Conftruction of will. 
 
 A testatrix gave her real and personal estate 
 to trustees upon trust for sale and conversion, 
 and after payment of debts and legacies, "iu 
 trust for ujy said three daughters in equal 
 shares " ; the trustees were then directt d to 
 retain the share of each daughter upon trust to 
 pay the income to each daughter for life, to her 
 husband for life, and then for her children in the 
 usual way, and in default of children who should 
 attain a vested interest, in trust for the other 
 
( 23B7 ) 
 
 DlGESl' OF OASE:-^, lS9l--1900. 
 
 ( 2;;d8 ) 
 
 WILL (Lapse)— coniiniK'fZ. 
 
 ilaughtcis in equal &liarcs, but so that the share 
 so accruing sliould bo subject to the same trusts 
 as those dechired concerning her original sliare. 
 Oi)e of ti;e daughters having predeceased the 
 testatrix without issue, but leaving a husband: — 
 
 Held, that the share of tlie deceased daughter 
 had not lapsed, and the husband was entitled to 
 receive the income during his life, and subject to 
 this — that it accrued for the benefit of the other 
 daughters, their husbands and children. 
 
 In re Pinhorne, [1894] 2 Oh. 276, followed ; 
 In re Boieiis, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 234, distinguished. 
 Tn re Powell. Campbell v. Campbell 
 
 Cozens Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 165 ; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 525 
 
 , 118. — Tenants in common, Gift to — Codicil 
 directing that one should he " excluded from any 
 interest " — Intestacy. 
 
 A testator gave his property to five persons as 
 tenants in common. He afterwards excluded 
 one of the persons, but gave no direction as to 
 tlie person's share : — 
 
 Held, that the effect of llie exclusion of one 
 did not give property to the others in fourths 
 instead of fifths, but, there bejng no express dis- 
 position of the share, the gift of the share lapsed 
 iiud went to tlio next of kin and heir-at-law. In 
 re HoDGKiNSON. Hancock v. Mellok 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. TS. 9 
 
 — Time — Aoquipseence — Charge of legacies on 
 
 renl eslate, if personal estate insuf- 
 ficient. 
 See Will— Charge of Debts, &c, 31. 
 
 Leaseholds. 
 
 119. — Tenant for life — Semainderman — Cove- 
 nants — Bent — Repairs — I/iahility. 
 
 A testator who died possessed of a leasehold 
 house held by him on a repairing lease bequeathed 
 it directly (without the intervention of trustees) 
 to his niece for life, and after her death to otlier 
 persons absolutely, and appointed executors : — 
 
 Held, that the niece, the tenant for life, was 
 not bound to perform any of the covenants in the 
 
 In re Courtier, (1886) 34 Ch. D. 186, In re 
 Baring, [1893] 1 Ch. 61, and In re Bedding, 
 [1897] 1 Ch. 876, discussed. In re Tomlinson. 
 
 TOMLINSOIf V. AmdKEW 
 
 Kekewich J. [1898] 1 Ch. 232 
 Differed from by North J. In re Betty, 
 [1899] 1 Cb. 821. 
 
 Not followed by Kekewich J. In re Gjers, 
 [1899] 2 Ch. 54. 
 
 Legacy. 
 
 — Abatement of legacies — Advances — Insuf- 
 
 ficient estate — Hotchpot. 
 See Will — Ademption. 17. 
 
 120. — Blended fund — Charge of legacies on 
 residuary realty— Oift of personalty and realty 
 " not otherwise disposed of." 
 
 A. by his will, after making specific devises 
 of realty and bequests of pecuniary legacies, left 
 to B. all realty and personalty to which at his 
 death he was entitled or over which he should 
 have power to dispose by his will " and not 
 
 WILL (Legacy)— corifa'nued. 
 otherwise disposed of." The personalty, after 
 paymi nt of A.'s debts, was insufficient to satisfy 
 thi' legacies : — 
 
 Held, that wliere there is a residuary gift of 
 realty and personalty blended, whether "residue" 
 or some equivalent word is used or not, the 
 legacies are charged on the realty. In re Bawden. 
 National Provincial Bank op England v. 
 Cresswell. Bawden v. Cresswell 
 
 Kekewich J, [1894] 1 Ch. 693 
 
 121. — Blend,ed fund — Charge of realty in aid 
 of personalty. 
 
 When a testator bequeaths pecuniary legacies 
 and then bequeaths the residue of liis real and 
 personal estate, the legacies are charged upon 
 the real estate or its proceeds, but they are pay- 
 able primarily out of the personalty, unless tlm 
 testator directs that they are to be pad out of 
 tlie mixed fund, in which case they are payabli; 
 rateably out of realty and personalty. In re 
 Boards. Knight v. Knight 
 
 North J. [1895] 1 Ch, 499 
 
 — Charge of debts and legacies. 
 
 See Will— Charge of Debts, &c. 3:^. 
 
 — Charitable bequests. 
 
 See Cases under Charity. 
 
 122. — Contingent legacy — Interest. 
 
 S. bequeathed the residue of his real and 
 personal estates to trustees, and directed his 
 trustees to hold a sum '' upon trust to invest tin; 
 same in good security and to pay the same to " 
 certain persons when they shall attain twenty- 
 one, "and if one or more of them die before 
 reaching that age their shares to be equally 
 divided among the survivors," followed by a dis- 
 position of the residue : — 
 
 Held, that the sum was severed for the benefit 
 of the legatees, and that they were entitled to 
 interest as from one year from S.'s death. In re 
 Snaith. Snaith v. Snaith 
 
 North J. [1894] W. N. 115 
 
 123. — Debtor of testatrix — Gift or loan — 
 Admissibility of evidence of intension. 
 
 Testatrix by her will left various legacies to 
 L. and appointed him co-executor with B., who 
 alone proved. At the death of testatrix L. owed 
 her various sums exceeding the amount of the 
 legacies. L. contended that such sums were 
 gifts :— 
 
 Held, (1) that the appointment of L. as exe- 
 cutor released the debt at law although he had 
 not proved the will; (2) that on the evideneo 
 any claim in equity was rebutted by the pre- 
 sumption of the intention of the testatrix In 
 forgive the debt ; (3) that evidence of testatrix's 
 intention to forgive the debt in her lifetime was 
 admissible ; (4) that even if that were not so, tho 
 executor who had proved could not under the cir- 
 cumstances set off against the pit. the debts due 
 from the pit. to the testatrix. In re Applebee. 
 Levbbon v. Beales Stirling J. [1891] 3 Ch. 422 
 
 Referred to by Byrne J. In re GrifUn, [1899] 
 1 Oh. 408, 412. 
 
 124. — Demonstrative or specifle legacy. 
 
 A legacy of " £800 invested in 2| per cent. 
 
 4 F 
 
( 2339 ) 
 
 DIGEST OV CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2340 ) 
 
 WILL (Legacy) — continued. 
 
 Consols " in a will where the context bore on the 
 
 point : — 
 
 Held, to be specific, not demonstrative. In 
 re Pkatt. Pkatt v. Peatt 
 
 North J. [1894] 1 Ch. 491 
 
 125. — Description of legatee — Name — Evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Gift lo Edmund, the son of William. William 
 Iiad rimongst other sons "George Edmund" and 
 " Edward Allison " : — 
 
 Beld, that evidence was admissible to shew 
 that the testator always called the former George, 
 and the latter Edmund, and declaration made in 
 the latter's favour. In re Bowman. Bowman v. 
 Bowman Hathew J. [1891] W. N. 193 
 
 — Devise of land charged with legacies. 
 
 See ExECUTOE — Administration. 9. 
 
 126. — Devise of real estate for life — Devisee 
 aiipointed " residuary legatee." 
 
 M. by his will gave realty to N. for life, then 
 gave pecuniary legacies, and appointed N. his 
 " residuary legatee " : — 
 
 Held, that, primS, facie, " residuary legatee " 
 (lid not extend to realty, and that there was no 
 context to take the words out of the general rule. 
 hi re MoEKis. MoEKis v . Atheeden 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N, 86 
 
 127. — Discretion given to trustee as to appli- 
 calioH — Trust for henefit and advancemeni of 
 legatee. 
 
 A testator by his will directed sums to be 
 invested for the benefit and advancement of his 
 snns, such sums to be applied as the trustees 
 might think fit, and further directed that such 
 sums should be judiciously invested, as they 
 were intended specially for the advancement in 
 life of his sons : — 
 
 Held, that on attaining twenty-one the sons 
 
 were absolutely entitled to the legacies, freed 
 
 from the exercise of any discretion on the part of 
 
 the trustees. In re Johnston. Mills v. Johnston 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] 3 Ch. 204 
 
 128. — Employment of testator — Conslruetiun 
 — Legacy to persons who should have been in tes- 
 tator's employment for more than a specified time. 
 
 A testator directed his trustees "to pay to 
 each man who shall have been in my employ 
 over- ten years the sum of 101. for each year's 
 service beyond the said ten years " : — 
 
 Held, that a man whb had been in the tes- 
 tator's employment for fifteen years, but had left 
 his employment before the date of the will, and 
 was not in his employment at the time of his 
 ileath, was entitled to a legacy of 501. In re 
 f^HAULAND, Kemp v. Rozey- [1896] 1 Ch. 517 
 
 See also C. A. [1896] W. N. 62 (19). 
 
 129. — Infant — Legacy payable at eighteen. 
 Where a will directed legacies to be payable 
 
 to a class on attaining the age of eighteen, and 
 two of the class had attained that age and were 
 infants out of the jurisdiction : — ■ 
 
 Held, that their shares should be paid to the 
 trustees on their undertaking to pay over to the 
 legatees. In re Denekeb. Peters v. Bancbe- 
 EEAN North J. [1896] W. N. 28 
 
 ISO. — Infant child, Legacy to — Interest by 
 way of maintenance — Other provision for main- 
 
 WILL (Legacy) — continue. 
 
 tenance — Incorporation of s. 43 info will — Convey- 
 ancing Act, 1881 (44 * 45 Yict. c. 41), s. 43. 
 
 A legacy by a parent to an infnnt child carries 
 interest by way of maintenance from the death 
 of the testator, notwithstanding that the will 
 contains a provision for the maintenance of the 
 child out of the income of the legacy, or out of 
 the income of a share of residue given to him 
 equally with the other children. Sect. 43 of the 
 Conveyancing Act, 1881, must be treated as in- 
 corporated with every will to which it is applic- 
 able. In re Moodt. Woodeofpe v. Moody 
 
 Kekewich J. [1895] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 131. — Interest — Contingent gift — Distribution 
 
 A testator left his estate on trust after the 
 death of his wife to pay 5000i. to each of his sons 
 A. and B. " who should .... live to attain the 
 age of twenty-one." The wife died in 1891 ; B. 
 attained twenty-one in 1893 : — 
 
 Held, that the legacy was contingent, and that 
 though the legacy must be set apart for the con- 
 venient distribution of the residue, the residuary 
 legatees and not B. were entitled to the interest 
 thereon from 1891 to 1893. In re Inman. 
 Inman v. Eolls Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 518 
 
 — Interest — Contingent legacy. 
 
 See No. 122, above. 
 
 — Interest — Date from which to run. 
 
 See Interest. 2. 
 
 — Lapse. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Lapse. 
 
 — Legatee, Suit by — Kevivor. 
 
 See Peaotioe — Eevivor. 177. 
 
 — Limitations, Statutes of. 
 
 See Limitations, Statutes op — Legacy. 
 
 132. — Misdescription — Specific gift — " Deben- 
 ture stock or shares." 
 
 N. by his will gave legacies of " 5001. deben- 
 ture stock or shares of tlie S. Co.," of "850 
 ordinary shares in the S. Co.," of " 250 fully paid- 
 up shares in the said co.," and of " 50 shares in 
 the said co." He then gave to trustees " 5000Z. 
 debenture stock or shares of tlie S. Co., 350 
 ordinary shares in the same co., 1500Z. debenture 
 stock or shares in the B. Co., and 35 shares in the 
 D. & H. Ry. upon trust to continue the same in 
 their present state of investment. N. at his 
 death had debentures and ordinary shares in the 
 S. Co. and debentures in the B. Co. In neither 
 CO. were there any debenture stock or shares other 
 than ordinary shares : — 
 
 Held, that by debenture stock or shares N. 
 intended to describe something different from 
 ordinary shares, as to the proper designation of 
 which he was in doubt, and must be taken to 
 have meant debentures, that the gift of 5000J. 
 debenture stock or shares was clearly specific, 
 and that, looking at this and other indications 
 in the will, all the gifts were specific. In re 
 NoTTAOE. Jones v. Palmek (No. 2) 
 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 657 
 
 133. — Non-appropriation to answer legacy- 
 Eight of legatee to share in increase of funds. 
 
 A will containing a power to postpone sale 
 and conversion of estate, gave a sum on trust for 
 A. for life, with trusts over for his children. No 
 
( 2341 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2342 ) 
 
 WILL (Legacy) — continuecL. 
 appropriation was made in respect of the sum, 
 and A. was paid 4 per cent, interest thereon. The 
 investments were unchanged, and had greatly in- 
 creased in value. The trustee was a beneliciary 
 of the residuary ; — 
 
 Seld, the residuary owners were the owners 
 of the estate subject to a charge for the legacy, 
 and that A. and his children were not entitled 
 to share in the increase. In re Campbell. 
 Campbell v, Campbell (No. 2) 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 3 Ch. 468 
 
 134. — Priority of wife — Insufficient estate — 
 Abatement of legacy. 
 
 Where the personalty is insufficient to pay 
 all legacies in full a legacy to the testator's wife 
 for her immediate requirements is not entitled to 
 priority, and is liable to abatement, though 
 directed to be paid within three months after the 
 decease of the testator. In re Schweder's 
 Estate. Oppenheim v. Sohwedeb (No. 1) 
 
 Chitty J. [1891] 3 Ch. 44 
 
 — Satisfaction. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Satisfaction. 
 
 — Specific contingent legacy — Intermediate in- 
 
 come. 
 
 See Infant — Maintenance. 29. 
 
 — Specific legacy. 
 
 See Will — ^Ademption, 18. 
 
 135. — Specific or demonstrative legacies — Be- 
 quest of pecuniary legaciei — Bequest of " residue 
 and remainder " of specific mortgage debts — Intes- 
 tacy — Undisposed of personal estate acquired 
 between dates of will and death — Administration 
 —Fund applicable for payment — Ambiguity — 
 Intention — Extrinsic evidence, admissibility of — 
 Evidence dehors the vrill — Construction of will. 
 
 A testator, after directing payment of his 
 debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, 
 bequeathed a number of pecuniary legacies, and 
 then gave " all the residue and remainder " of 
 two specified mortgage debts then due to him, 
 after payment of his debts and funeral and 
 testamentary expenses (but not adding "and 
 legacies "), to three persons named. At the date 
 of the will the testator's personal estate consisted 
 of the two mortgage debts, which were just 
 sufficient for payment of the legacies (if payable 
 thereout), debts, and funeral and testamentary 
 expenses. Subsequently to the date of his will 
 the testator became possessed of further personal 
 estate, but as the will contained no general resid- 
 uary gift this remained undisposed of. The 
 total personal estate, exclusive of the two mort- 
 gage debts, was not sufficient for payment of the 
 debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and 
 legacies. 
 
 On an originating summons to ascertain in 
 what order the assets should be applied : — 
 
 Held, by Stirling J., that " the residue and 
 remainder" of the two mortgage debts meant 
 what was left after payment thereout of the debts, 
 funeral and testamentary expenses only, and 
 that the undisposed of personalty could alone be 
 resorted to for the general pecuniary legacies : 
 
 But held, on appeal (Bigby L.J. dissenting), 
 that "the residue and remainder" of the two 
 mortgage debts meant what was left after payment 
 
 WILL (Jjegacy)— continued. 
 
 thereout of the general pecuniary legacies as well 
 
 as of the debts, &c. : 
 
 Held, also, by the 0. A., that the general 
 pecuniary legacies were specific, and consequently 
 that the legatees of the residue of the mortgage 
 debts — though they were, as was admitled, en- 
 titled, if any of the debts and funeral and testa- 
 mentary expenses were paid out of the mortgage 
 debts, to have the amount so paid recouped out 
 of the undisposed of personalty — were not entitled 
 to throw any part of the general pecuniary legacies 
 upon the undisposed of personalty. 
 
 The admissibility of extrinsic evidence in aid 
 of the interpretation of wills, discussed. In re 
 Grainger. Dawson v. Higqins 
 
 C. A. [1900] W. N. 158 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 756 
 
 136. — Specific or general legacy — Payment of 
 debts, &c. 
 
 A testator having property in England and 
 India only, after directing payment of debts, &c., 
 gave his English property to one daughter and 
 her children, and the Indian property in moieties 
 to each of his two daughters and their chil- 
 dren : — 
 
 Beld, that both gifts were specific, and the 
 executors were right in paying the debts, &o., 
 rateably out of each legacy, and not charging the 
 whole on the English property. In re Hamilton. 
 Woodward v. Simpson 
 
 Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 74 
 
 137. — Trees — Legacy to •plant trees. 
 
 A bequest of money to be laid out in planting 
 trees on an estate of which the testator was tenant 
 for life : — 
 
 Meld, primarily for the benefit of the owners 
 for the time being, and to belong to persons 
 entitled to the estate absolutely. In re Bowes. 
 Earl Stbathmore v. Vane 
 
 North J. [1896] 1 Ch, 507 
 
 Lost Will. 
 
 138. — Evidence — Presumption that it was 
 destroyed by testator — Presumption against fraudu- 
 lent abstraction — Appeal from New Zealand. . 
 
 Where a will duly executed, traced to the 
 testatoi's possession and last seen there, is not 
 forthcoming on his death, the presumption is 
 that it was destroyed by himself, 'i'o rebut it 
 there must be sufficient evidence that it was not 
 destroyed by the testator animo revooandi ; and 
 held in this case that concurrent findings that it 
 had not been rebutted could not be disturbed. 
 This is a presumption against its fraudulent 
 abstraction either before or after his death, but 
 the circumstances which render such abstraction 
 possible must be taken into account in arriving at 
 the result of the evidence. Allan v. Mobbison 
 P. C. [1900] A. C. 604 
 
 Marriage. 
 
 139. — Condition in restraint of marriage — 
 Children— Gift over. 
 
 B. bequeathed his residuary estate in trust for 
 his daughter M. for her separate use for life, witli 
 a remainder to M.'s children, remainder over. 
 By a codicil E. expressed his will to be that M. 
 should not marry, and in case of her "marriage 
 
 4 F 2 
 
( 2Bi3 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASEB, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2344 ) 
 
 Will (Marriage) — continued. 
 or death" bequeathed the residuary estate to tlie 
 person entitled under the gift over. Wigrani V.-C. 
 decided (2 Hare, 570) that the limitation over on 
 M.'s marriage by the codicil was void bo far as 
 regarded M.'s life interest : — 
 
 HeJd, (1) that the will and codicil must be 
 construed together, (2) that the true construction 
 was that the codicil did not make an original and 
 independent gift of, but provided that the pro- 
 perty given by the will was fo go over on M.'s 
 marriage or deatli, and (.3) that, as it could not go 
 over on M.'s marriage, flie children were entitled. 
 MoELEY V. Eennoldson C. a. [1895] 1 Ch. 449 
 
 140. — Condition not to marry — In terrorem 
 — Blended gift of real and personal estate — Con- 
 struction of wiU. 
 
 P. by his will, dated in 1897, after appointing 
 his wife E. P. executrix of his will, proceeded os 
 follows : " I give and bequeath unto my wife R. P. 
 all my estate and effects, both re,al and personal, 
 and house and land property whatsoever and 
 wheresoever situate, and of what nature and 
 quality soever. My dear wife R. P. will have 
 whole and sole conlrul of my property during her 
 life on condition that R. P. do not marry again 
 after my decease." The will contained no gift 
 over on breacli of the condition : — 
 
 Held, following Buddy v. Oresliam, (1878) 2 
 L. R. Ir. 442, that, the will having in one devise 
 to the same person massed together realty and 
 porsou.alty, the same rule of law applicable to 
 personalty, namely, that the condition was void 
 as being one merely in terrorem, operated as to 
 both realty and personalty, and that therefore the 
 condition as to the realty was also void. In re 
 Pettifer. Pettifer v. Pettlfeb 
 
 Byrne J. [1900] W. N. 182 
 
 — Intermarriage of two members of a class. 
 See Will— Class. 48. 
 
 141. — Remarriage— Gift to a son and his wife 
 and children in succession — Remarriage of son 
 after date of will — Construction of will. 
 
 A testator devised and bequeathed a share of 
 liis residuary estate upon trust to pay the income 
 thereof to his son B. for life, and after his decease 
 to B.'s wife for life, and after her decease upon 
 trust as to both income and corpus for B.'s 
 children living at B.'s decease ; and the will pro- 
 vided for the cesser of B.'s interest upon alienation 
 or bankruptcy, in which event the trusters were 
 to apply the income of the share thereinbefore 
 directed to be invefctcd for B. " and his family " 
 towards the maintenance of B., "his wife and 
 children." B. had a wife living at the date of 
 the will ; but she afterwards died, and he married 
 a second wife, who survived him : — 
 
 Held, that there was suiHcient context in the 
 will to rebut the presumption that the gift to B.'s 
 wife for life was confined to the wife living at the 
 date of the will, and that the widow was entitled. 
 In re Dbew. Drew v. Drew - Stirling J. 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 336 
 
 142. — Restraint of marriage — Marriage with 
 consent — Will — Alternative bequests. 
 
 A testator by his will bequeathed to his son 
 out of personal estate an annuity of 2000?., and, 
 iu the event of his marriage, an additional annuity 
 
 WILL (Marriage) — continued. 
 of lOOoi. ; and by a codicil he directed that the 
 additional annuity should be payable only if the 
 son should have married with the previous con- 
 sent in writing uf the trustees of the will : — 
 
 Held, that, as the testator had provided for 
 the son in any event, the condition as to the 
 consent was not in terrorem and was valid. 
 
 The principle of Gillet v. Wray, (1715) 1 P. 
 Wins. 284, applied. 
 
 Reynish v. Martin, (1746) 3 Atk. 330, distin- 
 guisbe'il. In re Nouese. Hampton v. Nobrse 
 
 StirUng J, [1898] W. N. 150 (3) ; 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 63 
 
 Married Woman. 
 
 — Attestation. 
 
 See Will — Attestation. 
 
 143. — Death of husband — Re-execution — Wills 
 Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 24. 
 
 Sect. 8 of the Married Women's Property Act, 
 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 6.3), applies to every will 
 of a married woman who dies after the date of 
 the Act. Ill re Wylie. Wtlie v. Moffat 
 
 Eomer J. [1895] 2 Ch. 116 
 
 144. — '• Marrif.d woman " — Construction of 
 will. 
 
 Testator by his will directed his trustees to 
 divide trust funds among such of his seven 
 children as should be alive at the period of dis- 
 tribution, and the issue of such of them as shoidd 
 then be dead. He directed " that the share of 
 each of my said daughters, who at the time of 
 such division shall be a married woman, shall be 
 held by my truitees upon trust to pay the annual 
 income thereof into her hands for her separate use 
 on her sole receipt and so that she may nevt-r 
 anticipate the same, and after her decease the 
 s.ad share shall be held iu trust for her childien 
 as slie shall by deed or will appoint, and, in de- 
 fault of appointment, ibr all her children who 
 shall attain twenty-one years, in equal shares, 
 and if there sliall not be any such child, then in 
 trust for such person or persons as she shall by 
 deed or will appoint." 
 
 The period of distribution had now arrived. 
 Two of the testator's children were now alive, 
 C, a, married woman with children, and D., a 
 widow who had children ; all the other children 
 of the testator meiitioned iu his will were dead 
 without issue. The question was whether D. was 
 absolutely entitled to half the fund, or whether 
 she was only entitled to a life interest : — 
 
 Held, that D. took her half of the fund 
 absolutely. Eudall v. Nicholls 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 133 
 
 146. — Separate use — Implication. 
 
 Where in a will there are no words expressly 
 giving income to a married woman for her 
 separate use, a subsequent restriction or anticipa- 
 tion (irrespective of coverture) or alienation will 
 not create a gift to her separate use by im- 
 plication. Stogdon v. Lee 
 
 C. A, [1891] 1 Q. B. 661 
 
 146. — Will before Act of 1SS2— Property ac- 
 quired under the Act. 
 
 A married woman, dying iu the lifetime of 
 her husband, can leave, by will made during 
 
( 2345 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 2346 ) 
 
 WILL (Married Woman) — continued. 
 coverture and before tbe Act of 1882, property 
 acquired under that Act. In re Bowen. James 
 V. James - - Chitty J, [1892] 2 Ch. 291 
 
 Marshalling, 
 
 — Direction for payment of debts — stock. specifi- 
 
 cally bequeathed charged in testator's 
 
 lifetime. 
 
 See Will— Charge of Debts, &c. 32. 
 
 147. — Gift of legacies followed by gift of real 
 and personal estate in one mass — Mortgaged estate 
 devised free from incumbrances — Pecuniary 
 legatees and annuitants — Priorities — Marshalling 
 since Real Estate Cliarges Act, 1854 (17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 113). 
 
 A testator, who died in 1889, after legacies of 
 1001. to four of his children, made several speoifio 
 devises, freed and discharged from any mortgages 
 there might be thereon at tbe time of his death, 
 fur the benefit of a son and three daughters, and 
 declared that if he should sell any of the houses 
 thereinbefore given for the benefit of his daughters, 
 his trustees should out of his residuary estate 
 stand possessed of a sum equivalent to the price 
 received for the same upon trusts similar to those 
 declared respecting the house sold : the testator 
 then give all other his real and personal estate 
 upon trust to pay annuities of 2501. to each of his 
 sons, and out of the balance of the income thereof 
 to pay the specific incumbrances upon the said 
 estate, and after payment oif of the said incum- 
 brances, upon trust to assign his said residuary 
 estate to his two sons equally. The testator sold 
 one of the spocifioally devised houses for 9800Z. 
 The estate proved insufficient for payment in 
 lull to all the beneficiaries: — 
 
 Held, (1) that the four pecuniary legacies 
 were charged upon the entire residue, and had 
 prioiity over all other payments directed to be 
 made to beneficiaries ; (2) that the annuities 
 were only given to the sons in their capacity of 
 residuary legatees, and were therefore not pay- 
 able until the sum representing proceeds of sale 
 of realty sold by the testator, and the mortgage 
 debts on the specifically devised realty, had been 
 provided for; (3) that the 9800Z., representing 
 proceeds of sale, was to be treated as an ordinary 
 legacy made payable out of residue ; and (4) that 
 the rule in Lutkinsy. Leigh, (1734) Gas. t. Tal. 53, 
 tliat the pecuniary legatee has priority over the 
 devisee, although the devisee was under the will 
 entitled as against a residuary legatee to have 
 the mortgage debt paid off out of residue, applied, 
 not having been expressly negatived by the 
 testator, and that the devisees of the mortgaged 
 property were not entitled to compete with the 
 legatees. 
 
 Porcher v. WiUon, (1866) 14 W. K. 1011, 
 followed ; Smith v. Smith, (1860) 10 Ir. Ch. Eep. 
 89 and 461, not followed. In re Smith. 
 Sjiith v. Smith Eomer J. [1899] 1 Ch. 365 
 
 Mistake. 
 
 — Class— Gift void for uncprtaiLily. 
 
 See Will — Uncertainty. 208. 
 
 CoiTCctiou ou grant of probate. 
 
 ScePnOEATE. 1(17—111). 
 
 WILL (Mistake) — continued. 
 
 148. — Erroneous recital — Eesiduary gift — In- 
 tention to exclude. 
 
 A testatrix in her will reciting erroneously 
 that she had settled half of a special fund on A., 
 gave the remainder of the special fund to B. : — 
 
 Held, that the erroneous recital did not act as 
 a gift to A., but it shewed an intention that B. 
 should have only half the fund, and that the 
 balance went to the residuary legatee. In re 
 Bagot. Paton v. Oemehod 
 
 C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 348 
 
 — Foreign will — Mistranslation. 
 
 See Will— Foreign Will. 90. 
 
 — Gift to class — Mistake as to number — Ascer- 
 
 tainment of persons entitled to legacy. 
 See Will— Class. 50, 51. 
 
 Mortmain. 
 See Cases under Chakity — Mortmain. 
 
 Name and Arms Clause. 
 
 149. • — Special occupant — Forfeiture— Cesser 
 of life estate — Instate pur autre vie — Dower. 
 
 By a will freehold and personal property 
 were settled in tail, with a name and armsclaust', 
 with a gift over on non-compliance with the 
 clanse. A., the tenant for life, did not comply, 
 and his estate went over to B., liis only son, who 
 had previously executed a disentailing deed, and 
 subsequently died in his father's lifetime intestaio 
 and without issue, but leaving a widow. A. was 
 his son's liuir-at-law, sole next of kin, and legal 
 personal representative : — 
 
 Held, (1) that A. took the rents and profits as 
 special occupant, and the income of the person- 
 alty as legal representative of B. ; (2) that B.'s 
 wife was not entitled to dower. In re Michell. 
 Moore v. Moohe Stirling J. [1892] 2 Ch. 8? 
 
 150. — Use of surname. 
 
 Under a name and arms clause directing a 
 devisee to assume and use the prescribed name 
 " alone or together " with his own family 
 name ; — 
 
 Held, that the devisee had an option to use 
 the prescribed name either before or after his own 
 family name, and that the use of the prescribed 
 name before his own surname was a sufficient 
 compliance with the terms of the devise. 
 
 D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, {i^l5) l Ch. D. 441, 
 distinguished. In re Eveesley. Mildmay v. 
 M[LD5iAY Byrne J. [1899] W. N. 208 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch, 96 
 
 Navy and Marines. 
 Navy and Marines ( Wills) Act, 1865 (28 & 29 
 Vict. a. 72), am'Mded by 60 & 61 Viet. c. 15. 
 
 Perpetuity. 
 
 151. — Charitable bequest — Conditional gift. 
 In 1847 a testator gave money in support of a 
 
 school, but provided that, if the Government 
 should at any time establish a general system of 
 education, the money should go over to private 
 mJividiials ; — 
 
 Held, that the gift ovir was bad for remote- 
 ness, as being a gift oyer of a future interest to 
 
( 2347 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2348 ) 
 
 WILL (Perpetuity)— cojiKmMecJ. 
 arise on an event which need not necessarily 
 arise within perpetuity limits. In re Bowen. 
 Lloyd Phillips v. Davis 
 
 Stirling J. [1893] 2 Ch. 491 
 
 1S3. — Cliarifdble bequest — Conditional gift — 
 Gift over to another charity. 
 
 The rule against perpetuities has no applica- 
 tion to a transfer in a certain event of property 
 from one charity to another. In re Ttlbb. 
 Tylee v. Tyler C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 252 
 
 Distinguished by Stirling J. In re Bowen, 
 [1893] 2 Ch. 491. 
 
 153. — Charitable bequest — Contingent gift to 
 volunteer corps. 
 
 The bequest of an annuity to a volunteer 
 corps on the appointment of the next Lieut.-Col. 
 is void as infringing the rule against perpetuities. 
 In re Lord Stbatheden and Campbell. Alt v. 
 Lord Stbatheden and Campbell 
 
 Eomer J. [1894] 3 Ch. 265 
 
 Eeferred to by Kekewioh J. In re Nottage, 
 [1895] 2 Ch. 649, 653. 
 
 154. — Charitable bequest — Encouragement of 
 yachting. 
 
 N. by Iiis will gave a sum the interest of 
 which was to be expended in providing a cup 
 to be given for the encouragement of yacht- 
 racing : — 
 
 Held, that the gift was not charitable and was 
 void for remoteness. In re Nottage. Jones v. 
 Palmer (No. 1) C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 649 
 
 165. — Default of issue — Gift in — Application 
 topersonal estate of limitations framed by mhtalic 
 as for real estate — Repugnancy. 
 
 L. bequeathed personalty to P. for life with 
 remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, 
 and in default of such issue to the sons of thiee 
 ladies, B., M., and F., successively in tail 
 male : — 
 
 Held, that as the personalty could not vest, if 
 at all, in any person who would not come into 
 e-xistence within a life in being at the time of 
 the death of L., the gift was not void as infringing 
 the rule against perpetuities. Application of 
 this principle to successive limitations, in the 
 forms properly applicable to real estate, of 
 property erroneously supposed by the testator to 
 be unconverted, but in fact converted into per- 
 sonalty. In re Lowman. Devenish v. Pester 
 C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 348 
 
 Explained and distinguished by 0. A. In re 
 Hocking, [1898] 2 Oh. 567. 
 
 Followed by Cozens-Hardy J. In re Carter, 
 [1900] 1 Oh. 801, 802. 
 
 156. — Power of appointment, Invalid — 
 Validity of limitations in default of appointment. 
 
 Limitations depending or expectant upon a 
 prior limitation which is void for remoteness are 
 themselves invalid ; but limitations in default of 
 appointment under a power which is void for 
 remoteness are not necessarily invalid unless they 
 are themselves obnoxious to the rnle against 
 perpetuities. Gift in trust for A. for life, re- 
 mainder to her husband for life, remainder to 
 children as [larcnts or survivor should appoint, 
 
 WILL (Perpetuity) — continued. 
 and in default of appointment to children in 
 equal shares.. At testatrix's death A. was un- 
 married : — 
 
 Held, that even assuming that the power 
 conferred on A.'s husband, who might be a 
 person not born at testatrix's death, was invalid, 
 the trusts in default of appointment were 
 valid, there being nothing in them obnoxious to 
 the rule against perpetuities. In re Abbott. 
 Peacock v. Fbigout Stirling J. [1893] 1 Ch. 54 
 
 — Remoteness — Accumulations. 
 
 See Cases under Accumulations. 
 
 157. — Remoteness — Class — Gift at twenty-four 
 — Accumulation. 
 
 A residuary gift to all the children of W. (a 
 living person) as they should severally attain 
 twenty-four, held void for remoteness. Willeeton 
 V. Stocks Kekewich J. [1892] W. N. 29 
 
 158. — Remoteness — Class, Gift to — Proviso for 
 re-settlement — Separate application. 
 
 A testator gave his residuary estate in trust, 
 after the death of M. and her husband, for all 
 the daughters of M. who should attain twenty-ono 
 or marry under that age ; with a proviso that the 
 share of any daughter should be held upon trust 
 for her for life, and after her death upon similar 
 trusts for her children as were thereinbefore 
 declared for the children of M. M. had one 
 daughter only, the pit., who attained twenty-one, 
 and she was born in the lifetime of the 
 testator : — 
 
 Held, that the proviso for re-settlement of the 
 shares must be construed as applicable to each 
 share separately ; and that although it would 
 have been void for remoteness in the case of 
 daughters born after the death of the testator, it 
 was valid in the case of the pit., and therefore she 
 was only entitled to a life interest in the fund. 
 In re Kussell. Dorebll v. Dorkell 
 
 C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 698 
 
 Eeferiod to by Ohitty J. Bates v. Kesterton, 
 [1896] 1 Oh. 159, 162. 
 
 159. — Remoteness — Class — Gift to class on 
 " attaining twenty-fiveyears " — Yested or contingent 
 gift. 
 
 A gift to children of M. in being, and to other 
 grandchildren to be hereafter born, " as and when 
 they shall respectively attain the age of twenty- 
 five years," with powers of maintenance and * 
 advancement, &o., held to be a contingent gift to 
 a class to be ascertained when the first of the 
 children of M. attained twenty-five, and to be 
 void for remoteness. In re Mervin. Mervin v. 
 Grossman - Stirling J. [1891] 3 Ch. 197 
 
 Followed bv Stirling J. In re Stevens, [1896] 
 W. N. 24 (12)." 
 
 160. — Remoteness — Gift over on a compound 
 event — Splitting gift over. 
 
 A testator by bis will gave property to a 
 daughter, her children and grandehildreu, in terms 
 which made the gift vcid for remoteness. There 
 was a gift over in ease, as happened, the daughter 
 died without issue : — 
 
 Held, that the gift over could not be split up 
 so as to make severnl gifts over on the several 
 
( 2349 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2350 ) 
 
 WILL (Perpetuity) — continued. 
 
 possible contingenciea, and was also void for 
 
 remoteness. In re Benob. Smith v. Bence 
 
 C. A. [1891] 3 Ch. 242 
 Followed by Byrne J. In re Bancoch, [1900] 
 W.N. 58. 
 
 161' — Remoteness — Gravel pits — Direction to 
 carry on business till gravel pits were exhausted — 
 liesiduary gift — Children of child dead at date of 
 will. 
 
 A testator by his will directed trustees to 
 carry on his business as gravel contractor till his 
 freehold gravel pits were exhausted, and then to 
 sell the freehold lands on which they were situate 
 and plant, &o., and hold the proceeds in trust for 
 children then living who should attain the age of 
 twenty-one, &o. He also directed his trustees to 
 hold the residue of his estate upon trust for sale 
 and investment, and to divide the income equally 
 among his children during their lives, and on 
 the death of any child, whether before or after 
 his own death, to hold the corpus of such child's 
 share in trust for any children of such child : — 
 
 Meld, that the directions for the sale of the 
 pits, and the division of the proceeds of sale were 
 void for remoteness, and that the proceeds of sale 
 fell into the residue : — 
 
 Held, also, that children of a daughter of 
 testator, who died before the date of his will, 
 were not included in the residuary gift. 
 
 Decision of KekewichJ., [1894] 2 Ch. 310, 
 affirmed. In re Wood. Tullett v. Colville 
 
 C. A. [1894] 3 Ch. 381 
 
 162. — Remoteness — Invalid trust for sale — 
 Conversion — Meal or personal estate — Right of bene- 
 ficiaries to elect. 
 
 By a trust for sale void as infringing the rule 
 against perpetuities a testator devised a freehold 
 house to trustees, subject to a lease for a term 
 whereof forty-nine years were unexpired, upon 
 trust to pay the rent during the term to certain 
 named persons, and directed that upon the expira- 
 tion of the lease the freehold should be sold, and 
 the proceeds of sale distributed among certain 
 other named persons : — 
 
 Held, that notwithstanding the invalidity of 
 the trust for sale, the legatees of the proceeds of 
 tale were entitled to the benefits intended for 
 them by the testator inasmuch as being ascer- 
 tained within the limits of the rule they had the 
 right In equity to elect to take the property as 
 real estate. In re Davekon. Bowen v. Ohubohill 
 Chitty J. [1893] 3 Ch. 421 
 
 Oonsidered by Kekewich J. In re Wood, 
 [1894] 2 Ch. 310 ; afBrmed by 0. A. [1894] 3 Oh. 
 381. 
 
 163. — Remoteness — Invalid trust for sale- 
 Conversion— Share of proceeds, whether real or 
 personal estate. 
 
 A trust for sale cannot in equity convey real 
 into personal estate unless it is valid and 
 efifeotive. 
 
 Fur the purposes of the rule agamst per- 
 petuities there is no difference between a trust 
 for sale and a power of sale where the sulo is 
 intended to be completed by a conveyance to the 
 purchaser of the legal estate vested in the 
 trustees. 
 
 WIIiIi (Perpetuity)— coniinMecZ. 
 
 A trust for sale contained in a will was void 
 as infringing the rule against perpetuities, but 
 the trusts of the property and the rents and 
 profits until sale were good, and the interests of 
 the beneficiaries did not fail : — 
 
 Held, that the real and not the personal 
 representatives of a deceased beneficiary were 
 entitled to the proceeds of a sale of the real estate 
 made under the order of the Court. Goodiek v. 
 Edmunds Stirling J. [1893] 3 Ch. 455 
 
 Considered by Kekewich J. In re Wood, 
 [1894] 2 Oh. 310; affirmed by C. A. [1894] 
 3 Ch. 381. 
 
 164. — Remoteness — Maintenance clause — ■ 
 Separable. 
 
 A gift to the children of testator's son G. who 
 should attain twenty-four is void for remoteness, 
 but a maintenance clause in favour of such 
 children is separable and valid. Only such 
 children as are under twenty-one take the benefit 
 of the clause in such a ease. In re Watson. 
 Cox V. Watson Chitty J. [1892] W. N. 192 
 
 165. — Remoteness — Power of sale — Life estate 
 — Limitation over — Discretion — Duration. 
 
 Where in a deed or will real and personal 
 estate is limited to one for life, and upon his 
 death on trust to divide it among certain persons 
 with power or authority to the trustees to sell 
 at such times as they shall think fit all or any of 
 the estate for tlie purposes of the division : — 
 
 Held, that the power of sale was not void as 
 infringing the law against perpetuities, but might 
 be exercised within a reasonable time after the 
 death of the tenant for life, and after the property 
 has absolutely vested in possession, if on the 
 construction of the instrument such appeared to 
 be the settlor's or testator's intention. In re 
 Lord Sudelby and Baines and Co. 
 
 Chitty J. [1894] 1 Ch. 334 
 
 Discussed by Kekewich J. In re Dyson and 
 Fowlce, [1896] 2 Oh. 720. 
 
 — Keraoteness — Reverter — Shifting use. 
 
 See Vendoe and Puechaseb — Title. 7(J. 
 
 166. — Remoteness — Splitting gift over — Abso- 
 lute gift — Cutting down — Construction of will. 
 
 The question in this case was whether the 
 testator had made alternative gifts over on the 
 happening of two events, or a gift over in one 
 event involving two things : — • 
 
 Held, as a matter of construction, that the 
 gift over could not be split so as to make it good 
 in the event which had happened, and that it 
 was, therefore, void for remoteness ; that the gift 
 was an absolute gift in the first instance, and 
 that, the attempt to cut this gift down being 
 void for remoteness the absolute gift remained. 
 
 In re Benee. Smith v. Bence, [1891] 3 Cli. 
 242, and In re Harvey. Peeh v. Savory, (1888) 
 39 Oh. D. 289, followed. 
 
 Decision of Byrne J., [1900] W. N. 58, affirmed. 
 In re Hancook. Watson v. Watson 
 
 C, A. [1900] W. N. 270 
 
 167. — Remoteness — Vesting —Maintenance — 
 Intestacy — Construction of will. 
 
 A testator bequeathed a sum of 12,000Z. to 
 trustees, upon trust to pay the income thereof 
 to a daughter during her life, and after her 
 
( 2351 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1801—1900. 
 
 ( 2352 ) 
 
 WILL (Perpetuity) — continued. 
 cleath to pay 1000!. to Ler husband, if then 
 living, and subject as aforesaid, as to capital 
 and income, on trust for all the children of 
 the daughter when they should attain twenty- 
 five, but not before, and, if more than one, in 
 equal shares, and in case there should not be 
 "any such child" the fund was to form part of 
 his residue. The testator declared that, until 
 the 12,000!. should be invested, his trustees 
 should pay to his daughter, or, in the event of ber 
 death, to her husband and children, interest on 
 tlieir respective portions. The testator also de- 
 clared that his trustees might at their discretion 
 raise any part or parts (not exceeding together 
 one moiety) of the expectant shure of any grand- 
 child under his will, and apply the same for his 
 or her advancement, &c. And the testator em- 
 powered his trustees to apply all or any part of 
 ihe income arising from the expectant share of 
 any grandchild under his will, after the death 
 of the preceding owner for life thereof, for the 
 maintenance and education of each such grand- 
 child, and he directed his trustees to invest and 
 accumulate the unapplied income in augmenta- 
 tion of the capital of such share. 
 
 By a codicil the testator directed his trustees 
 to hold a moiety of the residue of his estate, real 
 and personal, in trust to pay the income thereof 
 to a son during-his life; and after his death for 
 his child or children absolutely upon their attain- 
 ing twenty-five. And In the event of the death 
 (if either or all the son's children before attaining 
 twenty-five, then upon trust to pay the sliare of 
 tlie child or children so dying to another son 
 absolutely: — 
 
 Held, that under the gift of the 12,000J., and 
 also under the gift of a moiety of the residue, the 
 grandoliildren took immediate vested interests, 
 subject to their being divested in case they did 
 ]iot attain twenty-five, and that the trusts were 
 not void fur remoteness. 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J. reversed. 
 
 I'er Lindley M.E. and Sir F. H. Jeune, Fox 
 
 v. Fvx, (1875) L. E. 19 Eq. 286, approved. In re 
 
 TURNEY. TUENET V. TuHMKY [1899] W. N. 211 ; 
 
 C. A. [1899] 2 Ch. 739 
 
 Power of Appointment. 
 See Cases under Power. 
 
 Precatory Trust. 
 
 168. — " In Ihe fullest confidence " — Absolute 
 (jift — Gift on condition — Election. 
 
 A testator by his will gave his residuary 
 estate to his wife, her heirs, executors, admiuis- 
 trators and assigns absolutely, "in the fullest 
 confidence that she will carry out my wishes in 
 the following particulars," i.e., that slio would 
 pay the premiums due durhig her life ou a policy 
 of insurance ou her own life (whicli was her o«n 
 property), and that she by her will would leave 
 the moneys payable under the policy, and also 
 the moneys payable at the testator's death in 
 respect of a policy on his life (which was the 
 testator's property), to his dauj;hter Lucy ; and 
 he appointed his wife and another peisou his 
 executors: — 
 
 Held (by LiiuUey and A. L. Smith L..1J., 
 
 WILL (Precatory Trust) — continued. 
 affirming the decision of Eomcr J., Eigby L.J. 
 dissentiente), that the wife of the testator was 
 not put to her election as to her own policy, and 
 took the residuary estate of the testator abso- 
 lutely, and unfettered by any condition or trust. 
 
 WrigM v. Atkyns, (1823) 1' T. & E. 143, 157 ; 
 Shovelton v. Shovelton, (1863) 32 Beav. 143; 
 Lamhe v. Barnes, (1871) L. E. 6 Ch. 597; Cur- 
 nich V. TucUr, (1874) L. E. 17 Eq. 320; Le 
 Marchant v. Le Marchant, (1874) L. E. 18 Eq. 
 414 ; Irvine v. Sullivan, (1869) L. R. 8 Bq. 673; 
 In re Hamilton, [1895] 2 Ch. 370, considered and 
 explained. 
 
 Observations of Eigby L.J. as to the principles 
 on which a trust or condition should be deduced 
 from the langifage used by a testator. In re 
 Williams. Williams v. Williams 
 
 C. A. [1897] 2 Ch. 12 
 
 169. — " I wish them to bequeath the same." 
 In considering whether a precatory trust is 
 
 attached to any legacy the Court will be guided 
 by the intention of the testator apparent in the 
 will, and not by any particular words in which 
 the wishes of the testator are expressed. A gilt 
 purporting to be absolute is not to be reduced to 
 a life interest, and a precatory trust is not to be 
 created merely by an expression of the testator's 
 wish that the legatee shall by will or otherwise 
 make a disposition which the legatee couLI 
 equally eifect through his beneficial ownership, 
 
 Decision of Kekewich J., [1895] 1 Ch. 3'73, 
 ofiirmcd. In re Hamilton. Trench v. Hamil- 
 ton - - - C. A. [1895] 2 Ch. 370 
 
 Approved of by C. A. Hill v. HiU, [1897] 
 1 Q. B. 483, 493 ; In re Williams, [1897] 2 Ch. 
 12,21. 
 
 170. — Words of request — Heirlooms. 
 
 The widow of a peer stated in a letter or 
 meraorandum sent to her solicitor that certain 
 diamonds had been given to her upon her mnr- 
 riage by the mother of her husband, then .heir- 
 presumptive to the peerage, for her life with the 
 request that at her deatli they might be left as 
 heirlooms : — 
 
 Held, that the terms of the gift as stated did 
 not import a precatory trust, and therefore that 
 the absolute property in the diainonds passed 
 under it to the donee. Hill v. Hill 
 
 C. A. [1897] 1 ft, B. 483 
 
 Probate, 
 
 See Cases under Peobatk. 
 
 Eeleyancy. 
 
 171. — Capacity —Insane delusiuns. 
 
 In an action for reduction of a will the pur- 
 suers averred that the testator was " subject to 
 insane delusions," and that " he believed that hu 
 had a special and impeiative duty to further the 
 cause of total abstinence and to oppose the Church 
 of Eomo by devoting his pecuniary resources to 
 these objects, in consequence of commands which 
 he conceived lie had received from the Deity 
 by direct communications on various occasions." 
 That these insane deluaions dominated his mind 
 and overmastered his judgment to such an extent 
 (13 to render him incapible of making reasoniible 
 
( 2353 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2354 ) 
 
 WILL (Kelevancy) — continued. 
 and proper settlement of his means and estate, or 
 of taking a rational view of the matters to be 
 considered in making a will : — 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of the Ct. of Bess., 
 (1896) 23 E. 513 (Lord Davey dissentingl, that 
 a relevant case for trial was averred. Hope v. 
 Campbell - - H. L. (Sc.) [1899] A. C. 1 
 
 Bemoteness. 
 See Cases under Will- 
 
 Besidue. 
 
 -Perpetuity. 
 
 172. — ".4W other my freehold messuages and 
 lenemenls," Gift of—JReslriction as to tenure — 
 Residuary devise. 
 
 A leatator devised his freehold shop at W. to 
 liis son, and then devised to the pits, "all other 
 my freehold messuages and tenements at W. and 
 elsewhere." The devise to the son having failed 
 by reason of his having attested the will : — 
 
 Held, upon ttie authority of Springett v. 
 Jenings, (1871) L. E. 6 Ch. 333, that the second 
 devise was not residuary, and that the freeliold 
 shop was not included in it. 
 
 The principle of Springett v. Jenings, L. E. 
 6 Cli. 333, applies as well to a restriction as 
 regards tenure as to a restriction as regards 
 locality. In re Mason. Ogden i-. Mason 
 Kekewioh J. [1900] W. N. 105 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 196 
 
 This case was reversed by C. A. See [1901] 
 1 Ch. 619. 
 
 173. — ^'Annuities'' — Gift of residue to an- 
 nuitant — Restraint on anticipation. 
 
 Question whether a restraint on anticipation, 
 which applied to an annuity, also applied to a 
 bhare in the testator's residue, which was given 
 to the annuitant ; — 
 
 Held, that as the testator intended to give the 
 share of the residue by way of increasing the 
 annuity, the same restraint attached to the share 
 as already attached to the annuity. In re Law- 
 
 EENSON. PayNE-COLLIEK V. VtSB 
 
 C. A. [1891] W. N. 28 
 
 — Annuity, Provision for — Distribution of 
 
 residue. 
 
 See AwviTY. 11. 
 
 — Appropriation of assets. 
 
 See ExEOUTOB — Powers. 46. 
 
 — Appropriation of assett; — Settled shares. 
 
 See Trustee. 17. 
 
 174. — " Cease to carry on the business " — Com- 
 pany — Managing directors. 
 
 A testator gave his leasehold factory and 
 business to his sons, but provided that if his sons 
 should " cease to carry on the business " then the 
 factory should sink into the residue. The sons 
 turned the business into a limited co., of which 
 they were managing directors and principal share- 
 holders ." — 
 
 Held, that tljey had ceased to cairy on the 
 business within the meaniug of the proviso in the 
 will, and the factory fell into residue. In re Sax. 
 Earned v. Sax - North J. [1893] W. N. 104 
 
 — Costs out of residue — Gift to cla^s — Mistake 
 as to uurabtr — Ascertainment. 
 See Will— Class. 50. 
 
 WILL (Besidue) — continued. 
 
 175. — Gift "after decease" of wife— Life 
 estate by implication — Intestacy. 
 
 Under a bequest after the death of A. to the 
 testator's next of kin, A. takes a life estate by im- 
 plication, but not if the bequest is to persons who 
 happen to be some of such next of kin. • 
 
 S. by his will gave his residuary personal 
 estate to trustees to invest and to pay out of the 
 income thereof an annuity to his two daughters 
 on their attaining twenty-one or marrying "for 
 and during the remainder of the life of" his wife 
 if she should be then living ; and " from and after 
 the decease of" his wife to divide the corpus 
 between his son and his two daughters : — 
 
 Held, that the wife did not take a life interest 
 by implication in the residue, but that there was 
 an intestacy as to the income of the residuary 
 estate during the life of the widow. In re 
 Springfield. Chameeelin v. Springfield 
 
 Kekewioh J. [1894] 3 Ch. 603, 
 
 — Period of dislribution — Advancement — Hi.teli- 
 pot clause. 
 See Will — Advancement. 23, 25. 
 
 176. — Referential trusts do not duplicate 
 charges — Gift of residue — Appeal from New South 
 Wales. 
 
 Trusts of residue created by reference to other 
 trusts are not to be read as creating a duplication 
 of charges on the estate in the absence of clear 
 indication that the testator so intended. 
 
 Where a testator gave to his widow the in- 
 terest of 20,OOOZ. during widowhood, and on re- 
 marriage the interest of 10,0OOZ. for life, " and as 
 to all his residuary estate" gave it upon Ihe same 
 trusts as those of the 20,000/., and the widow 
 re-married : — 
 
 Held, that she did not take either the income 
 for life of a moiety of the residuary estate or 
 of an additional 10,000Z. Teew v. Perpetual 
 Trustee Co. - J. C. [1895] A. C. 264 
 
 Eef erred to by Eomer J. In re Marquis tf 
 Bristol, [1897] 1 Ch. 949. 
 
 — Residuary gift — Successive interests — Lease- 
 
 holds — Conversion . 
 See CoNVEBSiON. 7. 
 
 — Eesiduary legatee — ^ Action by — Executor — 
 
 Breach of duty — Loss of interest. 
 See Executor — Liabilities. 41. 
 
 — Eesiduary legatee — Eight to compel executors 
 
 to plead Statute of Limitations. 
 See Executor — Liabilities. 45. 
 
 177. — Revocation by codicil of gift of share of 
 residue, and direction that it should fall into ihe 
 residue. 
 
 A testator by his will gave his residuary 
 estate to trustees in trust as to two-fifths for A., 
 B. and C, as tenants in common absolutely. By 
 a codicil he directed B.'s share to be restricted lo 
 a life interest, and after her death to fall iulo his 
 residuary estate: — 
 
 Held, that there was no intestacy as to the 
 reversion in B.'s share, since there was a clear 
 intention expressed in the will that it should 
 go to A. and C. In re Palmer. Palmer v. 
 Answorth C. A. [1893] 3 Ch. 369 
 
( 2355 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2356 ) 
 
 WILL (Residue) — continued. 
 
 — Special power of appointment — Bequest of 
 
 residue to object of power — Intention 
 
 to exercise. 
 
 See PowEES — Exercise. 36. 
 
 Besultiu^ Trust. 
 
 See Tbtjst. 4—6. 
 
 Eeverter. 
 
 — Common law condition— Shifting use — Kule 
 
 against perpetuities. 
 
 See Vendob and Pdkchasee — Title. 76. 
 
 178. — Fee simple conditional — Wilh Act, 1837 
 (1 Vid. c. 26), s. i—Deeise. 
 
 The possibility of reverter on failure of a fee 
 simple conditional is " a right of entry for a con- 
 dition broken" within the meaning of nnd 
 devisable by force of s. 3 of the Wills Act, 1837. 
 Pemberton v. Barnes - - - K ortli J. 
 
 [1899] W. H. 8 (6) ; [1899] 1 Ch. 644 
 
 Revival of Will. 
 See Cases under Will — Revocation. 
 
 Revocation. 
 
 See also Cases under Probate — Revoca- 
 tion of Administration and Revocation 
 of Probate. 
 
 — Absolute gift in will not revoked by codicil. 
 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 2. 
 
 179. • — Codicil — Annuity — Revocation by 
 codicil of gift in mill — Decision as to future 
 interests, 
 
 B. by his will gave to his gi'anddaughter A. an 
 annuity of 300?., to be a charge on certain land, 
 and after her death he directed that " the said 
 sum of 300Z." should be raised and paid unlo 
 and amongst her children as she should by deed 
 or will appoint, and in default of appointment 
 amongst her children equally during their respec- 
 tive lives. He devised to his granddaughter 0. 
 a like annuity of 300Z., to be a charge on the 
 tame property, " and to be paid to her and her 
 children in the same manner in all respects as 
 the annuity hereinbefore given to my grand- 
 daughter A." By a codicil reciting that B. had 
 by his will given an annuity of 300Z. to each of 
 the two granddaughters he revoked the gifts " of 
 the said annuities," and in lieu thereof gave to 
 each of his said granddaughters A. and B. an 
 annuity of 150Z., to be payable and charged in 
 the same manner and on the same land as the 
 annuities of 3001. under the will. The children 
 of A. and B. were not referred to in the 
 codicil : — 
 
 Held, that the effect of the codicil was to 
 substitute annuities of 150i. to A. and B. and 
 their respective children for the annuities of 3002. 
 given by the will. 
 
 Decision of Kekewioh J., [1895] 2 Ch. 256, 
 affirmed (Eigby L.J. dissent.) In re Feeme's 
 Contract - C, A. [1895] 2 Ch. 778 
 
 180. — Codicils — Mevival — Law of Nova 
 Scotia. 
 
 By a codicil dated 1882 expressed to be a 
 codicil to his will of 1880 a testator confirmed his 
 
 WILL (Revocation) — continued. 
 said will. The will consisted not merely of the 
 document of 1880, but also of an intermediate 
 codicil revoking a particular bequest therein : — 
 Held, that under the circumstances of the 
 case the will of 1880 was after confirmation no 
 longer affected by the partial revocation made by 
 the intermediate codicil. MoLeod v. MoNab 
 
 P. C. [1891] A. C. 471 
 
 181. — Codicil — Revival— Wills Act, 1837 
 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 22. 
 
 A testatrix in 1889 made a will, and in 1892 
 instructed her solicitor to prepare a codicil, which 
 she took away with her, but never executed. 
 Later in 1892 she executed a fresh will, prepared 
 by a different solicitor, revoking the former will. 
 In 1893 she executed a codicil, prepared by her 
 original solicitor, who was in ignorance of tlio 
 existence of the second will, and believed that the 
 codicil to the first will had been duly executed ; 
 this codicil purported to be a second codicil lo 
 the will of 1889, and to confirm " my said will 
 and the first codicil thereto " : — 
 
 Held, that the codicil, by its language, revived 
 the earlier will, and that both tlie wills, together 
 with the codicil, must be admitted to probate. 
 In the Goods of Chilcott 
 
 G. Barnes J. [1897] P. 223 
 
 182. — Codicil — Revocation — New 3 per cent. 
 Annuities. 
 
 H. by his will bequeathed 10,0002. New 3 per 
 cent. Annuities on trust for his wife for life,'and 
 after her death to sell the stock and divide the 
 proceeds among certain charities. After the 
 passing of the National Debt (Conversion) Act, 
 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 2), H. by a codicil reciting 
 that subsequent to the making of his will the 
 3 per cent, annuities had been converted into 2J2. 
 per cent. Consols, bequeathed 15,0002. of such 
 Consols on trust to apply the income in m;ikiii;^ 
 the payments directed by his will for tlie benefit 
 of his wife and other annual payments, .ind in all 
 other respects oonfii mod his will. II. at his death 
 held 15,0002. such Consols:— 
 
 Held, that the codicil did not revoke the 
 legacy given to the charities by the will, and 
 that under the first part of s. 25, sub-s. 2, of tlio 
 Act there was on the death of the widow a good 
 gift of 10,0002. 2J per cent. Consols to the chari- 
 ties. The first part of sub-s. 2 includes all 
 dispositions of stock, whether by will or any 
 other instrument. In re Howell-Shepherd. 
 Churchill v. St. George's Hospital 
 
 Kekewich J. [1894] 3 Ch. 649 
 
 183. — Declarations of testator after date of 
 loill — Evidence — Admissibility — Execution of 
 will — Execution in Duplicate — Destruction of one 
 part. 
 
 Declarations made by a testator after the date 
 of an alleged will are not admissible to prove the 
 execution of the will, and they are equally inad- 
 missible to prove that the will was executed in 
 duplicate. 
 
 Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards, (1876) 1 P. D. 
 154, explained. 
 
 In order to prove that a testatiix hadoxecutol 
 her will in duplicate, and that she had revoked 
 the will by destroying one of the parts, evidence 
 was tendered of oral declarations to that effect, 
 
( 2357 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2358 ) 
 
 WILL (ReYocation)— <!o»(inM«d!. 
 
 made by the testatrix "after the date of the 
 
 will : — 
 
 Held, that these declarations were inad- 
 missible. 
 
 Decision of G. Barnes J. affirmed. Atkinson 
 V. MOBE[S - - - C. A. [1897] P. 40 
 
 — French subjects — English marriage — Change 
 
 of domicil — Intention — Kevooatiou of 
 
 ante-nuptial will. 
 
 See OoNi'LiOT or Laws. 16. 
 
 184. — • Implied revoecUion — GodicUs — Substi- 
 tuted or cumulative legacies. 
 
 A testator by a first codicil made provision 
 for his ■>\ife, gave directions as to his burial, &o., 
 and gave legacies. On the death of his wife he 
 uiad(i a second codicil on a draft of the first, 
 which, except that it^noreased a legacy and 
 made provisions consequent on the wife's death, 
 was a repetition of the first codicil, and which 
 only' referred to the will and not to the first 
 codicil : — 
 
 Seld, that the second codicil was intended to 
 be substituted for the first, and could alone be 
 admitted to probate with the will. Chichestek 
 V. QuATEEPAGES - Jeune Pres. [1895] P. 186 
 
 — Intention — Estate tail. 
 
 See Will— Estate Tail. 79. 
 
 185. — Misapprehension, 
 
 The testatrix made a second will, dealing with 
 a small part of her property, on a printed form. 
 The form contained a clause revoking all former 
 wills. To this the testatrix objected, and wished 
 Ihe clause struck out ; but, being informed that 
 the clause was inoperative and cancellation 
 dangerous, she signed the form with the clause 
 standing : — 
 
 Seld, that she must be taken to have known 
 and approved the words of revocation, and that 
 they must be included in the probate of the last 
 will. Collins v. Elstone 
 
 Jeune Pres. [1893] P. 1 
 — Nomination by member. — Revocation by sub- 
 sequent will. 
 See Fbiendlt Society. 13. 
 
 186. — Paper pasted over writing on bach of 
 codicil — Eemoval, Order for. 
 
 A testatrix left a will and two codicils duly 
 executed. Sho^ cancelled the first codicil, and 
 afterwards wrote something at the back of the 
 codicil, and afterwards pasted paper over the 
 writing. Paper ordered to be, removed to see if 
 the writing amounted to a revocation of the 
 codicil. In the Goors of Gilbekt 
 
 Jeune Pres. [1893] P. 183 
 
 187. — Partial revocation of will— Cancellation 
 of second will— Revival of first will— Wills Act, 
 1837 (1 Vict. 0. 26), ss. 20, 22. 
 
 A testator by his will gave all his property to 
 S., and appointed S. sole executrix. Subsequently 
 be made a second will leaving his real estate to 
 E., and appointed E. sole executrix, but did not 
 expressly revoke the first will. He subsequently 
 cancelled the second will : — 
 
 Seld, that the second will partly revoked the 
 first will, and that the revoked part of the first 
 will was not revived by the cancellation of the 
 second will. Therefore, that probate must be 
 
 WILL (Revocation)— <!om<JnJte(J. 
 granted of so much of the first will as was not 
 revoked, and that as to property dealt with in 
 the second will there was an intestacy. In Tub 
 Goods of Hodgkinson C. A. [1893] P. 339 
 
 188. — Several testamentary papers — Will 
 made in execution of limited power of appoint- 
 
 The father of the testatrix left her the sum 
 of 4000Z. for life with power of appointment by 
 wiU among her children. The testatrix made 
 three wills, one in 1890, by which she left one of 
 her daughters " the sum of 4000Z., being the sum 
 left to me by the will of my father " ; a second in 
 1894, by which she left the same daughter 4000i!., 
 and the residue of her property to the same 
 daughter and one of her sons ; and a third in 
 1895j by which she left all her property to the 
 same daughter : — ■ 
 
 Seld, that, as the second and third wills both 
 professed to deal with all the property of the 
 testatrix, the second will was revoked by the third, 
 that the general words of bequest in the third 
 will did not revoke the execution of the limited 
 power of appointment by the first will, and that 
 probat'^ shoiild, therefore, be granted of the first 
 and third wills. 
 
 In ihe Goods of Merritt, (1858) 1 Sw. & Tr. 
 112, and In the Goods of Joys (1860) 4 Sw. & Tr. 
 214, disapproved. Cadell v. Willoooks 
 
 Jeune Pres. [1898] P. 21 
 
 — Will^lntention. 
 
 See Will— Estate Tail. 79. 
 
 Satisfaction. 
 
 — Covenant to pay — Legacy of same amount. 
 
 See Scottish Law. 
 
 189. — Debt — Legacy to creditor of greater 
 amount — No time fixed for payment of legacy. 
 
 A testator, who was indebted in a sum pay- 
 able within three months of testator's death, 
 bequeathed to the creditor a legacy of greater 
 amount than the debt. No time was fixed for 
 payment of the legacy : — ■ 
 
 Beld, that the debt was not satisfied by the 
 legacy. In re Horlook. Calham v. Smith 
 
 Stirling J. [1895] 1 Ch. 516 
 
 190. — Double portions — Presumption rebutted 
 — Shares in partnership business. 
 
 A testator by his will left his shares, in a 
 business divided into twenty-four shares, to three 
 sons equally as tenants in common. At the date 
 of the will the testator had twenty-one shares. 
 One son, who was then manager of the business 
 at a salary, was afterwards taken into partner- 
 ship to the extent of two shares, and thenceforth 
 managed the business without a salary : — 
 
 Seld, that, assuming both provisions were 
 portions, the presumption against a father giving 
 a double portion to one of his children was rebutted 
 by the circumstances, the father intending that 
 this son should have a greater share in the 
 business than his brothers, and that he was 
 entitled equally with them to the remaining 
 nineteen shares : 
 
 Semble, the two shares were intended not as a 
 portion, but as remuneration for management. 
 In re Laoon. Laoon v. Laoon 
 
 C. A. [1891] 2 C4. 482 
 
( 2359 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2360 ) 
 
 WILL (Satisfaction) — continued. 
 
 — Legacy — Prepayment in testator's lifetime — 
 
 Kule against double portions. 
 See Powers— Construction. 9. 
 
 Scottish Law. 
 Bee Scottish Law — 'Will. 
 
 Secret Trust. 
 See Trust. 7. 
 
 Shifting Clause. 
 
 191. Qifl over on succession to earldom — " Pos- 
 session." 
 
 A devise in strict settlement contained a 
 proviso that if any person, who would bo entitled 
 to possession if lie had been of full age, should be 
 under twenty-one, the trustees should enter into 
 possession during such minority, and a declara- 
 tion that if any person entitled to possession or 
 receipt of the rents and profits should succeed to 
 a certain earldom, the hereditaments should go 
 over as if such person were dead without issue. 
 A., who was then and still an infant, became 
 entitled in 1882, and in 1893 he succeeded to the 
 earldom : — 
 
 JSdd, that as hy reason of the infancy of the 
 carl the possession was taken from him and given 
 to the trustees, he Vpas not when he succeeded to 
 the earldom a person entitled within the words 
 of the shifting clause, and therefore the gift over 
 had not. taken tifect, and his title had not been 
 displaced. Leslie v. Earl of Rothes 
 
 C. A. [1894] 2 Oh. 499 
 
 Soldier's Will. 
 See Probate — Soldier's Will. 
 
 Specific Devise. 
 
 — Advowson — Description — " Beal estate in the 
 
 county of L." — Surrounding circum- 
 stances — Intention. 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 
 
 192. — " All and every the children." 
 
 A devise of realty to " all and every the 
 children of A., their heirs and assigns for ever," 
 held to create a joint tenancy. Binnikg v. 
 BiMNiNG - Chitty J. [1895] W. N. 116 (16) 
 
 193. — Codicil — Inconsistent codicil. 
 
 A testator devised real estate at W. in settle- 
 meut. By a codicil he directed the estate at W. 
 to be sold : — 
 
 Held, tliat the devisees were not deprived of 
 the beneficial interest given them by the will. 
 In re Chifferiel. Chipferiel v. Watson 
 
 North J. [1895] W. N. 106 
 
 194. — House to one and of land adjoining to 
 another, Devise of — Eight of light to tcindoios over 
 the land. 
 
 Tlie owner in fee in possossiun of a Louse and 
 an adjoining field, o\er whicli the light required 
 for the windows of tlie house passed, devised the 
 house to one and the field to another : — 
 
 Held, (1) that the devise of tlic fluid was 
 specific, thougli residuary in fornr ; (2) that the 
 riglit to light over tlie field [ usscd to tlie duvisi'e 
 
 WILL (Specific Devise) — continued. 
 of the house, and that the devisee of the field had 
 no right to obstruct the light. Phillips v. Low 
 Chitty J. [1892] I Ch. 47 
 [Note. — And see Taws v. Knowles, C .A. [1891] 
 2 Q. B. 564.] 
 
 195. — House and lands. Devise of — Wills Act, 
 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 24. 
 
 In April, 1873, A. devised certain lands " now - 
 in my own occupation"; in Sept. he purchased 
 certain adjoining lands; in Oct. he, by a codicil, 
 confirmed his will : — 
 
 Held, that the lands purchased in Sept. passed 
 under the devise. In re Champion. Dudley v. 
 Champion C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 196. — Lands in 8., Devise of — Money arising 
 from sale of lands in S. — Trust to re-invest in land. 
 
 Money arising from sale of lands in the county 
 of S. was held on trust to invest in land to be 
 settled upon the limitations of a settlement, under 
 which C. was tenant for life with remainders to 
 his sons in tail male, remainder to himself in fee. 
 C. died without issue, and by his will gave his 
 lands in the county of S. to A., and all his real 
 and personal estate not otherwise disposed of to 
 B.:— 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that the money went 
 to A.: 
 
 Held, by C. A., that the money, being im- 
 pressed with a trust to invest in land, would pass 
 under a devise of land, but (revers. Kekewich J.), 
 that it would not pass under a devise of lands in 
 S., and therefore that it went to B. In re Dcke 
 OF Cleveland's Settled Estates 
 
 C. A. revers. Kekewich J. [1893] 3 Ch. 244 
 
 197. — Mortgagee in possession — Conveyancing 
 Act, 1881 (44 * 45 Vict. e. 41), s, 30— Executor— 
 Spettijia devise by executor heneficially entitled to 
 mortgage debt. 
 
 A mortgagee in possession of freehold houses 
 devised and bequeathed all his estate to his wiTe, 
 and appointed her his sole executrix. By a 
 codicil to her will she devised these houses 
 specifically : — 
 
 Held, that the mortgage debt passed to the 
 specific devisee. In re Carter. Dodds v. 
 Pearson Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 90 ; 
 
 [1900] 1 Ch. 801 
 
 198. — Rents and profits derived from business. 
 Devise and bequest of — Gavelkind tenure. 
 
 A devise by a groeer, carrying on business in 
 a house which he owned in fee, of the whole of 
 the rents and profits derived from the business, 
 held to jiass the house in fee. In re Martin. 
 Martin v. Martin North J. [1892] W. N. 120 
 
 199. — Specific or aliquot parts of fund, Gift 
 whether of — Gift of sum of money — Trust for in- 
 vestment during life tenancy, and for subsequent 
 conversion — Legacies out of proceeds of sale. 
 
 The decision of Stirling J.,[1896]W.N.31 (11) 
 reversed. In re Lord Onqlev. Ottlet r. 
 TuiiNER C. A. [1896] W. N, 54 (16) 
 
 200. — Will made prior to Wills Act— Words 
 of 9'fl — Without limitation — "Estate" — "Pro- 
 perty." 
 
 By the law of wills prior to the V/ills Act, 
 1837, words of gift cv unyod only a life estate 
 
( 2361 ) 
 
 DlaEST OF CASES, 1891—1000, 
 
 ( 2362 ) 
 
 WILL (Specific Devise) — continued. 
 unless the devise contained -words of limitation, 
 and the use of the ■\^ord3 " cstiito " or " property " 
 would not enlarge the gift if used only by way of 
 reference, and not in the operative part of the 
 devise. Hill v. Brown P. C. [1894] A. C. 125 
 
 Substitution. 
 
 SOI. — Alternative gift or substitutional — 
 Scheme — Gift to named charity or some one or 
 more Inndred institutions. 
 
 Although it has been held in many cases, of 
 Mhich Carey v. Carey, (185i) 6 Ir. Ch. Rep. 255, 
 is an example, tliat a gift to A. or B. is substitu- 
 tional, there is no authority for the broad proposi- 
 tion tlmt such a gift is prima facie to be so con- 
 strued. 
 
 A testator gave to trustees a fund to be called 
 tlie " D. Charitable Trust," and directed the 
 trustees (o pay one-tenth of the income thereof to 
 the P. A. Society, " or some one or more kindred 
 institutions" having certain specified objects, and 
 to divide the remainder of the income between 
 such of the charitable institutions in London or 
 the neighbourhood as tliey might select, and in 
 such proportions as they might deem fit : — 
 
 Seld, that the gift of the one-tenth was 
 alternative and not substitutional ; that it was a 
 good charitable gift 1o one or more institutions of 
 which the society named was a type ; that the 
 trustees had no discretion as to what institutions 
 were to benefit under the gift of the one-tenth ; 
 and a. scheme was directed to be settled. In re 
 Dklmab Chakitaelb Tetjst 
 
 StirUng J. [1997] 2 Ch. 163 
 
 — Class, Members of. 
 
 See Will— Class. 55, 56. 
 
 — Issue taking by — Gift to children as a class: 
 
 /See Will — Lapse. Hi. 
 
 Superstitious Uses. 
 
 202. — Gift for masses for soul of testator — 
 1 Mw. 6, c. U. 
 
 A domiciled Englishman gave a legacy to a 
 Jesuit college in Victoria, to be spent in masses 
 for the souls of himself and his wife. The gift 
 was good accoiding to the law of Victoria : — 
 
 Meld, that the English law applied, and the 
 gift was void. Til re Elliott. Elliott v. 
 Elliott Nortli J. [1891] W. N. 9 
 
 Survivor, 
 
 203. — " Survivor "—Trust moneys— Gift of 
 life interest to A.— After death of A. direction to 
 pay and divide equally between two persons— 
 •• And if either of them shall bethen dead for the 
 «urcivor"— Death of both legatees before deter- 
 mination of life interest — Meaning of words 
 " either " and " survivor." 
 
 A testatrix gave residuary trust moneys upon 
 trust to pay the interest to her sister Thirza 
 durinn- her life, and after her death to pay and 
 divide the said trust moneys equally between 
 Iho testatrix's two sisters Frances and Sarah, 
 share and share alike, " and if either of my said 
 Bisters shall be then dead .... upon trust for 
 the survivor of my said sisters absolutely." 
 
 Held (Kigby L.J. dlssentiente), that the 
 
 WILL (Survivor) — continued. 
 period of distribution was not the death of Sarah 
 who died first, or of Frances who was the sur- 
 vivor of the two legatees, but the death of Thirza, 
 to whom the life interest was given ; and that 
 both Sarah and Francos being dead at that time 
 there was then no survivor, and the clear original 
 gift to Sarah and Frances as tenants in common 
 was not divested. 
 
 The decision of North J. affirmed. 
 
 White V. Balier, (1860) 2 D. F. & J. 55, dis- 
 tinguished. In re Piokworth. Snaith d. 
 Pakkinson. C. a. [1899] W. N. 28 (11) ; 
 
 [1899] 1 Ch. 643 
 
 204. — " Survivors " — When read as " others.' 
 Cozens-Hardy J. said that he was bound to 
 
 hold that the expression " survivors or survivor " 
 meant what it said, namely, that those surviving 
 the event of death took. After referring to 
 Milsom v. Awdry, (1800) 5 Ves. 465 ; Re Corbeit's 
 Trusts, (1860) Johns. 591 ; and Beclcwithv.Bech- 
 ivith, (1876) 46 L. J. (Ch.J 97, he said he had 
 felt some doubt on account of the judgment of 
 Kay J. in In re Bowman, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 525, 
 535, where he classified the cases and said : " It 
 seems to me that the decisions establish the 
 following propositions : When the gift is to A., 
 B., and C." [down to " gift over "]. For the.t 
 there was ample authority, as there was also for 
 the next proposition, beginning, "If to similar 
 words," and ending " after their parent." But 
 for the last proposition, " They also participate," 
 down to " original shares," there seemed to bo 
 no authority, and it seemed as if the attention of 
 Kay J. could not have been called to certain 
 autiiorities inconsistent with that proposition 
 although Milsom v. Awdry and Beckwith v. Bech- 
 with were cited to him. In the present case it 
 must be decided that the proceeds of sale were 
 to be held in trust for the two surviving daughters 
 on the trusts declared by the will in respect of 
 their original shares. In re Eobson. Howdev 
 V. Eobson Cozens-Hardy J. [1899] W. N. 260 
 
 Tenant for Life, 
 See Cases under Settled Land. 
 
 Tenants in Common. 
 
 — Joint tenancy or tenancy in common. 
 
 See Cases under Will — Joint Tenancy. 
 
 , Testamentary ExpenseSi 
 
 205, — Direction to pay "testamentary ex- 
 penses " of another person — Costs of administration 
 on intestacy — Costs of action in Frobate Division 
 —Estate duty— Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 30). s. 6, sub-s. 2. 
 
 The expression " testamentary expenses "" 
 includes the estate duty in respect of the personal 
 property of which the testator or other person 
 whose " testamentary expenses " are referred lo 
 was competent to dispose at his death. 
 
 A direction for the payment of " testamentary 
 expenses " may extend to the expenses of admin- 
 istration under an intestacy. 
 
 A testator by his will gave his residuary 
 estate to trustees upon trust to convert and to 
 invest the net proceeds and pay the income to 
 
( 2363 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2364 ) 
 
 WILL (Testamentary Expenses) — continued. 
 his wife during her life ; and after her decease 
 he directed his trustees, after paying his widow's 
 funeral and " testamentary expenses " and debts, 
 to apply his residuary estate as therein mentioned. 
 The testator's wife suryived him, and signed a 
 document which purported to be her will. After 
 her death the pit. and her brother, who were in 
 the same relationship to the widow and were her 
 next of kin, disputed the will, and the brother 
 brought an action in the Probate Division to 
 haye a grant of administration to the estate of 
 the widow made to him. The Oourt pronounced 
 against the alleged will, but made no order as 
 to costs. Letters of administration to the widow's 
 estate were subsequently granted to the pit. with 
 the assent of her brother : — 
 
 Held, that the direction for payment of the 
 " testamentary expenses " of the testator's widow 
 extended to (1) the costs and expenses of the 
 pit. in obtaining the letters of administration, 
 and in connection with the administration of the 
 estate of the widow ; (2) the costs of the brother 
 of the action in the Probate Diyision; and (3) 
 the estate duty payable on the deatli of the 
 widow in respect of her personal property. In re 
 Clemow. Yeo v. Clemow 
 Kekewich J. [1900] W. N. 105 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 182 
 
 Followed by Kekewich J. In re Treasure, 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 648, 653. 
 
 206. — Direction to pay testamentary ex- 
 penses — Estate duty — Incidence — Will in 
 exercise of power of appointment — Appointed fund 
 —Residue— Finance Act, 1894 (57 * 58 Vict. c. 80), 
 
 S. 9, 8U&-8. 1. 
 
 Where a general power of appointment oyer a 
 fund is exercised by will, the appointed fund does 
 not pass to the executor as such ; consequently, 
 the estate duty in respect thereof (in the absence 
 of any direction in the will to the contrary) is 
 payable out of the fund; but such eslate duty 
 falls within the description of testamentary ex- 
 penses ; consequently, where the will contains a 
 direction to pay testamentary expenses out of the 
 residue, the estate duty in respect of the fund is 
 payable out of the residue. In re Treasure. 
 Wild v. Stanham . - - Kekewich J. 
 [1900] W. N. 181 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 648 
 
 Uncertainty. 
 
 SOT. — Charitable gift — Blanks in will — ■ 
 General charitable intent. 
 
 A gift "to the following religious societies 
 . . . ." the names being left blank in the will 
 shews such a general charitable intention as the 
 Court can execute. In re White. White v. 
 White - C. A. [1893] 2 Ch. 41 
 
 ■ Discussed by 0. A. In re Macduff, [1896] 
 2 Oh. 451, 462. 
 
 208. — Class — Memher — Mistalce — Gift of resi- 
 due to " the children of the deceased son (named 
 B.) of my father's sister " — Several deceased sons 
 named B. — Construction of will. 
 
 A testator by will gave the residue of his real 
 and personal estate "unto the children of the 
 deceased son (named Bamber) of my father's 
 sister share and share alike." There were three 
 deceased sons all named Bamber of the sister of 
 
 WILL (Uncertainty) — continued. 
 
 the testator's father, and this fact was known to 
 
 the testator : — 
 
 Held, by 0. A. (reversing Kekewich J.), that 
 the gift was void for uncertainty. 
 
 Hare v. Cartridge, (1842) 13 Sim. 165, and 
 Lee v. Fain, (1844) 4 Hare, 201, 249, commented 
 on and distinguished. In re Stephenson. 
 Donaldson v. Bamber C. A. [1897] 1 Ch. 75 
 
 209. — Insufficient description — Intestacy — 
 Election. 
 
 If it can be gathered from the words used in 
 a win that the testator meant to give a particular 
 property to a legatee, but it is impossible to say 
 either from the will itself or from extrinsic 
 evidence which of several properties answering 
 to the description the testator meant to pass by 
 the specific devise, the gift fails for uncertainty, 
 and the Court cannot, to avoid intestacy, give 
 the legatee an option to elect which property he 
 will take. A. was seised of four houses in S. 
 Place which had not yet been numbered. By 
 his will lie devised to his son B. and his heii-s 
 "all that newly-built house being No. — h. 
 Place," and similar devises to each of his .',ous 
 C, D., and B. :— 
 
 Held, that the devises were void for uncer- 
 tainty, and that all four houses went to the heir- 
 at-law. ASTBN V. AsTEN 
 
 Eomer J. [1894] 3 Ch. 260 
 
 Approved of by C. A. In re Cheadle, [1900] 
 W. N. 174; [1900] 2 Oh. 620. 
 
 — Validity. 
 
 See Cases under Probate — Grant of 
 Probate. 
 
 Vested Interests. 
 
 210. — Divesting — Construction of will — 
 Alternative devise^"' Su^h as should he living at 
 widow's death and attain twenty-one" — Appeal 
 from New South Wales. 
 
 Wliere there is a devise to five persons nomin- 
 atim, or to such of them as should be living at 
 the death of the testator's widow and attain 
 twenty-one : — 
 
 Held, that all the devisees take vested interests 
 in fee subject to be divested as regards each 
 devisee dying in the lifetime of the widow in 
 favour of those (if any) who survive her and 
 attain twenty-one. 
 
 But where later clauses gave to each devisee 
 a specifically described portion of the land de- 
 vised for life in the event of all the devisees sur- 
 viving the widow, and declared that " in case of 
 the death of any of the before-mentioned persons 
 he gave and devised the share to which he would 
 have been entitled " to his heir : — 
 
 Held, that the effect of this declaration was 
 to alter the original devise, and to give the share 
 of a devisee dying in the widow's lifetime to his 
 heir, and not to the surviving devisees. Penny 
 
 V. COMMISSIONEB FOR EaILWAYS 
 
 P. C. [190O] A. C. 628 
 Vesting. 
 
 — Eemoteness — Maintenance — Intestacy. 
 
 See Will— Perpetuity, 159, 167. 
 
 — Will— Vesting. 
 
 See Scottish Law — Succession. 43 — 45. 
 
( 2365 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2366 ) 
 
 Willi, — eontinued. 
 
 Words. 
 
 — ■' All and every the children." 
 
 See Will — Specific Devise. 192. 
 
 — " All other my freehold messuages and tene- 
 
 ments." 
 
 See Will — Residue. 172. 
 ■ — " Annuities." 
 
 See Will— Eesidue. 173. 
 
 — "Attaining twenty-five years." 
 
 See Will — Perpetuity. 159. 
 
 — "Bankruptcy." 
 
 See Will -Forfeiture. 98. 
 
 — " for Benefit of a." 
 
 Bee Will— Forfeiture, 92. 
 
 — " Cease to carry on the business." 
 
 See Will — Eesidue, 174. 
 
 — " Children." 
 
 See Oases under Will — Children. 
 
 Will — Uncertainty. 
 208. 
 
 — " Children then living." 
 
 See Will— Children. 34. 
 • — " in the fullest Ooufide^oe." 
 
 See Will — Precatory Trusts. 168. 
 
 — Debenture stock or shares. 
 
 See Will — Legacy. 132. 
 
 — " Deductions." 
 
 See Will — Annuity. 27. 
 
 — " after Decease." 
 
 See Will — Eesidue. 175. 
 
 211. — Desk " with tlie contents thereof," Gift 
 of — Glioses in action — Key of strong box — Inten- 
 tion of testator. 
 
 Meld, that a gift of a desk " with the contents 
 thereof," included various choses in action, such 
 as cheques, deposit notes, and promissory notes 
 payable to order and on demand (including those 
 which were negotiable only after indorsement by 
 the executors), which were found in the desk, as 
 well as bank notes and coin. In the desk was 
 also tlie key of a tin box containing securities : — 
 
 Held, that this key gave no title to the con- 
 tents of the box. In re Kobson. Kobson v. 
 Hamilton - - Chitty J. [1891] 2 Ch. 669 
 
 212. — " Die unmarried " — Construction of 
 will. 
 
 The primary meaning of " die unmarried " in 
 a will is " die without having been married " ; 
 but the expression is flexible. 
 
 The phrase " if he shall die unmarried and 
 without leaving a child " held equivalent to " if 
 he shall die without leaving a widow or child.' 
 In re Chant. Chant v. Lemon 
 
 Cozens-Hardy J. [1900] W. N. 133; 
 [1900] 2 Ch. 345 
 
 — "Die without child or children." 
 
 See Will— Children. 35, 39. 
 
 — " Die without leaving male issue." 
 
 See Will — Contingent Bemainder. 70. 
 
 3J3. " Effects '' — Beal estate — Indication of 
 
 testator's intention. 
 
 Question, whether the real estate of the tes- 
 tator passed under a gift of " effects " in a will 
 not drawn by a lawyer _: — 
 
 Held, that there being a refefenoe to locality, 
 
 WILL (Words) — continued. 
 
 and in a second gift a use of the word "property," 
 
 that realty was included. 
 
 Per Fry L. J., (1) " effects " per se will not 
 include real estate; (2) the word "devise" is 
 not enough to give to " effects " a more extended 
 moaning; nnd (3) the words "of what nature, 
 kind or quality whatsoever " are by themselves 
 not enough. 
 
 Decision of Fry L.J., [1891] 3 Oh. 389, 
 aifirmed. Hall v. Hall (No. 2) 
 
 C, A, [1892] 1 Ch. 361 
 
 — " Either." 
 
 See Will— Survivor, 203. 
 
 — " Eldest son." 
 
 See Will— Eldest Son. 77. 
 
 (( Estate." 
 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 6. 
 214. — " Estates and liereditaments subject to 
 the limitations" of a settlement — Moneys subject 
 to tlie same limitations. 
 
 Moneys to be laid out in the purchase of 
 other lands held, on the construction of a will, to 
 lall within the words " estates and hereditaments 
 subject to the limitations " of a settlement. 
 Basset v. St. Lev an 
 
 Stirling J. [1894] W. N. 204 
 
 — " Expectant or presumptive share." 
 
 See Will. 20. 
 
 — General principles of construction of words in 
 
 will. 
 
 See Will — Construction. 64. 
 
 — " Heirs, executors or administrators." 
 
 See Will. 7. 
 
 — "I wish them to bequeath the same." 
 
 See Will — Precatory Trusts, 169, 
 
 ■ " Issue." 
 
 See Will — Children. 
 
 37, 40—42. 
 
 215. — "Legal disability'' preventing donee 
 from tailing thenroperty for his own benefit. 
 
 A testator. Subject to a life estate to his wife, 
 gave half his residuary estate to his son ; but in 
 case the sou should at the death of the wife -be 
 " under any legal disability in consequence 
 whereof he would be hindered in or prevented 
 from faking the same for his own personal and 
 exclusive benefit," the testator gave the same 
 over to the son's wife and children. 
 
 Shortly before the widow's death the son, who 
 was one of the executors, was found indebted to 
 the estate in 51882., and an order was made 
 directing him to pay that sum, and declaring his 
 interest under the will liable to make it good. 
 He had also heavily incumbered his interest : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of Stirling J.), 
 t];at " legal disability " meant a disability of the 
 person arising from act of law, and that neither 
 the charge by the order nor the mortgages created 
 such a legal disability as would cause the gift 
 over to take effect. 
 
 The son on the day of his mother's death, but 
 before her death, was adjudicated bankrupt on 
 his own application ; but in a few days the 
 adjudicalion was annulled on the ground that it 
 ought never to have been made : — 
 
 Held (affirming the decision of Stirling J., 
 
( 236? ) 
 
 DIGEST OF GASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2368 ) 
 
 WILL (Words) — continued. 
 
 [1896] 1 Ch. 527), that this bankruptcy, having 
 been a mere contrivance on the part of the son, 
 ought not to be regarded. In re Cakew. Cakevv 
 V. Carew - - C. A. [1896] 2 Ch. 311 
 
 — " Liable to be deprived." 
 
 See Will— Torfeiture. 99. 
 
 216. — Life—" For /(is life and the life of Ma 
 heir." 
 
 A testator devised land to A. "for his life 
 and the life of his heir " : — • 
 
 Held, that the devise was legally valid, and 
 gave the devisee an estate during liis own life 
 and the life of the person who should be ascertained 
 to be Jiis heir at the time of his death. Jn re 
 Amos. Cahrier v. Price 
 
 North J. [1891] 3 Ch. 159 
 
 — " Married woman." 
 
 See Will — Married Woman. 144. 
 
 — " Nephew." 
 
 See Will— lUegitimacy. 102, lO.I. 
 
 — " Nephews and nieces." 
 
 See Will— Class. 52, 53. 
 
 — " Niece." 
 
 See Will — Illegitimacy. 103. 
 
 217. — " Now in my occupation " — Specific 
 devise of house and lands. 
 
 Ill April, 1873, A. devised certain lands 
 " now in my own occupation " ; in Sept. he pur- 
 chased certain aiijoining lands ; in Oct. he, by a 
 codicil, confirmed his will : — 
 
 Held, that the lands purchased in Sept., being 
 in the testator's occupation at the diite of the 
 codicil, passed under the devise. In re Champiox. 
 DnDLEY V. Champion C. A. [1893] 1 Ch. 101 
 
 218. — Occupied — "As now occupied by me " — 
 Falsa demonstratio — Ziimitatio vera. 
 
 S. devised to his wife during widowhood " B. 
 house and ])remise3 thereto, as now occupied by 
 me." Before the date of the devise S. had let (o 
 two of his sons an office in the yard of B liuuse 
 and the coach-house and stables except a room 
 over the coach-house, tlie only access to which 
 was from the house. The sons were in occupation 
 at his death : — 
 
 Held, that the devise included the room over 
 the coach-house, but not the office, stables and 
 coach-house, for the property in the testator's 
 occupation answered the whole of the description, 
 and therefore the Court could not enter into the 
 question of inconvenience, and reject as falsa 
 demonstratio the reference to occupation. In re 
 Seal. Seal b. Taylor C. A. [1894] 1 Ch, 316 
 
 — " Offspring." 
 
 See Will— Children. 44. 
 
 — " Or." 
 
 See Will. 9. 
 
 219. — " Outgoings properly chargeable " — 
 Rents. 
 
 A testator bequeathed to P. all arrears of rent 
 due lo Ills estate at his deatli, and all proportions 
 to become due to his estate after his death of 
 rents and profits accraing due at but payable 
 after liis death, but so nevertheless that all out- 
 goings of the said hereditaments properly charge- 
 able against such arrears and proportions, and not 
 
 WILL (Words) — continued. 
 
 discharged in his lifetime, should be paid out of 
 
 such arrears and proportions : — 
 
 Held, by Kekewich J., that "the outgoings 
 properly chargeable " included only those recover- 
 able by process of law (such as rates, tithes. &c.) 
 in respect of the lands out of which the ri-nts 
 came, and did not include agents' salary, costs of 
 repairs or improvements, or workmen's wages :— 
 
 Held, by C. A., that they included all expenses 
 due and unpaid at O.'s death which in his 
 ordinary course of management would have come 
 into charge against the arrears and proportions. 
 In re Duke of Cleveland's Estate. Viscocnt 
 WoLMEE V. Forbestee C. A. [1894] 1 Ch. 164 
 
 — " become Payable to some other person." 
 See Will— Forfeiture. 101. 
 
 " Possession." 
 
 See Will— Absolute Gift. 1, 
 Will— Shifting Clause. 
 " Property." 
 
 See Will — Absolute Gift. C. 
 
 4. 
 191. 
 
 220. — " Meal estate " in the counti/ of S. — 
 Long leaseholds intermixed with freehold — tVilh 
 Act, (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 26. 
 
 A., who had a power of appointment by will 
 of the real and personal estate of her late hus- 
 band, by her will appointed the real estate in tl,e 
 county of S. to one and all the other real an 1 
 personal estate to another: — 
 
 Held, that long leaseholds intermixed with a 
 lar^e freehold estate in the county of S. passci 1 
 under the appointment of real estate in the county 
 of S. In re Uttesmare. Leeson ». Founs 
 
 Kekewich J. [1893] W. N. 158 
 — " Refuse or neglect." 
 
 See Will — Condition. 62. 
 
 221. — " Representatives " — " Natural " — ■ 
 Children or tlieir natural representatives if dead 
 according to the statute rule of distribution — 
 Widow of child. 
 
 A testator bequeathed the residue of his per- 
 sonal estate to trustees upon trust, in the events 
 which happened, for two named unmarried 
 daughters for their respective lives, if they 
 should eo long remain unmarried, and after the 
 decease or marriage of either of them upon trust 
 for the survivor for lier life if she should so lung 
 remain unmarried. And after the decease or 
 marriage of both his said daughters " upon trust 
 to pay and divide the same unto and equally 
 between and among all and every my children 
 whether sons or daughters who shall then bo 
 living or their natural representatives if dead 
 according to the statute rule of distribution, but 
 so nevertheless that the representatives of such 
 deceased child or children of mine shall take the 
 share or respective shares only which such de- 
 ceased child or children would have been entitled 
 to if living." 
 
 The survivor of the two named daughters 
 having died, the fund became divisible. A son 
 having died leaving a widow (his second wife) 
 and children by his first wife, the trustees took 
 out this summons to determine whether the 
 widow was entitled to any share of the fund, 
 which was claimed by the son's children : — 
 
 Held, that the primary meaning of " repre- 
 
( 2369 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2370 ) 
 
 WILL (Words) — eovtimied. 
 sentatives," namely, " executors or administra- 
 tors," was excluded by the word " natural," and 
 the contrary had not been suggested. The 
 question, therefore, was whether the expression 
 " their " — i.e., the children's — " natural repre- 
 sentatives if dead according to the statute rule 
 of distribution," denoted all persons entitled 
 under the statute, including the widow, or merely 
 the persons called children's " representatives " 
 in the statute, i.e., their lineal descendants. The 
 word " natural " was the key of the problem. The 
 expression " lawful and natural children " was 
 not uncommon, but the expression " lawful and 
 natural wife" was both uncommon and un- 
 intelligible. The status of a wife was con- 
 tractual, that of a child natural and arising 
 from consanguinity. The testator, therefore, 
 clearly intended to use the word " representa- 
 tives " in the statutory sense, i.e., lineal descend- 
 ants of children. In this case the idea of con- 
 sanguinity was predominant, and the widow was 
 excluded. In re Bromby. Wilsojt v. Beombt 
 FarweU J. [1900] W. N. 187 
 
 — " Kelations." 
 
 See Will— lUegitimacy. 104, 106. 
 
 — " Eesiduary legatee." 
 
 See Will — Legacy. 126. 
 
 — " Eesidue and remainder." 
 
 See Will — Legacy, 120. 
 
 'Return to England." 
 
 See Will— Condition, 
 
 63. 
 
 — " Eight heirs.'- 
 
 See Will — Joint Tenancy. 112. 
 
 — " Share and share alike." 
 
 See Will — Children. 45. 
 
 222. — " Sliares " — Debenture stocJc. 
 
 A bequest of all a testator's '' shares " in a 
 public CO. will not pass debenture stock where 
 testator had both shares and debenture stock in 
 the CO. In re Bodman. Bodman v. Bodman 
 
 CMtty J. [1891] 3 Ch, 135 
 
 Distinguished by North J. In re Weeding, 
 [1896] 2 Oh. 364, 367. 
 
 — "Such as should be living at widow's death 
 
 and attain twenty-one." 
 
 See Will— Vested Interests, 210. 
 
 — " Surviving children." 
 
 See Will— Children, 42, 47. 
 
 — " Survivor." 
 
 See WiLir— Survivor. 203, 204. 
 
 « Testamentary expenses." 
 
 See Will — Testamentary Expenses, 
 205, 206. 
 " Unmarried daughters." 
 
 See Will — Class. 51. 
 
 " Whole income." 
 
 See Appobtionment. 2. 
 
 — "Wife." 
 
 See Will— Children. 36. 
 
 WINDING-ITP- Building society. 
 
 See BuiLDiNQ Society- Winding-up. 
 
 _ Oompany. 
 
 See Oompany — Winding-up. 
 
 WINDING-TIP — eontinued. 
 — Friendly society. 
 
 See Friendly Society. 
 
 4,5. 
 
 — Industrial and Provident Society. 
 
 See Industrial and Provident Society. 
 4,5. 
 WINDWAED ISLANDS— Practice— Special leave 
 to appeal — Appeal in forma pauperis. 
 See Practice — FormS, Pauperis. 
 
 WINE AND BEfiEHOUSE ACTS. 
 
 See Gases under LiOENSiNa Acts. 
 
 WIEES — Illegal stretching of telephone wires 
 across public streets — Powers of local 
 authority — Eemov.al of wires. 
 See Telephone. 2, 4. 
 
 — Power to lay underground — ^Eight to excavate 
 
 streets. 
 
 See Canada. 63. 
 
 WITHDEAWAL— Building society. 
 
 See Building Society — Withdrawal, 
 
 — Letters^- Acceptance — Time — Withdrawal of 
 
 offer. 
 
 See Contract — Formation. 17a. 
 
 — Member — Eetirement — Acceptance. 
 
 See Voluntary Association. 1 . 
 
 — Members. 
 
 See Voluntary Society. 1, 2. 
 
 — Members — Unlimited company. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Contribu- 
 tory. 56. 
 
 — Shares. 
 
 See Company— Shares. 264, 266. 
 
 — Shares, Application for — Withdrawal before 
 
 allotment — Contributory. 
 
 See Company— Eeconstruction. 213. 
 
 WITNESS — Bankruptcy practice. 
 
 See Cases under Bankruptcy — Examina- 
 tion and Bankeuptoy — Practice. 
 
 — Criminal practice. 
 
 See Cases under Criminal Law — Evi- 
 dence. 
 
 — In other cases. 
 
 ' See Cases under Evidence. 
 
 — Power to require, to be sworn — Justices— 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 56. 
 WOMAN, 
 
 By the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 
 Vict. c. 73), married and single women are qualified 
 as voters and for election to Vestries and District 
 Boards in London, and for Urban and Rural Dis- 
 trict Counoils and for Parish Councils. 
 
 — Property of married woman. 
 
 See Oases under Husband and Wife. 
 
 — Qualification for election to county council. 
 
 See County Council — Election, 1. 
 
 WOMAN PAST CHILD-BEAEING — Advance- 
 ment clause — "Expectant or presump- 
 tive share " — Impossibility of issue. 
 See Will — Advancement, 20. 
 
 WOODEN STETrCTTTEE- London Building Act. 
 See London — Buildings. 30 — 33 
 4 G 
 
( 2371 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2372 ) 
 
 WORDS. 
 
 (Words and Phrases Judicially Considered,) 
 And see also under Will — Words. 
 
 — " About." 
 
 See Master and Servant. 26 — 28. 
 
 — "Abroad." 
 
 See Tkustee. 15. 
 
 — " Absenting Mmself." 
 
 See Bankeuptot — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 35. 
 
 — " Acceptance " — " Memorandum " — Goods. 
 
 See Fbatjds, Statute op. 25. 
 
 — " any one Accident." 
 
 See Inbdranoe — Accident, 2. 
 
 — " Accident." 
 
 See Master and Servant. 1. 
 
 — " Accidents of tbe Seas." 
 
 See Shipping. 128, 129. 
 
 — " in Accordance with the submission." 
 
 See Arbitration. 61. 
 
 — ■' Accrued due." 
 
 See Distress. 2. 
 
 — " Act of Parliament." 
 
 See Settled Land. 124. 
 
 Trustee— Investments. 61. 
 
 — " Act which recognises a pre-existing contract 
 
 of sale." 
 
 See Sale op Goods. 1. 
 
 — "Act or practise as an apothecary." 
 
 See Medical Peaotitionbb. 4. 
 
 — •• Action." 
 
 See County Court. 70. 
 Trade-mark. 
 
 — " Action " for tort — Counter-claim — Eemittal — 
 
 County Courts Act, 1888, s. 66. 
 See Phaotice— Pleading. 154. 
 
 — " Action OD a contract." 
 
 See Bailwat. 39. 
 
 — " Actions." 
 
 See Shipping. 196. 
 
 — " Actor." 
 
 See Costs. 60. 
 
 — " Actual delivery iu execution." 
 
 See Judgment Debt. 1. 
 
 — " Actual forcible and violent entry." 
 
 See Insurance, Burglary. 5. 
 
 — " Actual fraud." 
 
 See Mortgage. 52. 
 . — "Actual" possession. 
 See Will. 4. 
 
 — "Addition." 
 
 See Trade-mark. 20. 
 
 — " Address." 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 1 — 8. 
 
 — " Adjoining." 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 20. 
 Landlord and Tenant. 36. 
 Light and Air. 1. 
 London — Buildings, 20. 
 
 — " Adjoining or contiguous." 
 
 See Light and Air. 20. 
 
 — " After decease of wife." 
 
 See Will — Besidue. 175. 
 
 WOEDS — continued. 
 
 — " Agent." 
 
 See Parliament. 73. 
 
 — " Agreement for sale, pledge, or other disposi- 
 
 tion." 
 
 See Factor. 5. 
 
 — " Agreement in writing." 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 23. 
 
 — " person Aggrieved." 
 
 See Trade-mark — ^Eegistration. 55. 
 
 — " Agricultural land." 
 
 See Kates. 34. 
 
 — " Alienation." 
 
 See Revenue. 183. 
 
 — " All taxes, rates, duties, assessments, and 
 
 impositions." 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 25. 
 London. 53, 54. 
 
 — " Allotment." 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 1. 
 
 — "Alteration, modification, or extension" of 
 
 writ — Order xx., r. 4 — Writ. 
 See Practice. 278. 
 
 — " Amount realized by trustee." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 250. 
 
 — " Annual pay." 
 
 See Police. 4. 
 
 — " Annual rental "—Settled Land Act, 1890, 
 
 s. 13, sub-s. iv. 
 
 See Settled Land — Capital Money. 
 23, 39. 
 
 — " Annuity." 
 
 See Statutes. 4. 
 
 — " Any money .... that may be in my pos- 
 
 session." 
 See Will. 1. 
 
 — " Apparent." 
 
 See Probate. 81. 
 
 — " Appeal." 
 
 See Appeal. 4. 
 
 — "Applied" to goods. 
 
 See Trade-mark — Merchandise Marks. 
 5. 
 
 — " Appreciation." 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 4. 
 
 — " Appropriate and use." 
 
 See Lands Clauses Act. 20. 
 
 — " Approved " plan. 
 
 See Streets. 7. 
 
 — " Appurtenances " — Notice to sell land and its 
 
 appurtenances — Conveyance. 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 39. 
 
 — " Area of user." 
 
 See Streets. 11. 
 
 — " Assets." 
 
 See Company. 3. 
 
 Partnership. 25. 
 
 — " Assets " of company. 
 
 See Company — Debenture. 95. 
 
 — " surplus Assets." 
 
 See Company — Winding-up— Assets. 8. 
 
 — " Assignment " of property — Bankruptcy Act, 
 
 1883, B. 4, sub-s. 1. 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 
( 2373 ) 
 WOEDS— cojiMmaei. 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2374 ) 
 
 See Landlokd akd Tenant. 18, 80. 
 Light and Air. 20. 
 Vendob and Pubchasee — Title. 93. 
 
 — "Assurance"— Yorkshire Eegistry Acts. 
 
 See YoEKSHiBE. 
 
 — " At maturity." 
 
 ^lee Bill of Exchange. 20. 
 
 — " tenancy commencing At a particular day." 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 39. 
 
 — " Attaining twenty-five years." 
 
 See Will — Perpetuity. 159. 
 
 — "Attendance." 
 
 See Solicitob. 24. 
 
 — " Author." 
 
 See OoPTEiGHT. 34. 
 
 — "Available balance in hand." 
 
 See Building Society — Withdrawal. 
 22. 
 
 — " Baccarat." 
 
 See Gaming — TTnlawful Games. 34. 
 
 — " Bank charges." 
 
 See Peactioe— Writ. 290. 
 
 — " Bare trustee." 
 
 See Teustes — ^Appointment. 13. 
 
 — "Bed "of river. 
 
 See Thames. 7, 8. 
 Watee. 41, 45. 
 
 — "Bedding." 
 
 See Disteess. 12. 
 
 — " Began to enjoy benefit." 
 
 See Ebvbnije — Legacy Duty. 122. 
 
 — " Beneficial owner." 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 92. 
 
 Vendob AND PuROHASEB. 38,39,81. 
 
 — « Benefit." 
 
 Bee Hbsband and Wipe. 57. 
 Will. 92. 
 
 — « Best rent." 
 
 See Settled Land. 67, 69. 
 
 — " Betterment." 
 
 See Bates. 31. 
 
 — "Black List." 
 
 See Teade Union. 4. 
 
 — " Boiler." 
 
 See BoiLEB. 1. 
 
 — " Bona, fide traveller." 
 
 See Licensing Acts- Offences. 36—38. 
 
 — " Bond, covenant, or instrument." 
 
 See Eevende. 144 — 146. 
 
 — « Bonus." 
 
 See Oompant— Winding-up. 25. 
 
 — " Boots." 
 
 See Paeliament. 121. 
 
 — « Brothel." 
 
 See Criminal Law. 45. 
 
 — " Building." 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 21. 
 Hoarding. 
 Light and Ant. 9. 
 Cases under London — Buildings. 
 
 — " Building land." 
 
 See Vbndoe and Pitechasee. 40. 
 
 VJO'K'aS— continued. 
 — • " Building purposes." 
 
 See Settled Land. 27. 
 
 — " Buildings." 
 
 See Bates. 34. 
 
 — Buildings and property other than land." 
 
 See Streets. 14. 
 
 — " Building structure or erection." 
 
 See London — Buildings. 4, 5. 
 
 — " Burnt." 
 
 See Insurance — Marine, 43. 
 
 — " Calculated to deceive." 
 
 See Trade-maek — Registration. 31, 52 
 
 — " within one Calendar month." 
 
 See Justices. 20. 
 
 — " used for the purposes of a Oanal." 
 
 See London— Buildings. 30. 
 
 — "Cancelling of charter." 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 31. 
 
 — " Candidate." 
 
 See COEPOBATION. 14. 
 
 — " Cargo." 
 
 See Ship — Deviation. 122. 
 
 — " Carnal knowledge." 
 
 See Ceiminal Law. 51. 
 
 — "Carriage." 
 
 See Bicycle. 2. 
 
 — " Carrying on a trade." 
 
 See Bankeuptcy. 204. 
 
 — " Carrying on business within the jurisdic- 
 
 tion." 
 
 See Peactice — Service. 186. 
 Practice- Writ. 299. 
 
 — " Cautionary obligation." 
 
 See Scottish Law. 16. 
 
 — " Cease to be payable." 
 
 See Settlement. 25. 
 
 — " Cease to carry on business " — Business 
 
 turned into a company. 
 See Will. 174. 
 
 — " Chancery visitors." 
 
 See Lunacy. 33. 
 
 — " Charge." 
 
 See Streets. 29, 31. 
 
 — " Charitable purposes." 
 
 See Ohabity- Gift to Charity. 17—19. 
 See Revenue. 76. 
 
 — " Charity." 
 
 See Feiendly Society. 6. 
 
 — " Charity school." 
 
 See Revenue — House Duty. 53. 
 
 — " map. Chart, or plan." 
 
 See CoPYEiGHT — Book. 4. 
 
 — " Chemin de fer." 
 
 See Gaming — Unlawful Games. 34. 
 
 — » Children." 
 
 See Cases under Will — Children. 
 
 — " Children then living." 
 
 See Will— Children. 34. 
 
 — " Civil proceedings in the Higi Court." 
 
 See Baskbuptcy. 5. 
 
 — " Class " — Representation in action. 
 
 See Practice — Parties. 114, 115. 
 
( 2375 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2376 ) 
 
 WORDS — continued. 
 
 — " Clear day." 
 
 See Costs — Counsel's Tees. 17. 
 
 — " Clerk or servant." 
 
 See OoMPAinr — Director. 106, 114. 
 
 — " Client." 
 
 See SOLICETOK — Articled Clerk, 1. 
 
 — " Clog " on redemption. 
 
 See MoBTGAGE — Redemption. 58 — 60. 
 
 — " Close of pleadings.'' 
 
 See Peactioe — Trial. 262. 
 
 — " Coal." 
 
 See London — Streets. 86. 
 
 — " ship not under Command." 
 
 See Ship — Collision. 76. 
 
 — " Commercial matters." 
 
 See Canada. 23. 
 
 — " Common to the trade." 
 
 See Teade-mabk — Registration. 20. 
 
 — " Company incorporated by Act of Parlia- 
 
 ment." 
 
 See Tbustee — Investments. 60. 
 
 — " Company duly constituted by law." 
 
 See CoMP ANT— Registration. 262. 
 
 — " Company's policy.'' 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 71. 
 
 — " Completed execution." 
 
 See Bankeuptct. 187. 
 
 — " Completed mortgage." 
 
 See MoETGAGE— Costs. 9. 
 SOLICITOE. 43. 
 
 — " Completion of conveyance." 
 
 See SoLiciTOE. 61. 
 
 — " Compromise." 
 
 See Company — Debentures. 67. 
 
 — " Concealed fraud." 
 
 See Limitations, Statute op. 15. 
 
 — " Contango " transactions. 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 9. 
 
 — " Contents of desk." 
 
 See Will— Words. 211. 
 
 — " Contract of tenancy." 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 6. 
 
 — " Constructing " waterworks. 
 
 See Watee. 10. 
 
 — " Contrary intention." 
 
 See ExEcnTOR. 20. 
 
 Vendoe and Poeohasee. 40. 
 WiLi.. 85. 
 
 — " Convenient." 
 
 See County Couet. 69. 
 
 — " Conveyance." 
 
 See Bankeuptcy. 193. 
 
 YOBKSHIBE. 
 
 — " Conveyance on sale." 
 
 See Revenue. 153. 
 
 — " Conveyance of property." 
 
 See SoLioiTOE. 39. 
 
 — " Conveyance on sale." 
 
 See Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, 
 c. 10), s. 16. 
 
 — " Conveyance or assignment "of property — 
 
 Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4, sub-s. 1. 
 See Bankruptcy. 2. 
 
 WORDS — continued. 
 
 — " Conveyance or transfer on sale.'' 
 
 See Eevenue — Stamps. 160. 
 
 — " Copy." 
 
 See CoPYElGHT. 28. 
 
 — " Correct weight." 
 
 See Weights and Measures. 
 
 — " Correspondent." 
 
 See Evidence. 22. 
 
 — " Costs, charges, and expenses." 
 
 See Costs. 10. 
 
 Partnership. 3. 
 
 — " Counselling." 
 
 See Justices. 5. 
 
 — " Coupon competition." 
 
 See Gaming. 6. 
 
 — "Court." 
 
 See Company. 181, 228. 
 ■ — " Court in which action might have been 
 commenced." 
 See County Couet — ^Transfer. 69. 
 
 — " Cover." 
 
 See Gamikg. 28. 
 
 Stock Exchange. 3, 6. 
 
 — " Creditor." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 114, 115. 
 Parliament. 6. 
 
 — " Criminal cause or matter." 
 
 See Appeal. 7 — 11. 
 
 — " within the same Curtilage." 
 
 See London — Sewers. 60. 
 
 — " cargo to be discharged with all despatch aa 
 
 Customary." 
 
 See Ship — Demurrage. 108. 
 
 — " Crossing." 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 55. 
 
 — " Customer." 
 
 See Banker. 9, 19. 
 
 — " Damaged " cargo. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 31. 
 
 — " Debts or obligations." 
 
 See Paetnership. 32. 
 Power. 27. 
 
 — " Debt provable in baukruptcy." 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Proof. 168. 
 
 — " Deducting." 
 
 See Mobtgage. 10. 
 
 — "Default." 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 52, 54. 
 
 — " Defect in the condition of the works." 
 
 See Master and Servant. 75. 
 
 — " Defects latent on beginning voyage or other- 
 
 wise." 
 
 See Shipping. 130. 
 
 — " Delineated." 
 
 See Kailway. 32. 
 
 — " place of Delivery." 
 
 See Adulteration. 21. 
 
 — " Delivery under any agreement for sale." 
 
 See Factor. 4. 
 
 — " Dependants." 
 
 See Master and Servant. 9. 
 
 — " Depreciation." 
 
 See Company — Windinq-up. 4. 
 
( 2377 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2378 ) 
 
 ^Omta— continued. 
 — " Desertion." 
 
 See DivoECE. 
 
 9. 
 
 10. 
 
 70. 
 
 67. 
 
 See Cases under Designs. 
 
 — " Determination of tenancy." 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 Scottish Law. 22. 
 
 — " Deviation." 
 
 See Water — Supply. 9. 
 
 — " Die unmarried." 
 
 See Will— Words. 212. 
 
 — " Die without child or children." 
 
 See Will— Children. 35, 39. 
 
 — " Die without having been married." 
 
 See Settlement — Construction. 
 
 — " Die without leaving male issue.' 
 
 See Will — Contingent Remainder. 
 
 — " Differences." 
 
 See Stock Exchange. 3, 6. 
 
 — "Different tenements." 
 
 See Revenue. 54. 
 
 — " Direct communication." 
 
 See London. 72. 
 
 — " Disbursements." 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 59. 
 Shippinq — lien. 161. 
 
 — " Disclaimer." 
 
 See Patent. 24. 
 
 — " Discontinuance." 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 — "Discount." 
 
 See CoMPANV — Winding-dp. 
 
 — "Discretion." 
 
 See Theatre. 1. 
 
 — " Disposition." 
 
 See Copyhold. 6. 
 
 Kbvendb — Estate Duty. 
 
 — " arising on Distinct occasions." 
 
 See Ship — limitation of Liability. 
 
 — " Distinctive device." 
 
 See Trade-mark. 24. 
 
 — " Disused burial-ground." 
 
 See Cases under Burial and Ecclesias- 
 tical Law — Faculty. 
 
 — " Document " — Case for opinion of counsel. 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 24. 
 
 — " Domestic animals." 
 
 See Criminal Law. 8. 
 
 — "Domestic animal." 
 
 See Criminal Law. 7. 
 
 — "Drain." 
 
 See London — Sewers. 57. 
 Sewebs. 10—13, 26. 
 
 — " Dwelling-house." 
 
 See Parliament— Franchise, 
 125, 129, 133. 
 
 "Dwelling-house in England." 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Petition. 
 Kevbnub. 64. 
 
 " Dwelling-house, joint." 
 
 See Parliament — Franchise, 
 
 « Basement." 
 
 See County Court— Jurisdiction. 49, 
 
 18. 
 218. 
 
 23. 
 
 171. 
 
 WO'RIiS— continued. 
 
 — " Ecclesiastical charity." 
 
 See Charity. 2. 
 
 — "Bfifects." 
 
 See Will. 213. 
 
 — " Effects and securities." 
 
 See Partnership. 27. 
 
 — " Either." 
 
 See Will. 203. 
 
 — " Ejusdem generis." 
 
 See Deed. 1. 
 
 — " Eldest sou." 
 
 See Settlement — Construction. 
 Will— Eldest Son. 77. 
 
 " End of the current year." 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 " End of tlie highway." 
 
 See Highway — Diversion. 2 
 
 43. 
 
 86, 123, 
 
 142. 
 
 50. 
 
 — " Endowed school." 
 
 See Cases under Charity , — Commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 — " Endowment." 
 
 See Cases under Charity — Commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 — " Engineering work." 
 
 See Master and Servant — Compensa- 
 tion. 25. 
 
 — " Erection." 
 
 See London— Buildings. 30 — 33. 
 
 — "Estate." 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. 36. 
 Will. 6. 
 — " Estates and hereditaments subject to the 
 limitations." 
 See Will— Words. 214. 
 
 — " Every such offence." 
 
 See Copyright. 17. 
 
 — " Excessive weight." 
 
 See Oases under Highway — Repairs. 
 
 — " Execution." 
 
 See Improvement. 3. 
 
 — " Exercise." 
 
 See Patent. 14. 
 
 — " Exposed for sale." 
 
 See Adulteration. 15. 
 
 — " Express declaration." 
 
 See Settled Land. 114. 
 
 — " Extension " of roads. 
 
 See China. 1. 
 
 — " External " injiiry caused by " external " 
 
 means. 
 
 See Insurance — Accident. 1. 
 
 — " injury caused by External means." 
 
 See Insurance — Accident. 1. 
 
 — " Extra " service. 
 
 See Shipping. 193. 
 
 — " Extraordinaiy case." 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs. 24. 
 
 • " Extraordinary trafBc." 
 
 See Cases under Highway- 
 
 — " Extra services." 
 
 See Shippdjg- 
 
 -Filotage. 
 
 Bepairs. 
 193. 
 
( 2379 ) 
 
 DIG-EST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2380 ) 
 
 VfO'R'DS—contimted. 
 
 — " Factor, agent, or receiver having the receipt 
 
 of profits or gains." | 
 
 See Revenue — Income Tax. 96. 
 
 — " Factory." 
 
 See Master and Seevakt. 12, i8, 62. 
 
 — " Fairway." 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 65. 
 
 — " Family arrangements." 
 
 See Settlement. 3. 
 
 — " Fancy word." 
 
 See Cases under Teade-maek — Eegis- 
 tration. 
 
 — " Faut en e'oritures de commerce." 
 
 Bee ExTEADiTioN. 3. 
 
 — " Fetter." 
 
 See MoKTQAGE. 58. 
 
 — " Fictitious or non-existing person." 
 
 See Banker. 12. 
 
 Bill of Exchange. 
 
 — " Final judgment." 
 
 See Bankeuptot. • 8 — 11. 
 
 — " Final port." 
 
 See Insueance— Marine. 78. 
 
 — "First refusal." 
 
 See CoNTEAOT. 24. 
 
 — " Fixed plant and machinery." 
 
 See Vendob and Pueohasee — Contract. 
 17. 
 
 — " Floating security." 
 
 See Company — Debenture. 58, 94. 
 
 — " Flotation." 
 
 See Cape op Good Hope. 4. 
 
 — " at the Foot or end thereof." 
 
 See Peobate — Execution. 17. 
 
 — " Foreign possessions." 
 
 See Revenue. 83, 84. 
 
 — " Foreign statement." 
 
 See Insueance — Marine. 56. 
 
 — « Fraudulent." 
 
 See Company. 209. 
 
 — " Fresh evidence." 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 90. 
 
 — " From." 
 
 See Insurance — Accident. 2. 
 
 — tenancy commencing " From " a, particular 
 
 day. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 39. 
 
 — " Full annual rent or value." 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 7. 
 
 — " Full compensation." 
 
 See CoEPOEATiON. 27. 
 Costs. 76. 
 Nuisance. 
 
 — " Full costs." 
 
 See Copyeight. 12, 13. 
 
 — " Fully paid." 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 31. 
 
 — " Furniture." 
 
 See Insueance — Marine. 55. 
 
 — " General nature." 
 
 See Company. 169. 
 
 — " Gentleman." 
 
 See Evidence. 15. 
 
 WO'R'DS—ocmtinued. 
 
 — " Geographical name." 
 
 See Teade-maek — Eegistration. 40. 
 
 — " Gold mine." 
 
 See Mines. 10. 
 
 — " Good or valuable consideration." 
 
 See Copyeight. 37. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Law — Clmrcli Sates. 
 
 — " GoodwiU." 
 
 See Paetnekship. 28. 
 
 — " Goods of a debtor." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 104. 
 
 — " Government." 
 
 See Company. 180. 
 — ■ " on the last day of Grace." 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 4. 
 
 — " Grain brought into the City of London for 
 
 sale." 
 
 See London — Grain Duty. 42. 
 
 — " Guest." 
 
 See Innkebpee. 1. 
 
 — " Heirs female." 
 
 See Scottish Law. 40. 
 
 — " Held out or recommended to the public." 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 165. 
 
 — " Hereditament." 
 
 See Revenue. 118. 
 
 — " upon the High seas." 
 
 See Shipping — Necessaries. 180. 
 
 — "Heritor." 
 
 See Watee. 30. 
 
 — "High Court." 
 
 See Revenue. 93, 94. 
 
 — " High seas." 
 
 See Shipping. 180. 
 
 — " Highest net money tender." 
 
 See Tendee. 3. 
 
 — "Holding title." 
 
 See Vendor and Puechasbb. ^ 10. 
 
 — " Honour policy." 
 
 See Insurance — Marine. 59. 
 
 — "Hospital." 
 
 See Revenue — House Duty, 57. 
 
 — « House." 
 
 See Covenant. 5. 
 
 — " House refuse." 
 
 See London. 48. 
 
 — " Hull and machinery." 
 
 See Insueance — Marine. 59. 
 
 — " Illegal dealing." 
 
 See Licensing Acts — Offences. 40. 
 
 — "Improvement area." 
 
 See London. 69. 
 
 — ■ " Improvement charge." 
 
 See London. 69. 
 
 — " Improvements." 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 10. 
 
 — " Improvements." 
 
 See Settled Land — Capital Money. 31 
 — '.' Inadvertence." 
 
 See Company. 284. 
 
 Company — Winding-up. 202. 
 
 — " Incombustible materials." 
 
 See London — Buildings. 27. 
 Sir "^ 
 
( 2381 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2382 ) 
 
 WORDS— oom/imMedl. 
 
 — "Income." 
 
 See Eeyenub. 78, 79. 
 Settlement. 
 
 — " Incumbrance." 
 
 See Settled Land. 105. 
 
 — " Information and beUef." 
 
 See Evidence. 19. 
 
 — " In his own right." 
 
 See CnAKGiNG Order. 3. 
 Company. 135. 
 
 — "In possession." 
 
 See Settled Land. 93. 
 
 — " In the fullest confidence." 
 
 See Will — Precatory Trust. 168. 
 
 — " Interest of money lent." 
 
 See Ketenue — Income Tax. 71. 
 
 — " Intermediate income." 
 
 See AOODMULATIONS. 4. 
 
 — " Intestate." 
 
 See Distributions, Statute of. 
 
 — " InTented word." 
 
 See Trade-mark — Eegistration. 44. 
 
 — " Issue." 
 
 See Banker. 12. 
 
 Will— Children. 37, 40—42. 
 
 — " Issue living." 
 
 See Will— Children. 42. 
 
 — " Joint stock company." 
 
 See Soientifio Sooiett. 1. 
 
 — "Judgment." 
 
 See Balance Obdeb. 
 
 Limitations, Statute op. 39, 40. 
 Practice. 176. 
 
 — " Judgment obtained." 
 
 See Costs. 45. 
 
 — " Just and equitable." 
 
 See Company — Windins-up. 163 — 168. 
 
 — " Keeper " of room. 
 
 See Sunday. 3. 
 
 — « Land." 
 
 See Lands Clauses Act. 20. 
 Streets. 12, 14. 
 
 — " Land covered with water." 
 
 See Watee. 35. 
 
 — " Last place of abode." 
 
 See Bastardy. 2, 3. 
 
 — " Lawfully detained." 
 
 See Lunacy. 13, 39. 
 
 — " Lawful excuse." 
 
 See Post Office. 1. 
 
 — " Lawful merchandise." 
 
 See Shipping. 37. 
 
 — " Lawful purpose." 
 
 See Industbial Society. 1. 
 
 — " Lease." 
 
 See Solicitor — Costs, 58. 
 
 — " Lease or tack." 
 
 See Ebvesue — Stamps. 140. 
 " Leasehold reversion." 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 94. 
 " Legacy." 
 
 See Solicitor. 134. 
 
 WOEDS— oonWfttted. 
 
 — " Legal cruelty." 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 84. 
 
 — " Legal disability." 
 
 See Will. 215. 
 
 — " Legal proceedings. 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 26. 
 
 — " Liability incurred." 
 
 See Streets. 33. 
 
 — " Liable to be deprived." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 200. 
 Will— Forfeiture. 99. 
 
 — "Liable" to be laid out in the purchase of 
 
 land. 
 
 See Settled Land. 36. 
 
 — " for his Life and the life of his heir." 
 
 See Will— Words. 216. 
 
 — "Limited." 
 
 See Teade-mabk. 57, 
 
 — " Liquidated sum." 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Act of Bankruptcy. 
 29. 
 
 — " issue Living." 
 
 See Will— Children. 42. 
 
 — " Loan." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 180. 
 
 — " Lopping." 
 
 See Highway — Obstruction. 7. 
 
 — " not lawfully detained as a Lunatic, and not 
 
 found a lunatic by inquisition, but 
 through mental infirmity arising from 
 age incapable of managing his affairs." 
 See Lunacy. 15. 
 
 — ■ "all dangerous parts of the Machinery." 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant 
 — Factory Acts. 
 
 — " Main purpose." 
 
 See Company. 180. 
 
 — " Maintenance of children." 
 
 See Will— Children. 43. 
 
 — "Maker." 
 
 See Bill of Exchange. 28. 
 
 — " Maliciously." 
 
 See Action. 14. 
 
 Criminal Law. 61. 
 
 — " Management." 
 
 See Shipping. 28. 
 
 — " Management" of ship. 
 
 See Shipping — Exceptions. 134. 
 
 — '.' Manager in trust." 
 
 See Banker. 5. 
 
 — " person Managing or conducting entertain- 
 
 ment." 
 
 See Sunday. 3. 
 
 — " Manual labour." 
 
 See Master and Servant — Contract. 
 55. 
 
 — " Map, chart, or plan." 
 
 See Copyright — Book. 4. 
 
 — " Marketable security." 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 147, 149. 
 
 — " without having been Married." 
 
 See Settlement — Construction, 10. 
 
( 2383 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2384 ) 
 
 WOEDS — continued. 
 
 — "Married woman." 
 
 See Will — Married Woman. 144. 
 
 — " Material detriment." 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts. 10. 
 
 — " Material facts not brought before the Oourt.' 
 
 See DivoKCE — Collusion. 25. 
 
 — "Matrimonial domioil." 
 
 See Divorce. 84. 
 
 — " Matter of complaint." 
 
 See Hackney Cakkiage. 3. 
 
 — "a Member " of a company. 
 
 See Company — Shares. 270. 
 
 — " Member." 
 
 See Company — Meetings. 169. 
 
 — " Memorandum." 
 
 See Fbauds, Statute or. 25. 
 
 — " Memorandum of charge." 
 
 See YoEKSHiEE. 
 
 — " Mercantile agent." 
 
 See Factoe. 2, 4. 
 
 — " Milk to be pure new milk." 
 
 See Adultebation. 20. 
 
 — " Ministration," , 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 49. 
 
 — " Missing word." 
 
 See LoTTEEY. 1. 
 
 — "Mistake." 
 
 See Parliament. 36, 68. 
 
 — " Mixed fund." 
 
 See Will — Legacy. 121. 
 
 — " Money laid out." 
 
 See Settled Land. 69. 
 
 — " Mutual dealings." 
 
 See Bankeuptcy— Set-off. 235—237. 
 
 — "Natural." 
 
 See "Will— Words. 221. 
 
 — "in Navigating the ship or otherwise." 
 
 See Shipping — Exceptions. 138. 
 
 — "Necessaries." 
 
 See Infant. 33 — 35. 
 
 Cases under Shipping — Necessaries. 
 
 — " Necessary works of repair." 
 
 See London — Streets. 90. 
 
 — " Negotiable securities." 
 
 See Cases under Bankee and Negoti- 
 able Instrument. 
 Stock Exchange. 8. 
 
 — " Nephew. " 
 
 See Will. 102, 105. 
 
 — " Nephews and nieces." 
 
 See Will — Class. 52, 53. 
 
 — " Net profits." 
 
 See Company — Directors. 140. 
 
 — " New street." 
 
 See London— Streets. 74, 75, 81—85. 
 Streets. 19. 
 
 — " New 3 Per Cent. Bank Annuities." 
 
 See National Debt. 2. 
 
 — " New and original design." 
 
 See Designs— Registration. 5, 6. 
 
 — " Next of kin in blood." 
 
 See DiSTEiBDTiONS, Statute of. 
 
 WOEDS — eontinued. 
 
 — " Niece." 
 
 See Will. 103. 
 
 — " Nomination." 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law- 
 2. 
 
 — " Non-textile factory." 
 
 See Mastee and Servant. 
 
 — "Notice." 
 
 See Bankeuptcy. 29. 
 
 — " Obtaining credit." 
 
 See Ceiminal Law. 56. 
 
 — " now in my own Occupation." 
 
 See Will— Words. 217. 
 
 — "as now Occupied by me." 
 
 See Will— Words. 218. 
 
 — " Now paid." 
 
 See Bill of Sale. 18. 
 
 — " Occupier." 
 
 See Gas. 3. 
 
 — '■ Occupier of land." 
 
 See Game. 8. 
 
 — " Officer " of company. 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 
 
 ■ AdvowBon. 
 
 62. 
 
 195, 196. 
 
 — " Off-licence." 
 
 See Licensing Acts. 4. 
 . — " Offspring." 
 
 See Will— Children. 44. 
 
 — " Old mark." 
 
 See Teade-maek — Eegistration. 48 — 50. 
 
 — " On " — Tenancy commencing " on " a par- 
 
 ticular day. 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 39. 
 
 — " On demand," 
 
 See Bill op Exchange. 20. 
 
 — " Open cover." 
 
 See Insueance — Marine. 74. 
 
 — " Open for traffic on Sunday." 
 
 See Mastee and Seevant. 61. 
 
 — " Opened " mines. 
 
 See Mines. 14. 
 
 — " Opposite to the end of the will." 
 
 See Probate — Execution, 17. 
 
 — " Option." 
 
 See Settled Land. 120. 
 
 — " Or." 
 
 See Will. 9. 
 
 — " Order." 
 
 See Bill op Exchange. 8. 
 
 — " Ordinary course of post." 
 
 See Paeliament — Franchise. 97. 
 
 — " Ordinary luggage." 
 
 See Eailway — Passenger, 25. 
 
 — " Originating summons," 
 
 See Pbaotioe— Originating Summons. 
 61. 
 
 — " Outgoings." 
 
 See Streets. 29—32. 
 
 Vendor and Pukchasee. 12, 13. 
 
 — " Outgoings properly chargeable." 
 
 See Will— Words, 219. 
 
 — " Own profit." 
 
 See Water. 23. 
 
( 2385 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2386 ) 
 
 Vl'Q'R'DS— continued. 
 
 — " Owner of goods." 
 
 See Shipping — Charterparty. 26. 
 
 — "Owner of lands." 
 
 See London — Streets. 77. 
 
 — " Owner or tenant." 
 
 See Parliament. 115. 
 
 — " Owners." 
 
 See Common. 4. 
 London. 20, 68. 
 Ndisanoes. 23, 24. 
 Steeets. 25, 29, 31, 32. 
 
 — " Parties entitled to execution." 
 
 iSee Keoeiveb. 21. 
 — ■ " Passage." 
 
 See Streets. 18. 
 
 — " Passage broker." 
 
 See Shipping. 182. 
 — • " Passage home." 
 
 See Shipping. 261, 2G2. 
 
 upon." 
 See HtGHWAT — Obstruction. 3. 
 
 — "Pattern." 
 
 See Design. 6. » 
 
 — "Payment." 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 42. 
 
 — " Perfecting of order." 
 
 See Bankbuptoy — Appeal. 46. 
 
 — " Permanent common." 
 
 See Common. 5. 
 
 — " Person aggrieved." 
 
 See Bankbuptct — Practice. 
 
 Tbadb-mabk — Begistration, 54, 55. 
 
 — " Personal representatives." 
 
 See Executor. 14. 
 
 — " Philantiiropic." 
 
 See Charity. 17. 
 — ■ " Physician." 
 
 jSee Medical Practitioner. 3. 
 
 — " Piers or similar structures." 
 
 Bee Insurance — Marine. 36. 
 
 — 'J' Pirates, robbers, or thieves of whatever kiod, 
 whether on board or not, or by land or 
 sea." 
 See Shipping— Exceptions. 139. 
 
 — "Place." 
 
 See Gaming. 10—16. 
 
 Hackney Carriage. 2. 
 Justices. 4. 
 Partnership. 4. 
 
 — " Place of delivery." 
 
 ;See Adulteration. 21. 
 " Place of public resort." 
 
 See Corporation. 1. 
 " Place " used for betting. 
 
 See Gaming. 11 — 16. 
 
 _ " Plan." 
 
 See Cases under Streets — Building 
 Flans. 
 Water — Supply. 18. 
 
 ii map, chart, or Plan." 
 
 See Copyright — Book. 4. 
 
 " Plant." 
 
 See Vendor and Purchaser. 17. 
 
 WORDS— continued. 
 
 — " Point of law." 
 
 See Court County. 11. 
 
 Probate— Eevocation. 143. 
 
 — " Port charges." 
 
 See Shipping. 43. 
 
 — " Ports." 
 
 See Shipping — Deviation. 122. 
 — ■ " Possession." 
 
 See Will. 1, 4, 191. 
 — ■ " Possession or power." 
 
 See Practice — Discovery. 41. 
 
 — " Practice and procedure." 
 
 See-AppEAL. 24. 
 
 — " Preaching." 
 
 See Ecclesiastical Law. 49. 
 
 — " Present right to receive." 
 
 See Limitations, Statute of. 23. 
 
 — "Price." 
 
 See Water — Supply. 8. 
 
 — " Principal oifer." 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 184. 
 
 — " Private residence." 
 
 See Covenant. 4, 5. 
 — ■ " Privies in estate." 
 
 See Estoppel. 1. 
 
 — " Privilege." 
 
 See Discovery. 32. 
 
 — " Proceeding " to sea. 
 
 See Shipping. 193. 
 
 — " Proceedings." 
 
 See PooE Law — Guardians. 2. 
 
 — " Proceeding instituted." 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 44, 45. 
 
 — " Profit derived from transaction arising out 
 
 of bankruptcy." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 70. 
 
 — " Profits and gains." 
 
 See Revenue. 67. 
 
 — " Property." 
 
 See Company. 75. 
 
 Landloed and Tenant. 11. 
 Eevenoe. 161. 
 Will. 6. 
 
 — " Property of wife." 
 
 See DivoECE. 13. 
 
 — " Property recovered or preserved." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 67. 
 
 — "Property settled." 
 
 See DivoEOE. 95. 
 
 — " Public entertainment." 
 
 See Sunday. 3. 
 
 — " Public harbours." 
 
 See Canada. 21. 
 
 — " Public notice or advertisement." 
 
 See Revenue — Stamps. 165. 
 
 — "Public place." 
 
 See Steeets. 1. 
 
 — " Public school." 
 
 See Revenue — House Duty. 113. 
 
 — " Publication." 
 
 See Newspapee. 1. 
 
 — " Published." 
 
 See Copyright — International. 25. 
 4 H 
 
.( 2387 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2388 ) 
 
 WORDS — continued. 
 
 — " Punctual " payment. 
 
 See Mortgage. 39. 
 
 — " Purchase." 
 
 See Teade Union. 2. 
 
 — " Purchaser." 
 
 See Intestacy. 1. 
 
 — " Purchaser for value without notice." 
 
 See SoLioiTOE — Lien. 
 
 — " Purchaser in good faith." 
 
 See Bankeuptot. 271. 
 
 — " Putrid solid matter." 
 
 See Water. 4. 
 
 — " Qualified pilot." 
 
 See Shipping — Pilotage. 195. 
 
 — " Baising of money." 
 
 See Company — ^Debenture. 38. 
 
 — "Eeady to discharge." 
 
 See Shipping — Demurrage. 112. 
 
 — " Eeal estate." 
 
 See Will— Words. 220. 
 
 — " Eeasonable cause." 
 
 See Scottish Law — ^Divorce. 12. 
 
 — "Reasonable facilities." 
 
 See Eailway. 64. 
 
 — " Eebnilding "—Settled Land Act, 1890, s. 13. 
 
 sul)-3. iv. 
 
 See Settled Land — Capital Money. 39, 
 40. 
 
 — "Eeceipt." 
 
 See Ebvenue — Stamps. 178, 180. 
 
 — " Eedeemable." 
 
 See Company. 90. 
 
 — " Eefuse or neglect." 
 
 See Will — Condition. 62. 
 
 — " Eegister tonnage." 
 
 See Shipping. 165. 
 
 — " Relations." 
 
 See Will. 104, 106. 
 
 — " Keligious societies." 
 
 See Chaeity. 18. 
 
 — " Eent charge." 
 
 See Cases under Eent-ohakge. 
 
 — " Eepair, maintain and uphold." 
 
 Bee Landlokd and Tenant. 26. 
 
 — " Eepairs." 
 
 See Master and Servant. 7. 
 
 — "Eepairs." 
 
 See Settled Land — Capital Money. 28. 
 
 — " Eepresentatives." 
 
 See Will— Words. 221. 
 
 — " Eesidential flats." 
 
 See Covenant. 5. 
 
 — " Eesidue and remainder " 
 
 See Will — Legacy. 120. 
 
 — " Eestraint of princes.'' 
 
 See SntppiNG — Exceptions. 140, 141. 
 
 — " Eesult." 
 
 See Costs — Discretion. 21. 
 
 — "Return to England." 
 
 See Will — Condition. 63. 
 
 WOKDS — continued. 
 -"Road." 
 
 See Lands Clauses Acts, 9. 
 Railway. 33. 
 
 — " Safe port." 
 
 See Shipping. 44. 
 
 — " Sa0ing." 
 
 See Insueanoe, Makine. 26. 
 
 — " Salary or income." 
 
 See Bankruptcy — Assets. 58, 54. 
 
 — " Satisfaction." 
 
 See Sewers. 8. 
 
 — " Scaffolding." 
 
 See Master and Servant. 41, 42. 
 
 — " Scheme legally established." 
 
 See Charity. 5. 
 
 — "Sea-going ship." 
 
 See Shipping. 183. 
 
 — " Sealing." 
 
 See Company — Winding-up. 149. 
 
 — " Seaman." 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 267. 
 
 — " Seaworthiness." 
 
 See Shipping. 143. 
 
 — " Secured " — Annuity secured to A. for life or 
 
 perpetual. 
 
 See Annuity. 7. 
 
 — " Secured creditor." 
 
 See Company — Winding-up — Ezecntion. 
 93. 
 
 — " Secured creditors." 
 
 See Eeoeiyer. 9. 
 
 — " SeUer." 
 
 See Adulteration. 5. 
 
 — " Separate use." 
 
 See Husband and Wipe. 62. 
 
 — " Separation of the crop." 
 
 See Scottish Law — Landlord and 
 Tenant. 22. 
 
 — " Servant." 
 
 See Company — Directors. 114. 
 
 — " Set apart and retain." 
 
 See Accumulations. 4. 
 
 — " Settled estate." 
 
 See Settled Land. 56. 
 
 — " Settled property." 
 
 See Eevenue. 45,- 46. 
 
 — " Settlement." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 267. 
 Eevbnce. 181. 
 Settled Land. 124—127. 
 Vendor and Pubohasek. 46. 
 
 — " Sewer." 
 
 See London — Sewers. 59. 
 Sewers. 1, 10—13, 26. 
 
 — " Sewage or filthy water." 
 
 See Sewers. 32. 
 
 — " Shall think fit." 
 
 See Trustee. 
 
 — " Share of his estate." 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 37. 
 
 — " Share of profits." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 180. 
 
 — " Share and share alike." 
 
 See Will— Children. 45. 
 
( 2389 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2390 ) 
 
 ■WORDS — continued. 
 
 — " Shares." 
 
 See Will— Words. 222. 
 
 — " Sheet of music." 
 
 See CoPYMGHT. 28. 
 
 — " Sheriff." 
 
 See Bankruptcy. 143. 
 Shekifp. 1 5. 
 
 — "Ship." 
 
 See Insurance, Marine. 82. 
 Sbippins. 2. 
 
 — " Shipbuilding " yard. 
 
 See Master and Servakt — Compensa- 
 tion. 12. 
 
 — " Shore " of river. 
 
 See Thames. 7 — 9. 
 
 — "Similar business." 
 
 See Restraint of Trade. 10. 
 
 — " Sole tenant." 
 
 See Parliament. 82. 
 
 — " Special and distinctive word." 
 
 See Trade-mark — Beg^stration. 48. 
 
 — " Special circumstances." 
 
 See Bankrxeptcy. 74. 
 
 Parliament. 11. 
 
 Probate. 41, 71. 
 • — " Special expenses." 
 
 See Sewers. 23. 
 
 — " Spinster and intestate." 
 
 See Settlement. 11. 
 
 — " Sporting paper." 
 
 See Newspaper. 1. 
 
 — " Stations of the Cross." 
 
 See Ecolesiastioal Law. 36. 
 
 — " Statutory defence." 
 
 See CouNOCT Cotjbt. 67. 
 
 — " Step in the proceedings." 
 
 See Arbitration. 58. 
 
 — " Stream." 
 
 See Water. 38. 
 
 — " Street." 
 
 See Streets. 37. 
 
 Water — Supply. 19. 
 
 — "Structure." 
 
 See London — Buildings. 30 — 33. 
 
 — " Subject to military law." 
 
 See Aemt and Navy. 8. 
 
 — " Submission." 
 
 See Arbitration. 60. 
 
 — " Subsequent action." 
 
 See Patent. 11. 
 
 — " Succession." 
 
 See Queensland. 6. 
 Kbvenue. 47. 
 Settled Land. 126. 
 _" Sufficient cause." „,„ ,n 
 
 See Bankeuptot. 210, ^ii. 
 
 « Snin employed as capital." 
 
 See Bbvbnue. 86. 
 
 -"^"P«ATER-Suppiy. 21. 
 
 « fiiirolus assets. ' _ _ 
 
 ■" ^^ee Company — Winding-up— Surplus 
 
 Assets. 8. 
 
 WORDS— continued. 
 
 — " Surviving children." 
 
 See Will. 42—47. 
 
 — " Survivor." 
 
 See Will. 203, 204. 
 
 — " Tender." 
 
 See Shipping. 269. 
 
 — " Testamentary expenses." 
 
 See ExBOUTOK. 30. 
 Intestacy. 
 
 Will — Testamentary Expenses. 205, 
 206. 
 
 — " Threats." 
 
 See Patent. 57, 58. 
 
 — "Tied" public-house. 
 
 See Mortgage — Redemption. 60. 
 Kates. 30, 31. 
 
 — " Tons burden." 
 
 See Shipping. 165. 
 
 — " Tons les biens et droits mobiliers." 
 
 See Powers. 22. 
 
 — " Trade description." 
 
 See Trade-mark — Herchandise Harks, 
 
 — " Trade-mark." 
 
 See Trade-mark — ^Registration, yossim.. 
 
 — " Transactions." 
 
 See Solicitor. 60. 
 
 — " Transcript." 
 
 See Lancaster. 4. 
 Practice. 269. 
 
 — " Translation." 
 
 See Copyright — International. 27. 
 
 — " Transmit." 
 
 See Parliament. 9. 
 
 — " Tributary." 
 
 See Fishery. 6. 
 
 — " True owner." 
 
 See Bill op Sale. 55, 56. 
 
 — " Turning." 
 
 See Shipping — Collision. 
 
 — " Under way." 
 
 See Shipping. 53. 
 
 — " Under-book pilot." 
 
 .See Shipping — Pilotage. 188. 
 
 — " Undertaker." 
 
 See Master and Servant. 46 — 50. 
 
 — " Undistributed assets." 
 
 See Company — Windinq-up. 127. 
 
 — " Unfair dealing." 
 
 See Keveesion. 1. 
 
 — " Unmarried daughters." 
 
 See Will— Class, 51. 
 
 — " Unseaworthy." 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 260. 
 
 — "Untrue statement." 
 
 See Company. 209. 
 
 — " Upper-book pilot." 
 
 See Shipping — ^Pilotage, 188. 
 
 — " Use." 
 
 See New Zealand. 3. 
 
 — "Used exclusively for domestic purposes." 
 
 See Boiler. 1. 
 
( 2391 ) 
 
 DIGEST OP OASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2392 ) 
 
 WOEDS — continued. 
 
 — " Usual covenants." 
 
 See Landlokd abd Tenant. 37. 
 Vendoe and Pubchaser. 25. 
 
 — " Vested." 
 
 See Lunacy. 46, 52. 
 
 — " Veterinary forge." 
 
 See Vetebinaey Subgeon. 1. 
 
 — « Void." 
 
 See Bankeuptoy — Voluntary Settle- 
 ment. 265. 
 
 — " Voluntary contribution." 
 
 See Bates. 25. 
 
 — " Voluntary transfer." 
 
 See Eevende. 8. 
 
 — " Wages forfeitedfor desertion." 
 
 See Shipping — Seamen. 265. 
 
 — " at War." 
 
 See FoEEiGN Enlistment Act. 3. 
 
 — " ameliorating Waste." 
 
 See Landloed and Tenant. 77. 
 
 — " Water company." 
 
 See Watee — Supply. 28. 
 
 — " Weather-working days." 
 
 See Shipping. 104. 
 
 — "Wharf." 
 
 See Mastee and Seevant. 51, 52. 
 
 — " Whole income." 
 
 See Appobtionment. 2. 
 
 — "Widow but no issue." 
 
 See Peobate. 54. 
 
 — " Wife." 
 
 See Powers. 38. 
 
 Will— Children. 36. 
 
 — " Wife's relations." 
 
 See Will— Words. 104. 
 
 — " Wilful default." 
 
 See Settled Land. 105. 
 Vendor and Pcrchasee. 
 54. 
 
 — " Wilfully neglect." 
 
 See Ceiminal Law. 9. 
 
 — " Wni— Construction of." 
 
 See imder Will. Words. 
 
 — "I Wish them to bequeath the same." 
 
 See Will. 169. 
 
 — " Within the same curtilage." 
 
 See London — Sewers. 60. 
 
 21, 37, 
 
 WOBD S—contin7ied. 
 
 — " Without having been married." 
 
 See Settlement — Construction. 10. 
 
 — " Without prejudice." 
 
 See Bankeuptcy — ^Act of Bankruptcy. 
 31 
 
 — " Wooden structure or erection of a movable 
 
 or temporary character." 
 
 See London — Buildings. 30 — 33. 
 
 — " Working shaft." 
 
 See Mines. 17. 
 
 — " Workman." 
 
 See Master and Servant. 53, 106. 
 
 — " Wreck." 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 253. 
 
 WOEKING CLASSES— Housing of. 
 
 See Housing op the Woeeing Classes. 
 
 WOEKING OF MINES. 
 
 See Mines, passim. 
 
 WOEKING SHAFT— Meaning of Metalliferous 
 Mines. 
 See Mines. 17. 
 
 . WOEKING-MEN'S CLUBS — Provisions respect- 
 ing. 
 
 See Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 
 '60 Vict. c. 25). 
 
 WOEKMAN. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant. 
 
 WOEKSHOP— Factory and Workshop Acts. 
 
 See Cases under Master and Servant 
 — Factory Acts. 
 
 WOTJNDING^tlnlawful— Aiding and abetting. 
 See Crimnal Law. 46. 
 
 WEAPPEE — Use of special, restrained by in- 
 junction. 
 See Trade-mark. 3. 
 
 WEECK. 
 
 See Shipping, passim. 
 
 See Shipping — Salvage. 
 WEIT. 
 
 See Cases under Practice — Writ. 
 
 WEITING— Policy— Clause partly in print partly 
 in writing. 
 See Insurance — Marine. 67. 
 
 WE0N6FUL DISMISSAL— Servant. 
 
 See Mastee and Servant. 58. 
 
( 2393 ) 
 
 DIGEST OF CASES, 1891—1900. 
 
 ( 2394 ) 
 
 y. 
 
 YACHT BACING— Gift to charity— Perpetuity. 
 
 See Chakitt. 37. 
 YEOMANSY. 
 
 See Abmt and Navy. 
 
 YEW-TBEE— Poisonous tree— Injury to cattle- 
 Duty to fence. 
 See Nuisances. 39. 
 
 YORK-ANTWEEP RULES — General average 
 payable per foreign statement — Adjust- 
 ment — Dutch law. 
 
 See Insukanoe, Marine. 57. 
 
 YORKSHIRE. 
 
 Coroners. 
 
 Yorkshire Coroners Act, 1897 (60 * 61 Vict. 
 c. 39), constitutes the Hidings Separate Counties. 
 
 In General. 
 — Sewers — Prescriptive right of drainage — Trade 
 effluents — Polluting liquid. 
 
 See Sewbbs. 
 
 Registry Acts, 
 
 1, — Agreement for sale of land — " Assurance " 
 — Memorandum of charge — Yorkshire Begistries 
 Act, 1884 (47 * 48 Vict. c. 54), ss. 3, 4, 14. 
 
 An agreement that in consideration of money 
 paid by A. to B., B. would complete certain 
 
 YORKSHIRE (Registry Acts) — continued, 
 buildings on his land, and that A. would pur- 
 chase the same when completed : — 
 
 Held, not to be an assurauce capable of regis- 
 tration, under the Yorkshire Begistries Act, 1884. 
 RoDQEK V. Hakkison C. A. [1893] 1 «. B. 161 
 — Mortgage — Priority — Eegistration. 
 See Mortgage — Priority. 52. 
 
 West Riding Rivers Act. 
 The West Biding of Yorkshire Bivers Act 
 Bales. 1894, made under the West Biding of York- 
 shire Bivers Act, 1894 (56 <fe 57 Viet. e. clxvi.). 
 St. B, & 0. 1896, No. 311. Price Id. 
 " YOBKSHIBE EELISH "-Secret preparation. 
 See Trade Name. 5. 
 
 YOUNG PEESON — Employment in shop. 
 See under Shop. 
 
 z. 
 
 ZANZIBAR — British jurisdiction in. 
 
 iSce Foreign Jurisdiction. 
 — Consular Courts. 
 
 See Colonial Court op Admiralty. 
 
 4 I 
 
LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Lihitkp, 
 
 STAMFORD STREET AND CIIARTNG CROSS.